Thursday, 21 March 2019

BLACKMAIL, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION

 
Why have I gone completely off topic, along a deranged path some might say, but my reason is simple.  In the comments on my previous blog and in fact many before, there is much talk of conspiracy theories and tin foil hats.  The pros, the supporters of the McCanns are trying to plant the idea that someone or several, in the higher stratosphere is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and the scapegoating of the parents.  Actually, I may be wrong in lumping the 'pros' together as one voice, because some believe the police, well the British police at least, are totally on the McCanns's side.
 
Anyway, matters not, they are pretty much all for going into James Bond territory, they query the protection given to the parents, the huge amounts spent by the UK Government to ensure this case never reaches a conclusion etc.  On this, they unite with many 'antis' who also believe OG is a cover up and those working on it are sat around all day playing X-box.  The mounting costs (£12m+) being part of a huge ransom for the return of Madeleine.  That's a new one.  When they hit a certain target (unknown), the abductors will hand the alive and healthy child over.
 
With the alleged involvement of MI5/MI6 and the Secret Services we need a villain as dastardly as Goldfinger or Blofeld, someone with the power to drop you into a pool of piranha on a whim.  Except Madeleine was just an ordinary little girl, precious to her family, but no use in plans to dominate the world or raid the US gold reserves.  I think Mike Myers got closest to that genre, Dr. Evils et al are mostly fictional.  Although even in the fictional realm I haven't seen an evil dictator send out for a small child.
 
Gerry McCann is a Professor, kudo to him for that, but he doesn't have high security clearance and he hasn't been seen galivanting with Russians floosies.  I can't think of any secret Gerry might have (apart from the obvious) that would make Gerry and his family targets of a hostile foreign power or Scaramanga.
 
Removing foreign powers and Bond villains, what are we left with?  Person or persons unknown within the British establishment.  Someone who has power over, not only a Labour government but a Tory government as well. That person must also have power over the police if Operation Grange is the farce the critics claim it is.  History has shown us however that rank, privilege, massive wealth, etc, can only protect a person for so long.  We only have to look at Trump, his rank as President and Commander in Chief, isn't protecting him from anything.  Serious question.  Who in the UK is so important that our Government, both Labour when they were in power, and Tory now, would cover up for them?  A major Royal perhaps? A cabinet minister? A member of the House of Lords?  A billionaire political donor? Who has the power to persuade 30+ homicide detectives to cover up a child's death and leave a massive stain on their career records forever more?
 
But let me throw another conspiracy theory into the  pot.  Let's call it ways to get people in power to do what you want them to or to get rid of people you don't like.  It was used frequently in Caesar's Senate, the Court of Henry VIII and on a daily basis in the halls of Westminster and the Trump Administration.  Of course the ancient and the medieval rulers didn't use allegations of child abuse as child abuse was normal for the times.  Getting engaged to a 5 year didn't raise so much as an eyebrow.
 
Being gay has had its ups and downs but in ancient civilisations it doesn't seem to have been a life changer in the sense that gay writers, artists and musicians were able practice their crafts.  But persecution I am sure did exist, especially when it came to Queen Victoria's reign.  In the middle ages the worst allegation that could be made against you was witchcraft. Accusations could be thrown and fingers pointed, trials consisted of strapping said witch to a chair and ducking her/him into a river until they confessed or died.  If they confessed they were burnt, innocence wasn't an option.   Witches carried the brunt of societies ills for a couple of centuries, well, until the immigrants and the Jews arrived. 

 
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the hated group, the witches, were the homosexuals.  Communists too, but that would take us way off track. Many politicians were vulnerable to blackmail, bribery and corruption due to the fact that they were homosexual. Homosexuality was illegal - err, for men.  Homosexuality laws go back to the time of Queen Victoria and she didn't believe women did that sort of thing. Gay members of parliament and members of the establishment were in constant danger of being compromised, their careers finished if they were exposed in the papers, the Sundays especially.  See Jeremy Thorpe.
 
Happily those days are gone, being gay is OK, people accept gay people like other gay people and they are not potential child molesters, which sadly was part of the anti gay ideology.  It wasn't safe to leave children with them was the mean spirit of the times.  Now, the only way a life can be wrecked on the scale that it was for homosexuals in the 60s is an accusation of downloading child pornography. That would be the present day equivalent of being dragged through the streets and publicly executed.
 
In 1999 the police launched Operation Ore, a large scale clampdown on men accused of accessing a child pornography site in the US.  See link below.  Unfortunately many of the men accused had their credit card details stolen, and they were in fact innocent. This after dawn raids, humiliating arrests at work and their children seized and placed into care. At least 39 of them took their own lives.
 
 
Paedophile hunters are all around us, so many that when they are trying to catch paedophiles online they are usually speaking to each other. Grown men pretending to be ribbons and curls  14 year old girls for other grown men who are doing the same.  None of them give two hoots about kids being battered or emotionally abused, they are only interested in the sexual side.
 
Apologies for putting that unsavoury image in anyone's heads.  As poorly educated and inept as these vigilantes are, there is always a chance they might stumble on people they can blackmail.  They don't have the intelligence, the morals or the professional code of ethics to prevent them from using any information they obtain unscrupulously.  That's one of the biggest arguments against watchers on the internet. Who watches the watchers?
 
But returning to that life altering/ending accusation.  Imagine a list exists of VIPs, politicians, celebrities etc who could have downloaded child pornography knowingly or unknowingly? They may be completely innocent but the accusation would be enough to ruin them.  How far would they go to avoid that sort of accusation?  Possessing child pornography is an easy charge to make. Most of us have pictures of our kids naked in the bath or 'scantily clad' on the beach.  Look at how much was made of the Madeleine in make up pictures, a little girl playing dressing up, was twisted and distorted into something grotesque.   The Cesspit devoted entire threads to it along with the McCanns' holiday snaps.  They simply don't get that they are the only group online discussing child sex.  All those dark, sinister fantasies come from their own creepy imaginations.
 
Unfortunately, those on a quest to track down perverts may come across names of people they can use to put forward their agenda, just as those who pursued homosexuals in the 1960s.  It is not unusual these days for people to 'leak' something and for it to go viral. The News of the World is long dead and buried but it has been replaced by the much faster twitter, where we see Ministers et al disgraced and resigning within hours. We don't have to wait until Sunday morning to read the 'smut and filth' as my dear old mum used to called the Sunday papers, as we tucked into bacon and eggs.  Dirt on, well anyone, is a valuable commodity. 
 

128 comments:

  1. There is no blackmail,bribery or corruption per se,in the case,what there is,is an inability to solve the case,the evidence just isn't there.In the case of SY they went out to Portugal no doubt as some colonial power over the sardine munching port swilling PJ.They have got in so deep with out having an exit stragetgy,although March 29th might provide an ideal opportunity to bury any news.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exit straetegy : Shelved again.Or closed.Simple.Who would be shocked after 12 years ?

      Delete
  2. Wow Ros - you really do have a mixed up mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, I do indeed 18:41, that was an example of stream of consciousness writing, Cristobell not only unbound, but a tad unhinged :) It was more about the subtext than the content and it must be said, staying off a hit list.

      Delete
    2. You took a really, really, really deep breath and put your head down, fingers as horns and charged...kudos for that

      ZS

      Delete
  3. I am pro Mccann, a Mccann supporter, a person who believes there was an abduction.

    I have never ever suggested that there is a cover up or tried "to to plant the idea that someone or several, in the higher stratosphere is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and the scapegoating of the parents."

    Madeleine is a missing child without explanation and OG and PJ should be allowed to get on with their jobs to try to solve the case.

    It is the anti's who claim there is a cover up - because they can't accept the fact that there is, at this time, insufficient evidence to bring anyone to court = cover up because the Mccanns are not in the dock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there's a cover up, it's not a very good one 19:12.

      Dog alerts and PJ Files leave enough suspicion that the McCanns version of events is not true.

      Delete
    2. Apologies 19:12, I did hesitate when I wrote it, it is as wrong of me to bunch 'pros' together as it was for the MSM to claim all 'antis' were led by Bennett. I apologise, quite sincerely, you are of course unique.

      I agree OG and the PJ should be allowed to get on with their jobs but it can't stop the huge tidal waves of discussion when the case of Madeleine is again in the media. Unfortunately Gerry and Kate embraced the MSM in the belief that they could have some kind of control over it. Eg. Interview questions vetted by Clarence Mitchell before being posed to the McCanns on camera. Those kind of demands however, only work if yours is the hottest story in town. Once you go down in popularity, the special treatment stops.

      I apologise, but it would be helpful if posters could adopt some sort of name or number, it would be easier for readers and myself to discern one from the other.

      Delete
    3. Apparently my first reply didn't get approval (or in your words it went to spam)- anyway I will try again.

      I don't accept your apology because you have said it/ made the same accusation before.

      I don't agree with your opinion on anything - you accuse the Mccanns of something (you don't specify what) because your research has led you to believe it is "beyond reasonable doubt".

      In future I will sign myself as "D".

      D

      Delete
    4. Oscar Slater21 March 2019 at 19:51

      ''Dog alerts and PJ Files leave enough suspicion that the McCanns version of events is not true.''

      You haven't mentioned the dogs for hours-are you OK ? Did the 'leave enough suspicion' for the police, or just the internet ??

      Delete
    5. Oscar Slater21 March 2019 at 19:51

      ''If there's a cover up, it's not a very good one 19:12.
      Dog alerts and PJ Files leave enough suspicion that the McCanns version of events is not true.''

      If it's not a very good one, how have the alerts never been used to arrest anyone in 12 years if they're so important ?

      Delete
    6. @ Oscar Slater21 March 2019 at 19:51

      There is no "Dog alerts and PJ Files leave enough suspicion that the McCanns version of events is not true."

      You are making that up and are wrong.

      D

      Delete
    7. Ahh D, how fortunate for you that your reply is published, also your reply from earlier that must have been held up in 'awaiting moderation', there are occasional backlogs, it's been rather busy of late.

      Another opportunity to scold me, lol. Fair enough, the apology was sincere, and hopefully now that I have a way of identifying you, I will be less likely to muddle your views up with those of someone else.

      What can say with regard to my research? Your statement is non specific, have I read the wrong texts and reached the wrong conclusions?

      Delete
    8. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 March 2019 at 21:31

      Oh there is now an 'awaiting moderation" box - that sounds much more likely than a straight to spam box that you have been saying for years. In other words - censorship and denial of freedom of speech.

      "What can say with regard to my research? Your statement is non specific, have I read the wrong texts and reached the wrong conclusions?"

      You obviously had a different conclusion than the Portuguese authorities, for some reason you know better than them.
      D

      Delete
    9. If someone says there is nothing to be suspicious about, then I am going to answer by saying what makes me suspicious.

      Keep repeating the same question, D and you'll keep getting the same answer.

      I think we all know that there's been no arrest in 12 years, just like we all know there's been no verified siting of Madeleine.

      Your side can continue with the search, the other side can continue with their suspicions.

      If you've been following me as closely as you make out - appears you check hourly - you know there is nothing to corroborate the alerts.

      I take it you think if you mock me enough times then I'll just give up. The thing is, lots of people don't spend hours reading about this, they may just dip in and when nobody challenges your proposition, they might just accept there is no alternative position.

      I don't have a conclusion, and neither do the PJ. You (at least I think it's been you) repeatedly imply that the case against the parents is closed, it isn't.

      This thing about the dogs is a real pest, it just won't go away.

      But you knew that already, D. Maybe in future, we should just reply by giving our answers numbers?

      It will save a lot of typing.

      Delete
    10. D, 21:47

      What an angry person you are. So angry, in fact, you haven't noticed the little box that comes up and tells you that the comment is waiting moderation?

      You'll win more people over to your way of thinking if you ditch the snide sarcasm.

      As it is you just make yourself a target for smart arses.

      Delete
    11. Hello Anon 21 March 2019 at 19:12

      Yes, you're right there's no cover up, but fear, I'm afraid. When Mark Rowley two years ago was asked about whether the McCanns had been reinvestigated by the OG, he answered something like"..Ohh no we'll not go down that road again" and there was fear and worry in his eyes. If I'd been in his or Redwood shoes I would never ever have left the OG before the case had been solved. Not exactly devoted to the case those guys, are they?


      Madeleine went missing 12 years ago and there’s never been the slightest indication of her being alive since the day of her disappearance and therefore any police authority working on the case must assume that it’s more likely that Madeleine is dead than alive, which isn’t any speculation. Just common sense. Yet, the OG has all those years hardly dared to speak out about what would’ve been the most natural thing to talk about in any other missing child case, namely that there’s a body somewhere, that needs to be found. This obvious assumption hasn’t been kept secret by the OG for investigative reasons, but instead for fear of the McCanns, who’re capable of suing whomever claims that Madeleine has come to harm, including investigative detectives.

      Some people tend to forget, that the OG is neither obliged, nor does it have the right to keep the parents’ real or fake hope of finding Madeleine alive. Its duty is not to please the McCanns, but to try its best in solving the case in a professional way, regardless of what the McCanns are saying, doing or suggesting. Unfortunately, even Theresa May has recently said, that the McCanns deserves to be helped, which implies that she, as well, must be so scared (diplomatic?) to say anything that might exasperate the untouchable couple and their team of lawyers. What she ought to have said is that the case needs to be solved and that the person who most of all deserves that is Madeleine, but she didn’t.

      Delete
    12. Björn22 March 2019 at 16:07
      Hello Anon 21 March 2019 at 19:12

      ''Yes, you're right there's no cover up, but fear, I'm afraid.''

      You mean it's your opinion.

      ''and there was fear and worry in his eyes. If I'd been in his or Redwood shoes I would never ever have left the OG before the case had been solved. Not exactly devoted to the case those guys, are they?''

      You chose to read it as fear and worry. You're not a magician or mind reader.

      ''Madeleine went missing 12 years ago and there’s never been the slightest indication of her being alive since the day of her disappearance and therefore any police authority working on the case must assume that it’s more likely that Madeleine is dead than alive,''

      So if you can't find someone, assume they must be dead. Brilliant, Sherlock.

      '' OG has all those years hardly dared to speak out about what would’ve been the most natural thing to talk about in any other missing child case, namely that there’s a body somewhere, that needs to be found.''

      They weren't formed and funded to chase your fantasies.

      '' the McCanns, who’re capable of suing whomever claims that Madeleine has come to harm, including investigative detectives.''

      They can't.Nobody has that right.Stop lying.

      ''Theresa May has recently said, that the McCanns deserves to be helped, which implies that she, as well, must be so scared (diplomatic?) ''

      You said there was no cover up.

      '' What she ought to have said is that the case needs to be solved and that the person who most of all deserves that is Madeleine, but she didn’t. ''

      Maybe she realises that some things go without saying. Not everyone;s stupid.

      Delete
    13. “Anonymous21 March 2019 at 21:09

      @ Oscar Slater21 March 2019 at 19:51

      There is no "Dog alerts and PJ Files leave enough suspicion that the McCanns version of events is not true."

      You are making that up and are wrong.

      D”

      Hi, Dee

      You mean Oz is wrong because he is making the dog’s alerts up? Or he is wrong to say the alerts are suspicious? The same with the files? Are you saying there’s nothing to be suspicious about?

      Pee

      Delete
    14. Hello
      Anon
      22 March 2019 at 16:45, and thanks for comment.

      "You said there was no cover up"

      Yes, I did, but I tried to emphasize that OG hasn't the guts to talk about what they're hopefully doing and that's not really covering up for anything, but keeping things secret for no excusable reason.

      The chances for Madeleine being alive is practically zero and the OG knows that and should tell us so in order to stop all nonsense speculation on the internet about Madeleine being taken care of and kept by some nice people who're treating her well, which is what the McCanns suggest.






      Delete
    15. OG -if they're doing anything at all- have no obligation to provide a running commentary on a case that's so sensitive and which has evaded a solution for 12 years.They're detectives, not a boy band on Twitter.( I think).

      ''The chances for Madeleine being alive is practically zero and the OG knows that and should tell us so''

      If we know they don't need to do they ?You mean you're desperate to hear your suspicion confirmed-ie, dead kid.

      ''stop all nonsense speculation on the internet about Madeleine being taken care of and kept by some nice people who're treating her well, which is what the McCanns suggest. ''
      If it was my child I'd hope that was true. It would help me cope.Thinking she's OK even if we haven't got her she's being taken care of.The rest of us don't think it's realistic but she isn't our child.You criticise the parents for holding out hope. Other times you just call them killers or imply they abs=used their child.You do all this on the internet.That's the kind of unfounded crap that needs to be stopped, not what the McCannns or the Police are thinking.


      Delete
    16. Hello Anon 22 March 2019 at 20:10

      "You criticise the parents for holding out hope"
      No, I don't. I'm criticizing the OG for giving the parents false and unrealistic hope of finding Madeleine alive, if they're innocent. It cannot possibly be a sensitive matter anymore to openly speak about Madeleine in terms of a dead person, besides it would encourage people in PDL and in the area surrounding it to look for the remains of a body, which is sad but has to be properly done.

      Making up stories about Madeleine being seen here and there around the globe is to make a fantasy character out of an innocent child, who never got the chance to get a life in her own right. So whether the McCanns are guilty or not there's a body out there to be found, whatever the McCanns' lawyers and spokesman say.

      This case reminds me of the bear hunt in Finland in the olden days. Everybody knew that they were out hunting bears, but they were all so scared to talk about it because they feared the bears so much. Therefore they told their wives and children back home that they were just out working in the forest.

      Delete
    17. Björn23 March 2019 at 10:12


      ''You criticise the parents for holding out hope
      No, I don't. I'm criticizing the OG for giving the parents false and unrealistic hope of finding Madeleine alive,''

      Don't bother trying to wriggle out of your mess. It's unpleasant.

      Did the parents need their hope to come from anyone else ? To be given it ? Or did they cling to it when their daughter was gone ?Explain why the hope from OG is-in your words- 'false' . You say it'd false. But you lie frequently or just fantasise. Tell us why it's false.

      ''It cannot possibly be a sensitive matter anymore to openly speak about Madeleine in terms of a dead person, ''

      Not possibly ? Why not, Mr Empathy ? Isn't she their daughter anymore ?

      ''besides it would encourage people in PDL and in the area surrounding it to look for the remains of a body, which is sad but has to be properly done. ''

      They've had 12 years to do that if they felt the need.I'm not sure the law or the tourist board would take kindly to having the town turned into an archaeology site though.

      ''So whether the McCanns are guilty or not there's a body out there to be found, whatever the McCanns' lawyers and spokesman say.''

      Let's concentrate on what you're saying shall we.Show me a link . When was Madeleine declared dead ? The police have gone as far as to say it has to be considered a possibility.Even you should understand the difference between that and declaring her dead.You're making stuff up as usual. Fantasising.And, as usual, at least one of your fantasies has to have the image of an innocent little girl dead and buried or abused.That thee isn't a scrap of evidence spoils your apparent enjoyment.

      Your last paragraph is just plain odd.

      Delete
  4. A very long post Ros. You haven't put forward a single argument for why so many politicians and MI5 were actually involved in a police investigation. Maybe if you could you wouldn't need to go on so long about how it's just a conspiracy theory and only to be mocked.Tell us why you think the pm and MI5 wanted to take over and why the parents needed two different spokesmen from the governments to say what could be told to the public and what couldn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have a single argument for why so many politicians and MI5 were actually involved in a police investigation. That's my point, there isn't one. I have put forward scenarios, a James Bond type villain, a foreign power or a member of the House of Lords. For a cover up on this scale involving so many people, the perpetrator of Madeleine's abduction must be in a position of power that none of us can imagine. Putin?

      If you want to push the argument that the PM and MI5 wanted to 'take over', then it is up to you to tell us why. Because other than all of the above, there is nothing else I can think of.

      Delete
    2. Political leverage is a subtle thing. cash for questions was childs play decades ago.But it's an example of what is and isn't 'currency'. I doubt Putin wold be interested. he has no real gripes with the UK. I have suspects but only suspects.

      Delete
    3. Bella, 'tis I, the great Ziggmundo.

      I feel slightly guilty having read all of that up there ^^^^^. I only introduced the possibility of conspiracy theories as a point worth considering as all the usual ones are becoming elderly chestnuts now.Nothing has come of them. we;re going in circles :/

      I have a reply but it's in two annoying parts if you'll permit it.

      Delete
  5. Ros - are you saying that JJ and jc are pro Mccann?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jc is pro- cuckoos nest

      Delete
    2. Not that I'm aware of. I am merely pointing out that there are pros and antis who believe OG is a cover up.

      Delete
    3. OG isn't really a cover up.It's a sham. It's in place to give the appearance of an ongoing review and investigation.In case anyone forgets they exist they are referred to in the media when the funding is asked for.That's to persuade the public that it must be real and the public buy it every time.The purpose of OG is to prevent the public asking why nothing's going on.Only a positive update and genuine lead that actually led somewhere will convince the observers who don't believe everything they're told.

      Delete
  6. http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-netflix-madeleine-documentary.html?showComment=1552904241975#c2024129889598181313

    ReplyDelete
  7. Come on Oscar Slater - tell us what you know about the dog alerts that Grime or the Police didn't know.

    D

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can anyone explain how a 16 year old boy can enter a flat and take a child from her bed with adults sleeping nearby and not be noticed.

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D at 22:17, it is well established that the parents were stoned, the guy was actually looking for grass when he entered.

      He was able to enter by an open door, and the parents were in a separate room.

      No climbing in and out of windows or jemmying of shutters was required.

      It was the middle of the night, and any system of checks the parents used whilst enjoying tapas with friends, had been suspended for the night.

      Dear dear dear. Finally, nobody suspected the parents as their stories were consistent every time the police checked them.

      Can you tell me how a small force in a holiday resort was able to solve the crime so quickly?

      Delete
    2. @ Oscar Slater22 March 2019 at 08:09
      "it is well established that the parents were stoned"

      The poor girl was in a flat with her father and grandparents - there is no evidence that they were all "stoned". Her mother was in Airdie at the time.

      Yes he entered through an unlocked door - the door to 5A was also left unlocked. There was no evidence of abduction - he took her from her bed and lead her away.

      Yes it was the middle of the night. The father and grandparents asleep in the flat didn't hear anything.

      Police Scotland is not a small force. The case was solved because her body was found at 9.00am on the day she was abducted. The mother of the scumbag reported him to the Police because she had seen him coming and going from her house on CCTV several times.

      D

      Delete
    3. You are both ( you and D ) going to have to fill me in on this.

      Who is this 16 year old boy ? I confess I haven't seen this area. I've heard other 'well established facts' online. Like the one that told us all it was 'well known' that the Tapas group were all swingers ( who took their kids with them for swinger holidays ?).But that was cleared up later when somebody explained the oversight and that they were all paedohiles into ritually abusing kids ( Madeleine wore her mum's makeup once for a photograph). No actions wee taken home or abroad by police or social services. ' Obviously' the police and social services haven't heard of the internet yet.

      Information please. Thank you in advance.

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous22 March 2019 at 13:44

      The 16 year old is Aaron Campbell the scumbag who went to a flat looking for drugs but used the opportunity to abduct, rape and murder poor little 6 year old Alesha MacPhail.
      http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/2163/HMA-v-Aaron-Campbell

      D

      Delete
    5. hat dickhead up in Scotland. I know about that case, it was recent.Horrible.I just wondered how the subject appeared from nowhere in the middle of the discussion about Madeleine being abducted and if there was or is a cover up.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. 15:29, I was wondering why it appeared in the discussion too, and went off on one.

      I think Ds point was that there was no evidence of an abduction at the house in Rothesay.

      However, there obviously was evidence of an abduction as the wee girl was not sleeping in bed.

      This, I think, is supposed to destroy any alternative explanation as to why Madeleine wasn't in her room when the alarm was raised.

      Delete
    9. D - there are 46,083 officers in Portugal, and 17,296 police officers in Scotland according to Wikipedia. Doesn't surprise me as the population of Portugal is larger than Scotland's.

      The lad did not lead the little girl away, he carried her. He had the luxury of not having to open and close a window, clean any finger prints he may have left, deal with curtains that go whoosh, and keeping a shutter up.

      Nor did he have to jemmy the shutter, leaving no trace of a jemmy having been used.

      He did not have to climb out a window, put the setee back in position, to prevent the curtains going whoosh, all the while holding a sleeping child (who may or not have been drugged).

      He admits to being intoxicated on marijuana and alcohol, and probably didn't really have to worry about the danger of being spotted by the "parents", who despite his intoxicated state he knew were not making 20 minute checks on the sleeping child.

      When the parents woke up and realised the girl was missing, they raised the alarm and joined the search - admittedly not the mother, who you rightly say was some 40 miles away in Airdrie, and was further hampered by the fact that she didn't know her little girl was missing.

      The only real similarity is that a child wasn't in her room when people went to check on her.

      Delete
    10. @ Oscar and others.

      Oscar you started off by staing:

      1. The parents were stoned - they were not
      2. A small local Police force - it was not (in fact Police Scotland is the 2nd largest Police force in the UK after the Met)

      Then you say the scumbag was "intoxicated on marijuana and alcohol" - he was not - the court report (a link to which I posted) clearly says "Amongst other things Dr Macpherson records that you told him that you had consumed one and a half bottles of wine between 8pm and 8.30 pm but that you did not feel intoxicated, although you told the social worker that you still felt the effects of it. You were not under the influence of any illicit substances."

      The point I was making by posting reference to this case is quite clear:

      1. The scumbag went to the flat with one reason - to get drugs.
      2. The flat was unlocked and he did not need to force entry.
      3. He saw, removed and took away a little girl from her bed.
      4. She did not scream and shout. In fact she asked where he was taking her and said she was cold.
      5. None of the adults in the flat woke up during the event.
      6. she was discovered missing on the next check for her.

      Shit things can happen to a child asleep in a flat when the flat is not secured and even if adults are present at the time. It is not impossible unfortunately.

      D



      Delete
  9. ( part 1 )

    I feel guilty now for introducing and re-introducing the idea of a conspiracy ( or three).

    As I said on your previous thread, most people tend to talk about conspiracy theorists as though they are lepers. The have the pre- loaded response they learned from everyone else who said ''hahahaha have you got your tin foil hat on lolollmao and rofl'.And so forth.They don't actually offer any evidence as support for the official position under attack; nor do they deconstruct said conspiracy theory and point out, fact by fact, why it's so 'batshit crazy'. They think by expressing enough cynicism, taking sideswipes of the conspiracy theorist and making allusions to James Bond and The Spy Who Shagged Me is enough to garner support from the herd. Shall we try and put an end to that predictable online ritual now ? It would raise the level of discussion and raise your blog's credibility above the competition.

    When I first paid attention to this case i was like the rest of the herd.Suspicious of the parents. I heard about the 'shocking' Gaspar revelations, the 48 questions, the angry wife etc.In other words, I heard the headlines and formed a superficial opinion. It wasn't until I looked at the cogs in the machine I realised it was far more complex than that.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm neither pro nor anti.I can't prove who did what and why or how. What i do know is that a suspect on a charge is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.And that it's morally wrong as well as legally questionable to accuse somebody of something you are unable to prove.Hence why what i post appears to be from a 'pro' perspective . I prefer to question opinions that are being passed off as facts. I prefer to see rumours proven right or dismissed as pointless.

    I was alerted to the possible machinations of shadowy figures by the co-ordinator of the investigation, one Detective Amaral. He said he considered that the forensics had been tampered with ' in transit'.The forensic evidence he thought would nail the parents.He said that the case was ruined by the arrival and interference of MI5. He was the first to come up with the MI5 conspiracy theory.The antis would do well to remember that before they continue the tin foil anthem.When asked if he thought the case would be solved his answer was short and to the point : ''when the political will of two countries is there'' ( paraphrasing).What does the political will of anyone have to do with a police investigation looking for a missing child ? I don't know-but Amaral said it for a reason.

    (tbc)

    ReplyDelete
  10. ( part 2 )

    So, to put the conspiracy theories to bed, here's a questionnaire.

    1 : If, as the antis swear, so many indicators of a death exist, why haven't the police acted ?The digs don't count.That was a show.If they truly carried out a dig because they were sure a death had occurred, they shouldn't have given up just because they dug in the wrong area.

    2: If the politicians didn't take over this, why did Amaral say they did ?

    3: If the dog alerts are so significant why haven't they been used as circumstantial evidence and supported by all the other circumstantial evidence that the antis talk about ?That would be an effective argument . A jury would go for it surely ?

    4 : This case is marked by one-offs. Three PMs have involved themselves. Military Intelligence have involved themselves.Home secretaries have.Two 'former' politicians had a stint as media controller( why did it need controlling by former politicians?).How do all of these little tidbits constitute a police investigation and how can a political conspiracy be called far fetched ?If it isn't a political cover up-why were they all involved ?

    5 : During the 12 years we have learned of another two high profile politicians that were paedophiles ; Freud and C Smith.It turns out that it was 'kept in house' by everyone until they had died.Why do antis mock the idea of the suggestion that politicians can be protected at all costs of committing horrible deeds ? Tim Fortescue, on camera ( 1977 ish) said as a chief whip he loved hearing about politicians who had problems 'possibly with small boys'' as it meant they could be blackmailed.But the McCanns aren't politicians.Why mock the idea of leverage ? Plenty of antis talk about GM's closeness with politicians don't they ?

    6 :If nobody high up is being protected, why haven't the parents been charged ?Maybe if they were, the truth would be revealed by whoever did the deed.Why haven't they been charged ? All the circumstantial evidence is against them as well as public opinion .

    7 : Amaral was removed very early in the investigation. He was the most experienced detective there and it was his home turf.He hadn't been on the job long enough to make a major mistake but he did suggest the UK politicians and detectives had a remit to take the investigation away from a specific direction( the parents).Then he was gone. How do you account for that if it isn't a political cover up ?

    8 : Why haven't detectives recalled any of the Tapas group to break their silence.Why are the Tapas group spared the aggravation and hassle if we're leaving no stone un-turned ?

    9 : If Smith was so sure of who he seen why hasn't he been summoned to the station to say so ?Why has he too become silent ?

    10 : is it really sensible to suggest that the parents have control over the police, prime minister, MI5, the media and anyone else who could solve the case or discuss it ? is it more realistic than supposing the people with that power are far higher ranking than doctors and they happened to take over the case ?The people with real power are politicians and MI5.But antis want to say it's the world renowned 'team McCann' because of some silly 'twitter war'.

    Take your time, folks. The silly answer will get you a detention.The better ones will be rewarded with my praise and a toffee apple. Show how you arrived at your final answers.




    Take your time, folks. The silly answer will get you a detention.The better ones will be rewarded with my praise and a toffee apple. Show how you arrived at your final answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 22:35 and 22:40 - A response to partly address your posting re MI and also noting that you were previously advised that a pair of nondescript NHS workers could not hold HMG to ransom.
      On a simplistic basis, MI5 are internally focussed on the UK homeland security and MI6 are external. 6 are found in the embassies and are characterised as the effete public school boys. Dr Amaral specifically noted MI5, who should not have been seen in Portugal. Either he was confused and wrong, or 5 were there for a valid reason. To paraphrase pros 'Q: where's the evidence?' A: they don't carry business cards, and it is supposedly secret, so one must speculate that if it was 5, then it could be related to Irish ops (PIRA or INLA). This speculation is supported by the active support of Jim Gamble, ex RUC Castlereagh

      Delete
    2. Reply to Question 1, and in fact most of your questions, the police are actING, there are two live investigations, one in Portugal and one in the UK. That they haven't made any arrests yet matters not, arrests are usually made at the end of an investigation,

      4. By two politicians do you mean Justine McGuinness and Clarence Mitchell? If so you are being disingenuous, neither of them were elected members of parliament. Working in admin of a political party doesn't make you a politician.

      5. Clement Freud and Cyril Smith, hmm, neither one of them capable (when alive) of climbing into a window and running away with a child. I agree both were VIPs but I can't see consecutive governments spending millions to cover up their dirty deeds. I appreciate you are citing CF and CS as the kind of higher ups who would be protected rather than any current 'higher ups' to avoid libelling anyone or making yourself a target. But I still do not see how anyone, be they Prince, Pope or Politician is important enough for a cover up at this cost and scale.

      6. Again there are two live investigations.

      7. I agree, Goncalo Amaral was removed by political interference, just as he was closing in.

      8. Have the Tapas group been spared the aggravation and hassle....? If they have, it can only be because they are not co-operating with the police, that is, they are hiding behind their lawyers. Police never say to witnesses 'that's it, we won't bother you again'.

      9. Mr. Smith has always been silent, he has never wanted any part of the circus that surrounds this case. But in any case, Mr. Smith and his family must have 'been called in', their evidence was the main substance of the Crimewatch programme, the Scotland Yard revelation of the two new efits and prime suspect, Smithman.

      10. I don't think the parents have any power over anyone, just by looking at them I can see that. I think they had power in the past, but those days are long gone. OG has done nothing to lift suspicion from them and the public are now less likely to be looking for a live Madeleine.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous 01:51

      Deep in the forest something stirred...

      "if it was 5, then it could be related to Irish ops (PIRA or INLA). This speculation is supported by the active support of Jim Gamble, ex RUC Castlereagh."

      First, allow me briefly to consider (and dismiss) the idea of protection being afforded to individuals, i.e. the McCanns or A.N.Other VIP, who may have fled the scene of whatever 'incident' provoked the status quo.

      Doctors are not above the law and, as far as I am aware, the PJ have never pursued the possibility of anyone of public standing being directly involved. As to 'illustrious' closet paedophiles in the UK...well what happened took place in Portugal.

      So who might the government be protecting? Why not itself or its agencies?

      FWIW, I suspect Dr McCann had been recruited to perform political reconnaissance while in the Algarve ("I'm not here to enjoy myself"), perhaps leveraged into the situation by an offer, on Gamble's part, to make any record of his earlier dubious behaviour 'disappear'.

      Unfortunately, for Madeleine especially, the mission goes 'tits up' before it's begun and Dr G is forced to lean on the Ministry for support.

      The Ministry however want their pound of flesh and convince McCann to stay the course. Do his bit to furnish the information they're after and they would dig him out of his hole (as they no doubt explained more fully by text on the Wednesday).

      Despite McCann's eventual failure to come up with the goods (Gamble was obliged to appeal directly to the public for photographs of strangers in the area), the authorities have kept their part of the bargain, ensuring the McCann's will not see the inside of a criminal court-room, nor therefore reveal the origin of the abduction idea. The Fund was an insurance master-stroke.

      The Northern Ireland Assembly was formally resurrected less than a week after Madeleine's reported disappearance (8 May, 2007).

      Delete
    4. Bella

      1- What's the difference between a live investigation and a dead one if nothing has happened in 12 years ? We're told it's live.None of have seen evidence of it other than the top ups of funds.

      4- The two former politicians as alluded to on your previous thread are Mitchell and Dodd.Both well versed in political spin and both valued by PMs

      5- My point about two household names / politicians being paedophiles was made clearly to point out that they can have their 'secret' kept hidden for decades by those who they walk among in power.I never mentioned either climbing through a window or ty to connect them to the Madeleine case. It was to point to the antis mistake of believing that secrets like that can't be kept.

      6-The live investigations again have done nothing in 12 years.It isn't unreasonable to consider them a sham.

      7- Whether or not he was closing in, it's still political interference. Why ?

      8- Is there any evidence that a single Tapas member has been interviewed since their day in court to collect their compensation ?

      9- Is their evidence on record of Smith being called in ? Or was he visited or did he play his part from Ireland. If he wanted to stay silent in the first place we wouldn't have heard of him.It was later, after he had gotten it off his chest that he changed his mind.

      10- When the questions are asked about the media messages the PR and the police protection the answers are always pointing toward the McCanns ; if they didn't like it, it didn't happen. None of us can make categorical statements about the parents thoughts based on 'how they look'. You may see one thing; someone else sees another. OG ? What have the done or not done? The head of the PJ declared that the parents weren't suspects.That didn't lift suspicion from the minds of the online detectives.Why would OG ?

      I think Amaral could open this area up by saying more.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous22 March 2019 at 01:51

      Take your points Re external and internal focus.It's a bit like the states. The CIA like to cause chaos abroad, the FBI like to cause it on home soil.I think the most important point is that neither should be involved in a police matter.If a royal baby or similar had been abducted then fair enough. These were civilians for one thing and the police investigation had barely begun for another. The PJ should have been looking by themselves for about a month and the UK could have let it be known early that they were available if needed. There's interpol too.

      Delete
    6. ''Doctors are not above the law and, as far as I am aware, the PJ have never pursued the possibility of anyone of public standing being directly involved''

      That doctors are not above the law only confirms how bizarre the blanket of safety and protection was that they received.The Pj probably wouldn't dare pursue if any individuals of high standing were involved. Not in the disappearance of the child. But in the cover up ? I'd say they suspected so.It doesn't matter if they suspected an individual.They suspected a body as powerful as a British government or Military Intelligence of interfering with their investigation.

      ''. As to 'illustrious' closet paedophiles in the UK...well what happened took place in Portugal.''

      Like, Ros, you have missed a really simple point.That is, that illustrious paedophiles can have their secret kept for decades by those who run our country.It's about immorality and corruption and the course of justice being perverted.

      What 'political reconnaissance' could GM have been on ? I've seen and heard endless interpretations of his throw away 'joke' ''I'm not here to enjoy myself'. I took at as his apparent 'dour scot' humour and being surrounded by kids that won't keep still. That's more work than holiday.Besides, if he meant he was on a secret government mission playing for high stakes, he's hardly likely to wait for a camera focusing on him to drop a major hint.

      What would the nature of a 'mission' be that would cause GM to lean on the ministry for support ? And why would it be so top secret that they could use such high stakes ? If it was so cloak and dagger, i hardly think GM would be an undercover spy surrounded by his wife, kids and friends and thir kids. There's a convincing cover and there's plain impractical .

      ''Despite McCann's eventual failure to come up with the goods ''

      What kind of 'goods'. Goods is a pretty grey area to say the least. We're stretching with blindfolds on here .

      ''The Fund was an insurance master-stroke.''

      In what way ?

      ''The Northern Ireland Assembly was formally resurrected less than a week after Madeleine's reported disappearance (8 May, 2007).''

      In what way is that tied to GM ?

      Delete
    7. @15:20

      I suggest you take the earlier remark by @Anonymous 01:51 into account:

      "if it was 5, then it could be related to Irish ops (PIRA or INLA). This speculation is supported by the active support of Jim Gamble, ex RUC Castlereagh."

      Give some thought to the context, plus a little more to what I said in reply and the answers to most of your points should become clear - apart that is from the irrelevant (UK based paedos) and downright silly (GM itching to drop hints) remarks.

      I've no intention of answering spurious, simplistic questions.

      Delete
    8. Have you any intention of elaborating on spurious hypothesizing ?

      Delete
    9. I must jump in on the Fund being an insurance master stroke. It was a fluke. No-one could have known that the public would respond so generously. Gerry said in an interview they didn't even realise they had a need for a Fund.

      I see the abduction story, the Fund especially, as a runaway train. OK Gerry, Kate and their friends spent the whole night of 3rd/4th May phoning useful contacts in the UK, but even they could not have known the publicity storm that was about to hit them.

      All the publicity turned into cash. All those people worldwide who desperately wanted to help the unfortunate parents, sent money, what else could they do?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 22 March 2019 at 18:41

      AFAIK, Dr Martin Roberts, bless him, was the first to discuss at some length a possible Irish connection. If you are familiar with that discussion, would you please be so kind as to post a link or tell me where to look. I’m pretty sure it was on ‘onlyinamerica’ blog.

      Thank you kindly.

      Winnie-the-Pooh

      Delete
    11. Winston, old sport...

      Fill your boots and have a dig....

      http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/05/bring-out-your-dead-dr-martin-roberts.html

      Delete
    12. to further develop your MI theory, 01:51's part 2 speculation follows on:-
      i)In a covert Irish op, one would expect to include troopers from the regiment (tooled up) and 14 int surveillance [nb I recommend reading James Rennie's the operators].
      ii) To be caught tooled up in a sovereign nation is strictly illegal and a political crisis, so the Hereford hooligans would have had to disappear before the PJ found them.
      iii) Dr. Amaral noted a room full of communications specialists.....
      iv) I would consider the very "professional" clean up of apartment 5a, as no surface traces of Madeleine DNA were found, apart from under the tiles.eg hair, finger prints
      v) Jim Gamble requested that ALL photos were sent to him. I could surmise that he was screening them for visible presence of both operators or tangos.
      Finally, we do know that the Omagh bombers (RIRA) were in the Algarve region, attempting to procure munitions from Alvor (see the panda grill) circa 2006 to 2009. They were caught & prosecuted via an MI5 sting in 2010.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous 22.3 @22:43

      "Jim Gamble requested that ALL photos were sent to him. I could surmise that he was screening them for visible presence of both operators or tangos."

      He must have been looking for one or more recognisable, i.e. 'known' faces. Either that or someone with 'Abductor' written across their forehead.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous 22.3 @21:55

      Better still: http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/09/metaphoric-comprehension-revisited-by.html

      Delete
    15. Anonymous 23 March 2019 at 08:43

      Many thanks for the link. I searched all Dr Roberts’ essays I could think of before asking but not as far back as Sep 2015. Time sprints. My bad,

      The Sultan of Dust must’ve been dazed and confused to try to put me off the scent. :)

      Happy New Year.

      W-t-P

      Delete
    16. The sultan of dust decided you needed the exercise old bean..now a little less conversation a little more pro plus..

      Seasons greetings..

      SoS

      Delete
    17. ''He must have been looking for one or more recognisable, i.e. 'known' faces. Either that or someone with 'Abductor' written across their forehead.''

      As policing goes that's pretty shoddy to say the least. Is that what they train them to do ? No wonder they come across as dimmer than a cracked light bulb ..

      It sounds to me that this was a subtle method of leaving no stone unturned.Not in the search for Madeleine but to see how frequent the perpetrator had been caught on camera.Can't have too many people spotting the common denominator..

      Delete
    18. ''iii) Dr. Amaral noted a room full of communications specialists.....

      iv) I would consider the very "professional" clean up of apartment 5a, as no surface traces of Madeleine DNA were found, apart from under the tiles.eg hair, finger prints
      Finally, we do know that the Omagh bombers (RIRA) were in the Algarve region, attempting to procure munitions from Alvor (see the panda grill) circa 2006 to 2009. They were caught & prosecuted via an MI5 sting in 2010''

      What are 'communication specialists' ? Communication is a bit vague wouldn't you say ? Hadn't PDl been updating it's communications ability prior to the McCanns arrival ? GPS, sattelites, mobile phone masts ? Wifi ?

      How 'professional' was the clean up ? Is it in the files ? What was used in the way of cleaning agents ? Nobody could smell bleach but a dog could smell death and the forensics evidence on the bed proved to be from a previous tenant in some parts.

      You say we 'know' the Omagh bombers etc. Tell us more. The sting in 2010 by MI5 was three years after Madeleine.Why did it take an abduction of a child to prompt them to go to PDL ? Why would a British child be abducted in Portugal, where they were looking for arms ? If the sting nailed them wouldn't an announcement regarding Madeleine have been forthcoming as they put their deeds on the front pages ?

      Delete
    19. 01:51 can now conclude a part 3 and affirm the MI conspiracy theory [without evidence, its secret for F-sake], but for me it now all makes sense.
      i) Dr Martin Roberts blog corroborates the operation against RIRA in Alvor during that time of 2007 and MI ops.
      ii) Dewi Lennard (kikkoran) analysed the phone records, both in and out. He noted a high volume of texts. This is a MI SoP, to avoid voice interception. He also questioned the 'Swansea/South Wales' landline. I understand this was the untraceable comms center for for the Brit MI control centre.
      iii) The Tapas 7 were all presented with burner phones, prior to being made arguidos. We eliminate the risk of PJ surveilance, tracking and traceability.
      iv) David Payne advised Leicester police during his statement there were 'certain aspects' he did not need to/want to talk about. They were OK with it. Leics went 'Gold'' which is a another SoP for a crisis escalation procedure (bronze/silver/gold)
      v) there is supposedly a D security notice that has been given to the UK media, hence their failure to investigate and address the conspiracy, on grounds of national security. Only Johnny foreigners dare.
      iv) Catholic Gerry McCann was heavily linked to Celtic football club (republican leaning with the Tiocfaidh arla supporter sect) and via his parents to republican Donegal. No one willingly spies, most PIRA were turned, usually due to sexual indescretions [eg Stakeknife]. GM would make an excellent operative, ably mixing in the Irish Kellys bar with or as one of the 14 INT boys, most possibly persuaded by his handler ex RUC intelligence Jim Gamble (see empty CATS file and over-the-top support to a field agent, another MI SoP)
      v) The Brits are parsiminous, staying in the cheap Ocean club. I would guess they had a team in apartment 5J (the owner and occupiers are unclear). The same MI team, without their usual Range Rovers may have hired just the one Renault Megane and kitted it out with comms, hence the high km and also why Maddy's DNA was found after her 'abduction', the Mcanns were then 'given' the same vehicle
      vi) the British establishment, via government spin doctors, the Brit ambassador and even Prince Charles make unprecedented efforts to support the abduction myth and deflect away focus from the RIRA operation.

      so onto the denouement.
      Madeleine probably accidentally died earlier in the week, somehow involving the Brit surveillance team. A decision was made to not compromise them and the operation; hence the later bungled abduction farce on the thursday night; 'the bastards have taken her' - Kate's quote and the tracker dogs noting a scent trail from the apartment to a nearby carpark. You could add the use of the blue carrier bag too.
      Brit MI are not very imaginative, but do show respect for the dead; bodies are always hidden in cemeteries. In this case, I would speculate that Maddie's body was switched with the body in in the coffin in the local church, prior to a respectful cremation. The existing old English lady's body (Amaral noted this, but assumed the inclusion of Maddy) may have been disposed of elsewhere, eg the Helva acid lakes theory.

      Sadly for Kate, there is never a release and the nightmares will get worse. The phone will always ring late at night, marriages implode, those involved turn to alcohol and for some I once knew, they take their own lives as they cannot live with the ongoing lies and deceit.
      PS You can critique the denouement piece. It just squares all the circles for me.



      Delete
    20. That's a really long piece to get through.So many items.I see plenty that is supported by 'probably' 'guess' and 'likely' but i see no sources.

      Did Prince Charles insert himself into the investigation to support the abduction myth or just to keep the investigation high profile ?Was he seeing an opportunity to self promote and be seen as a royal with the common touch.

      Your final paragraph is making predictions- which is another word for guesses- about Kate's state of mind, what will happen to her marriage, and the likelihood of her becoming alcoholic because someone you knew once turned alcoholic and committed suicide.I don't know about squaring any circles. I'm not sure I can even see circles.

      Delete
    21. Good heavens 09:51, I know you are sincere, but come on, why on earth would a British intelligence surveillance team book into a holiday resort to watch a group of doctors and their small children? During the course of which they accidentally kill one of the children.

      There is zero logic to it. I mean when did we ever see James Bond book a week in Butlins? As for Gerry being part of the Real IRA, that's quite a leap for the imagineation there. But even if he was, what IRA man would take their wife and kids along to an IRA op? I just don't see what interest the IRA would have in a family holiday resort on the Algarve.

      I am sorry for Kate that there is no release from her nightmares, but there never will be all the while she blames others for her misfortune. None of us are able to change the behaviour of others, we can only change ourselves. That means accepting the blame, owning it, taking responsibility. All the while Kate is blaming Goncalo Amaral, the Media, the trolls online, she will be unhappy. I think she and her husband live under the delusion that they can 'force' their will on other people. It is megalomania at it's height, they believe if they crush GA, their futures will be brighter, it must irk them enormously that he refuses to be crushed.

      Accepting we alone are responsible for everything that has happened to us, and does happen to us, is a watershed moment. It's accompanied of course by 'OMG I can't believe I was that stupid', but it is also satisfying because the life we have now is the one we chose. Not so satisfying if it isn't.

      Unfortunately when we are young we rarely have firm goals, or we follow our subconscious ones. I wanted an unstable man with the passion of Heathcliffe, the smouldering good looks of Marlon Brando and the insanity of Marlon Brando as Stanley in Streetcar Named Desire. Lucky me, I got everything I wanted. Now I don't blame him, he was what he was, I blame me, I chose that life. I hasten to add however, that I am not bitter, I look back on those years with wry amusement, inbetween the fights there were a lot of good times. He was one of the only men I have never been able to boss around, so maybe that's why he lasted so long, lol.

      Anyway, way too much information I'm sure. Going back to the watershed that you alone are responsible for your choices brings wonderful new freedoms. Instead of waiting for someone to change so your life can improve, your life can improve instantly by acknowledging you have zilch power over that person's behaviour, but you have total power over your own. It is like having a weight lifted from your shoulders.

      Delete
  11. Since we are in a question and answer mode.
    Here's a simple multiple choice test for the pro McCann contributors on this site.

    (1)After 12 years of consideration it is likely Madeleine McCann is alive or dead.

    Circle one of the answers:
    Answer A She is Dead
    Answer B She is Alive

    Is it likely that government certified forensic tracker dogs identified the missing girl's blood odor and bodily remains in the McCann's apartment, car, and clothing.

    Circle one of the two.
    Answer: A. Likely identified.
    Answer: B. Likely misidentified.

    Is it likely that Mrs McCann' refusal to answer any of the Portuguese Police's 48 questions was to help save her daughter's life from kidnappers or rather to save her own skin from prosecution.

    Circle one of the two answers.
    Answer: A. Unlikely to find her daughter, but important to save her own skin.
    Answer: B. Likely to find her daughter.

    Is it likely that a husband and wife fleeing from Portugal and refusing a crime scene enactment into the disappearance of their daughter was an action of goodwill taken from the bottom of their hearts or was it to evade certain entrapment and prosecution for their criminal activities by Portuguese police.

    Circle one of the two answers.
    Answer: A: Yes. Very likely to avoid entrapment.
    Answer: B: No. Very likely an act of goodwill.

    Test results:
    The correct answer to all the questions is A.
    jc


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Circle one of the answers:
      Answer A She is Dead
      Answer B She is Alive''

      I can't do circles on this etch-a-sketch.

      Is it likely that you'll ever look at the PJ files instead of telling everyone else to.Is it likely you'll ever stop being fixated on a little girl being dead ?Is it likely you'll ever read the official findings of Grime and about the blood and DNA samples ?Is it likely you'll ever back up any accusations with a credible piece of evidence ?

      Delete
  12. @ Ziggy
    Why do you (in the past) dismiss my argument/speculation then when I say the parents didn't do it but know what happened (by VIP's possibly from a friendly nation other than the UK) and are bound by the Official Secrets Act,as are others in the case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @07:25

      I don't entirely agree. When you say the parents possibly know , I agree with that yes.Either that or have suspicions . But the crime happened in Portugal and they can't be bound by their official secrets act.Ours don't apply there.Besides, a PM can't say to you '' yes they have your child, we'll do all we can, keep quiet or you will be arrested and charged under the official secrets act''. I tend to think as time's passed and the moneys ran away and they've toughened up, the parents must have questioned things like politicians interest and helpfulness. Either that or they really did call in favours, which begs bigger questions.

      Delete
  13. Ziggy, I can't find a satisfactory answer to any of your questions that doesn't point to political interference.

    I know that Amaral also alluded to the Lisbon treaty being signed the day after he was sacked.

    I like to focus on what information is out there, which is why I keep coming back to the dogs. It is going to be a long time before the facts come out about any political involvement

    A lot of people know what happened to Robin Cook up that mountain, but we also know that nobody will be admitting it any time soon.

    All that can be done is keep the case to the fore, as an unsolved "mystery" in the hope that one day Madeleine's fate is actually known.

    Thanks for a reasoned argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oscar

      It does seem odd that Portugal had a big part to play in big decisions . Manuel Barroso hosted Bush and Blair as they schemed an illegal war and what disinformation would work best to get away with it.They settled on WMDs. David Kelly bought the lie but later exposed it before murdering himself in a nearby woods and his family being denied an autopsy.We know the conspiracy theory about Barosso but that was put forward by a well known nutter.But enough people have enough on each other in politics. Especially from the 1990s onward. Secrets can be worth a lot of political currency.

      The dogs evidence.....

      If they alerted to a death having taken place in the apartment it doesn't alert to what caused it and who was responsible.Is there any evidence that she was murdered by anyone we can name( a parent).Even if the blood . dna were to be Madeleine's, the same question arises.If either or both parents stood trial for murder they'd plead not guilty.Who can prove them guilty ?The evidence could arguably tell the story of an abductor killing the child and running away with the evidence. Anywhere that killer would have moved would leave traces of the cadavarine. It isn't a matter of 'ask yourself which is more likely' in a court. Evidence and how it is defined scientifically matters.More pertinent, perhaps, is the arhument between Amaral and SY. he says it was tampered with.Why would it be ?

      Robin Cook was a good man. Unfortunately he was too honest and prepared to talk.You don't do that when Blair's your boss.

      I agree with the keeping things to the fore.But I don't agree with the funding of a dead horse.Keep it cold if necessary but don't keep it alive on a money drip.If anything in the case was going to prompt action it wold have done long ago. Either there really is zilch to nail the case or it's been decided 'upstairs' that it can't be.

      Good answers Oscar.You looked beyond the same old same old.

      Delete
    2. 12:42, the only pointer to the parents being involved is the scent of cadaverine in the car, their villa, and on KMs clothing.

      Whether it points to her direct involvement in the death, or in moving the body is not clear.

      Politically I can't possibly speculate, other than acknowledging that individuals often find themselves as pawns in political stand offs.

      The price of agreeing to one of Portugals demands in a negotiation may well have been the McCanns' liberty.

      Delete
    3. Keeping it to the fore would involve things like the Netflix film, and the McCanns being more pro active in the search for their daughter, rather than further funding for OG.

      Delete
    4. Oscar Slater22 March 2019 at 15:26

      ''12:42, the only pointer to the parents being involved is the scent of cadaverine in the car, their villa, and on KMs clothing.''

      That points to cadaverine presence only.Even then it's not clear. Was it really cadaverine in the car ?Or is it slightly more ambiguous than that ? According to science, cadaverine begins within minutes of the death.If that was in the apartment it could, arguably, contaminate anyone coming into contact with the area in which it was discovered.Does that make everyone who touches it or steps through the area a killer or responsible for the death ? A defence counsel would raise the question.When was the car hired ? When was Madeleine buried /frozen /cremated according to Amaral ? Do the times tally ?

      ''Politically I can't possibly speculate, other than acknowledging that individuals often find themselves as pawns in political stand offs. ''

      Which is the crux of the conspiracy theme now.Identifying who was playing the game and who were the pawns and how long it's been a stale mate.

      ''The price of agreeing to one of Portugals demands in a negotiation may well have been the McCanns' liberty.''

      Possibly.But what was the demand that made politicians say yes to negotiation in the first place rather than ''so what ? It's two holidaymakers and their kid, not one of us''.

      Oscar Slater22 March 2019 at 15:27

      ''Keeping it to the fore would involve things like the Netflix film, and the McCanns being more pro active in the search for their daughter, rather than further funding for OG.''

      The fact that we are discussing the case here and the same is happening on several blogs, forums and other platforms is evidence enough that it isn't stale. I see no value at all in a documentary or film or drama etc. The Netflix crew know there's an audience now.Maybe they've been told beg=hind closed doors that this anniversary will mark the end of the game.All it's done is cause the antis to get as excited as kids on Christmas Eve.Days before there was over -excitement and claims that there was 'no proof' that the documentary exists, only the McCanns saying they weren't interested.Which soon translated into it all being 'McCann propaganda'. These are the same people who claim to be unbiased and objective by the way.Nothing new comes from documentaries, only investigations.Why can't they see that ? But it's another opportunity to scrutinise who gets 'favourable' treatment and who doesn't, Then they can over react ( ironically) about a bias and, naturally, say the McCann team were behind it. Nobody will find the Madeleine we lost. She's 16 now not three. How would we know her ?

      Delete
    5. Thanks 20:01, I have assumed that the dogs are 100% reliable. They formed part of the evidence used against David Gilroy, who was convicted of murder, despite no body being found.

      If there alerts are not 100% reliable, that points to an unsafe conviction.

      What is the position with their reliability in alerting to the smell of death. Has it been placed in any doubt?

      Gilroy would like to know.

      Delete
    6. Of possible use :

      Martin Grime, the dogs’ instructor himself [20], mentions in his report:

      “Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations”

      An awkward little statement.It's rendered slightly non-committal by it's reference to a hypothetical or 'typical' case.

      Mark Harrison

      '' It is also interesting to know that from the vast experience of Mark Harrison in cases of homicides of under 5 years old victims in the UK since 1960 there were 1528 cases in which 82% of them were committed by the parents and 96% were committed by persons with close relations with the victims. Only 4% were committed by people not known by the victims.''

      Harrison is another darling of the antis through this little reference to statistics. I don't question their validity. I do, however question their relevance to the case. None of the above refer to 'children harmed, killed or abducted when in a foreign country to them'.

      Are we agreed that Madeleine vanished on May 03 ? I know the photo fetishists are certain it was in April. Amaral believes she was dispensed of early. Antis claim Smith saw GM on his way to rid himself of a corpse on the night of May 03. The car wasn't hired until almost a month after all these dates but, according to antis and commentators, it was the car that 'stank'.Makes you wonder why specialised dogs were needed really if humans could smell a 'stink'.

      Here's more detailed discussion.......

      http://britishspoofreportingonmccanncase.blogspot.com/2011/12/evrd-and-csi-dogs.html



      Delete
  14. Ros

    The 'establishment' turned a blind eye to Gamble, ordering his officers to PDL to commit criminality, the weekend 5th and 6th May. Was that because of his strong personality, or the fact he had in his possession Operation Ore files.

    Gamble, as CEO of CEOP saw a money gathering opportunity too good to miss and Supt Hill arrived in PDL to stitch up a patsy and stake their claim.

    Even Gamble admits on TV,words to the effect. "senior officers were pushing and fighting each other up the airplane steps in order to get to PDL first". But no love lost between the different factions of ACPO and CEOP, who are at pains to point out CEOP's criminality (Operation Task) nothing is sticking to me.

    CEOP as a private limited company against ACPO another private limited company.

    Both arms of the UK police trying to outdo each other. The more they focus on their mission, of convincing us that our children are in danger from paedos, the more public confidence will grow, the more the money flows into their coffers, the bigger their bonus.

    Angels snatched from their beds by paedos, what could go wrong?

    The idiots never stopped to think that one day the PJ would release the files, highlighting their dishonesty and Amaral would continue to stir the pot.

    OG was and is, junior rank coppers with no authority whatsoever, to investigate these senior ranks.
    The 30+ officers, if there ever was that number, passed their findings up the chain of command, it is career suicide to ask questions.

    Who then do you believe will investigate.

    Do you really believe Rowley was in charge of OG by accident?

    You would think anti terrorism was a full time job but no he took on the oversight of the McCann affair as well.

    How does a senior officer investigate himself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ @09;44

      Those are the unassailable facts.

      Delete
    2. I don't buy into this myth that all parents in the 2000s are completely blind to the dangers online.It's all about the nanny state. Does anyone here need to be instructed about the dangers online ? Apart from the common sense factor, it's been hammered home on both side of the Atlantic in documentaries for 20 years.

      Nothing in the Madeleine case makes that the first conclusion to jump to.One, the child had only been in Portugal a few days. Two she was apparently snatched from an apartment which was free of adult supervision.That suggests they had been watched.That was the official line. Which part of that screams 'internet' ?

      Delete
    3. Thank you JJ for going into areas where I have feared to tread, namely the part played by Jim Gamble and CEOP. Jim Gamble as we know is passionate about child protection, especially online. As Head of CEOP he wanted the major social media companies to pay him to police the internet. They basically all told him to go sling his hook and in 2010, he was forced to resign from CEOP after falling out with Theresa May.

      Jim Gamble believes that perverts use the internet to pal up with other perverts. That's not a thought process I understand, perverts are by their very nature solitary and unsociable. Why would the internet suddenly make them group together? Simply by telling one other person they are doubling their chances of being caught, joining a group is mind bogglingly risky.

      Heaven knows what CEOP were doing in Portugal, there was nothing to link Madeleine's disappearance to the internet. We saw the show of computers being seized from Robert Murat and Sergei Malinka, but it led to nothing, well nothing other than ruing the lives of two men.

      Turning to Operation Grange, you have indeed demonstrated the huge problems this task force faces - officers having to investigate officers who are more senior than themselves possibly for perverting the course of justice. Hmm, it is indeed a conundrum.

      However, I cannot get past the human factor. The idea that 30+ homicide detectives would cover up the death of a little girl. Not only would it go against their morals and their consciences, it would leave a horrible mark on the CVs should the truth ever be revealed. And that's the thing JJ, how can they guarantee that everyone in the know will stay strong and stable? Anyone of the witnesses could break down and confess at any time. There are no guarantees that this secret will stay buried forever.

      Delete
    4. Ros, I've often thought that vigilante groups such as The Wolf Hunters, who try to entrap paedophiles online, must be a magnet for paedophiles themselves.

      Where better to get leads on targets and cover your own tracks in the process?

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda @15:04

      For a self-professed student of human behaviour you seem to have little understanding of it.

      "The idea that 30+ homicide detectives would cover up the death of a little girl"

      The idea is yours entirely. If there ever were 30+ homicide detectives involved in anything to do with the McCann case then they would have been doing nothing other than what their jobs required of them, i.e., what they were told. They may have had reservations regarding the overall picture, but they would never have become acquainted with it professionally. Conscience, remorse etc., etc. does not come into it.

      Today I had a conversation with a civil contractor's employee concerning the inexplicable hard-surfacing of a public bridle-path. He thought it an unnecessary waste of money. He and a colleague then proceeded with the ground work. At no time did he lead me to think he might resign his job on account of being instructed to do something so pointless.

      As JJ has pointed out (and you repeatedly fail to grasp) the lower ranks within the police force (or any organisation for hat matter) are not to be counted among 'conspirators'. They simply do what is asked of them so as to safeguard their mortgages and pensions.

      Delete
    6. I have to say as well about people covering things up - how many people knew about Saville? How many people know about the cover up of an inconvenient death in a hospital.

      The fact is most people, in my opinion, are very good at pretending they don't know what's going on, "I was just following orders."

      Delete
    7. The officers haven't been accused of covering anything up.Those above them did the covering up.They're left investigating what's left. Nothing.That's how to explain any 'conundrum' you want to pretend exists. Or to put it more plainly, if you want to explain why nothing has happened at all in 12 years. Nobody is investigating anyone. Would OG's superiors form them as a team to investigate them ? Only if they knew there was nothing they cold discover.And that could only be a confident call if they knew they'd rid themselves of suspicion a year or two earlier. Any secrets that come out will be like the others that come out about high rolling morally bankrupt criminals; when all the leading players are dead.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous22 March 2019 at 15:32

      ''As JJ has pointed out (and you repeatedly fail to grasp) the lower ranks within the police force (or any organisation for hat matter) are not to be counted among 'conspirators'. They simply do what is asked of them so as to safeguard their mortgages and pensions. ''

      Which mirrors the exact ranking system ( degree) in the Freemasons. It's a pyramid structure. The lower tier are not privy to what happens on a tier above and aren't allowed to ask or question. All they can hope is for vertical progression. That's why the ground floor ones believe they really are just a charitable band of brothers who do good works and swear others to each other and whichever God they say they worship. Those rituals are symbolic. Not just silly.They symbolise the consequences of betrayal.

      Delete
  15. Oscar Slater22 March 2019 at 15:32

    Exactly. Leon B was a convenient passing too...

    Savile was pulled decades ago more than once. One particular young PW was told at the door '' if i go your bosses will all go with me''. She was disillusioned by that. Well not so much that, but that a weird oily celeb could command so much power. He was a semi- literate chancer with some horrible tastes. Yet he was the house a house guest Christmas after Christmas of the Thatchers. You couldn't get any two more contrasting people if you tried.Yet him and Thatcher- who we now know was willing to give paedophiles good jobs as long as they kept it in house - had some common ground...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just wondering what people think about the involvement of Carter Ruck. Help ? Hindrance ? Irrelevant ? A.L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well..considering that the parents are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, manslaughter, fraud, perverting the course of justice,abuse, drunk and disorderly and killing cock robin, it would seem their continued liberty would suggest a good - or magic- legal team were useful.

      Delete
    2. 18:54 Even if the legal team specialises in libel law, and is not usually known for their expertise in the criminal side of things.

      Delete
  17. Not much to say Rosalinda, except you are the dynamo who is brave enough to keep driving this site. It's really rather amazing that even the haters keep returning to savor your words.

    Amongst the many comments on this site there are quite a few comments laced with arguments from the mentally deranged. Carter Ruck juniors?(maybe). Always so serious. - Or the (paid) pals of the McCanns. People chosen for the bad luck of being unable to struggle to put down a coherent sentence.

    These folk's comments are always great to read.

    Finally, as many contributors to your site seem to have noticed, this case is getting near the crunch. The world is watching.
    But only the Portuguese have the power to get things moving.
    I wonder if behind the scenes Ex-Detective Goncalo Amaral is giving a helping hand to help prosecute the two criminals who fled his country abandoning their tiny daughter to the wastes of the Iberian peninsula.
    This man at least deserves a medal.

    When readers of the Sun and Mirror are actually smarter than the establishment thinks and read between the lines of the fake cover stories of their muzzled newspaper the establishment needs to worry.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happily JC the big newspapers have lost their control of the populace, tabloid front pages can no longer change public perception, alter elections or plant lies in the public domain. For example, in years gone by The Sun et al could have made Nigel Farage's 'epic march' a huge victory for the Right, but via social media, we could see just how pathetic it was. The tabloids not only can't change opinion, but they are hanging on for life.

      It is a good time to be a truth telling blogger, the public know other options are available and they are turning to them. I may not have inside knowledge of this case, but I have enough knowledge overall to dismantle and deconstruct every phoney press release. I can sort the truth from the propaganda.

      It would be nice to think GA has some input into the current investigations, but for him, now is the time to sit back and watch justice unfold. The truth always wins in the end, it can only be suppressed and silenced for so long. Especially in this new age of information, everyone has a camera and video within their phones, and every incident is recorded., fake news is instantly exposed.

      With the Netflix documentary we are now back in that surreal stage where the MSM are again promoting the McCanns as victims of the Portuguese police and victims of online trolls. I remember the first time around when I thought everyone had been hypnotised except me, the emperor was starkers but they were all admiring the fine cloth of his new apparel.

      I kind of feel here we go again, off to war, because the new batch of converted to the McCann cause will have consciences to salve via abusing non believers. They are a bit like ex smokers, in their 'how could you, that's disgusting', even though they themselves once smoked the disgust fags or held the same thoughts.

      To be honest JC I am uncomfortable in this shift in the paradigm, are the establishment preparing us for a non result in Madeleine's case?

      Delete
    2. If Amaral is having any input it would explain why it's going nowhere and why he could never prove his truth of his lies.

      Delete
    3. ..To be honest JC I am uncomfortable in this shift in the paradigm, are the establishment preparing us for a non result in Madeleine's case?..

      Call it a shift in a paradigm if you like.Everyone else calls it the inevitable conclusion as nothing has been achieved in 12 long years.It's been on the cards for at least five years.The train's run out of gravy now.Time to call it a day.

      Delete
    4. ''Amongst the many comments on this site there are quite a few comments laced with arguments from the mentally deranged. Carter Ruck juniors?(maybe). Always so serious. - Or the (paid) pals of the McCanns.''

      Not like you to make weird accusations you have no way of proving, jc. Probably a silly question, but I'll have a go. These 'juniors' and 'paid pals' of the McCanns - do they have names ? Failing that, can you give us an idea of how you know or why you think it ?Surely it can't be the usual paranoid, neurotic blabbering you serve up.Can it ?

      Delete
    5. Ros 23 March 12.36

      I enjoy reading your blog but have to overlook your devotion to Corbyn with gritted teeth, but please do not insult the 17.3 million people who voted for "Leave".

      If you read the news as I assume you do, you would know that the "Leave" march is next Friday 29th March when hopefully the 17.3 million people who voted "Leave" can celebrate unless they are stitched up by the con artist May and the rest of the EU loving Tories who all have their noses in the EU trough and are looking after the gold plated pensions they've no doubt all been promised to overturn the Brexit vote.

      The march today was limited to numbers for safety reasons, the Remain march was given the go ahead for today. Please get your facts straight.

      Delete
    6. Not sure what that has to do with but i have to say, Israel don't like Corbyn so he must be a good man and a man of the people.The antithesis of Blue Labour's Blair.I wonder if they've told May what to do about leaving yet. Maybe they'll go via Merkel their puppet.I just hope we don't get any fake terrorist attacks 'protesting' prior to the leave date...

      For your delectation..who remembers the mad eyed eccentric Patrick Moore ? This was way back..talking about UK being in Europe...enjoy....

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut6TGu1MG34

      Delete
    7. 12:36, I'm glad to see it was a very safe march indeed.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous23 March 2019 at 05:42

    '' It's really rather amazing that even the haters keep returning to savor your words.'' jc

    Says the person (?) who never stops voicing his hatred of police who don't agree with him, the parents of a missing child, anyone who doesn't agree with his bullshit or refuses to hate anyone.He calls them all 'mentally deranged'.Lovely.

    '' Carter Ruck juniors?(maybe). Always so serious. - Or the (paid) pals of the McCanns. People chosen for the bad luck of being unable to struggle to put down a coherent sentence.''

    Imagining people.Criticising the people you're only imagining.Yet calling others mentally deranged. Is calling stangers names humorous in your world, jc ? Is it 'clever' ?

    'Finally, as many contributors to your site seem to have noticed, this case is getting near the crunch. The world is watching.''

    They've noticed certain people saying it's near the crunch.They won't say how it is or when the crunch will occur. But they 'know'. They've known for 12 years and say it every year.Nobody takes it seriously.

    ''I wonder if behind the scenes Ex-Detective Goncalo Amaral is giving a helping hand to help prosecute the two criminals who fled his country abandoning their tiny daughter to the wastes of the Iberian peninsula.''

    Can you name the two criminals and tell us what's on their criminal record ? The 'mentally deranged' would like to know.

    ''This man at least deserves a medal. ''

    Medals are awarded for achievements. What was his ?

    ''When readers of the Sun and Mirror are actually smarter than the establishment thinks and read between the lines of the fake cover stories of their muzzled newspaper the establishment needs to worry.
    ''

    Yes. Never try to get one over on the readers of the tabloids.They're too clever.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous at 08:31
    ("He [Jim Gamble] must have been looking for one or more recognisable, i.e. 'known' faces.")

    Gerry McCann:

    "After returning from the beach we did the Irish version of Crimewatch-‘Crimecall’. There are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz and although the awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance in Ireland is extremely high, we want to ensure that everyone is aware of the appeal and we want the Irish public to come forward with photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May."

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DAYS_1_to_50.htm#d37

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 23.3 @13:53

      Exactly! Who takes holiday photographs of people (celebrities aside) they don't know?

      Far more likely is that a stranger accidentally wanders into shot, or is inadvertently captured in the background, by someone taking a family snap inside 'Chaplin's' for instance.

      The crux of the matter is that innocent family holiday snaps can only be taken by an innocent family on holiday, the McCanns for example, unless of course their mobility were curtailed for some reason.

      Delete
  20. Roxalinda,
    Do you remember way back when there was dispute over Madeleine's Birth Certificate online? Somebody on the internet sold one to Joana Morais for (if I remember it correctly) £50.00. Even today a copy only costs £17.99.

    So I was just wondering if you remember this or know anything about it, as the lack of an actual Birth Certificate on file has always intrigued me.

    I would be extremely grateful if you could shed any light on this matter.

    Thanks in advance, Annie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for the delay in my reply Annie.

      No I don't remember this at all and can't imagine why Joanna would have wanted a copy of Madeleine's birth certificate. Perhaps someone else will remember.

      Delete
    2. Imagine asking for a copy of a birth certificate of a child you don't know of parents you don't know either. Some weird people out there.

      Delete
  21. 23 March 12.21 I really think the general, hard working, caring public of this country, regardless of what paper they read, are underestimated by both the government and editors, they are more than capable of seeing through the lies and spin, its an insult to think any different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being hard working and / or caring doesn't matter.The government and media insult the intelligence of people not their character.

      The vast majority of the tabloid readers is in line with the vast majority of antis who have decided to convict the parents based on how the look and how they appear in public. They don't talk about facts and evidence. Just appearances.They won't discuss possibilities that consider why the parents haven't been arrested or why the police remain so reluctant.

      The government use the media for their own agenda.They decide what the public sees and believes and how they perceive things.The governments that span this case have looked, from day one, like they don't want this crime solved or the perpetrators exposed.So, with the right amount of spin and spin doctors, perceptions have been molded to suit.The parents have been presented innocent enough to remain free and suspicious enough to have the focus of the public remain on only them.They did it in 2007.They still do it now in 2019.That's why the case is still stuck in 2007 but the discussion and gossip and invention remains.Has anyone seen a theory or accusation in the last 12 months that wasn't circulating 12 years ago ? That's how it works. Job done.Easy.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous23 March 2019 at 16:18

      ''Roxalinda,
      Do you remember way back when there was dispute over Madeleine's Birth Certificate online?''

      That short question alone summarizes the insanity of the court of public opinion online.Hundreds or thousands of people who are complete strangers to each other on the internet having a dispute about the birth certificate of a child they didn't know who was the child of two people they didn't know either. Why ? To solve a crime. Brilliant.

      Delete
  22. I'm disappointed.Not surprised, just disappointed....

    When I came up with my questionnaire idea I hoped to draw some strong answers. Especially from the antis as they have the burden of being considered the accusers as there isn't any evidence available to bring about an arrest, let alone support their conclusions.It may appear that the questions were formulated with a pro' pro' perspective but they weren't. They're from a perspective more detached than that. They are intended to make both sides consider things with just a little more depth.

    The popular theory, or theories, accuse the parents of burying their child, then composing a dishonest abduction narrative along with their friends and fellow holiday makers and maintaining that lie to evade prosecution and to ensure Madeleine's fate remains a mystery. Other theories that were spawned by this include them all being swingers, satanists who ritually abuse children,Paedophiles fraudsters and general liars.I think a lot of the 'add ons' were borne of frustration and the free time too many devoted to trying to be the super detective who cracked the mystery.

    Frustration plays a major part of online debate.Both sides were happy to be on a side.That's silly enough on it's own.But then the side that advocated the lynching of the parents turned on each other.They all agreed the parents are guilty but started arguing and fighting with each other because they wanted to be more 'online famous' than the rest.Objectivity was the first and most valuable casualty of this war.

    I hoped by asking them all for evidence and proof of their allegations validity I would read some in the replies.I'm yet to see it as it doesn't exist.So, I tried another angle.I asked why they don't discuss alternative aspects of the case.I asked why their strongest arguments have had no effect on the investigation.Why the police don't care about the 48 questions; the dogs alerts; Amaral's stories;Eye witness testimony; the tapas group silence.Talk about all the reasons that the parents have remained free and declared as no longer suspects. Why all the political high rollers steam-rollered the case and the PJ when it wasn't a political situation. But nothing came forth.All i get is 'the alerts are real' and 'we're waiting for advances in DNA' . They are as good as it gets. Each as desperate as the other given that 12 years have passed.The accusations still come.The declarations of the death of the child and the guilt of the parents. Nobody adds that they're merely opinions and guesses.They want them to be passed along as facts to swerve their purpose.It's a sad state of affairs.

    Zig

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try zig,but I'm sure you are not dopey enough to realise that any thing posted which could be construed as libel/defamation would soon get pulled even Ros's blog itself,once again nice try.

      Delete
    2. Blimey Zig, I was expecting a 'you've let your school down, you've let your parents down, you've let yourself down', are you a frustrated wannabe Headmaster?

      You didn't get the answers you wanted, because the answer to most of your questions is the investigations are ongoing. Your questions only apply if OG and the PJ shut up shop and no-one is charged. All the while the shop is open, everything is on the table.

      As for the more outlandish theories, swingers, paedophiles etc, you darn well Ziggy that I do not buy into them. Jill Havern blames me for wrecking her forum, and I'm glad I did, her forum is dedicated to the salacious, sexually perverted allegations of this case that they are making. Lolita ffs. You should be glad I did too, it cost the McCanns nearly £400k to silence Barmy Bennett, I did it for nothing.

      Finally you say the police don't care about Kate's refusal to answer the 48 questions or the dog alerts. It is only you saying this Ziggy, and like us you have no idea what the police are doing with the evidence collected by the original investigation. The idea that the police would disregard everything done by the PJ and Mark Harrison is absurd. And btw, for many, the smell of death in the apartment is pretty conclusive, perhaps you could call it an educated opinion?

      Delete
    3. Bella....

      I'm not really interested in the PJ OG SY any spin at al. They'll release whatever they decide whenever they decide. I'm interested in the public perception.That is, the likes of yourself, others who have blogs and platforms and those who contribute.Nobody has the answers officially.Whoever knows them is keeping them.But the discussions are ongoing and we're responsible for those ourselves.

      ''As for the more outlandish theories, swingers, paedophiles etc, you darn well Ziggy that I do not buy into them.''

      If I believed that you did, I'd have criticized you before now. I was making a point concerning others.I know about the allegations on that forum.It shouldn't have cost anything to silence them.I'm surprised Bennett didn't go for the 'expressing an opinion' route..

      ''Finally you say the police don't care about Kate's refusal to answer the 48 questions or the dog alerts. It is only you saying this Ziggy, and like us you have no idea what the police are doing with the evidence collected by the original investigation''

      They hold evidence in a lab.Blood. DNA. And in a file thee are transcripts explaining the conclusions of Grime et al concerning dog alerts. They've held them for 12 years. Compared to crime detection 30 years ago, DNA and forensics in general have redefined the game.If we'd have been told 30 years ago that they could identify people with the kind of certainty that excludes all others as millions to one outsiders we'd have called it wishful thinking and science fiction.But here we are. People can be given life or death sentences on a droplet of blood or DNA.That's if the police have it.If they have it they're not using it.Have they got it ? What exactly are these advances needed to use the DNA ? What exactly are in the transcripts regarding dog alerts that can go from 'inadmissible' to 'evidence' ? As for the famous 48..a half decent psychologist or linguistic analyst could take the transcript of those, look at the context and give you their conclusions in two or three days.

      I think that 12 years of absolutely nothing is a good enough reason to suggest nothing is happening and nobody has done anything to bring an arrest closer. It's an opinion, yes, but it's logical.It has evidence ie - i say nobody's done a thing and nobody can demonstrate that they have.

      Delete
  23. BLACKMAIL, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION

    I don't think that any of that is involved.

    D

    ReplyDelete
  24. I see the sun is doing a woe is me piece about the libel loss.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8705813/maddie-mccann-kate-gerry-libel-bill-goncalo-amaral/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 09:00, people will read the story, and they will be hard pushed to miss the point that they lost a libel case against someone who said they killed their daughter.

      I also note that they are able to point to the Netflix documentary, which will surely do its viewing figures no harm.

      Some will watch it through to the conclusion, some will watch as far as the bit about the dogs. Some might even look further into Goncalo Amaral.

      They should be keeping schtum instead of stirring the pot. A further appeal for money is surely going to stir the hornets nest more.

      Delete
    2. I'm guessing you're a anti with your mind well and truly made up and with no need of evidence.

      I often suggest that people so adamant in their opinions should accept that they are only opinions.Or theories.And accept that no evidence can be called upon to support them. This is called honesty and also deflects any criticism of them being libelous. Calling the parents killers or liars is libelous in itself.Only if we take the law literally.Adding 'in my opinion' or ' my theory' cancels that accusation out before it's made.Strangely, it's only me who ever suggests it.Yet you pop up and try, in your desperation, to imply that I'm setting some kind of trap for antis to fall in which could get them into trouble.So, in context, your observation and back handed paranoid, accusation of that looks quite funny. It does the antis no favours for a start.Encouraging open discussion and the honest acceptance of the limits of theories is all good.

      However, if you'd rather the blog openly made accusations about the parents' murderous past, their fraud, their child abuse, the police lies and media campaign to mislead to cove up a murder, go ahead.None of that's libelous.Ignore my plea for reasoned argument and honesty.

      Nice try.

      Delete
    3. Oscar, you can either stir the pot, or stir the hornets nest, but stirring both would be over egging the pudding.

      Delete
    4. Are you replying to my post @08:57,if so nice of you to give me a label.Now say if I was against hunting I would be described as a "anti" hunt ,so using that as an example where does your label "anti" point in relation to Madeleine McCanns unexplained dissappearence,many thanks in advance.

      Delete
    5. I think 08@57 was being slightly paranoid Oscar..

      Zig

      Delete
    6. Oscar Slater24 March 2019 at 12:19

      ''Oscar, you can either stir the pot, or stir the hornets nest, but stirring both would be over egging the pudding.''

      or some other metaphors

      Delete
    7. Yes, that's kind of where I was going.

      Delete
  25. 25 July 2011

    http://www.herald.ie/news/rira-suspects-are-linked-to-euro-spy-27985376.html

    "Their arrests are the result of a joint investigation by the the National Counter Terrorism Unit of the Judicial Police and British counter-terrorism authorities, which is thought to have begun four years ago.

    The PSNI may have been involved in the operation, as police sources confirmed officers had been previously sent to the region regarding potentially suspicious activities."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 24.3 @11:46

      Precisely.

      Delete
  26. Labeling a statement an opinion does not automatically make it an opinion or make it safe from the possibility of it being defamatory. If a reader or listener could reasonablyCan an opinion be considered defamatory? understand that the communication as stating a fact that could be verified, the communication will not be considered an opinion, especially if it is sufficiently derogatory to hurt the subject’s reputation. Also, a communication that is presented in the form of an opinion may be considered defamatory if it implies that the opinion is based on defamatory facts that have not been disclosed.

    In other words, the fact that a statement is one’s opinion does not necessarily make one immune from a defamation lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You're having a game of twister on your own there, 12:32. Allow me to untangle you....

    If I'm before a judge and asked to explain a defamatory or slanderous comment or statement and I say : '' I didn't say it's a fact, i said at the time it was only my opinion.. if i could prove it as a fact I wouldn't have been summoned to stand here - your honour, mate ''

    ReplyDelete