Friday 1 February 2019

IN A NUTSHELL

Why thank you for your interesting, informative yet still a tad pompous, reply 13:59 I look forward to tackling every point you raise.  
 
Yes, that old human propensity to herd eh?  Or to join tribes.  How about gangs?  How about secret societies with dodgy handshakes, or internet forums with secret rooms?  Yeh, I was clearly talking about those who seek enlightenment, not those like yourself who blend in with the crowd.  The movers and shakers, the music makers and the dreamers of dreams. Man (and woman) will always strive to conquer every mountain and solve every puzzle.  You see herds, I see free spirits, you are glass half empty, I am glass half full, with room for a gin fizz and a micky finn.
 
Ooh you are looking down your long snooty nose 13:59, no matter how you try to dress it up.  You believe you are superior because you haven't reached a conclusion on the Madeleine case, and won't until the investigation is over.  Well good for you, do let the Pope or whoever know, it will give you extra points for The Good Place.  Oh dear on the snake reference, and we were getting on so well.
 
Knock my reference to a 'New Age of Enlightenment', or a 'New Age of Information' as much as you like, but if you if knew anything about history, you would know that the internet is as significant to the evolution of mankind as the printing press and the industrial revolution.  You are a moron if you don't.
 
Your faux pretence at finding my blogs both refreshing and alarming (how so?) is pathetic.  I have never made any claims that I know what happened to Madeleine, like your sanctimonious self, I leave that to the police.  Unlike others, this blog is devoid of outlandish theories, salacious allegations and libel.  It is more a discussion group for those who wait patiently for a conclusion by Scotland Yard and the PJ, hopefully both. Those gripped by the initial sales pitches and still hanging in there for a result 12 years later.  Kudos to the sales team. 
 
Up until your 'interest in the human psyche', I thought you were someone other than Ziggy, a new and improved model, the writing has come on considerably, but now you are going back to your alleged psychology degree, your study of human behaviour.  Ok Zig, (mark ?), your interest is in the 'trolling of the McCann', not the freaky behaviour of two parents who claimed to have had a child stolen.  OK, you chose the boring side of the coin, but heck, someone has to. 
 
Your interest is in isolating and tracking down certain behaviours that would constitute online harassment?  Am I close?  Your interest is in proving that social media can corrupt and obstruct justice, that any jury would have already been influenced by the huge amount of gossip online? Warm? Warmer? 
 
As for finding sanctuary online, I have already spoken to a real psychiatrist about this very issue!  He had no problem whatsoever that I had found people online to share a common interest with.  He saw it as positive!  The 21st century equivalent of speaking over the garden fence.  On this issue, I am not weird, lol.  This is not some dark, underground, plotting, scheming, blog, I am just like those who read here, hooked on this journey of discovery that must lead somewhere!  This is no tribe 13:59, and those who read here and contribute are not sheep. 
 
If you are a long time reader, you will see that I have no aspirations for leadership of any sort, and never have!  I like to think I create leaders, I seem to have had the midas touch where my exes etc are concerned, so I'm quite good at it.  For myself, I seek only enlightenment.  Crazy, because I will take all my cramming to the grave.  I don't think anything enriches your life as much as knowledge, so much to learn, so little time.
 
Tragically, I chose as my specialist subject on Mastermind, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  Figurately speaking, I was never on Mastermind, but I did choose the world's most unpopular subject to specialise in.  Had I been pro Gerry and Kate, I would have been made over as Kellyanne Conway and telling you a row of begonias is no different to a concrete wall.  

For all those journalists who look in, and I know you do, criticising the McCanns and their quest to harvest the nation's DNA and beat up transients at the borders, was a no go area.  The Saintly, McCanns were assisting the government in putting the fear of God into it's citizens.  If the cherubic Madeleine could be stolen from responsible (NHS) professionals, every child was at risk!  It was a story the media liked. It sold newspapers, it persuaded the gullible that we needed more government intervention in our lives.  I remember arguing with some dumb woman, Sally, lol, who insisted 'only those with something fear, would resist a government database'.  Where do you begin with that level of ignorance?  I remember once being asked a similarly dim-witted question in an 'A2' class.  Differed slightly in that a religious student asked why we studied such immoral, debased writers such as Shelley and Byron. I threw the question out to the class, and my (yes, my, love 'em) students, answered as I would have, and then some!    It made for interesting discussion among the English lecturers under the smoking shelter.

No 13:59, I do not believe I am psychic.  Actually, I have spent an inordinate amount of time on researching the whole 'psychic' thing and have concluded it is all nonsense.  I pity those who cling onto it, and I despise those who use it to take advantage of the vulnerable.  I don't see how I could make myself any clearer.  
 

 

64 comments:

  1. I hope you enjoyed a post- coital cigarette after that ( was it good for you, baby ). You burnt some fuel there....

    I can't quite work out how you concluded that I 'blend with the crowd' because i pointed out the folly of following and echoing the herd.can you see my problem there ?

    How can you see 'free' spirits if all they do is look for a tribe to be accepted by ? maybe a little too many gin fizzes or micky finns ?

    My nose isn't long or snooty.Figuratively or otherwise.You don't really have any evidence to say otherwise.I think you were reaching there.I'll put it down to your seemingly eternal battle with your temper and self- control. Why would I believe I'm superior because i haven't reached a conclusion over the Madeleine case ?Does that mean all those detectives here and in Portugal think they are too ? I think it's foolish to make accusations then use them as facts to construct a narrative that is merely fiction.Stating that proof and evidence are more important is stating the obvious.It isn't being superior.

    I know a lot about history, thanks.Probably a different history to the one you have read in books. An awful lot of it is lies.Books were a vessel for propaganda not long after the printing press was born.Then the radio came, then the TV and now the internet.Tools that attarct the masses with their bells and whistles and toys.Hook 'em in and programme them.The same old game, just higher, slicker levels of production.I see little enlightenment online.That's better than none at all.You see it all over the place.That's not positive thinking, it's naivety.The industrial revolution, incidentally was the death knell for the working classes.This is about the long game.Give machines the jobs.They never want paying or holidays and never stop working and maximizing profits.Screw those we make redundant.It was always going to evolve into this latest herd obsession' AI'. yes, miraculous.Hence the crumbling economies and rising numbers of food banks.If that makes me a moron- i can live with it...

    ''Your faux pretence at finding my blogs both refreshing and alarming (how so?) is pathetic''

    I find it alarming that so many are so confident that there is evidence and information to support a 12 year investigation that's gone and is going nowhere. Yet they can't criticise the detectives for ignoring it.Why don't any of you take it to the detectives ? Your blog isn't devoid of outlandish theories.There's plenty.But the reasoning behind them is what's really outlandish.

    My degree isn't 'alleged'- it's real.My interest isn't about anyone trolling the McCanns.I merely comment on the need for those using the internet to libel the parents and to defame them sound crazy or angry and will continue to until they provide reasonable evidence rather than guesses from the school of 'it's obvious'.You call it the boring side of the coin.I call it common sense.Is that boring too ?

    I'm not suggesting social media can corrupt or obstruct justice.I'm saying it can, and often does, corrupt judgement.Any QC pointing to facebook gossip and rumour in the hope of securing a conviction that has no tangible proof would find himself working in McDonalds the week after.

    Knowledge does enrich your life, i agree.Wisdom enriches it more.

    I agree with your conclusions about psychics and religion.It's all bollocks.I was just trying to understand how you can take a sentence from someone you don't know and reach conclusions as though you've known them intimately for years.yet you miss paragraphs of complete spite and nonsense from the faithful and interpret as wisdom if they conclude what you conclude.

    hanks for the larger nutshell.There was a lot of space inside though :)


    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes indeed, I loved the "human propensity" and "gregariousness" of poster 13:59 too. But after the intro I'm afraid I tuned out.

    Anyway, on another subject. What I have noticed for a long time is the amount of blog commentators who unknowingly add false layers to the disappearance of the McCann's child, and really believe what they are saying. (Some might just want to muddy the waters).

    It's not enough for these folk that the little girl went missing on the evening of May 3rd 2007 which even Mr and Mrs McCann and their doctor friends will righteously agree on.
    Probably one of the only times they all spoke the truth about the disappearance.

    It is beyond reason under such tragic circumstances that either Madeleine was: (1)Never on holiday in Portugal, - and everything was photoshopped.

    (2) The child was dead in Portugal several days before the 3rd of May while friends and family knowing of the tragedy partied the night away night after night and finally decided on a cover up story, to be revealed to the world many days later.

    No, this was an event so unorganized and haphazard as to be laughable. The Portuguese police must still be chuckling at the ineptitude of the British doctors.
    Here was missing child most probably dead under easily solvable circumstances that very evening. In a way it was a true story, but it needed embellishment on the part of the family.

    The pity of the tragic turn of events was that the Portuguese police could not find a body, - and usually to convict a person(s)of a crime like murder or disrespect for a body you need to find a body - even the British police were in on this very logical conclusion by digging up half of Praia da Luz with an excavator in search for a body.

    Of course the blame was heaped on the Police - why didn't they close the borders etc - like your little Jimmy of no particular account to anyone except his parents goes missing one Saturday evening and Scotland Yard shuts down all ports and airports in Britain.

    Of course there has always been a short cut to finding the truth to this calamity and that's to ask the parents where their child is. Which the Portuguese police started to do in very short order. But were met with blank refusal to answer any questions or to recreate the crime scene.

    The list goes on.
    You've got the dogs.
    The cadaver odor in the car.
    Blood on the tiles of Apt 5A.
    Washing your child's favourite toy to remove cadaver odor and then prancing around among Portuguese and foreign journalist clutching the wretched doll - because you care - must be, - look I'm proving it.

    Any normal person would be a fool to argue innocence.
    But the couple from Rothley have made this into a successful career.

    What a movie this would make. I wonder if the McCann's would sell the rights. It would make "Chappaquiddick" look like a walk in the park.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No, this was an event so unorganized and haphazard as to be laughable. The Portuguese police must still be chuckling at the ineptitude of the British doctors."

      Really JC? If it was an event so unorganised and haphazard to be laughable, then the world's police forces must be chuckling at the ineptitude of GA and his officers for having not solved it.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2 February 2019 at 04:49

      ''Yes indeed, I loved the "human propensity" and "gregariousness" of poster 13:59 too. But after the intro I'm afraid I tuned out.''

      JC, reading any randomly selected post you've submitted to this site illustrates that you 'tuned out' many, many years ago.

      Delete
    3. '' What I have noticed for a long time is the amount of blog commentators who unknowingly add false layers to the disappearance of the McCann's child,''

      By false you mean things like what the parents were thinking when they committed the crime, what they think now and how they did something that nobody actually knows for sure happened ? You mean like Amaral's 'layers' ? Yes, jc, isn't it terrible to do that.The shame..

      ''Here was missing child most probably dead under easily solvable circumstances that very evening. In a way it was a true story, but it needed embellishment on the part of the family.''

      You mean that kind of thing ?

      ''Any normal person would be a fool to argue innocence.
      But the couple from Rothley have made this into a successful career.''

      Made what into a successful career exactly ? Making thousands of free thinking people believe in their innocence against their will ?Making people who examine the same reports as everyone else and conclude that no evidence means no charge ? Are you prepared to accuse those who had charge of the dogs and their findings and the samples of blood of lying or covering up a crime or just perverting the course of justice ?If so. perhaps you can tell us why they did that.

      Delete
    4. People seem to forget that Goncalo Amaral and his team didn't solve this case, on the one hand he has made it clear that he didn't trust the British, yet on the other, he believed them as soon as he saw the dogs indicate.

      It doesn't make any sense, and I believe the Portuguese were tricked by the untrustworthy British. The British were never on the side of the Portuguese in this rather large deception, they were responsible for the dogs being deployed, therefore I don't trust them but believe we were always meant to believe them, if we didn't subscribe to abduction that is.

      Delete
  3. "I have never made any claims that I know what happened to Madeleine, like your sanctimonious self, I leave that to the police."

    But you don't leave it to the police, do you? If you did,you'd listen to what they have publicly stated, that they are not pursuing any lines of investigations against the Mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still, the last time I phoned Operation Grange they were looking for a body, not a live findable child. The police know who's responsible, they just can't prove it because they don't have a body yet, in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. So, OG told you they were looking for a body as you're an anonymous member of the public.But they tell the rest of the world that all lines are still open, dead or alive.They know who's responsible but they can't prove it ? If they 'know' they must be able to.Otherwise, they don't know, they merely suspect.After 12 years they suspect.Nothing more.And they usually suspect just before they request more money to investigate their suspect.So- is the funding going to provide the 'proof' or the body ? no, it provides nothing in terms of the investigation, it just pays a few coppers a few quid.You arrive at your opinion without really thinking much don't you.

      Delete
    3. Conversely, I have thought a lot about this case, and I can only say what I was asked:"do you know where the body is?"
      What else am I supposed to think except they are looking for a body and not a live findable child, regardless of what the parents and their PR team say.

      Delete
    4. You didn't call OG. You're being silly. You should have called a newspaper or some other media outlet who could call OG to have it confirmed. Stick to blogs..

      Delete
  4. TOP SECRET

    HMG’s most sensitive information requiring the highest levels of protection from the most serious threats. For example, where compromise could cause widespread loss of life or else threaten the security or economic wellbeing of the country or friendly nations.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Leverage. No other explanation compares when trying to figure out why the UK government pounced on this and then issued a public gag order on the parents and leave it to their own man, Mitchell.The McCanns were duped, as were we all.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 2 February at 18:54

      It is entirely possible, but why would the McCanns resign themselves to that fate?

      Delete
    3. @ 09:09

      They wouldn't, knowingly. By the time the penny dropped- if it did or if it has, they would have received the money and protection afforded to know other member of the public.They would have been deemed in the public eye to have bitten all those important hands that had fed them.

      Delete
  5. Ros says:

    "I have never made any claims that I know what happened to Madeleine"

    Yes you have - you have spent 12 years "investigating" this case and you have drawn the same conclusion that Amaral (in a few months) did - or do you deny that now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL at your desperation to catch me saying something libellous. I have said that I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the parents know what happened to Madeleine. I have also said that the theory of Goncalo Amaral is the only theory where all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit.

      Bad luck on your extreme efforts to curb Freedom of Speech 20:30, your demand for legislation that there should be no criticism of the McCanns failed and will always fail.

      Delete
    2. If i may interject....

      A judge would brief a jury, prior to their retiring to discuss the case, what exactly constitutes 'reasonable doubt'. As things stand, the instructions would probably be to ignore gossip, ignore sensational , often inaccurate newspaper reporting and the trends of social networks.Further, he would instruct a jury that the absence of a body and the presence of evidence that isn't conclusive can be considered doubt.He would no doubt close by instructing them to put all bias and pre conceptions to one side. I think all of that constitutes more than merely reasonable doubt.A jury wouldn't take long if it understood it's duty.

      As for the theory-or theories- of Amaral being the only one ( one ?) to make sense. You can't possibly be serious.They're a catalogue of accusations that have no supporting evidence and a list of bizarre and morbid guesses as to what the parents did-again, with no supporting evidence.It would be brought up by a defence counsel how strongly he suspected Murat and how determined he was to nail him( twice). No prosecution counsel would dare to cite the judge in the supreme court and a libel case.It would be entered on to court records that the ruling permitted his book to be published as long as it was made clear that it contained nothing more than his guesses- not facts and evidence that could go to court.

      As for your doubter and the freedom of speech curb you accuse him / her of. Nobody expects slander, libel or defamation aimed at the parents to stop.As long as groups of narrow minded, shallow thinkers with short attention spans parrot each others nonsense to get their own demons aired on line, they'll do it because they need to. That's another unfortunate off shoot of the tragedy.It will never be closed, and neither will the mouths that scream the nonsense for all to hear. Never let common sense, lack of facts and evidence deter you.Enjoy yourself.

      Delete
    3. 12:39
      "Nobody expects slander, libel or defamation aimed at the parents to stop."

      How so? Isn't Madeleine a living, findable child?

      Delete
    4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 February 2019 at 01:33

      1. I made no attempt to curb your freedom on speech.
      2. You have wasted 12 years of your life to come to no conclusion.
      3. I also believe beyond reasonable doubt that the parents know that Madeleine disappeared from apt 5A
      4. if you want hide behind the defence of libel then what on earth are you doing musing here?
      5. No authority in the World have proceeded with theory of Goncalo Amaral
      6. I have never made any effort to curb anyone's freedom of speech.
      7. I have never made a demand for legislation that there should be no criticism of the McCanns

      It's incredibly how much you get wrong.

      Delete
    5. Wow, 12:39, it would seem there is no need to hold a trial at all, you have stated exactly what will happen and how it will end. Do you have a crystal ball, a spirit guide or an overblown sense of your own importance? Lol, crack on, it would be mean of me to deconstruct your delusions.

      Your description of Goncalo Amaral's book bears no resemblance to err, GA's book. It is not a catalogue of accusations, it is a linear account of the Portuguese police investigation and the conclusions they reached. It is expertly constructed and is a quick, easy, pleasure to read. But of course your criticism is based on something you have never read.

      In your final paragraph, you scathingly criticise those who discuss this case online, whilst actually discussing this case online. Doh! You are arguably my most prolific poster, so do you include yourself among those with narrow minds and demons? Or are you serving some higher purpose that puts you above the rest of us?

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 February 2019 at 13:38

      ( ahem....*cough cough* )

      You have replied to that poster somewhat scathingly. I have a feeling, therefore, you think he is my good self, Mr sawdust.He isn't I'm afraid.There is only one of me unfortunately.I apologise to him ( or her) for your mistake and subsequent attack.You see me everywhere, Bella.I'm flattered :)

      Delete
    7. Actually, it is incredible how much I get right, and how much my readers return again and again to read the truth about the missing Madeleine case. My readers know that I will not lie to them and that they are in fact accompanying me on the same journey to enlightenment.

      If I had no knowledge of libel laws, you would have shut me down years ago Ziggy. Having a book 'legally read' by the lawyers of a major publisher, is a huge learning curve Ziggy, That and my decades working for lawyers taught me every trick and loophole to avoid legally. Ergo I have always been able to dance around negative posters such as yourself. I have been fighting pro McCann trolls for nearly 12 years, I have seen how desperate they are to get a shock horror tabloid headline out of those who criticise them online. Remember 'bang bang' and Brenda Leyland. If you and your ilk could drag me over hot legal coals, you would in a nanosecond.

      No.5. 'No authority in the world has proceeded with GA's theory'. Lol. How can that be anything other than a wild guess? You have deluded yourself that all the evidence collected in the summer of 2007 has been discarded. In this instance you are revealing the madness of one. You are in cuckoo land if you think the original interrupted investigation has been set aside from the current investigations by OG and the PJ.

      Returning to point 2. I'm not among those who claim to have solved this case from their armchairs. One of the 'hooks' for this case is the unexpected surprises along the way, and I have no doubt the finale will surprise us all.

      I'm not daft enough to paint myself into a corner like Bennett, HideHo and Textusa. They reached conclusions 12 years ago, and are still having to defend them, the truth however, will render all their labours worthless.

      I put forward my views, my opinions and my conclusions where appropriate. I do not use the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' lightly, for all that I am a rebel and wannabe revolutionary, my moral compass is aligned with the law.

      Tis true Ziggy, you are not among those who zone in on statements I make that may be considered libellous. Your interests lie elsewhere, such as, persuading readers that Goncalo Amaral's 'Truth of the Lie' must, by law, be read as a work of fiction not fact. From a rebuttal perspective, you're winning no-one there. People tend to read books exactly as they choose, and a book written by the former detective who actually headed the original investigation into this case WILL be taken as factual, despite what any Judge or a McCann parrot might say.

      Given the knowledge I have acquired along the way Ziggy, I do not consider the last 12 years of my life a waste of time. This wasn't just one rabbit hole, it was a multitude. I remember watching head of CEOP Jim Gamble sitting alongside Gerry and Kate on the breakfast sofas and thinking, well they must be innocent if they have chief of police sitting alongside them. Now, I wonder how I was ever that naïve.

      To add salt to this wound, it was post my degree, I was supposedly an educated woman. Heck, I had even taught media at GCSE and A-level. Of course I knew at the time that media was owned and controlled by billionaire newspaper owners, but it wasn't until Leveson that I knew how closely entwined these media moguls were with our leaders, labour or tory.

      Delete
    8. I have hit several watersheds throughout the course of my life, and this case is among the most significant. I felt I had been catapulted from the friendly, love and trust each other swinging sixties of Harold Wilson, into a nightmare new world, where everything I ever believed in was falling apart.

      I was astonished that two people, who were so obviously lying, were being given so many interviews, and so many tabloid front covers. And when I first went online, I was heartened to see that I was not alone, thousands, if not millions, could see what I could see.

      The McCanns themselves created this massive worldwide audience, but it backfired on them, because they couldn't control it. They have discovered much to their chagrin, that Rebekah et al, will go for whatever creates the biggest news sensation. She is neither pro nor anti McCann, she is pro selling newspapers.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 February 2019 at 14:36

      ''If I had no knowledge of libel laws, you would have shut me down years ago Ziggy. Having a book 'legally read' by the lawyers of a major publisher, is a huge learning curve Ziggy,''

      Oh dear, Bella. What happened there ? I interjected to let you know you had mistaken somebody else for me and you came back with this odd post. Why tell me about libel laws and why suggest that I would have you or anyone else shut down had i the power to ? It relates to nothing I said. It seems to relate more to paranoia.

      ''I have always been able to dance around negative posters such as yourself. I have been fighting pro McCann trolls for nearly 12 years''

      And here we go yet again.....

      I have read you say many times that you have an undying faith in the inherent goodness in people.In human nature.A somewhat positive if unrealistic attitude.But if you're sincere, fair enough.I don't share your vision.However, in all things McCann, i have stated that no proof exists that the child is dead.OK, realistically she probably is but we don't know.I hold out hope, nothing more.Where there's life, there's hope.But you call me a 'negative poster'. So how does my hoping against hope that the child is alive make me negative in your 'everyone is good at heart' philosophy ?Does that philosophy take a back seat when the McCanns come into your cross hairs ? And what is your definition of an internet troll ?Is it the same as that of people who understand the meaning or is it just someone who poses questions that challenge something you believe? Why do you always bring Brenda Leyland into your arguments ? Allow the lady some dignity.And please, don't drag my name into an arena filled with complete morons who engage in online sick stupidity. it's cheap, it's tacky and it's uncalled for.All i did was present an opposing opinion of this case and state the official statements of the state of play.

      The judge in the supreme court made a ruling that stated that Amaral's book would be allowed to hit the shelves but the caveat was that it is because it is a 'literary work' not a book of facts.It isn't my fault the judge said that. All I did was remind you of it. How people 'choose' to read it is their business.But, if they choose to read it as fact they are incorrect. As such their comments based on the book can only be an agreement of one or more opinions as composed by the author.So they would be stating opinions.Nothing more.

      That it took Leveson to remove your blinkers where the media are concerned and that our two- party political system is a sham is evidence that your eyes still have some opening to do yet.But, it's never too late. The rest of your post needs no comment from me as it doesn't apply to me.You have addressed the post of someone else and decided he or she is me.Again.

      Delete
    10. '' I was astonished that two people, who were so obviously lying, were being given so many interviews, and so many tabloid front covers. And when I first went online, I was heartened to see that I was not alone, thousands, if not millions, could see what I could see. ''

      How did you know they were 'obviously lying ' ? You couldn't have known.You guessed.You could only draw on the knowledge of other separate unrelated cases and then decide it was similar enough to say the parents did it. That isn't how detection of crime works.That you found thousands online who shared your astonishment is evidence of how the saturation of true crime documentaries have caught on. With it being so 'obvious' were you not also 'astonished' that nobody was arrested ? That the police were missing the 'obvious' ?

      ''The McCanns themselves created this massive worldwide audience, but it backfired on them, because they couldn't control it''

      The media created the worldwide audience, actually.The McCanns was their attraction.They never controlled it at any point.Remember Clarence ? Media controller ?

      The media has served the Tory and the Labour cause in the case.The big photographs; the dramatic but inaccurate 'new leads'.The sensational and meaningless quotes.All sell papers and make money and all sustain the illusion of the great 'mystery'.

      Delete
  6. "a tad pompous"

    "For all those journalists who look in, and I know you do"

    How do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's a short screenplay at the future trial of the McCanns, set in Portugal. Perry Mason is acting for the defense.

    The clerk of the court whispers to the judge.
    The judge speaks to the court.

    "And now we have an exhibit the prosecution wishes to present to the court".

    The judge addresses Hamilton Burger who leads the prosecution.

    "Mr Burger, the court's understanding is that this piece of evidence is critical to the Portuguese State's case. Will you enlighten us please.

    Mr Burger: "I will indeed your honor. This is a doll, a cloth toy formerly belonging to the deceased which forensic scientists have identified contain traces of human body cadaverine likewise the trunk of the defendents rented car is also found to contain human body cadaverine".

    Perry Mason; "I object your Honor. We have evidence that will show that these findings are erroneous and my clients are not guilty in any way"

    Judge; "Objection sustained. Go ahead Mr Mason, the court is always ready to hear what you have to say"

    Mason: "Thank you your honor. It is true that this evidence cannot be contested in any normal fashion. But the court must recognize both my clients are medical doctors in English hospitals and were routinely handling dead bodies every day up to the day they arrived in Portugal. Probably still dressed in hospital scrubs they were bound to contaminate anything they touched

    Burger: "objection your Honor. My honorable colleague is merely speculating. People on holiday don't go dressed in dirty clothes".

    Judge: "Objection overruled. Go ahead for the defense Mr Mason".

    Mason: "As I have stated, DNA and cadaverine traces were found by certified forensic tracker dogs and scientific investigators but the fact remains my clients were proven handlers of dead bodies attested to by hospital staff and hospital records
    How else can you explain their involvement - you can't.
    My clients are innocent. On this basis and other matters you have heard brought before the court I submit to this court that there is no case for the prosecution but for a verdict of not guilty. I rest my case your Honor".

    Judge: "Mr Burger, do you have anything to say"

    Burger: "No, we will abide by the court's ruling".

    (Hope it never turns out like this)
    Have a nice day.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where would the prosecution get the evidence from the doll if the Portuguese police or the UK police couldn't use one to convince a Crown Prosecution service to take it to court ?

      Why would any defence counsel ask for evidence such as cadaver or DNA to be ignored because the defendants worked in a hospital ? Actually Kate was a GP - not a hospital Dr. Gerry is a cardiologist. Why would a cardiologist be handling dead bodies ?

      Before you start getting your panties knotted, I know the reference to the hospital was prompted by Kate's attempt to try to explain the presence of cadaver scent.She was grasping at something to explain as she was completely baffled why she'd have it on her or near her.Why would she be baffled if she'd been handling a corpse ?

      They say that truth is often stranger than fiction.It's hard to say which is stranger when you hit the screen, jc. You don't seem to have so much as a clue as to what actually constitutes either. As such it's hard to say which is the stranger, your fiction or what you mistake for truth. Strange.

      Delete
    2. which begs the question...why did kate have to lie about attending six cadavers to explain the dogs findings?

      Delete
    3. @10:25

      Could you please post a link to Kate’s saying that.

      Thank you

      Delete
    4. the interview where she uses the attending the deaths in a gps capacity appears to have been whooshed. but she certainly used that to explain cadaver scent on her trousers...it was not at hospital but residential deaths.

      Delete
    5. but i'll try find the link where clarence put that forward to the media as an excuse.

      Delete
    6. Anon 13 February 2019 at 17:47, 17:52

      Thank you kindly for replying.

      Would you agree that, in the context of our exchange, we could speak of approaching ‘a certainty’ only if we had access to a reliable record of Kate’s saying that she visited departed patients or, alternatively, to a reliable record of such visits?

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Anonymous 3 February at 23:48

      That's a very short introduction. You, in a nutshell?

      Delete
    2. agreed @ 23 : 48

      Delete
    3. Can't figure out who the nutter is supposed to be.

      Delete
  9. Ros - can you explain why you have a "Cristobell Donate button"
    when the only conclusion you have reached is identical to Amarals book?

    Do you add anything at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amaral believed the dogs but he didn't believe or trust the British who brought them in, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would the British actively assist Amaral and his team when they were clearly working against them? They left as soon as the McCanns left, for goodness sake. The British were definitely not on the side of the Portuguese in this case, therefore I don't believe in the dogs; I believe they were a trick to make people believe Madeleine died in apartment 5a, and so far it's worked. This case goes back further than the 3rd May, of that I'm sure, no matter what the internet says.


      Delete
    2. 01:58
      "The British were definitely not on the side of the Portuguese in this case, therefore I don't believe in the dogs; I believe they were a trick to make people believe Madeleine died in apartment 5a, and so far it's worked."

      Yes, it made people believe Madeleine died in apartment 5A. I do believe in the dogs, although their findings don't prove that Madeleine died in apartment 5A.

      I'm not so sure about the cooperation between the British and Portuguese police:

      "They have confirmed that the parents are not suspects."
      "Mr Sousa also tentatively suggested there could new suspects in the case depending on the results."

      A compromise?

      15 Aug 2007

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560443/Madeleine-sniffer-dogs-detect-scent-of-body.html

      'After exhausting all leads suggesting Madeleine was abducted, police are now working on the theory she suffered an accident or was killed inside the flat.

      They have confirmed that the parents are not suspects. Two specialist British sniffer dogs, one with the ability to find small traces of blood and the other a "victim" dog who can detect human remains, were brought in a fortnight ago.

      Speaking to a Portuguese TV station, Mr Sousa said that they had traced the scent of a body inside the family apartment where Madeleine disappeared and found specks of blood.

      ...

      'Earlier this week, Portugal's most senior police officer played down developments. Alípio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ, said that detectives were "far from throwing light on the case".

      He added: "Despite the fact that new elements have appeared in the investigation we still do not know where they will lead us."

      Mr Sousa said the case "is complex" and "extremely difficult to investigate".'

      Delete
    3. Do I add anything at all you ask 18:24, quite rudely in fact, you suggest I should purport a new theory to justify my donate button. You are among those who think a talent for writing is not a trade worthy of payment.

      Presumably you don't walk into a newsagents and walk out with a selection of newspapers and magazines without making any payment. And with books, you can't just take them off the shelves and walk away.

      I give my services freely. I write blogs that are read by hundreds of people every day. As a writer who writes always, I would publish my blogs even if I were down to one reader, my need to write is beyond my control, and I am deeply touched that strangers want to read what I write.

      I provide a service 18:24 - an honest regular account of what is happening in the Madeleine case, that cuts through all the BS that appears in the mainstream media. For hundreds, possibly thousands, I am the first port of call when Madeleine news appears.

      There are times, I must admit, when I don't want to do this anymore, but I feel I owe it to my readers to carry on. Not to mention of course, those vexing press releases put out by the McCanns and Tracy Kandhola, I would be failing as a human being if I didn't challenge their misinformation. I hate to see good hearted people conned, and that is exactly what they are doing. This isn't a 'nice' victimless crime, people are being hurt.

      Unfortunately, writers, like shopworkers, plumbers, tinkers, tailors and soldiers and sailors, have to eat and pay bills. Do you write angry letters to The Guardian and The Times who also have donate buttons?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5 February 2019 at 10:07

      Interesting...

      Given the words of Sousa and Ribero it makes the madness even madder.Contrary to the 'no stone unturned' motto, it would appear that the stones that were turned to reveal forensic evidence should have been a cause for celebration but were immediately played down. Playing them down so early would be considered foolish and unprofessional in other context.But this was jumping the gun for a reason. There was something for the police to seriously investigate and for the media to report.It should have been viewed as a major breakthrough; a positive development.But it seemed as though it was more important again to 'prep' the public by all but dismissing evidence before it was fully examined. A sort of 'don't bother getting your hopes up' message. And it turns out - surprise, surprise- that the warning was right.I wonder how he knew with such certainty before he made that guess.The clue could be in Amaral's statement following the release of him from his duties and the release of his book.

      When asked if he thought the case would ever be solved he stated that he thought it would be 'once the political will of two countries allow the MI5 files to be opened'.So, working backwards, it would seem that MI5 were in control of the investigation at the early, crucial stage.The discovery of what could have been incriminating evidence was dismissed on the spot and the big Portuguese names were instructed to shape the publics expectations and prepare them to expect no outcome.The detective in charge was then removed.The press releases dismissed any evidence.Then the evidence went away and the waters were left muddied.

      Since then, too many people have splashed around in that water and made it muddier.Or, as the quote went : '' the case is complex and very difficult to investigate''. It would be wouldn't it.If you render all evidence as too enigmatic and inconclusive to be used in a prosecution, it will remain that way.It became, and remains, a case of 'nothing to see here'. That's true, because it's been magicked away, thus ensuring nobody will face a jury.All of this points directly at top level hijacking from the UK.But, as long as the same people ensure that funding is requested and then release that to the press, it will always be their argument ; ''why would we be funding this if we already know we've killed the case?''. There's the explanation of how the funding continues to be wasted and no real progress is ever made.Just invented 'leads'.

      It would also explain, Bella, why OG seems to be doing nothing but you believe they're on to something too important to share with us..

      Delete
    5. Your potted history of this case bears no resemblance to reality or our memories Ziggy. The only people trying to make the alerts of the dogs and the forensic reports go away, were the McCanns and those helping them pervert the course of justice. Anyone with any knowledge of this case whatsoever, knows about the dogs.

      'All this points directly at top level hijacking from the UK'. I'm afraid I am laughing out loud at this point Ziggy. This isn't a James Bond film, there may be Drs. Evil, but they are not of the cat stroking variety.

      The funding continues Ziggy, because those investigating are determined to bring this case to a conclusion. No-one asks for funding to drag a case on indefinitely. Again that is wishful thinking on your part, and quite strange because you are totally indifferent as to whether there is a result or not. Do the McCanns also think this way?

      Delete
    6. ''The only people trying to make the alerts of the dogs and the forensic reports go away, were the McCanns and those helping them pervert the course of justice. Anyone with any knowledge of this case whatsoever, knows about the dogs.''

      The parents were potential future suspects and members of the public.They were also foreign tourists. None of that gives them any influence allowing them to make potential evidence go away.It would be like them trying to burn finger prints.Who was 'helping them pervert the course of justice' to the point that they made the dogs findings 'inconclusive' would you say ? Don't talk about your version of the history of the case as deeper than my 'potted history' just because you've added endless layers of accusation and innuendo to it.The actual facts and bare bones are little more than a potted history any way. Isn't one of your favourite quotes to say it's all quite simple ?

      '''All this points directly at top level hijacking from the UK'. I'm afraid I am laughing out loud at this point Ziggy. This isn't a James Bond film, there may be Drs. Evil, but they are not of the cat stroking variety.''

      You announce your amusement in attempt to ridicule what I say and influence a few of your disciples to follow suit.I know the difference between Hollywood and reality.Do you ?Why do we have an official secrets act ? Why do we have undercover agents acting for the government and overruling the police ?They don't need pantomime names and cats to stroke to operate . This is the real world. How do you think so many paedophiles in our Houses Of Parliament were kept out of trouble for decades ? Just luck ?

      ''The funding continues Ziggy, because those investigating are determined to bring this case to a conclusion.''

      Yes, that's the official line. They know the forensics will never be used and no confession will happen.What's left after that ? Nothing.So, to quote Lear '' nothing will come of nothing''

      ''quite strange because you are totally indifferent as to whether there is a result or not. Do the McCanns also think this way?''

      I can only imagine that the McCanns have mixed feelings.They want closure but don't want to have the final verdict that their child isn't alive.They wouldn't want it to be left to go cold as it will never fully leave them. But that's me imagining.Unlike most, i don't confuse what I imagine as 'obviously true'. As for me..I'm indifferent as i have no stake in it.I feel as a parent and i get angry as a member of a so called democratic society that's racing towards an Orwellian nightmare via a Dickensian rat's nest thanks to those rich and privileged arseholes who run the game and live beyond the law in their debauched Utopia.

      Delete
    7. Simply by refusing to acknowledge the alerts of the dogs, the McCanns were trying to erase this evidence from the narrative. Kate in her book, says that when shown the videos of the dogs, she sat and chanted 'f***ing to**er'. This was a woman determined, as you are, to write the dog alerts out of the narrative. Kudos to you for not giving up though.

      Let me back up for a moment however, 'they know the forensics will never be used and no confession will happen'. That's quite a sweeping statement. Are you speaking on behalf of the McCanns or Scotland Yard.

      Again, I reiterate, your dream that all the evidence collected in 2007 has been discarded, remains a dream.

      Do the McCanns want closure? They are hardly banging on police doors demanding answers. Again, I cite the multitude of crime documents I have seen, the parents, and it's usually the parents, of the missing, never give the police a moment's peace. Are Gerry and Kate harassing the police? Have they ever harassed the police for answers? If not, why not?

      At this time Ziggy, the parents of Madeleine are being far too quiet and far too accepting of whatever the police are telling them. Again, this ring alarm bells on a behaviour scale. That is their behaviour flies off what is accepted as normality.

      Strip away everything, the cascade of tabloid front pages, the daily controversy, the trolls who attack them on twitter, etc, etc, etc, the ultimate goal of the McCanns is to discover what happened to Madeleine.

      Except it isn't. Having fought so hard for a review, which, lucky them, turned into a full blown investigation, they are now totally indifferent to it (the investigation) being shut down.

      That makes no sense. They know that in a private capacity 'searching', they will have nowhere near the resources of Scotland Yard. I suspect the only reason the McCanns want to see the investigation closed or put on a shelf to go cold, is because they are the subjects.

      Finally, this case has little to do with a rats nest of rich privileged arse holes. In this instance, the elite upper classes are not involved. This is crime constructed and run by working class professionals 'dun good'. A small group of wide boys living out their dreams around a bottle of free wine by the poolside.

      You claim to have no stake in the McCann, you want us to believe you are no more than a curious member of society who leans towards the McCanns' innocence. Firstly, I would say, why lie? Why not introduce yourself as the honest broker your purport to be?

      Even if you are a member of the McCann or Healy clans, so what? If you are it would add at least some credibility to your posts. I really do not understand why vocal supports of the McCanns are so reluctant to reveal their identities. What is it that you/they fear?

      From a personal perspective, I think it is cowardly to hide, it's like you do not have the courage of your convictions. And, it must be said, if you can't put your name to it, it is worthless. It's like saying, I will support you but I don't want anyone to know. Being a straight talker, my response would be 'well f*ck you, if you can't stand beside me, go away'. The McCanns continue to be happy with the nameless running their website and FB page however, where the rest of us would feel insulted.

      They are funny old clans to be sure. All rushing out to the rescue in PDL, but quiet ever since.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 February 2019 at 15:51

      ''Simply by refusing to acknowledge the alerts of the dogs, the McCanns were trying to erase this evidence from the narrative. Kate in her book, says that when shown the videos of the dogs, she sat and chanted 'f***ing to**er'. This was a woman determined, as you are, to write the dog alerts out of the narrative. Kudos to you for not giving up though.''

      Please read this slowly....

      It doesn't matter one way or another what your opinion is of the dogs' findings.The same goes for my opinion. The McCanns opinion doesn't matter either.The only opinion that matters is the one agreed upon by the PJ and the met and them all jointly.It wouldn't matter who was-or is- determined about the findings unless they are a police officer working on the case.Nobody can make the evidence go away.Not me, you or a McCann.But, if it is that crucial why has it taken 12 years and annual financial top ups to continue NOT to use any of it ?

      '' 'they know the forensics will never be used and no confession will happen'. That's quite a sweeping statement. Are you speaking on behalf of the McCanns or Scotland Yard.''

      I'm speaking from a position of cool detachment and explaining logic. The forensics won't transform into usable evidence magically after 12 years.And a confession won't come now. Why would it ?

      ''Again, I reiterate, your dream that all the evidence collected in 2007 has been discarded, remains a dream. ''

      Not discard, i have never said that.It's still in a fridge being ignored.So, who's really dreaming here ?

      ''At this time Ziggy, the parents of Madeleine are being far too quiet and far too accepting of whatever the police are telling them.''

      What are they being told ? have they been told anything other than the search goes on ? Why would they not be quiet? Not everyone obsessively commits every iota of their day to social networks.

      ''the ultimate goal of the McCanns is to discover what happened to Madeleine.''

      Probably.

      ''Except it isn't. ''

      Oh, ok.

      ''they are now totally indifferent to it (the investigation) being shut down.''

      When i answered you about what the McCanns must be thinking, i told you it was only what I imagine.That's because nobody but the McCanns know. Where's your proof that they are indifferent if none of us could know ?

      ''Finally, this case has little to do with a rats nest of rich privileged arse holes. In this instance, the elite upper classes are not involved.''

      How do you know ?

      ''You claim to have no stake in the McCann, you want us to believe you are no more than a curious member of society who leans towards the McCanns' innocence. Firstly, I would say, why lie? Why not introduce yourself as the honest broker your purport to be? ''

      I claim it because it's true.Your paranoia won't change that.I'm on the side of justice.If they turn out to be guilty you can pass me a pitchfork if you have a spare.Innocent until proven guilty is preferable to vigilante spite. Because I ask you simple questions and make simple requests that you struggle to meet you resort to name calling or desperate accusations regarding things you couldn't possibly have any knowledge of.It looks desperate.The fate of the McCanns-and this case- has become far too big in your life.

      ''From a personal perspective, I think it is cowardly to hide, it's like you do not have the courage of your convictions.''

      I told you over a year ago, i don't hide.Not in the real world.But on line i trust very little and very few.But, as i said back then, anyone who thinks i cower or hide is welcome to arrive in my fair city and let me know where they are.They can even bring their insults and name calling.

      Delete
  10. Who authorised the Leicestershire police to go to PDL?

    a politician

    Who authorised the formation of OG?

    a politician

    Who decides if OG continues?

    a politician

    Who was the architect of the fund?

    a politician

    Who appointed CM to the McCanns?

    a politician

    Ros, do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that Mark Rowley was placed in charge of OG for a number of years and that it in no way compromised the quest for the truth, regarding the events in PDL?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi JJ, my point to Ziggy was that Clarence was not a politician.

    I agree our government in 2007 perverted the course of justice in this case, how else can you describe their interference - it resulted in this relatively simple and straight forward case being shelved rather than solved, which is where it was heading when GA was in charge. This interference I am sure is causing colossal problems for Operation Grange.

    I agree on all your points JJ, but the decision to prosecute etc, is in the hands of the Crown Prosecution. The PM doesn't get to sift through files saying who to prosecute and who to let off. The idea that the PM or a cabinet minister could let a murderous friend off the hook is ridiculous.

    As for Clarence, I believe he went rogue. There he was in sunny PDL enjoying the company of fellow megalomaniac Gerry plotting to turn little Madeleine into a global brand. How dull must his job in a Whitehall office have seemed by comparison?

    I think he tried to keep up the pretence that he was a government spokesman, as he continued with the same pompous, authoritarian tone, but I think there was a break with himself and Labour hierarchy and it wasn't pleasant. He didn't even return to work out his notice.

    Much has been written about Chiefs of police JJ, particularly their links to and support of the parents in this case. So much that I honestly don't know where to begin. Tis true to say that many times of the years, the stars would appear to have been aligned just perfectly for the McCanns. But that is what happens when people have a determined mindset and a clear goal. They knew what they wanted, and they went for it.

    The McCanns appear to have had several former police chiefs onside, Sir Bernard HH releasing balloons, Jim Gamble sitting alongside them on the breakfast TV sofas. We must remember however, in this capitalist system, that police agencies must compete for funding. The case of missing Madeleine added substance to their claims that children are under constant threat of abduction, child trafficking etc. I suspect the behaviour of certain former police chiefs is also causing huge problems for OG.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 February 2019 at 12:26

    ''Hi JJ, my point to Ziggy was that Clarence was not a politician.
    I agree our government in 2007 perverted the course of justice in this case, how else can you describe their interference''

    Bella ( the ball)...

    Last year when i was dazzling you, you were always quick to dismiss all talk of conspiracy as 'conspiraloons' and throw in the odd 'LOL' at the thought of political interference.You even asked me once ( in mid- laugh) where the MI5 talk came from and I had to inform you that it was Amaral. It's refreshing to see that you have yielded to a degree and accepted what seems so obvious regarding governmental interference.It isn't merely a case of semantics to highlight the difference between 'assistance' and 'interference'. assistance is intended to help; interference is intended to obscure.So the question remains- why ? Those who obscured this also rubber stamped Operation Grange. OG is another arm of the op. The problems OG face are mainly in having to maintain an illusion as well as it's integrity.

    Clarence, as I've said elsewhere, is as loyal as any politician.They're like the mafia. They never really 'leave'. And Clarence is privy to a lot of secrets given he had the ear of two opposing Prime Ministers as well as Military Intelligence.Yet, amongst all these high rollers from the gutter you identify Gerry Mccann as 'megalomaniac'. You state he had some bizarre plan to turn Madeleine into an industry and make himself rich and famous.So 'Mister Magic' Mitchell was heaven- sent.You're missing the darker moves and the most important.Regardless of your opinion of either McCann, the people who make our laws, take our taxes and dictate our lives have taken part in all of this willingly.Mitchell was a politician with all the right contacts.He's since gone on to become spokesman for Cambridge Analytica for Gods sake.He replaced yet another former politician / spin doctor in Justine McGuiness.The whole case is littered with them.

    '' the stars would appear to have been aligned just perfectly for the McCanns. But that is what happens when people have a determined mindset and a clear goal. They knew what they wanted, and they went for it.''

    The alignment of the stars had nothing to do with anything.It was the alignment of the chess pieces as moved by politicians that shaped the outcome of the game ( stale mate).Who really had the determined mindset and clear goal ? Who really had a huge amount at stake ?
    The police requesting funding has been a scam for years.Decades.It still would have been without the McCann case.And they don't require funding to construct a nationwide campaign about child safety.They already exist. People are aware and continue to grow in awareness regarding child trafficking and worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13:23

      I am liking you. Are you a bear? Could you please dazzle me too?

      Winnie-the-Pooh

      Delete
    2. Rivers know this: there is no hurry. We shall get there some day.

      —Winnie the Pooh

      Delete
  13. Superintendent Hill of Surrey Police/CEOP was in PDL the W/E 5th May
    confirmed by ACPO/NPIA

    He was not invited by the Portuguese authorities
    confirmed by GA and ACPO

    His activities were therefore illegal and unlawful, what were his motives and who sent him.

    This activity would be on OG's radar but DCI Redwood/Wall do not have the seniority to investigate.

    It would require an officer of substantial rank such as Mark Rowley to interview Supt Hill.

    Who in May 2007 was Hill's superior officer(boss), the very same Mark Rowley. The delay with OG is an obvious conflict of interest and confusion, with senior officers needing to investigate themselves.

    Kick the can down the road, £150k every few months is peanuts to save police and politicians blushes.

    The Macs have been supported legally and illegally by UK police officers from day one. Why does anyone expect it to change.

    Dishonesty is rife within the hierarchy of the UK police just check the records
    The Leics Asst Chief Constable in 2010 committed suicide while awaiting court appearances for perverting the course of justice fraud and gross misconduct. What a fine standard he must have set his force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet people continue to believe that the police are investigating this debacle in an appropriate and legal manner. I despair.

      Delete
    2. 19:35 & 19:13

      Indeed. (For I am a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me.)

      Winnie-the-Poo

      Delete
    3. @19:13

      Makes you wonder whose giving them the orders really.One copper originally set to head up an investigation gets 'warned off' by a senior colleague for wanting to solve it.Then the Portuguese counter part sacked for the same. But oh no...it can't possibly be a political matter. Of course it can't.I'm sure every time a child goes missing the police decide not to solve it from the outset.It's normal procedure I suppose. Oh yes, and if any evidence is found - lose it or say it's no good.All makes sense now.So if you're ever the victim of a crime call MI5 .

      Delete
    4. You put forward a lot of persuasive arguments there JJ which bring me back to those wtf days when Jim Gamble was sat alongside the arguidos on British breakfast tv. The presence of JG seemed to confirm that the British police were fully behind Gerry and Kate, and gave credibility to their fundraising etc. It was truly bizarre, unprecedented even, but JG, like Clarence, loves the camera, and that was probably the decider. We all thought, or were supposed to think, the McCanns couldn't possibly be guilty if the head of CEOP is supporting them so publicly. Some might say, he was pretty positive the McCanns were not going to be charged, ever.

      Who knows how deep this murky little spider web goes JJ, and I tend to think the time it is taking is an indicator that there will be a lot of defendants.

      As for police investigating police, it happens JJ. No-one is above the law. Their greatest fear I suspect is humiliation, and if the McCanns are charged, there is a lot heading their way. Some might say, the British police were either supporting a scam or too stupid to know they were supporting a scam.

      Regardless of all the above however, I don't believe the Home Office is giving OG £150k every six months just to keep the case buried. If a cover up were their objective, all they had to do was seal it off 7 years ago (at the time of the Review) and state nothing to see here. Dragging it on all this time hasn't assisted anyone.

      I believe a conclusion is in sight JJ, and I suspect there will be many surprises, enough perhaps to knock Brexit and Trump off the front pages for a few days. Cressida Dick has stated there will be a conclusion, former Police Chiefs have been non committal. I'm taking that as a sign.

      Delete
    5. JG may well love the cameras.But that doesn't mean he can gatecrash any TV programme he likes for whatever he likes.He has to be invited first.Why aren't you questioning who orchestrated it and implying it was a charade ?

      ''Who knows how deep this murky little spider web goes JJ, and I tend to think the time it is taking is an indicator that there will be a lot of defendants.''

      What's the saying again...united we stand, divided we fall.If that's the case, your 'lot of defendants' are, at the moment, a lot of suspects.Take one down, he'll bring them all.But the only 'pact of silence' ever discussed is the one that fits the arguments of the antis.

      Police often have what they tell us are 'internal enquiries'. That's a euphemism for damage limitation before we go public.Above them are politicians.Who investigates them ? The police ? I don't think so.This case illustrates the gulf in rank.

      What you do or don't believe about the continued OG funding is neither here nor there.All signs say it's doing nothing- each year.Wishful thinking is just wishful thinking.

      You believe a conclusion is in sight.There's two certainties, Bella; each year a request will be made for funding to investigate 'new' or 'crucial' leads and nothing will come of it; the other is that you will blog that you can feel an end in sight or that revelations are about to transpire.And nothing will come of those either.

      Delete
    6. it appears that Google don't approve of the blogs current topic. It's captcha security isn't allowing posts

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 7 February 2019 at 20:09

      You dazzle me. You speak Bear. You are a bear.

      Winnie-the-Pooh of the brotherhood of bears.

      Delete
  14. It looks like Portugal has long since given up on this case, they've probably put it down to a tragic accident followed by concealment, and it's not worth the aggro to pursue the grieving parents. It's all up to Operation Grange now, and the big question is, do they have what it takes to take on the McCanns and co and solve this? After all, they've been very tricky customers thus far and they've no intention of ever being prosecuted as proved by their past behaviour, no-one could have fought harder in the attempt to prove abduction than the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OG has been at it for years so why question if they're up to it or not ? They clearly aren't. What exactly does it take to take on the McCanns ? If they're as sure as you and the internet are then it's easy.Or do they need to acknowledge evidence rather than internet gossip and opinion ? The McCanns have been looked after by a series of Prime Ministers and their staff as well as a former politician who has worked for both major parties.How is that them being tricky ?Isn't it someone else being tricky ? And aren't the tricks designed and executed from the same buildings as those who formed and then instructed OG ? If everyone's so sure of the guilt of the parents they should say why exactly.If they're going to come out with the usual mantras ( the dogs don't lie, cadaver, blood, dna, Smith etc etc) Then at least make it sound fresh and include some hypotheses about why either or both police forces never used any of that evidence.Saying it's because the McCanns didn't allow it but controlled it instead not only sounds colossally stupid, it defies logic and common sense.Explain why 12 years hasn't seen an attempt to use all of those little nuggets to build a case. Do ou think that the PJ, the met and their respective prosecution services wouldn't allow them to proceed because no jury would buy buy it ? If so, they must have a good reason.If not-what's the excuse ? They know they're innocent maybe ?

      Delete
  15. I see that murky petermac is back posting his own comments on the cesspit. Has anyone got any confirmation that he was a genuine Police Officer - it so what was his rank?

    He spends an inordinate amount of time looking at photos of a missing girl and passing comments about her appearance etc.

    I also noted that he made a recent comment on a thread about alleged sex abuse were he said the allegations were more serous that just groping a woman and inappropriate touching of ass etc. As if those things are the norm!

    Does anyone have any confirmation about who this guy is, his Police rank and history, why he spent a couple of years away from the cesspit (and had his comments posted by havern), why he apparently wrote an ebook that is obviously the work of bennett and why he has been promoted to the rank of "Investigator"?

    I think it is very important to look into the people who have spent so much time and effort to discredit the Mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I also believe beyond reasonable doubt that the parents know that Madeleine disappeared from apt 5A .Thanks for sharing this blog.

    https://mintingcash.com/category/finance/

    ReplyDelete