Thursday, 11 December 2014


Yes, the cat's out of the bag, its official, the McCanns do not like the Smith sighting!  Well of course we have known that for years, but those trying to convince people otherwise have now been proved categorically wrong.  The Smith sighting has always troubled the McCanns deeply.  If Smithman didn't bother them he would have been shouted from the rooftops because his running through the streets with a child supported an abduction story.  A man who looked like Gerry carrying a child that looked like Madeleine in PDL at kick off time is just too coincidental in my opinion.  Lets hope DCI Nicola Wall heard the McCanns dismissal of the Smith family evidence.

All in all a terrible day for the McCanns I'd say.  I think they stayed away because it kept the press away - clearly they were not expecting things to go well.  Bad sign too that Isabel didn't show up.  Law is another form of showbiz for ugly people and barristers are as narcissistic as they come.  The lead barrister in a 'winning' trial wouldn't miss the last day's summing up for love nor money. Its their moment in the spotlight, the time they present all their knock out blows (if they have any) and slam home all the words they have been preparing for months, if not years, that Isabel would miss the final act is bizarre.  I read that she had another court case, but frankly if I were client, I would be livid, and if they are not, then its because they have already given the case up - a real possibility, they might be saving cash, her non appearance has saved them the cost of two barristers for the day, as it was the childrens' barrister spoke on behalf of all the claimants.  Are the McCanns now finally cutting back?  If they are, its a weird time (and place) to choose and shows how much faith they have in their case.

Some are predicting the McCanns will appeal if they lose.  I don't think that will happen.  This trial has been a huge embarrassment for the parents, I don't think they ever expected it to go this far, in fact, I think they truly believed that Goncalo Amaral would pay up as everyone else had and it would be another easy win.  They waited until Goncalo's book had been out for a year before they brought proceedings (allowing the royalties to stack up) and at that time they were at their most powerful.  Their coffers were full and the great and the good were putty in their hands. 

Unfortunately for the McCanns, the long delays in Portuguese Court proceedings has seen a complete turnaround in their fortunes and the way in which the public perceive them.  Seven years on and after multiple legal actions against anyone who criticises them, the McCanns are now seen as greedy and unscrupulous and that they are demanding cash from the detective who was searching for their daughter takes bizarre to the extreme.  Another case where we have seen this is Jonbenet Ramsey, the Ramseys sued 'Jonbenet's Avenger' and the case settled.  However, the McCanns don't have the resources or the clout of the Ramseys (well they did for a short while) and they didn't bargain for the strength of character shown by Goncalo Amaral.

The McCanns desperately want this trial to go away with as little publicity as possible.  They tried to settle almost two years ago, but Goncalo Amaral was having none of it.  He wanted his day in Court, and what we may well be seeing now is the McCanns squirming.  They take no pride in this case and no-one, other than sycophant Summers wishes them victory - the case doesn't even get a mention on the Facebook page, strange as you would think they would appreciate the support of their 610,000 followers. 

I did a rather pessimistic blog yesterday (I was in a grumpy mood), but today I am feeling rather more optimistic that justice will prevail.  The (female) Judge in the Lisbon trial wasn't in the least impressed with Gerry's strutting and dissing of the dogs' evidence, and the fact that their lawyer droned on about them yesterday gives away their weakest spot. Well two weak spots, the dogs and the Smiths sighting have them rattled enough to use the damages trial to refute them publicly - even at the risk of annoying the Judge still further by going off topic. That, imo, is very telling indeed.


  1. Excellent article as always Cristobell. Thank you for writing the truth about the case. Bless you for caring about Madeleine xx

  2. sound just like what people were saying about bennett and his trial - before the truth came out and the decision was announced.

  3. There's lots going on in a quiet way. Out of the Hearing yesterday, I understand MA Lawyers are seeking full disclosure of the McCanns FUNDLTD... although this is published and freely available, presume they want a break down. How interesting that will be. With another due in the new year for 2013\14 which will give a more up to-date picture of the fighting fund.

    Then there's the waiting for the UK courts approval for Lawyer's to Act on behalf of Madeleine who was made ward of court and this might promote another delay. DELAY ... the courts would have settled that ages ago, as they did when the McCanns wanted access to the files. Although a legal nicety it's a red herring.... but it does bring you back to the peculiar 48 questions, that also peculiarly were not answered.

    Crèche-Dad: about the only piece to come from the Op. Grange to have put anything in the spotlight on this case; so mysterious that 'he' hasn't really been given any public gratis of existing. But it does open the timeline back up to accommodate Smithman.

    Oh............. life goes on. Tax payer £10 million and counting.

  4. Anonymous@04.46
    Excellent post are you from the Blacksmith Bureau.Hope so.

  5. @ Annon 09.21 Nope - just been around rather too long.

    For me that burning, turning, mind boggling moment, when the abductor was effectively sighted within the moments of Mr McC exiting the apartment & whilst talking to JW, stopped - enter stage left Creche dad. I stopped the ruminating over MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. I don't necessarily accept OG 'Creche dad' but it certainly explains the possibilities around Smithman .... which we have to accept, unlike 'credchedad' has not be eliminated ! ;) ... or whatever.

    Equally strange and will always remain an engima why TM would supporedt Tannerman\creche-dad, Even though their friend (MO) had checked on the children and reported all was fine; ..... whatever that check consisted of. With alleged open windows and shutters, Smithman should always have been TM favoured abductor and a priority.

  6. I'm beginning to think everything was done in desperation, the cobbled together dining at the tapas story (alibi) and the ridiculous individual checking on the kids. I don't know about anyone else, but for me it would wreck the evening if I and indeed everyone else had to keep breaking the conversation/ambience by getting up and leaving the table. No to mention the terror of one of the kids waking up and wandering around alone in the dark. I'm not saying they shouldn't have checked them, I'm saying they should not have left them on their own! How any of them could walk out of their apartments leaving tiny babies on their own for hours on end sends a shiver down my spine - even if they were checking them. I mean honestly, I used to get upset at going out and leaving the dog on his own!

    1. I agree, I can't see anyone enjoying the evening if they all had to keep getting up and down to check on their various children. On a group holiday like that, people usually take turns in baby sitting so that everyone gets a good night out. How could you possibly relax knowing babies and toddlers, some of whom were sick, were alone in that building, which was outside the complex on a street corner... and the McCanns door was left unlocked? No, it doesn't make sense.

  7. It's also fishy that it was on Kate's check that Maddy was found to be missing and none of the other checks, maybe just another coincidence!

  8. it strikes me as odd that at the time that maddys alleged abductor climbed in/out the window and all that other crap the creche/dad was sighted and now has been ruled out by the SY whilst another man was seen running about town carrying another child hmmmmm strikes me as very strange that the SY would persist in alleging she was abducted So there where all these men running round Prada de Louisee carrying children - Does everyone in Sy have dementia /

  9. If in any whodunit - the alleged open window and shutter would have been an obvious red herring, whether we include the curtains tucked behind bed (left) chair (right) & no real idea of the net curtains which are drawn back behind the curtains in the forensic photos - too many had messed with the crime scene for it to be of any real benefit. But why the open window & shutter?

  10. Maybe the open window & shutter was left open to get rid of the smell of death, same reason the car boot was left open for days on end?

  11. Thumbs up 13 December 14:50!

  12. It's all a matter of priorities.What's more important. Going out on the piss with your mates for the night and keaving your kids alone in the dark. It's a decision Gerald would have made without a second thought. Shame about the sedation though, poor Maddie just couldn't take any more of it could she Kate ?

  13. If the children were such an inconvenience, and going by the amount of help Kate needed to care for them at home! I wonder why they didn't enlist the help of relatives while they had a break? after-all they seem like a close knit family..from what we've read. I'd like to ask Jerry what he meant on the airport bus when he said "I'm not here to enjoy myself" or words to that effect!! Strange thing to say when you're off on holiday!