Monday, 25 March 2019

DISGRACED COP? WHY ARE TABLOIDS STILL LYING

I think having won 3 consecutive Court victories against Gerry and Kate McCann, Goncalo Amaral deserves the right not to be called disgraced.  Unfortunately the knock on effect of the Netflix documentary has been the elevating once more of the parents to sainthood and the demonisation of the former detective who searched for their child.
 
Several tabloids have run stories sympathetic to the parents in their continued pursuit of Goncalo Amaral in the ECHRs.  The parents owe massive legal fees to GA, not as massive as I thought they would be, but massive nevertheless and with further legal costs looming.  Goncalo Amaral has no compassion for Gerry and Kate, a source from the family disclosed. No compassion from GA, well what do you know.
 
Quite how these tabloid stories make GA the villain and the parents the victims is baffling, maybe it lies in prefixing ‘Disgraced’ before his name.  Let me however make it clear to those new to the case or similarly baffled.  
 
The McCanns waited one year after Goncalo Amaral’s book was released to launch a damages claim.  That is, they allowed all the damage to be done and the first year’s royalties to accrue. They demanded that not only GA’s book be burned, but all the royalties, anything he earned ever, his Jaguar and the proceeds of the sale of his family home. As Kate said in her own book Madeleine, she wanted him to feel misery and fear.
 
The McCanns were demanding financial compensation of £1.25m, £250k for each of them and they are a family of 5 as Isabel Duarte informed us. Yes, they were claiming £250k for their missing daughter Madeleine but that claim was ruled out halfway through proceedings when Madeleine's ward of court status was pointed out.  Bizarrely, not the fact that she hasn't been seen in years. 
 
They were successful in their initial court actions, and Duarte impounded all of GA’s books from the book shelves and shops. She had a warehouse full of books ready to burn. And yes, I just checked, we are still in the 21st century.  Happily several courts thereafter ditched the barbarian route and gave Goncalo Amaral his assets and his voice back, though it must be said, he has never had a voice in the UK.
 
Any misery Gerry and Kate feel now is as a result of the former detective refusing to hand everything he owned over to them.  They were the protagonists, the instigators of the Court proceedings, the Claimants. Goncalo Amaral was the Defendant who refused to hand over the £1.25m the Claimants demanded.  They chose to purse their cases to higher and higher Courts even though they knew there was slim chance of success. Having lost their daughter, a claim for pain and suffering caused by a book is ridiculous.  They didn't have the witnesses and they didn't have the experts to vouch for the damage they claim was done to them.  So much so that they attempted to settle two trials ago, offering terms that GA would not agree to.  They should have abandoned their claims then, but either they were poorly advised or simply intent on going down the path of destruction.  For the psychopath spotters here, psychopathy would explain a lot.
 
The parents legal actions against the former detective are malicious, probably why they can't appeal for donations.  What would the strapline be 'please give generously so we can destroy this man's life'.  It would not be a popular cause and it would set a terrible precedent.  Do we really want to see detectives sued by former suspects?  Do we want detectives forbidden by law to talk about cases they have worked on?  How about, do we want to see Gerry and Kate rewarded financially for not co-operating with the police?  But finally why are the tabloids still presenting the parents outlandish financial demands as a just and sympathetic cause?

Thursday, 21 March 2019

BLACKMAIL, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION

 
Why have I gone completely off topic, along a deranged path some might say, but my reason is simple.  In the comments on my previous blog and in fact many before, there is much talk of conspiracy theories and tin foil hats.  The pros, the supporters of the McCanns are trying to plant the idea that someone or several, in the higher stratosphere is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and the scapegoating of the parents.  Actually, I may be wrong in lumping the 'pros' together as one voice, because some believe the police, well the British police at least, are totally on the McCanns's side.
 
Anyway, matters not, they are pretty much all for going into James Bond territory, they query the protection given to the parents, the huge amounts spent by the UK Government to ensure this case never reaches a conclusion etc.  On this, they unite with many 'antis' who also believe OG is a cover up and those working on it are sat around all day playing X-box.  The mounting costs (£12m+) being part of a huge ransom for the return of Madeleine.  That's a new one.  When they hit a certain target (unknown), the abductors will hand the alive and healthy child over.
 
With the alleged involvement of MI5/MI6 and the Secret Services we need a villain as dastardly as Goldfinger or Blofeld, someone with the power to drop you into a pool of piranha on a whim.  Except Madeleine was just an ordinary little girl, precious to her family, but no use in plans to dominate the world or raid the US gold reserves.  I think Mike Myers got closest to that genre, Dr. Evils et al are mostly fictional.  Although even in the fictional realm I haven't seen an evil dictator send out for a small child.
 
Gerry McCann is a Professor, kudo to him for that, but he doesn't have high security clearance and he hasn't been seen galivanting with Russians floosies.  I can't think of any secret Gerry might have (apart from the obvious) that would make Gerry and his family targets of a hostile foreign power or Scaramanga.
 
Removing foreign powers and Bond villains, what are we left with?  Person or persons unknown within the British establishment.  Someone who has power over, not only a Labour government but a Tory government as well. That person must also have power over the police if Operation Grange is the farce the critics claim it is.  History has shown us however that rank, privilege, massive wealth, etc, can only protect a person for so long.  We only have to look at Trump, his rank as President and Commander in Chief, isn't protecting him from anything.  Serious question.  Who in the UK is so important that our Government, both Labour when they were in power, and Tory now, would cover up for them?  A major Royal perhaps? A cabinet minister? A member of the House of Lords?  A billionaire political donor? Who has the power to persuade 30+ homicide detectives to cover up a child's death and leave a massive stain on their career records forever more?
 
But let me throw another conspiracy theory into the  pot.  Let's call it ways to get people in power to do what you want them to or to get rid of people you don't like.  It was used frequently in Caesar's Senate, the Court of Henry VIII and on a daily basis in the halls of Westminster and the Trump Administration.  Of course the ancient and the medieval rulers didn't use allegations of child abuse as child abuse was normal for the times.  Getting engaged to a 5 year didn't raise so much as an eyebrow.
 
Being gay has had its ups and downs but in ancient civilisations it doesn't seem to have been a life changer in the sense that gay writers, artists and musicians were able practice their crafts.  But persecution I am sure did exist, especially when it came to Queen Victoria's reign.  In the middle ages the worst allegation that could be made against you was witchcraft. Accusations could be thrown and fingers pointed, trials consisted of strapping said witch to a chair and ducking her/him into a river until they confessed or died.  If they confessed they were burnt, innocence wasn't an option.   Witches carried the brunt of societies ills for a couple of centuries, well, until the immigrants and the Jews arrived. 

 
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the hated group, the witches, were the homosexuals.  Communists too, but that would take us way off track. Many politicians were vulnerable to blackmail, bribery and corruption due to the fact that they were homosexual. Homosexuality was illegal - err, for men.  Homosexuality laws go back to the time of Queen Victoria and she didn't believe women did that sort of thing. Gay members of parliament and members of the establishment were in constant danger of being compromised, their careers finished if they were exposed in the papers, the Sundays especially.  See Jeremy Thorpe.
 
Happily those days are gone, being gay is OK, people accept gay people like other gay people and they are not potential child molesters, which sadly was part of the anti gay ideology.  It wasn't safe to leave children with them was the mean spirit of the times.  Now, the only way a life can be wrecked on the scale that it was for homosexuals in the 60s is an accusation of downloading child pornography. That would be the present day equivalent of being dragged through the streets and publicly executed.
 
In 1999 the police launched Operation Ore, a large scale clampdown on men accused of accessing a child pornography site in the US.  See link below.  Unfortunately many of the men accused had their credit card details stolen, and they were in fact innocent. This after dawn raids, humiliating arrests at work and their children seized and placed into care. At least 39 of them took their own lives.
 
 
Paedophile hunters are all around us, so many that when they are trying to catch paedophiles online they are usually speaking to each other. Grown men pretending to be ribbons and curls  14 year old girls for other grown men who are doing the same.  None of them give two hoots about kids being battered or emotionally abused, they are only interested in the sexual side.
 
Apologies for putting that unsavoury image in anyone's heads.  As poorly educated and inept as these vigilantes are, there is always a chance they might stumble on people they can blackmail.  They don't have the intelligence, the morals or the professional code of ethics to prevent them from using any information they obtain unscrupulously.  That's one of the biggest arguments against watchers on the internet. Who watches the watchers?
 
But returning to that life altering/ending accusation.  Imagine a list exists of VIPs, politicians, celebrities etc who could have downloaded child pornography knowingly or unknowingly? They may be completely innocent but the accusation would be enough to ruin them.  How far would they go to avoid that sort of accusation?  Possessing child pornography is an easy charge to make. Most of us have pictures of our kids naked in the bath or 'scantily clad' on the beach.  Look at how much was made of the Madeleine in make up pictures, a little girl playing dressing up, was twisted and distorted into something grotesque.   The Cesspit devoted entire threads to it along with the McCanns' holiday snaps.  They simply don't get that they are the only group online discussing child sex.  All those dark, sinister fantasies come from their own creepy imaginations.
 
Unfortunately, those on a quest to track down perverts may come across names of people they can use to put forward their agenda, just as those who pursued homosexuals in the 1960s.  It is not unusual these days for people to 'leak' something and for it to go viral. The News of the World is long dead and buried but it has been replaced by the much faster twitter, where we see Ministers et al disgraced and resigning within hours. We don't have to wait until Sunday morning to read the 'smut and filth' as my dear old mum used to called the Sunday papers, as we tucked into bacon and eggs.  Dirt on, well anyone, is a valuable commodity. 
 

Monday, 18 March 2019

HAS ANYONE CHANGED THEIR MIND? MADELEINE DOCUMENTARY

 
I have to admit that by the end of my 8 hour binge watching marathon my own beliefs and what I know about this case were shaken if not stirred.  The subtext unsettled me, the tirade of spokespeople on behalf of the parents got through, even that of the painfully na├»ve Hubbards.  And yes, I asked myself, what if I'm wrong?  If my former girl crush Sandra Felgueres can do an about turn, why can't I?
 
As my regular readers know, I have no problem with admitting  when I am wrong.  Being wrong is usually accompanied by better and further knowledge and I'm all about enlightenment.  In this case, am I wrong or are other people trying to seduce me into sharing the same beliefs as them? The devil works in mysterious ways. 
 
The beliefs of Summers, Swan and Jim Gamble have now gone mainstream, and by mainstream, I mean global.  The book of Summers and Swan was completely discredited on Amazon and failed to have any impact on public opinion.  That it's release coincided with a shameful publicity stunt by Team McCann and Sky News that resulted in the death of a so called internet troll, simply added to the belief that the book was part of an establishment cover up.

And for me this is where the chills began to run down the spine.  Was I wrong?  About the parents? nah, those points that took me beyond reasonable doubt are as glaring as they ever were.  About Operation Grange and the likelihood of a cover up, OMG, is it possible the 'establishment' have no intention whatsoever of letting the Great British public know what happened to Madeleine McCann?  That possibility now seems very real.  I will probably now be inundated with 'told you so' posts As the turmoil within my head continues. 

My faith in human nature was blown to smithereens by my realisation that Madeleine's parents may have been lying. Believe me, it does not feel good to have such heinous thoughts, ignorant bliss has a lot going for it, it tends to keep you step with your fellow human beings.  For me that feeling of dissonance is a way of life, but this time, I was actually on a hit list, as indeed were many others who did not buy the abduction story.  Why would an innocent family go to so much trouble to seek and destroy those online who do not believe them?  It's things like that that make them appear guilty.

Today my faith is once again shaken to the core.  Is it possible 30+ homicide officers have been working towards a diplomatic way out of this never ending conundrum?  Is it their failure to find a way to exonerate the McCanns that takes this investigation into it 's 7th and 8th year?  I'm having now to revisit all those 'wtf' moments that turned the McCanns from negligent parents into national treasures.  The circus is back. 
 
 

Friday, 15 March 2019

REVIEW - NETFLIX MADELEINE DOCUMENTARY

 
I couldn’t resist peeking this morning to see if the long awaited Madeleine documentary was going to appear on Netflix, and there it was all 8 episodes.  8 hours later, I feel I have run a marathan.
 
Firstly, I don’t think Gerry and Kate have anything to worry about at all, in many ways the documentary in it’s entirety does much to dispel many of the rumours that have surrounded them in recent years.  All those that matter do not believe they are guilty.  Alan Johnson, Jim Gamble and Justine McGuinness.  No Clarence though, have they fallen out?
 
The middle episodes they may not like so much, these episodes explore the alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs and features the classic moment that Gerry threw a wobbly when asked about the blood found in the apartment. The discussion about the dogs alerts and the forensics was led by Summers, Swan and Jim Gamble who went to great lengths to explain why the dogs findings were worthless. Even the clips of Martin Grime focus on the lack of corroborating evidence.  These episodes leave you wondering, well who do I believe, these crime experts who say the dogs are crap, the front line services who rely on them or my lying eyes?  I think Martin Grime should get a knighthood, firstly for his amazing contribution to crime detection and secondly for his patience and stoicism in the face of his dogs being dissed by twats.  
 
I was glad to see that Goncalo Amaral was given the opportunity to speak, though it would appear his words are heavily edited. The overall aim of the documentary, I can’t help feeling, was to blame him.  In focusing on the parents he let the real criminals slip away.  Sandra Felgueres, who I once had a girl crush on, did a complete about turn.  She was furious with Goncalo Amaral for misleading her on the results of the forensic tests and lost all trust in his team.  It now appears she deeply regrets her former stance and the tough questions she posed to the parents.  
 
Robert Murat I think came across well.  I don’t know where the idea that he seemed odd came from, an over enthusiastic Tarzan lookalike and busy body Lori Campbell, both of whom I found a bit odd.  Robert seems like a regular, likeable guy, nothing like Ian Huntley, and he had a genuine skill to offer as a translator.  It is horrible to see someone with genuinely good intentions being made a scapegoat.  There was a crime committed here, the framing of an innocent man.
 
The series ends by looking at the broader problem of child abductions and human trafficking.  This is where Jim Gamble gets back to his own quest of ridding the world of child abusers. They are attracted to holiday resorts by scantily clad children apparently. A very emotional Jim’s voice cracked as he explains his calling to child protection.  But centre stage was given to Ernie Allen, head of NCMEC, the US equivalent of CEOP, who’s calming, reassuring voice, I am sure was used to calm those with missing loved ones and leave them with hope. It was a bit of a Sermon on the Mount moment, as in ah bless, at least the genuinely missing are getting a mention.  
 
What was missing?  Whilst they showed the Court victories of Robert Murat, the McCanns and the Tapas group, they barely mentioned the long running claim against Goncalo Amaral that he eventually won in Portugal's highest court.   
 
The Fund.  It wasn't just the reaction of the world's media that made Madeleine's disappearance a phenomenon, it was the huge amount of cash donated to the parents from people all over the world.  It ran to millions and it wasn't used to pay private detectives apparently, Brian Kennedy states quite clearly that he paid for Motodo 3 and Oakley.
 
Smithman.  Yes he gets a couple of mentions, but more time is given to Jane Tanner's sighting and the bonkers artist who drew the photofit, the sighting that was dismissed by Operation Grange.  They also claim that Mr. Smith has since said it wasn't Gerry.  That I would take with a giant pinch of salt.
 
The ultimate effect the documentary will have I think, is to confuse the matter even more.  The final episodes leave the viewer sympathetic to the parents and hostile towards the original investigation and Goncalo Amaral.  Depending on whether the viewer retains all the negative McCann evidence in the middle, which is doubtful, because it ends with a Rothley village group hug and you would feel like a shit if you said anything unkind.

Thursday, 14 March 2019

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE - TRAILER

NETFLIX TRAILER
 
Herewith the trailer for the Netflix documentary.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnarCTOiCY
 
It looks to me as though it is another exercise in knocking the Portuguese police and planting (yet again) the idea that the Algarve is a haven for paedophiles and human traffickers. I read part of a statement from one commentator on the documentary who said little white, blonde haired Madeleine had a higher value than the third world tots of colour that are apparently two a penny.  It was at that point my heart sank, if that is the kind of thinking behind this documentary, then we are back in the McCann circus pre intervention by Operation Grange.  
 
Anyway, I am pushed for time, but I am sure there will be lots to discuss later.  

Thursday, 7 March 2019

MADELEINE NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY

 
All we know about the Netflix production of Madeleine thus far, is that it will an 8 part documentary beginning in April 2019 presumably ending at the time of the anniversary.
 
Given all the gagging orders and litigation surrounding the Madeleine case, kudos to them if they can give us a new perspective. As I mentioned in a post in my previous blog, if the makers of the documentary aren’t British, they don’t have to fear being trashed on social media or  blacklisting by the British mainstream in the same way British journalists do for digging too deep.
 
The McCanns have now stated they are cynical about the documentary and have refused to take part as there is an ongoing police investigation.  Fair enough.  They are are least treating this investigation with respect.  But it suits them to stay silent, anything they say could contradict things they have said in past.  
 
But the big elephant in the room, that most of us are thinking about but shy to say out loud, is that innocent parents desperate to find their daughter would welcome the opportunity to speak to such a large audience.  It would also give them an opportunity to rebut the criticism they receive and sweep away whatever they perceive to be myths.  
 
Amanda Knox actually appeared in and narrated her Netflix documentary and she came across sympathetically, not particularly likeable, but not the ‘Foxy Knoxy’ of the tabloid headlines.  I didn’t have any firm opinions before, though I leaned towards her being involved based on the forensic evidence.  The Netflix documentary however explained the errors that were made with the forensics and there really wasn’t anything to put Amanda in the room. Perhaps Gerry and Kate could also have turned things around with the Netflix film?
 
But I digress.  What if Netflix shine a light on those ‘higher ups’ who pro McCanns on here claim are responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and the cover up? I think that is the best hope from the McCanns’ perspective.  If Netflix had been onto any new leads, lone predators, traffickers and the like, they would have passed it over to the police and arrests would have been made.  
 
Like the Amanda Knox documentary, I don’t think the Madeleine documentary will provide definitive answers, rather it will leave the viewer to decide by placing the facts before them. This is where Gerry and Kate may regret not fighting their corner because all the questions the makers had for the parents will go unanswered.  

Saturday, 2 March 2019

ANOTHER YEAR FOR OPERATION GRANGE AND NETFLIX MADELEINE STORY

It seems Scotland Yard have requested further funding for Operation Grange for another year, rather than for the usual 6 months.
 
I don’t know what I make of that, I kind of had it in my head OG would wrap up soon, around the time Trump gets led away in handcuffs and we go to war with Ireland. To be honest I had forgotten the last increment was about to run out,which is a sign I suppose that I and I’m sure others, have grown indifferent.  It ends when it ends.
 
For those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance, it must be the worst news possible.  They would much prefer to hear that Scotland Yard, despite much effort, could not reach a conclusion, and the file will archived. It will only be when the file is closed or someone (not them) is arrested that they will be relieved of the constant fear of that knock on the door.  Why twice as much this time they will ask themselves, ‘are they closing in?’.  For the guilty there will be no peace for the foreseeable future.
 
Gerry and Kate it would seem are extremely grateful, according to their spokesman Clarence.  I can only imagine that extremely grateful was through clenched teeth, as I can’t imagine it to be anything other than highly frustrating for the parents.  Unfortunately as the parents made such a big hullaballoo about the Brits stepping in to solve their problem, they daren’t criticise them now.  
 
The bigger problem, and the one that loyal lap dog Tracey Kandhola led with, was the upcoming Netflix production of Madeleine’s story (as yet untitled), which is due for release this month.  The parents are not happy. They haven’t participated in it, nor has Clarence, and their lawyers will be watching it carefully for any libel.  
 
Now I haven’t got a clue what is going to be in the Netflix production, but I suspect the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell have, hence their refusal to take part and their threat to have lawyers watching.  They claim they are not participating because there is an ongoing police investigation. OK, that’s fair enough, but it never stopped them in the past, even when they were arguidos.  At that time they made much use of Clarence’s services.
 
I happen to be a big fan of Netflix productions, I lost 3 days when I began watching House of Cards.  They are especially good with their docu-dramas, so it will be interesting to see their take on the Madeleine story.