Monday, 19 March 2018

WHY CMoMM's LETTER TO PORTUGAL IS NONSENSE AND NASTY

The ‘researchers’ (stalkers) of Madeleine anti McCann website CMoMM have sent a long, detailed letter to the Portuguese police professing to have solved the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Putting aside that it is laugh out loud funny for one moment, it is littered with libel and heinous accusations against people who cannot defend themselves.  I hope it finishes with an International Arrest Warrant for interfering with witnesses.
 
Although I suppose strictly speaking, they have only libeled and slandered the witnesses on social media because anyone they have ever approached have rightly told them to sling their hook. To support their creationist, homophobe and ambulance chasing leader Tony Bennett’s sexed up vision of what happened to Madeleine, they have delved into the private lives of the young nannies and their friends to force some kind of connection with the McCanns.
 
Bennett and CMoMM (mostly Bennett, he bans anyone who disagrees with him), are pointing out to the professional detectives in Portugal that they have got it all wrong.  According to the weather and the early blossoming of the begonias, Madeleine died on the Sunday, err, or the Monday.  But definitely not the Sunday.  For the PJ it must be like having the cavalry come rushing in. Not. But I expect it has given a chuckle.  
 
To prove Madeleine died earlier in the week they claim the crèche records were forged, the deceased Pamela Fenn lied, and so too did the nannies, who due to at least 20 degrees of separation knew the McCanns, and were therefore willing to pervert the course of justice to cover up the death of a child.   And to prove 'Smithman' wasn't Gerry*, they have stalked the Smith family, including their children, online, looking for, and not finding, reasons why the entire family lied.  So they made them up anyway, for 2 years they were stalking the wrong Smiths.
 
But let's move onto the more macabre aspect of CMoMM's wild and libellous accusations.  To believe Madeleine died on the Sunday or Monday, we must believe that the parents, their friends and all the children carried on with their holiday regardless.  That is, with the body of a child hidden in the wardrobe, or behind the sofa, they carried on taking the kids to the crèche, who's staff didn't question Madeleine's absence because they were in on it.  And of course they all carried on playing tennis, going for runs and having lively meals at the tapas each evening as if nothing had happened? 
 
We must accept that this quite ordinary group of holiday makers, who were not criminals, would carry on regardless for 4 days, knowing that a small child had died?  The whole scenario is unthinkable, which is probably why neither Goncalo, OG and the PG have never thought of it.  Those batshit crazy, researchers, criminal investigators, ex police, etc, have thought of everything it would seem, except common sense.
 
They cannot accept the conclusions of Goncalo Amaral, the detective who was there on the ground, and sure as egg is eggs, they won't accept whatever conclusions the police reach.  They are without morals and scruples, they crossed the decency line, years ago.  Their description of themselves as a group of professionals (professional nutcases) is questionable, busybodies, stalkers, trial groupies, prosecutors, judges and juries should have been in there somewhere.  They have put every independent witness they accuse on trial and found them guilty and presented it to the PJ as fait accomplish and signed off,  Your welcome. 
 
Their methods to persuade their readers that they alone have the answer to the Madeleine mystery are despicable.  They don't seem to understand that prying into the private lives of others, may not be illegal, but in the court of public opinion, it is creepy and then some.  Imagine this group of anonymous 'professionals' scouring the FB pages of these young women? Then we get to the Madeleine 'make-up' photos.  And a link to an entire thread filled with revolting thoughts of those looking for sexual behaviour in young children.  The yuck factor should be enough, to discourage anyone from taking their ridiculous claims seriously, but once again they are publicising the findings of their kangaroo courts which just happens to libel and intimidate those independent witnesses.  I sometimes wonder if they dream of a mistrial. 
 
The MSM cannot and will not give Bennett any sort of platform, thankfully, and it's likely his audience isn't above double figures.  Whilst ignoring CMoMM (and I try to), it incenses me to see the good names of these independent witness so publicly trashed online. They are accusing them of helping to cover up a heinous crime. At this point apologies to Ms. Baker, and a note to posters.  Do not libel witnesses on my blog.  
 
The findings of CMoMM are malicious, vindictive and based on wishful thinking.  Where a regular detective would accept only the truth will 'fill a gap', CMoMM make something up. They approach their 'research' with confirmation bias.  That is, they have already reached a conclusion so they only 'study' evidence they can make fit.  They must create connections between witness such as Ms. Baker and the parents, as if knowing a friend of a friend's cousin on Facebook is enough to persuade an innocent young woman to help cover up the death of a child.  The only thing Ms. Baker is guilty of is showing sympathy to the family of Madeleine.  Period. 
 

 
 
*  Smithman.  Why is Bennett so keen to rule Gerry out?  A promise made in a court corridor perhaps? Or another dumbshit error on his part on the wrong Smith family scale.  Having declared Smithman NOT Gerry, he would be too humiliated to go back on it. Words that will never come out of Bennett's mouth 'Sorry, I might have been wrong'. 

181 comments:

  1. Here's a recent tweet from Tony Bennett. Can there be any doubt whose "side" he is on and that his mission is to discredit McCann sceptics?

    Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos · 10h10 hours ago


    Replying to @CarlaSpade

    Your complete tripe about the Millennium breakfast witness is blown to bits by Kate #McCann's own words, 'madeleine', p. 55, quote: "THE FOLLOWING DAYS SETTLED INTO A SIMILAR PATTERN: WE'D HAVE BREAKFAST IN THE APARTMENT". Perhaps it's time you went and read her book, eh, Carla?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ....and i told you so in 2013 but no one believed me,except Cristobell.

      Delete
  2. Peter Mac And Cheese19 March 2018 at 13:06

    PLEASE learnt to differentiate between when to use "whose" and "who's". It's jarring. Also, it is "fait accompli", not "fait accomplish". Otherwise, agree with everything you've written. Bennett is a vicious old fool out to make a name for himself while simultaneously attempting to muddy the waters and get Gerry off the hook, while conceitedly believing he's cleverer than anyone else so nobody will notice.

    That Jill Havern can encourage such an unsavory character says a lot about her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13:06

      "learnt"?

      Delete
    2. Are Havern and Lawrence in cahoots with Bennett and the McCanns or are they just useful idiots for Bennett?

      Delete
  3. "The only thing Ms. Baker is guilty of is showing sympathy to the family of Madeleine."

    Really?

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id400.htm

    'Catriona and the Waves'

    ReplyDelete
  4. bennett, the door varnisher and co will twist and ignore anything that doesn't fit with their theory that Madeleine died and was removed before 3rd.

    Anyone who thinks Bennett is working for the McCanns is as loopy as him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By George! You would say that. Perhaps you might offer a different explanation as to why the McCanns voluntarily lost a huge amount of money on a court case they won, by letting Mr Bennett off with a massive chunk of money he owed them, despite him having 6 figure savings, and a house as assets that could have been used to pay?

      Now, being the seasoned pro you are, I'm sure you'll tell me how they pitied Bennett and wanted to show leniency. Yet, as a pro perhaps you could tell me how the McCanns put the feelings and finances of a vicious old liar, above the financial gains that could have helped with what you pros describe as the search for Madeleine.

      Delete
    2. "Anyone who thinks Bennett is working for the McCanns is as loopy as him."

      Indeed.

      Delete
    3. Then why does he follow the most rabid "pros" on Twitter? They follow him, too and he defends their deplorable actions on the Needle blog.

      Delete
    4. I follow the hash as well and can tell you most truthfully that the horror of the internet is there for all to see but the nastiness comes from the warped tweets from the anti fraternity, not the few pro McCann supporters. That is a FACT!

      Delete
    5. Yes because Carter Ruck are such nice people.

      Delete
  5. Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

    “He [Bennett] is still going around insinuating that we were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance, only now he is just being slightly more careful about how he says it.”

    (...)

    “It has been far more upsetting and damaging, frankly, to find ourselves let down by people in positions of trust, the very people who ought to be acting in Madeleine’s best interests.”

    Who is Kate referring to? Journalists and criminologists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amaral, is my guess.

      They're obsessed with him .

      He has always been their nemesis.

      Delete
  6. Effectively they have decided when Madeleine died based on looking at a photograph.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cristobel, put aside your hatred of Tony Bennett. All this indignation and frothing at the mouth will surely affect your health .
    I don't think the 'witnesses' that you feel have been maligned by CMOMM need your support. They're more than capable of looking after themselves. If they needed to sue, they would so relax, let it all go. You are actually in danger of being accused of working on behalf of the McCanns yourself by being 'thankful' that the MSM doesn't give Bennett '' a platform. '' IF or WHEN CMOMM steps over the line they will no doubt be held to account so save your passion for needier causes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, the best route the witnesses could take is to complain to the police. This isn't an issue of libel, the issue is the harassment of witnesses in what is still a 'live' investigation and a potential contempt of court. Because they are witnesses they are not able to respond to Bennett's bullshit in public, so it's a dick move on his behalf

      Delete
    2. I don't know about frothing at the mouth, but when I read a small section of that letter relating to the make up photos, I was so repulsed, I was hopping mad.

      This bunch of creeps, lets call them what they are, having scrutinised Madeleine's pictures, surmised she 'looks unhappy', 'has a far away look in her eyes' etc. Several of them have compared the pictures to 'Lolita'.

      Wtf is wrong with these people? Do they honestly believe anyone, let alone former suspects in a missing child case, would release pictures of their child being sexually abused? No-one, apart from their creepy selves, sees these pictures as titillating. They are pictures of a little girl dressing up and having fun with her mum. Drum roll '.......an adult helped apply the makeup'. So effing what? Maddie and her mum were doing what every mum and daughter in the world does, and brings back lots of happy memories for most of us. How dare the creeps on CMoMM take such a precious memory and turn it into something murky and sinister. Lolita ffs, she wasn't even 4! Why do they have the need to twist the knife into Kate's heart? This isn't justice this is spite.

      Firstly, trying to read 'abuse' from a small selection of photographs is about as clumsy and amateur as it gets, as well as being creepy, and secondly passing it off as a genuine 'study' by 'professionals' is despicable.

      Q. And what are your areas of expertise

      A. I have been studying the McCann family snaps for 7 years with a magnifying glass which qualifies me to identify CSA. No, I don't think that's at all strange.

      CMoMM haven't got any more lines to step over! Their attention seeking knows no limits. They will do literally anything to somehow make all their 'work' relevant to this case. The MSM consider them to be 'cranks', they have had their 15 minutes unless Bennett can think of a bigger, more sensational stunt.

      Delete
    3. But Madeleine is not having fun in that photo. The photo is weird. So are many others. Sorry, but I don't think the photos of 'Maddie and her mum' bring back happy memories. There is not one single photo from that apparently idyllic week in Luz (prior to the alleged abduction on Thursday evening) that shows a happy family having fun. Not one.

      Delete
    4. And I agree with you yet again! The way the groups of people, who move from forum to forum, have gone on about these innocent photographs makes many feel uneasy about just who they are and the pleasure they derive from thinking Madeleine was an abused, instead of a very well loved, child.

      Maybe it is because the authors of these sickening posts have been abused themselves. Either that or they get their kicks out of imagining Madeleine endured sexual molestation.

      Of course she didn't! The sickness of mind of many has to be seen to be believed.

      Wasn't it Jon Corner who had these photos in his collection? A family friend and Godfather to Madeleine? He wouldn't have handed over incriminating photographs.

      Delete
    5. Spoken as a true cult follower whose Leader has led them on a merry tango.

      Delete
  8. Peter Mac And Cheese19 March 2018 at 13:06

    PLEASE learnt to differentiate between when to use "whose" and "who's". It's jarring. Also, it is "fait accompli", not "fait accomplish".

    Please learn to differentiate between learnt and learn. It's jarring. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter Mac And Cheese19 March 2018 at 19:57

      Thanks for seizing upon what was clear to anyone (except you, obv) was a typo. Learn, not learnt OR learned. Go to the top of the nudnik class.

      Delete
  9. '' littered with libel and heinous accusations against people who cannot defend themselves''

    Imagine that.

    Is this the same CMoMM you keep telling everyone so unconvincingly that you have no interest in and never even look any more ?


    The pros are part of 'Team McCann' ; the McCanns are watcing the interent trolls ; Bennets working fo the McCanns; The pros are working for Bennet; A photograph of a living child can be shown as proof of her being dead and when she died . Shine a light....


    The subject you're wading awkwardly through and the fact that this spat continues is all the evidence needed to argue against taking blogs and social media seriously and them being allowed too much web space. They're addicts .Nothing more, nothing less. It's why nothing from them is of any importance to anyone but themselves . They may consider that the internet is imitating reality but they're only partly right. It's right inasmuch as you find lunatics and nasty little rumour spreaders out in the real world. That's about it. Both sides of the hilariously referenced 'forum wars' may well be caught up in a stormy sea, but they haven't caused a ripple offline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again with the 'allowed'. As in 'them being allowed too much web space'. Webs space is limitless, and it's not yours to 'allow'. What do you want, meters?

      Like it or not, people, even sane ones, do read blogs. I personally have several favourites I tune into every day, and I know from my hits, that many do the same here. It is wonderful having alternate views to read, don't you think?

      Regardless, lol, do continue with your argument that subversives should not be allowed web space, you haven't convinced me of anything yet.

      Delete
    2. Subversives ? Calm down, Che Guevara. It isn't the Cuban missile crisis. I was referring to the battle of that batty.

      Delete
    3. Calm down there for a moment. Bennett is despised by both sides for his interfering ways but this hasn't always been the case. He was once your "poster man" and person you all held in high esteem, for some ridiculous reason.

      Your "side" (although there ought not to be sides)egged him on and he really was bad enough before the birth of the internet, as we know.

      Him and that Verdi person! Where are the men in white coats when needed?

      Delete
  10. @15.30

    Andrew you are in real danger of self combusting. go and have a lie down

    Ask Bennett why he's keeping a low profile on haverns at the moment.

    Has he received a warning from CR?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bennett has posted today at 18:37

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 18:26.

      Nope I didn't write that. I very much doubt Bennett had 6 figure savings for starters. The rest though, I agree with!

      If I choose to comment on here, then I'll sign off with my name, thanks. Like the last time I did several months back when I made a comment (which was similar to this in that I was accused of writing stuff!).

      I'm contempt with Twitter only thanks (where I saw this latest blog advertised) I find the forum games pathetic and all the lies and backstabbing that goes with it.

      Bennett keeping a low profile? Really? He's even more desperate than he usually is! And that's saying something!

      Great blog by the way, Cristobell!

      Cheers Anon 18:26.

      Andrew.

      Delete
    3. @ andrew 20:16

      "NotDeadFred18 March 2018 at 11:04

      Sorry but how can anyone take Tony Bennett seriously? Has he ever explained how he came to stalk the "wrong" Smith family for two years? Has he ever apologised to said family? He's a joke and a bad one at that."

      Remind us what your user name on twitter is again?

      Delete
    4. Hello! No, I'm not dead Fred or whatever? I was 'Fred the Fish' on Twitter ages ago, if that helps?! Andy Fish now. I appreciate the orchestrated attempt EVERYWHERE to try & discredit me! It is what it is, but no worries! That's what you're up against when you want the truth!

      Thanks all the same!

      Andrew

      Delete
  11. There is nothing different in the discussion of the greatest whodunit on this earth. All that is happening is the various theories\groups, try desperately to fit their scenario together, so in order for this theory (the dogs) that theory (it wasn't Smithman) or the other (died earlier in the week) they select or by omission anything that doesn't extend\complete\make possible their thesis.

    Meanwhile, the MET hopefully is somewhat more objective & single minded. The MET certainly has more pieces of the jig-saw than the average blogger, the PJ even more.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And both teams are investigating stranger abduction.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps that's why it's taking 11 years !

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't say the PJ has any more information than OG but I agree they both have masses more information than any of the CMoMM MMRG or wallysocks on Abduction or Scam like Vinnicombe or Chief Superintendent Coxon or Bugs Bunny Thompson.

      I wonder if they will ever look back on this time and feel remorse?

      Delete
    4. @20:54

      Do not wonder: remorse is not on their menue.

      T

      Delete
  12. bennett has thrown down the gauntlet Ros: "Can you satisfactorily answer ANY of these questions:"

    There are 60 questions for you to have a go at Ros and much as I dislike bennett there is some merit in what he poses.

    https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14985-smithman-12-can-anyone-who-still-believes-that-the-smiths-saw-gerry-mccann-carrying-madeleine-satisfactorily-answer-any-of-these-60-questions#383285

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aw gawd, I couldn't even bring myself to skim read the questions. They mostly seem to begin with 'how credible...... - that is they invite us to believe their targets/victims are lying. That, I'm afraid, repulses me.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 20:56

      Maybe just for once in your life you could make an effort and make an attempt at debate by using argument and logic rather than your opinion and incredible powers.

      Go on Ros - show us you can do it and give a credible reasoned answer to ANY one of bennett's points.

      (cue answer: "you will not tell me what to do on my blog")

      Delete
    3. You're having difficulty 'getting it' aren't you Unknown ?

      Bennet and his ridicule-worthy 'theory' is a feeble distraction from the one hypothesis the McCanns have spent ( and lost ) fortune trying to erase from history - Goncalo Amaral's. ( the only one that matters to them )

      "Answering" the "points" that Bennett endlessly postulates, in his mind-numbingly pompous way, would merely serve to perpetuate the "don't look over there - look over here" tactic that this case has had in abundance.

      Stay away from it Rosalinda - don't take the bait, please.

      Delete
    4. Unknown19 March 2018 at 20:07

      The answer to question 60 is really easy. I've seen somebody reconstruct the walk in the same conditions and the same light / darkness. Cross examination would destroy the credibility and the preceding 59 questions are made redundant. However, If i may add a 61 : In previous limelight chasing exploits that made the newspapers, which notorious disinformation agent represented him in court :)

      Delete
    5. "Anonymous20 March 2018 at 00:25

      You're having difficulty 'getting it' aren't you Unknown ? "
      ---------------------------
      What I get is that Ros has taken the time to write a blog about bennett and his latest shite - but then she can't be arsed to do a proper reply.

      The only way to answer what he postulates is to post a full and detailed rebuttal with evidence reason and logic. But Ros can't be arsed.

      Delete
  13. Ros!! I never thought I would agree with you, but in this one I DO!! That is up until you start on about Bennett and his agenda to be dismissing Gerry as Smithman because there I agree with him for the first time ever.

    My goodness there can be firsts and today we strike lucky with 2!

    I have had the best laugh ever at the expense of the MMRG and I feel certain the Public Prosecutor of Portugal will too.

    What simpletons we see on CMoMM and other anti McCann groups. I fear for their sanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a worrying reply Rosalinda.

      Whilst I agree with the dismissal of Bennet's ridiculously elaborate and complicated theory, perhaps you might consider toning down the righteous indignance just a little bit - when you have the likes of "Anonymous" creaming him/herself at your hyperbole, then it's time to take stock.

      just saying

      Delete
    2. Gross 23:20. Keep your crudity for elsewhere.

      As for toning down the righteous indignance, forget it, this group of vigilantes are bullies who are attempting to escalate the hatred against the families, and attempting to stir up an angry mob.

      Why are they going to such lengths to portray Madeleine as an abused child? It isn't compassion for Madeleine, and it certainly isn't compassion for her siblings or any other child who was on that holiday. Do they ever consider how hurtful their salacious allegations could be?

      Madeleine was a normal little girl. She wasn't withdrawn, introverted, cowering or afraid to speak, she was the opposite. She was confident, sociable, happy to mix with others, and by most accounts, a bit of chatterbox. That is, just like every other 3 year old.

      That, however doesn't fit the cesspit's warped 'theory', ergo when they got out the magnifying glasses, they were looking for signs of abuse. Not finding any, they made them up.

      They are hurting real people with their sick allegations, most notably the remaining children, their cruelty and bullying shouldn't be tolerated by anyone.

      Delete
    3. Thank you 20:27, my SAS (Smart Arsed Son) often compares me to 100 monkeys in a room with typewriters, but less likely to come up with a Shakesperean manuscript, or indeed, anything meaningful. That my jabberings have struck a chord, delights me.

      The works of Bennett et al, however are indeed laugh out loud funny, but also sad, and skin crawlingly creepy. They have effectively submitted their chat room as evidence for the prosecution. Every petty, sanctimonious thought or opinion, they have ever posted, is there to be waded through by some poor sod at the PJ. I am sure when they have finished laughing at this small group of British weirdos, it will be binned.

      Delete
    4. My guess is they won't read any further than the address of the sender. They have no obligation to. It will be opened, ignored, binned. That one action defining the ineffectiveness of the internet opinion polls and futility of debates held online by those who lack the experience, knowledge, evidence or mental stability.

      Delete
  14. This was always on the cards, of course.The vultures have circled the case for eleven years waiting for the cadaver.It was never going to appear.The mantras eventually morphed into annoying memes as their volume and the frequency of appearnce increased. Still nothing. As the bus slowed down, ready to turn into the depot to be parked for good and to gather dust, the 'big guns' fired louder and forgot about self control. The cry for havoc was heard and the dogs of war were let slip. Gone now are the secret dreams of fame in the tabloids and that one day in 'The Sun'. The nest egg was addled and stillborn. No fame. Not even anything original to put in books remains. The cash cow's udders have all but dried and shrivelled away.The painful, but inevatible, draws close.The end.The great unsolved. It's already ushering in the death throes of the enraged as the smoke rises from battered keyboards and brusied egos.You should have listened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @22;28

      Yes, yes, yes etc.

      T

      Delete
  15. Hi Rosalinda, Great stuff again. Keep it up.
    (I can't bear to read the comments section these days there really seems to be a troll loose in there somewhere).

    Anyway I must say this:
    If the little girl is looking down from heaven, which I am sure she is - and reading the stuff on her parents web page what can she be thinking.
    The content of the Find Madeleine Fund is a sickening, unbelievable, horrific smoke screen she would not recognize.
    This little girl knows what happened, likewise do the parents and their buddies.
    Pity the McCanns that they never came clean in 2007. The most they would have got was a suspended sentence - and everyone would have forgotten about it by now.

    But once they had taken that first step of removing their daughter's dead drugged body from the holiday apartment they had reached a point of no return.
    Obstruction of justice, indignity to a dead body, etc.
    But they took the gamble and against all odds won - so far.
    All the best.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you JC, and yes, I do seem to get more than my fair share of the nasties. I suspect they are filled with rage and have nowhere to go with it, lol. Their usual habitats are deserted.

      They should of course, have come clean in 2007, and it would have all been over, instead they set off a runaway train. Whatever the formula needed to grab the world's attention, they had it in abundance, it was keeping hold of the controls that caused the problems.

      I'm not sure they have won anything to be honest JC, they don't have their freedom per se, because they have been living under the awful cloud of suspicion. They are not free to be themselves, they cannot relax when interviewed, for fear of what people will think of them. They cannot go on social media for fear that people will target them and abuse them. The twitter trolls, both sides, have taken away their right of reply, not with a Court order, but with a relentless bullying campaign.

      For me, and I suspect for most people, the loss of the freedom to be myself, would be a greater prison than one with bars. I pity them. Operation Grange look unlikely to relieve them of that cloud of suspicion, in 6 or is it 7, years there are still no signs of an abductor or anything 'official' that clears them.

      Nice to see you JC, and all the best to you :)

      Delete
    2. Yes welcome jc - always good to see you incisive accurate comments.

      Do you have any messages from Madeleine that you would like to share? Maybe she could tell us who drugged her and removed her dead body from the apartment?

      Oh no Ros - I agree with you - this is not a hate blog - no siree!

      Delete
    3. @02;38

      "suspended sentence"

      How have you come to that conclusion if I may ask, jc?

      T

      Delete
    4. "But they took the gamble and against all odds won - so far."

      Bloody clever them McCanns, maybe they should consider a change of career as magicians.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous20 March 2018 at 02:38

      Hello jc


      ''If the little girl is looking down from heaven, which I am sure she is - and reading the stuff on her parents web page what can she be thinking.''


      Possibly ''wow, this is heaven and I'm online.I've become obsessive.Still, not bad to be able to achieve this at 3''. You say you're sure.Why are you sure.You're guessing.


      ''This little girl knows what happened, likewise do the parents and their buddies.''


      Why haven't the police done anything ? Because they can't act on a wild guess maybe ? Or they need evidence.


      ''Pity the McCanns that they never came clean in 2007''


      Who says they didn't ? You ? What credentials do you have to be taken seriously ?


      ''The most they would have got was a suspended sentence - and everyone would have forgotten about it by now.''


      I see you don't understand the law either.


      ''But once they had taken that first step of removing their daughter's dead drugged body from the holiday apartment they had reached a point of no return.''


      That's quite a disturbed mentality you seem to be happy to broadcast. Proof of death ? Proof of drugs in the body that hasn't been found ?


      ''indignity to a dead body, etc.''


      That's not a law.


      ''But they took the gamble and against all odds won - so far.''


      They took a gamble by leaving their children alone. They lost.The gamnle you're inventing doesn't mean anything.


      ''(I can't bear to read the comments section these days there really seems to be a troll loose in there somewhere).''


      Correct.It's running around your mind.


      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous20 March 2018 at 19:03

      Don't be silly - Ros always welcomes comments from jc - a true example of a Mccann hater - jc says what Ros really want to say.

      Visions from Madeleine in heaven are welcome on this blog.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 March 2018 at 11:03

      ''They should of course, have come clean in 2007, and it would have all been over, instead they set off a runaway train.''

      Are you saying they lied ?

      ''Whatever the formula needed to grab the world's attention, they had it in abundance''

      Their beautiful little girl who was snatched from their holiday apartment was formula enough.

      ''they don't have their freedom per se, because they have been living under the awful cloud of suspicion''

      They do, per se. The cloud is made up of people who don't matter or have a bearing on anything. The statement from the police( who do matter) is they are not suspects( ergo free).

      ''They cannot go on social media for fear that people will target them and abuse them.''

      In a way that you denied had happened recently ?

      ''For me, and I suspect for most people, the loss of the freedom to be myself, would be a greater prison than one with bars. I pity them.''

      Poetic but not relevant. The prison without bars was created when they lost a child, not the approval of strangers or nutcases online.

      ''in 6 or is it 7, years there are still no signs of an abductor or anything 'official' that clears them. ''

      Or a spec of evidential dust that incriminates them.






      Delete
    8. Am I saying they lied? Is that one of those trick questions, where you get to wave something in front of a judge? lol.

      If that cloud of suspicion didn't matter, why have they spent 10 years trying to silence Goncalo Amaral?

      I acknowledge the McCanns would be attacked online, clearly there are obsessive compulsive nuts on twitter etc, who would latch onto them, but they are very few and easy to block. Ultimately, the choice is Gerry and Kate's. I personally wouldn't allow anyone to drive me off social media, and many have tried, because I wouldn't give them that power.

      Again, you say one thing, but the actions of the McCanns say another. If their only concern were the loss of their child, why have they instigated so many libel actions? Not just against GA, but also against newspapers?

      'Not a spec of evidential dust that incriminates them', you say. What a shame you can't say 'lots of evidence that points away from them'. Perhaps citing a few examples?

      Delete
    9. How does that even work ? How can you produce concrete evidence of not being somewhere doing something ? They were at the Tapas bar and that was supported. If anyone makes allegations or accusations it's for them to find evidence that they have grounds. You would be laughed out of court id your trump card to persuade a jury was '' yes there may well be no evidence to place the McCanns at the scene, or any witnesses to say they were, but then again, there's no evidence to say they were somewhere else ''

      What's wrong about wanting and trying to sue people who are intent on spreading untruths about you that suggest you killed or buried your own child when two police forces have said the opposite ?

      Delete
    10. 'They were at the tapas bar and that was supported' you say. I'm not sure it was - the police wanted a reconstruction but the tapas group refused. Had they complied it might have cleared the matter up, but as it is, it is left hanging.

      I shouldn't think I would ever be called as a witness for the prosecution, so presumably that is aimed at any police detective going down that road. Another 'prove it' taunt.

      I'm not sure the police take too kindly to being taunted, which is probably why they are not giving up on the investigation.

      People say horrible things and indeed untruths, all the time, suing them may win financial reward but it is always a gamble. Most defamation cases end badly for the claimant.

      It is a matter of priorities. No-one is rich enough to stop bad things being said about them, not even Trump. Gerry and Kate have lost a child, that should take priority over everything, including what others say about them. They have lost a lot of support by focussing their resources on libel actions.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 March 2018 at 19:06

      ''They were at the tapas bar and that was supported' you say. I'm not sure it was - the police wanted a reconstruction but the tapas group refused.''

      So, with the complete absence of evidence available to make any arrests the police have just 'taken their word' regarding the other crucial part of the investigation - their alibi ? So how does that sit with the 11 years 'they must be investigating something' argument ? They can be so meticulous chasing fog for howver long it takes but not boither about the alibis ?

      ''Another 'prove it' taunt.''

      No, not a taunt at all. In a court of law it's important to be able to prove allegations /accusations.

      ''People say horrible things and indeed untruths, all the time, suing them may win financial reward but it is always a gamble. Most defamation cases end badly for the claimant.''

      Each case is indiviual. It depends on the allegations and what they are intended to do. personally, i'd like to see Amaral and anyone who does what he did, dicredited in court.I don't like the financial side of it all. I'm more about the fairness and justice. As much as I'd like to see Amaral exposed, I don't want him to lose any money or the McCanns make any.

      ''Gerry and Kate have lost a child, that should take priority over everything, including what others say about them. They have lost a lot of support by focussing their resources on libel actions''

      They have their priorities in order, surely. If two police forces are dgging the planet up and examining so called leads, what more can they do ? In the meantime they have their reputations and the personal physical and psychological saftey of their children to consider. That so many would jump at the chance to criticize them for trying or wanting to do that says so much about the online kangaroo court's fitness to pass judgement.

      Delete
    12. Hi jc 20 March 2018 at 02:38

      Yes, things aren’t so complicated as so many people often tend to believe. In a nutshell, this is what I believe may have happened.

      As soon as Jane Tanner (the woman in purple) had agreed to helping Gerry to sneak out of the apartment with Madeleine’s body, by giving him a sign as soon as the street was empty, she'd already gone past the point of no return.

      Matthew Oldfield then, for the very same reason, put himself in an awkward situation by reluctantly claiming that he’d looked into Madeleine's room and thereafter it became difficult for him to retract that statement, though he may later have wished to do so.

      Since the rest of the group probably knew, that others within the group had assisted the McCanns, all of them, though indirectly, became implicated in a crime, in that they didn’t immediately tell the Portuguese PJ what they knew. Finally Dave Payne assumed his “responsibility” to protect, especially Kate.

      Sometimes, when you’re in a tight group, it can, in some situations, be harder to stay out of a crime than to be involved in it. Group dynamics do not always lead to good and rational decisions.

      Delete
    13. You sound proud of the fact that the police can't crack the tapas group alibi, don't they want to prove their innocence? Don't they want to help the police?

      You might want to see Goncalo Amaral discredited in Court, but it hasn't happened nor will it. Instead the McCanns have discredited themselves with their actions, and wiped out their own fund.

      To say they are free to pursue the former detective because SY and PG are 'digging up the planet' is a strange attitude. They want the detectives to work on their behalf while they drag the former detective who worked on their behalf, through the courts. I wonder how the police view that.

      Delete
    14. @ Björn22 March 2018 at 17:37
      "Hi jc 20 March 2018 at 02:38
      Yes, things aren’t so complicated as so many people often tend to believe. In a nutshell, this is what I believe may have happened."
      ---------------------------------------

      What you have come up with is absolute nonsense with not a scrap of evidence - but hey - why mess about with evidence when you can invent any old rubbish and accuse everyone of being liars.

      By the way - what crime are they covering up, when and where did it happen and when did they develop the cover up plan?

      Delete
    15. Björn22 March 2018 at 17:37

      '' Hi jc..Yes, things aren’t so complicated as so many people often tend to believe. In a nutshell, this is what I believe may have happened.''

      Strap yourself in everyone...

      ''As soon as Jane Tanner (the woman in purple) had....''

      Do you have a source stating Jane Tanner was the woman in purple that the forgetful Mrs Murat later remembered ? Was Jane Tanner wearing the clothes that were described ?Or is this 'nutshell' like your other nutshells...invented.

      '' by giving him a sign as soon as the street was empty, she'd already gone past the point of no return. ''

      What was the sign and who said they witnessed it ?

      ''Matthew Oldfield then, for the very same reason, put himself in an awkward situation by reluctantly claiming that he’d looked into Madeleine's room...it became difficult for him to retract that statement, though he may later have wished to do so. ''

      Why did it put him in a difficult situation if it was the truth ? Why would he later have wished he could retract it ?

      ''Since the rest of the group probably knew, that others within the group had assisted the McCanns''

      Probably knew ? Is that supposed to be taken seriously ? You're making this up as you go along.

      '' all of them, though indirectly, became implicated in a crime, in that they didn’t immediately tell the Portuguese PJ what they knew. ''

      The crime was what at that point ? The child was missing. It was treated primarily as an abduction until something otherwise pointed elsewhere.They told the PJ what they knew.You just don't want to believe that.

      ''Finally Dave Payne assumed his “responsibility” to protect, especially Kate. ''

      What's important about that ? A close friend in a time of need ? That's actually normal behaviour, Bjorn.

      ''Sometimes, when you’re in a tight group, it can, in some situations, be harder to stay out of a crime than to be involved in it.''

      What's that mean ?If you're part of a group commiting a crime then you're part of it and share the blame unless you report it.You're trying to blamket blame the parents and anyone who is a friend of them due mainly ther irrational feelings and thoughts you harbour about them.

      '' Group dynamics do not always lead to good and rational decisions. ''

      The group dynamics in the group of UK politicians who involved themselves to make this show no more than an empty stage were perfect. Mission accomplished. The group dynamics in the PJ under Amaral were ragged. The group dynamics between the PJ and MET needed the kiss of life. The dynamics betweem the UK police and UK press have been a mess, as have those between the PJ and the portuguese media.

      Delete
    16. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 March 2018 at 18:50

      ''You sound proud of the fact that the police can't crack the tapas group alibi, don't they want to prove their innocence? Don't they want to help the police?''

      Not proud, more disgusted by the weak police work. The way to help the police in situations like the one here is to tell them as much as you can regarding recollections of the evening and your movements. They did that. How is that not helping the police ? They don't need to prove their innocence. They're innocent. You and other antis online say they have to prove it to you- that's incorrect.

      ''You might want to see Goncalo Amaral discredited in Court, but it hasn't happened nor will it. Instead the McCanns have discredited themselves with their actions, and wiped out their own fund.''

      The lack of anything whatsoever transpiring from Amaral's accusations is discrediting him more as each day of 'nothing found' passes .As long as the parents remain innocent in the eyes of the law and the police, his book remains a fictional account of theories he was considering.It justifies the McCanns attempts at silencing him.Only their conviction will say otherwise.

      ''They want the detectives to work on their behalf while they drag the former detective who worked on their behalf, through the courts. I wonder how the police view that''

      Yes another million dollar question. We can only guess. My guess is that the PJ, out of loyalty to their former leader, would choose not to prioritise any libel case but, instead, prioritise excavating some actual evidence that can support him.If they could manage that, no libel cases would be on the table; no reputatiuons;no arguments. Evidence would prove Amaral was the maligned hero and the parents were straight from a crime documentary.But that hasn't happened has it.They can dig as long as they like and the investigation can stay on a money drip for just as long.I see no logical reason to hold out hope of the case being even close to solved. It's been destroyed. The outsider / long shot at 100/1 could lie in the final Brexit talks.But longshots are longshots for a reason.



      Delete
    17. Hello
      Anonymous22 March 2018 at 19:52
      Anonymous22 March 2018 at 21:13

      Please note that I only said that the mentioned scenario MAY have been what happened and that I tried to emphasize the importance of group dynamics in the in the context of the Madeleine case.

      Delete
    18. Yes, another invention to support the insinuations you are yet again making regarding the parents and the group.So, basically you're imagining a few scenes in a private movie playing in your mind again. They always end the same.The case is real and the absence of evidence is a serious obstacle. Anyone can write scripts and scenes and then say they were only saying 'maybe'.Based on these kinds of predictable scenes you can't argue for against anything, especially group dynamics.

      Delete
    19. @ bjorn 13:00

      No you specifically said " this is what I believe may have happened"

      It is what YOU believe may have happened.

      By group dynamics are you referring to Stockholm syndrome again?

      Delete
  16. Kate McCann ('madeleine'):

    “Alan Pike warned us that we would lose some good friends as a result of our tragedy. On the plus side, new people would come into our lives, and we might unexpectedly grow closer to friends who had previously been more peripheral. He was 100 per cent right.”

    You don't lose real friends as a result of a tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @08:04

      True. Pike wouldn't know, obviously.

      T

      Delete
    2. If only he'd heeded Mainwaring's advice.

      Delete
    3. Absent friends

      Delete
  17. Anonymous 19 March at 22:42

    I’d tend to agree, except:

    "He [Jon Corner] wouldn't have handed over incriminating photographs.”

    He (whose permission?) could have handed over an edited photo to warn the ‘abductor(s)’.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can somebody invite Derek Acorah to make a contribution. The threads tuning into psychics anonymous. Take a small fact, add what it 'really' meant, sprinkle some imagination over it and there you have it- case solved.aWe're now dragging friends past and present into it. All with the same intention , to invent something to hold against the parents and offer it as more 'evidence' of their guilt. That list is far too long now. It's becoming almost comic farce.Can anyone start a new list ? One with all the reasons the two countrys' police forces haven't considered any of these great 'finds' ? Why they're choosing to ignore the 'obvious' just two protect two killers ?Or do we just find Derek's twitter.

      Delete
  18. I see zampos is very active on twitter - almost as if he is drawing attention to himself isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nothing much to talk about these post Andrew days on MMM so Nurse Ratched allows the toxic twins Nanny that Groans and Chirpythehobbit to attack Cristobell for having the audacity to write about this case.
    Wait sanctimonious declaration from Admin that they don't do personal attacks............unless it's against Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whereas Ros is far more generous with her target demographic ; everyone who doesn't believe what she believes is treated to her manic attacks.

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 19:00

      Come on get your facts right. Ros doesn't believe anything apart from the theory of the honourable amaral. She believes nothing more and nothing less. She doesn't express her opinion about the Mccanns - oh no she is neutral. She can blame it all on amaral if she is wrong (which she is)

      Delete
    3. At least Freedom had the good grace to close the thread.
      Chirpyinsect has never forgiven Cristobell for calling her a conspiracy loon and curtain twitcher.(Veritas M'lord)
      The Nanny Groves character seems like a Bennett plant or even one of his socks.She says she posts on both forums,she claims Bennett is genuine(seriously); she often attacks Cristobell personally and insists Cristobell has multiple idenities!
      Sounds like she has been hanging around Zampos/Fleffer in the Cesspit for too long.

      Delete
    4. I actually can't remember 'Nanny Groves' I used to really like 'Freedom' until the transparency started to seive through! I actually pride myself on working out who is who & agendas on #McCann! (Chirpy is great though!)

      I always had my doubts though from the 'PM's' she used to send me & the nastiness she used to dish out to 'banned members'! 'HKP, DFM, Susible for starters! And obviously me! How she remains a 'mod' is a mystery! A nasty piece as it turns out! I could prove that as well but obviously I had to get banned! The only person on MMM who constantly stuck up for Bennett is 'Freedom'! Her sister is close to the cesspit set-up!

      The MMM place was (hopefully still) a great place. It should've been massive though to get truth & justice for M! All a damp squip! the last time I looked in! & that was only to say hello to some old friends off there! (& got banned again for sending personal messages!)

      There's some fantastic folk off that forum who I love to bits! Sadly there is a 1 mod (arguably 2) that had to get me OUT! & of course the usual 2/3 idiots that agree!

      Other than that, all good & wish the decent members there well!

      Regards,

      Andrew

      Delete
    5. It tickles me that these 'grown ups' hide away in their 'coffee lounge' to bitch about my scribblings, lol. None of the courage to voice their opinions 'out loud' on the public threads or even here, where I get to answer back, fecking cowards!

      Sadly for them, I have reached the stage of indifference, if I can't see what they are saying about me, I'm not interested, lol, but even if I could, I doubt I would be arsed.

      Delete
  20. @ Anonymous20 March 2018 at 17:22

    alco andrew should not be allowed anywhere near the internet.

    Don't you agree Andy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello unknown! You sound like that plank, 'ubercoffy' who was having a pop on Twitter yesterday?!

      No, sorry I don't agree! I need the internet for business reasons & also to have a voice to get the truth out for Madeleine! She deserves that & not so-called parents who didn't give a sh!t & disposed/faked for self-preservation reasons!

      Just want justice if that's okay!

      Cheers

      Andrew

      Delete
    2. @ Andrew - you need the internet for business reasons? What you doing having a laugh or something? You screw up everywhere you post and you have decided to come here where you are allowed a voice.

      Your foul accusations about the Mccanns is not a voice for Madeleine. No-one needs someone with the obvious problems that you have.

      I have no idea why Ros allows you to post here becuase you are just trouble and a liar.

      Delete
    3. Brilliant! I can't go anywhere without idiots like you following me about! Okay, so you think the McParents are innocent & I think they're GUILTY (really GUILTY). Leave it at that, hey? Both can have an opinion! Sounds fair. Cheers!

      Andrew

      Delete
    4. Anonymous21 March 2018 at 19:30

      ''Hello unknown! You sound like that plank, 'ubercoffy' who was having a pop on Twitter yesterday?! ....I need the internet for business reasons & also to have a voice to get the truth out for Madeleine!''


      Shopping on ebay aside, this is an example of why social network platforms, forums and so on, aren't taken as seriously as their users would like them to be. The police certainly won't take them seriously if this is how adults behave once they find themselves online.


      The guessing at secret idenities or names is childish enough, but the spitting out of personal poison and claiming it's 'for justice' is pathetic.There's often a bif differnce between 'want' and 'need'. This particular poster wants justice ; he needs to grow up and calm down. Maybe once he learns to accept he has issues - pent up , years old, anger issues, he might take the time to start shouting facts out as loudly as his opinions.Or, maybe examining the case from all sides and in all areas, rather than the one he is imagining is the panacea to his personal plight.

      Delete
    5. Alright, Bennett! Fancy seeing you here but with the 'typos' & defending that clown (Coffey), then it's a giveaway! I can always work out your sock accounts, old chap!

      Regards,

      Andrew

      Delete
  21. To get back on topic.Why did Gerry McCann have a CATS File?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't mean "to get back on topic" - you mean "to show my total ignorance and pretend it means something"

      Ros allows innuendo and implication and any lies on here.

      If it were my blog I would tell you to f off.

      Delete
    2. Unknown at 21:44. With your nasty jibes and constant whining, I feel as if I have my own pet Verdi, lol. I would scold you, but I fear it would bring on tears. Why hide away from innuendo and implications, why not confront them? Ok, I'll do it for you.

      Those bending over backwards to attach paedophilia or deviant sex to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, can and will, clutch onto anything that might support their vivid imaginations. The CATS nonsense being one such bent and twisted straw.

      Advice often given in criminal investigations is 'follow the money', this small group of 'investigators' 'follow the sex'. Their leader, Bennett dreams of being the Christian soldier who uncovers a paedophile ring that goes right to the heart of the establishment.

      Even those groups that don't come under Bennett have an unhealthy obsession with deviant sex. The bonkers Textusa for example, believes Warners family resort was a den of iniquity, filled with bed hopping 30 somethings, a la a Brian Rix bedroom farce circa 1965.

      My advice would be to ignore the grubby minded, they are trying to attach a paedophile element for their own murky reasons. Richard Hall had to travel to another continent to find someone as weird and creepy as Bennett, but kudos, he found one in Peter 'closing doors indicates CSA' Hyatt.

      Successful, sociable, attractive and ambitious 30 somethings, have zero interest in sex with children. They want to be with each other, as was clear by their daily use of the crèche and child minding facilities.

      And don't get excited Textusa, by wanting to be with each other, they wanted adult conversation, banter, and the freedom to say what they wanted without 'little ears' being present. Something parents with young children yearn for.

      When my children were small, the evenings were mine! It wasn't open for debate, in that area I was a strict mum. When the little tykes were tucked up and asleep, I could open the wine and chat (mostly on the phone) to my mates for hours on end.

      Those insinuating the tapas group were abusing the children, are again avoiding common sense. These kids were in the crèches every day, chattering away to their playmates and nannies. Small children can't keep secrets, which is why genuinely abused children are kept hidden.

      One of the main elements of the missing Madeleine case is neglect. That is the kids were being left on their own in the evenings. Again, this is where common sense comes in. In order to abuse a child, don't you at least have to be in the same room, if not building?

      Unknown at 23:35. You're welcome.

      Delete
    3. Ros;

      It was all going so well, then you had to spoil it.

      Like you, I see no evidence of CSA or of 'swinging', which is frankly ludicrous - Textusa is, as you rightly point out, nuts.

      However, I am going to have to take issue with this statement:

      "Successful, sociable, attractive and ambitious 30 somethings, have zero interest in sex with children"

      ...which reveals a certain ignorance of the nature of paedophilia.

      Paedophilia is a pathology, not a lifestyle choice. Having a sexual interest in prepubescent children is an abnormal pathology which occurs in all professions, at all adult ages and regardless of socioeconomic status, education, profession, attractiveness or ambition. The largest number of paedophiles are male, identify as heterosexual and are in what appear to be 'normal' relationships with adult women. Their pathology is an interest in the prepubescent, often regardless of gender and regardless of how they identify in their sexual interactions with other adults. Many identify as heterosexual in their adult interactions but abuse both boys and girls.
      Your sweeping statement is simply wrong. In fact, I am sure you must be aware of the recent dreadful case of a doctor jailed for abusing his young patients on a massive scale and cases involving teachers emerge quite frequently - precisely the '30 somethings' you describe, and those '30 somethings' are as likely to be paedophiles as any other group in society.

      Delete
    4. I don't think you have much idea of the dynamics of a group of a 30 something attractive, ambitious, professionals. Which one of them is going to wreck their lives and careers by saying lets have sex with the kids. When have you ever heard of professional families not only having sex with their own kids but passing them around to their mates. And according to Bennett, taking pictures of a 3 year old as Lolita.

      No such cases exist because it doesn't happen. Paedophilia is very rarely a group activity, and rarer still do parents use their own children.

      You are also overlooking the fact that this particular group of 30 something professionals were not staying in with the children or keeping them hidden. The adults were enjoying adult activities, tennis, sailing, running, socialising, the kids were with other kids - the exact opposite of an abusive environment.

      Delete
    5. Was there really any need to be so rude?

      Your statement was quite clear -

      "Successful, sociable, attractive and ambitious 30 somethings, have zero interest in sex with children"

      You are now attempting to shift the goalposts entirely.

      Who at any time suggested that such a group say "Let's have sex with the kids?"

      This is a million miles away from your first statement. No child abuser is open about what they do unless it is with others of the same or similar bent, for many reasons, not least the fact that it is totally bloody illegal. No-one, except you just now, has ever suggested that scenario.

      Even now, you throw this in:

      "
      When have you ever heard of professional families not only having sex with their own kids but passing them around to their mates. And according to Bennett, taking pictures of a 3 year old as Lolita."

      Er, never. But not on account of them being 'professional' people. Nobody does that, with the exception of organised rings.

      I note that you then say ''rarer still do parents use their own children", yet you know fine well that most CSA occurs in the home, perpetrated by another family member. Then you bang on about keeping the children hidden, another mistaken belief you have expressed before.

      Where did you acquire all these skewed views? You could not be more wrong

      Delete
    6. " Small children can't keep secrets, which is why genuinely abused children are kept hidden."

      That is not only total bollocks, but is also really offensive to the millions of people who have fallen victim to CSA at some point in their childhood.

      If you really think that any child who goes to school or plays out with their mates cannot have been a victim of CSA I would love to know under what stone you have been living.

      Shall I tell you why children don't tell?
      Often it's because they are frightened. Some abusers threaten the child that they or someone close to them will be hurt if they tell, or that they will be taken away from the family, or that ''daddy will go to prison and you don't want that, do you?"
      Sometimes, the abuse starts before they are old enough to understand what is happening and that it's wrong, so it becomes their new normal.
      Sometimes the child is conflicted because the abuser is someone they love. Often they are simple scared that they will be in trouble.

      No offence, but you haven't a clue.

      Delete
    7. "Successful, sociable, attractive and ambitious 30 somethings, have zero interest in sex with children."

      That kind of ignorance is unfortunately why so many get away with it for so long.

      Delete
    8. Those obsessed with the CATS file and the Gaspar statements are saying exactly that 19:35, that is why I am ridiculing it.

      Yes I know most CSA goes on in the home, but it is not a group activity involving friends and neighbours. It is dark and secretive.

      Where did I acquire all these skewed views? I study human behaviour, always have. It's part of being a writer and part of my quest to discover the root of evil. You haven't convinced me I am wrong.

      Delete
    9. Nothing will ever convince you that you are wrong - it is why your life is a disaster.

      You clearly haven't studied human behaviour. I have never seen you make a claim you could support with evidence.

      You are perfectly entitled to your ignorant opinions, but don't try to pass them off as facts. Also, I have not seen anyone claim that the group were doing what you suggest.

      I have noticed a pattern with you, whenever you are challenged - you substitute a completely different point. It's kind of pathetic

      Delete
    10. Let's keep this in context 19:49, I am discussing Madeleine and the tapas children, who were babies and toddlers. Madeleine was a chatty 3 year old. The clue was the beginning of the sentence 'SMALL children'. You have twisted what I said, and not the first time, but that was clumsy even for you.

      Small children can't keep secrets. Period. And you would know that if you were a parent or had any experience with small children. My point was that Madeleine and her peers, the other tapas children, were too small to be threatened into silence. Small children chatter constantly without any filters. Threats mean nothing because they have the attention span of a goldfish. Ask any mother who has ever used the fateful words, 'if you do that again'.

      Your failure to comprehend what I said, does not equate to my not having a clue.

      Delete
    11. Who says my life is a disaster? I have my greatest wish, 'A Room of One's Own', my needs are more cerebral than material :)

      I say I have studied human behaviour, you say I haven't. I happen to think everything I have ever studied crops up in everything I write, and if you will forgive my immodesty, the reason why I have so many readers who return again and again. I am a mine of information and great at trivial pursuit!

      You claim you have seen anyone accuse the parents or tapas group of the scenario I suggested. Have you not read the mountains of tosh about the Gaspar statements and David Payne in particular? And currently my blog is littered with CATS nonsense. If they are not accusing them of the 'P' word, what are they accusing them of? Oh and don't forget all the crap about bathing the kids, volumes have been written by those who have bought into the 'P' theory, reading the nastiest, creepiest connotations into the innocent act of bathing kids. It is sickening.

      As you appear unable to understand most of what I say, how can you possibly have noticed a pattern? In your last rant you missed the word 'small', thus changing the entire context of what I actually said.

      Delete
    12. You are a very ignorant person. You are so ignorant that you even lack the ability to critique your own statements and assume that the fact that you have a readership is some kind of endorsement. You are the written equivalent of one of those programmes where they show car crashes - people pop in to see what nonsense you come out with next.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous 21:14
      ("...people pop in to see what nonsense you come out with next.")

      Speak for yourself "ignorant person".

      Delete
    14. Well I am going to go ahead and take that as a compliment 21:14. 'Car crash' may be a tad hard, but I am these days leaning, well more tilting, towards the 'shock jock' tactics of popular US blogs. Though to be fair, my writing is beyond my control, so too my crazy thought processes, I am incapable of dwelling on the tedious, and I think my readers appreciate that. Of course other options are available.

      Delete
  22. 'Skripal case is a carefully-constructed drama' - John Pilger

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxRiG8vRRBk&feature=youtu.be

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous20 March 2018 at 21:03

    ''To get back on topic.Why did Gerry McCann have a CATS File?''

    That was quite nostalgic to read that. It reminds me of just how long this has dragged on. The infamous 'CATS file' was one of the most repeated and popular inventions by the antis all those years ago.I'm not sure how bringing it up is getting 'back on topic' unless you're referring to the submission of any old pony to throw about.

    It's the online / digital equivalent of an urban myth. Obviously, I would retract that claim if you, or whoever kidded you into buying into it, were to show evidence or proof of the mythical file. But, please don't use the dog eared ' somebody kept it in their cache before the police had it removed' argument.It sounded bad way back when, it won't sound any better today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Searches made of the local section of child abuse investigation shows a registration number 19309 in CATS (system of action location). A consultation with the DC Soand from the department in question confirms that this is just a file reference, but as a complement to Operation Task system for the purpose of reference, if any investigation should be necessary by the department. No work has been done on the basis of this file."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_BACKGROUND.htm


      "A search of the crime location and information system only indicates that Mr McCann was the victim of a theft of golf clubs from inside his car in the drive way to his home on 01/04/2006. Criminal Reference NQ/010145/06-9

      A search of the local section of the child abuse shows a registration number 19309 in the CATS system. A consultation with the DC Soand from the department in question confirms that this is just a file reference, but as a complement to Operation Task system for the purpose of reference, if any investigation should be necessary by the department. No work has been done on the basis of this file."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_BACKGROUND.htm#cr3p27

      Delete
  24. @22:32

    “I would retract that claim if you, or whoever kidded you into buying into it, were to show evidence or proof of the mythical file.”

    Retract or not, it seems you are either pig-shit ignorant or up to no good.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous21 March 2018 at 09:43
      @22:32

      “I would retract that claim if you, or whoever kidded you into buying into it, were to show evidence or proof of the mythical file.”

      ''Retract or not, it seems you are either pig-shit ignorant or up to no good.

      T''

      Or that the CATS discussion is null and void.

      Delete
  25. "Anonymous20 March 2018 at 21:03
    To get back on topic.Why did Gerry McCann have a CATS File?"
    -----------------------------------------

    It is the person who posted that who is pig-shit ignorant and up to no good

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why did Gerry McCann have a CATSfile in the first place,please explain.

      Delete
    2. @ 18:03

      Are you not able to read - the explanation has been given numerous times - everytime someone thinks they are being clever to mention the CATS file. If you are so clever and think it is important maybe you can tell everyone what the contents of the file are?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous21 March 2018 at 18:03
      "why did Gerry McCann have a CATSfile in the first place,please explain."

      Why don't you give your expert explanation?

      Delete
    4. Oh for heavens sake, the CATS nonsense is of no interest to anyone other than those determined to bring in the 'P' word.

      I don't know if it offends Gerry McCann, but it offends me on behalf of those children who have to read that kind of shit about their parents.

      Please take this CATS discussion elsewhere, I find it cruel for cruelties sake, there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest these were anything other than ordinary families, and I don't want this trash on here.

      Delete
    5. Get a grip Cristobell,letting your friend talk about your daughters intimate body parts after he has bathed your daughter is not the behaviour of ordinary people.(Gaspar Statements)

      Delete
    6. Where tf, did that come from 20:40? Someone's interpretation of Mrs Gaspar's statement? One statement (of that nature) in 11 years, and not supported by anything. In Mrs G's defence, I suspect she was caught up in the hysteria that was going on at the time. To accuse people of such heinous crimes on such limited evidence is cruel and unjust.

      Doctors can and do see all the naked bodies they want or don't want, the idea that these medics were getting any sort of sexual kick out of bathing toddlers is ridiculous. This group of middle class professionals, was made up of, mostly 'new men', that is men who have an active part in their kids routines. There is nothing weird about it. And there is nothing sexual about little children having a bath.

      You have taken one tiny bit of 'evidence' and decided not to give David Payne, or Gerry, the benefit of the doubt. That isn't justice, that is hatred. Even in the absence of any evidence to support Mrs. G's statement, you are willing to put 2 + 2 together and make 5. I hope you never get called for jury service.

      Delete
    7. Thank god you are not a police officer.

      Delete
  26. "Your first request was refused and you have already received that response. However, I can confirm that NE84/0053/4 does not match anything we have on record. The second number does exist on our database and relates to the Madeline McCann enquiry. With regards to your second request in relation to the McCann enquiry my response is as follows:

    In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, (the Act), this response represents a Refusal Notice under Section 17(1) of the Act."

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/219193/response/564768/attach/2/5184%2014.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous 22 March at 15:43

    “In the meantime they have their reputations and the personal physical and psychological saftey of their children to consider.”

    Understandable, so do others, but why don’t the McCanns address those responsible for unwanted publicity?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5473303/madeleine-mccanns-parents-celebrate-twins-becoming-teens-with-prayers-for-missing-daughter-wherever-she-is/

    I can think of only two reasons. Either the McCanns are powerless (if so, why?), or the McCanns use their other children in an attempt to launch a charm offensive.

    If you wish to protect your children, you wait till they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to grab the headlines.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Understandable, so do others, but why don’t the McCanns address those responsible for unwanted publicity?''

      Unwanted publicity tends to come via the media. Trolling, slander, threats and other forms of 'freedom of speech' aren't as well regulated if regulated at all.

      ''If you wish to protect your children, you wait till they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to grab the headlines''

      Same answer.

      Delete
    2. @NL 23 March 2018 at 08:43
      Hi NL and others

      Here’s a quotation from The Sun, ref. the link given by NL.
      Kate says about the twins;
      “They have their own friends and they keep busy and they’re really sporty but their only wish is for their big sister to come home. We miss our complete family of five”

      Not only do the McCanns use their twins’ vulnerability as a shield against those who dare question their fairy tale about an abduction and that about Madeleine being alive, but they also project their own anguish and false hopes of finding Madeleine onto their surviving children, who have no memories of Madeleine, and therefore they cannot possibly relate in an emotional way to her as their parents do.

      Yet, Gerry and Kate expect them to long for and miss Madeleine just as much as they claim that they’re doing. In short, if Kate and Gerry are suffering then their children must be suffering as well. If Kate and Gerry miss their “complete family of five” then their two children are indoctrinated and compelled to do that as well, even if they haven’t any memories at all of being in a “complete family of five”.

      What will become of their lives? What will their dreams and wishes be all about and what will make them happy if Madeleine will never ever be found? How can they go on with their lives in a normal way if ”their only wish is for their big sister to come home”

      The McCanns are protecting themselves, but not the integrity and the lives of their twins.

      Delete
    3. 14:44

      "Unwanted publicity tends to come via the media."

      Isn't an Englisman's home his castle?

      Delete
    4. Gerry and Kate have a very strange way of protecting their kids and it is hard not to be cynical about their motives. There was no necessity for example for the trials to be held in public. GA, on behalf of the children, asked for them to be held in camera. Exposing them again to lurid and some quite frightening headlines. The bogus kidnap threat for example.

      I can imagine for a parent, moving on is probably the hardest thing in the world when tragedy strikes, but it is the circle of life, they have to move on, to be fair to the remaining children.

      I shouldn't think any child would want to grow up in the shadow of a missing sibling, how can they compete with a child who has become iconic? I think the idea of waiting for Madeleine's return, is unrealistic, as is the denial of the obvious truth.

      It's too late to keep them out of the 'Madeleine news', that should have been done at the very beginning. I just hope that the parents are being honest with them.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 March 2018 at 20:16

      ''Gerry and Kate have a very strange way of protecting their kids and it is hard not to be cynical about their motives''

      Parents dpon't need a motive to protect their children. It's in their DNA unless there's something biologically amiss in them.

      ''I can imagine for a parent, moving on is probably the hardest thing in the world when tragedy strikes, but it is the circle of life, they have to move on''

      Is that you subtley trying to pronounce the child dead again? The circle of life reference doesn't work unless it is. If and when that ever happenes, maybe then moving on can happen. Their life will never be the same and nor will they. They'd adapt though necessity.

      ''I shouldn't think any child would want to grow up in the shadow of a missing sibling, how can they compete with a child who has become iconic?''

      How can you speak about an innocent child who went missing and hasn't been returned or found as though she was a pop star ? How can you even contemplate the notion of competition. That's a micture of snide and sick.

      ''I just hope that the parents are being honest with them.''

      From what we've read of that aspect of their lives, they are. They've had to explain what happened and how they remember her on birthdays and christmases. That could be viewed as a pretty good balanced way to keep the kids in the loop and tell them more as they mature. But you've commented on that before and decided it was ghoulish. So, for you and your ilk, it's a lose / lose for them( again). hence your thinly veiled dig in your closing line.




      Delete
    6. They would better protect their children by respecting their privacy.

      I said icon, you said pop star. Look up definition of 'icon'.

      Delete
    7. the comparison was clear..the crux of it was your suggestion of competing

      Delete
  28. "Doctors can and do see all the naked bodies they want or don't want, the idea that these medics were getting any sort of sexual kick out of bathing toddlers is ridiculous"

    Are you real?

    Just look at the list of doctors who have been struck off for sexually abusing children.

    Here is just a few examples. I could fill 100 + blogs with such information, but here are just a few examples

    Dr Kampadi Okpa, who worked for the 5 Boroughs Partnership Trust, had been sentenced to a three-year community order after he was convicted of 16 charges at a hearing at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court on April 29.
    He was caught following a police raid on his home, in which a computer and several other electronic devices were seized. Officers discovered 4,310 indecent images of children, 887 of which fell into the most serious category.


    Dr Constantinos Mamais, who had been an ear, nose and throat specialist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, was erased from the register after a hearing of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. In a report, it stated that the tribunal was “satisfied that there is a real risk you may repeat the type of behaviour which led to your conviction, namely the downloading and possession of child sex abuse material”

    Jury finds former children's doctor Michael Salmon guilty of indecently assaulting young girls at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. The father was found guilty at Reading Crown Court today of nine counts of indecent assault and two of rape against six girls aged 12 to 18. He carried out many of his attacks behind a screen in his consulting room while his victim's parents waited, believing he was completing a medical examination.
    Top children’s heart doctor struck off for molesting young boys. Philipp Bonhoeffer, 50, was once highly regarded as the consultant cardiologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London working at the cutting edge of medical advances.


    You really fall into the trap of believing that "respectable" people aren't capable of committing such disgusting acts. Open your eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, I've fallen into the trap of believing that 'respectable' people blah blah, yes, I also doff my cap to my betters, and know my place.

      It's not just that respectable people don't do THAT, no-one does! THAT being take the family and mother in law to a family resort, in order to have freaky sex with the kids. NO-ONE DOES THAT.

      I'm applying common sense. I know some are going out of their way to apply the 'P' word, but it just isn't there. Not because I see the Tapas group as socially superior, but because I remember being that age and having friends with small kids. We were all much relieved when the kids were asleep. You grab 'adult time' whenever you get the opportunity. I fully get their needs, I'm not ashamed to admit there were times I wept 'because I couldn't go out', I couldn't get a babysitter.

      But returning to common sense, accepting ANYone is capable of committing disgusting acts, what are the chances that ANYone would commit those disgusting acts on a family holiday, in a family resort with friends (some they hardly know), their wives/ husbands, mother-in-law? Aren't disgusting acts more of a private, solitary kind of hobby?

      Delete
    2. The idea of the group( or any group) going to a place they don't know to do disgusting things is one of the stupidest theories online. The swinging thing was bordering on hilarious and was reminiscent of a really poor British sit-com.The other idea as forwarded by the Lolita loons is beyond anything logical.It typifies the sheer desperation of some people to reshape jigsaw pieces all day and night then complete a weird looking picture and expecting universal congratulations and a biscuit .

      Delete
  29. Well said, Anonymous at 16.06.

    Paedophiles can be found in all walks of life. It really is blinkered to believe otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Paedophiles can be found in all walks of life, but some professions are more appealing to them than others. In the 1960s for example, when some bright spark thought religious single men would make great male role models for kids in care, the perverts and sadists were queuing up for jobs. Willing and able to use a whip was an advantage.

      The truly determined perverts/psychopaths go into professions where they are working with kids directly. They hide what they are truly up to under a saccharin veil of charity and benevolence, see Jimmy Saville. They want to be seen as 'thinking of the children' and they want to be rewarded for it. If they have a saintly frontage, they can get away with pretty much anything.

      Sadly, I don't think much has changed from the sixties. People with malevolent personalities still find professions where their jobsworth natures can flourish.

      It is not just children who are prey to psychopaths, sadly the care profession attracts more than it's fair share. Literally anyone who is vulnerable, people with learning difficulties, the disabled, the elderly. All are at risk of physical and sexual abuse.

      Personally, I think there are enough advances in pscyhology to weed out the psychopaths who go into care work, or indeed into any position of authority. But unfortunately, psychopaths keep the wheels turning, whether we like it or not they play an integral part in running society.

      But I have waffled. Apologies Barbara, but I was not suggesting it was a class issue. I was referring to the nature of this particular holiday and this particular holiday group.

      Delete
    2. ''It is not just children who are prey to psychopaths, sadly the care profession attracts more than it's fair share.''

      I think you need to understand the difference between a psychopath and a paedophile.A crossover is rare.

      ''Personally, I think there are enough advances in pscyhology to weed out the psychopaths who go into care work,''

      Care to share what they are or may be ? I've seen some personality inventories used for certain positions that are highly successful. But they're used more often than not for positions that value psychosis more than sensitivity. Politics is one example. If you get caught demonstrating empathy or sensitivity in the corridors of power, your days are numbered. Real power and real success has been the domain of the mad. History is the witness.

      Delete
    3. It is so easy to psychologically profile people these days, some can even do it based on facebook likes. Even I can do it on here ;) I have also been psychologically profiled myself, in depth, by two experts, one with offices in Harley Street. I'm officially a good egg, and not a liar :)which is of course a comfort when I get all the abuse hurled at me.

      Politics btw isn't a particularly good example. Jeremy Corbyn, the most successful politician in recent times, oozes empathy and sensitivity.

      As for my need to understand the difference between a psychopath and a paedophile, why don't you explain? You are clearly the expert.

      I just base my opinions on the actual experience of living in a children's home run by psychopaths and paedophiles for 5 years, what do I know eh?

      Delete
    4. ''I just base my opinions on the actual experience of living in a children's home run by psychopaths and paedophiles for 5 years, what do I know eh?''

      You know a lot about THAT experience.

      Delete
  30. So Ros I see you are allowing comments about the twins now - something that you have said is not acceptable on here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:01

      As you undoubtedly know, it's about unwanted publicity.

      Delete
    2. Hi Anonymous23 March 2018 at 19:01

      The McCanns obviously allow comments about their twins in The Sun, at least their own comments. So I thought it was appropriate to say a few words to clarify their situation. If the McCanns had not used their own children to protect themselves, I would never have had a reason to mention anything about them.

      The twins lives would be so much better if their parents could just learn to make a distinction between their own anguish and the normal but often complicated life as teenagers, that their children are about to face. Why cannot anyone tell the McCanns, that their children have the right to a life in their own right.

      Thanks Rosalinda for letting me say that.

      Delete
    3. "If the McCanns had not used their own children to protect themselves, I would never have had a reason to mention anything about them."

      They are a family, Bjorn ...... why don't you go back to 'mentioning' things that you are an expert on, like DNA or the Stockholm Syndrome, rather than the psychology of twins who have tragically lost their older sister.

      Gary (from Jersey)

      Delete
    4. @ Björn23 March 2018 at 20:03

      The Sun article was published on 1 Feb 2018 - why do you feel the need to spew your rubbish opinion now?

      Delete
    5. Hi Bjorn, the world has bent over backwards to avoid saying anything that might be hurtful to the McCanns. The MSM and otherwise sane people dare not suggest Madeleine might be dead, and heaven forbid anyone should criticise the McCanns' parenting. Thus for 11+ years, we have lived in a twilight zone, where reality isn't tolerated, it is quite bizarre.

      There has been a huge backlash against your posts as expected Bjorn, each failing to understand the points you were making, and of course, outraged at your pointing out the 'emperor isn't wearing any clothes'.

      Each outraged post professes that the McCanns are right, dead right, no matter what they do. Which is sad, because it means they are too arrogant or stubborn to consider what they are doing might be wrong.

      They have taken the decision to remain in the public eye, their children haven't had a choice. Adolescence is an excruciatingly difficult time of heightened emotions and sensitivity and the last thing kids want, is to be different. Not a time for their parents to be making quotes on their behalf. It's a shame that no-one has the guts to point out to the parents that what they are doing is wrong. But then again, they have also stood by and said nothing as they blew the Madeleine Fund on getting revenge against Goncalo Amaral.

      Delete
    6. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 March 2018 at 08:26
      Hi
      Thanks for comment.
      Why didn't the McCanns allow the Portuguese PJ to carry on with their investigation in due course, without any external interference?

      Why didn't they, in the first place, have any confidence in the Portuguese police investigators?

      The McCanns were at the beginning not accused of anything at all, so why did they feel the need to immediately defend themselves,unless they expected to be made suspects later into the process of justice.

      Whether the McCanns are innocent or not, their refusal to assume that Madeleine could be dead won't make it easier for the PJ, the SY or whomever tries to solve the case.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous23 March 2018 at 23:29 wrote:The Sun article was published on 1 Feb 2018 - why do you feel the need to spew your rubbish opinion now?

      Since May 2007 its been nothing but rubbish being spewed forth not least from an abduction point.

      Delete
    8. ''Thus for 11+ years, we have lived in a twilight zone, where reality isn't tolerated, it is quite bizarre. ''

      Whereas the internet is reality.

      Here you can create scenes inspired from favourite dramas, movies and books and suggest it could happen so must have happened. You can point to cases in history that have no relation to anything and call it an argument. You can suggest a ton of forensic evidence exists but the police have suppressed or destroyed it. You can make wild allegations of other criminal activities undertaken by chosen targets and call it 'free speech'. You can reason that all of this has taken place due to the targets not being working class.

      Yes..it's nothing like the twighlight zone online. Nothing bizarre here...

      Delete
    9. Björn24 March 2018 at 09:33
      @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 March 2018 at 08:26

      ''Why didn't the McCanns allow the Portuguese PJ to carry on with their investigation in due course, without any external interference?''

      It was the external interference that redirected the investigation, not the parents.

      ''The McCanns were at the beginning not accused of anything at all, so why did they feel the need to immediately defend themselves''

      They didn't. They answered questions and tried to assist the PJ.The lead detective failed to act quickly and close borders or secure the crime scene but chose instead to keep questioning. That is in itself an attack on the parents that implies he wasn't happy with the answers and was prioritising his 'instinct' over the proper procedure. That's were the accusations of incompetence stem from and the need to defend themselves. It led to him being replaced.

      ''Whether the McCanns are innocent or not, their refusal to assume that Madeleine could be dead won't make it easier for the PJ, the SY or whomever tries to solve the case.''

      What refusal ? Where's your source that states they haven't or aren't considering the worst case scenario ?

      Delete
  31. Björn23 March 2018 at 20:03

    ''The twins lives would be so much better if their parents could just learn to make a distinction between their own anguish and the normal but often complicated life as teenagers''

    You should have thought about that before you typed it.What makes you think they can't make that distinction ? They're not even in the same ballpark. They're both educated people and were both teenagers once. In your customary eagerness to try and paint hem as something negative, you've come up with that nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Rosalinda,
    Don't want to be too horrible to the McCanns but I have this to ask:

    When their child was gone how did they behave?

    Well, the mother refused to answer any questions to the police.

    The couple hired lawyers right away. It turned out to be the most feared legal firm in the land.

    The parents printed out posters of their missing child the same night. (Can't blame them for being pro-active).

    They destroyed all their text and mobile phone records.

    They washed their child's favorite soft toy to remove what.
    They didn't bat an eyelid when blood was found in the apartment.
    If the blood wasn't perhaps a "nose bleed" - then why didn't they question that the blood might have come from a previous tenant.

    Likewise they didn't think that body odor traces found in the back of their hire car was unusual as it was most likely "rotten meat". But Hey, it could have come from the previous renters - (never a mention).

    They scoffed at the idea that professional sniffer dogs could detect human dead body odor.

    They apparently researched books to see how compelling DNA evidence is.

    Rejected out of hand the Irish family's sighting of a man carrying a child down by the beach area.

    But...fortunately for the couple they were both doctors and not a couple of council house janitors on a once in a lifetime holiday.

    The ultimate payoff for the couple was what the world found out...
    That it's perfectly natural at times for doctors to have their clothes and belongings smothered with dead body odor. Even 500 miles from the hospital they are working at!
    Any prosecutor would have a seizure trying to refute such gold plated evidence coming from the defense council.
    That is: if the case ever came to trial.
    jc



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JC, as someone said to Trump last week, if you are not guilty why don't you act like it?

      Gerry and Kate are convinced they are acting as if they innocent, while all their actions scream the opposite. Not answering police questions, not returning for a reconstruction, etc, the list goes on. They are practicing the US Fifth Amendent, the right to remain silent, and that nothing should be inferred from their silence. Not sure it applies in the UK, but it works for them nonetheless. Enforcing the 'nothing should be inferred' part is where they hit problems. They can't really stop people from making up their own minds.

      You have inspired me JC, this has turned into a blog :)

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 March 2018 at 10:39

      ''Gerry and Kate are convinced they are acting as if they innocent, while all their actions scream the opposite''

      They're getting on with their life.How is that acting in any way ? Nothing screams anything apart from in your imagination.Are you trying to get to the body maguage thing again ? When did you last see them to 'read' their 'acting' ?

      ''They are practicing the US Fifth Amendent, ''

      No Ros, that's your new love affair with the US garabage online. The equivalent is choosing silence when asked a question. Nobody in either force is asking anything.

      ''They can't really stop people from making up their own minds. ''

      But that isn't worth a thing. The people have repeated the same unfounded nonsense for years now.How's that working out ?They sound mad now.And desperate of course. Should the police make a list of fantasies penned online by them and take them seriously ? Of course not.The only people taking them seriously are the authors of it.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous24 March 2018 at 04:21


      ''Hi Rosalinda,
      Don't want to be too horrible to the McCanns but I have this to ask:
      When their child was gone how did they behave?
      Well, the mother refused to answer any questions to the police.''

      That question and the rference to being questioned by he police can't stand as you are intending them to stand.Unlss of course the PJ were all having a picnic outside the Tapas bar when it happened and pounced on Kate with questions. They behaved like any other parent.Sheer panic. Amaral's contrived Q and A session was later on.

      ''The couple hired lawyers right away. It turned out to be the most feared legal firm in the land.''

      All that needed was a 'once upon a time'

      ''They destroyed all their text and mobile phone records.''

      Which can be retrieved.Murat and malinka did some destrying that night too...

      The refrences ( again) to the dogs etc are so old now they need crutches to make the page.Are you suggesting that all of the policemen of two countries and the forensics department all ignored this 'evidence' ? Or that they are all unfit to carry out their duties or just plainly incompetent ?

      ''They apparently researched books to see how compelling DNA evidence is.''

      If you were inncoent and were being told by a setective that cadaver scent had been detected wouldn't you question the competence of it ? Wouldn't you look to see how mistakes could have been made ?

      ''Rejected out of hand the Irish family's sighting of a man carrying a child down by the beach area.''

      So have the police.

      ''But...fortunately for the couple they were both doctors and not a couple of council house janitors on a once in a lifetime holiday. ''

      Are you saying all criminal behaviour originates from the working classes and council estates and expecting to be taken seriously ?

      ''The ultimate payoff for the couple was what the world found out... ''

      Yes, that no evidence existed to incriminate them. Eleven years now- are the detectives trying to grow some ?

      ''That is: if the case ever came to trial.''

      Nor ever will- why would it.

      Your last post drew a couple of questions. Any reason you won't reply ?

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 March 2018 at 10:39

      Once again you welcome the lies posted on here by jc without a bat of an eyelid because it suits your agenda.

      Not only do you allow the lies - they inspire you!!!!

      Delete
    5. jc announces: "Don't want to be too horrible to the McCanns"

      I believe it is your intention to be "horrible" to the Mccanns every time you comment. It is the only reason that you do pass comment. Everyone apart from Ros can see that.

      Delete
    6. JC isn't lying, he is pointing out uncomfortable truths. This blog isn't subject to the legal constraints the McCanns have over the MSM, nor to the petty rules and regulations of the forums. People are allowed to discuss this case honestly,

      Understandably, you want to confine the bad moves the McCanns have made to history, but they are all intertwined and all relevant to the original crime and the collusion.

      This is an open discussion, the McCanns are welcome to reply, and you are welcome to reply on their behalf. That's why this is not a hate site.

      Delete
    7. "This is an open discussion, the McCanns are welcome to reply, and you are welcome to reply on their behalf."

      When I post, I don't post on behalf of the McCanns, I post because I believe that long-tongued babbling gossip should be held to account.

      Why do you believe that both the Portuguese police and the UK police have made public statements declaring that the McCanns are not suspects? It is not normal procedure. But it is not, as some of you may believe, an orchestrated bluff to put the McCanns at ease so that they will lose focus and make some incriminating error. It was done to try and put an end to the malicious gossip that has been circulating social media since Madeleine's disappearance. The McCanns are not suspects, get over it!

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous24 March 2018 at 20:33

      I agree with every word of that. It's a shame they underestimated the desperation of the online kangaroo mobs. If Madeleine was found safe and well they'd say it was a lookalike or that the McCanns had invested their laundered money in to cloning research.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous at 20:33
      ("The McCanns are not suspects, get over it!")

      Don't worry, stick with current events.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 March 2018 at 18:51

      ''JC isn't lying, he is pointing out uncomfortable truths.''

      No, he's lying . Can he back his claims up - ever ?

      ''This blog isn't subject to the legal constraints the McCanns have over the MSM,''

      The McCanns haven't got legal restraints over anything.They're members of the public. The law has legal constraints over the MSM- you're choosing to say the McCanns have. How does that work ?

      ''People are allowed to discuss this case honestly''

      Very true. Unfortunately they're also allowed to lie and forward any old nonsense they know they couldn't even go close to supporting with anything and qualifying it by the shallow 'it's obvious' attitude. They need to learn the really basic differences between opinion and fact and suspicion.

      ''Understandably, you want to confine the bad moves the McCanns have made to history, but they are all intertwined and all relevant to the original crime and the collusion.''

      Understanably, you don't want to be anchored by the burden of having to actually support your allegations against the McCanns with anything tedious like evidence. Take the 'collusion' for instance...what was it and who was involved and why ? Or are you making it up hoping people will buy into it and circulate it and eventually find it's way to the McCanns ? Why haven't you accused the PJ or SY of standing by and allowing it ?

      ''This is an open discussion, the McCanns are welcome to reply, and you are welcome to reply on their behalf. That's why this is not a hate site.''

      You, and possibly about 4 or 5 others will agree with that.That's not a large number considering how long this blog has stood and how many threads on it trying a variety of ways to garner bad feeling toward the McCanns.You dodge questions, you argue against logic and refuse to entertain reason.The other side of that coin is your fawning over and applauding anyone making wild accusations against the parents which they can't support or anser questions about when asked. Anyone trying to bring balance and common sense is labelled(by you) as part of 'team mccann' or as working for them or knowing them personally. it's partly paranoid, mostly bitter.




      Delete
    11. Anonymous24 March 2018 at 21:00

      ''Don't worry, stick with current events.''

      I think you need to read the posts you're attempting to challenge before you actually challenge them. In this instance, the one you're replying to stated correctly :

      ''both the Portuguese police and the UK police have made public statements declaring that the McCanns are not suspects''

      The article you're providing a link to quotes the high court judge who was summarising after ruling against the McCanns over the publishing of Amaral's theories.

      It is the police who are investigating the crime, not a court or a judge.The police, as pointed out often, have said the parents, as far as the police of two contries are concerend are not persons of interest ; not suspects. They held that status for a day or two years ago.It's years later now. It's important to 'stick with current events' as you say...

      Delete
    12. Judges said the archiving of the criminal case did not equate to the McCanns being cleared of criminal responsibility.

      Delete
    13. 15:52, You seem quite certain this case will never come to trial, and indeed quite smug about it. Have you given up on the whole abductor thing then? Or that they police are even looking for an abductor?

      Delete
    14. 23:16 '....not suspects', 'held that status for a day or two years ago...'. LOL funny, and such a blatant lie, no subtlety there. Eight months actually, and the archiving report didn't clear them.

      Why the constant need to lie? It casts a shadow over everything you write, even if you were to say something truthful, people would doubt it.

      Delete
    15. You've perpetuated the 'not cleared' lie for 11 years.That's only one lie among many.I'm certain the case won't come to trial and have been for years.Simply because of the fact it ceased to be a typical police investigation from the off and the UK criminal politicians wanted it suffocated.Does that mean I've given up on the abductor idea ? Not really.I believe the child was procured. Abduction was the methodology.

      Delete
  33. More and more hate of the Mccanns - now there is no pretence otherwise - you have allowed the scum of the internet to post whatever they want on this blog Ros I hope YOUR children are proud of you.

    Look at yourself before you pass judgement on bennett or anyone who doesn't agree with you. You have lost the plot and have no moral standards whatsoever.

    Your legacy is on the internet forever and cannot be removed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are not within the pages of George Orwell's '1984' 09:32, where truth = hate.

      Myself and others are here because we were drawn in by the McCanns' own publicity machine, and we are still, here because it is as active now as it ever was. And the idea that the McCanns can issue statements to the media via spokesman, pals or whoever, without receiving criticism is absurd. To pronounce that criticism as hatred is just plain barmy.

      I accept full responsibility for everything I say and do, and I accept that my words are my legacy. Especially on the internet where they will be forever, that actually just makes me want to write all the more! I've never felt the need to post anonymously or indeed say anything to anyone that I would not say to their face.

      Delete
    2. Ros 10:36
      "Myself and others are here because we were drawn in by the McCanns' own publicity machine, and we are still, here because it is as active now as it ever was."

      OK Ros - a simple question - how many Mccann reports have been in MSM in the last week?

      You are responsible for everything that you allow to be posted on here - that is your legacy.

      Delete


    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 March 2018 at 10:36

      ''We are not within the pages of George Orwell's '1984' 09:32, where truth = hate. ''

      Correct, we are not.But hate still equals hate and truth still equals truth. Hate speaks for itself and doesn't need analysis. Truth isn't always the same as opinion.

      Delete
  34. 09:32

    The McCann case is on the internet forever and cannot be removed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 11:05

      how observant of you Andrew.

      Delete
    2. Nope not me!

      Not looked in for a while so working backwards reading the comments!

      Regards, Andrew

      Delete
  35. @Anonymous24 March 2018 at 11:05
    Hi, and to whom it may concern

    "The McCann case is on the internet forever and cannot be removed".

    So true, and no authorities can ever prevent anyone from discussing it. Neither can the McCanns, who, in the first place, took the case to MSM and therby also to social media.

    Instead of clarifying all the ambiguities surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine, the McCanns have chosen to use their nuclear family, including Madeleine, as if she were to be found any day soon, and with the sole aim of convincing the world that they’re honest, responsible and caring parents, except, as GM has said, for not being there at the very moment Madeleine was taken.

    However, we all know, that they were in fact neglecting all of their children every night on their holiday in PDL, and that’s what this case is all about. What should therefore be discussed is their responsibility for what happened to Madeleine in PDL, which has nothing to do with how they treat their children today.

    What the McCanns feel about having had a family of five and thereafter just a family of four is of course completely irrelevant to what happened to Madeleine the night she went missing.

    The McCanns have spent huge amounts of money on their own private detectives, without having found the slightest little clue, that could lead somewhere, so how come they’re still so optimistic about what the SY are doing, especially as it’s co-operating with the Portuguese P J, whose qualifications and skills the McCanns have questioned ever since Madeleine went missing.

    As for the Sun, it does not seek justice for Madeleine, but promotes the McCann family, which is quite a different thing.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn24 March 2018 at 16:43

      ''So true, and no authorities can ever prevent anyone from discussing it. Neither can the McCanns, who, in the first place, took the case to MSM and therby also to social media.''

      Another desperate swing. The antis and haters like yourself, have called this the 'crime of the century' . Do you think the MSm wouldn't have covered it unless the McCanns brought it to their attention ? Make some sense.

      ''Instead of clarifying all the ambiguities surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine...the McCanns have chosen to use their nuclear family, including Madeleine, as if she were to be found any day soon, and with the sole aim of convincing the world that they’re honest, ''

      How many officers have been on a salary for eleven years ? They get paid to examine the ambiguities you're trying to sell here. Just because you can't understand something or accept something doesn't make them ambiguous. How have the McCanns 'used' their family ? Can you provide evidence that says they're not honest ? Just because you can't accept they are doesn't mean they aren't.

      ''However, we all know, that they were in fact neglecting all of their children every night on their holiday in PDL, and that’s what this case is all about. ''

      You have a habit of speaking for all of us don't you. You should work on that.The case is all about a missing child.If you think otherwise you shouldn't comment or make endless unfounded allegations.

      ''What the McCanns feel about having had a family of five and thereafter just a family of four is of course completely irrelevant''

      You speak with hatred.Nothing new there.

      ''The McCanns have spent huge amounts of money on their own private detectives, without having found the slightest little clue, that could lead somewhere, so how come they’re still so optimistic ''

      Would you say that's part of them not being interested in finding her then ? How come they're so optimistic ? What's the alternative ? If they're realistic they'll keep that private.They need only utter a single word publicly for the likes of you to get exciited and push it around the internet as more 'proof' of the death.By the way, the police have found nothing either.

      ''Portuguese P J, whose qualifications and skills the McCanns have questioned ever since Madeleine went missing.''

      It's been their competence they've questioned.Eleven years now.

      Delete
    2. One thing that stands out from your lengthy diatribe 18:28, is your last sentence. You state several times that the PJ have announced the McCanns are not suspects, but you end by saying 'it been their competence they've questioned. Eleven years now'.

      If they are not suspects, why are questioning the PJ's competence? Are they competent or not competent when declaring the McCanns not suspects?

      As non suspects aren't they extremely grateful to the PJ as they are to OG? They are after all searching for their daughter and not considering them suspects. Shouldn't that elicit praise rather than criticism?

      You also say if they are realistic (accept that Madeline is no longer alive) they would keep it private so 'the likes of you' wouldn't get excited.......

      That's just plain bizarre, they won't acknowledge anything because of gossip on the internet? You have a real indepth peek behind the scenes there 18:28, it's like you know what is going on in the McCanns minds - you are taking far more liberties than I ever would, lol.

      Are the McCanns so afraid of what is said about them online that they err, practice deceit? Do they think the deceit makes them look better? Would they pretend they think Madeleine is alive in order to appear innocent? That’s quite an allegation you make there 18:28, you are accusing two people who claim to have been honest and transparent throughout of subterfuge, have you overstepped the mark?

      Delete
    3. ''You state several times that the PJ have announced the McCanns are not suspects, but you end by saying 'it been their competence they've questioned. Eleven years now'.''

      You know as well as I do, the McCanns were lambasted online for their 'tweedle dee and tweedle dum' comments and that the PJs failure to seal the crime scene and close borders angered them. The remarks about their incompetence date back to day one.

      ''They are after all searching for their daughter and not considering them suspects. Shouldn't that elicit praise rather than criticism?''

      Have the McCanns not said time and again how grateful they are ?

      '' You also say if they are realistic (accept that Madeline is no longer alive) they would keep it private so 'the likes of you' wouldn't get excited.......
      That's just plain bizarre, they won't acknowledge anything because of gossip on the internet? ''

      My remark was to Bjorn who has a terrible habit of taking a mole hill and creating the Himalayas. By keeping it private i was referring to it being a very private and deeply felt set of emotions.

      ''like you know what is going on in the McCanns minds - you are taking far more liberties than I ever would, lol. ''

      I'm no stranger to the kind of emotions discussed.Not only in my own life but in the lives of many others I've known personally and during various jobs..

      ''Are the McCanns so afraid of what is said about them online that they err, practice deceit''

      No, they practice privacy,as do we all.

      ''Would they pretend they think Madeleine is alive in order to appear innocent? That’s quite an allegation you make there 18:28, you are accusing two people who claim to have been honest and transparent throughout of subterfuge, have you overstepped the mark?''

      The allegation you're referring to is one you just suggested.All i did was point to the need for privacy for certain emotional events.




      Delete
    4. Tis true, the McCanns have never made a secret of their disdain for the Portuguese police, are they all friends now? Have the McCanns co-operated and answered all their questions?

      You have allowed your own experiences to influence your opinions, lol. You are among the first to criticise when I do it, but for you, it's OK.

      I don't think you can say they practice privacy! They have done more TV appearances and given more interviews than any victim we have seen before. They only practice privacy when it suits them.

      Final paragraph, but that's exactly what you were saying! Lol, I'm guessing you did overstep the line, Oops.

      Delete
    5. ''You have allowed your own experiences to influence your opinions, lol. You are among the first to criticise when I do it, but for you, it's OK. ''

      I commented that the accepting of the possibility of your child being dead and the neccessity to move on is a private matter and an emotional matter.I believe most people would agree with that even if they've never had to go though it themselves.It's a common sense / knowledge matter, really.I was trying to explain that it isn't the type of thing you need to make public and that the public's intrusion into such things is in bad taste and tactless at best.

      ''I don't think you can say they practice privacy!''

      Because they've done the rounds to feed the media's audience and sponsors doesn't mean they don't have a privaye life. How many hours of TV interviews and newspaper inteviews exist ? 30 ? There's a lot more hours than that in eleven years.

      ''Final paragraph, but that's exactly what you were saying! Lol, I'm guessing you did overstep the line, Oops.''

      I don't think there's a line dividing the expressing of some common sense specualation and trouble in this context. I'd say so if I thought otherwise. It depends how you view the puzzle. I look at it as a large completed jigsaw picture that anyone could understand.However, if someone removed 95 % of the pieces just before you viewed the 5% remaining, all there is is vast amounts of space. There's no way anyone can complete that puzzle well enough to argue they have the picture.Everyone has a theory or two they favour over others.But the weight of support only provides what is termed in psychology as a false consensus effect.That's exactly why all the years of supposed reasoning or rage amounts to nothinng in real terms or effectivesness. it's become trapped chasing it's tail.

      Delete
  36. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 March 2018 at 18:51
    JC isn't lying, he is pointing out uncomfortable truths."
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Let me repeat for the sake of simplicity - jc posts lies on here.

    You are in denial of that because you are complicit and encourage lies to be posted on here because you consider yourself to be a fearless internet blogger using freedom of speech as a defence.

    Repeating rubbish lies from 10 years ago shows your inability to move forward in life and look at what the position of the case is NOW. Chanting about dogs and blood will lead absolutely no-where because it has been known about for 10 years - don't you think something would have happened by now?

    It must be very comforting for the Mccanns that no-one has come up with anything new in 10 years to point the finger at them with. All the things that jc, bjorn and you keep repeating is OLD NEWS - for God's sake move on.

    But of course you won't move on because you are very comfortable sitting in a dark corner with your mates blabbing rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anon 25 March 2018 at 10:54

      ”It must be very comforting for the McCanns that no-one has come up with anything new in 10 years to point the finger at them with”

      If ”no-one” refers to the SY/Met, I wholeheartedly agree.

      As long as the investigation in practice is in the hands of British authorities, it must be very comforting for the McCanns, because they know that nothing that has to do with their own role in Madeleine's disappearance will ever seriously be reviewed or reassessed, and, as far as I’m concerned, that must be the real reason as to why they’re so grateful towards the SY/Met.

      Years of British detective work, which, as far as we know, essentially has been focused on finding Madeleine alive hasn’t led anywhere. Yet for the McCanns this complete failure has meant “huge”, as they assured Fiona Bruce in their 10th anniversary interview.

      Delete
    2. Hello again anon25 March 2018 at 10:54

      "Repeating rubbish lies from 10 years ago shows your inability to move forward in life and look at what the position of the case is NOW"

      Nothing has changed since the Portuguese PJ shelved the case in 2008. Then there was evidence of the McCanns' involvement, but not enough to prosecute them.

      Despite the case being allegedly open for more than 7 years the Met/SY/PJ haven't found any suspicious persons outside the McCanns,their extended family or their tapas friends.

      I agree that there're a lot of "rubbish lies" in the discussions about the case, but the "old news" about the scent of death, the refusal of the tapas 7 to participate in a reconstruction,Kate's refusal to answer the 48 questions and much more are documented in the pj-files. Had the PJ/Met/SY/Operation Grange found new evidence and new suspects or at least some innocent explanations as to why the McCanns did not co-operate with the Portuguese Police, we would perhaps have forgotten the "old news" by now, but they haven't, so the case is where it was, when it was shelved in 2008.

      The McCanns want the world to forget about the Portuguese investigation between 2007/08.I can assure you, that this is never ever going to happen, as it's so well documented. The McCanns almost never talk about the conclusion that the first Portuguese investigation reached, unless they're explicitly asked specific questions about it.

      No matter how old the truth is, it will last forever.

      Delete
  37. I think that it is really important to understand how people might react under extreme stress/shock. They do not necessarily fall apart and start wailing. Speaking from experience and from that of friends', there tends to be a time-lag between the extreme shock/stress of the event and the emotional ability to process that event - in other words to react in the way that one might expect. To give an example, a friend's husband died very suddenly - literally dropped dead at the age of 45 in the shower. She found him quite quickly. They had young children. I remember going to the funeral several weeks later. I lined up along with other friends to speak to her and her parents at the end of the service - we had all been crying and we all said how sorry we were. I remember, as clear as yesterday (this happened some time ago) my friend, now obviously a widow, looking at us in disbelief as we lined up desperately trying to dry our eyes. Her look said: 'But why are you crying?'. Her cognitive process had not yet caught up with the reality of the situation - after all it was only a few weeks since her husband died. They had been very happily married and had young children.

    I think this might account for why the McCanns and their friends were able to carry on as normal in a week that was anything but normal. For the record, I do not think that the McCanns or their friends were merely victims of unfortunate circumstances. I do believe it is far darker than that unfortunately.

    But nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that something untoward happened that week (apart from a staged/faked abduction that is) and that Dr Amaral is right - Madeleine died. I think the group were able to carry on because of the process I have described above. The grieving happened later - both Kate and Gerry have written as much and I suspect the friends also grieved later on.

    That said, I think the male members of the Tapas group - or perhaps just some of them - are/were members of a group that perhaps was less than savoury?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand what you're aying with regards to your friend. It would seem that denial was set strong in her in he grieving stages. That's understandable when considering that the death was unexpected and he was still young.The mind can lock until you're mentaly and physically ready to face reality. It looks after you.In the case of the McCanns this isn't quite as easily understood. The shock and horror would be as great, if not greater, if there was actual phyiscal unambiguous proof of Madeleine's death.But there isn't.So, until that, she is alive even if we call it only theoretically.Closure would be far easier if everything wasn't invisible.


      The ability of the McCanns and friends following the event can be understood. The parents would have been running on adrenalin. A mixture of shock, panic, fear and the need to remain alert woud have stood them up.The friends were their to unify in the plight. Unfortunately, there are far too many outside observers seeing if they can view this set of dynamics as something they can twist into something different that would make their own personal theories work, ie, to pin blame on the parents being behind the 'death' and the friends colluding in keeping the secret.It's just guessing.It's trying to find things to fit a theory rather than finding facts then coming up with a realistic one based on them.


      If Amaral is right then we'd be waiting for the release of at least one McCann from prison by now.But we aren't because no other detectives are saying what he said and probably acknowledge that no evidence backs him up.For him to be right we need to believe that the blood and DNA was either ignored and destoyed or tampered with.That means we need to believe that the UK police have destroyed evidence and the forensics teams have tampered with it or colluded with SY by staying quiet.Then we'd need to believe that OG was knowingly set up as a sham and that they've known they were being paid for nothing out of public money.Then, if anyone was to ask us why we believe all of this, we;d have to say it's because the Mccanns were from Englands middle class. Really ? Unless the McCanns have a few photographs of Tony Blair, David Cameron and Gordon Brown attending an orgy at a boy scouts hut with assorted pigs heads, it's far too silly to suppose they can wield so much power and influence.And the 'image' problem in England having a couple of doctors banged up is a myth. we know in England, that doctors, judges,policemen,and poloticians are not angels.many are animals.many have been prosecuted. What difference would two doctors make ? No, if you have to believe all of the above, you have to ask why and you have to ask why it was so urgent for top people got involved with it in order to detsroy the case.

      Delete
    2. ''That said, I think the male members of the Tapas group - or perhaps just some of them - are/were members of a group that perhaps was less than savoury?''

      Few questions, if you'd be so kind to answer...

      Which members - names ?


      What 'group' ? What is it called, where do they meet and what are their beliefs ?


      What does less than savoury mean in this contexts ?
      Have you got any evidence you can share with us that identifies the members or group ?


      Do you think photoshop is the oracle.

      Delete