I am delighted to say my blog has now received over 1 million hits! A small step for the internet, but a giant leap for moi :)
Thank you all for returning again and again, and for helping this blog to grow into a sane, logical, and ethical commentary on what I am sure will be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century. I think we have shown that it is possible to discuss a highly controversial, and highly emotive subject, as reasonable thinking adults, without the hatred and intolerance that has engulfed other forums and facebook pages.
I think we are finally moving towards the 'end game' or perhaps I should rephrase that to 'game up'. Those who think the police are several notches below them on the intellectual scale, may find it's something the police don't take too kindly to. That is probably the reason why there are still two live investigations, millions being spent and no sign whatsoever that the police are going to give up.
Interesting times ahead!
Meanwhile, please vote on the poll in the right hand column. 'Did the Multimillion' Madeleine Fund, scupper the investigation?
__________________________________
If you enjoy my blogs and would like to make a small contribution, please go to the donate button in the right margin. Many thanks.
___________________________
Once again, the comments section runneth over, so time to open a Part II.
VT/Ziggy gives much away in his posts, particularly when you sort the wheat from the chaff. I have actually whittled him down to two McCann main players, one more than the other.
But before I move onto those leaking bits of information that he seems to be unaware of, in one of his last posts he made a good point. Why aren't there more posts in support of the parents? As long as they are civil, or make attempt at being civil, I am happy to publish them. As a humanitarian I would like to see more posts supporting them, I am saddened that only one person speaks on their behalf. This blog has a large audience of reasonable and compassionate people, it is as good a platform as any, to clear up the myths that surround this case.
Back to those leaks. For some time now, VT/Ziggy, has been building a case against the British police. He has gone from their interference in the original investigation to the chavvy 'they are having jollies on the Algarve at taxpayers' expense'. Why? His posts recently, are showing more and more frustration and hostility towards the British police. And he is hinting that British police, very early on, are behind any cover up that took place. The architects and instigators perhaps? But the fuzzy allegations are not just aimed at the police who flew out to PDL, but also at their bosses.
Shots too seem to have been fired at Clarence Mitchell, and today the Tapas group. ZT helpfully pointed out just how much the 'tapas' have to lose should they break the pact of silence. Beginning with paying back the damages given to them by Express newspapers, (odd priority), but if the answer to every question is 'money', about right. Followed by careers, lives being ruined etc.
All very good reasons I'm sure, but they make no allowance for conscience and the guilt of having to lie to people. including those you love, for the rest of your life. It would drive most people insane. On the freedom front, they have lost the freedom to be themselves, and I can't think of a worse prison than that.
Whilst I don't think the infighting has quite reached the 'every man for himself' stage, there is clearly disharmony between the factions. I didn't think this would come until much later, that is, the pretence that there is a good relationship between the McCanns and Operation Grange, would end in the same way as the good relationship between the McCanns and the PJ ended 9 years ago.
Now it seems they are no longer keeping up the pretence of being happy with Operation Grange. And to be fair, no-one could blame them for being angry and frustrated (on this occasion). They still don't know what happened to their daughter and the search for her is coming to an end.
But worse, they still have that same cloud of suspicion hanging over them, Operation Grange has done nothing to establish their innocence. There are no signs of an abductor, either from the original evidence collected from Apartment 5A or from the thousands of statements the police have taken over the years. The sighting of Jane Tanner was discounted by OG, and Smithman who looks exactly like Gerry, remains the main suspect.
I know that people closely involved with this case read and post here, it's the last social media battleground they use regularly. And the reason is, because the discussion here is far removed from the playground mentality of the cesspit and the 'myths'. I can't say it bothers me that they post anonymously, but I always think if you are going to defend someone, doing it in your own name, adds weight to your argument.
But I understand. Opening your life up to the scrutiny of social media carries everything you feared and then some. But once, you have picked yourself, and distinguished the psychopaths and trolls from the genuine, you are full steam ahead. And I speak as someone who has had many stalkers over the years.
On my blog happily, I don't have a troll problem, because I don't acknowledge trolls as a problem. They have no impact whatsoever on my life, or my writing. I couldn't care less who they are, and I have no desire to track them down and put them in the dock. I'm a big girl, I can handle name calling and snide remarks online in the same way as I have in the real world since the age of 5. Whilst I could happily discuss the history of the old oak tree in the local park for hours on end, I have zero time, or patience, for those eaten up with negativity. If I took it on too deeply, I would become their 'free therapist', because I still kind of pity them. But I don't want to digress.
I'll end with three questions:
1. Are Operation Grange closing in?
2. Is the Madeleine Fund going to prove problematic?
3. Are ZT's veiled threats a sign that there is infighting between members
of 'The Pact'?
Just musing I suppose Ros - there is little, or no evidence to support your accusations, allegations and innuendo.
ReplyDelete"Why aren't there more posts in support of the parents? "
ReplyDeleteI am not VT/ziggy - I support the parents and I occasionally post on here.
That's good 16:23. you are very welcome.
Delete''VT/Ziggy gives much away in his posts, particularly when you sort the wheat from the chaff. I have actually whittled him down to two McCann main players, one more than the other. ''
DeleteOnce again, a wild guess or ten in complete darkness and a conclusion is drawn.Not like you, Ros. That kind of thing is best reserved for writing fiction. You're miles out - again.
''Back to those leaks. For some time now, VT/Ziggy, has been building a case against the British police''
The police built one for everyone with their brilliant performance. You can't call the whole thing a circus and praise the investigation at the same time.
''Why? His posts recently, are showing more and more frustration and hostility towards the British police.''
Don't dramatise. This farce doesn't frustrate me in the slightest.I have a life of my own.I have an interest in it, but i have far more interests. Any hostility towards any police force is justified.There is a mountain of evidence continuing to grow revealing their history of corruption, obstruction of justice, perversion of the course of justice and the 'editing' and 'losing' of crucial evidence in crimes against kids or to conceal crimes of the powerful. They get paid by tax payers to keep law and order and serve, not to abuse their position and perform magic tricks. I'm not frustrated by the police allegedly investigating the McCann case. It's looking true to type.It will go nowhere.It's gone nowhere.Nothing suggests otherwise outside of internet screaming.
VT
I would be amazed Ros if one or more of the Tapas 7 haven't come forward with the truth. At home we had a case of 2 people who while having an affair killed both their spouses and keep the secret for near on 20 years. At the end of the trial the policeman who was credited with getting the female confession and subsequent conviction said words to the effect that it was a ticking time bomb for both of them all these years because one or other wasn't going to be able to live with it. He said circumstances change over the years which pushes them over the edge. They are not direct quotes but you get the jest.
ReplyDeleteIn this case you have 9 people and for the tapas 7 I think the relaxing tea they had in the beach resturant was the last time they had any peace of mind. They are not hardened criminals they were a bunch of hard working professionals. A bit arrogant and narsatitic in that they thought they would be believed without question and niave in that they didn't realise that they would have to lie to loved ones forever if they got away with it. In cases like that most normal people would be begging the place to reinterview them
I agree 17:26, to me it always brings to mind the Edgar Allan Poe's 'Tell Tale Heart', a gnawing fear that won't go away. Some criminals are relieved to finally be arrested, it is preferable to living with the constant fear.
DeleteAs you say, they are not hardened criminals and had the PJ's interviews continued, one or more would have 'cracked'.
Guilt is not something that improves with time, the couple took 20 years to come to trial, probably not happy years.
''As you say, they are not hardened criminals and had the PJ's interviews continued, one or more would have 'cracked'. ''
DeleteThere's been years to 'crack' one of them since. Murat was dragged in twice, the McCanns could be too if there's enough reason. Why haven't they been hauled in ? Edgar Allan Poe wrote fiction by the way.
Anonymous 15 October 2017 at 23:40
ReplyDeletehttp://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
Where else could she have been ?
DeleteAnonymous 16 October 2017 at 19:41
DeleteWith respect.
Your question is not an answer to mine. Besides, you are not comrade VT, are you?
Peace.
T
Hi T. I think VT is using a statement to one given by Gerry outside a Lisbon court hearing. That is, the fact that Madeleine is missing, is evidence of abduction, there are NO other explanations for her not being here.
ReplyDeleteI sense however, that you are intrigued by another of VT's statement, so I will keep my hooter out. :)
Well, it will all come out in the wash.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Grange has said that the Seven have never been “formally interviewed”, or “interviewed under caution” - take your pick.
Meanwhile, also, we have the case of the very accident-prone M/S Jane Tanner. M/S Tanner has been unfortunate enough to be involved in two “misunderstandings”. First she was unable to give a coherent description to Leicester police of her “sighting” of Robert Murat from a PJ undercover van in Praia da Luz in 2007.
The PJ co-ordinator stated that she identified Murat as the “abductor” she had seen on May 3. Tanner did not deny it to Leicester police (read the rogatory interview transcript carefully) but didn’t admit it, either. She obfuscated.
Secondly, as we know, Grange has stated officially that her other, more famous "sighting" was mistaken and that the supposed “abductor” she saw never existed.
That’s quite a record, isn’t it? Once might be an accident, twice is something very different. I’m sure she’ll be glad to know that Kate McCann in Madeleine, attempted to bolster her version of events in both cases.
Tanner has not said a word about the Grange destruction of Bundleman – publicly. What she has said to Grange we have not yet been told. Perhaps it will save her from being “formally interviewed”. Perhaps not: it all depends on how co-operative she was, doesn’t it?
So roll up for the show some time ahead when the other six (the McCanns won't be saying anything) explain the differences in appearance between the innocent crèche-bound parent with a child in his arms, who, for obvious reasons is being kept hidden, Tanner's description of him and the elaborations that were added in to the famous "typed timeline". Comparing them is going to be great fun - for us, not for them.
At the time Operation Grange demolished Tannerman, I thought Jane might have done some kind of deal... in that they would cover up her err, sighting, with a parent wandering back from the crèche that the PJ didn't pick up on.
DeleteBut, as you say, she hasn't said anything publically and the McCanns are still touting her sighting on their website (I believe, haven't looked lately).
Now, I don't think she told them anything, and if she accepted crecheman as the man she saw, we will never know. Well, we will, but it won't be volunteered.
Hello Ros. More moans from the hysterical losers below, I see. I'll kill two birds with one stone.
DeleteFirst, it is a statement of fact that Tanner did not admit or deny identifying Murat. So no libel there. Secondly Amaral publicly states that she identified Murat to the officers in the van. She has not, I repeat not, challenged Amaral's statement and nor have the officers in the van. So no libel there either. Don't any of you moaners ever keep up with the facts?
And then poor M/S Tanner is involved in another far-from-straightforward "sighting", isn't she? With results that we know.
Let me make it clear Ros, that it is quite inconceivable that Tanner has not been interviewed by Grange. Inconceivable. Both Tanner and the crèche parent are in cold storage until the end of Grange. Readers may ask themselves why that is.
In my view her future depends on what she has told Grange. Now we must wait and see.
Roll up Roll up for the bennettesque libel of Tanner by blacksmith and ros.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to call her a liar at least have the balls to do it - and suffer the consequences. Nudge nudge, wink wink, err - is really not good enough.
Have you ever considered that you are being led up a garden path to destruction ros?
Those libel threats are a bit hollow now 20:23, especially after the Supreme Court ruling.
DeleteI am a writer, a social commentator if you like, how can my words lead me up a garden path to destruction? This isn't North Korea. What kind of destruction? Let's hope all who read here mark your threatening words.
@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 October 2017 at 21:07
DeleteYou were led up a garden path by bennett. You were led up 3 gardens paths by poulton. You are now being led up another by blacksmith.
"Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview I to 7
ReplyDeleteTRANSCRIPT BY DUARTE LEVY"
Need I say more?
Although I don’t believe the McCanns are telling the truth I do feel for them but when you court the media it is a double edged sword, the last 10 years must have been hell.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why the McCanns have tried to silence their so called enemies (not saying I agree) but it has had the opposite effect as all it has done is draw attention to the case, I say that as someone who only started reading available material about the case after the not cleared verdict.
I don’t know whether the truth is complex or a simple explanation but whoever is involved with the disappearance they will only find peace once the truth is established whatever that truth is..
In all things McCann, then you have to ask yourself, who informed the Press in the latest McCann saga of the mystic, now running via the Sun to MSM. As sensitive as this case is, was it the Police? was it the mystic? ......... then who was it?
DeleteWhy do we have to know? Do we know where they went this year on their holidays? NO ... of course not, so why do we need to know about the mystic. Balance the obvious we know nothing about (think about that one) to the constant drip drip drip of trivia.
All you need to know is that it's the Sun and ignore it.
DeleteVT
Kate McCann:
Delete“There were a couple of ‘visionary’ experiences in particular I took very seriously. One of them had come through prayer which, at the time, gave it even greater credibility in my eyes. I begged the police to look into these. They were very sceptical, to put it mildly.”
Naughty, naughty, Kate.Not to mention naive( though, allowances have to be made on grounds of sheer desperation). I believe the Christian stance- especially the catholic branch - consider all things 'magical' and psychic as witchery and the 'dark arts' of old Scratchy himself.
DeleteVT
Anonymous16 October 2017 at 21:31
Delete''I don’t know whether the truth is complex or a simple explanation but whoever is involved with the disappearance they will only find peace once the truth is established whatever that truth is..''
I believe one or two key players have referred to the whole thing as 'a situation'. It would be interesting to know what's behind that state of mind.I suspect the truth was / is far less complex than ten years of wasted time suggests.So simple it took years, millions, and power to turn it into something that appears to be complex.
VT
The rogatory interviews, conducted in English, where those that gave witness had re-read their previous statements (with or without error of translation!) read each others and had prior knowledge of what they were about to be asked.
ReplyDeleteLet us therefore, remember Jane Tanners interview:
4078 “I know, yeah. And also you said that, you know, your immediate assumption or not
probably even thought about it that much at the time, but you thought he might have
been carrying a child home from the crèche?”
Reply “Yeah, well I think you did see people, I mean, not that late at night, and, again, that
should have made me think more, but especially sort of, you know, earlier on you’d
see them carrying children in pyjamas to the, the crèche where you can leave them at
night and then pick them up again”.
4078 “Would that fit in with the direction he had come from?”
Reply “Well, again, no. Well, it would have been, I mean, at that time, you would of more
expected him to be going the other way, coming back from the crèche maybe. But he
could have gone, if he’d have gone that way and then cut down, there is a way you
could have cut down to the crèche, going that way, so”.
4078 “Okay”.
''
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Tanner4of7_HO4.pdf
What is interesting is she is talking about ''ten past nine ish''
''
Would that fit in with the direction he had come from?”
Reply “Well, again, no. Well, it would have been, I mean, at that time, you would of more
expected him to be going the other way, coming back from the crèche maybe. But he
could have gone, if he’d have gone that way and then cut down, there is a way you
could have cut down to the crèche, going that way, so”.
4078 “Okay''
Time seems important to her, regarding direction, yet, if Madeleine had not gone missing, to the T9 the night was still young - why would she consider the time late?
But the whole document is worthy of a read.
As it the bit about deadlocking her front door, so her daughter, same age as Madeleine, couldn't exit - very thoughtful!
These of course are the transcripts, presume the MET has the videos, aren't they the lucky ones!
Or have they?
I have no idea why some anonymous lunatic has written above about Duarte Levy and the transcripts.
DeleteThe credentials of the transcripts are 100% solid, as was established many years ago, and Levy had nothing to do with them.
Anonymous16 October 2017 at 22:14
Delete''you did see people, I mean, not that late at night, and, again, thatshould have made me think more, but especially sort of, you know, earlier on you’dsee them carrying children in pyjamas to the, the crèche where you can leave them atnight and then pick them up again”.
''What is interesting is she is talking about ''ten past nine ish'' ''
Why is it interesting ? It's stating that you would usually see them on the way TO the creche around that time, not FROM. The 'pick them up again' would fit with a later sighting.
''Time seems important to her, regarding direction, yet, if Madeleine had not gone missing, to the T9 the night was still young - why would she consider the time late''
Because at that time of night, he wouldn't have been going towards the creche, he'd be moving away from it, unless he'd taken a shortcut or a wrong direction( holidaymakers don't know novel areas like the back of their hand at night).
''As it the bit about deadlocking her front door, so her daughter, same age as Madeleine, couldn't exit - very thoughtful!''
Point ?
''''These of course are the transcripts, presume the MET has the videos, aren't they the lucky ones!
Or have they?''
Are you building a case against the police ? tut tut...
VT
Jane Tanner 2.
ReplyDeleteI referred to Kate McCann “bolstering” both troublesome Tanner episodes in the book Madeleine, even though she had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of either. Quite why she should do so remains unexplained.
Her pushing of the Bundleman sighting is well known, including her demand, with Mitchell, that the PJ should concentrate on that sighting, rather than other matters. Not a very good call by her, was it? Interfering with the investigation after being prompted to do so by Mitchell to boost a piece of "evidence" that Scotland Yard state was non-existent. Enough said.
About the surveillance van episode KM writes:
“It was perhaps telling that Jane had not been required to sign anything, since the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary allowed claims to be made later that she had identified Murat as the man she’d seen on 3 May. This was completely untrue. Jane would’ve loved to have been able to make a definite identification, because it might have helped the investigation, but the fact is she couldn’t.”
A more gratuitous piece of special pleading, based on hearsay, can hardly be envisaged. Note that her book was written not only after Amaral’s statement in the book but after the rogatory interviews were distributed. Alert readers will also note that it does not quote any direct denial by Jane Tanner that she identified Murat.
Go on, read it again. You will only find subjective claims by KM herself, not Tanner. Now why would that be, do you think? I’ll tell you – for the same reason that Tanner did not deny it in the rogatory interview.
Neither Tanner nor KM know exactly what documentary evidence about the incident exists, a matter of some significance.
We know from the sequencing of the released DVD of PJ files, that there is missing pages.
DeleteTherefore it has to be assumed & wisely information was omitted.
Personally, I think there is and hopefully there is a lot of false positives, that is people who were around the area at the time, that saw nothing. These are of equal importance of those that reportedly saw something, i.e. JT (yes JT) for all it's worth and the Smithfamily. Another witness that always defies logic from the time spent circumventing the area is JW - who heard & saw nothing of significance !!
In years gone by, I have had hints of such information.
"Missing pages."
DeleteHello. I was puzzled at the dead silence from all quarters that greeted Amaral's flat assertion that Tanner had identified Murat in the van. As it turns out, the silence and absence of documentary evidence suited everybody. I repeat for the nth time that Amaral's claim has never been denied, despite my offering a prize in the past for anyone quoting Tanner's denial.
The documentation was left out of the case files because it was not a formal identity parade and did not meet the legal requirements for one. It was therefore excluded. The main victim of such evidence would, of course, have been Murat, which is why Amaral made no objection to the evidence being left out.
Nevertheless an officer or officers in the van reported what he saw and what M/S Tanner said.
Readers will note the loud squeals of pain that erupted from the anonymous losers after my initial post - without a single rebuttal or any evidence to counter my factual statements, the poor sods. Duarte Levy indeed! Bennett indeed! Where are these people living - in the Natural History Museum?
One of the losers, who sounded like someone was standing on her foot, shrieked about accusations that "Tanner was lying".
They still don't get it, do they? Lying doesn't come into it. Over ten years I have produced the evidence that proves that Kate and Gerry McCann are, for whatever reason, not reliable witnesses of events. Now I am stating as a fact, backed by evidence, that Jane Tanner isn't either. It is for the Yard and the PJ, not for me, to decide how much that affects the narrative of what is claimed happened on May 3.
But it is quite certain that we will, in time, be able to compare for ourselves the information that the police already have: the physical appearance of the parent who Tanner saw and just how much he resembles, or not, the various images of Bundleman put out by the McCanns and their backers.
And that can then be compared with the various speculations and additions made to M/S Tanner's original description by the Eight in the famous “typed timeline”. Prosecutor Menezes, co-author of the Archiving Summary stated that the group “did not check the children in the way they claimed” at the HR Lisbon trial: in other words they had not told the full truth. We will discover whether that applies to other parts of their evidence as well.
Now who could be against discovering that?
Hi John. Jane Tanner may well have much to answer for, should the truth come out. Her 'sighting' has played havoc with the investigation of this case. It is the blank, egg shaped head that launched thousands of myths. And possibly why the case remains unsolved even today.
DeleteI suspect Jane was panicked into identifying Robert Murat, but at the time it seemed like a good idea to steer suspicion away from the group.
Then, having promised not to discuss the matter with the others, including her husband, 3 more of the tapas group came forward to say RM was hanging around the apartment that night.
Absolute nonsense of course, because if he had 'just' stolen a child, he wouldn't have time to be hanging around anywhere.
A lot of work was put into making RM a suspect. An anonymous phone call accusing him of torturing puppies, and the revelation that he had pornography of the regular kind) on his computer. Stop the press.
Oh, and he fitted the 'profile' drawn up by a British police agency.
RM was, and probably still is, quite entitled to sue Jane Tanner. She pointed the finger at him on the Sunday night, and he was swooped on by the police on the Monday morning. I think at one time he was going to, but I don't know what the outcome was.
Irrespective of what is in the files and Redwood's assertion. Nothing can ever remove from one's mindset and the investigation generally.... and (rofl) the wider agenda Jane Tanner's command performance on the first Panorama Programme and the hype, if my memory serves me correct before the Portuguese authorities formally achieved the case. This was wall to wall coverage both on t.v. and MSM, with JT looking like a trapped animal in the headlights.
DeleteFurthermore at the top of the road, was it left to right (from the creche) and right to left (to the creche) hardly going if it's now past 9 and I believe it closed at 10pm
JT was indicating her sighting was left (from the apartment block) to right at the top of the road from the Tapas & side gate entrance of 5A from where is was coming from.
But my main point here, apart from the ambiguity of direction is that JT on camera Panorama hype, that really set the pace for McCanns worldwide search for their daughter. So it never existed.
Meanwhile, ignore the Smith family sighting, since after all that was 10 pm and JTs being given more importance at 9.10 - 9.25 depending what you are reading.
Hello Ros. Personally I'm not accusing Tanner of anything except being an unreliable witness. I bear her no malice and have no idea why she has acted in the way she has.
DeleteI am not too interested in mysteries, I am interested in certainties. We know for certain that Jane Tanner gave critical eyewitness evidence on two separate occasions that has not survived police examination.
Taken together with the known evidence that the parents are unreliable witnesses we thus have the troubling situation that fully one third of the group of Nine cannot be trusted in their accounts of May 3.
Whether by co-incidence or not those three individuals were also supposedly key "primary witnesses" regarding an abduction as the others were not - Tanner with a now discredited sighting, the McCanns with their claims of changes to the state of the apartment. That is why they have a major problem.
But naturally they'll want to help Grange clear these matters up, if only to help the search for the child.
Hi Ros, brilliant interpretation of the facts as always but there is a horribly black side to this case.
ReplyDeleteThe only people who can prosecute the McCanns are the Portuguese.
What the British police are doing with their Operation Grange in England is a mystery.( Maybe phone taps etc.)
In Portugal the very best the PJ have in a court of law is circumstantial evidence.
To a normal person the evidence is overwhelming, but
what can the PJ do to prove it. Just because sniffer dogs detected blood in the apartment and just because the dogs detected odor of a dead body in the boot of their hire car... (how often have you taken your child for a ride in your car and evidence of a dead body has been found in the boot),is apparently inconclusive evidence in Portugal even though DNA sampling would have been conclusive anywhere else in the world!
Unless one of the Tapas 7 cracks or the priest that took Kates (sorry, my inverted comma has gone) confession takes the witness stand these crooks are on a roll and have known that from day one.
So even if Operation Grange is 100% genuine unfortunately it cannot launch a prosecution.
jc
Anon/jc 04.57
Delete"What the British police are doing with their Operation Grange in England is a mystery.( Maybe phone taps etc.)" and
"So even if Operation Grange is 100% genuine unfortunately it cannot launch a prosecution."
Operation Grange may be investigating the Fund, as stated many times before, if there was no "abduction" - as the PJ believed from day 1 - then the Fund is fraudulent. If £hundreds of thousands or £millions have been stashed in off-shore accounts it can take years to find the money. The police have to apply to the Courts of each country (if they know which country the money is hidden in) to investigate bank accounts and investments and then wait for the appropriate permission/paperwork to come back to allow their investigation.
Medoto 3 were only known for money laundering (not finding lost children) so whose money were they laundering?
Hello.
DeleteForgive me, but I'm at a loss as to why you refer to "these crooks".
You write: "In Portugal the very best the PJ have in a court of law is circumstantial evidence."
But then you write: "To a normal person the evidence is overwhelming, but..."
But circumstantial evidence is not overwhelming, is it? So how do you know they are crooks? Is it really wise to say the things that enable the supporters to claim this is a hate site?
''To a normal person the evidence is overwhelming, but
Deletewhat can the PJ do to prove it.''
Prove what ? That anyone who doesn't see the 'evidence' isn't 'normal ' ? Or do you ( and the PJ) regard those who studied the findings in the forensics lab as abnormal ? Are the PJ supposed to dismiss them and go ahead and arrest someone then offer nothing as evidence in court( the defence would call the forensics team as witnesses).In the meantime we wait for the Tapas 7 to 'crack - or the priest...
I see Rebus,Cracker,Taggart,CSI Anywhere and a hint of Columbo in all of that. Still. It's a welcome diversion from the hilarious money laundering theory that's trying to gather air. For those who have forgotten, it's a missing child they're investigating. We're not looking for Moriarty or Fagin.
VT
VT / Anon 17 Oct 21.10
DeleteYou can mock all you like, the police are looking for a body, not a missing child as well you know as indicated by Eddie and Keela. Therein lies the fact, a body, therefore no abduction, therefore the Fund would be fraudulent.
The police we know aren't looking for Moriarty or Fagin but they are looking for someone/some people who may have perverted the course of justice, how long that will take who knows.
After all this time it is pretty clear the police are not looking for a missing child ZT. And there are no signs they are looking for an abductor either.
DeleteI think we can confidently say however, that they are looking to prosecute someone. You don't keep extending an investigation that won't end in a result.
You might find the suggestion of money laundering hilarious ZT, but given the specialised natures of the 'detective agencies' Gerry and Kate employed, it's a suspicion held by many. £50k a month for a private detective agency (to do what?) is ridiculously excessive, so too £100k for translations of the police files, oh and £37k to start a website - again, a sum that bears no relationship with reality.
The Fund is a much a part of Madeleine's disappearance as the sighting of Jane Tanner. It's not normal for suspects to conduct their own investigation (in opposition to the police) and to run a campaign labelling the police as incompetent.
Without the millions that poured in from the public, Gerry and Kate would have had no option but to co-operate with the original PJ investigation. The money donated to the Fund has been used to protect the parents from police questioning, and to create a false narrative.
As hilarious as all that is ZT, going through all those non transparent accounts with the Fraud Squad probably won't be.
Anonymous17 October 2017 at 21:10
Delete''VT / Anon 17 Oct 21.10
''You can mock all you like, the police are looking for a body, not a missing child as well you know as indicated by Eddie and Keela. Therein lies the fact, a body, therefore no abduction, therefore the Fund would be fraudulent.''
Stating the official line , or state of play, isn't mocking. Tell me who has gone on record to say they are looking for a body. If the evidence of Eddie and Keela hasn't been officially accepted as incriminating, due to the lack of corroborative evidence, then you can't base any argument and cite that as your 'fact' that a death has occurred and then fraud.It's basically inventing a fact in order to enable you to build a theory you like on it.
''The police we know aren't looking for Moriarty or Fagin but they are looking for someone/some people who may have perverted the course of justice''
If your first theory is correct, shouldn't they be looking for a murderer ? Yes, I know, it may have been an 'accidental death', but in reality, you'd report an accident, especially if it was your baby.You wouldn't hide the body. Accidents are not against the law, they're accidents.
VT
VT at 20:07
Delete("you'd report an accident, especially if it was your baby.You wouldn't hide the body. Accidents are not against the law, they're accidents.")
There are accidents that take the life of a child which could have been prevented.
To VT
DeleteYou said ""..in reality, you'd report an accident, especially if it was your baby.You wouldn't hide the body. Accidents are not against the law, they're accidents.""
*
Indeed. But if the autopsy revealed abuse (of any criminal kind) one might.
-
SizYearsInaComaMan
Hi VT@20:07
DeleteAccidents are against the law if caused by negligence.
An accident is an accident. There's no law against it. You can't be charged with anything if you hadn't intended an accident to happen.If it causes your child harm and, by extension, yourself, it's still an accident. All or most accidents can be avoided, I know. Hindsight's a wonderful thing so people say for God knows whatever reason. Foresight's better but that has to be learned. Anyone can use hindsight.What use is it. I know your subtext is talking about neglect.I agree with it. But neglect is neglect, whether it leads to dire consequences or not, and that carries a penalty.But not the same penalty as murder or burying your child.
DeleteVT
Hi VT@23:51
DeleteGood points raised, but to me an accident is caused by someone else's negligence. Example I mop a marble floor & go for a cup of tea. Someone comes running & slips, bangs their head & dies. I'm held responsible because I 1.Left a hazard unattended, 2. Failed to put up wet floor signs for all to see. Under the law I can & probably would be arrested & charged.
Anon 4.57
ReplyDelete"To a normal person the evidence is overwhelming, but
what can the PJ do to prove it. Just because sniffer dogs detected blood in the apartment and just because the dogs detected odor of a dead body in the boot of their hire car... "
You seem to have overlooked the odour of a dead body in apartment 5A, indicated by the cadaver dog, woof, woof.
The dogs done their job. They alerted to what they were trained to alert to - cadaver odour and blood.
DeleteIt's just a shame that the humans couldn't do their jobs properly and gather the physical evidence to back them up (or maybe the 'evidence' was destroyed or the results tampered with - Gordon Brown and the FSS).
Hi JC, I think the Portuguese side of the investigation, that is the crime that was committed on the night of 3rd May 2007, was completed long ago, and Mr. Rowley said OG didn't need to re-visit it. The British police are, I suspect, dealing with the British side, the side the Portuguese police had no access to in 2007.
ReplyDeleteThe Portuguese police do of course have the lead in the disappearance of Madeleine, but as often happens with investigations, they can lead off into different directions. I suspect that's what has happened here.
Ros said: "At the time Operation Grange demolished Tannerman..."
ReplyDeleteEr, Ros, they didn't 'demolish' Tannerman, they FOUND Tannerman.
Tannerman is Crecheman. "To paraphrase DCI Redwood: "Tannerman has come forward. And to prove it, LOOK! I have the very pyjamas his daughter was carried in six years ago. And LOOK! at this blurred photo and mock-up of the clothes Crecheman normally wore that week. Just like Jane Tanner said about Tannerman".
Except that it is plain now that Jane Tanner was actually describing the Polish gentleman with the cloth clothes, the shiny polished classic shoes, who 'didn't look like a tourist' - Wojchiech Krokowski. Just to make sure that Goncalo Amaral's men were thoroughly confused, up popped Nuno Lourenco hours after Tanner's statement, with a cock-and-bull story about how Krokowski nearly kidnapped his daughter on the Sunday. And LO! - this man had cloth clothes, classic shoes and 'didn't look like a tourist'. No wonder Amaral's men ordered the German Police, the Polish Police and INTERPOL to track him down and search his house.
So, to conclude, Jane Tanner initially described Krokowski.
And DCI Redwood found Crecheman.
"They still don't know what happened to their daughter..."
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about that?
Hello John (Blacksmith), and others as well.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a little off topic, but just a thought on the “pact of silence”, since you mentioned it in one of your posts John.
Reading an article in Independent /July 7. 2008/, it seems to me as if the togetherness of the tapas 7 had grown so grotesquely strong that they did not only consider to take action against papers, bloggers, or whomever dared to claim that they had a kind of pact, but they also threatened to sue those, who criticized them of being unwilling to co-operate with the Portuguese P J. Yet the P J files reveal that they, just a few months earlier, had been asked by the P J to return to Portugal to participate in a reconstruction, but declined to do so.
As for the epithet “pact of silence”and the question about whoever invented it, if it was Joana Morais or someone else, is of less importance to me, than the fact that they in many situations, from the very beginning as a matter of fact, seem to have agreed upon a mutual strategy in order to defend Kate, Gerry and themselves, but against what accusations and against whom? Neither the McCanns, nor the tapas 7 were in the early days accused or suspected of anything?
Nevertheless, IMO, they should all come forward now one by one, as individuals, to tell us, as well as the Portuguese authorities, how they feel today and what they “really” believe happened 10 years ago, because the solution of the crime may well lie within the silence of this group of people.
Hello Bjorn. As I said, there never was a pact of silence,as anyone who researches the matter can discover for themselves. The Portuguese took a harmless statement by one of the Seven that they were leaving all media relations to the McCann spokesman and dramatized it into a "pact", an English word, with numerous conspiratorial or dramatic connotations, that they never uttered.
DeleteBut it doesn't matter because time has moved on. The question is now a much simpler one than was posed in 2007 and doesn't need any dramatization. And it's this:
Why haven't the Seven publicly offered to help either the British or Portuguese re-investigations? I don't mean offering to do a reconstruction. It is now ten years since the child vanished and one might expect these friends of the McCanns to be interested in seeing if they can contribute to new thinking about the case in order to bring peace of mind, if nothing else to the parents.
Some of them have participated in the worthless documentaries made by Loach and her like, so it is not as if they cannot bear to go near the case, is it? But they won't do it. Nor do the parents ask them to do so.
We don't need to worry about the past: the tide of the facts is now running with us, not with those like the McCann supporters who are stranded like dead whales in the sand, nor the Seven themselves who by their failure to act demonstrate for all to see, police forces included, that they do not wish to help find the child. Now why would that be?
"there never was a pact of silence"
Delete"the Seven themselves who by their failure to act demonstrate for all to see, police forces included, that they do not wish to help find the child"
"there never was a pact of silence"
Delete"the Seven themselves who by their failure to act demonstrate for all to see, police forces included, that they do not wish to help find the child"
Hello. You appear to be suggesting that there is a contradiction between the two statements. So let me repeat them.
There never was a pact of silence. Research it yourself instead of reading the newspapers.
The Seven themselves by their failure to act demonstrate for all to see, police forces included, that they do not wish to help find the child.
Yes, that's right. What's that got to do with the non-existence of the "pact of silence" falsely claimed to exist by a Portuguese journalist and a Portuguese blogger?
Do tell us.
@ john Blacksmith 18 October 00:16
DeleteHi John
I don't watch British TV-documentaries so often, but I've got the impression that the tapas 7 are not too interested in participating and telling us the truth, as you imply.
Anyway, I agree with you in that the tapas 7 could contribute a lot in trying to help the SY/Met and the P J. I've never really understood their reluctance or refusal.
As for Mark Rowley and his staff in general, I believe that you and Rosalinda are more confident about them than I'm, though I hope of course that both of you're right.
Björn17 October 2017 at 18:21
DeleteIf you had your three year old abducted in a foreign country and there seemed to be no clues as to where she'd disappeared to, wouldn't your friends and family rally around you and your wife ? Would they try to support you and your wife and offer to assist in the best ways that they could ? If so, would it be fair to accuse that of being a suspicous 'shield' to protect a guilty father or mother ? If those friends were then accused of protecting themselves as they too were guilty of being involved in what the suspicous crowds had decided had happened, would it be wrong of them to attempt to stop the accusations and defamation if nobody could substantiate their claims ? Would the group under attack be deemed , to use your words, too 'grotesquely strong' in their camaraderie ?
VT
@Anonymous 18 October 2017 at 23:53
DeleteWell put, VT.
@ Anon 18 October 2017 at 23:53
DeleteHi VT
I believe that our basic views on normality differ a lot VT. Where you see normality, I see the quite opposite, which may exlain why you believe that the McCanns are innocent, while I don't.
I find Dave Payne's protection of Kate very queer when the social worker Yvonne Martin approached her and offered her help on the day after Madeleine had disappeared, besides, none of them (the tapas 9) seemed to accept any help offered by the locals that night. Sorry, but there are so many odd things, so remote from normality, which the tapas 9 did just hours after Madeleine had gone missing, making me suspicious.
"Nevertheless, IMO, they should all come forward now one by one, as individuals, to tell us, as well as the Portuguese authorities, how they feel today and what they “really” believe happened 10 years ago, because the solution of the crime may well lie within the silence of this group of people."
ReplyDeleteLOL! No need. They won't. Why should they? The Gossip Media think there's a pact - what a joke. The Gossip Media don't want to hear the truth, they just want to hear that the McCanns are guilty.
@ Anon 17 October at 23:13
DeleteHi
Why would honest and decent people need to sue a whole world to convince everybody that they are truly innocent. Why do they not just tell the truth.
''The Gossip Media don't want to hear the truth, they just want to hear that the McCanns are guilt''
DeleteHear hear.And boy do they know their audience..
VT
"Why would honest and decent people need to sue a whole world to convince everybody that they are truly innocent. Why do they not just tell the truth."
DeleteIt's the honest and truthful people who are justified in suing those who make false accusations. If they were guilty it would be a precarious path to sue their accusers. The McCanns have told the truth.
Björn18 October 2017 at 19:43
Delete@ Anon 17 October at 23:13
Hi
''Why would honest and decent people need to sue a whole world to convince everybody that they are truly innocent. Why do they not just tell the truth''
They did.that's why they were never charged
On a more general point, for what it's worth.
ReplyDeleteThe one great mistake that many anti-McCann sceptics make is to believe that UK police are not part of the same community as themselves. It dehumanises them.
When the hideous Pat Brown claimed that all 30+ members of operation Grange were perverting the course of justice she was not only being thick and self-serving but, more important, dehumanised not just them but their families, children, in-laws, friends – that is hundreds of people belonging to our democratic community.
All of them have gone to the same schools as other people, watch the same television programmes, skim the same press garbage – and read about themselves when they are attacked or defamed. Most of us have had various social connections with police at one time or another – have the ones you’ve met (rather than reading about) stood out as monsters or cowards used to doing what politicians tell them to? In my experience, which also involved being arrested when I was young, none of them have been anything remotely like that. Nor have they been saints: just ordinary people doing a slightly extraordinary job. Like doctors and nurses.
The Portuguese, who, led by Morais, began the paranoia, have plenty of excuse – after all the police there were not working for a democracy until 1974 and were certainly not part of a democratic community: police of M/S Morais’s parents’ generation were still tearing the fingernails and dangly bits out of political suspects with a clear conscience and no fear of punishment – that’s what happens in autocracies every day and that’s what makes the childish “we know what they’re up to” faux sophistication of people like Bennett and his victims, or the mad Teddy Prendergast, so pathetic.
Dehumanising them means having the weird belief that police don’t read about the McCann case, that they are stupider than us, that they don’t feel as affronted as we do at the well-attested and disgusting extra-legal activities of the McCanns in sabotaging the 2007 investigation and – the weirdest one of all – that police officers don’t have the same feeling for justice as we do.
We’ll see.
Blacksmith 13:37
DeleteFor what it's worth?
The small change in my empty pocket.
Well said John. I've never gone along with the idea that 30+ police officers would conspire to cover up the death of a child. Not only is the idea abhorrent, it makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteWhy would 30+ police officers compromise their careers and bring shame on themselves and their families for a politician or a not very likeable couple from Leicester?
This is not a case that can be swept under the carpet, or filed away with a 'do no open for 70 years' privacy clause. A huge amount of public money has been spent on this investigation and it is still a high profile crime that attracts global interest.
And on top of which there are way too many people involved - at any time any one of them could crack. A lot of water has gone under the bridge, relationships have changed, and going by VT, the tapas are no longer friends of the parents.
It doesn't sound as though they are friends of those police agencies who flew to PDL either, VT is now blaming them for misdirecting the original investigation. I doubt we will see Gerry, Kate and Jim Gamble on a breakfast sofa any time soon.
I suspect the infighting will escalate over the next few weeks, as Operation Grange moves into it's final stages. If the abduction is fake, a lot of people will face a lot of serious criminal charges. Not only for covering up a child's death, but for using that child's death to make a huge amount of money.
Rosalinda 14:17
Delete"If the abduction is fake, a lot of people will face a lot of serious criminal charges. Not only for covering up a child's death, but for using that child's death to make a huge amount of money."
Did you C/P this observation from something you wrote a decade ago?
'IF the abduction is fake' indeed.
Your best lines are seemingly inhaled.
Ros and JB
DeleteA few things to add to your thoughts....
First, JB, I think the gist of what you're asserting about the police is a general one.I too have had dealings with the police. In my younger days I actually got into a scrap with " drunks who were laying into a policewoman who must have been all of 4 foot eleven.I did enough to stop it.I found out later the lunatics were from a family not to be messed with.All i wanted to do was make sure the policewoman was ok, not go to court.After the token praise i was threatened by them that it wouldnt be in my interest not to go to court.That happened again a couple of years later in similar circumstances.Both times i wasn't commiting a crime.A close frienf of mine in the 90s worked for Customs and told me one of the things they had to do was set up in vacant office spaces to covertly monitor several police officers' activities, particulary drug dealing activities,and that they had to make sure nothing was leaked to them as they knew it would get leaked further to those behind it. he was proven right.A lot of high profile dealers and a few officers were jailed after one of the bigger busts. I won't go into the Hillsborough disgrace and the officers who knowingly went along with the conspiacy to blame and defame dead foorball supporters, we always knew the score. A lot of policemen, as you say, are just ordinary people doing a job.But a lot abuse their position and power.I think it's only reasonable to bear both in mind.
Ros, I'm not sure where, or why, you seemed to pick up something I said that suggested that I don't think the T7 are not friends with the parents now. I have absolutely no idea if they are or not. I don't even know if anything in that area has gone public.If it has, I haven't read anything about it.
With regard to Pat Brown..
I've been on her site a few times, but not for a while now. I had to have a look as so many of the antis had her as one of their heroes . She made the journey to PDL too for some photo-ops with Aamaral then back home to a chat show or two. I read her guesses. Not much to them really.I'm of the opinion that her credentials as an author are more impressive than her credentials as a profiler. She certainly prioritises that way.She's a speculator and accuser.That's about it.
Discussing the possibility of 30 plus detectives willingly being part of a cover up and how ludicrous that is, is missing an important point. This is probably why it's seen as me trying to make a 'case against' them. There's a reason that the ranks are well defined within the force.You never question your superior officers either. Detectives weren't called into a room with a 'right, you lot, you're on the McCann case, get moving' order. The detectives would have been coordinated and directed by superior officers after much deliberation by the latter. The officers are doing their job, which is to follow orders.If they are looking in certain areas and ignoring others, much to the frustration of those who don't like the ten year wild goose chase, it's because their orders are just that.Any cover up or misdirection was formulated above them, not by them.
Questions to you, Ros :
1: Colin Sutton.He was 'warned' who he could or couldn't investigate should he head up the investigation.The investigation we were told was a 'no stone unturned' one.
2- Redwood : He came up with 'revelation man'.
In defending the incorruptible policemen in these 'two live investigations', what are your opinions of 1 and 2.
VT
Well done Ros with the million hits.
ReplyDeleteStraight talking civility wins the day.
Keep it comin'
-
SixYearsInaComaMan
Two names spring to mind at complete opposites to the spectrum of justice, Jill Dando for which there has been none (todate) and Jimmy Saville, although I have to admit I never could warm to him.
ReplyDeleteLike is often said, hidden in plain sight.
In the Jill Dando case, I didn't mean to cite as police corruption and incompetence, but as a treasured national figure, justice has never amounted to much.
I worked as a nurse, you know (rofl) one of those in ''white coats'' those people make fun & puns about. I don't suppose for one minute Pat Brown was suggesting 'group' cover up by the MET team. But is it really competent, that after six years and £12m + that they have never interviewed the witnesses. That these people like you and me, never wanted to get their hands on the core subjects.
So, I ask, if they are like you and me, interested in finding the a solution, what has held them back? If not 'what' they who!
Hello. I would be more interested in your post if you had bothered to find out the facts and avoided implying that I was making wild claims about Brown.
DeleteI don't do wild claims.
Go to her site, if she still has one, and read what she wrote. She stated exactly what I described and maintained her lies when I publicly took them up with her. From a safe distance where she couldn't be sued by the people she libelled, the craven coward.
Anonymous18 October 2017 at 16:36
Delete''In the Jill Dando case, I didn't mean to cite as police corruption and incompetence, but as a treasured national figure, justice has never amounted to much.''
Good point that. Usually mountains are moved for celebrities ( nothing personal, OJ, if you're reading this).Then again, she'd gone 'rogue' against the establishment just before her execution.The stitch up of her neighbour, Barry George was clumsy at best. That's another unique part of the story, when it was exposed and he was released from jail on appeal, the judge said he wasn't. nor ever would be, entitled to any financial compensation.Site ? Of course. And the hunt for the 'mystery' killer stayed in the bin..
VT
I guess there is one important question to be asked and the answer must the same for both the following scenarios,if the investigation is purely looking at an abduction,would SY ignore any evidence that would lead to any kind of parental involvement,similarly if they were to be investigating parental involvement would they ignore any evidence that lead them away from it?
ReplyDeleteGood questions. The fact that neither have been answered with enough clarity to satisfy the massed ranks of armchair detectives speaks volumes with regard to transparency. But, they must have their reasons...
DeleteVT
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/fiona-pilkington-frankie-pilkington-suicide-learning-disabilities-bullying-hate-crime-a8004526.html
ReplyDelete"In a well-publicised report, the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that Leicestershire police had repeatedly missed opportunities to identify the Pilkingtons as vulnerable, failing to link individual reports of anti-social behaviour as part of a wider campaign of harassment. The Pilkington family received a five-figure settlement from the force in 2012, although no officers faced disciplinary charges."
That would be the same Leicestershire police involved in the beginning,one would hope officers from the serious crimes department of SY headed by Rowley are a step above,if not?
DeleteThe same force who moved mountains to protect former MP, later 'Lord' Janner, over - surprise, surprise - sex abuse claims.
DeleteGood 'onest coppers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/lord-janner-eleven-police-officers-and-staff-under-investigation/
VT
What's your problem with Leicester VT? Spit it out.
DeletePresumably it is because Leicester police were at odds with CEOP? Leicester police sent in Mark Harrison, who suggested the parents might be involved and who arranged for the dogs to be brought in.
CEOP however, had created a profile that fitted Robert Murat, and were assisting with the Find Madeleine Campaign.
Perhaps disagreements between different branches of the police may have added to the confusion?
So from your perspective presumably VT, Leicester Police are at fault?
I spat it out.The Janner case.
DeleteVT
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF MARK HARRISON
DeleteOccupation: Police Agent
This statement, consisting of two pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully states in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
Date: 2 May 2008
Signature:
I am an official with the British Police at the service of the UK National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and work there as a special advising investigator. I was asked to respond to four questions by the Policia Judiciaria in a document sent by them. The questions appear in this statement in italics.
On 20.07.2007 I was sent by NPIA to Portugal with the goal of helping the Leicestershire police and the Policia Judiciaria relative to the disappearance of a child, Madeleine McCann, missing since 03.05.07 from Praia da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.
The terms of assistance we agreed to provide were directed by the PJ Regional Director, Guilhermino ENCARNACO after consultation with DI Neil HOLDEN of the Leicestershire Police and myself, the details of which are on page two of the document I authored, titled “Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann” dated 23.07.2007 and presented as evidence MH4.
1. What criteria was used in the selection of local searches?
2. Considering the geographic location of Praia da Luz, where would a corpse be hidden?
In accordance to the referenced terms, the charge given to me by Guilhermino ENCARNACO was to comment on prior search activity by the PJ and the GNR in Praia da Luz and to offer a new scenario for the searches with the consideration of the hiding of a corpse and human remains. Assisted by Professor Oscar Ferreira and Alverinho Dias of the University of the Algarve, we conducted an assessment of the terrain of the immediate excavation areas relative to the viability of a superficial burial of human remains and also considering the possibility of a human cadaver having been thrown into the ocean in Praia da Luz. This assessment and the respective conclusions are detailed in the evidence MH4 and in “Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann—Praia da Luz & Marina” dated 23.07.2007, presented as evidence MH5.
The documents were submitted to the Leicestershire Police and the Policia Judiciaria and are detailed as to the areas of consideration in additional searches using GNR, and using canines and geophysical elements. My rational was based in the proximity of the location where Madeleine McCann went missing and the scenario of occultation of human remains. The prior search activities in these zones were concentrated in a scenario of a missing child, hurt or maintained captive.
After the submission of two documents, I attended two meetings in the Portimao Police headquarters on the 23/07.2007 with DI NEIL HOLDEN of the Leicestershire Police and the other on 30.07.2007 with DI ALAN ORCHARD of the Leicestershire Police. At both meetings, PJ agents were present and they were presided over by the Regional Director of the PJ Guilhermino ENCARNCAO who selected and established the priorities for the search areas.
snip and then
"After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was occulted?
To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Delete"On Friday 20.07.2007 a request was made by the Portuguese Judicial Police to the NPIA for search advisory assistance."
T9: They don't share a lie, they all share their own versions of the truth. And rather like GA's book, the truth is hidden in the lie aka own version of the truth. That is what the T9 timelines is all about.
ReplyDeleteAnd what if there was no abduction, or pseudo-abduction to hide an untoward occurrence. What actually is left, that could explain the 'nothingness' of the evidence.
W&W was never on the original agendas because JT saw the abduction. Smithman was never on the agenda, because JT indicated another time and another direction. Because JT had seen the abduction taking place, everyone (T9 + JW) had an alibi.
Whoooooooosh .... gone.
T9: will never budge from their original statements, no matter how many times they are interviewed. Set in stone is the T9 timeline for all time. The template of the saga.
So just imagine for all the years of seeking Tannerman, thinking MO's check after the event and not noticing the missing child, the combined truth was about that, explained fully away. But no... that didn't happen, Madeleine was soundly sleeping (apparently) when MO visited! I bet he'd like his time over again, except of course his claim to fame now, without JT's alibi of an earlier event, he was actually the last person to claim to have been in her presence.
Anonymous 18.10, 19:24
Delete"he (oldfield) was actually the last person to claim to have been in her presence."
If we juxtapose what we know to be the most likely circumstance (i.e., Madeleine was not abducted but is dead) with the statements of Gerry McCann and Matthew Oldfield, then Oldfield becomes the prime suspect, since he claimed to have entered 5A after the last reported sighting but denied any interaction with the missing child.
The primary concern of Operation Grange however has been to investigate 'the abduction' - an inexplicable examination of what didn't happen.
blacksmith on Tanner on this topic:
ReplyDelete1. Meanwhile, also, we have the case of the very accident-prone M/S Jane Tanner. M/S Tanner has been unfortunate enough to be involved in two “misunderstandings”. First she was unable to give a coherent description to Leicester police of her “sighting” of Robert Murat from a PJ undercover van in Praia da Luz in 2007.
2. The PJ co-ordinator stated that she identified Murat as the “abductor” she had seen on May 3. Tanner did not deny it to Leicester police (read the rogatory interview transcript carefully) but didn’t admit it, either. She obfuscated.
3. That’s quite a record, isn’t it? Once might be an accident, twice is something very different. I’m sure she’ll be glad to know that Kate McCann in Madeleine, attempted to bolster her version of events in both cases.
4. So roll up for the show some time ahead when the other six (the McCanns won't be saying anything) explain the differences in appearance between the innocent crèche-bound parent with a child in his arms, who, for obvious reasons is being kept hidden, Tanner's description of him and the elaborations that were added in to the famous "typed timeline". Comparing them is going to be great fun - for us, not for them.
5. And then poor M/S Tanner is involved in another far-from-straightforward "sighting", isn't she? With results that we know.
Let me make it clear Ros, that it is quite inconceivable that Tanner has not been interviewed by Grange. Inconceivable. Both Tanner and the crèche parent are in cold storage until the end of Grange. Readers may ask themselves why that is.In my view her future depends on what she has told Grange. Now we must wait and see.
6. Her pushing of the Bundleman sighting is well known, including her demand, with Mitchell, that the PJ should concentrate on that sighting, rather than other matters. Not a very good call by her, was it? Interfering with the investigation after being prompted to do so by Mitchell to boost a piece of "evidence" that Scotland Yard state was non-existent. Enough said.
7. You will only find subjective claims by KM herself, not Tanner. Now why would that be, do you think? I’ll tell you – for the same reason that Tanner did not deny it in the rogatory interview. Neither Tanner nor KM know exactly what documentary evidence about the incident exists, a matter of some significance.
8. The documentation was left out of the case files because it was not a formal identity parade and did not meet the legal requirements for one. It was therefore excluded. The main victim of such evidence would, of course, have been Murat, which is why Amaral made no objection to the evidence being left out.
Nevertheless an officer or officers in the van reported what he saw and what M/S Tanner said.
I will pause there for a while and ask blacksmith one question - I know of course that Sharples hates answering questiones from "anomymous" as he posts uder a false name but,
Q1: What was Amaral convicted on and received a suspended prison sentence for?
Oh - was it something along the lines of lying to cover up for colleagues?
"it was not a formal identity parade and did not meet the legal requirements for one." Amaral strikes again!
Get off your soapbox and live in the present.
DeleteDoes anyone else (apart from me) find it incredible that a positive ID of a suspect on an informal identity parade did not make it to the archiving report?
ReplyDeleteA positive ID by whom, 21:27? If it was Jane Tanner, who would have identified an egg, it is not surprising.
DeleteI did find it extraordinary until, as I posted, it became clear that it satisfied everyone at the time. Before offering to work with the Goncalo Amaral team in 2009 I asked for an explanation and I was told that it was inadmissible as evidence in the case because the strict conditions that surround identity parades had not been met; since it wasn't case evidence, therefore, it was excluded from the case files.
DeleteThat is what Amaral said. A certain amount of murk surrounds the issue and, as I said, a lot of silence. Jane Tanner made no complaint; Kate McCann said nothing until she wrote her book; no complaint was made internally about the police team's behaviour; and, of course, Scotland Yard participated in the undercover operation.
But it sounds like it was the right thing to do - not to protect Tanner but Murat, since it was him who could have been put at risk by an accidental misidentification.
As Amaral has made clear, I think, from the bits and pieces of his book I've read, it wasn't Murat who was the subject of interest: it was an informal attempt to establish Jane Tanner's credibility as a witness. Good luck with that one.
Now if my memory recalls, this wasn't just put to bed, or under it. What about the 3 to 1 (incl JT) confrontational interview with Murat
Delete"the wonderful Enid O'Dowd"
ReplyDeleteIt's a laugh a minute on here.
"It's a laugh a minute on here".
DeleteExcept you aren't laughing at all, are you? Quite the reverse: like most anonymous McCann supporters you’ve been acting since 2015 like a schoolchild after a smacking, saying "it didn't hurt at all" and putting on a sad imitation of a giggle as the tears well up.
There is no point in trying all 57 varieties from the losers' abuse menu on sites like this. The fates of the people involved in the disappearance are not being decided here but elsewhere. That’s why we sound so happy, you sad, bitter, little loser.
Ros's blog pisses you off terribly because it is an unashamed celebration by a number of people, led by her, that the truth is now on the way out. We’re enjoying ourselves, legally and, apart from a few silly people, without libelling anyone, because the evidence is pointing, even screaming, in one direction only and therefore we don't need Bennett junk or Twitter lunacy or "pacts of silence" guff or Wayback fantasies. The facts - among them my speciality, the irrefutable evidence which you're too terrified to confront about the monstrous lying of Kate and Gerry McCann - are now shouting much louder than the "theories".
Finally, it is notable that you make a jeering reference to an Enid O'Dowd - that is you attack the person who has analysed accounts of the misbegotten Fund. That describes exactly where you are at: I don’t know and don’t care who O’Dowd is but I can read a balance sheet. You really believe, you poor sod, that attacking her will change the clear evidence of the accounts themselves?
Somewhere in those account boxes, to take one tiny example, the bills from the Dom Pedro Hotel for Gerry McCann’s stays when he was consulting his libel lawyer in lovely Lisbon are filed under “searching”. Do you think they’ll go away if O’ Dowd goes away?
You had your fun; you supported ten years of continual lying by Mitchell and his clients, either knowingly or because you’re too stupid to tell truth from fiction. And you
The sneer at Enid is understandable John. Enid O'Dowd is a brilliant forensic accountant (I think that's the title), who has analysed the Madeleine Fund Accounts, in great detail.
DeleteIt is unfortunate that she is 'connected' to the cesspit, but it is possible, her reports may have played a part in the start up of Operation Grange.
Pure speculation on my part, but at the last hearing of McCanns .v. Bennett, Judge Tugendhat (the name stayed with me, I don't know why, lol) asked for full copies of Enid's reports. As a Judge, wouldn't he be obliged to do something with evidence like that?
I think those accounts are another little pot on a back burner waiting to blow.
Ros 19 Oct 10.49
DeleteJudge Tugendhat also said at the end of the hearing "and what if it is determined that there was no abduction......." (not the exact words but along those lines).
He left the end of the sentence open but I think everyone knew what he meant.
Judge T stated that the witness O'Dowd was not relevant to the case being heard.
DeleteAnon 13.57
DeleteThat doesn't make any difference to the disappearance of Madeleine, it was to do with Tony Bennett's case. However, the PJ and SY would have their own forensic accountants going through the McCanns multi £million Fund. Enid O'Dowd could only comment on what was disclosed by the McCanns, which was very little. Why were they not being transparent in their accounts, if they had nothing to hide?
And please don't tell me it's because they didn't have to disclose anything under the rules, it won't wash.
Hi Ros, I posted a reply yesterday but no sign of it yet. Well done on the million hits.
ReplyDeleteHi John, I looked in 'spam' but it wasn't there. Did find a short one from Bjorn from 15/10/17, which I have just published. Sorry John.
DeleteIs it possible to re-send if you have a copy?
I must admit there was a certain sense of excitement as it approached the million, I was hoping it would happen by Christmas, but here it is! :)
Hi Ros,
DeleteIt was in relation to JT's alleged sighting. I'm of the opinion that this sighting is bogus. I also believe that SY know it's bogus as well, as they have thrown a hand grenade in by stating that person has come forward & has been eliminated from their enquiries. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to hear team McCanns reaction. It's strange that SY waited until Crimewatch special to announce their findings & also why is Tannerman/Crecheman still on the McCanns website.
DCI Redwood said: 'Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are ALMOST certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
DeleteHello.
DeleteJust to get back to my hobby of stating that facts that were not available in 2007 but now form a clear pattern mean no accusations of guilt from us are needed. In your interesting post, you say that the Tanner sighting is bogus. I am not criticising you for that, merely stating that you’re taking a risk that is no longer necessary.
It doesn’t matter whether one views Tanner’s sighting as bogus or sincere: what matters is that the police, as in any crime, have to form a picture of what known individuals were doing that evening before they can go any deeper. That process was aborted in 2007, as the Archiving Summary tells us. But the now-established non-existence of Tanner’s “abductor” changes everything. It is it impossible to “review” the Nine’s story without investigating it, since it’s built entirely around the abductor's reality. Bad move! If he doesn’t exist then their original story no longer exists either. No investigation can continue until that problem is dealt with.
The Nine put the non-existent intruder at the heart of their written submission to the PJ – after collective discussion and agreement. Somehow the sighting dovetailed exactly with their own claimed movements; somehow, it fitted into their timescale; somehow it just happened to occur between the famous checks; somehow the McCanns noted signs of an intruder’s presence in the apartment – the bedroom door etc. – back-fitting the time at which Tanner’s man would have been in the apartment; somehow details were added on by Gerry McCann months later that neatly countered the difficulties of an intrusion at that time, including the belief-cum-suggestion ( Mitchell was incoherent about which it was) that the intruder might have been hiding in the room in his presence.
To that we have to add the attempts by KM and Mitchell to make an unconfirmed intruder the key target of the PJ investigation. KM writes: “When Gerry had told Clarence about Jane Tanner’s sighting he was astounded that this still hadn’t been made public. We decided we would really push the PJ to release this critical piece of information …” And elsewhere: “… there was no doubt in our minds that Madeleine had not left that apartment of her own accord. For a start there was Jane’s sighting of what was, in all likelihood, Madeleine being carried off.”
This narrative is now objectively senseless – the door movements, the retrofitting of their activities enabling this ghost to be in the apartment at the “right” time and so on. No investigation could possibly leave that situation untouched. Just how the police are dealing with the “narrative” we do not know, but dealing with it they must be, and that means questioning them. That’s all we need. Everything, including questions of guilt and innocence, flows from there. That’s why we’re happy while the fanatics of both sides are miserable.
@ John 100 19 October 2017 at 02:20
DeleteHi John (100)
Crêcheman suddenly wakes up from his coma and immediately makes a telephone call to Andy, and whoooooshe goes Gerry's alibi, and that's the real reason, I guesse, why the McCanns still keep "tannerman" on their website, whom they also, in the early days, "thought" could be "smithman".
The idea that "tannerman" and "smithman" could be the same person did only exist in the minds of the McCanns. No-one else believed that.
As for Jane Tanners' ever changing "fairy tales" I doubt that the SY/Met ever believed in anything that she witnessed about, but they couldn't prove that she was making things up, so they had to rule out "tannerman/eggman" in some way or another, in order to be able to proceed with their investigation by focusing on the real suspect, the prime suspect, namely "smithman". Does Rowley and his loyal police detectives suspect whom "smithman" might be? Possibly, but I'm not quite sure they do.
Hi Bjorn@16:45
DeleteAgree with you, but I also believe SY/Met also know what happened that night. For them to proceed with this case they had to eliminate JT's sighting & shift the focus on the Smith Family sighting. This is why I believe Op Grange issued/made up the statement that JT's sighting came forward & has been eliminated. On this subject if Team McCann knew who this person was I probably think his name would have been plastered all over the place. This also to me proves that Op Grange is certainly not a cover up.
"DID THE MULTIMILLION MADELEINE FUND SCUPPER THE INVESTIGATION?"
ReplyDeleteWhat investigation are you on about?
Two Police investigations have been started a long time after the Fund was set up!
Congratulations Ros, keep up the great work. A friend :D.
ReplyDelete