Wednesday 2 January 2019

HAPPY NEW YEAR - REVELATIONS IN SIGHT

Happy New Year to one and all, my wish is that we all achieve our dreams and desires, or at the very least, move a few steps closer to them.  2019 I believe, will be the year of Justice, firstly for humanity with the trial and incrimination of the Trump Crime Family, secondly the total annihilation of the treacherous Theresa May who panders to the deplorables just as much as Trump (my reference to deplorables btw includes billionaire tory donors). Then thirdly, Justice for little Madeleine McCann, the child with the face that launched a thousand posters and a thousand Crisis Management Agencies.
 

 How does Operation Grange end, hypothetically?  Does it implicate all those, who we who have studied this case way too intently, believe were/are involved (and who's names we dare not say out loud)?  It is hard to see how they can be ruled out.  If Madeleine wasn't abducted, then everything the McCanns and their supporters did that night and thereafter was fraudulent.  That's pretty mindblowing, and would explain why it has taken 7 years to investigate.
 
The only thing to apply when reading or studying this case is logic and reasoning.   As nice a person as you might be, you really need to read beyond the headlines of causes you support.  You need to ensure that the money you are so generously donating, is helping real, genuine causes. 
 
The McCanns have no intention of handing their remaining £750k or any other funds they may raise, to childrens charities.  The Madeleine Fund remains a non charitable company for the benefit of one child only.  Or more accurately, for the benefit of the one child's family.  Not even a magician or a founder of a crisis management agency can make that sound good. 
 
I was trying to reply to a post on my last blog, but as he/she pointed out, the comments are overflowing and becoming impossible to track.  Oops, poor housekeeping on my part, but in my defence, it was the holidays!  Also, I should point out that I do believe this year will see a conclusion to the Madeleine case, and, under the rules of war, my conscience told me to ‘give them a break’.  I also try to respond to McCann press releases, my blog is the anti spin version of what’s going on and nothing has transpired since the McCanns annual Christmas message.
 
Gerry and Kate McCann have truly had the wind knocked out of their sails, according to their Christmas message, brought to us by superfan Tracey Kandhola.  Their ‘brief, but poignant festive message’, thanks their supporters for their kind and continuing good wishes and laments that Christmas will never be the same. They miss Madeleine dearly, but they make no appeals to her or for her.  It is quite sad, because it would appear from their message that they know nothing about the Operation Grange investigation.  Or.  They know enough not to keep on about abductors, age progression pictures of Madeleine and leaving no stone unturned.
 
It would be too cruel to imagine Operation Grange were telling the parents nothing, and I struggle to believe that is the case.  The brevity of the McCanns Christmas message suggests they dare not talk about continuing their search when the unsolved files are shelved as they were a year or so ago. Cressida Dick has now confirmed publicly that won’t happen.
 
Gerry and Kate still have hope, but not much it would appear. They still don’t accept that Madeleine is dead, not publicly at least, because accepting Madeleine as dead would somehow incriminate them. As long as the world believes Madeleine is alive, they are innocent.  It would also bring in a long forgotten clause in the Madeleine Fund objectives.  That is the handing over of anything remaining in the Fund to [other] childrens’ charities. Strictly speaking Madeleine must be found and her abductor brought to justice, but what happens in the event there was no abductor? Legal eagles could have a ball with those wordings.
 
Police chiefs have to be very, very, careful with what they say, they are accountable to we the public. It would be absurd for Cressida Dick to say there will be a conclusion to Operation Grange, if the conclusion were not in sight. I suspect her statement will have sent those involved in Madeleine’s disappearance into a tailspin.  They still had hope that they had out- manoeuvered Scotland Yard’s finest, and the case would once again be filed.    
 
After 12 years, 7 years for Operation Grange, talk of new leads is absurd and everyone, bar Tracey Kandhola, knows that. Who believes OG is so haphazard that they have just been sitting there waiting for new leads to come in?  It begs the question, what the hell have they been doing this past 7 years if they need new leads to keep the investigation funded.
 
For those who take me literally, please don’t.  I believe those detectives working on the Madeleine case are doing their jobs. Those attacking them are showing their own ignorance, especially those who are accusing the detectives of treating the investigation like a jamboree.  They are contemptible and projecting what they would do if they had the same job.
 
For all the knocks and blows life has given me (for which I blame myself), I still believe in the goodness of human nature. One of my favourite movie quotes ‘I have always depended on the kindness of strangers’, is never far from my thoughts. Those random acts of kindness restore your faith when you least expect it.  A couple of summers ago I wandered, hot and flustered into McDonalds.  Now I hasten to add, I am not the usual McDonalds customer, I had been captivated by those lush adverts for smoothies and I had to try one. In my change the girl behind the counter gave me a very special 50p pence, a rare collectible, and as she placed it in my hand, she said this is for you. Why? possibly because I asked her how her day had been and what flavour [smoothie] did she recommend, her kindly gesture was a timely reminder of ‘the kindness of strangers’, and of the Laws of Attraction, you get back what you put out.
 
But I have wandered.  Forgive me, I am drinking the remains of the prosceco, amazingly still sparkly after two days sitting open on the side! Hic. My interpretation of Cressida Dick’s statement is, that something will happen soon.  Previous chiefs of police haven’t gone that far, that is they have left any conclusion open ended, they have at times sounded as if they didn’t really want answers.  It has been quite bizarre, I put it down to the McCanns having Carter Ruck on a retainer.  
 
But the walls of Jericho are crumbling (bin playing a lot of Trivial Pursuit over Christmas, :)).  No one, not even the parents or Sky News are pushing the abduction story anymore. All those agencies that were founded on stirring up a shitstorm when a child goes missing, have found themselves twiddling their thumbs.  All those fatalistic stories of middle class children of responsible parents being stolen from their beds, proved to be nothing but an urban myth started by the McCanns and promoted by Jim Gamble and Missing People.  Nothing tugs at the purse strings like danger to children.  Two parents who knowingly and willingly, left three tiny children on their own in a holiday apartment for 6 nights in a row, got to preach to the rest of us about child safety. It’s like Karen Matthews lecturing us on how to store children under the divan.
 
Karma works in mysterious ways, that’s for sure.  But wishing evil on others and using your cruelest daggers, almost always come back to bite you on the arse.  In a nutshell you reap what you sow.  And the McCanns’ reaping stage was over the top prolific.  They planted seeds here, there and everywhere.  Their ‘crime’ could have been headlines for one, two weeks tops, but they chose to make it global, and they chose to blame other people.  They started a war they could never win, particularly in this age of social media.  For every critic they knocked down, a hundred more took their place.  But kudos to them, it takes some kind of megalomaniac ego, to believe you could take control of public opinion ad infinitum, especially on the internet. Our antiquated libel laws allow the McCanns to stop the flow of information through our mainstream media, but the internet is lawless and the more they try to hide the truth, the more they are put under the spotlight.   Especially by those of us online who can see straight through 'all of this'.
 
Ultimately truth will prevail.  Nothing else will fit in those blank places on the jigsaw puzzle.  Too much evidence exists to even attempt trying to squeeze a burglar into the timelines and lack of evidence of a break in. The parents' claim that the predator had been watching them, fits the no break in evidence, but in every other sense, is ludicrous.  This is when the 'Madeleine is special' stories began to circulate.  And it was this specialness that led to her abduction.  Firstly, yuck, every 3 year old girl is special and adorable, and charmingly, each is unique.  Happily I have no idea what goes on the head of a paedophile, wtf for example, makes a 3 year old special?  It is nonsense, and creepy nonsense at that.  Unfortunately it is the kind of creepy nonsense that appeals to freaks and weirdos who get off on the idea that Madeleine was some sort of Lolita. 
 
But, darn, I have moved on from the 'not in the slightest bit stale' prosecutto onto a feisty little pink pinot gregio (stored properly) that I have drowned with ice cubes and am drinking from one of my beautiful 'ball' glasses.   A present from a dear friend and a boon for clumsy drunks like moi, who see glasses with stems as an unnecessary obstacle to drunkenness and debauchery.  Ok, I'll take that back.  There is a certain elegance to staying sober enough throughout the evening to serve the correct alcoholic beverage in the correctly shaped glass! 
 
Again I have digressed.  There is a good chance the ending of this case will see a (temporary) revival of the McCanns and Madeleine in our newspapers.  If the revelations go as far as they should, the case should again dominate the newspapers, but we have to remember it is up against Trump and Brexit, a good time to bury bad news.  How does Operation Grange end, hypothetically?  Does it implicate all those who we who have studied this case way too intently, believe were/are involved?  My answer would be, how can it not?  As amazing as the Mccanns search for Madeleine was, it had British government and police backing, how tf did that happen?  I believe this case will end, not just with multiple prosecutions, but perhaps also a public inquiry.  How do British Citizens abroad get so much governmental assistance that it fucks up the home country's investigation?  No wonder David Cameron gave the Portuguese a full Scotland Yard Inquiry. 

114 comments:

  1. "They still don’t accept that Madeleine is dead, not publicly at least, because accepting Madeleine as dead would somehow incriminate them."

    What sort of person writes this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous 20.43 - You ask 'what sort of person writes this? The sort of person who understands the McCanns and how they will accept no responsibility for what happened to Madeleine. How many times have you heard Gerry say 'There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm'? As far as they're concerned they did nothing to cause her harm, because she's fine. If she's dead it's because they left her alone and helpless. That would be a disaster for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You ask 'what sort of person writes this? The sort of person who understands the McCanns and how they will accept no responsibility for what happened to Madeleine. How many times have you heard Gerry say 'There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm'? As far as they're concerned they did nothing to cause her harm, because she's fine. If she's dead it's because they left her alone and helpless. That would be a disaster for them."

      This is all conjecture, Ros has never met the McCanns. She does not know them. Nor do you. She makes up these 'understandings' based on snippets of second hand information, lies and amateur psychology, all based on a biased point of view that has already decided that Madeleine is dead and the McCanns were responsible for her death and the disposal of her body. The police (in the UK and Portugal have already expressed that the McCanns are not suspects. If you believe, like her, that this is a big bluffing game being played by the police then you are living in cloud cuckoo land but, of course, believing what the Police have said would mean having to admit that she, and others, have wasted the last eleven years pursuing these wicked and vindictive claims against people they have never met.

      Delete
    2. Anon 3 January 16.40

      You seem to be a long way behind the times. Have you only recently being taken on as a "paid for" troll and not up to date with recent happenings?

      It has obviously overlooked you that the Portuguese Supreme Court stated some time ago that the "McCanns have not proved themselves innocent".

      What do you think that may suggest, let me spell it out for you:

      1) Kate McCann refused to answer the 48 questions put to her by the PJ

      2) The Tapas 9 refused to go back to Portugal to do a reconstruction of the night that Madeleine went "missing", yet the McCanns never pleaded with them to help them find Madeleine and do the reconstruction.

      Yes, the UK police have stated that the McCanns are not suspects, but they've said that about many criminals they've been investigating until the day they pounce and arrest them. They're obviously not going to state in the media whether they are investigating people or not are they, they're not that bl**dy stupid. Give them some credit.

      Delete
    3. "McCanns have not proved themselves innocent"

      Please tell us when anyone in judicial history has had to prove that they are innocent when they haven't been charged?

      "Kate McCann refused to answer the 48 questions put to her by the PJ"

      You might not, but I can understand her reasons for not answering questions, where most were so obviously suggesting her guilt and there to bolster GA's theory. In that position, and she was present with her lawyer, it is better to answer none than some.

      "The Tapas 9 refused to go back to Portugal to do a reconstruction of the night that Madeleine went "missing", yet the McCanns never pleaded with them to help them find Madeleine and do the reconstruction."

      I believe that the the PJ offered 3 dates those could not be agreed by all parties - school holidays etc. After the initial request and the removal of GA, there was no other requests.

      "Yes, the UK police have stated that the McCanns are not suspects, but they've said that about many criminals they've been investigating until the day they pounce and arrest them. They're obviously not going to state in the media whether they are investigating people or not are they, they're not that bl**dy stupid. Give them some credit."

      Please give us one example when the police have publically stated that persons were not suspects in a case when, in fact, they were putting together evidence to arrest and charge them. The police made that statement, and it was precise in its choice of words, to try and stop rumour mongers carrying on their speculation about the McCanns, not to lull them into a false sense of security.

      Delete
    4. "It has obviously overlooked you that the Portuguese Supreme Court stated some time ago that the "McCanns have not proved themselves innocent"."

      That was the libel case and was the main reason that the Portuguese Court allowed GA's case. It does not mean that they are guilty. The fact is that no-one who was in PDL that night has proved themselves innocent.

      Delete
    5. Interesting post 18:54, but you sound more like a McCann lawyer than a McCann supporter.

      As for the McCanns proving their innocence, surely this is something they would want to do. After all it is they, not everybody, who were named as arguidos. Robert Murat had no problem proving his innocence, he answered all the police questions and remained available for further questions.

      There really isn't any excuse for Kate refusing to answer the 48 questions. Her daughter was/is missing, her maternal instincts would force her to tell them everything and then some. Her own self preservation should have been the last thing on her mind. I'm afraid I can't think of any innocent explanations for not co-operating with the police.

      Ditto the proposed reconstruction. These parents were vowing to leave no stone unturned in their constant plea for funds, yet they would not return to do a reconstruction of that evening. If they were constructing a genuine search they would have moved hell and high water to return to PDL. Could it be that if they did, all their timelines and trots up and down that hill would like something out of a Benny Hill show?

      Actually, GA was long gone when the PJ asked the McCanns and their friends to return to PDL for the reconstruction. The proposed dates were for around 3rd May 2008, so lighting, conditions etc, would be the about the same. GA had been taken off the case the previous September.

      Finally, it is very hard to believe that the McCanns are not suspects, despite what the police have said. Neither they, the McCanns, nor the police have said anything significant that clears them. And if they have something, then it is pretty cruel of them to have held it back.

      Delete
    6. 'No-one in PDL that night has proved their innocence'.

      An interesting concept 17:00, so now you are throwing the net out to include everyone in PDL that night. Wonder if the PJ thought of that? Let's be honest, you mean anyone other than the McCanns, but I think in almost 12 years, every other lead has been followed and led nowhere.

      Delete
    7. "As for the McCanns proving their innocence, surely this is something they would want to do."

      As far as the police are concerned,the McCanns are innocent. As far as the main stream media are concerned, the McCanns are innocent. Because you want to believe otherwise doesn't mean what you believe is true.

      Delete
    8. If you say so 23:39, so why do they still have a huge cloud of suspicion over them? The Crimewatch programme saw the number of non believers soar, there is no getting round the fact that the main suspect looks like Gerry.

      And it's not what I want to believe 23:39, it is the overwhelming amount of evidence that points in their direction. Amazingly, the logical part of my brain is still highly functional and not influenced by emotion. The mind sees what the mind sees.

      I will however before wishing you a Happy New Year, to say please do not accuse me of treating this case as personal. I don't hate Gerry and Kate and wish no ill upon them. They are not my cup of Twinings (presently on special offer), and the chances are should we meet, I would spend the entire evening taking the pee (ever so subtly of course). I am afraid the pair are the epitome of those goody two shoes couples, for whom everything is perfect, who spend most of their lives sneering down their noses at others and they would have continued if they hadn't lost a child on holiday. Then having lost said child, they wanted to be ambassadors for children everywhere. Hard to find anything to like 23:39.

      Delete
    9. "An interesting concept 17:00, so now you are throwing the net out to include everyone in PDL that night. Wonder if the PJ thought of that? Let's be honest, you mean anyone other than the McCanns, but I think in almost 12 years, every other lead has been followed and led nowhere."

      You know what I mean Ros, no-one needs to prove their innocence unless charged - unless you want to go live in some kafkaesque state.

      Delete
    10. Anon 3 January 18.54

      Mick and Mairead Philpott burnt their house down with their children inside (apparently they wanted a bigger house and thought they would get away with it). All the children died. They gave an "emotional" press conference. At the time the police stated they were not suspects, they were even put up in an hotel as they had lost their house and all of their possessions.

      However, the police were working on the case in the background and eventually charged them with murder of the children.

      Delete
    11. "At the time the police stated they were not suspects, they were even put up in an hotel as they had lost their house and all of their possessions."

      Can you point me in the direction to the police statements that the Philpotts were not considered suspects. All that I've read is that the police suspected Mick very early on of the manslaughter of the children - no public statements re him not being a suspect.

      Delete
    12. Anon 4 January 15.05

      I've only just seen your comment so apologies for the late reply.

      The Police allowed the Philpotts to have a press conference, something they do with many "suspects" as they monitor their body language, how they react in front of the cameras, whether their "tears" are genuine or not. They video all press conferences and go through them with a fine tooth comb, minute by minute.

      That's how they've found out many criminals who do a tear jerking press conference but end up being the criminal, Tracie Andrews for example who killed her boyfriend Lee Harvey and made out it was a "road rage" incident, also Rachel McLean who was killed by her boyfriend John Tanner. He gave a very emotional press interview all the time knowing that he had strangled her and hid her body in the back of a closet under the floorboards. There are hundreds of examples on the internet, if you want to research them.

      Why are you so worried about public statements, go and do some research for yourself, I'm not your lackey.

      Delete
    13. "Why are you so worried about public statements, go and do some research for yourself, I'm not your lackey."

      Allowing the Philpoots to give a press conference is completely different from a police public statement saying that they were not suspects. I suggest you do some more research.

      Delete
    14. Anon 5 Jan 15.01

      I see you're still expecting others to do your work for you.

      If you think about it (which isn't that hard) if the police had stated that the Philpotts were suspects they wouldn't really let them do an emotional press interview now would they? Blubbing and crying in front of the cameras asking for help to find the barstewards who set their house alight and killed their children. Go and look the rest up for yourself if you're that worried about your precious McCanns.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous4 January 2019 at 11:09
      "At the time the police stated they were not suspects, they were even put up in an hotel as they had lost their house and all of their possessions."

      When did the Police state they were not suspects? I am sure you will be able to provide a quote since it was you that made the statement.

      Delete
  3. Speaking of Jim Gamble, he was in charge of CEOP on th 30/04/2007 when the Wayback Machine crawled the webpage and it showed Madeleine missing earlier than the third, if she was missing by the 30th, then chances are she was also gone by the 28th, never reaching Portugal alive.

    I believe the child was already dead before the so-called holiday even started, and the rest was an abduction hoax to fool both the police and the people. I would love to see Gamble deny the evidence of the WBM under oath and on the witness stand, he wouldn't stand a chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gamble's up to his neck in this, he's been on the side of abduction since the very beginning and has continued throughout.

      Delete
    2. Yes indeed, Mr. Gamble does seem to be at most risk of, shall we say, looking foolish, if the parents and tapas group are found to have been involved. He was head of CEOP, a long serving police officer and an expert in child protection. Why was he so convinced there was an abductor?

      Delete
  4. I admire your optimism and faith in OG and SY but I remain pessimistic on their final Report. Hopefully at the conclusion it will be released to the Public, like the PJ File ,but I don't think that's the British way.
    Amazing stuff Prosecco and Cava too,my New year Rose still has its bubbles too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for your post Ed.

    Probably not the British way in the sense of case files being released to the public without a result. That is, the results of the investigation were released, but no prosecutions followed. It was a unique situation, but the Portuguese are far more demanding of transparency than we in the UK.

    Cressida Dick has announced there will be a conclusion Ed, which suggests they already know what happened to Madeleine. We should also bear in mind that the £11m+ spent on Operation Grange is public money, there is no way I can imagine the results being kept secret. A conclusion also suggests there will be prosecutions and it will be at that time that the findings of OG will be released.

    Yes, it was quite a surprise on the Prosecco, I was expecting something flat and uninspiring (but was still going to drink it anyway, lol), but it still had it's fizz! All gone now hic, but cheers anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon 3/1/19 @ 16.40:

    You don't need to have met the McCanns to have formed an opinion about them and about their theory as to what happened to their daughter. They themselves thrust the case into the limelight. Did the McCanns ever meet Madeleine's 'abductor'? The McCanns 'understanding' is that a mystery person or persons stole Madeleine but they have failed to provide any evidence for that. The detective investigating the case, Dr Amaral, came to the conclusion that Madeleine died and the McCanns were responsible for her death and the disposal of her body. In cases where children disappear in suspicious circumstances, it is often family or people who know the child well who are responsible for the disappearance. The McCanns were made suspects back in 2007 but the case was shelved. It's interesting that you mention 'bluffing game' because that's what it looks like. But who is really living in 'cloud cuckoo land'?

    And who has spent 11 years pursuing wicked and vindictive claims against people they have never met? Or perhaps even people they have met - like Dr Amaral?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The McCanns 'understanding' is that a mystery person or persons stole Madeleine but they have failed to provide any evidence for that."

      That's the police's job. They have confirmed from their statements that they found nothing to incriminate the McCanns.

      "The detective investigating the case, Dr Amaral, came to the conclusion that Madeleine died and the McCanns were responsible for her death and the disposal of her body."

      No other senior detective involved in this case came to his same conclusion. Why is he right and they not? As for GA's theories on the disposal of the body ......

      "In cases where children disappear in suspicious circumstances, it is often family or people who know the child well who are responsible for the disappearance."

      It is very rare for both parents to be involved in those circumstances.

      "The McCanns were made suspects back in 2007"

      They were made arguidos not suspects. So was Robert Murat.

      "And who has spent 11 years pursuing wicked and vindictive claims against people they have never met? Or perhaps even people they have met - like Dr Amaral?"

      Wouldn't you sue people who you believed to be profiting from you in such a case as this - especially when the monies won would be used to fund the search for your child. You don't think that GA didn't make any money from his book, do you?

      Delete
    2. Whoa hold on there 23:56, you are telling sweeping untruths and I am not going to let you get away with it.

      When, where and who from the police confirmed they found nothing to incriminate the parents?

      'No other senior officer in this case came to the same conclusion [as GA]'. No other senior officer has reached a conclusion, or at least any conclusion that we know about.

      It is far from rare for both parents to be involved. See, Lisa Irwin, Isabelle Cellis and Sabrina Aisenberg, both parents involved, and each child was claimed to have been abducted.

      Asking the 'wouldn't you sue' probably won't bring forth the answers you want 23:56. No, most people wouldn't sue the detective who searched for their child, it is unheard of. Oh, except for in the case of Jonbenet Ramsey who's parents did much the same to the cop who worked on Jonbenet's case. And you will note, again both parents involved.

      And finally, I don't know how you have the nerve to accuse Goncalo Amaral of profiting from Madeleine's disappearance. Have you never heard the saying 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'? I don't think any victim of any crime has taken to fund raising quite as enthusiastically as the McCanns. Who remembers the collection buckets placed around the resort? The online shop, the t-shirts and Maddie badges?

      Some might say, that was a very Trumpian projection there, accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Ros, but you're the one telling untruths.

      Mark Rowley stated, " Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation."

      That says to me that there is no incriminating evidence against them.

      "It is far from rare for both parents to be involved. See, Lisa Irwin, Isabelle Cellis and Sabrina Aisenberg, both parents involved, and each child was claimed to have been abducted."

      Lisa Irwin (case remains unsolved), Isabelle Cellis (a man, not the father, indicted for her murder, together with another child, in September last year) and Sabrina Aisenberg (case remains unsolved). Where are you getting your information?

      "And finally, I don't know how you have the nerve to accuse Goncalo Amaral of profiting from Madeleine's disappearance."

      I understand he made over £300,000 from his book. Did he give that to charity or other good causes?

      Delete
    4. I think the last official word on the case was from the Portuguese Supreme Court who pointed out that the McCanns had never been cleared of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

      Delete
    5. Are you really satisfied with that statement from Mark Rowley? Because the original investigation came to the conclusion that the McCanns were involved. You need to see the PJ report of 8th September 2007.

      You should in fact be deeply troubled that the police had no reason to revisit the original investigation, given the original investigation's conclusions. From the McCanns perspective, it would be better if the police trashed Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation and started again from scratch.

      That they were happy that all was dealt with and they had no reason whatsoever to reopen that part of the investigation does not bode well for the parents. It confirms that Goncalo Amaral was right.

      Delete
    6. GA's original investigation may well have come to the conclusion that the McCanns were involved, but the public prosecutor Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes, and joint prosecutor Joao Melchior Gomes agreed that there was insufficient evidence to back up the claims of the investigation.

      "From the McCanns perspective, it would be better if the police trashed Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation and started again from scratch."

      Delete
    7. To 14:05

      It has been repeated many times but some people have not yet taken in the information or refuse to do so. It was not Gonçalo Amaral's investigation, he was not the head of any investigation, he did not tell the investigators where to look, he did not decide to question the McCanns, he did not decide to make them arguidos, he did not write up the 48 questions. This was in no way a one man investigation carried out by some maverick cop, as some people would love to portray it. It was the PJ and the Ministério Público who made the decision as a group based on the evidence that they had at the time, GA did not force them to do anything.

      As for the archiving report, it stated that the parents missed the chance to prove their innocence when the reconstruction of the night of 3 May 2007 was not carried out. Even until today no evidence has been found to eliminate them from the investigation.

      Carolina

      Delete
    8. You are absolutely right Carolina and thank you for your posts. The idea of a personal vendetta by GA against the parents is ludicrous. He was far from the only one who suspected the parents and that included part of the British contingent who brought in the dogs.

      Let's face it, it was far from the perfect crime, the statements didn't match, the so called checks on the children were haphazard and the open window was obviously staged. Had the British not pressured the Portuguese to take Goncalo Amaral off the case, he would have concluded it by September 2007. That intervention by whoever, is the reason we are all still here nearly 12 years later.

      Delete
    9. "It was the PJ and the Ministério Público who made the decision as a group based on the evidence that they had at the time"

      And it was the Prosecutor's Office who determined that the evidence presented by the investigating team was insufficient to bring any charges against anyone in this case

      Delete
    10. As co-ordinator, GA had a significant role to play in the investigation, sufficient for him to feel that he was able to write a book about it.

      Delete
  7. To 23:56
    I would just like to clarify that the statement that "No other senior detective involved in this case came to his same conclusion" is false. The conclusion of the investigation, not just Gonçalo Amaral's opinion, was that Madeleine met her death in an accident and the parents concealed her body, which can be read in the PJ report of 8 September 2007. These decisions are made not just by the detectives on the case but also by the judges overseeing the investigation. Either you know nothing about the case and you are making things up or you are acting in bad faith.

    Carolina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong! The archiving dispatch, authored by public prosecutor Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes, and joint prosecutor Joao Melchior Gomes, analysed the case investigation and subsequently concluded that the case be archived as there was insufficient evidence to incriminate the McCanns or back up the claims of GA

      Delete
    2. At last someone gets it right, there never was enough evidence in that apartment to move the case forward.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous 13:59

    "insufficient evidence" ≠ "absolutely no evidence"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz7hQetKpZk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @15:34

      Yes, the inequality you refer to holds, but let’s play a game: you quote from the files or other official source/s whatever pertinent to Madeleine’s disappearance you can find that you think goes against the McCanns (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ applies, ‘parental negligence’ excluded), and I’ll try to show you that you are wrong. Shall we play?

      I am not ‘Anonymous 13:59’, I have not commented on this thread, I don’t support and have never supported the McCanns.

      Happy NewYear.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 4 January at 22:20

      Maybe later, depending on whether information will see the light of day.

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

      https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2009/463960/FS_50188322.pdf

      It’s a losing game for now.

      Glückliches neues Jahr

      Delete
  9. Anon 4 January 13.59

    The archiving was done in July 2008, however the Supreme Court judges said in February 2017 that lifting the status as formal suspects does not mean that they (the McCanns) were innocent.

    There is also more to read on this attached website:

    https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-been-ruled-innocent-judge-says-35437360.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. When DCI Redwood says the Mccann, sare not suspects, people are forgetting that the Police can legally use deception when investigating serious crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It would be interesting to see the McCann's reactions if they were suddenly to get a call from the Algarve police asking them to come and identify their missing daughter and provide DNA samples as proof.

    Here's the scenario:
    An unknown blonde teenage girl of about 16 claiming to be Madeleine McCann has just walked into the Praia da Luz/Lagos police station claiming to be the long lost daughter of Kate and Gerald McCann from England. She just escaped her kidnappers after 12 years of confinement and wants to be reunited.

    The police suspect the kid might be a gold digger but they have to investigate anyway.
    So, after discussions at high level the Portuguese police decide to run with the story and call up the McCanns, asking them to fly over to Portugal ASAP to meet together on this joyful occasion and for ID purposes.

    If this were ever to happen it would not be a happy moment for the McCann parents, in fact it would be a moment of sheer terror, what to do. fake up a grateful reunion or slough it off as a false siting.
    After all, they know that their daughter has been dead since the night of May 3rd 2007 when they disposed of her body and launched a worldwide fake abduction story.

    These two charlatans could not really refuse the Portuguese offer leading to a joyful reunion without looking very foolish.
    How nice it would be if just like any normal parents they could be rushing to meet up with their long lost child.

    No, unfortunately for them they can never do it.

    Because this couple knows more than anybody in the world that their long lost daughter is dead.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Anonymous7 January 2019 at 03:03

    Ignoring the sickness in your post - the Portuguese authorities already have the DNA from the Mccanns and from Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @10:07

      Yeah, that’s one of jc’s ‘a bee in his bonnet’ nightmare moments.

      You are right about the McCanns’ DNA.

      Happy New Year.

      Delete
    2. Not from Madeleine they don't, there never was a trace of her in Portugal, which suggests the child was already dead prior to the fake holiday.

      In addition, all the photographs, videos and passports look fake which suggests premeditation. I believe the child was already sadly dead by the 28,04,2007.

      She was never on that so-called holiday is my firm belief, Jim Gamble and CEOP gave the game away, plus the fabrication of Nuno Lourenco, he was already firmly in place two weeks before the abduction hoax officially started.

      It's time the McCanns told the truth and ultimately make things easier for themselves, better to do it now rather than later.

      The clock is ticking, £12 million and counting plus the cost of the original investigation, and all because the McCanns panicked and hid the body.

      I believe it was a tragic accident.

      Delete
    3. "Not from Madeleine they don't, there never was a trace of her in Portugal, which suggests the child was already dead prior to the fake holiday."

      So, Sherlock, who did they take on holiday in her place?

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous7 January 2019 at 15:08

      Take a hike back to the cesspit you bottom dweller.

      Delete
    5. So rude and so wrong, we'll see what happens though.

      Delete
    6. @ 7 January 2019 at 19:45, they took no-one apart from the twins and a bag of props including a random sticker book. CEOP show her missing on the 30th, if she was gone by then then she was gone by the 28th and consequently never made it to Portugal.

      All in my opinion.

      Delete
    7. "they took no-one apart from the twins and a bag of props including a random sticker book. CEOP show her missing on the 30th, if she was gone by then then she was gone by the 28th and consequently never made it to Portugal."

      So, in your opinion, only 4 persons checked in with the McCann party for the Portugal flight, Mum, Dad and the twins? Do you think that would have gone undetected?

      Delete
    8. No, no-one was looking for Madeleine, and the only piece of proof was some dubious film footage of the back of a rather large girl dressed in pink and climbing a set of steps on what looked like a plane but wasn't.

      I'm convinced the whole of the trip was one giant hoax, set-up to cover the untimely death of the child we believe to be Madeleine.

      As I said before, I believe it was a tragic accident, they panicked and then they started planning. What we the public saw was the result of pre-planning of the rather large charade, that as we know went global.

      So to cut it short, Madeleine did go undetected. There's no proof of her travelling on a plane, therefore the remains are most probably in the UK, IMO.

      Delete
    9. "There's no proof of her travelling on a plane, therefore the remains are most probably in the UK, IMO."

      Of course there is proof. All five will have had to check in for the flight. The flight records would show if only 4 persons checked in

      Delete
  13. Anon 7 January 10.07 & 13.57

    "DNA of Madeleine"

    You mean the DNA GM brought back from Rothley supposedly being Madeleine's pillowcase because the PJ couldn't find any of her DNA in apartment 5A after it had been cleaned with bleach and other substances to remove any traces of whatever happened to her.

    You mean the DNA that couldn't be found although Madeleine supposedly was in apartment 5A from Saturday 28th April to Thursday 3rd May, although there was her pillow case still on the bed as well as her pink blanket and cuddle cat after her "abduction", you know the pink blanket and cuddle cat she probably drooled all over in her sleep yet no trace of her DNA could be found on them.

    Then there is the mystery of the missing toothbrushes, you know the ones that each child has but apparently only shared one after Madeleine "disappeared". What good hygiene the McCanns carried out being doctors and all, don't you know, such upholders of hygiene etc etc, yet their 3 children used one toothbrush between them, yeah right, whatever they say. What happened to the other toothbrushes?

    P.S. Ros, pls can you do something about the hurdles we have to jump to get a comment through,it's an absolute bl**dy nightmare. I've lost comments because I've hit a wrong key or can't see the bl**dy photos without having to use a magnifying glass and clicked on the wrong boxes. I know you have to have security from vile McCann trolls but we're not talking about Fort Knox here!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16:28

      I am not 13:57, but 13.57 said "the McCanns’ DNA". As I understand it, s/he means Gerry and Kate McCann's DNA, not Madeleine's DNA.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous7 January 2019 at 16:28
      "because the PJ couldn't find any of her DNA in apartment 5A after it had been cleaned with bleach and other substances to remove any traces of whatever happened to her."
      ------------------------

      They didn't find any DNA of her in 5A because apart from the stain on a different bed they never looked for or swabbed for DNA on the initial forensic search of the apartment.

      If you believe I am wrong then feel free to refer me to the swab reference numbers from the initial search.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 7 January 2019 at 19:44

      You are right. Parental DNA suffices.

      I must say you sound like ‘NL', peace be upon her.

      Happy New Year.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 7 January 2019 at 16:28

      My friend

      The parents’ DNA samples suffice.

      One toothbrush for three siblings in a family of two medics sounds disingenuous indeed.

      Rosalinda is unlikely to be able to help with captcha images: she has no control over them. I’ve been having the same problem recently. You may wish to try increasing your screen brightness or use MS magnifier.

      I am ‘13:57’.

      Happy New Year.

      Delete
    5. "One toothbrush for three siblings in a family of two medics sounds disingenuous indeed."

      Other than forums or blogs, could you please link us to or refer us to any reference in the statements or evidence made public that mentions what you have just said.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 8 January 2019 at 21:04

      “One toothbrush for three siblings in a family of two medics sounds disingenuous indeed.”

      I am the author of the above sentence which is in the public domain and it can be found at http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/01/happy-new-year-revelations-in-sight.html?showComment=1546981488632#c2929651929580496011

      What is the problem with what I said? Do you think three kids using the same toothbrush rings true? I certainly don’t.

      Happy New Year.

      Delete
    7. "I am the author of the above sentence which is in the public domain and it can be found at http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/01/happy-new-year-revelations-in-sight.html?showComment=1546981488632#c2929651929580496011"

      That might be in the public domain but without proof that it is true, it is just another myth. I asked for some evidence to back it up - not something repeated in a blog.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 9 January 2019 at 16:09

      “That might be in the public domain but without proof that it is true, it is just another myth. I asked for some evidence to back it up - not something repeated in a blog.”

      May I take it, then, that in your family you share one toothbrush? :) What does your dentist say about that? The notion of proof does not apply here: the practice of having a personal toothbrush is universally approved by dentist, I believe.

      Somewhat less seriously… A hint: your questioning me stems from your erroneous assumption (a logical error if you will). :)

      Peace.

      ’09:04’

      PS Coincidently, 21:04 is 09:04pm

      Delete
    9. "May I take it, then, that in your family you share one toothbrush?"

      Where in any statements or public evidence is it stated that, prior to Madeleine's disappearance (and the subsequent forensic testing of their toothbrushes), the family shared one toothbrush.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 10 January 2019 at 15:06

      I am sorry I didn’t see you comment yesterday.

      With respect.

      “Where in any statements or public evidence is it stated that, prior to Madeleine's disappearance (and the subsequent forensic testing of their toothbrushes), the family shared one toothbrush.”

      As far as I know, one toothbrush is a myth. I do not recall hearing the forensic testing of toothbrushes had been undertaken.

      But let’s get back to the salient point of our exchange. Where in my statement “One toothbrush for three siblings in a family of two medics [medics’ T] sounds disingenuous indeed.” have I referred to “the family”?

      If you would agree, we could end this discussion forthwith, with ten points for perseverance going to your good self.

      I do appreciate your attention to detail, for therein the Devil so often is.

      I really like the way you talk, and I really like the way you walk, and I’m most grateful for your having been so patient and civil.

      Kind regards.

      T

      Delete
  14. You are right.

    Was it your good self, perchance, with whom I discussed two- handedness a couple of years ago?

    I'm not '16:28'

    Bonne année.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my above @18:26 post I was addressing Anonymous 7 January 2019 at 20:37.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous8 January 2019 at 18:26

      I am Anonymous 7 January 2019 at 20:37 and no - it wasn't me who you had that conversation with.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous5 January 2019 at 20:32

    Danke schön.

    Why would the info of Portuguese origin so far withheld be disclosed if it is capable of materially changing the overall appearance of the case?

    Hasn’t one of the top English Police officers stated on record to the effect that the details of the English review/investigation would not be made public?

    The document at your second link speaks volumes, IMO.

    For now, it is a losing game, and I’m not holding my breath for ‘tectonic movements’ taking place in the foreseeable future. Total transparency is, I believe, impossible. Someone talks or Madeleine is found, dead or alive is a minimum requirement for a forward movement in this long-running case. I do not believe the McCanns have anything to fear whatever happens: they shall remain ‘innocent’ until proven guilty.

    “…suche Frieden und jage ihm nach.”

    Gute Nacht!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will the McCanns have to live under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives?

      Delete
    2. Anon 9 January 00.02

      The UK police have no jurisdiction over the case, the crime was committed in Portugal and Portugal will prosecute whoever is responsible if there is a trial. SY were only doing a review, God knows why, I'm sure the PJ have had thousands of crimes to deal with without SY poking their nose in and telling them what's what.

      That's why the Supreme Court stated that the McCanns have not proved themselves innocent. KM refused to answer the 48 questions and the Tapas 9 refused to do a reconstruction of the night Madeleine supposedly went "missing". They won't forget and in fact if the case is again shelved the PJ will issue yet more of their revelations like they did the last time much to the shock and embarrassment of the McCanns who thought all their police interviews, excuses etc etc wouldn't ever see the light of day.

      re your last line, the McCanns shall remain 'innocent' until proven guilty. I think you may be wrong there because I did read somewhere a long time ago that Portugal has the stance that a suspect is guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. That's why the Supreme Court have issued the statement that the McCanns have not proven themselves innocent. Why would they say that, they obviously know there own laws, don't you think?

      As for Anon 9 January 14.35 "will the McCanns have to live under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives" - yes probably unless they give in to the Portuguese way of doing things and comply with their laws.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 9 January at 00:02

      "Why would the info of Portuguese origin so far withheld be disclosed if it is capable of materially changing the overall appearance of the case?"

      Good question. I don't have an answer.

      Paul Stephenson said the final report would not be published.

      I agree with the rest of your comment, but don't you think the McCanns would prefer 'proven innocent'?

      Delete
    4. You know full well that the Supreme Court ruled on the libel case appeal. They did not review the evidence of the case. The McCanns, nor any other person, were never charged so there is no case for them to prove themselves innocent. If GA would have continued to believe Murat was guilty , and he had written a book about it, then the Supreme Court would have ruled the same, that he, Murat, had not proven his innocence.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 9 January 2019 at 17:54

      Thank you for your comments.

      Respectfully…

      “The UK police have no jurisdiction over the case, the crime was committed in Portugal and Portugal will prosecute whoever is responsible if there is a trial.”

      That goes without saying.


      “SY were only doing a review”

      The review became an investigation. This is well known. Please check.


      “That's why the Supreme Court stated that the McCanns have not proved themselves innocent.”

      Wrong. Please re-read the decision of the SC.


      “KM refused to answer the 48 questions…”

      Criminal proceedings and defence rights in Portugal. The right to remain silent:

      You have the right to remain silent at any interrogation. It is forbidden for the authorities to draw any negative Conclusions from that silence.

      It is generally advisable to remain silent if there is no lawyer present; you do not have a consistent story (and a strong defence that proves you cannot have committed the offence) or if you have not been able to view your file and so you do not fully understand the accusations against you.

      You should always discuss whether or not to remain silent with your lawyer.


      “…the Tapas 9 refused to do a reconstruction of the night Madeleine supposedly went "missing"

      Wrong.


      “…if the case is again shelved the PJ will issue yet more of their revelations like they did the last time…”

      Irrelevant. You can’t see the future, can you?


      “re your last line, the McCanns shall remain 'innocent' until proven guilty. I think you may be wrong there because I did read somewhere a long time ago that Portugal has the stance that a suspect is guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.”

      Presumption of innocence in Portugal:

      “Rome Statute
      Article 66 Presumption of innocence

      1. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law.

      2. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused.

      3. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

      https://cjad.nottingham.ac.uk/en/legislation/157/keyword/311/


      “That's why the Supreme Court have issued the statement that the McCanns have not proven themselves innocent. Why would they say that, they obviously know there own laws, don't you think?”

      It seems you confuse ‘presumed innocent’ with ‘proved innocent.

      Happy New Year.

      ’00:02’

      PS Are you Anonymous 5 January 2019 at 20:32?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 09:53

      I am not 9 January 2019 at 17:54. My response to your comment 9 January at 00:02 is 10 January at 08:00.

      I admit it's rather confusing, sometimes it's the best option though.

      Regards from 5 January at 20:32, also 10 January at 08:00.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 10 January 2019 at 08:00

      I am most grateful for your comment.

      “"Why would the info of Portuguese origin so far withheld be disclosed if it is capable of materially changing the overall appearance of the case?"

      Good question. I don't have an answer.”

      There seem to two possibilities:
      First, the Portuguese do not have such information.
      Second, the Portuguese have such information but disclosing it now would throw bad light on the PJ and likely also on the Portuguese judiciary


      “Paul Stephenson said the final report would not be published.”

      Correct.


      “I agree with the rest of your comment, but don't you think the McCanns would prefer 'proven innocent'?”

      Judging by the McCanns record, I would think they sure would. Such a proof has been elusive so far, and I can’t think where such a proof could possibly come from.

      Good wishes

      ’00:02’

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 10 January 2019 at 14:36

      Many thanks for clarifying. The option you’ve mentioned is the one I often take.

      Kind regards.

      ‘00:02’ etc, (aka Major Tom etc.)

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 10 January 2019 at 09:08

      “You know full well that the Supreme Court ruled on the libel case appeal.”

      The McCanns sued for damages, not libel.

      I repeat: The McCanns sued for damages, not libel.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 9 January 2019 at 14:35

      TSHP

      Asked cloud. Awaiting answer. Faraday cage. Will advise. JB

      Delete
  16. How many ghosts must cross the paths of the McCann parents when they drive the highways and byways of rural Leicestershire.

    There's naturally the memory of their long dead daughter Madeleine whom they must pine so dearly and just down the road from Rothley where the family still live they are able to drive by the house of a local woman who killed herself on account of the pressures of tweeting the truth about the parent's involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

    And it doesn't end there.

    Their last two indirect victims have luckily come out of this horror story very much alive.

    The first person to be implicated was Robert Murat a British/Portuguese resident of Praia da Luz falsely identified by the McCann friends as a likely suspect in their daughter's "abduction" and later cleared of any wrongdoing.

    Murat was not able to sue the people involved, the best he could do was to sue a British newspaper and collect 500,000 pounds (I believe that was the sum - trolls can look it up - for damages to his reputation).

    The last brutal move by the the McCann family was to try and have the chief Portuguese investigating police officer in the case removed via friendly influence in the British government.

    But it turned out these acts were not enough for the McCanns.

    Then something came along that must truly have made them feel immortal and a scenario beyond their wildest dreams; - the investigating police officer was fired from the case.

    Finally this hated and discredited police officer wrote a world-wide best selling book called "The Truth of The Lie" available and well read through all of Europe but not in Great Britain - a country once revered as the cradle of democracy.

    This final act of dehumanizing was to have been the icing on the cake for the McCanns to prove their innocence.

    They would sue, using every penny of the Find Madeleine Fund to drive this upstart into the ground.
    It was this final desperate act that has only demonstrated to the followers of this case that, "Hell hath no fury like two Leicestershire doctors scorned".

    History showed this evil plan did not work out and Goncalo Amaral came out the winner although his life was very nearly destroyed.
    If you want to know the truth, take time to read his book, "The Truth of the Lie"
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does all this vitriol come from JC?

      You make allegation after allegation without offering one iota of evidence to back up those allegations.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous9 January 2019 at 16:14

      The answer is simple - it comes from a sick mind with nothing better to do than imagine sick scenarios and post them on the internet.

      But then of course you have to remember that Ros admires the work of jc!

      Delete
    3. I do happen to like the stream of consciousness writing of JC, very few people can or do write naturally, it is a gift that JC has in abundance. Too many when they put pen to paper are so concerned with what other people will think of them that their writing becomes stilted and overly self aware, it is as uncomfortable to read as it was for the author to write.

      As for JC's words coming from a 'sick mind with nothing better to do etc', good heavens. Confronting reality is not 'sick', pretending reality doesn't exist is in fact sicker. This Stepford, Disneyesque world of perfection created by the McCanns and their crew, is a distortion of reality that the public are no longer buying. They got away with the whole 'princess being kept in a tower' mythology for way too long. They were asking not for a prince to rescue her, but loads of money. Pretending everything is nice can only work for so long, and for this sorry tale, time has run out. I think before long the whole world is going to know the reality 18:36, and it's anything but nice.

      Delete
  17. What about Madeleine’s hairbrush?

    Martin Brunt: “Danie Krugel also wants to hand over to me something of Madeleine’s he needs to give back to her parents.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic&t=100s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin Brunt's name is written all over this case, he was there at the outset and right through and up to the Brenda Leyland tragedy.

      What does Brunt know?

      Delete
    2. ask him
      Martin Brunt@skymartinbrunt

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 9 January at 16:28

      2 May 2017

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/ten-years-looking-madeleine-mccann-case-has-dominated-life/

      Martin Brunt: "But what do I really know? What do I know about the only thing that matters, what happened to three-year-old Madeleine after her parents left her and her two-year-old twin siblings Sean and Amelie sleeping in their rented holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on a breezy, late Spring night 10 years ago on Wednesday?

      The answer, of course, is nothing."

      Martin Brunt also makes mention of Jim Gamble, Brenda Leyland and others.

      Is he washing his hands of the matter?

      ----------------

      @NorthernPleb @pazzalou
      Ahhh Yes. @skymartinbrunt who initially doubted the McFiction himself, but did a 180 and went on to hound an old woman to suicide for having an opinion. Must be his proudest moment that..


      https://twitter.com/back_samuel/status/1082704433190965259

      Delete
  18. Re: 9th January posts @16:14 & 18;36

    To my friend(s) @ 16:14 and his/her doppelganger pal @ 18:36.
    Take a deep breath and look into the mirror and see yourselves for what you really are.

    Through the years you offer not "one Iota" of evidence to refute any of the "allegations" that so upset you about Madeleine McCann's untimely demise.

    I would suggest the two of you take a basic writing and reading course in the English language to present any of your views in more than one sentence.
    By acclaim, readers on this site rate your input as zero.

    Have a nice day.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear jc

      I am not 16:14, 18:36.

      “Through the years you offer not "one Iota" of evidence to refute any of the "allegations" that so upset you about Madeleine McCann's untimely demise.”

      Might that be because it is the party who alleges that bears the burden of proof?

      What is, in your view, the most significant pointer to “Madeleine McCann's untimely demise”? Like you good self, I believe that Madeleine is no longer with us, but I can’t prove it. Perhaps we could compare notes if you feel like it. I promise you courtesy.

      Whilst I might disagree with you, I appreciate the incendiary aspect of your outpourings. I like fire.:)

      Happy New Year!

      T

      Delete
  19. "Through the years you offer not "one Iota" of evidence to refute any of the "allegations" that so upset you about Madeleine McCann's untimely demise.

    I would suggest the two of you take a basic writing and reading course in the English language to present any of your views in more than one sentence.
    By acclaim, readers on this site rate your input as zero."

    Am I missing something here, jc? Have the McCanns been charged? Are the McCanns in prison? Are the McCanns been actively pursued by the Portuguese or UK police? Oh no, silly me, they have both been declared as not being suspects by both the Portuguese and the UK police. Furthermore, the Portuguese prosecutor shelved the case against them because of lack of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent when it comes to their daughter’s disappearance, a judge in Portugal’s highest court has said.

      The fund certainly helped , secure a top legal team , why they needed one as the victims of crime ? is anyones guess . well it isn't really is it

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous12 January 2019 at 12:15

      How can anyone be "ruled innocent" when they have never been arrested, charged and sent for trial?

      Delete
    3. There does seem to be some confusion as to what "ruled innocent" actually means in this case. It has nothing to do with the judicial term inocent until proved guilty. The McCanns were never ruled out, by the Portuguese police, of involvement in their daughter's disappearance and so remain suspects even though the arguido status was lifted. Hence the McCanns have not been "ruled innocent."

      Delete
    4. it's even more simple than that. the police investigating start with questioning the people who last see the missing individual...effectively removing them from their enquiries. this has not happened due to refusal to answer questions under caution by km....refusal to do reconstruction etc. the mc canns have never removed themselves from the enquiries therefore investigators can't look deeper than this starting point of the investigation. so although innocent till proven guilty they have not cleared their involvement in their daughters disappearence.

      Delete
  20. "MADDIE 'RAINY DAY' CASH Madeleine McCann parents Kate and Gerry ‘storing £100k cash boost in special account to fight legal battle against Portuguese ex-cop’"

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8169212/madeleine-mccann-parents-storing-100k-cash-account/

    (By Tracey Kandohla)

    'A source close to heart doctor Gerry and ex-GP Kate, both 50, of Rothley, Leics, said: “That money goes into a special account for a rainy day.

    "It can be used at a later date in the search for Madeleine or to help her parents fight their on going legal battle against Goncalo Amaral.

    “The balance has increased, largely as a result of further royalties from Kate's book, all of which she has given to the Fund and they say is very welcoming.”'

    Against Portugal, not Gonçalo Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's good, our Trysay, aint’t she (at writing shite).

      Delete
  21. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 3 January 2019 at 22:09

    I am not ’18:54’.

    Briefly, Rosalinda dear.

    “There really isn't any excuse for Kate refusing to answer the 48 questions.”

    I hate to have to tell you this, be it with respect and affection, but one needs no excuse to exercise one’s rights. Surely you would agree with that.


    “Criminal proceedings and defence rights in Portugal. The right to remain silent:

    You have the right to remain silent at any interrogation. It is forbidden for the authorities to draw any negative Conclusions from that silence.

    It is generally advisable to remain silent if there is no lawyer present; you do not have a consistent story (and a strong defence that proves you cannot have committed the offence) or if you have not been able to view your file and so you do not fully understand the accusations against you.

    You should always discuss whether or not to remain silent with your lawyer.”

    (See Anonymous 10 January 2019 at 09:53 on this thread. Although unsigned, it is mine.)

    Happy New Year.

    Bless.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But by not answering the questions , they were hampering the investigation
      the police told her this , This wasn't some random case know one knew about the worlds media were watching , so there was really no excuse for taking the 5th

      I love watching Joe Kenda on the Discovery crime channel , its interesting to hear his views on those that stay silent

      Delete
    2. Aaah T, Happy New Year my friend :)

      Apologies for the delay in replying to your goodself and others T, I am going through yet another transition and the dice has not yet landed.

      I would agree that we don't need excuses to exercise our rights T, from a legal perspective that is, but it isn't just a legal argument. The Law may say we can't take any inference from a witness exercising his/her right to remain silent, but the actuality is, we do, or more importantly, the police do. I don't know the stats, but I suspect most innocent witnesses do not exercise their right to remain silent. Robert Murat didn't - he talked for as long as they wanted to listen.

      But again T, the moral argument overrides every other. As the mother of a missing child, it is incomprehensible that she would not want to tell the police everything she knew. And as a distressed mother, she could not have the judgment to know what was or wasn't relevant. That of course supports the lawyer being present of course, but unless the lawyer knows the truth, he/she won't know what's relevant either.

      Kudos to Team McCann, Clarence et al in their valiant attempts to make Kate's right to remain silent sound reasonable, but I am not sure it succeeds. Most would say the rights of the child to be found, from a moral if not legal perspective, should override Kate's rights to self preservation.

      We have all asked ourselves the question, why wouldn't Kate co-operate with the police, and we can only conclude it's because she had something to hide. Very few, outside of Team McCann, believe the Portuguese police were trying to set the parents up. Why would they? It was not in their interests to leave a child predator on the loose in their own backyards.

      continues

      Delete
    3. Kate as the client did not have to take her lawyer's advice, ultimately the decision was her's. (I may have misused an apostrophe there lol). It is easy to blame the lawyer, and they have, but lawyers are servants not masters.

      The Law is often an ass T, an arena for one smartass to outwit another smartass. Ultimately the legal profession is based on 'I'm right and I can prove it', even if it means pouring over every musty old law book ever written including the Magna Carta. Happily, life, if not the law, evolves.

      I jest, mostly, I spent almost a lifetime working for musty old lawyers, and there was many a time I was able to scratch beneath the surface, figuratively speaking of course, ha ha.

      Perhaps if Kate had answered those questions we would not be here 12 years later T. Kate was not selective in the questions she chose not to answer, she refused to answer any of them. The not needed excuse that she could incriminate herself had she replied is weak and evasive. When interviewed Clarence should have been pushed harder, because her lawyer told her not to, wasn't then, and isn't now, good enough to convince her audience that her reasons for not co-operating with the police are innocent.

      Kate has of course, had ample opportunity to answer those questions T, in her book and in the campaigns they ran. She may have found the idea demeaning, and I'm guessing she did, but it would have gone a long away to lift suspicion from herself and her husband. Thus far, the McCanns have done nothing to disprove the allegations that have been thrown at them. I say nothing, because Kate's book and Gerry's blog were of the happy clappy everyone loves us (except the horrid Goncalo Amaral)because we are heroes variety, and both fail to address GA's theories directly. They had all the airtime and tabloid pages available to them, why did they not use that directly from God, gift to refute and rebut every argument put forward by Goncalo Amaral? Getting redtops to call him a sardine muncher, is the endgame of a playground squabble, not a valid rebuttal. Think of the millions they could have saved, if they had just presented their innocent credentials to the world on primetime TV?

      Anyway, Cheers T, I missed you for a while there, but glad to see you are very much still here. I agree you with you on JC, I too like fire! G'awd 'elp us from the monotone PC brigade who are determined to make everyone as dull as themselves.

      I am presently up in arms (if raising an eyebrow counts) at the hoo ha surrounding un PC, American comedian Kevin Hart. Even though I am a Marxist, feminist, socialist, ha ha, I have zero tolerance for the culture of victimhood. Those who scour the internet or obsess over celebrities, looking for words to be offended by have my least respect. Removing words from our vocabulary is an obscenity in itself, now they are attempting to suck out all the humour. In my experience gay people love gay humour (in all it's forms) just as Irish people love being ribbed for being Irish. Get a bunch of celts together and you have an evening of laugh out loud ribbing, followed by a punch up, forgiveness and promises of lifelong devotion ending with a coming together for a tuneless rendition of Oh Danny Boy.

      But, tis still the season of Hogmanay (does it last til Burn's Night?), so I will raise a glass of kindly cheer and wish you all the best for the new year :)

      Delete
    4. @12:09

      Good evening.

      “But by not answering the questions , they were hampering the investigation
      the police told her this”

      Tough luck for the police, they should do something to have the law changed in their favour.

      “This wasn't some random case know one knew about the worlds media were watching , so there was really no excuse for taking the 5th”

      Nothing to do with the McCanns who, having been made formal suspects, had the right to remain silent and needed no excuse to exercise that right. Gerry did answer questions.

      I love watching Joe Kenda on the Discovery crime channel , its interesting to hear his views on those that stay silent.

      The name inaudibly rings a bell. Since you’ve mentioned him, what are his views on the many of those who answered all questions, were convicted for the crimes they hadn’t committed, jailed and, later (sometimes very much later), their convictions overturned, released? Having read and understood my question, do you still think it wise to answer questions under caution when your eminent legal advisors say you shouldn’t?

      The Devil’s advocate

      Delete
  22. T 21:28

    The most likely reason for not answering the 48 questions was that the couple was being questioned separately and they feared that their answers would not be the same.

    To 13:35

    The funds being put aside for a "rainy day" could just be another way of saying "funds to fight extradition".
    Carolina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12 January 2019 at 10:40

      “The most likely reason for not answering the 48 questions was that the couple was being questioned separately and they feared that their answers would not be the same.”

      Yours is a very good guess. However, I think there must have been more to it.

      The McCanns had had plenty of time to get their story straight before they were questioned. KM could have answered the questions to which only she would have known the answers.

      The McCanns, undoubtedly, had access to, and followed, the best legal advice available. The advice was good: apparently, the Portuguese had no evidence against the McCanns that would justify preveningt them from leaving for the safety of Albion. And so… the McCanns left and have never looked back.

      You may wish to have a look at the penultimate paragraph of my Anonymous 9 January 2019 at 00:02 comment.

      Would you mind telling me if ‘Carolina’ rhymes China or Pinner?

      Muchas gracias.

      T

      Delete
  23. The actions of the Leics police point to Madeleine's demise. They were there in PDL on Saturday 5th May supposedly to assist the PJ.

    Leave aside for the moment the PJ knew nothing about this. On Sunday 6th May Lori Campbell reported her suspicions of Murat to the LP in England.

    She, nor any member of the media, knew there were UK police officers in PDL. The LP wanted to keep their presence hidden. They were not there to find M, or to gather info from expats or holidaymakers.

    The LP in England knew they had officers in PDL and could have given them the RM info and followed it up immediately on the ground with the PJ. But they did not. Because it would expose their illegal activities.

    So DC Hardy simply emailed a report to the PJ in Portugal to be picked up on Monday .

    No urgency whatsoever,to find or rescue Madeleine

    Either the LP completely failed in their duty to MM or they already knew her fate.

    The next day the LP got Campbell and Ian Woods of Sky, to lie over her suspicions (still available on the internet), proving OG is completely incompetent or deliberately corrupt.

    People forget Amaral had the LP under surveillance, from the off, as he did not trust them, particularly the head of Leicester CID.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Rosalinda,
    How likely is it that three investigations would be running parallel at a crime scene at the same time.

    First off is the investigation by police forces in Portugal where the crime took place.
    Second there would be (and is) an investigation by British police because it turned out the suspects in the crime were (by bad luck for the Portuguese) a couple of know-nothing foreigners on vacation, two English doctors and their English friends.
    Had these people had been Portuguese citizens and not fled the
    country while on bail (basically, as "Arguidos")they would have been convicted years ago.

    Mr Gerald and Mrs Kate McCann's mode of attack, like bloodhounds on the prowl (apologies to Martin Grime and his forensic tracker dogs) would like us to think otherwise. They decided to organize a third (private investigation), still underway.

    The notion was that it was impossible that a respected heart doctor and his GP wife could ever be implicated in any sort of crime.
    (The couple's public meeting with the Pope Francis, Tony Blair, and Oprah proved that).

    No. What happened was this : A criminal abductor was watching their holiday apartment and snatched their child while they were out drinking: end of story.

    Why would two loving doctors like the McCanns stage a fake abduction theory funded by donations from the public?
    Because they care.
    They care about saving their own skins and need to keep the police forces of the world searching for a daughter they alone know the whereabouts of.

    Laughable? except for the tragedy of the little girl used as a pawn to elevate the parents beyond reproach and help them become the victims themselves. They, the people who had already disposed of her body.

    I don't want to get too macabre on this beautiful Saturday afternoon, but in the Jon Benet Ramsey case the American police had at least the poor girl's body to go with as evidence. It still turned out to be not enough for a prosecution and in the end the Ramseys walked free.
    I always thought the fake ransom note left by the killer (but really written by Patsy Ramsey) would doom them, but once again there was pressure in high places and the case was stalled.
    Have a nice day.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JC thank you for taking time out to write such an eloquent post.

      The passing of time does nothing to support the parents' claims JC, in fact, when we look back on the summer of 2007, we can only wonder wtf were 'we' (actually mostly the media) were thinking? Gerry and Kate were articulate, well groomed, middle class professionals, a cut above the usual brits misbehaving abroad. They were taking boxes of chardonnay, not diamond white back to their chalets. The idea that someone in a suit or M&S casuals could be capable of a heinous crime is an aberration to the average Little Englander and an anointed police chief.

      The equally polished Ramseys used their wealth and status to demonstrate their innocence, but as you say, that letter written by Patsy Ramsey confirmed their involvement.

      Delete
  25. Morning, JJ

    Good to see you. Grateful for your comment. Very interesting. I remember you are knowledgeable about the LP aspect. Would you be so kind as to expand a bit on your last paragraph and give the source? I would appreciate it.

    Nappy New Year.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi T

    From the Truth of the Lie C5.

    GA states we start to welcome our colleagues from Leics on Monday 7th May.

    Monday 7th May C6.

    Bob Small of the Leics CID and a colleague meet us to take stock of the situation before making contact with the McCanns.

    GA knew nothing of the LP meeting the McCanns on Saturday, 5th May.
    The LP activity was unlawful.

    GA - "We insist on knowing what our English counterparts are in Portugal to do. I assigned one of my officers to follow the English Superintendent like a shadow and keep me informed about his actions.

    I want to be informed of everything he learns, the names of people he meets and the places he goes to."

    It doesn't smell of close cooperation does it?

    Another most interesting player is Supt Graham Hill on secondment from Surrey police to CEOP.

    Why was he in PDL? ACPO had no idea and had not authorised his attendance. Who instructed Hill to break the law?

    Is it a mere coincidence his boss at Surrey in 2007 was Mark Rowley later to oversee OG? Corruption runs throughout this case and its why it is still continuing.

    The LP never ever thought the PJ would release the files and by doing so they confirm 19 people have either perverted the course of justice, attempted to pervert the course of justice, or carried out misconduct in public office. The 19 include 12 UK policemen but do not include Kate McCann, Gerry McCann or Jane Tanner or any UK politician.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "By FAX
      Department of Criminal Investigation at PORTIMAO.

      CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT.

      To : Detective Chief Superintendent Robert Hall
      Fax: 00441XXXXXXXXX
      From: Goncalo Amaral - C.I.C. no D.I.C. de PortimAo
      C/C : Fax:
      Data: 07-05-2007 . No pages : 03
      Ref : N / ref : Inq. 201107.0 GALGS
      Subject : Request for Collaboration"

      snip then:

      "2. In the spirit of Police to Police Cooperation we request the presence of a British Criminal Analyst who may be able to assist the enquiry.
      Also the collaboration of the UK's "Child Exploitation Online Protection" may be useful if they wish to send one of their officers to provide assistance to the investigation,

      Regards

      Coordinator of Criminal Investigation :

      Goncalo Amaral."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

      Delete
    2. Data: 07-05-2007

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_510.jpg
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_511.jpg
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_512.jpg
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_513.jpg

      Delete
  27. The role of Jez Wilkins (and his partner Bridget) is clearly of interest in this case as Dr Amaral's urgent fax demonstrates. It is of note that Bridget, in an article written in the Guardian months after the alleged abduction, claimed that the Portuguese police never bothered to contact Jez. She surely must have known this was not true? Journalist Bridget used to work for Crimewatch and Jez was/is a TV drama/documentary producer. The pair were apparently slumbering (Jez statement) as one of the biggest news stories of the decade broke around them and it was only in the early hours of that fateful Friday morning, apparently, that they were awoken from their dreams. Matt, in the company of the OC resort manager, told them that Madeleine had been abducted and that Gerry said he had seen Jez earlier that evening and wanted to know if he - Jez- had he seen anything. Jez's reply to this was: 'You're joking!' It is not entirely clear what part of Matt's speech he was referring to with this comment. But the couple appear to have considered there was nothing they could do, as they claim they didn't bother to go and look for Madeleine but stayed in their apartment and eventually went back to sleep after Matt's visit.

    This seems somewhat bizarre given that their daughter apparently played with Madeleine that week (Bridget's article) and also given their media roles. Why did they assume there was nothing they could do to help, especially when you consider that Bridget used to work for Crimewatch and would know how important the first few hours are after a child goes missing? Also - they are journalists and it was a potential news story.

    But no - they just go back to sleep. Weird....

    (The Jon Ramsay Bennett case does have some parallels with the McCann case in my opinion. Talking of written notes left, some time after the arrival of the police on the Thursday evening, the Tapas tore a page out of Madeleine's sticker book and wrote up a timeline of events which included Jane Tanner seeing Madeleine's 'abductor' at around 9.15pm. I think there may have even been two time-lines written up...?)

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Tapas timelines. The first one has the name 'Gerard' written under it. Why 'Gerard'? The second I presume was written by Russell?

    Note how the child is described as motionless/limp consistent with sleeping or possibly drugged.

    http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8617-the-tapas-timeline

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:31

      'Gerald' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2578a.jpg

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

      1578: “Which one came first”

      Russel O'Brien: “Erm as we discussed the other day, I’d forgotten these over the year but I think this is an attempt, this is a draft attempt, they’re both in my handwriting, this is a draft attempt, err and then I think I’m transcribing in a slightly more a neater writing, hoping that it’s more legible for other people to read as well, so I think this one came first”.

      1578: “So just to differentiate between the two documents”.

      ROB: “Mmm mmm”.

      1578: “One of them has the word ‘Gerald’.”

      ROB: “Mmm mmm”.

      1578: “Written towards the lower half of the document and the other one does not”.

      ROB: “Yeah”.

      1578: “You’re saying the one with ‘Gerald’ written on it, was the final document”.

      ROB: “Well it was certainly second one, I said I think I was writing this down in a hurry when I”.

      1578: “It came after this, this first one”.

      ROB: “It came after this one yeah, yeah”.

      1578: “So the one that doesn’t bare the name of ‘Gerald’”.

      ROB: “Is the earlier one”.

      Delete
    2. 1578: “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt as you say. When was this drafted up”?

      ROB: “Erm this was drafted er around the time that the initial pair of Officers from the PJ came to 5A (inaudible) early in the morning of the fourth of May, two thousand and seven so erm I can certainly recall writing some of this, I think perhaps the neat, maybe the neater version erm sat down at the table in Gerry’s flat with Gerry erm Dave PAYNE and at least at some stage of it, the two Officers from the, from the PJ”.

      1578: “What would have been the time difference between these two documents”?

      ROB: “Er that I’m not too sure, I think what, what essentially I’m doing, is I’m, I’ve written something here fairly quickly for myself and then I’ve looked at it and thought it’s, it’s not actually gonna be useful to hand to anyone to read other than me, so I think they’re probably not that far, I’ve written that and then I’ve sat down, perhaps I was writing this with that being on my knee or something and never sat down, but I don’t, I don’t recall the time difference but, but we’re looking at from what I describe about my activities in the run up to this, to these being within you know, a short space of time, half an hour, maybe even less, I don’t think I wrote this, had it in my pocket for a night, the other thing that makes me think that is, is probably the front of the back cover of a book”.

      1578: “Yes”.

      ROB: “So I’ve probably, I’ve probably written it, thought that’s rubbish, even I can barely read it, let’s start again, I don’t think there’s much time difference”.

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

      1578: “To the earlier version”.

      ROB: “Mmm mmm”.

      1578: “You see that at nine thirty five, you have written”.

      ROB: “Matt checks, Matt checks the twins, checks and sees twins”.

      1578: “Matt checks and sees twins”.

      ROB: “It looks like that, yeah that what it looks like, as I say it’s, it’s, it’s not even that great for me to read there, but it does say Matt, Matt checks and sees twins, so this is as I said after Matt left me in 5D, he’s gone back and I think there was a, certainly there was a concern that Matt was, whether he actually definitely saw Madeleine at the time or not, he can certainly (inaudible) certainly in the, in the days and hours afterwards I mean Matt was unsure about whether he definitely clocked Madeleine in the room, although he was quite convinced that he, he, both the twins were there, so I think that’s why I’ve written that there”.

      And so on.

      Delete
  29. I think the fact that Matt will not state whether he saw Madeleine points to one of two options which are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. 1. Madeleine was not there. 2. Madeleine was there but no longer alive. I think when Kate is reported as yelling out: 'the b*******' have taken her, she is referring to Madeleine (I suspect deceased by this point) having been removed from where-ever she had been hidden prior to 10pm on Thursday evening.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If it isn't a daft comment, but does anyone else think that there could be some 'burying of bad news' around the time of Brexit.

    ReplyDelete