Monday, 21 August 2017

TRUTH - THE LAST RESORT

MCCANNS TRY TO BAN ABUSE FROM TROLLS 

Again, Gerry and Kate are in the tabloids complaining about the abuse they receive from online trolls.  Nobody could blame them, I'm sure, apparently they receive around 150 abusive tweets per day, according to psychologist Dr. John Synott who recently carried out a study on internet trolls.

My question is why now?  The Forums and the Facebook pages are at an all time low and the McCann hashtag on twitter is known to be occupied by a small group of obsessive compulsive sociopaths with a very niche audience, most people avoid it.  The 'troll' problem for the McCanns was solving itself, the trolls, like most of those who followed this case, have moved on. 

I can't help wondering if Dr. Synott, who seems to have a hand in this, has ever heard of the Streisand Effect? The phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicising the information more widely.  Usually facilitated by the Internet'.  Just saying.

The warning about criticising the McCanns' parenting has been on their Facebook Page for years, and it was far more, err, forceful, than the one that has made the news today.  So again I ask, why now?

Gerry and Kate say they are not on social media.  That, I'm afraid sounds like many whoppers that have gone before - I doubt they been off their laptops since 2007.  If they have kept charts of their social media mentions (and I'm sure they have), this is probably one of the quietest periods they have ever had.  In fact, had they continued with the 'don't feed the trolls' policy they already had in place, even the diehards would have given up.

I'm amazed to be honest that Gerry and Kate are still bothered by internet trolls.  They don't seem to understand that the only power they personally have over the internet and those abusive tweets, is the way in which they react to them.  Having each and every one of their critics removed from the internet won't make the problem go away, just as suing one newspaper didn't stop others.  

Could it be that the parents of Madeleine McCann are still useful to those who would like to police the internet?  Those who want tough new laws to clamp down on subversives and the spread of information?  Or are they expecting some sort of media avalanche?  

________________________________________________-


On the 10th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, Gerry and Kate should have been inundated with offers to tell their side of the story, and perhaps they were, but methinks more of the same was not what the news networks wanted.  That is approved questions and the go ahead from Clarence on the final cut.

The only way in which Gerry and Kate can now change the paradigm is with honesty.  It is their last resort.  Lies do not become more believable with the addition of more lies. They kick off a whole tangled web that can keep social media buzzing for a decade. 

All the McCanns attempts to win friends and influence people via social media have resulted in grotesque spectacles of the lowest form of human behaviour.   Even in those earliest days, way back in 2007, Team McCann were aggressively attacking all those online who didn't believe the abduction story.  At the time I, and I'm sure many others, simply thought they were very enthusiastic supporters, perhaps going rogue, but many of the 'same' ones are still here, still angry and still cussing the dogs. 

Their tactics were pure Nazi thuggery, they were collecting the names of all those who spoke out against the abduction theory, finding their details on Facebook etc, and placing their photos and details on a website called 'Exposing the Myths'.  Threats were made to 'expose' them to their employers (in my case my publishers), friends, neighbours, families etc, as 'haters'.  A precursor to what actually happened to Brenda Leyland.  Indeed, in the days prior to Brenda's Leyland's 'naming and shaming', Jim Gamble was on TV putting all of us on notice. 

This Blacklist, vile as it was it, was effective to a certain extent, and began a tradition of people commenting on this case anonymously.  In the forums, the sane quickly made a fast exit, not just because they were being insulted and threatened, but because they simply didn't need that shit in their lives.  The less sane among us, decided to stay and fight.  And the main weapon used against us, was the smearing of our characters.  In my case, I was a 'known' drug user with mental health issues.  I lost count of the amount of blogs and articles written by both 'pros' and 'antis' that were nothing more than character assassinations complete with obscene photoshopped pictures using my head. The Blacklist, or as it has become known, the Death Dossier, had over 140 pages on me!  Screenshots of every comment I made on social media within minutes of my posting, with my words deliberately distorted. 

The McCann army, and it is an army, though much shrunken, have always used 'attack' as their first form of defence.  Discredit the messenger.  Mrs Fenn, heartless old lady, Ms Martin, interfering busybody.  Anyone who doesn't believe them, hater.  This tactic is so ingrained, that they are incapable of rational, reasonable, argument.  How can anyone have a debate with someone who comes to the table believing his peers are morally and intellectually, inferior to him?  And this has been the premise of every pro McCann forum, and indeed, every pro McCann.  Gerry, Kate and all those who follow them with blind belief, took the higher ground from the off, when they rediscovered their Catholic religion and  became the epitome of bad things happening to good people. 

On the higher moral ground, they can dodge and ignore all the mud slung at them, treating those questions they don't like, as beneath contempt.  And unfortunately, this is the attitude they bring with them whenever they attempt to argue the McCanns innocence.  What they have never been able to grasp, is that you never begin a show by insulting the audience.  Shouting 'are you that stupid' may work (temporarily) on a trembling adolescent, but online it makes you look like a pompous, bullying, twat. 

For all the fortunes Gerry and Kate have spent on favourable publicity, they still remain unable to put forward a believable explanation for their strange behaviour and the lack of an abductor 10+ years on.  After an endless legal battle, their foe has finally defeated them.  Perhaps they believed a victory in Lisbon would reverse the tide, enabling them to return them to those heady summer days of 2007, before the 'movies got too small'.  Of course it may just have been vengeance on Goncalo Amaral, they desired.  Vengeance in this case became a form of insanity. 

In less than 2 weeks time, Operation Grange are due to make another announcement.  Most of the money is on another extension I am sure. but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the British side of the investigation will close, and all their findings will be passed to the Portuguese.  Where SY might struggle, will be their promise to provide the parents with an answer, they have been working on behalf of the victims, ergo, for their sake, it cannot be left open ended.  Unless Operation Grange clear the parents and the tapas group completely, nothing will have changed.  They will still be left in limbo, with all the crazies snapping at their heels. 

Some might argue that Scotland Yard have been horribly cruel, I certainly would if I were a 'pro' - because effectively they have been withholding information that could have given Gerry and Kate closure long ago.  Living under the shadow of a police investigation all this time must be unbearably stressful. It could be of course be that SY have already told Gerry and Kate 'the worst', that they are not looking for a live child, but that is something they would never admit publicly.  I think it is a given however, because there have been no age progression pictures, and no active fundraising on the part of Madeleine's Fund.

I think if Operation Grange had given the parents and their friends any proof positive that absolved them, they would have got it onto the front pages of the tabloids and they would have been back chatting to morning television hosts.  Goncalo Amaral once said (on Blacksmith I believe) that 'it's not going well for the McCanns'.  I think that applies now more than ever, they great victory they hoped for in Lisbon has become their biggest loss [I predict record legal costs].  Up until it was all over, fighting talk was all they had.  They can keep sniping at GA, but he beat them fair and square.

For Gerry and Kate to win back any sort of public sympathy, they will have to begin with humility and truth.  Maybe start with floods of tears like a repentant Baptist preacher caught with his hands in the till and up the skirt of a local lapdancer/fallen woman.  If they are true Catholics, they will know all about breastbeating, repenting and forgiveness.  It's a great cop out for all murderous deeds, and you don't even need to say it until you take your final breath. 

Gerry and Kate of course, and all those in the know, could find consolation in the truth now, while they still have some kind of hand on the rudder.  There will be some who will forgive them, maybe even some who would still defend them.  Their best defence is 'everything they have done, they have done for their children'.  That's a powerful and persuasive argument, but it will be stacked up against all those deeds that could be said to have made their children (albeit unknowingly) complicit.

As for those spitting sawdust and feathers on behalf of Gerry and Kate, I often get feelings of deja vu. a reliving of battles from years ago in the forums.  I now have no doubt that it is the inner circle of Team McCann who have devoted themselves to patrolling the internet and hijacking Madeleine discussions.  They were the online fighting wing of TM from the start (as confirmed by Michael Wright in Lisbon) - using social media to close debate on the Madeleine case.  Not with reasonable and logical arguments, but with bullying and threats, as if waving a cyber fist will elicit anything other than hoots of laughter. 

198 comments:

  1. The one thing that sticks out in my mind with all the hate being thrown at the "non believers" of the McCanns' abduction story and those same people being threatened with their employers being contacted etc. is that not once have the McCanns spoken out against it. If I had a missing child and these vile people were threatening others with shaming them on the internet with their names and addresses and writing to their employers I would be mortified.

    I can't remember one public statement where the McCanns have said they do not want all this vile abuse being thrown out, the only reason being is that they support it all. What that says about them is all one needs to know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ros says: "The only way in which Gerry and Kate can now change the paradigm is with honesty. It is their last resort. Lies do not become more believable with the addition of more lies. They kick off a whole tangled web that can keep social media buzzing for a decade."
    ------------------------------------------------

    Ros - are you calling the Mccanns liars?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if she is she's also calling the police liars

      Delete
    2. Kate admits in her book Madeleine that they lied to the media when the police turned up at their villa with a search warrant. After that admission, it is difficult to believe anything. Is not believing the McCanns a criminal office?

      Regardless, semantically, you got nothing. There is a clear full stop after 'last resort'. The next sentence begins 'lies', as in lies of a general nature, not specific to any one case. Nice try, but a tad sad.

      Delete
    3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 August 2017 at 19:07

      You have picked one admitted comment from Kate's book.

      Are you saying that the Mccanns have lied about the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. You may as well say it Ros if that is what you believe.

      Delete
    4. Anon 19.15

      The Portuguese Court stated that the McCanns "haven't been cleared". What more does that tell you, so obviously the disappearance of Madeleine still is not 100% clear as to how she "disappeared" no matter what statements or facts the McCanns or their Tapas friends have given.

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous21 August 2017 at 19:40

      and that's what keeps you going doesn't it?

      Let me know when the Mccanns are arrested.

      Delete
    6. Oh dear 19:15, your attempts to get me to libel the McCanns is reminiscent of an argument I once had with Jim Gamble on twitter. He wanted an admission of guilt, an apology and a pledge that I would never libel him again, iirc. I told him I would rather rip my own arm off and batter myself around the head.

      I do not believe Madeleine was abducted 19:15, and you can't make me. The days of getting out the old rack and thumbscrews are long gone, people can now believe whatever they like.

      If I were to say 'The McCanns are Lying', it would give you the kind of 'hater' headline you crave, a way in which to discredit me because too many people are reading my words.

      However, I have too much pride to go for cheap, shock jock tactics, I prefer to let my writing stand on it's own merit. Not that I've ruled it out, lol, it works very work for the brilliant US news networks. But should I ever go for the straight forward 'J'accuse' approach, it would be with a very heavy heart. I still trust those police officers working on this case, and I still believe that the Truth will be the ultimate victor.

      That would only change if scapegoats were used, or the wrong people blamed. I know too much about this case to remain silent in such circumstances, and I certainly could not remain silent if an innocent person were victimised.

      That however, is worse case scenario. Whilst I still question the judgment of the British police to drag those former resort workers in for questioning, they did not, and I hope would not, go so far as framing them. Not that that is even a remote possibility - the timeline for the tapas group on the night of 3rd May is set in stone.

      Even extending the window of opportunity to 45 minutes (by ruling out Crecheman), there simply wasn't enough time for an abductor, or burglar, to commit a murder, allow the smell of cadaverine to develop, clean up, and make off with the body. All the while, there was a constant flow of foot traffic and the child's father was for 10/15 minutes, standing directly outside the apartment talking to his mate. Before leaving the apartment with the deceased child, he opened the bedroom window, as a red herring, then he walked out of the patio doors, down the stairs and through the two gates, closing doors and gates behind him.

      For Operation Grange, most of the jigsaw pieces were in place, they have had very little to work with. All the corners, edges and curves have to fit exactly, any piece forced where it doesn't go, will stand out like a sore thumb.

      I expect the release of the Portuguese police files caused a lot of embarrassment. Many thought that what they were doing behind the scenes, would remain behind the scenes. However, they didn't count on the tenacity of Gerry, Kate and Goncalo Amaral. Kate said very early on, 'we are finishers'. When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time [Maya Angelou].

      However, she didn't phase GA, he too is a 'finisher', not the kind of cop who would give up on a murdered child. The finish line may well now be in sight. The civil trials are over (though whether they ever influenced anything is debateable), and it's been 10 years. More cash and a further extension may attract criticism from beyond the usual suspects. Just when is enough enough?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 21 August 2017 at 21:43

      “and that's what keeps you going doesn't it?”

      Don’t you think reasonable doubt, even by itself, would do???

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#Prosecutions

      15 April 1989The Hillsborough disaster. In the days and weeks following the disaster, police fed false stories to the press suggesting that hooliganism and drinking by Liverpool supporters were the root causes of the disaster. Blaming of Liverpool fans persisted even after the Taylor Report of 1990, which found that the main cause of the disaster was a failure of control by South Yorkshire Police. Following the Taylor report, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled there was no evidence to justify prosecution of individuals or institutions. And so on…

      Yet, after many years…

      On 28 June 2017, it was announced that six people were to be charged with offences in relation to the disaster.Former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, in charge of the match, faces 95 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence.

      T

      Delete
    8. It wasn't reasonable doubt that changed things. There was a ton of evidence that showed edited statements and that Thatcher had organised the cover up right away.Kelvin MacKenzie was eager to please and how he escaped prosecution is disgusting. The recent decision to prosecute had to happen. And Thatcher had gone anyway so she'd never have to suffer the indignity of a trial.

      There were 96 bodies at Hillsborough and CCTV recording it and those doctored statements. It's hard to compare the circumstances to the case of a missing child which had none of that and ask for reasonable doubt.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 22 August 2017 at 21:08

      “It wasn't reasonable doubt that changed things.”

      You seem to have missed my point. Please think again. Listen to the bass notes.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
  3. the only time gerry mccann spoke about online craziness was used against him by the same craziness. the haters or whatever you want to call them used the death of somebody from twitter as something to blame him for even though it was Sky tv who gave the lady hassle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prior to Sky News naming and shaming Brenda Leyland (every 15 minutes) Gerry McCann had called on 'the authorities' to make an example of those he claimed were persecuting his family online. Once again, he found himself in the 'be careful what you wish for' position. Not quite 'who will rid me of this troublesome priest' but the same devastating results.

      Delete
    2. don't you think gerry mccann was talking more about the thousands who signed an online petition calling for the authorities to remove their twins from them rather than someone on twitter. maybe he thought that petition was people persecuting him and his wife

      Delete
    3. Was there a Petition at that time? Petitions are not really my thing, ever since I saw a documentary about Northern Ireland, where all the catholic signatories to a Petition were labelled enemies of the state.

      As I remember it 20:8, it was at the time of the Summers and Swan book launch. Jim Gamble went on TV to explain the clashes between the British police agencies at the height of the original Portuguese Investigation and how the mistakes were made.

      He was also promoting the Summers and Swan book, a 'Madeleine' book that came down heavily on the anti McCann social media sites and the more obnoxious of the 'big names'. The release of the book coincided with the handing over of the Dossier to the police and Sky News. The news report featured 'Cankles' a large lady representing an anonymous group of concerned citizens online. Sky News went to a great deal of trouble to hide the identity of 'Cankles', but Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said the dossier was handed to the police by the McCann family. Oops.

      Gerry's remarks can only be taken as part of a multi dimensional plot to rid the internet of anti McCanns, while using 'established writers' to create a viable alternate theory that rubbished the findings of the dogs and supported the parents.

      Unfortunately for Gerry, the timing of his 'an example should be made' statement, ties in with the series of evens as described above, rather than a protest at a petition.

      Delete
  4. "Screenshots of every comment I made on social media within minutes of my posting, with my words deliberately distorted."

    If thy were screenshots of what you said how could they be distorted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They would distort what was said in the comments section , for e.g.
      you say If thy were screenshots of what you said how could they be distorted?
      and I reply , my god are you so f-ing stupid to still defend these child neglecting twats , after all these years ... it goes something like that ...Ps Roz. Pink was awesome last night , and was bladdered writing my technical photo manual , free cans in the press tent :)

      Delete
    2. Words can be taken out of context or interpreted in different ways. If my words genuinely condemned me, why weren't they used in Martin Brunt's presentation on 'trolls who attack the McCanns. I was one of their main targets?

      If the McCanns and their lawyers could shut me up, they would. Lord knows they and the antis have tried, via discrediting me on my Amazon books page, and regularly on social media. Unfortunately for them, I don't have any deep, dark secrets and I have never in my life pretended to be a church going goody two shoes.

      Yes, my words were distorted, a hatred was invented that simply didn't exist, and clearly the lawyers, the police and the producers of Sky News weren't buying it. There is nothing in my blog that incites hatred, there never has been. Quite the opposite, mine has been the calming voice, the voice opposed to the online judges and the vigilantes. There is no shame in joining the discussion here, no-one is waving torches or demanding mob justice, and on the whole, common sense prevails.

      I am not in the least bit like the evil Cristobell you headcases invented, and that quickly becomes obvious to anyone who drops by. If you are going to smear someone, there needs to be some element of truth in what you say. Introduce me in a witness box as a compulsive liar and make of snuff films, and you will bring the house down laughing. That's why all the smearing didn't take. Of course they did the same with Goncalo Amaral, they portrayed him as a lazy, oafish barbarian, the opposite of the quietly spoken, highly educated, gentleman he is. Something that quickly becomes apparent to anyone who reads his book.

      Anyway 19:10, if you were comfortable with your Blacklist, your 'Dossier', why was 95% of it removed following the death of Brenda Leyand?

      Delete
    3. Delighted that you had a great time at the concert my photograph friend :) I know who Pink is, I have sons, lol, but I'm afraid I'd be the old bird asking them to turn the speakers down! I'm very fond of Emimen though, and have a huge girl crush on Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas. Now there is a young lady with no self esteem issues! But Pink rocks, no self esteem issues there either.

      Your post btw, was both interesting and entertaining, a tad techno for me, but I am sure it meant something to T. :)

      Delete
  5. Ros says: "In my case, I was a 'known' drug user with mental health issues."
    -----------------------

    Are you denying that you were a drug user?

    You have posted regularly about your mental health issues - it is no secret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't inhale ;)

      Actually, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to the case against the McCanns, if I were off my head on crystal meth. The world and it's dog, is saying J'accuse, not just I. Discrediting your credits is not a viable long term strategy, especially, as is likely, the next critics may be officers of Scotland Yard. Will they accuse them of being burger munching, wife beating barbarians?

      At some point, and we are nearly there, the McCanns and all their crew (or what's left) will have to address all the accusations against them, and I'm guessing it will be sooner, rather than later. They are heading into the kind of territory where they will be labelled The Tapas Two, or the Tapas Nine. Disparaging the Portuguese police was easy, they had the British media and the British establishment onside. I don't think they dare leak negative stories about SY police officers - well not until they absolutely have to.

      My mental health issues are not a secret, you are right. I hope that if I speak about them openly, others who suffer from depression and bipolar will not feel so isolated. Should add, I have never taken their sneering at my mental heal problems personally, it reflects their own ignorance and fear

      Delete
  6. "I think if Operation Grange had given the parents and their friends any proof positive that absolved them, they would have got it onto the front pages of the tabloids and they would have been back chatting to morning television hosts. Goncalo Amaral once said (on Blacksmith I believe) that 'it's not going well for the McCanns'. I think that applies now more than ever, they great victory they hoped for in Lisbon has become their biggest loss [I predict record legal costs]. Up until it was all over, fighting talk was all they had. They can keep sniping at GA, but he beat them fair and square."

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

    I expect they were gloating with delight and thought they had it in the bag when they went for the kill with GA, not realising the backlash there would be with the people on GA's side donating £50,000 for his legal costs. The McCanns must have been in a state of shock thinking that they'd paralysed him only for the tables to be turned on them and to find there were the ones who had come unstuck.

    Well, their greed took a fall, they got too cocky thinking that they could outsmart everyone, but unfortunately they didn't reckon with the general public who could see right through them and knew which side they wanted to be on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite right too 20:00. I found it quite obscene the way in which Isabel Duarte was already carving up the massive payout they expected from Goncalo Amaral. £250k for each family member, and they are five, she boasted at the door of the Court. The former suspects wanted Goncalo's family home, the royalties from his book and all his future earnings.

      It was indeed, a David .v. Goliath battle, the parents had an overflowing search fund, billionaire backers and the support of the UK Establishment when the legal battle against Goncalo Amaral began. They were having a good run in the British courts, receiving hundreds of thousands in damages from news agencies who paid up with little resistance. GA should have been a piece of cake.

      They clearly didn't reckon on his strength of character, and the public's disgust at such blatant injustice. What kind of law would take away a detective's right to defend himself? The McCanns threw the first stone. It wasn't enough to have him removed from the investigation, they wanted him to feel misery and fear.

      That is not a sane agenda, and if their lawyer had had any morals and scruples, they would have sent the McCanns away with the words of Confucius: 'when you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves'. But I suppose at £300/400 per hour, they went with feeding the delusion.

      This is indeed a tale of deceit and immorality, but above all, it is a tale of greed. Greed, not only on the part of the main players, but also on the part of the professionals who rushed to the McCanns' aid. Those lawyers, 'psychologists' and spin doctors on the first planes out there. And of course the family, who haven't had the guts to defend their kith and kin (in their own names)since 2007.

      Delete
    2. You do realise it wasn't a criminal trial don't you ? Are you saying it was the general public that swayed the decision of a judge in a libel trial ? Who were they trying to outsmart ? It could be argued that the 'loss' in a libel case actually serves the parents rather than destroys them. I'm sure Article 10 in the ECHR would reverse things. But as it stands it has enhanced their victim status . I'm not sure the antis wanted that.

      Delete
    3. I do know it was not a criminal 0:47, and I am not saying the public swayed the Judge's decision. The public raised money for Goncalo Amaral's legal costs, the McCanns having frozen all his assets.

      Victim status is not much good when you have lost the public's sympathy 20:47. I doubt anyone would contribute to a fund for the McCanns to go to the ECHR.

      There is absolutely no way the parents loss to Goncalo Amaral in the Lisbon Civil Courts can be spun into a win, lol, but kudos for trying. It is a devastating loss which I have no doubt will completely wipe them out. There is still no figure for the final amount the McCanns owe to all the lawyers - not only their own, but those of two defendants over 8/9 years. I think we will be seeing record costs when those figures do come out.

      Delete
  7. "As for those spitting sawdust and feathers on behalf of Gerry and Kate, I often get feelings of deja vu. a reliving of battles from years ago in the forums. I now have no doubt that it is the inner circle of Team McCann who have devoted themselves to patrolling the internet and hijacking Madeleine discussions. They were the online fighting wing of TM from the start (as confirmed by Michael Wright in Lisbon) - using social media to close debate on the Madeleine case. Not with reasonable and logical arguments, but with bullying and threats, as if waving a cyber fist will elicit anything other than hoots of laughter."

    You were always on long established hater/anti forums so what are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lovely to see that Ros is all sweetness and light and has never said a bad word about the Mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scotland Yard is to ask the government for more money to fund its search for Madeleine McCann #SNT

    https://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/899715318397886465

    ReplyDelete
  10. So basically your only claim to fame Ros is that you were NOT interviewed by Brunt?

    is it because you are insignificant and a nobody in the Mccann case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never think of myself as insignificant and a nobody 22:19, and I never think that of anyone else.

      I'm sad for you because you are projecting, whoever drummed those nasty words in your head has much to answer for.

      Delete
    2. @unknown 21 August 22:19
      Who, in your opinion, is significant or has become famous in a positive sense by commenting on this case or working on it for 10 years.

      I cannot see anyone (not a British anyway)who is qualified for the investigative journalist's Hall of Fame. Nor do I see any British police detectives, who deserve to be knighted. Can you imagine a Sir Andy, Sir Mark, or a Sir Clarence. I can't.

      Delete
  11. Great blog Ros back to your best, post ziggysawdust lol. I don't think the excuse that they done it for their children would cut much ice. I could except that if they went home with their 2 children and kept a low profile but they didn't their narcisstic personalities wouldnt allow that, they wanted us inferior being to love and admire them and the effect that had on their own 2 children mattered not a jot when compared to that objective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm delighted to have my blog back 22:44, Ziggy was wearing myself, and I am sure, many others down.

      To be fair I was clutching at straws with the 'doing it for their children' defence. As you say, there is too much there that is questionable. In more recent years for example, their continuing legal actions against Goncalo Amaral, must have disrupted their lives far more, than, as you say, going home and keeping a low profile.

      Delete
  12. Prediction: Ros will now disappear from here for a few days whilst idiots will post stupid comments about the slightest little things that the Mccanns did or didn't do.

    There will be any and all accusations against the Mccanns and anyone who has ever been connected to them.

    Ros will pretend that she doesn't have anything to do with the comments and in about a week she will post some more rubbish about herself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good heavens am I that predicable 22:45? Why on earth do you keep coming back? For me, once I lose interest in a writer, there is no return. I feel a bit mean about it, give them another try and all that, but the world is full of so many good writers, I begrudge wasting my time on the bad ones.

      As for my disappearing for a few days, I do have a life outside of this blog, lol, but I do obviously read all of the comments, and if I am struck by any salient points I will reply.

      I have never distanced myself from my blog or the comments, again, you can't just make things up. People are free to express whatever opinion they want here, just as you have, but clearly, our opinions are not the same.

      Anyway, do please keep reading, it pleases me that it irks you :)

      Delete
  13. "Anonymous21 August 2017 at 20:27

    They would distort what was said in the comments section , for e.g.
    you say If thy were screenshots of what you said how could they be distorted?
    and I reply , my god are you so f-ing stupid to still defend these child neglecting twats , after all these years ... it goes something like that ...Ps Roz. Pink was awesome last night , and was bladdered writing my technical photo manual , free cans in the press tent :)"

    I just want to repeat this comment as it shows what a cesspit that Ros is running here.

    She welcomed the comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you would prefer my blog carried a warning Unknown at 23:04. Beware, those of a sensitive disposition, bring smelling salts.

      This is an uncensored blog, and one risqué comment does not a cesspit make. Should add, some of the finest people I have ever known were often bladdered in the grandest of places, whilst maintaining their charm and good manners. By contrast, the most debased and sadistic were teetotal and religious.

      This isn't a Sunday School devoted to All Things Bright and Beautiful, you already have that on the Madeleine Facebook Book, where 'Thou Shalt Not' hangs over the door.

      I'm not catering for you 23:04, I am catering for an adult audience who don't want their reading material censored and dumbed down. I can only suggest that from here on in, you enter at your own risk ;)

      Delete
  14. ''There is nothing in my blog that incites hatred, there never has been. Quite the opposite, mine has been the calming voice, the voice opposed to the online judges and the vigilantes''

    It's all you want on here if it's against the McCanns. It's far from calm.It constantly judges the McCanns and anyone who refuses to join in. Incidentally, it wasn't 'established writers' that rubbished the findings of the dogs, it was the FSS. Forensic Canine experts supported the conclusions rather than challenge them. You can't argue with science.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Then why was Jim Gamble directing those questioning the dogs' findings to the Summers and Swan book?

    And can you please name the forensic canine experts who supported the conclusions that the dogs alerts were worthless. A named expert 23:58, just one will do.

    Truth and honesty is not hate 23:58. Going along with something that is not true, something that goes against your own innate sense of morality and decency, is far more hateful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's safe to infer that Grimes' silence rather than challenge amounts to support.He did mention that findings needed corroborating to be deemed conclusive. So they mustn't have been corroborated after all. The police haven't been able to use those findings either because they're not conclusive of anything. So they're not findings. If the police have to abide by the forensics report why can't you ? I'm sure if they'd found anything vital against the parents they'd have been arrested a long time ago. They were cleared of all suspicion on the tenth anniversary. That opinion may be disputable but not the forensics. I agree about not going along with a lie and a sense of morality and decency.Are you saying the forensics team lied or just the parents ?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541810.stm

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562992/Madeleine-McCann-parents-new-DNA-hope.html

      Delete
    2. You are doing an awful lot of inferring there 03:29. So Martin Grimes, who has devoted his entire professional life to training his dogs to the highest level (in the world) is the expert witness the McCanns will call on to diss the dogs?
      Good luck with that, lol.

      As for Gerry and Kate being cleared of all suspicion on the 10th Anniversary, I don't think it took. More people than ever believe the parents are involved - look at the comments sections of the national newspapers whenever there is a McCann story.

      Just because a body has been moved doesn't mean it was never there 03:29. Someone died in 5A and Madeleine has been missing for 10+ years. That kind of corroborates the alerts of the dogs.

      Delete
    3. A cadaver dog is reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence.

      Is it possible to disarm reasonable suspicion?

      Delete
    4. I think it will take more than a 'kind of', that's not very scientific . As for the McCanns not being cleared by a court, they've only been in a court to argue about a book . To be cleared you have to have something to be cleared of.In this case it's a charge. They have no charges against them, only accusations.Has Robert Murat been cleared ? They'll never be cleared of suspicion by the public as long as the internet is available to everyone.They seem to have decided that it's their investigation, not the detectives here or in portugal. Only their suspicion matters . On the tenth anniversary it was a detective from each country that declared that the McCanns were not under suspicion. But you say it didn't take so we don't have to count that. That's not how to examine anything.

      Delete
    5. @anon 22 August 03:29
      Hi
      Regardless of the DNA profile that almost matched that of Madeleine’s, but wasn’t conclusive, one of Martin Grime’s dogs discovered scent of death in the McCanns’ apartment as well as in their hired car, which are facts that shouldn’t be ignored.

      What Martin Grime shows us is that that there must have been a dead body in both places, and it’s up to the Portuguese P J and the S Y to identify who this dead person could be.

      Failing to do so, does not mean that there hasn’t been a corpse (possibly the same) in two places where the McCanns have been, just that it hasn’t officially been established who that person is. The McCanns don’t seem to be interested to know and there must be a reason as to why they aren’t.

      Delete
    6. If they're facts that shouldn't be ignored, why have the police ignored them for years ?

      Delete
    7. @Björn 22 August at 21:58/@Anonymous at 22:29

      “If they're facts that shouldn't be ignored, why have the police ignored them for years ?”

      Good question, but there is not absolute ignorance.

      In 2014 Andy Redwood said there is a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared. Although he doesn’t mention the dogs, it goes without saying he is aware that sniffer dogs found traces of blood and the smell of death at the McCanns’ holiday apartment.

      Hence my question: Is it possible to disarm reasonable suspicion?

      Despite the McCanns’ and the authorities’ best efforts, I think it isn’t possible. One can't blame 'the public'.

      Delete
    8. anon 23 August 07:39
      Hi
      I really found it strange when Redwood admitted that Madeleine may have died before she was taken. Even Clarence Mitchell said something similar. As for Redwood's statement, I believe it came when the "Operation Grange" started to speculate about the far fetched scenario about a burglary having gone wrong, which Andy and his team then thought could explain the findings of the dogs, which of course it cannot.

      Delete
    9. Hi Bjorn, DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment, at the time when Scotland Yard were digging up the areas in and around PDL. I can never forget a bizarre news report from Martin Brunt where he was trying to explain a burglar may have carried the deceased child and buried her close to the apartment whilst the search was underway!

      To make it even more surreal, at the time Gerry and Kate were in Lisbon for one of the many libel hearings. They were ignoring the 'digging' and still hoped Madeleine would be found alive.

      Delete
  16. Colin Sutton
    @skymartinbrunt

    Continue? Or start afresh?


    https://twitter.com/colinsutton/statuses/899750213828698113

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Scotland Yard is to ask for more money to continue its six-year investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    Detectives are struggling to resolve a final lead, which, if it fizzled out, could have brought the £11m Government-funded investigation to an end next month.

    I understand that the Home Office is willing to carry on paying for the last bit of work to be completed.

    A source said: "We will be asking for more money because we need to complete the work we are doing. It is complicated and not as straightforward as we had hoped, but it is worth doing."'

    http://news.sky.com/story/hunt-for-madeleine-mccann-needs-more-cash-to-continue-10999676

    A source said: "We will be asking for more money because we need to complete the work we are doing."

    "A source" is Scotland Yard?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Many thanks for the updates on Operation Grange.

    What a strange old to do eh? What on earth could it be that has made this relatively straight forward child abduction, so complicated? It can't be paedophile rings or child traffickers, because they have been left to carry on uninterrupted for 10+ years. Ditto, a lone abductor, who also continues with the freedom to commit the same crime again.

    Usually when there is a child predator on the loose, there is a sense of extreme urgency, as there was with the Portuguese police in 2007, who were working night and day. There is a constant fear that he will strike again. Ok, he hasn't struck again, but he still remains free. That is an outrage, children are at risk.

    It doesn't take 6+ years to investigate a child abduction - police forces the world over solve these crimes within days/weeks. Even if they don't have enough to prosecute, they know who is responsible, as the PJ did in the summer of 2007.

    Operation Grange look clownish by comparison, their 'new' leads, and 'vital' leads make them appear, 6 years on, as if they are still clueless.

    They are police officers. 'Complete the work they are doing' should mean arrests, but it reads as if they are about to submit a Dissertation for marking. No actual result, but please note the 'i's' are dotted and the 't's' are crossed.

    So what work are they doing? Reading The Life and Times of a Child Abductor Volumes I through LXXX? Just how much information do they need about this guy before they arrest him and rescue Maddie?

    If there is to be an extension it will not be good news for Gerry and Kate, despite what they or their spokesman might say.

    I'm not sure what to make of the 'source's' comments, but jesting aside, if I were a suspect I would be trembling. I would interpret the need to complete the work, as 'see it through to fruition', and that appears to be very close.

    As the crime was committed in Portugal, any prosecution will have to take place there, and this is confirmed by the winding down of Operation Grange, all the evidence they have collected is probably now in the hands of the PJ.

    ReplyDelete
  19. https://www.facebook.com/sonia.poulton/posts/10156513570098976

    "Scotland Yard want more money to continue the search for Madeleine McCann...but serving cops - at least four of them - have told me that within the ranks it's considered 'one of the biggest cover ups in British history'.

    That partly explains why Metropolitan Police officers contributed to the fund of Goncalo Amaral - the Portuguese ex-cop who led the hunt for Madeleine and whose life was shattered after he wrote and broadcast about it (he won the case, incidentally, for those who don't know).

    I've been told that ministers will agree to the demands for more money. We shall see.

    Still, what's £11m PLUS for one search if it means it can stall any potentially explosive media explorations into the story that cannot be aired while a live investigation is ongoing?

    It's a drop in the ocean to all the people who are deeply invested in ensuring that only the theory of abduction is pursued.

    To be clear: I'm not making any accusations against anyone but I am saying that this is a case that is most definitely not what it appears to be."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that's quite a revelation!

      I have to say however, that if 4 insiders are already speaking to a journalist, the chances of this being a successful cover are slim to zero.

      Hogan-Howe and Rowley have certainly given the impression that a cover up is underway, but if true, why not let the parents in on it? Why are they are continuing to make them suffer? Which of course, then begs the question, as the cover up involves themselves, shouldn't they be in on it?

      Some might say they are, but I would disagree. Gerry and Kate are clearly living with an enormous amount of stress. Something they are accustomed to, I'm sure. But this time is different.

      The only physical signs of the OG investigation we have seen, is the efit of Gerry, the excavations in PDL, and the vague observation from DCI Redwood, that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment. During their years of investigating, OG have actually created a lot more that will need to be covered up. Like, how come he man seen carrying the child looked exactly like Gerry.

      That little detail could have been safely buried away and never mentioned again, but OG brought it out into the open, discarded Crecheman and made Smithman the main suspect. Not a wise move, if a cover up is their main agenda.

      Delete
    2. Not sure what sonia poulton means with her final sentence. A lot of people have always thought that what it appears to be is a cover up

      Delete
    3. "..but serving cops - at least four of them - have told me that within the ranks it's considered 'one of the biggest cover ups in British history'."

      Yes Sonia of course they have told you. Note - just serving cops - not Met, not cops working on OG - just cops - no evidence whatsoever that they are "insiders" or have inside information - in fact no evidence that they even exist.

      "I've been told that ministers will agree to the demands for more money."

      Told by who?

      Delete
    4. "serving cops - at least four of them - have told me that within the ranks it's considered 'one of the biggest cover ups in British history"

      LOL. There's no shortage of such claims! They've spoken to the police even the judiciary. The fantasist American McFadden is a good example. Of course it's nonsense.

      Delete
    5. Apologies, I assumed 'insiders', I didn't read it properly (blushing smiley).

      I'm not sure it changes my above opinion, if there is discontent in the ranks, there will always be the risk of whistleblowers.

      Delete
    6. I read online a few times about a documentary Sonia Poulton was supposedly making a couple of years ago. She's been making it for years now. I wondered then how she would go about getting it past Sky . After all, Sky have been in charge of the media spin all along. So, unless Sonia is making yet another documentary that finds the McCanns guilty or portraying them as guilty in all but name, she could be biting the hand that's fed her for a few years.Put it this way, unless it agrees with the narrative Sky have been told to give us, she won't likely be working for them again.She'd also be potentially pulling a Lion's tail . But I see now she's doing the old 'a source told me' thing and putting in precisely the right place, online.So a source from inside the police force has told a reporter this.That's a bit hard to swallow.Until she names names, she's just doing a Brunt.

      Delete
    7. Sonia is one of the few mainstream journalists who has had the guts to challenge the official narrative in this case 20:39. And it should be obvious the problems documentary makers have whilst this case is the subject of a live investigation.

      As for revealing her sources 20:39 - you can't ask a journalist to do that!

      Delete
    8. @ Ros 21:28

      Sonia a mainstream journalist? When did she last do an article?

      Delete
    9. How many times in different blogs do the antis criticise reporters for using the phrase 'a source' or 'someone close to' ? it's annoying. And it's clear that Clarence should change his name to Source Mitchell . We all know that it gives them creative license to make up whatever helps sell papers or sell lies . Sonia Poulton is a reporter . She challenges official findings though, and insinuates guilt in the parent's direction . So the criticisms don't apply to her.

      Delete
  20. Well there's a surprise (NOT).

    The last resort? That was Praia da Luz. The truth's been on extended vacation ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon 11.09

    "It's a drop in the ocean to all the people who are deeply invested in ensuring that only the theory of abduction is pursued."

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

    But don't the Portuguese have jurisdiction over SY as they are the lead investigators and they weren't going with the "abduction" theory from the beginning, also not forgetting that according to the Portuguese Court, the McCanns haven't been cleared.

    What does Sonia Poulton know, not any more than the rest of us I would assume unless she has an inside source which I doubt very much.

    I'm not on Facebook so I can't reply to her post with regard to the words of the Portuguese court. I wonder if she's aware of them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just to add with regard to SY asking for more funding, of course, the "Fund" hasn't been mentioned for a long time, so if it has been found that Madeleine's "abduction" was a scam, the PJ not going along with the abduction theory (unless they end up having their arms forced behind their backs to submit to SY), then that leaves the "Fund" being investigated. Bearing in mind £millions have gone through it and come out the other end to who knows where, that must be a huge headache for anyone to sort out and could take years, especially that Medoto 3 were good at money laundering apparently, but not finding missing children. Money laundering it to where though?

    I read somewhere today that SY said the investigation was more complicated than they thought, although I can't find that quote now, so if they are looking at the Fund it could be a nightmare. As PeterMac said in the past "follow the money"!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he should have said 'see who funded it'.It wasn't only donations.

      Delete
    2. Anon 18.16

      Yes, exactly. I was referring to all monies that went into the "Fund" not just donations from the public. It's mind boggling how much actually went into the account, not only payments from newspapers (out of court settlements) but also multi millionaire backers who were never revealed, I would assume. Many were very vocal to begin with, I won't mention any names but we know who they are.

      Delete
    3. Billionaires don't hang onto their money by backing vexatious litigants. I wouldn't be surprised if the billionaires backed out when the McCanns went on their suing spree. I think the only reason they have stopped now, is lack of money.

      Delete
    4. Ros 19.22

      I think the only reason the McCanns have stopped now is that they've hit a brick wall and know they can't take their case any further and that Amaral has got the better of them.

      As for financial backing, wasn't it a billionaire (not naming any names) who said from the beginning that he would finance any court costs for the McCanns. Whether that came with a stipulation as to what actual court costs he meant but I remember he said that. That was before he even knew what happened to Madeleine so he was obviously on their side with the "abduction" story. Whether he has backed out now we won't know but I expect the McCanns still have people who will write off their costs so they won't have to sell their house to finance their losses.

      Talking about selling their house, I was watching a programme yesterday and parents of Amy May Shead who had a terrible reaction to peanuts and was left brain damaged, said they had to sell their home to finance care for her (I think they were the family I heard say that), immediately my brain went to the McCanns and thought that this is a family who put their daughter before their own needs yet the McCanns just carry on in their own lifestyle expecting everyone else to finance everything although it was them who "lost" their child through sheer neglect and putting themselves first.

      There are no words to convey the comparison between families who can sell their home and others who hang on to everything they've got and expect others to do all the hard work for them whilst never getting off their own backsides.

      Delete
    5. Billionaires don't get that rich through being stupid. Maybe he realised at some point that the whole thing was bent. If he ever makes a statement about it we'll know. But it's no use just guessing to suit our own suspicions. If you watch a documentary about a brain damaged child and the horrible situation the family found themselves in and immediately thought about the McCanns you're thinking of the case way too much.Either that or just looking for anything you can find to use.At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one iota what happens about the detectives book.It doesn't throw any light on a missing child or charge anyone. He should have written a book about how suspicious him and his team were about Robert Murat and why he swore to him that he'd get him and why he had him followed all day.But he wrote one about the parents which is far more likely to sell.Isn't it about time the police showed evidence that no abduction took place if it didn't ?

      Delete
    6. @anon 22 August 20:25
      Hi
      A reconstruction would perhaps have shown that an abduction didn't take place. Unfortunately the previous suspects were not interested in participating in such an "event" as they were too busy searching for their daughter.

      Delete
    7. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Isn't a reconstruction actors reconstructing what happened in order to jog the memory of people ? Are you saying that if one didn't include somebody abducting a child it would mean one didn't happen ? I think CCTV could do that if it existed. What do you think a reconstruction could do to help and how ?

      Delete
    8. Hello. The McCanns, of course, have done their best to confuse people by deliberately conflating Crimewatch-type reconstructions with police procedure outside the UK.

      European countries using the Code Napoleon use reconstructions as a pivotal part of investigations. They use the original witnesses and possible suspects to retrace their steps, not actors.

      There is no nonsense of the "different people give different versions of truth" kind, a la Edgar and the Loach documentary; no "interpretations" by the director, no excuses. In other words, no bull**** and confusion of the kind the couple love: that's why they pretend there's no difference.

      The participants would have been made to re-trace the steps and movements that they claimed in their statements. The places and the timings would have to agree. Impossibilities would be exposed; the reactions of the participants would be filmed and their reactions observed.

      So no, your assumption about jogging the memory is incorrect. The answer to your last question should now be obvious.

      Delete
    9. Anon 00.23

      "Isn't a reconstruction actors reconstructing what happened in order to jog the memory of people?"

      It is in the UK as shown on Crimewatch but it may be different for the Portuguese police and their idea of a reconstruction could be the actual people doing the reconstruction to see how they fair in being put under pressure as to where they said they were and what they saw.

      Only the people on the scene at the time can do a proper reconstruction, they were there, knew exactly where they were standing and who saw what. For instance Jane Tanner saw a man walking across the top of the road carrying a child, she could even see what pyjamas/blanket the child was in apparently, so if the reconstruction was done on that basis it would show if she could actually see a man walking across the top of the road in a real reconstruction and be able to say what that child was wearing or not may be.

      There wasn't any CCTV available to help the PJ unfortunately.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 23 August 2017 at 00:23

      Thank you for your comment.

      “I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Isn't a reconstruction actors reconstructing what happened in order to jog the memory of people ? Are you saying that if one didn't include somebody abducting a child it would mean one didn't happen ? I think CCTV could do that if it existed. What do you think a reconstruction could do to help and how ?”

      A reconstruction staged with the original participants forms part of the fact-finding process in Portugal. Without it, the investigation could not continue.
      _ _ _ _ _ _

      https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/goncalo-amaral-justice-works-in-silence.html

      http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.hu/

      Justice works in Silence
      Gonçalo Amaral

      “The case has to be re-opened, and I have faith that it will be,” he said. “It will either be when this current “procurador” leaves, or when the current chief of police leaves. It’s not something I am pushing for - even if I could - it’s just something I feel certain will happen. And when it does, the first, most essential thing to be done will be a reconstruction of that very first night – the night Madeleine disappeared. Because that’s what happened: she literally disappeared! The reconstruction will have to involve all the parties: the McCanns and their friends. You see, there are so many inconsistencies in these people’s statements that a reconstruction will very quickly highlight where they have not told the truth”

      T

      Delete
    11. john blacksmith 23 August 2017 at 13:32

      Good one! Thank you, john.

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
    12. John Blacksmith 13.32

      My post of 13.52 crossed with yours. Thank you for confirming the facts about the reconstruction, so now we know why the Tapas lot wouldn't go back to Portugal "for Madeleine".

      Delete
    13. 13.32, 13:52, 14:22

      Synchronizität?

      T:)

      Delete
    14. 13.32, 13:52, 14:22

      Synchronizität?

      T:)

      Delete
    15. john blacksmith, I wasn't making any assumptions about the reconstruction, i was asking questions about how one would work and how it would benefit the investigation. T, i wouldn't put faith in that speech of Amaral. If he has so much on the parents he shouldn't need to find inconsistincies in a reconstruction he should call on the evidence he claims exists but hasn't been allowed to stand.

      Delete
    16. Anon 16.18

      Well they say great minds think alike, otherwise Ros has held the comments on her computer as they come in then releases them within a short time of each other to post them here.

      Your post of 16.18 should have added in the 15.52 one, that's four in a row, perhaps we should use them as lottery numbers!

      Delete
    17. An anonymous poster @16.30."I wasn't making any assumptions about the reconstruction."

      It's a trivial matter and hardly worth bothering with but even on the subject of the McCanns it's unwise to deny something which is visible to everyone a few inches away.

      You posted originally (remember?): “I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Isn't a reconstruction actors reconstructing what happened in order to jog the memory of people?"

      That statement of yours is either a mistaken assumption due to ignorance of the facts or a fib used as an "innocent face" to mislead other posters.

      Take your choice.



      Delete
    18. Björn 22 August 2017 at 22:22
      Anonymous 23 August 2017 at 00:23

      Good to see you, Björn. How have you been?

      http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#p16p4214

      Starting from page 4186 (reconstruction)

      Regards

      T

      Delete
    19. @john Blacksmith.
      My sentence had a question mark at the end of it.So it can't be called an assumtion or a statement.So no part of it is 'due to ignorance'.

      Delete
    20. Anonymous 23 August 2017 at 16:50

      Morning

      “Anon 16.18


      Well they say great minds think alike…”

      Whatever “they” say, T has no “mind”.

      “Ros has held the comments on her computer as they come in then releases them within a short time of each other to post them here.”

      All comments are timed by and held on a server, not on Rosalinda’s computer. Rosalinda has no control over the timing of the comments, she can only decide whether or not they are to appear on her blog, which is also on the server.

      “Your post of 16.18 should have added in the 15.52 one, that's four in a row, perhaps we should use them as lottery numbers!”

      No, it shouldn’t: that wouldn’t work as T intended. The reason is somewhat involved, but if you are really interested, I’ll explain in due course.

      Respect.

      T:)

      Delete
  23. Rosalinda what an amazingly insightful analysis of the case.
    You are the Oracle.

    Today's news of additional funding for the British police begs the question: what is a foreign (British) police force doing investigating a crime in Portugal?

    Ultimately, extradition of the McCanns and Tapas 7 to Portugal could only be initiated by the Portuguese police.

    The mystery is: Is it usual for a police force to investigate its own citizens for crimes committed in foreign countries?
    Can't think of any.

    Manipulation by the principals involved in their own daughter's disappearance is nothing but the brazen hoax of the century.
    Stunning, audacious: No crime writer could come close.

    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't think of any either. Then I can't think of any that have had the rules bent by parties who obviously have more power than the police.So maybe the real mystery is why they did that.

      Delete
  24. "The digital co-ordinator, a friend of the couple who runs the Facebook page on their behalf, states: 'Please do not feed trolls. Trolls feed on havoc and causing chaos. If we do not feed them they will starve for attention and hopefully spread their hate someplace else.'"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4813148/Maddie-s-parents-plead-vile-trolls-stop-abuse.html

    "...and hopefully spread their hate someplace else.'"

    I can hardly believe that web page is endorsed by Kate and Gerry McCann. So much for the frying pan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 08.25

      "...and hopefully spread their hate some place else.'"

      Their lack of self awareness is truly shocking and always has been, but of course if they have no interest in their own website and leave it up to a minion to do it for them, then what do they expect.

      Their lack of self awareness seems to have been their problem for the past 10 years and why people cannot take to them and distrust them. They seem to be completely oblivious of anything and everything with regard to their twins and the fate of Madeleine, everything has always been centred around them and their "plight", never ever mentioning about Madeleine's "plight", but then if there was no abduction then they don't know how to react as parents of an "abducted" child if the child hasn't been abducted.

      They've been winging it for the past 10 years hoping people will fall for their cr*p and that they are the victims of everything and anything, they seem to have completely ignored the fact that Madeleine is the "victim".

      Delete
    2. So parents who have a child stolen aren't victims too ? They're wingers ? And because people can't take to them they should be subjected to no end of abuse from online detectives ?

      Delete
    3. @17:17

      Can't you read? "If we do not feed them they will starve for attention and hopefully spread their hate someplace else."

      Here you go: http://findmadeleine.com/online_store/index.html

      Orders are done once a month. Please keep this in mind when ordering. Thank you.

      LOL

      Delete
    4. Anon 18.17

      As I posted earlier, the McCanns have no perception of their lack of self awareness, this is a classic example. It's quite frightening to think that they are qualified doctors but have no perception of how people see them or think about them, they really haven't got a clue.

      Delete
  25. G&K know better than most OG holds no fear for them. Can anybody see OG arresting members of their own team, members of the Leics Force and senior members of CEOP for perverting the course of justice.
    It is not going to happen.
    Gerrys career is going from strength to strength, so every few months bung in another 100k and the ball is kicked down the road.
    All discussion is curtailed, FOI requests denied as its an ongoing "investigation" except its not and never has been.
    Its one bunch of clowns trying to outdo another bunch of clowns and nobody knows how to stop the farce without losing face.
    Why did the PJ want the Leics liaison officers formally questioned into what they were doing in PDL Sat/Sun 5/6 May and who authorised their trip if it was an above board joint operation/investigation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JJ 08:38

      "The main idea was for the English police to place at our disposal two specialists in family supervision and support to be the link between the Portuguese investigators and the McCanns. The National Directorate of the PJ had authorised the arrival of these police officers in the context of international collaboration."

      Amaral

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 23 August 2017 at 14:50

      Many thanks.

      I was just about to post that quote. Remote viewing? Direct transmission?

      Respect.

      T:)

      Delete
    3. To elucidate:

      T @15:01

      “Direct transmission?”

      http://www.dharmanet.org/coursesM/26/chan8.htm

      From Buddha to Mahakashyapa

      When Mahakayashapa smiled as the Buddha silently held up a single flower at Vulture Peak, the Buddha turned to Mahakashyapa and smiled in return.

      In Chan legend it is said that the Buddha then said: "I have the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of nirvana, the true form of the formless, and the subtle Dharma gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. This I have transmitted to Mahakashyapa."

      In so doing, the Buddha entrusted the teaching of the Dharma to Mahakashyapa.
      In the Chan tradition, this story is often cited as the first instance of the Buddha transmitting the Dharma to a disciple.”


      “Remote viewing?”

      From research publications, not from a “TV programme”.

      T

      Delete
    4. 14.50

      It is odd what you choose to miss out from this passage from GA's book.He was talking about Mon 7 May and his meeting Bob Small and another Leics Officer to take stock of the situation and evaluate the needs of the investigation BEFORE making contact with the couple.
      But the Leics Police had already met the Mccanns on the Saturday night without the PJ present,a clear breach of law.

      The PJ wanted to know who authorised this illegal interference in their investigation, can OG help them out.

      Delete
    5. @ JJ 15:39
      "After Madeleine's disappearance, the first English police officer whom we welcome to the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation, on May 5th, is Glen Power, liaison officer to Portugal. The brief of this police official attached to his country's embassy is to facilitate communication between police forces. This is one of a number of pivots on which international police collaboration relies."

      Delete
    6. 16.37
      More selective quotes
      Now add the next line of Amarals book
      Two days later (mon 7 May)English colleagues start to arrive
      Thereby the Leics Police met the Mccanns on Sat without the authority of the PJ, contrary to law.

      Glen Power was there to make the arrangements as police liaison officer to Portugal but neither the Leics Police or CEOP could wait they were already there taking instructions from the Mccanns into questions the Mccanns wanted answering.

      Why did the Leics police break international procedure agreements and not inform Portugal they were in the country.
      ACPO state quite clearly the officers had no jurisdiction or permission to interview witnesses in a foreign country.


      .
      >

      .

      Delete
    7. @ JJ 18:19

      Oh dear - are you now saying that Amaral got it wrong and didn't know that the Leics LIAISON officers arrived on Sat?

      Delete
    8. JJ23 August 2017 at 08:38

      http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

      Page 16.

      Delete
  26. Hey Rosalinda - a really great post and very topical! I wonder if OG are quietly supporting the PJ? I find the silence quite eerie - why are they asking for another eleven million, one more lead sounds like buying time but why would they do that if all they want is a whitewash? It doesn't stack up and I really do think it looks bad for the McCanns, IMO. Tick tock!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Jane Cook23 August 2017 at 10:39
      "why are they asking for another eleven million"
      --------------------------------------

      Where have you read that?

      Delete
    2. Jane never answers anything.She just turns up to smear the McCanns and leaves.

      Delete
    3. And you 16:14, have just come here to snipe at Jane, your comment adds nothing to the discussion.

      Delete
    4. I am not anonymous 16:14 but I agree with the comment - it is perfectly accurate.

      Delete
    5. I see they are now referring to themselves as a charity (see top right hand corner of their FB page). Amazing how they can get away with such a lie, but I suppose anyone who questions it will be banned and labelled a troll

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous 23 August at 13:40
      ("Where have you read that?")

      Perhaps Jane misunderstood "PLUS" in Sonia's facebook post. See comment 22 August 2017 at 11:09:

      "Still, what's £11m PLUS for one search if it means it can stall any potentially explosive media explorations into the story that cannot be aired while a live investigation is ongoing?"

      Delete
  27. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/loose-women-sparks-furious-debate-11032416

    Comment Nannychoc:

    "It is time to face facts. Anybody who has followed this case knows that poor Madeleine won't be found alive. The Portuguese police have released the files and we can all read them! We can read all of the statements from the group of friends that went on holiday together and, surprise surprise, none of them correlate each other. The shutters were not 'jemmied' as claimed. The only fingerprints found on them were Kate McCann's. Why would an 'abductor' enter the apartment through an unlocked door and then climb out of the window when they could just as easily leave by the same door? We keep being told that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm, ERM wouldn't being snatched out of her bed and taken away have harmed Madeleine? I would love to see evidence that Madeleine was abducted, there's no fingerprints, nothing! This is a huge cover up, involving prominent people, even the police are being directed not to investigate the parents and their friends, why? As for the 'burglary that went wrong' theory, what burglar enters an apartment, ignores the camera and passports etc that were in the room and takes a 3year old child instead? Read the files!"

    ReplyDelete
  28. Why should everyone read the files ? Thousands already have. Who wrote them ? If there are facts to face, they should face them and then act on them.It was unlikely to be a burglary gone wrong but an abductor would operate in the same way in so much as being careful enough to wear gloves.So are you saying the police have lied all along because they were told to ? Please don't quote Loose Women, it's a serious crime.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @17:12

    "Who wrote them ?"

    They are official inquiry files and documents.

    "BBC Panorama has approved the validity of McCann PJ Files

    They used McCann PJ Files in the Programme: Madeleine McCann: 10 years on

    Screenshots with the BBC stamp can be viewed below."

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Panorama_03_05_2017.htm

    Everyone should read the files.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read a lot of them but there's volumes. I read the main parts that involved statements from parents and tapas group and the Murats and some of Amarals thoughts about them. I can only think that the lack of evidence is why nobody has been charged or caught for anything.I suppose that will remain the same now. Does no evidence of an abduction' equal 'evidence of parents killing' ? Or does it just mean no evidence left behind by an abductor ?

      One thing that intrigues me is that Detective Amaral doesn't just suspect the parents of killing their child and hiding her body but MI5. Is he serious ? Why would they help hide the body ?

      http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/news-and-current-affairs/madeleine-mccanns-parents-deny-killing-or-being-negligent-of-their-daughter-on-sunday-night-20170423-gvqv5x.html

      Delete
    2. @01:22

      "Does no evidence of an abduction' equal 'evidence of parents killing' ?"

      Of course it doesn't. Despite media spin/-ignorance/-sloppiness "a tragic accident" doesn't equal "killing".

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

      From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:

      A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;

      B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;

      C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;

      D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;

      E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;

      F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 01:22

      “…Detective Amaral doesn't just suspect the parents of killing their child…”

      Unless you provide a link to support your above statement, you are guilty of libelling Dr Amaral.

      Have you already read The Truth of the Lie and KM’s Madeleine, brother?

      The link to the video of the smirking father explaining “"The ludicrous thing is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body…" and “"It's just nonsense! And if she died when we were in the apartment, or fell, why would we cover that up?" is irrelevant nonsense.

      “Why would they [MI5] help hide the body ?”

      Why indeed…

      Link/s please.

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 09:56

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
    5. ''Unless you provide a link to support your above statement, you are guilty of libelling Dr Amaral''

      He doesn't just suspect the parents of killing their child though. You need a link for that ? You don't know that he also suspects them of hiding her body or being complicit in hiding her body or that he also suspects that MI5 were also aware and possibly involved in it ? That's not libelling him ,its repeating what he's said . it's repeating what he suspected and supposedly still suspects.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 19:26

      “You need a link for that ?”

      Not necessarily. As asked, I would like a link to “…killing…”

      T

      Delete
    7. @Anonymous 24 August 2017 01:22/19:26

      I also would like a link to "parents killing", and in addition a link to Amaral's supposed claim about the McCanns "committing murder" as stated in your 'Sydney Morning Herald' link.

      Delete
  30. @anon 22 August 22:22
    Hi
    I believe John Blacksmith explained well enough what a reconstruction is all about. Thanks John. What BBC showed in Crime Watch in 2013 was an attempt to establish the McCanns' version of the events as facts by using professional actors in a short film clip. The actor who held a small child in a very peculiar way while dashing down a street, was supposed to illustrate how Jane Tanner described the alleged perpetrator. Yet Andy Redwood in the very same Crime Watch said that the man who JT had seen was an innocent British tourist. Very illogical, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably a lot of it is illogical.But isn't the idea of the Father walking through the streets with his dead child on view who may have been bleeding, according to most people, as illogical ? Anyone could have stopped him even if to ask directions or just chit chat.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 01:05

      “…illogical…”

      Do the trivium before asking such questions.

      Mamaste.

      T

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 10:15

      “Mamaste.”

      'Namaste'.

      T is illiterate (and has large fingers).

      Mao

      Delete
    4. @anon 24 August 01:05
      Hi
      The Smiths', who saw the child in question (possibly Madeleine) did not suspect that she was dead. Nor did the child bleed.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 12:19

      Ciao, Mao

      T is.

      Ciao, Mao

      T

      Delete
    6. @Bjorn

      I know. But I was talking about logical and illogical matters. If we are supposed to believe that it was the father making his way to a burial site we have to also believe that the child was dead or he wouldn't be doing it. If we are to believe that blood was found in their apartment that was Madeleine's then we have to believe that it was invisible on the child that was being carried. It isn't logical to believe a living child that wasn't bleeding was being carried to a burial site.But those who are convinced of the parents being guilty tell us that the child's blood was found, even if the forensics say different, and that the father was carrying his child away. They can't have it both ways. If the child was just asleep and had no signs of blood then it could have been a completely different man that Mr Smith saw. If they say it wasn't a different man but it was the father, they have to explain the blood splatter in the apartment they say was found but apparently not on the child being carried.

      Delete
    7. ''Do the trivium before asking such questions.''

      I had to look trivium up. As a Uk tax payer I don't see why i need to do the trivium.The same thing goes for Portugals tax payers. If we have our pockets picked to the tune of millions to fund this so called investigation i think the least that the two police forces could do is the trivium for us.Then they could ask the questions.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 19:16

      “I had to look trivium up.”

      Nothing bad: you have enlarged your vocabulary.

      “As a Uk tax payer I don't see why i need to do the trivium.”

      I didn’t say you “need to”. As a UK taxpayer, perhaps you don’t.:)

      “The same thing goes for Portugals tax payers”.

      I get your point, but I’m not in a position to comment.

      “If we have our pockets picked to the tune of millions to fund this so called investigation i think the least that the two police forces could do is the trivium for us.Then they could ask the questions.”

      Very well put. Wholeheartedly concur.

      No offence.

      Respectfully

      T:)

      Delete
    9. @anon 24 August 19:10
      Hi
      Ye, I see your point, but taking the skills of all those doctors, who could have been involved, it must have been an easy cake to stop the bleeding and cover the wound long before Gerry decided to carry Madeleine away. If there was an accident and Madeleine died from that, it could have happened at any time after 17H30. Thus hours before she taken out of the apartment.

      Delete
    10. For that theory to hold up you would need to go over the timeline again, including the movements to,from and inside the tapas bar. It would also have to take into account that their other babies would wonder where Madeleine was before the parents left them. Then it would have to consider that more than one family was prepared to risk prison and being away from their own children should it all go wrong. What would the friends gain by involving themselves and why would they ? And what did they stand to lose ?

      Delete
  31. @anon 23 August 00:23
    Hi
    sorry, I wrongly wrote @ anon 22 August 22:22 regarding my answer about the reconstruction.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Anonymous@03:47

    It depends on the crime, murder, paedophilia, drugs don't have borders and as such police can investigate it's own nationals who commit crimes abroad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They still need clearance

      Delete
  33. @ JJ 23 August 2017 at 18:19

    You wrote: “Now add the next line of Amaral’s book: “Two days later (Mon 7 May) English colleagues start to arrive. Thereby the Leics Police met the McCanns on Sat without the authority of the PJ, contrary to law.

    Glen Power was there to make the arrangements as police liaison officer to Portugal but neither the Leics Police or CEOP could wait. They were already there taking instructions from the McCanns into questions the McCanns wanted answering.

    Why did the Leics police break international procedure agreements and not inform Portugal they were in the country? ACPO state quite clearly the officers had no jurisdiction or permission to interview witnesses in a foreign country”.

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

    It is all very well to focus on the sudden arrival of Leics Police and CEOP, apparently without permission as you say. But there is a much bigger picture revealed by the list (nicked from one of the McCann blogs) of dozens of others who rushed out to PdL at the drop of a hat. It is this extraordinary list which might help to explain why, in Ros’s poll, so many voted ‘Cover-Up’. It is hard to reconcile this long list with the idea that they all rushed out simply to ‘help find Madeleine’. Here is that list:

    (CONTINUED)

    ReplyDelete
  34. List:

    THE PEOPLE WHO RUSHED OUT TO PRAIA DA LUZ AFTER 3 MAY 2007 AND BY FRIDAY 11 MAY 2007

    This summarises a list of those known to have rushed out to Praia da Luz after 3 May 2007 (or on the case of Resonate and Robert Murat, BEFORE then). Dates of arrival given where known, all before Friday May 11 unless otherwise stated

    Government and Embassy Officials

    Robert Henderson – British Consul for the Algarve – immediate (persuaded Portuguese Police to allow the McCanns to wash clothes before seizing them)

    John Buck – British Ambassador to Portugal (Lisbon), arrived immediately

    Angela Morado – British Proconsul, arrived immediately

    Liz Dow, British Consul rom the Embassy in Lisbon, arrived immediately

    Andy Bowes, British Embassy Press Officer, arrived immediately

    Sheree Dodd, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Other staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    British Police Officers

    Glen Power, British Police Liaison Officer for Portugal, arrived 5 May

    An ‘Analyst’ (unnamed) from the National Policing Improvements Agency, arrived 4 May

    Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small, Leicestershire Police (4 May)

    Two other police ‘family liaison’ officers from Leicestershire Police (4 May)

    Government security and secret service personnel

    Staff from MI5 (unnamed)

    Staff from Child Exploitation and OnLine Protection Service (unnamed – Kate McCann in her book describes them As ‘Forensic Psychologists’), arrived 4 May

    More staff from CEOP, the ‘Director of the Forensic Psychology Unit’ AND a CEOP ‘social worker’ (arrived 6 May)

    Staff from Special Branch (unnamed)

    ‘Criminal profilers’ (unnamed - attached to unnamed government security departments)

    Government-funded private security firms

    Kenneth Farrow from Control Risks Group

    Michael Keenan from Control Risks Group

    Staff from government-supported private crisis psychology group

    Alan Pike, Head of Yorkshire-based Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP) (arrived 4 May)

    Martin Alderton, Colleague of Alan Pike from CCP (arrived 5 May)

    Public Relations Consultants

    Michael Frolich, Head of Resonate, subsidiary of international PR company Bell Pottinger (already there by Monday 30 April)

    Tricia Moon, Deputy Director of Resonate, (already there by Monday 30 April)

    Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk for international PR company Bell Pottinger, arrived 4 May (helped to edit Gerry McCann’s photos before putting them on a disc for the PJ)

    (CONTINUED)

    ReplyDelete
  35. List concluded:

    Lawyers

    Staff from the recently-formed International Family Law Group (IFLG):

    Michael Nicholls, barrister, arrived 11 May

    Accompanied by a ‘paralegal’ from Leicestershire, arrived 11 May

    There are references to other government lawyers having arrived

    Top staff from Mark Warner (company that organised the holiday)

    David Hopkins, Managing Director of Mark Warner

    One of his senior colleagues

    Interpreters

    Robert Murat became the initial main interpreter for the Portuguese Police on 4 May. He had already flown out from England on 1 May. He was recommended by British Consul Robert Henderson

    Religious Organisations

    Rev. Haynes and Susan Hubbard mysteriously arrived in Praia da Luz from Canada on Sunday 6 May, to take up an appointment as the Anglican Minister in Praia da Luz. The Hubbards rapidly became very close friends of the McCanns

    Others

    ‘Hugh’ – Kate in her book says he would only identify himself as ‘Hugh’, he was brought in by Control Risks Group and said he was ‘a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor’. He attended meeting with the lawyers from IFLG

    OTHER APPOINTMENTS

    Clarence Mitchell, Head of the government’s Media Monitoring Unit: According to the reply to a Freedom of Information request, he was appointed on Sunday 6 May to head up the government’s PR support for the McCanns, but he did not travel to Portugal until 22 May 2007

    The government set up a very high-powered liaison committee on Tuesday 8 May under the Chairmanship of Matt Baggott, Leicestershire Police Chief Constable. It consisted of representatives from a wide variety of government departments and agencies. The government has refused to answer FoIAct questions about who those agencies were.

    Government Ministers Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Margaret Beckett (Foreign Secretary) spoke to Gerry McCann in the first week. Tony Blair, Prime Minister, did so later.

    Literally hundreds of international journalists were also there in that first week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '' It is hard to reconcile this long list with the idea that they all rushed out simply to ‘help find Madeleine’.''

      It's even harder to accept it was just a response to a crime that had allegedly taken place against a couple of British tourists. The length of that list is unbelievable for that. It looks like an awful lot of big people were very worried about something. Can they really say it was just out of concern for a missing child ? If it had happened before maybe or if it had happened since. This is a one off. By coincidence so is the difficulty in solving the mystery or arresting anyone.All those people desperate to keep a killer or killers free ? It just looks silly when you read that list.

      Delete
  36. This is Tony Bennetts list from 15 Feb this year and some of the timings and dates are wrong.
    It should also be pointed out many of the names on the list travelled in an open and honest manner to PDL to assist in some capacity.
    That cannot be said of the Leics Police and CEOP and drawing attention to this fact seems to upset many people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that you drew people's attention to your erroneous facts months and months ago did not upset me in the slightest.

      The fact that you repeatedly raise it and keep ignoring the information that has been posted in reply showing that you are just wrong, makes your posts now just tedious and potentially trolling this blog.

      Maybe for once and for all you could just post what you believe is so wrong with the early arrival of Police support from the UK and what effect it had on the case. Remember it has been shown to you time and time again that they were not there in secret and they had the relevant authority and clearances.

      n.b. my last post on this matter was Anonymous 23 August 2017 at 21:01 - I have not made the more recent posts about lists etc.

      Delete
    2. 19.45
      When the Leics Police met with the Mccanns on Saturday evening 5 May did they have the PJ with them
      Yes or no?

      Delete
    3. 19.45

      Does not an enquiring mind like your own, who believes
      the Leicestershire police were there with the relevant authority and clearances, consider why then the PJ asked for the same Leicestershire liaison officers to be formally questioned into when they arrived in Portugal, who authorised their trip and what was the purpose of their visit to PDL.

      You may wish to portray Mr Amaral and the PJ as stupid that is your right but if you keep writing nonsense I will challenge it

      If Ros wishes to delete any post of mine I respect her decision and will continue to read her blog but 'trolling' really, is that the best you can do?

      Delete
    4. Perhaps an interesting quotation from 'madeleine' by Kate McCann:

      “The police and judiciary in the country where a crime has been committed have primacy in any investigation. If interviews need to be conducted or lines of inquiry followed in another country, they request such help under mutual legal assistance treaties and protocols, and results are sent back to them. The Portuguese police were apparently reluctant early on to accept any help beyond this from their counterparts in the UK. However, in addition to the Leicestershire FLOs, they did permit forensic psychologists from CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and an analyst from the National Policing Improvements Agency to come to Praia da Luz the following week. Even that may have been unprecedented: we understood this was the first time the Portuguese authorities had ever allowed any foreign force into the country to assist in an investigation. In such a situation, an element of pride is bound to come into play, and the relationship always seemed quite tricky. It never amounted to an effective pooling of information, ideas or intelligence.”

      Delete
  37. The question is, of course, why?

    R

    ReplyDelete
  38. I've been looking through other websites and see that the McCanns have on their Facebook page that their "Fund" is a charity, much to the disgust of many of their readers. Apparently some have contacted the OFT to complain about this status as their Facebook page said they didn't have many options to go for when they registered, hmmm, so they went for the "charity" option knowing full well they had no charity status from originally setting up their "Fund"!! Make of that what you will, their audacity knows no bounds. All I can say is they must be desperate for funds if they are now saying they are a "charity". I suppose every penny counts when you've got a bill of £hundreds of thousands to pay off.

    This is the link I found (Ros pls delete if not appropriate):

    https://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-mccanns-fraudulent-fund-and-note-of.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  39. Laughable you think the sudden media coverage on trolling is due to Kate & Gerry agenda you're so wrong . You have no clue as to what is really going on. Maybe you should remove this page as you risk looking very foolish.

    Why don't the Antis & Pros just stop trolling each other and get a life.

    Both sides lost the moral high ground along time ago. You all use a missing child to point score. You're all as bad as each other. This McCann Madness is coming to an end ......


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 19.01

      You mean that Madeleine has been found?

      Or has SY given up as they can't be bothered to go through all the witness statements and look at all the discrepancies.

      What about the PJ? Have they been told to shut up although the Portuguese court said that the McCanns haven't been cleared because KM wouldn't answer the 48 questions and their friends wouldn't do a reconstruction?

      What is it? Are the McCanns going to be let off free because they hide some huge secret, what about poor Madeleine? You remember Madeleine, the one that went missing, who has made £millions for her parents.

      No, we don't use a missing child to point score but the McCanns seem to use their missing child to make themselves £££££ and their hangers on. How much has Clarence Mitchell made, how much have all their lawyers made who tried to bring down GA, with no remorse for his or his families well being.

      I would say the McCanns have used Madeleine for point scoring for the past 10 years and have hidden behind her "abduction", although the dogs say differently. Have you forgotten about Eddie & Keela, they won't go away you know, no matter how much the McCanns supporters try to stifle their findings.

      Delete
    2. @19 :01

      Good points. I hope you final one is right, but i doubt it will be.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous at 19:01

      Let's hope "This McCann Madness is coming to an end".

      3 October 2014

      http://news.sky.com/story/gerry-mccann-says-make-example-of-web-trolls-10387676

      'Mr McCann said he had not read the Sweepyface tweets, but he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged.

      We do not have any significant presence on social media or online and I've got grave concerns about our children as they grow up and start to access the internet in an unsupervised capacity."'

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

      10 August, 2007

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-girl-idUKL102275520070810

      '"It's something tangible that could benefit other people and give renewed interest to other missing kids and (is) a medium that younger people use," said Gerry.

      "Tens of millions of people use YouTube. There are over 229 videos of Madeleine on it already, so it's incredible."'

      It's incredible indeed.

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KhZ4nHMJkUA/S2a-7u4l8AI/AAAAAAAABLs/LA2IxHTSE14/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Kate+and+Gerry+at+the+zoo.jpg

      Delete
    4. @19:54

      Are you aware that the McCanns aren't under arrest or out on bail ? What have they be 'let off' with exactly ? Are you aware that both police forces stated that the McCanns were not suspects and that neither believe that they had any involvement in their child's disappearance ? Are you aware of some 'big secret' that the McCanns have and if so, how is it called a secret ? Ae you aware that the money you seem obsessed with wouldn't have been needed had their child not disappeared ? Are you suggesting that they got rid of their daughter to make money ? They have pretty comfortable lives due to their status that everyone goes on about. Are you aware that it wasn't dogs that said their findings weren't substantial enough to catch anyone or solve anything but in fact humans said that ? Are you aware that their findings couldn't be stifled by anyone or any group online but only by a forensics team of experts ? Or are they 'pros' too.Are they corrupt and willing to stake their careers to save two people who buried their child.

      Delete
  40. Christ - this blog has become full of nutters. Of course all welcome by Ros unless......

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anon 20.39

    You tell me. You seem to have a good insight to the McCanns, why does it upset you so much, are you a McCann?

    Yes I am very aware as most people are that the McCanns aren't under arrest or out on bail, are you dodging the findings of the Portuguese Court yet again (and the findings of Eddie & Keela, woof, woof, they won't go away how much you try to blank them out), but you state that both police forces stated that the McCanns were not suspects and that neither believe yada, yada, yada ......

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

    Portuguese Supreme Court judges – who last week ruled against their final appeal over Amaral's 2008 book The Truth of the Lie – have said the lifting of their status as 'arguidos', or formal suspects, and the archiving of the criminal case into Maddie's disappearance did not mean they were innocent.
    The court issued its 76-page ruling on the McCanns' fight against a lower court's decision last April to reverse their 2015 libel win against the former detective.
    The couple were left facing a legal bill and the prospect of being sued by Amaral, who led the initial hunt for Madeleine when she vanished, after being told last Tuesday the Supreme Court had gone against them in a ruling which was not made fully public until Thursday.
    Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.

    But they added: "It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
    "The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
    "There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
    They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
    "However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, in a nutshell, there's no evidence to arrest the parents and there's no evidence of an abduction( apart from a missing child).If they haven't been arrested by now I think that says it all.Just because an abductor didn't leave a a calling card doesn't mean he wasn't there. Why does anyone who thinks that no evidence means no suspects get accused of being a McCann.If that long winded statement by the court mean't anything there would have been an arrest by now.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 25 August 2017 at 01:57

      Morning

      “Or, in a nutshell, there's no evidence to arrest the parents and there's no evidence of an abduction( apart from a missing child).If they haven't been arrested by now I think that says it all.Just because an abductor didn't leave a a calling card doesn't mean he wasn't there. Why does anyone who thinks that no evidence means no suspects get accused of being a McCann.If that long winded statement by the court mean't anything there would have been an arrest by now.”

      In an a nutshell: nonsense.

      T

      Delete
    3. @01:57

      In a nutshell regarding 21:52:

      "it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 25 August 2017 at 10:48

      In a nutshell, bullseye!

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    5. Nonsense ? Why ? I think any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence have been drawn from them not being arrested in ten years, not a ruling by a court.

      Delete
  42. "The tenth anniversary of Madeleine's alleged disappearance was a fanfare of remembrance, an historic event to herald the end of a decade of campaigning. Whatever the future for Operation Grange, the PJ or final justice in the name of Madeleine McCann, the McCanns have reached the end of the road. Not in terms of the law but they have outplayed their game, no more charity runs, auctions, chat shows, or pleas for donations. I seriously doubt the facebook page support group would continue if it's wasn't to counteract negative vibes from other quarters. They are now floundering to save face by these vapid claims of trolling etc - it's almost pathetic to witness the desperation of 2017 compared to the bare-faced confidence displayed in 2007."

    Pure hatred from we know where.

    And more and more of it is coming here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can practically tasts the bitterness in that quote. Strange isn't it, so many who accuse detractors of being trolls for any excuse they can find call the McCanns for complaining about receiving online abuse.

      Delete
  43. @ Anonymous24 August 2017 at 21:52

    Have the Mccanns been arrested for anything?
    Have the Mccanns been charged for any anything?
    Have the Mccanns been taken to Court for anything?
    Have the Mccanns been found guilty of anything?
    Have the Mccanns been sentenced for anything?

    NO.

    "are you a McCann?"

    NO.

    Are you bennett?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 24 August 2017 at 22:30

      “@ Anonymous24 August 2017 at 21:52

      Have the Mccanns been arrested for anything?
      Have the Mccanns been charged for (sic) any anything?
      Have the Mccanns been taken to Court for anything?
      Have the Mccanns been found guilty of anything?
      Have the Mccanns been sentenced for anything?

      NO”

      ‘Presumed innocent’ is not the same as ‘innocent’.

      Think of all the people in the world past and present who would satisfy your above criteria. Is it your view that none of hem committed a crime?

      Is it unreasonable to hold the view that, if mentally competent, the McCanns are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of being part of a conspiracy to pervert he course of justice?

      T

      Delete
    2. I would be interested in your opinion on my 08:31 post, brother Ziggmund, peace be upon you. I know you are reading.

      T

      Delete
    3. re 5 August 2017 at 08:32

      My keyboard’s ‘t’ key is misbehaving.

      T

      Delete
    4. I think the 'T' might well be misbehaving ;) lol

      For goodness sake, don't say that name 3 times 'T', or he may re-appear! Though I hasten to add, I won't publish him if he does.

      I'm surprised none of my enemies have offered him a platform - heaven knows they need some sort of attraction, lol. I can't say I'd rush to read him, but he does seem to have a following, of sorts!

      Delete
    5. @ T - this is the last comment I will make on your stupidity:

      "The presumption of innocence is one of the most fundamental tenets of the law. While legal scholars debate how exactly it evolved, most agree that it owes a debt to Magna Carta, which stipulated that “no free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned… or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

      I accuse you of being an absolute failure, a complete imbecile, not funny with your numerous stupid posts, and and someone I would never ever want to have a conversation with.

      I am within my rights to say that opinion.

      Delete
    6. Ouch on behalf of my friend T! I hesitated to publish, and I won't publish anything so abusive again, but T, is pretty mighty with the pen, so I'll let him reply.

      Delete
    7. Just to be awkward, would the magna carta carry any weight in Portugal ?

      Delete
    8. "...someone I would never ever want to have a conversation with", says Anonymous 25 August at 21:02 whilst conversing with T.

      Oh the irony!

      Delete
    9. Hosannah! Zaratosstra! Together again!

      How sweet it is being loved by you! I’m loving it! Oh yes! In the electric heat, hypnotized, I’m coming! Hold on, I’m coming!

      So here I am, in the middle way, having had many years—
      Many years largely wasted, the years of parmi les saints
      Trying to learn to use words, and every attempt
      Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
      Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
      For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
      One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
      Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
      With shabby equipment always deteriorating
      In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
      Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
      By strength and submission, has already been discovered
      Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
      To emulate—but there is no competition—
      There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
      And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
      That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
      For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.

      Isn’t he lovely, our Eli…

      And now, under conditions that seem unpropitious, leaving behind the intolerable wrestle with words and meanings, the I and I might, perhaps, ask our Gracious Hostess to start a Nonsense Unbound blog wherein the I and I would expound the NonSense Mantra with the words the I and I have learnt to get the better of, and wherein the I and I would be at liberty to explicate the irrelevant mysteries of Magna Carta. There would be no competition of course.

      How do you say, Tossy?

      Always reverently yours

      The Sultan of Swinging Nonsense (with Eli, peace be upon him, in tow) ()

      PS I’ve just been advised that comrade Unmentionable, Mady, Russy, Wittgy and several others would love to join in. That’s gonna be fun with Mady banging the piano!!! But whereof I cannot speak, thereof l remain silent if you know what I mean, Tossy. And do speak as you find, my man.

      Delete
  44. I bet you're really delighted that you banned Ziggy, Rosalinda.

    He was literally the only regular contributor with an open mind, who didn't seem to have an agenda (and believe me, that does, certainly, include you).

    Now, you're left with largely a collection of dreamers, do-gooders and directionless forehead-scratchers, whilst by the looks of things you're in clear danger being overrun by the hardcore McCann enforcers and their lynch mob.

    Congratulations on ruining your own blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are back then ziggy. Lol

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 25 August 2017 at 06:02

      “You are back then ziggy. Lol”

      “Lol” or not, the post you refer to is not Ziggmund’s.

      LOL

      T

      Delete
    3. I'm delighted to receive a variety of opinions in my mailbox, something that was fading fast under the reign of Ziggy. He had commandeered my blog and was driving people away with his bombastic, aggressive behaviour.

      This is not a hate blog, though Ziggy was trying to portray it that way. Abuse elicits abuse, and Ziggy with his contempt for myself and my readers and his litany of lies, was doing his best to make it as malevolent as the rest. Effectively, he was censoring my blog, trying to mould it into a vitriolic hate fest.

      He failed. My blog is popular because it is one of the few, or perhaps, it is the only place, where reasonable people can discuss this case without being abused or called a conspiraloon.

      It is the reasonableness of my blog that is the biggest threat both to the McCanns and those who hate them. My blog just doesn't fall into the same category as the forums and the OCD psychos on twitter. There is no libel or abuse here. Jim Gamble has no grounds to 'get me in the dock', not believing an unbelievable story is not a criminal offence.

      And not believing the salacious stories of the conspiracy theorists, doesn't make me part of an establishment cover up. As if, lol, I've been anti establishment since toddlerhood!

      That I have not been taken in by the lies of all sides in this case, irks many. And that I am able to articulate exactly what those lies are, irks them even more. I'm on a journey, with my readers, and we are holding out for the truth, nothing less will do.

      Delete
  45. If Gerry wants the authorities to make an example by punishing an online troll. Perhaps at the same time the same authorities can make an example of parents who leave their kids unattended whilst eating and drinking. As the saying goes people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you should throw stones at the authorities.Or don't you hate them ?

      Delete
  46. Nothing in that post is even close to truth.Bombastic and aggressive behaviour ? I thought you enjoyed that.Or is it only from 'certain' posters ( who agree with you). What were the litany of lies ? Don't you realise that just because someone doesn't see things as you do, it's just a different view, not a lie.Has anyone called you a liar because you claim that there's evidence of someone dying in the McCanns apartment or that Madeleine's blood was found there ? The police say there isn't so that must mean you and anyone who doesn't believe the police are all liars.But you say anyone who reminds everyone of it are liars.Your criticisms are way over the top.Unusual for a blog that isn't a hate blog.What was really driving people away from your blog ? What are all the lies from all sides of the case.Are they all points of view that disagree with you ? You know the truth do you ? The McCanns are liars, pros are liars, lawyers are liars etc etc etc. Anyone who say the McCanns are guilty are 'truthers' are they ? With all that truth you'd expect something would have happened by now wouldn't you. Or does that make us conspiraloons because it looks like a cover up is responsible.Or are the conspiraloons who say the cover up is all to protect the McCanns actually not conspiraloons. You claim you're holding on for the truth. You're holding on hoping the parents get time for what happened to their child whether there's evidence or not.All the 'lols' in the world don't hide your vicious streak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea that there was no blood in the apartment and no evidence of a body having been there, comes from the McCanns, not the police. The Portuguese police files go into great detail about the forensic findings and of course there is a video online of the cadaver and blood dogs in action, alerting in the apartment, to Kate's clothes, Cuddlecat and the hire car.

      The police are not denying any of this, anywhere.

      Gerry said 'the dogs are notoriously unreliable' - no-one else did, and certainly not the police. There are no experts willing to rule out the dog alerts, and it is disingenuous of you to say there are.

      You are in fact lying in your reply to me, by claiming that the police have ruled out the dogs and the forensic evidence. They clearly haven't, because at the time SY were excavating the immediate area around apartment 5A, DCI Redwood said 'Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment'. Where do you think that came from, if not the alerts of the dogs?

      The police have said NOTHING. Like Ziggy, you are making up quotes from the police that simply don't exist. It isn't the police who are lying, little z, it is you.

      I have actually studied many similar cases little z, and non arrest doesn't always equate to innocence. There are actually several cases worldwide of staged child abductions, and the parents remain free. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult, in the case of the Aisenbergs for example, almost 3 decades have gone by.

      For whatever reason, the police herein the UK and Portugal are not prepared to let this one go, or put aside until someone confesses or new evidence comes up. There are two active investigations.

      Delete
    2. ''You are in fact lying in your reply to me,''

      Excellent counter argument Ros.You get accused of being obsessed with calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar with that.By the way, the evidence you insist exists, despite the official statements of the police, would only identify who died if anyone did, it wouldn't identify who caused the death or how it came about.The non-arrests in this case seems pretty much like innocent until proven guilty.What could they find that is new on the McCanns ? Everything is in files or on shelves already. They won't be scrutinising forums or youtube for enlightenment.Then again, they may as well.If nothing else they could enjoy some light relief.

      Incidentally, if the police, be it ours or Portugal's, have so much forensic evidence, why are they asking for more time and funding ? If the evidence existed in 2007 it still exists today. Maybe you could help them understand it.

      Delete
    3. There may not be any experts willing to rule out the dog alerts, but can they find any to rule them in ? If they can it's all over.

      Delete
    4. @ Ros - you have posted before about the blood splatter on the wall and when questioned you referred to a photo with markers on the wall. Perhaps you will give a reference in the files that shows that there was blood in the apartment.

      Delete
    5. And who the blood was from would be good too.

      Delete
    6. You must be new. I don't get links for people - go look yourself - it's all there and very easy to find :)

      Delete
    7. Yeh, I'm not really sure where the line between flattery/sarcasm is being drawn there 22:11. No matter.

      I would imagine they are asking for more time because they are able to conclude the case once and for all, and they are not giving up at the final hurdle. I don't think it bodes at all well for those directly or even indirectly involved. The real perpetrators want the investigation shelved or closed asap, until it is, they are left in limbo.

      Delete
  47. Hi Anonymous@15:57

    I speak for myself on this one, Ros's blog is open to everyone regardless of their political persuasion or views on the McCann case. I have and others on this blog have read the books from both sides and my own conclusion is yes I don't know what happened to Madeleine on that fateful night but the parents actions do leave them open to be questioned. This is by all intents and purposes a criminal investigation, therefore people have a right to express their views especially when taxpayers money is involved. Ziggy by his own admission never read any books covering this case but was quick to belittle anybody who didn't believe the parents version of events. He even called them haters which again I speak for myself, I don't hate the McCanns, I would just like them to answer the questions that should be asked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John10025 August 2017 at 17:13

      Hey John - try reading the files and not the books.

      You have a right to express opinion - just remember that you do not have a right to accuse the Mccanns.

      Delete
    2. Your words are always welcome John, and always wise :)

      Delete
  48. What are the questions you would like to see asked that haven't already been asked ? If the McCanns ever were put on trial for disposing of the body of their child do you think Kate McCann's or Inspector Amaral's books would be presented as evidence in any way, shape or form ? When were they published ? If either had anything in them releveant to a criminal investigation I think someone would have spotted it by now. What's more important to understanding the case, the reports of what happened that are on file and the various statements of people or a book written by a parent or one by the inspector who was investigating it in the first place ? Like many, you are putting a lot of importance on printed words and not enough on what actually happened to the missing child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous25 August 2017 at 19:21

      What?

      Delete
    2. @19:21

      "Like many, you are putting a lot of importance on printed words and not enough on what actually happened to the missing child."

      You are putting way to much importance on your printed words. It adds nothing to our understanding of the case.

      Delete
    3. That doesn't surprise me

      Delete
    4. Err, printed words are all we have! No one knows what happened to the missing child, and as we have seen, trying to create something out of the unknown leads down some pretty murky paths.

      Delete
    5. Agreed. But i was pointing out that the two books mentioned have no significance to the investigation.The files and statements are more important . They're part of any potential legal process .

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 25 August 2017 at 21:15

      Concur.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    7. Anon 00.42

      I think Kate McCann's book could have great significance to the investigation, I haven't read it myself (I wouldn't sully my bookshelves with it) but reading what others have mentioned about the discrepancies in it as to what was said by the Tapas 9 in their witness statements/rogatories there seems to be many versions of what actually happened during that holiday.

      Blacksmith has called in "the longest suicide note in history".

      Delete
  49. "Where SY might struggle, will be their promise to provide the parents with an answer".......SY will not struggle at all, IMO. K&G can simply be told SY have "reviewed" all the various records, have followed up on all possible leads/persons of interest and there is nothing more to add to the original investigation. SY are off the hook, K&G are put back under the spotlight and can express , most insincerely, their gratitude for SY's hard work. Finally Teresa May can close the book and sympathise with K&Gs loss while pointing out they are , and always have been , free to return to Portugal and assist the PJ.
    A man can dream , can't he?

    ReplyDelete
  50. ''A man can dream , can't he?''

    Apparently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 26 August 2017 at 12:37

      :)

      T

      Delete
  51. Anon 25 August 22.32

    @ Ros - you have posted before about the blood splatter on the wall and when questioned you referred to a photo with markers on the wall. Perhaps you will give a reference in the files that shows that there was blood in the apartment.

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

    I will help you with your query although I expect you know already where the information is and how to find it, I'll post the link here so that it doesn't get lost in posts going back a long way and new readers can see it -

    (photos and everything, just to make it easy)

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

    As to who the blood belongs to, that's obviously up to the police forensics to find out not Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 15:54. I'm sure the poster knew where the information was, but it is useful for others that you have posted it.

      The McCanns and their supporters have always denied blood was found in the apartment. It is a very sensitive subject and they are adamant it didn't exist.

      Anyway, again, thank you.

      Delete
    2. If it existed, who did it belong to ? If it was Madeleine, then surely the police would have acted on it whatever the McCanns or their supporters think or demand. That was their job .

      Delete
  52. Yes, i believe Ros was only asked for a link, not a forensics report.

    ReplyDelete