Sunday, 31 December 2017

WHEN THE PROVERBIAL HITS THE FAN

Jim Gamble, Martin Brunt, Lorraine Kelly Carol Malone, four mainstream media pundits who believe Drs. Gerry and Kate McCann are too nice to be involved in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.  The latter 3 are of course professional pundits, journalists with a platform, whilst Jim Gamble is the unrivalled go to adviser on all matters relating to child protection and the new(ish) issue of trolls on social media. 
 
Jim Gamble of course has been closely involved with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from the very beginning.  As Head of CEOP at the time his agency were among the first to fly out to PDL to offer their assistance.  And in fact their profile of the likely abductor led to the naming of Robert Murat as an arguido and the seizing of his computer. 
 
Mr. Gamble, as Champion of the parents, must I am sure, be familiar with every aspect of this case,  yet as far as I know, he has never said specifically why he believes the former arguidos Gerry and Kate over the Portuguese Judiciary, other than they are not the kind of people who would commit a heinous crime.  So strong is his belief, that he appeared alongside them on breakfast television, presenting age progressed pictures of Madeleine as a white girl or an Asian and appealing for people to come forward and grass on their friends and neighbours.   
 
Turning to Martin Brunt, I have to say my heart went out to him when Brenda Leyland committed suicide.  I don't think he ever wanted something like that to happen.  But I just watched the documentary he made for the 10th anniversary, and he claims, and puts on a pretty good performance, of being genuinely baffled - despite the obvious being directly in front of his face.  I am so glad my loss of faith in human nature was realised in the summer of 2007, because for Martin et al, it's going to be one hell of shock. 
 
My heart will never go out to Carol Malone, the creature is evil personified, and I truly hope poor Brenda didn't read her 'fecked up bitch' column before she went to that lonely hotel room to end her life.  Carol has good reason to fear the internet, not the trolls, but the hundreds of bloggers who are a zillion times more interesting and entertaining than she is.  I'll pass on Lorraine Kelly.  She makes me want to hit the white lightning. 
 
Which brings us nicely to the big white elephant in the room, and the reason millions took to the internet when the British establishment absolved Gerry and Kate McCann on the basis that they were middle class professionals.  Those of us who thought we were all equal now, especially with a New Labour government were given a dramatic wake up call.  Because we all knew darn well, a family from a Council estate would never in a million years receive the kind of establishment support that was given to the parents of Madeleine.
 
And thus began the 'pro', 'anti', divide.  The'pros', the supporters of the parents, empathised with the child minding difficulties of the hard working professionals, The 'antis' dossing on the sofa watching Jeremy Kyle despised them.  Ergo, the 'antis' became the degenerate underclasses, whilst the 'pros' were elevated for their compassion and humanity.  They forgave Gerry and Kate without question, they'd all been there. 
 
The fact that Madeleine's disappearance became such a huge class issue shut discussion down.  Any critic of the parents was immediately branded a low life and jealous.  Their only reason for pointing out the facts in the police files was envy of Kate McCann's slender frame.  This ridiculous ploy would get you beaten up in a playground, but in the real world, bizarrely it worked.  Team McCann had won the media war.  Critics of the parents were not only silenced, they were run out of town.  Labelled haters and pitchforkers, no-one dared, even to this day, voice any suspicions about Gerry and Kate without incurring the wrath of the sanctimonious. 
 
Arguably, they were aided and abetted by one Tony Bennett, the angry, ugly face of a far right group of unhinged extremists who were portrayed as representative of thousands of ordinary people who simply weren't buying the load of baloney people like Martin Brunt (why, Martin, why?) and the Sun newspaper were selling us.   
 
Using the class issue was a good ploy, no-one wanted to be labelled a 'hater', or worse.  A pleb.  But the other big white elephant in the room, is the lengths that have been gone to, in order to cover up, or is it uncover? the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance.  The glee with which the BBC will pounce on a blue collar hotel worker as a potential suspect, but never the nice doctors whose apartment had traces of cadaver odour and blood. They bend over backwards and sidewards like contortionists to avoid the bleeding obvious.  Bizarre. 
 
When you make a mistake how far are you prepared to continue with that mistake before admitting you were wrong?  The answer to that question I think will come in early 2018, when I am sure the inordinate lengths some people have gone to, to maintain the 'mystery' around this case will be revealed.  For the moment we will have to continue watching journalists and crime experts continue to make giant asses of themselves because they are too lazy or too stupid to read beyond the press releases handed to them to by spin doctors. 
 
Will the collective excuse be naivety?  Wails in the night of 'how could I have been that stupid?'  And, we hope, 'why did I think it was alright to leave babies and toddlers on their own'.  Or maybe, 'why did I scold those who pointed out how dangerous it was'?  I'm playing of course.  It's more likely to be the fault of the plebs, at least they [the 'PLUs'] didn't think badly of Gerry and Kate, just because they had a nice house and room for a pony. 
 
If there were any justice in the world, and if the case of missing Madeleine was not so small in the whole scheme of things, there would be a Public Inquiry.  Questions like, why was the British Prime Minister interfering in a criminal investigation in Portugal?  Who gave the order for the Portuguese police to treat the parents with kid gloves?  Why did the MSM take over protecting the McCanns when the Government stepped back? 
 
I'm not going to ask questions of this present government, for the moment, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Not because they are the good guys, but because their hands are clean.  It wasn't they, or their Consuls asking the PJ to go easy on the Brits.  David Cameron had a good relationship with the Portuguese, and his inner imperialist would feel a sense of duty to put right the wrongs of his socialist predecessors. 

Operation Grange is entering it's seventh (?) year, and is said to end in March 2018.  They have of course kept their options open, but 'another lead' is already sounding pretty thin over decade on.  Had there been an abduction option, I think it would have closed long ago.  Unfortunately, this was a puzzle with the main framework in place - only the truth will fit.    
 

181 comments:

  1. Great blog again Ros!

    Some people see the surface of things, and go "oh! poor parents! mean people are ctiticising them after they lost a child!' and don't have the intellectual curiosity to look deeper to find out what the facts are and what they point to.

    So many people are just naive and decide based on emotion and how they think things are, or "should be".

    Will 2018 be the year of change? Thank you for what you do, to keep all channels of discussion open.

    Oh and, as usual, you nailed it with this. "Tony Bennett, the angry, ugly face of a far right group of unhinged extremists." But let's wish the old scrote along with you and all your readers a happy new year too. (Somebody must love him.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tonyfan31 December 2017 at 15:09

      ''Some people see the surface of things..and don't have the intellectual curiosity to look deeper to find out what the facts are and what they point to.''

      What 'facts' would they be ? You've aroused my 'intellectual curiosity' now. I've heard and read mountains of opinions, ideas, hypotheses, theories and so on all purporting to be facts all missed by two police forces, incidentally, but facts have eluded my attention. What have I missed ?

      ''So many people are just naive and decide based on emotion and how they think things are, or "should be". ''

      But most favour the profound 'safety in numbers' philosophy so they can enjoy acceptance within a crowd. Do they do that out of 'intellectual curiosity' or because they can't raise the stamina to research on their own or in any depth ?

      Delete
  2. Great blog Ros here's hoping for 2018. Just a wee note I agree with you that Jim Gambles team was on the ball fairly sharpish to steer opinion away from the McCanns to Murat but if you read GAs book it was himself who first suspected Murat because of the proximity of his house to apartment 5A. TBH I don't think GA and his team were influenced in anyway by Gamble or his crew. I think they were far to professional for that. Happy new year to you

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great as usual but, really !
    ''David Cameron had a good relationship with the Portuguese, and his inner imperialist would feel a sense of duty to put right the wrongs of his socialist predecessors. ''
    Yer what? I can turn a blind eye to many things wrong about this case, but never in a month on Sundays, the Cameroooon, Brooks, aka Sun & blackmail of May considering three previous refusals to review by home Secretaries ... leading to re-investigation of this case.

    But back to the real world, now DCI Walls has been put on the death of Julliana Tudos age 22, murdered in London on Christmas even, and FOUND BY HER FRIENDS who organised a search party - this may well be the beginning of the end for Op. Grange.

    Yes that is what real friends and people do, when concerned and they found not far from her home.

    RIP Julliana

    ReplyDelete
  4. 20 May 2015

    @skymartinbrunt Remember Brenda Leyland? Some of us will never forget nor your role in her death. #mccann

    https://twitter.com/babbletown/statuses/601167717450776577

    I’ve always wondered: why has Martin Brunt liked that tweet?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The perfect, and very fitting, way to leave the year behind ; Use Brenda Leyland's tragic death ( yet again) to try and fool readers here that you have a human streak, praise the dickhead who ambushed her on her doorstep on behalf of Sky News, and refer to a pundit who doesn't buy the theoy of the parents' guilt as 'evil'.As balanced as ever.

    ''a family from a Council estate would never in a million years receive the kind of establishment support that was given to the parents of Madeleine.''

    Yes, that's right.An outgoing PM had nothing bigger on his plate than to send in an army of Intelligence, politicians, media managers and an open cheque book because it was of the utmost importance that somebody from the middle classes never went to prison.All before they had any idea whatsoever of what had happened. Brilliant.

    '' the 'pros' were elevated for their compassion and humanity''

    Not quite.The elevation is an optical illusion.The antis slid down the scale of credibility by despertaely trying to invent evidence they found in TV interviews, photographs and statements, all of which had been seen and heard by the police.The pros have never plastered blogs trying to elevate the parents as saints.They just use expressions like 'where's the evidence?' and 'innocent until proven guilty'. The antis prefer phrases such as 'evil, cold, guilty,vicious' because they're angry.

    ''The fact that Madeleine's disappearance became such a huge class issue shut discussion down.''

    You can thank the antis for that.It's only ever been them who blame class and try to use it as an explanation of why the police, politicians and forensics team all 'lied' to shiled them from blame.To them, that all seems rational.To the more balanced thinkers, it seems plain weird.Yet they kick and scream when they're accused of being an angry mob with too much to shout and little to back it up.

    ''When you make a mistake how far are you prepared to continue with that mistake before admitting you were wrong?''

    What year was Amaral's book published ?

    ''If there were any justice in the world, and if the case of missing Madeleine was not so small in the whole scheme of things, there would be a Public Inquiry.''

    By who ? Who outranks the Queen's Prime Miinister and Scotland yard ?

    '' Unfortunately, this was a puzzle with the main framework in place - only the truth will fit.''

    Yes, that's how police investigations always work.But, if the truth has been abducted , it's over.Cold case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Book launch "Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira" on 24 July 2008 in Lisbon.

      The book was published through other editors in Spain, September 2008, with the possible trading in Spanish in South American Spanish speaking countries; Denmark, November 2008, with possible commercialisation in other Nordic countries; Italy, December 2008, with the commercialisation in Italian for all the world; Holland, April 2009, with commercialisation in Dutch for all the world; Germany, June 2009 with commercialisation in Austria and Switzerland.

      English?

      Delete
    2. "English"

      http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/maddie-truth-of-lie.html

      Published in 2010 for all the world.

      Delete
    3. Amaral

      But I do have the intention of divulging the book even because there are some copies going around and inadequate translations online

      Delete
  6. “Regard the moon, it hangs above the lawn:
    Regard the lawn, it lies beneath the moon”
    Dylan Thomas

    “Education is not preparation for life, education is life itself.”
    John Dewey

    http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/smullyan.html

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=raymond+smullyan&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIj4Db1LbYAhVgFMAKHSAODEsQiR4IkAE&biw=1920&bih=929#imgrc=KZ4Qqnkwm23aaM:

    T

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rosalinda

    When are you going to polish your cut&paste skills?

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies T, I have tried, honest! But my personal motto is Never, Ever, Give Up, so will keep trying!
      Happy New Year to you :)

      Delete
  8. Arguing over books. Is that it ? A sales campaign from each side. Remember Madeleine going missing ? Remember all the arguments over which conspiracy holds the key ?As it all fades away, and the curtain begins to fall, the last desperate trump cards are concerning books. There goes 11 wasted years online using the information superhighway and the social media platforms. It might aswell be May 2007 for all the change that's occurred. Well done everyone. You've achieved much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Books will survive.

      Delete
  9. Are you 100% sure that Brenda Leyland actually committed suicide? It's open to debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coroner's officer reads Ben Leyland, the (youngest) son's written report

      Her death was on fourth of October 2015

      Initially the family home was in Rothley (note. Did I hear this right?)

      Brenda was a social figure in the village and she had close friendships within that village.

      She had a fractious relationship with one neighbour over a wall or fence. There were emails and conversations that had taken place. There was a verbal altercation with the neighbour and other neighbours and villagers had spoken to her about this argument. She was upset and embarrassed. Brenda didn't like to think she was disliked. This was approximately a week before the reporter from Sky visited her saying Scotland Yard had a dossier on her.

      He suggested pursuing a legal claim and discussed how to prevent her picture being published. He called solicitors in London at approximately 1600 to 17:00 hours UK time. He returned her call that night and said his mum panicked and went silent.

      He logged on to her account and she had put a picture of his dog and his location as LA on her account. He still tried to contact the solicitor and wanted to help. He felt the story would blow over. Ben also contacted his father that night to let him know of the situation.

      On Thursday 2nd of October the story broke on Sky News. Ben had no success trying to contact his mother that day. He contacted a neighbour who had been asked to cat sit for a few days while she lay low. He thought she had gone to other family. An email contact said she felt cheerier.

      Saturday 4th October Ben received a call from his father about the death of his mother.

      It was said she had attempted suicide before, a number of years ago.

      His report continues saying she was very happy in the village however she had struggled with depression over the years and had alienated people in the past. She had difficulty connecting with people.

      She was undergoing therapy, with medication for anxiety and extreme bouts of depression.

      She had struggled with health conditions, and had physical, untreatable health issues.

      He heard panic and fear in her voice after the Sky intervention. It was the final straw. She was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred.

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

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous1 January 2018 at 16:20

      Are you 100% sure that Brenda Leyland actually committed suicide? It's open to debate."
      -------------------------------------------

      What a disgusting comment, she died over 3 years ago yet people like you won't let her rest in peace.

      Delete
    3. Tweet Sweepyface, Nov 11, 2013:

      "#McCann I would also hope that were I to die in odd circumstances people WOULD Q and not just accept the first version"

      Delete
    4. The sheer cruelty of the attack on Brenda Leyland by Team McCann, Jim Gamble, Martin Brunt and Sky News will not be brushed under the carpet here 19:37. It all comes under the head 'silencing the critics', an area of the Maddie mystery that will be big news when the story breaks. Who was doing the silencing and why?

      Delete
    5. @ Ros 20:58

      Then get on and debate whether Brenda Leyland actually committed suicide with Anonymous at 16:20.

      I await your comments and conclusions with interest.

      Delete
    6. It's not a subject I can debate, nor can anyone without going into her personal life and I won't do that, it would be disrespectful.

      My concern is with the events that led to Brenda taking her life. The actions of Team McCann with their 'dossier', the call from Jim Gamble to get critics of the McCanns in the dock and then Martin Brunt's rolling news report that made her a target for every psychopath out there.

      This part of pulling a veil over the REAL Madeleine story by the mainstream media, is probably the most sickening. Was it really necessary to 'take out' a member of the public so the Madeleine charade could be maintained?

      Delete
    7. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 January 2018 at 21:47

      It's not a subject I can debate, nor can anyone without going into her personal life and I won't do that, it would be disrespectful."
      -----------------------------------------

      That is exactly why I made my comment at 19:37.

      The comment at 16:20 said that suicide should be questioned is open for debate.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 January 2018 at 21:47

      ''It's not a subject I can debate, nor can anyone without going into her personal life and I won't do that, it would be disrespectful. ''

      Whenever you and your various hypotheses are exposed to scrutiny and you're asked to support them, you have a couple of exit strategies at your disposal that prove useful in avoiding having to debate them. Your most recent has been to be to create a fresh thread and hope that people will move on, and you often quote Brenda Leyland's tragic demise. The former is old fashioned avoidance, the latter is an attempt to persuade your more gullible readers that you are driven by justice for somebody who was a victim of the McCanns. It is clearly designed to give them the impression that you are heroically reacting with righteous indignation when the truth is that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something you can use to direct more hatred towards those 'cruel' McCanns. For evidence of this, I would suggest you and your readers go through your posts where you refer to Brenda Leyland and see the proximity of the name 'McCann' to her name.The subtle juxtaposition of tragedy and (perceived) monsters.I expect better from somebody who professes to be an author.

      ''This part of pulling a veil over the REAL Madeleine story by the mainstream media, is probably the most sickening''

      You emphasis is on 'real' . How do you know we haven't been given the real story ?You, me, and most people might suspect that there's a lot we haven't been told, it's true.But we have to admit that we only suspect as much, not try to suggest it's definite by emphasizing the REAL as opposed to fictional.I believe I've read, more than once, your defence of the two police forces when it's implied that they have both been incompetent or dishonest or acting on orders from above.You inform us that they are more than likely playing their cards close to their chests as it's an investigation and we don't need a running commentary.The hollowness of that claim aside, you can't have it both ways when it comes to your theories about the narrative.

      ''Was it really necessary to 'take out' a member of the public so the Madeleine charade could be maintained?''

      'Take out' is the accepted slang term for killing, like ' a hit'.It's a deliberate killing ( murder).In the context of this discussion, you're suggesting Mrs Leyland was murdered.The official verdict was suicide.Are you now suggesting that is a fabrication to 'protect team McCann' too ?More liars in official positions ? This from someone who laughs at conspiracy theories ? You've implicated more people in an alleged cover up in high places than the assassination of JFK. You're blog is turning into a new Warren Report.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 January 2018 at 20:58

      ''It all comes under the head 'silencing the critics', an area of the Maddie mystery that will be big news when the story breaks. Who was doing the silencing and why?''

      Who said she was silenced ? You ? Is this the latest addition to your file marked 'it's just obvious'. That file must be overflowing by now.Unlike the one marked 'evidence'.

      Delete
    10. I haven't put forward any hypothesis on Brenda Leyland, ergo I have nothing to avoid.

      The dossier compiled by the McCann family, or was it concerned citizens, was malicious in it's intent. Why was removed following Brenda's death?
      Brenda was to be the first of many, punished with exposure and shame. That was the entire purpose of the Stop the Myths dossier, it was a dot on the card it was going to end in tragedy.

      Unfortunately for the McCanns, it was a turning point with public perception. Most were horrified at what was done to Brenda, even if Martin Brunt and Sky Television couldn't see what they were doing, everyone else could. It's one thing to drag a seedy suspected paedophile out of his home with a hood over his head, quite another to throw a shy, respectable, older lady to the sharks.

      It is understandable that you want to distance the McCanns from that horrendous debacle, but it was all done in their name. The dossier was supplied to the police and Sky new by family or friends on behalf of Gerry and Kate. They wanted a purge of the internet, all those questioning the abduction story silenced. Blogs such as this, closed down.

      Gerry and Kate, like King Canute, think they have powers that no-one else has. The power to vet, approve and control, everything that is said about them. Though to be fair, outside of the internet, they pretty much do. Though the www was a boon to them in the early days, it is too big for anyone to control. The Law makers simply cannot keep up with the advances in technology and there are too many genius hackers, who can bypass anything they bring in, within hours.

      While we have this freedom, and I fear it will be short lived, there will always be those out there driven to take control of others' lives. But it's not really the technology that is the problem, it's human nature. You cannot legislate against human behaviour on the internet, any more than you can in the real world. The dull, the ignorant and the just plain nasty, are all around us, true on the internet they can reach more people to upset, but that is all relative to how their victims react. Sane, stable, people have the good sense to understand the words of some weirdo on the net should not make one iota of difference to the way they lead lives, just ignore them - they don’t care. The fearful however, will build a panic room and spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders. From a troll perspective, it is easy to see which one they would target.

      I don’t think there is anything I hate more than mob justice 04:49, and those who stir up angry crowds. That’s why I despise the cesspit and those activist campaigners who want justice seen to be done. I was as horrified as everyone else when Bennett and his ghastly gang delivered leaflets in the family’s home town. I also despise those who claim to have solved the mystery, that is, sticking their fecking big hooters in where they weren’t wanted. How dare they. I mean how dare they! Grrrr

      I don’t believe Gerry and Kate, and I’m not a great fan of their family and friends, but I wouldn’t dream of snooping into their lives! Who does that kind of thing? I have few complaints about the internet, but the use of it by stalkers and would be peeping toms, gives me the creeps. As a complete narcissist, I have never understood that level of obsession with another person. Ok, maybe as a teen, hiding in the bushes opposite his house, swigging Clandew (neither a whisky nor a wine, but a combination of the two) with a giggly pal watching the comings and goings. Also going the vile contents of a wheelie bin. In my defence, it was pal’s boyfriend we were stalking and we had a getaway car. Must be so much easier now the kids have got Facebook. But I digress. The stirring up of angry mobs is wrong on every level.

      Delete

    11. The feelings on the McCann hashtag have always run high, and Sky news and the tabloids were whipping them up towards fever pitch. See Carol Malone column from that week. It was hoped that Brenda’s family, friends and neighbours would turn against her, that they would see her as an evil woman leading a double life. As we now know, but Brenda sadly didn’t, that presumption completely backfired on them.

      I’m not trying to make a martyr our of Brenda Leyland, in fact I think we had words one time when I refused to back the findings of Richard Hall. It is a tragedy that she didn’t reach out to someone, anyone, especially for her family. The ‘wrong’ in this case lies with those who took a calculated risk to destroy her life in order to silence those online who criticize the McCanns. The message was clear ‘it could be you!’.

      How do I know it’s not the REAL story. I took an educated guess lol. ‘Take out’ may be slang, but I’m more Margaret Rutherford than a Chicago ganster and in the urban dictionary it is used in a multitude of ways. Pongo Twistleton* for example, might say ‘bump him/her ‘orf’, but we know he doesn’t mean it literally.

      I laugh at conspiraloon theories 04:09, that is theories without logic. Conspiracies can and do occur, regularly, many go uncovered, some are uncovered years after the event, but they certainly do exist. The length of time and the amount of money poured into Operation Grange to find one small child, suggests a case of great complexity. Read complexity how you like.

      Delete
    12. 04:57. Err Brenda is dead. You can't get any more silent than that. And had she lived, she would not have posted on the McCann hashtag again. It may, initially, have scared many away.

      Are you taunting me or the police with the 'file marked evidence'? Matters not to me either way, but it seems to make you happy.

      Delete
    13. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 January 2018 at 15:52

      ''I haven't put forward any hypothesis on Brenda Leyland, ergo I have nothing to avoid.''

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 January 2018 at 21:47

      ''Was it really necessary to 'take out' a member of the public so the Madeleine charade could be maintained?''

      Take out ? Can you explain what you meant by that expression ? And I mean a mature, considered answer and not the childish half -hearted ''04:57. Err Brenda is dead. You can't get any more silent than that. ''.

      That's not only in very poor taste ( par for the course of late where you're concerned) but runs counter to the official suicide verdict.

      Delete
    14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 January 2018 at 16:00

      ''Are you taunting me or the police with the 'file marked evidence'? Matters not to me either way, but it seems to make you happy.''

      My post :

      ''Is this the latest addition to your file marked 'it's just obvious'. That file must be overflowing by now.Unlike the one marked 'evidence'.''

      Who am I addressing in the post ?

      Delete
    15. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 January 2018 at 15:54

      ''I laugh at conspiraloon theories 04:09, that is theories without logic. ''

      But you suggest the Brenda Leyland REAL story was murder.Not the official verdict of suicide.
      You suggest the McCanns( or team) have influence over Prime Ministers, Politicians,Forensics and the police forces of two countries and the media.All of the above have come together to shield the McCanns from guilt or blame because they're middle class.None of it would happen if they were from the working class.

      When you're reminded that the Parents are not suspects and that it was announced publicly by the forces of two countries, you say they are probably doing it in order to hide their hand when, in fact( a Ros fact) they could privately be investigating them after 11 years.

      You suggest, because only microscopic samples of blood was found in the apartment( whose ?) , it's a sign that the clean up must have been big as there was more than likely pools of it.

      I could fill a page. But I won't.

      Delete
    16. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 January 2018 at 15:52

      ''The dossier compiled by the McCann family, or was it concerned citizens, was malicious in it's intent.''

      No, it wasn't malicious in it's intent.You take it as malicious as it was a retaliation against thousands of complete strangers broadcasting the alleged guilt of them regarding the disappearance of their daughter and them being responsible for where she ended up.All those who aimed the malice their way had nothing more than suspicious minds and small lives. They were reacting to a news item and event.The parents reacted to their vicious minds and their intention to persecute them.But you call the parents malicious.How dare they not keep quiet and allow maniacs everywhere to spit venom at them.

      (Under the 2003 Communications Act, it is an offence to send messages online that are grossly offensive.)

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/abuse-dossier-kate-gerry-mccann-police-madeleine

      ''It is understandable that you want to distance the McCanns from that horrendous debacle, but it was all done in their name.''

      Some people, when they talk about justice and balance, actually mean it.They don't just repeat it in order to garner some kind of perceived credibility before going on to preach 99% biased and unfounded suppositions and imagined scenarios without considering if any of it could find a leg to stand on in a court of law. They actually walk the walk.The dossier was composed in their name, true. It showed that their was still some well adjusted individuals out there who were prepared to throw stones after a court passed sentence, not before,or to just join a mob who must be right because of their number.The same mob of accusers are throwing stones at the police too, by extension, but they rarely like to enter that avenue of discussion.

      The 'trolling' problem on line, and in particular, on social media platforms, had been a major thorn in the side of Westminster's finest, past and present, for a few years prior to Brenda Leyland's death.The infamous 'twitter war' Lord McCalpine started was arguably a sign of sheer desperation as members of the establishment and their media friends were being exposed one by one.So, what did the Tory crew do ? They passed a bill that acted as a deterrent and a shield in the hope the trolls would grow up.Then McCalpine died, and the queues formed quickly to voice the opinion of just how much the alleged 'defamation' had hastened his own demise as his health was failing. Remove the blinkers so you can join the dots.You'll never see any bigger pictures if you don't.

      Delete
  10. Meanwhile over the Christmas period bennett has been at war with anyone and everyone and has managed to make sure the Police were kept busy over the festive period.

    https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14802-laid-bare-can-someone-explain

    He really doesn't like his cesspit being called a cesspit does he?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, ha ha 23:29, I skim read what Ben wrote and then even faster skim read what Bennett wrote. Ye Gods!

      What an absolute load of nonsense! They must have very dull lives to get worked up about something so trivial. The pair of them bring to mind the old expression 'big girl's blouse', lol. And that they are pestering the police with this playground matter is pathetic.

      Bennett is still trying to pretend he has moral fibre, and a indeed a backbone. He has placed himself up on a higher ground, judging all those he stalks with the passion of a wailing evangelical.

      Completely bonkers of course, but the tiny few who have partaken of the Kool Aid have remained. They get to torture the newcomers and pretend to have the elevated social status to look down on everyone else. Their real identities, they keep carefully hidden. I don't know what they say about me in the members' areas lol, but I imagine it's a lot! I notice MMM still has Cristobell among it's top key words!

      Their pomposity amuses me, but it does make me wonder why those who are the most pompous, have the least to be pompous about.

      And of course, because they are not posting as 'real' people, they can never go off topic ergo the discussion is always, serious, deadly serious, or kill me now. Woe betide anyone trying to enter with sweetness and light!

      I once caused uproar on MMM because I mentioned alcoholism, and one member, catatonic with grief because a friend's neighbour's cousin's niece had died of alcoholism, so could I not discuss the subject again. How do you write for that kind of membership?

      Perhaps I should head my blog, not for readers of a sensitive disposition.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ros,Headlines-When the Proverbial hits the fan?
      I do not know if"Paedophilia" has been part of Madeleine McCann's disappearance,reported as 3 May 2007,by her parents,Kate,Gerry.
      In 2008,Scotland Yard/Interpol,Christophers Story(MI5 Officer) both confirmed Paedophiles were involved with the disappearance,then Scotland Yard/Interpol,stated No involvement of a Paedophile Gang-Fake news or who was right,Ten years later on,with still NO or Yes involvement in the disappearance?
      If half of the stories printed from the News Papers were True from the 1960- 1970's,when PIE were targeting MP's,Lords and Ladies from the House of Common's to support their campaign,to have Sexual relationships with children as young as Ten Years of age,Lord Longford,Boothby(1960's) esquire,show just how long these persons had been wanting or practising illicit activities with Minors?
      Religion has played a vast part in "Covering Up" the Child abuses in Australia,Canada,New Zealand,UK,America,Europe?
      So perhaps it is such a "Corrupt Practice"perpetrated by the Elites to have access to the"Forbidden Fruits",that were it to become exposed to entire Denominations,that it would forever expose the"Hypocrisy" bestowed upon the Plebicites in Society,causing decimation to a"Faith System" that has obviously failed the people it was set up to protect?
      Here in the UK,the entire"Establishment System" is creaking at the seams of abused children being let down by the "Democracy" bestowed upon the incumbents,with over 1400 young girls being "Groomed" by Adults who abused the system,whilst Police Forces tried to state they"Did Not know these activities were taking place"under their own noses,"I couldn't smell the s**t as I was walking up wind at the time?
      These very same Police Forces had been entrusted to"Up Hold the Laws of the Land,by Oath",yet allowed a certain "Brethren"to sway down a different path of obscurity?
      All that is left to say is will the"Government"commit Hari Kari?

      Delete
    3. '' How do you write for that kind of membership?''

      You don't. You just start your own blog as a cheaper imitation.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 January 2018 at 16:34

      ''Ha, ha ha 23:29, I skim read what Ben wrote and then even faster skim read what Bennett wrote. Ye Gods!
      What an absolute load of nonsense! They must have very dull lives to get worked up about something so trivial''

      Ha ha indeed. Perhaps you should go on and on and on about things and people once you've read the full text and not just skim read them. Or is a molehill all you need to build a mountain ? Another one of your many talents.

      Delete
    5. Life is too short to read such drivel. I haven't made a mountain out of a molehill, I simply don't care.

      Delete
    6. It is more serious though than normal playground type insults though, Cristobell. Being accused of sexual assault and other serious offences without a shred of evidence provided would upset most people.

      Jill and Tony have a history of dishing the dirt on anyone who disagrees with them.

      Delete
  11. '' Their real identities, they keep carefully hidden...And of course, because they are not posting as 'real' people, they can never go off topic ergo the discussion is always, serious, deadly serious, or kill me now. ''

    Another old favourite - the criticism of anyone online in the virtual( not real) world not using their 'real' names. Do you need reminding about the fate of Brenda leyland, the woman whose tragic ending you use to your advantage ? She posted for years. Toward the end she was hounded for her name and whereabouts and she tried to throw the brainless hounds of Twitter et al off the scent.Unfortunately, a certain couple of people were given the details on a plate. We know to well the persecution that followed and how it ended. It wasn't 'Sweepyface' who was doorstepped . It was a real woman with a real name and a real family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 17.31,the Identity of"sweepyface"?
      It became quite clear that someone was orchestrated to attack the identity of Mrs Brenda Leyland?
      Mrs Leyland was a Woman who chose to disagree with the"Official"reports of what had happened to Madeleine McCann in Portugal on 3 May 2007,Fact.
      In/on this site,names have been mentioned of a very close affinity to certain persons,who then paid very particular attention to the above named person,RIP,Mrs Leyland. These person's(Sky News Corporation,Martin **nt) were set loose to attack savagely of whose identity was specific to the Twitter,Facebook writer,he,Brunt took grate glee with espousing to the viewers,"Well her Identity isn't a secret anymore,sweepyface@",He hounded his prey then chose to have her revealed to the"Nations" around the world on fifteen minute time slots for hours on end,do not forget these points!
      It is true the UK Police force did investigate the Death of Mrs Brenda Leyland,reported as a possible suicide to the coroner.
      The Metropolitan Police were handed a"dossier"for them to investigate pertaining to close affiliates,aka family members or Martin,but the same Metropolitan Police Force never ever"Identified" the persons directly attacking the now revealed identity of Mrs Leyland,a bit inconvenient Sir Bernard to unmask the"dogs of war"identities,who attacked the deceased person?
      Yes it was a Woman who had a family but was openly attacked for having an"Opinion" as to what had happened to Madeleine McCann,yet was made to suffer persecuted for her beliefs,by a"News Organisation" and its employees,Rupert Murdoch,esq.
      Unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan 31 yrs ago and Government failures,Police legal services,with close affinity to who?

      Delete
    2. Brenda Leyland had her own fears about her real name being exposed, it mattered to her that she kept her identity hidden. Perhaps she said things she would not ordinarily say, if she hadn't used anonymity. Many who use anonymity go much further than they would if they were using their real names. Look at the bad manners and antisocial behaviour in the forums, where the rudeness of the anonymous posters has become 'normal'.

      Brenda was targeted because she, like many, was using an anonymous screen name to voice her opinion on the Madeleine case. It was the anonymity that made her the target. The objective was to name and shame and put the fear of God into every other anonymous critic. The dossier contained named critics, not many it's true, but for myself they had over 100 pages and arguably, what I say about the Madeleine case, is considerably more damaging than anonymous trolls tweeting.

      You are among those imprisoned by your own fear 17:31, you have bought into the ridiculous idea that people who don't agree with you are out to hurt you in some way. Why would people target you if your real name were revealed? What have you said online that would incite violence and persecution? Why are you that important that anyone could be arsed?

      Delete
    3. Well done Ros @ 10:59 - you really can't get much clearer than that. One rule for Brenda Leyland hiding behind anonymity, a different rule for anyone else who is using anonymous!

      PS I am not anon 17:31

      Delete
    4. ''You are among those imprisoned by your own fear 17:31, you have bought into the ridiculous idea that people who don't agree with you are out to hurt you''

      The Child's Guide To Psychology ( available by Amazon, eventually).You make these wild assumptions about people you don't know even though you struggle with things you have available at your fingertips. Don't assume everyone who prefers anonymity online has a fear. Some are sick and tired of the forensic, paranoid scrutiny of every keystroke they make. It's just a one finger salute in the direction of the Big Brother Surveillance boffins.

      '' Why are you that important that anyone could be arsed?''

      Nobody said I was important.But, I accept that you lack adequate resources to control your little nasty streak.Feel better ? I hope so, because as an argument, it fell on it's own arse.

      If you insist on maintaining this distasteful direction of holding up the tragic fate of Brenda Leyland in the hope it will add numbers to the mob and more to blame the parents for, the least you could do, in order to at least appear that you can evaluate in an objective fashion, is actually consider her story.

      Brenda Leyland had her Twitter account from 2010. It's quitest period was 2011 /2012. She moved up a gear in 2013. This was also the year that trolling was mainstream news.Even the senior generation who had little or no interest in the internet were talking about this weird phenomenon and shaking their heads. Post -Savile and various celebrity 'outings' ,occasional snippets about nervous celebrities seeking super injunctions and online talk about all manner of highly positioned politicians dirty secrets, plans were swiftly put in place by the Government.Would they have been implemented if it was only celebrities and online tweeters being angry at the world and each other ? In a nutshell, The McCalpine war against trolling was the preparation for us to understand yet more surveillance. His ailing health was, according to his family, friends, Tories past and present, worsened and the battle scars contributed to his death.The main body of reports discussed trolling more than his actual illness.

      In 2014, Brenda Leyalnd was, apparently, being harassed online about her real name and address.Only she would know the details of those.She could have been anyone, anywhere- couldn't she ?She bluffed and double bluffed.In hindsight, she might have been better off reporting the hounds to Twitter or the Police.But, tragically, she chose to write to David Cameron.She did it privately so her details only went to him - trustworthy, honest, Cameron. She then continued to post about what she perceived about the McCanns. She made no mention of a reply from Cameron. But, five days before she died, Martin Brunt, suddenly started following her on Twitter.Then, the sniffer dog of all sniffer dogs, went to work.The rest, as they say, is Mystery.

      Nine months after McCalpine's death and, a year after his legacy - the defamation act -Brenda Leyalnd was cornered and we can only guess at her state of mind.The legacy for the rest of us should be to recognise that freedom of speech is our right, but using it to bring about substantial damage or pain to someone without having evidence to support it, represents it's limits and the need to have measures in place to curtail the abuse of that right. If allegations can be supported, defamation and libel aren't even on the table. For me, Brenda Leyland was a sort of sacrificial lamb.The defamation bill was met with contempt online.If anything, the tweeters went crazier than before.It had the opposite effect.Something had to happen.The biggest debate online ( UK) was chosen and the ambush took place. It just backfired badly.Very badly.For brief moments following the ending, Brunt had an almost humane look about him.Or was it fear.

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/read-the-deleted-tweets-brenda-leyland-sent-the-mccanns?utm_term=.lsB3vq8q9l#.lqoQ8292g0

      Delete
    5. Are you suggesting the tories were dealing with Jim Gamble to clamp down on trolls? I don't see it tbh, there is no love lost between JG and Theresa May.

      Besides which, if Brenda were a sacrificial lamb for the tories, how come the police weren't interested? They had the dossier but no-one was arrested, not even Brenda.

      You say the Madeleine case was the biggest debate online, possibly, but more likely, the McCann supporters were the only people who compiled a dossier of names. Remember the dossier was created by McCann family members or a group of concerned citizens, not police, not detectives, ordinary people, self appointed vigilantes if you like.

      Whilst the Madeleine case has been used for a lot of political point scoring, I don't believe it was in this case. The whole fiasco was so crude and ill thought out, it's hard to imagine any professional had anything to do with it. No-one for example, considered that the public would be horrified by the sheer cruelty of the attack on Brenda. The planners believed the public would take up arms on behalf of the McCanns and drive their critics off social media.

      I accept that the government using the McCann case to purge the internet of trolls, is not beyond the realms of possibility, but it's unlikely. No sane government would take part in the shock hijacking of an innocent member of the public by a major broadcaster. It would be political suicide. First rule of politics, NEVER attack the public.

      Those of us familiar with this case and the characters involved, know what was behind the planning of Brenda Leyland being denounced as a troll. We even have a pretty good idea of who planned it.

      Delete
    6. ( part 1 of 2 )

      ''Are you suggesting the tories were dealing with Jim Gamble to clamp down on trolls? I don't see it tbh, there is no love lost between JG and Theresa May.''

      I was suggesting the Tories had their own reasons to clamp down on trolls and up their surveillance, regardless of any relationship between Westminster and the Met. Labour would have done the same had they been in power.Surveillance has been high on the agenda for years. That's why we get constant narratives regarding bogeymen with dark skin and suspicious packages lurking on every corner and online.That's their disclaimer.The war on trolling was them being seen to be 'protecting' us again.It was cranked up a few notches once politicians from yesteryear, as well as the present, were being exposed.They ween't waging war with such vigour prior to that. Feelings, privately held or otherwise, by the met about politicians took a back seat.There's a well defined power structure anyway.

      ''Besides which, if Brenda were a sacrificial lamb for the tories, how come the police weren't interested? They had the dossier but no-one was arrested, not even Brenda. ''

      I don't think her becoming a sacrificial lamb was the intention.I don't think she was killed.Had that been an intention, they would never have drawn the publics attention to her via Sky News prior to her death.It's the complete opposite of covert, cloak and dagger operating.That explains why, following her death, every finger pointed at one thing ; she was targeted and 'taken out'. As she, herself, had targeted the McCanns for so long who, in turn, had been receiving attention and protection from the government, everyone added 2 and 2 and the trial and sentence all happened thanks to the online court of public opinion in a matter of minutes.

      While Brenda's tweets often pulled no punches, she did occasionally voice some reason too.She expressed ill wishes, but not threats.Nothing she said was illegal and no crimes committed. She would have had a flimsy defence regarding freedom of speech versus defamation. The updated act added 'substantial' to 'damage to an individual's reputation.That is intended to assist a court in arriving at a verdict.It's my belief that the actual threats made to her online, and the lack of concern showed when she sought protection, led to the helplessness she must have felt.The public, live doorstepping of her would have been enough to amplify that state of mind.Any wish to remain anonymous by name and address disappeared that day.

      Delete
    7. ( part 2 of 2 )


      The dossier may well have been created by a McCann family member.But you don't create a dossier on just one person if you're trying to keep track of so many vigilantes.Don't forget, Brenda made her suspicions clear, as well as her feelings.But other, less eloquent commentators, were far more brutal to the point of sheer undiluted hate speech and personal threats. They were the digital equivalent of the mobs who kick and punch police vans arriving at court carrying those arrested for horrendous crimes.But nobody had been arrested for Madeleine's fate.

      ''it's hard to imagine any professional had anything to do with it... The planners believed the public would take up arms ''

      Who are the planners you refer to here ? And what was their plan ?

      '' First rule of politics, NEVER attack the public. ''

      As I said, it couldn't have been their intention. I don't think they were aware of Brenda's delicate state of mind.They assumed she represented a gang of trolling nutters with the freedom to run around the internet shouting.That's why I said it backfired.She was probably only supposed to serve as a warning to others.

      ''Those of us familiar with this case and the characters involved, know what was behind the planning of Brenda Leyland being denounced as a troll. We even have a pretty good idea of who planned it.''

      You mean you, and those familiar with what you've read ,have your suspicions and that you suspect she was supposed to pay the ultimate price at the behest of the parents. The existence of the dossier was public knowledge.You believe that they'd go public with that and then have a well known anti 'taken out' and not raise suspicion . So we can add contract killing to the litany of crimes the McCanns are guilty of that already includes perverting the course of justice, lying to the investigation, hiding the body of their child, and money laundering.All under the noses, and with the assistance of, the officials that have assisted them at every turn for eleven years. That's an extremely unbalanced, biased, and narrow view, and why none of it can be supported by an iota of evidence should teach you something.Looking at bigger pictures from a few steps back. Doing so offers you a far better view of things.

      ( apologies if this arrived twice.The captcha was playing up on the blog)

      Delete
    8. Let me clear a couple of things up. I have never said Brenda was murdered and I have never said the McCanns took out a 'contract' on her.

      Being named and shamed on Sky rolling news as a heinous internet troll persecuting the family of a missing child could be said by some to be a public execution. It is the kind of defamation no-one can come back from, all without a trial and without any presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Some might say it is justified because that's what Brenda et al were/are doing to the McCanns.

      Brenda of course was just one small voice and her 'defamation' was only reaching a small niche audience, but she represented hundreds of small voices, most of whom were not worth suing individually. With their small audiences the 'damages' would be minimal.

      When you say 'they weren't aware of Brenda's delicate state of mind', by 'they' do you mean HM Government? Or dark/shadowy MI5/6 characters operating puppets? That rule about not attacking the public doesn't have any provisos or room for unknowns, sane politicians and all their advisors know better. That's why none of them criticise the McCanns btw.

      You have got yourself all over excited by my use of the expression 'taken out', lol, going off into a gangster underworld of your own creation, do you have dreams of writing fiction by any chance?

      Your own personal interpretation of my words rarely bears any resemblance to what I actually said. It doesn't bother me, I celebrate creativity, but with your rambling thoughts you often appear to be winding yourself up into a frenzy. You have convinced yourself that I have stated Brenda was murdered, I haven't. You simply got over excited by two words. I'm a writer 02:28, I play with words and language, chucking in oldy worldy and urban slang whenever the mood takes me. And my words often contain hidden subtext, something I am sure my regular readers know and enjoy - it takes the written word to another level. Do you really think I would be so crass as to use 'taken out' in a literal sense?

      Your argument that we should believe the parents because there is NO evidence, isn't true, strictly speaking. There is in fact, a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence and of course, the tiles, curtains and whatever else was gathered from the Apartment 5A. The evidence might not be enough for a prosecution, but it is disingenuous to say there isn't any. Suspicion hangs over Gerry and Kate because there is much to be suspicious about.

      Whether rightly or wrongly, when people are falsely accused of something, they immediately produce evidence that prove the accusations false. Gerry and Kate have had plenty of time and ample opportunity to prove their innocence and silence their critics once and for all.

      I acknowledge that legally they are not obliged to do that, and morally the 'why should we' argument carries some weight. But for their own peace of mind and well being, it would stop the malicious gossip.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 January 2018 at 08:41

      ''Let me clear a couple of things up. I have never said Brenda was murdered and I have never said the McCanns took out a 'contract' on her. ''

      I was speaking generally about those who prefer terms like 'taken out' which implies a deliberate act, however you read it.

      ''When you say 'they weren't aware of Brenda's delicate state of mind', by 'they' do you mean HM Government? Or dark/shadowy MI5/6 characters operating puppets?''

      I was speakning about those who decided it would be a good idea to pick out a troll to publicly humiliate and foment bad feeling toward.The people who then designed which way to carry it out.

      ''You have got yourself all over excited by my use of the expression 'taken out', lol, going off into a gangster underworld of your own creation, do you have dreams of writing fiction by any chance?''

      What, in the context of this area of discussion, does 'taken out' mean ? Officially it's a suicide. Generally, online, it's a target who was hunted out . I have dreams of being able to clarify the difference between fiction and fact for those hammering them back to front. it's a thankless task. it's like talking to a wall one brick at a time.

      ''I celebrate creativity, but with your rambling thoughts you often appear to be winding yourself up into a frenzy. ''

      You celebrate rudeness and fiction.Somebody died.It wasn't creativity.My rambling thoughts are clearly expressed and unambiguous and I always answer any queries about them. You rarely do the same once your own rambling thoughts find the page.A sure sign of a dilettante with a specific agenda.

      ''Your argument that we should believe the parents because there is NO evidence, isn't true, strictly speaking.''

      There's an example. I didn't say we should believe the parents. I often say they're innocent until proven guilty.That's the law.If the 'no evidence' isn't strictly true, what's happened to it ?Your argument that we should believe an embittered former detective is weak. According to him, she died in the apartment.She was hidden inside the coffin of somebody about to be cremated.Then they hid the body after driving it somewhere.Or she could be in a well.He can't support any of his guesses but it sells books to a particular kind of reader.

      '' Gerry and Kate have had plenty of time and ample opportunity to prove their innocence and silence their critics once and for all. ''

      They did it.But their critics can't - or won't - accept it.Two police forces could have proved all their accusers correct. The parents said their child had been taken.The police haven't found anything to say they're lying.

      ''. But for their own peace of mind and well being, it would stop the malicious gossip.''

      They did it.But they can't stop malicious people. Malicious people will still be malicious people even if this case was to be solved. That's human nature, unfortunately.

      ''The evidence might not be enough for a prosecution, but it is disingenuous to say there isn't any''

      It hasn't gone anywhere in 11 years. Amaral is disingenuous ; he used his position to mislead and profit. Had his assertions ever amounted to anything, he'd be a hero. But he's just an author now.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous at 04:49
    (“I would suggest you and your readers go through your posts where you refer to Brenda Leyland and see the proximity of the name 'McCann' to her name.”)

    There’s no need, just read Gerry McCann.

    “I think we probably need more people charged.” – Gerry McCann

    “And I’ve got grave concerns about our children as they grow up and start to access the internet in an unsupervised capacity.” – Gerry McCann

    You reap what you sow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''There’s no need, just read Gerry McCann.''

      Can you explain how reading Gerry McCann would illustrate how Ros uses Brenda Leyland's fate and the names of the McCanns in such close proximity ?

      ''“I think we probably need more people charged.” – Gerry McCann''

      Charged isn't 'hit' or 'taken out' is it. It's charged with libel. Read up on the Bill passed in 2013. It was brought about as a reaction to years of halfwitted Twitter fanatics that had no self control. Their idiocy ushered in the need for even more surveillance than we already had.
      “And I’ve got grave concerns about our children as they grow up and start to access the internet in an unsupervised capacity.” – Gerry McCann
      You reap what you sow.''

      Was that pithy one liner sign off intended to show contempt to Brenda Leyland's memory.Or was that just a happy coincidence typed by a hater ? It just sort of comes naturally to you and the rest now doesn't it. I hope none of her family spend time reading the filth.

      Delete
    2. 20:46 "I hope none of her family spend time reading the filth."

      Kate McCann: “We are aware of things that get said because people alert us to them.”

      Delete
    3. Yes, but the post was talking about the family of Brenda Leyland.

      Delete
    4. The subject was the proximity of the name McCann to BL.

      Delete
    5. The point made was the proximity of the names within a paragraph typed by Ros for a deliberate effect.

      Delete
  13. Hey Ros - a new forum has opened - maybe you could try your luck there?

    http://thediscussionforum.forumotion.com/f1-the-mccann-case

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't bother unless you enjoy a continuous criticism of the justice forum.

      Perhaps they could shake things up by harping on about some of the nasty, ridiculous posts over at Haverns.

      Delete
  14. You are spot on about MMM cristobell.
    That is why MMM is now down to around three contributors namely Nurse Ratched,her gatekeeper Dopey and the self absorbed wee Jimmy Krankie impersonator,Chirpy the Hobbit.
    A wasted opportunity to debunk the McCann lies and Bennett bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 01:02

      It's better than having drunken idiots posting on there isn't it.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous3 January 2018 at 01:12

    ''A wasted opportunity to debunk the McCann lies and Bennett bullshit.''

    You debunk lies by illustrating why they're lies . It's not good enough to merely call information lies if you can't demonstrate why they are.Suspicion is just gossip.The police haven't debunked their lies in 11 years.Sooner or later, it will have to be admitted, like it or not, that maybe they might not actually be lies and the reason that it was announced that they are not suspects is because of that. Alternatively, when you fail to back up any suspicions ( which is inevitable if you check the calendar), you could turn the amateur sleuthing eyes in the direction of everyone suspected of covering up on the parents' behalf,From the PMs down. Explain how they covered up, why they covered up, and what they covered up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @2.34 .........
    Jane Tanner is now cooperating with the police.
    I am sure she will explain how,why and when.
    Not long now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 05.01 @01:19

      "Jane Tanner is now cooperating with the police."

      Would you be so kind as to give some details of Jane Tanner’s now cooperating with the police please. A link would do very nicely.

      Thanks.

      T

      Delete
    2. Yes, that got a 'wow' from me. It has come from John Blacksmith 'T', who has left us with a teaser as to what's in store.

      Hypothetically JT has more to fear than most. She provided the sighting that was the only evidence of stranger abduction. Scotland Yard did at least take Tannerman out of the equation. Not by disproving what JT said, but by giving him a valid reason to be walking at night with a child in his arms. Tbh, it was at that point I thought JT was co-operating. Crecheman was real, she wasn't a liar. It sounded a bit like a plea deal.

      But respect to JB, he doesn't make stuff up for sensational reasons, he has always stuck to 'what we know', like myself, he gives no credence to the weird scenarios and imaginings of delusional armchair detectives. It will be interesting to see how this develops.


      http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

      Delete
    3. '' not long now''

      The most quoted line over eleven short years.Listen to the demons pray lol

      Delete
    4. @11:43

      Thank you for the link, Rosalinda. I didn’t realise that JB had returned, nor did I put my question well enough. No matter now.

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 5 January 2018 at 10:14

      I think now I see you point.:)

      Thanks.

      T

      Delete
    6. ...don't forget the 10 years of tick tock.

      Methinks the McCanns should consider career changes as master crims.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 January 2018 at 11:43


      ''Yes, that got a 'wow' from me. It has come from John Blacksmith 'T', who has left us with a teaser as to what's in store.''

      Teaser or wild guess ? It's easy to 'wow' you Ros. All you need is the names of the McCanns and Tapas group and some suspicion.

      '''' he doesn't make stuff up for sensational reasons''

      Can you explain this guess then :

      ''''What clearly has been determined with certainty is that no abduction ever took place. Kate McCann has never claimed the slightest eye-witness evidence of an intruder, only that "I knew that she had been taken".

      She knew she had been taken because she wasn't there any longer.But because nobody saw an abductor it wasn't an abduction.Because abductors only perform for audiences.

      I, like many, look forward to this latest revelation. But let's not hold our breath.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 5 January 2018 at 13:34

      Not long = As long as a piece of string perhaps.

      Not keen on demons and prayers. My hearing is not very good anyway.:)

      T

      Delete
    9. 05.01 @01:19

      "Jane Tanner is now cooperating with the police."

      ''Would you be so kind as to give some details of Jane Tanner’s now cooperating with the police please. A link would do very nicely.''

      Yes, a link would be a good idea.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous5 January 2018 at 14:29

      ''...don't forget the 10 years of tick tock.
      Methinks the McCanns should consider career changes as master crims.''

      Then again, if that sideswipe ever proves to be warranted, they already have.Der.

      Delete
  17. Rosalinda

    I posted twice yesterday afternoon. Could you check please.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi T, nothing in my spam box, but I did read a couple of very interesting published posts by yourself around 6am (ish), I was woken by the sound of birds tweeting :) I think they were on the 'Puzzle' blog. You were having (winning) a great debate with an 'anonymous' and making some great points. I was tempted to step in with a bravo, but I didn't want to distract from what you were saying!

      I'm on the hard stuff (coffee) now, and will go take another look :)

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda @08:59

      The fault was entirely mine. My 'hard staff' could've been spiked. More likely though, I was just being silly.

      Many thanks.

      T:)

      Delete
    3. I wish mine had been spiked, lol. A friend popped in yesterday and gave me a very posh half bottle of Prosecco to cheer me up, bless her. She wasn't specific as when the cheering up should occur, so I have waited until noon, as I believe etiquette dictates? On the willpower front, it was opened at 12.01 precisely! ;)

      I may be entirely wrong there on the etiquette front of course, Winston Churchill, the Aristocracy and High Court Judges are renowned for starting the day with a quick snifter. In fact, they find occasion for a quick snifter on the hour, every hour. I once read the alcohol intake of Winston Churchill (or was it a High Court Judge)who drank enough to souse several shiploads of herrings each day.

      As an Earl of the Realm, this must be something you are familiar with T, who doesn't wake up to a Bucks Fizz?

      12.19am Am now halfway through my half bottle and ready to sing Oh Flower of Scotland, hic. I get very nationalist at this time of year, but I'm never really sure what nationality I am. My blood I would say, is pure Celt. Scottish Father, Irish Mother, but I was born in London. It upsets me that I cannot relate fully to 'I vow to thee my country' (which I love), because I don't really have one. I wonder how that would stand me if I ever found myself in the position of being a Countess? And would we get a spot on the balcony? lol. I can do the royal wave, but my curtsying will take a bit of work, especially if I partake of a gin and dubonnet (very likely), but worry not, I will ensure I don't land on any of the corgis.

      On the plus side, I can flip between the three. The mad Irish woman is the one who has the most fun, and the one I cannot, and have given up trying, to suppress. I am sure when my beloved mother passed over, much of her spirit jumped into me! It felt spiritual, but it had a logical explanation. I was 'free' to be just like her! Her personality was show stopping, without going too Freudian, I was living in her shadow. She had the courage to be herself. I didn't.

      Her passing gave me permission to 'use all her gags', mimic her exaggerated body language, and laugh as loudly as she did. Apparently, all the things I scolded her for, I wanted to do myself! But I don't want to be maudlin, or biased, I can sing Flower of Scotland as well as I can sing Oh Danny Boy. Both of which I have been advised to avoid unless locked in a soundproof box, perched on a cliff in the middle of nowhere. Ps. Wildlife authorities should be notified with all foxes, badgers and small rodents, issued with ear plugs.

      12:47, now looking up Jim Reeves songs.

      12:49, thinking about whipping up a cheese soufflé.

      12:55, bottle empty, having a peanut butter sandwich :)


      Ps. Feel I should have danced the night away on that delightful couple of glasses, but giggling nevertheless!

      Delete
  18. 2 January 2018 at 19:34 et seq.

    Proximity.

    Bernard Hogan-Howe:

    “But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team who are investigating or reviewing the murder of, sorry, reviewing the missing girl, the McCann daughter, the file was handed to that team and we were liaising with Leicestershire police which is where the McCann family live, and as sadly it turned out, possibly the person who was trolling or abusing people may well have been. So the file was in the process of being considered partly by the Met, partly by Leicestershire, but was likely to have been dealt with by Leicestershire police, not by the Met.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the same Leicestershire Police Force,who "Assisted"the family in May 2007,never unearthed the nasty pernicious tweets directed to Mrs Brenda Leyland accont before Mrs Leyland made her fateful decision?
      As neither Leicsetershire Police or the Metropolitan Police Service have convicted any person's for directing,harassing,vindictive insults to"Sweepyface@"account,they never existed then,you know the ones the public had reproduced,but you never investigated,why was that Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,close affinity to Professor Gerald,dossier?

      Delete
    2. 2 Oct 2014

      @skymartinbrunt I repeat (4th time today) WHO GAVE YOU THE ADDRESS OF SWEEPYFACE? #AskBrunt

      Martin Brunt ‏@skymartinbrunt
      Nobody. I found it from public information sources.

      https://twitter.com/FTMBezza/status/517924622155939840


      20 March 2015

      “Mr Brunt told the hearing at Leicester Town Hall how he discovered Mrs Leyland’s identity after being handed the dossier by a third party.”

      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-sky-news-journalist-5371486

      Delete
    3. A third part who also had her name and address. The only person who was privy to those was the one who was in receipt of them from Brenda Leyland, herself. David Cameron, friend of Rebekah Brooks, Mathew Freud and Murdoch. She might just as well have sent them to Sky, directly.

      Delete
  19. Prof Gerry McCann(laugh)ia really unlucky.His daughter was "abducted" in 2007 by someone who looked like Gerry and also wore the same clothes as Gerry.
    It turns out Gerry's mate may like young children if Dr Gaspar is to be believed(unluckily for Gerry she is believed).
    Around ten years earlier in the mid nineties when the learned Gerry was club doctor at Celtic F.C. Glasgow: INTER ALIA,
    Lawrence Haggart youth team player was targeted and murdered by Brian Beattie a known paedophile;
    Celtic kitman of ten years Jim McCafferty was abusing boys at the club for ten years and is currently in jail in Belfast awaiting trial;
    Jim Torbett was in his second spell of abusing boys at the club and awaits trial in Glasgow soon this year;
    Club photographer of 20 years John Cullen was storing thousands of mages of abused images in his locker at Celtic stadium for which he was convicted;
    There is more to follow with the trials shortly of Frank Cairney and Gerald King part of the boys club set up.

    McCafferty and Torbett left the club in 1996 around the same time prof Gerry made a sharp exit for England.

    Unlucky timing by your man Gerry or simply unlucky to have been employed at Celtic.
    Either way he was unlucky.

    Anyone looking for a link to the above facts just put the above names into Google and you'll be sorted.

    Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what a delightfully hateful rant :)

      Did you know that Gaspar's own husband doesn't buy her imaginative nonsense ? What has Celtic Football Club to do with the disappearance of the child. Are you a nutcase ?

      Delete
    2. Very interesting that all that child abuse was going on at celtic when GM worked there.

      Delete
    3. ''Very interesting that all that child abuse was going on at celtic when GM worked there.''

      Why ?

      Delete
    4. Why?
      Join the dots Sherlock.

      Delete
    5. 20:57 - so I take it that you are on speaking terms with Mr Gaspar and he has told you personally that he 'doesn't buy his wife's imaginitive nonsemse?'

      Delete
    6. anon 13 56

      There are no dots to join, fool. You're trying to imply Gerry McCann had an involvement in paedophile activities allegedly connected to Celtic FC. Why ?

      anon 20:57

      I don't have to be on speaking terms with the Gaspars to read both statements, I just need to have the ability to read them. You should read them to before you try getting smart.

      Delete
  20. the infamous lawyers letter and someone breaking the "pact of silence" has once again reared its head on haverns by the canadian varnisher.

    She needs to look no further than the chief lying propaganda idiot Levy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blacksmith has stated on more than one occasion he has no inside information, yet still pops up with insinuations and wishful thinking.

    I wonder why possible evidence could have been lost..

    https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/preserving-that-crime-scene/

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm sure you're wondering. As someone who appears to think that Brenda Ryan - Brenda Ryan! - is an authority on the 5A crime scene you must be wondering about everything all the time.

    Now, tell us: are you stating that Jane Tanner is not co-operating with Scotland Yard? And can you tell us why that would be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said Scotland Yard is even talking to Tanner apart from you ? Are you trying to give the impression that you're 'on the inside' ?

      Delete
  23. There is not a shred of evidence to support the assumption JT has cooperated with OG. Wishful thinking perhaps but evidence not a jot.

    OG with its 30 plus highly trained detectives (supposedly) examined her story in detail and found the man she stated she saw was an innocent holidaymaker, taking his child home from the crèche.

    Does anybody seriously expect Scotland Yard to say they got it all wrong and JT is a liar.

    Redwood and OG made JT the most reliable eyewitness in the history of crime.

    If she was the weak link, she is now cast iron. Fully endorsed by the British police.

    Tanner has had nothing to fear since the 4th May 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous 25 December 2017 at 23:26
    Anonymous 28 December 2017 at 20:31

    Milord

    I apologise for the delay in replying. Yesterday, I posted twice on another thread for your attention. I meant to post it here. Please don’t be too hard on me.

    The links to my two posts:

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/puzzle-returned-unsolved.html?showComment=1515084628119#c3236545129028293189
    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/puzzle-returned-unsolved.html?showComment=1515085874855#c1992532095996396424

    I’ll be glad to hear from you if you feel like commenting.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @04:28

      Milord

      I’m most grateful and shall respond in due course.

      T

      Delete
  25. So blacksmith proclaims: ""Jane Tanner is now cooperating with the police.""

    Just like he proclaimed that Murat was suing Tanner then?
    -----------------------------------------------
    Quote:
    Sunday, 8 August 2010
    "Jane Tanner Again
    By John Blacksmith

    Those attempting to follow the rather muted court proceedings involving Robert Murat and Jane Tanner may be interested in a little more background regarding the events that prompted them. Just how much comfort the outcome will bring to those interested in the facts of the McCann affair and the possibility of truth emerging, however, is
    another matter.The complaint by Mr Murat is a criminal, not a civil, one of “calumnious denunciation”. From that marvel of infinite flexibility, the Portuguese Penal Code, we learn that anyone “who by any means, before the authority or publicly, with the knowledge of falsity of the imputation, denounces or casts upon a determined person the suspicion of the practice of crime, with intent that against her it is placed a legal proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years or with a fine.” "

    etc etc
    ------------------------------------------------------
    oh really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God knows why Amaral didn't get 5 years then, reading that rot.Then again, it might explain why the judge seemed to talk total drivel when making her ruling.

      Delete
  26. I really think you should do a little more research on that one. Start with the Portuguese court listings for Murat .v. Tanner and go on from there. It’s a very convoluted path but it’s your problem, not mine.

    Look, I don’t want to convince you, or people like you, of anything: those days ended when Amaral won his case in the Supreme Court and the job was done. The main lines of the evidence in the Affair are now crystal clear and rock solid – to such an extent that I ended the Bureau’s involvement last year because the McCann problem honestly doesn’t present an intellectual challenge any more.

    There is a part of me that wants to say to you and others who fell so foolishly for a complete fantasy – please go on believing in it right up to the bitter end so that your eventual discomfiture will be all the more painful for you. That is something I am ashamed of because it is a very un-Christian attitude, but there we are, that’s the moral poison that the McCanns began producing, unintentionally no doubt, with the MSM on May 4 2007 and to which I have not been immune. Still, I'm not saying it.

    Happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you could help us out here with the court listing?

      Or maybe it never got off the ground, due to the fact it was a possible illegal act to make an id from a van -

      Delete
    2. As expected LOL.

      Delete
    3. ''The main lines of the evidence in the Affair are now crystal clear and rock solid – to such an extent that I ended the Bureau’s involvement last year because the McCann problem honestly doesn’t present an intellectual challenge any more.''

      If you think that an eleven year mystery that hasn't been solved despite the efforts of two police forces that have, at times, worked as a joint force, has lines that are 'crystal clear and rock solid', and cite Amaral's 'The Truth Of The Libel ' as your evidence, perhaps it's too big an intellectual challenge. Or are you implying that everyone involved in the investigation is a liar, or that they merely lack your lightning insight ?

      Delete
    4. JB :

      '' The main lines of the evidence in the Affair are now crystal clear and rock solid – to such an extent that I ended the Bureau’s ''

      Meantime on Planet earth...You're not actually Eliot Ness and the 'Bureau' is just a blog, and you're a blogger. Try to stay grounded. You're online, remember.

      Delete
  27. Is this the new trend starting now lol Another landmark approaches( end of OG) and it's time to see what we can salvage from the bad dream factory.No more new leads, no more sightings, no more crucial witnesses. Instead we'll go through the tapas group one by one and say what's been said a thousand times. What will happen ? If a large enough gathering chant the same mantra will it magic an answer up this time ? Number 1, Jane Tanner. let's see where this line of fantasy and wishful thinking leads. The experts who have read the case longer than the rest proclaim they therefore have some kind of superior knowledge and insight than the mere mortals who sit at their collective knees in awe. And what do they learn ? They learn that it's a comfortable seat to listen to endless stories and fantasizing . That's about it. The 'big guns' online will continue down this merry path as they compete to be the Pied Piper of loons. They count every 'follow' online as evidence that they deserve that crown. Call it a draw people, and let's move along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 03:32
      "Call it a draw people, and let's move along."

      Practice what you preach.

      Delete
    2. I don't preach, I teach. It's not my fault the classroom here is unruly and won't behave.

      Delete
    3. 16:59

      All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

      Delete
    4. And comfortably numb, thanks ;-)

      Delete
  28. oh look Ros - CMoMM are giving you advice:

    "by MayMuse Today at 1:29
    Rosalind Hutton should let her heart go out to Brenda Leyland and her family and not a sky news hounder journalist who blatantly and appallingly harassed and pushed and played a hand in Brenda's untimely death! Does she really think that MB didn't know what he was doing? He knew darn well the "game" he had to play all in the name of McCann and not at all for Madeleine. I am as sick today as I was October 2014.........Shame on RH and all those who relish in, and who have profited, yes profited at Brenda's demise , shame on them all!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL 10:34, I'm delighted to have given MayMuse something to be sickened about. I feel for the permanently sickened, what do they do on a bad news day?

      As for profiting from Brenda's demise, in what way am I profiting? Is everyone who has an opinion on what happened to Brenda profiting? Or just me?

      MayMuse I suspect, suffers from the same terror as Brenda, that is, fear of her real identity being revealed. I sympathise with Brenda that her fear overtook logic and reason, and I can see why Maymuse would feel closer to her tragedy than I.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ros,Maymuse,Martin **nt?
      It wasn't"Fear or Logic"that over took Mrs Brenda Leyland,it was the"Parasite"who posed as a"Good Friend to RM"caught by surveilance,phone tapping of"Not breaking the (contract-?) Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
      You know,Martin,who revealed Sweepy@face account to the World Sky News Corporation on 15 Minute intervals for Hours on End,after having heard a personal request from Mrs Brenda Leyland,He Martin still went ahead with the Story,then claimed it was "In the Public interest"as a journalist!
      Yes the same "Martin"who is now the expert on Madeleine McCann,caught up in this tawdry event,he has had his"Thirty pieces of silver"he is part of Rupert's seedy underlings!
      Ask your selves one question,How is it possible for Martin to have such confidences from Operation Grange,Colin Sutton and Never been Questioned on the record of the connection of the contract that he was involved with,did this involve Brian Kennendy,Murats Lawyers,offer of a job?
      So someone paid or fulfilled the Contract,was this to be the"Fall Guy,Patsy"in Madeleine's disappearance?

      Delete
    3. Ros 11:25
      "As for profiting from Brenda's demise, in what way am I profiting? Is everyone who has an opinion on what happened to Brenda profiting? Or just me?"
      -----------------------------------------

      Maybe just people with donate buttons?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 16:12

      For sure, persons like you who take advantage of another's hospitality without sharing in the responsibility involved.

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 January 2018 at 11:25

      How nice of you to delight in somebody being sickened. You really are becoming more generous with regard to how willing you are of late to spread your hatred more evenly. You continue to become more endearing by the post.

      I can see the point made by May Muse which you are choosing not to. As is usual for you, once you have even the smallest chance of being able to attribute something horrible to the the parents of Madeleine, nothing, and nobody, will stop you. It makes no difference how little substance your claims have - another habit of yours - as long as you can promote your little crusade . You may not profit financially, but you benefit if your purpose is served.That amounts to some bizarre little emotional profit. This latest effort has the passing of Brenda Leyland as your tool of choice. It may not be up there with your recent defence of imprisoned paedophiles, and their choice of online pastime in terms of bad taste (and even worse judgement), but it isn't far behind.

      When did Martin Brunt become so sweet and innocent in your mind ? You can't publish your disgust of his intrusive ambushing of Brenda in one breath, then package him as an innocent and oblivious pawn in someone else's game in the next, just to suit whichever dark little cloud is passing through your head and driving you on. And the ageing chestnut about people being in fear so posting as anonymous ? Is that really the best you have ? What the poster said in her text was logical and reasonable. So, naturally, you kick back and lash out. Somebody didn't agree with you - that's bad.They used logic and reason - that's red rag to a bull. It's exchanges like this that simultaneously reveal your true colours and nature, and destroy the contrived image you constantly attempt to convey here.

      Delete
    6. I have no respect for the shocked, the sickened, the outraged and the sanctimonious, especially those piggy backing on the tragedy of others in the cesspit and MMM.

      MayMuse lives in fear, you live in fear, if you didn't you wouldn't be hiding behind anonymity to post your insults and abuse. You might not like what I say, but I've got the guts to say it in my own name.

      I'm sorry you were not able to understand the meaning behind my words, but I don't care enough to explain.

      Delete
    7. Again with the fear. I remind you that we're in a virtual situation when we're online.part of the lure is it's ability to cloak you when you want to post vileness and derogatory remarks to and about anyone as you can avoid recrimination. You've said as much yourself. If this unimaginative argument about anonymity equaling fear is something you are set on saying, perhaps you should examine what each 'anon' actually says.If they make accusatory, slanderous or flagrant lies, then your argument has some credence.If they don't have any of those, and are just voicing opinions and explaining the thinking behind it, where is the fear ? Why would they be in fear of anything or anyone ? As for myself, I find the online warrior types who type feverishly and aim juvenile insults and accusations at whoever they feel deserves it,beneath contempt and unworthy of serious attention. I tend to treat ignorance with ignorance. Should one repeatedly aim such garbage in my direction I'll go as far as to ask why they seem so determined.Personal is personal ; this is virtual. I'm always happy to oblige somebody who can't let things go by allowing them the opportunity to remove the cloak and continue their nonsense within arms length.

      I don't think respect is what the shocked and sickened require.I'd suggest understanding and empathy is more important.That's possibly why it goes over your head. Why is it sanctimonious to disagree with you by the way ? And piggybacking on the tragedy of others is wrong wherever it happens, not just in places you hold a grudge against.

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous6 January 2018 at 14:33


      I'm not sure what your post is about. The question marks confuse me. What contract are you talking about exactly ? The only contract that seems to connect Brunt to anything seems to be the one Murat had to translate for the PJ.The discussed telephone conversations between Brunt /Murat / Mrs Murat seem to confirm this.How and why got hold of Murat seems to have been swept under th carpet.He had nothing to do with the McCanns and friends.But he was up close and personal with the PJ and abusing the privilege by trying to look through files and paper that were not part of a translators remit. He was also asking detectives how the investigation was going and what direction it would be going next.What does that have to do with translating ? He became suspect number one soon after, understandably.He had to resort to dropping 'teasers' to Brunt and a certain journalist off the record thereafter.Just like Brunt broke the bombshell that KM was about to be offered a plea deal which never came to be.Planting seeds and waiting for them to yield a harvest of anti McCann fruit was their game .Lovely characters.

      Talk of other contracts and a patsy have escaped my attention.Care to elaborate ?

      Delete
    9. Hi Anon 23.50,I had posted a reply but it must have been lost.
      Martin Brunt was caught by Telephone tapping interceding with Mrs Murat and her son Robert,they were discussing the legality of a Contract and being within the bands of not breaking the law in Portugal,Martin brunt was working for Sky News Corporation!
      How can you state he(RM) had Nothing to do with the McCann's,when he had been introduced to Gerry on the 4 May 2007 by Russell O'Brien,Stephen Carpenter,whose Wife happened to summon help from the Night Creche on 3 May 2007?
      It was only when(RM)had been fingered by Lori Campbell,(clarences side kick) and the Three Tapas people stated seeing RM out side of the Apartment on the Evening of the disappearance of Madeleine?
      so how can You stae No Connection to the McCann's,when Martin Brunt was dealing with Philomena McCann as to whether Kate would be charged by Portugal PJ,it's even on video.
      Have you heard of Lee Harvey Oswald who fired three rounds of ammunition into President JFK November 1963 from the book Store!

      Delete
    10. Thanks. I was only asking you to clarify a few points.

      What I meant about Murat having nothing to do with the McCanns was that he wasn't one of their circle of friends. They were there on holiday, whereas he was living there already.Had there been a relationship between them, I'm sure at least one of the investiagtions would have pressed the point. All I've seen of that area is the McCanns being asked by a reporter. Reporters aren't conducting the investigation. They may be using it to shape the way the public perceive it( and the McCanns ) but that's a side show, not the main attraction.

      I'm aware of the reported telephone conversations between Murdoch's puppet Brunt and trustworthy, transparent Murat. I alluded to it myself. it amazes me how so much covert James Bond style phone tapping and internet activity tracking has occured and nothing been learned or, when the very nature of it being so supsicious, nothing has been pursued with any meaningful effort, and nobody sued, The only court action has been for the Murat character and a few of the tapas group being paid off for the so-called libel against them commited by the press.

      I'm not sure of your reference to JFK. I'm guessing you're alluding to the obvious cover up of that event and that similar has ocurred in the McCann case. I tend to agree that a conspiracy is a major part of the case and the only reason that would explain, satisfactorily, why the truth won't be allowed to see the light of day. I'd venture that Murat isn't the Oswald here, but the McCanns are. But, unlike Oswald, they have been allowed a voice and protection and were not alone when the event took place. Who knows, if May ever manages to find the exit out of Europe, lips might loosen. You never know.If not, the 11 year impasse will remain.

      Delete
    11. I commend your eloquence 17:22, but two police forces don't plough money and resources into a case that is going nowhere. The idea is absurd. Both forces would be laughing stocks, and questions would be asked about the money wasted.

      An 11 year impasse just ain't gonna happen.

      Delete
    12. ''An 11 year impasse just ain't gonna happen.''

      You've been posting ''things coming to a close soon'' posts for years now. You were wrong. Why are you right now ?A lot of aspects of this case are absurd, not just the costing.I have to remind you of a small but important point. police forces don't plough money into anything until their Government gives them it to plough. So who are the real laughing stocks ? Those who spend it on rubbish ? Or those who keep funding those who keep spending it on rubbish. Governments never waste money on anything they can't profit from.They rarely make a bad investment, if ever at all . The returns are not always financial .

      The 11 year impasse is happening right now. Unless you can share with everyone why it isn't. The board and pieces will be put away soon.The 12 year impasse won't happen then.

      Delete
  29. Continuing the positive note for 2018, everybody, a word about Ros. Just going on what she writes here it is quite obvious why her enemies underestimate her: underneath the dippiness and willingness to be open about her feelings, vices etc. she has a diamond-hard kernel of shrewdness that can never be taught, only learned, and that once learned can never be lost.

    My assumption is that Ros got that shrewdness through a very bitter struggle for survival as a youngster but I may be wrong. Whatever, once you’ve developed it you can never be taken in by motivated bullshit again – except, as with all of us,in the matter of love. The shrewdness long ago told her, as a matter of certainty, that the McCanns were toxic bullshitters. From that all else flows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''The shrewdness long ago told her, as a matter of certainty, that the McCanns were toxic bullshitters. From that all else flows. ''

      And flow it certainly does.

      All very poetic, I'm sure. But, as is par here, an interpretation and opinion or two. An unfortunate mutual appreciation episode.

      Delete
    2. @ blacksmith 14:40

      Are you accusing the Mccanns of lying?

      Delete
    3. @ anon 17 :11

      I think it's more a case of the usual - ie, anyone who thinks differently from him is a 'bullshitter'' or 'liar'' and that the whole world thinks the McCann case is mysterious because they don't have his intellectual prowess( cough). Only JB gets to say who is lying, who is telling the truth, what really happened and why he is unrivaled as both detective and commentator. I'm not lying about this, ask him.

      Delete
    4. john blacksmith6 January 2018 at 14:40

      ''Continuing the positive note for 2018''

      What did you mean there by 'continuing from' and why did the two paragraphs that followed have no positive note.

      Delete
    5. BS sounds more and more like coldwater mk2.

      He must have been dabbling with his sources.

      Delete
    6. or 'sauces' :)

      Delete
    7. Happy New Year to you John, and yes, you are spot on, once learned never forgotten.

      I wanted to call my misery memoir (groan) the Invulnerable Child. It's actually a generic term that applies to 'street smart' kids who have to learn survival techniques a lot earlier than most.

      One of my heroes, Charlie Chaplin was referred to as 'An Invulnerable Child' in an essay by Freud, he had personal experience of living on the streets and entertaining people for pennies. He went for laughs, not tears.

      I did a dissertation on Mr. Chaplin as part of my degree course. I was delighted when I found, he too had a mad mother! And I am pretty sure I was born in the same house as him in Brixton.

      Whilst many careleavers remain traumatized and damaged throughout their lives, an invulnerable child, and there aren't many, will thrive, they learn at a very early age how to win friends and influence people.

      And they also develop a sixth sense, an extra sense developed by children and young people who have been in 'care'. People like myself who can see straight through certain people and they know it.

      Delete
  30. @23.46 5th January above:

    There was a thread on CMOMM around the year 2010/2011 started by the poster Ultimathule which discussed Gerry McCann before he went to work in England around 1996.
    This concerned his time working at the Western Infirmary,Glasgow
    and his time at Celtic F.C.
    A fellow student described him as having "dead eyes,cold like a shark".The only other person from that time prepared to say they knew Gerry described him as "calculating".
    There was also a link to an interview with Celtic physio Brian Scott in the News of the World.He said Gerry would give a medical to all new players and youths coming through the ranks.
    He said Gerry was really interested in all the boys and wanted to know all about them.Scott believed that was because Gerry was a Celtic fan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous6 January 2018 at 14:46

      You are coming very very close to making serious unfounded allegations against Gerry Mccann and I am very surprised that Ros allows your type of comment.

      Delete
    2. @
      Anonymous6 January 2018 at 16:23

      Leave him alone.He's enjoying himself.

      Delete
    3. Celtic-daft dad 'was a real pro'

      The News of the World (Scotland)
      13 May 2007

      FORMER colleagues of Gerry McCann last night paid tribute to the "professional" and "talented" cardiologist.

      Ex-Celtic physio Brian Scott worked with Maddie's dad at the club in the mid 90s - and told how he took time out from duties at Glasgow's Western Infirmary to carry out medicals on new signings.

      Brian, 52, said: "He was a real professional, a safe pair of hands. He was great around the guys - and he was completely Celtic-daft."

      Glasgow-born Gerry also spent three years working as a lecturer in Sports Medicine at Glasgow University.

      His old boss Professor Stuart Hillis, 63, said: "He was an extremely able and talented physician. We were very sorry when he left to take up a job in Leicester."

      Players at yesterday's Celtic v Aberdeen SPL clash wore yellow ribbons as a gesture of support for the family.

      Hearts' Portugese stars Jose Goncalves and Bruno Aguiar also made an appeal for information. They said: "We cannot begin to imagine how Maddie's parents feel."

      Delete
  31. ''A fellow student described him as having "dead eyes,cold like a shark".The only other person from that time prepared to say they knew Gerry described him as "calculating". ''

    He sounds like my ex missus. She's Scottish too ( Glasgow).But, hand on heart,i can honestly say she spent all of 2007 in England, despite my begging her to join the Foreign Legion.
    Do you find that people who work in medicine tend to be emotionally detatched ? A sort of 'all brain, no emotion' kind of state ? I hope the fellow student didn't go on to become a doctor.He'll be suspecting that he's surrounded by psychopaths and child abducting money launderers. Perhaps he'd be better suited to writing unoriginal novels.

    ''He said Gerry was really interested in all the boys and wanted to know all about them.Scott believed that was because Gerry was a Celtic fan.''

    Scoundrel.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Blacksmith to Widowan (a very chatty pair):

    Hi. I'm replying by PM about A***** because I've suddenly decided not to be rude about him as I might need to go and get an interview with him! Let's hope I haven't been too caustic already.

    Yes, you're quite right -- there is an unnerving passivity about him. I noticed it regard to the supposed betrayal by the UK police in not sending replies and similar matters. You know I don't want to offend the other Portuguese posters either but it looks like the investigation really was much, much, worse than I expected. I've been involved in quite a number of police investigations in the UK and I've seen awful blunders at first hand but this was a bit of a f***-up.

    Regards

    B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A*****, Andrew? Please God no.

      Delete
    2. Only a special sort of character would find passivity in another unnerving . But. that to one side, I do hope Ros hasn't read that now that she's published it. Her two champions at odds :) Imagine . I admit I'm curious about the comment stating JB has 'been involved in quite a number of investigations' . Is he connected to some suburban Cosa Nostra ? Or does he just react to news stories with a smoking keyboard demanding action and offering his remarkable investigative talents.

      Delete
    3. @ john blacksmith7 January 2018 at 01:01

      heard you the first time, and the second time, and the third time.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 6 January 2018 at 21:10

      Could you please post a link to the source.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
  33. Stevis sock site..

    Re: Blacksmiths Blogs.
    Post by AJS Today at 2:02 am

    Thank you Global Moderator. I’m not posting very much but my absence from here is partly due to my loss of the link to your site – until I saw it on another site the other day. Advertising works!

    I made it clear some time ago that all I have to offer now is the occasional flat assertion. No reasoned claims, no evidence and definitely no imputation of guilt against anybody. People can choose to take them or leave them, just as they did when I wasted hours putting forth the evidence. None of them involve or imply inside knowledge

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''I made it clear some time ago that all I have to offer now is the occasional flat assertion. No reasoned claims, no evidence and definitely no imputation of guilt against anybody.''

      A refreshing and honest statement. Frame it.

      Delete
  34. I will soon publish details of my investigation into the #MadeleineMcCann case including the many inconsistencies in her parents’ accounts of what happened, the Donegal links and how the British media have failed Madeleine and the public by refusing to ask hard questions

    https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/949957327972683776

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't the job of the media to ask probing questions when two police forces are investigating, it's their's. It's the media's job to inform us of the progress( or not). Inconsistencies are to be found all over the files. The parents had an excuse. Typical online nonsense as usual.Let's hope she can come up with something reasonably close to fresh.Don't count on it. The Twitter Detective Agency is a den of fools.

      Delete
    2. Should be interesting to see if she just asks "hard questions" or actually comes up with any hard facts/answers about the case - not just criticism of the British media.

      Delete
    3. Her twitter acc is beginning to sound like the comb and Hall research.

      Gemma obviously believes in her pursuit of “Justice for Mary”. Her persistence is admirable, her film well assembled, but it is heavy with innuendo and hearsay rather than hard evidence.

      Just last week, she tweeted: “Gardaí refuse to arrest the chief suspect in the murder of Mary Boyle. He attended Mass this morning.” This implies that gardaí can simply make an arrest on the basis of a conspiracy theory.



      http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/everybody-wants-justice-for-mary-boyle-but-that-is-nowhere-near-as-simple-as-is-portrayed-in-a-fevered-social-media-campaign-411902.html

      Delete
    4. Her twitter acc. is beginning to sound like a comb and Hall research..

      Gemma obviously believes in her pursuit of “Justice for Mary”. Her persistence is admirable, her film well assembled, but it is heavy with innuendo and hearsay rather than hard evidence.

      Just last week, she tweeted: “Gardaí refuse to arrest the chief suspect in the murder of Mary Boyle. He attended Mass this morning.” This implies that gardaí can simply make an arrest on the basis of a conspiracy theory.



      http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/everybody-wants-justice-for-mary-boyle-but-that-is-nowhere-near-as-simple-as-is-portrayed-in-a-fevered-social-media-campaign-411902.html

      Delete
  35. "Jane Tanner is now cooperating with the police."

    When and where and by whom was it ever stated that Tanner was NOT cooperating with the police?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This latest invention is mist. The intention is to suggest that Tanner is of renewed interest to the police. The inevitable end is heading toward us. To the less 'angsty' observers and unbiased commentators, it's been expected as logic has been suggesting it for years now.To the anti's it marks some sickening defeat as a McCann, or friend, will not be facing a trial for a crime.Not that the crime is, and will remain, unsolved, but because a parent won't pay the penalty for the crimes they have imagined they are guilty of.It's a shame their insincere references to wanting justice for Madeleine didn't contain the same emotional charge.But, that's them.That's what they're about.So now we have this- the Tanner connection- to play with and pick at again.

      It seems like nonsense to me.Like the rest of the headlines that appear like genies as certain landmarks approach, it will lead to the same place if it was real, that is, back to the starting line.Is she cooperating with the police after eleven years because she wants to make fresh and different statements ? Or have they scrutinized the files and found an area in which her testimony is flawed ? Maybe it isn't either, and somebody has, anonymously, 'tipped off' the police. Then again, it could be none of the aforementioned as nothing, in the real world, is taking place between Tanner and either Police force. It's just an anti imagining it is; hoping it is, willing it to be so. Where did the idea spring from ? Did it come with a source ? Was the source provided, once requested ? You tell me.

      Delete
    2. I've got to question your logic 23:40.

      That the antis want to punish the parents JUST because they don't like them, defies all logic. As adults our opinions are based on the evidence in front of us, and in the high profile case of missing Madeleine, there is a huge amount.

      The idea that people suspect Gerry and Kate because they hate them, is infantile. Do you think if they were nicer people, everyone would ignore the alerts of the dogs, the fact that Gerry looks like the prime suspect and their refusal to co-operate with the police?

      It is bizarre when you see a child saying 'it's because you hate me', but downright retarded in an adult. Most people reach a milestone where they realise the entire world doesn't revolve around them, it is almost a rite of passage. Hurts like hell, but a lesson never forgotten.

      I do sympathise with Gerry and Kate because if they are not prepared to explain, the 'you hate me' defence is all they have.

      It is a shame for you too 23:40, because you have to go into battle unarmed, and if your opponents are laughing at you, you are unarmed.

      I don't think anyone cares about Gerry and Kate very much either way 23:40, but they are gripped by one of the biggest 'mysteries' of the century.

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 18:45
      "the alerts of the dogs, the fact that Gerry looks like the prime suspect and their refusal to co-operate with the police?"

      Is that the extent of the "huge amount" of evidence in front of you?

      Delete
    4. ''I do sympathise with Gerry and Kate because if they are not prepared to explain, the 'you hate me' defence is all they have. ''

      They aren't on trial, ergo, no need to defend themselves. Didn't you know that ? It's only bloggers and pseudo detectives who aren't satisified with their statements and interviews.The police seem to be of an opposite opinion.But what do they know- I bet none of them even have a blog.

      ''It is a shame for you too 23:40, because you have to go into battle unarmed, and if your opponents are laughing at you, you are unarmed. ''

      That began with good intentions, as profound statements go, but it tripped over it's own laces pretty sharpish. If one is to 'go into battle' then yes, they should make sure they are better armed than their opponent, or at least more proficient with the arms they have. It's like taking centre stage to pronounce to the world no end of theories and accusations aimed here and there and stating how they are the truth because others think the same. When asked for the evidence and proof that make it so ( the 'arms') suddenly you're exposed and surrounded by loaded guns. You know what I mean I'm sure.

      ''I don't think anyone cares about Gerry and Kate very much either way 23:40, but they are gripped by one of the biggest 'mysteries' of the century.''

      There...that kind of thing. Good example. People with humanity, even the slightest bit, feel for any parents who lose a child.People who don't care have a serious emotional and psychological flaw that they would be better addressing rather than inflicting them on others.

      None of your post tackles the thorny question of this latest Tanner story by the way.That was the crux of the post you've replied to. You offered an opinion of the parents not being nice. Is that based on the hours you've spent in their company, or your viewing and listening sat in front of a screen as they had to relive the night they lost their child ? I won't ask you for evidence of anything, you never offer any. You just attempt to paint the usual dark picture and cite 'people' as your source.

      Delete
    5. The word defend can be used outside a courtroom. You in fact are defending the parents every time you post, though not very well.

      This is a blog, a discussion group if you like, not a courtroom. People are allowed to have views and opinions without demands for proof.

      With Gerry and Kate, most are suffering from compassion fatigue. They have over played the victim card, they blame everyone but themselves - that's not endearing.

      Who is the Jane Tanner story thorny for? Again, all we do here is discuss the case, it makes no difference to any of us if JT is co-operating or not. In my opinion, JT is the weakest link - I doubt she could withstand interrogation by the police or in the witness box. Her sighting is so wobbly, she has said, 'yes that was him', to Robert Murat, an egg, a woman, and a werewolf.

      Yes I have watched the interviews, and I've Kate's book and Gerry's blog. I have also read the Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral. I preferred Goncalo's.

      Gerry and Kate have had almost 11 years and ample opportunity to show their nice side 01:048. Reliving the night they lost their child in every interview is their choice, both the interviewers and the viewers want to know much, much more. The only thing stopping them from showing their human side is them.

      Delete
    6. ''The word defend can be used outside a courtroom. You in fact are defending the parents every time you post, though not very well. ''

      Yes, but defend is defend.It's what you have to do when being attacked and / or accused. I never mentioned a court room. You didn't either, so what were you suggesting they're defending ?

      '' People are allowed to have views and opinions without demands for proof. ''

      Yes, and i posted mine.I just think if you- or anyone- is to attack somebody, you need to prove that it's warranted.

      ''They have over played the victim card, they blame everyone but themselves - that's not endearing. ''

      Very 'endearing' of you to talk that way about two parents who had their little girl taken. Yet you discuss compassion. How does that work ?

      ''Who is the Jane Tanner story thorny for?''

      Anyone who voiced excitement ( wow etc) when it was posted here without a source. The same people who are having difficulty finding one when asked now.

      ''Yes I have watched the interviews, and I've Kate's book and Gerry's blog. I have also read the Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral. I preferred Goncalo's.''

      That's your artistic / creative bent. If only the event was fictional.

      ''Gerry and Kate have had almost 11 years and ample opportunity to show their nice side 01:048.''

      They've gone on record to thank those who have helped and given suuport often enough. They've criticised those who create horror stories accusing them. Gerry was photographed smiling once and for 11 years it's been posted ad nauseam online as evidence of his evil. Work it out.

      '' Reliving the night they lost their child in every interview is their choice, both the interviewers and the viewers want to know much, much more. ''

      It's not the interviwers choice then ? Why would they be interviewed about anything else ? Nobody wants to tune in to hear about their views on current affairs. The viewers may well want to know much more.So do the parents, surely. The baying masses online are starving for a morsel to rip at.The police aren't showing any real sign of finding any to throw their way. So they log on and let it all out. That's probably why they forget to argue with any reasoned thought. Maybe they should aim their anger at those who aren't feeding them...

      ''The only thing stopping them from showing their human side is them. ''

      They are controlled because they know well enough that thousands of eyes are watching them with forensic precision, replaying their facial expressions and freeze framing at specific moments in the hope of matching a contradictory blink that exposes a comment as a lie.Those with that obsessive and deluded mindset should try rediscovering their own human side.

      Delete
  36. BS has a long standing Tanner obsession, much the same as his delusions that OG and Oporto have the McCanns in their sights....tick tock...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May I call you Anny? Thank you for that interesting post. It's a pity that it's about an individual's faults - a nonentity at that - rather than something positive about this child whose fate so troubles you. It doesn't really help her, does it?

      Have you thought of volunteering for a charity, one dealing with the succour of missing persons and their relatives, for example? Working in silence and without hope of material reward is said to act as a tremendous psychic antidote to unresolved anger issues.

      Anyway, I wish you all the best.




      Given the latterbut

      Delete
  37. As regards the most high-profile missing person case in history I don’t think Jane Tanner is a ‘person of interest’, but assuming JT was telling the truth, I can only imagine what it will be like when your daughter is a ‘minor character’ in a book written by the wife of a couple you hardly knew before that holiday in Praia da Luz. NL

    “Their lives had to go on. But the terrible experience we shared would stay with us all, on one level or another, and bind us together for ever.” – KM

    ReplyDelete
  38. Looks like Team McCann has now infested your blog Ros.
    Take it as a compliment and keep up the brilliant work.

    Loyal reader

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ anon 14 :18

      Obviously a deluded anti.When people discuss points using logic rather than wild and spiteful speculation it doesn't make them part of the assumed 'Team McCann'. It just means that there are still people who have normally functioning mental facilities willing to keep things grounded.

      Delete
    2. Big Jerry Knows.

      Delete
    3. Yes, everyone does. Just nobody who's investigating the actual case 11 years on. Strange, that..

      Delete
    4. Hello 16.55. You seem to be vulnerable to feeling that you are surrounded by enemies and mentally damaged beings here, even though you have never met them nor even know their identities.

      As professionals - at what?!! you may ask! - we worry a little when people feel this way since it usually does indicate some underlying issues. People with your unusual outlook often also:

      Shout at the television
      Step on the feet of old ladies in supermarkets
      Apply to join Mensa unsuccessfully

      If you have been troubled by any of those three then it might be wise to consider lifestyle alterations and an organic diet strong in ruminant derivatives.

      Mens sana in copore sano!

      However it was a pleasure to read your post despite the mild concern it causes. Keep it up!

      Delete
    5. Many thanks 'loyal readers', posts like yours are so uplifting, and much appreciated, I seem to be in a bit of a post Hogmanay blues. The world has gone mad, and yes, it's definitely all of them and not me. This time.

      Delete
  39. 8.01 @18.44

    Who is Big Jerry?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  40. 8.01 @10:15

    Who is BS? Why Oporto?

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Little Tom's arch enemy :)

      Delete
  41. @ john blacksmith8 January 2018 at 19:06

    ''Hello 16.55. You seem to be vulnerable to feeling that you are surrounded by enemies and mentally damaged beings here, even though you have never met them nor even know their identities. ''

    Up pops another pop-psychologist. Somebody lock that manhole.

    Do you suppose you have the monopoly on interpreting peoples' mindsets based on what they write ? You who throws insults and swearwords around like an angry baby throes toys from their cot if you're having an 'episode' ?

    Do you have to meet someone to have a good handle on their mentality if you can understand that their thoughts found their way from their mind to a keyboard and, finally, a blog ?

    ''As professionals - at what?!! you may ask! - we worry a little when people feel this way since it usually does indicate some underlying issues. ''

    The question never occurred to me (for obvious reasons).As for underlying issues, that needs a lot more fleshing out. Was it supposed to be cutting ? Or is it a new year resolution of yours to try and control your 'shoutier' self this year. Keep it up.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @02:16

      Milord is so gracious and generous: ask – and Milord gives. And that stupendous gentleness of Milord’s left hook is so heart-warming.

      I’m off to ruminate…

      :)

      Delete
  42. Anonymous 6 January 2018 at 03:50

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/puzzle-returned-unsolved.html?showComment=1515210638307#c5132432988818368261

    “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”

    Freedom of Speech is an abstract concept, whereas libel and defamation are, indeed, defined legal terms, as is the presumption of innocence. Applying your own logic, everyone is entitled to benefit from the latter.

    “Amaral cashed in…”

    What writer made no attempt to cash in on something or other… Amaral is in good company in that respect if you are right about ‘cashed in’. I don’t see why one should be concerned about that.

    “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.”

    I don’t see your point. I would see it if his views were unreasonable and/or insincerely held, but I have no reasons to suspect him of insincerity in this case. Whether his views are reasonable is arguable. If the parent’s allegations as to his views being defamatory were sufficiently grounded, then the parents were very well placed, both in terms of legal advice and financially, to sue him for defamation. It is a matter of FACT that they chose not to sue him for defamation/libel.

    “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.”

    My preceding argument applies.

    It has been established by the courts that Amaral had been falsely accused of causing very substantial damages. ‘Vicious’ is a strong term, so is ‘false accusations’.

    Furthermore, it seems that we haven’t yet heard the last of Amaral’s side of the story. With that in mind, perhaps we shouldn’t be counting the chickens yet, funk soul brover.

    “''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.”

    "... missing person case." You said it.

    “My intemperate bias when discussing Amaral is covered above.”

    I will look into your other post in due course.

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

    That doesn't add any weight to his allegations.”

    Indeed.

    “It's a travesty of justice that he hasn't been required to do so.”

    It’s not a travesty of justice, it is a consequence of the parent’s (seemingly most unfortunate for them) decision not to sue him for defamation, I dare say. ‘They did not dare’ might be a good guess in the circumstances, don’t you think?

    I SHALL RETURN!

    Peace, brover, and bless all the little once.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Mark Rowley, the Met's Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations and national lead for Counter Terrorism Policing, has announced his intention to leave policing to pursue new challenges."

    http://news.met.police.uk/news/assistant-commissioner-mark-rowley-announces-retirement-from-the-met-289016

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "AC Rowley will continue to lead Specialist Operations and the national CT Policing network until March where upon his successor will continue this critical national security role. The process for his replacement will begin in due course."

      http://news.met.police.uk/news/assistant-commissioner-mark-rowley-announces-retirement-from-the-met-289016

      Delete
    2. Anon 19.44,Not one mention of a certain Operation Grange,where a decision is to be made after March 2018 and when Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley retires from the Metroploitan Police Service,just another coincidence moment-case unsolved,now put it very high up where prying eyes cannot gaze upon it accidently!
      What a sham,another Cover Up to avoid embarrassment of Political interference,Gordon Brown,David Cameron,Rebekah Brooks,Murdoch Clan,unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan 31 yrs ago costing One billion pounds to evade the truth,with collapsed Court Trails-Justice!?

      Delete
    3. "his successor will continue this critical national security role."

      http://news.met.police.uk/news/assistant-commissioner-mark-rowley-announces-retirement-from-the-met-289016

      ----------

      "*I am losing count of how many FOIs I have had rejected now. Apparently Madeleine's disappearance is an issue of 'national security'. Not sure how that is possible but either way trying to get info from Government and Police about this case is akin to getting blood from a stone. It's not going to happen."

      http://www.theuntoldstoryofmadeleinemccann.com/

      Delete
    4. @ various anons above this

      I don't think hysteria concerning Rowley's retirement is of much worth.Whatever anyone has decided online about him,he's been a copper for more than 30 years. How many coppers work until they're 65 ? It's not that kind of job.

      If a cover up of anything regarding the investigation did indeed take place and it was the orders of a Prime Minister or two kicking Military Intelligence into action, it wouldn't matter who was Commissioner of Police at the time. The Government are the bosses .
      Let's remember that the nature of MI5 / 6 is covert. We don't know the orders they would have been given if they were given any. We can only speculate. It's difficult not to speculate when a crime of abduction alerts politicians to be on red alert to the point of them boarding planes and flying to the scene and asking to be kept up to date with 'developments'. The whole thing seems to paint a picture of somebody in a high place having something on someone else in another high place. That could explain why so much alleged evidence has question marks over it. Who would it really incriminate ? Two doctors being British and from the middle classes couldn't prompt all of it.Having two doctors jailed for the crime of causing the death of their child, accidentally or otherwise, wouldn't ruin the reputation of anyone but them.Would they call the jailing of them a threat to national security ? That's crazy talk . Nobody in Britain, in it's Government, or anywhere, would be up in arms because two middle class doctors have had to suffer the indignity of jail time.If anything, the police would receive a pat on the back . But, despite the early media soundbytes that voiced the expected positive outlooks and optimism, the sums of money that made up the funding said more.If you genuinely believe the case could be solved today or tomorrow or just soon, you don't fund as though you're expecting it to be years unless you are secretly pretty sure that nothing will be happening soon.How can anyone reach that level of certainty ?All I can guess is that somebody with absolute knowledge of that night has given proof to those who threw the guard around the parents and started writing cheques. I wonder if it's been explained to the parents, or they figured it out.They're no fools.

      Regarding FOI requests, I imagine that's a nicely greyed out area. Officially, it's an ongoing police investigation of a missing person, presumed to have been abducted.Officially.Therefore, the Government's (official ) involvement in it all has been to fund it only.So they can say that all information is confidential and in the hands of two Police forces while the investigation is still alive.

      Delete
  44. Are we in for another conspiracy..


    Gemma O'Doherty
    @gemmaod1
    Tony Blair went out of his way to help the McCanns. Why them, when 380 children go missing in the UK every day? Like Gerry, Blair had strong Donegal links and spent summer holidays in Ballyshannon, his mother’s hometown. McCann’s parents were also from Donegal #MadeleineMcCann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ....and Blair was born in Scotland. Celtic are a Glasgow team. Gerry worked at Celtic. In 2003 Celtic were beaten 3-2 in the UEFA cup final by (Portugal's Porto). 3+2= 5(A).

      Solved.You're welcome.

      Delete
    2. Shit - they have both been in London too!

      The plot thickens.

      Delete
    3. http://portugalresident.com/scottish-gangsters-run-multi-million-trafficking-network-from-algarve

      Delete
    4. apparently she will be publishing later this month in

      village magazine

      https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2017/11/boiling-over/

      Delete
    5. Bennell,Reid,McCann,McCafferty,Cullen,Cairney,Torbett,Strachan,Beattie,King and Burns(enabler).Fixed that for you,there is your conspiracy.

      Delete
  45. As March gets closer, the Praying Mantis- May- has shuffled her deck in a style her predecessor, Davinia Cameron, would be proud of. I urge you to watch the vid. Look at the usual suspects and the usual questionable characters and, above all, what they have been connected to. Clue : Cameron's 'special' friend and former BBC NW TV presenter( and co-presenter to Stuart 14-historical-cases- Hall), Esther McVey. The blonde bubble head has recently said 'it's right that so many in the UK are using food banks'.That kind of cold blooded elitist bullshit must have given Ian Duncan Smith a wet dream.It somehow gave May one too as she's made her minister of the DWP. All she needs now is the moustcahe and jackboots.

    Look out for talk of our fine, upstanding Metropolitan Police and whistleb
    lowers too.And how things of no relevance such as child abuse and abusers are ignored even when put in writing.Look out for the figures on the attempts to access porn from Westminster too.

    Over to you Mr Gerrish :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=721&v=0s2kJ9zNBQg

    ReplyDelete