Friday 1 May 2015


As no-one else appears to be as delighted as Kate and Gerry McCann are at their recent battering of a diligent, hard working, former cop, there has been a quick change of tack.  Kate is now more driven than ever to find her daughter, and, gawd 'elp us, more driven than ever to prove just how innocent she and her husband are.  Like Savile and Armstrong, she puts her face atop a charity.  If she was genuinely philanthropic, she would run out to Nepal, where her abandoned medical training could be put to good use. 

Of course Kate is more driven, she has to be.  At some point she and her husband may have to (officially) mount a very large legal defence. The McCanns have surrounded themselves with lawyers since May 2007, and not just the run of the mill High Street ones, but the UK's biggest guns, and they don't come cheap.  Kate is driven to win the public onside, if and when the time comes, she wants rioting in the streets and a huge backlash against anyone mean enough to ask her questions. 

Now, having 'won' their libel case, would be a good time for the McCanns to abandon all that makes them miserable (negative publicity) and give their surviving kids some kind of normality.  The past 8 years of their childhood has been dominated by the spectre of their missing sister. I pity them, I truly do, it seems not one adult around them is prepared to stop the insanity.  The world and it's dog have done everything humanly possible to find Madeleine, and if it weren't for the fact that Kate and Gerry know she will never be found, the same too could be said of them.  The McCanns have shamelessly exploited their kids, even going so far as naming and quoting her son during the libel trial.  Those poor kids will forever be known for the tragedy that engulfs them and their family, because not one of them is functional enough to let the crazy, money spinning machine, that is their dead sister, go. 

The McCann twins cannot be protected from what is said on the internet, no child, or even adult can.  Every time we log on we risk seeing something that might offend/distress us, its a chance we take.  The same thing happens when we step outside our front doors.  How the hell do you legislate against it?  What is offensive to one person is not necessarily offensive to another?  And who is to judge what is offensive?  Do we really want a panel of moral arbiters?  People like the late Mary Whitehouse, Jim Gamble and Tony Bennett?  That is, the only people likely to volunteer for the job? 

People who need to be protected when they go online should probably avoid it for their own sanity.  Oddballs and deranged stalkers exist in all walks of life, including, surprise, surprise, on the internet.  The cyber world is not that different from the real world and just as we cannot keep our babies safely secured in a basinet for 18 years, we cannot clean up the net sheriff style so it is safe for them to go on. 

The ONLY effective protection the McCann children can have, must come from their parents and from within the home.  We cannot stop kids seeing stuff, but we can make them strong and confident enough to handle it.  For their children, the kindest thing the parents could do now would be to focus ALL their attention on them.  Pack away the shrine that is Madeleine's bedroom and put all the posters and tat in the bin. No kids should have to live with that kind of shadow over them, it has gone way beyond the creepy stage.   

As for the cycle ride?  Again, Kate has taken up a time consuming and very public crusade that takes her away from her kids, one that satisfies her needs (fame and glory) and not those of her children (love and attention).  It has been leitmotif thoughout, why am I surprised.  

It must be galling for the McCanns that they cannot fundraise for themselves (and they were so good at it) while Operation Grange continues.  It would be a bit like saying 'thanks guys, but we better build a nest egg for when you fail'.  The McCanns and Clarence obviously don't have much faith in Scotland Yard if they are preparing to launch a private investigation of their own when OG reaches an unsatisfactory 'end'.

At the moment they have more than enough money to continue 'searching' for Madeleine the rest of their lives, even if it only means an annual trip to PDL to hand out photographs - eg. the kind of stuff parents of other missing kids do, but minus the £1m the McCanns have to spare in their bank account.  Those loony enough to believe that they can 'spot' a generic, white female child aged 12 out of the millions around the globe will carry on regardless.  Though of course, not wanting to restrict the search too much, the parents and their little helpers covered the 'white' aspect by also giving us an 'Asian' Maddie. 

From this
To, yeh, still speechless after all these years

The McCanns clearly don't need money,  and they are unique in having a Scotland Yard task force working exclusively on their case with a seemingly open cheque book. A task force that have publicly stated that Madeleine might be dead.  Far more damning to the 'search' for a live Madeleine than anything said by Goncalo Amaral, or indeed any of us.  It's straight from the horse's (or should that be dog's) mouth.  Or can the McCanns sue Scotland Yard and the individual cops involved?  In which case, now would be a good time for them to safeguard their pensions.   

I would say Kate is more driven now because she has to be.  She is in a prison of her own making and the walls are closing in.  The verdict from Lisbon didn't go down well, it comes across as greedy and obscene in the face of all the help the McCanns have had.  Other than their (paid?) spokesman and Jim Gamble, very few if any share in their delight at ruining a former detective who was only doing his job.  I wonder if they got a congratulatory bouquet from the officers at Operation Grange?

Pat Brown has made a lot of fair points in her recent blog but she is taking an empirical stance - that is, she is judging this case on her own personal knowledge and experience, and of course 'the state' she refers to is the USA.  Whilst I agree one country's 'state' is much like another, there are enormous cultural and ethical differences.  I prefer the much more open US system btw, but such is life.

The case of missing Madeleine McCann however is unique.  Yes, I know there are other cases with many similar traits - the Jonbenet Ramsey case being a good example of rich, influential parents avoiding criminal charges and redirecting the blame elsewhere.  However, the parents of Madeleine became rich and influential through the loss of their daughter, they are nouveau riche, the kind of people (secretly) despised by the landed gentry, those who have worked their socks off for their own fortunes, and of course the snobs.  Welcomed into the inner circles at the height of their fame, their arguido status and bizarre behaviour has turned them into social pariahs.  And lets call a spade a spade, they just aren't likeable.  John and Patsy Ramsey were far more sophisticated and eloquent than Gerry and Kate, and they never had to rely on fundraising to keep their campaign going. And from a psychopathy perspective, the UK version are hindered by their extreme love of public attention - they simply cannot keep away from the click of the camera and opportunities to give their enemies the finger. They are arrogant and reckless, it is only a matter of time before it all catches up with them. 

As for Operation Grange, there appears to be no will to prosecute this case, it has dragged on far too long.  However, the idea that 38 homicide detectives have spent 3, or is it 4 years covering up the death of a child is pretty hard to accept.  I know it has been explained, they are all assigned different tasks etc, but they are human beings and they walk, talk and interact.  In order for this to be a cover up, each and every one of these detectives must swear to some sort of lifetime pact, that they will never reveal their true agenda.  I am not even going to bother listing all those higher up the chain of command, obviously they too must be in on it. But the ordinary cops?  Seriously?  Not one avenger of the victim among them?

To me it seems as though Pat, in reaching her conclusions is not allowing for human nature.  Cops are not (as yet) automatons ruled by the State.  I am sure many of the detectives working on this 'disappearance' are mothers, fathers, perhaps even grandparents.  All I am sure, joined the police to protect the innocent, not the guilty, and it would take one hell of a leap for 38 of them to jump over to the dark side.  From an economic and 'the fewer people who know the better' perspective, a task force half that size could have wiped this clean in half the time and made the spider's web more manageable.  And of course Teresa May, David Cameron and bff Rebekah Brookes had no need to respond to the McCanns' desperate plea in the first place!  They could easily have said no, and missing Madeleine would have become yesterday's news. 

The investigation hasn't done the McCanns any favours, Scotland Yard haven't cleared the parents, on the contrary, support for the McCanns and their Fund is at an all time low.  Crimewatch made them appear more guilty, not less, especially when a dead ringer for Gerry was flashed across the screen

Pat is right of course in many of the things she says, and on occasion I feel torn myself.  However, Operation Grange opened with a fanfare and they have, I think, been transparent in telling the public the costs.  If Clarence is correct and the investigation will end - they will have to produce a report on their findings, and simply saying neither the parents or their friends are suspects, just won't cut the mustard.  They have spent around £10m, and they are a public service - they are accountable.  OK, they may not be accountable to the extent of publishing their files online, but they will have to tell us the result, and how they got to it.  

In comparing the Madeleine case to others in the US, Pat is overlooking the fact that an official investigation into this child's disappearance has been opened (top off worm can) with 38 homicide detectives assigned to work on this case and nothing else.  That never happened with the Jonbenet case for example, it went cold, apart from the work of private detectives hired by the Ramseys to find a likely suspect (yes that too rings bells). 

Operation Grange is an official investigation, sanctioned by the UK Government and carried out by public service employees.  Contrary to popular belief, we still live in a democracy where questions can and should be asked in the Houses of Parliament.  We are probably going about this all wrong, we should be tackling our Members of Parliament individually and getting them to ask the right questions on our behalf.

Having said that, we haven't really got a clue what is going on.  Operation Grange may be playing a very cool and calculated game, who knows. If they are, kudos, they have had my head spinning on many occasions, I would hate to be in a suspect's shoes. We should at least await the outcome before condemning the investigation and attacking the people working on it, that is just wrong on every level. I have to say, I have always been uncomfortable with Bennett sending off reams of bumf to Operation Grange and continually pestering them for answers to questions that are none of his bleddy business, the man's a menace. 

Looking at the bigger picture, the case may well be dragging on because so many people are involved and perhaps cases must be made against each individual before any pouncing can begin.  That is one possibility.  The case of Jonbenet never went to trial, because the Prosecution simply wasn't convinced they had enough evidence for a conviction, if that happened the Ramseys would walk, and never be put on trial again, eg. Casey Anthony. 
If Scotland Yard have to abandon the investigation because they don't have enough evidence, it still won't be the end of it, just as it wasn't the end of it when the PJ shelved their files.  The fact is, there are hundreds of cases worldwide where suspects remain free for years and even decades, because the police simply do not have enough evidence to prosecute. This is Gerry's mantra, there's nooooooo evidence.  And it is not just rich people who 'get off' either, there are examples of poor parents swanning it too, while the police remain powerless.  Its not always political - though I fear this one is. 

Whether or not the McCanns will be prosecuted this time around is not the same as the sky falling in.  For the rest of us the world continues to turn, we are free to start new ventures or pick up where we left off with old ones.  Kate and Gerry and indeed all of their entourage meanwhile are trapped in a particularly nasty groundhog day. For the short tempered Kate, retelling the flimsy 'moment I knew she was taken' story over and over clearly pushes her patience to the limit, you just know 'ffs' is on the tip of her tongue.  Gerry too has failed to inspire the masses to march against the media moguls. Now he cuts an isolated and bitter figure, his stop the press campaign falling on deaf and extremely alarmed ears.  No-one wants his and his wife's book burning, nor do they want the McCanns' form of extreme retribution, Brenda Leyland style.

Of course Kate is more driven, probably Gerry too, though yet again he hides sheepishly in the background while his wife tests the water.  They can both run, cycle, hop, skip and jump, they are still not fooling anyone. They know Maddie can't be found, so what is that drives them? 


  1. Your unending jealousy of the Mccanns and in particular Kate Mccann makes you an embarrassment to yourself, your family and everyone who associates with you.

    What will you be doing when Kate is raising thousands for charity?

    "We cannot stop kids seeing stuff,...."

    It is people like YOU that is writing the garbage that the children will see - when will you recognise that YOU and people like YOU are the problem.

    1. viva los perros!
      eddie y keela

    2. Jealous of the McCanns? Your kidding. Far from being jealous, I pity them, I especially pity their surviving children, who are still being palmed off onto other people while the parents drain their fame for all its worth. Once again the parents are putting themselves first and their kids a very poor second.

      I find the McCanns, both of them, endlessly fascinating - I study human nature, and subjects like Kate and Gerry come along once in a lifetime. Its not actually personal, emotionally I am detached and I'm not one of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade. Law and order is outside my area of knowledge and expertise, I simply couldn't dream up punishments, nor could I carry them out. I'm too soft, my dad used to say.

      The advice I am offering Kate and Gerry is sound, actually it is essential as their children are at a vulnerable and impressionable age. They cannot stop them surfing the net, most kids can get past parental controls by the time they are 11.

      They should already know not to give out their names, addresses and personal details to anyone, in fact all the basic safety advice anyone using the net should be aware of. After that you must have faith that you have raised them to be kind, caring and discerning, ie. the people you have moulded them into. If they flinch at horror and violence in the real world and on TV, they will flinch at it online. Their characters are already formed.

      They will also look up stuff we don't want them to. They are curious and the forbidden is the most appealing. Just as we all looked up swear words when we got our first dictionaries, they will look up porn. There is no point in hysteria and no need for smelling salts, they are doing what kids have done since the good Lord unleashed the birds and the bees.
      Hysteria from adults turns what is normal and natural into something dirty and seedy, and something that could potentially give them hangups for the rest of their lives. There are times of course when we must take things very seriously, but in most cases, we simply need to lighten up.

      The McCann children will see stuff about their parents online, but much worse, imo, they continue to see their parents on the news and on the front pages of the tabloids. They don't need to go looking stuff up on the internet, its in their faces and in the faces of all their school pals. And most of those headlines and TV appearances are in the control of the parents.

      My advice is well intentioned. Kate and Gerry need to be honest with their children and answer their questions when they arise. Living in a home of secrets and lies is incredibly stressful, particularly for kids. They are entirely dependent on the parents and if their parents are under threat, so too are they - but it is worse for them because they don't know why. They can only imagine what the outcome can be, and they will imagine the worst.If the McCanns think they can stop their children reading bad stuff about them on the internet, then they have their heads so far buried in the sand, that they will need those PDL diggers to retrieve them.

    3. At the last count she had only "raised" a couple of hundred quid. Big deal.

  2. I agree, at 17.19, I'm getting the impression of a very bitter and jealous person who just cannot let go. You sit in your chair, Rosalinda, writing this guff, convincing yourself that you know more than the Portuguese and UK police combined.

    And before you start sprouting on about conspiracies, how about this one? It wouldn't be very good publicity for the tourist industry in Praia de Luz if two young girls disappeared without trace over the course of a few months. And who was in charge of both investigations?

    1. Nope, never been described as bitter before lol, and jealous, again no, the McCanns have nothing I want or aspire to - I am the polar opposite of Kate and Gerry, my priorities, goals and aims are entirely different.

      In the case of Leonor Cipriano, do you actually know what you are defending? If you feel so strongly that Leonor was framed by Goncalo Amaral, put your money where your money is, and get her another lawyer. Good luck with linking her to Madeleine, she is one of the most hated women in Portugal.

      And I have never claimed to know more than the Portuguese and UK police combined, you must be confusing me with someone else :)

  3. You don't 'alf talk a load of old cobblers! You don't even realize what you're writing, can't do otherwise you wouldn't contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

    You should retire from public life, you're making a complete fool of yourself.

  4. Now what has Cristobell got to be jealous of as far as Kate McCann is concerned? I think you're the one's spouting a load of tosh!! As far as the twins seeing what's written on here, what about when they're old enough to read Kate's book? far more disturbing than what's been written on here.

    It's about time they did something for charity instead of going round with their begging bowl, taking off the less well off.

    1. "It's about time they did something for charity instead of going round with their begging bowl, taking off the less well off."

      Have you completely ignored the charity work that both of the Mccanns have done in your desire to hate?

      Kate is doing a cycle ride to raise money for charity - unless you prefer not to believe Ros and the papers.

      Kate will be able to explain to sit down and explain to the twins the reason she wrote what she did. She will never be able to explain the thousands of comments of hate written by people like Ros.

    2. 'As far as the twins seeing what's written on here, what about when they're old enough to read Kate's book'

      Can't argue with that, in fact I go further and say that book was a betrayal of all the McCann children.

      Had Kate wanted some sort of catharsis about her inability to protect Madeleine from harm on that ill-fated holiday, she could have done that
      in the confessional - of course there'd be no serialisation or royalties springing from that.

      I am a mild mannered person, not given to outbreaks of hate - but I so hate that book. Descriptions of the child's anatomy and G&K's love life -
      written for the twins??

      There was a smidgen of sympathy for G&K's loss in me at some point -
      but after I read that vile book, excuse the pun-the shutters came down -
      with a mighty whoosh.

    3. No I haven't ignored the fact that they're trying to impress folks with their charity work! What I am saying is... it's about time they gave something back instead of lining their own pockets, out of their daughters disappearance.

      You're talking out your rear end as far as Kate sitting down and telling the twins why she wrote what she did, do you seriously believe they'll want to hear that!!!

    4. 22:47 I think Kate will have a lot more to explain to the twins before she gets to my comments, they are, or at least they should be, way down on her list of truths.

    5. Kate said she wrote her book FOR THE TWINS to read when they got older. Would you want to read what your mother had written about your sister's genitals? It's just plain creepy and wrong.

  5. What a pity that these armchair critics post only as 'Anonymous', Cristobell. Their opinions might hold more weight if they had the courage to put their names to them. Keep writing your blog, Cristobell. Avante.

    1. Your name madam (assuming you are a madam) means as much to me as anonymous, you could be Kermit the frog for all I know.

      Who/what is 'Cristobell' - a pseudonym?

    2. Addendum:

      You do realize the only reason 'Cristobell' publishes negative comments about her is to attract support from people like you don't you?

      Otherwise, let me assure you, they would be sent straight to the recycle bin.

      Signed: Anonymous

    3. She's published YOURS.

  6. "Whether or not the McCanns will be prosecuted this time around is not the same as the sky falling in. For the rest of us the world continues to turn, we are free to start new ventures or pick up where we left off with old ones. Kate and Gerry and indeed all of their entourage meanwhile are trapped in a particularly nasty groundhog day. For the short tempered Kate, retelling the flimsy 'moment I knew she was taken' story over and over clearly pushes her patience to the limit, you just know 'ffs' is on the tip of her tongue. Gerry too has failed to inspire the masses to march against the media moguls. Now he cuts an isolated and bitter figure, his stop the press campaign falling on deaf and extremely alarmed ears. No-one wants his and his wife's book burning, nor do they want the McCanns' form of extreme retribution, Brenda Leyland style."

    Does anyone have any idea what that means?

    Words for the sake of word - pure bennett style.

    1. OK, here's a bit of brevity for you, where is Brenda Leyland?

    2. I know what she means if your question is a real one. There is no going back for them now. Their story is old, it no longer generates the emotional response that caused people to support them in mass. Because what they are saying is untrue they cant relate to it themselves, it was easy to say some of the tings they said in the early days, people were caught up in the emotion of it all and their lies were easily sold. They can no longer sell these more people are looking at this case with a clear head and it doesn't bode well for them.

  7. CMoMM is quite a good informative site when Bennett isn't around to do his disruption.

  8. This blog is obviously good, its being read by both sides of the divide! Keep going cristobell.

    Oh and can i order one of those dogs dont lie tshirts from amarals online shop?

  9. "What drives them"?

    Their Freedom?

  10. Having read that vile headline in the Scum re. Mr Amaral, I am moved to donate to his legal expenses.
    Can any reader here vouch for the woman organising the fund raising please? I'd hate to donate and then it turned into another "Baby Dax of New York" where the money never reached the promised charity.
    Would instil confidence in donators if the money was passed over in say lots of a thousand pounds.

    1. SoJ, you don`t have to go through gofundme even though it is legit. There is a pre-existing a/c and this is the link, which I hope it is ok to share here. It is also found in links to his Justice for Madeleine and Goncala facebook page - which is also very factual and informative.

  11. Are they running scared on CMoMM? Two or three times today I've seen posters pulled up by some for inappropriate comments. Never bothered them before.

    1. @ SoJ2 May 2015 at 16:56

      It has been positively encouraged before.

      bennett is worried because he knows his hatred and his hate site are going to be exposed big time very soon.

  12. bennett:

    "But wishing the McCanns harm or expressions of hate towards them have no place on CMOMM - or elsewhere. I may fairly claim to have more grounds to 'hate' them than most, after all, £125 has to leave my current account evey month for another 97 months before I've settled up with Carter-Ruck. But I harbour no hate for them "

    Just shows what a liar he is - he has spent the last 8 years of his life denigrating and hating the Mccanns.

  13. "Anonymous1 May 2015 at 17:19

    "Your unending jealousy of the Mccanns and in particular Kate Mccann makes you an embarrassment to yourself, your family and everyone who associates with you."

    I suggest you poster are unwell as how could any parent be jealous of another who had lost a child?

    1. Who in their right mind would be jealous of Kate McCann......Pray tell, what exactly is there to be jealous of???

    2. @ Anonymous4 May 2015 at 14:11

      Maybe because as far as is known Kate didn't allow herself to get so overweight that she had to lose 3 stones in 3 months?

      In other words - I have no idea but it is so obvious from reading Ros's blogs and her comments about Kate and Gerry.

      This is a case of a missing child - not about her parents.

    3. What a pathetic answer.....and as for K&G....they made this about themselves way back in 2007.

  14. @ SoJ2 May 2015 at 19:15

    "how could any parent be jealous of another who had lost a child?"

    I suggest you ask Ros why she has never shown sympathy or support for a mother who has lost a child"

    1. I prefer to answer for myself. Ros is more than capable answering for herself.
      Having been married to a narcissist for 25 years, I believe Kate McCann was/is the protector. I've done it myself, though not in any illegal way, but I took the flak for him. I did it to keep the marriage together, and maintain the lifestyle of my child.

      I believe Amaral and his deputies weren't up to the job. I think they were overwhelmed with "You do know we are all British Doctors." The Consulate, MI5 etc. They'd never dealt with anything like this before.

      I know Ros doesn't agree, but this all to me is NHS linked. One old duffer killing off old ladies can be coped with. Six NHS doctors becomes a matter of National Security. Remember that very phrase was stated?

      I don't know if more unsavoury aspects come in to it, Gasper for instance, six NHS Doctors is enough for me.

      I also don't believe Madeleine ever lived with her parents full time. There is tons of evidence to support that. Wish I had time to list it all.

      Perhaps this was a try out, hence the "disaster" phone call home.
      I also do not believe, no way. that nine adults would ever agree to leave all their children alone. Not possible. One at least out of nine would be a dissenter.

      I have many other thoughts, but I do feel that Kate McCann has carried it for too long.

  15. I certainly wouldn't envy the ''position Kate now finds herself in,'' no amount of money can ease a troubled conscience.We all know what adolescent kids are like, how they rebel against their parent's authority. If Kate couldn't deal with three under fives, how the hell do you think she'll cope with two stroppy teens asking lots of awkward questions? Better start planning now Kate.

  16. Thank you SoJ. I honestly don't know how a parent finds the strength to go on following the loss of a child. The idea that I, or indeed anyone, could be jealous is obscene. I wonder where the jealousy argument comes from? Whoever puts that argument out has a very strange sense of priorities. Why would Kate (her mother) and Gerry assume that I and others want what the McCanns have? Material possessions are transient, we leave this world as we arrived. The best we can do is leave our mark by helping others and bringing happiness where we can - it is not how much you love, but how much you are loved by others (Wizard of Oz).

    All the millions Kate and Gerry received from their generous fans has been reserved for only one child, or more specifically, only for one family, Madeleine has long been dead. I am not jealous that Kate and Gerry have filled their coffers on their back of their deceased daughter, it disgusts me. It also disgusts me that they have never offered a helping hand to anyone else, Kerry Needham for example.

    Still karma has a way of catching up, they can't enjoy their massive windfalls as others might, they must keep up the pretence of a 'search' and ride the roller coaster of litigation ad infinitum.

    As for being jealous of Kate - good grief! If I had had a daughter I would use Kate as the antithesis of a good female role model. She is a subjugated wife, ruled not only by a control freak husband, but also by antiquated working class morality, freaky catholic guilt and an overwhelming desire for a large detached property with room for a pony. And on top of all that, the thought of being married to Gerry chills me to the bone. I wouldn't wish that on any woman, not even Kate, mind you he has it just as bad, he has to climb into bed with her!

    1. The problem with bloggers is that they talk too much.

      All you needed to say Ros is no amount of money could ever compensate for the loss of a child.

      That is all.

  17. A simple question Ros - do you believe that the Mccanns covered up the death of Madeleine and disposed of the body of their daughter?

    1. Is this a trick question where you get to sue me if I give the wrong answer 20:30?

      Sadly, yes I do. Not just based on the peculiar happenings of the night of 3rd May 2007, but because of the parents extremely abnormal behaviour ever since.

    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 May 2015 at 21:29

      There was no trick to the question and I have no reason to sue you.

      I thank you for your honest answer,

    3. I'd like to ask you the same question if I may?

  18. @Anonymous2 May 2015 at 21:43

    My reply is - no I don't believe they did.

    1. Completely innocent eh! Is that what you're saying?

    2. @ Anonymous3 May 2015 at 10:16

      Yes - that is exactly what I am saying.

    3. Have you got any proof, if not, how do you reach that conclusion?

    4. In the civilised World no-one has to prove their innocence.

      I have seen no evidence that would enable the Mccanns to be arrested, taken to court and convicted of any crime.

      That is how I reach my conclusion.

    5. "You've seen no evidence" don't make me laugh.The evidence is staring you right in the face if you'd care to take you're blinkers off. If they were completely innocent of any wrongdoing don't you think they'd have answered ANY questions put to them minus the long pauses, ums and r's, changing statements! They wouldn't need to do that if they had nothing to hide.How do you explain the fact that no other person had died in 5A before the McCann's arrived, or why the boot of the McCann's car had traces of Madeleine having been there 28 day's after she disappeared, All these questions they refused to answer, ask yourself why.

    6. Anonymous3 May 2015 at 13:16

      I suggest you write to the Portuguese legal authorities and ask them to review the case in view of the "evidence" (all of which was available in 2008 when the case was archived) you think exists.

    7. Is that the best you can do? If the Portuguese had been left to do the investigating without 'political interference' they'd have probably solved it by now! I notice you haven't answered any of my questions..It says it all really doesn't it Kate.

    8. Anonymous3 May 2015 at 18:41

      I have answered all of your questions and have not been rude to you once.

    9. Neither am I being rude to you. The very fact that you can't/won't answer the question, of how traces of Madeleine having been found in the hire car 28 days after she disappeared, can make her parent's innocent of any wrongdoing? Just saying you think they are completely innocent doesn't mean they are.

    10. @ Anonymous3 May 2015 at 23:59

      "A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

      Why - ...

      Well lets look at the question that is being asked

      "Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

      It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

      What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

      Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

      The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation"

    11. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can't argue with that as I'm not a scientist, but all sounds very dodgy indeed. First we hear from 'Martin Brunt' the news reporter that a FULL MATCH for Madeleine had been found in the boot of the hire car 28 days after she disappeared, now why do you think he would report that if it wasn't true? surely on such an important matter he should have corrected his error.

      Does the lab in Birmingham still exist as I heard one was closed down shortly after results were given, but I can't remember which one, or in what area it was based?

      I also find it strange that Gerry had to travel back home for a pillowcase with Madeline's DNA on, you'd think after spending a week in the 5A apartment there'd be some evidence of her having been there wouldn't you?

    12. @ Anonymous4 May 2015 at 11:36

      It is not my explanation - it is an extract from the files. If you find it dodgy then that is your concern.

      The questions you have asked are not evidential nor proof of a crime so I have no interest in answering them. Whether you find them important or not does not concern me.

    13. Anyone with access to the files can alter them to suit the situation I dare say!!! The questions I have asked don't disprove a crime either.

      I gathered that you're not concerned about finding out ''the truth'' about what happened to a little girl that disappeared in very suspicious circumstances.The fact that my questions seem to upset you so much, seems very strange for someone unconnected.

    14. @ Anonymous4 May 2015 at 17:00

      If you think that I have altered the files then look them up yourself.

      The questions you have asked are so inconsequential as be be laughable.

      My only concern is finding out the truth of what happened to Madeleine.

      Your questions do not upset me at all. I did not invite you to tell me your evidence and I did not invite you to ask me questions. I have answered because you did so - that is all.

    15. Why bother answering then, no-one forced you to. The trouble with people like you is, when faced with an awkward question they want to avoid, they get personal. I couldn't care less whether you find my questions inconsequential/laughable, your replies speak volumes. You haven't got a clue about this case, or finding out the truth, because if you did you would see what a farce the whole abduction story has been.

      Don't bother answering this as you'll get no reply.

  19. Has anyone else noticed that although comments on the Mail Online are moderated, it's free for all to criticise the parents for leaving their kids alone.
    That's because it is the official McCann line and we are expected to swallow it. Seems a lot have too.

  20. I notice that despite what bennett said, he has not removed the vile CHILD ABANDONMENT WEEK thread from his forum.


  21. Sadly, yes I do. Not just based on the peculiar happenings of the night of 3rd May 2007, but because of the parents extremely abnormal behaviour ever since

    OFFS .I think we should be more worried about the way in which you behave .Your not right in the head ,and I wonder if your head full of shit comes from your Father or your Mothers side of the family .The same parents who dumped you into an orphanage as a child to be abused .And yet you have the brass neck to question the McCanns parenting .

    1. Thankfully Cristobell is still here to write her excellent blogs, pity Madeleine won't grow-up to do the same. Must be some truth in what she writes otherwise you wouldn't react the way you have.

      By scraping the bottom of the barrel to hurl insults, just proves what a nasty piece of work you are... so much for your upbringing!

    2. @ 19:28

      The doctors' 'relaxed' parenting led to Madeleine's disappearance in the
      first place.

      I don't agree with Ros' views half of the time - that's cool, that's at the heart of human discourse.

      But your bitterness and bile directed at her, shows a deep seated personal problem - don't air it in public.

      Seek professional help.

  22. 19:28 I am confident in the knowledge that my father and mother would have torn PDL asunder with their bare hands and never rested had I been taken from my bed. And they would have told the band of money grabbing lawyers and chancers who flew into PDL to sling their hook.

    How dare you criticise my parents. They were good, kind people, who made errors and spent the rest of their lives making up for them. And I mean goodness and kindness of the genuine sort, not the kind you put on for the cameras or to impress other people. I am the person I am because of them, and so too are my sons, who I couldn't be more proud of. My dad was way ahead of his time and the wisest and most educated man I ever knew, and everytime I think of my mum, I grin from ear to ear, she lit up a room and could bring a smile to the glummest face.

    Your cruel and snidey remarks serve to remind me again and again, how very lucky I was and how desperately unlucky the McCann children are.

  23. I am 100% sure that the photograph of the girl in blue is not Madeleine but probably the little girl who played her in an early documentary.