Saturday 5 August 2017

DARK FORCES AND THE RESULT OF THAT POLL

I am being invaded by 'dark forces' apparently, my first thoughts were Batman, the Dark Knight, and hopefully the Michael Keaton one.  To be fair, I hadn't yet had my first cup of tea and had just awoken from an amazing dream that I cannot now remember, doh!

Dark forces indeed - not quite sure how to define that.  There are a number of people who would very much like to see my blog retired, I'm sure, but I feel they are mostly from the 'anti' side.  I am a big old fly in the ointment of their deranged theories.  Bennett especially who had his heart set on being the leader of a well funded cult. 

With the 'pro' McCanns and the McCann camp, I have never said anything libellous, not only because I am fully au fait with Libel Law, but because I have my own very high standards of social etiquette. I do wonder how some of these people (both sides) were raised that they think it normal to be so rude to strangers online. 

I tend to think that people who are abusive to others, online or indeed, anywhere, are quite literally revealing their own inner troubles.  And I don't think any of us are immune to it.  When I look back on the (I promise!) very rare occasions I have 'snapped', it is usually because I have had bigger troubles elsewhere.  It is an unfortunate aspect of human behaviour, but one, most of us are able to keep in check.  It is hard I know, when someone is shouting at you, to imagine that it is themselves they hate, but tis true. 

I was blessed in having a father who was one of life's gentlemen, from the top of his 'hat for every occasion', to his highly polished shoes. He treated EVERYONE with respect, and his good manners and quiet charm made an impression on everyone who met him.  Such is life, I took after my mad, fiery, Irish mother - Lord knows how those two got together, lol. My mother's behaviour, he was never able to contain (no-one could, lol), but with myself he was able to smooth a lot of the rough edges.  He never disciplined me, but he would explain the impact my words could have on others and I would cry like a baby. 

Don't ever hurt somebody just because you can, my Dad would tell me in his thick, Dundonian accent, and his words are never far from my thoughts.  And it would be fair to say, they have tormented me many times - that is, I have been tempted to unleash 'my powers' many times, but it would cause me more pain than it would the recipient.  I don't get the need to make another person feel bad - and I have no ideas on punishment whatsoever, which is why I steer clear of the whole Law and Order thing. I've never understood how hurting and demeaning someone can make them a better person.   

I would have made a terrible executioner in the days of old, I probably would have got the knitting hags, the guards and the audience, singing a rousing rendition of 'We Shall Overcome'.  I'm still in love with Jonathan Rhys-Myers (hence still in history mode) and hear he is fond of the liquor.  Maybe I can ply him with the hard stuff and convince him I'm a 30 year old wench lol, (and yes there IS enough Potcheen in Ireland, to the smartass at the back).  I would however, have to insist on the cod piece and the Crown.  I know this could lead to my head being removed from my neck, but totally worth it. 

But I digress, probably because I have a zillion things to do and am looking for ways to put them off, lol. No-one has the power to 'shut my blog' down. I don't advocate hate - never have, I'm a peace loving old hippy chick.  Though it may not seem that way, my interests are academic, this case opens doors to just about every 'ology out there.  I think in studying this case, I have learned more about psychology, human behaviour, politics, society and culture, than if I had spent equal time with my nose in dedicated books.

I have to admit I was miffed at not getting a mention in the Summers and Swan book, or indeed any of the hyperbole that was going on prior to the doorstep siege on Brenda Leyland.  And of course, my name has been erased from the forums and facebook pages - that I am despised on twitter is a given.  Why? Because I am offering a civilised forum where all opinions are welcome.  There are no rules, because rules are really not my kind of thing. As if! lol.

I started this blog with faith in the goodness of human nature. I believed that open discussion and debate would eventually find it's own level.  Brusque words are spoken, and much is said in jest, but it has never become a slagging match of he saids, she saids, or personal insults.  It has grown and it has attracted many talented writers, people with the intellect to understand it is not necessary to be a deplorable to question the validity of the abduction story.

Happily, my unpopularity is not reflected in my viewing numbers and I must admit I get a buzz from the new traffic feed chart - especially when I see far away and exotic places!  People read here I think, because it is an open forum, I don't ban or censor people for disagreeing with me - I welcome it actually, because it gets the old brain cells flowing.   

People are drifting away from the outlandish theories, they are beginning to see them in the cold light of day. 10+ years on, they sound even more ridiculous than they did when the tabloids were virtually making stuff up to get a McCann headline.  I don't suppose for one moment they thought there would be eejits out there who would take those salacious headlines and make them their life's work.  All those stories of child abuse and bed hopping, are now being seen by those following this case and those new to it, for the unsavoury nonsense it is.   

For those convinced I am 'pro' , they have much evidence.  My blog too, has I think, calmed much of the hatred and hysteria that surrounded this case.  More so than their lawyers and spin doctors, lol.  All their Lawsuits and angry pronouncements made them more enemies than friends.  Not entirely their fault, much of the hatred was stirred up by those who have tried their damnedest to turn a tragic event into an international crime.  A heinous crime, involving the worst kind of perversity they have been able to come up with.  And worse.  They have named, accused and found, innocent bystanders of being complicit unnamed heinous crime, based on nothing other than their (freaky) imaginations.  People like Tony Bennett, Richard Hall who flew all the way to the US to have a dirty discussion with a dirty minded old preacher in the Midwest.  I find it absolutely astonishing that anyone believes that stuff.

But I should of course comment on the result of the poll - and this is where I get confused.  It would appear the 'yeses' have it, but not if you combine the 'Nos' and 'don't know's.  In any event it is a terrible reflection on our Government and Police that, let's call it 50/50 for the moment, that half the audience think they are corrupt.  But even before we reach that conclusion, it could be said this blog has a niche audience.  I don't flatter myself that people come here to read me, they come here to read about the Madeleine case (well, a bit me, lol), that is, my blog is a cornucopia of sane and cross party public opinion.  The Facebook pages have had their day, even the forums are struggling, with wandering big gobs looking to them for refuge. 

But back to the poll.  With a general audience I suspect the figure would be 70/80% to the 'Nos', but that could be split by adding a 'don't care' option.  The anger and the hysteria has gone, mellowed not only by time, but by the realisation of so many 'Mcann' watchers, that they had actually crossed that line and become OCD loons.  They were following the preachings of mad men and women, on the female front, HideHo and the biscuit muncher deserve an honourable mention. 

People are still seeking the truth, but they know now they will not find it in the batshit crazy theories of Bennett, Hall and Hyatt  plus his devoted (and probably only) student hobnob eater.  I don't know what HideHo's theory is, apart from the fact that she is accusing innocent young women of being part of a heinous crime.  Oh and I can't bear the music on the videos. 

But that poll.  I suspect the 'yeses' are made up of varying parts:

1.  The cynical, who have seen too many scandals whitewashed in the past. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan etc.

2.  Those who believe dark forces are covering up the involvement of VIPs, possibly politicians, billionaires, celebrities, holiday resort nannies for nefarious reasons, possibly:

     i)     Downing Street and our security forces made a huge error by interfering in a criminal investigation overseas. 

     ii)    Someone of greater importance than the Queen, the PM and the Donald combined was visiting PDL for the annual orgy season, hosted by Warners Family Resort (kids and elderly relatives welcome).  Never mind yachts and Lolita flights, cut price, off season PDL is THE place to be.  As long you don't mind kids screeching at your bondage gear. 

   iii)   The police both here and Portugal have become so fond of Gerry and Kate, they are willing to risk their careers and reputations to protect them.


So there we have it.  In my opinion 2) i) has kept the details hidden this past 10 years, but I do not believe it will ever be sustainable.  As John Blacksmith said recently, the truth will find a way out. 

2) ii) is just nonsense.  Why do alleged huge sex scandals always involve VIPs and celebrities. What about Fred the plumber, or Harry the brickie?  Or indeed, any other not world famous, drunken Uncle who tries to tries to grope the bridesmaids.

2) iii) Whatever charismatic, mesmerising effect, Gerry and Kate may have on those they meet or hypnotise via the telly, I'm just not seeing.  Nor do I believe Gerry is involved in top secret scientific research or cloning.  If Operation Grange were covering up for Gerry and Kate, why not let them in on it?  Why prolong their agony?  In my opinion, this is where the cover up argument fails. If the purpose was to get Gerry and Kate off the hook, why didn't they do that 6 years ago?  They may have announced the parents and their friends weren't suspects, but they didn't produce anything to confirm that.  Eg. Phone records, witness statement, even a lie detector test.  On it's own, it is meaningless.

But the countdown begins, just a month to go, before Operation Grange finally closes up shop.  They have done absolutely amazingly on keeping everything they have under wraps.  I personally don't think it is for nefarious reasons, and the compliment was genuine.  Having watched way too many real crime/dramas, I fully understand the frustration of the police.  Real crimes are not solved within an hour (including adverts), sometimes they go on for many years, and yes, even decades.  But there are 'Goncalo Amarals' the world over, that is determined cops who will never give up on the victim. 

With the case of Madeleine 'someone' has decided not to let it drop.  Letting it drop incidentally, would be the best way to cover it up, deh!  And it would be the best result for Gerry and Kate.  They are unable to hide the strain of living under an investigation, they more than anyone, need to know what conclusions Operation Grange have reached.  But who won't drop it?  Many officers I'm sure, but also, I suspect, Theresa May.  She was threatened with her face being on the front page of the Sun every day and ordered by her boss, David Cameron, to give the McCanns a Review.  Just my opinion, but the amount of money ploughed in, and the lack of information given out, suggests unwillingness to let it drop, comes from above. 
 

167 comments:

  1. ( part 1 )

    ''Dark forces indeed - not quite sure how to define that. ''

    ( see previous thread-it's me, ZiggyMcCann)

    I think with the whole McCann online pandemic( because that's what it became) it's important to bear in mind what the subject matter's most important themes are. A missing child snatched abroad, a number of unusual behaviour patterns of those closest to her, an initial police response that's been a bone of contention in terms of competence, a lead detective having a suspect(or two) almost at once,a dramatic over reaction from Military Intelligence in the UK as well as politicians, media lies , dubious eye witness testimony, and forensic evidence that was rejected. That's quite the casserole.Just reading that list tells you that, if you are to look at each one in turn,then attempt to assemble it as a completed picture, it's nigh on impossible to come up with anything that could be used to bring charges and the necessary evidence that would allow your theory to wear the much -competed for crown of truth.It doesn't matter if you're new to it or if you've scrutinised every printed word for ten years. That list is that list .The 'big names' mean nothing.They only have what new names have- hypotheses and speculation based on nothing more than the laws of probability and suspicion. Recalling statistics and historical cases does nothing.The strength of a belief doesn't elevate that belief to a truth.It doesn't matter how many share it and promote it.Beliefs can be wrong.Probabilities are only guesses.Evidence, on the other hand, has no agenda or bias.It just tells you a fact or facts.Unfortunately, the absence of evidence leaves room for suspicion, frustration, speculation and creative story - building. The lack of progress in ten years by those entrusted to solve it feeds the fires with petrol via a variety of media outlets.The result is chaos. Go online and search it. As you point out Ros, with your observations of the irrational outbursts of abuse online,it brings out the demons in the weak minded.Throw the cloak of safety that is the internet into the cocktail and it's game on for the lunatics.The most worrying thing isn't their demons coming out, but that they had to be in there in the first place in order to come out. We're witnessing textbook displacement in psychological terms.And it's using the disappearance of a toddler and the failure of the police forces of two countries to find her or solve the case to exorcise their own personal nasty little issues.The occasional 'rip Brenda' and 'it's about justice' couldn't sound hollower now.These little nuggets are mostly used to give an appearance of balance .A sort of half-hearted, ham-fisted attempt at sounding like they're not just fueled by poison, but they're 'sensitive' for the right reasons.It doesn't wash I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ( part 2 )

    A few points I'd like to pick up on...

    ''All their Lawsuits and angry pronouncements made them more enemies than friends. Not entirely their fault, much of the hatred was stirred up by those who have tried their damnedest to turn a tragic event into an international crime. ''

    Exactly . But it was made an international crime the minute politicians from two countries sat down to discuss it and then make changes to the investigation so early.The involvement of Military Intelligence elevated it to a national security issue.For an abduction of a child ? No wonder the parents became angry-who wouldn't ? All the kings horses and all the kings men making an omelette.And every Numpty Dumpty online declaring they have 'the truth!'( they did it).

    ''it is a terrible reflection on our Government and Police ... half the audience think they are corrupt. ''

    If the McCann event had never happened, far more than 50% of the people already believed the Government and enough policemen were, and still are, rotten.This poll is merely more evidence of that opinion.

    ''Whatever charismatic, mesmerising effect, Gerry and Kate may have on those they meet or hypnotise via the telly, I'm just not seeing. ''

    Because it isn't there.Nor is the 'hidden language'-that has to be read into the sights and sounds by those needing something to justify their suspicion.

    '' Operation Grange finally closes up shop. They have done absolutely amazingly on keeping everything they have under wraps''

    Followed orders to the letter in keeping with the 4 years that had preceded them.It can be argued that a running commentary could alert suspects.But not for 6 years

    '' Letting it drop incidentally, would be the best way to cover it up, deh! And it would be the best result for Gerry and Kate.''

    The 'official' line is that their child is missing.Og say that too.This is the nub of the online 'war'.If you have convinced yourself that the 'official' line regarding eye witness testimony and forensics have been rejected dishonestly in order to cover up the guilt of the Mccanns, then yes, letting it drop would be the best result because it would mean they'd gotten away with it.But you'd have to also voice your opinions of why all that evidence was so readily rejected by professionals.And why they were happy to do it for two doctors who would throw away their daughter like garbage.If you believe that the lack of evidence declares the parents are victims of some horrible abduction( the 'official' line) then you have to consider the lack of closure would be hell. I've followed the Corrie McKeague case since last September . It's a soap opera now thanks to Suffolk comedy police but the mother's tormented, and her son isn't a child

    ''I think of that donation to Goncalo Amaral's legal fund from the Met Police, and sanity returns.''

    As should the words he utters frequently that the UK politicians combined with Portugal's to suppress the investigation in order to hide the crime.And the words of Colin Sutton should too.He didn't give his bosses the chance to do to him what Portugal did to Amaral. Once he was told to 'look away' he stayed away.

    Nothing will change in the investigation.it's too late to come up with anything credible.Nothing will change online either unless the 'online community' remember that they were always called that. The public domain is outside

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Zigmund, just as I was starting to enjoy your diverse and unpredictable writing style, you have again irritated my inner battleaxe English teacher. Less is more Mr. Z, if you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it well it well enough. A trap Richard Hall fell straight through with his 4 hour video.

      You are a star in your own right Ziggy, and kudos to you for that you have faced much opposition, but you are still here. I know what that's like. Many have urged me to 'ban' you Ziggy, lol, but 'ban' is my least favourite word, and probably a subject I feel so strongly about, that it deserves it's own blog.

      I am always happy to give a platform to talented writers, whether I agree with their opinions or not. For me, the 'best' argument wins. It is a level playing field, let the games begin. I have never in my life feared opposition, lol. There is nothing I like better than raising the stakes Ziggy. I don't know if you are part of the inner circle, but I suspect you are much much more than a concerned member of the public Ziggmund. And that's absolutely fine btw, I think everyone shoud have a voice - it is bizarre there has been so much discussion over the years but never between opposing sides.

      You haven't 'converted me', I'm afraid Ziggy, and I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to how many you have, but thank you nevertheless for your interesting input - it would appear that you are giving a voicce to a side that has been ignored for almost a decade and that can only be a good thing.

      Delete
    2. ''Less is more Mr. Z, if you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it well it well enough. ''

      With writing you sometimes have to cover all bases if certain readers seem incapable of understanding simple points or questions regardless of how plainly they're explained. Einstein couldn't explain the theory of relativity to you or me. Does that means he didn't understand it well enough ?

      ''You are a star in your own right Ziggy''

      You spotted that then :-)

      '' Many have urged me to 'ban' you Ziggy,''

      That's a shock. Somebody asking simple questions and suggesting a more balanced way of viewing things and discussing them causes panic.I suppose if they can't answer simple questions or have their simple errors pointed out to them the easy way out is 'miss! miss! ziggy's naughty! send him out!''. Besides, the tone, attitude and content of 'respected commentators' is often off the scale. You're just too polite to tell them. If you let them through the net, you should let me through too. It keeps a semblance of sanity on view ;-)

      '' I don't know if you are part of the inner circle, but I suspect you are much much more than a concerned member of the public''

      I'm neither. All the paranoid ramblings make blogs /forums etc look ridiculous. The reasoning is just as ridiculous ; ''hmmm..he doesn't hate the parents..he keeps talking about needing actual evidence...hmmm..he wants to know why we don't attack the people responsible for getting rid of the evidence...he must be an insider, or a McCannn..part of the 'inner circle'...''' But we're expected to trust these powers of deductive reasoning to solve a ten year old case that two police forces haven't using youtube videos..

      I have an interest in the case.it tests the grey matter.It also opens avenues of interest in other areas( corruption and covert ops).In fact, if it was merely a run of the mill police investigation I'd have less interest. I didn't expect that the more bizarre and dark areas of the psyche to be evident in the reading about the case-that's become an additional draw.

      ''You haven't 'converted me', I'm afraid Ziggy''

      I never wanted to convert anyone to any 'side'. I think 'sides' demeans all discussion if it chooses to use shouting and accusing with abuse as weapons of choice.Any 'conversion' i would have liked was to convert both sides to realise it was time to go back to basics, pause, and approach again from a new angle.Look from different angles and choose different targets.Question different people and their motives.Question why no evidence exists.Question why a detective was removed.Question why MI5 jumped on board. Question who is being protected and why , and who and what the red herrings are.Wake the Fk up in other words.


      Delete
  3. Anonymous5 August 2017 at 09:21
    If you think OG is a cover up then you must think that the current or even the previous PJ investigation is the same,there is enough evidence around not least in the FOI request mentioned up thread to show that OG is constrained probably legally to be only able to investigate what is contained already in the first investigation.Listen to Hogan Howe last year,"its essentially a Portuguese police enquiry".
    Reply
    Replies


    ZiggySawdust5 August 2017 at 16:39
    The investigation, in my opinion,became a show once the UK influenced Portugal to remove their detectives and hand over the lead to them.That smacks of a cover up. Why they would cover it up is the only mystery.All that can be inferred with any reason is that the UK wouldn't send in MI5 and a couple of Prime Ministers to protect someone from Portugal.They oly act that fast and with that much attention to detail to cover themselves and each other-NOT two holidaymakers. There was far bigger more important matters to attend to back home( Blair seeing his term out, MPs campaigning to take his place etc).Would all that take a back seat to protect two doctors in the real world ? Even if anyone desperately clings to that theory out of a fear of seeing the parents as other than evil, it has to promote the notion that those covering for them see nothing wrong in throwing your child's body away like rubbish as long as the Brit's don't lose their mythological worldwide 'respect'.Bollocks for my money all that. OG can't be a self contained independent cover up of anything as they came in 4 years after the crime.It was already safely covered up. They're just playing their part in maintaining the illusion of 'police determination' for the press statements and media profits.They're scattering crumbs to the starving.

    Carried over from the Grange cover up blog,hope you don't mind Ros.
    Ziggy,I think its damage limitation now,OG had but one crack at it,the PJ let them have their head and they blew it with the nonsense of the burglary gone wrong,the digs in 2014,the interviews of 4 arguidos,the further interviews of another 9? was it at the end of that year confirms it,Redwood went with the knowledge of failure.
    Its the lack of evidence that will condemn the case to failure,only a confession from some one who knows will bring it to a close,unless and until that happens it will remain a cold case file imo and all that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely. I've called OG a damage limitation operation from day one; the definition of damage being little or nothing being seen to be done after all the PR propaganda, hype and cost. Its not so much as OG the cover up, more another section of it. Who seriously ever got filled with anticipation when a headline about a lead was announced after 2007 ? The longer it goes on the more embarrassing it looks.Nobody, in their heart of hearts, expected anything to come of them unless they were hopeless optimistics that had no knowledge of the the case becoming a circus. it was noticeable that OG's implementation took a new direction.Not in terms of investigating - they surely must have known that the game was over years ago- but in terms of presentation.How could they present apparent 'leads' in a more convincing way ? In short, they couldn't. The exposure of leads they knew were dead and the permitting the ambushing of other 'suspects' on camera added spectacle and nothing more. That only helps sustain the illusion of feet-on-the-ground-no-stones-unturned BS. Yet they were never going to give us a 'running commentary'. So they wanted it both ways; lights camera action for the red herrings; stonewall silence when asked anything vaguely 'probing'. Nothing about Redwood has been convincing. I'm surprised all the mime readers haven't spotted him.If he said hello to me I wouldn't believe him.

      The readiness to abandon the investigation in 2008 by the PJ was, in my opinion, a gesture. It was a gesture that said they weren't ready to chase ghosts at the whim of the UK. They didn't have the same funding to waste.Waste being the big clue to what they believe was going on. Amaral ( and a colleague or two of his) seems to have told the world that the whole hijack was a covert operation by the UK. That's a far more serious crime than abduction . Unfortunately his army of admirers are fixated on only one aspect of his hypothesising. That's because they want their own appetite sated more than an exposure of the full game.It's also why the McCanns, again in my opinion, have been skillfully presented as innocent victims ( lacking any evidence etc) yet the favourite suspects of the masses who believe evidence and testimony has been suppressed to protect them and them alone 'because of their status'. Crazy.

      Delete
  4. Well, the three extended comments to date amount to Ziggy saying: "There's not enough evidence to decide this case one way or another, and after 10 years anyone who tries to get to the truth is wasting their time".

    The one question ignored so far on this thread (and most of the others about Madeleine on this blog for some time) is simply this:

    Was Madeleine abducted by a stranger? Or did she die in her parents' apartment? There are really no other realistic alternatives.

    There has been constant sniping on this blog for three years now against the so-called 'big names': HideHo, Richard Hall, Tony Bennett, Jill Havern, PeterMac, Pat Brown, Peter Hyatt etc.

    They all share this opinion: that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A and that this fact is being covered up. They try to get to the truth. They don't know when Madeleine died but make an educated guess based on the available evidence. They don't know how she died; again, opinions are offered.

    They all have this in common: they write books, and they produce videos, seen and absorbed by millions. They write to the Prime Minister, to Operation Grange; they start petitions. PeterMac, an ex-policeman, produced a free e-book on Madeleine. Peter Hyatt analyses statements and his skills are in demand by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. Tony Bennett's book opened the eyes of many back in the early days. HideHo's analyses of major sets of contradictions are second to none. Pat Brown is a noted criminal profiler who called this a cover-up very early on.

    Why on earth, then, does this blog and most of its main contributors sneer so much at the efforts of these and many others to get to grips with what was clearly Madeleine's death and has clearly been an orchestrated cover up by the British establishment?

    These people are workers, activists, campaigners, basically doers.

    Give me one good reason why you give these honest workers for truth such a hard time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''The one question ignored so far on this thread (and most of the others about Madeleine on this blog for some time) is simply this:Was Madeleine abducted by a stranger? Or did she die in her parents' apartment? There are really no other realistic alternatives.''

      How about an abductor who panicked and silenced the child ? Then took her away rather than leave DNA to be found on her ?

      Incidentally,i have no problem with you talking about what I appear to be saying, as long as you don't reproduce it as a quote.

      ''They all share this opinion: that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A and that this fact is being covered up. They try to get to the truth.''

      Everyone tries to.But as I said earlier, they still advance theory or hypothesis and no matter how strongly they believe it and how many see them as feasible, they stay just that.It doesn't convert them to truth.

      '' They try to get to the truth. They don't know when Madeleine died but make an educated guess based on the available evidence. They don't know how she died; again, opinions are offered.''

      When was Madeleine pronounced dead ? Who are OG, SY, PJ all looking for ? If they don't realise that Madeleine is officially a 'missing' person what constitutes their 'educated' guessing about her death ?

      ''Peter Hyatt analyses statements and his skills are in demand by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. ''

      The UK has hundreds of profilers and they have respect beyond just the UK. Portugal has them too. Peter Hyatt is a Guitar Tutor for pre-teens and his academic credentials are in the area of Theology, not Psychology. The whole area is too Grey and subjective and there's a reason why it's never allowed as evidence here, even from genuine Psychologists . A lot of US law enforcement agencies also call in 'psychics' too. None of whom will take up ' the Randi challenge' strangely enough.There are enough mime readers out there. There'll be some who read what he reads and come up with different conclusions.But they won't get applauded if they spoil the party. Hyatt should use his magic on a few other people who feature in this case.

      '' Pat Brown is a noted criminal profiler who called this a cover-up very early on.''

      Thousands called it one. What the extent of it and who is behind it and why it was covered up are all up for more speculation. Despite Pat Brown's impressive track record in the field, I suggest her hypotheses were naive.From the falling off a sofa to the hidden in a crevice it became guesswork. What's her opinions of why the UK politicians would go to this many lengths to protect to holidaymakers who threw their child away with the rubbish ?

      ''Why on earth, then, does this blog and most of its main contributors sneer so much at the efforts of these and many others to get to grips with what was clearly Madeleine's death and has clearly been an orchestrated cover up by the British establishment? ''

      The efforts are presented as truth and facts rather than speculation and suspicion, and when anyone points that out, they get sneered at.And there's no proof of a death according to how we stand now.

      ''These people are workers, activists, campaigners, basically doers. ''

      That's one way of looking at it. If they feel the call to work actively or campaign they should do so.But without the misguided self-belief that they are the law and they hold the truth and anyone who disagrees is fair game for abuse.That's the 'doing' part of your description we all see.They should show more than they tell.But if all you have is rhetoric-how can you ?

      ''Give me one good reason why you give these honest workers for truth such a hard time?''

      Done.

      Delete
    2. Doh, just penned a lengthy reply to you Gary and lost it, you have been spared, lol.

      Oh dear, I have to say, I should not have been sipping hot tea when I read the line 'honest workers for truth'.

      But are they Gary? Some might say the self righteous activism of Tony Bennett for example, damaged any hope of there being any real opposition to the abduction story. His very unpleasant face, and very unpleasant rants, labelled all non believers of the McCanns as haters and pitchforkers. Effectively, he silenced us.

      No idea what Pat Brown is doing in that list incidentally, she is not part of the barmy army. As for the others, they have crossed a line of morality and decency that most regular people find extremely distasteful. To validate their theories they are accusing witnesses of lying, and then making up reasons for their supposed lies. They are concocting scenarios that only exist in their own heads. That is immoral Gary, those people they are accusing have no protection and no right of reply. Making things up about people isn't truthseeking Gary, it's lying.

      Delete
  5. "Why do alleged huge sex scandals always involve VIPs and celebrities. What about Fred the plumber, or Harry the brickie? Or indeed, any other not world famous, drunken Uncle who tries to tries to grope the bridesmaids."

    A celebrity involved in a 'sex scandal' makes the news. Fred the plumber's 'sex scandal' doesn't. It's not rocket science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not surprisingly, my point went straight over your head 23:11 - it would seem those groped by household names were far more traumatised by than those groped by Fred the plumber.

      Delete
    2. I have never been so affronted

      Delete
    3. Not the Queen of Sheba8 August 2017 at 07:52

      Poor old Fred. I know a firm of solicitors called Carter-Ruck who do a lot of work pro bono for deserving clients like you whose good name has been trashed.

      Delete
    4. Fredtheplumber 7 August 2017 at 23:04

      “I have never been so affronted”

      I totally understand! Like totally!

      T

      Delete
  6. Re: Gary White5 August 2017 at 22:11:
    Quotes:
    "There has been constant sniping on this blog for three years now against the so-called 'big names': HideHo, Richard Hall, Tony Bennett, Jill Havern, PeterMac, Pat Brown, Peter Hyatt etc."
    --
    "Give me one good reason why you give these honest workers for truth such a hard time?"
    --end quotes --
    .
    I think the answer to that is every one of those "names" hold to their often singular, disparate but rigid explanation as to what went on and when you engage with them you are expected to subscribe to their theory.
    One can be easily suckered into wholeheartedly believing what one of them says when they lay out their "credentials" or offer up slick presentations. I remember when R Hall's very well recieved vids came out and the barrage of brickbats Ros got when she made a point of the Smiths' section spoiling the whole series. At the time many of us, myself included, thought she was being dog in the manger. I was wrong. When I learned who'd supplied the info re the Smiths I realised why she appeared to be outspoken and thereafter unfairly lambasted.
    In essence we all have our own theories as to what happened but there never was a singular platform to debate each and every one since the demise of 3As. Yet even that place dissolved into bitter infighting and we all scattered to various outposts from the Foundation, CMOMM, MMM, Facebook forums etc.
    Problem is they all battled with each other to their own detriment each with their partisan supporters - which ultimately stifled debate and took us no further.
    What we have here is an active discussion base that entertains any theory where, even if you disagree with the site owner (Ros!) you don't get slung out - just your opinions robustly challenged.
    Can you think of anywhere else you could do this these days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 6 August 2017 at 05:46

      Morning

      Good post.

      We have to look after Rosalinda. Each in their own way.

      I might disagree with her, but she is 'the man'!

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    2. Hi T
      Has a bit of everything here. It's busy, varied, has a good mix of seriousness and humour, not a bear pit (or cess!) and upholds the right to free speech. Very liberal with what she allows to be posted given some of the 'opinions'!
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    3. Many thanks for your kind words Mr. T, though I think if you are going to rap talk, it should be 'she da man' ;)

      Such is your charm I wasn't aware you disagreed with me M. T, now I am puzzled. But as Groucho Marx once said 'those are my principles, if you don't like them, well I have others', lol.

      Delete
    4. Many thanks for your kind words 05:36, today I shall be walking on sunshine :)

      This blog was mainly born out of the frustration of being banned from the forums and facebook pages 05:36. Whatever truth they were seeking, it wasn't my kind.

      It was hurtful of course, banning someone is very cruel, and not something I could do, effectively you are taking away that person's right to reply, and how is that democratic?

      They were stuffed in my case because I already had a platform of my own, lol. Not only could I reply, but I gave a voice to all who had banned, and there were hundreds! They were outraged at the McCanns attack on Goncalo Amaral's Freedom of Speech, while cutting, censoring and banning those who disagreed with them!

      Anyway, it is great to get feedback 05:36, and I'm glad people of all persuasions feel comfortable posting here. :)

      Delete
    5. Ros at 13:10
      People will be comfortable here because they're only asked to be (reasonably) polite, not to conform to one theory or be slung out on their ear.
      Hideho - you're not allowed to speculate. CMOMM? -echo Fleffer or be booted. MMM - they start threads then close them when you comment on them - why bother? Facebook? Mini dictatorships.
      People have tried before to have a "neutral" platform but have ultimately failed because of over-policing (banning)or rapid descent into abusive anarchy (like Twitter #mccann tag).
      You and your blog will be here long after interest has dissipated elsewhere by being realistically tolerant and not in any way bossy (let's face it, a lot of the 'other places' are run by control freaks)
      Enjoy the sunshine.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    6. ''your opinions robustly challenged.''

      lol This weeks prize for diplomacy goes to anon 05.46 ;-)

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 6 August 2017 at 11:37

      Many thanks for your kind words Mr. T, though I think if you are going to rap talk, it should be 'she da man' ;)

      You are very welcome. I’m not going to “rap talk”, but I’ve taken note of your advice.

      “… as Groucho Marx once said 'those are my principles, if you don't like them, well I have others', lol.”

      Yes, dear, same here.:)

      A quote, popular with those who’ve “got it made” having faked “that”: “The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.” Present company excepted.:)

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
  7. Just a thought,if OG does come up with a vague conclusion this September (or later if they get further funding), will we carry on talking about the same old,same old for the next god knows how many years? Or will we,while maybe not accepting the result,realise there is nothing we can do about it and just get on with our lives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In all reality there is little that any one can do,it must be a unique case where a case that has been archived and then had its findings or the vast majority released to be pulled apart not least by SY,where else did they magically pull a failed burglary out of the hat.There is only one conclusion imo that will be reached and its to remain as a cold case file unless any new info comes forward.
      Listen to or read what Rowley said back in April they have come an awful long way in not knowing what happened.A witness or a confesion is what will resolve it,after 10 yrs that's unlikely I'd venture.

      Delete
    2. To:
      Gordon Bennett6 August 2017 at 09:48
      This case will remain an enduring mystery like the whereabouts of Lord Lucan. Many have invested 10 years on line looking into every twitch and turn and many will never give up seeking answers, justice, etc.
      I fear that we may never know what happened and will resign ourselves to that. It's too big an event to disappear completely - the Mcs themselves won't let it lie nor will the newspapers.
      However, there's 'legs' in this never ending story yet. Just when you become thoroughly frustrated or perhaps bored there's always something comes along in this compelling drama to make you dive back in again.
      Meanwhile, I am assured most of us do have other things in life to attend to, even the more obsessed amongst us.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6 August 2017 at 10:49
      "the Mcs themselves won't let it lie"

      Why on earth would they let it lie - their daughter is missing.

      Delete
    4. To: Unknown6 August 2017 at 11:49
      "Why on earth would they let it lie - their daughter is missing."
      --
      Indeed she is - but they know where she is.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    5. Do they ? How do you know that ?

      Delete
    6. To:
      ZiggySawdust6 August 2017 at 15:30
      Do they ? How do you know that ?
      -
      Because she was not abducted. They never searched for her. Why do you think that is?
      That, and I have a feeling Eddie and Keela were on to something; that and Gerry making plans for "still missing" events when she could have walked right back in. Plus a million other reasons like their phenomenal catalogue of lies.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    7. ''Because she was not abducted. They never searched for her. Why do you think that is?''

      Hmmmm tricky . Because they were calling the police as their friends and locals were running around perhaps ?
      Tell me-hypothetcally of course-if you abducted a child from an apartment, why would you run a few hundred yards and dump her ? What was the point of the abduction ?That's more like a twisted game of hide and seek.Any abductor would be well away within minutes.They have cars and boats in PDL.

      ''That, and I have a feeling Eddie and Keela were on to something;''

      Most online sleuths share that 'feeling'. Amaral does too( so at least someone qualified lends it credibility). If they were brought in for a specific reason, to do a specific job, and they did it-what were the results ? If they were 'on to something' then what was it and what came of it ? If they found incriminating evidence there would have been arrests and charges.But there wasn't .So either they found nothing significant, or the found something significant and a conspiracy to suppress it followed.That's a serious allegation.

      ''Plus a million other reasons like their phenomenal catalogue of lies''

      It only takes one of significance to land the liar in the dock.But you found a million.Why can't the PJ , SY or OG find one if you found all of those gems ?Or are you suggesting they did but chose to keep them a secret. If so-why ? If you state categorically that someone is a liar, you should really state your proof along with the allegation .

      Delete
    8. @
      Anonymous6 August 2017 at 16:23

      wow such convincing evidence - Book 'em, Danno!

      Delete
    9. To:
      Ziggy 6 August at 19:33
      I said: "They never searched for her. Why do you think that is?''
      You said: "Hmmmm tricky . Because they were calling the police as their friends and locals were running around perhaps ?"
      * They didn't call the police. They called every News outlet going and their relatives.
      -
      I said: "''That, and I have a feeling Eddie and Keela were on to something;''
      You said: "Most online sleuths share that 'feeling'. Amaral does too( so at least someone qualified lends it credibility)."
      * You trying to out-patronise Blacksmith? Dogs are successfully used in so many fields of detection. Just you and Gerry think they're unreliable, then?
      -
      I said: ''Plus a million other reasons like their phenomenal catalogue of lies''
      You said: "It only takes one of significance to land the liar in the dock."
      * No it does not. I can hear the CPS laughing right now.
      You said: "But you found a million.Why can't the PJ , SY or OG find one if you found all of those gems ?
      * They did. Acting on them is not their allowed remit.
      -
      You said: "If you state categorically that someone is a liar, you should really state your proof along with the allegation ."
      * Ok. To highlight one example. Crecheman. A complete and utter fabriction by Redwood. If you believe that man actually exists then say hello to Santa Claus for me next Christmas.
      -
      * SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    10. Amen to that SixYearsInaComaMan, and many thanks for your posts. I think your namesake may well figure prominently should there be any revelations come September.

      Delete
    11. LOL at blogger hogger Gordon. Perfect!

      Mr. Ziggmund does not have the online etiquette and good manners to understand that blog hogging (lol) I fear the Z, is one of those boorish men of a certain age, who always feel the need to take over from the little woman. Ok, well done on building it up, I'll take it from here, lol.

      However I am too proud of my lone wolfess status, even the toughest alpha males shrink in my presence, I'm not proud to say it, lol, but I think most men are afraid of me. Not because I am tough in any way, I'm actually a big old pussycat, but I suspect they know my kill is much worse than my bite.

      The Ziggmund is like one of those lodgers who only needs a bed for a couple of nights that you somehow find yourself walking down the aisle with 6 months later. Before you know it, he's got his side of the bed, his place on the sofa, and full control of the TV remote. I'd attack him with a rusty rake and bury him under the patio just for that!

      My ex once told me he never slept well with me, he always had a fear he would wake up and find himself dead in the morning! To be fair, those thoughts were never far from my mind, he was very annoying, but I both loved and hated him simultaneously. As much as he made me angry, he made me happy, and as much as he made me laugh, he made me cry.

      However, as much fun as it was knocking seven bells out of each other, next time round I'm going for a man who says 'yes dear'. Ex by the way, was replaced by a small mutt who also didn't do as he was told and had a tendency to switch his affections at the drop of a hat, but at least he didn't hog the telly, or spend the shopping money on mind altering substances

      Delete
    12. Hi Ros (at 13:40)
      Me and SixYearsInaComaMan both remain anonymous as of now, something I could personally address - but I bet HE couldn't! lol.
      Come September we will all still be here and, like everything else to do with this case, we can expect the unexpected. My immediate thoughts are that Op Grange will close and 'shelve'. Then I realise this is the McCase where night does not necessarily follow day.
      What I do know is I will be mulling it over here where the porridge is just right.
      Whatever it is you've got Ros©®™, bottle it and trademark the recipe!
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
  8. @ZiggySawdust6 August 2017 at 01:17

    ''The one question ignored so far on this thread (and most of the others about Madeleine on this blog for some time) is simply this:Was Madeleine abducted by a stranger? Or did she die in her parents' apartment? There are really no other realistic alternatives.''

    How about an abductor who panicked and silenced the child ? Then took her away rather than leave DNA to be found on her ? END

    Are you serious? Please do a bit more homework if you are to retain any credibility whatsoever. You're saying that a potential abductor could have botched the deed by inadvertently killing the child and made off with her ??? Through the window or the door? He left none of his DNA anywhere in the apartment. For 'death odour' to occur the dead body has to be 'in situ' for at least 90 minutes.
    Do get a grip!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Are you serious? Please do a bit more homework if you are to retain any credibility whatsoever''

      Was that supposed to be 'scathing' ? Not to worry :-) My credibility is a problem to a lot of people seemingly.I'm not one of them...

      With regards to the homework you say I need to do, part of it surprised me in the whole 'cadaver' area. I was surprised to learn that the 'scent of death' begins almost immediately.I know that contradicts your '90 minute' theory, but the paper i read was from a scientist, not a blog.I'm not suggesting the child is dead like most of you unbalanced ghouls, even if the ten years of nothing makes that a more realistic probability.It's still only a probability.Nobody goes to jail because they 'probably did it'.

      Regarding the window or door riddle...What would you do ? You have hold of a child-do you climb out of a window or use the door ?

      How many samples of DNA were actually found in the apartment other than the McCanns ?

      There's no evidence of an abduction apparently according to the 'online court'. There's none of a death according to SY, PJ, OG. How do we decide where the mistakes are and where the lies are ? It's subjective. It's opinion. It's speculation and hypothesising. Guesswork and suspicion. It always has been and until a truth pops out that has evidence, always will be.So nobody can say they're right or they 'know' what happened.But they do.Where's their credibility when nothing happens and they repeat it like a broken record ? They only get credibility from those who agree with them. They have each other ( bless ).

      Get into GM's head on that night.GM as the walkabout body snatcher. Reality test his decisions. Inhale he 'coffee scent'

      Delete
    2. Ziggy at 20:00.
      Nobody goes to jail because they 'probably did it'.
      .......................
      That romantic notion is sadly wrong in so many cases,the prosecution have to present a case that tries to convince a jury that the balance of probability the defendant did it,now google miscarriages of justice,the prosecution presented flawed evidence yet it managed to convince the jury the probability of guilt when there clearly wasn't any.

      Delete
    3. ZS 6.8@20:00

      "I was surprised to learn that the 'scent of death' begins almost immediately....the paper i read was from a scientist, not a blog."

      Reference? Link?

      Delete
    4. @ Anon 08:43

      Criminal cases must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" - not "the balance of probability".

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7 August 2017 at 09:47

      “ZS 6.8@20:00

      "I was surprised to learn that the 'scent of death' begins almost immediately....the paper i read was from a scientist, not a blog."

      Reference? Link?”

      Yes please.

      Delete
    6. 'Anonymous7 August 2017 at 08:43'
      ''That romantic notion is sadly wrong in so many cases,the prosecution have to present a case that tries to convince a jury that the balance of probability the defendant did it''

      Maybe i should have phrased it more carefully. I forgot about magnifying glasses.The prosecution has to persuade a jury that the accused is guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.The defence then instructs them that if they ''have any doubt whatsoever then you must find the defendant not guilty'. That would amount to 'don't find the defendant guilty because you think he 'probably did it'. A unanimous verdict would be required in a case of a child murder.

      Delete
    7. Here we go again..'the dogs don't fucking lie' groupies have emerged from their crypt...

      It's been done to death ( no dogs required) on this blog and the rest.I find it disturbing that so many 'researchers' are so desperate to have the death of a child confirmed.Nice ...

      In the context of this latest debate, the point's moot . 90 seconds or 90 minutes or 90 days or otherwise. The dogs turned up about 4 months later anyway.

      Tell you what, somebody among you post a link for me instead. One that explains that a dead body was in the apartment and that it doesn't matter how long it had been there. Then post it via email to OG,SY,PJ. They can call off the search after explaining how they all missed it.

      The real debate can begin then can't it..you and them ;-)

      Delete
  9. "Oh Zigmund, just as I was starting to enjoy your diverse and unpredictable writing style, you have again irritated my inner battleaxe English teacher. Less is more Mr. Z, if you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it well it well enough. A trap Richard Hall fell straight through with his 4 hour video."

    Really?

    Have you done a word count on that inaccessible, long-winded partwork you've written to launch this particular thread?

    Once again, my dear Rosalinda, you elect to wear your hypocrisy like a badge of honour!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tis my blog 17:19, and I muse, just like it says on the tin, especially in my blogs where I am not restricted by a word count.

      And my readers like my musings 17:19, as can be seen by the regular readership I have and the ever growing numbers. As long as people enjoy my inaccessible, long-winded partwork, I will keep writing, that's what they are here for.

      Of course, for those who like their reading material, strictly on topic, without any semblance of humanity and humourless, other options are available. See the works of Tony Bennett (Volumes I to infinity), Richard Hall, Textusa, etc.

      As for my hypocrisy, again, it is my blog, my space in which to muse. A large body of work that I am actually very proud of. And one that I hope my descendants and future generations will look back on as a 'moment in time'. I hope in 100 years, someone will giggle or lol, at the witticisms I throw in here and there, just as I giggle and laugh at the words of writers who have gone before.

      I was reading quotes of Dorothy Parker and every one of them I want inscribed on my tombstone! For now I'll give you: 'Of course I talk to myself, I like a good speaker, and I appreciate an intelligent audience', as it seems most apt. I write the kind of stuff I like to read 17:19, if I am laughing as I type something, I hope my readers are laughing too. The same applies if I am weeping, sorry guys, but I want you reaching for the tissues too.

      Writing is a very emotional experience, perfectly suited to the bipolar, lol. It is a form of madness, a daily battle for perfection that always remains out of your reach. The best advice Ms Parker had for those aspiring to write came in two parts. The first, shoot them now, while they're happy.

      If your turns on are Harvard referencing and the work of 'researchers' as mentioned above, it exists in abundance. And therein lies the difference between myself and those 'research' forums and 'big' names. I don't make any claims of expertise or inside knowledge.

      And I don't feel the need to list and itemise everything I have read to validate my opinion. Discerning readers can spot in an instant if a writer doesn't not know what they talking about.

      But back to my hypocrisy, I have few rules 17:19, and some might say I am more than over indulgent. However, this is my blog. One I have spent much time and many years building, I'm not going to permit a takeover, hostile or otherwise.

      Delete
    2. As I was banned from each forum and facebook page, I always had the smug knowledge, that my writing talent went with me. That is something I have that no-one can take away. All the calls to blacklist, ostracise and ignore me have failed. The attempts of the forums to continue discussion without mentioning my name or topics that have become 'hot' on my blog, are pathetic. They are too thick to understand 'don't mention Cristobell' is another form of censorship, lol. I am sure they have a good old gossip in the private areas though, ha ha.

      Unfortunately for them, the crazy allegations haven't stuck. I speak freely and self consciously about my mental health problems, communicating has never been a problem for me, as if, ergo I am not a danger to myself or anyone. Anger, violence, hate, are all symptoms of a person's inability to express what they really feel. Toddlers lose their 'rage' as their vocabularies expand, they are able to explain what they want. But I am digressing again 17:19, which I know you hate.

      It has taken a long time to rebuild and restore all the damage that has been done to my name by my connection to this case, but it is a battle I have fought, and am still fighting, just as much as Goncalo Amaral. When my book was released by Random House in 2011, I was tarred with the same evil vigilante badge as Tony Bennett.

      I'm very rarely precious about anything 17:19, on the material front, I love my kids first 'blankies', my dad's cushion, carefully preserved in a plastic bag, so I can still smell him when 'needs' must and my mum's nighties that I still wear even though they are now almost threadbare. As precious too, the little dog dish that sits in a cupboard, a memory of my little pal Barny Bubble, a rescue mutt who was never far from my side for over 16 years. TMI (too much information for you there) 17:19?

      I am precious about my blog 17:19. I have never allowed any of my work to be censored or de-politicised - and it has cost me dear. I have a huge catalogue of screenplays, theatre productions and books. Mostly my fault to be fair, for not sending them out. I do wonder what my 13 year old self would make of it all. When not designing statues of herself to be erected after being burned at the stake. She was a big fan of Joan of Arc (there were few feminist role models at the time)and thought a martyr's death was the best form of payback ever. I think the 13 year old would have been proud of the 60 year old, I have to (most) of my principles. Should add, I was never against sex, drugs and rock and roll, those were never among my principles.

      Ziggy got my point even if you didn't, but in fairness, you did say you found the above text 'inaccessible'.

      Ps. Apologies for being long-winded, and for the excess of me, me, me, references, I do hope it didn't irk.

      Delete
    3. Oops, 2 big errors, I am sure there were many more, lol. Consciously, should have read unself-consciously. And of course, the fact that the 13 year old me, was as mad as a box of frogs.

      Delete
  10. "by Verdi Today at 21:01
    There is a very active force within and without trying to destroy CMoMM, please don't give them ammunition."
    ----------------------------------------------------

    No-one needs to provide ammunition - they do it all on their own!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does amuse me Unknown, that they never had the foresight to understand that banning people would lead to a decease in numbers. Not many people are narrow minded and closed off to reasoning and logic, as their loss in popularity shows. Many thanks for posting :)

      Delete
  11. Hi Ros, Ziggy & all.

    As mentioned, this case is really about the fate of Madeleine on that night. If you believe the McCanns are complicit in their daughters disappearance, or she was abducted, or a burglary gone wrong or she wandered off. Either way there are still some question marks over their actions. OG is in no way a cover up, if anything it's probably annoyed the McCanns as it hasn't came up with anything concrete to persuade people that Madeleine really was abducted. As mentioned there is no conclusive evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment, but there is no conclusive evidence that she was abducted either. One other thing, the McCanns twice went against PJ advice, by making public Madeleine's eye defect & bringing in the South African with the detector machine. Also they have disputed SY by clinging on to the Crecheman sighting as a suspect on their website.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening / morning John...

      Who knows the truth about 'crecheman' ? Maybe he existed, maybe he didn't. Maybe Redwood came up with his cunning(cough) idea of him coming forward to close the discussion of him and Smithman down. Maybe he did that and a crecheman really was walking around with his sleeping toddler anyway but hasn't been found. It's down to the police to untangle that, not the Mccanns, they didn't see anyone.

      Regarding their going against the PJ over the eye defect, in hindsight( no pun intended) it was the right thing to do. They wanted Madeleine to be seen wherever she was and that was her distinguishing mark; a sort of tattoo . Little blonde haired toddlers are all over the place but not with that defect.And, let's face it, the ridiculous circular 'debates' about the reliability of eye witness testimony, in particular the Smith sighting, tells us that any distinguishing feature would be a major advantage. According to the media spin the police gave to the papers she was seen about a hundred times all over the world. One check of that eye and it's sorted. The claim back then that alerting abductors to the eye could provoke them into killing her or pulling her eye out was a bit shoddy( I think any abductor would have spotted that eye-don't you ?)

      The McCanns mocked the South African - or is that what you mean ? They should have given him their backing. They could have found Madeleine or exposed the South African as a publicity chaser and deterred the rest.It should have been the PJ's call any way-it was their investigation, not the McCann's. Besides, they were never going to find Madeleine there anyway,even if the saintly Murat was involved. He's far too clever to make a mistake like that.

      Delete
    2. @ZiggySawdust at 01:10

      "The McCanns mocked the South African - or is that what you mean ? They should have given him their backing. They could have found Madeleine or exposed the South African as a publicity chaser and deterred the rest.It should have been the PJ's call any way-it was their investigation, not the McCann's."

      Are you mixing Danie Krügel (http://www.daniekrugelfacts.com/) up with Stephen Birch (https://pt-pt.facebook.com/diggingformadeleinmccann/)?

      Kate McCann ('madeleine'):

      “So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa.”

      Delete
    3. Anon, 7 August 13.18

      I'm surprised that the couple of eyelashes from Madeleine's pillow and the hairs from inside her coat hood weren't first given to the PJ when they needed Madeleine's DNA but had to wait for GM to go back to the UK to get a pillow apparently belonging to Madeleine.

      It seems strange that K & G McCann were quick in giving DNA samples to Danie but not the PJ.

      Well it doesn't seem strange really having listened to the McCanns for the past 10 years, I think it seems very obvious that they led everyone on a wild goose chase to find a missing child who really wasn't "missing".

      Delete
    4. So who are the bigger criminals-them or two police forces that have been on a wild goose chase for ten years because they missed such a minor detail..a minor detail that's so important to the protocol of an investigation they could do it on auto-pilot

      Delete
    5. ZS - 7 August 20.46

      By wild goose chase I meant all of the "sightings" that have been reported from all over the world, and kept the police busy and off the McCanns' back, of course, the PJ and SY would have to look into them for any future court case if there is one. The prosecutors would have to come up with evidence that all of the "sightings" were followed up as no doubt any very expensive lawyer would pull any evidence apart that can't be substantiated.

      We don't know what evidence the police are holding regarding Madeleine's DNA, they're not likely to tell us, but I'm sure they're always one step ahead of people who are trying to thwart their investigations. I saw on the news this morning that another victim of the 9/11 attacks had been identified because of a new breakthrough in DNA testing. I remember G Amaral saying that hairs without any roots had been found in the McCanns' hire car and that they would be preserved for future analyse because technology in DNA testing is always improving.

      Delete
    6. Those leads and sightings were all part of the flimflam . It gave the audience a show. They were never convincing and I dare say some policemen were embarrassed and even more packed their sunblock and beer money.

      ''We don't know what evidence the police are holding regarding Madeleine's DNA, they're not likely to tell us''

      That's the trouble, though. They have told us. None-or not anything that could be called significant.We can believe them, or not believe them.But until proof emerges of them concealing evidence, or destroying / losing evidence we are where we are. If the so -called blood splatter was Madeleine's i can't see why it can't be identified with the technology we already have.According to most antis it looked like Norman Bates' shower that night. Which begs the question of the same antis not commenting about the wandering Gerry popping off to bury the body not having any blood on him or the child he was carrying.

      Delete
  12. ''CMOMM is an investigative forum that questions why there is a
    Government cover-up of the death of Madeleine Beth McCann ''

    Not 'if' but 'why'...

    So, Madeleine's dead now according to the Gods of the internet. You'd think they'd inform the parents or OG out of that concern they claim to have.

    I dare say Richard H is making the relevant video exposing the MPs 'contradictions and mobile phone records' as we speak.And that Hyatt has torn himself away from his Bibles to analyze the speech patterns of Blair, Brown, May and Cameron.

    Could CMoMM be letting Gerry and Kate off the hook for a couple of weeks( cue loud, manic drums)or are the duo giving the UK Government direct orders to keep their secret because they're doctors.Will the Lolita gang rebel ? And will our road signs be safe...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To:
      Ziggy 7 August at 00:45
      -
      "Gods of the internet"
      -
      * Your application still pending, is it?
      -
      * SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    2. ZS 31.7 @15:31

      "Operation Grange will keep all eyes looking in different directions but not the right one. And there's the role within the cover up; a supporting one."

      ZS 5.8 @16:39

      "The investigation, in my opinion, became a show once the UK influenced Portugal to remove their detectives and hand over the lead to them. That smacks of a cover up."

      No 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts' from you on the cover-up front hitherto. You seem to be critical of like-minded others however. Or is it just the 'Madeleine is dead' part you cannot accept?

      Well it's been 10 years and 'the burglar panicked' hypothesis only comes into play if you're presuming the child to be dead, which apparently you do not.

      So the burglar left empty handed. And Madeleine? Which school does she attend, who's her current doctor, and why hasn't SHE come forward since?

      Oh I know. Sequestered ad infinitum. But the non-corpse abducting burglar didn't leave with anyone. He was never there. So the perpetual prisoner explanation goes down the drain too.

      Why would the McCanns have wished to cover up a crime that never occurred I wonder? Equally, why would the government wish to support the concealment of such a non-crime?

      Rhetorical questions you may wish to consider, although to judge from your current stance you are well behind on the curve.

      Delete
    3. ''No 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts' from you on the cover-up front hitherto. You seem to be critical of like-minded others however. Or is it just the 'Madeleine is dead' part you cannot accept?''

      Before you set about dismantling somebody's argument, you should double check that argument.Yes, I believe that a cover up took place. Had no politicians interfered with this police matter( because that's what it was and is) then my suspicions wouldn't exist.Not only was their interest a little too 'intense' but their influencing of the investigation ( Amaral gone and UK taking over)but the passing of private phone numbers to the victims is unprecedented. We won't see that again either will we ? If you've read anything I've said on the last few threads, you'll see that I don't have a clue if Madeleine is dead or alive but accept that common sense would suggest that she more than likely is.But a case isn't closed because of 'common sense' or a guess.It will be shelved with everything else.

      ''Well it's been 10 years and 'the burglar panicked' hypothesis only comes into play if you're presuming the child to be dead, which apparently you do not.''

      The 'burglar' scenario is one of the popular ones.To me it's nothing more than a hypothetical one.I'd guess a burglar being disturbed would just turn and run.A crying child or one walking about would indicate the place wasn't empty.Burglars are looking for something small and light to get away with for quick sales.Ransoms etc aren't their 'thing'.It isn't impossible to envisage the silencing of the child if the burglar was 'wired'( junkie etc) but it's still a less likely scenario in my opinion.I acknowledge that the 'official' state of play is that Madeleine is alive.I didn't make that decision.

      ''So the perpetual prisoner explanation goes down the drain too.''

      Yes, but that scenario was put forward by Dave Edgar probably after watching some recent horror stories that made the news and watching a few dodgy horror films.I'm not sure anyone anywhere bought his garbage.But he had to come up with something if he was on the payroll.

      ''Why would the McCanns have wished to cover up a crime that never occurred I wonder? Equally, why would the government wish to support the concealment of such a non-crime?''

      Who said the McCanns wanted to cover up a crime ? I never.And i doubt the Government would want or need to conceal a non-crime ( whatever that is).I'm more interested in why they were so interested in a crime in the first place when Portugal have a police force and we have the Met should they have requested their assistance.Governments cover up to protcect.The need may be to protect themselves collectively or protect somebody within the ranks. Our UK Governments have been doing it for decades. They 'explain' 'cash for questions' and the like as being down to blackmail and bribery. Tim Fortescue blew the lid on that in 2 minutes when he was recalling his time as Chief Whip under Edward Heath(There's still fighting and panic over that right now trying to keep it quiet, but it's coming out soon).

      ''Rhetorical questions you may wish to consider, although to judge from your current stance you are well behind on the curve.''

      As i said at the top..before attempting to dismantle, read it. I'm not behind any curve.

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

      Delete
    4. "before attempting to dismantle, read it"

      Before attempting to answer a question, read it.

      Definition of 'rhetorical question':

      'noun: rhetorical question; plural noun: rhetorical questions.

      'A question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.'

      You really shouldn't have bothered. That said, my earlier question to you (@09:47) could do with an answer.

      Delete
    5. ''you are well behind on the curve.''

      countable noun : something that you say or write which gives information in a formal or definite way.

      @9:47 has it's answer.

      Delete
    6. ZS 7.8 @23:00

      "@9:47 has it's answer."

      Really? I see neither citation nor link (as requested) in relation to the scientific paper alluded to. It would lend weight to your claim that 'the scent of death begins almost immediately'.

      Without it of course your observation must be considered anecdotal, of little consequence, and in all likelihood untrue.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 8 August 2017 at 11:01

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  13. @ Mr Coma Man
    I agree something always seems to come along to keep ones interest up.
    However,it never seems enough and is a bit like a carrot on a stick. You keep going but never get the prize.
    A constant state of minor excitement and major frustration.
    And Mr Sawdust, while I find your posts stimulating you do hog the blog a bit
    A blogger hogger!
    A new name for today lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL at blogger hogger Gordon. Perfect!

      Mr. Ziggmund does not have the online etiquette and good manners to understand that blog hogging (lol) I fear the Z, is one of those boorish men of a certain age, who always feel the need to take over from the little woman. Ok, well done on building it up, I'll take it from here, lol.

      However I am too proud of my lone wolfess status, even the toughest alpha males shrink in my presence, I'm not proud to say it, lol, but I think most men are afraid of me. Not because I am tough in any way, I'm actually a big old pussycat, but I suspect they know my kill is much worse than my bite.

      The Ziggmund is like one of those lodgers who only needs a bed for a couple of nights that you somehow find yourself walking down the aisle with 6 months later. Before you know it, he's got his side of the bed, his place on the sofa, and full control of the TV remote. I'd attack him with a rusty rake and bury him under the patio just for that!

      My ex once told me he never slept well with me, he always had a fear he would wake up and find himself dead in the morning! To be fair, those thoughts were never far from my mind, he was very annoying, but I both loved and hated him simultaneously. As much as he made me angry, he made me happy, and as much as he made me laugh, he made me cry.

      However, as much fun as it was knocking seven bells out of each other, next time round I'm going for a man who says 'yes dear'. Ex by the way, was replaced by a small mutt who also didn't do as he was told and had a tendency to switch his affections at the drop of a hat, but at least he didn't hog the telly, or spend the shopping money on mind altering substances.

      Delete
    2. ''Mr. Ziggmund does not have the online etiquette and good manners to understand that blog hogging (lol) I fear the Z, is one of those boorish men of a certain age, who always feel the need to take over from the little woman.''

      No, not really. I'm no different now than when I was when i was 18 in terms of my approach to life.I like to keep things simple and attempt to simplify things that need to be.Clarity is everything, especially when so many around need help in identifying who they've just seen in the mirror...

      I might come across to certain types as 'old school' regarding that pointless nonsense we know and love as the battle of the sexes, but I'm not.If something enlightens me i like it.If that enlightenment comes from a man it doesn't make it more worthy, or less worthy if it comes from a bitch(joke, promise). The same goes for nonsense.If somethings stupid it's stupid-the source isn't important.Rule 1-don't take shit from morons.Rule 2-stick to rule 1.

      As for 'online etiquette and manners'...

      Even a cursory glance of the last 4 or 5 threads on this blog would explain that we all have are own idea of what constitutes etiquette and manners. I suppose in this virtual world it would be easy to make the mistake that etiquette and manners would imitate the real world.It doesn't take long to see different.They do it differently here.. Spit out personal insults and attacks ( ''you disgust me..you're a disgusting liar..prick..etc etc)and you become a leading light that commands respect; a wonderful contributor to debate. Stick to questioning ideas or reality testing accusations and you're a pariah who lacks the bile and should be avoided.

      I have this theory ( yes, a theory, gather round).The McCann blogs are like villages scattered around the virtual world. They're independent of each other and communicate by snail mail. But, underground, where the naked eye can't see, there's a system of pipes that lead to the same well that supplies them all the same water.So they say the same things, they celebrate the same nonsense and talk the same language( the universal language being shite).They observe the same customs.

      Thank God I have my own personal water supply and a couple of bitches to carry it around for me and keep it replenished.

      If you've reached this far, well done.You secretly admire me, love me even, and enjoy my hogging.

      Delete
    3. You always make me smile, keep on hoggin' Boss Hogg!

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't mind Daisy carrying my water around for me lol.
      And anything else she wants to hold!

      Delete
    5. Jane Cook8 August 2017 at 10:48

      “You always make me smile, keep on hoggin' Boss Hogg!”

      You are wonderful again, Lady Jane. I pray, not unlike you good self, that comrade The Rising Sun, aka Mr Smile, keeps on rising, so that we can tell him of his errors while basking in his glory and attention.

      Comrade T

      Delete
    6. Gordon Bennett8 August 2017 at 11:51

      “I wouldn't mind Daisy carrying my water around for me lol.
      And anything else she wants to hold!”

      Nice one, Flesh!:)

      You are talking about holding opinions I take it.

      T

      Delete
    7. You are what you are Ziggy at 17:21, and that's OK, I find it hard to supress my inner need to pick up dirty dishes and make tea. And I'm not one of those feminists who demand macho men should be castrated. I'm not into all this androgynous stuff either, I live the lines to be clearly defined.

      What you are doing is not a 'battle of the sexes' Ziggy, it's just plain old bad manners. I was using humour to avoid confrontation, hoping my gentle hints would curb your need to takeover.

      At the moment, you are bordering on a cuckoo trying to steal my nest. In the past cuckoos have somehow managed complete takeovers, and quite often whilst I have been blissfully unaware.
      However, this old bird has toughened up over the years. This blog is interesting and interactive because that's the way I made it. It didn't just happen.

      I fully understand your need to write Ziggy, but have the courage to create your own space, you can't just take over one that has a large established audience. It would be like someone from the front row of a Black Eyed Peas concert, pushing Fergie out of the way and singing My humps, my humps, my lovely lady humps.

      As well as you may be able to sing the above song Ziggy, that's not what the fans came to hear. Not that I am comparing myself to Fergie of course, but I am hoping you will get the point.

      Delete
    8. Of course I get the point ; 'sing from our hymn sheet or don't sing'

      It's no use broadcasting your 1960s anti-censorship stance to the world if you're coming out with this back-handed and not-so-thinly-veiled 'advice'.It looks hypocritical and that you're pandering to your audience of 'fans'. You should show us you're bigger than that instead of telling.

      You've posted your appreciation of 'hoggers' elsewhere who endorse your ideas and pepper their 'knowledge' with expletives.They don't receive any 'advice' ..but, again, what you tell us doesn't get confirmed by what you show us..

      You want things to remain of a very narrow focus and all thinking to be rigid( like the blogs elsewhere that you often criticise). The variety (cough) of posts that all sustain that narrow view and narrower thinking all lead to the same place. A few thousand words that can all be summed up in 1 sentence.

      Delete
    9. You can sing from whatever hymn sheet you like Ziggy, it's your tendency to sing every verse and every song in the book that irks.

      This isn't a censorship debate Ziggy, you can say what you like, just try to do it in fewer lines. There are no other blog hoggers on here Ziggy, only you. The majority who post here, including the 'big names', treat me, and my blog with respect. They don't try to take over.

      Fortunately I wasn't drinking hot tea when I read your final paragraph. 'You want things to remain of a very narrow focus and all thinking to be rigid....'. Did you say that out loud, even in your head, before posting it? This blog is known and appreciated for its' diversity of opinion!

      You are the one demanding a 'very narrow focus and all thinking to be rigid' Ziggy. I don't throw a hissy fit when people don't agree with me. I'm mature enough to know that some you win, some you lose.

      You are not winning the argument Ziggy, ergo your verbosity, you may have had occasions in the past where talking the hind legs off a donkey has worked, but it isn't working here.

      This blog has no agenda Ziggy, and I have deliberately steered it that way. You, however do. You believe that everyone, bar yourself is stupid, you are the one who becomes hostile when others challenge your untrue claims and misinformation.

      I understand your frustration Ziggy, but that you are not changing opinion is down to you, not me. You have had an uncensored platform for months now, every opportunity to steer the debate in the direction you want. The same chance as everyone else to sway opinion. This is an open debate, the best 'speaker' wins.

      I want to be a great writer Ziggy (one who sells lots of books) - that I am not, is down to me, talent will always find a way. That I am not living it up in the coffee bars and nightclubs of Brighton (or Cuba) is entirely my own fault - like George Orwell's Boxer, I must work harder.

      Ps. Fingers crossed the subtext gets through.

      Delete
  14. Ros. Why don't you set up or open a forum? Go to "forumotion". Doesn't cost anything and I'm sure you'll get a lot of readers here and members from elsewhere wanting to join in. Doesn't necessarily have to be "McCann" related although that would be a good basis to kick start it. A forum without censorship, bannings and everyone is "equal" could be a good move for you. I'm sure your readers would like something like that (inserts poll, lol). I think a new forum is very much needed.

    Gail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To:
      Gordon Bennett 7 Aug at 10:49
      That's how the papers prop up their flagging sales by rehashing anything to do with MBM or Diana.
      We may never know what happened to MBM same way we will never know what happened in the Alma Tunnel.
      But it is the enduring mystery that keeps us tuned in, that maybe, just one day, the day we don't look in (lol), something staggeringly conclusive occurs.
      Meanwhile, this is why I like to hear anything and everything about this particular case, unadulterated.
      See, someone somewhere might be able to piece it all together to match the picture on the jigsaw box. Until such time, despite the false dawns and frustration, we feel the compulsion to proffer an endless amount of "what ifs" which sets us off on another area of investigation/consideration. Without disparate and diverse views we would always be a donkey's head behind that carrot.
      -
      * SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    2. Oh but it would HAVE to be McCann related or Ros would be talking to herself. The moment Ros deviates from the McCann saga no one is interested in her blogs. Tis the truth and Ros knows it.
      Having said that, Verdi of THE forum is doing a sterling job of getting rid of posters. Has Jill had enough ? Does she want to wind it all down?

      Delete
    3. Hmm Gail, it is an idea I have toyed with now and again, maybe a Facebook page but I'm not sure my laissez faire approach would work there.

      I agree my little blog is outgrowing it's home, but I am not sure I have the time, patience or admin skills to run anything bigger.

      I do have another project I am working on - another book entirely unrelated to the Madeleine case. It will an advice book, (yeh, I know), along the lines of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, I'm thinking 'Where it all went wrong - I did it, so you don't have to?'. The title, like the book, needs a bit (a lot) of work.

      Hitting the big 60 really is entry to the Last Chance Saloon, lol, and I have a lot of boxes left to tick. I can no longer blame the political correctness of publishers and editors or the lack of enthusiasm from agents. I really need to focus and earn some money from my craft!

      I can now write, and indeed publish, my own, uncensored, unedited book online - something I imagine, my predecessors could only have dreamed of. My first book would not have been my first book for publication, if at all. It was a misery memoir, and I'm incapable of writing misery, thus it was lacking the kind of detail the genre required. However, you don't turn down the offer of a book deal from a major publisher. You also don't make controversial statements about a high profile missing child case. In the words of Annie Lennox, 'Whyyyyyyyy can't I ever learn to keep my big mouth shut'.

      I do like the forum idea Gail, and it is something I will keep in mind. I have given myself a deadline for the book, I hope to publish by Christmas. It may be that I will tie the book and a possible forum together Gail, it already has a large 'Dear Cristobell' section, filled with advice your mother never told you, but your naughty Aunt might have, hic'.

      Thank you Gail, you have certainly given me food for thought. :)

      Meanwhile, I might test out titles, or launch a poll ha ha, I do of course see the irony of someone like myself giving advice to anyone, but I am hoping that the flaws and many burned fingers might be endearing :)

      Delete
    4. @ Ros 18:41
      "The title, like the book, needs a bit (a lot) of work."

      It certainly does as the title has already been used: "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" by Toby Young

      Delete
    5. Unknown at 20:09

      Can't you read?

      "It will an advice book, (yeh, I know), along the lines of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, I'm thinking 'Where it all went wrong - I did it, so you don't have to?'."

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 9 August 2017 at 07:23

      “Can't you read?”

      A very good question.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    7. @ Anonymous9 August 2017 at 07:23

      Oh so she knows about the previous book and will write something "along the lines of". So not an original work then - just her own person slant on a previous work?

      Delete
    8. @ T

      Yes I can read - hence my response - if I couldn't read I would not be able to comment on it would I?

      So in fact a crass question.

      Delete
    9. You think I am an admirer of Toby Young Unknown? You might be able to read, but nothing sinks in. Do you even know who Toby Young is? You think I would base my work on that of a greedy, self-serving fascist? If you want to insult someone Unknown, you need to have a least a grain of truth in what you are saying.

      There are many writers I admire and emulate Unknown, but Toby Young is not among them.

      Delete
    10. @ Ros 18:42

      It is you that mentioned the title of his book.

      Delete
  15. Tick the boxes of how many apply:

    1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance.
    2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
    3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
    4. Requires excessive admiration [regularly fishes for compliments, and is highly susceptible to flattery].
    5. Has a sense of entitlement.
    6. Is interpersonally exploitative.
    7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling [or, I would add, unable] to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
    8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
    9. Shows arrogant, haughty [rude and abusive] behaviors or attitudes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Murat :-)

      Delete
    2. HalfMyTimeInAComaMan

      Anonymous7 August 2017 at 11:22

      ''* They didn't call the police. They called every News outlet going and their relatives.''

      The Police were 'just passing' then-OK. Is 'every news outlet going' like your 'million' lies ? Hyperbole doesn't make something real. So who are these 'every outlet' the parents called. I'm guessing you can back that up.

      ''* You trying to out-patronise Blacksmith? Dogs are successfully used in so many fields of detection. Just you and Gerry think they're unreliable, then?''

      Who decided that they weren't significant ? Me, GM, Blacksnith ? Or a forensics team ? What would you say their agenda was ?

      ''You said: "But you found a million.Why can't the PJ , SY or OG find one if you found all of those gems ?
      * They did. Acting on them is not their allowed remit.''

      Really ? Who said so ? What's the real remit then ? And why ?

      ''* Ok. To highlight one example. Crecheman. A complete and utter fabriction by Redwood. If you believe that man actually exists then say hello to Santa Claus for me next Christmas.''

      I'm not sure you understand the difference between suspicion, theory, hypothesis and provable facts and truth.What you, me or anyone believe isn't worth anything. I covered Redwoods revelation on the previous thread.

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 August 2017 at 13:40

      ''Amen to that SixYearsInaComaMan, ''

      Yeah, amen to that endorsement. I'll say hello to Santa for both of you.He might bring you each a Dictionary ..

      Delete
    3. To:
      Ziggy 7 August at 19:23

      I said: "They didn't call the police. They called every News outlet going and their relatives.''
      You said: "The Police were 'just passing' then-OK."
      No, some staff member of the Ocean Club called them at around 10:40pm

      You said: "Is 'every news outlet going' like your 'million' lies ? Hyperbole..."
      No. Metaphor.

      You asked: "So who are these 'every outlet' the parents called. I'm guessing you can back that up."
      Telegraph, BBC, SKY News et al. Out of the mouths of Healy/Mc relatives.

      You said, re Op Grange: "What's the real remit then ? And why ?"
      Well it certainly isn't to properly investigate the Mcs, two insignificant bods who somehow command(ed) a significance way above their significance level.

      Ros said: ''Amen to that SixYearsInaComaMan, ''
      You said: "Yeah, amen to that endorsement. I'll say hello to Santa for both of you.He might bring you each a Dictionary"
      Oo! Can you sign mine for me, please? I'll use that as proof of God.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    4. ''You said: "Is 'every news outlet going' like your 'million' lies ? Hyperbole..."
      ''No. Metaphor.''

      It isn't a metaphor.

      ''You asked: "So who are these 'every outlet' the parents called. I'm guessing you can back that up."
      Telegraph, BBC, SKY News et al. Out of the mouths of Healy/Mc relatives.''

      Out of the mouth of Ian Woods : ''McCanns did not call Sky News First before they reported it to the police''

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aOIheKXzI


      ''You said, re Op Grange: "What's the real remit then ? And why ?"

      Well it certainly isn't to properly investigate the Mcs, two insignificant bods who somehow command(ed) a significance way above their significance level.''

      Yes, I asked what it is-not what it isn't.

      ''You said: "Yeah, amen to that endorsement. I'll say hello to Santa for both of you.He might bring you each a Dictionary"
      Oo! Can you sign mine for me, please? I'll use that as proof of God.''

      On one condition : you promise me that the two words you look up first are 'sarcasm' and 'metaphor'.

      Delete
    5. It is refreshing to see Z pointing out that Ian Woods of Sky is a liar, plain and simple.

      Ian Woods brazenly lies again in his interview with Lori Campbell over Robert Murat. Why does he feel the need to do that?

      Anyone who has followed this case knows the British media were informed before the GNR arrived at flat 5a. This is a matter of public record.

      How many British media outlets knew before 07.45am is irrelevant. A total red herring. But know they did.

      I know many of you do not like facts and prefer to make things up but it is so easy to prove Ian Woods and other media outlets liars.

      Place no faith in Sky, Z, they will let you down with their lies. Its only for the gullible.

      Delete
    6. To:
      Ziggy at 12:47
      You said: "It isn't a metaphor."
      It was. It was like "Heart of the city" where it's not a REAL heart, it's a metaphor. So not a REAL million, just 'lots'
      'Pedant' is pretty unambiguous, though

      You said: "Out of the mouth of Ian Woods : ''McCanns did not call Sky News First before they reported it to the police''
      That's right. It was the Telegraph.

      Op Grange is a sham, a facade, McLip service, obfuscation, appearing to go through the motions yet only yielding a sock, a stone and two cannabis plants.

      You mewled: "... promise me that the two words you look up first are 'sarcasm' and 'metaphor'."
      Only if you look up imperious and bombastic, first.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    7. JJ8 August 2017 at 15:25

      ''Place no faith in Sky, Z, they will let you down with their lies. Its only for the gullible.''

      Trust me, JJ, I place no faith i any MSM. Sky especially. Anything with Murdochian roots is rotten and propaganda.I only have to study Brunt's little episodes of seed-planting throughout all areas of the investigation from 2007 for confirmation.The Daily Mail is the printed equivalent.

      Anonymous8 August 2017 at 15:38
      '''Pedant' is pretty unambiguous, though''
      And in this particular discussion, wrongly applied.I was correcting a large error, not a tiny or insignificant one.
      ''You said: "Out of the mouth of Ian Woods : ''McCanns did not call Sky News First before they reported it to the police''
      That's right. It was the Telegraph.''
      Make your mind up.Or is that covered by your 'millions' ?
      ''Op Grange is a sham, a facade, McLip service, obfuscation, appearing to go through the motions yet only yielding a sock, a stone and two cannabis plants.''
      You might be completely right. You could be completely wrong.It's your opinion.Not a fact.
      ''You mewled: "... promise me that the two words you look up first are 'sarcasm' and 'metaphor'."
      Only if you look up imperious and bombastic, first.''
      I know what imperious bombastic mean. If you did, you wouldn't have used it in that reply.

      Delete
    8. Now, now boys and girls...

      JJ: "the British media were informed before the GNR arrived at flat 5a. This is a matter of public record."

      Tricky to get at perhaps but you are quite correct.

      "How many British media outlets knew before 07.45am is irrelevant. A total red herring. But know they did."

      Actually it's not irrelevant, since it speaks to the 'theorem' Blacksmith raised in his 'Cracked Mirror' study, concerning different media channels sharing the same information source.

      Obviously the more outlets known to be carrying the same data, the stronger the Blacksmith contention.

      Which brings us to the question of 'source'...

      SYIaCM (quoting ZS): "Out of the mouth of Ian Woods : "McCanns did not call Sky News First before they reported it to the police"

      'That's right. It was the Telegraph.'

      Really? And who, might we suppose, told the Telegraph?

      Just think about that Blacksmith 'common source' postulate for a moment and ask yourselves who might have informed not just the Telegraph and Sky News but the Daily Mail, whose foreign desk recruited a Spanish based 'mercenary' very early on the Friday morning, asking him to drive immediately to PdL and check out the story on their behalf.

      Thanks to JJ's bringing it 'front and centre', the Ian Woods lie can be seen as directly analogous to that put about in the Portuguese media regarding Gerry McCann's first contact with a diplomat friend.

      The diplomat story was hogwash, but served its purpose of directing the attribution of initiative toward the McCanns.

      Likewise, Ian Woods' insistence that “8.15 on the Friday morning...was the first time any journalists knew anything about this”, attempts to constrain the onset of media knowledge to the moment a McCann family member (Trisha Cameron) made her 'on air' announcement via GMTV.

      Unfortunately SKY were half-an-hour ahead of the game.

      FWIW I seriously doubt the McCanns, or any of their entourage, were the earliest source of media coverage, or the cause of the frenzy that followed.

      It is simply what we have been led to believe. On closer examination however the idea appears as fictitious as Madeleine McCann's abductor.

      Delete
  16. A good idea about a new forum. It would be interesting to see what direction an "unbound" forum would go? Would have to be an improvement on others currently out there like CMOMM and MMM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A forum without dictatorship (CMOMM) or censorship (MMM), would be an excellent idea indeed.

      Go for it, Ros. It could be the making of you.

      Delete
    2. I am not sure I have the technical and organisational skills to run a forum, but it is kind that you think I have!

      It is something I might think about after I publish the book I am working on. A lot of the chapters, I hope, will form the basis for discussion and threads, both serious and not so serious. One for example is entitled 'Girls Night In', a collection of hilarious romantic anecdotes, my own and those of good pals who shall remain nameless, which I think would be a lot of fun if it became live and interactive. I love male company, but I'm not sure it compares with a group of women, a few bottles of wine and Gloria Gaynor singing 'I will survive'. I wouldn't ban men of course, but there may be an 'enter at your own peril' warning!

      If I did, it wouldn't be a Madeleine forum, and as one of my critics pointed out (rather unkindly, I thought), most of my readers are followers of the Madeleine case.

      But I am not activist in the sense that I have made justice in this case, my life's goal. I have enough experience of life to know that injustices happen all the time, some are worth fighting to the death for, some are not. Karma comes in many forms, Gerry and Kate I am sure, don't feel that they have got away with anything. They still face an as yet undisclosed legal bill, that could run to millions. There is a slight parallel here with OJ Simpson, the criminal courts didn't get him, but the civil courts wiped him out.

      The Madeleine case will always be intriguing and the discussion will never end. But, after all these years, I have, in my own mind reached a conclusion as to what happened, what happened after, and why the case has reached it's current stale mate. My own mind btw, is the highest form of judgment, I am far more meticulous and critical of the finest detail, than my character and casual writing style may suggest.

      I will probably write a 'Madeleine' book myself, when and if the time becomes right. However, I am not sure it would be a best seller, it is not my nature to be vindictive or cruel, I wouldn't be going for 'shock and awe' and those are the ingredients for a best seller. I think that is why Bennett et al, went for the sexual angle. Methinks they miss the News of the World and those Sunday mornings filled with salacious stories of vicars spending the church takings on a dominatrix.

      I would take a humanist approach, and I am still hoping Kate McCann will contact me. At some point, Kate will want to tell her story to the world, and most especially to her children. Thus far, none of the writers on Team McCann have been able to humanise Kate or her husband - and they have never touched on the truth!

      Anyway many thanks, certainly something to think about.

      Delete
    3. '' I have made justice in this case, my life's goal.''

      ''Gerry and Kate I am sure, don't feel that they have got away with anything. They still face an as yet undisclosed legal bill, that could run to millions''

      ''There is a slight parallel here with OJ Simpson, the criminal courts didn't get him, but the civil courts wiped him out. ''

      Where's the justice, Re the McCanns, there ?

      ''At some point, Kate will want to tell her story to the world, and most especially to her children. ''

      Like in her 'madeleine' book ? I doubt that very much.

      ''Thus far, none of the writers on Team McCann have been able to humanise Kate or her husband - and they have never touched on the truth! ''

      And that's why I doubt it very much.If the McCanns are guilty (as charged online), it suggests very strongly -due to the unprecedented efforts to keep that a secret-that others know the truth too . They, therefore are just as guilty and also guilty of conspiracy and dereliction of duty. Plausible deniability fell off the table about 9 years ago .

      Justice is when people get what they deserve.Criminals, even if they happen to be policemen or politicians, get penalized according to a crime they have been convicted of.That's justice.Real justice. Karma is just lazy thinking.Take a look at the world.

      Delete
  17. Oh no! hidehopeless is back with yet another series of crappy videos - this time -

    "48 NEW QUESTIONS that need to be asked but will never be answered."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope one of them is 'who hid my tablets?'

      Delete
  18. For a perfect template of a forum check out 'letsroll.'
    Magnificent. It's convinced me that like the Diana event in the Alma Tunnel, the Madeleine event in PDL are nothing more than psyops. If it looks 'not quite right' chances are it isn't. The big mistake however is aligning yourself to an acceptable albeit less savoury theory ( murder in Diana's case and child abuse in Madeleine's ). The truth is far stranger than that. In Madeleine's case I would say: Check out the McCanns' laughing happy demeanour just days after Madeleine's supposed abduction. No more to be said. You HAVE to trust your own instincts or you're TOAST.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Certainly debatable. I tend to go with them being far from what the official narratives are as formulated by those behind them. They're not psyops though. The Diana death was simply to end one thing in order that another could begin. Nothing politically (or socially) changed.Madeleine isn't a psyop either as it's open ended . Even if it's 'solved' it won't change anything .

    Because one victim was an icon in her own right, and the other became one, both became public injuries and the emotional reaction was, and is, still public .

    I think enough clues exist that point to 'darker forces' ( Even Frau Windsor went on record saying that to Burrell ). Diana signed the contract on her when she went public against Israel's enemy( Palestine). Their enemies are ours for whatever reason. Madeleine's case is far too well buried to draw any conclusions. But to discuss evil in high places and the possible killing of innocent victims it needs far more than a superficial observation of two people laughing and drawing all kinds of conclusions based on yet more 'reading' of faces and body language. What about the the McCanns' tears and KM all but breaking down -that was seen too. I suppose you choose whatever suits your theory and ignore the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ziggy .........''What about the the McCanns' tears and KM all but breaking down -that was seen too. I suppose you choose whatever suits your theory and ignore the other.............''
      Actually, no you don't. You study everything and make an informed choice.
      As regards the McCanns' happy laughing faces on public show days after Madeleine's disappearance: I am 100% certain that parents of a genuine abductee would NOT act in such a way ....................it's inhuman. On the other hand I'm sure it's relatively easy to summon up tears and a crack in the voice to convince others of how much you cared.

      Delete
    2. It depends what informs your choice doesn't it. Bias, suspicion, bile or a determination to have them confirmed by whatever you can find . Tears can be faked, but heartbreak cam't be.laughter and bravery can be faked too.In terms of either being of any worth in incriminating anyone-especially of murdering their child or hiding their body, both are best ignored. Opinions are subjective and can never be called proof. And nothing in this case is 'certain' or 'obvious'. Why do you think all investigators ignore what the internet court call 'obvious' ? Is it realistic to imagine them discussing among themselves that that tens of thousands online have spotted the game and still done nothing ? All those policemen risking the careers, reputations and liberty ? Because online 'observers' have held the trial ?

      Delete
  20. In line with all things 'cover up' and 'dark forces' and for those who won't see or can't accept such things :

    Banned in Britain saville 9th circle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmY2QOnl20

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Had a look at that video Mr Sawdust and while it appears shocking, the proviso, "is it all true" needs to be added.
      Hasn`t that character Shrimpton who talks about Ted Heath and says it`s all the fault of the Germans been discredited? Or is that part of the cover up?
      What I did notice though was that all the people who had been actually convicted (as claimed by the text on the video which I assume is true) were low or middle ranking officials from various parties and organisations.
      No big fish at all.
      Must be the cover up!

      Delete
    2. Good day Gord...

      I know what you mean . It isn't all true. But enough of it is .In this area, it's important that it be 100% true if it's only discussing one person or one case. I don't think rank matters in cases of child molestation or worse. Obviously the bigger the better for reasons of exposing the scum but the bigger they are the stronger the shield of protection. They don't come much bigger than Ted Heath, Ken Clarke and Leon Brittan ( of the tattoo). Derek Laud is quite important too ( or he was ). But the efforts to protect them have been pretty incredible.I find no reason to disbelieve Ben Fellows , for instance . I'd like someone to ask Roger Cook about that one .

      There will always be the occasional 'huge shock' story about ritual satanic abuse that identifies big names or people in positions of trust ( teachers, doctors,clergy etc) that will prove to be a lunatic theory that was dreamed up by luntaic conspiracy theorists on the face of it. Hampstead was one.They serve a purpose. They get headlines in the MSM . Why ? Because the real agenda is to duscredit lunatics and paint those we trust as innocent victims of conspiracy theorists. That's a handy tactic for fending off any future scandals when the real sick bastards get up to their 'recreational fun' . The MSM will be told to redirect our attention to 'that whole Hampstead nonsense' and we will follow like good cattle and spread the good word on forums and youtube .

      As for Shrimpton. He's a taker of the piss . ..

      I've listened to and watched him pre and post prison sentence . His remit is to sound like he's well connected at the top level and privy to everything that's happened in the last 20 years covertly. Like MI5 and MI6 would go to no end of pains to keep so many dirty secrets only to allow him to blab about it online, on radio interviews and anyone who offers him a seat on a sofa . Ask him who killed Caeser-the Germans. Ask him who shot Mr Burns-the Germans. Ask him who won the world cup in '66 - the Germans( but the Russians covered it up)

      I have a link to a site that talks about the whole area. The main one is the Dutroux affair. But there's sidebars left and right talking about UK and US. I haven't posted it here, and won't .It's strictly over 18 for a reason and while everyone here is probably over 18 ( in years at least) I don't want to expose it to those who have a less than strong stomach.

      Delete
  21. Comrades SixYearsInaComaMan and The Rising Sun, peace be upon both of you

    Hyperbole (excessive exaggeration to illustrate a point) is a specialised type of metaphor.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    “You trying to out-patronise Blacksmith?”

    No, The Rising Sun, isn’t, SixYearsInaComaMan. The Rising Sun Is, I dare say, a master of patronising, whereas john of Iron is yet an apprentice in comparison. Consequently, no “trying” is involved.

    “Dogs are successfully used in so many fields of detection.”

    Unquestionably correct.

    “Just you and Gerry think they're unreliable, then?'

    Both have indeed been speaking to that end, but It seems most unlikely that they think that, particularly The Rising Sun. The Rising Sun’s efforts in that respect have been by far superior to Gerald’s however. It is not unreasonable therefore to consider whether The Rising Sun’s appearance on Rosalinda’s blog has to do with his superior gift of sophistry.

    “Who decided that they [the indications of E & K, peace be upon them,] weren't significant ? Me, GM, Blacksnith ?

    No one has AFAIK. Appearances can and do deceive. The E & K’s indications have been and will remain “significant”. The open challenge to substantiate/prove the contrary has been and will likely remain unanswered.

    “I'm not sure you understand the difference between suspicion, theory, hypothesis and provable facts and truth.”

    Respectfully. I’m not sure you do, comrade The Rising Sun. You frequently don’t appear to.

    ““God save strawberry jam and all the different varieties”!” - the motto of ZAS
    “We love the Sun shine true and bright! And everybody we invite, We know it is always right, To trust the following insight: “Love is most nearly itself When here and now cease to matter.“ (From ZAS anthem)

    The founder member of Ziggmund Appreciation Society (AKA T, comrade T etc.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To:
      Anonymous8 August 2017 at 13:20
      Or, Comrade T
      The dogs are/were significant. Kate, via her Mum, suggested that the cadaverine on her clothes was owing to her having been busy toting cuddle cat around the local morgue 6 times in the 2 weeks before the hols. Notice that the detection of cadaverine is not denied! Just mendaciously sourced differently.
      Get out of that one. Hotlips! (and don't give me that sea-bass nonsense...)
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    2. Correction

      8 August 2017 at 13:20 should read “No, The Rising Sun isn’t, SixYearsInaComaMan.” (no comma after The Rising Sun)

      Begging you pardon. T is illiterate.

      Mao

      Delete
    3. I am, Tse.

      T

      Delete
  22. Hi all,

    How many of you thought the Chloe Ayling (Model who claimed that she was allegedly kidnapped) believe this? Looking at her interviews and her reactions (bearing in mind she's only 20). Does this remind you of someone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes,the first thing I thought was that she didn't seem traumatised at all bearing in mind the ordeal she'd supposed of have been through but seemed to love the publicity. None of the stories given seem to add up, yes, it definitely reminds me of someone. Errr, but can't put my finger on who at the moment.

      Delete
    2. Doesn't remind me of anyone.

      Delete
    3. reminds me of every generic, vacuous , dull work-dodger who wants to become rich and famous through her dyed hair, dyed teeth, dyed skin, plastic tits and fake back story..all on 'reality TV'.She's already a topic on the internet..she's almost there. The attention she receives and the size of her audience will tell us a lot. But nothing interesting or entertaining. Kudos to her PR man.He knows the demand..

      Delete
  23. PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 6h6 hours ago

    £0.99 at #Amazon.uk NEW! "Ten Missing & Murdered Children's Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine #McCann" https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B074MHK6W1/
    -------------------------------------------

    Interesting that she published a book that is not about Madeleine Mccann but uses her name in the title?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting maybe, predictable definitely.She's an industry.

      Delete
  24. John.

    Sounds like a "Sherri Papini" case to me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Speaking of science.

    Philomena McCann on This Morning 07 September 2007:

    “He’s going in at 2pm today. But he’s not the main suspect, for some unknown reason there’s something about a sniffer dog sniffing Kate. Suddenly a dog can talk and says she smelled a death. How can that be when a British sniffer dog came out months after Madeleine’s case. They’re doctors, if there’s a smell of death on them could that possibly be a patient?”

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id250.htm

    A patient in Portugal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. with respect to Philomena, every time she opens her mouth she confirms that the brains stopped at Gerry.

      Delete
    2. Philomena is older than Gerry so the brains didn't stop with him!

      Delete
    3. The i take it back Anna..she has no excuses ;-)

      Delete
  26. ZiggySawdust

    Morning, comrade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqqelDq4P48&feature=youtu.be (from 17min 05 sec)
    (or google 9/11: Decade of Deception (Full Film NEW 2015)

    David Chandler: “…Free fall is motion under the influence of gravity alone; all resistance must be removed… During free fall, all of the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. But, if any of the {potential] energy is used for other purposes along the way, such as crashing the concrete or deforming the steel or throwing thing around, there’ll be less [potential] energy available to be transformed into kinetic energy because some of that [potential] energy was getting syphoned off for other purposes. In the case of WTC7, all of the [potential] energy was transformed into kinetic energy. So therefore, the work [work done = force times distance moved in the direction of force] needed to destroy the structure was not available, it had to come from some other source. The fact of free fall is literally proof of demolition.

    Would you agree with the above-quoted argument and its conclusion that “The fact of free fall is…proof of demolition? Would you have any reservations about this “proof of demolition”?

    I would be grateful for your reply, long or short.

    Comrade T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comrade T

      What a jazzy tung you have when doing the 'sciencey bit' .

      It's hard to answer much with regard to 9 / 11 briefly. I would guess it took a few years to plan even in theory . The 'setting up ' would have taken a year . All in all it was the consummate work of art for a terrorists everywhere . The planning, the secrecy , the execution-perfect. Could you imagine if it was a genuine terrorist attack ? Imagine of each tower was genuinely blown up ? The chaos and mess would be unfathomable . But to have two giants fall not only into their own footprint but in less time than it would take to actually jump from the roof and land ? That's genius at it's most evil. It also looks like the terrorists wanted to make the world know how evil the US is - but not make too much of a mess in new York ( oops ).

      In the whole 'free fall ' area, Dr Judy Wood is the place to look . She's rattled a few cages of the powers that be ( and had been) in Uncle Sam's den .Strange that a scientific explanation could rattle the cages of those who claim to want the truth isn't it .

      I suggest the ideal video for you is the following ( if you haven't already seen it) :

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML8CJp9Ha14

      But, in my opinion, the definitive explanation is that it was a nuclear demolition. The man who came up with it is( was ?) Dimitri Khalezov . It must be a real thorn in the side for the leaders of the free world that he's a Ruski . I find the irony of that supreme, personally. It's a 'must see' for anyone interested in truth and evil .

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4

      As for Building 7 .. The collapse of that defies science, physics and logic.But not demolition. It must have seen the towers fall and just committed suicide .It has to be said, of the three buildings, that one in supers-low motion actually shows the demolition 'pop pop pop' going off right across one floor about three quarters of the way up . It makes you wonder how they rigged it up as people went about their daily work .It's easy to forget- due to the size of the towers - that Building 7 was actually 47 floors . The 'contents' of 7 is the most important area of investigation . The files on certain very high rollers were in there ( the most notable being Donald Rumsfeld, who 'sexed up' the WMD papers he sent to Blair and was caught by David Kelly). Some of these creatures were facing personal financial disaster, exposure in fraud and prison . Building 7 was a powder keg-literally, it turns out . Rudy Giuliani ignored protocol that day too . He had a floor in there that was where he should have been 'in cases of terror attack' . He ran the opposite way . It's as though he knew it would fall later that day( about 8 hours later ).

      I recommend the Judy Wood lectures to anyone but the Dimitri one has the definitive explanation. It will take about 4 sittings, but you won't need any others after it .

      Delete
    2. the 'pop pop pop '

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqG6v7KZ_s8

      Delete
  27. Of course OG is a cover-up. Their remit was to treat the matter as if there had been an abduction. Why? To cover up the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'ello Jane..

      OG wasn't thought up until 2011. The ''remit was to treat the matter as if there had been an abduction. Why? To cover up the truth.'' had been successfully executed in 2007 and sustained for 4 years beforehand.Why would they need OG to do it again ?

      Boss Hogg

      Delete
    2. Hi Jane, do you not think it a big odd that Scotland Yard announced their remit in a press release? Do you think a remit would stay the same throughout an investigation? Unchanged by new evidence?

      I think that is quite a naïve interpretation of 'remit' Jane. In any event, 'if the abduction had occurred in the UK', doesn't limit the investigation. Investigations are not static or restricted to one track. They lead where they lead. The Clinton impeachment proceedings for example, began with an investigation into fraudulent land deals and ended with Monica Lewinsky.

      If Operation Grange had been limited to such a narrow remit, it would have closed years ago. Logically if the detectives had been restricted to one line of enquiry, there would have been nowhere else to go. They would have found themselves, like the PJ in 2008, unable to proceed any further.

      I agree Jane, that Scotland Yard do appear to have investigated around the parents and the tapas group, deliberately leaving them out. Some might say they have gone through a process of eliminating everyone else in the world, so that only 2 suspects are left.

      To my mind, the length of time spent on this investigation, suggests much, much, more than child abduction. Child abductions don't take 6 years to investigate.

      Anyway, I am sure we will argue this point 'til the cows come home, lol. Kind wishes Jane.

      Delete
  28. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 6 August 2017 at 11:37

    “Such is your charm I wasn't aware you disagreed with me M. T, now I am puzzled.”

    ‘Yes, Dear’, charm it is.:)

    May I unpuzzel you?
    _ _ _ _ _ _

    THAT EMBEDDED CONFESSION

    “Anonymous29 November 2016 at 09:51

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 27.11.16 at 05:14

    I disagree with many of your views, yes, [Dear,] but you are a very gifted writer and reading you is always quite an experience

    T”

    Reply:

    “Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 November 2016 at 10:37

    Many thanks 'T', your 'very gifted writer' line (aw shucks) has put me on cloud 9, probably for the rest of the day/ week, so I forgive ya!”

    Yes, Dear.

    Bless.

    T:)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bless you T, not only do you have me grinning from ear to ear, I am also chuckling. I was having a 'low' day and thinking of putting my head in the oven, but I haven't cleared up the Yorkshire pudding gunge on the bottom from Sunday. Happily my washing up is done and my kitchen spick and span, I could kill myself with death by a thousand cuts, knowing that none of those cuts would be infected by bacteria - and I will mention that to the ambulance men.

    When down I usually turn to Jerry Seinfeld (best comedy series ever), in the past it used to be 'Some Like it Hot' and 'The Odd Couple'. 'Father Ted' too, gets an honourable mention. Prior to that it was P.G. Wodehouse and a little known American writer, Thorne Smith. Now I will have to keep a collection of your kind words Mr. T, as they always hit the spot.

    I am still using the oven of course, and the batter gunge has been joined by chocolate cake gunge. I also bake cakes when down, because I love the happy faces and gushing praise when I serve it up. Childish I know, but I have an ego that constantly needs salving!

    Loving the 'yes dears' by the way Mr. T. - that makes up 25% of my perfect man! Now how are you on painting toenails, strumming Fernando (ABBA) on a guitar and rolling freehand?

    You are a learned man for sure, it is unlikely you would be thrown if I brought up the Hadron Collider or the works of Tolkien (it'll never happen, lol), so you have quite a few points there.

    As you may have gathered I have a very stringent tick box for the next time I venture to dip a toe. Whilst we could spend a very pleasant evening discussing Robert Graves' perspective on ancient Rome, would you be prepared to wear dreadlocks or a Viking hat? And can you play the piano? I also have a penchant for men who can speak in a sexy foreign accent, for which I blame 'What is Cointreau?' and 'A Fish Called Wanda'.

    I currently have a crush on Vladimir Putin, which I am putting down to total insanity. Bizarrely, even at this grand old age, I still have an unholy attraction to the mad, bad and totally psychopathic. However, whilst the ability to imitate a Russian accent is a big plus, any other similarities go straight in the 'as if' bin. I don't have time for another 10 years of therapy.

    As for 'reading you is always quite an experience' - as Father Dougal might say, 'I loik that'. I've always had a mischievous need to shock people. Preschool, one of my first best friends was a little German boy called Heina. Not only did I adore his lederhosen, but I loved the look of shock on the faces of neighbours and shopkeepers when I introduced him told them he was German. In the small village of Virginia Water in the early sixties it had plenty of shock value. But I wasn't hanging him out to dry, my point was, I liked him, and I wanted them to like him too. I was defiant in my introductions, almost daring them to say something as I stood arm in arm with Heina.

    We were great pals, always giggling, there were no communication problems, but I'm afraid I took advantage of Heina's newness to the English language, by hogging all the talking time. I would speak on his behalf and boss him around. In retrospect, it may have been the beginnings of my fondness for men who say 'yes dear', lol.

    Ps. Have you ever worn lederhosen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros!
      I am deffo in with a chance, here. I'm a child of 1957, a Father Ted fan, can impersonate Sergei Meerkat, love ABBA and can play guitar!
      I was hitched for 30+ years so I am well versed in saying "Yes, dear!"
      And I drink like a fish (not called Wanda, though!)
      Just need the lederhosen.
      I have a helmet - but just one horn lol!
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan (small....far awaaaay!)

      Delete
    2. You had me with Sergei Meerkat, SYICM! That's gonna be a tough act to follow, lol.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 9 August 2017 at 17:53

      “I …, can impersonate Sergei Meerkat … !”
      “…need the lederhosen.”

      Who is Sergei Meerkat?

      If you could impersonate Sergei Malinka, I’d send you a pair of lederhosen from my wardrobe.

      Is ABBA an anagram for BABA, a holy man, perchance?

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    4. ZiggySawdust 9 August 2017 at 16:44, 23:22

      “What a jazzy tung you have when doing the 'sciencey bit'”

      What a lovely sentence. Reminds me of Aesop’s The Fox and The Crow.

      One with GCSE, or equivalent, qualifications in sciences, is entitled to stick in a “sciency bit” here and there, does one not?

      Now, in a less serious key.

      You haven’t answered the two questions in the penultimate paragraph of my post:

      “Would you agree with the above-quoted argument and its conclusion that “The fact of free fall is…proof of demolition? Would you have any reservations about this “proof of demolition”?

      I am familiar with everything you mentioned in your replies, but thank you anyway.

      I would be grateful if you could answer my two questions.

      Cheers.

      T

      Delete
    5. It would be impolite to ignore your request, Major tse, (even here).So-two points...

      1- I agree that no other reason makes any sense regarding free fall.It can only be a demolition, whichever kind of demolition. The sheer height of each building and the material of it's core says that, logically, each tower could only fall freely through a well constructed demolition.Let me use an analogy to explain why the official story is insane.Imagine big George 'buy my grill' Foreman standing about 6 feet away from little Billy Boffin( a character I just invented).Billy throws a tennis ball at George and it hits him right on his noggin. What would happen to big George ?Logic says, he'd frown, then possibly eat Billy.But no-George lays slain on the ground deceased.The autopsy reveals that every bone of his mighty skeleton was crushed by the vicious assault.

      2-Lenny rocks( well, rocked). ''Ah we're drinking and we're dancing..And the band is really happening..And the Johnny Walker wisdom running high..And my very sweet companion..She's the angel of compassion..She's rubbing half the world against her thigh'' ..or...''And I'll dance with you in Vienna ..I'll be wearing a river's disguise ..The hyacinth wild on my shoulder,..My mouth on the dew of your thighs..And I'll bury my soul in a scrapbook..With the photographs there, and the moss ..And I'll yield to the flood of your beauty ..My cheap violin and my cross '''

      He was a king among men old Lenny.His wordsmithery was above and beyond his call of duty.His soul is fossilised in his work now.A toast : To Leonard.

      Mind your ankles, Major. The Jack Russells are great in number and rabid.

      Delete
    6. Re: Anonymous11 August 2017 at 13:41
      To: T
      You asked: "Who is Sergei Meerkat?"
      Have you not seen "Compare The Meerkats" adverts?
      Sergei works the 'comptermabob' for his boss Aleksandr Meerkat and is always getting into trouble.
      He speaks in a Russian accent beloved by trouser-slapping female authors, everywhere lol!
      ABBA is more Swedish, to be honest and would probably eschew lederhosen as they don't tend to wear ANYTHING.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    7. Ah, who is Sergei Meerkat eh SixYearsInaComaMan? well apparently much, much more! (I looked up his profile, lol). He is Head of IT at Meerkat.com, and a very good employee, although he did once get a warning for not dealing with his fleas!

      He is of indeterminate age, but believed to be 77 and in the 80's was head of design for the Soviet Space program. Unfortunately, he was forced to leave for having faked a moon landing in his garage.

      Most of the above I can forgive (though not sure about the fleas), but his hobbies are calculating and tetris, whilst mine are more arty. He does however like Dolly Parton music, so that's a plus!

      Delete
    8. Ros!
      I knew you'd like Sergei. Head of IT! So really good at computermabobs ..btw he is currently, on TV adverts, flirting with being Spiderman. He also likes popcorn and cakes. In fact, eating anything! Not fleas, though!
      I think you're onto something here with this Russian thing, given I thought it was Kubrick who had a moon landing plot in his garage. Now we know!
      Meanwhile, Sergei likes Dolly, especially 'Stand By Your Man' given his unstinting devotion to Aleksandr, not that HE deserves it!
      Your blog? Choose digression! Choose fun!
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
  30. Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs....

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/was-smithman-gerry.html

    Anonymous 20.7 @17:13

    "To give but one example, Gerry McCann's 'phone records indicate a distinct and recurrent pattern of post traumatic behaviour which lasted for weeks - but commenced on the morning of Wednesday 2 May."

    Whereas...

    john blacksmith20 July 2017 at 23:51

    "There's no love lost between Mr Swordist and I but I appreciate a sensible post and the way that he did not let the "anonymous" Dr Roberts get away with that garbage about post traumatic disorder..."

    However...

    Blacksmith Bureau 6.8, concluding statement:

    "It's all laid out in a repeated pattern of behaviour."

    Comprehension: Fail (behaviour = disorder?)

    Hypocrisy: A*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saturday, 16 August 2014
      BURIED BY THE ANTI'S

      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/buried-by-antis-banned-for-having.html?showComment=1408537413280#c5012406106162887798

      Anonymous20August 2014 at 13:23

      “Did you think I was making things up? That I was inventing the evidence? Why were your ears closed when the evidence was laid out? Did you seriously think …that I had a vendetta?”

      “...Blacksmith”

      Delete
    2. Blacksmith 6 Feb. 2009 (The Cracked Mirror):

      "...many people agree...there are urgent questions surrounding the holiday group still requiring an answer. And that is whether one believes in the possibility of an abduction - as I do - or not."

      Blacksmith 6 Aug. 2017 (Does Lightning Really Strike Twice?):

      "I mean, just look at it. Just look at it! Where's the mystery? Apart from the key questions of where the body is and how it got there, there isn't any mystery, is there? It's all laid out in a repeated pattern of behaviour."

      A 'repeated pattern of behaviour' here is significant enough to support a complete U-turn - but only significant when observed by the author it would appear.

      Delete
  31. Dear comrades

    Comrade T is on a tight leash and in other ways restrained at the moment.

    I have placed T’s leather bow tie and bra and a pair of lederhosen with LFC insignia on T’s desk, and once I set T free, your most kind and interesting posts will have T’s undivided attention.

    Of course you are welcome to throw LHC, R Graves, 911, rusty iron and anything else you might fancy throwing at T, but please no J R R Tolkien: T hasn’t got that far yet. Please feel free to use your remote viewing facilities to satisfy yourselves that your throws hit T where it hurts.

    Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

    Comrade Mao (Sorry comrades, I don’t smile these days:()

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Mr T
      Lol at remote viewing Mr T.
      Saw that on the telly years ago. Probably the same episode you saw and no doubt Mr Sawdust did too. Channel 4 I think it was.
      The spooks of the world have given up on that lark haven`t they?

      Delete
    2. ( i stare at goats )

      Delete
    3. '' ....and in other ways restrained at the moment.''

      I'm scared to ask.With all this lederhosen talk i'm even more scared to imagine..

      Delete
    4. ZiggySawdust 9 August 2017 at 22:27

      “( i stare at goats )”

      That I suspected. Hm… Perhaps you could drop Humby and go to Zhisui Li instead, comrade?

      Have one of my Winston Late Hours.

      Sweet dreams. Keep your powder dry.

      Comrade Li To La

      Delete
    5. ZiggySawdust9 August 2017 at 22:30

      “I'm scared … i'm even more scared.”

      Prove it!

      T

      Delete
    6. ZS 9.8 @22:27

      "(I stare at goats)"

      I too enjoy watching Roger Federer play tennis.

      Delete
    7. ''Perhaps you could drop Humby''

      I dropped big Humby ages ago , Major. I made his head implode. Strange thing is, those marvels of Sam's military didn't even notice..

      ''Prove it!''

      I couldn't do that,comrade. I'm keeping my powder dry. But you spotted that. I tip my 'titfer to you.

      the 'drunk in a midnight choir'- Ziggerthustra

      Delete
    8. ZiggySawdust10 August 2017 at 15:02

      “I dropped big Humby ages ago , Major. I made his head implode. Strange thing is, those marvels of Sam's military didn't even notice.”

      “Those marvels of” Auntie Sammy’s could have been too busy with their sammies.

      You are saving all your (LFC) ribbons for me I hope.

      I’m uncomfortable with Lenny’s versification: I find his metaphors and rhymes laboured, the flow of his pieces - restricted. No disrespect. His verses are not on my ’must read’ list. He could’ve learned much from your good self.

      The I says (= You say) “the 'drunk in a midnight choir'- Ziggerthustra” for instance. Effortless, cute, thought-provoking.

      My tin hat is off.

      Ya nuh see? (= You follow? You know?)

      Walk safe (= Take care).

      T

      Delete
  32. So £10,000 helps to nail these slimy buggers,yet £12 million can't find out what happened in the case of Madeleine,some thing very amiss here.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4775164/Police-paid-child-rapist-10k-spy-sex-parties.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because they wanted to nail the 'slimy buggers' as much as they wanted to shield the slimier ones behind the Madeleine 'mystery'.Different costing altogether.

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 18:22

      I believe that you will find the £10K paid to a slime ball is tiny compared to the total cost of the Police investigation:

      "The wider operation has seen around 100 people convicted of a range of serious offences, including drugs, modern-day slavery and firearms charges, with jail terms totalling more than 300 years.

      Northumbria Police Chief Constable Steve Ashman said in a statement today: 'To date we have arrested 461 people, spoken to 703 potential complainants and have found 278 victims.
      'In total we now have 93 convictions delivering more than 300 years of imprisonment in addition to today's convictions.'"

      Delete
    3. Did the police give updates as to what they were investigating,no! yet for some unfathomable reason its felt necessary to justify grange.

      Delete
  33. Ros : 14:38

    "I am still hoping Kate McCann will contact me. At some point, Kate will want to tell her story to the world, and most especially to her children. Thus far, none of the writers on Team McCann have been able to humanise Kate or her husband - and they have never touched on the truth!"
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Am I reading that correctly - you want Kate to contact you to write a book?

    Hasn't Kate already written a book which became a best-seller?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could prove to be a good bonding exercise though.

      Delete
  34. "Scientists have come up with a new theory on how dark matter may have been formed shortly after the origin of the universe. This new model proposes an alternative to the WIMP paradigm that is the subject of various experiments in current research."

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170808145931.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 10 August 2017 at 11:12

      Thank you.

      Talking of “Dark Forces”:)

      T

      Delete
    2. Blimey Mr T
      How many posts is that today?
      We got a new "Blog Hog" lol.

      Delete
  35. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 August 2017 at 14:30

    Wagwan? A who yu man? Level man. Breathe easy. Maad Ziga man dat shot. If him cute one more time. Memba mi tell yu. Yea man.

    He once loved a girl called Regina
    A pretty petit ballerina
    They rolled in the grass
    He grabbed her arse
    And never since then has he seen ‘er


    A yasso nice! Ziga man do big man ting. More life more strength. To di worl stinga man. Mi swear mi ah talk from mi heart. Yeah. A so di ting set. Yu aright bredda.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 August 2017 at 13:07

    '' Did you say that out loud, even in your head, before posting it? This blog is known and appreciated for its' diversity of opinion! ''

    It's known for the diversity of ideas and hamstrung attempts to support only one theory.Pointing out that they're only ideas or opinions meets with panic or anger.

    Hot tea or hot toddy, it makes little difference. I've read your reply more than once in case thee was something vital I'd missed.Thee isn't. It really is as bad as I first thought..

    You've never mentioned me trying to take over before- just the occasional attempt at a sarcastic comment .That was acceptable.This latest tirade ( in as few lines as possible) has fell out of your head following recent 'comments' on your last thread from one or two of your ego massagers complained that i was taking over.Coincidence I'm sure. Nothing to do with pandering to them and keeping the ego attended to.

    ''You are the one demanding a 'very narrow focus and all thinking to be rigid' Ziggy.''

    Did you conclude that after my constantly suggesting that thinking the same thing about the same people had yielded nothing and that maybe thinking differently and more broadly might be the way ? Critical approach and objectivity etc ? ( I know-dirty words - no offence intended)

    ''You are not winning the argument Ziggy''

    What argument ?

    ''This blog has no agenda Ziggy''

    This blog has one agenda. To find as many 'ideas' or theoretical speculations that can definitively 'prove' that Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents then hidden by them.All alternatives are to be ignored or trodden on.

    ''You, however do.''

    Yes, to discuss the differences between facts and opinions.To expose flaws in hypotheses so they're not considered law. To consider more than two targets and criticise the real criminals.

    ''This is an open debate, the best 'speaker' wins. ''

    According to an unbiased referee ?

    ''Ps. Fingers crossed the subtext gets through.''

    Everything got through. I wonder if the shrinking minority of your readers( the smart ones who have realised that real debate is futile here )have read it.They'll be less surprised than the majority.The majority will be excited as they polish their apples ready for 'teacher'.A hollow celebration for the poisonous and dirty egregore.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I asked you to show a little courtesy and respect Ziggy, you have shown neither. You do know that I can pull the plug on you at any time, and you are getting dangerously close.

    I am beginning to find the content of your posts more and more distasteful Ziggy. The above, for example, is little more than a personal attack on my ego, you are implying I am incapable of independent thought and end with a cheap apple for the teacher shot. How juvenile.

    Your final paragraph I think, says more than you realise. You actually dislike it here! How bizarre. You claim my blog is shrinking (I think, your wording was terrible) and that my smart readers have deserted me on realising that 'real debate here is futile'. Are you trying to drive people away Ziggy?

    Your prose is becoming more and more unpleasant, reminiscent of Tigerloaf from the pro McCann 'Myths' sites. Let me make it absolutely clear Ziggy, you are not bringing that unpleasantness here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ZiggySawdust 9 August 2017 at 16:44, 23:22

    “What a jazzy tung you have when doing the 'sciencey bit'”

    What a lovely sentence. Reminds me of Aesop’s The Fox and The Crow.

    One with GCSE, or equivalent, qualifications in sciences, is entitled to stick in a “sciency bit” here and there, does one not?

    Now, in a less serious key.

    You haven’t answered the two questions in the penultimate paragraph of my post:

    “Would you agree with the above-quoted argument and its conclusion that “The fact of free fall is…proof of demolition? Would you have any reservations about this “proof of demolition”?

    I am familiar with everything you mentioned in your replies, but thank you anyway.

    I would be grateful if you could answer my two questions.

    Cheers.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  39. What is happening to your blog, Ros?

    It seems to have gone AWOL at the moment. I know I'm not of University standard but come on what is with all those idiotic posts? Is it some sort of hierarchy code or something? I haven't got a fecking clue what they are on about, do you? It's all getting very boring, although you will probably say "don't bother reading then".

    I think that may be an answer to your article - have you read your own headline recently?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gaw'd knows what's happening to it 18:49, most of it is above my head! Since I mentioned the Hadron Collider and Tolkien, the Boy's Own have taken over. As the mother of two sons, both the aforementioned are forbidden topics in my home! On their part, I am not allowed to discuss Madeleine McCann.

      You have inspired a new blog 18:49, that's why I interaction with my readers, they lead the next discussion, rather than I. Continues overleaf.

      I am not sure if the forces at work here are dark or mischievous, some may be testing how far they can go off topic before I become like every forum host who has gone before me. Some slip through due to the sheer volume, and some are not caught by my 'spam' catcher.

      Ziggy, I'm afraid, I only skim read, he has lost my attention. For that I must apologise, not only is he disrespecting me, he is disrespecting my readers and other posters. But as you will see from my reply to him today, my patience is running out.

      I am a great believer in the concept that debate/ discussion will naturally find it's own level 18:49 with minimal intervention. I like to think my blog is an even playing field, where everyone has equal opportunity to present their case. The popular posts get more responses, or should I say positive responses, and those with flaws have those flaws pointed out.

      Ziggy plays Devil's Advocate, or he tries out possible scenarios that will alleviate Gerry and Kate of any blame. He is fuzzy on his knowledge of this case, hoping it will make him appear as the outsider he pretends to be. He hasn't read Goncalo Amaral's book, but he knows every sniffer gland on the end of a spaniel's nose.

      He knows those parts of the McCann abduction story that are weak, and those are the ones he keeps plugging. He doesn't bother with Bennett, Hall et al, because they aren't a threat, they will only ever appeal to a gullible, niche, audience.

      Delete
  40. You have summed up ziggy well there Ros he has no love for Gerry and Kate yet he is forced in some way to support the abduction theory. He may not see Bennett or the crazies a threat but he certainly sees you as one which is why I have been saying for a long time that he is attempting to make the blog unreadable. I'M not a believer in the dark forces working for and supporting the McCanns but there is a tiny part of the Internet ( possibly relatives of the McCanns or the tapas crew) who know the Internet is lost to them but are determined to bring as many down with him. Ziggy is without doubt one of them. I honest,y think Ros the time has come to censor

    ReplyDelete
  41. Not the Queen of Sheba12 August 2017 at 09:15

    I agree, Anonymous at 22.58 yesterday. I can understand why Ros doesn't want to censor anything but, human nature being what it is, sometimes I feel that there is no choice.

    It's not Twitter level where foul-mouthed morons run amok but it's very off-putting when a few people monopolise sites with their nonsense.

    ReplyDelete