Hi Bjorn, thank you for your interesting post (on my previous blog). Apologies for not being able to c/p it over.
I don't think there can be any doubt that the 'media' in the UK have hidden or withheld much of the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance. Why? Multiple answers I imagine.
Firstly, the McCanns are so litigious. They have already punished the newspaper barons with large libel payouts and they have led the charge of Hacked Off. This couple hits back - twice as hard. It would not be hard to imagine news agencies have taken the decision not to antagonise them until their claws have been completely removed. I don't think the protection of the McCanns by the media is based on their likeability. More likely busy news desks can't be arsed with getting every McCann story past their legal departments, so they dump, or put aside, the negative ones.
But even having said all that, it is by no means the end of it. One person, or several, at a very high level, had, or perhaps still has, the power to turn an obvious crime that was solved by local police in weeks, into an international search for a missing child. The abduction story comes across as a tall tale by any normal thinking adult's standards, it just doesn't ring true, but someone, in authority, in the UK, deemed it not only true, but the biggest threat to children this century. Since then, we have watched in astonishment as British police officers and members of the establishment, have continued the McCann narrative as if it were all real, and whilst managing to maintain perfectly straight faces! Bizarre.
For an example, look at Martin Brunt reporting from PDL at the time of the Scotland Yard digs, explaining how 'the police' think a burglar, having murdered Madeleine, took her body with him and buried it in the vicinity of 5A. That was not MB's finest hour, but he topped it with the Brenda Leyland debacle. Martin Brunt could not be more mainstream, he is employed by Sky News. Now did he, as an investigative journalist go look for an internet troll story? Or was it handed to him on a plate? I doubt he would go rogue on Rupert Murdoch, so Sky must have supported his actions.
So why would RM protect the McCanns? He has been stung by them several times, both with large libel payouts and the evidence they gave at the Leveson Inquiry. Some might say the McCann factor influenced the downfall of his News of the World. Richard Desmond too - his was among the first big news agencies to be hit with a massive libel claim. It must be said however, that even though RM and RD may have justifiable grudges against the parents, large corporations are driven by profit. Though it may seem personal to victims of Hacked Off etc, it rarely is. News has a high speed turnover, while those who had their moment in the spotlight are nursing their wounds or celebrating their success, the news desks have already moved on.
But you raised a very important question Bjorn, why do journalists, investigative or otherwise, steer clear of the Madeleine case? In a nutshell, it is a fast track to having your career and life ruined. It wasn't only I who was attacked after giving that interview to the Sun, so was the reporter who interviewed me. Sonia Poulton has had fought long and hard to expose the deception surrounding the Madeleine affair, only to be met with brick wall after brick wall. And my name has been trashed more than most, which is why I am still here speaking truth to power, I will never kowtow to them!
Apparently, if you spend 10,000 hours doing something, you become an expert, despite yourself, lol. This is a new 'fact' for me, so I am having a lot of fun with it. As a lifelong sufferer of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), to 10,000 hours, I say pah! Which, by a happy turn of events, makes me an expert in many subjects. Including this one! Only a fellow OCD sufferer, would understand how many 'attempts' we make at reaching perfection. Be it a bacon and egg quiche (still not succeeded :( ) or the perfect prose (still trying) solving a murder mystery or knitting a child's hat. I am currently trying to find a way to ship dozens of woollen hats to refugees, I seem to be producing them on an industrial scale!
I digress. The mystery remains. Not the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance, but the mystery of everything that happened thereafter.
Martin Daubney seems to be doing OK
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/martin-daubney/
15 Jan 2008
Delete"Kate McCann included on sex symbol list"
https://metro.co.uk/2008/01/15/kate-mccann-included-on-sex-symbol-list-609516/
"Loaded’s editor Martin Daubney said: ‘She is included because it is just something that blokes have been talking about in pubs since the whole thing kicked off.
‘Kate is a really attractive woman.’
He said that is was ‘quite separate’ from the issue of Madeleine’s disappearance but added: ‘What appeals to men sometimes is the instinct to take care of a woman.’
He said that the image Loaded used showed Kate in Portugal in a vest which was he described as a ‘standard’ picture that would be used by any newspaper.
But spokesman for the McCann’s, Clarence Mitchell, said: ‘This is offensive.
‘It is a travesty that some people should seek to make light of Kate’s ordeal at such a sensitive time.’"
@ Anonymous14 December 2018 at 11:00
DeleteYes and? You are quoting from articles in a "lad's mag" when he was editor in 2008 - 10 years ago.
He interviewed and wrote about Ros and trolls in 2015.
The link to the Telegraph that I provided shows what he had done this year. If he was attacked as Ros says, it certainly doesn't seem to have harmed his career.
"Why Investigative Journalists Steer Clear"
ReplyDeleteJust a guess but perhaps they've signed a pact that they wouldn't divulge anything they know behind the scenes in case it impacts on any forthcoming trial/s.
It has been known in the past that detectives working on very sensitive cases have asked the newspapers to hold back on any information they have in case it jeopardises anything they are looking in to.
I think that is highly likely too 12:45. I remember a couple or so years ago when there were claims that multiple British children had been assaulted or had their bedrooms invaded in PDL. At that time Scotland Yard asked journalists to respect the privacy of the families involved.
DeleteThis is of course a very sensitive case that could perhaps be affected by publicity, so the lack of information is understandable.
Anon 14 Dec 11.00
ReplyDelete"It is travesty that some people should seek to make light of Kate's ordeal at such a sensitive time."
I've never seen that quote from Clarence Mitchell before but in case he or the McCanns are reading this blog, which I dare say they do every day, like other blogs they can't keep away from, I would mention that both Kate and Gerry McCann thought it was funny when they were asked by an interviewer what sightings of Madeleine they remembered the most and neither of them could come up with an immediate answer, because they knew there were no "sightings" and had led the world on a wild goose chase to keep themselves out of jail.
They made light of Madeleine's ordeal and have done for the past 11 years. It's a shame CM did'nt put Madeleine ahead of the McCanns but decided that her parents were innocent when he had no evidence that they were.
Anonymous at 13:44
DeleteQuite right.
Personally, I think Clarence Mitchell couldn’t care less about Kate McCann. He had more ‘important’ things to do.
Wasn't it Clarrie who organised the 'I couldn't make love to Gerry' Sun article?
ReplyDeleteThat orchestrated bile has to be the lowest a PR company can sink.
ReplyDeleteIt's true, you can't be convicted by the way you look, but if looks could kill the McCanns have it.
ReplyDeleteUnderneath the cultivated veneer projected to the public in their interviews there is something seething under the surface, carefully hidden by the oh so serious game they are playing. It`s evident to anybody who has the unfortunate experience of watching the duo on television.
I would guess that nobody at odds with this couple would want to be locked in the same room with them unless they had undergone thorough martial arts training.
They are a couple of tough hombres.
As Detective Goncalo Amaral, English newspaper barons , and countless others have found out.
jc
Hello jc 14 December 2018 at 22:32
Delete"Underneath the cultivated veneer projected to the public in their interviews there is something seething under the surface, carefully hidden by the oh so serious game they are playing"
Unfortunately, this is what I've felt as well and most people, who don't believe a word of what they're saying prefer to be quiet, because it's so embarrassing to comment on their awkwardness
If I were to describe the McCanns’ truly bizarre and scary psychological characteristics to someone, who had never heard about them, let alone seen them, I would just quote a sentence from Stevenson’s famous novel, in which the characters summarize their feelings towards Mr Hyde.
“only on one point were they agreed; and that was the haunting sense of unexpressed deformity with which the fugitive impressed his beholders”
Hello Rosalinda
ReplyDeleteYes you’re of course right, in that there isn’t really anything mysterious or strange about the Madeleine case, apart from the McCann's own fabricated mystification of it, and its subsequent effect on everything that has happened since the day of her disappearance.
Sometimes, neither reason, nor conscience seem to guide MSM journalists. Here’s just a few thoughts on that subject.
The reason as to why so many journalists have “steered clear” of dealing with facts that incriminate the McCanns, could be because they failed to pick up the threads of the sabotaged Portuguese investigation, when the PJ files were released. Instead all kinds of quite ordinary people on social media did so as soon as they’d learnt what the Madeleine case was all about. Well-educated journalists working for traditional papers felt more or less compelled to take a position in direct contrast to all the “trolls” on social media, not because they believed in the McCanns’ nonsense, but because so many of them, for their own survival, wished to silence their worst rival, namely social media as a whole.
Thank you Bjorn, and I find your thoughts very interesting. The way in which the mainstream media, and mainstream journalists took the side of the McCanns has always puzzled me.
DeleteThe social media threat to the mainstream is not one I have considered. There have of course been many times over the years when what was reported in the mainstream was the polar opposite to what was being discussed on social media. The big tabloids at that time still had the public believing that newspapers do not tell lies, let's call it pre-Leveson.
Part of the Madeleine phenomenon was the way in which Team McCann used the media to appeal directly to the public. There internet was still in it's infancy, and Madeleine's disappearance was supposedly an example of how the power of the internet can be used for good. Ie. in finding missing children. Aunty Phil I believe was among those sending out chain e-mails, read this and pass it on etc.
The tabloids were pretty powerful in 2007, and I am not sure they accepted that the writing was on the wall. That is, they still believed they had the power to sway public opinion. Part of that phenomenon was the thousands of people writing in to the comments sections of the tabloids online. Most saw huge great holes in the abduction story and the parents' behaviour as bizarre. I think it was late 2007, that Clarence Mitchell was able to shut down the busiest readers comments, ie. The Mirror, The People etc. It didn't work, because the commentators simply opened new forums, the most popular at the time being the 3 Arguidos. I looked in on the Mirror forum and then the 3 Arguidos, but even back then they were hostile places filled with extremists. And we can see that by looking at the characters who emerged, the notorious Tony Bennett and some mad woman who changed sides who's name I cannot now remember.
Whilst it would be in the interests of mainstream journalists to pillory bloggers etc, to be fair, Tony Bennett put forward some very sound reasons for despising those who discussed the Madeleine case online. Sadly, he was held up as an example of us all and part of the reason why discussing Madeleine's disappearance became taboo. Fortunately, it would appear, he and his ilk have now gone underground.
Unfortunately, he has tarred every non believer with his odious brush. Team McCann wanted sympathy, so they created an online enemy fronted by TB, who played the part of the villain to perfection. He is so dim, he probably isn't even aware of it.
I am sure future students of the downfall of the mainstream media, will include the Madeleine case in the reasons why the public stopped believing. Those of us intrigued by the case watched in real time as the red tops published pages and pages of misinformation and out and out lies. That even included demonising those Portuguese police officers who were working day and night to find the missing child. For shame!
I don't know about others, but when I want news now I go to my own favourite sources, new agencies and bloggers who I have learned to trust. I suspect we all do, which is why the mainstream media are now struggling. How can we trust The Sun, The Express, the Mail etc, all of whom publish hogwash from Tracey Kandhola. Readers are far more sophisticated now, and most are choosing to go elsewhere.
Also, it's important to look back at everything that happened prior to the third. After all, this is only a date the McCanns have always drummed into our heads for the last eleven years plus. Madeleine may have disappeared before 3/05/2007.
ReplyDeleteRE: Comment @15:15
ReplyDeleteYour theory, not really. - The child's father was seen carrying his daughter's dead body down the streets of Praia da Luz at around ten o'clock on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007 - by the most solid witnesses in this case.
The Wayback Machine is a more solid witness than any of the witness statements in this case. I don't believe Gerry would have staged an abduction and left a body unburied. The thought of Gerry parading around with a dead body in his arms doesn't ring true. No, everything that was done was done before the official alarm was raised I believe.
DeleteHi Anon 17 December 2018 and Hi anon 16 December 2018 at 15:45.
DeleteMadeleine may of course have died earlier on the same day, as we don't really know if she was at the crêche that afternoon, but it's not really likely that she could've died the day before or earlier and then been hidden in the apartment for one day or more.
As for the Smiths'sigthing, it's just as reliable as Jane Tanner's witness statement is unrelaible. The dogs' alerts, the Smiths' sightings and the McCanns' lies are crucial pieces of evidence pointing in the same direction.
Martin Smith's statement: -
Delete"States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph."
Aofie Smith's statement: -
"Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child."
Peter Smith's statement: -
"He adds also that the individual did not try to hide his face or lower his look, [doing] nothing [that would be] perceived as strange.
— States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph."
Is that really all you have when speak of solid witnesses?
Gary
Hi Gary, I don't know if you work for the McCann family but if you do you could tell them and their team that the Smith family's sighting of Mr McCann carrying a child down near the beach was totally genuine.
ReplyDeleteThis group of holiday makers were sincere and honest citizens.
and what they witnessed stuck with them.
At the same time a whirlwind of terror must have enveloped the man carrying the body. This was definitely not in his plans. He had been seen in very odd circumstances and could be identified, - time frame and all.
So...after concealing the body; this man who looked 100% like Mr McCann needed to do something fast, something that would remove him and his presence far away from the botched body concealment of his dead daughter.
"Another" witness was needed, and must be found to clear him of any wrongdoing.
So, back at the Tapas bar along with his holiday friends they put together a plan.
Enter Miss Jane Tanner.
And all the make believe that has forever followed.
Explain away that one. If you can.
jc
I have no doubts that the Smiths saw someone carrying a child, the issue is that none of the family categorically stated that Gerry was the man - the closest was a 60% chance stated by Martin. All of the witnesses stated that the man carrying the child was walking normally, which would have suggested that this was not a man who was searching for a place to hide his dead child. Furthermore there are inconsistencies in the descriptions of both the man and the child as given by the Smiths.
DeleteGary
Anonymous 18 December 2018 at 13:56
DeleteHi, Gary from Jersey
I appreciate your having found the right tone.
“I have no doubts that the Smiths saw someone carrying a child, the issue is that none of the family categorically stated that Gerry was the man - the closest was a 60% chance stated by Martin”
Agreed. Never mind “inconsistencies in the descriptions of both the man and the child as given by the Smiths.”
“All of the witnesses stated that the man carrying the child was walking normally, which would have suggested that this was not a man who was searching for a place to hide his dead child.”
Not necessarily would the suggestion be as you say, for the man could have known well what he was doing and could have been able to keep cool. There is no way of telling.
See @11:41 below (not mine).
Excuse my mistake above but it was Aoife (not Martin) whose statement reads,"She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain."
Deleteand then her statement reads: -
"Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child."
I spoke to Mr Smith at length. He stands firmly over his statement which he gave the police. He is still 60-80% sure the man he saw carrying a child that night was Gerry #McCann. He contacted the BBC to say they were wrong about him withdrawing this
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1074751459143639040
Genuine witness, but 60-80% ≠ 100%
One can neither rule in nor rule out Gerry McCann.
Anon 18 December 08.08
DeleteAoife Smith also stated that the man she saw carrying a child was wearing a pair of beige trousers with buttons down the side. A pair of trousers with buttons down them were photographed on a bed in apartment 5A. GM is also photographed wearing a similar pair in his "6 point" presentation with the Freemason symbol on each point on his precious whiteboard.
Aoife actually said, "His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."
DeleteGary
Martin said, "He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut."
His statement also reads, "Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing."
There is nowhere in Martin Smith's statement that says he thought the man carrying the child looked like GM. The family all believed that the child could have been Madeleine (Aoife stated she thought there was a "60%" resemblance in the child to Madeleine), but not one of the family stated they saw any resemblance in the man to GM.
DeleteFinally you have to ask yourself how many men of this description would be seen carrying a child's dead body late at night down the streets of an off season holiday resort.
ReplyDeleteNot too many I would think.
Which all leads to the phantom cover-up accounts by Jane Tanner of the sighting of "Tannerman".
How their group must still laugh about this.
jc
@ jc 17:02
DeleteYour posts show you are a very sick person but for some reason Ros allows your comments (she is responsible for everything that is posted on here).
Perhaps you could quote anything that says someone was carrying a dead body.
Perhaps you could quote anything that said "this man who looked 100% like Mr McCann".
But it is not important to you is it?
Average build, short brownish hair and tanned is the general description given by all of the Smiths. When asked whether they may have recognised the man carrying the child, this is after GM's face has been splashed all over the newspapers, internet and tv, they all said no. In other words,your good witnesses have confirmed that, whether Madeleine was the child they saw or not, GM was certainly not the man carrying her.
DeleteAs Peter Smith said, the man didn't attempt to hide his face or lower his look.
Gary
That was pretty offensive 21:20, when posting try to imagine yourself having that conversation person to person. Would you accuse someone you are having an exchange of opinion with, of being a very sick person? Or would you think, no, that's a little antisocial, I'll tone it down.
DeleteThis blog, this forum, is as you say my responsibility 21:20, or to put it another way, I set the tone. You will see, if you take the time and the trouble, that discussion on my blog, whilst lively at times, veers away from the graphic details of whatever went on that night. Not only out of respect for those that loved Madeleine, but out of common decency, I suppose.
My readers and contributors are able to discuss this case without the need to sex it up or wander off into the dark fantasies that sustain sites likes Bennett's and the Myths.
I agree 21:20, that discussing the graphic details of what happened that night puts the parents in a terrible light. It's the kind of stuff that conjurs up pitchforks and angry mobs. The stuff we don't hear about until an actual trial takes place.
However, as much as we try to pussyfoot around the actual crime, there comes a point where someone has to say what we are all thinking! I happen to like JC's writing style, he writes as I do, as he speaks, it's quite a talent, and one that often inspires envy.
You 21:20, are but the latest in a long line of critics who demand I censor my blog, that I become like the mini tyrants who run the facebook pages and forums, banning people and making up rules, for their own self serving glory. Take a bow forum and facebook celebre, that was it, the high point of your life.
I know 21:20, how hard it is these days to find stuff to be offended by. It seems for you, it is a full time job. The only other option I can suggest, is that you restrict your reading to age 11 and under or approved reading for baptists.
JC should have the right to say whatever he or she wishes too, but one should be in a position to back up statements with facts. Unfortunately Roz, the issue is that to further his beliefs, JC says things that are just plainly untrue, and when asked for proof behind his/her/ statements made, JC can never provide.
DeleteIn my last few posts, I have quoted from the actual statements made by the Smith family members. They are available online and should be read. JC has chosen to mis-report what has actually been stated to further his/her agenda.
Gary
Ros 12:59
Delete"This blog, this forum, is as you say my responsibility 21:20, or to put it another way, I set the tone. You will see, if you take the time and the trouble, that discussion on my blog, whilst lively at times, veers away from the graphic details of whatever went on that night. Not only out of respect for those that loved Madeleine, but out of common decency, I suppose."
----------------------------------------
Comment by jc 4 Dec 22:10
"Even though the parents were medical doctors and one was a heart specialist, that didn't help. They had no drugs handy or means of reviving their dead daughter so tried CPR causing cracked ribs and punctures to the lungs and bleeding from the mouth which is so common with this last act of desperation in human revival"
-------------------------------------------
Is that graphic or not?
I stand by what I said @ 18 December 2018 at 21:20 - jc certainly is a very sick person and I would gladly say it to his/her face.
If that is so graphic, and in your opinion 'sick', why have you republished it verbatim? You may find JC's description unpalatable, but it is easy to follow the logic. They were a party of doctors, and therefore it is not presumptive to assume they may have taken emergency life saving measures if Madeleine had had an accident. Shutting your eyes and ears to the obvious won't make it go away.
DeleteAnd you cannot legislate against people speculating on what may have occurred and the McCanns, bless 'em, have spent 11+ years trying to bring such legislation in.
If they are not believed, it is because of their own bizarre behaviour. There really isn't anyone or any thing else, they can blame.
There is nothing nice about a small child disappearing 13:56, no respectable Disney or Stepford version, somewhere within that child's disappearance is an act of horror, there is no other way to describe. Someone, or several people, carried out actions that most of us would find absolutely abhorrent, it's why we remain on the right side of the law, and those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance do not.
Yes, it is horrible to imagine what happened to Madeleine, but in lieu of the fact that we know nothing beyond the alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs, her death it would seem, is the most likely scenario.
You will probably call me sick for that 13:56, just as you called Goncalo Amaral sick for suggesting such a theory in his book. Unfortunately for you, as time goes by, the theory of GA is looking more and more likely.
"You will probably call me sick for that 13:56, just as you called Goncalo Amaral sick for suggesting such a theory in his book. Unfortunately for you, as time goes by, the theory of GA is looking more and more likely."
DeletePersonally, I've never been able to get my head around the big holes in GA's theory, especially his opinion on the disposal of the the body, which I find to be highly implausible. Furthermore, GA was disingenuous in his book by failing to mention that at least two burglaries had been committed in the apartment complex over the previous couple of months. This may or may not have anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance but for a work like his to be taken seriously, you can't hide or misrepresent facts because they don't fit with your idea of what might or might not have happened.
Gary
You will be relieved to know I have now had my requisite PG Gary, for which I had to go out and face wind, snow and mountains to get. Ok, I didn't really, but I would have, happily the local shop stocks it. I blame myself, it's not as I am unaware of what a lunatic I become when my OCD systems go wrong. Why, why, why did I economise? Why didn't I just get the fecking big box when I had the chance? Why do I stock camomile tea when I know it has the same effect on me as anger has on the Incredible Hulk! But I digress. I am now calming myself with something called Woo Woo which tastes quite divine!
DeleteAhh now, as to those 'big holes' in GA's theory. Your biggest, one of two you mention, is his opinion on the disposal of the body - which you find high implausible. I am surprised that has so much prominence Gary, aren't you more outraged at the suggestion that the McCanns did not call emergency services etc? The idea that they covered up their child's death? The technicalities of how they may have disposed of the child's body are minor in comparison to the main accusation Gary.
And, it has to be said, in the words Arthur Conan Doyle, or thereabouts, there are no more cunning villains than doctors. The lack of a body in this case has indeed proved more than a little problematic, but it is notable, that it has prevented either the Portuguese or the British investigations. The internet is full of murder cases that have been proved even without a body, the case of D'Andre Lane being the most notable. Mr. Lane was convicted of the murder of his daughter on the evidence of the blood and cadaver dogs, dogs handled and trained by Martin Grimes.
As for the 'at least burglaries', why weren't these picked up by the swarms of investigative journalists who headed to PDL for the summer? Every piece of information at that time was as valuable as gold dust, how come, the BBC, Sky News, all the tabloids etc, missed these 'burglaries'?
Goncalo Amaral has not hidden or misrepresented facts. His book is closely aligned to the actual files that were released by the Portuguese police. The truth is Gary, no-one has been able to disassemble or deconstruct Goncalo Amaral's theory. That's why the McCanns had to go down the libel route rather than tackle his theory head on, expert to expert. Nearly 12 years on, it is the only theory that fits the facts available. Nothing that has spewed forth from Team McCanns' storyboard has taken hold. No abductor put forth by the tabloids has gripped the public enough to get out their pitchforks and build a bonfire in the town square. Nothing has stuck. No-one is talking about the sightings 'that might have been' or the gypsies or the charity collectors. All that's left is 'the burglars'.
Of course the biggest problem with the burglars, is that never in the history of crime, and that includes the entire globe, has there been a case of burglaries going so wrong that they left without any valuables, murdered a child and taken the body with them.
Burglars are not the brightest of criminals. In fact in the whole criminal world, they are at the bottom of the whole criminal chain. They are not imaginative or hard working enough to become mob bosses. Say what you like about Escobar, but he didn't get where he was without putting in the hours.
Burglars just wouldn't have the wit or the resources to keep such a massive secret to themselves. How tempting must it have been to brag about pulling off the crime of the century? Especially when millions were being offered by way of reward.
The Met I don't think, have come up with anything other than burglars Gary. I'm really not convinced, how about you?
"Nearly 12 years on, it is the only theory that fits the facts available."
DeleteI'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. There are very few facts available in this case. Therefore GA makes suppositions based on suppositions. Some of these are implausible because he has to bend plausibility to fit his suppositions.
"Burglars just wouldn't have the wit or the resources to keep such a massive secret to themselves." However your whole theory is based on nine ordinary people (the tapa's crowd) keeping a massive secret to themselves for eleven years now!
"I digress. The mystery remains. Not the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance, but the mystery of everything that happened thereafter."
ReplyDeleteThe mystery is what happened to Madeleine Mccann - not what happened before - not what happened "thereafter" just what happened to Madeleine Mccann.
Yeah, you'd think wouldn't you 21:40.
DeleteBut, you really didn't give much thought to your comment did you 21:40. Let me guess, it sounded good in your head, kind of like a punchline, so you went with it.
It is in fact meaningless. Particularly on a forum where the main topic of conversation is the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. You are not a writer, lol, and certainly not a detective if you can so easily compartmentalise a crime. Does your imagination never long to venture, even a couple of centimetres outside of your box? You should take a peek now and again, it could open up a whole new world for you.
Apologies 21:40 - too mean. I am grumpy because I have run out of PG and haven't yet had a proper cup of tea :(
DeleteDecaf is for wusses and it's all I have left!
I haven't deleted it because it is not really personal to you, just me growling at all those I perceive as telling me what I can or can't talk about. It is a generic moan :) So I will just leave it at grrrr until I can find a proper teabag!
The Smith family sighting can be debated from here to eternity and it certainly has been over the years. The child looked like Madeleine and the man carrying her looked like Gerry. That is significant no matter how you view it and some might say, too much of a coincidence. I agree it's hard to believe that Gerry would have done something so reckless, but in his blog he poignantly referred to a 'a moment of madness', which some, myself included, saw as a partial confession.
ReplyDeleteThen there was the McCanns handling of the Smith family sighting, the way in which they gave such prominence to the sighting of Jane Tanner, yet none whatsoever to the sighting of 6 people! They ignored this sighting right up until the 'revelation' by DCI Redwood on the now infamous Crimewatch when Operation Grange named Smithman as their prime suspect. This of course was followed by the Times' revelation that the McCanns had sat on those efits for a number of years and threatened the private investigator with legal action if he revealed the contents of his report. Somehow the McCann got another 50k out of Rupert Murdoch for that one, but the damage was done.
So Gary. If Gerry was categorically NOT Smithman, why didn't they include Smithman in their no stone unturned campaign to find Madeleine? Why didn't they, or indeed CEOP, release those e-fits in any of their public appeals or press conferences? Why don't they appear in Kate's 2011 book?
I'm not buying their argument that they gave precedence to Jane Tanner's sighting because they could 'only afford' to promote one abductor. They had instant free access to as much publicity as they wanted and a 500k deal with Lord Bell to stay on the front pages. Those 'efits' would have made big pay days for the tabloids, but, as we have seen, they would have caused huge embarrassment to the McCanns because of their uncanny resemblance to Gerry. The 'revelation' moment by DCI Redwood was probably the first (British) death knell for the abduction story. That resemblance to Gerry set the phone lines buzzing and sent thousands rushing to the internet.
I can see why Gerry and Kate did not want to publicise the efits prepared by their own private investigator Gary, how unlucky do you have to be to have your child stolen by your own doppelganger? But whatever way you look at it, withholding or not publicising those efits during their years of searching, looks suspicious as hell.
Regardless, I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation Gary, so over to you.
Hi Roz,
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that the Smiths did not recognize any resemblance to GM when describing the man who was carrying the child. The e-fits were done on the basis of their descriptions. You think the e-fits resemble GM, personally I don't. More importantly, the Smiths, being the witnesses, don't either.
As for the withholding of the e-fits, there are conflicting stories about that. If you read the Sun, it says one thing, if you read the Mirror, it says another. I think that the Met are the best people to speak to in order to hear about the truth behind that matter.
Gary
Did you read the statements of the Smiths Gary? Can you imagine the predicament they found themselves in? The statement of Martin Smith is poignant and memorable, he so accurately describes his emotional turmoil. They were caught up in media storm they wanted no part of.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Smiths, we have no idea what they have said in further statements, their original statements are nearly 12 years old. Enough it would seem to make their sighting the focus of Operation Grange when Crimewatch was aired in 2013 or was it 14? As far as we know there have been revelations since.
I am not referring to conflicting stories in the Sun or Mirror Gary, I lost faith in the tabloids many years ago. I am going by my own memory and of course the many direct sources available - the McCanns' interviews and press conferences. Then of course, there was confirmation from the author of the report that produced those efits. He claims he was threatened with legal proceedings if he disclosed his findings. They were a revelation because the public did not know about them.
The met are speaking, quite rightly as I am sure we would both agree Gary, therefore speculation is inevitable. I cannot understand how two parents, desperate to find their daughter, didn't make so much more of this solid lead that would prove their child was abducted. And I am far from the only one, as there appeared to be a huge surge in non believers following Crimewatch.
It is things like this Gary, that make so many suspicious. If there is a simple, logical explanation for not publicising the e-fits, then why not just stop the rumours in their tracks?
Neither you or I know why the e-fits were not published. Perhaps the Met actually advised against it. We can only surmise. I did read in a later report that the Met had actually dismissed the Smith's statements because they had evidence that the man and child had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
DeleteHowever, what is not supposition is that the Smiths did not find any resemblance to GM in the man carrying the child. That should be enough to dismiss GM as the man carrying the child.
Gary
Yeah, I don't think anyone is surmising what you are surmising Gary. If the Met had dismissed the Smith's statements because they had evidence the man and child had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, it would have been BIG news. That Operation Grange introduced the Smith family's evidence as a revelation and Smithman as the prime suspect, keeps him firmly as the front runner. They also made a point of dismissing Jane Tanner's sighting, explaining that she saw a father carrying his child home from the creche. That revelation opened up the whole time line, and, some might say, puts Gerry in the frame.
DeleteThere is no record of the Smiths saying they did not find any resemblance to GM in the man carrying the child, that Gary, is pure spin on your part. The Smith family have behaved honourably throughout, despite the horrors inflicted on them by Bennett et al. They haven't interacted with the press and they have co-operated with the police. Campaigns to discredit them are rightly seen as malicious, they come from the lowest form of media opportunists, leeches and stalkers who got lucky when real names were revealed by the Portuguese police files. Most decent people treat the private details of others with respect, prying into other people's lives is something we just don't do, yes even if the means to do so are available. It is errm, yucky, I can't think of any other word for it. Maybe I should chuck in creepy too, because to me it brings to mind peeping toms and saddoes who live their lives vicariously through strangers online.
With respect Gary, you do not know the thoughts of the Smith family, you are not privy to what they have told the police. What you are saying is pure supposition, and heavily biased towards the parents. You can't just put words into the mouths of witnesses!
There is no record of the Smiths saying they did not find any resemblance to GM in the man carrying the child, that Gary, is pure spin on your part."
DeleteAbsolutely not! We are privy to the Smith's statements because they are available on line. Please read the statements and tell me where any of the Smith's thought that the man resembled GM. They were asked specifically whether they recognised the man, and each of them said no! There was no mention of GM in any of their statements although Aoife did say she thought the girl looked like Madeleine.
Gary
You cannot compile a statement out of what has been omitted Gary - that makes you as bonkers as Bennett. Again, think about the circumstances under which those statements were given. The huge circus around the McCanns was in full swing, had they 'named' the father, they would have been catapulted into the media spotlight. Martin Smith describes in heart wrenching detail, the emotional turmoil he was going through. It is impossible not to feel huge compassion for what he and his family were going through.
DeleteHopefully, they have been able now to speak their truth quietly and clearly to those who matter, without being scooped up into anyone's personal spin machine.
I wish them well. Being half Irish myself and definitely not of the Mrs Brown's Boys variety, [shudders], I give them a nod of respect. It is hard to keep your head when all around are losing theirs, but they have somehow managed it.
"You cannot compile a statement out of what has been omitted Gary - that makes you as bonkers as Bennett."
DeleteI can only repeat the official statements made by the Smiths and they look pretty detailed, calm and knowledgeable in what they have to say. It is you, and other posters here, who are looking for things in the statements that just aren't there.
Are you saying that you have inside knowledge that they lied in their statements and now wish to recant?
Gary
"You cannot compile a statement out of what has been omitted Gary - that makes you as bonkers as Bennett."
DeleteBut the questions were actually asked to all of the Smiths by the police investigators as to whether they recognised the man, so my statement has nothing to do with ommissions.
Gary
Hi Rosalinda and others, especially Gary
ReplyDeleteAs the Smiths' sighting is being discussed here, I've a few words to say
Martin Smith becomes shocked when he’s watching the news on TV and recognizes the man, whom he 4 months earlier had seen in PDL. Seeing Gerry getting off the aeroplane holding his son, and also walking, in the very same way as the person he’d met in PDL, made him believe that this had to be the very same man.
I’ve no reason to believe that Martin Smith would be under some kind of autosuggestion making him experience or say things that aren’t real.
Personally, I’ve many times met, seen or even talked to people, private or public persons, who I haven’t known or known about, who I don’t think I could have described especially well if I were asked to do so. In some cases, without me knowing it, some of them have been celebrities or persons known to the younger generation, but not to me. When I later have seen them, when they suddenly appear on TV, my reactions have been very much the same as Martin Smith’s.
“Oh that’s the woman, girl, boy, man with whom I talked just a few minutes or even just seconds, a month or even a year ago, when I was out walking my dog, or in similar instant situations. I therefore have no doubt about Martin Smith having recognized Gerry, which a psychological analysis certainly would clarify. I haven’t seen any yet.
Yes I think so too Bjorn. Actually I tend to think of our brains as very, very, sophisticated computers and cameras. We 'photograph' every image we see and store it in our minds for ever more. A simple example would be, when we see something new, unfamiliar fruit perhaps, a lychee for example. We will unconsciously store it's name and description in our brain, and the fact that it is safe to eat, so we recognise it the next time we see it. It is all part of our survival instinct, much the same as recognising friend or foe.
DeleteOur 'mind camera' is a zillion times faster than anything man can construct, so too the highly sophisticated storage and filing systems in our heads that enable us to function.
When Martin Smith saw Gerry McCann walking down the steps of the plane carrying a child, his mind instantly brought back the image he had seen before. It would not have happened if it had been another man carrying the child, because it would be like mistaking a papaya for a lychee, our brains don't make those kinds of mistakes.
Martin Smith actually stated in his second statement (4 months after the first) that he saw a similarity in the way GM carried his child down the aircraft steps to the man carrying his child down the road. Well. I've looked at that image, and I can assure you that as a father I carried my child in pretty well exactly the same way when walking down steps or hills.
DeleteTellingly, the other Smiths refused to change or add to their statements, and the police took no further action.
Gary
Ros, 20 December 08.30
Delete"Our 'mind camera' is a zillion times faster than anything man can construct".
That's very true, although I can go to the supermarket to buy something for dinner but can't remember what I had the night before, probably because I wasn't that interested in what I was eating, it was just "food", but I can remember back over 11 years of things I remember about the McCanns, what they said, what they contradicted, what video interviews they gave, probably because I was so annoyed and upset for Madeleine that I just wanted to see justice done for her and her parents being brought to book for this horrendous crime. They brought it to the public's attention by flouting their "Fund", their numerous photo ops on lovely, sunny beaches whilst their daughter, according to them, could be in the hands of a paedo, although they didn't seem too concerned when walking hand in hand smiling to the cameras.
Unfortunately I detest them for what they've done to numerous innocent people and look forward to the day that they're both banged up in a Portuguese jail with just bread and water for 20 years or more.
One can only hope!
As for Bennett and his crusade against the Smith family, words fail me, especially when he started delving into the background of the young daughter. It seems that people will go to no ends to support the McCanns but seem to forget that the actual victim is Madeleine and always will be.
Anonymous 20 December 2018 at 13:36
Delete“…I carried my child in pretty well exactly the same way when walking down steps or hills.”
Same here, Gary.
Merry Christmas
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteYour detractors have stirred up a hornets nest this morning.
I had to laugh about the: - "at least two burglaries" in the Warner complex. As if the burglar(s) would not be shaken up by encountering three sleeping toddlers in the apartment they had targeted.
Then these burglars decide to kidnap one of the children.
That's what "Garry" thinks.
So far no ransom note has ever been found.
It's common knowledge that the last thing a thief wants to happen is to be disturbed in his task.
Think of car-jacking as an extreme. The panicked thief only wants to use the vehicle to get away as fast as he can - even though during his adrenalin rush he discovers a sleeping child strapped into the back seat. Dump the car and run is the only option. It happens all the time.
Incidentally, the one who posts under various pseudonyms though the years on this forum. (this week it's "Gary") knows better than any who post here exactly what happened to Madeleine McCann but is committed to spreading a disinformation format that only he or she, or her psychologist can fathom.
Personalities aside. I would suggest to anyone in this predicament to switch off their computer, get out of their mother's basement room and head straight to the neighborhood community centre. Once there, make sure to enroll in the next available ESL programme. And get a few pointers on how to express yourself in the English language.
jc
I think Team McCann take it turns to challenge me with endless cycles of good cop/bad cop routines JC. The extremely verbose Ziggy however seems to be having a time out, exasperated no doubt ;)
DeleteGary is trying the good cop approach, something that would have been a struggle for Ziggy, so I'm guessing it's one of the aunts. Regardless, kudos to them that they haven't given up entirely, it's just a shame that with all those professionals they have on board, that almost 12 years on, they still having nothing to dispel the suspicion that hangs over the parents.
"Gary is trying the good cop approach, something that would have been a struggle for Ziggy, so I'm guessing it's one of the aunts."
DeleteWrong - Gary has got absolutely nothing to do with the McCanns! I'm just a normal bloke who doesn't like the way that untruths and rumours are put out as fact to back up yours and others beliefs that the McCanns were responsible for the disappearance of their child.
Gary from Jersey
With respect, jc.
DeleteI think Gary is doin' fine making himself clear in the English language. I have no complaints in that respect. Perhaps your passionate intensity obfuscates the points Gary is making.
Anyways, Merry Christmas, my friend.
Gary is just a normal bloke,around 60 years old,has a season ticket for Liverpool FC,is a life long Bowie fan and goes to the Channel Islands for his holidays.
DeleteOh,his real name is Mark too.
"Gary is just a normal bloke,around 60 years old,has a season ticket for Liverpool FC,is a life long Bowie fan and goes to the Channel Islands for his holidays.
DeleteOh,his real name is Mark too."
Lol, with the investigative powers that you have no wonder you believe you have solved the mystery of the disappearanced of Madeleine!! You got two things right - my age (close), and that I'm a normal bloke!
Gary
20.12 @20:43
Delete.
Nah, I don’t think so.
'Met Police commissioner Cressida Dick is said to have given the long-running multimillion-pound Operation Grange her backing, reportedly saying the probe will continue until it has “reached its conclusion”.'
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8023579/met-chief-will-never-stop-hunting-for-maddie-mccann/#comments
Comment:
"Something not right about K & G McCann! The dogs found out the truth but the establishment refuses point blank to accept it! Why is that???"
Wow, that should send shivers down the spines of whoever is responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Anyone with hopes that Operation Grange will close with no conclusion, have just had those hopes crushed. It may even push those who are not talking, into talking.
DeleteIt looks like Operation Grange aren't going to stop until they find what's left of a body. They clearly aren't giving up trying to finally solve this case. Cressida Dick has spoken and I think we should all take her seriously, including the McCanns. The focus is completion, and there's no way of getting beyond this.
ReplyDeleteI agree 15:40, the message from Scotland Yard could not be clearer - so all those who have sworn the case will conclude with no result, now have nowhere else to go. So too all those who swear blind Operation Grange is a cover up.
DeleteFor me it has always been clear that they are on to something and have no intention of giving up, but in the McCann online community, that belief has made me as odious as a child murderer. The more extreme 'antis' and the 'pros' are locked into their belief that OG is a cover up and nothing will shift them. The investigation being filed away unsolved would have proved their case.
But, as with everything they seem to do and say, they begin with confirmation bias. They have a theory, then they seek out everything and anything they can find to support it. Anything that doesn't support their theory, they ignore.
It will be interesting to see how they twist and distort the statement of Cressida Dick. I'll have a fiver each way on 'she's only saying that cos we're onto her'.
Hello NL 13 December 2018 at 21:40
ReplyDeleteDidn't see your post on the death of the UN experts on Rosalinda's "No to Leveson two" till very recently. So if Rosalinda allows me to answer you in just a few words, here they are.
Yes, it has become a sensitive issue here in Sweden. Our foreign minister is very careful about what she's saying in public. It's very surprisingly, that it is the Swedish public service radio- and TV company in collaboration with other traditional European papers, who dare question both the Congolese government and the American UN investigation into the death of one American and one Swedish citizen.
Anyone can now see that the regime in Congo managed to manipulate and fool these two poor UN-experts into believing that they would get assistance in investigating war crimes in Congo and as you may now have heard, one witness of the "execution" of Catalan and Sharp was poisened and died in prison just two days ago.
Thanks for the response Björn, and thank you Rosalinda for giving us the opportunity to post off-topic every now and then.
DeleteNL
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads-up about the true nature of your online critics. Family is a definite component and the McCann family's job is to obfuscate and mock any true online comments they come across.
For instance I have yet to read a positive comment from Mrs "Gary" from "Jersey" or any other of the fake contributors to your site.
The one overwhelming issue these phonies will never discuss is the issue of dog handler Martin Grime's forensic tracker dogs and their instant alert to Madeleine's blood and dead body cadaver smell in apartment 5A . And if that isn't enough the identification of cadaverine body fluids on the hatch back floor of the McCann's rented car.
Next on the list is the Smith family sighting of a man looking like Mr Gerald McCann carrying a young girl's body down the streets of Praia da Luz.
This is the critics' stonewall. Because there is no other explanation, other than it is true.
Their theory: What happened was really this, - an alibi created by Jane Tanner for Mr Gerald McCann, in which another man was seen by Tanner at the same time as Smiths but nowhere near the beach.
Due to the unlikely circumstances of this charade the family have stayed away from commenting on this bit of evidence. They know it doesn't ring true.
Why Jane Tanner set herself up as the patsy for the Scottish doctor is unclear. Whether there was a romantic involvement might be another issue that drove her into perjuring herself, as it turned out, for the next eleven years and the foreseeable future.
I guess Operation Grange will have to figure that one out.
In my opinion a lot of what is posted here is straws in the wind to help the Team find which way the wind is blowing.
One last thought: Maybe...just maybe, there are more psychopaths on the loose in this world than I had thought.
Awful to say, - but there it is.
Have a nice day.
jc
Anonymous 21 December 2018 at 01:32
Deletejc
“…true online comments…”
Could you please tell me what you mean when you say ‘true online comments’? What, in your opinion, makes an online comment true?
Many thanks.
T
Psychopaths, at least one in ten I think JC!
DeleteThere is a plus side. They do at least get things done, that is they don't sit around smoking weed all day then phone out for a pizza. If we are perfectly honest, psychopaths have their place in this world, the keep the wheels ticking over. Think of every jobsworth and grass you have known, their pleasure is in the pain and suffering they can inflict on others. You are right JC, they are all around us, but there it is, we need them, we even give them awards, but how their families feel about them, well that's a different matter.
Those psychopaths who go over the edge into actual law breaking, are however a different kettle of fish. Especially the wiley and the educated ones. It brings to mind those pulp fiction detective novels, where the dogged detective never gives up on his prey.
The err, suspects here, are far from the err, 'usual suspects'. They have been in defence mode since day 1 and they have surrounded themselves with the best top of the range lawyers.
They can't be set up, they can't be defamed, they cannot be maligned in any way. As in wtf were they thinking when they allowed their friends and everyone else to trample all over the crime scene? Any criticisms the investigating officers may have, will have to wait until Operation Grange are ready to submit their findings.
This silence from the Met, may well be in liaison with the parents and their lawyers, as in we will sue you for millions if you can't prove what you say. I am sure OG are wary that anything they may do, could cause a mistrial. There is also the risk that anything they say may tip off their suspects, so the PR stakes are very high.
As for Jane Tanner. She was not in competition for alpha female, Kate and Fiona had that covered. It is easy to imagine her volunteering to take the risk. I think she was the 'lookout', the woman in purple, but no Gary and Ors, I don't have cctv or statements to back that up, it's a hunch. Not illegal to have a hunch :)
The doctors that night had the most to lose, even if they were only charged with child endangerment. Everything they had spent years to achieve could have been wiped out for one stupid mistake.
"The one overwhelming issue these phonies will never discuss is the issue of dog handler Martin Grime's forensic tracker dogs and their instant alert to Madeleine's blood and dead body cadaver smell in apartment 5A . And if that isn't enough the identification of cadaverine body fluids on the hatch back floor of the McCann's rented car."
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ but I have read posts before here explaining why the dogs actions and findings were not deemed worthy of being presented as evidence against the McCanns. Perhaps the fact that both police forces have publically stated that they are not suspects would have also suggested that they, the experts, came to that conclusion also.
"Next on the list is the Smith family sighting of a man looking like Mr Gerald McCann carrying a young girl's body down the streets of Praia da Luz. This is the critics' stonewall. Because there is no other explanation, other than it is true."
JC, can you please quote from their statements to show to us what you say is true. I have actually read them and quoted above what they actually said.
"Their theory: What happened was really this, - an alibi created by Jane Tanner for Mr Gerald McCann, in which another man was seen by Tanner at the same time as Smiths but nowhere near the beach. Due to the unlikely circumstances of this charade the family have stayed away from commenting on this bit of evidence. They know it doesn't ring true."
Personally, I have no idea what happened, you don't either! However when anyone makes such assertions as yours, you should be in a position to back them up with some sort of proof, otherwise they just sound like the rantings of some mean-spirited busybody.
Finally, can someone explain why anytime someone questions your rantings, you fall back on the idea that those questioning you are the same person under different pseudonyms. This sounds a bit paranoid to me. Ros has the ability to check the ip adresses of those who post on or visit her site, so she should be able to confirm that this poster (me) comes from where he says he comes from.
Gary (from Jersey)
@ 'Gary' (who doesn't like David Bowie or Liverpool)
DeleteLol, anyone can use a proxy server to give the impression
they come from that area.
I'm using one now from Germany so Ros will think (not) I come from there when in fact I'm posting from good old blighty.
A bit more south than you though I think lol.
I must say I do miss my traffic flow chart 15:27, I was blown away that so many people around the world were reading my little blog! Please don't tell me they were all popping in from somewhere uninspiring in Blighty!
DeleteIt was the company who shut down the service, and I haven't looked for a new one. On my to do list.
Anyway, Happy Christmas to you 15:27, wherever you might be! )
Boy oh boy, as if I'd go to that trouble to hide where I am!!
DeleteYou are always going on about seeing subtle messages in videos featuring rhe McCanns and yet you can't even recognise very different styles of writing i.e. mine and the others who I am being mistaken for!!
I would have to disagree with you on the 'ability' [to see IP addresses]Gary, perhaps I do, but I have never gone there 1)because my brain switches off when technology is discussed and 2)I really don't care.
DeleteI know that will be a great disappointment to all those who think I keep their names on some sort of secret list (as if, ha ha).
Regarding the good cops and bad cops Gary, I do not have enough confidence in my amateur psychologist abilities to identify the posters behind the anonymous tags. I have my opinions obviously, and I am sure I will have a few 'I knew it' moments in the times ahead.
Like most who have gone before Gary, you have no explanation for the glaring anomalies in the abduction. You have a platform here to persuade as many readers as I have, to believe in the parents' innocence as firmly as you do. What is it/was it that convinced you?
It is disingenuous of you to say that the police and the experts have dismissed the alerts of the dogs. The Scotland Yard digs in PDL says the opposite. What other reason could DCI Redwood have had to say 'Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive'. That makes the apartment the crime scene, despite Martin Brunt's convoluted attempts to persuade watchers of Sky News that a burglar was responsible for killing Madeleine and carrying her body away with him.
Finally, you insist when anyone (JC) makes such err, assertions, he should back them up with facts, quotes from statements etc.
LOL, it's like we have come full circle Gary. The thrust of the McCanns' defence is that people should not be allowed to discuss this case 'without proof'. That is, the exact same argument they used against Goncalo Amaral and in their damages claims against the major newspapers. Their desire, to introduce legislation that would prevent ANYone from discussing the abduction story negatively, and if they did, the victims (themselves) should be automatically compensated, financially. Gerry, bless, even pointed out during the Leveson hearings, that tabloids were making a fortune out of their names and faces and they were not getting a cut each time their pictures appeared.
Come on Gary, you seem like a decent person, how are you comfortable with the continuing, err, un-endearing behaviour of these parents? I don't wish to be insulting, but you have what I would call 'blind faith', that is, you are willing to believe even when there is no evidence to support those beliefs. Ie. No actual hand of God reaching out of the sky, and no actual evidence of an intruder that night.
If you are a regular reader Gary, you will know that one of my, ok, I'll call them obsessions', is watching real crime drama/documentaries on YouTube. My latest favourite series is 'For My Man', and yes, it is exactly what it says on the tin. In a nutshell, naïve, vulnerable women who will literally do anything, even kill, for the love of 'my man'.
continues....
From a psychological perspective, it is pretty much text book 1, they were born into dysfunctional families, and bad boys carry kudos within their society. Love and familial loyalty goes to the extremes. These women will literally kill for their men.
DeleteTo reel it in a little, I think I should, blind faith is akin to blind love, which is why I, and I suspect many others, envisage family members still being involved, and probably the last of the media monitoring team who are still giving it their all.
We have reached a stage now where even the loons and odd bods have moved on Gary (well most), even they cannot be counted on for loyalty. That is, working without pay for a campaign that even the parents have given up on.
But tis the season of good cheer Cary, so I will raise a glass of (fake) Baileys to your good health! I have the real stuff but had to hide it from myself having already drunk one bottle that was mean't for Christmas :( hic. Not today, I hasten to add :)
@ Gary
DeleteIf I have you wrong (and that I doubt),but let's say I have,just to keep the peace,then you definitely have me for the wrong person.
I have never once here mentioned any videos let alone seeing any clues in them.
But anyway looking forward to more of your posts and I will be looking carefully for subtle messages in your comments from now on.
"Like most who have gone before Gary, you have no explanation for the glaring anomalies in the abduction. You have a platform here to persuade as many readers as I have, to believe in the parents' innocence as firmly as you do. What is it/was it that convinced you?"
DeleteProbably because I believe the police actually do believe that the McCanns are innocent. I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, I see glaring anonymalies in the 'evidence' put forward by other posters on here. Surely just the Smith's statements are proof of that.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the Smith's statements. Do you really think that they offer any evidence whatsoever that they actually saw GM carrying Madeleine that night or that, the probability is that they saw someone else? Whether it was Madeleine being carried by a stranger or just another man taking his child home, we just don't know.
Thank you for your kind words, and a Merry Christmas to you
I'm confused - so you are Emilie not Gary, and presumably you are female? Matters not, you are entitled to your beliefs, though I do not think you are persuading anyone.
DeleteAs for the police believing the McCanns are innocent, do you think the Portuguese police changed their minds? The McCanns were suspects in the original investigation, and the case was filed with the comment that they had lost the opportunity to prove their innocence.
You are of course free to challenge any glaring anomalies you spot on here Emilie, though I am not sure the Smith family sighting is a good one to start with.
I did read the statements of the Smith family, quite some time ago now, but what sticks in my mind is the emotional turmoil faced by Mr. Smith. Madeleine's disappearance had, within days, become a media circus, I doubt Mr. Smith, or indeed anyone, would want a part in it.
The descriptions each of them gave bore a close resemblance to Gerry, even before Mr. Smith saw Gerry coming down the steps of the plane. Late 30s, athletic build, short neat haircut and clean shaven. Not as many men as you would think fit that generic description. Gerry's travelling companions could fit loosely into that description, but look at how very different they are in height, build and even their short, neat haircuts? Had a different 30 something man carried the child down the steps of the plane, his brother, Clarence or any of the tapas men, Mr. Smith would not have had that moment of recognition.
Sorry, I was on a friend's laptop showing her your blog, and when I wrote the message the sender had defaulted to her google account rather than Anonymous.
Delete"Not as many men as you would think fit that generic description. Gerry's travelling companions could fit loosely into that description, but look at how very different they are in height, build and even their short, neat haircuts? Had a different 30 something man carried the child down the steps of the plane, his brother, Clarence or any of the tapas men, Mr. Smith would not have had that moment of recognition."
They saw the man's face but in none of their interviews (weeks after they would have been seeing GM's face splashed over the media) did they recognize him or note any resemblance any anyone they knew. 4 months later, Martin Smith made a second statement, saying that he thought the man's mannerisms were similar to those of GM carrying his sleeping child down the steps of an airplane.
As I wrote earlier, I used to carry my child in exactly the same way. Another poster said he too. It is noted on record that the other Smiths refused to change or add to their original statement.
You could not use any of this evidence in a court of law, and as it is eleven years since they made their sworn statements, what else can they give?
Gary
"Perhaps the fact that both police forces have publically stated that they are not suspects would have also suggested that they, the experts, came to that conclusion also."
ReplyDeleteThe old ones are always the best, aren't they?
Can I remind people here that in August 2007 the official police spokesman for the PJ stated on the record that the parents were "not suspects" ("suspeitos").
They were. They had been named as suspeitos. They had also been warned officially that they were going to be questioned as "arguidos" in September. Nevertheless the spokesperson used those words and never retracted them. He was not telling the truth. In other words, the phrase that the pair are "not suspects" has no information content whatever, i.e it "suggests" nothing.
I appreciate that the wretched little core of abduction fantasists have no bricks or mortar to work with in response to the known and emerging facts of the affair. But it says more about them than anyone else that these days all they can come up with is thicko pub-bar shit like "not suspects".
Still, the pleasure of watching them, and you, dangling upside down in the wind a little lower with every month that passes is one that doesn't pall. Their ragged trousers are now draped around their necks. It's great, and long may it continue.
"I appreciate that the wretched little core of abduction fantasists have no bricks or mortar to work with in response to the known and emerging facts of the affair. But it says more about them than anyone else that these days all they can come up with is thicko pub-bar shit like "not suspects". "
DeleteHowever,in 2007, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation.""
That's a fact!
Be interesting to hear your thoughts on the Smith's statements, John.
Gary
@ blacksmith 15:36
Delete"Still, the pleasure of watching them, and you, dangling upside down in the wind a little lower with every month that passes is one that doesn't pall."
-----------------------------
Who is "you" in that sentence?
Are you happy 'that's' completely dealt with Gary?
DeleteDid it go far enough to lift suspicion from the parents and their friends? Operation Grange must have pretty solid reasons for ruling out the McCanns and their friends, so what are they? Isn't it horribly cruel of them not to reveal what those solid reasons are Gary?
Mark Rowley's statement refers to the original investigation, yet the original investigation declared them suspects, it did not clear them of involvement.
Why don't the police, both here and in Portugal, end the parents misery with irrefutable evidence that the parents are innocent, why prolong their agony for 7, now coming up to 8, years?
Ros 22 Dec 11.33
DeleteThe police stated for a very long time that Mick Philpott and his wife were not involved in the deaths of their children when their house burnt down, until that is they were arrested.
The couple had been put up in a hotel whilst the police investigation was ongoing and unbeknown to them the police had been listening in on their conversations, they both dropped themselves in it by talking about the crime and who did what and what each of them had said in their statements.
@ 23.20
DeleteHe means you Ziggy.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."
DeleteCan't you hear what he is saying, and can't you understand why he used those words?
This is not a 'cold case'. It has been an ongoing investigation for eleven years. The evidence will have been reviewed and reviewed. If the McCanns were going to be arrested that would have happened a long time ago. The police have decided that the McCanns were not responsible for the disappearance of their child, and they have made that known. The investigation carries on because a child is still missing and, of course, because it remains a high profile case.
Gary
Gary
No, I think he means me!
DeleteBut hey, you've got to agree, John Blacksmith's idea of pleasure is more than a bit wierd!
Merry Christmas
Gary
@ Anonymous22 December 2018 at 17:04
DeleteHow does it feel to be wrong all of your life?
@ 17.44
Delete"No, I think he means me"
That's what I said!
I think that very case taught me not to take any 'not suspects' comments from the police with a pinch of salt 11:52. It is a very flimsy defence put forward by the McCann supporters who post on here, and it comes across as more desperate than convincing.
ReplyDeleteThe Philpotts were not very bright, from their badly acted TV appears to their premature celebrating of having got away with it. Any thinking psychopath would have checked their hotel for listening devices.
In the case of missing Sabrina Aisenberg, the police put listening devices in the Aisenbergs home, which proved, arguably, that the parents were responsible for Sabrina's disappearance. However, the quality of the tapes were so poor, that they failed to get a conviction.
I can't help but wonder if the McCanns were ever taped? Or indeed how closely their mobile phones were scrutinized. But they were prepared, Gerry and Kate allegedly deleted dozens of calls and messages, and of course, the entire tapas party had burner phones delivered to them at the police station the following day!
We can only guess at what will be revealed when OG concludes, we have only seen what has gone on 'on the surface', but this investigation is a bit like a giant iceberg, most of it is as yet unseen.
However,in 2007, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
ReplyDelete“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation.""
That's a fact!
Hello. I'm not going to get too high-falutin' about the relationship between the logical establishment of truth and the establishment of facts within the justice system.
Just let me spell it out for this example. It is proven that the PJ spokesperson, da Sousa, was not giving a truthful statement of the facts when he declared the pair "not suspects" in August 2007. Nor was it a "mistake" that was later corrected.
That means that there is no way of knowing whether the PJ and its spokesmen have told the truth about that subject since. Literally. Di Carmo said they were "not suspects" in 2017 - but gave no evidence to indicate that he was being more truthful than da Sousa. That's because he couldn't.
The upshot is that di Carmo's and da Sousa's statements taken together are "non-determinative" and have no value and no content in determining whether they are or were suspects or not. So to quote them is simply self-deception.
In case you are in any doubt exactly the same applies to anything said about the case by the McCanns: their past lies have utterly entrapped them in an undetermined, as yet, limbo.
Rowley is the worst and most unconvincing liar since Mathew Oldfield which suggests to me that he is very honest. When he has to give an answer to a dangerous question his syntax collapses completely and the statements don't actually make sense.
He has rehearsed what he wants to say (with di Carmo and others - compare their answers) but when it comes to saying it the words are the aural equivalent of a madly blushing teenager answering questions about his/her sex life. Di Carmo simply blusters and raises his fists. Neither of them would speak as they have unless they were trying to conceal something and misdirect. What that "something" may be I do not know.
The meaning of all this is very simple: stay away from "not suspects" claims and wait for the truth to come out, just as it did for the idiotic and untruthful da Sousa.
As far as the Smiths are concerned, I'm not interested in all the fuss about who said what for similar reasons - too many people have a reason to lie. And it's ancient history.
All I'm interested in is the future and what might be said by the Smiths in court and that Scotland Yard stated on the record that the 10 PM "sighting" of a man with a child in his arms was unresolved and a "critical" line of inquiry.
There has been no announcement, not even to the parents, that the sighting is now resolved. That can only mean either that it is still a "critical" line of investigation or that it has been resolved but the resolution is too hot to handle publicly at this stage.
I can wait.
"All I'm interested in is the future and what might be said by the Smiths in court and that Scotland Yard stated on the record that the 10 PM "sighting" of a man with a child in his arms was unresolved and a "critical" line of inquiry.
DeleteThere has been no announcement, not even to the parents, that the sighting is now resolved. That can only mean either that it is still a "critical" line of investigation or that it has been resolved but the resolution is too hot to handle publicly at this stage."
Critical, because that 10 pm sighting might well have been that of an abductor, after all, all of the Smith's stated that they did not recognize the man carrying the child.
Therefore, it is far more probable that this line of enquiry is focussing on someone who doesn't look like GM.
"As far as the Smiths are concerned, I'm not interested in all the fuss about who said what for similar reasons - too many people have a reason to lie. And it's ancient history."
Why would the Smiths lie?
Gary
@ john blacksmith22 December 2018 at 15:26
DeleteYou may wish to correct your post!
@18:11
DeleteYo. Correct? John? Nah, nevah.
1) Anon. at 15.26, I haven't the slightest idea why you think I would wish to "correct" the post. By the way, I was always taught that the unnecessary use of exclamation marks is like laughing at one's own jokes.
Delete2) "Why would the Smiths lie?"
I don't know why you're asking me that. I wrote that there are too many people who have a reason to lie, not that the Smiths have.
3)I'm afraid your inference "Therefore, it is far more probable that this line of enquiry is focussing on someone who doesn't look like GM" is invalid. What you have written is the same as saying the "10 PM sighting might well have been a spaceman and therefore it is more likely that Grange are checking local spaceships." But don't let me deter you.
As I said, I'm interested in what the Smiths would say in court, not what Tony Bennett or anyone else has to say about them.
But it's all in vain. No libelling of witnesses a la Bennett, no pub talk of "not suspects", no insulting of Amaral, no endless arguing about the dogs, none of it can disguise the fact that the "abduction" is supported only by the claims of the McCann pair, nothing else.
And that's why their claim has gone nowhere in eleven years.
As for the pleasure I am getting in watching both the McCanns and their supporters and the anti-McCann loonies being starved into irrelevance by facts and events, it is, I admit, not a Christian reaction. But then the stakes, as GA and Brenda Leyland demonstrate, have been quite high.
"3)I'm afraid your inference "Therefore, it is far more probable that this line of enquiry is focussing on someone who doesn't look like GM" is invalid. What you have written is the same as saying the "10 PM sighting might well have been a spaceman and therefore it is more likely that Grange are checking local spaceships." But don't let me deter you."
DeleteNo John, I am only repeating the Smith's sworn statements. They saw a man carrying a child at around 10pm. He was of normal build, tanned, but did not resemble GM (they were all asked if the man resembled anyone they new). I understand that one of the major 'proofs' behind your theory is the Smiths' sighting, but it doesn't seem that you have actually read their statements very well (to believe that more than eleven years later the family will stand up in court and one by one swear that their original statements were wrong and that the man was actually GM is fanciful, to say the least, and about as likely as your spaceman). Any logical person would accept that, according to the Smiths, the man carrying the child did not resemble GM, and therefore could not have been him.
Unfortunately you can't accept that you are wrong.
Gary
This is getting tedious, as usual. I have no theory about the Smiths and I have no view on what the Smiths might have seen. I haven't the faintest idea where you got this stuff about a theory from. Do you understand those simple statements?
DeleteI also have no interest at all in what you or Bennett or anyone else has to say about those statements.If or when they come to court I'll read what they say carefully.
I was not, repeat not, writing about eleven year old witness statements and interpretations of them.I was talking about the present and what the official statements from Grange have said about the sighting being a "critical" line of inquiry.That is their word, not mine.
I have also pointed out for some time now that the four person Grange squad is not "investigating" anyone. They have finished their active investigation.
I have no theory about the case at all: I leave that to the police. That there is no evidence of abduction whatever apart from the statements of the McCanns is not a theory but a statement of fact.
The McCanns are not truthful witnesses about the case; that is also a statement of fact, as the documentary evidence in the Bureau - taken from the sources - proves.
None of that was known to me in 2007. All of it has emerged piece by piece from 2008-2018. The trajectory, or direction, of all investigation since, including the minor/trivial investigations as to the McCanns and the media which I gave to the Lisbon court, has been clear and unambiguous throughout and can be summed up in two columns.
The first column is "facts emergent since 2008 weakening the claims of the McCanns about an abduction". It starts with the Archiving Summary and its reconstruction section; it continues with the revelations and admissions of the writings of Gerry and Kate McCann; it is greatly strengthened by the evidence provided in both Lisbon libel trials; it is confirmed by the Redwood statements on the Tanner sighting. No dogs stuff required or present, no Smith sighting, no Gaspar statements - all of those are speculative while the stuff in the column is factual and irrefutable.
The other column is headed "Facts emergent since 2007 strengthening the claim of abduction". It is empty.
If you feel you have an entry for that column - guesses and pub talk don't qualify, I'm afraid - then please lay it out, in detail and with the evidence, for Ros's readers.
But not for me: I know with 100% certainty that you won't be able to provide a single piece of "show it to us" evidence because it doesn't exist. If you try it will be more boring opinion. That's why I won't be bothering to reply.
"None of that was known to me in 2007. All of it has emerged piece by piece from 2008-2018. The trajectory, or direction, of all investigation since, including the minor/trivial investigations as to the McCanns and the media which I gave to the Lisbon court, has been clear and unambiguous throughout and can be summed up in two columns."
DeleteAnd obviously, the PJ have taken the case back off the shelf and the Met have increased funding to investigate the claims made in your report presented to the Lisbon court.
Gary
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteReaders will note that poor Emilie, asked to provide a single piece of evidence that has strengthened the original claims of abduction by the parents in the last eleven years, just hasn't been able to find one. As predicted.
DeleteAnd people wonder why I'm so contemptuous of the McCann supporters, so noisy with their opinions but so devoid of a single fact to back them.
It's called self-delusion and it always exacts a price in the long run.
Waffle waffle, John.
DeleteHave the McCanns been charged - no.
Has your overwhelming evidence presented to the Lisbon court changed anything - no
Get over it John, there is no evidence to support your belief that the McCanns were responsible for the disappearance of their child. Unless the McCanns are charged, there is no requirement for them to provide any evidence of their innocence. Eleven years and still waiting for the damning evidence that you say you hold!!
Gary
"john blacksmith24 December 2018 at 12:00"
Delete"Readers will note that poor Emilie, asked to provide a single piece of evidence that has strengthened the original claims of abduction by the parents in the last eleven years, just hasn't been able to find one. As predicted."
--------------------------
Who is Emilie?
Readers will note that Anthony said "But not for me: I know with 100% certainty that you won't be able to provide a single piece of "show it to us" evidence because it doesn't exist. If you try it will be more boring opinion. That's why I won't be bothering to reply."
But seems to reply to nothing?
"This is getting tedious, as usual. I have no theory about the Smiths and I have no view on what the Smiths might have seen. I haven't the faintest idea where you got this stuff about a theory from. Do you understand those simple statements?"
DeleteOh John, you little fibber! I came across the very long article you posted on your blog in November 2016 about the Smith's statements! What's more, it's full of the spurious untruths that I pulled JC up about.
Gary
Hi Ros, long-time reader of your blog,generally in agreement with a lot of your posts. I would just like to point out to Gary/Emilie that Blacksmith has always been very (sensibly) careful to make it quite clear that he has no theory as to what happened to Madeleine McCann or who facilitated her disappearance but rather concentrates on pointing out (with sources) when and where the Drs McCann have been, shall we say, economical with the truth on several occasions.
DeleteJohn Blacksmith 22.12 @15:26
Delete"Neither of them (Mark Rowley, Pedro di Carmo) would speak as they have unless they were trying to conceal something and misdirect. What that "something" may be I do not know."
'Conceal something'? 'Misdirect'? Surely you don't think they're engaged in covering something up?
Of course if people always suspect the parents or those close to the parents they will be right in the majority of cases based on statistics.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing clever in that - it is the safe option - but it has to be remembered that it does not apply to EVERY case. To be clever you have to recognise the difference.
"We can only guess at what will be revealed when OG concludes, we have only seen what has gone on 'on the surface', but this investigation is a bit like a giant iceberg, most of it is as yet unseen."
ReplyDeleteIf that is so, then you are making accusations against the McCanns on the basis of only a small piece of the investigation, which has managed to get out into the public domain.
Ros, if the police were building a case against the McCanns, then the Operation Grange budget would be increasing greatly, not being cut back to basics.
Gary
https://twitter.com/JimGamble_INEQE/status/1076352655042199552
ReplyDeleteJim Gamble
@kathypriestley5 You need to take legal advice now. What your are representing as truth is a lie and defamatory. You have a choice apologise for your error now or wait until I identify you & face legal action. It’s up to you.
Miriam Rich
Was so tempted to respond to these people, Jim, given what I know about what they clearly don't, but I'll follow your lead of recognising that they are beyond logic and reason, and that's why libel laws exist. Hope you do pursue them as you'd be doing us all a favour. Happy Xmas!
Jim Gamble
Thanks. Be in no doubt. If this person does not unreservedly apologise & retract their untrue statement I will endeavour to identify them & take legal action.
-------------
"A former Scotland Yard press officer responsible for communicating counter-terrorist investigations and specialist operations, Miriam handled media relations for the Paddington Rail Crash, the 2005 London bombings, the murders of Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. She also worked with the survivors of the 1999 London nail bombs to facilitate their media response to the conviction of David Copeland.
Miriam led on media relations at the National Criminal Intelligence Service and at the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, ensuring that complex investigations were carefully and effectively communicated."
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YZNXwGkICHYJ:https://www.dutyofcareconference.com/speakers/miriam-rich/+&cd=1&hl=uk&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteAs the world gears up for Christmas, a thought keeps coming to my mind about a quote from the man whose birth we celebrate.
"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul".
Which pretty well sums up the elements in the tragic case we are discussing.
Have a merry Christmas.
jc
Ahh bless you JC, I'm not religious but I do acknowledge the other JC as a great philosopher :)
DeleteFor whatever reason, the good Lord gave me a heightened sense of injustice, even from the time I was a small child. I would gather all the misfits, outcasts and the excruciatingly shy under my wing, offering them the hand of friendship and the protection of my big gob!
One of my first, and much loved, best friends was a little German boy called Heina. In a small English village in the early 1960s, being German could draw gasps and raise eyebrows. I loved the shock value of introducing him to everyone we bumped into, clutching his hand firmly, I would boldly announce '......and he's German', with my chin jutted out just enough to say, 'and I'll fight anyone who's horrible to him'.
I sometimes wonder if I should put out some sort of call to dear Heina on social media. I bullied him horribly! I used his lack of English to speak on his behalf, yes I loved my own voice even then, and I taught him to swear in English. Despite my being a terrible influence, his parents invited me to have a sleepover at his house.
It was a memorable experience for me, because for the first time in my life, I experienced discipline! Having kept the entire household up for half the night with our incessant giggling, we were made to stand facing the wall in the opposite corners of their hallway. I don't think it stopped the giggling or the whispering, we woke up snuggled in each others arms. We continued to be inseparable for an entire summer or maybe more. I did of course adore him, obviously, and have lots of very fond memories, I do hope he does too, I would hate to think I traumatised him!
Apologies JC, Christmas always make me feel nostalgic, not in an unhappy way, but it brings back memories from long long ago. I've reached that stage of old age where ancient past is preferable to recent past, lol. All good, except the words, where did I go wrong keep springing to mind.
I wish I were a songwriter, because I would write an updated version of 'what kind of fool am I', I'd call it WTF and are you for real - Gurrrlfriend!' Yeah I fell in love you soppy broadway songwriter, and where did it get me? Someone needs to rewrite the whole boy meets girl narrative, maybe something like girl meets steaming hot low life coke head who convinces her to open joint bank account, story ends on Jeremy Kyle, with lie detector tests over who pawned the 56inch flatscreen. Girlfriend weeps, 'he used to look like Brad Pitt when I was on crack'.
Goodness me, I have obviously been reading too much of the bad stuff (Trump, May) and it has turned me into the Grinch, who I quite like and would probably date, in another universe. Jim Carey off his head was probably a lot of fun.
I'll try to be less controversial in part 2 JC, yes, there is a part 2, hic.
Ps. Bought Christmas booze today! Yikes! As the divine Bette Davis once said 'fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night'! (shock,horror smiley)
Apologies JC, you can see by my reply that I was already one gin and fizzy rhubard and ginger can in, lol. OMG if all these delicious drinks were available in my youth, I would have been a total alcoholic!
DeleteThe whole point of your reply was selling your soul, and I made it all about me. Oops. It is not something I have ever been able to do, even when I received some very sound advice from 'old hands' in the publishing industry. My 'Constance' would have been a great success if it were, a little less political. Should I have toned it down, made my message a little less clear? Definitely if I wanted to earn money from it, but a high principled NO, if I stick to my principle of honesty and integrity.
Again, me, Oops, I can only imagine what selling one's soul feels like. For me, it brings to mind Melania Trump pretend eating a bowl of diamonds and pearls in a gold plated design set. It is repulsive on every level.
I am the opposite of a 'material girl', I find those who have to display shallow wealth, err, kind of pathetic. If their mind were rich like Noam Chomsky's or the late Stephen Hawkings, then fair dues, show off.
Money, greed, avarice, whatever you call it JC, is, in my humble opinion, grotesque, especially if those stockpiles of cash have been stolen from the well meaning and the unsuspecting. In Charity scams, it is those well meaning people who are fleeced.
We are seeing it now with the Trump Foundation, a charity purporting to help children with cancer, but in reality acting as a personal cheque book for Donald Trump.
The Madeleine Fund is not a Charity - it didn't pursue charitable status. It was only ever intended for the benefit of one child, and err, her family. The McCanns weren't silly when they set up the Fund (why should they be, they had the top legal advisors), so the Fund's Objectives covered all eventualities. Clearly, their lawyers, were better than Trump's.
One thing I have picked up in watching (obsessively) American news channels, is the fact that different districts have the option of bringing different criminal charges. What can this be, I ask my naïve self. How come we don't have alternate prosecutors if the home team won't pick up the baton?
If the McCanns were ever to be prosecuted, them the baton is picked up by the government on behalf of the entire United Kingdom. Am I getting this right? There is no separate judiciary for Leicester, or the midlands for example,the Madeleine investigation is led by Scotland Yard. If they can't reach a conclusion, no-one can.
Cressida Dick (fair dues to her on achieving so much success with that name)has made it quite clear that her team are not giving up. That should boost the morale of those who have worked on this case, and send shivers through the spines of those who thought they had got away with it.
But my heartfelt good wishes to you JC. Your kind words and good wishes have kept me inspired throughout the year. You are a fellow after my own heart, that is, you have your own distinctive style of writing (which is compulsive reading by the way)and not toning down for anyone! I salute you my friend, and wish you everything scrumptious that comes with this season of goodwill. I hope too that you will pursue your writing, in one form or another, you have a gift! I have the same gift, so it is easy, but very, very, rare, to spot it in another!
For me the scrumptious bits are the Ferro Rocher and the Boxing day grub! Cold meats, mash, more sprouts and loads of pickles, heaven on a plate! For now the FRs remain under lock and key (figuratively speaking, lol), until I have attended the Carol service at the local church.
I'm not religious (why do I need to keep saying that), but I love choral music! And, imo, nothing compares to the acoustics of a very old church. Even the Angel voices that are not quite so angelic, sound divine in a medieval setting. I will imagine that the voices are not too dissimilar to those heard in that very same church 500 years ago. Just thinking of it, sends a shiver down my spine!
DeleteBless you JC, and thank you for being a friend. When I feel really sorry for myself (often), I think of all those readers who tune in each day to see what's going on. Thus far, they seem happy enough with wtf do I know, lol, but I would rather be a buffoon than a liar.
Lies make me just as mad now as they did when I was 5 years old. How dare you (generic you) insult my intelligence by telling me a blatant untruth? I always take it personally, ie, an insult to my intelligence. You obviously think I am that stupid that I will take as gospel that pile of bullshit you just tried to sell me.
As one of my girl crushes, Jennifer Lawrence, would say, fuck you!
Creatures like Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas take me right back to my convent days, when I, as a vulnerable child was placed in the care of adults equally as passionate about child sexual abuse. That's why my heart breaks for every child 'seized' by child protection, their nightmares are only just beginning.
Sadly, every century, without exception, brings forth proletariats who are willing, able and ready to die for the grotesque avarice of their masters. They are so easily misled, Trump? Farage? Boris, in his late 50s/60s sill hasn't figured out how to comb his hair and a real live version of Lord Snooty who took a shot at rebellion, then quickly decided against it.
The world is in turmoil my friend JC, heading dangerously towards a far right agenda, and with the means and technology to drastically alter our current path towards enlightenment.
We are led by what can only be described as the pathologically ignorant. We are voting these eejits and caricatures into positions of power! Even George Orwell failed to see what absolute wusses we would become, and so much sooner than he expected!
Build A Wall. Jesus Christ! Even a non religious person such I has been co-erced into such a profanity. Walls are evil, the very idea should make our blood run cold. Do these, to put it politely, very unenlightened deplorables have any idea of what a border wall means?
Are they so lacking in knowledge of the history of 'walls' that they truly see lethal spears designed to cut human bodies in two, as a beautiful thing?
Wtf was it that made their deranged minds see other human beings suffering as a good thing?
I have loved the USA and everything that has sprung forth from it for my entire life. My dad loved them all unconditionally, because as an 11 year watching WWII in real time, he remembered them coming in when the chips were down.
By the way the wind is blowing it looks like 2019 is going to be the year this case is finally solved. Nearly twelve years has passed and all we've seen is PR, lies and circus tactics. I believe the child died prior to the third of May 2007, and was already dead and buried before the whole charade kicked off. I expect the UK to solve this case, not Portugal.
ReplyDeleteI agree 20:54 that 2019, next year, will be one in which this case is finally solved. We have discussed this case long enough and hard enough to know that only the truth will fit the facts available. And there were way too many facts to make a cover up viable. The release of the Portuguese police files took a number of people by surprise, mostly I think, Team McCann. And once they were in the public domain there was no going back. The charade played out in front of the cameras by the parents, bore little resemblance to what was going on behind the scenes with the police.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree the child died prior to 3rd May. The idea I'm afraid is just too macabre. We have to remember these were not hardened criminals, how could any of them continued with their holiday with such a grisly secret?
Your final sentence is bizarre 20:54. What's to say Portugal already solved it, years ago, and are just waiting for Scotland Yard to catch up? Neither force seems to be revisiting the original investigation, which means, in a nutshell, there was nothing wrong with it.
By UK solving this case first, do you mean, they have put the pieces of the jigsaw, the actions of all the main players, and found a theory that fits? A more convincing theory than that of Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation? Even with Team McCann's army of professional writers, spin doctors, and onside journalists, in almost 12 years, not one of them has come up with a feasible alternative to the theory put forward by Goncalo Amaral. Even a room full of Hollywood screenwriters would struggle. I could do it, lol, but I prefer to use my powers for good :)
Anyway thank you for taking the time to write in with your comment 20:54, and a very merry Christmas to you :)
I don't believe the child died in Portugal, I believe it was all done and dusted prior to their arrival.
DeleteHow many years now have we all been saying,next year is the year?
DeleteI'll wager it will be the same next December too.
Anon 22 Dec 22.02
DeleteYou can't dismiss the findings of Eddie and Keela to do so would put every investigation they were used for in jeopardy.
They were the tops dogs of their time, nothing got passed them. GM even went to the top man to find out how reliable they were, which was an indication that GM was worried about their findings. If Madeleine hadn't died in the apartment why would GM be worried about going to the top for reassurance. If there was nothing for Eddie and Keela to find GM would have nothing to worry about, but he did.
I think that says it all really.
"You can't dismiss the findings of Eddie and Keela to do so would put every investigation they were used for in jeopardy."
DeleteI'm no DNA expert, but I would think that if the DNA evidence the police hold is as incriminating as you seem to believe, please let me know your theory as to why the McCanns have never been charged in this case.
Anon 23 Dec 14.45
DeleteI would assume that the investigation is far more reaching than what the dogs found. There may be many people who are involved with the "deception", not forgetting the "Fund" and where all the money has gone.
I'm not part of the investigating team so will leave it up to them whether or not any charges are brought. Time will tell.
Are you happy with that?
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply, I don't think I can match your 2000 words or come close to touching your style - a style which is so informative - in fact a goldmine of information.
You are the engine that drives this site. Keep it up.
I think what drives people to this site is their search for the truth about an event that looked pretty run of the mill in early 2007. At that time it appeared likely there would be a quick conviction and it would soon be over.
But of course that was not to be.
The layers of events in the following years would give Hollywood screenwriters a hard time keeping pace with - as you noted.
First there was the rushing to the McCann's aid by British consular officials. Next the duo were hiring world renowned lawyers to protect themselves that very day.
Phone calls went to and fro from the prime minister of England and his wife, Tony and Cherie Blair, to the McCanns to offer their help.
Is that beyond fantasy? No it happened.
As the months and years went by the couple sued the detective investigating the case. Sued various newspapers for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Created a "Not for profit" Find Madeleine fund which they partly used to pay off the mortgage of their house.
And the most outrageous act of all the mother enrolled as a director of an organization to find missing children.
Anyway we know all this, - so I won't go on.
I do have something to say about corruption in Britain at government level.
It is a historical fact that England has never really emerged socially from the dark ages. The aristocracy still rules and owns vast tracts of land and property in England, Scotland, and Wales. Class division is still strong in 2018.
I'm not sure if some members of society are still called "Toffs" and people still scrape and bow to the "Guvner".
Probably unlikely.
(Unless I've been watching too many reruns of "Upstairs Downstairs").
The point is this: - if you're still with me.
In the 11th century, Britain was never truly assimilated culturally by the Norman conquerors. The new rulers spoke only French, the English inhabitants, their native language; English.
It took the conquerors more that 300 years before they deigned to speak the language of the common people.
Despite 700 years in the interim I detect and have always detected traces of this class distinction.
English people are generally put off by aristocrats. But these folks are still at the helm.
Hence the enabling of the McCanns by the government who somehow identified them as the being the same class.
How else to explain it.
Rosalinda, I know you think it was all about bad timing and an honest mistake by the government powers but there has to be something more to it.
Have a nice day,
jc
I wonder if we will ever find out.
Hi JC, I think Gerry and Kate were temporarily elevated to the ruling classes, that is they got more than a peep into another world and thy liked it. Let's say for simplicity's sake, it all began with the private planes and 5* hotels.
DeleteIt's unspoken, but the class system in the UK still thrives - more than half of May's cabinet went to Eton, and who is Jacob Rees-Mogg, if not Lord Snooty? (Beano). For a while there Gerry and Kate had it all going on, they were the darlings of those who drove the news.
But it was never going to last, even though they believed it would, they believed their elevation was permanent, they expected not to be treated like the rabble forever more. But as the odious Toby Young recently discovered, you can be celebrated and heading to the House of Lords one week, despised and ignored the next.
As for your final paragraph, yes of course JC, there is something more to it. Were all those wiley politicians and mainstream journalists really so bowled over that two people from a working class background could speak properly? Were Gerry and Kate really so sympathetic that they completely abandoned common sense in order to support them? We didn't see any of them fawning over Karen Matthews as they fawned over the McCanns.
Oh yes, there is much, much more to it JC, someone had the power to make all those VIPs accept and promote the abduction story, and that's probably the bit that is holding everything up.
Anyway JC, bless you. I cannot thank you enough for your kind words over the years. Most of my depression comes from 'not being good enough', I curse myself daily for it, it is the downside of accepting full and total responsibility for my own fate.
I write, because I can't help myself, it is beyond my control. I think it is a natural progression from being a chatterbox as a child. I would write my blog if I had only one reader, I am humble enough to be grateful to every single reader who takes the time to read my often incomprehensible musings. For me it is cathartic, someone is listening, for that, I thank each and every one of you.
Again, thank you JC for your frequent kind words, they always lift my spirits and encourage me to carry on with my blog. My kindest wishes to you and yours for Christmas JC.
https://twitter.com/JonnyLons81/status/1076750401855258625
ReplyDelete@JimGamble_INEQE @mimrich @kathypriestley5
Genuine question, why is there such strenuous activity to keep the case in the limelight on both sides if there is nothing dodgy about it. Surely someone can say something that will stop people thinking McCanns were involved? A complete tragedy dragging on and on.
Good question. As usual, Jim Gamble tends to answer in vague terms.
Hi Rosalinda, and others
ReplyDeleteFrom the bottom of my heart, I send to all of you my warmest winter greetings from my house covered with snow in a cold and snowy northern country, where the bears are now hibernating in their cosy homes deep down under the snow, letting the few wolves in the area dominate a few months
I wish you, Rosalinda and all other who post here on your blog a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and I really hope that you’re able to keep on discussing the Madeleine case from a rational perspective, as you always do, till justice is done to Madeleine. British MSM definitely don’t, as we all know.
Your excellent ‘Cristobel Unbound’ now seems to reach out to more and more people, who’re taking interest in the case, which many of this year’s interesting posts and especially the ones lately publicized imply. So let us hope that the next year will be the year when justice prevails and all the lies surrounding the Madeleine case will be nailed.
Thank you for your lovely post and kind wishes Bjorn - I love to hear about homeland, which sounds quite unworldly with all the snow and bears and wolves! I imagine it is beautiful.
DeleteIt is good that this blog seems to have become a port within the media storm and the constant disinformation put out by the former suspects and the loons who have attached themselves to this case. It has shed, quite naturally, the malevolent, the disrupters and the extremists, I haven't banned anyone. They left due to indifference.
My numbers have stayed pretty consistent throughout the year, peaking into thousands when there is a McCann story in the news. I like to think it is because they can now see past the nonsense in the tabloids, and the outlandish conspiraloons and come here for the truth.
But enough blowing of my own trumpet, lol. My blog's success lies as much in the valuable contributions of people like yourself Bjorn. Thank you for bringing the international flavour :). By people like yourself, I mean educated, thinking people, who are not afraid to question those ridiculous codes and conventions that keep us all in our place.
I think the words of Cressida Dick are fatalistic, the end is near. The mystery of Madeleine's disappearance is going to be solved, is probably already solved or she would not have the confidence to state so confidently that the case would reach a conclusion.
The Madeleine case seems very small when compared what is going on in the world right now Bjorn. The UK is on the brink of disaster, the rich and the wiley are already stockpiling food and meds. As we speak the world's craziest man is sat alone in the White House knowing everyone hates him and wanting payback!
But the Madeleine case endures, and will endure until Justice is done. Arguably, it was the McCanns themselves who turned it into a global mystery. They built an audience with their constant TV appearances, but they weren't winning them over, they were raising more and more suspicion with their odd behaviour.
There is much wickedness behind all that has happened Bjorn, but this is the season of goodwill. I wish you a very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Bjorn and thank you for putting that wonderful snowy scene in my head, just imagining it makes me smile :)
re anonymous at 14:45
ReplyDelete12:53 has already told you why the police are not prosecuting. It would put the prosecution in jeopardy at this time.
I didn't see any input on what your "Theory" would be.
Please go ahead.
At least we know you're "No DNA expert".
If the police were preparing to charge, and prosecute, then funding for this case would be increasing, not reducing. Therefore, don't be expecting the sort of conclusion that you are obviously hoping for.
DeleteGary
Anon/Gary 24 Dec 13.48
DeleteNobody knows how much money the police have in their piggy bank to prosecute, how much work they've already done and how much work there is still to do. Why do they keep asking for extra funds if the case isn't going anywhere, surely they would have ended it a long time ago instead of it continuing. Perhaps they have all the money they need in their piggy bank to carry out the things they need to do to bring the case to a conclusion.
They may be tying up loose ends then handing it over the the Portuguese, we will have to wait and see.
"They may be tying up loose ends then handing it over the the Portuguese, we will have to wait and see."
DeleteIf that were the case then the Met would never have released the statement that they did. And that statement would have been approved by Cressida Dick, who was in charge of the Met at that time.
Unfortunately, I think that everything seems to be pointing to a final conclusion that Madeleine was abducted by person or persons unknown.
Gary
@ Gary
DeleteYou might be right about that,but I don't think Ros or Antony Sharples would agree with you.
Jim (from Sark)
Do they have internet or wi fi on Sark then?
DeleteThey don't have cars,just tractors and everything else about the island is like a step back in time.
Sark is beautiful and I used to go there a lot with my uncle in his small boat for the day out. There used to be a surprising number of drinking places on the island but since the Barclay brothers have tried to take control of the island it's changed a bit. Easier to get there from Guernsey or even Herm (which is also idylic), especially this year as the Jersey Sark boat was out of order for a lot of the summer.
DeleteGary
Rosalinda, here's wishing you and your readers a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, hopefully next year is the year this case will be solved once and for all.
ReplyDeleteJust re-read John Blacksmith's post regarding the Smith's statements. In it, he quotes GA (presumably from GA's book): -
ReplyDelete"the Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms," Gonçalo Amaral said."
That is an absolute lie and disengenuous. The Smiths said that the man was tanned, not sunburnt, which would actually imply that the man was local or had been in PdeL for some time. Peter Smith also stated that the man "did not try to hide his face or lower his look, [doing] nothing [that would be] perceived as strange!"
How on earth can you trust a police officer who mis-reports sworn witness statements in order to further is own agenda? No wonder GA was removed from the case.
Gary
Gary 11:19
ReplyDeleteIn Gonçalo Amaral's book he states on page 113:"a face parece morena devido a exposição solar". The face looked tan from being exposed to the sun. Nowhere does he say "sunburn".
You seem very obsessed with The Smith sighting and with Gonçalo Amaral.
Anon 14:41
DeletePlease re-read my post. I am only quoting what John Blacksmith writes in his blog on the Smith's evidence. So either he is lying or the english translation of GA's book is incorrect.
As for being obsessive, I think that I've tried to be reasoned in my postings, quoting from sworn statements to question the accuracy of statements made by certain posters, who are essentially posting fake news. In this post, it seems to have been me who has taken up the gauntlet to challenge those posters to back their statements with facts. I am not Ziggy, I have no knowledge of any of the characters involved, and I do live in Jersey. Don't worry, I'm not intending on being as busy on future posts as I've found myself on this!
But I would say, Rosalind, even though we are on opposing sides with regard to what we believe happened in this very sad case, I do respect you for allowing posters, like me, to post views that are contrary to yours and those of the majority of the readers of your blog. And with that I'll wish you the very best for the new year.
Gary
Just like Ziggy was.
DeleteThe McCanns got the greatest Christmas present of all time with the news of the Gatwick couple being wrongly charged in the drone incident and being hounded so wrongly by the press.
ReplyDeleteThe Leicestershire duo must be rubbing their hands with glee.
"Hey look, just like us".
jc
Yes - you are sick!
DeleteBut in your world the couple in the Gatwick incident are still suspects/involved aren't they?
Kate McCann (madeleine):
ReplyDelete“Witness One: Jane Tanner
Witness Two: Holidaymaker from Ireland”
“Although the police appear to have considered these sightings to be unrelated on the basis of the forty-five-minute gap between them, the similarities speak for themselves.”
What similarities?
One of the most despicable aspects of this case is the way the media and the McCanns have implicated totally innocent people to deflect blame from themselves. I believe the McCanns are innocent of causing intentional harm to the child, but they're not innocent of concealing a body, something I believe they sadly did out of sheer panic. They hid the body because they were terrified of being blamed for what was, to all intents and purposes, an accidental death. It's such a shame they feel like they can't tell the truth yet. If they were a little braver I believe people would genuinely try to understand. It would be easier to tell the truth now rather than wait until Scotland Yard or Portugal pounce.
ReplyDeleteAnon 26 December 15.51
ReplyDeleteYour reasoning seems to be insane with regard to the McCanns and "people would genuinely try to understand".
What about the twins and the trauma of having their lives turned upside down for the past 11/12 years.
What about the Smith family being vilified and being branded as "liars" by certain people.
What about the £12million being spent by SY not including the amount the Portuguese police have also spent on their side of the investigation.
What about the insults that KM hurled at the PJ calling them "fu**ing t*ssers" and TweedleDum and TweedleDee when they were just trying to do their jobs.
What about the 24/7 coverage by Martin Brunt of his doorstepping of Brenda Leyland, who was treated worse than a serial killer.
What about all the jobs lost in PDL through businesses closing down due to families frightened to take their holidays there in case there was a "child abductor" on the prowl.
I could go on and on, but the damage the McCanns have done over the past 11/12 years cannot be swept under the carpet. They are responsible for everything, they could have put an end to it after a few days but decided not to as they were loving the limelight and the ££££££ pouring in, even being so blasé that they were looking forward to having a "concert for Madeleine" in a year's time. What does that say about them? Their days of telling the truth have long gone. They've dug themselves into a very big hole which will be very difficult to get out of now.
I doubt after all the damage they have done to so many people they could ever be forgiven.
I hear you, but I still feel sorry for the McCanns with the mess they've got themselves caught up in, they should have told the truth from the beginning, but instead they chose to try and outwit the entire world. At the root of all this I believe it was a tragic accident, they panicked and hid the body. The rest is history.
DeleteIt's a shame about Gary or Shari from Jersey, (or whatever her name is this week).
ReplyDeleteThe time her kindergarten teacher broke her vow to take away her Grade 1 pupil's crayons if she insisted on writing any more bad prose was a sad day indeed.
The scribblings still continue.
Now her latest ramblings are all about targeting Detective Goncalo Amaral.
For instance: "... How on earth can you trust a police officer who misrepresented sworn witnesses statements" - (from the Smith family).
And, "No wonder Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case".
Detective Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case not for the "misrepresentation" of anything but for political reasons, he was actually spot on in his analysis and an ace from laying charges against the McCanns. It was pressure from the British government put on Portugal that stalled the case. Exactly why, nobody but the insider government cabals of England and Portugal at the time - and even now, are ready to divulge.
jc
Her name?
DeleteYou are joking... right?
"an ace from laying charges against the McCanns"
DeleteGA is quoted as saying to the Portuguese newspaper, Correio da Manhã, five years ago, "The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, a foreigner, of athletic build, a sunburned face, like those of tourists, who was hiding his face in order not to be seen, carrying a blonde child in his arms", Gonçalo Amaral said. "A short time later, when the McCann family 'fled' to the United Kingdom, and were welcomed by the television at the airport, a member of the Smith family called us, very upset. Gerry [Maddie's father], who was leaving the plane, was the man that Mr Smith had seen carrying a child that night"
Now that statement is wrong on 4 counts.
1/ "a sunburned face"
not one of the Smiths said that.
2/ "like those of tourists"
Martin Smith states "that the individual did not appear to be a tourist." None of the other Smiths mentioned that the man looked like a tourist.
3/ "who was hiding his face in order not to be seen"
Peter Smith states that "the individual did not try to hide his face or lower his look, [doing] nothing [that would be] perceived as strange."
4/ "Gerry [Maddie's father], who was leaving the plane, was the man that Mr Smith had seen carrying a child that night"
Martin Smith, in his second statement said that he was 60-80% sure the man he had seen was GM based on "the man's mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane." The other Smiths did not wish to change their statements.
GA ended with "there was a positive identification, which was set aside"
Any good cop, especially the leader of an investigation, would never twist witness statements in such a way as to arrive at the conclusions that he has publically made. As I said, if he is claiming good identification of GM on the back of the Smith's statements, then it is no wonder that he was removed from the case.
Gary
Hello. I do not keep copies of old blogs. I do know that I don't normally quote newspaper reports rather than the original document.
DeleteI am happy to reply to the things you quote me as saying in my November 2016 blog. Perhaps you will quote the text in a post here - I'm sure Ros won't mind at all. Then I and the rest of us can all see what I said.
Anon/Gary 28 December 22.23
DeleteGary, I don't know who you are but you seem to be very naive when it comes to the McCanns and the defence of them at any cost.
You don't seem to realise that Goncalo Amaral was a seasoned cop who had been dealing with drug gangs and other hard nosed criminals for many years. He wasn't just out of Rookie school as you seem to suggest and that he didn't know what he was doing. That's why the McCanns were terrified of him, they knew he had them sussed out from the moment he went into Apartment 5A. They and their cohorts have been trying to bring him down ever since in revenge, he lost his home, his wife, they froze his bank accounts, in fact they left him destitute, yet Kate NcCann said she "could forgive the abductor".
Go figure on that.
"You don't seem to realise that Goncalo Amaral was a seasoned cop who had been dealing with drug gangs and other hard nosed criminals for many years."
DeleteAnd there, lies the problem. Child investigations require a completely different mindset and training to that which chases drug gangs and hardened criminals. In these cases, the police usually already know the criminals they have apprehended and they then search for evidence to incriminate them. However, most countries will have specialist units dealing with child disappearance/abduction cases because of their unique and sensitive nature.
Anyway, any good cop would have read the Smith's evidence and come to the conclusion that the man carrying the child was probably not GM. Instead GA pursued what appears to have been a personal vendetta against the McCanns. No wonder, neither they nor the National Director of the Portuguese Judicial Police had any confidence in him.
Gary
All this arguing about the statements of the Smith family is pointless, which is why have I haven't joined in.
DeleteYou Gary are assuming the Smith family have told the police it wasn't Gerry. That Gary is only an assumption on your part, and a very optimistic one at that. If the similarity of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann was not a problem, why wasn't he central to the McCanns search? Or at least up there with Jane Tanner sighting? It is the McCanns failure to publicise those efits when they first had them, that makes many think it was Gerry.
As for your criticism of Goncalo Amaral. You say specialist police should have been called in. Hmm, not really a practicality Gary, child abduction is so rare no police force in the world would waste resources on child abduction experts at every police station. The only such specialist unit around afaik, was CEOP, headed by Jim Gamble. And they were there and involved Gary, right from the start.
As for GA, an old thief taker is an old thief taker, whatever the crime. Crime is essentially deception and where it goes from there, I doubt any two crimes are exactly alike.
The idea that GA had a personal vendetta against the McCanns, is pure McCann spin Gary. I'm sure every suspect of every crime believes the detectives pursuing them are on a personal vendetta. What reason could GA have for a personal vendetta against this couple who lost a child? Serious question? Why should he dislike Gerry and Kate with such intensity that he would try to frame them for a crime they did not commit?
Do you think he so begrudged being taken from his long leisurely lunches to the extent that he got hold of cadaverine and blood to plant in the apartment? How did he persuade the British contingent(not CEOP)to bring in the dogs and get them to alert?
I suppose it is arguable as to whether detectives take crimes personally or not. In some cases, child murder for example, it would impossible for them not to. It is their job and their vocation to protect the innocent, and I am sure every murder detective remembers every victim they have worked for.
But you are claiming the personal vendetta began much, much soon, from the very start actually. For that there is no logical, or even batshit crazy explanation. Neither GA nor any other police officer searching for Madeleine were in a hurry to give up the search and leave a predator on the loose. That makes no sense - ALL children, holiday makers and local would have been left at risk.
continues
And I don't know why all these years later the McCanns and their staunchest supporters still lay the blame for all their woes at the feet of Goncalo Amaral. No blame for themselves for leaving the kids in the first place, and no intense hatred for the monster who stole their child. Even I, a totally chilled, peace loving, knocking on a bit hippy chick, would physically attack beasts such as Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting given the opportunity. I hate them with an intensity that I cannot control. Ordinarily, we would encourage grieving parents to try to put their anger and hatred aside, but with Gerry and Kate it was never necessary, their anger and hate was aimed at the detective searching for their daughter! That's bizarre Gary in anyone's book!
Delete"You Gary are assuming the Smith family have told the police it wasn't Gerry."
DeleteThere sworn statements are in the public domain. If they had recognised GM or even a resemblance to him then you would find that in those statements. You, with your legal experience should be able to see that in the event that the McCanns were ever brought to court, a defence lawyer would use those statements as evidence that the Smiths saw a man carrying Madeleine but it was not GM.
I cannot condone them for leaving the children in the room alone but I can understand that they felt safe in the confines of the complex. But it's a huge price to pay if they are innocent of the crimes you are accusing them of.
"Even I, a totally chilled, peace loving, knocking on a bit hippy chick, would physically attack beasts such as Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting given the opportunity. I hate them with an intensity that I cannot control."
However, looking through their eyes rather than yours, how can they hate someone who they don't even know the identity of? It was only after the arrests of Huntley and Whiting that you were able to hate them.
Gary
You are putting an awful lot of weight on statements made over 11 years ago Gary, I'm pretty sure since then they have been updated and not available for public consumption (as yet). And any good prosecutor would cite the media circus and the impossible situation the family were in. Can you imagine how it would feel to the name the father of the missing child as the man you saw - that is one hell of a responsibility and one that would tear at anyone's conscience.
DeleteRegarding leaving the children alone, you understand that they felt safe in the confines of the complex. You often use exactly the same wording as Gerry, Kate and their press team, it makes me feel as though I am speaking to a family member or a spin doctor.
The danger was in the confines of the apartment Gary, not the confines of the complex. And in any event, they were not within the complex, they had to exit the complex to get to the apartment. We don't leave toddlers on their own because they could so easily have an accident if they woke up to discover their parents weren't there.
The likelihood is they would get up and wander and climb, in the dark, in an unfamiliar apartment. And it was a holiday apartment, it would not be as child proofed as your own home. No parent thinks I can't leave the children alone because an abductor might climb in the window and steal one of them. They don't leave them alone because they are fully aware of the myriad of dangers that surround them WITHIN the home. I agree the chances of abduction in PDL probably were pretty slim, as they are everywhere, so Gerry and Kate counting on there being no abductors around was a pretty safe bet.
Enough to go out and leave the kids on their own? Well yes I suppose, after all none of them had been abducted on previous 5 nights. It was the perfect system said Gerry, no different to the listening services offered by Butlins in the 1950's. Better in fact. They were actually looking in on their kids, so good parenting points for that. Gerry even sounded quite smug about the checking system he and his fellow doctors had come up with. The rest of us meanwhile, were astounded that these clowns spent the entire week disrupting their evening meals by walking up and down the hill all night in the style of a slapstick silent movie. Their actions make no sense, their statements make no sense, that's why the reconstruction was crucial.
Finally, true, it is hard to hate the unknown, but parents of a missing child I would imagine, would find it difficult to think of anything else. How could any parent function while believing their child is in the hands of a monster. They would be able to think of nothing but the monster who took her.
"You are putting an awful lot of weight on statements made over 11 years ago Gary, I'm pretty sure since then they have been updated and not available for public consumption"
DeleteYou are just grasping at straws, Ros.It doesn't matter what might be said later on, the sworn statements are presentable evidence (Defence and Prosecution) and, being close to the time of the event, more reliable than any statements that you suggest may have been made subsequently. Martin Smith made a second statement regarding mannerisms. The others chose not too.
"Finally, true, it is hard to hate the unknown, but parents of a missing child I would imagine, would find it difficult to think of anything else. How could any parent function while believing their child is in the hands of a monster. They would be able to think of nothing but the monster who took her."
I'm sure it's difficult for them not to think of anything else but Ros, they have somehow got to get on with their lives and bring up their remaining children.
Gary
Anon @15.48 & JC
ReplyDeleteThrowing your toys out of the pram and hurling childish insults does not help your arguments.
Just one little answer please (you keep digressing) - who is lying with regard to the misrepresentation of the Smith's witness statements - GA or all those who have quoted him making those false representations?
Gary
Gonçalo Amaral did not misrepresent the Smith's statements. Those who supposedly quoted him were in fact quoting the unauthorised English translation, which has mistakes in it.
ReplyDeleteI was quoting from this: -
Deletehttps://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/key-witness-identified-maddies-father.html.
If it is badly translated, then bloggers and posters should of course not be using it but just copy/paste his words into Google and you'll see how many anti- McCann bloggers and posters have used these words to give weight to their theories.
Anon / Gary 28 Dec 13.15
ReplyDeleteI think you've been at the sherry again and have lost the plot. Have Mum and Dad gone out for the day and you're drinking the dregs of what's left after Christmas?
Who is throwing childish insults - that's my comment of 15.48 by the way. I'm just listing what damage the McCanns have done in their quest to hide whatever they're hiding. Are you so delicate that the truth hurts? Or are you some gullible member of the family who's been left in charge whilst the rest have all gone on a holiday without you, thinking you can cope without them. Well, they'll know when they get back that you're not up to scratch won't they? Why leave a youngster in charge of adults who know more about missing Madeleine than the youngster does.
Oh dear, typical McCanns. Get someone else to do their dirty work for them so their hands are never sullied by anything. That's been their modus operandi for the past 11 years. If you don't understand what it means research it on the internet.
It may open your eyes as to what the McCanns are all about.
@ Gary
ReplyDeleteHow does it feel for your team to be top of the league?
Do you think they will still be up there next May?
And I don't mean St Paul's.
DeleteLol! No I played for St Ouen's many years ago, although not for the first team! My team is blue and currently 4th in the EPL.
DeleteGary
Regardless of the Portugal race-baiting posts on this site through the years by "Gary from Jersey" (against Detective Goncalo Amaral).
ReplyDeleteIt almost seems as if "Gary from Jersey" might be doing so out a sense of duty to his/her upstairs landlords.
If that is the situation, we should not be too harsh on a failed individual with an obvious personality disorder.
Nobody would suggest that the homeowners of a house in Leicestershire would write the copy this person posts by way of sending it down to their tenant's basement room where he or she transmits it to this website.
It could be true, but the notion would be dismissed as absurd by any sane thinking person.
I wonder if "Gary from Jersey" could confirm or deny any such theory.
I look forward to her reply.
jc
@ jc
Delete'Gary' and his Lady alter ego,is the 'The Informer'
Oh JC, you really do reveal your paranoia. Why on earth do you think that anyone who defends the presumption of innocence and/or believes that any fabrication of evidence should be questioned, is a member of the McCann family, a friend or, in your brain, a tenant?
DeleteThere is no logic in what you think or say. You would have been one of the first with the burning torches at the Salem witch trials.
Gary
Gary
If Gary isn't Soredust then I'm Jesus Christ.
Delete20:36 You are disorientated.
DeleteOh Gary, Gary, there is nothing illogical in JC's thinking. Team McCann have pretty much got their own brand, their own soundbites, their own stock phrases, they are really not difficult to spot.
DeleteHaving dipped a toe in anthropology, and to explain, families, clans, close knit groups have phrases and characteristics that are peculiar to that clan. That is they are not generally used by people outside the circle.
It is probably easiest to see the phenomenon within a family, children repeating their parents, an adult man sounding exactly like his father, an adult woman, like her mother, and of course variations thereof. I am sure we have all had instances with our kids where we think 'blimey, that could have been me talking'.
Of course it doesn't just happen within families, it also happens within close knit communities and large organisations where 'corporate speak' starts at the top and works its' way down to the post room. The current White House is a good example. They all speak with the same soundbites, build that wall, caravans are invading the Southern border, you get the gist.
Now as for paranoia, purrleeze. You are the one talking burning torches and Salem witch trials. Do you have a fear of angry mobs. If it helps, I don't think this case will end with angry mobs. On issues to get angry over, this one has slipped way down the scale. I think the ending will be very, very sad, and I suspect, very shameful.
No-one wants Gerry and Kate to be guilty Gary, for many of us that means a huge loss in faith in the goodness of human nature. It would be easier all round if a villain were found, that would restore us all to the world pre 2007.
But we can't all bury our heads in the sand Gary. The truth must be told and justice must be done and it would seem there are some pretty tenacious detectives on the case.
@ 21.53
DeleteWho is he then?
'Gary' is certainly not new and has been posting here before.(and probably elsewhere....Textusa?)
He knows too much about the case and even claims to know about Antony Sharples'
deleted past blogs.
Newbie he ain't.
Give him his dues though for thinking up Jersey as cover.Far removed from Liverpool I'd say.
He has probably been to the Channel Island just like I have and I agree with him,it's a nice place.
I like the name Gary too,although as I have said before,all aliases have a connection and one only has to look at Bowie's back catalogue to see where that came from.
Can people get things right on here - Gonçalo Amaral was not the lead investigator nor the lead Detective nor the Head Honcho - he was the co-ordinator.
ReplyDeleteEquivalent to superintendent.
DeleteWell said and so correct, people have become blinded now when it comes to Goncalo Amaral. They just see him as a hero and disregard all the glaring mistakes he has made. For instance, why be sceptical about the British contingent and then believe them when the dogs were deployed?
DeleteIt's just too convenient to confirm death in 5a on the 3rd, of May 2007, I prefer to acknowledge the words of Dr Christian Ludke when he states that this didn't start in Portugal, but in the UK.
They had a life before, something it seems, no-one cares to talk about.
Anon 29 December 2018 22.45
DeleteI've followed the saga of missing Madeleine since 3rd May 2007 so please can you elaborate on some of your comments -
i) what glaring mistakes did GA make? Please don't mention about the crime scene being contaminated and not cordoned off, as the apartment was contaminated by the McCanns themselves and every Tom, Dick and Harry who came and went looking for Madeleine in cupboards, under the sink etc when KM had already done that apparently.
ii) who is being sceptical about the British contingent? We are all waiting with baited breath for them to come up with a conclusion (not the one about an unknown abductor) after nearly £12 million of taxpayers money has been spent
iii) the dogs were deployed by the British Police, they were the top dogs of their time, they've helped to resolve many crimes,not only Eddie and Keela but dogs now used all over the world, so what is your concern with them?
iv) Why is it too convenient to confirm death in 5a on 3rd May, although of course it could have happened earlier in the week. Perhaps you could elaborate on the findings of Dr Ludke. Does it have anything to do with the question KM refused to answer: "were you thinking of giving Madeleine to a relative to look after", not the exact words but something along those lines
v) "They had a life before, something it seems, no-one seems to talk about". Can you elaborate on that or are you referring to a "D" notice the McCanns may have taken out to stop all their neighbours, friends, work colleagues giving out any details the McCanns may not like being in the public eye. The McCanns must have done something as not one person has come forward in the past 11/12 years to say anything about the McCanns, neither good nor bad, so they've obviously done something in the background to shut everyone up. What a strange reaction of parents of a missing child. They want the whole world to contribute to their "Fund" but don't want anyone to know anything about their private life.
Just to add, after reading the text of GM's recent blub fest on the Radio he was asked about Madeleine's bedroom, you know the one that is piled high with presents since she "disappeared". He couldn't even remember whether the fluorescent stars were on the ceiling. Some Dad he is, obviously hasn't been in her bedroom for years or it's been redecorated to accommodate visiting family/guests - just saying.
It irks me somewhat to see GA and his team accused of glaring mistakes. I don't think any police station anywhere in the world would have acted differently. The truth is child abduction is so so rare, they are simply not equipped to go straight into Amber Alert, nor should they be, the chances of winning the lottery are higher than the chances of a child being abducted.
DeleteMost missing children are found very quickly and the place they disappeared from is not considered a crime scene. Areas are not usually designated crime scenes until much later, the home of Tia Sharp being a prime example.
Yes, I know the bedroom window was open and the parents and their friends were screaming abduction, but that is not how it appeared to the first police officers who arrived on the scene, two officers described by Kate as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
The insistence of the very assertive Gerald and Kate that an abduction had taken place caste a huge cloud of suspicion over them from the moment the scene was set. Instead of welcoming the police, they derided them, they saw them as the enemy from day 1 and began planting negative stories about the police, 'no-one is helping us' they informed everyone in their contact lists while the police and resort staff and holidaymakers were searching for their daughter. The McCanns relationship with the police began on a war footing, they were preparing for the moment the evidence would lead to them.
Goncalo Amaral became their main target, but it could have anyone - whoever had been placed in charge of that investigation would have got the same treatment, unfortunately for GA, he was the one who picked up the poisoned chalice. Those British officers working on Operation Grange may well in the future, have the same accusations thrown at them, ie. it's a personal vendetta etc. However this time around the British media are not being so obliging, that is they are not stalking the British detectives and publishing unflattering photographs of them and scurrilous stories about their private lives. Let's just hope none of them are ever faced with financial ruin simply for doing their jobs as police officers.
Actually, thinking of the terrible things these people have done to Goncalo Amaral has brought the 'mean' back, I was going a bit soft there for a while.
In answer to your questions:
Deletei) Goncalo Amaral believed Catriona Baker when she said she saw Madeleine at High Tea at 5:30 on the evening of the third. (I believe the child was already dead and buried way before the 3rd. GA also believed the the child died that night and her body was hidden in the apartment and then moved weeks later in the hire car. I believe they've been taken by the hand and walked directly up the wrong path by Leicester police, who have always been pro-McCann, pro-abduction. Goncalo also believed the Smith sighting, something designed to make people believe Gerry was walking around PdL with a dead Madeleine in his arms. It's just too obvious to be true, and I'm convinced the child was already sadly deceased.
ii) The Portuguese investigation including GA were sceptical about the British involvement.
iii) My concern with the dogs is that they were brought in by the British, and I don't trust anything from Leicester in this case.
iv) All the available so-called evidence indicates death in 5a, I believe the death happened way before the third, the Wayback Machine should be taken as seriously as others have taken it prior and since this mysterious case.
v) They had a life before means this charade didn't start in Portugal but in the UK where they are from. Everything we saw in Praia da Luz, and I mean everything was all part of the abduction hoax, the giant cross-border scam.
To put it bluntly I believe the child died by accident in the UK, not in Portugal. The blurry film footage and photographs were manufactured to prove Madeleine was there when she wasn't, I do believe.
@anon 29 Dec 12:16
ReplyDelete"he lost his home, his wife, they froze his bank accounts, in fact they left him destitute"
Is Amaral destitute - he won the case?
Anon 30 December 00.04
DeleteGA was destitute before he won the case, the McCanns had his bank accounts frozen so he had no money to live on. He reported somewhere, I can't remember where it is now, it might be on his website, that he had to live with his Father and it was only by the generosity of his relatives and friends that he was able to survive. He had to sell his house, or divorce his wife, I can't really remember now so that it was put in her name so his wife and their two daughters would have a roof over their heads.
Of course he eventually won the case and his assets were returned to him and the books which the McCanns and their solicitor had held so they couldn't be sold to give him any money to live on.
I may have got one or two details wrong but without having to trawl through various websites that is what I remember.
One laughable thing is that when the McCanns went to Portugal to fight GA the trial was cancelled that day for some reason, but outside the court KM was angry and said "we even had to get a babysitter" much to GM's disgust as he looked at her with daggers in front of the world's media. She seemed to have forgotten that it was them that brought the case, not GA. Silly bu**ers!!
I remember it much the same way 16:09, the McCanns were utterly ruthless, I think they even put 'Charges' or the like over his family home. And of course they deprived him of the earnings from his very successful book. I vaguely remember seeing pictures of piles of his books in a warehouse waiting to be put on a bonfire [shudders in horror], the injustice of it all makes my blood boil!
DeleteYes 11:09, I remember that interview on the steps of the Court. Like most of their charmless interviews they were not winning friends and influencing people, that's the thing about anger and hostility, it's a complete turn off.
Kate was in Portugal because she wanted Goncalo Amaral's money and assets. Yes, everything of financial value owned by the detective who searched for her daughter. Her odious lawyer, Isabel Duarte spelled it out, the parents wanted financial compensation of £250k for each family member (£1.25m), 'and they are a family of 5' spoke the odious bloodsucker, their claim included £250k for the missing Madeleine.
Karma works in peculiar ways, happily it is their greedy pursuit of GA's royalties that have brought about their downfall. If they had any supporters left after giving more angry statements, their shameful vendetta against GA would see off even the most ardent of their fans.
Ros 30 December 15.15
DeleteAnother thing we should never forget regarding the McCanns is if it wasn't for the young lady in LA, USA who started a GoFundMe site for GA he may still well be destitute as it was only through the goodness of her heart that GA was able to fight the McCanns with the £50,000 that was crowd funded. The McCanns thought they had him well and truly screwed and could shut him up until the end of time. Little did they expect a young girl from the USA could thwart their plans and turn the tables on them. But she went through hell to try and help him, she got death threats and all sorts of abuse thrown at her, now why would that be? Who was so frightened of her that they had to dig the depths of depravity to send her death threats?
I must say that before the McCanns came on the scene I never took much notice of the newspapers or newspaper websites but it has been a total shock and eye opener to see how people can be so evil who will go to no ends to destroy the lives of other people without a flick of an eye.
Another thing I cannot get my head around is why so many multi millionaires, the likes of Branson, Green etc came running to the McCanns defence when they knew f*ck all about them and regarded them as totally innocent, unless there is something in the background that they all know each other which has never been divulged for some reason, a "D" notice probably.
GA profited very well by selling his version of what happened to Madeleine, that she was dead.
DeleteThe McCanns pledged any proceeds from the civil action against GA to continue the search for Madeleine.
Who is the despicable one?
Gary
I really must correct you 17:16, the young lady who started the GoFundMe for Goncalo Amaral is English. I will leave it there because she did indeed get a lot of grief for her actions and has now moved on. Don't let the 'LA' girl confuse you 17:16.
DeleteI agree this case has brought out the worst in humanity - on both sides, 17:16. As much as I thought I knew about human behaviour before, this case gave a mindblowing insight into the workings of truly evil minds. Do people really sit indoors simmering with anger over the actions of others? Err, well, yeah it seems they do.
As for your final paragraph, the influx of millionaires and VIPs, the answer I think is pretty shallow. Gerry and Kate had a good story to tell, plus they were intelligent, educated and well scrubbed. Would Clement Freud for example, have invited Karen Matthews and her boyfriend for a private dinner at his mansion? Nor did Karen Matthews receive any personal telephone calls from Prime Ministers offering every assistance. Why not? Her story was no more, or less, convincing that Kate and Gerry's.
Kate and Gerry do not look or act like criminals, they do not have the odour of drugs, booze and poverty. For philanthropists who prefer to keep their distance from charitable causes that make them feel yucky, the McCanns were perfect. Imagine lending a private plane to Karen Matthews?
Many were caught up in the zeitgeist 17:16, a child stolen in the night, it was a phenomenal story, one we could all get behind. And kudos to Team McCann, they pitched it so well it went global. Everyone it seemed, was Team McCann. Dissenting voices were crushed. John Redwood and George Galloway swiftly removed their statements and went quiet. George Galloway bizarrely blocked me on twitter.
But that was then and this is now 17:16. All the millionaire backers have gone, and I doubt they have more than a handful of supporters left.
Anon / Gary 30 December 19.11
DeleteGary, what search is that exactly? The McCanns never got off their backsides the night Madeleine supposedly went missing but left it up to many others to do the searching for them. Why was that do you think, was it because they knew she wasn't "missing" so it was just a waste of their time and energy but had to keep up the charade for the press and the world news coverage?
Any other parent would have been out on their hands and knees crawling under bushes, calling Madeleine's name but oh no not the McCanns, they had more pressing things to do like speaking to Tony Blair, speaking to the BBC and Sky news, god knows what they could do, they weren't based in PDL were they?
As you know the McCanns took on agencies who had no knowledge of child abduction, Medoto 3 for example, but were very good at money laundering apparently, likewise with the retired detectives, who seem to have been just as clueless in finding a missing child.
The only money the McCanns seem to have spent from the "Find Madeleine Fund" is to protect themselves in the courts with the best lawyers money could buy, and what about that house extension. Was that paid for before Madeleine went "missing" or afterwards.
What about the lack of transparency of their "Fund". Didn't they promise from the very beginning that it would all be "open" and "transparent", those promises seemed to have been quickly forgotten and really does anyone really know where all those ££££millions went?
Gary.
ReplyDeleteAmong other things you have called me a liar. You said you are quoting from a November 2016 Bureau post in which I have lied about the Smiths and their sighting and misrepresented the evidence.
As the records show I have no copies of my 2016 blogs. I have asked elsewhere what Bureau blog is being referred to.Anne Guedes has responded by stating she knows of no blog about the Smiths from November 2016; the only Bureau post for that month, she says, is from November 9, and it is called "The Bewilderment Industry".
I asked you above to link to or quote the text of the blog you say you are quoting from so that I can see exactly what the words are. You have since made other posts here but have not seen fit to reply to my request.
Now, I want to see those words and when I recognise them I will acknowledge them and answer your claims about them. At this moment you have provided no evidence at all for your extremely serious claim.
Please do so now before this starts to get out of hand and serious for everybody involved, including you and blog owner Ros.
Thanks.
21 October 2013
ReplyDelete"A família Smith contou-nos o que viu naquela noite. Um homem, estrangeiro, porte atlético, cara queimada pelo sol, como a dos turistas, e que escondia a face para não ser visto, com uma criança loira ao colo", contou Gonçalo Amaral."
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/testemunha-chave-identificou-pai-de-maddie
"Queimada pelo sol" also means tan from the sun, not necessarily a sunburn.
DeleteSome people seem to spend a lot of time trying to find something to throw up at Gonçalo Amaral.
Carolina
"Please do so now before this starts to get out of hand and serious for everybody involved, including you and blog owner Ros."
ReplyDeleteI was going to point you in the right direction, but I don't take kindly to threats, so you know what you can do.
Gary
It will be interesting to see what blacksmith does to blog owner Ros. After all they are supposed to be on the same side.
Delete@ Giggy
ReplyDeleteHow about we come to a compromise?
You do indeed have an uncle on Jersey and use to live there yourself as a child/teenager.
You even played football for a Jersey team,but now live in Liverpool?
Just to keep the peace eh lol.
@ blacksmith
ReplyDelete"Please do so now before this starts to get out of hand and serious for everybody involved, including you and blog owner Ros."
--------------------------------------------------------
What a strange thing to say especially to Ros who has allowed you to post here for years and insult whoever you liked.
OK. So you made it all up, you lying cunt.
ReplyDeleteMaking things up, both libellous - the claim that I maintain that the McCanns were involved in the disappearance - and simply dishonest is clearly not a serious matter for you.
It is also, clearly, not a problem for Ros either, since she has done nothing about it by way of deleting the deliberate lies and libels.
So it's only serious for me. I can accept that. But only once.
Good heavens JB, I have had to scroll back through dozens of posts to find the incriminating words, and you know, they really aren't that big a deal. Firstly, who tf for example, gives a monkeys about anything that anonymous Gary/Emilie/anonymous troll has to say? As we have seen all through, they will say anything to defend their heroes, G and K. The only way to win libel, as you and I both know, is to put forward the better argument. And you have, and you do.
ReplyDeleteAs the bottom drops out of their world, you, I, all of us who have seen the light from the very beginning will be under attack. That's how they work, it is how they have always worked. They are becoming more desperate, ergo, the insults and crazy allegations will increase, what else do they have to defend themselves other than defaming their accusers?
We have the upper hand JB, we have no need to squish the enemy, they doing fine on their own. This has been a long old waiting game, in which we started as the minority. But times have changed, our words have stood the test of time, the words of the trolls haven't. Team McCann have been exposed, not quite as broadly as we would wish, but heading in that direction.
You do not need to crush Gary JB, he has little if any credibility as it is. He is just another member of Team McCann using my blog to test the waters for a number of defences that we may see put forward from Team McCann in due course. We actually hold the power. We could for example say, yeah, go with that one, while secretly laughing our heads off.
I'm not going to remove the offending post, simply because anyone following the thread will not be able to see what has been going on. And in the whole scheme of things it really doesn't matter JB. We know they lie, I think everyone who reads here knows that too. Your name and your reputation rise way above petty, malicious allegations made by desperate people. You are and always have been the voice of sanity in the commentary on this case JB and I will be happy to write a foreword in your next book.
Who is Gary? Who knows, who cares. He has not succeeded in changing the dynamic of this blog. He doesn't (yet) have the followers Ziggy had, probably because his master has turned him down a few ratchets. He hovers over mean and shows his teeth, but someone still has hold of his collar and chain.
Apologies if you see me as minimising the libel and defamation JB, but seriously dude, after all we have been through, now you complain! Next year I believe JB, will see the culmination of all that you have seen from the start and I began to see very soon thereafter. Nonsense from the likes of superfan Gary are pretty much meaningless JB, they are another cringing example of the barrel being scraped.
My words, as I hope you know by now JB are well intentioned. If we were on a battlefield, I would salute you as a comrade in arms, even if you leading a different army against the same enemy. Keep your eye on the goal my friend, we are almost there.
No problem. It's all OK.
Delete"OK. So you made it all up, you lying cunt."
ReplyDeleteSwear as much as you want John. One day, when all the 'evidence' you provided to the Lisbon court is used to bring the McCanns to court, I'll come back and post the link.
And with that I will say 'Adios'.
A Jersey Bean.
Bean?
DeleteBlert more like.
You blaggin' me 'ead Gary?
DeleteYou'll deffo be back here next year.
Few bevvies and a bifter down Mathew Street tonight?
Watch out for those posh twats and soft lads from down south though.And the wools too. Keep an eye out also for the meff's trying to sell you any knock off tonight and for the bizzies later when you're bladdered up.(no slashing in any shop doorways)
Anyway happy new year to you and remember... you scally...You'll never walk alone.
Giggy wil be back next year no doubt about that,but probably under a new name.
DeleteI suggest Joe,John or even Julie.
And for a place to be from,what about either Alabama,China,Japan,Arabia,Tibet or even the moon?
"The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today published a list of 94 journalists and media staff killed in work-related incidents during 2018. The new death toll marks a slight increase up from 82 killings recorded last year and represents a reversal of the downward trend from the last three years."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/campaign-against-impunity-2018/article/2018-reverses-downward-trend-in-killings-of-journalists-and-media-staff-with-94-victims-of-violence.html
“The numbers on this list are a sad reminder that the safety of journalists will remain elusive as long as countries boasting institutions which should be enforcing the law but have been paralysed by corruption and incompetence in the face of unrelenting assault on journalism,” added IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger. “As such, they stand as a damning indictment of the authorities for their failure to uphold the journalists’ right to their physical safety and to guarantee an informed public discourse in a democracy.”
Many thanks for posting that 08:44, it is worth remembering the risks journalists take in order to bring the truth to the world.
ReplyDeleteThese are strange times 08:44, the populist movements on the right calls the Media fake news, the do-gooders on the Left want to be nannies for everyone. Even I chant variations of 'fake news', particularly after reading anything from Tracey Kandhola.
I believe those pursuing harsh regulations for the press have something to hide. Step forward Kate and Gerry McCann who strongly feel they have not been financially compensated enough, and journalists who wrote nasty stories about them should be jailed. So too anyone who says anything nasty about them on social media.
And these are scary times too, look what happened to Jamal Khashoggi? A murder legitimized by the President of the United States, because he puts money above morality.
I'm of the opinion that we may not like what some journalists do or their methods, but our need for them is far greater than any distaste we may have. It's a bit like the iconic scene from 'A Few Good Men' where Jack Nicholson screams 'you can't handle the truth'. Ie. there are some things we would rather not know.
@ john blacksmith
ReplyDeleteDo you speak for the Blacksmith Bureau on here or as an individual?
Freedom of the press is a must for any democratic society. I might not agree with what's been said or written but I will defend that person's right to say or write about whatever subject they feel strongly about. Question for Gary, what do you think happened that night? With Tannerman being eliminated by SY, what's your view on Smithman? Why is Tannerman still on the LNSU website? These are legit questions that people are asking & will keep asking as Team Mccann can't & refuse to answer. Anyway to all Pros & Antis wish you & families all the best for 2019, & pray we have an answer to what happened to Madeleine that night in May 2007. xxx
ReplyDelete"Question for Gary, what do you think happened that night?"
DeleteI have no idea John100. Nobody on this forum does, no matter what they insist.
But when posters are stating as fact that the Smiths saw GM carrying Madeleine, then I thought that I should read what the Smiths had actually sworn, and I was surprised to read that, in fact, there statements were being used disingenuously to further the theories of others.
Gary
Happy New Year, and may 2019 be the year this confusing case is finally solved.
ReplyDelete