Monday 24 April 2017

SUNDAY NIGHT - 'GONE' DOCUMENTARY - MCCANN LATEST NEWS 25/04/17

MCCANNS LATEST NEWS 25-04-17

Finally, some news we can make sense of, thank you Martin Brunt.

So the only 4 suspects (non British) investigated by Operation Grange have been ruled out.  Though, quite why Portuguese suspects were being investigated by OG remains weird.  Scotland Yard do however, have one significant lead left according to Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley.  However, just as I was starting to warm to him, he explained how it is quite sensible to assume Madeleine may have been taken by burglars. 

The article is padded out with the history of Operation Grange, but then we get possibly the most interesting quote, interesting because it comes directly from the deputy national director of the Policia Judiciaria Pedro do Carmo, who confirms the Portuguese and British investigations are not dependent on each other, he is under no financial or political pressure to wind his investigation up and if the Metropolitan police close their investigation, it doesn't mean they will close theirs.  I have to say, if I were a suspect in this case, I would be very worried indeed. 





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

I have just watched the Australian made Madeleine Gone documentary made by Rahni Sadler, a journalist on the other side of the world who believes so implicitly in the innocence of the professional middle class doctors (PLU) that she has made a 10 year documentary to get them back up on their pedestal and their critics in the dock.  Beginning with Chief Conspirator Goncalo Amaral.  In her little madam bitch voice, she describes the former lead detective of the Portuguese investigation as a conspiracy theorist! 

I don't blame Pat Brown one bit for being irate about the way in which she has been edited and portrayed.   And I would imagine Professor David Barclay has a good case too.  This eminent, highly respected forensic scientist has been cut and edited to make him the expert opinion on the unreliability of cadaver dogs. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, because if he has agreed to dismiss the dogs evidence, for another reason, then any respect I had for him is gone. 

The snidey Rahni Sadler has clearly twisted everyone's words in this documentary. The cloying sentimentality and supposed 'bafflement' from those too cowardly to say what they really think, is merely an updated version of Emma Loach's 'look at how innocent we are' documentary. 

The documentary ends with all the experts saying it is unlikely the mystery will ever be solved.  Though Rahni does try to imply that one or more, random predators were preying on young British girls in the PDL area between 2005 and 10. Which does of course beg the question, why have the Portuguese and British Police never followed this up, or indeed allowed it to continue?  Why have the people of PDL never been told of this threat within their midst?  Or is the threat restricted to British Citizens only - who were also not given any warnings? The explosive claims [this week] (anonymous) that the  nannies were given rape alarms and told not to go outside is unsupported by, err, anyone, but she has brought this in to support the idea that  PDL is some sort of lawless haven for criminals and perverts. 

I doubt any of the participants of Kate and Gerry's latest showcase by a devoted fan, had any idea just how unscrupulously Rahni Sadler was prepared to cut and edit their words to fit any deal she may have made with creepy Clarence.  He put out his call for 10 year exclusives last year whilst in Australia, what's to say, Rahni didn't give him a call?  They have carefully selected those to interview, probably based on their pro or anti McCann stance.  Paul Luckman as usual, has taken on the role of the kindly patriarch, the voice of reason, carefully choosing his words to appease everyone while dripping sympathy and compassion for the parents. 

Most of the documentary however is taken up with Mr and Mrs McCann at their nicest, explaining how unfair everyone has been to them, and their delusional ideas of a happy reunion.  Those who do not believe them are conspiracy theorists, including the police it would seem.  Professor Barclay (why, why, why) assists with other innocent explanations for Madeleine's disappearance.  She may have woken up and wondered, been hit by drunk driver, a good reason for her body being removed. Ok PrB, but how do you explain the window? Oh yeh, you did, an intruder will often find an escape route once they have broken in, ie. open w.  He skips the part where the only fingerprints on the window were Kate McCanns.  PrB is not actually giving very much (that makes sense) away, which is I am presuming he has been badly edited. 

Colin Sutton doesn't have much to say, or he robably did, but only a few of his statements were cherry picked to fit the narrative.  He follows Professor Barclay, who has just spoken about abduction scenarios and paedophiles in the area, discussing places in which to hide a body.   Clumsy but effective.

Kudos to Pat Brown for remaining so calm with Rahni, I would have ripped to her shreds for the patronising alone.  She asks Goncalo Amaral about MI5 and the British, Government helping to hide the body.  He replies 'I can't answer that', but she goes with it anyway, calling them 'GA's preposterous theories', even though they were clearly her's.  You should get a class action going there Pat! 

138 comments:

  1. Hi Ros,

    Thanks to Anonymous from previous post & yourself for the link. Not watched this yet. With hindsight on my part should have realised this would be a whitewash as the MSM were highlighting this as the case solved with the McCanns saying any evidence should be given to their private detectives oops sorry police.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brown is upset LOL How does she thinks the McCanns feel at the crap she has written over the years.

    I wonder how many of her articles Ruck would find defamatory..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not give C-R a call and ask them?

      Delete
  3. "In her little madam bitch voice...."
    "The snidey Rahni Sadler...."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rosalinda , Gonçalo Amaral never participated in this programme . What you see is GA speaking in Portuguese in one screen and The presenter pretending to interview him alone in another screen . It's a whole new intent to harm . GA has already denied ever giving any interview to the programme .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you 17:43, it was indeed deceptive, deliberately so. In her efforts to sensationalise, well everything, she quite literally put words into Goncalo's mouth!

      Delete
    2. Gonçalo Amaral denies participation in controversial programme on Maddie

      http://www.cmjornal.pt/mundo/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-nega-participacao-em-programa-polemico-sobre-maddie

      Delete
    3. Nothing new, Amaral has always believed in cover up, dark forces secret service.

      Delete
    4. 19:02

      "Amaral has always believed in cover up, dark forces secret service."

      He's no fool then.

      Delete
  5. "The documentary suggested Brown's book had been dropped by retailing giant Amazon because of its speculative content which theorised Kate and Gerry may have hidden Maddie's body after an accidental death in the holiday apartment.

    The reality, according to documents seen by Nine.com.au, was that Amazon was threatened by Carter-Ruck, the notorious London libel firm long employed by the McCanns to shut down negative headlines."

    http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/04/24/12/15/maddie-mccann-criminal-profiler-claims-hatchet-job-and-threatens-lawsuit-against-seven-west

    ReplyDelete
  6. I, too, will never work with 7 Australia again. There is editing and then there is distortion.

    https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/856207159687774209

    ReplyDelete
  7. Has Cristobell or anyone else noted the new propaganda offensive in the tabloid press by the family ATM?

    Although their fingerprints are never directly on the articles, the old "family friend" followed by the spokesman trick is back with a vengeance.

    So who are they dragging through the mud?

    The town again.
    Internet trolls.
    Mr Amaral.
    And today, MI5 'agents'.

    A more interesting Q. Is why now?

    First, as a response to the widening hypotheses being printed in the UK press. They know those 'slips' don't appear by accident. And second, what are they concluding about the one remaining lead, and Mrs Dick's close interest in the case.

    Maybe the last one spiralled out of control, but one of these days, they are going to sting the wrong person --- and they'll get squatted.

    It'd be a shame if this whole thing came slamming down on them during the election, say, if there was a bad news day for the govt. to manage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the coming weeks will offer more opportunity than ever 18:59, breaking news on Madeleine would certainly drown out breaking news on election fraud for example.

      Delete
  8. No worries. Just wait, in the meantime have a decent meal and a good sleep and restart commenting within a week or two.
    If online theatre does not yet exist, this undoubtely is the start of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It beggars belief that Pat Brown et al would actually have participated in this Documentary in any form without checking out all the finer details.Something is not right here. I am really disappointed in this so called TV production,but not at all surprised. It seems to me that Clarence Mitchell has yet again scored another victory for the McCann's, although he has been in Australia for some time now. This case will never be solved,it is so sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why so surprised? Cristobel herself was conned. She would never have said such things had she asked for copyright before publication, but only the rich and famous can do that.

      Delete
  10. Two points.

    1. Sadler's interviewing of the McCanns does not feature questions asked of them so much as interpretations put to them, following which she looks to them for agreement.

    2. This 'Seven on Sunday' interview with the McCanns was first broadcast in 2011, when Gerry was seen to answer the question, "Did you kill your daughter?" with "No. That's an emphatic no."

    The framing of that question was exactly as seen in this more recent broadcast (31:46). However, Gerry's 'historical' response is what we now see at 32:08.

    From which it is clear that the footage first shown six years ago was edited down. Now when the same (31:46)question is put, Gerry initially answers, "No...no, never", then proceeds to scratch his nose!

    If the 'emphatic no' variant is suspicious, what are we expected to make of 'no, never'? A person can only be killed the once.

    Was Gerry suggesting he'd actually passed up several opportunities to 'kill his daughter'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @19:35

      Spot-on! The footage first shown six years ago ("No. That's an emphatic no.") was edited down.

      Rahni Sadler: "Did you kill your daughter?"

      Gerry McCann: "No...no, never"

      Gerry's answer doesn't make sense. RS didn't ask "Have you ever thought about killing your daughter?" (for example).

      Delete
    2. That person isn't Rahni Sadler, but the Portuguese journalist who intervoiwed the McCanns in Portugal.

      Delete
    3. 20:46

      "That person isn't Rahni Sadler"

      What person?

      "but the Portuguese journalist who intervoiwed the McCanns in Portugal"

      And who put on an Australian accent for the benefit of viewers?

      Delete
    4. Gerry, did you kill your daughter?

      'No, nay, never. No, nay, never no more, will I play the wild rover, no never .... no more.'

      Delete
  11. Goncalo Amaral believes Gordon Brown was involved in the cover-up, I'm just not sure Gordon knows about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell him, and make a name for yourself.

      Delete
    2. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of Goncalo's theories, including body hidden in another person's coffin and a bag of bones to be possibly found by fishermen sometime in the future.

      In short, he doesn't have a clue as to what kind of tragedy actually happened.

      Also, regardless of his on-line hero status he doesn't know the answer as to how to deal with this sad and protracted affair.

      Delete
    3. 22:04

      "In short, he doesn't have a clue as to what kind of tragedy actually happened."

      Do you? If not then you're in the same boat as Goncalo.

      "he doesn't know the answer as to how to deal with this sad and protracted affair."

      Ditto the above.

      Delete
    4. If Mi5 was involved and I believe they were, the body could have been brought back to the UK via diplomatic means. No questions are asked of diplomats shipping out their belongings.

      I say that I can guess from beginning to end what happened. (With some ??s) What I don't understand in that in exchange for immunity why they haven't been made to shut up all these years? Was that an oversight or was the deal so loaded in McCann's favour that they hold all the cards? Or maybe hiding in plain sight?

      Imagine if they were told that national security would be threatened if six senior doctors were accused of a conspiracy. For that reason we'll help you.
      Then I would expect the authorities to tell them to shut up, or is that part of the clean up?

      How often have we seen commenters say that no way can they be involved, or they'd keep a low profile?

      If this is an Mi5 cover up for national security reasons, then please tell the pair to shut up and go live elsewhere in the World.
      The other four have kept quiet and it's time the McCanns did as well.

      Just a note. There was one person who gave a statement. I know for a fact she was not allowed to work but ordered to stay at home for weeks. She was in her own words, "Very bored."

      Delete
    5. Amaral's mistake to his credibility was to suggest Madeleine was cremated along with an elderly woman.
      I don't know the process of cremation, but I'm sure it requires checking the contents of the coffin. After all, a bomb could be placed in there.

      If he believes Mi5 were involved, as I do, they have surer ways than that.

      Delete
  12. ''Was Gerry suggesting he'd actually passed up several opportunities to 'kill his daughter'?''

    Yes, that's feasible. he wanted to wait until he was in a large group and miles from England. It would be too difficult to do it privately at home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps he was suggesting that HE had never considered it. That's feasible too.

      Delete
    2. Ziggy, 20.30

      That is something I've thought about as well as I have always thought that Madeleine was ill and may be had an incurable illness, that is why the McCanns wouldn't allow the PJ access to her medical records.

      It's a terrible thought to have but the McCanns have never acted as parents of an abducted child, but parents of something very deep and sinister they needed to hide and have gone to great lengths to hide that fact.

      Delete
  13. (one)

    ''Beginning with Chief Conspirator Goncalo Amaral. In her little madam bitch voice, she describes the former lead detective of the Portuguese investigation as a conspiracy theorist!''

    He is a conspiracy theorist. It depends on your standpoint if that's a bad label to have placed on you or not. Personally, I don't think it's bad. ''Gullible swallower of bullshit official narratives'' is one i'd hate to wear. The dictionary definition of a conspiracy is '' a secret plan by a group to do something harmful or unlawful''. Amaral's theories fall within that definition. He stands against the official theories and official explanations.That's the one thing about him I pat his back for.Unfortunately, he DID actually say MI5 had a hand in obstructing things-NOBODY put those words in his mouth regardless of when he said them.I think he's right, personally.What goes against him is his theory of accidental death( MI5 wouldn't step into that one), the fridge storage theory( same again) or the burying nearby( again) and the silencing of the tapas group, or the 'hidden in a coffin with a corpse' story. One theory is fine, but when a group that diverse are sat on the same chair and it's implied that MI 5 were in on them, he's in deep water. When pressed to elaborate he says 'I can't say'. Really ? Why can't you say, Dr Amaral ? You have a right to free speech.The same free speech you had a right to concerning this case and that's been they star witness in your libel one. You either believe in free speech or you don't.

    Pat Brown has chased the McCann Gravy Train around for years.She's more 'murder she wrote' than profiler.She scoured miles of waste ground around PDL looking to see if any were overlooked by churches /chapels/religious iconography based on her (then) pet theory that GMs mind would have driven him to bury Madeleine near to their God. That was based on the McCanns relationship with the priest in PDL and meeting the then Pope.That's changed to 'there's so many crevices in rocks she could have been hidden near the sea''. Asked why nobody had found Madeleine, her informed opinion was 'bad luck'.Going on record as saying the parents 'are guilty and hiding it' doesn't help her.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Very very telling.

    Check the Sydney Morning Herald's 28 seconds synthesis of the program: http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-news/video-world-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-pressed-on-isunday-nighti-20170423-4t93e.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 20:43

      It was 'telling' enough six years ago. More so now.

      Delete
  15. (two)

    Is it credible to acknowledge the expertise of a professor( Barclay) in the field of forensics but dismissing him because he rejects evidence that support your own personal suspicion ?

    ''The snidey Rahni Sadler has clearly twisted everyone's words in this documentary.''

    Never a nice, or professional , thing to do I agree.But this is tabloid TV-what do you expect ? The internet is bursting at the seams with much of the same but they're the theories of internet detectives who have nothing more than revenge on the innocent-until-proven-guilty parents.

    '' their delusional ideas of a happy reunion''

    That's vicious and uncalled for.

    ''the only fingerprints on the window were Kate McCanns. ''

    Desperate and old argument. Abductors wear gloves.They also exit using doors.

    ''she has brought this in to support the idea that PDL is some sort of lawless haven for criminals and perverts. ''

    It has a lot of ground to make up on Belgium in truth, but it isn't Disneyland either. This case has elevated it's status as a playground for perverts due to the media being given a free hand for so long.

    ''creepy Clarence. He put out his call for 10 year exclusives last year whilst in Australia, what's to say, Rahni didn't give him a call''

    Or vice versa? When i say Clarence orchestrates every public act, and scripts them, you ask what planet I'm on.Then you accuse me of overstating his importance and influence.

    This documentary was a dull as i feared it would be. It was biased and had it's agenda.I predicted we were being 'prepped' when the 'new lead' was flown around the MSM. I rest my case. I fear for those who have shown such determination to see the McCanns pay because, according to the pattern forming, they have less chance of being found guilty now than ever before.

    Those who commissioned this farce ( and don't kid yourself it wasn't) will be taking turns now gauging how well or badly it's ideas and agenda was perceived by the great 'court of public opinion' online as they Tweet themselves into neurotic frenzy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous24 April 2017 at 20:00

    ''Goncalo Amaral believes Gordon Brown was involved in the cover-up, I'm just not sure Gordon knows about this.''

    Gordon Brown probably was involved-heavily involved. But would Amaral say that publicly ? has anyone involved with the investigation said it yet ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Goncalo Amaral or indeed anyone has said publically that Gordon Brown was involved. Unfortunately for GB, the McCanns made his contact with them very public. The world knew he was speaking to them directly. Was he taken in by them so much that he refused to listen to his own secret service or the British Consulate? Did his own secret service even mention it? I like to think at least one of them did. John Buck is rather more reticent, it looks as though he double checked the orders, but didn't point out why he was suspicious.

      Some along the chain of command gave the order to assist the McCanns. How 'assist' was interpreted and carried out, remains to be seen.

      Delete
  17. To Zwiggy Sadust:

    David Bowie was a great artist. Blackstar is a great goodbye-album. Listen to Gerry McCanns answer to the question: "Did you kill your daughter"? And hear Major Tom calling Houston. It must be lonely in that tin can, far from the world.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous24 April 2017 at 20:43

    ''Very very telling.''

    How new is that clip and what does it 'tell' ?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ''Rahni Sadler: "Did you kill your daughter?"

    Gerry McCann: "No...no, never"

    Gerry's answer doesn't make sense. RS didn't ask "Have you ever thought about killing your daughter?" (for example).''

    The desperation is showing already, jesus..

    Would ''yes..yes...yes '' make a better answer ? Would that one make more sense ?

    ''have you ever thought about killing your daughter?'' is probably the most ridiculous question to ask anybody unless they were a patient in a high security hospital.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 21:39

      "The desperation is showing already, jesus.."

      Just had Jesus on the 'phone. Says he was aware of the desperation a decade ago.

      ''have you ever thought about killing your daughter?'' is probably the most ridiculous question to ask anybody unless they were a patient in a high security hospital.

      That's maybe why Sadler didn't ask it. Strangely Gerry's answer is a better fit with that ridiculous (withheld) question than with the straightforward one.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 24 April 2017 at 22:53

      “Just had Jesus on the 'phone. Says he was aware of the desperation a decade ago.”

      Pater et Spiritus Sanctus confirm J was.

      “That's maybe why Sadler didn't ask it. Strangely Gerry's answer is a better fit with that ridiculous (withheld) question than with the straightforward one.”

      Undoubtedly.

      T

      Delete
  20. Hi Rosalinda and others
    Wasn’t Clarence Mitchell in Australia at the CommsConf last year putting up a smoke screen of lies about the Madeleine case, helping the McCanns to promote their never-ending ”search” for Madeleine.

    The further away from Portugal and Europe the easier it becomes to manipulate local viewers and listeners. I doubt that a “documentary” of this kind about the Madeleine case would be possible in any other country. Crime Watch in 2013 on BBC was awful, in that it was crystal clear with whom Andy Redwood and his team had sided. This was far worse in terms of manipulation. The whole “show” echoes the voice of Clarence Mitchell.

    Kate’s appeal to the Portuguese people, shown in this “documentary” just a few seconds, is so revealing. I’ve seen it so many times before. She makes faces in trying to simulate how distraught and devastated she is, but fails completely in that there’s not the slightest sign of emotions to be seen in her eyes. Nor is there the tiniest teardrop to be found in them.

    I’ve said it before, one can be controlled and manage to hide all kinds of feeling, one can try to be controlled, but struggle to hold back feelings and expressions of despair, one can completely fail in controlling one’s feelings and burst into tears, one can immediately break down in tears, but no-one, who is sincerely desperate and feel forlorn will never ever just make queer faces and then take on a normal look. It is so obvious, that Kate here is faking and acting. Anyone who has really been the victim of injustice, lost a dear one or suffered from physical or psychological violence and who feels so sad and humiliated about that, just makes faces. Neither privately nor in public. We are no different in this respect.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi everybody
      Sorry, the first word in my last sentence of my text should of course be nobody and not anybody.

      Delete
    2. I tried twice today to send lengthy replies to your 22:19 post Bjorn but have had connection problems all day.

      I agree with you, the parents behaviour is weird and always has been. In the earlier posts I gave a couple of links, one to the McCann Antenna interview where Kate famously cries, and an article about Kate's poker fake by a Spanish psychiatrist.

      The Standard article quotes Clarence Mitchell threatening to add the psychiatrist to the McCann list of people to sue. It was around that time that Clarence et al were able to completely stamp out any talk of the parents odd behaviour.

      Since then, anyone daring to mention is swiftly turned on as a 'hater' - basically they are projecting their lack of empathy onto the non believers. We become the unfeeling ones.

      You are presently under attack with the usual pro McCann techniques Bjorn - but I am sure I do not need to tell you that :)

      http://www.standard.co.uk/news/be-kind-to-kate-mothers-desperate-plea-after-astonishing-attack-on-mccanns-tv-circus-act-7300346.html

      Delete
    3. Hi Rosalinda
      If neither the British authorities nor the Portuguese PJ dare challenge the McCanns and their abduction story, others will. If the McCanns had been brought back to PDL for the proposed reconstruction together with their tapas friends, there would at least have been some progress in the case.

      If the Met/SY aren't interested in discussing such a reconstruction, they are sabotaging the whole investigation without actually knowing what they are doing. Blatant incompetence, in other words.

      However, there are two things that I fear. Firstly, that the team around the McCanns may more explicitly start to threaten people who are seeking justice for Madeleine. New Brenda Leyland tragedies. Secondly, that the SY/PJ/Met may choose a scapegoat just to justify a closure of the case. If they would and then frame a deceased suspect, who is said to have been in PDL around the same time, I wouldn't be surprised. This must not happen.

      Delete
  21. Ziggy Swadust 24 April 2017 at 20:30
    ZiggySawdust 24 April 2017 at 21:26

    I always thought there were two (conflicting) Ziggys!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "In her little madam bitch voice"

    "The snidey Rahni Sadler"

    I would much rather listen to the voice of the rather lovely looking Rahni than hear Brown screeching her bile.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous24 April 2017 at 19:35
    "Was Gerry suggesting he'd actually passed up several opportunities to 'kill his daughter'?"

    Ziggy Swadust 24 April 2017 at 20:30
    "Yes, that's feasible. he wanted to wait until he was in a large group and miles from England. It would be too difficult to do it privately at home."

    The inmates have taken over the asylum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd better seek accommodation elsewhere then.

      Delete
  24. Bjorn 24th April 2017 at 22:19

    ''It is so obvious, that Kate here is faking and acting.''

    There is so much that's 'obvious' and 'clear'to you, Bjorn. Every aspect and every point in the 10 years of this case can be understood with ease, explained and then presented as plain,simple uncomplicated and solved.As long as it bends the way of incriminating two strangers that you have never met but assume to know inside out because you can 'read' faces and 'spoken words' and 'see' what they're hiding. can you utilise this gift when scrutinising Mitchell, Blair, Brown(Gordon), Murat,Brown(Pat) or Redwood ? Or is it just two people it works on ..

    Meantime, the real detectives( cough) of Scotland Yard are giving us their 'update' tomorrow ( Tuesday) via the Governments propaganda arm we know and love as News At Ten. How's that for timing after everyone's swallowed the Australian nonsense. You couldn't script it.Well, not unless you moved in the murky corridors of power of course.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Ziggy
    As for Blair and Redwood, I don't think any of them is lying, faking or acting. I'm almost certain that they truly believe(d) in the McCanns' innocence, but that they may regret that now. Kate is often just acting as far as I can see. There may be many reasons as to why she does so. One is guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccann-hunt-police-pursuing-significant-line-of-inquiry-ten-years-on-1-8510401

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous25 April 2017 at 11:09

      Oh dear that will make a lot of people very unhappy - no mention of the Mccanns being arrested!

      Cue the reading between the lines and hidden messages that the Mccanns are going down.

      Delete
    2. LOL They can always dream.....

      Delete
  27. Björn @10:25

    I think Blair and Redwood couldn't care less about the McCanns. The McCanns care about the twins and their reputation. As far as I can see.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi NL
      Correct. I really thought more of Cameron and Theresa May. Blair and Redwood have, to speak the truth, more or less left the stage. As far as the McCanns their remaining children and their tapas friends are concerned, it has always been about defending their own and one another's reputation. No doubt about that.

      Delete
    2. Anon 11.39

      I think you have the order of importance the wrong way around. The McCanns cared about their reputation then the twins, although I think the twins were an afterthought most of the time, just like Madeleine has been for the past 10 years.

      If the McCanns cared anything for the twins Kate McCann wouldn't have written the disgusting book "madeleine", in which she stated "I couldn't make love to Gerry" and not to mention the horrendous thoughts of what had been done to Madeleine.

      Kate had no thought of the twins when she was penning her "best seller" only about the ££££ it may bring in so she and G could sue so many people for not believing in their fairy tale. They didn't care about the headlines it would make in the daily newspapers that the twins, their school friends and their parents could read every day, no, no way, the McCanns only saw ££££££, they had no sympathy for the twins at all.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @16:00

      Kate’s account of the truth (for her children to read “when they are ready©”) is far from convincing. The parts of her book you refer to are an admission of weakness, to say the least. Involving her remaining children seems to be motivated by desperation, not by lovelessness per se.

      As for the money, they must have known from the start that they would need it, a lot of money, something that is itself rather questionable. I don’t think they wanted to enrich themselves, they simply didn’t want to lose more than they already had. This is a bigger deal than that.

      Now what is Operation Grange about?

      NL

      Delete
  28. Hi Everybody
    One of Mitchell's lies is now documented in this Australian documentary. He says that the DNA profile found in the car could have been that of Sean or Amelie. It couldn't. It was either Madeleine's DNA or somebody else's outside their family who by pure chance matched Madeleine's profile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 32.58 – Professor Corte-Real, who met with the FSS experts, and saw the British scientists’ reports and work notes, explains this issue.

      Dr Francisco Corte-Real
      Vice President, National Forensics Institute

      33.09 – When those 15 alleles are included in a mix, where beyond those 15 we can have another 30 or 40 alleles, that means that it includes biological material from several persons. And there it can be much more difficult, much more inconclusive, because we may have a mixture from several persons, including hypothetically, if that happens, we may have several persons from the same family, and that may even give us the idea, in a way, that a certain missing person may be included, and that is not conclusive

      Delete
  29. Björn25 April 2017 at 12:12

    ''As far as the McCanns their remaining children and their tapas friends are concerned, it has always been about defending their own and one another's reputation.No doubt about that..''

    Like most normal people, they defend what is being attacked.It doesn't matter whether it's your face or your reputation.You don't stand still and invite more attacks- especially when the attack is coming from a large number who can get their kicks by doing it and the law does little to stop it. As for your 'no doubt about that' -yet again, you have no doubt because your eyes will only see what you want to look at. You won't let small details like 'no evidence to back my idea up' or any evidence that says you have a high chance of being wrong with guesses.Who needs evidence if it gets in the way of getting your kicks.

    ''As for Blair and Redwood, I don't think any of them is lying, faking or acting.''

    Right. That makes sense. Your gift for reading between the lines and finding hidden truth is improving. Blair not lying ? He even lies in his sleep, the psychopath.But he isn't a McCann so lets let that one go...

    Anonymous25 April 2017 at 11:09

    I wouldn't read much into that latest 'critical lead'. They haven't even spelt 'tidbits' right. A Freudian slip ? It's odd that they found it and waited until the anniversary to announce it. It will involve some 'transients' who were moving around Europe or band of gypsies or rebel fisherman. Or someone who 'died a 2 years ago'. They're floating ideas to see who bites at what.They won't throw anyone with power to the dogs-sniffer or otherwise.The McCanns are on their home run now. Personally, I was hoping the Brexit trigger might have caused some internal bickering and the name would get spat out. Still, we're not finished with this yet are we..

    Anonymous25 April 2017 at 11:44

    ''Cue the reading between the lines and hidden messages that the Mccanns are going down.''

    Yep- at least there are some things we can guarantee will throw no 'new developments' up..

    ReplyDelete



  30. Sir Alec Jeffreys
    The inventor of DNA fingerprinting has offered to act as an expert witness in the Madeleine McCann case.
    Sir Alec Jeffreys said DNA matches alone did not establish guilt and all Madeleine's genetic characters would be found in at least one family member.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I've said it so many times before, that this is all to protect the NHS and yes for that reason I do believe Mi5 were involved.

    A question to Cristobel. Why do you believe and keep stating the children were left alone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous@15:12

      Because they were by the McCanns own admission. Otherwise the abduction theory wouldn't have held up.

      Delete
    2. I know why they state it, I just don't understand why any one believes it.
      There was one adult "sick" every night. Only at night mind you, perfectly well all day. If that was true, why didn't they eat elsewhere?
      Nine adults all agree to leave their children alone, including the granny. No way.

      It's the greatest coup that "that they shouldn't have left them alone" appears time and time again in comments. Every time someone states it. It reinforces the lie and I imagine how people must be laughed at for falling for it.


      If any armchair sleuths wish to get anywhere, they need to stop thinking of two doctors and think six.

      Delete
  32. With an announcement to be made by the SY on ITV news tonight it would be interesting if they were to say that their side of the investigation has come to an end and they've passed all relevant information to the PJ for them to process.

    After all, the PJ are the main investigating force and the Portuguese SC have declared that the McCanns have not been cleared.

    Is that perhaps why the McCanns have put up this "woe is us" statement on their Facebook as they know what is coming?

    One can live in hope......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon 25 April at 15:21
      "With an announcement to be made by the SY on ITV news tonight it would be interesting if they were to say that their side of the investigation has come to an end and they've passed all relevant information to the PJ for them to process"

      Where could I tomorrow find what has been said on ITV regarding the SY announcement? I'm really interested. Being Swedish living in Sweden, I'm not in the position to watch the news on ITV.

      Delete
  33. Björn25 April 2017 at 10:25

    ''Hi Ziggy
    As for Blair and Redwood, I don't think any of them is lying, faking or acting. I'm almost certain that they truly believe(d) in the McCanns' innocence...Kate is often just acting as far as I can see. There may be many reasons as to why she does so. One is guilt.''

    ( and you can do what nobody in ten years has done- prove that guilt, I take it)

    I was actually asking if your psychic abilities stretched beyond the scrutiny of every facial expression and spoken word of Kate and Gerry McCann. I'm not suggesting Redwood or Blair care one way or another about this case apart from making sure the same 2 internet-chosen suspects stay in the firing line, no evidence can be brought against them, and whoever is responsible for Madeleine's situation is kept under wraps. I base my suspicion on the track record of politicians, prime ministers and top ranking police officers being professional liars who are beyond the law and fine partners in crime. The politicians brushed the police to one side then let new ones in to put the show on. The politicians did it for a reason and the police producing red herring after red herring pretty much illustrates that the political interference is pivotal to every aspect of this case. Stage 1-police step in.Stage 2- politicians step in.Stage 3-new police, chosen by politicians, take over. Stage 4- the end. This is why nothing's happened in ten years. Nothing happens after the end.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I can guess from beginning to end what happened. I don't though believe that Kate laid a hand on Madeleine except through kindness.
    I believe she is wrongly accused on forums.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kung Fu Kate, the breaker of beds, the puncher of walls and metal railings (if you believe the bullshit) the scouse bird with a temper?

      Hmmm. Maybe not intentionally, but in a fit of anger?

      Delete
    2. Maybe the bruised wrists were from her being restrained in her despair. Not only from what had happened, but knowing what her role would be from now on.
      My own daughter at the same age was one moment against my side in the same type of holiday village, next moment gone. First thing of course was to run to the pool, which thankfully was under lit so I could see straight away she wasn't in it. Of course I found her moments later.
      Strange though that no mention of any of the group checking the pools.

      To anyone who thinks the mention of paedophiles by the parents is odd? That was my second thought, as I looked up at all the doors to be knocked and apartments to be searched.

      After I found her and calmed down, my husband couldn't understand my panic. I replied,"paedophiles go on holiday too."

      So I don't blame them for the mention as so did I.

      Delete
  35. Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of DNA fingerprinting :

    ''DNA matches on their own did not establish a person’s innocence or guilt...there are no genetic characters in Madeleine that are not found in at least one other member of the family...then you have an incomplete DNA profile that could raise a potential problem in assigning a profile to Madeleine given that all other members of that family would have been in that car..DNA testing seeks to establish whether DNA sample A from a crime scene, came or did not come from individual B..So if you get a match there’s very strong evidence that it did come from B ''

    Björn25 April 2017 at 12:32

    ''One of Mitchell's lies is now documented in this Australian documentary. He says that the DNA profile found in the car could have been that of Sean or Amelie. It couldn't.... It was either Madeleine's DNA or somebody else's outside their family who by pure chance matched Madeleine's profile.''

    Guesswork, bias and suspicion from the internet, versus science and the pioneer of DNA fingerprinting.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pedro do Carmo



    "Anyway we have this hope and we have reason to have this hope,"


    Rowley

    “Ourselves and the Portuguese are doing a critical piece of work and we don’t want to spoil it by putting titbits of information out publicly.”

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mrs McCann said the family were "bracing ourselves for the next couple of weeks".

    Next Wednesday May 3 marks the 10th anniversary of when three-year-old Maddy disappeared from their Portuguese holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

    "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," Mrs McCann said.

    This comment was taken from the ITV news website. Interesting choice of words considering they used the media to highlight their plight. I wonder if they know the game is up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John 100
      If this is what Kate has said, I get the impression that she doesn't wish MSM to write too much about the case. Considering that they've always sought publicity so that Madeleine isn't going to be forgotten by the general public and that people should always be reminded about, that there's a little girl still missing (Kate's own words), it's rather strange.

      Delete
    2. Hi Bjorn,

      That's what I thought as well.

      Delete
    3. The "game is only up" insofar as the vast majority of the public are sick and tired of the pair of them. They never won the hearts of the people apart from those who pull out their wallets as they do for anything. Give money=I feel good.
      Most still believe the children were left alone, and that was their greatest crime.
      Mitchell PR accomplished.

      Delete
  38. "I wonder if they know the game is up."
    -----------------------------------------
    In your dreams dear.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous25 April 2017 at 15:21

    ''if they were to say that their side of the investigation has come to an end and they've passed all relevant information to the PJ for them to process..After all, the PJ are the main investigating force and the Portuguese SC have declared that the McCanns have not been cleared...One can live in hope......''

    And such was their confidence, they shelved the case in 2008 rather than arrest anyone. Maybe they've finally settled on one of the many 'ideas' they were processing too.I think 10 years is sufficiently long enough to produce something that has enough strength to stand up in court.

    Who knows, maybe they've accepted that maybe Madeleine's fate wasn't what they imagined and they've opened their eyes and looked right, left and backward instead of straight down a narrow tunnel.
    One can live in hope....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .I think 10 years is sufficiently long enough to produce something that has enough strength to stand up in court.

      The above also applies to evidence for abduction. As you said before Ziggy, there is zero evidence of that too, so I do not understand how you can say that you believe in the mccanns story of abduction.

      Please enlighten us.

      Delete
  40. John10025 April 2017 at 17:42

    The 'interesting choice of words' make perfect sense under the circumstances. Beyond vigilante forums and social media, there are people out there who feel more than just anger and spite.A child went missing. Whatever happened to her, she was taken or killed or maybe both.If the ' anti's' get their prayers answered will they ever consider that if the parents are guilty or party to what happened to her that they wouldn't have suffered since ? I know it that would meet with an excitable chorus of ''ha ha ha they deserved it'' from the heavyweight commentators who claim to want justice for Madeleine but spend 80% of their time typing hatred or anger directed at the parents with or without logic or science to back them up,but the fact is, they would have suffered. The extended family, from the twins to the aunties and uncles and grand parents didn't do a thing and they lost Madeleine too.But why would that matter to anyone online..that just gets in the way of the party...

    The McCanns aren't going down for this. They can't now. If they did, there's too many awkward questions and criticism waiting for two police forces concerning there 10 year delay and the expense to the tax payers. I believe we'll either learn the final destination of Madeleine ( my personal guess is Spain, Brussels or Germany)or the 'one man' the MSM hinted at in March who was 'crucial' to the case.If he's alive still, that will be the surprise.

    Tick...tick...tick...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ( my personal guess is Spain, Brussels or Germany )

      That's a hell of a distance to dump a dead body.

      Delete
    2. @14:27

      Well, according to Gerry McCann "the most likely places that she could have been moved to", one of the countries the McCanns had chosen in priority, whilst they were en route.

      Delete
  41. Hi Ziggy@17:42

    You've raised a good few points, however my argument concerns not just Kate's comments but going back to the Leveson enquiry which was hijacked by Z list celebrities who quite happy to use the media to promote themselves, & turn against them pretending to be victims. I'm not defending newspapers and their phone tapping exploits but all concerned should take a good look at themselves before shouting foul. The reason I say interesting choice of words as Kate has not singled out any particular media source, she's put all in the same sentence, which makes me wonder if something is going to happen soon.

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-mc-cann-met-police-leads-missing/

    mccanns are parents of missing girl, not suspects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon 25 April at 21:10
      Yes, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, trying to solve the case. I'm not too impressed. Yet another clown. From what circus do they all come from?

      Delete
    2. National Security Circus

      Delete
    3. I think you might find that the current pt investigators are on the same page as Rowley. Are they also clowns.



      Delete
  43. Hi Everybody
    Please watch this Australian documentary when Kate talks about Madeleine and her last night. Kate cannot keep her duping smile back, which she isn't really quite aware of. Especially that between 8.59-9.01.
    There cannot be a clearer expression of such a smile. This is definitely not an emphatic expression.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ Björn - numerous comments.

    I believe you have made the point that you hate the Mccanns, believe they are guilty and involved in whatever happened to Madeleine and are an expert in everything many many times now - all without providing a shred of evidence apart from your warped opinion.

    You are a perfect example of a repetitive Mccann hater who gets kicks out passing false accusing libel comments.

    I make this comment under the premise that Ros truly does allow alternative views on this blog. My view is the complete opposite of yours and I have no hesitation in making that point very clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankyou for publishing my comment Ros.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anon 25 April at 22:17
      I'm almost certain that I've detected a pure duping smile on Kate McCanns' face, and therefore I beg others to watch and to make up their own minds about what they can see in the very same clip. That's all.

      Talking about "haters"; do you claim that Martin Smith and his wife are haters, just because they believe that they saw Gerry McCann carrying a small child away from the McCanns' holiday apartment towards the beach in the evening of the very same day as Madeleine disappeared?

      I've no more reason to lie than they have and I cannot keep quiet about what I see (believe that I see)with my own eyes. If you're more keen on body language than I am, please tell me what you see in the expression on Kate's face.

      Delete
  45. Oh Pat Brown has now published a woe is me blog now!

    I am enjoying it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. John10025 April 2017 at 20:28

    ''Leveson enquiry which was hijacked by Z list celebrities who quite happy to use the media to promote themselves, & turn against them pretending to be victims. ''

    Christopher Jeffries wasn't any kind of celebrity A or Z. He was the innocent landlord of a young woman who was murdered in one of his properties. He was happy to talk to reporters but wore scruffy clothes, had strange hair and was slightly effeminate. The famous 'court of public opinion' had seen enough and had him bang to rights once the tabloids had led them in that direction. Sounds familiar really.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15914969

    ''makes me wonder if something is going to happen soon.''

    You can stop wondering. I just watched the 'statement' release on News At Ten. From our side (SY) ''we have looked at over 600 lines of enquiry and we still have some vital ones to look at and people to concentrate on''( paraphrasing).

    From Portugal who took it back off 'the shelf' in 2013 : ''We are still looking into the case and if any new developments were to happen, we'd look into them but, as far as I can see, there haven't been any''

    So there you go. How many detectives, how much money and how long have they been 'working together' ? And they can't even say the same or similar thing as the 10th anniversary approaches.

    Björn25 April 2017 at 21:31

    ''Please watch this Australian documentary when Kate talks about Madeleine and her last night. Kate cannot keep her duping smile back, which she isn't really quite aware of. Especially that between 8.59-9.01....There cannot be a clearer expression of such a smile. This is definitely not an emphatic expression.''

    The most important word in that plea is 'please'. You're now pleading for people to imagine the same thing you imagine and join you in saying it's 'evidence' of hiding something wicked. You can't read faces or words and yield any hidden truth any more than you can pull a rabbit out of your ear. It's desperate and you sound desperate. Even if you find some to jump on to your band wagon, nobody who thinks seriously and critically will consider any of the conclusions as anything but gossip and guessing.They'd be laughed out of any court if any prosecutor dared to present them.

    Anonymous25 April 2017 at 22:17

    Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ros says: "I have to say, if I were a suspect in this case, I would be very worried indeed."

    What a relief for the Mccans then that Rowley also said: "there was no reason whatsoever to suspect Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39706194

      BBC News, note the quotation marks.

      But he added that "there was no reason whatsoever" to suspect Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.

      "there was no reason whatsoever"


      http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-portugal-mccann-idUKKBN17R2P5

      Madeleine's parents were named as official suspects by Portuguese police four months after the disappearance but in 2008 were cleared. Portugal's public prosecutor later dropped the case, citing a lack of evidence.

      "There's no reason whatsoever to reopen that," Rowley said.


      Complete quotation: "There's no reason whatsoever to reopen that".

      Spot the difference.

      Delete
    2. Do you have a link for that comment from Mark Rowley please?

      Delete
    3. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-portugal-mccann-idUKKBN17R2P5

      Delete
    4. http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2017/04/25/253399213124308101/640x360_MP4_253399213124308101.mp4

      1:28 ...and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that...

      Delete
    5. Thanks I was asking @00.08 for a link to what was quoted from Mark Rowley. I don't see this quote in any of the links provided, the Daily Mail video nor the full transcript of the interview.

      Delete
    6. 14:17

      "I don't see this quote"

      Nor will you. He didn't say it.

      Delete
    7. @14:17

      (But he added that "there was no reason whatsoever" to suspect Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.)

      As you say, that 'quote' from Anonymous 00:08 is not from Mark Rowley, but from BBC News.

      Delete
    8. From Tom Symonds, BBC home affairs correspondent?

      Delete
    9. Thanks again all/whoever for confirming Mark Rowley never said what was quoted from 00.08.

      Delete
  48. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-portugal-mccann-idUKKBN17R2P5

    "Sadly investigations can never be 100 percent successful," said London Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley. He said police had no definitive evidence as to whether Madeleine was alive or dead.

    "We will do everything we can do reasonably to find an answer as to what's happened to Madeleine. I so wish I could say that we'll definitely solve it. But a small number of cases sadly don't get solved."

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

    Mark Rowley so wishes he could say that they'll definitely solve it and therefore he announces that a small number of cases sadly don't get solved.

    Who would have thought?

    ReplyDelete
  49. When you've given up on the police, politicians and MSM, and put your trust in the common man on social media, you're gonna get things completely wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon 26 April at 08:18
      Unlike yourself, I've always listened to the common little man in the world, but often ignored what politicians say and do. I spent some time in Poland in the 70:s.

      At that time most politicians in the western countries as well as those in Moskva believed that the political situation was stable and that Poland was socially and economical progressing and that the police as well as the military authorities had the moral right to keep things as they were.

      Everywhere in the country I could see that "the little common man" suffered and was of a quite different opinion. The process towards liberation had already started, neither our Government in Sweden, nor the Polish had realized that. So be careful about trusting authorized experts, especially politicians in power. Thanks for reading.

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous at 08:18

      "police, politicians and MSM" are common men and common women, also doing social media. Not blindly accepting 'facts' from those 'in authority' as truth is not the same as "given up".

      Delete
    3. Hi Bjorn, totally agree, that's why UK voted for Brexit, Trump became president & Marcon & Le Pen are in the run off in France. As you said people are sick to death of career politicians who don't live in the real world.

      Delete
    4. When the common man rejects established sources and institutions and instead relies on others who are like-minded, you're gonna get things completely wrong.

      Delete
    5. `@19:33

      The common man contributed/contributes to established sources and institutions.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 26 April 2017 at 19:33

      “When the common man rejects established sources and institutions and instead relies on others who are like-minded, you're gonna get things completely wrong.”

      You might, but I’m not gonna because I don’t wanna. From today, I’ll follow The Sun.

      Believe me when I tell you I’ll never do you a non sequitur.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
  50. The parents are not 'cleared', dear uk.reuters.
    And Portugal didn't 'drop' the case. They shelved it. And afterwards ... reopened it. And if there were burglars in 5A, then they only were interested in errrm ... a blanket, a toothbrush and a blue sports bag.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ziggy Sawdust
    25.4 @15:28

    "Stage 1-police step in. Stage 2- politicians step in. Stage 3-new police, chosen by politicians, take over. Stage 4- the end. This is why nothing's happened in ten years. Nothing happens after the end."

    Nothing happens after the end, but beginnings do tend to have a history.

    Personally I am inclined to invert processes 1 and 2 as identified within your list as well as inserting 2b - Politicians steer PR initiatives.

    In the early days (and for a considerable period of time) it was inevitable that the parents would be the prime target for suspicion, since public comment was either directed by them or at them. However, as more data have come to light, there are now reasonable grounds for adopting the view that the FCO had their finger on the pulse of this affair from the outset.

    Lizzie Taylor (Hi-de-ho) has recently 'tweeted' from a position of authority (i.e. no fewer than TWO e-mails from Scotland Yard) that the Met. position is either a whitewash or the public are being 'prepared' (for some development or other). We should accept that we are being 'prepared' apparently.

    Good. So we can all shut up, go home, and get on with our lives, on the basis that things will eventually be resolved to someone's satisfaction, even if not to our own.

    Assistant Commissioner Rowley's statement however does nothing to encourage a belief that the status quo will change, soon or at all.

    Common sense alone should tell us that after 10 years, £14+ million and with a near inexhaustible line of credit (aka the tax payer), the government is highly unlikely to fold now.

    Justice? It's like Democracy - a good idea in principle.

    ReplyDelete
  52. http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/mccann-latest-fake-news-new-nanny.html#comment-form :

    “Anonymous21 April 2017 at 21:22

    ZiggySawdust 21 April 2017 at 19:58

    “There's as much evidence for an abduction scenario as there is that incriminates the McCanns. None.”

    This is not the case, Ziggmund. Your error has already been unambiguously pointed out to you. Thrice you have been invited to have a go at debating the issue. For one reason or another. you've ignored the invitations.

    Here is a link to the last such occasion: http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/mccanns-latest-news-250317.html?showComment=1490955407503#c5131659458065352317

    Speak, comrade.

    Namaste.

    T”

    ReplyDelete
  53. Transcript of interview with AC Mark Rowley
    Apr 25, 2017 21:00 BST

    http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743

    Q: You say you haven’t got definitive evidence, do you have any clues at all which might explain what happened to her?

    MR: So, you’ll understand from you experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will start off with various hypotheses…

    “…murder…”?

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Way Haay - there's the M-word again. Good spot.

      They've all used it one time or another.

      Kate's - 'The police are trying to frame us. They don't want a murder in Portugal .....'

      Gerry's - 'There's absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead, and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death.'

      Even dickwad Clarence with his - 'I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine's death.'

      Hogan Howe in a radio interview mentions the murder of the McCann girl.

      So many of the main players know she is dead. Even Fiona Payne wrote In MEMORY of Madeleine when she done that bike ride the other year. All she missed out was R.I.P.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 26 April 2017 at 14:45

      Yes… One has been there, hasn’t one?...

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
  54. Aladdins Insane26 April 2017 at 12:13

    To the person who said if it is a matter of National Security (which I believe it is, but wont say here why),then why do the Mccanns keep in the public eye? (incidently I believe it was MI6 in the early stages and then later morphed into a MI5 operation to maintain the cover up)
    Just put yourself in that situation. What would you do?
    I know what I would do.
    For my own safety I would go against the very strong Government advice and sing from the rooftops.
    Only thing is once you go down that road, you have to keep singing for the rest of your life.
    And you have to keep making reminders every so often that you have several sealed letters in various places to be opened if anything happens to you, so the message is not forgotten, not just for the Goverments benefits but also for the "others" who I believe are involved. They have dark forces too at their disposal which can lead to "accidents".
    For reminders, think of the 2013 e-fits (based on real photos of real people in my view) , the release of the "make up" photo and also a certain comment in a book.
    The thing is though, although you might be able to avoid
    any nasty surprises, those people are still going to be pretty p***ed off and so wont always make life easy for you (unhelpful releases of info from time to time etc)
    and you will always need to look over your shoulder.
    Life will never be the same again even if you are richer than you were before

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "(Your) Life will never be the same again"

      Said Cherie Blair to Kate McCann, once upon a time. She wasn't wrong.

      Delete
    2. Of course Mi5 were involved, as this was in the national interest.
      This was six senior doctors, not caught boozing on a plane, but had lost a child.
      They all worked for the UKs biggest state employer, something Amaral nor anyone abroad could never understand.

      Even though we moan, the NHS is our lifeline. It's our centre.

      This was in the public interest.

      Imagine the outcome had six doctors appeared in court and the aftermath for years later. The dent in public confidence would have been felt for years.

      Mi5 took the decision to protect six doctors and all they cost to train plus their expertise over the death of a small child.

      What would you prefer? Loss of six doctors or close the case?

      Small child opposing six doctors and Mi5?

      Poor, sweet, little Madeleine.

      Just in my own opinion of course.

      Delete
    3. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one 17:50, and I agree 6 NHS doctors embroiled in a crime abroad would be hugely embarrassing for the UK. The child was lost, but the doctors could still be saved. It is not improbable.

      Delete
  55. Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.

    http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hi Everybody
    Many thanks to T and Anon 12:32 and others, who have posted transcripts. I found such in other places on the internet as well.

    Just wanted to say that I’ve been too nasty and rude lately.
    The following quotation made me realize that
    ”Mr Rowley insisted the investigation has achieved "an awful lot"”

    What a relief to hear such a thing, isn’t it? Just the choice of words ”an awful lot” is so comforting and reassuring , that I now deeply regret, if I’ve said anything that might have made people think, that I’ve no confidence in the British Police authorities. So, I say Sorry, from the bottom of my heart, and of course I don’t mind waiting another ten years or so for the real ”good news”. Keep your secret investigation going Mr C. Rowley. I shall not criticize you and your talented colleagues anymore and that’s a promise.

    ReplyDelete
  57. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3419280/searching-for-madeleine-mccann-sky-one-home-office-report/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finally the truth! At Sky1!
      Where?
      SKY1!
      When?
      On the 2TH!
      I was going to watch Panorama, on the 3th.
      Watching what?
      PANORAMA!
      When?
      On the 3TH!
      And what's on the 4th?
      Bwah, fake news as usual.

      Delete
  58. Hi
    BBC News 25 April
    "I remember when Madeleine first disappeared I couldn't even begin to consider anything in terms of years..." Gerry says, but Kate then had a quite different perspective, as she immediately started to keep a diary, with the purpose of giving their twins "an account of the truth", at some future point of time, which they may be able to read and understand today. I wonder if they emotionally still relate to Madeleine's disappearance just as differently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd have to be partnered with someone like him to understand.

      Delete
  59. Björn26 April 2017 at 17:19

    ''"I remember when Madeleine first disappeared I couldn't even begin to consider anything in terms of years..."

    A completely normal state of mind if your child had disappeared. You'd want to think today is the day she'll be returned or be rescued. Why would you think 'she'll be back in 8 or 9 years' ? The most important point that's worthy of mention and scrutiny that the haters-or antis to give them their preferred name- should pick away at is that somebody above the police and McCanns DID think 'years'. If you were in the parent's place and the establishment said they were going to fund the 'war' ahead over it all and then seen the size of the 'fund' being given( and then topped up) you could only possibly come to one conclusion : ''they aren't expecting her to be found soon, in fact they're funding for years-how do they know she won't be returned next week?''

    ''Kate then had a quite different perspective, as she immediately started to keep a diary, with the purpose of giving their twins "an account of the truth", at some future point of time''

    Some future point in time can refer to when she thinks the twins are old enough to understand the whole picture, from May 03 to the contrived 'mystery' as written by the UK authorities and the vile accusations levelled their way. It's normal.They're only children now and it's hard enough to understand why their lives can't be normal like those of their friends.

    ''I wonder if they emotionally still relate to Madeleine's disappearance just as differently.''

    Madeleine is gone.Nobody realistically can expect her to return now so she's deceased in all but name. She represents a serious life-change for her family. Her brother and sister were babies and their memories will be vague and distant. Research suggests that major life changes and / or loss are potentially most damaging post 5 yrs of age for up to about 5 years.At the other end of the scale 50 is considered the same way. Many a time people say, when somebody's no longer with us, 'she's alive whenever we talk about her'. it's a consolation of sorts. This diary could be an attempt to do that for the twins. It could close the distance. Or, if you prefer to read the crap talked about it online, it could be all lies because the author's evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ZiggySawdust 26 April 2017 at 21:48

      "Madeleine is gone. Nobody realistically can expect her to return now so she's deceased in all but name".

      Until there's evidence of this, it's a matter of opinion and probability rather than certainty. No idea what you mean by 'deceased in all but name'.

      Delete
  60. Björn26 April 2017 at 13:53

    ''Just wanted to say that I’ve been too nasty and rude lately.
    The following quotation made me realize that
    ”Mr Rowley insisted the investigation has achieved "an awful lot"”

    Sarcasm aside, Rowley's merley another bullshit artist to join the massed ranks of his colleagues and superiors.It doesn't matter what any of us think regarding the fate of Madeleine, or who sealed that fate, i think every 'side' can share the view of the police being useless in this investigation.If not useless -spineless in their following of whatever orders they were given behind closed doors.

    Mr Rowley is right though. You just have to spot the Freudian cock-up(no pun intended). The investigation has achieved an awful lot. It just hasn't achieved a thing in terms of closing the case successfully, arresting and bringing to justice anybody at all, or finding Madeleine - in ten years. Now ask yourself- who would call that a great achievement. And why..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous26 April 2017 at 10:11

      Good points, and appreciated..

      The 1 and 2 are interchangeable I suppose. In an abduction or any other scenario, I'd argue that only police were needed anyway. That's the nub of my problem with the whole shebang.

      Your 'PR initiatives' could possibly be key to making sense of everything related to this case in terms of the length it's taken, the work put in to keep it as a tabloid soap opera ( on or offline) and the public being led by the nose by a team of invisible mainstream media ring masters.
      Ever since the Germans reinvented 'news' as the duplicitous 'propaganda' in the modern world, it's been an indispensable tool for all Governments, covert or otherwise. Tabloids are no more than comics filled with scandal , trivia, celebrity and tits. Any so-called 'news' is surface only.That's to sustain the illusion of them being 'newspapers'. In reality, they feed us what they're told by those at the top who have an agenda. I slate them and i never listen to anyone seriously when they quote from them. However, i have to defend, to an extent, the journalists ( presstitutes). it isn't their fault that we don't have a genuinely free press and they have a living to earn.They might hit upon a juicy story or lead but get gagged and told to print crap instead .Then they take the dive for it. The press is dead. Journalism as it's supposed to be in a democracy is over now. In the context of 2007 to 2017 it's important to realise how much news and what kind of news has brought about the need to shut journalists and papers up.

      It was less than a year after May03 2007 when The Media Standards Trust and Westminster University hosted a debate. In the blue corner were PR people, in the red corner- journalists. it was basically a debate about killing off the old in favour of bringing in the new.Yes or no.

      Roy Greenslade ( journ) started the fight, stating how he'd lied to by people in PR, he had been blocked from finding the truth. He had also been distracted, diverted and generally manipulated.Strong stuff.This all used to be manageable, he and Davies agreed, in the days when journalists had the time and space to find their own stories and sources,and challenge PR versions of the news. Sound familiar ?

      Phil Hall, ex editor of the News of the World and now head of Phil Hall Associates (PR) joined in..he did not disagree that journalism was in trouble. He argued, this was the fault of the “management consultants that [now]pass for proprietors” not the public relations industry. It is the owners’ Sound familiar ?

      The real enemy of the state is truth. Knowledge. The real terrorism threat to those who hold our strings, is truth. Our only advantage is our number.If we had knowledge too, the shit would fly.

      Google Fiona Woolf / Leon Brittain. Or Elizabeth Butler-Sloss /Leon Brittain. Or , better still :

      https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/sir-michael-havers-brother-of-baroness-butler-sloss/

      Throw The Sun and Hillsborough into the mix and you'll have a good idea where our press is now heading and have been for a long time. Common Purpose, masquerading as a charity on behalf of the elite. The ultimate in controlled information, education and damage limitation on behalf of psychopaths and liars who rule over you and me.

      Good reads...

      http://www.cpexposed.com/sites/default/files/documents/CP_3_Arguidos_McCann.pdf

      http://www.eutruth.org.uk/beyondauthority.html

      Delete
  61. Anonymous27 April 2017 at 00:00

    ''Until there's evidence of this, it's a matter of opinion and probability rather than certainty. No idea what you mean by 'deceased in all but name'.'

    That nobody knows if she's alive or dead. I like to think she's alive, but, realistically, what are the odds ? Once a child that young goes missing, hope fades after about 5 days.It's been ten years now.As far as we're told, no messages or ransom demands have been made. Madeleine's face is known globally now so it's doubtful that the 'childless couple' scenario would make sense unless they keep her in a cupboard and only go out in the dark. The 'anti' mob have declared her dead indirectly by accusing the parents of covering her death up, if not being the cause of it. Their opinions are considered (by themselves) indisputable facts.Dismissed, rejected or no evidence doesn't sway them away from their position.They enjoy it too much. Their opinions are only opinions and theories-even the more ridiculous ones. Until further notice, Madeleine is 'officially' still alive. The laws of probability, sadly, don't hold out much hope unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @ZiggySawdust 27 April 2017 at 13:43

    The likelihood of whether she is dead or not would depend on the reason she was taken, and we don't know that.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous27 April 2017 at 19:30

    Likelihood..probability..same thing but yes, I think anyone would be kidding themselves if thinking it will end well. These small children aren't taken away for anything but recreation for the evil. The parents can be forgiven for holding out hope -who wouldn't ? But I think a few dropped hints from them tell the story that the horrible and obvious likelihood is more realistic and where the clever money is, unfortunately.

    None of us have been privy to their private thoughts and feelings.The released statements are probably diluted for public consumption. They're entitled to keep their feelings and thoughts to themselves as any of us are. I'd like to know what they think about those who hijacked their event and made it what it is.I doubt we ever will.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The outcome has already been decided. If you don't like what's being spent then shut down the forums.

    Or if you wish to carry on. Prove Madeleine never lived at home after the birth of the twins. Plenty of evidence as to that.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I remember on forums it was overheard that Gordon Brown told Silva? that the UK was not ready for such news. Was this a forum invention like that of the fridge?

    ReplyDelete