For anyone wondering why I am not commenting on the horror of the Manchester bombing, I'm honestly to afraid of what I might say right now. Meanwhile, my kindest thoughts and prayers to all those affected and huge praise to the emergency services and the medics.
Apologies for my lack of participation lately, but I am afraid right now I feel all 'McCanned' or maybe even, all 'Ziggied' out. I am not sure he has convinced anyone, but he has certainly worn me down. I suspect he spent a former life marching around the walls of Jericho.
I don't believe Gerry, Kate or any of their helpers. And neither I, nor indeed anyone, should be afraid to say that. It certainly shouldn't be a criminal offence, despite all the lobbying by the former head of CEOP and the McCann Campaign. Make no mistake, among the many branches that have sprung from the name of the missing child, has been the Movement to curtail freedom of speech on social media. Not only were the McCanns victims of a heinous crime, they were victims of the savage media and the lunatic trolls online.
Then we have the dreaded 'P' word - even typing the word draws us to the attention of those dedicated police agencies and vigilantes who's job it is to spy us on 24/7. The Government and the Establishment have managed to convince us that our kids are in constant danger online and there are Paedophiles all around us. How many lives are wrecked by nonsensical accusations, and does anybody care? It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about paedophilia, because, in the 21st Century, the subject is so taboo, no-one knows anything about it! The real experts, the psychologists, the academics, dare not contradict the accepted, and dominant ideology. It would be career suicide.
The public wants, neh demands, an evil villain to despise and the easiest way to rally an angry mob, is to scream 'think of the children'. Our need to protect our young is primal, it brings out our savage instincts, but not always in a good way. The old fella who smiles at a child, or God forbid, gives them a sweet, is not out to brutalise them or murder them ffs, he probably just likes kids! Single people, men especially, daren't go sit in the park! Had Wordsworth stood and admired the daffodils these days, he would been frogmarched into a police car and had his mugshot taken.
But it is not a joking matter. While we are all focussed on a suspected paedophile gang in an internet café in Bagdad, our kids are in real physical danger from 1) their own parents 2) a new partner/friend 3) a professional 4) any number of creeps who go into childcare so they can have access to kids. And the primary reason 'creeps' want access to children is because they are sadists. Why sexual abuse is so highly prioritised over physical abuse astounds me! Beat a child on a daily basis and that's life. Ask an abused child which they prefer?
That we are all looking the wrong way is quite an achievement. From an economic perspective, it is far easier, and vote winning, to go after the public's choice of enemy. The loner, the misfit, the socially inept, the idiots who will say yes to every expert's theory because they have found someone gullible enough to listen to them. Those willing to appear on TV (albeit in a shadow) fitting the exact profile of the expert with a book to sell or a cause he needs funding for.
The subject of child abuse is much the same as the subject of marijuana. That is, the public are being sold a big fat lie. Tony Blair commissioned a report on the effects of marijuana from Professor David Nutt, then sacked him when he didn't supply the report he wanted. He also commissioned Operation Ore, a police operation based on a report from the USA that revealed thousands of alleged paedophiles accessing online child pornography with their credit cards. That thousands of these credit card details were stolen, made no difference to all those who's lives were wrecked and who's kids were seized and taken into care. Or those 39 men who committed suicide. This little atrocity, Tony Blair heartily approved of.
If 'they' truly wanted to tackle child abuse, they would be confronting child poverty and the cuts to the frontline child services. Where are the crocodile tears for those kids returning from school to empty homes, empty fridges and no electric? It is easy to see why the Bogeyman is just as big in the 21st century, as it was in the 19th.
But I should at least mention the McCanns. I think they are enduring their own kind of hell, and always will. They have built their own prison - they must always live up to the phoney characters they created, never daring to allow their masks to slip. Maybe as a writer, I understand their prison more than most. It is the reason I created my 'unbound' blog. As a former Catholic, I remember the agonies of 'my sins finding me out', tossing and turning through the night, torturing myself over which one of my 'so called' mates would spill the beans. I can't go so far as to say I feel sympathy for Gerry and Kate, they have been too vindictive towards myself and others for that, but I do pity them. The greatest freedom we have is to just be ourselves, complete with foibles and flaws.
Unfortunately, the kind of obsessive creeps they attract online are but a small sample of humanity in any situation or environment. That is, Gerry and Kate can never get away from it. There will always be people out there who cannot and will not believe their account of what happened to their daughter. There will always be armchair detectives, and there will always be those who are just as tenacious as themselves. Those who have made it a personal vendetta, and who will never give up. For them, it is personal.
For myself, I am still trying to accept the fact that the good guy doesn't always win. I don't know if our society is more blatantly corrupt than it ever was before, or if I am just able to see things more clearly now. At least this darn case has taught me something!
At the moment, there is way too much going on the world to be discussing the Gerry lookalike carrying the Madeleine lookalike through the streets of PDL just as she went missing. What happened on 3rd May 2007 was probably an unforeseen tragedy (though all the signs were there), but the unseemly haste of government officials and British police agencies to turn this particular tragedy into major marketing tool (like her dad and her family) has shamed this Country.
The name of Madeleine has been exploited in so many ways, by so many, the list of defendants would be incalculable. And it was probably this calculation that changed, or established, the whole course of Operation Grange. I hope that I am wrong, but common sense may well be kicking in. A police operation that is leading up to arrests and prosecution, logically thinking, would get bigger not smaller. Operation Grange has dwindled down to just one office by the sounds of it.
For the moment at least, those who would bring in new Laws to spy on us and curb our Freedom of Speech screaming 'think of the children' don't have the powers they yearn for. Sadly, that situation is precarious. There are still Labour MPs jumping onto the CSA 'let's root out aged celebrities' bandwagon with a vigour rarely seen when dealing with real issues. Not to mention all those MPs who want their critics removed from twitter.
I am beginning to see now that this case won't finish with a truthful ending. I guess there are just way too many people involved, people who, at the very least, obstructed the Law. I doubt very much Operation Grange are going to tear down any institutions, their task force has shrunk, it hasn't grown bigger, and it hasn't opened any new investigations. The Madeleine Fund, for example, continues as it ever did, and the police continue to work on behalf of the family. The major news networks still portray and sympathise with the parents as victims and politicians, especially by the look of that letter from Richard Benyon MP to the cesspit! I had to take a peek, could anyone blame him for not reading that tedious shite? - written by Bennett pretending to be an anonymous member, lol. Mr. Benyon was spot on with his response!
I have no personal interest in making the lives of the family hell, as I mentioned above, they have done that to themselves. My sympathy lies with those who have been the target of the McCanns aggressive campaign, Goncalo Amaral especially. I feel morally obliged to comment on their vindictiveness towards this honourable man and the madness of their vendetta, heaven knows someone's got to. A long running legal case doesn't just affect the disputing parties, it affects their families and all around them. A case based on spite will never end well.
In the hours that followed the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this case became so much more than a simple missing child case. It opened up a cause celebre, Madeleine was every child (our own beloved cherubs), the parents are nice (just like us), they are responsible (they're not), we are all at risk (we aren't). And thus begins the false narrative. At this late stage it is literally impossible for anyone to say the parents were involved. It would be like saying Santa's a paedo, who climbs down chimneys to steal kids. No-one wants to hear that.
We have all been witness to one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in this country's history. But I suppose the truth is, like generations who have gone before, we will have to accept that power and money tops truth and justice. The disappearance of one small child pales to insignificance when contrasted to the sea of corruption that surrounds it. For me it is not just that those responsible for that poor child's disappearance have got away with it, so too have all those who perpetuated the lie for their own ends. Especially those who made this case 'Britain versus Portugal' who would prefer to waste £12million of taxpayers money rather than admit they were wrong and the Portuguese cop was right.
Thursday, 4 May 2017
Well, what to to make of last night's BBC1 Panorama produced by Richard Bilton? Richard claims the Portuguese police and the British police reached different conclusions, and he presents the documentary in two parts. Part One, the evidence of the Portuguese Police that made Gerry and Kate arguidoes.
For the first time. the UK saw the evidence gathered by the original investigation, along with a number of finer details that the McCann propaganda machine had suppressed. There was no break in, the only fingerprints on the bedroom window were Kate's and Goncalo Amaral confirmed an abduction was impossible. And I am sure Team McCann could have done without the footage of the cadaver and blood dogs and the footage of the beautiful and charismatic Sandra Felgueres, who I am sure will send thousands rushing to YouTube.
Speaking (forcefully) on behalf of Gerry and Kate, we have McCann Family Spokesman Clarence Mitchell explaining the parents went against police advice regarding the media, because, well, err, Brits know better. Next we have the British investigator brought in to assist the Portuguese police, Jim Gamble. As a bit of stickler for semantics, I can see what they did there. Jim went in as an investigator, not as Head of CEOP then? No mention either of Clarence being a government spokesman. Jim went hmmmm at the beginning (his policeman's instinct), but as time went on he became convinced the parents were not involved - but no examples of what convinced him. Clarence of course stuck with the ludicrous trail and ffs, they are Doctors! He didn't use the 'F' bomb of course, but the beads of sweats on his brow, said it for him.
The case against the McCanns is tempered with the words of Clarence and Jim. Kate was quite right not to answer those 48 questions, Clarence reaffirms. Jim, though not quite willing to degrade the work of his former colleagues in the Canine Units, stresses that sniffer dogs can't talk and their evidence can provide an indication but it's not evidence. Richard implies the findings of the dogs are not valid, the forensic evidence didn't support the dogs, and then he shows pages of forensic results listing 'weak and inclusive'. He doesn't mention the samples lost by the British Forensic Team, nor the fact that 'weak and inconclusive' could well mean, scrubbed with bleach. So that's it. The dogs are out. The niceness of the couple, far outweighs the years of carefully selected breeding and training of the world's most incredible EVRD dogs. All those 'good boy/ girl' compliments have been withdrawn, and they have been sent to sit the corner.
Richard begins Part II, with the collapse of the Portuguese case. The evidence of the Smith family he casually dismisses with, too many witnesses saw Gerry at the Ocean Club for him to have been the man seen by the Family. Well that's news. Did the Crimewatch appeal bring forward new witnesses who saw Gerry at the Ocean Club? Because when the PJ shelved their file, the question was still wide open. That's why they wanted a reconstruction. But, moving on, he adds, the Smith Family, who have maintained a dignified silence for 10 years, have changed their position, they no longer think it was Gerry. Two pretty big developments in the McCann World, but heavily underplayed there by Richard.
He also includes a long section on how 'they couldn't have done it'. They were being watched by the eyes and ears of the world, it simply isn't plausible, claims Richard, who is clearly not a fan of Sherlock Holmes. Anything's possible. The idea of a burglar sticking his head in the window, calling Madeleine over and lifting her out (Heriberto) he accepts, but the parents who had full access to the window and the child and were the last to see her, he dismisses as implausible. No bias there.
Interviewing Jose Socrates may have been a major coup, but he gives one of those 'well he would say that, wouldn't he' answers. He is a high flying politician, and he is treating Goncalo Amaral and indeed, the interview, as inconsequential. There, there Richard, I understand your concerns, but leave it to the grown ups.
Unlike, those vulnerable men who have been hounded in the name of Madeleine McCann for over two years. Richard's interviewing of those Portuguese suspects made uncomfortable viewing, particularly Suspect 4, who has also been ruled out. It should be said here that those 4 men were never suspects in the eyes of the PJ. The seemingly British desire to blame the loss of Madeleine on someone foreign and of a lower social class is one of the more sickening (and evil) aspects of this case. Whilst you had no shame harassing that poor man on his boat Richard, I felt it for you and I'm pretty certain many others did too. He lost his job! He repeated it several times, but you switched off. 'Did you have anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance?', Richard persisted.
May your Gods forgive you Richard. You are willing to entertain all sorts of malicious accusations against a hard working Portuguese man who was just happened to be on reception duty on the night. He loved his job, he was proud of it. What made him a suspect? Like millions of hotel receptionists the world over, he had keys to the apartments. Sufficient evidence for Richard to track him down and torment him. The message here is, it's OK to accuse people in lowly jobs of heinous crimes on the flimsiest of evidence, but not professionals, ie. doctors who have crate loads of circumstantial evidence stacked up against them. In those circumstances, such accusations become heinous crimes in themselves and sees accusers in the dock (they wish). The idea that the two doctors were involved is implausible according to Richard. The idea that this man, simply because he had access to keys, could have done it, presumably, is plausible. And thus, the bottom of the barrel has been scraped.
I was going to leave it there, but it should be pointed out that the 4 men tracked down by Richard Bilton and the Panorama Team quite clearly do not have the means or resources to defend themselves or launch multimillion pound libel claims against the BBC. Just thought I'd mention that. And here's a wild card. Watching that interview Richard had with one of the witnesses, brought sorrowful memories of The Hunchback of Notre Damn to mind. No disrespect to the poor guy, but that gut wrenching realisation that the public can so quickly be turned against society's most vulnerable breaks my heart. Suspect 4 has also been ruled out by Operation Grange. And he was ruled out in time for Panorama to change the ending of the documentary. That is, their cliff hanger was no longer valid, but they went with it anyway.
But let's return to the defence of the McCanns. Bizarrely, Heriberto Janosch turned up as an expert witness. Unfortunately, his comic voice reflects his comic scribblings. I'd give Panorama a D and wtf were you thinking for that one. I would imagine experts with credible abduction theories are thin on the ground. But seriously Richard, HJ kind of damages your credibility here as too does the woman in purple - particularly by all those who have read the PJ files, and we are legion.
But let's move from the comic moment to the chilling one. 'Even at first glance' Commander Simon Foy says, with deep breaths and much exaggeration, 'the McCanns themselves had nothing at all to do with the disappearance', 'they were where they said they were when the child went missing', he concludes.
Deputy Director of the Policia Judiciaria, Pedro du Cormo I liked. Unlike his British counterparts, he is not persecuting innocent men. 'I cannot tell you what I think', he tells Richard with the kind of charm that is lacking in British Chiefs. But like them, he confirms the parents aren't suspects. I doubt though, that that has left Gerry and Kate reassured. The Portuguese investigation has no deadline and Pedro's clearly holding lots back.
'You know more about this case than almost anyone else', Richard opines, 'Do you think in your heart it will be solved?', 'if it depended on my heart, the case would already have been solved' Pedro replies. Oodles of charm of course, but an overload of duping delight nevertheless. 'It depends on our minds' he concludes with a wry grin.
If there is a hint from the documentary as to how this case will conclude, then it probably lies in all those police chiefs stating categorically that the McCanns' weren't involved. It is with a huge gulp that I type, I was wrong, it is possible to keep a big fat lie going, naivety on my part, the Vatican have been doing it for centuries. There is a lot more colluding going on in this world that I ever dreamed of.
It is honestly beginning to look as though the entire purpose of Operation Grange was to find the ways and means in which to blame a foreigner. They have discarded the evidence collected by the Portuguese, actually, they probably haven't even looked at it. 'Even at first glance' it was obvious the McCanns weren't involved, according to Commander Foy - I can't help wondering if he would have felt the same if the mugshots had been of a couple of rejects from Jeremy Kyle.
I hope that I am wrong (again). My faith in human nature took an almighty knock as I realised there was no abductor. The idea that so many police officers could be involved in the cover up of child's death, would just about finish it off.