Tuesday, 16 April 2019


So why was neglect written out of the missing Madeleine narrative. If it hadn't been for the neglect, Madeleine couldn't have been taken, it was integral to the abduction that the parents were away from the apartment at the moment she disappeared.  I've been musing on that for a while, wouldn't it have been far less complicated if they had claimed Madeleine was taken whilst they, her parents, were asleep in the other room?  No neglect charges.  But of course that way, there would have been far fewer witnesses and it wouldn't have had the drama of Kate running down the hill screaming.

The Miss Marple in me tends to think the entire tapas meal and the dramatic announcement were all part of the staging.  I'm not saying they hadn't done the same every other night of the week, but this time, they were keeping a note of their actions and timings.  Perhaps making sure they were seen by other diners and restaurant staff leaving and returning to the dinner table.  Preparing themselves for the statements they would give to the police.  Bizarrely they did not include Jane Tanner's sighting in those preparations, so I guess it was a later addition.  It is unbelievable that JT did not tell Kate about her sighting on the night, and unbelievable that she didn't point out to the police and searchers 'he went that way'. 

All my opinion of course, before Ziggy blows a gasket.  I think charges of neglect or child endangerment were a very real prospect, so much so that Gerry took legal advice so he could impart to the rest of us that what they did fell well within the bounds of responsible parenting.  That it was selfish, reckless and just plain stupid doesn't seem to have a legal category.  And even if it did we aren't allowed to say it for fear of hurting the parents feelings. 

One of the injustices in this case that irks me the most is the downplaying of the neglect.  That all these medics were completely let off the hook while lesser mortals would have been in a police cell and their children taken away.  This wasn't neglect without a victim, a child was missing.  Closing the door on the neglect charges at such an early stage may well have been a huge mistake. 

Another injustice is that the real dangers faced by toddlers left on their own has played no part in the Madeleine dialogue.  Accident, injury, poisoning, choking, poking something into an uncovered plug, the list is endless.  All of it brushed under the carpet by dippy breakfast show hosts, in order to promote the abduction theory which attracts more viewers.  Presenters like Lorraine Kelly and Fiona Phillips focused on the one in zillion chance your child could be abducted, instead of the odds on certainty of a child left alone having an accident.

Yes, I think they should all have been charged with child neglect.  Not least because none of them show any sign of remorse or guilt.  The arrogance of their statements shows they firmly believe they did nothing wrong.   The 'Tapas System' worked perfectly for 5 nights in a row, there was nothing wrong with it.  No-one could possibly have foreseen a child predator being on the loose.  In any case it was Warners fault for not warning them to look after their children.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. You use an awful lot of words to say so little Ziggy.

      Basically you are saying they were not charged with neglect because it would have affected Portugal's national reputation and economy. You don't on this occasion, mention adding to the parents' suffering, but that too is among the obvious reasons for none of them being prosecuted for neglect. I'm trying to go beyond the obvious, what is we are not seeing?

      A charge of neglect or child abandonment or whatever the charges could have been is pretty devastating for anyone, but for doctors, it could be lifechanging. It's doubtful the great and the good would have rushed to defend the child neglect of a holiday party from a Council estate. I can almost hear Carol Malone 'what kind of fecked up bitches go out to the pub and leave their babies alone?'.

      So successful was the Gerry/Mitch and I'm guessing Michael/Jon, combo, public perception was completely turned on it's head. Instead of being condemned for the neglect which led to Madeleine's disappearance, the couple were deified. Too much? Not really, Gerry was given a standing ovation by the police.

      Is there any way the parents or the tapas group could have known an abduction claim would totally overshadow the child neglect that led to it? Look over there(at the abductor)not here (at us). They wouldn't have been the first parents to have done that, starting with the parents of Jonbenet Ramsey. Staged abductions happen, they are far more common than actual abductions and it is usually because the child is deceased. Ie. It was the behaviour of the parents prior to the child's disappearance that was responsible for the child's disappearance. Ergo the neglect, or what the tapas group were up to prior to raising the alarm is crucial to the investigation.

      You can't just say they are innocent so what they were doing prior to Madeleine's disappearance doesn't matter, because statistics show it is crucial. And undoubtedly why the PJ wanted them all to return to PDL for a reconstruction. Claiming a reconstruction (Gerry) wouldn't be helpful, is sheer fluffery, of course it would. But, as Gerry knows, not in the sense that it would find an abductor, but it could expose the checking system as a scam.

      If the checking system was as effective as the tapas group claim Ziggy, why not return for a reconstruction?

    2. "The parents had been leaving their children alone each evening and dining at the same time.They created a pattern that could be observed and predicted".

      There was no pattern to be observed and predicted by a predator of the checks by the Mccanns or tapas mob.

      It is a complete myth still plodding on after 12 years, check all of their statements.

      They state on Thursday night the checks were even less predictable and more irregular but more frequent.

      This would obviously make an abduction by a stranger even more risky.

      There is no evidence of regular checks on any night.

    3. it's wearying isn't it, JJ.

      If you also plot out *all* their to-ings and from-ings on Thursday night, as recorded in the third stab of an 'official' timeline (as helpfully printed off and given out to FCO staff and the police (!)), then between 8.30 and 9pm (for crucial example) someone from their group is passing down that street every couple of minutes (two gaps of three-ish, I think). It was patrolled like Buckingham Palace. Then there are other people in that street too. And the timings were both close, and unpredictable.

      If anyone had done a risk assessment of their plan of snatching the child - they would have abandoned it as a complete non-starter.

      So no pre-plan. Unplanned? (taking oportunistic advantage of the unlocked door). Then unbelievably lucky making entry and exit without being caught. And the perhaps even greater luck - finding an unprotected child! Who'd have thought. No really, who *would* have thought that even the remotest possibility.


    4. Any other news JJ ? Like how all of the myths were missed by all the detectives ?If they are that obvious there wouldn't be a debate over dogs , blood or amaral.

    5. JJ I have to admit that as soon as the system of checks is shown to be a fallacy, it does increase the chance of someone deciding that the chances of a successful abduction would be better.

      Amaral spotted that if their story was right, it would mean that there would be constant movement away from the table. Not exactly a relaxing dinner party.

      He said it was more likely that checks would coincide with trips to the toilet. They would have had quite a sinful if they were going to the room that often.

      Regardless of the opportunity their absence would give, it still doesn't explain why the abductor would use the window as an entry and exit point.

      That's where the real suspicion of a tall tale starts to develop. What were they trying to hide by making that bit up.

      It's all caught on camera with Kate's "whoosh" moment. The look on her face, the extended eye contact seeking approval.

      The fact that they rewrote their timeline was another red flag. These are the questions that the PJ should have been allowed to press home.

    6. Oscar at 21:13

      The timings of checks (occurrence of one), are discredited by contradictions/changes in the witness statements. Only Gerry meeting Jez, can be validated outside of the group.

      But where does this leave us? Their problem is they took control of the narrative, making their combined narrative the 'official story'. Going over the heads of the Portuguese police with it. The only one in town. It stands or falls altogether, it interconnects. (Big problem for them as OG have already publicly (but so quietly) toppled it over). They cannot change one jot - changing one bit, leaves other bits inexplicable. It was a big gamble (did well in the media as an all of a piece, dramatic story, still being spun into sheer fantasy now, to patch 'holes'. It's got v colourful), but vulnerable when any of it is challenged. They can never push a door, close a window etc - suspect they might like to, maybe.

      So yes, it is possible to think up a completely different (more likely) train of events/timing before an abduction (based on no testimony or evidence whatsoever now), and it does have to be progressed in an investigation, for the sake of lack of bias/all options open. But the big elephant is *why are they lying*.

      Lying to cover their negligence can take you so far (a lot probably was), but also doesn't explain why, on the instant of discovering their child gone, they would decide to lie copiously, to save their own skins, and therefore sacrifice their daughter. Any misdirection would seriously further imperil her. Threaten her life. It isn't believable anyone would do that - choose themselves over their daughter, and almost reflexively.

      So, though a lot of what they say can be discredited and ignored, it still, in a 'double think' *must* be taken seriously, for purposes of investigation/working it all out. So, Matthew's visit never happened, but by their combined testimony they say it did. In working out the time opportunity for an abductor it should both be taken as happening, and not. Equal weight.

      Window entry/exit is dead in the water. On the evidence of the statements, Kate opened that window herself.

      (corroborated by forensic evidence, statements, suggested by lying to friends/family at home, talking up the story with 'jemmying' etc, for release of the story to the press; together with the now pointless open window - to explain which, Kate in a 'last stand', suggests the abductor staged his own abduction scene!).

      I know the theatrics of the whooshing. The story gets a bit garbled - just one thing, she says the door slammed shut, having checked she hadn't left the patio door open, the only source of the wind was the bedroom window. On entering the bedroom she entirely forgets that, on discovering the bed empty she runs to her own room to see if the child had gone there (which she never did at this time of night, she has told us before). It is not until she comes back and the curtains whoosh that she sees to her astonishment, that the window is open. But by the testimony she has just given - she already knew!

      Having the 'first drafts' of the timeline(s) is incredible, their evolution revealing.

      'spect the PJ did ask quite a lot. We don't know what was redacted. K&G stuck to their story (Gerry: 'they've got nothing', that fateful night just pre aguido). The T7 flew home early. Nothing to stop them.

      I don't know how they could have addressed the toppling porkies. Evidence they lied. It was very suspicious they did so, but not actual evidence of a crime. Can't use thumb screws!

      The rotatory statements (hugely revealing fun to read - so human) got nowhere, and no one thought they would. The case was blocked (no reconstruction), they were a formality, the British police could not pick up, and drill into the inconsistencies with the T7. That wasn't the allowed protocol.

      Red flags abound.

      But they haven't just gone away, have they?

      There is an active investigation.


    7. Thanks Shallis 23:56. Firstly I'd say a psychopath could put feelings of their daughter to one side, and think about their career.

      Some doctors are high functioning psychopaths.

      Put it this way. Mistakes happen that could have serious consequences for the practitioner. When those mistakes are made by medics, notes often disappear, families are told lies, and inconvenient patients quickly move to palliative care.

      Emotional detachment is a pre requisite of working at any level in health care.

      For most it is a difficult job, however it has to be achieved superficially at least. Psychopaths definitely have an advantage.

      I would expect that, with so many people involved in the "plot", and their inability to get the story straight, that it would be possible to crack at least one of them.

      There are seven other people who know what happened. Either the police accept that they are telling the truth, or they go to work on a confession.

      I think the threat of being implicated in the conspiracy would be a useful tool.

      All barrack room policing and psychology, I accept.

    8. Oscar at 08:30.

      Well something is seriously amiss!

      I'm not sure Tapas 7 knew this was wasn't an abduction. There is a clear motive for them trying to downplay their collective negligence by cooking the time-line/statements. This they did. What they 'knew' is conjecture for all of us.

      I think I can understand (not condone, obviously) them in the 'cooking'. It must have been a bewildering situation, so shocking, so upsetting, and they were suddenly catapulted into it from their slightly boozy dinner. One of their first thoughts: 'Oh, God, all our child-care risk-taking will be laid-bare for all to see, and condemn us - perhaps far worse'. They wouldn't have had any thought of a cover-up unless K&G hadn't given the lead, and partaken. That would be shocking to them, wouldn't quite 'add up',a 'wrong-in-the-universe-we-occupy' thing, but your world is upside down too. The cooking began that night, once the die was cast, no going back.

      It isn't perjury giving a false witness statement to the police, but misleading a police enquiry is a serious offence. Demolishing the 'official story' takes the investigation to zero, it doesn't uncover, far less prove anything else.

      Jane has 'cracked', so to speak. The police have let her down very gently in the public gaze. Let the poor woman retreat with a shred of dignity.

      'Go to work on a confession'.

      There's the rub, without the rack, or water boarding.

      But, I agree it is a *huge* burden for anyone to carry. We have seen clear evidence of Kate buckling under the strain.

      I think someone will confess, especially if they are in anyway religiously minded, to absolve their sin before meeting their maker. Obviously, just my opinion.


    9. "Jane has 'cracked', so to speak. The police have let her down very gently in the public gaze. Let the poor woman retreat with a shred of dignity".

      The other view is OG have considerably bolstered the testimony of Tanner as a most reliable eye witness just that the person she described was an innocent holiday maker.

      There is no evidence whatsoever the Portuguese police have let her down very gently in the public gaze or that she needed to retreat with a shred of decency.

      The PJ reopened their investigation after the UK plod allegedly found and identified Tannerman/crecheman which they knew to be fake and a blatant attempt to show the UK public how useless the PJ were.

    10. JJ

      I feel a bit sorry for the 'over-suggestible' JT. (I know, Murat. Disgraceful. Not defending).

      Bolstered her testimony? I don't think so. I think it's in OG's interests to just let her go quietly. They don't want to stimulate a frenzy! So they are not just 'being kind to her' against the interests of the investigation. She doesn't matter any more, she's out the picture.

      Unfortunate if you think it was UK police undermining the Portuguese. Can see why you would think it presents like that. All that OG saying, 'we have just discovered there was a night creche', suggesting the PJ somehow missed that! Yes, I see that. But, I myself think it's just about OG giving a narrative to the public that will work. (Most folk know v little about this case). But it is open to your interpretation, for sure.

      OG are terribly parsimonious in their communication with the public. It's going to lead to speculation.


    11. Shallis there was a great drama on BBC last year with Jodie Whittaker. It portrayed the co dependencies that exist in the medical profession.

      Once someone covers up for you, they are in on the lie. In the drama everyone had something on their colleagues.

      Say Gerry was able to remind one of the seven of that fact. That person then turned to another in the group and reminded them that they have something on them.

      It wouldn't take much for everyone to focus on the case in hand.

      One of the SY detectives at the start alluded to allegiances changing over time.

      Did he mean between couples or between the Tapas 7?

      I think if there is to be a breakthrough it will result from one of them cracking. Or, out of sheer spite for some other misdemeanor such as an affair.

  2. Hi Rosalinda,
    Re: Post number 21:19.
    I kept my eyes averted. Too embarrassed to read this person's stuff. But you've got to give it to the scambaiter Ziggy that he invariably jumps to the typewriter on orders of the McCanns at the instant you write a post.
    His hormones really get triggered by the exposure.

    There is nothing that a leisurely stroll down to the pension office to collect an OAP cheque and stop off for a few boilermakers and a game of darts via the local pub that can't cure his problem.
    Why not go for that.
    But...most likely he already did.

    Anyway I do agree with what you have to say that the minimum the McCanns should be charged with is child neglect.
    Even if extradition for that crime alone doesn't carry the sensation that higher crimes would invoke.
    It will be interesting to see how the investigation of these crimes proceeds.

    1. LOL JC, yes I too was impressed at the speed with which Ziggy wrote a counter blog to my blog, ha ha. Actually I haven't even read it yet, it's not something I relish.

      I think if the McCanns and their friends had been charged with child neglect, as they should have been, what they did was irresponsible and reckless and resulted in the loss of a child. Had they each faced individual criminal charges of neglect, child endangerment or abandonment, the pact of silence would have collapsed.

      Of course that never happened because the McCanns presented themselves as sympathetic victims of a heinous crime. All they were guilty of was a minor lapse in judgment, the villain was the monster who stole their child.

      But of course it wasn't a lapse in judgement, it was a premeditated, pre-planned system of nightly neglect devised by the tapas group at the start of the week. As Gerry says, it was a collective decision. They all decided to put their children at risk so they could enjoy adults only dinners in the evenings.

      Gerry, more than anyone, still insists the Tapas System was superior to any other form of childcare available at the resort or 1950s family holiday resorts. Better than the night creche and better than paying a Warners nanny to babysit. Two perfectly safe and viable options that would have enabled the group to enjoy their dinners without having to keep leaving the table and without putting their children at risk.

    2. JC, just 'one more thing' about Ziggy (after admiring your phrase, elsewhere).

      I can hardly believe the McCanns know about the cretinous, and often abusive stuff he is posting here. Surely, it would be a massive embarrassment to them?

      They are educated people.

      And most surely, and unfairly, it is doing them such great harm.

      Enough about Z, ever. It is just playing into his worryingly over-developed sense of self-importance.

      And he is so diluting the comment section with his inanities (and our responses) that debate here is almost non-functioning.


    3. I hear you Shallis. Ziggy appears to have taken over my blog and I very stupidly have allowed it. In the last couple of blogs the comments sections were so overloaded they were not accessible, even to me.

      I don't think anything irritates me more than wasting precious reading time on something that is not interesting, enlightening or entertaining and Ziggy is none of those. I literally groan while attempting to read his prose and if I feel like that I'm sure most readers do too.

    4. Hi JC, I think I have been a little too laissez faire with Ziggy to such an extent that he is spoiling my blog. Not just for my readers but for me too. I normally look forward to opening my post box and replying to the interesting points my contributors raise. Unhappily I am now having to wade through mountains of dross to get to them!

      In order for me to continue writing my blog, I need to enjoy doing it, and just lately I haven't. I enjoy opening my post box as much as I enjoy opening final demands. As a lifelong navel gazer I should have spotted immediately what it was that was sucking the joy out of writing for me, so I must thank you JC and others for pointing out what I should have seen.

      On the sucking front, Ziggy is doing his utmost to suck the rest of us into the 'Bizarro' McCann world where right is wrong and kids don't need babysitters. And it is a hate filled negative world designed to bring everyone down. As you will see further down (or up), I too have had enough of him.

    5. jc, ziggy has asked you time after time for over a year to debate your points and you hide. You think trying your latest post matters ?

    6. ''On the sucking front, Ziggy is doing his utmost to suck the rest of us into the 'Bizarro' McCann world where right is wrong and kids don't need babysitters''

      I didn't see him say that any where ? Is that true ?

    7. "I didn't see him say that any where ? Is that true ?"

      You are him Ziggy, for goodness sake man, where's your dignity.

    8. 16:09 the very thought that Ziggy would have a supporter is laughable, and shows how far detached from reality you are.

  3. I've been surprised how many people have been saying that what they did was normal behaviour "for the time".

    Apparently Butlins used to run a baby sitting service which involved a staff member patrolling the chalets, and radioing to staff at the entertainment centre, if they heard a sound.

    If they heard nothing in a chalet, everything was ok.

    It appears it still goes on too. The lad that was killed by the bulldog at the weekend was alone in the caravan whilst adults were in an adjoining unit.

    I consider it neglect, or at least recklessness, but I can't see anything coming of it now. Sickening as it may be, I think the McCanns have been far more successful in pulling off the image of ordinary parents.

    1. It clearly wasn't 'normal for the time', though they clearly tried a tack of it being an established British custom to the Portuguese police (!).

      I, personally, would never have taken a hotel, or holiday complex up on an offer of 'baby listening'. Many of us wouldn't. But still a very different thing. These are 'gated communities'. The reason that MW didn't offer it in Luz was because it would have been down right irresponsible to do so. Ironically, the McCann's were eating in the 'gated bit' of the OC. The children were left outside it, in an apartment opening straight onto a public street.

      "Recklessness' is neglect.


    2. Oscar Slater17 April 2019 at 07:21

      ''I consider it neglect, or at least recklessness, but I can't see anything coming of it now. Sickening as it may be, I think the McCanns have been far more successful in pulling off the image of ordinary parents.''

      I say gamble. Oscar says 'reckless'. I think those two descriptions cover it.To rad all kinds of darkness into it isn't realistic. Sometimes things are just simple.If you let them be.


    3. I would agree with you Shallis, but I have come across a few people who are adamant that it was normal behaviour. I suppose we operate in silohs, I would have nothing to do with such people, and make the mistake that everyone is the same as me

    4. Butlins did operate a baby listening service but their sites were enclosed, secure sites so at leastany problems wouldn't be caused by strangers from outside the Butlins site. And parents didn't leave their doors unlocked. I'm not saying it was ideal but generally it was used for babies only as children were usually with their parents at the attractions.

    5. That is interesting to know, and is a major difference from the McCann narrative.

    6. Hi, Oscar at 14:55.

      That's what you get with a million pound + PR campaign.

      There was an aggressive minimisation of what they had done (by them, and then their PR), that trickled into received opinion. The 'like the bottom of the garden' stuff; the '50 metres away' (Kate interrupts Gerry to say she checked on google maps and it was 49.something!); the 'we could see the apartment', the 'just like a hotel listening service', too - few were/are aware of the reality of what they *actually* did. When they *see* it, it becomes: 'Oh, my God'.

      How many know about the unlocked door? or that the apartment opened onto a public street? that G&K were in the gated bit, not the children? That they couldn't see the apartment at all? - only a glimpse, at best, through a plastic window (which would have been reflecting the glare of lights, so opaque) and backs turned that night anyway, and the children were on the *far side* of the apartment. People who defend, think it was like Butlins/an hotel (they are meant to, all that expensive PR).

      It is spun, that it was through a lapse in the quality of their offer that MW didn't provide a listening service in Luz - rather than the circumstances making it impossible for them to do so. This makes it seem plausible for the Tapas Group to (have to) make up their own. This makes their arrangement sound reasonable (just like MW). Like for like.

      The 'there but for the grace of God' line, was designed to shame anyone who questioned them. And wrap up their behaviour in the 'well within the bounds of responsible parenting'. Normalisation.

      Also, in the first shock, my point elsewhere of not wanting to add to the anguish of the parents over what they had done, I think stands.

      But it *is* odd, that it became very quickly 'not allowable' to say they had been negligent. I have checked out Mumsnet for the period shortly after the disappearance. Criticism/questioning of the risk of their childcare arrangements is quite vehemently put down.


    7. Thank you Shallis. Since the Netflix thing I have understood how PR works a lot better.

      I have been discussing it on a football forum, and what is interesting how often the same points come up.

      It wasn't wrong to leave the kids alone, everyone used to do it

      Amaral the was discredited.

      The DNA was disregaeded.

      Tger are predators our there. (V important to blue collar males.)

      The family have paid the price.

      There are vile online trolls who have abused the McCanns incessantly.

      The mantra that Clarence and co. have adopted the last 12 years.

    8. ''Tger are predators our there. (V important to blue collar males.)''

      Blue collar ?

      ''The Casa Pia child sexual abuse scandal was a case of child sexual abuses involving a number of children and employees at Casa Pia, a Portuguese state-run institution for the education and support of poor children and under-age orphans.... The weekly magazine Visão reported that a Portuguese diplomat, Jorge Ritto, was removed from his post as consul in Stuttgart (1969–1971) after German authorities complained to Lisbon about his involvement with an under-age boy in a public park...The Casa Pia abuse scandal has had the effect of raising public awareness of sexual abuse of children. The number of incidents reported to Portuguese police has soared after the scandal has been revealed''

      'Amaral the was discredited.'

      Amaral was taken off the case.

      'The DNA was disregaeded.'

      It is still being diregarded.It doesn't pass enough rigourous tests.

      ''There are vile online trolls who have abused the McCanns incessantly.''

      Still going on.

      ''The mantra that Clarence and co. have adopted the last 12 years.''

      Along with 'has anyone of you got any proof whatsoever'.

    9. The proof of Clarence's mantra comes in the form of the statements he and those he breifs make.

      The same themes come out repeatedly.

    10. 17:21, I know most of the contributors to that forum, they are mostly blue collar workers.

      Unlike the likes of the McCanns they have a healthy attitude that there are bad people out there who would seek to harm their family.

      By playing on that fear, whilst emphasising that the McCanns are just like them, Clarence achieved a propaganda victory.

  4. The chronic verbal diarrhoea that Ziggy/Gary/Mark suffers from is a serious problem.
    Someone should call a doctor(or two)!

  5. Start your own blog Mark instead of being an unwelcome parasite on Ros's site.

    Ziggy Unzipped or Gary's Sark Lark would be good

  6. Or even Long Haired Soft Lad from Liverpool.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Enough Ziggy, you are literally spamming my blog and preventing interesting discussions to develop. You are spoiling it for everyone else.

      I totally agree with the poster who suggests you go start your own blog elsewhere. Here you are leeching off the popularity of my blog to spread your offensive and often insulting views. Enough. You are even putting me off my own blog, I don't want to wade through your endless, tedious, unpleasant, diatribes against myself and my readers.

      Go start your own blog Ziggy. Call it everything Cristobell won't publish if you still need my name to get readers, I really don't care. Meanwhile your free advertising on here is at end.

      I am willing as always, to publish reasonable, civil arguments as long as they are concise and have a point. Unfortunately, my inbox does not allow me to see posts in full, so be warned, much of the culling may take place after a post has been published. Bear that in mind should you go back to being anonymous.

    4. Oscar Slater17 April 2019 at 14:57

      ''Dismantling them implies there was ever any semblance of structure. Assemble them first, and ww will see what we can do''

      You've been trying for weeks.

    5. Rosalinda Hutton17 April 2019 at 14:59

      ''Enough Ziggy, you are literally spamming my blog and preventing interesting discussions to develop. You are spoiling it for everyone else.''

      Define spamming and tell us all what shallis is playing at.Ziggy makes sense. Or is that your problem ?

    6. Rosalinda Hutton17 April 2019 at 14:59

      ''Here you are leeching off the popularity of my blog to spread your offensive and often insulting views. Enough. You are even putting me off my own blog, I don't want to wade through your endless, tedious, unpleasant, diatribes against myself and my readers. ''

      Balanced discussion makes the blog popular. Remove that and you have a hate blog.Truth can hurt.Obviously.

      ''Go start your own blog Ziggy. Call it everything Cristobell won't publish if you still need my name to get readers, I really don't care. Meanwhile your free advertising on here is at end. ''

      Is this your freedom of speech stand again.

      ''I am willing as always, to publish reasonable, civil arguments as long as they are concise and have a point.''

      like shallis and jc

      ''spread your offensive and often insulting views.''

      Here's an offer. Post some examples of what i have posted that illustrate my 'offensive and insulting views'' and i'll politely leave.I'm sure you can find some or you wouldn't feel so strongly about them.


    7. Define spamming - look it up, this is not a remedial reading class.

      Like myself Shallis has the innate good manners to reply to correspondence that is addressed to her. As an academic it is normal practice to reply to every point raised. Ziggy, like Bennett, uses his limited knowledge of academia to force his targets to give replies that are as long winded as his questions. He has been playing us and I am having a 'Doh!' moment.

      Ziggy doesn't make sense. He doesn't know his subject well enough to explain it simply. His main weapons are accusations of libel and personal insults. Nothing that would convince me or anyone else that the McCanns are innocent. On the contrary, he is dragging the McCanns name down even further.

      On another point, totally unrelated but niggling nonetheless, why don't the McCanns and their supports just say 'they didn't do it' rather than 'there's no evidence'?

    8. Implying this would just be a hate blog without you is offensive. The only hate on this blog comes directly from you in the contempt you show toward me and my contributors.

      I agree truth can hurt, it's eating you alive. Truth can actually set you free, once it is out, the suffering ends.

      As for your final offer, post some examples, lol. Again you are attempting to waste my time on your unholy obsession. I am not going to read your links and I'm not going to go get links for you. Get it? If you want that kind of pedantry, may I suggest the cesspit?

      Make the most of that last post Ziggy, it may well be culled. Any reply over two concise paragraphs almost certainly will be.

    9. ''On another point, totally unrelated but niggling nonetheless, why don't the McCanns and their supports just say 'they didn't do it' rather than 'there's no evidence'?''

      Depends who they're talking to doesn't it.To anyone out there, yes, they didn't do it-ask the police. To those online pretending that there's evidence, they require an explanation.

    10. ''Like myself Shallis has the innate good manners to reply to correspondence that is addressed to her. As an academic it is normal practice to reply to every point raised.''

      On your last blog, shallis posted unbelievably long reams of god knows what and just kept repeating 'idiot' and 'twat'.Is that how academics address points ?

    11. '' Ziggy, like Bennett, uses his limited knowledge of academia to force his targets to give replies that are as long winded as his questions.''

      I have to disagree, Ros. Ziggy has proven time and time again he is far from stupid.He doesn't ask for long winded anything, just an answer to a question.

    12. 16:36 you have not Ziggy. You are deluding yourself that you are relevant.

      If you could argue in a coherent, evidence based manner, you wouldn't be getting this grief.

  7. "So why was neglect written out of the missing Madeleine narrative."

    It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

    "1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
    a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
    b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

    This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

    The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

    Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children."



    1. You are wrong on that, D.

      Negligence isn't about intending harm. Or it would be something else. They were negligent by the very helpful reference you provide of what the law states (good to have that here).

      Gerry's very hasty consultation with a barrister clearly shows he knew that. The notorious 'falling within the bounds of reasonable parenting', was this barrister's (Gerry's definitive 'expert', or whatever he tries on) advised line of defence, if it ever came to trail. I do find it chilling that Gerry actually used this in interview, as an attempted another 'official' pronouncement. Which it isn't. The law isn't constructed with an endless list of examples as to what does/doesn't constitute neglect. Couldn't be if you think about it.

      The K&G 'regret', or whatever, 'at not being there at the moment she was taken', also has lawyers written all over it. Advice: don't publicly admit negligence. Don't baldly state the obvious: if you'd been there it wouldn't, and couldn't have happened. As by that you would admit you left your daughter exposed to harm. Knowingly.


    2. Agree Shallis. I used the word reckless, recklessness is absence of responsibility.

    3. @ Shallis and Oscar

      They were not my words - they are a direct quote from the Portuguese authorities.

      I did not pass comment I quoted it in response to Ros saying "So why was neglect written out of the missing Madeleine narrative."


    4. Fair enough D. I was really refering to another post, where the contributor used my word reckless to imply a lack of negligence.

  8. Gerry was once led by a canny interviewer into considering the worst case scenario, worst case scenario Gerry said, would be all three children taken. As he spoke the words, the realisation of what he had just said hit him, but it was too late to take it back. So D, so what about 'intent' if all three children had been taken? What if the apartment had gone up in flames and all three were lost? Still no intent?

    At what point are these parents responsible for their children D? I was being ironic when I said Warners were to blame for not telling the parents to look after their children, but you, and Ziggy continue to build a case against them. Perhaps you think this buzzing family resort should have had notices everywhere warning parents that children left alone are likely to be abducted. I'm just going to leave that there to sink in.

  9. Hi, Ros

    The bar room brawl of your comments section! Lord alive.

    Great subject. Look forward to debate. If Ziggy’s ‘radio jamming’ can be negotiated.

    JC ‘His hormones really get triggered by the exposure’. So beautifully put. Wish I’d written that. Didn’t know how to delicately phrase it myself.

    Though clearly negligent, I for one, don’t support the ‘they should have had their children taken away’ opinion. The McCanns had a visit from social services. I expect the Tapas 7 did too. Correctly. But these things are, and should be, looked at from the interests of the child. (It is not, and absolutely shouldn’t be about ‘punishing’ parents). The Tapas 7 children (ignoring K&G here, for clear argument), were in loving, stable homes. The children should stay with their parents. I don’t think there was any risk of them being removed from them.

    But that night, in a foreign country (whose law they wouldn’t even know) they knew they were in deep shit over the negligence. They were in deep shit, anywhere (whatever the outcome, no assuming it). It was very serious stuff. For me, that explains them making up statements – taking a no doubt, slightly bewildered, lead from K&G on this.

    Such a lot in this nuggetty subject that Ros is opening up for us. Hoping for a conversation.

    Ziggy, I will ignore you, if you betray imbecilic levels of comprehension. Because there is no way of addressing that. And I will ignore you too, if all you are resorting to is argumentum ad hominem, or straw men, that essentially boil down to ‘irrational hatred of the McCanns’. Which, actually, is all you ever do.


    1. I don't think the children should have been taken away Shallis, but had they been lower down the social ladder, they probably would have been. They would probably also have been interrogated far more than they were.

      Going easy on the parents and their friends to spare their feelings almost certainly led to a loss of evidence. Where were the clothes Madeleine wore that day, the clothes the parents wore that night, the pink blanket? In the washing machine. Why did Gerry have to return to Rothley to get a pillowcase with Madeleine's DNA? Where was her hairbrush, her toothbrush, the bobbles she wore in her hair for the last photo? How much more was lost in trying to spare the parents feelings. Even typing that feels weird, whoever heard of a police investigation being sensitive to the feelings of a suspect?

      I think if the tapas group had been charged with neglect, it would have increased the demands on them to reveal what happened to the child. The police did not treat the neglect as a crime, so neither did the media or the public.

      None of the tapas group were given so much as a caution for leaving their children on their own so downplaying it was a piece of cake. The abductor was the headliner, not the neglect. And that is pretty much how it has been ever since.

      Gerry and Kate hate any mention of the neglect, 'we've been punished enough' said Kate. Could it be that if they were guilty of neglect, they could be guilty of a lot more?

    2. ''Gerry and Kate hate any mention of the neglect, 'we've been punished enough' said Kate. Could it be that if they were guilty of neglect, they could be guilty of a lot more?''


    3. Hi, Ros

      Eek! I never thought, that you thought, that all the Tapas parents should have had their children taken away. I know you didn't write that. Sorry, I should have made it much clearer that it was a general point. I've heard a lot of people saying it, so brought it up.

      It is clearly true that if they had been the council estate/drunk, or whatever, stereotype they would have been treated very differently, also by the media. One hopes that SS would have taken more of a stance of 'parental education', than just a 'remove the children' one, then too (unless absolutely necessary, as ongoing problem). But one hears dreadful reports about the misuse of power of SS over children.

      It's a good point about whether bringing on charges of neglect re Tapas 9 would have cracked open the case. One of the problems is the Tapas 7 were only witnesses to a crime.

      We don't know how much their raggedy statements were 'formally' torn apart. We don't have *everything* in the PJ files. For example, Gerry reports he heard Matthew breaking down in tears in the police station as he was accused of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance. A likely deduction from his statement, poor man. One he probably did not consider when he made it up. Happy to state he made it up, as he is caught out lying. He never set foot in 5a!

      I digress, catching them out is fun. It *is* like Cluedo, isn't it? Or a knotty, Agatha Christie.

      I think, AG said he regrets going so 'softly, softly' in the investigation at the beginning. He was certainly held back by the swiftly establishing 'official story' in the media, and the colossal wave of hysteria. With 'playing to the crowd' a huge thing. Very hard to counter that. The whole PR thing moved in so quickly, it is difficult to know how the investigation couldn't have been influenced. Astonished everyone, including the Portuguese police. Wrong footed them.

      I think the tapas group were all expecting to have a far worse time over the negligence (Gerry's swift consultation with a *barrister*, demonstrates this. He was concerned about the possibility of being charged, and constructing some sort of trial defence).

      It was certainly a mistake to go so easy on them all about their childcare - so not demolishing 'the story'. The two are so entwined. Clearing away the possibility of parental involvement as soon as possible is standard practice we know. Not doing so, did not mean anything about whether the McCanns were 'believed', or not, but it shows the case was already off course. Crippled, as having to consider *public reaction* to what they were doing. Hopeless position.

      As you say, the 'neglect' has in some weird way become something for K&G to hide behind. Unfair to mention it, because of the 'we've been punished enough' thing - and, by slight-of-hand, it is cleverly elided with not being able questioning them about the 'official abduction story' either. Insensitive brutes that we are!

      The combined evidence of the witness statements could never survive cross examination (obviously), you are probably right in thinking that not using the 'neglect' to charge them all, meant they missed the chance to crack it *all* open. There were two crimes. One could have been used to facilitate the investigation of the other. Public opinion would have been dead against such a move at the time, but you're absolutely right.


    4. No worries Shallis I kind of got that wasn't what you meant.

      I believe all the tapas group were involved and equally culpable Shallis. What convinced me of that, was on 4th May, the very next day, the group again put the children in the creches. Effectively, while a child predator was on the loose, they handed their kids over to nannies they hardly knew in a resort where a child abduction had just taken place. That, I find mind blowing. One would imagine a parent in such circumstances would not let their kids out of their sight for a second.

      The Portuguese investigation was completely sabotaged. The global campaign had the police being sent on all sorts of wild goose chases and put them under enormous pressure. I'm amazed they did as well as they did in the circumstances, I doubt many police investigations have a great big circus planted in the middle of them.

      This case gives us a lot more clues than the divine Agatha Christie usually gives. Matt's visit to the apartment was totally pointless - did you see Madeleine, err no. What I really don't get is the 100% faith the McCanns had/have in their holiday companions. Putting myself in such circumstances I wouldn't have trusted anyone, not even my nearest and dearest. Everyone would be a suspect. Jane left the table, Matt left the table, David Payne left the table and was gone a long time. How is that not suspicious to Kate and Gerry?

      The consideration of the former suspects' feelings bewilder me. Imagine saying to drunk driver who kills a child, we won't discuss the 20 pints you had before you got behind the wheel because we don't want you to feel any worse than you already do. You have suffered enough.

      Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, his proud father moment at 9.15pm. Matt's visit doesn't count, 10pm Kate raises the alarm by leaving the babies alone in the apartment their sibling had just been taken from, to make a dramatic dash to the tapas bar. Why not shout why not phone? Why need the need for a bar full of witnesses? Why the 40 minute delay before phoning the police? Even with all the meetings they have had, secret or otherwise, the tapas group simply can't get their stories to tally. As you say, not one of them could withstand questioning in a witness box. Gerry learned his limitations with the Paxman interview.

    5. ……
      I think in any other case Shallis, a police investigation would have followed that course. A child was missing which is about as serious as it can get, but police deal with sensitive cases all the time, what made this one so different?

      The massive publicity campaigns of Team McCann. With the public behind them they became untouchable. As Kate once said, there would be rioting in the streets if they were ever charged. Mentioning any wrongdoing on the part of K&G became taboo, I had previously good friends turn on me (no loss). I felt at one time as though I had entered Orwell's nightmare world of 1984, where if you don't say 2+2 = 5 and Gerry and Kate are good parents you get a cage of rats put on your head.

      Great to have such a super poster like yourself join us Shallis. I have always dreamed of belong to a 'Bloomsbury Club', a group of cultured, free thinking intelligentsia with whom to exchange thoughts and ideas over a lush cappuccino or a bowl sized glass filled with crushed ice and multi coloured liquor drunk leisurely through a straw and through a glass darkly.

      I started on Agatha Christie around the age of 14. I was in direct competition with my best friend as to who could race through them the quickest. Sadly it led to lots of squabbles, she would refuse to tell me what happened next or who dunnit, or she would tell me when I didn't want her to. In any event, she was way in the lead, I had discovered boys! (blushing smiley).

      Public opinion has had a direct impact on the way this case has been treated by the authorities. It could be argued that Tony Blair would have looked like a complete shit if he hadn't offered the full services of HM Government and phoned the bereft parents personally.
      Note there were no government ministers or government appointed spokesmen sent to assist Karen Matthews. Nor were there any pleas to the media not to give Karen a hard time for her dysfunctional lifestyle, to spare her feelings. She had lost a child, wasn't that punishment enough? It sounds obscene when applied to Karen Matthews, yet so perfectly normal when applied to the McCanns. They literally sold us 2+2 = 5.

    6. Anonymous17 April 2019 at 13:06

      You shouldn't tell people they are wrong then go on to make things up, shallis.You can't make up new definitions of things and new laws just to sound like you know what the hell you'e talking about.If you can't tell the truth, say nothing.Don't make up lies and invent new laws.

      You say ''advice: don't publicly admit negligence''. Have you seen the title at the top ? If anyone had admitted negligence there wouldn't be a debate about whether it was negligence or not.It's easy if you pay attention.

    7. Hi, Ros

      Such a lot in your two posts - v speed glossed as I really, really must go to bed.

      Will read and reply tomorrow. Look forward.

      But, was massively drawn and caught by your first paragraph - I had no idea Tapas 7 had put their children in the creche the next day. That has blown my thinking rather a lot. I have never thought they were involved beyond cooking the statements to save their own skins re negligence (taking a perhaps surprised lead from K&G being prepared to cover this up in the circumstances). But yes, not grappling your children to you at all times with an abductor on the prowl. My God!

      I thought they had done the statements on the 4 May in two lots, because half the group were with the children when the others were being interviewed.

      Putting children in the creche *at all*, of course - but it wasn't very secure, and run by young girls doing 'holiday job' type work.

      That's extraordinary.

      Apart from David & Fiona, the McCanns didn't really know the rest of the group very well pre Luz. There were definite social strains in it (rogatory and Kate's book reveal). Covering up a major crime would be a huge thing to do for anyone. Acquaintances? They had young families/careers at stake. There would have to be one hell of a reason. Not just a cover up for K&G. That boggles my thinking at the moment.


    8. Hi, Anon at 23:20

      I cannot make head nor tail of what you are trying to say.

      Rest assured, I haven't lied about anything.

      Hope this helps.


    9. Hi, Ros

      Still haven't read/responded to your long, interesting posts down here yet. it's getting really dense now with things one wants to respond to. Great! And sticking to the subject of you blog post, too. I don't want to over-post (probably am!). As comments build, and multiple threads emerge, I find it gets quite hard to navigate, even without Z's buffoonery. Maybe, that's just me. Don't want to 'over share', to make it all too tiresome for everyone.

      Still on (point one) what Tapas 7 did/didn't know. Having slept on it. Occurred to me that subconsciously they weren't buying the 'abduction' story either. K&G's reaction, to immediately start covering their tracks re negligence would be quite a red flag, feel wrong. But they wouldn't, really couldn't admit that to themselves. But they sensed/they knew deep down there was no danger.

      Aware of possibility of a procrustean bed here. And projecting. Have to be open about what they 'knew'.

      One of my favourite Peanuts cartoons from long ago (dates me), was Charlie Brown suggesting a book title: 'Have You Ever Considered the Possibility You Might Be Wrong?'.

      Thanks for referring to my 'innate good manners' in responding to Z. Not true of course, it's just so bloody difficult to let things stand, especially when basic and ludicrous miscomprehension of what one has written is concerned. And to come to a realisation that a point by point rebuttal is neither acknowledged, possible nor wanted. That it's a fruitless task. Annoying though.


    10. Don't worry about responding Shallis, things are so fast moving here, other interesting topics come up and we can't reply to them all.

      I am less sympathetic to the tapas friends Shallis, it irks me that they not only got off scot free but they were also financially rewarded, I hope those pictures of the smug group on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice come back to haunt them.

      Gerry has on a couple of occasions referred to the 'collective decision', he uses that expression, in my opinion, to remind the rest of the group they are all in it together. And I think they must have been Shallis. They all congregated in 5A to write out their alibis and phoning the UK as others searched for the missing child. This athletic group chose to stay in the apartment, that too blows me away Shallis. At one point a member of Warners staff and one of the males from the tapas group knocked on Jez Wilkins door (around 1.00am). Tall, athletic, Jez immediately offered to assist the search, but was told it wasn't necessary. Again wtf? Can you imagine how much ground these sporty people could have covered, for many of them running was a hobby, they had been running around PDL all week. In fact G&K continued with their runs, running past the people who were searching for their daughter.

      I think if the tapas friends genuinely believed Madeleine had been taken they would have been out there searching. They would have insisted on it. Instead the entire group went into self preservation mode, they sat around a table and wrote out a timeline on a page torn from Madeleine's book. Never mind the distress the child might feel at returning to find HER book torn up by mummy and daddy and their friends? OK, churlish maybe, but I think even the two year olds would have said 'no, that's Maddie's'.

      I think they were all terrible, selfish, people, Shallis who would rather lie and say their 'tapas system' was more efficient than other child minding options, than admit they were wrong. There is an air of superiority to them that gets my goat, and I were Kate and Gerry I would hate them. They were all guilty of gross negligence yet it is only Kate and Gerry who are facing the music for it.

      Unfortunately people like Z use the point by point rebuttal detail to force people to reply to them. It takes up what has now become valuable space on the front page. They also c/p previous posts thus padding out their limited, narrow minded views because they don't have an original thought among them.

      Unfortunately, as I said to JC I think I have taken my laissez fair approach to running this blog a little too far. And Z of course took complete advantage. I am ashamed now of the last few blogs with their lengthy diatribes against Goncalo Amaral and considering a major cull.

      Anyway, I have now seen the light and there is a considerable improvement. Not only does the blog look better, but I no longer dread opening my post box!

    11. Hi, Ros

      'I hope those pictures of the smug group on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice come back to haunt them'.

      I realise that I have a very different take on this case, not being there when it happened over the years. To me, it's all historical. If I'd seen that photo at the time I would have had a different reaction to it. The thing to be said about being a McCann case blank - is that it all hits very strongly indeed, coming to it altogether - for example that K&G 'balloon letting off' caper (saw on Netflix), that is so shocking, so unbelievable. The incongruity just leaps out.

      If I'd seen TV coverage at the time, I'm sure I would have been hooked in. Fascinated. Like you and your canny mother.

      I see exactly what you mean about what you list re tapas group. You're right. Absolutely. But wtf? This case is so incredible *already *. The mind boggles. It is why it is good to be here - to have views challenged.

      The 'cooking' of the statements/timelines was shameful, even if taking the lead from K&G for 'permission' to do so. They didn't have to agree, even if saving their own skins. Not an excuse. Not honourable. *They* should have been suspicious, perhaps they were, can well see suspicion falling on them for their pusillanimity.

      Tiny detail: I don't think the tearing/use of the sticker book is any kind of red flag. I can't think it was precious to Madeleine. It's the kind of thing desperate parents gang up (on plane trips) for use if needs be, to keep their children occupied for half a second. And paper *would* be at a premium in a holiday apartment. Gerry must have torn off the cover though, tapas group would not have presumed to do that (unless you are right, and they are more 'in on it').

      Re your laissez-faire: I bow to your vast experience in blogging. I was trying, and succeeding, in seeing the method in your madness at allowing open season. A lot to be said. Brave of you as well. I think it a problem if those you are indulging do not realise your generosity. I rather thought Z thought he had conquered your blog (through the brilliance of his argument). One gets implicated in the vast amount of space being taken up by pointless, long tedious replies. Took me some time to realise I was corresponding with an imbecile. Then what to do?

      I sensed you were being pushed out of your own blog (where is Ros?). And comments were getting hopelessly, pointlessly and impolitely, off the topic you introduced in your original post. Glad you are enjoying it again.

      It would be good if someone who supports the abduction story, and with a fully functioning brain, and no seething hatred, were to join in the debate here.


    12. Re me at 17:36.

      I realise I have been inadvertently very rude to some posters here, in my last paragraph of 17:36.

      I did not mean to suggest that everyone here who writes in support of the McCann's abduction narrative doesn't have a fully functioning brain,
      and has a seething hatred for anyone who disagrees with them! I was writing, thinking about Z, and an alternative to his senseless diatribes.

      Really sorry if I have offended anyone. Should have thought how that read.

      I was also thinking generally, that the more this case is opened up to vigorous, fair debate, the better.



  10. Rosalinda Hutton17 April 2019 at 12:23

    '' I was being ironic when I said Warners were to blame for not telling the parents to look after their children, but you, and Ziggy continue to build a case against them.''

    I have never considered Warner's as culpable for anything whatsoever in this case. I have never mentioned them once apart from in my reply at the top of this thread.You just lied again. Find a single quotation from me talking about them


  11. "Portugal is struggling, almost as badly as Spain, economically. PDl is a small resort that depends mainly on tourism.It's bad enough that a child get's taken anywhere in the country , given the Casa Pia case and the cloud that left hanging over it."

    Says you.

    "The thing is, if you are going to break into a place, you do it when it's empty 99% of the time-it's about the size of the risk involved.It's the same with burglary"


    "Major PR / business disaster had they been done for neglect but had no results in finding the child or perpetrator."

    I'm sure you can tell me the word for drawing conclusions from unsubstantiated sources.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. Hope you got a screenshot of that Ziggy cause it's gone. More spam. Incidentally, I don't post lists of links because they are boring, this is a discussion blog.

    3. 15:45 I can guarantee it did not back up the point he was arguing about, but rather the point he would like to be arguing about instead.

      Whenever caught out he tries a tangential course. Usually concluded with some form of childish insult.

    4. Oscar Slater17 April 2019 at 16:31

      ''15:45 I can guarantee it did not back up the point he was arguing about, but rather the point he would like to be arguing about instead.''

      How can you guarantee what was on a post that Ros published then quickly removed ?

  12. Rosalinda Hutton17 April 2019 at 12:23

    '' As he spoke the words, the realisation of what he had just said hit him, but it was too late to take it back.''

    He said something in an interview and you watched intently.You heard what he said and the rest you added yourself. As usual, it's a subjective interpretation tainted heavily by your groundless bias.
    ''so what about 'intent' if all three children had been taken? What if the apartment had gone up in flames and all three were lost? Still no intent?''

    Definition of Intent :

    ''the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act''

    '' the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION''

    '' a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : AIM''

    intent adjective

    '' having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something or some end or purpose''

    If the apartment would have gone up in flames it would be called a tragic accident.Not intent. If it was a fire started on purpose by anyone, it would be arson and probably murder / infanticide.

    The fact is that they left the ( non-burning) apartment with three children still in it and no adults to supervise them.That's it.The talk of 'intent' is more than desperate.It was a terrible mistake to take that gamble and they paid the price.The talk of intent and other imaginary scenarios are nothing more than wild guesses intended to poison the opinion of the parents. Parents who lost a child. Lovely.


    1. Ziggy at 14:14.

      You so misunderstand the use of 'intent', here. It means that the *risk being taken* was intended. Was knowingly taken. It does not mean that they intended a dreadful outcome of the risk.

      'Intentional negligence', is knowing the (unlawful) risk you are taking. ('unintentional', would be lacking the mental capacity to understand it). You have accepted they 'took a gamble' (your phrase). Gambling with your child's safety is negligent.

      If the apartment had 'gone up in flames', then it would not have just been a 'tragic accident' if the unprotected children had been engulfed. The parents should have been there to remove their children from the danger. (or perhaps, put out the little flames before an inferno resulted). This is very obvious.

      It has been made quite clear by me, and others, that the absolute emotional devestation of parents who had lost a child through their negligence, would create a response of great sympathy. They would be beating themselves up forever. Wouldn't feel minded to add to their agony.

      You wheel in your straw man 'irrational hatred of the McCanns' even where it is preposterously, and utterly beside the point. But you'll never see that, I know.


    2. 14:14 who would leave children in an apartment that was already burning?

      Your attempts at being smart are desperate. Have a look at yourself.

    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    4. Z at 16:49

      Ziggy, my friend this is *you*:

      'An irrational hatred of people will taint any other opinions you hold about them'.

      You don't understand the difference between a straight accident, and something that happens as a result of negligence. What can one say?

      Yes, there was an outpouring of sympathy for the McCanns at the time. Of course there was. Your point is?

      In the 'last chapter' of this blog, we 'discussed' at some length how the McCann's response, and behaviour in the light of the anguish of culpability in the loss of their daughter isn't remotely believable. There is little point in going there again.


    5. Zig 17 April 14.14

      I don't know who you really are but I suspect you're a McCann family member as you are so intent on covering for the McCanns and what they're suffering but seemed to have completely forgotten the fact that there is the matter of a child missing, yes the McCann's child, which you and many of your friends have forgotten about. Why the f*ck should anyone care about what the McCanns think, they know what happened on the night of 3rd May 2007, they instigated it, poor Madeleine had no choice. Why have you forgotten her, she's been wiped out of your mind the same as GM said, it was "like finding out that your student loan had gone into the red" or words to that effect

      You are a whole load of cold hearted individuals if you can even mention about what the McCanns are going through, why not try and mention for once what Madeleine went through. After all we only have the McCanns' word that it was an "abduction" but of course the dogs suggest otherwise. Try thinking about that and what may have happened to Madeleine.

    6. Another Braveheart coming out to attack Ziggy now that he's been silenced for asking liars to prove their points and truth.

      You claim Ziggy is covering up for the McCanns.In what way ? Covering what up ?Are you suggesting Ziggy was on holiday with the family ? Where in his posts are you getting that he and all his friends have forgotten about the child ? It's only the other side who do that if you read these blogs.

      '' Why the f*ck should anyone care about what the McCanns think, they know what happened on the night of 3rd May 2007, they instigated it, ''

      See, statements like that are what he would ask you to prove .It's an opinion and an accusation.It's slanderous.If you are so sure, shouldn't it be the police you're attacking ?

      You claim that to express compassion for two parents who had their little girl snatched and never saw her again is cold hearted.How exactly does that work ?

      '' After all we only have the McCanns' word that it was an "abduction" but of course the dogs suggest otherwise. ''

      I believe that has been covered on many of Ros' blogs before now.The police of the two countries also all it an abduction and they also accept that the dogs alerts are not evidence of anything but, at best, indications of something that needs far more evidence to corroborate it.It wouldn't hurt you to read a little about the case.

  13. Take neglect out of the alleged abduction scenario,no abduction,simples.

    1. True. They left the apartment vulnerable to a watching predator. Hence the abduction.It's the only theory that actually holds up.

    2. 18:22. You will need to enlarge on that. Shallis

    3. 18:22, I disagree. A recent case saw a child abducted from her home by someone who broke in. Denise Bulger could hardly have been accused of neglect by letting her little boy's hand go. The Moors victims were not taken as a result of neglect.

      However these are the cases where we see the effects of abduction on parents. It's always a case of living with guilt, even though none is needed.

      Then there are the McCanns telling people it wasn't their fault, anybody could have had the same thing happen. Given the amount of prominence given to the predator theory, you have to ask why are there not a lot more instances.

      Gamble spends a lot of time telling us we need him on that wall. So, he continues to push a story that just doesn't tie in with what we know.

    4. @ Oscar Slater17 April 2019 at 21:23

      I suggest you read you comment again- it is nonsense.

      You have given very good examples - but then deny the Mccanns for some strange reason.


    5. Thank you D.

      I am comparing the McCanns behaviour to that of the parents of other missing children.

      The striking thing is how quick they were to focus on who was to blame, rather than the devestation of what happened.

      Most recently I have followed the harrowing abduction and murder of Alisha MacPhail. The absence of anyone saying "it wasn't our fault" is striking.

      I then meander on to suggest that stoking our fears that there are organised gangs out there just waiting to steal our children, would be advantageous to someone wanting to police that.

      The abductor theory suits Jim Gamble, and it is he who us put forward as the definitive law and order source, by Team McCann.

  14. Oh, sorry 18:22, completely obvious what you mean! (no leaving the children/no abduction). So we all wouldn't be here now.

    (Perhaps it is possible to catch idiocy off Ros's blog. Worrying.


    1. No,there was no neglect, ergo no abduction.

    2. Anon 18 April 14.20

      Yes, it's as simple as that and has been for the past 12 years, and Eddie and Keela could testify to that otherwise what was the point of having dogs trained to do their jobs just to be ignored. If the dogs are ignored what precedence does that set for the future of detecting crimes, they have been used in thousands of cases from murders to money being laundered to guns/ammunition being hidden in out of the way places, their noses know no bounds.

  15. The parents/carers of:
    Ben Needham
    April Jones
    Alesha MacPhail

    But why not just look up all the missing children in the UK and the World - why restrict it to the Mccanns?


    1. D @ 22:32. Come on, these are examples close to home that are fresh in memory.

      If the McCanns behaviour is not atypical, it should be easy enough to find similar people to them without looking at every abduction in the world.

      You could give a couple of examples to support your argument.

    2. @ Oscar Slater18 April 2019 at 08:52

      I have given three examples of children going missing - 2 close to home whilst unsupervised the other taken from bed whilst relatives slept in the same house. Why pick out the Mccanns to be charged with neglect?


    3. Of the two examples, those responsible for the child did nothing wrong. In the third one, I think the grandparents were negligent, that is another story.

      Why pick out the McCanns? I didn't choose the topic, but as nearly every topic on here relates to the McCanns, I guess that could be the reason.

      I'm not sure what your point actually is.

    4. Yep, just read the stem for this discussion D. I was talking about McCann behaviour after the abduction compared to the behaviour of others.

      Sorry that you took that to mean I was talking about parental negligence. I pointed out that in the other cases those involved didn't go around saying "it wasn't our fault."

      I picked on the McCanns because they have, repeatedly.

    5. the others weren't being accused and it wasn't their child

  16. Hello Rosalinda, Shallis and others
    theme: Abuse as different from Neglect
    Rosalinda, you say,

    ”I think if the McCanns and their friends had been charged with child neglect, as they should have been, what they did was irresponsible and reckless and resulted in the loss of a child”

    and I take that as a starting point in my comment

    Interesting topic we’re discussing right now and very crucial for the understanding of the whole case. What seems to have been forgotten by many posters here is the fact, that all the accusations and insinuations of child neglect, as well as the defence of the McCanns’ choice of doing what they say they did that night, presuppose the idea of an abduction by a stranger, or at least it suggests that child neglect would be the cause of Madeleine’s death and disappearance, but there’s no evidence to support such assumptions.

    Unfortunately, Madeleine's disappearance has become too intimately linked to the question about the McCanns’ responsibilities as parents with regards to how they watched on their children that fateful night, which becomes a kind of indirect recognition of the McCanns’ claim that Madeleine was taken by a stranger between two of their checks.

    You’re quite right Rosalinda in that the McCanns must’ve been irresponsible parents, as they failed to protect their daughter from whatever happened to her that fatal night. Yet, Madeleine’s fate may not have anything at all to do with child neglect, as it’s just as likely that she died due to some kind of abuse, different from neglect, and in the presence of her parents.

    As far as I’m concerned, this case should be more about the McCanns’ being present rather than being absent. In short, charging the McCanns with child neglect, wouldn’t that be the same as believing their lies about the time schedule (Russel O’Brien’s) for checking on their children, their children never being given sleeping pills, the mysterious open window, the unlocked patio door and the ever moving inner door to the children’s room etc?? Just my thoughts.

    1. Me again
      Just a clarification of my post from 17 April 2019 at 22:46.

      What I essentially meant was, that the McCanns have invented a scenario,which people in common see as child neglect or improper child care, in order to make people believe that there was an opportunity for a stranger to snatch Madeleine from her bed without being seen. If the McCanns are lying about that, they weren’t really negligent, but maltreating parents who may've abused their children and still they're of course notorious liars who keep on denying that they don’t know what happened to their daughter.

      However, they cannot be charged with a crime, that they’ve made up to cover up for another real and more serious crime, which they’ve committed

    2. Hi Björn (22:46)

      I agree the negligence issue can be a huge red herring, and I’ve seen it straying into a disturbing desire to punish the parents for it.

      And those comment feeds (YouTube, and the like), where the thread just descends into: ‘well, I just can’t imagine how those parents could have left those children . . .’, or, (and as bad): ‘the dogs don’t lie’. Well, maybe we can’t, and maybe they don’t, but it gets us precisely nowhere. So give it a rest, please.

      They will never be charged with neglect now anyway. I don’t think they were ever in danger of it going that far (despite culpability). Such things are weighed up – a group of tourists from another country? In whose interests would this be? (not the childrens). And now, a statute of limitation in Portugal? Extradition on those charges, against public opinion? Just not. Irrelevent.

      It was the McCanns themselves who intimately linked the childcare arrangements (checking) with the abduction in their all-of-a-piece ‘official story’ (with its precise timeline). I think the issue of their negligence is overwhelming, just tiresome to argue against. And beside the point. They accepted it themselves (Gerry consulted a barrister, for god’s sake). As you say, we should move on.

      Ros has a good point, that had the police pursued charging the Tapas 7, then it might have been a means of cracking the whole case open. Collapsing their story ‘with teeth’, as they wouldn’t just be witnesses to a crime. As I say above, I don’t think the police would have ever been minded to do that to tourists/guests in their country. It was certainly never going to happen in this case – against mass public opinion, with the eyes of the world watching. And in light of the very successful PR minimisation in the media of the actual circumstances of their neglect. Non-starter.

      I see your point that focusing on the ‘neglect’ issue is kind of endorsing their abduction narrative. It’s the negligence that allows the abduction. No other scenario allows it. But the narrative itself needs collapsing – the credibility of those flapping doors, the window that opens itself, the drugged children, and all that, need careful undermining. It's fun doing it too (for us).

      Dismantling the ‘official story’ means addressing their actions over the neglect (not the neglect per se). But doing so ‘only’ takes us to zero re what happened that god-awful night.

      ‘As far as I’m concerned, this case should be more about the McCanns being present rather than being absent’.

      Very well put.


    3. Bjӧrn 18 April 14.11

      re: your last paragraph.

      If the McCanns and their Tapas friends are found to have lied over the real crime by covering it up with another crime, it would be "perverting the course of justice". It's a real serious crime in the UK and can carry a very heavy sentence, I'm not sure if Portugal have the same, but I'm sure they have similar for those who lie through their teeth and send the Police in the wrong direction to get off and to make our they're totally innocent

    4. Hi Bjorn, interesting points.

      I think there was neglect Bjorn, the tapas system of checking on the kids was real, but not as regimented and recorded as it was on the night of 3rd May. With toddlers alone in a dark unfamiliar apartment, I tend to think there was an accident. I remember as a young mum being on constant alert as to what my toddler would to do next to endanger himself. They simply cannot be trusted on their own even for 5 minutes.

      I don't think there was ever abuse per se, but I do think there was a great deal of tension. Looking after 3 toddlers is just about as stressful as it can get, and I'm guessing Gerry didn't do his fair share. He was not a man relishing time with his wife and children, he is sat apart from them on that bus where he glumly stated he was not there to enjoy himself. I'm also guessing he had a few lectures before they left home. How must Kate have felt seeing the other dads sharing the childcare equally? On one day Gerry had 3 tennis lessons! Had I been Kate I would have wrapped his racket around his head.

      As Kate revealed in her 'too much information' book, she is a very highly strung woman, maybe even neurotic. She is quick to anger, quick to show contempt (that curled lip) and admits to lashing out at furniture and walls when enraged. That's quite scary. who does that? Blacksmith was right, her book was the longest suicide note in history. Kate is a classic ectomorph from her physical appearance and behaviour, it is clear she worries constantly.

      I think the crime of neglect was very real Bjorn, just reading their statements you can see that their attitude towards the care of their children is appalling. They don't believe/accept that they did anything wrong, their system had worked well all week, so why should they be punished for it? No-one could have foreseen a child predator being on the loose, so how is it their fault?

      I suspect you are right though that no-one can now be charged with neglect. But in brushing away the neglect charges the police may have lost the opportunity to find out what had happened in those crucial hours before the alarm was raised.

    5. Ros 18 April 15.35

      Your comment "no-one can be charged with neglect".

      I don't know if Portugal has double jeopardy but my thinking has been for a long time that the Police can't accuse the McCanns and their friends of neglect if there is a more serious case to be investigated.

      If they accuse them of neglect then if may negate any other serious crimes that come to light in the future. We don't know what the UK of PJ Police are working on but I'm sure the PJ haven't forgotten about Madeleine and thrown her memory and her measly barely 4 years on this Earth in the trash can like many others seem to have done to protect her parents.

    6. I think there were strains on that holiday. The holiday was a strain in itself. It isn't so hard to uncover a bit, and see. (Not listing here now, just making the point)

      I do not believe that on Thursday night they were sitting in the tapas restaurant, telling each other how 'relaxed' they all felt, what a 'particularly perfect day' they had all just had. They protest too much about that holiday, that day (even Madeleine says what a perfect day she's had - the 'best day of her life', no less)

      They knew full well that their desperate attempt to salvage a bit of the holiday they had imagined, and weren't prepared to jettison, involved unconscionable risk to their children. Which they probably tried to justify with some vaguely thought 'it's different on holiday' get out of jail free crap (literally, as it turned out).

      K&G would never have left their children in the Rothey house (with the door left unlocked) and trotted off down to the local pub for a meal, would they?

      They knew it was negligent. We would insult them to suggest they didn't. But I don't think it suggests, or provides any evidence it wasn't a 'one off'. (Of course, can't know for sure either way).

      However, I think that the relationship of Kate to the children, the family dynamic generally, is critical to this case.

      Whatever happened couldn't have come out of thin air, given their reaction.


    7. Dear 15:13

      'If the McCanns and their Tapas friends are found to have lied over the real crime by covering it up with another crime, it would be "perverting the course of justice". It's a real serious crime in the UK and can carry a very heavy sentence'.

      I presume you mean lying in the statements to cover up negligence, but thus misdirecting the investigation. That's very true. I have wondered whether the Tapas 7 could turn 'queen's evidence' over this. Bit of a grand term, but you know what I mean. Can it be offered to them? What happens if there is no conviction? I don't know about the intricacies of the law.

      Have no idea what happens in an investigation if witnesses are known to be lying in their statements, and the case is therefore 'stuck'. But they will not budge. It's where it was at in 2008, but the unique circumstances did not allow any unbudgement to occur. Stalemate.

      The fact this case is strung across two countries must be a nightmare, everything having to be done correctly for two different systems of justice. Fail, and this case might never be able to come to court.


    8. Hello
      Shallis18 April 2019 at 15:13
      Rosalinda18 April 2019 at 15:35 and
      Anon 18 April 2019 at 15:13
      Thanks for feed back and good points.

      While I'm heading for my hiding place in the northern Swedish forests where I'll spend my bear vacation for a few days, I wish you all a Happy Easter

  17. "Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.

    This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner."


    1. Good morning

      Thank your for post.


    2. Sorry. Lost control.

      Thank you for your post.


    3. Anon at 08:05

      The fascinating thing is, that from the phone record, it is possible to show that Kate was *in the apartment* at that time, and that Madeleine was crying for her *father*. (Odd in itself). For over an hour, unattended. It was the night that Gerry invited the buxom quiz mistress to join the tapas bar dinner table.
      Mrs Fenn just presumed it was the couple returning together (you would), and not just Gerry.

      Kate rang a close female friend in the UK at breakfast time the next day. Usually only one reason she would have wanted a chat with same at that time whilst on holiday.

      Now obviously this takes me into 'speculation'. But there's a suspicion of a strain in the tapas group dynamic, and K&G's relationship, from rogatory statements and her (far too revealing) book and diary. And, (and I absolutely can't say this with *enough* sensitivity, delicacy and proviso that this is my opinion, and I might be wrong), in Kate's relationship with her daughter.

      Those bruises on Kate's wrists (and upper arm), that look like they come from gripping. She gives an unconvincing retrospective explanation in her book. I would like to see photos (source blind) of those given to experts to analyse. I'm absolutely no expert myself (of course), but the bruises look wrong to me for what she says caused them.

      Thick and fast.


    4. What are these bruises all about ? How come nobody else has seen them ?Why are you trying to create how they happened if they exist ? Its just lies again.

    5. 18.26 how can the pictorial existence of bruises on Kate healy's wrists be a lie? They exist. I and many others have seen them. http://themaddiecasefiles.com/kate-s-bruises-t20231.html
      you cry lie like the child cried wolf
      As to how they happened, they look like restraint bruising. You should ask Kate and Gerry how they got there

    6. 18:26, I suggest you look at the pictures Shallis refers to before you call her a liar. Doing that without even checking what she is saying suggests you don't want to know.

    7. 23:30, sorry they don't look like restraint bruises to me (I have seen lots where restraint hasn't been done properly, and am trained in therapeutic restraint myself).

      Restraint bruises usually occur due to thumbs and fingers being used to hold the person.

      In addition, if you tried to restrain somebody at the wrists alone, it wouldn't be very effective, they would still be able to pull you with their body weight, and you would probably fall over as a result.

      In this instance, I think Kate could be telling the truth.

    8. 23:30

      The bruise on the upper arm though is consistent with a restraint, by the looks of things it was particularly effective.

      I would say the restrain had been done by someone who was not properly trained.

    9. Hello, Anon at 18:26

      You seem overwrought.

      I think from your writing style we have conversed before? This is more in the same vain. Your last comment was incomprehensible (I got the gist, I think). You are clearer here (if you are one and the same).

      Another has replied to you already as to the existence of the quite severe bruising that can be seen on Kate’s wrists and upper arm in the days immediately following her daughter’s disappearance. You can google and find the photographs/film footage very easily for yourself.

      There are supporters of the McCanns' theory of abduction who, by default, demonise anyone who questions their narrative. It appears that these supporters are projecting their own mental damage, heightened emotionalism, and in particular, their own irrational hatred onto others. It certainly seems to make them incapable of comprehending an argument accurately, so blinkered are they by their bias, so eager to confirm it. It makes them quick to pick quotes out of context, mangle or blatantly misrepresent what was written.

      I hope this is not you, I don’t know you so cannot presume to know. But neither do you know me.

      I write from verifiable proof from the source material when I can. If I am surmising from that point, I am very careful to say so. Kate’s bruises, fact. Her explanation many years later (‘Madeleine’) unconvincing to me, in support of the visual evidence. The bruises suggest another cause to my untrained eye. I stated I am not an expert in these matters. I said I therefore cannot verify the cause of the bruising. And have suggested an expert in the field study them (in a scientifically blind test). Obviously to confirm the cause either way. How could you miss what I actually wrote by your accusation?

      It might help to bear in mind that the McCanns themselves are doing no more than supporting an unproven theory of abduction. Their own spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, has described it as a 'working hypothesis'.

      This case is open.

      We are not doing the equivalent of questioning, or denying the Holocaust here.


    10. Hi, Oscar (at 10:17/10:19)

      It would seem we have an expert in bruising from restraint in our very midst. The wonders of the internet! The reason why 'forums' (as Ros graciously provides in her blog comment section) are so important.

      I can ask you direct then - the orientation (90% out to me), and positioning of the bruises look wrong in support of an explanation of banging your wrists on an iron banister (in itself, an odd thing to do, but beside the point). That's Kate's own explanation years later. I have gripped my own wrist to see where pressure would be exerted, and the bruises seem consistent with that. Fascinated that you, with the expert eye, disagree. The pressure/restraint need only have been quite brief to bruise like that? (you suggest, she would have been able to push off the restrainer - and Kate 's athletic, so a strong woman). My thought is she was just grabbed as she was in an emotional frenzy, so to speak, reason unknown. Not a pre-planned thing. Not an occurrence where 'training' is relevant. Your expertise on this is brilliant.

      (Pity you can't verify the cause in a blind test. Maybe it is too obvious to be necessary?)

      Look forward to your reply.


    11. Oscar

      I think I used '%' rather than a degree sign (?). Lost in the ether, atm. Can't check.

      Oh God, the squirming embarrassment of posting.

      Love the 'conspiracy theory' of a spelling mistake. ffs. Secret signalling perhaps?


    12. Bless you Shallis, you have replied to the bruising points much as I would have done. That is, they were very real and Kate discusses them in her book, her explanation as you point out, she was pounding her wrists on a metal bannister. That's not a sign of anger, it is a sign of self harm, and its very troubling.

      The bruises look like restraining injuries to me, signs of a physical struggle, her little finger is badly bruised, bent backwards perhaps? Kate's explanation is bizarre, most people collapse when given devastating news, they don't lash out. That surge of adrenalin she had was nature's way of telling her to get out and search for her child. The good Lord (if there is one) is thoughtful in that way, he gives us strength when we need it. Gerry was invigorated, he went straight to phoning his mum.

      Miow, apologies, I shouldn't do that. Those bruises, like the neglect, occurred in the crucial hours before the child went missing. Those crucial hours that the police, the media, and pretty much everyone, say is bad form to talk about. Hence 12 years on, and the narrative hasn't budged.

  18. One of the things I have read is that the Portuguese thought this was something British parents do, and were compassionate for that reason.

    Where did high ranking law officers get that idea? Was it from a consular official?

    Where was the outcry from children's charities in the UK that British parenting is so lovely thought of?

    1. Oscar at 08:56

      Police/FCO: they didn't. Why would they?

      AG briefly mentions being fed this line by the tapas group at the beginning, being astonished and checking it out. You would, wouldn't you. Then the media avalanche, down playing the irresponsibility. It must have felt/still does feel, very Alice in Wonderland. Very hard to counter.

      Children's societies would have found it a back-firing own goal to raise the flipping obvious against the maudlin, hysterical PR whipped up, and manipulated tide in the media.

      Portuguese thinking British parents routinely forsake their children of a night, when they went off to a restaurant down the road, out of sight and sound? Just great a whole nation is now written off as breathtakingly negligent towards their children. Pass the blame, why don't you? Thanks, Team McCann PR campaign (they had/have a Portuguese branch).


    2. Yeah, I know. Makes you wonder why Mark Warner even bothered offering a baby sitting service, when they were fully aware that British parents don't care about leaving their kids in the room.

      I would have thought the easiest way for the PJ to debunk that myth would be to ask staff at the complex how often it actually happened.

    3. Oscar, you claim you read that the PJ thought this was the kind of thing British parents did and it was the norm. Whee did you read that ?

    4. I came across this, 18:24


      "Mr Pereira said: “The error was not constituting the
      parents as arguidos for the crime of abandonment.
      “At the beginning there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory that
      said the English have very peculiar cultural customs.
      “And therefore it was natural for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings
      and the other three-year-old child alone in a bedroom for the parents to go
      out a few hundred metres away to socialise with their friends.’’

    5. Interesting piece in our local rag today:


      Over 80% believe that it is not right to leave a child under 12 babysitting.

      Misleading headline suggests 50% think it is OK to leave kids at home alone. Clarence?

    6. Great to dig that out, Oscar (at 09:24). Thank you.

      In truth, the PJ are being hard on themselves. How could they have *really* charged them with child abandonment? Against the populism of the whipped up emotional media frenzy? the 2+2=5 narrative (as Ros puts it)? That was also designed to minimise the negligence, and direct attention away from it, to maximise sympathy for the parents? The truth was spun so efficiently from the beginning. And the spun version given world coverage! From the get go there were (successful) attempts to smear the PJ with charges of incompetence, and they had to navigate that, too. They would have confirmed themselves as 'the baddies' in the popular imagination had they pressed charges on the 'poor innocent, suffering parents' who had only done 'what anyone else might do', in a forgivable, inadvertent, tiny slip in their childcare arrangements. Charging would have further critically hampered the main investigation. Already holed below the water-line. The police were so wrong footed.


    7. To have come up with such a devious but successful plan, you would have to be a high functioning psychopath. However, you would surely also be able to act the incompetent idiot much better than Gerry?

      He didn't take long to start snarling at people who didn't buy into it. All he had to do was act innocent, something he appears incapable of.

  19. Ziggy's Handler18 April 2019 at 09:05

    Now that my operative has been rumbled,I need a new recruit to relentlessly push and spam the official line on the blog of that extreme subversive Ros Hutton.
    For anyone interested,interviews will be held in the Toxteth community drop in centre on the 1st of May.
    Be sure to wear a flower in your hair.
    Over and out.

    1. @09:05


      Your invitation is gratefully acknowledged.

      I’ll be there – invisible, with a silent flower in my hairpiece, greeting the sunrise with the aurora of my smile. Perhaps a red flag will be appropriate… But there is no competition.

      “And what there is to conquer
      By strength and submission, has already been discovered
      Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
      To emulate - but there is no competition -
      There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
      And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
      That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
      For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”

      Sweet. Sweet like honey, honey-honey.

      Can you handle that?


  20. Morning, darlings.

    Shalliss 17 April 2019 at 15:08 : “…devestation…”
    Oscar Slater 18 April 2019 at 08:49: “…devestation…”

    ?? (I’m not good with long words)

    Shallis dear, as an academic, please clarify.

    Pooh of Notre-Dame de Paris

    I used to play and sing this, Shallis honey, before my transfiguration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZDxYPn8K0Y

    1. Can't see this one going far Ziggy.

    2. Oscar Slater 18 April 2019 at 12:20

      Oz dear

      What is “…far Ziggy”? Are you addressing comrade Zee with regard to my post? Surely you don’t think we are one and the same, dear.

      No, I’m not calling you Shirley.


  21. 11:34

    There is an informality to posting that I have had to accept. It's casual - normal standards of proof reading have to be relaxed, especially when typing straight into the reply box.

    I found that a difficult line to cross, and accept. I wince when I see a typo/grammatical error/correction of auto-correct has slipped through in my posts. Did at that one, actually. It makes me gracious to the 'mistakes' of others though.

    Think on.

    I don't click on You Tube play list suggestions, sorry.


    1. @13:04


      What caught my attention was that two people made the same unusual typing/spelling error. But that’s just my curiosity of course.

      “It makes me gracious to the 'mistakes' of others though.”

      That’s good to know: I’m a lousy writer.

      “Think on.”

      Good advice, thank you. I certainly will.

      “I don't click on You Tube play list suggestions, sorry.”

      I understand. Please don’t be sorry, for help is at hand.

      Small Faces

      Picked her up on a Friday night
      Sha la la la lee, yeah
      I knew everything gonna be alright
      Sha la la la lee, yeah
      Sha la la la lee

      I asked her "Where do you wanna go?"
      Sha la la la lee, yeah
      Well we went someplace I don't know
      Sha la la la lee, yeah
      Sha la la la lee

      I held her close and I asked her if she was gonna be my baby
      It felt so good when she answered me
      Oh yeah, oh yeah
      Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah

      She looked good and she moved so fine
      Sha la la la lee, yeah
      And all the guys knew she was mine
      Sha la la la lee, yeah
      Sha la la la lee

      I held her close and I asked her again if she was gonna be my baby
      It felt so good when she answered me
      Oh yeah, oh yeah
      Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah

      Wanna know how my story ends?
      Sha la la la lee, yeah
      Well we invited just a few close friends
      Sha la la la lee, yeah

      Sha la la la lee
      Sha la la la la la lee [x11]

      Do you see what I’m getting at?

      Kindly yours

      Pooh the Gracious

    2. Pooh, you are a fud of the highest order, even liking the Small Faces will not chance that my little egocentric friend.

      Pure coincidence about the spelling mistake, but in Internet terms it is a smoking gun.

  22. Pooh of Notre-Dame de Paris (11:34)

    I knew everything gonna be alright.

    To quote someone else: "We'll just have to wait and see, something we are quite good at."

    Happy Easter Rosalinda & everyone!


    1. Dear NL

      Thank you so much for your timely comment. It’s precious to me.

      I note your careful use of italics. Time after time you find, without using honey, a path to my heart.

      I’m most grateful. If I may, to avoid ambiguity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhts-Qm_8DY

      A Happy Easter to you and your country.


      Pooh the Humble

    2. Thanks for the link Pooh, much appreciated and very appropriate. Was it Arthur Rubinstein who said “You cannot play the piano well unless you are singing within you.”?


      Kind regards


    3. Many thanks for your kind wishes NL and a happy Easter to you. :)

  23. Dear Rosalinda

    My reply at about 15:41 today to Shallis seems to have not found its way on the blog. Would you please be so kind as to have a look for the poor thing.



  24. Has he gone?
    Is it safe to come out now?

  25. I know it.s nearly another annicersay of when this happened.Somebody said they might use it to announce that theyre closing the case.I don't know if they'll do that but i think the police in the UK have been quiet but it doesn't mean they haven't been doing anything.Tose dogs weren't barking at thin air were they.It's funny that a chid had gone missing and they smelled evidence . I know it's hard to work out DNA and so on but i never knew it was hard to work out whose blood is whose.Those police who examined it must have out everything through a lot of tests if they were able to clear the mum and dad.Maybe not clear them but to say they didn't do anything.Its not like they had nothing to look at after the dogs had been there.So who was it i wonder.Who died there if it wasn't madeleine.Where did the blood come from.

    1. @18:59

      Good evening, my friend

      “Where did the blood come from.”

      Although Keelar had indicated the scent of human blood, her indications were not forensically confirmed. I have no reason to doubt Keelar’s ability and training.


    2. Ok thanks Pooh.Suppose that's another reason they didnt arrest anyone.I wonder if that means that they got rid of the blood then.

    3. What blood?

  26. How does Ziggy manage to type in a straitjacket from his cell at Stanley Royd?
    With a pencil gripped between his teeth?

    1. @21.21
      I thought it was Ashworth Hospital and when they let him out for a holiday in the summer it is Orchard House.
      He goes by the name Gary then.

    2. Please don't insult patients of psychiatric hospitals by comparing them to that horrible, personality disordered, little man. Seriously.

  27. Hi Rosalinda,
    It's sad, actually rather annoying that your blog has become hijacked.
    Mainly by a commentator - who's job it is to belittle the investigation and McCann's involvement in any criminality in their daughter's disappearance and most important to make everything about your site and your contributors figures of fun.

    Real posters with something to say have to struggle against daily nonsense by the pervert patroller of many names who patrols this site.

    Rosalinda, you probably need as many hits as you can get to make a living from the blogsite and there's the immense difficulty of reading and sorting through thousands? of comments daily. (Not absolutely sure how the system works)

    But... there is one thing you could think about doing.

    It would be a bit of a life changer.

    Do what many newspapers, magazines, and some blogs have started to do.
    Just get rid of the reader's comments section altogether.
    It makes for a clean read.

    Why burden the reader with malicious comments when all they wanted to do anyway was read the story written by the journalist.
    From what I can see over a couple of years is, everything you write on your blogsite generally supersedes anything your commentators have to add - so leave it at that.

    1. Hi JC, I'm hoping I have taken my blog back from the hijackers, or at least on the way there.

      Interesting suggest JC. I think the reason I don't is because I like the interaction. Even back to childhood my favourite part of a newspaper, was the comments section. Even at such a tender age I must have know the difference between fake and real news, lol.

      I think it ties in with my interest in human behaviour JC, I'm curious as to other people see the world from a difference perspective to me. I'm also extremely arrogant, I literally do have an answer to every question put to me. I can see why that so enrages the pros, lol.

      I'm also interested in what the 'pros' have to say, in the sense of what is the present stance of the McCanns, how are they feeling? Going by the replies that come here, in a state of perpetual fear and anger.

      They simply don't act like people who have the upper hand. If Gerry and Kate were in the clear, they would be doing interviews and running marathons. The supporters on here have only one defence, probably the same one used by the former suspects, there's no evidence. That along side abuse of GA, myself and this blog.

      I'd like to think the pros would use this blog to prove the McCanns innocence, to change public opinion back to liking them. I want to give them a voice an opportunity to show that the parents are not as cold hearted as they appear.

      I feel sorry for them because this is really the only place that gives them a large audience, it's a shame they don't use the privilege wisely. But I guess if they had anyone capable of putting forward a lucid, reasonable, defence of the multiple red flags, they would use them on their facebook page.


    2. I will certainly mull over your suggestion JC. It really takes up way too much of my time and there is so much else I want to do. Which is why, I should add, that I am so grateful to yourself and others for replying to so many of the posts.

      I don't actually earn anything from this blog JC, it is a labour of love and I would have to say a sense of duty. I feel it I owe it to my readers to carry on telling the truth about this case 'unbound'. There have been many times in my life where I have avidly followed a writer, simply because I loved their writing style. I remember many years ago picking up a copy of a Woman's Own (or Woman's Realm?) in the GP's surgery and stumbling upon 'The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole' by Sue Townsend. It was a weekly column and I was hooked! Jeffrey Bernard (when not unwell) arrived every Wednesday via a freebie magazine handed out at London stations called 'Midweek'.

      I feel I should put my talents to better use earnings wise JC. Maybe start another blog, I've never been technical enough to work out how to add different pages on this blog, doh!

      My problem is I don't know which to go. I have a lot of political views but they are not in line with anybody! Tis true I love Jeremy Corbyn and would marry John McDonell, I wince at many left wing principles, such as the 'nanny state' and political correctness gone mad.

      Take the 'me too' movement for example. It both offends and saddens me. One of the reasons I went to work every day (dolled up to the nines) was the whistles, winks, and let me buy me lunch offers. On the 'me too' front, I probably got everything I deserved, but not enough to make me feel or act like a victim. My dear old momma taught me not to be afraid of anyone, and I wasn't, nor were the others girls I worked with. Gropers were the joke of the office, They weren't scary.

      Unfortunately writing about this case has made my name toxic JC. Perhaps I should invent a new pen name and start again from there. I can't change my writing style, that would be spotted straight away, but I could at least find whole new audiences to offend.

      I'm undergoing a transition at the moment JC, so your post is timely. I've always thought you only hit one or maybe two watersheds in your life, but that's not true you hit a lot more. A sort of 'is this it?' moment, a realisation that you have to work to achieve your goals. and if you work, you will achieve them.

      How many books could I have written while I have been squabbling with McCann fanatics on here. Why am I wasting my precious time, and all the wisdom I have worked so hard to acquire on here?

      Crazy. Yes indeed, and I have a certificate to prove it.
      Part of my crazy however, is that when the time is right, I will be able to publish a book and have a large, established audience to buy it. Maybe that bestseller I always dreamed of.

      I have the crazy temperament of an artist, I think I am a genius, but at the same time I want to slap myself for being so useless. I compare myself to other writers (who make money)and I can see why editors reject me. But I am looking for excuses, I need to focus. I am sitting on a mountain of scripts that I have never sent to anyone, therein may lay the problem.

      But I'm not bitter. The past week or so has been a much needed wake up call. These people are literally leeching off my talent as a writer to promote their obnoxious views. What was I thinking. Bless you JC, you are a true friend.

    3. Oh my God, Ros. Talk about my coming late to the party (twelve years late you might say, in truth), on the cusp of you jacking in the whole thing – for very understandable reasons.

      I do hope I am not some atom (or sub-atomic particle) in a-straw-and-camel-back scenario. I do feel I set off an intense spate of: ‘kill, kill’, rage in Z by my showing up. And my complete naivety in spotting trolling (sigh), cluttered up your comment feed with my fruitless, and bootless responses to him. I’ve learnt.

      Why should you put up with the abuse? apart from the heavy time commitment? I very quickly wondered, ‘how did I get here?’ ‘communicating’ with Z. In real life – one would just quickly walk away, surely. The ‘blog takeover’ I can imagine was insidious. And ‘what to do?’ to encourage real debate.

      I worry I am a McCann case dilettante! Passing through, as I have the time just now, and I revel in the ‘who dunnit?’ of it all. The other hook for me isn’t so much ‘justice for Madeleine’ (if I’m honest), it’s the the effrontery of the grotesque PR scam pulled on me. The monstrous, flaunted perversion of justice. The use of me (because I never knew to question ‘abduction’) as part of a biddable, cow-like crowd of the ‘kind-hearted’, to denigrate others who did smell a rat, as trolls and haters. Count me out as your ammunition. Think I’m in it for the duration.

      Madeleine herself was commodified by her own parents so long ago. You get little sense of the child that was (let’s not start on the choice of photograph to lead her campaign). One briefly does, from photos of her romping on the first night in Luz; all trust and excitement; her face, emerging from a cute babyhood into one full of character, and feistiness. Full of life. Poignant.

      Can’t think this blog has made your name toxic. Far from it, the reverse surely? Toxic where?

      Ah, the great majestic wreck that was Jeffrey Bernard. I remember him one night at The Groucho Club in the late eighties, when I was eating at an adjoining table to his, where he dined alone (he seemed a permanent fixture there). I had been wittering on for a long time (as I often did), in my rapid, over-enthusiastic, and over-earnest, girlish way, about The Importance of Art and Our Cultural Moment, and so forth; stripped through no doubt, with the inanities of my Very Important, but actually inconsequential, over-protected, over-indulged little circle – when he deliberately caught my attention, held my gaze, and said very slowly (through his sozzlement, to be sure): ‘Oh, My God!’, and I remember simultaneously, completely failing to understand what he meant (what did he say that to me for, apropos of ‘absolutely nothing’?), whilst also being aware I had been totally exposed, and thoroughly chastened by him. Humiliated even. That he had intentionally pulled me up sharp – and I better work out why for myself. Go to it. See, I have remembered it all these years! It’s still a useful sort of rebuke, and challenge.


    4. LOL Shallis, there are many times in my life where I wish Jeffery Bernard had intervened with an 'Oh My God'. He was indeed an old reprobate, but I loved his dry, cynical humour.

      I had the pleasure of once dining at the Groucho Club with a renowned publisher. It was a delightful
      (he loved my writing) and successful meeting. I was very nervous and ordered risotto on the grounds that I didn't want anything I could slosh over me, or have the need to use to use a sharp knife that might slip and stab him.

      Re Jeffery Bernard I wish I had wandered down to Soho a bit more often when he wrote his weekly columns, he was a permanent fixture I believe in the bars and in the Groucho Club.

    5. Hi, Ros. Sunday morning convalescing in the garden with the birds twittering all around.

      It’s easy to romanticize, isn’t it? Reality is JB was a notorious old curmudgeon. To me, kind of present in Groucho like a vast heap of clothing, I didn’t notice him that night until he spoke to me. That whole Soho thing, of the old timer boys’ club (which it was): is the company of drunks interesting to anyone other than another drunk? I often think those classic: ‘wish I’d been there’ historic art circles we might dream about (Bloomsbury Group, Bauhaus, there are so many), might feel *very* different if you were dropped in amongst them now. More than disappointing, a bit tiresome, even. Has to be said, on another planet in another galaxy preferable to joining that tapas dinner in Luz – the grimness! JT desperate not to sit beside Gerry again, as he had banged on about tennis without mercy the last time; the puerile joke *they kept repeating*, thinking it was clever and funny. They seem so at a loss for conversation they are discussing their child check visit details with each other. Don’t think there was much in the way of sparkling repartee at that table. And the ‘all in’ food and wine probably wasn’t up to very much. And then the constant, nagging worry about the children . . ..

      Agree about some of MeToo. The important thing in male/female work relationships is misuse of power blocking women from advancement – in subtle ways too, not just the obvious – like an unconfident young man being encouraged to to fit in, to ‘belong’, but a young woman’s confidence being undermined as she is not taken seriously, and must battle that just to get to the start line. This has been getting steadily better forever (not fast enough). Casting women as perennial, delicate ingénues in need of ‘protection’ seems a negative throw back to me. Can imagine that if a friend in my social circle had told us, all batting eyelids, she’d been invited up to the bedroom of some old roué to discuss an acting part – but when she’d got there (imagine!) *it wasn’t like that at all!* we would have collapsed in laughter at her naivety. Not defending the behaviour, of course. And good to call out. I know that industries that rely on someone directly trading their youth and beauty (modelling/ acting, in some instances), are particularly vulnerable to overt misuse of sexual power. Good to expose an industry’s ingrained, taking advantage misbehaviour. But sex pests themselves have never been the real problem. And every generation of women learns how to deal with them – and have the upper hand.

      Do hope your soul-searching over the direction of your writing is bearing even a wee bit of fruit.

  28. I don't think that neglect has ever been written out of the missing Madeleine narrative. They were obviously negligent. They were on holiday, and they left their guard down. They believed that their children were safe, and consequently under-estimated the risk to their children that their actions might cause.

    But before casting stones you should reflect upon the many negligent acts that we, as parents or guardians, may have committed ourselves. Negligent acts that, by the grace of God, went unpunished. Whether driving a little too fast with a child in the car, or even with just one unit of alcohol in our system (by the way, wasn't Amaral caught DIU with his son in his car), or being distracted for a few moments while our children bathe or play in a park - these are all negligent acts.

    And the apartment complex they stayed in were also negligent in not informing their guests that apartments in the complex had been burgled in the previous weeks.

    1. Hi, Anon at 11:58

      it is just so important to clear this up, against the PR spin of 'there but by the grace of god, go I', which seeks to shame us into not 'casting a stone'. Your examples of parental lapses of attention (we've all had those, our gratitude at our children surviving them intact, unending) are not equatable to what they did at all. Their risk-taking was both grosser - and premeditated (they conducted 'risk assessment' according to the rogatory statements). Kate is stated as doubting it met acceptable safety standards herself (rogatory, again). It was repeated over several nights, too. I agree they kidded themselves that 'different rules applied' on holiday. But that doesn't mitigate the seriousness of what they did one little bit.

      I, for one, would never have driven my children with one drop of alcohol in my blood. I bring this up as I do not require myself, as a questioner of the abduction story, to consider AG a saint. Nothing in my thinking is dependent on it. His conduct, that you cite here, is irrelevant. Not a benchmark.

      No, MW did not need to warn functioning adults that holiday apartments opening directly onto public roads, so outside of a gated complex that MW could take some responsibility to secure, would be at risk from opportunistic thieves. They would know this. Holiday makers would be expected to take normal precautions. Whilst on the subject, they also did not need to explain to holiday makers what a paedophile is, and why they should be considered a (very small) risk to their children at all times - wherever they happened to be staying, or living.

      As parents it is unconscionable, irresponsible behaviour to just assume your children are safe. A dereliction of your duty of care. The fate that befell Madeleine, by their account, was not outside (a highly unlikely) result of their failure in her protection, so one they should have envisioned. It is far more likely, of course, that other consequences of their abandonment of her would have occurred: from just waking, and being terrified at her parents' absence, to walking out of the unlocked apartment herself, and perhaps being run over on the trafficked street directly outside.

      Leaving the children as they did is not defencible. Pointing this out is not being 'holier than though', not hypocritical. But it is certainly not falling victim to the relentless, minimising PR spin of the actual circumstances, and seriousness of what they did.


  29. You just can't stay away can you Ziggy? That dig at Goncalo Amaral gave you away.

    As for the many negligent acts we have all got away with, this wasn't a one off momentary lapse in judgement Ziggy. It was premeditated and pre-planned and quite deliberate, they made a collective decision to leave the kids on their own, knowing and ignoring the risks. And by risks I mean accident, not abduction.

    Your final paragraph is absurd. What holiday resort would put up notices telling their clientele they are likely to be burgled? Most people know not to leave their apartments unlocked and their valuables lying around, it's kind of like stating the bleeding obvious. Most people know that young children should not be left unsupervised. Are the tapas group so thick that they themselves needed adult supervision?

    Planning to leave the children on their own every night of the holiday was cold, callous and deliberate, it wasn't a momentary lapse in judgment.

  30. I see a man that wouldn't take no for an answer and his put upon wife. It's a pity she can't own up to that too.

    I'll never forget the first time I saw them on TV. Her head bowed and his angry stare.

    At the time I believed the abduction story and thought he was angry at her for her mistake.

    Whatever it was, I wouldn't like to have been in her shoes. My great hope is that one day he will be exposed for the controlling bully he is.

    1. The feminist within me is constantly riled by the subjugated little woman Kate presents. Tis true I am not a fan of public displays of affection, of the more intimate and cloying kind, the hand on Gerry's thigh, yuck, the constant handholding. Kate looks and acts as though she is in constant fear another woman will steal her man.

      I wouldn't feel too sorry for Kate, the relationship is symbiotic, she likes being the little girl in need of protection, he likes being the protector. I tend to think however, he would have thrown her to the wolves if she had been charged and he hadn't.

      In most cases I would say living with a control freak is punishment enough, but some people depend on another person to control their life, they need another half. Kate looks as though she could not function as a single entity. Kate doesn't perform well on her own, she points out 'Gerry is usually here with me'. She cannot control her inner petulant child, 'who is he?' when asked about Stephen Birch. Fair comment away from the cameras, but arrogant in front of the nation on breakfast TV.

      There is so much more I would like to write about the dynamics of the group and the personalities involved, but That will be when we are free to discuss this case without being condemned as haters and pitchforkers. In a nutshell, I need an ending and I need to be sure Amazon will allow me to publish. Look what happened to Pat Brown.

      Interesting topic though Oscar, you are giving me an idea for a new blog!

    2. Hi, Ros and Oscar

      'There is so much more I would like to write about the dynamics of the group and the personalities involved'.

      Me too, it's fascinating. And a vital key. Though obviously supposition. The strained relationships between the tapas group, then K&G, then (said with delicacy, and the proviso, and humility I might be wrong) Kate and her daughter.

      The changes in all the relationships pre/post the disappearance.

      Kate said that 'Kate Healy' died that night. Quashed forever by 'Kate McCann'. I think it is so revealing as to how she felt. She said she'd only ever used her maiden name before - not true, as she'd happily, and casually slipped between the two names in relationship to her children (as a mother does). But that night, she is saying she has lost herself forever.

      Think of the degree of autonomy inherent in the use of either name.

      As Ros says, there is no way of discussing the vital psychology of this case here without tiresome, closed-minded 'haters' telling us we are 'hating'. Big sigh.

      When this ends, be sure, a billion people will jump on the bandwagon and say: 'I always knew'. True of very many. Carter Ruck. The media are stifled.

      But, those who should have known better, those who followed the story and swallowed the absolute fairy tales, will hardly want to admit they did not realise the emperor was starkers.

      There will be a publishing avalanche. Bunfight to make the definitive documentary exposé, the dramatised feature film . . ..

      We will get pretty sick of it pretty fast. It will be over kill. Ros's work here will already have been done!


    3. ''My great hope is that one day he will be exposed for the controlling bully he is.''

      What ? What are you on about

    4. Hi Ziggy, it's really that he is a bully that controls and I hope greatly that in the future this will be exposed.

    5. I saw the video of them returning for a "reconstruction" on NLs site. If you were ever in any doubt as to what an egotistical rat Gerry is, watch the way he totally undermines Jane Tanner's version of the meeting with him and Jez.

      They are left in one of those moments where you know challenging him is just going to lead to a very public argument.

      I think it is lack of social skill and complete disregard for others which has got him this far.

      One day though he will stab the wrong person in the back. He can't help himself, he always has to be the cleverest little boy in the class.

      Maybe that's what the allusion to "allegiances changing was. Gerry has very few, if any friends. No doubt due to his need to control every aspect of a relationship to promote his own vainglorious image of himself.

      It's not rocket psychology. The characteristics of abusive relatiobships are pretty consistent.

  31. Ros

    You mentioned very early on on this blog about the McCanns trusting their Tapas friends with regard to Madeleine's abduction although I can't find it now, it's too far back but thought I would add my bit anyway.

    The McCanns Tapas friends apparently didn't know each other well from what I remember reading a long time ago, there were a few who knew each other but not so much the rest of the group, so why would the McCanns trust people that weren't all that friendly with each other (Jane Tanner obviously didn't like GM very much judging by her interview), therefore, the only explanation is that they were all in on the "scam" and know the reason why Madeleine "disappeared", didn't one of the men, can't remember who now stated to a reporter "we have a pact". So what would the pact be - that they've been threatened with libel action if they ever speak the truth of what happened perhaps.

    They must all know what happened otherwise it would be like the Agatha Christie novel, "Then there were none", where 10 strangers are invited to a remote mansion in Devon, they all start getting bumped off one by one, none of them know who the killer is, so if the Tapas friends don't know each other that well how would they know between them all who was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

    They obviously all know otherwise they couldn't live with themselves not knowing if one of them may blow the whole thing apart. They must be very sure that none of them will and even if one or two of them were completely innocent why would they go along with a pact to protect the others. It doesn't make sense.

    1. No, they weren't lifelong buddies as they implied, but to be honest if I had been in Kate's position I would have suspected everyone, even Gerry, yeah he too was away from the table for a long time.

      It was David Payne who told a journalist they had a pact of silence, an odd thing to say and terrible PR. I think whatever they were up to, they were all involved. Why else would they stay in the apartment and write out a timeline as others searched? Why was getting their alibis straight their top priority?

      You think of Agatha Christie's 'Ten Little Indians', I think of Edgar Allan Poe's 'Tell Tale Heart', I think they are all living with a big secret that is driving them demented. I think you would have to be a psychopath, not to be tortured by a never ending sense of impending doom.

      And I think that is why the case cannot close. A pact of silence or a collective secret is only as strong as it's weakest link. And I don't think the secret is confined to the tapas group and the McCann entourage. What of all the British police who threw in their twopenneth worth? Especially those who flew out there, were they all completely taken in?* Are British police that gullible? Not a single whistleblower among them?

      Too many people know the truth for this to remain a secret forever, literally any day, someone tormented by that tell tale heart, may break and tell everything. Relationships change, friends become enemies, grudges may be brewing. The secret sits atop a house of cards with a gale force wind heading in it's direction. There is no way of fixing the foundations or propping it up, or it would have been done before.

      *With the exception of Mark Harrison who advised the PJ to look at the parents and bring in the dogs.

    2. Why would any of the Tapas 7 speak up. They know this case has been inactive since 2008 in the eyes of law enforcement and nothing will change.

      If ever questioned, their simple answer would be, we were following the advice given to us by the UK Police regarding returning for a reconstruction.

      We were told by UK Police Officers to put Murat in the frame.

      The PJ know the UK Police have never been honest and have hindered their investigation from the start and whenever possible.

      The PJ know Mrs Payne and Mrs Oldfield committed criminal offences regarding Murat and have had 10 years to act. They have not, as they know it would require senior UK Police Officers to investigate themselves.

      The PJ investigation was re-opened only after OG invented crèche man to make the PJ look more inept and incompetent to the British public.
      Some authority in Portugal must have decided enough of the nonsense.
      If it was active, they would arrest Payne and Oldfield, it will not happen too embarrassing all round.

    3. Hi, JJ

      I know we have differed elsewhere here over our interpretation of OG and the JT crecheman. A very interesting nugget of information you provide that it was at this point (arrival of crecheman) that the PJ reopened their investigation. As you know, I think 'crecheman' was a public announcement of the collapse of 'the official story'. (JT as a witness doesn't matter after that, off she goes). To me the OG/PJ timings here demonstrate synchronicity. I find them significant (for different reasons than you). It was the place for PJ to pick up again from where they had left off. And OG/PJ to move on together (protocol nightmare here). It's called a *joint* investigation. Do you doubt that? It seems you do. Why?

      This investigation is now a question of getting all the ducks in a row before moving on anything. Can't do prosecutions piecemeal, or it jeopardises the investigation of the largest crime. And everything as secret as possible, to avoid massive media frenzy and speculation.

      I think the police see what we see (OG/PJ). There isn't anything else to see.

      The tapas 7 (and K&G) were not legally required to return to Portugal. It was nothing to do with the British police. K&G would have had to be extradited to face charges to get them back. None of them broke the law refusing to cooperate. They will never be questioned over it.

      Murat could sue, for sure. Case against JT, too. I don't think police framed him. But weird abnegation of individual police officer professional neutrality, and the protocols designed to safeguard justice, in this case. What were Control Risks doing in the van with JT when she was about to name Murat as the abductor? Why did police allow it? Had they lost their very minds?

      So, I don't think tapas 3 false testimony against Murat implicates police (or JT's come to that). Interested to hear why you do.


    4. Post script, to 15:58

      Oscar (thank you) has provided a link to the OG home page, and I've just bestirred myself to check it out.

      Here's the relevent bit pulled from there (my emphasis):

      [Original enquiry in 2011]

      'a review of *all of the investigations* that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

      Ongoing investigation

      In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities *to pursue specific lines of enquiry*.

      The Portuguese authorities retain the lead and the Met continues to work in support of them'.

      Doesn't make JJ have to agree that's what they are doing! But interesting to get their official take on it. I don't doubt it myself. The hierarchy is interesting. I didn't know that PJ took the lead (I suppose obvious one force would have to). Lack of cooperation would surely scupper this case good and proper. Expect extradition, and trial in Portugal then?


    5. Can anyone remember the name of the British cop who said "loyalties change over time". It was around about the time OG said they were mystified for the first time.

    6. Oscar at 18:34

      I remember that too. Think it derives from an ex-Met officer (Peter Kirkham) commenting on the new investigation from the outside in 2013. Long quote for context (emphasis mine):

      'Errm... There are some things that you just can't do, you know, crime scenes have gone and things like that, errm... but there are some advantages. There... if somebody knows something and at the time doesn't tell the police - because they've got loyalties to people or they don't want to drop them in trouble - then *loyalties can change over time;* psychological pressure, of knowing something that nobody else knows, can build over time and so it... it can, you know, when you come back to a case, it can break it open'.

      (source: http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id462.htm. The brilliance of that site).

      Maybe OG person said it too.

      (I am wondering, if I can so eagerly beetle about finding things out here - that I am kidding myself I am not up to 'proper work' research).

      Can I nag you about the bruises? Not from just grabbing someone when they were hysterical? Railings?


    7. Re the bruises, I can't see the upper arm bruising being from anything other than someone holding them , more likely the result of a bear hug from behind, than pressure from hands.

      Let's say someone was hysterically hitting their forearms against a railing, and someone hugged them from behind that might explain it

      It looks like one person has done the restraint. It is worth pointing out only a particular type of health worker is trained to restrain without harming the patient. None of that group would fit the profile

      Likewise, if it was the police, I would expect deep bruising as a result of thumb pressure to cause pain. Police are allowed to use pain as a means of restraint.

      I don't think the Portuguese police will be any different.

    8. Oscar 22 April 13.33

      Those bruises on KM's arms look like someone was holding her arms from the front to stop her attacking someone, perhaps the person she was attacking had to hold her in restrain to stop themselves being beaten up.

      Imagine someone coming at you in sheer anger to beat you about the head or shoulders, your first fight back would be to grab their arms from beating down on you.

      That's what those bruises look like to me.

      Was it because KM was talked into leaving Madeleine on her own in the apartment with the twins and they came back hours later to find her bleeding and dying on the marble floor or was it due to someone else who had access to the apartment who had violated her, hence her "genitals being torn apart" mention in KM's book.

      There didn't seem to be any bed railings that KM could bang her arms against unless she went out on to the balcony, although that would be suicidal if a passing tourist saw her in the throws of anger and screaming at GM.

    9. From experience, you would be at danger of spitting, biting and head butting if you held an assailant in the way you describe.

      Also you would have to be mindful of your own private parts being vulnerable to a knee in the groin.

      I can't see any value in further speculation - the bruises on the forearms are unlikely to be as a result of restraint IMO.

  32. It does make sense if they are all subject to the Official Secrets Act.

    1. Anon 21 April 07.50

      I'm not sure with that reply if you're being obtuse or trying to close down discussion.

      Why would all of the Tapas 9 be subject to the Official Secrets Act. Half of them were just ordinary citizens, Dianne Webster for instance, the mother of Fiona Payne, FP was a physician; Jane Tanner, a marketing manager; Rachel Oldfield, a lawyer.

      I can understand G McCann having to be subject to the OSA if he was on a committee pertaining to COMARE.

      If any one of them knew what happened to Madeleine I can understand them having a pact between them but not being subject to the OSA. That's taking speculation too far, so now we're back to the "pact", why would 9 friends, some of whom barely knew each other cover each other's back in a "pact" when a child disappears into thin air?

      It does make you wonder, well perhaps not you as you're probably a McCann family member, but it does for me and probably many others.

  33. Ros you say the case cannot close,I tend to agree but for different reasons,there'll be no announcement to it SY are in too deep,they don't have an exit strategy.They thought they would go out to Portugal after reading the files and coming up with the fanciful burglar theory.Dig up the countryside find the corpse,your mothers brother is called Bob and all sorted.We all know it wasn't like it.The team was drastically cut from circa 30 to just 4 now,what evidence is there that they are actively seeking evidence to bring it to a close.
    Apparently no one from grange can be contacted now,is it stil running? the met web site has removed all reference to grange?

    1. 'One final line of enquiry . . .', they said.

      If you allow yourself a bit of logical thinking, there is only one 'line' that could possibly be. Only one.

      OG/current PJ are very careful, and measured about what statements they have put out to the public. It is possible to infer where they are really at, against a superficial interpretation.

      Once the 'official story' is collapsed (it has been - JT sighting dismissal was the removed 'bottom baked bean tin'), there is only one conclusion to draw. (Obviously, keeping the minute likelihood of another, fabulous explanation on hold, until solid proof of the one that all arrows point towards as flipping obvious is gained. That's lack of bias).

      Proof is the sticking point. Clearing the bar of evidence required to take to trial. And, in this high profile, sensitive case they would wait until it was considered beyond water-tight. And move on everything all at once, to avoid media frenzy and speculation.

      A confession would do it. Unbelievable burden someone is carrying.

      We wait and see. They won't drop it.


    2. Hi Shallis,

      To me the sticking point for going after them now is that the public quite rightly as "what kept you?"

      Or, "it took you 12 years to work out what was staring you in the face." Of course, it wasn't just staring the police in the face, it was staring those who pay the police in the face.

      I think they are going to have to bite the bullet and walk away and say "we did all we can, we have done our absolute best for the McCanns."

      That then leaves the McCanns to play the good guys thank everyone for the efforts they have made, and ask the public for support to look, not just for Madeleine, but for all the missing people.

      They can even be the great humanitarians and offer to devote their own lives to it, now the twins are getting older. Out comes the begging bowl, and off the go with critics silenced for ever more.

      You can just hear Gerry now, "what you want us to do like, turn ourselves in, don't you think with all that police money and time focussed on us they'd have come up with something?"

      (Alternatively picture Jimmy Cagney, as Gerry, "you dirty coppers got nothing on me, see?)

    3. Oh God, Oscar, I very much hope not. I'm not so pessimistic. It takes as long as it takes. Staring in the face doesn't = evidence, as Gerry is so acutely aware. Exoneration is never going to happen is it? Unless, evidence turns up that Peter Pan flew in through the open window, and whisked Maddie off to Neverland, or whatever.


    4. It pays to be pessimistic you'd have to be blind not to see what is so obvious

      The Gerry McCanns of this world could fall in the sea and come out dry. Look at all the criminals that keep their jobs in the NHS, or the banks.

      It's only things like Hillsborough that give me hope that one day people have to face the truth. But look how much campaigning that took.

    5. the police exonerated the McCanns years ago

    6. @23;35 from what exactly?

    7. 23:35 which police? Not the Portuguese.

    8. No, 18:35, they absolutely, categorically were not exonerated.

      This can be demonstrated as fact, not opinion.

      Tiresome to keep rebutting. A foundation myth.


    9. Hi, Oscar

      'You'd have to be blind not to see what is so obvious'.

      The police aren't blind.


    10. No Shallis, but sometimes they are unable to speak.

  34. I found this if it's any help.


  35. The speculation on blogs, forums, facebook and twitter is now so intense it has to come to some conclusion surely.

    When you think, if, the Macanns are innocent of everything, other than leaving the children alone, giving any would be intruder an opportunity, has there ever been such a case where parents have had so much bad luck, first the the tragedy of their child being abducted, then the first police on the scene are tweedle de and tweedle dum, the officer in charge is inept, private investigators prove to be corrupt, they are swindled out of money, the celeb friend they make is found to be a pervert, they are forced to sue all and sundry who accuse them of involvement, it goes on, and on ! What the hell happened ? It is now getting silly. Does anyone out there agree ?

    1. Dear, 09:14

      You replying to, 'it is now getting silly'. with a 'no'.

      You are blessed with a very high silliness threshold. All this became an insult to our intelligence long ago (once anyone gives it the slightest attention).


    2. Bad luck eh. Don't you ever wonder why no other parent has ever suffered such bad luck 22.12, why no other parents at the resort or indeed any resort ever, have had a child 'taken'? No other parent was that unlucky because no other parent would put their kids at risk like that.

      It wasn't bad luck 22:12, it was selfishness. None of them were prepared to give up or compromise their adults only evening meals to take care of their children. And it was arrogance. They believed their system was superior to the checking system of 1950's Butlins and the facilities offered by Warners. And they still do! The only fault on their part was not considering a child abductor, and they can't be blamed for that.

      There is no such thing as an accident someone said (it may have been Freud, Sigmund not Clement)subconsciously we will them to happen. Here is an example. Last week I made a lemon meringue pie, blind baking the pastry first, by lining it with greaseproof paper and baking beans. From the moment I put it in the oven I couldn't stop thinking about how I would lift the paper out without spilling the baking beans everywhere. I envisaged dropping the whole lot everywhere. Guess what happened. I should have envisaged myself successfully lifting them out. Doh!

      Very few of us use our brains correctly, when it helpfully gives us visions of possible outcomes,we inevitably pick the wrong one. Imagine picking up a tray of long stemmed champagne flutes filled to the brim. Can you do it or can't you? Me? I see myself apologising profusely for the spillage and broken glass. I have already decided on an accident.

      I jest of course, the collective decision was not a subconscious decision they were not aware of. Six of them were doctors, they should have been more aware of the risks, haven't they ever worked in A&E?

    3. For god's sake Ziggy, where's your dignity man?

    4. Rosalinda Hutton at 11.29 I was being a little sarcastic Ros ! Of course it wasnt bad luck. I feel as you expressed in your first paragraph.

      Im not ziggy

  36. RE; Mr Z @22:12,
    Your footprint is all over your last post as Anonymous at 22:12
    No, the case is not "getting silly". You wish!

    The McCanns and their crooked friends are guilty of a cover up, and the case will, as you say, to your annoyance, - "Go on and on" despite trying to throw a spanner in the works by scribbling at every spare moment of day release from your psychiatric unit.

    I suggest after checking in with a counsellor to get back to your room as soon as possible, switch on your computer and scroll through the thousands of internet blogs and opinion pieces where the evidence of the McCann's guilt is profound.(blood in the apartment - body fluids in the car etc).
    And with all your will power - think about it.

    The world sees through the machinations of the delightful Rothley doctors and their friends just as transparently as you do.

    But you gotta pretend. Right?
    Have a nice day.

    1. Anonymous at 3.33 see anonymous at 13.08 !

  37. The PJ have examined Tanners story in great detail and state she has no credibility as a witness and her descriptions were altered or perfected to tell a particular story.

    OG believe every word of Jane Tanner and discovered a night crèche the PJ knew nothing about and as a consequence found the Tannerman but he was a totally innocent holidaymaker, luckily still wearing the same clothes.

    Tanner's evidence can never be discounted and to believe OG could make Crecheman believable in any court, is laughable.

    OG finding Crecheman/Tannerman is a guarantee nobody will ever see the inside of any court.

    CEOP's involvement is another guarantee. Mark Rowley's involvement, Supt Hill's involvement, Supt Prior's involvement, are also guarantees.

    There is a wide spread belief the Police can lie, deceive and doctor evidence to obtain convictions, it is not true.

    The PJ charged Amaral with perjury to show they are people of integrity and decency and will pursue the truth wherever it may lead. Why haven't OG done the same with Supt Hill?

    There is not nor ever has been a joint investigation all the PJ have ever received from the UK police is obstruction, denigration, lies and deceit.

    Neither investigation is active the PJ reopened their side simply to prevent any more UK nonsense.

  38. Hi, JJ. You know I disagree on this . . .

    'Tanner's evidence can never be discounted'.

    It so can be. So has been.

    'Crecheman' is a fall guy, so to speak.

    JT's credibility as a witness was destroyed *within days* after the disappearance. Obviously, if someone comes forward as a witness their statement has to be taken seriously and carefully checked out, even if it's doubted from the beginning. Which it was.

    Crecheman's possible route does not fit where JT states she saw her abductor. Or what he looked like (though she was notoriously all over the place on that). Clearly the night creche was no surprise to the PJ. Most people don't know details of this case. They would be quite happy with her 'mistaken identity'. We know it is absurd. So do OG/PJ. PJ are not insulted, they understand she must be waved goodbye. Real witnesses must be allowed to come forward for period after 9.15. Which wouldn't happen if her 'crapman' stood.

    She has been given a quiet retreat, but the public announcement of the removal of her testimony, also *publicly collapses the 'official story'*. But without a media storm of speculation. I honestly think that some folk must have felt uncomfortably holed up in a bunker ever since.

    CEOP = Jim Gamble. He is, to quote Terry Thomas, 'an absolute shower'. Netflix bilge had a few (unintentionally) interesting moments - JG simultaneously madly, 'on the (revisionist) record', back-pedalling (to cover his arse) from his blind acceptance of the 'official story' (and the championing of Gerry), whilst still leeching onto it for his own advancement (with his fantastical, insulting to real victims of trafficking, twisted rubbish), was one of them.

    There may well be calls for an enquiry after this. But probably will be thought not in the public interest. it isn't Hillsborough or Bloody Sunday. This is individuals acting like blithering, vain idiots allowing themselves to be whipped up (and not professionally standing apart) from emotionally charged and manipulated media storm. Enquiries are long, slow, expensive, often unsatisfying (not like the results of the two mentioned here). How many protagonists have retired now anyway?

    An enquiry into how justice could have been perverted by multi million pound PR spin - with a hijack of truth, and a libel threatened media shut down on the back of it - that *will* be the necessary soul search. How could this state of affairs ever happen? It's a question of 'never again'.

    'There is not nor ever has been a joint investigation all the PJ have ever received from the UK police is obstruction, denigration, lies and deceit'.

    Have they though? Or is that what the spin wants you to believe? It's complex. Who profits from undermining/shutting down of OG, if it were a real investigation?


    1. I agree with everything you said Shallis, we think much along the same lines which is a pleasure for me, you often explains things so much better than I.

      Jim Gamble is a strange man. Who describes kids on a beach as 'scantily dressed'? Scantily dressed usually applies to beautiful models, female and male, not toddlers on a beach.

      I agree with you on the question of a Public Inquiry, and I would cite also the invasion of Iraq. I'm sure the Blair administration have many sordid secrets that could be far more devastating than the Madeleine case. If there were a queue for public inquiries, it would be at the bottom.

      JJ knows there is much he says that I do not agree with. The answer to, are OG and the PJ working together lies in the visuals, the digs in PDL, the arrival of OG officers at PJ headquarters, the meeting of our top Prosecutor and her assistant with the Portuguese Judiciary in Lisbon. What do the CPS have to do with a criminal prosecution in Portugal?

      Finally, we have been down this road before. For several months in 2007, the McCanns convinced the world that they were not suspects and the police were looking for an abductor. Behind the scenes, as Kate says in her book, things were chaotic, with her husband throwing himself on the floor in anguish.

      For me, that revelation explained how the parents and their friends were able to 'act normally' on the evening of 3rd May. The McCanns on too many occasions, gave interviews that implied they were fully co-operating with the police, and the police were looking for an abductor.

      In many ways, it could be that they are being equally successful with the same ruse 12 years on. Ie. The police don't consider them suspects and they are looking for an abductor. It's still working.

      The difference is they had no respect for the Portuguese investigation, they undermined them at every turn. They were told not to speak to the press, not to give out details of Madeleine's unique eye, but they did They turned to CEOP, and British police who were focussing on a stranger abductor rather than on themselves. Note there have been no 'sightings' or Posh Spice lookalikes acting suspiciously at Spanish harbours. No contracting of private detective to work alongside the official police investigation, as suggested by brother John, 'it's not a competition' he said, blissfully unaware of how insulting he was being to the Portuguese police and how inappropriate it was for suspects to hire their own private detectives. Have they ever dared to step on the toes of OG in such a way? No because there would be a public backlash if they did.


    2. Your last paragraph I would rephrase. Who benefits from the undermining/shutting down of Operation Grange? I have to say the parents obviously, it would be a load off. The only time I have ever seen them truly relaxed was in the 'Expresso Interview' after the file had been shelved and they were no longer arguidos.

      Maybe we should ask the question, who's name and reputation could potentially be destroyed if they were so easily taken in by so obvious a scam. Judges who gave them large libel awards, police chiefs releasing balloons at a fundraiser, police standing ovation, this case is littered with moments of incredulity. So many that a cover up may be a credible option. I've learned over the years never to rule anything out.

      It may be the knock on domino effect that is preventing this case from being solved. If, as we suspect, Gerry and Kate were involved, it is possible that all those who stayed with them in PDL were involved, it is possible all those they phoned on the night of 3rd/4th May were involved.

      How about the officials? The British Ambassador who arrived the very next day. Clarence Mitchell, the government appointed spokesman. Then we have CEOP, what did they have to with the disappearance of a 3 year old? I won't mention the tv presenters and the so called crime experts. How about all those who spun the closing statement of the PJ exonerated the McCanns when it clearly didn't. The truth methinks will result in a lot of egg on a lot of faces.

  39. Banging this one home . . .

    Tannerman is central to the whole 'official story'. His public removal by OG a disaster for its credibility.

    It is a *theory*, bear in mind. No retreating abductor, *no theory*. Nothing.

    The Find Madeleine site does not want to let him go. He is still there. Why, you might ask?

    I quote from the site.

    [The pictures are still there]: 'show[ing] a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007'.

    Clinging on to (a carefully worded):

    'Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. *However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person* if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE'.

    My emphasis.

    OG never said crecheman was seen at 9.15, 'carrying a child away from the apartment'. It is not a case of switching identities. He doesn't 'represent' anyone else (as in 'may represent' above). The man in the pictures is sadly deceased. The *whole sighting* is toast.

    'Smithman' has now had to be included in a general line up of reprobates. No context given, we notice. It doesn't matter if the Smiths were mistaken in their sighting here, or not. It matters that their testimony threatens the 'official story'.