Friday, 2 March 2018

MEDIA MONITORING - MCCANN MEAN GIRLS

The supporters of the McCanns claim that it is mean not to believe the parents of a missing child. Actually ‘mean’ is an understatement, the words ‘hater’ and ‘pitchforker’ peppered all and any reference to critics of Madeleine’s parents.  Journalists, politicians and celebrities quickly learned that any questioning of the abduction story was career suicide. Gerry and Kate were middle class professionals, PLU (People Like Us), naturally their fellow PLUs would defend them against the non PLU Portuguese Authorities. Our government, our police, our media, chose to believe the two suspects of a serious crime, over the Portuguese police investigation.  Let that sink in for a minute.
 
The supporters of the McCanns set up a forum Stop the Myths, in which a small group of deranged psychopaths discussed the ‘antis’ in malicious and abusive mean girls talk, while munching cyber popcorn.  Their sister forum was ‘Exposing the Myths’, a site dedicated to tracking down and naming and shaming anyone on social media anyone who criticised the McCanns. Their objective; to do to every critic what they did with Brenda Leyland. Photographs were taken from facebook, including children of their targets and posted on Exposing the Myths. Members were urged to write to their target’s employers, friends and neighbours, informing them of their online activity. This blacklist of course, became the infamous dossier, and was swiftly deleted following the inevitable tragedy.  And it should be mentioned, such lists have a history of ending in tragedy.  
 
Everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Quite so.  Except perhaps when faced with the bleeding obvious. Someone caught in possession of a smoking gun, for example. It would be hard for the arresting officers not to have an opinion one way or the other.  Unfortunately for the McCanns, their story was unbelievable.  Quite literally.  And that became more and more clear as the media storm died down. They were putting the story out there, as fast as their fingers could type, but there was no innocent explanation for leaving toddlers alone in a holiday apartment, and that stark reality was never going to go away. 
 
Ever since then, Gerry and Kate have focussed on anything but the dangers of leaving children.  Understandably, perhaps, because they fear criticism but also because it is going to be hard to sell the one danger of a stranger abductor.  The biggest danger of course, is accident.  And that should have been the lesson learned from this tragedy.  The McCanns were unfortunate, that the 1 in a zillion predator was out and about that night, but for most people, the risk would be a toddler falling, or ingesting something. 
 
Instead for the last 11 years, we have had fawning British PLUs, reassuring the parents of Madeleine that they did nothing wrong.  I can't help wondering if there would have been any fawning, if the parents were unemployed and from a Council estate?  I suspect not.  In those cases investigative journalists can be quite ferocious.  This case has, amongst other things, exposed the huge class divide there is in journalism and the police.  Would Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe have been releasing balloons to raise money for Shannon Matthews?  Would Jim Gamble have appeared alongside her mum and step dad on morning TV?  Would Karen and partner have been regular guests on Lorraine?  The case of Ben Needham only came back into public attention because of the huge chasm between the way Ben and Madeleine were treated.
 
The amusing side to the class issue, if there is one, it that normally reasonable people have to pretend they too can see the Emperor's new clothes, rather than being thought a chavvy hater.  And this is the weird bit.  The very prolific McCann media monitoring machine, managed to convince the watching world, that those who refused to believe the abduction story, hated the McCanns on a personal level.  All the suspicion is based on jealousy of their looks, their beautiful house, all their achievements etc.   I've always wondered why owners of shiny objects think others are jealous, they are clearly not wise enough to know that others don't care.  I don't think anyone is coveting their material goods, or even their bodies for that matter.  Given their obvious suffering, I think most people feel sympathy for them.  Myself included. 
 
I think the question of it being mean to criticise the parents of a missing child, is again debateable, when those parents are being mean to others.  That is disparaging the work of the Portuguese police and the people of PDL, who did so much to help them.  More specifically a ten year vendetta against the detective who searched for their child.  Their continued claims that Goncalo Amaral was somehow responsible for the loss of their child has gone beyond unreasonable, and into obsession.  Their belief that a victory in the ECHR against him will somehow bring them closure, is delusional.  Do they not have any psychologists among their friends who could point that out to them?
 
Ultimately, Gerry and Kate chose the battlefield, social media.  They believed they could control it, that they could continue to enjoy the benefits that came from it, whilst bullying and silencing outspoken critics with threats to destroy names, careers, etc, and of course the Black list. They achieved the opposite.  Every time they struck one down, 10 fold took their place.  It was never going to be sustainable and the strong arm of the law was never going to arrest people for disagreeing with them. 
 
Of course, the length and ferocity of this social media battle is largely down to Team McCann.  For whatever reason, they have kept it going through the years, mostly, I suspect for any outrageous comments they could turn into tabloid front pages to get the sympathy vote.  There was always a sense of 'go on, say it, I dare you', just as there is on my blog now.  Anyone, literally anyone, can disappear from the public glare if they want to.  Gerry and Kate demand the impossible.  They want to stay in the public spotlight, but they want immunity from criticism. 
 
And they have largely achieved that in the mainstream media.  Possibly because all the PLUs who run the mainstream media still can't contemplate that 'nice people' are capable of committing crimes.  But, more likely I think, none of the legal departments can be bothered to get into a spat with the very litigious parents. 
 
On social media, the McCann media monitoring machine has all but capitulated.  Apart that is, from a couple of battle weary diehards who are still trying to tell us the dogs were wrong and we're a bunch of losers.  They are almost rejoicing at the moment, that the long, long, investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is drawing to a close.  Why, I must ask, don't they want to find the child?  They mock advances in forensics and technology, advances that might even help their case by introducing new fingerprints or DNA that will rule the parents out.  Why do they assume new advances would be detrimental to the parents?
 
For anyone who is interested, and with me thus far, the supporters of the McCanns foresee Operation Grange closing, with the file being put in the 'cooler' to shield culprits of greater importance than world leaders and the pope.  Ooer, I actually got as far as the Dali Lamar and Putin, before I told myself to stop. No-one is above the law, and no-one can just make little girls disappear.   We don't know what OG are doing, we don't know what the PJ are doing, but they are obviously working on something. 
 

282 comments:

  1. Do you feel better after that therapeutic rant ? Once again your limits were exposed on a thread and once again you jumped ship to begin anew one hoping everyone will forget it. You should also forget the nonsense you talk about 'haters,pitchforkers,journalists' and the rest who quickly learn that it's 'career suicide' to question the parents calling what happened to their child an abduction. Concentrate instead on how many policemen and women from how many forces for how many years also call it an abduction. It isn't a case of 'choosing to believe' . It's a case of deconstructing the story to expose why it isn't true and why those who composed it are liars. Calling the parents names and telling anyone gullible enough to take nothing but your suspicion as proof isn't cutting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have all deconstructed the story 01:33, weighed up the available evidence and through a process of logic and reasoning, we have reached our own conclusions.

      You are frustrated that many are not reaching the same conclusion as you 01:33 and that you are not able to change minds. But that's life. Even the good Lord acknowledged that some seeds will fall on stony ground.

      I actually accept it as a way of life, I've never been 'in sync' with the rest of the world, lol. But it's never bothered me, I'm happy in my skin, I'm happy when my words resonate with someone - I never expect to 'win 'em all', so I am never disappointed.

      I'm not sure I should concentrate instead(concentrate what? my suspicions?) on the policemen and police women who call it an abduction. Trawling through reams of documents to find who said what when, doesn't appeal, and here's a thing. Every time a policeman or woman, utters a statement it isn't carved in stone. What someone said 5 years ago, may not hold true today, the same applies to something they said yesterday. The world turns, circumstances change, new evidence comes to light, etc, etc. The investigation into Bill Clinton began with allegations of fraud, and ended with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval. See how it works?

      I don't call the parents names. I pride myself on being able to host a debate without descending to playground level. I'm not telling people to believe me, I muse. people can take from my words whatever they want. I'm not selling anything and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to do anything. I don't have to prove the case against the McCanns.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 March 2018 at 14:22

      ''We have all deconstructed the story 01:33, weighed up the available evidence and through a process of logic and reasoning, we have reached our own conclusions. ''

      What was the available evidence ? maybe the police could use it if it's so reliable.It would stop them trawling through reams of documents, as you say, trying to find actual real evidence a prosecutor could use. In a real court, not one populated by kangaroos

      Delete
  2. ''We don't know what OG are doing, we don't know what the PJ are doing, but they are obviously working on something. ''

    When you have a spare hour, explain how something we don't know can be obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The files of OG and the PJ remain open and indeed OG have asked for more funding. They must be investigating something 01:39.

      Delete
    2. So 'obviously' is now 'must be'.At least that sounds slightly better.

      Delete
  3. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/12/madeleine-mccann-police-seek-more-funds-to-continue-inquiry

    '“Right now we are committed to taking the current inquiry as far as we possibly can and we are confident that will happen. Ultimately this, and the previous work, gives all of us the very best chance of getting the answers – although we must, of course, remember that no investigation can guarantee to provide a definitive conclusion,” the Met police said last year.'

    Of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is it that a large section of observers ( antis) of this farce read statements like that one and still refuse to accept the blatantly obvious. It's over.Finished.It's all done - finito. There is no more.

      Delete
    2. 11:29

      It's over a large section of pros' en antis' head. There is more.

      Delete
  4. ''On social media, the McCann media monitoring machine has all but capitulated. ''

    If it existed they probably realised a few years ago that it was all over bar the shouting. The shouting being online and going nowhere.

    ''Apart that is, from a couple of battle weary diehards who are still trying to tell us the dogs were wrong''

    If you were honest, it's far closer to the truth to say the haters insist that the dogs were right, so the forensic experts were wrong.They are saying, by extension, that so were the police. In fact, everyone except themselves. That's what happens when you invent evidence if there isn't any.

    ''They are almost rejoicing at the moment, that the long, long, investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is drawing to a close.''

    I haven't seen any evidence of that.Can you show me some ? maybe you've misunderstood that they're mocking the antis failing to see vengeance on their suspects.

    ''Why, I must ask, don't they want to find the child?''

    Who doesn't want to find her ? The public have shown more eagerness and interest than those supposedly investigating.The pros don't want to find her body, they want to find the child.As opposed to the scenario that would have thousands of online vultures gleefully typing ''i told you first''.

    ''Why do they assume new advances would be detrimental to the parents?''

    What are these new advances ? Theoretical or real ?

    ''the supporters of the McCanns foresee Operation Grange closing, with the file being put in the 'cooler' ''

    They can't fund it forever and do nothing.

    '' No-one is above the law, and no-one can just make little girls disappear.''

    Point one : The law treats people differently.Politicians, judges, clergymen have very soft sentences where Joe Public would receive sterner ones.How many times was Jimmy Savile arrested ?

    Point 2 : Where's Madeleine ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point 2. Why aren't the parents banging on doors and asking OG for a result? Why are they meekly accepting that OG will close leaving them in exactly the same position they were 6/7 years ago?

      Madeleine hasn't been found, and the police were the McCanns best hope. Whilst it might be mildly frustrating for those who want to see closure, it must be devastating for the parents.

      It's like the original Portuguese investigation all over again. They could have asked for it to be kept open, but they chose not to.

      Delete
    2. Whose fault is it that all those police haven't found A- Madeleine, B- the culprit responsible for her disappearance ? The McCanns ?

      They have pursued different avenues , employed the services of detectives, asked for independent inquiries and you accuse them of being money laundering liars. After 11 long years of nothing they are preparing for the inevitable closing down of the investigation and you accuse them of doing it 'meekly'. You're trying far too hard to portray them in such a negative, criminal way than is normal for a balanced observer. Your personal poisonous observations are just that, nothing more.You sound desperate. But not for the right things.

      Delete
  5. I am Pro Mccann.

    1. I don't foresee Operation Grange closing, with the file being put in the 'cooler' to shield culprits of greater importance than world leaders and the pope.

    2. I am not rejoicing that the long, long, investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is drawing to a close - unless it closes with a result.

    3. I have no problem with advances in forensic technology/techniques being used to solve the case.

    Maybe if you can be arsed Ros - you will provide some evidence/quotes to support your guesses about what Mccann supporters think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 09:16

      Evidence ? You used the E word to Ros. Crazy fool :/

      Delete
    2. Nice to see a pro Mcann who is so assertive Unknown at 09:16.

      I don't get sent off on errands by pros, as you know, or should by now. But do have a read of one of VT/Ziggy's length tomes on the last blog, most comes from him.

      Delete
    3. His are worth reading

      Delete
  6. The PJ know the British police were acting unlawfully illegally and dishonestly from day 1/2.

    The PJ know, OG will not investigate or arrest any British police officer especially Gamble and his gang. They see Baggott awarded a Knighthood, John Reid a Lordship etc., so the PJ sit and wait, knowing they cannot trust the British police and nothing will change in the UK.

    Anyone doubting this, can you point out who signed Detective Superintendent Hill's Section 26.

    Oh, that's right, he didn't have one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JJ3 March 2018 at 10:06

      Fascinating that you keep accusing the PJ of being rubbish and taking no action - what do you expect to achieve by repeating it so often?

      You have convinced yourself that what you think you have discovered about UK Police in Portugal is relevant to the outcome of the Mccann case. It is a distraction that obviously keeps you entertained.

      Delete
    2. JJ

      '' so the PJ sit and wait, knowing they cannot trust the British police and nothing will change in the UK.''

      You don't know that, you're guessing. Right or wrong, what's to stop the PJ making an arrest anyway ? The crime took place in their country and they can still arrest whoever they feel sure was responsible. Do you think they would need to call the Met and ask if it would be OK ? Or inform them of the good news.

      Delete
    3. ''The supporters .. claim that it is mean not to believe the parents of a missing child. Actually ‘mean’ is an understatement, the words ‘hater’ and ‘pitchforker’ peppered all and any reference to critics of Madeleine’s parents. ''

      Imagine such a thing. It's outrageous. Maybe they just believe the police - did you consider that ? How can anyone be accused of being a hater for merely disagreeing with something.Disagreeing is just not agreeing, after all. We're all free to have and voice our personal opinion. It's not as though we're claiming one thing but secretly believing another. Is it ? Or that we might be trying to appear fair minded to sway people then sneaking our secret agenda under the radar. Surely not.

      ALL MCCANNED OUT may 2017 Ros :

      ''While I have no doubt there are a large number of people out there who 'hate' Gerry and Kate without logical reasons, many more just cannot stand being lied to''

      ''And reading body language and the 80% of communication that is not the spoken or written word''

      ( No laughing at the back, their twitchy ears were a giveaway)

      ''And let's not forget there is much to dislike about Gerry and Kate''

      ''I'm afraid I have no conscience when it comes to ridiculing those falling McCann supporters. They are bullies, and quite possibly sociopaths''

      ( i said no laughing, you sociopaths)

      ''This not a forum fearful of open and critical thinking - the opposite in fact!''

      ( and if you don't tow the party line here, you will be called a sociopath)

      ''Let me give you a little writing tip. Don't preach''

      ( Ok boss.We'll folow you're example instead, which isn't preaching at all)

      Meanwhile, back to this thread :

      ''The supporters of the McCanns set up a forum Stop the Myths, in which a small group of deranged psychopaths discussed the ‘antis’''

      ( at least they're not sociopaths)

      '' Their objective; to do to every critic what they did with Brenda Leyland''

      ( Still no blame for Sky or Twitter.com. And Brenda once again used as a tool of persuasion)

      ''Everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Quite so. Except perhaps when faced with the bleeding obvious. ''

      ( so the police are morons then ?)

      ''but there was no innocent explanation for leaving toddlers alone in a holiday apartment''

      (That doesn't cause 'invisibility' in a child. It can actually clear the way for an abduction though)

      ''The McCanns were unfortunate, that the 1 in a zillion predator was out and about ''

      (The Ros school of statistical studies.)

      Can't bring myself to go any further. It's too easy. I'll just add that middle class (and above) have a lot of people who hate among them. And a lot of 'chavvy' types don't hate. You have made a ludicrous generalisation to prop up your equally ludicrous argument that two police forces and a handful of politicians would get together and spend 12 million over 11 years to protect two people who climbed above their circumstances to join the middle classes.

      Delete
    4. Ermmm. You are now living out your fantasy of me in the dock, with you making witty remarks while the audience point and laugh VT. Disturbing. Should add, ripping people limb from limb in the town square school of humour, has very limited appeal these days, you're playing to a very niche audience. You will have to keep your Witchfinder General costume for the privacy of your own home.

      I am a reasonably intelligent adult, quite capable of conversing with you, yet throughout you refer to me in the third person, as though I am not here. Is that supposed to demean me? Are you trying to shame me in front of my readers?

      Spare me these pathetic patriarchal attempts to shoot the messenger. You are actually displaying behaviour common in 13/14 year olds, isolate a victim, hold them up to public ridicule, thereby winning popularity for yourself, ostracise them. It seems to be leitmotif for Team McCann, which begs the question, who's MO is it? One leader's or several? Maybe it's a family thing.

      In any event, I throw the jeering right back at ya, you are clearly not adult enough to engage in reasoned debate.

      Delete
    5. A four paragraph retaliation without addressing a single point. Choosing the playground approach instead.Well done.

      Delete
    6. There wasn't a single point worth addressing 15:58. We have gone over all the points you have listed many times before. Yes I describe the creatures who inhabit the Myths and the cesspits, as sociopaths, as indeed would any sane person reading them. They are not out to win any arguments through logic and reason, they are out to destroy the McCann critics, as vindictively as they possibly can.

      You can't separate the McCanns from these hideous sites that support them and the 'dossier', anymore than you can separate them from Madeleine's Fund, the PR agencies they hired, the spin doctors, the dodgy detectives and the multitude of lawyers.

      You want to go back to basics, the disappearance of Madeleine, pretending that everything that has happened since, is part of a different dialogue. Another story for another time. But they are not. Would we all still be here, if it hadn't been for the millions donated by well wishers? The amount they raised was unprecedented and within the first week they had hired both the UK and Portugal's top lawyers.

      Money shouldn't buy justice, but it does, and I'm sure if our eyes were open to all of it, we would go insane. I feel there should be a Public Inquiry when this case is all over, but among Tony Blair's sins whilst in office, this is probably small fry.

      The screamingly obvious question, should people with good lawyers be above the Law? It won't of course, because all those who benefit from the current system, make the rules.

      The glaringly obvious privilege that was afforded to Gerry and Kate, in comparison to say, Karen Matthews was a chasm. No high level police chiefs were rushing to Karen's assistance, nor iirc, did CEOP intervene, despite Shannon being old enough to use computers.

      I don't think anyone can deny that Gerry and Kate received more, err, diplomatic assistance than any distressed tourist abroad in history. One suspects the old 'go easy on them, nudge nudge, wink wink' approach came into play. 11 years on the case remains unsolved due to lack of evidence.

      For a liberal like myself, it amuses me that one day (soon), all those eejits who thought they would appear more classy to side with the fawningly compassionate and the concerned citizens, will have to admit they lied when they admired the Emperor's new clothes. Or maybe, they knew the Emperor was naked but weren't allowed to say it because of the legal implications. Ha, effing, ha, anyway.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 March 2018 at 22:05

      ''There wasn't a single point worth addressing 15:58''

      What about the points that demonstrated that what you claim about open debate is false.Or that the blog isn't about hate ?

      ''You can't separate the McCanns from these hideous sites that support them and the 'dossier', anymore than you can separate them from Madeleine's Fund,''

      They're already separate.You're stapling them together. Which is worse- or more 'hideous'- defending somebody being attacked or attacking somebody without any proof that they are suitable targets ?

      '' But they are not. Would we all still be here, if it hadn't been for the millions donated by well wishers? ''

      Yes. Because Madeleine is still missing.And if the public funds dried up, we have evidence from Cameron and May that they can be 'found' if it's 'deserving' enough.

      ''Money shouldn't buy justice, but it does, and I'm sure if our eyes were open to all of it, we would go insane''

      Money doesn't always buy justice. How many joyously typed paragraphs have come from you because the McCanns legal team were top dollar and they lost a libel case.Money can buy silence though.And favours.

      ''there should be a Public Inquiry when this case is all over''

      Public inquiry ? The Leveson inquiry was one of those.What have you said about that ? Jenny Jones didn't cause a ripple when she made a statement about this case and its costs.The creme de la creme bulldozed this case.Who will investigate them ?

      ''The screamingly obvious question, should people with good lawyers be above the Law?''

      The law is the law. Lawyers have to operate within its parameters, they can't change the laws to suit the case or what they charge.

      ''No high level police chiefs were rushing to Karen's assistance, nor iirc, did CEOP intervene, despite Shannon being old enough to use computers. ''

      No PMs, MPs or Intelligence officers gatecrashed it either. Why would that be do you think ? Class and cash ? Naive..

      '' all those eejits who thought they would appear more classy to side with the fawningly compassionate''

      Fawning is never attractive.Who it's over doesn't matter, or why.It's demeaning and tacky.But I think people who decided on compassion rather than anger have argued with more control and consideration as they aren't overheated.It was never supposed to be a two horse race and a case of backing which one you thought was the likely winner.But it developed into that.I think the horses fell at the start anyway.But, if i'm wrong, and if one 'side' backs the winner, they win nothing despite the time they invested as their wager and the space they allowed it to occupy in their psyche.

      Delete
    8. This blog is about open debate - you are here debating aren't you? You have had thousands and thousand of words published without censor, I'm not holding the 'good' ones back, lol.

      Your 'attack' paragraph is confusing. Are you saying the Myths sites defend the McCanns by attacking their critics? And that this is somehow noble? If so, why don't any of them use their real names?

      I'm not talking about public funds, I am talking about the millions that poured into Madeleine's Fund.

      With a nod and a wink, I take it you are inferring it was obvious to CEOP et al that the family were involved in Shannon's disappearance. But in the case of Madeleine, it was obvious the family were innocent.

      'People who decided on compassion rather than anger....' LOL, that sentence is so condescending it could have come Hyacinth Bucket herself. '.....they aren't overheating', stop, you are cracking me up. Have you ever looked at JATKY2 or the Myths? Is that what not overheating looks like?

      Your two horse race analogy is nonsense on just about every level, so I'm afraid I can't be arsed. If I were marking it, it would get a 'D' and a 'see me'.

      Delete
    9. Oh here we go again - Ros can't be arsed!

      Delete
  7. Unknown 10:17

    Where have I said the PJ are rubbish? On the contrary they knew the UK Police lied and deceived them from day one.

    The unlawful actions of the Leicestershire Police and CEOP are not a distraction but the reason the farce goes on.
    The first weekend
    CEOP were not invited by the lead uk Police Force, Leicestershire.

    CEOP were not invited by the PJ or Portuguese Government.

    CEOP did not have the authority of of the NPIA or the ACPO. So we can safely conclude Gamble had gone rogue and was operating outside both British and Portuguese law.

    So what was CEOP doing in PDL?

    ACPO state quite clearly CEOP met nobody in Portuguese law enforcement, in the first seven days, so CEOP were acting unlawfully and dishonestly in Portugal.

    This is the block OG must overcome or ignore.

    Even more surprising, when child abuse on an industrial scale, was occurring in Rochdale, Oldham, Oxford etc., CEOP was not to be seen but Gamble authorised his senior detectives to skulk around PDL immediately.

    Strange days indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JJ, good to see you :)

      Lots of interesting points there JJ. I just mentioned in a previous post, that if justice were to run it's course there should be a Public Inquiry. The actions of CEOP can't be written out, in fact JG explains in the Summers and Swan book I believe, that the actions of the British police agencies, caused confusion. I'm not quoting directly, and I'm pointing that out, because I know how closely my blog is watched.

      I don't see how OG can overcome or ignore, the involvement of the British police. The work of Mark Harrison for example which led to the parents being made arguidos. It does look as though CEOP had gone rogue, because they fully convinced it was an abduction, whilst the other police agencies had other thoughts.

      Bizarrely, it was a battle that CEOP won. While the other police agencies and Leicester police, backed off, CEOP continued to act on behalf of the parents. Particularly in their liaison with the US NCMEC, and remember Gerry flying out to Washington and grinning on the Whitehouse lawn?

      I'd say CEOP won, because that's what the UK went with. The politicians, the media, the sabre toothed journalists and professional sympathiser Lorraine Kelly elevated them to martyr status. Criminologists like Mark Williams Thomas and child sex experts like Ray Wyre, declared them innocent.

      JG I think was looking to expand CEOP, mostly on the back of the Madeleine case. A new specialised force equipped to charge in when a child goes missing.

      And yes indeed, strange that CEOP did not track down the abuses in Rochdale etc. Why so much focus on one little girl who disappeared in PDL?

      Delete
    2. '' Lorraine Kelly elevated them to martyr status''

      (them=The parents I take it)

      Would you gush about Lorraine Kelly if she elevated Amaral to martyr status instead. After all, he lost a job, whereas the McCanns only lost a child.

      You're floundering around here with the name checks. The unfounded insinuations we are used to, but the blanket criticism of those that suit your own blinkered view as you bolster the names of those who go along with your shaky logic looks desperate. You can save time and letters by just making two short lists ; good guys vs bad guys and why you think they are.

      '' Gerry flying out to Washington and grinning on the Whitehouse lawn? ''

      Yes.Do you ?Last week you justified your bizarre criticism of the appearance of the McCanns and why they never smile or look human, just like two automatons. I pointed to the petty repeated ''GM was caught off guard laughing' photograph often used to suggest he's a sort of cold hearted psychopath - hence them having to stay unnaturally in control because of the nutters online with their magnifying glasses looking for a photograph like the one taken on the Whitehouse lawn.

      The rest of your post is what you suspect who was doing what and why to fit your hypothesis rather than be objective. You see or read something then you add all kinds of drama and suspense to it. What you add to a fact is only fiction if it didn't happen.You can't sell fiction as fact except to the gullible.

      Delete
    3. Their choice to stay unnaturally in control VT is entirely down to them. Innocent parents wouldn't care what the nutters online with magnifying glasses thought of them. The idea is absurd. Their fear of what the public think of them is irrational. What does it matter? Anyone who takes to the public stage is open to criticism, it comes with the territory. The McCanns have had more criticism than most, but then they have had more publicity than most.

      The only thing that stops Gerry and Kate from acting naturally is Gerry and Kate. Their reasons for being guarded are their own. In all these years nothing has stopped them going off script and pleading with the abductor or speaking to Madeleine directly. In other cases, Sara Payne for example, the public took Sara to their hearts because she both laughed and cried when interviewed, her emotions were tangible. No one criticised her laughter, and she wouldn't have cared if they did.

      Delete
    4. ''. Innocent parents wouldn't care what the nutters online with magnifying glasses thought of them. The idea is absurd''

      Innocent parents tying to deal with losing a child receive threats to themselves and children. They see and hear thousands calling for their heads.For losing a child ?Taking them as potentially real threats and as damaging to their children outside is ' absurd' ? Do you ever think of things from any other perspective or has your obsession completely blinded you to the point that being poisonous has become your complete nature rather than second.

      ''. Their fear of what the public think of them is irrational. What does it matter?''

      I suppose the answer is there.

      ''The McCanns have had more criticism than most, but then they have had more publicity than most. ''

      And that's how you justify it.

      ''Their reasons for being guarded are their own.''

      The reasons for being guarded are because of the kind of mass mentality that shares the one you've just voiced. How many times does common sense need to be spoon fed to you before you digest any ?

      Delete
    5. What threats VT? Michael Wright was asked to provide evidence of them, I'm not sure he ever did.

      As mentioned, I have been on the forums and websites for many years. I have never seen threats against the McCanns, or heaven forbid, their children. Even the very worst of the cesspits would never have tolerated that. The idea that there is a huge mob calling for their heads, is fantasy on your part.

      Not believing the abduction story doesn't equal hater, pitchforker, angry mob. Who's angry? After 11 years most people are philosophical, they have got on with lives, and probably have no idea who Madeleine was.

      If common sense is being dictated to by strangers online, in your words, actions, and everything you do, then you can keep it. Personally, I would never allow anyone to have that power over me. I certainly wouldn't change who I am to avoid criticism.

      You make way too much of public opinion, there have never been gangs of thugs threatening the McCann family. The closest (pathetic) attempt was by Tony Bennett distributing leaflets in their home town, the example they gave to the Judge in the Supreme Court as evidence of harassment. On that occasion, all the vitriol was, quite rightly directed at Bennett.

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 March 2018 at 12:49

      ''What threats VT? Michael Wright was asked to provide evidence of them, I'm not sure he ever did....As mentioned, I have been on the forums and websites for many years. I have never seen threats against the McCanns''

      There it is again. If you haven't seen something then it can't exist; it can't be right.One thing you must have noticed in all the years online is that it's quite a big place.Endless in fact.Even the social media platforms go on and on and on ( and don't they just love that facility). I refer you to the infamous dossier for step one..

      ''The idea that there is a huge mob calling for their heads, is fantasy on your part. ''

      Did you type that with a straight face ?

      ''Not believing the abduction story doesn't equal hater, pitchforker, angry mob. Who's angry?''

      You've said that before.I've replied before.Anger and hate isn't easy to conceal. Those who remain neutral observers ( as opposed to those who just claim to be for effect) can see that many who don't believe the abduction story are able to say why in a civilized, sensible manner.They are two different animals. I never include them in the same category.I have no need or wish to question or accuse anyone who presents opinions with a view to discuss them.

      ''If common sense is being dictated to by strangers online, in your words, actions, and everything you do, then you can keep it.''

      I agree. But my position is that common sense is being ignored by too many online.So they can't dictate to anyone other than those with a strange need to belong or be led without questioning to what and who by.

      ''You make way too much of public opinion, there have never been gangs of thugs threatening the McCann family.''

      That's an awkward statement. An opinion is abstract and a gang is concrete.Let me try to decipher and reply.....

      More than once i have said that the case is dead in the water due to the lack of evidence.The same applies to any claims of the parents guilt . You have been quick to remind me that I was wrong to just accept the official line and that ''they [parents] have been found guilty in the court of public opinion''. I reminded of you of the 'court' when Christopher Jeffries was arrested, and Lindy Chamberlain was jailed.Who really makes too much of public opinion ?

      As for gangs of thugs..I didn't mention a gang or gangs, or thugs. The Bennets of this world (or the virtual one) don't matter to me.Too many have jumped on the case and affixed themselves like limpets because of all the eyes looking in it's direction. It's the new age of fame obsessed desperadoes who think the internet means they're on TV and social platforms means they're writers.They yearn for the applause and any cash that it makes them when they are crowned Virtual Supersleuth .




      Delete
    7. ''If common sense is being dictated to by strangers online, in your words, actions, and everything you do, then you can keep it. Personally, I would never allow anyone to have that power over me.''

      Yes, Ros.A good point if you want to bust a gut tying to find a reason to criticize the parents.

      How does that point work when the best source you can muster when told that you're ignoring the lack of evidence of anything or on anyone is that 'amazing new technology' that houses 'the court of public opinion' ?

      Delete
    8. good question @ 01:34

      Delete
  8. JJ3 March 2018 at 10:06

    ''The PJ know the British police were acting unlawfully illegally and dishonestly from day 1/2.''

    When did they say that ? Or are you guessing or psychic ? Or is it more of the Ros style of 'it's just obvious' ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Their belief that a victory in the ECHR against him will somehow bring them closure, is delusional. Do they not have any psychologists among their friends who could point that out to them?"

    This is a rather bizarre passage.
    First of all, let's get this out of the way - a victory in the ECHR would not be a victory against Amaral, but against the state of Portugal and I'm sure the McCanns are intelligent enough to understand that. Therefore, you can't transpose whatever you believe their motives for wanting to beat Amaral are and apply them to Portugal. They didn't start off by suing Portugal, did they? Then their beef isn't with them so the same motivation cannot apply.

    Secondly, you claim that they are motivated by a need for 'closure'

    I have seen nothing whatsoever at any time to suggest that closure is a motivating factor here, so I am wondering where you got that idea and what evidence points in that direction? Quite the opposite would seem to be the case, in fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the McCanns are now suing Portugal, the nation? Ok. So what is their beef against Portugal? The fact that the Portuguese Courts didn't award them all of GA's money and future earnings? I'm intrigued 13:58, I hadn't realised the claim was now against Portugal, perhaps you could explain.

      I don't remember saying they are motivated by a need for closure, but no matter, what's wrong with that? After 11 years of being demented by not knowing what happened to their child, who wouldn't want closure? It's the motiving factor behind every grieving family with a missing loved one. They NEED to know what happened.

      Bragging that they don't want closure is quite bizarre.

      Delete
    2. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 March 2018 at 08:56

      So the McCanns are now suing Portugal, the nation? Ok. So what is their beef against Portugal? The fact that the Portuguese Courts didn't award them all of GA's money and future earnings? I'm intrigued 13:58, I hadn't realised the claim was now against Portugal, perhaps you could explain."
      -------------------------------------------

      You are embarrassingly out of touch Ros and your lack of knowledge is shown in your inability to understand anything connected to the Mccann case.


      Delete
    3. You replied to me
      ''So the McCanns are now suing Portugal, the nation? Ok. So what is their beef against Portugal? The fact that the Portuguese Courts didn't award them all of GA's money and future earnings? I'm intrigued 13:58, I hadn't realised the claim was now against Portugal, perhaps you could explain.''


      I am trying to work out if you are kidding, or if you actually are that ill-informed.

      They have taken their case to the ECHR, as you stated. What you seem to be ignorant of is the fact that they cannot sue an individual at the ECHR, only a nation state, ie Portugal. I thought this was common knowledge and universally understood. Perhaps you shouldn't blog about something you know nothing about?

      "I don't remember saying they are motivated by a need for closure"

      Seriously?

      Then allow me to refresh your memory.
      You said:

      "Their belief that a victory in the ECHR against him will somehow bring them closure, is delusional"

      So once again, where do you get this from?

      The more I read your blog, the more obvious it is that you simply write the first thing which enters your head, regardless of whether it is accurate or not

      Delete
  10. Anonymous 3 March, 11:24

    Why not let's adopt your POV, i.e. the PJ did not (in the past) know the British police were gate crashing in PdL?

    JJ claims they know (now). And he's right, because we've told them, and on any number of previous occasions. The NPIA/ACPO have between them broadcast the official position on international police collaboration as undertaken and authorised by the UK.

    It doesn't take much to deduce that Leicestershire Constabulary et al did NOT adhere to the statutory procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous 3 March, 11:24

    And another thing (courtesy of the NPIA)...

    "The command team of Leicestershire Constabulary first learned of the incident through media reports on the morning of 4 May."

    Prior to setting off for work, presumably. But early morning announcements (by SKY News, for instance) made no mention of the family's hailing from Leicestershire and did not refer to them by name.

    However, "They were also contacted that morning by Strathclyde Police because a relative of the McCann family, who lived in their area had asked them what UK policing assistance could be provided and they passed this enquiry to Leicestershire."

    Ah. So that's how they knew the family's name and exact postal address in time to station patrol officers outside the house on the Friday morning, prior to the arrival of a SKY News OB team around 11:00 a.m.

    But according to Patricia Cameron (the relative in question) she was told by Strathclyde Police that they could not help. Clearly not. And for the very same reasons that Leicestershire Police would have been in no position to help either, as the crime was committed under overseas jurisdiction.

    So Strathclyde contact Leicestershire Constabulary for no apparent reason and Leicestershire proceed to instigate a programme of assistance, especially for the McCanns and contrary to a prior Home Office directive on such matters; a programme which included patrolling the McCanns' Rothley Home before the UK media had even disclosed the McCanns' usual domestic whereabouts.

    Remarkable!



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting post. Makes you wonder who oiled this machine so well, so fast, and under whose direction and why.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 3 March, 18:36

      "Makes you wonder who oiled this machine so well, so fast, and under whose direction and why."

      I have long wondered.

      Delete
    3. As I have too. I have also had a small number of unusual suspects.Still do.But 'tis taboo.

      Delete
    4. Remarkable indeed 15:43, thank you for that. And remarkable that they were appointed a government spokesman. Well initially a woman Justine McGuinness, but then a man, Clarence.

      Does anyone know of any other victims of crimes abroad, being appointed their own government spokesperson? Let alone, suspects in a crime?

      I give a huge amount of credit to Gerry and Kate for being so assertive, and being so conversant with their rights, but their late night calls from PDL, initiated somersaults and backflips to accommodate and comfort them. They received personal phone calls from two PMs! Well spotted, so long ago, Sandra F.

      Being even, that assertive, can take you a long way, but it won't take you into the corridors of power. And this of course is where the Madeleine case becomes complex. If a Public Inquiry were held for example, both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown could be called upon to explain why the British Government interfered in the investigation. The reason, some might say, that the case isn't closed after 11 years.

      Delete
    5. "Remarkable indeed 15:43, thank you for that. And remarkable that they were appointed a government spokesman. Well initially a woman Justine McGuinness, but then a man, Clarence."

      I seem to recall you describing yourself as an expert on this case.

      For an 'expert' there are embarrassing gaps in your knowledge

      So to help you out, they were initially and briefly provided with the services of Clarence Mitchell, who headed up the government's media monitoring unit. It is not correct to say they were appointed a government spokesman.

      After Clarence was recalled, they HIRED Justine McGuinness ostensibly as fund manager. Later they HIRED Clarence as their press spokesman (he was no longer working for the government)

      If you are going to position yourself as an expert, you have a responsibility to get these things right

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 3 March at 15:43

      Interesting post. Thank you.

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

      Anonymous at 00:10

      Clarence Mitchell was seconded to the Foreign Office to come out to Portugal to handle the McCanns’ media liaison as part of their consular support for the McCanns.

      Delete
    7. Well I obviously don't have the insider knowledge that you have 00:10.

      Define 'initially' and 'briefly', because Clarence was around for an awful long time, didn't he spend most of the summer in PDL? It seems to me there was/is a lot of blurring of the lines going on - you can't blame observers for thinking Clarence was still employed as government spokesman for the parents. He certainly acted as if he had some kind of official government capacity, and no announcements were made to clarify his new status. Some might think the blurring was intentional, to make it appear the parents had the full support of the British government.

      Delete
    8. "Well I obviously don't have the insider knowledge that you have 00:10.

      Define 'initially' and 'briefly', because Clarence was around for an awful long time, didn't he spend most of the summer in PDL? It seems to me there was/is a lot of blurring of the lines going on - you can't blame observers for thinking Clarence was still employed as government spokesman for the parents. He certainly acted as if he had some kind of official government capacity, and no announcements were made to clarify his new status. Some might think the blurring was intentional, to make it appear the parents had the full support of the British government."

      Okay - firstly, what was the reason for the snide 'insider' comment?

      I am no more an 'insider' than you are, Ros, but it is unfortunately typical of you to adopt a firm 'mean girls' stance. Yes, the irony of your blog is not lost on anyone who has been on the receiving end of one of your personal attacks.

      All this information is firmly in the public domain and always has been. Frankly, a quick look back would have told you that. It makes me wonder what else you are confused about, on that self-raising expert platform of yours.

      So, why don't you go and look it up?

      You can find all the information in the files, and I can assure you his change in status was clearly announced and covered in the papers at the time.

      The only blurring is as a result of your own myopia. Perhaps you should have gone to Specsavers?

      Delete
    9. There was nothing snide about my 'insider' reference, I used the word insider.

      I asked you to define 'briefly', one week, 16 weeks? Given his status as head of government media monitoring, did he have to give 3 months notice? You said you answer questions, so I await your reply with interest.

      Delete
    10. Ros
      @ Anon 00:10

      Ignore the stupid comments by 00:10

      No truth just the usual bullshit Even Kate McCann states C.M was their official spokesman while a Govt employee
      McGuinness and Mitchell were in the "employ" of the Mccanns at the same time one did not follow the other.

      Bullshit will never baffle brains but they are persistent in their attacks on this blog. I wonder why?

      Delete
    11. "There was nothing snide about my 'insider' reference, I used the word insider.

      I asked you to define 'briefly', one week, 16 weeks? Given his status as head of government media monitoring, did he have to give 3 months notice? You said you answer questions, so I await your reply with interest.

      Oh, so it wasn't snide?
      So what did you mean by it, in that case?

      If you are going to be a bitch, at least have the courage to carry it through, Ros.

      I don't know where I am supposed to have said I answer questions - I said you could find the information in the files. I suggest you look.

      Delete
    12. You talk about courage while posting and calling me a bitch anonymously, lol.

      I don't think the statement could have been any clearer, are you not familiar with the word 'insider'? No, I'm afraid I don't buy that you are a concerned citizen and a stranger to the McCann family. You take everything way too personally.

      Anyway, when you have finished licking your wounds, can you answer my question. Define 'briefly'.

      Delete
    13. You allow anonymous posting. Don't allow it if you have a problem with it.

      My original post was in response to you posting erroneous information. I think you must be confusing me with someone else because you accuse me of taking things too personally and claim that I said I would answer questions, which I certainly haven't.

      I'm not even a frigging McCann supporter, ffs, let alone an 'insider'

      You are a nasty piece of work, Ros, you really are. Go and bully someone else

      Delete
    14. JJ5 March 2018 at 09:36

      ''Bullshit will never baffle brains but they are persistent in their attacks on this blog. I wonder why?''

      We all do. What's up with you.

      Delete
  12. Hi Rosalinda,
    I just did a memory refresher and turned the clock back to March 19th 2008 when Daily Express newspapers paid the McCanns a stunning five hundred thousand pounds+ to settle a libel suit where the Express was forced to grovel, with the words: "There is no evidence whatsoever the couple caused the death of their missing daughter and covered it up".
    The McCann's spokesman replied that they were pleased the newspapers had admitted "the utter falsity of what they had written"

    (That platitude was probably too late - people can read between the lines)

    Apparently this amount of money was not enough so the McCanns targeted the detective who wrote a book after being fired trying to do his job (finding their missing daughter).

    This time they collected a cool one million Euros.

    It's probable the Express could handle the loss what with libel insurance etc. But Amaral was bankrupted.
    How cruel can you get.
    Has the man got his money back after the high court reversal? No news of that yet.

    You can bet the owners of Express newspapers have not forgotten the hand they were dealt with and payback time must always be on their minds...when the truth is finally out.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JC, nice to see you :) I don't know that the McCanns ever got their mitts on GA's book royalties. I believe the Courts froze his assets and put a Charge over his family home. Ergo, it was held in abeyance, not available for his use, which is why people donated to his legal fees on GoFundMe. Hopefully, it has now been returned to him.

      I doubt Express Newspapers will forgive and forget, or indeed The Sun and Times. I doubt anyone could make more powerful enemies than Richard Desmond and Rupert Murdoch. But, heck, Gerry and Kate are taking on the Nation of Portugal, what's two newspaper barons?

      Delete
    2. @jc


      ''Daily Express newspapers paid the McCanns a stunning five hundred thousand pounds+ to settle a libel suit where the Express was forced to grovel, with the words: "There is no evidence whatsoever the couple caused the death of their missing daughter and covered it up".

      Yes, libel and defamation are against the law in the modern world.They paid the penalty they carry.

      ''Apparently this amount of money was not enough so the McCanns targeted the detective who wrote a book after being fired trying to do his job (finding their missing daughter).''

      Apparently. You mean that's what appears to be the case in your blinkered eyes.Nothing to do with them just having had it confirmed that libel and slander or defamation carry a penalty.They didn't anticipate that it would eventually end up under the nose of a judge who had the power to bend the statutes laid out in Portugal.The home of Amaral.

      ''It's probable the Express could handle the loss what with libel insurance etc. But Amaral was bankrupted. ''

      If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.It was his decision to gamble.He had a lottery win in the shape of a judge with her own ideas which she deemed far better than the ideas laid out by the state of Portugal.

      ''How cruel can you get. ''

      Find a couple who have lost their child abroad.get to lead the investigation then, when removed by superiors, write a book, give interviews and blanket bomb the internet with unfounded allegations that they are liars and that they buried their child's body. Will that do ?

      Delete
  13. ''(That platitude was probably too late - people can read between the lines)''

    The only thing between the lines is space.You can put any words you like in it.Just remember that it isn't part of what you originally read and you won't lose your balance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ''All the suspicion is based on jealousy of their looks, their beautiful house, all their achievements etc. I've always wondered why owners of shiny objects think others are jealous, they are clearly not wise enough to know that others don't care''

    Social media is plastered with inane observations speaking about the Mccanns success, social status, house, careers, looks. All come from the side of the so-called arguments that are filled with rage and irrational hatred. The McCanns - the owners of the shiny objects as you put it, haven't mentioned anything about them.Who have they accused of being jealous of such things ?They lost a child,They have perspective .Would they really care about what people thought about their success ? Did they stick it in peoples' faces or did the media ?

    ''I think the question of it being mean to criticise the parents of a missing child, is again debateable, when those parents are being mean to others''

    Two parents lose a child abroad.They left them unguarded and paid the price.Criticising them for gambling is understandable. Accusing them of killing their child or hiding her corpse following an accident, then money laundering is a tad more than 'being mean'.Vindictive doesn't even cover it.

    '' More specifically a ten year vendetta against the detective who searched for their child. ''

    Is that why they have a vendetta ? because he searched for their child ? Or is it for something a little different , but relating to their child's disappearance ?

    ''Their continued claims that Goncalo Amaral was somehow responsible for the loss of their child has gone beyond unreasonable,''

    They don't blame him for the loss they blame him for bungling the investigation early and failing to recover it. His superiors seemed to agree.

    ''Their belief that a victory in the ECHR against him will somehow bring them closure, is delusional''

    Your use of the word 'delusional' is lazy.Anyone who disagrees with you, exposes your flawed reasoning or says something you don't like has to be 'delusional'.Victory in the ECHR would bring closure to a particular chapter, not the story.

    ''Ultimately, Gerry and Kate chose the battlefield, social media. ''

    They didn't choose a battlefield. They attempted to utilize social media but walked into the craziest ambush since twitter and Facebook began.

    To quote a blogger and former commentator whom i respect immensely :

    ''Online social media have not only given a voice (and access) to very disturbed people. They have also made isolated hermitage normal by creating a virtual society that is unreal in every sense of the word...''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 02:51

      Virtual society is just as real and relevant as you choose to make it.

      Delete
    2. Gerry and Kate came up with the whole jealousy thing themselves. It was their way of explaining why people were suspicious of them. The antis were discussing Kate's slim figure, or large house with room for a pony, they were discussing the lunacy of leaving babies alone, and the massive great holes in the abduction story.

      A tiny minority were being bitchy, but most were 'playing online detective', myself included. It was a high profile crime being played out as a realty TV show, I am among thousands who were hooked. The McCanns' good looks and success very rarely, if ever got a mention. All the discussion focussed on the crime.

      Your criticism of my use of vocabulary is banal, is there any point to it?

      Gerry and Kate wanted to control social media. Again, they were naïve.

      As for 'a voice (and access) to very disturbed people? Define 'disturbed'. Better still, classify it and create categories? Who judges what 'disturbed' constitutes? Wouldn't those on the political Right, class those on the political Left, as disturbed, and of course vice versa.

      Many, yourself included I am sure, would class me as disturbed, simply for voicing an alternate opinion. Are all subversive writers disturbed? Or would you cherry pick?

      And in response to 08:42. Quite so.

      Delete
    3. Should add VT, you still don't seem to comprehend just how irrational your hatred of Goncalo Amaral is. The McCanns successfully deprived him of his assets and earnings for 9+ years, wasn't that enough? Any victory against him won't mean anything to anyone other than themselves. The world has moved on.

      You say they blame him for bungling the original investigation as if Madeleine would have been recovered immediately if Stimpson of the Yard had been on the case?

      Again, the hatred is not logical, nor even reasonable. They express no hatred for the fiend who took their child, but their blood boileth over at the mention of Goncalo Amaral.

      A psychologist might say they are projecting. Rather than blame themselves for leaving Madeleine vulnerable, they have transferred the blame onto GA and the police. They haven't reached the acceptance stage of grief, which is why they remain in turmoil.

      Delete
    4. ''Gerry and Kate came up with the whole jealousy thing themselves. It was their way of explaining why people were suspicious of them.''

      Is that another lie or is there a source ?

      ''All the discussion focussed on the crime.''

      The small percentage was of the crime. The bigger part was about suspicion.The least about tangible evidence.

      ''Your criticism of my use of vocabulary is banal, is there any point to it?''

      It was a criticism of your overuse of 'delusional'. The cheap and quick insult. The lazy habit of the ad hominem attack rather than considered discussion or rational deconstruction of what you disagree with.

      ''As for 'a voice (and access) to very disturbed people? Define 'disturbed'. ''

      If you understood the context you wouldn't need the definition.

      ''Many, yourself included I am sure, would class me as disturbed, simply for voicing an alternate opinion. Are all subversive writers disturbed? Or would you cherry pick?''

      I didn't call you disturbed. But if you need to interpret it that way feel free.Each to their own.

      ''And in response to 08:42. Quite so.''

      Anonymous4 March 2018 at 08:42

      ''Virtual society is just as real and relevant as you choose to make it.''

      Who mentioned 'real' ? Who mentioned relevant ? It's neither .The isolated hermitage is real, however.Unfortunately, too many of those preferring the isolation are in bad company when on their own.

      Delete
    5. Is there a source? Yes, I was there. And don't call me a liar. For a long time I had a voracious appetite for everything Madeleine related. I belonged to a forum that discussed the case daily. The hater, pitchforker, jealousy arguments were used constantly, mostly in response to awkward questions.

      Nope, still think your arguments on my vocabulary are banal. I used the right word in the right context, that you are interpreting it as lazy, cheap, etc, is your problem. But thanks for sharing the inner workings of your strange head.

      Is your last paragraph another quote, or are you trying to be profound? Some people, and I count myself among them, take great delight in my own company. Having spent many years running a busy home, I have always considered alone time precious. In the old days, the only place I could hide from the kids, was in the bath!

      There's a lot to be said for hermitage. Not everyone wants to be in the thick of it, and some, like myself, have zero tolerance for anything that doesn't interest, delight, or amuse me. I now find myself incapable of listening to anyone who bores me. I happen to like silence. My favourite time of day, is pre dawn, when all I can hear is the sound of birds tweeting. Sunday mornings especially, when the world takes a step back for a few hours.

      If your argument is that the internet isolates people, how about those already isolated, who now have like minded souls to talk to? Or hobbies or interests to pursue? For them, the internet is freedom.

      Some people are isolated through no fault of their own. They may be disabled or too ill to venture out. The internet gives them a window to the world, isn't that a good thing?


      Don't you think it a tad superior, to say those who enjoy solitude are in 'bad company'? Who are you to judge? Are you one of those 'smug marrieds' who see the single, or indeed, anyone not like them, as failures? Good for you that you fit so snugly into society, but it's not everyone's cup of green tea.

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 March 2018 at 11:05

      ''Should add VT, you still don't seem to comprehend just how irrational your hatred of Goncalo Amaral is.''

      Why should you add it ? I have never said i hate Amaral. I've said I think that he made mistakes and that his hypotheses needed a lot of evidence to stand them up. I said I thought his accusations of the McCanns were unprofessional, careless, and cruel.You said hate.

      ''You say they blame him for bungling the original investigation as if Madeleine would have been recovered immediately ''

      Your 'as if' is speculative.Important DNA / prints / hair might have been recovered immediately if the scene was sealed off faster and various items from the apartment were bagged up and taken for examination.
      ''Again, the hatred is not logical, nor even reasonable. They express no hatred for the fiend who took their child, but their blood boileth over at the mention of Goncalo Amaral. ''

      Is hatred logical ? I think most normal people can assume they don't think much of the abductor in any case like this.Do you really need a signed statement of it ?Amaral was a detective and had charge of the investigation initially.He chose to lash out at the parents on top of what they'd already suffered.He voiced a variety of theories but all with one conclusion ; they buried the corpse of their child. Where they to laugh that off ? Would that be logical ?

      ''A psychologist might say they are projecting. Rather than blame themselves for leaving Madeleine vulnerable, they have transferred the blame onto GA and the police. ''
      If they told a psychologist that Amaral was responsible for leaving the children alone they'd be sent to the funhouse. Blaming detectives for making a bad start at the most vital stage of the investigation when they have admitted that themselves in't projecting anything more than anger and disappointment.

      ''They haven't reached the acceptance stage of grief, which is why they remain in turmoil.''

      The complete absence of progress in eleven years isn't helping.

      Delete
    7. ''Some people are isolated through no fault of their own. They may be disabled or too ill to venture out. The internet gives them a window to the world, isn't that a good thing?''

      It is indeed.And they enjoy it and appreciate it.But I didn't say everyone did i.I said too many.The too many that go off it when they get near a keyboard.

      Delete
    8. My question :

      ''Is that another lie or is there a source ?''

      Your interpretation :

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 March 2018 at 12:13

      ''Is there a source? Yes, I was there. And don't call me a liar.''

      You have chosen to pretend the question was a statement or an accusation so you can legitimize your lash out. Again, misquoting things said to you so you can reply. It's not much better than ignoring the questions. Fair to say, it's your prerogative to ignore or reply to what you like.But it isn't exactly what could be called reasonable to misquote what others say in order to try to misrepresent them. But I'm sure you must have your reasons.Everything can be explained if enough time is taken. Still no source, however...

      ''The hater, pitchforker, jealousy arguments were used constantly, mostly in response to awkward questions. ''

      Maybe. I'll take your word for it.When they come from me, they come with reasons and citations, not as a response to an awkward question. I answer questions. I've noticed that a lot of simple questions that get asked to the antis are avoided though.

      '' But thanks for sharing the inner workings of your strange head.''

      Incredible.

      ''Is your last paragraph another quote, or are you trying to be profound?''

      Incredible.

      ''Are you one of those 'smug marrieds' who see the single, or indeed, anyone not like them, as failures?''

      Incredible.

      I believe one of your supporters has pointed out elsewhere that you seem to be perceived as some kind of leader of the antis( or revolution as it's incorrectly worded).Your previous claim to be open minded rather than an anti to one side, the dubious notion of it actually being compliment worthy of your thanks, it bases the claim on the amount of ad hominem attacks on you. There's about 3 months of ad hominem attacks posted on your recent threads. 95% coming from you to anyone daring to disagree with you.

      Delete
    9. Incredible that you took up all that space just to say incredible.

      If you post like a belligerent adolescent, expect to get roasted.

      Delete
  15. RCh @ 10:05 wrote in response to VT.

    "You say they blame him for bungling the original investigation as if Madeleine would have been recovered immediately if Stimpson of the Yard had been on the case"?

    The Brits were there from the get go,its as much their fault as anyones it wasn't nor has been solved,which a pro will never acknowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm neither an anti nor a pro.I believe in innocent until evidence brings about an arrest and a charge and a trial brings about a verdict.My hypothesising and discussing aspects of the case is driven by wanting to see reasonable discussion of the scant facts available rather than scenarios that have been constructed in the imagination of so many who have been impressed by previous cases and their outcomes as well as detective novels / movies that relay on the shock factor twist for their success.

      The 'get go' was the crime scene. The PJ were in charge then.They made mistakes at a vital stage.The blame for that lies at their feet. The Brits were not far behind and they didn't make it any better and seemed to have a different agenda.That is, to derail the case.The blame for that lies at their feet.Whether they call it blame or success only they would know.If it's the latter, we'll never know.The lack of any progress in eleven years leaves us to draw our own conclusions.

      Delete
    2. Its not been established where the crime scene is,it was reported as 5a that's all.
      Brit officers digging up the country side would seem to put it elsewhere.

      Delete
    3. The crime scene is where she was taken from, not the possible destination.

      Delete
    4. Reportedly taken from,thats all it is at the moment.

      Delete
    5. Yes, reportedly a small girl allegedly in Portugal may have been taken if she was ever there at all

      Delete
  16. Ros didn't Orwell saying something about telling the truth when everyone around you is telling lies can be seen as a revolutionary act.Judging by the amount of ad hominem attacks by the McCann media team on you it is clear they see you as a leader of the revolution.
    Long live the revolution.

    Loyal Reader

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loyal readers are much appreciated 14:55, thank you.

      I am not sure they see me as the leader, but they see me as something that threatens their official narrative. It bugs the hell out of them that I can't be persuaded over to their way of thinking!

      Delete
    2. can you bring out an ad hominem attack to show us, Loyal Reader? Take your time.

      Delete
  17. 'A Home Office spokesperson said: “The Metropolitan Police has made a further application for funding, which is currently being considered. A decision has not yet been made.”

    A SY spokesperson said: “The inquiry has not reached a conclusion and we’re hoping to continue with focus and determination.”'

    (...)

    'The current funding of £154,000 runs out at the end of this month. It is understood cops are seeking an extra £150,000. The inquiry has already cost the taxpayer £11.2million.'

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5721746/haunted-kate-mccanns-50th-birthday-tinged-with-sadness-as-scotland-yard-probe-draws-to-a-close-but-madeleines-family-insist-they-will-never-give-up-the-search/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that 16:47.

      I don't think these announcements mean very much anymore, what will be, will be. I actually feel sorry for the parents because they are the ones being held in limbo. For their part I think the police are being very cruel if they have not told the parents what's going on.

      Delete
    2. that's been the case since 2007.

      Delete
  18. ''A SY spokesperson said: “The inquiry has not reached a conclusion and we’re hoping to continue with focus and determination.”'

    Continue.More of the same then.With the same results and more costs.Someone should ask what the money pays for and how sharp a focus need to be to look at something for 11 years and see nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greetings from Keela and Eddie,who represent honesty in the Madeleine case.

    Hello everybody

    As for two police forces haven’t found any evidence, I’m so tired of hearing it. It is so obvious that Martin Grime's sniffer dogs clearly alerted for scent of death in McCanns’ apartment, in their rented car on Kate's clothes and on Madeleine’s little cuddle cat. This is clear proof that at least one dead person must have been in the McCanns’ apartment, in their rented car, in contact with Kate’s clothes as well as with Madeleine’s little precious toy.

    However, the analysed DNA sample found in the car wasn’t conclusive, therefore it isn’t possible to determine whether it belonged to Madeleine or to somebody else, yet it must be undisputed that there's been at least one dead person near the McCanns in PDL or possibly at the hospital in the UK, where Kate worked.

    When Gerry was asked by Sandra Felgueiras more than a year after Madeleine had “gone missing” he couldn’t give any explanation to the dogs’ alerts, apart from that “those dogs are unreliably” or “ask the dogs Sandra”. So I’m still wondering who is/are the person(s) who contaminated the McCanns’ apartment, car and the mentioned items belonging to Kate and her daughter?

    Why aren’t two police forces and two previous suspects interested in trying to explain to us, who this mysterious dead person(s) might be?

    I'm just curious to know how Operation Grange looks at this. If they haven’t any idea at all and the McCanns cannot tell, I suggest that they ask the dogs instead. At least, they will get an honest answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn, always nice to see you. You may be amused to know the UK was momentarily as snow covered as your beautiful Swedish villages! It caused chaos, but it looked soooo pretty.

      The 'noooo evidence' chant of Gerry's never really caught on, because as you say, 11 alerts by two specialist dogs suggests otherwise. I don't think in all these years, I have ever read cohesive and logical explanation as to why these TWO dogs, who were at the top of their canine careers, would have been so drastically wrong on this occasion.

      Gerry's 'notoriously unreliable' is not supported by evidence. Pork chops, rotting meat, deceased patients Dr. Kate had been in contact with prior to their holiday. Nothing explains the dogs' alerts, and of course, dogs can't lie.

      The McCanns' reaction to the dogs alerts, their instant denial of them, was and remains bizarre. With a missing child, the smell of death should have been alarming, not welcome news of course, but something for which, they themselves should have wanted an answer.

      These dogs have proved their expertise again and again, someone died in Apartment 5A. The dogs did the job they were trained to do. They were police dogs and a police tool to find clues. They found clues.

      I've seen Jim Gamble refer people to the Summers and Swan explanation for the dogs' alerts. I haven't looked myself, but now I'm curious. I might also refresh myself on the D'Andra Lane case, where the alerts of the dogs made up a large part of Lane's defence. Iirc, it was the same dogs and Martin Grime, who was called as an expert witness.

      Delete
    2. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html

      The above link is to the Judgment in PEOPLE v. LANE. Lane, who brutally murdered his two year old daughter Bianca appealed his conviction on the basis that there was no forensic or scientific evidence to support the decomposition alerts of Morse and Keela and that all the evidence against him was circumstantial. The competence of the dogs was proved to the Court's satisfaction and Lane lost his appeal. It is an interesting read.

      Delete
    3. http://bit.ly/2tfRtRr

      @JimGamble_INEQE I know cadaver dogs picked up the scent of dead body and blood in apartment and on Kate’s clothes and car

      Jim Gamble
      @ComingUpTheHill Really? I think a lot of experts would dispute such a definitive analysis. Have you read the @summersandswan book?

      https://twitter.com/JimGamble_INEQE/status/520653309330595840

      Delete
    4. Björn 5 March 2018 at 10:25

      Hi, Björn

      Taking into account the circumstances in which Eddie and Keela alerted to the scent of human cadaver and blood, it is reasonable to suppose that a connection between Madeleine's disappearance and the dog’s alerts very likely existed.

      However, no Madeleine’s blood was found in PDL, and DNA tests of the samples taken where the dogs alerted were inconclusive.

      Therefore “This is clear proof that at least one dead person must have been in the McCanns’ apartment, in their rented car, in contact with Kate’s clothes as well as with Madeleine’s little precious toy.” is incorrect.

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
    5. Björn5 March 2018 at 10:25

      ''Greetings from Keela and Eddie,who represent honesty in the Madeleine case.''

      I wondered where they ended up.I didn't think it would be Sweden.But, I'll take your word that they are thee as you post.

      They represent honesty ? Is that you being original with a 'dogs don't lie' cliche ? Makes you wonder who are the liars then if the dogs truth was denied the lightof day. Who had the power to do that ? Dare you accuse ? I doubt it.

      ''As for two police forces haven’t found any evidence, I’m so tired of hearing it. It ''

      If you want to take your findings somewhere where they deserve to be heard, try the Independent Office for Police Conduct. They have a site. Include what you have discovered to be obvious and proof.I'm sure they'll thank you.

      '' So I’m still wondering who is/are the person(s) who contaminated the McCanns’ apartment, car and the mentioned items belonging to Kate and her daughter?''

      Include that in your complaint.Or ask the dogs.

      ''Why aren’t two police forces and two previous suspects interested in trying to explain to us, who this mysterious dead person(s) might be? ''

      Maybe they don't know. Why don't you tell them.

      ''I'm just curious to know how Operation Grange looks at this. If they haven’t any idea at all and the McCanns cannot tell, I suggest that they ask the dogs instead. At least, they will get an honest answer.''

      I look forward to that bark.But be warned, if i find an embedded confession in it, i'll be making a video.

      Delete
    6. Hi Rosalinda

      The past 15 years we haven’t had any real winter in southern Sweden. We’ve got used to calling it our English weather. That’s the reason as to why we invested in a house up in the northern region, though it’s really the southern part of it, but there’s no need going there now.

      So I hope that you could enjoy our short Swedish winter visiting you for just a few days, or maybe just hours. I suppose it has melted away by now. In northern Sweden the snow lasts for at least six months.

      ”I've seen Jim Gamble refer people to the Summers and Swan explanation for the dogs' alerts”

      Yes, I as well need to look a little deeper into this. The dogs’ findings are after all very crucial for the understanding of the case.

      Delete
    7. @ Hello Anonymous5 March 2018 at 15:24

      Re: The Independent Office for Police Conduct.

      I’ve seen enough of this ongoing British partial, opaque and incomprehensible investigation, which in the McCann's terminology is described as an independent, transparent and comprehensible “review” or “reassessment” of the case, to believe that there’s any INDEPENDENT Office for Police Conduct in the real sense of the word.

      Such an Office with biased police officers like Sir Bernard and others may of course exist with whom, as far as I’m concerned, it would quite pointless to discuss anything at all, let alone the unprofessional and inappropriate conduct of the British police as a whole, especially in Portugal, but thanks for your piece of advice. Much appreciated

      Delete
    8. More than welcome. It's nice to finally see a hint of what you think about the police being corrupt and dishonest, with particular reference to those investigating the McCann case. Contextualizing your point I think it reasonable to infer that the dishonesty you accuse them of is the main reason this case has remained a 'mystery' . The question now has to be why they would be so dishonest and corrupt regarding the investigation of a crime that occurred abroad. They have worked hand-in-glove with politicians who rubber stamp funding, so they are implicated into the crime of perverting the course of justice too.So the next question has to be why they would willingly enter into this cover up. After all, if their dishonesty is responsible for the failure to make any arrests, it can only be called a cover up. What was /is their motive ? Why has money been no object to keep the show going ? Incidentally, the 'terminology' you referred to as being that of the McCanns, is that of their PR Guru CM and the met.

      Delete
  20. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 March 2018 at 11:43

    ''The 'noooo evidence' chant of Gerry's never really caught on, because as you say, 11 alerts by two specialist dogs suggests otherwise''

    They didn't catch on with the internet jury. They seemed to have caught on adequately enough with the police forces conducting the investigation.

    ''I have ever read cohesive and logical explanation as to why these TWO dogs, who were at the top of their canine careers, would have been so drastically wrong on this occasion.''

    You have. You mustn't have understood.

    ''The McCanns' reaction to the dogs alerts, their instant denial of them, was and remains bizarre.''

    Not if they're innocent. How do you explain the police reaction ?

    ''These dogs have proved their expertise again and again, someone died in Apartment 5A.''

    that's your categorical statement.The police have said the opposite.They were there.They still are.You're online.

    Is this it now ? The dogs again ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the police haven't said the opposite have they? In fact DCI Redwood said, Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. It was at the time OG were digging up all the likely areas in the vicinity of 5A.

      If they were innocent, they would not be hostile to the alerts of the dogs. They would want to know what happened to their daughter. The presence of blood isn't cause for innocent people either, as Gerry pointed out, Madeleine may have had a nosebleed, and she probably had a scrape on her knee from the trip on plane steps.

      How do I explain the police reaction? Why did you find it strange? Did you think they would just accept Gerry's 'the dogs are notoriously unreliable' and get back to the abduction story?

      'Is this it now? The dogs again?' Well, I know it is your least favourite subject, but they won't go away. They were a major turning point in the investigation, and in the way the public perceived the story. The damage they did to the Team McCann search for Madeleine was immeasurable.

      Delete
    2. ''In fact DCI Redwood said, Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive''

      Which means she may have.

      ''If they were innocent, they would not be hostile to the alerts of the dogs.''

      They were hostile to the alerts of the PJ and how they chose to name them suspects because of the dogs alerts.


      '' How do I explain the police reaction? Why did you find it strange? Did you think they would just accept Gerry's 'the dogs are notoriously unreliable' and get back to the abduction story?''

      Answer to first part : no, of course not. Answer to 2 : they did.

      '' They were a major turning point in the investigation, and in the way the public perceived the story. ''

      They didn't effect the investigation.We're still waiting.How the public perceived the story ? Now that's my least favourite subject.

      Delete
  21. Hello T March 2018 at 15:08
    Thanks for comment

    I don't think you're quite right about Madeleine's DNA. The blood sample found in the tiles in the McCanns' apartment by one of the dogs was in exactly the same place, where the cadaver dog had detected scent of death. Four markers out of four matched Madeleine's DNA in that sample. Forensic experts, however, also added that it could have been Madeleine's sister's , if it wasn't Madeleine's. Correct me if I'm wrong! I read this Birmingham Laboratory report two years ago.

    However, the McCanns did not deny that it could have been Madeleine's blood, but explained that it might have to do with Madeleine's nose bleeding. Thus almost half a confession I'd say.

    The McCanns said nothing about Madeleine's sister having had a nose bleeding, only Madeleine.

    Moreover, it would've been quite natural to find Madeleine's DNA in many places in the apartment, but the apartment was so well cleaned, that only a tiny sample was found in a spot, where it was difficult to do a proper cleaning, but it was, as I've said, where the cadaver dog alerted.

    Two things that need to be further investigated in my opinion. Firstly, did Madeleine have a nose bleeding that week? If she had that. What was the cause? Why wasn't Madeleine's DNA found in any other place than in that I've mentioned?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn 5 March 2018 at 10:25, 16:47

      “This [“It is so obvious that Martin Grime's sniffer dogs clearly alerted for scent of death in McCanns’ apartment, in their rented car on Kate's clothes and on Madeleine’s little cuddle cat.”] is clear proof that at least one dead person must have been in the McCanns’ apartment, in their rented car, in contact with Kate’s clothes as well as with Madeleine’s little precious toy.”

      It falls to you to support your “…clear proof…” contention. Non sequitur?:)


      “I don't think you're quite right about Madeleine's DNA”

      We’ll see. I do, of course, rely on the informed opinions of those who know more about things DNA than I do.


      The following might be helpful to keep in mind:

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm#p10p2617-2623

      John Lowe:

      “What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling –

      When was the DNA deposited -
      How was the DNA deposited -
      What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from -
      Was a crime committed -“

      I have no doubt that your intentions are good, Björn.

      Kind regards..

      T

      Delete
    2. Nothing posted from Bjorn about the case shouts good intentions.They shout out one wish.Revenge.Like others who shout for it, it's supposed to read as wishing for justice.But it doesn't read that way.Justice and revenge aren't the same thing.Only vigilantes seek revenge.

      Delete
  22. Bjorn

    ''I don't think you're quite right about Madeleine's DNA.''
    Official statement :

    ''Scientists found there was only 'moderate' support, number 3 on the scale, to suggest it matched Madeleine's DNA.''

    A case of real life science versus online suspicion.Who does one believe. A bit of a head-scratcher that one.

    ''Two things that need to be further investigated in my opinion. Firstly, did Madeleine have a nose bleeding that week? If she had that. What was the cause?''

    I have a horrible feeling you're serious.

    '' Correct me if I'm wrong! ''

    Some explaning :

    ''in short, it cannot be said the blood belongs to Madeleine. If other strong evidence accompanied it – for example, that someone was seen emerging from the apartment with a hammer – then a lawyer might find it of some use. But on its own it is of little value''

    You're often wrong and you're often corrected.You're also often asked to support a lot of your wilder accusations but rarely oblige with answers.

    There's been all kinds of excited fantasizing surrounding this area of the investigation.The mere mention of the word 'blood' caused much online thrashing around as the sharks enjoyed a feeding frenzy.Shameful fools. There's been posts about 'blood spatter' all over the walls ( i think it's called blue tac marking),blood on the floor behind a sofa ( who did that belong to by the way..it wasn't a Mccann), and explanations of how a thorough clean up took place( obviously because no blood could really be seen without a microscope). How would you 'thoroughly' clean a crime scene of blood and DNA ? Whatever you used would show up in the forensic analysis...

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-bloody-footprint-found-in-mccanns-apartment-6642364.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Hello Anonymous5 March 2018 at 19:01
      and thanks for comment

      'Scientists found there was only 'moderate' support, number 3 on the scale, to suggest it matched Madeleine's DNA.''

      As I said, I'll read the Birmingham laboratory report again. A very difficult reading as a matter of fact, and nothing can be explained with just one quote.

      What I find essential here is that Gerry, when he was heard as a suspect said that Madeleine had had a nose bleeding. Thereby admitting or implying that the blood in the apartment was likely to be Madeleine's.

      Moreover, the blood residues were found where the cadaver dog alerted for scent of death, which I've tried to emphasize.

      There's too much of a coincidence here, but as I've said, I shall read the forensic analysis once again.

      Finally I don't claim to know anything, but the more I read about the case the more suspicious I become. I'll revert with comment after I've read this report once again.

      Delete
    2. I think most crimes that have been cleaned up leave only traces of blood not visible to the human eye. That's where the blood dog comes in. Keela went into 5A first, and almost immediately alerted to the area behind the sofa, the tiles on the floor and the spots marked with yellow stickers. Eddie the cadaver dog also alerted to the area behind the sofa.

      It's nothing to do with sharks and a feeding frenzy, the alerts were significant and so were the blood spots - they changed the entire course of the investigation. Denying their existence, whilst understandable, is futile. They will always be integral to the investigation.

      The McCanns denial of the presence of any blood is on very dodgy ground. The number of alleles in the blood may not have been enough for a Portuguese Court, but it is for many others.

      To contest the alerts of the dogs, the McCanns would need an expert willing to dispute the expertise of Martin Grime and the training and testing of the dogs. I doubt such an expert exists. There wasn't one in the D'Andre Lane case.

      Delete
    3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 March 2018 at 22:49

      "I think most crimes that have been cleaned up leave only traces of blood not visible to the human eye. That's where the blood dog comes in. Keela went into 5A first, and almost immediately alerted to the area behind the sofa, the tiles on the floor and the spots marked with yellow stickers. Eddie the cadaver dog also alerted to the area behind the sofa."
      ----------------------------------------------

      You Ros are a liar - and a deliberate liar at that.

      You have been told before on numerous occasions about spreading lies about blood in the apartment.

      Read the files and stop telling lies.

      Delete
    4. 'Denying their existence, whilst understandable, is futile. They will always be integral to the investigation.''

      Integral to whose investigation ? It was investigated and the results published in 2007.That was 11 years ago. Any other debate/discussion/hypothesising since has been among the unqualified public on the internet. Can you come up with a sensible hypothesis to explain why so many policemen and scientists wouldn't forward the findings as evidence fit to take to court ?

      ''they changed the entire course of the investigation. Denying their existence, whilst understandable, is futile''

      In what way did it change the course of the investigation and which course did it then take and where did it lead to ? Is denying their validity as tangible evidence the same as futile ? Because those who could have accepted the validity with the same assurance as those online didn't accept it. They've had years to change the course of their investigating but we are as we were.

      ''The McCanns denial of the presence of any blood is on very dodgy ground. ''

      It would have been shaky had they been arrested and charged because of it.The denial, or acceptance, of the forensics team was more important to the investigation than anyone elses.

      ''To contest the alerts of the dogs, the McCanns would need an expert willing to dispute the expertise of Martin Grime''

      Would that be to test his conclusion that the alerts needed more corroborating evidence ? Does his expert interpretation outweigh the forensic tests of tangible evidence or otherwise ? Would an expert really be needed to argue if enough physical evidence existed and could be brought to court with an expert to explain it ? Would Madeleine's DNA or Blood- even if proven- identify her or her killer ? Wouldn't an equal, or at least sufficient, sample of blood or DNA of the culprit need to be identified before somebody can be A-accused, or B- arrested.

      Delete
    5. "I think most crimes that have been cleaned up leave only traces of blood not visible to the human eye. That's where the blood dog comes in. Keela went into 5A first, and almost immediately alerted to the area behind the sofa, the tiles on the floor and the spots marked with yellow stickers. Eddie the cadaver dog also alerted to the area behind the sofa."

      I thought you claimed to know a lot about this case? The blood dog did NOT go in first and there was no alert to the marks on the walls

      "It's nothing to do with sharks and a feeding frenzy, the alerts were significant and so were the blood spots - they changed the entire course of the investigation. Denying their existence, whilst understandable, is futile. They will always be integral to the investigation. "

      There literally weren't any. None at all. How can you not know this?

      "The McCanns denial of the presence of any blood is on very dodgy ground. The number of alleles in the blood may not have been enough for a Portuguese Court, but it is for many others. "

      I don't remember them denying the presence of blood. The number of alleles would not have been sufficient in any court, plus I think you are confusing a different sample

      "To contest the alerts of the dogs, the McCanns would need an expert willing to dispute the expertise of Martin Grime and the training and testing of the dogs."

      No they wouldn't. They literally wouldn't.

      " I doubt such an expert exists. There wasn't one in the D'Andre Lane case."

      Entirely different case which cannot be used as a parallel.

      Delete
  23. There's been all kinds of excited fantasizing surrounding this area of the investigation.The mere mention of the word 'blood' caused much online thrashing around as the sharks enjoyed a feeding frenzy.Shameful fools. There's been posts about 'blood spatter' all over the walls ( i think it's called blue tac marking),blood on the floor behind a sofa ( who did that belong to by the way..it wasn't a Mccann), and explanations of how a thorough clean up took place( obviously because no blood could really be seen without a microscope). How would you 'thoroughly' clean a crime scene of blood and DNA ? Whatever you used would show up in the forensic analysis...

    The apartment had been cleaned to such an extent , it was like Maddy had never been there , thats why the police took gerry back to the UK to collect DNA samples , why there was no toothbrush :They shared one apparently " no hairbush , hair bobble , shoes , nothing in that apartment the police could get a sample from .

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Rosalinda and others

    You mentioned the Bianca Jones case, so I had to look it up

    D’André Lane is still serving a life sentence in prison, for having murdered his daughter Bianca Jones. The body hasn’t been found.

    ”Police were especially convinced by dog trainer Martin Grime, who used a cadaver dog to sniff out the presence of a decomposing body” (Defenders By Kevin Dietz - Reporter, Derick Hutchinson January 17, 2018)

    Please note, that there wasn't any blood found. The article doesn't mention blood, just scent.

    It wasn’t Keela or Eddie this time, but another cadaver dog trained by him.

    "We had five hits," Dillon (who’s now a retired police officer) said. "The back seat, the car seat, the blanket, her bed and the trunk of the car. At that point, when our hearts sunk, we're, like, 'We're not finding this little girl.” (Defenders)

    Just five hits, not eleven as in the Madeleine case.
    He(Dillon) apparently reached the same conclusion as Gonzalo Amaral did in the Madeleine case.

    As for the sniffer dogs, there’re striking similarities between the Madeleine- and the Bianca Jones case. D’ André Lane claimed that his car had been hijacked together with his two years old daughter. In fact, a more likely scenario, than the McCanns’ story about an abductor. Lane waited 17 minutes before he called the police. The McCanns waited 30 or 40 minutes, depending on how we should assess Russel O’Brian’s time sheet about what the they did that night.
    Should the Detroit Prosecutors’ Office now be persecuted for being so stupid to believe the dogs and for not encouraging people to look for the missing girl, whom her parents so desperately want to find alive. As there’s no body found the Prosecutor and the jury had instead to rely on other circumstantial evidence in reaching their verdict.

    Obviously circumstantial evidence and sniffer dogs’ findings matter a lot in police investigations in the US. How come? Are they all incompetent or savages?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that Bjorn, it was kind and very helpful of you to give a summary on the D'Andre Lane case. It's hard not to draw parallels, especially as Martin Grime was the specialist witness and the dogs were the next generation on from Eddie and Keela.

      Lane was convicted on the circumstantial evidence, as you say, there were no forensics to back up the alerts of the dogs. The difference I think, in the circumstantial evidence, was the fact that Lane was quickly identified as a thuggish sadist, known for his harsh 'disciplining' of his children. At this point my heart goes out to every family with such a patriarchal tyrant. But I don't want to digress. It was easy to convict Lane because he so perfectly fit the stereotypical 'low life' demographic who regularly beat their kids.

      Gerry and Kate of course, couldn't have been more different. No-one outside of the cesspits, believes Gerry and Kate to be cruel parents. I certainly don't, and neither did Goncalo Amaral, because he theorised it as an accident. Those searching for signs of abuse with magnifying glasses, are doing so for their own delectation. It is clear from all the photos that Maddie was a much loved, happy little girl. Adding to the parents' pain is despicable, and trying to there signs of sexual abuse in the positioning of an elbow or the use of the phrase 'shut that door', is skin crawlingly creepy and then some.

      I do in fact sympathise with the McCanns on this. Imagine strangers worldwide going through your holiday snaps looking for, who knows what? something to torment you with? This is where the cesspits et al, crossed a line. So too those, including MWT and Bennet, who saw sexual connotations in the Madeleine dressing up photos, ffs, she was doing what every little girl does. I never had a little girl, but I remember being one! No matter what the parents of this child have or haven't done, it is sadiscally cruel to trample all over their happy memories.

      Delete
    2. Hard do say who was the worse...police, defence counsel or jury.

      There's a reason you won't hear the phrase '' I refer you to the state versus Lane'' uttered in a Portuguese court.

      Delete
  25. Ros needs to read the Pt forensics

    NO BLOOD detected from either use of light source or chemicals.

    I suspect if she read them hundreds of times she would still

    be quoting blood spatters.

    ....and she reckons to be an expert on the case LOL.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I refuse to type unknown bodily substance every time I discuss the crime scene photos. I call it blood, because that is what the specialist blood dog alerted to.

      It matters not to me one way or the other 11:39, it is but a tiny part of a very big case. But it matters a great deal to you, so I don't know why you are lolling.

      I see what you are doing there, trying to steer the debate back to forensics, or lack of them, time and time again. I am referring to the alerts of the dogs, the alerts on their own, without corroborating forensic evidence. You really should read the Judgement in the case of PEOPLE v. LANE. Lane was convicted on circumstantial evidence, no body and no forensics. It would be remiss of the McCanns' legal experts not to read the Judgment in People v. Lane.

      Obviously the McCanns and Lane are polar opposites, but Lane's claim that the dog alerts should not be enough to convict him, was/is/could be, crucial to their defence, if they need one, because it mirrors their own. Where did Lane's lawyers go wrong/right, because Lane was convicted, twice if you count his Appeal.

      I appreciate this was a Ruling by a US Court, but the world is now a 'global village', the UK and Portugal will examine similar cases wherever they might be.

      Delete
    2. The circumstantial evidence in the Lane case was the trump card.That was what convicted the lunatic moreso than any dog. When your other daughter ( 8 years old) testifies against you giving clear and graphic details of seeing her sister beaten up with a stick, having wet underwear forced into her mouth to stifle the screams then having the same underwear stuffed into your mouth for the same reason it's case closed.It's a reliable witness present at that scene.

      The bizarre efits composed from blurred memories of a dark night of a 'man carrying a child' isn't so easy to persuade anyone of anything.

      Delete
    3. ''I appreciate this was a Ruling by a US Court, but the world is now a 'global village', the UK and Portugal will examine similar cases wherever they might be''

      And that's your argument in favour of comparing the case in America to the Mccann case.I suppose it's a coincidence that the case in America saw a parent convicted without forensic evidence of course.

      The Global Village concept is only a concept.It's the reference made to define how mass media, telecommunication and the internet etc has interlinked millions of people and enabled almost instant communication compared to days or weeks 50 years ago. Britain has it's own laws. America has it's own laws and different states within America have their own laws. There isn't a universal law or a new world order yet. Using the Global Village argument in a prosecution could prove embarrassing .

      Delete
    4. I only mentioned the global village concept to illustrate it's a small world. I was not suggesting it be used as a prosecution argument.

      No, it is not a coincidence that 'that the case in America saw a parent convicted without forensic evidence'. I am referring to this case specifically because of its similarities. If Lane had been found innocent, or the jury decided there was insufficient evidence, you would be quoting it on behalf of the McCanns.

      It involved the same dog handler, Martin Grime, and dogs with the same expertise as those used in the Madeleine case. The jury accepted the alerts of the dogs without corroborating forensic evidence. The prosecution were able to prove to the jury how reliable the dogs were.

      Should there ever be a trial in the missing Madeleine case, the alerts of the dogs will take centre stage, especially if there is no coroborating forensic evidence and both sides will look worldwide for legal precedents. Lawyers spend 90% of their time looking up legal precedents. Judges look at what other Judges have ruled, and make up their minds from there. US Law doesn't apply in the UK, but the legal arguments do.

      Delete
    5. '' If Lane had been found innocent, or the jury decided there was insufficient evidence, you would be quoting it on behalf of the McCanns.''

      The damning testimony was from an 8 year old sister present a day or two before the disappearance who witnessed a brutal beating of the child before getting abused herself. That more than compensated for the lack of forensic evidence.How is that so similar to the McCanns case ? I mentioned it on behalf of clear common sense , not the McCanns.You choose to see it as someone daring to defend the McCanns because your view has narrowed to the point of almost complete blindness now.

      Delete
  26. ''I see what you are doing there, trying to steer the debate back to forensics''

    The same place blood samples are steered to for analysis

    ReplyDelete
  27. "With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann.

    In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components."

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm#p10p2615

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 6 March 2018 at 14:45

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm#p10p2615

      "With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann.”

      John Lowe:

      “An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”

      An incomplete DNA result? Indications of DNA from more than one person? How many confirmed DNA components within this result were there? No comment from John Lowe as to the likely significance of this match.



      “In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components."

      John Lowe:

      “A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.”

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm#p10p2615

      T

      Delete
    2. ''the McCanns' hire car, which they rented 24 days after Madeleine went missing, contained 15 out of 19 of her DNA components...But he cautioned that this result - based on the controversial "low copy number" DNA analysis technique which uses very small samples - was "too complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion".

      ''"We cannot answer the question: is the match genuine, or is it a chance match," he wrote.''

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541810.stm

      Delete
    3. Not quite..

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541810.stm

      Delete
    4. Hello T,6 March 2018 at 15:53

      "No comment from John Lowe as to the likely significance of this match"

      Yes T, a very relevant remark you make here.

      I've now read the Birmingham final report once again and what I'd like this Lowe to do is to express his DNA reasoning in terms of probabilities, because he consequently avoids doing that.

      If he doesn't, his answer to the Leceister Police becomes both incomprehensible and also irrelevant to what investigate detectives need to know in order to take the case forward.

      So what are the chances in such a small sample consisting of DNA from at least three persons (37 markers), that 15 markers out of 19 markers would match Madeleine's DNA profile. This is, to say the least, extremely crucial for the understanding of the forensic work.

      Delete
    5. Björn6 March 2018 at 20:08

      ''what I'd like this Lowe to do is to express his DNA reasoning in terms of probabilities, because he consequently avoids doing that. ''

      'this' Lowe ? Bit of a giveaway in the tone there, Bjorn.Try to be impartial and you'll miss less of the information and less of the information in replies to your complaint about the whole deal.

      ''I've now read the Birmingham final report once again and what I'd like this Lowe to do is to express his DNA reasoning in terms of probabilities''

      As above.

      '' his answer to the Leceister Police becomes both incomprehensible and also irrelevant to what investigate detectives need to know in order to take the case forward.''

      Forensics and DNA can discuss probabilities but forensics, and DNA in particular, has been hailed as miraculous due to it's accuracy. It's success in hundreds of convictions worldwide is due to this accuracy. No amount of circumstantial evidence can enjoy a victory over tangible, precise evidence.The Police and detectives have a basic understanding of the science involved but they're not trained in it.Their job is to collect evidence and submit it to those who are.They are then told yes or no and either make arrests or don't.

      ''So what are the chances in such a small sample consisting of DNA from at least three persons (37 markers), that 15 markers out of 19 markers''

      The answer to this was posted earlier with the BBC link. If you scroll further down, 'Anonymous6 March 2018 at 18:16' has posted the explanation as outlined by Dr Francisco Corte-Real .

      Delete
  28. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 March 2018 at 22:49

    ''the alerts were significant and so were the blood spots - they changed the entire course of the investigation''

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 March 2018 at 13:23


    '' I call it blood, because that is what the specialist blood dog alerted to...It matters not to me one way or the other 11:39, it is but a tiny part of a very big case''

    That's what can happen when you argue just for the sake of arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 32.58 – Professor Corte-Real, who met with the FSS experts, and saw the British scientists’ reports and work notes, explains this issue.

    Dr Francisco Corte-Real
    Vice President, National Forensics Institute

    33.09 – When those 15 alleles are included in a mix, where beyond those 15 we can have another 30 or 40 alleles, that means that it includes biological material from several persons. And there it can be much more difficult, much more inconclusive, because we may have a mixture from several persons, including hypothetically, if that happens, we may have several persons from the same family, and that may even give us the idea, in a way, that a certain missing person may be included, and that is not conclusive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anonymous6 March 2018 at 22:25
      and
      Hello Anonymous6 March 2018 at 18:16

      Both Dr Francisco Corte Real's and also Lowe's attempt to explain complicated forensic findings may be more misleading to people than explanatory.

      When Dr F. Corte Real talks about the possibility of a mixture of biological material hypothetically coming from several persons of the same family, it could be understood as if the 15 markers that matched Madeleine's DNA profile could constitute that of another family member, but as I understand it, that DNA profile only matches Madeleine's or possibly an unknown person's profile, who has not yet been identified, but not any other family member.

      This profile consisting of 15 DNA markers does not match Gerry's, Kate's or their twins' profile, as Gerry has implied.

      If this would be the case Dr F CR and Lowe could in just one single line have said. "The DNA profile could belong to any other family member", but the findings wouldn't support such a statement, would it.
      So finally it's Madeleine's DNA-profile or somebody else's. Possibly it's nobody's, just a mixture, but once again it's not that of any other known family member.

      Delete
    2. That is completely wrong.
      For starters, there is no ''profile consisting of 15 DNA markers'' which they were seeking to match.

      What there was is a sample which yielded 37 markers.

      The first thing that tells you is that the sample contains DNA from more than one person, because of the number of markers. In fact, because of the specific markers found, they knew it came from at least three, but as many as five, people.

      So the question is, did Madeleine contribute to the DNA recovered in that sample?

      The answer is, you cannot rule her out, as 15 of the markers matched markers in the sample.

      However - any mix to which her parents had contributed would also contain the same markers as Madeleine.

      It is, therefore, impossible to say if those markers are from Madeleine or from another family member.

      What they did NOT have was the profile of an individual which they could not match to another family member, as you claimed.

      Delete
    3. "Both Dr Francisco Corte Real's and also Lowe's attempt to explain complicated forensic findings may be more misleading to people than explanatory."

      The reports were not intended for you. There is no need for anyone to try to explain anything to you.

      Delete
    4. This is why the online 'war'( lol) has raged for so long.Antis won't see anything that makes too much sense and takes their many theories ( guesses) apart.It doesn't matter if police statements or forensics reports are shown to them, they'll find any way they can to pick holes in it. They're clinging on to their pet theories by their fingernails in complete denial.Yet they still insist that they're the dominant voice. Loudest, yes, dominant, no chance. making the same mistakes again and again for years makes you foolish not an expert.

      Delete
    5. Hello Anonymous7 March 2018 at 12:51

      Oh Yes, I'm entitled to know!

      When an innocent little girl, from what’s still an EU country, goes missing in another EU country, where that country’s citizens, as well as all EU citizens, have both the right and the possibility to access the official files, the authorities in the concerned countries owe us all comprehensible explanations to everything, especially to what the Portuguese investigation found and assessed in 2007/08.

      If the British authorities are unable to give us reasonable explanations, the Portuguese PJ should feel compelled to explain things better. As for the ongoing joint-venture investigation, it’s the British authorities’ bloody duty to tell, at least, their own citizens what the hell is going on.

      P.S
      The residues or biological substances found in the McCanns’ rented car, to which the Low Copy Number (LCN) technique was applied, were destroyed by the lab, but could have been kept for future analysis, as we all know, that forensic science is progressing all the time. The McCanns, the Portuguese P J, the Leicester Police or the S Y could have demanded that, but none was interested. It’s sad but I cannot say that I’m surprised.


      Delete
    6. What makes you think they were destroyed?

      Delete
    7. @Anonymous7 March 2018 at 22:31
      Hello

      The lab had the right to destroy all DNA samples, and did so. One reason was that they could be contagious and cause infection.

      However, anyone of the involved parties, which I've mentioned before, could have demanded that the biological residues that contained, what could have been Madeleine's DNA, should be kept for future analysis in the UK or by a lab else where, but no-one did.

      Delete
    8. Hello again @ Anonymous7 March 2018 at 22:31

      "What makes you think they were destroyed?"

      quotes from the pj files

      09- Processo 09 IX Page 2282 also Outros Apensos VolI Page 97

      - Blood samples.
- Saliva samples.
- Swabs from body orifices.
- Other swabs bearing potentially hazardous material.
- Vomit, faeces, urine, etc.

      

The above list includes perishable personal samples, the destruction of which is required by Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984).

      No crime committed by the Birmingham Lab or by anyone, but all so sad isn't it.

      Delete
    9. http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/media-monitoring-mccann-mean-girls.html?showComment=1520424086458#c6565972139089005415

      Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 12:01

      “What they did NOT have was the profile of an individual which they could not match to another family member, as you claimed.”

      I have difficulty in seeing the significance of the above. Are you saying that there is something to it apart from the obvious?

      If I understand you correctly:

      Five reference DNA profiles (two parents, three children). A DNA sample, “which yielded 37 markers”, in question. A sample of, say, my DNA, obviously unavailable for comparison.

      Would you please clarify?

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
    10. Björn7 March 2018 at 21:32

      ''Hello Anonymous7 March 2018 at 12:51

      Oh Yes, I'm entitled to know!''

      You're also entitled to study and learn.You could spend a bit more time doing those two things and less making unfounded allegations and trying to pass fantasy off as a probability merely because it's your own belief.

      Delete
  30. Of course Ros has been through this blood issue before and just for those who don't remember see the comments on:

    Wednesday, 25 October 2017
    HOW MANY CHERRY CAKES? http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/how-many-cherry-cakes.html

    and
    Saturday, 4 November 2017
    NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR YOU!* http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/no-freedom-of-speech-for-you.html

    So nothing new or original here Ros - you are just repeating the same old things which are a lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...... which confirms I haven't seen anything that changes my opinion 23:23.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 09:39

      And that is why you are a laughing stock in all things related to the Mccann case and also why you have been kicked off every forum you have posted on.

      Delete
    3. Björn7 March 2018 at 10:06

      ''Both Dr Francisco Corte Real's and also Lowe's attempt to explain complicated forensic findings may be more misleading to people than explanatory. ''

      No they are not. They couldn't put it in more accessable language. Do want diagrams and pictures ?

      You're writing yourself into a hole . You could summarise everything in one line more often that not when confronted by logic or science and that line is short and sweet :

      '' I refuse to see what I don't want to see and i won't believe anything that doesn't frame a McCann parent''

      Delete
    4. Am I a laughing stock 09:39? I don't read other Madeleine sites (can't be arsed), so I'm afraid I miss all the joviality. Are they noted for their humour? Can't say I have ever seen any sign of it.

      I have of course never shared their sense of humour, I've always found laughing AT people a tad unkind, I prefer to laugh WITH people. Still if that is how you get your jollies.....

      I wear 'being kicked off every forum' as a badge of honour 12:27. I have trod a very thorny path through this case over the years, and it has taken me closer to the core of all evil, than I ever could have imagined. I've met drug dealers with higher principles and sounder morals. Probably because white collar crime carries an air of 'respectability', it doesn't carry the brutality and seediness of D'Andre Lane. It wears a smart suit, with slicked back hair and language composed by lawyers.

      Gerry and Kate are right to fear the 'mob'. There is bound to be a backlash against the privileged treatment they have received. It may not be popular to say out loud, but we all know an unemployed family from a Council house, would never have been treated the same. Where was Karen Matthews' government spokesman? Where were CEOP? Where were the lawyers?

      Not only were the group not charged with neglect, the great and the good were bending over backwards to make excuses for them! It could have happened to anyone they said sympathetically. So basically leaving babies and toddlers alone in a holiday apartment is ok. I refer readers to my WTF series.

      Delete
    5. If Karen Matthews had got the same support as the McCanns I doubt the case would have gone to trial. If she'd had a lawyer who told her to keep her mouth shut there would have been no case against her. IMO there was far more circumstantial evidence against the McCanns than there ever was against Karen Matthews.

      Delete
    6. You refer to the cesspit like a broken record and what they're 'up to'. Are you psychic ?

      I have a doubt that you understand the 'laughing with' and 'laughing at' thing. You are the only one consistently laughing or implying that you are at posters not repeating you.It's a cheap way of trying to minimise what you can't counter. That may be how you earned the badge of honour elsewhere. Charm and maturity.

      What's the dramatic 'core of evil' you're talking about.I thought you were talking about blogging.I also seem to remember you saying you've looked for the root of all evil as long as you can remember but haven't got close yet.

      Which mob do Gerry and Kate fear ?What are the privileges they've received ? Was either parent in the Needham case named as a suspect then later accused of lying by a detective after he'd finished working for the force ? Did anyone write a book accusing them despite the lack of evidence ? Who was watching little Ben when he vanished ? The Needhams weren't white collar and middle class. They were far from it. So who would you rather be, the privileged McCanns or unfavoured Needhams ? Did Karen Matthews need a spokesman or political involvement because her child had allegedly disappeared from outside her school and not in a foreign country ?

      The group weren't charged with neglect because nobody charged them in Portugal.Are you saying the PJ are as biased as the UK in trying to let them off with it lightly ?How does that work when they criticised the UK for it ?

      Delete
    7. @ ruth

      In your eagerness to use an unrelated case to try and garner more hate for the parents, your blinkers have prevented you from seeing that the child Matthews was supposed to be the mother of was actually found and the ugly truth came out.The scam to make money from a reward meant she was always going to be found. Her crudeness and stupidity made the case against her.

      Delete
    8. @ ruth bashford8 March 2018 at 10:30

      You are either having a laugh or you have no idea what the Matthews case was about.

      Shannon was found after 24 days after being hidden by her mother and Donovan - it was a scam and that is why they were convicted and sent to prison.

      Delete
    9. Surely the innocent until proved guilty assumption should have applied to Karen for that 24 days 16:40?

      In 24 days, the McCanns had a million pound fund, an online shop and a patent for Madeleine's name. They had given untold media interviews, had dozens more lined up, and were planning a European tour.

      Could the two cases have been any more different?

      Delete
    10. I use the cesspit as an example of how low and degenerate a stasi run forum can become. Kind of a warning :)

      You would of course be wounded by the bitchy side of my wit, but in fairness, you are always asking for it, you have become a great stooge. Many thanks. I'm afraid I'm not one of the PC crowd who want to trim the dictionary so no-one is ever offended again. As a writer it is taking away half my weapons, lol.

      Ah, the core or the root of evil. Your observation is commendable, you're not guitar strumming Hyatt are you? lol. All ideas for a book I will write one day, at the moment I am still struggling with nature v. nurture, or even series of events that culminated in a 'perfect storm'. That is when someone does something completely out of character, in a moment of madness. There are so many variables, it becomes more academic than I had intended. Where have I found the core of evil in this case? You will have to wait for the book.

      Delete
    11. ''Could the two cases have been any more different?''

      There are many more important factors from the cases that mark them as different. You choose the one that you think you can use to persuade the gullible that the McCanns were planning a world tour and financial killing.It says a lot about how your mind works and how firmly you stand against reasonable analysis.

      Your 'wit'(?) doesn't wound anyone.And you calling anyone a stooge is empty.It's name calling. The one talent you never brag about but actually isn't in doubt.

      Good luck with the nature vs nurture. There's no answer. That's A level psychology. Good luck converting the abstract notion of evil into a concrete one too. It can't be done.I wouldn't advise you to bark up the wrong Psychology tree or submerge yourself into philosophical discourse regarding good and evil.Especially with regard to this case.It would be original, but those two areas guarantee that at best it would be received as 99% subjective analysis and speculation.Remember, your audience will be like those of the 18th and 19th century.Its the bizarre need for blood, scandal and salaciousness that attracts them.It's why Sun readers seldom buy the Financial Times.

      Delete
  31. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 March 2018 at 13:23

    "I refuse to type unknown bodily substance every time I discuss the crime scene photos. I call it blood, because that is what the specialist blood dog alerted to."
    --------------------------------------------------

    Translation - "I am a liar and will continue to post my lies because it sounds more dramatic and I can't be arsed to tell the truth".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you think the blood dog alerted to Unknown 23:34?

      And if, as has been suggested elsewhere, the 'evidence' the dogs alerted to was planted to frame the parents, what was planted?

      Delete
    2. Who did the blood spots belong to ? The dogs barked, they didn't call a name.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 13:03

      What blood spots? Could you please post a link.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 7 March 2018 at 09:33

      Good afternoon, my dear Rosalinda

      “…the 'evidence' the dogs alerted to was planted to frame the parents…”

      I think first mentioned in 2007 by Kate’s mother.

      “…what was planted?”

      That’s a good question!

      Kind regards.

      T

      Delete
    5. Bonsoir mon ami, always so nice to see you :)

      Yes, what was planted? Any type of blood would be analysed and where on earth would you get the odour of death? And who on earth would go to that amount of trouble It would not benefit the Portuguese police to leave a child predator loose on their home ground. I'm going to have to do a 'Spock' here, there is no logic to it.

      Delete
    6. Thinking of that with an open mind ( sorry) it could be reasonably assumed that Kate's mother was making a statement.That statement being 'if there's so called evidence as reported by newspapers and online then it must have been planted for some reason by someone who had decided prematurely that the parents are guilty'.Or are now implicating the grandparents into the same conspiracy as the tapas group and MI5 ? We're gonna need a bigger boat..

      Delete
    7. 'Mrs McCann’s mother, Susan Healy, said the family were concerned that evidence may have been planted in order to incriminate Madeleine’s parents.

      Mrs Healy told Channel 4 News: “She’s very angry about her position. She knows perfectly well that if this evidence exists, then it is proof that there is somebody inside either the police department or who had access to their apartment and their belongings who has planted this evidence.

      “She knows that, so you can imagine how anxious that is making her feel.

      “It is OK if you think you tell the truth and everything will be all right, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here so we are extremely concerned at this time.”'

      https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/police-accuse-madeleines-mother-of-killing-her-daughter-326886.html

      Susan Healy knows.

      Delete
    8. @ Ros 09:33
      "as has been suggested elsewhere"

      Where is "elsewhere" and when was it "suggested"?

      Delete
    9. Anonymous7 March 2018 at 21:57

      ''Susan Healy knows.''

      Knows what ?It seems that she was talking about her daughter's anger as the evidence that they were told was there would have had to have been planted there by the PJ. Two questions :

      1 : At any point in the investigation did Amaral inform the parents that their daughters blood or DNA had been found when it hadn't ?

      2 : Was the DNA of any of the (gloved) investigators found in the apartment ?

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 7 March 2018 at 21:27

      Yes, Dear, thank you kindly.

      And I'm feelin' French all over
      Yes I'm-a French all over
      Etc.

      T :)

      Credits: Jean Nicolas Arthur Rimbaud, Louis Ferdinand Auguste Destouches, Dave Clark Five

      Delete
    11. LOL T, there is something about the French accent that makes my toes tingle, every time I meet a Frenchman, I get him to explain Cointreau to me ;) In my next life, I want to be born in gay Paree and spend my days getting drunk with mad artists in sleazy cafes. Actually, it may involve a bit of time travel.

      No national anthem touches me deeper than The Marseilles, especially the iconic scene in Casablanca where the passion is felt in every word. And I should of course give special mention to Edith Piaf, The Little Sparrow was one of the first biographies I ever read.

      I have written a screenplay actually, based on a fictional character called 'Adele' who is caught up in the French Revolution. She is based on the bare breasted 'Liberty leading the people', by Eugene Delacroix, which I use as the background to my twitter profile. I really should pitch it to someone, it is a great story, and feminist that I am, lol, it has a fantastic female lead!

      Delete
  32. The DNA from Madeleine’s pillowcase (from Rothley) and on swab 3a (taken from the floor of 5A behind the sofa) all matched. Although it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't disprove it, either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 08:05

      “The DNA from Madeleine’s pillowcase (from Rothley) and on swab 3a (taken from the floor of 5A behind the sofa) all matched. Although it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't disprove it, either.”

      Are you relying on John Lowe’s “…all of the confirmed DNA components within this [3A] result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile [pillowcase] of Madeline McCann.”?

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    2. T (10:24)

      Yes, I am relying on John Lowe’s “...all of the confirmed DNA components within this [3A] result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile [pillowcase] of Madeline McCann.”

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 10:42

      I see.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    4. What did the DNA sample/s come from. Saliva? Skin ? Hair ? What ? If it was found in areas Madeleine had been sleeping, sitting or playing- so what ? It would do.

      Delete
    5. 13:01

      "Hair"?

      Swab 3a was taken from the floor of 5A behind the sofa.

      “If it was found in areas Madeleine had been sleeping, sitting or playing- so what ?”

      Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

      "I checked the wardrobe in the children’s room. I ran into the kitchen, throwing open all the cupboard doors, into our bedroom, searching the wardrobes, in and out of the bathroom, all within about fifteen seconds, before hurtling out through the patio doors and down towards Gerry and our friends.”

      Why didn’t Kate look behind the sofa?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous7 March 2018 at 08:05

      ''Although it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't disprove it, either.''

      That position states that nothing of any substance exists to incriminate or implicate anyone of anything.It therefore supports the obvious and common sense legal position of innocent until proven guilty.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 13:01

      “What did the DNA sample/s come from. Saliva? Skin ? Hair ? What ?”

      From ‘cellular material’ according to forensics.

      “If it was found in areas Madeleine had been sleeping, sitting or playing- so what ? It would do.”

      It most likely would’ve been found. It seems, however, that the only DNA attributable to Madeleine with a degree of certainty worthy of mention was obtained from items said to have come from Rothley.

      Remarkable?!

      Consequently, one might be left wondering whether a couple of specialist dogs should be invited to visit Rothley. Perhaps one might also wonder if Eddie and Keelar should’ve been so invited.

      T

      Delete
    8. "Yes, I am relying on John Lowe’s “...all of the confirmed DNA components within this [3A] result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile [pillowcase] of Madeline McCann.”

      You do know that is meaningless, don't you?
      All it means is what it says - the meagre number of markers recovered could be found in Madeleine's profile. However, they could probably equally be found in yours, or mine.

      Delete
    9. Maybe it would serve some purpose for people to post the details of the first sweep of the apartment in May 2007 that searched for DNA. You know DNA swabs etc. Oh hold on - there was only one and that was from the bedspread in the same room as Madeleine. Later identified to be from a young boy.

      In other words there was not trace of Madeleine's DNA in apt 5A BECAUSE THE FORENSIC PEOPLE DID NOT SEARCH FOR IT IN MAY 2007. They only swabbed for DNA after the dog searches months later.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous7 March 2018 at 15:51

      ''Consequently, one might be left wondering whether a couple of specialist dogs should be invited to visit Rothley. Perhaps one might also wonder if Eddie and Keelar should’ve been so invited.

      T''


      Slow down, T. The saga of the superdogs has already taken enough turns before we start transporting it to Rothely. If the crime took place in PDL, it's down to the PJ to do whatever they think right (when the penny eventually drops loudly enough to alert them).They couldn't request a search of Rothely with or without dogs unless they thought the crime had taken place there.If that was the case, it would no longer be a matter for the Pj but our own thin blue line. Even if they said they accepted the crime didn't take place there but that incriminating evidence or the murder /accident weapon was there, they'd need to be pretty amazing to have a search warrant granted. I don't even think our own police and politicians would need to intervene to hide any truths in this particular scenario.

      It seems that the reports from FSS have been translated sufficiently enough, and into accessible enough language, but haven't -and still don't- impress the seething hordes. They're clinging to it like their life depends on it. I take it from their stunning skills of deductive reasoning that they have no faith in forensic science, or that they think the reports are lies. This would suggest by extension that they think those who composed said reports are liars. What would be the motive of an impartial scientist and his team to lie in order to conceal a crime, or, more pertinently, the evidence that identifies the perpetrator of that crime ?I can only think of one reason for that.And it isn't that all of the underhand skullduggery and expense over such a large expanse of time is because two former suspects have a nice home and good jobs and it would cause mass hysteria should they be placed in a prison full of commoners. We don't need Eddie, or his girlfriend, Keela. We now have thousands barking up a forest of wrong trees.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous7 March 2018 at 14:01

      ''Why didn’t Kate look behind the sofa?''

      Because she didn't perceive the need to.If the child was hiding behind the sofa she would have come out on hearing the panic and shouting.The same reason the PJ didn't look behind there.Did Amaral check the fridge ?

      Delete
    12. 03:10

      How do you know Kate didn't perceive the need to look behind the sofa?

      "If the child was hiding behind the sofa she would have come out on hearing the panic and shouting."

      Soundproof wardrobes, cupboard, and bathroom in 5A? And why didn’t the panic and shouting awaken the twins?

      Did Kate McCann check the fridge? She discovered that Madeleine was not in her bed.

      Delete
    13. The sofa of course had been moved, so I'm not sure there was a 'behind the sofa'. It had been pushed away from the window and towards the centre of the room. The fact that it had been moved was a red flag for the police.

      Delete
    14. '......because two former suspects have a nice home and good jobs and it would cause mass hysteria should they be placed in a prison full of commoners'.

      Again with the all antis live in hovels and are jealous of the parents' success. You don't even know you are doing it, lol. The McCanns aren't royalty, aristocracy or even celebrities. They are not so posh that they are above the law!

      That's a strange little fantasy you have got going on there 21:24, it verges on paranoia. Most people don't think anything about the McCanns, it is such an old story, most have forgotten who they are. Imagining that people are gearing up to laugh your misfortune, is a worry you don't need, so why torment yourself with it? Most people don't sit around thinking malicious thoughts about strangers on the news, they have got better things to do.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous8 March 2018 at 08:04

      ''Did Kate McCann check the fridge? She discovered that Madeleine was not in her bed.''

      Kate : '' Madeleine ! Where are you ''

      Gerry : '' Com out madeleine, now !''

      Kate to Gerry '' Have you checked the fridge ? ''

      no idea

      Delete
    16. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2018 at 14:30

      ''Again with the all antis live in hovels and are jealous of the parents' success. You don't even know you are doing it, lol.''

      Yes 'lol'. I'm lucid at all times.I recommend it.

      I mock your theory about the unique treatment the parents have enjoyed being down to their social status. I don't care how many people share it as it still makes no sense.The apparent need to interfere with and redirect the investigation that the UK seemed keen to make happen, the interest of the Intel community , the interest of PMs and what appears to be knowledge that a lot of money would be needed for a long haul is beyond silly.Because they're doctors ?

      ''That's a strange little fantasy you have got going on there 21:24, it verges on paranoia. Most people don't think anything about the McCanns, it is such an old story, most have forgotten who they are.''

      I don't think you're in any position to accuse anyone of having strange little fantasies and you're definitely not in a position to accuse anyone of paranoia. Maybe when you start to provide sources for your claims and your various statistics and answering simple questions about your odd theorizing you can throw a stone or two.

      Paranoia ? I won't go on. Your regular readers will have seen it on every thread you rant on.

      You say it's such an old story most people have forgotten about it.true- but what's your actual point ?

      '' Imagining that people are gearing up to laugh your misfortune, is a worry you don't need, so why torment yourself with it?''

      I'll know I'm 'tormented' when i begin to imagine how the McCanns relate to each other in the privacy of their home.Or other 'crimes' they are 'probably' guilty of such as money laundering.Or when i listen to every syllable they utter and move they make and scrutinise the internet to see if i can then find some half baked internet psychologist to interpret it as them being cold, evil liars.You know the kind of thing....

      '' Most people don't sit around thinking malicious thoughts about strangers on the news, they have got better things to do.''

      You haven't though have you.I wasn't talking to most people.Have most people got a mission to clear their names ?

      Delete
    17. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2018 at 14:07

      ''The sofa of course had been moved, so I'm not sure there was a 'behind the sofa'. It had been pushed away from the window and towards the centre of the room. The fact that it had been moved was a red flag for the police.''

      So the parents had looked behind it then after all. And that was a red flag. Some police force that.

      Delete
    18. Ah, you are lucid at all times. That explains a lot. I don't trust anyone who's never been drunk or high. The main icons for not drinking are Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump. I rest my case.

      You mock my theory because you don't understand it. Imagine a movie mogul looking for a stunningly beautiful, charismatic, blonde starlet and Marilyn Monroe walking in the door. It would be as if all his Christmases had come had once.

      Now imagine, politicians, police agencies, charities, newspapers, looking for the perfect crime to boost their profiles, their funds, their sales, and the achingly appealing face of little Madeleine appeared? Not only did the beautiful face of Madeleine stop traffic, but her parents were lucid, articulate and photogenic. As I have mentioned before, most missing kids are spotty, belligerent teens, not angelic toddlers.

      And most people believed the parents (for a while) because they simply weren't the type to have committed such a heinous crime. A lot of big names, companies, charities and individuals invested their reputations in the McCanns being proved innocent. Rather than admit they may have been wrong, they have perpetuated the myth and ensnared others into their web of deceit. The press I imagine will have a field day when the truth eventually comes out. They won't know where to begin!

      Delete
    19. As for little fantasies, I consider myself blessed that I can take my mind off to wherever I want, and I consider myself doubly blessed that people find it entertaining. I'm not sure however, that a psychologist would describe my stream of consciousness writing as paranoia? Firstly, there is no recurrent theme! Even I, never know what I am going to type next.

      I feel sad for the McCanns, which is why I steer the discussion away from personal attacks. This blog, is nothing like the bitchfests in the forums. That's why my readers return again and again.

      I make no apologies for my mission to clear my name. I am defending myself the only way I know how, I speak my truth quietly and clearly and I listen to others. Even the dull and ignorant.

      I have always made it absolutely clear that I would never do anything to interfere in the investigation, and I couldn't make my distaste for those interfering with the witnesses any clearer. These charges you are hurling at me are patently untrue.

      This isn't a 'research' forum, Gawd forbid, I don't know wtf they 'research' - I find it all a bit creepy. It reminds me of Frankenstein's 'workshop of filthy creation' - sanity has long left the building.

      As I have said before, this case feels like a chain around my neck. I tried, once, years ago, to back away, but the trashing of my work online continued, even with a complete change of subject - a diet book ffs! I've had no option but to continue to the end.

      Delete
    20. ''That explains a lot. I don't trust anyone who's never been drunk or high. The main icons for not drinking are Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump. I rest my case.''

      The main icons for drinking and getting high are Ruth Ellis and Charles Manson. I rest mine.I've been higher than God's hat once upon a time. It's knowing when to put things away and move on.

      ''You mock my theory because you don't understand it''

      It isn't complicated. You've stated one idea in several ways to insinuate that the McCanns are being protected, and have been from day one, because of their social status.

      The analogy you suggest of Marilyn Monroe's sex appeal and beauty providing Hollywood with a lottery win and little Madeleine's image providing the same for news agencies and charities is beyond bizarre. It's also in very poor taste.

      ''And most people believed the parents (for a while) because they simply weren't the type to have committed such a heinous crime''

      Most people didn't, and still don't, know the McCanns personally so don't have the credentials to comment on their 'type'. They had to imagine or guess what it was and they did and still do.Yet they're still not qualified to give their opinions or mini-psychological profiles. They're suffering from Detective Fever.

      ''A lot of big names, companies, charities and individuals invested their reputations in the McCanns being proved innocent. Rather than admit they may have been wrong, they have perpetuated the myth and ensnared others into their web of deceit. ''

      I remind you that you've stated more than once that you have no idea who was responsible for what in the McCann case. Or was that just another reply to throw the gullible of the scent.As we have stood for 11 years, the McCanns are innocent.That's why they have never been arrested and charged.How were those who believed them innocent wrong ? What web of deceit ? You can't make statements like that without giving evidence of the web of deceit.

      '' The press I imagine will have a field day when the truth eventually comes out. They won't know where to begin!''

      You say you've studied this case for years; that you've had a voracious appetite for 'all things McCann'. Yet you are suggesting that, after all this time, and no progress at all, the truth is going to come out and the press will be given it to give to us.With each passing day, that is sounding more like a pipe dream.

      Delete
    21. ''Even I, never know what I am going to type next.''

      Yes, Rosalinda, you're so unpredictable.

      Delete
    22. @Anonymous7 March 2018 at 17:27
      Hello

      "All it means is what it says - the meagre number of markers recovered could be found in Madeleine's profile. However, they could probably equally be found in yours, or mine"

      As for the 15 markers of Madeleine's 19, which were found in the forensic analysis of residues that were collected in the McCanns' car, they constitute a rather unique DNA profile, that is either Madeleine's or somebody else's, which just happens to match Madeleine's.

      As that specific profile does not even match that of any other family member of the McCanns, it's highly unlikely that it could match mine or yours, but of course, it's possible, as is the existance of the shadow man, who snatched Madeleine from her bed.

      Delete
    23. No, Bjorn, you are completely wrong.

      For starters, what we have here is not a SINGLE profile; it is a mixture of 37 markers, belonging to at least 3 contributors, but up to five.

      The fact that within the 37 markers are 15 which were found in Madeleine's profile is not significant, given that all members of her direct family used the vehicle. Any mixture of her mother and her father's DNA would contain all the markers found in her profile.

      Please stop circulating this myth.

      Delete
  33. pt Legal summary

    In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII - FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).

    ReplyDelete
  34. The confusion over the word blood, is the fault of the UK Forensic Science Service.

    They should never have sent a letter to Stuart Prior Leics police on the 21st August 07 stating in accordance with the procedures laid down for the disposal of blood samples, that has been agreed with the Lord Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the samples of blood and other perishable items will be destroyed.

    If there were no blood samples, why the need to destroy them under the blood sample protocol?

    Furthermore, it is forgotten many samples did not go the UK but were tested elsewhere, where certain samples tested positive for human blood, as can be read in the PJ Files.

    But all this talk over what, or not is blood, is a mere distraction to divert attention from why CEOP and the Leicestershire Police were actively breaking the law in PDL that weekend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JJ7 March 2018 at 11:53

      "But all this talk over what, or not is blood, is a mere distraction to divert attention from why CEOP and the Leicestershire Police were actively breaking the law in PDL that weekend."

      No - all this talk about blood is to try to prove that something happened to Madeleine and to implicate the Mccanns.

      It is you that distracts from everything with pettiness. Does what you have read (note - read - not discovered) solve the case? If so then you can post your solution and maybe Ros will stop telling lies on this blog.

      Delete
    2. "Furthermore, it is forgotten many samples did not go the UK but were tested elsewhere, where certain samples tested positive for human blood, as can be read in the PJ Files."

      Source for this claim, please?

      Delete
    3. JJ7 March 2018 at 11:53

      ''The confusion over the word blood, is the fault of the UK Forensic Science Service.''

      ''But all this talk over what, or not is blood, is a mere distraction''

      Blood is blood.Who is or was confused about it.Who the blood belongs to is the mystery.I haven't read anything anywhere stating Madeleine's was identified.

      Delete
    4. The procedures are sent out with every response, it's a standard thing. They don't sift through to see if it was blood or not and in any case it would come under ''other perishables''

      It's just like a company sending the standard terms and conditions out to every customer

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 17:23

      I think you are right.

      Thanks.

      T

      Delete
    6. JJ 7 March 2018 at 11:53

      “…many samples did not go the UK but were tested elsewhere, where certain samples tested positive for human blood, as can be read in the PJ Files.”


      Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 11:21

      “pt Legal summary

      (…)

      [My emphasis. T] In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII - FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).”

      See http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

      T

      Delete
  35. Anonymous 7 March 2018 at 12:57

    “Who the blood belongs to is the mystery.”

    What blood, Hot Lips?

    “I haven't read anything anywhere stating Madeleine's was identified.”

    You wouldn’t because it wasn’t.

    T:-)*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. zactamundo, comrade

      Delete
  36. @20:33

    Precisely.

    Are you wearing green lipstick, blood, or am I going colour-blind?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  37. yes, yes, and quite possibly

    ( initials)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. Nice,nice,fam.

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      Delete
  38. http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/media-monitoring-mccann-mean-girls.html?showComment=1520276480972#c1421272684653778389

    Anonymous 5 March 2018 at 19:01

    Are you suggesting that the article you quote from and link to is a reliable source?

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reliable enough for here, T ;-)

      Delete
    2. @16:17

      Hmm…

      T

      Delete
  39. why are silly playground standard posts being allowed on this serious topic about a missing child?

    Once again it does nothing to enhance or help your reputation Ros - you know - the reputation you want to get back through this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @14:43

    Don’t be dull, Jack man, be real. Go play. Watch your grammar. Me received two complaints, from ‘W’ and ‘-‘.

    You doin’ tis ‘cos I is black?

    Bless you anyways, man.

    T

    ReplyDelete