Friday, 15 March 2019

REVIEW - NETFLIX MADELEINE DOCUMENTARY

 
I couldn’t resist peeking this morning to see if the long awaited Madeleine documentary was going to appear on Netflix, and there it was all 8 episodes.  8 hours later, I feel I have run a marathan.
 
Firstly, I don’t think Gerry and Kate have anything to worry about at all, in many ways the documentary in it’s entirety does much to dispel many of the rumours that have surrounded them in recent years.  All those that matter do not believe they are guilty.  Alan Johnson, Jim Gamble and Justine McGuinness.  No Clarence though, have they fallen out?
 
The middle episodes they may not like so much, these episodes explore the alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs and features the classic moment that Gerry threw a wobbly when asked about the blood found in the apartment. The discussion about the dogs alerts and the forensics was led by Summers, Swan and Jim Gamble who went to great lengths to explain why the dogs findings were worthless. Even the clips of Martin Grime focus on the lack of corroborating evidence.  These episodes leave you wondering, well who do I believe, these crime experts who say the dogs are crap, the front line services who rely on them or my lying eyes?  I think Martin Grime should get a knighthood, firstly for his amazing contribution to crime detection and secondly for his patience and stoicism in the face of his dogs being dissed by twats.  
 
I was glad to see that Goncalo Amaral was given the opportunity to speak, though it would appear his words are heavily edited. The overall aim of the documentary, I can’t help feeling, was to blame him.  In focusing on the parents he let the real criminals slip away.  Sandra Felgueres, who I once had a girl crush on, did a complete about turn.  She was furious with Goncalo Amaral for misleading her on the results of the forensic tests and lost all trust in his team.  It now appears she deeply regrets her former stance and the tough questions she posed to the parents.  
 
Robert Murat I think came across well.  I don’t know where the idea that he seemed odd came from, an over enthusiastic Tarzan lookalike and busy body Lori Campbell, both of whom I found a bit odd.  Robert seems like a regular, likeable guy, nothing like Ian Huntley, and he had a genuine skill to offer as a translator.  It is horrible to see someone with genuinely good intentions being made a scapegoat.  There was a crime committed here, the framing of an innocent man.
 
The series ends by looking at the broader problem of child abductions and human trafficking.  This is where Jim Gamble gets back to his own quest of ridding the world of child abusers. They are attracted to holiday resorts by scantily clad children apparently. A very emotional Jim’s voice cracked as he explains his calling to child protection.  But centre stage was given to Ernie Allen, head of NCMEC, the US equivalent of CEOP, who’s calming, reassuring voice, I am sure was used to calm those with missing loved ones and leave them with hope. It was a bit of a Sermon on the Mount moment, as in ah bless, at least the genuinely missing are getting a mention.  
 
What was missing?  Whilst they showed the Court victories of Robert Murat, the McCanns and the Tapas group, they barely mentioned the long running claim against Goncalo Amaral that he eventually won in Portugal's highest court.   
 
The Fund.  It wasn't just the reaction of the world's media that made Madeleine's disappearance a phenomenon, it was the huge amount of cash donated to the parents from people all over the world.  It ran to millions and it wasn't used to pay private detectives apparently, Brian Kennedy states quite clearly that he paid for Motodo 3 and Oakley.
 
Smithman.  Yes he gets a couple of mentions, but more time is given to Jane Tanner's sighting and the bonkers artist who drew the photofit, the sighting that was dismissed by Operation Grange.  They also claim that Mr. Smith has since said it wasn't Gerry.  That I would take with a giant pinch of salt.
 
The ultimate effect the documentary will have I think, is to confuse the matter even more.  The final episodes leave the viewer sympathetic to the parents and hostile towards the original investigation and Goncalo Amaral.  Depending on whether the viewer retains all the negative McCann evidence in the middle, which is doubtful, because it ends with a Rothley village group hug and you would feel like a shit if you said anything unkind.

207 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm reviewing the documentary 23:16, you are reviewing me, you are trying to find new and different ways to turn my opinions into hate and my views into character flaws.

      Your post is so laden with contempt, belligerence and sarcasm that I feel I am corresponding with an ageing Kevin The Teenager and wonder whytf I have even published it

      Right now I feel like a playground supervisor listening to a foot stamping brat saying it's the antis fault over and over. Blame Amaral, blame the PJ, blame anyone but the parents who went out for a meal and left 3 toddlers on their own.

      Your problem is that you lack communication skills, you are not able to put your across intelligently and sympathetically. You hide your ignorance behind sarcasm as if it demonstrates you have superior knowledge and a superior intellect to the plebs who read here. But sarcasm is not funny, it's not entertaining, and it's cringingly embarrassing for everyone in the vicinity. You score zilch points.

      In the real world I wouldn't tolerate your disrespect for even one minute, life is too short to waste time on oiks. Bear that in mind next time you pick up your poisoned pen.

      Delete
    2. I'm reviewing your reviewing

      Delete
    3. ''Your post is so laden with contempt, belligerence and sarcasm that I feel I am corresponding with an ageing Kevin The Teenager and wonder whytf I have even published it''

      Another ad hominem attack. Very clever. Don't you wish you could attack the points made just as easily ?You published it because you are sickened by the thought of censorship, book burning and people not being able to speak their mind as is their right ( did you forget ?)

      ''Right now I feel like a playground supervisor listening to a foot stamping brat saying it's the antis fault over and over. Blame Amaral, blame the PJ, blame anyone but the parents who went out for a meal and left 3 toddlers on their own.''

      Did i say it was anybody's 'fault' concerning anything ?If i lay blame at anyone's door i explain why.Any fool can accuse and leave it at that.As for the parents leaving their kids alone- who else can be blamed ? They did that.Who do we blame for the lack of a charge ? Not me...

      ''Your problem is that you lack communication skills, you are not able to put your across intelligently and sympathetically. ''

      My communication skills need no work. People far smarter than you have told me that for years.People ask me how to communicate more effectively, be it vocal or written.I know when a subject or a person requires a sympathetic touch and when they don't.You try to portray me all over this blog as lacking in intelligence.Again, bad move. My communication and intellect are clear for anyone who has even a modicum of comprehension skills.I don't try to put my points across in a patronizingly academic way because i've been to university, nor do i constantly resort to the irritating virtue signalling you adore so much.I'm not trying to sell myself.I'm not for sale.I'm merely opening up discussions by asking and answering questions.Trying to persuade your readers that I'm a bad communicator or that I lack intelligence is a desperate way of asking your readers not to pay attention to me.That's because i expose the flaws in the anti's arguments and challenge them to produce sensible answers.If you truly enjoyed an open discussion you'd welcome it.You clearly only want one side of a discussion. A 'get the parents' blog.

      ''You score zilch points.''

      So is that how hilarious sarcasm works then ? Thanks.

      ''In the real world I wouldn't tolerate your disrespect for even one minute, life is too short to waste time on oiks. Bear that in mind next time you pick up your poisoned pen. ''


      In the real world i wouldn't be in the vicinity of a pseudo Middle Englander who's favourite sound is her own voice and whose pretentious posturing only impresses herself.Stick to judging the marrow competition at your local fete and having tea with the vicar.And when you return from 1952, i'll explain why you should never treat the truth as though it's poison.

      x

      Delete
    4. Now that was an arse kicking

      Delete
    5. My that's quite a high opinion you have of yourself there, what a shame all your stated attributes don't come across in your posts. If they did, the McCanns wouldn't be half as unpopular as they are now.

      Being bad tempered and pompous does not win friends and influence people. It does the opposite in fact. You are of the school of bullying that believes ridiculing the messenger eliminates the message. Don't believe Goncalo Amaral because he is a convicted liar. Don't believe me because I'm riddled with jealousy of Kate and Gerry.

      Those are juvenile arguments, not intelligent arguments and your posts are littered with them. They are boring to read and impossible to respond to because you cannot understand not believing doesn't equal hate. Your brain is fixed on one track, it is not open to anything outside your set in stone beliefs. You are possibly one of the most bigoted, narrow minded individuals I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. But I'll give you that. You are great at it.

      And you finish with classic projection you'll explain to me why I shouldn't treat the truth as though it's poison! Err, it's the McCanns who spent all their millions trying to suppress the truth you eejit.

      Delete
    6. Hi Ros,
      I agree with everything you say above, the childishness of the first poster is beyond belief. This person will say the sky is green if you said it was blue Ros, anyone rational can see this. Their SOLE objective is to drive people away from your blog, but just know that some of us who may not post often are always here in the background, checking in regularly and reading everything and always happy to come and back you up.


      You are on the right track Ros when you reduce people to name calling.

      Keep up the good work

      AFAN

      Delete
    7. Many thanks for that AFAN, it is much appreciated. I know by my numbers that many people read here each day even though they may not comment.

      I had a bit of light bulb moment this week, as in what the hell am I doing allowing these nasty people to dominate my blog with their malicious personal attacks on me and those who post here. I've allowed it to go on so long I had become desensitized to their rudeness and bad manners. I sometimes wonder if we were face to face if they would speak to me as they do, and the answer is yes, especially if there was a gang of them.

      The last one I binned has threatened to publish his screenshots all over twitter and facebook - as if a small group of malevolent trolls talking about how much they hate me is anything new, lol.

      Delete
  2. According to Gemma O'Doherty, when she interviewed Mr. Smith, he said that he has not changed his mind about the person being Gerry McCann And that he had not spoken to any UK newspapers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hearsay. She should go on record and address the conclusions of the Netflix documentary and the Smith earlier claim that he was no better than 80% sure it was Gerry.It smells like a rumour from somebody wanting attention.But, if she does what I've just suggested, it could be interesting.What are the odds she doesn't though..

      Delete
    2. @01:18

      Not hearsay. GO’D spoke to Mr Smith herself.

      Delete
    3. did you witness it ? is there a recording of the conversation ? If not, it's hearsay.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 16 March 2019 at 23:13

      “did you witness it ? is there a recording of the conversation ? If not, it's hearsay.”

      Did you witness the Military Intelligence’s involvement in the case of Madeleine’s disappearance? Is there a record of such involvement? If not, it’s hearsay.

      Delete
    5. we can all witness Gemma O'Doherty confirm her interview with the Smiths and his re-affirmation of seeing Gerry McCann walk past him with a pale and immobile child in his arms She states this clearly on Youtube; Madeleine McCann, massive system wide coverup with Gemma O'Doherty by Sarah Westall.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds6yw3f1Bmk&t=905s
      A recording of the conversation indeed.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 16 March 2019 at 23:13

      Doc

      “did you witness it ? is there a recording of the conversation ? If not, it's hearsay.”

      Gemma O Doherty had spoken to Martin Smith and in she said so in her article. Were MS to challenge GO’D on that in court, her evidence and the relevant extracts from her article would be admissible. Not hearsay

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 18 March 2019 at 11:04

      Thank you for the link, I didn’t know about it. I’ll watch it when I can.

      Regards.

      Pooh

      Delete
  3. '' I think Martin Grime should get a knighthood, firstly for his amazing contribution to crime detection and secondly for his patience and stoicism in the face of his dogs being dissed by twats. ''

    Who exactly are these 'twats' ? Were the dogs really 'dissed' or is it just the case that their findings were of no use without further, corroborating evidence ? What positions and qualifications do these ' twats ' hold that give their opinions and conclusions more credence than, for instance, the thousands who watched the youtube video of the dogs and reached completely different conclusions ? In your opinion, what makes them ' twats ' ? have you spotted a complete cock up that you can point to ? Or have their conclusions just angered you ( even though you have no personal stake in the case ) .Has Martin Grime not tried to counter their findings and correct them ? Or did he actually agree with them and even advise and guide them ? Your conclusions and how you reached them would be an interesting read...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh dear - Pat Brown didn't get an invite to the party!

    https://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-of-netflix-madeleine-mccann.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually I read Pat's review and there is nothing I disagree with. I think she should have been asked to comment. I think however, her presence would have shown more book banning by the McCanns which is not a good a look for them. The Fund is not a good look for them, so that too got barely a mention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ros,

      I can't think of any valid reason why Pat should have been asked for her comments. The fact that she went to PDL with a trowel and probe, stopped off to have a toasted teacake with bennett and filmed petermac showing that the shutters could be opened from the outside are not relevant.

      Delete
    2. ''The Fund is not a good look for them, so that too got barely a mention.''

      Or does it not get a mention as it offers nothing in the way of finding Madeleine.That's what the documentary is about remember.Why did you forget that ?

      Delete
  6. The documentary is on Netflix. It has people talking. It will plant seeds in brains. It will allow the British press to publish allegations made in the programmes. "Netflix documentary" attracts more readers than "Rich Hall documentary."

    More and more people will start to question the "special treatment" of this middle class couple, and in the current environment that will gain traction.

    The McCann debate goes mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rosalinda Cristobell Hutton 16 March 11.19, well said.

    Re 15 March 23.16 ... my post on 14 Mar 17.44 seems appt !

    ReplyDelete
  8. 16 March 2019 12.16. If you dislike Ros's blogs and replies so much why not clear off to another blogger/forum. Or do you enjoy being angry ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I enjoy posts like that. They amuse me.

      Delete
  9. Ros: "for his patience and stoicism in the face of his dogs being dissed by twats."
    -----------------------------

    The dogs are not dissed - it is the interpretations of their indications that are misinterpreted by you and others like you - that is dissed.

    Grime in his statement quite clearly says that no evidential value can be taken without collaborating forensics.

    The fact that refuse to accept what Grime says after all this times would indicate you are spreading lies and misinformation when you refer to the alerts as "evidence". They are indications of where to look for evidence - nothing more nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. @15:13

      “…you are spreading lies…”’

      I shouldn’t think so. Ros is simply mistaken.

      I agree with the rest of your post.

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous16 March 2019 at 17:45

      The first sentence to your reply to my comment at 15.13 is relevant. The rest is too much.

      Delete
    4. That's not true 15.13 and if you had done any research on cadaver dogs you would know that. David Gilroy is in prison mainly due to the evidence of a cadaver dog according to Crimewatch. Also Martin Grime's evidence of what his cadaver dog Morse had found helped convict the father of Bianca Jones. In both these cases there was no body and no DNA or forensic evidence.

      Delete
    5. What does any of that have to do with the McCann case ? If you used them as reference points in court you'd be laughed at.The Gilroy or Jones case have nothing to do with PDL.

      Delete
    6. Are you testing how everything sounds in a court room setting 22:20? There are a few things you state would be laughed out of Court.

      There was no laughing in Court when the evidence of the blood and cadaver dogs was presented in the D'Andre Lane case, it was a tragedy involving the death of a two year old toddler. The alerts of the dogs and the evidence of Martin Grime ensured D'Andre Lane was convicted.

      I don't think the blood and cadaver alerts in the Madeleine case are in the least bit funny and I don't think a Judge would either. Martin Grime's dogs don't make mistakes, let alone 11 in one case.

      o you believe the dogs were mistaken 22:20?

      Delete
    7. Why are you talking about me as if I were not here 17:45?

      Were you never taught any manners or social graces in your upbringing? You are addressing MY readers as if you have taken over my blog, and you are urging them to join you in hurling abuse.

      Of all the ignorance and obvious appalling upbringing of those fanatical McCann supporters who post here, on the pig ignorant chart you have reached the top. You must have slithered your way through the net, but now it's time to put you back in the sewer where you belong.

      Delete
    8. "Martin Grime's dogs don't make mistakes, let alone 11 in one case."

      They made mistakes at Haut De La Garenne in Jersey.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 18 March 2019 at 13:11

      You can’t substantiate that.

      Winns

      Delete
    10. ''I don't think the blood and cadaver alerts in the Madeleine case are in the least bit funny and I don't think a Judge would either. Martin Grime's dogs don't make mistakes, let alone 11 in one case.''

      Why hasn't Grime been asked to attend a trial to do it for the McCann case ? It isn't about detah being a laughing matter, i'm laughing at how desperate some of you are to try and make something fit. Unrelated cases from the past have nothing to do with the McCann case. Understand it.
      '

      Delete
    11. "You can’t substantiate that."

      Yes I can, Winns. The dogs alerted to what was later identified as a piece of coconut shell.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous18 March 2019 at 16:14

      “"You can’t substantiate that."

      Yes I can, Winns. The dogs alerted to what was later identified as a piece of coconut shell.”

      Respectfully, that’s not a substantiation that the dog didn’t smell what he/she had been trained to smell if you see my point.

      Regards.

      Winns

      Delete
    13. Except that, notwithstanding the horrible abuse that went on at Haut De la Gareene, there was no evidence of any killings or disappearances there.

      Delete
  10. I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a huge court case coming up in the not too distant future and this is an attempt to make the McCanns look whiter than white to any of those who may sit on the jury. Although I've always been under the impression that it was a crime committed in Portugal and that a trial would take place in Portugal perhaps the UK justice system has said it will be brought to a UK Court because if there was any Fund deception that would be a UK case and better to have it all under one roof.

    I can't see it ending up with no conclusion, after £12million has been spent, it would be very difficult for the PJ or SY to say now, "oops, sorry we've wasted all this money and haven't got any clue what happened".

    Why do this Netflix documentary now? What is the purpose? I can see the McCanns' fingerprints all over it although they purport they didn't take part in it but I bet they were in the background directing who should be sh*t on and who should be looked upon as a saviour, the little cry baby who got all teary eyed over the McCanns who he'd only known for a few minutes before making his "they're innocent" statement, who was sacked by Theresa May. Was that mentioned in the documentary, I doubt it.

    Only time will now tell, we will have to wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous 16th March 15.13
    Hi,your still hanging around. What other blogs / subject matter do you post on.I have a suspicion you may be a Serial Agent Provocateur. Do you post under different names perhaps ...Grimtraveller maybe....just Curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a huge court case coming up in the not too distant future and this is an attempt to make the McCanns look whiter than white to any of those who may sit on the jury.''

      Do you 'wonder' what the case could be, who's being charged and when it will take place and where ? Or are you just feeling sick because a documentary isn't trying to crucify the McCanns ?

      '' perhaps the UK justice system has said it will be brought to a UK Court because if there was any Fund deception that would be a UK case and better to have it all under one roof.''

      ahh i see, no evidence to incriminate them as body burying murderers so we'll try fraud.Brilliant.

      ''I can't see it ending up with no conclusion, after £12million has been spent, it would be very difficult for the PJ or SY to say now, "oops, sorry we've wasted all this money and haven't got any clue what happened".''

      Keep watching. You'll see it.

      ''Why do this Netflix documentary now? What is the purpose?''

      Business.

      ''I can see the McCanns' fingerprints all over it although they purport they didn't take part in it but I bet they were in the background''

      That means you are imagining they were involved in it even though they ween't. Otherwise you'd have evidence wouldn't you. Wouldn't we all. But an anti will 'bet' they were involved based on nothing.

      ''Only time will now tell, we will have to wait and see.''

      Be brave.

      Delete
    2. anon @ 16:34,their finger prints are all over the Justice forum.

      Delete
  12. There were a lot of people reading this blog before the Netflix documentary was aired who seemed to be getting very excited about possible revelations that this documentary might reveal, especially as the McCanns had declined to take part.

    What it did reveal, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence, old or new, that implicates the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter. Furthermore, the only person closely involved in this case who actually believes they were involved is Amaral.

    Very telling that Amaral lied to Sandra Felgueres about the forensic evidence prior to her tv interview with the McCanns. Is that really the behaviour of an honourable man?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could tell he was lying. His lips moved.

      Delete
  13. Anon 16 March 16.35

    "What it did reveal is that there is absolutely no evidence, old or new, that implicates the McCanns".

    Seeing that the McCanns fingerprints are all over the production I doubt they would let anything through that actually "implicates" them, ffs where are your brains?

    And don't forget that a lot of evidence has been held back from the public in the PJ files.

    "The only person closely involved in this case who actually believes they were involved is Amaral". Isn't that jumping the gun a bit, what about the British Police detective (I can't remember his name right now) who said in the very early days of the investigation that "Gerry McCann needs looking at closely".

    re Sandra F, has she been "got at" and if so by who? I suspect we can guess, it doesn't take someone with a law degree to come to a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Seeing that the McCanns fingerprints are all over the production I doubt they would let anything through that actually "implicates" them, ffs where are your brains?"

      FFS, please give us some back-up to your claim.

      "And don't forget that a lot of evidence has been held back from the public in the PJ files."

      The Portuguese Prosecutor saw everything. What was his conclusion?

      "re Sandra F, has she been "got at" and if so by who? I suspect we can guess, it doesn't take someone with a law degree to come to a conclusion."

      You really have a wild imagination. Why on earth would anyone 'get at' Sandra F? She felt betrayed because Amaral had briefed her a pack of lies, which made her interrogate her two guests, instead of treating them with some compassion, bearing in mind they were already suffering from the loss of their child. What's more, Sandra, believing that she was party to truthful evidence, let it be known to the world that she didn't believe the McCanns. It was a despicable act by Amaral.

      Delete
    2. 19:59, I don't think the Portuguese prosecutor has reached a conclusion, have they? The case is still open and there is currently an ongoing investigation involving the PJ and Scotland Yard.

      There must be, because that was the reason the McCanns gave for not taking part in the documentary.

      Delete
  14. 16.35, a genuine question, have you read Mr Amarals book ? Ive read both Madeline and The Truth of the lie. Felt It gave me a better understanding from both sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd rather read the files.They have no agenda.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  15. I'm guessing the McCanns are once again apoplectic with rage judging by the number of angry incoherent rants I have had to bin. Those who's plan A was to spam my blog with personal abuse, will have nothing but disappointment from now on. You either treat me and my blog with respect or you go in the garbage or scurry off back to your cesspits. You've taken screen shots lol, Good for you, but you've you have just lost your major publisher.

    Those who wish to support are welcome to do so in a civil and polite manner. If you are not capable of that, you are not posting here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Daily Mail has published, today, the 48 questions that Kate McCann did not answer. Find that a bit odd, as it goes against their usual policy of always taking their side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you see how ridiculous they are and why KM wouldn't dignify them with an answer ( they had nothing to do with getting Madeleine back) you'll see that they say more about the PJs incompetence.

      Delete
    2. 16 March 2019 at 21.35 Just re read the 48 questions, blimey, Id answer them standing on my head with the entire PJ throwing eggs at me if I thought it would help them, help me, find my child. Gerry answered his.

      Delete
    3. 23:09, the questions don't look ridiculous to me, and are pretty much what you would ask someone when wanting to get a picture of what their family life is like.

      They would no doubt lead to follow up questions.

      What questions do you think they should have lead with?

      Delete
  17. ''I'm guessing the McCanns are once again apoplectic with rage''

    Guessing or hoping ? Guessing is all you can do.Strange how they all point the same way.You prioritise guesses and avoid fact.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks for the review of the Netflix documentary Rosalinda.
    I think you did us all a service by sacrificing your time to watch the film and the charade it actually is. Ditto Criminal profiler Pat Brown who came to the same conclusion as you. Mostly it's a masterpiece of pro McCann propaganda.


    I won't be watching - for what it's worth - too heartbreaking.

    The whole concept of shifting the blame for the little girl's death on to a gang of kidnappers is straight out of fairy tales. Think Goldilocks and the three bears, or tales of the big bad wolf.
    Or you could picture Gerry McCann as Jack the giant killer slaying his nemesis Portuguese Detective Goncalo Amaral.

    The couple from Rothley never cared one iota about losing their eldest daughter on the night of May 3rd 2007 in their holiday apartment.
    This charming couple cared only about saving their own skins.
    They, her parents, we are told, are the victims.

    From what I understand, the filmmakers promote the two doctors as an innocent couple who at worst maybe only abandoned and drugged their three tiny children alone every night while they went out drinking.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    And then something else equally horrible happened and kidnappers stepped in!

    No thanks.
    Their daughter's death is just incidental to this story.
    I would say every writer on this blog knows the truth or they wouldn't be writing here in the first place no matter many insane tirades to the contrary.

    Keep up the good work.

    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JC, always good to see you :)

      The Summers and Swan book, can't even remember the name, was a huge flop despite it's launch by Sky TV and Jim Gamble. It was part of a two pronged attack to clear the McCanns and demonise their online critics and non believers, all those clumsily and maliciously grouped together under the heading of 'trolls'. There was no difference between those with valid and credible points to make and those insanely typing vitriolic one line abusive posts. Jim Gamble wanted ALL in a dock facing a Judge. The result of course, was the tragic suicide of Brenda Leland, not a fecked up bitch as stated by Carol Malone, but an ordinary woman who dared to challenge the McCann propaganda.

      At least this time round they went easy on demonising the discussion online, no targets selected, no examples sought. Instead they demonised the dogs and Goncalo Amaral. I feel GA was lulled into a false sense that the documentary was going to be honest and unbiased, but he is literally ripped out half way through and all his critics are brought to the foreground. His being so horrible to the charming British couple, led to the abductor or the hole in the wall gang getting away. He was dismissed. Again.


      Delete
  19. Is anyone else puzzled why, in the Netflix film, they showed a picture of the possible abductor, seen by Jane Tanner, that has already been dismissed as being another holiday maker taking his chid home. Wouldnt the later efits of the man seen by Mr Smith been more helpful ?! Could it be that those pics look a little too familiar for comfort.

    I am neither anti or pro, I would have welcomed a more balance picture.

    If the makers were attempting to make a serious attempt at solving this mystery then why not show all the facts, warts and all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes 09:14, why spend so much time on a photofit of a man who has been ruled out by the police? If they were serious about finding Madeleine why not go with the man the police named as their prime suspect? That he looks so much like Gerry shouldn't matter if they are convinced of Gerry's innocence. The documentary claims witnesses at the tapas have proved it could not have been Gerry, so why not go with it?

      Another little quibble, Summers or was it Swan said Kate chanted 'bloody tossers' as she was shown the dog videos. Not true, her own words were 'f**king tossers' - why go for the lesser cuss? Image maybe?

      Delete
    2. ''If the makers were attempting to make a serious attempt at solving this mystery then why not show all the facts, warts and all.''

      They didn't make the claim.They make documentaries. Police solve crimes.

      Delete
    3. ''No thanks.
      Their daughter's death is just incidental to this story.''

      When did she die ? How did she die ? Why don't the police say she's dead ?

      Delete
    4. 13:33 there has been an assumption from those with an interest in the case that the documentary was made to prove whether the child was killed, or not.

      I don't think that was what the makers had in mind, when you read their own statements about the objectives of the shows.

      Delete
  20. If those supporting the McCann version of events were to replace the word "evidence" with the word "suspicion" in their submissions, very few people would agree with what they are saying.

    Yes, there is no new evidence, and very little real evidence that the McCanns were complicit in death of their daughter, and subsequent cover up. Nothing that could secure a conviction.

    There is strong suspicion though. A sniffer dog alerting to drugs is not enough to arrest and jail a smuggler. It is enough to justify the police searching a suspect and securing evidence to convict them.

    What came out to me was that there was plenty of opportunity for an abductor to get into that room, and take the child. The reason for that is that the series of checks documented in the timeline just wasn't true.

    It was right to spend time talking about the trade in children, and why there is some logic in the abduction theory. Perhaps though, it would also be right to spend more time to look at why the McCann version of events is nothing but a crock, and why they would be motivated to do that.

    At the end of the day, these shows will not change the minds of many people who have been following the case. We are all pretty set in what our suspicions are.

    What they will do is reignite the search for answers amongst the broader public. People who have been restricted to what our press have been allowed to say.

    One of the biggest ironies of the Netflix series is that the press are only really portrayed as wicked when they were fed information by the PJ. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, there is no examination of the way the McCann machine was able to manipulate the press.

    As for that eejit from the BBC, what an empty page of a man he is. Basically a case of saying, "I report what people tell me."

    ReplyDelete
  21. It is also ironic, how when Sandra was going at the McCanns she was the best journalist ever, yet when she says something in her favour, she has been "got at".

    It reminds me a lot of football supporters who will praise a journalist to the hilt when he supports their team's claims of ill treatment, but will call him corrupt when he writes something negative about them the next week.

    Sandra strikes me as someone looking for the truth, and the fact that she feels lied to by the PJ, doesn't mean she has discounted a the other "evidence" (suspicions), such as the dogs.

    This whole thing is about people who despise liars, and just want the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kind of felt that Sandra F was reprimanding her sources, as in give me false information and I will come down on you like a ton of bricks. She's very ambitious.

      As 09:29 pointed out the documentary didn't mention the McCann Media Monitors, set up within hours of Madeleine's disappearance. Thuggish trolls on a mission to seek and destroy anyone who said a bad word about the parents. How about the McCann Marketing division, mission: convince the world Madeleine is alive and raise as much cash as possible. The documentary totally overlooked why the Madeleine case was a global phenomenon. The record amount of cash raised for one child, unknown because when it started going into millions they took the cashometer off their website. How about the £500k paid to Lord Bell to keep them on the front pages of the tabloids for a year.

      So much wrong with the documentary in order to get such a one sided bias I think. Ultimately it did exactly what the McCanns would have wanted. The Portuguese police were portrayed as sleazy and inept, scuffy buggers said airhead Tarzan swinging his own coiffed do like a Hairspray model who survived a shower of rain. Yes mate, your worth it. Not.

      Delete
    2. There is a mountain of painfully dull biased videos online all making up stories and theories to incriminate the parents.Those who made them and continue to make them have no conscience and no intelligence. They have imagination and that's it.Richard hall is the God of the antis.Now we finally have a documentary made by a major production company and put together by professionals that doesn't take pains to try and incriminate the parents( they see the lack of evidence and failure of the police investigation) suddenly there are cries ( screams ?) of ''Bias !!! ''. Suddenly to be biased is wrong.You couldn't make this up.

      Delete
    3. ''This whole thing is about people who despise liars, and just want the truth.''

      But you can see why the antis have decided she's a hypocrite or been 'got at' can't you.I agree with you, she seems to be someone who values honesty and truth as well as the evidence to say it is. I think, early on, she was swept away with the popular opinion of the public and fell in to the trap. She's realised later that it wasn't as simple as the public imagined and more was needed. She also must have believed at that time that Amaral was a trustworthy man of integrity due to his position.Why would she think different ?I think she's learned from it all.

      Delete
    4. 13:27 As most people believe there has been a huge mainstream cover up in the case of Madeleine McCann and that the cover up makes up 90% of the discussion online, a mainstream production that forms part of that cover up will not be welcomed online. It is being treated like mugs that offends us most of all.

      Delete
    5. 13:32 - I can see that there are people on both sides who go looking for what they want to find, and find it.

      However, I would never seek to say what another person thinks, and neither should you. Your statement that she has "learned from it all" is rather patronising, don't you think?

      I would be very surprised if that is the first time a policeman has ever fed her duff information. I am glad that she is saying that she has integrity and is the only side she is taking is the truth.

      Delete
    6. It might have been the 40th time a policeman had lied to a reporter. Does that make it right ?Of course not.Especially given the nature and sensitivity of this case .

      Saying she 'learned from it all' is just my way of saying she' wiser for the experience.I didn't expect to have to explain that. That she has parted ways with Amaral and stated she's on the side of the truth is a significant wouldn't you say.They fit together well and indeed suggest she learned from it..

      Delete
    7. 22:25 thanks for your reply, I can see what you are saying, and agree.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton17 March 2019 at 20:21

      ''13:27 As most people believe there has been a huge mainstream cover up in the case of Madeleine McCann and that the cover up makes up 90% of the discussion online, a mainstream production that forms part of that cover up will not be welcomed online. It is being treated like mugs that offends us most of all.''

      Most people ? So it must be right if they're all making the same guess (again).

      Who is covering what up ? You are quick to try and dismiss anyone who talks about a conspiracy-if the conspiracy doesn't end in 'they did it' for the McCanns. Elsewhere you've accused two governments and PMs of being involved in a cover up, the tapas group of being involved in one, the police ( Gamble) and Mitchell( McCanns ). Even the forensics team 'dissing' the dogs. Now it's the media.

      If the cover up started high up ( Whitehall) and was dripped down to SY and the Met then put in place by the forensics how are the media covering anything up ? They can only play the hand they're dealt.They ask questions and have to use the answers given.

      If 90% of the discussion online is about a media cover up all to protect the parents, that says more about the mindset online. Absence of tangible evidence and witnesses protect the parents.Otherwise they'd have been arrested.Or have the witnesses been silenced and the evidence contaminated or removed too.All for two holiday makers.

      Delete
  22. If the 48 questions Kate refused to answer were ludicrous, how come all her pals answered them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If all her pals answered them what's the problem ? Have you any evidence of their answers by the way.Or even of the 49 questions being asked of her pals.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, that's not mental at all 13:00.

      So, her pals are the sort of people who answer ludicrous questions? With friends like that, who needs enemas?

      Delete
    3. I can think of a few people who could use one, Catap. No names no pack drill ;-)

      Delete
    4. 22:26 yeah, or an interest in life like a girlfriend, or something. :)

      Delete
    5. yeah..kewl bein' 16 again innit..

      Delete
  23. Q. Did you kill your daughter?
    A. No comment.

    Sounds like an innocent woman to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without evidence of a death it sounds like a detective trying to make facts fir his theory.When asked the questions the child was still missing and it was still relatively early.He was wasting his time and valuable time in the investigation chasing his suspicion. Why do you think nobody from the PJ has pressed KM about her legal right to 'no comment' since ? Why haven't they chased Amaral's hunches as a mark of loyalty to him ? It isn't rocket science.

      Delete
    2. Someone died in 5A and Madeleine has not been seen in 12 years.

      Why wasn't Kate pressed..... There is nothing the police can do if a witness says no comment. If she hasn't gone back for any more interviews then she is probably still saying no comment.

      Why haven't they chased Amaral's hunches. They did. The investigation ended because the tapas friends would not return to PDL for a reconstruction. They also interviewed the Smith family, something GA was about to do before he was removed from the case.

      It isn't rocket science but it isn't 'make believe' either. You are being disingenuous when you imply the theory of Goncalo Amaral and his team has been ruled out. There is no way you could possibly know that and this is where the make believe comes in.

      Delete
    3. The blood and cadaver dogs indicated blood and cadaver as they are trained to do. Someone died in Apartment 5A.

      No matter how many twists, turns and somersaults the McCanns and their fans perform, that fact remains.

      Delete
    4. The fact remains that Grime was and is the expert and he has said no alerts are significant.It would take too many twists and turns to say otherwise and especially in a trial.That's really is a 'fact' and really does remain.

      Delete
    5. why don't you stop lying about the dog alerts are explain why they haven't been used to arrest anyone

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton17 March 2019 at 13:25

      ''Someone died in 5A and Madeleine has not been seen in 12 years.''

      Can you give me a source for that death in 5 A ? I can't find one.

      Delete
    7. Yes multiple sources. The dog alerts. Two dogs who are never wrong do not make 11 mistakes. I suggest 20:23, that you look up the evidence of Martin Grime in the De'Andre Lane trial. It makes fascinating reading, Mr. Grime's dogs (next generation) hit on every spot where the poor child's body had been. Oh and there was no body.

      Delete
    8. I suggest you email SY, OG and PJ and tell them.There has to be a reason that they won't do anything about the alerts in the real world. According to the internet police they nailed the mccanns and so did the dna and blood all over the place. Yet the police won't do anything ? Come on, be serious....

      Did they have a dog to detect a murderer by the way ? Because the parents are adamant that their couldn't have been a death odour there. So if the abductor killed the child and ran away with the body of evidence we have another problem don't we..

      Delete
    9. He asked for a source telling that the child is dead, Ros. Not your opinions.

      Delete
    10. ''It isn't rocket science but it isn't 'make believe' either. You are being disingenuous when you imply the theory of Goncalo Amaral and his team has been ruled out. There is no way you could possibly know that and this is where the make believe comes in.''

      You claim to 'know' that the child is dead, that the blood, dna and dog alerts are evidence of her death and the parents guilt .All of which has been dismissed by the police and forensics - not me. Worse, you dismiss, with customary arrogance, anyone who points out that the police have stated the evidence is inconclusive and the parents aren't even suspects.You 'know' the truth ( though claim, when directly challenged, to have no idea what happened lol)


      I suggest that as they have refused to use them as evidence or done a thing about them in 12 years that they have dismissed them. That's the way a logical objective mind works.You call me 'disingenuous'.

      Delete
    11. Past trials have no relevance do they. If they did, I'm sure the prosecution services of today would look to them as precedents to which they could refer the judge and jury.I'd be more interested in what Grime said about the actual case we're talking about, the McCann case. What did he say about that, that made you look for other cases as though they could help. ? You claimed elsewhere that Grime had to stand by as his dogs were'dissed by twats'. What did you mean

      Delete
    12. You just can't keep a civil tongue in your head can you?

      You don't get to call me into your office to get a dressing down. You don't get to lecture me on anything. I have no respect for you and no desire whatsoever to be like you in any way, so you can take all your 'you should be just like me shite' and shove it up your cowardly arse.

      Your conclusions by the way, are not logical, that's why the majority no longer believe the McCanns.

      Delete
    13. You have no idea how the law works do you 22:58? lol. Essentially it boils down to two or more barristers citing precedents at each other.

      Gerry himself knew the importance of other cases because he went to a great deal of trouble to find a case where the dogs were wrong. For a while he cited the case of Attracta Harron as there was a dispute over the dog alerts, but the dogs were proved to be correct. Martin Grime dogs, earlier generation.

      As for your final sentence, lol, work it out for yourself.

      Delete
    14. erm did i miss something. What did he say that wasnt civil ?

      Delete
    15. ''Your conclusions by the way, are not logical, that's why the majority no longer believe the McCanns.''

      I believe he was referring to logical objective minds, Not the antis who wont accept that the police have cleared the McCanns and dismissed the evidence.Correct me too if i'm incorrect.

      Delete
    16. Have the police dismissed the McCanns 00:22? It would help me a great deal to move on if you could point me in the right direction.

      Delete
    17. Voicing facts is being 'uncivil' now is it.Voicing accusations you can't back up is fine though.Sensible approach.

      Delete
    18. Have the police cleared the McCanns? I must have missed that bit.

      Delete
    19. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton17 March 2019 at 13:25

      ''Why haven't they chased Amaral's hunches. They did. The investigation ended because the tapas friends would not return to PDL for a reconstruction. ''

      His hunches were that the child had been either cremated or frozen then buried or down a well and had been killed or died in the apartment.That's the basis of his crusade against the parents.But they chased those and got nowhere because of the Tapas group not reconstructing events. Seriously ? Them not taking part made the corpse , blood and DNA vanish ?

      ''They also interviewed the Smith family, something GA was about to do before he was removed from the case.''

      And Smith said what when he was eventually interviewed ? He saw Gerry carrying his dead child as though he wanted to cremate or freeze or bury her ? Or that he couldn't be that sure it was even him...

      '' There is no way you could possibly know that and this is where the make believe comes in.''

      Not 'make believe', just believe. When 12 years passes in a case that has no forensic evidence at hand it's safe to believe there's no forensic evidence.To believe they have it but they don't have the technology to interpret it.In the 21st century ? Now that's make believe.Or denial.

      Delete
    20. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 17 March 2019 at 13:30

      Greetings, Rosalinda

      “The blood and cadaver dogs indicated blood and [perhaps] cadaver as they are trained to do.”

      Most likely.

      You do remember that Eddie was a ‘blood and cadaver’ dog according to Martin Grime’s statement in the files.

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

      MG: “'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an
      Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD)

      .'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood…”


      “Someone died in Apartment 5A.”

      Not necessarily, although I think it is reasonable to suppose that the dogs’ indications had something to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.

      Bless.

      Pooh

      Delete
    21. Oscar Slater18 March 2019 at 11:10

      Have the police dismissed the McCanns 00:22? It would help me a great deal to move on if you could point me in the right direction.

      Oscar Slater18 March 2019 at 11:46

      Have the police cleared the McCanns? I must have missed that bit.

      '' The McCanns are NOT suspects. Period' circa 2017 PJ big boss.

      Delete
    22. 14:52 Is it possible that two years of detective work could have them back in the frame?

      Delete
  24. You once wrote:

    "The Establishment defended their intervention by promoting the McCanns as the perfect British Family and putting the blame onto Johnny Foreigner. Portugal were portrayed as a third world country, with corrupt police who couldn't find the abductor so they were blaming Kate and Gerry. Both the British government and the British media bought and promoted dialogue that was coming directly from 2 of the 3 arguidos, choosing to believe Kate and Gerry over the Portuguese police!"

    That was replicated in the later programmes of the series. I am sure at one point someone actually used the words, "they represented the aspirational Britain of New Labour" (or similar).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being aspirational doesn't make you a murderer.Rising above your circumstances to be a success doesn't entitle you to protection from your government if you have killed your child.Trying to make the link between New Labour's ethos and the protection of two professionals is an awfully desperate effort. New Labour had disappeared from power in 2010 anyway.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I see what you mean.

      Delete
    3. Cataplana 17 March 2019 at 19:02

      Respect for that.

      Delete
  25. Hi Cataplana thank you for your posts.

    Yes, I have always felt from the start that this quintessential British family, attractive and perfect in every way, was an excellent marketing ploy to: tighten up the borders, legislate against press intrusion, police the internet, bring donations to missing people charities and the go ahead for people like Jim Gamble to access the public's confidential online details.

    Sadly this takes us back to the mindset that the Portuguese police were to blame. Almost every shot shows them bullying and intimidating witnesses, yet it didn't show that Gerry sat in on Kate's first interview, behind her and with one hand on her shoulder. She never gave another interview on her own. Some might say she was afraid of contradicting anything Gerry might say.

    The documentary did at least show that major blip in Gerry's first statement where he claimed to have entered the apartment via the front door, using a key. By his second statement he remembered he had gone in via the unlocked patio doors. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to see that 'change' was a massive red light.

    But returning to your point, yes, the perfect English family as promoted by two PMs and Alan Johnson. If they hadn't been attractive, well educated and erudite, perhaps this case would have concluded 12 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I often think the McCanns are typical of those sort of people, who have f they fell in the sea, would come out dry.

      Since their tragedy unfolded, society has changed. It has gone from the Cool Brittania aspirations of New Labour, to the grittier Gig Economy, and Alarm Clock Britain

      There are very few people wishing well on others in our country just now. Instead there is a common theme of injustice in much of the online comments these days.

      Britain is more "us and them" than at any time since the 70s. There are vast swathes of society just dieing to tear into "them".

      It's not behind the realms of possibility that the McCanns may be offered up as sacrificial lambs to compensate for Brexit.

      "Sorry, it wasn't those foreigners after all, it was those smug, middle class types that can get away with murder."

      Be interesting what reaction there would be, should K&G think it's time to pass the plate round again.

      The mob don't worry themselves about the semantics of words like "evidence".

      Delete
    2. The law worries about words like ''evidence'' though. Isn't that unfortunate for you.

      Delete
    3. There is what we know, and there is what can be proved 12:50. I think you've got the gist of what I was trying to say.

      Delete
    4. The public worry much less about words like "evidence", isn't that unfortunate for you?

      Delete
    5. ''There is what we know, and there is what can be proved 12:50. I think you've got the gist of what I was trying to say.''

      And there's opinions we pretend are facts and try to sell on the internet.Let is not forget old fashioned suspicion. Opinions and suspicion versus logic, common sense and tangible evidence. Which would be laughed out of a real court in a real criminal trial ?

      Delete
    6. I don't think logic is the McCann's biggest enemy any more. It's the mob they need to fear; ironic that public opinion was what aided their escape from Portugal, as it is public opinion that will demand they are sent back.

      Delete
    7. I don't think there will be any mobs Oscar. Public opinion is mostly indifferent these days, there are far bigger stories doing the rounds, the Madeleine story has slipped way down the scale. I see the irony in your statement Oscar, and would have to agree there will not now be rioting in the streets to defend the parents.

      I recently read a Blacksmith blog that discussed extradition and public sympathy. Would crowds in the street call on the PM, whoever it might be, to stop any extradition demands the Portuguese might have?

      Delete
    8. Oscar Slater17 March 2019 at 20:40

      ''I don't think logic is the McCann's biggest enemy any more. It's the mob they need to fear;''

      Tony Soprano - welcome. Big fan....

      The general ethos of this blog Ros is hosting tends to deny that there's any vigilantism. Just letting you know for future reference.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton17 March 2019 at 20:52

      ''Would crowds in the street call on the PM, whoever it might be, to stop any extradition demands the Portuguese might have?''

      Will they be holding pitchforks, demanding that two people deemed innocent - by two police forces -and who don't have a single iota of evidence to suggest they're guilty of anything, are brought to justice for it ? No wonder Boris bought water cannons.Never heard so much rubbish spoken by so many to entrap so few..

      Delete
    10. No, that wouldn't happen. Unless of course, Team McCann misreads the signs and comes back looking for more money.

      Delete
    11. 21:57, there's what should be, and there's what is. What should be is that nobody is listening to you, what is that here I am telling you to stop twisting what people say.

      The Netflix documentary is very much about how the media can be used to manipulate large numbers of people. You start playing that game, you are in danger of those people turning on you.

      Who is Boris, by the way?

      Delete
    12. OK Oscar, How do you explain that both police forces have made public statements that the McCanns are not suspects and they are not being investigated?

      Delete
    13. I don't do as I'm told. But I'll take your suggestion on board. What were the words i twisted ? 'the mobs anger' ? How is reading that as vigilantism twisting anything....

      Boris is the albino imbecile who was guided to the mayor's chair in London by his ugly sisters, Cameron and Mitchell..

      Delete
    14. I can't explain that 13:27, as I know nothing about it. Tell me more.

      13:35 "I don't do as I'm told" - what a rebel! Do you smoke and chew gum as well?

      Delete
  26. Lack of evidence is not lack of guilt. In Scotland, the McCanns would be heading for a "not proven" verdict - we ken ye did it, but get lost and don't do it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Innocence is lack of guilt.

      Delete
    2. My goodness Sammy Semantics is busy today, 12:48. Innocence is lack of a conviction.

      Why get caught up on the minutae of this case? It really sounds like you are trying to wriggle out of something, or (sickeningly) are goading people that guilty people are walking free.

      Not nice at all.

      Delete
    3. It may sound like that to you. God knows why. Just look at it again.It's only five words : 'innocence is lack of guilt'. Short and to the point with no added sweeteners. None needed.

      I think it's fairly important to get 'caught up in the minutae' of the case. After all, it's 12 years old now and all that exists are rumours, lies and arguments with no proof.It could take a piece of tangible evidence small enough to evade the human gaze or canine nose to set the wheels of justice in motion.But there isn't one is there. So why ignore the relevance of how valuable minutae are.

      ''It really sounds like you are trying to wriggle out of something, or (sickeningly) are goading people that guilty people are walking free.''

      You really got all of that from ' innocence is lack of guilt' ? You have to be an anti with that kind of imagination.Tell the British Justice System your grievances. Not me .

      ''Not nice at all.''

      You invent a scenario say you don't like said scenario then criticise someone else for it. I think that's proof positive of where your head is. If you invent a scenario and try to use it to make an accusation you can't support, don't complain about it being 'not nice at all'.It sounds like you're talking nonsense to yourself.Maybe you shouldn't listen.Just a thought. Here's to all the straw men..

      Delete
    4. I think you got the gist of what I said. Maybe you didn't, but in this case I think I'll just take Mark Twain's advice and leave it here.

      Delete
    5. You really need to develop a thicker skin if you're going to act the hard man online.

      Delete
    6. is that a private argument between you and you ?

      Delete
    7. Oscar Slater17 March 2019 at 20:42

      ''You really need to develop a thicker skin if you're going to act the hard man online.''

      Mumbled the keyboard warrior to a complete stranger online

      Delete
  27. Ros,do you think this Documentary could be a companion piece to the Operation Grange Final Report. Do you find the timing a little suspicious. And thanks for saving me 8 wasted hours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are very welcome Ed, towards the end it did become a bit of an endurance test!

      No I don't think this documentary could be a companion piece to OG, unless OG have categorically ruled the parents out. I think OG have gone down an entirely different road, those roads the documentary skilfully avoided and ignored. Little things like why did the McCanns and Brian Kennedy pay such vast amounts of money to two dodgy firms of private detectives? How about, are the parents and tapas friends assisting the police? Right now it seems Kate McCann has only made one statement, her second statement famously consisted of nothing but 'no comment'.

      The documentary steered clear of the McCann social media wars, showing only a limited number of tweets and letters received by the parents that were just plain nasty, sent from obvious loner trolls. No mention of large organised groups, or armies led by Goncalo Amaral.

      So much more to come Ed, but not from that documentary.

      Delete
    2. The documentary is about a little girl who vanished in the real world and has yet to be found. The investigation has been a joint UK /Potuguese one in the real world. The suspects( cough) and key players are in that real world.It appears not to be arsed with petty virtual online 'wars'.The bored and the lonely have too much time on their hands. This investigation is already 12 years old.Let's not make it go another 12 because of the internet.

      Delete
    3. So if we are bored and lonely 20:20, what are you, a life coach? Puzzles are a good way to keep the mind active. This is a puzzle, given to us in 2007 by the parents with lots of pieces missing, we are driven to solve it (not literally), it's human nature, beyond our control.

      Delete
    4. Yeah 20:20, let's just forget the whole thing ever happened.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton17 March 2019 at 20:35

      ''So if we are bored and lonely 20:20, what are you, a life coach? ''

      No, an observer of the bored and lonely who keep making a racket online and being naughty.Behave.

      ''This is a puzzle, given to us in 2007 by the parents with lots of pieces missing, we are driven to solve it (not literally), it's human nature, beyond our control. ''

      Of course we can control it if we try.If you belong to a Cluedo support group,on the other hand, I apologise.

      I mentioned on your recent thread that we are naturally inquisitive and love being confronted by a riddle or two.But we won't get into a plagiarism argument now.I'm flattered.

      If we are given a puzzle with so many pieces missing it's all but impossible to solve.We need to find the missing pieces.If we don't find them we have to keep looking or give up.The third choice isn't really an option but everyone seems to have chosen it.That is, they've forged some pieces, reshaped them and then held it up as the problem solved . But it isn't is it. It's fake.


      Delete
    6. No need to forget. We can all read.But the 'wars' are pathetic. So many empty vessels out shouting each other to sound more ill informed and inventive. All 'experts' in nothing but the art of rant.

      Delete
    7. 22:53, I agree. I hope that DNA advances can one day help to solve this case. Or, as was said by a cop years back, that loyalties change over the years, and somebody comes forward and tells everything they know.

      Delete
    8. The DNA advances aren't needed. We all know this by watching documentaries explaining what they can detect now.

      Amaral was asked if the case will ever be cracked. he said he thought so once the 'political will' of two countries allow it. isn't that a statement that says it stopped being a police matter / investigation and became a political powder keg a long time ago. Which, by extension, would explain why MI5 were needed and why so many politicians were too willing to make this a one off case where time and money wee going to be limitless ( decided 12 years ago when they were all supposed to be expecting Madeleine back 'any day now').

      So, politics, intelligence, political will and loyalties. All preventing a case being solved.That is evidence that the decision was already made and there would be nothing further to do. Which, by extension, explains OG's lack of progress and doing nothing.They have to keep the public duped because this is a political cover up.Og could prove that wrong of course. By doing something real.

      Delete
    9. All it says is that Amaral said it is when the "political will" of the two countries allow it. You'd be better asking him what he meant than fitting in your own interpretations.

      Delete
  28. I think the major issues to come out of the progs is that there are missing children; some get more media coverage than others; media coverage can be negative as well as positive; CEOPs and their American counterparts are the good guys.

    Take a close look at who appears most in the shows, and that probably points to who had driven them.

    Both Jim Gamble, and the Odd Couple (that's a wig, isn't it) are never off our screens.

    The McCanns, Amaral, Kennedy et Al are "the talent", that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ ed tom,one wonders why a 8 piece docu is released en masse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's what Netflix do. Don't go looking for ulterior motives.

      Delete
  30. "I kind of felt that Sandra F was reprimanding her sources, as in give me false information and I will come down on you like a ton of bricks. She's very ambitious."

    Reprimanding her sources? Oh come on now Ros, Sandra F was doing more than reprimanding. She is furious because she was duped and betrayed by Amaral's lies (it seems like a lot of people were). Unless, of course, you believe that she is lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I don't believe she is lying, I have a lot of respect for her.

      Yes I agree she appeared to be furious with GA for misinforming her about the forensics. Her change of opinion I cannot explain and won't attempt to. It is of course her prerogative. I would like to have heard more from her on why she changed her opinion, given all the other McCann inconsistencies, she knows everything doesn't balance on the dogs findings so it must be more than that.

      Delete
    2. Have you never changed your opinion of somebody you had complete trust in once you realised they had deliberately misled you and lied to you ?

      Often things are as simple as they seem. Why make them complex by adding what you imagine. If the truth is too dull shift your interest.

      Delete
    3. 20:16, I am prepared to admit that I overlooked the fact that the police were under pressure to get a conviction. They had already tried to frame Murat, and so I have become more open minded about the possibility that the McCanns may have been seen as the next available patsy.

      I'd be a lot happier in that view were it not for the alerts of the dogs. Everything has an alternative explanation, but at the moment the integrity of the dog test is beyond doubt.

      In all of the years of trying to rubbish the dogs, no one has really come up with a plausible explanation of why they could be unreliable.

      Human matter was retrieved, one day DNA may show who it belonged to. The mystery goes on.

      Delete
    4. I believe the patsy theory. I've said before that i believe the McCanns have been made to look suspicious by those who want the eyes of the world looking in the wrong direction.The clever part of the operation is the dogs alerts. To the layman it looks like something when sat on youtube.But that's the layman. Grime is an expert. We see blue tac all over a wall and call it blood spatter because we've all watched Dexter.Amaral said he needed a microscope to find blood.In the days when you can make a musical fart go viral, the rest is easy...

      ''In all of the years of trying to rubbish the dogs, no one has really come up with a plausible explanation of why they could be unreliable.''

      Grime has. And he's the expert. Apparently.Either he's telling the truth and it's a case of the alerts meaning nothing.Or he's lying. Why wold he lie ? He has no stake in anyone being guilty or innocent.

      ''Human matter was retrieved, one day DNA may show who it belonged to. The mystery goes on.''

      DNA revolutionised crime detection over a generation ago. Cold cases all came to the surface and nailed culprits who thought they'd got away with it. Since then it's evolved further. Touch DNA being the most significant advance ( see Jonbenet Ramsey). With the 'human matter' / DNA/ blood they have now, they have enough technology to use. Either the truth is that it just isn't significant or the forensics and police have been told to say it isn't. People seem to think the latter but lack the bottle to say it.But they'll happily blame the McCanns for it.If all these people have contrived to keep the McCanns golden, they are accessories after the fact in the crimes of concealment of a body, a death caused either by accident or murder, perjury and perverting the course of justice. They are also guilty of defrauding the people by using their taxes to pretend to investigate a crime. All because the doctors are British and middle class ? That is insane. But it's another commonly held belief shared by many of the antis.

      Delete
    5. @10:51

      “In all of the years of trying to rubbish the dogs, no one has really come up with a plausible explanation of why they could be unreliable.”

      Perhaps because the dogs were reliable and they indicated as they had been trained to. What do you think, Oscar?

      Pooh

      Delete
    6. can somebody post the link of the Grime transcript for Oscar.

      Delete
    7. The dogs alerted to the smell of death and blood 22:01. That's all that people need to know.

      I suspect the transcript will be your way of manipulating the word "evidence" to suggest that there was nothing found, and that there is no suspicion as a result.

      Delete
  31. This documentary is only five minutes old and it's becoming big news to all those small minds out there. ( and on here of course )
    I just glanced at the Murdoch rag. As we all know ( or should) the Murdoch rag is another Mosssad propaganda tool.Just as Blair and Murdoch are :)

    They've unofficially taken charge of the McCann case from a media perspective from 2007.If it's 'breaking' then their man will be there on the spot ( Mitchell of old, Brunt of recent) and the Mail will paint the pictures and write the scripts. It seems important to them to shape the perception of the world regarding this simple( apparently) case of a missing child.

    Today we hear the ( apparent) reactions of the parents of the little girl to eccentric best selling author, Amaral, and his repeated comments regarding Madeleine's coloboma.The distinctive marking in her eye that would make her easily identifiable.The parents- we're led to believe- are angry. fellow tabloid rag, the People, have received a statement from- guess....yes, ' a source close to'. I wonder who that could be. Not. The general intention would seem to be to antagonize the thousands who cram the virtual kangaroo courts on the disinformation superhighway and prompt them to pull their own hair out in a frenzied chorus of '' they are SOOOOOOO litigious'' or some similar dusty repeated monotonous mantra.It will work. the audience are too easy.lams to the slaughter even on a going day.

    The nutty Amaral, who has carved out a reputation as the ' McCann hunter general' has amassed a vast army of loyal followers ( strange) and is known for his 'theories' about Madeleine's ultimate fate.He suggests that she was dead in the apartment either by accident or design and that the parents cremated her, stored her in a freezer, then buried her.That's a busy week by anyone's standards. Especially during a holiday. But with regard to the child's coloboma, he speaks of how it was decided among his team that it was a 'death mark' and could prompt the abductor to kill her.Odd when you consider he already informed us that she was cremated and buried already by her parents.How many ways did this child die ?

    Jim Gamble shares how he initially felt the parents wee guilty.Hid gut instinct( yawn). Since then he has been convinced of their innocence( he doesn't go into detail of how).He accuses Amaral of clutching at straws.

    It makes you think.If all the in-fighting and back biting wasn't going on, and if military intelligence hadn't crushed the case, maybe they could have found Madeleine, or at least made an arrest ..

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6819265/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-furious-retired-detective-repeats-claim-life-risk.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I can just see Mossad showing up for the trial? 15:36

      Why don't we concentrate on what can be proved instead of bat shit crazy conspiracy theories that will never be tested in public.

      The nature of Secret Services is that they are, er, secret. What isn't secret is that the dogs alerted to the presence of cadvarine and blood.

      I think there is a lot more mileage in exploring why that is, rather than going after obscure subjects who are about as accountable as Optimus Prime, and the Justice League.

      Delete
    2. ''Why don't we concentrate on what can be proved instead of bat shit crazy conspiracy theories that will never be tested in public.''

      I'm all for that.

      Shall we start with the basics and then we can email the PJ with our proof :

      A death.

      That A corpse was buried /cremated

      That the dogs findings were valid

      That the abduction didn't happen because nobody can see evidence of one

      That the Parents set up a fraudulent fund

      That all of Amarals accusations are true

      That the police have deliberately ignore all of the evidence so that the McCanns are left at liberty to continue their killing and stealing spree..

      The floor's yours. And everyone else's.

      Delete
    3. From sarcasm to extreme sarcasm, or was it a confession?

      Whatever your message it was lost in the sound of pens ticking boxes, another own goal. Except of course the last one. Again you are determined to establish the idea that the police are ignoring all the evidence previously collected. I don't think they are. The digs in PDL for example, they were looking for a body and DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment. Where did that come from, if not the dogs? By your penultimate sentence you have reduced your argument to the absurd, killing and stealing spree? Really?

      Delete
    4. Your sane, reasoned posts are very welcome Oscar, thank you.

      Delete
    5. 15:36. There is no comparison between Clarence Mitchell and Martin Brunt. Clarence Mitchell was/is employed by the McCanns, remember him announcing that fact when the McCanns returned to Rothley in September 2007? Martin Brunt is the crime correspondent for Sky News, ergo his employers are Sky News.

      Why are you calling Goncalo Amaral eccentric and nutty? There is nothing eccentric or nutty about the former detective. Do you think if you use euphemistic words to demean GA, I will let it pass?

      As for Madeleine's unique eye. The PJ were following all lines of enquiry, including abductor. Even if they believed Madeleine to be dead they weren't saying it out loud. Revealing Madeleine's coloboma put her in danger, the abductor could do something to her eye or kill her. That needed to be pointed out to the parents. They chose to ignore it, because in Gerry's words, it was a good marketing ploy.

      I think all cops would agree that in a case like this they would firstly look at the parents. Jim Gamble would have sounded very strange had he not considered the parents. I think it would be fair to say JG isn't too keen on Goncalo Amaral either and it makes you wonder why he is being treated like the adult in the room when he has admitted the interference of the British police agencies hindered the original investigation. That must include himself and CEOP who came up with a criminal profile that matched Robert Murat. It was at this point in the investigation that computers were seized and paedophile gangs were discussed.

      As for Military Intelligence having crushed the case, you are off in the realms of James Bond there. I don't think anyone could describe the Madeleine case as crushed. There are two live investigations, a major new documentary has been released, and as can be seen all over social media, the Madeleine case is trending. On the crushing front, MI5 or is it MI6 have catastrophically f**ked up.

      Delete
    6. ''Why are you calling Goncalo Amaral eccentric and nutty? There is nothing eccentric or nutty about the former detective. Do you think if you use euphemistic words to demean GA, I will let it pass? ''

      You will let it pass ?? lol. When did you get the gig of protector ? I was being polite, not euphemistic.he's been called far less polite things..

      I quoted the 'death mark' of Amaral as it seemed to consider the danger of the abductor/s killing the child.The abductor he said doesn't exist and that Madeleine -he'd already decided and decided to stick to- was dead already.

      Parents do need to be eliminated fast, it's true. Especially if the child had vanished from their home. But this was a holiday apartment in a foreign country.They still had to be eliminated but the urgency should have alerted the PJ to all possibilities and to act fast. The parents were going nowhere, they could get back to them any time. Given the paedophile ring scandal of Portugal not long before 2007 and the Belgian one too ( both involving 'children to order for VIPs' ) the PJ should have acted on the premise that it isn't so outlandish to consider it could happen again.Gamble doesn't rate Amaral.We can guess why but it's up to Gamble to say.

      ''As for Military Intelligence having crushed the case, you are off in the realms of James Bond there. ''

      Was that an attempt at mockery? Let me know. When a child is missing -presumed missing, abducted, killed or otherwise, it is a matter for the police. That's it.Military Intelligence aren't interested. Why should they be ? Military Intel isn't for civilian crimes.

      '' I don't think anyone could describe the Madeleine case as crushed. There are two live investigations,''

      Crushed. Vanished.Dead in the water.Sham.Whatever. Nothing happened from 2007 and still hasn't in 2019.There's always been two or more 'live investigations'. And ?

      '' a major new documentary has been released, and as can be seen all over social media, the Madeleine case is trending''

      And on youtube a monkey playing a bugle is trending. Point ?

      ''On the crushing front, MI5 or is it MI6 have catastrophically f**ked up.''

      Your opinion.Mine is that they did what they were brought in to do.The question has to be why they were needed.


      Delete
    7. To paraphrase Gerry - "ask MI5"

      Delete
    8. I think the 'secret' in secret service makes that difficult

      Delete
    9. Yeah, and the "dog" in "dogs" makes it equally difficult. I don't know why people float these theories about secret servicemen, when they are never going to answer questions.

      We'd be as well quoting Captain America.

      Delete
    10. I don't float theories, i float questions. Questioning why secret servicemen were involved is a valid question considering it's only a police investigation.

      Delete
    11. Fair enough 13:10. I suspect the answer to that will be a long time coming though.

      Delete
  32. Anon 17 March 14.19

    "She is furious because she was duped and betrayed by Amaral's lies".

    Haven't you got it into your brain yet that Amaral was only one part of the PJ operation, or are you just trying to wallpaper over that fact. Is it frightening for you that perhaps Amaral was right all along but you're either paid by the McCanns or too frightened to face the fact that two doctors are above doing some horrendous crime?

    Have you actually read all the PJ files and the amount of work and effort that went into the investigation? It is quite mind boggling to read all of the details and then the likes of you come along and say "oh it's all Amaral's lies".

    I suggest you start reading the PJ files from the beginning to find out the huge amount of work that went into the investigation and then you have Kate McCann, the saint of a mother who stated at the end of her interview:

    "Yes, she was well aware she was harming the investigation into the disappearance of her daughter by not answering the questions."

    Why would any mother be afraid of answering questions if they didn't have anything to hide. Surely you would be more concerned about your missing child than your own reputation but it seems the McCanns' reputation was so important to them that they would forego finding their child so that their own reputations were kept intact.

    As a commentator said a long time ago on this board that she would have answered any questions thrown at her and would have even given up more information she thought the police would need if it helped to find her daughter, so wouldn't any parent, oh but not the McCanns. What were they hiding that KM wouldn't answer the questions. Perhaps one of them was too near the knuckle, hence KM refused to answer them.

    But back to Sandra F, how do you not know that she hasn't been got at to keep her job and fall in line with what the "official" McCann mantra is, "Madeleine was abducted".

    A lot like our lot in Parliament at the moment, only looking after their huge wages and jobs, not worried about the public who voted out of the EU, we can all be trodden on and thrown in the bin as long as their fat salaries and EU gold pensions are secure. Perhaps Sandra is looking for a job in the EU, she will be well secure in the den of thieves and liars if she can go against her principles.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ''Again you are determined to establish the idea that the police are ignoring all the evidence previously collected.''

    What exactly is it that takes twelve years in the processing of any kind of evidence at all ? Or am i being 'sarcastic ' ?

    ''The digs in PDL for example, they were looking for a body and DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive''

    You keep saying that. Are you expecting magic ? Redwood said she 'may not' be alive. Of course. Anyone would be stupid not to consider that a realistic outcome. It was on the table after a week in my mind.But it's officially a 'may' if you read it.Which means maybe alive; maybe dead. Both are guesses only.The digs meant nothing. Nor would any other digs. In twelve years they could have excavated half of Europe.

    ''Where did that come from, if not the dogs?''

    It came from logic and one of your old favourites- statistical evidence.

    ''Where did that come from, if not the dogs?''

    I don't believe( but should I suppose) you missed the only genuinely sarcastic remark. Your faithful have them as killers, money launderers and some have them and their friends as swingers of paedhophiles.I think that kind of collective deserve to be treated with contempt. it's a case of a missing child. End of. The rest is for the police to actually investigate one day. Or for someone to break rank and take a gamble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to 16 : 04

      A mixture of disinformation, quotes you made up and lies. All because the lovely Sandra has stopped calling the McCanns out and started to question the integrity of Amaral . How childish

      Delete
    2. 20:09 I concur. However, calling him out on one thing doesn't mean she disagrees with everything he has said.

      Delete
    3. Lying is like stealing though. Steal one item, you're a thief. Tell one lie....

      Delete
    4. 21:36 no, that's not how it works. If telling one lie makes everything you say a lie, then all it would take to convict someone is to prove that they told a lie.

      A verdade da mentira.

      Delete
    5. If someone is charged with being a liar then yes.I believe they call it perjury though.I'll Goggle Amaral and check.

      Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

      Delete
    6. @21:36

      "Tell one lie..."

      You are talking about the McCanns no doubt?

      Delete
    7. @22;09

      You might've missed the point: a thief doesn't always steal.

      Delete
    8. @00:05

      "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"

      I see.. You are talking about the McCanns.

      Good Latin is always a pleasure to read. Thank you kindly.

      Und verloren sei uns der Tag, wo nicht Ein Mal getanzt wurde!

      Fried

      Delete
    9. Anonymous18 March 2019 at 00:07
      @21:36

      "Tell one lie..."

      You are talking about the McCanns no doubt?''

      such wit. lol etc.

      Delete
    10. Friedrich

      You abandoned the honey i take it...welcome to the looking glass world. Pull up a keyboard and don't take any pills you are offered here.

      Delete
    11. ''Anonymous18 March 2019 at 01:03
      @00:05

      "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"

      I see.. You are talking about the McCanns.''

      You don't see that old sport. It isn't there.

      Delete
  34. Anonymous17 March 2019 at 16:04

    Anon 17 March 14.19

    '' Amaral was right all
    along but you're either paid by the McCanns or too frightened to face the fact that two doctors are above doing some horrendous crime?''

    Well that's new.Anyone not following the internet popular myth is 'being paid by the McCanns'. And the antis wonder why they make people laugh at their tin foil attire...

    '' It is quite mind boggling to read all of the details and then the likes of you come along and say "oh it's all Amaral's lies".''

    If it's all truth what have the PJ done about it-with or without their leader. He has a criminal record for lying in these kinds of scenarios.If what Amaral said about the McCanns is true, they should be arrested.If they buried the child dead and then lied they should get life in prison.But that hasn't happened has it.But Amaral is telling the truth...

    ''"Yes, she was well aware she was harming the investigation into the disappearance of her daughter by not answering the questions."

    A misquote to help persuade readers of the McCanns evil. What she actually said was '' yes if that's what the investigation thinks.'' That's not an agreement that she's doing it, it's an acknowledgment that she understands the investigations opinion.

    ''Why would any mother be afraid of answering questions if they didn't have anything to hide''

    Good point. But who said she was afraid ?

    ''Surely you would be more concerned about your missing child than your own reputation''

    Another good point.And it explains why she treated the questions with contempt.They were intended to uncover her personality and reputation, not find Madeleine. He would only take that route if he'd decided the child was dead without knowing it or having good reason to think it. Twelve years on what's his theorising done apart from make him rich ? Nothing..

    ''But back to Sandra F, how do you not know that she hasn't been got at to keep her job and fall in line with what the "official" McCann mantra is, "Madeleine was abducted".''

    If the allegation is that she was 'got at' then it's for the author of the allegation to offer evidence of it.Otherwise it looks like a paranoid rant.

    '' Perhaps Sandra is looking for a job in the EU, she will be well secure in the den of thieves and liars if she can go against her principles.''

    You're implying Sandra is a liar and a thief merely because she stopped the anti- McCann campaign and spoke against a man she trusted who lied to her about a little girl's disappearance. Class act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If my auntie had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

      Delete
  35. CEOP, a company funded by the tax payer and big business, in 2006.

    It was in CEOP's interest to make the public believe their children were in danger from paedophiles snatching children from their beds. The more that believed, the easier to get the funds flowing in and the higher would rise Gamble's bonus.

    Madeleine was a gift from heaven, his poster child, his ticket to riches.

    Not for big Jim to bother with the law and obtaining permissions from the UK and Portugal, he had his man Supt. Hill, there on Saturday 5th May to stake CEOP's claim.

    The PJ emails confirm Hill was only invited on Monday 7th.

    He was there to find a bogeyman and Murat was in the frame on Sunday 6th May, which is very strange, as ACPO want us to believe CEOP first went to Portugal on Tuesday 8th May. Why, we wonder, does Gamble continue to lie over this. His first suspicion was Murat not as he now claims Gerry.

    Criminal activity - calumny in Portugal, perverting the course of justice in the UK.

    OG will need somebody in a rank higher than a DCI to investigate, maybe its the cause of the delay.

    Amaral knows when all of the bent British detectives arrived, therefore he must be demeaned at every opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jim Gamble
    About to spk to @bbc5live regarding my input on the @NetflixUK series regarding the disappearance of #MadeleineMccann


    https://twitter.com/JimGamble_INEQE/status/1107530135228559360

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Ros

    That was a good summation of how the 8 episodes rolled. Your reactions to it mirrored mine and reading around, a lot of others, too.
    To add, whereas there was an attempt to humanise Mr Gamble, the reverse was aimed at Amaral and the PJ procedures of interviewing. The dogs got castrated and the Smiths 'changed their minds' was spuriously forced home.
    Perhaps the worst aspect was Summers and Swann stage centre, around which, a lot of the doc was based on. They have all the charm of a stamped bat and the fidelity of MWT.
    As usual a flurry of activity has been generated - the Twitter tag attracting newbies and busy for once. In a couple of days it will return to the usual sporadic rants and mayhem, this Netflix doc placed in the "Yeah, saw that, anything else?" box. Nothing pivotal here.
    Then again, it is March - the month of Op Grange renewal, a week or two of Kandohla & Lawton then a breather before May 3rd.
    I could set my watch by how this circus of horrors continues to present its long tired, worn out acts.

    SixYearsInaComaMan

    ReplyDelete
  38. If O.G were digging as many believe for a body they were either acting on a direct tip off or through brilliant detective work that they had not shared with the PJ to be able to home in on such specific areas.

    We know it was not a joint operation OG were paying for the Portuguese to dig where they were told and it took a number of weeks for OG to be given permission.

    This indicates OG weren't so much digging as creating an illusion for the benefit of British mugs and the PJ knew it was an utter waste of time but allowed OG to make themselves look stupid.

    The digs were ordered in the UK by somebody way above DCI Redwoods pay grade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. The screenplay was written in the dark corridors of power and sent by courier to the yard. All we've seen is he completed movie. Obviously this will be proved wrong when OG produce a result.In the meantime i advise everyone to order some bigger buckets of popcorn.

      Delete
  39. 12 years before this documentary the dogs alerts were dismissed as inconclusive.Smith changed his mind.Both of those points were facts years ago.We knew that without a documentary.The antis just chose to dismiss the dismissals.Amaral and the interview procedures were criticised years ago ( and years before that in a different case).

    I don't see a connection between netflix and OG asking for money. Both are in it for business. Netflix would have made this without OG existing.They probably realise OG isn't really doing anything anyway. It just looks like that when the headlines say it needs more holiday money.

    The documentary has generated enough attention thanks to the thousands of neurotics who hate documentaries like it.They can collect the cash now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:32 there was nothing inconclusive about the dog alerts. The dogs were trained to alert to cadaverine and blood, which they duly did in 5a, the hire car, the hired villa, and to Cuddle Cat.

      The DNA evidence was inconclusive. It did not show enough markers to say 100% that the blood was Maddie's. It was only something like 60 - 80 % probable.

      Delete
    2. If it was Maddie's DNA they would have been able to match it 100%.

      Delete
    3. 11.32. Smith did NOT change his mind. That is disinformation.This was re affirmed by Gemma O'Doherty on youtube. Jemmy your eyes and ears open, watch and listen.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds6yw3f1Bmk&t=905s
      As to the dogs, again you disinform. The British CSI dogs clearly indicated cadaver odour and blood in apartment 5A and the Mccann hire car. The UK FFS report on the DNA residues concluded that it came from one of 3 people; Kate, Gerry or Maddy McCann. Furthermore, 15 out of 19 markers were from Maddie, 4 were too degraded to conclude from the use of the LCN technique. This is sufficient evidence to support a conviction in the UK and USA, but not Portugal.
      One can conclude that without a Portugese style reconstruction, nor a body that the dog and DNA findings were insufficient to directly link to the Mcann parents. To paraphrase you; ' the abduction was dismissed years ago'

      Delete
    4. Tell Grime where he went wrong. he's an expert but i have no proof that he watches youtube.

      I want to hear Smith say he hasn't changed his mind. Not somebody saying he said it. That's hearsay. If he's sure he should have come to make a statement saying as much and offered himself as a witness for the prosecution.Why hasn't he ?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 18 March 2019 at 22:58

      “I want to hear Smith say he hasn't changed his mind.”

      You can’t always get what you want, morsel.

      “Not somebody saying he said it. That's hearsay.”

      No, it ain’t. It’s evidence admissible in court as I have already explained.

      “If he's sure he should have come to make a statement saying as much and offered himself as a witness for the prosecution.”

      Why don’t you tell him that?

      “Why hasn't he ?”

      Good question. Perhaps he feels free to do as he like… We can’t allow that, can we? Why don’t you ask him?

      You are awful, but I’m bursting with affection for you.

      Pooh

      I think Jürgen might need a blood transfusion. Are you ready?
      ‘Klopp’ means ‘a bed bug’ in Russian (клоп).

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 18 March 2019 at 21:39

      Morning

      With respect, my friend, you’ve got the wrong ends of too many sticks. It seems you’ve either got your info second-hand or you’ve read the files without paying attention to what they actually say.

      No hard feelings.

      Pooh

      Delete
    7. 20:14 - they haven't been able to exclude the fact it is not Maddie's DNA. It could be Maddie's DNA - advances in DNA testing may give a conclusive answer to whose DNA it is.

      Thank you, once again, for allowing me to repeat that there is a possibility that Maddie's DNA was in the boot of the hire car.

      You are too generous.

      Delete
    8. Pooh old thing....

      Hearsay is admissible in court I know. And more often than not it is ripped to shreds by the hounds, this rendering the side it represented as pretty vulnerable to say the least.But i wasn't talking about the hearsay in that context.I was talking about from the point of view that I'm reading somebody online saying that he read someone else saying she had been told something by someone.Hardly a case - closer is it.

      Jurgen is mad. I talked him out of his crazy quest to jump off another cliff but, alas, i fear he is going to do the wrong thing again.When he is alone he is in bad company. Beware the ides of march jurg..

      Stanley Matthews ( Sir)

      Delete
  40. ''11:32 there was nothing inconclusive about the dog alerts. ''

    If that was true there would have been a trial by now. So it must be wrong or a lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 18 March 2019 at 21:20

      “''11:32 there was nothing inconclusive about the dog alerts. ''

      If that was true there would have been a trial by now. So it must be wrong or a lie.”

      Our Oscar is in error on several counts, but he seems to be a nice enough fella for me to have a tête-à-tête with later.

      “If that was true there would have been a trial by now.”

      Not necessarily. Here, as Your Serenity would perhaps agree, one might be advised to bear in mind the notion which cannot spoken of, cee?

      Yours humbly

      Honey Poo

      Delete
    2. Eh, 09:32. The dog alerts to the scent it is trained to detect - both dogs alerted, one by barking, the other by pointing. There is no doubt that happened. That is conclusive evidence that the dogs did what they were brought to do.

      Just as a dog alerting to the smell of drugs in a prisoner's cell is not enough evidence to take action, then the dog alerting to the scent of cadaverine or blood is not enough, in itself to convict the McCanns.

      Corroboration is required: in the case of the prisoner drugs would have to be found in the cell; in the case of the McCanns, some bodily matter, such as DNA or blood, which would prove that Maddie's dead body was in the hire car, is needed.

      DNA was indeed found, however there are not enough markers to conclusively say it was or wasn't from Madeleine.

      Everytime you use these silly semantics all you do is make people focus more and more on what is known.

      Delete
    3. A tete a tete, who do you think you are, the Kray Twins?

      Jeezo, what a fantasist, do you think that frightens me?

      Delete
    4. Oscar Slater19 March 2019 at 15:37

      ''Eh, 09:32. The dog alerts to the scent it is trained to detect - both dogs alerted, one by barking, the other by pointing''

      No chance. He was wearing mittens.

      Why isn't a dog alerting in a prisoner's cell enough to take action ? Because other prisoners had used the cell before ? Wouldn't they question him about the presence of drugs residue ? Maybe it could have been a previous 'tenant' who knows ? Makes you wonder why they'd bother with the dog in the first place...

      The corroboration isn't a minor point though is it. It's a major point. And the corroboration hasn't happened has it.It would have been easy if what we're told by the antis was true. It would have been equally as easy when collecting DNA samples. The antis talk about the clean up they imagine happened. Was bleach used ? Or something else ? What did Amaral and Co say they used.Whatever it was nobody smelled it and it left traces for the dogs.

      ''Everytime you use these silly semantics all you do is make people focus more and more on what is known.''

      They're not semantics, they're the facts that have left this case devoid of evidence. Grime wasn't using semantics, he was using science.Let's put it this way..If it was merely a matter of semantics, the prosecution would list the same as you just listed and lay it all out to a jury.He would ask them to consider the bigger picture, including the parents leaving the child vulnerable.Then, where she had been there were traces of blood and death. It would be easy to persuade a jury not to 'bogged down in mere semantics'. What's stopped them ? Or who ?

      Oscar Slater19 March 2019 at 15:38

      ''A tete a tete, who do you think you are, the Kray Twins?

      Jeezo, what a fantasist, do you think that frightens me?''

      Why the swaggering at my friend up there. This is the internet.You seem a little concerned that people are being hard men, hoods and gangsters . It's all fonts. No more. No less . All testosterone exchanges are much more fum in the real world.Online it's so 2004.

      Delete
  41. Sir Winston.....

    I was pointing out that all of the so -called evidence / proof etc that is being discussed would have been pivotal to this case ever leaving the ground or not.As it is, it is still seriously grounded.Some more cynical observers might even say it never even got out of the hangar. Not my good self obviously. I could't be carried far by sheer speculation and guesswork . A bit like the case really. I was just trying to be helpful-being the good souls I am - by pointing out that it's rather silly- some might say stupid- repeating the same incorrect information and trying to sell it as truth to satisfy your own agenda or something worse. The truth that can actually wear the label of truth is that the dogs alerts ( etc) have failed to pass muster in terms of ever becoming 'exhibit A'. That was the decision of a certain Mr Grime.He's had years of practice apparently.Unfortunately this ruins the wishes and dreams of those obsessively hoping to see the McCanns suffer. The innocent until proven guilty may well be statement of our civil and human rights, but the same antis disagree with that. The need for proof and evidence to convict is also not necessary, according to the same angry folk.While the point to the importance of forensic study, they are happy to use a poor quality video from youtube as their 'case' for the prosecution. Pointing the flaws of this and the flaws in their insistence of championing the strength of evidence that is too weak to be considered such by the police is tiresome.Their responses are the same and pretty insulting on more than one level. How's the wisdom go again ..insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Unfortunately another, more subtle ,symptom closes the eyes and ears of the sufferer.Hence we have a an accelerating cycle perpetuated by a stalemate. It's the dance of the tormented.

    Today's lesson as been brought to you almost by the letter cee...

    The Rt Honourable Zigrich, The Viscount of Portmeirion

    ReplyDelete