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.  

200 comments:

  1. In a statement, her parents said: “We are aware that Netflix are planning to screen a documentary in March 2019 about Madeleine’s disappearance.
    “The production company told us that they were making the documentary and asked us to participate.
    “We did not see – and still do not see – how this programme will help the search for Madeleine and, particularly given there is an active police investigation, it could potentially hinder it.
    “Consequently, our views and preferences are not reflected in the programme.
    “We will not be making any further statements or giving interviews regarding this programme.”
    ------------------------------------------------

    Maybe Ros - you will remind everyone why Sonia Poulton's documentary - in which you appear - has not been shown yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And maybe she can calm down. It's just another TV thing. Sooner or later Ros you'll see that this isn't about television or the net, it's a real case with real people and real police investigating it.You're obsessed with the little silver screen and celebs.No wonder most of what you say about the actual real case is the same few things constantly.Maybe the documentary will give you some interesting material to use to say the same thing again.

      Delete
    2. Oh I know it's about real people, very real people who have gone to a lot of trouble to destroy other real people in order to protect their lie. I am among the real people who's name and reputation they have attacked, that's why I am here defending myself.

      Those real people created websites in my name calling me a liar and ridiculing my mental health problems, they thought they could silence me through bullying and fear. The problem they had is that I'm a real person too, and I didn't roll over, I fought back. Bullies seem to think that when they have taken everything from you and when they have broken you that's it, they've won. But it doesn't work that way. GA fought back, I fight back.

      The abuse is still there as can be seen in the multiple posts I receive from 'supporters' of the McCanns, it's more subtle these days, but it's there nevertheless. I accuse the McCanns because of my own character defects. I'm old, bitter and twisted apparently, driven by jealousy, Jealousy of what I am not quite sure, maybe it's their happy marriage, Kate's slim figure or their large house in the suburbs with room for a pony. They accuse me of hate, but they can't find a tangible reason for it. I don't believe the McCanns because I hate them. And there endeth their argument. Forget the police files, forget the dogs, forget their vendetta against the former detective, forget their freaky behaviour, the only reason I challenge the McCanns' press releases, is because I hate them.

      I didn't throw down the gauntlet 00:32, I picked it up. I didn't run to lawyers, I couldn't afford to, and besides no one can put forward my case better than I. The only tools I had were a google blog (thank you Google) and my willingness to go onto the battlefield and take on all comers. My trusty shield is truth, they can batter it as much as they like, but they will never get past it.

      I'm one of those people who get knocked down but get back up again, and each time I get back up again I'm stronger. My blog has steadily grown over the years as new readers become regulars.

      I would not be so vain as to say I have a following, I'm sure at least 50% of my readers don't like me at all lol, but they like my writing style, they never know what I am going to say, and to be honest neither do I.

      Those who try to label this as a hate blog, do not acknowledge that they have an equal opportunity to put forward their side of the story. No-one is blocked, no-one is censored, as long as they are civil. The McCanns would not allow GA's side of the story, but I am allowing theirs. I long for the day I can open up my postbox and find an articulate, sympathetic defence of Gerry and Kate. I almost feel bad for them that they have no-one likeable who can put forward their story.

      Delete
    3. As for my being obsessed with the little silver screen and celebs, you really are a patronising POS.

      Yes I am unashamedly a movie geek and have been my entire life. One of the modules I studied at Uni, was 'Hollywood the Dream Factory' and I wrote a dissertation on Charlie Chaplin. Amongst many other things, my head is filled with movie quotes and iconic movie scenes. One of my greatest joys at Uni, was being with a group of like minded peers who loved the movies as much as I did, we instantly bonded and became friends for life. If anyone wants to win me over, all they have to do is quote a line from a movie, 'of all the gin joints in all the world......' is a good one :)

      Those who think they are elevated to some kind of elite by scorning movies and popular culture, are misguided.
      In history the Beatles will be up there beside Beethoven and Mozart, Tracey Emin and Banksy alongside Turner and Van Gogh. Who can define what is good art and what is trash? Is an Andy Warhol can of Campbells soup any less iconic than Michaelangelo's Cistine Chapel. Discuss. lol.

      Are you a better person for not knowing about Kate Price's drink driving charges or the Oscar won by delightful British actress Olivia Coleman? Does that somehow make you highbrow and better than other people? My guess is, it makes you a crashing bore.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2019 at 11:40

      ''As for my being obsessed with the little silver screen and celebs, you really are a patronising POS.''

      Bit rude innit....

      ''One of the modules I studied at Uni, was 'Hollywood the Dream Factory' and I wrote a dissertation on Charlie Chaplin''

      Splendid. Well done. Chaplin wasn't bad was he. He was no Harold Lloyd or Laurel or hardy but he did a funny tramp thing and a nice little propaganda thing during the war. He made a phenomenal amount of money too.No wonder he never faced any charges for what he used to do with those girls...i had an excellent link once..i wish i could find it, id give it to you. It was excerpts from a biog of a well known actress of that era who bedded a few of them and dished the dirt later..typical burd really....

      The dream factory, by the way, is that. A dream factory.Disney and NASA are one.Welcome to America.As George said: the american dream ? you have to be asleep to f***g believe it..here's to you George...

      I like the movies of yesteryear and i have my own top 10. I have favourite actors.actresses.directors and so on.That doesn't mean I'm stuck up just because i wont give them more importance in the greater scheme of things.It's entertainment.

      '' Who can define what is good art and what is trash?''

      Me. It's all shite :) ( kidding )

      ''Are you a better person for not knowing about Kate Price's drink driving charges or the Oscar won by delightful British actress Olivia Coleman?''


      I was pleased for Olivia getting recognition. I loved Peep Show :) who is Katie Price.Did she get an Oscar for most twitter followers or best supporting bra on a reality show...

      '' Does that somehow make you highbrow and better than other people? My guess is, it makes you a crashing bore.''

      You and your guessing. It's like some kind of weird tourettes isn't it....

      I have to say, I've been around over the years and known many. many people from many, many backgrounds with many, many stories. I have never been called a bore by any of them.And i was never short of attention or invitations when i was in circulation.Bottom line- i was Mr Popular.maybe it was my good looks, or my charm, or my disarming modesty. I don't know. but it was fun while i wanted it.Now i like to sit on my pedestal up in my ivory tower and preach ny gospel to the world ( yw btw).My servants adore me...

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2019 at 10:55

      ''Oh I know it's about real people, very real people who have gone to a lot of trouble to destroy other real people in order to protect their lie. ''

      Theat's a serious allegation. It's no way to talk about the PJ.

      '' I am among the real people who's name and reputation they have attacked, that's why I am here defending myself.''

      I don't know what that means.I don't know who you're talking about or how you were attacked.But if you're sure, what's wrong with suing whoever attacked you ?

      ''Those real people created websites in my name calling me a liar and ridiculing my mental health problem''

      I don't get that either. The create a bogus site with your name then attack your mental health ?

      Paragraph three was quite a rant.But it seems to indicate a lot of nasty things were thrown at you.Why didn't you sue. It doesn't matter if it was only the net.The laws have evolved to accommodate the internet. Nutters hang around there like they hang around outside.

      I'm sure you could have got legal aid if what you're saying is true. you're entitled to have the law in your corner. That's why we have laws.

      You can only get knocked down so many times before you tire and the bruises take longer to heal. you either make yourself invisible or you get an army to defeat the enemy.The law makes a good army. if you're the one with the truth you can't lose.

      ''they like my writing style, they never know what I am going to say, and to be honest neither do I.''

      Pass.

      ''those who try to label this as a hate blog, do not acknowledge that they have an equal opportunity to put forward their side of the story. No-one is blocked, no-one is censored, as long as they are civil.''

      I've seen plenty of posts that can't be described as civil at all. All from the anti side of the war.I haven't seen any uncivil posts from pros.it's easy to express hostility and hatred without using the actual words.That happens frequently here.It's a small hard core but its' there. Unfortunately they tend to sound s bit stupid and hide when asked to support what they say.Their intentions fall flat on their face when that happens.They aim at their targets and let go.And the bullets go into the foot again....

      '' The McCanns would not allow GA's side of the story, but I am allowing theirs.''

      Theta's because they say it's all lies and any challenge for him to prove otherwise has never been honoured because he can't.That makes their claim look valid.

      '' I almost feel bad for them that they have no-one likeable who can put forward their story.''

      Everyone knows their story.

      Delete
    6. LOL Ziggy, for once you have entertained me. Yes unfortunately Mr. Chaplin had a bit of a reputation as a 'letch', but he genuinely loved women, but I will give you that, especially the young ones.

      My dissertation was entitled 'The Clown Behind the Red Curtain'. Chaplin was among those targeted by Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan, he was accused of being unpatriotic, a communist and Jewish. A lot of the salacious allegations against him stemmed from that. But he was a genius, he got his messages across and he threw custard pies at the establishment.

      In the meanwhile, thank you for laugh, I will take back crashing bore, temporarily.

      Delete
    7. It's a scary thought. Two of the most famous names in America's history. One a fanatical racist and the other one an anti-communist ( you choose). McCarthy was a vile creature.How the hell he got away with it all defies logical explanation.But he killed careers and introduced paranoia to the masses in the land of the free. as for Ronnie Raygun. I preferred his spitting image puppet. Two nutters in high positions. No wonder Pappy Bush wanted him shot :/

      Chaplin was a bit of a one wasn't he. I'll definitely have to find that link.I don't know if he was unpatriotic ( he was a cockney anyway) or a communist. But I know at that time there was a Jewish stranglehold on Hollywood that has remained to this day. so i think those 'lucky escapes' from the law can be inferred from that. But, as you say, he was an entertainer in a golden age.It's a shame that Fatty Arbuckle didn't have the same help as he had.he was a composer too wasn't he. I remember a Petula Clarke song 'this is my song' being written by him. I know that piece of trivia thanks to a dark spell when i was a about 9. I could play the piano so i was told i had to have lessons. This interfered with my plans of being a rock star / footballer. I ended up none of the above and i hate pianoes because of it.Freudian stuff this...

      But in the final assessment, anyone who throws a pie in the face of the establishment can't be all bad..:)

      Delete
  2. Ros says: "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."

    Are you sure about that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Her parents mention disappearance not abduction???????????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what conclusion do you draw from that?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7 March 2019 at 18:46

      ''Her parents mention disappearance not abduction???????????''

      Explosive and fully deserving of 13 question marks. Clearly they have all been barking up the wrong tree( dogs don't lie, they bark up wrong trees). It seems the joint force should have rounded up all local magic acts.

      Delete
    3. The Mccans have made a statement - what more could you want to lay into them and ridicule Ros?

      Maybe you would like to tell us what they really meant?

      Delete
    4. @ 00:03

      Ros does a more than adequate job of ridiculing herself

      Delete
  4. "Kate and Gerry McCann are preparing us all for the news that abduction by a stranger never happened."

    http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2018/11/abduction-is-dead-team-mccann.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the link 19:22, it is good to go over Blacksmiths blogs, and this one is particularly relevant. If you are looking in JB, hope all is well and my kindest wishes to you.

      Delete
    2. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 March 2019 at 19:57

      Maybe in your adoration you would like to quote his last post on here - ya know just to let your eager viewers know.

      Delete
    3. can never have enough nutters on this blog i suppose

      Delete
  5. Anonymous7 March 2019 at 19:22

    Are you quoting blacksmith as some form of authority.knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. didn't you know, 19:22, they are so all-knowing that Google actually consults them before giving any search results

      Delete
    2. I was replying to someone who noticed the McCanns had said disappearance instead of abduction. I remembered the post on the bureau and checked a couple of recent MSM articles. All seem to be favouring 'vanished' and 'disappeared' lately.
      Interested me enough to post the link. Not sure why you find it so offensive.

      Delete
  6. it's already looking pathetic

    ReplyDelete
  7. ''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.''

    If...( lol )

    If the makers of this latest cliffhanger don't want to be trashed by the shelf-stackers, window cleaners, bar staff and care workers who have a twitter account, all they have to do is show the dogs in slow motion, a clip from Richard Hall,the pained facial expression of Martyr Amaral, the patron saint of perjurers and a few stills of a smiling parent.They'll do that. They've only had the internet / youtube to use a 'rich source' of research...

    '' But it suits them to stay silent, anything they say could contradict things they have said in past. ''

    If they had have agreed to take part you'd be writing how brazen they are and cold. But they didn't agree so you found something else.Did that feel good ?

    '' is that innocent parents desperate to find their daughter would welcome the opportunity to speak to such a large audience. ''

    That's your elephant.Why did you bring it ? The parents- as you NEVER tire of preaching- spent millions and billions on a global media programme and it yielded nothing whatsoever.All it did was feed the twisted on line. They found soooo much to read into that.

    ''It would also give them an opportunity to rebut the criticism they receive and sweep away whatever they perceive to be myths. ''

    Yes, feed the monster and keep it healthy. Or keep their dignity and watch it go mad before dying in a rubber room.

    ''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?''

    Then they'll be out of business at best;'disappeared' at worst.All media, be it papers or film are owned by one ( cough) 'ideology'....

    ''t 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. ''

    Or, in other words, like i told you on your previous thread, it will be 'as we were' with nothing new.But the effort of sitting through eight episodes of what we already know will have to have a plus.So, they'll all be there trying to read the absence of the McCanns from the set as being 'obvious' that they're 'hiding something they don't want us to see' and so forth.Maybe Netflix have tracked down highly trained canines who can sniff out guilt from empty film sets..

    Zig S Esq

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oh dear Ziggy you really are a glass half empty, we're all doomed, kind of guy. I bet you could literally suck the life out of a party. You don't seem to have any confidence at all in the parents' innocence you seem certain they are going to be portrayed in a bad light.

      Your next paragraph is simply insulting, why are you insulting the makers before you have even seen what they have made? Probably that air of doom and gloom that closes in around you.

      You are wrong. I would have applauded Kate and Gerry if they had appeared. I respect and admire bravery. I wasn't too fond of Amanda Knox before I watched the documentary about her, but my opinion of her changed. She sat alone on a chair and faced the world. That takes guts.

      I don't buy the 'pointless' and 'nothing new' arguments. They directly contradict the fundamental aims of The Madeleine Fund and search for her. No stone unturned remember.

      Gerry and Kate were regularly appearing on our TVs raising awareness and begging the public to come forward if they remembered anything about an Algarve holiday. They visited the US, studied the work of the Nation Centre for Missing and Exploited Children they quoted names of children who had been missing for decades.

      In those days it could be said they were running on adrenalin and hope, which would be fair enough, but where is it now? True, it must be disappointing that none of their publicity campaigns resulting in Madeleine being found, but as Kate would say, that doesn't mean they should give up. When you say something is pointless or not worth it, you are at the given up stage.

      Again with the pessimism. 'They'll all be trying to read something into the McCanns absence'. Some might be genuinely curious as to why the parents of a missing child they believe is alive, do not want to use this golden opportunity to appeal directly her.

      You finish by disparaging the dogs. It's all negativity with you.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 March 2019 at 21:17

      ''oh dear Ziggy you really are a glass half empty, we're all doomed, kind of guy. I bet you could literally suck the life out of a party. You don't seem to have any confidence at all in the parents' innocence you seem certain they are going to be portrayed in a bad light.''

      2007 - 2019. 12 years, 12 million. No progress. That glass isn't half full or empty.It's empty. I'm satisfied that the parents are innocent until proven otherwise.12 years says so. I'm confident that they'll be portrayed in a bad light as that's more scandalous and salacious for those with empty lives and heads...

      ''Your next paragraph is simply insulting, why are you insulting the makers before you have even seen what they have made? ''

      I was speculating based on logic.Or musing. If I'm wrong, remind me of this post then.

      ''I don't buy the 'pointless' and 'nothing new' arguments. They directly contradict the fundamental aims of The Madeleine Fund and search for her. No stone unturned remember. ''

      Yes, and they've been turned and nothing was found.And whatever you 'buy' or don't 'buy' there really is nothing new. We'd have all heard.It's a police investigation. We don't wait for the movie or the book we wait for the trial.You're turning American.

      ''Gerry and Kate were regularly appearing on our TVs raising awareness and begging the public to come forward..''

      and bla bla..yes i mentioned that. It was 12 years ago.Back then we all knew what Madeleine looked like. She'd be 16 now and twice as tall at least and a young lady, not a toddler.So wake up to that.

      ''In those days it could be said they were running on adrenalin and hope, which would be fair enough, but where is it now?''

      Probably all but gone.They haven't had a word in 12 years and all the hope given to them by false 'leads' were to please the media not the parents. They must surely realise that now...

      '' When you say something is pointless or not worth it, you are at the given up stage.''

      I agree. But all I said was pointless is yet another rehash of old news through the medium of film

      ''Again with the pessimism. 'They'll all be trying to read something into the McCanns absence'.''

      Pessimism isn't my thing. Nor is optimism. I regard them as equally irrational. I'm realistic. I based what i said on the fact that in 12 years some things have never changed or slowed down.That's the main one.

      ''Some might be genuinely curious as to why the parents of a missing child they believe is alive, do not want to use this golden opportunity to appeal directly her. ''

      Again.It's pointless and can't bring anything to the investigation and they've been led a merry dance by such campaigns before. Once savagely bitten etc...

      ''You finish by disparaging the dogs. It's all negativity with you.''

      The dogs i referred to don't exist. It was disparaging to the herd who parrot the same old pony. ''The dogs don't lie'' etc( neither does Mr Grime btw).

      Delete
    3. LIke he has said so many times Rosalinda, nothing in twelve years isn't about being negative it's stating a fact. maybe you should show him and the rest of us what's positive about that. As usual, you're too concerned with shooting the messenger .

      Delete
  8. ''if the makers of the documentary aren’t British, they don’t have to fear being trashed on social media ''

    yes, that's all these huge billion dollar industries worry about now ; are people saying bad things about us on the internet.Wake up. They aren't selling merchandise they're only selling advertising to sponsors for when it's aired.And accounts, of course. Those who wollow in the mire of social media think they're so important and their opinions about anything are of the utmost importance and we all hang on their every post.Get real.They're mostly bored out of their brains and will talk any old pony to get a''friend'' to like them :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. ''All we know about the Netflix production of Madeleine thus far, is that it will an 8 part documentary beginning in April 2019 ''

    So why not dedicate a whole blog to it and talk about it.Very anti.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, people are talking about it, that's what happens when announcements are made, so why not offer a forum where it can be discussed? It won't be discussed on the Madeleine page or the McCanns facebook page, as they won't publish anything that questions them. It will probably be discussed on the facebook pages and twitter. The readers comments in the tabloids however, are heavily anti McCann, the monitors appear to have abandoned them.

      Very anti you say. But I am offering you a platform to put forward the 'pro' side. This is an equal playing field an opportunity to put forward the parents' views on the Netflix production.

      I don't know why the parents are so hostile to the Netflix production, isn't there any chance whatsoever that they will be portrayed in a good light?

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 8 March 2019 at 11:56

      Dear Rosalinda

      “Very anti you say. But I am offering you a platform to put forward the 'pro' side. This is an equal playing field an opportunity to put forward the parents' views on the Netflix production.”

      That’s a very good point.

      Bless.

      Pooh

      Delete
    3. The parents have put their own views forward in a statement.Anything else said on a forum or a blog is just superfluous.

      Delete
    4. @13:59

      Have you or have you not, Your Disgracefulness, been drowning me in superfluity?

      Pooh

      Delete
    5. It's your own fault Pooh..you know what those ginger slingbacks do to me..

      Delete
  10. Ros

    We are led to believe the UK police were in PDL on Saturday 5th May with full permission and authority of the PJ. Many still do.

    This means, on Friday 4th May by 10am only 12 hours in, the head of the PJ in Lisbon realised this missing child could not be found by the GNR or PJ and Portugal needed the assistance of the world renowned S.Y.

    The head of the PJ obviously believed his officers were useless and he needed the best of British. His officers were not to be given a day to investigate a crime in their own country without UK assistance and oversight.

    The head of the PJ never bothered with his own government's procedures or even S.Y.. He emailed C.C. Matt Baggott directly in Leics, begging for immediate assistance.

    By noon on Friday, Baggott had 4 officers undertaking medicals, psychiatric assessments, risk assessments and other Section 26 evaluations before flying to Faro the next day to 'liaise' on how the investigation should proceed.

    Ros, you must realise through watching hours of true crime and drama, this would never fly as a Hollywood script, but to believe this is what happened in reality, beggars belief. You write often about the morals feelings and sensitivities of UK police officers but do not think these qualities apply to the PJ and how upset they would be to be told by their own command, they were inadequate.

    What we are being told is complete and utter bollocks. The police of all nations hate intrusion by outsiders, often the plain clothes do not even liaise with the uniforms in the same force.

    Even Kate confirms this in her best seller.

    The UK police were acting unlawfully in PDL that weekend, undermining the PJ at every opportunity. That is the fact. OG is complicit in covering up criminality.

    Both ACPO and the NPIA confirm the UK police had no formal contact with Portugal and that no request for assistance was received from Portugal.

    Therefore CEOP and Leics police officers were lying. A most "delicate" matter for OG for sure.

    Who authorised this activity and why it would make a most interesting Netflix production.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truth is often , as the saying goes, stranger than fiction. It's also a lot more rare. Netflix, MSM and Hollywood prefer heavily edited accounts of truth. It's a tradition that dates back to the first History books and it's never changed.It's a case of 'teach them what we want them to think'. Question it or research the real truth, the stock retaliation is to A- call the rebel a conspiracy theorist and B- get the shills on board to spread the word about how 'crazy' conspiracies are. It's all control. Control the narrative and control the audience. This case fits the tradition.The more pertinent question in this instance is why. We can understand why officially recorded history lies about things like war ( Iraq / 9/11 / Vietman/ Germany /Korea). It would cause unrest in the population to know the leaders who run our lives are lying bastards out to use war to make money.But the McCann case is simply a child who was taken from a holiday apartment abroad.That's a police matter. Whatever the crime turns out to be-abduction/assault/murder- it remains a matter for the police.It's NOT an international incident and it's not a threat to the national security of any country.If it was, then it would cause shock waves to reverberate throughout the corridors of power in the UK as well as Portugal. Military Intelligence would have to get involved and talks behind closed doors. But, wait a minute....didn't all of that happen ? So what does that tell us ? Can we seriously call it merely a child- abduction ? Rules, protocol and laws were broken and nobody done anything about it. Or did those who had the power to do something about it waive the right to call a halt to it. Was it more important to allow the 'help' from high level politicians and military intelligence ?What we know about their involvement suggests all was fair in love and politics.So, What was at stake and who for ? This would not have happened for a mere kidnapping. It hadn't before and hasn't since and we know it won't again.

      I want to know why the PJ were dragged off the case in all but name so fast and why it was deemed such an emergency that SY got the call along with MI5 .Why PMs and their ilk reacted so quickly and involved themselves. A child missing ? Within hours the PJ seemed to know this was 'too big'' for them and the might of SY and the UK would be better dealing with things even though it wasn't even their country.Does that sound right ? Or does it sound like a bigger, more troublesome problem had raised its ugly head shortly after the disappearance.So ugly it had to be brought to the attention of those much higher up than the police force. But, it has to be 'classified' doesn't it. Once it goes this high it stays dark.While the internet detectives discuss which McCann called the police and when, or if they called Sky TV first and who made the call, the real question should be who called who between the police forces and Military Intelligence and who called the PM.And why.

      Madeleine had only been absent a matter of hours before the panic in high places ensued.Somebody somewhere had information that the child was NOT in PDL any more and a problem had arisen.It makes the famous 'digging around PDL' look like a show doesn't it. A show for the cameras and for the people who think the police aren't looking in PDL. No wonder they dug. They had to have known there was nothing and no - one to find..

      But it's easier to watch the parents being interviewed and find some magic body language expert on youtube to create a profile that could be twisted and shaped to that of dangerous criminals. it's more 'juicy' too. Just not that realistic.

      Reverend Zig

      Delete
    2. You expect an awful lot from writers, artists and documentary producers Ziggy. Do you not understand that an artist portrays their vision, not yours. It reminds me of Bennett starting a petition to stop the Crimewatch production from being broadcast until he had given it the once over. Bennett is a descendant of Mary Whitehouse and Lord Longford, he believes he is the best judge of other peoples' morals. You also remind me of those who protested William Blake's admission to the Royal Society of Arts.

      What makes you so high fallutin Zig? That you can dismiss Netflix as if it were another fast food wrapper floating in the wind. Look around you, everyone is attached by an invisible umbilical cord to a small mobile screen. Simply switching your phone on you are hit by all the up to the minute headlines, this week Madeleine has hit the headlines again, and people are talking about it. It is as it is Ziggy, ranting about it like a drunk Uncle emptying a bar, won't make any difference whatsoever. Be thankful that the discussion here is civil and reasoned. I advocate understanding, not hate. Educated people do not carry pitchforks or build bonfires, they seek enlightenment not retribution.

      I don't think about the punishment side of Law and Order at all. It is a subject that makes me deeply uncomfortable, I'm a total wuss, incapable of punishing anyone. I'd be crap as a traffic warden, I would let people park wherever they wanted. It should also make me crap as a blog host, but I think the chaos adds to the blog's charm ;)

      As for once something is 'classified' it is never seen again, I'm afraid I am very sceptical. There is a live, ongoing, police investigation, funded by the Home Office (taxpayers) into the disappearance of this little girl. Just because the police aren't telling us what they are up to doesn't mean they are up to no good. You are not just accusing one or two officers, you are accusing dozens- OG began with 33 homicide officers. All covering for a person, or persons unknown who stole a small child in Portugal.

      Way too many people involved Ziggy to make your thesis even remotely viable. Even Mohammed Bin Salmon with all the resources he has to hand, including henchmen and bonesaws, cannot escape being accused of murder. Who in the UK is way more powerful than MBS, so powerful in fact that every incumbent government is happy to spend millions in taxpayers money to cover it up?

      Delete
    3. Gerry, Kate and their friends, demonstrated the power of networking Ziggy. Not only did they have phones full of contacts, their contacts had contacts. By the next day a friend of David Paynes delivered pay as you go phones to each of them as they waited at the police station! They were pretty resourceful themselves Ziggy, long before Clarence came on the scene.

      Someone, somewhere (about as vague as you can get) had information that Madeleine was NOT in PDL anymore. Oh yeah. Actually it was Gerry and Kate who were trying to move the search away from PDL. They called for the borders to be closed (first night), they made it international. Logically the idea that an abductor would take a stolen child, who's knows her own name and can speak, across a border or onto a plane is ludicrous, but astonishingly the world's media latched on. Sightings poured in from all over the world. 'Can you remember any sighting where you thought it might be Madeleine?' asked the divine Sandra F. No. They couldn't even think of one. The one on the night, Gerry suggested, the sighting by Jane Tanner.

      Most people wouldn't choose to blame the parents Ziggy and I am among them. As you can see, if you have been watching, I have been pretty scathing about the loony conspiracy theories and salacious gossip. I have separated the wheat from the chaff.

      As for those videos, You reap what you sow. The law of attraction. The parents have had many opportunities to win the public back to their side, but they have not been prepared to reveal their true selves. Why can't the public take to them? It's something they should have tackled long ago when they realised the approach they were taking wasn't working.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2019 at 14:43

      ''You expect an awful lot from writers, artists and documentary producers Ziggy. Do you not understand that an artist portrays their vision, not yours.''

      Of course I understand that.Do you understand the difference between the medium of film and television and that of art ?
      Don't compare me to Bennett unless you have something to support your conclusion. I'm a fan of Blake. His poetry as well as art. He was a freemason though which knocks the sheen off. He was quite eccentric too, to say the least.But not as eccentric as the idiots who think Jerusalem should be England's national anthem.They must just like the tune...

      ''What makes you so high fallutin Zig? That you can dismiss Netflix as if it were another fast food wrapper floating in the wind.''

      Very poetic.I love a sexy simile type thingio. I'm from the respected Sawdust family of yore.They were high falutin' too.Netflix are answerable to the same bosses as the rest of mainstream.Simple as that.

      '' Educated people do not carry pitchforks or build bonfires, they seek enlightenment not retribution.''

      You'd be surprised.

      ''I don't think about the punishment side of Law and Order at all. It is a subject that makes me deeply uncomfortable''

      I'm happy to punish those who punished others.Tough luck if they can't hack that.If they earn a slap they should get one.

      '' I'd be crap as a traffic warden''

      I strongly disagree :)

      '' It should also make me crap as a blog host, but I think the chaos adds to the blog's charm ;) ''

      Nice to see you still have a sense of humour :)

      ''As for once something is 'classified' it is never seen again, I'm afraid I am very sceptical. There is a live, ongoing, police investigation,''

      By going dark i don't mean never seen again.They can have seals placed on them.Even if it's only a police file.But I think it's a good bet that the file here isn't just a police one.Remember some headline acts of the past : JFK, Brian Jones, Dunblane. The list grows.

      ''You are not just accusing one or two officers, you are accusing dozens- OG began with 33 homicide officers. All covering for a person, or persons unknown who stole a small child in Portugal. ''

      The only accusation I made was that they've done nothing.I base that on their lack of results.I accuse the hidden hands of covering it up before they had a chance to find anything.

      ''Way too many people involved Ziggy to make your thesis even remotely viable. ''

      That's exactly wait makes it viable.Compartmentalization is the most powerful and successful strategy used by the hidden hands.The more compartments the more vague things become as you uncover them.It's clever schitt...

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2019 at 14:44

      ''Gerry, Kate and their friends, demonstrated the power of networking Ziggy. Not only did they have phones full of contacts, their contacts had contacts''

      This is the digital age of obsessive contact collecting.How old are your sons ? Ask one of them if they were abroad in a group and it happened to one of them, would they all be frantic on their mobile phones or not. It's a natural reaction now. Are you implying 'contacts' means in high places ?

      Again..take yourself out of your own mindset and into someone else's. If you are an abductor and you are abducting someone in a tiny place like PDL, would you stay there ? Or would you head to get across the borders and out of sight or across the sea.Your survival instinct would make you fly off not stay if you didn't need to.The police would have thought the same too unless they were drunk or stalling. If I was Madeleine's parent- or if you were- we'd have thought the same and begged the police to at least try.They didn't request that the PJ left PDL-just that some covered further away.

      ''but astonishingly the world's media latched on. Sightings poured in from all over the world. 'Can you remember any sighting where you thought it might be Madeleine?' ''

      It was a government funded media circus wasn't it. Do you seriously believe the sightings wee genuinely reported ? Why didn't anyone who spotted her follow her ?They would have been able to say where she was, who she was with, solve the case and collect a reward.

      ''Most people wouldn't choose to blame the parents Ziggy and I am among them. As you can see, if you have been watching, I have been pretty scathing about the loony conspiracy theories and salacious gossip. I have separated the wheat from the chaff.''

      That's part 1 complete. For part 2 separate suspicion from fact.

      '' Why can't the public take to them? It's something they should have tackled long ago when they realised the approach they were taking wasn't working.''

      I could give you examples of why the public WON'T take to them rather than CAN'T.The parents are between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they need a high profile public presence for Madeleine's sake.On the other they know they're being scrutinised by thousands who have already decided that they're guilty based on nothing more than subjective interpretations of how the look, walk, speak, smile, frown or blink.If you remind them how useless that all is, they'll talk about the blood/DNA/Dogs. Even though they are NOT evidence according to the forensic teams. Vigilantism is a state of mind. Just because we don't have the mobs on the streets these days doesn't mean they aren't vigilantes.Their intentions and aims are the same, they have just had to revise their methods to meet the digital age.

      Delete
    6. Put myself in the mindset of an abductor. If I try that Ziggy my instinct would be to lay low not to break for the border dragging a 4 year old child who knows she has been kidnapped. Taking a child across a border on onto a plane would be the riskiest things I could do. Sadly abductors want to be rid of their hostage asap, they do what they want to do and that's it. They don't plan trips abroad.

      It was a government funded media circus. Actually the media fund themselves, they decide if a story is worth following and they send out the journalists and photographers. No government funding involved. Actually I suspected Team McCann of inventing the sightings, they were a regular occurrence before Operation Grange began their investigation. And of course it was the McCanns who were begging people to look for Madeleine and report their sightings. At one point they were themselves running a 24 hour hotline. It seems Team McCann were enthusiastic about the campaigning but totally indifferent to the results the campaigns brought in. What were their private detectives doing if not following leads?

      As you know I am totally opposed to vigilantism and you won't find any here. Whilst I agree some of the more batshit crazy Madeleine forums have set themselves as investigators, judges and juries, I haven't nor will I.

      Many people are curious about this case, many people want to discuss it. You can no more stop the discussion Ziggy, than stop the tide from coming in. And the people want to hear the parents side, look at all the interviews they have been given.

      The makers of the Netflix production invited them to take part in the production and I'm struggling to understand why they don't want to. It is another opportunity to prove their innocence and it's another opportunity to get everyone looking for Madeleine again.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2019 at 19:00

      '' If I try that Ziggy my instinct would be to lay low not to break for the border dragging a 4 year old child who knows she has been kidnapped.''

      What if she was unconscious / drugged ?

      '' Taking a child across a border on onto a plane would be the riskiest things I could do''

      True, but 'base' could be between PDL and an airport.

      '' Sadly abductors want to be rid of their hostage asap, they do what they want to do and that's it. They don't plan trips abroad. ''

      That would depend on what they 'had to do' wouldn't it. If it was assault or murder then yes, they could go anywhere, hide, do it and go.What if it was about private trafficking or ransom ?

      ''It was a government funded media circus. Actually the media fund themselves, they decide if a story is worth following and they send out the journalists and photographers. No government funding involved.''

      The government paid Mitchell a salary greater than that of a politician to keep a tight hold of the information given to the media.Where did all the money come to pay dodgy PR men and private detectives ? All to put on a show; an appearance of an ongoing investigation.

      '' Actually I suspected Team McCann of inventing the sightings, they were a regular occurrence before Operation Grange began their investigation. ''

      Why would they pretend to see Madeleine all over the world ?The reason they stopped being regular just after OG was invented is obvious. The strategy had worn thin and a new one was needed to replace it.Enter OG.

      ''What were their private detectives doing if not following leads? ''

      Chasing steam they were told were leads.

      As I said. Vigilantism is a state of mind and it's evolved along with the digital age.They still harbour the same short sighted knee-jerk reactions and hatred but they express it differently. Trying to incite hatred or ill feeling against two target using information that can't be proven is vigilantism.Those who do it are rarely subtle. Thankfully that makes them stand out.

      I'm all for the Madeleine case- or any other unsolved case- being discussed and debated.It's interesting and it could eventually light a proverbial bulb.I'm not for those who discuss with an arrogance and superiority because they swear they 'know' the 'facts' despite the police saying their isn't any proof.

      You don't need to struggle to understand why the McCanns declined the invitation from Netflix as they made their reasons clear in a statement.They believe it's a waste of time.When the 8 weeks is over and the same old things are debated and the same accusations are dusted down and aired again, they'll be proven right.There'll be no developments or arrests.Nobody has the vaguest idea what Madeleine looks like now.What good would asking the world to look for her do ?

      Delete
  11. Oh dear JJ, I do hope we don't fall out, but I am not fond of the way you assume what is going on in other people's heads. I do take account that much of your post is loaded with sarcasm, but I'm afraid that just blurs whatever it is you are trying to say.

    You begin. 'We are led to believe....', straight away you are saying I have no evidence for what I am about to say. 'The Head of the PJ obviously believed his officers were useless'. Supposition on your part or sarcasm? 'The Head of the PJ never bothered....'. Again, supposition or sarcasm?

    I get that you are angry with the police. I get that you believe the British police interfered in the original investigation, I do too. However, where we part ways, is that you believe the British police are STILL hindering the investigation in some way, I don't.

    Yes I often write that I see the officers of Operation Grange as human beings rather than automatons. Naturally the same applies to the Portuguese police. I also often write about the way the Portuguese police were harassed during the original investigation, when they were literally sleeping on the floor of their offices. How they were stalked by British paparazzi who were trying to get unflattering pictures of them to accompany their incompetent police stories. I don't in any way undervalue what the Portuguese police went through, not least the lazy and corrupt allegations in the British press.

    Sadly I am not optimistic that Netflix will be able to go into the dark, murky, political side of this story, that is they are unlikely to name names 'on the inside'. They must have faced the same wall of silence as their British counterparts re the involvement of Leicester police and CEOP. I'm afraid I don't have much hope that they will be able to dig beneath the surface, and as the McCanns have already surmised, they will get all the blame. I'm not saying I believe they are innocent btw, just acknowledging they have been used as pawns by others with different agendas. They could actually have a good defence there, and are actually trying it out here on my blog.

    You are right. The arrival of the British police was astonishingly quick, the child could have been found even before they got on the plane. That would not negate the need for Family Liason however, especially if a body were found.

    The other police, those there to help or oversee the Portuguese investigation is bizarre and indeed patronising. The US didn't send a police team from the home town of Amanda Knox. in fact, has it ever been known in any crime in any country, for a government to send their own investigators? Let alone appoint the victims/suspects a government spokesman!

    All those things add to the weirdness of this case JJ. If OG conclude that the parents were involved, then a lot of people, from British police officers to Tony Blair have a lot of explaining to do.

    Will OG go that deep? The length of time it is taking then I would say yes, and to that I would add, there is no way around it. Even Jim Gamble has said publicly the British police agencies who flew out complicated the Portuguese investigation with their different theories. He was probably having a dig at Leicester police there, who sent out Mark Harrison and the dogs. Leicester police and CEOP were not on the same page.

    OG of course have ALL the evidence and I am sure they will draw their own conclusions. And of course they have shared much of that evidence with their Portuguese counterparts, we saw them taking suitcases into the police station.

    It is naïve to think the British police are investigating Portuguese citizens. As I have said before that would present a multitude of problems and simply isn't viable. True, they organised digs in PDL but that was in conjunction with the PJ. I don't think there is any doubt that Scotland Yard paid for the digs as part of some sort of reparation for the British interference in the original investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2019 at 13:05

      ''Oh dear JJ, I do hope we don't fall out, but I am not fond of the way you assume what is going on in other people's heads''

      said the pot to the kettle :)

      Delete
    2. Ros, you challenge jj about 'supposition or sarcasm' which is a fair question. Jj stating what seems 'obvious' to him needs a little more than just his word. but the same appply to many of your suppositions about the case and the police.If you don't explain yours why should he explain his. you should both explain.

      Delete
    3. ''However, where we part ways, is that you believe the British police are STILL hindering the investigation in some way, I don't. ''

      You each have an opinion and they are diametrically opposing opinions.Either could be completely right or wrong.The one with most support is the winner

      Delete
    4. It doesn't matter what your opinion you have of the PJ or any other police force. Apart from the fact that your opinion was formulated after studying photographs in tabloids, it isn't important.So what if they're 'human'. They can be human as well as incompetent. After all isn't it only human to mess up ? Don't assess or judge them as policemen on anything other than the result they achieve.That's called common sense.

      ''Sadly I am not optimistic that Netflix will be able to go into the dark, murky, political side of this story, that is they are unlikely to name names 'on the inside'. ''

      You're learning.See what happens when you pay attention to what I'm saying . YW :)
      '' I'm not saying I believe
      they are innocent btw, just acknowledging they have been used as pawns by others with different agendas.''

      Even better.I might make you a coffee at this rate...

      ''You are right. The arrival of the British police was astonishingly quick, the child could have been found even before they got on the plane. That would not negate the need for Family Liason however, especially if a body were found.''

      Black ? White ? Sugar ?

      ''All those things add to the weirdness of this case JJ. If OG conclude that the parents were involved, then a lot of people, from British police officers to Tony Blair have a lot of explaining to do. ''

      You just earned yourself a cake.

      '' I don't think there is any doubt that Scotland Yard paid for the digs as part of some sort of reparation for the British interference in the original investigation.''

      Exactamundo...a show.

      Delete
    5. @13:36

      “You each have an opinion and they are diametrically opposing opinions.Either could be completely right or wrong.The one with most support is the winner.”

      Other things being equal, perhaps explanatory power tips the scales, Dr Zee?

      Pooh

      Delete
    6. Winns...

      Stop using words and fetch my cane and galoshes . We have much to do

      Delete
  12. Anonymous 5 March 2019 at 21:57

    http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/03/another-year-for-operation-grange-and.html?showComment=1551813162689#c3709525754737546536
    jc: “In fact it would be about the shortest movie ever to be seen if the child's mother Mrs McCann's version of events is to be believed.

    Here's what the film portrays:”

    http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/03/another-year-for-operation-grange-and.html?showComment=1551823063651#c6356079095041909585 )
    Your Perspicaciousness: “So, jc, tell us every detail of the film you, and nobody else, has seen yet...”

    With respect, Maestro, I think jc was telling us what the film would be about ‘if the child's mother Mrs McCann's version of events was to be believed’. I give jc credit for having done a good job there, all things considered. Perhaps it might’ve been better to say ‘Here's what the film would portray’ or something similar..

    Your use of an imperative,”jc, tell us” confuses me.

    I hope jc and you, Maestro, will correct me if I’m wrong.

    Namaste.

    Winns

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With respect, comrade Winns

      Nothing jc thinks or shares about this case is worthy of more than superficial attention.His bias is obvious and that's fair enough in itself.But his tone and his attitude come through strongly in his text and they are juvenile and often stupid and insulting.If he's ever questioned about his 'theories' or challenged to cite a source, he ignores it.He only responds if he can find something he considers funny and insulting like some spoiled brat of a boy who can't stay quiet when he should and won't speak when he's supposed to.

      As for his 'hypothetical' film, books and scripts. They're little more than unimaginative, humourless vehicles he uses to peddle his poisonous wares.

      You may be right, you may be wrong.It's your opinion after all.My opinion was forged by his texts.

      Dr Z

      Delete
    2. @13:30

      Doctor, Doctor, gimme the news.

      I, a bear, leave the forging to blacksmiths.

      Haven’t you just spoken about learning, coffee, a cake? I don’t see why ‘One lives and learns’ wouldn’t apply in jc’s case (no disrespect, jc).

      I got a bad case of lovin' you.

      Yours most reverently

      Pooh

      Delete
    3. Anonymous8 March 2019 at 15:24

      Pooh

      have you been at the mead in my absence....

      If jc- or anyone- chooses to live but not learn, it isn't my problem or fault. It isn't my decision.Ignorance is bliss is it not. He seems happy-with or without your concern..

      Cardinal Zin

      Delete
  13. Ros

    Why should we fall out?. You like to muse I prefer facts and evidence.

    It is your blog, delete anything you do not like.

    "The Head of the PJ never bothered etc.", is neither supposition or sarcasm.

    It is a fact that no request EVER came from the PJ.

    This is confirmed by ACPO documents and the NPIA debriefing document and the PJ files (still available on the internet).

    There was a claim the PJ sent an email requesting assistance but this was proven to be a lie (confirmed by ACPO).

    If the McCanns had any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, it is reasonable that they might lie. But what excuse is there for UK police officers. I can find no justification whatsoever.

    Can you?

    "You believe the British police are STILL hindering the investigation? I don't"

    So if I follow you, you believe OG has honestly found 'crecheman' and he is a 100% genuine witness. I and many others do not.

    I also do not believe the police are allowed to lie, deceive and entrap suspects in order to get a conviction.

    We just have a different belief.

    We have seen no verifiable evidence against the McCanns. There is however, against UK police officers.
    There is suspicion of criminality by senior UK police officers in 07/08 but there is nobody with seniority of rank in OG to investigate.

    That is a simple fact and is why OG is bogus.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK JJ so if I understand you correctly, the police (OG) are covering up for the police (Leicester and CEOP)?

    'We have seen no verifiable evidence against the McCanns'. Seriously? But plenty against UK police officers. Your arguments are almost aligning with Ziggy's there. It sounds as though you believe 'higher ups' were responsible for everything, including Madeleine's disappearance.

    However another big flaw in your theory JJ, is that the PJ have primacy, the crime occurred in Portugal and will be prosecuted in Portugal. Presumably by the combined forces of the PJ and OG. So are the PJ also covering up the criminality of the British police? Why would they do that JJ? They are the ones who have taken all the flack for being incompetent, why would they reopen the files to go through all that again?

    It is hard enough to believe 30+ homicide officers would collude to cover up the death of a child, impossible to believe the Portuguese police would assist them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''It is hard enough to believe 30+ homicide officers would collude to cover up the death of a child, impossible to believe the Portuguese police would assist them.''
      For the 38th time. The 30+ homicide detectives had nothing to investigate so nothing to cover up.It was already taken care of.They can't be fired for failing to find something that was no longer there.
      * shakes head*

      Delete
    2. 'The 30+ homicide detectives had nothing to investigate so nothing to cover up'. Now hold on 19:52, The Scotland Yard Review went to an Investigation because there was obviously something there to investigate. If there was nothing there to investigate why didn't they close it at the end of the Review stage?

      You think it more believable that 30+ homicide officers sat around for 5 years+ doing nothing, rather than believe they were actually doing their jobs as homicide officers? On the outlandish scale you win hands down.

      Don't you shake your head at me sir, you are the one trying to sell a load of old baloney.

      Delete
    3. We don't take kindly to folk who play with baloney round these parts missy....

      I made my assessment and observation after examining all of their results. There's 12 seconds I won't get back....

      :)

      Delete
    4. IMHO the METS involvement went from review to investigation, because they COULD NOT FIND the obvious flaw that had been over looked by the PJ. Gamble maintained there was too many fingers in the pie basically and in his scoping exercise probably outlined a scenario of overlooked & missed opportunity, probably including all the PRIVATE McCann investigations & data. Having found NOTHING, the MET went on to investigate in order to find SOMETHING.

      6 years later and £12m - ?

      Wonder if the MET ever solved the riddle of the tardy submission of the Gaspars statements and whether they had actually be investigated by the LP and whether there is about substance to the Gaspars observation!

      Delete
    5. The credibility of the bizarre Gaspar statements rests on one thing. Was Madeleine mentioned in any any at all in any context or not.The answer is a resounding no.

      This is one of the favourite pieces of anti evidence. It sums up why it's a waste of time taking too much notice of them.

      Gasapr, after a few wines, witnessed David Payne make a lewd gesture involving sucking his finger and gesturing it with it and apparently asking Gerry McCann if he could remember 'her doing this'.

      No name was mentioned and no reply came from Gerry.So why would it be Madeleine he was talking about ? It could have been an ex girlfriend a student he or they once knew, or anyone.But no name was mentioned. So, Gaspar 'assumed' after Madeleine had been taken that he must have meant her. Brilliant deduction. Don't bother with names and other witnesses.

      let;s apply some logic and probability to the situation. Kryptonite to the antis, I know...

      Madeleine had gone.What are the chances David Payne would talk about the little girl in that way ? If he /they had some guilt to hide, dare they speak like that in company anyway ? Gaspar should be ashamed of herself. And so should anyone who's chosen to interpret her vague statement in a way that obviously hints at paedophilia.

      Delete
  15. ''However another big flaw in your theory JJ, is that the PJ have primacy, the crime occurred in Portugal and will be prosecuted in Portugal.''

    If I may interject, Bella....

    You're quite right about primacy.The PJ had it.But that was only while it was a police matter. If they suddenly didn't have primacy, it would suggest it was far more than a police matter.This would coincides with the sudden and shock involvement of politicians.Once they were in the loop so to speak, it became a different type of game.The involvement of politicians would be the only valid explanation of the PJ 'losing' primacy ; The PJ losing primacy would explain that it was considered a political, rather than a police, matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the PJ no longer have primacy, says who Ziggy? Is that a little rumour you are trying to start?

      Delete
    2. No.It happened way back in 2007. Didn't you notice the UK taking charge after the UK politicians had been' having meetings' in Portugal ...? Who do you think told their media to report so negatively on the PJ ?

      These things happened. They aren't 'made up' stories like the dogs evidence and blood..or the speculation about half sober irishmen on the way home from the local bars..

      Delete
  16. @JJ

    You have said: "It is a fact that no request EVER came from the PJ.

    This is confirmed by ACPO documents and the NPIA debriefing document and the PJ files (still available on the internet).

    There was a claim the PJ sent an email requesting assistance but this was proven to be a lie (confirmed by ACPO)."
    --------------------------------------------------

    I have posted this before but will repeat it for you:

    "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

    In furtherance of your operation TASK and International Police Cooperation please see the following points:

    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,"

    Coordinator of Criminal Investigation :

    Goncalo Amaral."

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blimey the jig's up. Mr Amaral was desperate to get the UK involved quick as possible it seems.Then he later criticises their interference. Bounder . And he urgently wanted the CEOP involved to. That suggests he suspected a high chance of a child being kidnapped by a gang online or a local online with connections.Over to you Gonco old son..

      Delete
    2. http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

      p. 14
      "As no request had been received from the Portuguese police, the force contacted the FCO and through them offered the services of the FLOs and the incident room to the Portuguese authorities. This led to an email from the Portuguese police on Friday, 4 May for the deployment of officers to support the family in Portugal. This was quickly followed by Section 26 Police Act approval from the Secretary of State and the officers were deployed the following day, which was the Saturday of a bank holiday weekend."

      p. 15
      "It is unknown whether the Portuguese authorities would have requested assistance if Leicestershire Constabulary had not offered to deploy resources to Portugal. However, the debrief workshop suggested that it is rare for forces to initiate the provision of support to another country in this way. The normal route is for the authorities abroad to request assistance through INTERPOL channels. Should the request come through diplomatic channels, the FCO will refer it to the most appropriate force which can then communicate on a police-to-police basis with the foreign jurisdiction."

      Delete
    3. @anon 20:41
      You obviously missed the point I was referring to no request ever came from the P.J. the first weekend.

      It is good you have posted this information because it has the date of Monday 7th May on it.

      Both CEOP (Supt Hill) and Leics police were already in PDL on Saturday 5th May(confirmed by CEOP ACPO Leics Police and the Mccanns) and your posting this email confirms Amaral and the PJ knew nothing about their presence.

      This confirms their presence was illegal and their activities criminal, they did not have the authority of the Portuguese authorities, to be in PDL that weekend.
      What then do you believe they were doing there and who in the UK sanctioned this dishonesty.

      Delete
    4. "It is unknown whether the Portuguese authorities would have requested assistance if Leicestershire Constabulary had not offered to deploy resources to Portugal."

      http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

      Delete
    5. @ JJ
      "This confirms their presence was illegal and their activities criminal, they did not have the authority of the Portuguese authorities, to be in PDL that weekend.
      What then do you believe they were doing there and who in the UK sanctioned this dishonesty."
      -----------------------------------------

      I do not believe that they were there "illegally" and I do not believe their activities were "criminal".

      You are making a mountain out of a molehill and making false accusations. You have posted the same thing for years and it is meaningless and in no way advances the investigation into missing Madeleine.

      Delete
    6. When one thinks of deployment from the LP* of a family liaison officer, the CEOP and I believe a secondment from the MET of an officer, who was fluent in Portuguese, bla bla ... Meanwhile Tony Blair is sending a PR representative. Some need to wake up and smell the coffee.

      Particularly if you read the files, the LP was particularly tardy in it's approach to information, background checks, none on T7 and JW, Gaspar statements and about 250 words on K McCann of which was incorrect.

      Dare we even mention the Forensic Services Lab. in Birmingham.

      All for two doctors who by their own admission left these children night after night, in an unlocked apartment.

      One wonders who or what was being helped. And I don't believe in the any conspiracy theory. I believe WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GOT.

      *LP were award £1m extra over budget funding.

      Delete
    7. I wonder what you anon @ 14:17 constitutes an investigation into the disappearance of a British national in a foreign country where the police from the British nationals country have no jurisdiction.

      Delete
  17. Hi Rosalinda,
    As you say it's lucky that Netflix will be the one showing this latest 8 part documentary especially with the added protection of being American they will be out of the clutches of British libel laws.

    But I'm not quite sure how that works. For instance, American criminal profiler Pat Brown has a book ready to be published in America about the Madeleine affair but on account of threats by the British law firm Carter Ruck (who work for the McCanns) her publisher has decided not to release the book.

    That needs a lot of explaining.
    Perhaps a film is looked upon as less threatening and has less legal pressure forced upon it than a book.

    Even so it remains a mystery why Goncalo Amaral's book "The truth of the lie" is still prohibited from being sold in that cradle of democracy England, but free to be bought and sold anywhere else in the world.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what's the difference in libel laws.Uk or US. It's libel.

      Delete
    2. A film can report the stpry and interview all key players.That's reporting facts. A book can make allegations and accusations which the author can't back up. That's committing slander and libel.

      Delete
    3. correct 11:46

      Delete
    4. ''Even so it remains a mystery why Goncalo Amaral's book "The truth of the lie" is still prohibited from being sold in that cradle of democracy England, but free to be bought and sold anywhere else in the world.''

      Because it's the cradle of democracy.It recognises the individuals right to free speech but also demands that the individual isn't to abuse that right and has to acknowledge that slander, libel, and defamation are against the law and harmful to the target of such.This way, freedom of speech is protected while attacking innocent people is prohibited.The easy solution for those individuals to have their allegations and attacks allowed as free speech is to admit they are only opinions which they have no way of proving are fact or actually supporting said allegations with facts.

      Delete
    5. The McCanns are in a quagmire as far as slander, libel and defamation are concerned 13:02, each day they face a tsumani of comments on social media that show the majority of the public no longer believe them. Users of social media have been raising all the suspicions that the mainstream dare not. For most, the only truthful discussion and analysis of this case is online.

      The problem the McCanns and yourself have 13:02, is that you cannot stop people having opinions nor can you stop them discussing those opinions. No doubt you were buoyed by the success you had against The Express, The Sun etc and the non publication of Goncalo Amaral's 'The Truth of the Lie' in the UK, but you have never had a hope in hell of silencing the masses on social media. I agree, that's got to irk.

      I'll put aside for one moment the disastrous publicity stunt that resulted in Brenda Leyland's death, and refer to the hundreds of thousands of pounds the McCanns spent to silence obvious nut job and attention seeker Tony Bennett. It didn't silence him it came him notoriety and several tabloid front pages of his own.

      But he was the ideal villain, and the McCanns always need a villain in order to play the victim. Bennett was the ugly face of the 'anti movement', the interfering old busybody stalking and harassing a grieving family. He was the manifestation of everything that was wrong with Goncalo Amaral's book, the leader of a hate group, The Madeleine Foundation, inspired by the former detective's words.

      See how they linked the ugly mug of Bennett to Goncalo Amaral - they had to, it was all they had in their vexatious libel suit against GA. Their evidence that they live in fear of supporters of the former detective.

      Their only evidence of harassment was Bennett. There were no online threats against them or their family, there were no threats of kidnapping the children.

      I can't speak for anywhere else, but on here we discuss the case responsibly. It is a hate and hysteria free zone. Both sides a say, though as host, I should point out, 'pros' must try harder. They are still far too reliant on the 'its because you hate them' argument, maybe they could try to explain things from the McCanns perspective, the reasoning behind many of their, err, questionable decisions. Explaining helps, I've always found.

      Delete
    6. Ros says:
      "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 March 2019 at 15:58

      "The McCanns are in a quagmire as far as slander, libel and defamation are concerned 13:02"
      -------------------------

      No they are not. You have proved it with your non comments on here. (because you are such a clever ex legal secretary)

      Delete
    7. ''The McCanns are in a quagmire as far as slander, libel and defamation are concerned 13:02, each day they face a tsumani of comments on social media that show the majority of the public no longer believe them''

      Unfortunately this isn't part of the phone-in voting X-factor system.The public believe a ton of things that are wrong.Most are influenced by others who are guessing and have a 'gut feeling'. Again, it doesn't matter.Why do the police believe them ?Slander, defamation and libel still have the same meanings in legal dictionaries as they always had.And the slanderer still has the onus put on him to show proof, not the accused.

      ''For most, the only truthful discussion and analysis of this case is online. ''

      So what do we do- have a kangaroo court for the restless guessers ? Be cheaper than paying the police and OG I suppose.

      ''The problem the McCanns and yourself have 13:02, is that you cannot stop people having opinions nor can you stop them discussing those opinions.''

      Opinions are fine. But as i said in the post to which you are responding :

      '''The easy solution for those individuals to have their allegations and attacks allowed as free speech is to admit they are only opinions which they have no way of proving''

      see.... ?

      ''you have never had a hope in hell of silencing the masses on social media. I agree, that's got to irk. ''

      And the choir of thousands continues to sing the same song 12 years on. Their only audience is themselves.That's gotta irk.

      ''But he was the ideal villain, and the McCanns always need a villain in order to play the victim''

      You remember what this case is actually about I hope.

      Bennet and his ilk don't get to appear in my conversations. They're fools.

      ''I can't speak for anywhere else, but on here we discuss the case responsibly. It is a hate and hysteria free zone''

      The majority of the contributions are dedicated to suggesting as many ways as possible to call the McCanns villains instead of victims. Any 'names' from the media who slate the McCanns are outspoken heroes; any who voice sympathy are idiots.It's a toned down version of Bennett's place. it echoes almost everything Richard Hall thinks and says too. Very little is said about why all the policemen have failed to see things the same way...

      ''Both sides a say, though as host, I should point out, 'pros' must try harder''

      The pros have a three pointed argument and it's simple :

      1- In 12 years nothing has stuck to the McCanns, resulting in them being declared 'not suspects-period' by the joint force.

      2-Innocent until proven guilty. In 12 years nobody has charged them with anything.

      3- The forensic evidence cited by the antis have been pronounced as insufficient and in need of corroboration-so null and void.

      That's the shield against the thousands of blunt arrows.

      So, it can be called hate or anger or weirdness. It can be defended as logic and common sense that hasn't got an iota of evidence to support that. But whatever it is or isn't, the above three points can't be defeated.It's the antis that must try harder.Remove the 3 and you have your way.



      Delete
    8. @12:57

      No,it isn't, obviously.

      Pooh

      Delete
    9. You see, Bella , the fact that the three point defence is stable riles the antis no end.They can't change any of them.They can scream and they can shout but it does nothing. The 'trying harder' for the pros comes when attempting to wake the antis up to the three facts that provide the foundation of logic.But it's hard to show them.They're like the angry kid with his fingers jammed in his ears and eyes crammed tightly shut as he sings ''lalalala''. It's a case of them being determined not to have to admit something, face something and deal with something. I believe it's a shade of denial.

      I think it's long overdue for the antis to change the song sheet. Why can't they discuss why so many of their 'obvious' points mean nothing to those charged with investigating the case ? It's no use chanting mantras like ''the dogs don't lie''. If they don't lie why haven't the detectives acted on their truth ? Why do antis never discuss that ? They can guess all day about what lies between the McCanns spoken lines and facial expressions and they can tell us that Smith's '80% sure ' recognition of a man in the dark with a baby is enough to win a case in court.But they're wrong. It's as simple as that.Otherwise the McCanns would have been facing trial by now and facing the expert witnesses to discuss the dogs and Smith's credibility.

      One thing that seems to be indicated by the so-called OG 'review' is that they can't be looking in the direction of the parents after all these years.Everything the parents said and did is on record.As are the testimonies of their friends.If they were 'under review' it would have been finished within a month or two not years.If they have the slightest interest in the parents as suspects why would it take biannual top ups of money ? It wouldn't, So i suggest those with secret prayers about OG delivering their targets to a dock stop praying. Start discussing all the possible reasons that the police have never arrested a McCann or heeded the 'stand outs' which every anti worth their salt can quote chapter and verse. After all, they're 'the court of public opinion'- a weight body indeed...

      His Holiness Zig VIII

      Delete
    10. What 3 point defence? Please list the 3 points, because they are lost in your meandering.

      Who says the police, both British and Portuguese are not examining the inconsistencies that are discussed on social media? Why haven't the police pursued the dogs' truth? They have, didn't you see the digs in PDL?

      OG changed from a Review to an Investigation, it hasn't changed back. I don't agree they can't be looking at the parents and the parents and their friends have provided EVERYTHING. Have they? You say it would only take a month or so to 'review' the parents and their friends. Possibly, that's if they were co-operating, but years or even decades if they are not.

      You seem to firmly believe the current police investigations are not now and never have looked at the parents and their friends as suspects. That they have ditched the original investigation, declared the dogs unreliable and accepted the man seen by the Smiths who looked exactly like Gerry, was not in fact Gerry.

      'If they suspected the parents why would it take biannual top ups......' Yeah I see where you are going there, if the suspects are right under their nose why not just arrest them eh?

      Problem is, these are not just any suspects, they are suspects defended by the highest paid lawyers in the land. They have fought tooth and nail against the former detective who suggested their child might be dead, how much more would they fight against an actual charge? They have had 12 years to prepare and the best legal advice money can buy.

      This is a case without a body and it's probably lack of a body that has kept people out of jail thus far. They key thing is the police still believe the case is worth pursuing, so too do those providing the funding.

      As for discussing why the parents and their friends haven't been arrested - isn't that something we discuss every day? Isn't that where all conspiracy theories come from? You work hard yourself Ziggy in planting conspiracy theories of your own. 'Higher ups' protected by successive governments, way too important to ever be charged.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 March 2019 at 14:25

      ''What 3 point defence? Please list the 3 points, because they are lost in your meandering.''

      It's clear enough.

      '' Why haven't the police pursued the dogs' truth? They have, didn't you see the digs in PDL?''

      A show.Nobody really expected anything to come of that. That includes the police. If they dug up Portugal it would be the same.That's not acting on evidence it's just acting. Twelve years.

      ''OG changed from a Review to an Investigation, it hasn't changed back. ''

      When will it change into something that achieves something other than handouts from the Government.

      ''You seem to firmly believe the current police investigations are not now and never have looked at the parents and their friends as suspects.''

      No, you want it to make it look like i'm saying that because i didn't. I said OG were not.Period.

      The Geryy lookalike thing isn't for the internet people to rant about.What has Smith himself said ?

      ''Yeah I see where you are going there, if the suspects are right under their nose why not just arrest them eh?''

      You have a problem with that ?

      ''Problem is, these are not just any suspects, they are suspects defended by the highest paid lawyers in the land.''

      Oh yes, you do. It doesn't matter how much you pay a law firm, they can't change the law.Nor can they make evidence disappear.How did the McCann's team make it happen ?

      ''They have fought tooth and nail against the former detective who suggested their child might be dead,''


      Innocent people tend to do that. Has the former detective ever produced a spec of evidence to say the McCanns are wrong to complain ?

      ''This is a case without a body and it's probably lack of a body that has kept people out of jail thus far.''

      If the child's dead, yes. But it takes an official announcement or proof. Not someone on the internet opining their head off.By the way, a body would prove death.Not who made it die.

      ''You work hard yourself Ziggy in planting conspiracy theories of your own. 'Higher ups' protected by successive governments, way too important to ever be charged.''

      It's not hard, it's easy.I disregard all the conspiracy theories of the antis.I always will until they start explaining why the dogs /DNA/blood and scent have done nothing for the case and in 12 years don't look like they ever will.If they then go along the 'face reading / body language' route that NO Psychologist has been invited to do on behalf of the police, then they deserve mockery.When will they explain all the unique interest from PMs, MPs and MI5, ? Until then, the theories you like to think I'm planting stand up much taller and stronger.They don't need much work or any lies to persuade people. The only agenda is to open minds up and, hopefully, cause to them to think more clearly instead of mimicking..

      Delete
    12. great post zigzag

      Delete
    13. Ziggy; you failed to discuss the (non)jemmying of the windows and the "whooshing" of the curtain. Please enlighten us as to the methods of abduction, as purported by Kate Healey Mccann.
      PS theory? evidence? child neglect? Healey morphs into Mccann? Abduction or disappearance?

      Delete
    14. Anonymous11 March 2019 at 10:08

      Another staple of the antis- the jemmy.....

      Firstly if you want to consider what the McCanns meant when talking about it, you have to do something an anti can't do, unfortunately. That is, to imagine something you guessed could actually be wrong; secondly try and pout yourself into the emotional state and the mindset of the parents. As I'm not an anti-I'll do it for you....

      On discovering that their toddler wasn't in the apartment the obvious automatic thought would be that somehow she'd got out and was close by.But they-or anyone close to the vicinity- would have seen her.That would lead to the nightmare scenario that she had been abducted.Those two mental steps are completely normal and natural ways of processing the situation on the spot.

      The next step would be to ask how ? Again it would be normal to assume breaking and entry at that time. It wouldn't necessarily be an automatic leap to imagine a predator or predators had been watching your movements over a couple of days.That would leave you to consider-again, on the spot- the method of entry.There was no broken glass and there were no broken locks.That would lead to reasoning that a window would have had to be jemmied.It isn't proof of it but it's a feasible working theory. If a window was open, even slightly , a curtian would occasionally 'whoosh'.

      What wasn't considered but should have been was the possibility of a sophisticated 21st century abductor or burglar has ways of picking all manner of locks and would leave via a door and not a window even if he'd entered via a window.Think of the speed and ease of walking OUT via a door compared to climbing through a window with a child.Entry through a door would be easy too. Was it unlocked ( for the half hour check ins?)? Or was the lock locked ? Did the police examine the lock ?

      The evidence suggests that the movements of the McCanns and Co were watched form a nearby vantage point that offered cover.That way they could pounce after a check in.It would take 3 minutes to get there, get in, get out, drive away.I believe that scenario is one the McCanns would eventually have had considered when calm enough to collect thoughts and reflect.

      Negligence. Negligence isn't murder.Ending a life is murder.Nobody was charged with negligence, including the Tapas group who left their children unguarded too.Perhaps if they had found Madeleine safe they would have faced charges.But it would seem wrong to charge them at that time while the priority was to recover their child.

      The police ( PJ and SY and OG) are all aware of the testimony of the McCanns which includes their proposed jemmying theory.They didn't pursue it.None of them.Only the internet has. Why ? Do you think the police are corrupt or completely stupid ?

      Delete
    15. Anonymous 9 March 2019 at 12:57

      I was wrong. Obviously. Sorry.

      Pooh

      Delete
    16. You ain't whistling Dixie, Winnie, old thing...

      Now get thee to a nunnery..may i suggest Big Bertha of Basingstoke ? She sings too....

      The Reverend Monsignor Ziggmund

      Delete
  18. "UK's epic police search for Madeleine McCann possibly 'flawed' from the start, top cop claims"

    https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/08/20/29/madeleine-mccann-operation-grange-investigation-search-for-maddie-podcast

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chelsea Manning was taken into custody for resisting a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia

    https://gizmodo.com/why-chelsea-manning-decided-to-go-to-jail-in-protest-1833164311

    'Grand juries, comprised of 16-23 individuals, are not screened for personal biases as they would be during the voir dire process of a normal trial. There is no judge present; there are no defense attorney; there are no rules of evidence. Indictments may be issued with the support of a dozen jurors who’ve been bombarded by hearsay. They can not only issue indictments, but grant prosecutors the power to invade the private lives of citizens, acquire their personal records and communications, and coerce them into cooperating with the government under threat of confinement, whether they’re guilty of a crime or not.

    It is for these reasons that Manning, an activist, says she is refusing to submit. “I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to, particularly one that has been historically used to entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech,” she said in a statement.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta love Uncle Sam...

      We have to endure the POTUS at any given time over-selling the 'land of the free' from the podium to the baying horde of patriots ( ''yoo ess ay! yoo ess ay ! '') who buy it every time.I give up on them people. Big Sam points to the horrors in other countries who don't recognize democracy as 'for the people' before it goes over and liberates them from their Gold, Oil or Drugs ( In GOD they trust).Then someone from a democracy speaks their mind and the truth( as is their right) and they become public enemy number one. Assange, Snowden, Manning.In the land of the free and the home of the brave, truth is terrorism.They don't negotiate with terrorists unless they work at the Pentagon...

      They deserve Trump..

      Delete
  20. Anon @ 23:22 wrote

    Blimey the jig's up. Mr Amaral was desperate to get the UK involved quick as possible it seems.Then he later criticises their interference. Bounder . And he urgently wanted the CEOP involved to. That suggests he suspected a high chance of a child being kidnapped by a gang online or a local online with connections.Over to you Gonco old son..

    .............................................

    In which case do you accept the brits were involved from the start in what many like to call a flawed investigation and couldn't and didn't help solve it much like today,or do you believe they had no part in the initial investigation which some like to criticise as flawed,in which case what were they doing out there,simple choices to answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were involved from the start, i believe. I believe the government (UK) started the ball rolling ASAP.The question is why .

      Delete
  21. NPIA Strategic Debrief- Operation Task page 9.

    Section 2: Legal and Procedural Framework.

    Legal position.

    There is a widespread misconception among the public, media and many police officers that the police have the authority to operate outside the UK.

    This is not correct.

    Police officers travelling abroad do so at the invitation and with the permission of the requesting nation and the Secretary of State. They do not hold any additional power other than that of a citizen of the country to which they are travelling.

    No officer can attend another state without prior permission.

    This section is highlighted in blue (for reasons of emphasis).

    Overseas Jurisdiction.

    Police officers have no jurisdiction overseas. No officer can attend another state without prior permission and in certain circumstances could find themselves breaking the law and being liable for arrest.

    Furthermore, police forces cannot initiate action in a jurisdiction overseas without the necessary permissions. Attempts to do so may undermine the effectiveness of local investigations and compromise future cooperation with the country concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hence amaral's invitation ?

      Delete
    2. Didn't Amaral say, in the Truth of the Lie, that the UK police turned up without invitation?

      Delete
    3. "It is unknown whether the Portuguese authorities would have requested assistance if Leicestershire Constabulary had not offered to deploy resources to Portugal."

      Delete
  22. Zig Zag @ 19:12

    2-Innocent until proven guilty. In 12 years nobody has charged them with anything.

    .............................................

    Its but a few words, John Canaan who is serving life for murder is and as been declared the prime suspect in the murder of Suzy Lamplugh despite no evidence to bring him to justice on this.No matter your thoughts on the man he's still entitled to that presumption of innocence ,clearly it only applies to some.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ anon 08:43

      Words are all I have to speak with..

      John Cannan is presumed innocent until proven guilty like anyone else is.If there was proof / evidence to tie him to the Lamplugh disappearance, then things could change.

      There's no actual evidence that Lamplugh died.After eight years of investigating, she was never found, and no DNA evidence of her was. She was then officially pronounced dead.Once it was made official then they could 'presume' the cause of death was murder. Key word- presume.

      I think it's a safe bet to suppose she is dead and that it was at the hands of a predator due to the 'set up' ( Mr Kipper). But who was / is Mr Kipper ? I always thought back then he was a red herring. That's not my joke by the way, I thought it was the killer being sick.

      The famous pre-twitter court of public opinion had their say.The 'experts'. One convict who knew Cannan in prison said Kipper was Cannan's nickname in prison. Would a former convicted rapist released from prison who had the nickname Kipper then give that as the only clue to his next crime ? And an 'ex' - girlfriend told police where he had told her the body is buried. No evidence again. Others pointed to a barracks and even more to brickworks and one said his mother's back garden. it;s as though he went round telling anyone who would listen where he had buried the body he wanted to keep a secret. A lot of people love documentaries and films. But they're not a source of anything apart from entertainment and mental stimulation.

      Cannan has never been arrested for the disappearance.He can't be charged with being a suspect-that's not a crime.

      Delete
    2. On the presumption of innocence there is a great quote from Louis Theroux on the #mccann (twitter). He is arguing the very same topic with Jonathan King, with regard to Jimmy Saville and Michael Jackson. Louis points out, 'Fred West died unconvicted of any of his murders, was he innocent?'

      Delete
    3. typical of Theroux that...

      I watched his Savile ( pt 1). Shot before Savile died. Then a Pt 2 once all the scandal broke. It wasn't the expected 'in hindsight' thing as we expected. It was sympathetic.Pretty shameful really.Savile, as we know, refused to allow himself to be arrested and found guilty of anything. His get out of jail cards were plentiful. They basically said 'if i go you go with me' to more than one police force..

      But, strictly speaking, he was innocent until an arrest and evidence proved different.Then a trial before a jury would have decided if he was guilty or not.

      Michael Jackson was innocent and the prosecution failed to prove otherwise. Only now are the 'victims'' who didn't say a word when they were kids in the case'are 'remembering. Post-Jackson being alive naturally.

      Fred West had at least been charged and was on trial. The evidence was overwhelming. He cheated the sentence by killing himself.he wasn't the first killer to do so by a long way, nor will he be the last. But to use these as examples of a weakness in the law is pretty weak. We can say the same for the high school nutcases who go on a spree or any other killer who goes walkabout with a rifle and sniping.If anything, it can be reasonable to infer that their suicides are tantamount to an admission of guilt.

      Delete
    4. A new low, Rosalinda. You never cease to amaze. So you're indirectly suggesting Fred West, who killed his own and other kids was legally and technically innocent. That's worse than the time you used this blog to pass on your best wishes to convicted and self confessed paedophile Chris Langham as the judge didn't understand art.Remember these disgusting posts when you're trying to tell your readers how disgraceful other blogs or forums are.

      Delete
    5. I'm not directly or indirectly suggesting anything you dickhead, I'm quoting Louis Theroux on 'presumption of innocence'. Louis Theroux isn't saying Fred West was innocent either, he was pointing out the flaws in the presumption of innocence.

      Delete
    6. Nice attitude as usual.It's obvious what you were doing.And as usual it made no sense.You should learn to admit when you're wrong.

      Delete
    7. ''I'm not directly or indirectly suggesting anything you dickhead,''

      luvvit when you talk dirty.Dead secksy.

      Delete
  23. I haven't read all of the comments here - most of them come across quite bitter for reasons that escape me - so apologies if I'm repeating anything here.
    I'm not convinced there is, or ever was, a Netflix film. I've seen no official comment from Netflix and they appear to be quite capable of promoting upcoming shows/films, so can't help wondering "why haven't they?"
    I'd take a wild guess at it being another PR car crash for the McCanns' benefit, though I do think it's something that might've once been in the pipeline ...many years ago.
    Being almost 2 weeks into March, I think we can be sure Netflix would be promoting this show by now, apparently due to air within the next 3 weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Being almost 2 weeks into March, I think we can be sure Netflix would be promoting this show by now, apparently due to air within the next 3 weeks.''

      Yes, it's probably a conspiracy created by those McCanns. Will you post again when the production airs on TV ?

      Delete
    2. Sade Anslow (23:06)

      You may be right but what about the release date (Australia)?

      "The series is set to be released on Netflix on May 3, 2019, in Australia, and will chronicle the case through interviews with those closest to the McCanns."

      https://www.elle.com.au/news/madeline-mccann-netflix-documentary-australia-20002

      Delete
    3. 06:31 please cite a credible source for a release date, if you wish to criticise Sade Onslow. eg Netflix Australia, for a Netflix documentary to be shown in Australia.
      Really, Elle.com.au? Also; do YOU have, by chance a Netflix Australia account?

      Delete
    4. You may be right Sade, I have just watched Netflix releases for this month, March, and there is no mention of a Madeleine documentary. The advert is for Netflix Originals, perhaps the documentary isn't made by Netflix, but I doubt that's the case.

      As you say Sade, is there an actual documentary? Another mystery.

      Delete
    5. Wake up or calm down. What's up with you lot ? They made a documentary and it's going to air soon. It was delayed slightly as it took longer than they had expected to make. Be patient.You sound like addicts suffering the shakes. I think Netflix is big enough to have a spokesperson or two to make it known that this documentary is all online hearsay.Yo'll get the fix soon.

      Delete
    6. Just seems odd from a PR point of view to not promote it.
      First I've seen any date mentioned, and all articles are just a rehash of the UK rags.
      There is a Netflix entry on Google for "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann" which gives a 'sorry that page doesn't exist' type message when clicking through.
      Anonymous 14.30: you sound pretty irate. Not sure why.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 14.30:

      ''you sound pretty irate. Not sure why.''

      Because, like most normal and mentally stable people, I don't suffer fools gladly.

      Delete
    8. @11:11

      “…like most normal and mentally stable people…”

      What about bears and other animals, Rev?

      Delete
    9. How worrying that post was 11:11....

      Other animals are fine, Winns, old sausage..to a degree...

      My spirit animal is a piranha- they're fine.And you are a bear of little brain..but you have a mighty mind to compensate..you are a Flibbertigibbet of the highest order. Wanna sammich ?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 11.11 -
      Kudos for admitting it, that takes great strength! Acceptance is always the first hurdle. Bravo! Xx

      Delete
    11. Sade Anslow 13 March 2019 at 21:03

      Sade my lady

      “Acceptance is always the first hurdle.”

      I have a problem with that. Perhaps “acceptance is too long a word for me. But your kisses are sweeter that honey. Lucky, lucky Dr Zoot. What does a bear have to say to be kissed by you if that’s possible, in a friendly kind of way of course?

      It’s so very good to see you here.

      Winnie-the-Pooh (a bear with little brain)

      Delete
  24. Ros says: "That they have ditched the original investigation, declared the dogs unreliable and accepted the man seen by the Smiths who looked exactly like Gerry, was not in fact Gerry."
    ------------------------------------------------------

    Spreading lies again Ros? Who said the man seen by the Smiths looked exactly like Gerry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros did, naturally.She imagined what Smith must have seen and she decided he was a dead ringer.That's enough evidence to have GM bang to rights in the antis internet world.

      Delete
  25. The resemblance between Gerry McCann and the Smithman efits is uncanny, ergo myself and thousands of others (who phoned into Crimewatch)say Smithman looks exactly like Gerry.

    I suppose when you say 'who' you mean someone with gravitas, not the witnesses and not the observers. Somebody qualified to hold an opinion. We mustn't trust our eyes we must look to a higher power

    The abdication of responsibility is strong in the pro McCanns, it's clear none have read Nietzche (God is dead), they accept without question that others are better able to form an opinion than they are. They take the word of people like Mark Williams-Thomas, Jim Gamble and Clarence Mitchell because they see them as more qualified and more authoritative.

    I'm afraid I'm more William Blake. I must create my own system or be ruled by another man's (or woman's). I believe my own eyes, I believe in my own judgment, I believe in my own thought processes, my own logic and my own reasoning. On top of which I have resisted brainwashing since childhood, those people who 'knew better than me' nuns, priests, batshit crazy ex monks not only failed to make me a believer, they also awakened me to the evils of religion and hierarchy.

    I don't spread lies 09:16. I am here to challenge the lies you and your ilk are spreading and you just can't help yourselves. Most of your lies are easily exposed and utterly pointless.

    For example. Gerry and Kate are extremely grateful to Operation Grange. Really? 7 years in and they still have no news? The parents still have a large cloud of suspicion over them, made worse by the digs in the vicinity of their apartment and the suggestion that Madeleine was not alive when she left the apartment. OG have done Gerry and Kate no favours. They have shut up shop, literally. No more holiday packs and car stickers. no more fundraising and no more libel claims (yet, we'll have to see what happens after Netflix).

    And crucially, no more sightings, and it would seem no more talk of abduction. As a reader pointed out, sorry I had mean't to reply, even the parents now say disappearance. Looks like we are all done with abduction, not officially of course, but the word has been written out of the current narrative and that can't be good for the parents. Are the police even looking for an abductor now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 March 2019 at 11:27

      ''The resemblance between Gerry McCann and the Smithman efits is uncanny, ergo myself and thousands of others (who phoned into Crimewatch)say Smithman looks exactly like Gerry.''

      Kudos to Crimewatch and their tolerance and patience. You and thousands of others think one thing. Smith thinks another. It was Smith who saw the man.So, who do we believe,Smith, who saw the man, or the internet detective agency who are desperately trying to create evidence to fit their favoured narrative despite what the man himself has said ?

      ''it's clear none have read Nietzche (God is dead), they accept without question that others are better able to form an opinion than they are. ''

      Nietzche was a great thinker and philosopher.We're discussing a missing child who the police can't find and a case that left no clues. I don't recall Nietzche ever writing an essay on crime detection or criminology.

      ''I'm afraid I'm more William Blake. I must create my own system or be ruled by another man's (or woman's). I believe my own eyes''

      Another reference to an eccentric ( circa 18th century). It must be Monday. What your own eyes have seen is transcripts about the case.Letters and words. What Smith's eyes saw was a man carrying a child. He can't identify either-his words.

      ''I don't spread lies 09:16. I am here to challenge the lies you and your ilk are spreading and you just can't help yourselves. Most of your lies are easily exposed and utterly pointless. ''

      Prove a lie is a lie and explain why it's a lie. If we're calling guesses, opinions and theories lies, you have never spoken a word of truth.Double standards again ? Any theory that refuses to buy into the guilty parents argument are lies; any that frame them without evidence are ideas and facts. Because you say so. To quote Blake : 'lol'

      ''For example. Gerry and Kate are extremely grateful to Operation Grange. Really? 7 years in and they still have no news?''

      They were and probably are under the impression that OG are doing all they can.No results doesn't mean they haven't tried.That's how it must look to the parents when they hear of the latest top up given to them.

      ''The parents still have a large cloud of suspicion over them, made worse by the digs in the vicinity of their apartment and the suggestion that Madeleine was not alive when she left the apartment''

      And the digs found nothing.Thus proving the cloud of suspicion only existed in the minds of the haters.It's difficult to see much clearly through clouds...

      '' OG have done Gerry and Kate no favours. They have shut up shop, literally.''

      Yet when i suggest it's a sham and they're doing nothing you remind everyone of how these 'human' detectives are working so hard.I suppose it depends on the agenda you have at the time of writing...lying maybe ?

      '' (yet, we'll have to see what happens after Netflix). ''

      I thought you were brewing a new conspiracy theory : Netflix haven't really made a documentary it's a McCann lie.

      ''And crucially, no more sightings, and it would seem no more talk of abduction. ''

      Do the police have to make public announcements to the world about sensitive cases they are working on because you can't stay calm ? How about ' and they haven't talked about the parents involvement for 11 years''

      '' Are the police even looking for an abductor now?''

      Are they genuinely looking for anything ? 12 years...

      Delete
  26. "The resemblance between Gerry McCann and the Smithman efits is uncanny, ergo myself and thousands of others (who phoned into Crimewatch)say Smithman looks exactly like Gerry."

    If the Smiths did see Madeleine being carried that evening, then that would be evidence for an unknown abductor as all of the Smiths stated that the person carrying the child did not look like, or resemble, anyone they knew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. And the Smith sighting is another straw the antis are holding on to for dear life. Even thogh Smith isn't sure it could be Gerry. I believe he said 80% at best. Even 99% is precarious in a trial.He probably realised he wasn't deliberately studying the man as he had no reason to. he'd also had a drink and it was dark.Gerry fits a generic profile. He's caucasian, medium / average built / height, briwn hair, casually dressed. cast your mind back to one of the descriptions ( or 'clues') the Murat boy's mother gave : man drove past her the wrong way up a one way seat who looked european - or 'not like a holiday maker'. That could be British( like her son), There are lot of ex pat Brits living there too. How about Russian, Belgian, German, Dutch etc..

      In the light they all fit the description Gerry would fit.In the dark even more so. Reliable testimony or witness ? Of course not.

      Delete
  27. Joana Morais
    ‏@JoanaAMorais
    @JasonFarrellSky «I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerald McCann that I met that night carrying a child» Mr.Smith http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm …

    Jason Farrell ‏@JasonFarrellSky 14 Oct 2013
    @xklamation it was Peter Smith who I spoke to, who was in the group. That wasn't his take on it.
    0 retweets 0 likes
    Top

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oh goody, a twitter mash up..who needs the police files when we have those ..

      Delete
  28. Ros

    Are you saying the man that the Smith's saw was Gerry and OG believed this and the digs in PDL village were meaningful?.

    If I follow you, the ground in PDL was rock hard, thereby if it was Gerry or another with a body he would need to collect a pickaxe and shovel on the way.

    The area the UK police chose to dig for clues, in central PDL was overlooked by flats and to dig a hole would have caused noise and taken a lot of time. The GNR were on the way, time was of the essence.

    The next day PDL became swamped with media, GNR, PJ officers and searchers.

    The McCanns also had UK Government Embassy officials with them from early morning. Therefore, you must believe that at some time Gerry or one of his mates, dug up the body and transferred it in the hire car to another site outside PDL.

    You cannot surely seriously believe the OG dig was nothing but a farce and a photo opportunity stunt.

    It was not a joint operation with the PJ. People forget, the UK police were paying the PJ to dig where they were told.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''The area the UK police chose to dig for clues, in central PDL was overlooked by flats and to dig a hole would have caused noise and taken a lot of time.''

      And who would choose to bury a body in full view of the tenants in the flats ?It would be a stupid place whether the burier of the body was a local or a visitor.

      ''Therefore, you must believe that at some time Gerry or one of his mates, dug up the body and transferred it in the hire car to another site outside PDL. ''

      The same body Amaral believed had been cremated prior to any dig.And of course hidden down one of the many crevices between the cliffs or a well.Perjurer.

      ''You cannot surely seriously believe the OG dig was nothing but a farce and a photo opportunity stunt.''

      Indeedy it was. 'Hello everyone, we're the OG- OK ? Look at us doing stuff...selfies available later....''

      ''It was not a joint operation with the PJ. People forget, the UK police were paying the PJ to dig where they were told.''

      And considering the PJ knew every inch of the place and the UK were only visiting, it makes you wonder who gave the UK the order to do that.It certainly wouldn't be the police.They'd offer assistance and follow the PJs lead. It was their turf.

      Delete
  29. The antis believe that the McCanns panicked on the night of the disappearance of their child. Yet many of them believe that their child had 'disappeared' days before ( based on nobody saying they'd seen her).

    So if we do the mish mash of their oddball jigsaw we have :
    The child had been gone for days. This gave the McCanns time to work out and discuss believable narratives. They didn't see a flaw in the jemmy story so went with it.They didn't clean up adequately so loads of blood was found( no it wasn't).During the panic of trying to compose a story on the night ( even though they'd had days), Gerry thought it would be a good idea to take the corpse of his child for a walk around the streets of a town he barely knew as the bars, creche and restaurants were emptying out on to the streets. Then he managed, in the dark, to hide or bury the body and return to the apartment.He was apparently seen by an Irish family who were on their way home from a bar. While Gerry didn't speak or acknowledge them he would have seen them and realised he'd been seen. So he carried on anyway.


    The police buy the abduction story, The blood and DNA and cadaver scent failed to pass muster for an arrest. The Irish family have said they aren't sure about the man they saw in the dark but that he resembled Gerry just over 50%.

    These jigsaw pieces don't fit none of them - let alone the whole puzzle. It has more holes than a sieve.But ask the antis to put it together and bingo-they do it. To them it looks like a completed picture.It would wouldn't it.The rest of us are scratching our heads at that one ...

    In the meantime, while that puzzle is held aloft as the final solution, the antis try to bolster their position by painting pictures of a group of people who ran an illegal / fraudulent fund, paid 'dodgy dealers' to find their child, and almost slipped up in public by mentioning their secret love of all things Lolita.Again, with NO evidence whatsoever.But, if you question this wacky vision they share, guess what ; you're 'batshit crazy'.

    Come along anti people. Shall we start making sense ? Or at least questioning why the popular theories are dismissed so out of hand by the investigation ? Any offers ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. good points

      Delete
    2. An open invitation to all the antis and no takers. But it's the pros who need to try harder.

      Delete
    3. "Anonymous12 March 2019 at 11:14

      An open invitation to all the antis and no takers. But it's the pros who need to try harder."
      --------------------------------------

      The pros don't need to do anything at all - the Mccanns are carrying on with their lives - free. Two Police forces have said they are not suspects, they have not been arrested, they have not been charged and they are not awaiting trial. All that bugs the antis so much they have to spread lies (yes Ros) and misinformation.

      Delete
    4. That was actually the point i was making.I was told further up the thread that the pros needed to try harder. So I laid out the 'arguments' of the antis versus the facts in a couple of posts to demonstrate that it's actually the opposite case. It's the antis who need to knock their house down and rebuild. This time a bit less hastily.

      Delete
    5. The fact that you are accusing me of spreading lies is the weakest of defences. It's basically saying I got nothing, so I will accuse you of lying. It's always a last resort, often seen in cowboy films actually, just before guns are drawn.

      You are the one spreading disinformation, distorting fact, trying to plant stories about the Secret Service and MI5. What bugs you is that I won't buy your BS stories that the dogs' evidence has been discarded, the parents and their friends have done everything to assist the police. Yeah right.

      You get mad at me and call me names and accuse me lying. Do you know that's not normal behaviour? It's actually a bit psychotic (is that you Kate). Is that how you behave in the real world when you can't get your way? Do you have this kind of angry discourse with everyone who disagrees with you?

      I know you hate the word projection, but you do it all the time. You accuse me, often, of being angry or enraged by your perceived little victories. You cannot comprehend that neither I, nor thousands who follow this saga, are not emotionally involved. Any Justice for Madeleine movement has been stopped in it's tracks by justice 'seen to be done'. That is there is a live police investigation, justice is following the long slow process.

      Twelve years have gone by, emotions are no longer raw, in fact if the mood of the public could be judged, it would be largely indifferent. No hate, no anger, just whatever.

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 March 2019 at 01:47

      ''The fact that you are accusing me of spreading lies is the weakest of defences. ''

      The fact that i never accused you of it makes that statement a lie.How ironic.

      ''It's basically saying I got nothing, so I will accuse you of lying.''

      Listen carefully. It's the same as saying all you have are guesses and opinions but if you claim they are the truth without proving so, they're lies.

      ''You are the one spreading disinformation, distorting fact, trying to plant stories about the Secret Service and MI5.''

      Tell me one piece of disinformation I've spread. Just one. MI5 actually turned up in the case. I didn't make that up.It really happened( that's how we identify a fact, Ros).

      ''What bugs you is that I won't buy your BS stories that the dogs' evidence has been discarded,''

      You mean it wasn't discarded ? Tell me, where did it go and what did it do for the case.It's gone. That's another fact- not BS.You can cling to the wacky notion that forensic science is waiting for further advances.But it will still sound quite sad.

      ''You get mad at me and call me names and accuse me lying.''

      Tell me one name I've called you.All you do is invent.. I've explained the lies thing above.I hope you'e beginning to understand...

      '' Do you know that's not normal behaviour? It's actually a bit psychotic (is that you Kate)''

      Do you know that it's quite disturbing to commit your paranoia to print like that ?

      ''. Is that how you behave in the real world when you can't get your way? Do you have this kind of angry discourse with everyone who disagrees with you?''

      No, I'm completely calm and patient.But when i realise that trying to explain the simplest things to someone has become as fruitful as trying to explain a rainbow to a rabbit, i walk away.I print here as i believe some who read are NOT rabbits or sheep.I like to keep them awake before they get zombified too..

      ''I know you hate the word projection, but you do it all the time. You accuse me, often, of being angry or enraged by your perceived little victorie''

      I don't hate it. I don't hate. That's your thing.This isn't a victory for me, but if those reading have a light bulb moment it's a victory for common sense and free thinking( sorry).All I did was invite the antis to step up with a decent argument or idea..calm down...

      ''You cannot comprehend that neither I, nor thousands who follow this saga, are not emotionally involved''

      Because you and so many are.

      ''. Any Justice for Madeleine movement has been stopped in it's tracks by justice 'seen to be done'. ''

      95% of your blogging is dedicated to discussing as many different ways as possible of finding something to accuse the parents of. Madeleine barely gets a name check.It's an anti parents blog. If anyone believes different they can go through years of it and check...

      Justice hasn't been done as Madeleine hasn't been found and her fate isn't known. What do you want- a guess and the internet as witnesses so you can see the parents get jailed. That's a personal dream not a quest for justice.

      Delete
    7. ''You are the one spreading disinformation, distorting fact, trying to plant stories about the Secret Service and MI5.''

      I believe the information about MI5 and the accusation of them interfering in the case to prevent it being solved came from Amarl the hero. Not on this blog. Are you going to accuse him of lying too ? Or is it relevant and important when he says it ? Typical anti..

      Delete
    8. ''It's basically saying I got nothing, so I will accuse you of lying.''

      Re-read this thread. Who has nothing ? Me ? Read it properly. Just because you meet all alternative theories with denial doesn't mean they amount to nothing. I've stripped the staples of the antis solution to the case and exposed them one by one as flawed at best, invented at worst.I've challenged them to explain why I'm wrong if they disagree with me. I've asked them to produce something that holds water instead of just tittle tattle. That doesn't mean I have nothing, it means you( and them) have nothing.Just stories and gossip.You believe two people should be jailed because of what you all gossip about.

      Put some flesh on the bones.Find new bones and put flesh on those too.Nothing any of you say stands up to scrutiny. That's why it wouldn't make it to a court, It would be laughed out.

      You could, of course, ignore my requests.It is quite a tall mountain for you to climb.

      Delete
    9. Hello Anon 11 March 2019 at 19:45

      "The antis believe that the McCanns panicked on the night of the disappearance of their child"

      Not me!

      People with the kind of mindset, which I tried to describe in my last post here below, never really panick. Instead they plan and calculate methodically even under extreme pressure and stress and that could be the explanation as to why Gerry was smirking as he dashed down the street hurrying past the Smiths.

      I assume that the McCanns and a few of their friends had got at least 3 possibly 4 hours to cover up for whatever happened to Madeleine, after she'd died in the apartment.

      It's true, normal people would've panicked, or even better, they would've called the police immediately trying to sort out who were responsible and who weren't. As the dogs alerted for the scent of death Madeleine must've been lying dead somewhere in the apartment for at least 2 hours, possibly 3 hours or even more, as I've said. I find it hard to believe that the McCanns could've kept Madeleine's body hidden longer than a few hours.

      Delete
    10. Actually I feel sorry for the parents that they can't or won't prove their innocence. They are in a terrible position, a position which becomes worse the longer the investigation goes on without an abductor being found or named. People are bound to ask themselves that if there is no abductor, the original investigation must have been on the right track.

      You would argue, if they have suspects in sight, why haven't they arrested them, it's been 7 years...… To that I would say, in cases where witnesses are not co-operating it can take years, even decades to build an airtight case and in this case there is no body and no smoking gun. Add to that it is a joint investigation with Portugal having primacy and it becomes even more complex.

      You don't seem very keen on getting justice for Madeleine, and you are ok with her fate remaining unknown. Both of which you should be fighting for tooth and nail if you are on the side of Madeleine and her parents.

      You preach to me about never mentioning Madeleine, a little girl I never knew, but I would ask why aren't you and all of Madeleine's kith and kin, not banging on the doors of Scotland Yard daily demanding answers? What has happened to the very proactive family?

      As I have told you many times, I get no jollies out of seeing people punished (with the exception of Trump). Just not my thing. I don't have a personal dream of the parents being carted off to prison. I do have a personal dream of seeing front page apologies on British tabloids for their trashing of the Portuguese police and Goncalo Amaral in particular.

      You must think very badly of me if you imagine my dreams are about the downfall of others. My dreams are my happy place, Should nature call and interrupt them, I do my utmost to return to exactly where I left off, be it with Jack Nicholson or mid my Oscar acceptance speech. And as I keep telling you, I am way too narcissistic and self centred to give two hoots about what anyone else does.

      I would like to see all those who lied about and profited from Madeleine's disappearance brought to justice. And anyone who has studied this case, will know the cover up went further than Gerry and Kate.

      It isn't personal Ziggy. There are a zillion things in my head that come way before Kate and Gerry McCann Ziggy. I continue with my blog out of duty and courtesy to my readers. I also feel obliged to challenge the disinformation put out by not only 'pros' but 'antis' too.


      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 March 2019 at 13:22

      ''Actually I feel sorry for the parents that they can't or won't prove their innocence. ''

      That comment is naive as usual). It only applies to people who have been wrongly imprisoned. I don't know if you've been following the case very closely, but the parents haven't even been arrested. On the contrary, they have been pronounced 'not suspects-period' by the police.That means- 'innocent'.You're trying to plant a little disinformation there...

      '' People are bound to ask themselves that if there is no abductor, the original investigation must have been on the right track.''

      That would depend on whether or not they are capable of thinking objectively rather than looking to confirm their irrational bias.As it is, it just looks like an abductor has evaded arrest. Maybe too much time was lost early because of Amaral's mad speculating.

      Yu're trying ( desperately) to suggest that OK and Co have suspects in sight but the suspects won't co-operate.That's plain silly. If they used that as a justification for yet more funding top ups they'd be fired.

      ''Add to that it is a joint investigation with Portugal having primacy and it becomes even more complex.''

      What's complex ? They have nothing.It doesn't matter if one, two or fifteen forces are looking. There;s nothing to look at.That's not complex, it's simple.

      ''You don't seem very keen on getting justice for Madeleine''

      Unlike you and your anti people, I am. I won't allow myself to be consumed by the rehashed news stories of the past or favourite documentaries to build an imaginary case against the parents unless i have real evidence.Those who enjoy that crap are obsessed with revenge on the parents for the crime they've decided they have committed.They occasionally use Madeleine's name to appear compassionate. It isn't convincing. Ever.It's empty.

      '' What has happened to the very proactive family?''

      If there's something they haven't done, tell me.

      ''I would like to see all those who lied about and profited from Madeleine's disappearance brought to justice. And anyone who has studied this case, will know the cover up went further than Gerry and Kate.''

      Like who ? What cover up ? Are 'conspiracy theories' back on the table now because they suit ?

      '' I also feel obliged to challenge the disinformation put out by not only 'pros' but 'antis' too. ''

      So explain exactly what the disinformation is and how it is disinformation. Until you do, it's just another in a long line of finger pointing allegations. You call what you like a 'lie' if it suits you but never explain why it's a lie when challenged.It's the same with disinformation.

      Delete
    12. All the antis have is tittle tattle. Another stupid, pointless lie for the sake of it. The McCanns were Arguidos, not tittle tattle, the Portuguese police files, not tittle tattle, GA's account of the summer of 2007, not tittle tattle, the parents weird behaviour throughout, not tittle.

      The idea that people suspect the McCanns because they don't like them, is understandable, but as you know darn well there is a lot more to it than that. It is the mountain of evidence in the original investigation that led to them being made Arguidos, not for the short time you would have us believe, but for over 8 months. And when the case was shelved they were not cleared. And they always had the power to re-open the case, all they had to was ask. And co-operate obviously. The Portuguese case was re-opened despite them, not at their request.

      The continuing false narrative put out by yourself and others irks me Ziggy, it is snidey, and I hate snidey. Pretending the British police are ignoring the findings of Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation is snidey.

      Delete
    13. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 March 2019 at 14:14

      ''All the antis have is tittle tattle. Another stupid, pointless lie for the sake of it. ''

      It isn't a lie. It's an observation based on the fact that not one single accusation they make or 'evidence' they suggest exists can be found.So they discuss it and agree with each other.They believe the same untruths.They call that a consensus.I call it tittle tattle until it's proved to be otherwise.

      ''The McCanns were Arguidos, not tittle tattle, the Portuguese police files, not tittle tattle, GA's account of the summer of 2007, not tittle tattle, the parents weird behaviour throughout, not tittle.''

      ALL parents need to cleared of suspicion early in an investigation like this.The McCanns were.That remains the case 12 years on.So the status doesn't mean anything now.The PJ files haven't thrown anything up at all to say they could be arrested.So that doesn't matter.GA's account was a series of scenarios he proposed could have happened.He never proved any of them accurate and his former colleagues didn't either.So they don't stand either.The parents behaviour doesn't matter. It's subjective.If you decided to hate them and try and fit imagined clues to back you up, their behaviour was cold etc etc. If you have a balanced mind they looked like they were containing their anger and staying strong.

      '' It is the mountain of evidence in the original investigation that led to them being made Arguidos, not for the short time you would have us believe, but for over 8 months. ''

      And all those officers in all that time couldn't find a thing to make an arrest. Are they stupid ? Incompetent ? Or was just that there wasn't anything to charge the parents with.What does the real evidence suggest ?

      ''And when the case was shelved they were not cleared''

      To be cleared, you have to have been charged in the first place.They hadn't been.Cleared of the suspicion of thousands who use twitter doesn't matter.

      ''The continuing false narrative put out by yourself and others irks me Ziggy, it is snidey,''

      Take it apart with honesty and facts.Sniping is childish.

      '' Pretending the British police are ignoring the findings of Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation is snidey.''

      Who's pretending ? The evidence has existed for 12 long years and hasn't been used for anything at all. What has the salary bill amounted to for all those officers over 12 years ? If anyone's pretending it's those taking the money.All I did was point out something that is a fact.The evidence the internet antis say proves guilt hasn't been used to nail anyone at all.Findings of Amaral ? What did he find apart from material for a book. The PJ haven't acted on a single thing he 'found'. Why would that be ? Are they 'pretending' too ?

      Delete
    14. Hi Anon13 March 2019 at 13:58
      Excuse me for commenting on what you and Rosalinda have been discusing.

      "Maybe too much time was lost early because of Amaral's mad speculating"

      Yes time was lost, but not due to Amaral's speculations, but because the McCanns waited 40 minutes before calling the police, because they didn't take their twins to hospital to find out if they'd been given drugs and what kind drugs it could've been, because they declined help offered by neighbours, because they stayed in their apartment instead of joining all the volunteers, who searched for Madeleine, but didn't even know if they were supposed to shout "Maddie" or "Madeleine", because the McCanns distracted attention away from the PDL area, by leaving for the Vatican andthe Pope, by going to Morocco insinuating that Madeleine could've been stolen by Gypsies, by using an internal family dispute about parenthood between two Greek-Bulgarian gypsy families, by contaminating the crime scene, and of course, by trying to frame Robert Murat, all of which must have hampered serious detective work.

      The PJ did everything they possibly could to solve the case, and cannot be blamed for not chasing a fictitious abductor or a ghost child. The former hasn't been seen by anyone and he/she hasn't left the slightest trace behind in the REAL world where Madeleine must've died 12 years ago.

      Delete
    15. Ros says :


      ''Actually I feel sorry for the parents that they can't or won't prove their innocence. ''

      What are they guilty of exactly ? The joint forces of the investigation told the world that they weren't even suspects.That was two years ago.Were they lying too ?

      Delete
    16. Njorn

      You go on as though you were on the inside of everything. You were in the middle of the Tapas group as they helped cover a crime up and as they gave clues away to their penchant for abusing children. You were present when anyone used a phone to call anyone else. You were in the station as the PJ formulated the solution to what really happened. You were better placed than anyone at any time. Yet you haven't made a single sane or useful contribution to discussion since this blog began.Anyone familiar with your name can predict the type of nonsense you're about to unleash and how the thought of evidence and proof give you nightmares. Stop spitting your death fantasies out about an innocent little girl.Youre sick.

      Delete
    17. Björn13 March 2019 at 13:01

      ''People with the kind of mindset, which I tried to describe in my last post here below, never really panick. Instead they plan and calculate methodically even under extreme pressure and stress''

      As a psychologist, you make a great road sweeper, bjorn. You've been watching too many crime documentaries to see if you can pick up soundbytes from real psychologists that you can use to describe the McCanns. That amount of effort indicates an obsessive personality.That's only the good news.

      ''I assume that the McCanns and a few of their friends had got at least 3 possibly 4 hours to cover up for whatever happened to Madeleine, after she'd died in the apartment.''

      I assume you will- for once- share a source with us that tells us Madeleine is dead. because your obsession with it - and the so called abuse you fantasise she suffered are beginning to look disturbing.You get away with it just because this is a blog and freedom of speech etc ? Don't take that for granted. Weird creature.

      ''As the dogs alerted for the scent of death Madeleine must've been lying dead somewhere in the apartment for at least 2 hours, ''

      Give it a rest or give us a source.Then tell us what Grime said about the dogs findings. he's a professional, not an oddball.

      ''I find it hard to believe that the McCanns could've kept Madeleine's body hidden longer than a few hours.''

      That's because it's your fantasy. You're 'buzz'. Give us the sources.You're an anti through and through. You talk a lot and say nothing.

      Delete
    18. You say the McCanns were cleared by the original investigation. Another pointless bare faced lie. They weren't. The filing document for the original investigation states the parents lost the opportunity to prove their innocence. Neither the parents nor their friends would return for a reconstruction. They stalled the investigation, that's why it had to be filed unsolved.

      I see you are back with the nutty idea that OG are literally sitting around doing nothing. I'm going to indulge you. Are they literally doing nothing? How do you know this? I mean they must be at least pretending to do something, so what do you think they are pretending to do? Are they pretending to look for an abductor? If so where? Is the abductor British? Is that why Scotland Yard are involved?

      As for 16:43, you cannot deny there is a huge cloud of suspicion hanging over the parents, it has been there since the beginning and with no abductor being found, it has grown larger and more ominous. Denying reality is just the same as lying.

      OK from a legal standing, Gerry and Kate don't have to prove their innocence to the public, but it would go in their favour if they did. The massive public support they once had brought the rich and famous flocking to their door.

      Have the McCanns given up courting the public? Or have they been advised by the police not to interact with the media? Of course that kind of advice from the police didn't stop them one bit in the early days, but this time they are treating the police with respect.

      In a nutshell they don't have to prove their innocence but their lives would be considerably improved if they did.

      Delete
    19. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 March 2019 at 21:37

      ''You say the McCanns were cleared by the original investigation''

      What i said was all parents and close family have to be questioned and eliminated from enquiries early- or cleared of suspicion, in order for the investigation to progress.

      ''Another pointless bare faced lie. They weren't.''

      Point one: it isn't a lie. Point 2: you say 'another' barefaced lie- where are the rest ?

      '' They stalled the investigation, that's why it had to be filed unsolved.''

      So it has nothing to do with the fact that the police couldn't find the child or the perpetrator ? It was all down to the McCanns refusing to take part in a reconstruction. That's an example of why I say the arguments of the antis border between hilarious and sick.

      ''I see you are back with the nutty idea that OG are literally sitting around doing nothing.''

      I'll admit it's a nutty idea when you show me what they've done other than ask for money.

      '' Are they literally doing nothing? How do you know this?''

      Because for 7 years all they've said publicly is that they need more money.

      '' I mean they must be at least pretending to do something, so what do you think they are pretending to do?''

      They're pretending to look for the child.The requests for money make it look real.

      ''Is the abductor British? Is that why Scotland Yard are involved?''

      The question is why military intelligence would be concerned about a child being missing.

      ''As for 16:43, you cannot deny there is a huge cloud of suspicion hanging over the parents,''

      I've never denied and never will. But it's composed of the dark thoughts of the internet twitter twitchers.Their opinions don't matter.They're just predictable opinions, mostly cliche.

      '' Denying reality is just the same as lying.''

      I know. But you can change if you want to.

      ''OK from a legal standing, Gerry and Kate don't have to prove their innocence to the public''

      Yeah...just that small detail eh...

      ''Have the McCanns given up courting the public? Or have they been advised by the police not to interact with the media?''

      Or are they only concerned with their daughter's safety and return ?The public oddballs obsession is their own business.The McCanns, like any parents, would have different priorities.

      ''In a nutshell they don't have to prove their innocence but their lives would be considerably improved if they did.''

      They have.That's why they haven't been arrested.It's up to the cowards who hide beg=hind the free speech argument to back up the allegations they make with evidence.

      you often said( though you haven't recently) you don't accuse the parents and you don't profess to know what happened to Madeleine. Nobody believed that, obviously. But, how do you think that little insincere speech looks now when we read the posts on this thread alone...? Can both be true ? Of course not. Not in a normal world...

      Delete
    20. You said the parents were investigated and eliminated early on. They weren't.

      Yes I am saying the reason the original investigation stalled was because the parents and their friends would not return for a reconstruction. You agree they needed to be eliminated, a reconstruction could have done just that.

      Your last paragraph is nonsense. I don't know what happened to Madeleine, I wasn't there, what kind of inside knowledge do you think I have lol. I have ideas, opinions and views, but I make no claims of knowing what happened.

      Delete
    21. ''You agree they needed to be eliminated, a reconstruction could have done just that. ''

      Explain how. I promise not to laugh..

      ''Your last paragraph is nonsense. I don't know what happened to Madeleine, I wasn't there, what kind of inside knowledge do you think I have lol. ''

      None.But you keep referencing the alleged incriminating DNA and blood samples along with the scents of death picked up by the dogs and telling us the parents haven't proved their innocence and tried to scupper the investigation with their refusal to co-operate.But you say you're not claiming to know what happened to Madeleine or what happened at all.Your schoolgirl admiration of the wacky Amaral's allegations aimed at them are coincidence, naturally. Can you see when we juxtapose these contrasting attitudes of yours how it makes you look insincere or just plain dishonest ?

      ''I have ideas, opinions and views, but I make no claims of knowing what happened.''

      That kind of thing...

      Delete
    22. '' You agree they needed to be eliminated, a reconstruction could have done just that. ''

      So why were they eliminated ?

      Delete
    23. Right 21:04, you can pack it in with the macho aggression and vile innuendos, it is yourself who looks creepy not anyone else. On the creepy scale pretending a dead child is alive surpasses everything.

      How dare you speak to my posters as if you have some kind of authority over them, or I or anyone else. You are a cowardly little shit who hasn't even got the guts to stand by those he professes to defend. Your support to the McCanns is worthless, but you won't put your name to it, you spineless ignoramus.

      Any more posts like that and they will be binned and you can fuck off. I am not allowing you to lower the discussion here to the vitriolic drivel you espouse in the Myths sites. It's just as boring here as it is there and you are not contaminating my blog with it.

      Delete
    24. Have i missed something ? Pretending a dead child is alive is creepy but not pretending a live child is dead ?How's that work ? And who is the dead child who someone is pretending is alive ?

      Delete
    25. That's what happens if you criticize a Ros follower.Expressing opinions is all well and good, as long as they agree with hers.Bjorn has his opinions and ziggy has his.bjorn believes his are right without proving it.Ziggy thinks he should prove it.Ros gets the casting vote.

      Delete
    26. Björn 13 March 2019 at 13:01

      Greetings, brother bear

      “As the dogs alerted for the scent of death…”

      Only one dog, Eddie, had been trained to detect “the scent of death”. He alerted to the scent(s) he had been trained to detect (blood, cadaver). Given that, it was impossible without corroboration to identify the source of the scent(s) the presence of which Eddie indicated (for instance, whether a cadaver had been present in 5A).

      I do not doubt that the dogs alerted as trained and I accept that their alerts give rise to a reasonable suspicion. I also take into account Martin Grime’s opinion:

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

      Martin Grime: “The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.”

      My following post say somewhat more.

      Anonymous 11 February 2019 at 13:54
      http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/02/politics-and-madeleine-mccann.html?showComment=1549893259420#c7570275449929417021

      Anonymous 12 February 2019 at 16:23
      http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/02/politics-and-madeleine-mccann.html?showComment=1549988588396#c6275222693440815982

      Anonymous 14 February 2019 at 11:48
      http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/02/politics-and-madeleine-mccann.html?showComment=1550144938148#c8553466094651756069

      Anonymous 1 March 2019 at 18:03
      http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/02/how-hate-is-used-to-stop-debate.html?showComment=1551463427734#c8450399109398179571

      Kind regards

      Pooh

      Delete
    27. It only takes one dog to sniff the death apparently so it's a little pedantic to split the hairs over singular or plural, especially given that i pointed to the more important fact of what Grime said.That is, it isn't enough evidence. Even if it was / is it doesn't identify a killer, who it was who died, how it came to be there or a cause of death.These are only fripperies to the antis I know. But in the real world they constitute a case and possibly a prosecution.To ignore them because they provide nuiscance value to a dreamed up scenario illustrates the naivety and mental laziness of those who practice such. It may be a better idea, Pooh, old chap, if you address your observations to those who ignore the actual facts( no evidence etc) but promote invented ones ( the child IS dead, the parents DID bury her, thee WAS physical evidence). They probably won't thank you and they certainly won't heed your points.I wonder why that is...

      Delete
    28. Anonymous13 March 2019 at 23:42

      '' You agree they needed to be eliminated, a reconstruction could have done just that. ''

      So why were they eliminated ?''

      No answer then ros ?

      Delete
    29. Anonymous 14 March 2019 at 12:57

      Rev dear

      “He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars.”

      W

      Delete
  30. 19.45 I do get what you are saying, yet ive tried to believe the original abduction story, whichever way you look at though it doesnt add up ! Ive been open minded and looked at at all sides, yes theres silly far fetched theories, you ignore them. Im of an age when I remember too many parents appealing on tv for missing children, heartbroken parents, I remember Winnie Johnson digging on Saddleworth Moor, roaming wk after wk end looking for her son, a victim of the Moores Murderers. Sadly she died before finding him. This country sympathises with parents of missing children and will help all it can, whether that be donating money or searching, theres just something about this case that doesnt quite add up, I hope im missing something, I want to be proved wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I know what you mean. We all shared the pain of that poor lady.But the only thing the Moors murders and this case has in common is the disappearance of a child.We have to keep that in mind. We were spectators for decades hoping to see Winnie Johnson get closure or one of the killers tell her where to look.We knew about some of the other victims, how they wee procured and killed and all about the background of the killers.

    No normal society is apathetic when it comes to missing children.You don't have to be a parent to feel the anger and the anxiety.It's human instinct.But that isn't an excuse to take a suspect - or two- and create a background and history about them based on very little just so we can vent our anger in a definite direction.Today is the media age.Everything is showbiz. The slightest news flash sees cameras and microphones all over it.If it's a dramatic or serious crime, it's of Hollywood proportions. People love it. That's why so many books are based on it and so many series. It provides a vicarious experience for the people who love it.And we're problem and riddle solvers by nature.But, again, we shouldn't invent clues and histories to then help us solve a riddle.It's still only guesswork.

    There are many things about this case that don't- as you suggest- add up.The absence of clues is the main one.It looks like a professional job or a clever deliberate cover up.The funding of it too- 12 years worth. A one off. And all those politicians from both parties-why ? Then there's MI5. When a child is missing it's a police matter.When it's a political powder keg, it's a military intelligence matter.Look at the direction of the investigation in the earliest stages.The PJ had only just begun doing the police work when a seemingly panic stricken UK invaded and changed it all.That's led people to think mountains were moved.I agree,but it makes no sense at all that evidence would be removed, policemen would be removed,strategies would be replaced, and PR controllers would be brought in to make sure what was shared publicly and what wasn't , all to protect two parents on holiday.It would have been quicker, easier and far cheaper to arrest them if they were guilty. They're doctors, not members of the royal family. But the antis use the most basic of deductive reasoning and leave themselves a hill to climb to support their theory. That, in turn, leads them to scrutinize-fanatically- every word a McCann speaks and every move they make so they can log on and suggest all kinds of silliness. If they had a solid or feasible case, they could present it and allow it to speak for itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I beg to differ 16.29. You cannot draw any form of analogy with Winnie Johnson. A tortured soul, She regularly went to dig up Saddleworth Moor, looking for her murdered child Keith Bennett. Kate Healey Mcann never searched nor dug around Praia de Luz for Madeleine. She was also a police arguida who remained silent when asked 48 questions about her lost child. Maddy, of course is considered very much alive by the 'leave no stone unturned' find madeleine fund (a limited company, not a charity)

      Delete
    2. And you can't invent your analogy to suit your agenda either.

      Winnie Johnson dug on the moors because she knew her boy was dead and the killers had said he was buried on the moors.

      I'm not sure if you've read much about the case, but nobody has said Madeleine is dead yet-it's only a possibility- or if she'd buried anywhere ( only chitter chat and gossipy guesswork).I'm sure if she had been declared dead by her killers who said she was buried in PDL, then the parents and others would dig all over the place there.But such details don't matter do they. When you become so blinkered and obsessive about spreading poison, your agenda engulfs your narrow mind. can you explain the connection between your back handed unoriginal accusation about the non- digging and the charity / Ltd company ? Did you just need a little back up to throw just in case not enough readers were impressed with your attempts to incite hate ? sad...

      Delete
    3. 16.20 and 11.42. Frankly, your response is risible.
      You raised the wrong analogy with Winne Johnson, searching for her lost dead child on Saddleworth Moor. I didn't raise it, rather I queried it and found it simply wrong.
      I factually noted that Kate Healey McCann never personally searched in PDL for her child. Nor did she ever dig there.
      I factually noted that Kate Healey Maccann was constituted as an arguida and exercised her right to silence, not answering the 48 PJ questions.
      I factually noted that the McCann 'finding Madeleine' fund is a limited company and that is does NOT recognise that she is dead.
      There is of course circumstantial evidence that a person died in apartment 5a and the McCann's hired Megane car, due to the presence of cadaver odour and diluted blood, as detected by British CSI dogs. Further circumstantial evidence by the UK FFS using LCN DNA analysis indicates that from the specimens found, that matches were made to one of 3 persons in the McCann family line (Gerry, Kate or Maddy). So yes, I have 'read much about the case' [sic].
      All traceable facts
      I do actually have an analogy for you though which may not be factual; that the Mcann team is using the OJ Simpson defence strategy; frame the media context and drive the agenda, question the competence and racial motives of the police, challenge everything regarding DNA evidence. Over to you, and please drop the emotive language; narrow mind, agendas, incite hate, poison. It does you a dis-service by distraction.

      Delete
    4. You found it wrong for a mother haunted by the loss of her child walked the moors once she knew he was buried there ? Then you find it wrong that the McCanns didn't do the same even though they hadn't been told their child was even dead ? But my post is risible...ok...

      Your didn't factually note that her right to remain silent was a legal right.Or factually note that the police didn't use her silence as more ''evidence'' against her.Did you factually note that once the police were satisfied with their interviews that they, the police, were happy to release the arguidos and not pull them in again ?'that's factual...

      ''I factually noted that the McCann 'finding Madeleine' fund is a limited company and that is does NOT recognise that she is dead. ''

      That's because she isn't dead. Remember ? Amaral said he thinks she is but that's a guess. The internet enjoyed the guess so agreed. Who has pronounced her dead ?

      Circumstantial evidence has to be plentiful if no direct evidence is found.In a case of a missing child presumed abducted or even killed, circumstantial evidence has to amount to a mountain.In 12 years the UK /PJ/OG haven't built so much as a molehill.

      You can challenge DNA all day and all night long. But DNA is DNA. It can't be denied.if it can, it wasn't DNA evidence in the first place. There would have been a trial otherwise. This case isn't to do with xenophobia or race.Tabloid cheap tricks to make pennies off fools.It doesn't matter. it's about a missing child. it's about how a police matter was quickly taken over by politicians to make it a political matter and we still don't know why.But to suggest it's all to protect a couple of doctors is beyond silly.


      When are we going to ask why all the 'factual' evidence meant nothing to the police.

      Delete
    5. Oh dear anon 00.17. You really don't grasp semantics, correctly drawn analogies or structure an argument. Please do read what was written and consider amending your incorrect responses. I assume you can muster some form of excuse for your failings here: a 1980s UK state education? Thatcherism?, MI5? bit late? bevvied? (PS Don't you find staccato questions stylistically tedious?)
      Finally you don't need to provide the last word. We are going nowhere. Perhaps you can re-challenge Bjorn, our gentlemanly Swede, over his English...

      Delete
    6. In English, bjorn, can you provide a source or two for the following :

      That the dogs evidence ( cadaver /blood etc) was enough to support an arrest but wasn't used.

      That Madeleine is dead. You don't have to explain why she's a ghost. Just dad.

      That evidence exists that supports a theory that the parents abused or killed their child.

      That the police forces of two countries have noted all of the evidence you pretend exists but chose to ignore it, thus allowing the case to drag on indefinitely.

      I hope that's plain enough.

      Delete
    7. I think you'll find that 00:17 wasn't addressed to bjorn at all.I assume you can muster some sort of excuse for this oversight. Smoking the wrong weed ? Can't understand numbers ? Can't tell the time?

      Delete
  32. Ros - it's fascinating that you have devoted a blog to a Netlix production that hasn't happened - but you ignore Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I agree, I really do need to listen to the podcasts. I have heard part of one and was impressed, but have not yet found time to listen to them in their entirety.

      Delete
  33. Anonymous11 March 2019 at 19:45 - Mr Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry McCann he saw that night. The McCanns were more familiar with the area than you realise - they frequently went jogging around the town. Have you looked at Rachael Oldfield's statement to Leicester police where she said that her husband, Matt, told her he'd gone into the McCanns' flat to check on the children and only saw the twins, didn't see Madeleine and he wondered where she slept? Did he go back to the bar and tell the McCanns 'all's well, the twins are asleep, but I couldn't see Madeleine' and they carried on with their drinks? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane12 March 2019 at 20:08

      ''Anonymous11 March 2019 at 19:45 - Mr Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry McCann he saw that night. The McCanns were more familiar with the area than you realise - they frequently went jogging around the town''

      When i have a few spare hours, I'll explain the difference between 60%, 80% and 100%.

      Jogging around a small place in the daytime in a strange town doesn't teach you the layout sufficiently enough to 'find' a place that no locals-including the police- could find. Why would they have been looking for a place anyway ? Madeleine was still with them when they jogged and vanished when they jogged later.

      ''. Have you looked at Rachael Oldfield's statement to Leicester police ''

      Have the Leicester police looked at it ? have the PJ ? How about OG ? Why have they chose to make nothing of it would you say ? You think if they read it back again from a tweet they'll have a brain wave ?

      ''Did he go back to the bar and tell the McCanns 'all's well, the twins are asleep, but I couldn't see Madeleine' and they carried on with their drinks? I doubt it.''

      Me too. He probably just said all is well. Or are we now naming him as a weird accessory after the fact instead of Payne ? Invent some more anecdotal evidence on line...The rest of the unpleasant little tableau was composed n your mind.

      Delete
  34. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 March 2019 at 11:27

    ''The resemblance between Gerry McCann and the Smithman efits is uncanny, ergo myself and thousands of others (who phoned into Crimewatch)say Smithman looks exactly like Gerry.''

    I can't make my mind up which is the most hilarious part of that insight into the workings of the mind of the internet detective.You have compared an efit composed by the police artist taken from the description a man( who had just left a bar in the dark ) gave them.That prompted you, and those online loons you speak for, to bother Crimewatch UK with your confirmation that you ( and them) had decided that they are one and the same.Did you expect a thank you or a reward.The switchboard operators must have loved all that nonsense.

    '' Hello..is that Crimewatch Uk ? ''

    '' Yes, how can we help''

    '' I just want to let you know that Gerry McCann is an eaxct double of the efit you just showed''

    '' Thank you mam, we didn't think to look at them ourselves. ''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I can see how the confusion arose. Just to be absolutely clear, NO, I did not phone Crimewatch, thousands however did. It may be however, that whilst I was watching Crimewatch, I was shouting behind you' at the tv..

      Many of the big Facebook groups doubled their numbers after Crimewatch was aired. The new revelation 'Smithman' looked eerily like Gerry. Same height. same build, same short back and sides and clean shaven. What are the chances eh?

      Delete
    2. The chances of a caucasian male around middle age, medium build with brown collar length hair ? Generic McCann ?Wow, the chances must be millions to one mustn't they.You can scour the streets of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. How about Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark. It would be so hard to find anyone to fit that description.But, if that's your own particular favourite efit- go with it.Ask the police ( or Crimewatch) why your sharp observation went over the heads of the detectives.Cite 'Faecbook' regulars as expert witnesses. Once they realise the internet is on the case they'll sharpen up their act.

      Social networks, efits, TV programmes. Brilliant detective work. The crime happened in real time in Portugal. It's not an internet game to keep the bored occupied..Have the antis got anything ? Anything at all other than guessing, grabbing efits, citing TV programmes and facebook ?No wonder i can't take them seriously.Still, they have each other. Bless.

      Delete
    3. LOL at the generic McCann, your scraping of that barrel is hurting my ears. Even if you took a random selection of 10 Caucasian males aged 39, the chances of them looking alike are remote. In a non Caucasian Portuguese holiday village, remoter still. The chances of a Gerry doppelganger being in PDL on the night Madeleine vanished, not only looking like Gerry but carrying a child that looked like Madeleine, goes off the odds scale. Do you not agree it is an unbelievable coincidence?

      Delete
    4. ''Even if you took a random selection of 10 Caucasian males aged 39, the chances of them looking alike are remote. In a non Caucasian Portuguese holiday village, remoter still.''

      Was Murat Portuguese looking ? Or was he one of a large Caucasian community of UK ex pats ? Is PDl full of Portuguese holidaymakers or holiday makers from Europe ? Tell me about scraping barrels. You bend and twist so much trying to fit your nutty theory I'm surprised you can walk...

      ''The chances of a Gerry doppelganger being in PDL on the night Madeleine vanished, not only looking like Gerry but carrying a child ''

      Doppelgänger : ''is a non-biologically related look-alike or double of a living person''

      So what the actual eye witness saw and reported was 60% lookalike has become a double once you read it. Scraping the barrel ?

      ''Do you not agree it is an unbelievable coincidence?''

      I'm with Smith. Only because it was him who actually made the sighting. he wasn't sure. he didn't have your agenda, see. He probably realised all men carry sleeping children the same way.Plus of course, a generic Caucasian male in the dark is really difficult to swear by isn't it ? I mean in the real world, naturally. Not yours...

      Delete
    5. '' Do you not agree it is an unbelievable coincidence?''

      What did the police think would you say ?

      Delete
  35. Hello Unknown 12 March 2019 at 13:56

    ”19.45 I do get what you are saying, yet ive tried to believe the original abduction story, whichever way you look at though it doesnt add up !”

    I cannot believe what my eyes see! Are you beginning to question the McCanns’ fairy tale or what?

    ”I remember Winnie Johnson digging on Saddleworth Moor, roaming wk after wk end looking for her son, a victim of the Moores Murderers”

    How many weeks do you think Kate spent searching the vast wasteland surrounding PDL? Not a single day I’d say. Has Kate ever tried to make an appeal to the ”Missing People” or to such corresponding Portuguese institutions, asking them to physically search for Madeleine’s body? Never as far as I know. Yes, I know that they were out running in the area dressed in catchy training clothes, but not actually searching, just keeping themselves in ”mental” and physical shape.

    In some crime cases suspects or people of interest like the McCanns, Knox/Sollecito, O.J Simpson and Jodi Arias cannot be judged on the basis of normal standards, but must instead be investigated and understood in the light of their mental shortcomings. Such people possess inner qualities that meet the criteria for what is basically required to commit horrible crimes without feeling any remorse, which makes it so difficult to deal with them in police investigations. Moreover, their determination to defend themselves by destroying the lives of others (even police detectives, as in the McCann case) suggests psychopathy and self-preservation but not really innocence.

    I’m just helping you to see things from a little different perspective.

    Have a nice day

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on cue to shout for the antis- bjorn....

      You've alluded to the Moors murders and Winnie Johnson and then attempted to draw what you see as reasonable comparisons.I outlined just above you post why that doesn't work.Well ignored, bjorn. No wonder you don't learn. You're too determined not to....

      In the 1960s, the Moors murderers were locked up. They had been found guilty of procuring and killing children.They had confessed to hiding some on the moors.That's why the police and public combed the moors.That's why Win Johnson did. It was heart breaking to see her wonder alone, as though to be with her boy.Why do you compare the McCann case with that. Has a child been declared dead ? Has anyone been arrested and charged with killing or burying her ?Or are you trying-as usual- to foment the same kind of hatred for the McCanns that the Moors murderers actually earned ?No prizes for anyone guessing the answer to that one. Your death -of- a- child fantasies are as tiresome and disturbing as your child abuse ones.

      Has Kate ever tried to make an appeal to the ”Missing People” or to such corresponding Portuguese institutions, asking them to physically search for Madeleine’s body?''

      Why would she ? The police from two countries and a spare (OG) are on the case.

      '' Yes, I know that they were out running in the area dressed in catchy training clothes, but not actually searching, just keeping themselves in ”mental” and physical shape. ''

      'Catchy' clothes eh..sure sign of psychosis. Is it unusual for two doctors to appreciate the need to keep mentally and physically strong ?

      ''In some crime cases suspects or people of interest like the McCanns, Knox/Sollecito, O.J Simpson and Jodi Arias cannot be judged on the basis of normal standards''

      Are you trying to sneak the McCann name into the middle of a list of convicted criminals to persuade us that they are too ? That's desperate even by your own rock bottom standards, bjorn.Can you cite the source that tells us that they are suspects or persons of interest ? I'll wait....

      ''must instead be investigated and understood in the light of their mental shortcomings. Such people possess inner qualities that meet the criteria for what is basically required to commit horrible crimes without feeling any remorse''

      Have you been reading a child's guide to psychiatry again ? Explain to us what, in your worthless opinion, are the 'mental shortcomings' of the two educated professionals. because if you can't, it would seem you're just trying to paint them black because you have a personal need to. you should examine your own mental shortcomings before inflicting them on people.

      '' Moreover, their determination to defend themselves by destroying the lives of others (even police detectives, as in the McCann case) suggests psychopathy and self-preservation but not really innocence.''

      It suggests that to you because you need it to.But it's stupid.The McCanns have been accused of ending their child's life and burying her.Nobody can prove it and no evidence exists to say it's right. They have two teenage kids now. They have every right to defend their honour and name for the sake of fairness and for the sake of their children.Those who accuse should prove their accusations aren't crap.

      ''I’m just helping you to see things from a little different perspective.''

      How perfectly disturbing.Thanks.

      ( is this as good as the antis can do- seriously ?)

      Delete
    2. The antis are in the middle of a hiding.Their responses say a lot.

      Delete
    3. what responses

      Delete
  36. "Netflix is to release its long-awaited documentary series on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on Friday, despite opposition from the missing child’s family and TV industry speculation that programme-makers failed to gain access to key individuals involved in the case.

    The US streaming service first commissioned the programme in 2017, as interest grew hugely in true crime and cold case TV programmes following the success of Making a Murderer.

    However, despite spending enormous sums to produce eight hour-long episodes, its release has been repeatedly delayed, raising speculation over what, if anything, the show has uncovered, and the state of behind-the-scenes wrangling over its content."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/13/netflix-to-stream-madeleine-mccann-series-after-delays-and-disputes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. raising what ? Oh, 'speculation'. That's new.The experts have already started reading between the lines before it's been aired. ( ''a hhhhh there you go...they've caught the parents in a documentary so ' they' won't let it be shown'' ) lol stroll on..Nobody's thought of telling the police then. Naaaa...there's be nothing to tweet about then ;)

      Delete
  37. "Portuguese police chief who claimed Madeleine McCann is dead and her parents faked her kidnap will take key role in new Netflix documentary on the missing girl"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6805799/Police-chief-claimed-Madeleine-McCann-dead-key-role-new-Netflix-documentary.html

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks for the input from 21:59
    Re: the Daily Mail news item on "Top child protection police officer" Jim Gamble and his theory that Madeleine McCann is very much alive. And to back up this policeman's lame story: "advances in technology could be found because DNA is getting better".

    Fake news from The Daily Mail maybe, but you have to ask if this might in Gamble's mind be true. These strange comments come from a British police officer actually investigating the case at the time who publicly appeared on breakfast television talk shows with the McCanns to supports their bizarre story.
    Red flags abound.

    Fantastic is the only way to describe the outpourings of the "top policeman's" latest comments.

    Has Jim Gamble retired from the force?
    I am too bored to look it up so I'll leave that to Team McCann supporters to make what they can of the life story of a worthy policeman.
    Thanks.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anything with a Murdoch or Freud fingerprint on ( Sky/ Mail etc) is bullshit.They've had the control of how case is perceived publicly from day 1.They get the 'leaks' that matter first, they're 'first on the scene' every time.Nobody onto that yet ? it's not just the same old same old gutter press, the people at the top of the Murdoch tree eat from the same trough as politicians of all rank and the highest ranking police officers.They're a propaganda machine first and last. They use their tools to shape perception. Why would they need to do that in a missing child case.Seems pretty clear to me.They're misdirecting the collective gaze.And it's still working. This blog is one of many examples of how well it's working.

      Delete
  39. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/13/netflix-to-stream-madeleine-mccann-series-after-delays-and-disputes

    "Those who are thought to have given interviews include the Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral and the journalists Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, who wrote a book on the case. Others include people questioned by the Portuguese police such as the Briton Robert Murat and the Russian Sergey Malinka, plus the child protection experts Jim Gamble and Ernie Allan."

    [...]

    "British documentary makers are also looking enviously at the programme’s production values and wondering what Netflix will have to show for its enormous investment, amid speculation that it is heavily reliant on archive footage rather than new material. The show’s executive producer, Emma Cooper, recently left the independent production company, which is owned by Vice, for unknown reasons."

    ReplyDelete
  40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnarCTOiCY

    The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann | Official Trailer [HD] | Netflix

    ReplyDelete
  41. The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann | Official Trailer [HD] | Netflix

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

    ReplyDelete
  42. If we are to believe the Smith's saw Gerry with the body and OG want us to believe they were looking for a body, (hence the digging). This must mean Gerry dropped her body in a hole, in rock hard ground which he either dug that night or earlier that day by himself or with his mates.

    Later Gerry or his mates go back unseen, dig up said body, put it in the hire car and high tail it out of PDL.
    OG, either through a tip off, or brilliant detective work, which they never mentioned to the P.J. in either case, dig in the very location in close vicinity to 5A and overlooked by many flats.

    What did OG find? - sod all. It was impossible to bury a body in such hard ground in the time available.

    The P.J.knew it was nonsense it was not a joint operation

    Why does anybody believe OG is anything but an expensive fraud?

    OG paid the Portuguese to dig up PDL for the sole benefit of gullible British mugs.

    When will reality set in? the pieces will not fit.
    The evidence shows U.K. police did everything to hamper the investigation, nothing has changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might think all of that is impossible JJ. You may think OG is a fraud. But you've never been a fan of Scooby Doo I bet.

      Delete
  43. “Ex-Liberal leader Lord Steel admits he knew Sir Cyril Smith had abused children but it 'never occurred' to him to hold an inquiry into the MP”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6806033/Ex-Liberal-leader-Lord-Steel-admits-knew-Sir-Cyril-Smith-abused-children.html

    Pooh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's loads on that creature..and others..and particularly from Thatcher's cabinet.It's not a weird little foible' some of them have.It's gone on too long and among too many for it to be. It's more a religion they dare not name..if you know what i mean monsieur pooh..

      Delete
    2. @00:23

      Please don’t go wild, Wilde: I’ve nominated you for an Oscar.

      Winns, honey, wins honey. Winns wins.

      And soon, my friend,
      We shall have no time for dances.

      Louis

      Delete
    3. @00:23

      You mean this guy?

      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/0/11616-3.jpg

      Delete
    4. We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once...

      Big Freddy

      Delete
  44. Anonymous15 March 2019 at 10:17

    ''@00:23

    You mean this guy''

    You have really embraced the digital age haven't you. Is that how you spend your leisure time ? Stalking the parents of a missing child ? get some help.

    ReplyDelete