‘All that stands against the McCanns are the suspicions of Amaral which are all based on the only similar case he’s previously investigated’.
That is a statement from the comments section of my blog, not mine obviously, but it pretty much sums up why the McCanns and their supporters pour such venom into the angry words they use on here to denounce the former detective. It’s all his fault. No one would suspect them if it wasn’t for Goncalo Amaral. He is blamed for wasting time in focusing on them, thus allowing the abductor to get away. But worse, and this was the basis of their legal claims against him, he had told the world their daughter was dead. And if the world believed their daughter was dead, no-one would look for her.
The McCanns, or more specifically Ziggy on here, continue to be affronted by anyone who believes Madeleine is dead. To say Madeleine is dead is to invite a barrage of personal abuse ranging from cruel/evil, to mental health problems, to alcohol and substance abuse. In the Bizarro McCann world, dead is an insult perpetrated by evil online trolls to victimise the parents of a missing child. In the Bizarro McCann world, they are not the ones who did something wrong. It was Warners fault for not putting up notices advising parents to look after their children, it was GA’s fault for investigating them instead of looking for an abductor, it was the Sun’s fault for making people blame them instead of Goncalo Amaral. In the Bizarro McCann world, everything is someone else’s fault.
But it all comes back to Goncalo Amaral, he spoiled everything, and it was all going so well, those grandiose plans they made around the swimming pool were in sight. Fame and fortune lay ahead, an annual Madeleine Day for the whole world. Jim Gamble wanted a specialist police agency to respond to child abduction abroad, had he got it, they would have had nothing to do this past 12 years. Gerry (in his head) had all the skills to be a television host, like John Walsh in the USA, who’s 5 year old son was abducted and murdered. Unfortunately, what he sees when he looks back on his interviews, is the not the same as the rest of us. There is a lot of delusion in the Bizarro McCann world.
If I were a considerate blog host I would ask my readers not to refer to Madeleine as dead, which of course is exactly what the McCanns would like me to do. However, as this blog is about truth and reality, I’m not going to do that. It would be like saying, hey folks I know the hypnotist isn’t here with his swinging brass watch, but could ya all just hop over into the delusional section, it would make the parents feel so much better. I have nothing against being delusional, I think we have all resorted to that at one time or the other, but demanding that others join you is a step too far.
There is nothing evil or malevolent in accepting reality. Madeleine hasn’t been seen in 12 years, even after 48 hours her chances of being alive were slim. The dog that was trained to alert to the scent of cadaver alerted in the apartment of the McCanns (no other), the boot of their hire car, and to items and clothing belonging to the parents. That was enough to change the course of the original investigation and it is enough for lay members of the public to suspect the parents.
Most people haven’t read GA’s book, their suspicions come from what they have seen, heard and read. The weird behaviour of Madeleine's parents. The parents’ behaviour has never been normal, what other bereft parents of a missing child opened an online shop within days of the child going missing? It is the parents behaviour that arouses suspicion, it is so far from normal that it has provided fodder for blogs and forums for years. They paid Lord Bell £500k to stay on the front pages of the tabloids, I guess the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.
Finally, I used the above quote from my last blog to illustrate not only the Bizarro World of the McCanns, but the condescending attitude of those on here who claim to support the McCanns. Does a heart surgeon perform the same operation on the next patient, regardless of the fact that the new patient has entirely different symptoms?
In his book Amaral claims Tanner positively identified Murat as the man she saw carrying a child circa 21.15.
ReplyDeleteThis was a major breakthrough. A game changer, as Ros describes it.
It is difficult to believe that neither he nor any member of the PJ or UK Police forces, including CEOP, thought it important to obtain a signed witness statement from JT confirming her identification.
Tanner flatly denies she identified Murat but Amaral is adamant she did.
He was a senior police officer and must have been aware of the value of written and recorded evidence, to avoid this type of dispute.
In the days that followed, Amaral would have through channels, informed SY, Leicestershire Police, CEOP, Interpol, the NPIA,ACPO, GNR and PJ, that Tannerman was Robert Murat.
It is logical Tanner told the McCanns and Tapas 7, of her positive ID of Murat. So can anybody explain why so much time, energy, money and resource, has been invested into finding the identity of Tannerman.
If you believe the PJ have held back files from the public, they would be open to OG striving shoulder to shoulder, in complete harmony with the PJ to examine.
In the files would be Tanner's statement, confirming it was Murat she saw so why have OG been searching for this man and deceiving the UK public on national TV.
The only conclusion is sadly Amaral has invented Tanner's positive identification of Murat and has proved to be an embarrassment to the PJ who in turn are quite happy with OG's antics as they cover up their own misdemeanours.
It is in neither countries interest to pursue this matter,far too embarrassing all round.
Hi, JJ, @ 16:07
DeleteJT did not 'flatly deny' she identified Murat in her rogatory statement. She madly prevaricates. The Leicestershire police had no power to actually pin her down (within the protocol of PJ rogatory letters)
You ask: 'can anybody explain why so much time, energy, money and resource, has been invested into finding the identity of Tannerman'. But you have no evidence this is so. JT has been publicly excused, along with her Tannerman. It would seem to me this has been done with minimum trouble, and expense. She is out of it.
You also write re this matter: 'In the files would be Tanner's statement, confirming it was Murat she saw so why have OG been searching for this man and deceiving the UK public on national TV'. I don't understand this. JT's identification of Murat, indeed her sighting of Tannerman in its entirety, was discredited. Murat was exonerated. OG 'deceiving the UK on national TV' - how exactly?
If you want to see sculduggery you will. You ask: 'If you believe the PJ have held back files from the public', as if you think that that would mean those who don't agree with you must be backed into considering the PJ 'liars'. And refraining from this, we *must* believe that Amaral 'invented' JT's sighting of Murat. This is very far-fetched to say the least. But it also just doesn't follow. And does not acknowledge our actual knowledge that that many parts of the investigation *were* never released. We actually know this, I stress again.. So how to square the circle? By not making 2+2=5. Portuguese law allows (insists maybe, I haven't pursued this as it hasn't been relevant) that set files from an investigation can be released. These files were then redacted in this case as specified. As they have been so easily exposed 'lying' if they were 'hiding things' - I think you should, at least allow, that may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and (to mix metaphors) made a mountain out of a molehill.
Why would GA invent, and widely publish such an outrageous lie - one that could be so easily exposed? Makes no sense. The lie itself would have no apparent motive. It would be pointless. Embarrass the PJ? they could just call it out, couldn't they?
btw you accused me a page back of 'whimsy and muddled thinking' re Matthew's child check. I have rebutted you, but you have ignored this. This bothers me a great deal as it is a groundless accusation. And far from my modus operandi.
Briefly, from his own testimony, it can be shown that Matthew never attended 5a at 9.30pm. You accuse me of sloppiness (or something - or 'catching me out', or some such) in then referencing this visit, and the noticeable relaxed attitude of K&G towards Matthew, over the lack of responsibility in carrying out his assignment on their behalf, which had denied them possibly half of the 'golden hour' of finding their missing child. By the 'official story' of abduction by Tannerman, that they adamently promoted themselves, they lost a critical half hour lead. I reminded you that in logical reasoning 'double think' is required to progress, and to uncover truth. So, it is sometimes required to take his check 'seriously'. So:
1) In the McCann universe, Matthew checked the children at 9.30pm.
2) In the known universe of every body else (where the facts drawn from his witness statements apply), he did not.
So, can you acknowledge no 'whimsy and muddled thinking'? btw I also made clear the alternative meaning of 'nice' I had used - the context should have made this quite apparent. And requested you did not stoop to low, spurious attack, which I think is beneath you, JJ.
Shallis
Nobody should be as boring as you and be allowed near a keyboard. JT does deny that she saw Murat and that she was led by the PJ to say it was.It was them who wanted him framed up not her.read the statement. Why would Amaral lie ? Because he's a liar, or he's incompetent.Yes, Murat was exonerated. Twice.Amaral, who has made a small fortune from his book flatly denying that that anything other than the McCanns guilt, had him in the station for questioning twice as many times as he had the Mccanns in.He was 'sure' he would 'get' Murat and told him as much. Then he became sure of the McCanns.
DeleteAnon @ 19:45
DeleteIn her rogatory statement Jane Tanner states that she does not think her Tannerman was Murat, *anymore*. She prevaricates about whether she identified him from the van. She will not say 'yes', or 'no'. The police do not press her to a definitive answer (not in a position to do so here). You are simply not right about her saying she was led by the PJ to say it was him. She doesn't say anything remotely like that, that you could misinterpret. That would have been a very serious allegation to make, one that would have triggered an enquiry at the time. Remember too, she was attended by Leicestershire Police's DCS Bob Small throughout the identification process.
I'm afraid it is very remiss of you to claim you are speaking from evidence in the sources when you are not. It is a very good idea to check the facts carefully before making pronouncements.
You cannot make an assertion such as 'It was them [PJ] who wanted him [Murat] framed up not her', because you simply can't support it. It is very poor scholarship. You cannot make unsubstantiated accusations about Amaral, either. These seem merely based on the fact you are biased against him. You call him 'a liar, based on what? It cannot just be your own personal opinion. You cannot call him 'incompetent' for the same reasons.
Murat cooperated fully with the police.
The investigation of the McCanns was not the personal whim of Goncalo but a direction of the investigation, including Mark Harrison, National Adviser for the UK agency dealing with Missing persons, Abduction, and Homicide. It was Mark Harrison who advised the dog and DNA tests were conducted.
These are weighty matters. The facts matter.
Shallis
btw 19:45
Deletein your reply to my 'boring writing'. I was replying to JJ, who takes this case very seriously. We are discussing the case seriously. Not writing for entertainment. This isn't 'Three Men in a Boat'.
Shallis
Anonymous 29 April 2019 at 14:14
Delete“It was Mark Harrison who advised the dog and DNA tests were conducted.”
An idiotic (in a technical sense) sentence, Shaleez. This is a fact.
“These are weighty matters. The facts matter.”
You don’t say, petal. Zzzzzz (I’m making notes to pass the above revelation on to the future generations).
Bee
Hello Bee
DeleteYou do not understand the meaning of 'advise', so your correction is in error. Your point is a little muddled (because of your ignorance of the definition of the word), so to clarify:
Mark Harrison was sent to Portugal to help the Leicestershire police, and the PJ in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. His brief was to 'offer a new scenario for the searches with the consideration of the hiding of a corpse and human remains' (rotagatory testimony). At the end of July, he authored 'Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann' which was presented to both UK and Portuguese police. This document 'advised' (directed/proposed/instructed) the police to conduct searches, including, but not limited to, those of the sniffer dogs. The searches were then carried out (as we know).
Me: 'These are weighty matters. The facts matter.'
I do not know you Bee, I cannot understand why a complete stranger is so minded to ridicule, and insult me.
Be that as it may. This quotation comes from my sign off to a poster who, having read my reply to a different poster, began their reply to me by complaining my writing was 'boring'. They continued with a statement that they bandied as fact, citing a source they clearly hadn't read, which negated what they were so confidently asserting. They were then using this falsehood to roll out the old Goncalo Amaral incompetent/liar trope.
So my closure was reminding them that yes, the facts matter rather a lot here, and this is a real life case about a very serious crime. Your problem with this is what, exactly?
Shallis
Would you say Amaral was denounced more by A- being removed from the case he professed to have cracked ' B- being found guilty in a court of law of the crime of perjury relating to a case he was co-ordinating, or C- comments that point that out on a blog ?
ReplyDeleteIt's true to say, as you often do, that Amaral chose a narrow focus very early and it has been implied that the decisions had a negative impact on the crucial early stages of the investigation. As such the chances of finding Madeleine evaporated fast.here we are on the brink of the twelfth anniversary and we still don't know what happened to her.Why is it wrong to criticise that ? I thought you claimed to welcome 'all sides of a discussion'. He had so many working theories going on ( for the investigation's benefit and his future book), yet still failed. Even the PJ still on the case haven't been able to use his theories or book to get anywhere.
His biggest case prior to the McCann one involved a missing little girl. It turned out -after a confession- that one of her parents ( mother) and her lover ( brother) had killed her, chopped her up, stored her then later buried her.They were obviously found guilty ( no corpse needed).The mother later tried ti blame the officers of beating a confession out of her but failed. It didn't stop Amaral playing with the files, however, and he was found guilty during the McCann investigation.
The PJ. Met, and OG have stated that, as far as they are concerned it's still a missing persons case, not a murder investigation. I think they would be 'affronted' by internet sleuths declaring here dead whatever they say.Statistically, she probably is.But that's just numbers. if they found a body tomorrow how would that implicate the parents and not an abductor ?
''In the Bizarro McCann world, dead is an insult perpetrated by evil online trolls to victimise the parents of a missing child.''
No, it's the official statement of the joint police force of Portugal and the UK.
I doubt most well adjusted people have any idea about the 'grandiose plans' being made around a pool. I'd need a source to see that.
''If I were a considerate blog host I would ask my readers not to refer to Madeleine as dead, which of course is exactly what the McCanns would like me to do. However, as this blog is about truth and reality, I’m not going to do that.''
So you are accusing the police of lying.
''Most people haven’t read GA’s book, their suspicions come from what they have seen, heard and read.''
Nobody is sitting in a cell anywhere for being under suspicion, It isn't a law.
Re Madeleine’s death. Rather convoluted, Anon @ 16:48
DeleteI can see, and I acknowledge, that you are not the worst offender in the ‘pro’ ‘Madeleine must be alive’ camp, but you are still a bit muddled here, as I detect this strays into challenging your core beliefs v your common sense.
Allowing for the extreme likelihood of her death, includes for many ‘pros’ an unacceptable tacit acknowledgement that her parents may be implicated in it. A jeopardy they cannot entertain. This exposes a closed mind, because in defending her status as 'alive' – at all costs, against reason – very biased thinking is required.
Where it is true if she was found alive tomorrow (hallelujah!) this would exonerate the McCanns, acknowledging she is almost certainly dead does *not* automatically incriminate them. So you can relax a wee bit. You seem very nervous on this point. For it does leave a *possibility* of their guilt, doesn't it? An alive child equals a forever innocent K&G. You might consider that in the required McCann article of faith that 'Madeleine is alive'. The innocent should have no fear.
Gerry McCann’s: 'there is absolutely no evidence of her death', lays down the foundational irrational religious belief that she is therefore *definitely* alive. Because to state the obvious, that there is no evidence she is alive either, is heresy. Just believe!
Of course OG is a 'missing person' investigation. What else could it be? But do you see you are clutching at straws, if you use this to support the (covert in your case) 'Madeleine is alive’ belief? Until we know for certain, the very faint possibility she is alive *has* to be kept open by a police investigation. This is very obvious. It does not mean there is any likelihood that she is. It is not 'just numbers' as you claim. What did you even mean by that? Have a think. Is it, perhaps: faith (a leap of) v fact ('just numbers')? Your premise that to accept the almost certain demise of Madeleine is tantamount to calling the police ‘liars’ (as they have an official missing person investigation) is insane reasoning, can’t you see? Exposes all your thinking as seriously threatened by admittance of her status as probably dead.
I am going to take the liberty (and hope it is no faux pas here) of copying and pasting a post on this subject that I made a ‘page’ back, with a reply to replies (that had neatly reinforced just the point I was making). My justification is that I feel this is a core bit of McCann cant that needs to be exposed, and challenged. Adherence to this dogma, and its angry defence, is a clear indicator of a closed, but rather threatened mind. I would repeat I can see you are not the worst offender, as you (very unusually for a ‘pro’) admit that statistics are not on the child’s side. Which is very sadly true.
Shallis
Anonymous27 April 2019 at 21:23
Delete''Re Madeleine’s death. Rather convoluted, Anon @ 16:48''
Fasten your seat belts, ladies and gentlemen , Shillis is about to deliver another huge word salad....
''I can see, and I acknowledge, that you are not the worst offender in the ‘pro’ ‘Madeleine must be alive’ camp, but you are still a bit muddled here, as I detect this strays into challenging your core beliefs v your common sense. ''
I have stated that I'm only interested in justice. Unlike most who make that claim, my posts support that stand. To point at the lack of evidence being the sensible reason not to arrest anyone, along with their right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty doesn't make me pro McCann, it makes me pro fair trial. I make judgements based on evidence.Not opinions; on facts, not guesses. I've stated this enough times. You say you see me as a pro.That's because you don't understand simple statements.Or choose not to as it serves one of your petty purposes.
''This exposes a closed mind, because in defending her status as 'alive' – at all costs, against reason – very biased thinking is required. ''
Preach to the police.
''You seem very nervous on this point. For it does leave a *possibility* of their guilt, doesn't it?''
Don't attempt the mind games.You are way out of your league.
''The innocent should have no fear.''
Correct.Have you any evidence of who is in fear ? Or do you 'just know' ?
Gerry McCann is the child's father.He is right Re no evidence of her being dead.The police haven't said otherwise on record have they ?To misunderstand a parent who has no idea of where is daughter might be and call his clutching at straws irrational speaks about you, not him.
''It is not 'just numbers' as you claim. What did you even mean by that? Have a think.''
Context, shillis.I've taught you once. Numbers as in it was mentioned in regard to statistical odds; probability.
''Your premise that to accept the almost certain demise of Madeleine is tantamount to calling the police ‘liars’ (as they have an official missing person investigation) is insane reasoning, ''
I didn't call them liars did I. I asked if those pronouncing the child dead, in contrast to the police official line, are calling them liars.
''Exposes all your thinking as seriously threatened by admittance of her status as probably dead.''
Do't be so melodramatic. Exposes all my thinking ? Threatened ? You're off it.
'' My justification is that I feel this is a core bit of McCann cant that needs to be exposed, and challenged. ''
It needs to be deciphered or at least translated into English first.
'' I would repeat I can see you are not the worst offender, as you (very unusually for a ‘pro’) admit that statistics are not on the child’s side. Which is very sadly true.''
Three times in the last week I've replied to posts saying ' admittedly the statistical chances of her being alive are bad' and words to that effect.But they're just numbers( get it yet?)
Who this 'I' you speak of? most massively self-important Anonymous @ 22:20.
DeleteYou cannot both claim continuity of argument from post to post, but actually post as no one at all. Do you see?
Your reply is disappointingly worthless to the debate. Mangling my argument, missing the point, descending to insult, in a slow, quite impenetrable, pointless dribble.
Exasperating. Disappointing. Saddening.
Shallis
Anonymous27 April 2019 at 23:43
Delete''Who this 'I' you speak of? most massively self-important Anonymous @ 22:20.
You cannot both claim continuity of argument from post to post, but actually post as no one at all. Do you see?''
No, because if it was confusing, you wouldn't be addressing me would you.Again you tried to be clever before thinking it out.
''Your reply is disappointingly worthless to the debate. Mangling my argument, missing the point, descending to insult, in a slow, quite impenetrable, pointless dribble. ''
Anybody who reads the post won't see that. Only you will. Because you can't address the simple points ( again) can you? You're trying desperately to paint me as insulting and as talking nonsense.But you won't offer an example.Because you can't find one can you ? Using the ' it's beneath me to even discuss it'' trick doesn't wash. Just admit you're floundering constantly.
Trying to dress a juvenile insult up as wit has both failed
and exposed you yet again. It's a bad habit.What i posted is still there for the reader. The points are there to be agreed with , argued against, discussed, or just ignored.But none of those can happen unless it's understood first.That's the one thing you have demonstrated again.
22:20 Ziggy, where's your dignity man?
DeleteErr, Goncalo Amaral dealt with more than 2 cases in his long, successful, police career which spanned more than thirty years, he wasn't a rookie on his second case. When a heart surgeon operates does he treat the new patient exactly the same as the last one? Even though the new one has entirely different symptoms?
DeleteAgain you are demeaning the police, via Goncalo Amaral. I've finally got it, you can't rant and rave against the British police and Operation Grange, so all your anger is focussed on Goncalo Amaral.
Anyway, I'm having a clear out shortly, particularly of those posts that have descended to playground insults such as 'shillis'. Your desperation to lower the tone of the discussion is laughable, probably because you are away from your natural habitat, cesspit 2, the myths sites.
Anonymous. Please note, ANONYMOUS @ 02:12,
DeleteMe: "You cannot both claim continuity of argument from post to post, but actually post as no one at all. Do you see?''
You: "No, because if it was confusing, you wouldn't be addressing me would you".
Whoever you are, you are like a toddler who thinks they can hide themselves from others by closing their own eyes, but in reverse.
Your argument here is illogical too, go spot why.
No, I have no idea who you are, or who is talking to me unless they (courteously) introduce themselves. God knows how many, only slightly distinguishable one from another, Anons are out there. Do you think I can tell the difference? I can’t, and am hardly going to bother to try, am I? Your vanity is astounding, One Particular Anon of a great host.
No, Nameless Person, it is not about my not addressing your 'simple points', as you put it. What you are doing here is rather than - being competent enough to be able to? - digest the argument of a post, and respond thoughtfully to *that*, you are just cutting the post into little strips; putting them all in a hat; giving it a good shake, and then extracting gobbets randomly. You then settle yourself into savaging each of these in isolation in a now completely hopeless fashion. Far from any original meaning, or context. Absolutely matters not what you write, providing it is entirely negative; coming from a huge sense of superiority for some unknown reason – so massively, and weirdly self-congratulatory; and peppered with as much venom, insult, and low taunting as you can muster. Do you think this is engaging in 'debate'?
The result is quite impenetrable; destabilisingly miles from the point; positively winding in its inanity – and, of course, completely impossible to engage with at all. I have pointed this out here, and your response? A puffed up sense of the victory of your ‘arguments’. You crow that your brilliance cannot be countermanded! And I am thus shown up, and put down for all to see! Poor little me.
All this is quite futile. Like a trip down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. It is nonsense, Anonymous, nonsense. You are nothing but a pack of cards.
A bizzaro world, indeed.
Shallis
''Rosalinda Hutton28 April 2019 at 12:10
Delete''Err, Goncalo Amaral dealt with more than 2 cases in his long, successful, police career which spanned more than thirty years, he wasn't a rookie on his second case. When a heart surgeon operates does he treat the new patient exactly the same''
Who said any differently ?
13:05 whether anyone said differently, or not doesn't change the amount of experience he had. However, the fact that someone continually talks about one case, out of a 30 year career, suggests that he spent a lot of time eating sardines.
DeleteWill that do?
No. The point was made in reply to a point it had nothing to do with.Nobody said Amaral only had experience of 2 cases did they ?
DeleteShakespeare and monkeys, Ziggy, Shakespeare and monkeys. 18:35
DeleteAnon, 27 April 2019 @ 22:20
DeleteI am taking you here as being 'Ziggy', I have no idea how many Anons there are in this vein. Collective 'Ziggy', then. Clones. Who knows? Who cares?
I am going to indulge you in picking up just one specific instance of your stupidity. I am posting this as a fresh comment so you will not miss it. But I have absolutely no interest whether you read it or not.
It is the final time I will respond to you.
In her post at the top of the page, Ros wrote: ''If I were a considerate blog host I would ask my readers not to refer to Madeleine as dead, which of course is exactly what the McCanns would like me to do. However, as this blog is about truth and reality, I’m not going to do that.''
On 27 April 2019 at 16:48 you quoted Ros (as above) and responded with: "So you are accusing the police of lying".
On 27 April 2019 at 21:23, I took up this exchange as part of my argument when I wrote:
“Your premise that to accept the almost certain demise of Madeleine is tantamount to calling the police ‘liars’ (as they have an official missing person investigation) is insane reasoning."
[more of why it was 'insane' is developed in my post].
You actually wrote back to this with: "I didn't call them liars did I? I asked if those pronouncing the child dead, in contrast to the police official line, are calling them liars".
Now first, you are employing a trick of very slightly trying to shift what you originally said. You have turned your *statement* into a slight question - though clearly this must be a rhetorical one. You were maybe unaware of this sneak. The original version stands. Your slight revision is disingenuous anyway, and doesn't wash. Your response is still completely blitheringly inane. Stupidity is kind of hard work for others. You lack intellectual capacity to pretty incredible degree. But I expect, though you try to exercise the few grey cells you have with all your might and main, you will never see why, as you actually wrote this stuff in the first place.
The paucity of your reasoning is astounding, but mostly you don't even try any. With your little stash of foolishly chopped up random bits of an original post, the meaning of which has flown straight over your head - you have even failed to understand that, in the first place, you should endeavour to grasp the *whole argument* - you just react with anything nasty that occurs to you, pops into your head just then - preferably highly insulting, and with a condescending tone. The latter, you must admit, a little bit rich in the circumstances.
I would not be so blunt to someone who wasn't actually trying to be continually obnoxious. Do you even have another mode?
You *are* an idiot. You cannot disprove this with screeds more ill-natured piffle, that forever demonstrates that you have completely failed to understand what you have just read. Time and again you confirm your idiocy*. Thinking you are clever does not make it so, ‘Ziggy’.
I do not want to answer anymore of your posts.
You have 'told on me' to Ros(!) that I have called you an idiot. It is the one word response you will get from me if you direct anymore of your vile, and pointless nonsense in my direction. So you will be inviting exactly that one word yourself.
Shallis
*I refer you back to my double post on complex DNA analysis, and your posts on this, including your replies to me as damning evidence of your stupidity. It is the first time I simply gave up, and called you an idiot. It was a point well made.
Oscar Slater 29 April 2019 at 08:37
DeleteYou seem to have heard the proposition about Shakespeare and a monkey since you continue referring to it, but I don’t think you understand it and what it involves. The same goes for those here referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Ros writes here re Madeleine’s death: “There is nothing evil or malevolent in accepting reality”.
ReplyDeleteI had very little response to my posts on this subject a ‘page' back. It is an important subject. I feel some ‘pros’ will ignore the challenge here, desperate to return to the safe pink shrine of ‘Maddie’, the semi-religious child brand. I make no apology for bold language. This needs overturning. Some fresh air. How many children have died tragic deaths since 2007? In Syria, Yemen – as victims of *real* child trafficking? On and on, stark tragedy. We live with this knowledge every day. So sentimentalising does no good. And sentimental tosh as *legal defence* should be exposed without mercy.
I hope I commit no faux pas in repeating this post. I would very much like to kick this one out of court. Surely it should be easy to just move on from the silliness?
The post 1/2
In answer to 'Her daughter isn't dead though, is she?' et al. [This in reply to all the ‘how *dare* you say Madeleine might be dead?’ posters, and all who insist she is alive].
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 overwhelming likelihood of her demise is taken as 'outing' any worldly adult with a functioning intellect, as being instead (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
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteGod, 22:33, This reply is so breathtakingly, and puzzlingly stupid. Ziggy, I presume then?
DeleteIt might be quite a good idea if you actually read what I wrote (three connected posts here) and replied to *that*, this might at least cut down on some of your weary inanity. Your tiresome missing the point, or straw man arguments.
You can't follow an argument, Ziggy. You really can't. You are out your depth. How can anyone descend to your level of dizzying lack of comprehension to reply to you?
It's got me all figured out.
Shallis
Anonymous27 April 2019 at 23:27
Delete''It's got me all figured out.''
You aren't exactly a challenge to figure out< shillis. Just because your disjointed babble takes us all over the place in trying to follow you in case there's a thread, doesn't make you 'complex'.
I think Ros posted slightly out of sequence earlier, hence my almost missing your riveting sequel to that blockbuster you opened with.
I have taken each of your points and addressed them.I have asked you to clarify a couple of small points you make.I didn't expect you'd be able to as they mean nothing. So, instead, it's your ususal tactic of trying to insult your way out of it. The great 'academic' :)
You are far too obsessed with trying to belittle me in order to try and look intelligent in comparison.I can help you with that quest. Just say something intelligent. Then just demonstrate where i'm out of my depth about anything. Nobody is buying what you're trying to sell.Not even those who share your confused outlook. They might like to echo your insincere thoughts about me, but they can't.It isn't there.They can parrot an insult because that's easy. Any child can do that.But, like you, they can't do much about what I say and what I ask.It beats them.
I will leave this for a short while so Shallis et al can see it, but then it will be deleted.
DeleteWhy? It begins 'Shillis'. It is written by a playground bully who thinks it is clever to distort a person's name. It is very much a McCann thing, think 'Amoral', a fish rots from the head down, not hard to see why McCann supporters are such oiks.
you are letting paranoia spoil the blog Ros
DeleteGee thanks, Ros @ 11:28
DeleteActually, I think that this should stand. As it is so revealing.
But, in the wee small hours when I couldn't sleep, I pondered on the open season of your comment section. Which is all to the good, I think. But anyone can walk in 'off the streets'. I did so myself (and it felt rather rude). But it is dispiriting to see how the very interesting topic of your post can be so quickly pulled apart, and submerged by posters who have an agenda. And nothing worthwhile to contribute. Who just want to garble the argument, and be as abusive as possible, attempting character assassinations even. I can well see why you question the whole damn thing you are doing here.
As a poster, it is very hard not to get pulled into the 'bizarro' troll world. And thus being part of the problem. The end of the last 'page' of your blog descended into what felt like being inadvertently caught up in bare-knuckle fighting - side-lined into defending oneself from the raining blows of savage random attacks, and feeling compelled to try and put right the gross injustice being done to oneself. For the sake of truth. But one never can, can one? it's all topsy-turvy. And where in the real world would anyone be subjected to flagrant sexist undermining, and very sharply bang this to rights - and then have the slithery creep dare return with more - even attempting to undermine the righteous put down they had clearly brought upon themselves? The internet makes the loathsome bold. But it also exposes them.
I look forward to continuing to discuss the actual subject of your blog post.
Shallis
13:03, I thought he was called Ziggy. Unless Paranoia is your new name.
DeleteHi Shal;lis. Unfortunately I can't see the full post before I publish, and of course it is infuriatingly difficult trying to decipher who is who, the 'malevolents' as I call them, don't identify themselves in any way. I don't know if it is fear that stops them or sheer bloody mindedness.
DeleteI apologise for the Shillis posts getting through, I am embarrassed for them, but I suspect, much like myself, you see such silliness as their problem rather than yours.
I hate being forced to bring in rules, but to the malevolents,, any post that is disrespectful and rude can be deleted at any time, so too insane rants against Goncalo Amaral.
Hi, Ros @ 18:23
DeleteYou can hardly be expected to try and pre-screen, and sift out crapola. And water off a duck's back, and all that. But 'yes' to deleting the GA rants, they are very distasteful. It is weird, the poisonous posters who hide behind 'Anon'. Dead creepy, frankly.
Shallis
Re me @ 27 April 2019 at 21:30
DeleteI do find it interesting that when directly challenged, the usual knee-jerk: "how *dare* you suggest Maddie might be dead" responses to stating the overwhelming likelihood of her death are notable by their absence.
Deafening silence.
Shallis
post 2/2
ReplyDeleteHaving received defensive, angry replies defending Madeleine's status as ‘alive’ (or at least challenging my right to question it, which is the same thing) I wrote:
Extraordinary that you could reply to my post, so entirely evading the point I made, but continuing to repeat your worrying McCann cult doctrine in response to me. You rather reinforce my point.
Statistics of death of missing children make grim reading, but are googleable if plain common sense, and knowledge of our sometimes cruel world does not do it for you. Survival rate drops sharply after the first few days, even hours. This is very sad, but true. The likelihood of a child missing from the age of three still being alive twelve years later are vanishingly tiny, no matter what the circumstances of her disappearance.
Perhaps you would like to read a quotation from another Sane, Functioning Grown-Up? Here is José de Magalhães e Menezes writing in the police Archiving Dispatch in 2008 about Madeleine McCann. He writes that it was impossible to establish:
"the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively . . . to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely”.
That was one year after her disappearance. It is now eleven more. You do the maths [I was challenged on the maths by way of a rebuttal].
I honestly worry for you.
Shallis
Anonymous27 April 2019 at 21:35
Delete''post 2/2''
Oh great, she's still going ....
I know the statistics, Poindexter. That's why i refer to them.
''Perhaps you would like to read a quotation from another Sane, Functioning Grown-Up? ''
After reading you, anything's a plus...
So quoting José de Magalhães e Menezes who quotes the statistics that everyone has been aware of since before Madeleine was even born makes them more poignant does it ? Behave yourself...
When i said the stats are against a happy ending i meant it. Nobody steals a three year old because they want someone to hang out with.We know the darker scenarios.We know how many have a tragic ending.I thought she was dead a week after she went missing for the same reason.I hope I'm wrong. I hope everyone who fears the worst is wrong.But time isn't shortening the odds on a happy ending.
If she is dead, if she was murdered or whatever the cause, it doesn't mean she died in the apartment. If she did die there, it doesn't mean the parents are the culprits.No dogs identified a killer or a cause of death did they ? The merely indicated areas of interest that required further investigation for corroborating evidence( of which there was none).An abductor could have killed the child in the apartment.Or, a scenario that nobody ever mentions is that the anyone who did kill her could have returned to the scene later to be 'helpful' and keep an ear and eye on 'progress'.Wherever he or she walked or whatever he or she touched would leave a scent of cadaver.'Statistically' the criminal often returns to the scene of the crime.That apartment, as is commonly quoted, was wrecked as a crime scene by a lot of interference before Mr Plod secured it.This latter scenario should have occurred to Amaral. It occurred to me.
''I honestly worry for you.''
You don't. You said that for effect.Which gives me cause for concern about your stability.
Another Anon @ 22:49
Delete"Oh great, she's still going ...."
Unfortunately it's not so great you are. If we have met before? Who knows.
Mangling again. Insults. Running on off topic, rambling who knows where, or why. Are you related to Anon at 22:20? You have a lot in common, including massive self-importance not recognising that if you post as Anon we do not know who 'I' is, so you cannot make self-important reference to 'I' elsewhere. Can I stress this - for we do not know who the hell you are. Do you understand this?
Then you're off on some digs at your betes noires (for no particular reason). The dogs? ffs. Amaral/PJ? Are you for real.
Although it is tragically off topic, re dog finding smell of cadaver:
"Or, a scenario that nobody ever mentions is that the anyone who did kill her could have returned to the scene later to be 'helpful' and keep an ear and eye on 'progress'. Wherever he or she walked or whatever he or she touched would leave a scent of cadaver."
Nobody ever mentions it because it is insane.
So: 'This latter scenario should have occurred to Amaral'.
Funny.
Me: ''I honestly worry for you.'' You: "You don't. You said that for effect".
The closure wasn't addressed to *you*, was it?! I didn't say I worried about *you*! I don't even know who you are! Are you a little self obsessed - 'I'?
Shallis
Ziggy, where's your dignity man?
DeleteGlad you've finally acknowledged the significance of cadaverine, Ziggy
DeleteOn that basis, what is the likelihood that Murat could have contaminated the McCanns car and villa?
Can't speak for Shallis, I don't worry for you. I worry about you, and what you are capable of.
22:49. So Robert Murat having murdered the child returns to the contaminate the crime scene with the odour of cadaverine. Not only did he hide behind the sofa and crawl in the parents' wardrobe, he also managed to sneak into the boot of the car they hadn't yet hired. As for cuddle cat, did he hold it for Kate while she was fretting? Was she sat on his knee with her blank and white check trousers?
DeleteShallis is right. It is insane. I would also add another sign of your desperation.
Oscar, Shillis, Ros.
DeleteGreat minds imagine alike I see.
Can any of you quote where i even mentioned the name Murat in the post you have already re-written in your minds to fit your agenda ? Or have you just decided to lie and become an army of straw men...
Shillis. You type too much. Have a rest.
who mentioned Murat ?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry 13:13 I should have explained it for the hard of thinking.
DeleteIf the abductor had Cadavarine on their clothes and was able to transfer it when they returned to the apartment, how did they also manage to transfer it to the hire car, unless they had access to the car and the apartment, and the villa as well?
Who are you trying to convince?
Bloody hell, Anon @ 13:02.
DeleteI didn't mention Murat in either my post, nor did I claim you did in my response to you. Also, he would have been off topic, do you see? What agenda? What 'lie'?
You create a dizzying world where black is white, and white is black, and think this is counter argument. Or Evidence. Of something. Who knows what? You are impossible to engage with. Incomprehensible.
The name is, Shallis btw
So you didn't mention Robert Murat, but who else returned to hang around the crime scene to find out what was going on? One of the tapas friends maybe? Except Gerry and Kate have 100% trust in them.
DeleteOr are you implying it was someone from Warners' staff?, Tweedledum or Tweedledee? maybe it was forensics experts wearing the same clobber they wore to an earlier crime scene?
Do tell 22:49, who is the mystery person who came back from killing Madeleine to 1)see what was going on and 2)contaminate the apartment etc with the odour of cadaverine.
Oscar Slater28 April 2019 at 14:48
Delete''Sorry 13:13 I should have explained it for the hard of thinking.
If the abductor had Cadavarine on their clothes and was able to transfer it when they returned to the apartment, how did they also manage to transfer it to the hire car, unless they had access to the car and the apartment, and the villa as well?
Who are you trying to convince?''
If Martin Grimes can't convince you who can ? You have professional internet experience in everything.
I'll keep it simple. If the trace of death ( scent) is in the apartment it can be picked up by coming in contact with it.It can then be transferred to where you go or where you touch.So, whoever was in the apartment could have come in contact with it and then passed it to the car.So the McCanns are clearly guilty of picking up the scent.Is that a crime though ( offline) ?
I don't care how dizzy your world is or what your name is. I wasn't addressing you.
DeleteRosalinda Hutton28 April 2019 at 18:39
Delete''So you didn't mention Robert Murat, but who else returned to hang around the crime scene to find out what was going on? One of the tapas friends maybe? Except Gerry and Kate have 100% trust in them. ''
Your default setting is to jump out at anyone not trying to incriminate the parents because they don't think the evidence to do so exists.As such you read past important points which you then attack without knowing what was said.
I said 'an abductor'. How the hell could I name him or her ? If i could do that i wouldn't put it on the internet i'd tell the police.I said ( statistically, as we were talking about the statistics) the perpetrator always returned to the scene of the crime.Again, as above, if i could name the perp Id name them to the police.
''Or are you implying it was someone from Warners' staff?, Tweedledum or Tweedledee? maybe it was forensics experts wearing the same clobber they wore to an earlier crime scene?''
All i said is was what i said. You're adding your own characters and narrative now as usual as it's more enjoyable.
''Do tell 22:49, who is the mystery person who came back from killing Madeleine to 1)see what was going on and 2)contaminate the apartment etc with the odour of cadaverine.''
Why do you think the case is 12 years old ? A good copper or an organised co-ordinator would have a long list of anyone there prior to their arrival, when they arrived and the following days.Who knows, maybe the perp is known.But maybe his unveiling would be too damaging to Portugal and it's industry rather than the UKs ruling classes.Red herrings and all that...
But, yet another Anon @ 18:43
DeleteIf you are the 'I' at 13:02, to whom I was clearly replying by 'name', then you were addressing me directly, weren't you? So why are you claiming you weren't! And if you are another 'I' (constantly moving, just out of sight), why are you replying to me *at all*, as the remark was not addressed to you?
So 'dizzying' is the least of what you are being - continuing here now too. Ever greater uncoupling from reality.
Are you actually trying to present as a basket case? I am sane, I am sane! I will not succumb to your mad universe!
Shallis
Here's a quick questionaire for the Z person who patrols this site, whether it's Ziggy today of or Ebeneezer tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThis spokesperson for the McCanns, - ex psychologist, basement dweller, and by his/her own admission a passionate champion of transgender rock stars, has a little to say other than grate against what anyone on this site is thinking.
However much supporters of the McCanns, - for instance - friend Justine McGuiness' comment "And now they are accusing the parents. It's ridiculous" are on permanent view.
Or the crafty reply of Mr McCann who when asked about the whereabouts of his daughter replied with: - "We can't say anything, the case is all under investigation".
Here's the 3 question he could either answer here or take back to his McCann friends.
(1)Do you think the blood found in your holiday apartment and the body cadaver found in your rental car belonged to the previous renters.
(2)Did you ever point out these observations to the Portuguese police.
(2)Do you think it is credible that DNA, body caverine associated with Madeleine McCann could actually belong to another person on holiday at the same time as your daughter's disappearance.
jc
For me, the most damning thing against the McCanns is not their behaviour in PDL, bizarre as it was. It's been their behaviour ever since
ReplyDeleteIn particular it has been Gerry's ability to get on with his life, rise up his profession, attend the Leveson enquiry, campaign for Leveson two, and sue Goncalo Amaral.
All while leaving no stone unturned in his search for his daughter.
Some have said to me that maybe it takes his mind of the problem. I say he must be super human. A man of steel.
The thing is, he should be focussing all of these super human powers on the search. As it is, that seems to be the one thing he is not doing at all.
Of course, all super heros have their Achilles heel. Superman's is Kryptonite - Gerry's is cameras.
Because if it wasn't for those pesky cameras catching every one of his sneering, snarling proclamations of his innocence; every whingeing, whining complaint about how cruel the world has been, we might think he was a decent guy after all
Decent, not super human, but human at least. The man is a psychopath, pure and simple.
So you can watch someone on television and make an accurate psychological assessment providing you've already decided to hate him and guess what his private life is about because of his career progress. Excellent work.
DeleteTut tut Oscar, we can speak about what psychopaths are capable of, such as a living a lie, but not sure we can actually call someone a psychopath.
DeleteNon psychopaths for example, could not carry on regardless, and they certainly wouldn't thrive. Every day they are living a lie would be pure agony, the non stop beating of that tell tale heart would drive them insane. It is a concept many psychological thrillers are based on.
Psychopaths by contrast, are unaffected by what they have done, they have no conscience, no empathy. Their only fear is getting caught, but even that to them is a game. The thrill lies in the taunting of those who seek to catch them, and their inner desire to be acknowledged for how clever they are. Psychopaths are thrill seekers, they are reckless, they take chances that would make ordinary people flinch.
I have read that 1 in 10 are psychopaths, that is 10% of the population, and that sounds about right. Unfortunately, society could not function without psychopaths, the keep the wheels turning, the traffic moving, and the admin sections of hospitals and local councils running smoothly. They do the kind of jobs we arty, tree hugging, crybaby liberals are incapable of, like enforcing the Law and horsewhipping protesters.
Bizarrely some psychopaths can be quite charming, I'm not sure it is intentional, rather their way of saying 'isn't it nice of me to speak to you even though you are my inferior'.
Psychopathy is a fascinating subject, every psychopath is unique of course, but they share many similar traits and characteristics, eg. lack of empathy. Some might say Gerry's comments regarding details of Madeleine's unique eye being released to the press. He was aware of the risk the abductor might do something to her eye or kill her, but it was a good marketing ploy. Some might say that was psychopathic. No empathy even for the plight of his child.
I imagine there will be a flood of psychologists rushing to analyse this case when it is all over. There is enough there to keep psychology, criminology, body language and forensic linguistics departments and every education department that ends with an 'ology' enough to keep them busy for decades to come!
12:58, real people survive by spotting the rats amongst us. They speak with a nasal Glaswegian whine, and have a face that looks like they are perpetually constipated.
DeleteMy opinion as to whether he is a psychopath is neither here, nor there. I am not qualified to make that diagnosis, as you say.
Having worked with psychopaths, I can say that he reminds me of them, particularly the apparent narcissistic traits.
Dr Ros and Dr Oscar
DeleteCould you share the information you have about how the McCanns have continued with their life in private ? Where they supposed to leave their twins to bring themselves up in order that internet psychologists and sleuths wouldn't infer that they are psychotic ?
Can you explain the relevance to you referencing 'the thrill' psychopaths experience with regard to the McCann case ? You have read a page of psychology related blabber, Ros and think it's enough to carry off an in depth analysis. You're impersonating Peter Hyatt.
You're right about Psychopaths being 'charming' But we've all seen those documentaries or films about Ted Bundy. So what ? You've called the McCanns many, many things.Charming wasn't one of them. So- you let them off the hook.
Psychologists have already commentated on aspects of the case. They've concentrated on the mistakes Amaral made.Other than that, they avoid discussion because they can see the close down of it. Psychologists need far more than the occasional youtube clip or facebook argument to build a profile about anything.They understand the subject.
No, you're a fud.
Delete'Now veteran journalist and founder of Portuguese newspaper Sol, Jose Antonio Saraiva, has fed the wild conspiracy theories by alleging he was told Maddie’s disappearance was linked to her parents’ “secret activity” because of her mum’s “suspected” MI5 membership.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote in the latest issue of Sol this was why Gordon Brown, then the UK’s Chancellor, decided to dispatch British Ambassador John Buck to Praia da Luz after the youngster vanished from the McCanns’ Algarve holiday apartment.
Saraiva said a female genetics doctor he named only as H. Santos had identified Kate McCann as an MI5 agent and claimed it explained her daughter’s disappearance.
He claimed Maddie’s dad Gerry was also a potential spy.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8955532/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mi5-claim/
Meanwhile, current state of proceedings McCann and Healy v. Portugal (ECHR): Application awaiting first judicial decision.
The circulation of Sol (the Sun if anybody didn't spot the irony) was 33,089 in 2011. Can we expect further exclusives from Anglian Bee Keeper Monthly, or Sunderland Stitch and Knit, as Clarence desperately tries to find anything to keep up the crazy conspiracy theorists narrative?
DeleteThen again, Amaral started the biggest of them all suggesting that the case could be solves if the politicians of Portugal and England said it could be and that Gordon Brown knows the truth as well as MI 5. Which are the worst conspiracy theories ?
DeleteHi, 09:01
DeleteI presume you are posting this for our amusement?
My favourite conspiracy theory re the McCanns (they are cited as evidence), has to be QAnon's revelation that the whole of the EU is a vast cover-up for an elite paedophile ring. (Actually global, of course). The Euro, for example, was introduced to make the financial transactions easier (obvious isn't it). Sometimes the McCanns are implicated as having sold their tiny daughter into sex slavery (as middle class parents so often do). Jim Gamble should be warned that he might lose control of his own spin, his own particular self-serving fairytale, and be gobbled up himself! Those who live by the sword.
McCann and Healy v. Portugal (ECHR) ?
Do we have evidence that they are actually doing this? I am sure their legal team would have advised them it is frightfully unwise. I took it to be a 'we'll tell on you, we will', response to their GA libel trial rout. Having the 'last word'. Putting it out there that they would be 'taking this higher' as PR spin, allowing*saying it* to be spun in the public mind into the vague equivalence of victory.
Can't help think they would be firmly called off from what is most likely to be an even bigger, and even more damaging own goal than the Portuguese High Court final ruling. Which was a cataclysmic defeat, already. One they now have to work like billy-o to try and hide, and spin. Do they need more? The vague allusion serves their purpose way better.
Shallis
My favourite conspiracy theory is the one that says the parents killed their child, snuck her into a chapel to sneak her into a coffin ( they had the keys you see) so she could be cremated the next day.Then weeks later, when the child was a little pile of ash( presumably) the squeezed her into a hire car and she left the scent of death in the boot ( anyone have a degree in Chemistry want to explain that one ?).The parents then called MI5 or 6 and the Prime Minister to get to Portugal forthwith and keep them out of trouble.Obviously the Prime Minister did.Between him and MI5 they managed to make all the forensics disappear and remove the co-ordinator of the PJ's investigation because the parents said he was 'getting too close'. They then ordered the British media to print only negative stories about PDL and positive ones about themselves. They then demanded that the Governments, and any successive governments thereafter, continue to fund a faux investigation to keep up the appearance of it all being a mystery and nothing to do with them. The reason that so many busy and powerful people complied without question was because the McCanns were British and had good middle class careers.
Delete( and that's how it happened, honest )
''Can't help think they would be firmly called off from what is most likely to be an even bigger, and even more damaging own goal than the Portuguese High Court final ruling. Which was a cataclysmic defeat, already''
DeleteIt ruled that Amaral could publish a book.It didn't even discuss any crimes committed concerning Madeleine other than to say that their ruling had nothing to do with a criminal ruling about the case. they added that Amaral's book had no bearing on the facts of the case and hadn't contributed to the investigation and that any guilt or otherwise of the McCanns was for a criminal trial and court.The PJ and UK (OG) are not investigating the rights and wrongs of book publishing or libel.They're looking into what happened to the McCanns' child.You should familiar yourself with the transcript of the ruling rather than take the short cuts of trying to say :''Amaral wasn't lying, the court said so, so the McCanns must have done it''.
That's not exactly researching a source is it.
I believe the score Re the publishn business is 2-1 to the McCanns so far.
Delete''
DeleteMcCann and Healy v. Portugal (ECHR) ?
Do we have evidence that they are actually doing this? I am sure their legal team would have advised them it is frightfully unwise. I took it to be a 'we'll tell on you, we will',''
Ros said it's happening so..
Hello, Anon @ 18:57.
DeleteI provide you, for your edification, with part of the McCann v Amaral Supreme Court verdict delivered on 31 Jan 2017.
Which reads:
"And let not be said, too, that the appellants [K&G] were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings [in 2008].
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime.
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld".
And burying, and spinning this truth is just what they have tried to do ever since. You are assisting them right here, right now, for whatever reason. Can't help wondering why you might find yourself in this position. You should question it. You should.
Shallis
I can see another hamstring straining their shallis old girl.
Delete'Evidence of innocence'.
Can you provide the argument that was put forward by the prosecution or the defence regarding the crime you are talking about please.
In 2008 the appelants were not convicted or even arrested.As you say, the public ministry said there was no evidence, ergo, no case to answer.So, if the lack of arrests, due to lack of evidence means it doesn't mean they're innocent and that they are still suspects despite the PJ and UK saying they aren't, then everyone is a suspect aren't they.
''And burying, and spinning this truth is just what they have tried to do ever since. ''
Example ?
''You are assisting them right here, right now, for whatever reason. C''
Evidence ?
''Can't help wondering why you might find yourself in this position. You should question it. You should.''
I don't need to. I know my position.I question people like you and try to coax some logic from them. I suppose i must have a streak of the masochist in me.
For your edification :
''The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.''
This book is an opinion-see ? if the Supreme Court rulings are so important, what is it saying Amaral's book is. An opinion, nothing more.
'In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.''
The right for Amaral to hold /publish an 'opinion'. Nothing there about a crime committed by a Mccann.
''At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.''
And that's all the Supreme Court was interested in.
''The Constitution also welcomes the presumption of innocence as one of the guarantees of the criminal case (art. 32°-2).''
Speaks for itself.
''The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these provisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation. ''
That's the ECHR. That's where the McCanns get the win eventually.
''Although they were not considered sufficient to elicit criminal charges, nothing prevents such facts of being subject to various assessments, especially in a literary kind of work.''( that's Amaral's book of facts)
''Even if hypothesising that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where, when, with what means, with whose help and where to they freed themselves of her body''
And the kicker :
''It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.''
Wrong Court in which to jump to conclusions to suit your preference .
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
Anon @ 22:49
DeleteYour response to the posting of the Portuguese High Court final ruling is
Flabbergasting*.
The sad little tatters you line up by way of a lame defending wall? These confirm my point**.
Shallis
*it is just possible you are too stupid to comprehend the full force, and implications of that ruling. If so, I can assure you both Kate & Gerry McCann, and their legal team have not missed them.
**Whether consciously or not, you are part of the attempt to bury, and deflect - right here, right now.
well done 22:49
Deleteconcur 14:49
DeleteAnonymous29 April 2019 at 14:37
DeleteHi Shallis
The post made by Ziggy was long but it mainly referenced the articles from the supreme court as submitted to the PJ files.You call him stupid again but that means you're calling the supreme court ruling stupid as well as the McCanns legal team who are apparently top dollar lawyers.Ziggy told you what they said.It doesn't mean he said it.can you explain why you gave that reply ?
@14:49
DeleteI concur, with reservations. Comrade knows.
Pooh the Real
Anonymous 29 April 2019 at 14:37
Delete“*it is just possible you are too stupid to comprehend the full force, and implications of that ruling. If so, I can assure you both Kate & Gerry McCann, and their legal team have not missed them.
**Whether consciously or not, you are part of the attempt to bury, and deflect - right here, right now.”
Shaleez
How sweet it eez
Who needs your assurances, Shaleez, of all people... Your above assertions apply to you, can’t you see?
Enough of your academic profanities. sista Take your meds or whateva, or bun det alopecia shine zoot. And stop talking cleva: it ain’t no good for de soul.
Let us stop talkin' falsely now
The hour's getting late
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLV4_xaYynY&list=RDTLV4_xaYynY&start_radio=1&t=22
I knows you don’t click. Just inhale and hold it in.
Comrade, spoken well to a fool. s'up blud and ting.
DeleteAnonymous29 April 2019 at 23:32
Delete@14:49
''I concur, with reservations. Comrade knows.
Pooh the Real''
You know it Major. We're on the money.
To 23:34
DeleteThough you post (in a cowardly fashion) as 'Anon', I detect this is 'Ted'.
You hide the true purpose of your post behind a limp, clearly invalid point. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not as intellectually challenged as 'Ziggy', so you must know full well that Team McCann needs to bury, and deflect attention away from the devastating final ruling of the Portuguese High Court, which makes alarmingly, and hideously clear for 'all to see' the true status of K&G, and the state of the investigation at the time the case was archived in 2008. A truth that has never gone away. A truth they had always done everything within their power to expunge. It was the truth that lost them the libel case.
I posted part of the final ruling, in all its horrifying, lethal splendour.
The extraordinary, tragically beside the point, random little remnants the poster lined up in a hopeless attempt to defuse that colossal, damning ruling *is* evidence of a policy to bury it, or at least deflect attention. This poster is a mindless channel of Team McCann humbug. Team McCann themselves contain a functioning brain! They are transparent in their purpose of 'burying, and deflecting', and in the 'life or death' reason they *have* to keep trying. They can't ever succeed.
I will boldly state that you merely wanted an excuse for the sleazy, offensive content of the post that you direct at me. I more than suggest you desist. I have already called you out in the strongest possible terms. It should not be necessary to repeat this.
If you wish to direct a post to me, stick to discussing the case in an appropriate fashion. You are in danger of tipping over into actual harassment.
Take note.
Shallis
Anon @ 21:57
Delete‘Can you explain why you gave that reply?’
Gladly.
Ziggy demonstrates in his contributions to Ros’s blog that he is a cognitive pygmy. It is pointless to give detailed answers directly to him because he is incapable of grasping the meaning of them.
So as not to clog up the comment section with needless repetition, I will refer you to my more detailed exposition sent to another poster at 30 April 2019, at 12:43.
I am very well aware of the skill of the McCann legal team. I have not called them stupid, nor have I called the court ruling stupid. It is extremely puzzling, from what I actually wrote, that you could have possibly come to the conclusion that I did. But truth dawns – helped by other subtle clues that the poster is probably unaware of.
Could it be this staunch defender of Ziggy, is Ziggy himself? Surely not. At 14:49? and at 21:53? Can one detect a pattern of self-congratulation?
‘Ziggy told you what they said. It doesn't mean he said it’.
??? ffs You really are monumentally stupid, aren’t you?
Shallis
I have read Truth of the Lie and in C7 it confirms Amaral is not telling the truth. He is embroidering his tale to make himself look good (a not unusual male attribute).
ReplyDeleteHe states on May 10th he became suspicious of Murat following his 'coppers hunch' after driving to PDL.
Complete and utter nonsense.
The PJ were given the name of Murat on the 6th May, the Leics Police confirm this by the emails in the PJ files.
The PJ did nothing but a cursory check, the Leics Police even less, the recovery of Madeleine was obviously not a priority.
Amaral then compounds his lies with the nonsense over Tanner's identification of Murat.
This unfortunately is a man spinning a tale and once the bottom tins are pulled out of the wall, the rest fall.
This is not hate or McCann support, it is sadly a fact.
This view is not welcome I know, as it points flaws in Amaral, but Kate's book, madeleine, and Amaral's, Truth of the Lie, should both be in the fairy tale section of any library.
What a shame you didn't contact the McCanns' legal team JJ, with definitive evidence like that, they would have won.
DeleteUnfortunately for you JJ, I and I am sure many others, take everything you say these days with a giant pinch of salt. Forgive me for saying but I think you have become a tad obsessive compulsive, you are allowing the case to affect you personally and emotionally.
Many of the scenarios you put forward as 'proven', come directly from your own imagination, that is you surmise what GA did, what the PJ did, what Leicester police did and what they were all thinking. You are not actually producing evidence of anything. You have fallen into the confirmation bias trap, many do, see Bennett, Hall etc. That is YOU have a theory and you are searching for whatever evidence you can find to support it and where ne4cessary distorting that evidence to suit your purposes.
It matters to me not one iota who's side you are on JJ, or even if you have an agenda of your own to pursue. You can put your theories out there and people will agree or disagree, depending on the clarity of your explanation and your ability to persuade. If people do not agree with you, that is your failure, not their's.
As per, Ros identifies psychological disorders in someone because they refuse to condemn two people for committing a crime she can't prove even happened.Anyone with an opposing view to her has some kind of 'mental problem'. Yet she claims to enjoy debate and to discuss all sides of an argument.And lets not forget she claims to be laid back and happy go lucky ( never angry). So now JJ has to be 'taken with a pinch of salt'.In other words, ''please don't listen to his sense, it contradicts my fantasy''
DeleteRos says -''Many of the scenarios you put forward as 'proven', come directly from your own imagination,''
DeleteLike every single observation you have made on this blog every week for years about the McCanns. That's why you can never back a thing up.
Bennet, Hall etc all find the parents guilty and all promote that ad nauseam. They see things they want to see and disregard proper investigation of what is only their hypotheses. So why do you criticise them when your stance is identical to theirs ?
You think anyone refusing to blame two parents for a crime that the police have failed to find evidence against in all these years as 'having an agenda'.What is it to be, believe your speculation and Hall / Bennets etc and just take it that the police aren't that bothered about the case ?You never want to discuss why the police 'have an agenda' for believing what others believe ie- no evidence against the parents.
12:44 and 12:51 (howdy) I am not qualified to diagnose psychiatric illness, unless of course being a lonely tosser is in the latest version of the DSM.
DeleteThe problem these days is that every anti social, failure is looking for a diagnosis to cover their own impotence as human beings. If you wait long enough, I'm sure you'll get what you're after.
well said 12:51. Look forward to seeing the reply to that
Delete''The problem these days is that every anti social, failure is looking for a diagnosis to cover their own impotence as human beings. If you wait long enough, I'm sure you'll get what you're after.''
DeleteOne minute your virtue signalling all over the place as a champion of the oppressed, the next you're pretending your a light heavyweight champion of the internet throwing insults around because you can't control your tantrums.Oh yes, while telling others they're 'oathetic' for insulting others with logic :)
The question was concerning credentials. I thought the nutshell psycho analysis need some qualifying. So far you've diagnosed Gerry McCann as a psychopath for getting on with his life and a controlling bully because you saw an image of Kate McCann with what you decided were bruises from a physical assault.You have a questionable frame of reference for your observations, Oscar. But, we can only write from a place we're familiar with I suppose.
Oscar Slater28 April 2019 at 14:33
Delete''12:44 and 12:51 (howdy) I am not qualified to diagnose psychiatric illness, unless of course being a lonely tosser is in the latest version of the DSM. '''
Lonely tosser. I see . Ros -over to you.
Oscar Slater28 April 2019 at 14:33
Delete''The problem these days is that every anti social, failure is looking for a diagnosis to cover their own impotence as human beings''
So they over compensate by diagnosing complete strangers as psychopaths, drunks or pathetic.Shifting the spotlight so to speak.Clever trick innit
18:30 (and 18:31) there you go again, like anybody cares what you think. Like you are so important that your say so is all that stands between a good day and a bad one.
DeleteCalling you a lonely tosser is only an insult if it isn't true.
Lol, four hours five minutes later, it's still hurting. What a tosser.
DeleteHopefully the message is getting home. I can't say you are an anti social failure, who is so desperate for significance that all he can do is disrupt other people's discussions.
I can't diagnose borderline personality disorder, I'm not sure about saying you show all the signs of self defeating behaviour.
I'm pretty sure I can think those things. I am also certain that I think you are a tosser.
I'm not going to say "get a life" , clearly this is your life, and you hover over the screen desperate for someone to say something about you.
I hope it wasn't always like this, but I think it was.
Oscar Slater29 April 2019 at 08:44
Delete''18:30 (and 18:31) there you go again, like anybody cares what you think. Like you are so important that your say so is all that stands between a good day and a bad one.
Calling you a lonely tosser is only an insult if it isn't true.''
You sound like a 12 year old girl.Sort yourself out. Failing that, stop preaching to others about being insulting online. remember, it's all their to read.People reading this blog can see who the temperamental little snipers are and who is trying to keep the discussions on track at an adult level. Online the amount of personal insults and the spite in them pretty much mirrors the amount of fear the poster of them carries around in daily life.It's due to an unfortunate cocktail of bile,ignorance and cowardice.You are transparent Oscar.And that slips showing again.
Oscar Slater29 April 2019 at 08:51
Delete''Lol, four hours five minutes later, it's still hurting. What a tosser.
Hopefully the message is getting home. I can't say you are an anti social failure, who is so desperate for significance that all he can do is disrupt other people's discussions.''
Of course you can say it. You're an online psychiatrist / detective/politician/sociologist. Say whatever you like with those credentials.haters will believe it.Not because they understand it, but because they'd follow each other over a cliff in the name of blind loyalty. Incidentally, disagreeing with a view or a lie and offering the alternative is called discussing, not disrupting.All It disrupts is wrong information.
''I can't diagnose borderline personality disorder, I'm not sure about saying you show all the signs of self defeating behaviour.''
There's something you can't do ? I must have borderline personality disorder mustn't I. Look at the evidence.I'm suggesting that two people who had their child abducted didn't bury her as there isn't any evidence of it and two police forces have declared them as ''not suspects''
''I'm pretty sure I can think those things. I am also certain that I think you are a tosser.''
If you want to think about tossers in your free time, go ahead.We all have our needs.
''I'm not going to say "get a life" , clearly this is your life, and you hover over the screen desperate for someone to say something about you.''
I'm sure as a clinical psychologist/psychiatrist/juggler/window cleaner you'll be familiar with the term 'projection'. If not, I'm sure somebody could explain it to you.
''I hope it wasn't always like this, but I think it was.''
Well, you're qualified to comment aren't you Oscar.After all how many years have we known each other. How many scrapes and adventures did we go through all those years ago.You even know my favourite colour, favourite food-everything.Or am I confusing you with people who matter and who know me.Are you in fact just somebody who reads lines of texts I post miles from you as a stranger that happen to articulate things you hate to read.On the internet.Save your poison little man.It might choke you.
"Of course you can say it. You're an online psychiatrist / detective/politician/sociologist."
DeleteI am guilty of having gone to school. Who says I only operate online, by the way?
"Say whatever you like with those credentials.haters will believe it.Not because they understand it, but because they'd follow each other over a cliff in the name of blind loyalty."
Oh dear, that looks like online psychiatry/sociology/ (etc.)
"Incidentally, disagreeing with a view or a lie and offering the alternative is called discussing, not disrupting."
You must try that some time.
"All It disrupts is wrong information."
Been eating Camenbert again Ziggy?
A triumph though, more blog space taken up discussing anything but the couple from Rothley and their bizarre world. Unless, you are offering yourself up as evidence, that is.
@14:41, it's the fact that I have known you for such a short time, yet am still able to hurt you by pointing out what you know is true about yourself, that you should be worrying about.
DeleteYou give more away about yourself than you will ever have the intelligence to understand. There's thousands just like you.
Hi, JJ @ 11:45
DeleteI replied to you (27 April 2019 at 16:07) with some points, and queries (28 April 2019 at 15:14). Thinking you might have missed this?
Shallis
''Oscar Slater29 April 2019 at 17:52
Delete@14:41, it's the fact that I have known you for such a short time, yet am still able to hurt you''
You think you 'know' people on the internet that you can't see, haven't heard or met. I see . That's a little odd wouldn't you say. A little worrying.You have any idea how obsessive it sounds ? Google 'online stalking' . Please don't delude yourself any longer. Your posts are tantamount to you pleading on bended knee for everyone ( anti) to believe I'm not intelligent. That I'm stupid.Only the desperate beg.Why would you be so desperate to try and fill heads with such stupid notions, Oscar. Why don't you just show examples of my lack of intelligence and encourage them to do the same. Then no begging would be necessary. You ( and they) could hold my points up and explain why they're stupid and why those who oppose them (but can't provide a shred of anything but their 'hunch') have the right to aim the Bs in my direction.
It looks very clear now. It's become far too important to you to try to discredit me because you can't discredit what I say and it causes terrible tantrums in you.The fancy metaphors and quotations don't diminish the shallowness or immaturity of your rage. I'll put it down to arrested development ( 15?).
You've showed too much now Oscar. I've downloaded all your 'data' via these boards.It isn't pretty.
@ Oscar Slater29 April 2019 at 17:45
Deletenot my argument but you try too hard
not mine either but Ziggy's in a league much too high for the troll
DeleteAgreed 21:51, I shouldn't be interested.
Delete"You've showed too much now Oscar. I've downloaded all your 'data' via these boards.It isn't pretty."
DeleteJeezo
My post is specifically addressed to JJ not 'anyone'. JJ is a long time poster on my blog, with whom I have disagreed many times over the years, there is history therefore I feel free to speak to him as someone I know.
ReplyDeleteMaybe take a moment to read and digest 12:44, before jumping in and making an arse of yourself.
Whoever it was addressed to it was posted publicly. JJ pointed out a couple of verifiable facts that contradicted your opinions so you implied he was suffering from a mental disorder and had an agenda.Who was it who really made an arse of themselves ?
Delete13:12, your attention seeking has plumbed new depths. Despite being told what Ros' intentions were, you still needed to tell her she was wrong.
DeleteWhere's your dignity man?
Rosalinda
DeleteI think it might be time for you to lay out the rules of your blog. I know you claim to have done so in a few other conversations and you tend to go with the 'if a posts offensive' line rather than just say that you censor what doesn't sit well with you. However, looking at this particular subject that your covering and a few of your recent ones, I see a rather nasty double standard. It seems that you encourage childish insults and remarks and swearing as long as it comes from those who share your position on the case you pretend to discuss openly.As long as the ridiculous remarks are directed at those who don't share your position it's fine. On the other hand, you publicly state you'll remove posts that challenge these people on the grounds og ' school playground bullying'. Can you explain this ? The character 'Shallis' has continually insulted, called people who disagree with him ( or her) 'idiots' and words similar and is happy to resort to the old fashioned 'f** off. Yet she ( or he) shares your position Re the McCann parents so is beyond your 'rules'. It's a shabby do, Ros.
15:10 you are an utter hootenany. Ros changing the rules won't change that, so - much as it makes you uncomfortable - nearly every criticism of you would go under the heading of "fair comment".
DeleteRemember that phrase, "when you can't beat them, and they won't let you join in?" That's you that is.
This is not a playground and I am not a playground supervisor, 15:10, perish the thought [shudders}.
DeleteShallis and Oscar are normal, intelligent, perfectly reasonable people, much like myself, They are probably shocked at the antisocial behaviour displayed by the McCann supporters on here. I had become a little desensitized to it, so it is good to see the situation through fresh eyes. The insults they dish out are fully warranted (and usually witty and entertaining). You malevolents dish out abuse all day and every, yet you whine like spoilt brats when it comes right back at you.
Let me tell you something your parents obviously didn't. If you treat other people with respect, they will treat you the same way. Being sullen and belligerent gets you nowhere. How have you not learned that yet?
Are you that thick that you don't understand distorting someone's name stops being funny past the age of 10 - even that's pushing it. It is a sign of what I call pig ignorance, it's not just any old ignorance, it has a few added extras and it is often displayed with pride by alpha oafs who win arguments in pubs by shouting the loudest.
Oscar Slater28 April 2019 at 18:16
DeleteAr you living in Ros' top pocket or just trying to ? Let her speak for herself. She's capable without an off - licence Sir Prancelot breaking a nail.
Distorting names?
DeleteBlacksmith used to do it regularly here and you never pulled him up for it.
But it was okay wasn't it,because it was always people who disagreed with you that had their names distorted by him.
Much like now.Some things never change.
In response to Anon, @ 15:10
DeleteShall we get a little perspective here? I have certainly not continually insulted anyone. I think this poster is being sneaky, and disingenuous.
In truth, since I showed up here I have, myself, been the subject of continual attack, undermining, slurs, derision, taunting, even attempts at character assassination. Need I go on? My very first posts were met by a destabilising wave of hatred. Which frankly bemused me. I am certainly not alone in withstanding this sort of thing here as the price of honest questioning, and dissent from McCann dogma. A strange state of affairs. The perpetrator(s) should consider why they feel the need to do this. How free are their minds?
In another post, in response to: 'but why are people like Shallis allowed to call people idiots and fools if they do not agree with her'.
I answered: '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'.
The particular poster that I called an idiot, has displayed such a preposterous, and malicious misunderstanding of what I have written, such a breathtaking level of miscomprehension that I was using the term 'idiot' technically, not as an insult. As I was most careful to point out to him.
In the playground? Telling teacher? I think we are adults here, 15:10. And it is 2019.
Perhaps you would care to read what the dinosaur, sexist excrescence 'Ted' dared write to me at 'Anonymous26 April 2019 at 20:30'? And concede why signing off my very sharp rebuke with, "Now, f*** off, you sexist nullity" was *entirely* justified, and nicely to the point. Do you think we should just put up with this crap?
Enough of this. Absolutely no more. Now back to the subject of Ros's blog post, and some actual debate.
The character, 'Shallis' (I rather like this).
PS I also savour the review from the one who sometimes styles himself 'Ziggy' (the idiot in question, as it happens), who recently wrote:
"Shallis posted unbelievably long reams of god knows what and just kept repeating 'idiot' and 'twat'. "
I love this. I want to use this as a review for every piece I ever write. I shall quote it on research proposals. If I could only achieve this standard *every time*.
''Shallis and Oscar are normal, intelligent, perfectly reasonable people, much like myself''
DeleteThat's the problem
Oh Ziggy, at 18:26 and then two and a bit lonely, attention free hours later.
DeleteWho cares what you think, but you still go running with the mammy, daddy, polis stuff everytime you are out back in your box.
Significant that this has descended into the farce of you complaining about how you are treated, rather than discussing the case
What a no mark.
By the way, this talks about police corruption, and admits it's real.
Deletehttps://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/line-duty-style-corruption-a-14939781
Oscar Slater29 April 2019 at 08:55
Delete''Significant that this has descended into the farce of you complaining about how you are treated, rather than discussing the case''
I don't think you even realise you're lying, you do it so often. I discuss the case. But I discuss the lack of evidence and the actual facts that exist.You discuss your theories about the dogs evidence being evidence when it isn't, and of GM being a psychopath because he looks like one.You scrape the barrel so often in your quest to foment hate that you must be down to the bare bones by now. Your bitterness is truly alarming.What happened to you.
PS..why can't you control the need to include a personal insult in most of your posts when addressing somebody smart who continually exposes the flaws in your arguments.Is it because you can't return the rebuttal ? Bless.
Indeed you are right, Anon @ 22:14, normal, intelligent, perfectly reasonable people are apparently a great problem for you.
DeleteNormal, intelligent, perfectly reasonable people are apt to question, and think for themselves. They tend to speak up. They will not be cowed.
But although you assert that personally they are a problem, this is thankfully not the general view in a free society.
Shallis
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous29 April 2019 at 15:52
Delete''Normal, intelligent, perfectly reasonable people are apt to question, and think for themselves. They tend to speak up. They will not be cowed.''
Yes, you described ne to a tee ( unintentionally).
Your unintentionally hilarious 'free society' remark aside, you forgot to mention they are also honest and have the manners to provide answers when questioned about their beliefs or why they are trying to persuade people to believe in things that logic dictates are impossible to prove as truth.
I won't go into the kind of person has to resort to staining at the leash to be insulting or subtly acerbic and failing every time :)
Oscar Slater28 April 2019 at 14:34
ReplyDelete''Where's your dignity man?''
Are you going to keep repeating that until it's relevant or amusing, Oscar ? I wouldn't hold your breath for either.
Ziggy 18:21 and two and a bit more frustrated hours later at 22:13 , who cares what you think? You are a distraction from what the grown ups have to say. You are about as interesting as, a rainy Sunday in a bus station.
DeleteWhat an amusing simile. Very imaginative too. To be a little more accurate, I think a lot of people are interested in what i point out and what I have to say.But not you or people with an equally narrow mind and focus. You( and they) represent the closed eyes, closed ears, and closed minds who cant close their mouths.Those who only see and hear what agrees with their bias.The bias that has no weight and holds no water and has no evidence to support it.You need the thing to hate and nobody can take it away without witnessing the terrible tantrums of toddler in a an adult's body.Shameless.
Delete"the closed eyes, closed ears, and closed minds who cant close their mouths"
DeleteComing to a cinema near Ziggy soon - Hieronymous Bosch's Day Off. (One Star)
Shallis at 16:56
ReplyDelete"McCann and Healy v. Portugal (ECHR) ?
Do we have evidence that they are actually doing this?"
https://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/
Enter application number 57195/17
NL
That's very kind of you, NL @ 18:35.
ReplyDeleteLooked it up, there it is! Had previously tried to find on the 'Cases Pending' page. where it isn't. Presumably the cases there have cleared the first hurdle, and been accepted for consideration in the court. Some never get this far. (Not sure of precise procedure).
Still consider they would be doing this against *very* strong legal advise. Madness! An obsession? Just won't let go.
Shallis
They won't lose.They can't.
Delete22:13 thank you, Rumpole of the Bailey.
DeleteShallis, one of the traits of psychopathy is not understanding that you have been beaten.
DeleteThis is like a Shakespearian tragedy. They (he) is so lacking in self awareness, so detached from reality that he will bring the whole thing crashing down around him.
The kicking he got from journalists over campaigning for Leveson Two had no affect whatsoever.
Whereas most people would eventually realise that they can't win, psychopaths, (and people like Gerry) will just keep going.
Can you imagine trying to tell him he is wrong? This is a guy that is trying to sue an entire country, because it's legal system didn't give him the verdict he wanted.
Oscar Slater29 April 2019 at 09:08
Delete''Shallis, one of the traits of psychopathy is not understanding that you have been beaten.''
So you've found another psychopath today already, Oscar.You're an online genius.Can you define what you mean by 'beaten' in the context of your babble please.
''This is like a Shakespearian tragedy. They (he) is so lacking in self awareness, so detached from reality that he will bring the whole thing crashing down around him''
Nothing melodramatic about that is there. What is 'the whole thing' that's going to crash down ?
''The kicking he got from journalists over campaigning for Leveson Two had no affect whatsoever.''
So is not being bothered by something you can't change another trait of the psychopath ?Or is it just wisdom ?
''Whereas most people would eventually realise that they can't win, psychopaths, (and people like Gerry) will just keep going.''
So when there's an army of nutcases who think they're detectives and psychologists who can solve crimes by watching youtube clips and looking at photographs of people, and when that army are aiming accusation after accusation at you about the child you lost despite none of them having a shred of evidence, your determination to see it through is a trait of the psychopath.Hmm.ok..
''Can you imagine trying to tell him he is wrong? This is a guy that is trying to sue an entire country, because it's legal system didn't give him the verdict he wanted.''
So, Carter Ruck are not actually a legal team after all. they're psychopaths.Oscar said so on the internet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi NL and Shallis
Deletere the McCanns' ECHR application, which apparently is judged admissable. Unbelievable, I never thought this court would take on such a case as the McCanns' haven't been convicted of anything, just lost a libel case.
Something sinistre on a higher political level is at play here, yet it'll be interested to follow.
Hi, Björn
DeleteAnyone can make an application to the court for judgement.
Their case is currently held awaiting a decision about whether it will proceed for consideration by the actual court. The large majority of cases don't make it through this stage. We wait and see. I guess they are 'sucking and seeing', as the English expression goes. Mad if they go for it. Mad.
Not sinister.
Shallis
Grow up Bjorn.It's an appeal. A human right. You understand what ECHR stands for don't you. read it's laws regarding defamation and slander. Read the relevant articles within it.Then come back and tell us what the 'sinister' goings on are about.
Delete@ Ziggy Soredust
ReplyDeleteAs you accuse all and sundry of lying and making facts up,can you please lay out your theory or theories in full so we all know where you stand?
Any misconceptions or confusion can then be avoided from now on.
Thankyou.
I've done so many times 07:32.
DeleteBut with regard to me calling all and sundry liars please be clear.
If somebody makes a statement as fact when it is only an opinion or incorrect, I'll ask for the source so I can check it. They may be inadvertently telling somebody else's lie.If they ignore that request or refuse to provide one, i feel entitled to consider it a lie.
If I ask somebody if they directly or indirectly calling somebody else a liar, I'm asking a question, not accusing.
If somebody insists on calling dog indications 'evidence' when reminded that they were only 'indicators' to follow and that this can be found in the FSS and Grimes' report, I'll ask if they are therefore suggesting he's a liar.If people keep stating that the child is dead while the police continue to call their investigation a missing person case, I'll ask if they are calling the police liars.
What a calamity,my home is on fire!!!
ReplyDeleteI need some honey..
Where's the honey mummy?
Pooh
07:46
DeletePoor impersonation. Full point, my favourite punctuation mark.
Not Pooh
Shallis @23:27
ReplyDeleteYou can't follow an argument, Ziggy. You really can't. You are out your depth. How can anyone descend to your level of dizzying lack of comprehension to reply to you?
..........................
Its the very reason of the posting,sadly you've fallen for it,starve them of the oxygen they need.
Which part of 'take apart my arguments instead of trying to personally insult me as it's childish'' don't you understand ?
Delete08:59. You are right, of course. S
Deletetwo great heads together..what will we do with all this sawdust now ;-)
DeleteMorning, Oscar
ReplyDeletePlease be so kind as to tell me what you meant by ‘a fad’ when you said “Pooh, you are a fud of the highest order, even liking the Small Faces will not chance that my little egocentric friend.”
http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/04/neglect-or-responsible-parenting.html?showComment=1555665886592#c8602751722536469117
Thank you.
Pooh
I must have mispelled "fud". Google is your friend, oh bear of little brain.
DeleteOscar Slater 29 April 2019 at 10:50
DeleteIt’s very good of you to remember I’m a bear of little brain. At least there is something of what I‘ve said you remember.
My question is courteous and clear. I’ve taken the trouble of providing the context and a reference, so there can be no misunderstanding as to what I’m asking. Please don’t be coy. Be good enough to answer with dignity (remember?) as a Scotsman what you meant by ‘a fud’.
Thank you.
Pooh
In your defence, Oscar, it's a tricky word. It's a whole syllable.
DeleteAnonymous29 April 2019 at 09:58 pooh
DeleteWelcome to the new look blog comrade, improvement or no would you say..
Shallis, and others. Coming back to the subject of the unusual bruising on Kate's forearms.
DeleteIIRC Amaral described a rather excessive show of being distraught by K&G when he arrived. Both ran through to the bedroom, fell to their knees and battered the bed.
He thought the behaviour slightly histrionic and bizarre. It could be that in her enthusiasm to appear helpless she struck her forearms on the bed repeatedly.
Given her low BMI, it is extremely likely that excessive bruising would result.
The child like show for the detective - surely that would be the point you would try to show the most self control - just reinforces their lack of insight into the roles they were supposed to be playing.
You are worth a syllable, don't be too hard on yourself, fud.
Deletehttps://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fud
Although "fud" is widely accepted in Scotland as being a slang term for the female reproductive organs, it is generally used as a pejorative to describe someone who has just done something stupid, often in situations where they've either been impulsive or it was blindingly obvious beforehand that it was a stupid thing to do. It can also be used to describe someone who irritates everyone because they try to impress everyone all the time & invariably talk a load of pish.
"Haw ya big fud!" (angry)
Person A "Ah canny be fucked wi him!"
Person B "How?"
Person A "Coz he's a pure fud!"
Hi, Oscar 17:22.
DeleteThe beds had headboards flush to the wall (screwed on), nowhere to sustain bruising at all.
She said herself it was the railings sometime that night ('Madeleine'). It *does* look a bit like someone looked at photographs of the flat (long afterwards), and alighted on the one thing that could be pressed into service as a 'bruise maker'. There isn't another option, really. Punching the wall (or, as you said pummelling bed/cushions/sofa) would be more likely stress response. But wall wouldn't bruise like that. The thing is crashing your wrist down on a railing would damn well really hurt at the time! Very odd thing to do in itself - but she keeps repeating the intense pain. So deliberate 'self-harming', not so accidental. It is strange.
Get she would bruise easily, Low BMI myself and I do.
Took on board what you said that doesn't look like came from fingers grabbing her.
Shallis
That's your opinion based on a second hand subjective opinion of Amaral who is yet to have any opinion validated in 12 years.Nobody sensible will use that weird logic as an excuse to be an anti McCann. Talk about clutching at straws
DeleteIs there anything whatsoever in the PJ files recording an observation of KM's 'bruises' ? Were questions asked ? Did only you two spot these tell tale signs of abuse and battery ? Or are you two just playing ?
DeleteOscar Slater29 April 2019 at 18:54
DeleteThe urban dictionary and more gutter language. What a way to raise the standard
Hi Shallis, it's not possible to say exactly what caused those bruises from the picture. However, I haven't been following closely enough - why are they significant?
DeleteHi 00:41
DeleteNothing in the files.
Kate was under the spotlight of the world's press, being constantly photographed. You can google the photographs yourself with very little effort. The bruising is clearly visible. On the 4 May she was wearing long sleeves, the bruising is evident on the following days when her arms were exposed. We do not know the cause. Kate herself, feels it necessary to explain them years later in 'Madeleine'; she provides a reason that reads as very odd.
"Or are you two just playing?"
If you are following posts here with any attention at all, it should be perfectly clear to you this is not the case. So what is the real reason for you are asking this?
Shallis
21:35
DeleteYou post as nobody, and direct your comment at a poster you do not specify. This is hardly helps anyone's understanding of the point you are trying to make! I think you are maybe referring to Oscar at 17:22? (the only comment I can see here in a quick scan, that names Amaral). If so, from what he wrote, your objection is incomprehensible. 'Weird logic' seems on your side. Care to elaborate? But not with an ungrounded rant against Goncalo Amaral, please.
Shallis
00:41, IIRC I gave an opinion of what it was not, rather than what it was.
DeleteAnonymous30 April 2019 at 12:58 shallis
DeleteAnonymous30 April 2019 at 13:17 shallis again
''Nothing in the files. ''
So no source ( again)
''Kate was under the spotlight of the world's press, being constantly photographed...The bruising is clearly visible.. On the 4 May she was wearing long sleeves, the bruising is evident on the following days...''
That's trying far too hard isn't it.let's not be silly.The McCanns were also in the company of real live police officers at the time you refer to.They didn't need Goggle images.Do you think they missed the significance ? I'll play the game for you. For all the antis. Just this once.A couple of nights prior to the event, KM and GM had a bit of a domestic ( allegedly).Something to do with a bingo caller with an impressive chest and Gerry's eyes.There was a bit of a ta- do over it and separate beds followed. That's one angle. I have experience of the occasional irate female misunderstanding my romantic nature..When they go for it you first grab their wrists tight and wrestle them down and try to calm them down.That can leave bruises if they're really going for it. Does that make the defencive strategy one of a controlling or abusing bully ? Of course not.A split lip and a black eye is the signs they leave behind.
''If you are following posts here with any attention at all, it should be perfectly clear to you this is not the case. So what is the real reason for you are asking this?''
Because the scrutinising of photographs with the Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass you got for Christmas in 1964 is desperate; ''look there's bruises..so he hit her..so he has a temper..so he's a controller, so theyrre both nutters and she's probably a self -harmer and Madeleine ended up gone'' - seriously ?
I can see Kate now ( ''i'll teach him to look at other womens curves..just wait til i start burying the kids..that'll teach him..'')
'''Weird logic' seems on your side. Care to elaborate? But not with an ungrounded rant against Goncalo Amaral, please.''
It means that spotting bruises on Google images that were never considered noteworthy to Amaral or those who followed him is pointless.Then trying to talk about how they got there is off the scale. Talking about them NOT being due to being grabbed, the possible relation to low BMI ..( you realise they're doctors don't you..and they were there - and it's them )....Oh yes, and the introduction of possible 'self harming'. Seriously ? So within seconds of an incredibly stressful event you suddenly become a hysterical self- harmer ? Instant karma ? This is so close to certain other blogs / forums who like to talk swingers ans kinky practices.Bizarre at best. Not sure Ros will like that..
Oh, for God's sake, 17:51.
DeleteMe [about bruising]: ''Nothing in the files.''
You: "So no source (again)"
Category error (hard not to add, 'you fool'). Do you not think the photographs themselves do not count as incontrovertible evidence? A source?!
You do not need to 'scrutinise' the photographs as you put it, did you even look?! Kate has not denied them. How could she?
I'm afraid this reply is asanine. I only scanned through this strange piffle.
You write: "So within seconds of an incredibly stressful event you suddenly become a hysterical self-harmer?"
That is exactly my point, imbecile, I see at least you agree it is odd. It is Kate's own explanation, as I wrote. Several years after the event.
No, talking "about how they got there is [not] off the scale", it is a reasonable question - but, yeah, reason is 'off the scale' for you. Kate sustained major bruising on the night her daughter disappeared. Why?
"Because the scrutinising of photographs with the Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass you got for Christmas in 1964 is desperate".
It is by with nasty-minded little comments like this that you wave your right to civility from others. You have none yourself. And your aggression wraps bone-headedness. Not a good combination. You get told.
What the hell has this got to do with mad people's theories about 'swingers'? I obviously glossed over the weird conjecture stuff. What the hell is that about? Please, at least try and think.
Exasperated.
Shallis
http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/04/tapas-2-tapas-6-tapas-7-or-tapas-9.html?showComment=1556302458191#c3472295495622722848
ReplyDelete“Anonymous26 April 2019 at 19:14
Anon, @ 17:41. Are you a a devotee of Vladislav Surkov? Doesn't work, Sunshine. Not on the informed, and educated. Sorry :) Sx”
Is it you, Roman Arkadyevich? Still looking for a citizenship? Doesn't work. Not on the informed, and educated. Sorry :)
Ой, помню одно место, Вас там примут как родного, да и климат-то там подходящий. Если что, так Вы уж не стесняйтесь, черкните на блоге. А Челси и бросить не грех - они, сами заете, говно. С Богом, Роман Абрамович, толстосум Вы наш родной.
Как там Владик? Большой ему привет!
Hi Björn
ReplyDeleteIn reply to you: 28 April 2019 at 21:32
Your thoughts on this interesting.
I stress these are just my own personal current thoughts on the matter:
The hypnotic effect of the mass-delusion of the media whipped up emotional frenzy cannot be discounted. The pressure to conform as 'kind hearted people' (Kate McCann in Berlin) on the Right Side would be immense. (not everyone is naturally contrary like me!) These are ordinary people caught up, and inextricably implicated, in the terrifying, panicked earliest hours of a bewildering situation. They are frightened for their families; a man they have probably spent the week avoiding because of his insufferably overbearing character, and tendency to bang on about tennis, has now both seemingly suffered 1) an unimaginable tragedy, whilst 2) controlling the script, acting, and bossing them into actions that lack congruency with that scenario (probably bullying them into a plan 'to save their own skins', and in terror of ‘untrustworthy/incompetent’ foreign police). Very destabilising. The 'official story' was conceived so fast, within the first two hours. Binding them in. There is no going back once witness statements have been taken. The Official Timeline helpfully photocopied and handed out to FCO staff, and the PJ. (Justification? – can’t trust the local police). It was being used to gain control, over the heads of the police. And rapt World Attention conjured up to ensure its authority. A life of its own. That false information (to safe guard their own children) would harm the search for K&G’s child – I think their bemused excuse was that K&G seemed to be leading on this themselves. It gave them permission. Flabbergasted obviously. Something must have felt very off. But they played along. Watched each other play along. Emperor definitely clothed.
No, they shouldn’t have done it, and yes, they should have been brave enough to come clean (the Murat adventure was a despicable event too far, they had a choice whether to go a whole extra mile, and join in the victimisation), but have a heart – it would have required great courage to stand up. Most people don’t have it. And remember, though I don’t think they emotionally bought the story – the alternative? a *Preposterous* idea! It is for us too! An inconceivable suspicion. And could 1,000 gushing MSM journalists possibly be wrong? The Prime Minister? The Pope?! So pressure to conform, to not acknowledge the positive sartorial state of the Emperor, is overwhelming v thinking the unthinkable, and standing up for truth *against the colossal sentimentalised public opinion.* They couldn’t retract a statement without the whole ‘official story’ being exposed, and coming tumbling down. Such was its intended control, and spin. When the whole thing turned – the nightmare had just got a whole lot worse. For them, the Emperor was at least down to his underwear. Getting harder to deny to oneself. What had they done?! Don't think. Their 'only' hope was in falling quietly behind the monstrous PR offensive that they watched being played out, that used them as pawns but they had no control over themselves. (Possibly they suspected they had been/were being used). As much blind belief/personal delusion as one could muster would have been a very strongly beckoning psychological safe-place. Repress any horror. History needs rewriting. A personal creative memory a blessing. The official story must have happened. As many others as possible signing up in blind belief, and unquestioning allegiance. That should do it. Such is the creation of myth.
God knows what they might think/allow themselves to think about K&G. Just don’t think! That’s probably safest, and best. Goes for some others. Best if planning to appear on Netflix.
Just me.
Shallis
Hello Shallis, 29 April 2019 at 14:03
DeleteAnd thanks for feed back
I actually believe that you’re about to expose, at least fragments, of the underlying psychological mechanisms that led to the tapas 7’s actions, especially in the early hours. Going along with the McCanns’s abduction claims must then have seemed to be the most convenient way for them out of the whole embarrassing situation, but naturally they couldn’t possibly have foreseen what the consequences of their “moral” support would be more than a decade later.
Björn30 April 2019 at 13:32
Delete''I actually believe that you’re about to expose, at least fragments, of the underlying psychological mechanisms that led to the tapas 7’s actions, ''
I believe in Leprechauns and Unicorns.
This place has become densely populated with psychics and psychological profilers lately.No wonder the body language readers have become disenchanted.
''Going along with the McCanns’s abduction claims must then have seemed to be the most convenient way for them out of the whole embarrassing situation,''
You call the loss, abduction of, or death of a child 'embarrassing ? They were embarrassed so decided to become accomplices in a crime they had nothing to do with thus jeopardsing their own liberty and careers, not to mention families. Yes, that makes sense, let's put our whole life on the line for something we didn't do. Brilliant.
''but naturally they couldn’t possibly have foreseen what the consequences of their “moral” support would be more than a decade later. ''
Neither can I. What are the consequences you're imagining. We can't see them. If you mean so many strangers online who watch crime documentaries pointing fingers at them, I doubt that's stopped them living, don't you ? The only 'consequence' they have faced came in the form of a cheque each with many zeroes on it.That must have hurt too.
The 'pact of silence' was media spin.They were gagged by judicial secrecy so couldn't say anything.They didn't gag themselves just to annoy nutters on Twitter.
Hi Björn at 13:32
DeleteI do not think they knew the truth of what had happened (any more than we do, actually!) Ros is of the opinion that they were actually involved in a deliberate cover-up. I disagree, though her point about their attitude towards their own children has made me think a lot. Ros pointed out that they were apparently perfectly happy to leave them in the creche after the child abduction. I have not checked this out myself and will do so - I'm sure Ros will understand my obsessive checking of sources! This is not congruent with the extreme concern a parent would have if they considered an abductor was on the loose after a pre-planned crime had just targeted one of their group. It means they were not concerned, that they *felt* no risk, which suggests that, tacitly at least, they did not believe in an abductor at all. You can 'know' something you do not admit to yourself. When things don't add up then you know on a deep level even if you are in denial on the surface. They couldn't miss the dissonance, the lack of congruity.
I do not think it was 'embarrassment', I think the hook was the terror over the consequeces of their own negligence, the horror at the consequence of K&G's making them fear huge, unknown repercussions for their own behaviour. It had all got a lot more serious than 'fudging' baby-sitting. The full force of what they had risked was made plain. They would be judged harshly themselves by *that* standard of calamity. It wasn't that a child had just fallen out of bed. Imagine the terror of being in a foreign country whose laws you did not even know, whose language you didn't speak and where legal representation would feel unusually far away? Consular help? but they had been severely negligent, look what had happened? so how would they react to them? I think they were terrified, as well as very, very confused.
I agree with you that Stockholm Syndrome is in some way analogous somehow, somewhere. Though obviously in a convoluted. A clue.
No, they couldn't have foreseen how it would all take off, that night no one could. The decisions they made (freely, or maybe under some pressure) at the height of first shock, bewilderment, panic, fear - they were stuck with. They were trapped. The combination of their testimonies enabled a story that achieved worldwide saturation with dizzying speed. And look who bought in? How terrifying is that?
Shallis
Hi Shallis 30 April 2019 at 18:24
Delete"I think they were terrified, as well as very, very confused"
Yes, I believe so too. Embarrassed wasn't exactly what I meant Shallis, but something more unpleasant, though I couldn't find an appropriate word not being a native speaker of English.
''They were trapped. The combination of their testimonies enabled a story that achieved worldwide saturation with dizzying speed. And look who bought in? How terrifying is that? ''
DeleteWhat you said or how your mind works ? The former, not terrifying at all because you're trying to imagine what happened in the minds of strangers in a situation you've only imagined.The latter- yep, terrifying.
Anonymous at 28th April 2019 at 21.25
ReplyDeleteConcur
T
Anonymous 29 April 2019 at 14:20
DeleteYou are not T.
The Count of Monte Poo
Ziggy, I presume 30 April 2019 at 17:22
Delete"You call the loss, abduction of, or death of a child 'embarrassing ?"
No, I actually couldn't find a correct word when I typed it. Let us replace it with "terrified", whic is closer to what I meant. See my comment to Shallis.
Ziggy 14.03.
ReplyDeleteHave you?
Maybe bits and pieces but I don't know what your complete theory is.
Do you have one or do you just like playing devil's advocate?
Some people might describe that as trolling.
Care to enlighten us all?
Certainly 18:23.
DeleteBut first :
''In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.''
If you were to digest that and then cast an eye over the 'debates' on this blog, you'd be hard pressed to find examples of me trolling.Only fools troll.Realise the difference between attempting to upset people for the sake of it and upsetting people by discussing another angle of the topic in order to be able to explore it more fully.I do the latter in order to benefit the discussion. The reactions ? Trolling...
Anyway, back to my theory and it's importance.
I'll go over it again as my many fans here are already familiar with it.
When i came to the case i too only had the headlines ( she said 'no comment' Gaspar said GM and DP talked about sexual things about Madeleine, the dogs found evidence and so on).So I was already blaming the parents before looking into it.
Ii began questioning the involvement of the Politicians. It. If you're in trouble abroad there's always a consul, nobody gets the Prime Minister.Then there was MI5 / 6 getting involved quick.They too have nothing to do with police matters; they look after homeland security.
I saw the logic of why the dogs' evidence wasn't, in fact, 'evidence'; Gaspar 's statement was meaningless.Smith's sighting was far less important than the internet have you believe.
Why the need for a media controller ( CM) if the child could be ( statistically) be returned or found ( dead or alive) any day or week soon.Why the unconditional funding of this one crime
I considered the abduction and considered the age and gender of the victim . it's rarely a happy ending in abductions like that.I looked at VIP and political dealings in such horrendous practices.The cover ups of and overwhelming evidence against others. Then I looked at the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium.Then the Casa Pia one in Portugal. It doesn't matter how many people want to deny it, these cases are /were real.it does happen ( Google Tim Fortescue youtube).
The pattern the tapas group had built up had become predictable. All bar one of them had ground floor apartments and the McCanns was on the near end practically on the pavement and road.There were good vantage points and no security.All an abductor needed was 4-5 minutes maximum to follow a check in, enter, steal, leave, drive away.After that I believe Madeleine could have been used as leverage.Not a financial ransom, millionaires don't need the cash.Political leverage is another matter in Europe.
But, if anyone can explain well why Military Intelligence were happy to drop everything and Get involved I'll accept it.Or if they can explain why Mitchell would leave a cushy , lucrative long term position for one that ( statistically) could end the next week, i'll accept that-tell me how the politicians knew he was going to be in for the long haul so early.Then tell me, if they want to keep machinations in high places so quiet, why not arrest the Mccanns with all the 'evidence' frequently discussed online.I believe a number of politicians know what happened to Madeleine. But they're bound by an oath.They can't even tell the McCanns probably.hence their over the top support by way of compensation.Tell me why so many people in high places, be it in politics, forensics or the police would go to such measures to make sure the parents don't get arrested if they're so 'obviously' guilty.What could two doctors possibly have on so many that they could command them. But the antis insist they have.I'm yet to read a line of how come they can do that.
Ziggy
DeleteJust bringing this up for your thoughts and not saying it is my view entirely,but I am intrigued by the possibility.
What if the whole thing was an intelligence black op to expose or spy on a high level paedeo ring operating in the area and something went wrong hence the cover up?
The parents could have been in on it or could have been used unknowingly. I prefer the former and the fund is a sort of compensation,but it could be either way and the fund is still payback for them.
Everybody of course would be bound by the Official Secrets Act and even if your theory of a VIP abduction is correct the secrecy would be the same and we won't be finding out anytime soon.As I have said before it won't be covered by the 30 year rule either,more like the 100 year rule.
They were even cunning enough to plant cadaverine, and DNA in the parents' hire car. Presumably to keep attention away from them.
DeleteYet, with all their high level contacts, they couldn't finish the job off by getting Portugal to convict the parents.
Usually, if someone has the sort of information you suggest these two have, they end up dieing in a car crash, or something.
Maybe that just wasn't possible with the body in the car.
Fans? What fans apart from T (Pooh)?
DeleteAll your other characters by any chance?
Anonymous30 April 2019 at 07:55
DeleteBlack Ops are on the table as far as I'm concerned.Blair and Brown's name are reason enough.The overall political panic and necessity for MI5/6 to intervene are others.None of that looks like a police investigation does it.
The nature and purpose of a black op is unclear and leaves too much open to speculation. The UK have a far better record, for instance, in locking down their operations than the americans.Espionage can't be ruled out if the Politicians and Intelligence Community were ruled in.But whatever the leverage was is the mystery.When these games are played in high places it can be historical or ongoing.Once you're over a barrel you're over a barrel.And let's face it, it's not difficult to point the finger at lying politicians who have played for big stakes since 2000.
I doubt very much if any parents would be part of this kind of thing.Do they know ? I doubt it but I wouldn't back against it either.They aren't fools, put it that way. What could the parents gain by being in on it that would compensate them for the life of their child ? The funding of the investigation flies in the face of logic.The 12 years is evidence of that.So it could be as you say, a sort of compensation.But the gesture more than the money.The money can be accounted for with work.
The Official Secrets Act is a factor in the silence of course.That's as official as it gets.But more serious than that is the oath that has no statute next to it. That's the one that guarantees you will have some very unfortunate mishap should you develop loose loose lips ( Dr David Kelly etc).
The 30 /50/ 100 year rule seems to be something the politicians can bring in to play whenever it suits them. The same goes with the police( same side, let's face it).Even then, the 'released files' are rarely fully in tact.JFK ? Why was Dunblane sealed for 100 years when we were sold the cut and dried 'lone gunman' fallacy ?If that was the case why seal it ? It's 50 years since Brian Jones died this year- why was that sealed ?Sealed is another way of simply saying hidden.
Oscar Slater30 April 2019 at 10:37
DeleteIf the cadaverine and dna was planted by top official orders then it wouldn't be so it could later be dicredited, oscar.What do the reports say about both ?
allow me : 'inconclusive'
DeleteAnonymous30 April 2019 at 11:09
Delete''Fans? What fans apart from T (Pooh)?
All your other characters by any chance?''
Everyone's my fan. They are divided into two. The first are happy to admit it; the rest are in denial and they hate it.
I hope my burnt down forest is going to be replanted...
ReplyDeleteNo trees- no bees-no honey..
I want my honey mummy,.!
Pooh
Anonymous 29 April 2019 at 18:30
DeleteI’ve told you before and I’m telling you again: ‘We are going to eat, Dad’ and ’We are going to eat Dad’ are not the same, ‘Pooh’. Please learn before attempting to imitate.
Now, brush your false teeth and straight to bed, old chap. And don’t forget to take your bloody wooden leg off.
The Count of Monte Poo
Pooh/ T
DeleteCan you please go and gorge on your favourite food rather than telling us about adventures here.
@07:21
DeleteIs that you, Owl?
C Robin
Could such an owl be so unwise, comrade..
DeleteFirst time poster - I watched the netflix doc and I did have my belief that the parents had some involvement in the disappearance. However there was as much proof for any of the theories presented as any other. At no point has any official police inquiry fully investigated and fully exonerated the McCanns. Until they are, then this theory is 100% as valid as any other. They nor we can have it both ways.
ReplyDelete@ first time poster @ 18 : 56
DeleteThere was a 10 year anniversary in 2017 in which Pedro De Carmo, the Director of the JP stated on record that :"Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period."
That seems quite categorical considering his position.
If not, here's a link or two :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIH-AX2LlYA
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917
To disbelieve all of them it is suggest all the police are lying. Why would they do that ?
Hi 18:56, welcome to the nut house! The thing about the Netflix show is that it tried to appear unbiased, but it was always leading to one conclusion, that the parents are innocent and Maddie the still out there
DeleteI feel it was biased, because of what was left out, and because of who got the biggest say.
Although people like Summers and Swan (that odd looking man and woman) and Jim Gamble were presented as impartial authorities on the subject, they all had a vested interest in the abduction story.
I would advise you to stay away from the mystery though, as the more you dig into it, the more frustrating it becomes.
Obviously most sites on the interweb are going to be pro or anti McCann. My advice, if you want to find out more, is to read as much as you can, and make your own conclusions
The big bone of contention in the whole argument is Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie.
Find an online translation and go from there. If you find the book completely unreasonable then that's all there is to it.
If you think it makes sense look around for sane arguments that support it or disagree.
There are also other books like Madeleine by Kate McCann, and Summers and Swans account.
Don't say you haven't been warned though. As this blog article states, McCann world is a bizarro place.
Thanks for listening, I will now hand you over to a member of the opposition who will tell you why you should not believe a word I have said
08:08
DeleteDid the documentary try to lead us to the conclusion that the parents are innocent and that Madeleine is still out there , or have the police misled us that way dishonestly by stating that the parents are innocent and that Madeleine is still out there. In which case the documentary was reporting actual facts.
Obviously, the lack of anti-McCann bias was always going to cause a furore among those who have chosen to invent things to hate the parents for, whilst insisting that they're ' impartial'.90% of all other youtube 'programmes' always cover this with inventive theorising or lies and get their loyal supporters to spread them. The Netflix documentary is far more professional and responsible. Any 'bits' they left out have been covered to death by the antis anyway.They'll fill in the gaps themselves.It's a need they have.
What is Jim Gamble's 'vested interest' by the way ? I missed that.
'' would advise you to stay away from the mystery though, as the more you dig into it, the more frustrating it becomes.''
We can't anyway.It's the police who are investigating the mystery. Anyone online who thinks that they are will never reach a conclusion that could be taken seriously as they are only reading reports and watching a screen.They're investigating the investigation.Not the crime.
''read as much as you can, and make your own conclusions ''
But whatever you read, check the source for how factual it is or if it's a guess.
''The big bone of contention in the whole argument is Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie. ''
The big bone of contention is if the child is dead or alive.The bigger bone of contention is if the parents buried her and were then 'assisted' in the cover up by MI5 ( one of Amaral's theories,).That's where it becomes important to check if something has evidence or if it's just somebody taking a swing at the ball.
Hi there, the first reply to my comment are comments / opinions or quotes of people associated in some way to the Police in both countries. These are not conclusions made attributed to any official, ongoing or historical investigations. The original PJ investigation did not state this. Operation Grange did not investigate the parents nor exonerated them. To use these quotes to state that an investigation ruled out the parents is misleading. They have not been ruled out by any official investigation as they have not been fully investigated by any official investigation.
Delete12:52 they were told by the Portuguese Supreme Court last year that they have not been cleared (Gerry requested that they state that they were no longer under investigation.)
DeleteIt makes sense, the original PJ investigation was shelved as they "did not know what crime had been committed."
Thus Gerry was asking the court to say that he was clear of a crime that the PJ hadn't even said happened.
Hello Unknown30 April 2019 at 12:51
Delete"They have not been ruled out by any official investigation as they have not been fully investigated by any official investigation"
So true, the most intelligent comment you've ever made on this blog. I fully agree.
We may perhaps,after all, share rather similiar views on the case.
And the court reminded him and the rest of us all out here that that wasn't what the hearing was about.It was about the rights of free speech( see above). It wasn't about saying who was innocent or guilty as that was down to the police and a criminal trial. You can't take little snippets out of context to support a guess that has no evidence.Well, you can, but only those who share the bias will agree with it.Nobody looking objectively would.
DeleteUnknown30 April 2019 at 12:51
Delete''To use these quotes to state that an investigation ruled out the parents is misleading. They have not been ruled out by any official investigation as they have not been fully investigated by any official investigation.''
Which part of the quotes on the links or the youtube quote didn't you understand about the parents being exonerated ?Do you think the police have spent 12 years not investigating the case ? If the parents were not exonerated and were suspects in the police books, why haven't they bothered acting ? Could it be that the quotes supplied above are- according to your view- lies ? The 12 years supports them as being genuine.
Did you not see this, Unknown at 12.51
Delete"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. The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we're trying to get to the bottom of what happened."
The McCanns have not been investigated because the PJ had initially ruled them out, and OG's review of all of the PJ files, together with subsequent investigations, will have revealed no information that will have warranted any further investigations of them.
Oh, the blind, 19:12.
DeleteThe joint UK/PJ investigation did not 'rule them out'. Your assertion that a review of PJ files would not support further investigation is clearly in error. Have you actually read the files? Obviously not.
You have taken Rowley's words out of context. This might reaaure you (which for some unknown reason you desire) but makes you miss what is actually being implied here. Quoting out of context is notoriosly unsound. OG are very measured, and metered in their public statements (as are the PJ). You must listen, and read the subtext very carefully. These pronouncements are very carefully nuanced.
Tell me, why are you not a supporter just of truth? Truth leads to justice. Which surely we all can support? So stop aiding spin. Why do you want to do that, anyway?
Shallis
Björn30 April 2019 at 15:04
Delete"They have not been ruled out by any official investigation as they have not been fully investigated by any official investigation"
So true, the most intelligent comment you've ever made on this blog. I fully agree.''
Then perhaps you could explain why both the UK and PJ made it clear in an announcement that they had been investigated and they were satisfied that they had no involvement in their daughter's disappearance.Were they just pretending ?
Reply anticiapted
12:40
DeleteWhat seemingly muddled thinking:
"Did the documentary try to lead us to the conclusion that the parents are innocent and that Madeleine is still out there, or have the police misled us that way dishonestly by stating that the parents are innocent and that Madeleine is still out there. In which case the documentary was reporting actual facts".
The case is currently a live, ongoing investigation. You seem to think the police have declared the McCanns are innocent, and that Madeleine "is still out there'? You must be fully aware that they have said neither thing.
How could the documentary makers be reporting 'actual facts' about these same matters. They are hardly party to the investigation, are they? They are presenting opinions.
What are you suggesting?
"It's the police who are investigating the mystery".
How true. Best if you don't make false pronouncements about it.
"*That's* where it becomes important to check if something has evidence'. [my emphasis].
it is always critical to bend to the evidence.
Shallis
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttps://omny.fm/shows/maddie/goncalo-amaral
ReplyDeleteFrom 29:54 Mark Saunokonoko spoke with Gonçalo Amaral.
(MS: "When I spoke with Gonçalo Amaral I asked what words came into his mind when I said Operation Grange".)
Interesting.
Going by the latest podcast from Australia, and another "unapproved" photograph doing the rounds at the moment, I'd say OG is about to be stood down.
ReplyDeleteLooks to me like they will walk away, saying the most likely abductor is a German paedophile, and leave everything else to the PJ. I.e. they were there to investigate abduction only.
Much softening up of the British public to support abduction via Netflix etc Hoping that alone will convince the public that there was no need to question parents.
Regrettably the ball is in Portugal's court. I think the only thing that could piss them off enough to take things further is something crazy like someone suing them in the ECHR.
So.….if OG winds up, and they name a suspect, presumably the parents will be very keen for him to be tried, so they can see justice done and end the nightmare of being implicated in their daughters death, or disappearance?
ReplyDeleteThe man's lawyer will no doubt be keen to test alternative theories, particularly those which were not in Operation Grange's remit. This will give the McCanns their day in a court where they can clear their name once and for all.
I said earlier about them pissing off Portugal by going to the ECHR. Now thanks to OG, they can do it on Portuguese soil.
I know the Portuguese are laid back people, and will surely set aside all those Johnny Foreigner, Sardine Muncher, Hick Town Cops insults. Why, I would expect a high ranking PJ officer to appear in court and say categorically that they didn't do it.
Somebody get onto the Rothley Gazette and alert their Top Tips columnist. I'll even tell them what to write.
"Litigants - save a fortune on lawyers fees in defamation actions by simply getting arrested and prove your innocence in court. Hey Presto - you're no longer (financially) Carter - Rucked!
''The man's lawyer will no doubt be keen to test alternative theories, particularly those which were not in Operation Grange's remit. This will give the McCanns their day in a court where they can clear their name once and for all.''
DeleteNobody' even been named yet and you're 4 miles down the road creating scenarios. If OG name a suspect they'll tell the police force first, not the press.Then they can examine if he's like all the other leads( false and non existent) or if there's evidence to arrest and charge him. If it's the latter, it will have to be stronger than the dogs' indicators and unambiguous . In which case he'll be done.
The stereotyping of Johnny Foreigner and so on is old now. It has been for years. The people who matter are on a 12 million pound payroll and have bigger fish to fry than racism.They're interested in what happened to Madeleine, not what sold papers and not how many PJ officers leaked cheap shots to the press for wine and lunches.
''"Litigants - save a fortune on lawyers fees in defamation actions by simply getting arrested and prove your innocence in court. Hey Presto - you're no longer (financially) Carter - Rucked!''
Now you're about 15 miles down the road.If the case closes tomorrow the McCanns wold still need to pay for action to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling. The case closing would mean it's left open in all but name, ergo, Amaral's theories remain open to interpretation until evidence ever turns up.
Oscar Slater 30 April 12.07
ReplyDeleteSo what you're actually saying that the dogs' findings, both Eddie and Keela, will be completely ignored and dismissed as being useless to the investigation and it will be classed as an "abduction".
I can't really see that happening as it will set a terrible precedence for future crimes and those that have happened in the past and have been concluded by specialist trained dogs.
It's so very convenient for all concerned, i.e. the McCann shills to overturn the findings of these specialist dogs and even GM himself, although he got unstuck when he brought up a particular case when cadaver was detected in the boot of a car in the US, can't remember the case now and can't be bothered to look it up, but the husband eventually confessed to murdering his wife/children and dumping the body/bodies in the boot of the car to dispose of them.
It's not only the British public who have been following this case for the past 12 years but people from all over the world as Ros's website used to show the people signing on from many different countries. Why would one film company, Netflix, be the bringer of "truth" to a supposed abduction when there are many conflicts in what they have filmed/mentioned.
The truth is what the Portuguese Supreme Court believe in if and when a trial is brought.
''So what you're actually saying that the dogs' findings, both Eddie and Keela, will be completely ignored and dismissed as being useless to the investigation and it will be classed as an "abduction".''
DeleteNo, not at all. Inconclusive doesn't mean useless any more than it means evidence.The official line is that it needs either corroboration or advances in DNA analysis. Not until one or both of those turns up, the findings are supposedly still in the air( if they exist anywhere). That makes it more questionable why they didn't take up the recent offer of a deeper analysis from the US. If he failed to yield anything then we'd be back where we are.What's to lose ?
''It's so very convenient for all concerned, i.e. the McCann shills to overturn the findings of these specialist dog''
The shills - if they exist- would need to have the credentials to examine and prove the dogs' findings are useless.Those who are calling them inconclusive right now work for the police and the forensics team.Maybe the big mystery over them has been caused by shills who want to make it all a mystery rather than reveal the abductor.
'' Why would one film company, Netflix, be the bringer of "truth" to a supposed abduction when there are many conflicts in what they have filmed/mentioned.''
Is Netflix claiming to have delivered the conclusive truth ? The final solution ? What was their verdict ?
''The truth is what the Portuguese Supreme Court believe in if and when a trial is brought.''
The first point with regard to that is the Supreme Court didn't state their belief about what happened to Madeleine, they only clarified that their decision to allow the publication of Amaral's book didn't amount to them endorsing his views or the McCanns regarding the fate of Madeleine.The second is that belief isn't truth.It only becomes truth when it's proven to be so.
Anon @ 15:10
Delete'it will set a terrible precedence for future crimes'.
You write about the dogs, but it actually is more applicable to the whole investigation.
Here it is a risk. The whole sorry, extraordinary car crash of justice in this entire case from 2007 until today is why twelve million pounds is fully justified for its rectification. It is not about privileging one little girl above all other missing children, it is about a notorious miscarriage of justice that cannot stand, or the precedence *is* blooming awful. The implications depressing. It must be set right.
Netflix give not a toss. Why would they? They commissioned a documentary for entertainment that they hope will bring in huge ratings. That is all. They are not a 'they' here, if you understand me.
Evidence cannot be rubbed out. If forensic evidence is inconslusive (neither yay, nor nay) it is brought forward in this state, not dismissed. What Gerry McCann thinks about sniffer dogs is really neither here nor there! No one cares!
You are right to have confidence that justice cannot be bought, even with a really, really expensive, and relentless campaign.
So yeah, no precedence for that, please.
Shallis
Interesting novel, Oscar.
ReplyDeleteNobody would notice if OG was stood down.Nobody's seen anything they've done while they've been stood up.
The someone suing in the ECHR would only be to close down what is considered in most 21st century countries as libel and defamation, nothing to do with the hunt for Madeleine.
I though the whole thing would close on May 03. A 16th birthday is a landmark.Minor to adult threshold.
If the UK close it and they no longer have their hands on the case, the PJ could do what they want with no fear of interference.They could arrest whoever they consider is guilty and have the trial in the country where crime took place. No tight reins, no judicial secrecy. The moment they've waited for. The moment to prove Amaral's theories weren't just mad guesswork.
Owl reveal yourself (.,
ReplyDeleteAnd you sir can take out your glass eye too...
Unknown...what sort of name is that?
All very strange comrade,but I'm sure you're up to speed.
Namaste,
The Count of Monte Poo
too shay as they misspell it across the water, Pooh. Beware rogue commas when the moon is fat. . .
Deletethe wide eyed boy from freecloud :)
Oscar Slater30 April 2019 at 12:07
ReplyDelete''Looks to me like they will walk away, saying the most likely abductor is a German paedophile, and leave everything else to the PJ''
Which could, intriguingly, lead us full circle to Shrimpton country.There's 12 more years of discussion there alone..