Thursday, 19 October 2017

IS IT RIGHT/WRONG TO DISCUSS THE CASE OF MISSING MADELEINE?

The One Million mark for me, has been a time for reflection, and a time I think, in which to explain how my blog began and why I am still here. 

In 2010, I had the offer I have dreamed of since childhood, a book deal with a major publisher!  My dreams of a bestseller however, were crushed.  For many reasons, tis true, it was the wrong time, it broke the Misery Memoir genre (not miserable) and my name was absolute filth on the internet.  No-one would review it, and no-one would publicise it. No-one would connect their name to it.

There were also a number of dedicated sites such as 'The Lies of Rosalinda Hutton' and hundreds of pages devoted to my 'imagined' life as a Hater in their notorious death dossier and they trashed my books on Amazon. They had great fun discussing my mental health issues, urging me to take my meds, and rolling on the floor laughing when they pushed me to the edge.  All tastefully accompanied by eating popcorn emojis. 

But I'm no victim - as if!  I get knocked down, I get back up again (among, my funeral songs), I've never had the resources to launch legal battles, and I wouldn't if I could.  Listening to barristers hurling references from ancient books at each other, is an experience I never want to have again, in this life or the next. 

I do however, care very much about the legacy I leave, almost as much as I care about my kids.  I don't want to be remembered as that evil woman online who tormented a grieving family.  I will put my hands up to every crazy thing I have done in my life, but I have never been malicious.  The words of my beloved Dad are always with me. 'Never hurt someone just because you can'. 

For me, commenting negatively on the Madeleine case was a real crisis of conscience.  I could not forgive myself if I added to the McCanns pain if they were innocent.  I didn't comment negatively, until I had passed my own, very strict criteria, of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  And even once I did, I stuck within my own self inflicted moral codes, those that allow me to sleep well.  I don't libel anyone, I don't accuse anyone and I try my best to steer 'antis' away from hysteria.  I know the power of words, as Maya Angelou said much better than I, it's the way you make people FEEL. 

The words Honesty and Integrity too, have served me well.  In one of the first writing classes I attended, the lecturer (thanks Mike), wrote them in large letters on the blackboard (yes it was that long ago). You can use writing a memoir as 'payback' for example - but why would you?  When it can so easily be used as a basis for reconciliation.

But I want to use the Million mark, to thank all those readers who have stuck with me, many of whom go back over the years and with whom I share fond (and crazy) memories.  It's been a roller coaster ride.  My blog is as it is. Nothing planned.  As an ageing hippy chick, I can't complete a daily 'to do' list let alone a life plan - I accidently wrote New Year's Resolutions on the last whiteboard I had in permanent ink, by March it was driving me demented.

Whether we should or shouldn't discuss the case of missing Madeleine McCann is a dilemma we all face from time to time, I'm sure.  On the surface, it seems ghoulish, dig deeper, and it seems judgemental and a class issue.  You can see why no MP wants to bring the subject up.  Those hurling rocks at Gerry and Kate, are chavs and Sun readers, the educated elite wouldn't dream of being so crass as to suspect, two middle class doctors of disposing of their child's body. 

That isn't true of coursse, as the exposure of poor Brenda Leyland revealed, disbelieving the McCann's abduction story is not restricted to the Council estates and the travellers' sites.  Not believing the McCanns, crosses every class, and educational level.  Saying it out loud however, is another matter.  It is still politically incorrect and can destroy a journalist's or blogger's career in seconds.

Any 'sane' person in my position would have stopped commenting on the McCann case, as soon as the backlash began.   I didn't of course. Unfortunately, their attacks brought back that outraged little 5 year old, who refused to accept any form of injustice!  I was the only girl in the boy scout pack for example.  My instinct was to fight back, my dear old dad would have said, for heaven's sake don't follow your instincts, but I probably wouldn't have listened to him.  Much of his wisdom, didn't kick in until many years later. Doh!  That I followed my instincts, should make it absolutely clear that I wasn't in it for the money. 

Speaking of the wise.  I once watched a documentary about the fighter pilots horrifically injured in WWII.  They were a terrific bunch, brave beyond compare, and even in the face of all they had suffered, they were still having a giggle at the funny side.  Their Treasurer for example had no legs, they said with mischievous grins.  One particularly outspoken old gent recalled his days flying out to protect Britain's shores. 'The cheek of it!', he said, with such force, the handlebars on his moustache flew upwards.  I found myself applauding and saying 'here, here' or is it 'hear hear', as his words and the way in which he said them became a permanent fixture in my brain! 

The cheek of it!  How dare these people think they can destroy my childhood dream.  Now, I can hear my feisty mum, shouting 'here, here'.  My blog, I hope, has gone some way to repairing the damage caused to my name by my links to this case.  That is, those who take the time and trouble, can see for themselves, that this is not a hate site filled with malcontents abusing the McCann family. 

But should we discuss the details of such a high profile crime on social media? And the most likely answer is, most of us do feel uncomfortable with it, and are very aware that it affects real people, including children.  But it should be clear by now, that 99% of my posters, observe their own high moral code and are considerate in their replies. 

Against that, people are being hurt by the deception that is being put out, and having children, should not make public figures immune from criticism.  The idea is absurd.   Common decency tells us that families, and kids in particular, should never be stalked and harassed, but they shouldn't be held up as human shields.  And they shouldn't be used to prevent the public from discussing the validity of the abduction story.  Particularly, as Gerry and Kate have historically always called on the public to help find their daughter.   

I regularly question myself on the morality of what I am doing here.  I don't need Judges, censors or lawyers from Carter Ruck, I torture myself enough already.  Ultimately, I feel I have no option but to continue.  I have to get past the 'bad name' label that has blighted every area of my life. 

I know for example, that should I publish a book, which I am going to within the next few months, hopefully by Christmas, it will immediately be trashed on Amazon.  However, as I mentioned above, I am not a victim, and I believe just as much as I did at 8 years old, that I was going to write a seminal book!  And I believe talen will always find a way.  Tis true, I didn't think it would take this long to find the right formula, but there you go. 

If I am ever to fulfil my dreams, a cottage where I can hear the sea, a bright yellow noddy car, a country kitchen where I can make cherry pies for my platonic friend Big Ears,  I will have to get my head down.  I would also have a crazy mutt, or several,  the kind of dejected looking oldies who appreciate being pampered and won't criticise my pastry or give me zero points for my hostessing skills.  Dogs are great - even if you throw 'the fecking pie' at them, they are not offended, in fact, they come back for more.  To my readers of old, I haven't entirely given up on the idea of a beach hut in Cuba and a toenail painting, guitar strumming Rastafarian, but now I am considering all the dangers of a swinging hammock - I fear it would play havoc with my arthritis.

But before I go book a flight to Cuba, or go visit a local dog Rescue, I am committed to clearing my name.  I know that my blog is read by many, including the educated elite, and I hope that when this case reaches it's conclusion, both my real name and my pen name will no longer be taboo. 

Meanwhile, the million mark has emboldened me to have another go at publishing a book online, this time, in my favourite genre, comedy.  Beneath this serious, academic, exterior (yeh, I know), lies the crazy, wise cracking spirit of my deceased (and hilariously funny), mad Irish mother.  At the moment she passed, I felt her character take over mine, like a Queen passing her crown on to her heirs, I got all her gags.  In my mum's lifetime, I didn't mimic her elaborate body language, her booming 'royal voice', or urges to cause mischief, because it would have felt disrespectful.  But she when she passed, she gave me a shove, a sort of have as much fun with them as I did, wink, wink.   

But I have probably given enough away about where my book will be coming from.  Suffice to say, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the Madeleine case and I hope this time around, the fair reviews will counter the predicted bad ones. 

But let's get back to the opening question.  Is it morally right to discuss the case of missing Madeleine?  It is a question I ask myself regularly, then I wonder if it is morally right to watch and read propaganda that is intended to hurt and deceive others without challenging it?  The Edmund Burke quote, '.......when good men do nothing', makes me wonder how I would answer when future generations ask how the wonder and freedom of the internet was taken away from us, by the government and armies of vigilantes?  Where did it all begin?


 
If you enjoy my blogs and would like to make
a small contribution, please see donate button on the right

 

220 comments:

  1. Well done on the million hits plus.

    What I like about your blog are the balanced views from both sides of the fence and I have also seen you stick up for the McCanns despite your doubts, this is why I visit your blog.

    In regards to your question on whether it is right or wrong to discuss the case, I believe in freedom of speech as long as people respect each others views and do not throw insults just because we don't agree. Like you said the McCanns are real people and there are children involved so I am very careful what I put online.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, anon 18:27 .It's a shame that you only represent a small and shrinking minority on blogs with one obvious intention and agenda while having the gall to claim the opposite in order to assuage what's left of their conscience.

      Delete
    2. Thank you 18:27, I am quite proud of what I have achieved here, without rules, regulations and bye-laws! I hate censoring and I hate censoring anyone else, the best debates are so often spoiled because moderators and 'admins' don't have the confidence to let them run their course. They fear what they might unleash.

      On top of which, I am great believer that discussion will naturally find it's own level. Be it down in the mud and the blood and the beer, or reasonable and cordial. Happily, on here, the reasonable and cordial are the victors, decent folk like your goodself 18:27, can drop in and out without fear of the gang mentality that exists elsewhere.

      Please also know, that your consideration for others, is also very much appreciated.

      Delete
    3. That simply isn't true 20:22, the poster at 18:27 is representative of the majority who comment here. That is, they don't stalk innocent witnesses and put them on public trial and mention of any children involved, is treated with extreme sensitivity. We don't read bizarre connotations in holiday snaps.

      My spam box however, does contain posts received from McCann supporters that go into great detail about the kids. They were so blatant, I felt they were sent in order to 'catch me out' - that is, had I published them, they would have had grounds to complain about my blog.

      The majority don't want to hurt the kids in any way 20:22, they never have, the sensational threats towards them were fabricated. I am particularly proud of my blog, because most posters, through their own good conscience, treat that side of this case with compassion and sensitivity. It the parents who use their names, we don't.

      Delete
    4. It's very convenient, that 'spam box' of yours.It enables you to censor those who disagree with you or challenge you to support accusations. This way you can still repeat the same old lines about how you hate censorship.I can understand why you're so anti-censorship. Free speech has no limits. It follows that anyone can accuse or slander anyone under it's banner.It so happens that the parents of a missing child have been subjected to hate and accusations probably more than any other members of the public who have never been arrested or tried for a crime. You may well have what you refer to as your 'own strict criteria' for 'innocent until proven guilty' but the rest of the world don't live according to your definition. They live by the sensible one that has no agenda other than fairness and jutsice.It's a strange coincidence that your criteria allows you to unleash more anger and bitter slights at the parents. You could spend time trying to substantiate your endless claims about how the McCanns are deceiving the public and the police haven't spotted it.You could explain why opinions that question those of the antis are less valid than those which they won't budge from.If nobody can prove anything, how is one set of opinions deemed as knowledge or as fact and anything or anyone that sees the other way of seeing things is deemed as stupid ? You claim fairness is your guide on these blogs, and that it's balanced and honest.Nobody can see that and I doubt you can either if you'r honest. It's aim is to pillory the parents, set up a kangaroo court and appoint yourself as prosecutor, judge, and jury.Your witnesses are those of the same mindset. You should heed your Dad's advice rather than just repeat it. He was dead right when he advised you not to hurt just because you can. You constantly try to antaganize and cause cause negative reactions from your detractors until they leave and all who remain are those who agree with you.

      Delete
    5. As I already said 23:20, supporters of the parents are welcome to post here, if you think something hasn't gone through, re-send it. I can only publish what's there. I don't have any 'winning arguments' hidden away in my spam box!

      I won't however, give you a platform to abuse me personally on unrelated topics. Why should I? lol.

      I know that you are a regular reader of my blog, because you have actually used many of my own words, using criticisms I have made of the cesspit, against me. There are no kangaroo courts here, no prosecutor, judge or jury.

      Rather than plagiarise my words, why not let them sink in? You have described exactly the kind of behaviour I despise, and the reason I am despised by the majority of the antis. I have neither the time or patience for it. Take a minute. And why would I spend my time substantiating claims I haven't made? Wouldn't that make me as bad as the forum loons?

      That you accuse me of antagonizing and causing negative reactions from my detractors so they leave is LOL funny. I'll put a few phials of smelling salts out for when they leave, the sensitive souls.

      But going back to those believers who's only agenda is fairness and justice - how about a bit of fairness and justice for Goncalo Amaral? He has proved in 3 separate Courts that he didn't do anything wrong, how about the McCanns lay off him?

      My blogs are REactive 23:20. I challenge the deliberate deceit, my conscience simply would not allow me to do otherwise.

      Hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions out there, who, like myself want to know the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann. The people who read and post on my blog want to know, and I won't lie to them, I won't embellish anything, and I won't create fake news.

      What you really want me to do 23:20, is to keep my trap shut so Team McCann can keep issuing press releases, sympathising with themselves, and battering Goncalo Amaral. I am spoiling their fun.

      Delete
  2. Rosalinda, keep up the good work and thanks for publishing comments, whatever the mind of man or woman can conceive and believe.

    As soon as it’s available I’m going to buy your new book and read it, all tastefully accompanied by eating popcorn, sans emojis :)

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Delighted to hear it NL.

      I'm finally giving in to my natural (naughty) instincts, and writing the kind of irreverent humour (that makes me giggle) that I've been holding back for some reason. Daft really, because I've never been that great at serious stuff!

      I once came second in a writing competition many moons ago. The first prize was that your play would be performed on stage in Deptford, and the second prize was a professional review and publication in a book of plays.

      I was very excited about the Review. I saw myself as a female Arthur Miller, my work littered with profound thoughts, and memorable lines. I was a very intense young woman at the time (I blame the Brontes), and pretty certain that my genius would soon be recognised.

      Sadly, the Review wasn't what I hoped for at all! The 'reviewer' found it hysterically funny and commended me on my wacky sense of humour. To say I was miffed is an understatement. All my dreams of being a serious writer, kind of ended there.

      But I'm OK with it now. With comedy you can get away with far more than you can standing on a soapbox and it's a lot more fun to write :)

      Sadly, due to all the ferocious critics I have out there, I will have to cover it with Warnings, lol.

      Delete
  3. Hi Ros!
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Your blog is sanctuary from the dross and the profane and their loss is your (and our) gain.
    You cannot demand popularity, you have to deserve it, and the fact your blog is visited more than any other "Mc" sites speaks for your broad minded, heart on your sleeve implacable honesty.
    You make everyone welcome. Not many can do that, especially over such a divisive topic.
    I wish you all the very best with your book!
    Here's to your next million.
    -
    SixYearsInaComaMan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SYCophancy as per

      Delete
    2. Your kind words are greatly appreciated SYIACM, they are always inspiring.

      I agree, 'it ain't broke', more through luck than judgment it must be said, but it has evolved into what I always wanted it to be. A forum, where reasonable and intelligent people could discuss this case without the anger and hysteria.

      As for the next million, I'm hoping it will apply to book sales, lol! I'm still holding out for that Noddy car and two bedraggled mutts!

      Delete
    3. Hi Ros!
      Yes, I don't think there's any set formula to constructing a popular blog, although you being 'mine host' rather than a 'forum dictator' makes a big difference. THE difference. As long as we wipe our feet you let us in!
      Btw, I almost put "here's to your next million book sales". So this time I'll say "here's to your Noddy car and two scruffy woofers." Actually, Lurchers always look bedraggled...bit big, though; they'd take YOU for a walk lol!
      :-)
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    4. Ah, I have a special place in my heart for lurchers and greyhounds, one minute they are top dog, the next, they are competing with their cute furry cellmates for a forever home as the punters walk by.

      I believe they are naturally quite lazy when the racing stops, which would suit me nicely. My last mutt, who lived until he was 19, was a sprightly fellow in his youth, and a little fecker, but in his latter years, he couldn't even be bothered to bite the postman. He would look at me, as if to say, 'you go nip his fingers, I can't be arsed'.

      To be fair, he still tackled steep hills, and ducks on lakes like a pup, well into old age, actually, he always looked like a pup given his small stature and silly face. I don't give him the credit he is due. He was actually co-author of my first book, many a time his paws ran across my keyboard - usually to bite a postman. He had a bit of grudge. Probably because when the postman actually saw the little dog behind the big bark, he said 'is that it'. It was cutting. I felt for him.

      Delete
    5. Hi Ros!
      Your poor postman. Must have looked like a well used dartboard. But yes, lurchers & greyhounds are either full pelt or totally bone idle and take up a whole sofa. Afghans are even lazier but high maintenance.
      I used to have a hand, or rather, a paw in everything I wrote as cats are very attracted to keyboards, too. Made more sense than me, often as not lol.
      Meanwhile, the attendance on FB forums and Twitter McHashtag have dwindled to a level of combined indifference and rehashed speculative nonsense. Although the insults still fly unabated.
      Nevertheless, it would appear that many have switched from seeing OP Grange as a farce to a possible fait accompli. There is a palpable 'mood change', seemingly. As you mentioned, all it would take is one of those involved whose conscience could take no more, to break ranks, as alliances, allegiances and priorities often alter over time.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    6. LOL, As adorable as big, slobbery dogs are, I'm too old to be fighting one for the sofa! As for an afghan, a dog that needs more maintenance than moi, has no chance! Barnabus Bubble, was small enough to do that going round in circles thingy, then then snuggle in without disturbing too much!

      I rarely look at the McCann hashtag these days, It is quite literally, the definition of stupidity. People doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. Zilch.

      The infighting between the antis, I have always found bizarre, but I guess they are just innately unpleasant people. I try sometimes to understand their motivation, their ultimate agenda?

      Bennett, HideHo, Petermac etc, probably saw groundbreaking books or fame/fortune or recognition of some sort.

      But that's being kind. Beneath their demands for justice, I suspect are demands for retribution. Someone must suffer, someone must be made to pay. The public must see justice being done. That I find scary, but it's there simmering away nevertheless.

      I personally am not interested in the punishment aspect of crime, fortunately, there are people out there prepared to do it. I simply don't have it within me.

      Preventing people from committing crimes again makes sense of course, but as history as shown us, punishing never changes anyone's behaviour.


      Ps. Don't be fooled by the grand name - he was a mutt, at least 15 breeds in there according to the vet! He looked like a Jack Russell with the wrong size legs, but it didn't bother him a bit. He would befriend the big dogs at the park, then strut alongside them as if they were best mates.

      Delete
    7. Hi Ros!
      Barnabus Bubble? I won't ask...lol! Bet his feet almost reached the ground, though.
      Yes, my Aunty had an Afghan. I think it was at the hairdressers more than she was.
      The McHashtag is only useful to find occasional links to latest articles/updates, - but you can bin the rest of it.
      Bennett gave all 'antis' a bad name as people thought he was typical of said. Hideho would have been better off as a strict librarian or nitpicking archivist. I'm being kind, there. lol.
      The rest of us would be happy to see justice, whichever way that goes, for Madeleine.
      It remains a compelling mystery that draws us forever back. I expect we all want a denouement, closure.
      As you say, crime and punishment is really a topic for another day. Justice would be more than sufficient for now.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    8. Anonymous19 October 2017 at 20:26

      “SYCophancy as per”

      Prove it!

      T

      Delete
  4. Hi Rosalinda

    I admire you for your strength and courage to go on challenging the official “truth” about the Madeleine case, so please do. I'm looking forward to reading your book.

    If your social situation (financial as well) has been affected as you describe, due to your criticism of the McCanns and their team, freedom of expression, democracy and social behaviour in the U K ought to be called in questioned.

    Not discussing the Madeleine case, as the situation is now, would be to provide for more threats in the future(Carter Ruck), when other crime cases will be discussed, and to accept being silenced.

    As far as I remember, the Madeleine case was a very sensitive crime case in Portugal and the authorities hesitated to release the P J files after the shelving of it, because the victim was a small vulnerable child case, who could still be alive. However, access to public records was then considered to be of overriding interest, therefore we are still here discussing the case. Without this transparency (thank you Portugal) we wouldn’t today have any facts at all to refer to, just rumours and gossip.

    As for myself, had the McCanns been decent and nice people, admitting child neglect and feeling remorse for what they did and for what they’re still doing, that is persecuting innocent people, I would perhaps have considered not to discuss this case on social media, just with my friends, but especially after the tragic death of Brenda Leyland I ‘ve no conscience concerns whatsoever discussing the case openly in my own name on social media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think there are any laws than can prevent blacklisting, or the trashing of an author's name on social media and Amazon Bjorn.

      It is as it is, but I am fortunate, in that I have had the means and ability to defend myself. I have not had to kowtow to the bullying, I'm still here, and I'm getting stronger. As JB pointed out on the last blog, the tables have turned, the attackers are on the retreat.

      As you say, had Gerry and Kate been sympathetic, and shown remorse and humility, the attitude of the public may have been different. For me too, the ongoing hurt they are causing others and their chilling indifference to the death of Brenda Leyland, removes any qualms of conscience.

      Delete
    2. Hello again Rosalinda

      I also hope, forgot to say that, that I really wish that you would also be interested in and also able to publish a book based on the Madeleine case and on all your thoughts about it at some future point of time, when it will be possible to do so.

      Even if Gonzalo Amaral's book was to be published in the UK in a well written English version, it would naturally still be very much Portuguese in its literal form, which could seem strange and confusing to many readers.

      Delete
    3. I will indeed write a book about this case Bjorn, I am just holding off until it has an ending! I suspect when the time comes the market will be flooded, but my familiarity with this case I hope, will give it a unique take.

      I should add. My offer to Kate McCann still stands. How she tells her story will be her legacy, how history remembers her. Her book 'Madeleine' may have been a bestseller because the time was right, but it lacked depth and honesty, and will be torn to shreds when the mud starts flying. I could write an entire book deconstructing Kate's entire book!

      For whatever Kate has done, she cares deeply for her children, in fact they may even be the reason the entire charade began. She knows in her heart that all the previous books and explanations don't stand up to scrutiny, she needs to give her children much more than an account of the truth.

      I will write a book regardless, but out of a sense of fairness, and of course intense curiosity, I want Kate to tell us why? I want to understand the reasoning behind it. How did whatever happened on that holiday, change her life forever? My suspicions are folie a deux, but I need to know more before I go down that route.

      Many thanks for your good wishes Bjorn, and your always insightful analyses of 'what they are up to' - it is greatly appreciated. :)

      Delete
  5. Quite often I asked myself the same question Ros as to whether it's right to discuss it. People sometime think the McCann world is split between those like us who based on the evidence respectfully don't believe them and some crazies who don't believe them but aren't respectful and those who fight tooth and nail despite the evidence to defend them. In reality the group that I would most come up against is those who believed the McCanns because they hadnt studied the evidence and they just can't bring it in their heart to believe the parents of an adorable 3 year old could do what they did. It's easier to believe the million to 1 chance that a child would be abducted without any trace by a stranger out of an apartment in a quiet holiday resort.

    Over the years I have managed to pursuade quite a few people but the acceptance of this truth is often met with a degree of sadness that their bubble has often been burst. I had one of my girlie weekends lately and on returning my husband joked about how far we had got in solving the mystery and my reply was I didn't discuss it because it is now getting too painful for some of them. There is a sad acceptance of the truth particularly amoung religious people ( although I'm not I have many friends who are) who I think the McCanns shamefully exploited.

    I still think we were right to discuss and expose the injustice of the case and as a society we will be in a better place when this is exposed and those responsible are brought to justice but I no longer believe we will be carried shoulder high for our part in exposing the farce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brilliant, thoughtful reply 23:12.

      I think you are spot on when you say that there are many people, who simply cannot believe that these two parents could have been involved in their daughter's disappearance. I remember how much I didn't want to believe it, I knew if I did, my faith in human nature would be lost forever.

      If what we imagine is true, the sheer wickedness of the crimes is immeasurable, and I think we will find that wickedness permeates the very heart of our society. A crime of this magnitude could only be orchestrated by someone with enormous power. Someone who could assure the parents they would never be charged.

      Had we not talked about it 23:12, the McCanns could have had their own Missing Children TV, knighthoods and a multimillion pound Madeleine Corporation right now. Public burnings of Goncalo Amaral's book would be the norm, and those critics who refuse to sign a pledge of allegiance to Gerry and Kate, would be working on a chain gang.

      Gerry and Kate made themselves public figures, quite deliberately, their demands to be exempt from criticism are absurd, so far past the point of insanity, that they should sue their lawyers for malpractice.

      Delete
  6. Firstly- congratulations, Ros. Credit where credit's due and all that carry on.Good luck with the book too.I wouldn't worry about Amazon.They're a**holes anyway.

    The simple answer to the simple question that heads this blog up is yes.It's a news item and always has been. OK, news items from the media are, for the most part, propaganda BS, but we're entitled to talk about it.If we weren't, it wouldn't be made public knowledge in the first place. When an event such as this happens it's dramatic, shocking and, therefore, emotive. We wouldn't be human if we remained unmoved by it.And the snatching or killing of little cute innocent children such as Madeleine, Jonbenet and little Jaimie become public injuries. We don't seek out the news, it's delivered to us.We think thoughts, we feel emotions.We relate, identify, and empathize instinctively, not by effort.

    The problem with musing about the unsolved cases, is that we demand justice while emoting far more than we cogitate. We become driven by emotion at the cost of reasoning. Our anger that no justice is seen to be done only further fuels what we are feeling. This isn't the greatest state of being in which to draw conclusions . When little or no evidence, witnesses, or forensics leave clues, it's even worse to demand justice based on nothing that can support a case.The result is frustration, which then seems to lead to anguish, which then finds vent online . Those charged with leading the investigation have to be meticulous in what they scrutinize and just as mindful of the law. They can't merely abandon protocol because the masses are running though the village with torches blazing.

    Anonymous19 October 2017 at 23:12

    '' like us who based on the evidence respectfully don't believe them and some crazies who don't believe them but aren't respectful and those who fight tooth and nail despite the evidence to defend them.''

    This is an example. Based on what evidence ? The police have had ten years. There can't be any evidence that satisfies them. Internet fights don't change that.

    ''It's easier to believe the million to 1 chance that a child would be abducted without any trace by a stranger''

    You made those odds up. How do they change when the three year old is seen to be left in an empty apartment in a foreign country at night as the parents are seen dining a hundred yards away ? Still a million to one ? Put a pound on that from me, when the case is solved you can pay me monthly or i'll post you a pound.

    ''I still think we were right to discuss and expose the injustice of the case and as a society ''

    What was the injustice and who was responsible for it ?

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bloody hell VT/ziggy one of your better post's.

      Delete
    2. I didn't thank you for your kind wishes on my forthcoming book VT. It felt genuine. Are we making progress?

      Delete
    3. 01:26

      "the three year old is seen to be left in an empty apartment in a foreign country at night"

      By whom? No one apart from the parents, even if you believe their account.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 20 October 2017 at 01:26

      “Those charged with leading the investigation have to be meticulous in what they scrutinize and just as mindful of the law. They can't merely abandon protocol because the masses are running though the village with torches blazing.”

      Hillsborough, building 7, among many?

      “Based on what evidence ?”

      On the evidence of the parents’ being unreliable witnesses perhaps.

      “The police have had ten years. There can't be any evidence that satisfies them.”

      Non sequiter.

      “What was the injustice and who was responsible for it ?”

      Ultimately, according to the McCanns, they are responsible.


      No reply! I saw you peeping trough your window… ‘Cogitating’?
      There is, in the public domain, no evidence capable of being corroborated beyond reasonable doubt that at about 8.30 pm on 3 May Madeleine had been left asleep in 5A and later, at about 10pm, found ‘missing’ by Kate McCann.

      And now to the incredible John & ZZ: “Boom, boom, boom, boom…”, comrade,
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K096sx5whTE

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
  7. Hi Ros,
    Congratulations on reaching the one million readership mark.
    Don't worry about offending anybody, your site is rational, polite, to the point, and a wealth of information.
    Keep up the good work.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is music to my ears JC, bless you.

      Unfortunately, given the nature of this case, and for all the uncomfortable reasons given above, those of us who want to discuss this case rationally have never found a 'home'.

      I've always had the hind of a rhinoceros, so I wasn't scared away by the thuggish tactics of Team McCann, but I despaired at the huge number of nice, decent, interesting, posters who were driven away by threat of 'exposure' to the employers, neighbours, family, friends - pretty much what they did to Brenda Leyland. And usually, they were posters I wanted to hear so much more from. Most of course, simply saw the insanity, and walked away.

      Most forums and facebook pages unfortunately, eventually turn into mini dictatorships. OK if you are happy to go along with collective thinking, but uncomfortable and intimidating if you are not. I'm amazed the cesspit survived as long as it did, given how rude and hostile they were to newcomers.

      I am pretty much of the same mind as Mark Zuckerburg (I said that out loud, and SAS (smart arsed son) choked on his coffee. 'That's what Open Debate' looks like.

      What kind of world is this that bans certain sections of society from having an opinion? I've suffered personally from people having opinions, but I still wouldn't ban them. I have the right of reply. So do they. And while I'm on a roll, so does Goncalo Amaral.

      See how you inspire me JC, lol, thank you.


      Ps. Little bit in love with Mark Zuckerbug, but not as much as John McDonnell, who is a cardie and silver fox mane ahead.

      Delete
    2. Pps. A little down today, my hopes of a drug fuelled fling in Vegas with Brad Pitt have been dashed. It seems he prefers younger women. Now looking up plastic surgery and dim lighting.

      Delete
  8. Good to see the blog is going well, Roz.

    Sad that the MMM forum has followed the Havern forum down the toilet but pleased you're doing good.

    Keep it up.

    F.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In answer to your heading "IS IT RIGHT/WRONG TO DISCUSS THE CASE OF MISSING MADELEINE?" personnaly as long as the likes of Rowley assistant commissioner to the MET a public funded body keep's popping up with updates then why not,how many time do we see some story or another in the rags with a tenuous link to the McCann case,if that isn't trolling I don't know what is.There may be many who do not agree with your musings but lets not forget the words attributed to Voltaire,about defending your right to say it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Title: Is it right/wrong to discuss, etc.

    22 paragraphs.

    Topic introduced: Para 9

    Digression at Para 11

    Return to topic: Para 22

    Appendix in closing: 'You may give me money'.

    Amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I could understand the obsession of your blog if it was a crusade against a miscarriage of justice that you were personally involved with, but: -

    1/ you have no relationship with any of the persons involved in this case
    2/ you have based your countless blogs solely on an opinion that has never been proved and is not accepted by those investigative authorities who have access to all the witness statements, files and evidence available (not all is publicly available or reliant upon questionable witness statements or google translations)
    3/ You have chosen to cherry pick anything that questions the integrity of the McCanns and ignored anything that might question the integrity of Amaral
    4/ You have chosen to ignore the key problems with Amaral's story - how was Madeleine's body hidden in the hours after her disappearance? How did the McCanns dispose of her body when two police forces and the world's press were watching their every move? Why did Amaral choose not to explore the connection of other burglaries that occurred in the complex?

    You should try acting as devil's advocate from time to time - it might give you a more balanced view.

    Finally, how will you react if one day in the future someone unrelated to the McCanns confesses of their responsibility for her demise (think Needham)? How would you deal with the fact that you had wasted so many years making such horrible accusations based on your own personal agenda? Probably shrug your shoulders and move on to solving the JonBenet Ramsey murder mystery!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 20 )ct 13.12

      Have you conveniently forgotten about the dogs findings, Eddie & Keela? You can defend the McCanns all you want but the fact is that the dogs were brought in by the UK police, they detected a cadaver and blood splashed up the walls of the apartment, the sofa having been pushed up against the wall. The sofa even had blood spots on the back of it.

      Do you expect the dogs to be ignored, how would that go down for future cases - OK bring in the dogs -

      Dog handlers - "Boss, the dogs have indicated a cadaver was here and there's blood spots all over the place"

      Boss "just ignore them, the McCanns said the dogs were unreliable so we'll have to believe them, I don't know why we bothered to come here".

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 13:12

      "her demise"?

      Delete
    3. Always the dogs, the dogs!! Think Haut De La Garenne in Jersey - those same dogs got it wrong! All police authorities and scientists agree - even Grimes agreed - the dogs getting excited cannot be used as evidence in court. Anyway, the dogs reaction may have suggested that a body had lain in that room, however, even if that was the case, the dogs do not point to who might have been responsible for that body - hence the plausible theory that a burglar may have been responsible.

      Delete
    4. Anon 15.44

      "demise" - death, dying, passing, loss of life, end.

      Delete
    5. 15:44

      Quite.

      A sermon in rectitude, drawing, for its example, upon the leaning tower of Pisa.

      Delete
  12. Anon 13.12

    "4/ You have chosen to ignore the key problems with Amaral's story - how was Madeleine's body hidden in the hours after her disappearance? How did the McCanns dispose of her body when two police forces and the world's press were watching their every move? Why did Amaral choose not to explore the connection of other burglaries that occurred in the complex?"

    Amaral only saw the case from a very early stage, he made his assumptions from what he saw then although a lot more has come to light over the past years.

    The fact that Madeleine disappeared before 3rd May is a strong possibility, hence the fact that Matthew Oldfield didn't say in his witness statement that he saw Madeleine in her bed (completely isolating himself from her disappearance) although he said he could see the twins breathing in their cots, which was ridiculous seeing as one cot was completely closed in at the end obliterating his view from the door and he would have had to go into the bedroom to look over the top of the cots to see if they were breathing or not then he would have seen Madeleine in her bed on the left of the door.

    Just to add, that on the Crimewatch programme the door was shown opening from the right to the left, hiding any sight of Madeleine's bed when in fact it opened from the left to the right giving MO a full view of Madeleine's bed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that Madeleine disappeared before 3rd May is not a strong possibility - but it highlights the armchair detective syndrome that has caused so many deluded people to believe that they can or have solved the case of missing Madeleine.

      Delete
    2. "The fact that Madeleine disappeared before 3rd May is not a strong possibility"

      Quite so. Given it's a fact, it's an absolute certainty.

      Delete
    3. An absolute certainty is easily proved to be just that. Nobody has produced that proof.The police haven't said anything to support this internet guess . It has as much going for it as an alien abduction. It's just more morbid.

      Delete
    4. 21.10, 23:45

      "An absolute certainty is easily proved to be just that"

      Really? Perhaps you should address your remarks to Anon. 17:42 who first referred to Madeleine's disappearance before 3 May as a 'fact' (aka undeniable truth).

      Or was that you?

      If so then I suggest you tighten up your own use of English before attempting to offer lessons in interpretation.

      Delete
  13. Anon @ 13:12 wrote.

    4/ You have chosen to ignore the key problems with Amaral's story - how was Madeleine's body hidden in the hours after her disappearance? How did the McCanns dispose of her body when two police forces and the world's press were watching their every move? Why did Amaral choose not to explore the connection of other burglaries that occurred in the complex?


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

    What was the point of egress for an alleged abductor,how many persons involved,what mode of transport was involved to spirit her away,where is she? once you know let SY know they are having a devils own job of finding out.Its almost like it never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In reply to Anon @17:31

    Not once when ruling out all and sundry have SY ruled out the dog alerts,wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't have to publicly state that they are ruling out anything. Maybe they are just a bit cautious about using dogs as evidence, after all, dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for Shannon Mathews in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire in 2008. The dogs alerted to dead bodies but, of course, Shannon was found safe and well having been hidden by her mother.
      Furthermore, as Grimes said in his statement, "No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from any alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

      Delete
    2. They don't need to but they have stated who they have ruled out or rather the numbers,Ref what Grime said,if they (SY) come across evidence that would confirm it do you expect them to ignore it,like I say they haven't ruled the alerts out.
      Ref Shannon Mathews, I presume you mean cadaver dogs never found Shannon seeing as she was alive its no surprise,no search and rescue dogs have been used in the McCann case since early days,the dogs on the mound were cadaver dogs,sadly it seems as if SY are of an opinion that the girl is dead,despite them saying there is no evidence to support either scenario,alive or dead.

      Delete
    3. SY believe that Madeleine is dead because whatever happened that night, with all the publicity arising from her disappearance, and the coloboma in her right eye that distinguished her from most other children, the likelihood of her living for 10 years without being spotted by anyone is very low

      Delete
    4. Let me clear up the Shannon Matthews case you have cited.

      The cadaver dog did alert in the Uncle's bedroom, quite rightly. The bed was second hand and someone had died in it.

      Delete
    5. The police surmised that someone had died in the bed but it was never confirmed. Therefore no-one knows if the dogs falsely alerted or not.

      Delete
  15. Anon 20 Oct 19.24

    You really are trying very hard aren't you to sway the dog findings away from the McCanns. The findings of the dogs in the Shannon Matthews case has nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine, as well you know.

    1) There was no dead body ever found or reported in apartment 5a in PDL

    2) There was never any incident reported that could account for blood spatter up the walls and on the back of the sofa, and blood being found between the tiles on the floors.

    Gerry McCann did say that Madeleine could have had a nose bleed, really?? That bad that it spurted all up the walls and on the back of the sofa - I don't think so.

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Furthermore, as Grimes said in his statement, "No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from any alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

    I think you know full well that many murder investigations have been finalised by the findings of the cadaver dogs without a body, it depends on the evidence that can be brought before a court with regards to the people who "disposed" of the body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And there is no corroborating evidence so the dog's reactions mean nothing.

      The dogs get it wrong sometimes (Jersey!). And if the dogs did detect a body in 5a, that does not prove that it was the McCanns who killed their child. Nobody can exclude the possibility of other possible scenarios unless the evidence is sufficient to charge the McCanns, which it obviously isn't.

      Delete
    2. Anon 23.34

      I'm sure the person(s) who owned apartment 5a would be fully aware if someone had died in it. As far as I can remember the PJ did a full investigation as to whether anyone had actually died in the apartment, which they would normally do for a missing person's investigation.

      Seeing as the cadaver dog alerted to the wardrobe in the bedroom where there was once a blue bag (denied by Clarence Mitchell, although there is a police photo of it in the wardrobe) I think that may mean more than you saying "the dog's reactions mean nothing".

      The dogs didn't get their facts wrong in Jersey, teeth were found which turned out to be human, the dogs also detected cadaver odour in the grounds, although a piece of bone/coconut shell was found, it is still unclear which it was, just because there was no body found it doesn't mean there wasn't one there at some point.

      Delete
    3. "a piece of bone/coconut shell was found, it is still unclear which it was"

      The artefact contained collagen and was therefore NOT coconut.

      Delete
    4. The forensic evidence doesn't exist as far as the investigation is concerned. It developed a lot more online than in reality. That's due to thousands who want it to exist. The police want it too but have to remain mentally balanced . The blood for example, if you read posts online was 'splattered' on walls, on a sofa, on the floor.The hysterics guid us to look at the photographs online. Amaral himself refers to them as microscopic. How is everyone seeing what a microscope is needed for just by looking at a poor quality photograph ? Why is the fact that one sample is that of a previous tenant ever mentioned ? Why have the police failed or refused to acknowledge that the cadaver alert was of importance when tens of thousands of the internet public say otherwise ? Why was Amaral so sure of the parents guilt before any dogs were brought in but had Murat tailed all day and evening before the PJ warned him that they'd 'get him' in the second half of the game ?

      Delete
  16. I have read Ros's blog many times, and occasionally made comments as well. I find the Madeleine McCann case intriguing, as obviously many others do. I would like to defend Ros here, because I actually don't believe that the McCanns had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance, and I've stated that on here before. Ros has never derided me for my opinion, or written anything nasty, simply because I don't agree with her. I find both sides of the argument interesting, but Ros's site is the only site I can bear to read that gives the argument that the McCanns are guilty. That's because Ros does treat the subject with respect and doesn't get into personal, nasty comments about the McCanns themselves, and certainly doesn't sling insults at those who disagree with her opinion. That's as proper debate should be. I respect Ros's opinion and am very interested in the reasons that she has formed that opinion. After all, it is mysterious case and people have a right to an opinion. I don't feel personally insulted that my opinion varies from that prescribed by the author of this site, and respect the fact that it is her site and she therefore has the right to write whatever she wants to write; my own proviso being that what is written is not sheer hate, and I've never experienced that on this site, unlike the other "anti" McCann sites.


    ReplyDelete
  17. As to why I disagree with the theory that the McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine, let me start by writing that I think their choice of child-care was appalling. However, I come from Australia where there is a case named "The Mr. Cruel case". In the 90's a man snatched several school girls from the street, covered their faces so that they could not see him, covered his own face so that it could not be seen; then took the girls (one at a time) to an unknown place, and molested them. He then put each one of them back in his car, wrapped them in a blanket, and threw them back onto the street, and they were rescued. There was only one girl that he actually killed, and the police believe it was because this particular child got a look at his face. The police have never been able to find this man, despite enormous searches and task-forces. The surviving girls gave as much evidence as they could, but the astounding thing was that there was not a scrap of actual forensic evidence found on any of the girls, or the blankets that they were thrown into the street with. The police (with the aid of criminal profilers) developed a profile of a criminal who utterly understands forensic evidence and how to get rid of it; of a man with a high education who was either a scientist, doctor, police officer or similar. There is not a shred of forensic evidence - even now, as they have kept all the items such as the girls' clothing and blanket etc... in the hope that as science improves, they will catch this man. Now, it's undeniable that these crimes occurred, because they have the evidence of the girls that survived and the body of the girl that was killed. But no forensic evidence. It isn't exactly a "theory" of mine, but I do think that it is possible that whoever took Madeleine McCann was similarly educated in forensics and how to hide evidence. We tend to think of such criminals as coming from low levels of education, but this is a cliche. It's imminently possible that the abductor of Madeleine McCann was a highly educated individual who understood forensic science down to the very last detail.

    I can't claim that this theory is correct, because I wasn't there and don't really know what happened to Madeleine McCann. I just think it's one that needs to be cons
    idered. It is entirely possible for someone to have entered that apartment and taken a chid, without leaving any forensic evidence.

    And I respect Ros's right to write whatever she wishes to write on her own blog, and find her theories as interesting as my own. One does not have to agree to have a civilised discourse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes 02:11 but there was evidence in the apartment against the McCanns. Blood spatter and cadaver dog alerts. And the only finger prints on the alleged open window were Kates.

      Delete
  18. @ anon 20:12

    "blood spatter up the walls"

    prove it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 21 October 02.40

      "Prove it" - there you go:

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

      Delete
    2. They are referred to as wall stains.....

      and the results from these swabs were?

      The original apartment sweep by the Portuguese in May yielded negative for blood after a light source and chemicals were used in the apartment.

      Delete
    3. From Gerry McCann's statement as an arguido.

      "During this interview several films of a forensic nature showing sniffer dogs were shown where their signalling can be seen regarding indication of cadaver odour and traces of blood also human, and only of a human nature, as well as the comments made by the expert in charge of the procedure.

      After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.

      Also, the dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, he says that he cannot explain this fact.

      Regarding the cadaver odour in the car that was rented at the end of May, (xx)-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.

      Regarding the presence of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has not explanation for this fact.

      ...

      The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

      A chronic condition.

      Delete
  19. Congratulations Ros! Good luck with your new book! :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Anon 21 Oct. 02:11
    Hi
    You assume that "it is possible that whoever took Madeleine McCann was similarly educated in forensics and how to hide evidence". I agree and just want to add, that most doctors do in fact have some basic knowledge in this field of science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have to have a background in forensics to know that it's important to wear gloves before breaking into somebody's property ? And if doctors have this knowledge of forensics that you're hoping will cast suspicion on the parents you obsessively hate, would they had left all of it around the apartment, up the walls, on the floor, in the boot of a car. Doctors know more about hygiene and cleaning, especially heart surgeons.

      Delete
    2. Maybe 00:03 but doctors don't know about cadaver dog alerts. Even Richard Bilton in Panorama seemed to be confusing cadaver dog alerts with DNA. You don't need DNA to confirm cadaverine

      Delete
    3. @Anon 22 October at 00:30
      Hi
      "Doctors know more about hygiene and cleaning, especially heart surgeons" Yes,I agree, they do indeed. As for the McCanns, they even washed Madeleine's "cuddle cat", possibly twice, and their apartment had been cleaned so well, that there were no traces of Madeleine left for a human being to detect.

      I'm not accusing the McCanns of anything. I've just said that they were/are very good at cleaning up in their apartments but maybe not quite so good at getting rid of rotten meat in their rented car

      Delete
    4. Anon 22 Oct 00.03

      Just to clarify re Gerry McCann, he's a heart consultant not a heart surgeon. There's a big difference between the two.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, 00:03, but let's take out 'the doctors you obsessively hate', 'obsessively hate' in particular.

      Not believing obvious lies, does not equal hate, particularly where it concerns two strangers. If that is the case, does it mean that those who support the parents 'obsessively love' them. OK, bad example, because I think one or two do.

      Can you not separate logic and reason from a dark, negative, emotion? It's not helpful and just makes the parents sound like whiney brats. It is just another McCann tool to shift blame.

      Those who do not believe the abduction story are not mentally deficient, drug addled, or eaten up with bitterness because they are not married to Gerry McCann.

      If the McCanns have a lot of enemies, it's because they have taken a lot of people for a ride, especially those who gave generously of their money and time.

      Most people, especially those who read and post here, are intrigued by what will be the Crime of the Century. That is, we are following our natural human instinct of curiosity. It is a puzzle we are trying to solve.

      That doesn't make us malicious. Most of us know that we are mere onlookers, we are not trying to insert ourselves into the drama. We are not emotionally involved, therefore the use of the word 'hate' is completely out of context.

      Delete
  21. In that case anon 02:11 the McCanns must be the most unluckiest persons alive. Not only did they end up in a resort where there was a child abductor this sbductor also was educated in forensics. He was not only able to steal their child but tamper with forensics to leave the place without a hint of an intruder. His knowledge of forensics was so good that he was able to leave cadaver scent. Was he also a magician.illusionist in that he was able to have the McCann see jemmed shutters which magically got fixed when the authorities arrived making it appear that they were somehow lying. Maybe that explains the doors being opened and closed and being in the wrong position than they were left he probably could open and close interior doors from outside with his mind. Wait does that explain why Gerry McCann said that he used the front door in the first interview and the patio doors in the second interview was this magician come illusionist come forensic expert outside the police station controlling his mind also. This really is turning into best seller 02:11 an abductor so cunning that he. Stole Kate mccanns clothes and covered them in cadaver scent AND their car too OMG I wonder if the x files would be interested in this

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Equally, the abductor had a degree in anaesthetics, I can't see how without injury, odour or obvious physical assault, it was possible to sedate three children without waking them. Or did they perform some mesmerism on Madeleine to keep her quiet. So if you thought your child had been sedated, what would you do? particularly considering you were\are & your friends qualified in anaesthetics! You couldn't make it up...could you!

      Mrs McCann said in one of her interviews, that Madeleine could not have left the apartment, draw the curtains, close the curtains, open and close patio doors & patio gate\locks. Then how did the potential abductor manage this whilst holding a near four year old? more to the point why would he\she close the doors? draw the curtains.
      Which brings us back to, why jump out of the window, when AS COULD MADELEINE, have excited out of the front. Point being, how did the McCanns think the abductor exited?

      Same old chestnuts at ten years!

      Delete
    2. Your comparison with your Austrialian molester experienced in forensics doesn't make sense 02:11. After all he was very careful not to let anyone se him whereas the guy who supposedly took Maddie calmly walked out of the apartment with her while her father stood at the gate. Wouldn't you think that if he was so careful with the forensic and went to the trouble of drugging the child that he would have been cool enough to have at least waited until the father was a safe distance away. After all wasn't he in the apartment when Gerry was there ( or have they dropped that story) and didn't panic and give himself away.

      Delete
    3. @ruth bashford22 October 2017 at 08:38

      ''Maybe 00:03 but doctors don't know about cadaver dog alerts. Even Richard Bilton in Panorama seemed to be confusing cadaver dog alerts with DNA. You don't need DNA to confirm cadaverine''

      That's true, doctors don't know about cadaver alerts.And 'investigative reporters' from the BBC don't either. The police do though. They also understand DNA. What was their take on it all ? Did they act on all of the 'evidence' you refer to ? Or are they hiding something ?

      Delete
  22. Difficulty in gathering forensic evidence

    PT forensics...
    "Then began the detailed observation of the apartment interior ending with the search and recovery of forensic trace material relevant to the present examination.
    Initially the search began for latent shoe-prints it being verified that dozens existed on the floor, in the various rooms of the apartment, which invalidated the attempt of identifying those of the perpetrator. Also, innumerable tracks [footprints] that were taken to be canine in origin mixed with red- and white-coloured chemical products, as used to see fingerprints, and an enormous quantity of hairs probably of animal (dog) origin that made it difficult to find possible traces, especially in the bedroom of two single beds and two children's cots from where the minor disappeared, and next to the aluminium window/door leading from inside the living room to the exterior area behind the apartment."

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Anonymous21 October 2017 at 16:44
    &
    @Anonymous21 October 2017 at 17:49
    Hi
    You're both so right.

    The McCanns' fairy tale is more like a scary ghost story, and as such it could have been quite amusing and entertaining, hadn't there been another true and tragic story about an irresponsbile couple and the fate of their innocent little daughter, which neither British MSM nor the SY/Met have yet told the British tax-payers or all the poor Portuguese people in PDL, who volunteered to search for Madeleine and then lost their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All that is left for explanation, that is the ruling in or out of the saga, can you be in two places at the same time? Todays Blacksmith is a good round up of the timelines. If you take the PACT, the set in stone (written many times) timeline aka alibis then what you are left with is everyone who wasn't mentioned in the checking, was by DEFAULT sitting at the table, therefore by interference, not to be confused with a lie, that is where they were.

      Still stacking the old chestnuts.

      Delete
    2. Björn21 October 2017 at 20:22

      ''hadn't there been another true and tragic story about an irresponsbile couple and the fate of their innocent little daughter, which neither British MSM nor the SY/Met have yet told the British tax-payers''

      If neither the SY/Met or MSM have told anyone this 'scary ghost story' how come you've read it ? Is it because it was composed in your own mind ? That's called a hypothesis( or guess). Either way, it's fictional, until proven othewise by evidence. You can't , therefore,state that anyone who agrees with it as 'so right'. Do any of the police agree with it, or are you suggesting that they are in full agreement 'secretly' and that's why we have no soltion to the mystery ? That's implying that they're either all lying, and have been all along, and that there has been a concerted effort to promote a false narrative in place of the truth and they are willingly going along with it .

      If you insist on pushing your idea, you have to also accept that you're indirectly making very real allegations against them , not just the parents.

      VT

      Delete
    3. VT
      ''Is it because it was composed in your own mind ?''

      How do you explain how it might have got there? If the input of information gave clarity there would be no second thought.

      ''and have been all along, and that there has been a concerted effort to promote''

      So, what exactly is your take on events? Just accept the ambiguity, don't debate?

      Have you an actual opinion, or just enjoy picking over other peoples? Do you have an original thought on the subject? Objectively discuss, rather subjectively.

      Delete
    4. VT - "Either way, it's fictional, until proven othewise by evidence"
      *
      Ergo an abduction is also fictional give there is absolutely no evidence of that, only the Mcs say so.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    5. The absence of the child is evidence isn't it ?

      VT

      Delete
    6. VT at 15:40

      The absence of the child is not evidence of an abduction, it is evidence of a disappearance.

      Delete
    7. Evidence of what?

      Delete
    8. Agree 21:00, Blacksmith's latest is a cracking read!

      Delete
    9. Anonymous22 October 2017 at 05:56

      My take on it is that Madeleine came to no good. I think tht's a fact . I think if a child is reported as missing at that time of night it has to be taken as an abduction or that she has wandered off unless there is visible evidence suggesting otherwise or obvious signs of guilt displayed by the parents.Neither may be the case, but the police are duty bound to treat it as that. If she hasn't wandered off- which his highly likely given that there seemed to be all kinds of people milling around leaving bars and a creche and somebody would have rescued her and called the police anyway. So, if neither visible signs of evidence or behaviour say otherwise, an abuction has to be considered as realistic. An abductor would -in this case- have to have been watching beforehand. It's far too unlikely that he or she would choose the a random apartment that housed children and no adults.Given that pre-meditation becomes a reality, part of the planning would take in how to avoid leaving traces and evidence ( gloves etc). A lock can be easily picked or a key be cut. The exit would be through a door, no need to climb out with a child in your arms. A car could be parked in a nearby car park. A boat could be waiting.It wouldn't necessarily be important to head for either a boat or the borders there and then if you had a base in PDL. It could happen the night after or the night after that once concealed and the initial furore had died down.

      Had the police been left alone I think progress would have been made reasonably early.But they weren't. A political hijack took place and changes were made in the the personnel and direction of investigation. Military Intelligence were called in and Prime Ministers involved themselves with an interest and concern unprecedented. Will we ever see that again ? We know we won't. I think that their over- involvement, along with their control of the media, is responsible for the lack of clarity you refer to.And that lack of clarity, whether we like it or not, leaves only debate and theorising . Any supposed evidence went away early. Everything since has been conjecture.Until evidence arrives, or a confession, that's all anyone will have. The favourite hypotheses point at the parents. I believe that is coloured by a comination of factors. The public have seen too many appeals turn oout to show the parents/wives/husbands actullay 'did it'. There's an old tradition borne out of detective mysteries that favour the well-to-do having a deep dark secret ( Sherlock Holmes. Afathas Christie, PD James etc). It's far more scandalous and juicy and it's a minor victory for the lower classes to have them exposed as morally inferior despite their status. A working class killer or kidnapper has no irony or shock value. Despite this, i don't believe for a second that the reaon the parents appear to be receiving protection is class-related. There's been too much time and money spent and too many reputations put on the line for that.
      The involvement of so many political high rollers ( including Mitchell) have made this a mystery that defies deductive reasoning. I believe the PJ( or a few of them) suspect a political whitewash.That would fit in with the tradition kept secret for years that children can be used for leverage. Given the Lisbon treaty, the relationship with Portugals politicians with UK and US prior to Iraq and the in fighting over the EU( again, Blair and Portugal), there's too many loose ends. I think it suits a lot of people apart from the public to have the parents as unofficial suspects. The protection and support they receive is a thank you . I just don't think that they realise that.

      VT

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda 16:26

      "Blacksmith's latest is a cracking read!"

      The upshot of which is (a) Operation Grange is as phoney as many believe, or (b) responsibility for Madeleine McCann's disappearance lies outside the perimeter of the T9 (which includes the child's parents).

      Not exactly a 'win-win' situation for someone obdurately opposed to any invocation of outside involvement (aka conspiracy).

      Delete
    11. Ah, I see where you are coming from ZT. This case gave the lower classes the opportunity to throw rotting cabbages at the intelligentsia - the intelligentsia being Gerry and Kate. More spite at their professional success, than sympathy for their loss. Am I right?

      Is that where all the perceived hate comes from ZT? We are all so bitterly jealous that we are bringing them down a peg or two by accusing them of murder?

      I suspect Gerry and Kate have been told since childhood that if others don't like them it's because they are jealous, ergo it's their first line of defence, for, err, everything. They don't have the emotional maturity to see that mums says things like that to make us feel better, because they have taken it into adulthood.

      Whilst the 'hatred' is class related, you don't the 'protection' the parents received is. From that side of the coin they are as vulnerable as the rest of us. Prey to the machinations of those much higher up the food chain, and if we could only forgive Gerry and Kate for being so superior to us, we would be able to see it.

      Interesting to see what goes on in the heads of Team McCann Ziggy, but not exactly sympathetic.

      Delete
  24. Anonymous at 00:03
    ("Doctors know more about hygiene and cleaning, especially heart surgeons.")

    Doctors know, but Gerry McCann doesn't know if Madeleine had a nosebleed during their holiday in Praia da Luz.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous22 October 2017 at 15:53

    ''The absence of the child is not evidence of an abduction, it is evidence of a disappearance.''

    People don't disappear.

    Anonymous22 October 2017 at 15:55

    ''Evidence of what?''

    An abduction.

    Anonymous22 October 2017 at 07:51

    Anonymous22 October 2017 at 07:51

    ''Anonymous at 00:03
    ("Doctors know more about hygiene and cleaning, especially heart surgeons.")''

    ''Doctors know, but Gerry McCann doesn't know if Madeleine had a nosebleed during their holiday in Praia da Luz.''

    What does that have to do with hygiene ?

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VT at 16:44

      It has to do with doctors who are parents or parents who are doctors.


      Delete
  26. To whom it may concern

    John Blacksmiths' (Blacksmith Bureau) latest is imo excellent and makes sense. Not just Rosalinda thinks so. Even I from my Swedish horizon realise that. Others have already understood that his text/article may be of interest for a further discussion of the Madeleine case on this blog. I must admit that I haven't quite understood John Blacksmiths' take on this case, but I do now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not entirely sure John Blacksmith quite understands John Blacksmith's take on this case. (See @19:08 above).

      Delete
    2. Björn22 October 2017 at 18:52

      "To whom it may concern"
      ----------------------------

      That's not me then - nothing you say concerns or interests me.

      Delete
    3. @Bjorn

      You understand nothing but a point of view that blames the parents for whatever you can dream up. You refuse to accept that your theory is only one and has no proof to say it's true, just like any other theory. Your hatred is disturbing as is your refusal to acknowledge anything outside of it. The haters frequently applaud and praise each other as though to give their crusade of hate more credibility.Why do't you ever reply to questions you are asked ? That's another trait you all share.

      Delete
    4. “I'm not entirely sure John Blacksmith quite understands John Blacksmith's take on this case. (See @19:08 above).”

      Really?

      Same as it’s always been, chum: a) the McCanns are proven liars on a large scale and thus whatever they claim about the case must be corroborated. No such corroboration has been forthcoming b) Their seven friends collectively agreed on a joint version of events instead of helping as witnesses independently; that unexplained action and a number of their claims cast doubt on the accuracy of their version so the police asked them to give clarification – and they refused.

      That’s it. There is no persecution of the couple or the seven by me; my statements are true and non-defamatory, as you are aware, which is why you and your associates never correct me on the data.

      I am primarily a committed, even fanatical, democrat with no interest in missing children or crime stories at all. I couldn't care less whether the parents "neglected" their children or not.

      What matters to me is that my democracy – yes, mine, Mr Bennett, not the “establishment’s” - is not toyed with in this way. A case involving a missing person where the nine people closest to her have been unable to give simple and coherent descriptions of their activities to the police around the time of the disappearance can never be accepted as closed by a civilized society.

      And that is why it has been re-opened. As for theories about who may have committed a crime I have never had an idea and, frankly, I don’t particularly care. That is for our society’s police and justice system to determine.

      I do, however, believe that the scandal of the interrupted investigation has now been rectified and the police have managed to get most of the answers that were refused to the PJ. We shall see.

      That’s why I’m completely calm and untroubled about the future of the case and, while I still express my views at times, I have no interest in forcing my views on others: if the known truths are presented then in the end they will prevail. And they are prevailing now.

      Delete
    5. Blacksmith 02:47

      "I do, however, believe that the scandal of the interrupted investigation has now been rectified and the police have managed to get most of the answers that were refused to the PJ."

      And if you should be mistaken in your belief...?

      Your idealism is touching.

      The principle of a civilised society's refusing to accept an incomplete investigation as closed is laudable, were it not for the fact that elements of our 'civilised society' have themselves contributed, knowingly and willingly, to the naissance and prolongation of the McCann Affair.

      Democracy is a sound construct. Unfortunately it depends, as do alternative systems of social organisation, entirely upon people for its function. And people, as we know, are nothing if not diverse in their treatment of it.

      We'll see, hopefully when ALL the known truths in this matter are acknowledged and presented, including those that have been made to disappear before our very eyes by certain of those civilised members of the society you refer to.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 23 October 2017 at 12:21

      Excellent post!

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 22 October 2017 at 21:09

      “Björn22 October 2017 at 18:52

      "To whom it may concern"
      ----------------------------

      That's not me then - nothing you say concerns or interests me.”

      Yeah, one of your silly comments again…

      T

      Delete
    8. john blacksmith 23 October 2017 at 02:47

      Respectfully.

      You seem to be under the impression that the “chum” on whose post you are commenting is Mr Bennett. I don’t think the post @19:08 is Mr Bennett’s.

      However, you haven’t dealt with the last paragraph @19:08 : “Not exactly a 'win-win' situation for someone obdurately opposed to any invocation of outside involvement (aka conspiracy).”

      T

      Delete
  27. Oh dear old chestnut again, doctors can do no wrong.

    Firstly, Dr McCann not to confused with Mr McCann - that is professionally a surgeon, for he is not a surgeon, he is a cardiologist - reads graphs.

    Hygiene has nothing to do with doctors, they tend to wash their hands less frequent than nurses bla bla bla.

    'Hygiene' is a strange subject, let's just pick one up. Nappies, dirty disposable nappies, thrown in the back of the car for disposal at the waste site\tip. I think, you'll probably find most people actually double bag, may be even triple bag. i.e. small nappy bag, waste bag in the house and black waste heavy duty, i.e. for taking to the tip, particularly in Portugal and particularly due to the weather. But no the McCanns just throw them apparently in the back of the vehicle.

    And lastly: Dr Harold Shipman, say no more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Oh dear old chestnut again, doctors can do no wrong.
      Firstly, Dr McCann not to confused with Mr McCann - that is professionally a surgeon, for he is not a surgeon, he is a cardiologist - reads graphs."

      A few doctors do bad but overwhelmingly doctors do good. And it's Professor Gerry McCann, and as for 'reads graphs' you would no doubt say a brain surgeon 'drills holes'.

      Nick

      Delete
  28. "Dr Harold Shipman, say no more."

    Yes Anonymous22 October 2017 at 19:08 - I wish you would say no more - but it not likely to stop your hate is it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 22 Oct 21.22

      It's not hate, it's just stating the bl**ding obvious, just because people are doctors it doesn't mean they're incapable of heinous crimes and should not be above the law.

      Delete
    2. They're not above the law. But they can only be arrested if they've committed a crime. If it's proven later in court, they face the penalty that the crime committed carries in accordance with the judges opinion.If they're innocent of any crime they just carry on with things. I don't know why it's even being debated.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 22 October 2017 at 21:22

      “"Dr Harold Shipman, say no more."

      Yes Anonymous22 October 2017 at 19:08 - I wish you would say no more - but it not likely to stop your hate is it”

      I wish your wish be not fulfilled.

      I’ve had years of experience of dealing with dirty nappies in different circumstances - no leaks ever (always double-bagging).

      Dirty nappies… Say no more indeed!

      Comrade Tse

      Delete
  29. Wife : 'That was a lovely meal. One of the best I've ever had.How about you?'
    Husband : 'I disagree. I thought the steak was tough, and the potatoes were overcooked ...'
    Wife : Why do you hate me?
    Husband : 'What? No, I don't hate you, I just disagree ...'
    Wife : 'Oh my god, you HATER. There you go again with your hate agenda blah, blah, blah ...'

    Man in pub : 'I believe if the manager played a flat back 4 and packed the mid-field, we'd have a great chance of winning.'
    Friend : 'Hmm. No, I think it's best if we play 3 at the back and go with two advanced wing backs ....'
    1st man : 'WHY DO YOU HATE ME SO MUCH?!!'
    Friend : 'Calm down, man. I don't hate you, I just have a different opinion to you.'
    1st man : MY GOD, YOUR HATRED KNOWS NO BOUNDS ....'

    Shall I write a McCann scenario, or are you getting my meaning here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros published that rubbish - ?

      Delete
    2. Actually I found it Gaggzy's mini script quite helpful - there are a number on here who are not sure of the meaning of the word 'hate' or how to use it context. Cheers G!

      Delete
  30. Ros - over a million hits - maybe you could tell us how many comments have been posted in the same period?

    Or is that not important to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, no really 00:01, lol. But if it's that important to you, why don't you go through my blog and count them?

      Delete
  31. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 October 2017 at 16:26

    Agree 21:00, Blacksmith's latest is a cracking read!
    --------------------------------------------

    Yes he accuses them all of lying - you always love that don't you Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I enjoy the beauty of a well written narrative 00:12. As that is something Team McCann are not capable of, I can see why you are miffed. All those highly paid communicators who have failed to communicate the McCanns' message. I'd ask for my money back, especially from Clarence.

      The Tapas group have had 10 years to explain their side of what happened that night 00:12. Even if only to support their friends, but they haven't done so. And as they are part of a campaign to persecute an innocent former detective (amongst a zillion other things)they can and should be held accountable. They received over £0.5m in damages based on deception.

      This is an equal playing field. Convince us they didn't lie.

      Delete
    2. "The Tapas group have had 10 years to explain their side of what happened that night 00:12. Even if only to support their friends, but they haven't done so. And as they are part of a campaign to persecute an innocent former detective (amongst a zillion other things)they can and should be held accountable. They received over £0.5m in damages based on deception. "

      They gave their statements. Why would they need say more because social media has come up with some daft theories? You're obsessed with the case but they have moved on. They were there, they said what happened, it's not their job to respond to gossip, they leave it to the police to solve the crime, they've moved on.

      The innocent former detective isn't innocent - checkout his criminal record.

      They didn't receive damages based on deception, they received damages for being lied about. You should be careful with your accusations.

      Nick

      Delete
    3. Why would the T7 need to say more? Err, because their friends have been pilloried this past 10 years. Have they never once felt inclined to defend them? The sort of thing most friends and family do?

      I don't buy Team McCann's portrayal of GA as the villain of this piece. He was the detective who picked up the poisoned chalice, and he has now cleared his name.

      Their damages award begins with their claim that Madeleine was abducted, everything else stems from that. You say they were lied about, but there were so many lies flying around, who really knows?

      As for being careful with my accusations? What accusations? My reasonable and logical conclusion that the T9 statements don't add up? Good luck with that Nick.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous [of course] 23 October 2017 at 00:12:

      “Yes he accuses them all of lying - you always love that don't you Ros.”

      You really can’t get the facts right, can you? Like Bennett, you genuinely cannot read what a document actually says. What a weird world it must be for you and how hard you must find it to navigate with such a disability.

      I do not “accuse all of them of lying”, thicko. Read it again. I said, and say, that the McCanns are proven liars on a large scale. That is not an accusation; it is a statement of fact. I have given the examples many times. Neither you nor anyone else have provided evidence that my claims are untrue. You could always try and prove me wrong, of course, by the simple act of listing the examples I have given over the years, the latest ones being GM’s 2007 Edinburgh Festival performance, and showing that my examples are false or untrue themselves. Go on, do it now.

      But you won’t, for the same reason that Carter Ruck won’t: the evidence is bullet proof or I wouldn’t have wasted my time on it and my examples are not prompted by malice but by the facts themselves. So you have to argue with those facts, not with me.

      You may not be aware, I suppose, that Kate McCann has admitted lying to, not misleading, the media about the investigation in a specific incident, stating that “she had no choice” but to lie. Carter Ruck are aware, I can assure you. Where did she say this? In a book which she states is an exercise in telling the truth.

      And that is the issue at the heart of the case with the McCanns: if someone admits lying in a book where she claims she is telling the truth, then how do police or anyone else know whether the admission is true or the original "lie?" That is the issue of a provenly unreliable witness. It was two years before KM said that she lied. Will she say in 2019 that she lied in her book? How can we know? The only way to cut through this problem - it is of course the famous Cretan Liar paradox - is to find corroborating evidence for one of the two versions and then everyone can agree on which statement was true. Can you really not understand that issue? Anyway,perhaps you can tell us here which of KM's statements was true and how you know.

      I made no accusation whatever that the Seven are lying; none at all. I didn’t even imply it. I said, and say, that they failed in their role as material witnesses by breaking all the rules of witness evidence: that you tell the police what you yourself experienced at first hand and the police form a composite of these individual experiences Instead they told the police what others had experienced, or thought, which, in case you need telling, thicko, they could not possibly know. Why they did this, and whether they lied rather than misled, we don’t yet know.

      Delete
    5. "Why would the T7 need to say more? Err, because their friends have been pilloried this past 10 years. Have they never once felt inclined to defend them? The sort of thing most friends and family do?"

      They'd be pretty daft to respond to the crackpot accusations and theories put out by every Viv, Jill and Matthew on social media. These people think they know better than the police forces in two countries. They don't. Besides, these people wouldn't like what they heard, anyway!

      "I don't buy Team McCann's portrayal of GA as the villain of this piece. He was the detective who picked up the poisoned chalice, and he has now cleared his name."

      But the former detective is a villain and he hasn't cleared his name! His conviction still stands and has a direct bearing on the worth of his claims and you need to reflect as to why you continue to describe him as innocent, choosing to ignore the seriousness of this conviction. I doubt you'd be as relaxed about it if a similar conviction was attached to one of the Tapas group.

      "Their damages award begins with their claim that Madeleine was abducted, everything else stems from that. You say they were lied about, but there were so many lies flying around, who really knows?"

      There was nothing to support the validity of the accusations made against them. Hence the hefty damages. The newspapers were cavalier in their accusations, as are those on social media.

      Nick

      Delete
    6. Not just crackpot accusations on twitter, they, I agree, are the least of the McCanns' worries. I'm talking about the facts that don't add up and haven't since news of Madeleine's disappearance.

      Then there are the police files - a detailed account of the investigation, and hundreds more facts that didn't add up. Facts Gerry, Kate and their tapas friends could have cleared up years ago. Perhaps during the years when there wasn't an investigation.

      Goncalo Amaral, for all his faults, is still a hero, a man of principle and a man of tremendous courage. All those years he stood alone against the mighty Team McCann, who appeared to have the entire British establishment on their side.

      That he has human faults and frailties, doesn't diminish his hero status in my eyes, I've never been an admirer of perfect. In fact, I'm with Chelsea Handler on this, I don't trust people who have never got drunk or high.

      Delete
    7. Facts that don't add up and which appear to have been missed by the police forces. I don't think so.

      If only Amaral's frailty was that he got drunk or high. It's a tad more serious than that. I find your last two paragraphs very weird.

      Nick

      Delete
    8. I find your obsession with Goncalo Amaral very weird Nick, he hasn't been on the investigation for 10 years!

      Delete
    9. Cheap jibe. Not sure what you're implying by "he hasn't been on the investigation for 10 years". Whatever, but as long as people claim this guy as a hero who holds the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann, it's only fair that his past is brought up. It will eventually be shown that his theory is crap. Sadly, most of the assaults on the McCanns are developed from his crap theory so that's another reason for him not being entitled to hero status.

      Nick

      Delete
    10. For 10 years, the antis have quoted Amaral, obsessed about the libel cases and shielded him from any single word that sees him as anything but wonderful, all because he wants the parents to suffer more than they already have. The minute somebody mentions something not so wonderful about him, they're 'obsessed' with him.That alone is an example of how unbalanced the blogs here are .

      Delete
    11. ''Goncalo Amaral, for all his faults, is still a hero, a man of principle and a man of tremendous courage. All those years he stood alone against the mighty Team McCann, who appeared to have the entire British establishment on their side.''

      Amaral hasn't been involved with the case for ten years. He's just plugging his book now.Why was the hero booted off the case ? How is he standing alone when everywhere you try to Google anything useful about this case all that can be found clogging up the search engine is thousands of the flock droning on about his pain and how brave he was. Or how his allegations against the parents and the British Intelligence have never been backed up with anything. Are you saying that the British Establishment are knowingly protecting criminals and the police have been told to do the same ?

      Delete
    12. I don't think GA's publicising anything at the moment, but if he is good luck to him. He deserves to have his story told.

      Goncalo Amaral didn't set out to become a hero, thousands support him because they support freedom of speech, and because it is inherent wrong that former suspects should be awarded all the former detective's worldy goods.

      All Goncalo Amaral wanted, was to tell his side of the story. In preventing that, the McCanns made enemies of all those who passionately believe in Freedom of Speech.

      The more stones the McCanns have hurled at Goncalo Amaral, the more his support has grown. It is they who gave him hero status, by creating a David .v. Goliath battle. And he became a hero when he refused to hand them £1.25m, which included half a million for the missing child, without a battle. And it should be mentioned, they weren't outraged by his book until it had clocked up a year's royalties.

      Your final sentence makes no sense, it's not clear what, if anything it relates to.

      Delete
    13. Oops, the above was in response to Squire.

      Delete
  32. "In 2010, I had the offer I have dreamed of since childhood, a book deal with a major publisher! My dreams of a bestseller however, were crushed. For many reasons, tis true, it was the wrong time, it broke the Misery Memoir genre (not miserable) and my name was absolute filth on the internet. No-one would review it, and no-one would publicise it. No-one would connect their name to it."

    You had an offer, but it was crushed. Didn't your (not miserable) book get published? Cry and you cry alone?

    ReplyDelete
  33. OT

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

    Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.

    5:35 AM - 21 Oct 2017

    Tse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should cause a bit of a distraction from Russia Tse! :)

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 23 October 2017 at 10:13

      Yes, dear, a rather ginormous “bit”. :)

      Tse (aka T)

      Delete
  34. http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/madeleine-fund-part-ii.html?showComment=1508174864155#c5521197500248046649

    “Anonymous16 October 2017 at 18:27

    Anonymous 15 October 2017 at 23:40
    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/the-madeleine-fund.html?showComment=1508107248292#c2067889599900376431

    Comrade VT

    “They can't find any evidence of an abduction ( apart from a missing child that had been left in an apartment and wasn't there later).What constitutes 'evidence' ?”

    “What constitutes 'evidence'…” that “a missing child… had been left in an apartment and wasn't there later…”?

    T”

    I should be most grateful, Comrade VT, if you would answer my above question.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. T

      There is no evidence that any of the children were left in the apartment, sleeping or otherwise.So, as nobody can 'prove' that , are we to suspect otherwise ? Was she seen elsewhere ? Would the parents see the twins sleeping and Madeleine wide awake and leave her, the eldest, most mobile and vocal to entertain herself ? That's highly unlikely if we're being realistic. If two parents call the police and say their child had 'disappeared' is it realistic for them to ask them to prove that she was there in the first place ? Again, realistically, no.

      It's been claimed ( online obviously) that she hadn't been alive beyond May 1st.Apparently an analysis of photographs ( online obviously) supports this theory.Logic doesn't, but we have to suspend our disbelief beyond acceptable levels if we're not to spoil the tragedy's final scenes.But, for me, just because this is a media circus one day, then a Shakespearean tragedy the next, and all the time an Agatha Christie whodunnit in the background, I
      still refuse to buy tickets for any of them. What happened in PDL that night was real . As such, I approach it as a real event and examine it in the same way. There are a lot of things that don't add up. The eternal debate over the dogs findings / cadaver odour / DNA . The online vigilantes have decided that all that is evidence - yet are tentative when it comes to accusing the police and forensics of making glaring errors or concealing evidence of a crime. The statement of Colin Sutton that tells us that he was told off the record where he cold and couldn't look should he head up the UK side of the investigation and Redwood came up with a stunningly poor effort with 'revelation man'. Are they not two points worthy of consideration ? I point to both and I'm seen as trying to build a case against the police.Fair enough.I call it questioning two very important aspects of the saga. Those defending the police and their hard work won't comment on them. Nor will they comment on how the police of either country can miss so many clues in statements and physical evidence that they call 'facts' or 'truth' despite them working so dilligently. It's as though pointing a finger and demanding answers from the police, or accusing them of being part of a cover up is a no-go area, as it's fingers pointing away from the parents.That seems far more important. The unofficial official narrative of the internet.

      I hope this is sufficient as a reply to the query.

      VT

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 23 October 2017 at 23:40

      VT

      Before I noticed your reply, I posted today ^^ at about 09.44 for ‘Anonymous 20 October 2017 at 01:26’ (your good self). Grateful, comrade. Have read it very quickly. No time to comment at the moment. Sorry. Talk later.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    3. 23.10 @23:40

      "It's been claimed (online obviously) that she hadn't been alive beyond May 1st. Apparently an analysis of photographs (online obviously) supports this theory. Logic doesn't."

      I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you.

      Thanks to an early proclamation by none other than the child's father, a contingency table can be constructed to reflect the only four possible conditions pertaining to Madeleine's status at the time, two of which were summarily dismissed by the parent.

      Which leaves but two possibilities: abduction, or death at the Ocean Club.

      The McCanns themselves made the abduction hypothesis contingent upon three successive criteria (jemmied shutters to the front window, unobstructed access to the rear patio doors, and a missing pair of pyjamas) - none of which actually pertained.

      The failure of any one alone invalidates the proposition, hence Madeleine must be dead.

      As to when she died, it cannot have been between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. on the Thursday night or KM would have discovered her daughter deceased and not simply missing, Matthew Oldfield being the last person in her proximity (allegedly).

      If she died earlier that same day, then GM could not have called in on his THREE sleeping children that night.

      Tellingly GM was in receipt of communications from an unknown source from about 8:00 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday 2nd, his behaviour in that regard being repeated on a daily basis for weeks afterwards.

      GM's preparation on the Wednesday would have been two-fold - anticipation of an event to follow, occasioned by an event past, i.e. prior to the morning of 2 May.

      That's where logic takes us.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 24 October 2017 at 19:56

      Thank you, Master.

      Respect.

      Humbly

      T

      Delete
  35. How about applying a bit of logic in this case?

    If we take the theory that Amaral stands by, and I believe most posters on this blog, that Madeleine died from a complication relating to sedatives given to her by one of her parents, then we surely have issues with regard to how the McCanns acted when they will have found her. If, as many seem to believe, they are cold and calculating people, why did they apparently panic into hiding her body behind a sofa or in a wardrobe, and run out into the complex screaming that Madeleine was gone, when they would have known that their room and the rest of the complex would have been subject to the very deep search that follows the disappearance of any young child? Surely, any parents who had found that they had 'accidently' killed their child, especially doctors, would have sat down in their room to try and work out what course of action they should take next. Whether to come up with a plan to make the whole thing look like an accident, perhaps suggest that Madeleine had consumed the sedatives thinking they were sweets, or call the ambulance and confess. It was only about 10 pm when they would have discovered that she was dead, and that would have left them perhaps a good 10 hours to decide what to do or how to react.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13:30

      "How about applying a bit of logic in this case?"

      "It was only about 10 pm when they would have discovered that she was dead, and that would have left them perhaps a good 10 hours to decide what to do or how to react."

      They could hardly wake up at 6:00 a.m. the following morning and shout 'abduction', after the whole family had spent the night asleep in the apartment.

      'Applying a bit of logic' would seem to require a backwards extension in time, would it not?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 23 October 2017 at 13:30

      Thank you for your post.

      “How about applying a bit of logic in this case?”

      Let’s! I’m all attention.

      By the way, do you have an answer to my question (I recast it for your benefit: What is the evidence that Madeleine had been left asleep in the apartment as alleged and later, at 10pm or thereabouts, was found ‘missing’?)?

      T

      Delete
    3. ''If we take the theory that Amaral stands by, and I believe most posters on this blog, that Madeleine died from a complication relating to sedatives given to her by one of her parents''

      That may well be one of Amaral's favoured hypotheses, but a lot of the people you claim agree with it often talk about blood.They see it all over the place 'splattererd and spattered'. How would an overdose of a sedative cause blood to fly ? I wonder if a sample of 'all' the blood was examined for traces of a drug ? If it contained a trace then it could be assumed to belong to Madeleine at a push and stretch. But then the question would be raised of how blood was spilled in an accidental overdose.If the blood contained no trace, it can can be argued that the child wasn't sedated -or that the blood wasn't hers.If such a large dose was administered, traces would exist. Plus, of course, the theory would suffer in court when a defence team asks whichever McCann is in the dock what their medical credentials, duties, and experience was. So, are we going with the 'blood spatter' or ' accidental overdose' idea, using logic ? Whichever you decide, we must try and work out how sedatives weren't found in blood, and whose blood it was that had been spattered.

      The 'how they acted' theories are narrow minded. When your adrenaline has been overdrive for hours and is pumped by fear, there comes a time when it stops.That halting leaves exhaustion and a numbness.It's similar to a junkie coming down in terms of extremes. Appearing emotionally and psychologically numb is often misinterpreted by the public, and police too, as coldness and lack of appropriate concern.Those who read it that way and then claim it as airtight evidence are willing it to be.

      The point about finding thechld had died accidentally is important. If she had ingested drugs thinking they were swetts, they'd report it surely. If they didn't want to because they'd be found out with regard to leaving the childen unsupervised, they wouldn't have readily admitted that after the police attended. If they decided not to report it, why ? The knee - jerk conclusion is because thy had killed her and wanted to hide the evidence and claim an abductor had taken her. So, if that notion is to be entertained, why would Gerry, just prior to it being reported, go and hide the body not too far away. They would have known there'd be a risk of police, dogs, and public running around the area. They'd have also known that walking about with a dead child as the creche and bars were emptying puts the risk of being accidentally caught red handed very high. But that wrecks the Smithman theory too- logically. If cold blooded planning had already been undertaken, they wouldn't play Russian roulette, surely.

      VT

      Delete
  36. Jane Tanner, stated she saw a man carrying a child.

    OG have confirmed after a painstaking investigation they have found that man. Unfortunately the man JT saw and described was an innocent father carrying his child home from the night crèche.

    According to OG, JT is not a liar, just mistaken.

    There are those that think that this is a clever ruse, by the British police to move the case forward. To others like myself, this is confirmation OG is not, nor ever has been a proper honest enquiry.

    Has anybody any proof whatsoever, 30 plus officers have been working on this case?

    Has anybody any proof whatsoever OG is working closely with the PJ?

    The PJ believe that JT is a liar.

    OG have stated she is a most reliable witness, but unfortunately the man she saw was an innocent father.

    Nothing, but nothing will happen to the Mccanns, or their Tapas friends and every few months a new dollop of petty cash with keep it an ongoing enquiry and as such nobody of any importance can comment.

    If Redwood made up crecheman, he has attempted to pervert the course of justice. If crèche man is real, JT is the most reliable witness in the history of crime.

    Either way it is never going to be put under examination in a court.
    The actions of the Leics police, John Reid and the BBC would come under far too much scrutiny

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @JJ23 October 2017 at 14:24
      "If crèche man is real, JT is the most reliable witness in the history of crime"

      I agree, and this man should now come forward to tell his name, and explain to all of us why he's been quiet for so long time. He's never been suspected of anything, so why was he hiding? Living on another planet? Why does he hide from us now. Wouldn't it be an interesting case for Martin Brunt to do "research" about?




      Delete
    2. "Either way it is never going to be put under examination in a court."

      It's ironic when you think about it...a £12+ million police 'investigation', the purpose of which was (and remains) keeping the suspects OUT of court.

      Still, the first recorded instance of corruption within the Met. being in 1877, no one can say the firm hasn't had sufficient practice.

      Delete
    3. Hi Bjorn, I think our friend SixYearsInaComaMan has it in a nutshell!

      Delete
    4. JJ23 October 2017 at 14:24

      ''If Redwood made up crecheman, he has attempted to pervert the course of justice.''

      If he made it up, it's far more than just an attempt.He succeeded. A top cop scuppering the investigation he was leading. On whose orders I ask.Don't we all ?

      VT

      Delete
  37. @ Anonymous22 October 2017 at 21:09
    Hi
    Thanks a lot for actually reading and taking interest in what I'm trying to say, which you, in fact, really do, otherwise you wouldn't know that nothing of what I write is of no interest to you. Thanks a lot.

    @ Anonymous22 October 2017 at 22:42
    Hi
    I'd wouldn't mind answering any questions related to what I write, but it would be so much easier for me to learn who is writing what, if you would use your name or at least a pseudonym. I've been commenting for a quite a long time on Rosalinda's blog, and I've learnt who John 100, NL, T, VL/(ZSD) John Blacksmith and a lot of others are.

    Of course I accept and understand that there may be reasons why people here prefer to be anonymous, but it's always easier to talk to/communicate with/ someone, who has a name.

    My real name is Björn. I guess that everbody here understands that it's my real name and that I'm Swedish, and I wouldn't hesitate to write out my whole name, where I live or what I do for living etc etc, but really not so relevant to what we're discussing here. Thanks anyway for your comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't the debate and subject more important than the identity of somebody asking a question ? I don't care if your name is Bjorn, Kermit or Gloria. If I'm interested in what you write and a point you make and want you to elaborate or explain it I think it's fair enough.

      VT

      Delete
    2. Your lack of social graces makes me wince VT. Why so aggressive?

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous23 October 2017 at 19:23
      Hi Dear VT

      What I meant was just that's easier for me to follow somebody's reasoning over time, so to speak if the post has an identity or a code. So Kermit or Gloria is just as fine with me as VT, as long as VT doesn't change to something else.

      Delete
  38. Anon 23 Oct 13.30

    "If we take the theory that Amaral stands by, and I believe most posters on this blog, that Madeleine died from a complication relating to sedatives given to her by one of her parents, then we surely have issues with regard to how the McCanns acted when they will have found her."

    GA said that he believed Madeleine died following an accident in the apartment (not a sedative overdose more likely a fall). How do you account for the blood spots on the walls and under the floor tiles if she died from an overdose?

    There must have been some sort of trauma for blood splashes to go up the walls and for blood to seep under the tiles, may be a tracheotomy was performed (as has been mentioned by others many times) with Madeleine lying on the floor, the blood spurts out with a tracheotomy. If Madeleine was choking on something, I've always wondered why KM mentions her engagement ring in her book that Madeleine seemed to be enamored by, did Madeleine swallow it while she was left unattended, and was found choking. It seems strange that the engagement ring was mentioned just out of the blue and something KM remembered about Madeleine, not any other memories of Madeleine, just the engagement ring Madeleine liked to play with.

    Wasn't it Jane Tanner who said in her witness statement that if Madeleine had had an accident there would be doctors on hand who could revive her. A strange thing to say when Madeleine was supposed to have been abducted, why even mention having to revive her if that didn't even come into the equation?

    "It was only about 10 pm when they would have discovered that she was dead, and that would have left them perhaps a good 10 hours to decide what to do or how to react."

    So what did they do with Madeleine's body if she was found at 10 p.m. with everyone traipsing in and out of the apartment at 10 p.m. onwards. Wny would that leave them a good 10 hours to decide what to do or how to react when the police arrived at about 10.40 p.m.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So what did they do with Madeleine's body if she was found at 10 p.m. with everyone traipsing in and out of the apartment at 10 p.m. onwards. Wny would that leave them a good 10 hours to decide what to do or how to react when the police arrived at about 10.40 p.m.?"
      Exactly, which is why she was probably abducted.

      Delete
    2. "Blood splashes up the walls" .... I think you should read earlier posts here to understand that there was no such thing as blood splashes up the walls.

      Delete
    3. Anon 23 Oct 21.13

      Are you another one who sticks her or his fingers in their ears and then close their eyes repeating "la, la, la, la, there's no such thing as blood splashes up the walls"

      Well I'm sorry to bring you back into the land of reality but have a look at this -

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

      It's getting really boring keep having to post this webpage, perhaps you could tell your mates where to find the information if they're still in denial about the blood splatters.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous23 October 2017 at 16:34
      @Anonymous23 October 2017 at 21:10
      Hi

      No-one, as far as I'm concerned, believes that Kate found Madeleine dead at 10 p.m., but she claims that she found Madeleine gone a few minutes past 10 p.m.

      Thereby, she suggests that Madeleine must have been abducted, either shortly after Gerry's check, before or after Matthew O'Brian's check. Thus, at least half an hour earlier.

      I personally, suspect that Madeleine died due to an accident some time in the afternoon and that the McCanns hid her body in the apartment for many hours till they eventually disposed of her body when it had become dark and the streets were empty, perhaps between a quarter to 10 and a quarter past.

      Kate, at least according to most of the w.statements, cannot have alerted before 10.15.

      Anyway, they must have had plenty of time to discuss that evening what to do and where to hide Madeleine's body outside the Ocean Club.However, thy physical disposal was done within 20 minutes or so, but as I've said discussed and planned for hours.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous23 October 2017 at 16:34

      ''There must have been some sort of trauma for blood splashes to go up the walls and for blood to seep under the tiles, may be a tracheotomy was performed (as has been mentioned by others many times) with Madeleine lying on the floor, the blood spurts out with a tracheotomy.''

      Thanks to the movies and several TV detecive shows, this was plucked out and offered to cover the possibility of an accidental death by tablets OR fall of 3 foot behind a sofa. As long as it kept the online suspects in the frame.Given this scenario, the blood 'spurting ' everywhere managed to miss whoever was performing this procedure and trying to revive her. The online detective agency who support this delightful, if dramatic, little tableau, also instruct any doubters from the cheap seats to observe the blood spatter for themselves and direct them via a link. There it is - all the spots of blood ( and spatter) on a set of poor quality pictures they've misunderstood. Amaral talks about the 'microscopic' ( ie, not necessarily visible to the naked eye or camera) samples from between tiles ( on the floor). The blood identified nobody. Amaral hints at skulduggery from the UK side of the operation to cover things up( MI5, Forensics etc) and that the results were tampered with in transit back to Portugal. That's another allegation he's made. He could be wrong.But, if he's right, it's difficult to accept that a cover up didn't take place involving a lot of trusted people with no ethics and who were willing to play along, despite the various oaths they swear and who the ultimately serve and work for.

      ''So what did they do with Madeleine's body if she was found at 10 p.m. with everyone traipsing in and out of the apartment at 10 p.m. onwards''

      And, with so much blood at the scene, why were there no signs of it being smudged into the floor inside or out ? Did the PJ examine anyone ? Examine their footwear ? Or, maybe they didn't have a body.Maybe she'd been abducted.

      VT

      Delete
    6. Anonymous23 October 2017 at 22:52

      ''Well I'm sorry to bring you back into the land of reality but have a look at this -
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm''

      Yes. Photographs. Photographs for the perusal of both the PJ and UK that were sent in tandem with the swabs of blood allegedly found here and there in 5A. Do you have a link that has the findings of the FFS on it ? Their conclusions as to what matched what and whom ? If any matched Madeleine for instance ?Small detail, but important to have more than one side to an argument or study don't you agree ?

      Sample 9 for instance- who was that matched to ? Or the sample of semen on the bed cover which was later revised as saliva ? How high up was the spatter near the sofa ? How tall was Madeleine ? Were any close up photographs taken of any blood spots to identify the direction in which the blood had travelled and the velocity ?I mention that as it would show a particular shape in each individual spot had the suspected tracheostomy occurred at any point. We might as well do this analysis properly after all.

      ''It's getting really boring keep having to post this webpage, perhaps you could tell your mates where to find the information if they're still in denial about the blood splatters.''

      Alternatively, you could mail the link to the police who are in denial of it.Your mates, my mates, anyone's mates opinions don't matter.The opinions that matter are in two police forces.Those opinions can be destroyed or proven with forensic evidence.Blood has a chance of proving a death if it belongs to somebody who has been removed and hidden.It doesn't prove a murder though.And the close scrutiny of the so-called spatter would indicate whether they were caused by foul play or a tracheostomy -ergo, evidence that someone had died and efforts to revive had failed.So, who did the blood belong to, if there was any of any relevance found ? Who did the saliva belong to ? How much DNA / Blood was found that matched Madeleine. ? Why hasn't any been used by the PJ or SY to approach a prosecution service ? Is everyone lying ?

      VT

      Delete
    7. I quite like Einstein's theory that time is relative Bjorn. 'Sit with your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour, sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a minute.

      In the situation the tapas group found themselves in, I suspect they made every second of every minute count. Think of a government cabinet meeting one hour before an asteroid is about to hit.

      Unfortunately, they were not as clever as they thought they were. Things started to go wrong, the window wasn't broken, the 'abductor' was seen up close by an Irish family. Plan B was the hastily scribbled timeline on Madeleine's torn up book with JT's alternate sighting.

      I think the last independent sighting of Madeleine was around 5.00pm, so whatever happened, I believe happened after that. Five hours isn't a lot of time, but going back to 'relativity', in a 'life or death' situation, 5 hours huddling and plotting is a long time.


      Delete
    8. I agree with your point on names Bjorn. Simply using initials or a pseudonym would make discussions easier to follow, and anonymity isn't affected.

      Delete
  39. I have never seen your name trashed on Amazon Cristobel. The reviews of your books (2? ) are not bad at all.

    ReplyDelete
  40. A note for readers. You may have noticed that there is no meaningful response to my invitation to the latest anonymous post – they tend to appear, by the way, when they know I’m not around and then go very quiet on my return here - to demonstrate the falsity of my statements about the McCanns’ lies.

    Now, with the McCann supporters’ favourite subjects, such as the dogs, or “neglect” one can go on and on for ever, opinion against opinion, claim against claim, with nothing ever being settled but with lots of opportunity for anonymous posters to claim “hate” by Ros or anyone else. That’s what they want.

    But my claims are different: I describe the lies and then I give the documents or videos where these lies can be can be found, right? So, if I’m making it up, it’s dead simple – all the opponents have to do is produce the documents and link to the videos and show you all that it’s not true.

    But they never do. They have never once done so since I started making the claims over five years ago. Why do you, readers, think that is happening? I mean they have all sorts of responses – the claims are “not worth considering” or “drunken ramblings” (I don’t drink) or “Blacksmith is boring” (possibly) and yet they find – in the apparent belief that readers like you are too stupid to see what is going on – the time to post that I’m a hater making it up and then run away and hide.

    What do you think is going on? Until a few years ago, partly because the anti-McCann posters made such poorly supported and vapid claims themselves, I used to think that the repeat McCann supporters were sincere and believed what they were posting. That is no longer tenable, for if they were sincere they would have challenged and refuted the statements I have made, rather than merely adding to the fibs or hurling abuse. They don’t; and that means they have taken a conscious – and possibly even an, ahem, “collective” - decision that they must stay silent about some specific subjects. Why is unknown.

    Is that compatible with sincerity? I can’t see it. So, reluctantly, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that there are a few anonymous posters – not the obvious idiots and Windy Ones – here, and on twitter, working extra-legally on behalf of the McCanns. It’s pretty weird, isn’t it? How do you feel about coming here and seeing deception going on for yourselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm quite flattered that they are putting so much work in JB, and that they are having to curb their primal instincts to abuse and name call!

      I think they have all got themselves caught in one hell of a spiderweb, where the more they try to mccannsplain, the more entangled they become.

      Team McCann and Operation Grange are not singing from the same hymn sheet. In fact the slurs against OG have begun. Those officers 'searching' for Madeleine, have been having mini breaks in the Algarve at taxpayers expense, etc. The British police messed up the original investigation, and the Secret Services may be involved.

      Fingers pointed outwards, as they pointed outwards and away from PDL. For those diehard McCann supporters it is either incomprehensible for them to believe Gerry and Kate could lie, or they have their own reasons for trying to make the lie, the truth.

      As the end grows near JB, I suspect the real identities of the McCann media monitors, will be exposed. Some, I am sure, you and I have encountered many times over the years, under many guises.

      In a way, it is bemusing. Plan A, the abduction, even in its' simplicity, has been torn asunder, Plan B, with politicians and spies has a certain amount of 'legs', except those politicians and spies weren't there on the night of 3rd May. Madeleine's disappearance still lays with the parents and their holiday party.

      I doubt at this stage they could ever get their stories straight. Relationships sour, allegiances change, and at some point it will be 'every man for himself'.

      Delete
    2. ''For those diehard McCann supporters it is either incomprehensible for them to believe Gerry and Kate could lie, or they have their own reasons for trying to make the lie, the truth.'

      or they believe the police were telling 'the truth' about no evidence existing to hold the parents as suspects.

      Delete
    3. ''That is no longer tenable, for if they were sincere they would have challenged and refuted the statements I have made,''

      maybe they're satisfied that the police failing to act on any of the lies and links you have spotted, thus not agreeing with you, is good enough and no argument is needed.

      Delete
    4. My belief is in G. Amaral.

      He states the British police first arrived on Monday 7th May from the UK, but we know as a fact Leicestershire police met with the Macs in PDL on Saturday 5th May.

      They did not make their presence in Portugal known to the PJ and thereby broke the law.

      This is not a slur against OG, it is a fact plain and simple, a fact OG do not want to address.

      Why Ros, do you think it will be every man for themselves? The only weak link was Tanner and OG have ensured that she is now above suspicion.

      The Leicestershire police in PDL knew of Murat on the Sunday and did nothing whatsoever to help Madeleine, because it would have exposed them as bloody dishonest coppers.

      The Leicestershire police never realised the PJ would release the e-mails,their mistake and OG is the result
      Why would the PJ trust anything OG allege after 10 years of lies?

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 October 2017 at 13:23

      '' In fact the slurs against OG have begun. Those officers 'searching' for Madeleine, have been having mini breaks in the Algarve at taxpayers expense, etc. The British police messed up the original investigation, and the Secret Services may be involved.''

      To be fair, it's not so shocking that the public have become cynical.I say that regardless of who they think did what to who or what actually happened all those years ago. After a year, nobody really held out much hope of finding Madeleine, whatever her fate. Nobody expected the 'sightings' all over the world to come to anything either. As time has passed, the expectation continues to erode. That's why people get negative when they hear of more funding to carry it all on and expect the police who go abroad in the sun to return with little more than a tan. Every time it happens, the cynicism is seen to be well founded. They could announce a 'crucial lead' on all the front pages tomorrow.It's what they do.It gives the impression of an ongoing and determined effort.The dead ends tell a different story.They're either keeping up the show, or somebody, somewhere, is playing them all like violins. The allegations that the British Police and Military Intelligence began, publicly, with Amaral.

      ''As the end grows near JB, I suspect the real identities of the McCann media monitors, will be exposed. Some, I am sure, you and I have encountered many times over the years, under many guises. ''

      The end ? It's over already. Whoever these media monitors are or were, if they actually existed beyond the angry, shouldn't be of any importance.There's two police forces looking for a missing child or her body or her abductor or killer.What people talk about or allege on the internet doesn't matter or effect any investigations.Or at least it shouldn't.

      If the abduction theory has been 'torn asunder', why haven't the police confirmed it ? It's been torn asunder online in the main. Others wanting to make a name for themselves or a few quid, or TV / Internet limelight have chipped in to back up the salacious hypotheses. That's because they want a slice of the pie ( Pat Brown, Hyatt et al).

      ''Madeleine's disappearance still lays with the parents and their holiday party''

      If the abduction theory is officially ruled out it might . Or if an alternative can be ruled in with conclusive evidence. Should the police demand that the parents of abducted children prove they were abducted, or set out to prove that an abduction scenario has been concocted to mask a sinister truth ?


      '' Relationships sour, allegiances change, and at some point it will be 'every man for himself'.

      If a 'rogue cop' or 'rebel MP' gets brave enough, it could get very interesting.They'd have to have a pretty good witness protection programme to fall back on though.

      VT

      Delete
    6. Anonymous24 October 2017 at 15:13

      ''That is no longer tenable, for if they were sincere they would have challenged and refuted the statements I have made,''

      maybe they're satisfied that the police failing to act on any of the lies and links you have spotted, thus not agreeing with you, is good enough and no argument is needed.

      _________________

      Oh, dear. Oh dear.

      _________________

      ''For those diehard McCann supporters it is either incomprehensible for them to believe Gerry and Kate could lie, or they have their own reasons for trying to make the lie, the truth.'

      Or they believe the police were telling 'the truth' about no evidence existing to hold the parents as suspects.

      Oh dear. Dear oh dear.

      Delete
  41. Anonymous at 13:30

    "How about applying a bit of logic in this case?"

    More than welcome.

    “As soon as our table was in sight I started screaming. ‘Madeleine’s gone! Someone’s taken her!’”, says Kate McCann in her account of the truth. She remembers Gerry saying, ‘She must be there!’ Kate also remembers feeling frustrated when David Payne said, ‘Let’s just check the apartment’, because she had done that (all within fifteen seconds), and she knew that Madeleine had been abducted.

    “all within about fifteen seconds, before hurtling out through the patio doors and down towards Gerry and our friends”, says Kate McCann, but Gerry McCann said that about 10 minutes after Kate went to check on the children he starts worrying.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

    Gerry McCann, 10 May 2007:

    “Half an hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03 [“None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that night” - Clarence Mitchell], he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.”

    Furthermore, as T says, "what is the evidence that Madeleine had been left asleep in the apartment"?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should clear a few things up NL, thank you.

      Strange that Kate went so quickly to worse case scenario - abduction. Isn't the first stage of grief denial? 'She can't be gone', 'she must be close by', 'she can't have gone far' etc. Which is why I was so astounded that the parents and their friends weren't out searching.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 23 October 2017 at 19:50

      Greetings, NL. Good to see you.

      T

      Delete
    3. NL 23 October 19:50

      Hi NL
      “None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that night”

      Yet, Russel O'Brian could establish that Kate went to watch on Madeleine at exactly 10:00 P.M., which the rest of the tapas group endorsed as well. Very impressive considering that they had been wining and dining for at least an hour and a half. Just as astonishing as Jane Tanner's recollected memories of details, I'd say.



      Delete
  42. When you set aside the usual ways at looking at this case, I merely think:

    1 Would you leave three children for four nights homealone
    2 If this was such a safe thing to do, when Madeleine disappeared why run back, when you could have called from the balcony? (Now if you can't be heard or seen, neither could these children)
    3 Having chosen to run back, leaving the two babies in the same, seemingly already perceived danger of abduction
    4 Then in the early hours, all nine close down and go to bed, OK probably didn't sleep well, or at all - but no contingency for covering the night, with an available adult to liaise with the police, or actually search!

    Never mind the rest, the scenarios - I'm still at the first hurdle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most people are still at the first hurdle 21:13, and were commenting on how bizarre this behaviour was long before Goncalo Amaral came on the scene or the police files were released.

      Contrary to the very low standards of some journalists and breakfast television presenters, the majority of us wouldn't dream of leaving babies on their own. It's not normal. It's not usual. It's downright child endangerment! Grrrr

      What would their opinion have been, if one of the children had died in an accident as a result of this neglect? Would they still have said 'yeh, we do it too'.

      Delete
  43. "Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found."

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm

    ReplyDelete
  44. From Fiona Payne's rogatory statement...

    1485 “What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?”
    Reply “She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’, because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh”.
    1485 “So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?”
    Reply “Yeah”.
    1485 “Did she say whether she had locked or?”
    Reply “No, that was the point, I think they said they’d left it, well she’d said she’d left it unlocked”.
    1485 “Left the patio?”
    Reply “And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said ‘Oh it will be fine’, you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn’t something she was quite easy with, that’s the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, ‘It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine’. Because I don’t imagine she would have said anything otherwise if it hadn’t been on her mind. And the fact was she, she, you know, commented on it being really strange that, that Madeleine had said this about waking up and them not being there and she’d mentioned that in the context of that conversation”.

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

    Make of that statement what you will, just shows how duplicitous the McCanns are, did they forget that statement that Fiona Payne made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is possible Kate faced that dilemma and discussed it with her friends, but equally the alleged conversation could be to confirm that the patio doors were left open. The rest of the tapas didn't leave their patio doors unlocked and Gerry originally claimed he entered the apartment with a key via the front door. He only remembered he entered via the patio doors when the bedroom window was ruled out as the point of entry.

      The bedroom window was supposed to prove a 'break-in', but something went wrong (Jeb Wilkins showed up), so the signs of a break in just weren't there.

      They quickly needed another point of easy entry, and opted for the patio doors for his next statement. The problem with the patio doors however, was that entry and exit, entailed opening and closing not only the patio doors and curtains, but also the two safety gates on the outside steps directly across the road from where Gerry was talking to Jeb. Even in those first few days, the abduction story was falling apart.

      Delete
    2. Ros 10.21

      What I was trying to point out with my post of 23 Oct 23.09 that KM was discussing leaving the patio doors open for Madeleine to wander out and find her and Gerry at the Tapas Bar but when interviewed regarding Madeleine wandering out of the apartment KM stated "no, Madeleine would never walk out of the apartment on her own", not her exact words but somewhere along those lines.

      So which is it KM? You leave the doors open for Madeleine, a 3 barely 4 year old to walk out in the dark around a swimming pool and go to a Bar where she would have to enter in her pyjamas which is full up with loud, chatting strangers, or Madeleine would never wander out of the apartment on her own? It can't be both.

      Delete
    3. @13:20

      It can't be both indeed.

      T

      Delete
    4. Anonymous at 13:20

      Kate McCann (‘madeleine’) says that, of the three potential explanations for Madeleine’s disappearance which Guilhermino Encarnação mentioned, she has always found the third suggestion, i.e. Madeleine had wandered off by herself, insulting to their (McCanns’) intelligence. But, as you say, according to Fiona Payne, it was Kate’s own suggestion.

      Delete
    5. ... and further into the Rogatory interviews, was this getting the knife out?

      About and quarter down (into part 11)

      ''Reply    “Because you know we’ve obviously got this image that we were like ah, ‘F’ the kids, we’ll go off to the Tapas bar they’ll be fine, and it wasn’t like that at all. It was a, you know, it was something that is offered elsewhere and we just thought, you don’t imagine in a million years that, I mean we were probably more worried about them waking up and thinking where are we.”
      4078    “Yeah.”
      Reply    “But I mean Ella knows to shout down the monitor if, because she’s used them at home you know, so, and you just think, I don’t know, at that point I was, it never crossed my mind that somebody could take them, that wasn’t even a concern. It was more would they wake up, you know, and that was…”
      4078    “And if they did then you would be alerted to that and you would be there within minutes.”
      Reply    “And the door, they couldn’t get out, we made sure they couldn’t, well from the point of Ella you know we made sure she couldn’t err not escape, because that sounds terrible, but you know she, the door was dead locked so she couldn’t have, she couldn’t have wandered off so I mean obviously there’s harm, you could say she could have done herself harm in the apartment anyway but from our own view of knowing Ella we thought you know she couldn’t, couldn’t come to any harm, and Evie was in her cot so couldn’t get out the cot, so.”
      4078    “Yeah, that’s what her bed was. So Ella was in the bed and…”
      Reply    “Ella was in her bed.”
      4078    “And Evie was in the cot.”
      Reply    “Evie was in the cot yeah.”
      4078    “And what was, if you were to go in through the, well I know we’ve discussed this in the office and it’s difficult to say the front door or the back door of the apartment because there’s some confusion.”
      Reply    “Yeah ''

      Therefore if the patio door, which could only be locked from the inside, was left unlocked. Did the McCanns still exit via the main front door, deadlocking it? thus in order to keep a watchful eye on the exit that was unlocked?

      Must have been quite difficult opening those patio doors from outside, no handles because of the shutters. So, were they also slight ajar!


      Delete
    6. 23.10 @23:09

      "did they forget that statement that Fiona Payne made."

      Did they forget the statement to police (15.5.07) Rachael Oldfield made?

      'The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.'

      No doubt Husband Matthew had to raise the shutter also. Funny how no one mentioned that...

      Delete
  45. Gonçalo Amaral in The Truth of the Lie mentions there were four blonde hairs that were found in the hire car that have still to be tested ,

    Also an early post says the Police and Press were all over the Mccans in PDL , they were not , The press only saw them for Photo Ops , nobody wanted to fall out with The PR's as if you did not toe the line you were outside the loop .

    Congrats on your One Million visits ,you deserve a cake

    ReplyDelete
  46. I see Verdi (on CMoMM) is shooting down all posters who refer to the cadaver odour and blood found in the McCann's apartment, it's not going down too well with some of the posters.

    I would love to have a bet as to who is "Verdi", TB perhaps? TB never seems to know who's side he's on, the side of justice for Madeleine or the McCann's side. Verdi is beginning to sound a lot like TB, and is getting frustrated that the posters don't agree with his every post and are defying him.

    Oh dear, I wonder how long it will be before some of them get banned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @
      Anonymous24 October 2017 at 13:27

      perhaps you can find a link to "blood found in the McCann's apartment" and post it here for us all to see?

      Delete
    2. Verdi is female and definitely not TB

      Delete
  47. quote:

    "Anonymous24 October 2017 at 10:49

    Anonymous 23 October 2017 at 23:40

    VT

    Before I noticed your reply, I posted today ^^ at about 09.44 for ‘Anonymous 20 October 2017 at 01:26’ (your good self). Grateful, comrade. Have read it very quickly. No time to comment at the moment. Sorry. Talk later.

    Peace.

    T"

    -------------------------------------------
    quote:

    "Anonymous24 October 2017 at 14:31

    @13:20

    It can't be both indeed.

    T"
    ----------------------------

    You found time to comment but not answer VT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, T, unlike the majority of self proclaimed 'authorities' who consider that they hold several facts and truths that could stitch the case up in a matter of hours, I rely on standing back for a better view, resisting any temptation to form a strong bias through boredom, spite or the need to be part of a crowd. Nor do I possess the same 6th sight that they seem to perceive that they have been gifted with.Like the police forces who have looked at the case for ten years, I have to see evidence that supports and confirms the expertise of those with time to scrutinise statements and photographs on their computer screens to draw so many obvious conclusions in a case that has failed to progress from the night it began om May 2007.

      Standing back and reading and evaluating the unofficial jury's verdicts based on the unofficial, unsupported 'findings' of online detectives tells me much. It's not what they prefer to talk about or the depth which they go into about their hypotheses that enlightens me. It's what they prefer not to discuss, or what they prefer to avoid that says more. Isn't that always the way ? Disagree with their 'findings' which they reluctantly admit have no evidence that could withstand cross examination, and you're expected to provide rock solid reasons and 'proof' for the audacious idea that something else- some other theory -might hold as much weight as that too has no evidence. And, as so many little online spats continue, the antis rage against anyone they think is trying to undermine their agreed narrative or challenge the 'experts' who comment . Why do so many police disagree with the perceived logic and wisdom of the online court of public opinion ? And why don't the said experts fight back and comment on why that is the state of play ? Can they really believe so many hard working police officers and their superiors are completely beyond reproach if they also believe they are ignoring the alleged evidence of the dogs, blood and DNA ? They support the polices dilliigence but claim that they aren't considering the shelved evidence in case it incriminates their chosen culprits - the parents . They prefer, instead, to try and frame the MccCanns as some shifty embezzlers and fraudsters that are pulling off a scam to get rich.That would be laughed out of any police station, let alone court.But it serves it's purpose in tarnishing the name of who they 'dislike immensely'( not hate, obviously).It's a celebration of the freedom to slander, or as most prefer, 'freedom of speech'. It's evidence that the case has become far too personal to so many and that they feel angry and insulted that their 'obvious truths' are receiving nothing in the way of credibility from those who really matter - the police. So they try to take out their anger on those online who question them and ask why their evidence is being ignored.It doesn't matter if Joe Public ignores their lack of evidence, Joe Public isn't working for the police.The police work for Joe Public.It's their opinion that ultimately disagrees with their consensus online.

      So, was Madeleine really awake or asleep or even alive in the apartment that night.And is there evidence one way or another ? There was no CCTV inside the apartment so it can be argued safely by the antis that she may well have been dead or awake and hitch hiking to an all night garage.It's a straw- but a straw can be clutched at.

      ''In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is an attributional type of cognitive bias whereby people tend to overestimate the extent to which their opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are normal and typical of those of others (i.e., that others also think the same way that they do).[1] This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a "false consensus"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

      VT

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 24 October 2017 at 18:15

      “You found time to comment but not answer VT.”

      How silly of me! And…? Purgatory?

      Please take the instances you’ve referred to as a koan.

      Please contemplate Master VT’s wisdom.

      Please contemplate prosody and your grammar.

      “Tao is a tightrope…”, so keep your balance.

      Please take this post in its entirety as a koan.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    3. You are still flogging the idea that the police have discarded all the evidence from the original investigation VT.

      That clearly isn't the case. If they haven't revisited the original findings of the PJ investigation, it's because they are not disputed. The dog alerts, the cadaver odour and the materials gathered for forensics won't ever go away VT and you are not fooling anyone by pretending they have. I've seen cases that are decades old, where hairs, fibres and bloody footprints are as relevant at the eventual trial as they were when the crime was committed. It is therefore disingenuous of you to suggest that the PJ and OG are ignoring the original findings.

      Delete
  48. @ blacksmith aka sharples - try opening comments on your blog if you issue challenges and demand replies. Don't try to use someone else's blog to do so.

    In addition try stopping calling people disabled and thickos if you demand replies.

    For your information Ros has a disability which she makes mention to on here with frequency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A disability is an inability to do something, thicko, check the Latin, so don't come on to me with your PC junk. Like the rest of the English language the word isn't owned by anybody.

      Now, give me your real name and I'll address you. Otherwise you can f*** off.

      Delete
    2. I share the same abhorrence for political correctness as yourself JB, it is killing the English vernacular.

      Who the feck wants to live in a world where you can't say 'who the feck' for fear of offending someone.

      And some people go out of their way to be offended. They spend hours scouring the internet looking for something to upset themselves with. And if they can't find enough, they something else stupid, so the negative attention comes back to them. They must google their own names constantly.

      Delete
    3. I don't label myself disabled 18:26 and I would prefer you didn't. I speak about my manic depression and OCDs (there are many)in the hope that they will strike a chord with others similarly affected. If you are a regular reader, you will see that I deal with the subject of my mental health pragmatically, and often with humour. I'm not a victim.

      Delete
  49. Congrats on the million Ros. Can't wait to buy your book. Really enjoying your blog it gets better every time. Lately a lot of postings have involved direct quotes from the MCCanns Or their friends statements. Sometimes I don't know whether to cringe or laugh out loud. Imagine waking up everyday knowing up and down the country people are reading the crap you say in a situation where you had no choice but to make a dick of yourself. Imagine the horror they each must have experienced when they woke up one day to be told that those silly cops in Portugal are releasing to the world statements you thought where going to be buried forever on some dusty shelf. Looks like Tweddle Dee and Tweddle Dumb had the last laugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers 21:28, it's a project I am enjoying and a lot more 'unbound' than here! lol.

      I honestly don't think the T9 believed they would be investigated. That their professional status would put them above suspicion. But they did believe it (this is where the folie a deux comes in) and they made it real.

      For many people, the British establishment especially, found it incomprehensible that these nice, church going doctors, could commit a heinous crime. I'm speaking in the past tense, but those same ideas apply today, and certainly applied in the libel Courts, when the T9 received their huge awards.

      Ah, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, those first two cops on the scene. Kate should have kept her condescending thoughts on those policemen to herself in 'Madeleine', they are not endearing. The two guys were just doing their job.

      Delete
  50. Anon 20:27

    Verdi is male according to Havern herself.

    And most probably TB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No definite conclusion can be drawn.

      https://it.aleteia.org/2015/01/27/giuseppe-verdi-agnostico-razionalista-o-uomo-toccato-dalla-fede/

      Delete
    2. To borrow from Victor Borge: The name's really Joe Green. The Italian affectation's merely a stage name.

      Delete
  51. Hey Rosalinda congratulations on your one million mark, that's a great achievement! I think you approach the case with good grace and humility and your posts are always provocative in a good way. Fortune favours the brave? I hope so and a book would be ace!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Does this list seem normal.
    Abandonment of their babies so they could go out drinking.
    Human blood found in their child's bedroom.
    Human body fluids found in the hire car they later used,
    Strange statements by the father to explain the hullabaloo to a neighbor in the holiday complex: "We are looking for a missing child!"

    And the clincher:
    "Why don't you ask the dogs Sandra", to a TV interviewer.

    Plus the ultimate body punch from KM:
    "Whoever has taken Madeleine, Madeleine will be sure to give them her tuppence worth".

    jc

    ReplyDelete
  53. On Friday 4th May, John Reid the Home Secretary, ordered the Chief Constable of Leicestershire police to undertake unlawful activities in Portugal.

    Matt Baggott(not the sharpest knife in the box) ordered his officers to undertake these unlawful activities in Portugal.

    Seeing the unlawful activity underway Jim Gamble, not wanting to miss out, sent his men to undertake more unlawful acts in Portugal.

    As the weekend progressed more and more senior government politicians and senior police officers ordered people to Portugal.

    By Monday 7th May the clowns realised that the Mccanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.

    Nobody wanted to look stupid and the farce began.

    10 years of saving face Kate and Gerry and the tapas lot know they will ever be thrown under the bus and if it requires 150k of petty cash, every six months to pretend its an ongoing investigation, so be it.

    Amaral knows this, the PJ knows this, why would they be still be involved with the bunch of clowns known as the British police.

    This case does not require low ranking police officers to be corrupt, the senior officers more than cover it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ 08:28

      "By Monday 7th May the clowns realised that the Mccanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance."

      I think the ring-master (JG?) knew from the outset.

      "the tapas lot know they will never be thrown under the bus."

      Agreed. The 'Fund' was established on the back of that very immunity.

      Blacksmith (up thread) was keen to invoke the lofty principles of a democratic society. In that very context the doctrine,'separation of powers' has clearly been disregarded in this case.

      Delete
    2. AS the LP were then over budget, they claimed & received £1m - although this is quite usual for police forces that experience a demand on budget, out of the norm

      Gamble got £100k or was it £200k for his scoping exercise, that was turned down a couple times under Labour, once under Tory, until undue pressure applied via the Sun \ Brooks\ Cameron. Gamble was also on a mission with Facebook and the alert button - taking a rather high profile, centre stage along the way. His QUANGO later to close.

      And let us not forget not only did the HO send a representative to handle PR - the MET sent a Portuguese fluent officer.

      How many bites of the cherry cake?

      Delete