Sunday 24 December 2017

PUZZLE RETURNED - UNSOLVED

Dear Portugal,
 
Apologies for charging in like 18th century colonials on your investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  We can't solve it either, been nice working with you, ta ta, Operation Grange.       Chances of this happening, on a postcard please.
 
As often happens, a blog begins with a reply……
 
Bjorn is away in the wilderness 20:00, so good time to attack eh? lol
 
I have never seen Bjorn write 'reams of accusation', analyse the Smith sighting 'to death' or even discuss the Gaspar statements, but while he's not here I suppose, it is a good time to say he does.
 
This case is going nowhere you say.  The magic forensic wand didn't work in 2007, it won't work now eh?  'Why would that change?' you ask, 'there would be a political war and the backlash would be too big to control
 
Bizarre, because on the other side of the Atlantic, the President of the USA and most of his family, look likely to be arrested any day now, obviously they are not AS big as Gerry and Kate.  Your  'case is going nowhere' argument is obliterated by the fact that Scotland Yard have invested £12m and over 6 years of police time and resources to solve it. No-one does that for something that is ‘going nowhere’.
 
No police force, no government, no giant corporation, no private individual, invests in a project and keeps throwing money at it, with the objective of failing.  The idea that the ultimate goal of Operation Grange is to obfuscate the disappearance of Madeleine further is ridiculous, actually more than ridiculous, it's batshit crazy.  Why would 30+ SY homicide detectives conspire to cover up the possible murder of a child? Do people honestly have that little faith in human nature?
 
There are other missing child cases worldwide that remain unsolved. Unsolved, in the sense that they have become cold cases, the police are not looking for a live child or an abductor because they know who is responsible but they can’t prove it.  This is where Madeleine’s case differs, two police forces in two countries are still conducting live investigations, this is not a case they are going to give up on.
 
Nor, when they reach the end, are they going to provide a false narrative.  1) Because it would be wrong on every level and 2) Too many details of the case are known to the public.  The ONLY explanation that will cover every question will be the truth.  Lots of other options have been tried but none have succeeded.  Madeleine’s disappearance is no longer referred to as an abduction, most significantly, not even by her mother, who this week gave an interview to The Mail, and apart from telling the Mail she still buys Christmas presents for Madeleine (Jeez), referred to Madeleine as missing, not abducted.  
 
A £12m police investigation is not going to end with failure and stuttered apologies, had that been their aim, it would have ended £11m ago, why bring attention (for 6 years) to something you are trying to cover up?  I was never really a Trekkie, but having two boys, Captain Kirk and Spock were impossible to avoid.  But I did take a liking to Spock, his clear thinking logic made a lot of sense, especially to an OTT drama queen, who usually thought and did the opposite. Many a former lover was spared a drunken 3.00am phone call when I began to precede my actions with ‘what would Spock do?’.  In this case, only the logical explanation works.
 
I think those who see Operation Grange ending with apologies to the parents, the funding government department, and the caring pubic who want to know what happened to Maddie, are slim to zilch.  How embarrassing to announce to the world, that despite all the time, funding and resources that were made available to them, they are still none the wiser than the PJ in 2007. Or worse, ‘we know the answer but we’re not telling anyone - not even the parents’.  
 
All those police officers, both here in the UK and in Portugal, have their lives and careers ahead of them. Why would they cover up a heinous crime, knowing the truth could come out at any time, and knowing it will be on their records forever?  And the human psyche just isn’t made that way. Most people are intrinsically good, that is they are ruled by their own conscience.  It’s a sad, bad world at the moment, but the good still outnumber the bad.  Any police officer asked to cover up the death of a child, would probably respond with two words, the second one being ‘off’.  
 
Added to that, Gerry and Kate are not sympathetic characters and the police are no different to the rest of us, some people we empathize with and want to help more, than we do with others. Kate and Gerry’s initial reaction to the police (the PJ), which they seem to be quite proud of, was one of scorn and arrogance.  They might just as well have said, we are a few tiers up from you on the intellectual and social scale - think Marie Antoinette talking to the plebs.  They are the kind of people who hold up the queue by demanding to speak to a ‘superior’ while demeaning a flustered shop worker and pissing off everyone in the line.  
 
Admittedly, the police they were demeaning at the time were Portuguese, but is there any reason to believe that a British police force would be treated with more respect?  Gerry and Kate are snobs, they weren’t relieved when the police arrived on the scene that night Madeleine disappeared, they were angry it wasn’t someone more important.  Kate referred to the two police officers as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, not in the heat of the moment, but 5 years later in her book Madeleine.  Clear and callous defamation of character and libel, and published at a time when she knew those police officers could be tracked down by the thugs guarding the McCanns’ interests online. Kate further goes on to demonstrate her attitude to the police, by boasting about her petulant behaviour as a detective tried to interview her.  She had no respect for him, so she sat chanting ‘f**king to**er’.  I’m amazed he didn’t spot her superiority right there and then.  
 
Of course, we have no idea what the relationship between the McCanns and the UK and Portuguese police is like now.  Clarence, as always, lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth, and Gerry and Kate rarely speak.  Even in Kate’s latest interview, she is using the same script. ‘We miss her every day, yes her room is still the same, yes I still buy her presents’. She is missing the opportunity to beg Operation Grange to tell her what is going on, and she is missing the opportunity to speak ‘directly’ to 13 year old Maddie.  She can’t give any updates on the investigation because she doesn’t appear to have any.  That is either horribly cruel of the police, or she is hiding something big. She isn’t thanking any of the officers personally, for all the work they are doing on Madeleine’s behalf, no friendships have grown out of this investigation.  
 
I doubt any serving police here in the UK (or Portugal) have any inclination to pledge allegiance to Gerry and Kate personally, and I doubt they have ever become confused as to who the victim is in this case. The only reason they could have for continuing the investigation is because they have the will to solve it.

96 comments:

  1. The "SY investigation" is a sham. If you cannot see that by now then you never will. They are not and will not investigate the McCanns. They are "investigating" all other lines of inquiry and systematically ruling them out. This method serves to further highlight parental involvement. Further baiting the anti-mccann collective. Kates book and her comments are also baiting the you. You (the anti's) are a laboratory rats being poked and prodded by everyone involved in the story.

    You are so consumed by the story that you don't even realise you're the experiment. McCann press releases, reported pedo connections, SY review, Jim Gamble, pro-mccanns... it's all for you !!! That is why they laugh at you and why you're confused.

    [ But the pro-mccanns are much worse and nobody mentions them. In fact Jim Gamble follows them and they were vile towards BL ]

    Hmm, I wonder why?

    You bought a lie. You have repeated that lie over and over again until you have been completely brainwashed by it. You only have to go on the McCann hashtag and you see the anti's repeat the same info over and over again.

    That's the truth.., but by all means feel free to disregard this comment and continue arguing with pro's and the whole world whilst simultaneously scratching your head.

    Peace out. Merry Christmas.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are so desperate to be in the crowd pointing and laughing at others, you will quite literally make anything up. You think this is all a great big alternate 'Truman Show', and we the public are being laughed at by players.

      Personally, I've never had a problem being laughed at, in fact the comedienne in me positively encourages it. But that's not what mean is it 11:25. You mean the kind of laughing that is accompanied by spite, sneers and that happy feeling of being on the inside pointing out.

      All fantasy of course, but a good insight into your character. I should point however, that those tactics only work when your target has low self esteem and confidence issues. I have none of those.

      Your wishful thinking even exends to OG closing with no result. While I can see that would be your hope, it won't happen. OG passed the point of no return long, long ago. Probably around the time the Review went to an investigation.

      Delete
    2. I guarantee that OG will close with no result. Certainly not the kind of result that you think.

      There is no wishful thinking on my part whatsoever, why would I wish anything to happen? I am not emotionally invested in the story. I'll leave that to you and fellow anti's who think that the McCanns will get found out / slip up etc... how's that working out for you by the way? Any day now, yeah?

      Also, I personally am not laughing at you as I don't find it funny when the powers-that-be manipulate the public into believing in nonsense. When I said you're being laughed at, I was referring to the pros, Gamble, the press... who openly mock the anti's and label them as hateful trolls, conspiraloons etc.

      "When your target has low esteem and confidence issues. I have none of those"

      I am well aware of that. I'm not laughing at you. I'm just saying you've been tricked into believing in a cover-up that never happened - which you have.

      Delete
  2. Another neurotic blog begins. Bjorn hasn't been in the wilderness in 2017 has he ? He's done all of the things you defend him for throughout the year and he never responds with anything when asked.He is just on here agreeing with anything you say and praising you.It follows that anyone( and that's a lot of readers here) who points out his nonsense is seen by you as someone pointing out yours too.Hence this strange rambling defence of him ( ergo yourself). I'm not sure if you ever think before you start your ranting or not. The result is almost always the same.You keep on telling us all what you 'have no doubt' about and we'll keep reading and never understanding why you have no doubt.You seem to have a lot less understanding of the scant details that actually exist but insist you not only know which are lies and which aren't and that you actually know and understand facts that aren't available and what people are thinking without them actually saying what they think. We get it - the McCanns are guilty of whatever you want them to be guilty of and their little girl's dead and they know how she died. Very original. Who needs proof when you have imagination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm neurotic about a lot of things 15:00, but not about my knowledge of this case or my ability to see exactly what is going on.

      Bjorn seems to upset you more than I do, doh! I'm guessing that is because he has such a finely tuned mind and the ability to see through the bullshit.

      What I like about Bjorn is his ability to take the discussion to a higher level - one you don't get, so you accuse him of discussing the kind of shit discussed in the cesspit.

      I defend Bjorn as I would defend any of my readers. I have an intense dislike of bullies who would steer the like minded towards attacking the same target. And you can't get a better example of that than the case of Brenda Leyland. Gang mentality was one of the more sickening aspects of the forums and facebook pages, and something I will never allow here.

      I have zero tolerance for bullying, and the instincts of a protective mummy tiger when my readers and contributors are isolated and attacked. I don't ban people from here and they don't get driven away by angry mobs. You would do well to remember that 15:00.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2017 at 18:11

      ''Bjorn seems to upset you more than I do, doh! I'm guessing that is because he has such a finely tuned mind and the ability to see through the bullshit. ''

      That is beyond hilarious.

      Delete
    3. ''I have zero tolerance for bullying, and the instincts of a protective mummy tiger when my readers and contributors are isolated and attacked. I don't ban people from here and they don't get driven away by angry mobs. You would do well to remember that 15:00.''

      I'm not a mob.And please, will you try to understand that when someone disagrees with you, it isn't any kind of bullying.When you isolate someone, try to humiliate them or put them down because you can't defeat they'r arguments, and then encourage those who share your way of thinking to join you in it, that is an attempt at bullying.Not a very effective one, but one all the same.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2017 at 18:11

      ''Bjorn seems to upset you more than I do, doh! I'm guessing that is because he has such a finely tuned mind and the ability to see through the bullshit. ''

      Yet believes every word of yours.As a judge of character you make a good typist.

      Delete
  3. Rosalinda

    Ican't find the 20:20 post to which you refer. Where is it please?

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies T, there are several blogs receiving comments, I should have been more specific. It is on 'What's to Fear on Internet', 22nd December and may have been 20:00. Oops!

      Delete
  4. I don’t think Kate McCann gave an interview to the Mail, but there is an article in The Telegraph by Kate McCann.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/kate-mccann-still-buy-christmas-present-madeleine-11-years-went/

    "Missing People is a beneficiary of this year’s Telegraph’s Christmas Charity Appeal."

    PR for Missing People.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For Madeleine's Christmas present (2006) the McCanns had bought her and the twins a kitchen station.

    "She [Madeleine] was so excited and got straight to work preparing us all a meal."

    "The irony is..." says Kate McCann

    ReplyDelete
  6. ''I have never seen Bjorn write 'reams of accusation','

    You're the only one who responds to them and reinforce his hate.

    ''This case is going nowhere you say..Bizarre, because on the other side of the Atlantic, the President of the USA and most of his family, look likely to be arrested any day now, obviously they are not AS big as Gerry and Kate. ''

    I admit I've never looked at a connection between Trump and the McCann case. My bad.

    ''Your 'case is going nowhere' argument is obliterated by the fact that Scotland Yard have invested £12m and over 6 years of police time and resources to solve it. No-one does that for something that is ‘going nowhere’.''

    Great argument. Where has it gone then ? It's a bit like saying nobody puts 2 million on horse if it's going to lose.Large investments are often wasted.Ask your other hobby -Trump.

    '' The idea that the ultimate goal of Operation Grange is to obfuscate the disappearance of Madeleine further is ridiculous, actually more than ridiculous, it's batshit crazy''

    You really need to calm down. By all means keep telling yourself this and anyone else too.But nothing is going to change.

    ''Why would 30+ SY homicide detectives conspire to cover up the possible murder of a child? Do people honestly have that little faith in human nature?''

    Human nature ? Let's not forget that a little, innocent girl was abducted, or, as you said, died and was secretly buried. The police are doing as their bosses say.Their bosses could conspire.They wouldn't be the first-do some research.

    ''the police are not looking for a live child or an abductor because they know who is responsible but they can’t prove it.''

    And not being able to prove it isn't stopping the funding of it ? Yet they wouldn't waste money, I see. Why can't they prove it-no evidence ? If so, how can they know who if the child's dead and who's responsible.Only you and the antis claim that silliness.

    ''2) Too many details of the case are known to the public''

    We know the child has gone.That's it.

    ''Madeleine’s disappearance is no longer referred to as an abduction''

    Have you told the met ? Missing from her parents and family somewhere is because of an abduction.That's the official line from those happy to seek further funding.

    '' In this case, only the logical explanation works.''

    Logic may have worked for Spock.It's Kryptonite to antis.

    ''Gerry and Kate are not sympathetic characters ...They might just as well have said, we are a few tiers up from you on the intellectual and social scale ...Gerry and Kate are snobs''

    Is that illegal ? Is it your opinion ? Do you know them ?

    ''Tweedledum and Tweedledee, not in the heat of the moment, but 5 years later in her book Madeleine. Clear and callous defamation of character and libe''

    Actually, as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are fictional characters, it isn't libel, it's her opinion of their performance and competence.The time that's passed supports it. Real libel is when you accuse someone of lying about burying their own child and failing to prove it.

    '' She is missing the opportunity to beg Operation Grange to tell her what is going on,''

    How do you know ? Do you think every single detail has to be reported to the public and online sniffer dogs ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't making a connection between the Trumps and the McCanns, I was making a comparison. Like so many of your ilk, your comprehension skills are abysmal.

      As for the rest of your post 16:15, you have said a lot, using my words, but you haven't actually said anything, certainly nothing original, and nothing that would move the discussion on.

      There is no way to justify Kate's demeaning of the original police who arrived on the night of the 3rd. It was rude and unpleasant. Period.

      It isn't I who thinks every single detail has to be reported to the public, the tradition began with the McCanns themselves when they called their first press conference. Gerry and Kate were very vocal when they campaigned for a Review, they believed Scotland Yard would solve the mystery of their daughter's disappearance.

      And, as I have mentioned often, I watch a lot of 'true crime' docu-dramas. The genuinely bereft families of the missing never give the police a minute's peace. And quite often it is the decades long campaigning by family members that leads to cold cases being re-opened. For them and the investigating police officers, it would be unthinkable for the police to withhold information about their child’s fate. Gerry and Kate presently face the closure of this investigation without a result, why aren’t they going crazy? Why don’t they have a million questions? Again, Kate talks about missing Madeleine, but where is her passionate need to know what happened to her daughter?
      Operation Grange haven't solved the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance, or at least, they haven't informed the public of what those conclusions are. It would be horribly cruel however, if they haven’t told the family.

      The parents may know, but for understandable reasons, aren't saying. They are continuing with the idea that Madeleine will be found alive, that is what they are selling to the public, Kate has preserved her room and is still buying presents. The police aren’t looking for a live child, so the two parties are clearly at odds. Even if a huge trial isn’t on the horizon, the rift between the parents and the police will become public, sooner rather than later.

      Delete
    2. ''As for the rest of your post 16:15, you have said a lot, using my words, but you haven't actually said anything, certainly nothing original, and nothing that would move the discussion on. ''

      You mean on from obsessing over the McCanns with a diseased imagination, if you're honest.

      ''There is no way to justify Kate's demeani
      ng of the original police who arrived on the night of the 3rd. It was rude and unpleasant. Period. ''

      Period ? have you gone the whole hog now you've been wasting time trying to understand the American trends ? Losing a child is no party. Police wasting valuable time while you're panicking is no fun.Lashing out at them for it is 100% normal (for a normal person).You can't seem to relate to that.Why would that be ?

      ''Gerry and Kate were very vocal when they campaigned for a Review, they believed Scotland Yard would solve the mystery of their daughter's disappearance. ''

      Believed or hoped ? Whichever you choose, it's unusual for two guilty parties to want closer scrutiny of a crime they committed.

      Why would you, me, or anyone out here know what the McCanns have asked the police in private ? How do you know how they feel or what they discuss in private ? Why would they want it broadcast on the internet ? They aren't obliged to and the police don't need to. Only the media suffer. Big deal.

      ''Operation Grange haven't solved the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance, or at least, they haven't informed the public of what those conclusions are. It would be horribly cruel however, if they haven’t told the family.''

      I think it's safe to say OG has added nothing to the investiagtion.What takes more than 5 years ? They haven't found anything since they started.We'd know.The only reason for withholding any findings from us, and especially the parents, would be to protect person or persons that are best kept 'unknown' .

      ''The parents may know, but for understandable reasons, aren't saying. They are continuing with the idea that Madeleine will be found alive, that is what they are selling to the public,''

      Why wouldn't they say ? Why would they continue to 'sell' the idea that she's alive if they know she isn't ? What's the point ?

      '' Kate has preserved her room and is still buying presents. The police aren’t looking for a live child, so the two parties are clearly at odds. Even if a huge trial isn’t on the horizon, the rift between the parents and the police will become public, sooner rather than later.''

      The police haven't said they're looking for a dead child.The closest thing to that was Redwood acknowledging that the more unpleasant scenario( dead) has to be also considered if it's going to be a comprehensive investigation.It was the antis who edited the 'dead' part to sell online as some kind of unintentional( embedded lol) confession.I hope one day the brown stuff flies at the fan. I've wanted GM to come out fighting for a long time now.But, my personal belief is that he's between the proverbial rock and hard place. He surely must have suspicions that begin above Mitchell. He's an intelligent man, not a mug.But, at the same time, if he kicks off, he'll be kicking off in areas that have been public about how much emotional and financial support they have provided . It's a lose lose. The starving savages online will be waiting to plaster the headlines all over Twitter and youtube about the 'evil' parents now biting the hands that have been feeding them .

      Delete
  7. "Have you told the met ? Missing from her parents and family somewhere is because of an abduction."

    Can you prove it's because of an abduction? No, of course you can't and neither could the Met or anyone else. Unless of course you have new information... have you told the Met?

    "We know the child has gone.That's it"

    I thought you just said it was because of an abduction !!! You're as confused as Ros', both of you have no proof whatsoever yet both 100% believe you're right. That is pro v anti in a nutshell - both talking like they know what happened, but both have no clue whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isn't a 'research' forum 17:35. There are no sub-sections demonstrating how I proved it and who was involved, as if, lol. My views, I hope, grow and evolve as new information comes to light. I am on a journey of discovery, with my readers, we are hooked, for want of a better word, on this mystery, a gnawing desire to discover the truth. It's not ghoulish or malevolent btw, it's part of our genetic make up as human beings.

      Can't say I've seen anyone on here claiming to be 100% right, perhaps you are confused as to where you are?

      Delete
    2. ''I thought you just said it was because of an abduction !!! You're as confused as Ros', both of you have no proof whatsoever yet both 100% believe you're right''

      ''That is pro v anti in a nutshell - both talking like they know what happened, but both have no clue whatsoever.''

      You've chosen to ignore one vital point. I didn't say the child was abducted. I was posting a reminder that the official state of play is that it's a missing, presumed abducted, case.That's an actual fact.I don't find the antis argument in the least bit compelling and haven't the more I've read their arguments.I favour the abduction scenario, that's true.I favour it as absolutely nothing has been found to build a case of death of the child that the police forces have been able to create a case with.Even if the drag the tired old cadaver dogs theories, it doesn't identify a killer even if you believe them.I make it clear that I'm talking about possibilities.I never claim knowledge.If I thought I had knowledge, I'd be on the telephone to the police, not a blog.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2017 at 20:08

      ''Can't say I've seen anyone on here claiming to be 100% right, perhaps you are confused as to where you are?''

      Top of the thread :

      ''the police are not looking for a live child or an abductor because they know who is responsible but they can’t prove it.''

      Key word 'know'. Knowledge isn't the same opinion. It isn't suspect,imagine, or feel.It's know.You have now moved on to putting words into the mouths of the detectives investigating the case, hoping that anyone reading here will take it as knowledge. It's your suspicion only.Saying that the police 'know' is in need of a source to support it.If you have none, you're not being honest.Show your readers the quote /s from any of the officers involved that say they're not looking for a live child or an abductor.

      Delete
    4. Err, with that statement, I'm actually referring to generic cases 21:21, nothing specific there. Do you honestly think I'm that stupid. If I want to give you a headline, I'll give you one, but it will be my choice.

      Do you have any idea of the concept of discussion or debate 21:21, your kind of mentality would send even the non smokers to abandon you and partake of a spliff in the smoking area huddled under an umbrella in the pouring rain.

      The title of my blog clearly states Cristobell Unbound - this is an unrestricted area where discussion and ideas are embraced. I have little sympathy for those who are offended by words, mine or others, because they have exactly the same weapons to fight back with as we do. I publish their arguments, giving them a far bigger audience than they would have if they relied on their own resources! If they can’t produce better arguments, there is nothing I can (will) do, I’m not going to write their Defence for them, lol. Though my vanity forces me to admit, I could if I wanted to [smug smiley].

      I’m not publishing the repetitive, constant re-use and mis-use of playground adjectives that make up the critical side of my postbox. Their lack of education, imagination and creativity depresses me. How do they get to adulthood with such a limited vocabulary. Wit and bitchiness can be delicious, but sadly, not one of my critics has any. I would give them star billing if they did. I don’t fear being ‘roasted’, I get a buzz out of waiting for my turn ;)

      Delete
    5. Apologies if the contents of my blog and sequence of comments etc, is going slightly skew whiff, hic. I am three quarters though a very nice bottle of something pink and sparkly, that is making me want to relearn the words of 'Oh Flower of Scotland', which aw shucks, sends a powerful message to a celtic heart. If I could find a way to host a live evening, I would - I would love to hear the voices of those who read here and I would love to host a live debate. There probably is a way, I remember 'live' evenings on the old AOL boards (not directly) but it could be done.

      I find it an absolute scream when gals get together, and those boys brave enough, lol, though of course it would start out as a serious discussion. And no Team McCann, there is very little chance the evening's discussion would remain focussed on you. Your case is the most important thing in your lives, it isn't for other people.

      Delete
    6. ''I have little sympathy for those who are offended by words,''

      Then stop ranting and raving or sober up and come back when you can make spme sense

      Delete
    7. ''Err, with that statement, I'm actually referring to generic cases 21:21, nothing specific there''

      Anyone who reads from the top will see that it clearly wasn't a generic statement.It was specific. How can : ''the police are not looking for a live child or an abductor because they know who is responsible but they can’t prove it.'' be generic if the context of the thread and the direction of the discussion was about an identified couple in an identified case ?

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2017 at 22:11

      You're not publishing what you don't like then Ros.

      Delete
    9. Course she isn't, she has a convenient spam box when she wants to censor anyone taking her gibberish apart, 3 people alone in past week

      Delete
  8. Hi Rosalind,
    Great to read your blog.
    Is there a deadline for operation Grange. I read that the investigation was to be wrapped up in March.
    What has always seemed odd to me is: Are the British police actually looking for a body, and if so I wonder if any of these 3 theories have crossed their minds. (They are policemen aren't they)
    She was hidden in a casket due for burial at a church in Praia da Luz.
    She was buried on a trip to Huelva after the body was recovered from a friend's freezer.
    Or the body was taken home to England and buried there.

    Without the body there's no crime of course, - despite circumstantial evidence being in the high 99.9% (DNA included) percentage points.
    If there is no positive outcome to this case it shows that some people can really can get away with m*****
    Or let's be nice: - concealment of a body.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''She was hidden in a casket due for burial at a church in Praia da Luz.
      She was buried on a trip to Huelva after the body was recovered from a friend's freezer.
      Or the body was taken home to England and buried there.''

      And that was after the same man was sure he'd get Murat for the crime too. He summed it all up by calling the parents liars and showcasing it all in a book.

      Delete
    2. Hi JC, you are rose among thorns! Nice to get positive feedback :)

      My understanding is the 6 month top up in September was the last, therefore March would be about right. I think at that point, or maybe before, Operation Grange will hand their findings over to the Portuguese Police. The PJ of course have jurisdiction, it will be up to them to prosecute the original crime.

      It may be of course, that other crimes involving British citizens may have been uncovered during the course of the investigation. Why would OG still be involved if it didn't involve British citizens? Since when do British police investigate crimes in other countries, committed by foreigners? Imagine for example, the Portuguese police setting up a 6 year investigation into a British crime involving British nationals?

      I don't think anyone is going to get away with anything JC - not after a 6/7 year police investigation. Operation Grange is being run and financed by people who are determined to bring a prosecution. Unlike those other missing child cases that have been shelved and forgotten, this one is being actively pursued - not just by one, but by two police forces. So much so, that the Defence might argue it became personal.

      My personal opinion is that the original crime is very much in the hands of the Portuguese Police and the evidence that was collected at the time. Both they and Mr. Rowley have confirmed there was no need to revisit the work done by Goncalo Amaral. Had he been incompetent btw, that’s where they would have started. The original investigation came to a halt because the (British) witnesses stopped co-operating. They refused to return to PDL for a reconstruction, and although the tapas group agreed to the ‘rogatories’, Gerry and Kate didn’t. When the Portuguese detectives arrived in the UK, Gerry and Kate were touring Europe promoting Amber Alert. More important than helping the PJ find their daughter? Apparently so.

      From the perspective of the British police, the only thing they could do was to pick up from where the Portuguese had to leave off - that part of the investigation that involved the British suspects and witnesses. The idea that the non Portuguese speaking British detectives could have more success with ‘the locals’ is ridiculous - it’s a false narrative created by crime fiction writers so they can throw in an exotic location. Imagine a small group of Portuguese detectives blending in with the criminal element who used to frequent the East End’s Blind Beggar?

      continues.....

      Delete
    3. In wondering how far this conspiracy and rabbit hole goes, I try to stick with Keep It Simple Stupid. KISS. The Portuguese are investigating that part of this crime that occurred in Portugal on 3rd May, and possibly for some weeks and moths after. The British police are investigating that part of the crime that involves British citizens, either as witnesses or suspects, because logistically, that is literally all they can do.

      When the Review began, or it may have been when the Review turned into an investigation, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said there were ‘130’ persons of interest. I’m not sure if he defined their nationality, but that number would be about right, if they were looking to prosecute a large number for perverting the course of justice. A charge that I am sure, becomes more and more serious as the years go by. That number of defendants would justify £12m and 6/7 years of police time and resources in a way that a long dead paedophile never could.

      If I were to get out my crystal ball, I would see a very large trial, and the downfall and brutal criticism of those who’s job it was to know better. It might even lead to a separate Inquiry, not quite on the Iraq war crimes scale but not far off. By the time Blair left Downing Street, he thought he was a God, his authority was never to be questioned. He had demonstrated how easily he could destroy lives, first with Operation Ore, then with John Kelly and Iraq. If he ruled Gerry and Kate PLU (People Like Us), how dare anyone question it. Not because he particularly liked Gerry and Kate, but because they fit his agenda ‘like a glove’. The kind of aspirational family the plebs should look up to up, the kind of people who deserved the assistance of the British government and all the vast resources he had to hand. Tough on any future families expecting that same kind of assistance though.

      What did New Labour want in 2007? More and more powers of arrest. Blair wasn’t quite referring to himself as the ‘royal we’, but in every other way he was completely off his trolly. Elderly gentleman were being arrested outside the Labour Party Conference on terrorists charges! Operation Ore gave him an insight into the private and confidential internet histories of thousands of users, and he wanted more! A DNA database, the protection contract for Facebook, Twitter, Google and every other money spinner in Silicone Valley. Happily, his chosen henchman was rejected by those that matter.

      Delete
  9. Thanks Rosalind, for the explanation.
    You really explained Operation Grange in a nutshell.
    Scotland Yard takes care of the English side of the investigation and the Portuguese judiciary look after the Portugal side, which makes good sense language and territory wise. Let's hope something comes of this case to get justice for this little girl.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What exactly is the English side and how is it different to the Portuguese side ? It's a solitary crime that took place in Portugal. Is there a nutshell nutty explanation for that as well ?

      Delete
    2. Well, it's not really a solitary crime is it 16:55? If the parents are involved in Madeleine's disappearance, then the night of 3rd May 2007, was followed by fraud, corruption, perversion of justice, etc, etc, potentially hundreds of criminal charges against hundreds of people.

      Delete
    3. Yes, It's a solitary crime. It's a child that went missing. The chain of crimes you're mentioning and the hundreds of charges and potentially hundreds of people is all based on your 'if'. Even if that long shot was right the rest is just completely over the top and, for somebody claiming to be well versed in all things McCann case,it's poor. Can you name 14 of the possible hundreds effected ? How many were involved in perverting the course of justice and how ?If it's hundreds, this is a drop in the ocean. I look forward to your reply.

      Delete
    4. How about all the family, friends, priests, bridesmaids etc who packed their holiday togs and flew out to PDL to support Gerry and Kate? All those who made appeals for cash and inundated social media with the false premise that Madeleine was alive and findable?

      How about the Tapas 6 who extended their holiday in order to 'build' the abduction story, pointing the finger at Robert Murat for example. Then there were the British police who 'helped' by profiling the locals, seizing their computers and steering the blame away from the parents.

      Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc, will probably blame minions, but some former government ministers will be dragged in. The firing of Goncalo Amaral for example, just as he was closing in, perverted the course of justice. That single action led to this case being unsolved for 11 years and has cost millions for both the Portuguese and British governments.

      It wouldn't be right for me to 'name names' 23:10, though I am sure it would have you jumping up and down with glee. My readers aren't stupid and all the information is freely available online for those who want to join the dots.

      Delete
    5. ''How about all the family, friends, priests, bridesmaids etc who packed their holiday togs and flew out to PDL to support Gerry and Kate?''

      Where's the crime there ?

      ''How about the Tapas 6 who extended their holiday in order to 'build' the abduction story, pointing the finger at Robert Murat for example.''

      Couldn't they have wanted to remain close to the parents to support them as friends and to make themselves available if needed by the PJ ? Where's the crime there ?

      ''Then there were the British police who 'helped' by profiling the locals, seizing their computers and steering the blame away from the parents.''

      Police can do that. Where's the crime ?

      ''It wouldn't be right for me to 'name names' 23:10, though I am sure it would have you jumping up and down with glee.''

      Then you shouldn't make claims that hundreds are involved in many crimes if you can't name one or name another crime and who is guilty of committing it.

      Should I take it that you're finally waking up to the possibility that the UK Governments involvement and interest in the case may well have been more than just 'looking after their own' ? It took a long time for that penny to land, if it has.

      Delete
    6. I'm not making claims, I'm actually choosing my wording very carefully in response to your goading. My readers are intelligent, they get the gist.

      Your last paragraph that I'm 'finally waking up....' is laughable, there are dozens if not hundreds of blogs where I cite the interference of Tony Blair and New Labour, are you just going to pretend they don't exist?

      You are of course trying to imply their involvement went much further, and no doubt that the McCanns were innocent victims of the government's machinations, it will be interesting to see how that pans out.

      Delete
    7. You did actually make claims.They're there to be read. Your insistence in repeating 'laughable' to most of what i post is, well, laughable. It's only your default position of disagreeing and trying to belittle someone who disagrees with you, rather than take the 'laughable' post apart without misquoting it or putting in words of your own that haven't been posted.

      You discuss Blair and the DNA bank theory.That's a safe theory and it discusses nothing that wasn't in the works years before Madeleine was even born. It was all over the internet before she was born.When people discuss interference from Westminster, they're talking about the meat and potatoes.They're talking about the alert of Military Intelligence and Prime Ministers and their media managers. They're talking about how they effected the investigation in Portugal and why.All of which takes the focus away from the parents. You're right, it will be interesting to see how it pans out. Logic suggests that no single MP or Pm will cough up why it happened because it would defeat the object of the exercise.That's the explanation ( in a nutshell) of why, in 11 years, the investigation is still at May 03 2007. No arrests, just stories that sustain an illusion. The case is cold.It has been for years. They just haven't decided how to break that news via the MSM as it's the reality of the situation.

      Delete
  10. ''I’m not publishing the repetitive, constant re-use and mis-use of playground adjectives that make up the critical side of my postbox. Their lack of education, imagination and creativity depresses me. How do they get to adulthood with such a limited vocabulary. Wit and bitchiness can be delicious, but sadly, not one of my critics has any.''

    Did you have one too many eggnogs before you typed that ? I hate to burst your latest bubble, but you're not the secret lovechild of Oscar Wilde and Lady Astor.Your efforts to imitate them are as convincing as most of what you write, unfortunately.It takes a lot more than arrogance and snobbery to pass yourself off as bright and witty.It takes flair and finesse.Some are born with it, others strive to learn it.And then there's you.

    Is it reasonable to show such little tolerance toward those who contribute to your blog but don't agree with you while, at the same time, gushing your thanks and praise to those who repeatedly do little other than repeat you ? If so, perhaps a caveat or two would be in order for the new year. When you mount your shaky high horse to champion the cause of freedom of speech and rage against those arrogant enough to suppose they can censor and ban it, you could add that you are above such rules. You can ban and censor what you don't like because you're you. When you feel the need to inform all of how you have this blog for musing and inviting debates that embrace all sides of a topic, you could add that you actually mean all ways of agreeing with you and what and who you repeatedly want to attack or choose to defend. I speak for the many who have been discouraged from making any attempt at discussion here due to the attitude you have chosen to adopt and the overall unpleasantness you are finding increasingly difficult to conceal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, so it's MY fault you haven't got anything to add to the discussion here.

      I don't ban and censor btw. I can't censor posts, I either publish in their entirety or not at all. I don't ban people - I probably have that facility but I've never looked into it. I publish, or I don't, it's that simple.

      I don't publish the personal abuse and the insults I receive. Why should I? What do they add to the discussion? And why should I give you a platform to insult me?

      As to my treatment of those who write in, if they polite and respectful, that's how they get treated in return, as any one of the hundreds of pages of my blog show quite clearly.

      In your final paragraph you sound like a whinging 5 year old who's siblings are getting preferential treatment, I expect you are stamping your feet and saying 'it's not fair' as we speak. You want the same nice treatment other posters get, but you are not prepared to be nice yourself. You seem to think it is your right even on a blog that doesn't belong to you. Your sense of entitlement is staggering.

      Most of your problems stem from early childhood 16:44, but I don't have the time or inclination to deconstruct them for you. Life is unfair (how do you not know that?) and you have no power whatsoever over the way in which I run MY blog, no matter how much you stamp your feet.

      As for the lovechild thing, more Dorothy Parker than Lady Astor I think ;)

      Unfortunately for you, I do not have the time or inclination to help you.

      Delete
    2. Translation time again

      ''I don't publish the personal abuse and the insults''

      ( I don't publish argument that expose the weakness of mine so i call it abuse)

      ''As to my treatment of those who write in, if they polite and respectful, that's how they get treated in return''

      ( my sycophants will never be turned away)

      Freedom of speech is what it is. Banning and censoring are what they are. What's the difference between refusing to publish and banning / censoring ?
      You're the banner-carrier holding Amaral up as a saint and martyr. Yet he accused two parents of being liars and of burying the body of their own child. The official line in his own country is that it's a missing person case , like it is in the UK. The official line is innocent until proven guilty.But he adds his little disclaimer that he's only interested in justice for Madeleine so people like you can promote his unfounded, cruel allegations.He has failed to produce any proof whatsoever in 11 years now. But you defend his vicious rumours on the grounds of free speech and attack the parents for wanting him shut down if he can't prove his accusations. Logic and objectivity clearly supports the fact that he is guilty of slander, libel and defamation if he can't support his accusations with evidence or proof .Blinkered, angry, insensitive, uninformed commentators support that the parents are vicious to pursue him.These same people are quick to pretend they only seek justice.

      Delete
    3. I'm happy to publish arguments that expose the weakness in mine, I just never receive any. Do you think I'm holding the 'good' stuff back? lol

      Being polite and respectful isn't sycophantic, it's how normal people behave, I'm truly sorry you are not familiar with it.

      Your last paragraph - a bonkers rant against Gongalo Amaral(is that you Kate?) that has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing. But now you mention him, yes I do defend his right to tell his side of the story and I am delighted he defeated the McCanns in the Supreme Court.

      Enjoy the rest of your Christmas, but maybe put a bit more tonic with it ;)

      Delete
    4. ''Your last paragraph - a bonkers rant against Gongalo Amaral(is that you Kate?) that has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing''

      Nothing to do with freedom of speech ? OK.And you call others bonkers. Your delighting in a defeat for two parents who lost a small child is par for the course I suppose.Undiluted, vitriolic spite.Maybe that needs diluting with more than tonic.You lost the right to judge ' how normal people behave' a long time ago.The evidence is on every blog /thread you put up on this blog in 2017.

      Delete
    5. Let me clarify 'delighting in a defeat for two parents who lost a small child'.

      Those two parents who lost a small child, were demanding £1.25m from the detective who was trying to find her. They wanted the proceeds of the sale of his family home, the royalties from his book and all his future earnings.

      Their defeat was the fact that their demands were not met, so yes, I am delighted. I suspect all the detectives involved in and following this case are delighted too.

      I have as much right to judge how normal people behave as you or anyone else. Being polite and respectful is normal behaviour for me, it's how I was raised and it is how the people around me behave. Those are qualities I value and appreciate, which is why I am delighted when I see them in the posts of strangers. It is a meeting of minds that I doubt you understand - all your posts to me begin with an insult or a slur, which I'm guessing is normal behaviour in your circles.

      All my blogs and threads stand proud 12:05. I'm perfectly happy to let readers judge for themselves. Honesty and integrity means I never have to hide behind anonymity, and I never have to delete anything. You should try it sometime, the freedom is exhilarating. And on the anonymity note, if I am the 'bad guy', why are you the one hiding?

      Delete
    6. ''Those two parents who lost a small child, were demanding £1.25m from the detective who was trying to find her.''

      Let me clarify. That's not why they took him to court.

      ''all your posts to me begin with an insult or a slur, which I'm guessing is normal behaviour in your circles. ''

      Like I said earlier on, a disagreement with you is taken as an insult or slur, such is the lofty opinion you have of every word you utter.It might not sit well with you, but there are others out there in the world who have a brain and a mind too.We can learn by our mistakes or we can just dig ourselves deeper into the wrong place if we choose stubbornness and pride.Mortals make mistakes.True story.

      ''Being polite and respectful is normal behaviour for me''

      lol ( to coin a phrase). Look at your last 5 threads and your own posts.

      Delete
    7. Err, that's exactly why they took him to Court they wanted £250k each compensation including £250k for the missing Madeleine, total £1.25m.

      Example, your last post began 'translation time again', implying I am a liar or incomprehensible, that's rude and you are lucky I published it.

      Perfectly happy with my posts and replies, and as I said before readers can judge for themselves.

      Delete
  11. Merry Christmas Ros!
    I hope you are suitably refreshed!
    May the spirit of Christmas Quiche descend upon your house!
    Or, sod that, pass the chocolate cake!
    Have a lovely time,
    Yours,
    SixSheetsToTheWindMan ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I was 6 sheets to the wind, lol.

      Actually I'm pleasantly chilled, enough to go research what Henry VIII had for his Christmas dinner lol.

      Actually, I'm sick of the sight of cakes, lol, I'm not even licking the bowl anymore :( Mince pies hower... ;) Cheers to you too Seven(?)sheettothewindman, lol. :)

      Delete
  12. Happy Christmas Ros Thanks for all your hard work over the years on this case hopefully the new year will bring a halt to the farce. Just a note do you really think there is a possibility of arrests in the Trumpt family

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much more than a possibility 00:27, a certainty!

      Trump has been money laundering for the Russians and criminal organisations for years, so too his kids. He has been bankrupt so many times, no legitimate money lenders would go near him. He won't just be impeached, he will be imprisoned, possibly for treason, the highest charge.

      So too Don junior, who has pretty much supplied Mueller (and the world) with all the evidence they need via twitter, that he willingly conspired with the Russian government.

      Jared Kushner (son in law), also up to his neck in it. His purchase of a large building in NYC put the Kushner fortune in jeopardy and like Trump, he too relies on 'foreign' money.

      Eric Trump I hope they will go after for stealing from his kids Cancer Charity. A Charity who's main purpose it would seem, was to launder money and put it in the pocket of Trump senior.

      Ivanka Trump. In almost as precarious a position as her brother Don and husband Jared. She too oversaw Trump building projects that were little more than fronts to launder Russian mafia money.

      The fact that her clothing line is made in Chinese sweat shops, probably isn't illegal in the 'going to prison' sense, but it doesn't make her a likeable person. The deals she has done on behalf of the Trump organisation however, probably will.

      Delete
    2. Nothing will happen to Trump. They put him in charge for a reason and it will take a while to get the job done.I dare say he'll face years behind internet bars, because they know everything.In the real world out there, things work differently. Besides, he and his friends know far too much about the Clintons, Obama and the Bushes. A loose cannon with loose lips can cause chaos. All this silliness will do is give thousands something to get overheated about online for a month then it will be as though it never happened. Watch and learn.

      Delete
  13. Hi Ros Merry Xmas,Happy New Year 2018.
    suprisingly one of the few items being discussed in Operation Grange and was quickly being dealt with was the "Dossier" handed to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,that led to the suicide of Mrs Brenda Leyland.
    The main cohorts were,Martin Brunt,Big Jim Gamble,Sky News Corporation and McCann family members,isn't funny how the Metropolitan Police Service were unable to find any nasty,pernicious,threats messages to Mrs Brenda Leyland?

    A certain McCann family member wanted the threshold of revelation of identities for people leading a campaign for the"Truth" of what happened to Madeleine McCann,to be raised high above the existing levels,to be"Taught a lesson"?
    Here the people could identify Two sides of the One argument of "Truth" being sought on behalf of missing child Madeleine McCann,yet there was only One side that had a far bigger access to ammunition to defeat the other side,to destroy once and forever what that person had believed in,which led to her suicide?
    The Madeleine McCann missing child case is about much more than that,it is about how high levels of Government from within the UK has manipulated/fine tuned,reasoned arguments of coincidences,for what may have happened,costing over at Least £ 12 Million pounds?
    (SY)swanning about looking for a"Woman In Purple"whilst issuing E-fits of Two males,Crime Watch October 2013,drawn up by Dave Edgar,Alistair Cowley,five years earlier(2008) they wished to speak to,so the Family had e-fits for Five years,withheld from Operation Grange since 2010?
    Scotland Yard were asking the public for Information on Operation Grange,DCI Andy Redwood had ruled out the Tapas 7/9,Parents as suspects,yet these same people withheld information from Operation Grange for at least Three years,looking for their supposedly alive child Madeleine McCann?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting novella.

      I was wondering, do you have any sources to share that can direct us all to the same information ? I'm referring to half a dozen in particular :

      1- The Dossier that 'led to the suicide of Brenda Leyland' and how it did ?

      2- The statement confirming what the Met found in Mrs Leyland's Twitter 2 -way traffic ?

      3- What the 'certain McCann family member' said about teaching people who choose to type poisonous accusations online and why he might want them to stop ?

      4- Who destroyed what Mrs Leyland believed forever ? What she believed was and still is believed by plenty of people.It hasn't changed apart from the fact that they can now use her sad passing as something to bolster their theories.Very respectful, that.

      5- The UK Governments deliberately hampering and then killing the investigation.

      6- The information that the tapas group members have withheld.

      Delete
    2. Anon 00.50.
      The"Dossier was handed to Brunt,Gerry,Bernard,so 3 Monkeys identities closely linked,Monkey See,Monkey Do.
      2 Sir Bernard,Met never released details or never give a"Running commentary" on current events, remember, knowledge is a powerful tool!
      3 That he wanted an example made of them,exposed,quid pro quo,Gezza?
      4 To put "Fear" into peoples minds that they too, will be exposed,if they persist in finding out the"Truth"!
      5 Look into the Unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan 31 yrs ago as an example,of Governments collusion?
      6 a pact of silence?

      Do not forget to mention the"White coats,conspiracy theories" syndrome,that certain people will never believe what is told to them,MSM mentality?
      Can you confirm that No people from within the UK Government have not tried to deceive the public of any involvement in the missing Madeleine McCann case,after nearly Eleven years,that it is a figment of imagination is what people perceive?

      Delete
    3. So it looks slightly different now doesn't it.

      1- There's no actual evidence.

      2- A dossier that isn't released means none of us can comment on it, just make guesses.

      3- They were sick of people making up stories and theories and being vicious or threatening.

      4-Mrs Leyland's beliefs were never destroyed.And her suicide(officially) being blamed on the McCanns 'hit' is just more outlandish theorizing.

      5- The police have colluded on many things behind closed doors.I agree.But I was talking about the evidence of them doing it in the McCann case, not any others by other forces years ago.

      6-The right to remain silent.Even if arrested you have that.They were never arrested and they made statements. Their words have been reinterpreted and read into ever since by thousands trying to suggest they conspired to protect their friends and know what happened to Madeleine. What would you do if subjected to that nonsense ?

      I can't confirm anything. But I know that and don't mind admitting it. I'm reading what we're all reading.I'm just not adding all kinds of selective character analyses to the parents or the tapas group in the hope of creating a story that is more fitting within the covers of a second rate crime novel that's borrowed as much as possible from True Crime magazines and documentaries. To do that and then start trying to make it go viral online for some notoriety is a waste of time( or 11 years).

      The MSM release what is allowed by those upstairs. It's tightly controlled.It's a strict diet of BS we're having forced upon us.I believe, personally, that the UK interference, all the way to the top, has been responsible for turning a missing child investigation into a 'mystery'. I don't believe they'd keep that up for so long, and with no expense spared, merely because the parents are British and from the middle classes. In my opinion, that borders on the sheer stupid.Politicians, and MI 5/6 only spring into action this fast if they're protecting national security or each other.That makes far more sense.

      Delete
  14. Didn't Amaral accuse Murat of being complicit in the disappearance of Madeleine, or am I missing something here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:45 Robert Murat was the first suspect, there were 3 arguidoes, it's not a secret.

      Delete
    2. But Amaral was convinced that Murat was complicit, wasn't he?

      Delete
    3. He had Murat followed all day, had him brought in for questioning twice and warned him that he would get him. Then he turned back to the McCanns. Murat had alibis supplied by his mother.

      Delete
    4. As you say 14:59, RM had a sound alibi, not just from his mother, but also from computer activity and phone mast evidence.

      But in any event, everything changed when the blood and cadaver dogs were brought in. They did not alert to RM's property. They did alert in the McCann's apartment, their hire car and to their belongings. It would be fair to say that from that point the McCanns were the main suspects.

      Delete
    5. The blood and cadaver dogs findings have remained static for 11 years. What are they actually worth ? It's of no use to anybody if a dozen or ten thousand unqualified members of the public online have decided that they make up a 'smoking gun' and that's the case solved, or at least the evidence that points a finger in someone's direction. Science has failed to support their claims. Suspending the facts for a second, let's suppose they all got their wish and it was finally introduced as evidence of a death having occurred. Technically it doesn't prove who died, but, It would be reasonable to assume it was the child, as she had disappeared.So, by accident or design, she would be declared dead. An abductor (or worse) could just as well be responsible for that. The McCanns and friends were away from the apartment.

      The defence of Murat on forums and blogs like this is very unconvincing. The statements and movements of the Murats are skimmed over with little focus, as opposed to the almost forensic scrutiny of the McCanns'. Their statements haven't received the same intense debate. either. There's no face reading, speech analysis-nothing.It might draw attention away from the mob targets.

      ''It would be fair to say that from that point the McCanns were the main suspects.''

      And then they weren't. Ten years later, both the UK and Portugal sides of the investigation publicly announced as much.Not the internet, the two police forces.

      Delete
    6. The alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs changed the course of the investigation in the summer of 2007. Nothing to do with unqualified members of the public online. Effectively, there has been no police search for a live child since then.

      I see where you are going with the 'Madeleine may have died in the apartment' scenario, without the parents being involved - they weren't there.

      A few problems with that however. Gerry claims to have seen Madeleine alive at 9.15 - that leaves only 45 minutes and begs the question, why would the abductor/murderer hang around for cadaver odour to develop (in 2 places, behind sofa and in wardrobe), and why would be clean up?

      Then, why would he take the body with him? At the time Operation Grange were digging up PDL, Martin Brunt put forward a ridiculous scenario of an abductor, with a shovel, killing the child, then taking her body with him and burying in the vicinity of 5A as the searches were underway. Why Martin? Why?

      The alerts of the dogs will never go away, and they are why no-one, not the police, not the public, are interested in scrutinising Robert Murat. On top of which, he didn't hire a PR Agency, and pay £0.5m to stay on the front pages.

      Delete
    7. ''The alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs changed the course of the investigation in the summer of 2007''

      A new direction ? Which way did it run ? We're stepping into 2018 now and nothing's happened.

      ''I see where you are going with the 'Madeleine may have died in the apartment' scenario, without the parents being involved - they weren't there.''

      Not completely true. I was discussing the possibility to explain a point. I don't think she died in the apartment.

      ''why would the abductor/murderer hang around for cadaver odour to develop ''

      He wouldn't. Unless he's a pathologist, expert in forensics, or a policeman, he wouldn't be thinking that way.And that's allowing for the scenario of a death- which i don't buy anyway. Injury, maybe, hence the blood.But, to be honest, I don't find the blood findings in the least bit compelling. How much was officially found, and how much of it actually belonged to the Mccanns and how much belonged to somebody else ? Any actual percntages on offer ?

      ''Then, why would he take the body with him? At the time Operation Grange were digging up PDL, Martin Brunt put forward a ridiculous scenario of an abductor, with a shovel, killing the child, then taking her body with him and burying in the vicinity of 5A as the searches were underway. Why Martin? Why?''

      In the death fantasy enthusiasts scenario, an abductor may well take the body with him if he had left any unpleasant evidence of DNA - that's one scenario; quick exit, car, away.Most of what Brunt says is bullshit.He's a talking tabloid with a canera crew and sound team.His remit is to drop a small seed or two in carefully selected intervals, disappear,then return once it's it's grown into all manner of nonsense after being fed and watered at regular intervals online.He's a Murdoch minion always jumping when the fingers click.

      ''The alerts of the dogs will never go away, and they are why no-one, not the police, not the public, are interested in scrutinising Robert Murat.''

      They went away.The suspicion won't, that's all. Science sent them packing.Twitter keeps pretending they're still alive.It's eleven years now.Who is right-Twitter and the 'court of public opinion' (again) ?To cling to that raft is to call both police forces and the forensics team liars.That kind of lie committed by that many people is conspiracy to conceal a crime and to pervert the course of justice.Is that what you're doing ? Accusing them all of that ? Or didn't you realise it ?

      Your defence of Murat is hollow, mainly due to him not being a McCann or a friend of theirs. That, in your mind, is enough to release anyone from suspicion.That's not exactly an in depth study is it.I'm not saying Murat abducted the child or killed her, but, of all the now iconic names and faces in the PDL case, he seems by far the most suspicious, dubious character with the least convincing account of his whereabouts, relationships, and personal history. I could elaborate as to why I find him a dubious character, but there's no need.I'm just trying to bring a little balance.The other horse is dead and hasn't responded to the flogging of it for 11 years.

      Delete
    8. 'Changed the investigation' - the police were no longer looking for a live child.

      You are right, only tiny vestiges of blood were found, there had been quite a thorough clean up. But again, would the abductor/murderer have hung around to spring clean? Sometimes it only takes one tiny speck of blood to unravel a murder and unlike yourself 03:54, the police do find such blood traces compelling.

      You say Martin Brunt is a Murdoch minion, really? Who's minion was he when he went after Brenda Leyland? His report featured Jim Gamble threating McCann critics with 'the dock' and a McCann family member discussing the dossier handed to the police?

      Science hasn't sent anything packing 03:54, what an absurd idea, that's not how science works. The evidence collected in 2007 is just as relevant as it always was, probably more so due to advances in technology over the last 11 years.

      You think I am ruling Robert Murat out because he is not a friend of the McCanns? Lol. There is nothing to rule him in! He has a sound alibi and there were no dog alerts to any of his property.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 December 2017 at 10:24

      '''Changed the investigation' - the police were no longer looking for a live child. ''

      So why are they looking for a live child now ? Or haven't they consulted you yet ? Redwood stated that they had to consider the less unpleasant scenario of the child not being alive if they were to be thorough. You are one of the massed ranks who pounced on that like a hawk, tore a piece off so all that was left was 'she might be dead' and translated it as 'is dead'. Maybe you can explain why she has yet to be declared dead and why it hasn't become a murder investigation . But I doubt it. You're enjoying the construction of your own narrative far too much to be dragged into the reality that exists in the cold light of day offline.

      ''You are right, only tiny vestiges of blood were found, there had been quite a thorough clean up.''

      You needed to be told that on your blog by myself and a couple of others who found the 'blood spatter all over the wall' talk plain silly and obviously dishonest. Is there any evidence of the clean up, or have you included that to keep the murder /death story alive ? Not very imaginative.

      '' Sometimes it only takes one tiny speck of blood to unravel a murder and unlike yourself 03:54, the police do find such blood traces compelling. ''

      Just not in this case apparently.

      ''You say Martin Brunt is a Murdoch minion, really? Who's minion was he when he went after Brenda Leyland?''

      Sky TV's and the Establishment's, who had been waging a war, publicly, against Twitter trolls for a long time before what happened to Brenda Leyland. Using her name is disrespectful to her memory by the way.It's a cheap trick.

      ''Science hasn't sent anything packing 03:54, what an absurd idea, that's not how science works. The evidence collected in 2007 is just as relevant as it always was, probably more so due to advances in technology over the last 11 years. ''

      Or, to say it more clearly : '' The shelved evidence is really relevant.They're just waiting for advances in forensics that can identify the actual death as well as the killers ,(who are the parents)''. That argument sounded desperate in 2008. It sounds much worse now.It's a really flimsy straw to clutch at.

      ''You think I am ruling Robert Murat out because he is not a friend of the McCanns? Lol. There is nothing to rule him in! He has a sound alibi and there were no dog alerts to any of his property.''

      Why would a dog alert at his property ? The event occurred in 5 A . Why is his alibi, as supplied rather confusingly by his mother, sound, and that of the McCanns isn't ?There's as much to rule him in as there is to rule the parents in. You just don't hate Murat. The 'lol' is as unconvincing as it normally is. People here can read.

      Everything you say, and claim to observe, regarding the McCanns, suggests that even if a complete stranger turned up with Madeleine, or confessed to killing her, you'd find some way to link him to the McCanns.That's one of the main reasons your thinking is completely faulty. It's bad enough holding such a heavily biased view, but to back it up with zero evidence or logic is far worse. Trying to claim that science is just waiting in the wings for advances before it closes the case sounds like a prayer.Good luck with that.What will happen when it isn't answered. Will there be a new thread ''Do the superior McCanns have influence over God'' ?

      Delete
    10. No-one gets any pleasure out of thinking the child dead 00:14, we accept it as the tragedy it is. As for an official declaration that Madeleine is dead, the parents turned this down at the 7 year mark, the official number of years when a missing person can be declared dead.

      As for the police looking for a live child, that ship sailed when Operation Grange moved into PDL with the digging equipment.

      OK. 1) Big pool of blood. 2) Tiny vestige.
      Point 1) would suggest NO clean up. Point 2) clean up carried out.

      You mock the advances in science and technology, but shouldn't these be welcomed by parents? Do they not want to know what happened to their child? Are they not confident that the forensic evidence found will rule them out?

      Your desperate attempts to steer suspicion towards Robert Murat (again) are pathetic. Other than being a man separated from his wife, living close to Warners, there is nothing, zilch, to implicate him.

      With your final paragraph, you are wrong. I would rejoice if Madeleine were found alive and well. And if the parents were found not to have been involved, it would greatly restore my faith in human nature.

      It's not I who should be praying for this case to be solved 00:14, it's the McCanns! Their daughter is still missing and their only real hope of finding out what happened to her, lies in the evidence collected in Apartment 5A. They, more than anyone, would benefit from a more comprehensive analysis of the evidence found using new techniques. They are the ones searching for answers.

      Delete
    11. ''As for the police looking for a live child, that ship sailed when Operation Grange moved into PDL with the digging equipment. ''

      That's merely your opinion. That's why I asked why the two forces are still searching for a missing child. The child has still to be decalred dead.

      ''OK. 1) Big pool of blood. 2) Tiny vestige.
      Point 1) would suggest NO clean up. Point 2) clean up carried out.''

      Is that it ? Because there was no 'big pool of blood' you have decided there was a thorough clean up , thus implying a lot more blood was there in the first place . How about considering no blood mean't no blood. None of the PJ who trampled around a really small - and mostly sealed - apartment caught the lingering odour of any bleaches. You wouldn't need dogs for that . The panic of all those scrubbing away didn't alert the twins ? The tapas group, who had nothing to lose if they weren't involved in anything, decided to willingly risk all ?

      ''You mock the advances in science and technology, but shouldn't these be welcomed by parents? Do they not want to know what happened to their child? Are they not confident that the forensic evidence found will rule them out?''

      I didn't mock advances in science, I mocked the idea of so many people, who are in denial about the lack of evidence to incriminate their chosen culprits, are clinging to that as their final hope.That in itself is an unconscious acknowledgement that they accept that nothing exists now that could do the job.

      ''Your desperate attempts to steer suspicion towards Robert Murat (again) are pathetic. Other than being a man separated from his wife, living close to Warners, there is nothing, zilch, to implicate him. ''

      You've re-written the event as an episode of Dexter and Psycho.Blood everywhere but cleaned up ? You've invented an in depth personality inventory of two complete strangers based on soundbytes you've watched on the internet and TV, and tried to pass it off as psychology because you've been a people watcher all of your life.Watch Murat.Study Murat.He may well have had little or nothing to do with anything, but if you want to play psychologist, his interviews, movements and statements have far more valid 'tells'.

      ''It's not I who should be praying for this case to be solved 00:14, it's the McCanns!''

      I'm sure they still are. I'm also sure that, given their chosen faith, the act of buying presents for Madeleine each Christmas can be considered 'active faith'.I know what you think it is, you've addressed it with your trademark humanity more than once.Ironically, you often repeat how much you want to have faith in human nature.

      ''They are the ones searching for answers.''

      I hope they ask the right questions in the right places if they haven't already.The real clean up was far more efficient than the imagined one in 5 A .

      Delete
  15. http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/sobre-o-arquivamento-do-caso-maddie=f372712

    And he followed that in which the PJ is a specialist, whenever he can not disentangle a media case: start blowing information and opinions to the press, suggesting that he knows very well what happened, but that strong obstacles (in this case, diplomats ), still prevent it from being able to say it. PJ hand men in the press - journalists, former police officers and other 'experts' - then began feeding the dirty campaign against the McCanns: that it was very strange that she did not cry, that the couple had sexless habits, that the friends were all suspicious, that she would have complained that Maddie was a difficult child, etc. and such. Once the land was prepared, the final blow was reached: the constitution of the McCanns as defendants - which, for the bulk of national and international public opinion,

    Then, as is also the habit of the house, evidence began to be sought to support the thesis - the reverse of any serious investigation. The McCanns and friends were questioned for hours, hoping that one of them would 'fall' with what the researchers wanted to hear. As the Times wrote, to great amazement, the Portuguese police are still engaged in investigative methods consisting essentially of self-incrimination of suspects: either through telephone tapping or confession, spontaneously or not, of their own. As one RTP "expert" explained, when suspects are not available to continue to be interrogated "ad nauseam", the police are left without 'investigative means'. And so, when the McCanns left home, fed up with being there at hand and seeing the police only preoccupied with being able to incriminate them as murderers of their own daughter, instead of looking for their kidnappers, PJ did not know what to do. The old, lazy methods had not worked, and there were no others she knew. More than a year later, the infamous suspicion will be raised about a couple who had the misfortune of losing their daughter in Portugal and about an Englishman who had the bad luck to be a neighbor of the village and have raised suspicions of a journalist. File yourself. the infamous suspicion will be raised about a couple who had the misfortune of losing their daughter in Portugal and about an Englishman who had the bad luck to be a neighbor of the village and have raised suspicions of a journalist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous27 December 2017 at 14:16

      Good post. I believe that's called perspective. Nice one.

      Delete
    2. Interrogating suspects is standard police procedure, used throughout the world. To describe interrogation as an old, lazy method is absurd. Just out of curiousity what 'new method' has taken it's place? A truth serum? Mind reading?

      Why on earth would the Portuguese police be preoccupied with incriminating the parents? You think these police officers were jealous of Kate's slim figure, the McCanns detached home in Rothley, their high flying careers - all the usual reasons you put forward for people hating them.

      Or do you think perhaps these police officers who were working back to back shifts and sleeping in the office, in their efforts to find a small missing child, were just eager to get back to their long boozy lunches?

      Do you honestly believe these local police officers would choose to leave a child predator on the loose in their own neighbourhood in order to frame two British tourists?

      The parents have always claimed the Portuguese police were trying to frame them, but it's a claim without any logic or reason. Police officers don't let child murderers off the hook in order to frame innocent people. It doesn't happen anywhere in the world. And it certainly doesn't happen so they can have long lunches.

      I expect in the next few weeks we will hear that Scotland Yard are trying to frame them too. Already there are attempts on this blog to blame the New Labour government with sledgehammer hints that MI5/6, the Secret Services and Inspector Gadget, spirited Madeleine away without the parents' knowledge. They became unwitting pawns in political machinations, too naïve (again!) to understand they were being used.

      Delete
    3. '' Just out of curiousity what 'new method' has taken it's place? A truth serum? Mind reading?''

      Viewing youtube videos and mind reading ?

      ''Why on earth would the Portuguese police be preoccupied with incriminating the parents? You think these police officers were jealous of Kate's slim figure, the McCanns detached home in Rothley, their high flying careers - all the usual reasons you put forward for people hating them.''

      I doubt Amaral was bitter over that. I doubt any of the PJ envied not being young, female and slim. Why would jealousy even enter into a police investigation anyway ? But, at least they know that Kate's slim figure, the McCann careers and the house all actually exist.No invention needed.

      ''Do you honestly believe these local police officers would choose to leave a child predator on the loose in their own neighbourhood in order to frame two British tourists?''

      The ramblings of Amaral and the media have ensured enough suspcion of the parents will exist even if no evidence does. The past 11 years points to this. That's why nobody has been arrested.If they wanted a full frame up they'd have done a better job. We were all supposed to look in the direction that the fingers pointed.That was from above the PJ.

      ''The parents have always claimed the Portuguese police were trying to frame them, but it's a claim without any logic or reason''

      It's an opinion and they're entitled not only to hold it but to voice it.But it can be argued that the detective initially investigating later went on to write a book accusing them of lying and of hiding the corpse of their child. Yet he didn't have any logic or reason did he- just a suspicion and a few theories to chop and change to make it interesting. So, I don't think their suspicions about the PJ are totally devoid of reason.

      ''Police officers don't let child murderers off the hook in order to frame innocent people''

      They haven't had any on the hook to let off.

      ''Already there are attempts on this blog to blame the New Labour government with sledgehammer hints that MI5/6, the Secret Services and Inspector Gadget, spirited Madeleine away without the parents' knowledge.''

      Are there ? I haven't seen any...But, that tends to be the way abductions happen. You don't let the parents in on it. It messes it up.

      I think the involvement of politicians, Prime Ministers, and the Intelligence of the UK was more about spiriting the truth away and spiriting away any evidence of some unsavoury leverage leading somewhere troublesome for them . They had nothing whatsoever to lose if two British holidaymakers went to jail for a crime. Nothing at all . The mythological 'good reputation abroad' of the UK, died on it's arse around 1980 and has continued to slide ever since.

      Maybe you can point to other cases of crimes committed abroad that alerted a Prime Minster or Two, and MI5/6 to get involved and to bring an open cheque to the scene of the crime. If so, maybe such claims are just crazy after all . Can you do that ? If so, maybe the real evidence lies in the 'embedded confessions' found by a Bible- bashing Guitar tutor or the body language / face readers who have seen the obvious evil and killer-coldness displayed by the way Gerry scratches his ear and Kate looks to her left at the wrong time.Yep, that doesn't sound outrageous or silly at all .

      Delete
    4. 03:45 Err, you were the one claiming police interviews were lazy and old fashioned, that's why I asked you what the modern non lazy methods were.

      OK, I know some people pretend to be slim, have good careers, a large detached home and room for a pony, but what is their relevance here? No-one is accusing them of lying about that.

      '......evidence of some unsavoury leverage leading somewhere troublesome for them'. Wtf does that mean? What's 'unsavoury leverage'? Is it the same as stealing a small child from her bedroom?

      No I can't point to any other crimes abroad where the British government became so involved, but then I can't remember any suspects who were as assertive and as clear with their agendas as the McCanns.

      On the bible bashing guitar tutor, I hear you brother, but body language is a science. Not with those fixated on smutty words, but in the legitimate world of psychology.

      I began to study body language 30+ years ago, not as an accredited course, but out of personal curiosity. It's a fascinating subject, especially for a writer, 'little tells' can be thrown into a plot without being too obvious.

      In the real world being able to 'read' body language is a distinct advantage, if you are particularly astute, you can sum up a situation without a word being spoken.

      Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate they were ruled by their vanity rather than their heads. Every interview they have given is filled with 'tells' that are easy to deconstruct even for amateurs.

      People who set out to deceive believe they are cleverer than the people they are deceiving, that's why they speak 'down' to them. 'I know more than you do' said Kate to the press, being a good example. Gerry and Kate fell into the trap of thinking the more they spoke the more they convinced people of their innocence, except, all the while, the opposite was happening. We can all read body langage even if we can't pinpoint specific signs. It is part of our genetic make up, our survival instinct. That's why so many took to the internet, we wondered why we were being lied to.

      Delete
    5. ''03:45 Err, you were the one claiming police interviews were lazy and old fashioned, that's why I asked you what the modern non lazy methods were. ''

      I didn't mention a thing about them.That was someone else.

      ''but then I can't remember any suspects who were as assertive and as clear with their agendas as the McCanns. ''

      That could be read ( objectively) as determination and a confidence in their own innocence.

      ''body language is a science. Not with those fixated on smutty words, but in the legitimate world of psychology. ''

      Psychology is rarely used in a court of law due to the grey area that is Psychology and the Law. Body language, however, is never used and never will be. It makes interesting TV and sells a decent amount of books to those who want to add a string to their bow. As you say, it's a fascinating and sometimes entertaining subject.But this the case of a missing child, not an episode of Cracker.

      ''Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate they were ruled by their vanity rather than their heads. Every interview they have given is filled with 'tells' that are easy to deconstruct even for amateurs. ''

      They may well have been ruled by anger and driven by determination.They had lost their child.Or is psychic power also a fascinating subject and easy to utilize by amateurs now.How come detectives missed '' 'tells' that are easy to deconstruct even for amateurs' ? Any ideas ?

      ''People who set out to deceive believe they are cleverer than the people they are deceiving, that's why they speak 'down' to them. 'I know more than you do' said Kate to the press''

      Or was she just stating a fact ? Do you believe the journalists and media in general are as involved in the investigation as the victims of the crime and the detectives ? Really ? When did stating a fact become a crime ?

      ''Gerry and Kate fell into the trap of thinking the more they spoke the more they convinced people of their innocence, except, all the while, the opposite was happening. ''

      And once that had happened, the police of the UK and Portugal confirmed that they are not suspects and are not being investigated.They just haven't convinced the body language experts who watch youtube yet .

      ''It is part of our genetic make up, our survival instinct. That's why so many took to the internet, we wondered why we were being lied to.''

      The genetic programming evolved from the first generation of mankind to walk the planet. It evolved primarily to ensure survival. Nobody was ever mauled to death by a lie. We've had the internet for about 25 years.How reliable is that genetic make up and how finely tuned is it if we need to be taught how to use it on youtube by people seeking their 15 minutes of fame and to sell some books to the gullible.

      Delete
  16. what makes sense is the kidnapping thesis..Rogerio Alves

    http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2017-04-29-Madie-McCann.-O-que-tem-sentido-e-a-tese-de-rapto-diz-Rogerio-Alves

    ReplyDelete
  17. Happy xmas Ros and a wonderful new year to you!

    Im looking forward to your 2018 bloggs, keep them coming and keep your chin up!

    Wishing you good mental health ( Frasier ;-) )

    Kind regards

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bless you Afan. You have no idea how good it feels to know that someone out there is rooting for me! I tend to get a tad maudlin as Hogmanay approaches and loved ones come to mind.

      I sometimes wonder whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to think of those who've gone, but I think it's a good thing because the memories always make me smile.

      I will keep the blogs coming AFan, I fear they are beyond my control, lol.

      Ah, Frasier! Right up there with Seinfeld!

      My kindest wishes to you Afan, you have inspired a new blog, and a new idea! Happy 2018 to you and yours Afan, and thank you for your good wishes.

      Delete
    2. Im sure there are many rooting for you out there Ros,I believe there are many people out there who read here but are maybe to shy to comment for whatever reason. I think a majority of people will have an opinion but only a minority will express it !
      Personally I like the cut of your jib and I think the negative comments are just from 1 or 2 people who like to be argumentative for the fun of it. Dont spend to much time on them I say. The banter between you and SYIACM is far more entertaining !!

      Re poor MBM, who knows what will happen this year ahead, personally I just hope we wont be in the same place this time next year and that the victim (MBM) will finally have justice!

      Kind regards

      AFAN

      Delete
    3. You are so kind Afan :) It is tempting to whinge and complain that my writing is blacklisted because of my views on the McCanns, and I think I did for a while, but ultimately, talent will always find a way. Though I am riddled with insecurities, I have never stopped believing in my writing talent, I WILL have that bestseller!

      You are right of course, the malcontents don't deserve the time and attention I give them, but in their own way, they are fascinating insight into how the 'other side' think. But I agree, SYIACM is much more fun!

      I think 2018 will be a seminal year in many ways Afan, far more dramatic than the last. Operation Grange will have to come to an end at some time, and the funding runs out in March. Common sense dictates it can't close leaving more questions than answers.

      It will be seminal for me too, last chance saloon, lol. Time to chase my dreams and make them come true, or at least die trying! I have let the words of my critics and the awful things said about me online, gnaw away at my confidence, and given up way too soon.

      My writing was good enough to be picked up immediately by a BBC producer and a major publishing house (I'm convincing myself here), in fact the BBC guy also discovered Bill Bryson! I'm a fool to have let them bring me down so far. Too afraid to disturb the universe by marketing my books.

      I have reached a watershed Afan, which has always proved to be a good thing in the past, ha ha. I'm nothing like the monster the pro McCanns have created, and thank you Afan and all those who can see that.

      Delete
    4. To AFAN and Ros!
      Very kind comments from both of you, thank you.
      I come here to read what Ros says and what we all say. The replies and how Ros deals with them.
      What I particularly like is Ros will post up gainsayers comments, complete with personal abuse, like nobody else has, does or ever will. I know of no other place or person who does that.

      Now we are all different with different tastes or takes, that's a given. What I have found is that trying to force someone to agree with you via admonishment, brute force insult or belittling never works. I find it so heartening when Ros replies like for like! No euphemistic dressing it up - tell it like it is Ros! Force of nature alert!

      I also have found that many underestimate Ros. I've said that before. But some people never learn. They just don't listen.
      Everyone has a story to tell and I want to hear Ros's. If we disagree or want to rail against what she says, remember, she is actually holding up a mirror to yourself, and allows you to get on with it. It helps me understand that my point of view is not the only one, and other people have other ideas, and more importantly, why they have them. In essence, their life story, which is what we have here, replete with fails as well as successes.

      I maintain we all like to talk about ourselves and it's nice to have that affirmed. Those times you read and think "Hey! I though that was just me" or conversely, "Oh! So that's why you think that way".
      But that sounds all so academic. Whereas I can go and be dictated to on certain forums I come here for fun and a more humourous, satirical and wry take on what can be an otherwise anodyne prosaic existence.
      OK, you can all see I'm really angling for one of Ros's chocolate cakes, lol!

      Happy New Year to everyone here.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    5. Happy New Year to you too SYIACM and thank you for being such a great contributor here, I always enjoy your posts and I know others do too. You are of course more than welcome to a chocolate cake!

      I have always had a tendency to say out loud what others are thinking SYIACM, it's a great icebreaker! It's always disarming; it leads either to great friendship or on occasion to fear and loathing. Especially from the jobsworths, the pompous, several ex bosses and anyone who patronises me. I'm just sorry my foes on here don't get the live version, I'm quite animate when I get going and I've a got a look that could strip paint!

      I also hope that my stories, anecdotes and wondering off into pastures new will resonate with someone SYIACM. My favourite authors have always been those who make me think and who introduce me to new ideas. I learned all about the art of Zen from Sex Tips for Girls (Cynthia Heimel), which led on to a study of Buddhism, for example.

      My childhood memories I hope, evoke childhood memories for my readers, I think we should all reconnect with our 5 year old selves, the people we were meant to be before we were hurt and jaded by life.

      When I wrote my misery memoir, I had to go back to memories that I had long buried because other people had convinced me they were traumatic. And that indoctrination had begun in the convent when I was 'rescued' and forced to live a strict, regimented, disciplined life that I hated! Of course I got battered every day, I was a rebel and a free spirit!

      Despite all my rebellion, they still managed somehow to convince me that my mum was a bad person, and for that I will never forgive myself. I never truly got to know her until later in life, and I had missed so much!

      She was of course as mad as a hatter, but she had more personality in her little finger than most people have in their entire bodies. She was stunningly beautifully, and crazily flamboyant, a mixture of Liz Taylor and Dorothy Parker on acid! Men, gay ones especially, adored her! Not just for her acerbic wit, but because my Irish mother spoke English better than the Queen! And I had to speak the same because I was the posh daughter ‘home from boarding school’, lol.

      I’m delighted to say she stayed exactly the same to the very end. It wasn’t her who needed to change, it was me. Once I accepted that she would never behave like ‘normal’ people, I began to enjoy, and even love, her eccentricity. And I began to see why other people genuinely liked and loved her, I’m ashamed to say, I’d never understood it before!

      And I began to see why she ‘played up’, especially in situations where respect and decorum were required. I’m beginning to find, in oh so subtle ways, that people are now doing the same to me! That is pre-warning those who don’t know me, to expect the unexpected! Lol. I almost feel obliged to come out with something outrageous!

      Delete
    6. My mother didn’t behave as society expected, she broke every rule going, some just for the hell of it. She just wasn’t cut out to be a stay at home wife and mother, some women aren’t, but she was always terrific fun. I’m glad to have had a mum with so much character, and feel sad for others who don’t. She was fearless, and in many ways she passed that on to me. That’s why I’m not afraid of the misfits who have attached themselves to me on social media. And I’m far too educated to be intimated by those who presume they have the authority to give me a ticking off.

      I love talking about myself, I think most of us do, if we are honest - that is, unleash the constant dialogue that’s going on in our heads. From the earliest age I was a chatterbox, and a ‘blooming pest’ lol, I wanted to know about everything and I wanted to talk about everything. My dear old dad got me into reading, and indeed writing. It all began as I lay on the floor pencil in hand asking him what I should say in a letter I was writing to my granny in Ireland. At the time he was studying the racing pages to find a horse for the 3.30 and wanting a bit of peace! ‘You know all those things you want to tell me’ he said, ‘hmm, yes’ said I, ‘well tell her’. So I did! And from then on, when I couldn’t find anyone to talk to (often, they used to hide from me), I would write a letter, not necessarily to post, but as a way to tell someone, anyone, about the amazing stuff I had just learned, or funny experience I had just had, before I burst with excitement!

      I quite literally went into teaching because I love the sound of my own voice, lol. Ditto writing, because I get to choose the subject, ha ha. But I jest, in teaching, as exhilarating as having a captive audience is, it is far more rewarding to bring that confidence forward in others. To see students go from those first nervous and tentative steps, to taking command of their subject and discovering the freedom to go above and beyond the set text.

      Writing an interactive blog is similar. It is rewarding when readers write in, because I feel I have created a welcoming forum where civility and reason rule. There is no hatred or hysteria here, just discussion. The feedback keeps my own views, opinions and ideas fluid, I like to be challenged, I like to look at things from a different perspective. I have no problem being proved wrong, it simply means I have learned something new. With the Madeleine case I have examined it from every angle, as if it were a complex jigsaw puzzle that will only sit flat if the right pieces are in the right places.

      Delete
    7. Hiya Ros!
      A reply to the first part, first.
      Thank you for sharing your choccy cake - I couldn't help noticing that er.. someone had taken a big bite out of it first....lol
      You can do no better than to have led a life of reading and people watching. A great way to know yourself. And the serendipity! Life's a Lucky Bag and is the theme you keep going here. I never know what you are going to come up with next and is oft surprising and jaw-dropping. "Did she just say that? Yes! She did!" Great stuff!
      My Mother and Grandmother were Irish - both quite mad but boy did they know their way around the world and its people. They always let me be me. Like you they knew I could not be changed. Character building when left to formulate your own take on it all. I am all for it.
      You have a wealth of life stories and I know you keep a little back each time to draw us in! And curiosity drives almost all of us. We get to see a world we did not know existed and it adds to our understanding, how are lives could have been so different, again, why you can say things like only you can. I always want to know the "why".
      To me, you and here are like an unexpected present. The best kind. In book terms, a "must read".
      Makes me laugh you know, because I hate a quiet room and I just have to liven it up, too. I imagine you too have found yourself in some rather er delicate situations because of that - I know I have.
      But I'd not have it any other way. I think we are the people who, after we'd been to a party, our Mothers would have to go around next day and apologise lol! Thing is, Ros, if we don't do the crazy now, when will we? I am buggered if I will hold back, ever. So as I find here so much fun I will dive in and have some!
      More in a bit! (Cake I meant lol!)
      -
      SixYearsWadingThroughAnEnormousMississippiMudCakeMan

      Delete
    8. Hi Ros (part 2!)
      You have a lot to say, too? lol! Imagine, the camp fire tales. Whilst getting ratted lol. We'd be up all night! But that's the house I grew up in. The wildest stories you have ever heard, of real people, how mad most people really are. I think that's the nub of it - people are truly crazy. Those who pretend not to be? Zzzzzzz!
      I would always write letters to my Aunty - and loved getting replies. It was our own world, all in "real writing" so it was very special.
      I imagine, like me, you soon realised the world was not entirely as we'd been told it was. So you'd question everything and become that "pest". Asking questions no one had the answer to. You noticed that nobody knew everything at all. You knew you were right - against the mass who said you were not. Some may call it stubborn, I'd call it saying what you see. Sure, it can make you unpopular, sometimes. Yet, other times you'll get a crowd saying, "I'm pleased you said that". Someone has to ask, to say something. The more outrageous the better in my book (which I've yet to write!)
      Passing on what you know is very rewarding. To help those who want it and need it. The time you can save others from making your now rectified mistakes. I imagine you'd be like the female version of "To Sir, With Love" and ditch convention!
      Our Mothers have a lot to answer for!
      -
      SixYearsAndThenSomeMan

      Delete
  18. 28.12 @03:45

    1 “It's an opinion and they're entitled not only to hold it but to voice it.”

    Absolutely! However, if that opinion were correct, then the PJ would have been guilty of a crime.

    2 “But it can be argued that the detective initially investigating later went on to write a book accusing them of lying and of hiding the corpse of their child. Yet he didn't have any logic or reason did he- just a suspicion and a few theories to chop and change to make it interesting.”

    It can be argued indeed. Were such arguments of sufficient strength in law, the detective could have been considered guilty of a crime of libel (“… accusing them of lying and of hiding the corpse of their child.”). Consequently, the McCanns might’ve had a case in libel against the detective. Having received arguably the best legal advice available, they chose not to sue for libel. They sued for damages instead. Perhaps they should have consulted you, comrade, and sued for libel???

    3 “So, I don't think their suspicions about the PJ are totally devoid of reason.”

    You are free to think whatever you like comrade. What seems apparent is that you arbitrarily give credence to the McCanns‘ suspicions while refusing to consider Amaral’s.

    28.12 @03:54

    “We're stepping into 2018 now and nothing's happened.”!

    And..?

    (One among many)
    United States House Select Committee on Assassinations [1979!]: [JFK was] “probably assassinated [in 1963!!!] as a result of a conspiracy”. Or do you give credence to ‘the magic bullet’ hypothesis?

    Happy New Year, comrade!

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy New Year Comrade T! :)

      I have to ask you my friend, about your use of the word 'Comrade', you don't really strike me as a Marxist, more a kindly old aristocratic Uncle from Blandings than a revolutionary.

      Having said that, I'm not entirely sure 'Comrade' is the generic term for an equal worldwide. A tad more Latino than the French Revolution's 'Citizen'. Now I envisage you as Anthony Quinn (my first love, aged 15, lol)- can you do the fandango? Or perhaps there is a touch of a Che Guevera? In which case I am going to go have a listen to Abba's Fernando, as in 'can you hear the drums Fernando', it makes my toes tingle :).

      I jest of course, I still think you are more Uncle Dynamite than a South American freedom fighter. A refined fellow to whom the words 'I say old chap' and 'ears ears' are among your usual vernacular. And I hasten to add, words such as those are music to my ears, I definitely feel I was born into the wrong age! I'd really like to see the old bowing and hand kissing come back, maybe not so much the head chopping. I have actually wasted an inordinate amount of time deciding who on 'The Tudors' does the best bow! Top of course is Henry himself (Jonathan Rhys-Myers who is a God), but Lord Suffolk and sometimes Superman, Henry Cavill comes a close second. There should be honourable mentions however for poet Will, the curly haired musician and Thomas Cromwell. On the female side and the curtsying, the haughty Princess Mary is unbeatable for grace and charm. I wonder if they had competitions? Or practiced in front of the mirror? I'm going to have to give it a try!

      Anyway, before I descend into complete madness, lol, Happy 2018 to you T, and thank you always, for being here :)

      Ps. Think Kenneth Williams, when saying 'ears ears' out loud ;)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous28 December 2017 at 12:20

      ''Absolutely! However, if that opinion were correct, then the PJ would have been guilty of a crime.''

      Shoddy work and incompetence aren't crimes. But Amaral was removed either way. Why ?

      ''It can be argued indeed. Were such arguments of sufficient strength in law, the detective could have been considered guilty of a crime of libel...Consequently, the McCanns might’ve had a case in libel against the detective. Having received arguably the best legal advice available, they chose not to sue for libel..They sued for damages instead. Perhaps they should have consulted you, comrade, and sued for libel???''

      Amaral, to the those who live in the 20th /21st century is guilty of libel as he made grave allegations and failed to prove them to be right. The allegation of the parents lying was libelous, and the allegation that they hid their child's corpse was, and remains, disgusting. Why isn't that defamation of character ? Because he has been proved to be right ? Maybe the parents should have pursued the libel first, won that, then pursued damages and won that.I'd like to hear the hordes explain to me what their definition is of defamation and libel and why neither apply to Amaral and his 'literary work'. It's hardly been the go-to book for detectives since he wrote it has it.There must be reasons for that .

      ''You are free to think whatever you like comrade. What seems apparent is that you arbitrarily give credence to the McCanns‘ suspicions while refusing to consider Amaral’s.''

      Amaral has nothing to support his opinions about the guilt of the parents of either lying or burying their child.He has a few theories he has failed to support as well. I've considered those morsels. The McCanns anger at the lack of progress and the police mistakes early in the case have credence.It might not have been their fault and they still might not have found Madeleine or the abductor, but they considered that things were happening too slowly.They would be panicking-they're entitled to be angry.The failure of the investigation to find anything substantial in the way of evidence or leads lends weight to their assessment of the PJ.

      ''“We're stepping into 2018 now and nothing's happened.”!
      And..?''

      Read it again, no 'and' was necessary.

      ''Or do you give credence to ‘the magic bullet’ hypothesis?''

      Only fools, ex CIA and ex US Politicians pretend to believe that theory. Or was that what you were going for by alluding to it ? You chose the wrong one to do that, T . On a positive note, the sarcasm was delivered with a little thought and style, and that was refreshing.

      If I ever suggest that science is just waiting for advances to prove the single bullet theory ( therefore it still makes sense), or that Oswald's comrade was stood aloft the underpass with a magic shield to deflect a bullet to hit JFK from the front, feel free to imply the same once more.

      nb : maybe, in the new year, you will get around to answering the question I asked you a few threads and couple of months back as you said you would.

      Happy New Year, comrade.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 25 December 2017 at 23:26
      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/puzzle-returned-unsolved.html?showComment=1514244408999#c7500654594348978106

      “Freedom of speech is what it is. Banning and censoring are what they are. What's the difference between refusing to publish and banning / censoring ?”

      Freedom of speech is an abstract concept. Refusing to publish/censoring are practical steps one may take to protect one’s private enterprise for instance.

      “You're the banner-carrier holding Amaral up as a saint and martyr.”

      That is your way of putting it, not Rosalinda’s.

      “Yet he accused two parents of being liars and of burying the body of their own child.”

      He’d expressed his opinions. They chose not to sue him for libel. Perhaps they didn’t want certain aspects of the case to be scrutinised in a criminal court. Whatever legal paths they have trodden have led to their failure.

      “The official line in his own country is that it's a missing person case , like it is in the UK.”

      The official line in the US and UK is that 19 Muslims were behind 911. Does an ‘official line’ necessarily solve a case? If it doesn’t, why use it in justification.

      “The official line is innocent until proven guilty.”

      One is entitled, therefore, to conclude that you show intemperate bias when you forget that “official line” when talking Amaral’s ‘crimes’.

      “But he adds his little disclaimer that he's only interested in justice for Madeleine so people like you can promote his unfounded, cruel allegations.”

      He expresses his opinions or quotes PJ.

      “He has failed to produce any proof whatsoever in 11 years now.”

      He has been under no obligation to produce proof. In that respect, the situation most likely would’ve been very different had the McCanns sued for libel.

      “But you defend his vicious rumours on the grounds of free speech and attack the parents for wanting him shut down if he can't prove his accusations.”

      They had an opportunity, which they didn’t take, to ‘shut him down’. ’See ^^.

      “Logic and objectivity clearly supports the fact that he is guilty of slander, libel and defamation if he can't support his accusations with evidence or proof .

      See ^^.

      “Blinkered, angry, insensitive, uninformed commentators support that the parents are vicious to pursue him.These same people are quick to pretend they only seek justice.”

      I hope not to be counted among those.

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 28 December 2017 at 20:31
      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/puzzle-returned-unsolved.html?showComment=1514493061505#c7478312752481538057

      “Shoddy work and incompetence aren't crimes.”

      It Depends… I was referring to The McCanns’ opinion that they were being framed (criminal offence).

      “But Amaral was removed either way. Why ?”

      A dancer of your experience might have recognised a conspiratorial foxtrot, I would’ve thought.

      “Amaral has nothing to support his opinions about the guilt of the parents of either lying or burying their child.”

      I shouldn’t think you have a way of knowing that.

      “He has a few theories he has failed to support as well. I've considered those morsels.”

      See ^^.

      “The McCanns anger at the lack of progress and the police mistakes early in the case have credence.It might not have been their fault and they still might not have found Madeleine or the abductor, but they considered that things were happening too slowly. They would be panicking-they're entitled to be angry.”

      Supposing I accept that they have been “entitled to be angry” etc. How would you explain their having not applied the same logic to the somewhat lengthier OG investigation?

      “The failure of the investigation to find anything substantial in the way of evidence or leads lends weight to their assessment of the PJ.”

      Perhaps one should bear in mind the refusal to take part in the reconstruction which might have been crucial.

      It is your view that OG is most likely to conclude with no result the McCanns have been saying they seek. Do you expect the McCanns, when OG comes to an end, to substitute dismay and anger at the lack of the results sough for gratitude they have expressed so far?

      “Read it again, no 'and' was necessary.”

      And..? = And what do you propose one should infer from your “We're stepping into 2018 now and nothing's happened.”?

      I guessed that you are not a believer in magic (bullet or whatever). I referred to the ‘official line’ -that the JFK case remains unsolved despite the 1979 “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” It goes without saying that we're stepping into 2018 now and nothing's happened.

      Milord has been very generous and forgiving (biased) towards the McCanns. T’s disposition is different: as a notional titled entity, T is not disposed to forgive anyone anything in this case.

      My earldom for your comments, Milord, as always.

      Respectfully affectionate

      T;)

      NB As to my overdue reply, my view is that, most likely, there exists a conspiracy of which the McCanns have been aware and, consequently, have been a party to.

      Delete
    5. Comrade

      ''Freedom of speech is an abstract concept. Refusing to publish/censoring are practical steps one may take to protect one’s private enterprise for instance.''

      Freedom of speech may well be an abstract concept.Libel and defamation have more stringent guidlines, however. The latter should be the guiding hand to those who are charged with interpretation of the former.

      ''You're the banner-carrier holding Amaral up as a saint and martyr.”

      That is your way of putting it, not Rosalinda’s.''

      Amaral cashed in on his position of former lead detective of the case to gain credibility when composing his thoughts for his book.He claimed to feel pain for Madeleine and said it was the driving force that compelled him. Yet, he accused the parents of lying and burying their own child's body.Failing to show proof might have one foot on the abstract, but it's vicious and, until he supports it, it's libelous. To view this as abstract is one thing, to switch it on its head and label him the victim of vicious litigants(parents) doesn't require an in depth analysis to see what is meant.

      ''The official line in the US and UK is that 19 Muslims were behind 911. Does an ‘official line’ necessarily solve a case? If it doesn’t, why use it in justification.''

      Because the police forces of two countries call the ongoing investigation a missing person case. My intemperate bias when discussing Amaral is covered above.

      ''He has been under no obligation to produce proof.''

      That doesn't add any weight to his allegations.It's a travesty of justice that he hasn't been required to do so.


      Delete
    6. Anonymous4 January 2018 at 17:11

      Comrade

      ''A dancer of your experience might have recognised a conspiratorial foxtrot, I would’ve thought.''

      I recognised that foxtrot a long time ago. I recognised a few Paso Dobles in the following heats too. There's been much nifty footwork since.The idea was to present us with a dichotomy Yeats would have recognised :

      O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
      How can we know the dancer from the dance ?
      ( ironically, from 'Among School Childen')

      ''I shouldn’t think you have a way of knowing that.''

      That he has nothing to support his opinion ? No. I'm assuming that it would be far more effective to produce them it if he had it though. He'd sell more books, he'd solve a case and be hailed as a hero and would deserve as much.Oh, and the 'justice for Madeleine' bit would stand tall too.

      '' How would you explain their having not applied the same logic to the somewhat lengthier OG investigation?''

      I believe they have.I can't prove it.They expressed anger at Cameron too at one point and he is no part of the PJ.As I've stated before, they're in a catch 22 situation.Can the voice rage at the hands held out to assist and fund ?

      ''Perhaps one should bear in mind the refusal to take part in the reconstruction which might have been crucial.''

      I find that line of protest too weak to discuss. Their anger was justified.If you believe they buried their child then, understandably it's not. If you believe the child was swept away to someone or somewhere, it is.
      When time is called by OG, we can only guess what the McCanns will feel or say. I would hazard a guess that a lot of private conversations would have taken place before they give up.What they feel and think is private to them.They aren't obligated to make a public announcement and to feed the vultures.It will mark a new direction in their lives.

      ''Milord has been very generous and forgiving (biased) towards the McCanns.''

      I entered the circus late, T. When wondering what act I'd missed, I was informed that two parents had killed their kid and buried her and lied to police and the Government let them get away with it and everything was 'obvious'.I could have headed for the exits and looked for a less predictable show.But i stayed in case the hive mind was wrong again.I value nothing yielded from the surface.The content of real value is where the oil, gold and diamonds always are.Dig, dig, and dig. I dug and I continue to refine the nuggets.The parents are innocent until proven guilty-it's that simple . If they can be proven guilty but those who could do it won't do it, it's a new show.And they won't be the protagonists.But who would be ? Can you honestly see them getting star billing ? It's a stalemate.The endgame began in the first act.

      ''my view is that, most likely, there exists a conspiracy of which the McCanns have been aware and, consequently, have been a party to.

      Sort of what i believe too.

      Namste

      Delete
  19. 28.12 @15:33

    Sweet Lord! Amazing perspicacity at last: I ám the Seventh Earl of Ickenham (‘T’ is the seventh letter of the alphabet backwards). Oh well, publicity is a thing from which I have never been averse.

    At his most brilliant best, good old Pelham used to carol my grandad’s praises.

    ‘Comrade’? As my gramps would say, I am like the chap in Damon Runyan's story, who always figured that if he could bring a little joy into any life, no matter how, he was doing a wonderful deed. It all comes under the head of spreading sweetness and light, which is my constant aim.

    Happy New Year. And same to Kenny, peace be upon him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqVC0vEl0-M

    T:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the Seventh Earl of Ickenham, I should have known :)

      Bringing a little joy is a wonderful deed, and tragically under appreciated in this cynical fast paced age. Too many have no time for it, or worse, treat it with suspicion. The Damon Runyan chap sounds delightful, I must go find him.

      I did for a while, dabble in philosophy via an easy to read book series that I bought at a rate of one a month until I had the complete set! It was a very enlightening time, but nothing compared to Uncle Dynamite! His sweetness and light philosophy is as enchanting now as it was when I was 15!

      Now, who is Kenny and what is the title of your link, I am intrigued, but unable to copy and past :(

      Delete
  20. Anonymous at 20:31
    ("Amaral, to the those who live in the 20th /21st century is guilty of libel as he made grave allegations and failed to prove them to be right.")

    The judges decided Amaral’s claims were not abusive and were within acceptable limits in an open and democratic society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't a trial to decide what was abusive.It was a trial to decide what libel and defamation amounted to.Maybe i should have requested that the hordes gave me the definition of libel and defamation of character and then offer the same to the judge.

      Delete
  21. @11:57

    An audience with Kenneth Williams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 12:19, that was very dense of me, lol.

      Ah the delightful Kenneth Williams, a real life Uncle Dynamite!

      Delete
  22. @09:19

    Not at all, dear.

    T

    ReplyDelete