Saturday 28 May 2016


UPDATE 30.05.16

Happily, most of us are blissfully unaware of other peoples' sexual peccadillos, there are some things, we just don't want to know.  Like Oscar Wilde, we don't really care what others do, as long as they don't frighten the horses. 

When it comes to children however, our protective instincts kick in, we are genetically programmed to fight for our young, it is why the actions of rogue predators are universally despised.  Imagine a hyena going into a pack of lions to steal a cub? 

And that's as it should be, not only do we love our kids to bits, they are our most valuable asset, the survival of our species depends on them.  But we must be careful not to cross over into paranoia and hysteria.  Our kids pick up on our fears, and raising them to be fearful adults won't do them any favours whatsoever. 

Unfortunately as the subject of child sexual abuse and child pornography is so taboo, the only information we have comes from non academic 'experts' such as the late Ray Wyre and Jim Gamble and Mark Williams Thomas.  Not only do the public accept the authoritative opinion of Jim Gamble and MWT but so too do the media, and scarily, the politicians. No-one wants to know the details, not even the Home Secretaries and no-one dare put up a counter argument.   

It is a murky subject, that very few, myself included, want to investigate.  It's one of those things we would rather someone else dealt with, not only because we don't want all sorts of freaky accusations thrown at us or our computers seized, but because we are just not emotionally tough enough to handle it. 

Child pornography is, I believe, graded 1 - 10, varying degrees of undress etc.  Trust me, I really don't want to go there, this is as painful to write as I am sure it is to read.  How the grading system is decided, who knows, a weird job, but I suppose someone's got to do it. 

What troubles me is the hysteria that now surrounds photographing children.  With all the technology we now have, this generation are destined to have fewer baby pictures than their parents and grandparents.  And we parents and grandparents are at constant risk of dawn raids, because we possess hundreds of photographs of our own little cherubs in the nip, in varying stages of undress, in the bath and dressed up as superheroes.  

As ridiculous as the above may sound, these Child Pornography Laws that no-one knows anything about, not even the politicians, leaves just about everybody open to criminal prosecution.  Teenagers can be prosecuted for sending saucy texts to each other!    I believe one girl was prosecuted for sending a topless photo of herself - to herself!   These kids are having their lives wrecked for doing what teenagers do!  Who remembers the old polaroid, or in some cases, a hammer, chisel and cave wall?  

Unfortunately, these ridiculous laws are being enforced because no-one dare challenge them. The voice of reason is drowned out by the hysterical chant 'think of the children!'.  

Who planted the idea that the above picture of Madeleine was sexual?  And how would they know?  Surely the tastes and peccadillos of those who are into that kind of thing, are just as diverse and niche as they are in the mainstream?  And again, how do you categorise what is, or isn't kinky?  Would a child in wellies for example set off the rubber fetishists?  I ask, because at the age of 2 my younger son wouldn't wear anything but wellies and a nappy, and if he kept the nappy on, it was a bonus.   

It outrages me that this sinister myth that our society is riddled with paedophiles and perverts has taken such a grip over the public's consciousness.  We are being indoctrinated to suspect everyone and every photograph.  Why?  If we told a lost tribe in Borneo that in the Western world, naked children, and children who are dressed up, are seen as sexual, they would be on their backs, feet in the air, laughing.  They would then see us as very creepy and start throwing spears.

The real paedophile threat to our children comes from the home and the people who know them.  Sadly, there are predators out there who will befriend and even move in, with vulnerable families.  They are not hiding behind bushes or scouring the internet for pictures of tots in make up, they are grooming real, accessible kids. 

As some commentators have already said, the above picture isn't relevant.  Those looking for signs that Madeleine was an abused child, might do well to look for signs that she wasn't, especially those who want to retain a little bit of faith in human nature.  For myself, I have nothing but empathy for mums trying to juggle 2 or 3 toddlers.  Many of us have reached that 'something's got to give' moment.  I used to go and have a long bath and think happy thoughts. 

I'm not going to add to Kate's pain by speculating on these unfounded allegations of prior abuse.  And as the most investigated parents in the world, if there was any evidence of it, this case would have been brought to a swift end.

Gerry and Kate, like the rest of us, were probably hit by a bombshell when their babies arrived in quick succession.  It is probably doubly hard for parents who are used to being in control of their lives and their careers.  I have no doubt they were struggling, they relied heavily on their families for support, but in PDL, they were on their own.  Family holidays like Christmases, have all the ingredients for a 'Perfect Storm'.  It's an opportunity to say all those things that have been sitting on the back burner, or, as happened, total avoidance as the days are filled with tennis lessons, solitary runs and group activities. 

Kate is a feisty woman, Madeleine was a feisty child and on the day she disappeared, her father had THREE tennis lessons, one 'men only'.  I may be speaking as a feminist here, but I would have wrapped his tennis racquet round his neck like a bow tie.  If we stick within the realms of reality (and I know many have gone astray), it is perfectly feasible to believe that Kate snapped.  And the obvious bruising on her arms and wrists would support this. It is the theory of Goncalo Amaral, and it is the only one that is credible. 

There is nothing to be gained by all this speculation about prior child abuse and paedophile gangs, and in fact, it is fundamentally, cruel.  Not only to the parents, but also to their surviving children.  Please don't misunderstand, I am not fond of Gerry and Kate McCann, but I dislike cruelty - they are real people, with real lives. They suffer and will suffer, more than enough for the terrible things they have done, dreaming up more heinous crimes to add to the list, just borders on spiteful.  



UPDATE 29.05.16

As unpopular as this topic may be, I'm going to stick with it, because I have quite a few questions of my own.  I do find the photographs weird - they are unflattering and unhelpful, as far as recognition is concerned.  As for the angles at which they were taken, I would be troubled by the photographer's agenda.  Why not ask the child for a big, beaming smile?  If I were the parents, I would have said, ta, but we'll do our own in the future and don't hurry back.

As for the cross over into child porn, child abuse, etc, that is a huge, huge leap. Do those who read something very sinister in those pictures honestly believe the McCanns were dressing Madeleine up in order to take abusive pictures of her?  Once the shiver has reached the bottom of your spine, do they believe these doctors were going to sell or share these pictures of their daughter with like minded perverts online? 

I spent a couple of years on the Jill Havern forum, playing verbal acrobatics to avoid the 'cooler' or being banned, lol, and was quite disturbed by the in depth, examination of the family pictures threads.  Apparently, the way in which Maddie held her ice cream is a signal to paedophiles - who knew? I actually find the way in which they pour over the childrens' photographs looking for 'signs' quite creepy.  It's like they are convinced paedos are involved, they just need to find the evidence.  

To those who say this is a 'pro' blog, and that I am supporting the McCanns by not seeing what they are seeing, I will reiterate, I am looking for the TRUTH as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.  I don't want it embellished with a load of nonsense and I am not going to accuse them of things I don't believe they are guilty of. 

And I am not defending paedophiles or child abuse!  Having spent 5 years of my childhood in a religious hellhole, I saw it on a daily basis.  Not only have I experienced it first hand, I have spent a lifetime studying its' causes and the best in which to prevent it.  I am totally opposed to the present 'witch hunts' led by Tom Watson.  In chasing historic cases and well known 'names' they are saying 'look here, not over there'.  It does nothing whatsoever to assist kids who are being abused NOW, and is little more than an opportunity for vitriolic politicians to get their own back on each other. And to those saying I am defending paedophiles, say it to my face, say it in front of me.   

If any of the tapas children were at risk of abuse, the police would be criminally negligent not to take action.  The same goes for all the professionals who are in contact with the family. Sadly for some, an accident or a crime of passion is not enough, they need a murky back story.

Neither am I defending the McCanns.  I know they are involved in Madeleine's disappearance beyond reasonable doubt, but I won't accuse them of something I don't think they are guilty of for the sake of popularity.  From a psychological perspective, Gerry and Kate are high flyers, each very attractive (to some, lol), and by their very natures, they sleep UP.  They don't need to impress small children with their prowess.   

Added to which, they spent 95% of their time avoiding their kids on that holiday.  They were desperate for adult time, they were all 'so into each other' Kate told us, and I don't mean in a kinky swinging way, but in a way that any parent of young children is desperate for adult company.  Behaviour, that any psychologist would deem the opposite of grooming child abusers who would be loathe to hand their children over to anyone and would want them in their company 100% of the time.   

As boring as the waiting is, there is no need to spice it up with a murky backstory.  It may well be that there IS a murky back story, but that's all part of the suspense.  I have no doubt that Madeleine lived in a dysfunctional family - 85% of us do.  And strict, religious, high achieving family are just as dysfunction as those living on benefits at the bottom.  The question is, how do you define functional? 

I think the safest and most humane way in which to look at this case, and the search for the truth, is to think about it rationally and logically.  Kate and Gerry are indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and gawd knows what since, but let's not pile on their shoulders the entire contents of Pandora's box. They have been used as much as they have done the using and they will have the rest of their lives to ponder it. 

The paedophile aspects of this case, have been seized upon by the authorities because their agenda is 'spread fear among the population'. They need 'fear' in order to rule, as long as we have a big brother, we are safe.  They need us to believe that our children will be stolen from their beds - just like Madeleine.  They regularly feed us telephone numbers of children who 'have gone missing', yet there are very, very, few real stories to back them up.  Take a peek at Wiki list of (global) abductions, to see how very few child abductions there actually are. 

We are being sold the myth that our children are in constant danger - especially from the internet.  The fact is, our children are in no more danger than they were 20 or 30 years ago Probably less.  Most are usually far more computer savvy and street smart than their parents by the age of 7.  In fact, I think it would be a safe bet to say, the younger generation probably advise the older generation on computer technology and safety, usually while laughing their heads off. 

Some might say kids are now more vulnerable because of the internet, than there were 20/30 years ago.  As we oldies know, years ago, we played 'out' til the sun went down, and we walked home in moonlight dreaming up excuses as to why we were 2 hours late.  We were, to put it in a nutshell 'out and about', ergo, easy prey.  As a young, reckless woman, I once found myself extremely drunk and lost and forlorn in the Old Kent Road at 1a.m ish on a Friday night/Saturday morning. I am not even sure I had any cash, but courtesy of a kindly black cab driver, I got home safely, he waited until I got the key in the front door and was safely inside before he drove off.  Telling my friend about my predicament the next day, she shrugged and said 'God looks after drunks and fallen women'.  I'm not sure that's a direct biblical quote, but I kinda like it, on that occasion I qualified on both criteria, so cheers to the black cabbies! 

But a little less of the joviality - I cannot stress enough that the Government wants us to live in fear.  But, here's a thing, it is FEAR that is stopping us from living!  Kids are stuck in their rooms playing X-box and eating pizza (alone) because their parents are too afraid to let them out!  It breaks my heart that they are missing out on so much fun.  Don't go there, don't do this, and we're only saying it because we love you! 

I am approaching 59 years of age, and I have the kind of past that I will turn into a 'sizzler' one day, lol.  Given the choice between two evils, I always went for the one I had never tried.  It must be said, at the time I had no sense whatsoever (I even voted Thatcher - yeh, it was that bad) and dated a multi millionaire record producer, I later heard that instead of emptying the ash trays he would buy a new car. I was 10cm away!  doh!  - if only I could have supressed the lunacy ;)  But once again, I have digressed.  I am drinking wine, which is very rare these days, and it has given me the giggles. I have the entire day, and the contents of the refrigerator to myself!  Do chocolate covered peanuts count as an Hors d'Oeuvres? 

The photographs were indeed weird, a very strange choice for parents who believe their daughter is the victim of a paedophile.  The pale complexion, the dead eyes, the did she, didn't she, put the make up on herself question and why so sad?  If the intention was to keep the fear of paedophiles in the mainstream news, then the choice to use these photographs is understandable and also despicable.  They are effectively prostituting their daughter to stay on the front pages.  What else can we think, if they have selected these from among many. 

For me the sexualising of these photographs or reading more than face value, takes us into dark areas of organised and satanic child abuse etc and I just don't see it.  I think prior to May 3rd the Mcanns and indeed their friends, were a pretty ordinary, run of the mill, group of friends desperate for a break from their stressful jobs.  That they were selfish and narcissistic is a given, but that doesn't make them a paedophile ring or group of swingers.  Again, I stress, they didn't want the kids around them.

As for the Gasper statements, they are not enough to convince me.  I am sure that the Gaspers were being truthful, but following a trauma such as a child disappearing, it is inevitable that all those who know the characters involved will be wracking their brains for clues of any description.  I still have enough faith in the police to believe that they would not leave vulnerable children at risk and I am sure if the Gaspers' statement had led to anything, the authorities would have stepped in. 

Can someone who believes there is something sinister, or indeed sexual, in the above photographs, please give me an explanation as to what it is they see, and what they imagine the photographs were going to be used for?  At the moment I am mystified, because it is a question too distasteful to debate.  What am I missing?  Genuine question.


In response to 18:33 on my previous blog, and the make up photographs of Madeleine released on the 3rd anniversary by the parents, it is the public's reaction to the photographs that I find strange, rather than the photographs themselves.  Taking an educated guess, I would say approximately 80% of the public would say the above picture was weird, with as much as 50% of those, believing it to be paedophile related.  Not because they have any expertise in the matter, but because that is way indoctrination works.  We now see kids wearing make up and dressing up, as somehow 'dodgy' and sexually deviant, ideas that would never have occurred to us 20 or even 10 years ago.  Sadly, because of this myth, Kate has had to detach herself from the game, 'Madeleine raided her make up bag' is the accompanying explanation. 

Mums and daughters have enjoyed playing dressing up with their little girls since time began, and long may it continue.  I remember as a small child, my mother cutting up a dress to make matching mini skirts for the two of us, and how happy we were showing them off. They were precious moments. It was the early 1960's and mini skirts and backcombed hair was all the rage. I am fortunate to have lots of pictures from that time, and my hair is usually backcombed to the hilt (at my insistence)and I am posing like a diva. 

At the age of 4, my mother was dressing me in a mini skirt and backcombing my hair. Does that make her abusive? Not at all, it brings wonderful, happy memories flooding back. I actually hate it that people place sinister connotations on one of the most joyful stages of mother/daughter bonding. Little (and indeed big)  girls and boys love dressing up, it is one of life's pleasures, there is nothing creepy about it. Look at the way selfies have taken over the world, lol, birds do it, bees and even educated fleas do it, lol. It's an art form and art is in the eye of the beholder, it is whatever YOU perceive it to be. 

I'm not for one moment, throwing the 'perv' accusation at you 18:33, the idea that children and their images are sexual, is a particularly repugnant lie propagated by the ruling elite in order to keep the masses living in fear. Paedophiles and perverts are this century's witches, and if we know what's good for us, we will demand a Witchfinder General to root them out. 

I am referring to the DOMINANT ideology, the ridiculous myth that we are all lusting after kids.  We are being to indoctrinated to believe that children are sexual. To 99.9% of us, they aren't, but propaganda would lead us to believe that child predators are lurking on every corner.  Schools who ban cameras at their nativity plays etc, are just downright insulting. They are going with the assumption that the majority of the audience want to photograph the kids for masturbation purposes!  Its rubbish of course, but it does allow them to cash in by charging parents for 'official' school stamped photos. 

I agree that the make up pictures are not particularly joyous, and yes, a little odd.  But the way in which a picture is posed, or indeed captured, by the photographer, has little to do with the subject, and everything to do with the photographer and the client. These photographs/poses were probably chosen from dozens, if not hundreds. Iirc, they were taken by Jon Corner, a professional, who would have taken reels, rather than a few odd snaps. 

In releasing these photographs, what message were Team McCann trying to get across?  I suspect they may have wanted to keep the paedophile/predator message out there.  And of course, public sympathy. They may even have been going for sensationalism - controversial pictures that would grab the front pages and open up discussion (again).  There is no such thing as bad publicity.

From their own emotional perspective, if they have one, a happy, laughing, Madeleine would be a very painful reminder of what they have lost.  They have to keep up their automaton, outer appearance and they avoid emotional triggers. 

I am of course only taking an educated guess at their reasons for releasing those particular pictures.  This case is so complex, there could of course be many more! 

I don't however read anything into Madeleine being dressed up and wearing make up.  It's a game enjoyed by little girls and boys the world  over, and long may it continue.  I think it is cruel to assume Kate did not enjoy those special mum and daughter moments with Madeleine, and humane to think Kate wants to hold onto them, and keep them to herself. 

In 9 years, we haven't seen any evidence of child abuse in Madeleine's family or indeed, any other family involved.  And, given the circumstances, had any such abuse been suspected by the police, either in Portugal or the UK, these detectives wouldn't have spent 4+ years reading files while it continued.

While I agree, the photographs are a little creepy, again, that lies with those who selected them and their true agenda.  It also lies with the way they are interpreted by the beholder.  Some people are going to inordinate lengths to sexualise them.  Why?  Immediately after their release 'crime expert' and McCann supporter, Mark Williams-Thomas waded in to say how inappropriate they were.  And thus we had a media storm and the potential for future libel pay-outs.  




  1. As a dedicated Troll to the cause I agree with you wholeheartedly. My daughter at three loved to dress up and pinch my make up, once at 3 am she came in my room with mismatched clothes and make up on ' do I look pretty mummy? " and I replied yes you look gorgeous but go back to bed " laughing to myself. these as you say are the happy memories of the mother daughter bond ��

    1. Many thanks for replying Peanutnut, it seems my above blog and the accompanying picture is causing much alarm!

      Many are convinced, beyond doubt, that the above picture is, for want of a better word, obscene. I think it is an odd picture to choose, but I don't for one moment, think it was some of Lesley Ann Downey - who the feck does, and why would they think that? Isn't it enough that the child died in the apartment without adding some sort of macabre back story?

      I am alarmed that so many people see small children dressing up as sexually deviant. It's a natural stage of development, like going from milk to solids, to potty training. Toddlers mimic all the time, it's what they do!

      And I totally endorse what you say Peanut, it is one of the mostly joyful stages of bonding with mum, I'm sat here giggling now at the memory of my mother chasing me down the garden wielding a hairbrush and threatening to beat the daylights out of me. She was a nurse, and I had got my mucky mitts on her very limited supply of starched white hats!

    2. People only see the photo as deviant in light of her being taken though. Although I haven't read your blog in it's entirety, why would this be surprising? Why do you, Rosalinda, think her parents are involved in her disappearance? It's very easy to fall into conspiracy type thinking over such an enduring mystery. Seems the greater the public exposure and the longer it drags on, together with throwing in unpalatable ingredients of presumed to be well off, attractive (you yourself sniggered at this) and carefree professionals ~ which results in resentment from class comparisons ~ plus the unbalanced (compared to other cases) and unfair media focus and exorbitant expense all creates a poisonous broth to become irate over. Some of it not necessarily without cause however one must maintain objectivity.

  2. Great blog cristobell

    Paedophiles and perverts are this century's witches, and if we know what's good for us, we will demand a Witchfinder General to root them out.

    I would take a gamble and bet you know who thinks he should be the witch finder general

    1. Cheers 14:18 and many thanks for highlighting my subtext! :)

  3. There is no way Madeleine done that make-up herself. It is far too neat and tidy. It would have been all smudged and streaked.

    Therefore, logic dictates, it would have been applied by an adult. No problems with that if mummy had done it for her ready for a nice little girly photo for future reference.

    Aha, big problem though, Kate McCann doesn't say that she (or another adult) applied the make-up, she said it was Madeleine after raiding her (Kate's) make-up bag.

    In my opinion, this is why many people see this photo's sinister undertones.

    1. She's a 'dead ringer' for her mother in that picture, isn't she?

    2. I think it is weird that Kate can't or won't, say she or another adult, helped Madeleine to dress up. Perhaps she expected to be pounced on with the majority of the public reading something sinister in their game - which sadly, has happened anyway

    3. If the beads were being worn around the neck, who attached the rear clasp? Does a 3 year old have that degree of dexterity?

    4. Utter rubbish my 3 year old used to put my make up on better than here in this picture. If you see anything more than a child putting on make up and posing like mummy does, like my child used to then im afraid you're warped.

    5. I really wish people would stop playing at detective. Dogs don't lie? Why don't you watch a few of the cold case deep dive documentaries, in particular the disappearance of Crystal Rogers. You'll soon see they do lie and very often. Relieve yourself from your ignorance.

      Unless evidential and cooberaring DNA backs them alerts up they are nothing more than flawed alerts. What is clear when people repeate this nonsense, is that they know nothing of real crime at all past their tv screens.

      No evidece at all her parents were involved and not a god dam care for her siblings who are old enough to read all this when you sit posting behind anonymity. Why don't you get jobs instead of hanging round the internet playing at detective's for goodness sake.

      People have created blogs, forums, twitter bios you name it, for one case. What on earth will you move onto next. ��‍♀️

  4. @ ros - you were doing so well until you added:

    "While I agree, the photographs are a little creepy, again, that lies with those who selected them and their true agenda"

    Therein you open up the can of worms.

    There is nothing strange about the photos at all - they are perfectly normal to 99.9999% of the population.

    1. I have said quite clearly that I think the photos are weird, not in sexual way, but because they are unflattering and unhelpful. They don't have the appeal of the cherubic pic in the red dress, for example. That is why they were an odd choice, and of course the fact that they could be interpreted as sexual by those who are looking for those signs.

    2. There is nothing wrong with the photos but I think what most people find hard to understand is why any parent of a missing child would choose to publish them especially when Gerry was telling everyone Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile gang.
      The McCanns must have had hundreds of photos of the little girl, laughing, happy ones - even recent photos surely. The photos where kids are playing dressing up are usually funny ones where they wear their mother's high heels or a big hat and aren't on their own - given that the twins could have joined in. Then the photos wouldn't have appeared to be "seedy" to so many.

    3. 16:26 I'm with you there, they were a very odd choice given the circumstances and I was hoping that others might come up with more suggestions. I think they were chosen for their controversy, grabbing the front page of the tabloids is a ruthlessly competitive business, a happy smiling Madeleine would not have had the same impact.

      The make up pictures caused a furore, as I believe was intended, they opened up the paedophile debate and put the McCanns in the headlines (again).

    4. @ ros.

      I believe you are missing the very deep subtext. I am sure that the photos were published for a very specific reason after taking expert advice. I am also certain that the people who have expressed a "special" interest in the photos have/are being investigated.

  5. What I find weird is that it is only after Madeleine's disappearance that the photos become, well, weird.

    The photos pre-disappearance are not so weird but post-disappearance we have the make-up pic; the giant ice-cream cone pic and then the pics of Madeleine posing very awkwardly in a heavily staged posed that would be most unnatural and uncomfortable.

    I think the Gasper statement can be taken at face value. This is a family who knew the McCanns well. They had been on holiday with them. Mrs Gasper, in particular, witnessed behaviour that she found highly inappropriate. This was from one of Gerry's best friends and holiday companions David Payne. That Gerry (or indeed anyone else sitting at the table) did not raise an eye-brow (apart from the Gaspers) is suggestive that Gerry thought David Payne's gesture was acceptable.

    Even without any of the other indicators (and I think there are literally dozens) this alone I think should have been taken seriously.

    We also have no idea about the family background as very few details of their family life pre-abduction were released. There are no medical records, for instance, which might be revealing.

    However, from what we do have, I see little evidence of a 'normal' family life. The birthday party photo showing Kate wielding a large knife is extraordinarily peculiar in my opinion. You normally take a photo as the cake is being cut and with the knife resting on the cake. Why are the twins not in the photo? It all looks staged in a very strange way without no-one looking at the camera.

    It is true there is some video-footage of family life pre-abduction which looks quite normal - the one when all three children are sitting on the stairs looks normal. And there is one when all three children are opening presents which looks normal.

    I think the male tapasniks are dodgy, particularly Gerry McCann and David Payne. I find Russell's account of a video-recording incident very suspicious.

    There is something highly sensitive about filming and photography in my opinion. Particularly in relation to children.

    Kate says you can't take photographs of your own children in swimming-pools. I find this odd. Why not? You most definitely can.

    I just can't believe that the police and social services have not picked up on a lot of this. And we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. There may well be some monitoring of the twins in view of the highly suspicious circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance.

    We also have Detective Amaral's question to Kate about whether she ever though about handing over Madeleine's care to relatives? This might suggest Kate was struggling to cope but it could also suggest that Kate felt Madeleine would be safer with relatives....

    Why did Kate's father break down and virtually collapse, according to Kate in her book, repeating: "I'm so sorry. I've let you down. I's so sorry, so sorry."

    What did he mean? In what way had her father 'let her down'? I think this is suggestive of a certain scenario in which he and Kate's mother realize that they might have been able to do something to prevent what happened to Madeleine. Might have been able to protect her from someone who they suspected might be capable of harming her.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. The only thing that remains strange about this photo is it shows a little girl 4 plus going on teenager, as opposed the iconic red dress photo that shows a child 3\or under to baby. Equally, why was this one (makeup) released? There are a few others that should have remained in the closed family album, end of!

    Gaspars statements: I'm not too sure what to make of them. Submitted to the investigation in a very tardy fashion without any supporting investigative information from the LP. As a standalone piece of work - there's not a lot there. But just think of that GUT FEELING Mrs Gaspar had, before she put pen to paper - without the knowledge that it would become an internet sensation!

    Fading into oblivion: what is? images of all those connected, even Pinky Spin seems to be fading. Images of the McCanns & T7 are fast fading, yet alone Madeleine.

    So what really lingers? AMBIGUITY, oh & that other fav of mine INCONGRUITY OF AFFECT.

    1. I don't comment on gaspars or the photos so I have nothing to say about that. The "fading" is another matter. I agree with you about its existence, I don't think it is merely the passage of time but something more significant.

      Mass hysteria episodes always lose their energy eventually. I think the fading you observe is a symptom of the MC affair's loss of potency, a process which will accelerate. The McCann's energy comes from the public hysteria in a badly understood but well recognised process. The draining away of the one results in the gradual exhaustion of the other.

      That process is clearly visible now. Without energy you cannot induce fear in people, which is why people are no longer frightened of them. The process will continue to speed up, irrespective of "events". Just watch. I need hardly add that it is not photographs of the McCanns that are fading - it is the couple themselves as the energy is sucked away.

    2. From a Sunset Boulevard perspective, it's probably the fading that hurts them the most John! They came alive when the cameras were on them, now they have gone all coy.

      Right now, as the case closes, they have nothing from Scotland Yard to establish their innocent. Nothing to indicate that there is an abductor still out there.

      Once you take the bogeyman out of the equation, what's left?

  7. The McCanns currently remain protected due to Gerald McCann's classified cardiovascular research on alien life forms. This situation will change this year when president Obama makes his alien disclosure announcement before leaving office. There is also to be a similar ground breaking follow-up announcement by David Cameron which will remove much of the secrecy surrounding this unbelievable issue. UFO nut Richard Hall can confirm all this.

  8. Ros,

    To find the truth, you need to eliminate all the myths from the sad nutters with their own theories that do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

    The photos were first condemned by Mark Williams Thomas, a proclaimed child protection expert and leading criminologist, according to Tony Bennett.

    Examine his credentials, MWT is nothing of the sort.

    Within 20 minutes of MWT condemning on twitter the photos as being 'so inappropriate' and 'so damaging', Jill Havern and the CMOMM wade in expressing sentiments like "paedophiles will be excited by these pictures".

    Bennett wrote on behalf of outraged thousands, to Jim Gamble and Clarence Mitchell, demanding the withdrawal of said pictures and promoting his Madeleine Foundation and the media storm was complete.

    Bennett went on to explain "these images could attract sexual predators,(Why?)and Primark has already withdrawn padded bras, for 7 year olds"!

    In later articles concerning Madeleine Mccann TB helpfully pointed out, paedophiles are known as nonces, kiddie fiddlers, child sex abusers and other such gems of enlightenment.

    So we have MWT promoting himself through drivel and Bennett doing the same.

    You couldn't make it up but they do again and again. Self proclaimed experts (RD Hall another) trying to make money through Madeleine McCann.

    People seem to believe that because they produce reams and reams of dross, they must be knowledgeable when in fact they are liars and fools.
    The case is interesting enough without innuendo and smear.

    1. The case is certainly very interesting..............and perplexing. I don't think that the majority of people who comment on this case are fools and liars . They just want justice for Madeleine and are totally frustrated at the investigations to date that appear to be inadequate, incompetent and a complete whitewash. Can you really believe Andy Redwood's sudden production of the missing crecheman? What are people to think? There is something definitely untoward about this 'disappearance' and 'strange' about the parents and their friends. Why do they lie, obsfuscate , contradict and deliberately mislead? You can mock Mr Bennett and Richard Hall all you want but at least they are trying to fathom this strange affair. .....................and NO, money isn't their incentive. I'm pretty sure of that.

    2. Bennett and Hall aren't trying to fathom the truth here 17:01. They 'know' what happened, they just have to force those square pegs into the round holes, and there lies the answer.

      They have discarded the work of Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation, and they have come up with a conspiraloon theory of their own. You can't just make things up, as they have, and expect to get to the truth.

      I can and will mock Bennett and Hall, they are meddling fools interfering in a criminal investigation and harassing witnesses.

      And of course money is their motive - they want their nonsense to go global, before the REAL story comes out and people realise they have been conned.

  9. Hi JJ, it is odd that MWT stepped in so quickly to criticize the photographs - he has always been such a vociferous supporter of the McCanns.

    I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, like Bennett, Gamble and the now deceased Ray Wyre, MWT sees child sex abuse and paedophiles everywhere. Do perverts get off on pictures like this? And how do these 'experts' know that?

  10. Note to the transvestite abductor; just give Madeleine access to your makeup bag and she won't give you her tuppence worth.

    1. @ Thomas Barrett29 May 2016 at 18:03

      not funny - and not clever either.

  11. I couldn't agree more Ros. There are sick puppies abroad.

    1. Many thanks Himself! I really should visit your blog more often, it is a treasure trove!

      With all the hysteria surrounding this dodgy subject, I often find myself in a twilight zone, I'm just not seeing what the frenzied are seeing, and I'm sickened that the views of the frenzied have permeated the heads of the otherwise rational. Some see so much in the Maddie photographs that they can't even look at them, let alone discuss them. Wtf? What on earth is going on in their heads? Gamble, MWT and Bennett I get, but for regular folk, they're just pictures. Looking for signs of paedophilia and deviant sex in them crosses a very strange line.

      Anyway, I was trying to leave a comment on your blog yesterday but was having technical difficulties! Will return and try again today. :)

  12. Rambling again Ros.

    1. Fair comment, note to self, don't have a glass of wine when blogging! lol

    2. I did mean to point that out :)

    3. Much appreciated, critical comments help to improve my ramblings :) on occasion I am a little self indulgent. The grammar critics have been a great help too. Though must be said, I still get confused with it's its' and theirs :(

  13. " Re: McCanns appealing to Supreme Court

    Post Get'emGon├žalo Yesterday at 9:15 pm
    The UK have got some appalling 'journalists'.

    Thank goodness we've got Natasha Donn on Snr Amaral's side.

    You don't see her calling the McCann's or their supporters 'trolls'."

    just who is havern trying to fool?

    Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that Donn is fed false information and mis-information from hate sites like CMOMM.

  14. I wonder why Natasha Donn hides her identity with a photo of a man in drag?

  15. If one read's all statements made, there was a statement where a doctor (friend) on a previous holiday heard Mr Payne make a inappropriate sexual remark, that involved Madeline. The statement was made at Leicestershire Police and they did not forward statement to Portugal for 5 months. Why????

  16. In isolation the pics are no more than a little creepy. In the context of 3 years into the Mccann case they are extraordinary. The evidence that the McCanns are at the very least involved in covering up an accidental death has now become pretty compelling. To my mind the most damaging evidence is 1 the twins were obviously sedated 2 Sniffer dogs don't lie and the signals they gave were as clear cut and unambiguous as could be hoped. 3 Gerry is obviously lieing re his Blue holdall which now strangely missing can be clearly seen in the 4th May police photo located exactly where the cadaver dog seems practically to be pointing. 4 The evidence that the Pool Pic has had its EXIF date changed to 3rd most probably from Sunday is damning. 5 The tennis pic has pretty obviously been photoshopped 6 There are almost incredibly no valid photos of Maddie (or the twins) after Sunday 7 all traces of Maddies DNA seem to have been cleared from the room including eg the pillow she was supposedly sleeping on. 8 the bed looked u slept in. 9 the Shutters could only have been opened from the inside 10 a massive media campaign focused only on the abduction theory was orchestrated almost immediately 11 the initial photo given out was bizarrely that of the girl maybe 2 years prior with no explanation of why this was chosen nor how it was obtained and printed out so quickly 12 the Mccann didnt offer to hand over their camera to the police to see if there may be any clues from the pics inside. These are just the clues that spring to mind there are surely many more. If the thing was "just" a matter of covering up a horrific accident, surely once they had got away with it, the McCanns would have wanted to "move on". The fact that even after more than a decade they have not done so inclines me to suspect something more sinister is going on. We already know we are dealing with people with an incredible capacity for deception not just ordinary people covering up a tragic accident. The Mccanns are certainly aware of all the paedo ring speculation so to allow the pointless publication of photos which 95per cent of the population would immediately see as pouring fuel on the flames of such rumours begs an explanation. Hubris? A warning to possible collerators??