Wednesday 1 May 2019

THE BIZARRO WORLD OF THE MCCANNS PART II

 

As lovely as it is to have my postbox buzzing and thriving,  it is forcing me to bring in [shudders] Rules, as the comments section is becoming unmanageable for me and I am sure it is for readers. I can’t help but think it is tactic to drown out the very sane and compelling arguments of the new posters.  

 
With regret, no more ‘one liners’, no more Winnie the Pooh stuff, no more copying and pasting entire posts, the last one especially, it is a waste of space, refer to the time of posting.  And finally, please, please identify yourselves in some way, even if it is only a letter from the alphabet.  It is simple courtesy and good manners, particularly if you are replying to one correspondent.
 
The discussions on here are becoming increasingly more interesting, I have always been proud of the calibre of my posters, and now it has gone up a couple of notches, the discussions are more interesting still. Perhaps that is why I am being invaded!
 
-----------------------------
 
The discussions on the last blog related to the declared innocence of the McCanns, police corruption and a zillions ways in which hate to GA.  My view is that Gerry and Kate have, on occasion, had police protection (depending on how you define 'protection', but I do not believe that an entire force, OG, which began with 30+ homicide detectives, would cover up the death of a child.  Those 30+ detectives must face not only themselves but their family, friends and colleagues, not to mention the impact it could have on their future careers if they are found to have lied.
 
*this is a work in progress, I will be continuing the blog, but rushing to get the 'Rules' out!
 

194 comments:

  1. ''I can’t help but think it is tactic to drown out the very sane and compelling arguments of the new posters. ''

    I think if you were to try and read the last thread with open eyes and a little honesty you'd see that the arrival of the 'trouble' coincided with the 'new posters' who think it's clever or amusing to hurl abuse at regular posters when they have nothing positive to contribute to a discussion or nothing to defend any claims they invent. Just remind posters ( all, rather than just those who hold a different view to yours and theirs), that silly or remarks and swearing like the naughty kid in the classroom isn't on. If that's the reason you've been forced to introduce rules, you've conceded defeat to trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The discussions on the last blog didn't go into 'zillions ' of ways to hate Amaral.They went in to about 3 or 4 reasons, all observations of truth. His narrow focus( it was the parents- period) ; he admitted mistakes himself ; he was found guilty of perjury ; he made false claims relating to the case and insisted they wee truth. They're all facts.You might hate them being facts, but that doesn't mean those who point them out hate Amaral.That's you making false accusations.

    The 'declared innocence' is also a fact. On your last thread, links were provided to show the declarations of both forces when they said they were satisfied that the parents were not involved with the disappearance of their child.Those who checked the links said it wasn't true. Are they saying the police were saying it for fun ?

    Citing the Supreme Court ruling about a book - partially- is desperate isn't it.The context of the ruling informs us that they( the court) were only there to decide over Amaral's right to be published, it wasn't a criminal trial about what happened to Madeleine.It reminded all not to conclude that it was a statement regarding the status of the parents guilt or innocence.It said that such a decision and trial would be for a criminal court only.

    A few people have pointed to the cover up you refer to, myself included.But none have said that they think 30 plus detectives would be party to it.You've been reminded often that they wouldn't have to even know who organised a cover up or why.They'd just be investigating fresh air once it was all tidied away prior to their arrival.Nobody but you suggests that they'd need to be in on it and face the daily torment. The interference of people far higher up the ladder than them suggests they'd be the last to know anyway.If it ever was leaked that it was a cover up, they wouldn't be blamed. Whoever covered up would be.There's nothing wrong with that.

    Z(s)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is that protection coming to an end, in a round about way though? Amaral reckons that OG are about to name a man, currently in jail in Germany, as the prime suspect.

    Much as that seems like good news for the McCanns they shouldn't get too excited. It then forces them to campaign for a trial when convenient.

    If they hate and despise the man that hindered their search, by accusing them, then surely the man that abducted their child can expect no mercy?

    They cannot turn round to OG and say, after 7 years, "we don't believe you". Particularly as they have been so supportive of OG's efforts up until now.

    So, let's say they do get a massive swell of public support behind their desire to see this man send trial. What do the PJ do?

    Do they say, "no he didn't do it", we've already ruled him out. We also ruled out the dead man who is said to have told OG who did it.

    Or, do they say, OK England wants this man tried, let's go for it. The man, of course is entitled to present a defence.

    I don't know what the technical term for blaming someone else for the crime is, but it would surely draw heavily on the PJ's original enquiry?

    We could see Kate and Gerry being examined and cross examined under close scrutiny, in full view of a media which cannot be restricted in reporting what is said at a trial.

    They asked for OG, they might regret that.

    Finally, happy to see rules put in place. To my regret, I was guilty of fuelling certain trolls' ire by responding to them in kind.

    If someone's only form of arguing is to attack the credibility of the poster, rather than dismantling their argument, they are not worthy of a reply. I'll leave it to McCann supporters to call people "tossers" in future - they've got previous for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the man in jail is deemed guilty by the police but this time has enough evidence against him, then nobody would need to campaign for a trial. He'd be arrested, charged, and put on trial.If it's just another publicity trick then nothing will come of it. It will be another false lead .

      Nothing concerned with the parents' feelings towards Amaral matter in terms of a supposed German suspect being at the mercy of the courts.They're not linked. They have no reason to tell OG that they don't believe them.Only if it turns out to be another 'one last lead' line again.In that case they'd have plenty of reasons to treat a false lead with contempt. They all begin to look like inventions after a while.

      ''So, let's say they do get a massive swell of public support behind their desire to see this man send trial. What do the PJ do?''
      The parent
      s can't sit like Roman emperors telling the police who they can arrest and what they want.The police are investigating and have a duty to the public who pay their salaries.If they have a case, they'll arrest him , charge him and he'll be on trial.
      The technical term for blaming someone else is accusing.

      The trail wouldn't require a cross examination of the parents other than for them to tell how things seemingly panned out on the night of the crime.They'd be witnesses. No more than that.The accused is the one on trial.

      I'm always wary when i hear a rumour like this. I always check the credentials of the source of said rumour. If this is coming from Amaral, I'll expect little to come of it.When does it ? He isn't even involved in the case now so what's he doing leaking info about OG ? He hasn't got another book to publicise has he...

      I agree with the rules move. Tourettes online is like reading 1970s graffiti slide up a wall.Amusing to kids.Annoying to grown ups.Messy overall .

      Z(s)

      Delete
    2. Hello Oscar 1 May 2019 at 16:34

      "Amaral reckons that OG are about to name a man, currently in jail in Germany, as the prime suspect"

      I've missed that Oscar, but if Amaral has said so, I'm inclined to believe him. Even if he's not on the case, he must still know quite a few persons in Portugal working on the case, who may've leaked things.

      A dead witness and a severe criminal alreday jailed, perhaps for the rest of his life, cannot for natural reasons ever be extradited, neither to the UK nor to Portugal. What a convenient ending of a sad story, especially for all the detectives, who have worked for the OG. Maybe this criminal, if he exists, can also remember to whom he handed over Madeleine, and perhaps he will be so nice to tell the McCanns where to find their immortal daughter.

      Delete
    3. Oscar Slater1 May 2019 at 16:34

      Amaral reckons that OG are about to name a man, currently in jail in Germany, as the prime suspect.
      ---------------------------------------------------------

      Do you think that Gonçalo Amaral is privy to what OG are doing? I don't remember him making that statement in the Netflix production. So when was his interview with Mark Saunokonoko?

      D

      Delete
    4. Hello D. The interview with Ssunokonoko was released on Monday, it was programme 9.

      Amaral is obviously investing credibility in the OG conclusion. If he is wrong, he will definitely lose some.

      Delete
    5. Yes, Bjorn, we will have to wait and see. Tellingly, Amaral said the dead man, was the one they "wanted it to be".

      Delete
    6. Björn1 May 2019 at 20:11

      ''I've missed that Oscar, but if Amaral has said so, I'm inclined to believe him. ''

      So, without being aware of any context, you'll believe him blindly because he's Amaral.The man who has come up with more theories than you can shake a stick at but never one that's been proven right.You still claiming to be objective, bjorn ?

      ''Even if he's not on the case, he must still know quite a few persons in Portugal working on the case, who may've leaked things''

      You're suggesting that the PJ are up to their old tricks again (''we'll dance and sing for wine or lunches boys'').How many of them are on the inside of OG ? You think OG would allow that without recriminations ? That, apparently, is the source of this rumour.

      ''A dead witness and a severe criminal alreday jailed, perhaps for the rest of his life, cannot for natural reasons ever be extradited,''

      The former would be a little unpleasant to be fair.But why can't a prisoner be extradited from a prison in another country if there's historical evidence against him ?The would have had Julian Assange for a trumped up rape charge if he hadn't found that embassy to give him sanctuary...

      '' if he exists, can also remember to whom he handed over Madeleine, and perhaps he will be so nice to tell the McCanns where to find their immortal daughter. ''

      Are you saying the procurer could say who he delivered to or where her ghost is ? Nobody's said anyone is suspected of murder by the police yet.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    7. Hi Oscar @ 16:34

      Confused. How the hell would Goncalo Amaral know? This comes from Mark Saunokonoko's podcast, have you heard it? I find it a bit difficult to listen to myself - for personal reaons, because he tries too hard to imitate the (great) first season of TAL's 'Serial', and the intense delivery irritates me. But more, because he's lost me a bit over the DNA farce. Still running.

      I totally get why a journalist would hanker after an illustrious reputation if they could be attached to the cracking of such a high profile case. But bit of a risk of being blinkered through naked ambition. Lowri Campbell was no different. And the esteemed Hugh Trevor-Roper and the Hitler diaries debacle stands as a wee bit of a warning.

      Shallis

      Delete
    8. Oscar Slater1 May 2019 at 21:05

      Hello D. The interview with Ssunokonoko was released on Monday, it was programme 9.

      Amaral is obviously investing credibility in the OG conclusion. If he is wrong, he will definitely lose some.
      ----------------------------------------------------------

      I know it was released on Monday but when was the statement made and why did he not mention it on Netfix?

      Those were my questions along with how does he know what OG id doing?

      D

      Delete
    9. Oscar Slater1 May 2019 at 21:08

      So you are saying that Amaral knows what OG are doing and thinking and also that they are being dishonest again.That they're lying about these leads as they're trying to come up with a false ending to a fake investigation. That's now up with Amaral's other assertions about the politicians of both countries could let the case be solved if they reached an agreement and that Gordon Brown and MI5 colluded with the McCanns in a false abduction and the burial of their child.What the hell is wrong with that man.

      Delete
    10. 23:46 I said what Amaral said in the podcast, and then used my imagination to construct a possible scenario if it was true.

      If it isn't true Amaral and the podcasts lose more credibility.

      Delete
    11. Anon @ 23:46

      Goncalo Amaral left this investigation eleven and a half years ago; it can be imagined he is not exactly abreast with the current investigation of the crime in a foreign country. Moreover, OG has stated that the PJ 'maintain the lead' in the investigation.

      It is clearly a fact that OG/PJ are very careful in their statements to the public, and in ensuring no leaks - which, in this case especially, would damage the course of justice.

      "What the hell is wrong with that man."

      Nothing. He is entitled to his private opinion. What's wrong with you?

      He has never given credence to the revolting, and silly conspiracy theory that the McCanns colluded with Gordon Brown and M15 to bury their child. Stop spreading mendacious nonsense. By doing so, you render the discussion here infantile.

      Sign your posts.

      Shallis

      Delete
    12. Hi Shallis, your question is a very valid one. Taking him at his word it does raise the interesting scenario I have envisaged, however, all the podcasts do is ask questions they can't be taken as anything other as discussion points.

      As I said to D, Amaral has stuck his neck out on this. It would not be unreasonable to imagine that OG will be wound up soon, and we will see what their exit strategy is.

      What has become clear to me from listening to the podcasts is that OG have not investigated the parents, because it was outside their brief.

      In turn we are asked to decide whether the brief was reasonable, and if we think it was, we have to accept that the PJ are indeed satisfied that line of enquiry has been exhausted.

      If that's the case it's really Amaral versus everybody else.

      Delete
    13. Hi, Oscar @ 12:04

      I find I can't listen to the podcast for reasons explained above. Tried, but I find I get a small bit of fluff in my ear after about 30 seconds, and I discover I have been off thinking about something else.

      So can you indulge me by explaining why you say:

      "What has become clear to me from listening to the podcasts is that OG have not investigated the parents, because it was outside their brief".

      As I can't face 1,000 hours of hard listening to the podcast to locate the relevant bits.

      Thanks in advance.

      Shallis

      Delete
    14. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 11:27 shallis

      It doesn't matter if the UK met or the Portuguese PJ have taken the lead in the investigation.You say Amaral left the case 11 years ago. He isn't taking the lead in anything.Nor is he entitled to ask anyone about how the case is going.If he does so discreetly, he should know better than to broadcast sensitive information and jeopardise the 12 years work.

      ''It is clearly a fact that OG/PJ are very careful in their statements to the public, and in ensuring no leaks''

      You mean it's clear that they have told the public nothing at all ? Or that the announce a 'lead' just prior to announcing why they need more money.?

      ( What the hell is wrong with that man.)

      ''Nothing. He is entitled to his private opinion. What's wrong with you? ''

      What's wrong with me is that I understand the difference between holding a private opinion and broadcasting one via a podcast or in a book.If you throw it into the public domain how private is it then ?He has a possible date with the ECHR in the future about doing it in his book, he has a perjury ink blot on his criminal record and this case is highly sensitive.Therefore my questioning what's wrong with him is valid.

      ''He has never given credence to the revolting, and silly conspiracy theory that the McCanns colluded with Gordon Brown and M15 to bury their child. Stop spreading mendacious nonsense. By doing so, you render the discussion here infantile.''

      Shallis. You come across as somebody who saw the McCanns in press conferences and were reminded of so many similar conferences in the past that led to the distraught parents / spouses being found guilty and decided you could 'spot a liar'. As such, you've closed the case by doing that.You use pretentious terms like 'checking primary sources' to appear as though you actually research things.Little you say sounds researched or stands up.

      Here's a link to Amaral not buying into what you call a 'silly conspiracy story'

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439068/Maddie-McCann-s-body-hid-MI5-spies-claims-police-chief.html

      Here's another talking about it a little more deeply

      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/a-copper-without-shame-maddies-top-detective-blames-everyone-but-himself-6836324.html

      It might be a good idea in future if you actually check facts before you claim to have checked facts.

      Mr Z(s)

      Delete
    15. So far we have no evidence tat Amaral has even made any claims about the German in jail. We have somebody who listened to a foreign podcast and couldn't understand it so has taken a guess. Then we have a discussion about what he really meant, what his claims meant and why he did it.But if he didn't say it in the first place, every part of the discussion is just an exchange of ideas about who and why and where it could lead. It's like a collusion to write a short story.There's no facts to look at.

      247

      Delete
    16. too many ifs and too many guesses but all to frame Amaral as victim

      Delete
    17. Shallis, 12:50 Gamble said that there were only two lines of enquiry to follow: she had been abducted, or she had wandered off and come to some harm and her body never discovered.

      He was very political in the way he phrased it. Perhaps someone else who listened can come up with the exact wording.

      I can't be bothered dealing with exact quotes, as every word gets picked to pieces on here.

      Usual guff with people coming on, trying to put words into my mouth, when all I want is a grown up discussion. Usually always start off with "so you're saying".

      Shakespeare and monkeys.

      Delete
    18. 247 @ 14:07, for clarity, the podcast was indeed foreign in that it was from Australia. However, I am led to believe they speak a form of English there, and the producers were kind enough to provide a translator for Amaral.

      If you accept the basic fact that he said it, then what follows is an exchange of ideas based on that. I for one am not a member of the Operation Grange team, and am happy to admit that imagination is used to try and guess what happens next.

      Delete
    19. In what way does any of this frame Amaral as a victim, 14:09? If he's right, it kind of frames him as the only sane person in the village.

      Delete
    20. Anonymous @ 13:59. The hearing at the ECHR, if it gets passed the first stage, will be the McCanns v Portugal, not versus Amaral.

      Portuguese Law, as it stands, has no problem with Amaral, or the book.

      Delete
    21. Oscar, if he's right then so are you and so is everyone else who says he's the man with all the answers rather than the man with the wacky theories.That's a big if. I'd be happy to dedicate a blog in his honour for ever doubting him.

      The McCanns versus Portugal will be argued around Portugal's laws and how the supreme court's judge decided to interpret them in relation to Amaral's free speech and the McCanns right to privacy.If the McCanns get it overturned via that interpretation being overturned, it will be perceived as a loss for Amaral.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    22. "It will be percieved as a loss for Amaral"

      How so,the Portuguse courts under Portuguse law came down on his side to allow his freedom of expression,the loss will be (can't see it some how)a loss to Portugal,Amaral is not in court,the state of Portugal is,but we don't even know what the McCann and Healey V Portugal claim is.

      Delete
    23. Well perceptions are all subjective 16:50. I perceive it's got a cat's chance of getting past the first stage. Let's wait and see.

      18:14 My understanding is that the ECHR will not be asked to decide if the judgement is correct, or not; rather it is a case of the complainers needing to establish it is the law that is unjust and a breach of human rights.

      I think a parallel would be a European country which had sentenced someone to death. The question would not be whether the judge interpreted their country's law correctly, rather whether the law was in accordance with human rights.

      I would welcome a learned explanation of the situation though. No bar room barristers please.

      Delete
    24. Z @ 13:59

      1/2

      “I would have written you a shorter letter but I haven’t time”, Blaise Pascal

      Don’t be flattered.


      The first part of your reply: hopelessly muddled, as usual.

      Moving on: at the moment we are trying to establish what AG has actually said on the 9news podcast, aren't we? I do not yet know, hence my questions to Oscar. He is listening to the episodes. I wouldn’t take DM’s second-hand reporting as definitive.

      ECHR appeal application is McCann v Portugal, not Goncalo Amaral.

      "Shallis. You come across as somebody who saw the McCanns in press conferences and were reminded of so many similar conferences in the past that led to the distraught parents / spouses being found guilty and decided you could 'spot a liar'. "

      You know full well this is an outrageous slur, palpably not true. I have even written about how I came to this case. You ridiculed me for that, and accused me of creating ‘a cover story’ for my blind, irrational hate. But, had you taken note, I specifically said I had never seen the McCanns on television until a few months ago (February). I was as fresh to the case as its possible to be, given I was not living on a small Scottish isle with no communications in 2007. I watched everything altogether, at the same time as reading up on the case, and studying the files etc. Reading got me into the case, unsurprising given my professional bias.

      "You use pretentious terms like 'checking primary sources' to appear as though you actually research things".

      You think doing that is pretentious? How revealing. And you know I do, I’m an academic historian, for god’s sake.

      “What's wrong with me is that I understand the difference between holding a private opinion and broadcasting one via a podcast or in a book.”

      You have published your own theory* about this case on this very blog.

      "It might be a good idea in future if you actually check facts before you claim to have checked facts."

      You know I do. This is part of your relentless defamation of me. You know full well what you are doing. Don’t bother to deny it with your vacuous, risible bleating that your dazzling intellect debunks my shabby arguments. You are not the standard bearer of reason here that you flatter yourself into believing. Your insufferable self-importance takes no account of your forever cruelly revealed intellectual shortcomings. You are, to borrow a phrase, Olympicly dim.

      You do not understand what you read. You struggle, and fail to argue even remotely cogently.

      (cont)

      Delete
    25. 2/2

      I relish debate with people who hold different views to mine, but I expect them to argue from evidence and logic. Not pretend to. My position is based on carefully-researched facts that I reference where appropriate. You give every indication that you are either too scared to read these, as they threaten your thinking, or that you are unable to understand what you read. Or, as I suspect, a thoroughly toxic blend of the two.

      And you are really, really very nasty with it. And you have a choice in that at least.

      You revile people who disagree with you. You are offended by anyone who declares their intention of uncovering the truth. This is worrying.

      You have kept up a relentless campaign to undermine me, abuse me, and drive me from this blog. You infest it like a weed. You have succeeded. Not because of your ‘brilliance’, I might point out, but because of the nagging, unanswerable question to myself: ‘why are you doing this? What is the point?’ I want discussion not saturation-point idiocy.

      Ad hominem attack, straw men, lies and smears are never the substitute for argument that you imagine they are. They are not defensible. And in the end, walking away is the right thing to do.

      Lovely, and stimulating discussions, with Ros, and others, feel like they are only possible when I have managed to sneak away for a bit from the attention of the simian-brained playground bully. This is not right.

      You suffocate discussion here. You sabotage debate.

      I can’t move for you. You are everywhere, jumping on everything I write to extinguish it.

      I feel hounded by you.

      The blog format does not allow me to just take handfuls of your balderdash and bin it, to give breathing space to the rest. The thread becomes all too quickly unmanageable by your sheer ubiquity. The ping-pong trains of thought, and discussion of multiple posters are lost in your perpetual, value-less noise.

      I’ve just had enough. It’s silly. It feels besmirching, and damaging. Not self-respecting. I should give no one permission to behave like this.

      Do you think this does you credit? Do you not think your ‘victory’ isn’t hollow, idiot?

      Shallis


      *in itself a sprawling monstrosity of a very little vapid thought, painfully inadequate ‘research’, imbecilic dot-drawing, awe-inspiring lack of understanding of the world you inhabit, and a great big, self-satisfied, fatuous reckon.


      Appendix: ”I think if you were to try and read the last thread with open eyes and a little honesty you'd see that the arrival of the 'trouble' coincided with the 'new posters' who think it's clever or amusing to hurl abuse at regular posters when they have nothing positive to contribute to a discussion or nothing to defend any claims they invent.” ‘Ziggy’, (1 May 2019 at 15:02).


      You aren’t worth it.

      Delete
    26. It's the ECHR. What could the connection be between Portugal and it's breaching of the McCann's human rights would you say ? I don't think they're complaining about the central heating system in 5 A somehow.

      Delete
    27. Shallis, you are making lots of sense. Keep the faith.

      Delete
    28. Bravo Shallis, you have thoroughly deconstructed and exposed Zs' appalling behaviour on here, if he behaves the same way in the real world, he probably gets decked a lot.

      Z has a very high opinion of himself, Lord knows why, probably goes back to childhood, what he thinks comes across as confidence, actually comes across as low self esteem. As Za Za Gabor once said, men who think they are macho are usually not very mucho.

      The big difference between intelligent people and those trying to wing it, is that intelligent people have nothing to prove. I once spent a whole night, I kid you not, reading about and watching Marlon Brando. I've loved him since he played Stanley.... That night I learned all about Brando, the man, the humanitarian. It probably took all night, because he took so long to answer interviewers question. He took his time, he answered when he was ready, and the answer was worth waiting for.

      He didn't have to reel off all his film credits, all his achievements, when he spoke. he simply was, he oozed intelligence, power and charisma, quite a gift. Now I am going to sound like a complete snob, but I love being able to converse with people on that higher level, above petty insecurities, prejudices and playground bigotry. For example, one of my escapes from here is the wonderful Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society. Each morning, I am watching 'On this day in 1536' the lead up to the execution of Queen Anne, presented by Claire Ridgway. I am very grateful to Claire, it is a terrific site for 'Tudor geeks' such as I.

      But I digress. You have listed Z's faults quite fully and eloquently Shall, there is little I can add except to say why would a stranger to the McCanns spend such an inordinate amount of time defending them on my blog. Why so fanatical? Why so bitter? Why so angry?

      Should add Shallis, that the reason Z is pursuing you is because you are threat. They fear academics, like Trump and the Nazis. The McCanns and their minions created the myth that it was only low life 'chavs' who did not believe them, the classic 20 stone loser locked away in their lowly bedsit. And they of course were driven by jealousy of Kate's slim figure and the McCanns' success. That is the reasoning behind 'hater' and 'pitchforker'.

      They fear you Shallis, quite rightly, lol, you are holding their trolling tactics up to scrutiny, and they are losing every time.

      Delete
    29. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 20:01 - shallis

      ''The first part of your reply: hopelessly muddled, as usual. ''

      That's an attempted put down and as usual a serious fail.If any of it seemed 'muddled' it was possibly due to me covering your initial meandering in your post.

      ''You know full well this is an outrageous slur, palpably not true.''

      I said 'you come across as'' not that it's carved in stone. Why so defensive ?I never claim to have opinions and guesses and they should be taken as law.I leave that to the less bright.

      ''You know full well this is an outrageous slur, palpably not true. I have even written about how I came to this case. You ridiculed me for that, and accused me of creating ‘a cover story’ for my blind, irrational hate.''

      Not quite accurate is it...

      I 'ridiculed' you for trying to say you were new to the case and that you have no idea whatsoever what could have happened to Madeleine and that we were all in that position. That much is true.Following that you blindly attacked anyone who refused to accuse or blame the parents.

      '' Reading got me into the case, unsurprising given my professional bias. ''

      The other claim you brought with you was that you are an academic and know the value of checking primary and secondary sources.You then proceeded to make statements that had neither- but still defended Amaral and attacked the parents. Rule one of academic study : remain detatched and objective. You can't show a bias then.

      ''You think doing that is pretentious? How revealing. And you know I do, I’m an academic historian, for god’s sake.''

      No. See above.I think pretending that you are doing it in order to persuade people that your bias ( which you have just admitted) is actually researched is pretentious.It's dishonest too.

      ''You have published your own theory* about this case on this very blog.''

      More than once, yes. But I always make it clear that it's nothing more than a theory at best.A group of opinions based on observations that need explaining.besides, I'm not an ex detective from the PJ and haven't named and blamed anyone without proving it.

      ''You know I do. This is part of your relentless defamation of me.''

      You mentioned that Amaral had nothing to do with silly conspiracy theories about Brwm and MI5. No source. I provided one that said he said the opposite.If i was wrong, it's defamation.But it was right.

      ''Don’t bother to deny it with your vacuous, risible bleating that your dazzling intellect debunks my shabby arguments''

      Very academic. I just did by the way.

      ''. You are, to borrow a phrase, Olympicly dim.''

      You should really give that phrase back.

      ''You do not understand what you read. You struggle, and fail to argue even remotely cogently.''

      That's the opposite of the truth.It's just an attempt to be rude again.

      ''Ad hominem attack, straw men, lies and smears are never the substitute for argument that you imagine they are. They are not defensible''

      You're guilty of all of those and it's verifiable by scanning this and the last two threads. I'm guilty of none of them.Show me different.

      ''Do you think this does you credit? Do you not think your ‘victory’ isn’t hollow, idiot?''

      You spend an awful lot of time on an idiot.I wish you spent as much finding support for your claims.

      ''You aren’t worth it.''

      Worth what-the effort ? I can see why that would be a gargantuan effort for you.
      Z(s)

      Delete
    30. Rosalinda Hutton2 May 2019 at 22:05

      ''Bravo Shallis, you have thoroughly deconstructed and exposed Zs' appalling behaviour on here, if he behaves the same way in the real world, he probably gets decked a lot''

      Inaccurate and immature.

      Show some examples of said 'deconstruction'. Nobody else can find any.

      The rest is a really long effort in trying to expose what isn't there to be exposed.It's stinks of fear.The fear that every single invented and unsupported narrative is continually exposed as a fiction created and shared among the antis.

      The usual 'Z' isn't intelligent, Z is macho which means the opposite cos i'm a people watcher.It's dire. If you really think that your readers think that then you are way off the mark.They read you. they read me. They read me more.Only the antis yell more because they can't control their emotional disorders and need to shout.They provide no evidence of anything.They are the proverbial empty vessels.I show people how smart i am.You tell them how smart you are.

      ''They fear you Shallis, quite rightly, lol, you are holding their trolling tactics up to scrutiny, and they are losing every time.''

      Nobody here is in fear of shallis unless they need to stay awake.If you understood the meaning of internet trolling you'd realise you are addressing one in that post.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    31. Oscar Slater2 May 2019 at 19:09

      ''I would welcome a learned explanation of the situation though. No bar room barristers please.''

      I think you could do with one after reading that. You'll have one once a Human Rights Lawyer straightens it out in the ECHR once and for all.

      247

      Delete
    32. Oscar Slater2 May 2019 at 21:40

      ''Shallis, you are making lots of sense. Keep the faith.''

      Nobody other than haters and antis see any sense at all in what you are supporting Oscar. They only see rants, foul language and claims that never have any support.It's what level headed people with no agenda refer to as deliberate trolling.The troll will never meet a challenge but will revert to silliness and insults instead. You want to keep that 'faith' ? That's exposing your agenda as well as that of who you are voicing support of.Anyone who doubts this need only read the blogs of May and April.Don't just take my word for it.

      Peter R

      Delete
    33. Thank you Peter R. Some stuff to think about there indeed.

      Something for you to think about, why are there so many more "haters" (FFS) and "antis" out there than people who support your point of view?

      Other than that, have a nice day, you sanctimonious prick.

      Delete
    34. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 23:00

      Spot on as usual Zig. Keep the sanity coming.

      Jo

      Delete
    35. Oscar Slater3 May 2019 at 15:46

      ''Something for you to think about, why are there so many more "haters" (FFS) and "antis" out there than people who support your point of view ?''

      That's quite simple. They read sensational and dramatic claims that have no evidence whatsoever but makes a better story.They do that instead of checking things for themselves.That's why they are useless in a debate.I always check as much as I can before i start accusing anyone of committing a crime. A lot of grown ups do if they have a smidgen of intelligence.My point of view is the dame as the police point of view.

      ''Other than that, have a nice day, you sanctimonious prick.''

      How mature that was. Did you enjoy it ? I suppose it made a change from calling everyone else a troll for once.Try building an argument instead of the usual once upon a time in Portugal :)

      Peter R

      PS - Ros, this is why so many are reluctant to contribute anything to the blog

      Delete
    36. I apologise Peter R, you at least have the decency to sign your name. However, whether your post was sanctimonious, or not, it was biased, patronising and interminably dull.

      Otherwise, grow a pair. You come on take a tilt at me personally and hey presto pages of guff as we have a pissing contest. It ain't on pal.

      By the way, don't kid yourself that you know why people are reluctant to contribute. You telling me there's some online pub where everyone gets together to discuss what blogs they are going on?

      Get over yourself brother. You've got something to say, sat it.

      Delete
  4. Also don't forget what it will do to the fund if a paodephile rotting away in a jail is lined up for the crime.What would they do with what is left,I mean logically abducting paedo's don't normally keep their victims alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 1 May 18.35

      And don't forget what it will do for the credibility of blood and cadaver dogs in the future, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact of Eddie & Keela were brought in by the UK police, yes the UK police, they found what they found, it cannot be ignored, however much anyone on here who is a McCann shill likes to whitewash over the fact.

      The fact that the dogs indicated to what they found in apartment 5A dismissed the fact that Madeleine was "abducted" however much her parents, their solicitors, their paid for trolls argue the fact.

      What if one of the police officers who dismiss the dogs then found themselves in a similar situation when sniffer dogs were brought in to a crime committed against his family, will he say "oh, those dogs are useless, Gerry McCann said so when Madeleine disappeared. Don't believe anything they indicate, we will dismiss them about the death of my wife, my family etc. GM is right on everything he said and Madeleine is out there somewhere waiting to be found alive after 12 years".

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 14:44

      ''Eddie & Keela were brought in by the UK police, yes the UK police, they found what they found, it cannot be ignored, however much anyone on here who is a McCann shill likes to whitewash over the fact.''


      The dogs didn't 'find' anything. They 'indicated' that certain places might warrant further investigation for incriminating evidence.The transcripts of the Fss findings-yes the UK transcripts- explain this. They ( Grimes and the FSS) aren't shills. Or do you think they are ?

      ''The fact that the dogs indicated to what they found in apartment 5A dismissed the fact that Madeleine was "abducted" however much her parents, their solicitors, their paid for trolls argue the fact.''


      What about the police of two countries arguing the same fact ? Are they also 'paid trolls' ? Can you explain why it isn't possible for a death to have occurred and for the child to be taken away ? All the anti 'shills' insist that there has never been evidence of an abductor taking her anywhere. But there's been no evidence of her parents taking her anywhere dead either.Only Stories.


      Your final paragraph makes no sense. It's a what if.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    3. Z(s) 2 May 16.46

      You can argue until the cows come home but unfortunately you cannot dismiss the findings of Eddie & Keela how ever much you try. You are flogging a dead horse on behalf of the McCanns. I doubt they care anything about you, you're just their mouthpiece as they can't be bothered themselves. The same way they couldn't be bothered to look after their old children whilst on a "family" holiday but decided others could do the "caring" for them.

      Why would someone hang around for one to two hours to wait for cadaver to occur, then take a dead child with them out of a window that had no DNA on it, not even that of a cadaver? Weren't the parents checking in every 30 minutes or so, although it seems they only went to dinner at 8.45 p.m. hardly time to go to the loo or order their dinner let alone go and check on the children they'd just left - first check just after 9 p.m. with an abductor in the apartment and a child who was a cadaver in her bed when GM was supposedly watching the football in the apartment and looked in on Madeleine and said whatever he said, can't remember now and don't care - how lovely she looked or whatever he made up at the time, something like that.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 17:57

      Z(s) 2 May 16.46
      ''You can argue until the cows come home but unfortunately you cannot dismiss the findings of Eddie & Keela how ever much you try. You are flogging a dead horse on behalf of the McCanns.''

      In that case, so is Martin Grime and so are the police.I actually said i don't dismiss the dogs' findings. Was that too complex for you to understand ? I said they are in need of corroborating evidence to be of any worth( the FSS said it as well as Grime).Don't misquote me.

      ''I doubt they care anything about you, you're just their mouthpiece as they can't be bothered themselves.''

      Oh it's one of those....

      You imagined what happened in PDL, imagined how, got bored so now you imagine when someone writes a post that they are doing it for the McCanns as a troll /shill etc without understanding the meaning of either. You need to go for a walk now and then.

      ''The same way they couldn't be bothered to look after their old children whilst on a "family" holiday but decided others could do the "caring" for them.''

      This isn't ''group'' therapy.

      ''Why would someone hang around for one to two hours to wait for cadaver to occur, then take a dead child with them out of a window that had no DNA on it, not even that of a cadaver?''

      I doubt they would. I doubt anyone said that anyone else did either.What are you doing ?

      '' GM was supposedly watching the football in the apartment and looked in on Madeleine and said whatever he said, can't remember now and don't care ''

      And that isn't surprising me.The point is you're getting it all off your chest.Nothing more.

      ''how lovely she looked or whatever he made up at the time, something like that.''

      Yes, weird thing to say about your beautiful little girl isn't it.I suppose that would indicate that he's a psychopath or narcissist or whatever else is 'trending'

      Z(s)

      Delete
    5. Again, please sign your posts! What are you afraid of ffs? Putting an initial isn't giving anything away.

      Delete
  5. What abductors or paedophiles or both do with their victims is neither here nor there.The fund is all legal- that's how we all know about it.It will probably be a case of 'here's your change'.Remember, they wouldn't have to sue a suspect. Portugal would put him on trial. It depends what they find out he's done.If it's all real like- which is extremely difficult to believe.

    Z(s)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one mentioned the fund being illegal,what happens to it afterward if Grange produce a patsy.It was supposedly set up to search for Madeleine.But having said that,Grange haven't got no one lined up imo.

      Delete
    2. Seems to be a consensus on that one 18:42.

      Delete
  6. Oscar Slater29 April 2019 at 17:22

    Shallis, and others. Coming back to the subject of the unusual bruising on Kate's forearms.

    IIRC Amaral described a rather excessive show of being distraught by K&G when he arrived. Both ran through to the bedroom, fell to their knees and battered the bed.

    He thought the behaviour slightly histrionic and bizarre. It could be that in her enthusiasm to appear helpless she struck her forearms on the bed repeatedly.
    -----------------------------------------

    You should delete that comment as it is incorrect.

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a Portuguese person that used to post on Twitter who claimed that he/she was at the OC at the time of the event, and that person saw Kate and swore it was make-up for the cameras, and not bruising at all.

      The individual believed it was part of the display and setting of the stage, goodness knows what flake told her to do that!

      Delete
    2. Must have been a hell of a hard mattress..still, at least he isn't suggesting Gerry was mad and he did them

      Delete
    3. Amaral made the statement in the Portuguese documentary. Who are you saying is incorrect, me or him?

      Delete
    4. So if Kate 'Hot lips' Healy's wrist bruises weren't from battering a matress, then one could posit they may have arisen from S&M bondage. [linking to the swinging theories and yes, there isn't any verifiable evidence Ziggy, as 'lifestyle' members are awfully discrete]
      TFAL

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 1 May 2019 at 22:10

      D

      “…it is incorrect.”

      It is, absolutely.

      T

      Delete
    6. Bruv, take no notice of impersonators. I posted nothing yesterday. The day before, 4 of my posts didn’t get on the blog. Keep your studs firmly on the ground. I'm in a rush. Talk later.

      T

      Delete
    7. Anonymous1 May 2019 at 22:41

      ''There's a Portuguese person that used to post on Twitter who claimed that he/she was at the OC..swore it was make-up for the cameras, and not bruising at all...The individual believed it was part of the display and setting of the stage, goodness knows what flake told her to do that!''

      Wow a person from OC seen all that and never told an officer or sold it to the press but got some attention on the internet.Makes you wonder why she or he would do that doesn't it.

      I work for INTERPOL. I can assure you that there was no setting and that one of the officers investigating the crime was suspect number 1 but we never released that in case he was alerted and left the country.

      See, that's how it works.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    8. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 09:02

      ''So if Kate 'Hot lips' Healy's wrist bruises weren't from battering a matress, then one could posit they may have arisen from S&M bondage. [linking to the swinging theories and yes, there isn't any verifiable evidence Ziggy, as 'lifestyle' members are awfully discrete]

      TFAL''

      Did ziggy say the swinging theory was valid or did ziggy say it was bullshit he wouldn't even talk about on this blog ?

      ziggy

      Delete
    9. @ Oscar Slater2 May 2019 at 07:34

      Amaral made the statement in the Portuguese documentary. Who are you saying is incorrect, me or him?
      --------------------------------------------

      Amaral never arrived in PDL that night - he was in a restaurant and then went home.

      D

      Delete
    10. Thanks D @ 18:31. That makes complete sense, and I was wrong to say that is what he saw, as he merely phoned his subordinates to check that all the correct things had been done.

      I have watched the video again, it is clear that it was witnessed by two GNR officers.

      Delete
    11. Sorry D, just another thing. Regardless of whether the film over dramatized that particular scene, I still believe that the bruises are consistent with them being hit off something.

      As I've said below, I am not sure what the actual significance of how the bruises happened is.

      Delete
    12. Not sure about that D

      But if he did arrive it was about 2 hours after everyone else had.he was having a meal and a drink and asking for updates on his cellphone i believe. Either way, I doubt very much that the McCanns would wait 2 hours for him then put on a little piece of theatre.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    13. @20:49

      Z

      The first time Kate met Amaral was before a court hearing IIRC.

      Delete
    14. 20:49

      No, I accept that it was when the GNR arrived. Amaral had left the case to his men at that point.

      Interesting how we got here, because we were trying to work out the cause of the bruising, not who saw the performance.

      Delete
    15. Yes, who started the imaginary scenario in order to interpret bruises the police weren't bothered about ?Who wrote the script ? Remind us.

      Delete
    16. I don't know 16:43. IIRC my involvement started when discussion was about restraint bruises. I don't know why the bruises are important.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 21:14
      @20:49

      ''Z

      The first time Kate met Amaral was before a court hearing IIRC.''


      I had a suspicion that was the actual truth to be honest.Don't know why all this dramatic online reconstruction's even happening.Far too much imagination replacing cold analysis of reality.

      Z

      Delete
  7. In my view ( I have said so here many times) that Grange have been looking for a dead patsy that would stand up to intense scrutiny since the start but it is taking much longer than planned.They will now have to do with a live one who will either be paid off or (even if he is) will at some point suffer an 'accident' and end up dead.Probably in prison just before any trial or extradition.
    Remember the guy (can't remember his name) who died in prison in the early nineties who openly accused Janner of child abuse at his trial.
    The same will happen to this German.
    It's not just the Russians who get rid of people by accidents and such like,contrary to popular belief.
    Every nation on this planet does it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed 08:09, I am old enough to remember the "suicide pact" of the Baader Meinhoff Gang in the 1970s. Simultaneously co-ordinated over two different prison sites.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 08:09

      ''In my view ( I have said so here many times) that Grange have been looking for a dead patsy that would stand up to intense scrutiny since the start but it is taking much longer than planned.''


      Conjures up a bizarre image of a dead patsy in the dock.Joking aside, I can see that myself. I suggested a long time ago that they'd 'find' a deathbed confession ( thus avoiding real scrutiny in court so we'd have to take their word).Finding the live one, I can't see.Too many people are wise to 'accidents' and sudden illnesses that befall suspects now.They'd be all over it.Both police forces would forever be blighted by a cheap trick like that.The closest we'll get, in my opinion, to a compromise is that a dead procurer made a confession on his deathbed but we'll conveniently never know who he did the job for.That's a dramatic and nasty story and, as such would placate the majority of ghouls that have hovered over the case for years.

      ''Remember the guy (can't remember his name) who died in prison in the early nineties who openly accused Janner of child abuse at his trial.
      The same will happen to this German.''

      The German- if he exists- has had time to spill beans already. The nineties guy who accused Janner was one of many.Even had he lived there was far too much to keep a lid on against him-so he developed a disease that killed him before he could stand trial.The paedophile protectors and police forces colluded successfully for years on him but they dropped the ball in the end.

      You're right about every country having their nasty little death squads.The Uk invented it.There's been some pretty high profile 'deaths' in recent years.It's quietened down slightly since Labour lost power strangely :/

      Z(s)

      Delete
    3. There is so much wrong with this idea that the police could frame a 'patsy' for Madeleine's disappearance in order to wind up Operation Grange.

      Firstly, if their objective was to cover up Madeleine's disappearance, they would have done it years ago and kept those in the know to a minimum. OG began in a fanfare of publicity with 33 homicide officers. Already, that is 31 too many for a conspiracy.

      Secondly, the framework for this jigsaw puzzle is in place, carved in stone, any 'story' anyone comes up with has to fit in the empty spaces exactly. The pieces can't be cut, bent or twisted in any way, the eyes of the world are watching.

      Thirdly, are the police really going to say it has taken £12m and 12 years for their combined forces to track down a half witted burglar? And admit they have left said half witted burglar on the loose this past 12 years to abduct more children? Fortunately, he hasn't, but he must lead the police to the child's body, or explain in detail, backed up with evidence, what he did with her. Where she is if she is alive.

      There are hundreds of reasons why a 'patsy' would not work and indeed why no other theory than Goncalo Amaral's fits the available evidence. In 12 years no-one has come up with a more feasible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. Not the parents, not the criminal experts, not Jim Gamble, not even esteemed writers Summers and Swan, have been able to put forward a viable alternative.

      continues

      Delete
    4. There is no way around the alerts of the dogs, no matter how much the supporters of the McCanns try to bluster the issue, we saw dogs who are trained to alert to the scent of blood and cadaver, alert to the scents blood and cadaver. Someone died in 5A and Madeleine has been missing for 12 years.

      It takes 2 hours for the scent of cadaver to develop, therefore if a burglar killed Madeleine, he must have been in the apartment a very long time. He then must have taken the body with him, as suggested by Martin Brunt, and buried in the immediate vicinity after the alarm was raised.

      Of course to accept the smell of death, you must accept the parents were involved or at the very least, are lying about the times and frequency of their checks on the children.

      The 'pros' will argue that the dogs were wrong (11 times!), and that their alerts are meaningless without a body. Not true. The dogs alerts tell them they are looking for a body.

      An example of how meaningful those dogs alerts are, can be seen in trial of D'Andre Lane who murdered his toddler daughter. He was convicted on the evidence of Martin Grime and his dogs, it is a worthwhile read.

      I suspect the investigations remain ongoing is because of those dog alerts, they are the strongest indication of what happened to Madeleine. As I said earlier, the eyes of the world are watching, any conclusion from Operation Grange and the PJ, must include an explanation for those dog alerts. They can't just be ignored.

      Delete
    5. 08:09 'I have said so here so many times' - err, who are you? How can we remember what you have said if you have no means of identification. Don't by shy, just a single letter will do.

      Delete
    6. Hello Rosalinda May 2019 at 15:37

      "It takes 2 hours for the scent of cadaver to develop, therefore if a burglar killed Madeleine, he must have been in the apartment a very long time"

      Yes, so true Rosalinda, and that's the reason as to why the dogs' alerts have become so intimately associated with the suspicion about the McCanns' being implicated in the death of their daughter.

      Had someone died in that apartment before the McCann arrived at PDL or had there been people staying in it, whose professions might have been of a kind that their clothes could have been contaminated by residues from dead people? Those questions were asked years ago by people who just wished to know, but it seems as if there hasn't been any real investigation about what tourists there'd been before the McCanns, not any that we know about.

      If all such unlikely, but still possible scenarios regarding the professions and the hobbies of innocent tourists would be investigated and then perhaps completely excluded, we would then be left with only two serious question, namely, under what specific circumstances did Madeleine die and how did the McCanns dispose of the body?

      Delete
    7. Hi Bjorn, I thought it had been established that no previous occupants had died in 5A, there was talk of a man who cut himself shaving, but no incidents of blood or death.

      Even if previous occupants worked with cadavers it might explain the smell of death in the apartment but how about in the car the McCanns hired 3 weeks later?

      The only 'defence' the McCanns have, is that the dogs were wrong. Or as Gerry said 'notoriously unreliable'. I don't think that would be the case if the situation were tried out in a court of a law, it certainly wasn't in the case of D'Andre Lane. Martin Grime and other dog experts could explain the alerts fully to a Judge and Jury It is doubtful the McCanns could find a dog expert of the same calibre to dismiss the dogs' alerts as meaningless and notoriously unreliable. Specialist dogs are used all over the world in multiple situations, the only ones who seem to have a problem with them are the McCanns, and of course Jim Gamble and Summers and Swan.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda Hutton2 May 2019 at 15:15

      There may or not be so much wrong with the 'patsy' theory.But when so little has been offered to the public in way of progress updates, so much remains unanswered about the mysterious 'evidence' and so many believing there's a cover up to either protect the parents or to protect an abductor, it's only natural to smell a rat. Identifying the colour of the rat is difficult.

      You say they could have covered up her disappearance years ago.That's what others who believe in some kind of cover up already believe has happened.

      '' OG began in a fanfare of publicity with 33 homicide officers. Already, that is 31 too many for a conspiracy.''

      How so ? A conspiracy, by definition, takes 'two or more people'

      You're probably right about the frame of the jigsaw puzzle.That would explain why it's taking so long to slot the pieces in.They can't exist.

      The police have problems when it comes to the final answer if they agree on one.They have to make more than a half-witted burglar or drug addict as it's plain stupid and has no logic behind it. They've spent years saying the parents are not suspects.They daren't suggest anyone in high places ordered her as similar to the Dutroux case in Belgium or Portugal's Casa Pia. There's no way of avoiding all of them and finding a middle ground. I think the case needs to be hidden in a fridge now until people's interest moves on.

      With regard to the dog alerts. If the pros are blustering the issue, so is Grimes and Co.The pros refer to him and the FSS as a reference of facts. Are you sure it takes two hours for cadaver scent ? I think i read that it begins almost immediately in terms of gas.But again, the dogs alert to a possible death, not a killer. A death doesn't leave the identity of a killer if there's no corpse.Who says she couldn't have been killed and taken away to remove any forensic evidence ?

      'An example of how meaningful those dogs alerts are, can be seen in trial of D'Andre Lane ''

      Nobody doubts the dogs. But their indicators need corroborating evidence. It isn't the pros who are in denial of that part.

      ''I suspect the investigations remain ongoing is because of those dog alerts, they are the strongest indication of what happened to Madeleine''

      They ( OG) have had an offer of a deeper analysis recently and didn't take it up.But, again, it doesn't identify who did what to Madeleine.Why are OG refusing to accept help on it ? Are they so terrified that the parents will be found guilty or somebody else ? What makes sense ?

      ''PJ, must include an explanation for those dog alerts. They can't just be ignored.''

      They must also explain why they didn't accept a more advance technique of analysis offered to them.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    10. Björn2 May 2019 at 16:45 ( Rosalinda )

      ( '"It takes 2 hours for the scent of cadaver to develop, therefore if a burglar killed Madeleine, he must have been in the apartment a very long time"......Yes, so true Rosalinda, and that's the reason as to why the dogs' alerts have become so intimately associated with the suspicion about the McCanns' being implicated in the death of their daughter.'' )

      I notice neither of you posted a source of that scientific information.Is it because it's a guess or a mistake that conveniently supports your joint opinion/s ?

      The abductor theory suggests , in my opinion, only a matter of 5 minutes at most would be needed to watch a McCann ( or friend) check in and leave the children. Then, strike, then leave. If the scent takes 2 hours or more to be detectable then that theory's out of the window.But how true is the two hour window ?

      ''The process of decomposition starts 4 minutes after death, but it usually takes several hours before it becomes noticeable to humans....''

      Not dogs. Blowflies can detect it withing a couple of minutes. OK they don't have trained blowflies on the force. But research has found that decomposition and the relevant chemical changes in a body begin within a very short period of time. A minute or so.

      https://deathscent.com/2016/03/17/emerging-research-on-the-scent-of-death/

      OK Eddie and Keela weren't flies.But they didn't need two hours either.Can the odour tell you how long it's sat there being an odour ? What did any policeman or forensic scientist say ? A dog indicated that an odour began at a certain time ? No .

      Has anyone stated categorically that the dogs indicators of a death have been ruled out or ruled in ? Or have the stated something else ?

      ''If all such unlikely, but still possible scenarios regarding the professions and the hobbies of innocent tourists would be investigated''

      Why ? If you booked a family holiday and had to complete a questionnaire telling of what you and your family liked to do as a hobby you'd think they were being too intrusive.It would be finacial suicide for tourism too. What have hobbies got to do with anything ? What have professions to do with anything ?

      ''we would then be left with only two serious question, namely, under what specific circumstances did Madeleine die and how did the McCanns dispose of the body?''

      Ahh THOSE kind of 'hobbies'. I almost forgot who i was talking to their bjorn. I apologise. Of course, 'hobbies' that could lead to a terrible death of an innocent child.Unless of course you're suggesting that anyone who is a professional doctor usually has a hobby that included burying children.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    11. Hi, Ros @ 15:15

      (Daftly, managed to post draft of reply, this is 'full & final' version I should have sent. Would you mind very much deleting me at 19:35, and substituting this? Sorry, for the bother. I'd normally just let it stand, but this is by way of a 'swan song', as I've been Ziggy-squelched out of here. Good luck with continuing the sterling work you do here. Despite undermining, and insult).


      Give it up. Those that wish to see OG as a 'front', or as part of some wild conspiracy, will see this no matter how bonkers the implications. No matter how much it defies common sense.

      Nor will they see that 'twelve years' is not relevant to these arguments (nor to anyone's innocence or guilt).

      Nor, that any denouement would actually be required to make sense - so, therefore - in fact - be the truth. Required to stand up in a court of law in Real-Life Land, not in someone's fevered imagination. With a jury, and everything; and the world's press watching, and reporting.

      From the evidence we know about from the original investigation, should the McCanns find themselves in the dock tomorrow, no jury should convict them. Charges are brought on the basis of a solid bar of evidence being met, with the CPS (here) judging whether this is sufficient to allow proceeding to trial, on the basis that a conviction, beyond any reasonable doubt, could be safely achieved. This place had not been reached in 2008 when the case was archived - that was rather why it was archived. Because without any evidence at all of an abduction, and without the cooperation of K&G, and the Tapas 7, the investigation was effectively derailed. There was nothing to progress. The McCanns could only be extradited to Portugal to stand trial if they were charged, the investigation could not progress without their (and T7) returning to Portugal. Catch 22.

      Had the Tapas Group holidayed in Budleigh Salterton, not Luz this impasse would not have happened, neither could the flagrant by-passing of the legal/judicial system have been achieved. Nor the traducing of the local police investigation. None of the ‘going over their heads’ malarkey. None of the ‘official story’ rubbish. Imagine that! It was the beginning of the contempt for bona fide legal procedures. But it didn’t end there, did it?

      But it hasn't all just gone away (as Team McCann spin has it even now, despite the release of the files, despite the loss of the GA libel case).

      The police know it hasn’t gone away. How could they not?

      Attempting to take control of justice yourself, with a multi-million-pound crisis management PR campaign too, can only take you so far.

      It is not just an open investigation because of the dogs. The dogs weren't random, the reasons for them remains too. And it was a UK expert who recommended bringing them over. One of Team McCann’s most blatant lies is to bury the truth that the original investigation included both Portuguese and UK police, and that GA was not a ‘lone rogue cop’, framing the McCanns, for no obvious reason at all. The entire investigation was advancing in the same way. Logically.

      Of course an unbelievably lucky, and One of a Kind in the Entire History of the World abductor may emerge, confessing to his selling a middle-class tot into an international paedophile ring, or whatever. She may emerge like Lorna Doone from the ‘lawless villages’ of Portugal. Personally, I think Peter Pan stole her to Neverland (now, that explains that open window).

      OG's raison d'etre is to rectify the unprecedented, gigantic, travesty of justice this case represents. This justifies the twelve million quid on one missing girl - because, with all respect to the almost certainly deceased child - it really isn't fundamentally about her.

      The idea that OG/PJ is about to palm off the public of two countries with a 'patsy' is absurd. Won't happen. Neither will the investigation be canceled. It is too important for the above reason.

      Shallis

      Delete
    12. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 19:35 - shallis

      ''From the evidence we know about from the original investigation, should the McCanns find themselves in the dock tomorrow, no jury should convict them. Charges are brought on the basis of a bar''

      That stands in all countries. It's also why the police went on public record to state that the parents are not suspects.No evidence against them. It's also why none of us can say what the hell happened to Madeleine so shouldn't point the finger at anybody in particular.Remember saying that yourself before trying to find anything you could use as a persuasive tool to incriminate the McCanns( who have no evidence against them) ?

      ''Because without any evidence at all of abduction, and without the cooperation of K&G, and the Tapas Seven, the investigation was effectively derailed. There was nothing to progress. ''

      So if there's no fingerprints or DNA left in your home but one of your kids has been abducted the police can basically apologise and leave it as there's no evidence of anything. In that world crime will always pay.

      ''So not just an open investigation because of the dogs though. The dogs weren't random, the reasons for the dogs also remain.''

      The reason for them ? Do you mean the reason they were brought in ? It was to see if they could uncover evidence and uncover any areas that indicated there could be evidence and give the police a short cit to where to look.

      ''OG's actual raison d'etre is to rectify the unprecedented, gigantic travesty of justice this case represents. ''

      It was to review the case and then investigate it.There is nothing anywhere to say it was to rectify a miscarriage of justice. It hasn't been declared one. It's only an opinion you have that has no support whatsoever.

      ''That justifies twelve million quid on one missing child - because, with all respect to the lost child - it really isn't fundamentally about her.''

      It is. Unless you can enlighten us with a source saying what else it's 'fundamentally' about.

      ''The idea that OG?PJ is about to palm off the public of two countries with a 'patsy' is absurd.''

      Who said they would ?


      Z(s)

      Delete
    13. What stood out for me from your draft and your post at 22:07 was 'Give it up'. And you know what Shallis, I think that time is approaching, though I don't think that was addressed to me. You can delete your own posts btw :)

      The truth is I am bored silly with these constant round and round, here we go again arguments and arguing with people like Ziggy is like banging your head against a brick wall. It is painful and pointless.

      I confess I haven't listened to the podcasts, no reason in particular, other than I am all 'Mcanned' out. I haven't been driven away by trolls like Ziggy, or even the pathetic insults and poison pen posts I often receive. I laugh at them, they don't have my honesty, my integrity and my guts, nor indeed my writing talent, I'm simply bored.

      I am presently undergoing a bit of a watershed, apparently we hit more than one in our lifetimes, lol, in that I am itching to move on, to where, who knows, at the moment I feel like the gruff old guy (Lee Marvin?) who was born under a wandering star, 'never seen a sight that didn't look better than looking back'.

      I have many other interests that I want to pursue and I want to talk about, and feel this Madeleine case has become a chain around my neck. Though I have been fortunate in that my blog has attracted so many reasonable, intelligent people, it will always be plagued by pro McCann trolls with their bizarre arguments. Though I suspect they will follow me no matter what I do, they always have.

      Anyway many thanks Shallis, I am in the happy stage of transition at the moment, and you may have inadvertently pointed the way! My talents are totally wasted on here arguing with people in blinkers, I should be arguing with people in blinkers further up the chain!

      Delete
    14. Ros 00:20. Why not remove the ability to comment from your blogs? It's too much to police this constant disruption.

      There are people on here who are happy to discuss the issues raised, and there is give and take.

      Others are just playing games, either because they genuinely think it is clever, or to make the discussion unworkable.

      Delete
    15. Can you point out the disruption, Oscar.Use examples. I've seen a lot of it recently myself. But they disrupt then later remove their original post so it looks different.

      Delete
    16. Oscar Slater3 May 2019 at 10:47

      ''Ros 00:20. Why not remove the ability to comment from your blogs? It's too much to police this constant disruption.''

      Oscar. Reading this blog over the last month or so, it's clear that the arrival of two new posters have coincided with what you are trying to blame others for- disruption.

      You and shallis love to try and provoke with theories, guesses and imagination and then spit at people who point it out.You try desperately to belittle the people who you can't counter in an argument.If that fails you both massage the ego of the blog boss Ros and try to appeal to her by repeating what she thinks and telling her how right she is. It's a really childish way of trying to build an 'us against them'.But trying to do that makes it clear that you are hoping she'll stop publishing the posts that neither you nor shallis can handle. That is, posts that stand up to close scrutiny and posts that question you both on what you both try to pass off as facts here.Neither of you can ever supply anything bit you both get angry and attack posters who point it out. Why not shoot down the arguments of those you are trying to say are 'disrupting' ? It appears to readers that neither of you are able to.There's a reason for that.

      Delete
    17. Rosalinda Hutton3 May 2019 at 00:20

      ''. I haven't been driven away by trolls like Ziggy,''

      Would you care to enlighten neutral readers to what 'trolling' is and how Ziggy has trolled ?

      When did only wanting to talk about facts and questioning rumours become trolling on your blog ?

      Just because you can't argue a fact doesn't mean you're arguing with a troll.

      247

      Delete
    18. Ps, I suspect a high level of misogyny is at play with these impotent men who get their rocks off abusing women.

      Delete
    19. Yes, we get it Oscar. You are the champion defending the oppressed. The challenger of all things racist, all things politically incorrect.You're full of love and enlightenment with not so much of a hint of negativity and spitefulness.

      Delete
    20. Anonymous3 May 2019 at 11:54

      Concur fully

      Delete
    21. Anonymous3 May 2019 at 11:48

      Excellent and much needed post.Long overdue. And kudos to Ros for publishing it.

      Mick P

      Delete
    22. Björn2 May 2019 at 16:45
      Hello Rosalinda May 2019 at 15:37

      "It takes 2 hours for the scent of cadaver to develop, therefore if a burglar killed Madeleine, he must have been in the apartment a very long time"

      Yes, so true Rosalinda,''

      Bjorn you were asked to supply a source for that claim-why haven't you ?

      Delete
    23. @19:52

      Because it doesn’t exist. Björn was wrong.

      Delete
    24. bjorn ? wrong ? surely not

      Delete
    25. 14:03 so you don't deny it?

      Delete
    26. Frank Beck was the person who died mysteriously in prison after accusing Janner.

      DM

      Delete
  8. Having listened to Mark Rowley dismissing any investigation into the Mccans on the Maddie podcasts , in the light of day 9 years on its as clear as day Grange are looking the other way ... not taking up the offer to re test the samples was the clearest indication of that ... 30 plus detectives did work on the case , but like us in the media , you just don't rock the boat with this one its career ending . D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D @ 10:14

      "In the light of day 9 years on its as clear as day Grange are looking the other way ... not taking up the offer to re test the samples was the clearest indication of that."

      Maybe you don't read posts here?* If you do, I just give up, I really do.

      What is the point of discussion here? It gets absolutely bloomin' nowhere.

      Shallis

      *I can supply you with relevant links if you haven't followed recent threads.

      Delete
    2. I agree 10:14, it is only things like Hillsboro and Bloody Sunday that can gain enough support for cover ups to be truly challenged and brought to justice.

      Even then we are looking at nearly 30 years, and 50 years passing respectively. What are the chances that a cover up involving one death will ever be exposed?

      The other thing is, it is a lot easier to campaign for an innocent man to be freed than to have an innocent man jailed.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 10:14

      ''but like us in the media , you just don't rock the boat with this one its career ending .''

      Who are 'us in the media' ? Are you telling us that you're ( another) reporter ? Are you saying the media could-but won't- rock the boat ? The media have nothing to report. They have suspicions i dare say.But that's all. Those with any hidden truth or evidence have hidden it for a reason. We can only guess what that reason is. To say 12 years and 12 million quid and dozens of people risking their careers and liberty would go to that amount of trouble just to protect two doctors is the stuff of ironic comedy.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    4. Hi, D @ 10:14

      Sorry, not to know this myself: I can't bear Mark's portentious tone on those podcasts, and, as I have written here, the DNA 'breakthrough offer' has been shockingly under researched, and is an irresponsible farce - so find I'm put off listening.

      So you:

      "Having listened to Mark Rowley dismissing any investigation into the Mccans on the Maddie podcasts".

      Is this a soundbite from the old Rowley interview, or did he grant Mark of 9news a fresh one? Which would very much surpise me, actually.

      Would really appreciate knowing which, if you could tell me.

      Big thanks

      Shallis

      Delete
    5. Shallis, you are now pretending to have an advanced knowledge of DNA analysis superior to that of one of the world's most respected experts.Then you dismiss what he says because you don't like his 'tone'.. This is a serious discussion. You prefer to repeat ad nauseam the 'importance' of inconclusive indicators found by the dogs instead.It's been stated that these need corroborating or advances in analysis. This man is offering both. Yet you seem angry at the fact he is offering. Would you rather we remained in a stalemate ? If your guesses about his limited ability are correct we'll still have one.If you're wrong we might have the answers to the inconclusive findings.Then the dogs' findings could finally be referenced with something solid to discuss.

      Z(s)

      Delete
    6. No reply shallis. Is this post one that's full of ' abuse' or just another you can't answer.

      247

      Delete
    7. Z @ 19:26

      "Shallis, you are now pretending to have an advanced knowledge of DNA analysis superior to that of one of the world's most respected experts.Then you dismiss what he says because you don't like his 'tone'.. This is a serious discussion. You prefer to repeat ad nauseam the 'importance' of inconclusive indicators found by the dogs instead.It's been stated that these need corroborating or advances in analysis. This man is offering both. Yet you seem angry at the fact he is offering. Would you rather we remained in a stalemate ? If your guesses about his limited ability are correct we'll still have one.If you're wrong we might have the answers to the inconclusive findings.Then the dogs' findings could finally be referenced with something solid to discuss."

      I rest my case for leaving. Idiot.

      Links to posts being sent to D tomorrow. But Z, don't bother your single brain cell with them, please.

      Toodle pip

      Shallis

      PS this man is an idiot.

      Delete
    8. great reply as usual shallis

      Delete
    9. 22:13 Shallis, I think he's actually very good at what he does. I was on the verge of leaving too, until I realised he has nothing if no one answered him.

      Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and best you with their superior skills.

      Delete
    10. Never argue with an idiot. That's good advice. But never argue with somebody smarter than you if you have nothing to back yourself up. That's better advice.You have the opportunity to shoot down an argument with facts but can't. So you try to deflect the blame to whoever exposes you. A cynical indirect hint to the blogger, Ros, to intervene again so you can continue the trolling of wrong information.A good argument never needs all this assistance.

      Delete
  9. D at 21:17. A Verdade da Mentira on YouTube, 5:11.

    I can't speak Portuguese, so am not entirely sure about the commentary. It could be I am wrong in saying Amaral witnessed it. The scene appears to have two GNR standing at the door watching K&G battering the bed.

    Also it is probably supposition on my part that this was theatrical. However they were seen battering the bed simultaneously.

    Hope that is clear enough, as I am not really sure where you are going with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oscar @ 11.20

      That's a dramatisation of events. Worthless. It's relevance? GA said in his Netflix documentrary interview that he diapproved of the meladramatic reconstruction. Not his call, of course.

      The McCanns have never denied their reaction - Gerry bowing down to the GNR etc. Kate gives her own narrative for the bruises.

      Where is D at 21:17 going with this? No idea. Confuses the hell out of me.

      Shallis

      Delete
    2. Are you saying you listened to something that was spoken in a foreign language you don't understand but thought you could guess what it really meant so you thought you'd post it ?

      Delete
    3. Stop it 13:35, I have seen the programme before with an English translation. What do you think a scene which shows two GNR officers looking in the door at the actors playing the McCanns falling to their knees and battering the bed in a theatrical way could mean apart from my interpretation?

      Delete
    4. Thanks Shallis, 12:26. That's interesting to know.

      Delete
  10. Oscar Slater2 May 2019 at 14:45

    ''What do you think a scene which shows two GNR officers looking in the door at the actors playing the McCanns falling to their knees and battering the bed in a theatrical way could mean apart from my interpretation?''

    I'd think you were being taken in by somebody else's interpretation of what they think the scene would have looked like and used actors to add impact for viewers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Oscar Slater2 May 2019 at 18:12

      As a dramatic reconstruction based on what a director perceived had happened, and what it would have looked at, and what would make a better impact on a viewer. Not a police officer's take.

      Delete
    3. Thank you 19:16, I got that one wrong.

      Delete
    4. Why did you remove the question i replied to, Oscar ?You do that a lot i notice

      Delete
    5. 22:10 if you tell me who you are, I'll be able to answer your question.

      Delete
    6. It's OK I figured it out. You say something provocative, get the answer you don'y like so remove what you said in the first place to salvage some kind of credibility.Nobody else does it. Just you

      Delete
    7. Somebody pointed out that I had made the wrong assumption, I agreed with them at 21:30. I decided to take down the original post as it was a lot of rubbish.

      If it was you 11:34, thank you for clearing it up for me.

      Delete
  11. What happened to the bizarre descriptions the antis used to always go on about that had GM and KM on their knees in the street and said they looked like praying arabs.Isn't that trendy now ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 16:35
    Anonymous2 May 2019 at 10:14

    ''but like us in the media , you just don't rock the boat with this one its career ending .''

    Who are 'us in the media' ? Are you telling us that you're ( another) reporter ? Are you saying the media could-but won't- rock the boat ? The media have nothing to report. They have suspicions i dare say.But that's all. Those with any hidden truth or evidence have hidden it for a reason. We can only guess what that reason is. To say 12 years and 12 million quid and dozens of people risking their careers and liberty would go to that amount of trouble just to protect two doctors is the stuff of ironic comedy.

    Z(s)

    Firstly Im not a reporter im a Photographer , second you must be well aware that this story is a no no , unles you play the game ,as sonia poulton found to her cost , her tv work dried up once she started doubting the official line .

    Who know why £12 million has been spent , but with all the activity from government , files been marked secret aparently damaging for relations betwen the two countries , god only knows whats going on . D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 17:11

      The waters are muddy, I agree. But they don't become clear by splashing around in them, they become muddier.

      I'm not aware that this case is a 'no no'. I'm aware that it smells funny.I'm aware that there was an unprecedented involvement of politicians and Military Intelligence for a crime committed against civilians, not a country.I'm aware that if it all turned out to be just to protect two parents from killing or burying their own child that the politicians would leave the police to deal with it unless there was a political component to the crime.

      Sonia Poulton ? Did the work really dry up or did she just try to branch out on her own rather than take the Murdoch dollar ? I recall her having a go in the alt media via the David Icke platform and ending up at loggerheads with the producers there.Then she interviewed the odd Shrimpton who claimed to have the inside information about the procurers who took Madeleine who then changed his story to that of having been ( needlessly) misinformed by the intel community ( who had no reason to even tell him). A spell in prison cleared his mind ( apparently).Is she trying to be an independent operator or freelance ? It doesn't mean she's been dropped by Sky. What does she think ? Has she said ? I bet she hasn't said anything about the media trying to shape the public perception of the case rather than report it honestly.

      The 'damaging relations between two countries' has never impressed me as a line or as a fact.In what way would it damage them ? Would a whole country turn against another if a killer there killed one of our own ? Are Portugal of major political importance to the UK or are do the UK and Portugal do big business regularly trade wise ?

      People have suggested that the files will be sealed for ( 30...50...100 ) years. Nobody else has said they will be. The Government haven't.Only people on the internet. It's conjecture.Because people suspect something they start to believe they're right and then inform others of it.Others will buy it depending if it informs a bias they already hold. Objective examination of what are facts and what are guesses is of the utmost importance.

      Z(s)



      Delete
  13. Shallis

    *I can supply you with relevant links if you haven't followed recent threads.

    Please do . sorry you have lost me D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D why are you interested in this particular aspect?

      Delete
    2. Will do, D @ 17:12

      Will track down tomorrow over a nice cup of elevenses coffee, especially as I asked for your help with the Rowley information - from podcast that iritates the hell out of me. Quid pro quo.

      I'm quitting here. My family think I am insane to put up with the uncalled for abuse, and relentless misepresentation/miscomprehension/total viscious manglement of what I write - they all seemed very releaved when I suggested I was out! Ziggy-squelched. No victory to his pygmy intellect, of course.

      Will check in for your Rowley answer, and send you links tomorrow.

      Shallis

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2 May 2019 at 19:46


      ''the uncalled for abuse, and relentless misepresentation/miscomprehension/total viscious manglement of what I write - ''

      That isn't how anyone else reads it . You should really present some examples if you want the sympathy and support.Ziggy put you straight without the abuse you refer to. You reacted with foul language and general insults. It's very immature.

      247

      Delete
    4. 22:07 you don't speak for everyone else, in fact I don't know how you think you can speak for anyone else.

      Delete
    5. Very true. I'll rephrase it. This isn't how anyone one else with even an average intelligence reads it.

      247

      Delete
    6. Hi D @ 17:12

      As promised here are the links for:

      complex DNA analysis/Operation Grange/’Maddie’, 9News

      My long double post on this subject can be found at 14 April 2019 at 18:49 and 18:50 (thread following 'McCann Derangement Syndrome', Tuesday, 9 April 2019).

      A precis, in answer to a post, can also be found at 16 April 2019 at 00:32 (ibid).

      And a brief answer to Oscar at 24 April 2019 at 23:35 (thread following: 'Tapas 2 etc', Tuesday, 23 April 2019).

      Shallis

      Delete
  14. I notice that someone else has decided to use "D" as identification.

    I will change from using D to using Dave.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Rosalinda,
    I just logged in to the latest McCanns "Find Madeleine" website.

    According to the McCann's prettily illustrated site "Now is a horrible marker of time stolen" there is an inclusion of creepy age progression photos of their daughter with the words "Can you help us identify her".
    The low point of the charade is a male photofit picture spread of six suspects, all men and among them what looks like Mr McCann (Ref 1B) clutching his dead daughter to his waist.

    Could this man be the man investigators should be looking for.

    No chance; if the McCanns are bold enough to insert the photofit of the most likely perpetrator plus five other fakes they are on the road to innocence.
    Naturally it was was one of the other five you say.

    Using this macabre boldness they have solidified public opinion that British people are untouchable by investigators (at least by the British police).

    Last but not least is "information wanted" of a Photofit woman seen behaving "suspiciously" on the streets of Barcelona, Spain 1277 kilometres away from the "abduction scene" in Portugal on that very same evening, at the same time, on May 7th 2007.

    Talk about Flash Gordon and time travel - I don't think so.

    But the McCann's hypothesis is written in stone for all the world to see, as is the fake search engine "Leave no stone unturned".

    It's funny you can advertise a crime, be the suspect, and come away in gleaming innocence.

    How the two doctors from Leicestershire and their English friends must be laughing so long and hard throughout all these years.
    For some of them, - they are laughing all the way to the bank.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another long wasted post jc

      Can you explain which of the Mccanns have anything to do with that site please

      Delete
    2. course he can't, it's just jc being jc as normal

      Delete
    3. ''But the McCann's hypothesis is written in stone for all the world to see, as is the fake search engine "Leave no stone unturned".''

      What are you drinking these days jc ? Don't tell me - too much ?

      Do you know what a hypothesis is ? Do you know what 'written in stone' means ? Do you see how relating the two is impossible ?

      Delete
    4. 11:31 Can you tell which of them has complained about the fake news on it? Please sign your name to avoid confusion, a letter will do.

      Delete
    5. Certainly. Once jc has addressed the question.

      Delete
  16. Ros dear,some of my posts are not making it on to the blog.
    Would you be so good to check your spam box..?
    Bless..

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 07:45

      You are not T; you ain't got no style.

      Reader

      Delete
    2. @ 07:45

      You are not a good impersonator, my friend. If you were T, you would have written something along the following lines:

      Morning, Rosalinda dear

      Over the last few days, four of my posts have not appeared on your blog. If you could find a moment to have a look for them, I would be most grateful.

      Many thanks.

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
    3. I advise you to be careful who your posts are directed at, T. Some are protected from ridicule, hence certain posts will not be published if it does so to the antis who are floundering all over the place as usual

      Delete
    4. @13:22

      How so? Please give a reference/quote.

      I suspect = I don’t know. Yes?

      Delete
    5. Hey T stop talking to yourself will you.
      Nobody is impersonating you,it's you doing it.
      For what purpose only you know.
      But give it a rest yeah.
      Most of your posts are silly but this lark is taking the p#ss.

      Delete
    6. Please don’t ‘Hey’ me, obnoxious child.

      If Rosalinda needs a proof of what I say, I will suggest a way.

      I’ve seen you here before. Please mind your language or disappear. Yeah?

      T

      Delete
    7. Was that worth the effort 18:21 ? Bored online and nothing going on elsewhere ?

      Delete
  17. @ shallis,don't let the bastard's grind you down,its a modus operandi.
    This little snippet of non news really seems to have by passed many.

    https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-request-more-funds-to-continue-investigation-into-disappearance-11709461


    "Madeleine McCann: Police request more funds to continue investigation into disappearance
    A "very small team" is working the case, Scotland Yard says, as it applies for more money to continue the investigation.
    Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have asked for further funding to pursue "active lines of inquiries".

    Madeleine, then aged three, was last seen while on holiday with her parents and her twin brother and sister in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007.
    After a Portuguese inquiry into her disappearance foundered, Scotland Yard opened its own investigation, Operation Grange, in 2013, which has so far cost £11.75m.
    Every six months, the force must apply for Home Office funding to continue the inquiry.
    Last November, a further £150,000 was granted and on Thursday, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick confirmed it had applied for more.
    She said: "We have active lines of inquiries and I think the public would expect us to see those through.
    "A very small team continues to work on this case with Portuguese colleagues and we have put in an application to the Home Office for further funding."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon3 May 2019 at 09:01

      ''@ shallis,don't let the bastard's grind you down,its a modus operandi.
      This little snippet of non news really seems to have by passed many.''


      lol yes.A 'modus operandi' by the establishment- the 'pros'. it's their shills, man they're everywhere i look, man..

      A real hold-the-front-page moment.The 'exclusive' . Another request for money( as predicted). Like it's been requested twice a year every year( which id predicatble). If this 'little snippet' is to remain predictable, guess where it will lead..

      Delete
  18. ''He has never given credence to the revolting, and silly conspiracy theory that the McCanns colluded with Gordon Brown and M15 to bury their child. Stop spreading mendacious nonsense. By doing so, you render the discussion here infantile.''
    Shallis on Amaral

    Many of us see Mark Rowley on video state the Mccanns are not suspects but Shallis day after day calls him a liar and us stupid

    Many of us see Pedro do Cormo on video state the Mccanns are not suspects but Shallis day after day calls him a liar and us stupid.

    Many of us see Amaral on Sunday Night Channel 7 Australia state
    British secret agents for sure had an involvement and Gordon Brown was involved
    Shallis states Amaral never said it and it is a mendacious lie and anybody questioning her research is rude, a troll etc etc.
    Shallis you state that Amaral never said this it has nothing to do with the current Australian podcasts. Nothing. zero your research is worthless.

    Comment from you is very welcome on here as it always condemns the Mccanns /tapas and promotes Amaral no matter how inane your claims.

    When your claims are challenged it is considered rudeness. How ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A great post word for word.That means you will be joining Ziggy on the ' troll' list or you'll have your 'mental well being' pointed out now by Ros, in defence of shallis- her admirer

      247

      Delete
    2. @JJ

      Well spotted regarding Amaral's early insinuation of MI5 interest. You might also be interested in Jim Gamble's very recent comments to the Express about the cost of policing and justification of expenditure:

      “What I know for a fact is this: the Metropolitan Police would not be asking for one penny more towards this investigation unless they had meaningful leads.

      “I cannot see how this Government, during the age of austerity – or the police themselves – would apply for money if there wasn’t something potentially positive that might come from it.

      “You come to a point where you don’t ask for more money if there’s nothing more to do.

      “There have to still be lines of inquiry to justify further investment. Nobody gives money away these days, they have to justify it.

      “I’ve worked in that environment, you have to justify how much money you want, what you are going to use it for, and what impact it is likely to have.”

      Very similar rules apply to any UK police intent on playing an operational role overseas.

      NO UK constabulary should initiate such assistance, but in the event of its being requested they must first apply for HO approval complete with pro-forma invoices outlining, among other things, the intended duration of stay.

      Strange then that Leicester Constabulary contravened these directives by taking the initiative and, as we both know, members of UK police were on the ground in PdL before the ink could have dried on any formal application.

      Maybe Gamble can explain that away in due course.

      M.




      Delete
    3. Anonymous3 May 2019 at 12:15

      ( Gamble) ''“I cannot see how this Government, during the age of austerity – or the police themselves – would apply for money if there wasn’t something potentially positive that might come from it.''

      Allow me, Mr G.

      Because that way it reinforces the illusion of a real investigation rather than a cover up in high places.

      :)

      Delete
    4. “There have to still be lines of inquiry to justify further investment. Nobody gives money away these days, they have to justify it.''

      Justification for this particular money ? '' shhhhh..nudge nudge, wink wink...you know the score, son''

      Delete
    5. Funny after all these years why no-one asks exactly how Jim Gamble got the gig at CEOP with absolutely no prior experience or formal qualifications in child protection.

      He'd only been working there since the 24th April 2006, yet by 2007 he had became an expert in his new-found field. How could Jim Gamble become the specialist the media made him out to be with such little knowledge in child protection?

      How did Gamble get the appointment in the first place? And who made it happen?

      All highly suspicious.

      Delete
    6. All your questions should really be directed to the interviewing panel. They must have wanted him for some reason. Either way, it has nothing to do with the investigation.

      Delete
    7. "Mr Gamble is regarded as an expert in online crime but he began his career in Northern Ireland as an ordinary offline policeman."

      https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11475271

      ----------

      Comment:
      "How has the search for Madeleine been 'greatly enhanced' by the work of CEOP?? I always thought this organisation was set up to protect children from being exploited online? Madeleine was not exploited online, but is missing, yet on the CEOP website, Madeleine is the only child featured? Why?"

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317962/Kate-Gerry-McCann-upset-child-protection-chief-Jim-Gambles-resignation.html

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 3 May 2019 @ 19:35 - I'm afraid you're not considering the wider agenda. Agreed though, it has nothing to do with the investigation if OG is what you're referring to.


      Delete
    9. No wider agenda was referred to in the post I replied to.What is it

      Delete
  19. https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2019/05/portuguese-judiciary-police-follows-new.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, the news today is that the PJ are looking for funding to follow up a lead on the abduction theory. Where does this put the patsy theory now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all the other theories. In the imagination.The case has been closed for 12 years.

      Delete
    2. Sorry 13:53, but the case is not closed. The PJ said it had been shelved. Furthermore Operation Grange have been running an investigation for the last 7 years.

      Delete
    3. The Judiciary Police confirms that the disappearance of Maddie McCann is still an open case.

      "Given the news that were made public today [Friday] and the numerous requests for clarification on the subject," the Judiciary Police informs that "the investigation into the disappearance of an English child, that took place in Praia da Luz in 2007, remains open, within the scope of an investigation supervised by the Public Prosecutor of Portimão".

      in Notícias ao Minuto online, May 3, 2019

      Delete
    4. I see they made no mention of a death or murder investigation.

      Jo

      Delete
    5. Oscar Slater3 May 2019 at 15:41

      It's closed in all but name. Unless something actually happens of course. Why would that happen all of a sudden. Don't think so.

      Delete
    6. 007 PJ officer said on CMTV last night that the Tapas 9 are still suspects because they didn't co operate. Then the usual stuff about politics.

      Delete
    7. Did the PJ officer have a name or is it another rumour.Because he's lying if it isn't just a rumour.The libel case in court was pretty much an apology for the accusations made against them

      Delete
  21. Oscar @ 13:14

    Tosh

    'a source says . . .'

    "A new clue and a new suspect, which the PJ are trying to keep an absolute secret"

    (not doing too well then)

    but

    'Police in Porto are now said to be looking into the credibility of the new information".

    that's 'said to be . . .'

    (The Sun, quoting Correio da Manha)

    Don't fall for it.

    Shallis (I'm off, as you know, just tidying my desk).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oscar Slater2 May 2019 at 18:14
    D why are you interested in this particular aspect?

    I have been feeding a bit of info to Mark Saunoko for the Maddie Podcast , he is very thorough ,i have been asked to find the source article re the original l account , the Sunday mirror we thing was the first publication to run this . my syndication , has now joined forces with the Mirror Reach PLC and the archives are at canary wharf . i have to go down in person and trawl through the back issues
    Also as i was told and mentioned hear by my apparent "imaginary" Grange ex copper Scotland yard will just ignore the DNA offer , as we are seeing more spin and deflection , its as clear as day whats going on , Amoral said the will try and pin it on someone D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes every word sounds reasonable to anyone who is on his tenth pint.

      It's now 2019. You make a call to the newspaper and make a request.They have these new things called 'computers'. They store 'archives'.Five minutes after the call, a click, a browse and the archived item is found. No need to make an emergency journey to Canary Wharf unless the film you're describing actually gets shot in the real world.Have you told your new 'friend' Mark about your secret 'friend' who was part of OG yet ? Go on, let us know what he says or if he laughed like anyone else reading this fantasy

      Delete
    2. Actually it's all true

      Bond...James Bond

      Delete
  23. "Well, the news today is that the PJ are looking for funding to follow up a lead on the abduction theory. Where does this put the patsy theory now?"

    The same place as 'the McCanns did it' theory, I suppose.

    G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that G. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Is it the case you think that both stories are nonsense?

      D, thanks for clarifying that.

      Delete
    2. exactly @ 15:14 another expensive production ready on the production line. It isn't going to have a conclusion.It's time to accept the obvious.

      Delete
    3. The story surfaces in the Corriere da Manha. Amaral is friendly with the CdM. I think we know who "the source" is. I suspect he wont have lost many friends at the CdM, by puffing the show on Channel 9 podcast.

      I think it has about as much validity as the stories our tabloids publish. In fact, it is practically a carbon copy of the sort of stories that OG put out at this time of year.

      Delete
  24. Rosalinda Hutton

    I would like to draw you attention to a breach of ‘no more copying and pasting entire posts’ rule by Anonymous 2 May 2019 at 22:13. If the rule stands, the offending post should be removed and its author put on notice.

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3 May 2019 at 20:49

      A remarkably empty life. What's the matter, was something you said taken apart again :)

      Delete
    2. I second that. It's in breach of the new rules and it concludes with the trademark abuse.

      247

      Delete
    3. Can I point out 20:49, that there is also a rule about signing posts. I'm sure you will want anyone breaching this to have the same sanction applied to them.

      I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name?

      Delete
  25. Published one hour ago in the New York Post (don't know how accurate it is): -

    "A sex fiend who speaks English and wears a surgical mask is understood to be the kidnapper Portuguese police now fear may have snatched Madeleine McCann.

    Detectives are now following this lead after they discovered that a man reportedly known to local police carried out nearly 30 attacks within a 40-mile radius of the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz from which Madeleine vanished 12 years ago Friday.

    A judicial source is reported to have confirmed the unnamed man was definitely in Portugal at the time the British 3-year-old disappeared.

    The insider also alleged the man was known to local cops and had previously been investigated on suspicion of involvement in pedophile cases.

    He allegedly crept into Algarve properties rented by families, and many victims were British. In one case, a 7-year-old girl from the UK reportedly woke to find the pervert lying next to her in bed wearing a medical mask.

    Portuguese cops are believed to be working on a tip from Scotland Yard about an alleged foreign pedophile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A sex fiend who speaks English and wears a surgical mask is understood to be the kidnapper Portuguese police now fear may have snatched Madeleine McCann.''

      You can tell it's an american paper. How many movies inspired that lol he must be really slippery this 'suspect' to have evaded 12 years of investigation wearing a surgical mask :/

      This won't go anywhere. It suggests to me that they are beginning to feel guilty about asking for constant top ups and doing nothing for it.I said this would happen again ages ago. The big lead will coincide with the next request and there it is. Strange how they only develop a new lead when the request is due....

      So we have Amaral's 'leaks' about what he knows about OG's thinking ( allegedly); a German paedophile in prison ( allegedly) and now an English speaking oddball in a trick or treat outfit who was 'known' to the police 12 years ago.They don't hang about do they.

      So this known paedophile who operated within the Algarve and had form was and is right under the noses of the PJ but they needed a tip from Scotland yard in London, England to alert them to him. Yes, that's realistic.Makes so much sense.

      I can't wait to see how he ( they ?) don't fit the bill.Another excuse until the next request..In 6 months they'll say they want to speak to Colonel Mustard after they found his DNA on a candlestick..

      Z

      Delete
    2. Ziggy, it had to happen, I agree with everything you said there.

      Delete
    3. So now we have surgical mask man, who sounds exactly like Smelly man (who wore a jumper with a target on the back)who also had a penchant for climbing in the bedroom windows of small British girls.

      I remember when 'smelly man' was the new lead, about 5 years ago iirc, and when OG asked the British press not to investigate him for fear of upsetting the British families affected.

      It is very strange of course, that when Madeleine disappeared there was no mention of Smelly Man or Surgical Mask breaking into the apartments of British families. The world's press were in PDL scratching for stories, yet this man 'well known to the police' did not receive a mention until OG stepped in 5 years later.

      So where has this new lead 'surgical mask man' come from? He sounds just like 'smelly man', is it possible there were two child predators climbing into the bedroom windows of British holidaymakers at the same time? Independent of each other? Curiouser and curiouser.

      Or could it be that with no signs of an abductor, suspicion of the McCanns grows ever stronger? Take out the abductor and all of you have left are the parents and their friends.

      Who's interests does it serve if the media publishes stories of 'new leads' and new potential abductors? It doesn't make the police look good - 7 years and they have only just come up with a new lead? What were they doing for the previous 7 years? Who or what were they investigating while waiting for this new lead to appear?

      For those with a vested interest in keeping the abduction story going, it helps if the tabloids play along with this game of 'let's pretend'. And they are more than happy to oblige, it benefits them, sensational headlines, and it keeps abduction in the public's minds.
      Not to mention, it keeps media martyrs Gerry and Kate as innocent victims. The abduction story wasn't just good for the McCanns, it was good for all those experts who flew out to PDL and took up the parents' cause.

      Delete
    4. For me its a a jibe. NHS medics wear surgical masks.The last known NHS medical doctor who saw Maddy alive 'looking angelic' was Dr.David Payne
      He claims to have spent 30 minutes in Kate Healy McCann's presence on the fateful evening. She claimed it was only for 5 minutes. We must forgive the male ego at this juncture.

      Gerry's Jemmy.

      Delete
    5. "Or could it be that with no signs of an abductor, suspicion of the McCanns grows ever stronger? Take out the abductor and all of you have left are the parents and their friends."

      According to you, maybe. But not according to the police.

      Time will tell if the lead the PJ are allegedly currenly following is legitimate or not. But it would appear that OG and the police are focussing on an abductor, not on the McCanns.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous4 May 2019 at 12:07

      is Dr Payne a surgeon ? Don't be silly. The 'jibe' is a clue is it ? So he wore the 'clue' but made sure nobody saw him.Great way of making a point that

      Delete
    7. Oscar Slater4 May 2019 at 11:31

      ''Ziggy, it had to happen, I agree with everything you said there.''

      First sign of madness, Oscar :)

      I think what I'm annoyed by, and you too and many others who have kept tabs on this case is one thing that shouldn't be possible.

      We see the pros V the antis. We read circular arguments about the evidence ( or non-evidence). We've been fed mind -shaping rhetoric from all media platforms. We;ve seen a full and continued commitment of both major UK political parties. We've seen the McCann versus Amaral argument- was he lying, wrong or right but suppressed ?Was it really a necessary political cover up or a bog standard moment rage from an angry parent ?

      So, we watch that spin around the b;lender and conclude that it's things like 'the crime of the century' or 'the mystery of the century' or the whatever of the century.These elements remind me of an unsolved murder i've tied to get on to of foe decades but can't for similar reasons that I can't with this one. But, that one thing that shouldn't be possible given it's billing of a complex mystery is that nobody should be able to look at all the conflicting arguments and opinions and theories and be able to predict anything at all with ease.Yet we can if we just look at it. They repeat what works and they will do so as long as they get away with it. The bi-annual ritual of asking for money in exchange for an 'intriguing' story.That we can predict it says much.Somewhere, someone unseen knows what this 'mystery' really is about.

      Z

      Delete
    8. Anonymous4 May 2019 at 12:07

      '' NHS medics wear surgical masks.The last known NHS medical doctor who saw Maddy alive 'looking angelic' was Dr.David Payne'

      This isn't Columbo.

      ''He claims to have spent 30 minutes in Kate Healy McCann's presence on the fateful evening. She claimed it was only for 5 minutes. We must forgive the male ego at this juncture.''

      Fair enough but let's not overlook the actual truth while forgiving it.

      The 30 minutes you're referring to alone with Kate ? Was it on the 'fateful evening' or late afternoon before that evening's arrangements had been planned ?ie- the daytime.

      The 'angel of death syndrome' is fairly off the scale just because we're now looking for a man with a mask. I could dress up as Superman but i couldn't pull Lois Lane.

      Z

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda Hutton4 May 2019 at 11:43

      ''Or could it be that with no signs of an abductor, suspicion of the McCanns grows ever stronger? Take out the abductor and all of you have left are the parents and their friends. ''

      Why take out an abductor just because they can't find him or her ?They had their chance with the parents- a bird in the hand as they say- and got nothing. That's actually further reason to look for the abductor, not less of a reason.

      247

      Delete
    10. Ziggy, to put things in context. The bill for policing the climate change protests came to £7 m. OG is in the bargain basement of policing.

      Without the political drive to get something done, these guys are on the junket of a lifetime.

      I can't see what politician wants to stick his neck above the parapet, and risk the backlash of going for patents.

      Yeah everyone is pissed at them just now, but I guarantee the sight of her being lead away in cuffs with the twins looking on is all it will take for sympathy to shift.

      Delete
    11. I suppose the interpretation of the fiscal aspect is all subjective. Sure we can look at policing protests. Or we could look at the savagery of the MHS cuts in every hospital in the UK or the even more savage cuts to the benefit system they call 'reform'.When this kind of financial terrorism takes place it's a war declared on the poor.Why should it be genuinely innocent people who bleed when cuts are made ?

      This case is an expense.For my money, I'd say an unnecessary one.Yes, maybe a year or two of investigating it.But after that ? No. In any case, the PJ had the responsibility of funding the investigation in the first place as it was a crime committed on their soil. But the cash -strapped UK felt it had to dive in and bring cheque books along with politicians and MI5 . None of them work for free. If either police force would have said, after a couple of years, that they'd exhausted all avenues and, given the financial climate, they saw it would be in the public interest to shelve the case until a time when meaningful evidence or testimony is passed to them, then who would have criticised that ?

      As it stands now, even if they arrest, charge and prosecute someone it won't be remembered as their finest hour. It will be remembered as a farce.If a gang is arrested then they'll be heroes.That would explain how sensitive it all was - so many involved and it was a house of cards. Maybe that's why the PJ are saying they have 'more than one suspect' now.But nothing of the twelve years tells me there's a likely conclusion to any of it.I believe it could have been solved years ago but wasn't.That's a bizarre belief I know, and a bizarre state of affairs if it's right. But the UK made the whole thing bizarre by throwing Prime Ministers and Military Intelligence at a police investigation.We are still to hear why.And we are still to hear why they give unending funding to something that isn't moving.If it isn't moving, it's dead. leave it.Nobody is going to break rank now. I believe it could happen but i can't see it being soon.I think there's so little evidence in the way of DNA etc that there will be no need to seal the case for any amount of years.This has been the greatest clean up job since Mister Wolf assisted Jules and Vincent.

      Z

      Delete
  26. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/776593/madeleine-mccann-police-kate-mccann-prayer-service-anniversary

    'Maddie’s brave mum and her twins were warmly welcomed by their community during a poignant prayer service in their home village of Rothley, Leicestershire, while her heart doctor husband Gerry was busy working in Italy.'

    ...

    'Brian - the brother of Kate’s mum Susan Healy who was at a prayer service in her home city of Liverpool - said: “We are all very grateful to those who turned out this evening in less than pleasant conditions. It means a lot to us that people are still willing to support us.”

    He told how eminent cardiologist Gerry would be remembering his daughter during his hectic business trip to Milan.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 22:40 looks like Gerry is distancing himself from the whole affair. He should be careful, much as he thinks he has Kate where he needs her, one day she might just self destruct and bring the whole house of cards down.

      Delete
    2. I think Gerry's sick of being the main attraction in Cirque De McCann. He's on to the media moguls and politicians games now methinks. He won't dance for money any more. This, and his pre-emptive attack of the Netflix doc as a waste of time seems to be a case of ' '*** you...call me when you've actually done something''


      Bernie

      Delete
  27. "The Great Secret"
    There are only three people in the world who know the great secret of what happened on the night of May 3rd 2007 at apartment 5A in the Warner holiday resort in Praia da luz.
    They are the dead girl Madeleine McCann and her two parents.
    Unfortunately the girl cannot tell us of her demise and the parents have remained silent for 12 years except to lamely say it was a kidnapping.
    They came back to the apartment and, - she was gone - just like that. Later the two adults thrashed the floor in front of two amazed Portuguese police officers who described their antics as like Arabs at prayer.

    But regardless of these theatrics (never to be seen again until smilingly releasing balloons outside a church).

    One of their great moves was to get a sworn pact of silence out of their Tapas friends who backed up their cover story of a kidnapping, likewise back home the Healys and the McCann extended families were told some kind of a story to fit the kidnapping plot.
    All this might seem fine for them so far except it has created a weak link that has certainly not fooled a watching public.
    I wonder if any of the two families or a pact member might eventually blab the Great Secret that has held tight for 12 years. Doubtless the parents must dread the day the fake abduction tale will implode.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great stuff. We've had revelation man, creche man, egg man, smelly man, and now we have make- things- up -as- i -go- along- man. Hello jc.

      ''There are only three people in the world who know the great secret of what happened on the night of May 3rd 2007 at apartment 5A in the Warner holiday resort in Praia da luz.
      They are the dead girl Madeleine McCann and her two parents.''

      So you've decided that the Tapas '7' ( bigger number than 2 and 3) are free of blame now. That's new. Or is your maths terrible.By definition, a dead girl /child / person can't 'know' anything, by the way. Which leaves 2. Great start.

      ''Unfortunately the girl cannot tell us of her demise and the parents have remained silent for 12 years except to lamely say it was a kidnapping.
      They came back to the apartment and, - she was gone - just like that. ''

      Apparently that's how 99.9% of kidnappings work, jc. The perpetrator will never do it in front of the child's parents( you, know, in case they ask what he's doing').

      ''One of their great moves was to get a sworn pact of silence out of their Tapas friends who backed up their cover story of a kidnapping,''

      A 'sworn pact' ? Do you know how one of those works, jc ? Can you give us any information on how they managed to get this 'sworn' pact if( according to your maths skills) they knew nothing about what had happened to Madeleine.

      ''All this might seem fine for them so far except it has created a weak link that has certainly not fooled a watching public.''

      But if it's that weak, how can it have fooled the police in Portugal as well as the UK ?

      ''I wonder if any of the two families or a pact member might eventually blab the Great Secret that has held tight for 12 years''

      About something ( according to your opening statement ) they have no knowledge of.

      '' Doubtless the parents must dread the day the fake abduction tale will implode.''

      Doubtless ? They have years behind them that gives them confidence that it can't implode, explode or turn to mist.Only the police can expose what's hidden.They have dogs working along side them and forensics teams at their disposal should they wish to spend some of their 'hard earned' funding on them.Accepting offers from respected experts in the field would be a start.It would also deter a lot of lunatic posts on forums and the like. No offence, like.

      Z

      Delete
    2. The PJ's trick to get free money was like the UKs but a bit more exaggerated..They said they suspect a 'foreign paedophile'. Foreign meaning someone from somewhere on the planet but not Portuguese. Possibly the German.But they upped the ante saying they have 'more than one suspect' to investigate-which suggests a ring.

      In the meantime, the shameless UK end of things didn't just request 'the usual please, gov', they asked for twice the amount ( £300,000).I suppose this will mean they don't need to ask for a top up in 6 months when this leads nowhere so we won't notice.

      I'd like to know what that cash gets spent on. An itemized list. If they have a suspect in their sights now, what takes 300 K to go and question him ?

      https://news.sky.com/story/new-suspect-in-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-11710862

      Z

      Delete