Tuesday, 9 April 2019

MCCANN DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

WHY THE MCCANNS COULDN’T
HAVE DUNNIT
  
1.  They are an attractive, successful, middle class professional couple.  And I cannot stress this enough, everyone knows criminals have shaven heads, tattoos and piercings. It is on page one of the Police Chiefs Guide to identifying criminals.  Being well groomed, articulate and not short of a bob or two, screams innocence.
 
2.   The lead detective of the PJ investigation (known to have an ear piercing) took an intense dislike to the fragrant couple and decided to frame them for the disappearance of their daughter, so he could hurry back to his long sardine munching lunches and red wine.  Simples.  It was a personal vendetta. Somehow, he managed to get British police dogs to alert to the scents they are trained to alert to, blood and cadaver as part of his dastardly plan by promising them a lifetime supply of tennis balls and doggy treats.  
 
3.  The British government stepped in because they knew Madeleine had been taken by someone so high up in the British establishment, that MI5, MI6 and the Secret Services in the form of Clarence Mitchell, was sent, pronto, to PDL to carry out the cover up. This person is so VIP, he, and I’m assuming it’s a he, puts out a request for a small child. Not just any small child, but Madeleine McCann specifically. Despite her being out of the country and on holiday with her family. Here we are in James Bond fantasy territory, whoever stole Madeleine has more power than Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and must be protected at all costs.   Presumably he has the power to send someone in with a bonesaw if they speak out? 
 
4.  Gerry and Kate have been heroic in their battles against Freedom of Speech. They have successfully silenced Richard Desmond and Rupert Murdoch, the great British public, not so much.  Their efforts to silence their critics online went catastrophically wrong, they did not come out of it as the good guys. They failed in their efforts to have laws introduced that would jail bloggers and commentators on social media. Their hopes of jailing journalists, remain a pipedream, but their battles go on. They are going to ask the ECHR to burn Goncalo Amarals books, they will never give up (suing GA).
 
5.   Would an innocent couple spend almost their child’s entire Search Fund suing an ex detective for damage to their reputation?  Of course they would!  Some might say it was being made arguidos that caused their reputations and donations to the Fund to plummet, but Gerry and Kate lay the blame firmly at GA's door.  Again, he has been pictured wearing an earing. 

Detectives should not be allowed to use their expertise and inside knowledge to write books about former suspects. It gives them an unfair advantage over former suspects who also want to write books. And to be fair, Gerry and Kate did provide GA with the subject for his book, ergo they should be entitled to all the proceeds.  
 
6.   The McCanns refusal to participate in the recent Netflix documentary. Despite all their ‘Don’t you forget about me’ and awareness campaigns, they saw no point in being in a documentary with a potential audience of 30m+.  Ok. But in any event they had their most enthusiastic fans on camera, speaking on their behalf.  The puffy faced Vicar, who not surprisingly said very little, his gushing wife, and I’ll see you in the dock, Jim Gamble.  Not to mention stern faced, creepy, Summers and Swan who appear to be closely related to the Adams Family.
 
Are we there yet?  I hope so, because not believing all of the above means you are desperately in need of psychiatric help.  Maybe not in immediate need of a straightjacket but heading in that direction.  You see, the main defence presented by  the supporters of the McCanns on here, is the highlighting of the critic's perceived mental deficiency accompanied by accusations of obsessive hatred.  As in, you would believe Gerry and Kate if you didn't hate them so much.   Think back to when you first saw those dog videos?  Were you going through a break up? Was your boss picking on you?  Did the McCanns holding hands and the sight of their big house send you into a frenzy of jealousy?  Be honest. It wasn't the dogs barks that made you suspect Gerry and Kate, it was their happiness

For our inhouse psychologist who 'has forgotten more about psychology than I could learn in 20 years', I have decided to name all of the above McCann Derangement Syndrome.  MDS.    I know you have your own set ways in which describe it and practice it, but it's a large umbrella.  Ideally you would like all non believers of the McCanns to accept that their inability to believe a load of old tosh is down to personality defects within themselves.  Yeah, that should win over the crowd.  

310 comments:

  1. Quite brilliant, Ros.

    And very funny.

    Shallis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, shallis. really funny. Remember what this is about

      Delete
    2. 14:37, After years of trying to bring down totalitarian regimes in the former Soviet Bloc, people finally realised that the one thing that worked was laughter.

      People who seek to dominate others cannot handle being laughed at.

      Delete
    3. Oscar Slater 9 April 2019 at 15:12

      “After years of trying to bring down totalitarian regimes in the former Soviet Bloc, people finally realised that the one thing that worked was laughter.”

      How have you reached such an interesting conclusion, Oz.? You are joking, aren’t you?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 9 April 2019 at 13:27

      Perhaps not “quite”, half-full Chalice.

      Delete
    5. What about people who have lost a child ? Or a police force that have failed to execute their duties in recovering that child ? Do they hate being laughed at or laughed about because they're seeking to dominate people ?

      It's all well and good collecting pithy quotes from around the internet, Oscar. But you shouldn't let your over - eagerness to sound deadpan or clever force you into sharing them inappropriately. It leaves the old visage a bit eggy.

      ( don't take this personally. I'm not laughing at you).

      Delete
    6. Six years we fought Hitler and we were left with a smashed up country, millions dead and a floored economy. We could have avoided it all in the first month by attacking Hitler with comedians.Typical..

      Delete
    7. ''People who seek to dominate others cannot handle being laughed at.''

      I know. I've lolled at Ros enough times and seen the results :)

      Delete
    8. I'm a bit of a clown 15:32.

      Delete
    9. 15:32, I am not laughing at the McCanns, I am laughing at the people who make excuses for them.

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

      Delete
    11. Anonymous 9 April 2019 at 15:49, 15:51

      :):)

      Delete
    12. 15:01, Please discard immediately any thought you have of me being a dominatrix. As if, lol. I have no problem with being laughed at, a lot of the time it is what I am going for. Apart from that, I am far too self confident and arrogant to be affected in any way by the sniggering of fools. You lol at me because you are not able to win a single argument against me, does the lolling cover up the red face?

      There is a very fine line between being domineering and being a control freak. I'm neither. I don't want to dominate or control anyone, I am responsible only for myself and I really like it like that.

      My non dominating, non control freak, stance should be abundantly clear from the lack of rules, regulations and guidelines on this blog. Everyone told me that would never work, but here we are, still chatting away.

      Delete
    13. Rosalinda Hutton9 April 2019 at 19:46

      ''15:01, Please discard immediately any thought you have of me being a dominatrix''

      There is no 15:01 we can see. Have you checked your dungeon ?

      Delete
    14. @ Oscar Slater9 April 2019 at 15:12

      You and Ros apparently think it is funny to have a laugh at an unsolved missing child case. I find it abhorrent and pathetic. But hey - this is what this blog has become. Clicks mean prizes.

      D

      Delete
    15. Not abhorrent enough to stop you contributing though D.

      Delete
    16. Should have placed money on you being the first one in with 'won't somebody think of the children', which makes the school teacher the front runner.

      Let me explain this simply for you D, so there is no fear of misinterpretation. For the past few months my blog has been besieged by supporters of the McCanns who keep repeating the above arguments over and over,

      I'm actually bored silly with them, for example, one such boremeister today demanded a source for 'death in the apartment'. He knows the answer will be dogs, and then he will say the dogs don't count because the guy who trained them said they are crap. We have heard it all before many times.

      They ask questions but don't bother to read the answers, or dismiss them as pointless because they are not the answers they want to hear. Right now they are using repetition, repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Unfortunately, I have just pulled the rug out from under them, and you.

      No-one is laughing at the missing child, nor even the parents, they are laughing at the pomposity and arrogance of those malevolents who post on here. Yourself included. Presumably you are not a sacred cow, so we are free to laugh.

      Delete
    17. ''Let me explain this simply for you D, so there is no fear of misinterpretation. For the past few months my blog has been besieged by supporters of the McCanns who keep repeating the above arguments over and over,''

      You say that as though it's a bad thing. Does that mean when you say you welcome all sides or both sides of an argument no more than a lie after all ? You treat requests for evidence like a terror attack. What are you afraid of ? The exposure of fantasies ?

      ''I'm actually bored silly with them, for example, one such boremeister today demanded a source for 'death in the apartment'.''

      See? You can't go around announcing a child has died before the police or the parents do it.It's a lie.So a request for a source is perfectly reasonable.but, you can't find one because you're just expressing a fantasy you hope people will enjoy and join in with.Your little 'boremeister' jibe is your call to arms for the poodles. Minimize it's obvious importance in case we lose support for our rumours. Pathetic.

      ''They ask questions but don't bother to read the answers, or dismiss them as pointless because they are not the answers they want to hear.''

      The only acceptable answers are ones that can be verified if they aren't being advanced as mere opinion.

      '' Right now they are using repetition, repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth. ''

      Can you give us all an example of how a question can be a lie ?

      ''No-one is laughing at the missing child, nor even the parents, they are laughing at the pomposity and arrogance of those malevolents who post on here. ''

      What's malevolent about asking for somebody to provide a source for their accusations of a murder, a death or anything concerned with them ? Is it malevolent to try and quash malice ? Another question- is it malevolent to accuse anyone of killing or burying their child if the police can;t even provide the evidence let alone yourself ?

      Delete
    18. You reply to my statement that you bore me silly, with yet another long diatribe to bore me silly. You know, I can't even be bothered to read it, because you are so fecking predicable, I can throw out set replies to your every post. You are like one of those annoying brats who repeat 'but why?' over and over.

      You demand I provide a smoking gun, or a photo of Gerry running through PDL with a comatose child over his shoulder. You know I can't provide either. You keep asking the same question knowing that I do not have an answer simply because you know I don't have an answer. That's a win for you, so you repeat it again and again.

      Up your game. Debate like an adult. Read a few books maybe, like the one that's discussed here daily And ffs, stop whining.

      If I believe the child is dead, how is that a lie? who am I lying to? Nowhere in this blog do I state I know the child is dead and who killed her. If I said I did, that would be a lie, I wasn't there, how would I know? But I don't. You won't find it in any of the hundreds of blogs that I have written, because it isn't there. What you will find, often, is my belief the parents were involved goes beyond reasonable doubt. Again, not illegal. I am allowed to believe whatever I want.

      And I getting more than a little pissed off with your accusing me of being a liar. Do you know how offensive that is? Let me make it clear, I don't lie, I have no reason to lie and I have no need to lie. This is not a Madeleine site that claims to know what happened and who done what with the candlestick in the pantry. I muse, that is I make it perfectly clear that I write opinion pieces, I am not an investigative journalist. Much too lazy. So I ask you 21:53, how can an opinion be a lie?

      Delete
    19. Rosalinda Hutton10 April 2019 at 00:24

      ''You reply to my statement that you bore me silly, with yet another long diatribe to bore me silly. You know, I can't even be bothered to read it, because you are so fecking predicable''

      Not like you to be so unpleasant and use a vile mouth, Ros. I take it you're awake.

      ''You are like one of those annoying brats who repeat 'but why?' over and over. ''

      You mean you hate the bullshit being exposed. You enjoy it too much.

      ''You demand I provide a smoking gun, or a photo of Gerry running through PDL with a comatose child over his shoulder. ''

      No. A source . Failing that, an admission that you're only making guesses based on hunches.

      ''You know I can't provide either''

      You make the admission.

      ''Up your game. Debate like an adult. Read a few books maybe, like the one that's discussed here daily And ffs, stop whining. ''

      I try not to up my game too much.If I can't get simple answers to simple questions I'm already stopping low.Your insults are about the same level.

      ''If I believe the child is dead, how is that a lie? who am I lying to? ''

      I'll try and put this in simple terms just for you.You never say that. You state that she is dead as a fact.So I ask for the source. Get it ? If you were adult enough the answer would be 'i don't have one, I'm just saying it's my belief'.

      ''What you will find, often, is my belief the parents were involved goes beyond reasonable doubt. Again, not illegal. I am allowed to believe whatever I want. ''

      Again, I'll keep it simple. There's a world of difference between what we believe and what we know is a fact.It's easy to state your belief and easy to cite the source for a fact-if it is one.You're using 'believe' and 'belief' in this reply. But all over your blog you seem to forget to.

      ''And I getting more than a little pissed off with your accusing me of being a liar. ''

      You call so many people liars if their posts don't please you.Or your favourite- 'disingenuous'.When you're reminded that you're stating an opinion as a fact and need to show a source or accept it will be seen as a lie, you hate it.

      '' This is not a Madeleine site that claims to know what happened ''

      But will not have a good word said about the McCanns, welcomes new posters who have new ways to accuse them, slates anyone who demands accusers provide evidence or proof.Oh yes, and that the parents are guilty no matter what the police have to keep saying.

      '' I muse, that is I make it perfectly clear that I write opinion pieces, I am not an investigative journalist. Much too lazy. So I ask you 21:53, how can an opinion be a lie?''

      An opinion can never be a lie. But a lie can be an opinion that's being promoted as a fact to promote an agenda.

      Delete
    20. I have made it absolutely clear that this is an opinion blog, I have made it absolutely clear that it is my opinion that Madeleine is dead. For some reason you are claiming that I am stating this opinion as fact and this same argument goes round and round again and again.

      We are now at the pointless stage, and again you have bored me silly. Everyone else on here understands that I am giving my opinion, they understand 'muse'. You unfortunately cannot, and that is your problem. I am handing it right back to you. You see I only have power over myself and I accept that. You are what you are. Good luck.

      Delete
  2. Ros I have looked in the DSM and the ICD, and there is no evidence that MDS exists yet, nor has there been anything to confirm it in the last 12 years. Further evidence that anything with McCann in the title is being covered up at the highest level.

    Yours

    Clementine Freud decd. (No relation.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The meltdowns really picking up speed now isn't it ..
    (WHY THE MCCANNS COULDN’T
    HAVE DUNNIT)

    1 -''They are an attractive, successful, middle class professional couple.Being well groomed, articulate and not short of a bob or two, screams innocence.''

    It certain;y seems to have enraged thousands of less well off doesn't it.The attitude that the police and politicians moved mountains because the parents are middle class. If they were from a council estate it would be different etc. So who is really calling the silly class war ?Innocence isn't a question here. You can't be guilty of having someone or something stolen.

    2-''Simples. It was a personal vendetta. Somehow, he managed to get British police dogs to alert to the scents they are trained to alert to,''

    He gets scrutinised for being a fantasist with more theories than hairs on his head but no proof of any of them.It has nothing to do with ear rings and sardines.Plus he failed the investigation, was found guilty in a court of law of lying about a previous case then used his annoyance to make money from the plight of the McCanns. Martin Grimes is an expert on the dogs. he said there wasn't any evidence to arrest anyone.Amaral doesn't believe him. Apparently his supporters have decided to imply Grimes is a liar too.

    3-'' that MI5, MI6 and the Secret Services in the form of Clarence Mitchell, was sent, pronto, to PDL''

    Have you got a source that states Mitchell is or ever was a member of wither MI5 or 6 ?

    ''Here we are in James Bond fantasy territory,''

    Fantasy means false.Are you saying nobody from MI5 or 6 became involved ?

    4- ''They are going to ask the ECHR to burn Goncalo Amarals books, they will never give up (suing GA).''

    it's about time he was made to back up his accusations and attempts do damage their reputation.If he does, he's a hero. And I'd agree with that.If he doesn't, he's a liar.

    5. '' but Gerry and Kate lay the blame firmly at GA's door. Again, he has been pictured wearing an earing. ''

    The ear ring again.It's outrageous.It puts the whole losing-a-child thing into perspective.

    ''Detectives should not be allowed to use their expertise and inside knowledge to write books about former suspects''

    What if their 'expertise and inside knowledge' didn't exist and it was replaced by erratic guesswork based on previous cases but no evidence. What if the real experts with their knowledge produced scientific data and reports that put Amaral's 'expertise' on the fiction shelf ?

    6- six is just you venting and spitting out at anyone who supports the parents of a missing child who were let down.It says a lot about you.Unfortunately.

    ''As in, you would believe Gerry and Kate if you didn't hate them so much. Think back to when you first saw those dog videos?''

    Or ''you'd believe them if you read the forensic reports and listened to the two police forces'' Ask Grimes about the dog videos and tell us what he missed.

    ''It wasn't the dogs barks that made you suspect Gerry and Kate, it was their happiness''

    Honest ? OK, That's sick.

    ''Ideally you would like all non believers of the McCanns to accept that their inability to believe a load of old tosh''

    You're calling the final word of two police forces ( they're not suspects-period) and the report from Martin Grimes 'old tosh' and sticking to things that have no evidence, no proof, no witnesses. Just a 'gut feeling' . A 'gut feeling' from all the internet reading and video watching and boredom. That's a 'syndrome' too. But we'll call it 'denial' to keep things polite for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You took that blog as a meltdown? Well aren't you the little cross patch today.

      You think the McCanns wealth has pissed off thousands of the less well off? It is patronising stuff like that that makes the McCanns and yourself so unpopular.

      2. Another opportunity for you to trash the former detective who searched for Madeleine. Sad, you don't understand how sick that makes you sound. This hatred of GA is irrational, illegal, and has used up most of Madeleine's Fund. How do you not see that?

      Next, the old 'have I got a source for that'. No, because I was being ironic, I also don't have a source for GA offering Eddie and Keela tennis balls and doggy treats.

      You really are trying your utmost to discredit Martin Grime's dogs. Herewith a v.useful link to the evidence given Martin Grime in the trial of PEOPLE v. LANE. This was a case without a body, but where Mr. Grime's specialist dogs detective the odour of cadaver. The child's car seat for example.

      The McCanns and their supporters continually misrepresent Martin Grime by alleging that he has no faith in his dogs and their alerts mean nothing. Martin Grime for obvious reasons can say nothing, but the Lane trial demonstrates exactly what the blood and cadaver dogs can do.

      https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html

      The 'gut feeling' you have literally just pulled out of the air. I have never said that, nor would I. My conclusions have been reached after years of intensive reading and study, I've examined this case from both sides, have you?

      Don't just make things up, it makes me even less respect for you.


      Delete
    2. ''You think the McCanns wealth has pissed off thousands of the less well off? It is patronising stuff like that that makes the McCanns and yourself so unpopular.''

      Only to people whose opinions i don't really care for. For the record, who always brings up their social and career status? And why ?

      ''2. Another opportunity for you to trash the former detective who searched for Madeleine. Sad, you don't understand how sick that makes you sound''

      I'd say the worst case of trashing is being removed to a quiet desk away from the case. He should have told them his theories. Or did he ? Was i trashing him by stating the fact that he has a conviction for perjury ? Explain what you mean by 'sick'.

      ''This hatred of GA is irrational, illegal, and has used up most of Madeleine's Fund. How do you not see that?''

      If i accused you of stealing money from your boss for the last 5 years so you could fund your affair with a local window cleaner while your husband did charity work but I couldn't prove it, would your anger at me for going global with it be irrational ?If i put it in a book would you smile and respect my right to free speech ? if it threatened your marriage would you sue me for slander and libel and defamation ? Surely not. It would be 'irrational'.

      ''Next, the old 'have I got a source for that'. No, because I was being ironic,''

      So other people are disingenuous or liars. you're 'ironic'.

      ''You really are trying your utmost to discredit Martin Grime's dogs.''

      To discredit them I'd suggest they're findings were incorrect and that Grime missed the evidence. You know, like the antis do
      ''The McCanns and their supporters continually misrepresent Martin Grime by alleging that he has no faith in his dogs and their alerts mean nothing.''

      I'll type this slowly. Read it
      slowly.I....am....not...a...pro. I...take...no...sides. k ? I didn't allege anything. he has faith in his dogs and i have faith in his credentials. When he says the evidence isn't there and needs corroborating, I believe him. Why can't you ?

      ''. Martin Grime for obvious reasons can say nothing,''

      he said plenty- and that's enough. You're almost being brave enough to suggest he's been told to stay quiet.

      ''The 'gut feeling' you have literally just pulled out of the air. I have never said that, nor would I. I've examined this case from both sides, have you?''

      Yo're personalizing it. Climb down from your cross and read more carefully. The antis are confident in their assertions of the McCanns' guilt. They have no evidence that can prove it.They have the YouTube vids and comments section regarding dogs but ignore the reasons they don't pass muster.But they don't let that sway them.They're dogs with a bone-no pun intended.What does that leave ? Nothing.Just suspicion based on their impressions.That's as close to a gut feeling as it gets. I've examined the case far more than the antis have.That's why i can be thorough when discussing the 'fors' and 'againsts' of both sides. you are in a bizarre default setting. You've programmed yourself to automatically dismiss anything that contradicts your suspicions.

      ''Don't just make things up, it makes me even less respect for you. ''

      Of all the contributors to this blog, you are the least entitles to say that to anyone.If we took your version of everything as even close to the truth we'd be in a poor mans Agatha Christie novella.

      Dogs don't lie ? Maybe not.Make mistakes ? Maybe. Grimes opinions matter less than yours and those of the antis ?

      http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078055/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2031

      Delete
    3. 21:32, a paper by Hamburg police found that cadaver dogs alerted to false positives in about 10% of cases.

      If every alert in the McCann case was a false positive, it would mean the dog had made a lifetime of mistakes in one outing.

      Highly improbable I would have thought.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 9 April 2019 at 21:32

      http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078055/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2031

      A useless link, dear. Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.

      The Count of Monte Poo

      Delete
    5. Thanks Poo, interesting reading there. Regrettable that much play is made on revealing sources, but the judge in the Zapata case doesn't give sources for the dogs' failure rates.

      It does prove what we all knew already, that the dogs are only investigative tools, and cannot be used without corroboration.

      Regardless of whether DNA evidence was obtained, I think the alerts would justify a proper interrogation of the people the finger of suspicion was pointed at.

      Failure to co operate with that interrogation would not be viewed favourably by a UK jury.

      Delete
    6. Main point, Oscar, is that which you point out and which Grime pointed out ; they're tools. They can alert to an area worth investigating further ( for that corroborating evidence). Therefore the phrase 'dogs' evidence' is a misnomer.As such it shouldn't be used as 'evidence' by anyone if Grime and the police don't.

      I doubt any jury would differ from another in terms of what they view about the investigation of the apartment.But it would all hinge on one 'package' of evidence ; The prosecution having an officer of rank testifying that thee was definitely a death that took place there; that the death was of Madeleine ; That blood found was hers, as was the DNA. None of these are in place. They would be after 12 years. They should have been after 12 months. But it is what it is. Then, of course, the bigger problem would be that the death being established through that package of evidence would be one thing, but where's the evidence of who killed the child ? The parents defence is simply that they weren't there and whoever broke in must have done it. failing that, someone else who had access to check on them could have. The evidence for either scenario would be more difficult to obtain than anything the dogs alerted to.

      Zigmund

      Delete
    7. Thanks Z, I wonder how much could be made in court of the inconsistencies of the Tapas 7 stories, and the fact that the scene in the room appeared staged.

      In particular, I think it would be easy enough to destroy the abduction story by simply asking how the person got in.

      Delete
    8. To be fair, Oscar, it isn't down to the court to explore any inconsistencies before the police have.The police had ample time in 2007 / to delve in that area.it's also up to the police to pursue any line of inquiry they feel warrants it. If they thin anyone has told a lie, invented a version of the truth or created a false alibi there are easy ways to expose it. It's the 21st century and detectives are trained exactly how to coax the truth of any lies to the surface.

      I think, personally, if the window thing was exposed as a lie, the built -in defence wold expose the police. That is, the McCanns story was that they came back to the apartment and panic ensued as well as fear. As well as frantically looking around the apartment and immediate area they would try to figure out how the child had got out.They were trying to make sense of it. Now, if i had burgled a place or broke in to steal a child, I'd enter via a door and exit by one.Was the window story a knee jerk panic because they knew they'd left the door unlocked but didn't want to admit it as it made them look negligent ? If so, that doesn't make them guilty of anything but negligence until further evidence says more.Also, it sort of kills the idea that what had happened had happened a day or week before as they would have covered the window thing and door thing in advance and in preparation for any interrogation.So it disqualifies any accusation of anything being pre- meditated.

      Delete
    9. I know you are replying to Oscar 14:40, but wow, just wow. 'Was the window story a knee jerk panic because they knew they d left the door unlocked.....'

      That's as close to an admission of staging as I have ever seen from a pro. Trying to downgrade it to perfectly understandable in the circumstances, shows just how warped your thinking on this case. Staging a break in is a serious crime whichever way you look at it. I refer you to the 24 Hours in Police Custody episode the other night where a surgeon staged a burglary to claim his highly valuable antiques had been stolen. He too behaved as if a doctor outranks a police detective and got 9 years for it.

      This isn't one of their little white lies like Gerry had a tummy bug, when the police were in fact searching their villa, staging is a whole new ball game. It has always been suspected of course, only Kate's fingerprints were on the window, are you confirming it?

      That 'open window' is proving to be a major problem for the McCanns, Kate even issued a statement at one time saying the window may have been opened as a red herring, she had no option, there was no evidence the window had been used to enter or exit the apartment, which was unfortunate because the whooshing and door slamming was the highlight of her abduction story.

      Delete
    10. 14:40, I take it you are still Ziggy? I hear what you are saying, and really shows why the police should have gone at the McCanns harder in the first 48 hours.

      I have always felt that when the police arrived they decided there hadn't been an abduction, and initially decided to concentrate efforts on the child wandering off - probably the most likely scenario the majority of times.

      When a search of the local area proved fruitless, that would have been the time to tie the Tapas 7 down. It is surely likely that one of them would have cracked in that period.

      If the thing was staged to save their reputation, then they should have come clean once the wine had worn off. Instead, strange things unfolded with journalists and consuls arriving on the scene.

      I wonder if it is possible that this cocoon lulled them into a sense of security? One that appears well founded, to be fair.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda Hutton10 April 2019 at 15:50

      ''That's as close to an admission of staging as I have ever seen from a pro. Trying to downgrade it to perfectly understandable in the circumstances,''

      You're calling me a pro again. is that amnesia , childishness or ignorance ? Or the usual-all three.Or haven't you told alie for a few hours..

      Try to understand, or get somebody to read with you and explain it to you, I said I'm not a pro and I'm not an anti.I'm for fairness and justice. That includes asking any side making claims of knowledge that are no more than opinions to back them up.It doesn't matter what they are supporting, they can't claim it's truth, they can only claim it seems likely at best. You think anyone who fails to endorse the reasoning of the antis who do nothing but claim they 'know' everything, when the truth is, they know nothing and only have suspicions, must be an anti, or a McCann with an agenda, or mentally defective for claiming nobody should be in jail if they had no evidence against them. Grow up.

      Delete
    12. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 16:37

      ''I hear what you are saying, and really shows why the police should have gone at the McCanns harder in the first 48 hours.''

      I've stated elsewhere, Oscar, that the first hour is the Golden Hour, the first 48 hours is critical. After that, the odds against a happy ending stretch more by the day.

      There's a lot the police should and shouldn't have done in that first 48. Even Amaral in an unguarded moment of accidental honesty admitted they screwed up. It isn't about the borders, as the antis cry about, it's more about jumping around the crime scene, allowing others to and failing to secure it.

      Amaral and Co should not turn up with an answer already in their head then go about fitting everything to confirm it. It effected the quality and content of their questioning and exploration of PDL. All wasting valuable time. On arriving on a reported abduction, police know there's a possibility of it being a lie but they know it might not be. Everyone's a suspect and all probabilities are realistic. It keeps the minds as well as the investigating open. Narrowing it right down so early is far too big a gamble in the context of a missing child.

      ''When a search of the local area proved fruitless, that would have been the time to tie the Tapas 7 down. It is surely likely that one of them would have cracked in that period.''

      There were enough pairs of ears and eyes on the Tapas group.But they didn't crack.Ask yourself what possible reasons exist that stopped them cracking ? An abductor, by the way, given the geography of the area wouldn't have walked off with Madeleine. The risk of being seen or caught would be huge.The steps of the apartment led to a pavement.And across, facing them, was a car park.

      ''If the thing was staged to save their reputation, then they should have come clean once the wine had worn off.''

      Given the timing of them going out until the event happened, I'd guess they were not that drunk. Even if they were, an event like this wold sober you up sharpish. You'd have to be out of your head completely not to sober up. In which case you'd have folded like paper when the police arrived.The more important question should be why they went to the trouble if the child died in an accident. I think the falling off the sofa accident scenario is insulting to the intelligence. Even if she did there would be impact but little chance of blood.And if we go with the accidental overdose, there would be no blood. And that means the dogs etc and the 'blood spatter' ( don't laugh) goes out of the none -whooshing window.They wouldn't face prison for an accident.And the child would have had a funeral.

      ''I wonder if it is possible that this cocoon lulled them into a sense of security? One that appears well founded, to be fair.''

      The cocoon stinks though doesn't it.I've said more than once that those who make the cocoon up have given the MCcanns assurances-hence their security.But the lack of anything else leaves only one place the public will look- at the parents. They( parents) know that they won't get done and the politicians know wherever Madeleine went and whatever the ransom was, nobody is looking there. Funding well spent.Job done. case unofficially closed. let's start the circus..

      Zig

      Delete
    13. Rosalinda Hutton10 April 2019 at 15:50

      '' shows just how warped your thinking on this case. Staging
      a break in is a serious crime whichever way you look at it.''

      Ros, will you ever stop calling anyone who disagrees with your sick view and unhinged mentality warped or mentally defective ? Grow up. you have more mental problems than Broadmoor. Glass houses-remember ?

      ''I refer you to the 24 Hours in Police Custody episode the other night where a surgeon staged a burglary to claim his highly valuable antiques had been stolen. He too behaved as if a doctor outranks a police detective and got 9 years for it.''

      That settles it then. The parents murdered their child. I refer you to a large bottle of cold water and three anadin.

      '' only Kate's fingerprints were on the window, are you confirming it?''

      I have to admit i was shocked. I expected the McCanns to walk around the apartment in gloves with it being May in Portugal. I bet the abductor did. You know, so he wouldn't leave prints.Whose prints would be found on your windows right now ? If a burglar came and went tonight and had gloves on, whose prints would be on them in the morning ?

      ''That 'open window' is proving to be a major problem for the McCanns,''

      If it interested the police enough then or now it would be. But that's not the case is it.It's proving a problem for the antis. It's about time someone made a new YouTube vid.

      ''Kate even issued a statement at one time saying the window may have been opened as a red herring, she had no option, there was no evidence the window had been used to enter or exit the apartment''

      So ? What's your point ? She had her child abducted as her and her husband were at dinner 100 yards away. She would be trying to make sense of it ? Most peple would. I've covered that above anyway. You're flailing in the wind again..whhooosshhh

      Zs

      Delete
    14. Anonymous 9 April 2019 at 13:46

      Martin Grime, Not “Grimes”

      Delete
    15. 11:02

      'not', not 'Not'

      Delete
    16. The comma and full stop on my keyboard are next to each other.

      Still Grime. Not “Grimes”.

      Thank you anyway.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous 9 April 2019 at 13:46

      “4- ''They are going to ask the ECHR to burn Goncalo Amarals books, they will never give up (suing GA).''

      it's about time he was made to back up his accusations and attempts do damage their reputation.”

      You know very well that the statement you comment on is incorrect. You don’t correct it but echo it as if it is. Are you implying ECHR can make Amarall to back up what you allege are his ‘accusations’? Forget the burning of books.

      Delete
    18. Re my 12:57

      ...can make Amarall back up...

      Delete
  4. It's been stated all along here that a high level cover up has been in place for years.Why would people that high want to ?Why would it be so important ? I'd like to see that answered by the antis. Why PMs and MI5 would bother and why they'd pay endlessly to keep it quiet.If they 'know' the McCanns are guilty why haven't they allowed arrests and charges instead ?Could it be because they are doctors. Or could it be because someone high up ordered this. Which makes sense ? Do MI5 or 6 need to be involved merely to make evidence go away or can the police do that ? The police can-and have done in other cases down the years. So-why MI5 ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13:51 my feeling is that politicians tried a bit of band standing, on the back of media coverage. Brown, in particular wanted to paint a nicer image of himself, Blair was great at riding mass hysteria - think Diana.

      They very quickly realised they were on message with a couple of wrong 'uns and stepped back

      In the chaos that ensued opportunistic police got themselves a busman's holiday to the Algarve, and have been milking the situation since.

      No one wants to admit that the Emperor has no clothes, so they are just hoping it disappears because people have forgotten.

      Fat chance now it's on Netflix, available to view anytime people want.

      Delete
    2. Political band standing doesn't require any assistance from MI5 though. besides, what makes it look a bit stupid was that Blair was still in power seeing his final term out, Brown was only a chancellor of the exchequer who hadn't even put himself forward as Blair's successor.Since when does any kind of crime or threat home or abroad need the involvement of the chancellor of the exchequer.Brown stinks in it all. Like he did in previous headliners.

      ''They very quickly realised they were on message with a couple of wrong 'uns and stepped back ''

      Who are the wrong uns.And if it was realised it was just a police matter why not just call it a day and go and stay gone.They decided to remain involved and actually fund things.They could have just as easily said ok, do what you can, the UK are here if you need assistance.

      The police definitely seemed to see this as a jolly.They still do.Free wages and free hols. Jobs a goodun.

      ''No one wants to admit that the Emperor has no clothes, so they are just hoping it disappears because people have forgotten.''

      I think the amount of headlines and videos and documentaries signalled that it wont ever go away as long as bored people have nothing to occupy them online.They should have held their hands up about 7 years ago and said it was over. No suspects.No evidence.No case. back on the shelf.
      Now the main problem they would seem to be having is how to admit their failure or how to invent an ending that would satisfy the online spectators and the tax paying public .

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

      Delete
    4. In very truth, Oscar. Gordon Brown so badly wanted (and needed) his own 'Diana' moment to play (any) soft side to the public. The cloyingly sentimental mass-media hysteria was perfect for him to latch onto. What could possibly go wrong? Then what did he think he was doing clumping around with two left feet in the Portuguese investigation? Yes, he clearly realised he had made a monster for himself, and back peddled madly out of it. The McCanns contacted him, whilst still aguidos after their inglorious flight back to the UK, as they wanted to 'come and explain their innocence’(!) Clearly, by then (or most certainly, by that request), he realised he had badly compromised himself, and not wanting to go anywhere near that in the UK (which would have been a very serious offence indeed) he palmed them off with a safe underling. They were well miffed. They said so.

      The separation of justice and politics is so central to an uncorrupt democratic state.

      Some policemen got way too chatty and back-slappy with Gerry. Professional neutrality to the winds. I think they pray it is proven an abduction, so they are not exposed as having got a bit unethically previous in their position during a live enquiry. Whoops.

      I love the idea of a James Bond film set in a chilly, soggy, semi-deserted, out of season bargain week in a graceless holiday complex. Might have to relocate to say, Sandy Lane, Barbados, for the film.

      Shallis

      15:15: Brown was always going to succeed Blair as PM (remember the infamous Granita restaurant pact?)

      This case gains momentum because people naturally hate injustice and deceipt. That simple.

      Delete
    5. 15:15, sorry it's hard to know who's who when people answer anonymously, but you seem a bit saner than the other guy (?).

      I don't know anything about MI5, I am not interested either, as it's not as if the secret service is going to own up to being there any time soon. Would it not have been MI6 if the matter was overseas anyway?

      Brown was constantly trying to match Blair's nice guy image (I know, I know) and was always in line for the top job, so I can see why he'd want to have public opinion onside.

      (I don't suppose you'll remember that "at home with Broonie", when he and Blair watched Scotland in the World Cup, with half a can of McEwan's Export each? I don't suppose anyone can remember Scotland in the World Cup, to be fair.)

      Anyway, he wasn't known as clunking fist for nothing. Kind of lacked the human touch, a bit socially inept, not good at judging real life situations.

      The wrong 'uns were Kate and Gerry. Joe Public was turning on them, and … oops I've got a country to be running, see ya!

      I agree, how do they get out of this? K & G face the same annual dilemma, "how do we get everyone to forget this ever happened?"

      They know that every time they send the "cadging can", as they would call it in Glasgow, gets passed round awkward questions get asked like: where is this money going; 12 years and hee haw to show for it; is this whole thing a cover up?

      Delete
    6. Shallis, our replies crossed.

      Delete
    7. Oscar Slater9 April 2019 at 15:26

      LOL 14:09

      Are you not 14 :09 as well ?

      Delete
    8. Yeah, look at Brown on GMB, definitely thought it was his Diana moment.

      Delete
    9. Oscar Slater9 April 2019 at 15:46

      ''15:15, sorry it's hard to know who's who when people answer anonymously, but you seem a bit saner than the other guy (?).''

      It's still me, Oscar. The great Ziggmundo.I just felt like being 15:15.

      ''I don't know anything about MI5, I am not interested either, as it's not as if the secret service is going to own up to being there any time soon. Would it not have been MI6 if the matter was overseas anyway?''

      That's why i include 6 as well as 5. Reports conflict.Amaral says it was their interference that started the problems for him, the PJ and the evidence.So they can't be dismissed out of hand.

      ''Brown was constantly trying to match Blair's nice guy image (I know, I know) and was always in line for the top job, so I can see why he'd want to have public opinion onside. ''

      Brown was a tit. Still is. But a very well connected one whose friends stretch far beyond our own politicians.On May 2007 Labour were in crisis. They were bitching against each other and only had three official candidates for Blair's poisoned chalice. Brown, up until that point, hadn't thrown his hat into the ring.Most people feared he would despite his awful modesty claiming he wasn't going to . But, he got the job, inherited the economical nightmare he had earlier created as chancellor to get Blair out, and for good measure inherited the Mccann mess.Idiot.

      Scotland have a football team ? Evidence ?

      ''Anyway, he wasn't known as clunking fist for nothing. Kind of lacked the human touch, a bit socially inept, not good at judging real life situations''

      Psychopath then. Like our last 6 or 7 PMs.The trick is to look as though you can and get a good speech writer. Like Blair.

      ''I agree, how do they get out of this? K & G face the same annual dilemma, "how do we get everyone to forget this ever happened?"

      They're out of it. The Pms, Home Secs, and the rest all know they took tax payers money. If it's to cover up the guilt of two holidaymakers merely because they're English and middle class it's mental on a few levels.If the police from the top down were and are following orders they're the same.If it's all about a ransom that was kept quiet they're all scum.

      They need a deathbed confession from someone who has just died and some cleverly paced DNA.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous9 April 2019 at 15:36

      ''In very truth, Oscar. Gordon Brown so badly wanted (and needed) his own 'Diana' moment to play (any) soft side to the public. The cloyingly sentimental mass-media hysteria was perfect for him to latch onto. What could possibly go wrong''

      By the time Brown became PM this case was already old. About 7 or 8 weeks of front pages and TV news headlines old. Blair's weird reptilian face was synonymous with it. Nobody read the decisions of either of the creatures as sentimental. They have never been able to impersonate a human being.

      ''The separation of justice and politics is so central to an uncorrupt democratic state. ''

      But this was just a police matter. Remember ?

      ''Some policemen got way too chatty and back-slappy with Gerry. Professional neutrality to the winds. I think they pray it is proven an abduction''

      While ex -pat Murat was trying to take sneaky peeks at the files and questioning the police who were searching on foot as he followed them around like an excited little boy.His mum wold have slapped his legs had she not been so busy with her impromptu 'help desk' at the end of her drive inviting people to tell her what they knew.

      ''I love the idea of a James Bond film set in a chilly, soggy, semi-deserted, out of season bargain week in a graceless holiday complex.''

      It could be Bournemouth or Barbados.The actual important point is that it was supposed to be a police matter. Not one of national security.

      ''This case gains momentum because people naturally hate injustice and deceipt. That simple.''

      People have hated those traits for a hundred years in all politicians and 'great' leaders.They're masters of the game. They make and break the rules as they need to and nobody can stop them.Nobody can question them. And nobody dare investigate them.The deceit you're trying to imply all began when they arrived from the UK.It's continued while they have still been officially investigating it.Only if they put it down officially can it be investigated. If the UK closed it tomorrow it doesn't mean the PJ would have to. it;s their turf and they can look where they want. The UK have prevented them doing that so far.Maybe that's why the funding continues. So the PJ won't get free rein to do something their way.
      Anonymous Ziggmund Mister S

      Delete
    11. Regret to say Ziggy, there has been no evidence of a Scottish football team for some time. Although I understand Police Scotland do have detailed records of crowds of people at Hampden Park, alongside some unbelievable scores.

      Perhaps MI5 has a picture?

      Delete
    12. I'm not sure Brown is a psychopath to be fair. He was "hot housed" whilst at Kirkcaldy high, placed in a class with four other high achieving kids, and kept away from the hoi polloi.

      He still goes to Raith Rovers matches however, surely dispelling any idea of someone who cannot accept defeat.

      (Apparently he carries a big bag of sweets and hands them out to those around, but that's only going to have people salivating even more.)

      Delete
    13. Imagine that deranged look he calls a smile..the vacant eye..the dead lips..and the 'ya wanna sweet ?' ? Enough to give both the brothers Grimm nightmares. All the same those Raith supporters..

      Delete
    14. ''Perhaps MI5 has a picture?''

      Only of 5,000 suspects that were seen at the old Wembley dismantling the goalposts.

      Delete
    15. 5,000 another cover up, there was that many digging up the centre spot.

      Brown reminds me of a guy when I was little that would say, "put your hand in my pocket and take a Polo."

      Come to think of it, I heard he had moved to Portugal.

      Delete
    16. I met a man as ugly as Brown when i was little too.he said the same thing.Fortunately my dad had already taught me to fight dirty even though i was only 7 yrs old. So he copped a small tin of marrowfat peas right in the toffee bag and i was away.I heard he works in Whitehall now.But he isn't a vegetarian....

      Have you ever noticed how Gordon Brown and his scots pal George Robertson both look like efits ? Hmmm..i think i need to google some cctv footage of that fateful day at Wembley..

      Delete
    17. Robertson looks like an edit, yes, one where they ran out of the right size of mouth.

      Delete
    18. Dear Ziggmund

      me: ‘I love the idea of a James Bond film set in a chilly, soggy, semi-deserted, out of season bargain week in a graceless holiday complex. Might have to relocate to say, Sandy Lane, Barbados, for the film.’

      You: ‘It could be Bournemouth or Barbados. The actual important point is that it was supposed to be a police matter. Not one of national security.’

      Could it be that you take such umbrage at humour because you cannot really tell when someone is joking? Or how to take one? You’re all at sea? There is no ‘actual important point’ about police or national security to be mined here. Did you think there was? Ros referred to James Bond in her post, I liked the image it created in my mind, and I am completely unrepentant about making jokes.

      me: ‘The separation of justice and politics is so central to an uncorrupt democratic state.’

      You: ‘But this was just a police matter. Remember?’

      Yes, it is. There is now, and never was a political cover up. Why would there be? A missing three year old is not a matter of ’national security’. I cannot tell from your writing style whether you think it is. Maybe you think I do? You confuse me.

      Me: ’This case gains momentum because people naturally hate injustice and deceit. That simple.’

      I wasn’t, as you suggest, ‘trying to imply’ anything. The statement stands at face value.

      So, you: ‘The deceit you're *trying to imply* all began when they arrived from the UK. It's continued while they have still been officially investigating it. Only if they put it down officially can it be investigated.’

      I can’t quite follow this. I think you are saying that I think the UK police (the ‘they’ here) are ‘deceitful’? I don’t. I don’t think OG is a cover up, or a filibuster, or whatever, either. You are right that if it was discontinued, the Portuguese investigation is unaffected. Why do you think the ‘UK have prevented them doing that [investigating] so far . . [and from looking] where they want?’ We have no evidence of that, or of where they are being prevented looking. Why would that be true? You are implying some specific sculduggery, I think? Maybe you think I know what you are talking about. If you have expounded this here before I have, of course, missed it.

      Though it must be an absolute nightmare straddling two different systems of investigative and judicial systems. Everything has to be procedurally correct in both countries.

      You: ‘People have hated those traits [injustice and deceit] for a hundred years in all politicians and 'great' leaders. They're masters of the game. They make and break the rules as they need to and nobody can stop them. Nobody can question them. And nobody dare investigate them’.

      Thankfully not true. It is really not as bleak as that. As history shows us. Always remember there is no ‘they’.

      Shallis

      PS I have learnt folk use *asterisks* to stand in for italics, SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO BELLOW. So I have done so here - looks very odd to my typographic eye at the moment.

      Delete
    19. Anonymous11 April 2019 at 12:33

      ''Could it be that you take such umbrage at humour because you cannot really tell when someone is joking? Or how to take one? You’re all at sea? There is no ‘actual important point’ about police or national security to be mined here.''

      Maybe not there. But you have an extremely narrow focus and an irrational bias you base on no evidence.Here's an idea. The next time there's a crime committed in your immediate area, try calling MI5 instead of the police. Let me know what they said.

      ''Yes, it is. There is now, and never was a political cover up. Why would there be? ''

      Was that another of your jokes ? Or are breaking in a new language ? Tell me any other crime that alerted the PM, and MP, and MI5 to it- again and again . Tell me any other investigation that has been blindly funded for 12 years with no evidence or suspects forwarded to justify said funding.

      ''I can’t quite follow this. I think you are saying that I think the UK police (the ‘they’ here) are ‘deceitful’''

      I apologise. I really thought I'd kept it simple. I refer to the interference from the UK side as in Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries, Chancellor of the exchequer, MI5/6.

      '' Why do you think the ‘UK have prevented them doing that [investigating] so far . . [and from looking] where they want?’ We have no evidence of that, or of where they are being prevented looking.''

      Are you suggesting that Amaral is a liar ? Surely not.

      '' I think? Maybe you think I know what you are talking about. If you have expounded this here before I have, of course, missed it. ''

      Iv'e expounded it again. You still have.

      ''You: ‘People have hated those traits [injustice and deceit] for a hundred years in all politicians and 'great' leaders. They're masters of the game. They make and break the rules as they need to and nobody can stop them........
      Thankfully not true. It is really not as bleak as that. As history shows us. Always remember there is no ‘they’.''

      Who trained you to think that ? Or do you live in a barrel ? Do some research. Google is your friend . Look at The Islington Childrens Home scandal, Jimmy Savile, Leon Britton, Clement Freud, Cyril Smith, Greville Janner, Edward Heath. Look at what Geoffry Dickens tried to do. What happened to Dr David Kelly ?

      Ziggmund

      Delete
    20. Dear Ziggmund

      re my joke, you write: 'you have an extremely narrow focus and an irrational
      bias . . . the next time there's a crime committed in your immediate area, try calling MI5 instead of the police. Let me know what they said'.

      I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

      'Tell me any other investigation that has been blindly funded for 12 years with no evidence or suspects forwarded to justify said funding'.

      The original thing (all of it, including the media frenzy and spinning, and all the interference) was a complete almighty f***up, that's why it has been continued to be granted funding, and why it has taken so long. That's why the 'other missing children don't get that kind of attention, or funding' line, is irelevent. It isn't about finding Madeleine. (Though that would be nice). So its no reflection on other missing children being less important. It is about untangling a travesty of justice, a car crash.

      Has Amaral suggested that the Portuguese investigation is being Impeded now? Would he know? He retired years ago.

      'I refer to the interference from the UK side as in Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries, Chancellor of the exchequer, MI5/6'.

      Never underestimate stupidity and ineptitude. You seem to think there was an actual *plot*. Why? There would have to be a reason. (M15/16 is speculation, for obvious reasons).

      So, you: 'I've expounded it again. You still have [missed it]'.

      No, last time you just assumed I would know what you were talking about. So it was very muddled. Bit clearer now. But you don't explain why you think there might have been a plot? Understand you could not know what it is (being so secret, and all), but, I think you should supply yourself with a credible explanation as to why there was a 'high up cover up' of the disappearance of a little girl, in order to entertain such thoughts. btw suggesting that I have missed your meaning here, without waiting for me to respond to see if I had, is another of your flights of illogic.

      'They're masters of the game. They make and break the rules as they need to and nobody can stop them. Nobody can question them. And nobody dare investigate them’. and so forth.

      Happily, I don't live in a barrel. Of course, I understand that we don't live in (barrels in) fairyland, and there is corruption. But it's not universal. The fact you can list examples refutes your claim. And you're not really listing 'great leaders' are you?' Wait a minute, with the exception of Dr David Kelly (agree, scandalous) you are listing known or suspected paedophiles. That can't be by chance.

      So, am to I take it, reading between the lines (since you remain coy of revealing your 'plot'), that you subscribe to the 'Madeleine was taken for someone 'high up' (?) and the whole thing was hush. hush?' I hope to God it is not where you dwell. A bit way harsh on Kate and Gerry don't you think? Not to mention a tiny child? A despicable, dreamt up notion. Revolting. Not to mention, plain silly. (Don't you think they might have made a better fist of 'secrecy'?!) But, mostly just revolting.

      If this isn't where you are coming from, then why are you listing
      paedophiles? Worrying.

      Shallis


      Delete
    21. Anonymous11 April 2019 at 20:23


      '' I literally have no idea what you are talking about. ''

      Sadly, that doesn't surprise me.On the up side, your honesty counts as progress.

      ''The original thing (all of it, including the media frenzy and spinning, and all the interference) was a complete almighty f***up, ''
      That's a strange guess. So, when they ask for funding twice a year and justify it by saying ''it's because we f**d up 12 years ago'' they get it ?

      ''. It isn't about finding Madeleine. (Though that would be nice). ''

      So the funding you say is because of a f**k up 12 years ago is given to OG to do what if not look for Madeleine ? You realise they claim it IS* to look for her don't you ? Why would they ( or you) lie ?

      '' It is about untangling a travesty of justice, a car crash.''

      Could you detail that travesty of justice please ?

      ''Has Amaral suggested that the Portuguese investigation is being Impeded now? Would he know? He retired years ago''

      Madeleine went missing years ago. Amaral made allegations he couldn't support years ago.What's your point ?

      ''Never underestimate stupidity and ineptitude. You seem to think there was an actual *plot*. Why? There would have to be a reason. (M15/16 is speculation, for obvious reasons).''

      You're struggling with basics, so don't try remote viewing or mind reading.Your digs regarding stupidity and ineptitude should be redirected to , Amaral. I was quoting him Re MI5/6 ''
      ''I understand that we don't live in (barrels in) fairyland, and there is corruption. But it's not universal''

      i was speaking generally.I was also being realistic.

      ''The fact you can list examples refutes your claim. And you're not really listing 'great leaders' are you?''

      The fact you're trying to split some very fine hairs actually confirms the strength in my assertion.You're trying to swerve around the point.Badly.

      ''Wait a minute, with the exception of Dr David Kelly (agree, scandalous) you are listing known or suspected paedophiles. That can't be by chance. ''

      Geoffrey Dickens wasn't a paedophile.He tried to expose the corruption in parliament and those who practiced it and those who were colluding to conceal the crimes. I was backing my argument up.Primary sources etc.
      ''So, am to I take it, reading between the lines (since you remain coy of revealing your 'plot'), that you subscribe to the 'Madeleine was taken for someone 'high up' (?) and the whole thing was hush. hush?''

      I believe in the procurer theory and the one-off over -involvement of so many politicians suggests that somebody important was in need of either protection or they were using leverage for something political.All abductions are hush hush.

      '' I hope to God it is not where you dwell.''

      Elaborate on that.

      ''A bit way harsh on Kate and Gerry don't you think? Not to mention a tiny child? A despicable, dreamt up notion. Revolting. Not to mention, plain silly. ''

      I've supported it with reasoning. You have a double standard when it comes to 'revolting' i notice.You don't see the unsupported notion that two parents would bury their own toddler as revolting or that the accusations that have no evidence to support them stating she was the victim of 'Lolita' style abuse, or cremated in secret, revolting.Then again, they make better online 'goss' don't they..

      ''If this isn't where you are coming from, then why are you listing paedophiles? Worrying.''

      Was that supposed to be an indirect hint . Grow up. If that's your take away from my post, you need to seriously up your game. At least start to support your assertions with something.

      Zig

      Delete
    22. Anonymous 9 April 2019 at 19:34

      “That's why i include 6 as well as 5. Reports conflict.Amaral says it was their interference that started the problems for him, the PJ and the evidence.”

      Where does Amaral say that?

      Delete
    23. Zig

      I have never said that two people buried their own child, at any point.

      I have no idea what happened to Madeleine. And neither do you.

      Once what *didn't* happen crumbles into dust, we are left with mystery.

      Demolishment of the 'official story' *doesn't* have to be predicated on putting something else in its place. Can't be stressed enough.

      We can theorise. Theories lead into the incredible, preposterous, implausible, unimaginable . . . . But something is true. That's one of the things that make this case compelling. *Every* possible denouement is 'ludicrous' (Gerry's word).

      me: 'If this isn't where you are coming from, then why are you listing paedophiles? Worrying'

      I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that I wasn't presuming you were a supporter of (what you call) the 'procurer theory'. Because I was joining the dots. And it isn't justifiable to assume someone's position (I was beginning to, correctly it seems, but that's btw). I might say, unlike you, who specialises in this. I was not insinuating anything. If you *weren't* citing those names in covert defence of your unstated theory, it would be a very skewed way of judging the whole of history! (your actual stated point). Certainly a worrying bias in anyone.

      If you thought I was accusing you of anything, then I clearly state, I wasn't.

      Right, the 'procurer theory'.

      I now know what you're talking about.

      Maybe you have debated this here before?

      It's a good idea. I’m up for that.

      'Could you detail that travesty of justice please?'

      Where have you been all these years?

      You think it yourself, to my mind with an unconvincing spin.

      But, that's up for debate.

      'I've supported it with reasoning'.

      Not yet. Not here.

      'i was speaking generally'.

      For the record, you weren't. (Read what you wrote). You can't keep moving the goal posts as a defence.

      'All abductions are hush hush'.

      No they are not.

      'Geoffrey Dickens wasn't a paedophile'.

      Pedantic distinction - paedophile related counts as same thing in my point, as you couldn't not know.

      Why do you keep referring to AG as my test of infallibility? Sure he doesn’t think he is. Certainly wouldn't foist that burden on anyone.

      And we were discussing the current investigation, not historic.

      me: 'The fact you can list examples refutes your claim. And you're not really listing 'great leaders' are you?'

      you: 'The fact you're trying to split some very fine hairs actually confirms the strength in my assertion. You're trying to swerve around the point. Badly'.

      Once again, your reasoning is baffling. 'Splitting fine hairs'? No. Swerving what point? I addressed your point directly. You’re quite head spinning.

      Not following you isn't shame on me. If someone can't make head or tail of what you are trying to say, that's your problem, not theirs.

      So:

      me: 'I literally have no idea what you are talking about.'

      you: 'Sadly, that doesn't surprise me. On the up side, your honesty counts as progress'.

      is a problematical stance. Don't gloat that your incomprehensibility is a sign of the superiority of your argument.

      'You have a double standard when it comes to 'revolting' I notice'.

      No.

      I entertain no gruesome thoughts about what might have happened to Madeleine. Ghastly and unnecessary. She was a real child. Robbed of life. I have sensitivity and respect for her memory. And move on.

      She is, of course, almost certainly dead. Coming to terms with cruel reality would be excruciating for those emotionally involved. I think a parent would *never* quite face it . . . . The rest of us are in a more objective place.

      Shallis

      Delete
  5. 13:46 The meltdown certainly is picking up speed. However your insight will surely help your recovery immensely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you've been sharpening your nails, Oscar.Almost there. Your online handler will no doubt reward you with a pickled egg or another glass of something you shouldn't really drink. It's very moving to witness.

      Delete
    2. You see, Oscariot, you are pissing against a hurricane, “Lol” or not. Lol.

      Delete
  6. Ps if someone tells a joke and you don't laugh, is there any evidence that there was a joke in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there's no evidence then you wouldn't be able to report that someone told it. Unless, of course, you were making it up that a joke was told.However, it isn't my area of expertise. Ask Ros. She has a ready wit, warm personality, a keen sense of (unconscious) humor and writes comedy. Allegedly.

      Delete
  7. Ros says:

    "2. The lead detective of the PJ investigation (known to have an ear piercing) took an intense dislike to the fragrant couple and decided to frame them for the disappearance of their daughter, so he could hurry back to his long sardine munching lunches and red wine. Simples. It was a personal vendetta. Somehow, he managed to get British police dogs to alert to the scents they are trained to alert to, blood and cadaver as part of his dastardly plan by promising them a lifetime supply of tennis balls and doggy treats."

    You missed out some things:

    He was heavily in debt - not related to the Mccanns
    His Jaguar
    His firework birthday party
    His divorce

    But more importantly I believe you have never commented on the open letter that his (then) wife sent to Kate. Perhaps when you stop laughing at an unsolved missing child case you would like to give you analysis of that and answer the question:

    "why would the wife of an ex copper ever send an open letter to the mother of a missing child"?

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think she maybe didn't like him, and wanted to make him look bad?

      I am abhorred at you bringing that woman and her kids into it D, even if she was the one that went looking for publicity in the first place, er....

      Delete
    2. @ Oscar Slater9 April 2019 at 21:23

      Is it your job to interject when I ask a direct questions to Ros?

      I have no interest in replying to any question you ask when I see your comment

      "Oscar Slater8 April 2019 at 10:07

      The Ovaltineys?"

      It is clear why you are here and I have no interest in you.

      D

      Delete
    3. 20:55

      Thanks for the heads up about AG's wife's letter to Kate. Just googled and read it.

      It's an extremely moving and dignified defence of her husband, in the light of the relentless lies, smears, and defamation he was enduring from Team McCann.

      It's perfectly obvious why she wrote it.

      It was written back in 2008 - she had no idea what was to come . . . .

      So there's a certain added poignancy.

      Shallis

      Delete
    4. My personal opinion of that letter is slightly different.Making allowances for what seems to be lost in translation and English not being the author's native tongue, I feel it intended to be a blend of sarcasm and irony. The repeated ' my dear friend kate' etc. And being ironic by saying how it was a 'disgrace' to offer alms to the mother of a murdered child at Christmas. And of course the oh-so-subtl dig at KM's mother wanting to slap her daughter for leaving the children alone.

      it was a thinly veiled tribute to Amaral-as-Martyr.I find it coincidental that the themes of it are still echoing. It began echoing through the pages of his book shortly after and online to this day. it was an inspiration to open a fund via fakebook and the like. The more cynical might even think it was Amaral himself behind it. But I couldn't possibly comment :)

      Delete
    5. Shallis I am loving your posts, you are a welcome breath of fresh air.

      I too was deeply moved by the letter from Mrs Amaral,
      the McCanns' evil vendetta against the detective who searched for their daughter was shameful. They and their supporters have tried for almost 12 years to incite hatred towards Goncalo Amaral, it is seen on here on a daily basis. In some instances they have got away with it, eg tabloid newspapers and Netflix documentaries, here their unhealthy obsession with GA is challenged.

      My thoughts then Shallis were bless her heart, and they are the same now. It is wrong on every level that former suspects should be allowed to attack the families of detectives who investigate them. And by depriving GA of an income they were attacking his family. I wonder what the current detectives investigating Madeleine's disappearance make of that?

      So you think GA wrote the letter himself. What a total ignoramus you are, or are you giving an example of what Gerry and Kate would have done?

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

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

      Delete
    8. D, 22:15. I gave a flippant reply to your question "who are 'we'" because you were interjecting into a discussion I was having with another respondent.

      I had called that person a narcissist, and "we" would basically be the rest of humanity who cant see his genius.

      I'm sure you'll see the irony. As you are criticising me for interjecting.

      Delete
    9. I have just read the letter, and I wonder why Amaral's wife wasn't invited onto Netflix. It gives a tremendous insight into how hard working he was and the nastiness of what happened to him.

      My revulsion for the McCanns in their subsequent treatment of him has reached a new high. They do not see him as a human being, merely another obstacle .

      Delete
    10. Makes you wonder why she would divorce such a saint. Maybe she's been invited to the Netfix and a few other docs of it's type but asked ''what letter ? I didn't write a letter?''. Has anyone got proof she wrote it ? Why she would write a long letter of praise about a man she was divorcing ? Or do we only have access to the letter that looks suspiciously like a foreword to his book . Let's face it, if she was struggling with on the cash front ( as stated in the letter) a few newspapers and TV people would have relieved that with a fee or two.But if it was Amaral who wrote it, it would expose him as even more of a liar than the man who was sentenced in court for it. There must be an interview with her somewhere where she refers to it somewhere in the twelve years.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda Hutton9 April 2019 at 23:47

      ''Shallis I am loving your posts, you are a welcome breath of fresh air. ''

      Ros finds another contributor who has no need for proof and an irrational hatred of the McCanns based on nothing tangible.

      Delete
    12. Amaral wrote that letter himself. The response he received was enough inspiration to take advantage of the same mugs with a book.Easy money . I was moved beyond tears when it mentioned the giving of alms to the mother of Joanna. Particularly as it was his treatment of that case and his lying throughout it that almost landed him in prison himself. Fortunately he was a detective so he got away with a suspended sentence.And they say crime doesn't pay.

      Delete
    13. It doesn't really matter what the supporters of the McCanns think about Mrs Amaral's letter. They should be more concerned with what the current police detectives think about it. The malicious vendetta of former suspects against a former overseas colleague and the effect it had on that former detective's family. Do you think it would make them more, or less, sympathetic to the McCanns?

      Delete
    14. All down to those greasy dagos, and their warped sense of morality, eh 12:38?

      Can you prove he wrote the letter by the way? Proof is a currency that seems to have a high value around here, when it suits the writer.

      Delete
    15. 12:32, for the record, I do not hate the McCanns.

      A rather childish assertion that keeps being repeated is that anybody who doubts their story hates them.

      I certainly wouldn't want to be them, they appear cold fish at best, divorced from the joy of life. However, it's a bit twisted to hate people just because they are not like you.

      Delete
    16. I think if they are capable of reading critically and they see the coincidental timing of the 'letter' they'll understand why the McCanns are outraged by the low levels Amaral would sink in his campaign of hatred against them. No wonder his wife was divorcing him. If he'd have put the same amount of effort into his police work we might have had the case solved 12 years ago.He was too busy creating mentally unhinged scenarios that contradicted one another and that couldn't be proven right in Disneyland let alone a court of law.I wonder if that's the story of the ear ring. maybe it was one of his wife's.he was 'getting in character' to write a letter as her :)

      Delete
    17. Rosalinda Hutton9 April 2019 at 23:47

      ''So you think GA wrote the letter himself. What a total ignoramus you are, or are you giving an example of what Gerry and Kate would have done?''

      You think I'm an ignoramus. That's rich( or are you being ironic?). Of course he wrote it. Who benefited from it ? Who , of all the names connected to this case, has a criminal record that involves dishonesty and altering paperwork. A McCann ? Nope..

      Delete
    18. 13:51, are you saying that Portuguese journalists have the same low standards as ours and would accept a letter purporting to be from someone, without checking?

      It is really pitiful the levels you will stoop to in order to rubbish Amaral. By doing so you show yourself up to be a rather naïve person, who appears to have no real understanding of how life, or the law works.

      If you are so certain that he wrote the letter - prove it. Hate is a word you use repeatedly, apart from being rather childish, it tells us a lot about what's on your mind.

      Are you over 18?

      Delete
    19. Actually I am having a bit of a giggle here, it seems the idea that Goncalo Amaral is loved has sent the ugly sisters off into a frenzy of reasons to hate the former detective.

      That hatred is so out of proportion it comes across as a mental defect. Goncalo Amaral has not been involved in this case since September 2007. I am at a complete loss to understand why the McCanns and their family focus their hatred on the detective and not on the abductor who stole Madeleine. Of course Kate, unlike any mother who has ever had her child stolen, forgave the abductor, in yet another one of those wtf Sun front pages. Perhaps it was to make her appear saintly, but like many of their publicity stunts, it backfired.

      I don't believe any mother could forgive someone who hurt their child. I'm fortunate never to have been in that position, but even I, the eternal pacifist would not be able to contain my hatred and anger if I were face to face with a beast like Ian Huntley.

      So here is a little task for McCann supporters. Put forward arguments that relate to the here and now. The abductor is still out there, doesn't that bother you? Madeleine is still missing, and the person responsible for that is not Goncalo Amaral. Stop treating my blog as a noticeboard to hang I hate GA notes on, I'm getting sick of them and they might well be libellous. So if you want to be published, be civil.

      Delete
    20. Rosalinda Hutton10 April 2019 at 14:28

      ''That hatred is so out of proportion it comes across as a mental defect. Goncalo Amaral has not been involved in this case since September 2007. ''

      Funny how anyone who disagrees with your arrogant and empty posturing has a 'mental defect' isn't it.Did your Psychologists teach you that it was clever to do that ? You were easy money for them..

      You call it hatred. That's your true area of expertise.But this time, you're wrong. He isn't hated. he's a liar with a criminal record for lying. The antis champion his cause because of his gift for telling truth he can never prove.Tell me again the bit about mental defects...

      '' Put forward arguments that relate to the here and now. The abductor is still out there, doesn't that bother you? ''

      It bothers a lot of people. Or a lot of normal people to be more specific.Equally bothersome is the cloud of poisonous little knuckle- biters giving their life to the promoting of hatred towards the parents who lost the child and implying that the police are lying about their innocence.

      Delete
    21. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 14:05

      ''13:51, are you saying that Portuguese journalists have the same low standards as ours and would accept a letter purporting to be from someone, without checking?''

      Yes. We were all shocked by our own press and media but it happens. The hacks were getting all kinds of leaks that had no evidence or support from the PJ officers after a free drink or lunch. is that a scrupulous press ?

      ''It is really pitiful the levels you will stoop to in order to rubbish Amaral. By doing so you show yourself up to be a rather naïve person, who appears to have no real understanding of how life, or the law works.''

      That's an insult, nothing else. I have more than enough knowledge of how life and the law work.I demonstrate it when need be.It would be easier to just tell everyone how clever i am and hope they buy it. I leave that to the bullshit artists. I can always back myself up. They can't.

      Amaral has rubbished himself. he didn't need to commit perjury. he got caught doing so.I wonder if it was his first time or just the first time he got caught. Either way, he was almost in jail for it.That really happened. I'm not rubbishing him. he made enough claims about the McCanns cremating or burying their child but didn't demonstrate how he could prove a word.But it sold books.It would sell twice as many if anything he said was actually proven to be true.

      ''If you are so certain that he wrote the letter - prove it. Hate is a word you use repeatedly, apart from being rather childish, it tells us a lot about what's on your mind.''

      I didn't say I was sure and i can't prove it. But, I've posted all over this thread about it explaining my suspicions and why i suspect. We're talking about a convicted liar who found fame calling others liars but couldn't prove it.He lied on paper and nearly went to jail. His wife stood by him despite his stupidity.But when he was hunted by the McCanns and she believed he was being treated badly, she divorced him when unity would have been better-considering the sentiment in that letter.Everyone involved in this case can be googled for statements and quotes.Can we find a source with her on it saying she wrote it and why ? If we can and i see it I'll retract.

      ''Are you over 18?''

      Unfortunately, yes. How old do you need to be to think for yourself and question unfounded stories ?

      Zig

      ( on that note..while we're asking for 'proof' etc..anyone found any that the abduction was a lie ? Or that the cremation happened ? Or that a child is actually dead ?Or that the McCanns are guilty of anything that can be proven? )

      Delete
    22. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 13:47

      ''12:32, for the record, I do not hate the McCanns. ''

      Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 08:41

      ''My revulsion for the McCanns in their subsequent treatment of him has reached a new high.''

      Revulsion : A sense of disgust and loathing.

      It would appear that you're lying Oscar. Why ?

      Delete
    23. 15:43 I can detest a person's actions yet still feel empathy, or sympathy for them. It's called humanity.

      Rather childish of you just to repeat the definition of revulsion that fitted your argument, even if the word hate isn't in it.

      Delete
    24. 15:38 Zig, could you try signing your posts? It will save me confusing you with others.

      I have no doubt you do know a lot about this, and are not naïve, or childish.

      Delete
    25. 15:24 - The asylums are full of people who consider themselves normal. Why don't you just speak for yourself and stop trying to win arguments by force of numbers?

      Delete
    26. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 08:30

      ''D, 22:15. I gave a flippant reply to your question "who are 'we'" because you were interjecting into a discussion I was having with another respondent.

      I had called that person a narcissist, and "we" would basically be the rest of humanity who cant see his genius.

      I'm sure you'll see the irony. As you are criticising me for interjecting.''

      I'm not interjecting, so I hope you'll forgive this intrusion.

      Narcissus

      Delete
    27. ''So here is a little task for McCann supporters. Put forward arguments that relate to the here and now...Madeleine is still missing, and the person responsible for that is not Goncalo Amaral. Stop treating my blog as a noticeboard to hang I hate GA notes on,''

      Here and now is 12 years on and we're still awaiting a single officer of the law to act on Amaral's 'findings' or anything of any value whatsoever to come of his little book of silly stories.

      This man is still being trumpeted as the new messiah for his madness.Nobody talks about why the police are lying to cover the McCanns guilt. Maybe because the reality of them being declared 'not suspects-period' is the real truth of no lies.But, alas, to point to these obvious but boring truths is 'hate'.Just because it gatecrashes a little party of Vultures exchanging notes for fun.

      Delete
    28. 16:52 if you think people criticising the McCanns is hate, you've lived a sheltered life.

      Delete
    29. And again you come back to Goncalo Amaral. Why's that, because you can't criticise the English police?

      The only place GA is being trumpeted as the new messiah is in your head. You are so obsessed with him you have made him God like. For the rest of us he is a former detective, and it must be said, a very talented author. That doesn't mean we have built temples and erected statues of him. Bizarrely that is coming from you.

      Why don't you try putting GA out of your for a little while? There is a very interesting discussion going on right now about the window. What do you think about the McCanns and their friends having a knee jerk reaction and opening the window to cover their neglect in leaving the patio doors unlocked?

      Please note that my patience is wearing thin on these long rants against Goncalo Amaral. The majority of people who do not believe the McCanns, don't believe them because they are such terrible people. It has nothing to do with GA.

      Delete
    30. Rosalinda Hutton10 April 2019 at 19:31

      ''And again you come back to Goncalo Amaral. Why's that, because you can't criticise the English police?''

      Have you stopped pretending that you're 'having a giggle'now. Good. I can criticise the UK police all day. It isn't me that blindly praises them for being so human and hard working. I call them lying chancers.

      ''The only place GA is being trumpeted as the new messiah is in your head. You are so obsessed with him you have made him God like''

      And we're back at 8 years old again....

      'Disgraced cop- why are the tabloids still lying? '... ' the case for Goncalo Amaral' ... ' Goncalo Amaral wins again' .....there's just three recent blogs. Need any more ? I found them on your blog, not in my head. Is perjury your thing ? I like football...

      ''Why don't you try putting GA out of your for a little while? There is a very interesting discussion going on right now about the window. What do you think about the McCanns and their friends having a knee jerk reaction and opening the window to cover their neglect in leaving the patio doors unlocked?''

      I posted what i thought at length. When you're lucid have a look.

      ''Please note that my patience is wearing thin on these long rants against Goncalo Amaral.''

      That's not your patience wearing thin. It's your skin.It's the truth hurting. Instead of praising him like a movie star, why not take apart the arguments that criticise him instead.used facts though. Not opinions.

      ''The majority of people who do not believe the McCanns''

      You can't speak for the majority of people. You can only speak for the majority of antis.The majority of people reserve judgement until they have some real ammunition .

      Delete
    31. ''Please note that my patience is wearing thin on these long rants against Goncalo Amaral.''

      Thought Police alert.You have the freedom to think as i want you to. You are free to say what I agree with.Nothing more. is this the new regime now- nazism. The ultimate control tool.

      Delete
    32. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 16:29

      ''15:24 - The asylums are full of people who consider themselves normal. Why don't you just speak for yourself and stop trying to win arguments by force of numbers?''

      The asylums are also heavily populated by people who aren't.As is society. They tend to run around online spitting and being generally abusive.They have no use for facts or reasoning.

      Can you explain what you mean by winning arguments by force of numbers ?

      15:24 Z

      Delete
  8. Ros you don't like people posting as anonymous.
    I have posted here for years and years and always against what you say - because I disagree with you on absolutely everything that you say.

    I have recently signed my comments as D.

    My real name is Dave Bottomley - there you go. I hope that helps you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I would like to say nice to meet you Dave, but we both know that would not be true. Your name rings a bell, did you formerly post in the cesspit?

      You say you have posted here for years and years, why? You clearly hate the place.

      Delete
    2. Believe me - there is no intention nice or otherwise to meet you - my name is true so when you say: "but we both know that would not be true" you are wrong yet again.

      No - my name is not known on the cesspit - but yours is.

      I post here for years to counter your posts.

      D

      Delete
    3. D 9 April, 23:49

      "I post here for years to counter your posts."

      And to alert Jim Gamble. Impressive.

      Delete
    4. 9 April, 22.25 You couldnt possibly comment ! But you did ! Albeit thinly veiled.

      A wife speaking up for her husband, whats wrong with that.

      Im neither pro or anti but I have noticed on various forums, blogs etc the pros get quite personal if the comment doesnt suit their agenda, even if you privately agreed that yes the letter was loving and supportive of her husband, god forbid youd admit it ! It is quite noticable how defensive and blinkered they are.

      How do the pros feel about the new advanced DNA testing on offer ! Now expecting a post about my oppinion and grammer. Like I said I am neither pro or anti but the comments do make me wonder..

      Delete
    5. Yes 12:09 and the antis relay solely on facts, evidence and sources that can be verified. Criminal isn't it.It's a funny old time to be so publicly supportive of your husband isn't it-during divorce proceedings. Cynics might point to the coincidental timing of that and the need for a sizable injection of capital.The plea that found it's way to social networks that prompted an Amaral fund and then the inspired timing of the book release.If his missus wrote that she was on an earner.That's a big if though. I'd like to see her and hear her say she wrote it and it wasn't Amaral ' playing' with more paperwork.

      Delete
    6. lol 13:01, are you suggesting GA had some kind of whiteboard and was making plans for the 'wider agenda', future scams to fill his coffers?

      Sophia's letter and the Fund set up for GA's legal fees were more than a decade apart! People, including the Met Police, contributed to the Fund, because the McCanns had frozen all GA's assets leaving unable to defend himself. GA's book was released in 2009, there is no link whatsoever between the release of his book and the fund that was set up for his legal costs many years later.

      As for the missus being on an earner, our chavvy attitude and disrespect reflect on you 13:01, not the dignified Goncalo and Sophia Amaral. Was the missus Kate on an earner when she wrote Madeleine? How about when she and her husband were begging the public to send them money? Pretending it was to find their daughter but using it to pay their mortgage and sue the former detective who investigated them?

      You are sitting in a glass house throwing stones 13:01, when you accuse the Amarals of doing something bad, it is not hard to find the McCanns have done something far, far worse.

      Delete
    7. My goodness 13:01, that's cynical. My reading of it was that she was angry at the McCanns for what they had done to her family.

      You are right about her needing an injection of capital - her husband was put out of work, she felt because of the McCanns.

      At the end of the day, most people go through a divorce wishing their ex well, and realising that they will always share something in the form of their children. Sorry, maybe sounds a bit soppy, but that's the way real life is.

      Regardless of her motivation though, the criticisms of Kate seem pretty heartfelt to me. And why would a newspaper pass off something written by Goncalo, as written by her?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous10 April 2019 at 10:34
      D 9 April, 23:49

      "I post here for years to counter your posts."

      And to alert Jim Gamble. Impressive.''

      Not much paranoia there is there. Hasn't Jim Gamble heard of the internet or something ?

      Delete
    9. Sorry 13:43 are you Dave, or someone interjecting on his behalf, it's so hard to keep up when people don't sign their name.

      Delete
    10. 13.01 I can only speak for myself, I usually do follow facts and evidence that can be verified. Otherwise your in the realms of silly, the basic facts of this case are contradictory enough without embroidery. Youve demonstrated my point by going personal. Unless, of course, you have personal knowledge of the Amarels marriage and cause of divorce and have based your oppinion solely on facts, evidence and sources that can be Verified ? In that case I would take your comment more seriously.

      Delete
    11. Cynical, Oscar, maybe. ut I believe it. I can't accept that Amaral could jeopardize his future as a detective, a husband and a father by landing himself in court for perjury but the McCanns chasing him for accusing them of burying their child prompted her to divorce him and break up the family.It doesn't fit. And let's not forget, he wasn't fired. he was just told to get behind a desk and stay there.So he was still in a job and on course for a pension after his 25 years service.

      My divorce was amicable i have to say. But that's because I'm wonderful.My mum dad's was like the Normandy landings. It all depends doesn't it.

      Given the content of that letter and the timing, it was a good selling point and a good audience grabber.If you were the editor, what reason would you have not to believe it was Amaral's wife ? It's strange isn't it, while the McCanns and the Tapas group were bound by the Portuguese Judicial Secrecy laws, as was Amaral, his wife was allowed to go public as she wasn't part of the investigation.Another convenient coincidence. One that had no legal ramifications this time.

      Zigmundo

      Delete
    12. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 13:44

      ''All down to those greasy dagos, and their warped sense of morality, eh 12:38?

      Can you prove he wrote the letter by the way? Proof is a currency that seems to have a high value around here, when it suits the writer.''


      The race thing's wasted on me. No, I can't prove he wrote it. It could have been anyone. But the accolade belongs to his ex wife. I'd like proof that she did, The motive for Amaral was online funding and a nest egg and then exploiting the market and selling his book.She was left with two (?) kids and no husband bringing home the bacon.That's motive. Both would benefit financially.

      Delete
    13. Here's your proof 14:28, it was accepted as being written by her by a newspaper, and they would have to check it was from her before publishing it.

      People who whinged about being out of pocket, when they had no concept or care for others being out of pocket. People who thought they were hard up when they earned a vast amount more than most Portuguese people.
      As we both know, motive is not proof. Otherwise the motive to cover up your child's death would be proof that you did it, and we wouldn't be here now.

      Regardless of the motive, she got out some revealing points about how the McCanns had effected her life. There's another motive - contempt for the people who showed no consideration for you at all.

      Delete
    14. Ziggy, are you suggesting that the editor was prepared to accept that the letter was from Mrs. A, to sell more papers?

      It doesn't say much for attitudes to women in Portugal if Mrs A had no say in the matter, does it?

      Delete
    15. Anonymous10 April 2019 at 14:13

      '' I usually do follow facts and evidence that can be verified. Otherwise your in the realms of silly...Youve demonstrated my point by going personal. Unless, of course, you have personal knowledge of the Amarels marriage and cause of divorce and have based your oppinion solely on facts, ''

      All very noble i have to say.However, completely irrelevant to a single thing i said in the post you're referring to. Where did i 'go personal' ? Where did i claim to have personal knowledge of Amaral or his life ? The whole post was speculative and i clearly said that much.You see, I don't sit passively like a doped Labrador with my tongue lolling out waiting to be told what's what. I read something and i question it. I want to confirm it for myself and see the links or sources to put me there.I question the validity of the letter being from a loving supportive wife . She'd stood by him through the idiotic mistake he had made which landed him an 18 month suspended jail sentence which could have potentially fragmented his career and his family.But the circumstances 'she' allegedly points out in her letter all spell the need to unite and be strong together.If the sentiments are genuine, the action would have been to stand by him again and fight as this time it wasn't his fault.But she decided to divorce him for whatever reason rather than unite with him.He was bound by secrecy to write such things. The parents and tapas group were too. He got around it-in my opinion- by saying he was his wife.

      As I said, I didn't claim i was stating a fact. I said I suspect what I suspect and outlined exactly why. But If someone was to Google their brains out or go on the waybackoverthereinthecorner machine and find a source where she is talking about her letter and why she wrote it, then fine, I'll retract. But Amaral's catalogue of dodgy dealings in the force and his list of allegations that have never been proven, make anyone with an open mind cynical.

      ZiggZagg

      Delete
    16. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 14:42

      ''Ziggy, are you suggesting that the editor was prepared to accept that the letter was from Mrs. A, to sell more papers?
      It doesn't say much for attitudes to women in Portugal if Mrs A had no say in the matter, does it?''

      Given the context of Amaral's reputation,the McCann case and up and coming divorce, I don't think gender issues were high on Mrs A's list of priorities and i certainly don't think newspapers anywhere would prioritise that. They want to sell papers not deliver moralising lectures on political correctness.

      The judicial secrecy was gagging all the main players from speaking about aspects of the case publicly.Mrs Amaral had an alleged inside view and was bound by no laws that could silence her. So, easy..pen the tribute to Amaral and sign as the wife.But, as I've said, If there are quotes and sources or interviews given by the lady in question that say I'm wrong, I'll accept that

      Delete
    17. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 14:40

      ''As we both know, motive is not proof. Otherwise the motive to cover up your child's death would be proof that you did it, and we wouldn't be here now.''

      That's also a solid reason why Amaral's accusations, hypotheses and book shouldn't be taken seriously.

      ''Regardless of the motive, she got out some revealing points about how the McCanns had effected her life. There's another motive - contempt for the people who showed no consideration for you at all.''

      She stood by him throughout his stupid mistake and subsequent sentence.She admired him and, according to her letter, was quite in awe of his selflessness.But divorced him anyway and didn't stand by him when the real damage was done allegedly by the McCanns. When he needed her in other words. So it contradicts itself. The ideas and thoughts are contradicted by the sentiment and actions.

      If we're discussing motives and contempt for people who showed yuou no consideration, how about the McCanns versus Amaral ( Mr and Mrs) ? The man failed to recover their child, fair enough, he was a detective, not a magician. It happens.But to then tell the world he is so sure that the child is dead while the police to this day haven't said it- to say she was more than likely snuck into the Chapel and cremated( but buried elsewhere ) and that she had also been frozen and that the parents did all of this- and lied about the abduction- is beyond it.As long as they are innocent and as long as they are not suspects and as long as none of Amaral's ideas can be proven anything more than stories he's invented, then all of those allegations are malicious and the intention of publishing them online and in book shops is to destroy the McCanns mentally, emotionally and to ruin their reputations by promoting unsupported ideas online and having thousands join the cause.Why would the McCanns show contempt for Amaral ?Because they had their child removed from their apartment never to be returned to them and the detective they had initially trusted did that.I really can't understand why anyone can say the McCanns are the ones with a vendetta and that it's them who are malicious.Just because the bored are going for the cliche' the parents did it..look at her mouth..look at his eyes...bastards'..

      Zig

      Delete
    18. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 14:40

      ''Here's your proof 14:28, it was accepted as being written by her by a newspaper, and they would have to check it was from her before publishing it. ''

      The only proof there is that it was accepted by a newspaper.Where's the proof that they checked with her ? you're right in saying they would have had to, but did they ?It also doesn't show it wasn't a team game with money as the prize.

      Delete
    19. Strong argument there 16:05. I think she would have to have consented.

      Delete


    20. Anonymous10 April 2019 at 12:09

      ''How do the pros feel about the new advanced DNA testing on offer ! Now expecting a post about my oppinion and grammer. Like I said I am neither pro or anti but the comments do make me wonder..''

      I forgot to address this part of your post in my reply earlier. Spelling and grammar don't bother me, i'm more interested in content. it's only a blog. By the way, you shouldn't ask me what the position of the pros is- I'm not a pro. I've stated that elsewhere. I'm neither an anti or a pro. I'm a questioner of bullshit and official lines. I like to see proof of what people seem intent on pushing so desperately. It would make any thinker suspicious, all that effort.

      By new advances in DNA, I take it you're talking about the recent story about the Australian who claims he's offered OG his services . He'll analyse the existing evidence using it and so on. It's certainly an interesting story.But lots are aren't they.I think we've read enough stories.If what he says is true and OG won't answer the phone then why doesn't he tell a journalist or TV or radio station to call them and ask why ?
      Are we to believe they are permanently engaged ? That's silly.

      Personally, I'd love the DNA / Blood to be tested.It would, in theory, settle some long standing arguments as to their validity.But that's in theory.I think the UK are the leaders in the science which they actually pioneered.

      I'd like to read or hear the man in question inform us all exactly what the advances are and how they differ from 2007.Then I'd like to hear our own FSS comment on his words. Then it would be a great idea to ask OG why they won't let the evidence be tested.

      Until then, I'm waiting for advances in common sense. Maybe then the antis will be bearable. But let's not back that horse with real money..

      Zig

      Delete
    21. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 16:26
      ''15:43 I can detest a person's actions yet still feel empathy, or sympathy for them. It's called humanity.
      Rather childish of you just to repeat the definition of revulsion that fitted your argument, even if the word hate isn't in it.''

      You didn't say your revulsion of anyone's actions had gone up. You said your revulsion of the McCanns had.

      Delete
    22. True. Revulsion is what hate accelerates into if it doesn't have any control.

      Delete
    23. yes, lol indeed. Powerful rebuttal

      Delete
  9. Rosalinda Hutton10 April 2019 at 13:41

    ''lol 13:01, are you suggesting GA had some kind of whiteboard and was making plans for the 'wider agenda', future scams to fill his coffers?''

    No. I would have said that. But it's a good point. Well done.

    ''Sophia's letter and the Fund set up for GA's legal fees were more than a decade apart! ''

    is that proof that she wrote it ?

    ''As for the missus being on an earner, our chavvy attitude and disrespect reflect on you 13:01, not the dignified Goncalo and Sophia Amaral.''

    Dignified ? Ask Sandra.

    ''Kate on an earner when she wrote Madeleine? How about when she and her husband were begging the public to send them money? Pretending it was to find their daughter but using it to pay their mortgage and sue the former detective who investigated them?''

    Save the hate. I'm not interested unless i see proof.

    ''You are sitting in a glass house throwing stones 13:01, when you accuse the Amarals of doing something bad, it is not hard to find the McCanns have done something far, far worse.''

    And if we believe your X-rated Scooby Doo storylines we'd all believe that.

    I know the Parents had the audacity to have their little girl stolen and to never see her again, but what can you do...whereas Amaral was given an 18 month suspended sentence in a court of law for being a big hearted saint of a man who wouldn't dare lie in the eyes of his catholic God or the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point of information, 15:16, the McCanns are the same religion - no idea what the significance is.

      As for lieing, why don't we start with the curtains going "whoosh", and take it from there?

      It seems that "I'm not interested unless I see proof" is your catch all get out of jail card. Unless of course people ask to see proof of your opinions, then you resort to sarcasm.

      It would appear you are suggesting the newspaper was incompetent, or dishonest too, by not checking their sources, and that if a letter was written without her consent she was unable to challenge it.

      Would it be fair to add chauvinism to the list, as well?

      Delete
    2. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 16:20

      ''Point of information, 15:16, the McCanns are the same religion - no idea what the significance is.
      As for lieing, why don't we start with the curtains going "whoosh", and take it from there?''

      My personal view is that it doesn't as i think mainstream religion is all bollocks and hypocritical.I happen to think Catholicism is more hypocritical than most. I can say that now without fear of flying cups and saucers as i was married to a Glaswegian Roman Catholic Celtic fan in the olden days.They have confession for a reason.

      I talked further up about the whoosh and the windows theory ( parents trying to make sense amidst the chaos etc). I also mentioned that the police had every reason to re-question them and test them if they thought it was sinister.I stated that it also precludes the other anti headcases who say Madeleine had been dead for days or weeks because no photos existed to say otherwise( which means i died about 10 years ago).If they had had days to prepare they would have days to get the stories straight and reality test them with each other.Why haven't the police said anything about them ? Why aren't the police being asked to ?

      ''It seems that "I'm not interested unless I see proof" is your catch all get out of jail card. Unless of course people ask to see proof of your opinions, then you resort to sarcasm.''

      Not really. I think asking somebody to provide proof of an allegation is nothing more than fair play.If they state it's only something they suspect that's fair enough. It makes for a discussion and exchanging of opinions.I never have to prove my opinions. They're only opinions.

      ''It would appear you are suggesting the newspaper was incompetent, or dishonest too, by not checking their sources, and that if a letter was written without her consent she was unable to challenge it.''

      It's gutter press and journalism. It's universal.It could well have been written without her consent.It's more likely that given his circumstances( up and coming retirement, up and coming divorce, doubt about the publication of his book, possibility of being sued for money in court) that Mrs A would have tipped him the wink. If he sank financially, she would too.If he was kept afloat, she and the kids would be too.It was in her best interest to let it stand. I doubt Amaral would give a wife he was going to be seeing in a divorce court that amount of ammunition to fire at him...

      Z

      Delete
  10. '...decade apart'. Proof you are lying in order to connect Sophia's letter to the Funds raised for GA's defence almost a decade later. That you have to resort to lying and cheating to build a case against GA, reveals only your desperation.

    'Save the hate, I'm not interested.' Thank you for that. I will use it myself when you are droning on and on about GA.

    How about the parents had the audacity to stage an abduction? There are far more credible and reasoned arguments for that than the parents had the audacity to have their girl stolen.

    Two lots of audacity. Pick one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Save the hate, I'm not interested.' Thank you for that. I will use it myself when you are droning on and on about GA.''

      That's the one I pick.

      You imply I'mm a hater. I've explained why i think the praise of him is as unfounded as the nonsense the man himself speaks.I haven't said anything libelous. he really did commit perjury. he really hasn't proved any of his points.And I really do find him hard to believe given those points. That's not hate. It's observation.If you spot any mistakes, feel free to shoot them down.

      Delete
    2. Ros says :

      ''That you have to resort to lying and cheating to build a case against GA, reveals only your desperation.''

      Nobody has to resort to that, Ros. he was given an 18 month suspended sentence for being a liar. That's truth. He filled a book with accusations but none of them have been true ( or else the parents would be in prison remember ?). Amaral built a case against himself. he doesn't need one building against him. No lies needed.The truths bad enough for him.

      Delete
  11. 16:38, I don't have to put my hand in the chip pan to prove it will get burned.

    If the paper had done anything wrong printing the letter, then we would have heard. Otherwise, short of asking the woman to her face, I don't know what other proof you want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oscar Slater10 April 2019 at 18:06

      ''16:38, I don't have to put my hand in the chip pan to prove it will get burned.
      If the paper had done anything wrong printing the letter, then we would have heard. Otherwise, short of asking the woman to her face, I don't know what other proof you want.''

      I'm thinking about that chip pan.I'm now thinking about how the press reported the story that pictured and named Christopher Jefferies as murderer.Now I'm thinking about how the Scum lied about Hillsborough on behalf of Margaret Thatcher and her wishes to 'make the fans look guilty'.I'm thinking about the Leveson Inquiry.How about the payments made to the Murat boy or the Tapas group. Let's not kid ourselves that the press are scrupulous or that it's an honorable profession to work for them. They deal from the gutter to the gutter.People like headlines.Not depth.The UK don't have the monopoly on that either.

      On reading the letter it's easy to identify the goals of the author. To concentrate on the sacrifices Amaral had made and was willing to make despite being proved a liar before.To paint Amaral as selfless.To paint him as a family man who worked all hours to provide for them. Other intentions were to speak to Kate sarcastically and to over cook the irony.Litotes figures heavily (The sign of a budding author). And, if the praise of Amaral,and the sarcastic attacks of Kate weren't enough to impress a third party of eager online sleuths, the author, for good measure, talked about the minimum wage and making ends meet and a divorce.It was a clever way of inspiring those who felt anger to set up a fund as his divorce loomed and his book possibly being banned according to the different laws in different countries.

      If Amaral benefited financially the divorce wouldn't do as much damage to either him or his wife and children. It all points to a clever ploy. And, as I've said elsewhere, Mrs Amaral wasn't bound by judicial secrecy and she was only writing an alleged personal letter as 'one wife to another'. A personal letter ( viewed by millions by virtue of it being 'open'). Strange, Kate hadn't asked for her letter or opinion but she got them in no uncertain terms. yet it's the McCanns with the vendetta...The result was that the army of Amaral supporters bought it hook line and sinker, the fund was born and the Mccanns had more unwarranted blackening on their name. He's clever, that Amaral. But not that clever.He knows his audience's level.

      Zigger

      Delete
  12. Thanks, Ros.

    Hello, 12:32 ('Ros finds another contributor who has no need for proof and an irrational hatred of the McCanns based on nothing tangible').

    1/2

    An industrial size comment. But I think it might be slightly helpful, as I was, until very recently, a McCann case tabula rasa.

    I hadn’t followed the case at all over the years. But I’ve been stuck ill at home this year, and unable to face another Agatha Christie, and noodling around the internet, as you do, I stumbled on some chink in this case (I can’t remember how or what), and I started reading . . . a ‘flipping good grief! Who knew?’ moment ensued.

    No, I don’t mean all the conspiracy theories, and the over-elaborate, ungrounded flights of fancy that are bound to accrue to a real life mystery, and cold case. They pass me by. The feuds pass me by too. I wasn’t there when they were happenning.

    Up to this point my understanding of the case was, I expect, on a par with the vast majority of people in the UK, who have also never given it much of a second thought. That is not my/their bad. This is not like say, the Israel/Palestine question, where one feels obligated, as a responsible adult, to gen up.

    So, my understanding was composed of vague (and, I have to say, entirely trusting) received opinion. I could have dredged up that: Madeleine had been abducted - couldn’t miss that story! (though I was inured to all the maudlin, emotionally whipped up frenzy, just as I was when Diana died). I knew that suspicion had turned on the parents (kind of thought Gerry’s manner would have got up the nose of the Portuguese police, but in no way thought that they were being framed). I knew that public opinion turned against them for a season once they were formal suspects; that the case was closed without resolution (I think I knew that, these things have a habit of just fading out of consciousness as ‘the news’ moves on); that the McCanns used a hell of a lot of slick (and off putting) pr; that the McCanns had been mauled by the gutter press (Leveson: but really very vaguely, I really only noticed Milly Dowler’s parents’ agony re that); that Operation Grange had been appointed to investigate further; that Madeleine has never been found, and was probably dead. That’s it.

    What did I think of the McCanns? Nothing at all. Other than the obvious sympathy for the utter, utter ghastliness of losing a child, and a slight bewilderment at their catastrophic child-care malfunction - and why that seemed to be so down played, and brushed aside at the time.

    I did not follow the original story on television (no TV); I had never seen a single television interview; I never read a single tabloid story; watched none of the documentaries, nor Crimewatch; I had never heard of AG, so, of course, I did not know about his book, nor the court cases; I did not know Kate had written a book, either; I did not know the PJ had released the case files. Didn’t know about those blessed dogs, come to that. Or that there was a kind of ‘pro’ /‘anti’ thing going on. Wasn’t aware of any controversy around them at all. Perhaps, I was very vaguely aware that certain journalists’ ’think’ pieces about trolling cited them as victims (hard to remember though, when one has so little attention on it).

    I do not think this is terribly unusual. This quickly became a ‘penny dreadful’ story. Beneath concentration, so to speak.

    Shallis

    ReplyDelete
  13. 2/2

    So until a few weeks ago, the above was where I was at. I came from a standing start. No bias. No emotionally charged reaction to the McCanns whatsoever (then or now).

    I have closely read, and cross-checked, the primary sources - the files, Kate’s book, her diary, Gerry’s blog, the couple’s interviews, the pr feeds to the MSM etc etc. - all at once. And I have delved into a lot of secondary sources. I read critically, I am not open to persuasion.

    I wouldn’t normally have the time (I would have been deeply lost in an arcane corner of the fifteenth century Italian Renaissance, if illness hadn’t struck). I have no voyeuristic interest in gruesome real life crime stories. I find them extremely off putting. This case is not about that.

    It is no more ‘ghoulish’ to study this case, than, say, the effect of the French Revolution.

    I am aware, as a normal sensitive person, that a little girl has (almost certainly) lost her life in the centre of this story. None of us here know her fate.

    I’ve been fascinated by my studying, I admit. What other case gifts all this material? Is so transparent, and yet so utterly mystifying? Lets us trace so easily how it has been played out and spun? Full marks to those who have archived so much material so diligently, and in such a well organised way, too.

    I am not interested in having a good old, indulgent, ‘reckon’. The goal is truth. I don’t get to make it up.

    With my academic historian hat on, I champion: laser-like, rigorous hard reasoning; constantly monitoring for bias; citable hard evidence; turning things around to look at them from all sides. No procrustean beds. Establishing facts, and possibilities - allowing all of them to just ’sit’ there if need be (for example, though the facts and various forms of witness statements seem to refute it - or make it so vanishingly unlikely as to be, in the normal world as we know it, present as fiction - there remains a tiny possibility (of a variant narrative) abduction, so ‘abduction’ per se cannot be 100% discounted). Truth tends to emerge like developing an old photographic print. You passively observe it doing so.

    I write this at length, not because I think that I am in the least important (I’m not), but to refute the ‘mindless, hater’ schtick of the ‘pro’ camp. Who are no doubt poised to savage me again.

    And I also write to point out why the McCanns should be worried. This will not end, this is like trying to hold back the tide (I’m just another teeny, tiny drop of water). There is a point of critical mass where received opinion turns around. And then informs those who don’t consciously follow a case.

    Attempting suppression as a strategy - the police files, a book, now the ruling of a court case, it just gets to be a bigger and bigger problem, unmanageable in the end, it reads as desperate. It will be absolutely swept away if/when this case passes into deep history as open. It is not the way for anyone to defend themselves in the here and now, either. I am sure we all agree that spinning the truth is a dangerous game. If there is even any suspicion of that, it just never goes away. It grows. It needs to be addressed.

    The public reaction if they find they have been played on is never going to be great.

    We ask questions. We think for ourselves. We have no axe to grind. We are legion.

    Shallis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I braved the first 6 and a half thousand words and arrived at the point I think. You're more or less fresh to the case. It's new to you as far as paying attention to it goes. It's a shame it needed four connecting flights. I think you oversold it. But you probably had your reasons. Is it that you really need to appear unbiased so when you tell us your biased opinion you can't be accused of bias ? Nice move.

      ''I write this at length, not because I think that I am in the least important (I’m not), but to refute the ‘mindless, hater’ schtick of the ‘pro’ camp. Who are no doubt poised to savage me again. ''

      Have you any examples ? And is the word 'savage' not a little dramatic ?

      ''And I also write to point out why the McCanns should be worried.''

      And we're off.....real point identified..

      ''Attempting suppression as a strategy - the police files, a book, now the ruling of a court case, it just gets to be a bigger and bigger problem, unmanageable in the end, it reads as desperate. ''

      Is that the critical reader in you concluding that ? Where did you find, in your 'primary and secondary' sources, that they had used suppression of anything as a strategy ? Are you sure that isn't just your opinion ? It's probably a silly question because there's probably an obvious answer, but I'll ask it anyway : Where were the police in all of that ? Where they suppressing something as a strategy too ? Or are you implying they're as dim as a broken lightbulb ?

      ''It is not the way for anyone to defend themselves in the here and now, either''

      If you check those sources again, you'll see that they haven't been charged with anything.

      ''If there is even any suspicion of that, it just never goes away. It grows. It needs to be addressed.''

      Then there'd be no action on Twitter, Facebook, forums or blogs.

      ''We ask questions. We think for ourselves. We have no axe to grind. We are legion.''

      I thought the Guy Fawkes Anonymous thing stopped being trendy in 2008. Just as well really. Those who follow trends and crowds don't really think for themselves do they. Not once they've chosen which crowd to follow..

      Zig S ( Mr)

      Delete
    2. Thank you Shallis. Very like how I came to the case. I just don't get how the McCanns can have spent so much energy going after Amaral when there were more important things to be doing.

      Is it misplaced anger at their loss, or is it guilt about something they did or didn't do?

      I don't hate them either. They confuse me because their behaviour is so different from what you would expect in the circumstances.

      Is it a case of medics setting aside emotion and concentrating on the things they can change to the exclusion of things they can't?

      If so, it shows a mindset and self discipline rarely seen in others.

      Delete
    3. Dear Z

      Your radio jamming techniques on this blog are tired, and ineffectual. Your relentless scatter gun attempts at take downs are totally transparent, and just plain silly.

      No one would be so bold as to think they could make the slightest dent on your completely closed, and oh so pleased with itself, mind.

      Who do you think you impress or convince? You expose yourself, without any awareness your doing it!

      Your reasoning is unsound, let's just leave it at that. I mean this in the kindliest way, but you come over as more than a bit of a twit.

      And none too pleasant with it.

      Shallis






      Delete
    4. Anonymous11 April 2019 at 12:08

      ''Dear Z
      Your radio jamming techniques on this blog are tired, and ineffectual. Your relentless scatter gun attempts at take downs are totally transparent, and just plain silly.''

      You view simple questions and even simpler requests as 'radio jamming' ? And then you try to disguise personal, groundless insults as objective observation with pseudo-intellectual phraseology.You kid fools and you kid those of a like mind. You don't kid me.

      ''No one would be so bold as to think they could make the slightest dent on your completely closed, and oh so pleased with itself, mind''

      There it is again. Nobody who contributes to this blog tries harder to open up the conversation and thinking on the case than I do.That's the problem though isn't it for your sort. You represent the narrowest of thinking that's plagued discussion about this case from day 1. Yes, I know you were trying to use the 'i've only just started looking and even i can see the parents guilt' angle, but it doesn't wash. It wouldn't any way if all you can repeat is the same couple of groundless, unsupportable ( by your 'primary or secondary sources') allegations.

      ''Who do you think you impress or convince? You expose yourself, without any awareness your doing it! ''

      Yes, I'm talented that way. I hope i don't impress fools.I don't seem to be doing that here so that's a positive.But Those who like to think about things on a slightly deeper level and use a broader view will be impressed by how i expose the simple flaws of those with their own agenda who try to convince the mugs that their little suspicions are actually carved in stone.Can you, with your sharp mind and wonderful use of exclamation marks, give me an example or two of my exposing myself ? Take your time.

      ''Your reasoning is unsound, let's just leave it at that''

      No. Let's not.Back it up.

      ''And none too pleasant with it.''

      I like to think that came with some kind of contorted face as you sent it. It would be consistent with the rest of the playground approach.

      Mr Z

      Delete
    5. Dear Z

      ‘Nobody who contributes to this blog tries harder to open up the conversation and thinking on the case than I do’.

      Splutter! Really? Do you think ranting at people, insulting them, belittling them, and deliberately misrepresenting them and their views (reason unknown) is ‘opening up conversation’? Does anyone agree with this?

      ‘That's the problem though isn't it for your sort’.

      ‘You represent the narrowest of thinking that's plagued discussion about this case from day 1’.

      See what I mean?

      ‘All you can repeat is the same couple of groundless, unsupportable (by your 'primary or secondary sources’) allegations’.

      Which are those then? How the hell do you know?

      me: ‘You expose yourself . . .'

      As in tiresome statements such as the above, being completely uninterested in debate, you are just sounding off like a pantomime villain. Just being insulting for the sake of it. Of course, you know you are doing it. You clearly enjoy it (reason unknown). Further up, your alter ego at least attempts a conversation about something - I have just replied to that version of you.

      ‘Those who like to think about things on a slightly deeper level and use a broader view will be impressed by how I expose the simple flaws of those with their own agenda who try to convince the mugs that their little suspicions are actually carved in stone.’

      Are they, Z? Impressed? Anyone care to corroborate this? You seem very self-satisfied.

      I haven’t seen you ‘expose’ even one ‘simple flaw’ yet.

      Me: describing you as ‘none too pleasant with it’.

      An understated comment. You spit bile here. You’ve been called out enough times. And yet you persist. You enjoy it. So you ain’t about to stop any time soon, I’m sure.

      You: (about my ‘pleasant’ comment) ‘I like to think that came with some kind of contorted face as you sent it. It would be consistent with the rest of the playground approach’.

      Calling out your plain bad manners here is hardly ‘contorted face’ territory. What does the playground crack even mean in this context? See, you just randomly insult. It doesn’t even make sense.

      And if you wish to see a contorted face, Z, l have a sneaky suspicion it might be just a matter of your glancing in a mirror.

      Buy maybe you should just make yourself a nice cup of tea. Usually helps.

      Shallis

      Delete
    6. Anonymous11 April 2019 at 23:45

      ''Splutter! Really? Do you think ranting at people, insulting them, belittling them, and deliberately misrepresenting them and their views (reason unknown) is ‘opening up conversation’? Does anyone agree with this?''

      Your arguments began calmly and well thought out.Unfortunately, i happened to come across them and inadvertently seem right through them.Since then we've witnessed your arguments and composure crumble by the post.Was that opening paragraph a subtle plea for support from others who share your extremely narrow view and aversion to logic ? weak, old friend. Very weak.

      ''As in tiresome statements such as the above, being completely uninterested in debate, you are just sounding off like a pantomime villain. Just being insulting for the sake of i''

      No, old fruit. That's what you have just done.Our hostess would call that projection if you were on a different 'side'. I criticise points made and i explain why.You don't. You think insulting the author will persuade a reader to agree that I'm a villain and all i say is to be mistrusted.That's extremely lazy minded. Stop it.

      ''Are they, Z? Impressed? Anyone care to corroborate this? You seem very self-satisfied.''

      You seem clueless when it comes to comprehension.

      ''I haven’t seen you ‘expose’ even one ‘simple flaw’ yet.''

      You have. You just didn't realise it.

      ''An understated comment. You spit bile here. You’ve been called out enough times. And yet you persist.''

      Examples please.Or are you lying again ?

      ''And if you wish to see a contorted face, Z, l have a sneaky suspicion it might be just a matter of your glancing in a mirror. ''


      Oh dear. Really ?

      ''Buy maybe you should just make yourself a nice cup of tea. Usually helps.''

      I think you should make it for me considering the time you have stolen from me. White, no sugar. I'm naturally sweet.

      Z

      Delete
    7. Blah, blah blah, Z, I get it.

      I'm not the only one.

      But, I am interested in rigorous debate of your 'procurer theory'.

      Which I look forward to demolishing. In fair debate. See my reply to you, miles and miles above this, in Ros's vigorous comments section.

      I remember being told by a wise old bird, that what people say about themselves tends to be untrue, but what they say about other people tends to be true, but true about themselves.

      Shallis

      Delete
  14. That was a joy to read Shallis, and it will no doubt make you a target for the malcontents.

    I'm afraid I have been with this case from the very beginning. The news broke as I was caring for my sick mother, and we both became hooked. My dear old mum was a bit of an eccentric and very outspoken, by the Saturday afternoon (5.5.07)she was convinced the parents were involved. I was utterly shocked by what she said, but as the months went by we became more and more engrossed.

    Thank you Shallis for explaining so eloquently why most of us are here. And of course it isn't anything to do with hating the parents, that would be comparable to taking an intense dislike to Colonel Mustard, because he's named after a condiment. For most of us this is a puzzle, a particularly complicated game of Cluedo, we have no emotional involvement.

    I know that sounds callous, but heinous crimes have for centuries grabbed the public's imagination. From Jack the Ripper to the Lindbergh baby to O.J. Simpson. We the public want to 'read all about it'.

    Gerry and Kate want to change it to 'read all about once Clarence Mitchell has given it the OK'. They definitely don't want anyone reading all about the time they were made arguidos.

    I am delighted you have made it through the minefields to here Shallis. I would like to say it is a combat free zone, but once you get past the GA obsessives, there are some great posters!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I suppose having rubbished the validity of the letter to the press, the next step must be to prove that none of it was true anyway, and that it wasn't a response to a slur made by Kate McCann criticising both Amaral's professionalism, and humanity.

    When attention is brought to Amaral's personality defects, it is surely natural that people look at the McCanns' as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting notions, Oscar and not beyond the realms of possibility. But it relies a bit heavily on second -guessing..

      Nobody has rubbished the letter.Nobody has rubbished the contents. I'm questioning the timing and the alleged authorship, given that timing.My reasons are given above.

      Any criticism of Amaral's professionalism is valid and acceptable.He was careless on arrival at the scene and made mistakes with the crime scene.He had a charge hanging over his head involving the case of a murdered child in which he had faked the details in the files.He failed in his search for Madeleine. His subsequent barrage of allegations direct at the parents was also unprofessional.If he's the saint his supporters claim and if he is the suffering Catholic visiting prison to give alms to the mother who killed her child, where was his humanity when he accused the McCanns of all the things he chose to and failed to prove a single instance ? Where was his humanity when he committed them to print regardless of the suffering of the parents ? Why, if he has gone on record as accusing MI5 of being complicit in the secret burial of their child, hasn't he let off a salvo in their direction ? He claims the case would be solved if the 'political will of two countries' allow it to be.But, no, he chooses to concentrate his ammunition in the direction of the McCanns. These can be considered observations of personality defects as you say. Or they could just be observations of a man's actions that are actually verifiable and speak of Amaral's true character. Are we supposed to overlook them because of his so- called acts of contrition or the giving of alms outlined in his / her letter ? That's religious hypocrisy at it's most obvious. It also speaks of the real level of his professionalism.

      Until a McCann is arrested and charged and just ONE of his allegations is proven to be true, to accuse him of being unprofessional, tactless, malicious and wayward is valid. You can't just go around accusing people of the things he's accused them of and expect to be called a martyr because they react like any other parents would.

      McCanns personality defects ? From what I've read online I see two people distraught. Two people broken and, often, two people fighting to contain their anger.That seems consistent with their situation.But the only people writing about it have a bias they wish to have confirmed by the viewing of them in interviews and use their experience as taxi drivers, shelf stackers, plumbers, and office workers to psycho analyse the transcripts and share their expert opinions.None of it predictable at all.

      Zig

      Delete
    2. You don't have to be a psychoanylst to spot shifty behaviour do you?

      Whatever your job, you have to be able to spot a liar, or you won't survive long.

      I'd wager taxi drivers for example, are pretty students of human behaviour, wouldn't you.

      For a guy who is supposed to see through the BS, you don't half cone out with a fair amount yourself. I'd give the botanics a rest if I were you.

      Even wierder though we're their trips around PDL glad handing.

      You see one thing, I see another.

      Delete
    3. @18:32

      Ouch… Such impudence… You are talking to Dr Zoot, Oscario... Are you losing your mind bunning a zoot, Rio man?…

      Winns

      Delete
    4. I don't come out with BS, Oscar.Disagree by all means, but if you have to be insulting, provide something a bit more substantial than that.Otherwise it's just another ten-a-penny rant. I thought you were better than that.

      It's true, you don't have to be a psychoanalyst to spot 'shifty' behaviour.But then you won't find 'shifty' in any Psychology books either.And, yes, it's true, we all need to be able to spot a liar in life and we all learn by experience.But, again, we're talking about making a guess.

      If you watch interviews of two strangers on film and proceed to tell people that their words, their 'subtext' and their facial expressions tell a truth hidden from the naked eye then you are going to be even more than a psychoanalyst.If you want to hold up theories that they indicate that at least one of the couple are guilty of a crime or of murder, you better be more than a street smart taxi driver too. Why do you think it's as rare as Unicorn droppings to see Psychologists called as expert witnesses to relay such guesswork ? For every one that saw a killer there could be two that saw nothing out of the ordinary.

      If I'm going to look at something and someone to glean a better grasp of it, I'll go to it fresh. No pre-conceptions i need to confirm and no bias. If I already think they 'look shifty', the chances are, I'll believe myself. Then others with just as little grasp of reality will echo my suspicions if i look online. I'll choose to call that a consensus.So, when I see them walking about outside I'll say they look too happy for parents with a dead child ( ignoring the actual fact that they haven't been told she's dead yet). And, of course, if they stop walking around for cameras, i'll see that as them hiding ( because of the guilt).Should they appear eventually, if one or both have lost wait or look pale-'obviously' it would be down to being eaten away by guilt( not the stress of being in the dark about their child).So, yes, you're right. You see one thing. I leave my eyes and options open and wait for something i can take to the bank rather than use guesswork for interesting conversation with others who confirm my suspicions. We learn more by looking at more.

      Delete
    5. Prosecution :

      '' I remind members of the jury that two taxi drivers and a former colleague of Mr McCann have testified under oath that they always considered that he looked shifty.I don't think i need remind you before you retire to consider your verdict, that these are well known giveaways of the typical cold blooded killer''

      Delete
    6. "You see one thing, I see another."

      But you make accusations whilst Ziggy argues for the right to the presumption of innocence. He, rightly, asks for the evidence behind your accusations, but there isn't any. The Portuguese Prosecutor came to that conclusion, as did both the UK and Portuguese police. If GA's ideas, the uncorroborated dogs, and amateur psychological profiling is all you have to back up what, in effect, are malicious accusations then, I'm afraid, that is not good enough, and you lose the argument.

      Delete
    7. sounds fair enough 21:12. Evidence shouldn't be treated as a swear word

      Delete
    8. 21:12 what accusation have I made?

      The Portuguese prosecutor did not come to any conclusion, the investigation is still underway, and the McCanns have been told they are not off the hook, at the Supreme Court in Lisbon.

      Shills have clearly been briefed to repeat that the McCanns have been cleared.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 11 April 2019 at 21:12

      “…Ziggy argues for the right to the presumption of innocence.”

      Does he? Oh yes, he does indeed. Therefore, it is right to insist that Amaral must be presumed innocent of libel until found guilty in a court of law.

      “He, rightly, asks for the evidence behind your accusations, but there isn't any.”

      What is the asked-for evidence in this context? Does Ziggy provide such evidence when asked?

      “…GA's ideas, the uncorroborated dogs, and amateur psychological profiling is all you have to back up what, in effect, are malicious accusations…”

      Doesn’t your “what, in effect, are malicious accusations” show your bias?

      As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.

      Kate

      x

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 11 April 2019 at 14:57

      “Any criticism of Amaral's professionalism is valid and acceptable.He was careless on arrival at the scene and made mistakes with the crime scene.”

      What arrival at the scene are you talking about?

      Delete
    11. "Does he? Oh yes, he does indeed. Therefore, it is right to insist that Amaral must be presumed innocent of libel until found guilty in a court of law."

      But he has been convicted of perjury by the Portuguese courts. Therefore one must question his reliability as a witness, as any court would.

      "What is the asked-for evidence in this context? Does Ziggy provide such evidence when asked?"

      The presumption of innocence is a human right, therefore no evidence is required. It is the accuser who has to provide evidence to back up their accusations.

      "Doesn’t your “what, in effect, are malicious accusations” show your bias?"

      To accuse parents of killing and disposing their child, when there is no such evidence, is malicious.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous12 April 2019 at 10:23

      ''Does he? Oh yes, he does indeed. Therefore, it is right to insist that Amaral must be presumed innocent of libel until found guilty in a court of law.''

      Clever.Unfortunately, Ziggy has said he believes that Amaral is guilty of perjury / libel / slander / defamation and so on and that an appeal at the ECHR would find that he is.He accepts that, in the meantime, he is innocent in the eyes of the law and accepts it, albeit grudgingly.Hopefully a bigger court will address it.As for the rest of Ziggy's allegations against Amaral, it appears they are right.The suspended jail sentence is real.The lack of anything in his book bringing forward an arrest is real.That Amaral has failed to prove a single suspicion is real.

      ''What is the asked-for evidence in this context? Does Ziggy provide such evidence when asked?''

      The evidence-''in this context'' include evidence that Martin Gime lied or was wrong in his analysis of the dogs' findings.If there isn't any, it should be accepted that he is to be trusted and the dogs' so called ( by antis) 'evidence'really is invalid. That the term 'dogs' evidence' is a misnomer, as the dogs are employed only as tools. Like the allegations in Amaral's book, they are in serious need of corroborating evidence before they are worthy of consideration. 12 years...

      ''Doesn’t your “what, in effect, are malicious accusations” show your bias?''

      No. Unless accusations can be supported by evidence and proof they are merely accusations.If the accusations are of killing or burying your own child and then lying to misdirect justice and an investigation, that's pretty malicious.

      ''As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.''

      Turns out it was apropos of everything. Including your observations of the case as outlined on your post.

      Ziggy

      x

      Delete
    13. Oscar Slater12 April 2019 at 07:53

      ''Shills have clearly been briefed to repeat that the McCanns have been cleared.'

      Yeah man, it's the man..he got shills every place man..it's freakin crazy...

      Or was it the head of the PJ who actually confirmed it into a microphone and in front of cameras in 2017 ?

      Yeah man, but the pigs are shills man...etc and so on

      Delete
    14. Oscar Slater12 April 2019 at 07:53

      ''21:12 what accusation have I made? ''

      Do you forget your posts ?

      You've accused the McCanns of being guilty of burying their child( they look shifty).You've accused them of lying from day one.Elsewhere you say your revulsion of them has gone up a notch although you don't hate them.You have accused them, after they hit the roof on hearing all the vicious allegations made against them, of having a vendetta against the man accusing them and refusing to back his accusations up.

      ''McCanns have been told they are not off the hook, at the Supreme Court in Lisbon.''

      That's one of the better false assertions made by the antis because it has the court in it.Nice one.Did the judge say anything about not having any power or responsibility to make judgements about anything other than the right to publish a book ? That it was up to a more senior court to hold a criminal trial ? I think she did.Remember ? Or would you rather not.

      ''Shills have clearly been briefed to repeat that the McCanns have been cleared.''

      No, shills use nuggets of information like the Supreme Court's ruling about a book to try and suggest that the powers that be consider the McCanns are suspects.The police don't.End of chat.

      Those who talk about a lack of evidence to support accusations and build a case for a prosecution are detached observers of the case without bias or agenda.Those who remind commentators that the alerts made by the dogs needed serious corroboration, which is yet to appear in twelve years are detached observers. Those who ask Amaral to prove his allegations are more than fantasy or detached observers.No agenda other than trying to eliminate the bullshit in order to clear the view.

      Ziggy

      Delete
    15. @ Anonymous12 April 2019 at 12:33

      “Any criticism of Amaral's professionalism is valid and acceptable.He was careless on arrival at the scene and made mistakes with the crime scene.”
      What arrival at the scene are you talking about?''

      Exactly. Our hero was in deep talks with a bottle of wine and a plate of pork scratchings and didn't want to tear himself away.He thought he was experienced enough, psychic enough and amazing enough to be able to co-ordinate things by telephone.Well you would, wouldn't you. It was only a case of a little girl being snatched from a holiday apartment.So an 'on call' inspector was at the scene.All possible precautions were taken to preserve the scene and any possible evidence( says Amaral who wasn't there).Surely he wouldn't lie to uphold the reputation of one of the PJ officers-that would be prejury ( again).

      So, Mr Amaral, tell us all about the immediate impact that the event had on the parents, your impressions of their behaviour immediately after it happened . Well we can't ask you that can we. You didn't stumble to the scene in person until a few drinks later about 2 or 3 hours later.The child could have been three hours away by car by then-what did you do to counter that ? Nothing ? Nice work. No wonder you needed to grab hold of a couple of suspects fast.And no wonder you've never proved a word against them. By the way Gonco..when did you actually secure the scene ? What time-roughly ?

      Yes, I know, it's unfair of me to ask you to provide answers to these awkward questions as you were only a co-ordinator. You didn't need to be there on the spot in charge.You were charged with organising others to do the work and to work in concert with other groups. And that can't be easy if your stuck behind a lobster and a bottle of white.The noise of the crowd for one thing...But, you have sold yourself ever since as the all knowing and all seeing eye.The primary source of all things McCann.The man on the inside. That was all crap wasn't it ? Mr Co-ordinator ? But it sold books and kidded a large customer base. It just didn't kid any forensic teams or your bosses did it..



      Delete
    16. Bizarre that you use my blog to get all those negative feelings about Goncalo Amaral out of your system 20.00. In fact you have written a personal letter to him, following the style of Sofia Amaral, is that you Kate?

      I can see that writing this kind of letter to your nemesis can be cathartic, but is it a good idea to give so much of yourself away on a public blog? Letters like that are better written by hand then scrunched up and thrown in the bin.

      You are asking GA questions here on my blog, why? Silly question, I know the answer, you want to show how GA's incompetence led to the loss of your daughter. You want to reinforce the notion that all blame should be laid at the door of GA. I don't see you asking yourself why you left the children on their own? Why you thought it was safe? You have transferred all those questions that point to your own guilt, onto Goncalo Amaral.

      Genuine grieving mothers ask all those questions of themselves, and they are ruthless in their self condemnation actively searching for reasons why they could and should have protected their child better. The McCanns forgave themselves within 48 hours, they shifted the blame onto the Portuguese police and they have been blaming them ever since.

      Instead of blaming Goncalo Amaral, examine your own conscience, what did you do you wrong? If you have control of yourself, that is if you take full responsibility for yourself, you will see that the actions of others are completely irrelevant. You can cry with anger over GA every day for the rest of your life, it won't make any difference to him or indeed to anyone else. He is in your head, you are not in his.

      Sorry to be the one to tell you, but all your ranting and raving against Goncalo Amaral, makes not one iota of difference to your case. It is not about GA it is about missing Madeleine, remember her?

      I know you are going for 'repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth'. Well that's not happening on here. You have the repetition, gaw'd 'elp us, but your not persuading anyone. The impression you give is 'jeez, it's been 12 years of whinging and whining, ffs change the record'. The real enemy of the McCanns is 'the abductor' - how come he never, ever, gets a mention?

      Delete
    17. Rosalinda Hutton13 April 2019 at 11:00

      ''Bizarre that you use my blog to get all those negative feelings about Goncalo Amaral out of your system 20.00. In fact you have written a personal letter to him, following the style of Sofia Amaral, is that you Kate?''

      Is it as bizarre as dedicating whole threads to him without genuine good reason ? No, it isn't Kate.It's your paranoid voice talking.Hello.

      ''I can see that writing this kind of letter to your nemesis can be cathartic, but is it a good idea to give so much of yourself away on a public blog?''

      Amaral is his own nemesis. He's a fool.

      ''You are asking GA questions here on my blog, why? Silly question,''

      It isn't an actual real letter, Ros.Have you never studied English ?

      ''you want to show how GA's incompetence led to the loss of your daughter. You want to reinforce the notion that all blame should be laid at the door of GA.''

      I don't have a daughter.

      ''You have transferred all those questions that point to your own guilt, onto Goncalo Amaral. '

      I'd put this down to you being drunk but there's no typoes.What does that leave i wonder...

      ''Genuine grieving mothers ask all those questions of themselves,''

      Who's grieving ? Grieving for what or who ? Why ?

      ''The McCanns forgave themselves within 48 hours, they shifted the blame onto the Portuguese police and they have been blaming them ever since. ''

      Blaming them for the death of their daughter you claim is dead but isn't ? Forgave themselves for what ?

      ''Instead of blaming Goncalo Amaral, examine your own conscience, what did you do you wrong?''

      Maybe drunk wasn't far wrong after all...

      ''Sorry to be the one to tell you, but all your ranting and raving against Goncalo Amaral, makes not one iota of difference to your case.''

      I feel like I'm interrupting an argument between tow of your other personalities here..

      ''I know you are going for 'repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth'. ''

      Hmmmm yeah...you've used that line a few times. It doesn't work you know. Not in the context of this lot.I dare say it's clever in others though. Keep it for them...

      ''The real enemy of the McCanns is 'the abductor' - how come he never, ever, gets a mention?''

      Nobody knows his name ( derrr). I mention 'an abductor' but that's all. That's the thing with abductors, they love to be all mysterious and never leave a calling card..

      I'm not sure which one of you have the wheel lately Ros. But I hope, whoever it is, pulls over for a nap soon.You're beginning to sound really worrying.There's nothing digital about your thoughts...

      Delete
    18. the defences of Amaral on the blog are really weak now

      Delete
  16. Hi Rosalinda,
    Your brilliant tongue in cheek take down "Why the McCanns couldn't have dunnit" is something everybody on this site has realized from the get-go 13 years ago.
    Despite your contributors daily getting laughs from McCann supporters earnest protestations of innocence these good folk keep slugging it out with the trolls - good for them. (It's either keep faking it up for the trolls or the hangman's noose for the ones they support.)

    If anyone goes to the world wide web without even trying too hard, the reams of evidence, comments, videos, articles, films are overwhelmingly against the McCann couple and see them as being fraudsters of the highest kind.

    Nothing that can be accessed has a good word to say about this couple including the intense suspicion in the way they disposed of their daughter. Where is she? She is alive. Real answer: She is dead.

    It was highly suspicious all those years ago that the British government got involved in the debacle from day one - British consulate and all, plus the PM and his wife further leading to the Pope and Oprah! But Mr McCann was a brilliant PR man as he was about to show the world.
    The couple got enormous support from the movers and shakers of the British government beyond dreams no council estate couple would ever have fantasized.
    And British police support too, especially in what I believe the police were told what to do - do what we tell you, but do not step out of line and actually investigate the couple - this couple are above the law.

    As Criminal investigator Pat Brown wrote in one of her last blogs on the subject: she would not be commenting on the case again since she could not explain the involvement of the British government in the case.

    The world knows this is one of the greatest crime mysteries of all and it's not just the "Who dunnit" bit. The world has fathomed a long time ago the easy part of what happened.

    One last kick of the hat. - As Old Testament prophet Hosea would have said of the McCann trolls:

    "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind".
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12 April 2019 at 03:41

      ''If anyone goes to the world wide web without even trying too hard, the reams of evidence, comments, videos, articles, films are overwhelmingly against the McCann couple and see them as being fraudsters of the highest kind.''

      Without trying to hard you say. Strange. In 12 years nobody else has found any evidence at all. yet you find 'overwhelming' amounts. I'm not suggesting that you're a liar, obviously. I'm sure once you read this you'll share a link or two from that overwhelming amount and post them here. No ? Why ever not....

      ''Where is she? She is alive. Real answer: She is dead.''

      Ahh yes. You and your 'the little girl is dead' obsession.How we've missed you saying that for a few days. Can you post the link of that little gem too please ?

      ''As Criminal investigator Pat Brown wrote in one of her last blogs on the subject: she would not be commenting on the case again since she could not explain the involvement of the British government in the case.''

      Which makes sense for once. Nobody can and nobody will. Odd for a cut and dried police investigation wouldn't you say ? She's only a criminal profiler, jc, She can't be expected to have all the tool to uncover the evidence that you have access to.

      ''The world knows this is one of the greatest crime mysteries of all and it's not just the "Who dunnit" bit. The world has fathomed a long time ago the easy part of what happened''

      I thought you solved it in your opening paragraph.

      "They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind".

      allay loo yar brother...testifahhhh

      Would you like to buy a sandwich board, one careless owner, three quid

      Delete
    2. Hi, JC

      'This couple are above the law'.

      But why would they be? I really don't think they were back in 2007/8, or are now.

      I think it matters because we should support OG, rather than play into the 'its inept and very, very expensive' line fed to the press in the form of some fatuous, made up 'last line of enquiry' immediately juxtaposed with a reminder of the £12 million OG has cost. Drip feeding negative public opinion.

      Ask yourself who would benefit from feeding this stuff in this form?

      Who could it benefit if OG is closed down?

      Nor should we give the slightest credence to a bit of recent Clarence Mitchell spin:

      'I asked the British authorities what they think happened and if there was any family involvement, and they assured me it was just a rare case of stranger abduction'.

      Clever use of 'British authorities' - sounds frightfully grand, but is absolutely meaningless. 'Assured me', my foot. Sounds categorical but has been proceeded by asking 'what they think', which demolishes it.

      So weaslely.

      It's made up.

      Hardly needs to be said this is not how investigations progress.

      'these good folk keep slugging it out with the trolls'

      What *is* with us doing that?

      Shallis


      Delete
    3. Anonymous12 April 2019 at 16:11

      ''we we should support OG, rather than play into the 'its inept and very, very expensive' line fed to the press in the form of some fatuous, made up 'last line of enquiry' immediately juxtaposed with a reminder of the £12 million OG has cost. Drip feeding negative public opinion.''

      That same OG you suggest we should be supporting is the same OG who are feeding the press with what you call ''some fatuous, made up 'last line of enquiry' '. So, are we still supposed to ?

      ''Ask yourself who would benefit from feeding this stuff in this form? ''

      A liar , or representative of a group of liars, who prefer lies to the truth for purposes of self-preservation and personal liberty.

      ''Who could it benefit if OG is closed down? ''

      The liars. Because the case will be closed.

      '' It's made up.''

      You are probably right that it's partly or even fully made up.Or you could be completely wrong unless you can find the source of it's dishonesty.

      ''What *is* with us doing that?''

      Boredom ?

      Delete
    4. *preceded

      *weaselly

      Sigh, my proof reading.

      Though I, for one, would go on protesting that CM is 'weaslely', to my dying day, if I only knew what it meant.

      S x

      Delete
    5. To display the behavioural attributes of a certain small mammalian creature that nature accidentally froze somewhere between squirrel and ferret, i would have thought.Or it could refer to the attributes of a certain Ron, who is the closest friend to Harry Potter.I'm not sure which of those two could be classed as the worst or best insult..

      Z

      Delete
    6. 18:34 - who you?

      'That same OG you suggest we should be supporting is the same OG who are feeding the press with what you call ''some fatuous, made up 'last line of enquiry'." So, are we still supposed to?'

      OG are not the source of the stories. 'A source close to' always isn't it? Now, I wonder who that might be?

      The questions were rhetorical, but thanks for filling in answers.

      me: 'It's made up.'

      you: 'You are probably right that it's partly or even fully made up. Or you could be completely wrong unless you can find the source of it's dishonesty'.

      Spin is spin. And the boots firmly on the other foot re that. And should be. We can just call it out when we spot a glaring example. Be lost on that one otherwise if you think about it? So much of it about. 'Find the source of it's dishonesty' ?! Now that's a riddle-me-ree.

      re 'these good folk keep slugging it out with the trolls'

      me:' What *is* with us doing that'?

      you: 'Boredom?'

      Just *doesn't* explain why any of us bother though, does it? Mystifying. But, thanks for a brain racking for why ever we might.

      Shallis




      ''What *is* with us doing that?''

      Boredom ?

      Delete
    7. ''OG are not the source of the stories. 'A source close to' always isn't it? Now, I wonder who that might be?''

      OG are so hush hush i doubt if all the officers know where their own base is.Regardless of who the 'source close to' is, the information can be blocked by OG if it's at a sensitive place in the investigation.That's the whole point of working covertly.They allow it out though. Every time.Why ? So we think they're still there earning the top up.Put all their leads on one plate in the last 12 years and it's like spaghetti. Very expensive spaghetti.

      '' 'Find the source of it's dishonesty' ?! Now that's a riddle-me-ree. ''

      'a source close to' and 'who wishes to remain anonymous' serve two purposes;One, to allow the writer free rein with no comebacks, and two, to give the story an air of drama and secrecy ( sells).The source of the dishonesty is in there somewhere.

      ''Just *doesn't* explain why any of us bother though, does it? Mystifying. But, thanks for a brain racking for why ever we might ''

      It's human instinct to solve riddles and mystery and it can stimulate the grey matter.Not that you'd recognise that looking online.The Crime genre in book and film have evolved parallel to to real life crime.But when it spills over to our real world we get a bit excited and start using Agatha Christie or Poirot himself as sources of proof for our theories. But only if we're not careful :)

      Z

      Delete
  17. Less than 12 hours after the "abduction" the regional PJ including GA knew this case was beyond their capabilities. They swallowed their pride and informed their superiors in Lisbon that they needed UK police sent immediately to PDL to tell them what to do.

    Within minutes the heads of the PJ in Lisbon agreed they were useless and through diplomatic channels involving the FCO and HO of the UK, requested British assistance immediately.

    All the rank and file PJ officers had no pride whatsoever, they all thought it needed the UK Police to solve this and went back to their long sardine munching lunch.

    This is not how Police forces anywhere in the world work and yet for years we are expected to swallow this nonsense and many do.

    From the outset the UK police have fed the UK people a diet of lies, deceit and dishonesty. OG is a simple continuance.

    At least had the PJ had the integrity to investigate Amaral for perjury, what is the UK police's excuse over Supt Hill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amaral and the boys were useless.But, on the positive side, he made a bit money from a book.Nice that he finally found his vocation shortly after narrowly escaping a couple of years in jail.All's well that ends well ( for Amaral anyway).

      The police / OG have, as you rightly say, fed the UK and the world a diet of bs. But wasn't it nice of the media outlets to be so compliant with their agenda and not question them too much.Anyone would think that the Moguls broke bread with the politicians who stamped their boot on the case..

      Delete
  18. zig at 10 April 2019 at 12:09

    By new advances in DNA, I take it you're talking about the recent story about the Australian who claims he's offered OG his services . He'll analyse the existing evidence using it and so on. It's certainly an interesting story.But lots are aren't they.I think we've read enough stories.If what he says is true and OG won't answer the phone then why doesn't he tell a journalist or TV or radio station to call them and ask why ?
    Are we to believe they are permanently engaged ? That's silly.
    ...................
    Point of order,the Australian isn't the dna expert offering his services its an American by the name of Dr Mark Perlin,his CV includes his lab help in identifying victims of 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that 18 :05

      I thought maybe it was the Australian as you mentioned it a day or two after his offer was posted here.

      I'll have to look at this new ( to me ) one before i formulate any ideas. Has he offered OG his help or the PJ ? OG could hide under the desk and pretend their phone's are all on silent. But the PJ are allegedly part of this investigation too - and it's on their doorstep.

      Zig

      Delete
    2. Further to 18:05

      I've had a look at the good Dr. I wanted to see if this was yet another case of somebody trying to leech on to the Madeleine case to achieve notoriety, fame, or cash.Or, indeed, if it was that rare creature, somebody with actual bona fide credentials willing to be good to his word for no reward other than justice.

      There is a hint of the former if we look at the recent case in which he submitted his expertise in a case in Ireland. it could be argued that he likes to offer his technique and his team to the highest profile cases where the press and media gather.What better free advertising is there ? He was accused of such in the Ireland case by a a barrister.He alleged that the good Dr was, in so many words, using the case for self promotion.Maybe there was an element of truth in that.But, he used his techniques and they were shown to be pretty damned good and settled the case.So, two things are to be taken from that ; one, it's possible to want to achieve some fame and fortune while still having the higher, better and more noble intentions at the same time; two, ad hominem attacks can be dealt with easily if that's all they are.

      The doctor has an impressive set of results behind him.All verifiable.He appears for defence counsels as well as prosecution.He has no side apart from that of justice.I can relate to that. So, i trust the man.I doubt he could be bought, despite the old saying about every man having his price.So, I reckon he could put this case to bed.His word and the rigour of his methods would prove one way or another what that famous DNA is thus far, keeping to itself.As complex as his methods are, after listening to the podcast I trust them. He has a clever way of making the complexity understandable in laymen's terms.

      So, why the hold up ?

      The Met have declined to comment. OG have declined to return calls or acknowledge his offer.All the Met would say via a predictable answering machine-type rep was ' we don't have to provide a running commentary'. That's true. But you do have to justify what the tax payer's money is being spent on.And, if you insist on making the event public property by forcing it into the living rooms of everyone, you can't shut up shop when that public react to it and ask questions and show concern. All of which brought about a eureka moment to my good self...

      Nobody can make any requests or inquiries via the FOI act if the investigation is still officially live.It doesn't matter how dead in the water it looks, it's 'oficially' live.So we are all bound by a 'ask no questions' act.As long as they keep it alive that's it.So if they don't want a solution they're doing it the right way.If they close tomorrow it's game on unless they can put a 50 year seal on it-which they don't have to explain.

      The FSS was closed down some years ago because it cost too much to run ( unlike this case I'm sure). My niggle now is : Can anyone prove that that evidence still exists to be tested by anyone and if it does, why not hand it over.

      Ziggy


      Delete
    3. SY have turned down his help.

      Delete
  19. Interesting times:

    Netlix production - commented on here by Ros and others.
    Mark Saunokonko's Podcasts - not many comments on here by Ros or others.

    And now a new book (refused by a publisher and therefore being self published) by Pauo Reis - a reporter on the ground as it all happened.

    Unfortunately the first snippet of the Reis book - available here https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2019/04/snippets-from-ebook-mccanns-war-daily.html seems to be criticism of the press and nothing else.

    D

    ReplyDelete
  20. My reason for referring to the open letter from Sofia Leal to Kate Mccann is that I am not sure if the letter is genuine or not, and that is why I have not commented after making the reference to it.

    It would seem that Ros (who I don't remember ever commenting on it before) "was deeply moved by the letter from Mrs Amaral" so I will go with that.

    So the position is that not only did Amaral publish his book concluding that the Mccanns were guilty, but also his wife (at the time) was getting letters (13 September 2009) published in the press. This was at the same time that Amaral was constantly on sofa's on Portuguese TV expressing his opinion - that was not backed up by the archiving report.

    The McCanns applied for an injunction, on 8 December 2009, prohibiting sale of the book - how much further would things have gone from the Amaral's side if the Mccanns had not taken action to stop it?

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Truth of the Lie was published in July 2008, the Mccanns waited to see how much money Amaral would make before seeking an injunction in late 2009.It is always about money otherwise the Mccanns legal team would have acted on first publication.

      Mrs Amarals letter was in the papers in Sept 2008 not 2009.
      The reason the Mccann farce goes on is because people prefer to make things up to suit a particular agenda.

      Facts will always stand the test of time.

      Delete
    2. Sofia (Amaral ) :

      '' As coordinator of criminal investigation for the PJ, my husband has always refused to sit comfortably behind his desk, from 9 to 5, which is usual for his rank.Instead of that, he spent the day (and sometimes the night) on the ground with the investigators, coordinating "on the spot" searches, surveillance, seizures and other duties.''

      Goncalo ( Amaral)

      ''It is midnight when I receive the news about the disappearance of a little four-year-old English girl. The police officer on call was informed about it by the National Guard of The Republic (GNR) At the time of her disappearance.. I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. ''

      The event didn't occur between 9 and 5, it was roughly 10 pm. Family man, Amaral, was neither at home, or behind a desk. He was behind a plate of food and a bottle or two and moved his conscientious behind a couple of hours later. I think this is an important point as it talks about where he was at the time Madeleine, the source of his income later,disappeared. It also paints a contradictory portrait to that which his soon-to-be-ex-wife painted.

      What's the truth there.

      Amaral sold his book for money in as many countries as possible.He didn't make it a freebie because id passion was justice.His passion was cash.That's why he overlooked the little matter of including any details about facts that could support his accusations up.His book remains open ended until he can.

      Z

      Delete
    3. Quarta-feira, 17 de Setembro de 2008
      Mulher de Gonçalo Amaral responde a Kate McCann

      Wednesday, September 17, 2008
      Wife of Gonçalo Amaral responds to Kate McCann

      https://desaparecidos.blogs.sapo.pt/36314.html

      Delete
  21. Think about the code words "She's been taken", screamed out into the night air by a British woman called Mrs McCann on May 7th 2007 to awaken the inhabitants of the quiet backwater Portuguese town of Praia da Luz.

    What this woman was saying in a subliminal way to the sleepy inhabitants of the holiday resort was a cry for help: Code words: "My daughter is dead". Simple as that.
    The cover up had begun

    The psychologists who write on this blog would be hard pressed to deny the obvious but will doubtless descend from their perches to go on the attack to defend a lost cause.
    Bring it on.

    If anyone were ever to pretend that the Rothley couple's daughter was alive and her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance, then I suggest immediate enrollment in an English as a Second Language course and to ask the instructor to explain what the word "Lie" means, work up from there and see if you can find any inconsistencies your two heroes have displayed in their "truth telling" over 12 years.
    You're welcome.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous13 April 2019 at 05:00

      ''Think about the code words "She's been taken", screamed out into the night air by a British woman called Mrs McCann on May 7th 2007 to awaken the inhabitants of the quiet backwater Portuguese town of Praia da Luz. ''

      Ok, I'm thinking about them. What next ? Oh, hello, jc. I should have guessed. Think about the plain English words : ''stop making nonsense up'' . Then again, if they were code, and we all missed it, can you please tell us what they really meant ? take your time. Or meds.

      ''What this woman was saying in a subliminal way to the sleepy inhabitants of the holiday resort was a cry for help: Code words: "My daughter is dead". Simple as that. ''

      Oh-that was quick.Well done.Was it you that broke the enigma code ? Let's pretend we're all as mad as you for a second...Why would she shout that to the sleepy locals ?

      ''The psychologists who write on this blog would be hard pressed to deny the obvious but will doubtless descend from their perches to go on the attack to defend a lost cause. Bring it on.''

      OK now that code has me beat. Can you post it again in English ?

      ''If anyone were ever to pretend that the Rothley couple's daughter was alive and her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance, then I suggest immediate enrollment in an English as a Second Language course''

      So Martin Grime, Everyone from Scotland Yard and OG, detectives and the heads of the PJ and SY. I hope the have big enough classrooms, Jc. Don't you ?

      ''ask the instructor to explain what the word "Lie" means, work up from there and see if you can find any inconsistencies your two heroes have displayed in their "truth telling" over 12 years.''

      Is a lie a statement that can't be proven to be true by proof or evidence ?Is it something an individual invents, then shares, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support it's validity ? I think I know what you mean. Can you show me how you know that it's 'true' that Madeleine is dead or that the parents lied or that they were shouting in code on the night their daughter died ?

      ''You're welcome.''

      You're not well are you.

      ZS

      Delete
    2. I think psychologists need go no further than the reaction of the McCanns to the loss of their daughter *as a direct result of their negligence*.

      It isn’t believable.

      Put yourself *precisely* in their place, a place of such bottomless dismay, that I can only stay there for a nano-second before being automatically deflected away from the horror. It would emotionally destroy anyone.

      Parents blame themselves even when there’s no reason. It’s hard-wired into us.

      Jamie Bulger’s mother is forever tormented by the moment of relinquishing his hand to reach for her purse, though her action not only clearly ‘fell within the bounds of responsible parenting’, it was absolutely plumb spang centrally placed in it. She’s blameless, but lost in an agony of self-blame - the excruciating, ‘if only’ she had acted differently. She even called her book ‘I Let Him Go’.

      Now imagine that the catastrophe that had befallen your child actually *was* your fault.

      Then look at the McCanns.

      They left their children alone, In an unlocked apartment. Intentional neglect. All the ‘well, I’ve wondered a little bit if that was ok, but I know I love my children’ stuff, Gerry’s notorious ‘what’s done is done’, and so forth. The actual *minimisation* of their failure to protect their child (‘like the bottom of the garden’). The chilling, carefully measured regret at not having been there ‘at the moment she was taken’ - a way too considered, attempted deflection from admitting that if they had been there, she wouldn’t have been ‘taken’ at all. All the other ‘without prejudice’, lawyers-have-been-all-over-this, measly statements they have ever made about their negligence. The fact they can even *bear* any attempt to wriggle out of responsibility. That mea culpa means staying close, and true to Madeleine. That it is the only possible place from which they could beg the forgiveness of their daughter every day, for the rest of their lives, for (as Kate oddly puts it) ‘letting her down’.

      It’s not the point if *we* blame them. (A heartfelt sympathy for their inescapable, living hell required. Some respite wished on them). It’s that they don’t blame themselves. They’re quite comfy with it.

      I don’t have to explain it, to state categorically that this isn’t believable.

      Shallis

      Delete
    3. Who knows JC, my reaction would be "my daughters not in the apartment, where is she?" Was Kate was so worried that someone could take their child, that it was the first thing that she thought was "she's been taken"?

      If so, why was she not more careful and vigilant? Why take the risk of leaving her there alone?

      We are offered various different explanations from observers. She was trained as a doctor, and was capable of rational and analytical thought at the most challenging of times.

      Or, they were worried following the events of the previous night when the child is supposed to have cried for her dad, and asked why no one had come? Possibly causing extra suspicion - but surely requiring extra vigilance?

      Or, was it just the wrong way to go about staging a cover up? Would have been better to go through the pretence of a missing child, and getting everyone to search the hotel, before involving other people?

      These are the questions I would have liked the PJ to be able to explore. However, they were never allowed to.

      Delete
    4. I suppose, another possibility is that someone of faith may refer to the death of someone as "being taken".

      Delete