Saturday, 21 April 2018


No-one is pushing the abduction story anymore, not even the parents. Couple of reasons for this I suspect, 1. it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, 2. it is now a huge embarrassment. The biggest problem the British authorities have is explaining how they could have been so incredibly naïve. They bought 'the Lie' hook, line and sinker, while the rest of the world watched in astonishment.  . probably wondering how on earth the British police were ever considered among the top crime solvers in the world.  In a nutshell, the McCanns have made them a laughing stock.  Very few prime suspects can look back and say, they had the full support of their government.  
What if Tony Blair had decided Karen Matthews was a good egg, and instructed Yorkshire police to go easy on her? 'Don't bother too much with forensics etc, lads, she couldn't possibly be guilty and there is no need to distress her further'.  And what was it that convinced Tony Blair that Gerry and Kate were above reproach?  He liked the cut of their jib? They were the perfect British family? Professional, 2.4 children, clean cut, smart and erudite, people he could relate to, their popularity was his popularity, an opportunity for him to play the hero on his way out. The rescuer of law abiding Brits abroad. 

But did he rely on his own judgment alone - that is his own inbuilt prejudices and bias?  Or, as PM, did he make full use of all the special services available to him, experts who had perhaps been out to PDL and met with the parents?  Maybe the envoy he sent himself, Clarence Mitchell?  It's hard to imagine him sending a government official to assist the McCanns without a proviso that he report back to him.  Clarence in his day could be very convincing, so what was he telling him?   

Then of course, there were the experts, CEOP especially, who seemed to have taken an active role in the Portuguese investigation.  Asking the public to send their photographs directly to them, for example.  And of course, they played an active role in the events that led to the naming of Robert Murat as the first arguido.   They approached the case from an internet angle - ie. seizing the computers of private individuals would lead to an arrest.  Not forgetting of course the profile they compiled that matched the nearest single male adult in the vicinity

I can't recall off hand how many British police agencies were involved, but Leicester Police took a different approach to CEOP.  The report of Mark Harrison was a game changer - they brought in the dogs.   They were advising the PJ to consider the parents as suspects.  CEOP were pro abduction, and seeking a pervert.  CEOP and Leicester Police must have been offering the PM conflicting advice.  Awkward.  Blair could of course  defend his stance with the McCann supporters' chant of only haters and the bad minded would have suspect the parents, but I am not sure childish naivety is a good look for a former world leader.  That however, is all CEOP have as their own excuse, and an even worse look for experienced police officers and criminal psychologists.  Awkward, times 2 and then some.

If I recollect correctly, it was around mid June 2007, that the first cracks in the establishment support began to appear.  The McCanns were being asked to move out of the resort and find their own accommodation.  Bizarre that Warners had been so hospitable for so long, but I suspect they feared a lawsuit.  And it was around this time that Clarence seemed to be out of the loop.  His 'off the record' remarks to Vanity Fair that they were unable to get a get a meeting with a Minister - 'all they were offered was mid-consular level',  signalled the end of the special relationship. No more chummy calls from Blair, Brown etc.

New Labour I'm sure, really wanted the McCann case to go away.  Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary, sat on the report from Jim Gamble and probably would have continued to do so, if there hadn't been a change of government, who then also sat on it, until May 2011.  Of course, since then we have had Leverson, and we are now familiar with how incestuous the relationship is between our leaders and the 'free press'. We all underwent a high speed GCSE Course in Media Studies, and we all collectively, breathed, 'ah so that's how it all works', as we watched Gerry and Kate in hammy Shakespearian tragedy mode, Rebekah supressing her inner Lady McBeth, Tony Blair who is no longer a real boy, and Rupert Murdoch getting a custard pie in the face.  Can you imagine the atmosphere back stage?  Who cared about the McCanns, was TB really having a fling, with Rupert's feisty wife?  Ooer. 

It was of course, all theatre for the masses, an illusion of a free press out of control, causing pain and distress to ordinary people (Gerry and Kate), and the desperate need for privacy laws and more draconian measures to be taken against newspapers and journalists, including imprisonment.  Yes, journalists were imprisoned.  Take note of the date folks 21.4.18, our descendants will laughing at us like the funny little aliens in the old 'Smash' adverts.  Even the divine Rebekah Brookes was threatened with jail.  I'm not sure if I like or dislike the charismatic RB, but if I had a daughter I would say 'be like her honey', OK, maybe not so much, but you get you get the gist.  There is something inherently wrong with a society that imprisons journalists.  And Privacy Laws?  Wtf, is someone doing that they need actual legislation to keep it private? 

The McCanns it must be said, have been used by others who are even higher up in 'the Lie' than they are.  People who have used their tragedy for political and financial gain.  On the official front, the government could be said to have been off the hook from June 2007.  That when signing of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2007, they were neutral on the Madeleine investigation and the case was now exclusively in the hands of the Portuguese.  Does anyone believe that?  Or is it more likely, the very diplomatic Gordon Brown had a quiet word in ear of Jose Socrates, maybe something along the lines of, 'listen we totally f*cked up on this, it would cause us huge political embarrassment, could you just bury it and we'll do ...................... for you'.  Purely hypothetical of course.  I don't think the Portuguese rolled over, completely, but they did shelve case when the time limit for arguido status ran out, 8 months I believe. 

It is all hypothetical of course.  Logistically, it just wasn't possible for the PJ to pursue the case vigorously.  The main witnesses had left the country, and all were lawyered up.  It was just another one of those cases that frustrate detectives the world over.  Left to gather dust unless something significant comes along.  Advances in science and technology, a witness changing their story, or new evidence.  I'm going with new evidence, because the Portuguese were adamant they would not re-open their files without it.

As Operation Grange was launched, with great fanfare, the Portuguese got their own files down from the shelf.  Coincidence?  Unlikely, but who opened their files first?  British or Portuguese?  Arguably, Gerry and Kate's biggest mistake was campaigning for a Review.  But it coincided with the Madeleine Fund running low.  It was all about the fund raising of course, and demonstrating how determined they were never to give up.  They were aiming for 100,000 signatures on their Petition, an unrealistic target, but enough to cause a news flurry.  I have always thought this was one of those 'be careful what you wish for, you just might get it' moments. 

I am not sure if I am being unfair about the MCanns' acting abilities, they went into full book tour mode and pretended to be happy about David Cameron's benevolent decision.  They didn't seem in the least perturbed by it, but they weren't celebrating their victory, the Review they were asking for.  Beyond common courtesy, there isn't anything to suggest this tory government would invest money and their reputations on an embarrassing international incident that had nothing to do with them. Why would they?  When Blair, Brown, Alan Johnson et al, were all clearly in the frame for interfering in another country's criminal investigation.  Sadly, it is yet another revelation as to how seedy Blair and his inner circle had become.  If they could sex up a student's thesis to make a case to go to war, the disappearance of one small missing child should never have been a problem.  Unfortunately for them, one of those small, niggly problems that always have the potential to explode into a major news story, without a tight lid kept on it.  Of sorts.  Given human nature however, my money is on them 'thinking about it tomorrow', a la Scarlett O'Hara.  Tony Blair already had his sights set on bringing peace to the Middle East, what did he care.  Little Madeleine, I would imagine, is way down on the list of Blair's dodgy dealings and matters that cry out for public Inquiries. 

Theresa May can fund Operation Grange until it reaches a result, safe in the knowledge that her party played no part in any obstruction of justice.  There is not very much that I like about old British conservatives, apart from their 'wat ho, just not cricket old chap' sense of noble justice.  An innate sense of fairness that formed the basic ideology of the Empire.  Something the socialists, in the form Blair, Brown, New Labour, ran roughshod over with their tacky attempts to jump on the popular Madeleine bandwagon.  Cash in first, explain later, or not at all.

Madeleine was not just a missing child, she was multimillion pound baby, Her sweet angelic face brought funding to police agencies, charities, purveyors of crisis management companies and makers of cctv cameras.  Not since the big bad wolf and the bogey man, had there been a greater danger to small children tucked up safely in their beds.   Any explanation other than an abduction,  would put an end to all the thriving new industries that sprung up out of Madeleine's disappearance.  And an end to New Labour's hopes for compulsory ID cards, a national DNA database and stricter border controls. 

I can't see this case ending in any other than a sea of red faces, at the very least.  Imagine Cherie Blair phoning Karen Matthews and telling her to hang on in there.  When you apply the special treatment of Gerry and Kate to any other case you can see how totally inappropriate it was.  The Blairs and the Browns can blame their advisors and their own compassion. The compassion will probably work for all those interviewers and breakfast TV presenters who gave them such an easy time.  But for the British police and the British secret services, it is beyond embarrassing. I can't help but think there may be grudges in play, a determination to bring the real culprits to justice.  That is far more likely and reflective of human nature than a 7 year quest to hide the truth. 



  1. Why did UK Government promote an abduction story ?

    Because promoting a McCanns V Abduction scenario had the vast majority of onlookers looking at either one rather than the third option.

    ( Why else would they ?)

  2. ''No-one is pushing the abduction story anymore, not even the parents. Couple of reasons for this I suspect, 1. it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, 2. it is now a huge embarrassment. The biggest problem the British authorities have is explaining how they could have been so incredibly naïve.''

    I suspect nobody's 'pushing' it as it's old news and an old case. Anyone who is aware of the case is aware that the combined force of Portugal and the UK are still looking for her.Calling it a death without an iota of evidence, then composing an imagined possible story of the child dying one way or another, then being stored in someone's coffin, then a fridge, then transported here and there weeks later before being dumped is a little more 'naive' wouldn't you say ?

    The British police aren't a laughing stock.Their incompetence isn't viewed with humour.The alternative, that they have been chasing shadows following governmental interference, doesn't meet with many laughs either.

    '' And what was it that convinced Tony Blair that Gerry and Kate were above reproach? He liked the cut of their jib? They were the perfect British family? Professional, 2.4 children, clean cut, smart and erudite,''

    They seemed to have impressed the Chancellor Of The Exchequer as much too-what part of his job entitled him to get involved ? Blair et al don't take the cut of anyone's jib as anything.They don't need to.But the threat they perceived by whatever happened in Portugal seems to have been important.

    ''It's hard to imagine him sending a government official to assist the McCanns without a proviso that he report back to him. Clarence in his day could be very convincing, so what was he telling him? ''

    We'll never know.To put their man on the inside only to share what he's hiding would defeat the object.

    ''The McCanns it must be said, have been used by others who are even higher up in 'the Lie' than they are. People who have used their tragedy for political and financial gain''

    The public were bound to want a Patsy and a good media controller,especially one hand -picked by the government, could shape public opinion with his editing and proof reading.It worked a treat and the public were served two.

    ''It is all hypothetical of course. Logistically, it just wasn't possible for the PJ to pursue the case vigorously.''

    What about the logistics involved in trying to hide a body in various places in a town you don't know well, then getting rid of it in a perfect spot all within an hour or so ?Or the feasibility of doing it over weeks in a town crawling with residents, police, and dogs looking for it ..

  3. Ros. I'm not sure I agree that Mitchell could be quite convincing in his day. Long before I ever found blogs or read the files every statement from him and every interview sounded to me like he was mocking the public and that he knew we didn't believe him but didn't care.

    That said great blog and right on the mark as usual

  4. All roads lead to Rome.
    Lest we forget John Reid was Home Secretary and de facto head of MI5 when Maddie went missing.

    1. And all lead to the Vatican..let's not forget that before Blair began building a huge property portfolio with his bonus payments from the illegal war, the first thing he wanted to do on leaving number 10 was go to Rome and enjoy an audience with his holiness and be converted to Catholicism.That was one hell of a long confessional...

  5. Kate McCann (madeleine):

    8 May 2007

    “As we [Kate McCann and Fiona Payne] were walking up from the beach at about 5pm, I had a call from Cherie Blair, in her final days as wife of the prime minister (her husband Tony would announce his resignation two days later and leave office the following month). She was kind and helpful. She told me it was amazing but encouraging that Madeleine was still the first topic on the news every night. This was only five days after the abduction: as it turned out, our poor daughter would continue to headline the bulletins for some time to come. Cherie also warned me, ‘Whatever happens, your life will never be the same again.’ She mentioned that a friend of hers, Catherine Meyer, was the founder of PACT – Parents and Abducted Children Together - and said she would get in touch with her on my behalf. Doubtless I asked Cherie if there was anything the British government could offer the Portuguese in the way of resources to assist or expedite the search for Madeleine. It wasn’t my intention to make her feel uncomfortable by asking this, and I’m sure I didn’t. We were just so desperate I couldn’t let the opportunity go by.”

    1. ( rebuttal, Rosalinda ?)

    2. Nothing to rebut there 22:21. It's Kate's account of the call she had with Cherie Blair, a call I mentioned in my blog.

  6. In my view the only reason no-one has been charged so far is because OG and the PJ can't find a body.

    1. Anonymous21 April 2018 at 21:45

      ''In my view the only reason no-one has been charged so far is because OG and the PJ can't find a body.''

      Or been found to have committed a crime maybe ?

    2. 22:19

      "no-one", said 21:54

      Who are you referring to?

  7. Hi Rosalinda,
    Going back a few blogs:
    You noted that you really couldn't understand the nature of the McCann's personalities or at least their public personas. I think they appear to be Alpha Male and Alpha Female. I agree it's hard to tell who's the boss. It looks like one controls the other then it looks the other way round.

    Maybe the psychiatrist who writes on your blog can fill us in, - on who's the boss.

    The most amazing TV act was Mr McCann's reaction to an interviewer's question" "Did you Kill your daughter": He got up from his studio chair in an almost catatonic shock from which he eventually recovered after his wife consoled him. Laurence Olivier would be put to shame.

    I suppose his reaction was not surprising when you think about it. How many people ever get asked if they've killed their child. Not a lot, not a question one gets asked even on a bad day. But I guess it was always a possibility especially as the couple had been driving around Spain and Portugal with a dead body in the back of their hire car.
    Luckily the interviewer never asked them about that.

    1. I think the interview question on that occasion was about the blood found in the apartment JC. Gerry lost it because the interviewer went on script and asked a forbidden question.

      The dynamic was curious though, Gerry 'the strong one' lost his nerve while Kate remained as cool as a cucumber. That incident I think will damage any defence Kate may have that she was under Gerry's control.

      The 'did you kill your daughter' question, Gerry answered with 'No, and that's an emphatic No' in an Australian interview, I think he went on to explain further, but it was heavily edited.

      Returning to Kate, there is an Irish interview where she massively over explains her answer, a classic sign to look out for when someone is lying. She goes to great lengths to explain how Madeleine was too small to open the patio doors, the gate etc and close them behind her. The truth doesn't need sarcasm and irony, yet she was laying it on with a trowel. Among many phoney performances, that one stood out.

      In the Oprah interview, they were both terrified, their answers were scripted and rehearsed but they sounded disingenuous and very nervous, Kate especially. Oprah is such a powerful figure, they were over awed, if you contrast their attitude and demeanour towards Oprah with their attitude and demeanour towards other interviewers you can see the dramatic difference.

      In the interviews with Sandra Felgueries for example, they feel they hold the upper hand, and that Sandra can be manipulated. They don't answer the questions Sandra asks, which they wouldn't have dared to do with Oprah. Sandra asks about the dogs, Kate replies they are there to find Madeleine, but the canny Sandra doesn't let it drop, until we get Gerry (flirting, ughh) replies 'ask the dogs Sandra'. Kate gains confidence during the interview because she is angered, Sandra is not only attractive and charismatic, but Gerry is trying to flirt with her and she is asking awkward questions.

      Kate I think, is much stronger than the image she portrays. She hangs onto her man like a frightened child, deferring to Gerry as her protector, in public at least. But I am not sure Kate is as fragrant and vulnerable as she appears.

    2. @ Ros 14:02

      I notice you did not comment on "especially as the couple had been driving around Spain and Portugal with a dead body in the back of their hire car."

    3. Yes 14:12, 'driving around Spain etc' should have had 'allegedly' in front of it, most of us take it as implied, no-one really knows what happened.

    4. Your whole blog is hypothetical based on imaginary conversations that never happened but for some reason your mind wants to invent and more importantly you then think it makes a good blog!

      However what jc posted is factual and without qualification. The fact that jc "should have...." does not cut the mustard. jc said it as fact.

      Maybe jc will return and explain but until he does it remains.

      If no-one really knows what happened then why is your blog about "the Lie"?

    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 April 2018 at 15:31

      ''Yes 14:12, 'driving around Spain etc' should have had 'allegedly' in front of it, most of us take it as implied, no-one really knows what happened.''

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 April 2018 at 14:02

      ''That incident I think will damage any defence Kate may have that she was under Gerry's control. ''

      Why shouldn't that have 'allegedly' in front of it ? Because the opinion is yours ?

      As for the rest of this nonsense, you won't see anything spontaneous in media interviews so you can't read anything into them unless you need to.That doesn't make the observations worth a jot.It's just another one of the handful of dreams the antis cling to.Hyatt would be so proud.

    6. I said 'I think.....', I didn't say 'I know' and I didn't state it was a fact. I think works in the same way as 'allegedly', if you are looking for libel you really need to brush up on things like that.

      I disagree, you often see 'spontaneous' in interviews, it's the reason that keeps us on the edge of our seats, not knowing how the interviewee is going to respond.

      We can plan as much as we like for interviews, but we never know when we will be thrown a curved ball. Of course in the early days, Gerry and Kate had Clarence to agree the questions beforehand, but even that was no guarantee, as Gerry's hissy fit over a blood related question was asked by a Spanish interviewer. He got up and took his microphone off. Plenty of spontaneity there.

      Good heavens do not compare me to Hyatt. I know far more about language and psychology than he does, which is why I can see straight through him.

    7. They may be based on discussion that never happened, but then again they might?

      I am a writer, and a student of human behaviour, imaginary conversations and situations are kind of what I do. I gather together all the information I have, the characters, the circumstances, the timing, the opportunities, the potential pitfalls, the list goes on and on. I make an educated guess at what they might say, all things considered.

      I don't know if it makes a good blog, I'm my own harshest critic, so I'd probably say it doesn't, but you are the first to complain. Unfortunately, my writing style is 'beyond my control', I have no discipline whatsoever.

      You complain about my writing 22:17, but you keep returning. Is it because you are afraid I might say something libellous, or perhaps you just can't help yourself, lol. I think you like the danger of never knowing what I am going to say next - I know I do, lol.

      I am actually itching to do a bit of psychological profiling and deconstructing, but I will wait until the time is right. My offer to Kate is still open, when she is ready to tell her story, I will be the softest option.

    8. @ Ros 01:26

      If you want to make up imaginary scenarios and conversations to practice your literary "skills" then you should have the common decency to pick a subject that is not the case of a missing child with parents and family and is a live Police investigation.

      Yes I complain about your writing - I don't like your style, your assumptions based on false information and the way you attempt to convince people that you are an expert in everything.

      I don't have to keep coming back to find something libellous - there is libel in every comment/blog that you make. But why should someone want to sue you - to take your state benefits away???

      Don't forget Ros - you are personally responsible for every single thing that you allow to be posted on here - not the poster - you personally for publishing it.

      Your offer to Kate is the most laughable piece of rubbish I have ever heard. Kate has written a book that has been a published best seller - it was her story - a fact you can't seem to accept. Whereas you have published what and with what level of success?

      I seem to remember you offering to teach people about writing or something - how successful were you with that.

      Now you want to be a profiler - God help whoever you profile - you couldn't even analyse a film and get the subject matter correct - remember???

    9. Ooh nasty Unknown at 19:24, but nothing new there, you have been down in the mud and the blood and the beer for quite some time. Guess that's what it feels to backed into a corner.

      No, the McCanns don't want to sue me, though they would if I had millions, lol. But they do want to have my blog closed down as a 'hate site'. That's why yourself and others regularly make wild hater allegations about myself and other regular posters, that simply don't apply.

      The 'you personally are responsible' is supposed to be a threat, but isn't. You bet your life I take responsibility for my blog. It's my blog. I take full responsibility for everything. God is dead. There is no God. I understand the futility of blaming others, and how it enfeebles you. I would be offended if you thought for one second that anyone, living or dead controlled me. tbc, lol.

    10. @ Ros 20:31

      You see Ros you can't get anything right can you - I don't drink - unlike you.

      I am not backed into any corner - I choose to post here to refute your rubbish.

      You may see what I post as a threat - take it whichever way you want. This is a hate the McCann blog pure and simple - read the posts that you filter and allow through your post box and see the type of comment that you allow without challenge. Read everything that jc (just one example) posts and digest.

    11. Unfortunately, I did not discover Nietzsche Until middle age, up until then I had blamed everyone but myself. Part II of my life is far more enlightened and contented.

      You may find my offer laughable, but some day Kate will want to tell her true story. Madeleine was a best seller, not because of the quality of writing, but because of the subject matter. It was of global interest. Kate for example, made no attempt to get ordinary women to empathise with her. There were no faults. I was once enamoured by a writer simply because she admitted to using her son's underpants as a duster. Perfect is simply not endearing. You may scoff Unknown at 19:24, but with all the vast resources Team McCann have had at their fingertips, including professionals Summers and Swan, no-one has been able to put forward a convincing defence or a sympathetic portrayal of the couple. In a nutshell, ALL the advice they have received hasn't worked.

      You may also scoff at my honest attempts to earn money. I have skills I am happy to share - I spent 30 years 'wanting to be a writer', but not having the time and commitment or courage, to find out how to go about it. I know how hard that first step is.

      For me it is all about the writing, it is an OCD that regularly drives me crazy. I write as furiously as Vincent Van Gogh before he chopped his ear off. I don't profit from it, because it is not about profit. I have a whole back catalogue of books, plays and screenplays I have written, but I fear my dreams of being 'Rich and Famous' (fabulous film) are more likely to be after I pop my clogs, lol.

      Whilst tis true, I get a buzz from seeing so many hits, I would continue writing, even if I had only one reader left. I often return to my childhood, and for good reason, I have given myself permission to be the child I was before state and religious indoctrination took over. No boy is better than me, and no-one is smarter than me. There's a fair bit of wriggle room on the latter, ha ha, but I am genuinely delighted when there is.

      So I'm going to be a profiler next? Do behave, where on this blog do I claim qualifications I don't have? Studying psychology, human behaviour, body language, whatever is not a 'closed shop'. Anyone can do it. There is no law that prevents anyone from commenting on 'ologies', learning isn't limited to classrooms and certificates.

      Some of us have specialist subjects that have always been of interest to us. And we have spent years becoming experts on our subjects. I explain my background to my readers, because it is of interest to them. Perhaps I should update my own profile, and start listing all my interests and hobbies, because I know from personal experience that if I enjoy someone's work, I want to know more about them.

    12. Is the subject under discussion distasteful? Well it can't be, because the McCanns themselves issue press releases and plant stories in the media. No-one is immune to bad public reaction. And chasing this impossible dream has destroyed them. Why have they spent so many years being stressed out with libel claims? I have been through one myself, they eat you alive, and everyone around you. The revenge they dream of simply isn't there. They have done their worst to Goncalo Amaral, there is nothing left. They lost. Goncalo Amaral is free to tell his side of what went on in PDL during the summer of 2007. Quite rightly.

      Enjoy my misfortune Unknown at 19:24, but I am here commenting in my own name and with my own face. A freedom that you don't have.

    13. read what you said before Ros
      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 April 2018 at 01:44

      "Good heavens 11:24, we are discussing, as followers of this mysterious case, the disappearance/murder of a child. This discussion, is, by it's very nature distasteful. Distasteful because it is about (mostly) two parents who lost a child."

      I find your personal discussion and unfounded guesswork and imagination about the parents of a missing child extremely distasteful and disrespectful.

      As for the impossible dream destroying them well hold on a minute - whilst you have been spouting rubbish for years hasn't Gerry become a professor and extremely well considered in his field? Hasn't Kate had a bestseller and now returned to work?

      What is your achievement in the years you have been commenting on the case?

  8. It was the present Tory Secretary of State for work and pensions who advised the Mccanns to flee Portugal and was briefly a director of the infamous fund
    It was the head of the Tory group in the EU parliament McMillan-Scott who worked closely with the Mccanns in promoting the Amber alert scheme.
    He was sacked by the Tory party in Sep 2009 without notice or explanation.
    During the McCann era Clarence Mitchell has worked both for the Labour and Tory parties and even stood for the Tories to become a Tory MP in Brighton

    Blue or Red they are all liars covering for each other.
    May is just another turd in the cesspool,you can trust none of them.

    1. Bang on the nail. If they're 'up' there posing as a part of the 'great and good' they're bad uns. You won't make the dizzy heights if you're not 'in the club.'

    2. Hi JJ, the tories are also guilty of something but in this instance, it is New Labour who are knee deep.

      Esther McVie's involvement in the Madeleine case was limited to those first few weeks/months, and then she seemed to cut off all ties. The Amber alert scheme was probably a cause close to McMillan-Scott's heart, ultimately it is about border controls.

      Clarence Mitchell's political ties are obviously not strong and understandable if the Labour Party didn't want him back. Standing for the tories in Brighton is a bit of a poison chalice, the tories have no chance in such an enlightened district, so I doubt their were many contenders for the position.

      I know some people believe they 'all in it together', but that simply isn't logical. The tories didn't ask the Portuguese police to go easy on the McCanns, and they weren't getting chummy phone calls from Tory ministers.

      Esther McVie iirc, was on the original board of Directors for Madeleine's Fund, and in fact made a statement that NONE of the donations would be used for legal fees. That didn't last long, and nor did her directorship. The parting of ways was probably mutual, but EM could, and should be asked why she quit the Board and what did she know.

    3. The Mccanns were meeting with David Cameron long before he became P.M.
      How chummy their meetings and phone calls were can only be speculation.
      Why isn't it logical they cover up each others secrets
      the opposition will be the Govt in due course and vice versa.
      Don't tell the plebs the truth ever .Its safer that way.

  9. OF COURSE it's a cover up. The fact that it's been going on for so long means nothing . Look at the Jeremy Thorpe cover up. Judges, police, politicians ALL involved in the cover up. This country is a lot sicker than you think!

  10. Hello Unknown22 April 2018 at 14:12

    jc said "I suppose his reaction was not surprising when you think about it. How many people ever get asked if they've killed their child. Not a lot, not a question one gets asked even on a bad day. But I guess it was always a possibility especially as the couple had been driving around Spain and Portugal with a dead body in the back of their hire car.
    Luckily the interviewer never asked them about that"

    Anyone who has stayed in an apartment in which there's been a dead body at some point of time and driven a car in which there's been a dead body at some point of time, should ask him/herself who that/those dead bodies could be.

    The McCanns have never asked themselves from where the scent of death comes in their apartment or in their rented car. Therefore, any serious investigative journalist should ask them if Madeleine's dead body has been in their apartemnt and in their car. If not, we may have an unsolved and unreported death and murder of another person/other persons, who've been connected to their apartment and their rented car, as dead bodies aren't just lying in places to rotten and to be forgotten.

  11. That's the 64,000 dollar question Bjorn. Why have the McCanns shown no interest and steered away from wanting to know who's blood was in their apartment and who's body fluids were found in the back of their car.
    Their utter disinterest in these strange happenings would be comical if it was not so sad.

    1. What blood in the apartment, forensic result -

      A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the edges of tile 2 286/2007-CRL(2) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from a further area on tile 2 and two areas on tile 3 (286/2007-CRL(3) were unsuccessful in that no profiles were obtained.

      What was found in the back of the car was DNA of three people maybe even five.

    2. What are you talking about 'no one pushes the abduction anymore not even the parents'. You really write some rubbish. The McCann's have said they will never give up the search for their daughter, so don't try and speak for them as you know nothing. You also know nothing about the investigation.

  12. The question has to be, how far has this case come?

    1) The amazing array of footage and photos of the McCanns post loss of their child are amazing. Time hasn't taken the edge off the happy smiling faces - generally. Hand picked, were they??

    2) Within the bounds of responsible parenting, we accept that the checks took place, per the schedule and for years believed that Tannerman took Madeleine whilst her father chatted outside the apartment. Having got in through a window?! Well some might have believed that!

    3) No we don't believe Tannerman, since DCI Redwood explained this was a mistaken identity. OK .... move on, then the only other recorded sighting of a man with child is Smithman - oh but everyone from the holiday group was in the Tapas bar.

    Then something else must have happened? !

  13. Hello Anon 23 April 2018 at 09:52

    "then the only other recorded sighting of a man with child is Smithman - oh but everyone from the holiday group was in the Tapas bar"

    I checked all the statements of the witnesses some time ago regarding what time they say that they heard the noise and the screaming caused by Kate's alert and found that it was probaly shortly after 22H15. The Smiths' sighting was abt. 21H55, which means that Gerry has no alibi for the time of the Smiths' sighting, but could still have been at the tapas bar when Kate raised the alarm.

    1. @ bjorn 14:55

      So even with your incorrect times it leaves Gerry no more than 20 mins to pass the Smiths, hide a body in a place that is so secretive that a massive search of PDL could not find it, then go back to the Tapas area and be seated at the table when the alarm is raised.

      Adjust it to the correct times as reported in the statements and it impossible. But don't let that stop you posting your lies.

    2. HI anonymous23 April 2018 at 18:54
      I've reason to ignore Russel O'Brian's time sheet first of all because most of the other witness statements indicate that Kate alerted later than 22H00 and also because the tapas 9 immediately and collectively agreed to what he'd written in his time schedule instead of individually estimate and recall what they'd heard and when, as other witnesses did. Had they done so all of them couldn't possibly have given the exact same time. The Mark Warner Staff and others did not agree on a specific time, so naturally there were small variations between their time statements, which, in fact, makes it so much more credible.

      Read the witness statements in the pj files and draw your own conclusion. Mine stil is that Kate did not alert before 22H15. As for Gerry's 20 minutes away from the table, he'd plenty of time to hide a body, if we assume that Madeleine had died two or three hours earlier and some of his friends had helped him. I'm neither lying nor accusing the McCanns, but just presenting what could have happened under certain circumstances.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. You have never seen so much rubbish in all your life - lol, I'm pretty sure you have. But thank you for taking the time to tell me.

      Your second statement is ambiguous, deliberately so I feel. I know you lot don't like taking responsibility for anything, but if you put stories in the press, the public will comment.

      Neither myself or any of my readers are involved in the production and broadcast of this saga, we are merely observers. Grotesque perhaps, but the McCanns created a reality show and they have been drawing the audience in ever since. They made the decision to publicise their daughter's disappearance, they even paid £500k to get the front pages for a year.

      Your use of the word attack is completely inaccurate. I have been guided through this discussion by my own moral compass, and it is stricter than anything laid down by you.

      I don't attack people. Well rarely. I would quite like to attack Donald Trump. Everything I write is driven by Honesty and Integrity. It was a vow I made many, many years ago, and one that has served me well. I don't have to get out a shredding machine, or deny anything I have said. It is a terrific sleep aid.

      No evidence whatsoever? Hmm, you are stretching the truth a bit there, not a good look because it destroys your credibility. There is of course evidence, enough to have made Gerry and Arguidos for as long as it was legally possible, about 8 months I think. There may not have been enough evidence to go to Court, but to deny the existence of what was there, is a silly lie.

      Since 2008, the World has had access to the Portuguese police files, almost all of the evidence collected by the original investigation is freely available online. They have also been able to ponder for hours over the details available, the opportunity to play armchair detective. A bit like all those gripped by the OJ Simpson trial, there was overwhelming public participation.

      You cannot legislate against human behaviour 22:17, it is what it is.

  15. I can’t believe what you all are writing here .
    You are accusing the parents of a missing child of an awful crime with no evidence what so ever.
    I wish I had never come across this abominable site.

    1. Oh heavens, shock, horror, outrage, 'never in my nelly duff' as my dear old dad used to say. Well's that what it sounded life, lol. Do have a seat and maybe grab a brown paper bag to puff into until you are revived. First timer eh? I do wonder if I ought to put up warning signs - 'keep the smelling salts handy', that kind of thing?, or 'Enter at your own risk'.

      I'm taking it you're fresh off the boat from Disneyland, and have never heard of any heinous crimes where parents of missing children have staged an abduction? It happens.

      There are many reasons why people believe the parents are involved in Madeleine's disappearance, beginning with their strange behaviour. It seemed less bizarre in 2007, but it hasn't aged well.

      Of course the nice, and more arguably, more compassionate stance to take would be to believe the parents story unconditionally, as you appear to do. Others, myself included, look at the case more subjectively, and we don't like being told what to believe.

      I happen to think it is an outrage that Goncalo Amaral was, for way too long, unable to tell his side of the Madeleine story. Whilst the British tabloids tore him to shreds, all his assets and his livelihood were taken from him. What kind of country allows one side of a story to be told and not the other? That is the reality of the legal grip the McCanns have over our 'free' (lol) press.

      Goncalo Amaral had every right to defend his reputation, and every right to defend himself against the character assassination by Gerry and Kate. Fortunately he was a talented writer, his book was far superior to Kate's because GA didn't try to portray himself as perfect. Hopefully it will get the audience it deserves. And a Hollywood movie.

    2. Hello L.23 April 2018 at 22:27
      " I can’t believe what you all are writing here .
      You are accusing the parents of a missing child of an awful crime with no evidence what so ever"

      The McCanns have accused a whole society of being responsible for the alleged abduction, without the slightest evidence of Madeleine being taken by a stranger i PDL. Completely innocent people have been suspected of being implicated in Madeleine's disappearance, some of whom have got their lives destroyed. Do I've do mention any names?

  16. "They were the perfect British family? Professional, 2.4 children, clean cut, smart and erudite,"

    Something you never have been nor ever will be Ros.

    1. I have been actually, with a few minor adjustments, lol. Never got to the 'perfect' stage though, just kind of muddled through.

      Ouch at the miserable old spinster dig. It hurts because it's true. But it is my own life choice. I doted on my kids, I doted on my dear old dad and my dear old mum, it's my time now. I get a bit whistful sometimes, especially when I get a little drunk and start listening to Country and Western songs. Not nearly often enough. I think of those I have loved and lost, and those I have wanted to murder. I have a lot of good, and bad, memories, but I prefer to remember the good ones.

      Now I am loving the freedom. For the first time in my life I have that 'Room of One's Own', and that is priceless. I have the Good Lord's (if there is one) blessing to do as I please guilt free. It is unbelievably liberating.

      Gerry and Kate's aspirations are not my aspirations, and never really were. If they had been, that is the path I would have followed. I was and am, the author of my own fortunes and misfortunes.

      For me the life of Gerry and Kate would be worse than a prison, and that's without the dirty great cloud they have hanging over them. Having been taken home to meet the parents several times (yes it happened, although admittedly on each occasion only the once), those glimpses of what the future might hold would cause the muscles in my throat to contract and try to strangle me.

      The problem with your attitude 23:24, is your inability to understand that other lifestyles are available. For myself, I never wanted to be one half of Terry and June or Howard and Hilda. I don't think there is any worse expression than 'our taste', that point where a couple have blended so completely they have morphed into one. It's not cute, it's creepy. So too 'other half' as if we need another half to complete us. Romantic, maybe, but it implies neediness, my least favourite trait in anyone.

  17. Wow....there's a lot of haters on this site,(deconstruction aplenty but nothing to say!).
    Secretely these folk must all love you Rosalinda because they keep coming back for more, - of the truth!
    As you would say: "LOL".

  18. Secretly Ros you must love the McCanns because you keep coming back and blogging about them every week!

    Secretly Ros you must love Gamble because you mention him so often!

    Secretly you must love bennett the blonk because you comment on him so often!

    Secretly every person who comments repeatedly about the McCanns must love them!

    and on and on and on......

    See the approved logic that I have used there Ros - the logic that you allowed through you mail box to be posted on here?

  19. Where could a body have been kept, does anybody have any ideas after all this time?

    1. Upstairs, in Apartment 5J.

    2. "At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done."

    3. Anon 26 April 09.16

      Dogs should be taken more notice of, they're usually right. When Tia Sharp went missing over 80 police officers missed her body in the loft of her grandparent's home where she lived, four police officers with sniffer dogs also missed her body although one dog did indicate that he smelt something but it was dismissed. Even a TV reporter who sat underneath the door to the loft missed the smell. It wasn't until specialist sniffer dogs trained to detect cadaver were brought in that her body was found in her grandparent's home.

  20. Anonymous23 April 2018 at 18:54
    @ bjorn 14:55

    So even with your incorrect times it leaves Gerry no more than 20 mins to pass the Smiths, hide a body in a place that is so secretive that a massive search of PDL could not find it, then go back to the Tapas area and be seated at the table when the alarm is raised.

    Adjust it to the correct times as reported in the statements and it impossible. But don't let that stop you posting your lies.

    The dogs detected cadaver scent in the wardrobe , so possibly a body could have been placed in a sports bag there ,ether that or thats where they stored there sea bas the kids were fond of

    1. Hello Anon 24 April 2018 at 19:15

      Yes,the McCanns' sea bas story is so absurd, but fits well the other parts of their farce and shows us all how preposterous the abduction hypothesis must be, as such a ridiculous fabricationn is needed to defend it.

    2. Bjorn, 25 April 20.13

      I wonder if the sea bass story was concocted before or after G McCann was give the books by CEOP (which he should never have been given) that stated sea bass has the same smell as a cadaver.

    3. Hi Anon 26 April 2018 at 15:27

      As Gonzalo Amaral has said about the McCanns. "They're very inventive" Being intelligent doctors, they probably did some research as soon as they came under suspicion and found what they searched for, with or without any help from the CEOP.

  21. Does one of the lines of the Walter Scott poem "Marmion" sum up the McCann's predicament.

    "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive". - or not?

    We know his outstandingly honest couple and their cohorts told the dazzling truth from day one of their daughter's disappearance.
    The living proof, - check the internet and check the "Find Madeleine Fund".

    So let's have a happy day.

    "Move along folks, nothing to see here".

    1. You could try to get the quote correct.

  22. Rumour has it that Sonia Poulton's documentary will be out tomorrow - are you in it Ros?

    1. It isn't the long awaited doc....nobody will touch that one.

      The one expected today apparently concerns the mccanns and the police.

    2. yes I saw that:

      Sonia Poulton
      ‏Verified account @SoniaPoulton
      Apr 25
      Replying to @zodiaczephyr @fiorifan @SkyNews

      We still have a made for TV doc that features, amongst other narratives, Brenda from her tweeting to her inquests. Haven't found a broadcaster who has agreed to run with it yet although several producers said they would if I took out Brenda. I refused.

  23. Hi Rosalinda,
    If you really want the shivers to run down your spine, read the first paragraph of the McCann's "Find Madeleine fund".
    "About the fund.
    Madeleine's Fund. 'Leaving no stone unturned' is a not-for-profit company established to find Madeleine McCann - support her family - and bring her ABDUCTORS to justice".

    Let me take your readers on a trip down memory lane, to have a look at the greatest government deception plan the world has ever known and see the similarities in the McCann campaign.

    In June 1944 allied armies landed on the shores of Normandy and gained a foothold they might have lost and been forced back into the sea were it not for a year long government disinformation campaign by the Allies.

    Under strict orders from the Nazi high command, German armies waiting to pounce from the Pas De Calais area were fooled into waiting and never put into action , until it was too late.

    The McCann's campaign has succeeded with government backing in a similar pattern of obfuscation.
    But on this occasion the daring duo and their colleagues at the Tapas bar have exceeded the Axis timeline of fooling us for only six weeks, by an astonishing 11 years.

    If police forces are still out there looking for an abductor then they need to bring in Abbott and Costello in a re-run of A&C "Meet the Invisible Man".

    Not bad going for amateurs.

    I think, in a way, the scheme - the Find Madeleine fund, was never about money anyway. It was a ploy devised to deflect suspicion from the parents.
    Who could be against parents looking for their missing child (even if some people out there thought the parents actually well knew where their missing child was to be found).

    Forget about the money - that was nice too. But the fund's main purpose had been achieved to create an aura of innocence amongst the guilty.

    And that's where we stand today!

    1. jc at 04:02

      "It was a ploy devised to deflect suspicion from the parents."

      Likely, but I also think is was about money, i.e. expected legal costs.


    2. HI jc 26 April 2018 at 04:02 and HI NL 26 April 2018 at 10:22

      You're right jc in that the McCanns set up the Fund in order to distract attention away from their guilt, but as you imply NL, they also knew that they were going to need money to defend themselves in case they would come under suspicion, which they knew they would before anyone else had said a word about it.

      Among the costs that the Fund is supposed to cover, according to the stated criteria are legal costs, so they knew that they were going to be accused of a crime,just as well as they knew that Madeleine was not going to be found alive.


    "Journalist and Broadcaster, Sonia Poulton, explores the history and relationship between the police and Kate and Gerry McCann - parents of Madeleine McCann, the world's most famous missing child."

    1. In reply to 04.07 and 14.47.
      When the Family took legal advice against Mr Goncalo Amaral in 2008,"Truth of the Lie"Portugal PJ decision,Supreme Court January 2017 and Operation Grange were interlinked on One outcome,"Complete Exoneration",this was the Last throw of the Dice,a"Double six" to take Top Prize?
      Perhaps they may not have been content on the First Investigation in 2007-08 upon the return to the UK?
      Perhaps the MSM had uncovered a lot of discrepancies?
      That the Parents required the ultimate "Complete Exoneration Forever",they pushed for the"Review" so in that aspect if it goes "tits Up" they've only themselves to Blame?

  25. You are right, NL and Bjorn. The fund did turn out to be critical for their defense and also launching a fake investigation but they may not have seen that far into the future at that time.

    Sorry to keep harping on the content of the "Find Madeleine fund", but it is an amazing fairy tale written at its finest.

    Filled with code words.

    The first paragraph of the fund's "Objective" contains the word Abductor time after time then gets changed to Abduction, then quickly pluralized to Abductors, and "Those who played a part in assisting them".
    So the McCanns must know there is more than one kidnapper out there. Right.

    The most spine chilling of the fund objectives is to to raise donations, for instance: by cycling, jumble sales, wine and cheese parties - (they would be on home territory with that one). And get this; "School bake sales" - how creepy is that?

    I'm guessing the nine paid directors of the "find Madeleine fund" often get together of an evening to have a good laugh, possibly to celebrate their day's work (as illusionists) with a bottle or two of good Portuguese wine.