Wednesday, 6 September 2017

MADELEINE - IT'S A CLASS ISSUE

Let's imagine for one moment, Karen Matthews had been holidaying on the Algarve and one of her children disappeared while she was having a drink at the bar.  Would she have received the full backing of New Labour? A personal spokesman, Family Liaison officers from her home town, a visit from the Portuguese Ambassador?  Would we still be here 10+ years on, with those who see a miscarriage of justice being sued and threatened with imprisonment for not believing? 

We all know the answers to those questions, which is why Madeleine's disappearance and the establishment's handling of it, became so emotive.  In a nutshell, the non believers were unattractive chavs, jealous of Kate and Gerry's good looks and success. 

For many years, the issue of 'class' has taken a back seat in this case, but it shouldn't.  We all know that if the McCanns hadn't been PLU (People Like Us), representative of that first generation of working class professionals, who went to University and have moved on from the Council estates.  'We all do it' they shouted in unison, while defending the obvious neglect and child endangerment, 'what happened to them could have happened to us'.  They empathised with Kate and Gerry in a way, they never could or would, with Karen Matthews.  With K&G, they played down the crime, with KM there would have been outrage. 


And this is the crux.  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, smelly lowlives, 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, middle class, 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. 

Most of us like things the way we are, our villains and do-gooders clearly labelled.  Life is complicated enough without having to think the unthinkable. In doctors we trust, we turn to them for our major life decisions, we address them with their title, the Doc is the good guy, he's on our side.  We often forget that they are just as human as the rest of us, and just as prey to life's temptations.

With Karen Matthews, we all shook our heads, and said 'well, what do you expect', she was a perfect example of the hated underclass, while Karen was bunking off school and producing babies, Kate and Gerry were studying and saving lives.  Karen comes from a society that barely scrapes by, a society that has had hope and ambition torn from under them by consecutive Tory governments.  Gerry and Kate come from good working class stock, families of achievers with good solid values who reinforced their respectability. 

I don't think anyone can deny that the social standing of the McCanns has had an impact on the way in which this case has been handled.  If Karen Matthews had lost a child in Portugal, is it likely the police, the politicians, and the media would be still be pussyfooting around 10+ years on?   Afraid to offend her or her high priced lawyers?

Which brings us back to the money.  Within days Gerry and Kate were armed with an enormous fortune with which to protect themselves.  I think Karen got a free delivery from Iceland.  They engaged lawyers within days, if not within hours.  Their first thoughts were not to look for their daughter, but to prepare a Defence. 

The UK Government, knowingly, or unknowing, helped to build a wall around the McCanns that exists to this day.  Their refusal to accept that the affluent middle classes could be involved in such a heinous crime was almost in danger of becoming law.  The McCanns were the poster family, representative of everything that is good about the UK, high achievers, pillars of the community and church goers.  The acceptable face of draconian libel laws and roughing people up at the borders. 

Karen Matthews was no better than she ought to be - the police had no hesitation in investigating her and those around her, there were no government calls to back off and the crime was solved quickly.  The interference of the UK government led to loss of valuable forensic evidence, the clothes Madeleine wore that day, the beads she had in her hair, the blue bag, the pink blanket, and who knows what else.

Believing Gerry and Kate were involved in their daughter's disappearance, is a hell of a knock to our faith in human nature and for many of us, we will never be able to look at the world in the same way again.  That's how devastating it is.  But to believe a lie in order to make us feel better, is far more corrosive.  Pretending reality doesn't exist, doesn't make it go away - we are quite literally setting ourselves up for a fall.

We accept without question that Karen Matthews is guilty because she comes from a background of poverty and anti social behaviour.  We cannot accept Kate and Gerry are guilty because they come from an affluent background and know which knife and fork to use.  White collar crime is not pursued in the same way as blue collar crime, because there is an assumption of innocence. The wealthy have no need to covet their neighbour's goods or lust after his wife, they have yachts and hookers. 

Most crime is committed out of poverty.  Those dashing young things on Made in Chelsea have no need to put a brick through a car window to steal the radio.  They have limitless credit cards.  On tough council estates, where 10 quid makes all the difference, it's a different kettle of fish. Prisons are filled with an illiterate, uneducated, underclass, there are very few, if any, billionaires and professionals.  As Norman Stanley Fletcher pointed out in the iconic Porridge, he didn't expect the Judge who gave him 5 years to move into his cell with him.

The case of missing Madeleine is, or will become, the most extreme example of the way in which the Law differentiates between the social classes in the UK.  People should not be above the law because they have money and influence, Gerry and Kate should have been subject to the same scrutiny as any parents who claim child abduction without any evidence.  Those in high places who ruled them out because they are not the 'type' have much to answer for. 

123 comments:

  1. "Gerry and Kate should have been subject to the same scrutiny as any parents who claim child abduction without any evidence. Those in high places who ruled them out because they are not the 'type' have much to answer for."

    They were investigated by the authorities in Portugal and even made arguidos.

    Who in high places (whatever that means) "ruled them out because they are not the 'type'"? Have you any evidence of that or is it one of your many guesses/muses about what happened?

    ReplyDelete
  2. BRAVO! Excellent summary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "We accept without question that Karen Matthews is guilty because she comes from a background of poverty and anti social behaviour."

    We accept she was guilty because luckily Shannon was found alive and it was a scam!!!

    There is no comparison between the cases apart from the fact the UK spent masses of resource and time and effort in looking for Shannon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The search for Shannon was one of the largest ever conducted by the West Yorkshire force.

    Prosecutor Julian Goose QC told the court today that the 24-day hunt cost almost £3.2 million and involved three quarters of all the UK's specially-trained police dogs.

    At its height, the search involved more than 300 police officers, members of the public and the media, who all joined in with the operation to find her, the court was told.

    Within a half-mile radius of where Shannon was last seen, 1,800 premises were searched and extensive house-to-house inquiries were conducted at many more.

    The court was told most child abduction investigations resulted in the victim being found within a half-mile radius of where he or she went missing.

    This was why West Yorkshire police committed its "huge resources" to this area where there were more than 2,850 premises, the jury was told.

    Goose said more than 800 CCTV tapes and computer hard drives were examined and 41 other areas were searched outside the half-mile radius of Moorside Road, including operations in Cumbria and Nottinghamshire."
    -----------------------------------------

    £3.2M in a 24 day investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Gerry and Kate should have been subject to the same scrutiny as any parents who claim child abduction without any evidence. Those in high places who ruled them out because they are not the 'type' have much to answer for."

    Is it their Royal Highnesses Gerry and Kate McCann ? The idea of the working classes and criminal classes being one and the same is probably about 100 years out of date now. Trying to make the Madeleine McCann case a 'social class' case is beyond naive. After the Casa Pia case ( Portugal) I doubt very much that the out dated view of the lower classes being more likely to commit crimes against children is still regarded as anything but naive.

    ''Believing Gerry and Kate were involved in their daughter's disappearance, is a hell of a knock to our faith in human nature and for many of us, we will never be able to look at the world in the same way again''

    You might not be able to. One isolated missing child case in the world doesn't do that for the majority. There's hundreds of other things in the world that cause us to question human nature. Why this case does it to you, only you know.

    Casa Pia

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/guilty-after-six-year-trial-portugals-high-society-paedophile-ring-2070112.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because like many 15:58, I was deeply touched by this case, I cared very much about Madeleine's fate. The saturation news drew us in, as was intended, you can't expect us to just switch off.

      Delete
  6. " The interference of the UK government led to loss of valuable forensic evidence, the clothes Madeleine wore that day, the beads she had in her hair, the blue bag, the pink blanket, and who knows what else."

    Absolute complete rubbish you are just repeating age old myths.

    You say repeatedly that you have spent 10 years of your life on this case - well it was wasted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please feel free to dispel those myths 16:16. What became of the clothes worn by Madeleine that day? the beads, the blue bag, the pink blanket. Goncalo Amaral himself picked up on the mention of the blanket by Kate in her interview with Oprah. It was photographed on Madeleine's bed.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 16:43 - amaral picked something up from Oprah - my Christ Ros - you have been duped for 10 years.

      As you say - It was photographed on Madeleine's bed - by the crime scene officers. Why wasn't it collected immediately for forensic examination? Why wasn't the bedding collected immediately for examination?

      Delete
    3. Why did the British Consulate ask the PJ to go easy on the McCanns. Lots of 'whys' 17:06.

      I thought you were going to dispel the myths by telling us what happened to these items.

      Delete
    4. @ Ros 17:20

      No Ros - I am not going to even attempt to dispel the myths that you have repeated.

      If they are not myths then I am sure you can provide the evidence and facts to prove there is something dodgy about the allegations you make - i.e. that the things you listed have disappeared in mysterious cover-up circumstances.

      I know you never provide evidence - you have repeatedly said you don't provide it.

      It shows you for the shallow fool that you are.

      Delete
    5. ''Why did the British Consulate ask the PJ to go easy on the McCanns. Lots of 'whys' 17:06. ''

      Their child had been abducted and nobody had a clue who by or where to maybe ?

      Delete
    6. ''As you say - It was photographed on Madeleine's bed - by the crime scene officers. Why wasn't it collected immediately for forensic examination? Why wasn't the bedding collected immediately for examination? ''

      Was Amaral or one of his team told not to ? Or was it just shoddy police work ? What have they said ?

      Delete
    7. ''You say repeatedly that you have spent 10 years of your life on this case - well it was wasted.''

      To be realistic the investigation itself is still where it was 10 years ago. No developments, no arrests, no real leads. All that's happened in ten years is the growth of all the debates on the internet looking to see all the things the police missed and trying to basically interpret it as something to incriminate the McCanns. If anyone came to this case for the first time today all they'd need is about a dozen links and a week and they'd no as much as anyone. Studying this for 5 years doesn't mean you're any more clued up as someone who's only studied it for 1 year. Ideas and theories don't count with regard to the a actual case.

      Delete
    8. To be fair 18:44, Goncalo Amaral has said mistakes were made. I am sure it is always chaotic when police arrive at a 'crime scene', and in fact it may take some time to establish that it is in fact a crime scene. Most kids who disappear are found close by and there is an innocent explanation.

      I do urge you to read GA's book if you haven't already, he details the difficulties the PJ had and the way in which they were leaned on. WikiLeaks too mentions the concerns of John Buck, the former ambassador.

      I suppose for the police, asking hysterical parents for their daughter's clothes, and indeed their own clothes, is a tough call. So too the seizing of possessions. If a VIP tells you these parents couldn't possibly be involved, what do you do?

      Delete
    9. I'm not trying to get a one up on anyone 18:51, lol, merely stating a fact. My readers probably want to know what it is that qualifies me to comment on this matter. It is because I understand the full nature of this case, that I am able to put it simply.

      Delete
  7. Ros says "I think Karen got a free delivery from Iceland."
    --------------------------------------------------------
    "
    RESIDENTS of the housing estate where Shannon Matthews disappeared are to choose how cash raised for her appeal will be spent.

    This week the six trustees for the Help Find Shannon Fund and local community support group Pathfinder, which managed the collection of the money, met to decide what to do with the remaining cash.

    Roger added: "The problem with deciding what to do with the fund has been that much of it had come from non-traceable donations. A lot of it came in tins and can't be traced back to the people who gave it.

    "Those who made a traceable donation will be given the choice of getting it back or leaving it in the pool which will be spent on the residents of the estate.""

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that 16:34. No disrespect to the residents who collected money on behalf of Karen Matthews. Their collection seems to be far more transparent than the Madeleine Fund, and I doubt the money raised was used to defend Karen or sue people.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 16:49

      The case was solved within 24 days.

      Delete
    3. Within 24 days Gerry and Kate had received over a £1m in donations, set up an online shop and registered their daughter's name as a trademark.

      In Shannon's case, the British police focussed their search on the immediate area, there was no talk of roadblocks or borders being closed, and no talk of paedophile gangs or child traffickers. Perhaps there would have been if Shannon had not been found, but I doubt it.

      The PJ appeared to be following the same procedure when Madeleine went missing, that is they were combing the local area, and going after the most likely local suspects.

      By contrast, Gerry, Kate and their family and friends were directing the search outwards, away from PDL and the surrounding areas. They were appealing globally, begging for sightings all over the world, especially Morocco, just a hop, skip and jump from the Portuguese coast.

      One day I am sure, it will be revealed just how many wild goose chases the PJ were sent on, and how difficult their job was, surrounded by the world's press and being flooded with information intended to throw them off course. And the McCanns were running a simultaneous investigation of their own, something they haven't dared to do, since Operation Grange began.

      I think the 24 days it took find Shannon shows just how efficient a police force can be when allowed to get on with their job.

      The 10+ years and still counting, that it is taking to find Madeleine shows what happens when they are not.

      Delete
  8. ''The UK Government, knowingly, or unknowing, helped to build a wall around the McCanns that exists to this day. Their refusal to accept that the affluent middle classes could be involved in such a heinous crime was almost in danger of becoming law. ''

    Knowingly or unknowingly ? If their 'refusal to accept that the middle classes could be involved' then it's knowingly. Therfore, they're complicit in the crime of perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to conceal a crime, if what you say is tue. So why not just say that ? Either way, no Government can push the police force to one side to protect the victims or possible suspects so publicly. Not in a police investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can and did 16:51. Who had Goncalo Amaral removed as lead detective in the Madeleine investigation? Just as the Smiths were flying back out to PDL and GA's team were closing in?

      Was that perverting the course of justice? I would say a great big yes, and I would also say that's why this case remains 'unsolved'. Once they admit GA's theory was right, that initial interference becomes glaringly obvious.

      Solving the disappearance of Madeleine I would say, is relatively easy, it is the cover up of the cover up that makes it so complex. Who decided GA had to go? Who gave that order? Who decided to take the McCanns' side against the Portuguese Judiciary? Who decided the PJ couldn't have the documents they requested? The medical records, the financial records, all those parts of a criminal investigation that are vital to detectives?

      Will we ever know the answers to those questions, or will there be an Inquiry that absolves all the high ups and someone in the postroom gets sacked?

      Delete
    2. ''Was that perverting the course of justice? I would say a great big yes, and I would also say that's why this case remains 'unsolved'. Once they admit GA's theory was right, that initial interference becomes glaringly obvious.''

      So basically you jumped off the fence and now state that the Government covered this all up.Am I right ?

      Delete
    3. You seem to be trying to put words into my mouth 18:54, your not an intern from Carter Ruck are you? lol.

      I've always thought New Labour were part of the INITIAL cover up, I've never used the word 'all'. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and their inner circle were speaking directly to Gerry and Kate on the telephone. Did Brown speak to Karen Matthews?

      Delete
    4. Probably right. But it would have carried over into the Tory Party when they got in. The intelligence service would be independent of the party. I think the pertinent point of your comparison( Karen Matthews ) is that the Government had no vested interest in that case whereas they did and still do in the McCann case.They allowed the Karen Matthews case to be a police investigation which is right. They took over the police with the McCann case which is wrong. The fact that it wasn't even their own country suggests something bigger than an abduction had occurred.

      Delete
  9. re: "The interference of the UK government led to loss of valuable forensic evidence, the clothes Madeleine wore that day, the beads she had in her hair, the blue bag, the pink blanket, and who knows what else".

    I agree with the sentiment i.e. that the interference of the British government, CEOP, MI5 et al helped to frustrate the Portuguese investigation.

    But to take your specifics in turn:

    1 "clothes Madeleine wore that day..."

    You assume that Madeleine disappeared 'that day'. I think it was a previous day. In any event, the McCanns would obviously have destroyed any of Madeleine's clothes that were incriminating

    2 "the beads she had in her hair"

    Again, did she have them in that day? Was the 'Last Photo' taken on the Thursday? There is evidence that it was taken on the Sunday or Monday

    3 "the blue bag"

    Clearly there WAS a blue bag. But it was photographed by the PJ AFTER the McCanns had moved into the Paynes' apartment for the night. We don't know if the McCanns were allowed to return and collect any belongings after that

    4 "the pink blanket"

    Same as point 3. Photo taken by the PJ. Were the McCanns allowed back to recover the blue bag and the pink blanket.

    Whilst agreeing with you about British govt, interference, sorry, but 'they were middle-class doctors' doesn't cut it. Something else very unsavoury must be behind the cover-up

    ReplyDelete
  10. When posting about class maybe you should get the title correct.

    It's - not - Its

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you 17:11. I often muddle up my apostrophes, but on this occasion it was a typo. :)

      Delete
  11. Anon 17.01

    Kate McCann said on the Oprah Winfrey show that she hoped whoever had Madeleine had given her her "pinky", meaning her pink blanket, so how could any "abductor" have given her her pink blanket when it was on the bed when the PJ photographed the apartment (it disappeared soon after).

    Likewise with the blue bag, Clarence Mitchell denied that the McCanns ever owned a blue bag, although a blue bag was photographed as being in the cupboard of one of the bedrooms. It then disappeared, never to be seen again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bringing over from previous blog Blacksmith wrote.
    "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."
    ..............................
    OG are only investigating what is confined with in the original files,so the evidence or lack of it is contained in there,that is why they have failed,all opinion of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since when are investigations confined 18:02? They lead where they lead or they would never get anywhere. I find it absolutely astonishing that anyone would believe that, or say it out loud!

      Delete
    2. ''OG are only investigating what is confined with in the original files,so the evidence or lack of it is contained in there,that is why they have failed,all opinion of course.''

      I suppose there's a logic to that. It would explain why nothing whatsoever has come of it. They seem to be staring at the same thing the PJ were staring at in 2007 and waiting for something to magically appear. It would have by now. How many years has OG been in operation in the case now ? What are they doing in the way of getting the supposed 'leads' ? Manning a phone line with their fingers crossed ? If they're secretly and quietly investigating the parents ( who SY say aren't suspects and weren't )they're taking an embarrassing amount of time so I think any hopes of that should be dropped. They're going around in circles . It's time to do the decent thing and close it now. Unless someone somewhere has told them they can't,or better not.

      Delete
    3. ''OG are only investigating what is confined with in the original files..."

      Would you like to produce some proof of that assertion of yours? Not "evidence", not opinion but proof. A straightforward link to the official document stating those words will be fine.

      Delete
    4. Hi John, yeh I too would like to know the origin of that little 'fact'. I suspect it was begun by someone in the cesspit, searching for evidence that OG is a cover up.

      They are clutching at straws, because everything they have been saying this past 10 years is about to be disproved. That is of course, if OG closes within the next few weeks. And closure, one way or another, seems more likely, because there have been no further requests for an extension.

      The cover up argument right now is looking pretty thin and in fact, the least likely outcome. You don't keep extending an investigation if you know there can be no result.

      Anyway, hope you are well John, and good to see you back :)

      Delete
    5. john blacksmith 7 September 2017 at 00:23

      Respectfully.

      “john blacksmith 5 September 2017 at 19:27

      The Archiving Summary…“show it to us”…”

      Would you like to produce some proof of that assertion of yours? Not "evidence", not opinion but proof. A straightforward link to “The Archiving Summary” “show it to us” will be fine.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
  13. My post of 17.30

    Of course I should have added that the McCanns and CM said these things when they didn't realise that the PJ were going to release all of the witness statements and the photos taken by the PJ of the crime scene.

    The phrase "being hoisted by your own petard" comes to mind (with an acknowledgement to Shakespeare).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Mccanns were on the Oprah show after the PJ files had been released.

      Delete
  14. Anon 6 Sept 18.02

    With due respect the PJ are the main investigators. You only have to look at the discrepancies in the witness statements and other spoutings from the McCanns, i.e. KM stating on the OW show that she hoped Madeleine's "abductor" had given her her pink blanket when it was shown on the PJ photos the pink blanket was still on Madeleine's bed after her "abduction".

    No doubt the "Fund" is the hold up with the investigation, when the McCanns could have had £5-£10 million go through their fingers on the pretense of an "abduction".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''No doubt the "Fund" is the hold up with the investigation, when the McCanns could have had £5-£10 million go through their fingers on the pretense of an "abduction".''

      How can the McCanns fund hold up an investigation ? If the child has never been returned or found, why is an abduction a 'pretense' ? Are you trying to say that the McCanns had some kind of financial motive to go abroad and 'lose' their child ? Have the police gone over the statements that you have found discrepenicies in do you think ?

      Delete
    2. Anon 20.1

      How can the McCanns fund hold up an investigation ? If the child has never been returned or found, why is an abduction a 'pretense'

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

      Just because the child hasn't been returned or found it doesn't mean she is still alive. The McCanns can go on repeating for the next 10/20/30 years that Madeleine hasn't been found - so she hasn't been found but it doesn't mean she's still alive. Why do you ignore the findings of Eddie and Keela and the blood spots up the walls in the McCanns' apartment, are you closing your eyes and ears and you don't want to know or are you deliberately ignoring the obvious.

      I'm not saying at all that that the McCanns went abroad to "lose" their child, but she "disappeared" nevertheless under dodgy circumstances.

      I don't know if the police have gone over the statements but I would imagine they have, whether they've found discrepancies is up to them. They have been paid £12+ million to research this case, if they don't do their job properly then they'll be doing a disservice to Madeleine.

      Delete
  15. A nice blog Ros, though I would rate the Mccanns more upper working class than middle class. Their foul language, tendencies towards violence (ie Kate smashing up the bed and whatever else), cheap package holidays with cheap wine and food are more the traits of people who would like/aspire to be middle class but are still weighed down by their working class ways. Personally I dont think its just about how much money you have which defines your "class", its as much about how you act and behave and your moral values. You will often find poor people on an estate with far more class than the MCcanns. People who know how to behave, people who wouldnt leave their kids alone nor swear in front of them or someone elses like G Mccann ( Ef off on the bus remember). The Mccanns may "look" middle class in a magazine spread attired in boden cothing with their mouths shut, but in my opinion they are far far nearer working class, put them in tracksuits and plop them on an estate and they would be right at home with the karen matthews of the world in no time.

    There are some things that money cannot buy, like manners ,morals, intelligence and class.

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ros: "while Karen was bunking off school and producing babies"

    Karen was 19 when she was first pregnant and 20 when she became a mother.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not sure your references to swearing, violence and inappropriate behaviour are restricted to the lower orders AFAN, though the higher echelons hide it better. The middle classes certainly do, they care far more about what their neighbours think. While the chavs are chucking cider cans at each other, the professionals are hiding in the broom cupboard whispering furiously.

    Good manners, empathy and charm go together, people with good manners treat everyone they encounter with respect. I once hung around with a minor member of the aristocracy, not only was he terrific fun, but he had the exquisite good manners of Bertie Wooster! I once got him to hop on a No. 12 bus, and he wouldn't get off until he had thanked the driver and conductor personally. Sadly, he went off to Indonesia to become a Buddhist monk, caught a rare tropical disease and passed away. I still blame myself.

    He was one of those old fashioned gentleman who believe in the concept of honour. He was a lawyer, but you could tell his heart wasn't really in it. He yearned to return to a simple basic life, free from the deception and machinations of the City. To be fair, it was he who introduced me to Buddhism, he had words of wisdom for every situation, especially when I was being a drama queen (often).

    My dear old dad by contrast, came from the industrial town of Dundee, from a society that worked in the mills and factories, but he too was a gentleman from the top of his weather appropriate hat, to the tip of his highly polished shoes. He never swore in front of women and children, children especially, and I'm proud to say the same of my brother and sons. I know that probably sounds a bit prissy from a self confessed old feminist, but there are some old fashioned niceties I yearn to hang onto.

    For myself, I happily display exaggerated good manners, all stolen from characters and personalities I have admired over the years. I do it because I love the reaction, it is always greeted with a beaming smile and excellent service, people go out of their way to treat you well if you treat them with courtesy and respect and I saw that with my dear Brickers - he was known and loved in every bar and restaurant in WC1, and I don't think anyone could have a nicer legacy than that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Note: At no point in the Oprah Show does Kate McCann refer to the blanket. The exchange that takes place is:

    Oprah: "Well, I, you know, I'd read something that said there were times even, you know, early on after she, errr... went missing that you would say: 'I want... I hope that whoever has her gives her her blanket'; 'I hope that whoever has her is keeping her warm'; 'I hope that whoever has her...'"

    Kate: "I mean, it's funny, it's, you know, I mean... as a mum it's things like that you worry about, as well, you know. Is someone brushing her teeth? Is someone rubbing her tummy when she's not feeling well? You know, it's... it's all those things, that as a mother, you know, you do and you should be doing and..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Referring to Anon at 6 Sept 21.03

      "The Mccanns were on the Oprah show after the PJ files had been released."

      Oprah Winfrey must have been fully aware then that the pink blanket was on the bed as photographed by the PJ, was she trying to trip KM up? KM doesn't put her right and just carries on -

      Kate: "I mean, it's funny, it's, you know, I mean... as a mum it's things like that you worry about, as well, you know.

      And adding with her ridiculous "is someone brushing her teeth" etc, and completely ignores the fact that the pink blanket was still on the bed after Madeleine's "abduction".

      Why worry about someone brushing her teeth when the McCanns didn't even bother about the children falling out of bed or having nightmares or being woken up by dogs barking all night as usually happens in these holiday resorts and crying knowing she and the twins hadbeen left in the dark with nobody to comfort them, as the McCanns are still pushing the "abduction" story.

      How many more times do the dogs have to be mentioned, are they just going to be ignored, if so that sets a dangerous precedence for future crimes.

      Delete
  19. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS-LACAO.htm

    Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão (GNR Officer)

    "When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.

    They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.

    The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool. After that the whole of the area surrounding the resort was searched."

    ReplyDelete
  20. An open question instigated by Blacksmith's (00:23) request for 'proof':

    The Telegraph's on-line publication of a brief McCann related announcement, timed at 12:01 a.m. on the morning of 4 May, has been much discussed hitherto.

    The subject surfaced again on Twitter not long ago and was 'doused' by those who believed this timing to have been a default accorded to items composed later in the day, a conclusion long ago arrived at by Nigel Moore.

    If anyone should be firmly of this opinion (including Blacksmith, who tends to have a 'position' when it comes to matters concerning the MSM), could they please put forward an explanation/illustration of how they arrived at that conclusion?

    With thanks in anticipation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A reminder of an earlier blog by Ros

    "Friday, 21 July 2017
    THE CRUELTY OF THE MADELEINE MYTHS"

    Yet look at the myths repeated on this blog - some of them by Ros herself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..don't forget the none existent blood spatters LOL

      Delete
    2. Ros 17.09

      I don't think the person who posted at 13.10 was laughing regarding the blood spatters, he/she was laughing at the person(at 12.15) deliberately ignoring the fact that the blood spatters existed - in fact he/she was defending you by the looks of it regarding your blog about Madeleine Myths, the blood spatters the pro McCann bloggers have listed as a "myth".

      I'm sorry anon 13.10 if I've spoken on your behalf, I knew what you meant, even though Ros took it the wrong way!!

      Delete
    3. The 'blood splatters' on the wall. Anon was laughing at the idea that anyone saw them. The tiles were lifted and examined by microscope. It wasn't a slasher movie I'm afraid.

      Delete
    4. Anon 17.55

      However which way anyone reads the post the blood splatters on the wall existed and the floor tiles were lifted and examined as you mentioned, that's the trouble with posts on the internet it's hard to comprehend what the posters are actually trying to say.

      The McCanns and their shills can dispute the blood spatters all they want but the photos are in the PJ files for anyone to see together with the forensics report.

      Yes, I agree, it isn't a slasher movie, it's very real, probably too real for any of the McCanns' shills to comprehend (only being used to slasher movies on the TV). Somehow blood splatters were left on the walls of the McCanns' apartment, not forgetting on the back of the sofa, the sofa which apparently GM pushed up against the window and the curtains, he said "the children kept throwing their toys behind it".

      Delete
    5. ''However which way anyone reads the post the blood splatters on the wall existed and the floor tiles were lifted and examined as you mentioned''

      Who did they come from ?

      Delete
  22. The pink blanket and blue bag were seen in the police photographs. Not myths.

    Madeleine is pictured with beads in her hair in the last photo. Not a myth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ros 12:18 Yes the photos exist - so what is the point?

      The myth is that there is "something" (not known) else about these items? What is the mystery? What is implied?

      Delete
    2. "Pulse Films will investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for Netflix, as the SVoD revolution gathers pace for UK indies.

      The eight-part true-crime series is being made in association with Viacom-owned Hollywood studio Paramount Television. It aims to shine a light on the three-year- old’s disappearance in 2007, and will include interviews with key figures and investigators."
      https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/indies/uk-indies-ride-netflix-wave/5122034.article

      There are rumours that this is Sonia's documentary.

      Delete
    3. Where are the items 12:22? Whilst I appreciate they may be in the files the PJ withheld, why don't the McCanns just state they have them? No doubt there are a lot of myths they could dispel, why don't they?

      Delete
    4. @ Ros 17:07 - what are you talking about Ros - did the PJ ever request the items?

      Or is it just internet nutters that are demanding they be produced?

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 September 2017 at 17:07

      what are the myths that the Mccanns dispel?

      Delete
  23. My Original post''OG are only investigating what is confined with in the original files..."
    Blacksmith reply:
    Would you like to produce some proof of that assertion of yours? Not "evidence", not opinion but proof. A straightforward link to the official document stating those words will be fine.

    .............................

    You obviously missed the bit about my opinion,but nonetheless,there ia a welter of evidence to support my thoughts I believe not least in the FOI request dated Dec 2015 no 2015120000612,where OG was still being described as an investigative review,we all know of what was revied.
    Hogan Howe telling us that the investigation was essentially a Portuguese one with SY assisting.The questioning of the supposed three burglars,this was done after analysing phone records all contained with in the first investigation,there is more if one bothers to look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello. I didn't ask you to provide "evidence to support my thoughts", I asked you to provide proof because I am not aware of any statement from the Home Office or the police that supports your very far-reaching claim. If your claim is true then it's important and I want to know what I've missed so I can add it to my own knowledge. And you couldn't provide that proof.

      If you can't provide it then you are inviting people to believe something without foundation. Is that what you want from public debate - to lead people into error by making unproven assertions? Is it really?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7 September 2017 at 13:24

      ''OG was still being described as an investigative review''

      I think the final two words are what you need to think about. An investigative review by definition can only go back over what already exists, hence nothing new, hence 'confined to what was already in the files'

      VT

      Delete
    3. @VT this is what I've been saying,Blacksmith seems to want to ignore it.

      Delete
    4. @ VT and Anon 12:14

      Does an "investigative review" include digging in PDL?

      Delete
    5. anon 12:49.
      They put two and two together and got plenty,look at the time lines there,digs then interviews.Where did any evidence come from,that part they made up and failed miserably.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous8 September 2017 at 12:49

      @ VT and Anon 12:14

      ''Does an "investigative review" include digging in PDL?''

      Have OG done that ?

      VT

      Delete
    7. "Authorities in Portugal have approved plans by the Metropolitan Police to dig for evidence at the resort where Madeleine McCann went missing seven years ago.

      Forensic teams will use ground penetrating radar equipment to examine three sites in Praia da Luz, Sky News has reported, in an operation that comes just days after the seventh anniversary of her disappearance."

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-british-police-to-dig-at-praia-da-luz-resort-for-evidence-9326384.html

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 8 September 2017 at 21:20

      Corrrrrect.

      T

      Delete
    9. So, it's been done then. What's next.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous9 September 2017 at 06:45
      So, it's been done then. What's next.
      -----------------------------------------

      Hold on a minute - were you not aware of the digs in PDL - carried out by UK Police officers?

      Delete
  24. Ros at 19:21.

    Since when are investigations confined 18:02? They lead where they lead or they would never get anywhere. I find it absolutely astonishing that anyone would believe that, or say it out loud!

    ..............................

    Remind us again of what the remit for Operation Grange is? just to jog your memory.

    "It is to examine the case and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the uk) what additional,new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 14.30

      Remind us again of what the remit for Operation Grange is? just to jog your memory.

      "It is to examine the case and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the uk) what additional,new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter."

      But the Portuguese never believed it was an abduction from day one, so if the SY are progressing the matter with the PJ how far does that take them if the PJ insist there was no abduction.

      Are you saying that the PJ will end up complying with SY to say there was an "abduction" and they will close the file. So how does that leave missing Madeleine and the McCanns’ £millions in their savings accounts, to buy a house or building equipment as mentioned by Tracey Kandolah. Not a bad few hour's work in “losing” your child and becoming multi millionaires off her back.

      Didn't someone else try it and it all went t*ts up, oh yes, that's what this blog is all about but of course she didn't have "friends" in high places and couldn't call in "favours", that must make a huge difference when you have people fighting your corner when they're very influential.

      Delete
    2. I'm not saying the PJ will comply,I have my doubts the PJ are investigating any way,but what will emerge if SY give a statement will be, persons or persons unknown removed Madeleine from the apartment leaving no trace as to her whereabouts,that will neither rule in or out an abduction,any one care to show OG aren't on that track?

      Delete
    3. Anon 17.49

      The PJ are the main investigators, SY are just their hangers on.

      "So persons or persons unknown removed Madeline from the apartment", gosh, I'll say it again for the umpteenth time, Eddie & Keela??????

      Blood spots up the walls in the apartment, for instance, I suggest you look at this link -

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

      Leaving no trace, well perhaps the abductor didn't leave any trace because their wasn't an abductor. I suggest you look at the link, then come back to me.

      Delete
    4. It doesn't matter what the PJ believed or didn't believe from day one, what matters is what they failed to do, and that is confirm their suspicions. Good coppers have a few possible scenarios in mind when an abduction is called in. They don't choose one and stick to it unless they can see evidence of something like blood on anyone in the family or in the apartment / home . It's their duty to act on it as an abuction otherwise and, if something then turns up to suggest otherwise along the way, explore that. Don't firget the so called blood splatter and scent of a death were not there on day one. So the PJ should have went with an abduction .It didn't help anyone serving as a copper for either country when politicians involved themselves and started reshaping goals and tactics. That seemed to set Amaral on another 'suspicion' scenario that the politicians didn't want the case solved and cites that as why he was removed from the case. The later failure of the evidence to stand seemed to confirm those suspicions for him.He thinks something happened to it in transit to and from the UK . Again, suspicion. Whether or not he's right is debatable.But the ten years of zilch seems to indicate that nobody is going to close this case with a result either way unless somebody confesses or breaks rank.No chance of that happening.

      The evidence isn't going to suddenly become valid now so we have to accept that. How could it ? Talking about the McCann's manners or swearing is worthless. I don't think talking about class preference is either. If the McCanns are receiving protection it isn't due to their class. Even if they're viewed as socially superior to the working class , that doesn't place them above the law. There have been plenty of well-heeled convicts that didn't escape jail before the McCann case. But they were after police investigations, not political ones.

      VT

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous7 September 2017 at 18:44

      You have posted a link of what was collected and sent for forensic examination.

      For completeness you should post a link to the results of those forensic examinations.

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous7 September 2017 at 18:44

      ''Blood spots up the walls in the apartment, for instance, I suggest you look at this link -''

      Yes, the link that shows a wall but is indicating the floor beneath it. The marks on the wall don't even resemble blood spots. I think a lot of observers want those marks to say different. But the report clearly states :

      ''proceeded to collect [recover] the floor tiles where the dogs used in the activity indicated [alerted to] the possible existence of blood traces ''

      Floor tiles. No wall.

      ''Those tiles were lifted from the floor, in a way to preserve the possible traces intact for them to be subjected to examination by an authorised laboratory.''

      You go on to say ''Leaving no trace, well perhaps the abductor didn't leave any trace because their wasn't an abductor. I suggest you look at the link, then come back to me''

      Most, if not all, intruders think ahead about leaving evidence. Wouldn't you ? So if they're careful enough to wipe fingerprints clean or wear gloves are we supposed to call that evidence of no abduction ?

      The link with your wall full of blood spots is a collection of pictures of floor tiles where possible blood traces are.

      Delete
  25. “john blacksmith 5 September 2017 at 19:27

    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.”
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Hello

    Respectfully.

    “…the evidence does not exist…”

    An existential statement.

    “In saying… I risk crazed discussions with the Usual Suspects about Being and Nothingness.”

    You do not “risk crazed discussions” because, as you previously explained perhaps more than once, you avoid taking part in such discussions and that’s why you would not allow comments on your own site.

    Who are “the Usual Suspects” by the way if I may ask?

    Your mentioning Being and Nothingness might give your readers the impression that your familiarity with and understanding of that work are such that you are able to discuss it. Are they indeed such? Or did you mention Being and Nothingness simply to afford credence to your “…the evidence does not exist…” while being unable to substantiate?

    “So I'd better stress that I am talking, naturally, about judicial evidence.”

    Naturally.

    Furthermore, there appears to exists a contradiction between your aforementioned existential statement and “The Archiving Summary”, which, according to you, holds “open the possibility that such evidence may emerge in the future…”. “…may emerge in the future…” from nothing/non-existence? Or from having been obfuscated/undiscovered? By what means may “…such evidence…” “…emerge…”?

    “There is no way round it: if it can't be produced in court then it isn't any use.”

    False in general. Not necessarily so in the case in question:

    Let’s assume that there presently exists evidence inadmissible in court.

    Are you able to demonstrate/prove that none of all those concerned with the fate of Madeleine McCann would be able to come up with arguments which would make said evidence admissible and consequently perhaps actionable?

    Alternatively, are you able to demonstrate/prove that said evidence is incapable of giving rise to conjectures of such explanatory power that the currently unseen/overlooked aspects of the case would yield actionable and/or admissible evidence?

    Bearing in mind that this blog is not a court of law, I think I will be safe leaving it to your good self to reconsider the rest of your penultimate paragraph if you fell like it.

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

    I am afraid I can’t help you if you can’t see after years of looking. We may not see anything of material onsequence happening with this case in the foreseeable future, but I’d very much like to be wrong on this.

    Also by a ‘SARTRE’ http://www.batr.org/terror/090517.html

    Please don’t take my comments personally. I am sympathetic towards your efforts in the matter of Madeleine McCann. Our ‘opinions’ might clash occasionally, but, may I dare say, that’s no reason for us to feel animosity towards each other.

    Sorry I went on a bit.

    Peace and good wishes.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Are you able to demonstrate/prove that none of all those concerned with the fate of Madeleine McCann would be able to come up with arguments which would make said evidence admissible and consequently perhaps actionable?''

      An argumnt and concrete evidence are two different things. If an argument could turn inadmissable evidence into concrete evidence don't you think somebody would have come up with one in ten years ?

      Delete
    2. Give us a break and cut down on the wind, could you?

      Delete
    3. Never mind 'cut down on the wind,' there's a hurricane coming, and I'm not referring to the one hammering the Caribbean and Florida.

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous8 September 2017 at 00:33

      You mean the tide is turning tick tock!

      Delete
    5. I think so too 00:33, for anyone involved in Madeleine's disappearance, this must be a nail biting time. Operation Grange clearly have no intention of filing this away as a cold case.

      Delete
    6. 8 September, 0.33: Hello. I was actually replying to 7 September 15.11, an anonymous person who stalks me with the clear intention of kidnapping me and forcing me to listen all day every day, as he reads his weighty Great Thought journals from a comfortable armchair while I remain padlocked in a trunk with a Giant Panda doll.

      From the post you can see why I am so terrified of the prospect, and the inevitable suicide that will result. I was simply begging for mercy.

      Since your sentence consists of less than 574, 326 words and 426 sub-clauses and since you do not drop names like massed stun-grenades designed to render the reader stunned and incapable, I take it you are not him. I hope you are right, BTW.



      Delete
    7. john blacksmith 7 September 2017 at 18:33

      “Give us a break and cut down on the wind, could you?”

      “…us…” as in ‘We in the Bureau’?

      I can’t cut down on that which I do not break, Your Royal Highness, but I keep a Sundström respirator handy just in case.

      Good wishes.

      T:)

      BTW, “…Code Napoleon…” (Code Napoléon/Code civil des Français) is the French civil code.
      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/truth-last-resort.html?showComment=1503491567953#c6942120175981252744

      Delete
  26. anon @ 18:44 wrote
    ""So persons or persons unknown removed Madeline from the apartment", gosh, I'll say it again for the umpteenth time, Eddie & Keela??????"
    ............................
    Totally worthless with out a body as is well known.
    Sky news has this to say today.
    "Sky News understands that phase of their investigation is complete and their success will hinge on technical results of their work".
    http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-set-to-be-extended-as-police-ask-for-more-funds-11024595

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you taunting Operation Grange via my blog 21:51?

      Whatever results OG are waiting for are 'Totally worthless without a body as is well known'? Well known by whom? Wiki lists hundreds of cases where there have been successful prosecutions without a body.

      In fact, Martin Grime, the dog handler in the Maddie case, gave evidence in the prosecution of D'Andre Lane, who murdered his 2 year old daughter Bianca Jones. Lane was convicted 'without a body', although the child's body was later found.

      In trying to recall details of the case, I stumbled on the result of an Appeal by Lane to have the dogs' evidence dismissed. Useful for Team McCann because it summarises the arguments against the dogs, but a double edged sword because it reinforced the accuracy of the dogs. Lane lost his appeal.

      Delete
    2. Oops, mean't to give link. A short, and very interesting read for those interested in the dogs' evidence:

      http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html

      Delete
    3. Double Oops, the case is entitled PEOPLE v. LANE

      Delete
    4. "Because Grime never testified that his dogs were 100 percent accurate, evidence of a specific instance in which one of Grime's dogs was inaccurate was not probative of Grime's truthfulness and would not have been valid impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we reject Lane's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel because he has failed to establish the factual basis of his claim."

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 8 September 2017 at 12:17

      Nice one. Yes, Dear, nice one!

      Many thanks.

      T:)

      Delete
  27. How much more money is the Police going to ask for to help their search for Madeleine fgs? Are they asking for more and more money to help other missing children in the UK? No they're not. The McCanns should be footing the bill from now on. Raise money, sell your home if necessary. Ten years down the line, they remain the ones responsible for their child not being protected. Poor Madeleine, you deserved more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the McCanns will be happy with this further investigation 01:28 - the message is loud and clear from the police, they are not giving up.

      I would imagine all those involved in Madeleine's disappearance are starting to panic, and that's probably the intention. For anyone guilty of anything, the police not giving up, is an ominous sign.

      It doesn't take 30+ homicide detectives 6+ years to close in on one lone misfit, and they would be criminally negligent if they left a paedophile ring or child traffickers operating all this time.

      Scotland Yard have done well to keep up the pretence that they have been looking for an abductor all this time, but with every extension it seems less and less likely.

      Delete
    2. They were mostly not Met detectives Ros. 80 of them were hired from G4S along the 6 years . Only a small percentage were Met officers . I advise you to watch BBC Panorama undercover from last Monday to understand what sort of people work for G4S. A quick google of the company will show you their appalling record.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, I will watch that 12:04, it seems to have caused a bit of a stir.

      I'm not sure how it applies to Operation Grange though, the leading officers are bona fide Scotland Yard, and their names will be attached to this case forever more.

      Are you saying the police contracted the investigation to G4S? Perhaps I'd better watch it and get back to you.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 September 2017 at 11:07

      I don't think the McCanns will be happy with this further investigation 01:28 - the message is loud and clear from the police, they are not giving up.
      -------------------------------------------------

      I disagree with you - I think the Mccanns will be very pleased if OG get more money to continue to search for what happened to Madeleine.

      Delete
    5. No ,sorry if I gave you the wrong impression Ros. They did not outsource the Investigation. Most of the people involved in it , though, were G4S as well as Met Officers, although these last in minor numbers.

      What is publically known:

      81- G4S Staff hired over 5 years (my previous 6 year figure was incorrect, apologies )
      Another company called Servoca was also used to outsource staff for the investigation, although I am not familiar as to how many were hired from this last company.

      the programme I mentioned, is not related to the McCann affair, it relates to detention centres but I advise everybody to watch it so that people are aware of the company's track record.

      Delete
  28. Hi Ros,

    Your comment on the face of crime reminds me of a poster in my Army days. It showed a man dressed in jeans, jumper & wearing a balaclava. The other man was wearing a suit & carrying a briefcase. The caption underneath said "WHICH ONE IS THE TERRORIST?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question John. It reminds me of a speech by Charlie Chaplin as Monsieur Verdoux, how do his crimes as a serial killer, compare to the mass murder of nuclear bombs?

      Delete
  29. Dearie me Ros and Sharples are still under the illusion that SY will one day get round to cuffing the McCanns.

    It is pretty clear that the current PT investigation doesn't agree with the Amaral cock up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeing has the PJ don't comment where does that leap of faith come from?

      On the boundary

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 11:13

      I agree.

      Delete
    3. By Martin Brunt, Crime Correspondent:

      "Detectives from the Metropolitan Police and their Portuguese colleagues have worked together for more than a year to find clues to corroborate their theory."

      It has to be a pretty abstruse theory if they've spent the last year or so looking for corroborative evidence. Clues to a more prosaic explanation have been a matter of public record for a decade.

      IF Brunt is to be believed, then OG is far from being an example of best (investigative) practice. The evidence should drive an inquiry, not a theory.

      After six years spent investigating 'the abduction', OG seems to have adopted the SETI research model: 'We have a belief but as yet no evidence to support it. We'll keep looking though, just as long as we continue to get the funding'.

      Delete
    4. If Brunt is ever to be believed then Father Christmas is coming to drop off presents to everyone this year.

      Delete
  30. Ros @ 12:15
    Whatever results OG are waiting for are 'Totally worthless without a body as is well known'? Well known by whom? Wiki lists hundreds of cases where there have been successful prosecutions without a body.

    In fact, Martin Grime, the dog handler in the Maddie case, gave evidence in the prosecution of D'Andre Lane, who murdered his 2 year old daughter Bianca Jones. Lane was convicted 'without a body', although the child's body was later found.

    In trying to recall details of the case, I stumbled on the result of an Appeal by Lane to have the dogs' evidence dismissed. Useful for Team McCann because it summarises the arguments against the dogs, but a double edged sword because it reinforced the accuracy of the dogs. Lane lost his appeal.

    .................................
    Are the McCanns under lock and key? no, the dog alerts are totally useless has they stand,get over it.So what do you think if they are so important prevents any furthering of the case?Either they are a clincher or they are not, freedom form jail for anyone connected to the dissappearence shows they are not.

    On the boundary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there is a determination to prosecute, the dog alerts are not 12:59, like the Bianca Jones case, they will become part of the circumstantial evidence. The child hasn't been seen since, the dogs only alerted to the McCanns' property.

      You really should read the result of the Appeal Court in People v. Lane, it gives all the reasons why the alerts of the dogs counted in the convinction of D'Andre Lane.

      Delete
    2. Ok lets try another way what leads you to believe that the current investigation is in any way consistent with the dog alerts?

      On the boundary.

      Delete
    3. Dog alerts can be submitted as evidence, not circumstance. Or not at all . Prosecution teams can look for historical cases that they can cite. What's prevented them ?

      Delete
  31. Cor! that's a terrifyingly penetrating post, isn't it?

    Anyway, let's play the new game, the Menezes game, again. Would you like to show us the evidence that makes it "pretty clear" that the current PT investigation "doesn't agree with the Amaral cock up"?

    When did they say so? Who said it? And so on.

    Of course, if you don't produce it then we'll assume, correctly, that "it's pretty clear" that you're just another tawdry, anonymous little bull******r.

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/netflix-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-release-date-trailer-parents-making-a-murderer-amanda-knox-a7935796.html

    Comment "Pyewacket":

    "Up until a couple of years ago no comments were ever allowed on McCann related articles in the MSM. For some reason or other, that has now changed. In addition, comments that were critical of the saintly duo or are informed by the actual facts surrounding the case, are no longer moderated out, so we regularly hear commenters mentioning that there was no evidence of abduction, or the alerts by the sniffer dogs, and other elements that many people have actually looked into this case using other information sources than the same old, same old, one perpetuated by the MSM and the parents. They are not widely believed any more, and it is to be hoped that whatever version of events Netflix chooses to portray is a true reflection of the changed public perception."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''comments that were critical of the saintly duo or are informed by the actual facts surrounding the case''

      'facts' bring arrests. The 'commentators' discuss their opinions. Public perception is fickle. Three quarters of the world believed the alien autopsy was genuine despite the obvious fakery. The abduction, murder, or death of a child who has never been found is far too serious to take it to a court of gossipers.

      Delete
    2. Scientia potentia est.

      Don’t underestimate the power of public opinion.

      Delete
    3. I don't. I don't underestimate the power of gullibility either. Knowledge may well be power. Opinion isn't.

      Delete
    4. 22:14

      You've never done Jury service then?

      Delete
    5. ''You've never done Jury service then?''

      Unfortunately yes. Locked in a room with 8 lunatics and three normalish people. At one point we nearly had a student on trial for stealing a CD done for mass murder.

      Delete
  33. Дорогой Владимир Владимирович,

    Это Вы сегодня посетили этот скромный уголок примерно в 20:01 по Лондону?

    (Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich

    Was that you who has visited this humble abode today at about 20:01 London time?)

    Ra

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous 8 September 2017 at 11:13 wrote: "Dearie me Ros and Sharples are still under the illusion that SY will one day get round to cuffing the McCanns".

    Yes, quite so. And despite voters on the poll believing this IS a state cover-up.

    What is worse in Blacksmith's case, though, is not only that he thinks there is insufficient evidence to even charge the McCanns with a criminal offence, but that he appears to REJOICE in this state of affairs.

    Not forgetting that in his seminal great work 'The Cracked Mirror', he boldly states that the evidence is consistent with Madeleine having been abducted.

    And one more thing. Why is he so offensive and angry with posters here?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 8 September 2017 at 21:04

      “Why is he so offensive and angry with posters here?”

      Perhaps ‘abusive’ and ‘vindictive’ can be justifiably added to your short list.

      “The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.”

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
  35. Anonymous8 September 2017 at 15:52

    “'facts' bring arrests.”

    Took quite a few years for charges to be brought after 96 people, young and not, as opposed to one child, bless them all, died at Hillsborough, comrade, as you very well know.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was politics first, spin second, media third and police fourth. Thousands of witnesses and surviving CCTV images helped as well as officers prepared to break rank. The McCann case has none of that.

      Delete
    2. I agree, Ziggy. But what the McCann case DOES have is a group of at least 9 people who have 'a pact' between them. Therein lies the answer to what happened. They know, you know!

      Delete
  36. 8 Sep @22:19

    That's, in general, what I wanted to hear.

    Thanks, speak later.

    Respect.

    T

    ReplyDelete