The only new developments in the Madeleine case in recent years has been the libel battles in Portugal where the McCanns’ claim against Goncalo Amaral was finally ruled out in the Supreme Court.
Neither the PJ nor Scotland Yard are saying anything about their investigations for public consumption, and this time round extra care is being taken that there are no leaks. I have always believed Operation Grange to be genuine, I am simply not cynical enough to believe that dozens of police officers, both English and Portuguese would do anything to cover up the death of the child.
Following the Netflix documentary, my belief has been shaken and stirred. I have it in my head that the authorities ‘police, politicians, film makers, newspapers etc etc’ are conspiring to get the public back into the same mode of thinking about the parents as in 2007 when their popularity was at it’s height. I remember at that time feeling as though I had stepped into an episode of the Twilight Zone, what could all those people praising and deifying the parents, see that I couldn't? I even toyed with the idea that mass hypnosis was at play. The topic of missing Madeleine was so emotive, it divided families and friends. You were either for them or against them. And against them made you a hater and a pitchforker.
But I'm going to skip all the different beliefs and factions and go straight to the main one, which has a hard core of believers from both sides, pro and anti. The belief that Operation Grange is a cover up. I know, I know, I am now in tinfoil hat territory and badly missing my friend John Blacksmith, but I am now seriously thinking, OMG, what if it’s true? First we have the 8 part Netflix documentary, preceded by days of the parents saying they wanted no part of it. That may have been a shout out to all those bored senseless with the McCanns, as in don’t worry folks, they had no hand in it, this documentary is honest, independent and not heavily biased towards the parents, we're not the BBC. Ok, level playing field. Not on your life
But I'm going to skip all the different beliefs and factions and go straight to the main one, which has a hard core of believers from both sides, pro and anti. The belief that Operation Grange is a cover up. I know, I know, I am now in tinfoil hat territory and badly missing my friend John Blacksmith, but I am now seriously thinking, OMG, what if it’s true? First we have the 8 part Netflix documentary, preceded by days of the parents saying they wanted no part of it. That may have been a shout out to all those bored senseless with the McCanns, as in don’t worry folks, they had no hand in it, this documentary is honest, independent and not heavily biased towards the parents, we're not the BBC. Ok, level playing field. Not on your life
The Netflix documentary revived the Madeleine story, brought it bang up to date and reignited all those issues they used to terrify the public the first time round. The human traffickers, the paedophile gangs, perverts seeking the company of other perverts online etc etc. All presumably carrying on with their dastardly deeds as none have been arrested in 12 years
Then there was a shift in the paradigm, the Madeleine case was largely forgotten and Gerry and Kate weren’t on anyone’s radar, other than in this tiny corner of the internet, people neither cared or said Gerry and Kate who? The Netflix documentary put the couple right back in the spotlight, using their 3 biggest supporters, Jim Gamble and Summers and Swan to explain away the dog barks and portray the McCanns as victims of the press and the incompetent Portuguese police, Goncalo Amaral especially.
For the past couple of weeks, the tabloids are reflecting (or manipulating) the public’s mood with positive Gerry and Kate McCann stories. Preparing us some might say, for the failure of the £12m UK investigation and reinforcing meanwhile the idea that the parents have done nothing to be suspected of.
The police of course are saying nothing. The tabloids are getting their stories elsewhere, from sources unnamed who would have us believe the McCanns and their friends are totally off the hook and the remains of Operation Grange are sat around twiddling their thumbs.
So let's look at the facts. Operation Grange has cost £11.5m thus far with another £150k requested. Nothing about this basic fact screams 'we are abandoning the investigation'. It says the opposite in fact, it says 'we are on to something and we are not giving up', it doesn't say those of us who are left are sat around doing 'grunt' work. That's pure fabrication by the tabloids, another round of Gerry and Kate Good, police officers who investigate them, Bad. Tracey Kandhola et al are trying to change the narrative. Why?
.
The police of course are saying nothing. The tabloids are getting their stories elsewhere, from sources unnamed who would have us believe the McCanns and their friends are totally off the hook and the remains of Operation Grange are sat around twiddling their thumbs.
So let's look at the facts. Operation Grange has cost £11.5m thus far with another £150k requested. Nothing about this basic fact screams 'we are abandoning the investigation'. It says the opposite in fact, it says 'we are on to something and we are not giving up', it doesn't say those of us who are left are sat around doing 'grunt' work. That's pure fabrication by the tabloids, another round of Gerry and Kate Good, police officers who investigate them, Bad. Tracey Kandhola et al are trying to change the narrative. Why?
.
As you say Operation Grange are saying nothing, so why let your beliefs be shaken by this last roll of the dice Netflix production? Thought you were made of sterner stuff Ros!
ReplyDelete"Operation Grange are saying nothing"
DeleteThey're not even answering the 'phone (except with an automated switchboard message). Ask Saunokonoko.
Last roll of what dice ? Netflix isn't a part of any police force. Are you trying to believe that the eight part series id part of a 'new lead' ? lol
DeleteStill flogging the supreme court dead horse , Ros ? It was about a book. Didn't you learn anything on the last March thread ?Talk about denial. Or is just desperation now ? I dread to think what your blow out will be like when they shut the case. That will be the next development.
ReplyDeleteIf you are doing nothing (OG) why draw attention by saying something?
ReplyDeleteTo keep the sham going and to give the impression of being seen to be doing something.When all they can be seen to be doing in reality is holding out the bowl.
DeleteMakes me think of The Moneygoround, by the Kinks, 18:13
DeleteEyes down round and round let's all sit and watch the moneygoround
Everyone take a little bit here and a little bit there
Do they all deserve money from a song that they've never heard
They don't know the tune and they don't know the words
The brothers Davies, 60s heroes..
DeleteIn what way are they taking care to prevent leaks ? have you any source fo that or is it you guessing again ? It's easy to just say what you see.Nothing's happened so nothings been told to us. Nothing to see etc.
ReplyDelete'' I am simply not cynical enough to believe that dozens of police officers, both English and Portuguese would do anything to cover up the death of the child.''
You haven't said that for a week or so. I was worried you'd lost the line. How many times do is it need to be explained to you that a cover up is most likely to have taken place before the officers were given the empty space to investigate. Either way, regardless of what you believe, nothing's been done or reported for a reason. Logic says it's because they haven't found a thing.Why should anyone have faith in it ? Faith's useless.
''I have it in my head that the authorities ‘police, politicians, film makers, newspapers etc etc’ are conspiring ...''
That's called imagination. You're cooking another conspiracy theory against the parents. You'll need a lot of evidence for that. Before you begin to add invented facts to anything, check the actual facts. Like checking the evidence that Netflix have shown a heavy bias or if they've merely avoided the usual heavy bias which you prefer.
''I even toyed with the idea that mass hypnosis was at play. ''
You're not as far away from fact with that one, ironically.
''I know, I know, I am now in tinfoil hat territory and badly missing my friend John Blacksmith, but I am now seriously thinking, OMG, what if it’s true? ''
Why the faux astonishment ? Police being dishonest, police covering up, politicians hiding truths, what's new ? It's a common occurrence. This isn't the Cuban missile crisis.
''The Netflix documentary revived the Madeleine story, brought it bang up to date and reignited all those issues they used to terrify the public the first time round.''
Or, another way of looking at it is to say they decided to make something interesting out of something that had been beaten to death online.They decided the narrow focus ( it was the parents, look at the dogs etc etc etc) had led nowhere and is going nowhere but in tiresome circles.They have looked at it without blinkers. The die hard blinker wearers have been confronted by the bigger picture and it scared them.Remember the Casa Pia case ; the Dutroux case. Neither were far behind 2007. And they were all 'conspiracy theorists' behind those according to the blinkered experts. Until so many VIPs were jailed or killed.Don't mention them to the antis, it raises the spectre of obvious doubt about the parents' guilt. They'd rather dismiss the real historical (and geographically close) cases.
''So let's look at the facts. Operation Grange has cost £11.5m thus far with another £150k requested. Nothing about this basic fact screams 'we are abandoning the investigation''
No, it screams ' look, everyone, we're working tirelessly, why else would we be asking for more cash ?'. To which the silent reply of the gullible is :
'oh yeah..of course....der...'
The so called 'narrative' is simple. A child was taken from a holiday apartment in 2007 and hasn't been seen since. No tangible evidence exists that could incriminate anyone and no eye witnesses seen it happen that dark night on an empty street.That's it.The only worthwhile way in which the narrative could change is to arrest and charge someone, find some real evidence (from that which they've held for 12 years) or somebody confessing or telling the police they know who did it and leaving the rest to them. Any other 'changes' in it are to help sell papers, sell documentaries, or for some self promotion and attention seeking by the online bored.This case was over in June 2007.
Once again your subjective opinion is presented as objective fact 16:15.
Delete16:51, if a child was taken from a holiday apartment in 2007 why does the Find Madeleine Fund Online Store have a copyright date for 2006? Not 2007.
DeleteWith that and the Wayback Machine, no wonder Jim Gamble and Gerry McCann are so certain NO DNA or evidence was found in apartment 5A, if she died she died earlier, much earlier.
Yes 22 11
Deletehe died a year earlier. Then a year later became headline news all over the planet. And nobody in their village noticed the discrepancy. Nobody in the nursery noticed it. No neighbours. No relatives.It escaped the attention of the wold until the internet detective agency spotted it. Did they spot how many were sold between 2006 and 2007 ? Get real for godsake. It's a missing child case not a comic book.
''or evidence was found in apartment 5A, if she died she died earlier, much earlier.''
Deleteand bla bla....
Here's a teaser then....
The wristbands were on sale in 2006 according to Photoshop.Oops, I mean according to sharp-eyed internet sleuths. So at least 6 months before May 2007. Which would make Madeleine 2 and a half years of age or younger. o, we've all seen the film of the McCanns on their way to PDL and Gerry's infamous 'enjoying myself' etc quip.We've seen the film of them boarding a plane. Who was the little Madeleine doppleganger do you think ? The one who was the absolute image of Madeleine and clearly almost 4 years old.Who was the little lookalikey who was heard crying at the apartment. Who was the lookalikey at the crech that was remembered by nannies..
Take your time..
And somehow they had a picture of Madeleine obviously closer to 4 years old than 2 next to the date of 2006.This is why the internet arguments are mocked by so many.
DeleteCertainly back in time with this sort of thing in The Sun today.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8764213/madeleine-mccann-chief-suspect-never-interviewed/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunmaintwitter&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1554114362
Why is anyone using the sun as a source for anything ?
DeleteThey are a good source for talking about what The Sun is saying, 18:37. A reflection of what is out there in the real world.
DeleteHow can I talk about the tabloids misleading the public if I don't actually read them?
DeleteIt is all very well being snobbish about the Sun, but on misleading the public, they are the front runner. Who can forget the cosy relationships of Prime Ministers Tony Blair and David Cameron to Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks.
But you have completely missed the point of this blog if you think I am citing the Sun as a source. I suggest you read it again and take your time before jumping to the wrong conclusions.
It has nothing to do with being snobbish. It isn't a class issue unless you believe that middle class and higher are the intellectual elite. It's about them talking shite and lying in order to sell papers and ad space and keeping those who love trivia interested in lies. I remember the cosy relationship between everyone at the Sun and the police had with Thatcher when Hillsborough happened. Media, politics and policing all together in one hole. Made me proud to be British. Arseholes.
DeleteYou quote the sun and other tabloids when they're selling what you sell.That and other mainstream rags.When they talk about how bad the PJ are, or how much the parents are suffering, you call them the equivalent of scum.I read that here often. Anyone who reads her often reads the same.You can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously.
Oh, I see, the guy is actually dead. Who better to try and blame for something than a dead man - even if he is black and the e fit of the chief suspect is of a white man.
ReplyDeletei remember speculating last year that there would be a death bed confession ( with his dying breath etc). I thought it would provide a convenient middle ground between cover up and doing nothing at all and leaving it to go 'cold'.
DeleteWhy is anyone using the sun as a source for anything..
DeleteSo, a black man in the frame. Great stuff. Now we can have some nice 'they're soooo racist' comments in our armoury if we need them .
I'm interested in how the police perceive the act of stealing the child off an overseas family from the UK as revenge on a Portuguese holiday resort that had fired him ? Security ? This drifting heroin addict who must wake every day asking where his next fix is and how he can get the means for it, suddenly becomes adept at mind games ? Highlighting the weakness in the Apartments security system is a subtle way of exposing his former employers. How is it revenge on them if he doesn't let them know he thought it up ? An addict wants gain. What did he gain ? Try buying a bag of smack with revenge...
They imagine he was disturbed as he burgled the apartment.If that's the case, he would have ran-simple as that. Not ran with a small child to slow him down.It's difficult to get heroin in prison.But the cops expand on it : They say he might have kidnapped her to commit a sex act before killing her. I see. But keeping her death secret would destroy that golden opportunity to get his revenge.Very imaginative these detectives.But it all went nowhere as he died in 2009. Shame. It turned out he had a conviction for theft ( a very common crime among addicts, understandably).But, that somehow struck the police as a record that suggested he'd have sex with a three year old.So, by their logic, all convicted shoplifters are potential child molesters.
The piece concludes with the cliche crew saying he was weird ( in hindsight obviously).He had 'bleary eyes' and sometimes appeared as though ' he was't all there'( unusual for a drug addict). Then they say loads of things were going missing round that time.Did anything go missing from 5A apart from a child ? Makes you wonder why they didn't drag him in then with his record. Or why nobody from the crowd who noticed he wasn't 'all there' didn't call the police.
18:56 I thought the Sun article was interesting in that it shows us we are no further forward in the disinformation being fed to the media.
DeleteIt is utter bollocks, of course, but the fact that they can publish such fantasy makes you wonder how much things have moved on.
18:15 - a death bed confession would certainly be preferable to previous attempts to frame innocent men. IIRC the BBC actually doorstepped a guy, who looked schizophrenic to me, in PDL.
This is what angers me so much about the McCanns (for it is they), so many innocent people are dragged into the Truth of the Lie.
There is certainly something a bit colonial and Days of the Raj in the way the British media have treated 'third world country' Portugal. I felt most uncomfortable when middle class white BBC man Richard Bilton scoured PDL for a slow witted local manual worker to pin the blame on for Madeleine's disappearance. This case has brought much shame on the British, never more so than at that time.
DeleteThank you for your interesting post 18:56. And Oscar, that angers me too. It is OK for the BBC to cast suspicion of a heinous crime over innocent, Portuguese manual workers, but a £1m compensation claim if anyone (other than the BBC) casts suspicion on the white, professional parents.
21:07 - Bilton was pretty Alan Partridge on that programme. There seemed to be no morality at all confronting that guy in the street, or the other one at his work, without first offering them the chance of an interview.
DeleteDon't expect scruples from anyone employed by Sky TV. Anyone who's had a salary from a Murdoch or Freud isn't paid for integrity.
DeleteOscar Slater1 April 2019 at 19:43
Delete''This is what angers me so much about the McCanns (for it is they), so many innocent people are dragged into the Truth of the Lie.''
Yes, catchy that little 'truth of the lie' thing. It isn't far from being promoted into yet another tedious internet meme that has little or no meaning but everyone quotes...
It would be good if one of the hundreds who love to be the one to quote it could demonstrated by using proof of what exactly the lie is and what exactly the truth is. Too much to ask ? Of course it is. It isn't about facts or truth is it. It's about people who get 'angered' by something they have no answer to but have people in mind they'd like to see suffer a bit more...
I would have thought that after 12 years and the thousands who repeat mantras, at least one would have come p with something to back it up.Imagine if one did.They could run around the internet spitting out the bile with actual justification for once.But that wouldn't happen.If it was possible for one internet policeman, it would be possible for one real one who's actually on the case.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 April 2019 at 21:07
DeleteYou're welcome, Bella.
I think the real shame of the British is a bit bigger and runs a bit deeper than their eagerness to marginalise the less- than- bright manual workers in Portugal. That was traditional Nazi party / Tory party propaganda. Tried and trusted since Berlin 42 and thriving in UK 2019.The way so many politicians have blindly funded this farce in times of austerity and the way it became a tightly locked case so early after their involvement is disgraceful. Nobody has put forward a believable explanation of what they were doing and why they were dong it.All we see is the PJ being gagged and bound back 2007, then ostensibly blind since 2008's re-opening of the case.
I've watched a couple of interviews from a couple of documentaries just recently.Not right through-I'm not a masochist.But I'm surprised at a certain 'character' or two.I'm surprised( though I don't know why) that all the face readers and language anylists and body language readers that jumped on the Hyatt band wagon didn't bother their sorry arses to examine a few others. They would if they wanted to genuinely use such talents to crack a case.But they only used them on the McCanns. It's as though they had found yet another tiresome tool to try and carve out a case that fitted their new theories.I was particularly impressed by Rowley's panic in one interview when he pretty much filled his pants and told the interviewer to stop fishing...
I'm afraid I see Bennett, Hall and Hyatt as three dirty old men who have an unhealthy obsession with child sexual abuse. I am as disgusted with what they do as I am sure the McCanns are.
DeleteYou never shy away from expressing your contempt of those who study body language, neurolinguistics and micro expressions. A shame because if you were detached you would understand why it is such a fascinating subject for so many. Being able to understand body language is a great advantage socially and in the work place. It is just unfortunate for the McCanns that they have provided such students with so much material. People want to know if they are lying, so scrutiny of them will always be intense.
They could, if they were so inclined, play with it, that is, save the ear scratching and shifting about for when they are giving honest statements, that would confuse things.
Most people these days are aware that body language can reveal deceit and the common signs to look out for, eg. ear scratching, nodding yes while saying no, the lip curl contempt, the duping delight, especially those who know about this case and who read my blog. Body language is not the obscure, academic subject it once was, it is now part of popular culture.
I can see of course, why it is so aggravating/ distressing for the parents to be put under the microscope every time they appear in public, but as I keep saying, it is their choice whether to be affected by it or not.
Finally, is it really necessary to describe CI Rowley in such disgusting, degrading terms? I am no fan of his, but I don't think you should talk about anybody like that. I despite lavatory humour, and references to bodily waste. And what a terrible waste of our beautiful language to conjure up such a distasteful image.
You are the only person I've seen describe the title of GA's book as a mantra or a meme. You really do find all sorts of new and innovative ways to torment yourself. Are you a practicer of Opus Dei, cause I got to tell you, a daily lashing would probably be a lot less painful.
DeleteBut I have to say, the book title is pure genius! The Truth of the Lie. And btw, you really should read it instead of asking others to explain it to you. The 'Lie' is the abduction story. GA and his police team found there was no abduction. And if there was no abduction......
I don't shy away from expressing contempt for a lot of things and people. it's all part of my charm and natural charisma...
DeleteI was fascinated by the micro expressions and such years ago. And i mean many. I was grasshopping all over things as you do when you're wondering if life can be more interesting. I looked surface only to be fair.I was impressed but i wanted to be.Years later i took it more seriously, but as a component of investigating things and people from the point of view that studying Psychology academically demanded. I don't dismiss it.I dismiss some of it.And I dismiss those who claim to be making it more accessible for the masses when they really want to make money or become famous. The way Hyatt and a few others have sprung up online is no coincidence. Note how they've watched the market grow. The main audience is comprised of McCann watchers.Not criminal investigators.They want to crack a McCann, not a case.I want to see them address others involved.Then I'll give them credit.
''They could, if they were so inclined, play with it, that is, save the ear scratching and shifting about for when they are giving honest statements, that would confuse things. ''
I can see it now. Kate accidentally scratching Gerry's arse when someone asks about the dogs. A qualified Psychologist would be called if it was ever submitted to a court.He would mention all the confounding variables and it would be kicked out of the park as serious testimony.
I know body language as well as Hypnosis are popular. They sell tons of useless rubbish at Amazon. It's all about getting the edge. Power.Being one step ahead with your quiet undetectable talent.The basic stuff's easy, the lips, t
he arms, the legs.The more subtle stuff isn't. The direction of a gaze when listening to a statement or a question-up and left ? Down and right ? The amount of taps a finger makes under pressure- nerves or latent psychosis ? Some is fun, some is scary.And yes, a smart sociopath can fake it all.
The parents have the same rights as anyone else not to be scrutinised by strangers. It's one thing to have a viewing audience, it's a completely different thing to be examined forensically. It's bordering on stalking behaviour at best.We're all entitled to privacy and freedom. If they are twitching like killers the police can intervene after the interview..
Last para...let's not talk about abusing a beautiful language.You're leaving yourself wide open.See recent threads..
GA and his book torment those who want the parents to be found guilty.Nobody else takes it seriously. Not even the police.All i say is that it would be nice to hear those who can't stop themselves from repeating it's title like a mantra actually explain to us all what the truth and lie of the title mean and how they're supported by evidence. Is that being tormented or frustrated by the ignorance of the crowd who chant a thing they can't explain ?It isn't a case of Opus Dei or any other contrived bullshit religious practice. It's asking them to elaborate for once rather than repeat.
Delete''But I have to say, the book title is pure genius! The Truth of the Lie. And btw, you really should read it instead of asking others to explain it to you''
An unusually brief but effusive critique. It's as though you have some kind of bias.I know, perish the thought... I don't want the book explained, i want the title explained. The rest doesn't matter. If any of the contents could hold water, the prosecution would take them to court.
''The 'Lie' is the abduction story. GA and his police team found there was no abduction. And if there was no abduction......''
No.That's a theory isn't it.That's not genius is it.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 April 2019 at 21:07
Delete'' And Oscar, that angers me too. It is OK for the BBC to cast suspicion of a heinous crime over innocent, Portuguese manual workers, but a £1m compensation claim if anyone (other than the BBC) casts suspicion on the white, professional parents.''
Maybe it would anger you less if you understood the difference between 'casting suspicion' and 'directly accusing'.
Either way 20:31, that poor man did not deserve to be questioned about it in the street, the way he was. I'm sure your wise words will console him, even if they are lost in translation to Portuguese.
DeleteI wasn't talking to him. I was talking to Ros. I was addressing one of the many things that make her feel anger. Did you miss that ?
Delete"The piece concludes with the cliche crew saying he was weird ( in hindsight obviously).He had 'bleary eyes' and sometimes appeared as though ' he was't all there'( unusual for a drug addict). Then they say loads of things were going missing round that time."
ReplyDeleteThere were at least 2 burglaries at the complex in the weeks before Madeleine's disappearance
How do you know about the burglaries, 20:15?
DeleteIt was a theory put forward by the police in that link you posted
Deletesorry, i didnt see the other post about burglaries. I retract
DeleteNo, it is in the PJ files
DeleteThanks
DeleteHard to believe a bleary eyed drug addict carried out the crime of the century and got away with it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem those defending the McCanns have, is the lack of any other suspects. Or indeed, any other logical explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, they have tried everything. Lone predator, paedophile gang, child traffickers maybe even couples looking for a child to love.
We are now back to the black tractor driver who has done the rounds several times, and which the writers of these latest tabloids would have known if they had bothered to check.
So back to burglars eh. I even remember Chief Rowley mentioning them as a possibility. To that I would say, how come the combined police forces of two countries have been unable to find, let alone charge, an inept burglar in 12 years?
As long as they have no evidence they're prepared to reveal, no suspects and no leads, everyone's a suspect and every scenario's a possible. Papers still need to be sold and advertisers still want to buy space next to some stupid video if the audience of mugs hang around there. It's all fiction and the police are just finding new directions to send our attention. Anywhere but the one they know has the truth in . Rowley knows what's what in this case.
DeleteYes everyone is a suspect 21:28, except the 8 adults who were going back and forth between the Tapas bar and the apartments. The parents and their friends, some of whom had long absences from the tapas table, are not under any circumstances to be considered suspects. Even though they have been caught in lots of lies and were unwilling to return to PDL for a reconstruction.
DeleteThe tabloids will dig up, literally if necessary, a deceased tractor driver or anyone who has ever been to the Algarve and never cleared themselves. Anyone but those 8 adults who were merrily absenting themselves from the table to do whatever it was they were doing. Is it possible any of them lied? Of course not, 6 of them are doctors. Their word is worth a hundred times more than the word of a Portuguese detective.
We should laugh really, because the tabloids are impotent, we know that the stories put out in the mail, the sun, the star, the mirror, are lazily republished press releases from Clarence Mitchell, or whatever unfortunate has the job now. These papers dare not even hint at the parents being involved because they are under the thumb of those who pay their wages. They cannot tell the truth, even if they wanted to, which they don't, it is not an option open to them. When readers realise they are being fed bullshit, and most readers now do, they move on. Happily for me to places like here. My blog is unashamedly unbound, I can translate those disingenuous press hand outs, and get straight to the truth.
If detectives caught them out telling 'lots of lies' how come nobody was arrested ? The police aren't stupid surely ? If they acted on it they wouldn't need a reconstruction.
Delete' Of course not, 6 of them are doctors. Their word is worth a hundred times more than the word of a Portuguese detective.''
Ahh yes, the career envy argument.It didn't help Harold Shipman did it.I take it you are implying that the two doctor parents are guilty of burying their own child and their 6 medical friends willingly gambled their own careers and futures as well as family stability when they had done nothing illegal. Why would a doctors word mean more than a policeman's in a criminal investigation ? that's like saying it's better to have your tonsils removed by a chief constable.
The press are gagged according to the wishes of the Government.You should be asking why they aren't allowed to talk about what you want to read about.Aim your disdain at where it belongs.
''My blog is unashamedly unbound, I can translate those disingenuous press hand outs, and get straight to the truth.''
Or, to be accurate, you can voice your disgust and publish your theories and opinions of what you suspect, not what you know, is the truth.
Have you never heard of the God Complex 1:02? It is quite common in Doctors. Understandably, we all treat them with respect, we address them by them their titles and we look to them for advice on, well, everything. It is not surprising that some see themselves as superior.
DeleteIt is not difficult to imagine the dynamics of a holiday party of doctors. We saw it in action after the alarm was raised - by the time the first police arrived the crime had been solved, Madeleine had been abducted.
As for career envy - I know it makes you feel better to think people are envious of Gerry and Kate. Just to be clear, I have never wanted to go into the medical profession. I am the most squeamish person I know, I weep when I see fictional characters get fictional injuries on the telly. If I were to be envious of others, those others would be Harper Lee, PG Wodehouse, Sue Townsend, Dickens, Robert Graves, all those writers who have moved me. But it isn't envy, it's awe and admiration. If you want to get into the whole Science .v. Arts arguments, I choose the Arts every time.
'The press are gagged according to the wishes of the Government'. You need to be more specific, I don't see Theresa May going horse riding with Rebekah Brookes, so who do you mean? Who in the government is telling the tabloids to write only nice stories about Gerry and Kate McCann?
I can see why you would much prefer that I didn't challenge the McCann/Clarence/whoever press releases but the one sided reporting on this case offends me on every level. I know more about this case than I would like, certainly a lot more than the tabloid reporters. They are happy to churn out disinformation and propaganda, I am not. I feel duty bound, compelled even, to point out the lies. OK I am one little blogger up against the mighty red tops, but my readership continues to grow, with those who want to read the truth about this case, returning again and again.
It was Clarence who raised the whole defence that it is preposterous to think that doctors would do such a thing. Hardly envy to question that defence.
DeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 April 2019 at 11:29
Delete''Have you never heard of the God Complex 1:02? It is quite common in Doctors. ''
Yes I have heard of it. And the messiah complex. Politicians and policemen suffer from it even more than doctors. It's down to how much of a physiological thrill you get from your position.You can't diagnose someone from short news clips on the internet though.
''It is not difficult to imagine the dynamics of a holiday party of doctors. ''
It's not difficult to imagine a leprechaun on a unicycle either. But try finding one or proving you know it exists.Imagination is a fine servant but a poor master.You can use that one later.
'' by the time the first police arrived the crime had been solved, Madeleine had been abducted.''
That's the crime being identified, not solved.
''As for career envy - I know it makes you feel better to think people are envious of Gerry and Kate. Just to be clear, I have never wanted to go into the medical profession.''
It's not about specifics, it's about envy. Two working class kids grew up to be professionals and middle class. The internet's full of spite that mention it.They try to make success a crime just for the McCanns. Don't accuse them of being irrational though.
'''The press are gagged according to the wishes of the Government'. You need to be more specific, I don't see Theresa May going horse riding with Rebekah Brookes, ''
You think everything's on camera ? You need to stop and check yourself. It's old news that newspapers have always had a bias. What is admitted is that certain papers are pro or anti a specific party according to how much the party pays them.That's just about parties gaining or staying in power.But those politicians are individuals too. Google the Islington 1980s children's homes and how the papers were gagged by Lord Havers from reporting on it on threat of being shut down completely.Google back to Lord Boothby 1960s.
'' Who in the government is telling the tabloids to write only nice stories about Gerry and Kate McCann?''
It doesn't work like that. You should be asking who in the government is telling the papers what to whitewash.What not to say.
''I can see why you would much prefer that I didn't challenge the McCann/Clarence/whoever press releases''
What you can see is what you decide you want to see.That's no more than a cheap accusation in poor disguise.You can challenge what you like. I don't buy any of them myself. I believe that from 2007 the media coverage has been a very thinly spread soap opera.The truth died in 2007. cause of death- murder. Perpetrators- UK Gov.
''. I know more about this case than I would like, certainly a lot more than the tabloid reporters''
You think you do. And we have to take your word. Guess what...
'' I am not. I feel duty bound, compelled even, to point out the lies''
How very noble and selfless of you. It's a shame you didn't feel duty bound to demonstrate why these lies are lies rather than just tell us they are.Show us how they are lies and not you just opining again.
''my readership continues to grow, with those who want to read the truth about this case, returning again and again''
No, they read opinions.Opinions and theories.If there are truths, prove them.If you can't- or won't- they can't be called truth.
Mitchell was and is a Government man. His remit was to guard every piece of information that was released and to ensure the McCanns looked innocent but guilty too. The deciding evidence had been taken away to be declared inconclusive.So we are where we are. Mission accomplished. No need for media control any longer. No evidence magically appearing. No suspects either. In May, Madeleine would be or will be 16 years of age. A landmark age in the UK.It will be fitting somehow when they call it a day.Then, come summer, the Chipping Norton set can breathe a sigh over their Pimms.
DeleteMitchell's remit was to make the McCanns look innocent but guilty too.
DeleteHmm. Either you are daft or you think we are. I agree that was the remit we saw enacted, but I doubt it was official. Clarence went rogue, he dumped his employers, New Labour, and went full time for Team McCann. My guess - he was loving the limelight, the power he had over all those journalists desperately seeking a story.
He spent 3 months in PDL, working his little socks off to keep Gerry, Kate and the entire clan in front of the cameras. Sky News even had a dedicated Madeleine channel, where the pro active family gave us updates. His remit was to keep the Madeleine story on the front pages, and if anyone remembers 2007, the summer especially, he did a phenomenal job, every Tabloid was filled with Madeleine stories.
I very much doubt his parting with his original employers, the UK government, was cordial or that he still had the ear of the PM or Ministers. He said as much in the Vanity Fair interview, Gerry and Kate wanted to see the PM or a Minister at least but all they were offered was mid level Consul.
Clarence was undoubtedly one of the plotters enjoying the facilities of Warners Holiday resort and making big plans for the future. Money was pouring into the Fund by the million and plans were being made to raise millions more, an annual Madeleine Day for the whole world. From the collection buckets scattered around the resort to good quality wristbands to begging letters to VIPs and celebrities. They wanted everyone contributing.
I and I am sure many others, would rather die of shame than ask for charitable donations to ourselves. And before any smart arse jumps in on my donation button. I prove a service, I don't ask for money for nothing, my craft is my writing and I devote a great deal of time to perfecting it, far more than the 10,000 hours required to become an expert. I provide my work freely to whoever wants to read it and it still blows me away that anyone does. I feel immensely privileged that my readers return again and again, and it drives me to keep my blog updated and to keep the discussion going. All I ask in return for an interesting read is the occasional cup of coffee or enough for a sinful cocktail or a 20s bag*. Due to my Obsessive compulsive disorder my needs are very few.
For me, the best teachers are those who can break a complex subject down and explain it simply. As the quote from Einstein in the right hand margin says, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Most people don't have the time or inclination to understand it well enough and it is the journalist's job pick out the key points and summarise the story for their readers. This is the point where bias, prejudice, money and politics steps in and the reason the same story can be read in multiple ways depending on which newspaper you are reading. Blogs like mine are becoming more popular because we are answerable to no-one, We don't have lawyers and editors changing everything we write.
*Several characters (selves) were involved in the writing of this post, one of whom had a nip of gin and took hold of the keyboard (blushing smiley)
Rosalinda Hutton3 April 2019 at 12:19
Delete''Mitchell's remit was to make the McCanns look innocent but guilty too.
Hmm. Either you are daft or you think we are. I agree that was the remit we saw enacted, ''
Then it isn't daft to think it is it. It's daft to invent imaginary additions to scrutinise.Like you're no doubt about to do...
''Clarence went rogue, he dumped his employers, New Labour, and went full time for Team McCann''
Yes, OK,Mickey Spillane.You think he 'went rogue'. Nobody else does. Have you a source ? No. He was persuaded to leave a well paid and privileged position to take up an important one on behalf of politicians who had taken over the investigation.Would he give up a big salary and privilege to take on a job that was likely to be over in a month ( according to all statistics).Why wouldn't a man with his experience in journalism and politics wonder why a missing person case would go on so long and be so high profile for so long ? Surely he'd only do it after being assured it wasn't just a few weeks work.Who cold give such an assurance and how ...
''I very much doubt his parting with his original employers, the UK government, was cordial or that he still had the ear of the PM or Ministers.''
Yes, they must have been at each other's throats. That's why he stepped down without protest and made a nice stash of cash from it and the politicians were able to go background.Everybody happy..
''Clarence was undoubtedly one of the plotters enjoying the facilities of Warners Holiday resort and making big plans for the future. Money was pouring into the Fund by the million''
Undoubtedly making what plans ? Is that another guess ?
''For me, the best teachers are those who can break a complex subject down and explain it simply. As the quote from Einstein in the right hand margin says, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.''
I agree. But do you know anyone who can explain the theory of relativity ?
'' Most people don't have the time or inclination to understand it well enough and it is the journalist's job pick out the key points and summarise the story for their readers.''
Thus ensuring their readers continue to know what it's all about vaguely but not have enough from the source to help them understand.
'' Blogs like mine are becoming more popular because we are answerable to no-one, We don't have lawyers and editors changing everything we write. ''
It's supply and demand.As long as so many need a place to vent and cast aspersions and make allegations they don't have to back up, blogs will always be popular. As will youtube and social networks.The beauty is that they are-as you say- answerable to no-one. Which is just as well considering the answers they give when pressed.
Hi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteI thought you had taken a break and gone shopping for a couple of days. Your usual brilliant updates were not to be found on your blog!
But all is well and you are back.
Thankfully all your blog well wishers can continue to share in your wisdom.
(Nothing wrong with taking a break I say - go for it).
Anyway, a bit off topic:
This is a sort of plea which crossed my mind: - to your 1,374,425 page viewers.
Is there anyone out there among your one and a half million page viewers and blog contributors who is familiar with international case law.
Maybe somebody out there (McCann trolls excepted) can give us an overview on the McCanns being extradited from England to Portugal for their crime(s). Someone who could give us the legal picture.
It's a thing that a fly on the wall at the Portuguese Judiciary knows only too well but we humans can only speculate on.
Thanks again.
jc
Ahh JC, you have either read How to Win Friends and Influence People or for you it just comes naturally. You have a gift for making a person feel better about themselves, and that's a gift to be treasured :)
DeleteActually Blacksmith wrote a great article about the Extradition question JC, I read it recently, but I think it was from late last year. He discussed popularity and extradition, as in if the public love you enough, your government will not hand you over. He cited the case of the young guy with autism who hacked into some US government department as an example. I suppose you could add to that debate, the UK'S policy of not handing British citizens over to hostile or murderous regimes like Russia or North Korea. I suppose will make a play at adding Portugal to that list and the argument that they would not get a fair trial.
Anyway, I heartily recommend you read that Blacksmith article JC, in fact I am going to go back and have another read of it myself :)
''It's a thing that a fly on the wall at the Portuguese Judiciary knows only too well but we humans can only speculate on. ''
DeleteAsk the fly. It won't make any less sense than you.
13:36 - "ask the fly", I see what you did there, but I think Gerry beat you to it.
DeleteJust to avoid any confusion, Euclides Monteiro was the PJ's number one suspect, and despite his death, it led to the reopening of the case.
ReplyDelete2 May, 2014
https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/viuva-do-principal-suspeito-do-caso-maddie-quebra-o-silencio_v734645
"Era o suspeito número um da Polícia Judiciária no caso Maddie McCann e, apesar de ter entretanto morrido, levou à reabertura do processo há seis meses."
The PJ re-opened their files long before 2nd May 2014 09:13. In fact, I believe it had been re-opened before Operation Grange stepped in in May 2011.
DeleteI don't believe for one moment that Euclides Monteiro was ever the PJ's number one suspect, and the idea that the PJ re-opened the file because of him is ludicrous.
The PJ re-opened their investigation in late Oct 2013 after the efits were shown on BBC Crimewatch earlier that month and Crecheman had been positively identified by O.G!
DeleteIt must have been an interesting meeting between the PJ and Crecheman still wearing the same clothes!
Rosalinda at 11:45
DeleteAs JJ says, the PJ re-opened their investigation in late October 2013, six months previous to the date in the link (2 May 2014).
"levou à reabertura do processo há seis meses."
(led to the re-opening of the case six months ago.)
The PJ came up with Euclides Monteiro, for whatever reason.
and considering St Amaral had solved the case ( according to Ros) years before, they didn't really need to look for suspects..it's as though the PJ know Amaral had lost the plot back in '07
Delete"Yes everyone is a suspect 21:28, except the 8 adults who were going back and forth between the Tapas bar and the apartments. The parents and their friends, some of whom had long absences from the tapas table, are not under any circumstances to be considered suspects. Even though they have been caught in lots of lies and were unwilling to return to PDL for a reconstruction"
ReplyDeleteIt is not the job of the tabloids to investigate suspects, they peddle trash, it is the job of the police.
You say the McCanns and the tapas mob have been caught in lots of lies but are not to be considered suspects in any circumstances.
Either the police have investigated and ruled them out, or OG is a deliberate cover up.
After 12 years there is no evidence or the UK police are bent, its as simple as that.
As for the reconstruction. The tapas mob were advised by senior UK police officers the perils of returning to PDL.
This is known as attempting to pervert the course of justice but nobody of OG is of sufficient rank to investigate.
There is lots of evidence regarding criminality by UK Police officers but who will investigate, certainly not OG and Rowley was not willing to investigate himself.
Hey Soredust,you berate everyone for only having theories and not facts,yet your view of what happened,ie,a VIP or VIP's did the abduction causing an official cover up,is also only a theory.
ReplyDeleteYou have no facts either and could be just as wrong as you accuse others of being.
10:42
DeleteThere's a difference. I always say I have opinions and ideas but realise that that's all they are.That's not the same as suggesting they are 'obvious' or 'truth' is it. Then I'd be a liar like those I criticise.
Anonymous 2 April 2019 at 10:42
DeleteDear Anon
When dealing with a superior force, jibes take one nowhere.
For starters, you could look up a British Ambassador’s job description and then watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azj4CLORnlc&feature=youtu.be
VIP?
DeleteNot the one who left the resort early and has never been questioned by the PJ by any chance?
I think you're hinting at PR ? He ( apparently) handed all his recent PDL photos to them and set sail across the sea shortly after..
Delete'SCOTLAND Yard has ignored an offer by a leading forensic scientist to re-test "inconclusive" DNA samples in the hope of finally solving what happened to Madeleine McCann, reports claim.'
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8771145/madeleine-mccann-cops-test-dna-samples/
'He told Nine's podcast investigation: "If a lab can produce informative data, even if it is complex and mixed, but they can't interpret it then you can have tremendous injustice - of guilty people not being convicted, or innocent people staying in prison.
"What is needed is an objective and accurate interpretation that can scientifically resolve the DNA."'
Another stone going unturned then. They must be panicking upstairs
DeleteHmmm VIP, there was one there I think on the same holiday and while not a VIP himself,he certainly had VIP connections.Not just political too,but with one of the world's richest and most powerful families.
ReplyDeleteNow that would be a bombshell scandal,(if true) worth a cover up or two.
You mean the nephew of Blairs' darling Hodge ( formerly Oppenheimer) don't you. The very darling who helped whitewash the Islington scandal i often refer to.Her who had the position of 'Minister For Children' created just for her after failing to investigating the allegations against VIPs.Her nephew looks like generic efit person too. He had it away on his toes by boat i hear, cutting his holiday there short.He does have some very influential friends and contacts it has to be said. But he's from a powerful jewish family so it would be anti semitic to suggest he and they are less than pure. His mum will verify that the next time she contrives an attack on Corbyn. But I think the person you're hinting at was there with his own kids so is unlikely to have been doing much. Probably having the odd cold one with the odd ex pat and sharing secrets..
Deleteanon @ 17:02,
ReplyDeleteBut I think the person you're hinting at was there with his own kids so is unlikely to have been doing much. Probably having the odd cold one with the odd ex pat and sharing secrets..
....................................
Have to agree,in the wrong place at the wrong time,but sits well with conspiracy theorist.
KISS is the answer, but with out any clear evidence to deduce what crime has been commited although Grange from the get go with their remit decided to investigate as if the abduction occured in the uk,thats the puzzler.
It's hard to imagine what the clowns were thinking. Whee they meaning the mechanics of an investigation or an abduction or both ? Or were they just lying. The latter seems a realistic choice there. Is there anywhere in Leicester or London that resembles PDL ? A tiny coastal town on the sea ? Where all roads out of it lead to or routes across the water, it isn't the UKs back yard, It's the PJ's. I think they needed to take that decision and use it as a justification for stealing the investigation from the PJ.It made no real sense then other than it was thought that Scotland Yard are the world's finest so why question it. That's an old, old tactic. It worked. Even if it's questioned now it's too late. They call the first hour after an abduction the golden hour. It's precious in terms of investigating and recovering a missing person.The first 48 hours marks a kind of critical cut off point. As time stretches out thereafter, the odds against a success do too. They knew that.But they knew what their remit was too. We don't though. Not the real one. But the 12 years of emoty space gives us a realistic idea..
DeleteThe McCanns did not take part in the Netflix documentary. They haven't been interviewed on TV for quite a while. They will never inflict public scrutiny on themselves again, particularly Kate. Why? Simply because after their last TV interview there were so many comments about how badly she had aged and how well Gerry looked in comparison. She won't put herself up for public scrutiny ever again.
ReplyDeleteYes, Jane, I would agree with that.
DeletePooh
Or, if we look at it objectively, it's entirely possible as well as probable, that the parents are of a mind that there isn't a single question an interviewer could ask that hasn't been asked before or another area for discussion that hasn't been discussed before.All the years of interviews in the media have yielded nothing. It feeds the ghouls and vultures who have very little of value to add to proceedings, and that's all . They have enough to recycle in the way of suspicion and accusation to keep them going. Look at what they've managed in twelve years making the same handful of items spread.I think the parents are at a point of 'what more can be said' ? Or, maybe of a mind that those who have provided lots of media spin and funding should show what they've done, are doing, or close the book.If the police and investigators have coughed up nothing in all this time i reckon the parents are at that stage to accept it's over until further notice. There' nowhere for anyone to look now.I think to suggest it's about how they look is particularly shallow and unimportant.It's yet further evidence of how eager the antis are to add to anything. If they see a picture or an interview, they'll add no end of silly observations and 'readings'. If the McCanns stay indoors, they do the same.Sad case, really...
DeleteHi Jane, I have a sneaky suspicion they are arguidos and under Portuguese Judicial secrecy laws. that is, they are not allowed to give interviews.
DeleteBut in any case, the excuse they gave was credible, it would have been totally inappropriate for them to appear in a documentary while there are two live police investigations going on.
I am not so sure that Gerry looks any better than Kate, they both look broken and as if they are living under an enormous amount of stress. And they are. Are OG keeping them updated? It would be horribly cruel if they aren't.
And that was good enough reason for the likes of Keith Bennet's mum, wasn't it. People slag me off for looking old, help in the search for missing child.
DeleteTough call.
Rosalinda Hutton3 April 2019 at 12:34
Delete''Hi Jane, I have a sneaky suspicion they are arguidos and under Portuguese Judicial secrecy laws. that is, they are not allowed to give interviews. ''
That's not a sneaky suspicion it's a wish. You've finally accepted, after being told about 20 times a fortnight, that the police have stated publicly that the parents are 'not suspects- period' and that there is no rebuttal to an actual fact like that. That's how powerful actual real facts are.So you've found a compromise to help you cope ; they are suspects, it's just that it's a secret.Oh dear oh dear. You told us all yesterday that you 'know more than the tabloids' yet you have to invent things like that ? Oh dear, oh dear.
For the record, an open question...If you lost your three year old daughter and she was never returned, would you look radiant or broken.Honest answers only please .
Jane2 April 2019 at 23:49
Delete''They will never inflict public scrutiny on themselves again, particularly Kate. Why? Simply because after their last TV interview there were so many comments about how badly she had aged''
You came up with a theory.That way you could pretend it was a fact and invent a question about it.Then you answered the question that nobody but yourself had asked and tried to suggest it was Kate McCann answering it.Is there a prize for guessing why you'd go to that much effort ?
Everything you say 11:01 flies in the face of everything the McCanns have said and done. Leave no stone unturned, we will never give up, we can't stop, etc. etc. Madeleine hasn't yet been found so why would give up?
DeleteAnd I will say again, what does it matter what other people say? Those nasty trolls, ghouls or whatever you want to call them. Who is dumb enough to let the antics of online misfits dictate how they live their lives, let alone force them to abandon the search for their daughter. They care way too much about keeping up appearances, both with their libel actions and fear of online critics.
I am amazed at your notion that there are no more questions to ask and no where left to look. What a strange outlook from a supporter of the parents. How can a non answer be good enough for parents of a missing child? A child they believe is alive and findable? It would be more believable if they wear banging on the doors of Scotland Yard every day demanding answers rather than quietly accepting that there's nowhere else to look.
You aren't amazed. You're trying to sound amazed to try and make the common sense look trivial and unimportant.Tell me another line of questioning an interviewer could take that hasn't been done to death already or another area of discussion. Can you ? It was relevant 10-12 years ago when little Madeleine would still be little Madeleine and recognisable. She's 16 now. The antis just feel cheated because they have nothing else fresh to dissect from television interview. So here we are...suggestions of why Kate's 'hiding'. Its pretty desperate.
DeleteRosalinda Hutton3 April 2019 at 13:25
Delete''Everything you say 11:01 flies in the face of everything the McCanns have said and done. Leave no stone unturned, we will never give up, we can't stop, etc. etc. Madeleine hasn't yet been found so why would give up''
What 11:01 said makes a lot of sense. You must have misunderstood it.Or just chose to
"Hi Jane, I have a sneaky suspicion they are arguidos and under Portuguese Judicial secrecy laws. that is, they are not allowed to give interviews"
DeleteRos
Arguido status only applies in Portugal it is simply wishful thinking to state otherwise and Gerry's career is still on the rise.
I have actually seen them both in the last 3 months in the flesh and my perception is different to yours.
I would not presume to know how they are coping, it would be a guess.
To save you worrying about them Cressida Dick of SY is keeping them informed.
good points jj
DeleteRosalinda Hutton3 April 2019 at 13:25
Delete''I am amazed at your notion that there are no more questions to ask and no where left to look. What a strange outlook from a supporter of the parents''
Not like you to spite a little spite out because you have no sensible rebuttal, Ros. It must be that natural serenity you keep pretending you have as your default state of being...
What questions do you propose need to be asked by the next TV interviewer that haven't already been asked ? Where else is there to look if your claim of there being 'two live investigations' going on as well as the 'hard working' OG are on the money ?
I've told you I'm not a pro. But I understand why you need to disbelieve that.Denial is second nature to you. A sort of safety net. You need to believe that anyone not endorsing the attacks - without evidence- on two people who have no evidence standing against them must be a pro, a member of 'team McCann' or some other oddball group. I'm not pro anybody. I'm pro fairness and justice. I don't just say I believe in justice and fairness and free speech to sound impressive, I truly believe it. That's why I argue in it's favour. When accusations are made, the onus is on the accuser to prove they're fair to make and can be proven. Just as it would lay squarely on a prosecution team in a trial. Until they can be, they are just accusations and opinions or lies. As such , the McCanns are innocent until proven guilty. They have never even faced a charge in 12 years.They're the facts- not opinions. Are the police blind or stupid, or is it a case that all the accusations could be wrong ?
It's all well and good to talk about a dead or buried daughter. Anyone can. But the police don't. They say it's a possibility they have to entertain. Until then, it's a missing-presumed abducted- person case.Anyone who says it isn't is, at best, merely speculating. At worst, lying for their own personal agenda.Or just plain morbid. Why can't those who talk about the little girl as though she's dead say it's only their opinion ? Sick. Why so many can hold such a deep -seated dislike( or hatred) of two strangers who had the misfortune to lose their little girl is beyond reason.A dark day for the online social networkers and human nature.Ugly stuff.
I'm not sure arguido status only applies in Portugal JJ. I remember the McCanns saying they were bound by judicial secrecy even when giving interviews in the UK.
DeleteDon't worry, I am not fretting, any woes the McCanns have are purely of their own making they have the power to change things any time they want.
I think you are being disingenuous 22:01, it is more a case of what questions the McCanns would be willing to answer, and they won't go outside their 12 year old script.
DeleteYou then go out of your way to persuade me that you are not a 'pro', a support of the McCanns but a supporter of justice. Ok. Is that because you went off script and gave away that the parents don't care if OG closes without a result?
There is nothing sick about refusing to accept lies 22:01, or disliking being lied to and many of us can see that is exactly what Gerry and Kate are doing. Maybe it's like the Magic Eye thing, some people like yourself just don't see it. When a person lies they see other people as less intelligent than themselves, It's insulting, it is not endearing. If the McCanns want people to like them they could start by telling the truth.
Rosalinda Hutton3 April 2019 at 22:15
Delete''I'm not sure arguido status only applies in Portugal JJ. I remember the McCanns saying they were bound by judicial secrecy''
All that means is they were not allowed to speak publicly about the case. That;s not even close to being a suspect. Give it up.
Rosalinda Hutton3 April 2019 at 22:35
Delete''I think you are being disingenuous 22:01, it is more a case of what questions the McCanns would be willing to answer, and they won't go outside their 12 year old script.''
Talking of scripts, why do you accuse anyone who asks you a question of being disingenuous ? Can you explain how a question or a request can actually be disingenuous ?
The facts that has the antis biting their own knuckles right now is that the McCanns announced they wanted no part of the documentary. The antis were, and obviously still are judging by their online posts, enraged.For 12 long and monotonous years they've repeated the same handful of accusations and cliches so many times that are based on very little that they are now threadbare. The McCanns could have given them so much new 'material' to work with here; dropped guards, throw away remarks that meant more; eye flickers;twitches; and the obligatory 'cold expressions'.Instead, there is nothing.OK there's been a half-hearted insinuation that they're hiding because Kate looks so haggard( so guilty lol) but that'll pass.
They made a statement prior to th documentary airing. They were clear.They couldn't see how it would aid the investigation.That's simple.All it does is poke the hornet's nest online.And, as i said to you, Madeleine was 'fresh' in 2007 - 2009. She could have still been recognizable at that age. What can they show us now ? I asked you what questions could be new now and which areas ? Twice you have failed to answer but tell me it's a strange thing to think. Why ?
'' Ok. Is that because you went off script and gave away that the parents don't care if OG closes without a result?''
I don't stay or stray form a script. I just say what i think at the time I think it.But, for the record,yo're lying any way.Quote me where i state that the parents don't care if it closes without a result. Copy and paste it.
''There is nothing sick about refusing to accept lies 22:01, or disliking being lied to and many of us can see that is exactly what Gerry and Kate are doing. ''
How many times does a simple truth have to be explained to you ? You can't call an opinion truth. Or a guess. Nor can you call it a lie. If you keep telling us that there's so many lies we're being told, you start to sound unhinged. Identify the lies you refer to and explain why they're lies and show us the proof you cite to expose the lies. Saying 'many of us' think this or that means nothing.That 'many' need to explain why a lie is a lie. Otherwise it's still no more than a guess and opinion.
'' Maybe it's like the Magic Eye thing, some people like yourself just don't see it. When a person lies they see other people as less intelligent than themselves''
When a person lies to me and i can prove it's a lie i see them as a liar.It's really no more complicated than that.The idea that liars are of the lower end of the academic scale is saying more about your standards not mine.have you ever seen a politician who got by without lying ?
''It's insulting, it is not endearing. If the McCanns want people to like them they could start by telling the truth.''
You think that's their priority ? I think finding their daughter is. failing that, finding out what her fate was. Thousands of rumour mongers with time to play but no evidence fill their internet time exchanging salacious and scandalous theories and calling the parents liars, killers, fraudsters, swingers and so on. Why would trying to make that many nutcases like you ? Why give them importance ?
"I'm not sure arguido status only applies in Portugal JJ. I remember the McCanns saying they were bound by judicial secrecy even when giving interviews in the UK."
DeleteRos
I am sure, Arguido status does not apply in the UK
Check the Portuguese penal code if you have any doubt it will save unnecessary speculation
If you think about what you wrote for a moment, if they were bound by judicial secrecy they could not give interviews in the UK.
They did, they aren't!
Ros says :
Delete''''It's insulting, it is not endearing. If the McCanns want people to like them they could start by telling the truth.''
Which lies ? Can you show them or how they have slipped up and revealed that they are actual lies - or are you making it up.
@ 23 : 34 zig ??
DeleteDon't count on Ros even trying to answer any of the questions you just asked.
You are being disingenuous in saying there are no more questions to ask, of course there are, Madeleine has not yet been found. I'm sure the police have lots of questions for the parents and their friends, but I don't think any of them are talking. As for questions on breakfast TV etc, are the McCanns incapable of spontaneous conversation? Don't they have causes to promote, isn't Kate Ambassador for Missing People?
DeleteNo-one is biting their knuckles about the Netflix documentary 11:34. It caused a splash, but here we are 4th April and it is forgotten. Back to reality, and the reality is there are two live police investigations.
Regarding the lying. Let me explain it simply for you. I do not believe Madeleine was abducted, therefore for me, everything they say is a lie. I particularly dislike the one about her being alive and findable. Noooo evidence irks too, the alerts of the dogs signalled a death in apartment 5A.
It is sad for the McCanns if they believe everyone hates them, and sad that they allow fear of such hatred to dictate how they behave. They should perform the wider audience, for the ones who do like them, and there must be some.
@ 15 : 12
DeleteI never expect an answer.
''Simply because after their last TV interview there were so many comments about how badly she had aged ''
ReplyDeleteYes. I'm sure the vanity of the McCanns has stopped them appearing on a documentary and helping to increase the search for their daughter. What a superficial observation. They've finally given in to the pressure of the inane BS on comment sections online.Dream on.
11:07, only someone close to the McCanns could tell us why they haven't given interviews. I doubt you are close to anyone.
DeleteTell Jane then Oscar.She invented it. Or is she exempt as she's another hater
DeleteOscar Slater3 April 2019 at 12:39
Delete''And that was good enough reason for the likes of Keith Bennet's mum, wasn't it. People slag me off for looking old, help in the search for missing child.
Tough call.''
A Moors Murders reference. Nothing desperate there. Mrs Bennett, and the rest of the country, knew her child was dead and knew the murderer had said he was buried on the moors. Can you explain the parallel between that case and the McCann case ?
Oh dear, not even man (?) enough to defend the things you say now - "Jane did it, then she ran away."
DeleteI think you've already explained the parallel, and that leads to why would you worry what you looked like if you wanted to find your child?
As always trying to take the argument away from the point being discussed to muddy the waters.
I've told you before how immature "hater" sounds.
''I've told you before how immature "hater" sounds.''
DeleteWhat you tell me doesn't matter.
For the record, hating for hating's sake is far more immature.Not in how it sounds but in what it actually is. The rest of your post makes even less sense and can't be backed up by anything unless you can re-organise it and try again.
17;14 'What you tell me doesn't matter'.
DeleteDo you know how bratty that sounds? How old are you, 6?
How would you like to be told what you say doesn't matter? The reason you struggle to get you point across 17:14, is because you are so damn rude.
Oscar's points do matter, are you trying to belittle them because they are more cordial and articulate than yours? That's how it appears.
No, christobell unbound. Oscar's points repeat your points and they support you. Those who don't agree with you don't agree with him. Hence he get's the trademark defence from you like the other couple who do it for you. If you want to talk about being cordial and behaving as a 6 year old, you really should read Oscar's posts right through, not just the ones you like.He messes the creche up regularly.Not unlike you, funnily enough.
DeleteShall i rephrase carefully ?
DeleteWhat you tell me doesn't matter. Change your tone. learn some manners.
I didn't think I'd need to explain that one. Jeeez...
17:03, it wasn't me, a big boy did it and ran away.
Delete17:11, if what people tell you doesn't matter, why are you here? Discussion is a two way street. Explain that one.
DeleteLOL, are you trying to insinuate I am Oscar? Lol, I don't need deceit and fake accounts to keep my blog going, 17:03. I don't have time to keep up with all the posts I receive as it is. On that score I am eternally grateful to Oscar, his replies are often better than I could come up with myself!
DeleteGreat. A comedy double act without the comedy.Grow up, children.
DeleteI could entertain you, Oscar. But that would only encourage you to post more of the same kind of snide nonsense.That wouldn't be fair on visitors to the blog who want to read about the case and see it discussed by grown ups. I don't want to do that. Besides, you're now part of the protected species ( Rosalinda's echoes) so you will be protected from replies that you can't discuss or points you can't argue. It's what Ros calls her 'spam box' but well adjusted adults that have no personal issues recognise it as her selective censorship. Yet another enviable feature this blog can boast.
DeleteRosalinda Hutton4 April 2019 at 18:22
Delete''LOL, are you trying to insinuate I am Oscar? Lol, I don't need deceit and fake accounts to keep my blog going,''
You could post as Fred Bloggs or Osama , it would still be too difficult to disguise your natural warmth, charm, intelligence and easy going, magnetic nature.Nobody could imitate the wit or the high brow level of discourse.Somewhere online there must be a statue already erected in your honour.A recognition of your services to the fight for justice, modesty and psychic warfare.
Wow that is the nicest compliment I have ever received 19:01, I love it so much I have read it at least 3 times. I am not sure about the statue part though, that may have been a dig at my ego, lol.
DeleteBut bless you, bless you, nevertheless. As you can see, many of my correspondents for some reason, see me as being in a permanent knuckle biting rage. Anger is often the result of not being able to communicate, be it toddlers, people with speech impediments or posters losing an argument on a public forum. Anyhow, I know they are projecting, because I know how infuriating I can be ;)
Hilarious 18:06, do you think I am holding the 'good stuff' back? As if. I look forward to receiving challenging posts 18:06, I still long to be persuaded that Kate and Gerry are innocent. I actually feel sad for your side that you haven't got anyone who can put forward a legitimate defence to the non abduction arguments.
DeleteThus far all we have is a vague suggestion of someone high up in the government, citing a name from the sixties. Other than that we have over and over, the parents haven't been charged in 12 years so they won't be and the police have declared they are not suspects.
There is nothing substantive in either of those defences. It doesn't say, Gerry and Kate couldn't have done it because...……. and to that because and the dots, there should be hundreds of arguments. If I were accused of murder I would like to think my family and friends could put forward hundreds of reasons why it couldn't have been me.
As for my spam box. There is nothing sinister about it, It is an option I have, publish, delete, spam. All blogs have the same facility. Any post that is civil will be published. Alternate opinions are welcome, as long they treat me and my readers with respect.
I am not going to publish cruel and abusive posts, why should I give such malevolent people a platform? This is my blog and I have created a welcoming forum that can discuss this case as reasonable adults. I am not going to allow the dregs of the nasty forums to drag my blog down to their level.
Rosalinda Hutton4 April 2019 at 20:13
Delete''Hilarious 18:06, do you think I am holding the 'good stuff' back? As if. I look forward to receiving challenging posts 18:06, I still long to be persuaded that Kate and Gerry are innocent''
According to you, you're clever. Yet you fail to answer simple questions or explain simple statements you make.This is more likely the reason you can't be persuaded. You can't grasp some very simple ideas. Or you refuse to grasp them.They're less enjoyable for you.
'' I actually feel sad for your side that you haven't got anyone who can put forward a legitimate defence to the non abduction arguments. ''
Saying you feel sorry for someone in this context is juvenile. It's a cheap and uninformed way of trying to impress upon people reading that the idea you're attacking is worthless because the people who hold it are. If we were to-as usual- put our common sense on hold to consider your statement worthy of consideration, then we have to feel sorry for that other 'side' - the police. Because they have maintained this is an abduction for 12 years.If it wasn't an abduction, then twelve years and two police forces have been an ample antidote to that theory being an invention.
''Other than that we have over and over, the parents haven't been charged in 12 years so they won't be and the police have declared they are not suspects.''
Yes. They're facts.
''There is nothing substantive in either of those defences. It doesn't say, Gerry and Kate couldn't have done it because''
There is.'' Gerry and Kate couldn't have done it because it wouldn't be an abduction, it would be them taking their child out.They don't have her now so that makes it a possible murder''. But they stuck with the abduction. Are the police liars ?
''If I were accused of murder I would like to think my family and friends could put forward hundreds of reasons why it couldn't have been me. ''
Yes, most murderers occupying cells right now had arguments put forward for them by their families. That's the trouble with pesky murderers, they always keep it a secret. An alibi that can be proven or reliable eye witness would work.Family are biased.
''As for my spam box. There is nothing sinister about it, It is an option I have, publish, delete, spam''
No one said it was sinister-just that you are hypocritical. When you're told it's morally and legally wrong to be allowed to call someone a killer, pervert, abuser or thief, you say it's free speech and censorship disgusts you. But you censor who doesn't agree with you and they aren't malicious or obscene. I know, I've posted them.You mean free speech shouldn't be allowed for certain people who think a certain way about certain people.
''I am not going to publish cruel and abusive posts, why should I give such malevolent people a platform? ''
Because you say as much as things are offensive to some people it's free speech, and no way would you stand against that. I suppose you mean as long as you agree.
Rosalinda Hutton4 April 2019 at 19:51
Delete''many of my correspondents for some reason, see me as being in a permanent knuckle biting rage..Anyhow, I know they are projecting, because I know how infuriating I can be ;) ''
In that case, how are they projecting ?
I'd have gotten away with it all if it wasn't for you pesky kids!
Delete18:56 - the best way to encourage grown ups to follow the blog is to act like one yourself. All you do is give out personal abuse, and order people about, your grandiosity is immense.
Delete''As if. I look forward to receiving challenging posts 18:06, ''
DeleteWhy ? You don't even answer not so challenging posts.You struggle or ignore them.
''you haven't got anyone who can put forward a legitimate defence to the non abduction arguments. ''
I have. The child was abducted. That's why she wasn't in the apartment when the parents returned.The police say that too. Are you saying that they have no legitimate argument either ? This is like your 'i know more than the tabloids' claim. Don't tell us, show us.Then show us why the parents lies are actually lies.You say it often enough but don't show us how they are.
''Thus far all we have is a vague suggestion of someone high up in the government, citing a name from the sixties''
Have we ? Who from the 60s ?I missed that post.
''Other than that we have over and over, the parents haven't been charged in 12 years so they won't be and the police have declared they are not suspects.''
A reasonable assumption based on a combination of the laws of probability and absence of evidence in twelve years.
''There is nothing substantive in either of those defences. It doesn't say, Gerry and Kate couldn't have done it because.''
Look who missed the boat again. In twelve years the police haven't come up with a ''Gerry and Kate are guilty because..'' The onus is on the accuser.Not the accused.Besides, it's only internet people making the accusations along with wannabe authors and fame chasers.No police.
'' If I were accused of murder I would like to think my family and friends could put forward hundreds of reasons why it couldn't have been me. ''
Yet if the McCanns family and friends do that you start accusing them of being liars and 'in on it'. You can't open your eyes.It's like a condition.Very odd.
'' Alternate opinions are welcome, as long they treat me and my readers with respect. '
Whereas they will be criticised, dismissed for no demonstrable reason and the contributor insulted.Just for exposing flaws and holes in insupportable theories.
''I am not going to publish cruel and abusive posts, why should I give such malevolent people a platform?''
So they can get things off their chest like calling a child dead and buried and their parents killers and fraudsters.A safe place where no proof will be required and no sources. Just a place for venting.The need medicating, not educating.
Oscar Slater4 April 2019 at 21:04
Delete''18:56 - the best way to encourage grown ups to follow the blog is to act like one yourself. All you do is give out personal abuse, and order people about, your grandiosity is immense.''
Mister ad hominem attack back in full squeak i see.Personal attacks online. That's new. I believe that's what Ros would normally jump at and call 'projection'. Shall we look at your best bits so far, Oz old chap ?
Oscar Slater29 March 2019 at 07:56
''you're the only little boy marching in step..You are really making quite an arse of yourself.''
'' Every one of your posts screams, "me, me,me!"
'' how childish was that?''
''Get over yourself, I'm not lowering myself to your level.''
''You'll win more people over to your way of thinking if you ditch the snide sarcasm. ''
''As it is you just make yourself a target for smart arses.''
''Clearly you are not the type to care what others think of you. Or maybe you think you're really clever. ..I suppose that's a result for a psychopath, and maybe even for you. Your work is done.''
''By the way 19:32, I'm pretty skilled in spotting Borderline Personality Disorder.''
''The public worry much less about words like "evidence", isn't that unfortunate for you?''
''You really need to develop a thicker skin if you're going to act the hard man online.''
''A tete a tete, who do you think you are, the Kray Twins?
Jeezo, what a fantasist, do you think that frightens me?''
''I doubt you are close to anyone.''
and the hilariously ironic :
''You seem to be making your attacks more personal''
and...
''Cut out the insults, accept other people's right to be wrong, and you'll gain a lot more respect. ''
Consider your right to be wrong respected. Several times.
I was umming and aahing as to whether to let your post stand 22:57, it adds nothing to the debate, it's simply a list designed to make Oscar look unreasonable.
DeleteBut I have let it stand. Why? Because it demonstrates not only the rudeness faced by Oscar, but the rudeness faced by myself and my posters on a daily basis. Why supporters of the McCanns cannot act decently and civilly online is beyond me, they are the most ill educated bunch of oiks on the internet.
On that level I will thank you, and maybe retitle your list as suggested replies to low IQ offensive posts from the permanently blinkered.
How have you managed to recognise the low level of all those posts made by Oscar Slater, and their rudeness, and bent it to appear that it's somebody else's fault. Would it have anything at all to do with Oscar's opinion of the two people this whole blog is dedicated to coinciding with your own ?So he. like others who blindly accuse without evidence or proof, are allowed carte blanche as a reward ? Whereas the opposition of the right to defame and slander are accused of having a low IQ ? This is a dark day for you, Ros.Your loyal poodles apart, you are overestimating the patience of your general reading audience as well as their intelligence. You need to start supporting your accusations and opinions with something a little more substantial than childish insults.The cohesion of this blog is disappearing. That's on you.
Deletepermanently blinkered says open minded rosalinda lmao
Delete13:41, it's only rude if it isn't true. Take it on the chin and move on. To be honest, your obsession is more than a little worrying.
DeleteI get it, I'm supposed to say "sod this I can't be bothered with this guy", and stop contributing.
If this was Ice Hockey, you would be the Goon. The guy whose only contribution to the game is to noise the opposition up so that they end up fighting and getting sin binned.
Usually he is a player of little talent, and is even less of a human being. If that stings you, tough.
It always comes back to the dogs, and you have no sane answer to that. Caught out you bluster and scream to distract from your inadequacy.
Just walk away mate, it's not worth it. It's just like mummy said, you are a special little prince, and the world just cannot see it.
DeleteVery simple 13:41, Oscar was replying to the same kind of belligerent, angry, full of contempt posts that I have been replying to daily since my blog began. I am impressed that he has found new entertaining ways to deal with them.
DeleteAgain more whining that my blog is unfair, that I prefer the posts of Oscar, Bjorn, et al to those of the McCann supporters. Quite possibly, but mostly because they are interesting and informative, rather than long winded pulpit rants.
Poodles? Seriously? Followed by you accusing me of being childish and insulting. As for this being a dark day for me, get over yourself lol. How do you know I am 'overestimating the patience of your general reading audience'? And I'm overestimating their intelligence too? You are saying my audience are exasperated and not very bright? You are so angry you don't know what you are saying, lol.
As for I need to start supporting my accusations.... I have no idea why you mean. I rarely, if ever, make any accusations against anyone. I put forward my opinions and I muse, as it says on the tin. Everything discussed on here is in the public domain, in the police files, in the book of Goncalo Amaral, in the news reports, in every form of MSM, most recently on the phenomenally popular Netflix. Since when does anyone need to provide evidence in order to discuss an item in the news?
Your demands that this case can only be discussed if hard evidence is provided, is absurd. That is not how debate and discussion works. I could of course sit here and attach links to every thought I have, but that would be boring for everyone. As a former lecturer, I know that keeping the debate moving is far more effective than handing out flyers every five minutes.
You underestimate the intelligence of my readers (see your earlier Freudian slip), I do not.
As a student of writing I had a brilliant lecturer who would write in large letters on the blackboard NO EXPOSITION. he wanted it to sink into our heads and it did. As a writer it is very tempting to over explain, to spell out your plot or to blatantly expose your subtext, writers who do are instantly forgettable.
Fortunately for me, the No Exposition rule has enabled me to write about this case unbound. The simple fact is there are no 'allegations' on here, nothing that can even vaguely be construed as libel. That most people believe the parents are involved is as it is. The supporters of the parents have a platform here to put forward their side. I would welcome a solid argument that proves my beliefs wrong. Continually demanding I provide evidence is pathetic, it's just an extension of Gerry's coverall 'Nooooo evidence'.
As for the cohesion of this blog disappearing. Please don't worry yourself, it is absolutely thriving, busier than ever before.
13:41 how can we fix this?
DeleteOscar Slater5 April 2019 at 15:25
Delete''Usually he is a player of little talent, and is even less of a human being. If that stings you, tough.
It always comes back to the dogs, and you have no sane answer to that. Caught out you bluster and scream to distract from your inadequacy.''
Have you been reading your old copies of Woman's Own , Oscar ? A very, very quick guide to imaginary psychology. You've found the right place...
I'm trying to understand your closer there. What exactly have the dogs got to do with me being caught out ? Caught out in what way ? Are you accusing me of tampering with Grimes' forensic report saying that the dog alerts were not substantial enough to be considered evidence ? Or the reports that said the DNA was inconclusive ? Or did i tell the PJ and SY to 'turn a blind eye' to any smell of cadaver ? You see, if the question ( if that what it was that i was supposed to answer) is thrown on a page so vaguely, how can any answer be adequate.Oh, sorry, it's me that's 'inadequate' isn't it. Because i ask for silly claims to be supported with something the police could actually use.Yes, that makes perfect sense.Would you say the police have 'no sane answer' too ?
Rosalinda Hutton5 April 2019 at 15:51
Delete''Very simple 13:41, Oscar was replying to the same kind of belligerent, angry, full of contempt posts that I have been replying to daily since my blog began.''
That's a lie isn't it. or can you identify the belligerent, angry, full of contempt posts ? From what i see, you own that crown.
''that I prefer the posts of Oscar, Bjorn, et al to those of the McCann supporters. Quite possibly, but mostly because they are interesting and informative, rather than long winded pulpit rants''
Again, you wear that crown ( other head).Only you say they are interesting etc. OK, I'l say Oscar can raise and does raise decent points and does engage if questioned.The others? Don't be silly.
''Poodles? Seriously? Followed by you accusing me of being childish and insulting. As for this being a dark day for me, get over yourself lol''
You really think i had 'poodles' as my natural choice of adjective ? I have self control. Be careful, it's contagious.
''You are saying my audience are exasperated and not very bright? You are so angry ''
It's an observation that most level headed and calm people who read here regularly would make. I just articulated it.Almost all of your feedback comes from antis because they like a herd.
''As for I need to start supporting my accusations.... I have no idea why you mean. I rarely, if ever, make any accusations against anyone.''
Have you ever heard of Gerry and Kate McCann ?Have you heard your 'theory' of what happened to their little girl, Madeleine ?
''Your demands that this case can only be discussed if hard evidence is provided, is absurd''
They also don't exist. You're lying again. What I've said time and again is opinions and theories can only be discussed as that- not as truths and facts.If anyone insists they are the truth they should show us why
''You underestimate the intelligence of my readers (see your earlier Freudian slip), I do not. ''
I don't. You do. Freud reference invalid.
''As a student of writing I had a brilliant lecturer who would write in large letters on the blackboard''
I bet you did.
'' The simple fact is there are no 'allegations' on here, nothing that can even vaguely be construed as libel.''
How about calling the McCanns liars and their friends liars but not showing us the evidence that they lied ? How about the abduction being a lie ?
''. The supporters of the parents have a platform here to put forward their side. I would welcome a solid argument that proves my beliefs wrong.''
Beliefs. Yes. Not facts and not truths.
''Continually demanding I provide evidence is pathetic, it's just an extension of Gerry's coverall 'Nooooo evidence'.''
Same could be said of Murat couldn't it.But that's how the process works.
''As for the cohesion of this blog disappearing. Please don't worry yourself, it is absolutely thriving, busier than ever before.''
You. Me. Oscar. And who else...
Rosalinda Hutton5 April 2019 at 15:51
Delete''Very simple 13:41, Oscar was replying to the same kind of belligerent, angry, full of contempt posts that I have been replying to daily since my blog began''
Oscar Slater5 April 2019 at 15:27
''Just walk away mate, it's not worth it. It's just like mummy said, you are a special little prince, and the world just cannot see it.''
Not sure what kind of post you mean.
It's all about you. You are such a narcissist that I can't help feeling you are closer to the case than you'd care to admit.
DeleteLike I say, it's only nasty if it isn't true. Walk away mate, we just don't appreciate your superior qualities.
Or is it the case that you enjoy the attention so much, you just can't walk away?
It's clear you have nothing to add to the subject. Sorry, that's not nasty, it's true.
You've done nothing for days now but complain about how you are spoken to. Still the penny doesn't drop.
Still, you are too nice to be big G. I reckon you could be one of his sisters though
And, for goodness sake, can't you be a bit more succinct when you're replying? You just drone on and on and on.
DeleteOscar Slater6 April 2019 at 08:35
Delete''It's all about you. You are such a narcissist that I can't help feeling you are closer to the case than you'd care to admit.''
That's called an over active imagination. Or is it just old fashioned paranoia.Narcissist ? Yes, that's this years 'psychopath' isn't it. I watch documentaries too. But I understand what it means.
''Walk away mate, we just don't appreciate your superior qualities. ''
Was that a virtual bar comment. Behave. And I can't apologise if anyone thinks I'm superior.
''It's clear you have nothing to add to the subject. Sorry, that's not nasty, it's true.''
That's only your opinion. So, as such, doesn't matter really that much. It confirms that I add balance and want to expose lies and myths parading as truths.
''You've done nothing for days now but complain about how you are spoken to. Still the penny doesn't drop.''
It does. I just don't pick it up. Am I supposed to feel intimidated.Thing again.No chance.
''Still, you are too nice to be big G. I reckon you could be one of his sisters though''
Thanks, princess. But that's your overactive paranoia getting in your way again.Very witty and original though.I forgot it was the 80s..
Oscar Slater6 April 2019 at 09:04
''And, for goodness sake, can't you be a bit more succinct when you're replying? You just drone on and on and on.''
Of course i could.I just choose to throw as many darts at the board as i can. The theory being if a few stick you learn from it.
You're welcome.
oh 21:00.Give it a rest with Oscar S. You really are jemmying away at this one aren't you, to no avail and always aiming to get in the last word.
DeletePlease can we shift the conversation thread? Now for a simple starter, please can you provide verifiable evidence an abduction. You know, like points of entry, footprints, timelines and other basic stuff. And as you are an academic, cite a couple of decent cross-references to the PJ files eg DNA found, fingerprints.
It was of course Kate Healy McCann who claimed an abduction. I presume she watched a lot of cartoons such as the Perils of Penelope Pitstop by Hanna Barbera in the 70's. They featured the mythical abductor 'the Hooded Claw'. I see an analogy there. Over to you.
Shakespeare and monkeys, Shakespeare and monkeys.
DeleteAnonymous7 April 2019 at 02:36
Delete''oh 21:00.Give it a rest with Oscar S. You really are jemmying away at this one aren't you, to no avail and always aiming to get in the last word.''
The 'last word' in an unsolved crime is suspicion.That's all there is. Do you understand that concept. What isn't a concept is innocence until proven ( proven-see?) guilty.That's actually the law of the land.
''Please can we shift the conversation thread? Now for a simple starter, please can you provide verifiable evidence an abduction''
The thread of conversation is dictated by whatever the host indicates. It's her blog. Though I have to say i anticipated this one being annoying as it was on antis home turf - the twighlight zone. When the parents came back to the apartment there were two children in it. There should have been three. A quick fumble on their calculators showed that one was missing now.As a tiny three year old is unlikely to nip out to the garage for a packet of cigarettes or go for a late night ramble, that looks like an abduction.There's no tangible evidence to say anything else. Hence the twelve years.By tangible i mean existing identifiable evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. Not lunatics online who really should know better. By the way, do detectives have to be academics as well ? How did they get on with timelines, prints and so on ?
''It was of course Kate Healy McCann who claimed an abduction. I presume she watched a lot of cartoons such as the Perils of Penelope Pitstop by Hanna Barbera in the 70's.''
Yes, probably.There were abductions in those every week weren't there.I think Kate / Gerry had to rely on reaching a logical conclusion based on what their eyes were seeing. The alternative odd ball theories have yet to stand up anywhere but on the internet.But they watch youtube. That means they're really clever.
''They featured the mythical abductor 'the Hooded Claw'. I see an analogy there. Over to you.''
If only life was as as easy and predictable as childrens' television and cartoons.Any fool could solve any crime then. Unfortunately life isn't like that and crime isn't either.As such, a far less simplistic view of serious subject matter is required.
Oscar Slater7 April 2019 at 08:51
Delete''Shakespeare and monkeys, Shakespeare and monkeys.''
Beats pieces of eight I suppose. Is this a new thing ? Tourettes ? Or just a mynah bird impressions. Well done, Oscar, we'll see you in the next round.
@ 02:36
DeleteCan you provide any evidence that the child wasn't abducted ? The police are still treating it as an abduction.That's verifiable. Ask them . Can you demonstrate why the evidence that you say exists isn't being used as evidence ( in the real world) ? Can you confirm that the police have said they don't think the abduction happened and share with us the evidence that they hold up to say why exactly. Go on. Pretend you're a detective.
Oscar Slater7 April 2019 at 08:51
Delete'Shakespeare and monkeys, Shakespeare and monkeys.'
repeat until funny
The quality of mercy is not stranned....
DeleteDo I win £5?
No, a dictionary.
DeleteOscar Slater3 April 2019 at 12:49
ReplyDelete''I doubt you are close to anyone.''
You base your doubt on nothing really, don't you.You just needed that. Feel better ? Typing with full claws out is impressive. I'll give you that .-
Feel free to have the last word on the subject.
DeleteMark Rowley:
ReplyDelete"So our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann. I’d love to guarantee them that we would get an answer, sadly investigations can never be 100 per cent successful. But, it’s our job, and I’ve discussed it with them, we’ll do everything we can do, reasonably, to find an answer to what’s happened to Madeleine. And I know, Pedro, the senior Portuguese colleague I’ve worked with and his team, have a shared determination, to find an answer. That’s what we’re going to do."
When did rowley say that ? It sounds years old.Might as well be. what does 'everything we can do 'reasonably' mean ?Reasonably is a bit vague. Looking for two years with two forces is more than reasonable. So why 12 ?
DeleteIn answer to anon @ 11;32
DeleteRowley said that in the tenth anniversery thingy update where he said alot but didn't really.
@ 09:32
DeleteThought as much. It's that type of thing that reinforces my belief that the case hasn't moved since May 2007. Same faces, same dusted down statements. Same worth. Thanks for the info
Zs
I agree with everything the Zigmeister says.
ReplyDelete12 years and nothing.
When will you people wake up? He knows his stuff.
Gary (from Jersey)
ditto that 10:44
Delete@10.44 and 11.46
DeleteZiggy singing his own praises,what a surprise.
@ 13:36
DeleteSo bitter.
"I agree with everything the Zigmeister says.
ReplyDelete12 years and nothing.
When will you people wake up? He knows his stuff.
Gary (from Jersey)"
Although I agree with much of what Ziggy posts, I would appear to have an imposter. I've kept quiet for a while and don't intend to change that for the time being. À la préchaine.
Gary from Jersey
Thankyou Gary from Jersey.
DeleteI'm so made up when I read your fine words that I feel like having a bevvy and a bifter. Can't say the same about the other wools here though.
Mark from Liverpool
20.02
DeleteKeeping quiet for a bit?
Lol,that's because you are posting as Ziggy again at the moment.And anon too lol.
Anonymous4 April 2019 at 20:45
DeleteAnonymous4 April 2019 at 21:05
( freaky stalker of men online alert)
I think you're right Ziggy,you better keep dixie.Maybe contact the bizzies too,the blert must be right gone west.
DeleteThe dogs feature heavily in this case, what did they indicate?
ReplyDeleteThey indicated possible evidence of Madeleine in 5a and the hire car.
This indicates the possible involvement of Kate and Gerry in their daughters demise.
A most worrying time for Kate and Gerry, so what did they do?
The day after the dogs they rang the head of ACOP the highest ranking senior UK Police Officer, to discuss the matter at some length, twice in one day.
Gerry was reassured by Ken Jones there was nothing to worry about.
Gerry also rang the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Martin Grime, Eddie and Keela's 'boss' to discuss the dogs findings. He was again reassured there was nothing to concern the McCanns.
At the same time, the Chief Constable of Leicestershire was actively promoting their fund on the official Leicestershire Police Website.
Who in OG has the authority to interview Chief Constables?
The McCanns have nothing to fear from OG.
Would suspects really have Chief Constables on speed dial, at their beck and call, if criminal charges were ever considered?
Are you suggesting that arrests were being considered based on the findings of the dogs ? But those yo mentioned gave the McCanns assurances that they had nothing to worry about. Like it was already a done deal ? I suppose it could be so. But that would mean some high - ranking officers have colluded in at least one crime and knowingly conspired to conceal at least one crime. OG can investigate Grimes. He isn't of high rank.Why would Chief Constables and the like want so desperately to avoid the arrest or charge of a McCann ? If thee was evidence they had the case nailed thee and then in 2007. Why look after them ? The McCanns aren't and weren't powerful or influential people. They were just doctors on holiday.
DeleteI suppose, instead of my asking so often why the police and so many politicians and military intel personnel wanted to (apparently) 'look after' the McCanns so readily, so blindly and so determinately I should ask the other question. Given that the possibility of all the collusion suggested in JJ's post,could it have been a case of them being so determined to conceal the fact that a death had taken place in the apartment.They could assure the parents had nothing to worry about in the way of arrests, but no guarantee of their child being safe.So, the question becomes why would so many politicians and high-ranking officers want to conceal a death of a child ? If they could guarantee the parents of no incriminating evidence they could possibly be aware that there was evidence of someone other than a McCann.If not in the apartment, then internally later if an abductor had delivered the child to her destination.
DeleteWho can, as JJ asks, investigate the Chief Constables ? I think they are accountable to the very people who rubber stamp the top ups to th enigmatically apathetic Operation Grange.The Home Office. The Home Secretary. When the requests come for money ( or we're told they are anyway) they can't just say 'yep go on..it's in the top drawer'.There would be a discussion before the cash was let go.Which suggests the Home secretary ( and those in the past since 2007) were aware of the importance of keeping this illusion front and centre.Make it look like a determined no stone unturned investigation simply by announcing it is.If the Chief Constables et al were 'helpful' to the parents and able to give guarantees so early, and if the Home Secretary is on top of the case he or she throws money at, then it suggests to me that a few people know exactly where Madeleine went.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Inspectorate_of_Constabulary_and_Fire_%26_Rescue_Services
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office#Inspectorates/accountability
12th July 2007
Deletehttps://web.archive.org/web/20071010051919/https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/newsandgallery/news/hrh_attends_the_12th_annual_police_bravery_awards_1856678830.html
'The Prince of Wales paid tribute to the ‘exceptional people’ working as police officers in the UK today as he presented some of the bravest with awards at a ceremony in London.
Seventy-two officers were nominated at the 12th annual Police Bravery Awards which crowned the bravest officer nationally, and for each region.
Others attending the awards, which celebrate the bravery of officers who risk their lives to keep the public safe, included Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Shadow Home secretary George Osborne, Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross, model Nell McAndrew, television presenter Natasha Kaplinsky and Rebekah Wade, editor of The Sun newspaper which sponsors the awards.
Before the ceremony, at the Dorchester hotel in London, the nominated officers met Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street.
In a speech, The Prince said he was pleased to get the opportunity to thank the "remarkable" police officers for their often unrecognised work.
His Royal Highness said: "We have witnessed very recently the challenges from terrorism which puts the police service on the front line and renders their task even more difficult but they have risen to that challenge with a quiet authority and professionalism and astonishing good humour in often impossible circumstances.'
----------
13 July 2007
https://metro.co.uk/2007/07/13/mccanns-thank-wonderful-police-540333/
'The father of missing Madeleine McCann received a standing ovation as he appeared before police officers all over the country to thank them for their help in the search for his daughter and urged them not to give up.'
Hi Rosalinda.
ReplyDeleteThis is eight year old news plus.
But your readers could go/probably have gone online to the interviews of the McCanns hosted by Sandra Felgueiras, ("the dogs"), and Jeremy Paxman ("Do you think you were you naive"), and finally the female interviewer who asks Mr McCann: "Did you kill your daughter" All are classic internet gems fixed in the public's minds forever, unfortunately they also doom the Rothley couple for ever.
(Happily for the McCanns in a court of law these interviews stand for nothing as trolls on this site are constantly reminding us).
However, just to make the skin crawl, I would recommend watching the Jeremy Paxman interview.
Mr McCann is truly in the hot seat and mental gymnastics are writhing when he is asked by Paxman: "do you think you were naive" the question is obviously targeting the couple's stupidity in leaving their children alone while they went out drinking each night.
Unfazed and after a bit of squirming in the chair Mr McCann turns the question on it's head and replies as if Paxman is a simpleton: "We were naive...in the sense that we, (he and his wife) had never been exposed to the media previously").
That's all it was - the couple's had nothing to do with abandoning their three tiny babies in a strange room in a foreign land it was all to do with the how they were handling the press.
And just like any couple who had lost a child that night, - were they searching...Mrs McCann's huge pause,... err well we actually didn't and we were so tired we left the searching to others".
So it turns out they left the search of their own flesh and blood daughter to the goodwill of strangers.
You just can't add anything but horror to this turn of events.
jc
@ jc 6 April 2019 at 03:22
DeleteAlternatively, instead of looking at 8 year old interviews, Ros's readers could watch and listen very carefully to Sandra on the more recent Netflix production.
And her follow up interview.
D
jc
DeleteBy naive about the media i think if you look slightly deeper than the surface for once, you'll see that the media is far bigger now than ever before. There's hundreds of TV stations and countless chat shows and news outlets and the internet with it's endless platforms for people to talk shite about whatever they like.The backlash by thousands of people who want to analyse their every word, every hand movement, every look is unbelievable.All because there's no evidence against them. No evidence ? OK, let's create some from their words and looks in interviews. Unbelievable..
Now, re-read your own post.
Hi JC, good to see you :)
ReplyDeleteI think Gerry was incredibly naïve to think he could outwit Jeremy Paxman. Gerry was doing somersaults to fit his prepared answers to the questions JP was asking and it showed. It was painful viewing, Gerry got his fingers burned, turns out he is not as highbrow as he thought he was.
Gerry, Kate and their supporters who post on here seem to be oblivious to the very odd behaviour of these two parents and it was that same odd behaviour that caste a huge cloud of suspicion over them - long before anyone even knew the name of Goncalo Amaral.
That the parents and their friends did not join in with the searches is hugely damning. All those of us glued to our TVs in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance saw police and volunteers searching, but not the child's parents, family and friends. And by searching, I mean outside, physically, looking under every bush and every stone every day. It is a real struggle for me, and I am sure many others, to understand why the McCann holiday party did not join the searches. Sitting in front of a laptop and catching up with old mates on the phone is not searching.
Of course the McCanns and their supporters accept no responsibility for their own behaviour, just as they accept no responsibility for leaving those babies on their own. It's always someone else's fault. It wasn't their lack of searching that turned the public against them, it was Goncalo Amaral's book.
@ Rosalinda Hutton6 April 2019 at 11:09
DeleteI believe your internet TV interview with Sonia (not exactly a Jeremy Paxman) caused uproar in the anti-Mccann movement. I believe your interview with the hated tabloid press caused more consternation.
Do you think you are an expert to comment on interviews?
D
Is there an anti-McCann movement? News to me. Also news to me that my interview with Sonia 'caused uproar', do you want to expand on that.
DeleteAgreed the Sun interview sent several of the looney fringe over the edge, but in fairness, pretty much everything does.
I don't know the point of your post D, this is an opinion blog, not a court of Law, not a laboratory. I don't need to present myself as an expert on interviews in order to comment on interviews. Methinks you sit there sharpening your claws waiting to pounce on anything you think will hurt or humiliate me, what a deeply unpleasant person you are. Does D stand for Trish or Phil?
'Does D stand for Trish or Phil?'
Deleteeh ?
@ Rosalinda Hutton7 April 2019 at 11:59
Delete"Is there an anti-McCann movement? News to me."
That is a very strange statement for you to make.
Oxford dictionary definition: " A group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas. ‘the labour movement’"
Are you denying any knowledge of the many forums where members voice their shared opinion that the Mccanns are involved in some way in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann = anti McCann. Are you denying that you have any knowledge of a group of people who paid to form a "Foundation" and held meetings to formulate plans to cause as many problems to the McCanns as possible - distribute leaflets, write to MPs, write to OG, send letters to the authorities in Portugal - they even had a conference and invited Amaral. Do you deny that you were a member of some of those forums of like minded people?
----------------------------
"Also news to me that my interview with Sonia 'caused uproar', do you want to expand on that."
That is full denial mode - and you know that what I said is true.
-----------------------------
Your interviews and newspaper appearance have been far far worse than those of the McCanns that you criticise as if you are an expert.
I don't sharpen claws - I post what I see to be the truth - if you feel humiliated by what I say then so what? You put yourself out there and expose yourself to criticism.
Your comment on Trish or Phil is so pathetic it does not need a reply by me. But if you think that any of the McCanns read this blog then you are in cloud cuckoo land.
D
It sounds schemie enough to me. (Trish or Phil would understand.)
Deletepaid money ? thats taking hatred to the level of a disease
Delete@ Oscar Slater7 April 2019 at 20:25
DeleteI was talking to the organ grinder and not the monkey.
But as you have interjected perhaps you could could point out any flaws in what I said?
D
Imagine paying £500k to stay on the front pages of the tabloids, employing PR Agencies and spin doctors to keep you in the news and then ignoring everything said about you on social media. Doesn't sound very logical does it D? Some might say it is the publicity that has kept out of the hands of the law, apart from public feeling, the police have to get right, there won't be any more chances.
DeleteI am not humiliated by the interviews I gave, though you and others might wish I were. I'm at an age where I am quite comfortable in my own skin, and aw shucks, yes, I like myself. As my regular readers know, I follow and have always followed the golden rule of honesty and integrity. Following that Rule, I don't have to worry or fret about anything I have ever written. I never wake up in a cold sweat thinking OMG what have done?
People like yourself do not have that sense of peace. Not only do you have the fear of your real identity being exposed, you also have the fear that all those nasty posts you have written will lead back to you. For that I pity you, nothing worse than living in fear.
As for the outrage my interviews caused, it couldn't have been much because I didn't even know about it. Not that I would have been bothered, I find these anonymous hard nuts at their keyboards pathetic and a bit sad.
Turning to The Madeleine Foundation, I have never had anything to do with it - I thought their actions were appalling and attention seeking and I have never hidden my thoughts about it.
I don't bother with the internet trolls who attempt to hound me D, they are instantly forgettable. You and the McCanns however live in terror of them, why? Bennett may have chosen a grandiose name for his money raising attempts, but I doubt his supporters amount to more than an embittered he/she (Verdi), a deluded driving instructor and a sick parrot. Bet the McCanns are gutted now that they spent so much on trying to silence a demented attention seeker with zero credibility.
That D is the mighty Madeleine Foundation you and the McCanns are so afraid of. No wonder you are always so unpleasant and bad tempered.
D 19:23 said: "But if you think that any of the McCanns read this blog then you are in cloud cuckoo land."
DeleteKate McCann said: “We are aware of things that get said because people alert us to them."
From Shallis
ReplyDelete1/2
It wasn’t AG’s book that so painfully exposed the McCanns, but the release of the police files. Once anyone stumbles on those (and I stumbled) and begins a careful, close reading . . . THEN their interviews, blogs, books, diaries, press releases are suddenly brought into sharp focus, their extraordinary reactions and behaviours outside any vague ‘benefit of the doubt’. There is absolutely no way around that for them.
They cannot alter the files, all they can do is to try and deflect attention away from them . . . to keep them from informing public received opinion at all costs. It is a dangerous gambit - for in order to gloss and misdirect their contents and conclusions, they risk drawing attention to their existence.
Hence the drip, drip subliminal message over the years that only brainless, hateful trolls doubt them - that most people are too ‘kind hearted’ (Kate’s words) for that - or, it seems, to read primary sources with critical analysis. ’Good people’ are content with the McCann’s word on everything. The message is never, never open the locked door in the castle . . . only despicable people would contemplate even approaching that door, my dear, let alone turning the key. Banish them!
Hence the extraordinary ferocity of their pursuit of AG, and their continued attempt to present him as the sole, rogue bent copper who was out to frame them. Plainly negated by the files. Plainly exposed as false by the Portuguese court. Hence their risibly desperate appeal to the court to suppress AG’s book because it was ‘easier to read’(!) than the police files it drew on. Their terror of its wider circulation. And even now suppressing the, for them, lethal wording of the ruling of the Portuguese court. The sweet, biddable public must never hear that!
From the get go, and whatever the truth actually is (we don’t know), they and their friends, rather weirdly and unwisely, pinned everything on a single, indivisable story and they cannot retract that now. From the get go, and for whatever unknown reason, they sort to use it to gain the upper hand and control the investigation, both through authorities and the media. They have had to keep defending it ever since. This narrative has become increasingly bizarre and fantastical over the years, to prop it up after uncomfortable facts have trickled out into the mainstream that would otherwise undermine it.
OG has the files. And much more besides that was never released into the public domain. Files that clearly expose and demolish their self-styled, all of a piece, ’official story’. With the removal of the ‘bottom baked bean can’ of ‘Tannerman’, OG quietly made that public. The long list of questions remain. Do we seriously believe they don’t ask them?
From Shallis
ReplyDelete2/2
Do the McCanns have cozy chats with OG? Would the police make the same mistake of abandoning professional (and national) neutrality that helped to crash the investigation the first time around?
The only hope for this investigation is to conduct it well away from the glare and warping of media attention and misinformation. OGs silence means nothing. But I think it may be uncomfortable and ominous for Team McCann.
The investigation may well be still at zero for all we know, just as it was at the time of the archiving in 2008. Unable to establish even what crime had been committed. The files contain no proof of any. We know that. ‘They’ve got nothing’, said Gerry, and he was right. Safe in that knowledge, Team McCann can and must spin on, even raggedly . . . . for as long as ever they can. Guilty OR INNOCENT they must. For the pj files remain dynamite. Surely OG need a massive stroke of luck in this investigation to move it anywhere. Otherwise, in a case this stone cold, is ‘exoneration’ of the McCann’s ever possible?
But regardless of whether the police are ever able to clear the very high hurdle of evidence required to bring a case to court and obtain a safe conviction, and in such a sensitive, high profile case, strung across the judiciary of two nations (of course they are trying), it makes no difference to the McCann’s hideously exposed and equivocal position now.
What happens if an adult Sean or Amelie ever approach that castle door . . . a hideous thought for them all, but not so unlikely. They must think of that, surely? Can anyone not have acute heartfelt sympathy for the predicament of the twins?
Whatever occurred that fateful night in apartment 5a (I have absolutely no idea - ALL possibilities seem equally ‘ludicrous’, frankly, to use Gerry’s favourite word)), and why, and how, they were able to decide what to do what they did afterwards (that’s got me all figured out too) the McCanns can never be free from the hell of their own making.
Who is Shallis?
DeleteD
Anonymous6 April 2019 at 16:54
DeleteFrom Shallis
''It wasn’t AG’s book that so painfully exposed the McCanns, but the release of the police files..There is absolutely no way around that for them. ''
Police files. The title suggests the police must have read those as they wrote them.No way around what ? It's 12 years without an arrest.
''They cannot alter the files, all they can do is to try and deflect attention away from them .''
Why would they want to alter them. They haven't hurt them in 12 years.
''’Good people’ are content with the McCann’s word on everything.''
It has nothing to do with good or bad people. It has to do with what the people in the police force think.
''Hence the extraordinary ferocity of their pursuit of AG,''
Melodramatic but inaccurate.If somebody accused you of burying your own child and told the world you had and that you were a liar, would you smile and carry on regardless or come out fighting.You call it a 'ferocious pursuit' for dramatic impact.But it lacks accuracy.Unbiased and unprejudiced observers would have been shocked had they done nothing.Amaral was 'ferocious; in his allegations-which he still hasn't had supported by anyone or anything even now, 12 years on.
''From the get go, and for whatever unknown reason, they sort to use it to gain the upper hand and control the investigation, both through authorities and the media.''
Yes, and the police sat back and let them.That works.
''OG has the files. And much more besides that was never released into the public domain. ''
So how do you know ?
''The only hope for this investigation is to conduct it well away from the glare and warping of media attention and misinformation''
You mean like OG are doing ?
'' it makes no difference to the McCann’s hideously exposed and equivocal position now. ''
Yet further up you claim we don't really know what happened .
''What happens if an adult Sean or Amelie ever approach that castle door''
Melodramatic.I think the parents would familiarise the children of the horrors that exist outside in the form of strangers with too much time on their hands and an internet connection..
''he McCanns can never be free from the hell of their own making. ''
A bad decision cost the a child. That's right at least.
The only defence offered appears to be that it is 12 years and nothing has happened so far.
DeleteActually I'm not sure it's a case of defending, more gloating.
Or a fact
DeleteOscar Slater7 April 2019 at 11:56
Delete''The only defence offered appears to be that it is 12 years and nothing has happened so far. ''
And the small matter of there being absolutely no evidence to say differently.
Defending or gloating, it doesn't make any difference does it. It trumps attacking for the sake of it even if there's no evidence that an attack is appropriate.Your real gripe is with the police who have failed to make your argument look half decent. Or are they gloating too.
DeleteThank you for your comments, 21:05.
DeleteYou’ve missed the point a bit, and in commenting on bits out of context show you have not understood the flow of my arguement.
That you suggest that it is an unfounded shot in the dark on my part that the joint Portuguese/British investigations have access to all the past files is quite extraordinary - some may wish that they had all been towed out into the middle of the ocean and sunk, but they really haven’t been. Believing that they don’t remain central to current investigations is denial. OG have even referred to the fact they do. Of course they do.
Twelve years? Twenty years? A lifetime? The lapse of time makes no difference. Truth doesn’t have an expiry date.
Can you really object to my describing the McCann’s pursuit of AG as ferocious? Actually, somewhat restrained language. You then skip instead to justifying their ferocity. Yes, indeed I have imagined how truly nightmarish it would be after the agony of losing your child, to then be accused of hiding her corpse. Weirdly, the McCanns have always been blandly accepting of that, constantly repeating that their only reason to want to silence AG was because by suggesting she was dead, ‘it damaged the search for Madeleine’. That is obviously disingenuous as your comments make clear.
If you read the history of the progress of the original investigation, it is plainly revealed how tripped up it was by the ‘alternative truth’ being remorselessly fed into the MSM, a whirl-wind effect that directly led to the unhelpful meddling by those who never stopped to reflect how they could be seriously obstructing the course of justice. I’m sure there is no conspiracy here, just normal incompetence and self-interest.
They went after AG because they couldn’t erase the PJ files - and its damning conclusions at the point of archiving. That badly backfired. It amplified them. The response seems to be to pretend it hasn’t.
AG’s book pretty well plods through the even-handed original police investigation up to the point he was removed from the case. It isn’t sensationalised or ghoulish. His only personal opinion is his join the dots theory of what possibly happened to Madeleine based on the facts established or inferred by the enquiry. He’s entitled to his opinion. I don’t happen to agree with him. But that’s the point. The McCann’s particular abduction story is just THEIR opinion, it has not one bit of evidence to support it. The evidence actually works more against it (those files again). Just repeating it endlessly does not make it true. It does not erase the files. It is not a legal defence.
The demolition of the McCann’s abduction story does not rely on positing any alternative theory. Much less providing water-tight evidence to prove one. Hence, yes, until the facts of the case are ever proven in a court of law, then the McCann’s position remains ‘hideously exposed and equivocal’. I’m sure their very expensive lawyers have pointed their vulnerabilities out to them.
If this investigation is ever able to achieve a denouement, then it will certainly only be publicly announced at the point that charges are brought. For very obvious reasons. Silence means exactly nothing other than that point has not been reached. Silence exonerates no one.
It is super-sensitive referring to the twins. My heart bleeds for them. But your comment underlines EXACTLY my point about trying to deflect away from the primary sources of this case by a desperate appeal to: ‘only very, very bad people question us, and that is because they are very, very bad people and not because they have actually bothered to uncover and study the case’. The twins won’t always be children to be indoctrinated by their parents. Adults tend to want to think for themselves.
The McCanns can't keep the lid on the facts forever. They don't control posterity.
Shallis
(btw thank you, Ros, for running this blog and hosting comments, and thereby sticking your head above the parapet for a constant, unwarranted bashing. It is brave of you).
Anonymous7 April 2019 at 16:56
Delete''Thank you for your comments, 21:05.You’ve missed the point a bit, and in commenting on bits out of context show you have not understood the flow of my arguement. ''
You're welcome. Maybe it would have been easier to understand the context of your argument if it flowed in one direction. It seems that your overall aim was to put the parents in a melodramatically expressed bad light based on what you imagined about them and the events of May 2007 and the silence of the police.Yet you included a half hearted disclaimer.
''That you suggest that it is an unfounded shot in the dark on my part that the joint Portuguese/British investigations have access to all the past files is quite extraordinary''
I agree it would be. But we both know I never said it.Why do you need to pretend that I did ?Desperate ?
''Twelve years? Twenty years? A lifetime? The lapse of time makes no difference. Truth doesn’t have an expiry date.''
Exactly. It goes some way to explaining why the parents haven't been arrested in twelve years and counting too.
''Can you really object to my describing the McCann’s pursuit of AG as ferocious? Actually, somewhat restrained language''
Yes. I think to accuse two parents who had lost their child of burying her body and then lying, when you had been the detective leading the investigation is despicable.If he was that sure he would have made an arrest.He came out accusing when he wanted to make money. Only his accusations being proven would exonerate his behaviour.Until he can, he's a liar.
''That is obviously disingenuous as your comments make clear.''
I'm afraid nothing can be clear enough for you to understand judging by your misguided and invented post here.
'' I’m sure there is no conspiracy here, just normal incompetence and self-interest. ''
Opinion.They're ten-a-penny. The investigation is separate and more important than tabloid tittle tattle and twitter crap.
''They went after AG because they couldn’t erase the PJ files''
Stupid comment. Can you support it with anything less stupid ?
''The McCann’s particular abduction story is just THEIR opinion, it has not one bit of evidence to support it.''
It's the opinion of the police too.Their isn't a spec of evidence that says there was no abduction. In twelve years.
''Just repeating it endlessly does not make it true. It does not erase the files. It is not a legal defence.''
So why no arrests ?
''until the facts of the case are ever proven in a court of law, then the McCann’s position remains ‘hideously exposed and equivocal’.''
Two points. First, it depends what the actual facts revealed are. Second, they're just getting on with life.
'' Silence exonerates no one.''
Innocence does.
''The twins won’t always be children to be indoctrinated by their parents. Adults tend to want to think for themselves. ''
And not be led in all directions by herds of bored internet lunatics ? I hope you're right.
''The McCanns can't keep the lid on the facts forever. They don't control posterity. ''
They don't need to.The facts seem to have spoken already. They just didn't call the McCanns guilty. What now ? Do we scrap the police forces and the law and let the social network tribes run the world, A shorthand version of thinking ? Who wants a world like that. At least the streets are safer while these nutcases are online.
Your earlier 'context' :
'' it makes no difference to the McCann’s hideously exposed and equivocal position now. ''
then
''Whatever occurred that fateful night in apartment 5a (I have absolutely no idea - ALL possibilities seem equally ‘ludicrous’, frankly, to use Gerry’s favourite word)), ''
Hey Shallis, shame the Portuguese Public Prosecutor doesn't have your experience or expertise.
ReplyDeleteYou dirty coppers have got nothing on me, see? Repeat ad infinitum, even if it's clear they do.
ReplyDelete12 years and counting is ad infinitum wouldn't you say
Delete''Repeat ad infinitum, even if it's clear they do.''
DeleteEven if what's clear and they do what ? Who is 'they' ? Be clearer please.
Clear enough, stop playing games.
DeleteIt isn't clear at all
DeleteD @ Anonymous6 April 2019 at 10:50
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, instead of looking at 8 year old interviews, Ros's readers could watch and listen very carefully to Sandra on the more recent Netflix production.
And her follow up interview.
....................................
Shock horror woman feels lied to by a man,thats worth reading twice and a follow up,really!
Yes - someone who was there on the ground, as things happened, live.
DeleteAs opposed to people on forums and blogs.
D
Ros
ReplyDeleteYou often state you believe in the decency integrity and honesty of the UK Police Officers but then insist they are lying over the Mccann's behaviour.
You claim one must be a Mccann supporter if you are oblivious to their odd behaviour.
I was not there but several Leicestershire Police Officers were, present in PDL with the Mccanns and all have given statements that they have no knowledge of anything that the Mccanns said or done to arouse any suspicion.
There was no suspicious behaviour, according to several Police Officers of Inspector rank, experienced and trained as family liaison officers, used to dealing with people under immense stress at the worse points of their lives.
The UK Police have given statements that there was no suspicious behaviour found and obviously after years of investigation, neither has OG.
You do not accept these UK Police Officers are telling the truth and the Mccann's suspicious behaviour is obvious to all. Would you care to offer an opinion as to why then have these UK Police Officers attempted to pervert the course of justice.
As you know JJ I watch far too many real crime documentaries, and it is common in police investigations for detectives to play cat and mouse games with their lead suspects. Suspects, you will agree, are themselves playing games of deceit. Gerry and Kate for example, in the summer of 2007, led the world to believe the Portuguese police were looking for an abductor and not at them. And it was very effective, it lasted right through til September. Had they been suspects from the off, the great and good would not have rushed to their aid. I think everyone is agreed Team McCann pulled off an amazing coup.
ReplyDeleteBut to return to 'the police lying'. Whatever Scotland Yard or Operation Grange announce to the world, they are also announcing to those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. I always try to bear that in mind, that is they are not likely to tip off suspects who are tuning in. The police have to do what the police have to do JJ, they are no boy scouts.
As for all the inappropriate links and ties between the British police and the McCanns, I agree it's appalling and shows a very strange bias, but it is not enough for me to state the police are lying and corrupt. I believe an enormous amount of errors were made by the British establishment when news of this case broke. From the British Consul turning up in PDL the very next day, to the personal telephone calls from the Blairs and Gordon Brown. All utterly humiliating those big wigs who taken in.
I actually think there should be a Public Inquiry JJ, but it's very unlikely. Some of those public figures who made those errors are still in leadership positions, that is they have not been removed from their jobs and are never likely to be. That of course supports your argument JJ that there will never be any prosecutions.
Ultimately, someone is going to have to admit that they were all taken in by the genius of Team McCann. From Chiefs of police to Lorraine Kelly, they will have to explain how their soft hearts ruled their heads. Should be a fun show.
JJ7 April 2019 at 10:32
Delete''You do not accept these UK Police Officers are telling the truth and the Mccann's suspicious behaviour is obvious to all. Would you care to offer an opinion as to why then have these UK Police Officers attempted to pervert the course of justice.''
She has no evidence of the police having such integrity. She has no evidence of the McCanns' suspicious behaviour. What she does have is a vendetta and a blog and a hope that she can spread her gospel.Consequently, her interpretations of the parents and the police are imagined but recorded here as observations she thinks people will believe are real.It's quite sick.
Rosalinda Hutton7 April 2019 at 12:48
Delete'' Gerry and Kate for example, in the summer of 2007, led the world to believe the Portuguese police were looking for an abductor and not at them. And it was very effective, it lasted right through til September. ''
It was actually the police of two countries that led the world in thinking that.The parents just reiterated it. Haven't you followed this case ?
'' Had they been suspects from the off, the great and good would not have rushed to their aid. I think everyone is agreed Team McCann pulled off an amazing coup.''
From the off, nobody and everybody is a suspect. That's police protocol in abductions. When they were eventually named as suspects the great and the good didn't bail out and didn't once they were released without charge.
''. I believe an enormous amount of errors were made by the British establishment when news of this case broke. From the British Consul turning up in PDL''
And yet the only copper ( or author) who coughed to errors is Amaral (of the PJ ).
''I actually think there should be a Public Inquiry JJ, but it's very unlikely. Some of those public figures who made those errors are still in leadership positions''
Inquiry carried out by who ? About what ? Who would they look at- Home Secretaries, Prime Ministers, Chief Constables, OG ? If there was a body capable of wielding that kind of power with that amount of skill they'd be running the investigation themselves.
''Ultimately, someone is going to have to admit that they were all taken in by the genius of Team McCann. ''
You have now eleveted Team McCann to the status of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Auric Goldfinger and Lex Luthor.It is almost laughable.But more than that, sad.What happened to you.
''I actually think there should be a Public Inquiry JJ, but it's very unlikely. Some of those public figures who made those errors are still in leadership positions, that is they have not been removed from their jobs and are never likely to be. That of course supports your argument JJ that there will never be any prosecutions.''
DeleteIt also supports the other theorist who claims a conspiracy in high places was responsible for the close down of this case.But he's a 'conspiraloon' remember.
''From Chiefs of police to Lorraine Kelly, they will have to explain how their soft hearts ruled their heads''
Lorraine Kelly ? lol
Yes, let's go gunning for presenters now.
In the weird hearts and heads theory, where do all the professional detectives fit ?
Deletelord knows 14:05, someone needs to go after the Queen of sickly sweet sycophants, isn't she a tax dodger too?
ReplyDeletePiers Morgan ?
DeleteAn embittered detective, without any evidence or grounds, unleashes a torrent of malicious rumours and allegations about two parents who lost their little girl.
DeleteA TV presenter recognises the kind of torment they must be suffering and the doubt that surrounds them over ever seeing their child again and shows extreme sensitivity.
Ros calls the former detective a hero with a big heart and good intentions. She calls Lorraine Kelly a stream of insults for having a heart.She calls the parents malicious for pursuing the detective after his unfounded allegations.
It teaches us nothing about Amaral or Lorraine Kelly. But it sure illuminates one of the more dark recesses in the unusually sinister psyche of Ros.
And Sandra says she was fed lies!
DeleteD
LOL at your attempt to change the narrative there 21:48, let me put the record straight.
DeletePortuguese Detective reveals the Truth of the Lie, exposing the parents abduction story as myth. Removed from investigation by British interference, former detective writes book about Madeleine's disappearance and parents spend almost entire search fund suing him.
Lorraine Kelly, as phony as her sickly little girl voice defends parents and condemns Portuguese police and chavvy low lives who do not believe the McCanns.
Dark recesses in the unusually sinister psyche of Ros. If I had an unusually sinister psyche I would be writing more in the style of Edgar Allen Poe or Stephen King. Sadly, not my genre, I prefer comedy.
But if you want to talk creepy, how about trying to persuade the world a long dead child is alive? That has a touch of Stephen King about it.
@ Oscar Slater6 April 2019 at 08:35
ReplyDelete".... we just don't appreciate your superior qualities."
Who are "we"?
D