Friday, 4 November 2016


At some point the official investigation into Madeleine's disappearance will have to close. That may be way off in the future when the media and the public have completely lost interest in the case, or on a good day for burying bad news. That's not to say it will vanish completely - it is a simmering pot that still has the potential to demand a public inquiry at any time.  The reality is however, the Madeleine case is likely to be one of many injustices of past governments that will never be investigated.  In the whole scheme of things, this particular spider's web of corruption doesn't compare to Orgreave, Hillsborough or the mythical weapons of mass destruction that took us into war. 

In 2007, the incumbent Labour government were warming us up to the idea of ID cards, a central DNA data bank and the microchipping of newborns.  They were also looking for ways in which to access our private and confidential details legally and with our full approval.  Anyone protesting obviously having something to hide. 

The internet has grown into an out of control monster, the flow of information is shifting the power of the elite into the hands of the masses.  News cannot be contained, distorted or manipulated by media moguls conspiring with politicians, everyone now has direct access to the source.  The bare faced lies of tabloid front pages are instantly rebutted and ridiculed on social media.  Politicians are no longer distant and aloof like the Queen, they are squabbling on twitter using the vernacular of a bar room brawl.  And worse, the dishonesty we once suspected has been confirmed by the Iraq war and cases like Madeleine's

The establishment are losing control, they are no longer able to put the lid on anything.  While they may have brilliant computer geeks looking for ways in which to snoop on the public and contain information, they are probably outnumbered, and always outclassed by genius altruistic hackers, who are leaps and bounds ahead of them.  But it is not so much the technology that is holding them back, it's the ethics.  The Government need a legitimate, vote winning, reason to introduce policing on the internet.  And the quickest route to introducing draconian new laws, is to present us with a clear and present danger.   

The disappearance of Madeleine was almost tailor made to launch a new hidden enemy for the public to fear.  And the new enemy were paedophiles, lurking on every corner and hidden behind every tree, when not grooming kids on the internet.  Who knew?  The problem every government has, is finding reasons to pry on the general public.  Terrorism gives them a certain amount of access, but it is not as all encompassing as 'think of the children', When there is a threat to our children, even rational people become emotive and start surrendering their freedoms. 

Madeleine became the poster child for a movement to spread fear among the population.  If the well cared for, middle class child of responsible parents could be stolen in the night, it could happen to anyone!  Every parents' worst possible nightmare suddenly became a reality.  Very few commentators pointed out that the chances of our children being abducted were significantly less than our chances of winning the lottery but we were persuaded EVERY child was at risk. And even less pointed out that the chances of toddlers left alone in a holiday apartment having an accident, were through the roof. 

Such is life, missing children have become big business, police need more resources, charities need more cash.  The appealing, cherubic face of Madeleine and the media savvy of her articulate parents captured the public's interest (and cash) like no other.  I expect people will argue for years to come as to who was using who in the back scratching arrangements between the McCanns, the Labour Government and the media.  All were benefiting, the McCanns were spreading the abduction story, the Government were getting the go ahead to clamp down on the internet and newspapers with Madeleine stories were flying off the shelf

Arguably, the newspapers have already been punished, or at least they are being punished now as the public seek out more honest sources and opinions.  The sheer volume of live news available now, has, to put it bluntly, made lying tabloids redundant.     

However, almost 10 years have passed since Madeleine disappeared and New Labour's dream of getting us all labelled, microchipped and stored in a central data base is but a distant memory.  The new cyber enemy are the trolls, the abusers and those who use the internet to tell their local MP they are shit.  People throughout the UK (MPs especially) are fainting in shock at getting an ear full of what the electorate really think of them. One, at least, has built a panic room. 

Most of the last decade's fears have probably already happened, and without much of a whimper it must be said.  That is, hiding from the authorities or trying to protect our privacy now would be like spitting in the wind.  We are all leaving a cyber trail every time we log on and worrying about it is a fast track route to paranoia. The problem with freedom of speech and information is that it also applies to ourselves.   

But back to the case of Madeleine.  It is possible that those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will never face trial.  Not because of some convoluted conspiracy theory that involves, freemasons, clones, paedophile rings or swingers, but the very simple (vexing) lack of that one vital piece of evidence that would bring about a prosecution.  Ie, the same reason hundreds, if not thousands, of cases the world over go 'unsolved'.  

I don't however, think the parents will ever get off scot free.  They have spent nearly 10 years in the civil courts and on the breakfast sofas fighting to 'restore' their reputations and the popularity they once had.  Yet it has all been to no avail, if anything it has turned the public against them and the millions have all gone.  Their greatest desire, an official Scotland Yard declaration of their innocence, remains out of their reach and without it, their plans to continue the search are worthless.  They have got past one police force not looking for a live child, but even spinmeister Clarence would struggle to get past two.

Some might say it is enough that those involved must live forever more with the constant thumping of that tell tale heart.  And the fear that their chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.  They are all shackled to each other whether they like it or not, that's the way pacts work.  Gerry and Kate are shackled to the goody two shoes monsters they created with his blog and her book.  Doomed to looking miserable and walking hand in hand forever more they can never have so much as a cross word, let alone get drunk and throw crockery at each other. 

When you put the case of Madeleine McCann into perspective, and many of us haven't for a very long time, there are bigger and more immediate threats to our society that affect thousands of lives.  I am sure many will continue to follow the Madeleine case out of interest, myself included, and some will continue to fight for justice by exposing the lies on twitter.  I have no doubt however, that there are genuine detectives, just like Goncalo Amaral and Steve Thomas in the Jonbenet case, who will never give up, no matter how long it takes. 


  1. "It is possible that those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will never face trial."

    I'd put it more strongly than that. I think it's a 'given'.

    1. Looks that way 09:09, the Ramseys never faced trial, nor did the Aisenbergs. The USA however, never went out of their way to pretend the aforementioned parents weren't suspects. The Boulder police were quite honest about the fact that they just didn't have enough evidence to prosecute.

      The British police however, seem to have backed themselves into a corner by declaring the McCanns and their friends NOT persons of interest, 5 years on they have nowhere else to go. In protecting the reputation of the McCanns, they have ruined their own.

  2. Apologies if this is a silly question, but have we had the outcome of the McCann appeal in Lisbon? I've not seen anything in the papers (which would indicate a victory for Goncalo, if it's happened). Perhaps a decision there will precipitate some action from Scotland Yard?

    1. I've not seen anything either 14:04, but I don't know if one affects the other. They are two different areas of Law, Civil and Criminal, I doubt they are allowed to cross over in any way.

      From a human perspective, it is more likely the British police would empathise with their Portuguese colleagues rather than the former suspects. Perhaps they are helping Goncalo lol, the excavations in PDL were timed to coincide with their libel trial (or were they?), imo, just about anything is possible with this case!


  3. Well written Christobell and well said 09:09

    "Their greatest desire, an official Scotland Yard declaration of their innocence, remains out of their reach and without it, their plans to continue the search are worthless."

    But according to the MPS, Mr and Mrs McCann would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for their meticulous and painstaking work and they would also like to thank the Home Office for continuing to support the investigation.

    There is no ambiguity here.

    An official ‘abductor’ declaration of guilt, however, may remain out of the McCanns’ reach.

    The staff from Operation Grange and the Home Office couldn’t care less, it seems.

    1. Thank you for your reply 14:12. I don't pay much heed to the statements of Gerry, Kate and Clarence Mitchell. All the while they were in PDL, they were telling us the police were treating the case as an abduction and they were not suspects. And they were so convincing, the public sent them millions.

      I doubt very much there is any love lost between the parents and Scotland Yard. Common sense tells us, that living with a 5 year police investigation has to be a new level of hell. If the detectives of Operation Grange were reassuring the McCanns they were not suspects, the McCanns would be reassuring their followers. If Lorraine Kelly were to ask them now how the investigation going, can they truthfully answer they have a good relationship with Operation Grange? If the parents want to continue with their 'Search' once OG closes, then they are clearly at odds with the conclusions of the police. Why are they thanking the police instead of begging them to continue?

      You can kind of see why the Home Office and Operation Grange are trapped in deadlock. They can't say there is an abductor still out there, they would be the laughing stock of police the world over.

      However, if they point the finger at anyone else without sufficient evidence to prosecute, the lives of those suspects and their families would be intolerable. It's as if those who authorised the review and the subsequent investigation gave no thought whatsoever as to what it's possible outcome could be. Perhaps they were dumb enough to believe there really was an abductor? They certainly went along with the McCanns' claims, even going so far as to commission an age progression picture. The lack of an abductor is going to prove pretty embarrassing for a lot of people

      Scotland Yard's very public excavations in PDL in 2014 told the world they were looking for Madeleine's remains, and no amount of spin could get past that. Added to which, Andy Redwood said Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.

      Jill Havern et all, have of course interpreted this as a paedophile burglar, once again making 2+2 = 5, in order to make the police sound worse and themselves sound better. It's as if they are completely unaware this case is all about spin and always has been. Or is it because they cherry pick the spin that works for them, and discard the rest?

      It would be completely unethical for Operation Grange to close down leaving an 'abductor' at large. What if another child disappeared? Or, as is more likely, what if the next victim selected by the McCanns and the media to splash all over the UK tabloids as Madeleine's abductor commits suicide or carries out some brutal act of revenge?

    2. "It's as if those who authorised the review and the subsequent investigation gave no thought whatsoever as to what it's possible outcome could be."

      Ah, but they did.

      In the words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner (Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe) himself:

      "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

  4. A well written piece and many points spot on. No one knew who these two were until their daughter went missing, now many do. To me, this says everything.The whole story has in many ways been about them. They have made it that way. It does however seem that the whole case has attracted a mix of people as 'researchers', some of whom would look quite comfortable in a tin foil hat. SOME of the recent contributions on social media have been utterly ridiculous, so I tend to avoid now. I have been suspicious of the official 'story' since day one, and apart from a short period on one cesspit of a 'forum' run by an evangelical right winger, an experience in itself, especially when disagreeting with that person, I don't often get involved any more. However, along with one or two other blogs, I regard yours as astute and sensibe. KEEP up the good work.

  5. Excellent Piece, thank you.

  6. Spot on cristobell super post.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. I would take issue that this spîders web of corruption doesn't compare to Orgreave or Hillsborough.

    How will we know until the truth is exposed? The Police did not just turn up out of the blue, untrained at Orgreave. There was a plan orchestrated from the very top.

    The Mccann case has many similarities.

    The Leicestershire police were operating illegally in Portugal and meeting with the Mccanns before informing the Portuguese authorities.

    For what reason they were doing this and which UK Government ministers authorised this illegality, and the expenditure for the Leicestershire police flights, hotels etc., would open the box to a solution. But too many members of the establishment would be shown to be complete inept buffoons.

    The only conspiracy is to cover up sheer stupidity and ineptitude and both Labour and Tory will keep it this way for many years to come.

    1. Darn you JJ, again you have made me stop and rethink! lol. It will of course depend on how entangled that spider's web has become!

      I agree on Orgreave, back in the 80's there was real hand to hand combat with the working classes. This century they have found meaner, sneakier ways in which to break the enemy.

      With the Madeleine case, I always envisage an '[in] The Thick of It' moment. The tired and lacklustre Labour government were scratching around for a popular bandwagon to jump on. That first call to Downing street in the middle of the night, may have been taken by an intern and approved by a senior politician in flagrante delicto with someone else's wife.

      I agree the twin elephants in the room will be sheer stupidity and ineptitude. How will 'they' explain head of CEOP's Jim Gamble's appearance on morning TV supporting the two main suspects in the Portuguese investigation? How will they justify the enormous costs of an investigation that has led nowhere? How do the costs of the Madeleine investigation compare to the costs of the Ben investigation, an older case and one that now has a conclusion?

      The little bit of faith I have left in human nature feels sympathy for the (real) detectives caught up in this case, those who want to finish the job they were assigned to do. Like the witnesses and others caught up in this debacle, they are unable to reply or even put forward their side.

    2. Hello. How can inept buffoons execute a cover up which has gone unexposed for nine years?

    3. Good point John! Given how utterly lame the abduction story is, they have done remarkably well to stretch it out this long.

      I think the ineptitude lies in the fact that Operation Grange are unable to bring this case to a conclusion. It's almost as if they were so certain they would find an abductor they didn't make provision for anything else.

    4. "It's almost as if they were so certain they would find an abductor they didn't make provision for anything else."

      Funny that. But not altogether surprising, since their remit was to proceed 'as if the abduction happened in the UK'. After all, you can't have an abduction without an abductor, can you?

    5. Words can be interpreted to read pretty much what you want 10:28. The remit to proceed 'as if the abduction happened in the UK', doesn't, as many have assumed, mean they have only been looking for a stranger abductor. In every claimed abduction the police investigate the family first, because statistically, they are the most likely suspects. And that would apply in if Madeleine had been 'abducted' in the UK.

      This case drags on, because the Portuguese police were prevented from investigating the family and friends. It is absurd to suggest the British investigation is restricted only to suspects in Portugal.

    6. ... The remit to proceed 'as if the abduction happened in the UK', doesn't, as many have assumed, mean they have only been looking for a stranger abductor. In every claimed abduction the police investigate the family first, because statistically, they are the most likely suspects. And that would apply in if Madeleine had been 'abducted' in the UK.

      But SY is not "investigating" ? SY is merely reviewing the available evidence - so, how do we (or do we) know if they have access to all the evidence given that there are 30k pages withheld from the published PJ case records ?

      How can SY conduct any meaningful review when the starting point , statistically (in terms of likelihood of guilt) would be with the family and their close friends ? This is a group who have given sworn statements that are inconsistent, contradictory and evasive. The parents fled the country after refusing to cooperate with the PT police.
      Where does SY begin the investigation (review ?) with that massive hurdle facing them ?

      It seems to me that SY has been hung out to dry by their political masters.

      On the point of not publishing any report at any conclusion - how could SY ever make this public ? Not that I ever thought they would.

      They are investigating , what ? An abduction, a disappearance , suspected homicide ?

      The usual starting point would be the family (NOT THAT I AM ACCUSING THE MCCS OF ANYTHING ) - but they are not being interviewed (are they ?).

      PJ have shelved the case - so what does the PJ do by way of responding to requests from SY ? Blindly cooperate ? Is SY paying for this ? Else why would the PJ go expend more resources on a case they had already given up on.

      Sorry if this appears like a drunken rant ( I have not been drinking) but I am genuinely struggling to understand what it is SY are doing and under what legal strictures they are operating.

      Any comments greatfully received.

    7. Actually I found it quite an interesting rant, lol.

      What are Scotland Yard doing? At this stage, I wouldn't hazard a guess. The whole investigation looks pretty much defunk, as far as the McCann watchers are concerned. That is the parents have got away with it, and the results will be filed in a vault marked 'not to be opened for 70 years'.

      As vexing as that may be, I agree the police are probably held back by machinations of the politicians. But just as likely is the lack of evidence to prosecute, just as in the cases of the Ramseys, the Aisenbergs, the Irwins, the Celis's. In the 'abduction' cases, the police are not searching for the victims, or their alleged abductors.

      I have no idea how long they can keep up this waiting game or why they continue to be funded.

  9. Björn Sundberg/Sweden5 November 2016 at 18:05

    Excellent writing as usual Rosalinda. I really enjoy reading your thoughts.

    I just want to comment on what you said, probably just a passing remark, about the Ben Needham case “a case…that now has a conclusion” in your opinion.
    The deceased scapegoat Konstantinos “Dino” Barkas’s alleged confession and a toy, found by the South Yorkshire police, which is said to have belonged to Ben Needham contributes just as little to the final resolution of that case as Raymond Hewlett’s alleged letter contributed to the solution of the Madeleine case. The letter in question was said to have been written by Hewlett on his death bed, which his son, by some incomprehensible reason, had burned, before reporting it to the Police.

    The South Yorkshire Police may soon close their investigation ( I don’t doubt that), but it will be without any factual evidence proving their claim about Ben being accidently killed by Mr Barkas, while driving his digger, who thereafter for unknown reason is said to have buried Ben at a dump. All of it pure fantasies in my opinion, though I haven’t the faintest idea about what really happened, but not THAT.

    1. Hi Bjorn, many thanks for your kind comments.

      The conclusion reached by South Yorkshire police in the Ben Needham case does seem to lack concrete evidence to back it up. I wonder if there is more sensitive information they have held back?
      In my opinion the explanation given by SY Police sounds the most likely. Our society, even 20+ years ago, is too complex for anyone, even a family, to pass off a new toddler as their own.

      I have never thought that Kerry or her family were involved in Ben's disappearance. The Needham family are PLU (people like us), that is their lives were genuinely devastated, their trauma wasn't behind the scenes, it was raw and very real. They blamed themselves, they blamed each other, but most significantly, they kept searching. Not searching McCann style (raising money), but physically trekking and tearing apart the entire terrain where Ben vanished. Not just at the time, but for many years after.

      I know the ghouls on Jill Havern are keen to point the finger at Kerry's brother, because the traumatised young man questioned himself and offered to go under hypnosis. Those are not the actions of someone with something to hide imo, he needed to know just as much as his sister did.

      I hope that Kerry and her family are able to get on with their lives without the constant torment of needing to know what happened to her son.

      The conclusion of SY Police completely exonerates the Needham family, not that that was it's objective, but it is confirmation of their innocence nevertheless.

      It also confirms that there was no abductor and dashes Kerry's hopes that Ben is alive. If Kerry accepts this conclusion, her own search must end, though as a mum, I doubt she will ever give up hope.

      Like yourself Bjorn, I can't think of any other reason for Ben's disappearance. Ben went missing from a small island and even though several hours went by before the alarm, hiding a small child would have been difficult, if not impossible.

    2. Björn Sundberg/Sweden6 November 2016 at 16:42

      Hello again Rosalinda
      I do hope that you are right about the Needhams’ innocence. It seems they are, I admit that, but as far as the story about this digger “Dino” and his alleged confession is concerned, I do have my doubts. However, what I meant to say was, that I have not actually followed this case so much, so my criticism of the South Yorkshire Police is just based on what I’ve learnt about the S Y and their Operation Grange and all the digging in the wrong places. That's the only reason why I'm being skeptical of the investigation that the South Yorkshire Police have been conducting. I guess, we will get a comprehensible final report from the authorities (including the Greek police), when the case is completed.

    3. I haven't followed the Ben case that closely either Bjorn, but the parts of Kerry's book that I have seen are heart wrenching. They reacted as a family, as we would have expected, that is, they were devastated by Ben's loss and they continued to physically search the area for years after. Something the McCanns didn't do on the night, and haven't done since.

      I think for a lot of people who doubt the McCanns, myself included, the lack of searching for their child is something they just can't get past.

    4. Ros parts of Kerry's book and the content of interviews given by other members of the family totally contradict what SY police are now saying. They are saying the child was killed in an accident close to where he was last seen playing. The part about being killed by a digger and and by dino has been put out there by are ever friendly media. I think that given what the SY police have said I think its near on impossible for whoever was with the child not to have known an accident took place. As for the grief and innocence of Kerry and Stephen Needham don't forget they were very young themselves and were not there when this accident happen there is nothing at this stage to doubt what they say they think happened or where told happened

  10. I tend to think we may well get a you say the labour government jumped on a popular bandwagon much the same as Tony Blair done at the death of Princess Diana. The dear old Queen was astute enough to see through that one. However sensible people in the home office and SY had 4 years to reflect on the mistakes that had been made on jumping on the popular bandwagon and set up the review that led to an investigation. I cannot possibly see how they would have allowed this to continued for over 5 years and £12m of tax payers money unless they knew that there would be a result at the end of it. I believe they are past the point of coming back to the public and say we couldn't solve that. We you say inept buffoons Jim Gamble certainly comes to mind

    1. "I cannot possibly see how they would have allowed this to continued for over 5 years and £12m of tax payers money unless they knew that there would be a result at the end of it."

      See my earlier comment above: 4.11 @19:08

  11. The cover-up has not gone unexposed for nine years. It is there to see but neither the British Police, Politicians or media have the will to expose their own stupidity.

    It is a matter of public record that the Leicestershire Police were operating illegally in Portugal, within two days but who would investigate this?

    The Leicestershire Police
    The British media
    The British Government

    None of the above, and the armchair researchers never go there, for fear of litigation but concentrate on meaningless drivel.

    It is also a matter or public record that Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield commited a criminal offence in Portugal but why has there been no arrest and prosecution?

    Why has no journalist or Police Officer(as far as we know) investigated the role of the BBC frontman James Landale and the role he and the BBC played in making Madeleine headline news? It is not a conspiracy but individual idiots each covering up their stupidity.

    All politicians fear ridicule for bad judgement and that is the key to this, plain and simple.

    Which politician authorised the illegal activity of the Leicestershire Police in Portugal matters but whichever party ordered it, they cover up for each other. They always have and always will, they know exposure for one, is exposure for all, so no exposure.

    Honest ordinary people knew the truth of Jean Charles De Menezes, Orgreave and Hillsborough for years but it is very difficult when the media and establishment is rotten to the core.

    The Mccanns are simply collateral beneficiaries of a corrupt system and were fortunate it was Thursday 3rd May 2007.

    Another day and the house of cards would have collapsed instantly.

  12. "The cover-up has not gone unexposed for nine years. It is there to see but neither the British Police, Politicians or media have the will to expose their own stupidity."

    So the cover up has been exposed. Because you say so. I see.

    You did not answer my question because, of course, you couldn't. So you cover the poverty of your view - everyone who doesn't share your world is stupid, dishonest or "a buffoon" - with a generalised rant on a biblical scale.

    God, you must be fun to live with.

    1. Blacksmith

      I seem to have touched a nerve and all you have is personal abuse.

      How pathetic!

      Who then do you believe authorised the illegal activity in Portugal by the Leicestershire Police and why?

      Try and string a coherent argument together if its possible. Abuse doesn't cut it.

    2. @ JJ perhaps you would like to state exactly how - in your opinion - Leicester Police operated in Portugal illegally. Similarly maybe you can back up your allegation of criminal offence by Fiona and Rachel.

  13. Ya can't beat a good "cover up" or "conspiracy" to hide behind when you have nothing relevant/factual to say.

  14. Now, now children...

    'tis true, you can't beat a good 'cover up'. But this is not a 'good cover up'. It's a bad one - according to Robert Murat, who claimed to have fallen victim to the 'biggest fuck up on the planet' or words to that effect. And no, he wasn't describing the investigation, which he was in no position to evaluate in such a way.

    If we adopt the term 'cover story' as an alternative to 'lie', then the McCanns and their cronies unquestionably covered up something, as John Stalker opined early on. THAT cover up has (those lies have) indeed been exposed for years now, and not simply because JJ has said so.

    Perhaps JJ and John Blacksmith should clarify, for everyone's benefit, if not each other's, whose 'cover up' they are concerned to address.

    JJ: "The McCanns are simply collateral beneficiaries of a corrupt system"

    If that view is correct, then responsibility for the 'cover up' to which JJ alludes must lie with the 'corrupt system', i.e. other than with the McCanns.

    Here we're in choppier water, but if cover stories (aka lies) are reliably indicative of a 'cover up', then we may still find a few pointers if we look hard enough.

    Here's one: When Clarence Mitchell told the press of Gerry McCann's first 'phone call to his diplomat friend, Alistair Clark, he lied, but NOT in order to protect the McCanns, who will have been wholly indifferent to the diplomatic ETA.

    The diplomatic invasion of PdL was not spontaneous. Buck & co. were of course instructed to attend - by the Foreign Office.

    Unfortunately Buck was also discovered to have been in contact with the PJ directorate before any of the McCann circle back in the UK could have announced the abduction to the Foreign Office on behalf of the parents - So Mitchell invented the story of Gerry's very first 'phone call (which the Vodaphone records reveal was actually made to his wife!).

    This was a government appointee lying to 'cover up' impetuosity on the part of the FCO. Whether one considers such over exuberance to be the result of stupidity, or something else, is another matter entirely.

  15. @ Anonymous6 November 2016 at 13:48

    Now, now children..

    When someone starts a post in such terms the rest of the post is not worth bothering about so I read no further.

    Must try harder to learn how to enter into adult debate.

    1. What is a home without children? Quiet.

      Henny Youngman

    2. Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

    3. @Anonymous6 November 2016 at 16:11

      What is a home without children? Quiet.

      Henny Youngman

      Anonymous6 November 2016 at 17:11

      Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

      so clever - Ros will be lol-ing about your astute comments for weeks.

    4. Youngman would, were he alive.

  16. When will people learn...

    All this "we should have been told"...."We expect to be told".. and even more ridicously...."We DEMAND to be told" thought process by people on forums and blogs with regards to operation grange or anything higher up in the government is laughable. YOU will be Told only IF they want to tell you, and then you will only be told WHAT they want to tell you, and if they dont want to tell you anything then they wont..FULL STOP. Please stop holding your breath in expectation of an answer as personally I dot think you will ever get one. Look at 9/11, everyone knows its not what the official story is, and who the real probable culprits are,yet 15 years later, no justice for anyone.The same applies for the shooting of JFK, AND THATS OVER 50 YEARS AGO!!This case will stay as it is until the end of time when it has faded from memory and the last person has given up on poor MBM. Eventually we all have to move on...and as the rolling stones said..."You cant always get what you want" !!

    1. @ Anonymous6 November 2016 at 15:58

      Ah conspiracy and cover up is alive and kicking on Ros's blog - no change there then - as I said before:

      Ya can't beat a good "cover up" or "conspiracy" to hide behind when you have nothing relevant/factual to say.

      It is always so convoluted and intricate when in fact the real fact is - the Mccanns were not involved in what happened to Madeleine - apart form leaving her and the twins alone and unprotected - something they will regret for the rest of their lives.

    2.'re at risk of being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist', particularly by those who seem not to have noticed that such things as actually arise.

      If 9/11 was the result of 19 hi-jackers (several of whom appeared alive in different parts of the world afterwards) then Julius Caesar must just have chosen a bad day to go to the forum.

      The McCann case is a blatant example of subterfuge on a variety of levels. As you suggest, those concerned will feel they owe no debt of conscience to Joe Public whatsoever.

    3. Anonymous @ 16:20

      "in fact the real fact is - the Mccanns were not involved in what happened to Madeleine"

      And you know that for a 'real fact' because?

      Oh, I remember, "We played no part in the disappearance of our daughter Madeleine".

      Fine. Except Madeleine was most probably dead before she 'disappeared'.

      The McCanns' proclamation of their innocence only covers the disappearance.

  17. There are three snippets of relevant information from the "musings" of Ros posted on this blog (and in her replies to comments).

    1. Ros says: "Their greatest desire, an official Scotland Yard declaration of their innocence".
    Now every one knows that the Police do not ever declare innocence. It is a decision for a Court of law based on the evidence presented to it. See point 2.

    2. Ros says "the very simple (vexing) lack of that one vital piece of evidence that would bring about a prosecution.".
    Exactly - there is no evidence at present to prosecute anyone - but that does not stop Ros and other people declaring that the Mccanns are guilty of something not known.

    3. Ros says: "The British police however, seem to have backed themselves into a corner by declaring the McCanns and their friends NOT persons of interest"

    Now point 3 seems to contradict point 1 but it is the best that the Police can say. Ignore it - it doesn't fit the scheme of accusations does it?

    So without evidence how does Ros and the other internet sleuths, researchers, investigators, gossip makers, conspiracy and cover up theorists arrive at the answer that the Mccans are guilty? Do they really know more than 2 Police forces - is it really that simple that you read (part of) the released files and reach a decision.

    NO - it is because people made their mind up and try to fit the (lack of) evidence to fit their view because it is so hard to admit they are wrong. And of course - fall-back on cover up and conspiracy and gloat.

    1. “Do they really know more than 2 Police forces?”

      No, of course they don’t, but the McCanns do, apparently.

      “Mr and Mrs McCann said: The MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007.”

      But if they just perpetuate the obscurity, they cannot expect an improvement.

    2. Björn Sundberg/Sweden6 November 2016 at 20:27

      Re Anonymous November 2016 at 17:03

      No suspect can be declared innocent in court, but only guilty or not guilty (anyway in the Anglo-Saxon world). Not guilty does not mean innocent, it just means that the evidence, on which the prosecutor bases his/her case on, is considered unreliable, inadequate or insufficient.

      If this would not be the case, the concept not guilty could be substituted by the concept innocent, and used in the promulgation of judgment, but the words are not synonymous. So there is actually no ”innocence” in a legal procedure. Not guilty, just means that a person, who has been prosecuted cannot be found guilty within the boundaries of law.

      Consequently, those, who have been freed in court, are in a legal sense of course not guilty. Most of them are certainly also, in a moral sense, truly innocent, but a few are just “not guilty” like O.J Simpson, who was found “not guilty”.

      So if the McCanns should be tried in court, which I hope they will, they can only be declared guilty or not guilty. Nothing else. As soon as they end up in court and whatever the verdict will be, whether convicted or acquitted, the emotional extrajudicial epithet innocent will certainly not be attributed to them by so many. Possibly just “Not Guilty”, if they are “lucky”.

  18. Where is the child 17:03? and where is the abductor?

    In almost 10 years, no-one, not even the UK's finest spinmeisters and story tellers have been able to come up with an explanation for Madeleine's disappearance that rules the parents out.

    There was no sign of a break in, no sign of an abductor, apart from the Frankensteinesque creature described by Jane Tanner. He, however has long since been ruled out by the British police and the PJ were never taken in by it.

    The evidence of the British specialist dogs reveal that someone died in Apartment 5A and Madeleine has been missing ever since. Nearly 10 years on, those two facts put together lead to only one conclusion and that is without listing all the discrepancies and obvious lies.

  19. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 November 2016 at 18:02

    you have just repeated a stock answer that has been trotted out by anti Mccann posters for 9.5 years.

    The fact that the case is still being investigated by 2 Police forces seems to be beyond your comprehension. But worse - the fact that the case has not been solved yet does not mean you can bounce up and down pointing the finger at the Mccanns shouting "they did it".

    You do not know anything Ros. You are guessing.

    1. I study body language and human behaviour 18:21, I KNOW when someone is lying. The studying isn't necessary btw, thousands can spot it instinctively, and in the case of Gerry and Kate, thousands did.

      You may consider my reply to be a stock answer, but that's the way it often is with the bleeding obvious.

    2. Anonymous @18:21

      "The fact that the case is still being investigated by 2 Police forces seems to be beyond your comprehension."

      And beyond that of very many more.

      Presumably the two police forces you refer to are the skeleton staff left doing the filing at the Met. and the PJ liaison group which required re-opening of the Portuguese investigation to establish.

      As for 'investigation', if Operation Grange is to be considered a benchmark for how it should be done then we can forget all about the prosecution of anyone involved in serious crime in future.

    3. "I study body language and human behaviour 18:21, I KNOW when someone is lying. The studying isn't necessary btw, thousands can spot it instinctively, and in the case of Gerry and Kate, thousands did."

      Brilliant - what do we need a police force for, or lie detector tests. Just bring the suspects for any crime before Roz and, hey presto, the crime is solved with Roz's expert intuition and human behavioural skills.

  20. I asked a question, not a trick question and without any comment about the poster's views or personality. If people are inept buffoons then how come they managed an (unexposed) cover up?

    In this case I wasn't pursuing my well known anti-conspiracy views but simply asking how stupid people can execute what must be a very clever cover up.

    I was not answered. For my temerity in asking I was subjected to a wild and semi-insane piece of crankery.

    No thanks.

    1. It's not nice to be on the receiving end of 'wild and semi-insane crankery', is it? Any more than it is when the crankery is not semi-insane.

    2. My problem, Blacksmith and others, is that I believe in Gonçalo Amaral, so when GA firmly states that the Leicestershire Police Officers did not arrive in Portugal until Monday 7th May, I believe him.

      But when the Leicestershire Police (PJ files) confirm they met with the Macs in their apartment on Saturday 5th May, there is something badly wrong.

      Either GA is conspiring to deceive us all, or the Leicestershire Police were conspiring to operate unlawfully without authorisation or jurisdiction in a foreign land.
      Did the Leicestershire Police have Portuguese Officers with them at their Saturday meeting? Interpol Rules require they did, but they do not mention it, neither did the Macs.

      At this early stage the Leicestershire Police could not know whether the Macs were suspects or victims but met them without informing the PJ or agreeing a strategy.
      This would be a serious breach of Portuguese law.

      Are we to believe the Leicestershire Police just flew to Portugal on a whim, using their own money, or were they part of a high/low level conspiracy to deceive and mislead for whatever reason?

      There is never discussion over this just bluster and abuse, why is that?
      If one was paranoid, one could believe they may be a conspiracy, to prevent discussion on this interesting

      I am totally unaware of your 'well known 'anti-conspiracy views, you obviously believe you are a legend in your own mind, do you have the same medication as Bennett?

    3. JJ - Well spotted!

      If, as you say, Leicester plod were discussing matters with the McCanns in PdL on the Saturday, then whoever represented them there must have been instructed to travel within 24 hrs. of the balloon going up.

      I don't think the Needham's Constabulary members turned up in Kos until quite recently did they?

      Please see my post up-thread (6.11, 13:48) concerning CM and the tale of the diplomat. There is a resonance here as regards premature despatch.

    4. jj it is a very interesting point and very serious too I hope you continue with this discussion. It does certainly seem to be a topic that has been overlooked. I would also like to know a bit more about Fiona Payne and Rachael's oldfeilds criminal offence. Is this in relation to lying to the police regarding seeing Murat outside the apartment

    5. The arrival of Leicester Liaison Officers mid-morning on Saturday gave Madeleine's parents great comfort - the drama was still there but now they had someone who could liase with the local authorities and communicate information to them.



    7. Anon 7 Nov 13.24

      I am now away for a few days but on my return if Ros is agreeable i'll explain the FP&RO topic in detail.
      Ros now seems to have the only blog with an open mind and no agenda

    8. Thanks JJ I will look forward to that

  21. Björn Sundberg/Sweden7 November 2016 at 08:19

    to 6 Nov. 2016/19:01
    I wholly agree to what you say!

  22. Far from being “inept buffoons” they can execute a very clever cover up.

  23. Would Anonymous (@6.11, 11:52/14:31) or anyone else care to offer an adult explanation for the lies told by the parents and others in respect of events days prior to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

    What is the purpose of a 'time-line' commencing at 8:45 p.m. when the child was last seen safe and sound by her father half-an-hour later? The T9 didn't require an alibi, did they?

    1. I (someone else) can’t offer an explanation, but ROB stated it was his idea.

      “...Following Madeleine’s disappearance and subsequent search we had made a time line together this will show what time Gerry left the table...

      ...Clarified who made the time line handed to Portuguese officers - I had written it - both copies, in consultation with Dave and Gerry. It was written 02:00-03:00hours in Gerry’s room. It was my idea a form of gathering information and putting things in order. This was after the searches which were again conducted around 01:00-02:00hours. (page nine)

      Shown a typed time line typed on a lap top borrowed from female tennis coach Georgina, seven adults there when time line drawn up, then shown to the McCANNS afterwards for them to make any alterations or additions. Was written after the first weekend after Madeleine’s disappearance this was following David PAYNE’S suggestion. It was checked against initial draft, it was a group recollection and with the groups agreement. The document was typed on the laptop USB flash disk which was handed to the PJ when I went to complete my statement.”

  24. Two minds with but a single thought?

    Brandon Lewis MP, in reply to Scott Mann MP, dated 1 September:

    "The Government believes it is right that it does all it can to support the search for Madeleine McCann which is why the former Home Secretary asked the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to undertake a review of the case in May 2011. The Commissioner considered the request and made a decision to bring the Metropolitan Police's particular expertise to the case."

    John Smith, on behalf of the Home Office Direct Communications Unit, 6 October in reply to Jill Havern:

    "The Government believes it is right that it does all it can to support the search for Madeleine McCann which is why the former Home Secretary asked the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to undertake a review of the case in May 2011. The Commissioner considered the request and on balance took the operational decision to bring its particular expertise to the case. There are no plans to alter this arrangement and, as you will be aware, the Home Office has provided the MPS with the funding required for Operation Grange to continue until at least the end of this financial year"

    Make that THREE:

    Steve Rodhouse, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police SC&O12, Specialist Crime and Operations, New Scotland Yard, 3 November 2016, in reply to Jill Havern:

    “The Home Secretary asked the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service to undertake a review of the case in May 2011. The Commissioner considered the request and on balance took the operational decision to bring its particular expertise to the case. There are no plans to alter this arrangement and, as you will be aware, the Home Office has provided the MPS with the funding required for Operation Grange to continue until at least the end of this financial year"

    There has been a spate of e-mails over the past months purporting to be from Apple(i-tunes)and invoicing people for money, or HMRC, inviting people to enter their banking details so as to receive a refund (which of course never happens). These communications appear under the respective corporate headings and are clearly instances of attempted fraud.

    So how to describe three individuals who manage, under the auspices of three separate organisations, to say exactly the same thing, verbatim, in defence of Home Office procedure?

    Perhaps, and quite coincidentally, they all attended the same briefing.

    1. I think you would say a lot more if they had all given different answers.

      The truth really hurts some people if it doesn't fit with their conspiracy agenda.

      I am shocked that havern would receive any reply! She just wastes time on bennetts behalf.

    2. "I think you would say a lot more if they had all given different answers."

      It's not a question the same 'answer' but the verbatim use of the same words.

      "The truth really hurts some people if it doesn't fit with their conspiracy agenda."

      What 'truth' are you referring to?

      The truth here is that three different people from three separate organisations have used EXACTLY the same turn of phrase in correspondence on three different dates.

      Perhaps you might care to offer an explanation which doesn't entail unnecessary ad hominem attacks that are of no interest.

    3. @ Anonymous12 November 2016 at 10:03

      do you really think that the different organisations don't talk to each other and have a common response to the same question?

      Nothing sinister or strange in that whatsoever.

    4. "do you really think that the different organisations don't talk to each other and have a common response to the same question?"

      Of course they do. My point entirely. They each then go on to utilise exactly the same passage (as previously agreed or they'd use some other form of words) that instead of answering the question put to them merely states the obvious - a commonplace in politics.

      In this instance an MP, a Civil Servant and a Police rep. have clearly all been given the same template. I wonder which of these bodies took the lead and actually authored it?

  25. As for Scotland Yard’s review of the case Sir Paul Stephenson said the final report would not be published.

    Why not, I wonder.

    1. Björn Sundberg/Sweden13 November 2016 at 10:46

      with reference to Anonymous 12 Nov. 2016 10.32

      I quote /Express May 24. 2011/, regarding Sir Paul Stephenson’s announcement about what the Met’s mission was all about, and that was to investigate what the Portuguese P J had already investigated, and as you say, they would not publish a final report.

      ”It is being led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of the Met's Homicide and Serious Crime Command. Sir Paul said the final report would not be published”

      So already then, the S Y must have known, that they were not going to solve this crime case, but that they would just make a review of the P J files, to see whether the Portuguese detectives had made any mistakes.

      Now after five years, just as they expected, they haven’t found any new evidence or unforeseen circumstances, that the P J may have overlooked, before the case was shelved in 2008. Neither have the Operation Grange found any other suspects among all the people of interest, who have earlier been questioned by the Portuguese investigators. So, no point in publishing a “new” final report, as there are two very good final reports published by the Portuguese authorities in 2008. One, in which the Portuguese P J (the qualified investigative detectives) conclude, that the McCanns staged an abduction and then disposed of Madeleine’s body and the other, published by the Portuguese Public Prosecutor, in which two prosecutors (just as qualified as the mentioned police detectives) clearly state, regarding Madeleine’s fate, that they cannot conclude, “whether killed in a neglect homicide, (the McCanns’being guilty) or the victim of a targeted abduction (the McCanns being innocent), (ref. P J files Processo 17 pages 4592-4649). In plain English; it is just as likely that the McCanns are guilty as they are innocent. So if the McCanns, then, would have been prosecuted, the verdict could either have been guilty or not guilty, but they were certainly not exonerated. Just not prosecuted.

      In the absence of any final report by the S Y (Operation Grange), these two reports, which I refer to, should now be published by the MSM, showing the general public, that there are no more suspects and no more evidence, than what was found in the years between 2007/2008. Such claims can only be discounted by the S Y, if they could show all the sceptic people around the world, that they have found something, that was not known by the Portuguese authorities in 2008. I doubt they have.

  26. £12 million buys a review and investigation of 'abduction'. A report the public would accept comes extra (a few million more for the additional brain ache involved in confirming the highly unlikely).

  27. Gerry referred to the death of Mr Cameron’s son.

    Speaking at the launch of Kate's new book about the family's ordeal, Gerry referred to the death of Mr Cameron’s severely disabled six-year-old son Ivan two years ago.

    He said: "Of course he’s suffered his own loss, and I’m sure he is a loving father, so he will understand what we’ve gone through.”


    The same Gerry McCann said: “We urge you to remember Madeleine as a real, living and findable little girl.”

    1. 'Loss' indeed.

      If I'm not mistaken, mention was made of 'grief' fairly early on also.

    2. Yes, 10 June 2007

      "it's time to grieve"

  28. I can't wait for the time when Kate and Gerry have a massive marriage breakdown, because IMO Gerry talked Kate into covering it up,this must be massive pressure on Kate's shoulders,and it's only a matter of time before the old boiler goes boom! The fan will be under tons of shit

  29. "IMO Gerry talked Kate into covering it up..."

    After someone else had talked Gerry into doing so, IMO.

    "Everyone is acting" - G. McCann.

    Actors act. They are not usually playwrights.

  30. @01:09
    "this must be massive pressure on Kate’s shoulders”

    That depends on whose action it was that caused M's death, IMO.

    “After someone else had talked Gerry into doing so, IMO”

    Deleted text messages spring to mind.

    1. @14:19
      "Deleted text messages spring to mind."


      And should it be acceptable to suggest that the fix was in 24 hrs. ahead of time, it is then no less reasonable to suppose the game was afoot even earlier. Decisions must precede instructions after all.

      On the latest (JJ) thread the question seems to be why FP, JT etc. were kow-towing to the McCanns. Perhaps all of them were saluting another's flag.

    2. @17:21

      It's worth pondering.

  31. Hi Rosalinda, I enjoy your articles but I have to object when you say the Queen is aloof. It's a majority of politicians that are aloof treating us like fools.HM who I've actually met and talked to comes across as very sincere, well informed and takes an interest in people's lives and the issues faced. As you might have guessed I am a Royalists but I have no problems with people's opposite views on the Monarchy just the assumption's.