Sunday 30 April 2017



Once again, The Sun wades in with another 'McCanns are Innocent Gettit!' article courtesy of Lauren Freun, who appears to know nothing about this case, writing copy for people who know even less 

The Woman in Purple is well known in the McCann cannon and generally thought to be Jane Tanner.  She is mentioned in the statements of both Jenny Murat and Jez Wilkins.  Many think she was acting as a lookout. There is no mention of a uniform (watch out PDL nannies - you're next), but Ms. Freun has, with the assistance of forensic psychologist Mike Berry evolved this 10 year old sighting (and new lead for Scotland Yard) into a predatory woman who disguises herself as a nurse/nanny in order to steal or sexually abuse small children.  The socially inferior, nurses, nannies, etc, are invisible to regular people Mike Berry informs us, to explain the fact that SHE has not had a mention in ten years.  Charming. 

I have just watched the Mark Rowley's interview/statement, and I have to say I am feeling almost as deflated as Bjorn.   Mark Rowley is a difficult one for my mentalist (lol) abilities.  He is of course everything you would expect from a high ranking police officer, confident, no nonsense, and authoritative.  Senior police officers are devoid of character and personality, they can't throw in the odd gag here and there or wear a jaunty hat. 

He says leadS and lineS - the 's' on the end makes all the difference.  And they are not new ones.  He also kindly explains to those of us rolling on the floor laughing at the 'burglars' theory, that it is actually quite sensible and we need to cut it out.  His eagerness to stress the world 'abduction' troubles me.  '......she didn't go off to start a new life' (bizarre).  If she died in the apartment, the word 'abduction' isn't applicable.  

The word abduction however, is a valuable commodity.  It increases police funding and has led to all sorts of crisis management and PR industries.  The idea that victims of crime and suspects, should launch publicity campaigns is, perhaps, the new way forward.  Keeping the abduction theory (and Madeleine) alive may still have a lot of mileage left, which is why this interview left me somewhat chilled.   

Anyway, in case Ziggy and his equally dim sidekicks fail to pick out the key statements, (and they already have), let me assist.  'There is no definitive evidence' - repeated several times by MR and almost as good as Gerry's 'nooooo evidence' which really does need replacing.  In a nutshell, Madeleine could be alive and he rules the parents out.  'All that was dealt with by the original investigation and no need to re-open'.  And 'the McCanns are parents of a missing girl'. 'The evidence gathered by the original investigation is concluded' - they are not going over it.   Actually, scrap that one, because they are obviously not challenging it either. 

Each statement however, probably deliberately, is open to several interpretations.  Given that the parents blame the Portuguese police for their botched investigation, MR has just effectively said, 'it was OK, nothing to challenge there'.  As we know, that original investigation included the findings of the dogs, all the original statements and the naming of Robert Murat and Gerry McCann as the only Arguidos.  MR has stated that there is no reason to go over the original investigation.  At this point I would imagine, the McCanns would like to hear there is EVERY reason to go over the original investigation,  because as pointed out recently by the Portuguese Supreme Court, the original investigation did NOT clear them. 

Despite everything Mark Rowley said in this interview, he did not say the PJ got it wrong.   And he needed to, because without making that clear, we can only assume Operation Grange picked up where the interrupted investigation left off.  He did say however, that they had a huge response to their 4 Crimewatch programs, and among the thousands of leads were a few nuggets.  Nugget is a great word, it has all sorts of connotations, but for those who are the subject of those critical leads, I doubt they are good ones. 

I think this case is now heading towards conclusion, but as wizened as I am, I still couldn't say with 100% certainty, that truth will ever be the victor here.  There seems to be an active campaign by the Media to convince the public that the McCanns are innocent,  The stories are too screwball to be anything other than fabrication.  This week we have Nanny McPhee's evil twin prowling the Algarve unseen, a man with BO climbing into bed with little British girls and burglars who forgot what they broke in for.  I'm amazed PDL hasn't been renamed 'The Village of the Damned'.   

Mark Rowley's support for Kate and Gerry I think, was one in the eye to the eejits out there doing their own investigations, and to people like myself who have the affront to question the word of The Sun.  He's too scary a fellow to question whether he is lying or not, I'm guessing not, simply by comparing his confidence to the McCanns' timidity.  But his words are carefully chosen, they are intended to stamp down on speculation, especially from the media, who are publishing Madeleine stories daily

The words of Mark Rowley don't fit my own theory that the McCanns are not co-operating.  Ouch.  But I'm not ready to abandon it yet.  'We are not following that line of enquiry' is not the same as 'we have ruled the parents out' and those are the words Gerry and Kate are longing to hear.  In 6 years, OG have never given any reasons to explain why the parents and the group closest to Madeleine have been ruled out.  Eg. Their statements match, they have passed polygraphs, the findings of the dogs were a grave error.  Any of which could have relieved much of the parents' suffering, and indeed may have assisted them in their claims for damages in Lisbon.

On the face of it, it appears that Scotland Yard have just given Gerry and Kate a huge vote of support, but on closer examination, like everything else in this case, nothing is quite what it seems. 


 I have just watched Gerry and Kate's 10th Anniversary interview with Fiona Bruce, and it made somewhat uncomfortable viewing.  Had the interviewees been wired up to a lie detector, it would have flown off the scale several times.  But kudos to them, I may not find them likeable, but no-one can question their courage. 
As sympathetic as Fiona was, she did not avoid questions about their massive loss in Portugal's highest court, or the one significant lead remaining.  Gerry fluffs his reply, but it becomes clear that he and Kate are not privy to details of the investigation.  Some might say, quite rightly of course, but these are parents who have been living on a knife's edge for 10 years, leaving victims out of the loop seems incredibly cruel.  Imagine for example, the parents of a murdered child having to rely on public announcements from the police for updates, to put this into perspective.
These are instances where a lie detector would have peaked btw, but all 3 managed to downplay their significance and focus on the important matters, such as internet trolls.  Gerry was at least honest in acknowledging that the subject matter of Goncalo Amaral's book is no longer relevant.  GA only suggested Madeleine was dead, Scotland Yard dug up PDL. 
But this was not a bad interview from Gerry and Kate's perspective.  I think for the first time, we saw moments of real honesty, and for a while there, Kate seemed positively relaxed.  Sheer speculation here, but I imagine they are buoyed by the words of Mark Rowley this week, Gerry was itching to get them in, together with his usual mantras of no evidence and he and his wife are not suspects. 
What I picked up on was their eagerness to convince Fiona and the viewers that Madeleine was still alive.  Gerry, like Kate in her annual message, acknowledged that they were not making an appeal, but they still had hope.  They were back on safe ground while talking about children who had been rescued and found.  Gerry had tried and trusted lines on that score, such as, 'the younger the child the more chance of finding them alive', as he casually dismisses the findings of South Yorkshire Police in the case of Ben Needham.  Whatever are you suggesting Gerry?
I tend to think Gerry and Kate are odds with Scotland Yard.  Most notably on the alive or dead question.  It brings to mind the words of DCI Redwood, that I found somewhat ridiculous at the time.  It was something along the lines of following two theories, Madeleine is alive, or Madeleine is dead.  I can't find the exact words at the moment, but I feel they are relevant.
Gerry and Kate cannot or will not, accept that their daughter is dead.  Ten years on, that is weird, there I've said it.  Not only is it weird for them, but also for Fiona Bruce, the BBC - and everyone else looking forward to increased newspaper etc sales who are sharing the delusions.  'Do you still buy birthday and Christmas presents for Madeleine?', Fiona asks (I'm not  yet sure if Fiona is syrupy sweet or deadly and dangerous) but 'yes of course' Kate replies, as if it is all perfectly normal and not in the least bit creepy. 
There is so much news on the Madeleine case at the moment, that I can't comment on every piece of fake stuff, but Nick Pisa of the Sun deserves a special mention.  Goncalo Amaral is not shameless - he has nothing to be shameless about.  He is the Victor of 8 years of legal battles, he has been completely vindicated, his reputation is restored.  He is not disgraced you imbecile, he is the opposite of disgraced - the highest court in the land have ruled in his favour!   As for cashing in the 10th Anniversary, let me remind you Nick Pisa, that it was Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesman who was pitching 10 year exclusives over 6 months ago! 
Ps.  is comic sans easier on the eye?

Saturday 29 April 2017


I see Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan are back in the Sun today, giving the abduction fable everything they've got and trying their hardest to steer public sympathy back in the direction of Gerry and Kate McCann.

In their lengthy article for The Sun - I expect the hard copy is 'pull out' - they go back to all the old theories and suspects who were ruled out in 2007, and at least once a year ever since.  The article has been so carefully worded it reads like the work of a competent student reporter taking Year One exams.

Summers and Swan then return to their pet subject.  The McCanns' online attackers, just as they did in 2014 when they released their book 'Looking for Madeleine'.  The launch of their book signalled the 'fight back' from the McCanns with Gerry demanding that an example be made and Jim Gamble warning online trolls they would end up in the dock.  Jim Gamble also gets an honourable mention in the Summers and Swan article, if only Theresa May had taken up his advice.... 

Unfortunately, their ill advised 'fight back' did not turn out well.  The innocent woman they selected as a target was devastated by the public humiliation, as anyone would be.  We were all witness to one of the cruellest publicity stunts ever broadcast by a national news agency.  The public recoiled in horror.  Had Brenda Leyland lived long enough, she would have seen the support that poured in for her and the way in which this particularly vindictive style of journalism spectacularly backfired.

But returning to Jim.  His advice was to create 'a national command and control room you could contact 24/7 whether your child went missing in Birmingham, Belfast or Barcelona'.  Two questions here.  What could a national command room do, that local police (who know the area) couldn't?  And given that only two British children have disappeared overseas in 3 decades, where is the need for a 24/7 instant response team?  His idea was never taken up, but at least he has the comfort of knowing that his Madeleine report sparked off the Review that sparked off the Investigation.

The chances are both these children died in tragic accidents. Madeleine's case has been investigated for ten years and no arrests have been made.  Had there been a paedophile gang or human traffickers arrests would have been made years ago.  I don't believe any police officer could sleep at night knowing that children were being traded and tortured or sexually assaulted. 

That is why I do not believe for one moment the nonsense that little British girls were being sexually assaulted in the Algarve for years.  Summers and Swan however, are throwing their full might behind it with mind blowing sex crime statistics (against Brits) on the Algarve that nobody has ever heard about, not even the local citizens and ex pats. My questions here would be, in 2007 with the world's media, top crime and investigative journalists, camped out in PDL, how come not one of them came across this story? And why only British girls? This unknown crime wave in the Algarve does however slot in nicely with last week's anonymous nanny and the rape alarms. 

Bizarrely, Summers and Swan are still throwing their full might behind Jane Tanner's sighting.  They acknowledge that SY ruled Jane's sighting to be a father carrying his child home from the crèche.  But there may have been two men carrying children they suggest.  Try not to laugh, I couldn't help it.  Yes, another man, clearly not Gerry, walked by and given his shapeshifting abilities they are determined to hang onto him.  [who says G&K are co-operating with OG?]

But let's look at the bigger picture.  What are the common denominators:
The McCanns, The Sun, Summers and Swan, Jim Gamble.  All that is missing is Sky News and Martin Brunt and the troll hunters are reunited!

Wednesday 26 April 2017


2015 - when the future was brighter
I agree with you John, there is something in the air.  I doubt Gerry and Kate can take much comfort from the words of Mark Rowley.  While on the face of it, he appears sympathetic to the parents, the ruling out of the Portuguese suspects to focus on one significant lead that might lead to a result, does not bode well for the actual perpetrators of the crime. 
For the real perpetrators of this crime, the words 'one significant lead left' must be ominous.  They now know the police are not looking for anyone else - they are closing in. 

But lets ignore for one moment, all the news stories and hullaballoo and look again at the odd behaviour of the McCanns. Historically, they have used almost every anniversary as an opportunity to raise awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance by doing the media rounds and the interviews.  Especially in the early years when they were releasing balloons and lanterns and holding fundraisers at Kensington roof top gardens. Anniversaries were a huge part of the Team McCann campaign - Gerry wanted an annual Madeleine Day for the World marked by concerts and sports events.  Presumably all the former anniversaries were equally unwelcome, so the message on their facebook page is a complete about turn.
Why so low profile on the biggest anniversary yet?  Only a few months ago, Clarence Mitchell was pitching 10th anniversary exclusives.  As I have said previously, he had an uphill battle there unless the McCanns were prepared to say anything new. Although the narrative has changed, every so slightly. The new buzz word is ‘hope’ - loose interpretation, 'we do not accept what we have been told'. That there is no plea from Kate to the abductor or her daughter, is not unusual, but she hides it under the guise of ‘there is no plea from Scotland Yard’. 
At around the same time Gerry and Kate told the world, for some bizarre reason, that they were moving the Fund money around in preparation for continuing the Search themselves once Scotland Yard gave up closed.  Cynics might say they were moving the money in preparation for their forthcoming loss in the Lisbon Civil Courts.  Regardless, they were planning to pick up where they left off when Scotland Yard intervened. 
However, the idea that Madeleine is still alive, has, it would appear, been completely quashed.  Whilst that doesn’t rule out abduction.   ‘If the world believes Madeleine is dead, no-one will look for her’ (Kate) has been the premise of every battle the McCanns have fought.  Completely understandable, but begs the question, why didn’t the parents co-operate with the police so they could be ruled out?  At the time they were made suspects, they had the full backing of the great British Empire behind them.  No-one was going to beat a confession out of them and with the eyes of the world watching they were not going to be framed.  Had they allowed themselves to be ruled out, the police could have concentrated on the abductor and we wouldn't all be here 10 years on.    
The search for a live Madeleine has sustained their Campaign, their Fund and their reputations. Madeleine being officially acknowledged as dead, is probably the stuff of their worst nightmares.  Fortunately, they found a reporter on the other side of the world, willing to remind us of the names and faces of kids who have been rescued from captivity. As if being held in a dungeon and tortured for 10 years was a desirable option for a missing 3 year old.   Why are they pushing the idea that Madeleine is alive in Australia?  Why not here in the UK, or even in Portugal?
In the past Gerry and Kate never missed an opportunity to give an interview or appear on television.  Doing 'media' was their thing because they had a product to sell - or if that is too unkind, they had a cause.  They were forced into the limelight by their predicament, they did not seek fame and fortune for themselves.  I have to say at this point, as I watched Gerry and Kate surrounded by paparazzi in those very early days, I could see them becoming hooked.  The force is strong is some people, lol.  What I am trying to say, badly, is that the parents had morally sound reasons to stay in front of the cameras and pose for photoshoots rather than the usual fame and fortune.  They are among the noble heroes and heroines of real life who make up large segments of morning television.  No 'You must love me' narcissism there. 
This anniversary has taken an unexpected turn, the formerly eager parents now see the date as too painful a reminder of their loss.  So what has changed from a few months ago, when Clarence was pitching exclusives?  Several options: 1) there were no offers 2) interviewers would not accept their terms 3) they can no longer say Madeleine is alive and findable.  I lean towards option 3) because it is the myth that Madeleine is alive that has kept them afloat this past ten years. 
It may be that Scotland Yard are shortly to release a statement, Mark Rowley has already released a titbit - they have one significant lead left.  I feel if Gerry and Kate were confident the 'one significant lead' wasn't them, they would be appearing on all the breakfast shows and in the Sunday supplements - if they still exist.  Kate's message this year is a sorrowful one, filled with negativity - it sounds as though she and Gerry are bracing themselves for a media onslaught, preparing for the worst and battening down the hatches.  Scotland Yard have one significant lead left, but at this especially painful time, they haven't offered the McCanns any assurances.  If they had, now would be a good time to get that message out there.  Can they tell Lorraine that Scotland Yard are keeping them informed and they hope this final lead will produce a result? 
Scotland Yard may well be playing cat and mouse with their suspects, it is a device used both in literature and in real life.  Some might think that is unnecessarily cruel, but Gerry and Kate are clearly sticking by their original story - to the letter.  They are never going to admit that Madeleine was not abducted.  If they are ever prosecuted, the police will have to prove their case every step of the way, they are up against formidable opponents and the best lawyers money can buy.
I hope the press pay heed to Kate's words, that is, I hope they will be careful in the way they report this case, bearing in mind the number of real lives that will be affected.  I can't however, feel too sorry for Kate.  It has been 10 years - has she learned nothing? Especially from all the charity work she has been involved with.  Does she not have a list of what she, and Missing People have achieved?  We always hear about the funds being raised, but not very much about what is done with them.
Her annual message is again filled with whining about the way in which her, and her family life has been affected.  Again she speaks of her own suffering, while failing to mention Madeleine's.  Kate complains about her own 'stolen time', oblivious to the fact that her small daughter lost her entire life.   For those who wonder why people don't take to Kate, the clues are all there. 

Monday 24 April 2017



Finally, some news we can make sense of, thank you Martin Brunt.

So the only 4 suspects (non British) investigated by Operation Grange have been ruled out.  Though, quite why Portuguese suspects were being investigated by OG remains weird.  Scotland Yard do however, have one significant lead left according to Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley.  However, just as I was starting to warm to him, he explained how it is quite sensible to assume Madeleine may have been taken by burglars. 

The article is padded out with the history of Operation Grange, but then we get possibly the most interesting quote, interesting because it comes directly from the deputy national director of the Policia Judiciaria Pedro do Carmo, who confirms the Portuguese and British investigations are not dependent on each other, he is under no financial or political pressure to wind his investigation up and if the Metropolitan police close their investigation, it doesn't mean they will close theirs.  I have to say, if I were a suspect in this case, I would be very worried indeed.

I have just watched the Australian made Madeleine Gone documentary made by Rahni Sadler, a journalist on the other side of the world who believes so implicitly in the innocence of the professional middle class doctors (PLU) that she has made a 10 year documentary to get them back up on their pedestal and their critics in the dock.  Beginning with Chief Conspirator Goncalo Amaral.  In her little madam bitch voice, she describes the former lead detective of the Portuguese investigation as a conspiracy theorist! 

I don't blame Pat Brown one bit for being irate about the way in which she has been edited and portrayed.   And I would imagine Professor David Barclay has a good case too.  This eminent, highly respected forensic scientist has been cut and edited to make him the expert opinion on the unreliability of cadaver dogs. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, because if he has agreed to dismiss the dogs evidence, for another reason, then any respect I had for him is gone. 

The snidey Rahni Sadler has clearly twisted everyone's words in this documentary. The cloying sentimentality and supposed 'bafflement' from those too cowardly to say what they really think, is merely an updated version of Emma Loach's 'look at how innocent we are' documentary. 

The documentary ends with all the experts saying it is unlikely the mystery will ever be solved.  Though Rahni does try to imply that one or more, random predators were preying on young British girls in the PDL area between 2005 and 10. Which does of course beg the question, why have the Portuguese and British Police never followed this up, or indeed allowed it to continue?  Why have the people of PDL never been told of this threat within their midst?  Or is the threat restricted to British Citizens only - who were also not given any warnings? The explosive claims [this week] (anonymous) that the  nannies were given rape alarms and told not to go outside is unsupported by, err, anyone, but she has brought this in to support the idea that  PDL is some sort of lawless haven for criminals and perverts. 

I doubt any of the participants of Kate and Gerry's latest showcase by a devoted fan, had any idea just how unscrupulously Rahni Sadler was prepared to cut and edit their words to fit any deal she may have made with creepy Clarence.  He put out his call for 10 year exclusives last year whilst in Australia, what's to say, Rahni didn't give him a call?  They have carefully selected those to interview, probably based on their pro or anti McCann stance.  Paul Luckman as usual, has taken on the role of the kindly patriarch, the voice of reason, carefully choosing his words to appease everyone while dripping sympathy and compassion for the parents. 

Most of the documentary however is taken up with Mr and Mrs McCann at their nicest, explaining how unfair everyone has been to them, and their delusional ideas of a happy reunion.  Those who do not believe them are conspiracy theorists, including the police it would seem.  Professor Barclay (why, why, why) assists with other innocent explanations for Madeleine's disappearance.  She may have woken up and wondered, been hit by drunk driver, a good reason for her body being removed. Ok PrB, but how do you explain the window? Oh yeh, you did, an intruder will often find an escape route once they have broken in, ie. open w.  He skips the part where the only fingerprints on the window were Kate McCanns.  PrB is not actually giving very much (that makes sense) away, which is I am presuming he has been badly edited. 

Colin Sutton doesn't have much to say, or he robably did, but only a few of his statements were cherry picked to fit the narrative.  He follows Professor Barclay, who has just spoken about abduction scenarios and paedophiles in the area, discussing places in which to hide a body.   Clumsy but effective.

Kudos to Pat Brown for remaining so calm with Rahni, I would have ripped to her shreds for the patronising alone.  She asks Goncalo Amaral about MI5 and the British, Government helping to hide the body.  He replies 'I can't answer that', but she goes with it anyway, calling them 'GA's preposterous theories', even though they were clearly her's.  You should get a class action going there Pat! 

Saturday 22 April 2017


Once again the Daily Mirror lays the blame for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, firmly on the shoulders of the Portuguese detective who led the initial  police investigation. 

This week's vitriolic piece comes from Martin Fricker, who desperately attempts to paint a portrait of a broken man, a down and out, ostracised from society, who still remains defiantly unrepentant.  Wishful thinking and projection on MF's part methinks, Goncalo Amaral is the victor of one of the lengthiest and most malicious misuse of libel law, the world has ever seen.  Far from being a shadow of himself, he has shed the unhealthy pounds and is looking much fitter and far more dapper than he did 10 years ago.  He has emerged as the winner, he can hold his head high. 

The bitchiness of MF's article is not worthy of a mainstream journalist and explains why nobody wants to buy their grubby tabloids anymore. But let's expose MF's article for the nasty little piece that it is.

What does Goncalo Amaral have to be repentant about Martin?  He is not personally responsible for Madeleine's disappearance no matter how you twist it.  That chain of tragic events began with Gerry and Kate's decision to go out to dinner and leave their 3 toddlers alone in the holiday apartment.  Let that sink in.  Goncalo Amaral and his team of detectives worked around the clock searching for Madeleine, which is why they looked tired and dishevelled.  I expect all those out there trekking over the wastelands and physically turning over every stone, looked much the same.

The McCanns by contrast, always looked shower fresh, rested and neatly attired, does that make them better people?  The allegations that he regularly worked 4.5 hours in the early days and took 3 hour lunches is pure spite.  Using the same techniques as the McCanns themselves, he attacks the former detective personally.  And he cites the case of murdered child Joana Cipriano as 'evidence' of GA's past incompetence.  MF clearly knows nothing about the case of Joana Cipriano, or the short tragic life she had. He uses one of the world's most evil killers, Leonora Cipriono as an example of police brutality, despite the fact that Leonora had 8 months added to her sentence for lying about her allegations against the police. 

'He [Goncalo] cruelly (note the emotive adjective) said he had no sympathy for the McCanns....'.   drum roll.....   well good heavens Martin, why on earth would be have sympathy for the parents?  They have spent 9+ years (and millions) on a vendetta to destroy his life and make him feel misery and fear.  You want him to apologise to them for not handing over his family home, life savings and all his future earnings to Gerry and Kate?  Just how far in on that 'misery and fear' contract are you Martin?

You state Goncalo Amaral should apologise for the mistakes that were made in the early stages of the investigation.  The most significant of those of course, was the trashing of the crime scene.  But the police weren't responsible for that were they Martin?  It was the McCanns and their party, who declared the crime of abduction had taken place and in the circumstances, it is remarkable that none of the 6 doctors thought to protect any traces or fingerprints the abductor may have left.  Presumably, during their extensive training as doctors, they would have touched on forensics.

Let's be realistic here.  When a child goes missing, the first police on the scene do not automatically presume stranger abduction.  It would be like a doctor going to the worst prognosis possible, without mentioning any of the options or stages.  It just doesn't happen because abduction is so rare. 

The idea that roadblocks should be set up and borders and airports locked down every time a child disappears is ludicrous.  Can you imagine the chaos this would cause?  The majority of children turn up.  And apart from that, I doubt any of us could name a single case of a child being stolen from their bed and immediately taken out of the country.  In the very, very rare cases of child stranger abduction, their bodies are found nearby, and that of course is where all the searches should have been concentrated.  Why were the McCanns so determined to make the case international? 

The McCanns waited a year after the release of Goncalo Amaral's book to sue him, enough time for the royalties to accumulate some might say.  But their campaign to destroy his life and career had begun much earlier than that.  Goncalo had no option but to record his side of the events that occurred in the summer of 2007.  His reputation was at stake. 

And finally Martin Fricker finishes off his little hatchet job with a sneering reference to Goncalo Amaral (the detective who stood up for the truth) being so broke that he had to rely on £50k in donations to defend himself, some it coming from anti-McCann trolls.  Shame he didn't mention the £1k given by an anonymous group of Metropolitan police officers. 

MF fails to mention that when Gerry and Kate were totting up how much to demand in damages from Goncalo, that they had all his assets frozen, including his family's home or that they destroyed any employment he undertook.  The parents wanted £1.25million in damages.  £250,000 each, their lawyer told us, 'and they are 5'.  Yes, they wanted a quarter of a million for their missing child too.  That is they wanted to make the wife and children of the former detective homeless, in order to compensate a child who hasn't been seen in 10 years.  As for the last little jibe, Goncalo is set to sue  the parents.  Says who Martin? And will they have anything left when the final (probably record) costs of their malicious vendetta are revealed?

The sheer vindictiveness of the McCann's legal actions and articles such as this one, should make all those involved hang their heads in shame.  Martin Fricker's article could not be more biased and distorted, and for what purpose?  Goncalo Amaral has not worked on the investigation for over 9 years, why is he the enemy? Surely the anger and rage of Gerry, Kate and Martin Fricker, would be better directed at the 'abductor'!  And perhaps a little at themselves for being stupid enough to believe that babies and toddlers can be left unsupervised. 

Tuesday 18 April 2017


UPDATE 21.04.17

A sensible news article from Algarve Daily News:


Doh!  Not even a week can go by without the McCann, via a police insider, a family spokesman, and an anonymous former nanny from Warners, bringing us another story about Kate and Gerry's pain, the incompetence of the Portuguese police, the evil machinations of Goncalo Amaral, and the parents' less than gushing satisfaction with the progress of Scotland Yard. 

The Mirror, via Matthew Young, were contacted (out of the blue?) by one of the nannies who occasionally had care of Madeleine while the McCanns were holidaying in PDL.  This nanny, who the Mirror decided not to name, let's call her Nanny C, is still outraged at the response of the local police - the results she says, were catastrophic.  Like, Kate, Gerry and all their supporters, Nanny C, places no blame whatsoever on the Perfect Family.  There was no policeman there to tell them not to trample all over the crime scene, and they, who were searching were children (well, teenagers).  Where were the specially trained police? How about the 6 trained (adult) doctors trampling the apartment Nanny C? Maybe one or two of them could have directed you kids?   

Nanny C then claims 2 pages of her original statement have mysteriously vanished - as though the PJ have nobbled her evidence, though heaven knows why they would want to.  She claims 'whole chunks of information' were missing. Well, err, they are not missing, they are still in your head, you just have to write them down again.  And if they change the entire course of  the investigation, why have you kept quiet for 10 years?  Nanny C pretty much blames the Portuguese police for everything, as if she were trying to reinforce those original key stone cops allegations that worked so well in the beginning.   

She then throws into the mix the idea that PDL was/is a dangerous area, the nannies were given rape whistles and told not to venture outside the resort alone. 'It immerged in 2014, that 11 years earlier.....', lol, ie. 14 years earlier (?) a 10 year old British girl was sexually assaulted and there are been a spate of assaults on English girls between 2005/6.  She then has a little dig at the people of PDL, saying she didn't feel they were wanted there.

That final little spiteful dig, does, I'm afraid, sound like pure Kate.  I guess that's what happens when you write a book, the reader can pick up on your little quirks and foibles, then recognise them when they are used elsewhere.  We all remember 2007 Nanny C, and we remember how our prayers, thoughts and wishes were with the searchers, the people of PDL who spent their days and nights scouring the area for the McCann's daughter.  They cannot be blamed for not finding her, unlike the parents and their huge entourage, at least they looked. 

The Mail has added an additional twist of the knife into Goncalo Amaral's back.  'The Portuguese detective who led the search for Madeleine has promised to 'clean out' her grief-stricken parents by suing them for damaging his reputation'.  No sources for that quote, nor evidence to back it up. I actually hope GA sues the Daily Mail for making up stuff they would like him to say, but probably didn't, so their readers hate him. 

Naturally, this new nanny coming forward has led to other tabloids using the opportunity to tell us yet again of the parents' agony at the hands of the former detective. Perhaps the horror of the almighty legal debt they face will be revealed on the 10th Anniversary.  In which case, whoever gets that scoop, good luck to them.  

However, I will say this once more, with as much patience as I can muster, the McCanns were, are, and always have been, the aggressors with their legal actions against Goncalo Amaral.  They wanted to silence him and they wanted all his money.  They lost.  If they are victims, they are victims of their own greed. 

Saturday 15 April 2017


Apologies to my regular readers for my absence.  I have reached a bit of a watershed with the case of missing Madeleine McCann. I have solved the case to my own satisfaction - that is, enough to quell that gnawing curiosity that drove me at the beginning.  No, I do not have enough to prove it, but if and when Operation Grange produce results, I will know if they followed the right tracks or are selling us a load of old baloney. 

At the moment, there is no point in protesting - what are we protesting about? And there is no point in screaming cover up, because we just don't know that (yet).  Meanwhile, the perpetual tweets, and the  recycling of stories that never worked first time round are just insulting by the 20th.  In all honesty, I am tired of arguing the same points, over and over.  We have all tried, every which way but loose, to rule the parents out of Madeleine's disappearance.  Some of us, simply because we do not want to lose that much faith in human nature.  Many of my readers, I think, have much the same philosophy as myself, that is, their need to solve the puzzle is far greater than any need for retribution. We still trust that justice will be achieved through the due judicial process, that is those responsible for the crimes herein, will stand trial. 

Those Online Trolls and Exposing the Myths 

Whilst it is inevitable that the parents of Madeleine will be judged in the Court of public opinion (you cannot legislate against human nature), it is morally wrong to interfere in the police investigation, and absolutely despicable to put suspects and witnesses on trial by social media.  Some who have followed this case, have taken their 'hobby' way too far, in that they have they conducted their very own public 'investigation' and by investigation, I mean stalking and harassing witnesses, then finding them guilty in their kangaroo courts.  They are nothing more than online vigilantes, people like Richard Hall and Tony Bennett cash in on angry mobs, they can jostle themselves into leadership roles without anyone questioning their  own credibility or agendas.  That they too do not believe the abduction story is enough.  That RH's other hobby is aliens and TB is a homophobic, right wing loon and creationist, matters not, they have filled the gap created by the MSM's failure to report the disappearance of Madeleine truthfully. 
Discussing the case of missing Madeleine online became, arguably, the first and most prominent social media PR war.  Battle lines were drawn from the off, social media sites and discussion groups were flooded with 'parents supporters', that is, very aggressive trolls who's clear purpose was to disrupt discussion and issue threats and warnings if anyone criticised the McCanns.  We now know, via Michael Wright in the witness box, that Team McCann did indeed establish a media monitoring unit from the off.  These trolls collected the names and comments of the McCann critics on their website 'Exposing the Myths', along with abusive photoshopped images of their victims and their families.  Their main threat to those questioning the McCanns, was public exposure as an 'online hater', with your employers, your neighbours, friends family etc, being informed of your internet behaviour.  Pretty much a summation of Jim Gamble's rhetoric when he stated critics of the McCanns should be in the dock. 

In a nutshell, 'Exposing the Myths', was the dossier handed to Martin Brunt.  It contained the names and details of hundreds of McCann critics, each of whom could expect the same fate as Brenda Leyland if they didn't toe the line.  Had their evil plan not spectacularly backfired, blogs such as my own, would have become a criminal offence.  As far fetched as that may sound, this particular pack is led by competing alpha males who have taken megalomania off the scale.  Some truly believe that people should be imprisoned for having an alternate opinion and are chomping at the bit to slap a few liberals around.  But the troll story, is just another fascinating aspect of this case, and not the reason for my current malaise. 

The End is Nigh

I don't know what the outcome of this case will be, but I still have enough faith in human nature to believe that the officers investigating this case are working on behalf of the victim.  This is a high profile case with a worldwide audience, a cover up is not an option.  The least controversial statement they can issue at the end would  be 'they are not looking for an abductor'.  And that's a statement they can't avoid, not least to reassure the people of PDL that there is not a predator on the loose, nor are there gangs of child traffickers roaming the Algarve. 

I will always challenge and indeed, ridicule, news designed to mislead and dupe the public, be it from the slick PR team of Mr and Mrs McCann or Official spokesmen of any variety. It irks me that those who provide the mainstream news have such low expectations of their readers' intelligence. Martin Brunt's second biggest mistake was explaining away the excavations in PDL as the abductor removing a deceased Madeleine and burying her in the immediate vicinity while the alarm had been raised and the search was underway.  Why Martin? Why?

My own opinion

But where am I now on the Madeleine mystery?  I reached the point of beyond reasonable doubt many years ago with regard to the parents involvement.  That is, for all the reasons I have given and explained in depth, I think that Goncalo Amaral's theory is the closest we have to the truth of what happened that night.  It wasn't plucked out of thin air, it arose out of the findings of the highly trained dogs, the discrepancies in the witnesses statements (that they refused to clear up with a reconstruction) and the very peculiar behaviour of the parents.  None of which is based on hatred of middle class doctors from the Midlands. 

My own personal theory as to why this case has yet to be 'solved', lies in the number of potential defendants who are involved.  Who gave the order to send in a British Consul to ask the Portuguese police to go easy on the Parents? Who gave the order to appoint a UK Government Family Spokesman - and, err, why?  How were all those police agencies who rushed to the McCanns' assistance, so easily taken in?  If that is the standard of police detection in this country's highest ranking officers, we must all despair! 

To be fair on Operation Grange, when and if, they start writing out a charge sheet, where do they begin?  And what authority do they have to prosecute suspects of crimes committed abroad?  Some of those who actively perverted the course of justice in this case, have since been elevated to peerages.  Or have become part of some New (line your own pockets first) World Order. 

How many highly regarded philanthropists and dooers of good in the UK, how many politicians, how many celebrities, how many newspaper barons, editors, columnists, sofa queens, jumped on the popular bandwagon  gave their unquestioning support to the parents?  Senior police officers, crime experts, national charities?  the list of those complicit, or those who should have known better is seemingly endless.  If you look at the stagnation and the quagmire this case has become and the number of potential defendants, the 6 years and £12million, becomes understandable. 

Will this be another 'Chilcott Inquiry'?  Albeit on a much smaller scale.  That's if anyone has the stomach for it.  After a decade, the world has moved on, perhaps there are bigger, more incriminating scandals that have edged the whole McCann case aside?  Regular journalists are not like we obsessives, every day must bring new injustices, new scandals, stories of greater public interest.

But when it does blow....

Those of us who have stuck with this one, understand the scale of outrage the unravelling of the Madeleine mystery will incite.  The large corporations and the big names involved.  In many ways, I am still astonished that Scotland Yard picked up this poison chalice, though with the formidable Ms. May, I doubt it was optional.  Their problem as I see it, is, if they concur with the conclusions of Goncalo Amaral and the original Portuguese investigation, they will not only have to prosecute all those immediately involved, they will also have to prosecute ALL those who perverted the course of justice - including those who did so in an official capacity, that is, on behalf of HM Government.   Methinks, therein lies the problem.

Those who truly understand the ins and outs of this complicated crime will have a good idea of the kind of investigation being carried out by Scotland Yard and anyone with an ounce of common sense will know there isn't a police force in the world who would spend 6 years looking for one child.  The answers are all there, but if I spell them out, I would be prosecuted for libel.    

Paedophile Rings and Weirdo Allegations

This case is all about money and power, not deviant sex and yuck.  Child abuse is the smokescreen - it kinda works for everyone, child protection agencies, charities and wannabe internet police.  But also those drawn to child abuse issues as survivors, advocates, child protection agencies and the lunatic fringe who see perversion in everything.  It was a 'draw' for myself, as a survivor, I was curious.  At first sight, the statements of the Gaspers and Yvonne Martin are alarming, but they are a very tiny part of the police files and nothing has ever come of them.  Unfortunately,  they were seized on by those desperate to find clues and motives and something more sensational and heinous than a tragic accident. 

In the early days, I was intrigued by the sexual allegations, so I researched them as only a sufferer of OCD can.  Topmost in my mind was  'they made no sense'.  And I speak as someone with experience of living in a childrens' home where kids were regularly abused, mostly physically.  Sadists outnumber paedophiles, if anyone bothers to check, which they never do.  The conspiraloons are creating sickening scenarios that simply never happen, not even in video nasties.    

I think it is the subject of child abuse that has been exploited here, rather than the actual physical abuse of children.  Anyone who truly cared about the protection of children would be on the front line tackling the abuse that goes on in dysfunctional homes daily, not the one in a zillion chance of children being abducted from their beds.   

Why can't we discuss the 'P' word?

Unfortunately, the word paedophilia has become so taboo, that it is impossible to discuss rationally, and most people, the self appointed experts especially, know very little about it.  The perverts they catch are telling them exactly what they want to hear, and they are buying it!  The victims too, have their victimhood reinforced by professionals making a case either for or against, a defendant. 

There are perfectly rational and non emotive ways in which to protect children from those who would abuse them.  Education, education, education.  Whilst we must teach our children to be cautious, it is wrong on every level to fill them with terror.  Most people ARE inherently good, including the foreign waiters who make our kids laugh, and the quiet old gent sat on the park bench.  In filling our kids with fear, we might just as well stamp victim on their forehead. Predators always go for the weakest first. 

The best gift we can give our kids is confidence.  One aspect of this case that irks me particularly, is this 'new fear' young parents have of their babies being abducted.  As if they weren't riddled with enough fears already. Madeleine would not have been abducted if her parents had been there, nor would she have suffered an accident.  That should have been the message we took from the loss of this child's life.

The 'P' word I fear may also have been used to exert pressure over those in power in the same way as homosexuality was in the 50s/60's and of course, almost every decade before. The physical dragging from their homes of ageing celebrities to go on public trial, reminds me of traumatic scenes from The Tudors, in their barbarity. They are little more than witch hunts, an opportunity to score political points and a way in which to win over angry mob by providing a villain for them to throw rotten vegetables at.   And I have little sympathy for the victims of these politicians and celebrities, would their experience have been quite so traumatic if the groper had been, say, Fred the plumber? 

For any man, or woman, the accusation of child abuse, or the possession of 'suspect' photographs, would be life changing.  Not only for the accused, but for their family and friends.  What constitutes a 'suspect' photograph?  And who dare look it up?  As we have seen from the Madeleine case, it is unbelievable what people can interpret from a photograph, and in the case of poor Maddie, a lot of it is pretty twisted. 

The Law cannot keep up with technology, most indecent images of the under-aged are shared and distributed by young teens sharing selfies and pressing the wrong buttons.  Ergo, almost everyone who uses the net can be accused of anything.  And that none of us know anything about these fuzzy laws and who implements them, is scarier still. 

The truth is, most of us don't want to know about Paedophilia, we don't want to discuss it beyond the universal response, of they should all be hung.  However, our ignorance allows those with questionable agendas to keep reinforcing the idea that all our children are in constant danger.  Kids are being robbed of their freedom and opportunities to interact with others and build their own characters and defences. Skills they will need for the rest of their lives.  Don't teach your kids to be fearful, teach them to be brave!

If Madeleine died, and I believe she did, it was not as a result of being sexually abused (and again, yuck), it was as a result of know it all doctors who imagined they had found the solution to childcare whilst on holiday with friends.  A group of doctors, with one presumes, an abundance of knowledge of drugs and anaesthesia between them, find the perfect solution to dining out with friends without the need for a babysitter.  And it was perfect.  Until the Thursday.  Collective decision and all that. 

Will it all end in a fanfare of publicity, ex police chiefs and experts, fighting to tell their stories of how they were duped.  Can you imagine it?  'Yes, I was that stupid'  Right now I'd give almost evens on karma intervening here - to be honest I don't see any way of them avoiding it.  If the abduction is proven to have been faked, there will be a sea of red faces having to admit that they were duped.  From a historical perspective, the karma in this case should be up there amongst the most painful, car crash TV we will ever see in our lifetimes.  I look forward to it.     

Why did they all. the politicians, the spin doctors, the lawyers, the television presenters, hop on board?  How often does a photogenic toddler with squeaky clean parents land in the laps of those pushing missing child charities and police agencies dedicated to tracking down child abuse globally? The Maddie mystery reinforces all those bogeymen stories the authorities keep warning us about. 

Operation Grange, I have no doubt, are committed to producing a result.  You don't keep asking for more time and more funds, if your ultimate goal is to say 'I got nuffink'.  Human nature, plays a part.  Returning to the original crime, the loss of a child's life, I doubt there is any police officer or detective the world over, who would actively participate in covering up the death of a child.  And as much as I think Theresa May is off her rocker, I don't think she would either. 

Operation Grange do not appear to have been investigating anyone in Portugal, Morocco, Spain or beyond.  And indeed, why would they?  It is a Portuguese investigation.  In reality, the only jurisdiction the British police have, is over British citizens - who else are they going to investigate? 

At the moment I have reached a personal crossroads, I want to broaden my horizons, until the Madeleine case has something new and interesting to write about. That is not to say, I won't respond to fake news and misleading commentary, I will, because it is something I feel almost duty bound to do.

There are many aspects of this case that I am longing to discuss in greater depth, but good manners and my own moral guidelines prevent me. The whole sanity aspect of the main players for example, is something I look forward  to exploring immensely, when I can finally write about this case 'unbound'!  The whole subject, I'm afraid, has become frustrating for me because I cannot move on and I cannot go deeper into the aspects that interest me the most.  I'm like one of those bad jokes you hear after a tragedy, where the comic has to add 'too soon?'.  At the moment, I am still the baddy and I am getting tired of being booed and hissed at.  Actually, that's not strictly true, I'm not getting booed and hissed at nearly enough, I'm sure if I really put my mind to it, I could upset a lot more people!  

Happy Easter everyone, and may your eggs (chocolate) be plentiful :)

Monday 3 April 2017


Apologies, I don't know how to link a video, but the above is from YouTube and it's title is Guilt of the McCanns: lie spotting. 

Having realised almost from the off that the parents of missing Madeleine were deceiving us, I have spent almost a decade on the outskirts of society, labelled a 'Hater' and confined to the murky corner of the internet that is the McCann Hashtag.  My crime? I do not believe the abduction story.  It is a crime shared by thousands, if not millions of others, and all the civil law suits and threats of the 'dock' won't change that.  It feels like my convent childhood all over again.  You will believe, or you will be punished. 

I don't believe Gerry and Kate McCann because like thousands (if not millions) of others, I trust my own eyes, my own instincts and my own Judgment.  No Sun headline in the world is going to persuade me there is no giant predator while T-Rex is standing in front of me.  Being able to spot lies, without lengthy arguments from the Prosecution and Tony Bennett, is all part of our genetic make up and ability to survive.   

We can all spot lies.  That is why in the early days of Madeleine's disappearance there was an almighty backlash against the 'abduction story'.  It didn't make any sense and the behaviour of the parents was downright peculiar.  And this was long before anyone even heard of the name Goncalo Amaral.  In 2007 and 2008, the internet was awash with McCann websites, forums and popular tabloid opinion pages.  Kate's statements that doubters were confined to a tiny handful was all part of 'The Lie'. 

There was a full scale social media war going on.  Thousands were flocking to forums and website to discuss this case, and Team McCann were fighting them off with armies of shills and threats of legal action.  The media monitoring was threatening and ruthless, it gave anonymous trolls good reason to remain anonymous and it spawned the myth that the McCanns were victims of a sinister underbelly of trolls on the internet tormenting victims of crime. 

Most of us are not aware of how and why we can detect lies, whilst others can't, or won't.  The short video above is one of the 'gems' that has sunk beneath the radar among the glut of videos on YouTube, which is unfortunate, because it explains in a nutshell, why so many of us have always had a feeling of dissonance towards the parents.

I can't remember when I first saw this video, but it was prior to March 2015 when I wrote 'Duping Delight'.  The above video was destined to go viral, but the maker got cold feet and there were copyright issues with Dr. Meyers words and the Ted Lectures.  It is important to point out that Dr. Meyers is not referring to the McCanns nor was she involved in it's making.  The video has been cut and edited, using the McCanns interviews to illustrate points made by Dr. Meyers in a Ted Lecture. 

What struck me more than anything in the above video, was the heart rendering plea of the genuinely grieving mother.  I, like almost every mother on the planet can feel that poor woman's pain, it moves us because we know that is exactly how we would feel.  Whilst we can't claim to know how the parents of a missing child would react, we have seen, too often, the very real agony of mothers like Coral Jones and Sara Payne. We can identify with them. We want to comfort them.  Kate McCann does not arouse those emotions in us, not because she is slim and successful, but because she is so darn cold.  I doubt the mother in the above video feels any kind of forgiveness for the monster who killed her child.

The abduction story has not aged well, but not half as badly as all those interviews filled with 'tells'.  I was toying with the idea of deconstructing any one of their interviews, and perhaps I will, but in the meanwhile, if you can't put your finger on what that nagging doubt is, watch the above!