Monday 20 June 2016


Anyone in any doubt that the Sun, more particularly Antonella Lazzeri lie to us about the Madeleine abduction story need only read her latest 'PDL is full of paedos' article and the truth of the story from the actual pub landlord Robert Mark Hurst as above.

Someone it seems, is pretty desperate to link Madeleine's disappearance to Clement Freud and Robert Murat.  The idea that the 82 year old Clement was some kind of child catcher who employed minions to keep an eye out for unguarded children takes absurdity to the extreme, but nonetheless, the barrel scrapers are going to squeeze it for all it's worth.  Once again, it takes the focus off the Mr and Mrs.  If only they had known what was going on - they would have gone to Butlins. 

This latest revelation of a high profile paedophile with a villa close to the McCanns' holiday apartment is a pathetic straw to be clutching at, but it's pretty much all they have got.  It could also buy them time, as in 'has the Freud connection been fully investigated by Operation Grange?' Or, 'they are blaming us because they covering up something bigger'. It's win win for K&G.

Unfortunately, due to so much nonsense being written about this case, many of those who are genuinely searching for the truth are being misled by those with preconceived ideas. 

The chances of an active paedophile ring operating in the PDL area in May 2007 are even less likely than Madeleine being stolen from her bed when her parents just happened to be out.  The idea that the adults in the group who 'were so into each other' were sexually interested in their own toddlers is not only completely unheard of, it is disgusting.  These are parents who got others to look after their children at every opportunity. 

As for the 'swinging', that is laugh out loud stupid!   I have led a far from sheltered life, and never in my entire existence have I been to an orgy or encountered swingers.  Ok, there was one party that got a bit hot and heavy, but when we sobered up, we all vowed never to speak of it again.  The idea of going to an organised event with all your kids and mother-in-law in tow, is, once again, ludicrous. 

Those screaming for the blood of stranger child predators are being wildly misled.  The threat to children comes from within their own home and from people who know them.  Education is the answer.  Young parents need to know what to look out for and how to teach their children to stay safe.  The danger doesn't come from a pervert in an internet café in South East Asia, the danger is always much closer to home. 

Lets imagine for one moment that a paedophile ring exists that runs from PDL and Robert Murat, right up through the heart of the British Establishment.  We must assume that there is a large group of people with a shared interest in sex with children who keep in touch with each other regularly, sharing images, videos, etc, without a care in the world that their lives would be ruined beyond repair, if their bizarre tastes became known.  Seriously? 

And where are they are getting kids to abuse from?  The rich pickings of the old Church run childrens' homes have long since been shut down.  Abusers need vulnerable kids, kids who have no-one to defend them, and kids who will not be believed.  'Normal' kids have the protection of their parents.  And, thank all the Gods there may be, kids are not being abducted from their homes or stolen off the streets.  Stranger abduction is as rare as it ever was. 

If we believe all the theories, the sleepy little Algarve village of PDL was a haven for paedophiles, wandering gangs of burglars and groups of sexually enthusiastic tourists who bring their families along to swinging events.  Anything other than accept Kate was a mother who couldn't cope, married to man who preferred tennis to spending time with her and the kids, and a confined holiday where something was bound give.

For whatever reason, people prefer to believe in an abduction or some form of child abuse rather than the simple fact that a group of selfish, narcissistic doctors left their babies and young toddlers on their own and one had an accident.  It's much too simple. 


  1. Thank you Rosalind for being the voice of reason. It's so ridiculous trying to link Clement Freud with the McCann case and this conspiracy nonsense really gets on my nerves. I think the case is quite simple with Madeleine dying in the apartment, probably by accident, and the McCanns hiding her body.

    1. So where and how do you think the McCanns hid her body? If someone could come up with something plausible then maybe some of the abductor theorists might start believing.

    2. I don't know where and how they hid her body but I wouldn't have thought hiding a 3 year would have been that difficult. Remember we don't know what happened that evening as we only have the word of the Tapas 9 for the timeline and they wouldn't even go back for the reconstruction.

    3. That's it in a nutshell Ruth! We don't know - people like Bennett and Hall can make up long winded scenarios but the bottom line is they know zilch.

      Many of the pros say they support Kate and Gerry because no-one can give them a plausible explanation as to 'how they dunnit'. Well that's the $64m question, no-one outside the group knows, and those in the group aren't talking!

      Just because we don't know how it was done, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I expect the PJ and Operation Grange have got a very good idea how that evening's events transpired, but possibly not the evidence to back it up. And at this stage they are unlikely to release any information that might make up part of a criminal prosecution.

  2. "We must assume that there is a large group of people with a shared interest in sex with children who keep in touch with each other regularly, sharing images, videos, etc., without a care in the world that their lives would be ruined beyond repair, if their bizarre tastes became known. Seriously?"

    It's as easy as PIE (Ask Harriet Harman).

  3. Thank you for your reply 10:01, I don't know very much about PIE or indeed Harriet Harman's connection, so I have had a little read up.

    The connection was PIE's affiliation to the National Council for Civil Liberties (now LIBERTY)at the time Harriet Harman was deputy leader.

    First let me make it absolutely clear that PIE, its aims and its' members absolutely disgust me, and I am astonished that they achieved the 'respectability' they did. I can only imagine that was down to its' high profile members and the influence they had on the establishment.

    I'm not a fan of Harriet Harman, not least for her shameful support of Gerry McCann in his attempts to gag the press. As a senior member of the NCCL, she should not have accepted PIE as a cause deserving of support from the NCCL. Wtf was she thinking comes to mind. The same could be said of her husband Jack Dromey. Patricia Hewitt went further, to say it 'naïve and wrong to accept that PIE was a counselling and campaign group'.

    Naïve and wrong is of course a massive understatement! It was also implied that their careers of all 3 would have been at stake if they had not allowed PIE to be affiliated to NCCL. Who knows? It was an error that remains a stain on all of their careers in any event.

    Happily the PIE movement was seen as the disgusting attempt to change the public's perception of child abuse that it was, and all the members were tracked down by the police.

    Looking back on it in retrospect, the culture that existed at the time and the outrageous causes that were being taken up by the 'Loony Left', it's perhaps not so surprising that PIE were able to present themselves as a minority group being victimised.


    1. The only thing PIE achieved as far as I can see, is universal revulsion. Not only were they shut down, all their members were investigated. It is now known that childrens' homes, especially those of faith, were supermarkets for the predatory rich.

      Some might say PIE have since gone 'underground'. That is of course a possibility, but have seen the way in which paedophilia elicits such extreme reactions from the public and the press, it is unlikely such a group would 'try it again'. In my opinion that is.

      There is an awareness now, that was not there in the early 1970's. Society was still basking in the aftermath of 'free love', and many were fighting passionately for gay rights. PIE were trying to insert themselves in the spirit of the times (the zeitgeist) but they totally misjudged the mood of the public. While we all wanted to be liberal and cool, we would still fight to the death to protect our kids.

      As I said above, given the public mood with regard to crimes of this nature, is it really worth anyone's while to be involved in a network that would see their lives destroyed should it become known?

      And as I said above, where are they getting their victims from? How many cases exist of groups of parents allowing their toddlers to be used for sex?

      I can't actually think of any, other than the Cleveland cases which involved the bizarre teachings of the creepy Ray Wyre. Then of course, there was the horrific Teddy's Nursery case, where the repulsive creatures were caught by a whistleblower (not a vigilante or CEOP)and where the parents were as traumatised as the kids.

      I think those trying to link the disappearance of Madeleine to some kind of paedophile network are trying to introduce a child sexual abuse element that simply isn't there.

      Whether they are aware of it or not, they too are adding to the Chinese whispers that surround PDL as a haven for perverts. The myth was created by the McCanns, but it has been fed on and nurtured by many of the antis ever since.

    2. Finger-sucking, nipple-rubbing David Payne. Gerry concurring.

      ' .... erm, Madeleine WAS a child you could have a lot of fun with.'

      David Payne in his police statement.

      Paedophilia in the Madeleine case? You decide.

    3. As far as I am aware David Payne and indeed the others still work as Doctors. They have all lived under scrutiny for the past 9 years and imo, if there were any evidence of the group being practicing paedophiles, this case would have been wrapped up long ago. It would be unthinkable for the authorities to allow young children to remain at risk if they suspect Madeleine died from a sexual assault.

  4. Sorry but there's nothing simple about this case apart from those who think................well, that it's simple. If it was an accident the McCanns would just own up....................unfortunately children have accidents all the time , sometimes tragically ( children drown whilst parents are on the phone, they get caught up in venetian blinds get the picture...........but parents are rarely blamed outright. If it was just a tragic accident why would the MCCanns and their friends concoct stories which none of them can quite remember and frequently contradict with conflicting statements? Why go to all the trouble? Why lay yourself open to accusations of neglect to justify an abduction scenario?
    I don't know whether child abuse was a factor but I do know there was a reason that poor Madeleine's body was made to 'disappear.'

  5. There was indeed a reason 19:44. An autopsy might have revealed the use of sedatives, something that would have seen all the doctors struck off the Registrar if they were doing the same thing.

    It would also have highlighted just how dangerous their practice of leaving the children on their own was. Again, they would ALL have faced child negligence charges.

    That group of doctors had an awful lot to lose 19:44. As you say, toddlers do have fatal accidents and if there was nothing to hide, no doubt an ambulance, coroner or whatever the authority is in Portugal, would have been called out.

    My money would be on the use of sedatives. The way in which the twins slept through the noisy events of the entire evening is not normal. The McCanns have also tried to claim that all 3 children were drugged by the 'abductor' should evidence of drug use ever be uncovered.

    The use of prescription drugs by doctors to 'knock out' their children so they could go out to dinner is bad enough in itself. It doesn't need to be embellished. These were not ordinary child neglecters, these were medically qualified doctors with thriving careers ahead of them. Having spent 7 years studying, and working their butts off to get where they were, they had everything to lose. Plenty of reason to make a child's body disappear.

    I think it is significant that Kate has never worked as a Doctor since that night.

  6. I wonder who made the body disappear I can't see the McCann's risking their own necks, they're far too clever for that. Someone else will have done their dirty work for them you can be assured of that. I doubt if her body will ever be found which is even more upsetting knowing she hasn't had the dignity of a proper burial it breaks my heart it really does. This case has affected so many people, that little girl is the last thing I think about before I finally drop off to sleep I like everyone else just wish there was an end to it and justice was served on those who harmed her.

    1. Amen to that 23:54!

      I don't however agree that the McCanns didn't risk their own necks. I don't think they had any choice. For me, Smithman looking exactly like Gerry is too much of a coincidence. I also think the dog alerts to the hire car, show that they had direct involvement in the disposal of the body.

      Whilst I agree the British Government assisted them, the 'help' didn't go that far. If it had, they would not have risked using their 'own' car. As Gerry said, 'a moment of madness' - who knows what desperate people are capable of.

    2. Oh, oh. Smithman ... Gerry McCann.

      I can almost hear Mr Bennett sharpening his bolded blue gem marker, ready to hit you with 21 reasons why the Smiths are lying bastards.

      Stand by for a horse's head in your bed. (a bolded blue one).

  7. What i cant understand is why the government , helped with the coverup , why not just let them swing , not that kind of swinging

  8. Another very good article that echoes much of what I think. Freud is out as far as I'm concerned and that includes any other pedo angle here. Payne and Gerry? I don't buy it.

    The thought of pedophiles covering the death of a child seems far too convoluted. The very fact they draw so much attention to themselves makes me question their thinking - that's if they are guilty of something truly sinister.

    In my opinion the abduction angle is also out. I say this for many many reasons. Reasons which have been explained too many times to bother going over again.

    So what are we left with?

    We are left with a very strange holiday, numerous strange characters and a story that doesn't make sense. The death cover up does not make sense - I have never been able to fathom how this works. From an accident (which they wouldn't IMO go to such lengths to hide) to something worse.

    Explain the dogs? I don't think I need to. Their evidence is weak at best. It would be interesting to see how much of that stuck or if it would be torn apart by the defence. I think the later.

    I know I'm in the minority, but the death story just doesn't sit right. It makes less sense than abduction to me - not that I believe abduction either.

    I do think they are all lying about something, but when I look at the main cast I don't see people covering death. No matter how hard I try

    1. Thank you for your post 09:40 and the interesting points you raise.

      The cover up has led to all sorts of bizarre speculation, as you say, why go to so much trouble if Madeleine had died in an accident. Many of the antis have latched onto the sexual element, there must be paedophilia involved or the parents were attending a swinging convention.

      I tend to think that people who think along these lines are very sexually naïve. Wealthy and successful people (and wannabes) sleep UP. That is, their turn ons are money, power and big egos.

      Contrary to the now popular belief that people see children as sexual, the majority don't! One of the biggest clues for those going down the paedo route, is the fact that the Tapas group went to extraordinary lengths to be childfree during that holiday! They were hardly likely to rape a child all night and then put them in the resort nursery the next day. As for the swinging myths, purrrrlees, they took the mother in law!

      I believe the dogs 09:40, they alerted too many times for there to be room for error.

      It is quite possible that Madeleine had sedatives in her system, the parents, not just of Madeleine, may have abused their professions, by controlling their kids with drugs. We all know the madness of leaving small children alone in an apartment sleeping, but they may have been reassured that they would not wake up.

      This may be the collective decision that ties them 09:40, together with criminal charges of child endangerment. There is no need to add any sexual elements, due to their collective neglect, a child died.

    2. Its not that I disbelieve the dogs. I mean, they're dogs, they are trained to do a certain job and they do it. There is no lying in them.

      I just find their evidence weak and unsupported. I know all about the cited cases of alerts alone / no body etc but 3months is a ridiculous amount of time to wait before bringing them in. Also, I'm guessing the apartment was aired out / well ventilated during that time.

      Look, I'm no expert on the dogs (even though everyone else professes to be) but I find their evidence questionable. And I think a court would also - again, I'm no expert, but that's just my opinion.

      Overdosing on sedatives seems unlikely considering they're supposed medical professionals. Again, just my opinion.

      We are definitely in agreement re. them being pedo child killers. That gets a big no from me.

    3. IF collective neglect did result in death and they all covered it up then WOW.

      That is one cold calculating gang of doctors.

      They defy belief. Truly.