Saturday 7 October 2017

THE MADELEINE FUND

There is something fishy going on with Madeleine's Fund, nothing new of course, but I feel Madeleine's Fund doesn't really get the attention it should, because it has of course played a major part in keeping the Madeleine story in the global news. 

The Fund, for example, stirred up a (barmy) army of McCann followers, who blindly believed that money would find Madeleine.  Gullible folk who could not believe bad of two church going doctors.  Appealing to the religious was a master stroke of PR btw.  On the gullible front, they were halfway there. 

But let's cut to the chase.  WTF was the Fund all about?  How did finding a missing child turn into a quest for cash?  Even Gerry himself, said (very, very early on), that he didn't see the need for money.  That however changed rapidly, into 'let's make this the biggest Fund - ever'. 

On the Director front, the biggest wobble came when Esther McVie announced the Fund wouldn't be used for legal purposes.  Ie. It would not be used to defend the McCanns who had just become Arguidos.  'That's crazy', said Gerry, 'we have this massive fund and aren't allowed to use it'.

Esther McVie went on to quit as a director of course, and from then the Fund was much less transparent.  No-one, not even the wonderful Enid O'Dowd would now be able to distinguish between search fund and legal costs. 

All that remains of the millions that poured into Madeleine's Fund is £750,000, but it may be £500,000, who knows, confusion is good. That lump sum is currently being moved between accounts, and in some tabloids being claimed as the McCanns' own money. 

The McCanns are of course facing a major dilemma.  They presently owe hundreds of thousands of pounds, possibly millions, in legal fees in Portugal, and it has been owing since April this year.   Will the Fund be held liable? or the McCanns, as the claimants, personally?  Or are their assets now so entwined with The Fund that they can't separated?  Their appeal to the ECHR doesn't put their debt off.  It is still payable now. 

To be fair, I haven't glanced at the Madeleine Fund or it's accounts for quite some time, but, as pointed out, by a poster on my previous blog, if the abduction is faked, the Fund is fraudulent. 

For genuinely grieving parents, all the money in the world will not cure their grief, or give back to them the precious child they have lost.  The last thing on their minds would be fundraising, they trust the police, they don't run their own their own parallel investigation.  And they don't need to convince us of their innocence and the police incompetence.  The mothers of Sara Payne and April Jones, didn't need to tell us they did nothing wrong, we never thought for one moment they did.  And they didn't need to hire spokesmen, lawyers and a media monitoring team.  Their reluctant, pain filled TV appearances reached our hearts directly, no PR necessary. 

But back to the Fund, arguably, the MAIN reason, this case has dragged on for over a decade.  All we 'libtards'* have always known that money can keep people out of prison.  One brief glance at prison statistics and the ratio of blue to white collar crimes, confirms that.  This case however, has a twist.  Gerry and Kate were nouveau riche, bedazzled by the sudden accumulation of millions, their misery was bumping up the cashometer.  And it was all going so well, until they were made arguidos.

I would say it was at this point that the donations to the Fund dried up.  The Vatican removed 'The Charity' from their website, and the battle between the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral began.  In their 'we can do anything because the world loves us' mind set, GA was to blame for the minor blip in their masterplan, but if they destroyed him, it would be happy days again.  That was Plan A, but I think we are now approaching Plan Z.

Of course, if the abduction was fake, then it would therefore follow that the Fund to Find Madeleine was fraudulent and all those directors and administrators may find themselves being investigated.  So too all those on the payroll.  What were they raising funds for? where was it going?  Has even one penny of it, been used to help another child?  A victim of Grenfell, a displaced refugee orphan?  A child in need of a prosthetic limb? 

No, of course it hasn't.  Because the Fund (not a Charity) has always been for one child, and her extended family.  It's written into the Company's objectives, legally above board because the lawyers used were specialists in their field.  The Fund can and has been, used for whatever Gerry and Kate wanted.  An extended holiday in the Algarve for family, friends, vicars and bridesmaids.  Runs on the beach, cocktails and tennis, while police, locals, holiday makers and volunteers, trekked through brambles, hedges and wastelands, searching for their daughter.  But let's not leave out Clarence here, who also had a 3 month vacation in Portugal, as a 'government spokesman'. Meanwhile, Warners resort, was dotted with collection boxes, for all those journalists and members of the public who had flooded to PDL, to watch the circus. 

We can only guess at how many millions have passed through the  Madeleine Fund, the promised transparency ended years ago.  In 2007, the Find Madeleine website received over 50million hits, and that may even have been daily. The cashometer on the site was spinning out of control and  taken off the site when it went over £1million.  The huge waves of public sympathy became manifest in the way of hard cash. To such an extent, the money grasping Clarence suggested people simply put cash in brown envelopes and mail to the Gerry and Kate in Rothley. 

Why did the parents of a missing child, need millions of pounds in cash? What could cash do that those physically out searching couldn't? And it should be pointed out, those actually searching were doing it voluntarily, ie. without payment.  And when was enough enough?  £1million, no clearly not, £4m/£5m?  Again no.  Having frittered £4m or £5m, the McCanns continued relentlessly with their fund raising events. For what?  Did they have a target?  No.  Because they couldn't even explain themselves what the money was needed for.  They had the attention of the world's media, raising awareness didn't ring true. 

Yet the Fundraising continued.  Those who have followed this case with the same obsession I have, will remember, the excruciating interviews in Autumn of 2010, when they were pleading for donations because the Fund was down to it's last half a million.  At this point, I'm sure, Kerry Needham was saying 'Ye Gods', but I don't want to digress.  Twenty quid will buy 100 prayer cards, a fiver, 5 minutes to man a 24/7 hotline, blah, excruciating blah.  FFS Gerry, the parents of a missing child man their own 24/7 hotline, they don't need paid employees, you effing psychopath.  Ok, I've had a drink, glass down, walk away. 

Here's what I typed earlier. 

Why the need for a Fund.  The Portuguese police were undertaking the biggest missing child search in their entire history. The British police were involved, the entire public were behind them.  Why the need the to plan massive fundraising events for Madeleine, the following year?  A pop concert, something sports, something arts, a Madeleine Day for the whole world?  This at a time when Madeleine had been missing for only a few weeks and could have been found at any time.

Why did John McCann and Clarence Mitchell, give up regular well paid jobs, to make searching for Madeleine their full time careers?  Realistically, most of us know, that abducted children who aren't found within 24 hours are dead, and their bodies usually turn up.  For John and Clarence, that was one hell of a chuck of the dice. 

We kind of know that all those millions were not spent on searching for Madeleine.  The one and only set of transparent company accounts released by the Madeleine Fund, showed only 13% of income spent directly on the search. 

True, the McCanns were scammed by several firms of dodgy private detectives, but bizarre that they didn't select their private eyes as carefully as their lawyers.  Bizarre too, that among the criminal activities of their former private detectives, was money laundering.  At that, apparently, they were very good.  Due to my overuse of the word bizarre, I will have to say it was also very strange that the normally very litigious  parents didn't try to get their money back from these scammers via the Civil Courts. 

But what did happen to the rest of the money?  I guess if you want to 'lose' huge amount of cash, two options would be, move it to an offshore account or employ high price lawyers.  Unfortunately, the latter, can prove to be highly addictive, it is the legal equivalent of being armed with a powerful weapon that can destroy all your enemies, all the while you can afford it that is.  When the cash runs out, so does the protection and power to destroy others. 

As a former legal secretary, I encountered many Vexatious Litigants.  Usually when I was working in Libel Law.  Once did a temp stint at Mischon de Reya, which was, hmm, particularly enlightening.  Did I ever mention too, that I did several long stints at TFLA in Covent Garden.  Just thought I'd mention that.  I knew a few of the founding partners very well, and I genuinely liked them.  They had some pretty sassy feminists running the show, and I was in awe!   

VLs never give up.  And are a gift to a lawyer aiming to up his profit margins.  It is incredible how much people are prepared to pay to prove themselves right. They truly believe that a Court ruling, will note them down in history as a good egg. Happily for lawyers, hurt feelings have no upper limit on a damages scale, and for some people, the ability to be affronted and outraged has no limits.  They will literally scour everywhere their name is mentioned in order to claim harassment. 

Just like the eejit who died protecting his right of way.  VLs are literally not happy, until they had lost absolutely everything, until they finally have nothing to mount another new libel claim.  Then they turn into Bennett, and start representing themselves.  When they win, it is not enough, next time they will win more.  As a lifelong people watcher, I have always found them particularly fascinating, it's like watching a slow motion car crash without the blood, or sympathy.  When one particular 'you will respect me' psychopath, left the office with his 5p award, declaring a win, we support staff struggled to hold back the laughter. 

Gerry and Kate may be respected medical professionals, maybe even academics, but they are not very bright.  Without wishing to be kind, God forbid, they are in fact, incredibly naïve.  As much as they have used and exploited others, so too they have been used and exploited.  Carried along with the grandiose ideas of spin doctors and lawyers who have walked away with a pretty large chunk of the Fund themselves. 

Madeleine's Fund cannot be separated from Madeleine's disappearance.  The public's response to Gerry and Kate's first appeals created a phenomenon the world had never seen before.  For the first time we were witnessing the incredible power of the internet as the McCanns took the case global within the first few hours, away from PDL some might say.  The world responded as they would to a major disaster, and the donations poured in.  Within days they had raised more cash for one child, than most major charities raise in a year. 

When the debates begin, and they will, some might say, that having this huge Fund, put the McCanns above the Law, and that it has prevented the police and honest investigative journalists from doing their job.  And the reason why, 10+ years on, no-one has ever been charged with the disappearance of Madeleine. 

  






* I should dislike this word lol, but strangely, I don't lol. 

172 comments:

  1. The limited company (and lets call it what it is!!!) is a joke! It is one of the things that irks me the most, and it is one of the things that screams cover up in that case as loud as anything. Woe-betide should you or I try and sneak that much money past HMRC, they would be on you like a ton of bricks asking for receipts for everything and accepting nothing. How these two odious people get away with submitting accounts that look like I could have prepared them in 15 mins is ridiculous, and dont even start me on £36,000.00 for a website! I would bet that K and G could put down £100,000.00 for a flying unicorn and the tax man wouldnt question it. The thing is, they promised complete transparency for the LIMITED COMPANY accounts, and what we got was an INSULT to every poor fool who sent them money, but then, a fool and his money are soon parted as we know. Like ALL good con men , the mccanns chose their targets/victims well, as you say, people who believe in god are halfway there. The Mccanns dont go to church and they are certainly not what I would consider to be good christian/catholic folk, what a sham foisted upon the gullible, like religion itself.
    Personally I think the LIMITED COMPANY is one of the biggest indicators of a cover up in this case. Their accounts are a disgrace and an obvious insult to those who gave their money foolishly, the MCCanns dealing with crooks as you point out is no suprise, crooks work with crooks, they probably have a nice amount stashed somewhere far away should they need it. This LIMITED COMPANY stinks to high heaven of a cover up, they know it, we know it and whoever audits their accounts at the end of every year for 9 years knows it. Personally Id rather sleep peaceful at night than be involved in ANYTHING that those two touched. As you may have guessed Ros, I did not contribute to the LIMITED COMPANY, when I see someone in need I give them help not cash, and the homeless that I pass who have their hand out out, i try to put a drink and a sandwich in it whenever i can.

    I could ramble on endlessly about this "Fund" but enough, for anyone who dosnt know about the accounts, see Enid odowds excellent work.

    Am loving the blog at the moment Ros, and great to see JB popping in with his thoughts.. This is the place to be!!

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Ros!
    This takes me right back to May 2007. The first odd thing that struck me was they called themselves TEAM McCann. TEAM? That's a term appropriate for a Formula 1 team or 'The Apprentice' - but it made their forthcoming campaign sound like a game, a 'side' picked for their distinctive disparate (and largely financial) skills.
    Next we hear "Fighting Fund". Fighting what or whom? Had they already deemed the PJ as adversaries?
    After that we get "Leaving No Stone Unturned" which I felt was a little more acceptable. (Not entirely sure of the order but all ASAP, MAY 07)
    You mention Uncle John quitting immediately and Mitchell soon after - they KNEW they'd be in for the long haul. Why else?
    This in turn gave rise to some theorising that maybe there was always a strong fraud element, that a lot of money could be made from this. I'd always thought of the £s rolling in as a fiscal side-effect, but as things unfolded we soon saw that the 'pecuniary enthusiasts' Mcs charged for everything, from tacky wristbands to luggage labels.
    Millionaires donated huge amounts, the "fund" was getting fat - but then they used it to pay 2 mortgage payments £2000 x 2) and the public were, to put it mildly, not amused.
    Then we have Metodo 3 and Halligen (both I figured where targeted as money launderers rather than investigators) - so by now I'm beginning to wonder just how important was the monetary side to all this? If it wasn't the original intent then it certainly took hold/over pretty damn quick.
    But what parents would want 30 pieces of silver as opposed to having their own child back? They knew they'd never have both.
    -
    SixYearsInaComaMan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I felt as though I were in the twilight zone in 2007 SYIACM. Normally sane TV presenters were telling us 'we all leave alone' while on holiday, and the Portuguese police were being portrayed as the bad guys trying to frame an innocent British couple!

      Imagine if a UK task force searching for a missing child, were treated by the media that way? I truly felt ashamed of how racist and unenlightened, even seemingly educated people were.

      Parents of missing kids don't want money, and they certainly don't want publicity or outsiders intruding on their grief. Staying in PDL, wasn't heroic, it was insane. Who wants to stay at the scene of their worst nightmare, and invite their family and friends to join them?

      The British described the actions of Team McCann as heroic, the PJ, noted, quite rightly, in their files, it was downright weird. And it's not as if the Team McCann were assisting the search or the police, they weren't.

      As we could see from their daily press conferences, they were spending their nights dreaming up the sort of grandiose schemes that most of us bottle out of the next morning. They managed to capture that ever elusive zeitgeist moment in time, where they were in a position to make those grandiose schemes come true.

      The name Team McCann was indeed insensitive and unfortunate, Kate even acknowledges it in her book. However, it stuck, but not in good way. Sticking a number on the cause is a difficult one. Tapas 2, Tapas 6, Tapas 130? With 6+ years of investigating, how deep does this rabbit hole go?

      Delete
    2. Hi Ros..
      I think all of us were affronted by the casual acceptance by MSM of the Mcs leaving their kids alone, exacerbating that by suggesting "we all do that in the UK". Well, no! We don't!
      The xenophobic rhetoric just got worse. Portugal suddenly described as a third world backwoods infested with perverts. Sounds more like Westminster to me.
      I could imagine wanting to stay somewhere if I was searching. But they clearly were not - far too busy doing deals with Carter Ruck Mitchell and Kennedy.
      Not just the PJ thinking Mcs behaviour was weird - it was weird for everyone here in the UK. And no way did the Mcs cooperate with the PJ, quite the opposite.
      There is a rule in journalism to get "the story" out first as that's the one that sticks in people's minds, something the Mcs ensured. SKY in particular are guilty of being fawningly complicit.
      Tapas 7, Tapas 9, Team McCann. The first two sound pejorative but the latter just should have never have happened (that IS twilight zone material); again it reminds us of the Mcs attitude to MBM of her being a commodity, like a reserve price set at auction.
      The rabbit hole is fathomless. And there's a lot of people down there.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    3. Portugal suddenly described as a third world backwoods infested with perverts. Sounds more like Westminster to me.

      LOl!

      Delete
  3. As a footnote Ros, I would love to hear what VT/Ziggy has to say in defence of the limited company, my betting is, not a lot. Lets see!

    ReplyDelete
  4. ''The Fund, for example, stirred up a (barmy) army of McCann followers''

    There is only one barmy army obsessed with the fund and that's the frustrated barmy army who are trying desperately to find some other crime to accuse the McCanns of.

    ''Madeleine's Fund cannot be separated from Madeleine's disappearance. ''

    They're already separate. They always have been.

    ''some might say, that having this huge Fund, put the McCanns above the Law, and that it has prevented the police and honest investigative journalists from doing their job''

    What ? Were they being paid from it to be quiet and look away ? All those 'honest' cops you speak up for ? So, people with a huge fund( rich) are above the law.Make a suspect wealthy and nobody will touch them .

    ''Gerry and Kate may be respected medical professionals, maybe even academics, but they are not very bright.''

    Bright in what way ?

    '' God forbid, they are in fact, incredibly naïve.''

    So they've generated 12 million and evaded the law for 10 years for a crime they've 'obviously' committed. Yet they're naive and 'not bright'. The politicians who have rubber stamped funding are sharp as knives though. If those at the top of the tree sanctioned the 'war fund' when they knew the whole investigation was a sham, they are guilty of defrauding the taxpayers and conspiring to suppress evidence, obstruct justice and conceal not only a crime committed against a minor, but fraud. But there's no cover up....

    So, basically, the McCanns are criminals who have hidden the body of their child and then generated millions( even though you contend they're in financial trouble now) and have become fraudsters in plain sight ( except for the plain sight of the law). They're 'vexatious litigants', to coin a cliche , on top of all of that . So, not only have the two police forces charged with searching for Madeleine (or solving the case) failed to see what was in front of their own noses, so has the Fraud squad. Two not so bright (and quite naive) criminals have danced an army around in circles.

    Another mountain of speculation voicing the same objective as the rest, and with the standard extreme bias.

    '' For the first time we were witnessing the incredible power of the internet ''

    As a platform for anger and gossip.

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so you rise to the bait , do you not have any mates . a job or something ? it must be very lonley in your world

      Delete
  5. Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

    "We heard that a colleague of mine in general practice had, amazingly, pledged £100,000. A good friend in Liverpool, a police officer, warned us that we would need a great deal more than this to tempt anybody connected with the crime to give Madeleine up. It seemed a huge sum of money to us but, being a policeman, he was more used to dealing with criminals than we were.”

    ----------

    17 May 2007

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-gTcKDKrM

    1:52

    Brian Kennedy: "So, the money can be used for all sorts of reasons, but probably mainly for legal expenditure."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A good friend in Liverpool, a police officer, warned us that we would need a great deal more than this to tempt anybody connected with the crime to give Madeleine up. It seemed a huge sum of money to us..."


      Given that one of the questions Dr Amaral put to the McCann parents was had they ever considered giving up Madeleine's care to a relative, it is disingenuous of them, in the extreme, to try to pretend that Madeleine is worth so much to them. After all, "nothing of value was stolen from the apartment". And, despite being warned by police that publicising the eye defect would be the death of their child, the couple went ahead anyway with Madeleine's father claiming "it was a good marketing ploy". The pair are utterly shameless and it's amazing the twins were entrusted in their 'care' in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. With reference to your first paragraph, I think lessons were learned here from the insane investigation of the Ramsey case in the states ;there were schisms galore in that one. The was a split inside the DA's office, in the local force and between factions of both. There was a concerted effort to supress evidence, ignore evidence, and to frame the parents. There was some terrible police work and underhand backroom work. It carried on to Reddit ( to name but one platform) when the former police officer who had decided to spread disinformation when investigating the case continued to do it online.The man is a moron and I don't know how he was never arrested. The determination of a respected former detective exposed it all and then he became the traget of the same liars ( Loy 'Bulldog' Smit' ). The Ramseys were shocked and angry that they even needed lawyers. John Ramsey's palatial detatched hom has now been replaced by a rented one. The incriminating DNA found on little Jonbenet and under her nails that cleared the family remains on file.
      ------

      Oh please - the Ramsays are as guilty as hell. They objectified that poor child - trussed her up like some kind of doll in a toy shop. The McCanns too objectified Madeleine. Both families guilty as hell.

      Delete
  6. Almost the first thing Gerry and Kate did after Madeleine's disappearance, was to hire several firms of high priced lawyers VT. An odd thing for innocent parents to do, and presumably something they couldn't have done, without the Fund.

    I didn't say Gerry and Kate were paying people to keep quiet, but they do employ the UK's top libel lawyers to keep negative reporting of them out of the newspapers. They have also prevented Goncalo Amaral's book from being published in the UK.

    I knew 'not very bright' would wind you up VT, no doubt you think the pair geniuses, but they are actually not. For one thing, they are too easily impressed by 'wide boys'. They were buying everything that was being sold, including the high priced services of dodgy detectives and questionable spin doctors.

    You said they generated £12million (I didn't, I thought about £4/£5m). Unless of course you are referring to the costs of Operation Grange, which weren't raised by Gerry and Kate. But I'm not talking about SY's costs, I'm talking about Madeleine's Fund - as you very well know.

    If Gerry and Kate were bright VT they would not have allowed all those millions to fritter away. Nor would they be faced with a massive legal bill in Portugal.

    And if they had been bright, they wouldn't have turned the public against them. And that wasn't down to Goncalo Amaral, it was down to the pair's angry, scowling faces and constant whining.

    I'm not saying they should have been happy and smiling, just a little graciousness for all they have received, far more than most, and perhaps a touch of humility? Why can't they speak directly to their followers on Facebook? Or even to the press, why do they need spokesmen and sources?

    Kudos to you for pretending the McCanns are in a happy place financially right now, but given the size of their loss in Lisbon, that can't be true. Unless of course they have got separate funds available (from where?) or a billionaire backer (unlikely).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish you had a 'like' button Roz. That response is spot on.
      Whatever the next move is, they need to pay their bills. Quick enough demanding money from others, excruciatingly slow in putting their hands in their own pockets (unless it's to pay the criminally incompetent).

      Delete
  7. To VT: Anonymous7 October 2017 at 16:06
    Ros said, "'Madeleine's Fund cannot be separated from Madeleine's disappearance. ''
    You said, "They're already separate. They always have been."
    !
    The fund was generated/created owing to the desire/machinations of the Mcs, in turn, owing to MBM's disappearance, without which, there'd be no fund.
    They are inseperably entwined and have been very early on, right from May 2007 to date.
    The only 'separation' is catergory of crimes allegedly committed by the Mcs, occulation of a body and fraud, and they both eminate from them.
    -
    SixYearsInAComaMan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. Erratum alert!
      "Occultation" I meant! Ooops!
      Where's our copy editor when we need one, Ros?
      SYIACM lol

      Delete
    2. Madeleine's disappearance is an event that happened in May 2007. What that event actually was, isn't known. The crime that is being officially investigated is abduction unless something else transpires.

      The fund developed as a result of public sympathy ; it had to 'do something' . The 'war funding' was dreamed up by a Tory government. Cameron coined the phrase - nobody pressed him to elaborate what he meant by 'war' ( or battles) or why the size of the initial payment seemed like the expected war was long term when the hope was that it Madeleine could be returned any day.The money / funding was a response to the event. That doesn't mean they were or are inseparable.
      The only 'separation' is catergory of crimes allegedly committed by the Mcs, occulation of a body and fraud, and they both eminate from them.''

      Fraud is easy to detect.And, as a lot of money was sanctioned by the government and taken from the public's taxes, you'd expect them to jump all over that.You'd also expect that even the most amateur or clumsy criminal would know that they were playing with Governments money publicly and take precautions.When your 'team' comprises people that include MI5, former PMs and Media monitors, how realistic is it to assume that they're working some kind of closeup magic that has yet to be detected in ten years ? The only other explanation is that those mentioned are 'in on it' ergo, also part of the criminal act.

      The 'occultation of a body' is far more difficult to detect. You need to know it's happened, not merely suspect it. If nobody has given a realistic lead or confessed, and no evidence points to it, it remains one of a few hypotheses /theories / suspicions. While that is the state of play ( nothing to go on ) it's only allegations, accusations and gossiping to name names. It's all part of the stalemate.

      VT

      Delete
    3. You keep trying to confuse the McCanns' Madeleine Fund with the money given by the Home Office for Scotland Yard to investigate.

      The two are entirely separate. Madeleine's Fund was set up and run by Gerry, Kate and their family. No former PMs, no MI5 and no government Media Monitors. It was a private enterprise and it was entirely Team McCann. The Fund was made up of donations fro the public, cash awards from the newspapers they sued and the royalties from Kate's book.

      As for 'nothing to go on' and stalemate. That's clearly not the case. Operation Grange has been further extended, you don't extend something when there is 'nothing to go on'.

      The Funding for Operation Grange comes from the Home Office. As too, does the £20,000 reward offered.

      Delete
    4. Money, money, money. The magic wand that can buy anything: lies, truths, trust,favours - everything and anything. The foundation of this mystery is the disappearance of a little girl who has yet to be found after ten years, and little suggesting that she will be. The stalemate I'm referring to is that the position won't change. I see no reason for Amaral's 'political will of two countries' changing now. Let's face it, we're three governments further on from 2007 now. The scrutinising of funds and their sources has the potential to go round in as many circles as the disappearance and be subjected to as much conjecture with the same kind of chance of a resolution. I'm being realistic. If I'm wrong and either are resolved then I'll be as happy as anyone else. But nothing gives me faith after all this time and debate.

      VT

      Delete
    5. Ah, money, money, money, I see what you did there VT, let's not waste time talking about it eh.

      You conveniently forget that it was Team McCann who made it all about money VT. They were manufacturing and flogging Good Quality Wristbands, T-shirts and belt badges within days. Didn't Aunty Phil fly out with a job lot of green Find Madeleine T-shirts?

      Fund Raising was Gerry and Kate's 'thing', and they were brilliant at it. Not only did they raise millions, they kept themselves and Madeleine in the public eye. How any times did they tell the media, the Fund was running low? How many events did they organise, how many sporting events did they take part in? how many campaigns did they run? Kate wrote and published her book to raise money for the Fund.

      You can't just brush all that fundraising under the carpet VT. Thousands, perhaps millions, donated to Madeleine's Fund in good faith, it is basic common courtesy to let them know how the money was used. And besides which, when the Fund began, Team McCann promised transparency. But there is not much transparency when a company won't even release the names of its' employees.

      Madeleine's Fund could, and should, have been used for good VT. There are s many ways and means with which that money could have helped lots of other children. And of course, all those generous donations could have gone to a more worthy cause than protecting the parents' reputation.

      Delete
    6. "Fraud is easy to detect". I've heard it all now in the defence of St & St McCann.

      Delete
  8. With reference to your first paragraph, I think lessons were learned here from the insane investigation of the Ramsey case in the states ;there were schisms galore in that one. The was a split inside the DA's office, in the local force and between factions of both. There was a concerted effort to supress evidence, ignore evidence, and to frame the parents. There was some terrible police work and underhand backroom work. It carried on to Reddit ( to name but one platform) when the former police officer who had decided to spread disinformation when investigating the case continued to do it online.The man is a moron and I don't know how he was never arrested. The determination of a respected former detective exposed it all and then he became the traget of the same liars ( Loy 'Bulldog' Smit' ). The Ramseys were shocked and angry that they even needed lawyers. John Ramsey's palatial detatched hom has now been replaced by a rented one. The incriminating DNA found on little Jonbenet and under her nails that cleared the family remains on file.

    With reference to your second paragraph, lawyers, regardless of how much you pay them or what they charge, can't control the content that newspapers print or programmes broadcast.What they can do is guard against scurrilous stories to sell papers at the cost of the reputation and integrity of who they are discussing ( hence the tapas and Murat compensation payments). It didn't protect them from Amaral as that was Portuguese law.

    They had no reason to suspect that people recommended to progress the investigation would rip them off. The ruling of the Portuguese judge regarding Amaral's book took them ( and their team) by surprise, I'm sure of that. It seems they were using the law of the UK as a frame of reference before they pursued it.

    '' the pair's angry, scowling faces and constant whining. ''

    The public hated them relatively early. They did the same with Lindy Chamberlain when a dingo stole her baby. it wasn't as visible as this case because the public didn't have internet access. By the time the Ramsey case happened, the internet was in it's infancy and so were social networks. As they picked up pace, so did the same 'court of public opinion' and they were wrong again. It all would have happened without Amaral or his book. His book, and it's content' are used by the public to give their hypotheses some kind of gravitas as he was the initial coordinator of the PJ investigative team. Is it so bad for parents to be angry, scowl and 'whine' if they've lost a small child then seen an investigation go nowhere ?

    '' perhaps a touch of humility?''

    There's enough recorded interviews of the parents individually and together that sees them smiling and thanking people. There's photographs too. You can find them via youtube or Google. You'll recognise them by the comments sections. They're full to the brim with criticisms pointing to them being 'evil' 'smug' and 'cold' for smiling. The rest of the interviews and photographs have them angry. The comments sections are brimming with criticisms pointing to that as signs of their 'evil'.

    ''Kudos to you for pretending the McCanns are in a happy place financially''

    Where did i say that ? I haven't got a clue whether the McCanns have to go out Carol singing at Christmas to make ends meet, or if they're lighting cigars with flaming £20 notes. Only they know that.I don't see any point in guessing and analysing ten years of news leaks about funding, extended funding or who cost what and what it paid for.All I'll say is that all that being available for public scrutiny doesn't suggest the big fraud rip off you and many are suggesting. Anyone who is so sure that it is only has to inform the police. Their loss in PDL probably hit them a lot harder than their loss in Lisbon. They can always replace money .

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Grand Jury wanted to indict the Ramseys VT, and the former detective and Jonbenet's Avenger, Steve Thomas was vindicated.

      I can see the McCanns frustration that all that cash couldn't protect them in Portugal, despite their PR agency in Lisbon and all their legal actions. Yet still they haven't learned, you cannot BUY a good reputation.

      The constant scowling and anger is not endearing VT, but your point about them being ripped into if they smile or laugh, is utterly ridiculous. How paranoid must you be to allow your facial expressions to be dictated by public opinion? Most people don't care what other people think of their face or the emotions they express and that's what makes them likeable. They don't care about the criticism either, they are who they are and certainly wouldn't curb their natural behaviour to avoid negative comments.

      The dour faces and stilted TV characters of Gerry and Kate, are their own creation VT, based on their perception of how parents of a missing child would behave. If they were more forthcoming, that is, if they stepped out of their prepared scripts, and ad libbed here and there, the characters would have grown and evolved.

      If Gerry and Kate are not allowed to be themselves VT, it is THEY who made that rule. You would have to be some kind of half wit, to allow others to dictate your behaviour, which is why such an inhibiting, self restraining prison, can only be built by yourself. No earthly court would forbid you to smile or laugh.

      As the largest amount every raised for a single non charitable cause VT, naturally the Fund arouses a huge amount of interest. Your telling me and my readers to ignore the Madeleine Fund, is like Trump telling Mueller to ignore all the Russian Oligarchs who funded his campaign in the Russia investigation.

      Your final two sentences are odd VT. their loss in PDL 'probably' hit them a lot harder....... PROBABLY? Jeez. As for 'They can always replace money' - wow. Are they expecting some more large awards?

      Delete
    2. ''The Grand Jury wanted to indict the Ramseys VT, and the former detective and Jonbenet's Avenger, Steve Thomas was vindicated. ''

      I think you need to watch a more up to date documentary. It was Lou Smit who was vindicated. Science proved that Jonbenet was conscious and trying o save herself before being knocked unconscious. The supercop had said she was unconscious before being taken to the cellar. When asked how to explain the unknown DNA under her nails due to her struggle, and on her clothes he simply said 'that's irrelevant'. No wonder his reputation is big online only.

      Delete
    3. ''Jeez. As for 'They can always replace money' - wow. Are they expecting some more large awards?''

      They have very well paid jobs. You may think your attempts at telepathy and face reading reflect a deep understanding of all things McCann. It reflects little more than a determined effort to foment as much bias against anything they do because of some intense, irrational hatred of them. Occasionally ( though rarely) using Madeleine's name in order to justify it all is unconvincing to anyone outside of the angry mob . You want pain for the McCanns far more than you want justice for Madeleine . You try to claim that they're the same thing but can't demonstrate how (beyond your interpretations of everything they say or do and a vivid imagination ).

      Delete
  9. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Emma_Loach_12_09_2013.htm

    "Maria Emília de Melo e Castro – Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?

    Emma Loach answers yes.

    MC – Why ?

    EL says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.

    MC – The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling?

    EL says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.

    MC – In which way is it different?

    EL doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows EL out of the court room."

    Good question: "In which way is it different?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In which way is it different?"

      The book contains unfounded allegations and suspicions they deny and that the accuser can't prove.Hence they don't perceive a need to feel ashamed. To be named arguidos publicly by the police was a more substantial slur and insinuation about them that carries more weight and influence than a book of theories.Even after the status was lifted, it combined with the book's theories to form a collective verdict in the minds of a large section of the public. In particular, those who enjoy the more salacious and juicy endings to their mysteries.

      VT

      Delete
    2. I think if you read the files you will find they weren't unfounded ziggysawdust

      Delete
    3. Anonymous8 October 2017 at 06:20

      ''I think if you read the files you will find they weren't unfounded ziggysawdust''

      So, by that thinking, all the PJ have to do is read their own files.

      Delete
  10. To VT at 20:59
    My reply to you, there, VT, cannot be expressed more succinctly than that of Ros's at October 2017 at 22:05 with which I totally agree.
    You are conflating the sources of the money, I feel.
    -
    SixYearsInaComaMan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning SYIACM - I'm on third green tea, lol. I awoke at dawn, and have been writing away to the beautiful sound of birds tweeting! There is something very special about quiet Sunday mornings, I wish I could bottle it!

      Methinks VT/Ziggy has an objective (again) SYIACM. And that objective is, ffs don't talk about the Fund. I have to say, even now, it amazes me how Team McCann can tell us black is white, without so much as a tell tale twitch. Having launched and run a LQOK campaign, highlighting Madeleine's distinctive eye, Kate told Piers Morgan 'we didn't make much of her eye'. Now it's 'we didn't make much of the money thing'.

      I suspect Gerry and Kate's initial media training began with the premise 'the public are mugs', they will believe anything. Maybe even a touch of Goebbels, 'A Lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth'.

      Gerry gave himself away, when he said confusion was good, because that is what is what VT is going for. He is trying to persuade us that Madeleine's Fund was government backed. That it was the government who suggested the family open an online shop and send out chain emails. That was all the proactive family. Some might say, their activities were hindering the investigation, clogging up the police switchboards, with calls from 'wackos' the world over for example. They were conducting their own investigation, and getting the public to fund it! 'if the police want to assist, that's fine, said Uncle John'.

      We really need to let that sink in, to understand the scale of what they were doing. They were openly and blatantly, undermining the Portuguese police. And bizarrely, so too were the incumbent British government of New Labour and the UK media.

      I believe that every penny of the £11m or is it £12m, that has been spent on Operation Grange can be fully accounted for. This is a high profile case and everything will be put under scrutiny. And besides which, I really dislike the assumption by some, that the officers working on Madeleine's are dishonest. I think the only ones who would misuse public funds to have free holidays, are those who accuse, because that's what they would do.

      But I a waffling, suffice to say, he ain't getting away with it!

      Delete
    2. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 October 2017 at 09:42

      ''Methinks VT/Ziggy has an objective (again) SYIACM.''

      Doesn't anyone who disagrees with all your lopsided ramblings 'have an objective' Ros ?

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 October 2017 at 09:42

      ''Gerry gave himself away, when he said confusion was good, because that is what is what VT is going for. He is trying to persuade us that Madeleine's Fund was government backed.''

      ''The Home Office has agreed to fund a full-scale Scotland Yard investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann....Scotland Yard has been reviewing the evidence for two years after David Cameron personally intervened in the high-profile case.''

      ''Home Secretary Theresa May Present PM) has now approved a move to fund the cost of a proper investigation as detectives pursue fresh leads.''

      http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-home-office-funds-inquiry-10442890

      ''Within 24 hours of the front page appeal Mr Cameron ( PM at that time) announced a review could be paid for out of a contingency fund run by the Home Office, reserved for special cases''

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9225991/David-Cameron-was-pressured-into-new-Madeleine-McCann-inquiry-by-News-International.htmlAnd

      And the' fraudsters' :

      ''Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry McCann from Rothley in Leicestershire, have vowed to never give up searching for their daughter....The couple have ploughed £500,000 of their own money into the search fund.''

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4811614/Police-hunting-Madeleine-McCann-ask-money.html

      Theresa May - PM. David Cameron - PM .

      VT



      Delete
  11. Was it not Brian Kennedy, in the same TV appearance when he mentioned legal expenses, who said that people could put money in envelopes and send it to "Kate and Gerry, Rothley". I do not think that the police officers who have been deployed on Operation Grange are dishonest. Metropolitan Police Federation chairman John Tully is reported to have remarked that they were "bemused". Hogan Howe got very indignant about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for posting Highmyope, yes I had a peek at that video and several more of the early ones, including one with Aunty Phil, being followed by a large gaggle of Westminster MPs.

      It was indeed Uncle Brian telling people how to donate to Fund, just go into a bank, the facility to donate was already set up, and it was Gerry's mother telling the interviewer how uplifted Gerry was by the Fund.

      I think the allegations thrown at the officers of Operation Grange are downright offensive, but par for the course, from those batshit crazy 'antis' who accuse random individuals of heinous crimes on a daily basis.

      That's not to say certain high ranking officers didn't make some very questionable decisions in the early days, but they are not releasing balloons or appearing on morning tv with Gerry and Kate now.

      Delete
  12. I think the police are playing their cards carefully because they know so many people are interested in the case and leaked information would spread quickly, maybe spoiling the investigation.
    I was on the edge of a high profile case some years ago and the police tactically threw red herrings to keep the media away from what they were really looking at. The only people who knew the real stuff were the immediate family and they were sworn to secrecy and had to lie to the rest of us (for good reason). I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing that in the Mccann case too. I don't mean in the sense that they are really suspecting the parents (I don't think that at all), but I think these stories about them looking for this person or that are to give the newspapers something to chew on while they get on with the real leads. There's too much interest in this case for a normal investigation.
    When you think about it, the family have been very quiet for a long time. They didn't even give much interviews at the 10 year mark. I think there is definately more going on that we are being led to believe. Also the fact that there was a bigger sum allocated this time than the last time. That's not for nothing. They can't afford for things to go wrong so they are playing it safe and doing nothing to draw attention to the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if you don't think they are looking at the parents who do you think they are looking at. Some sex predator in Portugal where they have no jurisdiction of some international sex traffickers who nobody can identify which country they operate out of ????

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous8 October 2017 at 20:51

      All of the above. They're not looking for Madeleine and they know the McCanns didn't do it.

      Delete
    3. I agree 15:58, I also think they are working under Portugal's Judicial Secrecy laws - Portugal has the lead, so their rules would apply. The same probably applies to suspects and persons of interest.

      In any event, they have done very well, we still don't know what they are up to! The thing with investigations, is that they can lead anywhere. The Bill Clinton impeachment began with Whitewater and ended with Monica Lewinsky.

      Six years and £11m+, suggests a very deep rabbit hole, and not a Portuguese one. If the rabbit hole were in Portugal, the British police would not be involved. Our police have enough crime in the UK, without trying to clean up crime on the Algarve too. They are not an international task force, they are focussed on one case, and some might say, the British side of it only.

      Delete
    4. "I was on the edge of a high profile case some years ago and the police tactically threw red herrings to keep the media away from what they were really looking at. The only people who knew the real stuff were the immediate family and they were sworn to secrecy and had to lie to the rest of us (for good reason). I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing that in the Mccann case too. I don't mean in the sense that they are really suspecting the parents (I don't think that at all"

      Hello. Since you are anonymous etc., I have no idea if you are telling the truth or not; unfortunately many on the Net pretend personal knowledge when they don't have it.

      If, though, you have direct personal knowledge that the police did this as a matter of policy then I find it very interesting.

      The "only people who knew the real stuff were the immediate family". This case has some added complications though, to put it mildly. We do know for a fact that in 2011/2012 the McCanns were not given the real stuff; the extensive evidence of the "Amaral leak" about the Portuguese squads etc. proves that. If they weren't then, then it is unlikely that they are now.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous8 October 2017 at 15:58

      ''I think the police are playing their cards carefully because they know so many people are interested in the case and leaked information would spread quickly, maybe spoiling the investigation.''

      That's normal protocol whatever the investigation is. They examine information and act. They don't think about what the public think just because of the high profile of the case. They'll hear about it all soon enough via the media once the arrests are made or the case is solved. The public have the internet to construct and discuss their suspicions in the meantime .

      As for the 'red herring' tactic, that's common too in high profile cases that have been covered via the media. They know that criminals have access to it and can follow the 'progress' . I doubt very much that this tactic has been employed in the McCann case. Ten years for a red herring to swim around ? The likelihood, given the time that's gone by and the complete lack of progress, is that a lot of red herrings have been released into the rivers of public opinion to dupe them, not a culprit.

      VT

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 October 2017 at 09:21

      ''Six years and £11m+, suggests a very deep rabbit hole, and not a Portuguese one. If the rabbit hole were in Portugal, the British police would not be involved. ..they are focussed on one case, and some might say, the British side of it only.''

      The rabbit hole analogy is sadly apt. That's what, figuratively speaking, little Madeleine has fallen into. Resisting the obvious 'Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum' references, it seems that the falling into the hole is where all similarities to the Alice tale ends .

      If the British are focused on the British side of things only, it raises questions. Under normal circumsatnces, any Brit abroad in trouble is not given almost instant, urgent political support by a plane filled with top politicians or Intel officers. it's left for the police of the country to investigate the crime. There are British Emabasies that can be called upon if a wrongful arrest is perceived. If the crime is a serious one and the native police are getting nowhere, they can request the assistance of the British force. As we know, it was the latter course of action that dictated this investigation early.So, what 'British side of things' caused such panic ? Why the intense interest of our UK politicians and why the need to remove anyone from an investigation when assisting him would have been the obvious route ? Curioser and curiouser...

      VT

      Delete
    7. "That's normal protocol whatever the investigation is."

      Really? The post I replied to concerned (allegedly) personal experience, not windy generalizations, which is exactly why I picked it out.

      Now, instead of giving us lofty, all-knowing, generalizations of your own, straight out of Ladybird books, tell us how you know this - you know, your personal experience.

      Delete
    8. john blacksmith @11:58

      Nice one. To the point. Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    9. To John Blacksmith.
      I don't really know what you mean by complications in keeping the family up to date. It happens all the time. There will be a family liaison officer keeping them informed. That would only not happen if the family couldn't be trusted to keep that information confidential.
      The case that I am talking about happened some years ago and there was a lot of media interest in it (not on the scale of Madeleine's case). When the police got their break they wanted to follow it up without the press on their backs. They had no choice. If they didn't they might have forever lost the opportunity to catch the perpetrator. I think this makes perfect sense and I agree with the person who says they do this all the time. What's the cost to it if the victim gets justice?
      The police often use decoy vehicles when transporting victims and criminals and they release criminals ahead of the expected release data to scupper the press. They will tell suspects that they have evidence when they don't.
      How would the Madeleine investigators be able to do a proper job with the media and the internet detectives all watching and making guesses about their next move? There is way too much interest in the case/ This is why I think it suit them perfectly if people online are thinking the parents are primary suspects or that they are trying to track down some widow, or vagrant. ALl they need do is act a bit dumb or not deny some media story and it will grow. As if the police would be spending millions on an investigation that leaked vital leads to the media so that it could be wrecked.
      I think there is very much a public impression and a private reality which are very different and they won't be caring what the public think of them right now if they are close to solving the case.

      Delete
  13. Good afternoon Ros (several coffees later!)
    I love tea but I make a terrible cuppa! (Yes, Sundays when we were kids were so quiet, nowhere was open and you made your own entertainment - mmmm!)
    What we have with VT/Ziggy I feel is an idee fixe. You, myself, we are not such beasts - I am more than willing to subscribe to anything that comes along and demolishes my previous thoughts/speculation. How else can one learn?
    Any latter day Goebbels doesn't have much traction with THIS case - we were a lot more naive back in the day (60s 70s). There's no excuse for that now with the advent of social media.
    The fund was Mc initialised, stamped and sealed. It was their pact and no one else's business, so to speak! They wanted control over every aspect, from parallel investigations to starting off their Ltd Co. They have sneered at UK and Portuguese police from Day 1.
    Our MSM were only too happy to collude and denigrate the PJ and remain entirely complicit to this day. It's been hard to bear, watching and hearing them this past 10 years. I think GA's GoFundMe should have told them what the public thought about that bombastic, insulting didactic attitude!
    Op Grange has a remit (what that is precisely we don't really know) but their hands are tied by those who issue instructions way above their pay scale. I feel the bonds may be loosening a bit, though...But talking of honesty and GA's GoFundMe, let's remember a group of MET officers donated £1000 - twice!
    Like you, I won't be talked down to or coerced/browbeaten into any single person's point of view; that's the difference between you (your blog here) and cesspits. Everyone gets a go and we debate it.
    -
    SixYearsInaComaMan
    P.S. Oh, and one sugar, please!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ros if you google "you tube" and then type in MCCANN CASE EARLY-DAYS-Eileen McCann and Brian Kennedy you will see a rare interview with Gerry's mother, exactly two weeks from the day Maddie went missing.
    She has just spoken to Gerry and says "feeling a lot brighter and better in his voice and I think us being here with the family and the fund starting that has uplifted him......."

    You couldn't mark this guys neck with a blowtorch.
    Also as Blacksmith said he lied to his own mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you 22:34. I took a look, I have seen this in the past, but now it seems so terribly sad. I really do feel for the Gerry's mother, and for Uncle Brian, their grief is palpable, but I think they said what they were told to say, ie. don't forget to mention the Fund. It's quite painful to watch.

      Delete
  15. Hi Ros,
    You make thrilling reading and I think you have covered all bases except one which I don't know if you have have an explanation for.
    Why did the British government rush to protect and back up the lies of two strangers and allocate millions of pounds for a "British" police investigation. And have enough leverage to get rid of the Chief Portuguese investigator.
    Totally stunning.
    I did read once somewhere that one of the Tapas seven was a good friend and neighbour of Gordon Brown. May have got my time frame wrong here but other than that I cannot see why the British government would be interested in these two.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Why did the British government rush to protect and back up the lies of two strangers and allocate millions of pounds for a "British" police investigation. And have enough leverage to get rid of the Chief Portuguese investigator.''

      Or, a more pertinent question should be how did they know that the McCanns were liars right away and why would they act so fast to make sure the world didn't find out whatever it cost. That kind of reaction comes under 'emergency'. That's why MI5 were involved. The UK government and Intel acted with more urgency than the PJ and more panic than the parents. How long does it take for the penny to drop for people who read that chapter objectively ?

      VT

      Delete
    2. Hi JC, and many thanks.

      I tend to think the government involvement began with a 'Thick of It' moment JC. That is, whoever took those first calls in Whitehall, took the decision to give the McCanns full support, without making any rudimentary checks on the facts of the case. If and when, they became aware that all was not as it seemed, it was too late, all the damage (to the PJ investigation) had been done.

      Rather than backtrack, they decided to go with it. A missing child story was an excellent accompaniment to New Labour's plans for a national DNA bank, ID cards and snooping on the public's internet activity.

      Paedophiles along terrorists, are used as tools by government to strike fear into the population. Think of the Children, is the battlecry of anyone who wants something, banned, outlawed and criminalised. Children are being stolen from their beds? Let's all hand over our internet passwords - after all if we are innocent, we have nothing to hide.

      I'm not sure if the cherubic face of little Madeleine launched a thousand ships, but it certainly launched a number of new businesses. Who knew for example, that if you are suddenly hit by tragedy, you need crisis management and a spokesman. Oh, and an ambulance.

      And it revived big charities like Missing People, who, probably for the first time ever, had a cute, appealing face, for their fund raising campaigns.

      There were any number of good reasons to keep the false narrative going JC, apart from the red faces. In 2007, Tony Blair had reached that batshit crazy level of megalomania that brings down most Premiers, he wasn't quite using the Royal 'we', but a few attempts were made at walking on water.

      The Madeleine case was probably small potatoes to him, in comparison to say, the Iraq Inquiry that was hanging over his head. Something he probably left to his, err, cruder, henchmen to sort out with a 'the public will believe, and that's that' approach.

      Unfortunately, for Blair, Brown and New Labour, Gerry and Kate were in this for the long haul and doubt anyone could have foreseen that. Had they gone back to their lives after the Portuguese investigation was filed and their Arguido status lifted, that would have been the end of it.

      Gerry and Kate really are the authors of their own misfortune. They chose to stay in the headlines, and they chose to pursue Goncalo Amaral for damages.

      At the moment, we don't know how far New Labour's interference went, but by late June, early July, the UK government were backing away. One of the most enlightening interviews as to what was going on at the time was given to Vanity Fair. Gerry believed 'he was off the record'. He wasn't. It was during this interview that he explained how Madeleine's eye was a good marketing ploy. And it was during this interview that Clarence said they asked to speak to the PM or a senior Minister, but were only offered 'mid level consul'. So at some point, the Government backed away, or at least those at a higher level did.

      Delete
    3. '' If and when, they became aware that all was not as it seemed, it was too late, all the damage (to the PJ investigation) had been done. ''

      That shouldn't have prevented the PJ going about their business on their own turf.

      ''they decided to go with it. A missing child story was an excellent accompaniment to New Labour's plans for a national DNA bank, ID cards and snooping on the public's internet activity''

      You think they'd knowingly conceal the death of a child and the hiding of her body then fund a limitless masquerade of an investigation because of wanting a DNA bank and snooping laws ? The crime occurred on the cusp of political upheaval. Blair was seeing out his days as PM and the Labour Party was crumbling behind closed doors. Brown had yet to officially announce that he would be standing, his personal PR team was in trouble and the backbenches were threatening to walk. The Tory Party was well aware of this and was waiting to pounce and win major political credibility by exposing it. Brown had been pushing for Snooping laws a long time before 2007. He was one of a group of very twitchy PMs scared about 'rumours' circulating about dirty deeds in high places and the public 'calling out' of them( him included). When was that part of the remit of a Chancellor ? The snooping laws were already in place. Snowden told us that when he fled America and made himself a 'threat to national security' ( yawn). The UK has operated a monkey-see-monkey-do mentality as part of the allied front ( See Iraq, see Patriot Act).What they do, we do. So, I think all of this was far more important than covering up an abduction abroad. Has the involvement brought about that DNA bank or an official Snooping Legislation that isn't due to the terrorist bogeymen on every corner ? Ig not, then their involvement in this case and their subsequent silence( apart from funding announcements relating to SY) suggests that neither was on their real agenda.

      ''Unfortunately, for Blair, Brown and New Labour, Gerry and Kate were in this for the long haul and doubt anyone could have foreseen that.''

      There's no evidence of that. But the later funding by Cameron suggests he knew a long haul was ahead. You don't offer up millions if there's a real investigation underway in which a child may be found any day. Millions is planning for years. It would have been more credible to top it up every month 'as needed' to sustain the illusion. That's my question about the parents - did they, or have they since- questioned why that seemed to be the thinking of the Government - long haul. I think GM did. I think his irritation with Cameron has that behind it.

      ''Gerry and Kate really are the authors of their own misfortune. They chose to stay in the headlines, and they chose to pursue Goncalo Amaral for damages. ''

      The abductor was. That's what two police forces are supposedly looking for. Amaral pursued the parents through his book; they retaliated to defend themselves. had they kept quiet, it would, without doubt, be interpreted online as fear.But they didn't keep quiet - and that was interpreted as fear. That's why the mob lack credibility.

      VT

      Delete
    4. I didn't say Blair and Brown funded the cover up, you just made that up.

      And again you are trying to confuse Madeleine's Fund with the money given by Cameron for the police review and investigation.

      Madeleine's Fund is all McCann. Started up by the family, run by the family, and spent by the family. No government involvement whatsoever.

      The money given to Operation Grange was allotted by the Home Office to the police, after Gerry and Kate's letter appeared on the front page of the Sun in May 2011.

      Actually no police force was looking for an abductor after the Portuguese shelved their investigation. That was the McCanns complaint and the reason they were pushing for a review.

      Goncalo Amaral didn't 'pursue' the parents through his book, he defended his reputation by telling his side of the story. Something he was perfectly entitled to do given the way in which Team McCann had trashed him name in the British tabloids. Gerry and Kate only wanted their side of the story told, and have been trying to silence him ever since. In fact it is the amount of trouble they have gone to in order to silence him, that aroused suspicion.

      Delete
    5. ''Actually no police force was looking for an abductor after the Portuguese shelved their investigation.''

      What or who were they looking for ? What or who are they still looking for ?

      ''Goncalo Amaral didn't 'pursue' the parents through his book, he defended his reputation by telling his side of the story''

      Shouldn't he have defended it by protesting against those who removed him and pointed out the validity of his hypotheses ?

      '' Gerry and Kate only wanted their side of the story told, and have been trying to silence him ever since''

      Gerry and Kate lost a child. Their 'side' was going to be public anyway thanks to media and internet interest ( and obsession). To be called liars and accused of hiding their child's body is bad enough, that nobody can prove the allegations is worse. But, have it your (usual) balanced, objective way - the McCanns were 'trashing' someone's reputation. If Amaral wasn't pursuing a vendetta against the McCanns, what was it ? He was removed unfairly, and blamed the McCanns and went after them by printing his suspicions that framed them as liars and disposers of their own child's corpse. Only one thing can show the content of his book as valid- and we know that won't happen. Being removed by your superiors damages your reputation more than the complaints of two (in his eyes) suspects. People who use Amaral's book as evidence of his theorising being on the money should remember the judges much-quoted ruling and the conditions stipulated regarding what conditions it was allowed to be published.

      ''I didn't say Blair and Brown funded the cover up, you just made that up.''

      I didn't say you or anyone else said that. You made that up. Quote me if I'm wrong. Regarding the 'funding'..what kind of figures are we talking from Cameron's mystery piggy bank ? Cameron, Prime Minister. He referred to it as a fighting or war fund. Either way,my point stands- if it was tens of thousands-why ? if it was millions - why ?

      VT

      Delete
    6. To VT
      You said "the McCanns were 'trashing' someone's reputation. If Amaral wasn't pursuing a vendetta against the McCanns, what was it ?"
      *
      The Mcs WERE trashing GA's reputation at every opportunity they got. It was they who pursued a vendetta against GA.
      How you can posit the reverse with a straight face, is beyond me and all those who have followed this case for 10 years.
      GA, as Ros said, was issuing his side of the events (same as PJ files) because we were only getting the Mcs side from British MSM.
      Mcs are not victims. MBM is, GA is and Brenda Leyland.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    7. When the file was shelved in 2008 VT, the Portuguese police weren't looking for anyone. They knew there was no abductor, that's why the case was shelved. They couldn't continue with the investigation because the McCanns and their friends wouldn't co-operate.

      As for Cameron's piggy bank, he wasn't giving money to the McCanns personally, he was providing the finance for Scotland Yard to review the disappearance of Madeleine. And I doubt very much that review was based on the scoping exercise by Jim Gamble, who by May 2011 was no longer the head of CEOP.

      As to 'why', I'm guessing the UK had a lot to make up for with regard to the interrupted investigation. David Cameron vacationed in Portugal shortly before he granted funds for the Review, I'm guessing some sort of deal was made.

      You won't like this VT, but Gerry and Kate are not likeable. There is a very good chance that they have made a number of powerful enemies, including dogged detectives who are determined to bring this case to trial.

      The initial investigation was interrupted by the British government, that is the New Labour government of 2007. David Cameron, I suspect, was trying to right that wrong.

      Delete
    8. ''As for Cameron's piggy bank, he wasn't giving money to the McCanns personally, he was providing the finance for Scotland Yard to review the disappearance of Madeleine''

      It's still Government funding.Cameron came under fire for it, and a lot of that fire came from the UK public. reports never delved into how much pressure was being exherted on him from the Murdoch / Freud quarter-surprise, surprise. Britain was being flooded by media reports on our recession, the lack of the promised recovery and the double dip recession and how much we'd been spending on arms to protecte beloved Israel and how little was being spent on the NHS. These were bigger issues for everyone. When cameron gave the excuse that they had a'special cases' fund he'd been 'made aware of' it stank. Not only because it was a cheaper, lazier sales tactic than a snake oil salesman, but we all naively thought that things like medical care was 'special'.

      ''David Cameron vacationed in Portugal shortly before he granted funds for the Review, I'm guessing some sort of deal was made.''

      You can take that to the bank as they say. Blair was a frequent vistor there too( as well as very close friends with José Manuel Barroso who now has a lovely cushy position in the UK).

      ''You won't like this VT, but Gerry and Kate are not likeable. There is a very good chance that they have made a number of powerful enemies, including dogged detectives who are determined to bring this case to trial. ''

      Likeable is in the eye of the beholder. You have to remember, if their child was abducted as they and others claim, you're not going to get smiles and jokes. The failure to solve th case in ten years is further cause to not have a happy go lucky social facade.You can't condemn people to prison for not being 'likeable'. Remember Christopher Jeffries ? He was deemed( by the court of public opinion) to be 'weird, sneaky, odd, too eager to be interviewed, a liar etc). had he stood trial, the jury would have been instructed to ignore all that they'd read and seen but they wouldn't have-not completely. It turned out he was normal, concerned, and trying to be genuinely helpful.The same thing happened with Wallace(1931) 'the man from the pru'.He had a moustache and glasses like Crippen and 'kept himself to himself'. The jusry were blindingly naive and he got the death sentence but was later released on appeal.

      ''The initial investigation was interrupted by the British government, that is the New Labour government of 2007. David Cameron, I suspect, was trying to right that wrong. ''

      Cameron was merely passed the baton in the relay ( as Theresa May has been passed it now).Don't forget, outside the showbizzy 'questions' we see from the house, these creatures are bosom buddies.Cameron spent 3 years loudly condemning Blair for not bringing the troops home from Iraq while offering no policies of his own other than his 'hug a hoodie' crap. Did he pull out of Iraq ? No. He waited for Obama's finger- clicking.

      I find it significant that, political puppet shows aside, the then Tory party /leader and Labour / leader were joined by a common link. The Murdoch Empire / Freud empire. The global headquarters of media spin and money entertained both parties socially and often. The political 'enemies' were glad to sip champagne at their little parties.

      https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/team-murdoch-or-team-freud-who-backs-whom-in-the-divorce-of-the-decade-9777525.html

      VT

      Delete
    9. Anonymous10 October 2017 at 14:57 (SYIACM)

      ''The Mcs WERE trashing GA's reputation at every opportunity they got. It was they who pursued a vendetta against GA''

      I'll try a little empathy exercise. If your child had been abducted and there were no signs of her being returned and no sign of the police finding her or an abductor-how would you feel ? Would you be distraught? Angry ? Broken ? Helpless ? If the detective who was initially in charge of the investigation, but removed, then told the world via a book that he was removed for wanting to expose your lies and how you, in fact, were responsible for the disappearance not only of your child, but her corpse, who is initialising the 'trashing' ? What would you do or say about him and what he was doing ?

      You can justify his actions and the criticisms of the parents only if Amaral is proven to be right in his assertions and that the parents had done what he has accused them of. Not before. If you believe the investigation was interfered with to promote the complete innocence of the parents and that an abduction hypothesis had been contrived in order to protect them, then is it really the parents who should be getting slaughtered online and in public ?

      VT

      Delete
    10. @Anonymous10 October 2017 at 14:57

      The last resort of the haters is to bring up Brenda Leyland and tie her suicide directly to the McCanns, rather than the Sky team. It's totally disrespectful to her memory, and her family, to use it in desperation to summon up anti-McCann feeling. Can't you just continue the money laundering and fraud accusations on top of the death of their child. They might be a bit crazy, but at least you're not disrespecting the dead.

      Delete
    11. Are you saying someone other than the McCanns and the tapas group, came up with the abduction hypothesis VT?

      Delete
    12. Ziggy, 21:10

      Please spare us your political diatribes, you are putting off my readers.

      Your attempts to shift the blame for Madeleine's disappearance onto the UK government (labour and tory?), are.... (I'm looking for a word between admirable and obsessive), tedious, lol, mostly on the grounds that they are completely loopy. I feel compelled however to say, nice try.

      As for being likeable. Unfortunately, not being likeable doesn't help. And here I can empathise. In my younger, feistier days, many people disliked me quite intensely (hard to believe, I know, lol), probably because I have never been able to hold back on my honest opinion, and often quite forthright views! I have always felt it my duty to use my gift of the gab to help others and bring them together.

      I have discovered over the years however, that honesty accompanied by lashings of charm, is usually quite welcome. There is never any excuse for being rude or abrupt to anyone, people always remember what you say, and it is better to be kind.

      Moving on to your second reply Ziggy, and following on from the above, most people put courtesy and good manners above everything. Even under duress. Maybe even, especially under duress.

      Given how much Gerry and Kate depended on the Portuguese police who turned up that night, I cannot understand how they could have treated them with such disrespect. No-one would dream of saying the surgeon's rubbish, on the way into an operation.

      Most people have faith in the professionals, why didn't the McCanns? Children go missing all the time, and most are quickly found. The rush to put up roadblocks and shut the borders, was bizarre, so it was no wonder the first two officers on the scene, found their behaviour very strange.

      Gerry and Kate chose to be aloof and detached VT, and they have had plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to allow their true characters to come through. They might be thoroughly nice people behind their media fronts, but since the early days of the Jon Corner film, they have clammed up. They shouldn't have, fair enough, we didn't have full on real Gerry and Kate, but enough to give them a humanity they have never been able to recreate since.

      I tend to think VT, had they been a little nicer to people on the way up, they would not be in this predicament now.

      Delete
    13. ''I tend to think VT, had they been a little nicer to people on the way up, they would not be in this predicament now.''

      A case of smile, show humility, and you can have your child back. You have a strange way of gauging the scale of a 'predicament' .

      ''Most people have faith in the professionals, why didn't the McCanns?''

      What have the professionals done in solving the case in the last 10 years ?

      ''No-one would dream of saying the surgeon's rubbish, on the way into an operation.''

      What about later if the surgeon had botched the operation ?

      ''There is never any excuse for being rude or abrupt to anyone, people always remember what you say, and it is better to be kind. ''

      And this 1930s stiff upper lip and refinement is supposed to hold when your child has vanished and the police get nowhere ? Good idea in theory, but anyone who did that would be slaughtered on the internet.

      ''Your attempts to shift the blame for Madeleine's disappearance onto the UK government (labour and tory?), are.... (I'm looking for a word between admirable and obsessive), tedious, mostly on the grounds that they are completely loopy.. I feel compelled however to say, nice try. ''

      I haven't shifted blame for a disappearance anywhere.I don't know who took her and neither do you or the rest of the public. The constant blanket bombing of the parents online and the attempts to nail them with language reading and body language ( both available to the police) and the attempts to shape an argument of fraud are tedious.They border on 'loopy'. Nice try though. I clearly blame the UK governments interference for prolonging this mystery which, I believe, wouldn't be a mystery had they stayed at home doing their own jobs instead of the jobs of policeman in another country.

      Political involvement is important with regard to this investigation, Amaral's removal and media spin.Like it or not, that's a fact.it isn't as 'salacious' or as 'scandalous' as the 'evil middle class doctors' scenario I admit. If anyone doesn't like to consider it as part of the larger picture they obviously don't want to see the larger picture.But it doesn't stop them knowing all the 'facts' and the 'truth'. What happened to the welcoming of alternative viewpoints and theories?There's only one welcomed and one alone. The varying amounts of hypotheses are discussed only if the bottom line incriminates the parents . The parents who are condemned by anyone looking for a reason to condemn them, and condemned if they 'clam up'.

      VT





      Delete
    14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 October 2017 at 23:54

      ''Are you saying someone other than the McCanns and the tapas group, came up with the abduction hypothesis VT?''

      If Amaral's right, and the abduction was 'faked' and then willingly endorsed by the UK government ( and MI5 according to him), then the theory preferred is that Madeleine was no longer alive, the parents buried her, then the police were called and an abduction was reported. What else would the parents be being protected from ? The UK bought the story and went with it.the PJ didn't but failed to prove an alternative. Amaral hints that the case will be solved when two governments have the will to solve it.In anyone's reading that suggests that the fate of Madeleine is already known and was from day 1 . It suggests that no investigating was needed, so none is needed now.All that is needed is a joint agreement. It's a sweeping statement for him to make . But it's clear enough.

      VT

      Delete
    15. So it was still the parents' idea but the UK government and MI5 endorsed it? Is that what you are saying VT?

      As for Goncalo Amarals remarks on 'political will', you truly are making a mountain out of a molehill. How do you get from there to 'no investigating was needed'?

      You are tying yourself up in knots Ziggy and trying to draw myself and my readers into your same hazy thinking. It's not working.

      Delete
    16. Bizarre, and a bit sad you think courtesy and respect are remnants from the 1930's VT. They are in fact something nice people strive towards every day, especially in times of trauma. Most people do not kick out at their rescuers.

      Your suggestion that anyone showing refinement and a stiff upper lip would be slaughtered on the internet is Laugh Out Loud funny. Good manners are appreciated online, just as must as they are appreciated in the real world.

      Your alternate views are published VT and I respond with my views. That's what open debate looks like. If you are failing to persuade me, or my readers, then the fault lies with yourself. Must try harder.

      Delete
    17. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 October 2017 at 08:45

      ''So it was still the parents' idea but the UK government and MI5 endorsed it? Is that what you are saying VT? ...
      As for Goncalo Amarals remarks on 'political will', you truly are making a mountain out of a molehill. How do you get from there to 'no investigating was needed'? ''

      ''You are tying yourself up in knots Ziggy and trying to draw myself and my readers into your same hazy thinking. It's not working.''

      The mountain out of a molehill is merely a quote. Given the seriousness of the allegation which is being insinuated by it qualifies it as a mountain already . I was quoting Amaral. How do i get to 'no investigation needed ' ? Without rocket science. Amaral was / is saying that this case would be solved ( would, not could) when the political will was there ( Portugal / UK). That could be today or tomorrow afternoon.If he says that's all it needs then he's saying facts are known already, it just needs an agreement by the two countries.It also lends a little weight to his favoured hypothesis that the abduction was a fiction of the parents, and that the protection of them ( by the UK and Met), and the efforts to divert attention away from them make sense. There's nothing hazy in my thinking. It's your(and your readers who you seem to speak on behalf of) hazy understanding.

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 October 2017 at 09:41

      ''Your alternate views are published VT and I respond with my views. That's what open debate looks like. If you are failing to persuade me, or my readers, then the fault lies with yourself. Must try harder.''

      When I've been banging the same drum for years and getting nowhere, I'll try harder, or, use my common sense and consider I might be banging the wrong drum.That's what open minds do. I'm not trying to persuade , I'm attempting to open up a discussion wider. The lone furrow has led people deeper into it and that's all. A sort of 'road less travelled' approach could yield better discussions, or some level-headedness. I know, as do a lot of your former readers, that a blind man can't be persuaded to see.

      VT

      Delete
    18. Hi VT aka Ziggy

      How can you quote GA when by your own admission you have never read his book. Your quite happy to rip apart his views but not Kate's which again by your own admission you've never read her book either. Surely like the majority of readers on this forum, myself included have looked at, read & researched both sides of the case & perhaps in this forum came to a scenario which we believe happened on that fateful night.

      Delete
    19. John10012 October 2017 at 13:21 says:
      "Surely like the majority of readers on this forum, myself included have looked at, read & researched both sides of the case & perhaps in this forum came to a scenario which we believe happened on that fateful night."
      -------------------------------

      Surely this is a blog not a forum and surely I have never seen anyone on this blog post a comment that fully explains a scenario about what "happened on that fateful night."

      Perhaps you would like to explain?

      Delete
    20. John10012 October 2017 at 13:21

      ''John10012 October 2017 at 13:21

      ''Hi VT aka Ziggy
      How can you quote GA when by your own admission you have never read his book. Your quite happy to rip apart his views but not Kate's ''

      That's a typical response from someone with a view so jaundiced he won't look at things properly any more. I think Amaral was unfairly removed from the case and I think his bosses needed to be questioned .In the broader context it is tantamount to unfair / wrongful dismissal. It can't be called that because he wasn't dismissed from the force. I think Amaral was and is on to something when he talks about the governmental hijacking of the case and that people in higher positions than the police force could have allowed the case to be solved.Where I disagree is what exactly the reasons were for it all . It should have been left to the police to investigate - it's as simple as that. They could have requested assistance later when they'd had a chance to be more thorough in their investigations.They weren't allowed that.Why ? Because the UK government said they couldn't have it.The wisdom at the time was that the UK led the world in policing.That's one of the biggest myths today anyway, even apart from their ten years of smoke and mirrors and spin. If the PJ are 'third world' and staffed by a variety of 'tweedle dees and dums' then what of the Met ? The PJ have an excuse - they were pounced on early and changes were made. They had little say. The Met came in like the cavalry,met no resistance and turned it into a media circus and a nice little gravy train for themselves.

      You can read that as 'ripping into' Amaral if you like. But you're way off the mark. If Amaral is ever proved to be right Re his hypotheses, I'll join the hero worship. I'm not slating him because there's no proof of his accusations and musings.That's not his fault.But the cold truth is that it's what him and his hypotheses need.Until it appears,nobody can 'prove' if he's right or if he's wrong.It's concrete evidence-or the lack of- that's keeping this case cold in all but name. If a trial ever transpires, neither his book or Kate's book would be called upon as evidentially important . They're both only literature and each are expressing personal feelings and cogitations. They might be worthy of a discussion in a book club, but not a criminal trial.Picking bits out to support a theory is a hobby for a lot of people.Not me.

      VT

      Delete
    21. @john

      If so many have came to the same conclusion, why do you think that the police haven't came to it ?

      Delete
    22. I'm pretty sure John was using the true definition of the word forum 19:30, a meeting or medium where ideas can be exchanged on a particular topic.

      It's a word I hesitate to use myself these days, for fear of misunderstanding, because as an old fashioned gal, I think of it in it's original form. I'm the same with 'skeptic' and 'sceptic', the 'k' is just wrong!

      Delete
    23. Again with the rudeness VT? I don't think it is John's views that jaundiced. He is not the one who refuses to read books.

      Trying to steer GA's grievance against the McCanns towards his former employers has never worked, and never will.

      I notice there is a new hostility towards the British police in your voluminous posts Ziggy, I take it things aren't going so well. The idea that the Met charged in like the cavalry and turned it into a media circus and nice little gravy train for themselves is a new one.

      It's astonishing on so many levels, I don't know where to begin! I don't remember any 'Met' officers giving interviews in PDL, and I was permanently glued to the Team McCann channel on Sky News. Lots of family, friends and spin doctors, but no actual police.

      And what sort of 'gravy train' could the disappearance of Madeleine, provide for the Metropolitan police?

      Delete
    24. ''Again with the rudeness VT? I don't think it is John's views that jaundiced. He is not the one who refuses to read books. ''

      Then I apologise. I didn't realise that it was rude not to read books.

      ''Trying to steer GA's grievance against the McCanns towards his former employers has never worked, and never will. ''

      I'm not steering anything anywhere, or trying to. Stop panicking. I maintain he was removed unfairly and he has a genuine grievance over that. He'd given them 25 years good service and was approaching retirement.Being shoved to a desk job was a bitter pill for him to swallow when he could have signed off solving his biggest case. I fail to see how he has such a vast army of supporters who offer him little or no support for how he was treated.All they're genuinely interested in his literary work that explores hypotheses about the parents being guilty of burying their dead child. I wonder why.

      ''I notice there is a new hostility towards the British police in your voluminous posts Ziggy, I take it things aren't going so well. The idea that the Met charged in like the cavalry and turned it into a media circus and nice little gravy train for themselves is a new one. ''

      New to who and where ? It's been said by many over a long period of time. You believe there's no real abduction to investigate don't you ? You know we read about the odd 'jolly' in the sun to chase nothing, but sell papers. How isn't that a gravy train ? Does anyone genuinely feel anticipation when some branch of the media announce a new or 'important' lead in different corners of the world. That stuff got old early. The only anticipation and excitement was when the parents were taken in for questioning and the two times Murat was. It looked real.

      The met aren't there to give interviews, they're wherever they are to do what they're paid for. Their bosses do the media spin.

      VT

      Delete
    25. Jollies in the sun. Good heavens. It takes a special kind of mentality to think like that Ziggy, a pretty cynical and sleazy one. Why would you assume that of this group of police officers, or does it apply to police in general?

      Most people are honest VT and the idea of the police using a missing child to have jollies in the sun, is repugnant, and simply doesn't happen. These officers are parents, grandparent, uncles, aunts, what a terrible view of the world you must have.

      Your obsession with Goncalo Amaral is tedious Ziggy, this case, and the rest of us have moved on. Operation Grange haven't followed up any leads in different corners of the world Ziggy, they have only travelled to Portugal.

      So what media spin were the Met responsible for in 2007 Ziggy? Or even, what media spin are they responsible for since then and now? I would say with the debate that goes on here, they haven't given anything away.

      Delete
    26. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 October 2017 at 02:20

      ''Jollies in the sun. Good heavens. It takes a special kind of mentality to think like that Ziggy, a pretty cynical and sleazy one''

      Not like you to be so snarky, Ros. Sleazy ? Cynical maybe, like most who've sat back and watched this farce. Sleazy ? I think that adjective should be reserved for the Chris Langhams of this world.There's nothing sick about being cynical.

      The rest of your reply is pretty much ad hominem and attempts to be personally insulting. Your Freudian slip's showing.

      VT

      Delete
    27. I don't take your psychological assessment of me too seriously VT, your thinking on everything else is so skew whiff.

      Most of don't think of ways in which to scam our employers VT, we have genuine reasons for doing our jobs, and with police officers, even more so.

      Only people who would think of doing that kind of thing themselves, would project it onto others.

      Delete
    28. Should add VT, wasn't it the McCanns and all their family and friends who were making full use of Warner's facilities?

      Delete
  16. KM ('madeleine'):

    “On Monday 27 August I had a call from Esther McVey, a Liverpool friend from my late teens, by then a television presenter and Conservative parliamentary candidate. Esther was on the board of Madeleine’s Fund. She said she was scared by our current situation and uncomfortable with what she felt was a ‘political shift’. For our own safety, and ‘to protect Madeleine’s good name’ (I wasn’t quite sure what she meant by that), she thought we ought to come home. It seemed I was being pressurized from all quarters and I didn’t like it.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree 'to protect Madeleine's good name' was an odd thing to say. Perhaps she was trying to be diplomatic (she's not very good at it), and actually mean't the parents' good name.

      That was certainly the way the McCanns interpreted it, or indeed had already made up their minds. The McCanns campaign included selling themselves as the world's most responsible parents.

      I often smile when I read extracts from Kate's book - she is such a drama queen! And I say that as a self confessed drama queen myself. She is very accomplished at getting others to do things for her, probably when she reaches for the smelling salts or goes to have a lie down.

      Unfortunately, on top of everything else, Kate is one of those of those women who wants to be an eternal 'little girl', and that makes my feminist blood boil. And I have also a particular dislike for grown women who speak with the same voice they had when they were 6. Apart from the fact it is just plain creepy, womens' voices are just as beautiful and sensual as mens! I really have to fight the urge to slap them.

      Whilst I have no problem with the use of womanly wiles, there is no need to act like a halfwit. And there is no need to begin every sentence with 'my husband', as if you have to seek permission for every thought.

      That's generic by the way, not specifically aimed at Kate, just my general grumpiness at needy women who let the side down.

      But Kate is manipulative. Watching the early news reports, I was astonished to see 'Cuddle Cat' peeking out of the top of Kate's backpack, as she arrived at the police station. It was at that point I realised we were being manipulated.

      Both Gerry and Kate are pretty adept at manipulating people, however, they are far from expert level, much of it is pretty obvious. Well it is to those of us who spend our lives people watching. But kudos, apart from winning the sympathy of the world, they also managed to get all their family and friends to come out and take over their chores, while they did the glamorous stuff. Tbh, if I had a sister in law who took to her duvet when the going got rough, I'd bring the whole party into her bedroom. Cots, high chairs, go karts, the lot. But maybe, I'm just mean.

      Delete
    2. How do you type with such long claws

      Delete
    3. Likeable is in the eye of the beholder. You have to remember, if their child was abducted as they and others claim,

      -----
      Oh dear VT - who 'claims' that Madeleine was abducted by a person or people unknown? The parents, family and friends. Anyone else? The media are just puppets so I don't count mindless journalists like Lorraine Kelly.

      Can you provide any evidence for the abduction theory? Can the McCann family or friends? Tanner-man has been ruled out and as far as I am aware that was the only 'evidence'. Bedroom doors being ajar or not and 'whooshing curtains' are really not evidence. Nor are incredibly ugly pimple-men seen, allegedly, lurking around the area.

      Delete
  17. "Since the arrest of Sócrates in 2014 the list of defendants has grown to include his former wife, Sofia Fava; a former Director of Caixa Geral de Depósitos and former socialist minister, Armando Vara; his daughter Bárbara Vara; Luso-Angolan businessman, Hélder Bataglia, Carlos Santos Silva, the businessman and friend of the former Prime Minister; Joaquim Barroca of the Lena Group; João Perna, Sócrates’ former chauffeur; Paulo Lalanda de Castro from Octapharma; Henrique Granadeiro and Zeinal Bava, former directors of PT, Inês do Rosário who is Carlos Santos Silva’s mother; the lawyer Gonçalo Trindade Ferreira and the businessmen Diogo Gaspar Ferreira and Rui Mão de Ferro.

    One of the money trails reportedly led to a safety deposit box in a Swiss bank and this has caused some delay in the investigation as legal assistance had to be requested from the Swiss authorities. According to the latest press reports from Portugal the Attorney General’s Office in Lisbon has set a deadline of 20 November 2017 for the conclusion of the Operation Marquis investigation."

    http://techrights.org/2017/10/06/portugal-operation-marquis/

    https://www.publico.pt/operacao-marques

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ros wrote: "Madeleine's Fund is all McCann. Started up by the family, run by the family, and spent by the family. No government involvement whatsoever".

    Er, 'no government involvement whatsoever?' I am not sure we can say that. The sums paid out to the private detectives were colossal - a 7-figure sum at least. Then there were those huge legal bills for fighting Amaral and their other legal battles. Where has all that money come from? Bell Pottinger was paid £500,000 to 'keep the McCanns on the front page for a year'. Clarence Mitchell has been employed by the McCanns for 10 years. Where did all those funds come from? Surely it was no coincidence that the first person the McCann Team employed was Gary Hagland, a money-laundering expert? McCann detectives like Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton and Tim Craig-Harvey all once worked for the government in one capacity or another. The government is up to its neck and beyond in all this

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ten years on after the events at Praia da Luz, why do you think the case is still so much debated?
    Pedro do Carmo......
    First because there was a deliberate and legitimate effort on the part of the child's parents in keeping the issue on the agenda of the media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous10 October 2017 at 10:52

      And they will continue to do so until they find out what happened to Madeleine.

      Delete
    2. Tut-tut (while shaking head) just as if they don't already know.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous10 October 2017 at 19:03

      They know she was abducted. Or do you think every policeman involved are a bit stupid.

      Delete
  20. SYIACM - as Ros likes to call you. Unless you are a blushing shy journalist, perhaps you would like to publish links to the articles that you have had published - ya know - just to try to validify the rubbish you post on here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To:
      Anonymous10 October 2017 at 17:54
      It's your right as opinion to call what I post as "rubbish".
      With such a diplomatic request how could I possibly not respond in equal eloquent terms but to say 'get stuffed'?
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    2. SYIACM - thankyou for confirming what I thought of you.

      Delete
    3. Cheers Ros and to Anonymous10 October 2017 at 22:54 you're more than welcome.
      -
      SixYearsInAComaMan

      Delete
  21. ''Actually no police force was looking for an abductor after the Portuguese shelved their investigation.''

    So why was the Portuguese investigation re opened with 'tractor man'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You think it was re-opened for 'tractor man' 19:18?

      And if it was for 'tractor man', why did it continue when 'tractor man' was ruled out? Several year ago now.

      I don't think there was ever a case against any of the suspects tossed to the media 19:18. Most, if not all of them, were ruled out during the very thorough first investigation by the Portuguese.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 20:31

      "Most, if not all of them, were ruled out during the very thorough first investigation by the Portuguese."

      Yes - including the Mccanns and Murat.

      Delete
    3. Did not the Portuguese Supreme Court say that the McCanns had not been formally cleared?

      Delete
    4. No doubt about it.

      Delete
  22. Hi Rosalinda

    Just a few thoughts on the Madeleine’s Fund.
    The main object of the Madeleine’s Fund, according to what the McCanns say, is “to secure the safe return (of Madeleine) to her family”. The McCanns’alleged search for Madeleine is entirely based upon the assumption that she’s still well and that one or more perpetrators for some obscure reason are still looking after her and keeping her in good condition. Otherwise “a safe return” would not be possible, would it? We need not know more to understand that their Fund has nothing whatsoever with a serious attempt to understand what really happened to Madeleine to do.

    When the McCanns are asked about what they think may have happened to her after the “abduction”, they haven’t got the faintest idea, still they insist that she hasn’t “come to any harm”, though they cannot explain why they think so. Common sense tells us that Madeleine must have come to very much harm, and what sane person can deny that.

    Donating money to the McCanns’ Fund makes it possible for them to keep on manipulating British MSM by repeating their 10 years old preposterous fairy tale about an unharmed and happy little girl, who’s just waiting to be found. I find it false, repugnant and disgusting to be honest. The real purpose of the Fund is to pervert the course of justice by misleading those who seriously are trying to investigate the Madeleine case and by implicitly threatening as many seekers of truth on social media as possible, especially those who demand that the McCanns should be further investigated.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn, and lovely to see you :)

      Thank you for emphasizing how important the Madeleine Fund has been to the delay in solving the case. I think the objective of Team McCann now, is to play down the importance of the Fund until eventually they will say it was something they didn't make much of.

      The Fund of course is very much dependent on Madeleine being alive, it loses its purpose if she isn't, and leads to the final objective of the Fund, passing the money that remains to children's charities. Though that clause is strictly tied up with the wording 'finding Madeleine AND her abductor', so there is no legal obligation.

      Anyway, as I say, good to see you and apologies for my delay in replying. I am rushing to complete a book in time for Christmas. It is pure comedy, nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine, and I am having a good giggle writing it!

      Delete
    2. Bravo Bjorn! Of course the Fund is a complete farce and of course the parents know that Madeleine has come to harm. Dr Amaral and his team nailed the case early on and the last ten years or so have just been a circus. It IS repugnant. The parents and their friends are repulsive and that poor child deserved so much better. And what a legacy to leave for Madeleine's siblings. What must they think?

      Delete
    3. Actually 21:24, most people, including the most virulent antis, avoid the 'repugnant' aspects of this case, but they are always there beneath the surface.

      Your 'poor me' little rant there doesn't evoke sympathy, so much as astonishment at it's self searching message.

      Those who post on my blog are not responsible for the legacy left for Madeleine's siblings, their parents are! When they will ever take responsibility for their own actions!

      Delete
  23. highmyope195511 October 2017 at 08:29

    ''Did not the Portuguese Supreme Court say that the McCanns had not been formally cleared?

    Yes, but the police said they have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The police clear no one,the police may decide rightly or wrongly that person/persons are no longer are of interest.The 4 arguidos back in 2014 for instance.

      Delete
    2. Hi
      @anon 11 Oct.18:28

      Their arguido status was lifted because the case was shelved, but not shelved because their arguido status was lifted. The reason as to why it was shelved, I believe we all know.

      Delete
    3. The truth in 1 sentence. Thanks Björn.

      Delete
    4. @Björn12 October 2017 at 08:42

      What do we know exactly ? Are you calling the Met liars ?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous11 October 2017 at 20:52

      Saying someone isn't a person of interest, and that they never were is the same as saying that they're not suspects. The status is therefore lifted.The only think they haven't been cleared of is the suspicion from people who have nothing to do with the case.

      Delete
    6. @ Bjorn 08:42

      Maybe you missed this:

      "The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code."

      Delete
    7. A lot missed it, Anon 20:14. And those who have just read it here will miss it again.It's an argument they don't like to face and counter.

      VT

      Delete
    8. "The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy…” = “Their arguido status was lifted because the case was shelved, but not shelved because their arguido status was lifted.”

      Björn is right therefore.

      “…no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.” No indications of the practise of any crime.

      “A lot missed it, Anon 20:14. And those who have just read it here will miss it again.It's an argument they don't like to face and counter.”

      I did not miss it, brother VT. The aforementioned inequality is something you seem to not like “to face and counter”.

      Brother T

      Delete
    9. No one misses it,ts lack of evidence pure and simple,thats why OG are struggling.

      Delete
    10. Declaration Supreme Court of Portugal, page 70

      ...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)

      And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

      In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

      The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

      There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

      Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

      Delete
    11. @VT at 01:23

      Have you ever wondered what a generalization is?

      Delete
    12. "A lot missed it, Anon 20:14. And those who have just read it here will miss it again.It's an argument they don't like to face and counter."

      I doubt anyone has “missed” it. On a matter of trivia, by the way, it is a little misleading of you, in this era of arguing over the accuracy of translations, to use the mistranslated word “indications” for the word “indicios” in the Archiving Summary. “Indication” is not a legal term; the correct translation in this context is “evidence”. But of course it suits your argument to use “indications” because it has a much wider meaning than “evidence”, hinting as the former does but the latter doesn't, that there is no “sign” or “trace” of something.

      Now, the Archiving Summary states a truism in its analysis of the PJ investigation report presented to it: no evidence against the McCanns of the commission of any crime. That’s fine with me and always has been.

      What you and the anti-loonies make of it is another matter: the loonies argue that there was such evidence and it can be found by snuffling in the refuse sacks of the case files for crèche records, hidden hands and the rest of their BS. They’ve produced nothing except smelly noses.

      People like you and fellow supporting anonymists, on the other hand, repeat it like a mantra rather than the “piece of evidence itself” that the Lisbon libel court judge described it as and make the mistake of trying to pluck out more meaning than it possesses – an unambiguous “exoneration” or “clearance” of the McCanns. The technical point is that a legal finding, such as a court verdict, cannot ever be challenged except by appeal: it is permanent, itself part of the body of law. A prosecution document, in Portugal or the UK, does not possess any of these attributes.

      It can’t be done. It was tried by the McCanns lying about it via Mitchell the day after it was released, accomplishing nothing except extending their lengthy list of lies, duly noted in Portugal; it was followed up by the McCanns’ libel lawyers trying to extend its legal meaning when formally threatening Pamalam; that failed too. And it was sharply dismissed by the Lisbon trial judge when their witnesses tried it on in court.

      It was this refusal by the McCanns to accept that the Summary could not be extended into a document of exoneration that eventually brought nemesis. The Supreme Court first observed and established what the pair had tried to do for half a decade and then kicked their feet away by denying, as a legal fact, that any such exoneration had occurred – an unprecedented finding provoked purely by the McCanns’ extra-legal attempts to misrepresent a prosecutors’ document.

      That has ended the matter, though you appear not to have noticed it. When you observe the cash being paid out perhaps you’ll come out of denial.


      Delete
    13. Many thanks for that John, though I fear it will continue to fall on deaf ears.

      How anyone could have got 'completely exonerated' from the archiving report is beyond me, it was indeed a magnificent feat of word juggling or linguistic gymnastics at it's finest.

      I guess when you start out with the premise that the public are mugs and will believe anything - and it works, distorting the meaning of a legal document isn't particularly challenging. The majority of the McCann supporters, if there any left, are headline skimmers. If they won't read beyond two paragraphs of a Sun writer, they won't read a legal document. Sadly, that also includes prominent journalists, who just don't get what this case is about.

      Again John, many thanks, your contributions are always enlightening.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous13 October 2017 at 08:45

      ''I did not miss it, brother VT. The aforementioned inequality is something you seem to not like “to face and counter”.

      Bottom line : they are not suspects here or abroad.It's a fact and has been stated by both forces.It's on record.The more popular 'facts' or 'known truths' are speculation supported by others who speculate, but this actual living, breathing fact is danced around.The best argument being that ''er,...erm..well the police don't tell us what they're really doing or who they really suspect ''. True- they often lie- this case is evidence of that. But they don't keep their genuine suspects free from charges for ten years and counting either .

      Anonymous13 October 2017 at 11:28

      ''Have you ever wondered what a generalization is?''

      Can you be more specific ?

      john blacksmith13 October 2017 at 11:38

      ''On a matter of trivia, by the way, it is a little misleading of you, in this era of arguing over the accuracy of translations, to use the mistranslated word “indications” for the word “indicios” ''

      I didn't use either, I was quoting the preceding post.

      The libel trial was about the rights to publish a book about a case.It wasn't a criminal trial.The suspects status is about the fate of Madeleine and possible involvement of her parents. They're two completely different things. To use the remarks of a libel trial to try and support the latter when the police have said the opposite is trying too hard to make a square peg fit a round hole.

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 October 2017 at 12:45

      ''Al Capone was hoisted by his own petard through the financial side of his, err, business. The Feds couldn't get him for corruption, murder and mayhem, but they nailed him with his taxes. ''

      True, but they had to doctor the accounts to frame him.He never put a red cent in a bank.He knew who the real gangsters were.

      ''No-one knows what is happening with the Fund, that is, whether it has ever been under investigation.''

      No one needs to know.No one needs to donate either.It's the most high profile funding of our time and most publicly mentioned. It isn't a handful of people sat around opening envelopes and stashing it, it's run properly. if their was anything fraudulent there would have been an investigations and penalties and Murdoch's old school would be on to Brunt in the blink of an eye on behalf of the mobs. Suggestions of fraud and the like is based on what ?

      VT

      Delete
    15. To VT
      "Suggestions of fraud and the like is based on what?"
      -
      How about Metodo3 Halligen and Alphaig?
      Their own 'official' website calling the 'fund' a charity when it's a Ltd Co.
      -
      SixYearsIaComanMan

      Delete
    16. It's 2017. The fraud squad have internet access. What are they failing to see and act on ?

      VT

      Delete
  24. http://findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html

    "There are six directors of the Fund. They are:

    Brian Kennedy - Retired head teacher;
    Edward Smethurst - A Commercial lawyer;
    Jon Corner – Director of a media company;
    Michael Linett - Retired accountant
    Kate McCann - General Practitioner
    Gerry McCann - Consultant Cardiologist"

    Michael Linnett?

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/852205/Madeleine-McCann-Maddie-family-lose-key-adviser-Kate-Gerry

    "Wealthy Michael Linnett, who died on August 4 aged 75, was the accountant for the Madeleine Fund for 10 years and advised the couple throughout that time.

    The fund was set up to return Madeleine to her family and is partly funded by public donations, although it is not a charity.

    Mr Linnett resigned from his post on May 3 this year – the 10th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance – a few months after the resignation of the fund’s auditors haysmacintyre, a highly regarded firm of accountants and tax advisers based in London."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that 22:19, it is helpful.

      The quote is of course being disingenuous as to why the Fund was set up, not only was it to find Madeleine, it was to support the family.

      That clause to support the family has allowed the family to do whatever they want with the funds, hire lawyers, spin doctors, PR etc, all legal and above board.

      Whether it was morally acceptable to pay people like Clarence Mitchell inflated salaries, is open to debate, and not really in the spirit of what the donors intended, which was finding the child.

      Al Capone was hoisted by his own petard through the financial side of his, err, business. The Feds couldn't get him for corruption, murder and mayhem, but they nailed him with his taxes.

      No-one knows what is happening with the Fund, that is, whether it has ever been under investigation. We do know there has been no fundraising for the Madeleine Fund, since the investigation began.

      Delete
  25. Lisbon, 19 October 2007

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU_OezBmqKY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19 October 2007

      "Gordon Brown, who is in Lisbon for an EU summit, was due to discuss the McCann case with Jose Socrates, his Portuguese counterpart, last night."

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566663/Madeleines-mother-in-hysterics-every-day.html

      Delete
    2. Why people go as far as to find some obscure unknown meaning in the fact that the UK PM did not drink champagne at the conclusion of an EU Summit I will never understand.

      Also, the signing of the Lisbon treaty has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It is called Lisbon Treaty because it was done during the time of the Portuguese EU presidency, not because Portugal drafted it.

      The Treaty was drafted by the EU, not Portugal and needs all member states to sign and ratify it to be valid. To try to link the Lisbon treaty to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is far fetched, to say the least.
      In fact there were far more important countries to deal with regarding the ratification of the said treaty, for instance Germany who only signed the treaty in 2009.

      That Gordon Brown may have taken the opportunity to talk about the case with his Portuguese counterpart is one matter , but to say that Gordon Brown used the Madeleine case as a condition to sign the treaty is quite mad since the treaty is an EU treaty, not a Portuguese one.

      Delete
    3. Ros's blog, once again, produces voices of sanity like yours where few other net sites do. And they appear to be winning the day - possibly because they are in strict accordance with the facts.

      Delete
    4. I am indeed blessed John, I feel most of the crazies have been weeded out by natural selection, the sane and logical have the lead.

      I guess the craziness desensitized us to the circus Team McCann created. The horror of what an abductor could do to Madeleine's unique eye, was lost in LQOK for me posters, that covered every billboard and newspaper front page.

      It was a bizarre and surreal time, similar to the mass hypnosis that gripped the nation when Princess Diana died. The outpouring of grief and sympathy was on par with a national disaster.

      Looking at the bigger picture, Madeleine's disappearance happened at exactly the right moment in history for it to become a global phenomenon. It couldn't happen now for example, because nothing trumps Trump, and tabloid front pages have greatly diminished in value. Not worthy of 500k now and way too many other sources that can get straight past borders. News can no longer be contained, a hard pill to swallow for eternal litigants.

      Delete
    5. Thank you JB. The latest craze with the Lisbon treaty brought to life by the charging of the former PM with several white collar crimes ( again totally unrelated to the case ) is enough to drive one to despair .

      Delete
    6. Yes, but time is on our side and is sorting the truth from the garbage alongside us while refusing to help the loonies on either side in any way at all. So don't despair: there's no need.

      Delete
  26. If SY with approx £12 million on this case alone, with the assistance of the PJ, both highly professional police forces can't solve Madeleine's fate. Then this fund has no chance, especially it's past remit to hire dubious organisations & shady characters to help in the hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  27. John 100 12.10 @13:00

    "professional police forces can't solve Madeleine's fate."

    Breaking news (not): She's dead.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 18 October 2007

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWcyZ5N1G8

    0:08

    Gordon Brown: “I am meeting the Portuguese Prime-Minister later, and we will discuss this issue. I have discussed it with him before, just to assure myself that the police authorities are taking the action that are, that are necessary and that there is proper cooperation between the British and the Portuguese police, but I haven’t had the one to one meeting with the Prime-Minister that I’m going to have later this evening.”

    ----------

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZI9F2NlRU

    23:25

    Richard Bilton: "Did Gordon Brown take time out of the negotiations for the Lisbon Treaty to talk to you about Madeleine McCann?"

    José Sócrates: "No. No, of course not."

    RB: “That has been suggested.”

    JS: "But it's not true. It's not true."

    RB: "The lead investigator on the McCann case, Gonçalo Amaral, he has claimed - he may have been joking - that his job was the price of Britain signing the Lisbon Treaty. What do you make of that?"

    JS: “Well, I think he considers himself in a high level, but it's not true. The Lisbon Treaty with Gonçalo Amaral, the head of Gonçalo, no, no. Well, sometimes people like to make some characters of a drama they never lived.”

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi

    @Anonymous12 October 2017 at 20:14

    It’s true, that there wasn’t ANY crime or ANY evidence of a crime under the disposition of article 1 in the Penal Process Code, but this does not necessarily mean that there wasn’t ANY evidence at all, just that the evidence of the McCanns’ guilt did not at that time meet all criteria stipulated in the specific law referred to by the Public Prosecutor. There cannot, so to speak, be anything “in between” when a prosecutor decides to prosecute or not to prosecute and in this case at that time the Prosecutor chose “not”.

    Moreover, Monteiro made it perfectly clear, when the case had been shelved, that the attorney general’s office (his own), ”reserve the right to reopen the investigation…should there be legitimate cause or should significant ”NEW” EVIDENCE emerge”. “NEW” EVIDENCE in this context, as far as I’m concerned, suggests that there must have been evidence, and if there has been, it must still exist, but just not sufficient for a prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Björn 13 October 2017 at 21:10

      yes, keep waffling Björn - you may convince yourself (and probably Ros) sometime in the future.

      Delete
    2. Hello Bjorn. No, I don't really think you can maintain that without being accused of special pleading or doing what the McCanns tried to do and make it mean more than it says.

      And there's no need to do so. They were released purely and simply because the prosecutors found no evidence of any crime by the McCanns in the PJ report. And they added - "if anyone disagrees then produce the evidence". Nobody could do so: the prosecution had none to produce so by law the couple had to be released.

      There is no need to argue with its plain words because they concern only that investigation and, unlike a court verdict, imply nothing at all about the future. As the McCanns have found out at a cost of 400 000 euros.



      Delete
    3. Annon 13 October 2017 well done .......a lesser person than you might have taken Bjorn's comments and given a line by line description of why they didn't agree with the points he/she had raised. But not you......no no you gave us the scholared words of "keep waffling" ............get back to the school yard where you belong

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 14 October 2017 at 03:34

      :) Thank you. :)

      Respect to Björn. He is good.

      T

      Delete
    5. I agree 'T', Bjorn is very astute, he slices through the waffle with ease, so I suspect the less eloquent contributor was projecting. Perhaps he, she, doesn't have the same gift for languages as Bjorn, Not only does he speak them, he understands them, so already he's one up.

      Nice to see you T, your charm and good manners have been missed :)

      Delete
    6. I suggest
      Anonymous14 October 2017 at 03:34
      T at 07.55
      and Ros at 19:48

      read exactly what Björn at 21:10 said again and try to make sense of it.

      Björn is a well known Mccann hater, someone who has very strange views on a number of matters including paedophilia that are very concerning. Ros makes him welcome here although he has never added anything but hate about the Mccanns.

      Quote "British MSM by repeating their 10 years old preposterous fairy tale about an unharmed and happy little girl, who’s just waiting to be found. I find it false, repugnant and disgusting to be honest."

      The Mccanns have hope - whether it is false hope or not - they have hope. Only a hater would find it "false, repugnant and disgusting".

      Delete
    7. "Björn is a well known Mccann hater, someone who has very strange views on a number of matters including paedophilia that are very concerning. Ros makes him welcome here although he has never added anything but hate about the Mccanns."

      What a really old-fashioned, clichéd post this is, positively screaming of having nothing to offer - just like the McCanns - except false "concern", abuse of the poster and criticism of Ros.

      For God's sake cut yourself loose from a past that has brought you absolutely nothing but disappointment, frustration and not a word of vindication since you believed what you read in the papers in 2007.

      You have manacled yourself.Break free!

      Delete
    8. Hi Anon 14 October 2017 at 20:28

      How would you know that the McCanns have hopes about finding Madeleine.

      Delete
    9. Again with the personal attacks anon at 20.28..........don't you understand the concept of discussion i.e. someone sets out a set of facts or gives their opinion..........whether those facts are correct or you consider them a load of "waffle"you should reply to that person with respect. Giving respect doesn't mean you have to abandon your own opinion or can't contradict misinformation. That how people operate in the grown up world and it's how people like me who doesn't join the conversation is able to form an opinion on what they think is going on.

      Since you ask having read what Bjorn has wrote I understand him to be giving his opinion on the state of the case against the McCanns. Another poster didn't necessarily agree and respectively provided his opinion for which Bjorn thanked him. In the middle of that your contribution is personal attacks which means your opinion on the subject isn't heard

      Delete
  30. Hello John Blacksmith

    Thanks for comment and feed back.Very much appreciated.

    Hello Anon 14 October 03:34 and Anon (T) o7:55

    Thanks to both of you for trying to point out, that the discussion here on Rosalinda's blog should not be about bullying each other, but rather about respecting our different views and opinions, as we all have different experience and perspectives on life.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Björn13 October 2017 at 21:10

    '' It’s true, that there wasn’t ANY crime or ANY evidence of a crime under the disposition of article 1 in the Penal Process Code, but this does not necessarily mean that there wasn’t ANY evidence at all,''

    There was none against the McCanns. If we twist the meaning of the unambiguous wording to try and fit your cause, the evidence that must have existed must fit aomebody 'unknown' if it's of the forensic variety.

    '' “NEW” EVIDENCE in this context, as far as I’m concerned, suggests that there must have been evidence, and if there has been, it must still exist, but just not sufficient for a prosecution. ''

    Yes,not of the McCanns obviously. Given that the crime took place inside the apartment ten years ago- where would they find any NEW evidence that tied the parents to anything now? There's nowhere left. The internet doesn't count.

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The internet doesn't count."

      It counts when you have a donate button.

      Delete
  32. "Oh please - the Ramsays are as guilty as hell. They objectified that poor child - trussed her up like some kind of doll in a toy shop. The McCanns too objectified Madeleine. Both families guilty as hell."

    Like it or not Ros - you are personally liable for everything that you allow to be posted on your blog.

    Every word, every insinuation, every piece of hate, every lie - everything - it is down to you Ros - it is your blog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You want me to inflict McCann Law on my blog 23:59? Forbid freedom of speech because the McCanns have got expensive lawyers.

      The quote you have placed at the beginning of your post, is the kind of thing that is being said all over the land. Are the McCanns going to sue everyone?

      There is nothing in my blog that incites hatred, and heaven knows, you have tried hard enough to find something over the years.

      I prefer that people are not abusive, but I am not going to censor my readers to please Gerry and Kate!

      I publish criticism of myself 23:59, most of the nastiness and spite. I don't take personally because these people don't know me. Gerry and Kate's quest to rid the internet of their critics was never going to go anywhere, why do they torment themselves with it?

      If you are a friend of Gerry and Kate's you might like to point out to them that what's written on my blog is the least of their worries.

      Delete
  33. It's fascinating that Ros still has conversations with "VT" who she occasionally calls the banned "ziggy".

    Ya can't beat post counts when you are running a blog about a missing child!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't need to bump up the post count 00:05, I have a large daily audience and hundreds of posts with a wide variety of views. I don't need tricks and lies to make my blog popular.

      Delete
    2. '' I have a large daily audience and hundreds of posts with a wide variety of views''

      How wide ? Can you post 4 or 5 varieties regarding the fate of Madeleine, the character of the parents and the legitimacy of funding ?

      VT

      Delete
    3. Don't blame me for the lack of support I receive for the parents VT, I publish what's there.

      Delete
  34. "I am rushing to complete a book in time for Christmas. It is pure comedy, nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine, and I am having a good giggle writing it!"

    Not so long ago that you were describing yourself as a struggling writer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't struggle to write 00:20, it's a natural gift or an OCD curse, however you want to look at it.

      Delete
  35. Incredible that someone who has a donate button can write a blog about "THE MADELEINE FUND"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not claiming to be searching for a missing child 00:38, therein lies the BIG difference.

      Delete
    2. Whereas the good and the great of Scotland Yard are claiming that and continue to get their 'donate button' answered by the UK Government. Who's scamming who.

      Delete

  36. VT @ 21:23 wrote
    "Yes,not of the McCanns obviously. Given that the crime took place inside the apartment ten years ago- where would they find any NEW evidence that tied the parents to anything now? There's nowhere left. The internet doesn't count."
    Bit of a leap of faith there,seeing has no crime has been determined yet,unless of course you know,but in that case wouldn't your time be better spent helping SY rather than posting on a forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been an investigation intoan abduction for ten years. That's a crime. It occurred in the apartment.

      VT

      Delete
    2. Anon 17.27

      The PJ haven't been investigating an abduction for the past 10 years as well you know, as for SY, the jury is out on that. Yes, the crime occurred in the apartment, we know that, Eddie & Keela told us or have you conveniently forgotten about them?

      Delete
    3. I was just putting you straight Re your claim that 'no crime' has been determined..it doesn't matter if the 'jury' is in or out regarding SY, it is what it is, whatever anyone suspects or speculates, that is, an abduction / missing person investigation by two police forces. There would have to be a pretty big reason to lie to us all about that for ten years.

      Eddie and Keela ? I haven't forgotten about them. Has anyone ? They can't if they have internet access . They did their job ten years ago and results were scrutinised. They were not considered sufficient by the experts in that particular area of forensics.Or did they 'conveniently forget' how to perform their duties.

      VT

      Delete
    4. So that's the sticking point is it VT. A crime was committed in the apartment but there is nothing to tie the parents to it.

      Basically if no-one speaks the police can't do anything. Probably why it has taken 6 years. But I wouldn't take any reassurance from that, because the investigation wouldn't still be live if there were no likelihood of a result. And all that evidence from 10 years ago will be just as valid today.

      Where would they find any new evidence linking the parents now? It only takes one person to talk VT, and there are so many involved, the chances of that are highly likely.

      Delete
    5. The tapas 7 have been paid via the press and have made a pact of silence.If they are accessories after the fact, they would have to pay back the compensation they won for libel.Then there's be the loss of their careers and liberty.If the parents are guilty, no forensics will prove that and they're hardly likely to 'talk' now. Murat has the same deal as the Tapas 7-paid via the media for libel claims. That leaves who ? It can only leave someone from within the police who 'knows' the truth or the bosses above them for the same reason. Either way, it would explode into a case far bigger than it is now.It would implicate people in positions of trust and expose a cover up.That won't happen if we're being realistic. Which leaves one possibility..an abductor / procurer to turn.Until then, it will be stuck where it is now, and has been since May 2007.Why else would ten years go nowhere.

      VT

      Delete
    6. Google J Archer paying back damages plus interest.

      Delete
    7. Didn't the tapas group donate their libel award to the Madeleine Fund? To Gerry and Kate?

      The tapas may have very good reasons for keeping to their pact of silence, but when the cold hard consequences are spelled out, they could easily opt to make a deal. At some point, it is going to be every man and woman for him/herself.

      Robert Murat has nothing to worry about, he is not part of the 'pact' and has always been available for police questioning. Why would he have to return damages?

      If someone within the police knows the truth, and bosses above them, there is a good chance Operation Grange are or have been investigating them. And yes, I agree, it would explode into a massive case and would indeed implicate people in position of trust, but 6 years on, that doesn't seem to have put Operation Grange off. On the contrary, as the years have gone by, the investigation appears to have become far more complex, that is, it appears to be so much more than the disappearance of a child.

      Realistically, it doesn't take 2 police forces 6+ year to investigate one abductor/procurer or misfit living on the edge. And of course it would be very remiss of 2 police forces to leave a child predator on the loose for all this time. If 'he' is dead, then why not say so? It would be a huge relief to the neighbourhood, not to mention Gerry and Kate.

      Delete
    8. "The tapas 7 have been paid via the press and have made a pact of silence.If they are accessories after the fact..."

      I won't go into your colourful apocalypse which seems to contain everything except the end of the world itself. Yes, of course.

      In the meantime, sigh, can I remind you that the "pact of silence" is an invention of a Portuguese journalist even more excitable, if that is possible, than you.

      We'll leave aside the fact that if you have a pact of silence you don't announce it to the media, sighs again, do you?

      A Portuguese journalist was told by one of the Seven, when asked, that they had agreed to leave all media handling about the case to Mitchell and make no statements themselves. He did not use any words resembling "we have a pact of silence", or any words that could be construed that way. It is false.

      M/S Joanna Morais, that hopeless and unprincipled paranoiac and Anglophobe, gave this invention the widest possible circulation and fed it regularly to her fellow paranoics on her website.

      Quite why I have to tell you or anyone else basic facts like this, I have no idea. Presumably you prefer not to examine the origins of stories that support your own ideas.

      And I'll remind you that the same Archiving Summary that released the arguidos on the grounds that there was no evidence of any crime against them, found no evidence of any abduction either. That is why it was officially classified as "Type of Crime: Unknown."

      Delete
    9. Hi John! Great minds think alike! I've just published a blog on exactly this subject, can I trouble you to post it on the new one too?

      I'm looking forward to replying to it. We differ on the 'Pact', I think, but new blog explains :)

      Delete
  37. The last six or so posts demonstrate, once again, the torture of the empty cupboard. Abuse and rudeness to Ros, general surliness - and not a single thing they can point to and say, look! Look at this!

    Nothing from Grange, nothing from Portugal, nothing even from the newspapers. All the old crutches gone - no sightings, no new "suspects",no clearance, no exoneration, no celebrity endorsements, no libel wins in any country, nothing from the pathetic Tapas 7 to say "we've been vindicated" - they keep their mouths firmly shut about their "innocence", don't they? - no ex-coppers singing their innocence, no Summers and Swan (retired hurt), but most of all not a word, a syllable from Grange to reassure the couple that everything's going to be all right.

    No wonder you're all so f*****g miserable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot a few. No investigation, no case, no chance of a resolution now or ever.

      Delete
    2. Haven't the supporters of the McCanns always been hostile and defensive John? They could never be accused of being nice, genial people. Not only Gerry and Kate have been apoplectic with rage this past 10 years, so too the people who support them.

      They are always angry because the abduction story has never been believable. And bizarrely they have interpreted that disbelief as hatred of themselves. I suppose they have to really, it's all they have.

      I think of them as the malcontents John, or snivelling little shits, dependent on my mood.
      They are displaying and always have displayed, classic signs of a toddler with communication problems. That is, they don't have the language and the ability to explain themselves, so they lash out.

      Delete
  38. jb 15.32

    And don't mention the dogs, Pike (me Captain Mainwaring, no the other Pike - you stupid boy)!

    ReplyDelete
  39. VT @ 17:27 wrote.
    Its been an investigation into an abduction for ten yrs,thats a crime it occurred in the apartment.


    SY have only been involved for 6 yrs,the fact they can't find any evidence to such a claim is rather telling in its self.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really (lol). The UK have been involved from practically day one.Operation Grange have been involved for 6 years.They can't find any evidence of an abduction ( apart from a missing child that had been left in an apartment and wasn't there later).What constitutes 'evidence' ? A map with cryptic clues written on it ? if a burglar isn't found, or a murderer or mugger because they left no traces of themselves, does that mean that there's no proof of the crimes having actually taken place, ergo the victims must be lying ? Or does it mean the police just can't find the perpetrators ? It doesn't take ten years for 30 plus police and detectives to uncover evidence of a victim who was merely crying wolf. If it has in this instance, then perhaps that's 'rather telling in its self' too .

      VT

      Delete
    2. There is only one victim in this,or maybe two at the moment,Madeleine and the truth.

      Delete
    3. For heavens sake, spare us the faux outrage VT, the majority of claimed child abductions turn out to be fake and the victims turn out to be the perpetrators.

      Statistically it is most likely to be the parents, there is no evidence of an abductor, and the parent's stopped co-operating with the police. Oh and a blood and cadaver dog alerted in the parents' apartment.

      Surely even you VT, can see that the police have every cause to be suspicious, so too the public.

      Blind faith may work with religion and yourself VT, but for the rest of us it is a big ask.

      Delete
    4. Great irony there...

      Have you made up any statistics regarding children abducted while abroad on holiday with their parents ? What are they- or is that an 'awkward' question ? Do your statistics have Ben Needhams's family as suspects too ? Or do they only apply to people you want to be guilty ?

      The police have to be open to ALL possibilities when a crime like this is reported.That includes foul play and family members. Even if they go running around closing borders down they still have all possible scenarios in mind. They can always return to the family. The public have a right to be curious or interested, but need a bit more to become suspicious. We've seen too many press conferences showing grieving parents and spouses who are later found guilty. That's effected the public's cynicism now and it informs their opinion. That's why evidence is paramount.You cant charge anyone based merely on suspicion.Evidence of blood and cadver helps. But somebody somewhere with letters after their name, said there isn't any in this case. The suspicious public suspect that that isn't true.So their suspicion has spread to the forensics department too ( they must be 'in on it').

      Nothing 'blind' works for me. If everyone's in the dark, they won't see a thing.They'll imagine only.You can't realistically claim to see things clearly enough to paint what you imagine in the dark and try to convince people it's actually truth.It's naive at best. Evidence will illuminate. Then we can all say what we see.

      VT

      Delete