Sunday, 3 September 2017

LATEST NEWS - THE BATTLE BEGINS - McCanns .v. SY

When I wrote my Update the other day with a 'what's happened to Dave Edgar' comment, I wasn't aware that he had given an interview for the Belfast Telegraph.  Apparently, he still very much around and still giving his opinion based on his years of experience as a former RUC police detective.

Madeleine is still alive he claims, based on the solid fact that no body has been found, that apparently trumps not being seen in 10+ years.  And he claims she is being held within 10 to 15 miles of the resort in PDL, either as a sex slave in a dungeon or completely brainwashed as part of a new family.

Whilst blind belief might be an attribute in matters of faith, it is quite bizarre in a former detective.  I don't have first hand experience of real detectives, but I imagine they are a cynical lot, they deal with the dark side of human nature on a daily basis, they know that if kids are not found within the golden hour, there is little hope of them being alive. 

I'm not sure if Dave Edgar is being overly compassionate (and totally unrealistic), or edging to pick up where he left off if the case closes with no result.  At the same time Edgar was being interviewed, Gerry and Kate were also saying that they were going to continue their search with private detectives. 

All this talk of Madeleine being alive and restarting the search, suggests that the parents are not in sync with Operation Grange.  And I very much doubt Dave Edgar is in sync with his former colleagues or indeed any police detective anywhere.  Not just for the nonsense he comes out with but for giving evidence against another detective in a greedy, malicious claim that would enrich the former suspects.  Minions like Edgar astound me, not only for lack of decency and morals, but also because they are too stupid to realise they will be among the first thrown under the bus.

The McCanns and their faithful yes-man, are pre-empting any announcement by Scotland Yard by saying they are going to continue looking for a live child.  This suggests the police are not.  Actually, I don't think Operation Grange have been looking for a live child for quite some time.  A big clue was the heavy plant and digging equipment they used in PDL a couple of years ago.  And I think the chances of them announcing this month that they believe Madeleine is alive and findable, but they are giving up anyway, is slim to remote. 

Of course talk of a new search could just as easily be a means to protect the money that remains in the Fund.  We still do not know how much is owed in legal fees in Lisbon - I'm still betting it is a record amount - nor how the parents are going to pay them.  Are there no leakers who could give even a ball park figure?

154 comments:

  1. It is what Edgar said in 2009

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/madeleine-mccann-is-in-a-secret-lair-28494565.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is 13:39, but the Belfast Telegraph article is dated 28.08.17 - and Madeleine is referred to as being 14 years old. Clearly his views haven't changed in 7 years.

      Delete
    2. A lot of people have views that have not changed in 7 years!

      Delete
  2. No idea why you'd dedicate any time or give any space to what Edgar says. He sounds more deluded than bloggers and that's saying something. It doesn't matter if detectives are a cynical lot o not, they all know that making up silly scenarios with nothing to give as evidnce is just wrong.Selling it to papers is par for the course in this case and typical of the feeding frenzies the mob require.

    ''The McCanns and their faithful yes-man, are pre-empting any announcement by Scotland Yard by saying they are going to continue looking for a live child. This suggests the police are not''

    Somehow you've managed to take what some so-called ex-detective has dreamed up and managed to use that against the McCanns. Not exactly a shock.But just because some clown with not a shred of evidence says Madeleine's alive doesn't mean a thing. So I wouldn't give up hope yet, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm surprised you call him a so called detective and a clown, sounds as though there has been a parting of the ways between the McCanns and Edgar 13:57 - will they be looking for new private detectives? Aren't they afraid David Edgar might flip?

      No-one hopes Madleine is dead 13:57, and being realistic doesn't equate to hate. Dave Edgar and all those claiming Madeleine is alive aren't doing the parents any favours. The idea that Madeleine is being held in circumstances similar to Jaycee Duggard is the stuff of nightmares. How can that make them, or anyone, feel better?

      Delete
    2. I doubt Edgar was saying anything to make anyone feel better. It's more likely he had nothing new to add so came up with a great headline maker.It feeds in to the darker theories of certain parties. It makes for great, if not disturbing, imagery and makes those after a salacious movie type of theme get excited. In real terms he might as well have said she was on the moon. He had as much evidence for that.Somebody should have asked him why he thought what he did and what it was based on.If he can't answer those questions he's just another tabloid star like Harrison.

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 17:15

      "sounds as though there has been a parting of the ways between the McCanns and Edgar"
      ------------------------------------

      What sounds have you heard that suggests that Ros?

      Delete
    4. I was referring to the ults aimed at Dave Edgar in the post I was responding to 19:08. The poster at 13:57 sounds like a McCann supporter, yet he/she is dissing Edgar.

      Delete
    5. 'A tabloid star like Harrison' - whatever do you mean 18:03?

      Delete
    6. I see no reason not to dis Edgar unless he can elaborate on his theories.

      Delete
  3. He is on the payroll what would you expect him to say

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ros says: "We still do not know how much is owed in legal fees in Lisbon - I'm still betting it is a record amount - nor how the parents are going to pay them. Are there no leakers who could give even a ball park figure?"
    ----------------------------------------------

    I am pretty certain that if the Mccanns still owed money then there would have been a lot of complaints from the Portuguese posters who are in the know.

    Still no news on how much amaral has paid to charity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can someone enlighten me with regard to the state of the McCanns' finances and the disappearance of their daughter ? The size of their debt has nothing whatsoever to do with the fate of their child.What does it matter if they owe thousands or nothing at all. I thought the primary concern of the blog, like the other blogs, was justice for Madeleine or her return rather than gloating over any more difficulty the McCanns might be facing.

      Delete
    2. You can't really separate money from this case 18:10, arguably, the Madeleine Fund received more money than anything similar that has gone before, Gerry and Kate received millions in public donations, ergo it will always be of public interest.

      In the McCann .v. Goncalo Amaral trials, my sympathies have always been with the former detective. Gerry and Kate were out to ruin him, they wanted to destroy his life and for many years they did. Had they won the outrageous financial compensation they were claiming, they would have called press conferences and seized the front pages. Just as they did when they succeeded in getting his book banned. Goncalo isn't celebrating his victory, but I'm sure many would agree, he has ever right to.

      Some might say the McCanns used their great fortune to persecute the cop who searched for their daughter, and some might say, they used their great fortune to stay out of jail.

      They fought their battles against Goncalo Amaral in the public arena, giving press conferences at every opportunity. Goncalo was fighting too, to clear his name, he was also fighting to hang onto his family home and all his future earnings!

      Thus far Gerry and Kate have used the very pricey services of Carter Ruck to silence all and every negative story about them. Even after Goncalo Amaral's clear and final victory in the Lisbon Court, Gerry and Kate were still threating UK publishers and distributors as though they were the victors. I don't know how they can continue this ban on GA's book in the UK without Carter Ruck.

      The money side won't go away 18:10, at some time the final figure for costs will become public. Gerry promised complete transparency 18:10, those who donated and are perhaps still donating, are entitled to know if their money is going into a bottomless legal debt.

      Delete
    3. 16:15 - so you assume the McCanns have settled the legal fees? Just like that eh? Four teams of lawyers over 8/9 years (£200 to £500 per hour), Court fees, witnesses expenses (including experts), that would come to a pretty hefty sum. A lot more than the £700k+ that remains in the Fund. Are you suggesting someone has paid it for them?

      Why are the McCanns still watching what Goncalo Amaral does with his money - they are not getting their mitts on it.

      Delete
    4. why watch the McCanns and theirs

      Delete
    5. @ Ros 00:13

      Why has there not been a peep from the amaral defence fund or the amaral supporters in Portugal about this massive travesty?

      Are you not in touch with any of them? Are you not in the loop Ros? Are you just making things up to knock the Mccanns? Have you ever been right about anything?

      Why don't you contact amaral and ask him - he certainly doesn't seem to be complaining about anything?

      Delete
    6. 09:56. 'Why has there not been a peep from Amaral camp.....?' Because they have class and integrity.

      No, I'm not in the loop, nor have I ever claimed to be. I muse. You call it 'knocking the McCanns', I call it challenging the McCanns' lies. It irks me that they only allow their version of 'truth' to be told in the UK. They want the freedom to smear and defame others, whilst denying others the right to reply. That offends me on every level.

      I'm not an investigative journalist 09:56, nor do I claim to be. If you haven't noticed by now, my blog is entirely different to those that 'investigate' - and that, I think is it's appeal.

      I simply do not have that 'workshop of filthy creation'* mentality 09:56. No disrespect to those that do (the sane ones), because WOFC mentality has brought us all our scientific and technological advances. Had the world been dependent on those who can't stick with it, we would be ruled by dinosaurs or the more tenacious apes.

      And of course, there are those who keep the world turning. I can't remember exactly, but didn't the good lord during his Sermon on the Mount give a special mention to the pen pushers, filing clerks and jobsworths? Imagine the insanity in this world if boxes weren't ticked!

      I'm delighted Goncalo Amaral has had his Freedoms returned to him. He has been exonerated, he has cleared his name, now, I suspect, is a time for reflection. I would be honoured to speak to him and shake his hand. Have I ever been right about anything? you ask. Yes, I was right about Goncalo Amaral.



      *Frankenstein, Mary Shelley

      Delete
    7. Anon 09.56

      Amaral keeps himself to himself, he has no need to court publicity or give interviews, like the McCanns who have to keep courting the media with ridiculous stories at every anniversary of Madeleine's "disappearance". As GA said years ago "justice works in silence". If he hasn't received any costs from the McCanns I'm sure it won't pass him by but he won't publicise the fact.

      The McCanns took everything away from G Amaral in their sheer hate for him, they knew he was a danger to them and their "version of the truth", they went full out to hurt him as they despised him so much for seeing right through them. He was something they'd never encountered before as everyone else bowed down to them and believed every word they said, he was a thorn in their side. Kate even said she forgave Madeleine's "abductor", how sick in the head can you be to say that if your daughter is in the hands of pedophiles, but of course can be said if you know what happened to your daughter and the only person who is a danger to you is the police officer investigating her disappearance.

      Delete
    8. My post of 15.38

      Oops, 2nd line should have read:

      "not like the McCanns who have to keep courting the media...."

      Delete
  5. The meaning of the word "SEARCH", to look somewhere carefully in order to find something. Source, oxford dictionary



    Heres what makes me mad, its reading that the Mccanns or anyone else are going to continue the "Search". Let me make this clear, and please feel free to point out if im wrong, but can anyone name me just ONE, yes ONE person who is actively looking for MBM !!!

    As far as I can see, once the good people of PDL + PJ and the holidaymakers there at the time stopped their initial search back in May 2007 there has been not one single person that I have heard of who is looking for MBM. As you say Ros, when Redwood went there he was not looking for a live Madeleine and he also said that she may not have been alive when she left the apartment.

    This "search" is the most bogus thing I have heard in my life, no one is searching for MBM, not the police, nor private detectives and not the pros on twitter and least of all the parents. If any of the above were "searching" then you can be sure we would ALL know about it via the MSM.

    Now, it may be possible that they mean they are searching for what happened to her, and if that is the case then I doubt very much that people would give money to the Mccanns limited company. People gave in the belief that they were helping the Mccanns be able to AFFORD FINANCIALLY to stay in Porugal and PHYSICALLY SEARCH themselves for as long as possible. No one gives money to find out what HAPPENED to someone elses child, ONLY to help find the child at the immediate time of going missing.

    I have said this many times, this case will end with NO ending. No one will be charged and no child will be found, and most importantly, NO EXPLANATION WILL BE GIVEN !! You may think that you deserve or are even owed an explanation after 10 years and £12 million pounds but this does not mean that you will get one. If the people who make the decisions decide that we dont need to know what they know, then it will be so. It does not take 10 years and £12 million + to solve what would appear to be a relatively simple case. Im with G Amaral about what happened to Madeleine, and as he is MBM`s biggest fan, and even he is not searching, I think that tells us ALL we need to know!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '' It does not take 10 years and £12 million + to solve what would appear to be a relatively simple case. Im with G Amaral about what happened to Madeleine''

      Then it can't be 'relatively simple' can it ? Just what issues are 'complex' we don't know. But with so many politicians and intel agents involved it's safe to say it's a bit more serious than a dispute over fingerprints.Let's not forget, Amaral has his theories or hypotheses or whichever you want to call them as he did when he was investigating the case, or coordinating it.Now we have Dave Edgar with his.They have an equal amount of hard evidence-ie-none- to back themselves up. So of the hundreds of residents, SY, PJ, Private eyes, Amaral and Edgar who have at some point actively 'searched' , nobody's cracked anything in this relatively simple case. It's only simple if you ignore the lack of evidence, the behaviour of politicians and rely on 'gut instinct' from online debates.

      Delete
    2. Please let me know WHERE Edgar and the private paid detectives "Searched". THANKS

      Delete
    3. There is hard evidence that Madeleine died that week -
      Dr Amaral's investigation - and that her body will never be found ('find the body and prove we killed her'). I presume this would have been known pretty early on by police and the establishment. I think it might have taken a bit of time to establish how she died and what happened to the body but again only months rather than years in my opinion. I suspect the case could have been sewn up in one or two years maximum. But there is obviously a can of worms or several behind it. One can only speculate what they might be but I would suggest paedophilia (as suggested by TM themselves - why would they suggest this exactly?) and more besides - COMARE, maybe medical experimentation plus perhaps some dodgy financial deals within the NHS (privatisation by stealth et al). I do believe that the McCanns and their friends were patsies in a much bigger picture. But, irrespective of all this, I think this case demonstrates a level of police corruption that is right off the scale. Yes, this must come from the higher echelons. I suppose it has to be put right up there with all the other police scandals that have erupted over the decades. But why should the tax-payer foot the bill for all this nonsense when there are so many other pressing issues. Anyone with half a brain cell can work out that Madeleine McCann is dead. Her parents know it. The police know it. The state know it. So STOP THE CHARADE and stop wasting tax-payers money.

      Delete
    4. Err, where do you get the idea Goncalo Amaral AND his team had no evidence to back up their theory? They had the alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs, the massive inconsistencies in the groups' statements, and the only sighting of note, that of the Smith family.

      How can you compare the above to Dave Edgar's, 'and they all lived happily every after' fairy tale?

      As for 'there will never be any explanation' (no need to shout), I always think it rather silly to proclamations, there's no way to back down if they go belly up.

      Delete
    5. ''There is hard evidence that Madeleine died that week''

      So why are so many police still looking for a missing kid ?

      '' I would suggest paedophilia (as suggested by TM themselves - why would they suggest this exactly?) and more besides - COMARE, maybe medical experimentation ''

      How come ?
      this case demonstrates a level of police corruption that is right off the scale.''

      So they know about the paedophilia and / or medical experiments ?

      ''Anyone with half a brain cell can work out that Madeleine McCann is dead''

      How ?
      ''

      ''

      Delete
    6. All that evidence would surely be enough to convict their suspect or suspects . Would have been a lot cheaper to tax payers too .

      Delete
    7. I see ziggysawdust is back ros

      Delete
    8. @02:14

      He never left.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 01:01

      "There is hard evidence that Madeleine died that week"

      'So why are so many police still looking for a missing kid ?'

      They're not. Don't be so ingenuous (or stupid).

      "Anyone with half a brain cell can work out that Madeleine McCann is dead"

      'How?'

      Asking the question means you're obviously short half a brain cell.

      Delete
    10. ''They're not. Don't be so ingenuous (or stupid).''

      So what are they looking for

      Delete
    11. Anonymous 4 September 2017 at 14:01

      :)

      T

      Delete
    12. Anon 15.07

      So what are they looking for

      - - - - - - - - -

      Her body?

      Is it that hard to comprehend. Why do you think the police were digging up the ground around the apartment in Portugal, although I expect you know that already. You sound very cold and hard hearted, what about Madeleine, don't you have any feelings for her, I'm sure you know full well that the police were looking for her body. How can you be so disinterested, or is it just a job to you to disrupt forums that mention the "death" word?

      Delete
    13. An exit strategy.

      Delete
    14. I believe the police said they still hold out hope of Madeleine being returned. I don't think they mean't returned in a box. And you call others cold and hard hearted.

      The exit strategy makes more sense.

      Delete
  6. From everything I have read the Mccanns and OG have always had a good relationship - why should it become a battle?

    The Mccanns announced months and months ago that they would continue to try and find out what happened to Madeleine if OG closed down (i.e. it becomes a cold case for the Police).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, not really sure how a family can have a good relationship with a police task force who are essentially investigating them. The constant police presence must be stifling.

      The disappearance of Madeleine is not a cold case 18:14, two police forces have live investigations. This case hasn't been left to go cold, the police haven't given up on it, and after all the extensions and requests for more funds, it doesn't look as though that is their intention.

      Delete
    2. Didn't OG say that the parents were not suspects?

      Delete
    3. Anon 12.41

      Duh, I don't think OG are going to say that the parents are suspects if they are under investigation, really? What else could they say.

      The McCanns are covered up to their eyeballs with the most expensive lawyers in the UK (God knows who's paying for them), if not lawyers their very well off friends, so how can any police force say, yes, the McCanns are under suspicion. The McCanns' lawyers/rich friends will be out of their lairs within a second of anything being suggested, don't forget it's all about the McCanns and their arses being covered, Madeleine was forgotten a long, long time ago.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4 September 2017 at 13:57
      Anon 12.41

      ''Duh, I don't think OG are going to say that the parents are suspects if they are under investigation, really? What else could they say.''

      So that's what it is. The police were lying (again).After ten years and all that lolly they could always say 'you're under arrest'.

      Delete
    5. Anon 13.57 - Duh, if the police considered the McCanns as suspects then they would never have made a statement saying that they weren't suspects!!!

      Delete
    6. Anon 1.25

      Are you deliberately being stupid or were you born that way. You obviously think that people under suspicion would be told by the police that they were "suspects". What planet do you live on besides the McCanns planet where you're told to say what and when.

      Delete
    7. Anon 15.25

      You and your friend at 15.05 can mock all you like. We're talking about the possible death of a 3 year old child but you all seem to see it as some sort of joke.

      Well, it isn't a joke, either Madeleine was "abducted" or she died in the McCanns' apartment, I would go with the latter, seeing as the evidence of highly respected dogs scented cadaver and blood, blood spattered up the walls of the apartment and the back of the sofa. I doubt very much that blood spatters like that would come from a nose bleed that Gerry McCann nonchalantly said that "Madeleine may have had a nose bleed".

      God help Madeleine if you're all as nonchalant as the McCanns about a three year old child who has "disappeared". I hope your wages, if you're getting any to disrupt forums, are worth it.

      Delete
    8. ''blood spattered up the walls of the apartment ''

      Are you serious lol

      Delete
    9. Anon 22.12

      Yes, I'm very serious, have a look at these photos (police photos by the way, you do know who police are don't you?) then have a good laugh with regard to a child who went "mysteriously" missing from apartment 5a:

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

      Are you laughing now???? lol

      Delete
    10. your original quote :

      ''blood spattered up the walls of the apartment ''

      and what you provided in way of a source :

      ''they proceeded to collect [recover] the floor tiles where the dogs used in the activity indicated [alerted to] the possible existence of blood traces along with the position of a cadaver in that location.Those tiles were lifted from the floor, in a way to preserve the possible traces ''

      Possible traces.Floor. As opposed to the dramatic '' blood splattered up the walls of the apartment''

      Of course I'm laughing.

      Delete
  7. addition to my previous post:

    From 02/09/2015

    "Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said today: “They realise it cannot go on forever.”

    He added: “Kate and Gerry remain incredibly grateful to the Met Police for their continuing work and effort and are grateful to everyone who continues to make Operation Grange possible.

    “The Government and police make the decision about funding, it is not Kate and Gerry’s role.”
    He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The passive, non complaining, acceptance by Gerry and Kate's of OG's decision to close the search for Madeleine flies in the face of logic and reasoning. Especially if they believe their daughter is still alive, and they clearly do, because they are already planning to hire new private detectives.

      If I remember rightly, Operation Grange was kept open with a request for £80k+, ergo if the McCanns have £700k+ in the Search Fund, why don't they offer that to Operation Grange. Surely the detectives and resources of SY would be far more effective than private detectives?

      One might ask Clarence Mitchell, what are Kate and Gerry incredibly grateful for? Madeleine hasn't been found, no abductor has been arrested and Operation Grange haven't cleared them. If anything, the support for Gerry and Kate among the public has dropped dramatically since Operation Grange began. Fewer people than ever believe the abduction story. For those arguing OG have an agenda to 'cover up', they are failing miserably.

      Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate we have been through a similar scenario before. That is, during the summer of 2007, they told us repeatedly in interviews that they had a great relationship with the PJ and they weren't under suspicion. They also told us, again and again, that the police were looking for a live child. No-one believes Clarence at the best of times, so I think like all his other pronouncements, it will fall on stony ground. I wonder if Clarence is still on a retainer, or if he charges set amounts, every time he puts on his spokesman hat? (fwiw, that was a muse, lol).

      Delete
  8. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/shafilea-ahmeds-parents-lied-not-13548411.amp

    "We looked at her bank accounts, her friends, no one had seen her. Her boyfriends. There was no sign of her, there was no trace," David Edgar, a former detective inspector, tells the programme.

    "We were actively considering they [the parents] had dumped their daughter somewhere. They were not very convincing, there were lots of discrepancies in their version of events."

    He added: "We just needed one thing, that's all we needed. All the rest of the building blocks were in place."

    (David Edgar = Dave Edgar of 'search for Madeleine' fame).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''They were not very convincing, there were lots of discrepancies in their version of events."

      ''"We were actively considering they [the parents] had dumped their daughter somewhere. ''

      Which all eventually led Inspector Clueless to conclude she'd been 'dumped' into the cellar /basement of a loon who has since held her captive there ever since.

      Delete
    2. I think you're missing the point. The quotes are the retrospective comments of Dave Edgar regarding the 2003 case of Shafilea Ahmed. The article goes on:

      "When Shafilea's body was washed up in the Lake District following floods in the Lake District they were questioned again, held on police bail on suspicion of kidnapping."

      You are mistakenly proceeding to Edgar's 'conclusion' as to the fate of Madeleine McCann.

      But therein lies the question. How does a former DI who claims to have 'sussed' the parents of Shafilea Ahmed fail so miserably in dealing with the inconsistencies attaching to the McCann case(remember the Tanner incident)?

      The answer is simple and obvious - it's what he was paid to do.

      Delete
  9. @ Anonymous2 September 2017 at 10:29

    Perhaps you can provide a comprehensive list of bennett's achievements in the Mccann case?

    Repeated from the previous blog because I am fascinated to hear the answer from bennett supporters (or even from bennett himself - oh - he is in self imposed Mccann exile)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A better question would be can any one list OG achievements with nigh on £12 million of resources disposed of.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 3 September 2017 at 20:58

      “@ Anonymous2 September 2017 at 10:29

      Perhaps you can provide a comprehensive list of bennett's achievements in the Mccann case?”

      “…I am fascinated to hear the answer from bennett supporters…”

      I am also fascinated.

      T

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 3 September 2017 at 21:25

      You are free to ask ‘better’ questions.

      “any one” (of) ≠ anyone

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    4. Anonymous3 September 2017 at 21:25

      ''A better question would be can any one list OG achievements with nigh on £12 million of resources disposed of''

      I'm more fascinated by that question. Bennett's just a member of the public.

      Delete
    5. Simples:Mark Rowley assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police April 2017:in answer to the question is she still alive responded with " We have to keep an open mind, it is a missing person enquiry, we don’t have that definitive evidence either way".

      Delete
    6. @ 21:25 - it is a different question - not necessarily a better question.

      @ 23:52 - you may be fascinated by some things - I am fascinated by others.

      I notice you both haven't given any achievements of bennett in the Mccann case.

      Delete
    7. That's a list of achievements?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 4 September 2017 at 10:00

      Heavens!

      “@ 21:25 - it is a different question - not necessarily a better question.

      @ 23:52 - you may be fascinated by some things - I am fascinated by others.

      I notice you both haven't given any achievements of bennett in the Mccann case.”

      Amazing! I found myself thinking along the same lines!

      T:)

      Delete
    9. I'm the one who posted at 21:25,
      I couldn't care less about Bennett,Textusa,cmomm,mmm,et al, the Home Office who fund OG is my interest being a taxpayer,but what is of note despite all their monies they haven't yet come with any thing to say Tavares De Almeida's theory is a load of bull.

      Delete
    10. The thing is 08:57, do you believe Mark Rowley's statement? OG have been investigating this case for 6 years now, do you really think they are as clueless as they were in 2011? There is no definitive EVIDENCE he says, which sounds about right given the length of time spent, but I'm sure there are plenty of clues.

      I tend to think the police have some sort of legal equivalent of artistic licence, that is they are not bound to give truthful statements to the media. That would make sense because it would be ridiculous to give suspects an honest account of how their investigation was going. I suspect a lot of cat and mouse games are going on.

      Delete
    11. If Rowley can't give a truthful account why give one at all,so yes I believe him.

      Delete
  10. With re: CM's statement, why would the McCanns have a need to transfer money into a special account to find Madeleine? The money came from the good British public, therefore it's not theirs to do as they please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whose is it then ?

      Delete
    2. @ John 23:34

      So report them to the Police for fraud.

      Delete
    3. Anon 06.17

      It was money made off the back of their "missing" daughter due to neglect, whether she was abducted or died following an accident in the apartment.

      They've used most of the money to cover their backs and to uphold their "reputations" although their reputations went down the plughole 10 years ago. They've paid countless lawyers to hide behind and to mask any wrong doing on their behalf with all the excuses they come up with time and time again to distance themselves from whatever happened to Madeleine.

      They paid £500,000 to Bell Pottinger to keep them on the front pages of all the newspapers for a year, then went bleating to the Leveson inquiry that their privacy had been encroached upon as if they were the victims.

      There is only one victim and that is Madeleine - the cash cow that hasn't stopped giving for 10 years.

      Delete
    4. Anon 10.02

      "So report them to the Police for fraud."

      Well, if Madeleine died in the apartment (an indication of cadaver was found by the dog) then it would be fraud if the McCanns know exactly how Madeleine died and hid her body.

      Having substantial evidence is another matter although people have been charged for murder without a body in the past, although it may be different in Portuguese law.

      There is also the time taken to look into the "Fund", if it is found to be fraudulent. It can take years to "follow the money" as to where it was deposited and in which countries to avoid tax etc. If the dogs did their job correctly (don't forget they were brought in by the British police) then they indicated that someone died in apartment 5a.

      Delete
    5. ''Well, if Madeleine died in the apartment (an indication of cadaver was found by the dog) then it would be fraud if the McCanns know exactly how Madeleine died and hid her body.''

      If she died and if the parents knew.If the cadaver odour was damning it would have been evidence.

      As far as I know, a conviction of murder can still take place without a body in most countries.But the circumstantial evidence has to be pretty strong to compensate for the lack of a body.

      If the fund is found to be fraudulent and the UK government made substantial deposits into it as well as the public, then they too are guilty. I doubt that the fund Cameron seemed so proud to start and the media coverage of the 'limited company' are signs of under the table dodgy dealings.Implying tax evasion is libelous, free speech or not.

      '' If the dogs did their job correctly (don't forget they were brought in by the British police) then they indicated that someone died in apartment 5a.''

      I'm sure that the dogs always did their job correctly.They're not people so have no agenda.So if they found a death it was the police who failed in their duty.Or chose not to believe them, which amounts to the same thing. The question would then be why they chose that course of inaction.


      Delete
    6. Anon 18.49

      "If she died and if the parents knew. If the cadaver odour was damning it would have been evidence"

      The cadaver odour was an indication that a body had been in the apartment, it is part of the evidence but obviously more substantial facts would need to be found to back that up, although the McCanns really didn't seem that bothered as per GM's response to a question from a TV interviewer about the findings of the dogs "ask the dogs Sandra". Kate McCann didn't seem bothered either, stating in her book that she felt "relaxed" after watching a video of the dog alerting to cadaver odour. I would imagine the natural response to any parent whose child had gone missing would be one of horror that cadaver odour had been detected in their apartment, indicating that their child may have died.

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

      "If the fund is found to be fraudulent and the UK government made substantial deposits into it as well as the public, then they too are guilty. I doubt that the fund Cameron seemed so proud to start and the media coverage of the 'limited company' are signs of under the table dodgy dealings.Implying tax evasion is libelous, free speech or not."

      Are you not aware that the money given to the search for Madeleine by the government goes to SY for investigating Madeleine's disappearance, not the McCanns. The McCanns "Fund" is for their own use, to do with whatever they want to do with it, whether to buy a house or building equipment as mentioned by Tracey Kandohla in a recent newspaper article. Good grief where have you been for the past 10 years, have you just been employed in the last month or so to answer questions on forums with no idea of what is going on with the disappearance of Madeleine, it seems so. What an insult to Madeleine, it truly is horrendous that the poor kid's disappearance is now being overlooked by morons who haven't got a clue what is going on. I thought the depths had been plumbed, but obviously they go deeper now. I would suggest you get yourself up to speed on Madeleine's disappearance before you insult her any further.

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

      "I'm sure that the dogs always did their job correctly.They're not people so have no agenda.So if they found a death it was the police who failed in their duty.Or chose not to believe them, which amounts to the same thing. The question would then be why they chose that course of inaction"

      I suggest you read my previous paragraph with regard to insulting Madeleine, I doubt that any police would ignore the scent of death and therefore fail in their duty. We don't know what course of action the police have chosen so far, the investigation is still ongoing by the Portuguese Police and SY, or are you not aware of that either seeing you don't seem to know much about what's been going on for the past 10 years.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous4 September 2017 at 13:21


      ''They've used most of the money to cover their backs and to uphold their "reputations" although their reputations went down the plughole 10 years ago.''

      So they couldn't have spent it on that then. What are they 'covering their backs' from ? Is that related to their reputation ? It's only bad online.
      I think I can name two other victims for you. Truth and justice.

      Delete
    8. Anon 21.59

      The McCanns have spent £££££ on their own reputations by hiring very expensive lawyers to get them out of the hole they dug for themselves, they think they've covered all angles with regard to their reputations, i.e. bleating to the Leveson Inquiry about the intrusion on their private lives, they think they are loved by everyone and anyone who disputes the fact that Madeleine was "abducted" are haters and despise them.

      Unfortunately the McCanns have no concept of self awareness, which has been very apparent for the past 10 years, they live in their own bubble only thinking about themselves, the twins seem to have been forgotten as if they don't even exist and the McCanns can't see the harm they're actually doing to them - again no self awareness of repercussions for the family - it's only K & G that matter. God help the twins, because they are the ones who will suffer for many years to come but unfortunately their parents are too selfish to even consider them - "I couldn't make love to Gerry" for example, bugger Madeleine, as long as everyone knows that KM couldn't make love to Gerry, eeewwwwww, yuck, yuck. I'm sure most of the population didn't want to know that or didn't f*cking care!!!!

      I hate to think what is being said behind the twins' back when they meet any parents of their friends who have read KM's book, "I couldn't make love to Gerry", seemed more important than actually finding Madeleine. God, how embarrassing for the twins to have to live that down, there you go, K & G again have no concept of awareness of anyone else's torture, as with Goncalo Amaral, they took everything away from him, his living, his home, his family. He ended up with nothing, and what have the McCanns got - £millions in the bank for now, just for "losing" their daughter under “dodgy” circumstances.

      Delete
    9. ''10 years, they live in their own bubble only thinking about themselves, the twins seem to have been forgotten ''

      Are you expecting the McCanns to publish a day to day diary of their private lives and details of their twins ? They're not mad. If the rest of that little manic rant held water their 'little bubble' would have barred windows.

      Delete
    10. There appear to be shades of Ziggy in that post 21:26, especially with regard to calling those who are less familiar with the details of this case, morons.

      Whilst some of us may have been gripped by this case from the beginning, there are many who are new to it, or looking at it again from a different perspective. I always cringed in the forums at the way in which the 'old hands' patronised and scolded the newcomers, so please don't do it here, it appals me. Everyone is welcome, every question is valid and everyone should be treated with respect.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 5 September 2017 at 11:01

      “There appear to be shades of…”

      You meant, no doubt, ‘shades of comrade Unmentionable in heavy impasto’…? Yes, dear?

      T:)

      Delete
    12. Anonymous 5 September 2017 at 02:08

      “They're not mad.”

      You know that, do you? Well, if you insist…

      Though they would have been had they left their three little ones unattended as alleged AFAIC.

      T

      Delete
  11. Kate McCann ('madeleine'):

    "Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes."

    Without payment?

    ReplyDelete
  12. They represented them for 10 without payment ..........ah rite that's sounds like something they would do

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carter Ruck didn't work for nothing in the McCanns legal actions against Tony Bennett, their costs amounted to £360k+, which then became payable by TB, but for some reason, a large chunk was written off.

      I don't imagine Carter Ruck let TB off those costs, and suing Bennett, as vile as he is, is not the kind of charitable act performed by high priced lawyers. So who paid?

      Delete
  13. Ros, earlier you posted that the McCanns had succeeded in getting Amaral's book banned - absolute tosh!! Let me repost a comment I made in an earlier posting regarding the publishing of Amaral's book in the UK: -

    "the reason that publishers will not publish Amaral's book in the UK is because libel laws in the UK are much more protective of the subject of the written material. In the UK, proof would be required by any court to back up Amaral's claims and, because there is no such proof, whoever published his book would be likely to be sued for a considerable amount of money. The Portuguese libel laws are much softer and focus more on the individual's freedom to write what they want about a subject than the subject's rights to privacy or the requirement to back up allegations with actual proof. In other words, if I wanted to write a book that alleged that the Queen of England had arranged for the contract killing of a love child produced from a one night stand with Saddam Hussein, then I'd be wise to publish that book in Portugal rather than in the UK.
    Consequently, if you want to make money out of publishing defamatory material that doesn't have to be proven, then you choose a country with soft libel laws to do it in."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense 12:36, if that were true there would be no 'Real Crime' sections in libraries and bookshops.

      Goncalo Amaral puts forward a THEORY, as do most of those write in the real crime genre. There is nothing unlawful or illegal in having a theory, even Gerry acknowledged that.

      I suppose the biggest difference between all those accused by authors, is the McCanns have Carter Ruck. They have the cash to sue.

      If you wrote a book with such a pathetic plot about the Queen, I doubt it would get any readers, and do you really think the Queen could be arsed to sue you? lol. And besides, 'the Queen' has appeared in many genres, including a Naked Gun movie.

      Even in this country 12:36, the McCanns still hit the 'theory' wall. And you still hit the fact that Portuguese police files correspond with Goncalo Amaral's theory.

      Kate McCann's book 'Madeleine' is far more libellous and defamatory, and she is purporting her theory (Madeleine was abducted) as fact. As she and her husband claim not know what happened to Madeleine, then abduction can only be a theory.

      And again, legally speaking, Gerry and Kate will have to prove the damage that has been done to them and their family by Goncalo's book. Evidence of the pain and suffering they have endured.

      Their old claims, if people believed Madeleine was dead, they would look for her, and the psychological effects GA's book has had on them, have past their sell by date. The internet is awash with theories and discussion and interest in GA's book, has long since been overtaken by interest in the current investigations.

      Delete
    2. You're the one spouting nonsense Ros - if you think that you are correct then please give us your insight into why no one will publish Amaral's book in the UK?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 4 September 2017 at 12:36

      Providing a link to the quote never hurts! Like this: http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/not-believing-doesnt-equal-hate.html?showComment=1504011195958#c8326621651403541815

      “the reason that publishers will not publish Amaral's book in the UK is because...”
      “Consequently, if you want to make money out of publishing defamatory material that doesn't have to be proven, then you choose a country with soft libel laws to do it in."

      I did read your original post. I was not satisfied with what you’d said but did not feel like spending time on arguing with you at the time. You have returned to it and I am therefore asking you to substantiate, with references, what you’ve said,. apart from the nonsense about the Queen. I will be grateful if you do, although I think you are mistaken.

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. Hi T,

      Re Libel laws, no need to give any specific links, if you just google 'UK Libel Tourism', you'll see why the UK is seen as a haven for persons who feel they have been libeled and wish to bring legal action against the person or corporation that they believe has libelled them.

      Delete
    6. T,

      If you need an example of where UK 'libel tourism. has been used because of the nature of the UK law, then I suggest that you google 'Khalid bin Mahfouz' and 'UK libel tourism'. It's an interesting case relating to 9/11.

      Delete
    7. I think that you removed my post at 15.38 giving an example of UK libel laws (probably because of the mention of a name) and how they are used because of their leaning towards protection of the individual rather than freedom of speech. If anyone wishes to see for themselves that there are major differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in libel legislation, and particularly why the UK is deemed to be a favourable jurisdiction by persons believing they have been libeled, then they only need to Google 'UK libel tourism' for further insight.

      Delete
    8. I don't know what happened to your post at 15:38, it isn't in my spam box! Please feel free to repost.

      Delete
    9. No-one will publish in the UK 15:33 because the McCanns are so litigious. Publishers would have to weigh up whether it is worth the hassle of a legal battle - at the moment it probably isn't, or at least it isn't all the while they can afford Carter Rock.

      Delete
    10. But the McCanns are leaving the UK.

      Delete
    11. 4.9 @19:28

      "But the McCanns are leaving the UK."

      That's a very interesting statement. Have you a link or reference to support it please?

      Delete
    12. T @4 September 2017 at 15:33

      I am … asking you to substantiate, with references, what you’ve said…”
      “I will be grateful if you do, although I think you are mistaken.”
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _

      Anonymous4 September 2017 at 16:23

      “Hi T,

      Re Libel laws, no need to give any specific links, if you just google 'UK Libel Tourism', you'll see why the UK is seen as a haven for persons who feel they have been libeled and wish to bring legal action against the person or corporation that they believe has libelled them.”
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _

      Anonymous4 September 2017 at 16:36

      “T,

      If you need an example of where UK 'libel tourism. has been used because of the nature of the UK law, then I suggest that you google 'Khalid bin Mahfouz' and 'UK libel tourism'. It's an interesting case relating to 9/11.”

      Are you Anonymous 4 September 2017 at 12:36?

      I am aware of the references you have suggested, but thank you nonetheless.

      To reciprocate. You might benefit from familiarising yourself with Defamation Act 2013 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf and from paying greater attention to the contents of the post/s that give rise to your comments.

      My question remains unanswered.

      I mean no offence.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    13. Apologies. My question (above) was intended for Bananamouze.

      Delete
    14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 September 2017 at 19:28

      ''No-one will publish in the UK 15:33 because the McCanns are so litigious. Publishers would have to weigh up whether it is worth the hassle of a legal battle - at the moment it probably isn't, or at least it isn't all the while they can afford Carter Rock.''

      Does it matter if it's Carter Ruck ? It doesn't matter how litigious the McCanns are either. They either have a case or they don't.carter Ruck can't invent a new law because they're so expensive and important. I'm sure publishing companies don't hire lawyers on the cheap either.It's more likely and realistic that any publishers who were interested in bidding for the right to publish would have consulted their own lawyes beforehand and been told it wouldn't be viable due to the libel laws.

      Delete
  14. ''Nonsense 12:36, if that were true there would be no 'Real Crime' sections in libraries and bookshops.''

    Why not ? There just wouldn't be a 'real accusations' one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 16 November 2008

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/detective-set-to-publish-mccann-book-in-britain-1020498.html

    ‘The book, Maddie: The Truth about the Lie, has already sold an estimated 180,000 copies in Europe, and Mr Amaral's representatives are trying find a British publisher. The McCanns said last night that they would scrutinise any British publication with a view to possible legal action.’

    (...)

    ‘Asked whether he thought Madeleine was dead, he said: "It is not just my opinion. A whole team of Portuguese and British investigators came to that conclusion last year, and this is part of the files. I have never said the couple killed their daughter and this is not my belief. Deaths may happen for natural reasons, accident or intervention by a third party.”

    He said he was unperturbed by the threat of any legal action from the McCann family. "There is no reason for that. The details exposed in the book are facts, happenings and objective data which figure in the process and not lies, as they have been described in the press.”

    (...)

    ‘Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for the McCanns, said last night: "Lawyers for Kate and Gerry have been aware of what Mr Amaral has been alleging for some time. What he has said and written before now is grossly defamatory of them.

    "If he chooses to publish them in Britain those words will be studied intensely carefully and they will not hesitate to act if they are defamatory."’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If he chooses to publish them in Britain those words will be studied intensely carefully and they will not hesitate to act if they are defamatory."’

      Which is why Amaral's book has never been published in the UK.

      Delete
    2. So the McCanns want everyone to know that Kate couldn't make love to Gerry, but they don't want anyone to know that Madeleine could have died in the apartment, hence the cadaver odour and the blood spots up the walls and on the back of the sofa.

      Yeah, seems fair to me, if you live in the McCanns' world where they turn everything upside down, and sue you if you dare to contradict them. What lovely people they are working for the NHS, I'm sure they're loved by their clients.

      PS, If I was having a heart attack GM is the last person I would want at my bedside, I hope I may have a choice if I was ever in that situation.

      Delete
    3. ''So the McCanns want everyone to know that Kate couldn't make love to Gerry, but they don't want anyone to know that Madeleine could have died in the apartment , yeah seems fair to me''

      Making love or not making love to your husband isn't illegal. Just thought I'd clear that up.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 5 September 2017 at 02:04

      “Making love or not making love to your husband isn't illegal.”

      Who said it is?

      “Just thought I'd clear that up.”

      I think you have time to waste.

      T

      Delete
    5. You missed the point being made

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 5 September 2017 at 16:03

      “You missed the point being made”

      You have no way of knowing as to whether I did or didn’t. Actually, I didn’t, but you did, this time.:)

      Your original observation was good.:)

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
  16. I see you are calling the Mccanns liars again Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Understatement lol Or is it just a theory

      Delete
    2. Isn't the book free to download in PDF format anyway ? So it doesn't matter if you're in the UK or North Pole as long as you have the internet.

      Delete
    3. 13:32

      "I call it challenging the McCanns' lies."

      Delete
    4. @ 22:09 - there is even a link to it on this very page. Anyone who had an interest in reading it in English will have already done so - thanks to all those who have posted it online and done amaral out of a lot of money.

      Delete
    5. You can extend that thanks to youtube too. I wouldn't lose any sleep if i were you. He'll be getting a slice for allowing it.

      Delete
    6. Ah, you got me there Unknown, have a brownie point.

      Perhaps I should have said misinformation and propaganda, but I could easily defend 'lies' in a courtroom situation. This case is littered with examples of statements that are clearly untrue.

      You are clearly scraping the barrel here in your attempts to catch me out, bemusing for me, but another glaring example of how crazy the McCanns' priorities are. Have they learned nothing from their legal losses in Lisbon?

      Delete
    7. @ Ros 10:40

      I am not trying to earn brownie points - nor am I attempting to catch you out.

      Perhaps you could have said misinformation and propaganda, but you didn't - you used "McCanns' lies".

      It didn't take a lot of sleuthing/research/investigation - all I did was read your comment.

      Delete
  17. 24 MARCH 2009

    Press standard, privacy and libel - Culture, Media and Sport Committee Contents

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9032403.htm

    "Mr O'Neill: I am fairly sure that in two cases that I am aware of some of the money that was paid in damages to one individual was then later used for bail surety for a man on a very serious terrorist charge, and I am pretty damn sure that money was used to bribe officials in Pakistan to set free a very serious terrorist prisoner. On the other business of privacy law, I can give you an example of a story I was working on with a couple of colleagues a couple of years ago. A fairly senior lawyer, who back in the 1980s was a student animal rights extremist, now works for, advises and represents the Metropolitan Police and police forces up and down the country. His previous animal rights activity is well-documented back in the early 1980s. We were going to do "Look where he's gone now" as a matter of public interest but as soon as we put the questions to him, we called him up and informed him of what we were doing and here are the questions, he gave answers—he basically admitted everything—within an hour we had Carter Ruck on the phone threatening, "This is breaching his privacy. We'll get an injunction" blah, blah, blah, and we ended up having to pull back and look at that another day. We run into that sort of thing all the time."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book can be published but publishers have no defence to a libel claim in the UK, where, essentially, the defendants have to prove the truth of their claims.

      There are, of course, grey areas. To take just one, calling somebody "greedy" would not necessarily involve the defence having to provide photographs of dozens of meals eaten but could involve general impressions from witnesses.

      On the other hand the claimant might produce medical evidence showing that an illness was making them eat more. In that case the claimant would win.

      But sudden court "ambushes" are not allowed in the UK: in other words each side has to tell the other before the start of the case what evidence/witnesses they will produce. If such medical evidence existed then the defence would immediately ask to settle, in order to cut its losses.

      Now greed is not illegal or even necessarily dreadful. A claim of burying the body of a child under suspicious circumstances is so terribly serious and life-changing, though, that the damages would be potentially gigantic, so the existing evidence at the start of the case - no later ambushes allowed, remember - would have to be cast-iron (probabilities don't come into it) before any publisher would take it on.

      But publishers have no such evidence! If they did then we here would know it too.

      The McCanns have said they will sue, so for publishers the decision is a no-brainer: they produce books not financial suicide notes. Neither Grange nor the PJ, of course, can provide (untested) evidence for the defence should it exist: only court tested evidence can be used. There isn't enough.

      That is why, as I've said so boringly so often, this case is much simpler than it seems: the reason that the book cannot be published is exactly the same reason why the McCanns have not been arrested: the evidence isn't there, just as it wasn't there in 2008 when the Archiving Summary came out.

      Those who believe that such evidence ("enough to convince the average person") exists have to answer the author of the Archiving Summary: "Show us it".




      Delete
    2. Voice of sanity. Especially the final two paragraphs.Says a lot.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4 September 2017 at 22:20

      "This is breaching his privacy. We'll get an injunction" blah, blah, blah, and we ended up having to pull back and look at that another day. We run into that sort of thing all the time."

      So why aren't they learning ?

      Delete
  18. Anonymous 4 September 2017 at 22:20

    Thank you for the link.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  19. Blacksmith @ 12;13 wrote.
    "Those who believe that such evidence ("enough to convince the average person") exists have to answer the author of the Archiving Summary: "Show us it". "
    .....................
    Quite,if the evidence existed in 2007 it exist's today,if it didn't exist then it'll not exist today,£11+ million of brit tax payers money confirms this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello.In saying the evidence does not exist I risk crazed discussions with the Usual Suspects about Being and Nothingness. So I'd better stress that I am talking, naturally, about judicial evidence.

      The Archiving Summary, after having said that the case demands further investigation (the reconstruction section), thus holding open the possibility that such evidence may emerge in the future, finished with its "show it to us" comment.

      There is no way round it: if it can't be produced in court then it isn't any use. To attempt to evade this certainty by positing unknowns such as cover-ups makes the problem much worse, not better, since you then have to provide the evidence for a cover-up as well as for the McCanns' guilt!

      I don't see any signs of the twelve million being wasted, but we'll see.



      Delete
    2. @ Anon 18:50

      You missed out what Blacksmith said just before: " exactly the same reason why the McCanns have not been arrested: the evidence isn't there, just as it wasn't there in 2008 when the Archiving Summary came out."

      He is referring to there being no evidence to arrest and convict the Mccanns.

      The current investigations are looking into what happened to Madeleine - not trying to scrape together some non existent evidence from 2007 to arrest the Mccanns.

      For once I agree with Blacksmith.

      Delete
    3. "there being no evidence to arrest and convict the Mccanns. The current investigations are looking into what happened to Madeleine - not trying to scrape together some non existent evidence from 2007 to arrest the Mccanns."

      Precisely, yet so many words have been written denying these self evident truths.

      Delete
    4. ''There is no way round it: if it can't be produced in court then it isn't any use. To attempt to evade this certainty by positing unknowns such as cover-ups makes the problem much worse, not better, since you then have to provide the evidence for a cover-up as well as for the McCanns' guilt! ''

      I agree completely, there's no way round it.I think all the claims about blood, DNA, sniffer dogs' evidence and so on falls into this area. Yet these are the mainstays of the 'anti' section. They have never been put forward as evidence yet in ten years. That's where the other grey area comes in, that of cover ups. It seems that a lot of people can't and won't accept that, as John Blacksmith says, there is no evidence that can be produced in court. The cold reality may be because it doesn't exist or could be dismissed. But the repeated argument is always supposedly built on the dame foundation.The dogs don't lie and the blood was all over the place. So, if none of that is produced because it isn't there, it must be because someone somewhere doesn't want the parents to be prosecuted. I think if they let go of that, as it's gone nowhere in all this time, they could look at other possibilities.

      VT

      Delete
    5. NOTHING has been put forward as evidence in ten years VT, because this case hasn't yet gone to trial. Scotland Yard have never commented on any of the evidence collected in the first investigation. Actually they haven't commented on any of the evidence. Period.

      The only people saying the findings of the dogs have been ruled out, are the pro McCann camp. As an onlooker seeing the major digging works Scotland Yard carried out in PDL, I would say they are very much ruled in.

      The alerts of the dogs may not be enough on their own (though there have been prosecutions without a body), they were enough to change the course of the original investigation and enough for SY to dig up PDL. They will most certainly form part of any criminal trial.

      Delete
    6. 03:36

      "...they could look at other possibilities."

      Such as?

      Delete
  20. "Bell Pottinger: key players and controversial clients"

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/04/bell-pottinger-thatcher-pr-clients

    "Lord Bell, Margaret Thatcher’s favourite PR man when she was prime minister, co-founded Bell Pottinger in 1987.

    The agency has standard corporate clients, such as the construction group Carillion and the car dealership Lookers, but over the past three decades it has also taken on highly sensitive geo-political PR accounts and other controversial clients.

    These include the Pinochet Foundation; Syria’s first lady, Asma al-Assad; the governments of Bahrain and Egypt; Oscar Pistorius, after he was charged with murder; FW de Klerk, when he ran against Nelson Mandela for president; and Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator.

    It also emerged last year that Bell Pottinger had been paid £500m to make propaganda videos in Iraq on behalf of the US government. They included short news segments made to look like Arabic news networks and fake insurgent videos."

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

    Lord Bell said:

    "And I'm really not interested in what the McCanns think, because the McCanns paid me £500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did."

    (The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It - Owen Jones)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous5 September 2017 at 20:23

      yes we've all known that about Bell and the Mccanns for years. It is not news now.

      Delete
    2. "Gerry McCann slammed for 'hypocrisy' after speaking out about press intrusion"

      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gerry-mccann-slammed-for-hypocrisy-after-speaking-out-about-press-intrusion-a3219046.html

      Delete
    3. If we are judged by the company we keep, Gerry and Kate have made some very questionable decisions over the years. From all the dodgy detectives they hired to Philip Green, to Bell Pottinger to Pinochet's lawyers. Why would genuinely grieving parents get involved with such murky characters?

      Delete
    4. "If we are judged by the company we keep.."

      That's a laugh coming from you Ros!!!

      Delete
    5. A significant inroad to our understanding in this case:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/the-appalling-pottingers/

      Delete
    6. 6 December 2011

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-top-lobbyists-boasting-how-they-influence-the-pm-6272760.html

      'One of Britain's largest lobbying companies has been secretly recorded boasting about its access to the heart of the Government and how it uses the "dark arts" to bury bad coverage and influence public opinion. An undercover investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, published in The Independent today, has taped senior executives at Bell Pottinger:

      * Claiming they have used their access to Downing Street to get David Cameron to speak to the Chinese premier on behalf of one of their business clients within 24 hours of asking him to do so;

      * Boasting about Bell Pottinger's access to the Foreign Secretary William Hague, to Mr Cameron's chief of staff Ed Llewellyn and to Mr Cameron's old friend and closest No 10 adviser Steve Hilton;

      * Suggesting that the company could manipulate Google results to "drown" out negative coverage of human rights violations and child labour;

      * Revealing that Bell Pottinger has a team which "sorts" negative Wikipedia coverage of clients;

      * Saying it was possible to use MPs known to be critical of investigative programmes to attack their reporting for minor errors.'

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 6 September 2017 at 12:24

      Many thanks for the link. I haven’t been to Craig’s site for ages.

      T

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 6 September 2017 at 14:38

      Thank you for the link

      T

      Delete
  21. On the subject of libel: http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2017/09/jfk-murders-freddy-mills-kray-twins.html?showComment=1504568581969&m=1#c8746773323487155444

    ReplyDelete
  22. What an amazing blog this is!

    Ros suggests that it is McCanns v Operation Grange, forgetting that:

    * Cameron said on Day one of OG that OG was 'to help the family'
    * The remit of OG was the investigate 'THE abduction'
    * The BBC Crimewatch prog in October 2013 produced a reconstruction of the events of Thursday 3 May 2007 right out of the McCann textbook
    " The same prog produced the entirely unbelievable Crecheman'.

    Now blog favourite John Blacksmith comes up with:

    * Evidence of the McCanns’ guilt does not exist.
    * The £12 million Operation Grange enquiry is genuine – ‘no sign of the money being wasted’.
    * There is no evidence of a cover-up.

    He thus ignores the stream of coppers, secret service staff, CEOP staff, assorted PR agents, Control Risks staff and assorted others who descended on Praia da Luz in the first week.

    But then John Blacksmith doe snot rule out abduction - read his fabled 'Cracked Mirror' article.

    Sorry, Ros & Blacksmith, you are like Admiral Nelson. You turn your blind eye towards overwhelming evidence of 1. the McCanns' guilt and 2. the government-orchestrated cover-up.

    Both of you still see OG as a genuine, without fear or favour, honest search for the truth.

    Don't make me laugh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have the "overwhelming evidence" get off your tatty, second hand, shouty soap-box and your lazy arse, show it to us and make yourself famous.

      But you won't, will you? All you'll do is add further rudeness and then ask the same old Ladybird Book questions - "Why did Ambassador Buck...? Why did Tony Blair...? Why did Alipio Ribeiro... Why did Smethurst..? Why did Rebekah Brooks...?" etc. etc., take your pick - but you won't produce any evidence.

      I repeat: if you have it, show it. If you can't show it then you haven't got it and you're making it up, aren't you?

      Delete
    2. 08:50

      In fairness to Blacksmith, he made it clear yesterday (19:27) that he was referring to judicial evidence, i.e. evidence admissible in a court of law. (I take it you read that particular addendum since you quoted from it directly).

      Not only does such evidence have to be admissible, it has also to be sufficient for a case to be prosecuted in the first instance.

      That said, for the purposes of everyday comment evidence of the sort you allude to is frustratingly clear. It points to the McCanns' complicity in an altogether extraordinary 'entente', cordial or no. (Remarkably, the Foreign Office knew of the abduction without anyone actually telling them about it).

      Blacksmith is by no means the gold standard when it comes to understanding the McCann case. No one is. But I shouldn't get too irate over his 'wrong turns'. We're all capable of making them at some time or another and racking up one's own blood-pressure over someone else's folly is hardly a wise course of action.

      Better in fact to laugh it off.

      Delete
    3. I'm guessing your not the laughing type, so don't worry, I won't try.

      I don't think there is a happy and harmonious relationship between the McCanns and Operation Grange. Who could live happily with a constant police presence? Look at Gerry and Kate's 'Expresso' interview, at how happy they were when the PJ shelved their file and they were released from Arguido status?

      Those claiming OG are working for and on behalf of Gerry and Kate appear to be blind to the fact that OG have done nothing to steer the suspicion away from them. When Crimewatch was aired in 2014, the public rushed to social media, and the membership of those groups questioning the Madeleine story, quadrupled.

      If anything, Gerry and Kate's position is now far more precarious. Very few people still believe there was an abduction, something else OG haven't produced any evidence for, and essential if OG are carrying out a cover up.

      I keep an open mind with, err, well everything, my head is always filled with 'what ifs?'. In the case of Madeleine, I'm sadly beyond the point of reasonable doubt, I wish I was wrong, because my faith in human nature has taken a hell of a knock.

      To believe two doctors, well a group of doctors, conspired to cover up the death of a child, changes the paradigm.

      Crooks wear masks and carry swagbags, or they are dirty and smelly, covered in tattoos and off their heads on drugs and alcohol. They are the threatening faces of crime that we are all familiar with. Gerry and Kate are the opposite, law abiding church goers, smart, articulate and trustworthy. It's like looking at a picture of an orange that has been labelled 'apple'. It doesn't make sense.

      This became a blog......

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 6 September 2017 at 13:04

      A superior comment. Smooth, thoughtful and considerate.

      If a ‘t’ is missing, then here it is: ‘t’.

      T:)

      Delete
  23. Hello 6 September 2017 @ 03.36 – may I call you 3.36 for short?

    I think that’s a refreshingly balanced and sane post – and not just (I hope) because we are, to a certain extent, in agreement.

    Your comment, "I think if they let go of that, as it's gone nowhere in all this time, they could look at other possibilities" is particularly apposite.

    The one thing that unites most people with a serious view on the affair (I exclude the tricksters and fake gurus) is a desire to get results. So far the search for hidden hands has produced none. That in itself is a cause for serious concern as to the usefulness of the approach in getting at the truth.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Blacksmith @12:12

      Have you any suggestions as to what those 'other possibilities' might be?

      Delete
    2. john blacksmith6 September 2017 at 12:12

      ''Hello 6 September 2017 @ 03.36 – may I call you 3.36 for short? ''

      Certainly. You can call me 3 if you like. I think the audience, for want of a better title, is pretty huge now. It's big enough to have big sub sections too . There seems to be a large group for each theory ( I was the parents, it was paedophiles, it was an abduction / cover up etc) . So any unity would appear pluralistic. Within each camp they support each other for strength and attack other camps. I would also suggest that a large number that have an interest want results so that they can use that day for an online eternal lap of honour with 'I told you I was right' tee shirts ready to go via Amazon. That leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Between them all they're kicking up more and more dust and then claiming how clear everything is.

      Delete
  24. "Re: Picture Gallery

    Post by Verdi Today at 12:03
    I came across this in the Alamy photostock McCann archives. The caption said it is the McCanns nanny taking the twins out in Rothley - it's Trish Cameron, I'd put money on it..

    Is that a Gap top I see in the buggy? No, surely not the Gap top - 'shudder'.

    Why do the McCann children always look so unkempt - is it bohemian shabby chic or a casual laissez-faire attitude towards parenting?"
    ---------------------------------------

    More evidence - if any where needed - of just what a cesspit havern is running. verdi is a Researcher/Moderator!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ros

    The pro McCann camp or any other 'camp' has nothing to do with this case.They're just following it.It's down to the police what is or isn't valid evidence, not the internet.The forensic evidence wasn't shelved because of a mob from wither side online.

    With regard to the relationship between OG and the parents, you or anyone else can only guess. Why would it be made public if it doesn't matter to the public ?

    I have to say also that the trial not happening, as you pointed out, is because no evidence exists that is strong enough, not the other way around. Like John Blacksmith says, it doesn't exist. If it did, then it would have happened. The so called joint operation doesn't mean Scotland yard are in charge with the PJ in tow. The crime took place in Portugal, not England.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Simon J Wood has posted this excellent short blog article on the Madeleine McCann case:

    https://simonjwood.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/the-downfall-of-british-journalism/

    He has got the case well and truly sussed and is quite clear there IS a cover-up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 16: 44 Lifted straight from the cesspit - well done.

      Delete
    2. It is a link to Simon J. Wood's blog, 18:36, what's your problem? And thank you 16:44 btw.

      I do see that blog has been republished in full on the cesspit, I wonder if they have the blogger's permission?

      I thought it was a very good article, I read it on the actual blog, but I wasn't impressed by his links. He appears to be promoting the films of Richard Hall and the writings of Bennett, so he still has much to learn!

      Delete
    3. He also thinks the mainstream media 'died' on May 03 2007. So obviously that was when he started watching TV news and reading papers. About 50 years after it really died.

      Delete
  27. Anon 16.12

    "If it did, then it would have happened. The so called joint operation doesn't mean Scotland yard are in charge with the PJ in tow. The crime took place in Portugal, not England"

    Yes, the "crime" i.e. the abduction took place in Portugal, and if there was no "abduction", that means that the "Find Madeleine Fund" is a sham and therefore comes under the UK police to investigate.

    It's strange how few people ever mention the "Fund" in relation to the "abduction", the two are tied together. It's as if they're frightened to mention the £millions that may have been accrued if it is found there was no abduction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fund was introduced based on the abduction. Or crime . That's the official line isn't it-an abduction. The reason for the fund is public knowledge and the crime they're officially investigating is. They don't need to be mentioned together.

      Delete
  28. Father O'Booze6 September 2017 at 23:13

    Ros, I think you should change the subject and offer us your thoughts on the demise yesterday of Cormac Murphy O'Connor - he who arranged the fabled Pope/McCann meeting (quote Kate McCann: "Rome is preparing itself"), and he who covered up the child-abusing R.C. priest by the simple device of moving him quietly to another parish instead of reporting him to the police.

    I also see that the current Pope was so mixed up at one point in his life that he turned to a psychoanalyst instead of God.

    Of course, analysis is so much better than confession - but then, as Pope, who does he confess to?

    No need, I suppose, as he's infallible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Blair 'prayed to God' over Iraq"

      3 March 2006

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm

      "Prime Minister Tony Blair has told how he prayed to God when deciding whether or not to send UK troops to Iraq."

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

      22 June 2007

      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jun/22/uk.religion1

      "Mr Blair, like President George Bush, ignored the condemnations and warnings of the Pope and all other church leaders over the war in Iraq."

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

      "Tony Blair joins Catholic Church"

      22 December 2007

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7157409.stm

      'Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who led the service to welcome Mr Blair, said he was "very glad" to do so.'

      (...)

      "Last year, Mr Blair, who is now a Middle East peace envoy, said he had prayed to God when deciding whether or not to send UK troops into Iraq.

      And one of Mr Blair's final official trips while prime minister was a visit to the Vatican in June where he met Pope Benedict XVI."

      Delete
    2. "Blair 'prayed to God' over Iraq"

      And we all know how that turned out. Seems you can't trust even the advice of omnipotent deities these days.

      What's the universe coming to eh?

      Delete
  29. 'Chris Doyle, of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said: “If you look at the seven principles of public life – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership – it is hard to make a case that Tony Blair adhered to any of these while serving as Quartet envoy”.'

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tony-blair-uae-middle-east-envoy-qatar-israel-palestine-foreign-office-a7894641.html

    ReplyDelete
  30. Blairs first move after stepping down as Psycho Minister was to convert to Catholicism. Best move to get protection right from the top is the Vatican. No idea how he'll explain that to Lucifer next time he prays.

    ReplyDelete