For we onlookers, there appears to be mountains of circumstantial evidence to go to trial, but we are not really au fait with what the police need to go to a prosecution. It is possible that much of what we see could be easily dismissed by a wiley defence lawyer. This is a case without a body, always difficult to prove, but not impossible, which is why I suspect, the police have not given up.
However, this cover up is not confined to a handful of people, and the crime that was committed on the night. This particular web spreads far and wide, even to the heart of the establishment. It does actually warrant a Public Inquiry. There were clear abuses of power. As clever as the McCanns and their team were, they could not have pulled off such a massive and long lasting publicity ‘campaign’ without assistance from above. The personal phone calls from Blair and Brown for example, went a long way towards giving the abduction story credibility. So too the hands on assistance of Jim Gamble and CEOP. With the McCanns being vouched for at those high levels, (almost) all criticism of the abduction story became taboo and illegal in the UK. Illegal in the sense that large news organisations were silenced by the substantive damages they had to pay the parents. Since then, few if any, have dared to question the fact that Madeleine might not have been abducted. To this day, the book of Goncalo Amaral has never been published in England. I believe it was the interference of the UK government that prevented this case from being solved. ‘They’, whoever they ‘they’ might be effectively perverted the course of justice, ie. a serious crime.
The big question is, how far are Operation Grange prepared to go in order to solve this crime? Will they restrict themselves solely to 3rd/4th May or whatever happened thereafter, the actions of the official bodies who interfered, for example? Or indeed, all the characters who flew out to PDL to assist. Who put pressure on the police to go easy on the McCanns and their friends? Who put pressure on the PJ to remove GA from the original investigation? Who gave those orders?
I think however, that the 'government' assistance began to be withdrawn by the end of June/beginning of July. That is according to Clarence Mitchell who told Vanity Fair, they were unable to get a meeting with a high level Minister, but by then the damage was done. Much of the evidence had been lost and the witnesses were allowed to collude in order to get their stories straight, Gerry was allowed to sit behind Kate as she gave her one and only interview.
Those errors or influences at the beginning of the investigation have cost two countries millions, and left this 11 year old case unsolved. What began as a relatively straight forward case of abduction, or staged abduction, quickly turned into a multimillion bestseller, with the government, the police agencies, the charities, the media moguls, the lawyers (a given), the chat show hosts, the child protection army, and last but not least, the spin doctors, all wanted a slice of the action. Who jumped on the bandwagon, and who gave it a push to keep it going?
I think however, that the 'government' assistance began to be withdrawn by the end of June/beginning of July. That is according to Clarence Mitchell who told Vanity Fair, they were unable to get a meeting with a high level Minister, but by then the damage was done. Much of the evidence had been lost and the witnesses were allowed to collude in order to get their stories straight, Gerry was allowed to sit behind Kate as she gave her one and only interview.
Those errors or influences at the beginning of the investigation have cost two countries millions, and left this 11 year old case unsolved. What began as a relatively straight forward case of abduction, or staged abduction, quickly turned into a multimillion bestseller, with the government, the police agencies, the charities, the media moguls, the lawyers (a given), the chat show hosts, the child protection army, and last but not least, the spin doctors, all wanted a slice of the action. Who jumped on the bandwagon, and who gave it a push to keep it going?
''However, this cover up is not confined to a handful of people, and the crime that was committed on the night. This particular web spreads far and wide, even to the heart of the establishment. ''
ReplyDeleteIt only takes one, not even two!
From your blog.
ReplyDelete"The personal phone calls from Blair and Brown for example, went a long way towards giving the abduction story credibility."
Successive PM's won't do the dirty on previous PM's lest some one should do the same to them in the future. They all have skeletons in the cupboard.
For me personally it can't be solved because its lack of evidence that is the stumbling block.
11:46 'Successive PMs wont do the dirty on previous PMs.......' Err, of course they will lol. Do you honestly think Theresa May is going to take the rap for Blair and Brown?
DeleteThe PJ had enough new evidence to re-open their file and OG, following their Review, had enough evidence to open their own investigation. And OG clearly have enough evidence for the Home Office to continue financing them. I don't doubt the will of the police to solve the case.
Blair was succeeded by Brown. labour was succeeded by the Tories.When Cameron was making an embarrassing mess over the Scotland referendum, Blair took to the stage to prop him up, later followed by Brown.That was how Scotland didn't quite achieve independence.They must have laughed the afternoons away shortly after with the Freud's and the rest of the Chipping Norton set. Don't kid yourself the two parties are mutually exclusive. They both work for the bankers.
Deletehe Home Office, in times of austerity, are twisting the knife into the NHS and care for the elderly in the name of saving money.You believe they 'new evdence' the PJ and OG have is persuading them to throw more money at it rather than them just saying OK go make arrests and stop milking us.Beyond naïve.
Ah so if there is not sufficient evidence to support your warped version of events, then it must be a cover-up and conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteTypical of a hate blog.
pj director wants silence in the algarve
ReplyDeleteAlípio Ribeiro already hinted that the elements of the PJ of the Algarve were responsible for the leakage of information, while they denied it. And the exchange of accusations between Lisbon and the Algarve rose in tone until the departure of Gonçalo Amaral.
Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/detalhe/director-da-pj-quer-silencio-no-algarve
"What began as a relatively straight forward case of abduction, or staged abduction, quickly turned into a multimillion bestseller, with the government, the police agencies, the charities, the media moguls, the lawyers (a given), the chat show hosts, the child protection army, and last but not least, the spin doctors, all wanted a slice of the action. Who jumped on the bandwagon, and who gave it a push to keep it going?"
ReplyDeleteYou missed bloggers!
Plus those that comment on such blogs that they don't in reality like to see.
Delete@ 12:53
DeleteUnlike you I don't go to blogs just to post agreement with whatever crap is posted to get "likes" and slaps on the back. In reality I don't like to see lies and unfounded opinion posted as apparent fact. I comment on blogs to point out the errors.
Do you have a problem with that?
You don't have the creativity to come up with something original 15:53, so you criticise those that do. Sounds about right.
Delete@ Ros 16:21
DeleteWhat on Earth is original in this blog?
How do you know what creativity I have and where I post it?
How do I know what creativity you have 18:22? Creative people are too busy creating to go around criticising others. Michaelangelo was on his back painting the Sistine Chapel, not standing around bitching about da Vinci's paintings.
Delete"Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 March 2018 at 16:21
DeleteYou don't have the creativity to come up with something original 15:53, so you criticise those that do. Sounds about right."
I thought this purported to be a factual blog, not a piece of creative writing
This idea that if someone points out an error or a false claim they are somehow obliged to come up with a theory of their own is just total bullshit
Oooh, "purported", isn't that a favourite word of Gerry McCann ?
DeleteLOL, 08:41, your own posts are littered with, 'you have to back up everything you say with evidence'
DeleteNo, no, nowhere do I state this is a factual blog, gawd forbid, I muse 08:41, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone and I am not stalking anyone or dissecting their lives.
I don't stand on ceremony, and I don't look for errors in the posts I receive. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bjorn to ask what you think happened? You ask much, much more of him.
"I think the media side of things, which we, erm, I think a lot of people informed the media straight, erm, sort of fairly quickly, because we know James LANDALE who does BBC News twenty-four, erm, sort of personally, and his wife, and we did ring them. I mean, you know, I think we were asked not, you know, people suggesting that it wouldn't be a good idea to the Press, but, and they may be right, but, as a group, we thought that you need some exposure on this because if you need to get it out there. And that was sort of as much a criticism, erm, it wasn't sort of a criticism of the Portuguese Police, it was just that it felt like the right thing to do and it just seemed like a good idea at the time, you know, to sort of try and get some exposure. And I think we rang up James or his wife, Kath LANDALE, and asked, you know, how we, how you could do that and they gave us a number. And then I think, we hadn't, erm, I think then there was phone contact between Rachael and the desk, saying, you know, do you want to go forward with this, because we, we mentioned it but didn't sort of authorise anybody to sort of to go, because we hadn't spoken to the Police yet, we didn't know what they wanted to do, erm, and how they'd feel about it, so we held it back, but I think there were people within the group and it sort of got out pretty quickly'."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
''For we onlookers, there appears to be mountains of circumstantial evidence to go to trial''
ReplyDeleteSpeak for yourself.
''we are not really au fait with what the police need to go to a prosecution.''
Evidence is usually good.
''However, this cover up is not confined to a handful of people, ''
Strange statement for someone always ready to try and mock conspiracy theorists. Which cover up ? The one that suits your theory or the realsitic one ?
'' It does actually warrant a Public Inquiry. There were clear abuses of power.''
An eleven year failure would suggest those investigating need investigating. If they were party to covering up for their superiors, who will lead the inquiry ? It would be like the David Kelly inquest.
''I believe it was the interference of the UK government that prevented this case from being solved.''
Me too. But you beleive they were horrified by the thought of two middle class doctors being arrested.No expense spared just for that ?It makes more sense to consider that they were protecting somebody important.
''Who put pressure on the PJ to remove GA from the original investigation? Who gave those orders?''
How much of it was a decision made by Amaral to move off it ?
''the evidence had been lost and the witnesses were allowed to collude in order to get their stories straight, Gerry was allowed to sit behind Kate as she gave her one and only interview. ''
Who colluded and in what way ? That sounds more like a suspicious mind and nothing more. Allowing a spouse to be present in the interview is allowed in the circumstances and nature of the crime.They allowed a part time interpreter to question who were suspects and what direction the investigation was going and to browse the files.Isn't that more significant ?
''Who jumped on the bandwagon, and who gave it a push to keep it going? ''
More importantly, who built that bandwagon in the first place. Bandwagons are often created by the media, who are controlled by the government who, in this case, were not prepared to allow it to remain a police matter.And that's why it will remain unsolved. We see 12 million pounds as a huge amount.The millionaires behind it all see it as a sound investment.If Amaral was 'persuaded' to leave after five minutes, how come those who've had 11 years haven't been moved on or fired. Amaral's theory about Miliatry Intelligence is the only one that rings true to me.He is the only officer to go on record about it.And the only one removed.And that's why the McCanns as guilty won't work.It's far too late to discover some magic evidence now.If they did there would be uproar at the time taken and money spent.There should be a team seraching for the case as well as the child.
Let me be clear on conspiracies. Yes, I ridicule the small number of people who let their imaginations run away with them. Textusa with her swinging theory, Bennett, Hall and Hyatt with the 'P' word, etc, but conspiracies unfortunately are all around us. From two people agreeing on a lie to a Government sexing up a supposed threat from a foreign entity in order to start a war. Two people agreeing on a lie btw, is a conspiracy.
DeleteHow much of a decision by Amaral to move off it? You are surely not going to say it was his own choice? Err, he wrote a book remember? Good luck with that one lol.
Who colluded in what way? That I will save for my book, lol. I hold an awful lot back, mostly because I want to stay alive. I'm saving it all for when we exit the Twilight Zone.
You dismiss everything GA says, yet cling onto the one time he mentioned Military Intelligence, not very convincing. What are MI supposed to have done - kidnapped a child? You will have to explain.
Your final paragraph is deliberately obtuse or you are trying to mislead us. Operation Grange isn’t a private, profit making venture for millionaires to invest in, it’s a police investigation! Scotland Yard are not guns for hire by private investors, your suggestion is ludicrous. Unless of course you have something to back it up, which I would love to see.
''Let me be clear on conspiracies. Yes, I ridicule the small number of people who let their imaginations run away with them.''
DeleteFair enough. I do too. But anyone purpoting theories that can't be supported by any evidence is using their imagination too .
''Two people agreeing on a lie btw, is a conspiracy.''
I know. I posted that on a couple of your threads.
''Who colluded in what way? That I will save for my book, lol.''
I appeciate this case has presented many peopl with what they hope will be their day in the sun with a cash injection too. Bad taste never dies. Good luck finding anything that hasn't been done to death already.But, if you're saving things like that for the book, surely you should save the allegations for it too.
''You dismiss everything GA says, yet cling onto the one time he mentioned Military Intelligence, not very convincing.''
Not for you maybe.But to the observers with no agenda other than to make sense of it all it does. His theories of the child being scretly cremated, put down a well then transported in a car to be buried are difficult to believe and have no evidence. The involvement of higher powers from the UK we know happened.Amaral has said he believes they were involved in the disposal of the body ( can you see them sneaking into the church ?) and the covering up of evidence against the parents. He can't let the budding author in him rest. Military Intelligence don't involve themselves in police matters unless they're looking at terrorism or a threat to national security.If this is a missing child case, how would that threaten national security ? It would only alert them if a ransom was for something other than money.
''Operation Grange isn’t a private, profit making venture for millionaires to invest in, your suggestion is ludicrous''
Have all the officers at SY and those who joned in later as OG working for free ? Do a rough calculation of manpower and salaries. The money doesn't belong to the millionaires in the government, it's paid from public money.That's why it's only the public who are outraged and why Theresa May, in her days as Home Sec magically 'found' funding and surprised( allegedly) David Cameron. That went public to placate the tax payers.The sum mentioned then would have long run dry.
'' You are surely not going to say it was his own choice? Err, he wrote a book remember? Good luck with that one lol.''
When Amaral arrived at the scene there as already a shadow hanging over him from the Cipriano case. By 2008 the libel case was looming with the McCanns. By 2009 he was found guilty of falsifying evidence in the Cipriano case bbut was out of the Mccann case spotlight having left the case.His lawyers would have told him and his superiors that he was on a loser in the Cipriano case and a guilty verdict was inevitable.Had he remained on the case, those headlines in 2009 would have been like an explosion fo the PJ.It wuld have suggested all the allegations of their incompetence were justified and the media would have had a party.It would have vindicated the McCanns suspcions about them and supported the need for SY to get involved.You think Amaral didn't anticiapte any of that ? His bosses certainly did. besides, it would have been impossible to concentrate all his efforts on the investigation if he was working on writing, publishing and promoting a book.
If we are to believe OG and the PJ have cleared the Mccanns the same level of scrutiny, or more, must have been applied to the third arguido Murat and his status must also be of innocent victim.
ReplyDeleteBut we still have three of the Mccanns close friends implicating RM as a liar by stating he was outside 5A on May 3 and acting in a very suspicious way.
Two of these Mccanns closest friends made police statements under caution they were 100% certain it was Murat as he came up to them separately and shook them by the hand and said "I am Robert Murat". No mistaken identity or genuine error but a deliberate attempt to implicate another.
So both the PJ and OG know Rachel Oldfield and Fiona Payne have committed calumny/perverted the course of justice.
Why did RO and FP do this and were they acting out of malicious unfounded spite or were they told to do this by certain British interests
How can OG explain this away, they cannot so will kick the problem down the road for another 6 months.
Surely the Mccanns themselves must have asked RO and FP many times why they lied over Murat and in doing so hampered the search for Madeleine.
Surely finding out what happened to M would be more important than staying best friends with Fiona but it would seem not.
Is it merely a coincidence RM became the chief suspect as soon as CEOP arrived in PDL to brief the McCanns and then Fiona Rachel and Russell put the finger firmly on Murat.
You would think the McCanns would have demanded answers from their Tapas friends and CEOP, into the accusing of Robert Murat how strange they never have, it would appear they know the answer to who authorised it.
JJ "Two of these Mccanns closest friends made police statements under caution..."
DeleteReally????
''But we still have three of the Mccanns close friends implicating RM as a liar by stating he was outside 5A on May 3 and acting in a very suspicious way.''
DeleteIn all, how many people in PDL identified him, or somebody who resembled him, that night, and how was it decided that it was a lie ?
''Two of these Mccanns closest friends made police statements under caution they were 100% certain it was Murat as he came up to them separately and shook them by the hand and said "I am Robert Murat". ''
He did that the night they said he was near the apartment ?
''So both the PJ and OG know Rachel Oldfield and Fiona Payne have committed calumny/perverted the course of justice.''
If they knew that they'd arrest them. Why haven't the online army come up with a petition.
''Why did RO and FP do this and were they acting out of malicious unfounded spite or were they told to do this by certain British interests''
If the 'interests' you're referring to are the political wing of the interfeence, they'd have gone the whole hog and made sure he wasn't released without charge twice surely.
''Is it merely a coincidence RM became the chief suspect as soon as CEOP arrived in PDL to brief the McCanns and then Fiona Rachel and Russell put the finger firmly on Murat.''
Sisters Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire say they are 100 per cent sure they saw Robert Murat nearby minutes after Madeleine McCann vanished.They were two holidaymakers with no connection to the McCanns or Tapas group. What could their agenda be ?
''You would think the McCanns would have demanded answers ... it would appear they know the answer to who authorised it.''
If it was authorised or if instructions wee given. Big 'ifs'
Hi JJ, I think the McCanns like to keep their options open with Robert Murat, so I doubt they will ever acknowledge his innocence.
DeleteWhat I find strange about the tapas group saying RM was there on the night, is, if he had JUST stolen a child, wouldn't he have been otherwise occupied?
Regardless, I think it was evil in the extreme to point the finger at an innocent man, especially for such a heinous crime. Had he been incarcerated he probably would have been beaten to a pulp. For CEOP of course, and Bennett, it was all about what he had on his PC. Even though this case was clearly not internet related.
Was there a conspiracy to set up RM? First the anonymous phone call from an 'old friend' saying RM used to torture puppies or whatever, then the tip off from tabloid journo Lori Campbell, who had a lightbulb Soham moment, then the positive ID by Jane Tanner, who later denied it. Hmmm.
Anon 25 March 18.37
DeleteThere are no police statements from Jensen/Wiltshire are there. Just tittle tattle from the Daily Fail.
And you say no connection between Jensen and Kate McCann. You are either having a laugh or completely stupid.
Five minutes research, try it and be enlightened
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 March 2018 at 06:22
Delete''Regardless, I think it was evil in the extreme to point the finger at an innocent man, especially for such a heinous crime''
How do you explainthe two sisters identifying him ? They didn't accuse him of anything apart from being there. They had no ties with anyone else so no agenda. All they did was volunteer the information which might help.It just didn't help Murat.So his mum ( who provided the loose alibi) set up a table nearby to offer the rest of the public somewhere to offer informatiom they might not want to offer the police. There are only two named witnesses that we know of and that's the two sisters.And tey've only been called liars in the newspapers ny one person- Mrs Murat. Strange knee jerk defence that, considering nobody had suggested Murat was up to know good but merely that he was in a particular place.
JJ26 March 2018 at 09:47
Delete'' You are either having a laugh or completely stupid.''
The blogs littered by some severely ill informed nonsense from you JJ. You don't qualify to call anyone stupid. You shouldn't really talk about enlightenment either with your natural disposition being so immature and angry.
So, the sisters lied to help the McCanns and the daily Fail printed it and they didn't object. Does that mean they perverted the course of justice or tried to ? Is it two more for the police to fail to take action against ? So they're now protecting the third arguido. Priceless.
Err, Jane Tanner suggested Robert Murat was the man she saw carrying a child away. That, I think could be defined as 'up to no good'.
DeleteRos I believe operation Grange began with a remit ( regardless of the written version) to use their location to get the remaining evidence required to convict the McCanns and their friends. This case was an embarrassment for the UK, they knew their own government and other agencies including law enforcers had whether wittingly or unwittingly aided them in escaping justice. The bias media had painted them as heroes of the people
ReplyDeleteThe files were released GA had wrote his book. They had no other choice but try and right some of the wrong. Remember at that time we were happy and contented members of the EU family and there would have been repercussions within that relationship also.
Had the events of May 2007 been confined to the tapas crew and a few ex pats and even a misguided PM who thought his image as a new PM would be enhanced by showing concern for the loss of a cute 4 year old ( it worked for Blair with the sad demise of Diana) this case would have been solved in a couple of years max.
I believe that when they started to dig the hole just got bigger and bigger and more and more people were implicated. Quite a few of theseI I believe have the potential when their involvement is known to further damage the reputation of the U.K.
Nonetheless the government ( for it is them who are making the decisions here) to their credit have realised that all their other grand attempts to hide the truth and close down discussions of coverup have failed ( see Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday ) the only way to deal with this is to come clean
What I think is happening now in OG is as close as you are going to get to an inquiry and if you look at the timespan of other enquiries, it really hasn't been too long ......with the shambles that is Brexit the timing of releasing the findings and bringing forward prosecutions needs to be carefully managed but sooner or later they are going to have to replicate the actions of a red eyed humiliated Ozzie cricket captain who had to set aside the position he held and say you know what I'm a fecking cheat now do your worst
Thank you for your interesting post 19:08.
DeleteFor whatever reason, the Madeleine case had all the factors required for a 'Perfect Storm', the right look for the right time. A beautiful, blonde child stolen in the night by dark forces, it was almost the same plotline as DW Griffiths' Birth of Nation. The angelic face of Madeleine stirred up the anger and the outrage of the 'heroes', those willing to fight to protect the angelic child.
The real message 'don't leave toddlers on their own', was lost in the race to get her back from the demons who stole her.
Unfortunately, it has all now run out of steam. Hardly anyone uses the word abduction anymore, and the public are largely indifferent. Any news story now has to compete with the daily antics of the US President, maybe the impeachment will be a good time to bury the truth about this one.
''with the shambles that is Brexit the timing of releasing the findings and bringing forward prosecutions needs to be carefully managed''
DeleteBrexit is a political matter, this is a police investigation into a missing child. Isn't eleven years to release findings and make prosecutions careful timing enough ?
The governement can't come clean unless they are exposed. Why would they ? They've come too far now.They have to keep running. The best result for them is to have this case fade away as another 'mystery'. An you can back that horse with confidence.
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteExcellent report you wrote about the OG investigation and the pressure exerted by the establishment so many years ago to protect this couple. This is hugely powerful stuff.
What foreign government investigating a crime in their own country would dismiss their own chief investigator on the say-so of somebody from the UK?...but it happened. The Portuguese government were obviously terrified of something.
On a slightly different topic I browsed through the web pages of the McCann's "Find Madeleine Fund" and read a all about the abductor who is still apparently on the loose.
The "Fund" is NOT a charity (it states), - and here are its 3 commitments.
To secure the safe return of the child.
To ensure that Madeleine's abductors are brought to trial.
To provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine's family.
I notice two of the six listed directors are Kate and Gerry McCann. Bravo.
Do people still donate after 11 years? it would be interesting to find out? If so, what in the world are these people thinking.
This well orchestrated charade is more and more playing out like a 419 scam.
What a terrible tragedy for a long dead little girl.
jc
''What a terrible tragedy for a long dead little girl.
Deletejc'
I'd like to think you're just being pessimistic or negative.But I don't, I think you have a sick mind.Referring to this as a tragedy isn't cutting the mustard.You're using this to spit your venom and the tragedy of little girl is providing the platform for you.This is free speech is it ? You're an argument for censorship with everything you post. When you've had your enjoyment and dodged the questions you can't answer, how about posting some sources for your drivel.The proof and cause of death will do for starters.Then why the police have lied to us.
you tell us that you found :
Delete''here are its 3 commitments.
1-
To secure the safe return of the child.
2-
To ensure that Madeleine's abductors are brought to trial
3-
To provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine's family''
then you ask :
''what in the world are these people thinking.'' regarding donations.
Allow me.
They're thinking about the safe return of the child, the arrest of whoever took her, and the finances to ensure the McCanns can fund the campaign to do it.
Hope that helps.
@jc26 March 2018 at 05:54
DeleteHi jc, just some thoughts on the McCanns' "Madeleine Fund"
The McCanns have used their fund to hire useless detectives with the obvious intention of distracting attention away from what really happened to Madeleine and to keep the fairy tale about the abduction in the public eye.
Why would an “innocent” couple, who ’ve lost a child under mysterious circumstances, need money to pay an official spokesman, some recognized notorious lawyers and a lot of private detectives, when there’s still an on-going police investigation. Why would they also, in addition to this, need personal FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. To me it’s beyond sense and reason.
I’ve always wondered how the McCanns could anticipate all these needs from the very beginning, one of which was their defence strategy, long before they came under suspicion and even before MSM had published anything negative about them?
It’s just as incomprehensible as Kate’s reason as to why she wrote her book about Madeleine, saying that she wished to give their surviving children an account of the truth, which she then apparently did not expect any police authority to ever find out.
OK Bjorn, here's a quick lesson on corporate governance for you.
DeleteThe company that held and authorised the distribution of the monies from the Fund was managed by a board of, I believe for the first few years, 9 directors (two of which are the McCanns). Approval of all appointments of agents, private detectives, lawyers etc, would have been approved by the board, and the accounts, which have been audited, also approved by them.
If you want to accuse them of misappropriating funds and, as others have, money laundering (in total ignorance of what money laundering really is - the funds actually donated by the public into the Fund would have had to be the results of criminal proceeds for any act of money laundering to have occured!!), then you would have to blame the board, not two individuals on it. There are ways to complain, if you actually believe and have any evidence of your allegations - just go to the FCA website and follow the instructions.
@ bjorn 19:28
Delete"To me it’s beyond sense and reason."
"I’ve always wondered"
"It’s just as incomprehensible"
Yes it's obvious that you are out of your depth in most of your comments. Maybe you should move to some subject that you understand.
@ anon 26 March 2018 at 21:19
Delete''if you actually believe and have any evidence of your allegations - just go to the FCA website and follow the instructions. ''
How dare you suggest that Bjorn should back up a claim against the parents with actual evidence. Then again, where the money laundering claims are concerned ( lol), I can't prove the McCanns are part of an international drug cartel.On the other hand, can anyone prove they aren't.It doesn't mean they're cleared of it.
21:19
DeleteI am not Bjorn, but could you also explain why Michael Linett is still mentioned as director of Madeleine's Fund. He died on August 4, 2017.
Björn26 March 2018 at 19:28
Delete''Why would an “innocent” couple, who ’ve lost a child under mysterious circumstances, need money to pay an official spokesman, some recognized notorious lawyers and a lot of private detectives, when there’s still an on-going police investigation. Why would they also, in addition to this, need personal FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. To me it’s beyond sense and reason.''
Let's be honest, Bjorn, anything that is explained to you but doesn't incriminate the two strangers you've decided to hate is 'beyond sense and reason'.
Why aren't you asking why Mitchell would, at short notice , jump out of a well paid and easy, comfortable job at Whitehall where he has served the two major political parties over the years, and take up a job speaking for the parents and co-ordinating press releases just( coincidentally) after the UK PMs had been informed of what happened in PDL.
''I’ve always wondered how the McCanns could anticipate all these needs from the very beginning,''
Haven't you 'always wondered' how the PM support anticipated that the investigation was going to go on for such a long time ? So well anticipated that a Whitehall employee was prepared to leave his position despite the statistical evidence suggesting such cases ( missing or abducted persons) are resolved in weeks. But this was set up with supreme confidence that that wasn't going to be the case here. To have that much confidence and to make such a heavy financial wager on it, you would need some extremely strong inside information.
''It’s just as incomprehensible as Kate’s reason as to why she wrote her book about Madeleine, saying that she wished to give their surviving children an account of the truth, which she then apparently did not expect any police authority to ever find out.''
The truth about how that final night went. They went to dinner, came back to the apartment, Madeleine wasn't there. Any other detail would be a sort of journal for personal use to the twins.They would read it as that as they aren't scrutinising it like a bloodhound for Freudian slips that point to their parents being criminals.
You have ruffled a lot of feathers Bjorn, lol, the Fund must be highly sensitive.
DeleteI'm curious as to why Clarence Mitchell is now the bad guy, and why they are asking the same questions we were asking years ago. Except it wasn't just Clarence who gave up his job, it was also brother John. How did he know it was going to go on for so long?
The Fund was indeed a phenomenon, it had no target or limit, how many millions did the parents need? And where did the millions go?
Going back to my original question, how far will Operation Grange go? Will they investigate the Fund? Will they investigate the private detectives hired by the McCanns?
You can kind of see why it is all taking so long.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 March 2018 at 00:07
Delete''You have ruffled a lot of feathers Bjorn, lol, the Fund must be highly sensitive.''
Bjorn ruffles feather with his trademark, predictable hatred and lack of logic.Nothing more.
Why 'must' the fund be sensitive ?That's your suspicious mind again.You can't even take the trouble of trying to provide any logic, you just have a need to cast aspersions. Do you seriously, hand on heart,believe OG are examining the fund ? For one thing, as small a detail as it may be, OG are not auditors or the fraud squad. Any discrepancies or suspicions would have been their remit to examine and they wouldn't need years, they'd need a week or two. OG were brought to a missing person case.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 March 2018 at 00:07
Delete"You have ruffled a lot of feathers Bjorn, lol, the Fund must be highly sensitive."
------------------------------------------
I contributed to the fund and I have no problems with how the fund has been managed and used.
The fund is not a sensitive matter to me.
People who have no understanding of the fund or why it was set up but just want to criticise anything Mccann related (e.g. bjorn, jc, Ros) are the problem.
Going back to your original question(s) the answer is no and no.
Hi Anon26 March 2018 at 21:19
DeleteThe Portuguese PJ begged and asked the McCanns to co-operate in their investigation.However, they didn't and WE all know that so well. So whatever the pupose by setting up a fund might have been, it certainly wasn't to assist the on-going investigation.
9 July 2007
Delete'Brian Kennedy, Madeleine's great-uncle, told the Mercury: "The fund has gone up quite a bit in recent days.
"We are now beginning to pay out and there are some fairly large bills for expenses, such as legal fees for the lawyers who have been involved since the beginning."'
@Björn27 March 2018 at 10:07
Delete''The Portuguese PJ begged and asked the McCanns to co-operate in their investigation.However, they didn't and WE all know that so well.''
The PJ begged. Oh, what heroes and aren't those McCanns terrible. Bjorn's in the house...
Bjorn..stressing the 'we' is childish. You've been told more than once that you don't speak for anyone but yourself. Do you want that adjective attributed to you along with hateful, spiteful and wrong ?If you speak for anyone else but yourself, it can only be those who think evidence isn't important but making up stories to imagine as what happened in PDL does.Every post you make lacks evidence or rationale yet you talk as though they're facts. They aren't. They're guesses and opinions that all point in the same direction.It doesn't matter how many times the faults or flaws in your posts are explained to you or how many links are provided, you carry on and ignore any questions you'd rather not consider.But, you have the same targets as the host of the blog and there's nothing you can say wrong in her eyes...
'' whatever the pupose by setting up a fund might have been, it certainly wasn't to assist the on-going investigation.''
The police receive a salary to do their job. as for 'whatever the reason' question...
The fund is called ' Find Madeleine McCann'.
( the clue is in the title)
* this ' let's get them on the money' strategy is a measure of how little else there is for anything else. Hate rises to new levels.
Dear Unknown27 March 2018 at 09:38
DeleteMay I just ask you a simple question. If you'd lost your child under mysterious circumstances, and if you were not accused of being implicated in a crime, would you then employ a lawyer or a team of lawyers as the McCanns did?
I don't think you would and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't waste your precious time to go all way to the Vatican to search for your child. No sane parent would.
@bjorn 17:27
DeleteI have never been in the position that the Mccanns were (and still are) in. I cannot answer the question because I have no idea how I would react - just as you have no idea how you would react.
Don't forget - Amaral thought the Mccanns were involved in something even before he had had breakfast the next day.
You call the Mccanns insane. I will not tell you what I call you.
Hi Unknown27 March 2018 at 21:37
DeleteThanks a lot for not calling me insane. Much appreciated.
Anonymous 25 March at 18:37
ReplyDelete“Sisters Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire say they are 100 per cent sure they saw Robert Murat nearby minutes after Madeleine McCann vanished.”
Minutes after MM vanished?
Rachael Oldfield said she saw Murat at about 23:30 between apartment 5B and 5D. Also, Fiona Payne said she saw him around midnight.
Rosalinda at 06:22
“What I find strange about the tapas group saying RM was there on the night, is, if he had JUST stolen a child, wouldn't he have been otherwise occupied?”
Indeed. That’s why I don’t believe RM had “just stolen a child”, and therefore he could have been there where RO and FP said he was.
NL
Hi NL 26 March 2018 at 08:43
DeleteIf RM was at the place where three of the McCanns' friends say that he was, isn't really that important. What matters, at least to me, is that they, just like Kate, as her diary witnesses about, did their best to frame RM. I also suspect that the McCanns, through their private detectives, used Jensen/Wiltshire for the very same reason.
MailOnline
By FIONA BARTON, DAN NEWLING and VANESSA ALLENLast updated at 15:55 31 December 2007
Re: Annie Wiltshire and her sister Jayne Jensen
“The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter”
What’s the McCanns’ role in this mess? Have these witness statements been filed with the Portuguese PJs investigation (I cannot find it in the pj files) or was it just an internal discussion between the Met, Metodo 3 and the McCanns?
Did Jensen/Wiltshire, or any of them, know the McCanns or any of their friends before they gave their witness statements? Did the Portuguese ignore what they tried to tell them initially? If so, why would they?
Did these women then contact Metodo 3 or was it the other way ’round? IMO this could be a part of the McCanns’ hoax to mislead the Portuguese investigation. The PJ couldn’t possibly have wished to be “supported” by the McCanns’ detectives in this way.
Björn27 March 2018 at 17:08
Delete'' What matters, at least to me, is that they, just like Kate, as her diary witnesses about, did their best to frame RM''
Why did the PJ consider Murat's behaviour so suspicious in the station when he was over stepping his remit as translator by asking where they were looking and trying to read their notes ? So suspicious that they were determined to catch him and made him a suspect twice as many times as the parents ? If we're creating sub texts and filling in spaces ourselves then you could come up with a load of factors that make Murat look suspicious to say the least. put it this way, you wouldn't need to freeze frame his body language and interpret his embedded confessions. His alibi was his mother. Yep, that's solid.
''Did Jensen/Wiltshire, or any of them, know the McCanns or any of their friends before they gave their witness statements?''
The news was out and panic was everywhere and the police wanted the public to step up. They stepped up. Just because they didn't say they saw GM running around parading his child's body doesn't mean they had an agenda.They were happy to have their names and what they saw printed in the media. Remember, they never stated that they saw anyone acting suspiciously or doing anything. All they said is who they believed they had seen.So why attack them, accuse them or try to cast a shadow of doubt over them ? Because they didn't describe GM or a tapas member ?
Hi Anon 27 March 2018 at 19:27,
Deleteand thanks for comment.
As for the Jensen/Wiltshire witness statements, I wasn't really accusing them for making things up, but I was just suggesting, that they may have been used by this Metodo 3, who could have twisted what these women had said that they'd seen and then provided the Leicestershire Police with false information.
Not for a second do I believe that the so called Metodo 3 detectives' agenda had anything to do with serious truth seeking.
Björn (17:08)
DeletePerhaps the following might be of interest.
From statement Neil Berry who previously made two statements (missing pages?) to the police with relation to his holidays in Portugal in April and in May 2007:
“At about 16.00 we were at the swimming pool bar within the complex. It was at this time that we had a few drinks with Raj Balu, Jayne Jensen and Anne Wiltshire, as I testified in my statement of 8th January 2008. My family returned to the apartment at about 17.00 and the four of us remained at the pool bar. I must have stayed there for another half an hour before joining my family in the apartment. When I left Jensen and Wiltshire remained at the bar. I do not remember whether Raj left with me or whether he stayed at the bar. From there I returned to my apartment and to my family.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
Mrs Jensen and her sister were in the same daily tennis coaching group as Gerry McCann.
I doubt JJ and AW wanted to frame Murat. According to the Daily Mail the sisters said they were struck by the behaviour of two blond men on the balcony of a groundfloor apartment which had been unoccupied all week. 5C?
After the sisters e-mailed Clarence Mitchell they were contacted by Leicestershire police and a spokesman for the McCanns said: "We remain extremely grateful to Annie and Jayne for making the efforts they have to get their information to us.”
Clarence Mitchell in an "exclusive interview" in the Daily Mail?
NL
NL 27 March 2018 at 21:26
DeleteThanks for info.
So, we may then conclude that the Jensen/Wiltshire knew Gerry. At least they must, at some time have talked to him and they certainly knew who he was, before they gave their statement. Interesting.
As for Neil Berry's and Raj Balu's first witness statements, I still don't understand why they're kept secret from the general public. I'd be pleased to hear an explanation from the Portuguese/British authorities.
Björn27 March 2018 at 22:03
Delete"I'd be pleased to hear an explanation from the Portuguese/British authorities."
-----------------------------
I am sure if you write to them they will be happy to oblige,
Bjorn
Delete''Not for a second do I believe that the so called Metodo 3 detectives' agenda had anything to do with serious truth seeking.''
So, in your expert opinion, what do you believe and why ?
"As for Neil Berry's and Raj Balu's first witness statements, I still don't understand why they're kept secret from the general public. I'd be pleased to hear an explanation from the Portuguese/British authorities."
DeleteThis is all covered in the PJ files. Perhaps you should read them?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
DeleteDocuments missing from the DVD.
Statements from UK holiday makers:
Stephen Carpenter
Rajinder Balu
Neil Berry
Carolyn Carpenter
Carole Tranmer
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - 25 March 2018 at 19:08 wrote "Ros I believe Operation Grange began with a remit (regardless of the written version) to use their location to get the remaining evidence required to convict the McCanns and their friends".
Excuse me, on what grounds apart from blind faith in the honesty of senior British police officers do you have for believing that? We began from the get-go with the British police and security services, CEOP, MI5, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all from the British intelligence services swarming all over this case like angry bees - and so poor old Goncalo was 'stung' - incapacitated in fact.
Now we have had Operation Grange in action for v nearly 7 years - and - zilch! Anyone who thinks they are about to arrest & charge the McCanns with hiding a body must be a permanent resident in Cloud Cuckoo land!
As for referring to 'what happened on the night', evidence just piles up that whatever happened to poor Maddie happened much earlier in the week. I think on another thread Ros you queried what could be gleaned from a photograph.
I would say 'rather a lot'. A photo taken four days earlier on the only sunny warm day of the holiday and then not one more - from a camera-happy family always taking pics and videos? No way. And then changing the date and time stamp to make it looks as though it was taken on Thursday?
The facts are there if only people would go by the evidence.
Anonymous26 March 2018 at 18:10
Delete''Excuse me, on what grounds apart from blind faith in the honesty of senior British police officers do you have for believing that? ''
You fell into the trap there, anon. Remember what the blogs primary aim is. The disclaimer used by the poster was '' i believe''. That's the blog equivalent of ' i have a mountain of evidence'.
''Now we have had Operation Grange in action for v nearly 7 years - and - zilch! Anyone who thinks they are about to arrest & charge the McCanns with hiding a body must be a permanent resident in Cloud Cuckoo land!''
See above comments :)
''The facts are there if only people would go by the evidence. ''
Unfortunately facts don't become facts without evidence.Theories can say anything at all and have been for eleven years. The photograph angle ? Who knows. Have the online detectives found evidence of a hidden date? Or are they guessing. What method did they use that Scotland yard's finest haven't heard of. Or have they heard of it and had to destroy evidence.Why would they do that ?
"As for referring to 'what happened on the night', evidence just piles up that whatever happened to poor Maddie happened much earlier in the week"
DeleteThere is no such ''evidence'' whatsoever. You have simply allowed yourself to be taken in by an utter con artist.
Ros says at 06:51
ReplyDelete"For whatever reason, the Madeleine case had all the factors required for a 'Perfect Storm', the right look for the right time. A beautiful, blonde child stolen in the night by dark forces, it was almost the same plotline as DW Griffiths' Birth of Nation. The angelic face of Madeleine stirred up the anger and the outrage of the 'heroes', those willing to fight to protect the angelic child."
-----------------------------------------
A quote :
"DW Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is infamous now on many levels, rarely screened publicly, and has been consistently subject to picketing and boycotts since the moment it emerged. Structurally, it is a racist tract, pure and simple.
Griffith made the film as a work of propaganda, to reassure white Americans of their racial primacy, make reconstruction out to be a social catastrophe, and stoke up hatred against black folk more than 50 years after the end of the American Civil War.
And yet, unignorably, it’s also a vicious parade of heinous historical untruths, which makes the Ku Klux Klan out to be glorious saviours, and every dark-skinned man in America to be slavering, subhuman, brutish and sexually predatory – a terrifying menace to the decent white ladies of the South."
-------------------------------------
???????????????? Ros?????????????
Unknown I have never aquinted myself with a birth of a nation and given the bulb that you provided on it, it is unlikely that I ever will. However having said that replace "DW Griffins" with the British media " white Americans" with British people," black folk"and "every dark skin man in America" with the portuguise people and The ku klux klan with Gerry and Kate and you have summed the case of missing Madeline McCann to a tee
DeleteOr change everything completely and you sum it up to a tee.
DeleteI often cite Birth of a Nation, because real cinema buffs will know that it was masterpiece. And no, I am not talking about the racism, but the way in which it used cinematography to convey (bad) messages. It inspired many directors and producers who used the Mexican borders to escape the censors and the patent police of Thomas Edison.
DeleteThe Birth of the Nation was the Birth of Cinema, the world would never be quite the same again.
DW Griffiths is rightly condemned for the hateful messages he was putting out, but it is impossible to deny his genius. My own hero Charlie Chaplin was great friends with him, they were among the founders of United Artists. Politically Chaplin was his polar opposite, his messages highlighted poverty and injustice.
But back to why I used it. The film begins with a young blond girl being stolen from her bed by dark forces. Madeleine, little blond girl, was stolen from her bed by dark forces. And that is where the comparison ends.
The image of a blonde girl being stolen, is enough to stir up heightened emotion, anger and a desire for revenge. It brings out the protective instincts in all of us. Griffiths wanted to 'grab' his audience with a nightmare scenario that would make them think their own children were in constant danger. He wanted to evoke outrage.
'Child stolen from bed' is the stuff of nightmares. We all work so hard to keep our children safe, and they are never safer than when tucked in bed and asleep.
Madeleine's disappearance rocked our worlds. It told us we aren't doing enough, there are predators out there, things can happen to them that are beyond our control. It upset the paradigm.
Like the girl stolen in Birth of a Nation, the disappearance of Madeleine brought out all the 'heroes', those touched by her tender age and angelic face. And maybe some of those heroes had sinister motives.
Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine "McCann will be given more funding for the search.
ReplyDeleteThe Home Office has confirmed that the application from the Metropolitan Police for more money to keep the probe, called Operation Grange, going will be granted."
That should keep you going for a while Ros.
@Unknown26 March 2018 at 22:43
DeleteHello again
"Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine "McCann will be given more funding for the search"
British detectives haven't the faintest idea about Madeleine’s whereabouts, whether she’s dead or alive, let alone who's taken her. So if any kind of physical search really is going on, it must be completely at random and also very sloppy.
Just a personal question if you don’t mind. Suppose you had a say on this preposterous, meaningless and fruitless search for Madeleine alive, which has kept Operation Grange going for more than 7 years, where would you advise the OG to search? Among gypsies in Bulgaria perhaps, among Cliff Richard’s friends in Barbados or at the official residence of the pope in Vatican City?
Taking so much interest in the case as you do, I assume that you have at least some vague idea about where Madeleine should be looked for. My personal view, as you may know by now, is that Madeleine is buried not too far away from where she vanished.
Probably Scandanavia
Delete19:21
DeleteYou mean Scandinavia? You should look a little closer to home. False sightings are outmoded by the way.
@ Björn28 March 2018 at 14:53
DeleteThe "search" is the search for a solution to the case of missing Madeleine - it does not necessarily mean a physical search. I will leave it to OG and trust their expertise in the matter.
Yes I take an interest in the case but from a completely different point of view to you. I have no idea where Madeleine may be so it is pointless for me to make have a "vague idea".
You believe "that Madeleine is buried not too far away from where she vanished." Maybe with your experience in locating dead and buried children you could specify just how near "near" is. Is it 1km, 5km, 10km, 50km, 100km, 1000km etc. "Near" doesn't really cut the mustard does it?
Oh whilst you're at it please tell me who dug the hole, with what tools, and how deep she is buried?
You remind me of the sarcastic priest in Father Ted 20:45, devoid of humour and charisma. He got his comeuppance in a laundry basket filled with Father Jack's underpants iirc.
DeleteIt is logical to assume that Madeleine was buried nearby, it's where Scotland Yard were digging! And besides, when she went missing they didn't have a car, unless you think she moved?
As for asking Bjorn for the finer details, it's like you are begging him to libel Gerry and Kate, but that is a tactic you often use, fortunately we all know how to dance around you, lol.
@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2018 at 21:09
DeleteAmaral believes that the Mccanns transported a frozen dead Madeleine in the hire car - or did you miss his comment about what experts think of defrosting fluid dripping onto the pavement?
It do not beg anything from bjorn - unless you are ignoring it he asks me questions which I answer. I believe I have the right to ask him questions too. I have no need to beg bjorn to libel (oh it's "Gerry and Kate" now) the Mccanns - he does it himself without any prompting in every comment that he makes.
So with your logical assumption Ros - you tell me - what does "nearby" mean?
This further funding stops all FOI requests. "We cannot comment on an ongoing case and other bullshit".
ReplyDeleteIn October it will repeat, what other choice is there for OG?
Hundreds of exploited and abused children in Rotherham, Oxford, Derby, Rochdale, Telford, Peterborough and CEOP not in sight.
But a single child goes missing in Portugal and CEOP senior police officers are there within 48 hours, offering every assistance to the Mccanns, even though CEOP had no permission
or jurisdiction whatsoever to be there. CEOP was breaking the law in the UK and in Portugal.
When OG resolve to investigate this unlawful activity they will solve the mystery. But the politics will not allow this so the farce will go on and on.
You will not see British Police Officers arresting British Police Officers therefore the case will never move forward except for the taxpayer funding the farce again in Oct.
They will continue to fund OG for many years to come,otherwise if they closed the case the Portuguese would be able to act.
DeleteIt is a TOTAL WHITEWASH
Why can't they act now if they have something to act on ?
DeleteHI there, Anon 28 March 2018 at 09:11
Delete"if they closed the case the Portuguese would be able to act"
I'm sad to say, that you may in fact be quite right,hence the Mccanns queer gratitude towards the OG, though they haven't done anything in terms of visible progress.
The apparent determination ( years of looking) to find their child is cause for gratitude. It's good manners. Do they not allow that in Sweden ?
Delete@Anonymous28 March 2018 at 18:42
DeleteHello
Yes, years of looking for a child who isn't findable, at least not alive, instead of taking the whole case back to the place of the crime and start all over again and do what the PJ, due to the pressure British authorities exerted on them, never was allowed to do,that is to go on investigating the McCanns and their friends.
No, I really don't think Swedish authorities would look physically for an abducted child, unless there were evidence that he/she had been abducted.
Hi JJ, I must say this case, like Celine Dion's heart, does seem to go on and on. I'm actually starting to have a few doubts myself, this must be a world record as far as police investigations go!
DeleteFor that reason alone, I don't think it can end in a damp squid. All those police detectives will have a huge gap in their CVs, or an honest, wasted 7+ years on a case that went nowhere.
I actually think SY are bound by Portuguese Judicial Secrecy, they of course are the lead in this case so it would make sense.
Apart from that, both you and I know JJ, that nothing but the truth will fit. It is indeed like the jigsaw puzzle Gerry and Kate often refer to, the wrong pieces just won't lie flat.
I was going to say this case can't go on forever, but even I see the futility in that argument, lol. Logically, however, it must end at some point. Each time the question of further costs being required, it is thrown out to the audience, they want to know what the public think. Can they get away with another £150k without questions being asked, maybe.
But that is rather cynical, and possibly a tad unfair on the officers. In their favour, and more likely, they have not given up on Madeleine, if they had, I think it would have been shelved many years ago. It may not even have been opened as a British investigation - why stir up a possible nest of hornets if the intention was to bury the case?
'They', whoever they might be, judicial secrecy I suspect, have certainly kept a lid on whatever it is they are doing. And the British media it would seem, are following some sort of protocol.
For example, if a tenacious journalist really wanted to uncover exactly what went on, and were sponsored by, say Rupert Murdoch or Richard Desmond, for example, the truth could probably be uncovered. That RM or RD haven't gone to that trouble, there must be a reason.
Most journalists steer clear, or back off, I suspect, because they don't want to 1)get sued by the McCanns and 2)they don't want to screw up any possible trial. The McCanns have made a lot of powerful enemies, people who know that justice will run it's course, and that for them, may be worth the huge sums they had to pay out.
Squib.
DeleteThe expression is "damp squib"
I don't remember the parents of April Jones starting a fund for legal fees when she went missing nor Ben Needham's parents or numerous other parents with missing children so why did the McCanns think they needed a fund for lawyers unless it was to protect their backsides with every eventually which could occur, which they seem to have done.
ReplyDeleteIf there was no abduction and they raked in £millions, not only from the general public but also payouts from numerous newspapers then the fund will be fraudulent, so what has happened to all those £millions? They said from the start that their accounts would be open and transparent but they've been anything but that, they've given the least detail they could possibly give in the past few years.
If you were made a suspect in the alleged death or burying of your child by a detective who was determined to pin it to you without evidence, would you get a legal representative ? If not, why not?
DeleteIf you were aware that that detective had been removed from the case but was spreading the same unfounded, unsupported allegations and insinuations in a book and online, would you pursue legal avenues to try and get it stopped ? If not, why not ?
The fund is open and transparent should the tax man, fraud squad, or auditors want to inspect. It doesn't mean they need to, or have to, publish it online for hundreds of amateur sleuths begging for a crumb to make a meal of.
@ anon 16:53
DeleteWho are you accusing of being frauds?
Anonymous at 19:13
DeleteWhy have lawyers been involved since the beginning?
Good questions 16:53, and yet more reason for people to doubt the McCanns innocence. Victims of crime don't need to lawyer up straight away, and as you say, why did they feel they needed them?
DeleteThe McCanns employed lawyers from the very beginning 19:13 - long before they were made suspects.
DeleteAs for suing the detective, well this is the first time I have read about a detective being sued, well apart from the one in the Jonbenet case, so the answer to your question (to Bjorn), it doesn't seem like anyone would.
And has it worked? The McCanns actually left it a year before suing GA, allowing the royalties to accumulate. Why did they not try to stop it straight away? As soon as it was released and before it caused any 'damage'.
Gerry and Kate promised transparency, ergo they have not kept their promise with regard to the Fund.
ReplyDeleteReply
@ JJ27 March 2018 at 13:49
You won't see any police officers arresting any police officers. If the law was broken, why haven't OG spotted it ? If you can, they could. So, clearly, it hasn't been broken. It would take orders from above to bypass laws due to something involved in this particular crime. We haven't been made aware of those circumstances. that too is probably covered by the 'we can't comment' line.
This set of circumstances that allowed political power to move things around is one of two significant red flags that mark this as more than a missing person / dead child case. The other is the willingness to use money to blow oxygen into it to keep it alive. Neither of these were involved in any of the other cases of missing children as mentioned. So, what was / is different about this case ? Political fear .
Anonymous 26 March 2018 at 22:14 wrote: "Theories can say anything at all and have been for eleven years. The photograph angle? Who knows. Have the online detectives found evidence of a hidden date? Or are they guessing. What method did they use that Scotland yard's finest haven't heard of. Or have they heard of it and had to destroy evidence. Why would they do that?”
ReplyDeleteI think their arguments are well known. The absolute plain fact is that the Pool Photo aka the Last Photo was taken on a bright, sunny warm day. The very short shadows also prove that it was taken at mid-day i.e. when the sun was around its highest.
Now, no other day matches that, it was mostly cloudy and cool the other days. The weather records from several weather stations and a local Praia da Luz meteorologist consulted by 'PeterMac' all confirm that the weather on Thursday was cloudy until about 5pm. This set of facts alone is sufficient proof that the Pool Photo was taken Sunday. Scotland Yard knows this and so should everyone if they looked at the evidence.
But beyond that, we have the remarkable fact that there isn't one single photograph of Madeleine that can be shown to have been taken after Sunday. The tennis ball photo hardly counts as I think two people claim to have taken it on three different days. And this from a couple who are clicking their cameras and camcorders all the time, as we see from all the photos and footage that have been carefully released over the years.
Look, you can call HideHo, Hall, 'PeterMac', Bennett, CMOMM, Havern, ‘Verdi’, and all the others who go with death on Sunday or Monday, 'crazies', 'loonies', 'charlatans', 'fools', 'conspiracy nuts', whatever you want. But until anyone convincingly refutes their evidence with better evidence, I must tell you that these guys are ahead of the game.
And don't tell me that Scotland Yard is unaware of the above facts.
''I think their arguments are well known. The absolute plain fact is that ...''
Delete(etc)
The evidence in the form of absolute plain facts and the obvious just keeps pilig up doesn't it(online). The Richard Hall photo / wether analysis apart, how dos it conform a different day for an abduction.Or whatever you and the antis are dreaming up happened to the child next.
''But beyond that, we have the remarkable fact that there isn't one single photograph of Madeleine that can be shown to have been taken after Sunday''
Which equals vanishing child ? OK...
''But until anyone convincingly refutes their evidence with better evidence, I must tell you that these guys are ahead of the game.''
If only it was a game. Is Colonel Mustard in their gang too ?
''And don't tell me that Scotland Yard is unaware of the above facts.''
OK, I won't. I'll just repeat the original question : How come they aren't aware of it or did they destroy /ignore it ? Why would they ?And how come Amaral missed that for his list of theories ?
LOL 21:43, and then you went and spoiled it all by saying the nutters are ahead of the game.
DeleteSo you honestly believe they hid the body of a child and carried on with their holiday for the next 3/4 days? You believe the nannies conspired with them and that the elderly and now deceased Pamela Fenn lied?
Do you not see how macabre and unthinkable that is?
@ Ros 22:46
DeleteDo you honestly believe that Madeleine died in the apartment and the Mccanns decided to go for dinner before casually disposing of her body somewhere nearby? Amaral does. Is it not macabre?
Hello Unknown28 March 2018 at 23:27
Delete"Do you honestly believe that Madeleine died in the apartment and the Mccanns decided to go for dinner before casually disposing of her body somewhere nearby? Amaral does. Is it not macabre?"
Yes, indeed a macabre thought. Even worse, considering that it might be true.
For that I would refer you to Gerry's 'moment of madness' post in his blog 23:27. Yes it is macabre, but it set the scene for everything that followed and the group provided alibis for each other.
DeleteActing out a scenario for one night was a huge risk, but more logical, than acting out a scenario for 3/4 days, which included playing tennis, going for runs, taking the kids to the crèche etc. That takes evil off the scale.
Anon 27th March 19.13
ReplyDeleteThe Fund was set up before the McCanns were even suspects, wasn't it? As you well know Gerry McCann was even organising a concert hopefully with Elton John attending for the "one year disappearance" of Madeleine. Gosh, getting ahead of himself wasn't he? So taken with the amount of money pouring in it obviously all went to his head.
Whether the Fund is open and transparent to the £millions that has gone into it is up to the people who are looking into it. Why was it not open and transparent to the public as they said it would be? Isn't that being disingenuous to the people who contributed to it, why hasn't it been transparent?
You can't just fob it off as saying "they don't have to publish it online". Why haven't they when they distinctly said that they would? Why did they change their minds so people who donated can't see where the money is?
''You can't just fob it off as saying "they don't have to publish it online". Why haven't they when they distinctly said that they would? Why did they change their minds so people who donated can't see where the money is?''
DeleteWhy are you floundering around in a state of paranoia.
This whole money ( laundering) theme is embarrassingly poor. I hate the smell of desperation in the morning.
14:45 All that so you could subvert a line from Apocolypse Now, badly - it didn't work.
DeleteThere is no desperation among those discussing this case, why should there be? Desperation can only come from those directly involved, those who would be affected by the outcome of Operation Grange.
I doubt anyone feels very strongly about Gerry and Kate, it is the circumstances that surround Madeleine's disappearance that arouses curiosity, not personal hatred.
''I doubt anyone feels very strongly about Gerry and Kate, it is the circumstances that surround Madeleine's disappearance that arouses curiosit''
DeleteSo, your curiosity about what happened to Madeleine has caused you to try and sell the idea that the parents and friends are all liars, the fund is fraudulent, and that money has been laundered. Brilliant. On top of this lack of 'strong feeling' about the parents you constantly, on top of endless other accusations, insist they had no right to pursue a man accusing them of crimes he had no evidence to support that involved the child .That dead horse has been flogged for years so now it's a game of let's pretend and it's on to the scenario of a team of shysters syphoning money from a fund you don't have the details of. Is 'desperation' not in your dictionary ?
Of course desperation is in my dictionary, it just doesn't apply in the context you have used it.
DeleteI don't think Gerry and Kate are likeable, but that's their problem, not mine. I would like to see the truth come out, and one thing I am sure of, is that they are not telling the truth.
And their lies are intended to hurt others, Goncalo Amaral. I have never insisted they NO right to pursue GA, this is a couple who know their rights inside out and upside down, it's the morality of their vendetta I question. I find the concept of suing the former detective who searched for their daughter absolutely abhorrent, as I think do most people, ergo their lack of support on this from anyone.
I'm sorry to disappoint you on the lack of 'strong feeling', but there you are. I feel a certain amount of pity for them, but not enough to let their 'spin' on Madeleine's disappearance go unchallenged. I'm not part of the MSM, I don't have to play along with the lie, I can call as it see it, and I do.
'I don't think Gerry and Kate are likeable'
DeleteThat's a shame because they think the world of you!
LOL 20:46. Gerry would definitely hate me, he is of the type who always do. My sunny nature sees to infuriate them.
DeleteKate would probably hate me too, but might melt a little over a bottle of Chablis. Nah, she would probably hate me too. My 'Margaret Rutherford' voice alternates with a bawdy Mrs Doyle who's all up for the craic and uses 'feck' a lot. My singing stage is usually short lived and swiftly followed by the conking out. Tbh, I haven't tested the singing for a while now, though I did try a quick blast of Puccini's One Fine Day. It didn't end well, and in retrospect was a bit ambitious, I fear I may have strained something in the back area. I'll try something by Eartha Kitt next time :)
You do not appear to have a sunny nature.
Delete"You can't just fob it off as saying "they don't have to publish it online". Why haven't they when they distinctly said that they would? Why did they change their minds so people who donated can't see where the money is?"
ReplyDeleteErm...the acounts are available online - just go to the UK Company Register and you'll find everything there.
LOL you won' find 'everything' there. The fund accounts are the opposite of transparent, they barely publish the minimum requirement. There are no employees named by the Fund, actually, like their Facebook page and everything else, no-one attached to the McCanns wants their identity to be known. Why is that?
DeleteI have always found it strange that their family, friends, and those who supposedly run the Facebook page and the Fund, take no pride in supporting these parents by standing side by side with them.
LOL, it's not a business, it's a company. Why should it have employees??.
DeleteCan someone explain what the funds sinister whereabouts and handlers has to do with what happened to Madeleine please ?
DeleteSome might say this case could have been solved years if the McCanns had not accumulated a mountain of cash. They immediately hired the best lawyers and stopped co-operating with the investigation. It seems they have not made any new statements, so they are still not co-operating.
DeleteSo the big question here is, why are the parents and the tapas group not co-operating with the police? Don't they want the child found?
Perhaps OG can't proceed because they can't find a body, and it' as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there is no body did not prevent the PJ from re-opening their files, and it didn't stop OG from launching an investigation and asking for more money so they could continue. Cases do go to trial and conviction without a body, see D'Andre Lane.
DeleteWhat it didn't stop or prevent isn't that relevant anymore.What has stopped or prevented them from making any arrests is.
DeleteI'm sure arrests will come at the end 18:22, and it seems OG are not there yet. However, they must have something tangible in order to get more funding.
DeleteHey Ros, didn't you in a few blogs back confidently declare that March was the month that the OG would announce some major development in the case. I seem to remember you referring to it as 'the ides of March'. Well, we're nearly into April.......
DeleteHi 20:17, well remembered!
DeleteYou caught me out, I just wanted to use 'ides of March' lol, I recently watched 'Carry on Cleo' again, it never stops being funny. Tbh, I did toy with the idea of soothsaying for a while, but as you see, little obstacles such as getting it wrong, stand in the way.
The further funding I suspect is not welcome news to whoever made Madeleine disappear. Until the case is officially closed, they cannot relax.
The premise of this blog appears to be basically posing the question, "Why was there so much outside influence in the case of a missing child ?"
ReplyDeleteIt's a good question.
Since 'conspiracy theories' are all the fashion at the moment, here's one for you :
Let's imagine the shadowy corridors of Whitehall where the anonymous mandarins, who actually run things, lurk. ( think Mycroft Holmes here )
"Hey, look at this" says Mycroft, "a golden opportunity to see how far we can go to manipulate public opinion, and, by any means necessary, ensure the plebs believe what they are TOLD to believe"
Until now, Mycroft has been fretting about the Diana debacle, when the establishment was brought to it's knees and all attempts to control public perception appeared to have catastrophically failed.
Here he was though, presented with the perfect vehicle for a concerted exercise in media control ( he has shat himself at the thought of what might have happened if social media had been around back in the day )
So, the plan is put into action, and all sorts of pressures ( that only people like Mycroft have at their disposal ) are brought to bear.
In this imaginary scenario, a couple of provincial doctors from working class stock, matter not a jot. it's not about protecting or assisting them - it's about having a practice run in order to be ready should someone who DOES matter need protection and assistance in the future.
Eleven years and £12m for a trial run? LOL, have you been drinking the Kool Aid?
Delete"Kool Aid" ? - I don't think they stock that in my local ASDA.
DeleteAnyway, to the substance of your laughter and ridicule.
Do you believe Gerry, or the cartel of tuppeny'apenny associates on his networking list, have the wherewithal to control the narrative of this story in the way it HAS been controlled ?
If you don't ( as you surely can't ) then who do you think is behind the media manipulation ? - even Clarence Mitchel, for all his posturing, does not have THAT kind of clout.
and 'lashings of ginger beer'
DeleteGerry and his cartel eh? lol.
DeleteDo they have the wherewithal to control the narrative? To a certain extent, yes they do. Gerry was trying, and indeed was very successful with his 'wider agenda'.
Actually, it's amazing what anyone can do if they really put their mind to it - see 'The Secret', and this couple had a very clear agenda. In the first days and weeks they accumulated all sorts of contacts and telephone numbers, they had direct access to the MSM, and the MSM were profiting with Madeleine stories.
They have also played on their victim status to avoid difficult questions, and to avoid going back to PDL for a reconstruction. It is still, even now, seen as taboo not to believe the abduction story. I tuned into the Wright Show yesterday morning, and was astonished to see that the panellists and callers were still pussyfooting around the McCanns 'feelings', and seeing them as heroic. The Twilight Zone continues.
'Clout' boils down to 'will it sell newspapers' and 'will it put bums on seats', Clarence when he has a genuine story to sell, is entertained by the news industry, because he and they, know what is newsworthy. At the moment, he's got nothing, because Gerry and Kate have nothing new to say, they reel out the same script over and over again. That's why they rely on anniversaries and birthdays, enough to keep the story in the public eye, but not enough to knock anyone off the front page.
Right now, it is the McCanns who have been keeping the narrative going with the titbits they feed to tabloids via pals or Clarence, neither the PJ or OG are saying anything.
@ ''Anonymous28 March 2018 at 14:50''
DeleteThe premise of this blog appears to be basically posing the question, "Why was there so much outside influence in the case of a missing child ?"
In an interesting post, you have unfortunately missed what the actual premise is all over the blog. Closer to the evidential truth would be '' How many ways and how many reasons can we find to blame the parents for their child's fate in PDL.And how many ways can we dismiss the need for evidence in favour of the collective opinion of thousands of online readers''
''In this imaginary scenario, a couple of provincial doctors from working class stock, matter not a jot. it's not about protecting or assisting them - it's about having a practice run in order to be ready should someone who DOES matter need protection and assistance in the future. ''
I always considered Mycroft a somewhat pompous Herbert.However, you have redeemed him in your portrayal .I think your tongue-in-cheek closing paragraph nails so much so tightly.It's long been my own theory that the perceived 'protection' of the parents has served the protectors as much - or more so- than them. As long as that continues, they have no evidence against them. But the have been rehashed to make the key bones of contention for the army of vigilantes to chew on. Bones such as the dogs sniffy discoveries, the rivers of blood that flooded the apartment ( ok, i know..call it poetic license) and the enigmatic collection of e-fits, have been enough to keep them framed as 'suspicious characters' for the great unwashed. Amaral's tortured brow ( so much for the crown of thorns) and unfounded allegations have kept their fire fuelled.All of which keeps all eyes and fingers pointing anywhere but to the right place. Only the Gov can dot Organise such a plan and execute it using their power over the police force and media.It's a far more sensible, logical scenario.It's not as though it's a first.It's just unfortunate that the parents have been left in a position of having to doff their caps for the assistance as anything else would be considered as biting the hands that have fed them.That was the genius of the plan.Stale mate ensured.The narrative was written by those seeking to control it, then the majority of those who read it unwittingly allowed themselves to be controlled as easily.
@ros
DeleteI tuned into the Wright Show yesterday morning, and was astonished to see that the panellists and callers were still pussyfooting around the McCanns 'feelings', and seeing them as heroic. The Twilight Zone continues.''
Disgraceful isn't it Ros. The very thought. Just because they lost their beautiful little girl.
Ros, your post
DeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2018 at 19:31
Is an overwrought neurotic cobbling together of incohesive conspiracy theories and things that have sprung from a disturbed imagination.Your total lack of tact when referring to what happened to the child and how people view it is breathtaking.If you can no longer control your irrational feelings, no matter how ill -founded they may be, could you at least try to present them with a little more taste please
'the great unwashed'? lol, it's things like that that turn people against the McCanns.
DeleteThe 'only the government' argument is lame 20:31. They have no control over the parents actions, the interviews they gave, the funds they raised, etc. The McCanns are intelligent adults, and they have had the ear of the MSM for almost 11 years.
The predicament they find themselves in with the police, having doff their caps.... to the police for fear of what people online might say, is again, irrational. If they are at odds with the police they won't be able to cover it forever, at some point any differences they have will become public. Pretending all is well is disingenuous, why the need for deceit?
They have been down this road before with the original investigation. Pretending the police did not see them as suspects, even after the blood was found, Kate stressed the police were not looking at them.
Deceit isn't endearing 20:31, it is pointless and it merely prolongs the agony. To anyone with any common sense, it is obvious the relationship between the McCanns and the police is chilly.
If the police had wanted to assist the McCanns, they could have done a lot more to take the heat off them. Maybe I watch too many crime documentaries, but don't the police usually say what it is that clears a suspect they have released? Things like, their alibis checked out or they passed a polygraph? Something tangible to clear them in the public's eyes, and that they could use to rebut GA's book?
I think there are higher powers involved, but not in the way you suggest. One hand washes the other.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2018 at 19:06
Delete''I'm sure arrests will come at the end 18:22, and it seems OG are not there yet. However, they must have something tangible in order to get more funding.''
Yes I suppose so. As tangible as the last 10 anniversaries.I wonder if they'll have the same tangible evidence this time next year.Or if they'll be honest enough to admit they have nothing and close it.You do realise that tangible means physical don't you.If you have that you don't need money.You just use it. Why are you ''sure'' of anything. You've been as sure each year and today is like any day in any of them years.Empty.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2018 at 19:46
''Some might say this case could have been solved years if the McCanns had not accumulated a mountain of cash''
Some ? You mean you. Those who look without a determination to find what they can only really imagine don't connect those dots.
'' It seems they have not made any new statements, so they are still not co-operating''
How many times and in how many ways can you report your child missing in eleven years? Who aren't they cooperating with exactly if nobody's asking them anything ?
''So the big question here is, why are the parents and the tapas group not co-operating with the police? Don't they want the child found?''
What are the police asking of them for them not to cooperate ? Madeleine's 15th birthday is weeks away.She was 3 and about to hit 4 when this happened.Try to get some perspective.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2018 at 19:00
''I don't think Gerry and Kate are likeable, but that's their problem, not mine. I would like to see the truth come out, and one thing I am sure of, is that they are not telling the truth. ''
How is one of your trains of thought anyone elses problem ?You claim you have no idea what happened to Madeleine when you'e defending the poison posts you make but you say you're 'sure' that the parents who you don't like(cough) are lying.You can't say why.The police don't think they're lying.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2018 at 23:33
'' it is obvious the relationship between the McCanns and the police is chilly.''
You imagine that.It's your opinion.Because it's yours, your vanity has promoted it from opinion to obvious.It still means little.
'' it's the morality of their vendetta I question''
You've dedicated years to trying to convince anyone who reads here that they'e guilty of a crime.No proof, no evidence.But you are like a dog with a bone. Amaral is the same and has the same amount of evidence as you.Bear that in mind before you preach about morality and vendettas.
''The 'only the government' argument is lame 20:31. They have no control over the parents actions''
DeleteThat rebuttal is lame. The government can control the police, ergo the investigation.They can control the media too. They'e facts.
Let me put it simply for you 23:51. The government cannot control private, individual, members of the public like Gerry and Kate. Not even Putin can do that.
DeleteLet me put this simply.The Government can control the police force and the media.They have all the power, money and influence required. In the context of this so called 'mystery' what do you think is responsible for the continual debates, arguments and wild conjecture concerning the lead detective who never lasted, the dogs who had an off day and the incriminating DNA that didn't pass muster ? The McCanns ? How realistic does that even read ?
DeleteThe stand out of the case when looking for another to compare it with is the involvement and interest shown by politicians of the highest rank. One can't be found outside of the Ripper murders of the 19th century.And, of course, there was the persuading of one of their own to resign in order to monitor the progress of the investigation and control what the media were allowed to report and what not to.That kind of proximity to the case is normally wanted by the guilty party do he can stay on his toes .
This was and is -we are told - a police matter.But it's been dominated by politics. In terms of police action there hasn't been a thing of any worth to report.If it wasn't for the contrived 'sightings' all over the globe it would have been 11 years of blank paper.If we understand that those sightings were never going anywhere, nor ever will, we have to consider that they were only intended to prevent 11 years of blank paper.The main talking points have been about the UK interfering, allegedly removing the lead detective, allegedly ordering forensic scientists not to find evidence, and them willingly sustaining more of the same with a blank cheque. This has been read by certain eager sleuths as leaving no stone unturned to protect two doctors.That makes no sense.But it suits whoever knows the real story to have the McCanns as public enemy number one instead. That isn't controlling them, it's making use of them behind the mask of benevolence.There's a big difference between controlling someone and making use of them.
Looking at one splinter of the whole that has yielded nothing but more gossip and unfounded allegations has stalled on the starting line. That's why it isn't moving.It never will.
Don't kid yourself that Governments can't control individuals by the way.Think 'leverage'
By leverage you mean doing a deal with the devil. So why would innocent parents participate in such a manipulative deal? Especially a deal that makes them public enemy number one?
DeleteGerry and Kate are not retarded, they are not simpletons and they are certainly not vulnerable, they have had top of the range lawyers, spin doctors and image consultants from the off.
How could these two intelligent, assertive professionals allow the British authorities to hinder the search for their missing daughter? The only thing stopping Gerry and Kate from speaking out is Gerry and Kate.
The idea that Gerry and Kate meekly gave in to those who manipulated them is absurd. You forget, we have seen them on TV many times, we can see for ourselves that they are not victims of a Machiavellian plot.
19:45. Like Goncalo Amaral, I too have a reputation to save, and I'm doing it the best way I know how, through my writing.
DeleteThe idea that you can stamp out people with alternate opinions, is a sign of the megalomania that has dominated this case. Like GA, I won't be silenced and I won't go away. And like GA, I know that when the truth comes out, I too will be cleared.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 March 2018 at 11:27
Delete''By leverage you mean doing a deal with the devil. So why would innocent parents participate in such a manipulative deal? Especially a deal that makes them public enemy number one?''
Leverage is having the power to compel behaviour from another person, usually because of something they don't want to have come to pass.Blackmail can also be considered leverage, as can any form of ransom demand. It's a powerful weapon to have in your arsenal in politics.And, in the context of what we're talking about, it would seem relevant.We've seen examples in our time where leverage has either been uncovered or implied during trials; 'cash for questions' being the headline - maker in the UK.The position of Chief Whip comes with heavy responsibility in our own Government.They keep the house of cards from falling.We're learning too of the secrets kept 'in house' in the days that Thatcher's crew of criminals ran the show.That involved silencing policemen, the newspapers and other politicians and hid darker secrets.So, as I said, if those twitching politicians were twitching over this event, the parents would be oblivious to it, not a part of it. If they were a part of it, they would have been quietly paid a kings ransom and that wouldn't have been public knowledge like a fund.
''How could these two intelligent, assertive professionals allow the British authorities to hinder the search for their missing daughter? ''
Unknowingly.
''The idea that Gerry and Kate meekly gave in to those who manipulated them is absurd. ''
Every idea or theory that doesn't accuse the parents is 'absurd' or 'ludicrous' to you. Yet you insist that without a single shred of evidence it makes perfect sense to arrest them for disposing of their child's body and setting up a fund fraudulently.How you feel about the parents doesn't constitute their guilt or a reason to charge them with anything.It's irrational.
''You forget, we have seen them on TV many times, we can see for ourselves that they are not victims of a Machiavellian plot.''
You can because you want to. How would they 'look' if they knew it (bearing in mind it isn't a play).Don't they look oblivious to what happened to their daughter and frustrated as to why nothing has come of the various branches and methods of investigation ?
This video doesn't contain photoshop magic or actors :
48 seconds of leverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkOWPauu_A
@Anonymous29 March 2018 at 15:14
DeleteHello, I know you’re addressing Rosalinda, but anyway, I’d like to comment on a few things and thanks for the 48 seconds of leverage.
I do not think it's unlikely that McCanns may have turned to some British intelligence organization and asked for help, a new form of 'Westminster's Secret Service', M15 or something similar. Clarence Mitchell may have had such contacts.
Tim Fortescue’s attitude to law and order, though it refers to an earlier period of modern British history, shows what happens when people become loyal to their party or to their friends without taking into account what morals they’re supporting and encouraging, but just reflect on what they can benefit from it. They become soulless and corrupt.
"Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the Whips and tell them the truth, and say now, "I'm in a jam, can you help?", Fortescue says.
If that could happen then, why not today? In case Gerry and Kate would have been helped by some secret service organization in concealing a crime, they would of course now be compelled to be loyal to a lot shameless state servants and to others within societies’ institutions and naturally they wouldn’t dare to criticise the “Operation Grange”, especially if there would be some insider there helping them. However, I don’t think it’s likely, but definitely not impossible.
You say
”Don't they look oblivious to what happened to their daughter and frustrated as to why nothing has come of the various branches and methods of investigation ?”
What else could they try to do, in case they know what happened, but determined not to confess. How they look or how frustrated they appear to be is proof of nothing, which has been discussed so many times on Rosalinda’s blog.
Björn29 March 2018 at 20:52
Delete''"Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the Whips and tell them the truth, and say now, "I'm in a jam, can you help?", Fortescue says....If that could happen then, why not today?''
It does.It still is. That was the main point of the post.The other main point was that the parents would be unaware of their child being a pawn in a game being played by politicians.
''What else could they try to do, in case they know what happened, but determined not to confess. How they look or how frustrated they appear to be is proof of nothing, which has been discussed so many times on Rosalinda’s blog''
I know where it's been discussed. this and other blogs or platforms are online discussions.believe it or not, thousands of people have and some still do discuss it away from computers.Normal people wouldn't read the parent's frustration as being 'proof of nothing'. They'd bear in mind that as each day passed, the chances of seeing their daughter diminished.Police seemed to be flailing in the dark.Why would anyone be determined to confess to something they hadn't done ?
23:27
Delete"The other main point was that the parents would be unaware of their child being a pawn in a game being played by politicians."
Or the parents are well aware of such game. Who knows?
Hello Anonymous29 March 2018 at 23:27
Deleteand thanks for feed back
"They'd bear in mind that as each day passed, the chances of seeing their daughter diminished"
Yet, the on-going British "investigation" which isn't making any progress, never has, means "huge" to them.
I'd be desperate and furious if I were in their shoes,that is, if I were innocent. I'd call the Portuguese Prosecutors every day to tell them what they're supposed to do. Find the perpetrator, Madeleine or at least her body in case she would be dead and of course I'd be glad to answer any new questions or old ones they'd need answers to.
Anonymous28 March 2018 at 10:40
ReplyDelete"You can't just fob it off as saying "they don't have to publish it online". Why haven't they when they distinctly said that they would? Why did they change their minds so people who donated can't see where the money is?"
Erm...the acounts are available online - just go to the UK Company Register and you'll find everything there.
They are simple accounts , just the basic info required by law , the poster wanted detailed accounts a breakdown of where the donations have been spent ,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/106feb16/Enid_O_Dowd_01_02_2016.htm . this makes interesting reading
"They are simple accounts , just the basic info required by law , the poster wanted detailed accounts a breakdown of where the donations have been spent,"
DeleteThis is where you rely upon the integrity of the board managing the Fund - and as far as I'm aware nobody has questioned their integrity (just the McCanns!) - it's how all charities, corporates etc. work, and the reason why accounts are audited by independent auditors.
They promised complete transparency with the Fund, and have done the opposite. Not only does it not have any employees, it doesn't have an administrator!
DeleteA company doesn't need an administrator. The company secretary can deal with admin matters,or the directors, if they so wish. Anyway, the accounts, being public, and being associated with such a high profile case, would have undergone a great deal of scrutiny from accountants and others who understand accounts a bit more than you and the few posters who bandy words around like fraud and money laundering. I haven't heard of any questions raised by experts, and no qualification of the accounts have been made by the auditors. Furthermore, the audit will have required full scrutiny of all transactions made from the Fund.
DeleteHave you not reported that to the relevant body ?
Delete' Why OG can't jump the last hurdle'
ReplyDeleteHow about why they haven't jumped any at all, just like Team SY and Team PJ
Well they must have jumped a few 19:29 or the file would have been shelved years ago. The PJ who insisted they would not re-open the case without new evidence, re-opened the case.
Deletewhy not just use the evidence and arrest someone
DeleteWhich was how many years ago ?
ReplyDeleteThe attitude of the police seems to be 'as long as it takes' 20:25 and that can't be a good thing for those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.
Deletewhy not ?
DeleteWhy not? you ask 23:17.... because whoever is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance is still very much on the hook. The investigations of the PJ and OG are still live, 11 years on and OG have just received another £154k.
DeleteThe 'guilty' have much to fear every day the case remains open and especially when it receives more funding. If the investigation had gone cold and there was nowhere else the police could go, it would have been shelved. The additional £154k says they are onto something worth pursuing, as indeed have all the top ups.
Let's compare for one moment, the British police investigation into the disappearance of Ben Needham. It took 20+ years for a British force to investigate the case, but they did eventually go out to Kos, and Kerry was given 'an answer'.
The case of Ben Needham took only a fraction of the time and money spent on the Madeleine case, to resolve.
It was relatively straight forward and non contentious. The Needham family didn't lawyer up and they co-operated with the police throughout, both Greek and British. Kerry didn't start a Fund, probably the last thing on her mind, but even if she had, there was no internet to take it viral.
By contrast, Operation Grange began with 33 homicide detectives and limitless resources, but almost 7 years on, publicly at least, the mystery remains unsolved. And kudos to them, no-body knows what they are investigating.
When the case closes however, which it will have to one day, the details of their investigation will become public. At the moment, their continued funding receives only a small amount of flak from the media and the public, but should it end without a result, it could cause a media storm.
To be fair that's probably unlikely. As the McCann supporters continually point out, they lost their beautiful little girl and no-one wants to punish them further. But that could go against them if the media again took up the parents cause and demanded answers on their behalf. For example, by stating the parents have a right to know what the police were investigating. And maybe even the handing over their files, so the McCanns can continue the search themselves.
Everyone involved in this crime will be on tenterhooks until the investigations, both of them, are over. They know that they are the missing pieces of the puzzle, the only ones that will fit.
The innocent of course have nothing to worry about, they welcome their innocence being proved beyond doubt.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 March 2018 at 12:18
Delete''Why not? you ask 23:17.... because whoever is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance is still very much on the hook''
Have you misunderstood your own metaphor ? If an angler has a fish on the hook he either pulls it off and throws it back or takes it home for display or dinner.He doesn't sit staring at it for years on the hook. If anyone's on the hook they should be taken off and landed in the dock.
''The 'guilty' have much to fear every day the case remains open and especially when it receives more funding.''
Or they could read what we've read about it and shook their head.It's always receiving funding and never going anywhere.Why would they fear a change now ?
''The additional £154k says they are onto something worth pursuing, as indeed have all the top ups. ''
You don't need money to make arrests.
''The case of Ben Needham took only a fraction of the time and money spent on the Madeleine case, to resolve.''
Yes, it remains a mystery. The politicians had nothing to panic about over there.It was a run of the mill disappearance.Or so we're told.I don't buy into that personally.I've read about the case.But it supports my idea that politicians have played a major part in the McCann case as it isn't a run of the mill anything.
''By contrast, Operation Grange began with 33 homicide detectives...And kudos to them, no-body knows what they are investigating.''
And you think they know themselves ? It's a show.
''should it end without a result, it could cause a media storm.''
They can just fund it until the McCann kids are married with their own kids and the memory of the tragedy has faded enough that online debates have all but died out.
''the details of their investigation will become public.''
It will consist of regurgitated statements and the red herrings they called suspects and leads.
''To be fair that's probably unlikely. As the McCann supporters continually point out, they lost their beautiful little girl and no-one wants to punish them further''
I support them inasmuch as they're innocent until proven guilty and i think trying to incriminate them without evidence is morally wrong.If evidence was to arrive at the scene and it proved one or both were guilty in PDL, I'd want them crucified. But it hasn't and doesn't seem to be due. I don't think they did anything other than what they claimed to have done.
''But that could go against them if the media again took up the parents cause and demanded answers on their behalf. For example, by stating the parents have a right to know what the police were investigating.''
That should have happened years ago.The reason it hasn't is because those at the top of the media tree break bread with those at the top of the political one. Why wouldn't the media be allowed to make demands ? Because it puts the glare of the spotlight onto the face of the police force, ergo, their bosses.That's happened a few times in the last 6 or 7 years and they can't afford more exposure.
''Everyone involved in this crime will be on tenterhooks until the investigations, both of them, are over. They know that they are the missing pieces of the puzzle, the only ones that will fit. ''
Yes and no. They won't, in my opinion, be on tenterhooks as they are the ones who have ensured that not a dot of evidence will incriminate anyone.The time it's taken confirms this.
''The innocent of course have nothing to worry about, they welcome their innocence being proved beyond doubt. ''
Unfortunately, as just stated, the guilty have just as little to fear due to the clean up job carried out.
Anonymous28 March 2018 at 15:41
ReplyDelete"They are simple accounts , just the basic info required by law , the poster wanted detailed accounts a breakdown of where the donations have been spent,"
This is where you rely upon the integrity of the board managing the Fund - and as far as I'm aware nobody has questioned their integrity (just the McCanns!) - it's how all charities, corporates etc. work, and the reason why accounts are audited by independent auditors.
How could anyone question the boards integrity , when we don't have access to the accounts , they promised transparency , this is not a charity , some people think it is , its a private ltd company .
Anonymous28 March 2018 at 20:11
ReplyDeleteA company doesn't need an administrator. The company secretary can deal with admin matters,or the directors, if they so wish. Anyway, the accounts, being public, and being associated with such a high profile case, would have undergone a great deal of scrutiny from accountants and others who understand accounts a bit more than you and the few posters who bandy words around like fraud and money laundering. I haven't heard of any questions raised by experts, and no qualification of the accounts have been made by the auditors. Furthermore, the audit will have required full scrutiny of all transactions made from the Fund.
You are talking Cack , you may not remember the The Louise Woodward case , but money was raised to pay for her legal bills , her dad bought a nice new 7 series BMW with the money , (yes Ziggy in my imagined profession i worked on this story ) when the public found out they went ape shit , but in court the judge ruled in the dads favour saying he could spend the donations on what ever he wanted , not in the spirit of why people were donating , same way as anyone donating to the "Fund " would not have expected to pay mortgage bills , or spin doctors fees , or a raft of high power lawyers ,
Talking Cack? I think that you have just proved my point. It is very difficult to get away with any fraudulent or perceived fraudulent activity when managing a Fund, especially when most of the Directors (or Trustees in the LW case) are independent and accounts are properly scrutinised.
DeletePlease note, by the way, that I am not Ziggy.
Louise Woodward was on trial accused of murdering a child in her care.A child who seemingly died after her shaking it according to a post mortem.I see no connection of any relevance. Did the accused use any of the fund for anything other than legal fees ?
Deletewhen did funding a search for your child and having to defend yourself against unfounded allegations become the same as standing trial for a child that was found dead when in your care ?
Delete@Anonymous29 March 2018 at 14:09
Delete''Please note, by the way, that I am not Ziggy.''
You speak sense.It was an easy mistake to make :)
Anon, 29 March 15.46
DeleteIrony is not your strong point is it?
Anonymous29 March 2018 at 01:42
DeleteYou've reminded us all of what every single newspaper and media outlet reported all those years ago. Are we to take your comment as more valid because you 'covered' the story ?
Louise Woodward was on trial following her arrest and being charged with murder.
Nobody has been arrested over Madeleine.
The child in the Woodward case was available for an examination.Hence the charge.
We don't know where Madeleine is.
Louise Woodward had expensive lawyes to pay- what else did she use the money for ?
The McCanns made two mortgage payments and it was made public knowledge( transparent). They were not working, they were concentrating all efforts into the recovery of their daughter.Apparently, that means hey 'weren't looking' for her.
There's a difference between keeping the roof over your head and treating yourself to an expensive trinket such as a top of the range motor.
Lousie Woodward was from working class stock. The McCanns, according to this blog , are so rich, privileged and entitled that the power they hold over the media and politicians wold suggest they didn't need a penny.Maybe that power and privilege is an online myth created by the angry mob.
But, apart from these minor differences, I think you may have come up with an example of what the court of public opinion would call history repeating itself.
Some believe OG may be investigating the "fund", but what would it bring to light.
ReplyDeleteReminders of this is the same fund the Leicestershire Police were actively promoting on the official Leicestershire Police website. A limited company owned and run by two prime suspects in a missing child case,that the same police force is supposed to be investigating at that time.
You couldn't make it up but did the Leicestershire Police stop there in their endeavours.
Not at all.
They encouraged through the official Leicestershire Police website, if you had any information, to get in touch not with them but with the Mccanns own private detectives.
Don't ring us, ring the suspects.
What a strap line!
Another £150k in October to kick it further down the road, saving embarrassment all round.
"A limited company owned and run by two prime suspects"
DeleteI am actually quite disgusted by your ignorant comment, JJ. It's 'cack' and proves that you do not properly research any of your stated 'facts'. You could at least check the company records - it's all online and took me 5 minutes. The company is neither run nor owned by the McCanns. The board of directors run the company. The Directors are also the members - there are no shareholders, so there is no ownership, as such.
@anon 29 March 2018 at 20:34
DeleteYou have to remember, anon, the real world ( where the case is) has the two parents cleared of suspicion by the joint forces.The 'court of public opinion' ( where the antis and haters are online) can't accept that fact.But it isn't an insurmountable problem for them. They simply replace the 'innocent until proven guilty' with their preferred' 'prime suspects'. Yet they insist that they and their preferred scripts should be taken seriously.
@ 29.Mar 20.34
DeleteYou are really taking stupidity to a new level. You state the board of directors run the company but who are these directors.
Gerry McCann, Kate McCann and family members John Corner and Brian Kennedy among others
What is the matter with you.
Day after day inane remarks but you cannot change the events of the time.
The Leics police have gone out of their way to support the Mccanns even as they were prime suspects in their daughters disappearance.
That is not normal police procedure
I'm 20:34
DeleteI haven't made any comments about any company or directors anywhere. So, that observation and the rest of your post have been rendered, ironically, funny, even though that was unintentional.
Anon 29 Mar 20.34
DeleteAnon 30 Mar 15.59
You never answer a question just the same diversionary drivel day in day out .
Anon 20.34 above is attributed with the McCann director nonsense you say its not you maybe you should inform Ros before people get the impression you are barking mad.
It still does not change the FACT Leics Police actively promoted a company run by the Mccanns while they were suspects.
Time will not change the truth!
Hi Rosalinda JJ,jc, NL, and all others including Mrs or Miss "Unknown"
ReplyDeleteThe McCanns' fund played a part in Crime Watch 2013, as the Metodo 3 detectives were paid by the fund and produced phantoms of the "smithman".
So her just a few words.
In Crime Watch 2013 DCI Andy Redwood revealed that he had a moment of revelation, after “eggman” had called him and said that he was just “crècheman. “Crêcheman’s confession after 6 years made Redwood believe, that “smithman” could be the real perpetrator.
Yet, Tanner’s “eggman” is shown in a short footage, dashing down a street holding a small child just as she had described.
Moreover, two slightly different sketches of the face of the “smithman” were presented among a number of other faces of so called suspects, none of whom had ever been seen carrying a child in PDL.
Nothing, however, was mentioned about whom the Smiths believed they’d seen, let alone how “smithman” was carrying the sleeping or the dead child, despite the fact that the Smiths had given detailed descriptions about that.
Why did BBC in co-operation with the Met/SY leave out important facts and why didn’t the “clever” SY investigative detectives fuse the two images of “smithman’s” face, produced by Metodo 3, already in 2008, into one image. I just don’t get it.
When police authorities are looking for one specific person seen by several people, it is always only one phantom, that they use when asking the public to assist, regardless of how many different subjective descriptions the witnesses may have given of the same person. Otherwise it would be very confusing.
Thus, the BBC together with the Met/SY misled the general public in Crime Watch 2013, and I’m inclined to believe, that it was intentionally, though I cannot know the real reason as to why they did so. Protecting the McCanns of course! But Why?
''Nothing, however, was mentioned about whom the Smiths believed they’d seen, let alone how “smithman” was carrying the sleeping or the dead child, despite the fact that the Smiths had given detailed descriptions about that.''
DeleteThey saw a stranger. They didn't know him.That's why they couldn't mention who it was.You'e trying really hard to bring Smith to the fore again.If you read their statements -all of them- you'd realise that Smith isn't confident enough in his own judgement that he could swear who he saw( Gerry McCann, i believe you're hoping).
''Why did BBC in co-operation with the Met/SY leave out important facts''
They didn't. Unless you meant important to you.
'', it is always only one phantom, that they use when asking the public to assist...''
That would depend on how many phantoms were out for a walk that night. There could have been 1, 2 or 6. The same 1, 2 or 6 may have had a child in their arms, or may not have. It's possible if so many witnesses reported seeing someone that they did, but not the same one.The police need the maximum amount of evidence and statements to sift through as it would increase their chances of success.Why only choose only one ?
''I’m inclined to believe, that it was intentionally( misleading), though I cannot know the real reason as to why they did so. Protecting the McCanns of course! But Why?''
Are you sure you know why it was even misleading ? You say you don't but you caved in straight after to say it was to protect the McCanns.You just can't stop yourself can you.Same opinion, same track. Everyone involved is lying to protect your enemy.Even the BBC.
Hi Anonymous29 March 2018 at 20:22
Delete"Why only choose only one ?"
There is still just one unidentified man (or possibly Gerry McCann) seen carrying a child that night and he was only seen by the Smiths, not by anyone else in another place earlier or later and that's the reason why there should only have been one sketch/image of him, not two. Confusing and deliberately deflecting attention away from suspecting Gerry McCann, I'd say.
Why did Crime Watch show a suspect hurrying down a street holding a child in exactly the same way as Jane Tanner had described, when Redwood in the very same Crime Watch said that he was almost certain that "tannerman" was "crêcheman". Misleading in the proper sense of the word, I don't hesitate to say that.
''Confusing and deliberately deflecting attention away from suspecting Gerry McCann, I'd say. ''
DeleteReally. You do surprise us.
Ros,any chance of a more robust editing of
ReplyDeletethe paid McCann shill(s) as they are spoiling a good platform to shine light on the darkness that is McCann world.The shills only seek to deflect with denial, misinformation and outright lies.Your wonderful prose and salient comment is in danger of being lost in a sea of McCann made detritus.
I agree 21:23, and thank you for your kind words.
DeleteI too am getting a little tired of the same malevolent and words over and over. In the real world I have zero tolerance for people who bore me, I think I ought to bring a little of that into my blog.
Their posts have the same whiney, belligerent tone of the forums, nothing to prove the parents' innocence so they just keep shooting the messenger(s). To be fair they don't have much going for them, so the bitterness is understandable.
But I note what you say, if they cant up the ante they will be binned.
''Their posts have the same whiney, belligerent tone of the forums, nothing to prove the parents' innocence so they just keep shooting the messenger(s)''
DeleteSo asking for proof is 'whiney' ? Says a lot about what you want on here.
''To be fair they don't have much going for them, so the bitterness is understandable.''
I wonder how many of the posts that ask for 'whiney' things like evidence or proof actually say it angrily. They always look like no more than simple questions to an objective reader. I can see how many angry bitter reactions that come back from the antis , however.Nasty.That's where the real bitterness is.
''But I note what you say, if they cant up the ante they will be binned.''
Is that your latest escape clause for censoring? Last month you pretended the reason was because of abuse. Then it was pointed out to you that you are ( according to your self -selling) the banner waving free speech advocate of the 1960s. If you want the ante upped, read the responses to the minority who go on and on and on and on saying the same thing about the same things - smithman..dogs...dna...fraud...lies. They can't respond to simple questions and won't read information offered to them that could change their mind.They can't want their minds changing apparently.They're getting a buzz off misery and angst.There's room in your bin for them.But you'd rather bin those who tackle them.
Ros says about DW Griffiths The Birth of a Nation
ReplyDelete"But back to why I used it. The film begins with a young blond girl being stolen from her bed by dark forces. Madeleine, little blond girl, was stolen from her bed by dark forces. And that is where the comparison ends.
The image of a blonde girl being stolen, is enough to stir up heightened emotion, anger and a desire for revenge. It brings out the protective instincts in all of us. Griffiths wanted to 'grab' his audience with a nightmare scenario that would make them think their own children were in constant danger. He wanted to evoke outrage.
'Child stolen from bed' is the stuff of nightmares. We all work so hard to keep our children safe, and they are never safer than when tucked in bed and asleep.
Madeleine's disappearance rocked our worlds. It told us we aren't doing enough, there are predators out there, things can happen to them that are beyond our control. It upset the paradigm.
Like the girl stolen in Birth of a Nation, the disappearance of Madeleine brought out all the 'heroes', those touched by her tender age and angelic face. And maybe some of those heroes had sinister motives."
--------------------------------------------
I don't know which film you watched but the 1915 original version is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3kmVgQHIEY it is 3 hours 13 minutes long.
Perhaps you can watch it and prove "The film begins with a young blond girl being stolen from her bed by dark forces."
And also prove why you said "For whatever reason, the Madeleine case had all the factors required for a 'Perfect Storm', the right look for the right time. A beautiful, blonde child stolen in the night by dark forces, it was almost the same plotline as DW Griffiths' Birth of Nation."
I have saved this comment in case it goes to your spam.
Why, I am trembling in ma boots that you have saved this comment. What for? Lol. But I am touched you spent 3 hours 13 minutes in your quest, ha ha. Hope you learned something.
DeleteYou don't think the editing of awkward questions to those who get high on hate is enough then.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to understand a basic truth or two instead of trying to sound scholarly. Asking for accusations and insinuations to be supported by evidence or strong reasoned argument doesn't make you a shill.On the other hand, asking to be believed when publishing endless imaginary scenarios that are intended to garner bad feeling toward two targets who are innocent,postulating a perceived expertise in something but failing to show evidence of it, and refusing to provide evidence to support accusations makes you a shill.
You don't have any awkward questions for me 23:08, lol, I don't have anything to hide. Do you think I am spamming all the 'good ones'? Hilarious.
DeleteOh, but there were some goods [said with a deep sigh], I enjoy nothing better than something that challenges my intellect. I don't even have a problem with being insulted, as long as it done with wit and creativity. The longest relationships I ever had were with men who could 'fight back' lol, they were volatile obviously, and sometimes descended into crockery throwing and hair pulling, but the banter was always great fun.
But I digress. Why don't you and those others who are whining about ending up in my spam box, try to improve the quality of your writing. Whilst I appreciate it is anger that drives you to your keyboard, try to put it aside and think logically.
Digressing again, such is my nature and personality, I have my entire life been lectured on where I am going wrong. I'm happy to say, I have survived them all and haven't changed one bit!
Actually, that's not true, I have indeed listened to those given with genuine kindness, and I am blessed that I have had people in my life who have cared enough to pick me up and put me right,
Those who insist I must conform to the diktats of Society's Codes and Conventions, particularly grate, it's like they are saying 'you must just like me'. Why they think I want to be like them, I have no idea.
The common theme among my critics on here is 'where I am going wrong', with my views, with my writing, with my character, etc, etc. My blog should be more factual. If you want factual go to the McCann files or Joana Morais. I muse, as stated clearly on the tin.
The idea that my blog is to 'garner bad feeling against two targets' is juvenile and has nothing to back it up. If it did, it would have been among those 'trolls' cited by Summers and Swan or among those mentioned in the Brenda Leyland tragedy.
There are no incitements to hate, in any way, shape or form. Whilst I admit to being the 'craziest' McCann commentator, I am among the most thoughtful. Which is why, incidentally, I am despised by most of the antis. This blog is devoid of the juicy, salacious and imaginary theories espoused by the regular forums.
For me, I am part of that audience that was created in the summer of 2007. For whatever reason, this case gripped my imagination, my OCD went into overdrive, I watched and read everything Madeleine related. At this point I should probably state I am a sucker for advertising, the ideal consumer, and I bought into this story hook, line and sinker.
I was looking after my sick mother at the time and she was just as hooked as I, though she suspected the parents from the off. She was a very early riser and would be full of all the news by the time I got up and bought the papers. We watched it and discussed as the story developed daily. Sky News even had a dedicated 'Madeleine' channel, filled with updates from the family and spokesmen, it was all quite surreal.
continues...
DeleteI have no-one to blame but myself, but solving it became a fixation, my mind couldn't rest until I did. It was my own 'workshop of filthy creation', which just goes to show, women too are capable of becoming fixated on their work. Simone de Bouvier once said 'there are no female serial killers as their are no Mozarts', so that needs updating.
In retrospect, given the choice, I wish I had just let it go, and then it got to a point where I no longer had any choice. It became very personal when they attacked my books online and trashed my reputation. I defend myself in the only way I know, with my writing.
This case is interesting on so many levels 23:08, it isn't all about Gerry and Kate. Most posters, from both sides, believe there were far more people involved than G&K.
To look at it from a more generic perspective, high profile crimes capture the public's imagination. Just as I and my mum were locked in this 'puzzle', I remember a similar experience with my dad when OJ Simpson trial had viewers on the edge of their seats.
Just as I was captivated, so too were thousands of others, people who are still trying to work out the nitty gritty, to their own satisfaction. My blog is merely a continuation of that need to discover, a place for likeminded people to discuss this case rationally. There are no tub thumpers or cries for justice and retribution, no interference in the lives of anyone involved, and certainly no hatred.
You struggle to distinguish between not believing a lie, and hatred. What is your own personal reaction to someone who lies to you? Do you go along with it, or do you point out 'I happen to know you are lying to me'? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 March 2018 at 13:20
Delete''You don't have any awkward questions for me 23:08, lol,''
A rare faux pas Ros ? I see that the reply from 23:08 was to a certain ''Anonymous29 March 2018 at 21:23''
Yet it's you replying. Oops.
''But I digress. Why don't you and those others who are whining about ending up in my spam box, try to improve the quality of your writing. Whilst I appreciate it is anger that drives you to your keyboard, try to put it aside and think logically.''
DeleteIs that supposed to be clever and antagonistic. Very subtle(for you).You don't care about quality writing, you care about the amount of it that agrees with you or adds more hatred to enjoy.Some of those you publish are the wrong side of the mental homes doors.But, they agree with you.Is that logical ?
''Those who insist I must conform...are saying 'you must just like me'. Why they think I want to be like them, I have no idea. ''
They might not be making a demand so much as offering you a more pleasant alternative.
''The common theme among my critics on here is 'where I am going wrong', with my views, with my writing, with my character''
It's about you being so dogmatic regarding your opinions and suggesting that they're facts.But anyone else doing the same thing is insulted if their opinion differs . It's a double standards / hypocritical matter.
''The idea that my blog is to 'garner bad feeling against two targets' is juvenile ''
It's indisputably true.There's years of evidence printed here to support that.
''There are no incitements to hate, in any way, shape or form. Whilst I admit to being the 'craziest' McCann commentator, I am among the most thoughtful. ''
There are incitements to hate.They're everywhere.Thoughtful ?
''this case gripped my imagination, my OCD went into overdrive, I watched and read everything Madeleine related. ''
That's true.
''In retrospect, given the choice, I wish I had just let it go, ''
Too late now.
''You struggle to distinguish between not believing a lie, and hatred.''
You struggle to understand that you have to prove that a lie is a lie and not untrue merely because you won't believe it. If a lie is so blatant, how can it remain for eleven years with so many looking at it.
@Anonymous30 March 2018 at 16:05
DeleteHi there
"If a lie is so blatant, how can it remain for eleven years with so many looking at it"
The hypothesis about an abduction is just an assumption or a guess. Claiming, that it's a fact as British MSM does is a blatant lie.
I suppose that you refer to "Operation Grange", Metodo 3, Clarence Mitchell and all of the McCanns' friends, when you say, that so "many" have been looking at it", none of whom, seem to have been especially interested in investigating the McCanns, as you may know.
Nevertheless, the ”Operation Grange” has apparently been granted more money to continue the ” Search”, despite no new or old suspects being mentioned by Mark Rowley or his successor. Neither is there anything about a critical line of inquiry that needs to be pursued ,as it was last year.
Concerned Portuguese citizens and British tax payers are expected to believe, that there’s is a secret but intelligently planned and methodically carried out investigation still going on, which sooner or later will lead to Madeleine being found and her abductor being brought to justice. I refuse to believe so, until I see proof of it, documented in an official police report.
Björn30 March 2018 at 19:33
Delete''The hypothesis about an abduction is just an assumption or a guess. Claiming, that it's a fact as British MSM does is a blatant lie. ''
I suppose the 'evidence' for want of a better word, for an abduction would be the complete absence of the child who was allegedly abducted.And I suppose the way to expose that as a lie would be down to a decent police force or two that were given time( say, eleven years).So far, all points to the abduction.As we know, Bjorn, anyone can tell lies and try to disguise them as truth by adding the word 'obvious'....
'' I refuse to believe so, until I see proof of it, documented in an official police report.''
That's unfortunate, Bjorn. However, until the day that either police force becomes answerable to you, like the rest of the public, you'll have to wait.
Hello Anonymous30 March 2018 at 22:06 and thanks for comment.
DeleteFirst of all the Portuguese and the British authorities owe their citizens explanations to what they have been doing for so long and what progress they have made in terms of understanding what may have happened to Madeleine. Silence has always made me very suspicious.
How many months do you think you could work as a sales manager for an international company before you'd be asked how things were going for you and your team? As a shareholder in such a company I'd be just as interested as a British citizens should be to know what the SY have been up to for more than 7 years.
But I do care about quality writing 16:05, that's why my blog has never descended to the playground level of the Myths forum and the cesspit and that's why my readers return again and again.
DeleteThe idea that I only publish posts that agree with me is absurd, your published aren't you? There is nothing stopping you from putting forward your side, or rebutting anything I, or anyone says.
Your all purpose 'where's the evidence' response is not a rebuttal, it's a cop out intended to stop debate. It never answers the question posed, and it's clearly come from the top down, because it is so reminiscent of Gerry's 'there's noooooo evidence' chant.
Your problem is that you can't shut down discussion, neither here on my blog or anywhere else. You can patrol my blog 24/7 (and you do), but you can't do anything more than whinge about the comments and pull me up for anything you interpret as libellous (which you do), lol.
Well, I've never been described as dogmatic before, so that's a new one! I'm actually the opposite of a tub thumping preacher, a chilled out libertarian, who lives by the philosophy of live and let live. Even when I teach, I don't drum things into people, I let them find their own way, it's far more effective, it unlocks the mind.
The demands that I, or any of my readers, have to prove something is lie before we are allowed to call it, is nonsensical. This isn't a court of law and presumably, the majority of us are not lawyers. If you issue a public statement, the public are free to discuss it - goes right back to the Magna Carta I believe. And discussing it includes whether it is the truth or not.
Of course, many Kings, Queens and despots have tried to force people to believe 'truths' in the past, usually with instruments of torture, but even pain of death didn't make the stubborn ones change their minds.
You can attempt to police and censor my blog as much you like 16:05, c/p anything you think subversive or libellous, lol, matters not to me, I have experienced a 'legal reading' and I am a lover of language, bring it on.
The truth is 16:05, the only power you have here lies in your words. Your argument needs to be better than mine. It's that simple, it's a level playing field. Convince me that the McCanns are innocent, maybe garner some love for them, your whiney bitch approach is not endearing. Neither are your demands for evidence that you know we don't have, no-one does. But that isn't the end of the subject. This case is loaded with circumstantial evidence and it is all freely available on the web. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
It is unfortunate that the McCanns have no-one on their side who can put forward an argument for their defence. Someone who can put aside the hostility, anger, and deranged hatred for Goncalo Amaral for a few moments, to compose a reasoned, logical argument that will win some of their support back.
You end with, it must be true because it's been 11 years, or words that effect. I think the opposite. 11 years and still no abductor.
In a series of tweets Thursday night, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange suggested that there is evidence indicating that the British government and intelligence agencies were involved in a plot to bring down the Trump presidency.
ReplyDeleteWhat a coincidence. Just after the elite pull off another pathetic false flag. This time we have to hate /fear Putin and Russia.But we need to drum up a good few other countries to join us because Russia isn't in an Islamic state - they attack back rather than just stay put defending themselves.I don;t know what tiny Ecuador is going to gain from this other than a pat on the head from Trump, May and Merkel.Let's face it, denying him freedom of speech, denying him and tools of communication and threatening more of the same is right up their street. They're all dictators fooling everyone into believing they value freedom and democracy.
DeleteAssange was the thorn in the sides of Obama and the Clintons. He was a threat to Blair and Cameron. He sacrificed his own freedom to inform all of us of the lies and corruption of the ruling elite war mongers. His only cause was, and still is, truth. The actions taken against him now tell all of us that for every Government in Europe and in America, truth is the real terror in their eyes.
Over to you Mr Pilger :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9n5irwWHfI
Lest we forget - in February 2017 the Portuguese Supreme Court stated that the lifting of the arguido status from the McCanns should not be equated with proof of innocence.
ReplyDeleteRos says: "The idea that my blog is to 'garner bad feeling against two targets' is juvenile and has nothing to back it up. If it did, it would have been among those 'trolls' cited by Summers and Swan or among those mentioned in the Brenda Leyland tragedy."
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------
You have said on numerous occasions that you were included in the "dossier of death" and that there were hundreds of pages about you.
I was in the dossier, but obviously the police and the journalists who looked at it, did not consider I had done anything wrong. There are no incitements to hate in this blog.
DeleteAnonymous30 March 2018 at 16:06
ReplyDelete''Lest we forget - in February 2017 the Portuguese Supreme Court stated that the lifting of the arguido status from the McCanns should not be equated with proof of innocence.''
A timely reminder. We haven't seen that mentioned for days. Lest we also forget, ''the McCanns are not suspects -period'' ( both police forces who are actually investigating the case)
Anonymous30 March 2018 at 21:57
ReplyDeleteAnonymous30 March 2018 at 16:06
''Lest we forget - in February 2017 the Portuguese Supreme Court stated that the lifting of the arguido status from the McCanns should not be equated with proof of innocence.''
A timely reminder. We haven't seen that mentioned for days. Lest we also forget, ''the McCanns are not suspects -period'' ( both police forces who are actually investigating the case)
They have not demonstrated there innocence ie by refusing to take part in a reconstruction , and what did the Leicestershire Police say .. something in the same vain. so I am surprised the police investigations , have not bothered with them or are they waiting ? yes I know eleven years is a bloody long time
Anonymous31 March 2018 at 00:13
Delete''They have not demonstrated there innocence''
They've demonstrated it enough for the police forces of two countries that are investigating the case. They haven't demonstrated enough for your liking.But you're just someone reading about the case online.
Anonymous 31 March 16.38
DeleteI would assume that the answers to the 48 questions put to Kate McCann were already known by the PJ. Being hard nosed police officers they no doubt had contacted Social Services in the UK to see if there were any problems with K & G's relationship with Madeleine, or people who knew the McCanns had come forward with information after Madeleine was "abducted". Likewise with the reconstruction the McCanns and their friends refused to attend, I very much suspect that the PJ had already done their own reconstruction and knew that what the Tapas 9 were telling them of their movements on the night of 3rd May was a load of old baloney.
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteA couple of things I have to say:
Who can forget the smiling pictures of the McCann parents releasing balloons in PDL on May 12th 2007 - the date of their dead daughter's 4th birthday.
Most likely something happened on the run up to this day and a huge load had been lifted from their minds. How else can you explain their behaviour.
The fact is they have never publicly smiled before or since except a few seconds of hilarity captured at the end of a deadly serious TV interview with the cameras still rolling.
As time went by, Gerry McCann stated publicly that he had no problem with anyone "purporting a theory" of what happened to his daughter.
So why not this? This is what easily could have happened:
Someone carried his daughter's body and hid or buried it temporarily not far from their holiday apartment.
Later the body was moved and placed in a freezer and later after a few location switches the body found its way into the back of their hire car where the released body fluids were found by tracker dogs.
The body's final resting place could be none other than the Leicestershire property of the parents either in an urn as ashes or in the ground after appropriate embalming (the parents were both brilliant medical doctor and knew all about dead bodies).
The tiny body could be taken through customs as hand luggage and no questions asked of so famous and tragic a couple.
This is a case for Miss Marple, and a fantasy as the McCanns would surely agree.(but the fictional woman detective might do better in the long run than OG)
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
jc
Hi JC, the first part of your post is very similar to GA's theory, the Rothley scenario, I'm not so sure about, but I've reached a point where nothing would surprise me in this case. The frustration I think is that we KNOW there is so much more to come out. We only really know a fraction of what is going on, and with this case I'm sure, truth will turn out to be stranger than fiction.
DeleteAnonymous31 March 2018 at 05:31
DeleteJC
''Someone carried his daughter's body and hid or buried it temporarily not far from their holiday apartment.''
A procurer ? Prove otherwise.The child went straight into a car in my opinion . Alive. Why take a dead child anywhere ? Why kill a child and take that child away ?
''May 12th 2007 - the date of their dead daughter's 4th birthday...most likely something happened on the run up to this day and a huge load had been lifted from their minds..How else can you explain their behaviour.''
Such as what ? Could it be that it was an organised event for the public awareness element of the search ? If they had released balloons in celebration with miserable faces you'd have read that as bad acting.You only see what you want to see. Why you want to see it says a lot about how your mind works.
''The fact is they have never publicly smiled before or since''
Unless you're camped outside their home you can't possibly know that.
''As time went by, Gerry McCann stated publicly that he had no problem with anyone "purporting a theory" of what happened to his daughter.''
Out of context quote to suit your argument by any chance ? Have you forgotten the proviso he added that it was as long as they weren't just wild guesses intended to hurt him or his family for the sake of it ?
''So why not this? This is what easily could have happened:Someone carried his daughter's body and hid or buried it..Later the body was moved and placed in a freezer... later after a few location switches the body found its way into the back of their hire car...the released body fluids were found by tracker dogs''
That's exactly the kind of thing i was referring to.Is there any evidence to support one single element of that dark little fantasy ?Anyone brave or stupid enough to suggest that during a trial would need a lot of solid evidence for each part of it. They'd be crucified without it, not to mention made a laughing stock.
''The body's final resting place could be none other than the Leicestershire property of the parents''
Now you're being ridiculous.
''The tiny body could be taken through customs as hand luggage''
Yes, I'm sure after the elaborate operation abroad under the cover of darkness, and over weeks, would conclude with taking the corpse through customs.How old would the cadaver be by then ? You wouldn't need dogs to detect that.Give your head a shake.
''This is a case for Miss Marple''
No, this is a real case in a real world, for real police,which is why these scenarios should be kept in your head.
''Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.''
Yours is stranger than everything.
31.03 @05:10
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
Rosalinda 30 March at 12:18
ReplyDelete“When the case closes however, which it will have to one day, the details of their investigation will become public.”
Sir Paul Stephenson said the final report on the review will not be published.
“But that could go against them if the media again took up the parents cause and demanded answers on their behalf. For example, by stating the parents have a right to know what the police were investigating.”
Mark Rowley (Oct 28, 2015):
"I have overseen this investigation since 2012 and am very grateful for the enormous assistance of the media and public so far which, through the appeals, have generated new information and lines of Inquiry."
Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.'
'Mr and Mrs McCann said: "We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years."
et cetera
http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-on-the-investigation-into-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-135459
?
Hi Ros,it speaks volumes,"No Running commentry-Operation Grange" then have Clarence Mitchell, Australia, Comms-Conn Tour quote,"We have an ongoing relationship with Crime Watch,which is the major criminal investigative program that works very closely with the Metropolitan Police Service and if the Met want to do something for Operation Grange,then they use Crime Watch as their vehicle of choice"? Madeleine McCann special 14 October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood,revelation Moment,Smithman-Creche Dad,JT sighting,farce.
ReplyDeleteSo here we have the"Official Mouthpiece"for the McCann family,stating the Met Police assist Operation Grange on versions they want to permit to the public,Not what has actually happened,but deceitful lies to manipulate the MSM,by the ultimate Spin Meister himself Clarence Mitchell,look up his video for the words spoken,its an Hoax investigation.
Hi Ros,further to Operation Grange E-fits that DCI Andy Redwood required to speak to these person,(s) to rule them in or out of the investigation,October 2013, Madeleine McCann Special.
DeleteApparently after a FOI request five years later Operation Grange are No longer using the E-fits Identities concerning the Smithman/Creche Dad,Revelation Moment,the same Identities the McCann family had in their possession since 2008,Dave Edgar,Alistair Cowley,Kevin Haligen,then handed to Metropolitan Police in 2010/11,kept quiet for Two to Three years,but now in 2018 discounting them,Ten years after being drawn Up by Brian Kennedy's e-fit Artists,but nothing untoward has happened or transpired in this time period?
what a load of "soft balls of Wool"farce to manipulate the public,MSM?
Hi,Ros,another De Ja Veu,last time Lecestershire Police force joint investigation,Portugal Assistance May 2007- July 2008?
DeleteNow this time the"Real Deal" October 2011 Scotland Yard,Metropolitan Police Service,Portugal PJ 2019?
I do so hope Portugal PJ fully invstigate any theories passed on to them from Operation Grange,but I for one for use the Once bitten Twice scenario with anything they handed over on a plate,Gold plated or Not the real deal!
Hi 16:44. Clarence's gift, if he has one, is the ability to sound important and in the thick of it, even if he isn't. He has a stern voice, an air of authority and the ability to command a roomful of rowdy journalists. His presence I'm sure would be greatly welcomed by those struck by tragedy, he's a like the John Wayne of the 21st century. The big man to the rescue. This case has a few of them, lol.
DeleteBut back to Clarence. His Australian tour was to promote his skills in crisis and press management, and of course he was still selling the abduction story. Unfortunately for him, he is best known for being spokesman for the McCanns, as they fall in popularity, so does he.
If he had the writing skills, he potentially has a best seller on his hands. An unscrupulous guide to media, politics and selling your granny. Alternatively, 'how I helped pull off the crime of the century/my life behind bars'.
Clarence, like Gerry and Kate, has built his own prison. The 'truth' would be a blockbuster, and in many ways would set him free, spiritually of course, because it might bring with it, an actual prison cell.
Unfortunately for Clarence, whilst he participated in one of the world's biggest media coups, he can't claim credit for it. Awards for journalism usually go to those fighting for truth and justice, there isn't a category for hoodwinking.
Apologies, I seem to have muddled my replies, the above is in response to 15:19.
Delete16:44. I have never heard that OG are no longer using the efits, and I'm very sceptical. They have never said anything about the investigation and this would be a bombshell. Could you imagine how Bennett would react to that? I suspect he would credit himself for having Smithman ruled out!
Hi Ros,I am sorry"Hoodwinking" someone is quite different from"Perverting a course of Justice"?
DeleteHe(CM) isn't a character from a Western,he is a manipulative person to at best distort from the "Truth" becoming exposed to Society,hence his last role (TB) Head of Media Monitoring,a paid for Liar,little wonder he feels at home in close proximity to Gerry?
Anon 3l March 10.13
ReplyDelete"When the case closes however, which it will have to one day, the details of their investigation will become public."
Sir Paul Stephenson said the final report on the review will not be published.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
However, it's a crime that was carried out in Portugal and the Portuguese must therefore be the prime investigators, assisted by SY. Whether or not the "Review" is published in the UK I believe it is the Portuguese law that their investigations have to be opened up to the public as they did previously when the the investigation was put on hold, much to the McCanns' shock.
Ros, I typed a comment this afternoon regarding the lorry/advertising board that appeared in PDL in 2007 then quickly disappeared after a few days.
ReplyDeleteDid it get lost among many others.
Hi 16:53, I've had a look but there isn't anything in my spam box, apart from the stuff I put there myself, lol. Do you have a copy? Can you resend?
Delete