POLITICS AND MADELEINE MCCANN
On 3rd May 2007 little Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed whilst her parents dined at the local tapas bar with their holiday companions, claiming they were checking on the children every 30 minutes. While the staff of Warners and the holidaymakers searched throughout the night, the McCanns and their friends hit the phones calling people in the UK from their extensive contact lists claiming no-one was helping them. And planting the story that their batshit crazy idea of childminding was perfectly normal and everyone does it.
During the night of frantic phone calls, some hapless Whitehall Clerk on the night shift, picked up that ‘citizens in peril abroad’ call and immediately came down of the side of the parents. The parents were not only victims of child abduction, but also of Portuguese police indifference. They were already planting the lie that the Portuguese were incompetent.
The incumbent Government, New Labour were among the first Brits to don their shining armour and rush out there. Two PMs, Blair and Brown telephoned Gerry and Kate directly, offering, I would assume, every assistance. On the 4th May actually, we have this press conference with British Ambassador John Buck stating he has already spoken to British and Portuguese Police chiefs and that Leicester police would be sending Family liaison officers out to the Algarve. By any standards this was a remarkable response from the British government, quite literally, both the British Ambassador and the Consul were in PDL and giving a statement within 24 hours of Madeleine's disappearance! Why and what were they doing?
Then we have the appointment of Clarence Mitchell as government spokesman for the McCanns. Again, wtf? Whoever heard of victims of crimes abroad, British, being appointed an official spokesman? Some think Clarence Mitchell is a politician, some think he is a spy, one of those MI5/6 folks watching over the government's interests and acting as an intermediary between the family and interested parties in the government. I don't believe either. Clarence has gone from journalism to spin to sacrificial tory wannabe MP in Brighton. He has no ideology, he is an opportunist. Put simply, going from Labour government employee to private employee of the McCanns, offered him limitless opportunities to tell the word to stuff money in a brown evelope and address it to Rothley.
The change in Mr. Mitchell's employers did't attract as much attention as it should have, I doubt it was amicable. When Clarence eventually returned to politics it was as a tory. I believe he went rogue, he transferred his loyalties to the parents, pretty early on, I'm guessing during his flight out to PDL with Gerry, (opening scene of the movie btw), giving services above and beyond his duty as a government employee. Things must certainly have been very uncomfortable when the McCann party were asked to vacate Warners, around the end of June 2007, if I recollect correctly.
Even though Clarence was no longer an employee of the government, his presence gave the impression that the British government was still supporting the McCanns, but were they? The Vanity Fair interview in January 2008, is very revealing. Any influence Clarence may have had with his former employers was long gone, he was trying to arrange a meeting with Gordon Brown or a cabinet minister, to put forward the strength of Gerry and Kate's innocence, but all he was offered was a medium level consul meeting which they rejected. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id63.htm
I tend to think political interference was all but over by mid summer 2007, but I agree there is lot of evidence to suggest it went on longer, eg what was Gordon Brown talking to Socrates about? Why was a case that was heading towards being solved, interrupted by the removal of the leading detective (at the request of the British?) and the eventual filing of the case with no conclusion. At face value it looks s though political pressure was put on the Portuguese to, shall we say, pursue this case less vigorously than they might have. New Labour and several police chiefs had a lot invested in this being a genuine child abduction. Not least their reputations should the parents be incriminated.
Politically, the McCanns had an ally in Jim Gamble, who appeared to have an ally in Tony Blair and Alan Johnson but not Theresa May and David Cameron. By early 2010 he was no longer head of CEOP, and of course Kate famously complained that Theresa May had palmed them off with fluffy words. The Tories may have give Gerry and Kate what they wanted via the front pages of the Sun, but in reality their Petition was a fundraiser and they never expected to reach the required number, 100k I believe. It was a non gift, a gift with a sting in the tail, one of those dreaded 'be careful what you wish for' moments that you have to pretend to be happy about. The tories have not done the McCanns any favours. They have stopped campaigning and they have stopped giving interviews.
Without doubt there was political interference in the early days, the McCanns received an unprecedented amount of support from two British PMs, and who knows how many cabinet ministers. The Portuguese police went so gently on them, most of the evidence was lost or laundered. And who pressured the Portuguese police into removing Goncalo Amaral from the case? Who gave that order? A Minister? A Consul? A police chief?
There is much to suggest this case can never be solved because of 'politics', but that is too vague a heading because it's basically a bipartisan issue. Though it must be said the more extremist Madeleine forums both anti and pro, have more than their share of homophobes, racists and right wing loonies. The House of Commons as a whole however, would appear to be unanimously behind the suffering parents and contemptuous of online discussion and anyone with a non compassionate opinion.
I think all the games that could be played, have now been played. Madeleine's disappearance was of it's time. The internet was in it's infancy, and missing Madeleine was an example of how social media could be used for good (and fundraising). However politically, any deals Gordon Brown may have made with Portugal are lost in the quagmire of Brexit. England no longer has the upper hand, or indeed, any hand. The case of missing Madeleine matters not to this new generation of parliamentarians, there are no careers to wreck, or murky machinations to be uncovered. If a week is a long time in politics, 12 years is several lifetimes.
Goncalo Amaral may be right in that there will be a prosecution when the political will is there. It's possible this case will conclude with an even bigger media storm than when it began, depending of course, on the number and status of the defendants. Or it may close with a whimper somewhere on page 5, with heartfelt apologies and guarantees that all involved with seek counselling.
As far as I am aware, the police have to prepare a case that meets the demanding criteria of the Crown Prosecution Service, who then take the decision of whether or not to prosecute. The decision lies with the CPS, not politicians. How corrupt would our system be if politicians could cherry pick who to prosecute and who to let off.
The British police, are, I suspect, waiting for the go head from the Portuguese police, that is, their part of the investigation is over. They have investigated the English side, whatever that might be, but it is the Portuguese who must bring a prosecution. Of course it might be, that Operation Grange will have a few prosecutions of their own and will have to wait in line. The long delay may be vexing, but it is more likely down to the Portuguese Judiciary demanding an airtight case against an elite Defence team who have had 12 years to prepare their case.
Even though Clarence was no longer an employee of the government, his presence gave the impression that the British government was still supporting the McCanns, but were they? The Vanity Fair interview in January 2008, is very revealing. Any influence Clarence may have had with his former employers was long gone, he was trying to arrange a meeting with Gordon Brown or a cabinet minister, to put forward the strength of Gerry and Kate's innocence, but all he was offered was a medium level consul meeting which they rejected. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id63.htm
I tend to think political interference was all but over by mid summer 2007, but I agree there is lot of evidence to suggest it went on longer, eg what was Gordon Brown talking to Socrates about? Why was a case that was heading towards being solved, interrupted by the removal of the leading detective (at the request of the British?) and the eventual filing of the case with no conclusion. At face value it looks s though political pressure was put on the Portuguese to, shall we say, pursue this case less vigorously than they might have. New Labour and several police chiefs had a lot invested in this being a genuine child abduction. Not least their reputations should the parents be incriminated.
Politically, the McCanns had an ally in Jim Gamble, who appeared to have an ally in Tony Blair and Alan Johnson but not Theresa May and David Cameron. By early 2010 he was no longer head of CEOP, and of course Kate famously complained that Theresa May had palmed them off with fluffy words. The Tories may have give Gerry and Kate what they wanted via the front pages of the Sun, but in reality their Petition was a fundraiser and they never expected to reach the required number, 100k I believe. It was a non gift, a gift with a sting in the tail, one of those dreaded 'be careful what you wish for' moments that you have to pretend to be happy about. The tories have not done the McCanns any favours. They have stopped campaigning and they have stopped giving interviews.
Without doubt there was political interference in the early days, the McCanns received an unprecedented amount of support from two British PMs, and who knows how many cabinet ministers. The Portuguese police went so gently on them, most of the evidence was lost or laundered. And who pressured the Portuguese police into removing Goncalo Amaral from the case? Who gave that order? A Minister? A Consul? A police chief?
There is much to suggest this case can never be solved because of 'politics', but that is too vague a heading because it's basically a bipartisan issue. Though it must be said the more extremist Madeleine forums both anti and pro, have more than their share of homophobes, racists and right wing loonies. The House of Commons as a whole however, would appear to be unanimously behind the suffering parents and contemptuous of online discussion and anyone with a non compassionate opinion.
I think all the games that could be played, have now been played. Madeleine's disappearance was of it's time. The internet was in it's infancy, and missing Madeleine was an example of how social media could be used for good (and fundraising). However politically, any deals Gordon Brown may have made with Portugal are lost in the quagmire of Brexit. England no longer has the upper hand, or indeed, any hand. The case of missing Madeleine matters not to this new generation of parliamentarians, there are no careers to wreck, or murky machinations to be uncovered. If a week is a long time in politics, 12 years is several lifetimes.
Goncalo Amaral may be right in that there will be a prosecution when the political will is there. It's possible this case will conclude with an even bigger media storm than when it began, depending of course, on the number and status of the defendants. Or it may close with a whimper somewhere on page 5, with heartfelt apologies and guarantees that all involved with seek counselling.
As far as I am aware, the police have to prepare a case that meets the demanding criteria of the Crown Prosecution Service, who then take the decision of whether or not to prosecute. The decision lies with the CPS, not politicians. How corrupt would our system be if politicians could cherry pick who to prosecute and who to let off.
The British police, are, I suspect, waiting for the go head from the Portuguese police, that is, their part of the investigation is over. They have investigated the English side, whatever that might be, but it is the Portuguese who must bring a prosecution. Of course it might be, that Operation Grange will have a few prosecutions of their own and will have to wait in line. The long delay may be vexing, but it is more likely down to the Portuguese Judiciary demanding an airtight case against an elite Defence team who have had 12 years to prepare their case.
Paragraph eleven: https://grammarist.com/spelling/its-its/
ReplyDeleteget a life grammar nazi. The essence of the meaning is important.
DeleteGrammarist at 03:30
DeleteParagraphs are commonly numbered using the decimal system.
Hasn't Ros previously claimed to teach English? She also has never heard of the pronoun "whose", frequently using "Who's" in its (not it's) place. Hilarious!
DeleteUsing "who's", not "Who's", average English speaker.
DeleteJust a reader.
Yeah ya got me, grammar Nazis! However, in my defence I was reading and writing long before I knew the rules. My entire time at primary school was spent with bruised knuckles because of my failure to follow the rules. It actually left me with a complete blind spot that I have never been able to overcome. It never made a difference, my writing style is much the same as it was at 7, maybe a bit more sophisticated.
DeleteScold away grammar Nazis, I actually thank you for your constant vigilance, now and over the years, it has improved my English considerably! I have an army of editors, lol.
I should point out however, that you are very naïve if you think academics have 100% perfect grammar and spelling. One of my old Professors had a 'blind spot' with the spelling of Neitzche, which I too now have, ha ha.
It was my beloved dad who taught me how to write, somewhat inadvertently. I remember lying on a rug in front of his armchair with pencil and paper at the ready to write a letter to my grandmother in Ireland. My Dad was studying the horses in The Sketch and trying to get a bit of peace and quiet. I was a non stop chatterbox and never left his side for a moment when he was home from work. 'You know all those things you want to tell me' he said, 'tell them all to your granny in your letter'. That to me seemed like a splendid idea, and thus it began.....
But again, I am not troubled by the grammar critics, quite often I learn from them, and I'm sure others do too.
What I would like to add to the grammar debate, is that those who want to write and publish their work, don't be put off by fear of ridicule, as seen above. Most of us don't have personal editors, and might not agree with them if we do, lol.
DeleteI am a lover of the English language, which I hope is apparent. I once tried to list all the books I had read and it was abundant. I jokingly recall that I am the only one I know who has actually read 'A Pilgrim's Progress'.
Prolific readers know that writing comes in every shape size and form, compare a text from Shakespeare to a text from Katie Price, and you will agree there is no equivalence. Ironically, the Katie Price text would probably fall within your grammatically correct criteria 19:33 as she has a professional publishing company, but would she be your author of choice?
Rosalinda, you speak the truth so well.
ReplyDeleteDoubtless a storm of moles will be crawling out of their tunnels to ridicule the readers' comments in their usual tired way.
But by now the purveyors of evil are on a losing streak trying to enhance the narrative for their own personal thrill or as paid cronies of the McCann family, and it is not working out.
The knowledge of millions of informed readers (worldwide) who are perfectly aware of the real story of the couple from Rothley and their cronies cannot be reversed. The public know the jig is up by now as do the McCanns.
The way the family fights is to support their labyrinth of lies by legal action paid for by their "Find Madeleine Fund", donated by sincere people who at the time believed the lies they were told, about an "abduction".
Anyone who wants to counter this argument please start by explaining to me just one aspect of this case - the finding of blood and dead body odor by trained forensic tracker dogs and the contemptuous dismissal by the parents.
You would think the parents might be interested to know about the previous tenants of apartment 5A and whether they had spilled blood all over the place or that the previous renters of their holiday car might have transported dead bodies in the back of that same car.
Wouldn't that solve the case nicely for them.
But as Mr McCann contemptuously replied to a female Portuguese TV interviewer when questioned on this matter, he replied: "Why don't you ask the dogs Sandra"
This couple really care - mostly about saving their own skin.
jc
''But by now the purveyors of evil are on a losing streak trying to enhance the narrative for their own personal thrill ''
DeleteGreetings, JJ.How are things in the land of Gibber....
Can you give me an actual example of who the purveyors of evil are and in what way please ? And what is the 'personal thrill' exactly. In your own time, obviously...
''The public know the jig is up by now as do the McCanns.''
As a member of the public, I'm interested in knowing exactly what 'the jig' was or is.And how is it up ? Can you explain ? In your own time, obviously...
''The way the family fights is to support their labyrinth of lies by legal action''
Are you absolutely sure that they wee trying to support lies ? Or were they attempting to defend themselves against the lies of somebody else ? can you see the tiny but important difference ?
''Anyone who wants to counter this argument please start by explaining to me just one aspect of this case - the finding of blood and dead body odor by trained forensic tracker dogs and the contemptuous dismissal by the parents.''
You say ''ask the dogs''; I say ''ask the police''. I'd say the same to the lovely Sandra too . Our opinions aren't of any importance.If what you say was actually found, then it's the responsibility of those investigating the case to explain what was made of it. Where are exhibit A, B et al...
''You would think the parents might be interested to know about the previous tenants of apartment 5A and whether they had spilled blood all over the place''
I'm sure if anyone on holiday found 'blood all over the place' they'd ask. Like I'd ask you now why dogs were needed if there was blood all over the place.Could it be that there wasn't, and that you're making things up again ?
addendum :
DeleteThat was for Jc not JJ..humble apologies and so forth..
22:53
DeleteWhy do you greet JJ when addressing jc?
see above,
Deletewhere is the evidence for stranger abduction? it appears to have been exhausted. so we go back to the last people to see madeleine alive....
DeleteWe would appear to have two different views, reality and wishful thinking.
ReplyDeleteMany believe Amaral is a decent human being and a detective who admits making mistakes but has tried to obtain justice for M.
Then there are those who believe OG is an honest quest for the truth, by hard working plucky determined best of British detectives, working doggedly against the poor detective procedures of Portugal.
Apart from the length of time and amount of money spent, what do we have?
There is nothing to suggest OG is anything but a cover-up, riddled by dishonesty and governed by politicians.
This has been evident in the UK police attitude since day one and Amaral and the PJ saw straight through it.
If anyone has evidence GA has lied in his book comments, regarding the UK police, they should produce it but promoting the integrity of OG when there is no evidence whatsoever to support this position, is silly.
We know OG has not investigated the Mccanns.
We know the fund is above suspicion and was sponsored by several UK police forces and CEOP.
We know OG does not have the power to investigate any Portuguese citizen or expat.
We know OG is "investigating" the case as if M was abducted in the UK (pointless).
We know there is no joint investigation with the PJ.
We know OG have stated Tanner gave totally reliable testimony and OG actually found the innocent holidaymaker, so what are we left with.
A load of bullshit and nonsense, to demean Amaral and the PJ at every opportunity.
The farce will go on
Agree this was a farce under Andy Redwood, he went along with the McCann narrative by presenting the Tapas 9 dining at candlelit tables, and dug up half of Luz looking for Madeleine. However, times have changed and Cressida Dick has publicly claimed that they are looking for a conclusion.
DeleteIn my opinion, they just don't know where the body is because they've been cleverly hoodwinked by a group of very smart brazen doctors and their friends, plus this case can't go on forever, there has to be accountability at some point.
@ Anonymous10 February 2019 at 15:39
DeleteAre you saying it's realistic to suggest that a group of doctors in a small town that was foreign to them managed to come up with a plan on the spot that would render all forensic evidence void, fool the local detectives then fool the UK detectives as well ? Is the combined force of so many trained detectives weaker than a group pf doctors who barely knew where they were ? Or is it just another reason cobbled together to incriminate the parents without explaining why the police were so incompetent or so willingly compliant to the wishes of the suspects.But don't let logic deter you.Logic makes things dull doesn't it.
Hi anon 10 February 2019
Delete"Is the combined force of so many trained detectives weaker than a group pf doctors who barely knew where they were ?"
Yes, so it seems.
Good morning JJ, I'm guessing, on the two different views front, you are reality and I'm wishful thinking, lol.
ReplyDeleteI think it a little harsh to claim there 'is nothing to suggest OG is anything other than a cover up, riddled with dishonesty and governed by politicians. I think the key word there is 'nothing', JJ, you have taken the nothing and combined it with your suspicions to reach a cover up conclusion. But of course, not everyone thinks as you do, for others 'nothing' could simply mean judicial secrecy, that the British police are simply following Portuguese Law.
You then go into a Bennettesque list of things 'we know', the fund is above suspicion, OG have not investigated the McCanns, they are investigating the case as if M were abducted in the UK.
The problem is JJ, we don't know, these are all assumptions on your part. Do Gerry and Kate look like people who haven't been investigated and are off the hook? Look at the contrast between Gerry and Kate in the Expresso interview and their appearance in recent years, they look as though they are carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders.
'We know there is no joint investigation with the PJ', another of those categorical 'we know' statements, when the reality is we haven't got a clue. On the contrary, we have seen officers from Scotland Yard fly out to Portugal to liaise with their counterparts and to carry out a search and dig in PDL. Quite visual examples of Operation Grange working with the PJ.
I agree they portrayed the Jane Tanner sighting as it were an honest mistake on her part, which I found bizarre, but we can second guess their motives til the cows come home JJ, but it served its' purpose, it opened up the window of opportunity to steal Madeleine by 45 minutes, which is what they going for.
I don't think OG want to demean Amaral and the PJ, though I acknowledge the awkward position they are in. The PJ have the upper hand, they lead the investigation and the English have much to make up for. David Cameron too had a meeting with a Portuguese leader, and I'm sure he took the opportunity to apologise for all that had gone before.
But, as you say JJ, we seem to have opposing views on this issue. But I am curious. If the delay in reaching a conclusion on this case is political, who is benefitting? Retired Labour MPs? Police officers who now work in the private sector? Or is it a political cause? Stricter border controls, DNA harvesting from all new borns? Policing of the internet? As you see, I am at a loss to find a political agenda to attach to the need for a cover up.
As always I look forward to hearing your views JJ. Kindest wishes.
Hi Ros
ReplyDeleteAll of the things in my list are supported by senior UK police officers and senior officers of the PJ.
It is insulting to call it a Bennettesque list and that I am making assumptions.
DAC Mark Rowley has confirmed OG have not investigated the McCanns
No Police force would sponsor a dodgy fund on their web sites for years?
ACPO (UK) confirm UK police officers have no jurisdiction abroad (Operation Task).
Pedro do Carma has said on several occasions there is not any joint investigation.
The remit of OG is to conduct the investigation as if the abduction took place in the UK (MET Website).
OG is an operation of sheer stupidity authorised by an idiot in Cameron
There will not be a conclusion, who would benefit.
I saw both McCanns over the holiday period, I did not see the weight of the world on their shoulders, it is all individual perception and the difference between reality and wishful thinking.
John Reid gives the political dimension not Blair or Brown
Hi JJ, I see I failed to apologise for the bitchy Bennettesque concept to your post. I did stop and think about it several times because 1) it may have gone too far and 2) Bennettesque was such a great word, I had to go with it. But please be assured my apologies are sincere, I took liberties :(
DeleteIt is strange however JJ, that I have on this same page, posts from Ziggy also trying to persuade me that this case will close without resolution. Now I am not for one minute suggesting you are on the same side JJ, but your unwavering belief that OG will never end, is not too different to those 'who want' this case to be closed without any answers.
I agree with you there have been many wtf moments throughout the years, which have taken me to the point where nothing surprises me, but the idea that a team of homicide officers, over 30 at the beginning, are covering up the death of a child for two non VIPs from the Midlands is beyond belief, quite literally beyond belief. If their objective were a cover up, we wouldn't all be sitting here 12 years later. I can't agree with you I'm afraid JJ, but I respect your opinion.
The 'batshit crazy' idea of child minding seems to be that of the PJ too. Nobody was arrested for it.OK they may have had a good excuse not to given the tragedy that had come of it, but what about the other parents who hadn't lost any of their children ?
ReplyDeleteI doubt very much that 'some hapless Whitehall clerk' had the power or authority to make any decisions, Don't you ? He or she could take the call and alert those who could.So any painting of pictures and constructing of narratives so early was not down to a clerk if we're being realistic.
The outgoing PM, Blair involved himself fast.maybe he thought he'd make an exit as a hero.Maybe he wouldn't be haunted by the 9/11 illegal war, or the death of David Kelly.But what did the then chancellor of the exchequer have to do with anything ? The economy was his remit. He hadn't even put himself forward as a candidate for the big chair at that point. Obviously they knew he would do- and succeed.
Clarence didn't go rogue. He'll dance for anyone who throws change.He was 100% loyal to Labour.Then he was 100% loyal to the Tories. He simply sees being on the 'winning' side elevates your profile and salary.Politicians are whores.
What was all the behind-closed-doors meeting about ? Who knows ? Portugal has never been a big mover or shaker globally.But, significantly it was there where Blair and Bush were hosted by Manuel Barroso when formulating their war on terror lie. Barroso and Blair became close friends and shared the same fanatical views on the EU. Barsoso now has a really nice 'job'. Nice to have contacts...
Talk of this or any other blog being a journey of discovery or enlightenment are off the mark.This particular blog seeks only validation of it's core belief; the parents are guilty of burying their own child.Period. Despite not so much as one detective acting on all the 'obvious evidence' it frames the parents as responsible for that too.Any opposing view is attacked.Failing that, the poster of an opposing view is.But, the actual views that are posted can't be fully dismissed or exposed as wrong any more than those who frame the parents can be held up to withstand logical argument. This leaves a bitter taste and frustration in those who have become almost evangelical about their 'cause'.This is why they need to open their mind and test their own world view systematically and methodically and, above all, honestly. A good place to begin would be to make a list of 'what i suspect' and 'what i believe' and ' what evidence their actually is'. This can be done for each suspect and each politician and each police force.
Ahh, 16:42, or shall I call you Ziggy? I really don't understand why you bother with all the smoke and mirrors, it's a tad adolescent.
ReplyDeleteFirst the child minding. The non prosecution of the Tapas parents does not mean the PJ, or indeed anyone, approved of the group's horrendous, and downright negligent form of caring for their very young children. The mere thought of walking out through those patio doors leaving babies on their own sends shudders down my spine. When I said batshit crazy I was being kind. The tragic outcome may well have influenced the police on any negligence charges, perhaps log with pleas from Blair, Brown or whoever to show mercy to the parents.
As for the hapless clerk. I have actually done a night shift, and held a list of numbers to call in the event of an emergency. That clerk/switchboard operator, chooses from that list, who to call. Don't under estimate the powers of those on the front line.
Yes, I believe Blair, as an outgoing PM, was looking to take the hero role. Beyond that, it was always known that Brown would take over from Blair. They had made a pact at the time of John Smith's death and it was well known within political circles.
Next you state Clarence 'did not go rogue', followed by examples of him clearly going rogue by prostituting himself to the highest bidder. A tad contradictory. Your views on politicians are a bit harsh - many I am sure go into politics with high ideals, some, like Jeremy Corbyn hang onto them.
As I said in my blog, politics from 12 years ago is several lifetimes. Blair and Brown are of little interest to this generation, much to Blair's chagrin I would imagine. What were the behind door discussions, the Lisbon Treaty, the total fuck up the Brits made by interfering in the criminal investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, who knows?
continues
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 February 2019 at 19:51
Delete'' I really don't understand why you bother with all the smoke and mirrors, it's a tad adolescent. ''
Ros, could you please elaborate ? It looked simple and clear to me. What are the smoke and mirrors and why is it adolescent ?
Good question.
DeleteWhat smoke and mirrors eh?
DeleteZiggy would have us believe that he is no more than a concerned citizen, putting forward an independent non biased opinion. He claims not be a friend or family member, so he has no ulterior motives.
What we know. He is male, in his sixties, comes from Liverpool, votes tory or UKIP and wants justice for the parents. He is a grumpy old man, but not in endearing way.
His online persona is completely charmless, so I do hope that he acts different in the real world. On here he is tetchy and paranoid, seeing only conspiracies and angry mobs all around him. The false reality he is claiming exists only in his world.
I really don't understand why supporters of the McCanns are afraid to reveal their identities. What is it they fear? From the robot who runs their Facebook page to the fanatics who patrol social media for them, all remain anonymous.
I could put my hand up and say, Ooh Ooh me, Pick me, I know, but I'll hold off until I see how those fans of the parents respond.
I think you're attempts at character assassination where Ziggy is concerned Have become ridiculous, Ros. Like he said, you attack the messenger far too often rather than expose the message. Where have you got this information : He is a grumpy old man ( because he doesn't agree with you) and votes UKIP or Tory ? His online persona exhibited on your blog isn't how others see it unless they happen to be a staunch anti McCann campaigner.He's often funny and quite smart. You say he isn't to be trusted because he doesn't agree with the theory of the parents' guilt.He must have an ulterior motive or be a member of the family ? Have you any idea at all how many truly believe that the parents didn't do it ? That the child was actually abducted ? It's thousands,mainly because the parents have never been charged with anything in all this time.What he says sticks in the craw of those who constantly rant and rave about the parents.But it's difficult to argue against logical simple questions which he raises and it makes you lose it.Have you actually rad your replies back to yourself ? You never lose your temper and pleasant ?
DeleteYour argument that people who don't agree that the parents did it need to 'hide' is one of your weakest arguments.Would their beliefs hold any more water just because they sign their name ? It's the internet.People use nicknames.There's been plenty on here but you never call them hiders when they come up with nonsensical and repetitive claims about the parents.But anyone who asks for evidence of guilt and points to the lack of it that the police have is a 'fanatic'. You sound unhinged. Reading this page and your last one it's clear that you're on the back foot and losing the argument. This kind of response only reinforces his position and highlights what he points out about your attitude. Anyone can call names and insult.That doesn't win arguments.It confirms a defeat if anything.I believe the original question to you was about someone and their smoke and mirrors.Was all of that seriously your answer ?
I once spent an entire day undergoing a full psychological evaluation. It was, as you can imagine, a unique experience. On comprehension, I scored over 90%, genius level, on maths, retard. I can see why they came up with multi personality disorder, but for the purpose of this thread lets stick with the genius level, just don't ask me to divide or multiply anything.
DeleteMy character assassination as you call it, is based on the Ziggy who performs on here. I don't say he shouldn't be trusted, that is what you have interpreted from my words. I am merely pointing out those aspects of his character that lead me to believe he is a grumpy old man. And to be fair, I think anyone who deconstructs his texts will see the same.
So I'm on the back foot and losing eh? Lol, What did I miss? I can't remember anything Ziggy has said that has 'stuck in the craw', actually I am hard pushed to remember anything he has said of significance. Can you tell me specifically what it was that set off my ranting, raving, episode?
As for my being unhinged. Yes, I too love the word unhinged, but does it really apply to me and my writing? LOL, I'm sure it does, I'm far from normal, I do have a tendency to introduce random topics of conversation, on here and even with perfect strangers I meet out and about. For which I don't apologise, it always give me pleasure to brighten another person's life, even if only momentarily. It is the philosophy of HTWFAIP btw.
On the name front. I fully understand why people are reluctant to reveal their names on here, or indeed anywhere. I am a follower, and indeed addict, of 'The Anne Boleyn Files', yet thus far I have been reluctant to comment on twitter or the webpage, because it will reveal another of my obsessions, Tudor history. It is this feeling of leaving our cyber footprint all over social media that scares us. It is like ancient peoples' fear of having their photograph taken, our soul is being stolen!
On the McCann case we have seen in action the peril of revealing real names. Careers have been ruined, my own included, the subject is a poison chalice. But my point with the more vociferous of the McCann supporters, is that support would be far more meaningful if they put their names to it.
Going by your final paragraph, it would appear you are the one enraged by this discussion. You are actually committing to print the thought processes you went through to reach: I am calling all pros fanatics and my blog is full of name calling and insults. You have showed us, quite graphically, exactly how you got yourself worked up into such a rage.
I suppose we should be like stand up comics if we're discussing the fate of a small child who went missing and has never been found should we.
Delete''So I'm on the back foot and losing eh? Lol, What did I miss? I can't remember anything Ziggy has said that has 'stuck in the craw', actually I am hard pushed to remember anything he has said of significance.''
DeleteIs that why you ( not for the first time) have dedicated threads to him and what he has said ? Or why you reply to him with posts so long they need two and sometimes 3 pages ? Anyone would think you're telling a really unconvincing lie( again), Rosalinda. But I get the trick; dismiss him and his posts rather than take them apart. You can do the former with ease but we're yet to see you do the latter very convincingly.In the context of your blog and your 'regulars' contributions, Ziggy's posts are always significant and thought provoking.The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Just stick to name-calling and ducking and diving away from straight forward questions, Rosalinda Christobell Hutton. That's something we can actually see you're good at without you needing to tell us.
Honestly 12:17, If you want a humour free zone filled with long sermons, you've come to the wrong place, may I suggest the cesspit.
DeleteYour stand up comic remark stuck in my head that's why I came back to find you. Firstly, unintentional I'm sure, your comments bode well for a new project I am embarking on. And secondly for confirming that my humour is hitting the spot.
I am not making jokes about Madeleine so your 'think of the children' cry is disingenuous. Like it or not, humour is always within my writing, well almost always, it is beyond my control.
I once submitted a play to a competition by Deptford theatre for aspiring playwrights. I didn't win the first prize which was that your play would be performed at Deptford Theatre, but I did win second, or it may have been third, a professional review of your work and publication in a book of plays.
You have no idea how exhilarating it was awaiting my first ever review, I was quite certain I would be declared the new Arthur Miller. The review was good, but not what I had intended at all. The reviewer found my heartfelt tragedy absolutely hilarious! My humour wacky and unique! I was both offended and buoyed at the same time. There have of course been in times in my life where it has been totally inappropriate, notes to milkmen and those sections on forms that ask is there anything you want to add.
Asking me to change my style of writing would be like asking me to change my personality. I'm genetically incapable of keeping a straight face for any length of time. My mother was just the same.
'' I am merely pointing out those aspects of his character that lead me to believe he is a grumpy old man. And to be fair, I think anyone who deconstructs his texts will see the same.''
DeleteThat's not about humour is it. That's about you asuming you have in depth knowledge of a complete stranger you've never met. Or pretending you have it so you can use it in a post to get the little puppies to come out yapping behind you. You deconstruct the texts with the same lack of insight.Shall we just say it's all subjective and call it a draw ? We woldn't want another Peter Hyatt in our midst now would we..
I have a degree in English, deconstructing text comes naturally to me, as I'm sure it does to most English graduates.
DeleteI haven't claimed in depth knowledge of our resident grumpy old man, I have only discussed the basics, what we see on here. I should add however, that I have spent a lifetime studying human behaviour, it's what writers do, we are interested in all the little quirks and foibles we see around us, it gives us heightened sensitivity even in unexpected areas of our lives. We watch them, we learn about them, we store them. All there for future use, perhaps in a character, perhaps in a situation, they are indexed and ready.
As for your comparing me to Peter Hyatt, good heavens, you could not be more wrong. What Peter Hyatt does is not only totally unprofessional, it is immoral and distasteful. He is quite literally taking normal, bland statements, and injecting them with sexually perverted ideas that come directly from his own head. That is, he does the same as Bennett, Hall and every other weirdo who is determined to sex up the disappearance of Madeleine.
Peter Hyatt is immoral and distasteful, true.He makes imaginary mountains out of imaginary molehills. All based on bland statements as you say.He takes the bland statements and then constructs a huge fantastical scenario from them.All be subjective interpratation.All tainted by bias. Yet more confirmation bias in play.Imagine that.
DeleteAnd finally you attack the integrity and core values of my blog. That Sir, is tantamount to slapping my face with an effete, 18th century manglove.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, I perceive this subject as a journey of discovery, a journey along which I am accompanied by many, we are all seeking answers to a mystery that began 12 years ago. I make no claims of knowing what happened, I merely put forward my opinion on the evidence available. That all the evidence points to the parents is a fact you want us to overlook.
You want to change public opinion of the McCanns, but you have no weapons, and worse, you pick the wrong arguments to have, arguments where you are forced to defend the indefensible, but you fail at that. It truly irks me, that I can sit here and immediately think of a hundred ways the McCanns could improve their image, yet you, who are supposedly on their side, cannot come up with one. How fortunate that I only use my powers for good.
Opposing views are not attacked, nor are those posting them Ziggy, as you well know. Here you are still posting away and putting forward your point of view no matter how barmy. Opposing views are welcome, they liven things up, they give new material to work with, lol. It is my philosophy to treat everyone with respect JJ, especially here on my blog, which I run pretty much like a home where everyone is welcome. And I am proud to say that my philosophy is held by most of my readers and especially my regular posters who are particularly blessed with good manners.
As for making check lists and tick boxes you have wandered onto the wrong blog, lol. Most averagely intelligent adults can quickly process their suspicions and facts Ziggy. It's literally a 10 second flash in each case. We don't need flow charts to distinguish between nonsense and not nonsense.
You are trying to paint a picture of my blog that exists only in your imagination. My blog has never degenerated into the spiteful bitch fests and ego battles that have wrecked most other forums and facebook pages. Laughing here, because mine is the only one without any rules, regulations and bans!
You can even call me 16:52 if you want to split hairs...
DeleteYour point about the child minding avoids the point i made about it.Nobody is suggesting it was sensible.Even if you believe the parents are innocent of what most here think, the child minding wasn't wise.But it doesn't make them murderers or killers.The rest of the parents in the group hadn't lost anyone. They could still have been charged. it's speculation to suggest that the PM and future PM influenced the PJ on this issue.Nothing more.
You've worked on a switch board. You've made 'front line' decisions. You do recall, I hope, that the switchboard we're discussing here instigated a drama involving the highest ranking politicians and, subsequently, Military Intelligence, to down tools and get their passports out. They did that based on the judgement of a clerk ?
Tell me about 'the pact' made by Blair and Brown following Smith's death ? Is it some bizarre north-of-the-border conspiracy ? All we actually know about Blair and Brown now is that they had a simmering dislike of each other personally and politically.Brown, during Blair's final days, said he hadn't decided whether or not to run for the big job.Where is your pact theory coming from ?Brown wasn't putting himself forward in May 2007. Fact.
I'm not sure you know what the term 'to go rogue' means. To do that is to go off-script and official lines and write your own rules. Mitchell is the epitome of an establishment man.He follows the script to the letter- then he'll do it for anyone else who offers him a position.He's always 'just following orders'. My view of politicians is realistic. Blair voiced high ideals before he got the job,then became America's and Israel's poodle. Corbyn has high ideals.But he isn't a PM yet.If he ever is, they'll count for nothing to his real bosses.
''Like it or not, I perceive this subject as a journey of discovery, a journey along which I am accompanied by many, we are all seeking answers to a mystery that began 12 years ago''
I made an observation, that's all.You and your fellow travellers of the road too travelled are seeking confirmation bias.Don't let the size of the tribe fool you into believing that makes it something more.Your lack of balance here and in your arguments and theorizing id evidence of it.
''You want to change public opinion of the McCanns, but you have no weapons, and worse, you pick the wrong arguments to have,''
You have no proof of this nonsense.I want to change the way narrow minded people plough a lone furrow.For twelve years now.I'm asking them to question who was behind the scuppering of the investigation and the decisions to protect two people that the internet have decided are 'obviously' guilty.
''Opposing views are not attacked,... you are still posting away and putting forward your point of view no matter how barmy''
I see..
'' Most averagely intelligent adults can quickly process their suspicions and facts Ziggy. It's literally a 10 second flash in each case. We don't need flow charts to distinguish between nonsense and not nonsense. ''
So you won't mind giving me a list of facts that could jail your suspects but haven't.
''You are trying to paint a picture of my blog that exists only in your imagination''
I'm making a comment of how i see your blog.And, when I say I'm trying to introduce balance, it isn't for my own benefit or to spite you.It's to raise the level of discussion rather than try to make subtle insults merely because the weakness of a theory has been exposed.There are reasons that no suspects ( of the police or even the internet) haven't been charged.Why not discuss those reasons.
Have you been living in a cocoon 22:47? Everything you want to see discussed has been discussed. Extensively I might add. If you want to discuss something that exonerates the parents, please feel free to throw it into the mix. I have been waiting since 2007 for an argument that will convince the parents had nothing to do with it.
DeleteI am grateful for the balance you bring 22:47, how dull would it be if we all agreed with each other all of the time. This may sound crazy, but I wish the McCanns had more supporters fighting their corner in a sane and reasoned fashion. I have never shut off the idea that the parents were not involved, it's just that I have never encountered an argument that has persuaded me.
Was it the 10 year anniversary in which they were pronounced as 'not suspects- period ' ?
DeleteThat's persuasive is it not ? I say that as it came after 10 years of investigation by people who had intimate access to more than just the PJ files and had also had OG in tandem for half of that time. So, with the dogs' findings, the apparent contradictory statements and whatever the infamous 'pact of silence' suggested, they still didn't make the frame.But you think that reading online opinion and debates by a curious Mr and Mrs J Public instead of official public announcements by senior police officers yields 'truth'. Somehow all those detectives and their superiors, with all they had to comb through,managed to miss what you found.Not just you, but thousands of others. Yet they still missed it.
You won't allow years of bias to persuade you that all that time beating the same drum was a waste of time.It's a matter of pride. You'd cling to stubbornness like a lifebelt rather than admit you could have been wrong.That's part of who you are. You should let it go and set yourself free.It keeps you too still.
You may not accept arguments that don't frame the parents and that's fair enough if you suspect them.But you still need to concede the point that you're doing it without the support of evidence that could be submitted as a case for the prosecution. Therefore it's ropey at best. And the argument of a cover up to protect those high up has the same limitations.That can't be proven. It's suggested by the unprecedented involvement of not just politicians but the highest ranking politicians of 4 governments as well as MI .I have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why that took place in a police case abroad.
As long as no evidence or witnesses can support either argument-or any other argument- the wheel's still spinning and the chips are still stacked on the table.But the wheel isn't slowing down and those mesmerised by it are stuck now. Should that wheel ever stop you can be sure of one thing ;the house always wins.
I am confused 03:23, probably because I never know if I am talking to the one and same Ziggy. You put forward arguments, then you reply to them yourself, and of course none are signed in any way.
DeleteMy confusion lies in the fact that one of the Ziggys, argues that Operation Grange is 12 millions reasons to believe the investigation is a sham, whilst another Ziggy, yourself, quotes statements from the police as if they are gospel.
Can you not see how these two theories do not sit comfortably side by side? Do we believe the police or don't we?
For the record, I dismiss as nonsense your claims that the police are ignoring all the evidence collected during the original investigation, simply because there has not yet been a prosecution. I believe it is all that evidence that has kept the investigations, both here and in Portugal, going. It certainly led to the digs in PDL.
All Ziggys seem to operate under the mentality that if one piece of evidence doesn't lead to a conviction, it is discarded. That is clearly nonsense, because we all know crimes are solved by joining all those pieces of evidence together.
But kudos to all you Ziggys for your bravado, it must be difficult.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 February 2019 at 13:31
DeleteLet me try and clear up the confusion for you, Bella....
Firstly, there is only one of yours truly.If only there were more.How wonderful the world would be, I'm sure you agree.
It's possible to accuse the police of doing nothing ( in reality) and quote their statements too. I believe the McCanns were not suspects and aren't suspects. I believe it would have been remiss of the police not to question them, even though they were abroad, as they still had to be eliminated fom enquiries. Once they were eleased from the station that was that. The police were finished with them. When the latest head honcho of the PJ was asked directly during the ten year anniversary programme he stated categorically that the parents were never-and aren't suspects- 'period'. Seeing that they have never been questioned or arrested since that day of questioning 12 years ago, I think it's safe to say that he was serious. In your words, it seems we can actually take it as gospel.You, on the other hand, read the many and varied theories of Amaral who claims they buried their child,cremated their child( hoe could they have done both ?), and that Madeleine's bllod and DNA was discovered at the scene.No officers have taken any of those pieces of information and acted on it because they can't. But you take Amaral's words as gospel. Can you see how that highlights your bias ? A high ranking PJ voice says on camera ''not suspects'' and nobody is arrested.You don't take it as gospel. Amaral says, body buried, blood and DNA found,but nothing of it can be proved. So you take his words as actual gospel.
You can dismiss my claims that the so-called evidence has been ignored for being inconclusive.But the fact remains it hasn't incriminated anyone and nothing suggests it could do so now. The test of whether or not it's useful is to see what is done with it.For the 12 years nothing has been done with it, yet we're paying tens of thousands to rent it a space in a fridge each year. The digs ? The photo op and digs are over now. Nothing was found, naturally.
''All Ziggys seem to operate under the mentality''
One Ziggy.One mentality. many questions ( repeated but always dodged ).
''But kudos to all you Ziggys for your bravado, it must be difficult.''
It's not bravado, it's common sense. it's not difficult. It's easy.
I prefer logic and common sense to wild specualtion and poisonous accusations.I would rather see evidence of a crime and evidence of an investigation.If it incriminates the parents and they end up in jail, that's fine by me as it would have been a case of justice being served.If it's anyone else-same goes. When your only agenda is a serach for truth and justice it's easy to think clearly.There's no clouds.Capeesh ? I said Capeesh ?
Signore Sawdust x
I have always believed that people will behave well if you behave well. It is contagious! As my regular readers are aware, I have long been a disciple of Dale Carnegie and How to Win Friends and Influence People. If you practice his philosophy religiously, literally everything works!
ReplyDeleteI remember as a young (and gorgeous ;) ) legal secretary, making the worst mistake a legal secretary could make. I sent a detailed defendant's report to the plaintiffs - the opposition. Not only did the confidential report explain in detail why our clients didn't have a hope I hell, it also gave the full value of the claim (huge, around £200k) and how little they hoped to get away with, around £10k.
I went through a night of absolute torture. The proverbial wouldn't hit the fan until the following morning's post arrived. I had two options, 1. blame someone else or 2. own up. I had to go for 2, I am not a bad person! I followed Mr. Carnegie to the letter. I requested a private audience with the 'big boss', as I sat before his huge desk I just blurted it out, with huge helpings of how useless I was, how I deserved to be sacked, and how I would never forgive myself. He spent the rest of the meeting consoling me, I think he got me a cup of tea at one point. He reassured me that there were worse things I could do, though he couldn't think of any.
Well I have no idea why I dropped that little anecdote in, other than to say, Mr. Carnegie's words of wisdom work, not only in tricky situations as above, but in every walk of life. There is rarely any need for hostility and anger, especially towards strangers online.
So you see Ziggy, your portrayal of my blog is completely false. If it were, it would not have the audience it has, who return again and again. Some have been with me on my journey from the very start. And I think I have been joined by many who were who were on a whole other journey altogether lol.
I don't think anyone has looked harder than I for reasons that prove the parents are innocent. By my own moral guidelines I would not post negatively about the parents until I had reached the point of beyond reasonable doubt. It is one of the childish reasons I am hated by the antis, they think I am a secret agent. I also point out the sheer stupidity of what were once popular theories, among the barmy. They tried to sex it all up, and I de-sexed it, that makes me a spoilsport.
I could attack you personally Ziggy, on many, many levels, but I refrain, heaven knows you are timid enough as it is, but you threw down the gauntlet, or bitchslapped me with a glove, I cannot remember what metaphor I used, so you are not yet off the hook.
''By my own moral guidelines I would not post negatively about the parents until I had reached the point of beyond reasonable doubt.''
Deleteis that you reminding us that you have retained a sense of humour or merely lost your memory ? It isn't just the content of unfounded suspicion that you type that makes that statement completely hilarious, but the tone you fight to resist ( and lose ) has probably blown up a few of your keyboards. The reasonable doubt has been pointed out to you recently but you can't allow yourself to accept it.It supports an 'innocent until proven guilty' standpoint.To put it another way, if there wasn't any reasonable doubt one or both police forces and even the fallacious OG would have spotted it a long time ago and we'd be discussing how a trial went now.That you have reached a point beyond reasonable doubt is evidence of your refusal to admit flawed logic and to accept that there are sound reasons why the parents haven't been charged and never will be. But as long as YOU are beyond reasonable doubt, you have an escape clause should anyone point out to you that you're being vicious without evidence.
It's been too long now for some bright spark to suddenly create 'lost' evidence.Nobody will face charges for this crime now.The actual crime/s won't be known either.Whoever is responsible has no reason to confess now.If he, she, or they, have refused to confess thus far, why would that change now ?
Kudos for the confession by the way. I would have sacked you or made you polish my shoes for a month.But Carnegie did you proud.A man who knew well the power of persuasion and influence.A giant in the invisible world of social engineering pretending to be a philanthropist.
You have an odd sense of humour if you found my reasoning hilarious Ziggy, who else is lughig?
DeleteMy suspicions are not unfounded. I refer you to the police files and the book of Goncalo Amaral, The Truth of the Lie, and to the very strange behaviour of the parents from day 1. Then we have the dog alerts, the sighting by Jane Tanner, 6 years in a coma man, I could go on and on. My opinions are not just plucked from the air JJ, they are based on mountains of evidence. But I'm curious, what are those 'sound reasons' why the parents haven't been charged? Why aren't they screaming those sound reasons from the rooftops or on a breakfast TV sofa? The parents have had ample opportunity to prove their innocence Ziggy, they have had tabloid front pages and guest spots on morning at their disposal for over a decade. They are as free to persuade me with their evidence as Goncalo Amaral is with his. In my opinion GA puts forward the stronger argument. That's not me 'being vicious', that's me applying logic.
As for you would have sacked me on the spot. Well my old boss was much wiser than you. Not only did he forgive me, but he took me under his wing and taught me everything I needed to know. And for my part, I wanted to be the best that I could be. His act of kindness inspired me with loyalty and dedication to him and his company for several decades.
It was HTWFAIP in action, for sure. I was reading it at the time and given how charming my bosses were, I was pretty sure they had read it too. In retrospect it was a pretty gutsy thing for an 18 year old to do, was I ever that bold? lol, but I did. He clearly saw strength of character and raw honesty - he a seasoned court room litigator was, momentarily, totally disarmed! Something to be nurtured and encouraged.
You on the other hand would have killed my teenage dreams there and then. I learned by my mistakes and I never covered them up - what better qualities could you ask for in an employee?
Another book you haven't read Ziggy, yet feel qualified to condemn. Dale Carnegie had feck all to do with social engineering. That my friend, you have plucked from thin air, and not very skilfully I might add.
Put simply, How To Win Friends and Influence People' teaches us how to be better as individuals, it opens our eyes to perspectives we have possibly never considered before. It is quite literally a life changing book, and one I would urge everyone to read.
Dale Carnegie, as one of his examples, tells the story of a young apprentice dropping and smashing the first lightbulb! Instead of sacking him on the spot (as you would have), Edison entrusted him with the next one. He could have destroyed that boy's life or given him an opportunity to restore his confidence, the great man, chose the latter.
''Put simply, How To Win Friends and Influence People' teaches us how to be better as individuals, it opens our eyes to perspectives we have possibly never considered before''
DeleteAnd you claim to have read that book Ros ? Either you didn't understand it or it's a terrible book.
''My suspicions are not unfounded. I refer you to the police files and the book of Goncalo Amaral, The Truth of the Lie,''
DeleteDo you think you are now so important that you can overrule the supreme court ? I believe the judge said something along the lines of the book being allowed for publication on the grounds that it was a book of theories and opinions rather than fact.Cases in criminal courts rely on actual facts. You're basically saying that you support all your theorizing with someone's opinions and theories. Yet you insist that you're an expert and shouldn't be challenged. Priceless.
I have read it, digested it, and tried to live by it. Even now, 40 years on it is among my books by the bedside. It is a self help book you eejit, not a political tome. It is to be found among the self improvement section of your local bookshop, or more likely, your library, sections you have probably never even glanced at.
DeleteSounding off about a book you know nothing about is never a good look. It is reminiscent of those drunken pub bores who dominate the conversation because they have the loudest voice.
LOL 15:14 (again Ziggy?), there is no Judge or Supreme Court in the World that can tell or anyone else HOW to read a book. I can read it from a Marxist perspective, a feminist perspective, or as fact or fiction, the choice is mine. What you are pushing there is mind control Ziggy, and, if you don't mind my saying, you have glimmers of belonging to a mind altering cult or on some really fecked up drugs.
DeleteAs to my being too important, aw shucks, I really don't see myself that way. As for being an expert on this ongoing saga, let me chuck in a piece of useful information. If you have devoted 10,000 hours, and upwards obviously, you will become an expert. You only have to look at the number of blogs and discussions I have hosted, to see that time spent goes way beyond that 10,000 hour bottom line, so yes, I consider myself an expert.
The second part of that sentence is something you have literally plucked from thin air. I love to be challenged! You clearly haven't got it yet, this blog welcomes everyone. There is no censorship, there is no banning, submit a post and it will be challenged. The only posts I don't publish are those that are vicious towards me personally. Why should I give them a platform on here. Challenges are welcome, please keep 'em coming, lol.
I believe the sounding off was about the court ruling not instructions on how to read.The ruling was to clarify the reason it was allowed to be published.In other words, because it wasn't factual and shouldn't be treated as such.His point was simple.
Delete''I could attack you personally Ziggy, on many, many levels, but I refrain, heaven knows you are timid enough as it is, but you threw down the gauntlet, or bitchslapped me with a glove, I cannot remember what metaphor I used, so you are not yet off the hook.''
ReplyDeleteNice try.Subtle.But wasted. I'm mature and i'm capable of mature debate with like minded people.Timid ? If you say so.I'm timid the same way so many are hard cases at keyboards.I have enough self assurance on line as well as in the world so many here have forgotten.The one that has become screwed up we call reality.I wonder what those who caused that will do in the invisible world..
Did you know Ziggy that words like 'hard cases' puts you in a very specific demographic, ex hard man, or ex cop, lol.
DeleteDo you have as much self assurance online as you have in the real world? Are you really that charmless and hostile? I just don't ever see myself wanting to while away a sunny afternoon with you. even if you threw in a panoramic sea view, cocktails or ketamin. I definitely wouldn't invite you along to a party weekend in New Orleans.
You have no name, not even a cyber one. Terrified that any name you choose will be deconstructed and profiled in the same way as your often ill chosen words. I cannot conceive you have an online persona you are so detached from. It is as if you have had your soul removed (see Simpsons episode where Bart sells his soul), and you have if you cannot be yourself.
You are pained at my anecdotes because you have none to tell - none that will hide your age, sex, location etc, you are scared that anything you say might reveal who you are. Why the fear? If you are the same online as you are off (a hardman) why not give your name to a cause you support so vociferously? All the while your support is anonymous, it is lost among a sea of trolls, it is meaningless to those you are supporting.
Your efforts at character analysis are breath-takingly woeful. I know the internet makes the whole ting difficult but even with that handicap your efforts are wayward and careless. I thought your 'people watching' techniques were bad until i read this sort of thing. you're trying to adopt a calm, deliberate tone in order to conceal your anger at being asked really simple questions that this case leaves open.So, as is your style, you attack the messenger because it enrages you.It blows out the fireworks you have lit and keep trying to re-light when they go out.You and your disciples are here to discuss how bad you think the parents are and how evil the deeds are that you have decided they have done.Anything else meets with disagreement based on ''that sounds batshit crazy'' or '' what nonsense''. Both, naturally, based on no evidence, no proof, but plenty of suspicion (based on documentaries of similar cases). Conspicuous by their absence are any accusations of police incompetence and explanations of why they have reused to act on the evidence cited by you and your ilk.
DeleteI don't know why you are choosing to once again to paint me as a coward or full of fear and desperate to hide my identity. That's something we used to hear when we were in school. Young kids or teens trying to think of something to provoke someone. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that ad hominem attacks are childish and illustrate a lack of reasoning. If you can't de-construct an argument or counter a point you attack whoever made them like a petulant child. You may think you're Lady Astor or Oscar Wilde, but you have a mountain to climb before you can consider yourself worthy of such comparisons. I don't know which part of my message the other day (or last year) you didn't get.In the real world i'm here with a name and an identity and welcome those who want to make these criticisms and slights to my face.
Why are you saying that I'm 'pained' at your anecdotes ? Did i say that or are you using your detective skills ( 'its' obvious, you can just tell'). What's my 'cause' according to you ? If I tell you ( continually) that I'm on the side of justice and that justice is my cause why can't you understand it ? Everything i talk about supports it but you still don't get it. Is it because you belong to the school of online liars who love to use the same line ( ie ''its for Madeleine and justice'' ) and then go on to just create all kinds of angry nonsense about the parents which none of you can substantiate ?
You can keep singing the same song with your backing singers like jc and bjorn and others who can't see further than the end of their nose and sound like your echo. You impress yourselves.It will go nowhere.
It's a shame the case can't be solved and won't be closed with a resolution.Firstly because it's a bad day for justice, and secondly because I'd love to see all these bloggers scurry off under their sofas feeling stupid and never to be seen again. This blog isn't for me. It's everything it accuses certain other blogs of.My presence and my thinking should have elevated it.Unfortunately, the faithful here don't want lifting up.There's none so blind etc..
If my character analysis is woeful Ziggy, then yours falls well within the lines of batshit crazy'. You are projecting onto me some wild imagined rage that exists only within your head. I rarely feel anger as I rarely feel jealousy, there simply isn't room in my head for it. Zilch points on the character assessment there.
DeleteRegarding accusations of incompetence against the police, these appear many times, have you not been watching? As you will see from the results of my poll that I haven't been arsed to take down, the majority of the Madeleine case followers, believe the police are in on it.
You are trying to paint me as a bully because you do not have the wit or the intellect to beat me in a straight debate. Though I quite like the Lady Astor, Oscar Wilde comparisons, obviously I am a huge fan of Oscar Wilde and pay homage to him in my prose, he is among my influences along with PG Wodehouse and Sue Townsend. If you look really carefully, you will see traces of them too, though I never steal their lines, I subvert them.
That paragraph ends with 'neh, say it to my face'. Happy to if you were brave enough to show it.
As for your analysis of me as the kind of woman who would punch walls or kick beds, you are so track, you can only be projecting. I've always been a kinda laid back, oh well, chilled out, kind of person, always more likely to laugh than scold. Your words don't anger me Ziggy, please put forward those simple questions again so I may respond to them, I'm afraid I can't even remember what they were.
Para 2, you get me there. I did use a bit of artistic licence. I wanted to use the word pained, so had to figure a way to slide it in with showing any seams. At the moment I am trying to think how I can get 'cavalier' (one of my old favourites) into the dialogue, so expect it to crop up sometime soon.
Para 3. As for my 'still singing the same song', what other song is there to sing? Still no sign of an abductor and still no sign of the two investigations being shelved or closed. It is not within our power to change the dialogue Ziggy, those who have that power refuse to do so. And by those I mean the parents and their friends who have had every opportunity to do so.
DeleteFinally, again you are reassuring [yourself] 1)that the case can't be solved and 2)it won't be closed because you personally would love to see all those bloggers scurry off under their sofas etc. Hmm, yeah, that'll be it.
You then state this blog isn't for you, whilst also being one of my more prolific readers and posters. How do you explain the hours you spend on here? Is it Executive Time, a concept I totally love and embrace btw, or are you keeping an official eye on what is said? It reminds me of the censorship (there was none) on the old AOL Europe board. Within it was a small gaggle of witches, who were trying to ensure discussion stayed within (their) rules and guidelines. It was hysterical because they were powerless. I being a member of another gaggle, had great fun taking the pee, and a shout out to my old friends from AOL.
Before I sign off, can you explain how you are so sure this case will never be resolved? Surely, as a friend/ ally of the parents, you want, err, real closure, and their best hope of that lies with Operation Grange and the PJ. What parent of a missing child is OK with a police investigation closing down?
And where is the 'hope' Ziggy, surely it is the parents' best interests for the police, both here and in the UK continue until they find out what happened to Madeleine.
And of course, there are many ways this case could end. what if Madeleine turns up alive or her body is found? The ending has not yet been written Ziggy, you've jumped the barrel way too soon, and your desired outcome does away with 'hope'.
I hope this not au revoir Ziggy, just a small strop.
Your claim your presence and thinking should have elevated the discussion. OK. I'll give you that one Ziggy. I have enjoyed, if that is the right word, your posts, and, aw shucks, you are always welcome. I doubt you would get that same generosity of spirit on other forums or the facebook pages.
''You are projecting onto me some wild imagined rage that exists only within your head. I rarely feel anger ''
DeleteIf you're right there, Ros, I need you to explain why the imagined anger etc that you say the zigger has projected is also what i think as well as others on line that I've spoken to.Do you seriously believe that he is the only one to notice your eccentricities ? He's one of many, so we must all be projecting.Am I right ?
One more thing confused me in your crazy rant :
''As for your analysis of me as the kind of woman who would punch walls or kick beds, you are so track, you can only be projecting''
Who said you were that kind of woman ? punching walls and so on. Who are you misquoting ?How can someone be projecting anything if they aren't saying anything ?
Confused
Yes, I am Confused also. Everyone thinks I'm mad so it must be me eh? Hmm, experiencing deja vu.
DeleteOk, ok, hands up to the eccentricities, though I must say, many find them delightful. But anger? It's such a negative, self destructive emotion, that I have avoided it for most of my adult life. I have seen the way it eats up others and it is never a pretty sight.
As a narcissist and manic depressive, I tend to turn any anger I feel inwards. And having spent a lifetime reading self help books and philosophy. I know I only have the power to control myself, the behaviour of others is beyond my control, I accept that, fully. The only power I have is the way in which I react to others' behaviour. You and Ziggy, or are you one and the same? would like it very much if I were sat here spitting feathers and tearing my hair out, but I'm afraid it is all wishful thinking on your part.
Yes the quote had a typo - it should have read off track. Can you think of someone who might punch walls or kick beds?
….aren't saying anything, Lol, just a few lines up, you are accusing me of writing a crazy rant!
And again on ….aren't saying anything, the original poster is accusing me of belonging to the school of online liars. What was that? A term of endearment?
Wonderful reply by Mr Ziggy at 22:53. Right on cue he came came out of his hole.
ReplyDeletejc
And , as usual, jc, you have not one single answer to his simple requests. Says it all really where you're concerned...
DeleteAnonymous 10 February 2019 at 04:28
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, jc
“…please start by explaining to me just one aspect of this case - the finding of blood and dead body odor by trained forensic tracker dogs…”
I take it you are referring to Keela and Eddie.
No sample taken from 5A or the rented car has been forensically confirmed as blood if I remember correctly, apart from Gerry’s on the car’s key fob, or as containing Madeleine’s DNA.
Nothing in 5A or the Renault car has been found and confirmed as having originated from a cadaver.
It is reasonable to doubt that Eddie indicated cadaver odour in PdL (I’m not saying he necessarily didn’t). He’d been trained to detect blood and cadaver odours. Those insisting he indicated the latter have to prove that, at the time of the dogs’ alerts, his sensitivity to a blood odour was not greater than that of Keela’s. To put it differently: it is possible that Eddie had alerted to a blood odour where Keela didn’t.
Winnie-the-Pooh (A bear with very little brain)
Well said, WTP. I look forward to the counter arguments to your reasoning. I can hear jc screaming from here.And that's only one.
DeleteAnonymous 11 February 2019 at 13:54 - You're not Gerry (ask the dogs Sandra) McCann are you? Do you think you've found a fault in the training of the police dogs that Martin Grime overlooked?
Deleteand once again the person pretending to be called Jane completely misses a simple point.
DeleteAhh Winnie The Poo, is that the McCanns defence to the dog alerts? Diss the dogs. Good luck with that in court opposite an expert dog handler, such as Martin Grimes, who's evidence led to the conviction of D'Andre Lane for the murder of his toddler daughter. Do the McCanns have a dog expert to counter any police dog evidence put forward? Does such an expert exist?
Deletehttp://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id421.htm
You play word games with the forensics WTP, using the difference between body fluids and blood as your last lifeline. The truth is, neither you nor I know what the forensics confirmed, particularly as we are 12 years on and in the world of science there are always huge leaps. None of their new discoveries have been made public but the chances are they contribute to the continued funding of this investigation.
The blood dog reacted to the blood and the cadaver dog reacted to the smell of cadaver, they did exactly what they were trained to do. I can how inconvenient it is that both dogs reacted to the same scent behind the sofa, but there it is. The videos are public, dogs don't lie.
Jane 11 February 2019 at 22:52
DeleteMy sweet lady Jane, the taste of honey
A kind, perspicacious stranger has already remarked that “…Jane completely misses a simple point.” I am a bear with little/no brain, and, obviously, like your sweet self, honey, I often miss simple points.
Take your kind post, honey, in which you only ask me two questions, both unrelated to my 13:54 post. I can’t work out what point you intended to make, honey.
Hold on… Are you telling me that Gerry McCnn is a bear with little/no brain, honey?
I love Sandra. She is so charming and clever, honey. I had no idea she spoke Dog. Good for her.
Anyways… The answer to both of your questions, honey, is a NO, an emphatic NO, honey
Winnie-the-Pooh
PS I absolutely love your punctuation, honey. Care to date a bear?
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 12 February 2019 at 14:17
DeleteMy dear Rosalinda
“Ahh Winnie The Poo, is that the McCanns defence to the dog alerts?”
I have no way of knowing about the possible McCanns’ defence.
“Diss the dogs.”
I have never dissed the dogs. I love them.
“Good luck with that in court opposite an expert dog handler, such as Martin Grimes,,,”
My thinking about the dogs is based entirely on Martin Grime’s statements in the PJ files.
“Do the McCanns have a dog expert to counter any police dog evidence put forward? Does such an expert exist?”
According to his statements in the PJ files, Martin Grime is such an expert
“You play word games with the forensics WTP, using the difference between body fluids and blood as your last lifeline.
With respect, my dear friend, I don’t play games with the forensics. Blood is but one of several distinct bodily fluids, there’s nothing game-like about this well-established fact.
“The truth is, neither you nor I know what the forensics confirmed…”
For the purpose of my argument, I rely on the forensic reports in the PJ files.
“None of their new discoveries have been made public but the chances are they contribute to the continued funding of this investigation.”
I see no good enough reason to agree or disagree on that, therefore I suspend judgement.
“The blood dog reacted to the blood and the cadaver dog reacted to the smell of cadaver….”
Let’s title my original post ‘ENTER A REASONABLE DOUBT’, and now please re-read it with this title mind.
“…they did exactly what they were trained to do.”
They undoubtedly did!
“I can how inconvenient it is that both dogs reacted to the same scent behind the sofa, but there it is.”
Perhaps.
“The videos are public, dogs don't lie.”
Agreed.
Dogs don’t lie!
Bless.
Yours affectionately
Winnie-the-Pooh
Reasonable doubt ? That's tantamount to poking Ros in her good eye.
Delete''Do the McCanns have a dog expert to counter any police dog evidence put forward? Does such an expert exist?''
DeleteIf the answer is no, then what's the hold up for the police ?
''You play word games with the forensics WTP, using the difference between body fluids and blood as your last lifeline.''
Why would WTP or anyone else online use anything as 'a lifeline' ? This has nothing to do with anyone online commentating. Who would take the case and own it like that or want it be so important to themselves it's become personal ? That's nutty beyond belief.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your obvious scientific / forensic expertise and explain why all those nice policemen managed to miss what was right under their own noses and not merely those of their woof woofs.Then how the forensic team did the same ?Yet you, a former English teacher, ;legal danger girl and emergency switchboard operative got it all in one from the comfort of your makeshift bar-cum-IT suite.
'' The videos are public, dogs don't lie.''
If you believe that's a case then by extension you must be accusing the police of lying then.And the forensic team.Why would they lie ? What would their motive be to lie ?
I'm sure the McCanns' lack of an expert to appear on their behalf, is not the reason for you perceive as a delay.
DeleteYes lifeline. I choose my words carefully, as you should know by now. Call it a character flaw or whatever you will, by I tend to hone in on insecurities. Among them, those lies that if you repeat often enough will become the truth. Anyway, just for clarity, blood is a body fluid.
You take my 'dogs don't lie' and turn it into my accusing the police and the forensic team of lying too. That's one hell of a leap lol. Of the two of us, I am the one supporting the police, you are the one slandering them.
I don't know if the police lied or are lying 17:13, but as a glass half full kinda gal, I try to think the best of people and the goodness of human nature. I never judge anyone on other people's opinions, I stubbornly hold out until I have formed my own. The notion that 30+ homicide detectives would conspire to cover up the death of a child is preposterous, but yes, I will eat my hat if I am proved wrong. This case has always been full of surprises so it may be I will have to invest in an edible one! I jest of course, whilst I would agree there are peopling walking among us who have no conscience or soul. They are one in 10, not 30 out of 30. Still a high percentage I agree, but fate rarely leads them to congregate. Mostly, I suspect, because in their heads there can be only one, so they are more likely to start their bloody reigns by killing each other.
I was of course talking about psychopaths, bless them. They keep the wheels of society turning, in some cases quite literally, by becoming traffic wardens.
DeleteReturning to my numerous jobs and experiences, yeah you got me there. I didn't start work in one place and stay there until I got a gold watch for 50 years of excellent typing! I was always a bit flighty I'm afraid eager to try all sorts, I was also a double glazing saleswoman at one point!
I found my niche in 'temping', I loved the fact that I was going somewhere new, sometimes every week, sometimes for months on end - as a 'temp' the choice was mine. I worked for big companies and small companies, where I not only had to type but answer the phone too. Mock the many jobs I have had 17:13, but I was a single, working mum, I found work where I could.
As for makeshift IT suite and bar, I wish, lol. I have the only thing I ever wanted, which coincides with the only thing Virginia Woolf ever wanted - 'A Room of One's Own'.
''I'm sure the McCanns' lack of an expert to appear on their behalf, is not the reason for you perceive as a delay.''
DeleteI take it you mean what I take to be a delay.No, I take the 12 years and percieve that as a delay.
If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth ? OK. I'll tell everyone I'm a millionaire.I wish. I think you must have meant that it becomes a truth to the actual liar.You still need to learn that something has to be proven to be a lie or the truth and not rely on your own imagination and then base your arguments on your imagination.
If you believe that the dogs' findings were proof of Madeleine's death then you need to suggest why the police and forensic teams have never acted on them.If you don't, you're wasting time acusuing anyone of anything. If the police hold the findings and aren't doing anything about it then you can't say the finsings are worth anything. You just won't address that rea as it means you can't use it to launch the same old attack on the parents.
You say the case has been full of surprises.Really ? Nobody really exoected the child to be found.They were right.Nobosy believes the dramatic headlines about new leads and new 'suspects'. And they're right.No proof exists to support an arrest and charge so nobody is arested or charged. Where are these surprises you're pretending exist ?
You close your post very strangely.Some guesswork concerning people with no souls killing each other.I won't even ask where that was hatched.But, next time you intend informing us that you always choose your words carefully, you may be served well by proof reading it before you post.You could proof read this one I'm replying to now for an example of how failng to do so can lead to much unintended humour and irony.
Is that room of one's own decorated with rubber wall paper and locked ?
DeleteYou see a 12 year delay rather than an intricate, complex, investigation. Ok.
DeleteI am bemused you are not familiar with the thoughts of Joseph Goebbels, spin doctor extraordinaire. That could rule you out as being Michael Wright or Clarence Mitchell, who would, or should, know these basics.
So if I believe the dogs I have to ask why the police, forensics etc, aren't acting on the evidence. Well actually I believe they are acting on the dog alerts etc, why else did they take industrial diggers out to PDL?
The surprises eh? The biggest I suppose, was the fact that they got away with it. The fact that they were never prosecuted, for anything. That was pretty astonishing, so too was their first victory against Goncalo Amaral. I thought the world had gone mad at that point. Yes, many surprises and many more to come I am sure.
I did actually did a part 2 on those with lost souls, they are otherwise known as psychopaths.
''Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2019 at 21:04
Delete''You see a 12 year delay rather than an intricate, complex, investigation. Ok. ''
No, not really. I see it as 12 years of inaction.Beyond the media circus and online obsession nothing has actually happened.
I'm familiar with all Nazi doctrine and propaganda. Maybe that's why I'm staunchly anti-american. It's all alive and well their-though far less subtley utilised.But to reference nazism, propaganda and spin and the founding fathers of it all when discussing a missing child is a bit OTT for me. This has been run of the mill tack and lies for a pretty dumb audience.
'' Well actually I believe they are acting on the dog alerts etc, why else did they take industrial diggers out to PDL?''
So they could tell us all they were doing it and shout the press and photographers.Nobody exoected anything. Let's remember, Amaral has already informed us she was frozen then cremated then buried.It looked dramatic and made tem look busy.So what came of it and how long ago did they do it.Were they acting on another 'lead' ? It would appear so.I told you, if the cadaver scent and blood /fluids are what you and others like you think they are, there's a solid case there.No body needed.The word of the detectives and forensics would do it.
''The surprises eh? The biggest I suppose, was the fact that they got away with it. The fact that they were never prosecuted, for anything.''
I should ask who 'they' are shouldn't I ? But a shot in the dark tells me you're referring to the parents again.If the blood/dna/cadaver scent all indicated th death of the child in the apartment they wouldn't have gotten away with anything.A jury would have been persuaded.But the evidence couldn't have been strong enough or even valid.
Nobody was shocked by the first victory over Amaral. He went on record as calling them killers or at least liars who had buried their little girl.They were angry and disgusted and demanded he proved his allegations. In the real world, normal people are enraged by that kind of defamation and slander if it can't be proved.That he was once in charg of the investigation made it more disgusting.If a third trial took place they's win it.His book's one thing, his slandering is another.
Psychopaths ? Interesting area. I've spotted at least one in the case. The amygdala has much to answer for.As does the seeming collective misunderstanding of psychopathy .
You are familiar with ALL Nazi doctrine and propaganda (no surprises there), but you did not recognise Goebbels 'the more you repeat a lie' doctrine. Hmmm. And that's not me paying homage to the Third Reich, just me illustrating how over used the 'repeat a lie' concept is.
DeleteMany were shocked by the McCanns early victories over Goncalo Amaral, but they were all overturned by higher courts. Your dreaming of facing him in one more trial is just that, a dream. Goncalo Amaral won in the highest Court in Portugal. Unless G&K can afford to take the case to Europe, and for Europe to accept the case, that's it the end.
As for your constant taunting of the police, I am sure they will act as and when it is appropriate.
The Amaral victory could have been in the highest court in all of Christendom, it was still only about a book.It wasn't a criminal trial. So you can make the venue as grandiose as you want, the victory was about a book.If there ever was a criminal trial i doubt the prosecution would call Amaral.He's too unpredicatble and random in his thinking.PLus of course his bosse cold be called to answer why they removed him so soon....
DeleteI think genuinely well adjusted people who have the ability to stand back, detached from all of the nonsense, and not be dragged into any tribal bias know what constitutes something that is imorral, libelous and defamatory.Those who don't fit that bill are only taken seriously by each other.
''As for your constant taunting of the police, I am sure they will act as and when it is appropriate.''
My observations of the police and their performance are just that - observations.It isn't taunting.And one of the observations is that acting is all they have done.You think it's all real ? After all this time ? You think they'll act when it's appropriate. How very British old gal.Perhaps they'll make an anoouncement tomorrow after tiffin.
15:06
ReplyDeleteBlimey! What have I done?... I am a bear with no brain at all then... :(
Winnie-the-Pooh
Hi Ros
ReplyDeleteThere is something that I do not understand.
You state you support GA and his version of events.
In the Truth of the Lie he makes it very clear he did not trust the British police and had PJ officers following them as to their involvement with the McCanns and he first knew of their presence in PDL on Monday 7th May.
Either he is a deliberate liar or the UK police are.
There is no compromise or shades of grey.
I have no desire to see this case close without answers but nobody can confirm 30 plus homicide officers have ever worked on this case.
It will not be resolved because it would require the arrest of so many senior UK policemen, it will never happen.
In the first three years of this case two senior Leics police officers were suspended when charged with serious criminal offences and later killed themselves one after murdering his wife and 6 year old daughter.
Corruption is rife.
What was the mind-set at McCann briefings?
The PJ immediately suspect the UK and covertly put them under surveillance.The UK immediately suspect the PJ and go about undermining them.In the meantime a child is lost abroad and the internet massed ranks slaughter the parents for being frustrated and angry at the police.All of that at the most crucial stage of the investigation : the beginning.And people wonder why the little girl was never found.Still, Amaral became a celebrity and best seller thanks to his own incompetency and vicious tongue, and thanks to his naming names ( Mr and Mrs McCann) without daring to name names of those who he alleges covered up for them. So let's all raise a glass to Amaral and those detectives and get stuck into the parents. It's easier for thousands to bully two.Plus of course, if we all agree the the lack of evidence isn't important we can do it as long as we like.We don't even need to justify it.
DeleteWow 22:36, you hate Goncalo Amaral so much you could be Kate.
DeleteAs for Goncalo Amaral became a celebrity. You are projecting there, it was in fact Kate and Gerry who became celebrities, appearing on every breakfast show and the opening of every envelope, especially when promoting Kate's bestseller.
You say GA refuses to name the names of those he alleges covered up for the McCanns. He doesn't claim others covered up for the McCanns, you really need to read his book, he claims they were responsible for the cover up, big difference.
Kate and Gerry refused to co-operate with the police at the most crucial stage of the investigation, how do you feel about that? How do you think that impacted the search?
Blaming Goncalo Amaral, especially 12 years later, is illogical and it doesn't help the parents' case one bit. The McCanns have spent all these years focussing on their revenge against the former detective to the detriment of the search for their daughter. To the average viewer, that makes no sense whatsoever.
As for thousands bullying the 'two', Kate and Gerry, refusing to believe a lie is not bullying. And yes, thousands out there are refusing to buy into abduction story, but again it is not bullying. Kate and Gerry want to be treated as celebrities and praised for their stoicism - that the world doesn't treat them that way is not bullying. They remind me of people who demand respect without having done anything to earn it.
bullied?. oh dear, we forgot to note in our narcissistic response 22.36 that: Kate Healey McCcann refused to answer the PJ questions. The Mcanns paid 500K to keep them in the ' media'
DeleteOh and lest we forget, they took a legal injunction out against a book ' the truth of the lie'. And lost. oh the irony of attempting to ban a book about a lie.
I'm really not a bully said Kate.
Yes indeed 11:32, on the subject of bullying, these people are in glass houses throwing stones. With the McCanns demands of over £1.4m from the former detective who searched for their daughter, we saw bullying in action on a major scale, they wanted to destroy his life and used their platform on the world stage to do it.
DeleteAnd again we saw bullying in action, in Gerry's call for an example to be made of one of 'trolls' who he claimed tormented them on social media that led to the suicide of an innocent woman. What kind of cruelty was behind the grotesque Sky News stunt?
Kate and Gerry refused to co-operate with the police at the most crucial stage of the investigation,
DeleteThere is no evidence whatsoever the McCanns were not cooperating with the UK police.
They only had trouble with the PJ, the only police force with jurisdiction and authority to investigate the crime.
At their meeting on Saturday 5th May, the Leicestershire police confirm, the McCanns gave them a list of questions they wanted answered by the PJ
If the meeting was lawful PJ officers would be in the room and would take the questions directly.
The PJ were not, the criminality was.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 February 2019 at 10:02
Delete''Wow 22:36, you hate Goncalo Amaral so much you could be Kate. ''
Grow up, Ros.
You bang on about that book as though it's a Bible.I suppose in a way it is.It's filled with nothing factual or provable and requires leaps of faith on every page.You can quote from it like some X-rated Vicar of Dibley. Amaral didn't say anyone covered up for the McCanns ? So, hat did he say MI were up to ? Did he say the only reason the case hasn't been solved or the investigation concluded is because of the political disagreement of Portugal and England ? He didn't say exactly how and who said and done what though did he ? The only names he ever named are those of the parents. So he can't prove their guilt, his bosses guilt, or the interference of MI. But you call it the 'go-to' book of facts.
Kate and Gerry speak and they're immediately called liars and their words are subjected to the analysis of thousands of online experts hoping to get a bit of fame. Everyone following behind Richard hall and his 'Igor' Hyatt. Watch as the sheep turn into parrots and then back again. Kate and Gerry stop speaking and they're accused of hiding secrets.That's what happens when you starve the pack.
''Blaming Goncalo Amaral, especially 12 years later, is illogical and it doesn't help the parents' case one bit. ''
Blaming him for what ? I'm only blaming him of writing a book of rambling opinions.I'm condemning anyone quoting it as actual fact as though the case is discussed and solved within its covers.But I suppose they need something if they want to try and make their ranting rational.
''As for thousands bullying the 'two', Kate and Gerry, refusing to believe a lie is not bullying''
Who has proved that they're lying about what happened to their child.They might not actually know, but they would know if they had buried her or not.If you are saying that they're lying about that then you or anyone else needs to prove they are.That includes all those detectives. 12 million pounds worth of them over 12 years.
''They remind me of people who demand respect without having done anything to earn it.'
They remind me of people exercising their civil and human rights. That is, demanding that proof be produced to suppport any allegations made against them. If not they shold be considered innocent until proven guilty. Is it too much to ask ? Proof ? Evidence ? Is it really ?
I'm a bit long in the tooth to grow up 12:34, but I am amused by your suggestion.
DeleteYou then say 'I bang' on about GA's book as if it were the bible, which you also then go on to ridicule. 'Bang on' is an ugly expression, totally without charm or grace. Imagine yourself saying it out, and you will see what I am. Tis a pet hate of mine to see our beautiful language so abused. To that list you can add the words gobsmacked and gusset and others too numerous to mention.
Once again, you are going into great detail about a book you have never read, hence your misconception that I and others treat GA's book as if it were the bible. It's an account of the summer of 2007, as is Kate's. Your grievance is that GA's is much more believable.
In your second long paragraph you are aligning me with Richard Hall and Hyatt. I too see them as charlatans and snake oil salesmen. Their creepy diagnosis of child abuse exhibited in such simple statements as opening and closing a door, is just that. Creepy. Real psychologists do not focus on such nonsense, see above, I have spent an entire day being analysed, I know. I condemn them probably more vocally than you do. They are in the same category as extremists and vigilantes, but worse, they pay no heed to how accusations of heinous crimes, can effect the real people and the real children involved. Fortunately, they now appear to have gone underground, literally, to discuss their murky fantasies of child porn and Lolitas. And yes, I physically cringed as I typed that.
Further down, GA's book is a book of rambling opinions, or a bible, make your mind up.
Who has proved they are lying? You ask. Err, Kate has actually admitted to lying, and you know how it goes, once you are caught in one lie, or have admitted to one lie, it kind of cascades. What else have they lied about? For those who were suspicious before, it confirms what they thought.
As for myself or anyone who comments on the McCann case, that demand for proof, has been answered in many ways, many times. I don't think there is an aspect of this case that has not been discussed in depth, yet still you cry out for proof. What you want is an actual smoking gun, you can't accept the hundreds of mini smoking guns that have pointed out to you, many times. Life is not that simple, it is not black and white.
Your attack on the abuse of language is contrived and pretentious. You don't mind it so much when your regular lunatics beat it to death just as long as they'r agreeing with you somewhere in their garbled silliness.
DeleteRegarding your personal 'Bible', let's not discuss it's contents selectively, but remain aware of it being -as the judge said- a literary work and not factual .
''Who has proved they are lying? You ask. Err, Kate has actually admitted to lying, and you know how it goes, once you are caught in one lie, or have admitted to one lie, it kind of cascades. What else have they lied about? For those who were suspicious before, it confirms what they thought.''
So those prepared to condemn purely on the grounds of suspicion felt validated because the lead detective said he shared that suspicion ? Amazing, Holmes.
Perhaps, if you are able, you could tell us why the detectives( either PJ or Met) have never acted on these lie you say Kate admitted or any of Amaral's facts ? Why the same detectives / forces who haven't acted on the dogs' alerts and the blood . Short of them actually finding the parents hiding Madeleine inside their jacket, you make it sound like everything is an open and shut case.And yet nothing has happened. Why are the police so reluctant ? Does Amaral cover that in his mighty tome as well ?
Pretentious moi? Surely not, lol.
DeleteYou are always banging on about the Judge ruling GA's book, must by law, be read as fictional, not factual. I wonder what section it would be in the library? Not next to The Hobbit or Alice in Wonderland one would presume. Far more likely to be found Real Crime.
You have twisted my words (not for the first time) about those who were already suspicious. I was clearly referring to Kate's confession that they had lied.
It is wrong to say the police haven't acted on the dogs' alerts, they launched a £12m investigation. Did you not see the police digs in PDL? I think we can all now agree the police are not looking for a living child. Those dog alerts have never gone away and never will go away.
''You are always banging on about the Judge ruling GA's book, must by law, be read as fictional, not factual. I wonder what section it would be in the library''
DeleteIt was the judge who 'banged on' about the distinction between fact and opinion.But you and the antis are impervious to things like that.You come over all 'ostrich', or is it more 'fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la'' ? Of course it would be shelved under real crime.It's a book written by someone who wants to discuss one.
''You have twisted my words (not for the first time) about those who were already suspicious. I was clearly referring to Kate's confession that they had lied.''
I never twist words or misquote or invent 'facts'. I leave that to many others here.The point made was about Kate's admission to having lied at some point.If you know, and the world knows ( because Kate said it) then why have the police ignored it's relevance ?
''It is wrong to say the police haven't acted on the dogs' alerts, they launched a £12m investigation. Did you not see the police digs in PDL?''
And they found what ? There's 12 million reasons to call it a sham.That's where the real smoke and mirrors were.If the evidence was incriminating they could build a solid case based on circumstantial evidence by bringing the reports to court and explaining to a jury that Madeleine's cadaver scent was detected as well as her blood.A jury would reach a majority or even unanimous verdict.But it hasn't happened because they don't have those pieces of evidence.
''I think we can all now agree the police are not looking for a living child. ''
And call the police liars ? Why ? They have conceded that the scenario of a body being found has to be considered as well as the live, abducted Madeleine. You read that statement and your talent for the ghoulish plucks out the scenario that has a corpse in it.Surprise, surprise.
''I think we can all now agree the police are not looking for a living child. ''
DeleteIn that case they must be looking for a killer too.Maybe they should have just called in seeing eye dogs in the first place.
I feel sorry for you that you have to make so much of what you perceive to be a tiny legal victory and cling onto for dear life. The Judge said GA's book should not be read as factual, or thereabouts. That little victory is worthless, because people will read the book as they choose.
DeleteYou keep saying the police are ignoring all the evidence, the dogs, the admitted lies etc, when clearly they are not. The investigation is ongoing.
Next you say there's 12 million reasons to call it [presumably the investigation] a sham! Do make your mind up. You say the investigation has cleared the McCanns, was that a sham clearance?
That was a pretty powerful statement there, that you, and therefore the McCanns, view the investigation as a sham? A pretty big crack in the McCanns' stance that they are encouraged by the investigation.
Forgive me for leaping ahead here, but if the McCanns are unhappy with Operation Grange, there can only be one reason. They are in the frame.
Your defence is becoming very disjointed 16:59. You have basically rendered all your 'the police say' arguments worthless, by declaring the investigation a sham.
well it certainly appears that the stranger abduction angle has been exhausted...which brings us all back to square one again. which is the last people to see madeleine alive brought in to "help with enquiries". and as that group of people refuse to answer questions under caution or to do a reconstruction...nothing will change.
DeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2019 at 11:25
Delete''I feel sorry for you that you have to make so much of what you perceive to be a tiny legal victory and cling onto for dear life.''
Unlike yourself and the rest of the tribe who can't resist shouting about ' the supreme court ruling' ( which was about publishing a book) as though it can be taken as 'proof'(lol) of the parents' guilt.Unlike you and other self-proclaimed 'experts' this case is far from being my life.It's an interest.It isn't that important to me personally.
You keep saying the police are still investigating. Investigating what, who and where ? We only hear about them when they hold out the begging bowl.The dogs findings have gone-get over it.How long and how much money would it cost to call the forensics lab and ask them if it can be used as evidence against anyone ? Five minutes-not years and a couple of million in salaries.
The investigation isn't happening.The parents aren't suspects.They haven't had one lead in 12 years or made one arrest.Nothing changes.That's as close to a sham as I've seen.I don't pretend to know what the McCanns think or know.But surely it must have crossed their mind.Maybe they can't face that possibility as it's an admission of it all being over. Are they unhappy with OG ? The last I read was that they were happy that it was still looking for something.But I don't take any 'official' press statements seriously and never have since the government put their spin doctor in charge. It shouldn't have needed any spin.
The police statements have been a part of the sham for years. Every request for funding comes with a headline for the papers to put on their front pages along the lines of 'one last / vital lead / line of investigation'. Nobody who reads or hears it believes it.And what happens...
Ok 21:07, the parents aren't suspects, so are?
DeleteGenuine question. Operation Grange has been investigating Madeleine's disappearance since 2011, so who are they investigating? They put out the 'begging bowl' as you call it, every six months and it is always replenished. How could that be if this were an investigation with no suspects.
Because they're hiding the truth.And they know the parents are innocent..And that it impliactes someobody important. Unless, of course, you can quote me one other case in the 20th or 21st century that has attracted so many politicians and MI 5 to a 'police matter'. It needs to look like a police investigation hence the requests for funding and announcements of how 'intricate' or 'difficult' it all is to investigate. They won't elaborate of course as they don't need to while 'investigating'. Conveniently..
DeleteRos says: " I had two options, 1. blame someone else or 2. own up"
ReplyDeleteNo - wrong you are very very wrong - there never was an option one. The fact that you ever considered there was shows what sort of person you are.
No, what I did shows the sort of person I am, and I did the right thing.
DeleteSo you invented option one for the purposes of that post. That is, to make you come across a virtuous.That's novel of you. Maybe you would be better served by toning down your arrogance and superiority complex.That way you wouldn't have to reinvent your past so often order to market yourself so favourably.
DeleteWouldn't have been much of a story without that other option would it 19:31? That's how good stories work, the author, or stand up comedian enriches them with detail to illustrate the situation. I am an author, I ensure my stories are never dull.
DeleteAs for toning down my arrogance, I'm afraid that is a complaint against my character that has followed me from childhood, so I don't see any success for you there. Superiority complex? I wouldn't go that far, lol.
I never have to reinvent my past! Due to my arrogance, lol, I own everything I have done or said, and would be heartily annoyed if anything I had written was attributed to anyone else or stolen by anyone else. In fact, I had a run in with a pro McCann, who was copying and pasting my blogs onto his site in order to get hits.
As for marketing myself 'so favourably', again lol, I am as I am, warts and all. How many times have I said to you and your ilk, 'yeah ya got me, hands up'? I don't pretend to be a god fearing, church going, pillar of the community, never have. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I have never pretended to be.
Ros post's linking politics and Madeleines disappearance,ziggy pops up,read what he has issues with,really read,then you'll realise who he is or represents.
ReplyDeleteI believe he said himself it was the wish for justice that he represents, Mister Anonymous 07 : 11 . part of which involves considering all things that come with evidence and proof rather than the online Detective Agency who get bored too fast and repeat each others' nonsense until it sounds like a majority.
DeleteUnless smithman confess's then there'll be no justice.
DeleteConfesses to doing what ?
DeleteDoesn't take a lot of working out,try it.
DeleteConfesses that trying to be helpful to th police was a huge mistake because of the internet.
DeleteAnonymous15 February 2019 at 22:40
DeleteYou have a point.
W-t-P
Ros - have you ever lied about anything?
ReplyDeleteYes I have. I told a guy in PC World that I had bought my laptop from them even though I hadn't and had just admitted it. It turned into a Monty pythonesque sketch with him saying 'you just said you didn't buy it here' and me saying 'no I didn't'. He gave up first, and they repaired my PC.
DeleteI think we all tell a given number of lies per day, I can't remember what it is, but I'm probably in the normal boundaries either way. That day and a half of psychological profiling resulted in two eminent psychiatrists declaring in a Court room that I am not a liar.
In everyday life I use little white lies just as others do, more often than not out of kindness. I have never however been involved in a 'big lie', that is a lie that involved others to achieve an agenda. Mostly I think because I simply cannot keep my trap shut. To be fair, the idea of a secret pact would freak me out.
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteThat's a battering ram of brilliant replies you have written over the past couple of days. Keep it up.
It seems the McCann team will not let go of their twisted version of events ever. The narrative of "abduction" must continue in order to whitewash the couple's name and escape prosecution.
Sometimes I can't make up my mind whether the pro-McCann comments on this blog are written by Mr and Mrs McCann or dreamed up by a deranged pensioner locked up in a room somewhere in England with orders to write the "Truth" until the brain-washing is complete.
Mercifully I would assume you always have your finger on the trigger and furthermore if there is ever a conclusion to this detective story your readers have to realize they will all be staring into cyberspace at their blank computer screens.
It was interesting to read about the denial of tracker dog evidence by some.
How could the McCanns and their cronies not be deeply shocked by the video of forensic dogs Eddie and Keela identifying blood and cadaverine in apartment 5A and an underground parking lot filled with random cars and the dog's cadaverine identification smell going straight to the holiday rental car.
What can a person think. Either this was a deliberate plant of false evidence placed there by an evil Portuguese detective or this was the truth.
jc
You are such a joy to me JC, your bolstering words always hit the spot - especially when I am under siege! Bless you.
DeleteUnfortunately for Kate and Gerry, their sorry tale got carried way too far in the heat of the moment, and it is now being dissected in the cold light of day. 12 years later. Time has done it no favours, in the public's eye especially. Still there is no abductor.
Yes, lol, I often wonder if Mr and Mrs are writing angry replies. Is it really possible that they have independent members of the public, who don't know them, defending them so vigorously on here?
If there is ever a conclusion to this case JC, I hope my blog will be buzzing! I am sure we will all have a lot to talk about, not only at that time but in years to come. Despite Trump and Brexit, I still think the revelations will be mind blowing, even to those of us who have followed the case from the beginning.
The dogs' evidence is probably the weakest spot in the McCanns' Defence. They have nothing to counter it with, no expert of the same standing as Martin Grimes willing to berate the dogs and the work of dog handlers in the witness box, or at all. Gerry may be a professor but his last ditch plea to the Judge to ignore the dogs, gave away that which he feared the most.
The McCanns' reactions to the dog videos were astonishing. Not the distress of a parent who has just been told their child may be dead, but denial and anger at the evidence the dogs revealed. See video of Gerry having a strop.
Dogs with a 100% track record, detected the smell of blood and cadaver. They alerted not just once, but 11 times. There is no margin for error.
The pros have put forward all sorts of bizarre explanation for the smell of cadaver. The claim Mr. Grimes was directing the dogs, cadaverine is the same smell as rotting pork. But to that I would say, who keeps pork chops behind the sofa or in the wardrobe?
Then there was Kate's alleged contact with dead bodies in her work as a doctor. I have never found a direct quote from Kate on this, so have given her the benefit of the doubt, by suggesting one of her entourage may have tried to be helpful. That argument falls flat however, as 6 of them were doctors and Kate I think, worked only half a day a week. Ergo, why wasn't the cadaver dog barking in all their apartments?
Deliberate plant has also been suggested. As if the Portuguese police hated the couple so much (Kate's slim figure, Gerry's God complex) that they contrived a fiendish plot to frame them so they could get back to their long sardine lunches and siestas. All nonsense of course, why on earth would the police want to leave a child predator on the loose? They were searching for a little girl, not yet 4, they were probably parents, grandparents etc, themselves, like Goncalo Amaral. They were doing everything in their power to find Madeleine, working 24 hour shifts and sleeping in the office. For this, they were called slobs in the British press.
But, the truth will prevail. In a way it already has in the form of Goncalo Amaral's book. He gives a no frills account of the original investigation, an account of the summer of 2007 that is far more believable than Kate's Madeleine.
''But, the truth will prevail. In a way it already has in the form of Goncalo Amaral's book. He gives a no frills account of the original investigation, an account of the summer of 2007 that is far more believable than Kate's Madeleine. ''
DeleteYou sometimes, in desperation, try to claim that you 'have no idea' what happened in PDL. Yet you continue to accuse the parents.You imply, in those accusations, that every policeman involved in the case is either a moron or lying if they haven't arrested the parents. But you won't directly accuse them or offer decent explanations as to why they and the forensics team have failed to collar the parents. That they are still free and have been publicly declared as NOT suspects is part of the truth prevailing.
You decided that the judge who ruled Amaral's book a book of opinions and not fact was wrong. Because she doesn't share your view.Judges are aware of the importance of truth being proven by evidence you see.Something that you can't consider as it spoils your buzz.
That you consider a twelve year old 'mystery' and open investigation into what happened to an innocent little girl as a battle of two books is stunningly shallow .Bad taste is your default position though.We're used to it now.
Dear jc
DeleteYou ned psychiatric help.Nothing you say makes sense. Ever.You repeat your peverse fantasies over and over and you're allowed to get away with it here.Is jc your real name ? That you are Ros's biggest supporter does her no good at all.Why do you choose to broadcast the thrill you get from fantasising about these parents suffering ?
Why are you so convinced that the police are refusing to arrest the McCanns ? Or that they're happy to deliberately ignore so much evidence against the them ? You point at people who discuss the flaws in the evidence and accuse them of being in denial.What difference would that make to a police investigation ? Or are the police in denial as well ?
You are incapable of reason. You are incapable of discussion.You are incapable of debate.You are incapable of answering questions.You are expert in accusing without being able to back your accusations up.You typify the mentality of those you represent.Disgaceful.
This blog is therapeutic for you.Nothing more . It allows you a space to scream your nonsense until you feel relief. It's all about you.Don't kid yourself or anyone else that you care about the case or justice.It's just an escape for you . Get help and stop being annoying. You're worse than thrush.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2019 at 12:55
''You are such a joy to me JC, your bolstering words always hit the spot - especially when I am under siege! Bless you.''
Says it all. That's from a woman who informs us on a daily basis that she's an academic, former English teacher and published author.Yet she puts all that on hold to praise complete nonsense merely because it's penned by a lunatic who shares her vicious mentality.Don't take her praise as anything other than a thank you. Perhaps you get her help too.
Kate McCann (madeleine):
ReplyDelete“As for the abductor, he must have been smiling smugly to himself and thinking, Keep blaming the parents. Just leave me out of it, hidden and anonymous, to carry on doing what I do – stealing children. Had everyone forgotten about this man? Whoever he was, he was still out there.”
Still out there, stealing children? You couldn’t make it up.
09:58
DeleteRight, indeed.
It was a normal conclusion to reach all things considered.The police were too busy secretly investigating each other. Sory, haters.You're stretching too far.
Delete19:45
DeleteYou don't need to apologise, you are entitled to your opinion.
What police were too busy secretly investigating each other?
Hi anon 13 February 2019 at 09:58
Delete“As for the abductor, he must have been smiling smugly to himself and thinking, Keep blaming the parents. Just leave me out of it, hidden and anonymous, to carry on doing what I do – stealing children. Had everyone forgotten about this man? Whoever he was, he was still out there.”
Kate’s speculation about how Madeleine’s abductor would think and act, reveals much about herself and also about Gerry, who has used similar words in an interview, when he pretended to read the mind of a potential abductor, who, he said, must have been laughing at the incompetent Portuguese detectives, who were looking in the wrong direction.
I then couldn’t help but think, that it was just Gerry’s own perverted subconscious mind, which he then projected on to an imaginative sex offender. Who hasn’t seen Gerry’s duping smile and his smirking facial expression, when he’s asked question about Madeleine’s situation and her whereabouts, which I actually believe he is not quite aware of? Whoever knows what a sex offender thinks and feels may well have a similar mindset.
''Kate’s speculation about how Madeleine’s abductor would think and act, reveals much about herself and also about Gerry,''
DeleteIt also reflects exactly what you, me, or anyone would say in her situation.Are you saying that if your small child was snatched in a foreign country you'd merely switch off and wait for the police to do everything ? You'd imagine scenarios; you'd imagine the worst despite not wanting to; you'd try and get into the head of an abductor. It may help to unveil how he or she would act and give you at least a faint profile.When police do the same thing is that good policing or is it 'revealing more about them' ?
''I then couldn’t help but think, that it was just Gerry’s own perverted subconscious mind, which he then projected on to an imaginative sex offender. ''
And that, bjorn, reveals more about you.If you couldn't help thi nk it on a deep level then only you are repsonsible for the painted scene and script.
''Whoever knows what a sex offender thinks and feels may well have a similar mindset. ''
You really think you need to have the chaacter traits of a sex offender to understand how one thinks ? Does that go for murderers too ? If we can make a good guess at how they behave and think we are potential murderers ?
That post is desperate even by your usual standard, bjorn. You're trying to squeeze anything to fit in your quest to paint the parents as anything and everything from liars to fraudsters, to perverts and killers. It's irrational as usual, but, you also seem prone to occasionally switch your filter off and reveal this disturbing dark corner of your mind.You should really keep an eye on that.
Anonymous 13 February, 09:58
DeleteNo doubt the abductor was curious to know what Kate McCann had written about him in her account of the truth. I don’t think the way Kate depicts Mr Abductor will help her to find Madeleine. In fact, quite the contrary.
I suppose the thing with pretending your child has been stolen, is that you have to imagine what happens to children who have genuinely been stolen and it is such a rare crime, no-one really knows.
DeleteGerry and Kate were creating a scenario where their claim that Madeleine had been abducted, would be believed. Gerry was planting seeds with his talk of a paedophile gangs. Some might say it was all part of the staging that was taking place. The dramatic announcement at the tapas bar, the open window, the photos of 2 year old Madeleine ready to distribute.
The biggest error, on the part of Kate, was to forgive the abductor. That never happens. No mother would ever forgive the monster who stole their baby, no matter how religious they were. Kate may have made the front pages with that claim, but not for the right reasons. How could she forgive the abductor, but not the detective who searched for her daughter.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 February 2019 at 12:44
Delete''I suppose the thing with pretending your child has been stolen, is that you have to imagine what happens to children who have genuinely been stolen and it is such a rare crime, no-one really knows.''
Everyone can recall at least one instance. If it was as rare as you'e suggesting that wouldn't be the case. Recent cases are April Jones, Holly Wells, Jessica Chapman ,Amanda Dowler,Sarah Payne,Danielle Jones, Tia Sharp,Alice Gross and, right now, the trial is underway for the killer of 6 yera old Alesha McPhail.We could go back to Brady and Hindley or firther back than that.The point is, we are all too familiar with the horror stories we first became aware of on the TV news and then in more detail in news papers, and then more detailed in magazines and then documentaries. They all remind us of the darkest part of human behaviour and the terrifying potential that can lay dormant in the most ordinary, every day people. We learn how the predators behaved, what their MO was. Then we have those exapnded by one of hundreds of TV 'profilers' with their lightning 20/20 hindsight.We sit in a state of shock and disgust initially.Then we gradually become desnsitised to it after seeing so many.But it educates ud into how the mind can work.naturally, when we hear of a child that's gone missing we jump to the conclusion based on all of those documentaries and news stoies. We fear the worst. That's natural. Let's face it, children aren't procured or abducted by adults looking for a friend to share their life with.If we're honest, when we hear the headline we fear the worst and people we know and who we talk to tend to agree.Far more often than not the child is found dead and is found to have suffered other atrocities prior.So, when we hear of yet another hild going missing we imagine all of these things but hope we're wrong. However, according to the post above, because we think this way says more about us. That logic isn't just flawed it's insulting and not even close to the ball park of relaity.In the author's haste to poison opinion he's looked no further than his own bias and inside his own mindset.
The police would consider paedophile's for obvious reasons.Recently we've all learned, and continue to learn, about organised paedophile 'teams' and gangs. What kind of police force would eliminate that as a possibility right away ? A good one or an awful one ? The parents had no need to 'plant seeds' about this area. The police would have automatically had that area on their radar. Even if the parents didn't mention or consider it, the police would have had to.
As for the forgiveness...I don't buy into religious crap.Even if i did it wouldn't be catholicism. I believed at the time that the forgiveness was a contrived effort from the mind of Mr Showtime- Mitchell. It looked good around the time of the meeting with the Pope. I've heard 'forgive the killer' before following the death or abducion of children. I never understand it fully. I sometimes think it's part of coping mechanism or unconscious plea to the God you hope will fix you when you're broken. But I don't believe that this particular statement of forgiveness was meant. It seems to be the work of Iago Mitchell.
''I suppose the thing with pretending your child has been stolen, is that you have to imagine what happens to children who have genuinely been stolen and it is such a rare crime, no-one really knows.''
DeleteNo one could know- you're right.But, how do you know that the parents were 'pretending' ? Shouldn't you say that it's your opinion and not try to pass it on as a fact ? It would make you appear honest.After all, you don't know what happened you always say( despite their being years of daily updates of what you 'know'). More importantly, why do you think the police allowed them to invent / stage / ceate scenarios that you and the rest 'know' can't be true. If you all know it why dont any of the detectives ? Are these the same detectives who haven't thought of producing the fingings of the dogs, or pressing the Tapas gang about their refusal to speak( pact of silence ). They allowed the refusal to comply with a reconstruction and didn't push the '48 questions' angle either ? But you say this multi million pound investigation is 'ongoing' and they must be doing something.If they didn't push the easy points what the hell are they looking at now ? Could it be that they don't see what you and the internet police squad see regarding the staged abduction ? Could they see that the finsings were not conclusive ? Anyone would think that the parents are secret members of the foce to receive this protection.Or, on the other hand, the detectives have looked at all of the above and there's nothing to see. No evidence of a staged abduction and no reason to question the pact of silence taken by a group of friends who had a million online eyes stalking their every comma and move.
Apologies, I should have prefaced that with 'some might say' as I often do, but as the statement was generic, I wasn't referring to any specific parents, I didn't feel the need. If you are one of those libel lawyers watching me, tut tut, schoolboy error.
DeleteBlaming the police for allowing you to commit a crime is a new one on me Ziggy, and it is possibly the most ludicrous lines of defence I have ever heard. Good luck with that in a Court room.
These same detectives did use the findings of the dogs, that's what led to Gerry and Kate being named Arguidos. And they are still using the findings of the dogs in their determination not to give up on the investigation.
As for pressing the Tapas gang to speak, what do you suggest, thumb screws? the Iron Maiden? a stretch on the rack? No-one can be forced to speak if they do not want to. See Kate's non replies to the 48 questions.
It could make an investigation impossible, and it did in 2008, because the Portuguese police shelved their files. They did not have that smoking gun and all the main witnesses weren't talking.
However, maybe because of Gerry and Kate's ill conceived fund raiser in the autumn of 2010, they were granted a Review and Investigation in the UK, and the PJ re-opened their files.
Between the summer of 2008 and the granting of a Review by David Cameron in 2011, no-one was searching for Madeleine they claimed. Even though they had themselves hired at least 3 firms of private detectives.
At the time when Operation Grange began their investigation, there was an air of confidence about the police that they were going to find out what happened to Madeleine. I remember at the time DCI Redwood saying they were going back to the beginning. And the beginning, Ziggy, is the original investigation led by Goncalo Amaral that found the parents were involved.
How can you say the detectives have looked at all the above and decided there is nothing to see. That's wishful thinking on a supersonic scale there, they have clearly looked at all the above and requested and had granted, funds to continue the investigation. All of the above is still in play and will be to the bitter end.
You finish with the police looking kindly on the tapas group's pact of silence, yeah, sure, lol, as they always do when witnesses refuse to talk. Do let us all know what you are on, it sounds crazy.
''Blaming the police for allowing you to commit a crime is a new one on me Ziggy, and it is possibly the most ludicrous lines of defence I have ever heard. Good luck with that in a Court room.''
DeleteI think you misunderstood the post. I wasn't suggesting the parents had committed a crime or were in the process of doing so.
''hey are still using the findings of the dogs in their determination not to give up on the investigation''
That's a new one on me. Are you guessing ? How are they using them ?
''As for pressing the Tapas gang to speak, what do you suggest, thumb screws? the Iron Maiden? a stretch on the rack? No-one can be forced to speak''
Peersuasion is preferable to force. Letting them know that they could face charges now or later for conspiring to pervert the course of justice and incriminate themselves would be pretty persuasive- and legal.
'' And the beginning, Ziggy, is the original investigation led by Goncalo Amaral that found the parents were involved.''
Involved in what way ? If the investigation found that the case would have been solved. Charges would have been made.No matter how minimal their involvement. I think you need to support that one..
''How can you say the detectives have looked at all the above and decided there is nothing to see. That's wishful thinking on a supersonic scale there..''
How can i say it ? Easily. If there was anything to see then there would have been something to actually do.But nothing was.It still hasn't been done. Wishful thinking or just reming you of the facts ?
'' All of the above is still in play and will be to the bitter end.''
It's now Feb 14th 2019. There's been one in 2007-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19. Look at those numbers. Every Feb 14th there's been nothing.The bitter end has been here for years.
I never said they looked kindly on the pact of silence.I questioned why they never pressed them to talk-as above.
You have proved my point 15:21 because such atrocities are so rare, you can name the victims.
DeleteI must have a completely different perspective on the world than you 15:21, because the 'worst' is the last place I would go. As Kate said herself, most people are intrinsically good, my first thoughts would have been she was with a kindly neighbour, or even with the police. I wouldn't immediately think child murdering monster. That's why it is so curious that Kate skipped the first stage of grief. Denial, which should have been especially extenuated by the fact that she did not know what happened to Madeleine. This is the stage of hope, where we ensure that everything that can be done is being done. The stage I think where many mothers turn into a she wolf, they keep hunting and searching, they don't give up. She exhibited anger, she was angry that a priest could not be summoned for her in the middle of the night. A very, very, strange priority for a mother who's daughter had allegedly just been stolen. Why was she even thinking about her needs at such a time?
I am sure the police did consider Madeleine may have been snatched by a paedophile, but given the rarity of such a crime, I doubt it was near the top of their list. The idea that borders should be closed etc, every time a child disappeared is ludicrous. In nearly every case they are found. There is a very good reason every police station doesn't have a specialist child abduction team, the crime is simply too rare.
Those trying to portray PDL as some crime ridden resort on the Algarve, have nasty ulterior motives. They would rather blame the village than themselves. That they turned on all those kind people who rushed to their aid, and stood by their sides with such utter contempt, is despicable. As a fellow Brit, I feel I should apologise to the Portuguese people on their behalf, trust me, most of us are nothing like them. Ingratitude I think, is one of the ugliest of character flaws. Do Kate and Gerry continue to fly out there? Other than for Court cases I mean. Do they visit that church that meant so much to them? The place they last saw their daughter?
Finally, I believe you are telling the truth, in that forgiving the abductor was more likely a 'contrived effort from the mind of Mr. Showtime-Mitchell'. Now there is a career he missed, grand master of the circus ring, he would have been perfect, and far happier I'm sure. But I digress, didn't he also want Kate to do a few bikini shots? Or was that Gerry? Same with the Hollywood movie idea, it sounds pure Clarence, but Gerry went as off his head as Caligula for a while, so it could have been either. But, it may have come from Mitchell, but Kate was prepared to say it.
Hi anon (who may be Ziggy) 13 February 2019 at 23:35
Deleteand others.
just a little clarification regarding my post about Gerry’s and Kate’s “mindset” Björn13 February 2019 at 22:42
Nobody, who has a normal emotional life uses his power position to rape, murder or expose someone to a dangerous situation. It takes a soulless and emotionless person, who is completely unable to feel remorse in order to commit crimes of such kinds. In other words, it takes a psychopath.
Psychopaths don’t establish real emotional relationships with others, not even with their family members, whose unhesitating support they always demand in every situation.
Moreover, they do not really associate with people, instead they control them. They often treat their own children, and sometimes others’ as well, as possessions, WHICH they capriciously can either dislike or worship. In either case the purpose is only to satisfy their own needs. Guess whom I’m referring to?
Nevertheless, without accusing Gerry and Kate of anything, I still claim that they’ve a lot in common with a person who’s capable of abducting, abusing and hiding his/her victim, as far as their mental state of mind is concerned. Remember Gerry’s snuffy smile and answer to Sandra Felgueiras just a year after Madeleine had gone missing; “Ask the dogs Sandra”, which could be what Madeleine’s abductor (if he exists) would say in a similar situation, that is, if he were like Gerry.
I suppose the two problems we have in the UK- prison over crowding, and the need for more prisons to be built- must be down to all those 'intrinsically good' people out there...
Delete'' curious that Kate skipped the first stage of grief. Denial, which should have been especially extenuated by the fact that she did not know what happened to Madeleine''
Grief wouldn't begin instantly.Shock and fear would.At that early a stage there's no grieving to be done. The child could be yards away.Besides, if we're playing ppsychologist again, doesn't the over-quoted ''they've taken here'' illustrate denial ? Not ''she's been killed.'' Which way are you trying to twist it to fit your theory ?
'' This is the stage of hope, where we ensure that everything that can be done is being done ''
It's the stage of complete panic and fear if it's your own child.The stage when you want to scream at everyone to find her.
'' She exhibited anger, she was angry that a priest could not be summoned ...A very, very, strange priority for a mother who's daughter had allegedly just been stolen. Why was she even thinking about her needs at such a time?''
Because catholics believe that priests are God's representatives here. It's called desperation.Even those not given to religious fervour would hope that a God existed at that time and would help.
''I am sure the police did consider Madeleine may have been snatched by a paedophile, but given the rarity of such a crime, I doubt it was near the top of their list.''
That's because you want it to be the case.If a child is considered 'missing' at night they consider abduction.They don't consider another child would be responisble so that leaves adults- paedophiles more often than not.It would be too early to suspect the family at that point.The crime isn't rare enough.Nowhere near enough.
Those painting the area as a haven for paedophiles learnt it off the internet and spread it further on the internet.Sheep do that.They question nothing if it appeals to them.They need to provide evidence of it but that's hard work and less salacious-ergo boring. The McCanns don't need to fly to a church to be close to God.Any church will do apparently if you're religious.How many good memories are in PDL for them and how many heart breaking ones ?
Mitchell loves the camera and lights and we live in arguably the shallowest of times. Too many people obsess over celebrity, trivia , image , and sound bites. It's all short attention spans can retain and all that can catch their attention long enough. Nothing is too tacky and nothing is in bad taste now.There will always be some master of spin behind it all like some vile advertsing executive who has a 6 week diploma in advertising psycholgy.Mitchell is perfect for the job.He's spent years working for politicians and the BBC.Say no more.
Björn14 February 2019 at 22:22
Delete''just a little clarification regarding my post about Gerry’s and Kate’s “mindset”
You should really stop digging when you've realised you're in a hole, bjorn...
''Nobody, who has a normal emotional life uses his power position to rape, murder or expose someone to a dangerous situation. It takes a soulless and emotionless person, who is completely unable to feel remorse in order to commit crimes of such kinds. In other words, it takes a psychopath. ''
See ? Right away I'm stuggling to fit these two together . Looking at them as presented, it's clearly implying that Gerry McCann is a psychopath.Not one for the sweeping statement are you, bjorn ?
I wonder if any of the hospitals Dr McCann has worked for are aware of this psychotic cardioligist. His power and position to rape, murder or expose someone to danger ? Firstly-what power ? Secondly, how was he using it in PDL ? have you any evidence that he is actually a psychopath ? If he has raped, murdered or exposed anyone to danger ?
''Psychopaths don’t establish real emotional relationships with others,..Moreover, they do not really associate with people, instead they control them. .''
I wont ask where you're copying and pasting this from.I'll ask instead : who was Gerry with in PDL ? Kate, the children and..hmmm..oh yes..a group of friends. He travelled abroad with a group of friends so he didn't have to associate with them.And why were the Tapas group operating a half hour check-in on their kids rather than being with them in the apartments ? Yes, because they were all 'associating' in a bar.Probably cooling off after all the day time 'associating' on tennis courts and running ..
'' I still claim that they’ve a lot in common with a person who’s capable of abducting, abusing and hiding his/her victim, as far as their mental state of mind is concerned. ''
That's called guessing or fantasising.Before you can categorially state that someone's a psychopath you have to have the results of more than one long check list that has been administered by a Psychiatrist and several observation -based reports by the same. You're idea of a psychopath is from sevral movies, TV series and documentaries.
''Remember Gerry’s snuffy smile and answer to Sandra Felgueiras just a year after Madeleine had gone missing; “Ask the dogs Sandra”''
A throw away remark and a facial expression.See the difference ?
Psychopathy isn't a psychiatric diagnosis.Recnt studies have illustrated it as a sub category of anti social personality disorder. It's also seen as a spectrum rather than black and white ( as in in the movies). The term has been loosely understood - and used - in fiction and often in the medical world. People throw it around along with 'narcissism' and 'sociopathy'. There are clear distinctions between them all and a tighter grasp of them is needed before you start throwing them around. You also need to understand libel and slander.I won't burden you with a request for proof of any allegations.You never bother with the finer details..
Hi anon/Ziggy14 February 2019 at 23:40 and thanks for comment.
Delete"Yes, because they were all 'associating' in a bar.Probably cooling off after all the day time 'associating' on tennis courts and running .."
Yes, I suppose they all did so, especially after Madeleine allegedly had been abducted.
Was that a retort, bjorn ? You didn't give that much thought either did you.I can see, just by reading your posts at random and your refusal to answer any questions, why you don't learn anything. It's mainly because you're refusing to open your mind. Like jc,you use this blog as a place for personal outlet.Somewhere to drop off your demons on your journey.
DeleteIt was Kate who said most people are intrinsically good, I was quoting her.
DeleteI suppose 'they've taken her' could be construed as denial, if you believe the scenario that was being enacted was genuine. Calling for a priest was too much and not something that can be blamed on Clarence. Kate should have got off her arse and searched for the child, not sat screaming at everyone else to do it.
It is the McCann media monitoring team who have spread the myth that PDL is a haven for paedophiles, all in an effort to steer blame away from the parents. It's obvious and it's pathetic, but some buy into it.
Finally, you sum up by blaming the consumer society etc, but mostly Clarence Mitchell. Now, I'm no fan of Mr. Mitchell, but he wasn't there in the first 48 hours. That frantically busy time when Gerry and Kate and others, were laying the foundations for the abduction story and what responsible parents they were.
It is interesting however that the McCann/Mitchell cosy friendship appears to have disintegrated. It was of course doomed from the start as anyone who has read The Three Little Pigs, or the Big Bad Wolf, could have told them. Relationships built on a myriad of lies never end well.
11:52 and the other Ziggys, may I ask what you use my blog for? You say JC and Bjorn use this blog to drop off demons, so what exactly is it you are doing?
DeleteWhat you Ziggys have in common, is that you all sound so angry. People like JC, Bjorn and myself have no emotional involvement in this case, we are able to discuss it from a detached, logical perspective.
And further, we have nothing invested in this case. Matters not to us, one way or another, how it ends. We would like to see justice, but we are philosophical, not proactive. There is no tubthumping or preaching here. (isn't tubthumping a great word? lol).
I personally use complex subjects as an escape from my demons, that's why I have spent most of my life with my head in a book. This is a book where we haven't yet reached the last page and we can't put it down until we do.
''It is interesting however that the McCann/Mitchell cosy friendship appears to have disintegrated... could have told them. Relationships built on a myriad of lies never end well.''
DeleteVery true. But isn't it more interesting that the government acted so fast because they considered it important that a man they knew could spin like a dervish was needed in a police matter ? Not a political matter and not a matter to be dealt with by Military Intelligence ? They never once looked like friends. Those press announcements in front of microphones and cameras when Clarence took centre stage never looked convincing.It gave the vibe that off- camera a sniper was up a tree with a finger on the trigger naking sure everyone who was meant to stay wuiet did so while the boss spoke for them and they nodded along.Over a missing child ? I don't think so. I wondered then how patient GM would stay.They aren't stupid people. Surely at some point they windered why they had to have someone speak for them in exchange for the funding. Why would a media monitoring team be needed for any police matter here or abroad anyway ? Yes, it's a news story but it's a police investigation not a political powder keg. Or so we're told..
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 February 2019 at 13:01
Delete''11:52 and the other Ziggys, may I ask what you use my blog for? You say JC and Bjorn use this blog to drop off demons, so what exactly is it you are doing?''
Don't worry, I'm not an exorcist, they're safe...
I believe you have sated a few dozen times that the main reason this blog was created was to discuss ' all sides' of the Madeleine McCann case.Yet you dedicate all of what you say to looking at one side; the side that accuses the parents. This, like many blogs who make the same dishonest claim, only discusses several-often ridiculous- ways the McCanns can be painted blacker and blacker. When the other side of the argument is posted it's dismissed. Or you and the regulars try to mock it. Failing that, you insult or try to mock whoever posted it.Yet you still expect to be taken seriously when you cliam it's a 'balanced' blog. Nobody who can read and write believes that.But who says so ? Nobody who enjoys getting stuck into the parents will criticise it as they enjoy themselves. They can't-or won't- take opposing arguments apart or answer questions when asked. What do I use it for ? To try and add balance and deepen and broaden discussion. Syaing the same handful of things about two people for 12 years wears thin fast don't you think ?
''Bjorn and myself have no emotional involvement in this case, we are able to discuss it from a detached, logical perspective''
That's amusing. Unintentionally, I know. But still amusing.Nothing you, bjorn, or jc say suggests 'logical'. It screams 'bias'.
''We would like to see justice, but we are philosophical, not proactive. There is no tubthumping or preaching here. (isn't tubthumping a great word? lol). ''
Philosophical ? Are you deliberately trying to make this coffee choke me...Yes, tubthumping is a great word..and in the case of you and your twin rottweilers, appropriate :)
''I personally use complex subjects as an escape from my demons, that's why I have spent most of my life with my head in a book.''
Good idea. But this case is far less complex than the internet would have us believe.A child disappeared. Police turned up. Politicians hijacked the investigation and turned it into a media circus costing 12 million.But 'the parents did it' lol
'' This is a book where we haven't yet reached the last page and we can't put it down until we do. ''
My previous paragraph just gave you the beginning, middle, and end.The rest you're all writing yourselves..
Now, dry their tears and tell them to behave themselves in future :)
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 February 2019 at 13:01
Delete'' People like JC, Bjorn and myself have no emotional involvement in this case, we are able to discuss it from a detached, logical perspective. ''
Björn14 February 2019 at 22:22
''Nevertheless, without accusing Gerry and Kate of anything, I still claim that they’ve a lot in common with a person who’s capable of abducting, abusing and hiding his/her victim..Nobody, who has a normal emotional life uses his power position to rape, murder or expose someone to a dangerous situation''
jc : Anonymous13 February 2019 at 02:23
''It seems the McCann team will not let go of their twisted version of events ever...How could the McCanns and their cronies not be deeply shocked by the video of forensic dogs ..The narrative of "abduction" must continue in order to whitewash the couple's name and escape prosecution.''
Yes, very 'detached'. Very 'philosophical'.Very Zen, I'd say.
DeleteNow, I'm no fan of Mr. Mitchell, but he wasn't there in the first 48 hours. That frantically busy time when Gerry and Kate and others, were laying the foundations for the abduction story and what responsible parents they were.
And who were the others advising the McCanns in the first 48 hours.
The British Ambassador
Two British Consuls
One pro Consul
The UK Embassy Press Officer to Portugal
At least three Police Officers from Leicestershire
One Police Superintendent from CEOP
One Criminal Psychologist
Are we meant to believe they all turned up out of the goodness of their hearts?
And there are still those who think politics and dodgy policemen do not play a part in this case.
Perhaps Clarence was sent eventually to keep the tribe in line.
Indeed. Thank you for naming those others JJ.
DeleteAmong those others JJ, I was also referring to all those telephone calls on the night Madeleine disappeared. What contacts did these ambitious, betworking, thirty something, professionals call in the UK on the over the night of 3rd/4th May?
Unfortunately for a lot of criminals these days, their 'pings' are picked up by telephone masts and satellites. Even in 2007, people could be placed in a location simply by their phones. There's not been much talk of phones recently, apart from the burner phones David Payne had delivered to the tapas group at the police station.
But there was talk of phones when Operation Grange began. Specifically the pings on the telephone masts in PLD on the night of 3rd May. Gerry, Kate and all the tapas group admit that they spent the night calling the UK. Now I don't know if they had to hand their mobile phones over, but it is claimed, I'm not sure by who, that Gerry and Kate had deleted calls and texts from their phones. I don't know if this is true or not, but I would imagine Operation Grange have had the power to get hold of the telephone records, even the PJ have not.
So who were they calling? Their friends and family obviously, setting off a chain reaction, who were the friends and family calling? David Payne managed to get burner phones delivered to them at the police station the next day. That was quite a result. Who has that kind of contact on their phone?
Gerry and Kate are pretty assertive characters, which is why it is strange that they did not take over the search, or even take part in it. Whatever they were getting done on the phones, was to help themselves.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 February 2019 at 20:18
Delete''You have proved my point 15:21 because such atrocities are so rare, you can name the victims.''
What kind of mentality is that ? If there's 20,000 drug addicts prosecuted for stealing and there's one child abducted on the same day, which is the worst crime ? There may well be only a few thousand children abducted or killed every couple of years but it happens. It may well be too small statistically to make a mark on a graph but you should never be so dismissive of that number or try to minimalise the horror of it. Why you minimalise the horror of it is because it raises a possiility of that having happened to Madeleine. That would mean that the parents are innocent and you can't have that can you ? You don't like the idea of that being considered. It's so important to you that the parents are the only suspects that you're prepared to dismiss the crimes against children elsewhere.That's far more than an interest in the case.
What kind of mentality is that? It's applied logic. And where are you getting 'only a few thousand children abducted or killed ever couple of years'. A few thousand? Are you nuts. Take a look at Wiki's list of abductions and kidnappings, and you will how rare the crime is. On disappearing abroad, we know of only two, Ben Needham and Madeleine McCann. Sticking to the facts is not minimising the horror of the crime, where do you get that from? We remember these children because we were all affected by these crimes emotionally, myself included. We would be desensitized if it were a regular occurrence.
DeleteYou are the one playing around with statistics to make it appear children are always being taken from their beds and that simply isn't true. There was a lot of fear mongering going on after Madeleine's disappearance, and a lot of people benefitting from the fear it created. At one point they were putting terrifying Madeleine adverts on during childrens' films at the local cinemas!
I have got so much contempt for those who falsely spread fear, you may regret you brought this subject up.
you use wiki as a source ? lol
Delete''I have got so much contempt for those who falsely spread fear, you may regret you brought this subject up. ''
DeleteShall we change the subject to the section of society you prefer to champion as 'misunderstood' ? And what you call 'art' ?
'you use wiki as a source? lol'
DeleteYes I do, all the time actually. Google too. Everyone does. I am actually old enough to remember searching through the reference section of the local library and using more than one book to check and counter check facts. Now all the facts I search for are available at one or two clicks, so why wouldn't I use them.
So what superior sources do you use? Or do you just not look anything up?
Anyway, for your convenience, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kidnappings#2000–2009. You will see there are only 9 listings, worldwide, for children being abducted, and one of those is Shannon Matthews.
Those claiming thousands of children are stolen every year are putting up false flags, just as Trump is doing with his wall, by claiming thousands are trying to invade the US Southern border.
And by the way, I trust Wiki more than I trust those child protection experts, fear mongers and vigilantes who are obsessed with sexual abuse, but couldn't give two hoots about violent abuse, which is far more prevalent. Young parents have enough to worry about, without the government telling them their children are at constant risk of being stolen from their beds.
Really 22:32, you want to get back to your favourite subject, child sexual abuse? You want to tell us that abusers are all around us pretending to be normal people? You want to project all your fears onto a wider audience?
DeleteYou should steer clear of the whole area of art though, last time you made yourself look like a complete oik.
I would be most interested in, and grateful for, comments on the logic of my 11 February 2019 at 13:54 post. Can anyone point out a factual error? I would be very happy to stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that Eddie had alerted to a blood odour where Keela didn’t?
Many thanks.
Winnie-the-Pooh
why on earth would the police want to leave a child predator on the loose? They were searching for a little girl, not yet 4, they were probably parents, grandparents etc, themselves
ReplyDeleteThey were doing everything in their power to find Madeleine
Ros
You must stop conflating the actions of the UK police and the PJ.
The PJ were indeed trying to find Madeleine but it is a matter of public record on Sun 6 May when given information regarding a possible predator the Leics Police in PDL failed to act and showed no urgency whatsoever to ascertain the fate of MM.
There are many examples of the UK police hampering this investigation whether by accident or design.
It is insulting to the PJ officers equating their efforts to that of the initial UK response
Apologies JJ, I thought it was clear I was talking about the Portuguese police, I was referring to the account of the investigation by Goncalo Amaral, and the way in which the Portuguese police were abused by the British press.
ReplyDeleteWhat the police British were up to, we are pretty much in the dark. GA says that when the British arrived, they were wearing the yellow Good Quality Wristbands, but they had removed them by the time they had left.
British police in this instance JJ, seems to mean several police agencies. Mark Harrison, who brought in the dogs, was assigned to the case by Leicester police. I'm not sure who the profiler for CEOP was, but it was clear they held opposing views.
Around the time of Brenda Leyland's death, Jim Gamble was promoting the Summers and Swan book, part another account of Madeleine's disappearance on behalf of the parents, and part an attack on the anti McCann trolls and unsavoury characters such as Bennett. At the time Jim Gamble said there was jostling for position between several police agencies. I can't remember his exact words, but they were along those lines.
As for Leicester police. Yes they were advertising the Madeleine Fund on their website. Yes they seemed a little too accommodating for the McCanns, but they stood up to them when they demanded they hand over their files to the family and their detectives. There is a famous line somewhere from Leicester police on the matter saying basically that neither parent had been cleared. The McCanns and their investigators did not get the files.
CEOP very much wanted this to be a cyber crime of some sort, a little hard to manipulate as the victim was only 4, but it was an ideal time to point out that the web was full of bogeymen and perverts plotting to kidnap children.
I can't say I have studied the whole (British) police interference in any great depth JJ, but it is clear Leicester Police and CEOP were not in agreement.
Finally, if you re-read my original post, you will see it is quite clear that I am talking about the Portuguese Police. One sentence includes the words 'the Portuguese police.....' and you have omitted the name Goncalo Amaral from the list you have copied and pasted, to support some perceived insult, why?
Would that be the same police who were 'selling' so called leaks in exchange for free food and drink from our lovely UK press pigs ?
DeleteThe PJ had one major case of similar profile a couple of years earlier and they made a right dog's breakfast of it that resulted in suspensions for 2 detectives and Amaral being found guilty of falsefying evidence.And even then it was only 'solved' due to a confession and they still didn't find a body. They were'nt trustworthy.You don't need to 'study' any frther to understand why they weren't viewed as a good prospect. It seems they were right to think it.
Ros
DeleteMy sincere apology. I accept you were talking about the PJ. ....Too many distractions at the time of writing!
I think we have a basic different point of view. There were so many dishonest actions by the UK Police in the first week, compounded by idiot politicians, the investigation was screwed never to recover.
There is plenty of hard evidence individuals on the UK side have hindered the investigation whenever they could.
Nobody would put their hand up and accept their responsibility and pass the parcel commenced.
The British police and Embassy knew beyond doubt by the time of the Gold group creation the McCanns would have to be protected in order to save the reputation of senior politicians and policemen.
The fate of Madeleine has always been an incidental side line to the UK side.
There is no great conspiracy, it is individuals in the establishment ensuring no shit sticks to them, by kicking the can down the road, to the next mug.
Nobody makes a decision, a lot like Brexit!
Study the antics of the Leicestershire police and you will know there will be no prosecutions of anybody for anything.
Dear anonymous at 19;39,
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of people who read this blog you first have to say something coherent.
A person like yourself could easily move out of the kindergarten stage of writing by enrolling in the next available ESl class down the street.
jc
Anonymous14 February 2019 at 05:44
Delete''A person like yourself could easily move out of the kindergarten stage of writing by enrolling in the next available ESl class down the street.''
Is that a really clever way of trying to call me a name ( ''you're an infant etc'') ? Wow. That's progress (for you) , jc.
How about you forget your new career as a stand up comedian and address some quaetions direted at you for once. You are yet to answer a s much as one on this or any other thread you ruin with your sickening interruptions.That tends to suggest that you have no real arguments at all and that, as i said on a previous post, you use this blog for some kind of twisted outlet.Stop preaching and start supporting your nonsense and answering basic questions that are put your way.Otherwise you run the risk of appearing exactly as I have described here.Do you really want that ? Time to get smart and save face old chap. And, i might add, you should show Ros some respect. You know her simple motto yet you even modify that . KISS does NOT stand for 'Keep it stupid, simple'
@ 05:44
ReplyDeleteGood morning, jc
Something coherent: “Anonymous 13 February 2019 at 19:39 : Dear jc … You are incapable of debate.You are incapable of answering questions…”
Your open challenge ( http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/02/politics-and-madeleine-mccann.html?showComment=1549772920861#c8266387010527436917 ): “…please start by explaining to me just one aspect of this case - the finding of blood and dead body odor (sic) by trained forensic (sic) tracker (sic) dogs…”
My initial answer to your challenge: http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/02/politics-and-madeleine-mccann.html?showComment=1549893259420#c7570275449929417021
Do you see any errors in my initial answer?
Thank you.
Winnie –the-Pooh
I'd give up, dubya tee pee...
DeleteJc doesn't do 'backing up'..he just does ranting..he's too dim..
Interesting that earlier in this post Ros, you should talk about the rarity of child abduction or murder.
ReplyDeleteI've always found it unsettling that Madeleine and Joana Cipriano both vanished without trace within 7 miles and less than three years of each other. Normal police investigations would have looked for connections between both events but, because Joana's mother and uncle had already been convicted, albeit after the mother had recanted a confession made under extreme duress and physical abuse, and the lack of a body, no such investigations took place. Indeed it would have been extremely embarassing for GA, who led both investigations, if people would have begun questioning whether perhaps one person was responsible for both disappearances. It could have meant that GA had got it wrong in the Cipriano case. Furthermore, at the time of Madeleine's disappearance he was under police investigation for having falsified police documents in the Cipriano case and his team for using violence to obtain the mother's confession.
Do you really think it is a good idea to compare Madeleine to Joana Cipriano? Joana was an abused child, she was on the At Risk Register. Her mother and uncle were monsters, not only did they kill the poor child, they dismembered her. That the McCanns aided and assisted the mother by providing her with a dodgy lawyer, is yet another example of their appalling choices. And for lying the mother received further time added onto her sentence.
DeleteGA did not get it wrong in the Cipriano case, that evil woman is exactly where she should be, despite the McCanns' interference.
''I've always found it unsettling that Madeleine and Joana Cipriano both vanished without trace within 7 miles and less than three years of each other. Normal police investigations would have looked for connections between both events''
DeleteSome say 7, some say 15.Some say miles, some say kilometres.It depends on the intention of whoever's reporting.But I see your point.I also believe that the former crime did have an effect on the latter. Especially where Amaral was concerned.
The litle girl in the former case was away from her home.She was never seen again.Her body was never found.Blood was apparently discovered at her mother's home.The boyfriend/brother of the mother confessed to killing her, putting her in bags, freezing her then disposing of her.We only have the word of the mother and boyfriend /brother for those details.But these animals only ever open their mouth to let some lies out.
The mother accused Amaral and Co of beating a confession out of her.That was a lie.She thrw herself down the stairs.The confession had already been made 4 days earlier by the boyfriend.She lied about who she called when the child was missing too. She and her ex partner tried to use the story of the beating to get her off the hook and get some compensation. A handful of detectives were suspended and the case- and the case of the accused detectives- were headline news for a long time. The lies about being beaten were exposed.Amaral was found guilty of falsifying documents but it didn't carry a jail sentence.
It would appear that the whole ugly story has some 'stand- outs' ..
The guardian's lying about the child and her fate.The blood being found.The parents criticising the police.The body never being found.The story of the body being put in bags and a freezer ( then, later, disposed of).The utilising of the police dogs.Amaral and the team having to suffer rumour and innuendo.
That would have left it's mark on the PJ. They wouldn't be human otherwise.It certainly would have left a mark on Amaral and, without doubt, left him exhausted and angry. When the Madeleine event occurred, Amaral was yet to know his fate in the courts. However, not long after the investigation had begun, he was talking about the parents being liars.He was talking about blood being found. He was talking about the child being stored in a freezer then later disposed of.He was complaining about the anger and hostility shown towards him and his team. I think it's clear that the former case , and what came with it, had taken it's toll on Amaral and his team, and with the media circus already beginning, it was a dangerous time for the credibility of the PJ and Amaral in particular.His court case was imminent and it was clear he was going to lose. His superiors must have anticiapted the negative effect this would have on Amaral's integrity and that of the PJ. Imagine him walking out of court a guilty man in the middle of investigating another missing child case in which he was accusing the parents of lying ? I think this is why the PJ wanted him off the case.They didn't need the spotlight on them for that.
The case wasn't diffcult. They confessed. It would have been better if the PJ would have pressed to find where the body had ended up so the poor child could at least have had a funerla of sorts.But they were happy to just take the confession even though it came from a pair of animals who couldn't tell the tuth to save their lives.
DeleteLeanor Cipriano was given an additional 7 months added on to her sentence for lying about her torture. It's mot mentioned in the article below but as far as I can remember she was beaten up by the women in the prison for what she'd done to Joana:
Deletehttp://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2013/04/leonor-cipriano-sentenced-for-lying.html
She is now out of jail on parole having served most of her 17 year sentence:
http://theportugalnews.com/news/leonor-cipriano-released-on-parole/48328
Interesting post 12:22, especially the suggestion that the Joana Cipriano case was behind Goncalo Amaral's removal from the Madeleine investigation. Not something I have heard before.
DeleteHowever, iirc, the case against Leanor Cipriano and her brother was straight forward, they confessed. Leonor was then contacted by a lawyer in the pay of the McCanns, who's name I can't remember at the moment, who persuaded her to recant her confession and accuse Goncalo Amaral of police brutality. All lies as we know, she had her sentence increased, and the lawyer took off to Brazil. Can anyone remember his name, it's bugging me.
Any controversy over Goncalo Amaral investigating the Madeleine case, was in effect, stirred up by the McCanns, and for good reason. They wanted GA off the case.
Ros 15 Feb 13.24
DeleteIt was Marcos Aragao Correia.
See my post directly above yours at 12.45, the first link. It tells you all you need to know about him.
But any controversy about Amaral was avoided by removing him from the media spotlight before he was found guilty in court.Can't blame the McCanns for that.It related to a crime committed before Madeleine was born.
DeleteRosalinda @13:24
Delete"Can anyone remember his name, it's bugging me."
Marcos Aragão Correia
W-t-P
@14:09
DeleteInteresting, Mon Seigneur.
Don’t kick me please, I’ve just posted the lawyer’s name before reading you post. Don’t kick me please.
W-t-P
Many thanks for the name. He's the one!
DeleteApologies for not looking at the link. I am still unable to c/p links, which is vexing, for everyone I am sure.
I'm well aware that Joana was a neglected child but that doesn't make her mother and uncle killers.
ReplyDeleteAs for killing and dismemberment, those are the assumptions of the police based on forced confessions, one of which was immediately recanted. Imagine the outcry if this had happened in the UK and convictions were based on confessions made after violent interrogations over a number of days (including the suspects being made to sit on glass ashtrays while been questioned), without any access to legal aid. There would have been an outcry over police brutality and the miscarriage of justice. Unless. of course Ros, you believe that this form of police behaviour is acceptable in a civilised society.
'………..that doesn't make her mother and uncles killers', err, their admitting they killed her does.
DeleteAssumptions based on forced confessions. Oh do behave. You are trying to portray the PJ as a backward, third world police force, who beat up suspects. When actually 13:23, police in Portugal are educated to degree level, Goncalo Amaral is quite entitled to call himself Doctor. Actually the difference in education between GA and Gerry and Kate is a cavernous. Gerry and Kate may know about the body, but they don't anything about the mind.
You know nothing at all about the Joana Cipriano case if you believe those monsters are innocent and linking Madeleine to Joana, is yet another example of your gross stupidity.
So are you saying that it's OK to beat confessions out of suspects and deny them access to legal aid?
DeleteThe fact is that GA was convicted of falsifying evidence and, furthermore, he lost his appeal. The three of his officers who were accused of torture were acquited because Joana's mother was unable to identify them - because she claims, of the bag that had been put over her head. Of course you could believe that she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself down the stairs, as was claimed by the PJ.
LOL, you can't claim I have said something by omission! Nowhere in my post do I say it is OK to beat confessions out of suspects etc. That comes directly from your own deranged little head.
DeleteTell me 19:47, would you defend, say, Ian Huntley, quite so passionately? Because on the evil scale Joana's mother and uncle are right alongside him.
I don't believe anything that comes from the side of Leonor Cipriano, not just because she is evil personified, but because of the interference of the McCann paid lawyer in her case.
May i interject, Bella ?
DeleteI think it would be easier if you both acknowledged ( in especially the poster to whom you're replying ) that the alleged beating was a lie.It didn't happen.The confession was by the male ( boyfriend / brother thing) and it was made voluntarily days before the mother threw herself down some steps in an attempt to A- claim she had confessed because she was being beaten and B- get financial compensation. Obviously, the photographs of her bruised face made it appear that it had happened. But as we now know- it just didn't.It was outrageous. Even in the old days when policemen were allowed to give you a slap or two they didn't go for the face for obvious reasons.Also, i don't think anyone has - or is- claiming the crazy bastard was trying to commit suicide.
"You are trying to portray the PJ as a backward, third world police force, who beat up suspects."
ReplyDeleteIn this case, with GA at the helm, they did. Do you condone that?
Who was charged with,and found guilty of, administering that beating ?
Delete'Some of the most senior clerics in the Roman Catholic church who have vociferously attacked homosexuality are themselves gay, according to a book to be published next week.
ReplyDeleteEighty per cent of priests working at the Vatican are gay, although not necessarily sexually active, it is claimed in the book, In the Closet of the Vatican.
The 570-page book, which the French journalist and author Frédéric Martel spent four years researching, is a “startling account of corruption and hypocrisy at the heart of the Vatican”, according to its British publisher Bloomsbury.
It is being published in eight languages across 20 countries next Wednesday, coinciding with the opening day of a conference at the Vatican on sexual abuse, to which bishops from all over the world have been summoned.'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/12/four-in-five-vatican-priests-are-gay-book-claims
Thank you for that interesting post 22:31.
DeleteI can't say I'm surprised. I have always been baffled by the religious fervour that possesses those who take Holy Orders. Vowing to live a life of chastity when your hormones are rampant, is bizarre. I just don't get it, never have. Looking back at my days in the convent, all the violence and anger exhibited by the nuns was probably a form of sexual frustration.
"I don't believe anything that comes from the side of Leonor Cipriano, not just because she is evil personified, but because of the interference of the McCann paid lawyer in her case."
ReplyDeleteSurely you as an expert inpsychology would be aware that anyone subjected to three days brutal interrogation without legal presence, as the mother and uncle were, would be likely to confess to anything they were asked to confess to. I'm not saying that they are innocent. but there must be doubt.
GA and his team had four different theories as to what happened to Joana over just two months. Taking into account the Madeleine case, GA seems to be a policeman who makes up his mind who the perpetrator is and then searches for a scenario that fits even though their may be no evidence of that scenario.
There is no room for doubt 22:48, Joana was killed by her mother and uncle, both confessed and traces of blood were found within the home, specifically the kitchen where the poor child was dismembered.
ReplyDeleteYou want them to be innocent, and Goncalo Amaral guilty of framing them, but all your efforts are futile, the full story is out, including the interference in Joana's case by Team McCann.
You are fighting to prove there is a non existent child predator in Portugal and you think you can do this by linking Madeleine to Joana. Shame on you. It is low and it is underhand, but it is typical of the way the McCanns and their supporters have behaved throughout.
"traces of blood were found within the home". Well that seals it!! I'm pretty sure that forensics would find traces of your blood in your home too. But what about the semen traces on Joana's clothes and bedsheets that the PJ found no match for?
DeleteThe police accepted the story that the child had caught them In flagrante delicto, that is, about to commit a rather sordid sexual act together. So they had to silnce her.Nothing about that information rings tue. But they took their word as it was a confession and it needed fleshing out. The psychological profile of the 2 creatures who caused the death of that child wouldn't take long to build.The family history would be the same.And it doesn't add up to a sudden attack and murder because they had been caught on a sofa about to have sex- about to being the key part of the phrase.What that child's last weeks were about doesn't bear thinking about.It was a poor investigation at best.And that either of the culprits are allowed to walk the streets again is beyoond contemptable.
DeletePart 1 - In 2008, Statewatch, published their report their report on the torture of Leoner's interrogation. Here are some extracts: -
ReplyDelete"Leonor Cipriano's account
After accepting to meet Correia, Cipriano denied having played any part in the death of her daughter Joana, who disappeared on the evening of 12 September 2004 after she went out to buy some groceries for her mother in a nearby shop in Figueira, near Portimão, as she often did. Upon seeing that her daughter was taking longer than expected, she went to the shop and was told that Joana had been there, but had already left with a few groceries, after which the Guarda Nacional Republicana was called. On 25 September, Leonor Cipriano was placed in preventive detention in Odemira prison, and was taken by judicial police officers to their offices in Faro on the next day. She was upset by the allegations made against her (that she had killed Joana, cut her up and fed her remains to pigs), which she rejected. Meanwhile, and in the absence of any evidence, the five officers involved became aggressive, shouted and unsuccessfully tried to convince her to confess, after which the torture began. Two glass ashtrays were placed on the floor, and Leonor was forced to kneel on them, without being allowed to get up until she confessed. She showed Correia the scars on her knees, still visible four years later. She was then sat on a chair with a green plastic shopping bag over her head, and officers started striking her on the head with a cardboard tube, causing her haemorrhages resulting in blood descending to her eyes, and her hands were struck when she tried to take the bag off her head. She was told that she would not get out of there until she confessed, and was made to stand, sometimes with the bag on her head and sometimes without it, and punched and kicked on the side of her ribs, repeatedly.
The torture lasted for two days, after which she signed a confession, and she was then returned to prison, where her serious conditions led to her being taken to Odemira health centre. She was told by judicial police officers to tell the doctor that she had thrown herself down a flight of stairs in the Faro judicial police headquarters in a suicide attempt, threatening that if she spoke of any aggression, she would be interrogated again and would not survive. Cipriano said she did as they demanded in their presence, but told the prison officers and director of the prison what had happened once they left. The director ordered photographs to be taken of her, and for a legal-medical report to be drawn up as a result of her poor conditions. Leonor Cipriano's brother João was also reportedly tortured and found guilty of the murder, although the prison to which he was taken did not run the same checks to determine whether he had been subjected to an aggression. After they were both found guilty, he wrote to his sister to apologise for the lies he had been forced to tell about her. When Leonor was invited to identify her aggressors by an investigating magistrate in Évora in 2006, she was only able to identify one official who was present and did nothing to prevent the abuses, possibly because she had had a bag over her head for long periods, or due to the time that had passed, or because not all her torturers were among the six officers placed before her."
Part 2 - Statewatch report
ReplyDelete"The prison director
Correia then spoke to Odemira prison director Ana Maria Calado, who confirmed Leonor Cipriano's account, noting how shocked she was about her conditions, with black marks, haematomae and bruising in her face, mainly around her eyes, her head and ribs, mainly on her sides. She assured that the physical marks clearly indicated a violent aggression and not a fall down some stairs, something the legal-medical report also confirmed. She noted that Cipriano's conditions worsened a week after she was tortured, as the blood that had gathered at the height of her brows was so much that it ended up falling over her eyes, leaving her practically blind for almost a month, and the director regrets not having ordered photographs of this period to be taken. She also said that relations between Cipriano and the prison guards and other prisoners were good, and that she did not believe that she had attempted suicide.
Calado expressed her surprise for a number of facts: a) that the judicial police did not take Cipriano to a health centre in Faro to certify that she had fallen down some stairs; b) that the day of her interrogation was chosen during Calado's week of holidays, when she would never have allowed her to be picked up at 6 a.m. without a formal request by the judicial police; and c) that judicial police officers who arrived from Lisbon to investigate the allegations of torture proposed sharing the blame between the judicial police and prison, something she refused. Correia praised the director, describing her as "courageous" and as prizing "values" more highly than "corporate interests".
Conclusion
The report concludes that the testimony of Leonor Cipriano and of the prison director, as well as other available evidence, are convincing in terms of proving that a crime of torture was committed by officers of the Portuguese judicial police. It condemns the use of "medieval methods" to "extract confessions at all cost, even if they are false", as "inadmissible" and as harmful for Portugal's image as an EU member that defends human rights and has a modern legal order and, as such, argues that these practices must be punished in "exemplary" fashion, or the Portuguese citizenry will lose faith in the judicial system.
The report ends with a message from Leonor Cipriano, who was treated as a monster as a result of the horrible nature of the crime she was accused and found guilty of committing:
"I hope that my daughter Joana appears, not only to be with her again, but also to show the world that it was the gentlemen officers of the judicial police who tortured me and who are the real monsters".
The whole report can be found at: - http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/may/02portugal-report.htm
to 11:14
ReplyDeleteThis report was made by Marcos Aragão Correio, the lawyer that the McCanns paid for through Metodo 3, the Spanish detective agency. So much for veracity. Leonor was convicted of perjury so we can take it that she lies. As for the prison director, her testimony was full of contradictions and it is believed that the digital photo of Leonor's injuries could have easily been manipulated.
Your previous comments show that you do not know how a criminal investigation is carried out in Portugal. The PJ is under the authority of the judges and their is no lead investigator who makes all of the decisions. Furthermore, GA was a coordinator not an investigator, much less a lead investigator. The head of the hierarchy in this case was Guilhermino da Encarnação in Faro.
I can't help but think that your comments reflect the arguments that the McCanns would use in the case of any extradiction request made by the Portuguese authorities.
Carolina
Thank you Carolina for your very eloquent rebuttal of the nonsense that Goncalo Amaral framed Leonor Cipriani. Sadly some (McCann supporters)might take those statements to be truthful, when we know they are not due to Leonor Cipriani had her sentence increased for lying.
ReplyDeleteFinally, very astute of you to point out that these arguments will probably be used in the event of any extradition request by the Portuguese. It is however, a very weak hand, filled with flaws. Firstly there is the abject horror that anyone could support that evil mother who killed and dismembered her own child. And secondly, comparing Kate to Leonor Cipriano doesn't do her any favours at all.
It's safe to say that the animals behind the crime confessed and then tried their hand in desperation but failed.There's no need to take any of it to shape into some flimsy anti- McCanns stupidness. Amaral was only found guilty of falsifying documents. What that entailed isn't clear.But a document is either a piece of paper with writing on it or an online file with typed writing on it.With the confessions in the bag the case became easy,So it begs the question of why Amaral felt the need to start changing things on paper and breaking the law and risking his job if no facts needed to be 'edited' or added. Imagine if he would have been left in charge of the McCann investigation. Found guilty of what amounts to forgery / attempting to pervert the course of justice - just as the McCann case had become global. So, he was moved pretty sharpish. We know what he did next.It involved paper and words again.Words that damned people and accused them but can't be substantiated by evidence or proof to this day.So I think it's clear why his bosses felt the need to ask him to jump before he was pushed. What isn't so clear is why th rank and file who wear their 'anti' badges with pride choose to hold up Amaral as their leader and why they choose to laud him to the rafters when his two biggest cases are the former case , which led to him being removed and found guilty of falsifying evidence, and the latter case which prompted him to call the parents of the missing child liars and accusing them of doing to their child what the parents had done in the former. That is, hiding her in a freezer then disposing of her.Wonder where he got that idea from ? It certainly wasn't from any evidence or the case would have been over years ago.But, the antis swear he speaks the truth.Which means all the other detectives must be lying. But they don't like to talk about that.
DeleteThey have one target- the family McCann. They have one weapon- Amaral's 'word'. The rest is all about inventing scenarios and reality testing them with fellow fantasists.Now that's something 'you couldn't make up' ...
Good heavens 19:05, you are so determined to caste Goncalo Amaral as the villain, you are revealing to the world (well my readers anyway), the desperate attempts the McCanns made to interfere in the Leonor Cipriano case. Bear in mind it is only the McCanns (who also claim to have had a child abducted) who are supporting this monster!
DeleteThere is no anti rank and file who wear 'anti' badges etc, your imagination is truly running away with you there. There are, admittedly, thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, online who do not believe the McCanns abduction story, each for their own reasons, and in each in their own way. True there have been some who have tried to stir up the masses, but they failed, miserably.
As for holding Amaral up as a leader to laud, lol, again you are revealing your own inner fears. Many do admire GA as a hero, myself included, but unlike the McCanns he has never started a cult or tried to build up a base to support him. What you hate is that you lost to him, not only in Portugal's highest Court but also in the court of public opinion.
Finally you are totally deluded if you think the 'word' of Goncalo Amaral is the McCanns' only problem. They have masses of evidence against them and 12 years on there is still no abductor. I don't think anyone believes them very more, that's certainly what I'm hearing from people who use other social media.
"They have masses of evidence against them"
DeleteReally Ros? Gossip and rumour don't count as evidence, you know.
So depserate to do what ? Amaral was put on trial and found guilty . It related to a crime committed before Madeleine McCann was born. That's an actual fact. Nobody needs to add anything more. But it's red rag to a bull isn't it ( facts). It's OK to broadcast guesses and accusations that come from Amaral which he has never been able to support in 12 years, but for godsake don't mention his tampering with documents in a child murder case because it's actually been proven to be true in a court. Let's be 'balanced' and try and somehow bring the McCanns in to blame. It was all their fault, obviously.
DeleteThis blog and others like it which are promoting the myth that the McCanns are guilty of all kinds have many a contributor stating their pride and their hatred of the parents in equal measure. They duck away from requests for evidence or reasons why the police can't see what they see. It scares them and spoils their game. They take themselves seriously and seek out echoes all over the internet.
''As for holding Amaral up as a leader to laud, lol, again you are revealing your own inner fears. Many do admire GA as a hero, myself included,''
The trademark 'lol' followed by actually agreeing with me...
We have a different view of what constitutes heroism. I suppose we should hand it over to the dictionary to decide :
Hero :'' A person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.''
Then there's...
Fraud : '' a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham''
As I see it ( from actual facts), Amaral was in a responsible position and swore an oath. But, during the execution of his duties and during the investigation into a child's death, he was charged by his own people with tampering with documents and found guilty in a court of law. And this while he was the co-ordinator of the investigative team. He brought his force and team under suspicion and their integrity never fully recovered.Following that he was removed from an investigation into another missing child but not before he went on the 'www' to call the parents liars and accuse them of burying their child and receiving protection from MI5. Hero ?
''What you hate is that you lost to him, not only in Portugal's highest Court but also in the court of public opinion.''
Me ? How could I lose to him ? For the record, I couldn't envisage losing to a fool like him in any way whatsoever. You take this case as personal and so do a few other unfortunates. I'm impervious to such online contagions. If there ever was- by some miracle- a charge and a guilty verdict at the end of this case, I'd be pleased whoever it was.
''Finally you are totally deluded if you think the 'word' of Goncalo Amaral is the McCanns' only problem.''
I agree-which is probably why i didn't say it was. His word has become the online tribes war cry, that's all.The McCanns have problems bigger than that. They lost their child and it looks like no closure will come.
''They have masses of evidence against them....that's certainly what I'm hearing from people who use other social media.''
Oh really. So the tribe has gone digital. Vigilante.com lol It's still a tribe. What do they 'know' that the detectives of 12 years don't know ? Why don't they give their 'masses of evidence '' to them ? Could it be because they don't actually have anything but masses of guesses and gossip ? Why not use it ? If you're so convinced of the guilt of the people and so concerned about justice, do something about it in the real world. The social media platforms are full of idiots.How else do you think Trump got into power...
''What you hate is that you lost to him, not only in Portugal's highest Court but also in the court of public opinion''
DeleteOh yes, the trial of the century over his little book. Wow - a trial over publishing. Compare that to an actual criminal trial in which he was found guilty of tryin to doctor evidence in files concerning a child's murder whose body was never found.Quite the hero.
It should also be pointed out that Leonor and João Cipriano lost all of their appeals. So I suspect that there was more than the confessions as evidence against them.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore the PJ officers who were brought in from Lisbon were asked to get the Ciprianos to tell them where Joana's body was since they both had already confessed. I remember seeing on the TV the GNR digging in several different places where João told them the body was buried. Like your usual psychopath he was taunting the police.
It is absolutely beyond my comprehension that anyone could defend that woman. Anyway she is out of prison on parole and is living in Évora with her female companion whom she met in prison.
Carolina
Nobody is defending her. She was guilty of committing a crime. Why should anyone defend anyone found guilty of a crime ? They shouldn't. Why make an exception for the man determined to paint the McCanns black and accuse them of all kinds without proving it. Oh, wait, I think I get that now..all is forgiven as long as he keeps doing that..he is beyond all criticism because he hates two people who lost a child. Lovely.
Delete"So much for veracity. Leonor was convicted of perjury so we can take it that she lies. As for the prison director, her testimony was full of contradictions and it is believed that the digital photo of Leonor's injuries could have easily been manipulated."
ReplyDeleteIn its summing up, the court gave as proven the aggressions made against her. The problem was that she was unable to identify the attackers she had claimed were responsible.
She confessed after two days of violent and intimidating interrogation without recourse to a lawyer. If you think that that is acceptable then so be it. I believe that it is an infringment of basic human rights.
False confessions made under such duress are common. Would the UK, US or other courts have allowed those confessions to be used in evidence? Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states hostile and aggressive questioning would make a confession unreliable.
Ros, the dismemberment of a body in a kitchen would have left more than just traces of blood. The other villagers had put forward the name of the other uncle as being the likely suspect.
Leonor has been released and she still claims her innocence.
To 19:05
ReplyDeleteYou either have no idea what really happened or you are so blinded by your hatred of Gonçalo Amaral that you write anything.
Gonçalo Amaral was not convicted of falsifying evidence, as you seem to suggest that he changed and falsified the evidence in the case of Joana's disappearance. He was convicted of giving a false statement, which means he allegedly lied when he told the police what happened in Faro police station where Leonor was supposed to have been beaten up. Since he was in his office and did not see anything He only repeated what his colleagues told him when questioned. If his colleagues had been acquitted it is strange that he had been found guilty, but that is another story.
To clarify, blood was found in the freezer part of the refrigerator and a lot of blood was visible on the floor of the house, despite the efforts of Leonor and João to clean it. Their excuse was that the blood came from ticks! Also blood was found on a door frame.
I will repeat it once again. Gonçalo Amaral did not lead the investigation. Evidence was gathered by the PJ under the authority of the judges, it is then handed over to the Ministério Público who then decide whether to try the suspects or not. Since Leonor and João went to trial, it is obvious that the MP believed there was enough evidence. GA did not investigate them, charge them or make them arguidos or take them to court and convict them. The procedures of the justice system were respected and the Ciprianos were able, in accordance with the laws, to appeal to the higher instances, which they did and they lost. Also, 7 months was added to her sentence when she was convicted of perjury.
To imply that Gonçalo Amaral tampered with evidence in the case of Joana's disappearance is a very serious allegation and is totally false.
Carolina
Anonymous16 February 2019 at 20:45
DeleteTo 19:05
''You either have no idea what really happened or you are so blinded by your hatred of Gonçalo Amaral that you write anything.''
I know Amaral was the co-ordinating detective of the case and he abused his position and broke the law.I know that damaged his and his teams repuation and cast doubts on their abilities and integrity. And I know people will forgive it all because it was Amaral who is the most famous 'anti' on the planet.He's the pied piper of lunatics.
''Gonçalo Amaral was not convicted of falsifying evidence,.. He was convicted of giving a false statement, which means he allegedly lied when he told the police what happened''
All that goes in the case files so it amounts to falsifying evidence and perverting the course of justice.It's usually guilty suspects who do that, not the police
''He only repeated what his colleagues told him''
So they were liars too. But anyone criticising this little mob is attacked online because the McCanns persuaded them to attack them.It wasn't their dishonesty or bad reputation ?
''To imply that Gonçalo Amaral tampered with evidence in the case of Joana's disappearance is a very serious allegation and is totally false.''
Nobody implied it.They actually charged him. Unfortunately for you, you were neither the jury nor judge.
"I will repeat it once again. Gonçalo Amaral did not lead the investigation. Evidence was gathered by the PJ under the authority of the judges, it is then handed over to the Ministério Público who then decide whether to try the suspects or not. Since Leonor and João went to trial, it is obvious that the MP believed there was enough evidence. GA did not investigate them, charge them or make them arguidos or take them to court and convict them. The procedures of the justice system were respected and the Ciprianos were able, in accordance with the laws, to appeal to the higher instances, which they did and they lost. Also, 7 months was added to her sentence when she was convicted of perjury."
ReplyDeleteThey were charged and convicted on the basis of their confessions. GA led the interrogations.
GA was convicted for lying that Leonor had fallen down the stairs
''GA was convicted for lying that Leonor had fallen down the stairs''
DeleteHe was the co-ordinating detective and he lied. OK.That's a man of honour for you, placing himself and his team injeopardy.He should have said he was exercising his right to free speech.Oh no wait...that's if he puts it in a book isn't it. Thing was..he lied..and the best way to catch a liar is to demand he proves he isn't lying.Not something Amaral does often..
You are so blinded by your hate for Gonçalo Amaral and your l8ove for The McCanns that you make up things. He was a coordinator and coordinators do not carry out interrogations, despite what you say.
ReplyDeleteCarolina
"He was a coordinator and coordinators do not carry out interrogations, despite what you say."
DeleteOK, he was the coordinator of the interrogations.
"You are so blinded by your hate for Gonçalo Amaral and your l8ove for The McCanns that you make up things"
DeleteHate? Because I raise legitmate concerns about the professionality and understanding of human rights by him and the investigation he coordinated?
Now we know that the McCann's argument against any possible extradition will be fear for their safety and their human rights. Thanks for The info.
DeleteCarolina
16 Feb @21:22
Delete“GA was convicted for lying that Leonor had fallen down the stairs”
Could you please substantiate your statement by citing a reliable source?
Thanks.
W-t-P
Someone is frothing at the mouth with rage against Gonçalo Amaral. Is it because the McCanns lost their court case against him?
ReplyDeleteBefore you criticise his work it would be useful if you informed yourself as to what his duties were in the PJ at that time.
Carolina
No, because he lies constantly depsite being found guilty of perjury. He can't stop himself. He's mad.
DeleteCarloina, don't you understand ? The police are NOT supposed to lie about their investigations and evidence. It's simple.
Delete"Someone is frothing at the mouth with rage against Gonçalo Amaral. Is it because the McCanns lost their court case against him?
ReplyDeleteBefore you criticise his work it would be useful if you informed yourself as to what his duties were in the PJ at that time."
No frothing at the mouth, my dear. The court case related to GA's freedom to publish his book (to be read as a literary work rather than factual). However, if he wasn't so senior in the investigation, as you persist in telling us, then he would never have been in possession of all of the facts of the case and therefore should never have written the book in the first place.
Anonymous17 February 2019 at 11:50
Delete'' However, if he wasn't so senior in the investigation, as you persist in telling us, then he would never have been in possession of all of the facts of the case and therefore should never have written the book in the first place.''
Finally. I was beginning to think I'd walked into a metal hospital and been locked in. Well said that man.
Where did you get the strange idea that the courts ruled that his book was to be considered a literary work and not factual? All of the rulings stated that his book was factual And based on the official police files.
ReplyDeleteAs a coordinator he dealt with all of the paper work and reports, so he was aware of everything that happened. Furthermore, for those living in Portugal, there were no surprises in the book, as everything had already been made public.
Carolina
''Where did you get the strange idea that the courts ruled that his book was to be considered a literary work and not factual?''
ReplyDeleteIn the judge's summing up. The reason was cateforically stated in it. Check it.