Wednesday, 4 April 2018

ARMCHAIR DETECTIVES - MCCANNS HIT BACK

Eleven years on and the only people brave enough to comment on and indeed question, the ongoing search for missing Madeleine McCann are two people with missing loved ones of their own. No politician, no celebrity with a platform, no newspaper columnist and no breakfast TV presenter.  All are united in keeping it zipped when it comes to criticizing the £12m costs and unlimited police resources that have been poured into this one case. And all are gushingly sympathetic to the parents, not for one moment questioning the neglect, their failure to co-operate with the police, or their vendetta against the former police detective.  
 
Suspecting the parents is as taboo as it ever was, those few celebrities who have said anything remotely critical of Gerry and Kate, have quickly seen their careers nosedive.  We have been living a twilight zone, where we all have to play an elongated game of pretend with the parents as innocent victims of the corrupt Portuguese justice system.  No-one dare ask why the Madeleine case continues to get special treatment and why funds for her search are seemingly limitless.  Kerry Needham was right to point out the vast difference in the way Madeleine's disappearance has been treated, and the father of a man missing since 2015, complained that he and many others with missing family members are told by the police nothing more can be done.  Kerry and Paul, are probably the only people able to ask these questions, without being stamped on by the McCann media monitoring machine.  With family members missing themselves, they are above reproach. 
 
The same can't be said of the media and members of the public who are freethinking enough to opt out of the game of pretend.  Any sign of dissent is struck down with great vengeance and furious anger, no newspaper or broadcaster can look beyond the headlines for fear of being labelled as 'haters'.  A nasty little word that crept into our lexicon in 2007, commonly used by those without answers, explanations or the ability to debate.   
 
I happen not to believe Scotland Yard and Operation Grange are part of some great big scam to cover up the crimes of the guilty.  I also happen to think they are operating under Portugal's laws of judicial secrecy. It is often forgotten that the Portuguese have the lead in this case and it is up to them to prosecute, or not.  The 'or not' isn't an option.  Those of us who have been around a while will remember how stubbornly the PJ refused to re-open their files.  They were insistent that there had to be new evidence and they were not playing games. 
 
Several years ago, Alison Saunders, the outgoing head of the CPS travelled to Lisbon for talks with her Portuguese counterpart.  Both must have agreed the investigations were worth pursuing and both must have agreed on the role the British police would play.  Even if the British police say absolutely nothing about their investigation and their findings, all will be revealed when the Portuguese police files become public.
 
Moving on from the recurring cover up argument,  I see the McCanns, via a pal, have 'hit back' at the armchair detectives.  They seem to have completely forgotten those biblical passages that urge the turning of the other cheek.  Every politician, every celebrity, every comedian and indeed, every writer, knows the golden rule about not attacking your audience.  Even if you are right, dead right, you should never do it.  I'm sure there are many celebrities who would like to say 'listen you bastards' to journalists, photographers and members of the public, but those who do can be found in the 'where are they now' section of YouTube.   Telling people exactly what you think of them gives only momentary satisfaction, but the damage can last a lifetime. 
 
I am astonished that the McCanns have not yet taken in the concept of the Streisand Effect.  Simply mentioning the 'armchair detectives' draws attention to them.  It goes without saying that most can be written off as barmy, but those tempted to look beyond the headlines will find Goncalo Amaral's book.  It's as if the parents themselves want to stay in the news, and they want people to read all that's out there, even the bad stuff!  The Truth of the Lie was on sale for a year before they took legal action. Cynics might say the bigger the audience, the bigger the payout.  Other cynics might say, any case against them is prejudiced by the publicity this case has received.  Ergo, there can be no trial.
 
I think however they were referring specifically to Colin Sutton, the ex-detective who has stuck his head above the parapet to share his expertise.  Calling him an armchair detective is probably a 9/10 on the miaow scale, up there with 'who is he'.  Colin Sutton was of course an actual detective, but putting him alongside Bennett and Hall degrades him.  Among all their critics they dislike real detectives the most. 
 
The pal also added how thankful Gerry and Kate were to the police, and described SY as the world's finest.  Thereby putting aside all and any rumours that they might be suspects.  As it is approaching 7 years and no progress, I can't help but think there was a touch of irony in there.  Gerry and Kate still believe Madeleine is alive and findable, not surprising, but so too do the detectives which is surprising. 
 
Meanwhile, I can't help but wonder if the McCann media machine, opts for controversial statements in the hope of getting more column inches, if not the front page.  Why say something positive when something negative is more newsworthy.  Unfortunately, their whole campaign went downhill when it turned negative.  There are so many things the McCanns could and should have said over the years to keep their supporters onside, instead they are always 'hitting back' or incandescent with rage.  Confident people don't do that, or if they do, they do it in a way that ends the argument. 
 
Until this case reaches a conclusion, it will always be open for discussion by armchair detectives.  That's what happens with high profile crimes.  See OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson's doctor.  The McCanns are victims of a heinous crime, or not, but they are the ones who worked so hard to make their case so famous.  If this were a reality TV show, they would be applauded for keeping the ratings high. Unfortunately, all they have to lash out at for the moment, is internet trolls and armchair detectives. Their vendetta against Goncalo Amaral has a hit a brick wall. They lost. And they daren't criticize the British police because they want to appear as if they are working with and alongside them. Awkward.   
 
The case won't and can't, end without each investigation, British and Portuguese, reaching a conclusion.  Both are financed with taxpayers money and accountable to the public.  Whilst the British police might hold back on the information they give to the public, the Portuguese won't.

214 comments:

  1. Will we ever have an end of this nonsense, the Mccanns have been cleared by two police forces. Quoted day in day out but untrue.

    Mark Rowley ex chief of OG has stated the parents involvement was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

    "We are happy thats completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that".

    In plain words, OG have not made their own objective independent investigation just accepted the findings of the PJ.

    So what has £12m been spent on.

    Then we have the report of the "highly respected" Jim Gamble who states,the PJ investigation was chaos and haphazard, had no sense of order and in these cases the parents are always considered number one suspects and the PJ should have cleared the ground around them and ruled them in or out,there is no evidence this was done.

    So we have a top level report ordered by the UK Home Secretary, stating the Mccanns were not ruled out by the PJ and the head of OG saying we haven't bothered either.

    The PJ official version is, there is no clear indication of anything except Madeleine is missing and we have not had the cooperation of the Mccanns and tapas friends, to progress this further.

    So cleared by two police investigations is at best wishful thinking.

    It has not happened.

    At the moment is anybody an official arguido/suspect.

    No - period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Rowley( UK ) said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese..We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

      Judicial police Pedro do Carmo ( Portugal )''Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.''

      JJ4 April 2018 at 18:37 ( the internet )

      ''So cleared by two police investigations is at best wishful thinking.''

      Don't say it, JJ ''check the files'' :)

      Delete
    2. I don't buy the idea that Scotland Yard are scratching around in the dark without a suspect JJ. Nor do I think they would have been granted more money if they did not have an end goal.

      We are seeing the same smoke and smoke mirrors we saw with the original investigation where the McCanns gave the impression that they were not persons of interest despite everything that was going on behind the scenes.

      This time around Judicial Secrecy is being upheld. No-one knows what is going on. There doesn't appear to be an active search for a live Madeleine. The only physical signs of a search were the digs in PDL which put an end to speculation that Madeleine was alive. At the time on Sky News, Martin Brunt gave an odd convoluted explanation of a burglar and a shovel that convinced no-one.

      As the digs were so close to Apartment 5A, it would seem OG were acting on the alerts of the dogs that found Madeleine had died in the apartment. DCI Redwood, said 'Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment', so the dog alerts are still very much in play.

      The more money that goes into OG and the longer it goes on, the more it convinces me that they are doing a thorough job JJ. OK, that was as much for myself as it was for you, lol, because we live in too 'open' a society for such a massive cover up in plain sight.

      The MSM won't stay tame forever, and some may still hold grudges for the damages they had to pay out. The internet has lifted the lid on secrecy JJ, hackers can get into anything and whistleblowing has never been easier. A cover up on this scale simply isn't possible.

      Delete
    3. Oops I should add an addendum as I appear to be contradicting myself.

      The secrecy is working in the Madeleine case because there is a will to solve it, almost a silent agreement between the police and the media. No-one with resources is digging deeper or going into uncharted waters. Whilst journalists are not known for their high moral scruples, there are occasions they will back off when asked, and ongoing police investigations are probably among them.

      That's not to say this particular secret can be kept forever. It can't. Once OG ends, there is likely to be a free for all whichever way it goes.

      Delete
  2. "Suspecting the parents is as taboo as it ever was, those few celebrities who have said anything remotely critical of Gerry and Kate, have quickly seen their careers nosedive."

    How about providing a list for the benefit of your readers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to see the same. Perhaps we all have different ideas of what a celebrity is.Bloggers don't count, as they don't blog as a career and aren't celebrities outside of their monitor.

      Delete
  3. So "A close pal of the couple told the Sun Online" is to be believed when I thought Ros had said that even direct quotes from her in The Sun were lies. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros often criticizes the tabloids, as anyone should, they're rags .But sometimes these ill informed, dishonest tack peddlers print things that agree with, or support, her theories. She's happy to cite them then.

      Delete
  4. Talk about overkill. That was reminiscent of the Reverand Ian Paisley in his ranting heyday; passonate, loud, and a tad nutty.And there was a subtle nod in the direction of Samuel L Jackson's 'Jules' evangelical rage a la Pulp Fiction : ''Any sign of dissent is struck down with great vengeance and furious anger ''

    Calm down.Take a breath.Tune in.Start again..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well spotted on the Pulp Fiction quote, lol. I often drop in random quotes but I am never really sure if they are picked up on. That one perhaps, was a bit obvious, lol.

      I'm surprised you took away 'Ian Paisley in his ranting heyday' from the above blog. I tend not to be a ranter or a raver, one of my flaws (if I have any ;))some might say.

      Such is my character, laughter is always simmering beneath the surface, and it usually replaces the anger, I can't help but laugh at my own wit, a tad narcissistic I know, but even in a temper, I come out with some great one liners.

      I never stew. I never think 'if it wasn't for this person or that one person' my life would perfect. I know that the only one who can change anything in my life is me. What other people do, matters not a jot. I accept, God is dead, there is no God, I accept that I was wearing the ruby slippers all along, I had the power to be wherever I wanted to be.

      I have gone from spending the first part of my life blaming other people for my various predicaments. But the only reason they had that power was because I gave it to them.

      I blame myself for my lack of writing success, the McCanns to a certain extent for blackening my name, but I have the same philosophy as poor old Boxer, must work harder.

      But I am starting to wonder if the negativity of this case is dragging me down. There are of course bigger issues that I could and should tackle, but in truth I am a coward. I have already made myself public enemy number one in the McCann affair, how many more enemies would I make if I brought in even more controversial views, of which I have many, lol. I squirm at my cowardice, I'm ashamed that I didn't back Germaine Greer when she spoke out against this new draconian streak of political correctness gone mad.

      For the above and much, much more 22:41, I blame only myself. I am teetering constantly these days on a very fine line between sanity and insanity. My 'only I have the power' philosophy is turning in on me, it is giving me more reason to hate myself.

      I don't feel emotionally capable of tackling the 'bigger issues', I'm exactly what my dear, protective old dad used to say so often 'I'm too soft'. For me, it was a bar to many professions, especially those where there was a danger of getting emotionally involved.

      Perhaps I am just making excuses for not taking the road less travelled, my real fear is that I am just not good enough to compete in the bigger leagues. As proud as I am of my unique writing style, where does it fit in? And why do I want it to?

      I'm not angry 22:41, but very philosophical at the moment, as you can see. I am torturing myself because I am not using my talents, I won't feign modesty, for any sort of greater good. A debilitating mixture of guilt and vanity.

      Any psychologist would recognise I am in the middle of an episode, lol, the inability to focus being the main symptom. But I am not angry with your negative posts, or the hurtful ones that I bin. I'm intelligent enough to know that the senders of them have far more problems than I do.

      Apologies, you didn't deserve that, lol, but the mood I'm in, all sorts of doors can be opened.

      Delete
    2. OK.

      Replace Paisely with Father jack.

      You're teetering between an inferiority complex calling yourself a coward afraid of tackling issues and a Jonah complex regarding your talents.Carl Rogers could explain the former without fixing it,while Alfred Adler could explain it to you.It's a good job you have doors that can open.They might call.I can't explain the superiority complex however ( ''I'm intelligent enough to know that the senders of them have far more problems than I do. ''). That leads me to believe that you don't really mean it as you can't really mean it.

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 16:44

      Up the meds Ros, you've been in the middle of an episode for far too long.

      Delete
  5. Based on looking at the photographs I see clear evidence of photos-shopping, which leads me to wonder was Madeleine really there in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 4 April at 22:59

      Madeleine was there. I don't know about "clear evidence of photos-shopping", but I am sure Madeleine in the playground picture is not photoshopped.

      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SKY_27_05_07.htm

      "Madeleine's parents are hoping that the picture could help jog the memory of anyone who saw anything suspicious at the time of her abduction."

      which leads me to wonder why they released a holiday picture of Madeleine without her face visible.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4 April 2018 at 22:59

      ''Based on looking at the photographs I see clear evidence of photos-shopping, which leads me to wonder was Madeleine really there in the first place?''

      hat explains photographs.What does photoshop have to say about the filming of each other by the parents and friends on their journey out there ? Were they all acting and performing to construct an over-elaborate false abduction narrative ?

      Delete
    3. Look at the bus video, the legs are moving but the head's perfectly still. It's also completely blurred.

      Delete
    4. @ 18:30

      Talking of blurred heads....

      Did you spend a lot of money n Magic Eye pictures in the 90s ?

      Delete
    5. We are all LARPers

      Delete
  6. Meanwhile bennett has written for a review of the FOI answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cusses on you 23:17, I went and took a look :(

      Who the hell does he think he is 'demanding' answers? He doesn't represent anyone, and this is an ongoing police investigation. What he is doing has nothing to do with justice. Justice is running its' course, he just doesn't have an active part in it, and never will. He has no angry mobs behind, just a handful of old crones, male/female, no-one knows, because they are a bunch of cowards too ashamed of their opinions to put their name to them. I hope they tell him to sling his hook, or better still arrest him for wasting police time.

      Delete
  7. ''Eleven years on and the only people brave enough to comment on ...'' etc

    And roughly 200,000 members of the public online.

    ''all are gushingly sympathetic to the parents''

    Gushingly ? What's wrong with being sympathetic ? They lost a child - remember ?

    ''their vendetta against the former police detective''

    A detective who then sought revenge on the parents.He made serious allegations and accused them without evidence of burying their own child.It doesn't mean it's a vendetta to end that.It's closer to the truth to call it a retaliation against a vendetta.

    '' We have been living a twilight zone..game of pretend with the parents as innocent victims of the corrupt Portuguese justice system''

    The law holds them as innocent until proven guilty.That isn't pretend.Nobody is criticising the Portuguese justice system.They haven't been processed through it.

    '' No-one dare ask why the Madeleine case continues to get special treatment''

    Your blog is full of people asking that question.And suggesting possible reasons for it.

    ''Kerry and Paul, are probably the only people able to ask these questions''

    Anyone can ask questions relating to public servants and funding.

    '''haters'. A nasty little word that crept into our lexicon in 2007, commonly used by those without answers, explanations or the ability to debate. ''

    The truth is that they have the ability to question all sides and to debate.This includes putting haters on the spot and asking for some justification for that hate as they haven't got an iota of anything . They call it free speech.Yes, great debating.

    ''I happen not to believe Scotland Yard and Operation Grange are part of some great big scam''

    Doesn't matter.

    ''I also happen to think they are operating under Portugal's laws of judicial secrecy.''

    That's imagination.It needs a source of something to support it.

    ''Even if the British police say absolutely nothing about their investigation and their findings, all will be revealed when the Portuguese police files become public.''

    If you think the PJ are leading the investigation, what will the 'big reveal' be if they have a suspect now and won't arrest him ?

    '' I see the McCanns, via a pal, have 'hit back' at the armchair detectives. They seem to have completely forgotten those biblical passages that urge the turning of the other cheek.''

    Relax.Turn the other cheek.

    ''indeed, every writer, knows the golden rule about not attacking your audience. Even if you are right, dead right, you should never do it.''

    What about attacking your critics and accusers ?

    ''Among all their critics they dislike real detectives the most''

    Or real detectives who should behave more responsibly than to sell quotes.

    '' There are so many things the McCanns could and should have said over the years to keep their supporters onside, instead they are always 'hitting back' or incandescent with rage.''

    They hit back at supporters ?

    ''Their vendetta against Goncalo Amaral has a hit a brick wall. They lost''

    They lost their appeal to have his rumour spreading halted.His rumours are looking weaker as each years goes by.The court ruled in his favour.But the moral victory was the McCanns' for trying to uphold decency.

    ''The case won't and can't, end without each investigation, British and Portuguese, reaching a conclusion''

    It can and will.Unless 'unsolved' is counted as a conclusion.

    ''Whilst the British police might hold back on the information they give to the public, the Portuguese won't.''

    Why don't they act on their information now ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The McCanns ongoing war with GA is of their own making 00:15, not content with seeing him lose his job, they then organised a media campaign to disgrace him. In fact, it is only recently the media have dropped 'disgraced' from in front of his name. He had no option but to fight back to save his name and reputation. The McCanns say he should not have been allowed to write a book telling his side, because he is a former detective. Ergo, they want the freedom to trash former detectives but because of their professions, they should have no right to reply. That doesn't sit well with anyone.

      The McCanns won the moral victory? Really? They didn't, freedom of speech prevails. No book burning today.

      You are quite dogmatic in your 'can and will' end without a conclusion. How can you be so sure? And where is the hope? Only a few days ago, Gerry and Kate said they still had hope that Madeleine was alive.

      Your foregone conclusion that there will be no conclusion is baffling. Surely Scotland Yard wouldn't just throw in the towel after all these years? And if the McCanns believe there is hope, they wouldn't want them to.

      As for 'why don't they act on their information now?' - Who knows, like the Good Lord, the police work in mysterious ways, it's part of their job. Every case when boiled down to the nitty gritty, becomes a game of cat and mouse.

      Then there is the case of double jeopardy, if they bring a prosecution and it fails, that's it. Game over. The Portuguese were not prepared to risk it in 2008, which is why they shelved it until more evidence came along.

      I can't say for certain if DJ applies in Portugal, but I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. It was certainly a factor in the Jonbenet Ramsey case in the US.

      I watch way too many real crime documentaries for sure, mostly because it gives such a graphic insight into human behaviour. A behind the scene glimpse at how real murder investigations are run.

      Seeing the number of cases the police have to shelves due to lack of evidence is quite shocking. Especially in cases where the police have doubt as to who the killer is. It must be endlessly frustrating for the detectives, but sadly, something they have to accept. When there is a turnaround (new evidence) they pick it up with renewed vigour.

      Delete
    2. ''they want the freedom to trash former detectives but because of their professions, they should have no right to reply. That doesn't sit well with anyone. ''

      You call it trashing.That's due to an irrational prejudice you have concerning two people you've chosen to dislike immensely and accuse of as much as possible.

      The detective had no grounds other than his gut instinct( technically a guess, or suspicion, no more) and he inflated that to fill a book accusing two parents who were, in the eyes of the law, innocent. He claimed, at worst, they were responsible for the death of their child one way or another, and of burying her body, then constructing a fake story to mislead the investigation.
      They had every right to retaliate and to try and silence him.I don't think they would have done that with such vigour if they were guilty.

      You blame so much on the parents professions.They're doctors.They are not members of the Royals or politicians, judges or Cardinals.They're doctors.But you think their jobs have led to the police to throw a shield around them and that politicians are prepared to fund that.What about Amaral's profession ? He'd been on the force for 30 years.He has no excuse for misunderstanding, or deliberately ignoring, that anyone is innocent until proven guilty.Nor has he any excuse for ignoring the fact that nobody can accuse someone of a crime without being able to back it up and hope to get away with it without recrimination.The Cipriano woman had her sentence extended for a crime she committed because she had made false allegations against Amaral and his colleagues.Was that extension a 'vendetta' or an example of the law actually being upheld.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 April 2018 at 15:25

      ''Your foregone conclusion that there will be no conclusion is baffling.''

      Is it really baffling ? Is it as baffling as the eleven years of investigation throwing absolutely nothing up ?That alone is reason to believe they're no closer to a conclusion than they ever were.

      ''As for 'why don't they act on their information now?' - Who knows, like the Good Lord, the police work in mysterious ways''

      And still so many have faith in both.Not me, though. I believe if they had any worthwhile information now they'd act on it as they have no reason not to.

      ''Then there is the case of double jeopardy, if they bring a prosecution and it fails, that's it. Game over.''

      Unless evidence later comes about.The double jeopardy rule, as i seem to remember, was revised in most countries.

      ''I watch way too many real crime documentaries for sure, mostly because it gives such a graphic insight into human behaviour.''

      Me too.I never miss Homicide Hunter.I'm a big fan of Joe 'my my my' Kenda.His laconic, dry recitals of his investigations is the nearest thing to Philip Marlowe I've seen( hence my bias). He had a 92% closure rate in almost 400 homicide cases.It's a shame he wasn't still in the saddle when the Jonbenet case was happening. He would have nailed it.It was in his neck of the woods too.I reckon he would have nailed the McCann case too.Behind his laid back delivery you know the wheels are still turning at speed.He has a talent for pinning down character on the spot and reading a crime scene on sight.

      ''Seeing the number of cases the police have to shelves due to lack of evidence is quite shocking.''

      It's more disconcerting when it's 'revealed' years later that evidence had been destroyed, 'lost' or tampered with and the same happened to statements.We're learning all the time of this having been the case in the UK and, coincidentally, it seems more prevalent when children are involved and 'important' people.

      Delete
    4. We can only speculate on why they have not acted 17:57. There is so much yet to be revealed, which is what makes this case so intriguing. You seem to have reached a conclusion from the off, or halfway through at least, before declaring it's all over, nothing to see here.

      The rest of us are still waiting with baited breath, we know there is much, much, more still to come.

      Homicide Hunter doesn't sound at all like my cup of tea 16:57. I lean more towards domestic disputes and psychopaths next door, and most of them are American. It couldn't be more obvious that the availability of guns has led to so many deaths - In the Midwest, evangelical states especially, where murder seems to take the place of divorce!

      I'll take a look at Joe Kenda, though I am a great admirer of the ordinary cops who go above and beyond on behalf of the victims. Those determined to bring closure for the families.

      Delete
    5. I reached a conclusion within a month of the event.Call me cynical.But can you call me wrong ? It took me weeks to see this coming. After that i lost interest in terms of it being a big mystery. It was only when digging into the Jonbenet mystery that my interest was diverted back in it's direction.The jonbenet one is very strange.I still dip into that one.

      My interest was sparked when I found myself in the area where KM's family lived. It didn't enter my head at the time until i mentioned to my mate that there seemed to be a lot of flowers everywhere we looked in the one area.He told me it was an anniversary and the significance of the area, then the penny dropped.We spoke about it and the first flag raised was the 48 questions. we know here( us working class folk) why we say 'no comment' when collared by the law.That logic led me to think the obvious-guilty. later I thought about that.I asked why something so blatant could be overlooked.I'd heard the occasional juicy rumour here but treated them with extreme caution.Some people dive to the limelight for any silly reason.As one of the parents were from Liverpool and they'd been married here, people assumed knowledge and even claimed knowledge purely on that basis. So, i went to work digging about and talking to others I knew were interested in these kinds of things.I'd already solved the jack The Ripper case and was just finishing off my conclusion regrading 'the man from the pru' case.So, i was prepared to delve into the murky waters of the PDL one with all of it's questionable 'coppering' and moves from above.Before I knew it, I was submerged in all kinds of nonsense and intrigue.But, i found that my initial conclusion( nothing will happen if it doesn't happen within a month) stood.I just had a deeper conviction.

      You should give Joe K a go.It doesn't get the full hour but it's worth the time just to listen and watch the reconstructions.I enjoyed 'tears of a crime' too. Impressive and a worthy 8.5 out of 10.Especially the tragic tale of Helen Bailey, god rest her.But I've looked at the history of our police force and detectives 'of the yard' too, and how it developed at the same pace and with the same level of interest in the genre of crime novels and it shocked me.We have some gruesome psychopaths in our history and they didn't even have guns.An honourable shout out goes to Mr Whicher at this point.Possibly an unsung hero of police work.

      Murder is actually an alternative to divorce.I blame the French.

      Delete
    6. Hello Anon 5 April 2018 at 16:11
      Just a humble comment to one of your thoughts.

      ”They had every right to retaliate and to try and silence him. I don't think they would have done that with such vigour if they were guilty”

      The McCann's determination to destroy as many non-believers as they possibly can, is by many a McCann supporter taken as proof of their innocence.

      However, such a viewpoint is essentially based on the assumption that a person, who is a criminal would, as opposed to one who isn’t, be less interested in defending him/herself against serious accusations of a crime. If this were true, anyone, regardless of competence, would be successful in practicing the prosecutor's profession.

      A Psychopath, however, who is suspected of a crime, whether guilty or not, is often inclined to take any action, often far beyond what a normal person would ever imagine to do, depending on his/her agenda. A person of this kind could do so even if it would lead to the destruction of another's life, as such a person is by definition completely unscrupulous.








      Delete
    7. Thank you for your interesting post 20:13, and for your explanation as to how you too got engrossed in this case. I think we are all puzzle solvers of one variety or the other, for me I feel trapped in a book and desperate to get to the last page - the big reveal.

      Anyway, I struggle to understand how you are so convinced that the parents were not involved, but I won't ban you for it, lol. I could list 100 turning points for myself alone, but from you I ask only one?

      Delete
  8. Ros -

    ''I happen not to believe Scotland Yard and Operation Grange are part of some great big scam''

    Ros -

    '' Whilst the British police might hold back on the information they give to the public, the Portuguese won't.''

    Ros - ( again)

    '' Even if the British police say absolutely nothing about their investigation and their findings, all will be revealed when the Portuguese police files become public.''

    All that even though you don't believe there's a 'scam' of sorts on the UK side of things.

    ''I also happen to think they are operating under Portugal's laws of judicial secrecy. It is often forgotten that the Portuguese have the lead in this case and it is up to them to prosecute, or not''

    So it's them who are keeping the case going on and on is it. A case of ''we know who did what but it's a secret'' ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am merely citing reasons why there can't be a cover up, that is, the reasons I reached that conclusion.

      Your final line is mean't to ridicule, but that's probably it in a nutshell.

      Delete
    2. Can I just point out that nothing from Operation Grange will be released by the Portuguese, as I have seen that suggested several times

      Delete
    3. And how could you possibly know that 18:24? If it is Portuguese protocol to release police files to the public, why should there be an exemption in this most controversial of cases?

      Delete
    4. Because it is not permitted under UK law.
      This became an issue prior to the publication of the PJ files - surely you read the letters about it in the file? The agreement they came to was that they would not publish anything such as witness statements where the witness had approached the UK police, intelligence from Crimewatch, details of police procedures, data on sex offenders, unpublished 'off the record' intelligence from british forces. etc.
      Just because the Portuguese publish shelved enquiries does not mean we do.

      Nothing from the UK forces involved will be published. The files don't belong to the Portuguese, so they will not be seeing the light of day.

      I thought this was generally understood, but it seems that is not the case here.

      Delete
    5. 18:24 is right there. Our British police don't release files and you ought to know that by now seeing as you are well past middle age.

      That the Portuguese chose to do so is a matter of catastrophe but there was a clause signed by those who took a copy of the PART files not to publish in any place. Why, therefore did one of those persons break the rules and maybe the law? Can't that person be held to account for the vicious attacks online founded on part information?

      Why, also, do some of the prats online look at the interim report as something which should be taken as a conclusion? Interim means intermediary not final. We also have to note here that those who were writing the initial files or whose work we find in the initial files, were working under a man who was dismissed from the case.

      To be honest it is doubtful because of this break of confidence by the said person who broke the rules, that the PJ will ever again release files to unscrupulous persons. They know only too well the trouble these files have brought to the McCann couple but will they charge the person who broke the promise? Remains to be seen I suppose?

      Delete
  9. Can any one with hand on heart please provide evidence that since the digs and subsequent sitting in on the questioning of some 15 people (if I recall in 2014) that Scotland Yard are actively engaged in any investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 09:20

      Are you not on the "Scotland Yard" mailing list then?
      You should phone to complain.

      Delete
    2. Good point 09:20

      When this case is discussed, deja vu is inevitable. The crime occurred in 2007.Nothing happened thereon in.The motifs are the same as they were eleven years ago.

      2007 : Dogs.'Smithman'.Searches.Statements. The three arguidos.Amaral removed.The 48 questions.

      2008 : PJ shelve the case then reopen it.

      2009, 2010, 2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018 : nothing.That is an awful large area of emptiness.

      The parents have been cleared of suspicion by both forces on record, So has the mysterious Murat.The libel case hearings were a side dish concerning claims made in a book, not about the investigation.Yet, that one year of activity followed by 10 of nothing, is enough to convince the antis that OG and PJ have something and therefore need the funding.If they have, all of the above would suggest that if they have, it has nothing to do with the parents.

      Cases involving children who have gone missing or worse, are a substantial thorn in the side of Portugal. The possible involvement of VIPs is too. They were still recovering from the Casa Pia scandal when this happened and our own VIPs got involved.There is an outside bet there.That case found it's way to court in the 21st century despite complaints and demands for answers dating back to the 1970s and 80s. If they're looking at certain characters that were on the fringe of that, it would explain why the information can't be released.Or, if it concerns certain higher ranking people involved in that case, it's possible that the leverage involved could be damaging to UK VIPs.These politicians know what crimes they have committed and so do others.Sometimes it's best not to take one down in case he chooses to take down a ship with him.It would explain the time taken and funding.It's like diffusing a bomb.Softly, softly...

      Delete
    3. @ 15:20 That's you in the no tray then.

      Delete
    4. @ 16:28

      Yes.And that's an emphatic no :/

      Delete
  10. Anonymous4 April 2018 at 22:59

    ''Based on looking at the photographs I see clear evidence of photos-shopping, which leads me to wonder was Madeleine really there in the first place?''

    Does it lead you to wonder, in that case, why Amaral was removed, millions were spent, suspects questioned, more suspects chase and dragged in for the same, or why the child hasn't been spotted at home with her siblings in the UK. No. You've heard what photoshop can do to photographs and the rest doesn't really matter.You must be an anti.

    Anonymous5 April 2018 at 07:22

    ''"Madeleine's parents are hoping that the picture could help jog the memory of anyone who saw anything suspicious at the time of her abduction...which leads me to wonder why they released a holiday picture of Madeleine without her face visible.''

    What is the most easily recalled image of Madeleine ? The one that was released on posters and front pages around the world ?It's the one that has her in her Everton top, looking right at the camera smiling, close up.That is the 'official' poster.
    Again the photo 'experts' try to derail a thread early.Badly, I might add.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't believe there is a 'cover-up' by Operation Grange, and here's why ;

    A cover-up of that magnitude could only happen if orders 'from above' had been issued ( MI5 involvement at the very least )

    Here's the thing though, if the spooks HAD been involved then 'evidence' that vindicated the McCann's abduction claim would have miraculously appeared by now ( think the Iraq war sexed-up dossier here )

    It hasn't though - not a shred of evidence to prove abduction in the last 7 years.

    Conversely, what Grange HAS provided is evidence that crushed the very foundation stone that the McCann's version of events was built on - that of Jane Tanner having SEEN Madeleine being 'abducted'

    For years they insisted their pal Jane had witnessed their child being carried off ( in one interview Gerry went as far as to claim the abductor had almost been caught - "By who ?", asked the interviewer - "By Jane" replied Gerry confidently, as if it was an accepted fact )

    In my opinion, by taking that step alone ( demolishing the corner stone of the McCanns' abduction story ) Operation Grange showed there was no cover-up going on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points 17:13. Operation Grange could have produced definite evidence that cleared the McCanns and their friends. It would have stopped most of the rumours and conspiracy theories. Actually, it is quite cruel that they haven't.

      Ruling out Jane Tanner's sighting was indeed a major turning point, along with the revelation of a new prime suspect, Smithman. If the objective was to steer suspicion away from the McCanns, making a Gerry doppelganger the prime suspect wasn't going to help.

      Then of course, there was the in plain sight dig and search in PDL that made it absolutely clear they were searching for a body.

      That the McCanns continued to post JT's sighting on their website, showed they are not in agreement with OG. As you say, there are no signs of a cover up on the part of OG. Arguably, everything they have done publicly has drawn more criticism of the parents. After Crimewatch, the membership of the facebook groups etc, went up by hundreds of thousands.

      Delete
    2. Agreed.

      If this really WAS a huge conspiracy involving government and the secret services ( as some people continue to insist ) then the 'cover-up' would have been concluded a long time ago.

      It would be water off a ducks's back for the spooks to arrange for some 'remains' to be located in a remote part of Portugal that the McCanns had never set foot in ( they wouldn't have to even be human remains )

      One of those 'tents' would have been set up around the site as the world's press photographed the sombre scene from a distance.

      Then it would be announced that 'intelligence sources' had lead to the burial location, and that they could not be disclosed for security reasons.

      Dental records would be said to have confirmed the 'child's remains' were those of Madeleine - and voila, case closed with the McCanns vindicated.

      No such thing has happened though, has it ?

      Ergo - no cover-up.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5 April 2018 at 17:13

      ''A cover-up of that magnitude could only happen if orders 'from above' had been issued ( MI5 involvement at the very least ) ''

      Let's be honest, it stopped being purely a police investigation right away and the M of 'MI@ is 'military'. It isn't about police investigations into abductions, murders, assaults, drug possession or anything like that. Amaral insinuated MI were involved in a cover up.I believe that too. It offers a feasible explanation as to the mystery of evidence being there then not there and the length of time and expense the UK Gov are prepared to go to.They wouldn't do it for civilians, whatever they do for a living.

      ''It hasn't though - not a shred of evidence to prove abduction in the last 7 years.''

      For you, what constitutes evidence of an abduction ?

      ''Conversely, what Grange HAS provided is evidence that crushed the very foundation stone that the McCann's version of events was built on - that of Jane Tanner having SEEN Madeleine being 'abducted' ''

      Is there a statement given by Jane Tanner that has her going on record to say she actually saw Madeleine being abducted.Or did she just say she saw a man carrying a child ? Hindsight then leading her to question if it could have been Madeleine.Let's open our eyes ; a child seemingly in a sleeping position in the dark is hard to identify.But she would have been able to recognise Gerry McCann.

      ''In my opinion, by taking that step alone ( demolishing the corner stone of the McCanns' abduction story ) Operation Grange showed there was no cover-up going on.''

      The cornerstone of your opinion's merit lies in whether or not Jane Tanner said it was Madeleine or not.I'd say if she did say that, the obvious follow up question would have been 'why didn't you ask where they were going, or why didn't you give chase or raise an alarm if you knew it was Madeleine being whisked away by some stranger''


      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 April 2018 at 18:26

      '' Operation Grange could have produced definite evidence that cleared the McCanns and their friends. It would have stopped most of the rumours and conspiracy theories. Actually, it is quite cruel that they haven't.''

      Had they done that, what would have been left in terms of discussing or reporting the case ? If MI were needed for whatever bizarre reason, then it smacks of cover up.For eleven years the parents have been subjected to no end of flack.And, as you point out, it's cruel that no evidence has been produced to definitively clear the smoke.The parents have become focalisers in every re-written version of events composed by outside observers, including the media. Everything is about what they must have, or likely had, done, said and thought prior to and after the events in PDL. The momentum that this weird phenomenon gathered has led to no end of weird and sinister theorising gleaned from remembered cases in history and major news stories and documentaries.It's become a cottage industry in itself with books, pamphlets and films springing from it.As long as that has been happening nobody is looking past the parents in an equally weird 'thumbs up or down' debate. Who does that suit ? If it wasn't the parents behind the crime, it would suit the real perpetrator.To add a spoonful of sugar to the bitter medicine for the parents, they have an assurance that not one iota of incriminating evidence will see the light and no expense will be spared.That's what has created a limbo condition for them.

      ''Then of course, there was the in plain sight dig and search in PDL that made it absolutely clear they were searching for a body. ''

      As Redwood said, they have to entertain all scenarios, including the worst case one.Would you bury a body right under the noses of the investigating forces after all the elaborate planning of a fake abduction and contradictory statements ? Or would you drive miles away.The dig was a PR exercise.Nobody really expected anything to be found.They can dig PDL up bit by bit. Same result. It makes no sense to imagine anyone would have buried the evidence near to the police.

      '' As you say, there are no signs of a cover up on the part of OG. ''

      OG didn't come together until four long years after 2007.Were they really expected to success where two police forces had failed ? What was 'fresh' by that time ?Any cover up and involvement would have been initialised in 2007 before they even existed as a review team. It doesn't mean they were part of a cover up knowingly. They were formed to review what had already been put to bed.That's why they haven't found anything.

      ''Arguably, everything they have done publicly has drawn more criticism of the parents''

      If their failure has drawn criticism of the parents, it says more about the critics than the review.

      ''After Crimewatch, the membership of the facebook groups etc, went up by hundreds of thousands.''

      Which says nothing of any worth.

      Delete
    5. 'to add a spoonful of sugar to the bitter medicine etc....' - Are you saying the parents have an assurance that if they keep their traps shut no incriminating evidence will be found?

      That's quite a bold allegation you have made there and not even remotely credible. The McCanns are not the kind of people to accept the blame while everyone else gets off scott free. That would be totally going against the grain. If they can take people down with them, they will.

      You then say OG didn't come into force until 'four long years after 2007'. You seem to forget it was the McCanns who campaigned for that very investigation, they had a petition going and a letter to David Cameron on the front page of the Sun. What was fresh you say. Who knows, the McCanns obviously thought a Review would bring an answer. They probably didn't expect an investigation.

      Finally, the upsurge in facebook and forum membership signalled far more people were looking beyond the headlines.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous5 April 2018 at 18:55

      '' the 'cover-up' would have been concluded a long time ago. ''

      Eleven years is long time ago.

      '' water off a ducks's back for the spooks to arrange for some 'remains' to be located in a remote part of Portuga..( they wouldn't have to even be human remains )...One of those 'tents' would have been set up around the site..the world's press photographed the sombre scene from a distance...Then it would be announced that 'intelligence sources' had lead to the burial location, and that they could not be disclosed for security reasons...Dental records would be said to have confirmed the 'child's remains' were those of Madeleine...and voila, case closed with the McCanns vindicated. ...No such thing has happened though, has it ? ''

      No.Mainly because this isn't an episode of Taggart, Rebus, or CSI Praia da Luz.

      ''Ergo - no cover-up.''

      Then we can change channels can we.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 April 2018 at 20:10

      '''to add a spoonful of sugar to the bitter medicine etc....' - Are you saying the parents have an assurance that if they keep their traps shut no incriminating evidence will be found?''

      A good question and, for me anyway, the stickiest of wickets in this case. I have wondered what the parents have turned over in their head since that night.If they're guilty, it doesn't take much head work.But, if they're innocent, which I tend to go with, then they must wonder a lot of things.Obviously they wonder and pray that Madeleine is just being held somewhere for now.They'd have to think that I suppose to stay sane.But the dealings with Cameron, the media, Mitchell himself and the suspicious Rebekah Brooks involving herself, which some say 'inspired' Cameron's lot to create OG, would surely, at some stage, cause them to question what had gone on above them.But ostensibly, all of the above have bent over backwards to assist in the investigation.What can they do ? Voice suspicion and have even more poison hurled their way for being ungrateful ? Have the main players at OG and SY assured them that whatever the conclusion is, they wouldn't be in the frame.That's why my only description for this position is limbo.They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't.

      ''. The McCanns are not the kind of people to accept the blame while everyone else gets off scott free.''

      None of us know what kind of people they are.We don't know them.If they're innocent, they won't accept blame any way - would you ? But it still doesn't present anyone to point a finger at.

      ''What was fresh you say. Who knows, the McCanns obviously thought a Review would bring an answer''

      It doesn't matter what the McCanns thought.Cameron approached Theresa May and it was considered by them that funds 'could be found'.

      '' They probably didn't expect an investigation.''

      All the signs say they were probably right not to.

      ''Finally, the upsurge in facebook and forum membership signalled far more people were looking beyond the headlines.''

      And replacing them with ones they preferred reading.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous5 April 2018 at 17:13

      ''In my opinion, by taking that step alone ( demolishing the corner stone of the McCanns' abduction story ) Operation Grange showed there was no cover-up going on.''

      You might have uintentionally rumbled OG there. Clean up team A killed the case. Down the line people , Amaral among them, questioned the involvement of MI5/6, Murdoch's minions and the eternal funding. Enter clean up team B -OG. To kill the rumours of such skulldugggery. Nothing to see now is there.

      Delete
    9. This really is a case where only the truth will set them free 20:41. I can see that having asked, indeed petitioned, for a Review, they can not now be seen to criticise it. They got their Review and much much more. All the while there are thousands of families who are pleading for just one fraction of those resources to find their lost loved ones.

      However pretending you are grateful when you are really not, is an uncomfortable position for anyone. If the McCanns and OG are at odds with each other, it will come out eventually.

      The problem with lying is that it always comes back to haunt you, especially if it is on camera and on YouTube.

      Delete
    10. Nobody can prove that the freedom they are enjoying now isn't down to the truth.Maybe the truth known by a small amount of players is enough to ensure that they should be free.I find it hard to believe that so many officers over so many years have been unable to expose the alleged lies. Only one has tried and his are yet to receive support of any worth.

      ''All the while there are thousands of families who are pleading for just one fraction of those resources to find their lost loved ones. ''

      And not receiving it, I know.And that's wrong.Also wrong is the 'no resources' excuse that's used for everything that the less well off have to accepet for anything, from legal aid, welfare or healthcare. But is that the McCanns' fault ? Or the Government. I believe, had this beena genuine run of the mill cime against a child, be it an abduction or worse, the McCanns would hav been afforded a little more assistance than mr or mrs average at home as they were abroad in a place they didn't know or have any solid British back up.But not to the tune of millions of pounds and eleven years.That in itself suggests a red flag.The Government has been prepared, despite criticism from within it's own ranks, to suspend it's concerns over budget and manpower . Does that raise questions about the parents or the Governments that have sat in power during the eleven years ?

      ''However pretending you are grateful when you are really not, is an uncomfortable position for anyone. If the McCanns and OG are at odds with each other, it will come out eventually.''

      I'd like to think you're right.But somehow I doubt it will happen.Too much water has passed under the bridge now.I'd like the parents to be free of the limbo state and to voice what it is they don't like about the OG operation.I believe the gratitude is lip service.But that's only my view based on what i think would be a natural state of mind after all the years of nothing but awareness - raising and PR exercises which have less chance of yielding anything as each week passes, let alone year.

      ''The problem with lying is that it always comes back to haunt you, especially if it is on camera and on YouTube.''

      A lot of people have appeared on camera concerning this case,not just the parents.A lot of spin has been spun too.The problem is in proving what is lying and what isn't.If it hits the fan, it won't matter if the McCanns are doctors or factory workers.If it transpires that they have lied from day one, an army of detectives will be exposed as either useless or dishonest.A handful of politicians will be exposed as co-conspirators in a crime so taboo that it would make Profumo look like a shop lifting charge.

      Delete
    11. Ros, 6 April 13.11

      Your last paragraph -

      Jane Tanner saying "when I carried her" for instance. So many more as well, all saved for eternity by bloggers and probably also the PJ & SY.

      Delete
    12. The McCanns don't have much to thank OG for 14:35. Seven years on and their situation hasn't improved. Arguably, it is much worse, because as you say, they are in limbo. Especially if the police have concluded Madeleine is dead and they want to keep the hope that she is alive. They can't pursue their awareness campaign and they can't fund raise.

      I'm not sure an army of detectives will be exposed as either useless or dishonest. The original investigation is available and online, and it is still the basis of the case. There is nothing to suggest the PJ or OG are doing anything dishonest, or useless. Everything online is pure speculation.

      The politicians might get a few awkward questions, but they can claim they acted out of compassion. And here, I am talking about the New Labour MPs, not the tories. Cameron, May etc, had nothing to do with the summer of 2007.

      In fact, I would go so far to say, if OG had any prominent tories in it's sights, the funding would probably have finished a long time ago. Remember when the original report by Jim Gamble was submitted, there was a New Labour Government who 'sat on it' for 6 months. A Review wasn't authorised until the tories took over.

      Delete
    13. And that's just one example, 16:40.

      Unfortunately, the McCanns allowed their vanity to override common sense. Lawyers have good reason for telling their clients not to talk, and not to go in the witness box. Every time they speak they are in danger of incriminating themselves. That's probably why the McCanns' interviews are so stilted and wooden. They cannot relax because they have to be so careful with every word they say. If the case watchers and the headcases can find blatant discrepancies, so too can the police.

      Delete
    14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 April 2018 at 17:29

      '' Especially if the police have concluded Madeleine is dead and they want to keep the hope that she is alive. They can't pursue their awareness campaign and they can't fund raise.''

      Which opens a separate can of worms should that be the case.It means the police /detectives have knowingly taken part in a conspiracy to conceal a crime and to pervert the course of justice.It would also mean they've knowingly let the tax payers money be wasted so long as it keeps the balls in the air.

      ''I'm not sure an army of detectives will be exposed as either useless or dishonest.''

      I'm saying that should it arise that none of them have spotted lies in eleven years.I don't think that's a likely scenario though.Every word of importance has been spoken and written for a long time.They can't invent others.

      '' There is nothing to suggest the PJ or OG are doing anything dishonest, or useless. Everything online is pure speculation.''

      See above.And yes, every word online is only speculation.It's time the majority of speculators accepted such.

      ''The politicians might get a few awkward questions, but they can claim they acted out of compassion. And here, I am talking about the New Labour MPs, not the tories. Cameron, May etc, had nothing to do with the summer of 2007.''

      I believe the leverage involved was Blair / Brown -related ( Blue Labour). Blair was on his way out, Brown on his way in( explaining why a chancellor of the exchequer considered this case his business).Blair had sat down to plan the illegal war on Iraq with Bush, hosted by Portugal's PM.That PM spoke the same language as Blair on all things EU too.But those things are about the UK rather than a party.Hence, Cameron's party inherited whatever had been left.And let us not forget, when they aren't performing for cameras, they all eat from the same trough as part of the Murdochian Chipping Norton set.Theresa may holds some keys in this lot.That's my suspicion. And David Milliband went awfully shy as Labours Home Secretary at the important time.

      '' A Review wasn't authorised until the tories took over.''

      And Rebekah Brook's had exercised some leverage over Cameron. He was in no hurry until she caught him by the short hairs. What was that about ? He can wage a nazi - like war on the lower classes but wet himself when some nasty little red head clicked her boney fingers..

      Delete
    15. If any of that amounted to anything other than a suspicion, they would have been charged. In court no judge allows a 'no comment'

      Delete
    16. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 April 2018 at 13:11

      ''This really is a case where only the truth will set them free 20:41''

      Maybe that's the case.Maybe it's the truth that's set them free.Maybe it's the truth that's shielding them from charges and not the police or politicians.

      Delete
    17. @ Anonymous6 April 2018 at 16:40

      ''Jane Tanner saying "when I carried her" for instance. So many more as well, all saved for eternity by bloggers and probably also the PJ & SY.''

      I wonder if the PJ and Sy are thinking what I'm thinking. That is : what does that have any relevance to ? How does it relate to whatever happened to Madeleine that night ?

      Perhaps you could explain the significance of it.

      Delete
    18. 6 April 18.28

      Is that the truth with regard to Eddie & Keela's findings or the truth that maybe GM did a favour as a heart consultant for Blair/Brown/Cameron all perhaps needing the silence of someone who could do them all a favour without the public knowing any of their or their children's health conditions - as Madeleine's uncle (?) said "favours were called in" and all having Scottish heritage, did they have a pact as Scots, although with Blair it's hard to tell where his loyalties lie.

      Who knows who did a favour for who.

      Delete
    19. They in my first paragraph referred to Gerry and Kate. Sorry I could have been clearer. If the police have concluded Madeleine is dead, Gerry and Kate can't continue with their awareness campaigns and fund raising. Well they could, technically, I suppose, but I doubt it would get much support.

      Re the politicians, I was quite impressed with your little summing up of the Chipping Norton set there, sounds about right. And like yourself, I don't see the magnetism of the redhead, but she clearly has it by the bucketload. Kudos to her for that, she's the kind of feminist role model I like.

      Unfortunately, it is a dog eat dog world 18:12, and the ruthless always rise to the top. Thereafter, staying there, becomes the problem.

      The Madeleine story arrived alongside all the powers of the internet. It was the first missing child story to go viral. And the tabloids were raking it in with Madeleine stories every day. Something I think, that miffs Gerry and Kate, I'm sure they were aware of how much the newspapers were making. Anything McCann related was flying off the shelves. I think Gerry mentioned during Leveson that tabloids were using their pictures constantly and they were getting nothing for them. But that's churlish.

      Both Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brookes have a nose for a good story and are probably not above double crossing anyone. Who's idea was it to publish a direct plea from Gerry and Kate to David Cameron, on the front page of The Sun? Gerry's? Kate's? Clarence? Friends and family?

      I don't think they expected such a positive response. Unless of course it had already been set up by David and Rebekah whilst horse riding. Gerry and Kate may even have been party to it. That is, they already knew he would say yes.

      I've always thought the miraculous way the McCanns received their wish, a Review, was one of those Oops 'Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it' moments. Unfortunately, they did such a good job at making their plight sympathetic, politicians were still willing to bend over backwards to help them.

      But the nasty party are still nasty, and Gerry and Kate were never going to be invited along on a hunt. On the surface this appeared to be a kind gesture on behalf of the usually uncaring conservatives, but it may have been masking a fiendish plan.

      There are several New Labour VIPs who could be said to have actively interfered in the Portuguese investigation. How big a scandal the tories want to make of it, will be up to them. If I were a gambler, I would bet on Theresa May taking this to the finish line. As Home Secretary, she was 'forced' into granting the Review, and took the decision to fund an investigation. Will as much time and money be spent on Grenfell? Sadly, we already know the answer to that. It is only when you put this one child tragedy alongside one of much greater magnitude, that you see how crazily disproportionate this one case is.

      It is still a safe bet I'd say, that this case will end in multiple shock revelations and maybe a boost in newspaper sales. I don't think it will reach the same level of hysteria as it did in 2007, it's got a lot more to compete with these days.

      Delete
    20. Anon 6 April 19.54

      You obviously have no clue do you about what's been said by the McCanns or their "friends" over the past 11 years, obviously you haven't been that interested as to what happened to Madeleine. Remember her? The little girl who the McCanns "lost" and the devoted friends who couldn't be arsed to do a reconstruction to help Madeleine. Work it out for yourself.

      Delete
    21. @Anonymous6 April 2018 at 23:14

      Anonymous6 April 2018 at 23:14

      Anon 6 April 19.54
      ''You obviously have no clue do you about what's been said by the McCanns or their "friends" over the past 11 years, obviously you haven't been that interested as to what happened to Madeleine. Remember her? The little girl who the McCanns "lost" and the devoted friends who couldn't be arsed to do a reconstruction to help Madeleine. Work it out for yourself.''

      First point.Don't tell, or attempt to tell me what is and isn't obvious about what I think and what I think i know .

      Second point.I asked you a short, simply expressed question.You haven't answered it or referred to it in any way.All you have done is throw a hissy fit about nothing of any interest. Why don't you answer my question.

      Delete
    22. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 April 2018 at 20:51

      ''I don't see the magnetism of the redhead, but she clearly has it by the bucketload''

      You don't need magnetism when you have one or two other attributes, which she has.If you know where the bodies are buried, too coin an unfortunate phrase, and own '' the honey pot that rules the world'' ( Napoleon in poetic mood when describing the female lady garden, which is me in poetic mode now.it's contagious.).If you recall, she was staring down both barrels of a prison term before the Leveson Inquiry concluded.Somehow( ironically a few phone calls later I'd wager) she walked free.

      When I picture, or consider the CN set, I see Murdoch, the head of the snake, watching on with a sinister pride at his progeny, their spouses and their friends.It's as though Iago and Machiavelli had IVF treatment and they're all gorging themselves on everything they're stealing. A group seemingly so small can have unlimited power and play for high stakes.Cross them and kiss your arse bye bye...


      ''There are several New Labour VIPs who could be said to have actively interfered in the Portuguese investigation''


      Blair had been subjected to a few allegations of an unsavoury nature prior to it all.Brown even more so. Some still say certain allegations about him are waiting to find the light of day and it was no coincidence that he was the champion of internet 'policing' shortly after they popped up online.

      ''Theresa May taking this to the finish line.''

      I watched a repeated Mock The week earlier in the week. So the 'topical' satire wasn't really topical.May was Home sec at the time.The question: What is her nick name around Westminster ? After a free for all smutty innuendo orgy( sea men etc ) it was answered : Submarine. Why ? Because she had earned the reputation of being able to quietly submerge out of sight when the heat was on or things got awkward.Which begs the question of why she won the popularity contest to become PM. Not unlike when Margaret Beckett became Home Secretary.It's no secret that favours earn favours in politics.Look at Esther McCvey.She's just landed the job of killing the poor without any apparent qualification.Look at the Warren Report on JFK.Gerald Ford hid and altered statements to ensure the 'right' result was reached.He became a dumb president who later admitted he did it.Bush Sr said Ford was a man of his word when speaking at his funeral.A bit like Ted Bundy giving Jack The Ripper a character reference..

      All of this, and all of them, tell me that your final bet is not one to put cash on.

      ''It is still a safe bet I'd say, that this case will end in multiple shock revelations and maybe a boost in newspaper sales.''

      You can safely bet on a gagging order on all journalists.You won't see luminaries from 'the set' languishing in any 8 by 6 at any point.If that happened, the McCann case would be swept away by the tide of public fury and rage at the elite's unveiling for what they are after what they've done for years.

      Delete
    23. Anonymous6 April 2018 at 19:54
      Hi There

      "I wonder if the PJ and Sy are thinking what I'm thinking. That is : what does that have any relevance to ? How does it relate to whatever happened to Madeleine that night ?"

      Jane Tanner may have taken Madeleine from the bed and given her to Gerry, who were waiting and watching outside the apartment. JT could have been seen outside the apartment before she entered it or just after Gerry had carried Madeleine away.So her freudian slip is really significant for a serious investigation.

      Delete
    24. I think the media are lying low at the moment because there is a live investigation 01:35, but I think once the investigation is over, the self imposed restraints will be off. This is still a big story where a lot of people want answers. If there isn't an official conclusion by SY, the theories of the armchair detectives will continue and possibly escalate.

      Gagging Orders are not nearly as effective as they once were. From what I have seen, almost as soon as a gagging order is announced, the information becomes available on social media, eg. Ryan Giggs, Elton John.

      No, I don't think we will see an luminaries locked up, they have minions so can easily pass the blame onto them. Lesser luminaries however, might find themselves thrown in at the deep end. Those former police officers who promoted the abduction and the McCanns' campaigns for example. Openly siding with the suspects against the Portuguese Judiciary.

      I think too much time has gone by for there to be a tide of public fury and rage, most I think will just see it all as very sad.

      Delete
    25. Björn7 April 2018 at 10:15
      "Jane Tanner may have taken Madeleine from the bed and given her to Gerry, who were waiting and watching outside the apartment"

      Correction of my Swinglish again, sorry.
      "who were waiting" should be "if he was waiting...etc"

      Delete
    26. Björn7 April 2018 at 12:18

      ''Björn7 April 2018 at 10:15
      "Jane Tanner may have taken Madeleine from the bed and given her to Gerry, who were waiting and watching outside the apartment"

      Once again a complete flight of fantasy and one that frames your perceived enemy.Use some logic for once.You have simplified details to suit your purpose. Why would they remove a child so fast ? Why wouldn't they consider people were still milling around in various areas in PDL ?Why did JT have to carry the child to Gerry ? Why would anyone from the tapas group willingly become part of a horrible crime ?

      Delete
    27. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 April 2018 at 10:37

      ''I think the media are lying low at the moment because there is a live investigation 01:35, but I think once the investigation is over, the self imposed restraints will be off.''

      Lying or omitting truth ? They are allowed to report honestly on ongoing investigations but not to lie.Restraints are not necessarily self imposed. Think Lord Havers 1980s..

      ''Gagging Orders are not nearly as effective as they once were...the information becomes available on social media, eg. Ryan Giggs, Elton John. ''

      There's a huge difference between a celebrity having revelations of them bumping uglies with some Orange fame-chaser and a crime involving a child that implicates very powerful people.

      ''Those former police officers who promoted the abduction and the McCanns' campaigns for example. Openly siding with the suspects against the Portuguese Judiciary. ''

      They have a built in defence.The abduction story was the official line and official line of investigation.That's all they have to say if accused of promoting anything.

      ''I think too much time has gone by for there to be a tide of public fury and rage, most I think will just see it all as very sad.''

      That would depend on the outcome.

      Delete
    28. Björn7 April 2018 at 10:15

      ''So her freudian slip is really significant for a serious investigation.''

      Who says it was a Freudian slip ? People can suffer a slip of the tongue under pressure or when under distress.It's being human.The rest of your post is a very poor B movie from the days of black and white.

      Delete
    29. Hello Anon7 April 2018 at 15:25

      ?Why did JT have to carry the child to Gerry ? Why would anyone from the tapas group willingly become part of a horrible crime ?

      It takes two, one must watch out for people walking around. Gerry could have been watching and JT could have been the person who, when she got the message "nobody near" by Gerry, quickly went through the door and passed Madeline on to Gerry.

      It would've been far too risky for one person to carry Madeleine out of the apartment not knowing if anyone was outside and perhaps also near the apartment.

      If it was, as some people believe, decided that it was Gerry who was going to hide Madeleine, which is not unlikely, then the order had to be Jane Tanner first and then Gerry.

      The lady in purple, seen by a witness, could have been JT. Tanners freudian slip was what made me think that both of them could have carried Madeleine in the order suggested by me.

      If JT assisted in this manner she must have had something to do with Madeleine's death. Perhaps being responsible for overdosing some kind of sedative pills, that was given Madeleine.

      So Gerry co-operating with JT is not at all an absurd idea, as it must have happened around 22H00 shortly before Kate prepared for alerting their other tapas friend about an abduction.

      Delete
  12. Hi Rosalinda,
    A while ago you wrote that no other detective's reputation had been destroyed for investigating or giving evidence in a case you could think of. You gave the examples of the McCann case and the Jonbenet Ramsey couple who similarly launched and settled an eighty million dollar claim against the two detectives handling the case against them. (the two cops subsequently wrote a book).

    Perhaps there is one other example that stands out.

    Years earlier Detective Mark Fuhrman received the same treatment from the OJ Simpson defense team who tried to frame him for racist comments. (for which he was later exonerated) and cleverly derailed the trial.
    The poor man ended up losing his career as a result.

    Thankfully, this very savvy detective lived to fight another day and wrote the definitive book about what really happened on the fateful day the Goldman couple were killed.

    Simpson himself hasn't bothered to sue Fuhrman. It's not really surprising when the title of Simpson's book is: "If I did it".
    So...being a policeman is definitely a hazardous occupation.
    All the best.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so is being a racist

      Delete
    2. Hi JC, yes there seems to be a pattern of wealthy high profile suspects turning on the detectives who investigated them.

      Steve Thomas was known as Jonbenet's avenger, in that he fought against a system that seemed to be letting the super rich Ramseys off the hook. It took over 20 years but when he was finally vindicated when it was revealed the Grand Jury wanted to indict the parents.

      I don't know very much about the OJ case, and I should do because my dear old dad was totally glued to it and he gave me every detail of each day of the trial, lol.

      Delete
  13. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 April 2018 at 21:29
    "I could list 100 turning points for myself alone"

    Go on then Ros - I am sure your readers are interested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, I'm pretty sure I have mentioned most if not all my 'turning points' over the years 09:18. They begin with the 'not searching'. I will never understand why the parents and their friends were not out searching. And all those friends and relatives who flew out there, they weren't joining the searches either. Going back to all those crime documentaries I watch, the loved ones not only join in with the volunteers, they never STOP, they never give up.

      Second major turning point. They put the kids in the crèche the next morning, 4th May. I find that absolutely incomprehensible. They were claiming Madeleine had been abducted, yet they were willing to leave their children with strangers. I think most people would not have allowed their remaining children out of their sight.

      Third, while I am on a roll. How could they have 100% belief in their friends? Some of them, they didn't know that well. I tend to think in such a fearful situation, you would trust no-one. Their friends were leaving the tapas table at regular intervals and staying away for quite some time. Jane went to relieve Russell, Matt washed the sheets. All absences during the crucial timeframe.

      Fourth, Jane Tanner's sighting. During all the commotion following the alarm being raised and searches organised, why didn't she say 'he went that way?'. Why was Kate 'relieved' that Jane had seen a man carrying her child away? Ie. worst possible scenario. Why wasn't she furious that Jane hadn't told her the night before?

      All the tapas group had means and opportunity, more so than a total stranger, because they had knowledge the children were alone in an unlocked apartment.

      I just cannot understand this faith they have in their friends. I can't imagine anything other than paranoia if you had just had a child stolen, and your imagination would run wild.

      Delete
    2. Em, the friends (male) including Gerald McCann went to search for Madeleine. You are blogging misinformation here .

      Why do you think Kate would be furious with Jane when Jane had told the men about her sighting? I expect Kate was in some kind of state of not knowing what was going on around her. Imagine how you would have felt.

      The crèche on 4 May you have brought up before. The children were out there in order for the parents to attend the police offices in Portimao. have you forgotten all of this?

      You state the tapas group had means and opportunity, do you mean to abduct Madeleine? Ok then, what did they do with her?

      You have some crazy notions, I'll give you credit for that!

      Delete
    3. ''Second major turning point. They put the kids in the crèche the next morning, 4th May. I find that absolutely incomprehensible''

      Yes, they should have glued the kids to their hip. Dragged them from detective to detective and film crew to film crew as half the town stared at them.They'd have taken it in their stride, especially as questions about their suddenly invisible sister were fired at them.It was outrageous to spare them this ordeal and place them among other children under the watchful eyes of the staff of the creche. Incomprehensible( if you don't really think much about it).

      Delete
    4. ''You state the tapas group had means and opportunity, do you mean to abduct Madeleine? Ok then, what did they do with her? ''

      She forgot motive.I think she's in mellow post wine mode.

      Delete
    5. ''I just cannot understand this faith they have in their friends. I can't imagine anything other than paranoia if you had just had a child stolen, and your imagination would run wild. ''

      What's the problem ? They could start a blog.

      Delete
    6. Gerry did start a blog 20:59. And Kate started a diary I can see why my scribblings are considered lunacy by comparison. It's arts .v. science all over again. While they were studying to be doctors, I was studying to be a writer.

      I don't understand the shock, horror and moral outrage at my suggestion the McCanns should have suspected their friends. My answer would be, how could they not? They kept disappearing from the dinner table, and Matt physically went into the apartment.

      And, get the smelling salts handy, why were Gerry and Kate never suspicious of each other? How have they never yelled 'it was your fault' at each other. That would be the natural reaction.

      Delete
    7. ''It's arts .v. science all over again. While they were studying to be doctors....why were Gerry and Kate never suspicious of each other? How have they never yelled 'it was your fault' at each other. That would be the natural reaction.''

      That's what happens when you study to be a writer.Creative maybe.Realistic, not really.Leave that for screen writers .

      Delete
    8. The HND course I did was professional writing, not creative writing and I'm pretty sure you haven't got a clue what that entailed.

      But truth be told I have studied writing all my life, my own speciality, if I have one, is the study of human behaviour. I have been a 'people watcher' all my life, and my writing is popular because I can tap into the human psyche, readers can identify with what I say, even if some are reluctant to admit it.

      The McCanns are somewhat unique among parents of missing children, in that they do not blame themselves or each other. Grieving mothers and fathers always blame themselves, even when it is obvious they had nothing to do with it.

      They have little or no remorse for what they did, in fact they still seem to believe it was responsible parenting. That I don't understand. I remember with a shudder many years ago when oldest son was having a tantrum about chips. Everyone else had them except us. I didn't have a deep fat fryer so I put some oil in a saucepan, and made chips from scratch. They were not a success and bratty son who was still complaining reached up to grab the pan of hot oil. Happily I got there first and put it out of his way, and my next move was to give him the biggest smack on the arse he had ever had in his life. That was over 30 years ago, but I still wake up trembling when I think what could have happened, and how stupid I was. It didn't happen, but the guilt remains.

      Guilt is pretty strong in Catholics, it is an integral part of every Catholic child's upbringing. Small children gazing at graphically violent image of a man nailed to a cross are told it's their fault - their sins that put him there. Now go enjoy your life.

      I do irked I have to say, when Gerry and Kate and occasionally an interviewer, try to justify their method of childminding in PDL. As if the only danger to toddlers left on their own night after night, is child predators. The biggest danger was of course accident, but it is a word and a danger that has been completely written out of the equation.


      Delete
    9. Fascinating Ros - you punished your son for your own stupidity!

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 April 2018 at 21:12

      ''The HND course I did was professional writing, not creative writing and I'm pretty sure you haven't got a clue what that entailed.''

      Well, if you're sure, that's the end of it, naturally.

      ''But truth be told I have studied writing all my life, my own speciality, if I have one, is the study of human behaviour. I have been a 'people watcher' all my life, and my writing is popular because I can tap into the human psyche, readers can identify with what I say, even if some are reluctant to admit it.''

      My Psychology course was far different to your people watching interest. I'm all for making Psychology accessible but it's important to recognise where creative license has ignored empirical evidence or studies in order to achieve that accessibility.

      ''The McCanns are somewhat unique among parents of missing children, in that they do not blame themselves or each other.''

      That's only if you know( not think) they weren't at the Tapas when Madeleine vanished.And you don't know.If they were dining, they have no reason to accuse each other.You're strengthening the alibi and statements that you're trying to weaken.

      ''They have little or no remorse for what they did, in fact they still seem to believe it was responsible parenting.''

      I've heard them express the anguish of not being able to go back in time and not do things the way they did. We've all seen controlled interviews for the media.None of us can presume knowledge of what they've talked about and shared at home.Tony Hancock was a comedy legend post 1950s and a national treasure.Away from the camera he was spiteful, bitter, and a womanising alcoholic.But what we say we loved.

      I know Catholics take A levels in guilt.I was married to one ( though she had a degree in accusing, ironically).They also have strong beliefs in the sanctity of life.Again, the McCanns can say they didn't neglect the children-technically under Portuguese law- but in a non -legal context it can be argued that it amounts to as much.If they stated that publicly the online vigilantes would make tee shirts and posters of the quote and beg for trials.

      Whatever the result was that night, predator or accident, we'll never know.We have to learn to accept it one way or another.I accepted it within a month of the night it happened.I didn't like that It was so easy to be right and i wanted to see a headline telling me i was wrong and the child was back home.But too many 'big' people had their fingers in this pie while this country was on the slide for both parties.That's no accident in the home in my books, or run of the mill abduction.But I'm basing what is only an opinion based on common sense and the lack of progress.

      Delete
    11. Where do you get the idea that creative licence ignores empirical evidence and studies? That is one of the stupidest statements you have ever made! You appear to have no understanding of the connection between the arts and culture. In the simplest terms, the arts reflect who we are, where we are, our place in history. Right now we have gold toilet seats of Donald Trump, film makers like Ken Loach drawing attention to the slaughter of the poor and disabled, and artists like Emminen writing protest songs.

      Fiction is always based on fact. Any writer of worth knows their subject. Richard Hall's videos failed because he didn't check his facts before he released them. Within the first 15 minutes there were glaring anomalies, enough to put many viewers off watching the rest. Anyone who did, has only themselves to blame. I personally get very annoyed with anyone who steals my time, I'm only now starting to forgive Mark Wahlberg for 'The Happening'. He won me back with 'Teds 1 and 2'.

      You may not like 'pop' psychology Ziggy, but it is based on fact, and a text doesn't have to be boring to read in order to be educational. I really hate this elitist attitude whereby ordinary people cannot discuss such lofty topics as psychology and philosophy. We all educate ourselves every day, and we specialise in subjects that are of particular interest to us. We are information gatherers whether we know it or not.

      I have a special interest in psychology because my dad was a psychiatric nurse, our home was filled with psychology books and as an avid reader, I read all of them. I may not have pursued psychology as a career, but my interest has been lifelong.

      Turning to the McCanns' acknowledging their own guilt and remorse and the oft used 'the online vigilantes' would make t-shirts, posters etc, I am baffled by your cynicism. The usual reaction to someone who is bereft with guilt, is kindness and reassurance. There is an immediate rush of empathy. Yes, the McCanns have their enemies, but in the early days, the acceptance of human flaws would have brought a tidal wave of sympathy.

      Your final paragraph ....we have to accept it. You accepted it within a month. Firstly, we don't 'have' to accept anything, and secondly your accepting of it within a month brings your own judgment into question. Do you want to buy a bridge in London?

      Delete
    12. Where do you get the idea that creative licence ignores empirical evidence and studies? That is one of the stupidest statements you have ever made!''

      Stupid ?

      Creative / Artistic License :
      ia colloquial term, sometimes a euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact..

      Empirical evidence :

      is information that verifies the truth ( which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

      '' You appear to have no understanding of the connection between the arts and culture''

      I understand it well. Do you understand context ? The conversation was about claiming rationale based on the discipline of Psychology when it's only based on a casual interpretation of subjective observations discussing things like body language and speech interpretation.Where did anything regarding Art and Culture arise ?

      ''Fiction is always based on fact.''

      But criminal trials are only won depending on fact. Not fiction.

      ''You may not like 'pop' psychology Ziggy, but it is based on fact, and a text doesn't have to be boring to read in order to be educational. I really hate this elitist attitude whereby ordinary people cannot discuss such lofty topics''

      Based on, exactly. Do you not understand what is meant by 'make accessible' ? It isn't the same as pop psychology.It's simplifying the 'boring'( as you call it) studies to make them more understandable to a wider audience.No facts need be changed and they would still have studies cited should a reader want to check. There is nothing 'lofty' about Psychology.The elite attitude you imply is only seen here when dropping in names of famous artists and authors and their works to pass off an attitude of intellectual superiority. Fortunately, only you are guilty of that( with the obligatory echo from Bjorn now and then).

      ''I have a special interest in psychology because my dad was a psychiatric nurse, our home was filled with psychology books and as an avid reader, I read all of them. I may not have pursued psychology as a career, but my interest has been lifelong. ''

      I don't doubt any of that.I wish a lot more people were of the same mind.All I did was point to one important point.

      '' I am baffled by your cynicism''

      Don't over-think it, just enjoy.

      ''in the early days, the acceptance of human flaws would have brought a tidal wave of sympathy.''

      It wasn't a performance.You have no idea what they were like in private.Nobody can have.The rare occasions they have appeared human if you like, and voiced frustration or anguish have been swallowed whole by the vigilantes and regurgitated as evidence of them being evil enough to pretend.That's pop psychology.

      ''Firstly, we don't 'have' to accept
      anything, and secondly your accepting of it within a month brings your own judgment into question''

      After a month I said 'that child's gone.End of story'.That was eleven years ago.I'm still right by the looks of things unfortunately.

      ''Do you want to buy a bridge in London?''

      Is it filled with the sighs of the pop psychologists ? If so,name your price.

      Delete
    13. Hello Anon7 April 2018 at 15:45

      "The crèche on 4 May you have brought up before. The children were out there in order for the parents to attend the police offices in Portimao. have you forgotten all of this?"

      Richard Bilton, while doing investigative research on the 10th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance, door-stepped the former reception manager at the Ocean Club, Victor Manuel de Jesus Santos, because the S Y had earlier labelled him a suspect and had asked him a lot of question, which the PJ had had no reason to do.

      RB also managed to find another innocent person named Paulo Rebeiro, who had been asked similar questions by the S Y, just because they claimed he looked very much like the abductor?????

      Euclides Monteiro, who worked at the Ocean Club at the time when Madeleine went missing, became a suspect as well, when the SY got involved, more or less at the McCanns’ request, I suppose. Despite the fact that he later died in an accident, didn’t stop the SY from questioning his sister.

      Those persons and many more with close connection to the Mark Warner resort must from the very beginning have been in the minds of the McCanns, as they couldn’t have had any idea about what persons to rule out or to suspect. So, if they are innocent, they must have known that there was at least one perpetrator on the loose and that that person could be someone working for the Ocean Club.

      Yet, they did not hesitate at all when they left their surviving children in the hands of people, who could be potential suspects. How could they know that no employee or his/her friend had used a key to enter the apartment through the front door and taken Madeleine away?

      The only natural thing to do would have been to leave their twins in the hands of their best friends at that point of time, that is the Paynes. Why didn’t they? This is just as incomprehensible to me as it is to Rosalinda and how come they knew right away that there was not going to be about any ransom?


      Delete
    14. So mine is only a casual interpretation of psychology, whilst you Professor are the real thing, lol. You say 'to put it in context, then refer to two subjects that weren't even mentioned, body language and speech interpretation, so where is the context?

      Again you refer to online vigilantes. Why are the McCanns so concerned about online vigilantes? Why would they for one second allow the crazies to dictate how they lead their lives?

      So I only discuss artists and writers to give 'an attitude of intellectual superiority'. What a strange person you are Ziggy, do you not take pleasure from discussing books you have enjoyed or works of art that you admire? Should I dumb down so you can stop feeling inferior?

      So after a month you said 'that child's gone, end of story'? OK, so presumably you did not support the McCanns' search for her and still don't?

      Delete
    15. @ Björn11 April 2018 at 21:03

      The children were under constant supervision in the crèche - and Madeleine did not disappear from the crèche.

      Do you think the abductor hung around to score a second hit - a child that was under supervision - the next day?

      Delete
    16. ''You say 'to put it in context, then refer to two subjects that weren't even mentioned, body language and speech interpretation, so where is the context?''

      Subjective interpretation, as opposed to a recognised study / Psychology paper; 'people watching' is about a subjective interpretation of someone or some situation,as opposed to Psychological investigation.

      ''Again you refer to online vigilantes. Why are the McCanns so concerned about online vigilantes? Why would they for one second allow the crazies to dictate how they lead their lives? ''

      Yes, I referred to online vigilantes.YOU mentioned what the McCanns are concerned about-not me. I have no idea what their main concerns are in that area so see no point in guessing or indirectly accusing.

      ''What a strange person you are Ziggy, do you not take pleasure from discussing books you have enjoyed or works of art that you admire? Should I dumb down so you can stop feeling inferior? ''

      A mini character analysis from a people watcher.Nice touch.You don't know me,ergo, can't comment on me.You can guess, naturally, as that's your real talent.Guessing.The same goes for your guessing about how or what I feel. For the record, I feel neither inferior nor superior to anybody. If somebody stoops to a level below my own mentality, it isn't me being superior, it's them making their own choice.In answer to your question, no, don't dumb down any further.My advice would be for you to go the opposite way.

      ''So after a month you said 'that child's gone, end of story'? OK, so presumably you did not support the McCanns' search for her and still don't?''

      For the first week I held out hope.But the longer the time it takes searching, the colder the trail goes.Once I realised their was political panic I didn't envisage a happy ending.I suspected a throrough clean up operation.The trail was gone early in this case . Later, when it was made an official line that no forensic evidence was going to point anywhere, it sort of confirmed what I thought.But, I'm a distant,and detatched observer.I fully supported, and still do, the parents' decision to search.I can only imagine being in their situation.If it was me, I'd never say die.Even if logic told me that the odds of finding her were as long as those of a lottery win.As long as there is no official evidence of a death, she's alive.And, where there's life, there's hope.

      Delete
    17. Hello Unknown11 April 2018 at 22:40
      "Do you think the abductor hung around to score a second hit - a child that was under supervision - the next day?"

      Gerry has said that he believes that Madeleine could have been abducted to be kept by someone. He and Kate have also said that she could have been taken by paedophile ring. Kate in the morning of the following day said to Ywonne Martin, that a couple had taken Madeleine.

      So there've been many imaginative hypothesis coming from the McCanns. However, they've rejected the thought of Madeleine having been violated and killed right away by a mad and sick person living and working not far away from the Ocean Club and who could do harm at any time to any child, if he's mad, that is. Fools who commit serious crimes are not always rational but often unpredictable and do not always care whether they become caught or not.

      If the McCanns are innocent, I find it hard to believe that they didn't have such a perpetrator in mind as well, if they're truly innocent. So I still cannot understand why they didn't firmly hold on to their surviving children, at least the first hours after Madeleine's disappearance and shouldn't they've taken the twins to nearest hospital to see whether they'd been sedated or not?

      I'm so sad to say, but to me it seems as if they knew in deatail what had happened to Madeleine and therefore had no reason to fear any lunatic running around in PDL.

      Delete
    18. @ bjorn 09:01

      So you have changed your mind now? You no longer believe: "Yet, they did not hesitate at all when they left their surviving children in the hands of people, who could be potential suspects"

      and you no longer think "The only natural thing to do would have been to leave their twins in the hands of their best friends at that point of time, that is the Paynes. Why didn’t they?"

      You now believe that the twins should have been held on to or taken to hospital!

      Delete
    19. Bjorn :-

      ''The only natural thing to do would have been to leave their twins in the hands of their best friends at that point of time, that is the Paynes. Why didn’t they? This is just as incomprehensible to me as it is to Rosalinda and how come they knew right away that there was not going to be about any ransom?'

      The McCanns world was rocked the night before.The following day a media circus and police were smothering the town as well as the parents.What would be as close to normality for the twins that day ? Their routine had been to play in a creche with other children, supervised. Putting them there would allow the parents to deal with the police and the press. It would also allow them to talk though with the other parents how to explain things to the twins so they were all on the same page.This is normal. Or it is to normal people.

      You say you and Rosalinda find it 'incomprehensible' that the parents knew so early that there would be no ransom note.Who said they did ?

      Delete
    20. Hello Unknown12 April 2018 at 12:15

      "You now believe that the twins should have been held on to or taken to hospital!"

      You know as well as I do, that the twins didn't wake up, despite all the noise after Kate had alerted for the "abduction". Kate or Gerry or both of them should have taken/accompanied them in a taxi/ambulance to nearest hospital as soon as they suspected that something wasn't quite right.

      Kate even put her finger under their noses to see/feel that they were breathing. If they're innocent and they hadn't given them any kind of pills, I see no reason as to why they should not immediately, for safety reasons, have taken them to an emergency hospital (in Lagos perhaps) as they could have been severely drugged, which the McCanns, even if they're doctors, couldn't possibly have known just because the twins were breathing.

      No, dear Unknown, they couldn't have cared less about their children that night and on the following days.

      Delete
    21. Hello Anon 12 April 2018 at 13:21
      "You say you and Rosalinda find it 'incomprehensible' that the parents knew so early that there would be no ransom note.Who said they did ?"

      Let me explain. Gerry and Kate are intelligent people. They know so well if there had been a kidnapper trying to blackmail them, they would statistically be contacted within a rather short time (48 hours or after a few days).

      They must also have known that too much publicity could scare a kidnapper. Police investigators who're dealing with such cases are keeping a very low profile the first hours or sometimes for days in order to minimize the risk of victim being harmed and killed by the kidnapper.

      Gerry immediately, within a very short time anyway, published a picture/photo of Madeleine and before, as we all know,he had contacted the world about his "missing daughter".

      In doing so, if he's innocent, he may well have caused the death of Madeleine. So, my question again; How come Gerry knew right away that there was not going to be about any ransom. If Gerry is completely innocent, how could he be so stupid to even ignore the advice he got from the PJ. I just don't get it.

      Delete
    22. Björn12 April 2018 at 09:01

      ''Gerry has said that he believes that Madeleine could have been abducted to be kept by someone. He and Kate have also said that she could have been taken by paedophile ring.''

      These are both realistic scenarios.They also both have Madeleine as still alive.That's more about hope.

      ''Kate in the morning of the following day said to Ywonne Martin, that a couple had taken Madeleine. ''

      Again, that has her as still alive but is still an imagined scenario. Yvonne Martin isn't a credible witness.She used the excuse of wanting to avoid press intrusion on her( not the parents) as her excuse for hiding her own identity when writing to UK police with her 'information'.All she would have needed to do is remind the police of the sensitivity of the case and the information and it was to be kept 'in house' until anything developed from it.Considering her position, it was careless and unprofessional. She also pointed to David Payne's clothes ( light trousers, buckled casual shoes) as matching an efit.Would he dress in the same clothes he'd been seen in the night before if he'd wore them to commit a crime ? It's stupid.It sounds like an act of spite.She said he reminded her of someone from somewhere but couldn't say who or where from.But she said he warranted a check of paedophile registers. Payne was the friend who had sent Martin on her way shortly after Sky friends had alerted her to get there sniffing.

      ''So there've been many imaginative hypothesis coming from the McCanns. ''

      They were /are holding out hope.But, when it comes to imaginative theories, Amaral has come up with far more elaborate ones. Yvonne Martin has. They've inspired people like yourself to treat it as a hobby. Amaral's are yet to find support.None have received any.Martins has used an efit to hint at Payne based on clothijg which doesn't match the 'smithman' sighting of GM.You can't chop and change different recollections and theories just because they serve an underlying agenda.

      ''However, they've rejected the thought of Madeleine having been violated and killed right away by a mad and sick person''

      Why do people often quote Kate's passing comment about the horror she feels when thinking of any damage to her child's private parts then ?I'll tell you, as what they say after makes it clear.They want to take that notion and KM having it as one thing then conclude that there could only be one reason. That's pop psychology at play again.

      '' Fools who commit serious crimes are not always rational but often unpredictable and do not always care whether they become caught or not.''

      You're describing a stereotypical psychopath. A psychopath who has no control over his urges and has to act fast.Those kinds of psychopaths leave clues.The other kind of psychopath knows well the difference between right and wrong, but just doesn't care.They are more organised in their thinking.They are also careful enough to try and hide their identity through evidence. The chances of the former just gambling that one apartment would coincidentally hold children, but no adults, are remote to say the least.

      ''If the McCanns are innocent, I find it hard to believe that they didn't have such a perpetrator in mind as well,''

      Your thoughts and notions are chosen as though they're visiting guests.You only entertain those you enjoy the company of.

      ''I'm so sad to say, but to me it seems as if they knew in deatail what had happened to Madeleine and therefore had no reason to fear any lunatic running around in PDL.''

      You're not sad to say it.In fact, the amount of times you repeat it, often with some half baked new 'eureka moment' suggests that you're never happier than when accusing them of whatever you can.Your heartfelt observations aren't fooling anyone.They're hollow at best.


      Delete
    23. Björn12 April 2018 at 19:09

      Hello Anon 12 April 2018 at 13:21

      ( "You say you and Rosalinda find it 'incomprehensible' that the parents knew so early that there would be no ransom note.Who said they did ?" )

      Let me explain what the question was. I pointed to your assertion that the parents knew earl that there would be no ransom demand and that you and Ros find that incomprehensible.So I asked how you both knew that the parents knew that.Or, another way, have you a source to go with that. You've given me probabilities based on statistical odds.probabilities are still what is 'probable'. So you should really have said that the parents 'probably' knew instead of trying to promote the lie that they actually did know.

      ''They must also have known that too much publicity could scare a kidnapper. ''

      Must.Another guess.Either way, that decision would have been taken out of their hands by experienced detectives and /or negotiators.

      ''Gerry immediately, within a very short time anyway, published a picture/photo of Madeleine and before, as we all know,he had contacted the world about his "missing daughter".

      That would also have been the decision of the detectives and possible negotiators.'Very short time' means what ? In cases like these, the first 12 hours are the most important.After 48 hours the chances of a positive outcome are greatly decreased.

      ''In doing so, if he's innocent, he may well have caused the death of Madeleine. ''

      Are you adding that possible scenario to the ones where he'd already killed and dumped her ?A guess based on other guesses? Weird.

      ''So, my question again; How come Gerry knew right away that there was not going to be about any ransom''

      And my question again is who said he knew that ? Where's the anecdotal or other evidence,or source, outside of your head ?

      Delete
    24. 00:03

      "She [YM] said he [DP] reminded her of someone from somewhere but couldn't say who or where from."

      DP as an expert witness in another case, not regarding MM? Doctors contribute evidence as expert witnesses.

      "As she said earlier, this third person of the group is familiar to her, and thinks that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or witness.

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

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

      "Document missing from DVD: Processo Volume XIII, Page 3909.
      In a memorandum dated 24 October 2007 (Processo Volume XIII, Page 3909) reference is made to a document written by Dr David Payne which document had been read carefully by British Detective Constable Mike Marshall, the author of the memorandum.
      The document written by Dr Payne is not in the DVD."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

      Delete
  14. O.G's only tangible achievement so far is to confirm Jane Tanner as a person of the highest integrity its just unfortunate the man she described was an innocent father carrying his child home from the crèche.
    Does anybody seriously believe OG found crecheman or did they tell a pack of lies on Crimewatch?
    While OG continues all FOI requests are denied the entire point of OG and long will it continue.
    The taxpayer would pay for these detectives anyway what ever their task so there is no financial cost the money would be squandered regardless it just makes the 'plebs' think something is occurring and kicks the can down the road for another 6 months

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ at 11:43

      Jane Tanner didn't describe an innocent father carrying his child home from the crèche. Tannerman walked in the wrong direction (not from the evening crèche at the main reception). Crèchedad is an O.G. fabrication. Jane Tanner is being used.

      Delete
    2. I think the ruling out of Jane Tanner's sighting is very significant JJ - It's a part of the McCanns' abduction story that OG clearly aren't buying.

      At the time of the revelation moment on Crimewatch, I thought JT may have cut a deal, but as far as I know she hasn't acknowledged sixyearsinacomaman as the person she saw carrying away a child. Like yourself JJ, I think the crèche dad is part of SY's own smoke and mirrors. It is inconceivable that he has never been interviewed before and has never come forward of his own accord. I suspect, like the alleged similar attempted abductions in PDL, the media have been asked not to dig too deeply.

      I'm not sure the police are much higher up the social ladder than the plebs JJ. But they didn't join the police to cover up crimes for anyone. I suspect those stuck on OG, are keen to get back to their usual jobs, that is tackling current crimes, I don't see why they would want to prolong this.

      Delete
    3. Ros

      ''I happen not to believe Scotland Yard and Operation Grange are part of some great big scam''

      Ros

      ''Like yourself JJ, I think the crèche dad is part of SY's own smoke and mirrors.''

      Could you explain the difference between 'smoke and mirrors' and 'scam' please.For somebody so sure of her theories you seem pretty indecisive at times.

      Delete
    4. With respect Ros you don't know what Jane Tanner has said to the investigation, do you?

      Crechedad was walking in completely the wrong direction to have been leaving the crèche used by the OC guests. It struck me as rather obvious when Redwood claimed they may have found the man. Didn't he also say he was with his wife and yet Jane Tanner never mentioned seeing a woman.

      Somebody has said why did she not tell people which way Tannerman was going but of course she did.

      On the officers of Operation Grange I feel certain they will do their duty well, have an interest and pride in doing so. If OG were to close those officers would still cold case it. These things never leave a person.

      Delete
    5. Which direction creche man walked isn't important to me when i turn it over in my head. A couple of points...

      Just prior to JT sighting him he could have been walking in a different direction.He could have doubled back.He might have been panicking as he had a dead child he( for some silly reason' thought he should carry around at risk of discovery and slowing him down )had to take somewhere. Then again, it was late and it was dark, and if it was a holiday maker he may have been confused or taken a wrong turn and it could have been his daughter sleeping. It's too unreliable to examine when you consider the darkness and the effect of a sodium glare on light coloured clothing.

      I suspected that Redwood came up with the idea of 'revelation man' . I think the JT sighting was utilised by him and his minions to sell the idea of a thorough investigation. I'm surprised none of you expert body /face /speech interpretors missed both his filmed walking and interview mistakes.

      I'm wondering why JT, who has been made pivotal to this area, wasn't asked to come and identify him. I'm surprised that the released picture was of a man under full lighting.I'm not surprised the officer -sorry, man- had his face pixelated, despite the unconvincing 1970s wig.

      But what really surprises me is that it would have been routine to interrogate him due to his magical appearance after all that time.A half decent copper would recognise that a troubled conscience could possibly be in play. What was the time span ? Six years I believe. I would want to know the following :

      1- Why do the clothes from that night six years ago look as though they've just come off the rail but missed an iron.

      2-Why has he stored them in pristine condition for so long as he obviously hadn't had any wear out of them.

      3- How come he hasn't gained an ounce in weight and they still fit so well ?

      4- Adults dont grow other than in weight.But children grow fast and go through clothes fast.Why has he kept the clothes of a 3(ish) year old if the child was now 9(ish) ?

      5- Could he produce more clothes from his child or children that he had kept even though they'e six years taller and broader -or just the ones from PDL ?

      You all missed those points didn't you ;-)

      Delete
    6. Some days I am happy to explain my text to you as if you were a 4 year old 15:15. Today is not one of them.

      Delete
    7. Allow me.It's yet another example of Ros contradicting herself.Easy.

      Delete
    8. I doubt if Ros could explain a lot of her text to herself never mind anyone else.

      Delete
  15. Letter from lawyers representing British police forces requesting that certain documentation from UK police files be withheld from the DVD for public release.

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

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ros, 7 April 14.25

    Of course we only have Jane Tanner's word that there actually was a man carrying a child and that she walked past GM talking to Jez Wilkins, neither of them saw her, or so they say, or saw the man walking holding a child, and she was wearing flip flops which they didn't hear either. So who is lying out of those 3?

    Jane Tanner started crying in her interview I believe, when she was talking about the man with the child, if you think you're being set up wouldn't you tell the police what you know, unless of course you were in on the scam and didn't know how to get out of it.

    As has already been mentioned, why didn't she tell Kate immediately that she'd seen a man carrying a child, of course, if she hadn't she couldn't really tell Kate that unless of course the story was concocted overnight and the fairy tale morphed into JT didn't want to upset KM by telling her that she'd seen a man with a child the night before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hazarding a guess 14:45 I'd say nobody was lying. It is more than possible not to see somebody in a street or bother taking notice. I get accused of being stuck up sometimes when in town merely because I have been in my own thoughts and not aware of anthing in my surrounds including friends happening by. If they don't say "hello" they go unnoticed.

      Jane told the men to save Kate the anguish of knowing her child had been taken. In the first instance there was a chance Madeleine might come back having been found. I understand Jane's reasoning even if you don't.

      Delete
    2. You mean you believe who and what you want to, and disbelieve what you want to.It depends on how well it fits into your unfounded, unsupported guesswork.

      ''Jane Tanner started crying in her interview I believe, when she was talking about the man with the child, if you think you're being set up wouldn't you tell the police what you know, unless of course you were in on the scam and didn't know how to get out of it.''

      It's easy to make wild guesses concerning a situation hundreds of miles away involving complete strangers.Anyone can do it. But what's the point ? Put yourself in the position of the person you're trying to blacken.You've laughed and played with the child of a friend along with your own while enjoying a holiday.Sudden;y she's gone and nobody knows where. Everyone is distraught and their world is rocked.She remembers casually seeing a man with a child in the street and wonders if it might have been the culprit.You curse hindsight because it's too late.You wish you could turn back time and be alert to it.How does it feel ? Yet, you see her tears as part of a scam. Because it fits your little theory.

      Delete
  17. Have you got "typer's cramp" Ros after all that tapping away?

    It's not often I agree with what your blog and this is one of those times.

    You seem to miss the point that it is not the McCanns who keep publishing these stories but the newspapers. They know they are onto a winner if they do because people who like tabloid rubbish buy and devour it all as fact!

    I see people stating they are sick to the back teeth of this story and yet are online every day of their lives posting about this poor unfortunate family.

    Has it ever crossed their minds that there is something beyond Madeleine that the PJ and our OG are looking into, something which might facilitate the recovery of other poor unfortunate kids who have mysteriously disappeared? To bring Ben Needham into this is unjustified because we know he was not just a boy on holiday but resident on the Greek island.

    I'm glad you believe Operation Grange is a genuine operation. Colin Sutton was in the Metropolitan Police Service but he was never asked to head up this investigation. He was on the point of retirement anyway but he was never asked, so why make out he knows a darned thing about the case? And why are people still saying he said this and said that when he has categorically stated he hasn't. It is newspaper hype again and you ought to realise that by now.

    Leave the police in peace to endeavour to finalise this mystery. Madeleine caught our attention almost 11 years ago now and she will always be a story of interest not least because we ought to want the answers and yet people moan about the cost. I'm sure they wouldn't if it was one of their own children or grandchildren.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 15:24

      good points

      Delete
  18. Ros 7 April 14.25

    I doubt the police do want to prolong the investigation but if it has become very complicated i.e. having to infiltrate off shore accounts, get extradition orders in place then it could take a very, very long time. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic that the PJ & SY are doing their best to get the "criminals" into a Court but we should never forget that this is about a 3 year old child that went missing and those who have covered up her death/disappearance as if she's rubbish and of no consequence should hang their heads in shame and look into their souls, if then have one, to do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''we should never forget that this is about a 3 year old child that went missing and those who have covered up her death/disappearance as if she's rubbish''

      We know it's about a 3 year old girl.We don't know anything for certain about someone, or persons unnamed, covering her disposal up. So you shouldn't state that we should never forget something that you or others only suspect.

      ''i.e. having to infiltrate off shore accounts, get extradition orders in place then it could take a very, very long time. ''

      Neither of those things take that long or have to be covert operations. The investigation only needs permission based on good grounds.

      Delete
    2. 7 April at 16:05

      ''if it has become very complicated i.e. having to infiltrate off shore accounts,''

      and

      '' we should never forget that this is about a 3 year old child that went missing and those who have covered up her death/disappearance''

      Yes, thanks for the heads up on that one.I wondered what we were looking for.Tell me, what does the case of the child's abduction ( and whatever happened subsequently) have to do with infiltrating off shore accounts ?You say we should never forget what it's all about.It's all about the apparent mystery of where Madeleine went.It isn't about infiltrating anything. If no money was demanded as a ransom, it shouldn't be a point of discussion. Unless of course you can throw some names in. Who holds these offshore accounts in your story ?Or haven't you got up to that bit yet ?

      Delete
  19. Anyone who believes the McCanns are not in the loop, at the very least of the Op. Grange needs their heads examined. If they were totally excluded, as we seem to want to believe they are, they would rock every boat in the land for the last seven years.

    £12m ++ has been a very high price to pay to shut the McCanns, basically up. The tittle tattle via their puppets should be taken for what it is gameplay & laughing their socks off.

    Take the last real outing, to the Church at the anniversary - quite a lasting memory of a quick walk - almost like OMG do we have to do this! gone are the days of happy smiles & press conferences. No appeals to camera, no thank you British Public for this £dosh coughed up, yet again, and of course no recognition to Portugal.

    Sod!, I've had enough.

    PS: and if they are not officially in the loop, you can bet your life they know more than Wall!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''£12m ++ has been a very high price to pay to shut the McCanns, basically up. ''

      Shut them up regarding what exactly ?

      If they were having their silence bought, the hush money would be paid covertly a la brown envelope/s . This lottery sized sum is public knowledge and it's paid salaries of detectives and the like.What would be the point ? You're suggestion is that they've been told to take 12 million in instalments, be quiet, and spend it on a fake investigation. Where's the incentive to stay quiet ?

      Delete
  20. Hi Rosalinda,
    Your readers might want to take a trip to the website called: "Ambassadors for missing people" where mugshots of the nine "Ambassadors' both men and women, are displayed.
    Eight of these worthy people are smiling, while the ninth "ambassador", Kate McCann, shows grave concern, unsmiling and grim. Naturally she's wishing to find her missing child; that would be reason enough.
    Isn't that what this charade all about.

    Mrs McCann could have helped Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral find her daughter by answering 48 questions and have the case solved very quickly, but hey what would you do when threatened by a man who if he couldn't find your daughter might end up accusing you of killing her. We can all sympathize.
    (In fact, she did answer one question in the affirmative. "By not answering these questions you realize you may be jeopardizing the search for your daughter". Her answer: "Yes, if that is what the investigation thinks")
    You couldn't get a more honest answer if you were teaching Law School 101.

    As Amaral has said when asked by reporters, if we will ever know what really happened to Madeleine McCann, he replied: "Yes we will, when MI5 opens the case files we will find out".

    So, in six months time we should be so lucky.

    Of course, best of all would be the opening of the Portuguese files. That will be amazing. I wonder if it will ever happen.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8 April 2018 at 05:04

      '' "ambassador", Kate McCann, shows grave concern, unsmiling and grim. Naturally she's wishing to find her missing child; that would be reason enough. Isn't that what this charade all about.''

      So, Sherlock the face reader,what's the point there ? Is Kate looking 'grim' as part of a charade ?

      ''Mrs McCann could have helped Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral find her daughter by answering 48 questions and have the case solved very quickly, but hey what would you do when threatened by a man who if he couldn't find your daughter might end up accusing you of killing her. We can all sympathize.''

      Is somebody sponsoring you to talk nonsense ? You're suggesting that answering the questions was all that was needed to solve the case quickly.That's silly enough.Who says Km was 'threatened by,' or felt as much, by Amaral ? You ? You're suggesting that she stayed quiet as she entertained the notion that Amaral might later accuse her or write a book ?

      ''Of course, best of all would be the opening of the Portuguese files. That will be amazing. I wonder if it will ever happen.''

      They're files, jc, not the ark of the covenant.Whoever put the files together already know what they contain.

      Delete
    2. ''They're files, jc, not the ark of the covenant.'' rofl

      Delete
    3. ........not the ark of the covenant."rofl-

      .... for some people, they are more important than that.

      Delete
    4. I don't understand why the McCanns didn't rush to get themselves ruled out, so the police could focus on the Search. I don't know how they have maintained such a huge charade of innocence, knowing that they were not ruled out. Among the words missed in the archiving report were 'lost the opportunity to prove their innocence'.

      I think details such Kate not answering 48 questions and the refusal of the tapas group to return to PDL for a reconstruction, were among many that were far more damaging to the McCanns' reputations than GA's book. You are right JC, there is no reasonable explanation for a mother to refuse to answer police questions when her child's life could have been at stake.

      If I recollect correctly, the files were released just one month before GA's, and GA's book replicated the police files, and the police investigation. Logically, the McCanns should also have sued the Portuguese Judiciary for libel.

      Which brings me nicely back to those files. They are integral to the entire case. They won't go away - their release was/is all part of the Portuguese Justice system. They are too new a democracy to keep police investigations hidden from the public.

      I have no knowledge of Portuguese Law JC, but having seen the files released once before, we should expect the same the next time. Particularly with this case because it is so controversial.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 April 2018 at 22:54

      ''.... for some people, they are more important than that.''

      I fear you may be right.It's tragic.

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 April 2018 at 23:24

      ''I don't understand why the McCanns didn't rush to get themselves ruled out, so the police could focus on the Search. ''

      They don't need to rush.The police went on record a long time ago stating that they are not suspects.That had been dealt with years before.Do you understand that ?

      ''I don't know how they have maintained such a huge charade of innocence'

      In the eyes of the law they are actually innocent.They'd have been arrested otherwise by now.So, no charade.

      ''Among the words missed in the archiving report were 'lost the opportunity to prove their innocence''

      Public statement : ''the McCanns are not suspects - period''. You know it's the states responsibility to to prove guilt don't you. Not for the citizen to prove innocence.

      ''If I recollect correctly, the files were released just one month before GA's, and GA's book replicated the police files, and the police investigation. Logically, the McCanns should also have sued the Portuguese Judiciary for libel. ''

      You recollect selectively.The files don't accuse the parents of lying and burying or holding their child stored in a fridge, then constructing false alibis.

      '' their release was/is all part of the Portuguese Justice system. They are too new a democracy to keep police investigations hidden from the public.''

      Make your mind up.Which files are you trying to twist ? The PJ files or ones you think exist but are being hidden as part of a cover up you don't believe happened among police.

      ''I have no knowledge of Portuguese Law JC, but having seen the files released once before, we should expect the same the next time.''

      Why ? By 'same' do you mean nothing will come of them ? Since the release of previous files even less has happened in the investigation.There are no grounds to suspect or expect anything to come from the files that incriminate the parents.If they're on file now they'd have been arrested.Anyone on file with incriminating evidence against them would be.

      ''Particularly with this case because it is so controversial.''

      It's serious and, possibly, grave.Not controversial.

      Delete
    7. Well they did need to rush to get themselves ruled out, didn't they want the police to focus on the search? And they were never ruled out. The Portuguese investigation was left in limbo because the McCanns and their friends wouldn't return to PDL for a reconstruction. The last Judgement in favour of Goncalo Amaral, highlighted the fact that they were never cleared.

      Actually the files do accuse the parents of exactly that - see the interim report of Taveres de Almeida. He uses words like 'occultation' but it is basically the same thing.

      I don't know how you can say 'since the release of the previous files EVEN LESS has happened in the investigation'. Err, Seven years worth of SY investigations, and probably similar from the PJ. Just because we don't know what they doing, doesn't mean they have nothing. Why would they be granted further funds if they were doing nothing?

      I was talking Portuguese Law in general 13:12. No-one, least of all the McCanns, expected the original file to be released. All those high priced lawyers, and not one of them warned the McCanns that police investigations are made public when they close. Oops.

      I had a big old LOL at final sentence. Not controversial? A Portuguese detective is removed from a case, and 11 years on it still hasn't been solved. You gotta be kidding.

      Delete
    8. "I had a big old LOL at final sentence. Not controversial? A Portuguese detective is removed from a case, and 11 years on it still hasn't been solved. You gotta be kidding."

      He was removed because he made a mess of the investigation he was in charge of, and his incompetence is probably a major reason why this case wasn't solved within days of Madeleine's disappearance.

      Delete
    9. '' And they were never ruled out.''

      They weren't initially suspects.Then they were for a day or two.Later they were 'not considered suspects -period'. You can refuse to accept that and you can try and twist it, but it's a fact.A verifiable, on camera, no dogs needed, fact.

      '' The last Judgement in favour of Goncalo Amaral, highlighted the fact that they were never cleared. ''

      No, you can't have that either.It was a hearing about allegations made in a book.It wasn't a criminal trial. Why is it you remind me that everyone has moved on from Amaral(including Amaral) yet you keep bringing him to the fore to mention a libel trial or some bizarre vendetta ?

      ''. He uses words like 'occultation' but it is basically the same thing.''

      Yes, it means hidden or to hide.Does that also mean the same thing as secreting the child's body in a fridge, a coffin, a car boot then down a well ?

      '' Just because we don't know what they doing, doesn't mean they have nothing. Why would they be granted further funds if they were doing nothing?''

      If they had anything they'd use it.What could they have that needs money put into it ?Unless they're digging into old news about the Casa Pia case it's nothing.Money can't create or alter evidence or the lack of it.But big productions need big funders..

      ''I was talking Portuguese Law in general 13:12. No-one, least of all the McCanns, expected the original file to be released. All those high priced lawyers, and not one of them warned the McCanns that police investigations are made public when they close. Oops. ''

      What difference has it made to the investigation ? Oops.

      ''I had a big old LOL at final sentence. Not controversial?''

      Nice to lol isn't it.Even if in poor taste.

      ''A Portuguese detective is removed from a case, and 11 years on it still hasn't been solved. You gotta be kidding.''

      We both know you were referring to the case, not to what happened to Amaral. However, let's go with your new twist...A Portuguese cop is quietly removed just prior to his court case as the 'accused' in a case of falsifying evidence in a previous missing child case. At the same time, the PJ's early mistakes are under the spotlight.The Portuguese detectives never criticizes or challenges his superiors.You gotta be kidding...

      Delete
  21. Still waiting on the names of "those few celebrities who have said anything remotely critical of Gerry and Kate, have quickly seen their careers nosedive." Third time of asking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't like your tone 06:47, you are not carrying out a police interrogation, nor are you a barrister for the opposition and I a witness you are grilling.

      Most of the 'stars' I was thinking of have been mentioned now, and their status as celebrities torn to shreds. Missing Madeleine is such an emotive subject, those in the public eye go very careful where they tread. It is similar to the Saville case, no-one dared criticise JS when he was alive because he was 'perceived' as a latter day saint. Many I would imagine, kept their real thoughts to themselves.

      Losing a child goes into an area where angels fear to tread. We have an overriding fear of the pain we would cause if our suspicions are wrong. The old 'If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all' comes into play. It plagued me for a long time, as my enemies will attest, I could not and would not comment negatively until I had reached that point of beyond reasonable doubt.

      From an overall public perspective, it is still taboo to suspect the parents. It's kinder and, arguably, 'classier' to give them the benefit of the doubt. Jordon and Jodie Marsh for example, are they outspoken? or trashy? Questioning the McCanns is a guaranteed headline, but is it a good one?

      Delete
    2. ''It plagued me for a long time, as my enemies will attest, I could not and would not comment negatively until I had reached that point of beyond reasonable doubt. ''

      What's 'plagued' the investigation -joint or otherwise- is the absence of anything at all to take the same stance and do anything.Both Portugal and the UK have innocent until proven guilty as law.Only when the police have strong enough evidence, or a solid, convincing enough argument can they press charges, take it to trial and hope that a unanimous agreement of jurors agrees with them, will that ever change. What is it that convinced you that has failed to convince those investigating the case ? A suspicious mind ?

      ''From an overall public perspective, it is still taboo to suspect the parents. It's kinder and, arguably, 'classier' to give them the benefit of the doubt. ''

      Amaral and Co never did.They were just (allegedly) prevented from acting on their guesses.Why would blaming the parents be taboo for a force who had been subjected to false allegations by two lunatics who had butchered their child (Cipriano) then disposed of her body after pretending she had been abducted ? Saying something is too taboo to approach is a career - ending offence for a police force with the responsibility of finding the child.

      '' Jordon and Jodie Marsh for example, are they outspoken? or trashy? Questioning the McCanns is a guaranteed headline, but is it a good one?''

      I won't interfere in your spat about celebs. They don't matter .Nothing they say matters.

      Delete
    3. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 April 2018 at 22:49

      Hello Rosalinda

      A few celebrities in the UK have dared to criticize the McCann's decision to leave their children alone in the apartment in PDL, and as a result, their judgment has been questioned, which I find very strange.

      As for the suspicion regarding the McCanns’ being implicated in a real serious crime, few, if any, British politician, journalist or writer has openly expressed his/her doubts about the McCann's innocence, since the McCanns got back from Portugal and it’s so obvious (at least to me)that they cannot do that, if they still expect to be respected in society and wish to keep their dreams about a continued career alive. Officially the McCanns became untouchable as soon as they got back home, but the free independent social media did not comply, and that's the reason as to why we're still here.

      What about Sara Poulton, how popular is she nowadays among newspaper publishers or among owners and producers of popular TV channels? Isn’t she now a nuisance to those who’re corrupted in society?

      Please note, that my two last sentences are more of questions than statements, as I’m not so familiar with British MSM.





      Delete
    4. LOL, it's just my suspicious mind eh? Okey dokey, you have the kind of logic I just can't argue with. I think I would prefer to spend the next half hour banging my head on a brick wall.

      I was speaking generically, the clue was in 'overall public perspective;, I didn't mention GA. You of course did, because with you everything goes back to GA. You need to realise everyone has moved on, including GA.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 April 2018 at 21:57

      ''LOL, it's just my suspicious mind eh? Okey dokey, you have the kind of logic I just can't argue with. I think I would prefer to spend the next half hour banging my head on a brick wall.''

      If that would be easier than taking two minutes to answer a really simple question then you can't really have a really simple , or otherwise , answer. All I asked was how you reached that point you refer to as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Don't be so coy.

      ''I was speaking generically, the clue was in 'overall public perspective;, I didn't mention GA. You of course did, because with you everything goes back to GA. You need to realise everyone has moved on, including GA.''

      But you can't presume to voice the overall generic view.You think such a view would consider it 'taboo' to consider the parents as guilty of something horrible.I mentioned GA as he was the initial lead detective.That's not me speaking in present or future tense, it's referring to the time frame to which you refer.He and his team had every reason to ignore any taboo after the Cipriano case.That's relevant.Therefore, common sense suggests that it wasn't any taboo preventing them acting.It was something else ( or absence of it).

      Delete
    6. Celebrities are wise to steer clear of this controversy Bjorn, it can kill your career, she says bitterly. Not only is the topic taboo in the MSM, it has stirred up more than a few psycho loons online. Organised groups like CMoMM and the Myths site, hone in on anyone who says McCann 3 times - a bit like Beetlejuice. The journalist who interviewed me for The Sun was pounced on almost immediately, and Sonia Poulton has been put through hell. As you have probably seen, I am a target every day, once they sink their teeth in, there is no escape!

      There may be a huge collective sigh of relief when all the gagging restrictions are lifted from this case. It is quite bizarre. I am a huge fan of US real crime shows, and I am blown away by the honesty in the reporting of cases such as these. The presenters come right out with what they are thinking, regardless that the parents are grieving and innocent until proven guilty. One that immediately springs to mind is 'Wendy 'I'm not buying it' Murphy, who caused quite a twitter storm.

      Our presenters are delicate to the point where they are suitable for all ages and anyone of a sensitive disposition. The idea that two church going, hard working doctors could be involved in a crime is an aberration to them. It may rock their worlds, or reveal them to be disingenuous in their reporting and never to be trusted again.

      But their day is done. People are turning to alternate websites for their news, and blogs for their reading of choice. It is a wonderful time to be alive - years ago it cost me a small fortune in newspapers and magazines so I could follow my favourite writers. Now they are only a click away and I have discovered hundreds of new ones!

      That strange phenomenon that turned Madeleine into the most famous missing child in the world launched a myriad of chat rooms, forums and websites. People were coming together to discuss their suspicions, and all saying pretty much the same thing. 'hey why isn't the UK media giving us the same information as the Portuguese media?'. In their great masterplan they overlooked the fact that news can now cross borders. Hundreds of thousands of people were reading and 'talking' about the Madeleine case online. It was new territory.

      The biggest and most popular was The Mirror Forum, that is a readers discussion page. Unfortunately it was at a time when the McCanns seemed to have unlimited power, and it was shut down. Then came the 3 Arguidos, which was basically a small group of megalomaniacs vying to be top dog. It all ended in tears, as did the mighty Facebook pages.

      Delete
    7. Hi Rosalinda and thanks for comment
      Well said Rosalinda. Personally, I've got the impression that it has become almost impossible to challenge the McCanns' version of what happened to Madeleine without challenging the whole British "Empire"

      Delete
    8. ''most popular was The Mirror Forum, that is a readers discussion page. Unfortunately it was at a time when the McCanns seemed to have unlimited power, and it was shut down.''

      I'm not sure which is the worst part of that observation, the citing of a tabloid( which you claim are worthless) chat room full of lonely bored wannabee detectives looking for gossip about a serious crime, or your claim that the McCanns had 'unlimited power' and caused it to close down.Unlimited power ? Really ?

      Delete
    9. '' I am a huge fan of US real crime shows, and I am blown away by the honesty in the reporting of cases such as these. The presenters come right out with what they are thinking, regardless that the parents are grieving and innocent until proven guilty.''

      Yes, that's called tacky, heartless and cruel.I can understand your love of it.You forgot to mention 'whether or not they've actually checked the facts beforehand or not '.

      CBS are an example of their brilliant programming. That's why Burke Ramsey's looking at the best part of billion dollars defamation payment down the line.

      http://people.com/crime/burke-ramsey-jonbenet-cbs-series-lawsuit/

      Fox News should be situated in the grounds of The Whitehouse.Anderson Cooper should be situated in The Pentagon.CNN belongs in Disneyworld.America( for the most part) has been fed a strict diet of sensationalism and melodrama for over 50 years.it's entertaining.You can't by a bag of groceries without a film crew and bubble headed anchor greeting you outside wanting a quote.

      ''Our presenters are delicate to the point where they are suitable for all ages and anyone of a sensitive disposition. ''

      Tactful and aware of huge law suits is another way to go.Ask Chritopher Jeffries. That's what happens when you have an attack of 'americanese'

      '' The idea that two church going, hard working doctors could be involved in a crime is an aberration to them. ''

      Do they need you to speak for them or can they think for themselves ? I don't think the parents are guilty of the things they're charged of online. A lot of people are of the same view.If it turns out that they actually are guilty, do you seriously consider everyone(like me) would be aghast that two doctors are capable of such things ?Because they're middle class church goers ? That's beyond naive.We live in a world where we would need a football stadium to house the clergy of the Vatican that have been found guilty of worse.We know of middle and higher class politicians guilty of things i can't even bring myself to voice( from Lord Boothby onward).

      ''But their day is done. People are turning to alternate websites for their news, and blogs for their reading of choice.''

      And still can't find anything other than opinions.How many days are there in eleven years ?

      ''People were coming together to discuss their suspicions, and all saying pretty much the same thing. 'hey why isn't the UK media giving us the same information as the Portuguese media?'. In their great masterplan''


      Did they mention anything about the PJ officers leaking false information and lies to the press in exchange for free meals and drink ?Or did they, like now, stick with the ''the UK media painted Amaral and the PJ black' narrative ?

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563938/Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-breaks-silence.html

      Delete
  22. Anonymous8 April 2018 at 06:47
    Still waiting on the names of "those few celebrities who have said anything remotely critical of Gerry and Kate, have quickly seen their careers nosedive." Third time of asking.

    Reply I will help you out Eamonn Holmes , he stated on TV that these sort of crimes are normally closer to home the inference being family member or someone close , he is now toeing the party line , abduction yada yada , Kate Hopkins was attacked for not toeing the party line ,Sharon Osbourne blasted by missing Madeleine McCann's parents after she brands them "insane" for leaving girl alone , as for damaging careers , if the star is big enough they can ride it out , but clebs are told to give the subject a wide birth ,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Eamon Holmes was sent to the wilderness. He started turning up on other shows as bad as his own, embarked on the 'celeb' circuit( strictly) only to re-surface to collect his OBE. Quite the nosedive.

      Kate Hopkins isn't, nor was ever' a celebrity.She was a wannabe celebrity who appeared on a reality show.She chose the 'outrageous comments' route to stay in the news.She has said a lot more outrageous things than commenting on the case.She makes a living trying to wind people up.Nobody really likes what she's about and she isn't good for viewing figures.Sharon Osborne was only a judge on a fake talent show. She was culled in an ageism move, nothing more.Again, the novelty of what she was ( married to a wacky ex rock star and mother of two oddball celeb kids) was wearing thin.Nobody took her opinions seriously about anything.Even the fake talent show. If celebs are told to give the subject a wide berth they do it.The fear of no attention is their nightmare.Who said they are told this nonsense ?

      Delete
    2. Björn10 April 2018 at 17:40

      All you need to know about the UK MSM is that it's a pale imitation of real media.It's almost as bad as the USA's. They have their paymasters( politicians) and they have the remit of what they can and can't print.They scratch each others back.That's why the Alt media come to be. And it's why the threatened gurus of the MSM outlets have invested in some shills to counter that now.'Fake News' is the buzzword.They're trying to make that-to coin an Americanism- 'a thing' . Make fake news big, then bigger, them people will realise that 'conspiracy theories' and 'truthers' are just part of 'fake news'. Job done. But there are still plenty of us out here who can't be dumbed down or brainwashed into the hive mind.No siree...

      As for celebrities, does it really matter what they think or say ? They're driven by a greed for easy money and an insatiable ego.They're not detectives.They have tow positions they can take ; 1 play to the gallery; 2, outrage the gallery. In short, say something that will enrage the pros, or the antis.Either way it guarantees they'll remain in the public psyche a little longer than the cameras and spotlights are switched on for .And that's their food and drink.No substance.Their main function is to be a conduit for every crumb of trivia and gossip in the ether that needs a home. Unfortunately, there's a huge audience.

      Delete
    3. Hello Anon 10 April 2018 at 22:58

      Thanks for comments. An Interesting read.
      Just a few words.

      Celebrities always want to have a say on everything, so we shouldn’t really pay so much attention to what they believe, whether they express an opportune or a controversial opinion.

      As for journalists and politicians in common, one would of course wish that they were more insightful and also wholeheartedly committed to seeking the truth instead of adapting to society's populist fluctuations, as they so often do.

      As far as the Madeleine case is concerned, no journalist or politician (including Theresa May) should ever write or talk about it without first of all emphasize that it has not yet been established whether there was an abduction or not. Whatever people believe, all opinions should be discussed as opinions, but not as facts.

      Delete
    4. Björn11 April 2018 at 10:51

      ''it has not yet been established whether there was an abduction or not. Whatever people believe, all opinions should be discussed as opinions, but not as facts.''

      That should apply to everyone, not just celebrities or journalists, politicians, online commentators or former detectives.Everyone.

      Delete
  23. Hi Rosalinda,
    Here's a slam dunk list of evidence that clears the McCanns of any wrongdoing.

    (1)The shutters and back window of the apartment were jimmied.
    (2)The front or patio doors were left unlocked by the parents.
    (3)An inside door was left ajar in the bedroom by an intruder with evidence there had been or was a possible abductor behind it. Then the door went "Whoosh", slamming shut in the wind.
    How scary is that.

    We know this this to be true because the McCann's told us so.

    While the parents were out drinking nightly in the Tapas bar they had a direct view of the apartment just a few paces away. Even though the view was obstructed by a polyethylene fence covering, the couple felt the place was secure.

    And no doubt about it these responsible parents were checking the place all the time.

    Sometime after the alarm was sounded for an abduction by Mrs McCann one of her friends made a police statement that she had seen a man carrying a child on the street outside the apartment.
    Now this was credible evidence which absolutely pointed to an abduction. This critical evidence came from friend Jane Tanner.
    This woman was a solid witness.

    Meanwhile an upstairs neighbor Mrs Fenn, living in the holiday apartment complex reported that she had heard nightly crying of a young child calling out "Daddy, Daddy" until 11:45pm at night when the parents returned.
    Logically, this woman must have been either mistaken or she was a liar, because the parents always physically checked on their children's wellbeing every half hour of the evening.

    Likewise the Irish family sighting of a man carrying a body down by the beach on that same evening must have been a hallucination or most likely the family was trying to cash in on the publicity.

    The reports of the McCanns deleting all their emails and texts is another falsehood.
    They were certainly entitled do that if they wanted to help the police find their daughter.

    As for pleading Miranda rights (or whatever it's called in Portugal) to the lead detective's questions.
    It was natural for them to do this. They wanted to help.

    The most damning evidence of their unjust ordeal has been that the lead detective is a foreigner. And not any foreigner but Portuguese to boot.

    But that's OK because now they can relax while the English police take over.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''While the parents were out drinking nightly in the Tapas bar they had a direct view of the apartment just a few paces away.''

      They were out dining.They didn't have a direct view.The 'few paces' was roughly 100 metres.

      '' Even though the view was obstructed''

      How is that a direct view then ?

      ''Meanwhile an upstairs neighbour Mrs Fenn, living in the holiday apartment complex reported that she had heard nightly crying of a young child''

      One night.

      ''Logically, this woman must have been either mistaken or she was a liar,''

      No, you're the liar.

      ''Likewise the Irish family sighting of a man carrying a body down by the beach on that same evening must have been a hallucination''

      Or they saw someone.Why would they invent it ? Just because they won't swear it could have been GM doesn't mean the alternative explanation is an hallucination.

      ''The reports of the McCanns deleting all their emails and texts is another falsehood.They were certainly entitled do that if they wanted to help the police find their daughter.''

      They can be retrieved by police either way.

      ''The most damning evidence of their unjust ordeal has been that the lead detective is a for
      eigner. And not any foreigner but Portuguese to boot.''

      Do you know the definition of foreigner, jc ? Amaral is Portuguese and this was in Portugal.The McCanns are British.They were the foreigners.

      ''But that's OK because now they can relax while the English police take over.''

      That actually happened many years ago, jc, keep up.

      Delete
    2. The post by JC was obviously a tongue in cheek post,lighten up.

      Delete
    3. 9 April 2018 at 15:57

      Haven’t I told you not to inhale while doing press-ups?

      I do hope that’s not a gun in your pocket…

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 10 April 2018 at 07:25

      Indeed (see my 9 April 2018 at 13:21 post).

      Delete
  24. I see bennett the blonk is trying to convince Justice forum that his thousands of FOI requests and his review are oh so important. Imbecile.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi jc Rosalinda and others
    off topic perhaps, but I felt I needed to mention one little oddity among so many others related to the McCanns' behaviour.

    Gerry McCann's speech on return to the UK as soon as he'd set foot on British soil was so well prepared and he read from a script, but not from his heart.

    As for myself, I’m not a well-articulated speaker and I often have trouble in finding the right words when I’m supposed to talk about an interesting topic among people in a larger group, so I always need a script. GM must be much better than me in this respect.

    However, in situations when I have to defend myself against false accusations, when I feel as if I were the victim of some injustice or in situations when I want to thank people for their unexpected kindness, I’ve no difficulties in finding appropriate words (or at least understandable words) to express what I feel, as my emotional language comes to me spontaneously and it does so because it’s all so true and honest.

    It cannot be so much different with GM or anybody else. Therefore, I cannot really understand why he chose to speak from his script and not from his heart, which everybody would have appreciated. Was it because he knew so well that it’s easier to twist the truth than to fake spontaneity?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So bjorn - why don't you tell us the last time you got off a plane and had to make a statement to the waiting press?

      Delete
    2. Björn9 April 2018 at 21:26

      ''Gerry McCann's speech on return to the UK as soon as he'd set foot on British soil was so well prepared and he read from a script, but not from his heart. ''

      What a shrewd find.Not desperate at all.Any idea where the words he'd written had come from ?

      ''However, in situations when I have to defend myself against false accusations, when I feel as if I were the victim of some injustice or in situations when I want to thank people for their unexpected kindness, I’ve no difficulties in finding appropriate words''

      You basically mean 'ever'. How would you be in a situation that you knew not only were you speaking publicly, but to a potential global audience of millions ?I'm not sure what the accusations were that you're trying to suggest GM had written a script for - what were they ? Who had made them and prompted him to rebut the accusations ? Are you hoping that we think it was against accusations of him killing or disposing of his child's body ? No sale.

      '' Therefore, I cannot really understand why he chose to speak from his script and not from his heart, which everybody would have appreciated''

      Nerves.See previous paragraph.

      ''Was it because he knew so well that it’s easier to twist the truth than to fake spontaneity?''

      Only in minds like yours, so it isn't important. When something as horrific as losing your daughter abroad has happened followed by a global media frenzy, you don't want to be misunderstood or make mistakes.That's completely natural.When you also realise that a lot of bored online wannabe detectives are scrutinizing your every word, every pause, every expression and every recollection in the hope of finding a snippet to blow out of proportion and accuse you, you prepare a script.Fear ? No, a case of having far bigger fish to fry and no need for endless nuisances snapping at your ankles and getting in the way or trying to garner a little online fame.

      Delete
    3. Anon 9 April 2018 at 23:51

      Hello, I assume, Ziggy/D and VT
      First of all thanks for comment.


      ”Only in minds like yours, so it isn't important. When something as horrific as losing your daughter abroad has happened followed by a global media frenzy, you don't want to be misunderstood or make mistakes”

      Had not the McCanns immediately and also so aggressively after Madeleine had gone missing contacted British MSM through friends at home in order to make the world believe in their abduction story, there wouldn’t have been any “global media frenzy”, and certainly not a whole bunch of “welcoming” journalists in front of which Gerry had to hold his well-prepared defence speech.

      Defenders of the McCanns, who keep on repeating, as you do, that the McCanns have LOST a daughter, makes anyone who questions the official abduction story appear to be a ruthless and insensitive bully, whose intention is to add further suffering to the McCanns.

      If I knew that Madeleine had accidently died in the apartment, as GA and others believe, and that the McCanns then managed to dispose of her body, I wouldn’t use the verb” lose”, but “hidden” instead.

      However, as long as we don’t know what really happened that night, I suggest that we say that Madeleine has ”gone missing”, because that’s at least an undisputed fact.


      Delete
    4. Unknown9 April 2018 at 23:10

      Dear Unknown
      Thanks for comment

      If I had to face an international group of journalists when returning home after having lost my daughter abroad, I wouldn’t need a manuscript to read from to show the world how desperate I’d be to find her.

      I’d also let any journalist ask me whatever question he/she so wished, as long as it was not about what I knew about the ongoing Portuguese investigation. As for the McCanns and their team, they started their own research immediately and nothing could have prevented them from talking about that. Instead Gerry held a soulless nonsense speech giving the audience absolutely nothing in terms of information about where he and Kate had looked for Madeleine or what all their supporters could do to help them.

      Madeleine, if she were alive, which they claimed she was, and they still do, could have been found any day, but all they asked for was privacy. I would have understood that appeal if they were innocent and if Madeleine had been found dead, because then there wouldn’t have been hopes of a happy ending, just a longing for being left alone to mourn in silence and process the trauma that they’d experienced.

      But Lord my God, they were convinced that Madeleine was alive and could be found sound and well any day, but what they most of all wished to have was PRIVACY.

      Delete
    5. Björn 10 April 2018 at 22:09

      “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything” (attributed, likely incorrectly, to Mark Twain).

      You have spoken like the man on the Clapham omnibus, my friend (that’s a high compliment)!

      I love Twain very much.

      T

      Delete
    6. @ Björn10 April 2018 at 22:09

      How ironic that you accuse the Mccanns of not answering questions when did not answer the question that I asked you.

      You have no idea how you would react in such a situation - you just speculate, from a position of ignorance, in the most negative manner all the time.

      Delete

    7. Hello T 11 April 2018 at 07:37and thanks

      Talking about literature for a change and Mark Twain, it’s so sad that so many, especially Americans, see him as a racist just because there’s reality (19th century racism) to be found in his novels.

      The racist attitudes towards black people by some of his fictitious characters in “Tom Sawyer" or in “Huckleberry Finn” aren’t his, but unfortunately, as you know, there’re people who cannot really distinguish between authors, narrators and fictional characters.

      Did not MT by the end of his life say, that “the rumor of my death is considerably exaggerated”. If he did so I believe he’s still so right.

      Delete
    8. I am amused by his attitude to Jane Austin, and love this quote 'Everytime I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin bone'. Quite.

      Even now I am not sure everyone gets MT's unique way with satire. His 'Modest Proposal' to cure starvation and over population in Ireland by eating babies, was greeted with outrage! It was taken quite literally. Mr. Twain would certainly be in my top ten list of people (dead or alive) to dine with. Dorothy Parker, Talullah Bankhead, Robert Mitchum (famously told his soon to be wife, 'stick with me darling, and you'll be farting through silk'), lol. Marilyn Monroe, Truman Capote, Harper Lee, Marlon Brando, I want to say Virginia Woolf but she might lower the mood, so for the Brits, PG Wodehouse. Is that 10, I'm not sure, if not, Sue Townsend deserves an honourable mention!

      Delete
    9. @ Ros
      Would that be Jane Austen?

      Delete
    10. Björn10 April 2018 at 22:09

      '', I wouldn’t need a manuscript to read from to show the world how desperate I’d be to find her.''

      So you'd be cool, calm and collected even though you were now back home while you your daughter was in another country with whoever know. Of course.

      ''Madeleine, if she were alive, which they claimed she was, and they still do, could have been found any day, but all they asked for was privacy.''

      The polite way of saying ''can you leave us alone to try and deal with this and address your questions to the police''

      '' I would have understood that appeal if they were innocent and if Madeleine had been found dead''

      Here we go.You're favourite subject.

      '', just a longing for being left alone to mourn in silence and process the trauma that they’d experienced.''

      You don't consider the not knowing where your child was or even which country or who with a trauma ? What the hell is wrong with you ?

      ''But Lord my God, they were convinced that Madeleine was alive and could be found sound and well any day, but what they most of all wished to have was PRIVACY. ''

      If you can read evil into that you have raised your level of bad taste, desperation and sick minded speculation to a level i didn't think even you could reach.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 April 2018 at 15:31

      Hi

      If I were in prison Rosalinda and if I were just allowed to read only one British author from each century after the Shakespeare era I’d choose Daniel Defoe to represent the 18th century, Charles Dickens to represent the 19th century and Evelyn Waugh, by virtue of his satire, irony and criticism of his contemporary British society to represent the 20th century. I believe the latter here is a little bit misunderstood as far as satire is concerned. As for the 21th century, we’ll have to wait, perhaps in vain LOL.

      Delete
  26. " Verdi Today at 15:22 Why, of course - what can you expect after eleven years of truth avoidance. Nobody, that's nobody, is now going to produce a true exposé of the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann are they."
    ---------------------------------------------

    Oh dear - verdi is rubbishing the famous 8 films by dick Hall and seen by millions across the World!

    ReplyDelete
  27. HI Anon, whom I suppose is Z/D, VT 11 April 2018 at 16:04
    and thanks for comment

    ”If you can read evil into that you have raised your level of bad taste, desperation and sick minded speculation to a level i didn't think even you could reach”

    The McCanns have not shown the least respect for other people's privacy. It started with Robert Murat, then the parents of the little Moroccan girl and followed by their harassment of the Roman family, in whose care the little girl Maria was and later the persecution of Brenda Leyland.

    The more influence they gained over the British investigation, thanks to Clarence Mitchell and others, a number of innocent Portuguese residents in PDL became subjected to British police interrogations and as a consequence of that some of them were also offended by British journalists. In another post recently I’ve mentioned Richard Bilton, but we should not forget Martin Brunt either.

    Hoping from the very beginning, which they must have done, that the investigation would go in this direction the narcissistic and ruthless McCann couple had the guts to demand privacy for their own sake as soon as they stepped off the plane. I’m sad to say that I find it abhorrent, even though I’m not evil.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''The McCanns have not shown the least respect for other people's privacy. It started with Robert Murat, then the parents of the little Moroccan girl and followed by their harassment of the Roman family, in whose care the little girl Maria was and later the persecution of Brenda Leyland. ''

      Brenda Leyland again.More disrespect for the lady whatsoever.Let her rest.

      Who harassed Murat ? Who had him in the station on two different occasions as a suspect ? Who had him followed round the clock for 24 hours ?

      '' innocent Portuguese residents in PDL became subjected to British police interrogations ''

      If you're referring to suspects and lines of inquiry, what are they supposed to do in an investigation ? All who get questioned are subjected to the same.

      ''Hoping from the very beginning, which they must have done, that the investigation would go in this direction the narcissistic and ruthless McCann couple''

      How could you know what anyone hopes unless they make it public or inform you ?Give me a break down of narcissistic traits that you consider fit the McCanns profiles.

      '' I’m sad to say that I find it abhorrent, even though I’m not evil.''

      What you find abhorrent is what you've imagined has happened and what you consider people who are strangers to you are. You paint dark pictures in your mind, construct outlandish dark scenarios- all without anything to give them any credence- and then target the parents who lost a child for your acidic ramblings.It may not be evil.But i didn't use that word, oddly enough.

      Delete
  28. Rosalinda & all

    “Journalists were always telling us it was important for the general public to see that we were a very ordinary family.” – Kate McCann (madeleine)

    If it is true, why should the McCanns heed advice from journalists? The McCanns' compliance implies recognition. How come?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
  29. HI NL and others 12 April 2018 at 09:29

    In the Swedish talk show "Skavlan"(anyone can look it up on Youtube) Gerry admitted having taken lessons in "how to perform in front of a camera". He said that in order to impress on the viewers, so that they would all understand how serious he was about finding Madeleine.

    Would a normal and healthy person who has lost a dear one attend courses about how to behave in front of an audience?

    The host as well as most of the Swedish viewers found that strange, to say the least. That was about the time (2010) when I started to take interest in the case, and for the said reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hallå där Björn (12 April at 13:39)

      Extraordinary behaviour of “a very ordinary couple” I'd say.

      As Kate McCann doesn’t mention names, there is no way of knowing if journalists really said it. If true, the only reason I can think of is that Kate’s journalists seem to know how to sell stories. But what were the McCanns thinking? Would they themselves be more impressed with someone else’s missing child when that child’s from a very ordinary family?

      Personally, I couldn´t care less from what family a missing child is. A missing child is a missing child. I don´t understand why they thought it was important for the general public. Something to do with ‘the wider agenda’?

      NL

      Delete
    2. Hallå där NL,(13 April 2018 at 07:37)

      Alltid kul att få kommentarer från dig.

      The more the McCanns strive to show the world how ordinary and responsible they are, the more clearly I see the right opposite.

      I once had a boss, who often and very explicitly told me how honest and sincere he was in his leadership, which he of course wouldn’t have needed to say, if he really were.

      As for the the McCanns, they’ve always talked about their own suffering, due to the loss of their family of five, but never about how Madeleine would feel if she were still alive, and that's enough for me in order to understand how loveless and shallow they really are behind their masks.


      Delete
    3. Hi Bjorn, your posts really do resonate. I once saw an interview with Sara Payne who was stolen and murdered. She cried and she laughed at the memories she had of her daughter, then she sobbed as she spoke of the life her daughter could have had, the life she had lost. I don't think she spoke about her own loss, but she didn't have to, it could not have been clearer.

      Gerry's lessons on how to perform in front of the camera are indeed bizarre. OK if your goal is to host your own missing children channel (which I believe he wanted to do, a la John Walsh), but weird on any other level. Sara Payne and Coral Jones didn't need performance lessons for the public to empathise with them. Every time I have seen these dear ladies, I just want to hug them.

      The cold, calculated performances of Gerry and Kate, have caused more suspicion than empathy, so too the perfect family on the perfect holiday.

      The Holy Roman connection, piled more weird on top of weird. Their rediscovery of the Catholic religion, can only be described as epiphany. Why two scientists be in a church praying, rather than donning their hiking boots and helping with the search?

      The religious of course, always use their religion as a form of defence, as in, 'I'm a regular church goer, I couldn't possibly have done it', should add 'and furthermore that puts me above suspicion'.

      Having been indoctrinated with Catholicism more than most as a child, I tend to be cynical. I view the new found faith of Gerry, Kate and their entourage mildly amusing, how, for example did Clarence Mitchell stand so close to the Pope and not be struck by a lightening bolt?

      Religion unfortunately, has a way of attracting some of the most evil psychopaths in society. Catholics especially who can do virtually anything they want, no matter how heinous,and get it all wiped out with a few Hail Marys and an Our Father. And as a fan of US real crime documentaries, I was astonished at how many pastors, preachers and evangelicals opt for grisly murder rather than divorce.

      But I digress, the religious fervour was all part of the manipulation, like Cuddle Cat peeking out of Kate's rucksack. And it went down a storm, it hit it's target audience. Not searching, but praying. Okily dokily.

      The assumption that being a Catholic makes you a good person is laughable, but unfortunately, it still carries weight - well, everywhere. It tops the list of 'why it couldn't be me' defences, and finding religion in prison can lead to earlier parole.

      I wonder if the McCanns are still religious now? Goncalo Amaral pays for a yearly mass to be said for Joana Cipriano, a modest tribute to the forgotten murdered child. No balloons, no environment unfriendly lanterns, no parapazzi. A simple mass.

      I may sound as though I hate Catholics, I really don't, I have had many among my best friends all my life. One elderly Catholic lady, would always be praying for me, and saying Jesus, Mary and Joseph, whenever we got together for a cup of tea, lol. I hasten to add, she always had a twinkle in her eye and egged me on.

      For my part, I say 'whatever gets you through the night', people get solace from religion, I see that. It is when they use their religion to look down on people who are not part of the sect, that I get irked.

      Delete
    4. Björn13 April 2018 at 11:58

      ''The more the McCanns strive to show the world how ordinary and responsible they are, the more clearly I see the right opposite. ''

      I'm sure that will come as a surprise to everyone reading.

      You see what you want to see and pretend anything else doesn't exist.It's blinkered and narrow minded to the extreme.For one thing, the McCanns did their talking years ago.If they are constantly revisited by journalists and asked the same questions they can only repeat the same answers with minimal variation.That's not the McCanns striving to show the world anything.It's the media striving to find something to sell papers or magazines.Your Gestalt -psychology- in- a -nutshell is a mile wide of your intention.

      ''As for the the McCanns, they’ve always talked about their own suffering, due to the loss of their family of five, but never about how Madeleine would feel if she were still alive,''

      If Madeleine was still there, it wouldn't be a topic of discussion would it. Is it so bad in your world for parents to voice their suffering over the loss of a child when they know their bad decision led to it ?Or would you prefer they kept quiet so you and your kind could then accuse them of being cold hearted and wicked ?

      ''and that's enough for me in order to understand how loveless and shallow they really are behind their masks. ''

      What's enough ? What you've chosen to imagine about them again ?Your imagination is enough for you.That's it. Period. If you and jc were called to voice your many theories on the McCanns during a criminal trial it would be the bleakest of comedies.You'd make the cause of the ants look beyond mad.Not only would the McCanns walk free, they'd probably be compensated for having to endure the nonsense.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 April 2018 at 13:50

      Hello Rosalinda

      Maybe a boring text to many, but someone might find it interesting

      As you brought up the subject about Catholicism Rosalinda, I’d just like to say a few words about how the Swedish ”branch” of this religion actually died right here in Linköping, in my hometown, after the battle of Stångebro1598 (now situated in the middle of the town) in which Sigismund, the king of Poland, who had to defend the Catholicism was defeated by his uncle, the Swedish Duke (Charles) Karl. The only memorial in this place is a non-eye-catching grave-like monument, that some patriotic military officers raised in the 1920s. So much for our glorious history, Rosalinda.

      Sigismund, had inherited the Polish throne through his mother, the Polish inheritance princes Katarina Jagellonica, who had been the spouse of the king of Sweden, Johan III, whose son was Sigismund. So naturally Sigismund claimed the right to the Swedish throne as well, and got it.

      However, he was defeated by his uncle Duke Karl/Charles in this battle. The latter then became king Karl IX of Sweden. Ever since Duke Charles victory Protestantism or, rather Lutheranism has been the all-embracing and unification religion in our country on which our entire constitution still rests, even though our Protestant Church has very recently in democratic order been separated from the state.

      Most Swedes, even those who’ve decided not to leave the Church, have a very relaxed relationship with religion in general, which has become possible because of the Church's adaptation to the reality of everyday life and of course due to the secularization process in our society as a whole, which has been going on for over 50 years or more. Our Church has in modern times been engaged in many activities with good ends beyond the forced religious dogmas of earlier years, and that’s reason as to why it has survived. May I also add that Caroline Krook, who was bishop of Stockholm diocese didn’t hide her homosexuality towards the end of her career. She retired just a few years ago,

      You can actually, wherever you come from, visit any of our protestant churches in any parish without notice, and there’re really a lot of them, just to take a cup of coffee without being asked questions about your faith or anything else, which I believe is a little bit different from spontaneously visit a synagogue, a mosque or a Nonconformist Church, in Sweden or elsewhere. Our churches are literally very open, especially in the countryside, in that they’re often unlocked and sometimes not even attended at day time.

      So, although I’m not a believer Rosalinda, anyway not by the traditional definition, I see no reason why I should leave the Swedish Protestant Church as it represents goodness and tradition to me. Having experienced the openness of our Swedish Church, I would very much appreciate if Muslims tried to reform the Quran or at least approach it in a more common sense way. Likewise, it would be desirable if Jews would consider what texts their belief is based on. And of course, the Catholic Church should adapt more to modernity and open up much more, as should a lot of the so called free Churches around the world, some of which sometimes tend to be sectarian.




      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 April 2018 at 13:50

      ''I wonder if the McCanns are still religious now? Goncalo Amaral pays for a yearly mass to be said for Joana Cipriano, a modest tribute to the forgotten murdered child. No balloons, no environment unfriendly lanterns, no parapazzi. A simple mass.''

      St Goncalo. Bless. I suppose that gesture could be seen as considerate and genuine.After all, that poor child met with a nightmare ending to her young life at the hands of a pair of evil animals.The mass is about and for her.And it's very Christian of Goncalo Amaral to do it. So why doesn't he do the same for Madeleine ? He believes the same thing happened to her according to his book.Or does he.

      Delete
    7. ''The cold, calculated performances of Gerry and Kate, have caused more suspicion than empathy, so too the perfect family on the perfect holiday. ''

      Only in the bad minded and ill informed.Their guesses don't support their claims, only their bad mindedness. It's Lindy Chamberlain all over again.Only online.

      ''The Holy Roman connection, piled more weird on top of weird. Their rediscovery of the Catholic religion, can only be described as epiphany. Why two scientists be in a church praying, rather than donning their hiking boots and helping with the search? ''

      It's their faith.If you said that about Judaism or Islam all the wristband wearing sanctimonious would be gunning for you.They can all kiss it in my books, but that's because religion is nothing to me.But it could be that the McCanns were desperate enough to believe the Pope of the time had a hotline to God like millions of other Catholics do.The PR exercise was more beneficial to his holiness than the parents.The Vatican love a good photo op. Especially this century when all their paedophilia has floated to the surface..

      You could of course, if you were determined to try and paint the parents as evil or something similar, suggest that it was a ruse to make them appear above suspicion.But that would be to ignore the highly ranked clergy who have been defrocked and put in prison and the Jimmy Swaggarts of the world. Or :

      https://listverse.com/2015/01/16/10-evangelist-preachers-who-fell-from-grace/

      ''Religion unfortunately, has a way of attracting some of the most evil psychopaths in society. Catholics especially who can do virtually anything they want, no matter how heinous,and get it all wiped out with a few Hail Marys''

      You think it's an attraction ? Obviously, I can see what you're attempting with that claim ( the McCanns are therefore, psychopaths).But it makes no sense.Even if you invent some more statistics it won't. it's a wasted strain to try .

      ''The assumption that being a Catholic makes you a good person is laughable, ''

      It's only you suggesting it.People aren't stupid.It's 2018 not 1795.

      Amaral's masses don't come out of this very well do they...

      Delete
    8. Hello Anon 13 April 2018 at 15:45

      'As for the the McCanns, they’ve always talked about their own suffering, due to the loss of their family of five, but never about how Madeleine would feel if she were still alive,''

      Let me explain what I meant. I refer to another tragedy.

      When Otto Warmbier was kept in North Korea his parents never talked about their suffering, only his.

      They expressed anger because no-one seemed to be able to help their son, whose suffering they felt and understood was so much worse than their anguish and despair. What worried them was the suffering and horrors they feared their son must be experiencing. Eventually they took the case in their own hands and sought as much media attention as possible in trying to make the US administration exert pressure on the North Korea regime. They never asked for privacy as long as there was a chance that their son was going to be sent home. Now, since their son is dead, they deserve privacy if they so wish and perhaps a priest to deal with their own feelings.

      Kate, however, asked for a priest just hours after Madeleine had gone missing and as I’ve said so many times, Gerry asked for privacy just after a few months, while they all the time persistently maintained that Madeleine was abducted but alive and also findable. This is but a farce they’ve been playing for 11 years, but behind the curtains they behave as if they knew what really happened to Madeleine.

      Delete
    9. @ Ros 13:50

      "I once saw an interview with Sara Payne who was stolen and murdered."

      Maybe you should rephrase that.

      Delete
    10. Unless the parents have done it ofcourse

      Delete
    11. 22:34, I don't know if Goncalo Amaral pays for an annual mass for Madeleine. Unlike Joana, Madeleine has two caring parents, as devout Catholics presumably they do, or do they?

      Delete
    12. How droll 23:26. Clearly the word daughter was missing, a typo, most people would have got that.

      Delete
    13. Bjorn -

      ''This is but a farce they’ve been playing for 11 years, but behind the curtains they behave as if they knew what really happened to Madeleine.''

      In your opinion, of course. That paragraph sums up your narrow mindedness. You invent evidence to back up your theories as none exists. You then come up with wild guesses you can't possibly back up as though they're common knowledge. How can anyone possibly know what the McCanns say or do in the privacy of their own home. As much as the vigilantes online fantasise that they can, because they'd love to ( freaks), they can't. Obviously, if you have evidence or a source to support this latest slur, I'll take this post back

      Delete
  30. It's probably why Peter Hyatt did too.And he's a nutcase Bible basher.Or detective when he get's bored. I suppose nuttiness is a transferable skill.It's clearly a contagious one.

    ReplyDelete
  31. For those who believe people in UK Government(local or otherwise), and UK Police have been unfairly demonized by sections of the public prepared to look behind and beyond popular official lines.For those who don't believe secrets can't be kept for decades by these creatures. Bear in mind, this didn't break because of a brave policeman or politician.It took a social worker with guts.From the same Social Services that the former Council leader had blamed for abuse cover ups rather than his own lies.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/resigned-rochdale-council-leader-richard-farnell-lied-to-child-abuse-inquiry

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Rosalinda,
    I thought since you are in Armchair Detective mode, here's a respectful look at the McCann tragedy in the first hours of the evening of May 3rd 2007. And a theory.

    After a night's drinking at the Tapas bar, the parents returned to their holiday apartment expecting to see their children peacefully sleeping, after which they themselves could crash into bed into a dreamless sleep.

    As a safeguard, the children had all been drugged to keep them asleep during the long evening hours alone. So there should be no problems with wakefulness.

    At first they checked the twins who were fast asleep and snoring in a regular pattern, everything was good; and then they went over to check their eldest daughter Madeleine, who to their horror was not breathing.
    Both the doctor and the heart surgeon were pretty familiar with this kind of scenario and knew how to deal with patient revival in a hospital environment.
    But in a remote hotel in a foreign land they would have to do the best they could, Call 999? not a chance they thought.

    The parents had already felt for a pulse: No pulse... and no breathing. Their little girl was technically dead, overdosed on the sleeping pills they had administered.

    In a panic, both parents went into survival mode and administered CPR (mouth breathing and hand to heart compressions).

    Ideally an AED Automated External Defibrillator and even heart injections of some sort might have helped.
    But this was 2007 and AED's were not commonplace. Nowadays every institution worldwide from schools to hotels including Mark Warner's in PDL probably has a raft of them.

    So the terrible sadness of the frantic couple increased to fever pitch as their daughter would show no signs of life.
    In fact as happens with most people receiving CPR she sustained broken ribs and in this case vomited blood on the floor (later to be cleaned up but still detected by tracker dogs).
    By now The horror had sunk in; their child was dead. Their parental act of desperation had not been enough.
    At this instant an unbreakable bond was created between the two and a cover-up scheme was hatched. (As it turned out like none the world has ever seen). The couple would have to see this thing through to the bitter end.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous13 April 2018 at 03:49

      jc

      ''here's a respectful look at the McCann tragedy in the first hours of the evening of May 3rd 2007. And a theory.''

      I wonder who will be the suspect/s in this.I wonder what you mean by respectful...

      ''After a night's drinking at the Tapas bar, the parents returned to their holiday apartment ..., after which they themselves could crash into bed into a dreamless sleep.''

      OK Edgar Allan Poe.Couple of points.Again you go for the night's 'drinking' and not dining.They were all dining.has anything been said about any of the group being so much as wobbly ?

      ''As a safeguard, the children had all been drugged ..so there should be no problems with wakefulness.'

      I could comment.I won't.It doesn't deserve one.

      ''At first they checked the twins who were fast asleep and snoring in a regular pattern, everything was good;''

      Was this in the middle of their 'dreamless sleep' ?

      ''Madeleine, who to their horror was not breathing...the doctor and the heart surgeon were pretty familiar with this kind of scenario and knew how to deal with patient revival in a hospital environment.''

      Gerry isn't a surgeon, and the apartment isn't a hospital.

      '', Call 999? not a chance they thought.''

      Why wouldn't they ?Apart from the number being in England.Portugal's is 121.Either way, they would have called.You're going for the drugged up kids scenario.They would want to hide the body etc due to the presence of drugs in her.But they'd gamble on the police not having the twins tested by their doctor...

      ''In a panic, both parents went into survival mode and administered CPR.... as happens with most people receiving CPR she sustained broken ribs and in this case vomited blood on the floor (later to be cleaned up but still detected by tracker dogs). ''

      Is this your alternative to the more popular tracheostomy theory that caused 'all the blood spatter'' that antis could see on photographs ?It's as mad.The broken ribs was imaginative, though.Sick-but imaginative.

      ''At this instant an unbreakable bond was created between the two and a cover-up scheme was hatched. (As it turned out like none the world has ever seen). ''

      As the rest of the taps group sat around whistling innocently and playing cards.The world has never seen a cover up like it ? Two parents concealing this secret ? Which world do you inhabit exactly ? Where's the Mother ship.

      Delete
    2. Hello Anon13 April 2018 at 15:26

      "As a safeguard, the children had all been drugged ..so there should be no problems with wakefulness" jc writes

      Not at all an unrealistic assumption, even if there had been a stranger abduction.

      Madeleine, who according to the McCanns, could sometimes wake up in the middle of the night, didn't do that when she was taken by the alleged stranger. Neither did she scream.

      As for the "unabducted" children, they were in deep sleep, despite a stranger having gone past them and then taken their sister, despite the chaos caused by all people running out and into the apartment, despite Kate's alarm by screaming and despite the fact that the Paynes then carried them up to their apartment.

      Does that not suggest that all three children could have been given some pills by their parents.So even if there was an abduction,they could very well have been drugged before that, and you cannot even comment on it?

      Delete
    3. Björn14 April 2018 at 11:23

      ''"As a safeguard, the children had all been drugged ..so there should be no problems with wakefulness" jc writes
      Not at all an unrealistic assumption, even if there had been a stranger abduction.''

      Great. They've put their heads together.

      ''..wake up in the middle of the night, didn't do that when she was taken by the alleged stranger. Neither did she scream.''

      Thanks Poirot. If you, as an adult, were in the process of abducting a toddler, would you ignore the possibility of her screaming ?No.How would you deal with it ? You have two options.One would be to induce unconsciousness with chloroform. The other more likely one would be to put your hand across her mouth.They're realstic assumptions to make.More realistic than Mr Crimewriter's vomiting reflex in a child who had died.

      ''As for the "unabducted" children, they were in deep sleep, despite a stranger having gone past them and then taken their sister, despite the chaos caused by all people running out and into the apartment''

      And. let's not forget, the PJ plodding all over the crime scene.Why didn't your observations alert Amaral and his colleagues to the possibility of them having been doped ? If it's all as obvious as you say, they must have either ignored it on orders are stunningly incompetent.They not only wasted the first hour by failing to close borders and have search boats launched, they had at least 2 -4 hours to take a blood sample from the twins or bring in their own doctor to examine them to see if they had been doped.

      ''Does that not suggest that all three children could have been given some pills by their parents.''

      Or an abductor.An examination would have discovered which.

      ''they could very well have been drugged before that, and you cannot even comment on it?''

      I've commented on it before.Now I've commented on it again. If all these tell tale signs pointing to the parents are so glaringly obvious, then you have to have the balls to make as many negative observations and criticisms of the police that arrived at the scene as you do accusations of the parents.They can't be untangled.

      Delete
    4. Anon 14 April 14.36

      So you believe if a child was 'abducted' in London the Dover Docks and tunnel would be closed immediately by the wonderful British police.
      Centre London-Dover c 120km
      PDL-Spanish border c 140km

      Why write such ridiculous fantasy and nonsense?

      Delete
  33. If you believe the crap, the PJ realised by 9am on Friday 4 May they did not have the experience or expertise to deal with an abduction, so requested the UK Police to come to Portugal to help organise the search and an investigation strategy.

    How therefore is Amaral and the PJ solely responsible for the "botched" investigation.

    The Leicestershire Police were/are notorious for dodgy dealing and poor policing.

    How "unlucky" the McCanns got them, the Keystone Cops.

    The saying was in Leicestershire..... don't go to Burtons (tailors) let the CID stitch you up.

    Has anything changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JJ 10:09

      I am glad you have recognised that the UK police went to Portugal at the request of PJ and Portuguese authorities.

      Delete
    2. 18.39

      Why are you glad ?
      Why does it concern you so much that I can prove the Leics police and CEOP were acting unlawfully and Leics police deliberately delayed passing on information to the PJ regarding Madeleine.

      Was it sheer ineptitude or just obeying orders must be in OG's remit?
      They have the data.

      Delete
    3. @ JJ 19:48

      Read my comment again - it clearly says why I am glad.

      Concerned? What on Earth makes you think I am concerned. Your comments about the UK Police are laughable.

      Delete
  34. Hey Anonymous at 15:26,
    Thanks for pointing out that the Portuguese emergency number is 121.
    I never would have guessed it in a thousand years.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous13 April 2018 at 21:00

      ''Thanks for pointing out that the Portuguese emergency number is 121.
      I never would have guessed it in a thousand years.
      jc''

      Anonymous13 April 2018 at 03:49

      ''But in a remote hotel in a foreign land they would have to do the best they could, Call 999? not a chance they thought.
      jc''

      Indeed.

      Delete
  35. Anonymous13 April 2018 at 15:26
    Anonymous13 April 2018 at 03:49

    jc

    ''here's a respectful look at the McCann tragedy in the first hours of the evening of May 3rd 2007. And a theory.''

    I wonder who will be the suspect/s in this.I wonder what you mean by respectful...

    ''After a night's drinking at the Tapas bar, the parents returned to their holiday apartment ..., after which they themselves could crash into bed into a dreamless sleep.''

    OK Edgar Allan Poe.Couple of points.Again you go for the night's 'drinking' and not dining.They were all dining.has anything been said about any of the group being so much as wobbly ?

    ''As a safeguard, the children had all been drugged ..so there should be no problems with wakefulness.'

    I could comment.I won't.It doesn't deserve one.

    ''At first they checked the twins who were fast asleep and snoring in a regular pattern, everything was good;''

    Was this in the middle of their 'dreamless sleep' ?

    ''Madeleine, who to their horror was not breathing...the doctor and the heart surgeon were pretty familiar with this kind of scenario and knew how to deal with patient revival in a hospital environment.''

    Gerry isn't a surgeon, and the apartment isn't a hospital.

    '', Call 999? not a chance they thought.''

    Why wouldn't they ?Apart from the number being in England.Portugal's is 121.Either way, they would have called.You're going for the drugged up kids scenario.They would want to hide the body etc due to the presence of drugs in her.But they'd gamble on the police not having the twins tested by their doctor...

    ''In a panic, both parents went into survival mode and administered CPR.... as happens with most people receiving CPR she sustained broken ribs and in this case vomited blood on the floor (later to be cleaned up but still detected by tracker dogs). ''

    Is this your alternative to the more popular tracheostomy theory that caused 'all the blood spatter'' that antis could see on photographs ?It's as mad.The broken ribs was imaginative, though.Sick-but imaginative.

    ''At this instant an unbreakable bond was created between the two and a cover-up scheme was hatched. (As it turned out like none the world has ever seen). ''

    As the rest of the taps group sat around whistling innocently and playing cards.The world has never seen a cover up like it ? Two parents concealing this secret ? Which world do you inhabit exactly ? Where's the Mother ship.

    Its nearly as crazy as some random abductor , stalking them for days , and nearly being caught in the apartment while Gerry spends a unexplained long time in the Toilet ,Now if those shutters had been broken , all this could have been avoided .but at least she was taken to order for a kind childless couple who are showering her with love , sadly she's not allowed out of the basement though , now where is that mother ship ,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The abductor scemario is feasible.Your scene from a TV hospital drama taking place in a cramped holiday apartment followed by a pact with the devil is ridiculous.An abductor watching the apartment prior to the abduction is feasible.GM using the toilet is feasible.An abductor being able to get in through the door is feasible.Whatever happened once he had been taken is anybody's guess as no evidence points anywhere or to anyone.That's feasible.Imagining where she could be or who she is with or if she's dead or alive is nothing but a dark game.

      Delete
    2. Hello Anon14 April 2018 at 13:04

      "Imagining where she could be or who she is with or if she's dead or alive is nothing but a dark game"

      The McCanns has made the case a "dark game"by sabotaging a very decent Portuguese investigation, which, I'm sure, would have succeeded had they only co-operated.

      Delete
    3. Björn14 April 2018 at 14:12

      ''The McCanns has made the case a "dark game"by sabotaging a very decent Portuguese investigation, which, I'm sure, would have succeeded had they only co-operated.''

      In your narrow minded opinion.So, again, the PJ allowed that to happen without following it up since.You're implying, whether or not you accept it, that they were a comedy outfit.By extension, you're justifying the McCanns' request for a more professional and competent police force to get involved.On top of this, you're giving any potential abductors, murderers, money launderers -and whatever else the parents are guilty of according to 'public opinion' - a perfect strategy to avoid detection and evade punishment; just don't co-operate. Brilliant. So, because they refused to co-operate( according to your blinding logic) 12 million has been spent looking for another avenue to explore and OG was created for nothing.

      How did they sabotage what you call( again without evidence) a 'decent investigation' ? A decent investigation acts fast and make no mistakes. The PJ acted slowly and made plenty.A decent investigation doesn't throw in the towel because two people they suspect are the perpetrators of a horrible crime won't co-operate.Tell me where and how this sabotage occurred.Use sources or evidence.All you do is opine nonsense borne of irrational hatred.

      Delete
    4. Hi there Anon14 April 2018 at 17:03

      "12 million has been spent looking for another avenue to explore"

      Yes, in fact,unfortunately it could well be the case, if we're to believe what Mark Rowley has said, about the McCanns not being investigated by the OG

      "and OG was created for nothing"

      Yes so it seems, as it has led absolutely nowhere, unless there're suspects and details about Madeleine's whereabout, that for some reason are kept secret from the British tax payers and others.

      "Tell me where and how this sabotage"
      Immediately after Madeleine allegedly had been abducted, when they called MSM in the UK, which was just their first step in this direction, followed by their changing witness statements, Kate's refusal to answer questions, the cancelled reconstruction etc etc.....and we shouldn't forget that they never asked the PJ to reopen the case. No letter sent by them to the prosecutors Office to demand that. They just wished the SY/Met to pursue their abduction hypothesis.

      Delete
  36. Ros says: " Goncalo Amaral pays for a yearly mass to be said for Joana Cipriano, a modest tribute to the forgotten murdered child. No balloons, no environment unfriendly lanterns, no parapazzi. A simple mass."
    ---------------------------------------------

    I would be interested in the evidence to support that statement Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous 14 April at 14:36
    ("they had at least 2 -4 hours to take a blood sample from the twins or bring in their own doctor to examine them to see if they had been doped.")

    Fiona Payne, an anaesthetist, said the twins were okay.

    “No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink.”

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

    ReplyDelete