Saturday 23 February 2019

HOW HATE IS USED TO STOP DEBATE

It is only in the last decade or so that the word ‘Hater’ has appeared in our lexicon. I first encountered it in the crazy online world of missing Madeleine McCann.  It was applied to everyone who questioned the validity of the abduction story. It was the answer to every question.  Why didn’t Madeleine wake up? Why was there no sign of an intruder? Why wouldn’t the parents and their friends co-operate with the police? Answer to all three questions and hundreds more besides ‘it’s because you hate the parents’.  Err, why would we hate the parents we ask? ‘Because they are articulate, successful and slim, doubters are clearly insane with jealousy and probably fat’.
 
The case against Goncalo Amaral, he hates the parents. He built an entire case against them, purely because he didn’t like the cut of their jib. He blamed them for the disappearance of their daughter because he wanted to get back to his long lunches and getting his ears pierced.  
 
Now I have spent most of my life out of sorts with the rest of the world, but I very rarely, if ever, think it is because everyone hates me.  Actually that’s not entirely true, it was an intense feeling that overwhelmed me often, when I was 5.  As an adult however, I apply logic.  Ie. that probably was the last sausage roll and they have haven't got any hidden under the counter. 
 
The McCanns were very canny in their choice of inflammatory words to describe those ‘tiny few’ who did not believe them. Words like hater and pitchforker were applied day in and day out, used often enough to ‘become the truth’. How could anyone not sympathise with two parents who lost a child? They MUST be monsters. Kudos to the McCann publicity machine, they managed to isolate and ostracize a ‘minority’ - those members of the public who did not believe them. Criticising the McCanns was taboo, non supporters of them were the enemy. It divided friends, it divided families.
Even the rich and famous were not immune, Katie Price and Sharon Osborn have had to apologise and walk back their criticism of Gerry and Kate.
 
Most rational, reasonable, thinking adults interpret all of the above 'hate' arguments as the nonsense they are.  Though, the word 'pitchforker' is perhaps an insight into the thought process behind the hate shield.  It's medieval, it brings to mind an angry torch carrying mob storming a castle with, literally, pitchforks.  It may have been the McCanns' greatest fear, an angry mob.   A not unrealistic fear as who knows how a mob may have reacted if Gerry and Kate had been charged.  Nothing angers a mob more than crimes against children and having been lied to. 
 
Happily for everyone there have never been any angry mobs in this case, though it has had more than it's fair share of rabble rousers.  I personally think the first reaction to any breaking news from Scotland Yard will be stunned silence.  For many, it will take a while to sink in.  Those involved will be declared cunning geniuses for duping not only the Authorities, but the MSM and several British police agencies. 
 
Accusing your opponent, enemy or whatever, of personal hatred is the defence of those scraping the barrel.  It actually demeans the one using it - it screams 'look how hateful I am'.  Not a good bluff if you haven't got hundreds rushing to your defence.  The public have no reason to hate Kate and Gerry - or do they?  The hate defence suggests they might have?  No-one else was looking at them, that way. 
 
Did Goncalo Amaral hate them so much that he framed them for their daughter's disappearance?  Is that how detectives and investigations work?  Let's leave a child predator on the loose and frame these two because they are smug b'stards?  The hate arguments barely hold up in a playground, they didn't hold up in the Portuguese civil courts and they are not working on  here despite their constant repetition. 
 
Gerry and Kate presented the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance to the world, and have done their utmost to keep it in the headlines ever since.  The audience they hate, is the audience they created, it is their reality show, they pull the strings, they keep their names in the news.  They don't need to keep their fight with Goncalo Amaral going, they choose to.  They want to abuse the European Court of Human Rights, with demands that GA's human rights be taken away. His right to freedom of speech and his right to publish a book.  They also want all the money he earned from that book and the proceeds of his family home.  Financial compensation of £1.25m - quarter of a million for each of them, and as Isabelle Duarte said, they are Five.  Compensation for Madeleine was included in the claim.  The rather spoilt Kate and Gerry just can't take no for answer. 
 
That the McCanns are still able to hate Goncalo Amaral with the same intensity after all these years is bizarre.  Why waste time chasing the former detective through the European Courts when their daughter is still missing?  Why not hate the monster who stole their daughter? 


 

220 comments:

  1. Far be it from me to instruct you in an area that is your genuine speciality. But I have a point or two....

    Most words and phrases that catch fire these days started in America.And in true monkey-see-monkey-do style, the UK mimics America.It's quite sad really when you consider that we have long been considered as two countries divided by a common language ( thank God).My recent irritation in the area is 'super'. Nothing is good any more-it's super-good.We don't feel bad any more- we feel super-bad. It's all part of the slowing down of the mental cogs. 'Hater' caught on, as you say, online- where all super-cool things catch on. People are becoming as much a meme as the memes they live by.

    You say the word 'hater' in this context was : '' applied to everyone who questioned the validity of the abduction story. It was the answer to every question.''

    That's not the case. The people who question the abduction story are entitled to question it.They don't 'hate' it though.The hate is expressed every time they talk about, blame or accuse the parents of the missing child- NOT the abduction story.The content and tone when talking about Mr and Mrs McCann is laced with hatred.Often worse...

    ''The case against Goncalo Amaral, he hates the parents. He built an entire case against them, purely because he didn’t like the cut of their jib''

    It doesn't matter what he feels or doesn't feel about the parents now or back then.He isn't /wasn't paid to feel, he was paid to think.An experienced detective keeps his cards close to his chest and shares them only with his team. He doesn't imagine a scenario based on 'what usually happens' and then go about fitting it.But he did, and he was removed.What he did later by accusing the bereft parents was unprofessional, tactless, unfounded and sickening.People hate those things and that he was allowed to continue doing them.

    ''As an adult however, I apply logic. Ie. that probably was the last sausage roll and they have haven't got any hidden under the counter. ''

    That's actually playing percentages.It has a degree of deductive reasoning, I suppose. Either need to be validated by evidence if it involves a crime and not a sausage roll.

    ''Most rational, reasonable, thinking adults interpret all of the above 'hate' arguments as the nonsense they are. ''

    No. They read the vicious and often obscene rantings directed at the McCanns as well as some disgraceful accusations about what they have decided are their private 'hobbies'.It's toned down here to a degree( with the exception of jc and bjorn).

    '' Nothing angers a mob more than crimes against children and having been lied to. ''

    If they can PROVE the lie they're entitled to be enraged.If all they have are rumours and supposition, they have nothing.They need to find the evidence or expand their view.

    ''Accusing your opponent, enemy or whatever, of personal hatred is the defence of those scraping the barrel.''

    I agree, but if they produce examples to support their accusations they're merely making an observation.

    ''That the McCanns are still able to hate Goncalo Amaral with the same intensity after all these years is bizarre. ''

    Madeleine is still their daughter and that night really was the last night they saw her.The man charged with finding her was actually charged with perjury and failed the investigation. He is known now for the despicable accusations he has made against them.That's what they are unless he or someone else proves his words to be true.That isn't hating anyone. It's asking for sanity and balance.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '' Err, why would we hate the parents we ask? ‘Because they are articulate, successful and slim, doubters are clearly insane with jealousy and probably fat’.''

      I'm sure that accounts for a portion of them.But generally, they(haters) have decided it's OK to hate anyone who has hurt, killed or buried the body of a child.And, to be fair, that's understandable and, to a degree, acceptable.But they don't know, and can't know, that the parents in this case are any of the above.In 12 years they have yet to face arrest and charge or had to account for any physical evidence of them committing a crime. Nobody has.So their lazy logic has concluded that they 'fit the profile' of other parents, or trusted loved ones, we've seen before in press interviews who pretended to be out of their minds with worry only to be later arrested for the child's fate.The 'stats' say there's a high chance of the perpetrator being a parent.Maybe. But it isn't a game of chance and we're not studying the form of a horse with a bet in mind.

      Not all haters are 'chavs' as mocked in the line above. Some are just average people and some are even-wait for it- middle class and /or educated.It doesn't make any difference. They all have the same problem. That is, before they can deny that they are haters that are driven by little more than frustration and angst, they need to provide genuine evidence of why the parents deserve to be hated, why their lies are actually lies and why the police don't see them as lies, then explain why it is 'impossible' that the child that was left alone in an apartment in a foreign country, was abducted. Until then, their sheer bloody mindedness, their apparent obsession with inventing scenarios and thinking up other crimes to be attributed to the parents,looks irrational at best, but disturbing at worst. And it's all been built on a flimsy foundation of guesses and suspicion.

      Delete
    2. The only way hate can stop a debate is allowing the hate to blind you to all possibilities outside your field of perception.Let go of the hate and look around.

      Delete
    3. Going straight to paragraph 2, I see that you lumped all 'haters' together united by their hatred of anyone who commits crimes against children. OK, I'll give you that one, Child murderers etc are generally greeted by angry mobs and rushed through with coats over their heads. The kind of people who turn up en masse to torch the house of a paediatrician.

      Unfortunately, you are applying mob mentality where mob mentality doesn't apply. Social media is in reality, a very solitary occupation. All those thousands interacting independently are not in the same room, the same area, or even the same country. 100,000 likes doesn't mean 100,000 people at the door.

      Gerry and Kate are somewhat lacking in the likeability factor, 15:25, ergo, many people will dislike them based on their interviews where they come across as smug and arrogant. But there is a big leap from dislike to hate, and most people haven't got the time, energy, or inclination to hate others, especially not strangers on the telly or the internet.

      Where are the vicious and obscene rantings aimed at the McCanns and did you have to go out of your way to find them? There certainly aren't any on here. I have zero tolerance for those trying to sex the case up with the creepy stuff that comes directly from their ow twisted heds.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2019 at 00:09

      ''Going straight to paragraph 2, I see that you lumped all 'haters' together united by their hatred of anyone who commits crimes against children''

      I said : '' Not all haters are 'chavs' as mocked in the line above. Some are just average people and some are even-wait for it- middle class and /or educated.It doesn't make any difference''

      ''Child murderers etc are generally greeted by angry mobs and rushed through with coats over their heads. The kind of people who turn up en masse to torch the house of a paediatrician. ''

      Yes, child murderers are.Ones who have been charged and / or found guilty in a court of law.

      ''Unfortunately, you are applying mob mentality where mob mentality doesn't apply. Social media is in reality, a very solitary occupation''

      It shouldn't be an occupation.That's sad.True, but sad. All the current miracles of digital communication depend on the consumers' willingness to cut themselves off from real world socialising. That's why the online experience sees so many reaching out to her echoes of themselves. Mobs and tribes emerge...

      ''Gerry and Kate are somewhat lacking in the likeability factor, 15:25, ergo, many people will dislike them based on their interviews where they come across as smug and arrogant. ''

      Some would say struggling to maintain a calmness and to hold back real emotion if they were using an interview to communicate.You can't make observations like that without a relationship with the people or very long series of them on camera in a variety of situations.It's all subjective and it's easy to bring your comfirmation bias to the experiment.Besides, being smug or arrogant isn't illegal and if thousands are tearing their own hair out over it, they have a problem elsewhere...

      ''Where are the vicious and obscene rantings aimed at the McCanns and did you have to go out of your way to find them? ''

      It's easy to find them. Online you only need to Google the child's name, the parents name and read. Its on the comment section of every lunatic youtube video and on every blog that's lasted.Some have made the papers for being nutty. According to the self appointed experts that constitute 'the court of public opinion' the parents have killed and hidden the child..they've committed fraud and laundered money..they're swingers..them and their friends are a paedophile ring..they're liars,,they're smug..evil...cold...and on and on and on....

      You do occasionally draw a line here. The ones who love the lolita stuff for instance.But they're proof that my assertion is right.It matters not if you use x-rated language. I'd rather be called something that would be censored than be accused of killing my little girl or hiding her body.I know which i find far more serious. An accusation can be more disgusting than language.

      If the parents are ever convicted, then they can all breathe a sigh of relief and party.But, i believe, after reading between the lines of so many of the self proclaimed experts online , that at their very core, they know it isn't ever going to happen.And that only stirs them up more.And they log on...

      Delete
    5. '' I personally think the first reaction to any breaking news from Scotland Yard will be stunned silence....Those involved will be declared cunning geniuses for duping not only the Authorities, but the MSM and several British police agencies.''

      Couldn't have duped that well if it's a 'break' that's met with a stunned silence.That little scenario is a wish.Or, more accurately, a dream.If we get Freudian, the dream is the wish -fulfillment.Nothing at all during the preceding twelve years makes it a realistic probability.You're praying.The antis have the makings of a cult.

      ''The public have no reason to hate Kate and Gerry - or do they?''

      Why should strangers hate them ? But enough do. They articulate it any chance they can find online.

      ''The hate defence suggests they might have? No-one else was looking at them, that way. ''

      No, not at first.But when Madeleine never came home dead or alive after a week or two, the lust for revenge soon took hold.With nobody else to suspect, the unoriginal 'the parents did it, the smug middle class...'' etc.That caught on and cured the online boredom of thousands.It didn't really have legs so to speak but somehow, the same people have managed to re-arrange a handful of narratives they crafted in their virtual headquarters and repeat them for 12 years. The ones still doing it are die-hards.Many realised way back it was all going nowhere.But those too easily consumed by anger, self-loathing and general unpleasantness will always welcome a chance to go to a place where they can all meet up in the ether and engage in a cathartic orgy of hatred and back slapping. They all think the same things .They are the hive mind.So none of them can teach any of the others anything.Which is just as well really as none of them are capable of learning.The shadow people.The light's too bright out here, obviously...

      Delete

    6. Apologies for being unable to reply this past few days, unfortunately some of the letters on my keyboard stopped working. My own fault, I type 'like a gorilla trying to break open a nut according to smart arse son. I'm now using a separate keyboard, and I'm afraid still having teething problems.

      The internet is an occupation in that it occupies a lot of our time. I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the population spent 50% of their time online. It is not just social media, we go online for everything, for our work, for our news, even for our food shopping.

      And we go online to read about subjects that interest us. Many of us are gripped by human interest stories, we follow the story because we want to see how it ends.
      That applies especially in the case of Madeleine McCann because the parents kept an awareness campaign going for over 5 years. They paid £500k to stay on the front pages and they did the media rounds on a regular basis. They will hate this but they became a Reality Show. Actually, they may not hate it because they might have been going that way with Jon Corner and his 'at home with Kate and Gerry' video.

      Kate and Gerry actually created their world wide audience. They invited the world in, giving interviews to news networks from all over the world. They literally spent millions on raising awareness.

      Any reality TV star knows that they can make or break their careers on single video segment. Lie and within moments it will become a meme on twitter. (Ok, I confess I don't really know what a meme is). Gerry and Kate's interviews are littered with memes (?), eg. Ask the dogs?

      They are also littered with, and I will have to go careful here, what many would call bare faced lies, especially if they knew their daughter was dead.

      continues


      Delete
    7. If they knew their daughter was dead, then everything was a lie. The fundraising, the appeals, the private detectives, the demonstration of the curtains whooshing, the door being slightly ajar and the bedroom window being open. Everything a lie. Take a moment to let that sink in. That's what some might say.

      It is hard to like someone who is lying to you. I take it as a personal affront, in that person thinks I am stupid enough to believe what they saying. It's the 'thinking I'm that stupid enough' part, that irks.

      On the hate front. Gerry and Kate, and their friends, left their very young children unattended. The sheer stupidity of that would incense a lot of people. It was neglect no matter how you dress it up with 'we all do it' (no we don't). That reason alone could stir up an angry mob and sadly some tried. I am anti vigilante in all its' forms, internet kangaroo courts especially, so I'm glad they all failed.

      What Gerry and Kate did was very, very wrong, and without doubt had they been working class and without impressive contact lists, their children would have been taken away. I think that was their biggest worry at the time, hence they were calling in favours. That class difference rankled many, especially when Karen Matthews came along. No government spokesman, helpful lawyers or CEOP profiles for her. And of course no multi million pound fund. Shame she didn't phone Clarence before the police.

      There are indeed many good reasons for the rabble to be roused but even then they don't amount to hate. So Gerry and Kate got a lot more than anyone else (actually staggeringly more than anyone else), but it's been 12 years, no-one cares. We are now drowning in a sea of crisis, there are people far more objectionable to hate such as Nigel Farage, if hate's your thing, it's best to stay current.

      The general consensus in the previous few posts was that those who do not believe the abduction story must have something wrong with them. Mostly psychotic inner rage that we have to vent somewhere. We have chosen the McCanns randomly, it could have been any successful middle class couple. Wrong. The McCanns made themselves the news. They didn't read the small print when they signed up for global publicity. They thought controlling public opinion was easy, just keep pumping money into it. They thought they could stamp out their enemies and silence those who could see through their lies. Not only won't they talk about what happened they don't want anybody else to talk about it either. They want us all to look for an abductor they have never looked for themselves. They appear to have used the Madeleine Fund for legal fees not search fees. If they haven't it is easy enough for them to prove.

      Gerry and Kate could easily turn public opinion around, I'm sure any of the networks would give them a spot. Oprah would be a good place to come out, but whatever way you look at it, they have a compelling story to tell.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 February 2019 at 15:00

      'like a gorrila trying to break open a nut''.

      I like that. Not only does the image raise a laugh, it's a pretty damned good simile. Maybe your son should have been the writer of the family :)

      I think your estimate is quite conservative. I'd guess that 75% of the population spends 75% of their time online.That's an average.Some spend 95% online.A sort of not so serious experiment in the summer asked volunteers to switch off their phone while the observer just made small talk.The average time they could bear it was just over a minute before they panicked like an addict and turned it on again.That's quite worrying.Especially in the younger generation.They should be living.

      I love digging around the internet to see if anything of real interest can be found.I find plenty.I also like to compare and contrast a variety of subjects as presented by people with their own agenda.But it does take a lot of cleaning up along the way to brush aside the annoying obsession with trivia and celebrity.I refuse to join the moron population.

      Unfortunately, the McCann case happened just as the internet went from being fashionable to being a global obsession. As such, celebrities became as Gods.And every little thing they thought, said,done, or wore became of the utmost importance.Small news was amplified into drama. Drama was amplified into melodrama.And those who sat online exhausted but unable to log off had to get involved.A sort of ''why not-I'm online aren't I ? I'm not doing anything else'. ( On that note, anyone who hasn't watched the hilarious Dave Gorman's Modern Life Is Goodish- you have to watch it).The obsession became to become famous.Years ago, kids dreamed of being rich and famous and on TV.Now they can present online.Unfortunately not only kids.Everyone's craving attention and admiration to the point that they become depressed or worse if they don't get their ego massaged daily by enough 'thumbs up' icons.This was the world in 2007.Thus, this case was never going to be just another tragedy. Not once so many big players involved themselves...

      ''Kate and Gerry actually created their world wide audience. ''

      That assumes, or implies, a conscious effort to.It was the 'meme effect' that triggered it. It could be argued that the McCann meme was the mother of all memes.In other words-that poster. That lovely little pixie face of a toddler in an Everton shirt-and that eye.

      You're in the right area with your loose grasp of memes.To put it in terms more familiar to you, think of a motif.A writer might use identifiable motifs within a piece of work or a whole body.So it's identifiable by the regularity of it's appearance.A meme, on the other hand is repeatedly used ( to the point of overkill most times) but through the mass copying and spreading of it.Nobody remembers it's origin but you end up seeing everyone posting it. Their catch phrases and in jokes and likes and dislikes all become memes.It's all about uniformity and not individuality. Individualism is the enemy of the unseen hands.The priming is right on schedule. Fight 5G..i warn you all..

      You have to bear in mind that the McCanns were two doctors. There's nothing to suggest that they were media savvy, or close to those who were.Nor did they have millions at their disposal in the beginning.But, for whatever reason, the highest in the land fixed those hiccups.They created the media circus with their own ring leader front and centre. Then came the fund.Why would they refuse all that apparent 'help' if they were desperate ?

      (continues )



      Delete
    9. ( continued)

      ''Any reality TV star knows that they can make or break their careers on single video segment. Lie and within moments it will become a meme on twitter''

      Pretty much yes. Sadly there are millions sat waiting to pounce on the slightest negativity and inflate it so it stays in the air longer.But the McCanns didn't set out to be celebrities on purpose.In a sense they wanted the case to be the celebrity so Madeleine- and her fate- would always be in peoples minds.But they were the only two people who could sell it..And, yes, 'ask the dogs' and 'the dogs don't lie' qualify as memes..

      ''They are also littered with, and I will have to go careful here, what many would call bare faced lies, especially if they knew their daughter was dead. ''

      That's the battleground where the pros and antis fight.You have to bear in mind that nobody can call anyone a liar unless they have proof.The police have heard everything we've heard-and more.They don't consider them liars.If they did, they'd have arrested them.If they believe they're liars and refuse to, it isn't just the McCanns who are guilty.

      If they knew their daughter was dead, then it makes their crime even worse and everything that followed( funds etc) should be an extra nail in their coffin.It's a pretty big 'if' though isn't it. Do you not think that the sheer size of the funds spent and the reach of their 'tour' was a bit too risky for guilty people ? There's bluffing and there's being stupid.

      You say nobody can like someone if they know they're lying to them.That's fair enough.But if I ask you to show me the proof of the lie-can you ? No. And that's why the battle between the pros and antis is a cycle.And a cycle doesn't have an end.

      Hate can only be justified in this case if it becomes fact that the McCanns buried their child and their friends helped to cover it up.They would all deserve life behind bars.But it's not fact. It's a shared suspicion.Not everyone shares it.The police don't. It's a set of beliefs. There are a few billion people who will get angry if you ask them to prove that their God is real and if the evidence can be called evidence if it's only in a book a man or men wrote. But do you believe in God ?

      I agree Re more important things to hate.Blair's the one.He has spent 18 months pulling the strings of the over sensitive in the Labour Party on behalf of his Jewish bosses.The object of the exercise? To make the party crumble and oust Corbyn.And leave the Conservatives looking a safer option.

      ''The general consensus in the previous few posts was that those who do not believe the abduction story must have something wrong with them''

      No. Nobody knows the truth so all guesses are valid.But those who think their guess is law and it entitles them to aim all kinds of poison at their targets DO have something they need to look at.They'd be destroyed in court.They know they would.

      Any public opinion that's been shaped has been the work of media experts.And we know who recommended a government liar.Unfortunately the public rely far too much on being shaped rather than thinking for themselves.More evidence of the online mass trance..

      The parents' story is compelling enough already. It's Blair, Brown, Cameron, Beckett, May et al who need to explain why all that help, all that hype, and all that funding was so readily available. They weren't the first parents to lose a child and they won't be the last, unfortunately.But they have taken a lot of flack that should have been aimed at the architects of this mess.

      Could the parents ever be convicted now ? It would take down the Tapas group and families as well as several police officers in the UK and politicians.If they're guilty, the government, the met, MI5 would not have put themselves in such an insanely precarious position.

      Delete
    10. “Anonymous23 February 2019 at 21:53

      The only way hate can stop a debate is allowing the hate to blind you to all possibilities outside your field of perception.Let go of the hate and look around.”

      If there is a possibility that Amaral is right, then…

      W-t-P

      Delete
  2. Anon wrote.

    It doesn't matter what he feels or doesn't feel about the parents now or back then.He isn't /wasn't paid to feel, he was paid to think.An experienced detective keeps his cards close to his chest and shares them only with his team. He doesn't imagine a scenario based on 'what usually happens' and then go about fitting it.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Its no more than OG have done,they have a remit to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the uk,that is/was a chosen scenario,t
    Whether you accept that matters not,it was clearly stated to be so.
    Maybe its understandably why the case remains as it, unsolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't know the exact mechanics and remit of OG. But yes, it seems inevitable that that's the route they'd take at some point.But the point made was that Amaral hasn't, at any point, shut his mouth.Whether it's about his hunches, his impressions about various suspects and witnesses, MI5 and, mostly, the parents of the missing child. That investigation back in 2007 was so sensitive it was imperative to keep everything in-house. As soon as he was removed he kicked like a bitch. Og, on the other hand, are extremely shy.

      zS

      Delete
  3. Ziggy wrote:
    Madeleine is still their daughter and that night really was the last night they saw her.The man charged with finding her was actually charged with perjury and failed the investigation. He is known now for the despicable accusations he has made against them.That's what they are unless he or someone else proves his words to be true.That isn't hating anyone. It's asking for sanity and balance.

    ....................................................

    OG with the same evidence can't advance the case to find an abductor,maybe one doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Entirely possible.Which would point toward a third scenario. If there's nothing to prosecute the parents with and no evidence that identifies an abductor- what else is there ? If the apartment is point A and Madeleine's destination is Point B - how did she get from A to B ?

      Zs

      Delete
  4. I think you'll find that those consumed by hate are incapable of debate.Perhaps they need to understand that it isn't right or sensible to decide they are the police, the jury and the judge when all they have is a sneaking suspicion loosely based on all those old news stories and crime documentaries on television.Nobody was ever convicted of anything due to the citing of a similar case 'off tv''.

    It doesn't matter how strongly you suspect anything.It doesn't matter what other, unrelated cases the case reminds you of.What matters are the facts; the proof; the evidence.Or, in this case, the lack -or absence of -all three.You can't possibly stand upon a soap box trying to preach to a world where many people are still lucid that those things don't matter.Unless you can prove that your favourite suspects have managed to make all the evidence against them vanish, or convince the police and their superiors to collude in the fiendish plan to make that happen, you'll never truly sound rational. You can blame the hatred you imagine normal people have who ask for evidence to be provided.You can blame the much put upon detective Amaral being removed. But the PJ weren't removed- Amaral's team remained and so did the rest of their team.The 'blame' regarding this case being unsolved is that no evidence was left that was considered a case for a prosecution. DNA and other areas of forensic investigation are advanced enough.But there's nothing for it to investigate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So people seriously believe OG found Tannerman. He came forward after six years in the same clothes. It was just that OG found that he was an innocent holidaymaker.

    We are lead to believe Amaral and the PJ were so useless and inept they did not know there was a night crèche and never thought of investigating if any locals or holidaymakers could have been in the streets that night.

    This pretending to support Amaral and the PJ while demeaning them at every opportunity is ridiculous.

    There is no evidence whatsoever the McCanns are under investigation by OG

    How could they be? They have been supported by the UK police from the start and still are.

    The only positive aspect of OG is to confirm Tanner was not a liar, just mistaken and that closed many avenues of investigation.

    The sole purpose of O.G

    The farce just goes on and on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ at 10:12

      I don't believe OG found Tannerman inasmuch as Tannerman is an innocent holidaymaker aka 'Crèche Dad ', walking in the wrong direction. I also don't believe he came forward after six years, let alone the same clothes thing for both father and daughter.

      I agree with the rest of your post.

      NL

      Delete
    2. The whole 'creche dad' re-emergence from six years in the shadows was a woeful game. We had to suspend our disbelief to an unacceptable degree and choose instead to believe that the man was the exact same physical build as he was six years previously. Then we had to believe the clothes he had worn six years previously still looked pristine as though only just taken off the peg. Then we had to believe he'd kept the exact clothing his little girl had worn 6 years previously even though six years on she'd be 9 or 10. Why did he preserve them like museum pieces for 6 years in a drawer somewhere ? Why didn't he just offer himself up at PDL. He'd have fitted the description and location and still would have had his little girl with him.He can't say he wasn't aware. A tiny place like PSL suddenly taken over by police, detectives, TV reporters and cameras and their crews ?Why was his face pixilated ? In case somebody recognised him as an officer of the met ? He didn't need protection - he was innocent crecheman, remember. Or 'revelation man' as Redwood called him. All it revealed was that OG needed a headline to raise awareness that they were actually in existence and were 'doing something'. Is that really the best our detectives can come up with ? And we pay them every time they hold out the begging bowl ?

      It's a pantomime. We cheer when Amaral's in the news; we hisssssss when a McCann is.Thousands online type 'he's behiiiiiiind you !!'' if Gerry appears at a press conference. And the constant battle cries ''they did it!!!'' met with the same reply ''oh no they never!!!'' In the meantime, the stage is over crowded with flimflam men using their smoke and mirrors. Look to the background. Posters bearing the sketchy resemblance of Pepper's ghost await the inscrutable examination of those with little better to do.

      Delete
    3. @JJ 24 February 2019 at 10:12

      Who led who when conveying that image of the PJ ( inept and unaware of a night creche) ?Who was pretending to support the PJ while simultaneously demeaning them at every opportunity ? Have you some examples ?

      Delete
    4. Hello Rosalinda JJ, NL, anon 24 Febr 2019 12:41 and others.

      The resurrection of the mummified Dr Totman is the strangest event in the history of the Operation Grange. DCI Andy Redwood may well have persuaded Dr Totman, as he answered to the description of “tannerman”, to come forward and discuss a hypothetical round-about walk with his sleeping daughter, which could’ve been just a tactical move to give the impression that all of the McCanns’ friends, not just JT, had always been truthful in their claims about the McCanns’ innocence.

      Dr Totman apparently exists but I doubt that he personally participated in the subsequent masquerade and photo-shopping at the Scotland Yard’s fraud fake laboratory; but police officers may have done so. Anyway, Redwood in his revelation moment apparently shifted the focus from "tannerman" to "smithman", but not from an unknown suspect to the former suspects, in my opinion.


      Delete
    5. Hi Bjorn :)
      I sometimes wonder if we are a little naïve when considering the statements put out by Scotland Yard. Those public statements go out to everyone, suspects and people of interest included. Do we expect them to be 100% truthful?

      When detectives are going after suspects they often play games of deception and subterfuge, literally cat and mouse. And they have to, they are not going to give away everything they've got to the public and the people who made Madeleine disappear.

      At the time of Crimewatch I thought Jane Tanner might have become a co-operating witness. That is, she would not be charged with perverting the course of justice with a fake sighting for, whatever. Her sighting only allowed one tiny window of opportunity for an abductor. Eliminating her sighting opened the timefrme up to 45 minutes.

      How could they eliminate Tannerman without calling Jane Tanner a liar? Enter Dr. Totman or as I prefer Sixyearsinacomaman. Of course time has shown that my fantasy of Jane Tanner as a co-operating witness was just that.

      The reconstruction by Operation Grange, filmed in Spain I think, with actors, shows no sign that Gerry, Kate or any of them took part in the making of it. Why wasn't it filmed in Portugal? Why didn't the parents and their friends take part? Were the Portuguese police involved?

      Delete
    6. ''I sometimes wonder if we are a little naïve when considering the statements put out by Scotland Yard. Those public statements go out to everyone, suspects and people of interest included. Do we expect them to be 100% truthful?''

      The orders are passed from the top of the pyramid down. The object of the exercise is to use the media to place the case back in the forefront of the public so when the next request for money looks legitimate.The public then accept that taxes have to be rifled in the name of justice for an innocent child.Who can challenge that ?Then, the money's in the back pockets of those who wanted it, the new leads and the like, as usual, go nowhere and it all goes quite and we all go back to our routine. Nice work if you can get it.Those at the top of the pyramid and just below know what happened in PDL. And they'll take the secret with them.Nobody dares to break the real pact of silence in the case- and it isn't that of the Tapas 9.All actions point to the determination to cover it all up at all costs. I dread to think who it is so high that they can command this kind of response.

      Delete
    7. Good heavens 13:58, whatever has made you so cynical?

      The idea that Operation Grange is a front for money to be channelled to back pockets is ludicrous, and I'm not a fan of that word. There are far easier ways to scam cash than to set up a fake investigation into the death of a child abroad.

      I don't for one minute buy into the idea that 30+ detectives would cover up the death of a little girl. It would against their consciences, their personal morals and everything they have sworn to uphold. This is the 21st century and 'I was only following orders' has been thoroughly discredited. If any of those police officers had been asked to anything criminal there would be whistleblowers. In fact, anywhere along the chain of command there would be whistleblowers.

      The pact of silence, on the part of the authorities that you allude to, is probably Judicial Secrecy. The Portuguese have primacy, the British must play by their rules.

      There is no pyramid, the McCanns are not being protected. Do they look like their being protected? Unfortunately for them there are many videos of them both in protected mode and unprotected mode to compare.

      Kudos on trying to start a conspiracy though, but you will need to be a bit more specific if you want it to catch on.


      I don't agree all actions point to determination to cover it all up. The digs in PDL for example were pretty much 'in yer face'. Any claims that the police believed Madeleine was alive after that, were pretty hollow. Clearly the police don't think Madeleine is alive so how does that fit with a cover up?

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 February 2019 at 15:08

      ''Good heavens 13:58, whatever has made you so cynical?''

      ''The idea that Operation Grange is a front for money to be channelled to back pockets is ludicrous, and I'm not a fan of that word.''

      Really.So, what's it been spent on ? What has it bought ? What has it paid for ?

      ''There are far easier ways to scam cash than to set up a fake investigation into the death of a child abroad. ''

      The priority was to present an illusion just cleverly enough to fool the gullible into believing there was still an endless search and investigation.The cash was just a cherry on the cake..

      ''I don't for one minute buy into the idea that 30+ detectives would cover up the death of a little girl''

      Nor do I. But I believe the scene was washed clean enough that they wouldn't find an iota of evidence.That decision came from above them

      '' In fact, anywhere along the chain of command there would be whistleblowers. ''

      Before you blow the whistle you need to know what the consequences would be.Who was the copper who was set to lead the investigation but was warned off the McCanns by 'a respected colleague' ? Did he blow a whistle and say who warned him ? Maybe he was warned in the middle of a funny handshake...

      ''The pact of silence, on the part of the authorities that you allude to, is probably Judicial Secrecy. The Portuguese have primacy, the British must play by their rules.''

      Yes, everything's a secret.So secret we won't even arrest or charge anyone-'cos it's a secret.Don't kid yourself. The UK invaded the Portuguese and took over.

      ''There is no pyramid, the McCanns are not being protected''

      All power structures are based on the pyramid model.I never mentioned covering up to protect the McCanns, i just said covered up.I said i dread to think how high up the protected was.

      ''Kudos on trying to start a conspiracy though, but you will need to be a bit more specific if you want it to catch on. ''

      Are you serious ? This 'conspiracy' was started years ago. Those who question the unique over - involvement of Prime Ministers and MI5 into an alleged kidnapping ( police matter) smelt the rat. That nobody has been arrested in 12 years and no spec of evidence to incriminate anyone has been found, i think gives this conspiracy more credibility than that of the antis. They prefer that it was all because the well-to-do middle class doctors could command this blanket .
      ''I don't agree all actions point to determination to cover it all up. The digs in PDL for example were pretty much 'in yer face'. ''

      And 'in yer camera'. Showtime folks-look at us carrying out a determined investigation in a place we know won't yield a thing. Imagine if they'd have found Madeleine.They knew they wouldn't,The question is-how ?

      ''Any claims that the police believed Madeleine was alive after that, were pretty hollow. Clearly the police don't think Madeleine is alive so how does that fit with a cover up?''

      Clearly ? Show me evidence.You're guessing and calling your conclusion 'clearly' again.The police are chasing shadows. Those above know it.

      You ask why I'm so cynical regarding OG. All of the above and 12 years of nothing.That's cause enough for cynicism. I'll ask you why you're so positive and think they're doing something. The only thing that seems 'clear' to me is that no decision has been made as yet on how to break it to the public that they give up. Case closed until further notice.After all that time and money ? It's a sticky one. But let's face it, no alternative seems probable.

      Delete
    9. I don't for one minute buy into the idea that 30+ detectives would cover up the death of a little girl. It would against their consciences, their personal morals and everything they have sworn to uphold.

      The Assistant Chief Constable of the Leicestershire Police, while supervising the McCann case, committed suicide while waiting court appearances over perverting the course of justice, fraud and gross misconduct.

      This is the quality of the management of the Leicestershire Police.

      He swore an oath, it meant nothing.

      Hard facts will always outweigh wishful thinking

      Delete
    10. Hello Rosalinda,26 February 2019 at 13:28
      thanks for feed back on my post.

      I've just watched Crime Watch from 2013, and I see things a little different from what I did then. The impression I now get is that Redwood was actually promoting the McCanns' story, though not in detail of course as the 21H15-30 abduction was dismissed by him in favour of an abduction shortly before 22H00, fitting into the time line of the Smiths' witness statements. Thus, making "smithman"more of a suspect. So far, quite right and logical imo.

      However, showing the sketches of a possible abductor based on the reliable witness statements by this Irish family at the same time as Kate and Gerry were present and even allowed to talk about how very hopeful they were about finding Madeleine makes me think, that at least Redwood must've thought, that the "smithman" was an unknown abductor, whom he hoped to identify by a little help from the public.

      If the Operation Grange were investigating Gerry and Kate but not the abduction hypothesis, why would BBC/SY invite them to participate, in what I now would like to call a farce?

      As I've said so many times before Rosalinda, I really hope that I'm completely wrong in my judgement of the OG and that I've underestimated their competence and that I don't understand the tactics they're using. I'm not a detective of course. I just have my suspicious mind you know, thats' all.

      Delete
    11. Operation Grange is a review of the case. Crimewatch is a television programme. They may both cover the same area but are very different things. Don't try to tie them too closely- it can't be done for obvious reasons,

      ''I really hope that I'm completely wrong in my judgement of the OG and that I've underestimated their competence ''

      Where are the examples of their competence anyway ? Cite one instance. It's an illusion.

      '' I don't understand the tactics they're using.''

      I can explain them for you.They're pretending to be reviewing a case and investigating it.key word 'pretending'. Obviously, should anyone point out why that's wrong, I'll retract it.Just show me an example instead of a guess.

      Delete
    12. Hi anon 26 February 2019 at 21:17

      We may perhaps soon learn about the most scandalous police investigation in the history of modern society, which would demoralize many of those, who have some kind of faith in humanity, truth and justice. I can just hope for the better...

      Delete
    13. Or just another unsolved case

      Delete
  6. Re; Tannerman,who ever it was, he never saw anything suspicious around that time.Confirmed by Redwood when moving the timeline on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anon 24 February 2019 at 17:32
      "Re; Tannerman,who ever it was, he never saw anything suspicious around that time.Confirmed by Redwood when moving the timeline on"

      Neither did anyone else. The only ones who saw suspicious things that day were the McCanns. Such as the open door, the curtains that went whoosh, Gerry's sense of feeling an intruder behind the door, Madeleine's "crying story" etc. Apart from that it was a quite perfect day for the disposal of a body.

      Delete
  7. In an earlier blog you said the McCanns had been visited by the police and told to keep quiet and stop leaking stories to the press. Apologies, not exactly how you put it but you'll know the blog I mean. Could the police have done this for another reason, telling them to stay out of the headlines, lay low, don't make waves until after March 31st. The police will then announce the closing down of the case, all avenues explored etc. Hope not but just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the visit you are referring to was reported by Tracey Kandhola and possibly others. It mentioned one last lead and there was talk of not alerting the suspects.

      I do think Operation Grange is coming to an end this year. With Trump and Brexit, the next few months will provide a good opportunity to bury bad news. Many household names are caught up in what can only be described as a cover up. Whatever way you look at it, the Portuguese police were prevented from solving this crime at the time of the original investigation. There was interference by the British government. The British police agencies who flew out to Portugal were at odds with each other. How did that impact the Portuguese police investigation?

      If the British Operation Grange and the current Portuguese investigation come to the same conclusions as Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation, then a lot of 'important' people have a lot of questions to answer.

      Delete
    2. Operation Grange came to an end years ago.The request for funding will end in a month or two.People are wiser now.

      Delete
  8. What surely triggered the McCanns into an over-the-top frenzy was Goncalo Amaral's book. "The Truth of the Lie".
    The couple were never expecting this type of a body blow from someone who knew every detail of the case.
    Luckily for readers in Europe and on the internet Amaral has been able to pass on to every reader the truth of the McCann's massive cover-up.

    The couples' retaliation has been to belittle Amaral in every way they can.
    So many expressions "Tosser" for the detective investigating the case. "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee" for police in the very room their daughter disappeared from.
    What surprised this couple most of all was that Amaral could write a book and he did it really well.

    How could that be, he was a foreigner, and to them pretty low on the totem pole.
    He was a Portuguese foreigner too.

    Why oh why couldn't the search for their child be investigated by someone with good looks and who spoke English, like TV detective Jack Lord, "Hawaii Five O" or Efrem Zimbalist Junior, "77 Sunset Strip" or even better the suave "Thinman" couple Nick and Nora Charles"

    No. Here was a man, who defied the odds - at least they thought so. He resembled more the bumbling Agatha Christie character Hercule Poirot than anyone else they could conjure up.

    This determined couple would show this low-life.

    And so it goes...

    The next and last exhaustive step in the tale is the hearing before the European Court of Human Rights. (if the commission will ever bother to give it their time)
    Maybe they will never have to if a prosecution is soon launched by a Portuguese justice system loaded up with recent information from the mysterious "Operation Grange".
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous25 February 2019 at 18:15
      jc

      ''The couple were never expecting this type of a body blow from someone who knew every detail of the case.''

      I know. They were hoping that him knowing 'every detail' of the case would mean he'd solve it, not provide material for a best seller. Their initial 'frenzy' had something to do with the fact that their little girl had vanished.

      ''Luckily for readers in Europe and on the internet Amaral has been able to pass on to every reader the truth of the McCann's massive cover-up''

      He passed on a theory-or theories. Nothing more, nothing less.But, because the theories incriminate the parents, idiots like you grab them like a life line for your anger.If there was a cover up, where was his proof ? Was it in the book ? Haven't the PJ ever acted on his 'knowing every detail' ?

      ''The couples' retaliation has been to belittle Amaral in every way they can.''

      Amaral failed them and failed his bosses and was removed from the case. Why would that happen ? Because he knew the 'truth' ? because he could have solved the case ? Instead, he retaliated to all of that by accusing the parents of burying their child's body.He accused them vocally and in writing. As if never having the case solved and their child found wasn't pain enough. So, they retaliated to his vicious accusations and suggested that he should be made to prove it.Obviously he can't, as no proof exists.But his book was allowed to stand as it wasn't to be considered as facts, merely theories.

      ''What surprised this couple most of all was that Amaral could write a book and he did it really well.''

      What surprised them the most was how he failed the case and then wrote a book based on all his 'knowledge'. Painting a picture of the parents and their supposed actions was pivotal to the success of how much money he made from the book.

      ''No. Here was a man, who defied the odds - at least they thought so. He resembled more the bumbling Agatha Christie character Hercule Poirot than anyone else they could conjure up. ''

      Poirot only appeared to be incompetent as a ruse. he always solved the case and arrested the culprit. Amaral only managed 50% of the impersonation.You represent so many people who cite novels, documentaries and some dodgy old 60s series as relevant to real life.Feel free to join the real world and 21st century any time you like. This latest post of yours is a rehash of all your others.Did you think by doing that you could slip the lies through unnoticed ? Never going to happen old fruit. You change the words but the song remains the same.Shameful.

      Delete
    2. I love your writing style JC, it is captivating - no wonder it causes so many waves on here.

      You are right of course, the Mccanns were hostile to the Portuguese police from the off. Why? Most people in their situation would welcome the police and work with them. They would certainly treat them with respect as they were their best hope of getting Madeleine back. Why be rude to someone who's help you need?

      The McCanns were poised to pulverise the Portuguese police long before Goncalo Amaral wrote his book. I remember an interview with Clarence Mitchell following the disclosure of the 'why didn't you come to me and Sean when we were crying' comment. There was talk of suing the PJ then while they were still arguidos. GA was the unfortunate cop who picked up the poisoned chalice.

      I don't know what the McCanns want from the ECHRs, perhaps once of their supporters could explain. Are they still suing GA, or the nation of Portugal? Do they still expect to be awarded £1.25m in compensation? Do they expect GA to be flung in prison and the Supreme Court chastised? I'm genuinely curious, now is an opportunity for them to make their case.

      Delete
    3. ''Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 February 2019 at 12:20
      ''I love your writing style JC, it is captivating - no wonder it causes so many waves on here.''

      Yes, it's because it's so powerful and insightful-not to mention original.A child's guide to hatred.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 February 2019 at 12:20

      ''You are right of course, the Mccanns were hostile to the Portuguese police from the off. Why? Most people in their
      situation would welcome the police and work with them.''

      They had lost their little girl and they were terrified.They put her fate as well as their own, in the hands of the PJ who were busy asking pointless questions, putting a tail on Robert Murat, selling fake leaks to the UK press for free food and drink and getting nowhere.Every second counts early in a case like this. And you claim to be surprised that the parents became hostile ? Why are you ignoring the other side of the coin. You're supposed to be considering 'all angles'. You never discuss any other than your own favourite angle( guesswork that frames the parents).

      ''I don't know what the McCanns want from the ECHRs, perhaps once of their supporters could explain''

      To have their right 'innocent until proven guilty' upheld and then used to define defamation, slander and libel.Portugal might have to come kicking and screaming into the 21st century.Look out, Mr Amaral, a bumpy ride lay ahead.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous25 February 2019 at 18:15

      ( jc )

      ''So many expressions "Tosser" for the detective investigating the case. "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee" for police in the very room their daughter disappeared from.''

      ''How could that be, he was a foreigner, and to them pretty low on the totem pole. He was a Portuguese foreigner too.''

      'Why oh why couldn't the search for their child be investigated by someone with good looks and who spoke English, like TV detective Jack Lord, "Hawaii Five O"

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 February 2019 at 12:20

      ( Ros )

      ''I love your writing style JC, it is captivating''

      Captivating.Book him, Danno. Silliness one.

      Delete
    6. Most of us put our lives and fates into the hands of doctors, usually while being distressed and terrified. We put our faith in the medics because they are the professionals. We tend not to remove our own appendix or get a friend to do it.

      In this scenario the police were the professionals. Many medical questions may seem pointless to us as laymen but they form part of a bigger picture for a doctor. The very distressed Gerry and Kate were not in a position to judge what was or wasn't pointless.

      Regarding the police leaking secrets to the press for free food and drink, low blow. It was the McCanns who brought the circus to town and it was the McCanns who made their daughter's disappearance the biggest story in the world. Naturally the press were vying with each other to get exclusive stories.

      Finally, as a person who wants to burn books, I don't know how you can talk about Portugal being dragged into the 21st century!

      I'm not sure what you mean their right 'innocent until proved guilty upheld'. Upheld where? In the Portuguese Supreme Court? Are you saying the Portuguese Judges believe them guilty of involvement in their daughter's disappearance - that's why they ruled in Goncalo Amaral's favour? Had they treated the McCanns as innocent (until proven guilty) they would have won their case?

      Interesting concept but I don't think they have a hope in hell. No Court in the world will take away Goncalo Amaral's right to free speech. Words like defamation, slander and libel are more 19th than 21st century. People are being defamed, libelled and slandered on a daily basis - everyone now has a voice and no-one is immune. The Law cannot keep up with the internet revolution. Thankfully.

      After all that has been written, what possible case do the McCanns have against Goncalo Amaral or Portugal. No country can legislate that specified people be thought innocent. No country or Judge can legislate on how a book should be read.

      Kudos for the bravado, but I doubt Goncalo Amaral or 'Portugal' are worried by the McCanns' legal threats. The McCanns. Besides I think you are bluffing. I can't see any lawyer crazy enough to take on such a weak case, and I can't see how the McCanns could finance another massive round of litigation.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 February 2019 at 14:28

      ''We put our faith in the medics because they are the professionals. We tend not to remove our own appendix or get a friend to do it.''

      And if the doctors we trusted removed our foot instead of the appendix we're entitled to be hostile.

      ''Regarding the police leaking secrets to the press for free food and drink, low blow.''

      Not really. It happened.It was a low act. I'm just reminding readers of it.

      '', as a person who wants to burn books, I don't know how you can talk about Portugal being dragged into the 21st century! ''

      I don't want to burn books. I want to uphold human rights while we'e still clinging on to a pale imitation of democracy.In the UK and most of Europe, the system of justice states we are innocent until proven guilty.The vigilante headcases want that burned ( but only in the Mccann case- we can re-instate it later). Wake up, Portugal.

      ''Are you saying the Portuguese Judges believe them guilty of involvement in their daughter's disappearance - that's why they ruled in Goncalo Amaral's favour?''

      No, I'm saying that they ruled in his favour with regard to allowing the book to be published and sold.They did it and explained it by describing it as a literary book rather than factual.It can be considered a book of opinions rather than recorded facts .Predictably, the antis have decided to ignore the explanation and champion the book and author and cite the judges ruling as the court endorsing his opinions rather than the right to be published.Not that they're desperate or anything...

      ''Interesting concept but I don't think they have a hope in hell. No Court in the world will take away Goncalo Amaral's right to free speech.''

      There's a big difference between free speech and slander and defamation.Many courts are aware of it . They can take away his right to slander and defame.That's why we have laws.

      ''The Law cannot keep up with the internet revolution. Thankfully.''

      You are now championing the right to slander and attack from an internet platform and celebrating that it's one step ahead of the police. Well done. Very mature and very objective.

      ''After all that has been written, what possible case do the McCanns have against Goncalo Amaral or Portugal.''

      Incompetence, slander, defamation, illicit profiteering and libel where the former is concerned. Incompetency with the latter.

      ''No country can legislate that specified people be thought innocent. No country or Judge can legislate on how a book should be read.''

      You want half witted vigilantes running the land with their pitchforks and torches ?Why do you think we needed to build a police force in the first place ? Any country can legislate that all citizens are innocent until they are proven guilty of a crime in front a jury of the peers.Why can't you accept or grasp that ? It's simple. No judge can legislate or instruct how a book can be read, but they can legislate whether or not the author is making false claims of truth.

      ''Kudos for the bravado, but I doubt Goncalo Amaral or 'Portugal' are worried by the McCanns' legal threats. ''

      Bravado has never been my thing.never will be.I'm just telling you how I see it. I thought you might appreciate the view of someone whose eyes are actually open and unclouded.God knows you need it..

      ''The McCanns. Besides I think you are bluffing''

      That's either 100% paranoid or just plain mad. I'm not involved in any cases and have no plans to be attending any ECHR sittings. No stake in anything.Just an interest in justice and an ongoing curiosity into the workings of the bizarre herd mentality.

      ''I can't see any lawyer crazy enough to take on such a weak case, and I can't see how the McCanns could finance another massive round of litigation.''

      You're not a lawyer.

      Delete
    8. @15:11

      You Tenderness

      “They did it and explained it by describing it as a literary book rather than factual.It can be considered a book of opinions rather than recorded facts.”


      “Anonymous17 February 2019 at 15:38

      ''Where did you get the strange idea that the courts ruled that his book was to be considered a literary work and not factual?''

      In the judge's summing up. The reason was cateforically stated in it. Check it.”


      “Anonymous17 February 2019 at 20:29

      Anonymous 17 February 2019 at 15:38

      “''Where did you get the strange idea that the courts ruled that his book was to be considered a literary work and not factual?''

      In the judge's summing up. The reason was cateforically stated in it. Check it.”

      I have (checked it). I am afraid you are wrong as to ‘not factual’. The phrase used in the Judgement is “...em obra de cariz literário“ (in a work of literary character). ‘Literary’ does not mean or imply ‘not factual’.

      If you would like to continue debating this point, please quote from the judgement to substantiate what you are saying.

      Thanks.

      W-t-P”


      (Tragically unsigned)

      Delete
    9. You missed my point on the medical analogy. The patients were in triage, no surgery had taken place.

      Regarding low acts. what were the McCanns offering the paparazzi for unfavourable pictures of the Portuguese police? Why would parents of a missing child do that?

      So you don't want to burn books? Where do you think GA's books were heading when they taken off the book shelves? Saying you only want GA's books burned doesn't take you out of the middle ages.

      As to 'innocent until proven guilty', what exactly do the McCanns want? The State of Portugal to officially announce them innocent (until proven guilty)? Not that any country would ever do that, but even if they did, would it change public opinion? Same with your oft repeated 'rule' that GA's book must be read as fiction, not fact. It matters not one iota to anyone apart from yourself and presumably, Madeleine's parents.

      Turning to your list of grievances against Portugal, I note it begins with incompetence. Err, weren't the parents incompetent in leaving the children on their own in the first place? When you chuck around incompetence accusations you really ought to check your own closet first.

      I see you are again back in the middle ages with torches and pitchforks etc. Do you know that song 'nobody likes me everybody hates me I think I'll go and eat worms', you are the character from that song.

      As I said the other day most gatherings online are meaningless, they don't represent angry mobs preparing to congregate. Well except in very rare cases, such as riots etc.

      In the Madeleine case, those with mob mentality have gone underground with only a handful of people talking to each other. Supporters of the McCanns fear there are hundreds of thousands out there rallying armies and getting into battle mode. I understand their fears, they are being accused of heinous crimes, who knows how the public will react. I tend to think it will be sympathetically, feelings about Madeleine's disappearance are no longer raw. Too many years have gone by and this is just another sad story.

      From a personal perspective, I don't want to see the McCanns demonized or pilloried. I wash my hands of the justice side of Law and Order, I am too soft to punish anyone and am grateful there are people with a strong enough constitution to deal with it.

      Having said all that, there are some I will be happy to see brought down. As much as Gerry and Kate were willing, they were used by many powerful people. People with agendas of their own.

      Bravado, not your thing? Not ever? If you don't put on a brave face, do you just break down and cry?

      I stand by my bluffing remark. You like to taunt the police and Goncalo Amaral that you are coming from a position of strength. It's a bit like Trump pretending everything is going well while it is clear he is drowning under a sea of criminal lawsuits.

      The fact is the McCanns have no new evidence to support the claim that they have lost 3 times in a row. Their original case was always weak, look at the witnesses they produced? All their damages were psychological but 'Pike' was the best they could get?

      I remember a few years prior to that, they had attempted to settle their claim, a sure sign of weakness in a legal claim, but had been unsuccessful as GA would not agree to their terms. As if they had a right to demand terms!

      12 years on their claim is even weaker than it was when they got cold feet. Proving they were damaged by GA's book will be impossible due to the huge amount of publicity Gerry and Kate themselves, have generated.

      On the lawyer front, I guess a lawyer will do pretty much anything you ask as long as they are paid. However, Gerry and Kate no longer have the bottomless pit of money in the Madeleine Fund. Are they going to use what remains in that Fund to take their case against GA and Portugal to the ECHRs?

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 February 2019 at 16:28

      ''So you don't want to burn books? Where do you think GA's books were heading when they taken off the book shelves? Saying you only want GA's books burned doesn't take you out of the middle ages.''

      Resorting to strawman arguments actually weakens your own. I on't know, nor do I care, where Amaral's book was heading once removed from the shelves. My point of view states that they shouldn't have made it to the shelves in the first place. Wanting to prevent the poisonous slandering of innocent people isn't having a middle ages mindset. It's being a normal decent human being.

      ''As to 'innocent until proven guilty', what exactly do the McCanns want?''

      To be considered innocent until proven guilty.Was that difficult ? They, like all of us out in reality, want it to apply to anyone and used as a suitable defence against unfounded allegations. Is that 'middle ages' too ?

      ''Turning to your list of grievances against Portugal, I note it begins with incompetence. Err, weren't the parents incompetent in leaving the children on their own in the first place? ''

      Err, yes. But it doesn't make them errr, murderers.And at least they admit they left them alone . The PJ have never admitted their incompetence other than to have Amaral grudgingly concede 'mistakes were made'

      ''I see you are again back in the middle ages with torches and pitchforks etc. Do you know that song 'nobody likes me everybody hates me I think I'll go and eat worms', you are the character from that song.''

      Mature.

      ''As I said the other day most gatherings online are meaningless, they don't represent angry mobs preparing to congregate. Well except in very rare cases, such as riots etc. ''
      They want to incite that. What about your buddy Sonia P ? She can't keep still.Didn't she try to doorstep the parents ? And that other whacky mob turned up with leaflets in Leicester etc. Nutters.

      ''From a personal perspective, I don't want to see the McCanns demonized or pilloried. ''

      That's obvious from reading your blog. You won't have a word said against them.Too fair, that's your trouble.

      ''Bravado, not your thing? Not ever? If you don't put on a brave face, do you just break down and cry?''

      Neither. If you insist on a label, stoic comes close.

      The rest of your post is too weak to discuss.It's old. Nothing has emerged in 12 years to land the parents in a cell. That's almost 144 months. It's over. Those in charge will not allow a conclusion. Read the signs. Someone's over a barrel.

      Delete
    11. re my post @16:06

      Begging your pardon. Please read the salutation as ‘Your Tenderness’, Your Tenderness.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous26 February 2019 at 16:06

      Dubya Teep...

      One day you'll give us a take on what you think, will you not..I know i used to ask way back but gave up...

      in the meantime..back to the crime of all centuries- book banning...

      ''Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling...The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants...''

      See the judges' ruling was that calling the parents liars, despite the pain they were enduring, wasn't 'abusive'. They consider that the constructing of the actual mechanics of burying their dead child was fair. Even though she was ( and is still ) considered to be alive but missing.But Amaral knew his words would carry more weight than mr and mrs knuckle-biter online as he had been 'on the inside'. But, he-nor anyone else- ever proved his allegations to be accurate.Even now, 12 years later, there's still nothing to support his lies.I can say lie as i can point to his 'previous' conviction for perjury ( which was committed during another missing child case).

      The ruling was in favour of free speech. Essentially saying anyone can say anything, no matter how vicious, harmful or unfounded and it wouldn't matter if it could be backed up by actual evidence.That's why the book was referred to as a literary work'. Yes, that covers all manner of written words. But why even mention it ? Why did they think it necessary to qualify their dark ages mindset with an ambiguous so-called clarification ?

      Whatever anyone thinks, that's the pinnacle that the antis will have to look back on with regard to the parents' suffering. As much as they want more it ain't happening.They'll have to sing this song on a loop.The day we won the publishing rights. Big deal. Flip to the 'B' side and give 'not suspects-period' a listen...

      Delete
    13. Hi Anon 26 February 2019 at 18:06
      re yr convrsation with Rosalinda

      "Err, yes. But it doesn't make them errr, murderers.And at least they admit they left them alone"

      Yes, but they've never admitted that it was wrong to do so, given that they supposed that PDL was a safe place for children.

      However, they wouldn't have left their children in an unlocked apartment, in a strange country, night after night if they'd just known that the resort was crowded with paedophiles, burglers and child traffickers, they say. So who can blame them for not being told so by the Mark Warner staff,by any of all the English citizens who stay their permanently or by the anglican Church on their arrival?

      Delete
    14. bjorn

      I had a feeling this topic would excite you..

      ''Yes, but they've never admitted that it was wrong to do so, given that they supposed that PDL was a safe place for children.''


      It was wrong, regardless of what they say they think.What have they said on reflection ? Or aren't we going to discuss that.

      I can't understand your final paragraph. Who said the place was crowded with paedophiles, burglars etc ? And why are we not crucifying the rest of the group who left their children unattended in unlocked apartments ?Does it only count if your child disappears ?

      Delete
    15. @18:34

      At your service, Your Tenderness:

      If you agree with the statements that “In the judge's summing up. The reason was categorically stated in it”, then please tell me where in “In the judge's summing up” is it categorically stated “that his {Amaral’s] book was to be considered … not factual?

      In this instance, your quoting selectively from a newspaper article is inappropriate, I dare say. :)

      Namasste.

      W-t-P

      Delete
    16. 26 February 2019 at 21:07

      Good morning, Your Catalytic Exquisiteness

      “And why are we not crucifying the rest of the group who left their children unattended in unlocked apartments ?”

      Perhaps because the rest of the group had not been leaving their apartments unlooked and no child of theirs disappeared?

      W-t-P

      Delete
    17. Dear Anon 26 February 2019 at 21:07
      It was supposed to be irony!

      No, of course there weren't more potential criminals sneaking around in PDL, than anywhere else, but the McCanns and their defenders have always tried to blame others for what happened to Madeleine.

      So portraying PDL as a "hell hole", especially that specific week, is nothing but an attempt by many defenders of the McCanns (here I include MSM and Crime Watch 2013) to make people believe in the McCanns' innocence.

      Regardless of what the McCanns knew about te criminality in PDL, they're totally responsible for what happened to Madeleine, as you say.

      The McCanns as well as British MSM have many times depicted PDL as a place where potential perpetrators are looming through the darkness with stolen children in their arms, because they need to do so in order to keep the myth about the preposterous abduction story alive.

      Of Course;
      The McCanns should be charged with child neglect, as there's no excuse for leaving your children alone, let alone behind unlocked doors. Their friends had some kind of sophisticated audio equipment, if I remember correctly, to listen to their children, but at least, they locked the doors to their apartments. Still it is not appropriate childcare


      Delete
    18. Anonymous27 February 2019 at 08:29

      ''Perhaps because the rest of the group had not been leaving their apartments unlooked and no child of theirs disappeared?''

      I had asked that same question within the same post.

      Anonymous26 February 2019 at 23:21

      We could discuss all 76 pages of the ruling. It wouldn't take as long as the investigation.And we could put some points down selectively and claim 'lost in translation'. Wouldn't that be fun.

      I'll trawl the archives to try and satisfy your curiosity. I won't look for where it is or isn't banned.That would make things far too exciting.But, before this goes to the ECHR and a semblance of sanity is hopefully restored, I'm interested to know the thoughts of the antis on why this 'momentous' court ruling and apparent indirect approval of the judges combined with their barely relevant commentary on the McCanns status ( not cleared) has never been translated into a criminal court and trial. The PJ and UK detectives would surely only need to cite the supreme court as a key witness and it would be a slam dunk.Perhaps the McCanns have controlled the judicial system too with their seemingly endless reach of power.What's the thoughts of the camp , Dubya ?

      Delete
    19. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 February 2019 at 12:20

      ''I love your writing style JC, it is captivating - no wonder it causes so many waves on here.''

      You think jc's writing style causes waves on here ? You're flattering him and your blog. The 'waves' are caused by his ignorance, his refusal to answer anyone who questions him and the often tasteless-often bordering on perverse- content.His views are neither here nor there. But the bad taste is offensive. You allow it because of your alleged stance on free speech.I'd wager that that stance would wobble if somebody else spoke with his tone and with such unpleasant accusations but supported the abduction theory. Don't think I'm the only reader who thinks this.

      Delete
    20. @12:52

      “I had asked that same question within the same post.”

      I don’t think so, comrade.

      You: “And why are we not crucifying the rest of the group who left their childrenin unlocked apartments ?”

      I: “Perhaps because the rest of the group had not been leaving their apartments unlooked … ?”

      “We could discuss all 76 pages of the ruling.

      Wouldn't that be fun.”

      It would indeed.

      “I'll trawl the archives to try and satisfy your curiosity.”

      I’ve never doubted you assiduity, but your suggestion sound too time-consuming even for you, Your Assiduousness . You frequently refer to a judicial finding that Amaral’s book is ‘not factual. Just clarify where you got this notion from.

      “I'm interested to know the thoughts of the antis on why this 'momentous' court ruling and apparent indirect approval of the judges combined with their barely relevant commentary on the McCanns status ( not cleared) has never been translated into a criminal court and trial.”

      I don’t understand. I don’t see how a finding in a civil case could be translated into a criminal trial. However, the decision of the Supreme Court’s will stand, ECHR or not.

      “The PJ and UK detectives would surely only need to cite the supreme court as a key witness and it would be a slam dunk.”

      You surely know that’s not how it works.

      “.Perhaps the McCanns have controlled the judicial system too with their seemingly endless reach of power.

      Not necessarily. But we don’t know the full extent of the conspiracy. CON-SPI-RA-CY – frightening word.

      “What's the thoughts of the camp””

      Hmm… A camp bear… Have never thought of mysekf that way. Interesting.

      “Dubya ?”

      Yes. comrade?

      A bear hug? ()

      Namaste :)

      Delete
    21. ''I don’t understand. I don’t see how a finding in a civil case could be translated into a criminal trial. However, the decision of the Supreme Court’s will stand, ECHR or not.''

      That's my point Mr Pee.I just needed somebody else to state it.The reason being that it gets beyond tedious when anti after anti echo their other anti compadres in citing the ruling in the civil case as a sound and watertight argument that finds the parents guilty in a criminal case. The supreme court made that ruling and they wouldn't have done so if the parents were innocent and so on.

      ''You surely know that’s not how it works.''

      I most surely do. Again, I needed someone else to stae it. The course of justice is complicated on a good day.There are no good days to be seen in this case.Yet the antis can wrap it up in a paragraph.

      ''Not necessarily. But we don’t know the full extent of the conspiracy. CON-SPI-RA-CY – frightening word.''

      In this context, extremely frightening.The stakes must have been pretty much as high as they can be.

      ''Hmm… A camp bear… Have never thought of mysekf that way. Interesting.''

      Maybe the ginger stiletto heels weren't the greatest idea given your indecision, Dub..

      ''Yes. comrade?''
      The thoughts of the camp. It's a 'hoodiddit' remember..the bear essentials will suffice for now...

      The smart honey says there was a ransom we'll never be privvy to..just sayin'...

      Namsate, Teepy old chum..

      Delete
    22. Dubya T

      Further to our earlier salvos, please find enclosed the findings from my archived ZS files. I won't bore you with too much detail as I have a football match to monitor.Come on you reds and so forth....

      ''his [Amaral] pride and honour, as a professional of the criminal investigation police – to expose his vision of the facts, and therefore the publication of said book has to be considered a legitimate exercise of the right to an opinion.''

      His what ? Vision ? What's that mean. The right to what ? Good golly. And here's those pesky antis citing the 'facts' from said publication....

      '' one must conclude that it was them [ parents] who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life.''

      A stunningly poor reading of their situation. Yes, they did volunteer to be public rather than private.But the allegations made and the assertions of Amaral in print were potentially harmful to the McCanns in their private life as they incited hatred toward them as well as anger.Thus threats followed, 'visitors' to the village in which they lived and so on.Anyone who doesn't see that as dangerous isn't fit to sit as a judge.It clearly incites harassment.And the resultant harassment is evidence of that.

      ''Nothing opposes that, although they have not been deemed sufficient to lead to a criminal charge, said facts are subject to diverse appreciation, namely in a work of literary nature.''

      Not been deemed what ? Sufficient to what ? A work of what ?

      My, My ( Joe Kenda :circa most nights on the crime channel)


      http://pjga.blogspot.com/2016/04/translation-of-conclusions-of-appellate.html

      As the man said : For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, plus a social media overreaction...

      And as i said : Rumours are carried by haters,spread by fools, and accepted by idiots..

      Now. Prawn sarnie time and the planning of Watford's demise..

      Delete
    23. 27 February 2019 at 19:20. 20:25

      Your Despicablenes

      Your remark on my choice of footwear is most inappropriate. I’m sulking.

      As to the other matter… Your link:

      “On the other hand, we cannot see how the right of the subjects of this appeal [Kate and Gerry McCann] to benefit, following their constitution as arguidos, from the guarantees of the penal process – including the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety – may be offended by the contents of a book which, in its essence, describes and interprets facts that are part of an inquiry whose contents have been published.

      What’s the point of your debating with me the ‘not factual’ issue when you know for certain I’m right? Are you playing hard to get honey, honey? You are playing with an animal that can be very rough, remember?

      I’m still sulking.

      Pee

      PS Who is Joe Kenda? One of your associates? And whatever on this Earth is the crime channel? Are you trying to confuse me and do my furdo? Neva, neva, neva! And that’s an emphatic neva!

      Delete
    24. You won't sway me with your emphatic neva, old sport.I eat rough animals before i have my porridge.You should have consulted me Re footwear before you went on a shopping spree.have you still got your leather waders or PVC lederhosen ?Just a suggestion...

      I'm debating nobody. I'm passing on the print.I'm emphasising the relevant.Tis what i do. You really need to learn some manners and show some appreciation of my industry. Anyone else would instruct you to google..

      Joe Kenda is the 'Homicide Hunter'. A fine man. Ex copper. He has a look of Principle Skinner but a demeanor of Philip Marlowe( gotta love Philip Marlowe).Solved 400 homicides indeed.He didn't even need to consult me on any of them or read any online forums so he must be brilliant.

      Namaste

      Delete
    25. @13:12

      Maestro

      “You won't sway me with your emphatic neva, old sport”

      (Ominously) We’ll see.

      “You should have consulted me Re footwear before you went on a shopping spree”

      Agreed. My bad.

      “leather waders or PVC lederhosen”

      Those were the days… My chauffeur was wearing both when he left me for good. The bustard…

      “I'm debating nobody.”

      OK, we are discussing differing opinions about the same book. Where does your ‘not factual’ opinion about the book come from?

      “Joe Kenda etc.”

      Note taken. Thanks.

      Namaste

      Winns

      Delete
    26. Winsome, old boy....

      If i have to discuss that nutcase's book any further i fear i'll have to kill one of my neighbours again...the nub of the crux of the core of the nutshell of the bottom line is as above ^^^^^....

      That ruling points to the fact that nothing in it could lead to an arrest- we can work out why surely..it is stressed that it is only a literary work. Again, as opposed to what else ? Official files or facts ? 'tis clear...it isn't the Bible the antis try to sell us...

      Kenda could solve this..

      Ziggy Marlowe

      Delete
  9. Information or non information from Op Strange more like,it was the bungling burglar wot done it,Herge's adventures of Tin Tin come to mind.C'est la vie, as is said elsewhere

    ReplyDelete
  10. They had lost their little girl and they were terrified.They put her fate as well as their own, in the hands of the PJ who were busy asking pointless questions, putting a tail on Robert Murat, selling fake leaks to the UK press for free food and drink and getting nowhere.Every second counts early in a case like this.


    On Sun 6th May Leics police officers were given a lead regarding a suspicious person Murat who may have taken Madeleine
    They withheld this information from the PJ

    Every second counts, not if you are in the Leics plod it doesn't
    No urgency whatsoever to find Madeleine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @14:13

      Hi; JJ

      Is this what you are talking about: https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LORRI-CAMPBELL.htm

      W-t-P

      Delete
    2. 15:29
      W-t-P
      yes it is.

      Delete
    3. @17:34

      Thanks for your quick reply, JJ

      When do you think the letter was delivered to the Portuguese?

      W-t-P.

      Delete
  11. Hi Ros. :-)

    I hope you are ok. You sound it!
    Not written in for a while (you know what it's like with comas) but read everything. I should change my name to "11 years in a Coma Man" (6 for Mr Pixel-face and 5 more for Dr Totperson!)
    I agree with JJ that OP G is just a government facade to shut Brooks up and keep the Mcs happy and have done nothing and will continue to do nothing until disbanded. I get so fed up with "One last line of inquiry..."
    That's as maybe...
    Meanwhile, I want to congratulate you on your blog, which, to me, has always been a fixture, a go-to place, and it appears, for so many others. I know you are very observant but just to speak out to say myself, and I guess stacks of others, have witnessed the almost complete desolation the McTwitter Hashtag. It's almost as barren as the MMM Knitting Circle (which, oo, maybe gets 3 posts a day!).
    No one (naturally) trusts the Cesspit, the Facebook groups had their day years ago and NT has returned to the long grass for the most part.
    McTwitter comprises pointless Textusa BRT/Swingers interchanges which is 99% of Mario (Textusa's) blog now (which is not a bog so much now as a dumping ground for Twitter cast-offs). Borrrring!
    ZZZZZZZ! Enough to drive a person into anther 5 year coma!
    But here is buzzing, as usual. More traffic than the Champs-Elysees at rush hour.
    So..
    I am very pleased to praise yourself, your work and the blog. Everyone gets a fair shout here.
    Where else does that apply? Gimme a few years and I may come up with an answer because it escapes me for now.

    Six Years In A Coma Man (plus another 5)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with you about Textusa twitter ramblings, it has become unreadable.

      Delete
    2. 26 February 2019 at 16:35

      Morning, comatose friend

      “2ZZZZZZZ! Enough to drive a person into anther 5 year coma!”

      What is “ZZZZZZZ”?

      “NT has returned to the long grass for the most part.”

      Does ‘NT’ stand for ‘New Technology’ as in ‘Windows NT’ ?

      Winnie-the-Pooh (A bear with little brain)

      Delete
    3. God to see you SixYearsInAComaMan :) You always come to mind when your namesake comes up in the discussion. Your phenomenally long sleep record has yet to be broken.

      I wondered what was happening on the other forums and facebook pages - did they make so many rules that discussion came to a complete halt? Are they bored senseless at having to stick to one line of discussion only? NT I presume is Not Textusa, who tried to boost his blog by offering to publish the personal insults I spam on here. Classy.

      I'm delighted you still look in SYIACM, your posts are always welcome. Unfortunately, as you see, we still in the 12 year calm before the storm, so you probably won't miss much if you have a two year nap here and there.

      Delete
  12. WOW!, That's about all anyone can say about the comment by 21:07.

    The writer of about 95% 0f the replies to Rosalinda's latest blog title "How hate is used to stop Debate" - is busy again on their happy trip of clogging the airwaves.

    It's apparent, the idea is to live his/her life trying to hit the limits of inanity. For reason unknown this person has found a forum for final release - To get out of their mother's basement room into the strange outside world as they see it. That's as important as keeping one step away from being incarcerated in the insane asylum.

    Everyone on this site understands the problem and
    when a person has nothing to say it becomes a burden for all. In this case more like an infectious disease to anyone who does not have the sense to hurriedly scroll down.

    Coming back to the giveaway comment. I was surprised this commentator would finally concede that the the parents murdered their own child.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 27 February 2019 at 01:37

      Morning, jc

      “Coming back to the giveaway comment. I was surprised this commentator would finally concede that the the parents murdered their own child.”

      Not so.

      W-t-P

      Delete
    2. 27 February 2019 at 01:37

      “The writer of about 95% 0f the replies to Rosalinda's latest blog title "How hate is used to stop Debate"”

      Done properly, maths can be very useful.

      By the time you posted the above comment, the writer you spoke of had had, give or take, 20 posts out of the total of 49 on this blog. That is 40.8% - less than half of your estimate. Where did you get your “about 95%” from? A detractor could allege severe bias, jc.

      W-t-P

      Delete
    3. Anonymous27 February 2019 at 01:37

      ''The writer of about 95% 0f the replies to Rosalinda's latest blog title "How hate is used to stop Debate" - is busy again on their happy trip of clogging the airwaves.''

      Are we on the radio, jc ? Or is that just in your world.

      ''It's apparent, the idea is to live his/her life trying to hit the limits of inanity. For reason unknown this person has found a forum for final release -''

      To quote Ros : ''Projection''.Your posts and refusal to engage make it clear what you use the blog for. it's all about 'release'. You're beyond help.

      ''That's as important as keeping one step away from being incarcerated in the insane asylum''

      Is this you attempting to debate, jc ? A dictionary at hand to try and make your childish insults look more 'adult' ? When you can discuss points and debate them like an adult and address questions, try again. But this is unacceptable to sober, lucid adults. Our hostess has told you that she considers your writing 'compelling'. Unfortunately you took that on face value. She was complimenting and thanking you for your continued contribution to the cause. That is, to spread poisonous accusations that you won't try to support with evidence just to frame the parents of a missing child as murderers and fraudtsers.

      ''when a person has nothing to say it becomes a burden for all. ''

      Yet you still get your posts published.

      ''Coming back to the giveaway comment. I was surprised this commentator would finally concede that the the parents murdered their own child.''

      You almost managed to complete a post without blatantly lying.You fell at the final hurdle.How unfortunate.

      Delete
    4. Further to my 08:43 comment.

      Good afternoon, jc

      Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to have a chat with Mark Harrison and teach him a thing r two, for he is on the record as saying the following ( http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm ):

      ““During the searches two Police dogs were deployed and although it has been stated that no physical remains were located in the area these dogs did give indications in several areas.

      However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.”

      “cannot have any evidential value … no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.” Such hooey, ain’t it?! Bad, bad boy Mark! But none of us is troubled, our champion: we all know the Truth and Knowledge are safe at last; we have you to see to murky Marky’s shortcomings. Please be gentle with him.

      Yours supportively

      Pee

      Delete
    5. Anonymous27 February 2019 at 12:01

      27 February 2019 at 01:37 ( Dubya )

      'The writer of about 95% 0f the replies to Rosalinda's latest blog title "How hate is used to stop Debate'

      ''Done properly, maths can be very useful.''

      I find jc's maths captivating donchaknow.

      Delete
  13. Why were the McCanns and the Tapas 7 allowed to refuse to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction. Given that they were witnesses to a serious crime shouldn't they have been legally bound to cooperate ? Although I would have thought they would have all wanted to go. Poor Madeline none of them cared enough about her. Let down from start to finish. Heartbreaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 27 February 2019 at 07:25

      The McCanns couldn’t and didn’t refuse. The Portuguese had no legal means to compel the Tapas 7, who acted on legal advice, to attend a reconstruction.

      W-t-P

      Delete
    2. When witnesses refuse to co-operate 0:25, there is nothing the police can do and it happens a lot more than we the public realise. The police then have to go around those witnesses to collect the evidence they need. It makes the investigation a lot harder and makes it go for a lot longer, but clearly they do it, that's how they get convictions.

      There is an interesting series of exchanges between the tapas group, Leicester Police and the PJ regarding the planned reconstruction. The tapas group were about as unhelpful as they could be, astonishing considering a child was/is missing. Why weren't the McCanns' furious? Because they didn't want to return either. Bizarrely Gerry was complaining about the publicity - err, whilst running an awareness campaign!

      Delete
    3. Finally, an explanation of why this investigation has taken so long. Because they wouldn't do a reconstruction.What a cunning gang of criminals.Call Batman.

      There has been at least one investigation involving actors.What good did that do ?Te idea behind investigations is to jog the memory of anyone who may have been in the area of a crime the time it happened. It can jog it. It's a good idea. But if there wasn't anyone around, whose memory would it jog ? There's only one so- called eye witness and he was coming out of a bar after drinking all evening and saw someone in the dark.All that's contributed is a few years of meaningless debate by the online vigilantes.

      So, given that no reconstruction was made and the police-according to Ros -''have to go around those witnesses to collect the evidence they need. It makes the investigation a lot harder and makes it go for a lot longer''How many witnesses to the have they had to 'go around' and how much 'longer' has it made things stretch ? That's right - 12 years. Stroll on...

      Delete
    4. I agree. Far too much is made of the reconstruction- or lack of one.What would it achieve ? It's a poor excuse to blame the refusal of the parents and Tapas group for some imagined delay it's caused in the investigation .Twelve years ? That's implying that everything would have been over years ago if they'd only have agreed to take part. It's also implying that the Tapas group as a whole are accessories after the fact if the parents are responsible for the child's ultimate destination. But the antis don't go that deep. They have another meme- the reconstruction.That'll so. They'll take what they can get and invent it if they can't.

      Delete
    5. Hello anon 27 February 2019 at 12:26

      The purpose of the reconstruction in this case, as in any case, isn’t just to resurrect the memories of the persons concerned, but to determine the course of the events in a chronological order to establish where everybody was and what they did that night, which also makes it possible to eliminate previous assumptions about what happened if they can be proved to be unreasonable.

      We’re now just left with Russel O’Brien’s time sheet, written down (very respectfully) on a torn out page from Madeleine’s little sticker book and with all of the The McCanns’ and their friends’ evasive and enigmatic answers, which are documented in the pj files.

      Why would the McCanns’ friends explicitly turn down the offer to participate in a reconstruction, as their answers in the so called rogatory letters reveal? I just don’t get it, if they’re innocent, that is. Even if they didn’t understand how their participation would help Madeleine, it is no excuse. She was gone FGS, the dear child of their best friends, so why didn’t they give it a chance at least. Perhaps they just hoped and believed that the case would just fade away, which Bridget O’Donnell apparently did in an article (The Guardian), whose partner, Jez Wilkins, also was given a chance to take part in the very same reconstruction, but declined. Not really “leaving no stones unturned”, I’d say. What kind of people are all these British holiday makers? The worst of them all, apart from the McCanns themselves, is the creepy Dave Payne, who acted as Kate’s body guard after Madeleine had “disappeared”. His visit to Kate late in the afternoon still remains a mystery. A reconstruction could have clarified if that visit had ever happened and a lot more.


      Delete
    6. 12.26. I SO have to agree with you in this one instance. The Tapas 9 were correct in one way. A reconstruction of a faked abduction would be meaningless.
      There were no witnesses
      It of course would demonstrate that abduction really didn't happen, as purported by The Mcanns. Jemmy that one Gerry!

      Delete
    7. Well put Bjorn. Of course it wasn't all about jogging people's memories. It was to assist the police and that I think, the McCanns and their friends did not want to do. Gerry and Kate were still arguidos and if David Payne's timeline didn't work out, they might all well have been in the same boat.

      Again, this is another example of supporters of the McCanns on here lying for the sake of it. If they had said, we are afraid to go back to Portugal for obvious reasons, it would have been more sympathetic. Instead they just keep adding to the lies even when there is no point whatsoever.

      For the Portuguese police it was a turning point. They could no go any further with their investigation - presumably they needed to rule the McCanns and the Tapas out. The final report said, 'they lost their chance to prove their innocence'. Looks like they lost it again when OG did a reconstruction.

      Delete
    8. Björn27 February 2019 at 20:28

      Hello anon 27 February 2019 at 12:26

      ''The purpose of the reconstruction in this case, as in any case, isn’t just to resurrect the memories of the persons concerned, but to determine the course of the events in a chronological order to establish where everybody was and what they did that night''

      So what was the purpose of taking statements from everyone and filing them ? Couldn't a timeline be worked out from those ? Do they need to use the statements as a screenplay and call in a re-enactment ? Bear in mind that it would be difficult also to remember every thing we did and for how long and in what order. They're normal obstacles encountered in witness testimony following a traumatic event. Psychology has endless papers on the unreliability of eye witness testimony.

      ''Why would the McCanns’ friends explicitly turn down the offer to participate in a reconstruction, as their answers in the so called rogatory letters reveal? I just don’t get it, if they’re innocent, that is. ''

      To quote a thousand antis : check the PJ files.

      '' The worst of them all, apart from the McCanns themselves, is the creepy Dave Payne, who acted as Kate’s body guard after Madeleine had “disappeared”. ''

      Without resorting to spurious allegations of the Gaspar variety, give us all some evidence that he is 'creepy'. Have you arrived at that far reaching psychological profile based on a photograph ? Or just because he offered support to his friends in a time of absolute panic and distress ?

      '' His visit to Kate late in the afternoon still remains a mystery. A reconstruction could have clarified if that visit had ever happened and a lot more.''

      Why is it a mystery ? They probably all popped in and out of each other's apartments in the afternoons there.They were on holiday as friends.Why don't any of the policemen of either county see what you see as ' a mystery' ?

      Delete
    9. '' His visit to Kate late in the afternoon still remains a mystery. A reconstruction could have clarified if that visit had ever happened and a lot more.''

      Let's suppose this latest fantasy of yours makes sense( for the purpose of this point I'm making now).

      If, as you want us to believe, the afternoon visit didn't take place and it was another invention to slot into the bigger cover up,how would a reconstruction clear it up ? If they lied about the visit do you think they'd then tell the film crew to leave the visit out as it didn't really take place ?Don't you think that would destroy the object of the cover up and the careful construction of this bizarre narrative ? This is another example of why the reconstruction would make no difference at all.

      I think you're confusing CCTV footage with a dramatic reconstruction.One has reality captured on film. One had actors and a script.

      Delete
    10. Hello anon 27 February 2019 at 22:19

      "Bear in mind that it would be difficult also to remember everything we did and for how long and in what order"

      Yes, so true and that's just one reason of so many, as to why a reconstruction is so important for the understanding of the whole case. Gerry, who did nothing to persuade his tapas friends to join them in a reconstruction in 2008, a few years later argued that it was now too late for a reconstruction and that’s an argument all of them can use at any time, as time goes by, whatever we do.

      From a moral point of view, it is of course shameful. It is like not answering any questions in a police interrogation, like Kate did, and then a few years later arrogantly tell those who didn’t get the answers they so badly needed, that you’ve now forgotten everything.

      This is how I suppose Gerry is reasoning, and what he actually says, though he uses another more implicit way of expressing himself:

      “If you believe that I can remember something that happened so long ago, you must be stupid and you should understand, that I had a reason for not wanting to participate in a reconstruction 12 years ago, as I thought it would’ve harmed the search for Madeleine, which I don’t think it would today. Unfortunately, I cannot remember any details today, as so many years have gone by, and I’ve almost completely forgotten what I did and where I was that night and so have my friends. So really sorry for you. You’ve done a good job, but why didn’t you force me to return to Portugal in the first place. If you had we wouldn’t have this discussion today” ( LOL or perhaps just a duping smile)


      Delete
    11. ''From a moral point of view, it is of course shameful. It is like not answering any questions in a police interrogation, like Kate did,''

      It was a legal setting, not a moral setting.It was a police station, not a confessional. Morality and legality come together alarmingly rarely in law.

      ''This is how I suppose Gerry is reasoning, and what he actually says, though he uses another more implicit way of expressing himself: ''

      Supposing is guessing. Guessing can be 100% incorrect.

      Your final paragraph sounds slightly unhinged. It has a flavour of 'evil baddie' in a Superman movie.You've attempted to get into a strangers head and mind- read. Then you've told us what he most likely thought by putting words into his mouth that you imagined.Oddly enough, words that would make the gullible hate the man. that's a shock.

      Delete
    12. Björn 28 February 2019 at 10:27

      Hi, Björn

      Could you please tell me where you quote Gerry from in the last paragraph of your post?

      Thank you.

      W-t-P

      Delete
    13. Hi Anon 28 February 2019 at 13:00 and hi my bear cousin
      28 February 2019 at 15:21.

      No, in that paragraph I did not quote Gerry, but what I tried to formulate was the essence of what he has said and implied, with regards to the cancelled reconstruction.

      Reading the tapas friends'answers to the pj regarding their view upon a reconstruction, one learns a lot about the process of deception, as they first make the pj think that they are interested in returning to Portugal and then they refer to one another in trying to find excuses for not going back and finally of course they have to take advice from their sollicitors, who advise them not to assist the pj.

      So very clever they are, aren't they?




      Delete
    14. ( he quotes it from the hypothetical train of thought he's decided was in Gerry's head and put it into the words he's decided he would say.It's clever stuff)

      Delete
    15. ''No, in that paragraph I did not quote Gerry, but what I tried to formulate was the essence of what he has said and implied, with regards to the cancelled reconstruction. ''

      Translation : I was making it up. See ? Clever stuff...

      Delete
    16. ''Reading the tapas friends'answers to the pj regarding their view upon a reconstruction, one learns a lot about the process of deception,''

      I learn from posters like you who constantly invent points to sound like facts and refuse to back anything up with sources. It's all to deceive.

      '' of course they have to take advice from their solicitors, who advise them not to assist the pj.
      So very clever they are, aren't they?''

      Yes- imagine that...taking advice from your solicitor. Is that common sense ? Taking advice from a legal team you've paid to take advice from ? Or is it silly not to take their advice ? But you, surprise, surprise, see 'deception'. How remarkably objective of you..

      Delete
  14. You are trying to ridicule logic and it isn't working. If the parents and their friends are not co-operating then obviously the police would have to build their case around them, and it will obviously take a very long time.

    They are all key witnesses so why aren't they co-operating? Had they co-operated this case could have been finalised years ago.You can imagine the difficulties the police faced trying to reconstruct 'the abduction' without the key players.

    However, the fact that Operation Grange and the PJ investigations continue, shows determination on the part of the police and the 'upper echelons'. OG won't and can't close without a conclusion, the money spent by the Home Office must be accounted for. This isn't a banana republic where politicians can use the police as a private army.

    Trying to make the case that there was no point in a reconstruction, sounds hollow. Gerry and Kate were all about awareness, they were giving interviews to networks from all over the world, claiming they would leave no stone unturned. A police reconstruction would have had a global audience, it would have been bigger than anything they could come up with, so why did they refuse?

    You demand on a daily basis that the McCanns be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Do you not see that things like not co-operating with the police are very suspicious? They like to give the impression that they are co-operating, but we have been there before. Everything was hunky dory with the PJ, until it, err, wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked why they weren't legally bound to go. Thank you for the answer. Seems then that their mantra should have been only selective stones unturned instead of no stone unturned.

      Delete
    2. The mantra was composed by the police

      Delete
    3. '' A police reconstruction would have had a global audience, it would have been bigger than anything they could come up with, so why did they refuse?''

      What purpose would it serve once the audience was glued to their television set ? Would it jog the memory of...errr..nobody ? Because nobody was around ? We'd see them re-enact the fateful night as they had detailed to the PJ. What difference would it have made ? The re-enactment as scripted by Mitchell and using actors didnt yield anything did it. What about the little film of Gerry and Co outside the apartment describing how they remembered it and who was where doing what and when ? Nothing. If nobody was around to see, nobody would have the memory jogged by a reconstruction. If anyone hadn't seen the pictures of the McCanns and Madeleine they must have been living under a stone anyway. If they had, that would be all they needed to have their memory jogged.Still nothing.You're clutching at yet more straws.It's way, way too important and personal to you now.You need to face that soon.

      Delete
    4. Is there any verifiable evidence the Mccanns have not cooperated with the UK police?

      Delete
    5. how can you turn the McCanns and their friends refusal to do a reconstruction into a mental defect on my part? Lol, somehow you managed it!

      I'm not buying the idea that it would have been pointless. The police reconstruction was planned for the one year anniversary when the conditions were likely to be the same as on 3rd May 2007. The point was to jog memories, just like their 'Don't you forget about me' campaign.

      For my sins, this is a subject I know way too much about 15:55. I have actually tried 1001 ways to find the parents innocent of involvement, if they are innocent it will go a long way in restoring my faith in humanity. It is because I have had these niggling little arguments and back and forths in my own head that I am always one step ahead of you ;)

      Delete
    6. Good question JJ, I don't know about verifiable, but there is certainly a lot of evidence that points that way. They have all been lawyered up since the summer of 2007. The Rogatory interviews in the Spring of 2008, do not have further statements from the Mr and Mrs M. At the time I think they were in Brussels promoting Amber Alert.

      When Crimewatch made their reconstruction, why didn't the parents and their friends take part? Why was it filmed in Spain? Why did they use actors?

      I remember reading somewhere in recent months that Kate has only made one statement to the police. The second time she was brought in, she famously refused to answer the 48 questions.

      We have also seen no signs that the parents and their friends are co-operating. The only visit from Scotland Yard seems to be that one a few months ago, 'to discuss another lead' and not to alert the suspects. Of course there could have been other visits that we don't know about, this one they wanted publicised.

      As we know, the failure of the tapas group to return to do the reconstruction resulted in the case being shelved. The PJ literally had nowhere else to go. Scotland Yard said, feck it we'll do one without them. How Gerry could bear to let the production go ahead without him directing every move, is anyone's guess, remember how he had to correct Jane Tanner?

      I think the whole investigation is taking this long because the group have stuck with their pact of silence. None of them have ever spoken about that night, and Gerry and Kate have never gone off script. All their memories of that holiday haven't come flooding back, they have nothing to add or detract. As Gerry has said many times, in an irritated voice, 'we've told the police everything we know'. In other words we have done our part, it's up to the police now. And it seems the police have taken him up on it.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 February 2019 at 19:59

      ''I have actually tried 1001 ways to find the parents innocent of involvement, if they are innocent it will go a long way in restoring my faith in humanity.''

      Try 1001 ways to find them guilty. Bear in mind that one piece of tangible evidence will do it for you.It might be a fingerprint , it might be blood. But it would do it.You know the importance of that as well as I do.The frustrating part of cases like this is the lack of clues and / or evidence. All we have left is speculation and suspicion. We try to marry them up using subjective reasoning. All we have at the end of that process is an opinion we just put more work into.Personally, I believe this case would have been over in 2 weeks if it remained a police matter only.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 February 2019 at 20:25

      ''Good question JJ, I don't know about verifiable, but there is certainly a lot of evidence that points that way.''

      * shakes head*

      That's called speculation.

      Delete
    9. ''I think the whole investigation is taking this long because the group have stuck with their pact of silence. None of them have ever spoken about that night, and Gerry and Kate have never gone off script.''

      They could have their lips stitched together for all eternity, but that wouldn't make a difference if the detectives had any evidence against them.

      Delete
    10. If you're telling the truth, you don't need to go off script. If you went off script, you'd probably be lying.

      Delete
    11. @00:47

      Why would one need a script to tell the truth?

      W-t- P

      Delete
    12. It would depend on how the word 'script' is being used in this context.Literally ? Or figuratively.Your inernal 'script' is your truth without being an actual 'script'.

      Delete
  15. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 February 2019 at 13:22

    ''You are trying to ridicule logic and it isn't working''

    That from somebody who has dedicated more than ten years of her time making endless accusations that can't be held up by anything solid in the way of evidence.From somebody who assumes if she has an opinion, she is so smart that it can be considered as an actual fact.From somebody who cites a book written by a disgraced police detective who has a conviction for perjury as her 'source of truth'. Tell me about logic some time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair point 15:03, how can logic be applied to a drama queen like moi. I once called a vet out in the middle of the night for a sick hamster. She wouldn't come to my house (and who could blame her), but she kindly met me at the surgery. Sadly there was no hope for little Conan (the Barbarian)who was pretty ancient in hamster years. He was put out of misery for £30, even I drew the line at £500 for surgery on an ageing hamster.

      But I digress, as you see there are times when I too discard logic. Apart from the bipolar I also have disassociative personality disorder, multiple personalities. Happily at least one of them takes logic to the Mr. Spock level.

      My blog says, quite clearly on the tin - I muse. All those little chats that go on in my head, I write them down. Happily those subjects that interest me also connect with my readers. This is not a blog full of hate and accusations, if that is what you see, then you are missing most of it.

      I cite the book of Goncalo Amaral, I could just as easily cite the Portuguese police files, they are the same, except GA's book is easier to read and understand.

      To you GA is a perjurer, amongst other things, but to many he is the cop who stood by his conscience and his badge in seeking justice for the victim, Madeleine. He is obviously respected by the British police who made a large donation to his legal fund. To many Goncalo Amaral is not a disgraced detective, he is a hero.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 February 2019 at 20:57

      ''Fair point 15:03, how can logic be applied to a drama queen like moi. I once called a vet out in the middle of the night for a sick hamster.''

      I hope they never spotted any blood spatter :)

      ''He was put out of misery for £30, even I drew the line at £500 for surgery on an ageing hamster.''

      That's pretty shrewd. Where i come from it would cost you 20 times that to get someone put out of their misery.Although there are payment plans available in certain reputable bars. R I P Conan. We will never see the likes again...

      ''But I digress, as you see there are times when I too discard logic. Apart from the bipolar I also have disassociative personality disorder, multiple personalities. Happily at least one of them takes logic to the Mr. Spock level. ''

      I knew all of that. But I suffer from advanced smart arsenesia. You realise Psycholgy's advances saved you from the label of MPD ( Sybil etc).Logic is a specific creature.It has no grey areas. Spock's the ultimate expression of it. I find it priceless and annoying.I've always liked to dance outside the lines when I shouldn't. You only have to pause and think when studying Psychology and you're accused of 'speculation'. All Psychology tutors are anal.I should have put that in an essay...

      I appreciate that the label says that you muse. That's fair.But to be so dogmatic about your musings contradicts it wouldn't you say.Especially when you seem to have a default setting that makes you try to shut down alternate musings. I, for instance, always state i know nothing and suspect much. I say why i suspect what i suspect and why i can't claim 'knowledge'. Opinions, like in Psychology can only, at best, receive heavy support.

      '' This is not a blog full of hate and accusations, if that is what you see, then you are missing most of it. ''

      It's full of 'anti McCann' discussion.It isn't full of hate and accusations but it has enough. You don't have to use the actual words to convey hate or accusations. You can go to a nice bar, have nice company and a nice evening. But if it gets spoiled by a few scruffy drunks who want to ruin things for everyone, you'll remember that as the stand out.

      With regard to citing books, all books are fine. It's what you claim to be citing that is the problem.To cite an opinion and claim it's fact enough to close an argument is incorrect.An opinion is only an opinion.An opposing opinion is only an opinion too.

      ''To you GA is a perjurer, amongst other things, but to many he is the cop who stood by his conscience and his badge in seeking justice for the victim, Madeleine''

      He was deemed to be guilty of perjury in the eyes of the law. Not mine. I just acknowledge it as it seems important when his character and honour are up for discussion. Whatever his conscience told him he should have heeded while he was still in charge of the investigation.In retaliation to those who deemed him unfit for purpose he should have attacked them.OK, he could still attack the parents as that is important as to why he believes he was removed( UK and MI 5).But he didn't and hasn't since.Why hasn't he stated that he believes his bosses have hindered that justice by impeding his investigation ? If he did that he'd have my vote.

      ''He is obviously respected by the British police who made a large donation to his legal fund. To many Goncalo Amaral is not a disgraced detective, he is a hero.''

      The opinion of the police doesn't matter.But I'm saying that because of my opinion of the police in general. Do any of those who donated have a name ? Any of them willing to put their name to it ? Or was that another media red herring ? All those 'unnamed sources' ? For the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, Amaral isn't a hero yet. But if he ups the ante and broadens the target, he'll be on the way to being one.

      Delete
    3. Actually my ability to disassociate is quite phenomenal, even my appearance changes, just like Sybil or Superman. The shy retiring wouldn't say boo to a goose little lady can rise up and become quite formidable. I have a look that can frighten small children and silence a class of unruly students. I also have a voice that can wither bank clerks and traffic wardens. To be fair I rarely use it, fear is not really what I'm looking for in an audience. Besides, the look is usually enough. Though talking of voices, I am toying with the idea of a live discussion, but I have yet to look into how you go about it.

      I'm not aware of my nice bar being crashed by unruly drunks, all, or most of, the unruly drunks have been driven away by peer pressure. Those who want to get down in the mud and the blood and the beer have stuck together and gone underground.

      I haven't achieved this harmony with rules, regulations and censorship, I've achieved it by encouraging rational, intelligent and reasoned discussion. There simply isn't a place for the purely malevolent, here. They are unable to start up hate filled discussions such as those in the cesspit etc, because no-one is interested.

      I'm actually extremely proud of my blog and especially the calibre of those who take time to contribute. Having been an 'outsider' my whole life, I feel I now have my 'Bloomsbury Club' - a circle of academics with whom I discuss anything!

      'The opinion of the police doesn't matter.' Another pointless lie, of course it does. Police officers are human beings. Just because they can't say anything about their work doesn't mean they aren't affected by it. I'm sure seeing a fellow police detective fighting to keep his family home and assets out of the hands of two former suspects would be distasteful to any serving police officer.

      By 'up his ante', you mean he should start hurling allegations at his former employers, those agents of the government who interfered in the original investigation, and those VIPs (Blair, Brown, Johnson?) who ordered: 1. the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and 2. the cover up.

      Goncalo Amaral is a very, very, patient man. I am sure there is a lot he could say and hopefully he will with another book. Meanwhile, he is not into litigation as much as the McCanns. It is they who have been the protagonists throughout. They sued GA, not the other way around.

      Delete
    4. ''I haven't achieved this harmony with rules, regulations and censorship, I've achieved it by encouraging rational, intelligent and reasoned discussion. There simply isn't a place for the purely malevolent, here. They are unable to start up hate filled discussions such as those in the cesspit etc, because no-one is interested.''

      You have only the minimal number, it has to be said.They don't start up hate filled discussions as nobody really engages with them.They come, they spew it out, they go.Then normal(?) service is resumed.

      ''The opinion of the police doesn't matter.' Another pointless lie, of course it does. Police officers are human beings. Just because they can't say anything about their work doesn't mean they aren't affected by it.''

      It is neither pointless or a lie. I qualified it by stating it was only my own personal opinion of them.You'd be surprised how many people in the real world share the same disdain.My own personal experience formed my opinion of them. Then reading so many cases of corruption and alleged incompetence reinforced it.And they get 'looked after'. They're worse than criminals. Look at those who willingly covered up for Cyril Smith, Leon Brittan, Clement Freud,Greville Janner, Jeremy Thorpe and Jimmy Savile.All related to sexual abuse and worse.

      Yes, by upping the ante, i mean challenging those who removed him before he could find his stride.He can still bad mouth the parents, but he should challenge those above him and those you mention. Questions need to be asked or we'll never know the answers. Or have they been asked ? Or does he know but has his hands tied ? It's easier to say whatever you like about two civilians.It's not so easy if you name big names.

      ''Goncalo Amaral is a very, very, patient man. I am sure there is a lot he could say and hopefully he will with another book.''

      Books, books, books. No wonder things take so long. Remember conversations ? It would take him minutes to ask questions.If he wants to go through official avenues a bit longer and on paper.Why won't he ?

      '' he is not into litigation as much as the McCanns.''

      Asking his former employer for an explanation as to why he was removed from a case in which he had barely begun doesn't require litigation.Even if it went to tribunal. Don't they have unfair or constructive dismissal in Portugal yet ?They said jump-he jumped, despite his alleged 'passion for justice'. He was knocked over without much effort.

      Delete
    5. ''I haven't achieved this harmony with rules, regulations and censorship, I've achieved it by encouraging rational, intelligent and reasoned discussion. There simply isn't a place for the purely malevolent, here. ''

      As in impartial observer,i have to say that the discussion you encourage actually is malevolent. If anyone wants to share their personal take on a McCann ( or friends) interview or remark, it is welcomed and received with much gratitude so long as it casts the McCanns ( or friends) in a bad light. A light that has them framed as murderers, liars, fraudsters and evil. It seems of little relevance that the police of Portugal or England have never noticed the same about those mentioned.Personal slights are encouraged and welcomed also. It may be about how a McCann said something, how they looked when they said it or what they really meant by what they said. On the other hand, the discussion that questions the received wisdom of the thousands who don't understand the need for details and evidence is frowned upon. It meets with general belligerence and childish name calling.The arguments are dismissed but they aren't dismissed with sufficient reasoning. The arrogance and ignorance held by those who have proclaimed themselves 'expert' in 'all things McCann case' have decided they are above such petty things like reasoned argument or supporting evidence. They enjoy their celebration of anger and spite.It would seem that your claim ( above) is actually the opposite of the truth.

      Malevolent : 'having or showing a wish to do evil to others.'

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous1 March 2019 at 14:19

      Well said - I agree.

      Delete
  16. ''If the parents and their friends are not co-operating then obviously the police would have to build their case around them, and it will obviously take a very long time.''

    Maths problem. If it takes 5 detectives 2 years to solve a crime, how long would it take over 30 detectives to solve the same crime ? Show how you arrived at your answer .

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm relatively new to all things Mc Cann. Just started ploughing through all the forums, PJ Files etc. Phew ! No matter what the views are, the conspiracy theories, most people have one thing in common - justice for that little girl. That's the common denominator. Let us all hope that is what she gets. Let her rest in peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New to it but saying the child's dead.Where did you get that from ?

      Delete
  18. '' No matter what the views are... Let her rest in peace.''

    Were you going for subtle, humourous or provocative ? If so, miss, miss, and miss. Sick ? 10 out of 10.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, wasn't going for any of those but something tells me you're hoping for provocative.

      Delete
    2. 07:54

      Well said.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 28 February 2019 at 07:54

      Cool. Concur. Welcome to the Circle.

      Winnie-the-Pooh

      Delete
    4. Yes, welcome to the inner circle. Your 'rest in peace' threw me. I hadn't heard about a death. I'd only heard of a missing child. But if that's the latest rumour we're saying is actual truth, so be it.No need for any evidence, I'll pretend to believe it. Save you some effort and time. When in Rome etc.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous27 February 2019 at 19:50

      ''I'm relatively new to all things Mc Cann. Just started ploughing through all the forums''

      '' Let us all hope that is what she gets. Let her rest in peace.''

      You're 'relatively new' to the 12 year old case and 'let her rest in peace'.

      Quite a sweeping statement for someone new to the case. Not one for following the crowd then...

      You should pass on your detective skills to the police who have been at it for 12 years.They still say it's a missing person case. yes, they entertain the theory that she could be dead-they have to.But they can't know if she is or isn't.Then again, as far as I know, they only bother with witness statements, eye witness testimony, and forensics.They don't consult the forums and the thousands of strangers who never went to view the evidence in PDL.Maybe that's where they went wrong.They could use the opinions of strangers who are guessing as their evidence in court.

      Delete
    6. Apologies 17:54 for that blast of malevolent posts, the word 'new' inspires trolls, it unleashes the bully within. They think you are at that early taking a peek stage, and can be easily scared off.

      You dealt with them admirably though, somehow I don't see you putting up with BS :)

      Delete
    7. malevolent ?

      Delete
    8. Fair enough 12.23 about the rest in peace. I've been reading about the sniffer dogs, that must have been in the back of my mind.

      Delete
    9. Yes 13:45 or shall i call you'newbie' just to play along ?

      Read about the forensic reports too. You can scroll further up here on this thread. Then read about what the real detectives say about 'dead' and 'alive'.If you're new to anything, you shouldn't make sweeping statements. You can publish your findings after looking at more than the popular side for a while.

      Delete
    10. 12.30. What a silly comment. Way OTT.

      Delete
    11. Don't really care what you call me. As I said in an earlier post I'm looking at the avalanche of stuff, not sure what sweeping statements I've made. I'll bow to your expertise in that. Why are you so angry that someone new is on the site ? I don't mind you being on it.

      Delete
    12. Tut tut 17;19, elsewhere on this page I mention there are no rules and regulations and there is no censorship. A 'newbie' (how rude) is as free to make sweeping statements as you are.

      Your attitude reminds me of the awful way new people were treated by the old hands' in the cesspit and indeed MMM. No-one needs qualifications to have an opinion, you don't have to do a set amount of essays before you can comment.

      I remember when I first started commenting on forums, many years, and how petrified I was, though to be fair, I include 'The Mirror' forum in that which already had hardened 'pros', 'antis' and psychopaths. It's not that the timid were chewed up and spat out, it was more a case of being completely ignored. I'll admit, they were all way out of my league, so I retired to another well known war zone, the AOL Europe board. I think I learned more about abnormal psychopathy there, than anywhere else.

      Finally, you don't get to tell my posters when they can publish their findings. As I have said many times, we are all on a journey towards that final page. Meanwhile we are free to share our thoughts and ideas and our opinions.

      Your rule that we need to produce evidence before expressing an opinion is a repetition of your failed argument to ban Goncalo Amaral's book. The evidence is of course there as we tell you over and over again. The barking dogs, The failure to look for the child, the lack of co-operation with the police etc etc, but you don't accept it. And because you don't accept it, you pretend it doesn't exist and round we go in circles again.

      But I'm curious, what do the 'real detectives' say about dead and alive?

      Delete
    13. I've looked at a few forums, watched a few videos. I've found most of them either silly, not to be taken seriously. Like everyone else I'm trying to get my head round it all. The whole thing is far more complex than I ever imagined. The only way you can persuade people (Newby as you want to call me) to your opinion is by kindly signposting them to links etc to prove your point. If you get angry with someone for daring to get their wording wrong or putting punctuation in the wrong place you've lost the argument in my opinion because you stop people wanting to engage with you.

      Delete
    14. "Your rule that we need to produce evidence before expressing an opinion is a repetition of your failed argument to ban Goncalo Amaral's book."

      If GA's book is full of evidenced truths, then why do you think he hasn't published it in the UK?

      Delete
    15. Dear oh dear, Bella....

      Are you not the voice of reason that reminds us all that OG is still beavering away in a live investigation ? They are looking for Madeleine. She is presumed 'abducted'. They also entertain the possibility / likelihood that he is dead. The chances are that she could be given an abductor probably wasn't in search of a friend.

      Delete
    16. ''A 'newbie' (how rude) is as free to make sweeping statements as you are.''

      Bella ...

      Please note the ' and the ' ..I was highlighting it for effect. I don't think he is new at all. I'm surprised at you....by the by..i'm not given to making sweeping statements..I'm too clever...

      I take on board the attitudes you go on to blather about. I remember the early days of chat rooms and MSN groups. Talk about naive. I was a real technophobe.I actually used a chat room with my name as 'Nick'. The template had that in the section for preferred name.I didn't knpw it was short for 'nickname' :/ There were already 'old hands' after a few weeks. And everywhere had a clique. But, me being cursed with an effortless charm and unbridled zest for making friends, i loved it. I could sharpen up my skills as a lunatic as well as a wind up merchant. I was attacked one night by a moderator who hit me with a sharpened apostrophe.I still wake up screaming...Take my word, i have a remarkable talent for sniffing things out.I could find a truffle in an iceberg...

      ''Finally, you don't get to tell my posters when they can publish their findings.''

      I didn't mean it to come across that way.Otherwise I probably would have suggested where they could take there findings. I was trying to make a useful suggestion( you know, as he was new and all....)

      ''we are all on a journey towards that final page. Meanwhile we are free to share our thoughts and ideas and our opinions. ''

      I agree.But I reached the final page a long time ago. A bit like OG. I just admit it.But, there's nothing wrong with positive thinking if it floats your proverbial...

      ''Your rule that we need to produce evidence before expressing an opinion is a repetition of your failed argument to ban Goncalo Amaral's book.''

      No. I don't think anyone needs to produce evidence of an opinion.None is needed. You need to produce it when you state facts that are clearly only opinions. It's only fair. Why try to mislead ? It can confuse newcomers for instance...

      ''The barking dogs, The failure to look for the
      child, the lack of co-operation with the police etc etc''

      Is there a transcript of the findings of the dogs barking ? Have the police concluded that they meant anything or that they weren't conclusive. Do cadaver dogs indicate the earlier presence of a body or a murderer ? If there was a body and it was Madeleine's, that doesn't identify who ended her life or how.There was an intruder, remember.The police had an army of searchers. Is the apparent lack of hysteria shown by the parents proof of anything ? They co-operated with the police as well as their solicitors. All these etceteras need a bit more flesh on their bones wouldn't you say..

      Delete
    17. ''. If you get angry with someone for daring to get their wording wrong or putting punctuation in the wrong place you've lost the argument in my opinion because you stop people wanting to engage with you.''

      Take no notice of the typo police.It happens.But you need to stop thinking that simple questions asked of you aren't signs of anger.They're only questions.Why would you feel a question is a sign of anger ?That's a little strange.

      Delete
    18. I know what you were implying Ziggy, I was ignoring it. I don't go along with all that nonsense of people pretending to be something they are not. It doesn't matter to me one jot who is posting here, I have zero interest in IP addresses and tracking people down. I leave the paranoia to the other forums.

      You claim you reached the final page a long time ago. Ok, do please share.

      Is there a transcript of the dogs? No, they are dogs they woof, But there is a very good video, it was enough to change the entire investigation.

      Cadaver dogs indicate cadaver odour, and unless the murderer killed him/her self immediately after why would a dog smell a murderer? You say if Madeleine was dead in the apartment, it doesn't identify the murderer. Fair enough, you next say 'there was an intruder. remember'. There is no proof there was an intruder, you have expressed there was as a fact. Tut tut, and after all that lecturing.

      'Lack of hysteria shown by the parents', is it proof of anything? By hysteria do you mean outpourings of grief? Tears etc as seen in other parents missing loved ones?

      Actually the way in which Gerry and Kate have held it together has been astonishing. I won't say abnormal, because who knows what's normal, we can only speak for how we would react. As a self confessed wuss, there is no way I could have appeared in public and organised a global campaign. Bereavement, grief, has poleaxed me in the past. When I lost my beloved dad, I locked myself away and watched every episode of Seinfeld over and over.
      I was not surprised to learn many years later that Steven Speilberg did much the same when making Schindler's List. Prior to dear old Jerry Seinfeld, it was Jack Lemon in 'Some Like it Hot' and 'The Odd Couple', which I owned in both video and DVD and kept on standby for when the blues kicked in.

      I do get that in dangerous and traumatic situations we find strength from somewhere, the adrenalin starts pumping and we become hyper alert. That's how I cannot understand why Madeleine's parents weren't out all night turning over every stone they came across with their bare hands. When a mummy tiger loses a cub, she doesn't phone a friend, she searches until she finds it.

      I've been watching a lot of old Gerry and Kate interviews. They haven't aged well or perhaps it's because I can't help thinking every word that comes out of their mouths is a lie. I was particularly angered by Kate advising people to look closely at their nearest and dearest, their sons, their grandsons, and turn them in if they have the slightest suspicion!

      Fairly or unfairly, all the interviews are full of complaints and whining by the McCanns. Even with the millions they had in their coffers, the McCanns didn't think it should be down to them to find Madeleine.

      They have absolved themselves of everything! It was Warners fault that Madeleine was taken because they didn't warn them about the marauding gangs of human traffickers and child predators on the loose in PDL.

      It was the fault of the Portuguese police who didn't respond quickly enough, didn't treat them with respect, and didn't close the borders.

      Now EVERYTHING is Goncalo Amaral's fault. If he had just handed over his house and all the royalties he earned from his book, this could have been solved years ago. If GA hadn't written his book, the Madeleine Fund could have grown into a large corporation with it's own TV network.

      As always with Gerry and Kate, their main concern is revenge on Goncalo Amaral. They never talk about the ongoing police investigation. They say they are grateful, but are they? Like their supporters on here, I expect they just wish it would all go away.

      Delete
    19. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 February 2019 at 20:45

      ''You claim you reached the final page a long time ago. Ok, do please share.''

      Procurer. Procured for who ? Who dare name names ? What does the blanket of politicians and MI5 imply ?

      ''Is there a transcript of the dogs? No, they are dogs they woof, But there is a very good video, it was enough to change the entire investigation.''

      You're being facetious. Half of the time i think you just want to go over my knee. I asked for the transcript of the findings, not from the hounds themselves.And video ? This is real life and a real crime.Turn the screen off and pay attention.

      ''Cadaver dogs indicate cadaver odour, and unless the murderer killed him/her self immediately after why would a dog smell a murderer? ''

      My point was clear. Even if it indicates the earlier presence of a body, that only indicates a death. It doesn't indicate the guilt of anyone in particular.The parents, for example.

      ''There is no proof there was an intruder, you have expressed there was as a fact. Tut tut, and after all that lecturing.''

      I call an abductor an intruder.If he didn't intrude he couldn't abduct.It's an abduction case. Not my invention.He left no clues. He knew what he was doing.That doesn't mean he wasn't there.

      '' By hysteria do you mean outpourings of grief?''

      No. I meant running around like headless chickens in reply to your quip about the lack of searching.How they hold anything together none of us know. Or none of us who concentrate on reality anyway. They live behind closed doors.On camera it's rehearsed.They know so many are scrutinising for the facial ticks of an axe murderer.

      ''I've been watching a lot of old Gerry and Kate interviews. They haven't aged well or perhaps it's because I can't help thinking every word that comes out of their mouths is a lie''

      I've seen that before in people who have lost a child or parent or partner.It's common.Trauma leaves it's lines.

      ''As always with Gerry and Kate, their main concern is revenge on Goncalo Amaral''

      In your mind yes,So it;s an opinion again.Their main concern is finding Madeleine.Failing that, finding out what happened to her and how.I'm sure they wouldn't want revenge on the perjured writer if he backed up his allegations or withdrew them until a time when he can.That's what normal people would want by the way.

      Delete
    20. ''They haven't aged well or perhaps it's because I can't help thinking every word that comes out of their mouths is a lie''

      You never study without bias. Ever.

      Delete
    21. @21:41

      Does one? Ever?

      Poo

      Delete
    22. Of course

      Delete
    23. 28 February 2019 19.22. I am a she not a he and I am new, since just before Christmas. I agree with your point about an intruder/abductor. They would know exactly what they were doing, perhaps with some help ? I don't think you can dismiss the dogs though, they also knew what they were doing. Why pay thousands to train these dogs then ignore their findings.

      Delete
    24. I think the movements were watched for a day or two. You can't randomly pick an adult-free apartment by chance. They would also have to wait for an adult to leave after the half hour check in. Plus the apartment happened to be next to the kerb / road. So there would be little chance of exposure between the door and a waiting car.Opposite the entrance /exit of the apartment was a good vantage point and car park.The intruder would no doubt have at least one accomplice watching his back.

      Dogs ? Who knows. Can we expect a conviction based on the youtube video ? maybe- but it would have to line up with the forensic reports which say that they aren't enough to stand alone. That more corroborating evidence such as clear DNA indicators or blood.But the official line says they don't have that. Does evidence of a death prove it was Madeleine ? Strictly speaking, no. Doctors can carry latent traces of death on them and so can police.But, in this case it would seem acceptable to add two and two and say that Madeleine going 'missing' is a coincidence too far. But that doesn't mean that the parents killed her. It just means she was dead.If we accept the abductor /intruder hypothesis and remember the reports of little Madeleine's loud crying, shouting and discontent from a previous night, she may well have repeated that if she was awake when an intruder came in.Then an intruder might panic. Then who knows ? If he snapped he took the evidence with him.

      Delete
    25. Anonymous 1 March 2019 at 09:42

      “Why pay thousands to train these dogs then ignore their findings.”

      The story of the dogs as I know it:

      The dogs indicated the presence of the scent they had been trained to find, but their indications were of no use without further confirmation. Those looking for such confirmation didn’t find it.

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

      https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

      Have a good weekend.

      Winnie-the-Pooh

      Delete
    26. Anonymous 28 February 2019 at 12:54
      Anonymous1 March 2019 at 01:24

      “Of course”

      I love that. Abrupt and to the point.

      I’m tempted to say I beg to differ, but I now your affection for me would decline were I to start mixing semantics and epistemology with the more important matters at hand. Therefore, I resist.

      I hear you smashed Watford. Naughty.

      Winns

      Delete
    27. Smashed indeed, Winsome,old sport.And now for the weekend and the old foe..I have given Jurgen my thoughts...there will be toffe on the tracks come Monday...

      btw wtp ( jazzy eh)...did i mention i shot a man in Reno for mixing semantics ..just sayin' old sport..just sayin'....

      Your chauffeur says hello btw..but couldn't pronounce namaste...all the same these welsh..

      Delete
    28. Thanks 1 March 2019 at 18.03, Winnie Poo I'll have a look at the links

      Delete
    29. @ Anonymous1 March 2019 at 09:42
      "I don't think you can dismiss the dogs though, they also knew what they were doing. Why pay thousands to train these dogs then ignore their findings."
      --------------------------------------------

      In your 2 months research since Christmas I hope you have noticed the comment by Martin Grime:

      "No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

      Delete
    30. Anonymous1 March 2019 at 18:03

      Dubya, you old fruit sossij..

      I must congratulate you on your industry in digging out and passing on that avalanche of links to common sense.
      Be assured I have had a word with the right people and you have been taken off tea making duties and promoted to Inhuman Resources. The hard hat and cravat will be company issue.Danger money will be an option if you work nights.
      Have a disgraceful weekend and leave no witnesses.


      The Marquis of Sawdust

      Delete
    31. Hello Anon 1 March 2019 at 12:40

      "Madeleine's loud crying, shouting and discontent from a previous night, she may well have repeated that if she was awake when an intruder came in.Then an intruder might panic. Then who knows ? If he snapped he took the evidence with him"

      Quite well said. I appreciate your reasoning, though I don't agree.

      As far as Kate's crying story is concerned, which was supposed to have happened the night before Madeleine disappeared, there're no independent witnesses who can confirm that it ever happened. However the McCanns' neighbour Mrs Fenn says that she heard a child crying for at least an hour on the night before the famous "why-didn't-you-come-when-we cried story,which I suppose you're referring to. So if we're to believe both Mrs Fenn and the McCanns Madeleine must've been crying the night before the abduction and also the night before that. So if the children's crying has a bearing on the subsequent abduction, the kidnappers or the burglars must have tried twice, but failed in their attempt to snatch Madeleine or to steal something in the McCanns' apartment , without anybody noticing it, but the children of course. Such a scenario seems extremely unlikely, to me.

      Delete
  19. Welcome 19:50 :) From the above posts (mine) you could be forgiven for thinking this is the least sane of the sites you have visited. I was going to say it's not always like that, but it mostly is.

    The Madeleine mystery grips you, doesn't it? Once you read beyond the headlines you have to know how deep the rabbit hole goes and there is no turning back. It is not just a missing child story, there are lots of subplots hovering on the periphery

    Yes poor Madeleine, she has almost been written out of the narrative. Now it all about the parents battle with Goncalo Amaral as if a win in the ECHRs will their daughter back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The general feeling here is that the McCanns buried their dead daughter then, with the assistance of their friends, set about constructing an abduction narrative to evade punishment. That's it. Oh, and they set up a fraudulent fund to profit from it. That's not really that deep a rabbit hole is it.It's more a dent in the turf. A deep rabbit hole would conceal many other areas of consideration. For instance why no evidence has been found to convict anyone at all in 12 years.Why a series of Prime Ministers threw themselves into this case and MI5 were called in.Why a series of governments have rubber -stamped funding to keep the investigation alive. Why a politician was asked to leave his post and front the media side of it all.

      I'm reminded of a parent of a boy in London, years ago.He was about 10 or 11. He was seen being bundled into a car.And that was that.The police called to the house to interview the father.The father immediately knew the boys fate and voiced it to them.They asked him how he could possibly know that had happened.He said it was easy, if it wasn't the case, it would only be the police at my door.But when they bring MI6 with them, you know it isn't a run of the mill abduction or murder they suspect...

      Delete
    2. Hi, I find it the most hopeful site to be honest.

      Delete
    3. Have I misunderstood, sorry if I have, but doesn't your 2nd paragraph contradict your first.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 27 February at 22:43

      As I see it, irrespective of one’s stance, the general feeling is that relevant information on all parties and individuals, directly or indirectly involved, might be withheld. I don’t believe “the McCanns buried their dead daughter ... etc.”. I do believe they know their daughter is dead.

      NL

      Delete
    5. Anonymous28 February 2019 at 08:01

      ''Have I misunderstood, sorry if I have, but doesn't your 2nd paragraph contradict your first.''

      No, it( par 2) offers an example of a real rabbit hole as opposed to an imagined one.Paragraph 1 was outlining the difference.The example in Par 2 was to merely give an example that seems to have foreshadowed this case ie, the involvement of powers higher than the police.

      Delete
  20. The tapas group were advised by the Leics police of the implications of attending a reconstruction.

    This should never have happened, they should have simply told the Tapas 7 to seek legal advice and left it at that but no, the LP once again asserted the law didn't apply to them.

    At the same time the Leics Chief Constable through their official police website, advised any witness that they should send any information regarding Madeleines disappearance, to the suspects own hotline and not to bother the Leics plod.

    At the same time, while conducting witness interviews on behalf of the PJ, the Leics plod allowed ROB to consult his partner, Tanner's statement while giving his own, to ensure the same story.

    You couldn't make it up but the Leics plod do, time and time again.

    OG hasn't the remit or the authority to investigate this illegal activity.

    Who has? Who will?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like it has all the hallmarks of a political conspiracy. It sounds like the real 'no stone unturned' area of this investigation was to - at all costs - cover up the truth. Politicians, we know, make fortunes through their skillful use of lies.Unfortunately we forget that the police are no better. We just expect them to be.he whole case is littered with dishonesty and it can all be traced back to people in positions of power and / or trust.It seems to indicate that every last detail was worked out behind closed doors. Why was this so important if it was just an abduction of a child ? Why couldn't have ever been just left to the police ? It's as though the discovery of the truth would have huge ramifications. Two doctors burying their child ?That makes no sense. It has to be bigger than that.

      Delete
    2. JJ 28 February 2019 at 11:32

      Hi, JJ

      “The tapas group were advised by the Leics police of the implications of attending a reconstruction.”

      Would you mind giving a cite?

      Thank you.

      W-t-P

      Delete
    3. @12:16

      “Why was this so important if it was just an abduction of a child ? Why couldn't have ever been just left to the police ? It's as though the discovery of the truth would have huge ramifications. Two doctors burying their child ?That makes no sense. It has to be bigger than that.”

      Perceptive, Dr Dust. I see you want me to repeat the ‘c’ word..

      Dr Pee

      Delete
    4. Hello
      Dr Pee 28 February 2019 at 13:47

      "Two doctors burying their child ?That makes no sense. It has to be bigger than that.”

      It does make sense if Madeleine was beaten, drugged or harmed by the McCanns or if they allowed others to treat her badly. An accidental death in the apartment, even if she'd been alone, when it happened would not have made the McCanns lie about it, and they wouldn't have hidden her body.

      Delete
    5. shhhhhh dubya

      Delete
    6. "It does make sense if Madeleine was beaten, drugged or harmed by the McCanns or if they allowed others to treat her badly. An accidental death in the apartment, even if she'd been alone, when it happened would not have made the McCanns lie about it, and they wouldn't have hidden her body."

      I'd love to hear your view on how the McCanns disposed of Madeleine's body. There doesn't seem to be any consensus amongst those who believe the McCanns were responsible for the disappearance of their child as to how they disposed of her. Probably, because there is no logical scenario that fits.

      Delete
    7. @ 19:04

      they'll pick one of Amaral's. he has some to spare apparently.

      Delete
    8. The best one was the cremation of the body inside an elderly British woman's coffin, imagine trying to pull that off in Portugal without the correct documentation. It would be a nightmare, yet GA believes it and announces it publicly.

      People on the internet seem to forget that it was the British police who led the Portuguese investigation into believing death occurred in 5A. Why would they, of all people, do that? Unless it was misdirection, death happened elsewhere, and the whole of the holiday was a badly constructed hoax.



      Delete
    9. Björn27 February 2019 at 20:28

      ''The worst of them all, apart from the McCanns themselves, is the creepy Dave Payne, who acted as Kate’s body guard after Madeleine had “disappeared”. His visit to Kate late in the afternoon still remains a mystery''

      Anonymous27 February 2019 at 22:19

      ''Without resorting to spurious allegations of the Gaspar variety, give us all some evidence that he is 'creepy'. Have you arrived at that far reaching psychological profile based on a photograph ? Or just because he offered support to his friends in a time of absolute panic and distress ?''

      Anonymous28 February 2019 at 18:56

      Björn28 February 2019 at 16:54

      ''It does make sense if Madeleine was beaten, drugged or harmed by the McCanns or if they allowed others to treat her badly.''

      You were asked a simple question and received a polite request regarding your in depth analysis of D Payne.You ignored both. But you shared another one of your twisted visions involving the little girl.If we must tolerate those, at least give something back.Only Ros applauds your unfounded, tasteless interpretations of things.For obvious reasons.Have you never noticed that ?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous1 March 2019 at 00:03

      ''The best one was the cremation of the body inside an elderly British woman's coffin, imagine trying to pull that off in Portugal without the correct documentation. It would be a nightmare, yet GA believes it and announces it publicly.''

      Yep, that was a bit of an 'Amaral special'.He arrived at that conclusion because the parents had been given keys to the chapel in order to pray in private.He didn't think he may well have been implicating the priest.Another case of adding two and two and arriving at 17.Or inventing dots and then joining them.He put this forward on top of the 'stored in a fridge' a la Cipriano case and then dumped ( a la Cipriano case).

      ''People on the internet seem to forget that it was the British police who led the Portuguese investigation into believing death occurred in 5A. Why would they, of all people, do that? Unless it was misdirection, death happened elsewhere, and the whole of the holiday was a badly constructed hoax.''

      I tend to go with the misdirection.Why would they construct a scenario that suggested a death in 5a but do nothing about it ? Or act on the so-called findings of the dogs ? To plant the seeds of doubt and suspicion globally.After all, the same UK brains were behind the mass media blanket bombing of the public consciousness. Why all that effort, all that skill and all that time and money ? To make everyone look at the parents or anywhere else.Just not in the right direction.. Because that would expose the truth.And that truth is why all the kings horses and all the kings men, can never put this Humpty together again.No matter how much they have to keep paying for it...

      Delete
    11. 28 Feb, 7.54
      Well said, you should be able to make a comment without being shot down in flames.

      I have found on various forums and blogs a minority of longer standing members seem to resent newbys !?

      The disappearence of Madeline is a mystery, newer posters should be welcomed, it shows another person cares.





      Delete
    12. Hi
      Anonymous1 March 2019 at 01:50
      ”You were asked a simple question and received a polite request regarding your in depth analysis of D Payne. You ignored both”

      Finding someone creepy is a subjective and intuitive feeling, that does not necessarily require any deep scientific analysis, just like your feelings about my posts sometimes being tasteless, which I’ve no reason to be upset about.

      Delete
  21. Björn28 February 2019 at 16:54

    ''It does make sense if Madeleine was beaten, drugged or harmed by the McCanns or if they allowed others to treat her badly.''

    You really don't have a filter at all do you, bjorn ?Spare us the graphic details of your twisted imagination.All that from one small 'if' ? Sickening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anon 28 February 2019 at 18:56
      ”You really don't have a filter at all do you, bjorn ?Spare us the graphic details of your twisted imagination”

      I haven’t given any graphic details about how the McCanns’ may have disposed of Madeleine’s body. Nor have I gone into details about what I suppose could’ve happened to her in that apartment. I’ve only suggested that Madeleine may have been more badly treated than people tend to believe.

      Hello Anon 1 March 2019 at 00:19
      ”What about a cover-up of a cover-up of an accident.
Is that not something that fits in better than abuse, something of which there is no sign of, let alone evidence of”

      Madeleine’s body hasn’t yet been found, which makes it difficult to establish under what circumstances she died, but it is likely, that her parents caused her death. If a child dies in a holiday apartment, it can very well be due to an accident, but if the parents or whoever is supposed to care for the child’s well-being, do not report that accident to the concerned authorities, it cannot possibly be anything but a macabre crime in the after-match of such an alleged accident.

      In plain English, even if it was just an accident, everything that the McCanns have done from the moment they realised that Madeleine was dead till today is beyond belief ghoulish and all of it must be judged as a serious criminal act, which is reprehensible and punishable in every respect.

      Delete
    2. Björn1 March 2019 at 19:16

      ''I haven’t given any graphic details about how the McCanns’ may have disposed of Madeleine’s body. Nor have I gone into details about what I suppose could’ve happened to her in that apartment''

      Really ?

      ''It does make sense if Madeleine was beaten, drugged or harmed by the McCanns or if they allowed others to treat her badly.''

      You don't call that graphic ?You don't think that's suggesting what ''could've happened to her in the apartment '' ?

      'I’ve only suggested that Madeleine may have been more badly treated than people tend to believe. ''

      You also suggested within your graphic description that the McCanns may have allowed others to treat her badly. That's allowing their child to be used for abuse.You need some serious evidence to back that up as it's a stomach churning and spiteful allegation to make.

      ''Madeleine’s body hasn’t yet been found, which makes it difficult to establish under what circumstances she died, ''

      It also makes it difficult to establish if she's actually dead. There's three of you here turning it into a death cult. Weird.

      ''In plain English, even if it was just an accident, everything that the McCanns have done from the moment they realised that Madeleine was dead till today is beyond belief ghoulish''

      Who said the McCanns realised their daughter was dead ? Who is saying it now ? The parents ? The police ? Who ? You say it's beyond belief ? What is ? Everything you've said is a lie but you frame the McCanns as ghouls for not behaving the appropriate way in your fantasy.Are you mental ?

      Ghoulish : ''morbidly interested in death or disaster.''

      I won't steal Ros' favourite quote ( projection) in case she does me for plagiarism. Just look in the mirror bjorn.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous1 March 2019 at 21:59

      "You also suggested within your graphic description that the McCanns may have allowed others to treat her badly"

      Their friends' refusal to co-operate with the Portuguese police shows that they weren't especially interested in finding out what had happened to the little girl or where she could be, dead or alive and they haven't changed attitudes since then. Isn't that enough evidence of how badly they've been treating her and still do. You seem to believe that treating a child without any respect always implies sexual abuse. Of course it doesn't. There're are many ways of doing so, which are quite as awful as sexual abuse, one of which was the McCanns' decision to let the twins sleep instead of taking them to a hospital, although they "knew" or "suspected" that the abductor could've drugged them. FGS they could've died that night.

      Delete
    4. Well said on pointing out that abuse is always sexual Bjorn, in fact it is rarely sexual. The mental and physical abuse meted out to the children in the convent was a result of the nuns and the staffs' own mental demons. For example, one Uncle's mantra was 'mortification of the body is good for the soul', ergo he was bringing the kids closer to God by beating them.

      Sadly, those crazy dysfunctional attitudes are not restricted to institutions. As convent children, we had to attend mass virtually every day and in the opposite pew was a 'proper' family, father, mother, 5 children, who attended as often as we did and who looked far more miserable. What rules, regulations and punishments did those children endure? All in the name of God and decent moral values.

      Some parents make excessive demands of their very young children, they make no allowances for age and immaturity and they are driven to anger when the kids do not meet their high expectations. I'm not saying this is the case in the McCann family, but Gerry and Kate are very quick to anger. They both remind me of horrible bosses I have worked for in the past who have flown into a rage when everything isn't exactly as they demanded. As clever as they might be, they have no control over their emotions, they cannot hide their anger.

      There are probably millions of children worldwide who are nervous wrecks because their parents are demanding perfectionists. Actually I don't feel so bad no about my own traumatic children, because the truth is, 80% of homes are dysfunctional, each in their own ways but dysfunctional nonetheless.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 March 2019 at 11:24

      ''Well said on pointing out that abuse is always sexual Bjorn, in fact it is rarely sexual''

      Great. Now Ros and her poodle are propping each other up again to defend sick animals. They haven't done that since last year. Hope this doesn't mean we're about to hear about the artists of the Renaissance next.

      Delete
  22. Madeleine being beaten, drugged or harmed is all in your vivid imagination. What about a cover-up of a cover-up of an accident.
    Is that not something that fits in better than abuse, something of which there is no sign of, let alone evidence of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't spoil his fun,00:19

      Delete
  23. Björn28 February 2019 at 16:54
    "It does make sense if Madeleine was beaten, drugged or harmed by the McCanns or if they allowed others to treat her badly."
    --------------------------------------------------

    So Björn in your valued (by Ros) opinion - which of your scenarios is the most likely to have led to the Mccanns hiding her body?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon1 March 2019 at 16:01

      Yes, drugged, but not by any perpetrators but by the McCanns themselves to keep her sleeping every night on that holiday till she couldn’t take anymore. I base my assumption on Kate’s “account of the truth” in the interview here below, as she explicitly tells Jenni Murray that she thought that the twins might have been drugged as well and that she’d kept on going into their room to see if they were breathing, yet doing nothing in terms of waking them up or calling for medical help to find out if they had to be sent to hospital to be examined.

      McCann on Woman's Hour | Jenni Murray | Madeleine McCann
      BBC Radio 4 12/05/2011 (on Youtube)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTohABDoOgQ

      Jenni Murray interviewing Kate McCann 4 years after Madeleine’s disappearance

      JM; You almost seem to be suggesting that she might’ve been drugged.
      KM; She might’ve been given sedatives, so she could be moved easily


      Delete
    2. @ Björn1 March 2019 at 19:08

      Your interpretation/analysis is complete and absolute nonsense - as is everything you have ever said about the case.

      Delete
    3. So, bjorn, you believe that the parents would drug the child either by accident or on purpose then later after an elaborate cover up Kate would casually volunteer that information on live radio. Stick to the fantasies. No, forget that.

      Delete
    4. No-one can explain how an almost 4 year old could be taken from her bed without screaming blue murder.

      At risk to herself Kate introduces the idea that Madeleine and the twins were drugged by the abductor. A ridiculous notion because everyone knows how hard it is to administer drugs to one toddler who knows and loves you, let alone 3 to whom you are a complete stranger. It would be like a scene from a slapstick movie.

      I can see why Kate offered an explanation, she often does when she feels trapped. She over explains which is a dead giveaway on the lie spotting front. She volunteers too much information which leads to further boxes belonging to Pandora being opened. In this instance - so the kids were drugged eh?

      One of the most painful (to watch) examples of Kate over explaining, is in an Irish interview when she go to great lengths to explain how a toddler could not open and close curtains, the patio doors and two gates. Oblivious to the fact the abductor would have to do all of the same whilst carrying a comatose 4 year old!

      That's the problem with a lie. One lie leads to another and another and they become even more outlandish and unbelievable as they go along.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 March 2019 at 11:53

      ''No-one can explain how an almost 4 year old could be taken from her bed without screaming blue murder.''

      A grown man with a gloved hand over the mouth of a tiny 3 year old.

      Delete
    6. ''I can see why Kate offered an explanation, she often does when she feels trapped.''

      Yes, Ros. Whereas if she didn't offer one she would 'obviously' be showing all the signs of guilt. Well done.

      Delete
    7. ''That's the problem with a lie. One lie leads to another and another and they become even more outlandish and unbelievable as they go along.''

      To someone who imagines they can solve a crime by using youtube and her amazing skills of analysing language and facial expressions to see if they can fit her theory.

      Delete
  24. Anon @ 00.03 wrote.
    The best one was the cremation of the body inside an elderly British woman's coffin, imagine trying to pull that off in Portugal without the correct documentation. It would be a nightmare, yet GA believes it and announces it publicly.

    .......................................................

    I'm sure you can provide the time and place in which Amaral says he believes in which you allege with the exact words of his agreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not Anon @ 00.03 but see:

      https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/hidden-evidence.html

      "Gonçalo Amaral has no doubts that Maddie is dead.

      "The girl's parents had a key to church, in that church a vigil took place a month after the disappearance. According to information, the child's body could have been placed in the coffin, at the feet of the woman that was later cremated"."

      Delete
    2. @ 16 : 44

      I don't know if 00:03 has read your reply. I have though. Your request is awkwardly phrased. Are you asking for the reference link etc for Amaral actually making the mad claim ? It's out there online somewhere, I'm sure. But, as a starting point, here's one :

      https://www.news24.com/You/Archive/former-maddie-investigator-makes-another-shocking-claim-about-her-disappearance-20170728

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 1 March 2019 at 20:29

      https://www.news24.com/You/Archive/former-maddie-investigator-makes-another-shocking-claim-about-her-disappearance-20170728

      Some call it hearsay, some call it MSM poo.

      I mean no offence.

      Peace.

      Poo

      Delete
    4. yep @ 20:27

      ''the child's body could have been placed in the coffin,''

      Key phrase ' could have'. By definition that means 'may not have' equally. In other words, an Amaral 'guess' ( again).

      Delete
    5. This is an article from the DM of 18/10/2007 which mentions Father Jose Manuel Pacheco and the police searching the churchyard in PDL -

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488262/I-deceived-says-Portuguese-priest-comforted-Gerry-Kate-McCann.html

      Using the McCanns' favourite saying "leaving no stone unturned" although many of us are still waiting for them to unturn the first stone after 12 years not just sit counting their pots of gold.

      Delete
    6. Much as i suspected,Amaral never made the claim,merely there was information it could have happened.World of difference.
      Still according to that font of knowledge the scum op grange is requesting further 12 months of funding not the usual 6 months extension.Not expecting a result any time soon then.

      Delete
    7. Many thanks for that 08:35, Yes it appears further funding has been requested and this time double what they have asked for before.

      I'm not sure what I think about that right now, funding til March 2020 doesn't sound good for anybody. Those who just want it to end so they can put the jigsaw away, but much worse I would imagine for those who made Madeleine disappear and the parents who must be desperate to know what happened to their daughter.

      I have not yet seen a response from Clarence or the parents, but it is bound to be interesting. If Gerry and Kate are being kept updated and know the police have an abductor in their sights, they would be delighted. If they are not being kept updated, then this is horribly cruel and they would have every right to complain.

      Delete
    8. I'll tell you how a police investigation works.

      Detectives comb through the evidence and testimony they already have and use that as a springboard. They attempt to get intel from the public or possibly the underground. They don't do the following :

      Tell anyone outside of the force in case it compromises their work or alerts their target.That includes the family of the victim. Nor do they tell the press unless it's to issue some fake evidence as a red herring to throw their target out of step.They don't broadcast their progress on the internet in case their target has an internet connection.

      Don't hold your breath by the way. This OG team have no trouble at all obtaining top ups for whatever they're pretending to do. Police have had harder times trying to obtain a search warrant.The lack of progress we've witnessed and will continue to witness suggests that it's easy money or they aren't actually receiving the funding . It's just for the script.

      Delete
    9. Anon2 March 2019 at 08:35

      ''Much as i suspected,Amaral never made the claim,merely there was information it could have happened.World of difference.''

      Not a world of difference when it was him who actually made the claim.

      Delete
  25. Re: Bjorn's "Beaten, drugged, or harmed theory" his theory about what may have happened to Madeleine McCann is the closest you'll ever get.

    If the death had been purely accidental, say a fall from the sofa and evidence of bleeding; there would have been no need to launch a cover up to protect their careers. Police would have investigated and found the death to be accidental. There was no reason to think the couple were murderers.

    But the English couple had overstepped the mark by drugging all their children to sleep and overdosing their eldest child, finding her dead on returning home that evening.
    Hasty and desperate revival attempts with the possible help of doctor friends didn't help, it only made matters worse.

    It was not just their daughter's life at stake now, but their lives too, once the police got involved the parents lives would be in ruins.
    Easier to hide the body and run out into the streets screaming "She's been taken", let others do the fake searching and move immediately to litigation against anyone trying to help them.

    The thinking was: their hastily devised plan might work against a simple minded third world police force.
    Why not the Portuguese police force - this should do the trick.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''If the death had been purely accidental, say a fall from the sofa and evidence of bleeding; there would have been no need to launch a cover up to protect their careers. ''

      Point 1: What death ?

      Point2 : Criminals cover up to stay out of prison not keep their job.

      ''But the English couple had overstepped the mark by drugging all their children to sleep and overdosing their eldest child, finding her dead on returning home that evening.''

      Point 3 :There is no record of this anywhere unless you can point us towards it.

      ''Hasty and desperate revival attempts with the possible help of doctor friends didn't help, it only made matters worse.''

      Point 4 : Are you making that up ? Imaging it happened ?

      ''Easier to hide the body and run out into the streets screaming "She's been taken",

      Point 5 : Hide it where ?

      ''The thinking was: their hastily devised plan might work against a simple minded third world police force. ''

      Point 6 : Did it work against Scotland yard and MI5 too ? Are they 'third world' forces also ?

      ''Why not the Portuguese police force - this should do the trick.''

      Point 7 : The event happened in Porugal. Which force would you have called in that position.

      Well done, jc. The trademark calm and insightful analysis we've heard from you too many times. If you repeat it, it won't transform into anything worthwhile. It's only serving you ( on a 'personal' level).

      Delete
  26. Anonymous1 March 2019 at 18:50

    ''Re: Bjorn's "Beaten, drugged, or harmed theory" his theory about what may have happened to Madeleine McCann is the closest you'll ever get.''

    Excellent. Now we have it in stereo. A nutcase defending a lunatic. On a positive note, how nice to see an actual bona fide response from jc. A memorable event indeed. At least now we know what excites him enough to make him respond. Let's hear it for free speech..

    ReplyDelete
  27. Today I was told it's all over, I'm wasting my time and they've got away with it. Anybody else receive that sort of reaction when researching this outrageous scam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who told you that and where did they tell you ? Was it online by any chance ?

      Delete
  28. "Easier to hide the body and run out into the streets screaming "She's been taken", let others do the fake searching and move immediately to litigation against anyone trying to help them."

    So where did they hide her Sherlock?

    ReplyDelete