Sunday, 18 November 2018


Seriously Tracey?  (Kandhola for the Mail) Do you honestly expect your readers to believe that 7 and a half years into their investigation, Operation Grange have two new leads and need more Home Office funding to follow them up?  What was the previous funding for? And how did they know that in the next 6 monthly cycle two new leads would suddenly show up?
The case of Missing Madeleine McCann has been investigated by the police forces of two countries and countless private investigators, in the full view of the entire world, yet only now they have not just one good lead, but two.  Overkill there Tracey, one [new lead] was pushing it, two is just taking the pee.  
I really don’t see the McCanns having high tea and a convivial discussion with Scotland Yard detectives as implied by the ever imaginative Tracey. No mention of reassurances from the police that they have been completely exonerated (that which they desire above all else) and no mention of where the two leads are, err leading, ie. to a murder or to a live child. One would imagine that is something the parents would want to know. Their reaction to the ‘police visit’ is a renewed message of Hope’ and a belated thank you to all those who stand by them, via an unknown friend who runs their social media.  Apologies for the Trump analogy, but it's a bit like Trump claiming the midterms were a great success.  Make no mistake, if the detectives had actually said there was hope of finding Madeleine alive, the McCann media machine would have had it on the front pages of the tabloids, before the officers finished their crumpets. 
The police of course are saying nothing about the two new leads in case it sends the suspects deeper underground. Regardless that they have already had 11+ years of unfettered digging, and are probably close to the centre of the earth.  Fair dues I suppose, the only two places not to receive Gerry and Kate appeals were the centre of the earth and outer space.  It seems six years in a coma man had two bedfellows.
But while we are on imaginary scenarios, imagine being at the centre of a police investigation for 7+ years.  No matter how innocent you were, you would go crazy knowing that detectives were going over your life with a fine-tooth comb.  Every lie you ever told, every secret you thought you had, none are safe.  And even living under this incredible stress for all these years, the parents still have no proof of innocence, no official declaration that states they have been cleared. 
When the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was shelved by the Portuguese Judiciary, their report stated that the parents of Madeleine lost their opportunity to prove their innocence.  This was all part of the report that along with 'never cleared' never made into the British mainstream media.  
Some might say, their lost their opportunity to prove their innocence at the time of the original investigation, but bizarrely have continued with the same strategy since.  That is, neither they, nor Operation Grange have issued any statements that categorically rule them out.  Arguably, OP have further implicated the parents by releasing that photofit (of Gerry) in that long ago Crimewatch.  Suggesting Madeleine may have died in the apartment and digging up the surrounding areas also pointed to the parents.  Why would an abductor/burglar hang around to bury his victim after the alarm had been raised? 
In the spirit of keeping it simple stupid, if the police have visited Gerry and Kate it is to tell them they have enough evidence to convict.  Perhaps they offered them a dignified way out, a confession that would spare them a trial.  But these two are finishers, Gerry's battlecry 'there's no evidence', but at this point, it is doubtful Gerry knows what evidence the police have. 
Even with the begrudged faux thanks, it is obvious, they parents of Madeleine do not have a good relationship with the police who are looking for her.  I have watched enough 'murders' as I call them, to know that victims families more often than not, grow close friendly relationships the detectives working on their case.  They share a bond and a common goal, they want to nail the fiend who took away their loved one.
Kate forgave the abductor too early on, way too early on.  I don't think any mother, no matter how holy and righteous, could ever forgive the monster who killed their child.  But I guess she had to forgive the monster, it was a pious reason not to pursue him to the ends of the earth as most mothers would do.  The detective who searched for her daughter, she did however, pursue to the ends of the earth.  She wanted him to feel misery and fear.  And she pursues him still.  How can anyone not see the disparity between this woman's quick forgiveness of the ultimate evil, and long, slow, festering pursuit of the detective who only ever acted on her daughter's behalf.
Sadly, just as I am losing interest in this case it appears to be livening up.  The McCanns get their first house call from the officers of Operation Grange, not to tell them 'your f*cked', but to let them know they have two new leads and assure them of their loyalty and devotion.  OK, I made the last bit up, but Tracey was only two swigs of chardonnay from going there.
Even if Operation Grange were looking for an abductor, the real suspects know they will not find one.  And either the police are as dumb as they thought they were, or they are playing cat and mouse with them.  They have rushed this story out via their friend Tracy Kandhola, because there is probably more, and worse, to come.  It would go against everything we know of human nature to expect relations between the McCanns and the police are cordial.  And Gerry and Kate are a prickly pair, reluctant to speak to those they consider inferior, and sadly that includes police officers, as we saw from the way they treated the first police officers to arrive. 
They may have a new respect for the British police, particularly as they are the ones who pleaded for a British investigation, but methinks they have no choice.  Since OG began, they haven't dared launch a private investigation of their own, campaign for funds or get new leads on the front pages of newspapers.  All the sightings stopped.  They are in the very uncomfortable position of having to thank the police investigation they despise.  They cannot condemn Operation Grange via friends of the family and sources or Clarence Mitchell.  They must smile through gritted teeth and say how grateful they are.  They are probably spitting feathers. Happily, they have the ever loyal Tracy to run them through the spinner.


  1. Perhaps the McCanns are the last two leads.

    1. they always were the last 2 leads ....and according to the PJ, the first two leads, hence their legal constitution as arguidos (and the status that went with it).
      I do hope now that after 8 years and 12 million pounds expenditure that operation grange of the UK metropolitan police have now proved, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the alleged (only by the family, ahem) 'abduction' is a hoax.
      They can now support the PJ in a new re-constitution of the 'last two' leads. This though would require a case making for extradition. An interesting legal challenge

  2. Re Anonymous @23:27
    "Perhaps the McCanns are the last two leads"

    It sounds like it.

    For the police forces (in two countries) there are no more mysterious leads. This is a case which no sane organization could think by now there were any suspects other than the parents in the disappearance of their little girl in the Algarve on the night of May 3rd 2007.

    It's come down to, - two street fighters from Rothley versus Scotland yard.
    I wonder who will win.

    Operation Grange detectives in their private chats together must be getting pretty ticked of with this couple who have ruled the airwaves and the media for so long
    Payback time might be just around the corner for the duo when the truth is revealed.

    Let's hope so for the sake of their long dead daughter.

    1. Hi JC, that this meeting has been made public is curious, this may well be the final hurdle.

      I don't think I have ever seen a case where detectives have visited victims or former suspects to explain the rationale behind the final stages of a police investigation. That is, to tell them of actions that have not yet taken place. Especially as the source says OG are wary of sending the new suspects underground.

      When I remember the gleeful faces of Kate and Gerry when the original investigation was shelved, I find it impossible to believe the extra funding for OG gives them cause to be grateful.

      It seems quite clear that the parents and the police are at odds. Gerry and Kate are still wishing/hoping/
      believing, Madeleine is alive and findable. After those digs in PDL, the police obviously don't. That fact alone would make a meeting between the two parties tetchy at the very least.

      Whilst in PDL, Gerry and Kate managed to keep up the charade that they had a good relationship with the Portuguese police for several months. In their interviews they reaffirmed at every opportunity that the police did not suspect them. All was eventually revealed when Kate released her book, behind the scenes there was chaos with 'her husband throwing himself to the ground writhing like a madman'. OK, not her exact words, but you get the gist. They have a talent for acting cool, calm and collected in front of the cameras and giving the impression that all is well. Right now it is important to ram up their 'not under suspicion' claim, and the only way to do that is to claim new leads. If OG aren't investigating them, they must be investigating someone. And on this occasion it seems to be the woman in purple (again).

    2. Ros 19 Nov 11.47

      "that this meeting has been made public is curious, this may well be the final hurdle".

      Let's hope that SY in that meeting were telling the McCanns about the extradition details, what it entails and what their legal rights are.

      It's about time they were told who runs the investigation and it certainly isn't them.

      Going back to my post in your last blog where I mentioned the Radio 4 interview that GM gave, I forgot to add that although GM was mentioning about his "mental health" issues he still managed to accomplish much in his career, becoming a Professor and other merits in his climb up the career ladder. I can't remember what they are now (without having to trawl the internet) but he seems to have done well for a father of a missing child who has been in the hands of paedos for 11 years but has put that all behind him to go on to greater things for himself.

  3. Oct 28, 2015

    Mark Rowley MPS: "I have overseen this investigation since 2012 and am very grateful for the enormous assistance of the media and public so far which, through the appeals, have generated new information and lines of Inquiry."

    Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.

    1. Oh to have been a fly on the wall as Scotland Yard discussed their decision and rationale with Mr and Mrs McCann.

      Mark Rowley's carefully chosen words are cannot be spun. They were not updating the parents or reporting to them as if they were working on their behalf, the 'decision' had already been made, and their rationale behind it was explained.

      It doesn't come across as a happy or even hopeful meeting for the parents, the words used by Mark Rowley are formal, cold even, unequivocal, the decision has been made, it's beyond the McCanns' control.

      The parents have little to say beyond the usual 'grateful', but they don't have to, they have Tracey Kandhola to spin any news snippets beyond recognition. And fair dues, she got this cosy tet a tets into the tabloids before the source from Whitehall and Mark Rowley. I think Gerry and Kate are this time sticking to Portugal's Judicial Secrecy laws, well publicly at least, privately they are putting out their own stories via complicit journalists, just as they did in 2007.

  4. I don't believe the police are going over this with a fine tooth comb. They have had years to do that. Still think it's a cover-up.

    1. I would have agreed under Andy Redwood, but not so sure under Nicola Wall. Now, there seems to be more of a quiet determination to solve this case once and for all.

      Andy Redwood spent too much time believing the official statements and that formal dinners took place at an informal poolside snack bar.

      The main problem I see is Operation Grange have taken a large portion of their time focussing on Portugal instead of looking closer to home.

  5. Hi Anon 19 November 2018 at 11:11

    The McCanns are either being questioned as suspects now or they're playing a part in the British investigation, making it go in their direction, but I wouldn't call the "Operation Grange" a cover up, possibly it's just a team of naiv detectives, who may have been manipulated into believing the McCanns' lies.
    Remember that the McCanns even demanded prosecutor status in Portugal, when the case was reopened there, because they had persons of interest, who they believed should be questioned, while the PJ thought otherwise.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Gerry would get himself a position in Scotland Yard's operational team or in its board. Nothing will surprise me about the McCanns' actions anymore, whatever they may do. They're smart enough to dupe whomever. So in the name of God, I hope that I'm completely wrong, and I must be, if there's any justice at all in this world.

    1. Naive is not a word I would associate with a SY dectective. Besides,
      Mark Rowley
      Cressida Dick
      The mayor of London (who okays the money given to OG)
      Are they naive also?
      There may be some manipulation, but if GM was involved in SY, surely it would be a conflict of interest and cause an outcry.

    2. Hello Anon 19 November 2018 at 16:29

      ”A Whitehall source said: 'Metropolitan Police officers had a sit-down meeting with Madeleine's parents to tell them exactly where they were with their inquiries”
      Tracey Kandohla ”affirms”.

      Hopefully, she’s got it all wrong, but if we just for a few seconds pretend or suspect, that she might be right on this point, then it must have been a kind of social visit, that the Operation Grange detectives paid the McCanns, while chatting with them over a nice cup of tea, in the absence of any investigators from the Portuguese PJ.

      Yet, I sincerely refuse to believe, that the ”Operation Grange” has become another Monty Python's Flying Circus, but on the other hand, I don’t understand what additional questions they would wish to ask the McCanns, if it’s not, as I’ve suggested earlier, about trying to identify yet another girl in a manipulated photo, who’s said to bear resemblance to Madeleine. In such a situation the McCanns would perhaps be asked to assist in a process of identification.

    3. Hello again Bjorn. Thanks for the reply about Knausgard.

      Look, people in the information business can try and disguise their mode of operation but in the long run they cannot conceal it. Mitchell and the McCanns are too old, too tired and not sophisticated enough to change their methods.

      I'm not stating what follows as established fact but as 90% studied knowledge of how they work. In this case the relevant rules are: "If it's good news (for the McCanns) then the McCanns always announce it; if it's bad news they always conceal it and allow it out through newsfeeds after it has been spun."

      They have had literally no good news since 2015 when Amaral lost the first round of the libel trial. That's why you hear almost nothing from them anymore. That's why they're reduced to crying on the radio.

      If you accept my analysis - or mere opinion, if you want to call it that - then the presence of the Yard in their home cannot, under any circumstances, be favourable to them since it wouldn't need any spin.

      Now, personally, I leave it at that because it's very serious stuff if they're having to spin like this and I'm happy to wait for what's going to follow.

      If, however, you want to know a bit more then you can note that the team have suddenly started quoting "Whitehall" (civil service) sources. "Whitehall" means "non-police with no knowledge of operational police matters at all". They did use the words "a force source", which they've never once used before, a rather desperate usage of a meaningless term.

      The background to all these circumlocutions is that they cannot claim a Yard source for something untrue without risking a disastrous public denial from the police.

      But why would Scotland Yard ever want to say anything disastrous about two suffering victims? That's the question to ask yourself.

      I am not preaching this to say "Grange is straight": I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone of that anymore. It isn't needed.

    4. @ Blacksmith 14:08

      You do of course realise that Björn is a figment of Ros's imagination as a writer, author, playwright and journalist don't you?

    5. Do I? Then why are you telling me? Is he? Then why aren't you addressing him? He seems a f*****g sight more real than you do - and a lot nicer. Cheers.

    6. 20.23 Bjorn provides an erudite and European based perspective, unlike you who simply provides an opinion.
      And like my father used to say, ' an opinion is like an arsehole, we all have one and they all stink.'
      Next time, try presenting a modicum of a factual based argument when denigrating a poster.
      [sorry Bjorn if you find this mildly embarrassing, you of course would never respond]

    7. @00:08

      ‘Unknown’ wasn’t telling you, he was asking. And no need for your habitual kneejerk profanities, ‘Nabokov reader’. BTW, reading is a skill, whilst writing and comprehension are closer to art. You are not an artist, accepted. It remains to be seen how good you are at reading, old chum.


      I respectfully disagree with your fathers’ remark, but be it applicable, then 20/11 @14:08’s “mere opinion” makes the grade, does it not?

  6. The PACT of silence. Thinking out of the box. People go with the flow, whilst it suits their purpose and all thinks there is a common goal, but someone(s) can hide. ALL could go with the flow, feeling protected - whilst still this could turn out to be very much an home grown case! Let us recall exactly what the T9 timeline achieved - was to explain by default where those not timed to checking, must therefore by default be sat in the Tapas. Really. When does a 'default' alibi stand up as a statement of fact.

  7. "Interpol reportedly to elect a Russian president after China mysteriously disappeared its old one"

    1. 9 Jul 2006

      "Blair to lobby Putin on fund manager"


      25 May 2018

      "How Britain let Russia hide its dirty money"

    2. "Interpol elects South Korean as its president, in blow to Russia"

      "Kim Jong-yang defeats Alexander Prokopchuk, who was opposed by US and others over fears Moscow could abuse role"

  8. Does anyone remember Robert Murat saying he thought it was an inside job? I believe he was correct and this whole story is a massive conspiracy and hoax with the inside knowledge of the Ocean Club. All probably acting out of misguided compassion I can well imagine.

  9. 'Mr Edgar, who passed all his findings to the Operation Grange team when they took over the search in May 2011, said officers could be chasing up two old or new leads.

    He believes they could be following up his theory - which the McCann’s feel is most probable - about a paedophile kidnap which he “never got to the bottom of.”

    He explained: “Not for want of trying but as a private investigator I was faced with certain restrictions and stumbling blocks unlike the official authorities.”

    Mr Edgar, 61, who was previously employed by Maddie’s parents for three years, told Sun Online that police may have had a recent tip off from someone known to the kidnappers - providing them with a second new lead."'


    Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

    GP – Did you have access to the criminal process?

    DE [David Edgar] answers that he read parts of the files in the translation that the McCanns asked to be done.

    GP – How did you manage to conduct an investigation without analysing all the process? Whom did you contact in Portugal?

    DE says he contacted an informant who passed information to both the UK and Portuguese authorities. He doesn't want to say to whom he spoke, but says he spoke to someone from the PJ.

    GP – Do you know that the McCanns initiated a private investigation?

    DE knows.

    GP – Was there private investigators before you?

    DE says yes but adds he was the first professional one.

    Neither the Valentim de Carvalho lawyer nor Gonçalo Amaral lawyer had questions."


    #McCann mogelijk nog in leven bij pedo-bende’ via @telegraaf tuurlijk telegraaf en Willem van Oranje ook

    #McCann may still be alive in paedo gang [link article] of course telegraph and so is William of Orange

    retweeted by 'wicatty'. Oh well.

  11. So the McCanns have had a visit from Scotland Yard, I wonder if, whilst they were there they felt tempted to have a look around the property for clues?

    If only walls could talk I'm sure it would reveal a lot, especially that of Madeleine's unused room.

    1. Hi Anon 20 November 2018 at 17:50

      "If only walls could talk I'm sure it would reveal a lot, especially that of Madeleine's unused room"

      Yes,but there, they may perhaps find little clean-washed cuddle cat, the remains of Madeleine's little violated sticker book and her mysteriously vanished pink blanket, nothing of which has been seen since the McCanns left Portugal some 11 years ago.

    2. Bjӧrn 21 November 15.34

      In the Radio 4 interview Gerry McCann gave, one of his excuses for not selling their house to pay for the "search" for Madeleine was that he didn't want people just coming to view Madeleine's bedroom.

      Yet in the same breath he couldn't even remember whether the stars were still on the ceiling so no doubt he hasn't been in there for a very long time or the room is now a nice "visitor's" bedroom with no presents going back 11 years crammed into the wardrobes waiting for Madeleine's return.

      I expect that's more the reason that he doesn't want to sell the house because they're still living the lie that Madeleine is alive and "findable" whilst using her room for friends and family.

    3. I believe cuddlecat, the pink blanket and the sticker book were nothing more than props.

    4. Hello Anon 21 November 2018 at 16:11

      "Yet in the same breath he couldn't even remember whether the stars were still on the ceiling..."

      Such interviews without a manuscript and unexpected questions can sometimes be very revealing. I haven’t yet listened to the whole interview or read a complete transcription of it, but I will.

      As soon as the McCanns come forward to talk about their grief and innocence, they give away so much of themselves, which would’ve helped them a lot if it had been beyond reasonable doubt, that they cannot have been implicated in Madeleine’s disappearance, but with a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads, they had better shut up and they should also tell TK and their few remaining influential friends to keep quiet about whatever is going on between them and Operation Grange.

      The only thing that can now be beneficial to them is silence, which they have not understood. So shouldn'the ongoing investigation at least benefit from the McCanns’ bad judgement?

  12. Hello
    To whom it may concern
    theme;David Edgar's sharp brain.

    Retired inspector David Edgar, who was hired by the McCanns before the Met/SY got involved, has drawn the conclusion, that Madeleine, ”could be hidden away in a cellar or dungeon in the ‘LAWLESS’ villages around the resort she went missing from” (The Sun)

    She could just as well be in captivity with the recently discovered Korowai Tribe in Papua New Guinea, which seems to be a forgotten lead, that should perhaps be pursued now. Or has the “Operation Grange” ruled that out?

  13. @ Blacksmith - if ""We founded this Bureau in 2009......." why is it that the earliest post on is 2017?

    1. You want me to answer that?

      Try some research.


    3. Anonymous @ 14:08

      Quote: "I repeatedly asked for the evidence from GA of political interference by the UK, none of which he was able to provide."

      WTF do you call a British diplomat preventing the Police from collecting clothing (aka evidence) if not 'political interference'?

    4. John Buck the British Ambassador took British Police Officers to meet the Mccanns on Saturday 5th May without any Portuguese Officers present.

      Political interference and a criminal act under Portuguese Law.

    5. @19:41


      Presumptuous ‘john’ hasn’t got a clue. He often doesn’t understand what he reads, even when he reads his own writings. Sad but true.

      Try some research, ‘john’.

    6. JJ @10.10

      Since you're keen on the police irregularity angle, here's another thought.

      One of the barriers to UK police giving assistance to Brits abroad is in the event that they (the Brits in question) are being investigated for suspected involvement in a crime.

      As we know our own blue lantern brigade were in PdL faster than a rat up a drainpipe, promptly encouraging the PJ to investigate 'the abduction' (GA's on record as far as that goes).

      Now then - an abduction obviously could not have involved the parents, hence there was nothing ostensibly untoward about our police helping out, only the haste with which they arrived.

      So what if they were waiting outside the door in the knowledge that the parents WERE involved in some way, and that pre-empting the line of enquiry would perforce deflect suspicion?

      Of course as soon as the parents were declared arguidos they and the police retreated in haste.

      Were it to have been a deliberate tactic, the UK authorities must have been aware of the circumstances beforehand. They wouldn't have behaved in such a manner 'just in case'. Otherwise the Met's 'gendarmes' would be touring the world on a regular basis.

  14. Hello John

    Thanks for making your view on the ”Operation Grange” and the McCanns clear. Here, John are just some of my thoughts, but I don't claim to be right, just speculating.

    Just as you’re implying John, the McCanns have a habit of manipulating, twisting and turning ”bad” news into becoming ”good” news to them, and then keeping themselves away from the general public and truth seeking journalists by letting their loyal team of lawyers, journalists and other corrupt friends act as guardians.

    Imagine (this is of course just in my imagination), that the British police have only informed the McCanns about their optimism of making “progress” by pursuing new leads entirely focused on the abduction hypothesis. That would be real “bad” news to the McCanns, I’d say, as their hopes about the whole case soon goin' to fade away, which of course is what they most of all must be hoping for, would be crushed, at least for the near future.

    However, if they’ve been informed about that there’re just two more leads (nothing about them being suspects again) to be investigated and that the case thereafter is going to be closed, if there will be no results. That would be real “good” news to the McCann. However, it would be extremely difficult for them to appear in media pretending to be devastated and disappointed, when in fact they would jump for joy if they just could. So, better then to make up a story of hope, letting TK tell it and spread it to all British papers.

    1. I am astonished that the McCanns work so hard to give the impression that all is well between themselves and the police.

      I really don't think it can be. After 7+ years we would imagine them all to be on first name terms with a common bond and goal. That doesn't seem to be the case. The lack of a search for a child live by the police would suggest they believe she is dead. Gerry and Kate believe she is alive.

      It would also appear that Gerry, Kate and their friends have not co-operated with the police since 2007/8, that is they have not made any amendments or additions to their original statements.

      We assume this means they have all been treated with kid gloves, that the murder detectives from Operation Grange have accepted the non co-operation with 'okey dokey, we won't bother you again'. Perhaps even 'we will just work around you for as many years as it takes'.

      I think they have gone for option two, that is, they have dug their heels in and are determined to solve this case no matter what it takes. They will not give up until whoever was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance is brought to justice.

      The police both here and in Portugal have looked under every stone and followed every lead. An inept burglar or common criminal could not have kept a crime of this magnitude secret or indeed left the crime scene free from evidence. Madeleine's face and unique eye would have made her worthless to traffickers or a paedophile gang, her image was too well known. She could never have blended into an existing family, or have been adopted by a childless couple. She was a walking, talking, almost 4 year old who knew her name and who her parents were. The only way she could be alive and living another life, is if she had been kept locked away from the world this past 11+ years, and that is too horrific to think about.

      Operation Grange I suspect have reached the final stage where it is only them and the suspects (whoever they might be)left standing. The McCanns can only wish, hope and pray that the suspects are not themselves.

      Their hopes that Operation Grange would find alternate suspects have not been fulfilled. All those put forward (by Team McCann?) such as spotty man, ugly man, smelly man etc have been investigated and dismissed. Then there was the tractor guy, conveniently dead, ditto the wandering paedo who wrote to his son who contacted the Sun with news that he had a letter from his father but had destroyed it before making the call.

      Gerry and Kate created the myth that Madeleine could be anywhere, err, except within the vicinity of their former apartment and villa. From the start they wanted the search to be global, they were more interested in the borders than the place she was last seen. Not suspicious at all.


    2. I don't think for one moment that Scotland Yard are naïve Bjorn. They will be looking at everything the Portuguese police looked at back in the summer of 2007 and of course, everything that has happened since.

      The interim report of the Portuguese Police lays the blame for Madeleine's disappearance firmly at the feet of the parents, as does Goncalo Amaral's book. Yet both the English police chief and Portuguese police chief said, was not necessary to go back over the original investigation. If the original investigation had been botched, as the McCanns and the British media have often stated, then why didn't the current investigations re-examine it?

      I believe both police forces are working under judicial secrecy Bjorn. In addition, Scotland Yard are aware that anything they reveal could cause a media storm, especially if there are as many suspects as we think.

      None of the news stories have mentioned lawyers being present at that meeting in Rothley. I can't imagine the McCanns meeting the detectives without lawyers present and I wonder if they have been able to 'lose' this detail? Did the police just drop in or was the meeting arranged? Why let the press know about it?

      Operation Grange have it within their power to relieve Gerry and Kate of all the stress they suffer because people do not believe them. Why haven't they?

    3. If you think the McCanns drive the mainstream press or police then you are in cloud cuckoo land! The press drives itself, only super injunctions stop them telling stories about public figures that will sell newspapers. Indeed, either because of the inside information that journalists are privy to and have been privy to over the last eleven years, through contacts within Operation Grange or other areas of the police force, or just their own investigations, the mainstream press appears to believe that the McCanns were not responsible for Madeleine’s abduction or killing. The Police have also come out and publicly stated that the McCanns are not suspects.

      This is not the cat and mouse game that is the wishful thinking playing in the heads of a few on-line bloggers and their followers who scour second hand information and American criminal investigation programmes desperate for views and clues to pin a multitude of crimes, from child murder to money laundering, on the McCanns.


    4. Madeleine's unique eye consists of a line running through it in different positions from photograph to photograph.
      The mark is clearly photoshopped onto the image, which in my opinion is yet another sign of premeditation, not of the death but the abduction hoax. They've not been consistent with their manipulation of photos, there are major flaws in all the Madeleine images.

    5. ref "21 November 2018 at 21:16"
      Hello Rosalinda and thanks for comment.

      "Why let the press know about it?"
      How come the papers got to know about it in the first place Rosalinda? Was it a press release by the SY, or was it a gossiping neighbour? I’ve missed that.

      "Operation Grange have it within their power to relieve Gerry and Kate of all the stress they suffer because people do not believe them. Why haven't they?"

      Yes, you’re quite right here. So why have they not. A simple answer to that could be that the McCanns, as you say, are under investigation, but they may also think that it's none of their business to do so, as they've been so focused on pursuing a stranger abduction.

      As I've said before Rosalinda, I really hope that the Operation Grange detectives are not being misled by team McCann and that they all those years have worked from "outside in" so to speak and that they’ve now reached a certain point in their long lasting investigation, when t’s time to thoroughly investigate the McCanns by asking them “uncomfortable” questions. If that would be the case, I’ve so far underestimated the guts and the competence of the SY detectives and I’d be so happy to admit that.

    6. Well said Gary - sense and logic.

  15. I think that if you have followed the case, read the police statements, watched the McCanns and their friends in media interviews, it would be quite difficult not to come to a certain conclusion. I find it impossible to believe that the police - all the police - did not know, from a very early stage, what happened.

    1. "I think that if you have followed the case, read the police statements, watched the McCanns and their friends in media interviews, it would be quite difficult not to come to a certain conclusion. I find it impossible to believe that the police - all the police - did not know, from a very early stage, what happened."

      Duh, that's why the police publicly stated that the McCanns are not suspects!


    2. Gary, Redwood stated the McCanns or their friends are not suspects in the abduction of their daughter. Remember the remit for Operation Grange was abduction only. The Tapas 9 were simply left out of the review/investigation.

      The last official word came from the Portuguese Supreme Court who pointed out the McCanns were never cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance by the Portuguese police.

    3. I have never believed that Operation Grange had a remit of 'abduction only'. Investigations by their very nature can lead anywhere. The Clinton impeachment proceedings began with allegations of financial fraud and ended with sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.

      It would be absurd to presume that OG would set aside all evidence that might point to the parents and/or their friends being involved. No-one gets that kind of immunity Ruth.

      It is the McCanns, their cohorts and Barmy Bennett who insist the Tapas group are not being investigated. They are central to everything that happened that night, whether they were involved or not. Whoever the police prosecute, the statements of the Tapas group will be integral to the case they are building. They are witnesses at the very least.

    4. I'm not sure being declared 'not suspects' by the police means a great deal Gary. It may have been true at the time the statement was made 6/7 years ago, but a lot of water has since passed under the bridge. There are a lot of instances of suspects being declared not suspects, then arrested the next day, eg, the odious Philpotts.

    5. Do carmo made the not suspects comment a lot more recently than 6/7 years ago.

      2 police forces reviewing and investigating since 2011, millions of pounds spent, numerous interviews and some still hold on to slowly slowly catchee monkey.

      Sounds more like wishful thinking and delusions.

    6. OK 12:37, if it's not slowly slowly catchee monkey, what is it? Regardless of who the actual suspects are, the game we are watching is indeed slowly, slowly, etc. Didn't one recent report say the police did not want to alert the suspects and send them underground?

      As for wishful thinking, I wish the world was as it was back in 2007, when my faith in human nature was much stronger than it is now 12:37. What you do not seem to understand is that no-one, not myself nor indeed any other commentator 'wants' or 'wishes' the McCanns to be found guilty. I think most of us prefer that pre 2007 world in that regard.

      But it is as it is. All the while justice is not carried out in Madeleine's name, injustice is being inflicted on others. 'Others' like Robert Murat and every other poor sod who's name has been given as a tip off to the tabloids. My heart almost broke watching BBC journalist Richard Bilton virtually accuse innocent Portuguese manual workers of the most heinous crime imaginable. With his crap, biased research and reporting, I don't think I will ever watch a documentary made by him again.

      Gerry and Kate do not look like people who commit crimes, nor do they act like people who commit crimes, not publicly at least, behind the scenes, there is apparently hysteria. Most likely it is their polished personas that have carried them this far, but at some point the veneer will crack. It's not sustainable because the police, to all appearances, appear to believe Madeleine is dead and the parents do not. If the police have told the McCanns that they believe the child is dead, then the McCanns have not accepted it. After the detectives visited, they published a message of Hope.

      Every loved one of a missing person or child must at some stage accept that all hope is gone. Their concern then is to bring the remains of their loved one home and give them the dignity of a ceremony and a burial.

      The McCanns refusal to accept that Madeleine is dead should ring all sorts of alarms to those following this case. Why will they not accept a scenario where Madeleine is dead? 11+ years on and no sign of Madeleine that 'hope' is beyond delusional.

      When will they reach the acceptance stage of grief and accept what the police are telling them? Can they not think of any other circumstances were Madeleine may have died that did not involve them? Is it because the only evidence of death, comes from the blood and cadaver dogs?

      You say, amongst other things, 12:37, 'numerous interviews'. Really? The only interviews I can think of were 3 down and outs back in 2013 or thereabouts. So who were the numerous interviews with? The McCanns and their Tapas friends?

    7. Mark Rowley in charge of O.G. 26 April 2017
      "However she left the apartment-she's been abducted"

      Hardly an open mind, she was abducted, that's all OG have considered.The Mccanns and tapas 7 have never been under OG'S spotlight.It would be too embarrassing, it was no accident Rowley was in charge.
      Who instructed Supt Hill to be in PDL and who was his boss certainly not Gamble

    8. Hello Rosalinda and anon 22 November 2018 at 12:37
      "Do carmo made the not suspects comment a lot more recently than 6/7 years ago"

      In the one and only interview two years ago Pedro do Carmo, said, that the parents aren’t suspects, but it’s not a convincing statement, in that he didn’t tell us what the PJ did wrong in 2007 by declaring the McCanns arguidos.

      He also said.

      “Ten years later we still do not know what happened, which makes it possible to say, at least in relation to Portugal, that this is a unique case. We had never had one, and we did not have a similar case again”

      He couldn’t say or even speculate about what happened, which ought to mean that he then didn’t know whether there was and abduction or something else. He did not say, that there was nothing in the original investigation that could implicate the McCanns, as Gerry has said so many times, just phrasing it a little differently. Pedro do Carmo’s statement isn’t exactly an embedded excuse for having incompetent investigators.

      If he had definitely, once and for all, ruled out the McCanns as persons of interest, it would’ve been very easy to just say sorry to the McCanns, who must have suffered enormously, when they as “innocent victims” came under suspicion.

      Carmo’s statement was not an excuse to the McCanns on behalf of the pj investigators. Neither did it exonerate them. It just meant, that the McCanns officially weren’t suspects then, and still aren’t, but may well be so again, if the investigation would go in that direction.

      I’ve far more confidence in Pedro do Carmo than Redwood/Rowley

    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 November 2018 at 19:24
      Hello Rosalinda

      "My heart almost broke watching BBC journalist Richard Bilton virtually accuse innocent Portuguese manual workers of the most heinous crime imaginable"

      I suppose you're referring to this poor Portuguese guy, who had to confirm that he had recently been asked questions by the Portuguese Police on the request by the SY, about his whereabouts on the day Madeleine went missing. I've had him on my mind ever since I saw the documentary in question and I cannot forget his scared facial expressions, which was the result of Bilton's provocation to make him look like a potential perpetrator.

      I found it even more disgusting thinking of how the ruthless McCanns could let this happen.

  16. Re: Bjorn's post @ 20;59 Nov 19th.
    That is a very interesting point about what questions Scotland Yard/Operation Grange detectives would ask the McCanns, all the while cozying up to two parents looking for their daughter.
    These detectives might want to discuss enhanced photos of the parent's missing daughter for a match - all the while playing a cat and mouse trip-up game. (But probably if it even came to that, lawyers in attendance would clamp down on anything that might compromise the couple - That's if the McCanns ever bothered to show).

    The point was made that the parents could hardly refuse to talk to Scotland Yard about a tip to recover their daughter.

    After all, that's what Mr and Mrs Mccann want more than anything in the world, to parade their innocence before the world, and - as icing on the cake keep the cash cow Find Madeleine Fund going in perpetuity.

    How sick would be a scheme to create a fund to pretend to look for an alive daughter, when both parents witnessed her death on the night of May 3rd 2007.
    But the twisted scheme is shamelessly out there after eleven years.

    1. I hate to be a party pooper here, but I really don't think there is much value to age progressed pictures, I feel so sorry for those families who buy into this kind of publicity, but for them I suppose, it is a small sign of hope. Do people really scrutinise strangers' children so closely? I find that more disturbing than helpful.

      Mr and Mrs McCann had big, big dreams JC. So too Clarence Mitchell and Jim Gamble. A government funded missing child agency with it's own TV network. With all those alpha males who like to hog the TV cameras (Lord knows why)they would have squabbled over the main presenter's job. Could you imagine Gerry and Kate each night, telling us how to look after our kids!

      As for your final paragraph JC, yes indeed. That's the bit that pushes the loss of faith in human nature right over the edge. That indeed would be a crime the like of which the world has never seen before. If my beloved Madame Tussauds still had their chamber of horrors, then this would be among them.

      Gerry and Kate were not brave in dealing with their daughter's disappearance, they were sensational! They achieved more than most major charities have achieved in decades. They had their own disaster fund! Facilities (buckets)everywhere. Even banks and supermarkets were collecting for them!

      I'm on a roll, lol, continued

    2. George Galloway once described this as 'the mother of all crimes' before going silent on the matter and for some obscure reason, blocking me on twitter. It is indeed truly mind boggling when you dig through the multiple layers of deceit and finally get to the truth, or as near as dammit. It's like 'what! the Prime Minister of the UK did what?'. Then there's the 'f*ck me, a British police chief appeared on British morning TV with these people!', or even, 'wtf! Sir Bernard H-H released balloons at a Madeleine Fundraiser?'

      I once went to a 'historic child abuse' conference where Gerry and Kate fans Jim Gamble and Mark Matthews-Thomas were among the speakers. JG chickened out (too overcome with emotion apparently) but MT spoke. I had made a point of looking them both in the eye and it amused me how much it unnerved them. It didn't go unnoticed because it was the first (actually, only) time I have been swarmed by the press when the meeting finished. And yes, to any would be assassins, those MSM journalists were fully informed of EVERYTHING.

      You have, JC, reminded me of just how big a crime has been committed here. I think it gets lost among the butler in the pantry with the shotgun arguments. How would all those who are so angry and outspoken on the McCanns' behalf feel if they find they have been deceived? There is a great Mark Twain saying about how hard it is for someone to admit they are wrong, but I am two G&T's away from remembering it, hic!

    3. "How would all those who are so angry and outspoken on the McCanns' behalf feel if they find they have been deceived? There is a great Mark Twain saying about how hard it is for someone to admit they are wrong"

      And how will you feel if, sometime in the future, it is found that the McCanns were telling the truth all along?


  17. Questions that Not Textusa doesn’t want answered and the posts she doesn’t want you to see

    An ‘Anonymous’, answering to our ‘john’, does a delightful ‘Phoebe’:

    “Anonymous 20 November 2018 at 16:49

    Since I "don't deserve a response from now on and won't get one" I imagine there'll be no apology forthcoming for the ad hominem insult. Never mind.

    You take others to task for referencing the tabloids, yet treat the words of Kate McCann as 'fact'. Really?

    So when did SKY confirm receipt of David Payne's e-mail, the fate of which is 'not an issue'? Oh I know. You're not going to tell because I don't deserve it.”

    ‘Not Textusa’ steps in with a fine ‘Verdi’:

    “Not Textusa 20 November 2018 at 19:36

    I've allowed this through for now, but don't push your luck”

    Having ‘Verdied’ on the ridiculous, our ‘john’, referring to KM, announces:

    “ john blacksmith 20 November 2018 at 16:34

    …she honestly stinks of deceit in everything she says. That's why I've always said that the one thing that could convince me of the certainty of abduction is Kate McCann saying it didn't happen.”


    Now, ‘john’, “…when did SKY confirm receipt of David Payne's e-mail, the fate of which is 'not an issue'?”

    Try some research perhaps.


    1. NT rounds off with "I'm certainly not having it here, this endless round and round exercise in nitpicking..."

      What else do they expect? As the Chinese proverb says, 'Lay down with dogs and you'll wake up with fleas'.

    2. Sadly, my publish everything philosophy does encourage replies that have been banned elsewhere. Unfortunately for you, I have absolutely zero interest in the squabbles of others, they are tedious and beyond petty.

      Whilst I have had my own breakdowns and dramas over the years, I'm still way too narcissistic to give two hoots about others unless it is in a gossipy, ever so slightly malicious way, in which case, pull up a chair.

      Not Textusa is off his head - I suspect crack, another bore who blames everyone but himself for his failure to write anything substantive or even entertaining. Ditto the diminutive Ben, rabbit creature, can't even remember his name, who turned into a crying wuss when confronted by wait for it, drum roll, cerebrally challenged buffoon, Bennett. I can't remember which one dropped to the ground in tears first.

      As for Verdi. Hmmm. Deranged creature who watches CMoMM day and night like a Doberman who has got the foreman's job at last. I'm reluctant to gender assign 'it' because, well let's face it, 'it' does not assign itself to anything feminine or masculine. It prefers to remain a dark force hiding in the corner, whispering poisonous spells to revenge itself on a world that made it so hideous.

      I've recently been watching The Tudors (again) and cannot help but compare the dark, slimy underworld of the Tower dungeons to CMoMM and the Myths sites. If you poke the straw on the ground, hundreds of rats fly out. This has been the insidious Verdi's home for the past decade, the he/she is feeding off all the vermin and their faeces, too afraid to unveil his/her identity. To be fair, go up behind him/her and say boo, and the thing will probably faint with fright. Of all the gutless cowards who have contributed to this 'debate', this particular snipe is among the worst.

      Well, apologies, I did indeed let rip there, lol. Now on third G&T and looking for Irish jig music :)

    3. You really should stop after the second bottle; nobody wants to hear from an embittered lush

  18. ref jc 22 November 2018 at 03:02

    Hi jc

    If something of substantial value would leak from the alleged mysterious Rothley meeting, which suggests, that there could've been some McCann lawyer present, I would definitely believe that the McCanns for obvious reasons must have come under serious suspicion.

    1. Hello again, Bjorn. The Rothley meeting seemed strange to me for a time but, at the risk of causing the usual outrage, I don't think anything "mysterious" happened there.

      The fact is they didn't get their stories straight at that meeting. The anti loonies' chief T7 villain David Payne and the McCanns didn't sort out the 6.30-7PM "visit" there, not even the towel.

      That story is still absolutely critical. Remember, Grange has moved the "window of opportunity" forward from 8.30-9.30 to 9.30-10ish. But that window concerns the appearance of a possible "abductor" with a child, not the possible time of death within the apartment at an "abductor's" hands.

      As far as the latter is concerned Grange have been silent for five years on 5.00PM to 7.00PM, the period which the PJ had homed in on before the case was shelved.

      If they didn't sort that out at Rothley then I can't believe they sorted anything shady out at all, for whatever reasons.

    2. I have been itching to know your opinion on the Rothley meeting John, so it is good to see you.

      I am seeing it as significant, but then I have been known to get ahead of myself. Why report such a meeting now, 7+ years into the investigation? Have the parents and OG really not spoken in all this time? Are SY covering their backs, that is, giving the parents et al, fair warning that they are coming to the end of their investigation, but not in a good way for them? It would be the kind thing to do. That is, it would go some way to spare them public humiliation. Kate foresaw rioting in the streets. A tad optimistic on Kate's part, whilst she had fans, I don't suppose for one moment they were of the rioting variety.

    3. Hello Ros. Before the LP interviews I thought Rothley was sus, as I say, but even then I thought it was weird that it was taking place in plain sight.

      Leaving the DP "visit" business aside I began to think there was something too good to be true about Mitchell's announcements about it afterwards, almost as though he wanted it to look sussier than it was.

      You and I know just how he insecure he is, with his strong fantasy life about becoming a "somebody" and showing all those people who despised him how he too could make it big one day.

      He loved it particularly when he could pretend to the Portuguese that he "controlled" what came out in the media, rather than being a press cuttings section head in the civil service; he loved it even more when people suggested he - Clarence Mitchell!! - was an MI5 man.

      I think he loved playing the consigliere over Rothley but who knows? It was the legal team, not CM or the McCanns, who decided whether that meeting would go ahead, I'm sure. I don't think they'd have taken any risks.

  19. I believe the relationship between SY, Leicestershire Police & Team McCann was soured the minute they tried to ruin GA. Rumour has it that SY raised most of the money for GA's defence.

    1. John100 22 November 2018 at 14:39
      Hello John
      I hope you're well

      I believe that there were retired SY police detectives, who raised money, as they saw GA rather as a colleague than an opponent, while others who were still in service did not openly support GA, but perhaps they did so in their minds. Nevertheless that action couldn't possibly have made it easier for the McCanns to dupe the Leicestershire Police.

    2. I think the relationship between SY, Leicester Police and Team McCann was soured the moment Mark Harrison (assigned by Leicester Police) arrived on PDL soil John.
      He suggested the parents as suspects and he suggested bringing in the specialist dogs. Jim Gamble mentions the conflict between the British police agencies who flew out to Portugal. Mark Harrison, Leicester Police, waned to investigate the parents. CEOP were looking for an abductor.

      I do believe however that the police investigating this case, and even those who aren't, would have contributed to Goncalo's legal fund. Each must know that 'there but for the grace of God, go I'. GA was handed a poison chalice, it could have been any one of them. It could have been any police detective anywhere in the world.

      The original investigation was hindered from the start by the antics of the McCann family. They were stirring up a media storm, a circus, that encouraged every fruitcake around the world to telephone the Portuguese police with their sightings. They were doing anything and everything to take the PJ away from focussing on them. They call it the botched investigation, but I don't see how any investigation could operate in the circus the Mccanns created.

    3. As soon as the McCanns were gone from Portugal, Leicester police followed on and never continued with their part of the investigation. What does that tell you about impartiality? Not to mention their role in the Brenda Leyland tragedy.

    4. Peter Mac And Cheese23 November 2018 at 00:13

      It was a group of serving Met police officers who contributed £1000.00 to Amaral's victorious appeal fund. The retired police officers seem to be the ones always speaking for the McCanns.

      It was Lee Rainbow who suggested making the parents suspects owing to the contradictions in Gerry's statement

  20. Bjӧrn 22 November 20.17

    Yes, there were probably many, many police officers who gave a lot of money towards GA's fund (including PeterMac) but there were some individuals who gave substantial amounts, me being one of them. Even those who contributed £5 over and over again when they could afford to all added to the final total.

    A lot of us who contributed were very angry that the McCanns were trying to destroy GA and his family especially when we could see right through the McCanns and didn't believe them from the moment Madeleine went "missing". It was a terrible thing that the McCanns were doing, evil in fact.

    Ros 22 Nov 21.18

    I'm afraid I can't agree with your sentence " would go some way to spare them public humiliation". If it does come out that this has been one huge hoax on the part of the McCanns then they deserve every public humiliation they get. They wouldn't deserve any sympathy for what they have done to so many people over the past 11 years, including the twins. Not forgetting the £12million spent on a fruitless search the McCanns could have ended on 3rd May 2007 but they chose not to.

  21. Anon 22 November 2018 at 23:16

    Hello, and thanks for comment and for your clarification about how you and your colleagues' support for Amaral came about.

    There're times when I feel sorry for the McCanns, but as soon as I think of the consequences of their actions, which have destroyed the lives of completely innocent people (including their own daughter), I feel as if they don't really deserve any respect, unless they confess and beg everybody, who they unscrupulously have persecuted all these years, for forgiveness.

    What we see now may not be the end of the investigation, not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning of a long process of investigation. (this is what Churchill might have said, had he lived today and taken interest in the Madeleine case)

  22. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 November 2018 at 20:32

    Sadly, my publish everything"

    That is a lie.

  23. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 November 2018 at 20:32

    Not Textusa is off his head - I suspect crack, another bore who blames everyone but himself for his failure to write anything substantive or even entertaining."

    @ john blacksmith

    As somebody who comments regularly on Not Textusa blog would you like to give your opinion on that?

    1. “john blacksmith 22 November 2018 at 11:25

      High NT.”

      What’s next” Your Majesty? Mein Führer?

  24. Bjӧrn 23 November 10.30

    I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was part of a group who helped finance GA's legal fund. I didn't know any of the other people who contributed but I went by the comments which people posted when they donated whatever sum they wished to donate.

    You were obviously not around when GA's Fund was set up. Many people left comments as to why they were contributing, I went by those comments when I posted to you. It's a shame they're not still on the internet for people to read but I suspect someone has saved them all for posterity. Perhaps they will come to light some time in the future.

  25. Anonymous 21:38

    Legal Defence for Goncalo Amaral Donation: All Comments 01 to 2814

  26. Just a little reminder, once again, of the intellectual powers of the conspiracy theorists - and their heroes.

    I have made it clear - demonstrated - for many years that Craig Murray is an utterly worthless witness or commentator on anything. He cannot tell truth from fiction (he thinks Paolo Reis is reliable!) - which is why he's been sued for libel - he is credulous, unable to think clearly, and with no understanding of the world around him.

    But he is a hero to our conspiracy loonies here and elsewhere.

    Now listen for 2 and a half minutes of distilled idiocy to his reasoning powers, ability to master a brief, attitude to women, inability to follow his own line of "thinking" and utter ignorance of facts.

    He and Richard Hall as factual guides. Jesus wept.

    Murray is the first to speak. Oliver Kamm is a Times journalist.

    1. Who is being sued for libel - and libel against whom?

    2. "He and Richard Hall as factual guides. Jesus wept."

      Not half as factually reliable as Kate McCann, eh Johnny?

      Just a little reminder of the intellectual powers of someone who appears not to realize that Psychology exists as an empirical discipline:

      "Imaginative leaps can be tested by experiment in the natural sciences but not in the investigation of human action?"

      Ever heard of Jean Piaget? Asch and Milgram? Alan Baddeley?

      The one thing you have made clear, and demonstrated without doubt, is that your opinions are formed by your ego first, objectivity second, if at all.

    3. @19:50

    4. john blacksmith24 November 2018 at 13:30
      Hello John

      I've listened to the the Murray/Kramm quarrel and here are just a few thoughts about the Swedish Julian Assange case. A little bit off topic perhaps, still I believe that someone else would be interested.

      After Julian Assange’s visit to Sweden quite a few years ago, two young women reported to the police that they’d been sexually assaulted or offended by him. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, an undisputed and well reputed feminist, naturally took their report under consideration and then decided to carry out a so called initial investigation. Once that decision was made the interrogation of Assange had to be done in accordance with the legal procedure.

      Assange's absence naturally made it difficult for the prosecutor, to carry out, what otherwise would’ve been, a rather simple pre-trial investigation. The main object, as far as I’m concerned, wasn’t just to establish what had happened between these women and Assagne on separate occasions, but also to assay whether the negligent handling of condoms under two consensual sex acts, as that seems to have been the case, would apply to our new rigorous legislation around sexual behaviour.

      Unfortunately, we never got to know the real truth, as the case is now shelved and all charges against Assagne seem to be dropped, not because it was established, that he hadn’t committed any sexual crime, but because the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, believed that the deadlock in the “negotiation” between the “prisoner” Assange and the Swedish judiciary, would not be broken within a foreseeable future.

      There has also been a lot of speculation in our country about these two plaintiffs, who I’d describe as intellectual feminists, having made up a story on behalf of CIA in order to bring Assange to Sweden for further extradition to the US, and I suppose that was what Craig Murray tried to suggest arguing with Oliver Kramm.

      Nevertheless, it’s s not quite unlikely that Mrs Ny could have been under some kind of stress and self-imposed psychological pressure all those years, knowing what the consequences might have been, from a political perspective, beyond her own case, if the US had been given a chance to exert pressure on the Swedish government, making it extradite Assange. So, personally I don’t believe that there’s any conspiracy here, but perhaps just erotophobia and human weakness.

  27. "Who is being sued for libel?"

    Well that's a bad start, isn't it? Nowhere does my post say he is being sued for libel. Always best to read a post before making demands.

    "I leave Edinburgh this afternoon for London, to stand trial at the High Court for libel."

    I wonder who wrote that?

  28. 7 Nov, 2017

    On 29 April 2016, Jake Wallis Simons and Craig Murray appeared together on Sky News to debate anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom. Following that debate, Dr Wallis Simons issued libel proceedings against Mr Murray. Dr Wallis Simons and Mr Murray have now settled these proceedings.
    By this statement, Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite. They are both pleased to have resolved this dispute amicably.

  29. Looking at the nonsense being spewed by the DM today with regards to how Madeleine went "missing" I do sometimes wonder whether they are diverting things away from what is actually happening behind the scenes. It has often come out that the Police had asked the media not to give away any details of what they are doing with regards to criminal investigations and the media have adhered to their requests.

    If a Court case ever happens, at least the MSM can say that "we were always on the side of the parents and we didn't persuade anyone to think that the parents had anything to do with Madeleine's "disappearance".

    After all, the McCanns were paid ££££thousands by newspapers when they didn't like what was being printed and they got apologies, the MSM succumbed to them but they will never forget.

  30. It is my belief that the McCanns are innocent of causing any harm to the child, but not innocent of concealing the body. I believe it was a tragic accident where they panicked and covered it up
    by enlisting the help of many.

  31. As Mr Mathew Wright has posted on twitter:"The woke and wandered theory is calling The NOT SUSPECTS... liars."

    That is why this is the most significant news on the case since 2012.

    By their newsfeeds the parents have stated as a fact that the twin investigations' "new leads" have nothing to do with an abduction. Instead they suggest that "woke and wandered" is now a firm line of inquiry. The police cannot pursue such a line without discounting everything the parents and their friends have said about the abduction: the conflict between the two scenarios is absolute. It looks like the evidence has already been discounted - without making them suspects..

    If the child woke and wandered then there was no abductor and no abduction from 5A - how could there be? The child had already let herself out of the apartment.

    As things stand that means the incredible pyramid of lies concerning abductor and abduction, which I've worked to expose for nine years, would have to be admitted.

    I haven't the slightest doubt that the feeds are correct in saying that the two forces are looking at non-abduction theories and, indeed, may be near concluding them. This is the situation that the McCanns are attempting to address.

    That does not mean that the McCann house is going to come falling down, for if they admitted the gargantuan lying then their reputation (my own priority) is gone but not their freedom.

    It does not mean, of itself, that the McCanns can be charged with any crime except possibly negligence in the English, not the Portguese, sense. And they can argue that they were drawn into lying by terror at what the PJ were accusing them of.

    People should try thinking it through for themselves and considering the implications - only some of which I've explored. This isn't binman or purple lady stuff; it's something else altogether.

    1. Many thanks for your post John, and, as we thought, things are not looking good for the McCanns. Your comment brought to mind a very unconvincing interview given Gerry and Kate to Irish TV. In that interview Kate (emphatically) points out that there is no way little Madeleine could have wandered out of the apartment. Here is the link, Kate's 'wandered' explanation begins at 34.00.

      Kate helpfully explains that Madeleine was too small to have raised the shutters, opened and closed the long curtains to the patio door, open/closed patio doors and two garden gates. She scoffs at the absurdity of the suggestion.


  32. Hi again John, returning to your comment and blog, I agree, this is pretty significant. I have been scouring these latest reports in the tabloids to decipher the original source of two new leads and woke and wandered. There seems to be a source in Portugal who revealed that prosecutors from the UK and Portugal have met recently. He/she may also be the source of 'Portuguese and British police carrying out separate investigations'.

    Today Gerry and Kate are blasting rumours that Madeleine may have woke and wandered, that it would seem they themselves are the original source. As you can see John I am getting quite confused! I can't see the 'wake and wandered' theory coming from the police, though that is what is implied. I can't rule it out however, as Mark Rowley did sit in front of TV cameras and, in all seriousness, tried to convince the watching audience that an inept burglar may have taken Madeleine.

    I do think the one of the main objectives of Operation Grange is to protect the parents and families. Not in the sense of covering up for them, but to spare them media storms, even though, 9 times of 10, it is the parents themselves who create the media storms. Bizarre I know, but I believe Gerry and Kate thrive on being in the media spotlight, whether it be in a good or bad way. Who pays news agencies to keep them on the front pages? On those grounds it is highly likely they planted the 'woke and wandered' stories themselves, probably because news from the police that they are not looking for an abductor would be devastating and that news does not appear to be very far away.

    'Woke and wandered' hasn't just appeared out of the blue, it is a theory that has been around for a long time, and I don't think anyone other than Mark Williams-Thomas has treated it seriously. In the 'Irish' interview Kate describes in detail how absurd the idea was. Now however, as the police are closing in (it would appear), the 'woke and wandered' theory is suddenly viable, probably because they have literally exhausted the abductor theory in every way, a new sighting for example, would do nothing to lift the suspicion away from them.

    With 'woke and wandered', they are literally scraping the barrel, that is if it was they who started this latest, let's call it rumour. It is of course another way of saying 'they are still not suspects', even though the police have given up on the whole abductor idea.


    1. It might momentarily support their 'not suspects' claims but it is not sustainable. How can you be partially guilty? That is guilty of staging an abduction (opening that window), and the incalculable lies thereafter, continuing for over a decade. At the very least, they would all guilty of perverting the course of justice. Jane Tanner especially who misguided everyone that she saw an abductor. How many millions, both here and in Portugal been spent investigating that mythical sighting that propped up the abduction story? The only evidence in fact that Madeleine was abducted. It actually opens floodgates for all sorts of criminal prosecutions against those who lied. They have misled the police for 11+ years. How can the police, for example, overlook the fact that an abduction scene was staged? I that is not perverting the course of justice, what is?

      Will the police calmly say, 'there there, off you go, don't go losing anymore children ya hear! Will they {the police] simply accept that the parents and their friends have deliberately misled them for 7+ years?

      Will they go back to the Home Office and say 'many thanks for all the funding, but the parents are only guilty of staging an abduction and lying to the police, so we are going to let it go'. I don't see that little snippet anywhere other than in a Monty Python sketch highlighting lunacy.

      Whilst not admitting Madeleine woke up and wandered off would be a lesser charge than murder and disposal of a body, it would leave a bitter taste and damage the McCanns' reputations beyond repair. Once detectives catch a suspect in a lie, all their alarm bells go off. Gerry and Kate, through their vanity, have left a glaring trail of lies, many caught on camera.

      In retrospect, Gerry and Kate are probably kicking themselves that they didn't go with 'woke and wandered' rather than abduction. They wouldn't have had to stage anything - except perhaps an open front door. Most children by the age of 4 know they can stand on something and open a door, except if it has been double locked from the outside. Regardless, it would have been far easier to explain than sliding patio doors, heavy curtains and two gates.

      The problem with woke and wandered however, would not create the drama of Kate running down the hill and announcing publicly, Madeleine has been taken. They needed the open window for that. Kate needed that open window to create a hue and cry at that exact time in front of a busy restaurant filled with diners. Some might say they were all creating alibis. Gerry always takes the opportunity to tell us they were part of a group, they are all alibis for each other.

      Kate was intent on making her announcement of her daughter's disappearance memorable and in front of many witnesses. She wanted drama, she wanted chaos, was she creating a diversion? David Payne said she looked like a woman who's child had been stolen, that's a pretty specific victim demographic, but yeah, that's what he said.

      Of course had they claimed Madeleine woke and wandered, the search for her would be focussed locally - the last thing they wanted. Madeleine couldn't have just wandered over the border. With woke and wandered the chances of finding her asleep under a bush or under a shelter somewhere was significantly higher. If she had been hit by careless driver, why would he/she take the body with him/her?

      Like yourself I feel this case has hit a watershed, that is the police are no longer looking for an abductor. I personally have believed that for a long time, but that news is beginning to be made public.

  33. Hi Ros. I don't think for a moment that "woke and wandered" is what the police believe. And I have to be careful what I say because I don't want to suggest in any way that the parents are guilty of a crime. As always, that's out of fairness and my wallet.

    The question people could ask themselves is "are the police working on another theory that completely discounts the claims of abduction?" That is my own belief. "Are we being given a deliberately untruthful version of that theory by the McCann feeds?" I believe we are.

    By the way, conspiratorialists should be very interested in "woke, wandered, hit by car, bloodless body in boot, car scrapped years ago, no chance of ever identifying the motorist."

    Now that would be a whitewash, wouldn't it?

    Anyway, there's a lot of legal fighting coming up.

    1. So dogs do lie then?
      All the alerts at the apartment and hire car were false!
      Just as the McCann's said they were.

      Whatever next!

      The dead or can't be found hit and run motorist sounds very convenient to me.
      How long before it's the official conclusion?
      And are we being prepared for it, I wonder.

    2. @ john blacksmith26 November 2018 at 15:29
      "And I have to be careful what I say because I don't want to suggest in any way that the parents are guilty of a crime. As always, that's out of fairness and my wallet."

      Why would the Mccanns have the slightest interest in anything you say?

      Ros has accused them of being/been liars for years and nothing has happened to her wallet.

    3. Congrats!

      “…the original conspirators, the MSM itself, which conspired with the McCanns to invent and sell the abduction story and wreck the Portuguese investigation.”

      So you are, inter alia, a conspiraloon, ‘johnny’? Peu importe! The blessed и-жить-торопится-и-чувствовать-спешит High NT, herself, believes in your conspiracy theory. That’s all that matters, ain’t it?

      По жизни так скользит горячность молодая, but do be careful with holding her hand when she’s doing her furniture workshop nitpicking, dear: those splinters are bastards!

      Как тебе моя иноязычная вязь, Ванюш?


      PS “Nobody listening to Gerry McCann urinate.” That’s a diamond of a phrase, my dear, trust you me, but how do you know what our litigious Geerald had been up to in the bog, unless you are thinking of just taking the piss yourself of course?

      More if it occurs. I’m sure it will!

    4. Actually 20:40, if you had even the slightest modicum of intelligence, you will see that I have skilfully avoided libelling the McCanns for years. That's why I wasn't named by Summers Swan or Sky TV in their anti McCann hunt and why I haven't been targeted by Carter Ruck.

      Unfortunately for you Unknown, people are interested in what Blacksmith has to say, heck, they are even interested in what I have to say, that's why you are here sniping away. Because let's face it, right now, sniping is all you have.

    5. 'conspiratorialists should be very interested in "woke, wandered, hit by car, bloodless body in boot, car scrapped years ago, no chance of ever identifying the motorist."

      'Now that would be a whitewash, wouldn't it?'

      An easier 'sell' than a dead tractor man with a skin complexion noticeably darker than any e-fit of supposed interest. Neither line is remotely credible.

  34. I've just taken a quick perusal through the files and what strikes me as alarming is how fake the McCann passports look.
    If they are fake it's yet another sign of pre-planning of the abduction hoax.

  35. RE: anonymous @16:43

    Re: your tongue in cheek hit and run comment.
    To make this theory stick, the unknown motorist would have to have been driving the same Renault Scenic that the McCanns later rented. This individual would have picked up the girl's body with its traces of body cadaver and dumped in into the back of the vehicle. - Where odors would be discovered by forensic tracker dogs weeks later.

    Of course it's a billion to one coincidence that the McCann couple later rented the same car. But they and even the investigating police (God help us) might go along with it.

    1. Actually JC, who would rent a car that stinks so much they have to leave the boot open overnight?

      That smell in the car is one of the more curious and creepy aspects of this case, bizarrely raised by members of the McCann family.

  36. Woke and wandered total crap from the Mail and its lapped up as meaningful
    DAC Mark Rowley in charge of OG April 2017
    "However she left that apartment -shes been abducted"
    The Met have confirmed Tanner is the most reliable eyewitness in the history of crime it was just unfortunate she described an innocent holidaymaker going home from the creche

    Official police comment or the Daily Mail take your pick

    1. JJ

      Please see up-thread (22 Nov. 14:23) in case you missed it.

    2. My belief it was a fluke. John Reid, Home Secretary, was in the TV studios that night and in contact with the BBC's Landale.

      It immediately became a power play between Gordon Brown and Reid to out score the other. Reid ordered the UK Police to act outside of the law and they stupidly obeyed. By Tuesday 8th May they all realised the Macs were involved but the damage was done..... Arse saving time.

      OG is simply ongoing because while it is, no FOI request will be accepted.

      Supt. Hill, seconded to CEOP, was in PDL acting unlawfully - a simple fact.

      Who was his superior officer.

      Mark Rowley.

      Nobody in OG has ever had the authority or seniority of rank to address this.

      Rowley doesn't want to.

      The Macs and Tapas 7 have nothing to fear. That is O'G's only role.

      The actions of Leicestershire Police on Sunday 6th May are well documented and proves they were dishonest and completely negligent in their duty of care to Madeleine and Mr & Mrs McCann.

  37. I believe the abductor comment is all part of the protection the police are giving the McCanns while the disappearance of Madeleine is being investigated JJ. Could you imagine the media frenzy if he had said anything else?

    1. He volunteered this comment he could have said nothing

  38. The situation.

    Brussels, 14 May 2007

    27 November 2018

    Have they found a solution to the situation?

    1. @ 10.44

      Is the 'vanished on 2nd May' (Wednesday) a typo,or does Margaret Beckett know something we don't?

    2. An interesting addendum, courtesy of Craig Murray:

      "MI6 officers, when operating abroad, do so 99% of the time disguised as British diplomats. They serve three or four year postings like other Embassy staff and will have a “cover job” doing something else in the Embassy. Back home in the UK their “cover job” is working in the FCO."

      Makes one wonder about that 'FCO spokesperson' who was so quick to liaise with the Press Association all those years ago.

    3. Anonymous at 12:15

      “Madeleine vanished on May 2...” are not Margaret Beckett’s words, it’s the storyline introduction. Perhaps an error.

      Margaret Beckett said: "The Portuguese Foreign Minister and I have talked about the very difficult and terrible situation the McCann family found themselves. We have offered to give any help and support that we can and I know that he is very concerned about the situation. I think we are all very conscious; what we want is to get as much attention to Madeleine's case as possible, because what we want is to get her back."

      Given her role at the time, it stands to reason that she knows more than we do.

    4. 4 May 2007

      "A Foreign Office spokesman said the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) in the UK was liaising with Leicestershire police and other forces.

      British officials are also in contact with the Portuguese chief of police. The spokesman said two officials from the British Consulate in Portimao were with the family, assisting them as they dealt with the Portuguese police."

  39. I'm bored with answering anonymous people so there won't be any more of that: if you want a conversation then get a verified ID and I'll be with you.

    Now, a question from a twitter dog lover which I'm happy to address here. It queried what we said about Grange not using newsfeeds,i.e synchronised leaks to multiple papers under false names which are recognised by the press. They don't.

    If they feel it is in their interest to provide info or answer background questions then, as we wrote, they answer them after a main media conference.

    And he asked "(So) When did OG publicly announce that they had questioned dos Santos, da Silva, Rodrigues + Ribeiro?"

    I am surprised that people are still falling for this newspaper BS about "dumb Grange and their dumb list of burglars etc."

    For the nth. time the Yard had nothing to do with the leaking of the suspects' names. The names were taken from the list of rogatory interview requests in Portugal and leaked there.

    Both forces eventually stopped the leaker but not before the names were provided to Mitchell and others, including the Bureau. Mitchell eked them out for a year or two, putting his own spin on them under the guise of different stories which, I regret to say, too many people believed. They've been had.

    The list was then fed to the Mirror, the McCanns' house journal, to titillate people for another few months. In the end we decided to cut the crap and we published all eleven names in the Bureau.

    There was nothing "stupid" about the people the Yard wanted to interview. From burglars to junkies to John Hill they were largely people in the area who could have thrown light on the evening of May 3 or needed to be eliminated.

    It is just so obvious that the intention was to devalue Grange that I can't quite believe that people have fallen for it.

  40. Regardless of what stories mainstream media are selling
    I believe Operation Grange officers are doing their level best to solve this case once and for all. They are not talking, and that can only be a good thing considering all that's gone before.

    1. Amen to that 16:17. Why would anyone assume these police officers are doing something that would be abhorrent to them as professionals and human beings - that is cover up the death of a child?

      It alarms me that people think that way about people they do not know. And it truly pains me to see trolls, yes I am going to call them that, distort the officers' names and accuse them of enjoying sunshine breaks and long lunches in PDL. To me those remarks come from low lives who are projecting what they themselves would do.

      Anyone who knows anything about the missing Madeleine case, will understand how sensitive this investigation is. The police have very good reason not to release bulletins and updates. The waiting is vexing, I couldn't agree more, but the longevity of the investigation is no reason to assume it is a cover up. If assumptions can be drawn, they lean more in favour of the police leaving no stones unturned.

  41. Seeing as the crime was committed in Portugal the Portuguese have the lead in any investigations. As the Portuguese Supreme Court stated "the McCanns have not proved themselves innocent".

    OG are most likely assisting the PJ and helping to sort the wheat from the chaff and will probably help with any extradition orders if it comes to that, but I doubt they can interfere/take part in the investigation unless asked to by the PJ.

    After all if the boot was on the other foot and it was a Portuguese couple who did the same crime in the UK the English police would have jurisdiction over the crime.

    With all the talk about "walk and wandered" the PJ said from the outset that it was a staged abduction, they were also being assisted by the British Police at that time, so where does that leave OG with their numerous "guesses" as to what happened.

  42. One problem with the walk & wandered theory, it blows the McCanns & Tapas 7 statements out the window. (Please excuse the pun)

    1. John10027 November 2018 at 22:29

      Hello John

      I cannot have any opinion on what the OG are doing, as it's all so confusing. Nevertheless, a staged abduction seems to be the only plausible explanation to the alleged open window, as it doesn't fi into the “woke and wandered” theory (as you say John), nor does it fit into the abduction hypothesis or into any other hypotheses, that could possibly support the McCanns’ claims about being innocent victims of a stranger abduction.

      An abductor had no reason whatsoever to open that window, which could only have been opened from inside, and Madeleine, as Kate says, couldn’t have done so either. So as long as there isn’t any sane and logical explanation as to why that window allegedly had been opened, it will keep on haunting and incriminating Kate forever.

      Kate would now need someone to come forward, who remembers that he/she by mistake may have entered their apartment and for whatever reason had opened “that window” and then forgotten to close it. A seasonal Mark Warner employee perhaps, or why not Dr six-years-in-coma Totman himself?
      So, all I’m saying is give “Kate” a chance” and “Send in the Clowns “

    2. You are right John, woke and wandered introduces a hurricane worthy of it's own name! It makes liars of them all. For detectives, once they catch someone in a lie, it changes the course of the investigation. It confirms that not only was the window staged, but so too was the very dramatic, very loud and very public, announcement of Madeleine's abduction. Basically, it means everything, even beyond that open window, was staged that night.

      Hi Bjorn, following a libel trial in Lisbon, I can't remember which one or when, I'm afraid, Kate put a statement on the still active Madeleine page, where she explains the window may have been a red herring - the abductor may have opened it to add to the confusion.

      I didn't get the impression that anyone in the world believed it, but it shows how damaging that open window is to any defence of the parents. How does Kate explain that her fingerprints were on that window - we will never know because she refused to answer the police questions.

      In an imagined scenario, Kate may have returned to the apartment expecting the window to be open, and was probably mortified when it wasn't. If it was Gerry's job to open that window from the outside, he was waylaid by bumping into his friend Jez. Gerry said he had done his check on the kids, but had he? Maybe he was going to the apartment rather than coming away from it.

      I suspect but wouldn't dream of claiming as fact, that encounter with Jez threw all the plans out of sync. The hastily drawn up timeline, on the torn off back of Madeleine's drawing book shows how desperate they were. While others were searching for Madeleine, they were drawing up alibis! Jane Tanner's sighting is an added afterthought. Added to protect Gerry from the Smith family sighting perhaps? Was the hue and cry at the Tapas bar a cover for Gerry's absence. With the hysteria that was going on, who could say for sure if anyone was missing from the tapas group? They were all wandering back and forth to the apartments, an empty chair would not have stood out.

      With that window Kate is indeed hoisted by her own petard as the ancient Brits would say Bjorn. That open window is the cornerstone of her claim that Madeleine was taken. It was the reason she ran down that hill to the tapas bar 'like a woman who's child had been abducted'(DP), screaming 'they've taken her' or as someone else reported 'those Ffffing Bbbbs) have taken her.

      She could, arguably, have said 'my daughter is missing', more applicable if Madeleine had woke and wandered, but she immediately went with abduction because of that open window. Her description of what she found when entering the children's bedroom is almost now a party piece. The slamming of the door, the whooshing of the curtains, gives that unheimlich sense of pervading doom. That shock moment when reality hits, that good reason to go running down the hill screaming abduction rather than my child is missing. Kate has ratched up the drama I think to deflect from the obvious, 'so if your child had been taken, why did you leave your two babies on their own?' Why not guard those babies until help arrived?


    3. I honestly think Gerry and Kate believed that open window, their professional status and standing in the community, would be enough for the Portuguese police to accept Madeleine was abducted.

      Doctors, and I am sure many will agree with me, I have lots of doctors among my followers on twitter, are treated with so much deference, some develop the 'God Complex'. Not all, I hasten to add, as we have seen from the doctor sitcoms and films, most have the ability to laugh at themselves. The snobby Tapas group, I don't think are among them.

      From the start, the McCanns worked with the assumption that they were better than the Portuguese police. See the smug John McCann telling the world that his proactive family were doing more to find Madeleine than the Portuguese police. I think he even says 'they can help us if they like'.

      There should of course been outrage that two suspects were running their own investigation in opposition to the investigation being conducted by the PJ. At the very least, it was outright offensive. So offensive, that they haven't dared do it this time round with Scotland Yard involved.

  43. Bjӧrn 28 November 13.45

    The only finger print that was on the window belonged to Kate McCann according to the PJ.

  44. Hi Rosalinda,
    You are absolutely spot on with your comment that the parents believed the "open window and their professional status and standing in the community would be enough for the Portuguese police to accept that Madeleine was abducted".
    But it turned out they were wrong.
    This was not a ramshackle third world police force.
    Think of famed computer security systems creator John Mcafee who while living in Belize was accused of shooting and killing his next door neighbor, - was detained briefly, then quietly slipped out of that country to continue a life of freedom in the United States. And still continues to live a public life.

    Sometimes bravado (or Chutzpah for want of a better word) favors the bold.

  45. Anon 28 November 18.35

    "This was not a ramshackle third world police force".

    When the McCanns took on GA they didn't realise he was a hardened police investigator who had been dealing with notorious drug gangs and other lowlife criminals in Portugal for many years.

    The McCanns were a "walk in the park" for him and he'd sussed them out from Day One, much to their disgust. That's why they went full out to disregard his findings, they knew they had a fight on their hands and that he was right but they had to fight their corner and bring him to his knees even by taking his house, his life and his savings off him. They were desperate and their conniving, evil minds were in full gear to bring him down but their narcissism brought them down in the end because they got too bold and cocky and didn't do their homework. They only have themselves to blame.

  46. Gary (21/11/18 @20.54) as the police must be aware, there is not a shred of evidence to support the McCann's version of events. The McCanns cannot claim they KNOW what happened unless 1. they SAW what happened or 2. what happened was done by them. Logically this is the only way they can KNOW what happened.

    Even the McCanns and their friends must have realized that points 1. and 2. above are fact. This presents a conundrum.

    If we are to believe the Smithman viewing (Dr Amaral believed they were credible witnesses) then the conundrum is intensified.

    Ergo, imo, a collective and desperate scratching of heads leads to Tanner-man. This is the next best thing to actually being in the room when the mystery abductor snatches the child away. Because of course, if you are in the room, then you can take action to abort the abduction and you can also see what the abductor looks like.

    Seeing the presumed abductor scurrying up the road in the dark carrying a presumed Madeleine is an (admittedly desperate) way of solving the conundrum. But so flimsy was Tanner-man that Portuguese police did not believe from the start. Tanner can hardly be an impartial witness, whereas there is no reason to suspect that Mr Smith and his family lied.

    The McCanns simply cannot have it both ways. Logic never was their strong point. For instance, in Kate's book she is adamant that leaving the children alone was without risk. This is illogical, as common sense would suggest this exposes children to risks - primarily of an accident. Risk of abduction BY A STRANGER is far less likely (both Kate and Gerry prior to Madeleine going missing believe there to be virtually zero risk of this) but it is not impossible.

    Inexplicably, however, the moment Madeleine is found to be missing, both parents jump to the conclusion that the least likely explanation is the ONLY explanation. This has been commented on by many, not least the police and I think is a very good piece of evidence.


  47. The McCann theory is not only illogical, it is also counter to their professed belief system. It is a fact that abduction BY A STRANGER was, statistically speaking, the least likely reason for Madeleine's disappearance. So WHY would the McCanns and their friends immediately claim that the least likely thing to happen was in fact the thing that happened? Again, I think this is very good evidence.

    As Kate helpfully points out in her book, stranger abductions are rare and it is far more likely that family members or people well known to the child are involved in a mysterious disappearance. Kate even quotes the statistics. What Kate fails to do, imo, is provide any evidence that Madeleine's abduction does not fit into the statistical norm as outlined in her book.

    The whole thing is reminiscent of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' and becomes more and more ridiculous as the years pass.

    The McCann 'modus operandi' is akin to a child in a playground, imo. Everything is always someone else's fault and always point the finger in another direction.

    Despite what you wrote, Gary, the McCanns WERE made suspects. The case was then shelved and it is a fact that they were never completely ruled out.

    Application of logic and common-sense leads in one direction only, imo, so the 'world-wide' sightings were an ingenious distraction. Kate herself confirmed that they didn't get excited by all the far-flung sightings which said it all, really.

    But if someone can point me to one piece of evidence for the theory as purported by the McCanns I would be extremely grateful. Saying something is true does not mean it is true, even if you are a doctor.