Thursday, 4 May 2017

PANORAMA: MADELEINE MCCANN 10 Years On - DISSECTED



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.    


342 comments:

  1. "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."
    ------------------------------
    What samples were lost by the British Forensic team?

    You are of course aware that the dogs went into the apt 5A months after the Mccanns left and following occupancy by others. Do you not expect OC to clean the apartment between guests?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are of course aware that the residues the dogs were trained to detect were NOT person-specific? Or do you mean to imply that a subsequent occupant of the apartment died there also?

      Delete
    2. I do indeed 16:21. Incredible then that the sniffer dogs reacted eh? Except the sniffer dogs went into dozens of apartments, without reacting once. Why would they pick on the McCanns? As Jim Gamble pointed out, dogs can't talk, therefore we can rule out gossip.

      The PJ believed the apartment had been scrupulously cleaned 16:21. Perfectly understandable as it contained no DNA of the missing whatsoever! Gerry had to return to Rothley for hair samples. Do you not find that strange 16:21?

      Delete
    3. @ 16.21 EVRD dogs will alert to cadaver odour decades later and even after surface cleaning.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 4 May 2017 at 16:59

      I’m not ‘16:59’.

      I am aware.

      Your questions are in order.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 4 May 2017 at 21:45

      “@ 16.21 EVRD dogs will alert to cadaver odour decades later and even after surface cleaning.”

      You are right. Time and cleaning have nothing to do with an odour per se. The odour either is or is not present.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
  2. Great summing up Ros. Would be interesting to hear what people who haven't read in depth about this case thought of the documentary. Did it serve it's purpose of shutting down the debate raging around it? I think it's clear to see now how this will end. £12m + for a whitewash. For some reason, this time last week after watching the AC Rowley interview I still had hope. Now I have none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am gutted 16:28 and still hoping a detective from either the PJ or SY writes in anonymously with a 'don't give up message'.

      I know the case in depth 16:28, but even I was swayed, and left with a 'what if'. It was powerful stuff. On one viewing, it is enough to sway many doubters back into the 'abducted child' mode. The voices of Clarence and Jim are still powerful, Jim especially, enough to make large news corporations such as the BBC, accept his non expert opinion on police canine units, as gospel.

      Whilst I accept those moving the chess pieces around are as corrupt as fuck (apologies, for the 'f' bomb), I had faith in the ordinary cops, those, who just like Goncalo Amaral, could have been handed the poisoned chalice.

      Right now, I would appreciate a tet a tet with Sue Hill. She won't diss the McCanns, but she doesn't doubt that one day, 'allegiances will change', one could add etc, etc, to that, but she certainly possessed the kind of calmness and serenity I aspire to! Ditto Pedro - all the time in the world.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda 16:54

      You should take a breath and 'do a number' on the SKY News anniversary production also, not just to complete the trilogy but to ask, perhaps, why that production in particular should have emphasised the folly that is Operation Grange.

      (Hint: SKY = Murdoch = Money = anti-Brexit.
      PM = Theresa May = former Home-Secretary under whom, etc.)

      It isn't only the Met's reputation that will inevitably be tarnished.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 4 May 2017 at 16:54

      “I am gutted…”

      Please don’t be. “It’s only the beginning”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEA7fQhJy84 at about 4:40

      “In the life of the Spirit, you are always at the beginning”

      Let’s just follow the Sun.:)

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 4 May 2017 at 21:04

      Nice one.

      What a lovely morning!

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
  3. Strewn with errors, read before you publish. The first sentence makes no sense at all, then we have "arguidoes" instead of arguidos, "cliff hangar" instead of cliffhanger but no funny howlers this time. I enjoyed "pass the mustard" on an earlier blog (the expression is "pass muster"). Keep 'em coming, you have a fan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks Mark. I am desperately in need of an editor as you can see. Do keep 'em coming. :)

      Delete
  4. "The idea that so many police officers could be involved in the cover up of child's death, would just about finish it off."

    Respect for acknowledging that others have been right all along about Operation Grange, but don't fall victim to your own extrapolation.

    Historically millions have been involved in wars they neither started nor sought to prolong. They just happened to be in the army and did what they were told.

    A blue uniform doesn't make for a more egalitarian hierarchy. if ordered to march - you march.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agree with a lot of what you have said... propaganda, nothing more

    ReplyDelete
  6. I hadn't realised that the apartments had been burgled 3 times in the previous 2 months or that the McCann apartment was right next to the road. Also that it was possible to open the window from the roadside.....the abduction theory becomes more plausible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the abduction theory becomes more plausible"

      The McCann case is not a game of cluedo!

      Either the parents' CLAIM that their daughter was abducted has been true from the very beginning or she has been dead ever since. 'Theory' has no role to play in that distinction.

      Delete
    2. >pretends no knowledge of facts that support 'abduction'
      >posts facts that infer 'abduction'
      >on a blog tucked away in the dark reaches of blogspot
      >as credible as BBC claim 'cadaver dogs alerted to McCann car' because McCanns put some documents in the boot.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 4 May 2017 at 22:06

      “>pretends no knowledge of facts that support 'abduction'”

      Pretends to have(?) no knowledge…

      “>posts facts that infer 'abduction'”

      Posts facts that imply/entail(?) 'abduction'

      There are no known facts that either imply or enable one to infer abduction AFAIK.

      What is the purpose of your inverted commas (‘abduction’)?

      “>on a blog tucked away in the dark reaches of blogspot”

      What blog is that?

      >as credible as BBC claim 'cadaver dogs alerted to McCann car' because McCanns put some documents in the boot.

      “…because McCanns put some documents in the boot”? Is that a revelation from the latest documentary (I haven’t seen it)?

      I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
  7. I liked Jim's stab at Theresa - he really enjoyed that. Hope she pays him back and soon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 18:02

      "Hope she pays him back and soon"

      She's not guaranteed to get the opportunity. (Perhaps that's the idea?)

      Delete
  8. Anonymous 4 May 2017 at 17:07

    You offering sounds good to me.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 4 May 2017 at 17:07

      re: my 4 May 2017 at 17:07

      Your offering…

      Sorry.

      T

      Delete
  9. "Goncalo Amaral confirmed an abduction was impossible."

    Did he? Crikey! If so, then he really is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:46

      Why?

      Delete
    2. Ha ha. Lets hear the evidence for it being impossible!

      Delete
    3. Ha ha. Put your money where your mouth is, since you chose to open it.

      Delete
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EXpmaaEGPs

    23:12

    Clarence Mitchell:

    “Something happened in that flat, yes. They removed Madeleine from it. Did she die? Did two doctors cover up the death of their own daughter whilst on holiday? Of course not. And it is ridiculous to suggest it. The evidence does not stack up.”

    His statement is rather suggestive. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Clarence Mitchell was there when “they removed Madeleine” from that flat.

    As an aside, there were six doctors in the group. What doctor wants to self-incriminate?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning, NL

      T

      Delete
  11. Anonymous4 May 2017 at 20:14

    ''There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Clarence Mitchell was there when “they removed Madeleine” from that flat. ''

    Why would there be ? When Madeleine was abducted, Clarence Mitchell didn't even know the McCanns existed. Who said he was there ?

    ''As an aside, there were six doctors in the group. What doctor wants to self-incriminate?''

    Does anyone want to self -incriminate ? Would a factory worker want to ? Or a mechanic? What about a politician..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >ask questions
      >lots of questions
      >keep them talking about anything other than the cadaver dogs

      Delete
    2. ZiggySawdust 4 May 2017 at 20:41

      “Anonymous4 May 2017 at 20:14

      ''There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Clarence Mitchell was there when “they removed Madeleine” from that flat. ''

      Why would there be ?”

      You did get it , didn’t you? I know you did.

      “When Madeleine was abducted, Clarence Mitchell didn't even know the McCanns existed.”

      And you know that because…?

      “Who said he was there ?”

      Who said he wasn’t?

      “''As an aside, there were six doctors in the group. What doctor wants to self-incriminate?''

      Does anyone want to self -incriminate ? Would a factory worker want to ? Or a mechanic? What about a politician.”

      And your ‘relevant’ point is…?

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 4 May 2017 at 22:32

      “keep them talking about anything other than the cadaver dogs”

      Keep them talking about anything other than the relative likelihood of abduction v non-abduction and cadaver and blood dogs.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    4. 07:44

      And that, my good man, is the very nub of the issue.

      Operation Grange, having been categorically directed to one side of the fence specifically, have been unable (contrary to expectation in certain quarters) to find anything of significance. Nothing grows in that garden at all. But no-one dares visit the house next door!

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 5 May 2017 at 11:52

      “Look closely. The beautiful may be small.”
      E K

      “But no-one dares visit the house next door!”

      Succinctly to the point!

      Thank you kindly.

      T

      Delete
  12. Rosalinda, I don't know if you have noticed it yet, but

    https://twitter.com/richardbiltontv

    is not 'BBC1 Panorama' Richard Bilton

    http://journalisted.com/richard-bilton#tab-contact
    (No Twitter account entered)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Prime Minister Theresa May has been accused of failing to tell the truth about the government’s decision to launch an independent review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."

    (...)

    "When contacted by Yahoo News, Downing Street refused to comment further than Mrs May’s comments to the Leveson Inquiry."

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/theresa-may-didnt-tell-truth-madeleine-mccann-report-oath-080405095.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 21:34

      Jim Gamble, of course, was not under oath at any time.

      Delete
  14. Hi Rosalinda

    I haven’t yet watched the discussed BBC “Panorama”. I've just read your summary of it.

    Your reaction to what you’ve watched is encouraging to me, in that it’s a healthy sign in a British society, where too many credulous citizens have let themselves be fooled and seduced by a number of influential, shallow, selfrighteous and “omniscient experts”.

    Before I read your latest text, I learned what Colin Sutton allegedly had experienced in the context of the Madeleine case a few years ago, which now adds to my suspicion about a corruption, though I hope of course that I’m wrong.

    ”Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, Colin Sutton said that a high-ranking friend in the Met called him and warned him not to lead the case when Scotland Yard announced it would get involved in 2010” /MailOnline 3 May 2017/

    If this would be true, then the Met/SY are flagrantly violating international law in that they deliberately and methodically have been/ still are hindering the course of justice. The Madeleine case should therefore be a matter of concern for the European Court of Human Rights.

    What’s going on in the in the co-operation between the UK and Portugal in the Madeleine case has in some way or another to be brought into daylight, as none of the two police forces involved hasn’t even been able to officially establish, whether there has been an abduction or not. Nor is there a single suspect today, that may be arrested any day soon, but just anonymous persons of interest, most of whom were questioned and ruled out 10 years ago (of course I haven’t yet watched P. on BBC1)

    If the McCanns have been exonerated as Mark Rowley implies and as Martin Brunt’s interview with Colin Sutton suggests, then the citizens in the UK and those in Portugal are at least entitled to know why. If that would be the case, there’s no need for secrecy about that, just a common need for less confusion and more clarification. Too much enigmatic speech when the SY are on stage talking about “progress” IMO.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros,Colin Sutton and what he had to say has to be the biggest indicator what Scotland Yards intentions were from the start.but why?why not requestion the mccanns and co why was there the remit there was.these questions need answered.what is makes the mccanns so innocent to OG.police procedures have been broken a fortune of tax payers money spent on a sham.why??

      Delete
  15. Anonymous4 May 2017 at 19:46

    ''"Goncalo Amaral confirmed an abduction was impossible."
    Did he? Crikey! If so, then he really is an idiot.''

    Anonymous4 May 2017 at 20:50

    19:46

    ''Why?''

    Because it was possible.This latest documentary just demonstrated it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 22:55

      "Because it was possible. This latest documentary just demonstrated it."

      You're too easily convinced.

      Delete
    2. “Because it was possible.This latest documentary just demonstrated it.”

      You don’t say… Rejoice!

      Well, my old son, you’ve got a lot to learn still.

      I haven’t seen this latest doc yet. Have they considered the likelihood of abduction perchance?

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    3. 22:55

      Better yet. Here's a documentary that demonstrates 'it' (abduction) was NOT possible.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g

      Which is likely to be the more accurate do you think, the one in which the actual circumstances of the apartment are assessed by experienced police, or the more recent amateur reconstruction, featuring a different window/locking mechanism altogether?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 5 May 2017 at 10:07

      T has been there, but many thanks nonetheless.

      Tee or coffee?

      T:)

      Delete
  16. Björn4 May 2017 at 21:39

    ''...is encouraging to me, in that it’s a healthy sign in a British society, where too many credulous citizens have let themselves be fooled and seduced by a number of influential, shallow, selfrighteous and “omniscient experts”. ''


    Unlike Twitter and other mini blog sites then.


    ''..the Met/SY are flagrantly violating international law in that they deliberately and methodically have been/ still are hindering the course of justice. The Madeleine case should therefore be a matter of concern for the European Court of Human Rights. ''

    The Met are guilty of following orders. They have to.It's passed down to them, then passed down again.It's conspiracy-if Sutton is telling the truth, which seems probable.Whose human rights are we talking about and who could bring it to the attention of the ECHR and how ?

    ''If the McCanns have been exonerated as Mark Rowley implies and as Martin Brunt’s interview with Colin Sutton suggests, then the citizens in the UK and those in Portugal are at least entitled to know why. ''

    Of course we are. But that would to defeat the object of the exercise to spend ten years hiding truth from us.The more important question is, always has been and probably always will be,is why it was done. I've said this race never got further than the starting line and i maintain that view.The shoal of red herrings has been a cynical and protracted exercise in PR.And, to repeat my annoying mantra- to protect two holiday makers abroad ? I don't think so, somehow..



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy from what I can pick up you don't believe the mccanns are involved in Madeleine's disappearance but you still think something's been hidden or protected.whats your theory on what happened?

      Delete
    2. You make sense, I know and respect where you are coming from. But today, I read this:
      ''Holidaymakers describing the night Madeleine McCann disappeared today revealed how they saw her distraught mother screaming 'the f***ing b******s have taken her'.
      Speaking for the first time since she went missing ten years ago, Paul and Susan Moyes revealed what they saw from the apartment two floors above the McCanns'. ''

      That headline sums it up doesn't. The overheard, hearsay, emotion packed screams of the McCanns.

      So it must be true. They didn't do anything, other than leave the kids for four nights.




      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4468916/Algarve-resident-tells-car-sighting-near-Madeleine-McCann-apartment.html#ixzz4gBHaN2CW
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      Delete
    3. 23:12

      Your final paragraph is the money shot.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @06:57

      Remarkable how two people (AT LEAST) can remember exactly what they overheard ten years ago. Most wouldn't be able to recall what they ate for breakfast on a given day last week.

      Delete
    5. The Moyes gave interviews on May 5th 2007. A little googling goes a long way, family supporters on the thread .
      http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/holidaymakers-tell-of-late-night-search-for-madeleine-309331.html

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 5 May 2017 at 11:56

      Concur.

      Unsurprising: ‘Men in Tights’
      are capable of being very good,
      our Melvin has been telling us for years.

      T

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 5 May 2017 at 12:00

      Indeed.

      T

      Delete
    8. 12:53

      "The Moyes gave interviews on May 5th 2007"

      The Daily Mail got it wrong then. Should have referred to them as 'speaking for the second time', while reporting, not what they heard but what they once said they heard, which still represents an impressive feat of memory, unless they 'googled' their earlier effort before giving the interview.

      But that wouldn't have helped much, would it? The 'f*ck*ng b*st*rds' weren't in evidence in 2007 were they? In fact the Moyes did not join the searchers until invited to do so by OC staff at 11:30 p.m., according to the earlier report.

      Many thanks for the link. (Now what else can we make up Clarence?)

      Delete
  17. Anonymous4 May 2017 at 18:02

    ''I liked Jim's stab at Theresa - he really enjoyed that. Hope she pays him back and soon''

    Theresa won't pay anyone back. Her back catalogue of lies gave her the perfect CV to be the leader of the Tory crew.She won't leave herself open.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to do this from memory. So the case was refused three times by home office for Review|investigation, twice under labour, again under Tory\Mrs May

      After the first refusal, I think it was then that Gamble secured his £100k or was it 2 grant as a scoping exercise, why him... well suppose because he was head of CEOP and been running a media circus about Facebook and the alert button campaign and was at the time pretty high focus.

      So, eventually, after Mrs May's refusal, known as by the mccanns and Mrs ''fluffy'' - Sun \ Brooks \ Cameron, the rest is history.

      Gamble put more effort into the campaign once the MET had got the OK and we had the Viral message & appeal for photos of anyone holiday at the time. The result of which is un-known, but no doubt added to the ever increasingly pile of files for the MET to collate and generally investigate.

      As Gamble, who's quango department was closed & he didn't secure the 'top' job for it's merged replacement.

      Emmmmmm.............

      If his report was confidential, which one would believe it was, it now seems to be getting an airing. Secrets act?

      Delete
  18. Nobody ordered me to find McCanns innocent as Mail put it.I was advised I wouldn't have freedom to investigate everybody & every possibility

    https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/860085705846005760

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greetings, Ziggmund

    You’ve gone all quiet…

    Pondering good moves against Deep Blue the Younger?

    Or dancing the blues? Don’t be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the Nazi Party!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGc4XwBTbIM

    Or have you Spocked off?

    Good luck, old son.

    Have some cornflakes for breakfast.

    We’ll follow the Sun

    Peace.

    Comrades Alan, Dave, Spock, Mel ‘n’ Paul (and Eric the Divine)

    ReplyDelete
  20. "(Kate and Gerry McCann were not interviewed by Bilton, though a family friend angrily protested their innocence)"

    (...)

    "The one genuine bombshell was the revelation that, during the initial media feeding frenzy, individuals acting on behalf of the McCanns asked Bilton to spy on other journalists."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/05/03/madeleine-mccann-10-years-review-panorama-documentary-attempts/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi John@23:32

    Spot on Why? As Colin Sutton said on Sky 1, it would have been in everyone's interest to investigate the McCanns at the start rather than focusing on an abduction. In the end GA got this case spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi, to whom it may concern
    Just watched "Panorama" almost all of it, though I had to leave some parts out because it's so boring, and I've heard it before. I'm indeed disappointed in many "experts", especially in Sandra Felgueiras, whom I thought was an investigative journalist with integrity. She doesn't seem to take things more seriously than Gerry did in her interview with him some years ago, in which he with a duping smile claimed that the dogs were unreliable. "Ask the dogs Sandra".

    Here we can see the very same Felgueiras, with a flattering smile saying, that it's easier for Portuguese people to believe that the McCanns are guilty. What an odd statement. Does she think that ordinary citizens in her own country don't bother to look into the PJ files in order to try to find out what happened, but just conclude that the McCanns are guilty because it's "easier" What about her own opinion? Does she have any? Has she ever had any?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a bit of a 'girl crush' on Sandra, Bjorn - she dazzles me! lol. Tis true she was very non committal in her reply, but she is a canny journalist. Journalists by their very profession must (or at least appear to be) unbiased or they would never get another interview.

      Sandra has had several iconic interviews with Gerry and Kate, she strives to bring their guard down, yet despite this, they have returned to her several times. I expect like every other top reporter out there, she would love to nab the 'Big One'. I think however Piers and Lorraine are in the lead for that, unless Oprah comes out of retirement.

      Admittedly, my perception on this one is a tad biased. Sandra is articulate enough to say what she really feels without giving offence, so you may be right.

      Delete
  23. That was brilliant. Really sums up that awful programme. I must ask this why are the dog alerts being dismissed? In other cases such as the Suzanne Pilley murder the KEY evidence (according to Crimewatch) was a cadaver dog alert. In that case there was no forensic, no DNA, no body and very little circumstantial evidence against David Gilroy and yet he was still convicted of the murder of Ms Pilley.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ruth Bashford @10:40

      Makes you wonder doesn't it? As this does me:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g

      Ambassador John Buck (from 8.57 into the programme):

      "I have been in touch, closely, over the last few days, with Cabinet Ministers here in Portugal, with the Prime Minister's office, and with the Portuguese police authorities."

      Note the order of precedence.

      One could be forgiven, almost, for wondering whether Madeleine McCann's sperm donor was a member of the Royal Family!

      Delete
    2. Thank you Ruth, and good point. The Panorama documentary felt as if we were being 'softened up' for the results of Operation Grange. Each of Goncalo Amaral's theories were challenged, with much time devoted to the 'unreliability' of the dogs and the 'persecution' of the parents.

      At the moment Ruth, I am having to have almost an entire rethink! It is looking as though the British Police, one way or another, are going to put the blame for Madeleine's disappearance on a stranger abductor, foreign obviously. Not that I am a nationalist in any way, but at this moment, I am ashamed to be British. Perhaps dear old Aunty Beeb will support Gerry and Kate in their battle against Freedom of Speech in the European Court too.

      Delete
  24. Anonymous 5 May 2017 at 12:11

    :) Nice one.:)

    Thank you.

    T:)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Bjorn@10:32

    I've just now watched the Panorama Special, I have to disagree with you I thought SF was good when she said Gerry was arrogant on his answers. However what I would like is a Portuguese version of Panorama & their top investigative TV journalist stopping the McCanns out shopping to ask were they involved in Madeleine's disappearance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John 100
      Yes, I heard what Sandra Felgueiras' said about Gerry's arrogance, still I could read a bit of admiration in that comment. I got the impression that she didn't quite understand the reason as to why Gerry had been so arrogant in that interview. Joking and then also being arrogant was a way to avoid giving a comprehensible answer to what he thought about the dogs' findings. I'd have appreciated if she had emphasized that. This could of course have been what she said between the lines so to speak, but as I said earlier, I was a little disappointed that she didn't express her opinion.

      Delete
  26. "Some people like to make themselves some character of a drama that they never lived." - José Sócrates on Gonçalo Amaral

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

    http://algarvedailynews.com/news/10690-jose-socrates-deadline-set-for-formal-charges

    One of the comments:

    "As so many expats pointed out at the time - where in Portugal would sufficient calibre investigators be found to examine Socrates finances? Any policeman getting a name for themselves for digging deep into crimes and criminals would soon realise it was 'grounds for dismissal'.

    Also the layers of protection by the Portuguese elite are built into the law. The list of precautions is endless. First of all ... Honour is being challenged - attack one corrupt fraudster and you are attacking them all. Not good in a country as corrupt as Portugal as it is criminal Defamation if not provable to a bent Judges satisfaction.

    Then there is No use of leaked off-shore accounts (as obtained illegally); no access to the on-shore or off-shore bank accounts of nearest and dearest (remember that the British Serious Fraud Office was involved over Freeport and it was Socrates Uncle in the frame) so as here - only intermediaries were investigated. Who, as with Passos Coelho's Tecnoforma investigation can wriggle out by saying it was 'poor accounting. Following prior warning - all written records now 'mysteriously destroyed'.

    No recordings allowed at all - Freeports video recordings were destroyed. Even dashcam footage is illegal!

    This is the UK's Independents take on Socrates and Freeport and a missing 4 million sterling back in 2009."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-pm-vows-to-defend-honour-over-mall-1517567.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. AC Mark Rowley reflects on the tenth anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

    http://news.met.police.uk/blog_posts/ac-mark-rowley-reflects-on-the-tenth-anniversary-of-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-56775

    ReplyDelete
  28. “When Madeleine was abducted, Clarence Mitchell didn't even know the McCanns existed.”

    And you know that because…?

    Because some things, as hard as it is for so many to accept, don't need analysing to death or hypothesising. Shall we imagine Mitchell worked in Whitehall ( until Madeleine disappeared) while Mr and Mrs McCann lived and worked in Leicester but were 'chummy' due to all the common ground they shared and the circles in which they moved. Not for me.

    ''“As an aside, there were six doctors in the group. What doctor wants to self-incriminate?''
    Does anyone want to self -incriminate ? Would a factory worker want to ? Or a mechanic? What about a politician.”
    ''And your ‘relevant’ point is…?''

    Is glaringly obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ZiggySawdust at 18:31

      NL: "What doctor wants to self-incriminate?"

      ZS: "Does anyone want to self -incriminate ? Would a factory worker want to ? Or a mechanic? What about a politician.”

      T: "And your ‘relevant’ point is...?"

      ZS: "Is glaringly obvious."

      Clarence Mitchell: "Did two doctors cover up the death of their own daughter whilst on holiday? Of course not. And it is ridiculous to suggest it."

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

      Is it also ridiculous to suggest that a factory worker, a mechanic or a politician could cover up the death of their own child whilst on holiday?

      NL

      Delete
    2. HI NL and others
      Re; Clarence Mitchells' statement "Did two doctors cover up the death of their own daughter whilst on holiday? Of course not. And it is ridiculous to suggest it."

      Everything Mitchell says sounds so convincing in the very moment he says it, but one soon realizes that it's just about empty, repetitive and meaningless rhetoric.

      Of course, two doctors with narcissistic personality can try to conceal an accident that has caused the death of their daughter, if they know that they are responsible for what happened, and if they also know that their careers and reputation would be completely ruined in case they would be charged.

      There’s is nothing strange about that, considering that the very same two doctors didn’t even wake up their surviving two toddlers to make sure that they hadn’t been harmed in any way by the alleged perpetrator or if they perhaps had woken up earlier that night and seen something. Nor did they take them to a hospital the following day to test them whether they had got any internal injuries, or if they had been drugged. Why does Mitchell believe that these two doctors cannot possibly cover up for the death of their own daughter?

      Delete
    3. Björn @21:42

      Well said and good question:

      "Why does Mitchell believe that these two doctors cannot possibly cover up for the death of their own daughter?"

      And Mitchell doesn't just believe it, he is sure ("Of course not." - CM). Because they are doctors or "whilst on holiday" or because they are doctors whilst on holiday?

      Mitchell comes across to me as someone who doesn't believe his own words and doesn't care.

      NL

      Delete
    4. Agree with NL, well said Bjorn!

      Clarence should also bear in mind that had they not been two doctors, or a party of doctors, it is very unlikely they would managed such a cover up and keep it going!

      Delete
    5. Hi NL :) I think Clarence is as entwined as Gerry and Kate (and several others) - unfortunately for him, his physical appearance betrays his forceful words. He looks a wreck. As a spokesman, he is Sean Spicer on a particularly bad day. Kate and Gerry should make HIM a cup of tea. I would suggest he reads 'Women Who Love Too Much' - replacing the word 'Women' with 'Spokesmen obviously. And maybe a few hours of meditation. There is more to life than kissing the arses of those who despise you Clarence.

      Doctors are not Gods. Nor are they of a higher social status than the rest of us. Such are our codes and conventions, Doctors are among the few professions where people are addressed with their titles. They are much in demand so they are treated with deference, the opinion of the Doctor is the one that matters.

      With some, doctors are human too, the God Complex can kick in. That is they become so used to not being questioned, they carry it through to their personal lives. Should add, some lawyers are similarly affected.

      Gerry and Kate are very assertive - they achieved everything they set out to do. Over the years I worked for many bosses of a similar ilk. Successful people yes, pleasant, no.

      That is, they believe they are part of an elite, that is, 'they have got the foreman's job at last' [song begins, 'the working class can kiss my arse'] - you get the gist.

      The Tapas group were all refined professionals, none of them likely to participate in a wet t-shirt contest or get drunk and take over the karaoke. They were all highly amused by Jane's banal comment about 'relieving Russell' - yeh, party central.

      Gerry and Kate are very class and role orientated. As people respect them, they respect Priests, politicians, celebrities etc. They were in awe of Oprah, it was one of their most uncomfortable interviews. It is this consciousness that keeps them aloof - unlikeable, some might say. Or arrogance - 'I know more than you do' (Kate). With Sandra Felgueres, they were more relaxed, to them she was an 'equal', or dare I say it, a foreigner. For some reason, they relax a tad, when they are interviewed by non English speakers and Australians. These have been the times when they have been caught off guard. The Expresso interview is a good example.

      Clarence Mitchell is an entire psychological profile on his own. At this stage I almost feel sorry for him, every untruth, every twisting of facts and every out and out lie, is caught on camera.

      Delete
  29. john wright5 May 2017 at 00:12

    ''Ziggy from what I can pick up you don't believe the mccanns are involved in Madeleine's disappearance but you still think something's been hidden or protected.whats your theory on what happened?''

    Nice to see someone's alert.

    Once I'd looked beneath the surface of the case ( the infamous pro v anti nonsense) and looked at the dogs /blood/DNA /48 questions palaver, I started to look past the stars of the show and examine the plot and the production. I paid a lot of attention to political corruption from the not-too-distant past, to recent and ongoing. I was struck by the speed of the UK jumping into the fight( nobody knew it was going to be a fight apart from the UK).
    I looked at a handful of names ( UK and Portugal). The handful of names have never changed.I won't elaborate on here as I know the general consensus would only yield more anger. I can't reason with unreasonable people-who can ?

    To summarise, i'll say I was more interested in when the McCanns were sent to do their PR moves rather than what the content of them was.Blinks and slips of the tongue mean nothing in an unnatural setting. I was more concerned with the timing of the MSM as they are, like it or not, under orders from the Gov. I noted Gerry's usual demeanour in front of camera was an awkward mixture of self-control and tension.He only let slip when he attacked the lack of progress being made by police and detectives and that media moguls were holding too much sway. He caused Cameron to jump when he suggested an independent inquiry ( he was as scared of the hot potato as Theresa May had been). I wondered then, as i do now, if Gerry McCann also wonders. The media have used them as poster children for pain and loss and missing children and to sell papers. The media( Gov) pointed their way and we followed their finger.Magicians call that misdirection.

    I believe that Madeleine was targeted and taken. I believe the apartment had been watched for more than just one night. The parents( and T7) developed a pattern of behaviour that allowed an abductor to pounce straight after one 'check on' the kids and get out fast.A burglar wouldn't have cased anywhere and leave with nothing they could sell or use.But Madeleine held some kind of value to them. Or to someone who eventually received her.I believe-only my opinion- that the parents must have similar ideas, but how can they ever go public with it ? After all that funding..all that protection..all that special treatment from Prime Ministers. They have to remain silent. From the Panorama programme, it seems certain Portuguese men in suits have to as well.The conspiracy of silence has been held tightly in place while all the noise happens online by the distracted and misdirected. The only question that needs to be asked, while this conspiracy continues ? Cui bono ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:03

      "I believe that Madeleine was targeted and taken. I believe the apartment had been watched for more than just one night. The parents( and T7) developed a pattern of behaviour that allowed an abductor to pounce straight after one 'check on' the kids and get out fast...But Madeleine held some kind of value to them. Or to someone who eventually received her. I believe-only my opinion- that the parents must have similar ideas, but how can they ever go public with it?"

      They already have (gone public with it), long since, and verbatim almost:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQazjM-bCo

      Delete
    2. Sorry Ziggy, there are several major flaws in your hypothesis. Madeleine was a lovely little girl, but she was no different to any other little girl at that age, unless you know them, they are all much the same.

      If she were stolen for sexual purposes, then it really is a case of any child will do. Any other reason? What could there be? No ransom has every been demanded and there is nothing that stands out about the parents either.

      Had she been stolen for a childless couple, there were two babies in the same room, a boy or a girl. Madeleine could walk and talk and would have been a nightmare to take across a border or on a plane, or adapt to a new family.

      The idea that they were watching the apartment takes incredulity to the extreme. That doesn't lower the risk of them being caught, loitering around 5A in the preceding days, raises it! Especially the odd fella who just stood staring at the apartment in full view of anyone who passed by.

      Stranger abductions are usually opportunist Ziggy, as in the cases of Sarah Payne and April Jones. Most, if not all, tragic kids, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No-one was watching their homes or the parents' routines - that goes into the realms of pure fantasy.

      I once wasted 45 minutes of my life talking to a madwoman who thought Maddie was a Clone. You are not heading in that direction are you?

      Delete
  30. Anonymous5 May 2017 at 13:59

    good post..this area, and areas similar, have received far too little attention by so many who consider their research of the bigger picture as 'thorough'.

    ReplyDelete
  31. My opinion is that the dog alerts are almost certainly false, but they did upset the narrative of an abduction FROM the apartment which is equally likely to be false. The fire fighting that the dog alerts triggered has been going on for years now, will it ever end?
    The difficulty is knowing what actually happened to Madeleine. Did she wander off from the apartment and was then picked up with the intention of making a ransom demand or something else. Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to pull you up on 'the dog alerts are almost certainly false' 19:53. I don't accept for one minute that those highly trained dogs made ELEVEN mistakes. They only reacted to McCann property, that is in Apartment 5A, their hire car and their personal possessions.

      They went through a number of other apartments and other cars, but they did not alert anywhere else. Someone died in 5A, and Madeleine has not been seen in 10 years.

      Delete
    2. I respect your opinion (I used to hold a similar opinion myself) on the dogs. However I now believe the alerts are false (in the sense that they are either wrong or not relevant to Madeleine).

      For instance there has been a scientific study since 2007 on the influence of the handler on sniffer dog alerts, and another on the effect of differences in training methods.
      There is a National Police Improvement report referred to on the internet.

      To counter your point on the fact that Madeleine has not been seen in 10 years. Dogs generally are only brought in when someone is missing or is suspected to have been harmed/murdered. Even if the dog alert is false there is still a strong possibility that Madeleine is dead. If a body is found does that mean the dogs were right, I don't believe it does.

      As you know the dogs are not evidence for trial purposes, without forensic evidence.

      I do think the forensic evidence should be reviewed to see if new techniques may be used. But, it is not clear whether there is any forensic material left to retest.

      I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm just throwing issues into the mix!

      Delete
    3. 09:02

      "I'm just throwing issues into the mix!"

      Like dirt into the cement. There are no issues. You are wrong. Period.

      Delete
  32. Hi Ziggy@18:31

    I think the difference is would 9 factory workers or mechanics on holiday together get the same treatment if one of their kids disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed John, could you imagine Commander Simon Foy, declaring 9 factory workers innocent on the first brief glance of a file?

      Delete
    2. ..... and would multi-millionaire double-glazing tycoon, Brian Kennedy, spend just 15 seconds watching a news item on a group of unemployed sink-estate inhabitants on benefits, and KNOW that they were innocent in a similar situation?

      Delete
  33. John1005 May 2017 at 19:55

    ''I think the difference is would 9 factory workers or mechanics on holiday together get the same treatment if one of their kids disappeared.''

    I don't know whether that's a statement or a question. The 'special treatment due to their class and profession' argument would sound reasonable if there was historical evidence that shows other professional, middle class people being closely guarded and protected by diplomats from their own country as well as two prime ministers. You have to remember, pertinent to this case, as it took place in Portugal, that the biggest criminal trial in the country's history took five years and focused on some very influential and wealthy people who had been running a paedophile ring. They were far more wealthy and influential than two ( or 9 )doctors visiting the place for a holiday.One was a 'prominent doctor' who favoured deaf and dumb children.That all found it's way to court because too many witnesses and independent investigation eventually overcame all efforts to keep it quiet by top people-similar to the Dutroux affair in Belgium. Those cases were real.So were the crimes.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 May 2017 at 20:44

    ''Indeed John, could you imagine Commander Simon Foy, declaring 9 factory workers innocent on the first brief glance of a file?''

    Can you imagine him turning up and instantly dismissing the possibility of an abduction in favour of incriminating the parents without a full investigation ? It might make a good book, but it's seriously naive, some would say careless, policing.

    The protection of the parents was /is there for all to see. To say it's due to them being doctors is desperate. Prisons house people from all walks of life .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pathetic Ziggy. Portugal launched the biggest missing child search in it's history, all of which we saw on TV and in the papers. The parents were not declared Arguidos until September.

      The idea that they immediately settled on blaming the parents so Goncalo Amaral could write a book is ridiculous. You seem to forget just how public the search was Ziggy, and once again you are asking us to believe the McCannns rather than our own eyes.

      Delete
  34. Anonymous5 May 2017 at 19:53

    ''Did she wander off from the apartment and was then picked up with the intention of making a ransom demand or something else. Who knows?''

    Money was no object for those protecting the McCanns. If a ransom demand was made for money, i doubt it would have exceeded a million euro. In which case it was spare change compared to the money later spent on the case. it begs the question of what other kind of leverage a stolen child can provide.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 May 2017 at 20:41

    '' I don't accept for one minute that those highly trained dogs made ELEVEN mistakes. They only reacted to McCann property, that is in Apartment 5A, their hire car and their personal possessions. ''

    You don't, no. You can't. But the police did.And the documentary that this thread is dedicated to elaborated on why the evidence was 'weak' according to scientists who have had years of training in the field of forensic investigation. The only way your preferred scenario could transpire is if they held their hands up and stated that they weren't telling the truth.Or, they covered the truth up as instructed. You either believe the experts or the conspiracy. There's no middle ground.

    I personally have a problem with Amaral's conjecturing. The McCanns literally had only minutes to put the child in a fridge or freezer-or the supposed coffin in the church.But, in that very short time frame, enough cadaver scent was left to be alerted to how long after ? And how does the coffin scenario line up with the hired car tale ? Why were the dogs running around 'cuddle cat' and getting nothing ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course there is a middle ground Ziggy! Just because a body has been moved, doesn't mean it wasn't there. And there have been many prosecutions without a body being found.

      The dogs indicated death in that apartment, there is no getting away from it Ziggy. If SY and/or the PJ dismiss the findings of the dogs, will it set a precedent? From now on, will the work of EVRD dogs be discarded?

      And by using the word 'preference' you are implying that I personally want the evidence of the dogs to be treated with respect. There is nothing personal about it Ziggy, I tend to go with what I see with my own eyes.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy
      "The McCanns literally had only minutes to put the child in a fridge or freezer-or the supposed coffin in the church" Why do you think so?

      No independent witness had seen Madeleine after she had been fetched from the crêche that afternoon around 5 pm. So Madeleine could have been lying hidden and dead in the apartment for hours and then moved to other places. So, if the McCanns by accident had caused the death of Madeleine early in that evening, they would have had plenty of time planning what to do with her body, where to dispose of it and at what time to do it. Has anyone, including GA really suggested that Madeleine ended up in fridge or in a coffin just minutes after she had died? Isn't one of Amaral's hypothesis that the body can have been moved around several times. The scent and the blood residues in the rented car suggest that, as the car was rented by the McCanns almost three weeks after she had been reported missing.

      Delete
    3. Ziggy/Rosalinda

      R: "I don't accept for one minute that those highly trained dogs made ELEVEN mistakes."

      Z: "You don't, no. You can't. But the police did."

      That is a false assumption based, it would appear, on:

      "And (in the sense of 'because') the documentary that this thread is dedicated to elaborated on why the evidence was 'weak'"

      The forensic evidence and the dogs' behaviours are independent factors. Even if they appear not to correlate positively you cannot infer that the dogs 'made mistakes'. The complete absence of a body, for instance, does not invalidate an EVRD's indication that a corpse was present at some time.

      R: "The dogs indicated death in that apartment"

      No, they did not. One reacted to the smell of decomposition, the other to human blood, neither of which equates to 'death in the apartment' necessarily, although the combination of alerts makes it appear a reasonable inference.

      But what do you do if the blood cannot be linked, absolutely and beyond doubt, with the supposed victim?

      That's where the FSS came in - just introduce a margin of doubt and the problem goes away.

      Delete
    4. Hi Anon 10:49
      Of course, one can dismiss or reject all findings in the Madeleine case pointing in the direction of the McCanns' guilt, if there would just be "wholly innocent explanation to all of them". What would the explanation to the sniffer dogs' findings be, if we just assume that the dogs have no reason to lie? Why did the McCanns keep the two sketches of the man that the Smiths saw secret from the general public for 5 years, etc etc? By "introducing a margin of doubt" just adds to the question what happened and why? The problem does not go away.

      Delete
    5. There is an incredible push at the moment to discredit the dogs, so thank you for your contribution 10:49. I find it astonishing that so many are working so hard to discredit the amazing work of EVRD dogs, the British establishment especially.

      Delete
    6. Agree Bjorn. There must have time to hide the body and clean up. The McCanns were staying in that apartment for 5 days before Madeleine disappeared, yet there was no DNA for Madeleine, not even a hair. There was obviously a clean up, all the forensic results were weak and inconclusive, the area behind the sofa had been scrupulously cleaned.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda @12:14

      "I find it astonishing that so many are working so hard to discredit the amazing work of EVRD dogs, the British establishment especially."

      One aspect of 'Ziggy's' claims at least is very probably true, in which case no-one should be astonished at the facility with which counter-intuitive directions are issued, whether to the Police, the FSS or any other executive branch of government - diplomats for example.

      As far as the dogs are concerned we should ignore the 'Twitterati' but notice that McCann compliant media (e.g. 'Auntie') confine their criticism to the animals engaged in this instance. They cannot denigrate the use of animals in general whilst promoting the benefits of doing so elsewhere (e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18496516)

      The immediate purpose (even if not the underlying motive) of 'the Establishment' is clear. We only need play 'Where are they now?' in relation to the two men who between them pushed aside the pillars of Dagon's temple to appreciate that.

      Delete
  35. "Ten years after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann...Goncalo Amaral continues to
    1. defend the hypothesis that Maddie died accidentally on the night of the disappearance,"
    --------------------------------------
    Tony Bennett Today at 21:33
    "REPLY: Yet the evidence compiled over many years on this forum, and by notable figures such as PeterMac, HideHo and now Richard Hall"
    -----------------------------

    Notable figures - my sides are splitting with laughter.
    bennett needs hosing down with gallons of reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG that is the best giggle I've had all day! So these hmm, notable figures, have disproved GA's theory. That is, Goncalo Amaral, the detective who was in charge of the investigation and actually there on the ground! Yeh, that'll be a best seller, lol.

      Delete
  36. Anonymous5 May 2017 at 20:49

    ''They already have (gone public with it), long since, and verbatim almost:''

    Yep, I've seen that clip before. That's Km stating she thinks they'd been watched prior to the night in question. What i'm saying is that i suspect that the parents must, at some point, reflected on the bigger picture too. Considering that an abductor/s had been waiting to pounce is one thing.But I wonder if they've reflected upon the stranglehold on the case that the UK Gov had. Hence GM's frustration at lack of progress and asking a Prime Minister, rather than somebody at the top table in the Met, for an independent investigation and complaining about the media moguls ( I believe he used that in favour of 'media circus').It seemed, then, that his faith in their so-called transparency had all but gone.But could they say that publicly with press hounds waiting and an online army ready to slaughter their ingratitude( funding etc).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5.5 @22:55

      "I suspect that the parents must, at some point, ((have) reflected on the bigger picture too."

      You can count on it.

      "I wonder if they've reflected upon the stranglehold on the case that the UK Gov had?"

      That too.

      Delete
  37. Anonymous5 May 2017 at 22:23

    Jesus H Christ, anon...'notable figures'. I don't know whether that's hilarious or tragic. So the online 'court of public opinion' who use google and youtube and basically invent the rest and support each other on it are the new super sleuths.We can send the police to the job centre and send the forensic teams to nasa. Twitter will save the the world. I can hear them screaming in their heads as they see their ship going down. Clinging to each other hoping that a raft will turn up and save the day. Guess who won't be the captain of that raft...

    A bad idea is a bad idea. When thousands get behind that bad idea-guess what..it's still a bad idea..

    ReplyDelete
  38. "But Madeleine held some kind of value to them. Or to someone who eventually received her.I believe-only my opinion- that the parents must have similar ideas, but how can they ever go public with it ? After all that funding..all that protection..all that special treatment from Prime Ministers. They have to remain silent. From the Panorama programme, it seems certain Portuguese men in suits have to as well.The conspiracy of silence has been held tightly in place while all the noise happens online by the distracted and misdirected."

    Oh, Ziggy. So much right and then you go and spoil it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous5 May 2017 at 23:07

    ''Oh, Ziggy. So much right and then you go and spoil it.''

    In my defence, I did stress 'only in my opinion'. Speculating is all we have. The amount of innuendo from the PJ past and present -particularly when pressed about the UK getting involved, the complete absence of progress in ten years, the on-off relationship between the parents and Mitchel ( and Government) can't be seen as transparency can it. That nobody expects any leads to actually 'lead' anywhere says much. The scenario i describe isn't as outlandish as some may prefer it to be considered. It isn't exactly unprecedented, which is more than can be said about so much surrounding this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your opinion was spot on until that last para, and 'only in my opinion' is not a defence, just a case of stating the obvious...

      Delete
    2. 01:27

      "Speculating is all we have"

      It might be all 'you' have.

      Delete
  40. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 May 2017 at 01:34

    ''Of course there is a middle ground Ziggy! Just because a body has been moved, doesn't mean it wasn't there.And there have been many prosecutions without a body being found. ''

    It doesn't say a body was either.That's why we have forensics. The dogs' findings, or indications, were passed along to the forensics team as they'd indicated that there was a scent of something or someone having been dead there.I suppose it's fair to assume that if they'd found anything significant suggesting a dead person had been there, it would have been Madeleine, as she was no longer there. But that's academic now as the team stated categorically that it wasn't significant, and couldn't be corroborated with anything else significant. All that seems significant to me. They are either lying or telling the truth. Not wanting to accept a fact is a waste of time.It's still a fact. That was what caused the police to search for the child for ten years and treat the case as a missing person case. Are they supposed to ignore the forensics team ? They'd definitely need a body to take that chance.

    ''The dogs indicated death in that apartment, there is no getting away from it Ziggy.''

    They detected something from what i saw on the exact same video as you.And, whatever it was,it was tested.It failed, so we're told.Why would a forensics team want to commit a scam to pretend a child who was dead was actually alive.

    ''If SY and/or the PJ dismiss the findings of the dogs, will it set a precedent? From now on, will the work of EVRD dogs be discarded? ''

    I doubt it. But nothing would surprise me after the way so many trusted professionals have acted throughout this investigation. A detective isn't discarded for making wrongful arrests, even if convicts are later freed from prison. It could have been bad or dishonest police work that put someone in jail, or genuine errors or a stupid jury. Mistakes happen. Even dogs make mistakes. It doesn't mean they lie. The dogs found something. The forensics said it wasn't cadaver scent.

    ''And by using the word 'preference' you are implying that I personally want the evidence of the dogs to be treated with respect''

    I wish i had a fiver for every time you brought their findings up to incriminate the McCanns. You want them treated as law, not just with respect. Everything you say in the area screams it.

    ''There is nothing personal about it Ziggy, I tend to go with what I see with my own eyes.''

    There is even less personal in it for a team of scientists. They're methodical and clinical. Completely impartial and unbiased. More importantly, they rely on far more rigorous testing than using just their own eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 02:37

      Rosalinda: "The dogs indicated death in that apartment, there is no getting away from it Ziggy."

      "They detected something from what i saw on the exact same video as you. And, whatever it was, it was tested. It failed, so we're told."

      This is either juvenile naivety on your part or deliberate misrepresentation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Either way you cannot conflate the dogs' behaviour with the laboratory testing of physical samples and hold the latter up as a measure of performance on the animal's part.

      'They' were two dogs with operationally different sensibilities - one attuned to cadaverine, the other to human blood. There was no body to be taken away and 'tested' for signs of life, species membership or anything else (See up-thread @10:49).

      There neither is nor was any forensic test that could verify this dog's indications - only another dog. And that's where the second animal comes in.

      The CSI dog's purpose is to detect the presence of human blood. If an adequate sample is 'lifted' from the location indicated, this becomes the focus of forensic attention for the obvious reasons spelled out earlier.

      So, 'They' did NOT detect 'it', which did NOT 'fail' when tested (it WAS blood). Whether it was Madeleine McCanns blood is a separate, but no less important question.

      Even if it should have been exuded by the fellow in the habit of shaving in the lounge rather than the bathroom, the question of whose corpse deposited signs of its decomposition remains to be addressed.

      Applying Gerry McCan's own vaunted 'rule out method' leads to an almost inevitable diagnosis.

      Delete
    2. I am not juvenilely naïve for believing my own eyes 13:34. The two dogs did exactly what they were trained to do. And what they did told the police, myself and everyone who has seen the videos was respond to the smell of blood and cadaver that a dead body had been in Apartment 5A.

      The findings may have been weak and inconclusive but that doesn't mean the dogs were wrong, because 1)the body had obviously been moved and 2)the area cleaned with bleach,3)Missing Madeleine hasn't been seen in 10 years.

      Anyone carrying out a multimillion pound search for a live child after the dogs' alerts is incredibly stupid or incredibly corrupt.

      To me the McCann case is the convent all over again. I was battered daily because I refused to believe the same old codswollop as the nuns.

      Kudos to Gerry in managing to convince so many gullible fools that the dogs are notoriously unreliable, but he ain't duping me!

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda

      Unless your earlier post was timed @ 02:07 you might notice that my comment was addressed to 'Ziggy', not yourself.

      Delete
  41. One big mistake Panorama made was the window. It was filmed inside showing the Portuguese man outside saying the window can be opened from the outside. Mistake No 1 The owner of apartment 5a won't let anyone look inside the apartment as she doesn't want any publicity.

    Mistake No 2 There are bars on the window now.

    So where was this filmed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 05:50

      Mistake no. 3: Describing the shutter as "raised from the outside" when it was done by pulling on the cord inside. (The first 6 inches are insufficient to enable entry or exit I think).

      Delete
  42. http://algarvedailynews.com/news/10596-portugal-investigates-corruption-in-plasma-supply-to-health-service

    13 December 2016

    "Portugal's attorney general's office has confirmed that officials are conducting searches in Portugal and Switzerland as part of a corruption investigation into plasma* supplies to the country's national health service.

    Magistrates and police have searched around 40 homes, business premises and the offices of the Health Ministry and the National Health Service, and two locations in Switzerland, all part of the 'máfia do sangue,' or 'blood mafia.'

    The authorities suspect "a pharmaceutical company employee" (from Octapharma) and "a Portuguese government official" (Luís Cunha Ribeiro) of conspiring to set up a monopoly through fixing public tenders for plasma supplies to Portugal’s hospitals.

    (...)

    "Octopharma was in the headlines in 2015 when it fired José Sócrates from a lucrative consultancy role. The multinational pharmaceutical company terminated the €12,000 pcm contract with the former prime minister while he was detained in Evora prison as a result of enquiries into money laundering, corruption and qualified tax fraud.

    Mysteriously, José Sócrates had an apartment in the same luxury block in Lisbon where Octapharma supplied the apartment for Luís Cunha Ribeiro's use."

    ReplyDelete
  43. In my opinion, this is an interesting analysis:

    http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.co.uk/

    The Cracked Mirror

    ReplyDelete
  44. First time posting on this blog/site: do Bogart's videos/postings have any credence here?

    This is his latest:-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S5GF02_7n4

    ReplyDelete
  45. Somebody is conspicuous by his absence in these comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Busy re-thinking his satisfaction with the status quo as regards Operation Grange I imagine.

      Delete
  46. Anonymous6 May 2017 at 08:35

    ''Your opinion was spot on until that last para, and 'only in my opinion' is not a defence, just a case of stating the obvious...''

    Possibly. But I wanted to emphasise the 'opinion' as 80% of theorising on the blog is stated as 'fact' or 'truth' or 'evidence'. it's not a trend I'd like to be identified with-even accidentally.

    Anonymous6 May 2017 at 10:24

    01:27

    "Speculating is all we have"
    It might be all 'you' have.''

    It's all any of us have. We're observers of the investigation and of the case. Anyone actually involved in the case or investigation who knows the truth hasn't made that truth public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's all any of us have" (speculation)

      Wrong.

      Delete
  47. Anonymous6 May 2017 at 12:27

    ''First time posting on this blog/site: do Bogart's videos/postings have any credence here? ''

    Bogart's no Sam Spade. The video's a desperate attempt to elevate Calpol to a grade A drug. It isn't heroin. All parents buy it over the counter for toddlers. The 'conspiracy' that so many doctors would be in on that is silly.He suggests heart failure( don't tell the blood dogs) and that Tony Blair prevented Amaral investigating medical records.

    The sidebar on the youtube menu has his 'series'. There's a 'Tanner cover up' ; an 'analysis' of David Payne; The aerobics girl is now called 'Gerry's aerobocs girl'. I suppose the last-named makes sense. If Gerry had an aerobics girl, it could cause Madeleine to have heart failure. It's just more BS. He wants the McCanns to be done for the killing of their daughter and their friends to go down for conspiracy to conceal the fact. He's been on the Calpol. Or should be.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous6 May 2017 at 14:13

    "It's all any of us have" (speculation)

    ''Wrong.''

    Good argument advanced there. Hard to counter. Are you keeping the truth to yourself and putting it in a book later ? Will we learn the 'truth' then ? Or do you just like telling people that they're wrong for the hell of it..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 14:49

      "Or do you just like telling people that they're wrong for the hell of it."

      No. I dislike people being presumptuous in assuming they know everything about everyone, including myself.

      "It's all any of us have". Really?

      How the hell do you know what's in my locker? You don't.

      As for 'argument' there is none, so move along.

      Delete
  49. Björn5 May 2017 at 21:42

    ''Of course, two doctors with narcissistic personality can try to conceal an accident that has caused the death of their daughter''

    Who said the parents are suffering from that disorder ? Who made the diagnosis ? A psychiatrist, or someone on a blog who enjoys accusing the parents 24/7 of whatever he can. ?

    ''Why does Mitchell believe that these two doctors cannot possibly cover up for the death of their own daughter? ''

    Maybe he was told by the PJ or SY that they weren't suspects. Why do they think it ?

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 May 2017 at 22:56

    ''Agree with NL, well said Bjorn! ''

    No kidding. Shock.

    ''Clarence should also bear in mind that had they not been two doctors, or a party of doctors, it is very unlikely they would managed such a cover up and keep it going!''

    When did doctors become criminal masterminds before the McCanns did online. Cover ups of crimes in the 20th century are not exactly rare.Cover ups of murders or 'accidental deaths' by doctors on holiday are.

    ''Clarence Mitchell is an entire psychological profile on his own. At this stage I almost feel sorry for him, every untruth, every twisting of facts and every out and out lie, is caught on camera.''
    The camera is an often used tool of people watchers. Real psychological profilers bring years of academic study and work in the field to the table as it isn't a game of cluedo.

    ''Gerry and Kate are very assertive - they achieved everything they set out to do. Over the years I worked for many bosses of a similar ilk. Successful people yes, pleasant, no. ''

    You know them personally ? Or have you only seen them on TV discussing the disappearance of their child ?

    ''That is, they believe they are part of an elite''

    How do you-or any of us- know what they believe ? You mean YOU believe that they believe it. It's just another criticism to add to the list isn't it. A slur.

    ''Gerry and Kate are very class and role orientated. As people respect them, they respect Priests, politicians, celebrities etc.''

    Yes, priests and celebrities belong in the same bracket.

    ''Doctors are not Gods. Nor are they of a higher social status than the rest of us. ''

    I don't believe anyone outside of the circle of 'antis' has suggested and hammered home this bizarre perception of the doctors being 'special' and, therefore, beyond the law. That's probably why it always sounds ridiculous. Two police forces and governments refuse to incriminate two holiday makers of being responsible for the death of their daughter and covering it up because they have good jobs. Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REAL psychological profilers - OUCH!

      I have spent my entire life studying human behaviour Ziggy, actually I have spent my entire life studying. Period. I haven't sought professional qualifications in the areas I study Ziggy, I do it purely for my own enlightenment.

      When I write, the teacher in me comes out, I like to pass the knowledge I have acquired onto others and one of my greatest joys in life are those lightbulb moments when I know my carefully considered words get through.

      Had I wanted to specialise in one particular area of teaching and research Ziggy, I would have. If and when I get around to doing a Masters, it will be on The French Revolution - a subject that has been a lifelong interest, and a Qualification that will have no purpose other than my love of reading history.

      I don't claim to be a psychological profiler with Certificates, but I have the indepth knowledge to be able to evaluate character and motive - a bit like Sherlock Holmes who wasn't a psychological profiler either.

      What you do not understand Ziggy, bless, is that expert opinion is not set in stone. For every expert proclaiming one truth, there will be a dozen disputing it and the 'best truth' will win.

      Anyway, here's a little puzzle for you Ziggy. How do I know the McCanns are assertive?





      Answer: Name one other victim of tragedy who has launched (within days), and sustained a 10 year publicity campaign with the support of the MSM and the Government?

      Has anyone ever said 'no' to them?

      Delete
  50. Is it accepted here that Mi5/Government had a hand in this? If so, there is no reason to assume that the date was 3/5/207 at all and GA would never have come across this interference before. No blame on him or his officers.

    Think through to earlier in the week when it may have happened and been reported to the UK. (We are six senior NHS doctors in deep mire.") The stage was set for an abduction on the date we know so well.

    Then the mother cried out "They've taken her"

    I feel so sorry for Kate McCann.








    Look at how clean the apartment was of Madeleine after one maid stating it was a mess. Is that an Mi5 cleansing? Or had Madeleine not actually been there for days?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @15:26

      You're taking a bit of a risk putting those ideas forward aren't you?

      "there is no reason to assume that the date was 3/5/207 at all"

      There is one reason: It's the night when the McCanns announced their daughter was missing. It's the only reason.

      'But there are the crèche records...'

      Completed by the same couple who said their daughter was missing.

      "Think through to earlier in the week when it may have happened and been reported to the UK.

      "The stage was set for an abduction on the date we know so well."

      If your name's Tony Bennett or Richard D. Hall you can already guess the form further comments will take, but kudos for voicing a more than valid opinion if not.

      Delete
    2. 6.5 @5:26

      "there is no reason to assume that the date was 3/5/207 at all"

      I wrote you some words of encouragement yesterday which seem to have met with editorial disapproval, but you are quite correct.

      Delete
  51. As ziggy keeps on saying he thinks there is a cover up, but not to protect the Mccanns, it has got me thinking.
    What if (and just pure speculation) an accidental death occurred, or even an abduction and Gerry just by coincidence had some involvement with Operation Ore a few years earlier? This could have been innocently through someone fraudulently using his credit card even. Either way the government would know the press would eventually dig this up and they would not want that subject coming back in the limelight what with rumours of Blair and D notices and labour ministers being involved etc.
    I know a CATS file exists and was allegedly later wiped,but this was 2007 and the government was acting at the time and not later with the benefit of hindsight and so couldn't take the chance.
    Once the cover up began it had to be maintained even though it was costly and troublesome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 May 2017 at 16:54

      I think you are wrong.

      Delete
  52. "Ten years after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann...Goncalo Amaral continues to
    1. defend the hypothesis that Maddie died accidentally on the night of the disappearance,"
    --------------------------------------
    Tony Bennett Today at 21:33
    "REPLY: Yet the evidence compiled over many years on this forum, and by notable figures such as PeterMac, HideHo and now Richard Hall"
    -----------------------------

    Notable figures - my sides are splitting with laughter.
    bennett needs hosing down with gallons of reality.

    That is really tragic indeed. Everyone wants their five minutes of fame. I guess those three are seeking the stupidity award and have you seen the mess in 'that' forum? I hope they haven't given up their day jobs...or maybe they had to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16:29

      "Everyone wants their five minutes of fame"

      Including you I imagine.

      "I guess those three are seeking the stupidity award.."

      To be bestowed by...? Let me guess.

      "...and have you seen the mess in 'that' forum?"

      Has someone left their underwear on the floor, or the washing up in the sink then?

      Your interpretation of tragedy leaves a lot to be desired.

      Delete
  53. Anonymous6 May 2017 at 17:00

    ''No. I dislike people being presumptuous in assuming they know everything about everyone, including myself.''

    Who presumes that -can you direct me or anyone else to the evidence of it ?

    ''"It's all any of us have". Really?''

    Yes- really. If you don't believe me, google the case, or read a paper or watch the documentaries. It's a missing person case officially -still.

    ''As for 'argument' there is none, so move along.''

    Let's hope there's a dictionary then.

    ''How the hell do you know what's in my locker? You don't.''

    That's why i asked.But now I'm hoping there's some Whale music CDs or a warm drink.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 18:15

    "Who presumes that -can you direct me or anyone else to the evidence of it?"

    See your own statement following ("It's all any of us have").

    "That's why i asked.But now I'm hoping there's some Whale music CDs or a warm drink."

    Dream on.

    Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You are probably right 20:56. Too soon methinks. I will delete it, your comment too, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 May 2017 at 11:49

    ''Pathetic Ziggy...''

    Setting the tone with the trademark intelligent argument and grace as usual...

    I used to think your responses to those who challenged your in depth knowledge and understanding( ''the McCanns are guilty-end of'') were due to skim reading.But It seems that you've invented 'skim understanding'.

    ''The idea that they immediately settled on blaming the parents so Goncalo Amaral could write a book is ridiculous.''


    I agree-who said it ?

    You've ignored the main body of the post and decided to concentrate on words i haven't even posted.

    I said : ''Can you imagine him turning up and instantly dismissing the possibility of an abduction in favour of incriminating the parents without a full investigation ? It might make a good book, but it's seriously naive, some would say careless, policing.''

    That's what Amaral did. He suspected them right away of hiding a secret.And he refused to entertain any other lines of enquiry with the same kind of vigour. That's why no relevant questions about possible predators or lingering lone strangers in the area appeared in the 48 infamous questions later.It's why other witnesses( such as Mrs Murat's of the lady-in-purple 'memory') weren't asked either.That's why i said it's okay for a book( a literary work) but in terms of policing, it's irresponsible.It isn't standard protocol either if a child's been reported as missing or taken.

    ''once again you are asking us to believe the McCannns rather than our own eyes.''

    Where did i actually ask that ? I didn't ask anything. You're obsessed to the point of automatically lashing out if you think anyone's trying to get people to broaden their view and look at anything but the parents. You say we've been lied to by any number of MSM , the parents, Mitchell, UK Met officers and then say we should believe our own eyes. You blindly defend Amaral or anyone as long as they share your view. You blindly attack any opposing view. You treat reason or discussion like threats.

    yes, I know..the dogs....


    Björn6 May 2017 at 10:26

    Hi Ziggy
    "The McCanns literally had only minutes to put the child in a fridge or freezer-or the supposed coffin in the church" Why do you think so?''

    Because the call had gone out around 10 pm.You think because nobody saw the toddler after 5 pm she could have been lying dead. She was a toddler.When my son was a toddler, nobody saw him after 5 pm either.

    ''Amaral's hypothesis that the body can have been moved around several times. ''

    He had to so he could keep his 'several theories' in the air like a juggler.

    ''The scent and the blood residues in the rented car suggest that, as the car was rented by the McCanns almost three weeks after she had been reported missing.''

    So they were waiting weeks to hear of an 'unknown British' lady due to be cremated ? Or where they taking her from the fridge for days out. The evidence , according to the documentary interviews, was NOT conclusive.

    What we have here is panic from the antis. The documentary included interviews of both the PJ and UK. The unanimous verdicts were to say the parents were not suspects and the dogs' evidence wasn't up to the job. Where to turn now ? How about to an abduction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 May 2017 at 22:22

      I appreciate that you aren't claiming the paperwork to back your psychological profiling up, i knew that. And observing human behaviour is a good instinct to hone. I too have done it since a very early age. I later, after years of doing things i shouldn't really have, took my head to a set of desks and gave study a go. It went better than I expected and i progressed. Psychology is an interesting area of study but i wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It's as subjective as non-academic study too often. The actual exercise in observation I endured left me wanting to hang the lecturer from a cliff.But, the key in this context is subjectivity. It's a bit like arty farty types who stand gazing at a blob on canvas.One sees man's struggle, the other sees the artists celebration of fish. One or both can be wrong. What i'd say, and have said, is that you can only truly 'observe' people as you would observe animals.That is, in their natural environment with them unaware that that they're being watched or listened to. A TV interview or the like is far from that and very little should be taken as 'natural' from them. It isn't natural to have formal Q and A sessions and then analyse that as conversation is it-especially if the subjects are aware that it will be later sold in newspapers, TV stations and online.

      I like Sherlock Holmes. I like the story of Conan Doyle and his mentor who inspired the character even more. He was unnaturally observant though. far too left-brained. And, let us not forget, that spending too many years thinking in that way can do damage. Conan Doyle made world headlines near the end of his life swearing blind that the Cottingley fairies were real ..It's all about polarising, 'arfur..

      Nothing is set in stone in Psychology, it's true. The first thing you learn is that there's no such thing as right or wrong -only hypotheses that are supported significantly or not. And that's why we shouldn't claim either as truth.

      Good luck with your French revolution journey. It should prove interesting if you dig and don't stop. You do have that air of one of 'les tricoteuses'. Maybe you were there in another life. How are you with knitting needles.

      ''Anyway, here's a little puzzle for you Ziggy. How do I know the McCanns are assertive?''

      My guess would have been to attribute the confidence that seems to come with their intelligence and profession.

      ''Answer: Name one other victim of tragedy who has launched (within days), and sustained a 10 year publicity campaign with the support of the MSM and the Government? ''

      But, did they 'launch' it ? It seemed to happen as soon as the Government had foisted Mitchell upon them who just happened to be a PR guru with very strong connections to the Labour(formerly of) party as well as the Tory ( in, out, in, out)party. During this ten year tenure as jack of as many trades as possible he's also joined up with Freud Communications ( now there's a thought).

      french revolutionary knitting needles :

      https://www.geriwalton.com/tricoteuse-knitting-women-of-the-guillotine/

      Delete
    2. 22:58

      "You're obsessed to the point of automatically lashing out if you think anyone's trying to get people to broaden their view and look at anything but the parents."

      What a giveaway. It's only a three-letter word but...

      Followed shortly thereafter by

      "What we have here is panic from the antis. The documentary included interviews of both the PJ and UK. The unanimous verdicts were to say the parents were not suspects and the dogs' evidence wasn't up to the job. Where to turn now ? How about to an abduction."

      Yes, how about an abduction? Let's suspend disbelief and devote even more time to the avenue of exploration the police kicked into touch a decade ago. What do they know?

      Another pseudo-intellectual on a mission - or is that a retainer?

      There's something rather perplexing, Mr Sawdust, about your insinuations of government involvement alongside virtual protestation the McCanns' innocence.

      You have yet to convince us as to why on earth the government would wish to 'cover up' an abduction per se. Basically, you're not quite making both ends meet, but inviting the choice nevertheless.

      Interestingly, the fact of state intervention is undeniable, the more so now that SKY News have seen fit to 'shaft' Operation Grange.

      The McCanns being party to a 'folie a deux' are contractually obliged to keep their mouths shut. But the temptation to leak 'we were instructed' must be unbearable.

      Is that where you come in, I wonder?

      Delete
    3. 'But did they 'launch' it?'

      You are kidding right? Beginning with the shutters were jemmied the apartment broken into, an online shop and good quality wristbands. Oh, and a European tour.

      Comparing me to the knitting hags who watched the executions is mildly amusing but far from the truth. As a regular reader of my blog, you should know that the punishment side of law and order is where I duck out. I don't have the mental constitution to punish anyone, as my two sons and former students would attest. Despite that, my sons are an endless source of pride to me and I have a drawer full of thank you letters and cards from my students.

      Your efforts to portray me as an ignorant, blood thirsty low life are laughable Ziggy. My words and my blogs offend you because they are not the rantings of an uneducated malcontent with a grudge.

      I may not have the twitter popularity of other commentators on this case, probably because I have no interest in the more sensational theories surrounding this case. Many have yet to cotton on that the truth is often far more fascinating than fiction.

      My analysis of this case is based on in depth knowledge of this case and years of study. My quest is to find the truth Ziggy, nothing else will do. Gerry and Kate have hurt people and continue to hurt people with this farce - I feel duty bound to point that out, it would be wrong not to.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda @14:36

      As a regular reader of your blog, I know that the punishment side of law and order is where you duck out. Therefore, Ziggy's 'les tricoteuses' comparison doesn't make sense.

      On a positive note, they knitted liberty caps. :)

      NL

      Delete
    5. Many thanks for confirming that NL, it's why I was never 'Boss' material - put me in charge of anything and we all end up down the pub.

      And I did not know they knitted liberty caps, doh! There's my expertise out the window, lol. I thought they were made of felt - probably because my initial interest began with 'Carry On Don't Lose your Head'.

      I've always wanted one of those red caps since I read that one of my heroes William Blake wore his with pride on the streets of London. He also sat stark naked along with his wife, in his front garden in Streatham, though not sure if he kept the cap on. How cool is that? Genius enough to spread enlightenment and mad enough to frustrate his enemies.

      Delete
    6. Regarding the moving of the body 3 weeks later in the hire car.

      I don't the body was moved because a coffin became available, it was most likely moved because Mark Harrison had become involved and was bringing over a specialist search team. The move I believe was a panicked response, and the only vehicle available was the hire car. And this rules out MI5/MI6 or indeed any other practical assistance in PDL. Using their own car was the biggest risk they could take.

      I'm not sure who said toddlers are largely unseen after 5.00pm, but in my experience, toddlers at the end of the day are at their most demonic! Tired, fractious and most likely to throw a tantrum. Which is why I have always found Kate's description of everything being perfect unbelievable.

      Delete
  58. >for all the words, energy, mental gymantics and attempted hacks in the last 24 hours, are we any further along?
    >no - still at the cadaver/blood dogs.
    >apartment -sofa, woof
    >apartment- storage in bedroom-woof
    >clothing, woof
    >toy, woof
    >car boot- woof
    >car key ignition-woof



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Woof remains.

      Delete
    2. 12:57

      Woof: it does indeed.

      T

      Delete
  59. I see that bennett is posting about Kennedy again.

    Just to remind him:

    "As a result of letters from Carter-Ruck dated 2 September and 3 October 2011, a number of my articles and posts regarding Brian Kennedy have today been removed from this forum.

    I wish to add that no article of mine on this forum (or elsewhere) which mentions Brian Kennedy's role since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann should be taken as in any way implying that he was involved in any cover-up of the true circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

    I wish to apologise publicly to Brian Kenedy if anyone thought that any of my articles or posts did convey that that impression.

    - Tony Bennett, 6 October 2011"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again Tony Bennett proves 'his word' means nothing.

      I am very old fashioned where 'your word' is concerned, it is a matter of honour. Goncalo Amaral, an honourable man, had no option but to defend his name.

      Bennett who has no honour whatsoever, again used a high profile case to promote his name and make money with his Madeleine Foundation - not to be confused with the Madeleine Fund, of course.

      You can see why GA has kept his distance from both Bennett and Hall.

      Delete
  60. @9:27

    Woof.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  61. O6.05 @

    Likewise.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  62. Sonia has announced (on Facebook) that her documentary is nearly ready.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "The McCanns literally had only minutes to put the child in a fridge or freezer-or the supposed coffin in the church" Why do you think so?''

    I don't believe that this happened, not by the McCanns anyway, but if only "minutes" ruled out the possibility, how come an abduction in the same time frame is possible?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Hi Anon 7 May 15:53
    There's now only one man man left seen carrying a small child away from the McCanns' apartment, who's not yet identified.

    Hurrying along the streets of PDL late in the evening with a sleeping or dead child does not look like a "burglary going wrong", or a planned abduction, but to me it rather looks like a desperate parent, who at that night had no access to any means of transportation, but still had to cover up for an accident, that had happened earlier in the very same evening. The window of opportunity for a stranger abduction was just as small as the window, which Kate claimed had been opened by the alleged perpetrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Björn7 May 2017 at 17:22

      Are you calling Kate a liar?

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon 7 May 17:54
      Kate has never told us the whole truth, in that she refused to co-operate with the investigators when she came under suspicion. As for the open window, no-one but Kate saw that it was open and she cannot even remember if she closed it before or after she alerted the other tapas 8. Besides there were only her fingerprints on it ,so I believe one should at least be suspicious about what she claims to have done and seen that evening.

      Delete
    3. fascinating Björn - I asked you a simple question and you chose not to answer it. Instead you again accuse Kate of not telling the whole truth.

      Let's try again - are you calling Kate a liar?

      Delete
  65. Spot on Bjorn. And of course, what are the chances of 'the abductor' being the spitting image of the child's father? Same age, same height, same build, same hair cut, athletic, clean shaven, same buttons on same trousers. Had Clarence, or Gerry's brother, or indeed any other man in their party, carried a child down those airline steps, Mr. Smith would not have had that reaction. I actually found Bilton's claim that the Smith family had changed their minds about Gerry, quite bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rosalinda and others
      First Martin Smiths was 80 % sure of having seen Gerry and then after reconsidering, I think he said he was 60% or more sure, while his wife all the time thought it was more likely that it was Gerry than not.

      I haven't the files in front of me right now, so anyone are welcome to correct me. However, what's essential here is to find out from where Bilton has got the idea about the Smiths having changed their minds. Martin Smith has, as far as I'm concerned, just tried to be as honest as possible about his ability in face recognition. That's all. The two sketches based on the Smiths' sighting should of course be fused into one single, which, would, as it seems to me anyway, show a person who looks even more like Gerry than each of these two, at least as far as I can see with my own eyes.

      I understand why the McCanns aren't the least interested to do so, but why aren't the SY/Met? May I finally also say that the McCanns knew about those e-fits in 2008, but kept them secret from the general public for 5 years, from the very same supportive public, that they are still begging to help them in their search for Madeleine and the stranger who took her.

      Delete
    2. Think as an Mi5 operator and all becomes clear.
      One thing's for sure, this case will never be solved. They are far more clever than us.

      Nor will the blunt knife of Dr Kelly cutting his wrist ever be resolved.

      Nor even an elderly woman committing suicide by helium.

      Of course, all of us oldies are familiar with helium. We party with it all the time and know it might kill us. It's a risk us pensioners take. Not.

      If we're fed up of life, take a tank or two, leave our lap top to "suicide", check into the Marriott and job done.

      Just one question?

      Ask around your family of 60/70 year olds about helium. "Gran, what's helium"? They will all say something related to balloons. Not one will think it's a way to commit suicide.

      Nor did Brenda.


      Delete
    3. Scene at Marriott Hotel Reception:

      "Good evening Mrs Leyland. Just the one large overnight bag is it? Are you sure you wouldn't like help with your luggage...it does seem rather heavy?"

      Delete
  66. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 May 2017 at 14:36

    ''You are kidding right? Beginning with the shutters were jemmied the apartment broken into, an online shop and good quality wristbands. Oh, and a European tour. ''

    I'm aware of all of that. I was questioning if it was the McCanns who launched it.I'm also of aware of Mitchell's 'job description' on arrival. Who would be more equipped to launch an assault via the MSM-two middle class special privileged(etc) doctors, or a man so gifted in spin that there's queues for his services ? Or are we saying he was under the McCanns control as well now...

    ''Your efforts to portray me as an ignorant, blood thirsty low life are laughable Ziggy. My words and my blogs offend you because they are not the rantings of an uneducated malcontent with a grudge. ''

    I hate to repeat myself(again). You keep putting words into my mouth than digging at me for saying them. Why ? I understand my wanting open discussions that looks outside of the McCanns being guilty of as much as possible( apart from leaving evidence) annoys you. But can't you just say that instead of this kind of nonsense ?Where did i say you had a thirst for blood ? Where did i say you were uneducated ?

    ''I may not have the twitter popularity of other commentators on this case, ''

    Twitter and Fakebook have many popular dickheads with huge followings.Popularity on either isn't of any worth. How many opinions are of any worth in the cold light of day. It shouldn't be as important as you seem to think.It isn't -or shouldn't be - a competition.

    ''Many have yet to cotton on that the truth is often far more fascinating than fiction.''

    I agree. And if it's ever leaked about this case many minds will be traumatised. The 2-maybe 3- 'popular' theories are dull and obvious. But as long as they top the charts then all is well and their mission's accomplished thanks to the great and good of the court of popular opinion( not fact).

    ''My analysis of this case is based on in depth knowledge of this case and years of study. My quest is to find the truth Ziggy, nothing else will do''

    I'll take your word for that. But I'm confident that there's more people who read this blog and not comment because you stare straight down a tunnel. Your supporters of you and your opinion will post. Those who see the bias probably won't bother as they know the effect it has. Detectives, several policeman and ten years of in depth analysis hasn't found the truth.They probably have even more to look at than online detectives but have reasons not to make it public. But still no results. You have the parents guilty of covering up a death at best; guilty of killing and dumping their daughter at worst. Their middle class friends are also in your frame as accessories. You reach the same conclusion as Richard Hall and Tony Bennett-who you call fools. No statements from either police force or on documentaries discussed on this thread will mean a thing if they clear the McCanns. But if one is released sharing the 'secret' signs in their speech or facial expressions-they're 'excellent'.

    ''Gerry and Kate have hurt people and continue to hurt people with this farce''

    Gerry and Kate lost one of their babies. You call that hurting other people. That's exactly what i mean about having lost your balance.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous7 May 2017 at 15:40

    '' Therefore, Ziggy's 'les tricoteuses' comparison doesn't make sense.''

    Impressive.Have an extra biscuit.If anyone took my les trichoteuses comment as anything than a bit of fun they need to wake tfu. What's wrong with you..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy at 19:37

      There is nothing wrong with not sharing a similar sense of humour.

      Delete
  68. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 May 2017 at 17:17

    ''I don't the body was moved because a coffin became available, it was most likely moved because Mark Harrison had become involved and was bringing over a specialist search team''

    What were you saying about 'carry on don't lose your head ?' This is speculation to say the least. I thought you relied on 'in depth study' ? Where, in that in depth study, is there anything to support this theory.

    ''I'm not sure who said toddlers are largely unseen after 5.00pm, but in my experience, toddlers at the end of the day are at their most demonic!''

    It was me. And demonic or not, they're indoors. If in a foreign country, that's all the more reason to have them indoors.

    '' I have always found Kate's description of everything being perfect unbelievable.''

    Because you're speaking about your own experience, you think Kate McCann's experience is a lie as it's different to yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust7 May 2017 at 19:42

      Demonic (or not) toddlers are all indoors after 5pm are they?
      Not where I stay. My grandsons, 6 yrs and 2 yrs have tea at 5pm roughly, then are either taken to the park (where we meet other demonic or not toddlers). If not taken to the park, they are out in the back garden where, if not seen, are certainly heard. As this is their routine it would be carried on during any holiday.
      Loads of parents where I live have their demonic or not toddlers out well after 5pm.

      Delete
  69. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 May 2017 at 14:20

    ''Goncalo Amaral, an honourable man, had no option but to defend his name. ''

    He found another option though, he attacked the McCanns instead and made allegations he couldn't support with evidence. He had the option to defend his honour by attacking those who removed him from the case. He didn't choose that one though.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous7 May 2017 at 15:53

    ''I don't believe that this happened, not by the McCanns anyway, but if only "minutes" ruled out the possibility, how come an abduction in the same time frame is possible?''

    Both are possible. But I made the point in order to point out that whatever whacky scenario of Amaral's you choose to champion, the parent would have had to act very quick. I was suggesting there was hardly any time at all to leave a scent of cadaver that would be discovered later. besides, if an abductor or team took her it would have been planned.It would have had eyes on it before and a quick exit strategy in place. If the child had an accident or one of them killed her it wasn't expected or pre-meditated.The McCanns wouldn't have known there was a body in the church, nor wold they have been given the keys yet.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Björn7 May 2017 at 17:22

    ''Hurrying along the streets of PDL late in the evening with a sleeping or dead child does not look like a "burglary going wrong", or a planned abduction, but to me it rather looks like a desperate parent, who at that night had no access to any means of transportation, but still had to cover up for an accident, that had happened earlier in the very same evening.''

    You'd draw that conclusion instantly as you saw a complete stranger running down a street with a child in his arms ? That's just sick. A sleeping child can appear unconscious, which can be similar to view as a dead child, i suppose, if you want to bend your own head. But most normal people would thing 'father and child in a hurry..it's late..past her bed time'.

    ''The window of opportunity for a stranger abduction was just as small as the window, which Kate claimed had been opened by the alleged perpetrator.''

    If you're watching a target you can allow 5 minutes. Cross an empty street, enter, take, leave. What else would they need time for ?

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 May 2017 at 17:43

    ''Spot on Bjorn''

    There's a shock.

    The next time you see a man carrying a sleeping toddler down steep stairs, watch him. He'll carry that child in the same way Gerry McCann carried his 9 times out of 10. How was he supposed to carry her-over his shoulder ?

    Gerry McCann was, 2007, average height and build, mousey-coloured hair 30 something.At 10 pm, even in PDL in May, he would look like so many others that fit that description. It's not like he's a 6ft 7 beanstalk or Pavarotti Tribute act.

    ''Mr. Smith would not have had that reaction. I actually found Bilton's claim that the Smith family had changed their minds about Gerry, quite bizarre.''

    Or defeating ?Either way, that Smith hasn't come forward seems to suggest that they've changed their mind.Who are we going to blame from 'team McCann' for that one..

    ReplyDelete
  72. Björn7 May 2017 at 19:21
    ''However, what's essential here is to find out from where Bilton has got the idea about the Smiths having changed their minds. ...Martin Smith has, as far as I'm concerned, just tried to be as honest as possible about his ability in face recognition.''

    And he's not 100% sure..or80%..or, as revealed in Panorama-he's actually changed his mind. Let it go..

    ''I understand why the McCanns aren't the least interested to do so, but why aren't the SY/Met? '

    Because the Smiths changed their mind. This isn't difficult to understand.It's just difficult for you to accept.

    ReplyDelete
  73. ZiggySawdust at 19:30 says:

    "Your supporters of you and your opinion will post. Those who see the bias probably won't bother as they know the effect it has."

    Oh the irony!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed 21:05. I think this is the only blog/forum that allows both sides of the debate. I have no problem with 'pro's' trying to prove me wrong, as long as they do it respectfully!

      Those 'who see the bias' have the same opportunity to post as anyone else. If their arguments don't win over the crowd, then they need better arguments.

      Delete
  74. Hi Ziggy
    Being almost certain and then being somewhat less certain isn't really changing one's mind, but just trying to be as honest as possible about what one has seen. The Smiths didn't know Gerry McCann, so they cannot but describe what the stranger looked like at the moment they met him. Seeing Gerry later holding one of his twins made Martin Smith believe that it was Gerry he saw. No-one in that situation can be 100% sure. However, none of the Smiths has ever said that they must have been mistaken about what they saw, that would have been "changing their mind" in my opinion, but that was not the case.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 May 2017 at 17:17

    "Regarding the moving of the body 3 weeks later in the hire car."

    3 weeks later than what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 23:03
      the car was hired approximately 3 weeks after the 3rd May

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous8 May 2017 at 02:00

      I know when the hire care was hired - I am asking Ros when was the body moved in the hire car.

      Delete
  76. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 May 2017 at 22:44

    ''Those 'who see the bias' have the same opportunity to post as anyone else. If their arguments don't win over the crowd, then they need better arguments.''

    Or a 'crowd' capable of thinking more objectively and who don't think that they know more than the investigating officers and scientists whose findings defeat their guessing games. Denial is a state of mind, not an informed opinion.

    Björn7 May 2017 at 21:46

    ''Being almost certain and then being somewhat less certain isn't really changing one's mind, but just trying to be as honest as possible about what one has seen''

    And his honesty caused him to change his mind.

    ''The Smiths didn't know Gerry McCann, so they cannot but describe what the stranger looked like at the moment they met him''

    Yes. Good so far.

    ''Seeing Gerry later holding one of his twins made Martin Smith believe that it was Gerry he saw''

    Why would that make a difference-holding a child ? An average looking man moving in fading light now holding a child he'd never seen before has clarified his recall ?

    '' No-one in that situation can be 100% sure.''

    Very true- and Martin Smith was actually the eye witness at the scene.How come you're 100% sure then ? More sure than Martin Smith ?

    ''However, none of the Smiths has ever said that they must have been mistaken about what they saw, that would have been "changing their mind" in my opinion, but that was not the case.''

    So Bilton's a liar ? it's time for SY to knock on Mr Smith's door don't you think ? As a one-time 'key witness' i think they may have considered that. And If Smith hasn't changed his mind (as you are sure of), it could be crucial to your case couldn't it ? What will you say if Smith makes it a bit more clear and issues a statement saying he's changed his mind ?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous7 May 2017 at 20:58

    ''Think as an Mi5 operator and all becomes clear.

    One thing's for sure, this case will never be solved. They are far more clever than us.''

    You're definitely in the right ball park i'd suggest. Don't forget Robin Cook either. Portugal had it's 'day in the sun' when the weird Jack Straw was ducking and diving and organising a 'sit down' for 4 or more Bilderbergers in 2003. All of whom become extremely wealthy following the decisions made in Lisbon.None of whom now hold political office.All had controversial and emotive opinions on EU. Then, as the wonderful European Troika set it's sights on the country ready to to do a 'Spain' or 'Cyprus' on it, the then chairman of EC who happened to be the Prime Minister of Portugal as well saw the writing on the wall and in 2004 set his sights elsewhere.He has a really nice position in London now with Goldman-Sachs. Jobs for the boys etc.

    It's true when you say they're too clever. They're even more devious. The 'hidden hand' is why we won't catch them at their games. But the game's never over.And it seems that the table has begun turning slightly in recent years.It will take more than the 'fake news' BS to halt it.


    ReplyDelete
  78. Hi Ziggy,

    To pick up what Bjorn has said, Team McCann only concentrated on JT's sighting as allegedly they were unaware of the Smith Family sighting. Only the PJ knew about the Smith Family, however when Gerry made an appeal particularly to Irish holiday makers to come forward, question how did they know that an Irish Family was involved? Unless as I've said on this site previously Gerry was the person spotted & thought shit, heard the accents and JT gave a false account to change the timeline. Don't forget Ziggy the Smith Family statement have been consistent, team McCann's have changed with the weather.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Apart from showing the e-fits (which for me always was a sign that they weren’t looking for Gerry McCann), there are still two pictures of Tannerman on the McCann website.

    I just wonder why they never released a picture of Smithsman the way they pictured Tannerman, that is a (to a certain extent) faceless man carrying a child. However, regarding the Smiths sighting it concerns a child in white pyjamas? with a long-sleeved top, and her head on the man’s left shoulder (as stated by the Smiths on May 26, 2007).

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

    Kate McCann (madeleine):

    "Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts."

    Not that identical.

    Even more significant, the Smiths sighting provides more information with respect to the child than Tanner's description.

    Smith:
    "The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed."

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

    Tanner:
    "About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep."

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

    ReplyDelete
  80. The descriptions given by Jane and the Smith family were quite different. The Smiths saw a clean shaven man with short hair - Jane saw a man with long hair [at the back], who looked, alternately, like an egg, Robert Murat (short hair), George Harrison, a werewolf or possibly a woman. But with all his shapeshifting, he definitely wasn't Gerry.

    I've always believed Tannerman evolved out of the unfortunate encounter the child carrier had with the Smith family. It is a clumsy addition to the timeline (collective alibi)the tapas group wrote out on Madeleine's colouring book while others were searching.

    ReplyDelete
  81. In passing…

    “ZiggySawdust 7 May 2017 at 19:46

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 May 2017 at 14:20

    ''Goncalo Amaral, an honourable man, had no option but to defend his name. ''

    He found another option though, he attacked the McCanns instead and made allegations he couldn't support with evidence. He had the option to defend his honour by attacking those who removed him from the case. He didn't choose that one though.”

    I would like to paraphrase Rosalinda if I may, to suggest how a similar rational view as that of hers might be expressed.

    Goncalo Amaral, an honourable, non-litigious man, expressed in a book and video his opinions based on official Portuguese conclusions as to the case of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

    Madeleine’s parents alleged libel. Litigious, dishonourable and determined to sue, they had a choice of either suing Goncalo Amaral for libel (in defence of their ‘honour’), which was, and still is, their core unsubstantiated allegation, or damages (pecuniary gain).

    The parents sued for damages. Their claim failed (no gain, much loss).

    Goncalo Amaral’s defence prevailed (he had been right all along as far as his defence was concerned).

    To claim that “…he attacked the McCanns instead and made allegations he couldn't support with evidence.” is nothing but vexatious and dishonourable.

    Peace.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hi Rosalinda
    Kate still tries to make us believe that "Tannerman" could be the same as "Smithman" as you imply, but she has never, not even after "Tannerman" had officially become replaced by "crêcheman" did she recognize the Smiths' sighting in its own right, without linking it to the "Tannerman", as "there are still two pictures of Tannerman on the McCann website", as Anon 08:33 says.

    If "Smithman" would be Gerry, as I believe, then it's of less importance whether JT and Redwood are lying or not, as neither "Tannerman" nor "crêcheman could be the man that the Smiths saw, and none of them would at that point of time (21H15) have had the opportunity to snatch Madeleine. It would have been slightly easier for "Smithman" who must have left the apartment around 21H50.
    PS
    Reading the witness statements once again regarding the exact time for Kate's alert, I find it more likely that she alerted around between 21H15-20, but not at 22H00, as often stated by journalists and others. Interesting considering Gerry's "alibi"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi again Rosalinda, ref my text 13:55
      Correction
      Sorry I meant that it's more likely that Kate alerted between 22H15-20, thus 15/20 minutes later than what people in common believe.

      Delete
    2. So are you calling Kate a liar again Björn?

      Delete
    3. There are a lot of discrepancies with the timeline and statements Bjorn, in fact Panorama highlighted the fact that the PJ concluded the McCanns and the tapas group were lying. That was why the reconstruction was essential.

      For me the chances of the abductor looking exactly like Gerry and the child looking exactly Madeleine, is a coincidence too far.

      Delete
    4. @ Ros 16.48

      "Panorama highlighted the fact that the PJ concluded the McCanns and the tapas group were lying."

      The PJ might have thought the Mccanns were lying - the trouble is they did not have one speck of evidence to prove what they thought.

      In case you didn't notice Ros (without going into complete conspiracy) the Mccanns were never arrested, they were never charged and they have never been proven guilty.

      As much as you don't like that - it is the truth.

      Oh and by the way - I saw your comment before you deleted it - you are wrong.

      Delete
    5. Hi Anon 8 May 15:49
      What I'm saying is that Kate isn't telling the whole truth. As for all the tapas friends, it was Russel O'Brian who wrote down a time line, in which he on behalf of the McCanns and the others concluded that Kate alerted at 10 pm. Thus, they agreed upon a specific time. If they had not, they would have given the police somewhat different times for Kate's alert. Anyone would have done so, because we remember differently.

      Moreover, there are, discrepancies and contradictions in a lot of statements by both the McCanns and their friends, as you say Rosalinda. If we don't call all of them lies, which I'm sometimes inclined to do, at least they're not quite true.

      As for the Smiths' sighting of a man, who looked very much like Gerry McCann carrying a child, I think it's quite reasonable to assume that that person was in fact Gerry McCann, and that the child was indeed Madeleine. If it wasn't Gerry McCann, but the child was Madeleine, then we may have a terrible perpetrator who has been "hiding" so well for more than 10 years. I suggest that the solution to the Madeleine mystery is not trying to find this hiding Mr "Hide", but instead to find out more about who doctor "Jerry" really is.

      What reason would a whole Irish family have for fabricating a story about having met a man, who, according to their witness statements had no facial characteristics that could distinguish him from Gerry McCann. Had anyone of the Smiths said, that this, not yet identified person, had worn glasses, had had a long hair or had been old or had had blonde hair, it would have been easier to believe that this could have been a stranger.

      Delete
  83. Just looked at Panorama again. Did Op Grange pre-eliminate McCanns simply because they weren't in 5A when the disappearance was reported?

    https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/861510722156736512

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous8 May 2017 at 15:11

      yes Colin is really struggling to make an impact in the case after making a fool of himself over the last week or so.

      Delete
    2. 15:43

      You wished.

      It wasn't himself he made a fool of but the directorate at Scotland Yard.

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous8 May 2017 at 17:58

      was he at Scotland Yard at the time? Does he know anything that they did? Or is he just an old has been who has tried to cash in on the 10 years anniversary?

      Did he complain about how he was misrepresented in the Aus press? Oh what a poor dear!

      He was getting money - yes paid - for his crappy opinion. Did he send the money back?

      Delete
    4. I wasn't on Madeleine investigation so my comments are just that. And sorry but I tend to speak the truth, even if it is uncomfortable.

      https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/861619226993459200

      Delete
  84. It's very strange that Sonia has announced that her documentary is coming soon when Ros has said it was withheld because Grange was ongoing.

    ReplyDelete
  85. The nice friendly cesspit is watching you!

    "by Verdi Today at 15:41
    @ROSA I see you are online - long time no here!"
    -----------------------------------------------

    That was posted on a topic that has not been posted on since
    "by Verdi on 01.07.16 23:55"

    So how come the delightful verdi happened across Rosa viewing the forum?

    Is it safe in the cesspit - I think not!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Anonymous8 May 2017 at 15:43
    @ Anonymous8 May 2017 at 15:11

    ''yes Colin is really struggling to make an impact in the case after making a fool of himself over the last week or so.''


    Anonymous8 May 2017 at 17:58
    15:43

    ''You wished.
    It wasn't himself he made a fool of but the directorate at Scotland Yard.''

    That's more like it. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous8 May 2017 at 18:16

    ''It's very strange that Sonia has announced that her documentary is coming soon when Ros has said it was withheld because Grange was ongoing.''

    No idea why she would hold back because of that. If it's only a documentary expressing her views it wouldn't make any difference to an investigation ongoing or otherwise. I'll watch it as I'm interested in seeing objective it will be. I'd love to actually see a documentary that doesn't have an agenda for once. Failing that, I could forgive an agenda -driven documentary that actually demonstrates some fresh and thought provoking ideas that aren't merely echoes of earlier nonsense and that rely on the prevailing gullibility of the sheep to sustain them as credible.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anonymous8 May 2017 at 17:44

    @ Ros 16.48
    ''The PJ might have thought the Mccanns were lying - the trouble is they did not have one speck of evidence to prove what they thought...the Mccanns were never arrested, they were never charged and they have never been proven guilty...As much as you don't like that - it is the truth.''

    Did i hear an 'ouch!' ?

    I suppose they could always use Amaral's( and, apparently, the 'Portuguese officials') evidence via his book. I wonder how that would go..

    ReplyDelete
  89. John1008 May 2017 at 02:29

    ''Hi Ziggy,
    To pick up what Bjorn has said, Team McCann only concentrated on JT's sighting as allegedly they were unaware of the Smith Family sighting. ''

    Good Eve, John..
    it wasn't important which sightings or e-fits the McCanns focused on or which ones they were and weren't aware of. That's the job of the investigating officers, and their findings or conclusions are what are important.

    ''Only the PJ knew about the Smith Family, however when Gerry made an appeal particularly to Irish holiday makers to come forward, question how did they know that an Irish Family was involved?''

    They could only know if they'd been told /updated about the investigation's progress. Any parent would want constant updates from the police-it's their daughter. Don't read anything sinister into that-you or I would do exactly the same thing if it was our child.

    ''Unless as I've said on this site previously Gerry was the person spotted & thought shit, heard the accents and JT gave a false account to change the timeline.''

    That's a stretch to be fair. A big 'if'.It relies on the police being gullible and Tanner being willing to possibly incriminate herself in the death of a child.The police could have easily said that both sightings can't be true and there would be an equal chance of them favouring the Smith sighting which would be a major backfire on Gerry McCann as he'd then look like he was not only guilty of dumping his dead child, but attempting to pervert the course of justice.A slam-dunk for the police.

    ''Don't forget Ziggy the Smith Family statement have been consistent, team McCann's have changed with the weather.''

    If an eye witness is to be considered credible along with his account, he-and it- needs to be consistent. If he and the account are consistent, as you say, the McCanns accounts wouldn't be of interest as they didn't see anything.But that consistency has gone from 'sure' to 'changing' their mind altogether.

    Bjorn won't like that fact-as it's a 'fact'.Facts have an annoying habit of spoiling fun.

    ReplyDelete