Tuesday, 23 April 2019

TAPAS 2, TAPAS 6, TAPAS 7 OR TAPAS 9?

 
 
I was going to add Tapas 136, the number given by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe at the beginning of Operation Grange, and one that stuck in my head because I thought it sounds about right.
 
The Tapas 2, Gerry and Kate, have pretty much taken all the flack for the Tapas 7. the group minus K&G, the Tapas 6 especially, OMG did six doctors really do that? Or the Tapas 9, all the adults in the group. I’d like to leave out Fiona Payne’s mother as I doubt she had much input in any of the childcare decisions made, but there she was on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice, taking a bow alongside the rest of them.  
 
I don’t like the Tapas friends, I haven’t liked them since the moment I read they had torn up missing Madeleine’s colouring book to write out their alibis. I tend to think if the two year olds had been in the room, one of them would have shouted ‘no, that’s Maddie’s’.  I don’t like their condescending attitude towards the Portuguese Police and a re-reading of their statements hasn’t changed that. They believe themselves superior, their social circle elite, they didn’t fraternise with those beneath them. Their attitude to the PJ borders on racist. Who was feeding all the sardine munching, wine swilling stories about the PJ to the British press? Happily they were tripped up by their own arrogance, the Portuguese police were far more advanced that they had thought.
 
The framing of Robert Murat too deserves a special mention.  It takes a special kind of evil to accuse an innocent man of such a heinous crime.  It began with Jane Tanner, who, from the back of a police van in a covert operation, identified RM as the man she saw carrying a child, even though he was nothing like the description she gave to the police.  Then there were the three tapas friends who claimed they had seen RM outside the apartment on the night. They didn't, he wasn't there. Then there were the creepy anonymous phone calls to the police, followed by the tip off from Sun reporter Lori Campbell.  Combined they led to RM being made the first arguido. That and the CEOP profile that he happened to fit exactly. 
 
The only reason I can think of for the investigations taking so long is that 9 of the key witnesses aren’t talking, and haven’t talked since 2008.  The infamous Pact of Silence, the shady Collective Decision. Police can’t force witnesses to talk and once they are lawyered up, it’s over. For many, that’s it, they got away with it, they can get on with their lives.  But of course it is never really over, especially now when tenacious detectives have so much new technology available to them.
 
Of course the will to prosecute has to be there, but I’d say a 7 year British investigation would suggest it is. ( I don’t want to make OG feel bad, but Mueller completed his in just over 2 years).  But fair dues, if witnesses won’t talk, OG are having to investigate via the longer ‘prove it’ route. Bet Gerry regrets saying that now.
 
I suspect the characters of the central witnesses may be what is driving the investigation on.  It’s not only Gerry and Kate who are not likeable, their friends have the same unlikeable traits.  Jane Tanner gives an example in her rogatory statement. She was uncomfortable with the block booking of the Tapas table for the entire week. She was aware their ‘selfishness’ was upsetting other holidaymakers but she didn’t speak up. It is bad enough when there is a large rowdy crowd in a restaurant, add pompous know it alls, and your appetite is ruined.  And to those eejits saying there was no neglect, READ the tapas statements.
 
Downplaying the neglect and making discussion of it taboo, let the entire group off very serious child neglect/endangerment charges that could have destroyed their careers, especially the medics.  Unfortunately that meant the loss of detail from the crucial hours before the alarm was raised.
 
Madeleine’s parents want us to focus on everything they have done since they found Madeleine gone, and ffs, ignore everything prior to that. As Kate said, they are not the ones who did something wrong, and they have been punished enough.  And they have, especially the McCanns.  The Tapas 7, not so much.      

255 comments:

  1. What about the 10th Tapas who is someone with VIP connections?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The T3 got their fingers burnt in the confrontational interview with Robert Murat, you could see from their appearance, even swagger with water bottles in hand when they walked into the police station. They probably had no idea the type of interview this was going to be - I think it left them shell shocked, hence the reason there was never co-operation from the T7 with regard to the reconstitute of THEIR witness statements JW? who knows why he wouldn't confirm his near hour walk about in the area in ever decreasing circles.

    Then we come to the groups activities on the night. Put aside the writing of the timelines the impact this must have had on the investigation to have conferred statements. Forget who phone the police when.

    Think about the behaviour of nine adults - why didn't they regroup, work the night in shifts of awake & available. Why did they all close down and go to bed? Not suggesting they slept, who could - But wouldn't you put the women and children in one apartment with a system of those awake, helping, hoping AND SEARCHING!!

    Rogatory interviews: An opportunity to right wrongs & where possible put the boot in. Quite interesting game-play. Home the MET has taken the opportunity to watch the Roggies - the body language, ''you know''

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe the 'confrontational interview' was dreamed up by the Pj as one of their many amazing ideas.I don't think you need to look at pictures of any of it or see clips and then try to interpret their appearance as anything. If that was worthwhile what do you make of the pictures and clips and the interviews of Murat ? He's one odd fish.

    Yes I know 'you can just tell'. I dare say one of the tapas 2, 4,7, 12 have their eyes too close together as well.Incidentally, I know i'm probably wasting my time asking, but do you think that ALL the parents failing to run around searching as well as the child's parents means they are all callous and cold and probably guilty of the death you think probably took place ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 18:26 I'm more interested in the fact that none of them raised the strange man on the night, and only Tanner mentioned him the next day.

      By the time they confronted Murat at the PJ, all three were adamant he had been there. Tanner says she recognised him by his dodgy eye, even though it was dark at the time

      Also, Tannerman was later identified as a holiday maker, who was picking up his child from a crèche.

      Quite a collective hallucination. Why has this mistake not been given more prominence, why is there still a picture of Tannerman on the FB page?

      Delete
    2. Oscar Slater at 19:04
      ("Tanner says she recognised him by his dodgy eye, even though it was dark at the time")

      Can you provide a link, or are you confusing Jane Tanner with Fiona Payne?

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

      "Robert MURAT actually walked over to me and shook my hand and introduced himself, erm, and told me that he was, that he was a local, he was working with the Police and he spoke Portuguese and if I needed any help or wanted any help with translation then, erm, you know, he'll be there to help us. And I withdrew from him, I didn't, I don't know why specifically I remember him, I mean, I haven't got a very good memory for faces, I think the others will say, or people, but I remember him very clearly, because he looked a bit strange and he had a squint, he had glasses, he appeared as if he was with the Police, because he was standing in front of all these uniformed Police..."

      Delete
    3. Going by what Murat said on the Netflix programme, regarding the three people who confronted him at the PJ.

      Delete
    4. The three people who say they saw Robert Murat that night are Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.

      Delete
    5. Fortunately, Anon at 18:26 . . .

      . . . we are not relying on the deficiency of argument that you suggest with: "Yes I know, 'you can just tell'".

      On your specific point, (the one for some odd reason you say, 'I know I'm probably wasting my time asking'): it *is* strange that K&G, leading the Tapas 7, didn't arrange immediate and well-planned, exhaustive searching on the night the child was found missing. Because that would be the overwhelmingly likely response in most people. Here we can, of course, judge from the standpoint of our shared humanity, and experience. Our observation.

      I am surely not alone in remembering terrifying incidents from parenting my own young children, too.

      Once, when having a picnic in Kew Gardens with other families with small children (like you do), we looked up to discover that the group of children frolicking around us was down one member. A two year old. It was over an hour and a half before he was found, on the very far side of the park. The Park Police were combing the area, but I can assure you it did not occur to his frenzied parents, or any one of us, to keep sitting on our picnic rugs, and construct a timeline of when the imperilled child left us. The parents, it need not be said, had gone into that adrenaline filled, massive coping mode that we all recognise. A blur of directed action. No running round in small circles, no collapse, or self-harm. The overriding instinct is to find the child.

      I had the same response myself, when a few years later, my then 6 year old was part of a big inter-family cycling trip along the Thames towpath. The children (mixed group 6 through 10) wanted to cycle on ahead, for half a mile or so, as a big adventure. We let them, carefully making sure they understood the instruction over where to stop and wait for us. When we arrived at the rendezvous - no children. They had all disappeared from a dead straight stretch of path with no turnings off. I can’t remember how long the search went on for, it was a pretty long time (well over the hour). The children had decided to take a short cut (!) by ploughing off the path into scrub, got lost, taken ill-judged rectifying action after that. It was the only time in my mothering when I was reunited with my child well into the inconsolable sobbing level of distress, approaching in the arms of his rescuer - a complete stranger. The actions of myself, and cycling friends at the disappearance of our children? MASSIVE ACTION looking for the children. Everyone. And, of course, responsibility for the situation.

      Everyone would have similar anecdotes.

      Does this really need to be spelled out?

      So, yes K&G's response is quite odd. The T7 would have taken their lead from them in the situation. The incongruous behaviour is just rather noticeable, nothing more.

      Shallis

      Delete
    6. "Everyone would have similar anecdotes."

      .....but for the grace of God.

      Delete
    7. Happy to stand corrected 13:31.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    8. So true, 18:21, so true. Over:

      Me: 'Everyone would have similar anecdotes.'

      You: '.....but for the grace of God'.

      Which it was why it was so reprehensible of McCann PR spin to twist and misuse this sentiment. Contemptible.
      .
      Shallis

      Delete
  4. Ros

    When you say the parents have 'taken the flack' for the other parents, what do you mean ?

    Whn you say they all have a condescending attitude towards the police, what do you mean by it ?

    Do you think they believe they are superior career wise or because they're British ?

    Is the any evidence regarding the famous 'sardine munching' headlines in the UK ? It seems the typical kind of thing they would come up with themselves to get their customer base angry enough to buy a paper. Are there any quotes from the T7 or 9 that someone said it ?
    Concerning Robert Murat and the framing. Wasn't it the PJ who grew suspicious of him after he was caught trying to see their files instead of waiting to transalte ? One of the heads of the PJ was quoted to have said to him 'its half time only' when they interviewed him as though to suggest we'll get you at full time.

    I'm sure if the Police had enough evidence, even if it's only circumstantial, they could make some arrests. That includes the Tapas group. They may have an agreement to stay quiet but if it ever came out that someone in the whole group is guilty then that silence will turn to either guilt by omission or perverting the course of justice or even perjury.

    I think you and the rest who keep bringing up the negligence and whether or not it was intentional and if it's led to the subsequent death of the child are missing the obvious . It would have actually been in the parents favour to be found guilty of negligence, even if they found a body and it was as a result of their negligence. I know it sounds weird but it would have done them good long term in terms of a trial. Something i read here ages ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi 18:13, here's one of the gentler attacks on the PJ. Presumably the language is measured because it was originally in a broad sheet.

      https://www.smh.com.au/world/anguished-parents-struggle-in-sea-of-despair-20070515-gdq519.html?page=3..

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda

      ”And to those eejits saying there was no neglect, READ the tapas statements”

      Of course, all of the tapas 8 neglected their small children on that vacation, but as I see things Rosalinda, their negligent behaviour as potential criminal acts should always be kept separate from the crime that led to Madeleine's death and disappearance, as there’s not yet any clear evidence showing that they’re directly related to one another.

      I remember Gerry saying ”if Madeleine had fallen and hurt herself while we weren’t in the apartment, how could that be our fault”, which shows that Gerry did not, still does not, see that he would’ve been fully responsible if such a thing had happened, consequently he wouldn’t have had any need at all to cover up for something he didn’t feel responsible for. Nor would any of the McCanns’ friends have felt that they needed to cover up for something that Gerry himself didn’t feel guilty about.

      So something else must have happened in which some of their friends were involved. The most likely scenario is still that Madeleine may have been given an overdose of sleeping pills, which the tapas friends may’ve distributed between themselves and another scenario could be that the McCanns unintentionally caused Madeleine’s death by slapping her to hard, all of which I’d rather call physical abuse, rather than neglect.

      Child neglect is a crime in its own right, which perhaps all of the tapas 8 should be charged with, as you suggest Rosalinda, but even if they would all be prosecuted and convicted of such a crime, it still doesn’t prove what actually happened to Madeleine, except that she was neglected.

      Hi Anon 23 April 2019 at 18:39

      "It would have actually been in the parents favour to be found guilty of negligence, even if they found a body and it was as a result of their negligence. I know it sounds weird but it would have done them good long term in terms of a trial. Something i read here ages ago"

      No, what you say isn't weird at all. I think along similar lines. What the McCanns have tried to do all those years is to make people believe that Madeleine went missing while they weren't with her, which from a police investigative perspective would be seen as a credible confession of child neglect if the investigation could prove that Madeleine was abducted while her parents were elsewhere. Admitting child neglect may save the McCanns from being charged with abuse of the kind I've mentioned here above.

      Delete
    3. I actually try to steer clear of that kind of abuse discussion wise bjorn. Without any evidence of the child being dead or alive it doesn't even sit right to me the way people are so convinced of a death and take that as being ok to talk about.Having said that, admitting begelct wouldn't neccessarily clear them of abuse as I'm sure there would be cries of negligence being a form of abuse coming from the same people.If it ever came to a point when the police have to come clean and admit they haven't got a clue where to look or what to look for they may have to promounce the child dead.If that was done and a negligence charge was already on record it could then come to a charge more serious as she would be dead through their negligence. I read here im sure that if they were charged with negligence it would work out better for them. If a body was found and it was determind that the death was down to one of the parents it would still be in their favour.So, rather than the antis labouring the point about the absence of negligence charges being pro McCann treatment, it isn't.It would work out well for them. On the other hand, it would expose the cover up involving the Tapas 7 if it was found that the parents had covered up the death and they went along with it.Then it could get very awkward.It would also implicate some UK police .I also think the pact of silence is a myth.There's no source to say that they agreed to make such a pact.

      Delete
    4. Presumably, 4:43 it is not right for Kate McCann to talk about her daughter being dead either?

      Delete
    5. Her daughter isn't dead though is she. The police said as much. When was she declare dead according to your casebook ?

      Delete
    6. 15:30, you clearly haven't been following the case. Kate, at one point, said she had to acknowledge the fact that Madeleine might be dead. Might even have been in her book.

      Delete
    7. can you define the word 'might' ?

      Delete
    8. 15:30 and others

      'Her daughter isn't dead though is she' ? et al

      The 'core belief' that Madeleine is alive is frankly cult-like, it is irrational.

      It is sinful to deny McCann dogma.

      Stating, even suggesting, the overwhelmingly extreme likelihood of her demise is taken as 'outing' any worldly adult with a functioning intellect, as instead being (obviously) just horribly callous and hard hearted, so an evil, mindless 'hater'. The damned.

      This has more than vague equivalence with denying the resurrection of Jesus to die-hard fundamentalists.

      Anyone swallowing Kool-Aid like this should be seriously worried about the autonomy of their thinking, and about how their mind might have been hi-jacked.

      Shallis

      Delete
    9. You said that way better than I could have Shallis. This cult like denial of the child's death is becoming weird - perhaps they are going for the insanity plea!

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 25 April 2019 at 13:10

      Shallis

      The 'core belief' that Madeleine is alive is frankly cult-like, it is irrational.

      The two opposing beliefs, both rational: Madeleine is alive, Madeleine is not alive.

      “…the overwhelmingly extreme likelihood of her demise…”

      Could you please express “the overwhelmingly extreme likelihood” numerically and show the workings.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous25 April 2019 at 13:10

      Hi Shillis

      If you say nobody can say what happened to Madeleine, why can you say the core belief of her being alive is irrational. People think guessing at things and claiming it's right just because they've pondered it is also irrational.

      ''It is sinful to deny McCann dogma.''

      What is the McCann dogma-or are you just trying to sound clever again. How does the dogma compare to the official line of the investigating officers ?

      ''Stating, even suggesting, the overwhelmingly extreme likelihood of her demise is taken as 'outing' any worldly adult with a functioning intellect, as instead being (obviously) just horribly callous and hard hearted, so an evil, mindless 'hater'. The damned.''

      What does that mean. Can you lose about 60 words and give us the point please.

      ''Anyone swallowing Kool-Aid like this should be seriously worried about the autonomy of their thinking, and about how their mind might have been hi-jacked.''

      Whereas you repeat the claims that 99% of antis have been repeating for years and bring as little proof. You have no room to suggest anything about the minds of others as you are led by the nose too easily.

      Delete
    12. Rosalinda Hutton25 April 2019 at 13:36

      ''You said that way better than I could have Shallis. This cult like denial of the child's death is becoming weird - perhaps they are going for the insanity plea!''

      Whereas you can state categorically that no corpse is evidence of a corpse.That works. You have stated on your blog several times that you don't claim to know what happened in PDL in 2007. Even though you constantly insinuate and allege the parents buried her.Now you say she's dead. Yet you claim you don't know what happened.

      Good liars need a good memory.

      Delete
  5. Tony Parsons did a lot for diplomatic relations. Racist sod couldn't even spell senhor.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oh-up-yours-senor-516864

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes Oscar but that's Tony Parsons. You can't blame the Tapas group for what he chooses to say.That's what i mean't about the so called anti pj propaganda and the way the Tapas group supposedly condescended to them.They are two different separate things. Is it accurate or even right to try and put them together with an intention to say that therefore the Tapas groups prejudice was responsible for the likes of Tony Parsons' views ? I'm sure Tony Parsons will always be Tony Parsons as he always has been.It seems a bit of a swing to try and attribute his words to the tapas group's attitudes towards the PJ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm there's a certain familiarity to these posts, written after 11 with a "yeah but, no but", tone to them.

      There's not just a link to Tony Parsons, there's one from the Telegraph as well.

      Loads of words to say very little Ziggy.

      Delete
    2. On the night of 3rd/4th May, whilst others were out searching for Madeleine, the Tapas group used this vital time (the golden hours when a child is missing) to telephone friends and contacts in the UK, to plant stories in the media, eg. no-one is helping us and the police are useless.

      The tapas group were planting stories in the media from day 1 and their condescending attitude towards the Portuguese police is crystal clear from their statements. When you lie to someone you assume they are too stupid to know that you are lying, it's kind of patronising, but it was the assumption made by the tapas group. They were doctors, the scientists, the alphas and betas, the police, gammas and epsilons, workers, easy to manipulate. Their social status alone should put them above suspicion. And it did, for the English police, English Judges and Leveson, to whom the idea of not believing them is ludicrous. One wonders if Karen Matthews would have received such large payouts and reverential treatment if someone had persuaded the police not to investigate her?

      The following morning the tapas group had burner phones delivered to them at the police station by a friend of David Payne's. Probably around the same time the British consul arrived in PDL. Why the need for 'chuck away' phones? what mischief were they planning that they had to keep secret?

      Delete
  7. Ros, How long did it take the police to close the border to Spain ? How long after the night of the child going missing were the DNA specialists brought in by the police ?How long before they finally sealed off the crime scene and stopped anyone who felt like walking all around it ? Did the Holiday Complex have any security cameras anywhere on it ? A local predator would have checked that out ? Was there a ditch being dug right outside the apartment a few hours later that the police failed to halt ?All in all you are defending a really apathetic police force who handled an urgent situation very poorly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When a child is reported missing in the UK now many times have you heard anything of the borders being closed? when you get passed zero it might be some worth.You also talk of a local predator they would be just waiting around for pc plod just like SY thought they would be,yeah right.Smithman is the fella that holds the key,always has done.

      Delete
    2. 23:15 (snork) How long do the UK Police take to alert ports and set up road blocks when a child goes missing. Is it not the equivalent of telling officers to look for a man in a stripey jersey carrying a bag marked "swag"?

      In the cases of Shannon Matthews and Mikaeel Kular, I don't think they did.

      Why would DNA specialists be brought in unless there was some DNA to investigate?

      Again, I refer you to the cases of Shannon Matthews and Mikaeel Kular. Mikaeel lived in a block of flats, I don't recall the police preventing other residents coming and going.

      As you well know, the GNR boobed by not sealing off the crime scene. Although there was really little point as it had been contaminated by the Tapas 9 coming and going anyway.

      The police are to blame for the lack of security cameras at the Ocean Club?

      What is the significance of the ditch being dug?

      What qualifies you to call them apathetic, or criticise their professionalism? The performance of the Portuguese police was complimented by senior British officers, and the documents released by the PJ compliment that.

      Boy you took us off on a tangent from the original blog, usual distraction and obfuscation. I feel sorry for you, as I think you see yourself as Rumpole of the Bailey, whereas everyone else can see right through you - a bar room bore droning on and on using the Daily Mirror as his only source of reference.

      Delete
    3. Oscar Slater24 April 2019 at 08:23

      You think that setting up road blocks when a child has been reported as snatched is the stuff of comic books but not police protocol ? That's clever.

      DNA exerts are ALWAYS brought in, often to see if there is any.Then they take samples.That's why they'd be brought in. The question was when where they brought in not why.

      You call the failure to seal a crime scene where a child had been taken from a 'boob' ?You try to say it was pointless because of the tapas group walking on it. They were friends in panic.If they'd have stayed outside what would you say about that ? The parents, the tapas group, Murat, reporters..local residents..what about them contaminating it ? It's lasted 12 years so far, but the contaminated crime scene was a 'boob'. Brilliant.

      The lack of cameras are the fault of the Warner Company. Nobody said it was the fault of the police.It was pointed out to emphasise that an abductor would prefer that.

      The ditch being dug ? Who knows. What was the significance later of anywhere else being dug ? Did anyone search the ditch ?

      Their inaction and apathy and failure to make any progress qualifies anyone to comment.They're public servants.

      Why do you feel sorry for me or for anyone you don't know and who just posts online ? What's that game about ? Don't confuse a new direction you can't follow as a tangent.You call me a bar room bore and assume you can speak for other strangers you don't know and suggest you and they can see right through me.You have no need to strain you eyes.I have no agenda. Read me and learn.

      Delete
    4. Hello
      just my thought on the Portuguese PJ in general

      anon 23 April 2019 at 23:15

      anon 24 April 2019 at 07:17

      Oscar Slater24 April 2019 at 08:23

      If all missing child reports would be treated as if they were abductions by strangers, whose intentions were to take their prey out of the country, then all borders in all countries would permanently be closed.

      As for the Portuguese PJ, they did in fact more in every respect than they were obliged to do, given that there wasn’t, and still isn’t, the slightest evidence of an abduction, besides the McCanns actively and aggressively misled the PJ and sabotaged their investigation. All details with regards to the McCanns’ unjustified contempt for the Portuguese PJ have been discussed so many times here on Rosalinda’s blog and most people certainly know the real reason as to why they’ve been persecuting Gonzala Amaral for so many years.

      Delete
    5. "You think that setting up road blocks when a child has been reported as snatched is the stuff of comic books but not police protocol ? That's clever."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS.htm
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AIRCRAFT.htm
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARITIME_POLICE.htm

      "DNA exerts are ALWAYS brought in, often to see if there is any.Then they take samples.That's why they'd be brought in. The question was when where they brought in not why."

      Source?

      "You call the failure to seal a crime scene where a child had been taken from a 'boob' ?"

      They couldn't seal the scene, it had been contaminated, perhaps on purpose.

      "You try to say it was pointless because of the tapas group walking on it. They were friends in panic.If they'd have stayed outside what would you say about that ? "

      Who says they were in a panic?

      "The parents, the tapas group, Murat, reporters..local residents..what about them contaminating it ?"

      If reporters got there before the police, we really are looking at a conspiracy at a high level.

      If Murat was there, I think it might have been reported to the police.

      If local residents were there, it would be a bit bizarre - how would they have found out.

      Why the focus on who contaminated it, it was and the police didn't seal it. That was a mistake acknowledged by Amaral.

      "It's lasted 12 years so far, but the contaminated crime scene was a 'boob'. Brilliant."

      If it was a boob 12 years ago, then it's still a boob.

      "The lack of cameras are the fault of the Warner Company."

      Portuguese law did not allow CCTV surveillance of public areas - it is unlikely that they would have been able to capture an abductor entering, or leaving.

      "Nobody said it was the fault of the police.It was pointed out to emphasise that an abductor would prefer that."

      Right.....

      "The ditch being dug ? Who knows."

      What do you mean "who knows" it was you that raised it as an issue, what do you think.

      "What was the significance later of anywhere else being dug ?"

      Things get dug up in Portugal all the time. The significance would arise from who did the digging and where.

      "Did anyone search the ditch ?"

      Probably the guys digging it.

      "Their inaction and apathy and failure to make any progress qualifies anyone to comment.They're public servants."

      Yes, anyone can comment and make an arse of themselves in the process. Take it you are Portuguese though if you think they are your civil servant.

      "Why do you feel sorry for me or for anyone you don't know and who just posts online ? "

      Because you think you are clever, but your words don't back that up. It would be cruel to laugh at you. You have made an utter erchie of yourself.

      "What's that game about ?"

      Use a dictionary and look up obfuscation.

      Don't confuse a new direction you can't follow as a tangent.

      "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

      You call me a bar room bore and assume you can speak for other strangers you don't know and suggest you and they can see right through me.You have no need to strain you eyes.I have no agenda. Read me and learn.

      That'll be right. You're mad as a box of frogs.

      Delete
    6. Hi Bjorn, precisely. If someone was going to try and get the child out of the country then they would succeed in the first hour (of course the police were not phoned for at least an hour). It is nothing more than a cosmetic exercise to use road blocks after that.

      Delete
    7. Hey ho, at 15:26

      A normal forensic examination was carried out on 4 May.

      The crime scene was a complete disaster. But whose fault was that really? Kate is later affronted at the suggestion that they themselves had largely been responsible for contaminating it. The idea! But they, and their party, and MW staff, obviously had been. Don't you consider it strange that Gerry immediately manhandled the window blind? He wasn't the only one either. Why didn't he stop Grandmother Payne doing the same, in a now even more pointless action? Why didn't they all clear off immediately to Matthew and Rachael's apartment next door?

      I have been a victim of burglary more than once - one knows not to tamper with evidence.

      The GNA arrived in response to a report of a missing child, not an abduction. Their behaviour is consistent with this - remember this did not present as a crime scene. It wasn't when they arrived. And the educated 'victims' were not behaving as if it was either. The situation they confronted was confusing.

      Surveillance of the child/apartment prior to a 'planned abduction' is very hard to support. I expect the successor to the Ocean Club has CCTV. Not a police matter.

      The road works down the street (not outside the apartment) was duly noted, and a search for the child accomplished before work recommenced. (They thought of that).

      The 'seal the borders!' stuff is obviously ridiculously melodramatic. I think it was David Payne's rich sense of drama.

      You should really not contribute to the groundless smearing of the Portuguese police. It is ugly, more than a little racist, and unfounded.

      Shallis

      Delete
    8. Amaral will tell you that he made mistakes early as did the first responders.Only you wont see it bjorn

      Delete
    9. Oscar Slater24 April 2019 at 18:27

      Oscar, you work far too hard. The only support you receive for your nonsense and guessing is from dullards who know no better. You personal slights are a throwback to the early days of the net when lonely sorts with hen pecked brows found chat rooms or msn groups to try and be what they couldn't be at home.The sanctuaries for the bitter and twisted.I dare say you go down well on your little football forums. It's nice to see places reserved separately for those who try to type in testosterone tainted ink in safety.

      The target of you desperation is bigger than you.His record speaks for itself for any discerning reader willing to glance through his contributions to this blog . Those who appreciate his contributions are those who prefer to read and not rant.They are the intelligent readers of this blog.If they had questions they'd ask.If they found genuine faults they'd point them out.Not to be, like yourself, the 'funny kid in the class' but to improve the debate.Your neurosis is showing more each day.Almost as much as that cute Freudian slip .You are aiming too high too eagerly.Be calm.

      Delete
    10. ''You should really not contribute to the groundless smearing of the Portuguese police. It is ugly, more than a little racist, and unfounded.

      Shallis''

      They made a mess of sealing a crime scene. They failed in the search for Madeleine.Amaral himself admitted that mistakes were made and that it was regrettable. How is pointing those points out 'smearing' anyone ? Calling it a smear is groundless.

      Delete
    11. It appears that David Payne was being melodramatic, as the job had already been done. However, that whole Dragnet approach has to be a cosmetic exercise, doesn't it?

      Anyway if Payne wanted the border sealed, and he was so anxious about that, why did it take them all an hour to phone the cops?

      Delete
    12. Anon, 22:46

      As has been outlined here by myself, and others the failure to seal the crime scene was as much down to the actions of others, and the circumstances - but in hindsight they could have (perhaps) done better. Do bear in mind they did not attend on arrival a known crime scene, they were following up the report of a missing child.

      In replying, you ignore my reference to the very significant 'mess' (your word) of the crime scene already made by K&G, Tapas group and MW staff.

      Mistakes are always made in police investigations. They are human.

      'They failed in the search for Madeleine'.

      Perhaps, just don't go there.

      You describing Portuguese police investigation as one of: 'inaction and apathy and failure'.

      Yeah, that's smearing. You know you are doing it.

      Shallis


      Delete
  8. Right Ziggy, here we go. Don't say I'm not good to you. You are obviously too drunk/lazy/stupid to use a search engine yourself.

    Editorial (15 May 2007). "Wild theories and a warped sense of priorities". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 17 May 2007.

    Mario de Queiroz (18 May 2007). "Some Missing Children More Equal than Others". Inter Press Service. Archived from the original on 13 June 2007. Retrieved 19 May 2007

    Baker, Luke (18 May 2007). "Has Britain gone overboard for missing Madeleine?". The Scotsman. UK. Archived from the original on 31 July 2012. Retrieved 23 May 2007.

    Thomson, Alex (6 July 2007). "Paris Hilton? Not on my watch!". Press Gazette. Archived from the original on 9 July 2007. Retrieved 6 July 2007.

    Jenkins, Simon (18 May 2007). "The British media does not do responsibility. It does stories". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 10 September 2007.

    Berlins, Marcel (10 September 2007). "Media have rushed to judge Portuguese police". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 10 September 2007.

    Hume, Mick (11 September 2007). "Exactly how guilty are the Portuguese police?". The Times. UK. Archived from the original on 5 May 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2007.

    Parris, Matthew (25 August 2007). "The forgotten victim in the McCann case". The Times. UK. Retrieved 11 September 2007.

    Borland, Sophie (12 September 2007). "BBC: We are 'not biased' towards Madeleine McCann parents". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 12 September 2007.

    Plunkett, John (11 September 2007). "Horrocks warns on biased McCann reports". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 11 September 2007.

    Berlins, Marcel (10 September 2007). "Media have rushed to judge Portuguese police". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 27 November 2007.

    Bennett, Rosemary (3 July 2007). "Mothers protest over Madeleine advert before showings of Shrek". The Times. London. Retrieved 3 July 2007.

    etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure why you addressed that to Drunk / stupid ziggy ( i doubt he's either by the way by reading his views here, you on the other hand i suspect of those two traits). I suggested that anyone in the press showing any bias was of their own volition and it isn't right to read them and then blame the tapas group for whatever is printed.Your idea of answering is by quoting even more people who aren't part of the Tapas group.I didn't question there being a bias, i questioned if it was right to blame that bias on the Tapas group.So, what have you provided that long meaningless list for ?

      Delete
    2. 15:12, it is highly unlikely that two people could be that stupid, send their messages at the same time, and have access to a computer.

      "( i doubt he's either by the way by reading his views here, you on the other hand i suspect of those two traits)"

      LOL

      "I suggested that anyone in the press showing any bias was of their own volition and it isn't right to read them and then blame the tapas group for whatever is printed"

      Given the fact the McCanns had a permanent press officer, as well as a PR officer, it is unlikely that they were unable to feed the press stories.

      "Your idea of answering is by quoting even more people who aren't part of the Tapas group."

      No, I didn't quote anybody, I suggested you read those articles.

      "I didn't question there being a bias, i questioned if it was right to blame that bias on the Tapas group."

      I think it is, given their manipulative behaviour elsewhere.

      "So, what have you provided that long meaningless list for ?"

      I wanted to see how good you were at working the Internet. What do you think?

      Ziggy, where is your dignity man?

      Delete
  9. 23.15

    You think if a child was reported missing in London the UK police would immediately close the Channel tunnel and the Dover ferries.
    Have a reality check. The border was 90 miles away.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's about an hour drive. What was going on at 5 A and in PDL for two hours following the abduction ? Include those details in any reality checks.

      Delete
    2. Well the police werent called for the first hour. So if chummy was making for the border, he'd be half way to Seville before the alarm was raised.

      Delete
    3. A nice thought that through Matthew's intervening, and offering to check the children on the McCann's behalf at 9.30; and then through his carrying out his responsibility so sloppily that he failed to ascertain whether Madeleine was in her bed or not, they might have lost half the 'golden hour' of looking for lost children. K&G never seem fussed about that, though. Shallis

      Delete
    4. Shallis

      In the last blog you state Matthew was never in 5A and now its a nice thought he was, and let Madeleine down by acting sloppily.

      In what world is the disappearance of a child a nice thought?

      Delete
    5. JJ, you haven't disappointed me! Was wondering whether you would pick me up on a seeming contradiction :)

      It is necessary, isn't it, in logical reasoning to have a 'double think' reality sometimes? In order to progress.

      1) In the 'official story' universe, Matthew attended 5a at 9.30pm.

      2) In the known universe of every body else, he didn't.

      You deeply sadden me with:

      'In what world is the disappearance of a child a nice thought?'

      'Nice' also means precise, scrupulous. (Often used in 'a nice distinction'). Please, please don't go down that sort of route, JJ.

      Thanks

      Shallis

      Delete
  10. 23:15 The PJ Files have the answers to your questions anyway.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS.htm
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AIRCRAFT.htm
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARITIME_POLICE.htm

    Seems they did inform all the relevant areas. Although I can't see anything about a man in a stripy jersey or a bag marked "Swag".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Out of Interest, there is a series of 9 seemingly well researched PodCasts by an Australian journalist .They are simply titled "Maddie" and are well worth a Listen. Interestingly, he has been in touch with an American DNA Specialist, apparently a leader in New techniques who has offered OG to look at the Data or samples Pro Bono and says he can definitively say whose DNA was in 5a and Renault. So far he has had NO response from OG.
    Podcasts can be found at ::nine.com.au/podcasts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the refusal to accept his offer is pointing to a cover up of the truth as ziggy said in the previous blog

      Delete
    2. I contacted the Reporter Mark behind the podcasts drawing his attention to the initial account of how Kate knew maddie had been taken , clearly that account differs to what we have now

      Mark informs us on his podcast , that he will explore all avenues to get those samples tested , Scotland yard seem to be sitting on there hands

      When i asked my ex grange chum , he said grange wont do a test as it will blow the case right open . the story is still in the media , the public are only to aware of cases being solved by developements in DNA testing
      so i cant see how grange could ask for more funding without these tests being done . i think the next few weeks could be interesting . as this latest development wont go away

      Delete
    3. I doubt Grange will do anything about the offer as in my view that would implicate the 10th Tapas and even more so would seriously damage relations with another country by also implicating two very important VIP's.
      Just for Ziggy, only my opinion of course and one should look at a nearby villa too owned by a minor VIP of yesteryear who was renting it out that week.
      But if any of the above is true we won't be finding out anytime soon.Maybe in a hundred years.

      Delete
    4. "When i asked my ex grange chum , he said grange wont do a test as it will blow the case right open . the story is still in the media , the public are only to aware of cases being solved by developements in DNA testing."

      Well my cousin's husband was also working on Operation Grange and he said that they believed that Madeleine was abducted.

      Delete
    5. 14:59 That Ziggy was a smart man, oh how I miss him.

      Delete
    6. If you went back to your apartment at 10 o clock and a child wasn't there any more and you hadn't seen her walking about outside( in the foreign country), what would you think ?She'd learn't how to make her self invisible ?

      Nobody will believe you have an ex grange chum who gives you inside information. You're making that up because you want people to think you're 'on the inside'. Stop being silly.Grange only have to look at the current list on their payroll and those who have been and gone to work out who is a 'former' grange detective and is leaking 'inside info' to someone who posts on blogs.Of course. 'chum' won't have a name will he ?

      You say you don't know how grange can ask for funding whiles refusing to test DNA. yet you have a 'chum' who has the information. Let us know what his take is . The latest leads and developments happen just before may every year. And they do go away. Every year.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 15:06.

      OG are not 'sitting on their hands', this offer of a 'breakthrough' in complex DNA testing is a complete farce. Very damaging indeed. I like what Mark is doing, generally. But this makes me weep. OG know all about the testing technique that his programme is ONE example of. ONE. The technique itself has been HUGE news in the field for over a decade. HUGE. I can assure you it wouldn't be a surprise to the Met! There has been much debate as to its use. It's the future for sure, but has 'teething problems' for use in criminal cases. Discussed in reports at government level etc.

      This podcast spun nonsense is plain irresponsible, and a bit silly, I'm sorry to say.

      Shallis

      Delete
    8. Thank you Shallis. I must say I have been cynical about US experts with a system to sell and everyone clamouring for them to be used. Same tactics used in Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard, in another sphere.

      I say that Dr.Perlan will only be an expert to whichever side his results favour.

      I wouldn't put it past the whole thing being reverse psychology from the McCanns.

      Delete
    9. that's called neurosis, oscar

      Delete
    10. Hi Oscar (at 21:43)

      It's not that Mark Perlin's programme isn't legit, it is. It is that he has obviously convinced Mark Saunokonoko (who bloody well should have checked this out properly, no excuse) that it is a 'new breakthrough', and, most critically, unique to him. It isn't. At all. And this is shamefully misleading self-publicity on Perlin's part.

      His programme is just one of many in a field called probabilistic genotyping which has been absolutely huge news in the field of forensics for over ten years. A big advance in complex DNA analysis that the Met will absolutely know all about with 100% certainty. As Perlin would know full well.

      But it's still in research and development stage, with the expected problems and glitches, and questions over use in a law courts. At this stage: reports to governments debating usage; concerns over lack of independent verification; a situation where sometimes admissible in court, sometimes not, and cases overturned on appeal, that sort of thing.

      Perlin's own programme runs into particular problems in that he insists on great secrecy - citing his business interests. Which is fair enough, but mean we all have to take his word for results. In a law court! The right for defence to challenge results is therefore undermined. The conflict of interest is serious. Forensic professional bodies offer many of the programmes free to members - with disclaimers. So not all coming from private companies like TrueAllele (Perlin's name for his particular programme).

      I wrote about this in a long double post back a page here. That Z spectacularly failed to understand! And his was the only response I had, which was dissapointing.

      The flack OG are getting for seeming to ignore this 'breakthrough' is troubling. And the demanded public spectacle worrying. The whole thing's a farce but gaining momentum. It's very damaging.

      Irresponsible, the best thing one can say.

      Shallis

      Delete
    11. Are you suggesting that the evidence might have an agenda too. get real.

      Delete
    12. You can't even spell neurosis Ziggy.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous24 April 2019 at 23:04

      ''that's called neurosis, oscar''


      Oscar Slater25 April 2019 at 21:09

      ''You can't even spell neurosis Ziggy.''

      That was clever wasn't it, Oscar.

      Delete
  12. Hi, Bjorn, and Anon (4:43)

    I quite agree that the negligence should be taken as a discrete issue.

    None of the T9 will ever face extradition to Portugal on charges of child neglect. Open and shut that they were negligent. But a dead issue.

    We will never know if the PJ had pressed the negligence charges back in 2007 it would have cracked the case open. There was massive counter-PR in place to make that impossible for them, anyway.

    The negligence is relevant now mostly as it provides a motive for the T9 to amend their statements/timelines to cover up/minimise their actions. The ‘cooking’ we see looks consistent with that objective. This would be quite a hook to play on (with shocked, panicked, bewildered people), to encourage the T7 to ‘cook’ timelines/statements. How straight could they be thinking?

    I think the T7 culpability ends here. Based on their seeming agreement to 'cook' statements, and their behaviour over the following days, I think it likely that they didn’t, deep down, ‘buy’ the official story that they were becoming inextricably involved in. There was massive lack of congruence. But thinking beyond what they were being presented as truth would be thinking the incredible, an absolutely shocking suspicion, so sympathy for their, perhaps, wilful blindness. And then the story ignited, ‘everyone else’ (MSM) was all caught up in it, no one was talking about emperors and their clothes. And the T7 were trapped.

    Of course, collapsing the ‘official’ abduction narrative does not provide us with an alternative scenario with regards to the child’s disappearance – it t leaves us with a blank. So, we do not know if her fate was, or wasn’t dependent on her being unattended.

    I think, Bjorn is suggesting that the negligence narrative itself (leaving the child conveniently unguarded) was invented as a sacrificial crime, so that the circumstances of the real, graver crime were obscured, thus the crime itself concealed? I think he is suggesting that they had to invent some outlandish scenario that would allow for a small child to be ‘taken’, as under all normal circumstances small children are under the constant protection of adults? Am I taking this too far, Bjorn?

    If so, that would mean that the Tapas 7 would have to know they were inventing such a cover up, and for this more serious reason. They would be inventing a whole alternative reality of child checking, not just modifying one to save themselves. That would be a way more heinous crime. One they couldn't justify to themselves as protecting their families. In fact, voluntarily choosing a path that threatened their family/career should it be exposed. I find that hard to credence. I don’t see supportive evidence. This would be a whole other layer of incredible, in a case where ‘incredible’ comes as standard. The McCanns were close friends of the Paynes, the others were acquaintances. A cover up to ‘save’ the McCanns just wouldn’t happen. This would mean they all had to be directly culpable in the ‘crime of disappearance’, which is very far-fetched. The possible involvement of administering drugs to their children to cause sleep not enough surely? And why would their children be drug tested?

    Perhaps, you are just suggesting that becoming too concerned about the negligence, would ‘play into the McCanns hands’ if they were guilty of a graver crime, in that it is distracting attention, and encourages ‘abductor thinking’, rather than opening up all alternatives? In the public mind, the ease with which the child could be taken, can easily be spun as hard evidence to state: ‘so, that’s what happened’?.

    Shallis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Shallis 24 April 2019 at 13:11

      "I think, Bjorn is suggesting that the negligence narrative itself (leaving the child conveniently unguarded) was invented as a sacrificial crime, so that the circumstances of the real, graver crime were obscured, thus the crime itself concealed? I think he is suggesting that they had to invent some outlandish scenario that would allow for a small child to be ‘taken’, as under all normal circumstances small children are under the constant protection of adults? Am I taking this too far, Bjorn?"

      Yes, this would be another way of formulating what I actually tried to suggest in one of my earlier posts. I think we should be very skeptical about the McCanns' version of their neglectful behaviour that night, as they may use it as a kind of shield against official future accusations about their direct involvement in the death of Madeleine.

      Delete
    2. Shallis/Anon 24 April 13.11

      We shouldn't forget that the PJ have held back many pages of the PJ files that aren't open to public consumption. We don't know what they are but may be pretty damning in a court case if they're brought to trial as part of the prosecution.

      Police always have to be one step ahead of the "criminals". As Ros has stated many times, she watches numerous police investigation programmes, as I do. They are compelling to watch to see the actual work they do behind the scenes to bring the criminals to justice, it may take months or years, but they always have that thought, that the criminals don't know what actual evidence they do have.

      Delete
    3. If the PJ would have pressed the negligence issue they would have arrested and charged them. Why is that so difficult to understand ? They didn't arrest anyone did they.If they did, please explain how that wold have 'cracked the case wide open'
      Everything you suggest about the Tapas group is from your imagination. It's all 'what if' this or that. Nonsensical.
      You suggest we are left with a blank slate. Is that an attempt to appear fair minded and honest ? Then can you explain what you mean by saying the children were left 'conveniently unguarded'. How was it convenient and for whom was it convenient ?

      What are the circumstances of the ' real graver crime ' you say were obscured ? The fact 'graver' isn't a word aside, what was the crime ?

      Can you give me a link to what a 'crime of disappearance' actually is ?

      I cant remember the details of the theory that it would play into the McCanns hands. But it's been explained here before. Hopefully if the poster reads this he'll explain it

      Delete
    4. Thanks 18:50. I know a lot was redacted at the time. The transcript of the scene where Matthew is crying when the PJ accuse him of involvement in the child's disappearance, for one. That's just one we know about.

      It *is* taking years! Great point you make: 'that the criminals don't know what actual evidence they [the police] do have'. Golly, I'd just crack! The strain must be ghastly.

      Shallis

      Delete
    5. Nice to meet another real crime fan 18:50, I'm totally hooked, haven't been able to watch fictional crime for a long time!

      I think some people believe HM Police detectives act like boy scouts, that they are capable of pulling a few ruses on the suspects themselves. None of them being suspects or persons of interest might well be one of them.

      The McCanns appearing on Crimewatch for example. I have never seen two people look more uncomfortable. The whole scenario would cause even the most hardened criminal to crack, but the detectives did not know what they were dealing with. Gerry and Kate braved it out, but the switchboards were jammed with over a 1000 calls. Probably 999 of them saying, err, that's Gerry.

      I very much doubt Gerry and Kate are happy living under a police investigation indefinitely. Most of us would find it intolerable. For Gerry and Kate it put a stop to their own searching and fund raising. How could private detectives compete with two police forces from two countries. And who would donate? The world has watched as Madeleine's parents have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from Madeleine's Fund suing newspapers and Goncalo Amaral. Mostly Goncalo Amaral.

      Delete
    6. No, tiresome, at 18:54 (re your points) . . .

      . . . it isn't on my part 'an attempt to appear fair-minded an honest', I *am* fair minded and honest - otherwise known as conducting unbiased research in the pursuit of truth. What *is* your problem?

      You write, somewhat mystifyingly:

      'If the PJ would have pressed the negligence issue they would have arrested and charged them. Why is that so difficult to understand?'

      Well, it isn't is it? thanks for the truism, why are you challenging me for not grasping it?! Very odd. And, I would agree with you, Brainbox, they didn't arrest anyone. We are really motoring along nicely now. Do you have an actual point?

      You: 'can you explain what you mean by saying the children were left 'conveniently unguarded'. How was it convenient and for whom was it convenient?'

      Gladly, 18:45. The unguarded child was very convenient for an abductor (the unlocked door an additional service to them). Why is this so difficult for you?

      We are discussing the disappearance of a child, over which a crime is suspected. Do keep up. You need further definition of this? A *link* for that? are you actually serious?

      You: 'What are the circumstances of the ' real graver crime ' you say were obscured ? The fact 'graver' isn't a word aside, what was the crime?'

      Forgive, this an example of thought so muddled I cannot untangle what the hell you mean.

      Shallis

      Delete
    7. Anon 24 April 18.54

      With regard to your first paragraph, the PJ knew from the outset that it wasn't an "abduction", I don't know how long you've been on these blogs but you're obviously very much behind the times.

      There is the fact of double jeopardy which Portugal has, if the McCanns were arrested for child neglect than that may jeopardise any future prosecution for a more serious crime. Obviously the investigations may still be ongoing and may take many years depending on what the PJ are looking in to.

      I know I'm not the person you were waiting for an answer from but just thought I'd put my two pence in whilst you're waiting.

      Delete
    8. You know the answers to your questions 18:54, you are trying to goad the poster to say something libellous. It's a worn out team McCann ruse, when they are desperately in deed of a headline.

      Well tough luck. Everyone on here knows how to dance around the McCanns and Carter Ruck, and say whatever we like. That's got to irk.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda Hutton24 April 2019 at 21:13

      The McCanns are under police investigation indefinitely ? What are you on about ? They aren't under investigation at all. Or do you mean because we don't know, they probably are.Like Murat.

      The police said they are not suspects. How complex is that ?

      Delete
    10. lol @Ros. The McCanns are under investigation again . In your head or out in the real world ? How long does it take all those hard working officers to investigate two people ?Get real if you can't get honest

      Delete
    11. Hi Bjorn at 18:22.

      A whole new level of devious.

      Since we can catch out some 'cooking' in the statements/timelines, therefore it follows we cannot fundamentally trust any part of them for sure (that's not externally verified), so it is possible to think that the whole shebang could be concocted. Logical end of the line.

      The 'official narrative' at least provides some sort of alibi somewhere for something! Even if a bit of a moveable, all over the place, feast now. So removing all of it, would blow whole thing even more open. But zero to go on from there. But that's true of collapsing 'official story' too. Zero.

      Logically, must be held open as the extreme possibility. But golly?

      Shallis

      Delete
    12. Anonymous24 April 2019 at 18:50

      ''We shouldn't forget that the PJ have held back many pages of the PJ files that aren't open to public consumption. We don't know what they are but may be pretty damning in a court case if they're brought to trial as part of the prosecution.''

      I think even the PJ might have discovered that some time between 2007 and 2019 , don't you ? Which suggests there is nothing of any importance on said pages.You're just writing your own now.

      ''Police always have to be one step ahead of the "criminals".''

      Or 12 years behind in this case.

      Take my word, it doesn't matter how many episodes of Columbo you have watched.The police act as soon as they have the evidence they need. They don't hold it to their chest like a hand of poker if the case is costing money.That's just a desperate straw to clutch because the case died years ago. Now if you want evidence of that there's 12 years worth. Tons of it.

      Delete
    13. Björn24 April 2019 at 18:22

      ''as a kind of shield against official future accusations about their direct involvement in the death of Madeleine.''

      What death ?

      Delete
    14. Amaral said in 2016 (https://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Translation%20of%20Maddie%20-%20The%20Mystery.%20Broadcast%2023rd%20April%202016)

      "The other children of the other couples were also abandoned, and not only on one evening, but for the whole week! In this sense, if we could constitute the parents as suspects, then we’d also have to constitute as suspects the whole group of friends. Of this, I have no doubt."

      There you have it, and all of the group knew it. I can almost hear the discussion:

      "Get rid of the body, and the only thing they can get us on is negligence - and they are not going to arrest us all, are they?"

      It was vital that to the McCanns that a pact be formed. A pact which probably involved some trade off, and reminder of favours done.

      As the Dutch say, "we all know where the bodies are buried in the dunes." This philosophy is central to how clinical staff in the NHS operate - everybody makes a mistake that needs covered up - you rise to the top because whenever the shit is about to hit you, you remind them of that fact.

      All it took was for the Consul to accept the abduction theory, and less than 24 hours after the disappearance, the statement is getting read out on the steps of the PJ in Portimao.

      After this is cemented in the public psyche, any deviation from it needs a paradigm shift for the newspaper reader. The fundamental truth has already been established, it is the central point of reference for what follows.

      Rubbishing the Portuguese was a piece of cake. The real work was done in getting the British to buy the abduction.

      It has always seemed a fragile basis for keeping out of jail. The minute you tell another person about your crime, you have already jeopardised yourself.

      Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to consider that Kate's family, Brian Kennedy, and Clarence all own Gerry now?

      Delete
    15. Amaral had 'no doubt' about a long list of things. What became of them ?Then you write a little crime novel.Bless.That would work in court wouldn't it lol

      Delete
    16. Oscar Slater24 April 2019 at 22:25

      ''"Get rid of the body, and the only thing they can get us on is negligence - and they are not going to arrest us all, are they?"''

      Possibly the silliest scenario published on any McCann related blog or forum.And I'm being polite. You should have kept that back for the anniversary next week.

      Delete
    17. Rosalinda Hutton24 April 2019 at 21:13

      ''You know the answers to your questions 18:54, you are trying to goad the poster to say something libellous.''

      You mean like blaming the parents of burying their child or of trying to sell the idea of the child being dead ? Or of the police lying about efits or about TV presenters being tax dodgers? As if. I leave that to the liars.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous24 April 2019 at 21:26

      ''With regard to your first paragraph, the PJ knew from the outset that it wasn't an "abduction", I don't know how long you've been on these blogs but you're obviously very much behind the times.''

      I must be, unless you're lying.Can you provide a source or a PJ file link to show me please.

      Are you sure Portugal has the double jeopardy law ? Have you checked ? Did you realise that double jeopardy can't save you if evidence arises later that wasn't available in a first trial ?

      Delete
    19. Anonymous24 April 2019 at 21:14 shillis

      ''No, tiresome, at 18:54 (re your points) . . .
      . . . it isn't on my part 'an attempt to appear fair-minded an honest', I *am* fair minded and honest - otherwise known as conducting unbiased research in the pursuit of truth. What *is* your problem? ''

      That that is a lie. Share some of your research some time instead of your flights into fantasy and guessing.

      ''You write, somewhat mystifyingly: ''

      Perhaps( I should) employ *new*literary ( devices) for emphas(is).

      ''Gladly, 18:45. The unguarded child was very convenient for an abductor (the unlocked door an additional service to them). Why is this so difficult for you?''

      Simple really. Even for you to grasp. You used the word 'conveniently' to convey a completely different message. Now you've been called out, you're back peddling(again).

      ''Forgive, this an example of thought so muddled I cannot untangle what the hell you mean.''

      That's not my fault is it. The question couldn't have been worded any plainer.

      Delete
    20. Honestly, Anon at 01:28

      Me: 'The unguarded child was very convenient for an abductor (the unlocked door an additional service to them). Why is this so difficult for you?''

      You, in reply to this: 'Simple really. Even for you to grasp. You used the word 'conveniently' to convey a completely different message. Now you've been called out, you're back peddling(again)'.

      I have helpfully googled a definition of the word 'convenient' for you. All three meanings apply here:

      'fitting in well with a person's needs, activities, and plans/involving little trouble or effort/situated so as to allow easy access to'.

      So, 'convenient' the mot juste, wouldn't you say?

      Back peddling?

      The rest of your comments are on the same level of twaddle. So enough.

      btw I wouldn't try and defend your tragic lack of coherence.

      Shallis

      Delete
    21. Dear, 22:14

      'The police said they are not suspects. How complex is that?'

      Too complex for you, then.

      Has the idea of 'subtext' ever occurred to you? You might find it enlightening when negotiating our complex world. Certainly, when considering the very carefully worded, measured and metered public statements of OG/PJ - in context. Consider very carefully what is/isn't actually being said before jumping to conclusions.

      Listen and read more acutely, more sensitively, my friend.

      Shallis

      Delete
    22. Of course Gerry and Kate are living under a police investigation, I didn't say they are under investigation, I said they are living under an investigation. There is a distinct but subtle difference.

      It is their child's disappearance the police are investigating, ergo they are directly affected, they can't switch it off and forget about it. If they have a good relationship with the police, as loved ones of the missing usually do, they would be in daily contact with them and on first name terms.

      That doesn't look to be the case with the McCanns and OG, but even if they aren't co-operating with the police, they can never be free of them. Look at how relieved they were when the original investigation shut down (Expresso interview).

      Delete
    23. @01:28

      “… shillis” :D


      http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/04/neglect-or-responsible-parenting.html?showComment=1555900397157#c2744440873902364337

      “RE; Mr Z @22:12,
      Your footprint is all over your last post as Anonymous at 22:12”

      Chingachgook is wrong again.


      BTW, what was that allegedly ‘long list of links’ taken off of the previous blog? Something sweet, yellow and sticky?

      I hope you spent the weekend thinking of me and The Chalice. I was thinking of you and the Wizard of Oz.

      Cha-la-la-la-la-lee.

      Jesus

      Delete
    24. Indeed Shallis, the plaintive cry of educators the world over, READ what it actually says, don't skip words to fit your confirmation bias.

      Many years ago as a new member of the English Department, for my sins, I had to teach a class of 'legalsecs', female students aged 16+ who needed English CGSE to become legal secretaries. It was a kind of hazing, the 'legalsecs' were by far the scariest class, even the builders and plumbers were terrified of them!

      The were reluctant to learn, to say the least, and I had to spend an inordinate amount of time on the speaking and LISTENING module of their course. They did what most unenlightened people do, they responded with their prejudices, not to what they had actually heard. It was quite an enlightening experience for myself, trying to find ways and means to improve their communication skills, I kinda got there in the end, lol.

      We take for granted that other thinking adults understand the world around us as we do, but it is shameful and sad that there are so many who do not. Many, unknowingly, express the views and principles of their nuclear families, the most dominant adult who has influenced them. One of my pains as a teacher, was the heartfelt cry of George Bernard Shaw 'why can't the English teach their children how to speak?'. I want to write a whole blog on that concept, but I have so many enemies already, do I dare?

      We can't all make beautiful music when we speak, but we can add, daily, new words, new sounds, new sentences that feel like a warm embrace, or that are so profound they stay in the head of the listener long after they have been heard.

      It amazes and alarms me to see beautiful young girls, who devote hours and fortunes on their physical appearance, yet when they open their mouths they sound like a reluctant cat being dunked in a bath. Ugh, I have probably said enough.

      Delete
    25. 12:56 Ziggy, your depot is overdue. It would be cruel not to remind you.

      Delete
    26. Oscar Slater 26 April 2019 at 10:16

      I’m Jesus, not Ziggy, Wizard.

      Com-pre-hen-sion… Or lack thereof…

      Delete
  13. The EU countries couldn't close their borders when a million refugees poured in apart from Hungary who build a fence. There are no borders to close due to the Schengen Treaty which Britain didn't sign up to.
    I have listened to all of the Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko and they are well worth a listen. The last one, number 9 is being split into two because of more info coming to his attention so maybe interesting times ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, 13:31

      Mark is doing good work - generally. But the DNA breakthrough nonsense offer to OG, with its arrant poppycock, gross misrepresentation of the facts, causing irresponsible damage that's leaking all over social media, even into the press - that makes me want to cry.

      Shallis

      Delete
    2. 13:31 the border between Spain and Portugal is a bridge. It can be closed in times of national crisis.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous24 April 2019 at 17:58

      Shallis, DNA is only one of the many things you lack an understanding of.Calling it poppycock is silly. You can't identify any damage it's caused. You think because it's discussed on social media it's important ? That OG consult Twitter before they make any decisions ? Wake up and smell the caffeine. If it makes you want to cy you have a severe mental problem.Tell us all what better ideas OG have had and demonstrated. Tell us all what harm it could do to give him a chance ? No, I'll tell you. It won't do any harm. It's all to win. If it fails at least it was an avenue they tried.But you call that poppycock and prefer to gossip about your suspicions that knowing what the tapas group were thinking could 'blow the case wide open'. Yes, lets imagine what people are thinking, that'll do it. Ignore any scientists offering to interpret the actual evidence.

      Delete
    4. Lord alive, Ziggy at 22:08

      Do you want me to remind you that you are an idiot again?

      It is sadly required: you are an idiot.

      I suggest you stop exposing this truth by posting complete drivel like this. It's embarrassing.

      Shallis

      Delete
    5. 22:08 Punctuation. Is one of the things you lack. An understanding of.

      Delete
    6. 08:12 Comprehension. Is one of the things you lack.

      Delete
    7. Great punctuation there, Oscar. Were you trying to be ironic ? Stick to angry x

      Delete
  14. Hi, Ross

    Lot in your blog post. Taking up:

    ‘The only reason I can think of for the investigations taking so long is that 9 of the key witnesses aren’t talking, and haven’t talked since 2008’.

    I don’t know what the police can do in a situation like this. I think there is no doubt they see what we see. It ain’t hard, why wouldn’t they? It was there in 2007/8. Wouldn’t insult their intelligence. My question is not rhetorical, what *can* and *do* they do if they have undermined statements, a whole ‘narrative’, but the witnesses won’t budge?

    I think we shouldn’t be fooled by the rogatory statements. They followed a particular protocol where UK police could not question them closely. They seem very soft. But, one can imagine, do not represent proper police interviews. The PJ got pretty demanding - Matthew was in tears. Again, we only have the rather bland non-verbatim statement transcripts. Not the whole of it.

    I have wondered whether the T7 could turn ‘queen’s evidence’, or whatever the appropriate phrase is here. (It’s not an exact equivalence of that, which might be legally trickier). This might be to avoid charges of perverting the course of justice. I don’t know anything about this area, can imagine the police have to be careful that, should a witness statement change, they are not accused in court by the defence of unduly influencing that witness, Thus potentially eliminating them.

    The defence team, in any trial that could be imagined, would be formidable, no expense spared. A plea of guilty would be a Godsend! The police must have to be very careful not to rule out evidence (even a trial itself) by any breach of protocol. And in two countries.

    But JT’s Tannerman has gone. A lot rode on him. The bottom baked bean can publicly pulled out from the pile.

    If the T7 don’t know what happened to Madeleine (and I don’t see evidence they do), then collapsing their statements, collapsing the whole ‘official narrative’, which needs to be done, and includes their confession of ‘cooking’ – might very well already have been done; does not lead the investigation anywhere else. They don’t know anything.

    The police need concrete evidence that reaches the bar required to take the case to court. They know, like us, what *didn’t* happen. They almost certainly have working propositions of what *did* - they have a lot more to go on than we do. But, if they can’t meet that bar (with knobs on, in the virtually unprecedented media frenzy, and attention grabbing circus of this case) they can’t arrest. So they are not there then.

    Even confirmation of DNA may not be enough in itself (notice another poster popping up in this thread with the ‘DNA ‘breakthrough’/OG offer’ fiasco).

    If trials were to happen in Portugal – that means extradition. A huge big deal in itself.

    Wish I knew what police can do to collapse any known ‘tissue of lies’ that's stalling a case - whilst not contaminating a witness through pressurising, or being accused of 'buying' them. Perhaps someone here has police/legal experience. No thumbscrews, no waterboarding.

    Shallis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm nodding in agreement at each paragraph Shallis. I agree ruling out Tannerman was huge, he was the bottom baked bean can of the abduction story. At the time of Criomewatch when Tannerman was ruled out, I thought the police might have made a deal with her. On perverting the course of charges, she could face the greater penalties. In retrospect I don't think she did, I think the police just made it up to open the window of opportunity to 45 minutes.

      Not only did OG kill of Tannerman, they brought the Smith sighting to the forefront, introducing Smithman as the new main suspect. It is no wonder the McCanns looked so uncomfortable on Crimewatch. They had spent years trying to cover up the Smith family sighting, even threatening the private investigator who commissioned the photofits with legal action if he revealed his report.

      I suspect the DNA evidence is and always has been, strong enough to keep the investigations (both) going for all these years, ie. enough reason to suspect.

      On the Tapas 7, I disagree, I believe they were fully involved. Gerry and Kate on their own, could not have pulled off the whole staging scenario. Some might say. If Madeleine died as a result of an accident as Goncalo Amaral suggested, they may all have been facing very serious charges, beginning with neglect. One of the reasons I don't doubt they neglected the children is the fact that they have publicly defended their system of childcare from day one, in the same way as if they were in a court room.

      I was really surprised to see how many murderers get away with their crimes simply because no-one will talk. Sometimes they go on for years, even decades, before they get that knock on the door.

      I guess when a cocky suspect says 'prove it', some cops will rise to the challenge, that is they will go whatever long way is required to 'get their man'.

      I have watching the whole Trump, Mueller, saga for a long time now, I am mesmerized by it and now know what it must have been like watching Hitler in the 1930's. I fear for mankind. But I am using this as an example of how to get someone to talk without thumbscrews and waterboarding. Trump and all his associates for example, are being bombarded with subpoenas for their taxes, personal businesses, and every dodgy deal they have ever touched. A lot of them have caved when told the long prison sentences they would receive if they didn't. A bit of a stretch linking the tapas 7 to the corrupt Whitehouse lol, but on a much smaller scale of course.

      The police, secret services, et all, have many ways to destroy lives should they wish. Big investigations that cost millions, I would say, are investigating a lot of people, and if it runs as other big operations have, then a lot of people could be arrested at the same time.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous24 April 2019 at 16:42

      Shallis

      The crime, whatever it may be, was committed in Portugal.No trial need worry about breaching the protocol of two countries.

      The police do indeed need concrete evidence. And there isn't any. Gossip about hidden thoughts in unknown people won't cut it.But trials have taken place before without a body or any concrete evidence haven't they. And guilty verdicts have been reached.And with all this evidence of the dogs and blood and contradictory statements, what's the hold up ? maybe all that evidence is only internet evidence..

      Why would extradition be needed for a trial ? You said this case is a blank slate. You say we ( none of us) could know what happened.yet you are already envisaging a culprit/s being British. Who could that be I wonder.

      ''Wish I knew what police can do to collapse any known ‘tissue of lies’ that's stalling a case - whilst not contaminating a witness through pressurising, or being accused of 'buying' them. Perhaps someone here has police/legal experience. No thumbscrews, no waterboarding. ''

      They can expose a lie by proving it's a lie.No law degree needed.

      Delete
    3. Hi, Ros

      Yup, collapse of Tannerman, and introduction of Smithman all in one go, a great blow. Two things are quite separate though. I think it hilarious they just put out a picture of Gerry as the photofit. It is identical to one of the photographs of him having just descended from the plane. Who knows if Mr Smith saw Gerry? It is immaterial for public collapse of official narrative. Which is not % debatable!

      Didn't know about the actual threat of legal action re photofits. Interesting detail.

      I think OG possibly just offered the discredited witness JT a way out with a bit of dignity, and, most importantly, without exciting speculation. She's out of it.

      The DNA evidence was inconclusive. So it wouldn't/couldn't actually be discounted.

      I know you disagree on T7 involvement, your arguments over any cover up are solid. Really the mind fairly boggles at what might have happened that night, and a possible turn on a sixpence decision to cover up. How can we know? All of it is utterly 'ludicrous' (Gerry). Any possible denouement is ludicrous. But something is true.

      No one will talk but the whole thing is undermined, and now just trying to fly free on tales of the fantastical, having lost touch with reality. Insult to intelligence at this point. A touch of madness. Can this go on forever?

      Can there be a stand off forever? Hmm, Gerry 'they've got nothing' McCann.

      When/if this investigation bears fruit, then we can be absolutely certain that publicly everything will happen very smoothly, and as nearly at the same time as possible. No warning.

      Shallis

      Delete
    4. The McCanns inadvertently hired a real private detective in Henri Exton, his employers Oakley may have been bent but he wasn't. He ruled out JT's sighting years ago and commissioned the efits used by OG on Crimewatch. In fact he was shocked to his findings unveiled as a new revelation!

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html

      The above is well worth a read Shallis. The Mail are bending over backwards to make it sound perfectly reasonable for the McCanns to have suppressed the Smith sighting. It would have been completely distracting said a friend of the McCanns! At around that time the McCanns also got another big payout from the Times for revealing the same burying of the efits story. I don't know why because they clearly did bury the efits and Henri Exton's report, another news item states they even withheld Exton's report from the police!

      Delete
    5. Hi, Ros

      Thanks v much for link your article.

      I knew about Henri Exton, and The Times libel case. The paper just wasn't careful enough in its wording - but it still shows the baffling, and very concerning stranglehold here, as clearly demonstrable truth rather seemed on their side. I think in boldly accusing them of withholding the report from the police they went too far. Demonstrates why this subject is so toxic to the media though. K&G somewhat in modest seclusion just now - but who knows when some simple minded, but loaded hero might pop up and bank roll another round of Carter Ruck? No one will touch it, will they?

      The Smithman suppression will come back and haunt them, for sure. Disgraceful, and suspicious. Whatever.

      I can only imagine Henri Exton is subject to a massive gagging order. Didn't he also openly discredit Tannerman? The real deal. He popped up at the time of Crimewatch saying things like (quoting from your DM article): ‘I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme... it most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things'. And then disappears forever. He doesn't google. Would be a very, very interesting man to talk to. Your reference to threats makes sense.

      Tiresome that the DM article trots out the old trope that Smith recanted his sighting - and immediately slyly juxtaposes that with the 'information' that the PJ cleared K&G (by misrepresenting the wording, as usual).

      Then it gets worse. Whilst saying K&G are 'fully behind' the release of the efits, the spinner gets busier undermining Mr Smith as 'inconsistent and unreliable'. Vaguely referencing a billion alibis for Gerry. Then comes the openly wealded knife, when 'a friend of the McCanns' goes for it with: 'The truth is that this is part of the victimisation of Gerry and Kate which has gone on from the very beginning by the Portuguese.’

      The unbiased bastions of the press. Incredible.

      Shallis

      Delete
    6. Forgive me, 22:59,

      But aren't you a little presumptuous with your response to my post, in writing:

      'The police do indeed need concrete evidence. And there isn't any'.

      Are you really in a position to know that the police investigation cannot amass solid evidence (that passes the CPS) to progress this case to trial? - Perhaps you have something to tell us? Perhaps you were present in Luz that fateful night in May, and are smugly confident that you pulled off the perfect crime? In which case, beware! 22:59, many a criminal has thought thus, but been undone.

      You: 'No trial need worry about breaching the protocol of two countries'.

      I am not a lawyer with a specialisation in International law, but I have been told that investigations that span two different jurisdictions are a headache in terms of protocol, it is important not to make procedural slips that could rule out a trial even taking place. Law is complex.

      I wonder where you have gained your legal knowledge? I wonder even more when you ask:

      'Why would extradition be needed for a trial?'

      Should charges be brought in Portugal against a British subject, then extradition is required in order for them to stand trial there. Didn't you know this?

      'They can expose a lie by proving it's a lie'.

      Well that is so very true. Reassuring isn't it?

      Shallis

      Delete
    7. Sorry, Ros, missed you mentioning that Henri Exton ruled out JT sighting at 13:11. Guilty of reading too fast. My bad. His brief entree into World McCann is fascinating because most who stray so close are pre-hopeless cases. A real human being insider. The tales he could tell. btw loved your description of the gruesome Summers & Swan as Adams family. Nailed it. Shallis

      Delete
    8. Anonymous25 April 2019 at 17:52 shallis

      Forgive me, 22:59,

      But aren't you a little presumptuous with your response to my post, in writing:

      'The police do indeed need concrete evidence. And there isn't any'.''

      Presumptuous why ? They have none.It happened in 2007.

      ''Are you really in a position to know that the police investigation cannot amass solid evidence (that passes the CPS) to progress this case to trial? - Perhaps you have something to tell us?''

      Yes, the case is 12 years old. They had no evidence then and still have none.That's why it keeps getting funded every year-waiting for some. The dogs were tools of investigation. They aren't 'evidence of a crime' dogs.

      ''Perhaps you were present in Luz that fateful night in May, and are smugly confident that you pulled off the perfect crime? ''

      Yes, I gave myself by subconsciously setting my own trap on a blog then falling into it.Please don't tell Mrs Ripper.

      ''I am not a lawyer with a specialisation in International law, but I have been told that investigations that span two different jurisdictions are a headache in terms of protocol, ''
      And that's in depth research and a primary source is it ? You've 'been told'

      ''I wonder where you have gained your legal knowledge? I wonder even more when you ask:
      'Why would extradition be needed for a trial?' ''

      Wonder no more. If something interests me, i study it. Just not in sewing circles. You wonder why I ask why extradition would be needed ? Because we don't know the crime yet; we don't know Madeleine's fate yet ; We don't know what happened beyond an abduction ;because she went missing in PDL so the odds are the culprit of anything, be it abduction or murder, is already there in Portugal. Why do you say he or she is not ?

      ''Should charges be brought in Portugal against a British subject, then extradition is required in order for them to stand trial there. Didn't you know this?''

      Or African, Canadian, American, Irish, Brazilian. See above. You are the one pretending that you believe that this case is a 'blank slate' and that 'we don't know what happened'. Remember ?So where are you getting British culprit from if the crime occurred in Portugal ?

      Yes, exposing the guilty by exposing their lies is reassuring. It's also remarkably easy if they are indeed lying. I wonder why so many experienced detectives have been unable to do that with the parents. Any ideas ?

      Delete
    9. Hello Rosalinda (25 April 2019 at 13:11)

      I agree with you and Shallis in that the McCanns have tried to suppress or downplay the significance of the Smiths'sighting, but disagree with both of you regarding the reason as to why the OG (Redwood)ruled out "tannerman"

      ”The McCanns are now fully behind the fresh police drive and release of the E-fits – but five years ago they were reluctant to issue them, possibly in part because witness Mr Smith’s account seemed inconsistent and unreliable”
      By NEIL SEARS FOR THE DAILY MAIL
      PUBLISHED: 01:15 BST, 28 October 2013 

      What bullshit by Neil Sears, whoever he is! The McCanns kept these two e-fits secret from the public, but claimed, that they’d sent them to the Leicestershire police (cannot be verified), but at a time when there wasn’t any ongoing review of the case in the UK and before the new investigation in co-operation between the Met and the Portuguese PJ came about. If the witness was unreliable in 2007, he must’ve been so in 2013 as well. Do all unreliable witnesses become reliable after some years?

      When those e-fits finally were shown in Crime Watch 2013, nothing in the Smiths’ statements from 2007 had changed, but the Met / SY had then managed to disassociate Gerry from the person in the e-fits, partly by publishing two e-fits of the same person (most unusual when the police appeal to the general public, I’d say), partly by introducing a new alternative scenario in which it was said that Madeleine could have become the victim of a burglary going wrong and that she may have been taken out of the apartment by the burglar(s), but not alive.

      This was nothing but Redwood’s attempt to explain the undisputed scent of death in the McCanns’ apartment, though it’s of course far-fetched, or in plain English, preposterous. Yet, the e-fits in question must have been much closer associated with an unknown burglar in Redwood's mind, than with Gerry McCann. Personally, I’ve never believed, that ”tannerman” was ruled out because Redwood would focus on Gerry as a suspect. He just believed that ”smithman” was the abductor, but nothing shows or proves that he suspected that ”smithman” could be Gerry. If he had, he would at least implicitly have questioned Gerry’s alibi for being in the tapas restaurant at the time when the Smiths allegedly saw ”smithman”, but he hasn’t.

      Shallis, you write in one of your posts that the OG ought to/must see what we all see, most of us anyway. This may be true, but as far as DCI Andy Redwood is concerned it certainly isn’t.

      Delete
    10. Anon, 20:41. None of that tired old rant is worthy of reply.

      But, you:

      'Just not in sewing circles'.

      Oh, how utterly and shamefully you expose yourself.

      Shallis

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda Hutton25 April 2019 at 13:11

      I see that your now copying and pasting Ros. And providing a link. Two things you've always claimed you couldn't do for years.When i saw that I had to click as it must be important or really anti. The Daily mail ? The only tabloid rag without a red top and the most quoted on comedy panel shows by a country mile. It's from 2013 . Six years old. And you claim to have your finger on the pulse of the case lol

      Despite your dishonest ( lying) interpretation of the little article, there is no mention of who suppressed the efits is there. You made that up didn't you. Then tried to pin it on the parents.

      Just because the private detectives questioned the validity of efits doesn't mean the McCanns did.So why try to make that point and claim the McCanns were behind it ? That's the deductive reasoning skill of a four year old.

      Any official police information, whether written in files or stored efits are in the charge of the police and any decisions about publicising is down to them . It's their investigation.
      The article actually closes by stating that the McCanns are fully behind the fresh police drive to release them and explains why the police hadn't wanted to release them previously.The reporter, not the police or a McCann, says it was 'possibly in part' due to the inconsistency of the Smith sighting.So the reporter is speculating and being careful not to say anything libelous. Nice try though.

      Delete
    12. Hi, 23:12

      It was The Times that covered that story in full, they were sued for their trouble.

      The sorry tale isn't hard to uncover, with a will and a little investigative nouse,

      "The article actually closes by stating that the McCanns are fully behind the fresh police drive to release them . . .. The reporter, not the police or a McCann, says it was 'possibly in part' due to the inconsistency of the Smith sighting."

      I see you are very gullible, a spin doctor's dream. You make it all so terribly easy for them.

      2013? Could be 1913, 1813. Truth does not ever die. It is always relevant.

      Shallis

      Delete
    13. I can copy and paste links 23:12, it is blocks of text where I have difficulty. I don't get links for 'pros' because their objective is to waste my time.

      Your anger I suspect is not at my posting a link but the hugely damaging to the McCanns article. Yes the article is from 2013, but so is the subject of the discussion, the revelation of Smithman.

      As to who supressed Henri Exton's report and the Smithman efits, the McCanns have admitted they did! Their excuse, they could not afford to promote TWO sightings. Henri Exton himself said he was threatened with legal action if ever released his findings.

      The McCanns commissioned the report, the McCanns paid for the report, and the McCanns had the report in their possession since 2008, so who else could have suppressed it? You can't blame the police for this one.

      I don't appreciate being called a liar, a charge you leap to constantly, usually because you have misunderstood what I have said. Do you act in this antisocial way the real world? Would you speak to me like that if you were in front of me?

      Please try to treat my blog as if you were having a conversation face to face, call on your social skills (if you have any), your good manners (ditto), perhaps even a little bit of humility. You speak to me as if you were admonishing an inferior. You sound much like Kate actually, you cannot hide your contempt, it is as clear as Kate's curled lip.

      But returning to the Mail article, it ends stating the McCanns are now fully behind the release of the Smithman efits, but are they? Why does their website still carry a picture of Tannerman, the police ruled him out?

      Delete
    14. Hi, Björn

      There is something that reads slightly off about your interpretation of DCI Andy Redwood’s relationship to the facts emerging from the evidence in this case*. It suggests you think that Redwood/OG have a rather cavalier approach to justice, which would render their investigation invalid. Of course, facts are facts, and cannot be chosen by personal whim, manipulated however one chooses, or pick and mixed at random. I think your argument here suggests you think that they, or at least DCI Redwood, are doing just this.

      So it wasn’t in Redwood’s, or OG’s gift to just decide if Smithman was Gerry, or Tannerman was valid. OG certainly wouldn’t decide what/wasn’t followed up from witness statements according to personal fancy. It all has to be done regardless of personal ‘hunches’.

      So your: “personally, I’ve never believed that ‘Tannerman’ was ruled out because Redwood would focus on Gerry as a suspect. He just believed that ‘Smithman’ was the abductor”, is unsound reasoning, and does not reflect how a bona fide police investigation proceeds.

      Tannerman was ruled out (early in the 2007 investigation) because JT was an unsound witness, her sighting not credible. Mr Smith was considered a reliable witness, whose statements would have been fully followed up. The whole Smith family sighting of a stranger with a child was considered reliable. So still is. It has not been confirmed whether Mr Smith saw Gerry himself. So this ‘hangs in the air’, like so much else in this case. It is PR spin that has cast him as ‘unreliable’, or stating he has retracted his witness statement.

      So, Redwood did not dismiss Tannerman for partial reasons. He had been ruled out long ago. I think it is demonstrably true that he publicly killed him off on Crimewatch to open up possible witnesses coming forward for the time 9.15 to 10pm, a time period closed off for ‘abduction’ in the ‘official’ story dominating the public mind. Introducing, ‘burglary gone wrong’, further emphasises that the official abduction story was only a theory anyway. There are other possibilities, people. It actually publicly killed off the ‘official’ narrative.

      Smithman is the only other relevant ‘man with child’ sighting. Significant then. So, of course, it must be released to the public in an attempt to corroborate it. It isn’t, I stress again, about personal opinions. The efits of either Gerry, or a stranger, fortunately also take the heat out of the appeal. As does not mentioning one of them is Gerry! OG have no power to ally, or distance themselves from the possibility it was him unless proven.

      OG public statements often read rather oddly as they tread the difficult line between telling the truth (obvs), and not jeopardising the actual state of the investigation. Their peculiarity is one of the pointers to look for a subtext.

      It’s clear from what I write that I don’t believe there is any evidence to suggest OG is bent, or biased.

      Shallis


      *All through. But pulled out quickly: “He just believed that ”Smithman” was the abductor”. / “SY had then managed to disassociate Gerry from the person in the e-fits” / “The e-fits in question must have been much closer associated with an unknown burglar in Redwood's mind.” / “Redwood’s attempt to explain the undisputed scent of death in the McCanns’ apartment.” / “Nothing shows or proves that he suspected that ”Smithman” could be Gerry. If he had, he would at least implicitly have questioned Gerry’s alibi for being in the tapas restaurant at the time when the Smiths allegedly saw ”Smithman”, but he hasn’t”.

      Delete
    15. Anon (as if we couldn't guess), at 20:41

      Tiresome for me, and others, to reply to your dribbling down the page, blog clogging, bizarre gibberish. But you do admit:

      'Because we don't know the crime yet; we don't know Madeleine's fate yet'.

      So at least we are getting somewhere, something's getting through to you. Even if you (naturally) go on to illogically contradict yourself.

      You might consider why your only replies to me consist of relying on category error (you're quite fond of that), missing the point of what I have written (very, very frequent), or twisting it completely into something I never wrote at all (your favourite technique). You then just go off on one, entirely beside the point.

      Does this futile activity pass the time for you?

      Shallis

      Delete
    16. Hi Shallis /26 April 2019 at 13:04/ and thanks for comment, very much appreciated

      "OG public statements often read rather oddly as they tread the difficult line between telling the truth (obvs), and not jeopardising the actual state of the investigation"

      Yes Shallis; I'm quite aware of that, so you're absolutely right here. One couldn't really expect that Redwood, after having ruled out "tannerman" explicitly would tell the world, that he was now going after the two former suspects. Still, under those given circumstances, I judge Redwood's attitude and his way of describing other potential suspects as unnecessary and enigmatic, even confusing, as I've said. If he'd said nothing about potential strangers being people of interest, I would've had more confidence in him. As I've said many times before to Rosalinda, I really hope that I'm wrong about both Redwood and Rowley.

      "It’s clear from what I write that I don’t believe there is any evidence to suggest OG is bent, or biased"

      I've my doubts about that, as you know, but for the sake of truth, common sense and justice for Madeleine, I hope you're right Shallis.

      Delete
    17. Not Smithman again?

      If you read all of the Smiths written statements, and believe that they did see Madeleine being carried that evening, then you have to believe that she was abducted by a stranger.

      All three stated that they did not recognise the man, nor did he have any resemblance to anyone they knew. Only weeks later did the father issue a further statement that he was pretty sure that the way GA carried one of the twins down the airplane steps was the same as how Madeleine was being carried the evening she disappeared. The other two Smiths declined to change or update their statements - it's all in the PJ files.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous25 April 2019 at 23:11

      ''Anon, 20:41. None of that tired old rant is worthy of reply.''

      it would be beyond your limits

      Delete
    19. @
      Anonymous26 April 2019 at 17:02

      Yes,Smithman again, unfortunately. Those antis are pulling out all the stops as we near the 12th anniversary.Sad really.

      What they don't acknowledge is that in offering up Smithman as ( yet another) case - breaker they are actually implying that he is a liar. Why would a man ignore a chance to make a positive contribution to the little girl's case being solved ? What would he have to lose ? All he says is he is nowhere even close to being confident enough to swear under oath that he could identify whoever he saw that night on a dark PDL street. But those who have the internet think they're Google Earth. They saw it all and they say he saw Gerry. case closed then innit..

      Delete
  15. Anonymous24 April 2019 at 18:37
    If you went back to your apartment at 10 o clock and a child wasn't there any more and you hadn't seen her walking about outside( in the foreign country), what would you think ?She'd learn't how to make her self invisible ?

    Nobody will believe you have an ex grange chum who gives you inside information. You're making that up because you want people to think you're 'on the inside'. Stop being silly.Grange only have to look at the current list on their payroll and those who have been and gone to work out who is a 'former' grange detective and is leaking 'inside info' to someone who posts on blogs.Of course. 'chum' won't have a name will he ?

    You say you don't know how grange can ask for funding whiles refusing to test DNA. yet you have a 'chum' who has the information. Let us know what his take is . The latest leads and developments happen just before may every year. And they do go away. Every year.

    I know plenty of people who have been directly involved with this case media wise in particular , The Ex copper I got tho know through a friend down south , now there were five forces working on grange so do the math .
    I don't have to worry about trying to impress anyone on hear , I don't have a clue who you are nor do I care .. I have been trying to get the copper to speak to Ros or Sonia Poulton , but we are like ships in the night , and I can never pin him down

    I did ask him about the DNA on the phone , and he said Grange would just ignore it as it would blow the case wide open

    now if you have any other questions , I'm covering the London marathon Sunday and staying down south till Wednesday maybe we could meet at the green start and I will show you my press card :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''I did ask him about the DNA on the phone , and he said Grange would just ignore it as it would blow the case wide open ''

      So your imaginary friend once in the employ of OG says they don't want the case solved in other words. Thus implicating the bosses, their bosses and the Home Office in a conspiracy to conceal crime and pervert the course of justice. yes, I buy that. After all, I read it on a blog. It was posted by anonymous about his friend who has no name because they don't see each other much. The ships that pass in the night you see.That's why the loose relationship causes the ex cop to trust him.

      Press card ?? lol

      You now say a grange copper has told you inside information but we haven't seen the story printed anywhere ? Why ? You career would sky rocket if you broke with that 'exclusive'.Or are the press part of the same conspiracy that involves you, your 'contact' his bosses and the Government.

      Working in B & Q is nothing to be ashamed of. There's no need to create an alter ego that gets phone calls out of the blue about unsolved mmurders that would 'blow the case wide open'. Is that the trendy catchphrase for the antis now '' blow the case wide open''. They've been blowing it wide open online for more than ten years now.

      Delete
  16. Ros:On the Tapas 7, I disagree, I believe they were fully involved. Gerry and Kate on their own, could not have pulled off the whole staging scenario. Some might say. If Madeleine died as a result of an accident as Goncalo Amaral suggested, they may all have been facing very serious charges, beginning with neglect. One of the reasons I don't doubt they neglected the children is the fact that they have publicly defended their system of childcare from day one, in the same way as if they were in a court room. ....……...............
    It that is a supposed defence what in heavens name is the crime.The neglect is but a smokescreen.It allows an abduction scenario nothing more nothing lees.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Deputy Attorney General of Portugal has stated in the McCann -Amaral court case in 2013 all the PJ files have been released apart from the names and addresses of a few Portuguese criminals and so another myth bites the dust or is he a liar too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, JJ

      I think bandying about that people are 'liars', is just so loaded. Too emotionally charged!

      I remember that too. They redacted all the investigations into known local paedophiles didn't they? Without accusing anyone of 'lying' or encouraging 'myths', we know of other things not released: Kate makes reference to a witness who claimed she saw them removing black binbags from 5a; GA catches Kate out in a statement where she claimed she immediately looked under Madeleine's bed, when the divan reaches the floor, and Gerry testifies to hearing Matthew breakdown in tears when challenged by the PJ - none of that is in the files.

      Leicestershire police did not release the interviews they conducted themselves, of course (all the British MW holiday makers, for example). Not UK police policy. The 'black bag' witness statement may well be imbedded here.

      Good to remember the police have far information than us.

      Shallis

      Delete
    2. JJ 25 April 10.16

      List of missing pages here -

      https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

      Delete
    3. Thanks, JJ at 14:00. That's kind of what I remembered. Same, brilliant, source. S

      Delete
    4. Anon 25 April 14.00

      I'm replying to my own comment, as I just wanted to point out that the PJ Missing Pages is far more than JJ wants to make out. You need to explore them for yourselves, not just go by JJ's assessment that they were just names and addresses withheld.

      A lot of work has been put into www.mccannpjfiles at enormous cost to bring the truth to the general public. They are at the moment the only real truth we have to go by with regard to the disappearance of poor dear Madeleine, no matter how many paid for trolls try to keep the real truth from the public.

      Delete
    5. - Category A
      relate to people identified during the inquiry whose possible link to the events is extremely unlikely (the most tenuous) and whose right to privacy would be infringed if their personal information were left on file.
      - Category B
      relate to crimestopper data with respect to sightings, the TV program having guaranteed anonymity.
      - Category C
      relate to information from people - often criminals or having a criminal history - that was volunteered by them and they should not be put at risk for having come forward.

      The missing pages as the Deputy attorney General said, names and addresses withheld for privacy reasons, nothing else .
      If he lied the Mccanns would have a case in the ECHR as when he spoke it was on behalf of the Portuguese state and the Mccanns legal team were deceived.

      Delete
    6. JJ 25 April 16.13

      Believe what you want, but you seem to be saying the exact same words as you did in your first post. Do you not have an original thought in your body or are you just repeating what you've been told to say as a paid for McCann troll

      What about the last two items:

      i) the statement from the Kerr family not being in the file

      ii) Letter to the Tribunal from lawyers acting for ACPO.

      Delete
    7. You are casting doubt on Slater of the Yard jj ?

      Delete
  18. It is another McCann myth Jane Tanner was the first to implicate Murat. Tanner and the Tapas mob do not mention Murat until 12/13th May.

    The Leicestershire Police had Murat's name on Sunday 6th May. They received his name from Lori Campbell who reported her 'suspicions' shortly after D. Supt Hill of Surrey Police/CEOP appeared in PDL that weekend 5/6th May.

    When anybody can explain why Supt Hill needed to fly to PDL without authority and conjured up the name of Murat without even speaking to the PJ, there may be progress.

    How many meetings did the UK plod have that week with the Tapas mob before they fingered Murat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's up there with the pact of silence myth this lot bang on about. They tried to speak out but were bound by judicial secrecy.So the internet hounds decided to pounce on it. Sad bunch.

      Delete
    2. 19:36 they admitted to a pact of silence in the Netflix programmes.

      Delete
  19. Ros... You state Murat wasn't outside 5a that night.

    Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield gave police statements that said Murat came up to them, shook them by the hand and stated he was Robert Murat.

    No ambiguity no doubt.

    And repeated both in the UK and in Portugal.

    If he wasn't there and the PJ say after thorough investigation he wasn't, Payne and Oldfield committed calumny in Portugal and attempted to pervert the course of justice in the UK.

    Criminal offences OG could pursue to crack the case but they haven't as the Tapas defence would be, we were instructed to do this.

    Shallis and others would like us to ignore all the given statements and concentrate on whimsy and innuendo but the police statements stand, time will not change them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty good summing up, JJ. You noticed the security blanket that Ros and Co throw around the Murats too. Well, he isn't a McCann is he. God forbid somebody else takes the spotlight away from them.

      Delete
    2. 19:34 that was what he was supposed to do, wasn't it, before it turned out he had done noting wrong.

      Delete
    3. Doesn't mean he's been cleared

      Delete
    4. 22:54, it does appear that people tried to frame him though. The people that are the subject of this discussion.

      Delete
    5. @ 10.10
      How do you know Murat was not an MI6 operative/asset whose role was to bring suspicion upon himself to create more confusion
      and cover while 'other' events were taking place secretly?
      The journalist who first pointed him out could also have been an intelligence asset as it is well known they often are especially when working abroad.
      That'said my view anyway.

      Delete
    6. Yes he was, my dear Anon @ 22:54

      It is so important to return to the evidence (easily available), rather than bandy about misinformation.

      From the PJ Archiving Summary in 2008:

      “It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido [Murat] to the child's disappearance was set aside”.

      You're welcome

      Shallis


      Delete
  20. Hi, JJ

    'Whimsy and innuendo'. I really want to make clear that I have zero interest in that. It's the files for me too. I certainly do not ignore them.

    The Murat 'framing' is fascinating, and extraordinary. Murat could sue Tapas 3 and JT. Very serious, and, as you say, they were not ambiguous. Though JT goes all equivocal over her naming of him in the rogatory statement. It's not quite comprehensible. I guess they would have to prove it was with malicious intent, and not an honest mistake. I know, I know. Just saying.

    Shallis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shallis, put your in depth research to one side for a second and answer a couple of questions please.

      JT named Murat. Yes ? Named him has what ? Identified him as being guilty of what ? Is it wrong to suggest names if you are suspicious of them ? If so, Amaral is in trouble isn't he. If you say you saw a man somewhere and say you think you know who he is, is that illegal or just a mistake ? What crimes did they accuse him of ? What scenarios did the Tapas group or JT dream up and go world wide with ? You have a truly narrow ficus. But that's sort of understandable given your summing up of the mystery that took about 5 minutes.

      Delete
    2. Flip, 19:32, You are very hard to follow.

      You: (unfortunately):

      'JT named Murat. Yes ? Named him has what ? Identified him as being guilty of what ? Is it wrong to suggest names if you are suspicious of them ?'

      JT named Murat as her Tannerman. So she, in effect, accused him of being the abductor.

      Do you follow this case? It's quite interesting, you should.

      I have summed up no mystery. Wished I had that sort of omniscience.

      Shallis

      Delete
    3. 19:32 my experience of people who ask so many questions in quick succession is that they have no intention of listening to an answer. Rather, it's an attempt to browbeat the listener into compliance.

      It's a tactic used frequently by the far right, cutting short the person's attempt at answering by repeating the question mid sentence.

      It can be quite intimidating when used by them in a face to face situation. What's pathetic about you using it is we are online, and there is as much time as is needed to answer each and every stupid question that you have already been told the answer to before.

      What is really pitiful is that eventually people just ignore you online, just as they ignore any attempt you make down at Wotherspoons, with your fellow all day drinkers, pretending to look at your phone, or read a newspaper.

      It really is time England brought in minimum alcohol pricing, there is obviously just as big a problem with alcohol down there as there is here in Scotland.

      Delete
    4. 19;32 you obviously haven't read Goncalo Amaral's book. Jane Tanner was taken on a covert police operation to see if you could identify Robert Murat. She did. She said RM was the man she saw carrying a child. She was accusing him of being the abductor.

      Yet another reason why the police have never taken JT's sighting seriously. She had described a dark featured man with long hair and no glasses. RM was white, European, with a short back and sides who never took his glasses off. She is not a reliable witness.

      The others who named Murat, why indeed? What did they have to gain by getting the police to focus on Murat? Hmm, that's a toughie.

      Delete
    5. Brilliant assessment of trolling behaviour Oscar. You are right, those asking rapid fire questions have no interest in the answers, answers that have already been given a hundred times before.

      Another of their tricks is to demand a link or a source, as in you are not allowed to say that without a link or a source. The megalomaniac demands of the McCanns that no-one speak ill of them without proof they did it, applies not only to the newspapers they sued but to the individual users of social media. They act as if they had won all their legal battles, that the restrictions they wanted to place on Goncalo Amaral are now in force and apply to everyone.

      But they lost. They failed to bring in legislation to protect their privacy and to protect them from media exposure. It took a while after Leveson, but happily common sense prevailed and Hacked Off, I would hope, saw the error in their demands that the press be curtailed and journalists imprisoned. Even Trump hasn't done that (yet).

      Delete
    6. So why isn't Amaral's book been published or distributed in the UK?

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

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda Hutton26 April 2019 at 14:36

      ''Another of their tricks is to demand a link or a source, as in you are not allowed to say that without a link or a source.''

      Challenging a statement is now regarded as trolling on here ? Challenging what appear to be unfounded allegations and lies ?

      Delete
    9. Give it a rest 17:57, can't be bothered to read you (can anyone?) but your incontinent dribble is ruining the typographic purity of Ros's blog comment feed. Shallis

      Delete
    10. Anonymous26 April 2019 at 17:06

      ''So why isn't Amaral's book been published or distributed in the UK?''

      Because in the UK it's regarded as libelous.

      Delete
  21. We can't all agree JJ, it is as it is. There is no need for hostility towards those who do not hold the same view as you, it's not personal. I don't see any need whatsoever for anger JJ, Why does it matter to you what others believe?

    But you make a good point, OG already have enough to charge the Tapas group for lying about RM. I don't know if that is true, but it sounds about right. I suppose it is for the very same reason they have never been charged with neglect, there may be much bigger charges on the horizon. Conspiracy for example, which may involve many more and that may be ongoing. OG I am sure, are aware that anything they do or so may tip off co-conspirators. I know that all sounds a bit 'Trump', but on the face of it, it looks as though this spider's web is far reaching.

    As you have said many times JJ, were CEOP acting legally, were Leicester Police? To me it looks as though the two agencies had different agendas. CEOP were focussing on an abductor, Leicester Police brought in Mark Harrison and the dogs. Jim Gamble himself has spoken about the different police agencies who flew out to PDL and the confusion this caused. This is something OG must have looked into and may be why JG went public with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not angry or hostile, just very disappointed that if there is evidence or police statements that do not pillory the McCanns or tapas 7, they are dismissed out of hand.

      Why does yourself and shallis believe the UK Police have the authority to make things up, Either there is evidence against the McCanns or there is not. Doctored evidence will not count.
      You state you are an expert in this case, then you will know without a shadow of a doubt, of the criminality of CEOP.

      Lori Campbell's criminality is still on YouTube and in 12 years, OG still has not found it.

      Mrs Payne, Mrs Oldfield and several high-ranking UK Police Officers have committed criminality. It is there in the documents available to the public and still OG do not act. What do you believe they are waiting for?

      You admonish me and that is your right, it is your blog, but why are people like shallis allowed to call people idiots and fools if they do not agree with her.

      Yesterday your new best friend shallis wrote Matthew Oldfield was never in 5a, today on this page she writes its a shame when in 5a, Matthew did such a sloppy job. This is what I mean by whimsy and muddled thinking.

      I am not a McCann supporter if there is any evidence against them, or the tapas 7, do them but I detest bent coppers and this case is littered with them.

      Delete
    2. I am not a playground supervisor JJ, don't bother me with your tales.

      I run a successful blog JJ because I discourage direct accusations against anyone. You believe, in your head, that you 'proved' the case against the Police. But you haven't because like the rest of us you don't know what Operation Grange are up to.

      I agree there has been much meddling in this case, but I am not prepared here and now to accuse individual police officers and individuals as you do. You are trying to build criminal cases based on very limited knowledge JJ. That is you are pre-supposing what they did and thought, and you want myself and my readers to pronounce case proved.

      You may hate bent coppers JJ, but don't bring your vendetta here. I personally would not dream of writing off an entire profession as bent, like every profession there is good and bad. Imo, your belief that the 30+ detectives working, or who worked on Operation are 'all in on it', I find absurd. Not only is the idea morally reprehensible, it has no logic or reasoning behind it. Do you really think the men and women of Operation Grange, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, would cover up the death of a small child?

      Delete
    3. wtf, JJ?

      'Why does yourself and shallis believe the UK Police have the authority to make things up'

      I don't, perish the actual thought. What are you talking about?

      'but why are people like shallis allowed to call people idiots and fools if they do not agree with her'.

      Absolutely not the reason. Would never do that. I would only call out someone for a bone-headed level of comprehension that is beneath engagement even if one was minded to try. And an aggressive demeanour. Which I did. Without apology.

      I refer you to another reply of mine, up above, re Matthew Oldfield and his position re 5a. Why the hell are you so riled by argument from the source material? And so threatened by logical reasoning? I find it odd.

      You seem to have quite a bee in your bonnet re Murat and the Tapas Group.

      Shallis


      Delete
    4. JJ, my reply to you re Matthew is at: 25 April 2019 at 18:24. Please get back if you need further clarity. Shallis

      Delete
    5. If it's wrong to build a case against a named officer with very limited information, why is it right to build a defence of one with just as little information ? Does it depend on what you think about the officer ( bias ) ?

      Is it wrong for jj to want you and your readers to pronounce a case solved because of what he believes ? Is it also right to expect you and your readers to pronounce a case solved with equally little concrete evidence against the McCanns ? Is that too subject to a double standard ? you're showing your blog up for the bias it champions.

      Delete
    6. JJ is expressing his opinions. Opinions aren't like lies are they. Just because you disagree doesn't mean he's wrong.Think of all the opinions you put on the boards here. Why should anyone believe them ? Because you say so ? if you have little available evidence then you shouldn't claim to be the font of all knowledge either.Look closer to home before you start throwing stones

      Delete
    7. ''
      JJ25 April 2019 at 17:46
      I am not angry or hostile, just very disappointed that if there is evidence or police statements that do not pillory the McCanns or tapas 7, they are dismissed out of hand.''

      You have been reading here long enough to realise that those views are met with accusations of being angry, a shill, a troll, or a McCann.You know the blogs mission statement :)

      Delete
    8. @ Ziggy 20.55

      You forgot mentally ill.

      Delete
    9. 20.55
      Concur

      T

      Delete
    10. 20:55 I would really appreciate advice from McCann supporters that goes beyond criticising the people asking the questions, mocking them, or is downright xenophobic. Rarely does anyone point to source information, like the PJ files.

      The best argument that they seem to come up with is - no charges in 12 years. Not every case is solved overnight, and it can mean suspects being in the frame for many uncomfortable years.

      https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/suspect-hook-after-takeaway-owner-14626411

      One, two, three......yeah but, no but....

      Delete
    11. "The best argument that they seem to come up with is - no charges in 12 years. Not every case is solved overnight, and it can mean suspects being in the frame for many uncomfortable years."

      It also helps when the police publically state that they are not investigating the McCanns.

      Delete
    12. Anon, @ 20:48

      "If it's wrong to build a case against a named officer with very limited information, why is it right to build a defence of one with just as little information?"

      Because of the principle of presumption of innocence. No one has the onus on them to prove their innocence. It's the other way round. It's a burden of evidence, not a burden of innocence that is required.

      That is as true for the McCanns as anyone else. Half-wits who scream 'hater' here, are probably denying that questioners of their abduction theory, hold that principle very, very dear. Questioners are not a slavering lynch mob intent on summary justice.

      In a court of law it is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that is the required standard of prosecution, to achieve safe conviction. Who would want that any other way?

      'Is it wrong for jj to want you and your readers to pronounce a case solved because of what he believes?"

      I presume that isn't a real question.

      Shallis

      Delete
    13. When did the police publicly state that they are not investigating the McCanns?

      Do you think the police are carrying out all their investigations around the McCanns without involving them at all? The McCanns and their friends are integral to whatever happened on that night whether they are innocent or guilty. Should the police apprehend an abductor, the McCanns and their friends would be fully involved in the building of the case and the eventual trial. The 'abduction' must fit within the tapas group timeline the one they helpfully provided. There is no way they can prosecute anyone without the evidence of the parents and their friends.

      But are they helping the police? How about you pros answering a question for once. As an observer I would say no they are not, which is why the crime remains unsolved.

      Delete
    14. 'Oscar Slater26 April 2019 at 11:31

      ''20:55 I would really appreciate advice from McCann supporters that goes beyond criticising the people asking the questions, ''

      Do you not take criticism too well then, kitten ?

      ''The best argument that they seem to come up with is - no charges in 12 years. ''

      Well, Oscar, as arguments go, that's a pretty good one by anyone's standards. More so when you consider the case has been scrutinised in all that time by the UK's finest, OG, and the PJ.Yet nothing has materialised, in their collective opinion, that can be considered an argument that could get past a prosecution counsel let alone a judge or jury.Perhaps if there was some tangible evidence it would help.Or maybe a reliable eye witness. But there isn't any.The lack of any reliable eye witness is unfortunate.It happens.The lack of tangible evidence is another thing isn't it. All that stands against the McCanns are the suspicions of Amaral which are all based on the only similar case he'd investigated previoulsy. That narrow focus, and unfounded certainty, wasted far too much valuable time at a crucial stage of the investigation. He gambled.

      With regard to the criticisms of those who question the McCanns, it isn't that simple is it. It isn't that they merely question the McCanns character and innocence, they make bold statements they can't possibly have any knowledge of.Comments about them personally, identifying their lies but not explaining why they are lies. They contradict Martin Grimes' findings and statement about the dogs indications( not evidence).They claim Smith witnessed Gerry with a corpse even though Smith says differently.They state that their child is, categorically, dead and don't care what the two police forces say.They insist that an Amaral victory over a publishing argument, and the judge saying that it didn't equate to a verdict of innocent, is 'evidence' of guilt.They ignore the rest of the judge;s ruling stating that it wasn't within her remit to say anything about criminal charges or a trial.The head of the PJ stated loud and clear on TV that the parents are not suspects and haven't been for over 10 years.But the antis ignore that. So they kind of bring on criticisms of themselves, themselves really don't they.Holding the position that you can ignore the statements of the police if they contradict your imagined theory is silly.There's no yeah but no but about it. It's there.

      Delete
    15. remember '' The McCanns are NOT suspects. Period' 2017 ?

      Delete
    16. Rosalinda Hutton26 April 2019 at 18:40

      '''But are they helping the police? How about you pros answering a question for once. As an observer I would say no they are not, which is why the crime remains unsolved''

      And that's why other blogs find you hilarious

      Delete
  22. Imagine being hostile towards people who held different vies, eh, Ros. Tut tut

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a stupid thing to say 19:26. I host different views on here ever day, if they are courteous they get a courteous reply. But as you will see 19:26, they rarely are, they think if they insult me often enough they will somehow persuade me over to their way of thinking.

      It's never worked, obviously, but it does give me an insight into the thinking of Team McCann. The angrier and more hostile they become, the more the fear is getting to them.

      They have many achilles heels, the alerts of the dogs worried Gerry so much he appealed directly to the Judge in the closing stages of the last trial, which they lost.

      Right now, on here, as the discussions are going, Smithman is centre stage. The man who looked like Gerry carrying a child who looked like Madeleine through the streets of PDL. What are the chances eh?

      Delete
  23. The number one reason the tapas group ripped out the pages of a little dead girl's colouring book to use as a fake platform for their alibi was to reinforce to the Portuguese police how much they cared. "Look, we even used her colouring book".

    A scheme that actually backfired as a horrified world discovered the brutal reality of the girl's disappearance and the parents involvement in their daughter's death on that same evening May 7th 2007 when they conjured up the cover-up story.

    How their little girl can look down from heaven and see her parents using her death as an alibi would take a valley of tears to explain. And I guess the parents will give the creator their best shot when they reach the pearly gates.
    But forgiveness will be hard to come by for them.
    And so too all the others involved in the web of intrigue.

    If anyone reading this is still a staunch believer in the Tapas group innocence I would suggest immediately making a donation to the six directors (including the two parents who control the "Not A Charity" Find Madeleine Fund Leave no stone unturned fund).
    And join the satanic PR schemers who dreamed up the macabre title - Oh I forgot - it was the parents.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  24. FAO Ziggy Trolldust.
    Please find another hobby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Shilldust more like.

      Delete
    2. Ziigy, stop frightening the little trolls. You'll wake them up :)

      Delete
    3. 17.45
      Concur


      T

      Delete
    4. @ 9.04 and 13.29
      Ziggy Bulldust is more appropriate going by the amount of crap he talks.

      Delete
  25. In this blog you state Jane Tanner was the first to implicate Robert Murat and it was a special kind of evil thing to do.

    I simply pointed out to you, it is an enduring myth and is not true, easily provable from police documents. This is met with open hostility so can you offer any evidence to back up your outlandish claims against JT.

    The UK Police have stated hers is an honest mistake and have found the innocent holidaymaker.

    You insist they do not mean it and continue your character assassination at every opportunity. The UK Police have found no evidence of wrong doing against Tanner why can you not accept it.

    The UK Police have, its over.

    You talk of fairness so how do you believe Tanners children are reacting to this constant onslaught of innuendo and speculation against their mother.

    I do not believe in OG you do. But you constantly denigrate their investigations skills regarding Tanner.

    Why?

    You also castigate, Bennett, Hall, Hyatt, and HideHo etc for analysing every movement, gesture and look by the McCanns but on this blog every day comment how the weight and wait of the investigation is hanging over them, ageing them.

    They, as we all are, are 12 years older. It is ridiculous speculation. Gerry's career success continues and Kate is still the mother to twins and the police of both nations state they are not suspects period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ the police of both nations do not state they are not suspects.

      Delete
    2. Good heavens JJ, your defence of JT is very gallant, but totally mystifying. It doesn't appear you have read GA's book, where he recounts how Jane Tanner came to name Robert Murat as the man she saw carrying a child.

      Yes, there was much that went on before JT named RM, ie the creepy anonymous phone calls, the tip off from Lori Campbell, the CEOP profile, but it was JT's confirmation that was the game changer.

      As for Operation Grange 'clearing' her, I can see why they wanted that window of opportunity opened to 45 minutes, and I accept they had to do what they had to do to get it. I'm not denigrating them, I never have. Unlike yourself I am very aware of the power of words, to me they are not only police officers but men and women who have thoughts, feelings and emotions, just like the rest of us. As I seem to be saying a lot lately, imagine yourself speaking to those police officers face to face, would you be so aggressive and confrontational in that situation?

      I castigate Bennett, Hall, Hyatt, the biscuit woman, HideHo etc. because they are weirdos who have an unhealthy obsession with child sexual abuse. Like most people of their ilk, they have zero interest in child physical abuse which is far more rampant and kills far more children.

      The discussions around Gerry and Kate go where they go JJ, it is the price they pay for fame. As long as they are in the news, people will talk about them. They are not special JJ, they are treated the same way as anyone who hits the headlines. It is by their own volition that they hit the headlines so often.

      Unsolved crimes can go on for decades JJ. And with all the new science and technology, many of those crimes are now being solved. The difference with the Madeleine case, is that there are two live police investigations and the British one, Operation Grange has just received more funding. The continued funding confirms that the case is far from over.

      As you know the police declaring the McCanns not suspects has done nothing to lift the cloud of suspicion from them. Why haven't OG given reasons why the parents and their friends are not suspects? It would have been far more effective in clearing them than two words. Instead they have left them in a position where speculation is inevitable.

      Delete
    3. "Good heavens JJ, your defence of JT is very gallant, but totally mystifying. It doesn't appear you have read GA's book, where he recounts how Jane Tanner came to name Robert Murat as the man she saw carrying a child."

      As you say this identification would be a game changer so does it not mystify you that senior highly experienced detectives of two nations didn't bother to record this momentous event.

      Even odder for highly experienced detectives they did not ask Tanner to sign witness statements to confirm she had positively identified Murat.

      My belief is they wanted a patsy at that time but no traceable paper trail back to CEOP.
      This was neither police work of the poorest standard or a deliberate ploy to hamper the investigation.

      There is nothing to support Amarals version of events so as evidence it is worthless.

      Delete
    4. JJ, at 09:26

      Jane Tanner was, I think, rather over suggestible to say the least. Though her sighting was discredited in its entirety back in 2007, she was publicly retired from the story during Crimewatch - in a kindly manner, allowing a shred of her dignity to be left intact, with (as you say):

      'the UK Police have stated hers is an honest mistake and have found the innocent holidaymaker'.

      She's a nonentity. Caught up in something that very quickly got way out of her control. She was terrified in the van containing representatives of UK police, as well as the PJ - she thought she was being abducted! Not encouraging.

      If you suspect, as Ros does, that the T7 colluded in a serious crime, then you can understand her interest in Jane and the Tapas Group generally. You allow yourself different suspicions re this case. We are entitled to our opinions.

      One does feel very much for the children of the T9. When you have very young children, as they did at the time, it is hard to imagine them growing up, and not being so easily shielded from your decisions, and actions in this world, and having their own autonomous minds, and opinions.

      It is not hard to think that some of those involved would have acted differently if they had anticipated the world-wide media frenzy, and the spotlight into which they would be thrown, the backlash, and the long after life of that night in May. K&G put themselves in the full glare of the media by choice, they courted fame, and chose to manipulate the attention to their own advantage. The T7 just found themselves along for the ride. Without the personal million pound PR spin.

      And not always best appreciated - see Gerry In Crimewatch undermining Jane on camera (to bolster his own credibility), and reducing her to tears.

      I, for one, feel sympathy for Jane. And by extension her family. But that does not mean that I do not see from the evidence that the T7 were, when push came to shove, at least self-serving, and pusillanimous. But we are human.

      As a witness Jane is out the picture.

      You really must study where the investigation is at with a lot more close attention re the McCanns. But I think you consider it a total scam?

      Shallis



      Delete
    5. Oscar 11:57

      Pedro do Carmo PJ " But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period."

      Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley has also ruled out their potential involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.

      He said: "The parents' involvement - that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
      "We're happy that's completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to re-open that or start rumours that's a line of investigation.

      Over to you Oscar!

      Delete
    6. JJ 26 April 14.59

      I'm just butting in here as I'm going out for the rest of the day but you and your ilk seem to have forgotten (conveniently) that Portugal has jurisdiction over the case as the "crime" was committed in Portugal.

      Here is a link to a Telegraph newspaper article that states that the McCanns have not been ruled innocent by a Portuguese judge in Madeleine's "disappearance" -

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

      Delete
    7. "Jane Tanner was, I think, rather over suggestible to say the least. Though her sighting was discredited in its entirety back in 2007, she was publicly retired from the story during Crimewatch - in a kindly manner, allowing a shred of her dignity to be left intact".

      Shallis

      Who discredited her testimony/sighting, in its entirety back in 2007. Offer some evidence.

      Why would the Police allow her to retire with dignity, a person who many believe, Ros included,had perpetrated a degree of malevolent evil in implicating Robert Murat.

      The police are there to seek the truth not to cosset feelings.

      Delete
    8. Stop spoiling their fun, JJ. Everyone knows Oscar knows more than the police on this case. he told everyone on the blog.If it doesn't implicate the McCanns it's just 'pretendy' lol

      Delete
    9. ( wherever you are, JJ, I tip my hat to you )

      Delete
    10. JJ, @ 14:33

      "There is nothing to support Amarals version of events so as evidence it is worthless".

      Jane Tanner's rogatory letter statement.

      Shallis

      Delete
    11. Who said the two senior police officers didn't record the event JJ? Goncalo Amaral knew all about it and he wasn't there. Not all the PJ files were released.

      As for there is nothing to support GA's account, err, his account is supported in it's entirety by the original police investigation. Have you joined the hate GA group now JJ?

      Delete
  26. Anonymous 23 April 2019 at 17:32

    Morning, Shalllis

    “Oscar has professional expertise in these matters…

    He is using his objective knowledge.”

    Where does this notion of yours come from?

    “You can't choose fact.”

    One can and often does.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, 10:56

      Indeed not. Oscar revealed to me his professional knowledge and experience in an analysing bruising from restraint.

      God, you're tiresome.

      Shallis

      Delete
    2. Shallis. You compose really, really long pieces of God knows what with the philosophy of 'why use three sentences when you can write a chapter'. Looking for a salient point is like looking for half a needle in four haystacks.It's seldom, if ever, worth the effort.Most of what you drone on about only adds up to another boring way of trying to create guilt and crimes and blame the McCanns and the Tapas group. You add originality ( you think) by suggesting nobody knows including you.Then continue to disguise the parroted phrases and accusations among thousands of words.We can still see them. they're easy to recognise as they've been typed a thousand times by others.They lack originality, accuracy and anything factual. When it's pointed out you resort to the usual small minded anti tactic of being, or trying to be, nasty or personal like a child.You're a shambles.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous26 April 2019 at 13:08

      ''God, you're tiresome.''

      Truth is always tiresome when it appears in the middle of so much hard work promoting lies. Chin up.

      Delete
    4. Dear, Anon (as ever) @17:40

      Then may I suggest that you don't read what I write? It isn't compulsory.

      I didn't bother to read much of that. See? It's easy.

      Love and kisses

      S

      Delete
    5. 17.40
      Concur

      T


      Delete
    6. Anon, @ 17:41. Are you a a devotee of Vladislav Surkov? Doesn't work, Sunshine. Not on the informed, and educated. Sorry :) Sx

      Delete
  27. JJ, at 17:46

    'Lori Campbell's criminality is still on YouTube and in 12 years, OG still has not found it'.

    Lori did not commit a criminal offence. She might have been revealed for her shameless ambition angling for a star 'Ian Huntley/Soham murders' moment. And caring not a fig for the appalling collateral damage she might cause in other people's lives. But she broke no law.

    Why would OG be remotely interested in the incident?

    Shallis

    ReplyDelete