Wednesday 26 April 2017

SOMETHING CHANGED

2015 - when the future was brighter
 
I agree with you John, there is something in the air.  I doubt Gerry and Kate can take much comfort from the words of Mark Rowley.  While on the face of it, he appears sympathetic to the parents, the ruling out of the Portuguese suspects to focus on one significant lead that might lead to a result, does not bode well for the actual perpetrators of the crime. 
For the real perpetrators of this crime, the words 'one significant lead left' must be ominous.  They now know the police are not looking for anyone else - they are closing in. 
 

But lets ignore for one moment, all the news stories and hullaballoo and look again at the odd behaviour of the McCanns. Historically, they have used almost every anniversary as an opportunity to raise awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance by doing the media rounds and the interviews.  Especially in the early years when they were releasing balloons and lanterns and holding fundraisers at Kensington roof top gardens. Anniversaries were a huge part of the Team McCann campaign - Gerry wanted an annual Madeleine Day for the World marked by concerts and sports events.  Presumably all the former anniversaries were equally unwelcome, so the message on their facebook page is a complete about turn.
 
Why so low profile on the biggest anniversary yet?  Only a few months ago, Clarence Mitchell was pitching 10th anniversary exclusives.  As I have said previously, he had an uphill battle there unless the McCanns were prepared to say anything new. Although the narrative has changed, every so slightly. The new buzz word is ‘hope’ - loose interpretation, 'we do not accept what we have been told'. That there is no plea from Kate to the abductor or her daughter, is not unusual, but she hides it under the guise of ‘there is no plea from Scotland Yard’. 
 
At around the same time Gerry and Kate told the world, for some bizarre reason, that they were moving the Fund money around in preparation for continuing the Search themselves once Scotland Yard gave up closed.  Cynics might say they were moving the money in preparation for their forthcoming loss in the Lisbon Civil Courts.  Regardless, they were planning to pick up where they left off when Scotland Yard intervened. 
 
However, the idea that Madeleine is still alive, has, it would appear, been completely quashed.  Whilst that doesn’t rule out abduction.   ‘If the world believes Madeleine is dead, no-one will look for her’ (Kate) has been the premise of every battle the McCanns have fought.  Completely understandable, but begs the question, why didn’t the parents co-operate with the police so they could be ruled out?  At the time they were made suspects, they had the full backing of the great British Empire behind them.  No-one was going to beat a confession out of them and with the eyes of the world watching they were not going to be framed.  Had they allowed themselves to be ruled out, the police could have concentrated on the abductor and we wouldn't all be here 10 years on.    
 
The search for a live Madeleine has sustained their Campaign, their Fund and their reputations. Madeleine being officially acknowledged as dead, is probably the stuff of their worst nightmares.  Fortunately, they found a reporter on the other side of the world, willing to remind us of the names and faces of kids who have been rescued from captivity. As if being held in a dungeon and tortured for 10 years was a desirable option for a missing 3 year old.   Why are they pushing the idea that Madeleine is alive in Australia?  Why not here in the UK, or even in Portugal?
 
In the past Gerry and Kate never missed an opportunity to give an interview or appear on television.  Doing 'media' was their thing because they had a product to sell - or if that is too unkind, they had a cause.  They were forced into the limelight by their predicament, they did not seek fame and fortune for themselves.  I have to say at this point, as I watched Gerry and Kate surrounded by paparazzi in those very early days, I could see them becoming hooked.  The force is strong is some people, lol.  What I am trying to say, badly, is that the parents had morally sound reasons to stay in front of the cameras and pose for photoshoots rather than the usual fame and fortune.  They are among the noble heroes and heroines of real life who make up large segments of morning television.  No 'You must love me' narcissism there. 
 
This anniversary has taken an unexpected turn, the formerly eager parents now see the date as too painful a reminder of their loss.  So what has changed from a few months ago, when Clarence was pitching exclusives?  Several options: 1) there were no offers 2) interviewers would not accept their terms 3) they can no longer say Madeleine is alive and findable.  I lean towards option 3) because it is the myth that Madeleine is alive that has kept them afloat this past ten years. 
 
It may be that Scotland Yard are shortly to release a statement, Mark Rowley has already released a titbit - they have one significant lead left.  I feel if Gerry and Kate were confident the 'one significant lead' wasn't them, they would be appearing on all the breakfast shows and in the Sunday supplements - if they still exist.  Kate's message this year is a sorrowful one, filled with negativity - it sounds as though she and Gerry are bracing themselves for a media onslaught, preparing for the worst and battening down the hatches.  Scotland Yard have one significant lead left, but at this especially painful time, they haven't offered the McCanns any assurances.  If they had, now would be a good time to get that message out there.  Can they tell Lorraine that Scotland Yard are keeping them informed and they hope this final lead will produce a result? 
 
Scotland Yard may well be playing cat and mouse with their suspects, it is a device used both in literature and in real life.  Some might think that is unnecessarily cruel, but Gerry and Kate are clearly sticking by their original story - to the letter.  They are never going to admit that Madeleine was not abducted.  If they are ever prosecuted, the police will have to prove their case every step of the way, they are up against formidable opponents and the best lawyers money can buy.
 
 
 
I hope the press pay heed to Kate's words, that is, I hope they will be careful in the way they report this case, bearing in mind the number of real lives that will be affected.  I can't however, feel too sorry for Kate.  It has been 10 years - has she learned nothing? Especially from all the charity work she has been involved with.  Does she not have a list of what she, and Missing People have achieved?  We always hear about the funds being raised, but not very much about what is done with them.
 
Her annual message is again filled with whining about the way in which her, and her family life has been affected.  Again she speaks of her own suffering, while failing to mention Madeleine's.  Kate complains about her own 'stolen time', oblivious to the fact that her small daughter lost her entire life.   For those who wonder why people don't take to Kate, the clues are all there. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

93 comments:

  1. The media, as we all know, have lately been pushing a compliant but clearly exhausted scraping of the barrel agenda. The trotting out of 'towing the line' with a sigh and the rolling of the eyes. Lots of noise but no conviction. I hope you are right but my instinct tells me the fall of Maddie's parents would have a domino impact on too many people with far more to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another tired and tiresome post attacking the McCanns. Get a life, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Something in the air? (Probably CO2)

    "why didn’t the parents co-operate with the police so they could be ruled out?"

    Are you serious?

    "Had they allowed themselves to be ruled out, the police could have concentrated on the abductor."

    How could the police have done that when there was no abductor?

    "Cynics might say they were moving the money in preparation for their forthcoming loss in the Lisbon Civil Courts."

    And they wouldn't be far wrong.

    "Regardless, they were planning to pick up where they left off when Scotland Yard intervened."

    Is that what they told you?

    "However, the idea that Madeleine is still alive, has, it would appear, been completely quashed."

    That's not reflected in the gospel according to Rowley:

    "As I said earlier on we have no definitive evidence as to whether Maddie is alive or dead. We have to keep an open mind that is why we describe it as a missing person enquiry. Of course we understand why after so many years people would be pessimistic but we are keeping an open mind and treating it as a missing person enquiry."

    (That statement also legitimizes the fund btw.)

    "Why are they pushing the idea that Madeleine is alive in Australia?"

    Because the production company already had the footage in the can and were amenable to faking interviews?

    "Scotland Yard may well be playing cat and mouse with their suspects"

    Playing 'cat and mouse' with the great British public more like.

    The Met's (Mark Rowley's) 'mission statement':

    "Our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann".

    Not seek answers from them you'll notice.

    Anonymous 22:50 has the right instincts but something has changed. (My socks, this morning).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ros what's your take on OG ruling the mccanns out yet never actually interviewing them plus the fact the PJ had never ruled them out.mark rowley's performance was brutal pat brown summed it up well in a post earlier worth a read if you haven't seen it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ john wright27 April 2017 at 00:48

      Rowley said they were not interviewed as suspects - he did not say they had not interviewed them as witnesses.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. How could Harry Potter author, J K Rowling interview the McCanns?

      Delete
    4. I think the biggest problem faced by Scotland Yard at this time John, is the media storm the release of any details would cause. I guess they have to be really careful who they put under the spotlight.

      Gerry and Kate are sticking with their original story, they haven't budged an inch. Because of that I believe they are not co-operating with the police and probably never have.

      Their position is not too dissimilar to the Ramseys, the Ainsenbergs and the Irwins, who stopped co-operating with the police and hired spokesmen. The main difference is the British Police are looking for a stranger abductor, or so they tell us.

      It is hard, if not impossible, to believe that a team of Scotland Yard detectives have spent 6 years looking for a random abductor who has only struck once. Even serial killers don't have that kind of task force and that kind of longevity.

      If there are paedophile gangs or human traffickers operating in the Algarve, then they operating still because no arrests have been made and no children have been rescued. And Madeleine's disappearance remains unique.

      Some might say Operation Grange are dragging this out, but then again, some might say Operation Grange will never give up. The Ramseys, the Aisenbergs, the Irwins etc, are pretty much off the hook. No doubt they live under a cloud, but there are no ongoing police investigations either.

      The real perpetrators of this crime cannot relax until the file is officially closed. They know what the police mean when they say they are not looking for anyone else. These are very tense times and I think I am hitting the nail right on the head.


      It must also be remembered that the McCanns are extremely litigious, they have lawyers watching constantly. And they will be on the lookout for any reason they can to declare a miscarriage of justice or an unfair trial. Arguably, the McCanns could claim they have been subject to trial by social media, and perhaps cite any statements made by the police.

      Delete
    5. Hello Ros. "The main difference is the British Police are looking for a stranger abductor, or so they tell us."

      No, actually that is exactly not what Rowley is saying: he did not use the word "stranger" although the Yard did explicitly use that word in 2011.

      Rowley has now removed it, and not by accident - otherwise he would have clarified his answer before the interview went out.

      Delete
    6. Hi John, lovely to see you, and so glad you blogging again. For me, your writing is like one of those delicious café latte's you treat yourself to once a day (Ok, maybe just me, lol) that you take the time to enjoy.

      I have learned much from your goodself over the years JB - for much of the time you were the only voice of sanity in a wilderness!

      You are of course right to correct me there, I tried to slide that in for dramatic effect, but you caught me, doh! Scotland Yard's statements are of course, very carefully worded, they take no risks whatsoever with any potential repercussions.

      Delete
  5. http://www.sabado.pt/portugal/seguranca/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-regressa-a-praia-da-luz

    Ten years after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Gonçalo Amaral returns to Praia da Luz. A unique report and interview from SÁBADO and CMTV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the link 08:39. Unfortunately, I cannot c/p, is there a description or headline I can google?

      Delete
    2. goncalo amaral regressa a praia da luz

      Delete
  6. I completely agree with all you have said in this post Cristobell, this is my first comment on your blog, that is exactly the way I have read the whole situation. Kate and Gerry issued a statement before the met, why would they do this unless they were preparing for what may be coming, IMO they had absolutely no idea what the public were going to be told as why else the need to put a statement out before the 10th anniversary and before the met statement. I have always said I feel so sorry for the children and I do hope the media respect this fact and there is only responsible reporting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said 11:02. Who knows how the public will react when they discover they have been duped. Fortunately, the front pages of the Sun and Mail etc no longer have the power to stir up angry mobs (I hope) though vigilante groups might. I hope as a society we are bit more sophisticated and humane now, but I fear I am in denial.

      Thank you for contributing to the discussion 11:02, balanced voices like your own are much appreciated.

      Delete
    2. I'm anonymous 11:02 back again, whatever comes out I would be very upset with society if there was any awful vigilant groups, everyone around the case needs to be treated with respect. I would hope society would try to be tolerant and try to understand why they chose the path they took, if only there had been no interference at the beginning and the Portuguese had been able to continue the investigation, all of this is just my opinion of course.

      Delete
    3. Sadly, awful vigilante groups already exist 18:42, led by nutters who are sexing the crimes up - quite literally, by adding their own creative motives for a cover up.

      Delete
  7. I've never been able to understand the faith Ros has in Scotland Yard. I'm with 22.50 and 00.11 on the Rowley interview. Even more so with Pat Brown's take on the interview. If anything is in the air, it is the final exoneration of the McCanns from any involvement in their daughter's death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I had to list 3 reasons why I am hated by the 'anti' community, they would:

      1) I think those suggesting sexual deviancy are weirdos
      2) I will not carve my own theory in stone and stick with it, whatever
      3) I believe the children were left on their own - why confess to crimes of child neglect that you were anxious to evade? Deh!
      4) I do not believe Operation Grange is a coverup.

      For your purpose 12:10, let's turn to 4). I still have enough faith left in human nature to believe the police would cover up the death of a child. And the anonymous donation by the Met police to Goncalo Amaral's legal fund supports that faith.

      I think the investigation has dragged on this long because the police have had no co-operation from the witnesses, and in this unique case, to 'get their man' they have to dot every eye and cross every T. You don't work on a case for 6 years to stumble at the last hurdle.

      I also think, 12:10, if you truly believe the parents were involved, beyond reasonable doubt, and you understand the intricacies of how they achieved fame, fortune and the support of the establishment, then you will see that this case cannot end with anything other than the truth.

      Yes it has been the subject of political machinations, wheeling dealing, and whispers in the corridors of Whitehall, but nothing, anyway, anywhere, anyhow, can change the fact that there was no abductor. ... continues

      Delete
    2. Ros,you must be paranoid to infer that I 'hate you' or that you're hated by other antis. I always read your blogs because most of them are excellent and I wish I could express my opinions about this case half as eloquently as you. But like the previous two posters and Pat Brown, I don't share your faith in Operation Grange. I've no faith in human nature whatsoever.Politics is politics and it is transparent that the McCanns have friends in high places and this has been a cover-up from day one. They are granted an audience with the Pope, Gerry has access to the White House, they have a former government spokesman on their side, they're granted a Tv documentary on mainstream British television promoting the abduction fairy-tale(and lately on Australian television) They're flown out of Portugal by the British Government within ragtime of them being made arguidos by the Portuguese Police. Goncalo Amaral is removed from the investigation etc. etc. I hope Pat Brown is wrong and you are right. We will know sooner rather than later

      Delete
    3. I hear you 17:46, I really do. I have watched most of this case in open mouthed astonishment at the blatant lies and abuse of power.

      Whilst the McCanns have received an extraordinary amount of assistance from the 'establishment', they had a story that was worth its' weight in gold. News agencies and news papers want sensational stories that will get bums on seat and sell papers. That is why outrageous 'celebrities' like Kate Hopkins are regular guests on talk shows.

      We mustn't underestimate the phenomenal campaign run by Team McCann 17:46. Basically, they set their goals and they went for them. They followed the principles laid down by successful people who write advice books. They were effectively, the creators of the phenomenon. Their audience with the Pope however, was no such thing. That is, it wasn't an 'audience', they were part of a crowd of thousands. Albeit they were at the front, but that is not a private audience with the Pope.

      The TV programs are as much for the benefit of the producers and broadcasters 17:46, bums on seats. They make documents that will attract as big an audience as possible, and Madeleine's story is still of global interest.

      They weren't actually flown out of Portugal, they caught a regular flight, but alerted all the news agencies before they got on it.

      I have no doubt 17:46 that there was government interference under Blair and Brown, but I think it was drastically cut back around the end of June 2007. One of the most revealing articles as to government involvement is the interview with Vanity Fair, which I urge you to read.

      In that article Clarence (no longer employed by the government) complains 'they have asked to speak to the PM or a Minister, but all they were offered was a mid level Consul'. The article is dated October 2007 I believe.

      Delete

  8. https://tinyurl.com/klvyv77

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aladdins Insane27 April 2017 at 14:47

    @ Anon 12.10
    I couldnt agree more with you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What a particularly nasty blog Ros - you have become far too personally involved in this matter and you should be ashamed of yourself for your comments/musings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering the criminal acts I am observing and commenting on, I think I am remarkably restrained 14.56.

      Their malicious vendetta against former Detective Goncalo Amaral, leaves me with little sympathy for the McCanns 14:56.

      Whilst I can understand the parents need to protect their remaining children, they are protecting them with a wall of lies, and it could topple down at any moment.

      You say I am being nasty because I refuse to go along with the fiasco in order to make Gerry and Kate feel better. But the truth is 14:56, all those appeasing the McCanns and playing along with the lies are simply prolonging the agony.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 April 2017 at 19:26

      "Considering the criminal acts I am observing and commenting on..."

      Perhaps you would like to explain exactly what criminal acts you are commenting on then?

      " I refuse to go along with the fiasco in order to make Gerry and Kate feel better."

      Do you really believe for one minute that the Mccanns have ever read any word that you have written and said on internet TV?

      Delete
    3. Perhaps I should [explain the criminal acts] 21:21, now there is an idea for a blog!

      I don't know if my reticence is down to fear of the McCanns' lawyers, fear of a public backlash, or just plain old good manners. The first is of no consequence, I have nothing material the McCanns want. The second, having been a rebel since the age of 2, I'm used to being an outcast, lol.

      Perhaps the third is closest 21:21, I am always conscious of the effects my musings will have on the children involved. In fact, that is one of the reasons I come down so hard on those making weird sexual allegations. People like Bennett, Hall and Hyatt, who quite literally make my skin crawl.

      However, that the McCann children are innocent parties to this ongoing fiasco is not down to me, just as it isn't down to Goncalo Amaral. I want to protect them, but that isn't my role. That all falls down to personal responsibility and a whole other blog. The crime here, and it's one I'm naming, is using the children as a human shield.

      And yes, I do believe both Gerry and Kate read my blog. As indeed do all their cronies who have me blocked on twitter. Why? Because I am one of the few commentators who evolves along with the disappearance story. I have never carved anything in stone or made sensational claims. My blog isn't focussed on going over (and over) the minutiae, the butler in the pantry with the gun - as the case has developed, so has the discussion.

      The idea that Gerry and Kate don't look at social media is laughable! Even Trump can't resist reading everything about himself. Why on earth do Gerry and Kate keep up this pretence of being so aloof that they have minions for everything.

      Ten years on they still cannot, or will not, speak directly to their supporters, their facebook page is run by an anonymous volunteer. The time of Gerry and Kate far too precious to waste on the general public.

      They live in a protective bubble of their own making and their own choice. They have had 10 years in which to engage, publically, with all those who have supported them. Even 'A' listers do not have anonymous webmasters to respond to their correspondence.

      How can the McCanns engage the public if they keep their distance? The young Royals have taken themselves off their establishment pedestals to stand side by side with the public. Literally nobody is too important to speak for themselves!

      This blog has caused a reaction among the 'pros' because it is seen as more spiteful, or filled with bile, than many others. Perhaps because I am saying out loud what those who truly understand this case are thinking. That is why the McCanns read here regularly, and get others to reply on their behalf, or perhaps even reply themselves. All my regular readers know it and so do you.

      Gerry and Kate I am sure, like everyone who follows this case, can discern the wheat from the chaff. That is, there is so much to read on this case, when they find a truthful commentary, they stick with it. Painful as it may be.

      And I speak from experience. I very rarely google myself these days, because I haven't yet encountered a writer who can tear me down in a way that amuses me. And yes, many have tried, I have had entire blogs devoted to my mental instability and narcissism. All lost in the sands of time because I have no problem whatsoever in holding my hands up to all my faults. I don't take 'Drama Queen' as a insult!

      Of course they read here, they are not automatons, or are they?

      Delete
  11. Rosalinda, Anon 12:10 & others,

    Is the final exoneration of the McCanns from any involvement in their daughter's death even possible other than stating that there is absolutely no evidence to implicate the McCanns in their daughter’s death?

    I think they will ‘keep an open mind’. They'll have to leave the case in limbo. Given Rowley’s redundant information that “a small number of cases sadly don't get solved.", can I deduce that it is a forecast statement?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 27 April 2017 at 17:15

      Good to see you, NL

      “Is the final exoneration of the McCanns from any involvement in their daughter's death even possible other than stating that there is absolutely no evidence to implicate the McCanns in their daughter’s death?”

      Officially, the McCanns have been free from blame. Therefore there is nothing to absolve them from. There exists converging circumstantial evidence that the McCanns knowingly conspired to pervert the course of justice (the non-abduction conjecture).

      “Given Rowley’s redundant information that “a small number of cases sadly don't get solved.", can I deduce that it is a forecast statement?”

      No, not on the basis of what you take as ‘given’: your ‘given’, by itself, does not logically entail your proposed conclusion, therefore your proposed conclusion is not deductive. You can conjecture, or induce if you feel like it, that it is a forecast statement.

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
    2. Thank you T for your thoughtful response. As you say, conjecture. Plausible? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

      Kind regards,

      NL

      Delete
    3. I am always pleased to see both you and T, NL! Your contributions always make me feel as though I am creating my own 'Bloomsbury Group' - I want the words 'I must create my own system' carved somewhere!

      I thank my lucky stars every day that my blog attracts such enlightened contributors. With this case, it is way too easy to go off phantasmagorical routes, and this case was leapt upon by those happy, willing and able, to create them.

      The truth herein, is perceived as boring, for many the years of waiting have opened the doors to all kinds of speculation. There MUST be more to it than an accident, or a flash of temper. And thus entire industries have grown and prospered.

      My thanks to you both - your intelligent input keeps me on my toes and are a constant source of inspiration! I look forward to the day when we can all sit down and enjoy a nice G&T! Not forgetting Bjorn of course, who has left that niggling 'J'accuse' in my head!

      I have to admit however, that is probably more in the arena of John Blacksmith. He is more 'workshop of filthy creation' than I, lol. And I mean that in the nicest possible way JB, tis a male attribute I envy, the ability to stay focused, lol.

      Tony Bennett with his 64 (or whatever) pamphlet gave it a go, but he is such a repugnant human being it was dead in the water.

      But the timing is not right. We commentators are on pretty dodgy ground, still! We dare not say what we truly believe because 1)British libel laws and 2)Most of the public would not be so crass/ heartless/inhume as to think the parents could be involved. Those of us in the doubters are still the baddies, ce la vie!

      Delete
  12. ALADDINS INSANE27 April 2017 at 17:50

    @ Anon 17.15
    Same difference,

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Gerry and Kate are sticking with their original story, they haven't budged an inch. Because of that I believe they are not co-operating with the police and probably never have."

    Because they've kept to the same story then they're not co-operating with the police? Bizarre logic, Ros!

    There's a simple reason they 'stick with their original story'. That's what happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous27 April 2017 at 19:16

      I agree with you.

      Delete
    2. You're clearly a Sun worshipper.

      Delete
  14. "I've no faith in human nature whatsoever. Politics is politics and it is transparent that the McCanns have friends in high places and this has been a cover-up from day one. They are granted an audience with the Pope, Gerry has access to the White House, they have a former government spokesman on their side, they're granted a Tv documentary on mainstream British television promoting the abduction fairy-tale(and lately on Australian television) They're flown out of Portugal by the British Government within ragtime of them being made arguidos by the Portuguese Police. Goncalo Amaral is removed from the investigation etc. etc"

    Crikey, 17:46! I'm glad I'm not on your planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:22

      You may not have noticed, but this is the very planet we all inhabit. It may be difficult to accept what has happened, but it has - every column inch of it.

      Little by little the concept of discretion has been eradicated until it is no longer a feature of this affair (I deliberately exclude false platitudes concerning 'judicial secrecy' and/or sensitivity in the context of star gaz...sorry, 'ongoing investigation').

      We don't have to look far for examples of immoral behaviour nowadays. They are commonplace. But few things can be so fundamentally immoral as the death of a young child in circumstances a roll call of personnel would rather we knew nothing about and have consistently taken steps to ensure we do not.

      Delete
  15. "You say I am being nasty because I refuse to go along with the fiasco in order to make Gerry and Kate feel better."

    I didn't make the post you are responding to, Ros, but I would say your posts are nasty because you make appalling accusations that you're in no position to substantiate but which are your personal views. If the McCanns are innocent, as I believe them to be, you will have done them a terrible disservice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous27 April 2017 at 19:42

      I agree with you.

      Delete
    2. Ros wrote:
      "Her annual message is again filled with whining about the way in which her, and her family life has been affected. Again she speaks of her own suffering, while failing to mention Madeleine's. Kate complains about her own 'stolen time', oblivious to the fact that her small daughter lost her entire life. For those who wonder why people don't take to Kate, the clues are all there. "

      Ros has a real problem with Kate McCann. I've re-read the annual message and Ros's reading of it is very, very odd and clearly considerably distorted by her personal loathing of the McCanns, and in particular Kate McCann.

      Delete
  16. There are certain advantages to reading beyond the headlines - even those of the Daily Mirror for example:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-detective-claims-investigation-10309152

    "Retired Amaral, who was removed as head of the probe after criticising British detectives, claimed UK authorities tried to rush the process.

    "He said: “It is not normal for an ambassador from a foreign country to come to the place to push in the sense that ‘this has to be quick’.

    "“If the ambassador and even the consul had not appeared, the investigation would have been directed to what is normal - to suspect those who have responsibility for the custody of the child.

    "“(The) Judiciary, Public Prosecutor’s Office and the government felt intimidated by the United Kingdom.

    "“The mistake was the statement about the abduction. It was almost a lack of respect to make the decision (that it was an abduction) and to make it public.”"

    From which follows one very simple question:

    Why should UK diplomats have been keen to misdirect the investigation if they did not already know the genuine track to take?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point 21:11. I wonder if they knew what they were about to unleash when they hooked Clarence up with Gerry! Even in the very early days they were making long term plans (see Wider Agenda), none of the holiday party in PDL were expecting Madeleine to be found anytime soon. And certainly not in the immediate area, because they didn't join in with the searches.

      John McCann gave up his regular job (or took a sabbatical) and Clarence quit his government role. I expect the most common words in Whitehall at the time were WTF.

      In some ways, the McCanns high profile was beneficial to the incumbent government. At the time they were pushing for stronger security measures under the guise of terrorism. They were floating the ideas of ID cards and a national DNA database, it was all getting very Big Brother.

      Madeleine's disappearance added another string to their bow in their quest to spy on the public. The involvement of CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection) in Madeleine's case, introduced the idea that this was somehow an internet crime and indeed computers were seized. Clearly 3 year old Madeleine was not procured by an online predator, but it planted the notion that paedophile gangs were using the internet. A ridiculous idea that some antis still believe to this day.

      I expect the Brown government were deeply uncomfortable with the McCann case 21:11. Alan Johnson for example sat on the recommendations of CEOP, the report that gathered dust until Kate's book launch and their dramatic plea to David Cameron on the front page of The Sun.

      I think any perverting the course of justice by the incumbent government is restricted to the very early days 21:11. The revelations in the Vanity Fair article show a clear turning point in the relationship between the McCanns and the Brown Government.

      Thus far there is nothing that would criminally implicate the tories, which of course, makes the claims of 'cover up' appear ludicrous. Why would David Cammeron and Theresa May implicate themselves in a major fraud, when they simply don't have to.

      Every Prime Minister spends their twilight years reflecting on their 'Legacy'. Roman Emperors often named lunatics as their successors in order to make themselves look better. The torment of Tony Blair is etched deeply in his haggard face, he wanted to be remembered as a hero, but war criminal will always be first on a google search.

      Why would DC and TM tarnish their legacies with the sins of their opponents? They played no part in phone calls back and forth to the UK or the strings that were pulled.

      This entire case is built on a House of Cards. Even if Operation Grange conclude the case with nooooo evidence and the McCanns (and their friends) aren't suspects, no-one can predict what the future might bring. As one insightful detective (who's name I sadly cannot remember) said relationships change, your best friend can suddenly become your worst enemy. That's life. There are far too many people involved to keep the lid on the truth in this case. For some the stress will become intolerable.

      There are hundreds, if not thousands, of ways in which the truth about Madeleine's disappearance will emerge. I very much doubt Operation Grange or Theresa May will leave themselves open to (global) ridicule and criticism in order to the protect the McCanns.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous27 April 2017 at 21:11

    ''Why should UK diplomats have been keen to misdirect the investigation if they did not already know the genuine track to take?''

    The likely answer is too painful to contemplate. Someone somewhere was compromised. Politicians and their minions don't act this fast for members of the public when the police can do the job.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ros says:

    "Her annual message is again filled with whining about the way in which her, and her family life has been affected. Again she speaks of her own suffering, while failing to mention Madeleine's. Kate complains about her own 'stolen time', oblivious to the fact that her small daughter lost her entire life. For those who wonder why people don't take to Kate, the clues are all there."

    Did you not notice that the message was signed "
    Kate and Gerry"? Why is your comment only about "fragrant" Kate?
    ----------------------------

    Kate and Gerry say:

    "We are bracing ourselves for the next couple of weeks. It's likely to be stressful and painful and more so given the rehashing of old 'stories', misinformation, half-truths and downright lies which will be doing the rounds in the newspapers, social media and 'special edition' TV programmes."

    Yes you have certainly proven that they were correct there with your bile filled blog.
    --------------------------------------
    Kate and Gerry say:

    "We consider ourselves immensely fortunate to have received the love, solidarity and support from so many kind and decent people over the last decade. There have been many challenges and low points along the way but the warmth, encouragement and positivity we have experienced from the ‘quiet majority’ has undoubtedly sustained us and maintained our faith in human goodness. And while that is there, there will always be hope."

    I am proud to be one of those who have in a tiny way, supported them for 10 years.

    And I will continue to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate and Gerry say:

      "We are bracing ourselves for the next couple of weeks. It's likely to be stressful and painful and more so given the rehashing of old 'stories', misinformation, half-truths and downright lies which will be doing the rounds in the newspapers, social media and 'special edition' TV programmes."

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

      Lord Bell: “The McCanns paid me £500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did.”

      Delete
    2. Anonymous27 April 2017 at 17:46

      ''it is transparent that the McCanns have friends in high places and this has been a cover-up from day one.''

      Or did the abductor (or whoever ordered the child) have them ? They'd get a cover up a lot faster than two people on holiday.

      ''They are granted an audience with the Pope''

      Blair, Brown, Cameron et al have only to lift up a phone.

      ''Gerry has access to the White House''

      Nobody outside of the US inner circle and CIA have access to The Whitehouse. But they can invite people. Bush was on heavy petting terms with Blair since they sat in Portugal planning more illegal warfare.

      ''they have a former government spokesman on their side''

      He only became 'former' as from the McCann case. He was dragged out and foisted on the McCanns under false pretences.He was the controller of information deemed fit for public viewing.

      ''they're granted a Tv documentary on mainstream British television promoting the abduction fairy-tale''

      Thanks to the former governments string puller and the wishes of his real bosses.

      ''Goncalo Amaral is removed from the investigation etc. etc.''

      By his bosses at the 'request' of those highly placed in the UK.Not the McCanns.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply to my blog 23:41, even if we don't agree. The parents are lucky to have you.

      Please understand I would prefer to be wrong, not least to restore at least some of my faith in human nature. I tried for a very long time to defend the parents and find evidence to support the abduction story. To this day, many still believe that I am a 'pro' McCann.

      I did not post negatively about the parents until, in my own mind, I had reached the point of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. My conscience simply would not allow it, I could not have forgiven myself if I were adding to their pain.

      My blogs may on occasion sound unnecessarily cruel, but I am all about truth and reality. I write for adults who are intelligent enough and emotionally mature enough, to discuss sensitive issues without the need for smelling salts.

      The above is generic by the way, not aimed at yourself. I am becoming increasingly peed off with debates being shut down for fear of offending minority groups. I would especially like to see women like Jess Phillips and Angela Eagle tell my matriarchal grandmother (actually all our matriarchal grandmothers) about their persecution. If they ever stopped laughing, they would probably give them a good slap!

      Delete
  19. ALADDINS INSANE27 April 2017 at 23:29

    @ Ziggy 22.06
    I wonder if the person (or more) who was/ were compromised came from the UK or another nation we have a close relationship with?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 April 2017 at 16:13

    ''I guess they have to be really careful who they put under the spotlight.''

    Who is there ? Nothing's changed in ten years.

    ''Gerry and Kate are sticking with their original story, they haven't budged an inch. ''

    There's only one way to say ''our child has been taken.'' It's up to ten years of police work to budge it an inch.

    '' I believe they are not co-operating with the police and probably never have. ''

    Not co-operating in what way ? Why is this your belief ?

    ''It is hard, if not impossible, to believe that a team of Scotland Yard detectives have spent 6 years looking for a random abductor who has only struck once''

    Why ? And how do you know he/she has only struck once ?

    ''If there are paedophile gangs or human traffickers operating in the Algarve, then they operating still because no arrests have been made and no children have been rescued''

    Child trafficking is called trafficking as it takes from one country and delivers in another.

    '' Madeleine's disappearance remains unique. ''

    Not really.The investigation, political panic, media coverage and public hysteria have been unique.

    ''The real perpetrators of this crime cannot relax until the file is officially closed. ''

    The case can't close until the 'real perpetrators' are nicked. I don't think they'll 'relax' in prison. I suggest the real perpetrators relaxed very early on when the case was smashed to bits by those above the police.

    ''It must also be remembered that the McCanns are extremely litigious, they have lawyers watching constantly.''

    Can you name anyone that's been subjected to as much hatred, sick accusations and threats without ever having been charged of anything ?

    '' Arguably, the McCanns could claim they have been subject to trial by social media''

    They could have done that any time at all in the last ten years.But it only stirs up even more hatred if they defend themselves.They should keep still and quiet while people accuse and attack- that makes sense..

    ''Who knows how the public will react when they discover they have been duped.''

    They'll react with less surprise than you may think when they learn the police have done nothing and that politicians did less.

    ''as a society we are bit more sophisticated and humane now, but I fear I am in denial. ''

    Could well be.

    ''2) I will not carve my own theory in stone and stick with it, whatever''

    You're flexible then..ok

    ''4) I do not believe Operation Grange is a coverup. ''

    It could only be part of a larger cover up as ordered by the top bosses.You, like most, call it a show and a circus. It is a circus.A circus isn't a genuine investigation though is it.

    ''I still have enough faith left in human nature to believe the police would cover up the death of a child''

    Who said she's dead ?

    ''You don't work on a case for 6 years to stumble at the last hurdle. ''

    If you stumble at the first hurdle you never reach the last.

    ''Yes it has been the subject of political machinations, wheeling dealing, and whispers in the corridors of Whitehall,..''

    but no cover up...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 April 2017 at 19:26

    ''Their malicious vendetta against former Detective Goncalo Amaral, leaves me with little sympathy for the McCanns ''

    I know what malicious means, and I know what vendetta means.
    Amaral, whilst still coordinating the investigation, 'developed' a few imaginative ideas. They were based on the child being dead . He further stated that the parents not only knew this little nugget, but lied to cover up the fact that they had concealed her corpse to evade the law. He was in the perfect position to make an arrest and charge them. He didn't though, and his superiors didn't agree with his 'theories'. He was shuffled down the deck.He has gone on record accusing UK political interference being the reason for it. So, he's blaming the UK of costing him his job and, therefore, his reputation.That was 'malicious' surely ? His reaction was to pen a book raging against the McCanns and calling them liars. He was warned to back it up or be quiet and he decided to ignore the request to back it up( and provide proof of his 'truth') and publish it. He never set his sights on the UK who he thought had ruined his reputation.But, this is seen as the McCanns pursuing a 'malicious vendetta'...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good attempt at blaming Goncalo Amaral for the McCanns manic behaviour, but it doesn't work.

      GA wasn't in a perfect position to arrest and charge the parents. The investigation was incomplete. GA was about to interview the Smith family and some might say close in, when he was removed from the investigation.

      There is nothing malicious about GA accusing the UK of political interference - as WikiLeaks revealed, he was right. And his book, can in no way be described as raging against the McCanns. There is no raging, he was defending his reputation and no-one can blame him for that.

      The McCanns are the aggressors Ziggy, the protagonists, Kate wanted Goncalo to feel misery and fear. That is a vendetta.

      Delete
  22. There is one thing very significant about the is blog.

    Ros has never ever posted any opinion or provided any evidence for the bile that she has posted for years.

    Nothing that Ros says has any relationship to the truth and she covers it it by "only musing".

    What sort of person thinks that dissing the parents of a missing child is "musing"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't dream of dissing the parents of a missing child 00:17, never have, never will.

      I interpret the news stories truthfully, that is without euphemisms and spin to make the parents feel better. It is the constant pandering to the McCanns' egos, that has led to this 10 year time warp.

      If a police force states they have one significant lead left that could produce a result, then it is obvious the real perpetrators have been put on notice. Even if we all pretend that one last lead is a swarthy stranger abductor, it doesn't make it a fact.

      I have not bought into the universal lie 00:17 and I'm not going to pretend I have so people will like me. I don't see the parents as victims, I know this case well enough (Gawd 'elp me) to understand every media stunt they pull and every story they manipulate. I feel duty bound therefore to challenge the fake news in this case, to counter the deliberate lies. Evil triumphs when good men (and women)do nothing.

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon 28 April at 00:17
      IMO, a lot of what Rosalinda says is related to what has been documented in the released extensive Portuguese PJ files.

      So if she's is telling lies, then all of the Portuguese investigators, who worked on the case between 2007/08 must have done so as well, and I suppose that was what you really wanted to say. Wasn't it? I appreciate freedom of speech and especially people who, unlike yourself, explicitly say what they mean.

      Delete
  23. The Archiving report didn't clear the McCanns, although, unfortunately for them, they thought it said they were innocent, but it didn't. SY were never interested in the McCanns. The only difference now is that they've explained their thinking, they too thought the first investigation had reached a favourable conclusion about the McCanns. It didn't

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Ruth, I think their misinterpretation of the archiving report was quite deliberate. Team McCann had control of the news at the time and rushed out their own spin on the report before anyone else had read it. And the harsh reality is that most people, journalists especially, hadn't! They simply went with the highlights provided by Clarence Mitchell.

    With regard to Scotland Yard, I would imagine they have known the real conclusions of report from the off.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I wouldn't dream of dissing the parents of a missing child 00:17, never have, never will."

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cristobell, I don't know whether this is suitable for publication. For (your) information purpose only.

    https://twitter.com/gcnjones/status/857833386970406913

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem with the links to the insanity of Tigger and Ted 10:30, though I won't make a habit of it, lol. I couldn't actually get to it, so now I am intrigued!

      In the past Tigger has dedicated entire blogs to my sanity and motivation, which I read simply because they discussed my favourite topic. Me. Lol. However, as enticing as that wss, I quickly lost interest, as I did with the devoted texts of Tigerloaf, Bennett et all. Criticise me by all means, but at least it entertaining. If the subject of my your personalised narrative can't be arsed to read it, it's doubtful anyone else will.

      Delete
    2. I've just signed out and tried looking at Tigger's timeline. Way too gruesome and unpleasant for me, can you just c/p the relevant tweet?

      Delete
    3. "I've not forgotten that she was collecting IP addresses to pass on to? Amongst others SP who bragged she knew how to trace accounts."

      ">>so decided to find such attention-seeking bloggers and tweeters amusing. It annoys them no end."

      Delete
    4. Lol, Tigger is a name that rarely comes to mind these days. Who does she think wants her IP address? MI5, MI6, the CIA, the KGB?

      Giver her her due, she has come up with a couple of interesting points over the years, or one at least. The fact that Tony Bennett investigating and exposing the personal details of the wrong Smith family. Kudos for that.

      Her diagnosis of my mental state however, was dull, even for me.

      Delete
  27. ZiggySawdust 27 April 2017 at 23:48

    “Can you name anyone that's been subjected to as much hatred, sick accusations and threats without ever having been charged of anything ?”

    With reference to the UK:

    Do you think the McCanns’ leaving their three children alone was within the bounds of reasonable parenting? If you do, don’t bother to read what follows.

    Can you tell why the matter of the McCanns’ parental negligence and their fitness to bring up their remaining two children has ostensibly not been looked into?

    Can you name anyone whose child had disappeared while abandoned by his/her parents who have not been approached by the Social Services out of concern for the welfare of the children remaining in the negligent parents’ care?

    Can you name a mother whose child had disappeared while abandoned by her who refused to answer the investigating authority’s questions as to the circumstances relevant to the disappearance of the child?

    Can you name anyone who had lost their child due to their negligence and thereafter paid £500.000, of the money understood to have been donated by the public to help search for the child, to be on the pages of every newspaper for a year?

    Whether people legitimately express their ‘hate’ or keep their mouths shut is, and hopefully will remain, their business. Perhaps it’s important to understand what motivates them.

    I am concerned, as are so many, with the wellbeing of the three McCann children and very much less with that of their parents.

    I don’t believe in Jesus. I don’t believe in Zimmerman. I believe in ‘Bobby’ Fisher’s “I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves”, rationality and the idea of justice.

    Am I a hater in your parlance?

    For you kind attention:

    https://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/sunday-night-gone-documentary.html?showComment=1493200767382#c8953890218931775649

    Do have a weekend of contemplation, laughter and joy..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your post 11:37 - all reasonable questions.

      I would love to read George Orwell's opinion of how the truth became the lie in this case 11:37. To me it is utterly bizarre, but then I think my medieval equivalent probably watched sweet old ladies being dragged out of their homes and hung, thinking wtf!

      For those studying psychology and the media, I think we have watched a decade of mass hypnosis. The Incredible Team McCann managed to sucker in, not only the masses but the celebrities and the Establishment too. No other crime compares, and probably never will!

      Delete
  28. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 April 2017 at 09:29

    "I wouldn't dream of dissing the parents of a missing child 00:17, never have, never will."


    Yes folks you read it here first.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't believe the McCanns are the parents of a missing child 12:25 - do you really want me to spell it out?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous28 April 2017 at 11:37

    ''Do you think the McCanns’ leaving their three children alone was within the bounds of reasonable parenting? If you do, don’t bother to read what follows.''

    No I don't, and have said as much severla times.It's negligence.It isn't murder though.

    ''Can you tell why the matter of the McCanns’ parental negligence and their fitness to bring up their remaining two children has ostensibly not been looked into?''

    Because it wasn't deemed by the authorities as negligence is the only conclusion I can think of.

    ''Can you name anyone whose child had disappeared while abandoned by his/her parents who have not been approached by the Social Services out of concern for the welfare of the children remaining in the negligent parents’ care?''

    See above.

    ''Can you name anyone who had lost their child due to their negligence and thereafter paid £500.000, of the money understood to have been donated by the public to help search for the child, to be on the pages of every newspaper for a year?''

    No. but it was money that came from the Government originally, and Lord Bell is a big mover /shaker in the Common Purpose charade.It was part of the Media acting with the best interest of the Government.

    ''Whether people legitimately express their ‘hate’ or keep their mouths shut is, and hopefully will remain, their business. Perhaps it’s important to understand what motivates them.''

    Hatred ?

    ''I am concerned, as are so many, with the wellbeing of the three McCann children and very much less with that of their parents.''

    Compared to the bile and accusations thrown around about the parents, very little is said on blogs and social media about the children.

    ''I don’t believe in Jesus. I don’t believe in Zimmerman. I believe in ‘Bobby’ Fisher’s “I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves”, rationality and the idea of justice.''

    Good.Nice. I believe in psychology. It's minds that make mistakes and minds that are influential and influenced.It's psychology that comes up with 'good moves'. 'Good', however is a subjective idea.So is 'justice', apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 April 2017 at 12:51

    ''I don't believe the McCanns are the parents of a missing child 12:25 - do you really want me to spell it out?''

    According to the official line of the much -quoted Op Grange, and two police forces- they do.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 April 2017 at 09:29

    '' I don't see the parents as victims, I know this case well enough (Gawd 'elp me) to understand every media stunt they pull and every story they manipulate.''

    Two days ago, you said Clarence Mitchell was behind the media manipulation. What's has his part been in the show ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were being sarcastic Ziggy, I might say it all began when Clarence met Gerry. Both immediately saw the huge financial potential of the world's response to the Madeleine tragedy.

      In record speed they opened an online shop, sent out viral emails and had collection buckets placed all over the holiday resort and in some UK banks and supermarkets.

      For what? At that time Madeleine needed feet on the ground, people out there looking in bushes and searching desolate areas. And those people were volunteers, they were not asking for money.

      The Fund has been an abomination from the start. Money donated by kindly people thinking they were helping a vulnerable child. The reality is, hardly any of the Fund has been spent on the Search. A paltry 13% in Year 1, and no transparency of accounts thereafter. The multimillion pound fund has been frittered away on public relations and libel actions. And all for nothing, their approval ratings are at an all time low.

      What was Clarence Mitchell's part: 'Just put the cash in brown envelopes and send them to Rothley'.

      Delete
  33. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 April 2017 at 08:50

    ''Good attempt at blaming Goncalo Amaral for the McCanns manic behaviour, but it doesn't work.''

    Bad attempt at understanding something simple. I said he should have directed his own malice at the people who removed him and ruined his reputation-not the parents.

    ''GA wasn't in a perfect position to arrest and charge the parents. The investigation was incomplete.''

    More reason to attack his superiors.

    ''GA was about to interview the Smith family and some might say close in, when he was removed from the investigation. ''

    The Smith family couldn't have supported Amaral's claim that Madeleine had been hidden in a fridge or a coffin in a church.

    ''There is nothing malicious about GA accusing the UK of political interference - as WikiLeaks revealed, he was right. And his book, can in no way be described as raging against the McCanns. There is no raging, he was defending his reputation and no-one can blame him for that. ''

    Nothing malicious or substantial no, but there should have been if that's what he believed.He would be entitled to think as much. His reputation wasn't ruined by the McCanns-they didn't take him off the case and ignore his suspicions.

    ''The McCanns are the aggressors Ziggy, the protagonists, Kate wanted Goncalo to feel misery and fear. That is a vendetta.''

    The aggressor was Amaral with his allegations and the spreading, via his book, of his opinion of the parents being party to their own child's death and concealment of her body. He was asked to back it up or back off and didn't. The McCanns hit back. It's not aggression if you hit back, it's aggression if you hit first.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 28 April 2017 at 11:29

    “Unfortunately, I cannot c/p, is there a description or headline I can google ?”

    You might try doing the following:

    With the pointer hovering over the link, highlight the link by left-clicking three times in quick succession.

    Right-click (pressing together Ctrl and ‘c’ instead, will ‘Copy’ without your having to make the following step) for an options menu to pop-up.

    Left-click one of the topmost ‘Open’ options in the pop-up menu to open the page at the link or ‘Copy’ to copy the highlighted link.


    To c/p:

    Once the link has been ‘Copied’ as above, right-click where you would like to paste what you’ve just ‘Copied’ and then left-click ‘Paste’ in the pop-up menu. Alternatively, right click where you would like to paste and then hold down Ctrl and press ‘v’ to paste.

    Job done!

    Any problems, just ask.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Aladdins Insane28 April 2017 at 15:15

    @ Anon 14.16
    I do indeed and if you want to know, I post at another place under the name Lord Sleuth.
    If you like my posts (no need to answer that) you can follow my "musings" there.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I don't believe the McCanns are the parents of a missing child 12:25 - do you really want me to spell it out?"

    Crikey, Ros. What have you been drinking?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Shouldn't that be SOMETHING'S CHANGED?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 April 2017 at 15:17

    I think if we're going to throw sweeping statements around like confetti, we should be a bit more pedantic.After all, there is a small matter of a missing child underneath this mess.

    ''it all began when Clarence met Gerry''

    Nice movie title for any 'renegade' screenwriter out there. It wasn't a chance meeting. There's no evidence that GM or Km even had a PR man in mind under their circumstances. 'When Mitchell was foisted upon the McCanns by the Government' would be more accurate. My suspicion is different to yours ; I suspect they had another small matter at the forefront of their minds; their missing child.

    '' Both immediately saw the huge financial potential of the world's response to the Madeleine tragedy. ''

    Seriously ? If your theory is correct and Gerry McCann was aware that his child was dead and buried, or mine's closer to the mark in that i suspect certain members of the UK establishment went into panic mode right away and needed a conventional investigation closed down for their own reasons, you think GM and CM saw a business opportunity ?That's just wrong.

    ''The Fund has been an abomination from the start. Money donated by kindly people thinking they were helping a vulnerable child.''

    The 'start'. The seed that was planted to grow the money tree you mean ?. Who planted it ? Was it asked for ? The public-spirited ( sorry, 'kindly' as opposed to the wicked money grabbers- is that what you're going for there ?) offered their time and efforts as any community would in the circumstances.There was also a vast army of foot soldiers from the Portuguese police force searching. All of this coordinated outside of the parents by those who knew how to organise it.It was left to those 'who could'. But this is twisted into some desperate scenario of the McCanns being more interested in organising profits instead of scraping the ground and digging.

    ''The multimillion pound fund has been frittered away on public relations and libel actions.''

    The public relations were put in place by the same Government who took the tax payers' money to fund investigations outside of the police force.The fund wasn't a McCann idea was it. The libel actions was a normal response to a catalogue of unsubstantiated accusations levelled at them. All the McCanns have asked for, and publicly too, was for an independent investigation. GM has expressed his anger at the media moguls publicly too. That doesn't fit the profile of somebody not wanting to be 'caught' or kiss up to the media.

    ''What was Clarence Mitchell's part: 'Just put the cash in brown envelopes and send them to Rothley'.''

    That's an accusation of fraud isn't it ? Illicit profiteering maybe ? But at least you've finally chosen a different target - that's a plus.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 April 2017 at 12:51

    "I don't believe the McCanns are the parents of a missing child 12:25 - do you really want me to spell it out?"
    --------------------------

    Yes Ros - spell it out for me and your readers.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "For those studying psychology and the media, I think we have watched a decade of mass hypnosis. The Incredible Team McCann managed to sucker in, not only the masses but the celebrities and the Establishment too. No other crime compares, and probably never will!"

    Oh, Ros. You are as daft as the daftest on #McCann. There's no point reasoning with someone which such absurd views.

    BTW What do you reckon to an apostrophe in the blog post title?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, I had the Pulp song 'Something Changed' in my head at the time, which explains the confusion, to me anyway.

      Actually, I'm not the first to point out the magnitude of the crime, George Galloway has already used the term 'mother of all crimes'.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 21.59

      George Galloway is now a crime expert is he?

      You may like to quote the crimes he has solved Ros.

      Perhaps whilst you are at it you would like to define the crime that you and Galloway are in agreement-of?

      Delete
    3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 28 April 2017 at 21:59

      "Actually, I'm not the first to point out the magnitude of the crime, George Galloway has already used the term 'mother of all crimes'."

      George Galloway? LOL!
      I think he used the word 'justices', not 'crimes'. But I must say that his 2007 pronouncement does sound a lot like yours! ie

      "The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it."

      I think he wrote this a few months after Madeleine's disappearance, when the tabloids went OTT. He just jumped on the bandwagon.


      Delete
  41. @ Anonymous28 April 2017 at 19:00
    "BTW What do you reckon to an apostrophe in the blog post title?"

    Oh come on that's a bit harsh - Ros was only a "marker" or something of English something at some time in her illustrious career.

    ReplyDelete
  42. ( just to point out to the apostrophe police..you're missing the bigger error..'something' is misleading, the thread is more of the same,ergo, it should be 'nothing').

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''we have watched a decade of mass hypnosis. The Incredible Team McCann managed to sucker in, not only the masses but the celebrities and the Establishment too. No other crime compares, and probably never will!''

      Finally, Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Brady can relax. The 'mass hypnosis' you mention isn't mass hypnosis. Mass hypnosis and conversational hypnosis are far more subtle. Anyone can lead thousands of sheep or effect the hive mind. You only need to fool one-s/he'll have an internet connection and do the rest.You don't have to hypnotise anyone who's already asleep. As for the celebrity element of interest-who really cares. They see where the spotlight's shining and what's 'trending' and are drawn like flies to (manure?). They're not celebrity's due to their intelligence.

      The manipulators who run the press have a better view of the 'zeitgeist' now than ever before. You really believe that facebook /twitter etc are really just for people to 'connect' ? They're pens. They( Gov) call for monitoring.They don't need much more. It's not all covert when everyone is amassed and ready to scream their innermost to the world( regardless of how fkn stupid it may be).

      The 'new hypnosis' is a subtle and insidious beast. It's already seeped from the top, down to the gutter, where most of the press evolved from (the sooner Wikipedia set their new direction in motion the better).

      We all agree, i think, that the media spin and 'odd' style of political /police involvement in the McCann case is what elevates it's status to 'unique' - NOT the crime itself. I urge anyone, when they have a spare 48 minutes, to give this video a look and listen then go and research further.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmMArP235Oc

      Delete
    2. @ ZiggySawdust 28 April 2017 at 20:10
      "( just to point out to the apostrophe police..you're missing the bigger error..'something' is misleading, the thread is more of the same,ergo, it should be 'nothing').

      Nothing or Nothing's?

      Delete
    3. Hi Ziggy
      I watched what you recommended in your blogspot here above. Although it all seemed to be so absurd, I found the idea about a possibly existing secret "Common Purpose" shadow Government interesting, in that the description of it reminded me of Evelyne Waugh's fictitious stories about the British society in WW2 and all its bizarre institutions and organizations, which I used to read many years ago. I suppose you're familiar with the author in question.

      However, one thing, that was discussed was very true indeed, and that was the assumption about the weak British constitution, which, as far as I know, is based much more on common sense than on amendments, which works just perfectly as long as politicians, lawyers, journalists and others don't lose their own common sense, which I fear is about to happen right now. Yet, I don't believe that there's any kind of influential and secret organization/network threatening your society. The only threat is the risk of becoming a police state, due to fear of terrorism and other crimes, which could happen to any country which is prepared to give up freedom in favour of security.

      Delete
  43. Establishing the cause of a small child's life was brushed aside in favour of a national institution.

    All we can do by constantly scratching is to wrack up costs for the tax payer. How far do we wish to go? 20m, 50m?

    It will make no difference to the outcome. That was decided remember when Gerry saw the shaft of light?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Björn28 April 2017 at 23:40

    Hi Bjorn

    It wasn't a conspiracy being discussed on that video, it actually does exist. The discussion was to explain the basics behind it. You're on the right track identifying WW2 as important. If you go back to the video, there should be some more( series of seven 10 minute ones in sequence) talking about Gerresh 'nailing the zeitgeist'. That's a good point to begin. Utopia , by definition, can't happen. That doesn't mean Dystopia has to be inevitable. It's time to open eyes and get people on their feet. If they don't they'll be steamrollered. You'll also see some basics about NLP in the vids. The course discussed was shown to me about 10 years ago. I declined joining because i have integrity. I know a few people who saw it through and i've spoken a few times to them since then. All I can say on a blog is that what's said in the video is a fair 'nutshell' account. I've watched politicians for the last ten years with a different eye. You'd be surprised what you can see. That doesn't mean I'm recommending NLP to anyone as a good course to embark upon.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous28 April 2017 at 22:37

    ''Nothing or Nothing's?''

    I think you might be on to somethings there..

    ReplyDelete
  46. Aladdins Insane29 April 2017 at 10:35

    I have recently had a thought the Mccanns might be innocent
    (in sort of a way)
    Have a look elsewhere if you want to know why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where might 'elsewhere' be exactly?

      Delete
    2. I am not 10:35, but I’ve read this following:
      http://bit.ly/2pIEBRg

      The first part is a possibility, the second part (knowingly and officially, etc), although a possibility, is highly unlikely in my view. Perhaps an unexpected death has been skillfully used?

      Delete