Thursday 11 January 2018

IDES OF MARCH II - THE END OF THE SEARCH




UPDATE:  12/01/18

Bizarre, that the rabid 'antis' and the rabid 'pros' are singing from the same hymn sheet in their belief that Operation Grange are performing some kind of cover up.  The 'antis' believe they are covering up for the parents and the 'pros' believe they are covering up for government agents.  Other than that, their arguments are pretty much the same.

The 'antis' drawn to the case by their penchant for conspiracies have been resolute on the 'cover up' theory since day 1.  And that's where their thinking has stayed and festered.  But conspiracy is not altogether a dirty word, conspiracies can and do happen on a daily basis.  There has been a conspiracy in the missing Madeleine case.  If there hadn't been, it would have ended 10 years ago.  It is when conspiracies go off into the land of fantasy and speculation, that they become problematic, in a time wasting sense.

All the 'pros' commenting on my blog are convinced that not only is there a cover up, but that all the police working on the investigation are corrupt.  Not the sort of thing you would expect from someone speaking on behalf of a missing child and to whom everything they have asked for has been given. 

The McCanns, it could be said, have good reason to be angry with Scotland Yard and Operation Grange.  They haven't found the McCanns' missing daughter nor have they convinced the public that they [the parents] were not involved.  But those are the not the reasons given by the pro defenders, they cite other unrelated cases as evidence of police corruption. 

Ideally they would like Madeleine's case to be filed away unsolved.  Why? and Wtf?  That's not a good result for Madeleine or her parents, it means no-one will be looking for her.  I suspect SY have told the parents Madeleine is dead, and they are not accepting it.  But I suspect the result they hoped for, Madeleine is alive and findable, is the least likely conclusion of OG.

It seems the remains of the McCann Media Monitoring department (not their finest) are using my blog to plant seeds of distrust in Operation Grange.  Do they have no hope whatsoever that OG will produce evidence that clears the parents and their friends completely?  Why so negative towards a report that hasn't been published?  What are their fears? 

Why aren't the Pro McCanns pro Operation Grange?  Why aren't they thanking and defending those detectives who have put so much time into searching for their daughter?.   I have watched many docu-dramas where the loved ones of missing people bond with those police officers who pick up the cold case files, they become friends of the family.  There doesn't appear to be any bonding here, nor any sense of gratitude for what Operation Grange are doing.  They are playing a two hand game -  publicly thanking Scotland Yard, but privately sending out social media warriors to diss them.  

Sadly for them, they no longer have the power to destroy a police officer's life and career in the British tabloids, as far as I know, none of the UK tabloids have run with OG officers having lunch or coming off a 24hr shift, or indeed infantile name calling like 'sardine munchers'.  I sincerely hope there is some sort of ruling, or mutual moral agreement between the police and the media, not to target the private lives of police officers working on homicide cases.    The media has much to be ashamed of in it's persecuting of targets selected by the McCann family, police officers especially.   

But a quick word on protests.  With so many other far more newsworthy topics, it's likely there will not be much interest in the conclusions of Operation Grange.  Most people have never heard of it and don't care.  But those who have a good idea of how far the rabbit hole actually goes will not accept the cover up of the initial actions of the incumbent government and the British police agencies who flew out to PDL.  The imperialistic assumption that our police are better than your police.  Gerry and Kate are already in a prison of their own making.  They are stuck with the fake goody two shoes personalities they themselves devised.  They left no room for human error, they are perfect.  An oft used word in Kate's book.

The strive for perfection can send even the most stable over the edge.  Think of an OCD guy mowing a camomile lawn in exact horizontal lines, being confronted by a small mutt cocking a leg? Or worse, squatting?  For myself, perfect is not a word I use often, not even when my Yorkshires are flowing over and a dark crunchy brown.  Even my sponges, at which I am now genius level, I prefer to use the term 'Paul Hollywood handshake'. 
For my disasters, I growl at my guests to fill in the feedback form, if they dare!        

But I jest.  I strive for perfection with my writing, and I torment myself daily for not being good enough.  I want to blame everyone and everything else, but I accept it's all down to me.  Even if I write something blinding with thousands of hits, I am left in terror that I won't be able to do it again.  An artist's life is not a happy lot!  Nor is the life of anyone seeking an insane level of perfection.   

But back to the idea of protests when Operation Grange ends.  Do enough people feel that strongly?  I suspect not.  Gerry and Kate are not cartoon villains like Toby Young, they are the parents who lost a child.  An angry mob shouting for their arrest is never going to be tasteful or endearing.  

I think on the angry mob front, all that remains is the half a dozen who post in the cesspit and in MMM.  Most people have managed to keep their interest in this case in perspective.   Personally, I wouldn't be happy if the blame for not finding Madeleine was placed on the PJ and Goncalo Amaral. Though I don't think for one minute that will be happening, because if it were, the McCanns right now, would be jubilant. 

___________________________________







The announcement of DCI Rowley's retirement in March has sparked off another round of posts that put 2 and 2 together and make 5.  I doubt Mr. Rowley (I don't know his rank) had much, if anything to do with the case of missing Madeleine.  As a senior officer, the Madeleine case was probably one among hundreds that he oversaw, whether he or someone else is in overall charge, won't make any difference to the outcome. 
 
I get the impression most people still believe there is a cover up afoot and when the funding ends in March, that will be it.  It will be filed under some sort of Official Secrets that decrees it should not be looked at for 75 years.  That is probably the ideal end game for those feeling very uncomfortable right now, but realistically, it's very unlikely. 
 
Can you imagine the announcement:  'We know what happened to Madeleine McCann, but we are not telling anyone' or 'We don't know, were nearly there a couple of time and thanks for the top ups, but we got nothing' or 'none of us have got any intention of telling anyone what we have been doing this past 6 years, so don't ask'. 
 
There is no diplomatic way to end this multimillion pound investigation without questions being asked.  I was going to say, public outcry, but, see previous blog, the McCann case has slipped right down the public interest scale.  If it ended with no result however, even the moderate would protest.
 
From the perspective of Gerry and Kate McCann, they fear their enemies are salivating at their impending downfall.  They may well be right, their fame has attracted the worse of human nature, but this is not a case to feel smug about.  No-one wins.  I personally have never had any interest or stomach for retribution, nor the punishment side of crime and punishment and it's not the focus of this blog.   It is horrible to see anyone suffer, even if they have brought that suffering on themselves.

If the objective of Operation Grange was to clear the parents of all suspicion, their actions have done the opposite.  If they are to relieve the parents of that ominous cloud, they will have to prove Madeleine was abducted by a stranger they failed to catch.  Can you imagine the CVs of the 30+ detectives assigned to Operation Grange.  'Spent 6 years working of a missing child that failed to achieve a result'.  

Once you apply logic to the arguments of those who claim the investigation is a cover up, you can see how nonsensical their arguments are.  They completely overlook the human factor.  The men and women working on OG are human beings with emotions, opinions and values.  This case is about a missing child, the victim is their focus.  To assume that they would conspire to cover up the disappearance of a child is insulting.  I cringe at the insults hurled at the known names of the detectives who have worked on this case.  The childish allegations that these men and women are using this case for excursions to the Algarve are, effectively, telling us that is what they would do, because where else could the idea have come from?  Most people aren't scumbags.  Even I, not the world's best employee, gave everything to the jobs I had - aren't we all inherently driven to be the best that we can be?  Why would any one of those officers meekly accept
a glaring gap in their career history?  Or indeed a skeleton that may at any time, fall out of the closet

The case of missing Madeleine was a huge knock in the faith if human nature, in a way it was an awakening.  Almost daily confirmation that the MSM did in fact have the power to make a lie, the truth.  Had Madeleine disappeared before the internet, the alternate truth, the story of Goncalo Amaral would have been contained by borders.  Now, no matter how many victories a claimant has against the tabloids, they cannot stop the spread of news and information on the internet.  The first point of call for most people's news. News agencies can no longer distort the news by showing just one angle because most people carry around camera phones.  And there is no legal way to stop alternate views from being discussed on social media.   

Goncalo's Truth of the Lie, is not available on the shelves of British bookshops, but it is instantly available, and translated, online.  As are the Portuguese police files. Kudos to Gerry and Kate on that one, not even Donald Trump can get a book banned!  Perhaps Clarence should mention it in his CV and get it off to the Donald immediately.  And for those who accuse me of 'hate', yes, hands up, I do indeed have an extra special dislike for book banners and burners.

I do happen to believe, that the truth will out in March.  And I think March will be a very good time to release news some would prefer was overtaken by bigger events.  The mad reign of the self anointed God that is Donald Trump, will come to a spectacular end, by March I am sure, and the fall out will spread to the UK, as the British public question Theresa May's over eagerness to deal with him.   An influx of scandals may be fighting for the front pages and the headlines.  Interest in the Madeleine case is probably at it's lowest ebb, but, depending on the revelations, it still has the potential to cause another massive media wave.  It might be that a human interest story could distract the public's attention from bigger things that are going on, or it may in itself be the bigger thing, depending on how deep OG go. 

Everyone I think, even the parents, have given up on the possibility of Madeleine's disappearance having a good ending.  Neither Madeleine or her remains have been found, and some will never accept closure until she is.  The parents may well know the conclusions that Scotland Yard have reached, and it may be they have rejected them.  There is a good chance they will re-start their own search for a live child, in which case any rift between the parents and the police will become glaringly apparent.  

I believe it will end in March, and with the precedent set by the PJ, the investigation files will be transparent, especially as these files will have to be added to the PJ files when the case concludes in Portugal.  The only narrative that will fit the facts and evidence available is the true one.








Ps.  Ferrero Rocher - My struggle! 

A dear friend gave me a box of the delicious, naughty little delights,

Step 1.  Put box in fridge to chill min. 10 mins.  OK, 8, 5 at an absolute push.

Step 2.  Attempt to open box and shriek in horror on discovering it is impossible, only Thor could get the lid off!

Step 3.  Get large carving knife and do what's necessary, sledgehammer must be absolute last resort.

Step 4.  Reconsider carving knife - is it worth 13 hours waiting in A&E, where said little ball of scrumptiousness will have to be prised from the cold dead hand they are trying to re-attach.  Yep.  Still totally worth it.

Step 5.  Discover see through cellotape attaching lid to box.  Doh.  Feel I should write a stern letter to the makers telling them they should have a large warning such as 'Remove invisible film.  Do not attack with carving knives or chainsaws!  How many Ferrero Rocher accidents must there be?  (actually, I don't know if there have actually been any), but it's still a good question.

Step 6.  I'm in.  And have stopped at 4. 

St. 7.   5,  I'm going to stop at 5.  :)
 

206 comments:

  1. Operation Grange hasn't had 30 detectives since 2015.
    There are only four. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/28/met-reduces-officers-madeleine-mccann-case-29-to-four

    "It is horrible to see anyone suffer, even if they have brought that suffering on themselves." How many have suffered at the hands of the McCanns? All those Ocean Club employees who lost their jobs? Amaral? Brenda Leyland? But like Kate you feel we should just move on. Not happening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''How many have suffered at the hands of the McCanns''

      Feel free to tell us all.And tell us how.

      Delete
    2. I did. Read it again, slowly, pointing at each word and saying them out loud.

      Delete
    3. Done.

      All i see is string of assumptions made by someone who hasn't explained why he thinks they're true.Do sources exist for any of the following :

      Employees were sacked because of the McCanns

      Amaral lost his position as lead detective because of the McCanns.

      Amaral suffered at the hands of the McCanns' unprovoked attack or assertions.

      Amarals accusations were proved to be correct

      Brenda Leyland committed suicide because of the McCanns.

      Take your time...

      Delete
  2. Ros says "I doubt Mr. Rowley (I don't know his rank)"

    If you don't know his rank then why did you type "DCI Rowley" in the preceding sentence?

    (PS google is your friend)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know I was going to go back and edit that before publishing 19:02, but then I though, nah, no-one will be that pedantic........

      Delete
  3. "A dear friend gave me a box of the delicious, naughty little delights,"
    -------------------------------

    A dear friend gives someone with diabetes chocolates loaded with sugar???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a sourpuss you are to interpret a kind gesture as something spiteful, 21:00. Or were you just struggling to find something nasty to say?

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 12 January 2018 at 11:49

      Believe me Ros, I would never struggle to find something nasty to say about you if that is what I wanted to do.

      I was pointing out how crass it was to buy chocolates with so much sugar for someone who is diabetic. Is that so difficult to understand - I don't have subtexts or hidden meanings in my comments.

      Delete
  4. You're right that a lot of people assume that there's been a cover up of some sort.Those who recognise that a heavy political involvement are raising a valid question.On the other side of the coin are those who believe Madeleine was lying cold in a shallow grave of her parents' construction when the crime was reported. They attempt to qualify their argument by referring to the findings of sniffer dogs and a detective who was removed from the investigation .But that's not evidence.When reminded of this, they argue that it actually is.

    Like it or not, they're implying that the evidence has been hidden or doctored.That would take a conspiracy. They never hold back when it comes to an online orgy of vitriolic abuse to aim at the parents, but trying to get them to admit that they're accusing the forensics team of conspiracy, or just lying, and they become unusually reticent. That's the state of play regarding the opinions of the great unwashed ; heads, a political conspiracy ;tails, a forensics conspiracy. The outside bet has the coin landing on its edge and it being a plain and simple abduction and the culprit just left nothing and was never caught. The Government won't seal the files for 75 minutes, let alone years.That would amount to their involvement a little too plainly.

    The diplomatic way to end the investigation is to put it on a shelf in the cooler. It allows the case to become cold, not dead and, where there's life, there's hope. Cases aren't kept alive depending on some imagined scale that monitors public interest. Putting it on the cold list is the least surprising outcome, not the most.Any outcry would only come from the mob.

    ''From the perspective of Gerry and Kate McCann, they fear their enemies are salivating at their impending downfall.''

    They'd be naive if they didn't know how many were salivating like dogs.But why would they fear it. A small section of the rabid manage to construct balanced arguments and acknowledge that only circumstantial evidence can be argued, the majority just use the case to vent their own demons.I hope, one day, a social psychologist puts a good paper together about the phenomenon.

    ''If the objective of Operation Grange was to clear the parents of all suspicion, their actions have done the opposite''

    Cleared of what ? They weren't /aren't out on bail.They haven't been charged with a crime.There isn't an official body that deals with suspicious minds ( unfortunately).

    ''Once you apply logic to the arguments of those who claim the investigation is a cover up, you can see how nonsensical their arguments are''

    You might. That doesn't mean everyone does. OG doesn't have to be a cover up per se.They are answerable to those who give the orders, who are, in turn, answerable to those who order them. How many ( human) detectives, policemen, forces and so on have been exposed as being dishonest and engaged in criminal activities ? There's your 'logic'.

    ''they cannot stop the spread of news and information on the internet''

    Gossip, conjecture, spite, and abuse can now be spread at the speed of light.That's the only 'news and information' there.
    If Amaral's book is of 'truth', it has to be asked where his conviction was when he had the chance to act on it ?If his thoughts represent the 'truth' he should have made arrests.
    This case ended in 2007. The starting pistol sounded and everyone ran the wrong way. Maybe the one statement made by Amaral holds the key : ''The case will be solved when the political will of two countries allows it''. But there's been no cover up.....

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @22:40

      Jah, VT, brover

      “A small section of the rabid manage to construct balanced arguments…”

      Is everyone putting forward “balanced argument” rabid? If not, what distinguishes the rabid from the non-rabid?

      “Gossip, conjecture, spite, and abuse…”

      Cute! So conjecture is now in the company of gossip, spite and abuse! Bravo!

      “But there's been no cover up…..”

      Is that a fact? A conjecture?

      And you rational belief in the existence of a conspiracy is to do with…?

      T

      Delete
    2. You really need to calm down on the whole angry mob, great unwashed and orgy of vitriolic abuse accusations VT, you are creating a scenario that simply doesn't exist. There may be a tiny handful who are that way inclined, but peer pressure has driven them underground, or more accurately into the members only sections of their websites.

      Constantly attacking the public and those who show an interest or express an opinion on this case, does the McCanns no favours whatsoever VT. From a PR perspective, it is immediate fail. If you are pitching a product, you don't insult the people you are pitching to.

      Your diplomatic solution is nonsensical. Why spend 6+ years and £12million on a case you intend to file away unsolved? Why would the Portuguese police, who were adamant they would not re-open the case without new evidence, put the file back on the cold shelf? Your solution, I'm sure would be best case scenario for the McCanns, but a huge embarrassment for the two police forces involved.

      Cleared of what? you say. The huge cloud of suspicion that has hung over the parents since they were declared suspects in the summer of 2007. You lament the lack of an official body that deals with suspicious minds, thought police. That figures.

      I don't know how many detectives, policemen, forces (entire forces, seriously?) etc have been exposed as being dishonest and engaged in criminal activities. But to assume the 30+ homicide detectives working on the Madeleine case are being dishonest etc, without any evidence, is abhorrent. To accept your theory we must accept that 30+ men and women would risk all to protect two doctors who are currently suing a former detective who worked on this case for all he's got.

      Your 'following orders' argument is pitiful. This isn't Nazi Germany, people can and do follow their own conscience. And nobody has the kind of power that can cajole an entire police department.

      One of the interesting aspects of Donald Trump is the fact that he is exposing power as a myth. He doesn't have the power to do anything - not even ban a book! The Lawyers for Michael Wolff pointed out to Trump's lawyers, that as President, he has the biggest platform in the world to rebut what was said in the book. Quite. Pertinent to this case, Gerry and Kate McCann have had almost 11 years of constant TV and media exposure to rebut everything GA said in his book, why haven't they?

      Your final paragraph simply regurgitates the same arguments the pros have been chanting for years. Why didn't he arrest them, why hasn't he proved it, etc. These set defences have been answered hundreds of times in hundreds of ways. If you want repetition, may I suggest the cesspit.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12 January 2018 at 10:07

      Comrade

      ''Is everyone putting forward “balanced argument” rabid? If not, what distinguishes the rabid from the non-rabid?''

      Tone, content and reasoning. The non-rabid have the ability to use those.

      ''Cute! So conjecture is now in the company of gossip, spite and abuse! Bravo!''

      I didn't write the guest list, T, I just see it because it's there to be seen.

      ''And you rational belief in the existence of a conspiracy is to do with…?''

      Politicians and their unsavoury tastes and power.Why else would they have been so keen to involve themselves in the case and try to influence it.It's a police
      matter.

      VT

      Delete
    4. ''Your 'following orders' argument is pitiful. This isn't Nazi Germany, people can and do follow their own conscience. ''

      Pitiful ? Why do they have so many ranks within the force ? You think that's nazi ?Should they all turn up for work in the morning and just chat about who fancies doing what ? Wake up Ros

      Delete
    5. ''Gerry and Kate McCann have had almost 11 years of constant TV and media exposure to rebut everything GA said in his book, why haven't they? ''

      They have.They do.

      Delete
    6. ''Your final paragraph simply regurgitates the same arguments the pros have been chanting for years''

      The question becomes more valid as each year passes.The antis, on the other hand, have the monopoly on mantras. The handful of 'telling' throw away lines about the dogs is their favourite.But, objectively, they have nothing to back them up and Amaral has the same problem with his theories.The antis have an excuse of sorts in that they're only pretendy detectives with youtube . Amaral was there from day one on the inside.Until he was taken away, of course.

      VT

      Delete
    7. ''I don't know how many detectives, policemen, forces (entire forces, seriously?) etc have been exposed as being dishonest and engaged in criminal activities. But to assume the 30+ homicide detectives working on the Madeleine case are being dishonest etc, without any evidence, is abhorrent.''

      Do you ever understand what other people say or are you too lost in your own trip ? If you don't know something, either research it or don't comment. Who assumes that 30+ detectives are being dishonest ? Stop misqupting me. Wat I said could be the OG situation is different to what you've twisted it into. I don't know who knows what within the force that's turned up nothing whatsoever in the years they've been investigating.But to dismiss every possible scenario and possibility that takes the spotlight off the parents because your vindictive nature allows nothing to give your blinkers a nudge is irrational and reads progressively worse with time.You repeat the same attacks and same defences constantly.Changing the occasional phrase doesn't detract from this.

      Nothing in 11 years has vindicated your snipes or your imaginary portraits of the parents which you base on snippets from interviews and tabloids. The bottom line is that you don't like the class they represent or their successful careers and you want to see them fall. It's a human flaw that people have.Like the inability to reason. You could stand as a witness for the prosecution and forward your best argument : ''I don't like the look of them, they're smug''.Because, that nugget is buried in the mountains of words you continue to construct.Nothing more.It's your bottom line.

      VT

      Delete
    8. Anonymous12 January 2018 at 10:07

      Apologies comrade

      I did answer your post fully, and it did send successfully . However, it didn't get past the censor. Ironic .

      VT

      Delete
    9. Don't tell porkies VT, there is nothing in my spam box. Why don't re-send or try again?

      Delete
    10. No need, thank you. You've posted it now :)

      VT

      Delete
  5. May 2011, Sir Paul Stephenson said the final report would not be published.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The key point there 08:08, is the date, May 2011. A lot of water has gone under the bridge and several new brooms have come and gone.

      And is the outcome of the final report in the hands of the Met Police? The crime was committed in Portugal, the Portuguese have the lead. And, as happened before, when the Portuguese file their own investigation, the files will be released to the public. How can they leave out the part played by the British police?

      If, as some suggest, this case were covered by the Official Secrets Act, how will that apply in Portugal. How can this all powerful superhuman silence not only the British police, but also the Portuguese?

      Please, for the sake of my sanity, if not yours, give me one good reason why Scotland Yard would cover up the disappearance/death of a small child?

      Delete
    2. Hi Ros,Anon 08.08.The "Official Secrets Act" has been sanctioned in Madeleine McCann's disappearance,then you ask how does that effect Portugal?
      The use of"Official Secrets Act" was used to disperse what investigators were uncovering on Madeleine McCann's disappearance,FOI,it was used by the UK to usurp power over a Former colony,under the disguise of a"Good Future Understanding"?
      Portugal where about to join the EU and One Gordon Brown had Socrates,sack Mr Goncalo Amaral from Madeleine's case,October 2 2007!
      Did the Portugal Police immediately strike off their list the 3 named Arquidos,after Mr Amaral was disperesed elsewhere,Fact No they didn't.
      "Please for the sake of my sanity,if not yours,give me One God reason why Scotland Yard would cover Up the disappearance/Death of a small child? Only Scotland Yard know can answer that question.
      Are you stating on the record Rosalinda,that UK Police Forces,have Never colluded or known person's to have been involved with Murders within the United Kingdom,let alone children?
      Go back to the 1960's and what was printed about a certain clan of Brothers who were involved with Lord Boothby and children being supplied to the elite in Society,these things never happened then eh Ros?

      I note you fail to answer any questions raised on the Unsolved Murder of Mr Daniel Morgan 10 March 1987,31 years ago,with costs to the Tax payer of over One Billion pounds in collapsed Crown Court costs,with close affinity to Rupert's clan of employees,Hacking of phones,etc?
      Now why would successive UK Governments use the system to ensure person's were Not prosecuted or Found Guilty in a Court of Law?
      Operation Grange costs are nowhere near the Daniel Morgan costs to the Tax payer,yet they still fail to give details on this unsolved Murder?

      Delete
    3. ''Please, for the sake of my sanity, if not yours, give me one good reason why Scotland Yard would cover up the disappearance/death of a small child?''

      Ask Amaral what he meant by his 'when the will of two countries' remark and his insinuations about Military Intelligence. Or are we brushing those under the carpet due to the lack of 'McCann / parents' in then them

      Delete
    4. I'm not asking GA, I'm asking you who are convinced Operation Grange is a cover up. You must have at least one reason?

      Delete
    5. 16:37, I'm not saying conspiracies haven't occurred, but they don't occur in every case. The Daniel Morgan case btw, did not involve the police force of another country.

      Yes wrong doing goes on in the police, it goes on everywhere, but it's those cases that are highlighted in the news. To assume Operation Grange is corrupt because police officers in other cases have been corrupt in the past, is illogical.

      As for 'am I stating on the record', lol, are you having a Perry Mason moment? I'm not in the witness box. I don't know enough about the Daniel Morgan case to answer your questions, whatever they are, we are discussing the Madeleine case.

      I'm not among those criticizing the officers of Operation Grange. I don't know what they are doing, but I wouldn't dream of making assumptions. I am satisfied they are getting on with the job they were given, unless I learn otherwise.

      Where are you going with all the links to ancient cases 16:37 - what is your point? Why do you think OG is a cover up? Cover ups have happened in the past isn't an answer. State why OG specifically, is a cover up? What are they covering up? Who are they covering up for?

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 January 2018 at 20:13

      ''I'm not asking GA, I'm asking you who are convinced Operation Grange is a cover up. You must have at least one reason?''

      I'll type this slowly.

      OG doesn't have to be a cover up.It could be a part within a conspiracy. Another cog .How could it be a cover up if the crime was already years when it was dreamed up ? Any red herrings or smoke and mirrors had been and gone years before they arrived at the former crime scene. It's like a team emptying a house and bleaching it clean then sending a team in with the task of finding something no matter how long they need. OG is just another move on the board. They wouldn't need to be aware of it.That's why nobody (of sound mind) has expected a single headline since to come to anything.That won't change.

      The one right track Amaral was on was that one. The hidden hands.

      Delete
    7. ''Yes wrong doing goes on in the police, it goes on everywhere, but it's those cases that are highlighted in the news. To assume Operation Grange is corrupt because police officers in other cases have been corrupt in the past, is illogical''

      The point that was made was that being a member of the force shouldn't, and doesn't, always mean you are a law abiding citizen.The number of 'bent' coppers who have been caught out is pretty large. The argument suggesting all coppers are bent because of this fact wasn't made nor implied. It was to highlight the flaw in your 'human factor' argument.

      OG could have been dreamed up by dishonest higher ranking officers as part of the 'stone unturned' promises. It worked. Once they were put togther and announced via the media, everyone read it as a concerted and determined effort to close this case once and for all. Nobody considered that all they'd be doing so late in the game would be raking over the same coals previous teams had already done; same statements to be scrutinised,same mapping of the areas;same lack of concrete evidence. So, why bother-it was destined to make the same progress - none.They could put together Operation Gollywog tomorrow and give them the same remit.Again, there's nothing fresh for them to look at. Why are so many people shocked that nothing's happened ?

      Does that equate to the team being bent ? No, it doesn't. I'm only guessing, but I'd suggest they're not all fools.If they're qualified enough to 'make the team' they know a dead horse when they're flogging it.But, they were given the remit, Nazi or not.

      Time for you to answer a question now, Ros. Andy Redwood.What are your opinions of him, his time on the case, and his role within the delivering of updates to the public.

      VT

      Delete
    8. Hi Ros,my post 16.37,Mr Daniel Morgan was Murdered,it is not a conspiracy,the"Conspiracy"is how the"Establishment,Government"have allowed the system fail to successfully"Prosecute"any persons involved in

      the unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan,with close links to a Businessman having dialogue with former Prime Ministers,GB,DC,TB?
      Illogical? Barry George-DCI Hamish Campbell, DCI Andy Redwood,Simon Foy,Madeleine McCann,yep okay I'll get me coat.
      Ancient cases? You know the reason why people study past events Ros,its called History and if you don't learn from mistakes made in the past,that if you follow the same procedure your more likely to fail once again?
      How many kids disappeared in the 1960's Ros at the hands of"Criminals,cohorts"are you stating they were "Worthless"because it happened so long ago?
      Ros,Ask Gordon,Tony,Dave do they have recollections to past events involving Ma Learned friends from the Big House,Derek Laud,Mr K Clarke Central Television Productions,etc?

      Delete
  6. TIME spoke to author Michael Wolff about his new book Fire and Fury on Jan. 8 in New York City.

    http://time.com/5094085/fire-and-fury-michael-wolff-interview/

    "The curious thing about my book is that I don’t think that I am the only one who knows this. Quite the opposite. Anybody who’s spending time around the White House knows a lot of what I know. Or most of what I know. They just aren’t writing it. And they aren’t writing it because there’s a difference between being a daily reporter and being a book writer. I had two luxuries. The first luxury is I don’t have to go back again. All of these other reporters have to go back again. The other luxury is I get to sit back and watch and absorb and produce a story. Not just a news break, but sort of the full monty of Trumpland."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have watched a few Michael Wolff interviews now, and I have no cause to doubt him. Trump is the kind of character who needs no embellishment, he can't even hide his lunacy for the cameras!

      Delete
    2. nobody's interested in trump

      Delete
    3. 19:11

      You're nobody?

      Delete
    4. @ 19:11

      I didn't realise Woody Allen read here.Hi.

      Delete
  7. Operation Grange has seen the retirements of the Redwwod,head of the MET Hogan Howe now the assistant commissioner Rowley,the expertise that the MET brought is being stretched beyond them,who next Wall? A simple statement along the lines that South Yorkshire police made in regards of Ben Needham is what will happen,will there be much protest I doubt it after all just look who is head of the MET now,none other than who was head of ops during shoot him in the head 7 times on the london underground,it couldn't be made up that's why its such a farce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'When she was named the successor to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe in February the family of Mr de Menezes released a statement condemning the move.

      They said: "We had to face a tragedy that no family should ever have to experience; the tragic death of a loved one at the hands of those we entrusted to serve us and protect us.

      "At the helm of the police on that fateful day when Jean was killed was Cressida Dick. The message of today's appointment is that police officers can act with impunity.

      "The commissioner of the Metropolitan police is the most senior police officer in the country, a post that is expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism, to command public confidence and be responsible for ensuring that the police act lawfully and are held to account."'

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/seven-mistakes-that-cost-de-menezes-his-life-1064466.html

      Delete
    2. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15327753.Cressida_Dick_and_her_role_in_the_killing_of_John_Charles_de_Menezes

      Delete
    3. Anon's @ 9:41,9:45,quite.

      Delete
  8. @22:40

    Perhaps I've misinterpreted your "But there's been no cover up....."

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Comrade.That's why I didn't address it. I thought perhaps you'd had a rare moment of hastiness,an early dram,or had not fully tuned yourself in after a solid night's kip. But I think you get it now, hence your post-post :)

      VT

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The case of Ben Needham was a simple case to solve 08:45, and I have no doubt the family of Ben co-operated fully with the South Yorkshire police.

    If a simple statement was all that was needed, it should have been after the digs in the PDL, 3 or was it 4 years ago? Clearly the case of missing Madeleine is far more complex than the case of missing Ben, for whatever reason.

    It defies all logic to think the police would carry out a 6= year investigation, and then not tell anyone their results. Particularly in such a high profile case as this, where they already know the majority of the public do not believe there was an abduction.

    As I have said before, punishment is not my bag. Gerry and Kate are already living within a prison of their making. They don't have the freedom the rest of us have to simply be ourselves. But, as I say, that is their own personal choice, they have had ample opportunity to be more open and forthcoming.

    As for your final sentence simple confirms your tendency to prejudge people. Why are you assuming the investigation is a farce? What if the investigation finds the parents had no involvement whatsoever, will it still be a farce? Your hostile attitude towards the police and the new Commissioner suggests Team McCann are not happy with Operation Grange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats me at 8:45.

      Ben Needham case simple to solve?it took 26 years for that statement of professional opinion to be forthcoming ,simple really!,and you think a difficult case which the MET and its expertise are involved in will be sorted any time soon really?
      Read what anon at 8:08 wrote about Stephenson and his mention of no final report will be published.
      I do not prejudge any one,my judgement on Dick is after the fact and the fact she was in charge when Menezes was assassinated on the London underground and the reward is being made Chief Commissioner of the MET,its no wonder Rowley is bailing out,with I'm sure the knowledge that this McCann case is not going to be resolved any time soon,if he knows different he's stay.

      Delete
    2. ''As I have said before, punishment is not my bag. Gerry and Kate are already living within a prison of their making. They don't have the freedom the rest of us have to simply be ourselves. But, as I say, that is their own personal choice, they have had ample opportunity to be more open and forthcoming. ''

      What prison of their own making ? That's a hater's fantasy. They made that invisible prison.It's just more wishful thinking.They want that to be the case. The McCanns cowering behind locked doors because thousands of nutters out there know their secret.If they were even close to being on the right track the McCanns would be in a real prison.But thy aren't.There are reasons for that but they make too much sense for you to understand.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 January 2018 at 11:37

      ''The case of Ben Needham was a simple case to solve 08:45, and I have no doubt the family of Ben co-operated fully with the South Yorkshire police.''

      So, another unsolved case laying cold for years is solved by Detective 'I have no doubt' Ros. More ingenious detective work and sharp incisive psychological profiling of any detractors.Who needs the real thing when you have her dedicating so many hours inflating her ego at a keyboard.Demented doesn't even begin to cover it.

      Delete
  11. "None of the UK tabloids have run with OG officers having lunch or coming off a 24hr shift, or indeed infantile name calling like 'sardine munchers'." They can't, as nobody knows their identities.

    As you pride yourself on your writing you will enjoy this guide on when to use "its" and "it's", as you rarely get it right.

    http://www.its-not-its.info/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ros declares "All the 'pros' commenting on my blog are convinced that not only is there a cover up, but that all the police working on the investigation are corrupt"
    -------------------------------------------

    Of course nowadays you actually get very little right in your effort to muse in public.

    I am a Mccann supporter (a "pro") in your eyes. I regularly comment on this blog. I have never suggested there is any cover up nor have I ever said the Police are corrupt.

    Maybe if you just posted your musings and stopped trying to proclaim that you know how everyone feels and thinks you would stop making so many mistakes.

    The whole of this blog and update is quite frankly a load of rubbish and in fact contradicts many things that you have posted previously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Maybe if you just posted your musings and stopped trying to proclaim that you know how everyone feels and thinks you would stop making so many mistakes.

      The whole of this blog and update is quite frankly a load of rubbish and in fact contradicts many things that you have posted previously.''

      Fair assessment

      Delete
  13. How many times has it been pointed out to you Ros that both the Portuguese and English authorities have said that the Mccanns are NOT persons of interest in the disappearance of Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too many to count 16:29, but repetition doesn't make it any more convincing.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 20:54

      Pedro do Carmo: "But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period."

      So he said it in 2011, again in 2013 and yet again in 2017 - but of course you are not convinced.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 January 2018 at 20:54

      ''Too many to count 16:29, but repetition doesn't make it any more convincing.''

      It's still true, however.You being in denial is your problem.Two police forces-who you say would never be party to a conspiracy in this- have stated it.Or does your weird habit of cherry picking now include bits of the police investigation being part of a conspiracy if it's making your own theories look foolish as usual.

      Delete
  14. It seems that , unlike Sonia Poulton, Geena O'Doherty IS making headway into the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This is exactly what is needed at the moment.................a fresh pair of eyes with no preconceived ideas about what actually happened on that fateful 'holiday. 'A genuine investigative journalist doing what they do best. Not a blogger like yourself Ros who relies on Madeleine McCann to get any readership whatsoever. Have you ever noted the negligible number of comments you receive when you write on ANY subject other than Madeleine ? Maybe the McCanns should copyright the name of their daughter and charge you every time you mention it in one of your endless repetitive blogs about her.
    As regards your writing ability in general : It certainly isn't lacking but these days the competition is stiff from 'stars' , celebs and would be celebs who tell their 'biographies' ( !! ) in conjunction with professional ghost writers. Who can compete with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17:34

      As regards your writing ability in general, it's Gemma O'Doherty

      Delete
    2. @ anon 17:34

      I have not seen anything in Gemma O'Doherty's tweets about the Mccann case that has not been known for years and years.

      I wait with interest to see what her "investigative journalist" article contains when it is published later this month.

      Delete
    3. ''It seems that , unlike Sonia Poulton, Geena O'Doherty IS making headway into the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This is exactly what is needed at the moment''

      Is it Geena, Gemma, Geena -what ? Either way, I'd be interested in what this new kid on the block has to offer in terms of 'fresh'. I'm gathering by the few comments so far that she's another 'commentator' hoping that Twitter will propel her to some kind of prominence. The competition will be stiff.But, it's a good idea to sell something where the more gullible shoppers hang out.

      For the latest investigative journalist ( is that anyone who comments on what they read online these days ?) to make any waves, I'd say it would be more important what she doesn't say than what she does, to begin with.
      I'm guessing , as she's promoting herself on Twitter , and having the sheep promote her too, that she's already arrived at the unique conclusion that -wait for it - the parents did it. Bombshell.

      So, what's fresh ? I've read that she pointed out that little Madeleine was taken, by her parents, to visit family in Ireland.That's outrageous.Who in their right mind takes their children to visit family. Are they Psychopaths ? Probably....

      So,let's see this latest journalist / investigator / whatever else she chooses to call herself, turn the observations somewhere new.We're all getting bored to tears after 11 years reading 'latest bombshells' like the reading of body language ;the analysis of speech ; the use of the word 'emphatic', and the 'why was Gerry laughing days after the event'. These psychological observations by psychologists looking to enjoy a TV career as well as the one they trained for, use something anyone can use without training. it's called the benefit of hindsight.They explain how it's done in detail and show it in action using clips of criminals who have been in prison for a while. No convictions were ever made using their skills.Their skills are never addressed to anyone perceived as guilty in the present. I wonder why ?They leave the analysis of the present to unqualified youtubers and it becomes hilarious

      So, let's await the new insights of another new journalist / investigator to turn everything inside out and on it's head. Or not, as the case may be.

      VT


      Delete
  15. Well lucky you that a 'genuine' investigative journalist has stepped into the brink 17:34, and what a shame you have only had my inferior blog this past 6 years.

    For all my blogs you have read/enjoyed, your welcome, though I am of course aware that you were not expressing gratitude but contempt, and the smug satisfaction that someone better has come along. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Rosalind, very perceptive writing as ever. Who knows what the outcome will be.

    The final reality is: Is there any real chance the McCann's could be prosecuted?

    Even if the British police pass on good information to the Portuguese police the case must be prosecuted in Portugal and an extradition warrant would be needed to get them over there plus multiple subpoenas to get witnesses to appear.
    It's a gigantic stumbling block and these folks are protected by a phalanx of high priced lawyers and spokespersons who have already well noted Churchill's: - "The truth is so precious she must be guarded by a bodyguard of lies".

    Hope this case won't just fizzle out.

    Maybe you or some of your readers know the legal aspects of extradition and how it would apply.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before anyone can be prosecuted they have to be found guilty in a court of law. Before that, they have to be charged with a crime.Before that, they have to have been arrested.Before that, they have to be suspects. 11 years have passed now and they aren't even at stage one.That should really tell you something I'd have thought.

      If they were ever arrested and charged it wouldn't matter how expensive their lawyers were.Once evidence is produced to prove the case, nobody can change the law.Evidence takes no sides.So, tel us all, how could anything protect anyone from that ?

      Quoting Churchill turned out to be unintentionally ironic for you then. A former Prime Minister extolling the virtues of being dishonest and burying truth in a thick tissue of lies ? Indeed. That's politicians all over though isn't it. Whether it's war or murder or some other recreational interests.

      The actual case fizzled out many years ago. You would see that if you discounted online debates, forums and social media. That won't fizzle out. It will become the largest support group in the world as so many become united in grief because they didn't get what they wanted.Bless.

      Delete
    2. In the week just past a woman walked into a police station and confessed to murdering her father some 12 years previous,a murder investigation was launched and remains were found in her garden,she has now been charged.
      This is what it will take to solve the McCann case nothing more nothing less,blacksmith reckons Tanner is talking,giiberish possibly because there ain't been no arrest.
      Operation Task debrief tells us that it had at one stage up to 60 yes 60 staff engaged on the enquiry,couple with that at least 30 officers from Operation Grange at one stage its some investigative team involved in not solving the case,either the evidence is there and was there or its not and has never been.

      Delete
    3. The case never fizzled out. The parents made sure of that, keeping Madeleine and themselves on the front pages of the tabloids was the main purpose of their campaign. They even kept the trolling online going by responding to and interacting with the trolls.

      You are right it hasn't fizzled out on social media due to the dedicated websites and forums, but it would have in the real world if the MSM were not so obliging to the parents. Gerry and Kate have had a MSM platform for a decade, airtime to speak directly to the public, and newspaper columns to air their press releases. The parents could have allowed the case to fizzle out, but that's not what they wanted.

      Returning to your first paragraph. That each of the stages you list haven't been reached is not evidence that no-one will be charged, that two investigations are still live, suggests there will be charges.

      Delete
    4. Hi JC and thank you for your kind words.

      You are right of course, the trial will take place in Portugal, which must present all sorts of logistical problems.

      I honestly don't know what extradition terms the UK have with Portugal, whether the suspects and witnesses will go willingly or under subpoena and extradition. I hope someone with legal knowledge will enlighten us.

      Delete
    5. 11 September 2007

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6988473.stm

      "Police could force Kate or Gerry McCann to return to Portugal by issuing arrest warrants, which under European Union accords should be executed by the British authorities within 40 days.

      Such a move would, however, be worthwhile only if police had sufficient evidence of a serious enough crime to convince a Portuguese judge they should be held in some form of custody."

      That ship has sailed.

      Delete
    6. "August 23, 2011

      A former fire fighter branded a football thug and thrown in a Portuguese jail after a trial described as a “farce” has been reunited with his family.

      Garry Mann – who was twice commended for bravery during his 31-year career in the fire service – was extradited in May 2010 and sent to prison to serve two years for involvement in a riot in 2004, something he always denied. His controversial trial was described as a “farce” by a British police officer present and the use of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him heavily criticised prompting the promise of a review of the legislation by Government officials.

      Despite a battle by lawyers at Fair Trials International he was extradited to Portugal to serve a two year sentence in May 2010.

      UK courts said they were powerless to stop the extradition under the EAW regime.

      Mr Mann said the first few weeks in Portugal were extremely tough where he was put in a cell with no lighting, dismal conditions, including excrement on the walls, and food served under the door.

      He said he had been let down by the politicians that agreed to the UK’s rigid extradition laws and the judges “not willing to stand up for justice”.

      “This (EAW) was supposed to have been for terrorists implemented after the 9/11 attack, but for some reason I have been caught in its net,” he said. “I am not the first victim of this system and, until it is reformed, I won’t be the last.”

      Chief executive of Fair Trials International, Jago Russell, said the EAW had turned Mr Mann’s family “upside down”.

      “Sadly, until it is reformed and we have better standards of justice in Europe others will suffer the same fate… We are delighted that Garry is finally able to return home but he should never have been extradited to Portugal following a trial which can only be described as a travesty of justice.” "

      Delete
    7. That ship won't sail until the case is solved 10:20, the perpetrator(s)will never be off the hook. Their best hope is that someone else is arrested and charged, but that is very weak because their backstory has to fit the evidence available. If you imagine a jigsaw puzzle - only the 'right' pieces will fit in the unfilled spaces.

      The amount of time, money and resources put into the investigation, both here and in Portugal suggests would suggest they are looking for prosecutions. If they weren't both countries would have shelved the files.

      Delete
    8. I just did a quick google on Gary Mann and it seems he was transferred to a British prison for the remainder of his sentence.

      Presumably even with Brexit, European Arrest Warrants are, for the time being at least, still valid. But the British police are part of the investigation, working alongside the Portuguese, the EAW question may be moot.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 January 2018 at 09:36

      ''The case never fizzled out. The parents made sure of that''

      A sure sign og guilt, not wanting the case to go away.Keeping the spotlight in your direction.

      ''You are right it hasn't fizzled out on social media due to the dedicated websites and forums,''

      Dedicated to killing 11 years waiting time swapping fantasies.That's not their fault really.There's no actual facts to discuss. There hasn't been for years.Offline, that is.Real world.

      ''two investigations are still live, suggests there will be charges.''

      Wishful thinking. Why haven't they charged anyone then ? A complete absence of suspects I'd guess.

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 January 2018 at 09:56

      ''You are right of course, the trial will take place in Portugal,''

      Any idea when ? Come to think of it, what trial ? What have we all missed that you didn't ?

      ''I honestly don't know what extradition terms the UK have with Portugal, whether the suspects and witnesses will go willingly or under subpoena and extradition''

      Wouldn't that only be importanat if somebody living in England was a suspect and was arrested ? We know the two 'big' names have been cleared of suspcion and that both countries confirmed it on the tenth anniversary. So, who is in the frame now ?

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 January 2018 at 11:37

      ''That ship won't sail until the case is solved 10:20, the perpetrator(s)will never be off the hook''

      If they're on a hook why can't we see them, or be informed of that fact.

      ''they are looking for prosecutions. If they weren't both countries would have shelved the files.''

      They're looking for all kinds.Like blind men without their canes .They'll manage to find the shelf soon.That's a guarantee.

      Delete
    10. Imagine for a moment someone other than the McCanns was charged, wouldn't the McCanns return to give evidence against the abductor who stole their daughter?

      Why are you so certain there are no suspects? Who or what has OG been investigating this past 6 years?

      Again, you are using my blog to taunt the police. How do you know they will find nothing and the case will be shelved. Surely you want them to find out who took Madeleine?

      If you are so convinced there is an abductor, surely you want him caught and put on trial? Why so pessimistic about the conclusions of OG? Why the acceptance that no abductor can be found? This doesn't exactly go along with the 'no stone unturned' and 'never giving up' lines. Operation Grange is the best hope they have of finding their daughter, the last thing they should want is the case shelved.

      Delete
    11. I don't know what evidence the McCanns could give against the suspects unless they knew them or had known them at some point. I'm as certain there are no suspects now as i was last year. If they had any they'd charge them.If they have suspects but absolutely no evidence, then they might as well suspect anyone at all. This is the eleventh year. What have OG been looking at ? A crime that was committed years before they were invented and that was cold and cooling. All files and statements and stories were becoming threadbare. that wold explain why they haven't produced anything.

      ''Again, you are using my blog to taunt the police''

      I'm posting my opinions about the lack of progress.I'm entitled to criticise public servants. I taunt nobody. Are you using it to taunt Rowley ? Mitchell ? Redwood ?

      ''Surely you want them to find out who took Madeleine? ''

      I've always wanted that. I still do. But I suspected seven days after she went missing that they wouldn't.I didn't expect them to find her either. I wanted it to happen, but happy endings in these circumstances are rare.

      ''If you are so convinced there is an abductor, surely you want him caught and put on trial? Why so pessimistic about the conclusions of OG?''

      I consider pessimism and optimism as irrational. I'm realistic as I can be as often as I can be. I want an abductor to be caught.But I believe he /she was a procurer so will be invisible.

      No stone unturned is a media friendly battle cry that sold papers and lent credibility to the investigation. Actions haven't followed the words. I don't blame OG. I blame those who were in from the get go. OG are going to be the fall guys.

      Delete
  17. Hello Ros.

    To be fair to the pros it isn’t really them saying there’s a cover up. KM encourages the idea she has “influence” with politicians for her own reasons but most of the supporters have taken the opposite view. It is the antis who virtually monopolise the claims.

    But you’ll get nowhere in trying to disabuse people of the idea: it can’t be done.

    For it is genuinely not a rational belief, in the sense that to believe that Chelsea Football Club, for example, is run by the Freemasons and the players are all transgender and hired out to politicians, is not a rational belief. Yet there is no way that you and I can prove that this is untrue. And these are the very same people who claim that there was “no abduction”. How do we know there was no abduction? Why, because there is no evidence of it! They cannot see the basic contradiction in their standpoint. You cannot pick and choose which evidence to accept in this life and which to ignore.

    But it gets much worse for people with the belief in the Conspiracy. They have placed themselves in not just a humiliating weak position but one that they can never escape from. If the Grande Guignol conspiracy has come this far without detection then how will it ever be uncovered? How will we ever know if it has? To which the conspiracy-minded reply, um, or possibly err. Or "Gemma will do it". Uh huh.

    If Grange is bent from top to bottom by the conspirators then Grange will have to be investigated to offer any solution. But Grange can never be investigated because the people charged with setting up an investigation into Grange are the very same who set Grange up! And if Gemma solves the case then how will people know that she hasn't been got at and that it's a set-up?

    And that is the real argument against the whole nonsense: it is a genuinely fantastic message of despair that is completely unwarranted. When I say fantastic, I mean that not only does it not derive from agreed evidence but that it doesn’t derive from anything in the McCann case at all: it derives from an already existing mindset.

    The mindset is one of lack of self-belief (“we are the little people”) and deep, deep helplessness. So the only result that will meet their inner beliefs and please them is a complete failure ever to find out anything about the fate of the child or hold anyone accountable. Then they can say “I told you so”. Miserably.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''And these are the very same people who claim that there was “no abduction”. How do we know there was no abduction? Why, because there is no evidence of it!''

      What exactly would constitute 'evidence' of an abduction apart from the obvious missing child ? Should there have been footprints, fingerprints and a parting note ? Would an abductor wait until the coast was clear, darkness had fallen and then crash his way into an apartment and leave his dabs all over the place ? The ' no evidence' argument isn't impressive. If you returned home and found the family jewels missing but the burglar had left no clues, should the police treat that as no evidence of a burglary, ergo, no burglary, ergo, you're under suspicion. That's not good detective work in anyone's book. The same people who hold this argument above their heads also hold Amaral up as well. Yet there's no evidence of a burial or 'secret cremation'. They hold to the argument from ignorance position. The appeal to ignorance. The ignorance being the lack of evidence to the contrary. This mindset holds that a proposition is true merely because there's no evidence that it isn't, and vice versa. It fails to acknowledge a third position that says an investigation may have been insufficient, therefore, not enough evidence exists to prove something either right or wrong. That's a bit like a stalemate. Coincidentally, this has gone on for 11 years. What does exist, however, is evidence of absence ; not absence of evidence.

      ''In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.'' ( Irving Copi )

      So, circle completed. Evidence of an abduction or evidence of a death ? The burden of proof lies with the police to prove either a death or a staged abduction. They need enough for either before the arrests are considered.Why would they find it after all this time ? Until they do, the defence is the abduction and it's withstood 11 years of efforts to dissolve it.It must either be true, or a lot of hands have joined together to hide actual evidence that it isn't.

      Conspiracy : ''a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.''

      Painting a picture of evil parents and dishonest friends being party to the burial and holding that the political interest and help they received doesn't equate to a conspiracy will never come to anything.It can't. Think about it.

      VT

      Delete
    2. 1."What would constitute evidence of abduction?"

      Eye-witness evidence of someone carrying the missing person away from the scene of the crime; eye-witness evidence of someone seen carrying something out of a car and into their home akin to a human figure; DNA traces of the missing person in said home following a resultant search; evidence of the destruction of objects by fire or other means in said home; camera evidence of the car carrying the person on a route between crime scene and home on the night of the disappearance.

      Not a very difficult question, is it? Note that the only one applicable in the McCann case is the JT “sighting” as expanded and typed out by all the Tapas Nine collectively. A “sighting” stated by Scotland Yard on record as non-existent – a conclusion not denied by Tanner at any time, which is why I say she is co-operating with the Yard.

      2."In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if…”

      You are incorrectly using an (incoherent) argument from authority – an opinion – to buttress your own opinion, a purely circular argument which merely deceives yourself.

      3."The burden of proof lies with the police to prove either a death or…”

      Untrue. The police investigation uncovers what facts it can. Proof is provided elsewhere, as you really should know. The police do not determine who is prosecuted either.

      4.The binary choice between abduction or a death is your own invention and has nothing to do with the McCann police investigations. I repeat the job of police investigators is to establish what facts they can, not to make theories. You ask “why would they find [evidence/facts] after all this time”? The very simple answer is that facts do not have a life or half life and do not expire. Check the Hanratty case for a sharp example.

      5.“The defence is the abduction.”

      Untrue. You are conflating internet and MSM comment and opinion with a “defence”. No defence has been entered by anyone since nobody, least of all the parents, has been charged. As you must be aware, I hope, the nearest the question of a defence ever arose was in the conversations between the McCanns and their lawyers before being made arguidos. The suggested and discussed defence had nothing whatever to do with claiming abduction.

      6.I have tried and failed to make sense of your last paragraph.

      7.Note that I am not arguing with your views or theories: I am pointing out that you are factually mistaken – wrong – in every one of your paragraphs and are thus deliberately misleading readers who are ignorant of the facts. Not a very honourable or honest thing to do, is it?

      Delete
    3. @JB

      Jb pointing out yet again somebody is factually mistaken. Another one for his list.That list that has 11 years worth of police investigation who are alos wrong and have missed his 'facts'. Only JB knows the truth.Ask him. Mere mortals have opinions. JB and the likes have facts. What's lacking in the case that has prevented its closure ? It wouldn't be Facts would it by any chance ? Keep up the false narrative.

      Delete
    4. 1- Your offering is far from air tight is it. Carrying from the scene of the crime ( 5A) ? Or was it someone carrying a child in the vicinity of a night creche ? What did the police do when told about someone leave the crime scene carrying a child ? What's 'akin to a human figure' ? DNA traces of you would be found in your house if you disappeared too. Why wasn't DNA be considered evidence ? '' camera evidence of the car carrying the person on a route between crime scene and home on the night of the disappearance.'' What 'person' ?When was the last time ( the year will do) Tanner was intewrviewd by the yard ?

      2- Your opinion of my incoherence is incoherent.

      3- The burden of proof is with the prosecution.The other truths that are as heavy a burden are those advanced as truth when they are only opinions voiced by antis and Amaral.

      4-The binary choice is about dead or alive.hence the ludicrous 'antis' V 'pros'. The police have sstated they're looking for a misisng person but acknowledge she might be a dead missing person. You're right, evidence doesn't have a half life.But No evidence doesn't have any life. They'd have found the pulse by now. I've checked and doble checked the evidence in the Hanratty case. The updated DNA 'evidence' you're seemingly alluding to is dubious to say the least. it served a purpose to carry it out and it wasn't justice.

      5- The McCanns have had to defend themselves against scurrilous insinutaions made by TV interviewers all over the globe and answer accusations made by countless headcases online and then to comment on the attacks made by Amaral. They were suspects for five minutes.Murat was a suspect much longer.Now no suspects are in a frame.Still they have to be on the defence. But if they seek legal weight, they're bad or evil. So many accusers with so much evidence and still they're free. But you say there's no cover ups or conspiracy. Are you saying the detectives are just morons for missing the obvious that you see ?




      Delete
    5. @ blacksmith 14:30

      "Note that the only one applicable in the McCann case is the JT “sighting” as expanded and typed out by all the Tapas Nine collectively. A “sighting” stated by Scotland Yard on record as non-existent"
      ---------------------------------------------

      That is an out and out lie by you.

      But hell - we all know your hatred of anything connected with Tanner.

      Delete
    6. VT versus Blacksmith. Like two Fiddler Crabs on a beach, each over-confident in the weight of his own lopsided argument.

      Delete
    7. Vt doesn't have a lopsided argument. He asks questions that nobody wants to answer. They'd rather just hate and make things up.That's easier.

      Delete
  18. so what's happened on the cesspit - have posts and topics been deleted or just a mass move to members only area?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of topics have been transferred to members only.

      Delete
    2. That's strange Jenny - I wonder why bennett doesn't want his sarcastic Christmas post about Brian Kennedy available for viewing by the public?

      Delete
  19. Why is all the talk about EAWs ? The perp is probably still in Portugal awaiting a new order.No evidence to say otherwise .

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The blood-soaked body of a private detective who probed the disappearance of Maddie McCann (inset left) has been found at his Surrey mansion. Mystery surrounds the death of Kevin Halligen (centre), 56, who is said to have presented himself as a 'cloak-and-dagger, James Bond-style spy' - with police confirming to MailOnline today that a probe has been launched."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Kevin Halligen found dead.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265977/Maddie-McCann-detective-conman-Kevin-Halligen-dead.html

    "A spokesman for Surrey Police said today: 'We were called to an address in Cobbett Hill Road, Normandy, Guildford, on Monday following a report of a man in his 50s having been taken unwell, who subsequently died.

    'The death is being treated as unexplained and a file will be passed to the coroner's office in due course.'"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Ros,Reported in the press,the death of Kevin Haligen,who was hired by Kate,Gerry on Madeleine's disappearance,who was alleged to have received £300,000 as part of a £500,000 contract,but failed to find Madeleine,Rest In Peace Mr Haligen.

    ReplyDelete
  23. bennett says: "For much more of the murky world of how Halligen, Exton, Craig-Harvey and many others employed by or connected to the British security services helped the McCanns, register or login here and search under

    HALLIGEN"

    Google translate: "I don't have the balls to post my libel and false research in public"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bottom of the barrel versus the cesspit.A man is found dead. A report says he was unwell. Some say he was blood -soaked. Then it emerges that at some point he was on the McCann case. Is he going to be the new Brenda Leyland ? Was he 'taken out' like they do in the movies ? If it wasn't so sick it would be comedy

      Delete
    2. Spot the difference.

      https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/673881/maddie-mccann-detective-conman-murder-kevin-halligen-dead-private-investigator-surrey

      By Anthony Blair

      "It's believed that he was found murdered at the house he shared with his long-term girlfriend.

      There is no suggestion that she was involved in the death.

      A former associate of Halligen, defence consultant Tim Craig-Harvey, tweeted: "The lies and alcohol finally caught up with him."

      --------

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kevin-halligen-found-dead-madeleine-mccann-donations-conman-a8158041.html

      Adrian Gatton (a TV director and investigative journalist, who made a documentary with Halligen in 2014 for Channel 5 – The McCanns and the Conman):

      "His house was full of empty drink bottles. A lot of people wished him ill but his death is almost certainly related to alcoholism.”

      Delete
    3. @ anon 22:02

      by MayMuse Today at 21:18
      Nessling
      H&M
      Rowley retires
      Halligen dead

      Delete
    4. meanwhile over at haverns hellhole

      "by Get'emGonçalo Yesterday at 18:42
      It actually makes me feel ill reading this news report sallypelt.
      I can understand alcohol killing you...but lies? How does that work?
      And all that blood? Sounds like a bloodbath went on at his mansion.
      How many more suspicious deaths are there going to be in this case apart from Madeleine?"

      Delete
    5. And the tacky tabloids use a picture of a missing little girl to catch the eye. And do the idiots take the bait ? Of course. Look online.The MSM has now cottoned to the recent phenomenon of of 'clickbait'. They know their audience. There's no escaping the rabble even online. Well done anyone who took the hook and passed it round and got them more attention.Pat yourself on the back.

      Delete
    6. I suspect that people who jump to immediate conclusions often feel ill 00:03, thinking the worst of everyone must leave them debilitated 99% of the time. Strange phenomenon and incurable.

      With literally no information whatsoever, the cesspit have built a back story and decided Halligan was murdered. So adept are they are solving high profile mysteries, they can turn them round in 48 hours, often before the pathologist or the coroner. What a surprise that the police don't take their 'research' more seriously. Bennett especially, who has sent them shedloads of advice.

      Delete
    7. Could you define rabble 00:16? At the moment I am picturing you in the palace of Versailles wearing a powdered wig and looking down at the masses. What distinguishes you from the rabble 00:16, as you click on those news stories? Are you in fact Louis XVI?

      Delete
    8. Rabble ? Loud, brainless and incapable of keeping quiet when they should or trying to think before coming out with a sentence. They stick together and repeat each other and feel like they're some kind of movement. They're right in a way, but the way they think.They're nuiscance online as well as off.They have no respect and show any consideration toward ordinary people who just want to get on with life without them popping up like a bad smell and lingering too long. They share the mentality of kids who think it's clever to be loud and outrageous because they're too young to know any better. Kids are too young to know better.Adults have no excuse. You think ordinary people who find all of that a pain in the arse to be Louis XVI ( i think you meant XIV) ?You're have no understanding.You also have a glass house if you're going to start throwing stones regarding superiority complexes . You wrote the book( or maybe should do before next Xmas)

      Delete
    9. @23:26

      The French Revolution forced Louis XVI to leave Versailles for Paris.

      "You're have no understanding." ?

      Delete
    10. No, 23:26, you and most McCann supporters seem to think you are elite because you defend the parents. You have called dibbs on the higher moral ground, those who don't believe are the masses, the rabble.

      When you try to figure out why the McCanns aren't likeable, and why they no longer have public support, you might want to chew over the whole rabble approach.

      Delete
    11. No, I meant Louis XVI, the last King of France, whose wife Marie Antoinette suggested the rabble should eat cake if they had no bread.

      Delete
  24. "
    Gemma O'Doherty
    ‏ @gemmaod1
    3h3 hours ago

    Blood-soaked body of Dublin-born #MadeleineMcCann private eye found at his Surrey mansion. This case gets murkier by the minute. My investigation in @VillageMagIRE will be published in next month’s edition with new revelations and questions"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @23.56
      a lesson in how to destroy your own reputation.

      Delete
    2. I don't know very much about Gemma O'Doherty other than a quick look at her twitter timeline, so far, but I like what I see! I'm very much looking forward to her documentary, and in the meanwhile, I'm going to take a look Gemma's Mary Boyle documentary.

      Delete
    3. You like what you see why ? All she says is what hundreds of dimwitted haters have been saying for years.Looking at nutters reading body language and faces. repeating everyone about dogs.Ignoring the facts about police having nothing on anyone.Now shes' already adding Halligen's death to the list of crimes to implicate them in . Scrap my first question. I get it now.

      Delete
    4. There is much more to Gemma than her forthcoming Madeleine documentary 23:11. When I say I like what I see on her twitter timeline, I mean she appears to be a woman after my own heart in her politics, causes and people who follow her. Everything isn't about the McCanns.

      Want to add, I have now watched Gemma's Mary Boyle documentary, it is excellent, Gemma is quite fearless in her investigations so it will be interesting to see what she does with the Madeleine case. I'm very much looking forward to it.

      Delete
  25. ''Blood-soaked body of Dublin-born #MadeleineMcCann private eye found at his Surrey mansion. This case gets murkier by the minute.'

    A new hater joining dots . Portugal,Leicester, 11 years and Surrey. Add the 'shock' imagery of more blood soaked horror (the new 'blood spatters' ?), the McCann names and don't even delve into the personal private history of the deceased's last few years( a researcher ?Of course it is). Another wannabe chasing round the internet desperately seeking validation and fame before the book gets closed. For someone so concerned with the Dublin crime she knows where the real attention is. Cheap, tacky and the latest anti to do their cause far more harm than good. They're inches away from becoming a laughing stock to the normal people who stand by in disbelief at their logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 05:54 "They're inches away from becoming a laughing stock to the normal people who stand by in disbelief at their logic."

      They became a laughing stock years and years ago and their desperate attempts to analyse the slightest little thing and try to predict the future outcome is pathetic.

      Delete
    2. 'inches away from becoming a laughing stock' - that was a cracker!

      Although I am not sure 'laughing stock' is the correct term, they are more an online example of what happens when a group of weird people get together and form a gang.

      I hasten to add however, that it is not abnormal to discuss high profile news, history is littered with mysteries that have aroused the interest of the general public. From the Lindbergh baby, to OJ Simpson, to Amanda Knox. We are puzzle solvers and socialised, discussion is normal.

      In this case a few, and it is only a few, have crossed every moral line and boundary, prying into the lives of those named in the PJ files, and finding them guilty of lying and worse in their kangaroo courts. They are not just a laughing stock, they are creepy stalkers who have taken it upon themselves to wreck the lives of others. May their gods forgive them.

      Delete
    3. It may not be abnormal to discuss high profile dramatic headlines. It's worse than abnormal to start the inquest , connect all kinds of dots that aren't there and see if you can create a completely different narrative to suit your own hobby before the man's body is even cold. The only positive I see form all the online madness is that while they're all online talking shite the streets are a bit safer.

      Delete
  26. Post 1 of 2

    ""Post by Hobs Today at 0:49
    How convenient, one less blabbing mouth to worry about.
    However, if this was a non accidental death, IE homicide then the mccanns have to be investigated as possible suspects due to the fact they knew him, he was employed by them via a 3rd party and, crucially, he conned them out of £500,000 that they have admitted to/claimed and that they took no action against him to recover said money /the 3rd party took no action.
    So far we now have 3 deaths linked to the mccanns directly and indirectly.
    I have always said once you kill for the first time, the rest become easier as the taboo has been broken.
    We cannot say the mccanns have direct involvement but then apart from Maddie we have Brenda Leyland dead by suicide and now kevin halligan who was employed by them/the fund/3rd party to find their allegedly abducted daughter.
    We know they like to use sources to get their nasty little comments and positive media stories out into the big wide world so that they can then claim ignorance when the response isn't as expected, always willing to play the blame game.
    As it stands, the tapas 7 should be getting a little worried.
    They know too much and after 10 years the guilt will be eating away at them.
    Friendships change and they are no longer as close as they used to be, in fact i suspect they barely, if at all, talk to each other, let alone go on chummy vacations.
    The only thing they now have in common is the death, disposal and subsequent coverup of Maddie which is a huge secret to be kept.
    If one or more of the tapas was actually involved in the actual death of Maddie along with the mccanns, the worry is that after 10 years almost 11, the huge financial hit the mccanns have taken which will pretty much bankrupt them is that a nasty little accident will happen and suddenly the case gets solved with all blame being laid on said tapas member/s."

    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  27. Post 2 of 2

    continued:
    "The mccanns profess shock and horror claiming they suspected nothing, case gets solved and the mccanns walk free albeit poorer unless they can somehow claim compensation as victims of crime and/or sue said estate of tapas member.
    The mccanns are lying, conniving, duplicitous nasty little people who will stop at nothing to get their own way as we have seen with all the leaked stories in their favor.
    There is also the risk that their supporters who can and will see no wrong with their beloved and saintly mccanns will not take action on their behalf in an attempt to protect their master and mistress from anyone who doesn't believe their innocence.
    If this was an accidental/natural death, the mccanns still have a problem.
    What if halligen kept diaries on what he did find out little as it may be.
    We know he employed genuine experts who we later learned were not paid, they too were conned by the conman.
    What if they found interesting information that implicated the mccanns and chums?
    They may not have been able to locate Maddie's remains but may have had a general idea of what happened to her and where she was dumped.
    What if halligen had all this information safely locked away as a nest egg?
    What if he decided perhaps a little blackmail was in order since his expensive lifestyle had gone pants up?

    Mccanns pay an amount per month/per annum to keep him quiet rather than face charges of homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report in Portugal and then all those nice fraud charges relating to the fund?

    Now that they have to pay out probably hundreds of thousands in court costs and legal fees for not only themselves but also that of all the defendants they took to court plus also facing being possibly sued by selfsame defendants, and knowing just how avaricious the mccanns are plus the £500,000 that was ringfenced (in this case in such a way it had to be spent on property) they had to look for savings somewhere.

    Gerry is a lecturer which means he possibly may not be earning as much as before and won't have the same status as a cardiologist consultant (he was in a dead end job there with no chance of promotion as well as being a liability to the hospital) and, even as a professor he won't have tenure nor much chance of promotion given his notoriety.
    Kate is working in a medical job but hasn't said what so it could be receptionist, nursing assistant as anything else would require her to undergo full training, maybe a phlebotomist,maybe even a cleaner in a hospital or porter so her income may be somewhat limited especially if she is part time.

    I bet right now the tapas 7 are quivering, 3 deaths linked to the mccanns, imaginations working overtime, wondering if perhaps they could be next?

    This might also be enough to get someone talking, even if halligan's death turns out to be natural, it is still enough to cause jitters especially as they are part of a large secret involving possible homicide which would make them co conspirators, aiding and abetting an offender, filing a false police report, perverting the course of justice, obstruction of justice, perjury and fraud, charges both in the UK and Portugal.

    This could get quite interesting."
    https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14855p25-kevin-halligen-blood-soaked-body-of-james-bond-style-private-eye-who-conned-the-fund-to-find-maddie-mccann-out-of-300000-is-found-at-his-mansion#380032
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Copied here as definitive proof that havern's hellhole truly is a cesspit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I'm not sure I want Hobbs post on my blog, so it may only be here a short while.

      Hobbs, Tania Cadogan did an online course in lie spotting with the creepy, guitar playing preacher to whom an open door = underage sex. Their beliefs are so bizarre, I give them no credence whatsoever, ditto their interpretation of language.

      Yes Halligan worked for the McCanns, but he was an 'international conman', with his fingers in many pies, some much bigger than the McCann case. Naturally there is a temptation to link his death to the McCanns, so the cesspit have.

      I agree, Halligan could have been a very strong witness for the prosecution - what instructions were given to him by the McCanns for his investigation? But he is just one among many private detectives they hired, and Dave Edgar for example, would know more than he did.

      Killing off witnesses or people in the know, in this case is futile, there are far too many, anyone with far more damning evidence than Halligan could turn at any time.

      I expect the Tapas group do have the jitters, not because they fear being bumped off, but because the day of retribution is rapidly approaching.

      There is a determination never seen before in a missing child case, to solve the mystery, not just from Scotland Yard but also from the PJ. That the police in both countries haven't given up would be more cause for jitters for anyone who was involved in Madeleine's disappearance.

      Delete
    2. Ros 10:43

      "I expect the Tapas group do have the jitters, not because they fear being bumped off, but because the day of retribution is rapidly approaching.

      There is a determination never seen before in a missing child case, to solve the mystery, not just from Scotland Yard but also from the PJ. That the police in both countries haven't given up would be more cause for jitters for anyone who was involved in Madeleine's disappearance."

      That is nonsense - do you not think that if there had been any evidence against the Mccanns or tapas group the two Police investigations would have found it by now???

      There is not one scrap of evidence to support your wild, wishful thinking, speculation.

      Delete
    3. Your post is nonsense. if there was no evidence, against the Tapas group or anyone, the investigation would have closed long ago. How did they ask for the last lot of funding, 'well we got nothing, and in 6 months we will still have nothing, so could we have another £154k anyway?

      I don't think prosecutions are built by holding up every piece of evidence found along the way for public scrutiny 11:06. Much as I hate to use the words cat and mouse, I think that is the game we are watching.

      I tend to think if Gerry, Kate and their friends, did not have the jitters, they would have been far more forthcoming over the years, with the police and the public about what happened that night. The tapas especially, who have shown little allegiance with the parents.

      It is not wild, wishful thinking or speculation on my part 11:06. Neither Gerry, Kate or their friends have ever behaved as if they were 'off the hook'. You 11:06, with your posts, are not acting as if the parents and tapas are 'off the hook', you don't have the confidence of someone who is 'off the hook'. You are hyper sensitive to everything that is said or written, you are on edge, always. Can you see the pattern?

      Delete
    4. Speaking of 'nonsense'...

      Ros
      ''The 'antis' drawn to the case by their penchant for conspiracies have been resolute on the 'cover up' theory since day 1. And that's where their thinking has stayed and festered. ''

      Ros
      ''There has been a conspiracy in the missing Madeleine case. If there hadn't been, it would have ended 10 years ago''

      Delete
    5. ''""Post by Hobs Today at 0:49
      How convenient, one less blabbing mouth to worry about.
      However, if this was a non accidental death, IE homicide then the mccanns have to be investigated as possible suspects due to the fact they knew him, he was employed by them via a 3rd party and, crucially, he conned them out of £500,000 ''

      This is an example of why censorship is not always wrong. Free speech is one thing but this kind of hate, unfounded blabbing and sheer stupidity is an insult to decency and the intelligence of normal people.

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 January 2018 at 10:43

      ''I expect the Tapas group do have the jitters, not because they fear being bumped off, but because the day of retribution is rapidly approaching. ''

      A couple of questions spring to mind if you fancy answering them :

      1- Why would the tapas group be having jitters ?

      2- What, in your sharp evidence-free sharp thinking, constitutes the 'day of retribution'

      3- How do your answers to 1 and 2 fit with your 'no cover up / conspiracy' idea. ?

      4- If the McCanns are guilty of all the things you suggest, why would that be a worry to the Tapas group ?

      Delete
    7. Ros 11:40 "You 11:06, with your posts, are not acting as if the parents and tapas are 'off the hook', you don't have the confidence of someone who is 'off the hook'. You are hyper sensitive to everything that is said or written, you are on edge, always. Can you see the pattern?"



      I think you have completely lost it Ros.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 January 2018 at 11:40

      ''I don't think prosecutions are built by holding up every piece of evidence found along the way for public scrutiny 11:06. Much as I hate to use the words cat and mouse, I think that is the game we are watching. ''

      I think you're failing to distinguish between the online community caarying out an investigation in the form of discussing ideos and newspaper articles and the kind undertaken by professionals who have training in the area.They tend to rely on evidence.You may be watching a game of cat and mouse, nobody else is.Nobody has anything to watch.You're using your imagination.

      ''I tend to think if Gerry, Kate and their friends, did not have the jitters, they would have been far more forthcoming over the years, with the police and the public about what happened that night''

      They were out at dinner.They were checking intermittently on the children. Between checks Madeleine disappeared.That's it. There's only one or two ways you can say that.If they weren't there, anything they added wold be fictional.If there were more pertinent questions to be asked, they would have been some time in 2007.So, what they said is with the police and was reported to the public.Anything they chose not to say is with you and your imagination.

      ''The tapas especially, who have shown little allegiance with the parents. ''

      How does 'no allegiance with the parents' actually work if you think they helped them clean up a crime scene and to create a false abduction story when they didn't need to ?

      '' Neither Gerry, Kate or their friends have ever behaved as if they were 'off the hook ''

      In what way have they behaved as if they were actually on a hook ? Or are you imagining they haven't ?

      ''You are hyper sensitive to everything that is said or written, you are on edge, always. Can you see the pattern?''

      Mirror mirror on the wall...

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 January 2018 at 10:43

      ''I agree, Halligan could have been a very strong witness for the prosecution -''

      A 'very strong' witness who hadn't been approached in 11 years. Don't tell me, just as they were about to get their very strong witness he died of 'the jitters'. Realistic ?

      '' Dave Edgar for example, would know more than he did. ''

      And what did Dave Edgar come with ? A series of 1950s Horror B movie imagery and hints inspired by recent headline grabbers about kids and young women who had been held captive in cellars for years ( to make it more believable). Heavy on guessing, bereft of evidence.

      ''Killing off witnesses or people in the know, in this case is futile, there are far too many, anyone with far more damning evidence than Halligan could turn at any time. ''

      I love Raymond Chandler. However, PDL isn't pre-war LA, and the Tapas bar isn't a seedy joint smelling of bourbon, stale cigarettes and blousy broads. Who makes up this list of 'far too many' witnesses that could be filled full of lead at any second ?And what was the powder keg that Halligen was sitting on ( for over 10 years) that could blow the case wide open ? Give me a whistle when you have a name or two and a source. You know how to whistle don't you...

      '' That the police in both countries haven't given up would be more cause for jitters for anyone''

      I promised myself I'd rob a bank one day. If I ever get around to it, I'll choose one in PDL. I'll wear a Union Flag jacket, show a V for victory salute to the CCTV and chew a fat cigar. Then I'd get on with life as the combined forces of SY and the PJ set about their business.

      VT

      Delete
    10. Yeh, I know how to whistle, you just put your lips together and blow.

      As impressed as I am at your knowledge of film noir VT, I don't think this case involves seedy bars and blousy broads.

      Those detectives building this case are keeping the details to themselves, we don't know what witnesses have been interviewed or their importance to any potential prosecution.

      You say the police have ignored Halligan for 11 years, which is simply not true. ALL the evidence collected from all sources, PJ, private eyes etc are part of the investigation. The revelation e-fits held back by the parents, were part of the Oakley files. Clearly, Halligan, Oakley and Exxon are integral. Metodo3, no so much.

      Delete
    11. Why have the police needed to keep details to themselves for 11 years ? It doesn't matter if they've interviewed 10 or 110 witnesses in that time.Nobody has been charged with anything. Doesn't that suggest they have nobody and nothing ? What else would they need ?

      I suggested that in 11 years they had nothing that compelled them to pull Halligen in, as opposed to the view you suggested that he could have been a very strong witness for the prosecution. They had 11 years to get some valuable nuggets off him. That suggests to me that they yielded nothing of value from him if they talked to him, or they just didn't talk to him in all that time.

      I doubt that this common sense approach will sway the antis. They've picked up on the scent of blood now that he's dead.The sharks are in a frenzy.The other half of them stay out of the water. They prefer being vultures, gliding above the scene waiting for a different meal.Thy're such a merry band . May the sunshine never darken their day :)

      VT

      Delete
    12. @ Ros 12:34

      The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013

      "In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
      ---------------------------------------

      I believe they paid £55k + costs to the Mccanns.

      I hope you have evidence of "The revelation e-fits held back by the parents"

      Delete
    13. LOL at your pathetic threats 15:49, Yes, held back by the parents. They were not released to the public until the October 2013 Crimewatch when Scotland Yard released them as a new revelation.

      Why weren't they publicised by the parents 5 years earlier? Was it because they looked like Gerry?

      Delete
    14. If the case had been closed or even shelved again, the 11 years and no-one charged argument might hold some weight. But the investigationS, British and Portuguese, are still live so the argument doesn't apply. All those 'on the hook' can't actually relax until the case is closed VT.

      Delete
  28. June 9, 2012

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fraud-suspect-kevin-richard-halligen-allegedly-posed-as-a-spy-and-cheated-the-elite-on-both-sides-of-the-atlantic/2012/06/09/gJQA3gdwQV_story.html

    kurthunt
    Anyone who cheated the elite can't be half-bad.


    IDoCare
    Halligan should get an award for exposing the hollowness of the high-and-mighty. The people (certainly the 'intelligence' professionals) should be happy to not have their reputations, such as they are, sullied! What a joke.


    bobfbell
    Does it strike anyone else that this story is a perfect metaphor for how DC works and how its inhabitants seem so willing and capable of notg only aiding and abetting in fraud but enablling it. This man was able to swindle millions because so many in the circles of power were part of the scheme; some more culpable but almost all doing their best to ignore the criminality and outright fraud being committed.
    And, our politicians wonder why no one trusts them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting 11:37. I wonder who introduced Halligen to the McCanns? He doesn't sound like the type to advertise his services in the local paper.

      Another clue I think to how deep the rabbit hole goes and perhaps as to why OG is taking so long.

      Delete
    2. According to Kate McCann Oakley International was hired by Madeleine's Fund.

      Delete
    3. here we go. The Ros detective agency grasping another non -existent straw, let's se if we can all connect the death of Halligen to the McCanns. Then let's see if we can suggest that's why OG is taking so long( they were waiting for the death of someone connected even if it took 10 years). Clue to the rabbit hole ? No, evidence of desperation actually. Shameless and pitiful.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 January 2018 at 12:29

      ''Very interesting 11:37. I wonder who introduced Halligen to the McCanns? He doesn't sound like the type to advertise his services in the local paper. ''

      Was he introduced to them personally ? Or was his firm hired by those handling the fund and using their contacts ?

      He built up Oakley International in 2005 with the help of 'heavyweight' law firm, Patton Boggs . Big noises in Washingon trusted him blindly based on the reputations of other big noises who had already been taken in by him. That was the beginning of him playing for very high stakes with very powerfully connected Washington people. He began his James Bond fantasy life and a lot of people bought it.We're talking millions of dollars here. His reputation grew and spread and it was all based on smoke and mirrors. But people used to trusting each other continued trusting each other in the area and he continued to enjoy success based on nothing true.

      The Find Madeleine Fund, acting upon the perceived reputation of the pseudo James Bond, seen it as a good investment. They believed they would be getting the best hi-tech surveillance equipment money could buy and a team with a tall reputation.Like everyone else in Halligen's trail, they did little or no checking of actual credentials, choosing instead to go with the word of people who hadn't realised they'd been conned as well yet. The fund became just another victim of a smooth operator who was smart enough to kid fools who should have known better. That seems to be how it happened. Mitchell was the man with a background in politics and with military intelligence connections so he was the go between.He was kidded too .He cancelled the contract when he realised the funding was only funding Halligen's lifestyle, nothing else.But the money was gone. The McCann contract was a drop in the ocean when you look at the size and scope of Halligen's crime spree.He made a lot of very powerful enemies, owed a colossal amount of money to them, and had to kiss his lavish, fantasy existence goodbye and run from America.

      How do you cope with having to look over your shoulder 24 /7 , wondering if your next port of call will be to a prison cell , and look back at the time when you lived the life of an Oil Sheikh with everyone hanging on your every word ? It's too much for one mind to bear .So, I'd forget the 'who introduced the McCanns to him' line of thinking. The McCann case was small potatoes to him and to his story.Barely a chapter of it. It was just business.Trying to pick out that strand for isolated study is something only members of the public will have an interest in if they have convinced themselves that everything and everyone involved with the McCanns is criminal, ergo, according to the law of 'birds of a feather', the McCanns must be too, ergo, they're guilty of hiding the body of their child.It's bigger picture time again.

      VT



      Delete
    5. The Fund didn't hire Halligan, Gerry, Kate and the directors hired him on behalf of the Fund. It is they who were persuaded by someone, that he was the best. Bizarre, as they had already wasted a considerable amount of Fund money on Metodo3 who also turned out to be fraudulent detectives, and who famously promised Maddie would be 'home for Christmas'.

      Having been taken for a ride once, wasn't it a bit remiss of Gerry and Kate to be taken for a ride again? You keep blaming 'The Fund' as if it were a living, breathing entity acting independently from the parents. The Fund is the parents, the parents are The Fund.

      You can't just write off the McCanns involvement with such a dodgy character as just business VT. Was it just coincidence that his was the SECOND firm of fraudulent detectives hired by the parents? Having wasted £50k a month on Metodo3 didn't they carry out at least a few rudimentary checks?

      'Who introduced him to the McCanns', is ever more relevant VT, it should be relevant to the McCanns too, as they are the ones who were swindled (twice).

      Delete
    6. from The Telegraph

      "

      1:40PM BST 12 Oct 2008

      US-based firm Oakley International was taken on by the Find Madeleine Fund earlier this year on a £500,000 six-month contract.

      The company was chosen by double-glazing tycoon Brian Kennedy, who has promised to back the McCanns financially to help solve the mystery of the disappearance of their daughter.

      Oakley was hired to monitor a telephone hotline, carry out detective work and review CCTV footage from around the world of possible sightings of the missing girl.

      But Mr Kennedy became concerned by the level of Oakley's £43,500 ($74,155) expenses claim in the first month of the contract.

      The company's contract was terminated at the end of August after Mr Kennedy had become concerned at its lack of results.

      Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the Find Madeleine Fund, said that Oakley International was no longer working on the case.

      He said: "The contract with Oakley was just one among many that have been entered into during the search for Madeleine.

      "While Oakley did some valuable work, particularly in the early stages, its contract, like many others, has now come to a close. ""

      Delete
    7. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 January 2018 at 09:21

      ''You can't just write off the McCanns involvement with such a dodgy character as just business VT. Was it just coincidence that his was the SECOND firm of fraudulent detectives hired by the parents?''

      I was referring to Halligen when I called it just business. That's all it was to him. That's all anything was to him. We're talking about somebody who quietly cut a swathe through some very powerful people and relieved them of their cash to the tune of millions.In terms of con artistry he was premier league. Why would a couple of Doctors, or their representatives, be a challenge ? He saw the cheque offered and he took it using the modus operandi that hadn't been discovered just yet.You're trying to suggest that the McCanns, along with advisors handling the fund, deliberately hired dodgy detectives as A- it wasn't their own savings they were spending, and B- they knew the detectives wouldn't do their job( find Madeleine). That makes no sense whatsoever unless you want to advance it as theory that puts them in the frame for burying their child. It's a lot of creative license. This isn't a novel. Creative license would die a quick death in a criminal trial.

      '''Who introduced him to the McCanns', is ever more relevant VT, it should be relevant to the McCanns too, as they are the ones who were swindled (twice).''

      If they were interested in hiring his company it would make sense to have some kind of conference before handing over what was a huge amount of cash from the fund.Who wouldn't request that ? Why is it so wrong or questionable of the McCanns did it ? Where did they meet and who was present ?

      Your view is getting even narrower to the point you hardly pay attention to any other possibilities that run counter to your one idea. Nobody can suggest anything or pass you links and sources here as you won't entertain them. You skim and move along.Only when you'e given an echo of yourself do you come to life and address the subject. It's your blog, so it's up to you. You shouldn't try to pass it off as a blog that's open to all sides of a discussion and that all sides of the case and different viewpoints are welcome. Nobody who reads here can see that. The only readers who will back you up are those who share the same narrow mindset.

      VT

      Delete
    8. Ok VT, give me an innocent explanation as to why the parents hired not one, but two firms of dodgy private detectives.

      Delete
    9. One of the prerequisites in the successful execution of a scam, is to obey Rule 1 : Don't inform your target that it's a scam( or they won't hand the money over). Ask any successful, or formerly successful con -artist and they will confirm this.If you consider this, along with the word- of- mouth recommendations of people you think can be trusted in an area you've had no need to contact before, it's not that difficult to be taken in. there's plenty of high rollers in Washington who had experience of Halligen who would, and have, confirmed as much .

      If you think they parents deliberately hired the companies - which seems to be evident in your posts - can you give an explanation as to why they would knowingly kiss that amount of money goodbye ?

      VT

      Delete
    10. 14:55. In reply to your questions.

      1. If the Tapas group have not told the complete truth to the police, then they have much to worry about.

      2. My opinion is not 'evidence' free. You are forgetting the alerts of the dogs. Someone died in 5A, Madeleine hasn't been seen in 11 years and there is no evidence of an abductor. The only evidence was JT's sighting and that has been ruled out by OG.

      3. There has been a conspiracy, not the kind advocated by Bennett and the more deranged wing of the antis, but a conspiracy nevertheless.

      4. The tapas friends are up to their neck in it. Not only did they too endanger their children, some might say they tried to frame Robert Murat. Some might say they perverted the course of justice.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 January 2018 at 12:47

      1- If. That's a pretty large 'if' wouldn't you say.The police have had 11 years to go over the statements. That suggests they have little at all to worry about.

      2-The 'evidence of the dogs' argument is becoming slightly embarrassing now. You remember them, obviously. I remember the conclusions of the forensics team that examined the findings.

      3- Glad to see you finally admit the state of play has always suggested a conspiracy.But what was it, why did it have to occur and who was it to protect and what was it to hide.It was a case that was /is labelled a missing person / abduction. Why couldn't it have just been left like that and treated as a police matter ?

      4-The Tapas group certainly took the same gamble in leaving their children unguarded.A big gamble considering what happened that night.How does that add up to being 'up to their neck in it' with regard to Madeleine's disappearance ? Robert Murat framed himself more than anyone else's alleged sightings of him. He took liberties when in the station translating by trying to look at paperwork that didn't fall within the remit of a translator and was asking the detectives about where they'd be looking next before his intermittent calls to Sky's Martin Brunt.They're often considered red flags to the police.It was then that the detectives became annoyed and suspicious of him and decided to tail him all day and bring him in for questioning twice.His statements stood next to his mother's statements concerned basic facts yet didn't marry up as easily as the basics should have done.If people , including the tapas group, said they saw a man who looked like him standing around, they may well have done.Nobody said they saw him commit a crime or look as though he was about to. If they only saw someone who resembled Murat, it's mistaken identity.That's not perverting anything.

      VT

      Delete
    12. VT why has the evidence of the dogs become slightly embarrassing? You do understand that you don't need forensic evidence or DNA to back up cadaver dog alerts, I hope? These dogs do not detect DNA but they respond to the unique olfactory signature produced by the process of decomposition and they do it well, and with exceptional accuracy. The absence of any biological residues which explain those alerts is not unexpected. One cannot at the moment recover a smell. Just as at the moment we cannot locate a source for multiple dog alerts in the flat or car. It is, therefore, difficult to explain why a cadaver dog should make multiple false alerts in a premises from which a small child had disappeared and where she was last seen alive. I believe Martin Grime said you need corroborating evidence to back up cadaver dog alerts and IMO, there's plenty of that.

      Delete
  29. @10:04

    You are not, perchance, quoting the disingenuous golden-footed veterenary nurse who,famously, put a consultant right with regard to a telescope, are you?

    Charming,

    A Klingon couplet

    "The curse of a nurse to curse The Inverse.
    Inverted, the curse is a curse to the the nurse."

    T

    ReplyDelete
  30. translations

    https://theglossa.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/crime-in-the-modern-age-when-translation-changes-lives-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is nothing lost in translation.

      "He [Gerry McCann] confirms all of what was stated previously to the Police on two occasions, and has nothing further to add."

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

      "He says nothing further. After reading the document and finding it to be satisfactory, he confirms and signs it."

      Delete
    2. Thank you 12:31. Quite.

      I took a peek at the article, but wasn't impressed. The author overlooks the fact the McCanns paid over £100k for their own translation of the PJ files. Even they aren't claiming evidence was lost in translation.

      Delete
    3. @ 12:10

      Good point. It was a bit of a masterstroke ( among other master strokes) on the part of the PJ to employ the services of the man who was destined to become the only suspect to be questioned on two occasions to be their translator. Giving him a legitimate chair in the station to hear all considerations of the detectives and ask them where they would be looking next. Bizarre. They caught on eventually, just in time to be too late.

      Delete
    4. When the McCanns hired Metodo3 and Halligan, they already had in their employ several firms of top solicitors, and all the assistance and advice they could have hoped for. And having already been scammed for $50k a month from Metodo3, why hire another dodgy firm without any checks?

      On top of which the McCanns are not slow in suing people, so why didn't they make any attempt to get the money back. The two firms must have cost the Madeleine Fund hundreds of thousands of pounds, yet they wrote it off without so much as a complaint.

      Both Metodo3 and Halligan were involved in money laundering. Some people will naturally put two and two together. Being conned once might, at a push, be understandable, but doing exactly the same thing again with another firm a few months later, is bound to raise eyebrows.

      Delete
  31. If any one believes O.G.officers are honest and have integrity then surely after 6 years and 12 million quid when they state JT did not lie over seeing Tannerman but after meticulous investigation found he was an innocent holidaymaker why don't you believe them.

    Why do you think any of the tapas would have squeaky bums.
    JTs honesty has been fully investigated and approved by OG
    There is no cat and mouse game going on
    OG have announced to the world JT is a person of integrity just honestly mistaken in her ID with no further questions to answer.

    SY have never stated JTs sighting was non-existent
    It is a shame certain people feel the need to lie to try and make a point

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''It is a shame certain people feel the need to lie to try and make a point''

      What are they supposed to do on a discussion blog- sing a song ?

      Nobody said OG are bent . The question came up and it was answered. If you scroll up and read it closely, you'll see that.

      Delete
    2. This is all such a waste of time.

      Jane Tanner's honesty is not at issue in the Crecheman/Grange business.The significance of the “Tanner Sighting” is that it is the only evidence for an abduction – an eye-witness description of a male apparently hurrying away from the apartment block with a child in his arms during the so-called “window of opportunity”. To ignore such a strikingly suggestive piece of evidence would be madness.

      The claim is all the more convincing because Tanner’s evidence was unbiased by any knowledge that the child had vanished, unlike Kate McCann’s “evidence” of moving doors and windows that are post-facto and not evidence of anything except their own state. Unlike others I have never believed that JT made it up: there wasn’t, and isn’t, the evidence to support such a belief.

      But to quibble over my use of words and call me a liar is simply silly or deliberately obtuse. Redwood has stated the Grange squad’s belief, based on investigation and interviews, that Tanner didn’t see anyone hurrying away with an abducted child but instead an innocent parent. He attributes no dishonesty to Tanner in saying that and nor do I.

      The OFM state “the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment.” As you would expect they gloss it favourably: Redwood didn’t use the “may” or “might”, or even “caution” words much on Crimewatch, did he? No, he trumpeted emphatically and loudly that the Yard had made a breakthrough, a “revelation” that had changed the whole case. How exactly do you have a “maybe” revelation?

      I don’t need telling that it is perfectly possible that Tanner saw one of two different men in the locality that night. I don’t know how many times I have to say that I’m not in the business of telling people that the McCanns or anyone else are guilty of a crime and that I await the outcome of the investigation to tell me.

      Nevertheless Grange’s words – aimed on the record at we the public to clarify the investigation for us – have convinced me that they have discounted the Tanner sighting as an abductor. That is a valid, non-libellous interpretation that hurts nobody and, as with everything I write, I would be happy to defend in a libel court.

      It was in 2010 that I stated publicly that the Lisbon Appeal Court judgement on McCanns v Amaral made it absolutely certain that in the long run the McCann couple could never win their libel action. I took a great deal of abuse for that as well but it turned out to be simply the truth. I expect my view on the absence of eyewitness evidence of abduction to be confirmed when Grange concludes. In the meantime I’m content to wait.

      Delete
    3. Oh dear, I find I am at odds with both JJ and JB. I don't believe Jane Tanner is off the hook, and yes I know that flies in the face of what the police have said, but I just don't.

      I think JT came up with her sighting on the night, as a cover for Gerry who 'had been seen'. It was an add on to the timeline written by the tapas group on Maddie's colouring book.

      Scotland Yard wanted to open up the window of opportunity, Jane's sighting pinned it down to 9.15, the Smith's sighting wasn't until 45 minutes later. I think six years in a coma man was introduced to discard Jane's sighting without directly accusing her of lying.

      I find it impossible to believe that the PJ didn't check the comings and goings to the night crèche. I also find it impossible to believe that this father had never come forward before. Then there is Jane's weird description of a man carrying a child across his arms as if he were Frankenstein monster. No-one carries a child like that ever, except, lo and behold, Crecheman. Too much of a coincidence methinks.

      Delete
    4. You suspect JT isn't off the hook. Nobody else has said she's on a hook and you have nothing to back your suspicion up. That makes it sound like wishful thinking that lacks logic.

      You suspect JT invented a sighting as a cover for Gerry 'who had been seen'. He hadn't been seen.If he had, he'd have been arrested.Somebody else may have been seen. Regardless of whether crecheman was real or a convenient invention, it could have been anyone on a dimly lit street.Again, wishful thinking( even after 11 years) and lacking enough logic or anything concrete enough for an arrest.Or are you suggesting Redwood invented crecheman even though the police would never be part of a conspiracy( as stated by you up the thread).

      You find it impossible to believe that the PJ didn't check the comings and goings of the night creche.That's just you finding something impossible to believe again. Or were they part of the crecheman conspiracy too ? The sighting could have been of anyone.It didn't have to be crecheman and it didn't have to be anyone from a night creche. It certainly wouldn't be a parent who had taken such pains to cover up a crime and create a fake abduction and alert the police minutes later. Walking around the streets of a town you barely have knowledge of at closing time carrying your dead child is a ridiculous idea.

      VT

      Delete
    5. Hi Ros. I don’t think I said anything about JT being on or off the hook. I was only dealing with the very narrow but explosive one of Grange/Tanner.

      Operation Grange made the claim they’d identified Bundleman's original. If they did so then certain things follow ineluctably:

      - With Grange's excitable claim that that this extends the timeline to a later period everything falls into a different place. Out goes the 9.17ish sighting, taking with it the absurd and relentlessly dishonest or self-deceiving (take your pick) typed timeline of the Nine which made the Bundleman sighting the centre of their entire account of their evening.

      Without it their version of events makes no sense (who moved the door twice?) yet it is now too late for them to unsay it: the typed timeline really is all or nothing. Without the 9.17 abduction then, in acute contrast to the group’s minute by minute description of their movements at that time to the PJ, Grange needs completely new details about what exactly they and others in PDL were doing from 9.25 to 10.05, a period which, as you know, is almost empty on the children’s book timelines.

      - One dies, one comes to life: Bundleman is gone but the extended timeline now puts the Smithman sighting at centre stage, his most important attribute being that, unlike Bundleman, he doesn’t have to be a stranger abductor looking, according to the group and the Team, like a horror comic outsider, but someone who could even be one of the holidaymakers. And Grange has stated formally that he is a “critical line of inquiry”. In that sense Grange really has got a “revelation”: it has turned the whole case on its head.

      Now Grange told us what they wanted to tell us, leaving, as many have pointed out, masses of details unknown. Of course the Grange story leaves things out – how could it not? They and the Portuguese have always made it clear that they want no focus on any of the Nine during the investigation and to prompt premature questions about the role and motivation of Tanner would breach that.

      Oddly, Jane Tanner is also silent although she is perfectly free to speak if she wishes. It is clear, however, that the McCanns received no information from her to assist them with their lonely OFM message: tellingly, they write that the Yard “now believe this man MAY represent a guest” but have no quote on the matter from the JT who has always insisted that “I know what I saw”.

      I personally don’t see Grange’s role as getting or saving the McCanns or any other known individuals but as uncovering as much as possible of the truth about the case. To me the “revelation” is by far the most important known development in that process.

      Anyway, always glad to hear your opinions.

      Delete
    6. JB 15 January 2018 at 02:17

      ''But to quibble over my use of words and call me a liar is simply silly or deliberately obtuse.''

      He said,obtusely.

      Delete
    7. Ros 09:44

      So you are accusing Jane Tanner and Gerry Mccann of being liars!

      Did Amaral mention checking the night crèche in his book?

      Delete
    8. Ros you were the first person to catch on to Bennett's agenda and your are spot on here with the Tanner situation.
      Tanner is the key to solving this charade.

      Delete
    9. john blacksmith 15 January 2018 at 02:17

      With respect, john

      “The claim is all the more convincing because Tanner’s evidence was unbiased by any knowledge that the child had vanished…”

      Wrong according to Jane Tanner.
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

      In order of appearance:

      “So, I mean, that’s the first time I thought ‘Oh’, you know, ‘What’s happened’, because I couldn’t, you know, I could see them actually sitting in the, sitting in the restaurant. But I don’t know how long that is from, but I think it must have been a fair while from, because I was actually thinking ‘Oh he should be back by now’, sort of actually, you know, to actually look out of the window.”

      “And what happened after that?”

      Reply “Erm, I think that’s when I went back to the roadside, I sort of looked out of the roadside door. I think I heard some shouting, erm, so I actually went to sort of put my head out the roadside door. And I think it was Rachael that I saw first because she had run back I think to check that Grace was obviously okay. And then I think Rachael said, you know, she told me what had, you know she said ‘Oh Madeleine’s gone’ or, you know, something along those lines. And that’s, it was almost straightaway as she said that I sort of had that, this person sort of came into my head at that.”

      “Erm, well I think I was in a bit of a, I mean, obviously, erm, the next thing I can remember is seeing Kate and Fiona, they came running from the direction of Kate’s flat, say sort of along the, sort of it’s, I’ll try and describe how it is, but as you come into the flats there’s sort of a passageway and there’s flats above so there’s a roof and there’s a passageway, it’s really badly described, but they came running along there and they were shouting ‘Madeleine’ and they were like looking in the stairwell and what have you. And Fi started running upstairs and that’s when I ran to Fi and said what I thought, you know, I saidI think I’ve seen somebody’.”

      It would appear, therefore, that Kate’s and Jane’s deliveries were both post factum

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    10. Anonymous15 January 2018 at 17:06

      ''Ros you were the first person to catch on to Bennett's agenda and your are spot on here with the Tanner situation.
      Tanner is the key to solving this charade.''

      Unqualified.11 years, SY,PJ,OG all failing to find a key that's under their collective nose ? Why would that be do you think ? Why do you think she's the key ? What 'charade'?

      VT

      Delete
    11. 15 January 2018 at 18:22

      Hello. I don't want to prolong this and I'm happy to admit I make mistakes in posts - more than I used to before the Supreme Court judgement because I no longer consult databases as I write. Nothing is any longer at stake.

      But we seem to be at cross purposes. When I said "evidence" I meant evidence of the sighting, not of anything else, especially not of the various things JT has said about exactly when she knew of the abduction. The sighting took place before any alert was raised. Sorry if I was unclear.

      On the other hand you may have reasons to believe that the sighting was invented after the alert and was therefore post facto. But, I repeat, I am not going to make or support accusations of guilt or perverting the cause of justice against any of the Nine, Murat or any of the other principals. I don't have the knowledge or the expertise - or the wish - to do so.

      Thank you for the polite tone of your post. It makes a change here.

      Best wishes.

      Delete
    12. john blacksmith 16 January 2018 at 00:13

      Dear john

      It is so kind of you to thank me. I’m sad that dirt is being thrown around. I’m sure it does not and will not stick.

      “… you may have reasons to believe that the sighting was invented after the alert..”

      I don’t think it was.

      I see several points I could make regarding your 15 January 2018 at 02:17 post, but, in tune with you wishes, I respectfully step back and leave you in peace.

      We are good

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
  32. Anon @12:31, Ros 12:41

    Quite.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, the McCanns paid for a dodgy translation.That's something the PJ missed. They should have called their dear friend Murat to translate for them. All realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @13:36

    "Yes, the McCanns paid fo a dodgy translation."

    How do you know what their translation was like?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  35. We should have a clearer idea of direction in March.

    My belief another 100k plus will be produced to keep it an 'active' enquiry and as such no comments can be made.

    This will be repeated in September and again in March next year.

    It is possible OG has never had 30+ dishonest detectives, as no detectives have ever been assigned to the case. Has anyone seen a group photo? office pictures etc. I doubt it
    Redwood plodding around PDL with his spade digging into rock hard ground to the bemusement of the PJ and that's it.

    Does anybody know of anybody being interviewed with certainty by the foot soldiers of OG.

    If it is such a highly complex sensitive case, why is DCI Wall working full time on other murder cases and being very successful.

    Who is now in charge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The new direction in March will be marked by 'closed until further notice'. The case is at an awkward place now. It is partly placed in a yearning for justice, partly placed in the situation of now being considered tedious by the public who know now that the only genuine developments are the injections of more money to waste on nothing. They'll quit while they still have partial credibility and the crowd aren't pissed off one too many times.These aren't days for the UK public to hear of vast amounts of money are being wasted on flogging dead horses. Take a poll offline and ask a random 1,000 people if they think the case will come to a conclusion and a large percentage will say no. They're realistic.

      VT

      Delete
  36. Redwood

    " We are ALMOST certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor."

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh God - bennett is on the job!!!

    "Enquiries by MMRG

    MMRG has put through calls this morning to Surrey Police, the Coroner’s Office, and the Coroner’s Media Department. Surrey Police have so far confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation but have not confirmed the name of the O-i-C. Voice mails were left with the Coroner and the Coroner’s Media Office, but so far no return calls have been received . We will revert here if we receive any such information"

    ReplyDelete
  38. VT

    Is 14 January 2018 at 13:36 post yours?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  39. 'fraid not, T old chum. That's my provisional answer as I can't find a post to match that time. If I've missed it, I'll answer again once I've found it.

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Found it.New answer : nope, sorry.

      VT

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 15 January 2018 at 23:02

      Roger.

      Thanks.

      T

      Delete
  40. Did Jane Tanner ever say that she had seen the abductor or did she just say that she had seen a man carrying a child?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the latter..but voiced, in hindsight ,that it made her wonder, given the event.The rest has been inflated online.

      VT

      Delete
    2. Mainly inflated by Kate and Gerry McCann.

      Delete
    3. 22:59

      "inflated online"?

      http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Gerry+McCann+Kate+Gerry+McCann+Launch+Their+LkQ8dLhwOfGl.jpg

      Delete
    4. @07:26

      Corrrrect.

      T

      Delete
    5. @07:32

      Nice one!

      T

      Delete
  41. VT

    The post is at http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/ides-of-march-ii-end-of-search.html?showComment=1515936970388#c1214779270965797095

    Thanks.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think i answered before you posted that, Major. Besides, that ur only brings up the whole thread which i was having difficulty searching :/ Away to the naughty step with you.

      VT

      Delete
    2. @01:28

      Comrade

      “I think i answered before you posted that, Major.”

      Yes, you did, but I’d posted the link before your post appeared on the blog.

      “Besides, that ur only brings up the whole thread which i was having difficulty searching :/ Away to the naughty step with you.”

      My link brings up “the whole thread” with your post in question riding on the top of the screen. Do join me on the naughty step, soldier, the old ladies’ feet are waiting to be stepped on. Lie down, lie easy. Let me shipwreck in your thoughts. (Thank you, Dylan.)

      Thank you, Comrade.

      T

      Delete
    3. Major, the ladies will have to wait before we cut any rugs. The sun is setting and I haven't even waxed my moustache or polished my medals yet.But, once they're both shining, my legs will grab the headlines once again and make the night one to remember. Lock up your mothers (and grandmothers).

      VT

      Delete
  42. Some would say your actions, acquaintances and behaviour in your "Mccann Years" have been very strange indeed Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 19:29

      What a strange comment.

      Delete
  43. @19:20

    Different strokes for different folks.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  44. @19:29

    Different strokes for different folks.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi Rosalinda

    I’ve just left my snow-capped landscape and my bear dwelling place way up north, where time seems to be just as frozen as nature itself and I’m now just as curious as you’re Rosalinda to see Operation Grange’s final report, if there will be any.

    You’ve made the following assumption in a recent post;
    ”I think JT came up with her sighting on the night, as a cover for Gerry who 'had been seen”, I agree and here’s just an attempt to explain why I believe it could be so.

    Jane Tanner’ and her tapas friends’ behaviour may perhaps be better understood in the light of the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a psycho-social theory about how hostages and people in general, who feel that they’re in danger sometimes tend to develop a psychological alliance with their captors/bullies/ despots, perpetrators or gang leaders as a strategy to survive. The bonds between the tapas 7 and the McCanns may have grown very strong, especially shortly after they had learnt about Madeleine having died under mysterious circumstances.

    The tapas 7, under the influence of the McCanns, perhaps assisted by the Paynes, may then have felt as if they were morally responsible for whatever had happened to Madeleine, and the reasons as to why they may have felt so could be,

    -because of the intimate togetherness (remember Kate’s words “we were so much into each other”),

    -because they feared Gerry and possibly also Dave Payne, more than they respected them.

    -because of their mutual sense of fear and self-imposed guilt

    -because they were unable to make wise and necessary decisions, such as to call the police immediately or to testify individually instead of collectively (ref the written time line they agreed upon)

    - because they didn’t succeed in persuading the McCanns to tell the truth (they may have tried).

    Moreover, I assume, that all of them (not the McCanns) must have been in a state of shock when they realised what had happened and therefore, as I’ve already mentioned, unable to make sensible and rational decisions. After just an hour or so, they may have felt as if it were already too late for them to testify truthfully about what they knew.

    If my assumption (speculation, if someone prefer to call it so) would be right, then the tapas 7 would now need all the psychological help there is in this world to be freed from the hell in which they must have been living for more than 10 years.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bjorn

      I think you have the theory right that somebody was controlling the information flow from the Tapas crew that night and since but I think you are giving the McCanns and the Paynes too much credit. Control over the flow of information that night was well above their pay grade. Ros said in one of her post that nobody carries a child the way Tanner said the abductor did. I would say that nobody carries an alve child that way. For a dead child I would say that is the only way to carry. If the dogs are to be believed a dead child was removed from apartment 5a that night. Whoever removed her didn't walk into the night, they would have had a path cleared by someone therefore it is possible that that someone was Jane Tanner in which case not only did she see someone carrying a child in the way she discribes she also knew who it was and knew who the child was I agree with you their world is likely a living hell this 10 years

      Delete
    2. Hi Bjorn and welcome back, your time in the 'wilderness' I am sure was fascinating on many different levels I am sure. It is strange that no matter how much we evolve, that 'Rousseau' longing to return to nature never goes away. I hope you found the time to keep a journal or account of your experience Bjorn, on what you have told us thus far, it sounds like an article for 'Readers Digest'!

      Your comment has inspired a blog Bjorn, I am fascinated by the Stockholm Syndrome theory, so more to follow!

      Delete
    3. Hi Rosalinda and thanks for comment

      Yes, the French Philosophes are close to my heart, no matter where I am. You may know more than me about them.

      Anyway, Rousseau understood the importance of nature and how it affects the process of becoming a human being. He’s a little bit misunderstood imo, in that he didn’t really oppose nature to the civilized society, but understood nature. His ideas in this respect was later developed by Francois-René de Chateaubriand, not so well known by many (but I suppose you know who he is) In his works he tries to describe how nature, civilisation and religion are both joined together, but also separated, so I basically share his view on life by enjoying both the untouched nature and modern society. Of course Chateaubriand experienced the French Revolution, which I’ve only read about and which poor Rousseau could only anticipate.

      What I find interesting about Rousseau, however, is that he wasn’t just self-taught and autodidact, but he couldn’t be taught anything at all in school at his time. In his Confession (the first part) he clearly states that his thoughts were always elsewhere, when he was supposed to learn and listen, which is just expressed in a one sentence, that I haven’t heard anyone paraphrase or discuss. Anyway, I believe that Rousseau was like many modern children are today, who should be encouraged to learn in a different way, if they, like he had, have problems with learning. Times aren’t so much a changing’ after all Rosalinda.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous18 January 2018 at 17:55

      ''Control over the flow of information that night was well above their pay grade''

      Such as who ? And why ?

      ''Whoever removed her didn't walk into the night, they would have had a path cleared by someone therefore it is possible that that someone was Jane Tanne''

      An abductor wouldn't receive help from the tapas group they'd have mad a citizens arrest.If, as you are implying, it was a McCann, why would anyone else want to incriminate themselves if it wasn't their problem or their crime ?

      '' in which case not only did she see someone carrying a child in the way she describes she also knew who it was and knew who the child was ''

      And told the police nothing. She preferred to be an accessory after the fact. That makes sense.She'd only do that to protect her husband, the father of her children.. If she was- as a long shot- protecting her husband, then that frames her husband. In which case the McCanns wouldn't stand idly by.

      You're suggesting that the parents were responsible for the death, and subsequent burial, of their child without a spec of evidence or anything that could be brought to a court. By extension, you're suggesting their friends are all accessories after the fact and that somebody placed in a high position made sure misinformation was fed to the media.You need to name that higher position if you can't name names. You also need to support your allegations of the groups guilt with a motive.

      VT

      Delete
  46. @Anon18 January 2018 at 17:55
    Hi and thanks for comment on my thoughts.

    I quote you "...it is possible that that someone was Jane Tanner". Interesting remark as a matter of fact, as there's an interview to be found on internet (YouTube) in which JT has a kind of freudian slip. Talking about how the alleged abductor carried the child, she actually says something like this "he was not carrying the child in a normal way but like this as I DID". I'll look that up and give you link.

    ReplyDelete
  47. 17:55

    Here is an example of somebody who carries a child the way Tanner said the abductor did:

    http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/5085

    ReplyDelete
  48. Björn at 21:04

    Richard Bilton: "From your sketch he appears to be carrying the child in a sort of unusual way."

    Jane Tanner: "Yeah, he was carrying sort of across the body like that."

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hi again @Anon18 January 2018 at 17:55
    Here’s the link to a short sequence of the Jane Tanner interview from 2007, which I mentioned in my post.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHEeEA-ZjfY

    My transcription;
    “Yeah, I was carrying sort of across the body like that” and then she shows with her arms how the child was carried.It's worth looking a little deeper into.Do we have a confession here?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oh what a co-incidence - a long awaited return from the fascinating wilderness (with internet) - a post about Stockholm Syndrome (sorry I really am trying not to laugh) and lo and behold Ros is fascinated by the Stockholm Syndrome theory and it has inspired a blog!

    Isn't life incredible with it's little twists and turns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous18 January 2018 at 21:51
      Hi
      And I just thought to myself,
      Ohh what a wonderful world,
      But all the nasty people
      Where do they all come from.

      Delete
  51. @
    Björn18 January 2018 at 14:52

    Under normal circumstances, a period of time spent in the snow capped mountains getting in touch with nature woul be the best possible way to recharge and replenish; to leave the weight behind and start afresh. For a minute there I thought that was the case. The references to a philosopher's musings and nature's naked beauty seemed to confirm it . A holiday in the peaceful embrace of Mother Nature to dwell on higher, deeper matters.There's no better healing. But, I continued to read....

    Suddenly, the readers are abducted from Mother Nature and find themselves in a colder, darker place. Almost seamlessly we are transferred to the complete opposite . Back are the suspicious meanderings and poisoned pen portraits of complete strangers who enacted unspeakable sins upon an innocent little girl.Back are the unfounded allegations . Back are the imagined motivations that have nothing but speculation to offer as rationale.Back, is Bjorn. Whatever would Rousseau think....

    ''Tanner said the abductor did. I would say that nobody carries an alve child that way. For a dead child I would say that is the only way to carry. If the dogs are to be believed a dead child was removed from apartment 5a that night''

    I concede I have no knowledge or theory of how to carry dead children.I have some of how the mind works, however.If somebody had a dead child on their hands the scenario you're trying to sell has more holes than a sieve.You like to think it was the father ( hence his friend inventing an abductor to divert the fact). How realistic is it to carry a dead child around the streets you have little knowledge of at a time people were ending their evening out to make their way home or back to their apartments ? The dogs weren't believed.Nothing came of their findings.Even allowing for the cadaver 'findings' the evidence would be of a death, not the killer .It doesn't identify the perpetrator.If the perpetrator was someone we don't know, he wouldn't have a getaway car parked a few streets way would he.A stranger would have been organised enough if he had been waiting and planning( which he would have been to strike within the given window of opportunity).

    ''she also knew who it was and knew who the child was I agree with you their world is likely a living hell this 10 years''

    The living hell is something you imagine.Nobody said they live in Hell.It's a fantasy.Madeleine is real.

    ''Jane Tanner’ and her tapas friends’ behaviour may perhaps be better understood in the light of the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a psycho-social theory about how hostages and people in genera''

    The Stockholm Syndrome would not be applicable if considering a child of 3-4 years old. The syndrome does little or nothing for the credibility of Psychology.The case which inspired it is full of holes and nonsense for a start. The imagined 'bond' between an abductor and his prey can occur when a victim is able to tune in on a vulnerability of their abductor and use it to empathise and win their confidence and trust.It can be a useful method of survival if the abductor has the right flaw in his character and isn't just a psychopath. On rare occasions a common ground can be found that both share and the bond makes it harder for the abductor to harm their prey and harder for the prey to testify against their abductor.I emphasis 'rare'. To try and use this syndrome to explain why the tapas group are bonded is beyond silly.

    ''The bonds between the tapas 7 and the McCanns may have grown very strong, especially shortly after they had learnt about Madeleine having died under mysterious circumstances''

    And that is your imagination. Unless, of course, you can share the evidence of Madeleine being dead, the tapas group and the McCanns knowing it, and share with us why the group beyond the parents needed to bond and to hide the crime.

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous19 January 2018 at 03:30
      Hi VT
      Nice to hear from you. I've just talked about what possibly could have happened, but I'm not even trying to prove it. I just wanted to make people look at the case from a new perspective.
      Have a nice day VT.

      Delete
  52. Björn at 21:29

    Tanner's "he" sounds somewhat like "I", but she says "he".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous19 January 2018 at 08:25
      Hi
      Possibly true, but I think it's worth noting in the context of speech analysis.

      Delete
  53. One sentence from that long diatribe stands out VT. 'The dogs weren't believed'. That isn't true. The alerts of the dogs changed the entire course of the investigation. The only people who did not believe the dogs were Gerry and Kate, and they have been trying to discredit them ever since.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The word of mouth and opinion of the parents can't discredit concrete evidence or the word of forensic scientists. In what way did it ( as you say every five minutes) change the course of the investigation ? It's 2018 in case you hadn't noticed.Or are you saying the dogs threw the detectives off the scent.When do you reckon the dogs findings will go from 'not enough' to exhibit A ? Is that part of your 'feeling'- you know, that one that says it's coming to a close and the McCanns are twitching. The one you've been feeling for around 5 or 6 or more years now...

      Delete
    2. Long diatribe lol put your claws away, Ros. VT's diatribes are a draw here.

      Delete
  54. Hi all commentators

    Just want to make clear, that I’ve never believed that JT was the person who was seen carrying Madeleine through PDL, but she may have moved a sleeping and sedated Madeleine between their apartments, before the child died, in an attempt to save her life and that’s what may have come to her subconscious mind in Richard Bilton’s interview. Just a thought of course.

    ReplyDelete
  55. You people don't know what you are on about, especially that bear hunter just back from up yonder.
    Smithman wasn't Gerry and I have been let off a small fortune for pointing this simple fact out...repeatedly!
    Gerry is far too nice a fellow for that. (Which should hopefully save me a few more bob).
    The only person here who knows his stuff is the artist formerly known as ziggy sawdust who I believe now passes for VT . Very Tiresome for most here as he is always pointing out (like me) what a jolly good chap Gerry really is.
    My detailed and painstaking research reveals that ZS/VT is a fellow member of Gerry's friendly little society. The free bricklayers or something like that.
    Anyway remember,remember,Smithman was not Gerry...He was the real abductor.

    Now back to my research!

    ReplyDelete