Wednesday 25 February 2015


Like Blacksmith, I believe this case is finally nearing an end.  I had thought it would all reach a conclusion prior to the General Election in May, because if a massive fraud and cover up are exposed under this tory government, they could make a meal of it. 

It may of course be that I am giving this case way too much importance from a political perspective,  but I don't think so.  As George Galloway said, if (when) this case is exposed it will the 'Mother of All Justices'.  It will be a scam on a scale never seen before.  From a financial perspective, more money has been raised/spent/misused in the name of Madeleine McCann than any missing child or person in history. 

However, much seems to depend on the proceedings in Lisbon.  Either by accident or design, news from Scotland Yard seems to coincide or at least run parallel to news from Portugal.  Both countries seemingly afraid to make the first move. 

As an outsider, it seems to me that the Portuguese have no appetite for the Scotland Yard investigation and the only reason I can think of for this, is that Operation Grange are determined to pin this on anyone other than the McCanns, preferably a Portuguese citizen.  The endless rogatory letters and requests to interview oddbods, misfits and anyone swarthy who ever had a manual job at Warners, must be time consuming and irritating for those who know darn well what happened on 3rd May 2007.  I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me as though the Portuguese have washed their hands of this. 

The Portuguese police don't appear to be building a case of any sort whatsoever, if they are, they are keeping it very tightly under wraps, but I sense that they don't want to be dragged up the garden path again.  In 2007 they were put to the time and expense of investigating every loony sighting from every corner of the earth, and I doubt they will be doing that again. 

I have always thought that all the delays and the faffing about by Scotland Yard, is some strict adherence to building a concrete, 100% solid case for the prosecution, one that left no wriggle room for the high flying barristers for the Defence. But almost 8 years on there doesn't seem to any sign of this.  If I were a pessimist I would say Scotland Yard appear to have no more evidence than the Portuguese did when they filed the case away 7 years ago.  What I find worrying however, is the way in which the investigation seems to be having its strings pulled by people intent on proving there was a stranger abduction. 

Actually it would be more than tragic if Scotland Yard too have hit a dead end, it would be a downright injustice, and one that will never, ever go away.  If the intention of Operation Grange was to bury the case and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the McCanns were not involved, then they have failed spectacularly.  The case of missing Madeleine still makes the front pages and more people are asking questions. 

DCI Redwood introduced the idea that Madeleine may have died in Apartment 5A.  Basically, the same thing that was said by Goncalo Amaral and for which the parents are demanding £1.2 million in compensation for their hurt feelings. The announcement didn't receive the fanfare that the 'McCanns (and their friends) are not suspects' did, but it won't go away.  Anyone who knows even the most basic facts about this case, will know that it is impossible for the child to have died (and for cadaver odour to have accumulated) in the apartment without the knowledge of its occupants.  

That Martin Brunt attempted to convince the Sky News audience that a 'burglar' took the dead child and buried her in the immediate vicinity of the crime after the alarm had been raised is an insult to anyone's intelligence.  It may of course be part of a strategy to keep the heat off the families involved, but the pouncing on Brenda Leyland most certainly wasn't.  I would hope that no-one 'official' was involved in that sickening PR stunt, and if they were, then they should be held to account for it.   

Now that all these cans are open and lids off, the case MUST reach a conclusion which leads onto a couple of very big questions.  Firstly, it must be pointed out that Scotland Yard do not have jurisdiction to prosecute someone for a crime committed in Portugal.  So why have millions been spent on a Scotland Yard investigation that can never reach a satisfactory conclusion? There are no signs that Scotland Yard and the PJ are working together nicely, in fact, the opposite appears to be the case.  I am hoping that it is a cunning plan, so cunning that it has outfoxed the lot of us. 

Musing and speculating, I can only imagine that the UK and Portugal have reached some sort of agreement whereby any prosecution will be led by the British, but I can only see that working if British citizens were involved and the trial were to take place in the UK.  The logistics of how, where and who will conduct a criminal prosecution are way above my head I'm afraid.  Will, or indeed, can, the Crown Prosecution Service deal with this case 'as if the abduction/murder had occurred in the UK'?

The chances of the McCanns being arrested in Portugal, seem to be slim to zero.  Both stood on the steps of the Lisbon Courts spouting the injustice of it all, without any sense of irony, or indeed fear.  But then again, as two of the most famous faces on the planet, there isn't really anywhere for them to hide and they desperately need that money from Goncalo. 

The big question for me at the moment is, what is Scotland Yard's agenda and what 'evidence' are they waiting for?  Are they, like the PJ before them, stuck with only circumstantial evidence?  Have all the witnesses, the inner circle especially, stuck to their original stories like glue?  Does Jane Tanner still insist that the Frankenstein like creature carrying a child off into the night was not a figment of her imagination?  Does Operation Grange have definitive 100% proof that the parents and their friends were not involved?  In which case, why not release it and end their agony?

Where is Operation Grange heading?  Will the investigation end in a trial? If so, where?  The crime was committed in Portugal, any prosecution must be given the go ahead by the Portuguese Attorney General.  Britain is not an empire, it can't cherry pick criminal cases involving UK citizens abroad and bring them back to the motherland to be tried and cleared.  And if the investigation has been set up without the intention of bringing anyone to justice, then will there be an Inquiry? 


  1. You're back on track. There is no cunning ploy, there is only what our eyes tell us.

    A review that Scotland Yard never wanted, and from which there is no way out.

    No amount of dead paedos or swarthy foreigners will ever fit the bill, because dead paedos and Jonny foreigner will never tick the boxes like the McCanns tick the boxes.

    There's one thing for sure, the Government/Scotland Yard can't keep throwing time and money at this thing ad infinitum.

    We might see a change of policy if we see a change of Government, but I think any conclusion might be akin to a dullard sitting a maths test.

    Sorry, too hard, can't do it.

  2. I leaning towards your way of thinking Himself, all the bravado and fanfare that launched Operation Grange has whittled to nothing. They stated at the beginning that the McCanns (and their friends) are not involved, but they have produced nothing to back that up and they have failed to produce one credible alternate suspect.

    Where can it end? Will the Portuguese oblige the British by staging a mock trial granting the parents lifelong immunity to prosecution? If they haven't got enough evidence to prosecute the McCanns, they certainly haven't got enough evidence to prosecute anyone else.

    You have it in a nutshell Himself. They are stuck.

    1. The sad fact.... and it is a fact.... there is no evidence against anyone.
      This allows conspiracy theories to bloom.
      This allows people like yourself to slag the McCanns off daily.
      I thought you were an author of books... not some hated filled blog.

    2. ...just read the files!!!

  3. I have always had three core beliefs, albeit one more recently, if we can call Grange recent that is.

    The guilt of the McCanns. (Nothing new and not alone.)

    Op Grange was ever a crock. (More alone than I should be, given what we have witnessed.)

    Thirdly, and when did I come to this conclusion, eighteen months, two years down the line? That justice will never be served by due process.

    The only way justice might show its face, will be via the back door. Of this I am convinced.

    Until some player drops a bombshell publicly, something that just cannot be ignored, or information comes to light from a totally unrelated case, again that cannot be ignored, then the status quo will be just that, the status quo.

    Not the most inspiring of statements is it? But it is the reality of the situation.

    1. Maybe something coming from the Brenda Leyton inquest.

  4. I hope so, Brenda's death is tragic enough, without it being in vain.

  5. In my opinion.. one or more people in the apartment know exactly what happened to Madeleine, one or more people helped to remove Madeleine from the apartment, and get rid of any incriminating evidence such as toothbrushes, clothes, etc. I believe the abductor is among those people, and that's why no trace of an outsider entering 5A has ever been found. When you have 'skeletons in your cupboard' or secrets you want to keep, it's best to keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

  6. @ Anon 16.33
    Have You even once believed there was an abductor? There can't be any traces from anyone outside, because no one entered and abducted the girl. Somehow the whole group of adults that were there must be "in" and have some knowledge. Their silence? Fear or something else? "The Orient express" by Agatha Christie comes to mind

    1. 23:02,
      To answer your question, yes, when news about Madeleine's disappearance was first reported I had no reason not to believe it was an abduction, but very quickly changed my mind when the parents were appealing to the abductor (Kate) 'please don't hurt her' don't scare her etc, just didn't seem genuine, no tears? I know she has since commented that the reason she stifled her emotions was because she was told not to cry on camera, how many other parents of missing/abducted children do we see on TV breaking their hearts, and sobbing, not caring what they have 'supposedly' been told! As far as their silence is concerned remember David Payne's give-away "we have a pact" exactly WHY no-one will ever speak. All we can hope for is that one day in the not too distant future, someone, somewhere, will have the guts to OUT those responsible.

    2. And of course Gerry has referred to the 'collective decision' a number of times during interviews. The thing about pacts is, some just cannot resist letting others know they are part of one, it makes them feel important.

      It is of course the weird behaviour of Gerry and Kate McCann that has kept us all agog this past 7 years. No grief stricken parents behaves the way they did following the loss of their child.

      I absolutely hate myself for commenting on the characters and personalities of Gerry and Kate, but I feel as though they are challenging/provoking me to, and I don't just mean me personally, but all of us. It is probably the micro expressions the we pick up on, the sneers, the contempt and in a couple of interviews, the laughter.

      Though the McCanns plead victimhood and eternal suffering, they have deliberately kept a high profile to raise money, or awareness, take your pick, but they have always had it within their power to stop the insanity. Each time they give an interview or issue a press statement, they are bombarded again, so why do they do it?

      Perhaps I am being unfair, they could claim they have no choice, and in a way they don't. It must be hell to live with that suspicion constantly over your head and it would destroy most people. However, the McCanns truly believe that every time they appear on our screens to put their side, they are winning their public back, and nothing will convince them otherwise.

      I am toying at the moment, with profiling the 'leader' and the way in which he has been able to take control from 'the moment they found her gone', to date. But there are a number of alpha males vying for that position, and I am still trying to work out who did what where and to whom. I think it may all have begun with one wee laddy on an almighty power trip who began to see his wildest dreams come true.

  7. I agree 16:33. I always found it very odd that the McCanns had/have 100% faith in their friends. I think if my child vanished in such bizarre circumstances I would suspect everyone - and I certainly wouldn't put my remaining children in the resort crèche the following day!

    The Tapas group did not know each other as well as we were led to believe, therefore the McCanns faith in the tapas group friends, and indeed the faith of the tapas group friends in the McCanns, is bizarre. And of course, they too put their kids in the crèche the following day. In my opinion, anyone who put their kids in the resort crèche on 4th May knew there was no child snatcher on the loose.

    1. Fgs..... the crèche was the safest place on the 4th. So many police around.

    2. The safest place for young children is always beside the parent(s) - at arms length so to speak.

      As was made perfectly/sadly clear by the disappearance of Madeleine

    3. 01.18 You seem to be ignoring the fact that if the "abductor" was one of the creche workers K & G McCann as parents were putting the twins into an unsafe environment. Would you want your remaining children put into a creche when one of the workers may have "abducted" Madeleine and could be holding her somewhere for many, many reasons, which if you use your imagination no parent would want their child to suffer. As the McCanns seem to have no qualms about putting the twins into the creche away from their parental protection then I don't think I need to spell out what their reason was.

  8. No two cases are ever alike, but the reports on what the ex dectective
    has to say on the Jon Benet Ramsey case TODAY makes for interesting reading,

    including: 'On a motive: 'Neither the PD or the FBI believe this was ever a kidnapping. It was a murder that someone tried to stage as a kidnapping.'

    I don't provide links - but Daily Mail and Reddit carry the story

    1. Many thanks for that 01.00, I am eternally grateful to my late night commentators, as I love the quiet of the wee small hours in which to read and think!

      I think there are a huge amount of similarities between the case of Jonbenet and Madeleine, not least the way in which the media campaign to establish 'stranger murder/abductor' has been handled, some might say the Jonbenet Ramsey case was a template.

      The Ramseys :

      had friends in high places
      embraced the media and publicity
      refused to co-operate with the police
      sued the lead detective for libel
      produced documentaries pointing the finger at someone (anyone) else
      put out stories about 'possible/likely' suspects
      employed ex detectives to 'establish' their innocence

      and the list goes on.

      The lead detective pursued by the Ramseys was Steve Thomas, and sadly I think he was forced to pay up. He became known as 'Jonbenet's Avenger', which I think we all agree applies now in the form of Goncalo Amaral being 'Madeleine's Avenger' - they both come from the same place - the side of the victim. I don't know if Steve Thomas is considering taking any action in view of these revelations, I hope he does, he too deserves to have his name cleared.

  9. 23.02. I think if there was any evidence of a stranger entering Apartment 5A, it would have made front page news. It would have been the golden nugget the McCanns' Media Monitoring unit desperately required and still do.

    Last year Scotland Yard hinted they may be able to match stranger DNA with a smelly weirdo who wore a large target on his back, and wondered around the Algarve hopping into the apartments and beds of small, fair haired British girls, but the story was so sensitive that the media were advised not to ask questions. Like all the other 'suspects', it too appears to have fizzled out.

    The claims of a break in that were put out on the night of 3rd May, were proved to be false almost immediately, but the papers had gone to press and the abduction was established. It was a stroke of genius, because the break in story was put out by the McCanns family and friends, and not the parents directly, who were blameless anyway, because they were so distraught. Confusion is good said Gerry. Quite. Once it was established there was no forced entry, Gerry suddenly remembered that he had entered the apartment via the rear patios doors which were open, and not via the front door with his key as he said on May 4th.

    There are no signs whatsoever of a stranger entering the apartment. Not via the shutters and window in the kids' bedroom nor by the rear patio doors - not a smudge nor a fingerprint on the large glass doors, which of course, the courteous abductor closed behind him along with closing the safety gate at the top of the stairs and the entry gate at the bottom.

    The story becomes every more ridiculous. Had burglars struck lucky and came across those open patio doors, they could have emptied the apartment in 10 minutes flat. Why then would they drug/murder a child, then carry her away, carefully closing the door and gates behind them, totally disregarding all the valuables and of course give the place a quick spring clean?

    The abduction story may collapse on that pivotal point of no forced entry. They may all stick with the patio doors were open, but they would then have to convince a jury that the abductor whilst fleeing with the child, left no trace whatsoever - that must be strong circumstantial evidence. If the McCanns had anything of substance to show that a stranger entered the apartment, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

  10. Cristobell, some very thought provoking posts tonight, *applause*. Got my grey matter tingling, and hope for justice rekindled. Keep it coming!

  11. You're most welcome Cristobell - I've just read the entire Reddit Q&A with the
    ex-detective in the JBR case - riveting, to quote but a snippet:

    'If this case could be solved with your gut instinct as evidence, how would it be solved?'

    [–]MarkBeckner[S] 39 points:

    Through a confession

  12. An interesting post. Thanks.

    You ask: "Does Jane Tanner still insist that the Frankenstein monster...was not a figment of her imagination."

    It has become not only Tanner's insistence that she saw someone, but that of Operation Grange too. She saw Redwood's holidaymaker, his "revelation" Crechedad. This is just one of many problems for a hypothetical UK trial. Tanner's movements and witness credibility have been strengthened by Grange, not diminished. In my opinion there is no crechedad, just as there is no smokescreen.
    To accept the thesis of a smokescreen then we must also accept (here comes a list!!):
    1. That police forces are free to invent any old fiction (such as a crechedad) and to base a public appeal upon their fabrication. (Whence the appeal for public trust?)

    2. That the courts and CPS look favourably upon such a "ploy", rather than see it for what it is: a straightforward lie that would be ruthlessly expoited by a defence.

    3. That the Rogatory system has been vexatiously abused, tying up weeks/months of judicial time, simply to detract from movements eslewhere.

    4. That Portugal has willingliy submitted to having a number of innocent citizens constituted as Arguido, being exposed to a gauntlet of speculation, simply to detract. At least two of these people are in very poor health.

    5. That Portugal has willingly submitted to the representation of the Algarve as being a hotbed of predatory criminals preying upon "white...English speaking" girls; and that these attacks are in some way linked to Madeleine McCann. That has been Redwood's explicit contention. All for the smokescreen? With Portuguese acquiescence?

    6. That each or any of these Arguido/suspects (or stalking phantoms) has been definitively indentified and ruled out such that a defence might not jump all over them?

    7. That extradition rules can be neatly circumvented by any nation that declares their own intention to put a case to trial...and potentially acquit all and sundry.

    8......oh hell, I could go on!

    I hope I am wrong (always that caveat!), but I'd rather address the reality of these glaring anomalies than to try to take a foothold in useless "wishes".

    If the people fighting for Madeleine's sake are unwilling to hold such an anomolous sequence of events to account, then who will?

    1. 08:28 - Bravo, brilliant post, you have highlighted so many important points and clarified them for the rest of us, many thanks!

      Unfortunately, history has shown us time and again that the Establishment can and do create whoppers to hide the truth from the public and in nearly all cases they have got away with it. Who can forget the 'good day to bury bad news' leak from 9/11.

      However something has changed. For the first time ever, the public can challenge these 'whoppers' and counter them with facts and information to disprove them. It has thrown all the wannabe despots and tyrants into a quandary, they can't get away with the lies anymore and they are desperately scrambling to find ways in which to put a stop to it.

      The murky grey men who captained the McCann ship, naively believed that they could contain the Madeleine McCann story within the safe confines of Little England. They thought the stern warnings of a few imperialists would confine the official story within the borders of the motherland. Their thinking being decades behind the technology that exists and the growing enlightenment of the masses.

      They believe they can still control the general public with the threat of the lash and public humiliation, who needs stocks and ducking stools when they have Sky News?

      I applaud and endorse your final paragraph 08, too bleddy right! This case started with the tragedy of a lost little girl, but it has shown the public how willing their governments and media are, to lie and keep the truth from them.

    2. Thanks for that Rosalinda, but what you blogger/campaigners have achieved and endured for the past 8 years is pretty miraculous.
      It is just a great pity that the question of Op Grange has become so divisive. Trying to hold an official program to account is anything but defeatist. It needn't even be confrontational. The very worst that can happen is that we sceptics are proven wrong!!
      Glad day!
      Internal politics can change.

      Thanks again.

  13. "I am toying at the moment, with profiling the 'leader'"

    Oh God - don't tell us you are a profiler now!

    1. Ha, ha ha, I might be 16:47! I mean I don't have a certificate hanging on the wall that says I am, but then again I don't have any inbuilt barriers or walls to say I am not. I pretty much choose for myself whatever I want to be on any given day, it adds to the spice of life.

      If I choose to profile the lead character, and its very tempting, as this is one of the greatest crimes in history, imo, then I will go ahead, I don't need permission or a certificate to do so! Am I qualified? Yes, because I have spent way too much of my life studying the intricacies of this case and the most fascinating villains in history, but No, I haven't passed an exam in it, lol.

      Today, I am a philosopher, am I entitled to use such a lofty title? SMA (Smart Arsed Son) says no, you have to have a PhD to call yourself that, but its all a matter of semantics imo. I actually have a real hankering to be a Witchdoctor, but to be honest the opportunities to gain legitimate witchery pokery qualifications at the local tech are very limited, so I will have to fake it. :)

    2. Brilliant response Rosalinda. The reason that you could profile is because you actually do your research unlike our troll friends who just want to attack without any counter theories.

  14. About time you ran as Prime Minister isn't it? Semantics? Oh dear, I see you still have delusions of your own self importance and intelligent critical thinking.

  15. Missingmadeleine.......................

    Claudia79 wrote:

    I've just been told that apparently Pedro do Carmo, from the PJ, informed the media the new line of investigation excludes the McCanns as suspects. I didn't know that and don't know if it is accurate

    FSoares on Fri 25 Oct 2013, 10:38 pm

    It's accurate! I do not know how many more official statements some people still need.

  16. "FSoares on Fri 25 Oct 2013, 10:38 pm"

    Remind me what date it is now?

  17. Excellent post Ros good to see you back on form please profile I'd love to read that
    Loved the feedback brilliant keep up the great work it's what your best at Lorraine Holden x