Saturday, 15 April 2017

WHILE WE WAIT - SOME MYTHS EXPOSED

Apologies to my regular readers for my absence.  I have reached a bit of a watershed with the case of missing Madeleine McCann. I have solved the case to my own satisfaction - that is, enough to quell that gnawing curiosity that drove me at the beginning.  No, I do not have enough to prove it, but if and when Operation Grange produce results, I will know if they followed the right tracks or are selling us a load of old baloney. 

At the moment, there is no point in protesting - what are we protesting about? And there is no point in screaming cover up, because we just don't know that (yet).  Meanwhile, the perpetual tweets, and the  recycling of stories that never worked first time round are just insulting by the 20th.  In all honesty, I am tired of arguing the same points, over and over.  We have all tried, every which way but loose, to rule the parents out of Madeleine's disappearance.  Some of us, simply because we do not want to lose that much faith in human nature.  Many of my readers, I think, have much the same philosophy as myself, that is, their need to solve the puzzle is far greater than any need for retribution. We still trust that justice will be achieved through the due judicial process, that is those responsible for the crimes herein, will stand trial. 

Those Online Trolls and Exposing the Myths 

Whilst it is inevitable that the parents of Madeleine will be judged in the Court of public opinion (you cannot legislate against human nature), it is morally wrong to interfere in the police investigation, and absolutely despicable to put suspects and witnesses on trial by social media.  Some who have followed this case, have taken their 'hobby' way too far, in that they have they conducted their very own public 'investigation' and by investigation, I mean stalking and harassing witnesses, then finding them guilty in their kangaroo courts.  They are nothing more than online vigilantes, people like Richard Hall and Tony Bennett cash in on angry mobs, they can jostle themselves into leadership roles without anyone questioning their  own credibility or agendas.  That they too do not believe the abduction story is enough.  That RH's other hobby is aliens and TB is a homophobic, right wing loon and creationist, matters not, they have filled the gap created by the MSM's failure to report the disappearance of Madeleine truthfully. 
 
Discussing the case of missing Madeleine online became, arguably, the first and most prominent social media PR war.  Battle lines were drawn from the off, social media sites and discussion groups were flooded with 'parents supporters', that is, very aggressive trolls who's clear purpose was to disrupt discussion and issue threats and warnings if anyone criticised the McCanns.  We now know, via Michael Wright in the witness box, that Team McCann did indeed establish a media monitoring unit from the off.  These trolls collected the names and comments of the McCann critics on their website 'Exposing the Myths', along with abusive photoshopped images of their victims and their families.  Their main threat to those questioning the McCanns, was public exposure as an 'online hater', with your employers, your neighbours, friends family etc, being informed of your internet behaviour.  Pretty much a summation of Jim Gamble's rhetoric when he stated critics of the McCanns should be in the dock. 

In a nutshell, 'Exposing the Myths', was the dossier handed to Martin Brunt.  It contained the names and details of hundreds of McCann critics, each of whom could expect the same fate as Brenda Leyland if they didn't toe the line.  Had their evil plan not spectacularly backfired, blogs such as my own, would have become a criminal offence.  As far fetched as that may sound, this particular pack is led by competing alpha males who have taken megalomania off the scale.  Some truly believe that people should be imprisoned for having an alternate opinion and are chomping at the bit to slap a few liberals around.  But the troll story, is just another fascinating aspect of this case, and not the reason for my current malaise. 

The End is Nigh

I don't know what the outcome of this case will be, but I still have enough faith in human nature to believe that the officers investigating this case are working on behalf of the victim.  This is a high profile case with a worldwide audience, a cover up is not an option.  The least controversial statement they can issue at the end would  be 'they are not looking for an abductor'.  And that's a statement they can't avoid, not least to reassure the people of PDL that there is not a predator on the loose, nor are there gangs of child traffickers roaming the Algarve. 

I will always challenge and indeed, ridicule, news designed to mislead and dupe the public, be it from the slick PR team of Mr and Mrs McCann or Official spokesmen of any variety. It irks me that those who provide the mainstream news have such low expectations of their readers' intelligence. Martin Brunt's second biggest mistake was explaining away the excavations in PDL as the abductor removing a deceased Madeleine and burying her in the immediate vicinity while the alarm had been raised and the search was underway.  Why Martin? Why?

My own opinion

But where am I now on the Madeleine mystery?  I reached the point of beyond reasonable doubt many years ago with regard to the parents involvement.  That is, for all the reasons I have given and explained in depth, I think that Goncalo Amaral's theory is the closest we have to the truth of what happened that night.  It wasn't plucked out of thin air, it arose out of the findings of the highly trained dogs, the discrepancies in the witnesses statements (that they refused to clear up with a reconstruction) and the very peculiar behaviour of the parents.  None of which is based on hatred of middle class doctors from the Midlands. 

My own personal theory as to why this case has yet to be 'solved', lies in the number of potential defendants who are involved.  Who gave the order to send in a British Consul to ask the Portuguese police to go easy on the Parents? Who gave the order to appoint a UK Government Family Spokesman - and, err, why?  How were all those police agencies who rushed to the McCanns' assistance, so easily taken in?  If that is the standard of police detection in this country's highest ranking officers, we must all despair! 

To be fair on Operation Grange, when and if, they start writing out a charge sheet, where do they begin?  And what authority do they have to prosecute suspects of crimes committed abroad?  Some of those who actively perverted the course of justice in this case, have since been elevated to peerages.  Or have become part of some New (line your own pockets first) World Order. 

How many highly regarded philanthropists and dooers of good in the UK, how many politicians, how many celebrities, how many newspaper barons, editors, columnists, sofa queens, jumped on the popular bandwagon  gave their unquestioning support to the parents?  Senior police officers, crime experts, national charities?  the list of those complicit, or those who should have known better is seemingly endless.  If you look at the stagnation and the quagmire this case has become and the number of potential defendants, the 6 years and £12million, becomes understandable. 

Will this be another 'Chilcott Inquiry'?  Albeit on a much smaller scale.  That's if anyone has the stomach for it.  After a decade, the world has moved on, perhaps there are bigger, more incriminating scandals that have edged the whole McCann case aside?  Regular journalists are not like we obsessives, every day must bring new injustices, new scandals, stories of greater public interest.

But when it does blow....

Those of us who have stuck with this one, understand the scale of outrage the unravelling of the Madeleine mystery will incite.  The large corporations and the big names involved.  In many ways, I am still astonished that Scotland Yard picked up this poison chalice, though with the formidable Ms. May, I doubt it was optional.  Their problem as I see it, is, if they concur with the conclusions of Goncalo Amaral and the original Portuguese investigation, they will not only have to prosecute all those immediately involved, they will also have to prosecute ALL those who perverted the course of justice - including those who did so in an official capacity, that is, on behalf of HM Government.   Methinks, therein lies the problem.

Those who truly understand the ins and outs of this complicated crime will have a good idea of the kind of investigation being carried out by Scotland Yard and anyone with an ounce of common sense will know there isn't a police force in the world who would spend 6 years looking for one child.  The answers are all there, but if I spell them out, I would be prosecuted for libel.    

Paedophile Rings and Weirdo Allegations

This case is all about money and power, not deviant sex and yuck.  Child abuse is the smokescreen - it kinda works for everyone, child protection agencies, charities and wannabe internet police.  But also those drawn to child abuse issues as survivors, advocates, child protection agencies and the lunatic fringe who see perversion in everything.  It was a 'draw' for myself, as a survivor, I was curious.  At first sight, the statements of the Gaspers and Yvonne Martin are alarming, but they are a very tiny part of the police files and nothing has ever come of them.  Unfortunately,  they were seized on by those desperate to find clues and motives and something more sensational and heinous than a tragic accident. 

In the early days, I was intrigued by the sexual allegations, so I researched them as only a sufferer of OCD can.  Topmost in my mind was  'they made no sense'.  And I speak as someone with experience of living in a childrens' home where kids were regularly abused, mostly physically.  Sadists outnumber paedophiles, if anyone bothers to check, which they never do.  The conspiraloons are creating sickening scenarios that simply never happen, not even in video nasties.    

I think it is the subject of child abuse that has been exploited here, rather than the actual physical abuse of children.  Anyone who truly cared about the protection of children would be on the front line tackling the abuse that goes on in dysfunctional homes daily, not the one in a zillion chance of children being abducted from their beds.   

Why can't we discuss the 'P' word?

Unfortunately, the word paedophilia has become so taboo, that it is impossible to discuss rationally, and most people, the self appointed experts especially, know very little about it.  The perverts they catch are telling them exactly what they want to hear, and they are buying it!  The victims too, have their victimhood reinforced by professionals making a case either for or against, a defendant. 

There are perfectly rational and non emotive ways in which to protect children from those who would abuse them.  Education, education, education.  Whilst we must teach our children to be cautious, it is wrong on every level to fill them with terror.  Most people ARE inherently good, including the foreign waiters who make our kids laugh, and the quiet old gent sat on the park bench.  In filling our kids with fear, we might just as well stamp victim on their forehead. Predators always go for the weakest first. 

The best gift we can give our kids is confidence.  One aspect of this case that irks me particularly, is this 'new fear' young parents have of their babies being abducted.  As if they weren't riddled with enough fears already. Madeleine would not have been abducted if her parents had been there, nor would she have suffered an accident.  That should have been the message we took from the loss of this child's life.

The 'P' word I fear may also have been used to exert pressure over those in power in the same way as homosexuality was in the 50s/60's and of course, almost every decade before. The physical dragging from their homes of ageing celebrities to go on public trial, reminds me of traumatic scenes from The Tudors, in their barbarity. They are little more than witch hunts, an opportunity to score political points and a way in which to win over angry mob by providing a villain for them to throw rotten vegetables at.   And I have little sympathy for the victims of these politicians and celebrities, would their experience have been quite so traumatic if the groper had been, say, Fred the plumber? 

For any man, or woman, the accusation of child abuse, or the possession of 'suspect' photographs, would be life changing.  Not only for the accused, but for their family and friends.  What constitutes a 'suspect' photograph?  And who dare look it up?  As we have seen from the Madeleine case, it is unbelievable what people can interpret from a photograph, and in the case of poor Maddie, a lot of it is pretty twisted. 

The Law cannot keep up with technology, most indecent images of the under-aged are shared and distributed by young teens sharing selfies and pressing the wrong buttons.  Ergo, almost everyone who uses the net can be accused of anything.  And that none of us know anything about these fuzzy laws and who implements them, is scarier still. 

The truth is, most of us don't want to know about Paedophilia, we don't want to discuss it beyond the universal response, of they should all be hung.  However, our ignorance allows those with questionable agendas to keep reinforcing the idea that all our children are in constant danger.  Kids are being robbed of their freedom and opportunities to interact with others and build their own characters and defences. Skills they will need for the rest of their lives.  Don't teach your kids to be fearful, teach them to be brave!

If Madeleine died, and I believe she did, it was not as a result of being sexually abused (and again, yuck), it was as a result of know it all doctors who imagined they had found the solution to childcare whilst on holiday with friends.  A group of doctors, with one presumes, an abundance of knowledge of drugs and anaesthesia between them, find the perfect solution to dining out with friends without the need for a babysitter.  And it was perfect.  Until the Thursday.  Collective decision and all that. 

Will it all end in a fanfare of publicity, ex police chiefs and experts, fighting to tell their stories of how they were duped.  Can you imagine it?  'Yes, I was that stupid'  Right now I'd give almost evens on karma intervening here - to be honest I don't see any way of them avoiding it.  If the abduction is proven to have been faked, there will be a sea of red faces having to admit that they were duped.  From a historical perspective, the karma in this case should be up there amongst the most painful, car crash TV we will ever see in our lifetimes.  I look forward to it.     

Why did they all. the politicians, the spin doctors, the lawyers, the television presenters, hop on board?  How often does a photogenic toddler with squeaky clean parents land in the laps of those pushing missing child charities and police agencies dedicated to tracking down child abuse globally? The Maddie mystery reinforces all those bogeymen stories the authorities keep warning us about. 

Operation Grange, I have no doubt, are committed to producing a result.  You don't keep asking for more time and more funds, if your ultimate goal is to say 'I got nuffink'.  Human nature, plays a part.  Returning to the original crime, the loss of a child's life, I doubt there is any police officer or detective the world over, who would actively participate in covering up the death of a child.  And as much as I think Theresa May is off her rocker, I don't think she would either. 

Operation Grange do not appear to have been investigating anyone in Portugal, Morocco, Spain or beyond.  And indeed, why would they?  It is a Portuguese investigation.  In reality, the only jurisdiction the British police have, is over British citizens - who else are they going to investigate? 

At the moment I have reached a personal crossroads, I want to broaden my horizons, until the Madeleine case has something new and interesting to write about. That is not to say, I won't respond to fake news and misleading commentary, I will, because it is something I feel almost duty bound to do.

There are many aspects of this case that I am longing to discuss in greater depth, but good manners and my own moral guidelines prevent me. The whole sanity aspect of the main players for example, is something I look forward  to exploring immensely, when I can finally write about this case 'unbound'!  The whole subject, I'm afraid, has become frustrating for me because I cannot move on and I cannot go deeper into the aspects that interest me the most.  I'm like one of those bad jokes you hear after a tragedy, where the comic has to add 'too soon?'.  At the moment, I am still the baddy and I am getting tired of being booed and hissed at.  Actually, that's not strictly true, I'm not getting booed and hissed at nearly enough, I'm sure if I really put my mind to it, I could upset a lot more people!  

Happy Easter everyone, and may your eggs (chocolate) be plentiful :)

77 comments:

  1. The saga falls into several main categories

    The children were left home alone night after night
    Mrs McCann refused to answer the police questions
    The T7 refused to participate in the reconstruction, in the style that is usual for the Portuguese legal system

    The behaviour of the McCanns in the immediate aftermath appeared abnormal
    Running back from the apartment without the twins
    Everyone going to bed that night
    Placing them the following day in the crèche
    Bizarre photo shots
    Uncomfortable to watch t.v. interviews, that appeared well scripted
    The years of legal battles with all, including GA

    Control of the media around the events, here I think Blacksmith's last posts, reasonably sums what & how the frenzy was created. And I’ll go with the flow and take it one step further that in order shield commercial enterprise from any fall-out there were lobbyists & PR machines of distraction at work. Rather than as many believe to support the McCanns, rather to throw them to the wolves, if and when necessary.

    Then just to mention online, internet chat. Let us not forget that one step too far, the HATER TROLL, promoted by Summer & Swan, the whole episode, so contrived that tragically went wrong. An amazing episode in the saga from which Gamble and Blunt can not walk away from.

    Who knows whether there will ever be a solution. I have drawn, like you, my own conclusion. I don't feel rattled and niggled that I can no longer cross the t's and dot the i's. I have assimilate a scenario & that gives me a solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for your interesting post 17:42, and I agree with you entirely. And on Blacksmith too, he is always a great read.

      Delete
  2. Amaral's theory will have to be revised, if only as to the date of Madeleine's death. That's because of Dr Martin Roberts' excellent study of the issue of Madeleine's pyjamas, which is only now starting to be noticed. He wrote it over a year ago - too long to explain in detail, but basically Maddie's pyjamas were photographed by the McCanns the morning she was reported missing, and then held up weeks later at two press conferences where the McCanns had the brass neck to claim they were Amelie's! Little Amelie knocked that one on the head when she was asked to try on the pyjamas and said: 'Maddie's jammies. Where is Maddie?' Surely hubris will bring the McCanns down eventually?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on the hubris 17:43, but not the date of Madeleine's demise. I remain with the theory of Goncalo Amaral.

      Delete
  3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 April 2017 at 18:52
    I agree on the hubris 17:43, but not the date of Madeleine's demise. I remain with the theory of Goncalo Amaral.

    The must have been up all night cleaning then, the place was Maddy DNA free , the crèche records and account don't add up ,I think they had a bit more time Thursday was show time

    ReplyDelete
  4. Please don't give up on your thoughts of The McCann case. I look forward to reading your musings on events. Hoping you will reconsider..............

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellently written Rosalinda, although I don't completely agree with you (but many thanks for publishing comments}. Someone else once said that knowledge is always a work in progress, and I’ve taken the liberty of believing that Amaral would agree.

    Wishing you Rosalinda & everyone A to Z! a happy Easter that is filled with plenty of love and colourful eggs.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for your kind wishes NL and a Happy Easter to you. I feel we are on the brink of something, and speculating on the minutiae, that has been done to death, is a little pointless.

      Those who fail to grasp the facts, that is the findings of dogs and glaring discrepancies in the statements, are like those religious martyrs of old, they would prefer to be burned at the stake than admit they are wrong. You can't win against people like that, from now on in, I'm going to say 'here's a match'!

      Delete
  6. I hope you keep posting ros this case is nearing the end we all will know very soon what road OG and the PJ will go.best McCann blog on line keep the posts coming.happy Easter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John, I am sure I will keep posting on this case, as the finale is yet to come and who knows what the 10th anniversary will bring! Anyway, happy Easter to you too.

      Delete
  7. Ros

    I am glad you are ok and thinking rationally.

    How can there be sensible discussion with liars and idiots?

    How do you have a sensible discussion if the opposing view proudly state they have not read the books or documents?

    How do you have a sensible dialogue with the Bennets, RD Halls, Peter Macs, who embellish, distort or simply lie about even the simplest of items of interest?

    How do you have a sensible discussion with people who have heavily weighted financial inducements to promote a certain point of view?

    The McCann case is simple. It is the plethora of lies smears and innuendo which has kept it going.

    It is reasonble to assume the Mccanns and their friends have reasons to lie but what excuse is there for people like Bennett and Hall.

    One simple example.

    For ten years Bennett and Hall have laboured over and over (Hall in his latest film) that Murat rushed home under orders on Tuesday 1st May after booking his ticket very late on Monday night 30th April or very early on May 1st.

    The PJ files clearly show Flybe confirmed Murat's reservation at 01.57 on Monday 30th April.

    Murat then flew 29hrs later.

    Bennett and Hall know this but still peddle their lies.

    Anyone can look up the PJ files and see the truth for themselves. But they see Bennett and Hall as the messiah whose research is the 'gospel'

    There really is no point in discussing anything with these cretins, they are in a world of delusion and deceit and have no interest in the truth, past, present or in the future.

    You are so right, there are many interesting facets to this case and yours is probably the last Mccann blog that allows independent lines of thought. Thereby, all sensible discussion will be crushed, it cannot be any other way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lovely to hear your considered thoughts JJ. I'm not giving up on the Madeleine case, far from it, I still believe it is the Crime of the Century and it is close to breaking point.

      I'm frustrated at the moment because we are so close to being able to discuss this case truthfully, that is without the 'imo's and 'it is alleged', lol.

      I have become a little bored with arguing the same finer details over and over, JJ, and feel this blog must evolve in some way, to stay current and relevant.

      With Bennett, Hall, Petermac etc, my sympathy lies with all those who have wasted so much time reading, watching and listening to them. I remember how vexed I was myself at the precious time I lost on their nonsense, especially as there was so much real information out there!

      Bennett and Hall are the lazy option JJ. The quick fix. For those taking a peek behind the headlines B&H provide all the answers without having to read the boring files, statements and books. They have done the work for you.

      I have made it sound worse than it is, it's what all journalists, reporters and bloggers, including myself, do. We do all the tough reading and pick out the highlights, for people who haven't got the time or inclination. You can see however, how easy it is to distort the news and facts and B&H have done so spectacularly.

      So why have Bennett and Hall created an alternate scenario? A scenario that effectively suggests a network of paedophiles beginning with poor old Robert Murat.

      In many ways the agenda of B&H is not too dissimilar to the agenda of CEOP. Both their 'investigations' begin with the contents of Robert Murat's computer (probably no different to most adult males in any vicinity),and a weird anonymous tip off that he abused animals as a kid.

      Robert Murat was initially profiled as a prime suspect by a British police agency, and Bennett and Hall have run with it.

      Some might say Tony Bennett and Jim Gamble have every reason to be at loggerheads, but in many respects they are very similar. Particularly, their interests in child protection.

      Bennett is troubled by what goes in his head regarding Robert Murat, but not nearly as troubled as he was by the £600k+ compensation RM was awarded by the UK tabloids. It should have me, he cried.

      Money is the answer to every question JJ, and B&H have tried to pre-empt the media storm that is to come by solving the case themselves. They are cut and run chancers, they have taken the short and popular cut to success with the minimum of work and zero talent. See Bennett's 'Madeleine Foundation'.

      I will always allow independent lines of thought JJ, but I will have to be more careful to avoid those quagmires. And yes, I know, you did warn me. ;)

      Delete
  8. JJ @11:23

    Good to see you're still around.

    Could you please oblige me with an answer to my earlier question on the previous topic?

    JJ @09:07

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous16 April 2017 at 12:05

      You'll be lucky if you ever get a reply from JJ - post and run is the normal procedure - then return again a few weeks later and post the same again.

      Delete
    2. 14:44

      Well it is 'third time of asking'.

      The confirmation requested is of potential importance. If it is not forthcoming I shall simply dismiss the original statement as unreliable.

      Delete
    3. @ 16:00

      I know it is the 3rd time of asking - time will tell if JJ will bother to reply. I dismissed JJ comments a long time ago for lack of answering requests to prove the statements it makes.

      Delete
  9. Ros says "I still believe it is the Crime of the Century"

    As we are only 17 years into the Century - we only have to wait 83 years to see if you are correct!

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's hilarious watching the two main hate forums having a war and trying to draw meaningful conclusions from a photo of Madeleine's pyjamas.

    Both forums together with all the associated "experts" who they are quoting have got everything completely wrong as usual.

    I predict much backtracking and maybe yet another head researcher apology in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 15:01

      What's your own area of expertise? Palmistry? Tarot Cards? Tea leaves, maybe?

      Delete
    2. @ 15:56

      None of the above - but they have all been used on hater forums at some time to prove the Mccanns dunnit.

      You could also add body language, handwriting analysis, strange things said, dodgy photos, volcanoes, Freemasons, pampas grass, nudges and winks, gut feelings etc etc etc.

      Ros is the expert - why don't you ask her?

      Delete
    3. @16:22

      "Ros is the expert - why don't you ask her?"

      Because you made the statement about everyone being completely wrong, as usual, and subsequent prediction of apologies etc.

      Delete
    4. @ 17:08

      yes they are wrong - you sit back and watch what happens as they collapse and backtrack.

      Delete
  11. Regardless of various disagreements, happy Esster.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with you that Madeleine's death was unintentional but involved something (maybe sedatives, or perhaps a moment of madness, as GM said) for which they'd be held responsible. I don't believe the p word had anything to do with it but can't blame people for speculating on that scenario. For you to label them as "Conspiraloons" is a little harsh I think :) The McCanns have encouraged that kind of speculation themselves, even going so far as releasing photos that should've been kept for the family album. They're not stupid & well aware those photos would provoke speculation. A very odd thing for a parent to do but a deliberate red herring or distraction in my opinion. Their PR has always been about creating a storm of controversy & confusion, it's what's kept them in the news for a decade & they've felt safe in the glare of publicity. The obscure are a much easier target for law enforcement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 16:17

      Broadly speaking, I agree with you, but I doubt the McCanns have encouraged that kind of speculation. Nevertheless, I cannot ignore the fact that they gave their approval.

      Delete
  13. Ros says:

    "I have solved the case to my own satisfaction - that is, enough to quell that gnawing curiosity that drove me at the beginning. No, I do not have enough to prove it"

    So you have not solved the case - you have just satisfied yourself that you are right.

    Then you go on to say:

    "but if and when Operation Grange produce results, I will know if they followed the right tracks or are selling us a load of old baloney."

    In other words if OG don't agree with you they are wrong - you know you have sat on your ass for 10 years and read what has been released in files/press reports/forums comments and you know more than OG?

    Even worse you go on to say:

    " and absolutely despicable to put suspects and witnesses on trial by social media."

    But that is Exactly what you have done for 10 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I, and thousands like me have had very good reason to reach the conclusions we have with the parents and their close companions. They are lying to us! Directly, that is, right in our faces. And we can only guess at the harm their lies have inflicted on others. People don't lie for kind philanthropic reasons. They are deliberately hurting innocent people, eg, Goncalo Amaral and the late Brenda Leyland.

      Those unfortunate enough to have been named in the police files have not capitalised on their connection to this case, nor are they regularly issuing press releases with false information.

      The McCanns have put themselves on trial 16:32, every time they appeared on camera and gave an interview. Knowingly or unknowingly, they are asking the public to judge them. Their vanity assumes that they are winning people over, but reality is the opposite. As I said in a recent blog we all have the ability to spot lies, and we don't like people who lie to us.

      I make no apologies for reaching the conclusions I have, I have merely followed the facts and the evidence.

      Delete
  14. Ros says:

    "At the moment, I am still the baddy and I am getting tired of being booed and hissed at."

    For once I nearly agree with you. But the truth is that you are not welcome on any forum because for some unknown reason you have made the Mccann case about YOU. You could choose to move on and not comment on the case any more as a lot of people have done.

    You keep on blogging with your "donate" button because you are making money out of the Mccann case. You have never ever posted anything original about the case, you have never discovered anything new behind the case in fact you have only repeated what Amaral says - nothing more at all.

    You should step away and get on with your life because you have repeatedly told us that the Mccann case has ruined everything in your life (and I can prove it from your own blog).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy Easter Anon 16 April at 16:59

      You claim that Rosalinda has ”never discovered anything new behind the case”

      I presume you are referring to something new beyond what is known to most people and documented in the extensive Portuguese investigation, which was filed in 2008. So I assume that you know of somebody (not Rosalinda), who has found something. What could that be and discovered by whom?

      Delete
    2. Another long time fan I see, lol.

      I'm not welcome on any forum because I refuse to toe any part line and I refuse to be censored 16:59. I must create my own system or be enslaved by another man's* (or woman's) :) I also hate the pettiness, the bickering, and the chumming up to admin, lol.

      As for making this case 'all about YOU' (you used to say 'me, me, me', what can I say? The personal touches are all part of my, some might say, unique writing style. I cannot suppress my inner 'entertainer' or the urge to throw custard pies. Some like it, some don't, matters not, it is beyond my control. My old lecturers weren't fans either, one returned my assignment with the comment 'this bears no resemblance to an academic essay whatsoever'.

      I am not writing about this case as an investigative journalist, and I haven't discovered anything new, because I am not prepared to make stuff up! I muse 16:59, I am not offering myself as an expert witness on the shutters/weather/dogs/photographs or whatever, should this case ever come to trial.

      As for your Amaral comment, thank you for confirming that. I have indeed stuck with what 'Amaral' says, because he was the lead detective, there on the ground, and actively working on finding Madeleine. That I believe him over Bennett, Hall, Hideho, and Hyatt, should be a no brainer.

      If you do not understand why a writer (an artiste dahlink) would put a donate button alongside their work (the result of much blood, sweat and tears), I really can't be arsed explaining it to you.

      The McCann case did change my life. I was doing quite nicely actually, I had been offered a book deal by major publishers, and I had two Sony nominations under my belt. When my commentary on the McCann case came under scrutiny, I was untouchable. Blacklisted.

      However, I choose not to dwell on past life decisions, I could have been like every other struggling writer and kept my trap shut, but I didn't. It was my own choice.

      As for my book - I never really wanted to write a misery memoir, and as it turned out, I didn't, lol. I broke the genre by leaving out the graphics and throwing in a few laughs. Not quite what the regular audience expected.

      The McCann case hasn't 'ruined everything' - good grief, I'm adult enough not to blame others for things that have gone wrong (or perhaps even right) in my life. This case has taken me along another path is all, and opened many new areas for interest for me. I have an insatiable desire for knowledge 16:59 and in many ways this is a journey of discovery, with quite a few of us onboard. It has also opened other and different doors for me, so I am not complaining. The interactive nature of this blog encourages new ideas and new perspectives, so many times contributors have made me stop and re-think. I don't want to be stuck in one dimension - ever! I never take for granted, the great minds who take the time to read and contribute here. I have learned much from them, as I am sure my readers have too.

      Returning to the 'me, me, me,' that you really wanted to say, yes I use my own experiences. Mostly because I am one of life's born teachers. I cannot help but growl at students and correct small children's language. I once found myself struggling to get into a parking space where a box was in the way and a young lad was standing close by. I actually shouted 'YES - YOU!', when he failed to pick up on my signals, lol. I hasten to add, I did apologise. But, like above, the school marm, is beyond my control :)

      Delete

    3. My heart, if not my brain, is in the right place. I hope that my easy going writing style will encourage those who hesitate to put pen to paper - perhaps show them, that 'writing' is not reserved for the elite and may even the nudge they need to write that novel, journal, memoir. People are always asking me to write their stories - I want to show them how easy it is to write them themselves.

      Writing is great for everyone, and finding your inner ability to put your feelings into words, is probably one of the greatest releases a manic depressive can find. Especially for those of us who cannot resist the urge to communicate with someone - even if it is 4.00 in the morning. That's what happens to little chatterboxes, at some point, they haven't got mummy, daddy, and all those that love them, hanging onto their every word.

      It's a harsh realisation, but it comes to all of us. Our need to pass on everything we have discovered, doesn't diminish. I have to be honest here, I went into lecturing because I pretty much love the sound of my own voice. In a classroom you have a captive audience. Of course, I was quickly humbled by the students, many of whom had far more valid points than my own, lol.

      For those who's minds are in constant turmoil who have reached the stage where even the mutt switches off - a blank page, is a new start, it can take you to a different plane. Far more cathartic than a punch bag, as long as you don't post anything. Well not without reading it again in the cold light of day.

      It irks me that people, such as yourself 16:59, are so condemnatory, of a working class woman, such as moi, having the audacity to consider myself a writer. I can almost hear you screaming, 'go and get a proper job, you lazy cow'. Why shouldn't I be writer, why shouldn't I have those dreams? Why shouldn't I make a living out of a craft that I have spent a lifetime perfecting? Would you say the same to a painter or musician?

      I don't care that you dislike my writing style 16:59, I write for myself, for own pleasure if you like. That is, I write the kind of stuff that I personally like to read. I have little time for formal writing beyond scanning it for key points. I know if I wait a few years, someone will have gone through the boring stuff for me. That is my common practice, and indeed the common practice of most people. With the McCann case, I'm the one who does all the boring reading. Ce la vie.

      Your final paragraph is odd, and a little creepy, but prove away, lol. Happily, my mind, brain, perspective of the world, continues to expand every day. I can, for example, say categorically, I do not hold the same views I had at the age of 16, for example. Actually, in a number of cases, I would be hard pushed to say I have the same views as I did last week. I see no pride in being a staunch anything, you might just as well describe yourself as a dinosaur. I'm not a fan of carving my points of view in stone, as if, lol. I always retain the right to change my mind! :)

      Delete
    4. Happy Easter Bjorn and nice to see you :)

      The idea that I could discover anything new via my laptop, the 10 year old PJ files or the in depth study of a McCann family photograph, is of course absurd Bjorn. And, which is of course why I, and those remaining sane commentators on this case, never make outlandish claims. We wouldn't be that stupid, because we know anything we say will have long term repercussions. We are approaching the time where the cut and run merchants will be sorted from the truthful commentators. I look forward to it.

      Delete
    5. @ Björn16 April 2017 at 18:57

      I and many other people discovered this simple fact:

      "The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code."

      A fact ignored by the Mccann haters.

      Delete
    6. "Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."

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

      Delete
  15. You hate the #mccann but you post:

    Cristobell Author‏ @RosalindaHu 7h

    CRISTOBELL UNBOUND http://cristobell.blogspot.com/?spref=tw
    SOME MYTHS EXPOSED
    #mccann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The #McCann hashtag is what it is 17:06, it's composition is neither here nor there to me. People who want to read McCann stuff go there, why wouldn't I use it?

      Delete
  16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RazOGuQ_r8E

    11:40 Lisa Holland (Sky News):

    "When they returned to that apartment at 9:45 last night they found the doors and the windows wide open..."

    ReplyDelete
  17. The crime of the century indeed.As someone above this post says, we're only 17 years in, but i get the meaning(the last 100 years if we avoid being being pedantic).I don't think it is, personally.I think the two rows we had with Johnny Foreigner (1914 and 1939) were criminal ( although the bankers who funded them at interest would disagree).Then there's the weirdly dark Lindbergh case( that was reported as 'the worst crime since the crucifixion' by the hyperbole-obsessed yanks).That was a whitewash of gargantuan proportions.Of course there was that little rumpus on Dealey Plaza in 1963. 'The Twin Towers Attack' was a crime too-not to mention the resultant illegal war that made the leaders of the allies billionaires. But, I take the point. I think the McCann case will be remembered for as long -and disputed and discussed for as long -due, in my opinion,to the need to protect culprit/s, ignore 'evidence', replace detectives who were not looking 'the other way' ( as seems indisputable now, as was the quickly - installed 'remit' from hour 1), and the almost forensic interest shown in it by politicians.

    Whereas the aforementioned crimes( and questionable accompanying official narratives) were of huge political or social importance( even the protecting of rampant eugenicist, Lindbergh), the McCann case has occurred amidst the biggest and most influential shift in the evolution of the collective psyche, unfortunately. We've progressed( so rumour has it) from ape man to virtual man. Welcome to the new home of the grandiosely titled 'court of public opinion'- the internet. It's the biggest jury in history.So large and so vastly knowledgeable (apparently), they don't even require the services of the police or a court ( of law ) or the cross examination of suspects by learned QC's. It's a paradoxical affair really.On the one hand it's sheer volume of membership is staggering ; on the other hand, if you attempt to introduce a concept that goes against whatever it has (collectively) decided is the grain, or point out that they may have made a mistake that needs a little more support, you find out just how, in reality, parochial it is. That's the most tricky part of understanding the illusion of their credibility and it's often irrational self-proclaimed 'expertise'. A cursory reading of their 'work' could kid you into believing, due to the size of it's membership, that hundreds of thousands of people have added their own little piece until,at the end, there is one huge and well constructed piece that's been carefully and painstakingly constructed.But cursory glances only show you a surface. Dig a little deeper and, more often than not, the actual amount of their 'little pieces' seldom reach double figures.They just get echoed or repeated by tens of thousands of others who liked the particular piece that had impressed them the most.It's still only a handful of pieces, nonetheless( don't tell them I told you).

    Mobs and tribes are the new age. The earliest tribal apes had to fight and kill to survive and grow in number and even integrate new tribes until it was dominant.Those old drives were not buried as deeply by evolution as we have taught ourselves, apparently.it just needed a new outlet to be presented in which to exert the inner chest-beater ; a new playground.

    Try it for yourself . Tap away at the collective wisdom-see what happens.Watch the composure disintegrate . Step aside, stand back, and wonder at postmodern man and the new rock n roll.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shat a strange interpretation you have of evolution Ziggy,

    The internet, in reality is no different to any other form of communication, the most convincing argument will. And of course, nothing is more persuasive than the truth, the truth is our ultimate goal, it wins over falsehoods every time.

    You vastly underestimate the intelligence of the general public Ziggy, you are completely overlooking the fact that absolutely everything can be googled. The public are better informed than they have been at any time in history.

    It is patronising to assume that people are wrong because they don't hold the same views as yourself, and a tad arrogant. You have said yourself that you have not read the books, so you are the least informed among us. Why should we listen to you?

    No stepping aside is needed Ziggy, we have reached our opinions with through the due process and the due diligence, you will never convince us that black is white!

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Ros 16 April 2017 at 23:11

    ''You vastly underestimate the intelligence of the general public Ziggy, you are completely overlooking the fact that absolutely everything can be googled.''

    Googled. The Internet again. maybe another new theory is born here( one that will, without any doubt whatsoever) incriminate the McCanns.

    So, the original lead detective and his team, his replacement, SY, private investigators and God knows who else have failed in this case because the one tool available to them that was never utilised- Google.

    ''It is patronising to assume that people are wrong because they don't hold the same views as yourself, and a tad arrogant.''

    That would be more appropriate if it was directed TO you( and Bennet et al) not FROM you. You won't let anything like the famous files, the discarded 'evidence' and the lack of anyting substantial offered by any police, sway you from your open minded view of 'it was the parents-simple'.

    My views are no secret. I believe the abduction story. I believe the governments interest is too big and too careful for a run of the mill abduction.I don't say the McCanns are guilty. I don't say they're innocent either. I say it's all wide open.So do the 'arrogant' police forced behind any 'operation' you want to mention. The child has only been declared dead by Amaral and blogs like this. Nobody else.

    ''we have reached our opinions with through the due process and the due diligence, you will never convince us that black is white!''

    The only good thing about being a part of such a huge 'we' is that responsibility is diffused far more than is respectable or even moral. I won't try and convince you that the police said that forensic evidence has been declared void, including that 'found' by any dog. I won't try and convince you that the McCanns are innocent until proven guilty. I won't try to convince you that they are not official suspects in any country. All of these are facts.Not social media mob facts, real ones.If you think they are black but pretending to be white just to kid you, you must be beyond being taught anything.You have your reasons for that no doubt.I won't say it's arrogance, i'll leave the name calling to you and your team /followers. You have more experience in that area. If these facts represent someone trying to kid you that black is white, then you are calling every detective( and copper) and investigator( and scientist)liars to a man. A big cover up by one and all with the sole intention of protecting two 'holidayers' abroad. There's no way of suggesting they( detectives /scientists) were NOT lying if the forensic evidence , statements and photographs were all investigated and set aside, thus freeing the McCanns of any risk of being charged, and state that all that ALL of that evidence 'clearly' points to the guilt of the McCanns. Tell them they're arrogant. Tell them they won't convince you that black is white.Then tell them how you KNOW that the evidence incriminates the parents.Ask them why they hid it all or ignored it. Aim at the real targets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You won't convince me or anyone that the police said the forensic evidence has been declared void, because they haven't! And it is blatant lies like this that drag the discussion downwards.

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosa, why do you discount the possibility of paedophile rings being present in Luz? There have been many elites and high level Freemasons​ proven to be connected to Luz, Clement Freud, cliff kitty Richard, then there's Philip Martin Edmunds and more. There is something very wrong with the elite classes and there's more than enough evidence in the public domain to warrant a full scale investigation but it won't happen because these people are literally above the law.

      Delete
    3. Ziggy Sawdust
      16.4, @23:57

      "Aim at the real targets" you say - as outlined earlier:

      "I think the McCann case will be remembered for as long -and disputed and discussed for as long -due, in my opinion, to the need to protect culprit/s, ignore 'evidence', replace detectives who were not looking 'the other way' (as seems indisputable now, as was the quickly - installed 'remit' from hour 1), and the almost forensic interest shown in it by politicians."

      Your point is sound, but likely to fall on deaf ears for two reasons at least:

      First, the catalogue of clues to which you refer is too often brushed aside in favour of vacuous prose.

      Second, those who ignore such things have no idea where to focus their attention beyond their own familiar patch of understanding.

      Third...like it or not the verbal democracy that is the internet is the victim of its own success. We are daily regaled with examples of how information conveyed via the web is less and less trustworthy.

      So who is going to set any store in the outcome of slanging matches between the semi-literate and the ignorant, especially when those more trusted figures in our real world democracy caution against doing so?

      Until such time as Blacksmith's prayers are answered, 'I read it on xyz blog', even shouted from the rooftops, will be quickly drowned out by what is shouted in the 'red tops'.

      Delete
    4. Because I don't believe the myth of paedophile rings Chris. I'm not denying that such rings have existed, most notably when kids were easily available via children's homes and religious institutions.

      In recent history, I can think of only two genuine'P' rings uncovered in the UK. One a small group of creepy antisocial men, I'm struggling to remember the key names there, but none were members of the establishment or the elite. The other was the Little Ted nursery, again a small gang of creeps not high flying achievers.

      Whilst people like Clement Freud, Cliff Richard may have tastes outside the norm, it is highly unlikely that they climbed in children's bedroom windows. And what on earth are you accusing Philip Edmonds of? Please don't do that on my blog.

      There is something very wrong with the elite classes - and it's not deviant sex, it's insatiable greed. People do not move up in the world by having sex with kids. If they are using sex to progress their careers and inflate their bank accounts, they sleep UP. There is nothing to be gained from flirting with a three year old.

      Paedophiles, are no different to any other sexuality, in that they do what they do in private. Heterosexuals do not post their bedroom activity on facebook, so why assume Paedophilia is a group activity?

      And who are the victims of these paedophile networks? Lessons have been learned in that vulnerable children are no longer handed over lock, stock and barrel to inhumane religious institutions.

      If these paedophile rings exist Chris, who are they abusing? I don't know if you are familiar with the Belgian serial killer and child molester, Marc Dutroux, but while he was on the loose the people of Belgium knew about it. Children were literally being snatched off the streets.

      Happily a child cannot just disappear without a public outcry. And no police force would give up on a child snatched by a paedophile gang. If such a 'P' ring existed in PDL and the surrounding areas, they have been investigated for a decade and borrowing Gerry's famous words, there's no evidence.

      Delete
    5. Hi Rosa i apologize for naming Philip Edmunds on your blog, and yeah you're right about the children's homes​ being easy targets for certain sub human animals. I won't go into that anymore though, i was merely asking your opinion out of curiosity. I'll refrain from writing names in the future as well.🙂

      Delete
  20. ZiggySawdust16 April 2017 at 22:31

    '' Tap away at the collective wisdom-see what happens.Watch the composure disintegrate .''

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 April 2017 at 23:11

    ''It is patronising to assume that people are wrong because they don't hold the same views as yourself, and a tad arrogant.....you are the least informed among us. Why should we listen to you? ... you will never convince us that black is white!''

    yep..I know..nobody will- that door marked 'new suggestions and alternative views' is just for show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your suggestions and alternative views are published Ziggy, If you are not persuading anyone, it's down to you.

      Delete
  21. Amaral was not the lead detective - he was the co-ordinator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Rosa, another interesting article. I have believed that the parents were involved with what happened to Madeleine from the start but whilst Amarals​ accidental death thesis is plausible it just doesn't sit well with me purely because of the immediate high level cover up, there's so much about this case that screams cover up and for that reason i believe that what ever happened it's a bit more sinister and serious than a simple accidental death. I'm not going to go into details but there is a lot of evidence be it circumstancal in the public domain, the fact the Clarence Mitchell was shipped out within a matter of days also speaks volumes. I know is some of you won't agree with me but that's ok, we're all human and if everyone agreed with everything we would live in a boring world. Hope all is well, and i look forward to seeing what others think of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chris, Rosalinda and others

      I've always tried to find easy explanations to what seems to be conspiracy and cover-up.

      When the McCanns launched their fairy tale about an abduction, they were generally perceived as nice and decent middle class people in virtue of their professions. It was just as easy for the political establishment to feel sympathy for them as to feel disgust for an imaginative underclass perpetrator. So the McCanns, from the perspective of the British Government, immediately became a part of us, while the alleged abductor, together with everyone (as well as the Portuguese P J), who questioned the official version of a stranger abduction, became the other.

      As soon as a government identifies the dreaded and abominable other, it will combat it, or at least pretend to do so in order to strengthen its own power. The U K Government still “acts accordingly”

      Many politicians of those who have been representing the British Government these years, three Prime Ministers (especially David Cameron) and the so called “spokesman” Clarence Mitchell may well have realized that they are mistaken about the McCanns’ innocence, and if they have, there is definitely a cover-up going on, but what these people are covering up isn’t really any kind of paedophilia, but just their own stupidity of having been so easily fooled by the McCanns and their team of liars ten years ago. Nothing else.



      Delete
    2. Bravo Bjorn, you have explained it all brilliantly!

      While at Uni, I studied 'The Gothic' (deliciously interesting) and am familiar with 'the other' - the unheimlich. It is a wonderful narrative device, especially when writing fiction!

      However, the reality is altogether different, for whatever reason wannabe tyrants always want to pick on and isolate groups they select as 'different', a target for us to hate so we can ignore what they are doing. A recent post from Chris (sorry Chris) illustrates the effects of disinformation. Those going after the freemasons, the illuminati and the elite for alleged sex crimes, are totally overlooking all the corruption and self enrichment. Deh!

      Somewhere in my blogs Bjorn, I think I have discussed the other, in the form of 'the bogeyman'. In the early days, the McCanns wanted all pre school tots to be traumatised with the idea that a stranger could climb in their bedroom window and steal them. Madness I know, but a good marketing ploy. It was cinema ad I believe and quickly removed after complaints from parents.

      Gerry and Kate do indeed represent the 'classic' as opposed to the gothic. Clean cut, professional, smart, respectable, church going, financially secure (?), placed Gerry and Kate above suspicion. Which just goes to show how easily we are indoctrinated as small children, to respect the classic ideology and all the codes and conventions that come with it. Steer clear of knocking back the vino with Bacchus lol.

      I don't quite know what it will take to explain that the kind of perversions these conspiraloons imagine, haven't really gone on since Roman times.

      There will always be men and women who take their admiration of the young and lithe way too far, but like any form of sex, it is not generally a group activity. And it's highly unlikely to advance anyone's career.

      Paedophiles are, on the whole, socially inept losers, loners and outcasts. They go after children because they cannot engage with people of their own age.

      The more active paedophiles have wormed their way into families with vulnerable children. They are not looking on the net for kids to abuse because they already have them. This is the largest group of 'P's by the way, and the one most ignored.

      How sick would a person have to be to use their own child for sex? And indeed, pass their beloved child around to their friends? Yuck indeed. It simply doesn't happen, and we know this, because there is not a single case in history where it has.

      I think the professionals involved in this case have taken stupidity to new heights Bjorn. It would be reasonable to say, I think, that a lot of reputations could bite the dust. In some cases, if there is any justice, there should be charges of perverting the course of justice. The Portuguese investigation is referred to as the 'Interrupted Investigation', it was heading towards a conclusion but someone stopped it.

      Delete
    3. Hi Rosalinda and thanks again for feed back.
      Yes, very simple psychological mechanisms can sometimes illuminate what seems to be so strange and complicated at first sight.

      You're quite right about that the investigation was "heading towards a conclusion" but for unknown reasons it was stopped, which is something that everybody should be reminded about.

      Delete
  23. Anonymous17 April 2017 at 00:40

    ''Amaral was not the lead detective - he was the co-ordinator.''

    And now he's an author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton17 April 2017 at 09:38

    ''You won't convince me or anyone that the police said the forensic evidence has been declared void, because they haven't! And it is blatant lies like this that drag the discussion downwards.''

    (tap, tap, tap...)

    My mistake then, in that case. I was under the impression that it hadn't been used for anything whatsoever. I know it's only ten years into the investigation, but surely with evidence of a corpse, evidence of 'blood spatter', and DNA 'matches', there would have been at least one arrest by now. Because the current state of play is the opposite, i made the mistake( sorry-told the' lie ' as you prefer to phrase it when coming from anyone not supporting you and Bennet) of thinking that it was, for all intents and purposes-void.
    Obviously, if the police and /or scientists have performed an about -turn and are prepared to present it, I stand corrected.Maybe it was in one of the 'books' i refused to read.

    ''Your suggestions and alternative views are published Ziggy, If you are not persuading anyone, it's down to you.''

    Not entirely down to me, is it.Deaf ears , closed minds etc..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cry me a river Ziggy, anyone who reads regularly on here knows your tactics by now,write 75% truth and try to hide in 25% lies. You have been doing it so long Im not even sure YOU realise that you are doing it sometimes. You know full well that any forensic evidence found has NOT been declared void. Your to clever to act so stupid.

      Delete
  25. @Anonymous17 April 2017 at 13:12

    I knew there would be a voice of reason from a balanced and informed mind eventually.Good to see.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonnymous 17 April 2017 at 13:12

    Concur. Happy Easter.

    Minor =Tom= (T)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous17 April 2017 at 15:54
    ' T'
    And a happy Easter to you, major.In fact, to one and all..

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous17 April 2017 at 20:39

    ''Cry me a river Ziggy, anyone who reads regularly on here knows your tactics by now,write 75% truth and try to hide in 25% lies. ''

    here we go again..( tap tap tap)

    Which part of this riddlesome anxiety attack do i address first ?

    You say I have 'tactics'. Really ? Why would I need tactics for a discussion ?It's not a chess match.. You-and those who 'regularly read' here think I have. So, you not only 'know' this about me( a complete stranger who types words and posts them in a forum) but you claim to speak for others too. A mind reader and a psychic all in one.Do you do card tricks too ?

    When you talk about 'truth' and 'lies', are you talking about actual truth and actual lies ? You know, truth as in proven fact that can't be exposed as a lie by anything and 'lie' as in something that can be exposed by a proveable truth ? Or are you calling opinions facts, as seems the way on blogs that pretend to be 'open discussions'. I don't lie on here( unless, of course I have and forgotten it. Please feel free to remind me where and when and how). What would be the point of lying about something you've repeatedly stated you have no proof of any way? I state my take on things and i ask questions of things and people.How can I lie doing either of those things ?What do I have the capability of 'hiding' that concerns this case. I know what everyone else knows.That is, not enough to state anything as a fact. The police have the same problem.

    ''You have been doing it so long Im not even sure YOU realise that you are doing it sometimes''

    You have questionable observation skills.Your imagination is running away with you.

    ''You know full well that any forensic evidence found has NOT been declared void. ''

    Officially, no declaration may have been made or rubber stamp applied.But, whatever it is or isn't, nothing has resulted of it.Ten years ? That's void in all but name.

    ''Your to clever to act so stupid.''

    I'm far from stupid, but I appreciate the thoughts you share. I don't act stupid; I don't act clever.I don't act. I think.I share thoughts. I question.Questioning is important if you want to develop your mind.Parrots can answer ( and repeat).

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Ros - I am very surprised that the comment Chris Connell17 April 2017 at 12:46 is still showing.

    It is clear libel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ignoring comments - or preceding you are are to busy to deal with things is not a defence!

      Delete
  30. @ Bjorn

    Björn17 April 2017 at 21:48

    ''I've always tried to find easy explanations to what seems to be conspiracy and cover-up.''

    ''When the McCanns launched their fairy tale about an abduction, they were generally perceived as nice and decent middle class people in virtue of their professions''

    Have you got any proof that it was a fairy tale ? You won't find your 'easy explanation' to any conspiracy or cover ups by beginning with an assertion that has no proof to support it. The McCanns weren't perceived as nice decent people due to their professions, they were perceived as the victims of a horrible event.People were shocked and sympathetic when it hit the headlines. Are you suggesting nobody would have been shocked or sympathetic if the parents worked in a factory ?

    ''. It was just as easy for the political establishment to feel sympathy for them as to feel disgust for an imaginative underclass perpetrator.''

    Why does a 'perpetrator' have to be from the 'underclass' ? Were the 'perpetrators' behind the Portuguese Casa Pia case form an underclass ? Not all criminals are poor.

    '' the alleged abductor, together with everyone (as well as the Portuguese P J), who questioned the official version of a stranger abduction, became the other. ''

    The PJ had a duty and responsibility to investigate as many possible scenarios as possible-including an abduction. If they doubt any they have a duty to eliminate them based on it's lack of validity and the validity of available evidence that supports that decision.

    ''politicians of those who have been representing the British Government these years, three Prime Ministers (especially David Cameron) and the so called “spokesman” Clarence Mitchell...but what these people are covering up isn’t really any kind of paedophilia, but just their own stupidity of having been so easily fooled by the McCanns and their team of liars ten years ago. Nothing else.''

    At least you acknowledge that Mitchell was installed as a PR man as a front for the Government.That's something. The paedophillia scenario was born and raised mainly online-not by the PJ or SY .It was fed and taken care of by seedy red tops for the same audience.The official line is that she was abducted, until a different scenario is introduced with tangible evidence to prop it up. The alternative view is that she had died, either accidentally or murdered, and that the McCanns and friends are party to a conspiracy to cover that up.Can you provide any proof that the McCanns and their team were /are liars by exposing the lies along with that proof ? Or are you 'exercising the right to free speech' ?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Ziggy and thanks for comment
    A perpetrator can of course be anyone, but I emphasized the word "imaginative" just to illustrate what I believe many of the representatives of the British Government/Justice may have thought, and perhaps still do.

    Hasn't this deceased Euclides Monteiro, who used to work for the Mark Warner's Ocean Club become a person of interest once again? If this would be the case, it proves that this case is very much about class and class affiliation. The perpetrator, as I've tried to say, is supposed to be this other person opposite to those in power, that is working class, but it's of course not my opinion.

    As for the McCanns' lies. They have told different tales at different times, at least moderated them in many ways, which you certainly know as well as me. So they've certainly been twisting and turning the truth to fit new scenarios/circumstances, which does not necessarily mean that they are guilty, but they certainly haven't been so honest as one would expect, if they really want to find out what happened to their daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ZiggySawdust at 15:17

    For starters:

    Kate McCann: "My consolation is that on the cover he [Gonçalo Amaral] calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that."

    Gerry McCann (April 2005): “Back in Leicester and looking for a job. Now father of three with Sean and Amelie joing Maddie. Anyone fancy babysitting?”

    Madeleine's Fund launched (16 May 2007)
    “Text "MADDIE" to 60999 and £1 will be taken from your phone for the Madeleine Fund.”

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous18 April 2017 at 18:47

    @ZiggySawdust at 15:17

    ''For starters:...''

    I believe the expression is 'wtf'...

    Why are you addressing me personally with that ? I haven't mentioned anything about it. I haven't quoted it from anyone else either. I said that I don't-and haven't' lied on this blog as there's no need to. I also said if I had, but forgotten, feel free to remind me of the lie and where and when i told it. Is that your idea of doing that ? Quoting a lie from somebody else TO somebody else ? How has that got anything to do with me ? That's a bit desperate isn't it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Can you provide any proof that the McCanns and their team were /are liars by exposing the lies along with that proof ?" - ZiggySawdust 18 April 2017 at 15:17

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust 18.4 @22:17

      I am not Anonymous 18:47 of yesterday but it would appear he/she is responding to your earlier (15:17)invitation to Bjorn:

      "Can you provide any proof that the McCanns and their team were /are liars by exposing the lies along with that proof? Or are you 'exercising the right to free speech'?"

      Delete
  34. I'd just like to select the following quotes by Ros from the above thread, for the record, but leave you to draw your own conclusions.

    1. Some truly believe that people should be imprisoned for having an alternate opinion and are chomping at the bit to slap a few liberals around.

    2. My own personal theory as to why this case has yet to be 'solved', lies in the number of potential defendants who are involved.

    3. Some of those who actively perverted the course of justice in this case, have since been elevated to peerages. Or have become part of some New (line your own pockets first) World Order.

    4. This case is all about money and power

    5. A group of doctors, with one presumes, an abundance of knowledge of drugs and anaesthesia between them, find the perfect solution to dining out with friends without the need for a babysitter.

    6. Operation Grange do not appear to have been investigating anyone in Portugal, Morocco, Spain or beyond.

    7. I make no apologies for reaching the conclusions I have, I have merely followed the facts and the evidence.

    8. You vastly underestimate the intelligence of the general public Ziggy, you are completely overlooking the fact that absolutely everything can be googled. The public are better informed than they have been at any time in history.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous18 April 2017 at 23:12

    Interesting list.

    My considerations

    1- Some who go against the 'trending' opinions are subjected to abuse even if they have equal or often more foundation.

    2- I thought the opinion(of Ros) was that 1 or 2 parents were guilty.Any on the periphery are only accessories ( possibly).

    3- Is it possible to hold that opinion on the one hand and shut down arguments that suggest political interference was behind a cover up on the other.

    4- This case was about the disappearance of a toddler and the subsequent (alleged) efforts to find out what happened to her.

    5- The perfect solution would have been to hire a sitter. Their biggest mistake was to take for granted that the children would be safe. The medical knowledge of all the doctors makes it a highly unlikely scenario that they 'accidentally' administered an overdose( especially of Calpol which as been a ridiculously pounced upon theory in certain quarters) to any of the children. Amaral, who decided on the spot that an 'accidental death' may have occurred, should have had the twins tested.He hadn't spotted any blood or DNA at that point.So his 'theory', at that point, was one that didn't show any evidence inasmuch that involved force.

    6- OG isn't obliged to disclose exactly where they are or what they're doing. Murderers, paedophiles, abductors etc can read the same bullshit tabloids as anyone else. It would be like turning your cards around and holding them up for a minute in a poker game.

    7- If the facts and evidence were followed and the conclusion reached was 'guilty, mr and mrs mccann', what were the police forces of two different countries following if they didn't reach any ? Orders, maybe ?

    8-Google. Twitter.Facebook(etc). All swapping quoted 'news' from tabloids who print what they're told by the above mentioned 'future peers' and their friends, the media moguls.The rest is speculation.Guesswork.The perfect arena to observe closely the madness of crowds.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Anonymous19 April 2017 at 09:54

    Thanks for the heads up anon. it's difficult when nearly everyone is called anon and when posts are inserted above sometimes.

    @Anonymous19 April 2017 at 06:17

    "Can you provide any proof that the McCanns and their team were /are liars by exposing the lies along with that proof ?" - ZiggySawdust 18 April 2017 at 15:1

    Is that it ? A mountain of scenarios surround the disappearance /death of a child.Nobody is arrested in ten years. No evidence is deemed fit enough to go to court. Police are removed from the case following political interference and causes of death /paedophilia and perverting the course of justice and you offer the earth-shattering 'lie' about a name being shortened or not. I stand corrected, anyone who lies about pet or nick or shortened names for their toddler has to be some kind of psychopath. How did the police miss that gem.

    Tomorrow we can look at Amaral's 'hidden body in a coffin just before a cremation' and 'buried nearby' after being taken from 'a fridge'. Or are they the same thing..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ZiggySawdust at 18:00

      Your words:

      "anyone who lies about pet or nick or shortened names for their toddler has to be some kind of psychopath."

      They lied. Exposing lies, as you requested.

      "How did the police miss that gem."

      I'm sure they didn't.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 20:24

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  37. Anonymous19 April 2017 at 20:24

    1- Understand context.

    2- Don't quote out of context.

    3- The 'lie' you have exposed is of little or no relevance to an abduction or murder or anything like it. it's desperation to try and sell it as anything more.

    4- The police may or may not have missed it.But, if they'd have gripped hold of it as most online detectives have and taken it as evidence against them, they'd have made a laughing stock of themselves.They're already under a cloud of suspicion with regard to their supposed incompetence and covering up, the last thing they need is to be laughed at .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Can you provide any proof that the McCanns and their team were /are liars by exposing the lies along with that proof ?" - ZiggySawdust 18 April 2017 at 15:17

      Plain and simple.

      Delete
  38. Anonymous20 April 2017 at 13:30

    ''Plain and simple.''

    half right, anyway..

    OK, we'll have it your way. We'll forget the ten years and go with Gerry McCann lying about Madeleine's pet /shortened name equating to having the profile of a killer or the sidekick of one , capable of committing infanticide or, worse, filliacide. Book him, Danno, murder one.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thanks for sharing this blog its very informative and useful for us.

    เย็ดสาว

    ReplyDelete