Tuesday, 29 September 2020


UPDATE:  01/10/20

As expected the poison pen hate mail has returned, and no, it won't be published.  The sheer vitriol suggests someone is mightily mad that I have decided to write and publish a book about this case.  Probably because the Madeleine case has largely been put to bed and stored in the history books as an unsolved mystery.  Of the Blair era, it is just another case that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but on a scale of transgressions, it's at the bottom of the list, with an illegal war being at the top.  It will remain shelved for the next few centuries until an enthusiastic Sherlock Holmes automaton picks it up.

So why upset the equilibrium now?  Why bring more grief to a family who lost a child?  And it does sound awful when you put it like that, but that writes off all the harm to others to support the abduction story.  The abduction story only worked by blaming others. Beginning with PDL who lost most of their tourist industry.  The Portuguese police who were vilified, the hundreds of innocent posters on social media who were targeted and abused online if they dared say they did not believe the abduction story.

And yes, I was among them, I had my name and reputation torn to shreds along with nasty reviews on Amazon every time I tried to publish a book.  Well I'm knocking on a bit now and these are dodgy times, so yes, I am going to write my story with every eye opening revelation I discovered along the way.  It is legacy time, time to explain myself, time to justify why I wouldn't keep my trap shut, every time the McCanns, the press and every 'friend of the family' (Clarence) released a phony press release.  Should I have just kept that to myself?  

There are still many people out there who want to know what happened to little Madeleine McCann and there are a huge amount of crackpot theories and weirdos who claim to have solved the case.  Most of these weirdos claimed to have solved the case even before the police files were released.  That is, they had already established a motive, some sort of sexual deviancy, and were banging square pegs into round holes to make their freaky theories fit.   These were the ones the media portrayed as non believers of the McCanns, as if we all wore dirty rainmacs and carried binoculars.  Non believers quickly changed to 'haters' and war broke out on social media.

I had been dragged into a war not of my making, and any attempts I made to get away failed.  The McCanns and their trolls followed me relentlessly for years planting false stories and lies to demean and discredit me.  Walking away was never an option.  The pursuit continued, even when I wrote a diet book ffs.  The McCanns are vengeful, they never give up.  I did for a while there, but I'm back.  I supported Goncalo Amaral when he wrote his book, because I could understand his need to tell his side of the story.  I feel the same way too, I'm not the villain in this Greek (Portuguese) tragedy, merely an onlooker who got pulled in.  A bit like a curious cat.  


In response to Bjorn, from the previous blog.  

Yes, this is what I am thinking Bjorn, and I have already begun.  Having been on this case from the start, I am familiar with all the different factions, and more importantly, the agendas and ulterior motives of all the different factions.  From the characters who headed out to PDL when Madeleine disappeared, to the lunatics who imbedded themselves into the investigation via their armchairs and the internet.

I have already written quite a few thousand words already, but I am currently working on the structure.  That is probably the hardest part of putting a book together, the bit that will keep me up at night, lol, But, I am a great storyteller, it is my gift, and I intend to write the book bringing in all the various aspects of Madeleine's case that turned what was probably a sad but pretty straight forward story into a global mystery. Knowing all that I know now, I have, for myself anyway, been able to find a 'satisfying end', a conclusion, a last page.  I am in the happy position of knowing enough about the subject, to explain it simply.  And of course, that was the beauty of Goncalo Amaral's book,  he told his story with honesty and integrity.  It is the definitive book in my opinion, and I would never take that away from him.  

With mine, I have the benefit of hindsight, I could see what was going on outside of his bubble, the bigger picture - the politics he referred to that prevented this case from being solved.  Clearly, it was not just a problem for the incumbent Labour government of the time, it carried on into the next 3 tory governments.  The tories don't have the resolve to fix it either.  

I have never been about vengeance.  I have never had any interest whatsoever in the punishment side of crime.  I did once toy with the idea of applying to be a Justice, but I would have let everyone off and probably sent them on holiday.  I don't hate Gerry and Kate McCann, I find them fascinating.  They bring out those parts of my brain that wants to solve puzzles.  I can't put a label on them.  I can't say Kate is/was a subjugated wife or that Gerry is a downtrodden husband.  Kate is much stronger than she portrays herself, the leaning on Gerry is for sympathy.  Gerry, the opposite, not as strong as he portrays, but quickly knows how to go into alpha male automaton mode.  Their interactions are fascinating, there will be a whole chapter on that.

I was intrigued by the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance, as we all were, we were drawn in by the tragedy of the story and the talented professionalism of those who were selling it.  And I have to give a nod to Clarence Mitchell here, he created a reality show as big as the Osbornes. Maybe it was a joint venture with Gerry, who discovered talents he didn't know he had, but again, Clarence and err, 'keeping up with the McCanns' is also worthy of a chapter.

I will also delve into the paedophile aspect, that was created, possibly on the first night, when Gerry was discussing paedophiles gangs on the phone. I thought that was an horrific first thought to go to, but it planted that seed that there were dark, hooded, predators, climbing in bedroom windows in the resort of PDL.  Perverts using a network of computers to tip each other off, when a 'special' child was left alone, unguarded.  All bo**ox of course - bogeymen remain largely mythological,  though he is blamed of course in too many cases where young children disappear.  The sad reality is that in almost all those cases, is much closer to home.

Then there is the other paedophile aspect.  It differs from the above paedophile aspect, in that these particular paedophile hunters were/are,  accusing the parents and their friends of sexually abusing their kids.  I found those who focused on these kind of odious accusations particularly despicable.  They weren't 'thinking of the children' as is their customary battle cry, they were doing the opposite.  Hurting, in a most cruel and sadistic manner, those small children who were on that holiday, maybe for the rest of their lives, the sick, fecking bastards.  I especially hate those self proclaimed 'language' experts who can pick up perversity in a few short sentences, they bring a whole new meaning to 'shut that door'.   Sadly, I have fixated in my head a group of creepy old men in rainmacs looking for the same perverse thoughts they have in the heads of others.  TB, RH and the creepy guitar strumming bible basher.

But it wasn't just men, there are a lot of women out there too being brainwashed to believe their tiny tots are sexually attractive to perverts.  Maybe CEOP could come out with burkas for ages 1-3, to keep the nonses under control?  Yes, of course I am being sarcastic, but when, let's say, dubious people have control of the dominant ideology, we can be led to believe anything.  In 2007, we were being persuaded to set up a specialist police task force to respond to child abductions anywhere in the world as if they were happening on a weekly basis.  Truth is, they would have been sat twiddling their thumbs this past 13 years because there hasn't been another one.  

I disagree, with Jim Gamble, former head of CEOP, with every fibre of my body that paedophiles are everywhere.  I'll tell him what's everywhere - regular people who have never in their lives had such a creepy thought in their heads.    As but, as you see, although divided, the paedophile factions, eventually come together in agreement - they want us to believe perverts are all around us.   In the social media theatre of war, this put the establishment, the McCanns and every looney facebook page against me.  They all wanted to believe that some kind of sexual perversion lay at the heart of this case.  

On the outrage front, in my opinion, parents (in general) have enough fears without the government adding to them, especially where those fears were contrived and manipulated.  I hated the fear and suspicion that was spread among the public that their children were in constant danger.  It simply wasn't true.  Making paedophiles public enemy number 1 was a great distraction for a government who took us into an illegal war.  One minute terrorists, the next, paedophiles.  And dear little  Madeleine became the child we all wanted to bring home.  For a Labour government who wanted to create a national database of DNA and a legal enforcement to carry identify cards, telling the public their children were at risk was an easy sell.  'Only those with something to hide, will refuse to hand over the blood, medical records and bank details'.  See how easy it is to bring in martial law, when someone shouts 'think of the children!'.

I agree with you Bjorn, which of course I would, lol, that none of the documentaries, videos, books etc, have provided a definite account of everything that went on.  They are all so afraid of being sued by the litigious McCanns, that they daren't even point at conclusions without providing an opposite and opposing side.  I will do the same, obviously, but I'm not going to say, something's perfectly logical when it's clearly insane.  I may well have an entire chapter devoted to 'WTF?' moments, of which, there are many! 

The Madeleine case, more than any other, revealed just how much the mainstream media were deceiving us.  We had heard the words 'spin' and negative and positive propaganda, but we were seeing it in action, in plain sight.  We were not reliant on news from the British tabloids, the internet had swept in hundreds, thousands of new news sources from outside UK borders.  Most pertinently, in the Madeleine case, news was flooding in from Portugal and it was entirely different to the news that was flooding the UK tabloids.  A lot of people found that they were only one, maybe two, clicks away from discovering the truth.

I have not yet decided whether Gerry and Kate were genius publicists of themselves or whether they were victims of the media moguls, police chiefs and politicians who were using them.  I will devote an entire chapter to it.   I am hoping that the time is right, that the McCanns and the legal eagles will not be bothered by an opinion piece.  One of the great benefits I had as a published author, was my book being scrutinised by the legal team at Random House.  It was a huge learning curve, albeit it rushed, within a month, but I learned enough about libel law to steer clear of the McCann legal watchers.  I didn't even get a mention in the Summers and Swan book, for which I was quite miffed.  But truth is, I have never said anything illegal or libellous, Amazon will have no reason to ban me.  But, of course, lol, we shall see what happens.  My journey is no different to thousands of others who were gripped by this case.  That is, gripped by the puzzle solving, gripped by the gossip, gripped by the twists, turns and drama of reality TV on OMGs.

I'm not putting the blame for my obsession on the parents of Madeleine,  Since I have started accepting the blame (absolutely) for every dumbarse decision I have ever made, I have realised the absolute futility of  trying to shift that blame onto others.  I could easily have flipped that front page over onto page 3 and tits, (at that time, lol), but I wanted to know sooooo much more.  Even in May, 2007, the logical part of my brain could not make the facts I knew, as few as they were, into a story that made sense.  And I wanted to, because my dear old mum who I loved squabbling with, had taken the opposing side.  

So, so much I should save for the book, lol.  I am a great believer in fate.  I started my blog because, basically everyone hated me, ha ha, I was banned from every Madeleine site.  But I started my blog, and built up my own discussion board, uncensored and unfiltered, which worked very well for a long while.  I think I reached occasions where I was the most read Madeleine blog on the net.  I was attacked by the head cases, not surprisingly, from both the anti McCann side and the pro McCann side.  Again, I cite that point where extremes collide and find themselves in the same lane.  

I should finish with I am not the enemy.  I am not the bad guy, or gal, a terrible impression the internet has taken of me, because I simply did not believe Gerry and Kate McCann.  I am proud to have grown up in a land where I am free to have my opinion, but for a long time, I had to fight a ridiculous media war where I was labelled a 'hater', bitter twisted, psychologically unstable and regularly told to 'hurry up and die'.  Simply because I had voiced out loud that I did not believe the abduction story given by the McCanns and the establishment who seemed to be in on it.

Opposing the McCann media machine was not a good choice (again I blame myself), but I was not going to be silenced.  Who tf did they think they were?  Famous last words, lol.  Sadly, David beating Goliath was a fluke, anyone taking on media darlings and the power of the establishment, generally gets squished.  Presently peeking out from under a large mushroom that's about to be sauteed. The big question now, is am I squishworthy?  

On the non squishworthy side (saving the McCanns a fortune in legal fees here), I have no fortune they can seize in reparation for their pain.  TB had a house and a few bob put aside, Goncalo Amaral wrote a best selling book (they allowed it to sell for 12 months before suing).  And I make no allegations, nor will I.  I simply want to sell a book based on the knowledge I have and the conclusions I have reached.  A story with a beginning, a middle and an end.  

And on the non squishworthy side, I am sympathetic to Gerry and Kate, I try to understand the predicament they were in.   I don't agree with their batshit crazy form of childminding, a listening method used by Butlins, circa 1960, I do understand their desperate need for a break from kids.  As a young single mum, I literally cried when I couldn't go out.  Whatever happened in that apartment that night was not premeditated, malicious, or, and I can't believe I am having to say this, sexually perverse.   If  you are among those people who think it was, or who think, an accident happened much earlier in the week, then this book is not for you.  The tapas group were regular, normal, if a bit geeky, party of middle class professionals enjoying an early summer break.  PDL was a regular Portuguese holiday village, not a regular meeting place for  VIP paedophiles and swingers.  Such was the rubbish being sold in the early days, and such was the rubbish that continued throughout.  Textusa, some crazy old spinster who believes everyone's swinging except her.  

I must go, I have the writing bug, and that has been missing for a long time..... 


  1. "And I make no allegations, nor will I. I simply want to sell a book based on the knowledge I have and the conclusions I have reached. A story with a beginning, a middle and an end."

    No allegations but conclusions and an end - how is that possible?

    1. @ Anonymous29 September 2020 at 22:39

      It is not about the case - it is about Christobell's favourite topic - Ros Hutton. The truth and accuracy won't matter.

    2. If you are a long time reader of my blog 11:03, you will be familiar with my writing philosophy Honesty and Integrity. It is the reason I have never been sued and the reason that my blog became so popular with watchers of the missing Madeleine case, from both sides, those who did not believe the parents and those who did. Nor were the McCanns able to attack me as a troll, I'm one of the very few people commenting on this case who uses my real name. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed about my beliefs and opinions, because they are based on OCD amounts of research. Perhaps I should be ashamed of my stubborness in refusing to back down, but my convent background left me scarred, in that I would never be bullied into submission by the nuns or indeed anyone else who tried it.

      Naturally I will be writing the book from my own perspective, who's perspective should I write it from, yours? lol. And truth and accuracy will of course matter. The details of Madeleine's disappearance and everything that happened thereafter is well documented, the Portuguese police files are still online, so too is Goncalo Amaral's book, Kate's book, Gerry's blogs and all those interviews. Not to mention the thousands of people who have studied this case as much as I. On this blog if I make so much as a grammatical error, I am pounced upon!

  2. Amaral has said he (Christian B) was one of “hundreds” of paedophiles in the area at the time three-year-old Madeleine vanished while on holiday with her parents Kate and Gerry.

  3. Hello Rosalinda

    From the bottom of my heart, I wish you the best of luck.

    The case isn't really so complex as it may seem Rosalinda, but therein lies the difficulties in writing an interesting book about it.

    Just a few words about Christian Scapegoat B.

    I’ve always believed that Madeleine’s body is findable. Unfortunately, not much has been done in terms of searching physically for it. Neither by the Portuguese authorities, nor by Kate’s own Missing People organisation. So, there could be a very queer turn in the case if the German police in cooperation with the Portuguese police were to find the remains of Madeleine's body in PDL or nearby, in that they would then most certainly try to make people believe that the “success” has to do with forensic findings related to Christian B.

    Common sense tells us that Madeleine died in the apartment and it is highly likely that she is buried somewhere in the area around PDL. Unfortunately, the German police have now taken out some kind of patent on knowing that Madeleine is dead and buried in order to give credibility to their claims about Christian B’s involvement in the tragedy.

    They’re now playing a very dirty game trying to frame a scapegoat, I’d say.

    1. @ Björn30 September 2020 at 20:59
      "The case isn't really so complex as it may seem Rosalinda, but therein lies the difficulties in writing an interesting book about it."

      The book isn't about the case - it is about Ros and social media/forums/blogs etc.

    2. I haven't even looked up the Christian B story Bjorn, because I'm bored senseless with the so called suspects who pop up over the years. The Germans may have their reasons for wanting to lay Madeleine's murder at the feet of this known paedophile, but it doesn't wrap up the mystery. Before you even look at the reasons why Christian B may be a suspect, you have to squeeze everything he could have done into the timeframe of the tapas group. That is, less than hour. The timeframe and movements of all the witnesses, the are very specific, it was written on the torn out page of one of Madeleine's books. Ergo, it may as well have been carved in stone.

      Then of course, there are the eye witnesses. The family of 9 who saw 'the abductor' rushing through the alleyways carrying a child who fitted the description of Madeleine. Does Christian B resemble the man seen carrying the child? I haven't looked yet, but if he doesn't, then he can't be the right man. So many puzzles within puzzles Bjorn, but lots to inspire on the writing front. I will probably do a chapter on suspects over the years, but begrudgingly, because if you don't believe there was an abductor, these characters are superfluous. The first question to be asked of these suspect stories, is 'why do 'they' want me to believe it was this guy?' and who are the sinister 'they'. The first suspect to be thrown to the wolves was Robert Murat, by Lori Campbell of the Sun. She suspected him because he reminded her of Ian Huntley hanging around Soham with the two little girls disappeared. Then there were the anonymous phone calls accusing Mr. Murat of cutting up critters as a small boy. Ie. text book sociopath. Throw in single man with a computer who lives nearby and he fitted the CEOP profile exactly. I think Robert Murat deserves a chapter, he was very unfairly maligned and he absolutely deserved to be compensated for the atrocious things that were written about him.

      I have no shortage of material Bjorn, the discipline will be in breaking down all the information into reader friendly chunks, that will naturally come together by the end. I have, to my own satisfaction, cleared up all the mysteries that surround this case. It has been a journey of discovery, that goes so far beyond the 'child goes missing in Portugal' headlines. Why were the newspapers, politicians, breakfast show hosts, missing child charities and police chiefs going along with the whole 'abduction' fiasco. Why were they trying to convince us our children were in constant danger?

      I have so many questions Bjorn, and I've gone a long way in finding answers to them. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't think aliens, gangs of paedophiles on the internet or paedophiles on every corner stole Madeleine from her bed. The idea that the parents were on a swingers holiday (in a family resort and with the mother in law in tow) is just bizarre and those accusing the parents and their friends of God knows what, disgust me. Sadly, this case attracted a lot of people with very sick minds.

      Actually, the plus side of being late to the party (write a book) is that I have the benefit of hindsight. In the early days I didn't know what was going on or why it was going on. I felt much as I did when I first went into higher education - there was no turning back. Thank you for your kind words, which I will certainly bear in mind.

    3. Hello Anon 1 October 2020 at 19:36

      It is inevitable that the perspective will somehow become personal, regardless of who is trying to write about the case. For more than 10 years, British media and Scotland Yard haven’t done anything to advance the investigation. A new perspective is needed, as the case has increasingly been shrouded in obscurity over the years.

  4. Madeleine is not in Germany. Madeleine is not in Portugal. Madeleine is in the county of Leicestershire.

    And old smirky [new car and promises?] Wolters is IRRELEVANT.

    The current group lesson? Humility. And then the real work begins...

    Ask Brunt.

    1. I have no idea what you are talking about 21:36. As for 'ask Brunt', sadly I have lost faith in him as a journalist, so probably won't.

  5. Ros, I look forward to your book, best of luck with it.

    Isn't it sad that Brunt is still the go to Reporter for Sky News.
    He blundered through the Maddie case and should have gone after his Brenda Leyland disaster.

    1. Many thanks Cooltide, I promise not to disappoint :)

      I think it is sad for Martin Brunt, in fact, ever since the Brenda Leyland disaster, there is a sadness in his eyes, it is a story that will haunt forever. Thank you for kind wishes Cooltide, and keep safe.

  6. Ros: "I'm not the villain in this Greek (Portuguese) tragedy, merely an onlooker who got pulled in."

    Nobody pulled you in - you inserted yourself into the case and started a blog that allowed anyone to say anything they liked about the Mccanns.

    Stop acting the victim.

    1. Err, I have never in my life acted the victim, in fact acting the victim is the polar opposite of everything I believe in. I fight back, I defend myself, I don't roll over and I never, ever, accept any other person's claim of superiority over me. I seek respect, not pity, possibly why my misery memoir didn't do so great. It was comic than tragic. If I were a victim 15:14, I wouldn't be here, I would have caved to the McCann bullies over a decade ago. Instead, like you, they are afraid of me.

    2. Now you are in fantasy land (as ever) Ros - no-one is afraid of you - I have given my real name on here a number of times.

      I will repeat - Nobody pulled you in - you inserted yourself into the case and started a blog. That was your choice - it was not compulsory.

    3. Not afraid of you 19:40, you li'll mouse!

      I can't be arsed to look up who you are or might me, and I doubt anyone else is either. Was that your one brave moment you want to brag about? lol.

      I must create my own system or be enslaved by another man's. or woman's. I like chatting to people, even if they don't agree with me, so I started my blog. You might not have liked the anti abduction arguments, but I published those that the supported the abduction story too.

      Whinging about it now makes you sound like a loser. You couldn't win the debates and discussions, so the fault lies with the host! I have always given both sides a platform, except when that facility has been abused by those who just want to insult me. Put forward your arguments. Persuade me as you have been persuaded. Start by not insulting me, are you capable of that?

  7. Looking forward to the book. You might not give the answers, but any sane analysis of the facts is welcome.
    Of course those that have dug their feet in up until now, will continue to focus on the most obscure revelation, gaslight and distract, and make personal attacks.
    The worst thing about it is those who refuse to believe the silly things humans do will continue to try to believe that these are the normal people.
    It's easier to fool people than convince them theyve been fooled. A doctrine that every successful con artist relies upon.

  8. Hi Oscar and thank you for your good wishes.

    My approach, actually a philosophy I live by, is KISS. Keep it simple stupid. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, who have taken a simple story and then added the entire contents of their sick minds to sex it up. For those obsessed with child sexual abuse, it was a legitimate way to connect with others who had the same freaky thoughts so they could hold in depth online discussions as 'researchers'. Sadly, they initially attracted huge 'innocent' audiences who were unaware of what they were being dragged into. Most now have come back to their senses, and I am going to give myself a lot of credit for that, mostly by blowing up their main forum, and taking away their audience.

    I couldn't agree with you more regarding your last line Oscar (Mark Twain?). It begins with the incumbent Tony Blair government who decided on the first night when these received those panicked calls, to believe abduction story of the middle class doctor parents and their friends, over anything that would transpire thereafter. They would not and could not admit they may have been wrong.

    But again, thank you for your kind wishes Oscar. There are answers to all the questions surrounding this case, but they are not salacious or exiting. All the in depth plotting of the self-proclaimed Madeleine experts has proved to be nothing more than a figment of their unhinged imaginations. The facts and the evidence remain exactly the same as May 2007. No network of internet paedophiles was found, nor gangs of child predators roaming the coastline of the Algarve.

    The thing about child sexual abuse, is that most people know nothing about it and don't want to know anything about it. Ergo, if 'experts' say it is going on all around us, we accept it without question. Actually to question it, pours suspicion on the questioner, as in 'who are you trying to protect' or 'are you one of them'. Governments do not question their experts who dictate the dominant ideology, especially, if their policy guidance compliments or supplements their own plans. Tony Blair and his incumbent government were trying to bring in compulsory Identity cards and a data bank of the nation's DNA. He was in the bonkers stage of his second term, and dreaming of stroking a cat and taking over the world, via getting control of the internet. There were a lot of flaws in that plan obviously, the big one being, how do you get the public to hand over their DNA and internet passwords? How about telling the public their children are in constant danger from a huge network of online predators with organised gangs of bogeymen climbing in windows and stealing kids from their beds in an area near you. Too much? Err, no, because that's exactly what happened. I remember arguing with what I am temporarily going to call, the walking dead, who proclaimed, quite boastfully, that 'you must have something to hide if you wont hand over your DNA, medical records, bank accounts, parking tickets, etc. For them, it's as if the enlightenment never happened.

    But I must take my prose back where it should be. Take care Oscar, and stay safe :)

  9. Ros: “The tapas group were regular, normal, if a bit geeky, party of middle class professionals enjoying an early summer break.”

    Oscar: “The worst thing about it is those who refuse to believe the silly things humans do will continue to try to believe that these are the normal people.”

    Ros: “I couldn't agree with you more regarding your last line Oscar (Mark Twain?).”
    Not Mark Twain. Oscar.

  10. Mark Twain gets the credit. I've been using it so often talking about the Scamdemic, I had actually forgotten.

    1. Thanks, Oscar

      Aye to ”the Scamdemic”. :)

      I was pointing out that the notion that Twain said/wrote the line in question is apocryphal, in other words I know of no reliable source confirming that Twain was the originator of that often used catchphrase, that’s why I said “Not Mark Twain. Oscar” (Oscar said it, not Mark Twain). It is my view that one is better off using that catchphrase without reference to Twain. Similar considerations go for another prominent catchphrase on this blog.

      I remember you. My last comment addressed to you over a year ago didn’t find its way to the blog, poor thing. Good to see you. Take care.

  11. Hi Ros

    “…the hundreds of innocent posters on social media who were targeted and abused online if they dared say they did not believe the abduction story.

    And yes, I was among them, I had my name and reputation torn to shreds along with nasty reviews on Amazon every time I tried to publish a book.

    I had been dragged into a war not of my making, and any attempts I made to get away failed”

    Are you now saying that the above incidents caused you no harm and/or injury?

    Oxford English Dictionary:
    1 A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action
    1.2 A person who has come to feel helpless and passive in the face of misfortune or ill-treatment.

    Forgive me for asking: What had been your reputation before it was torn to shreds and what book(s) had you been trying to publish on Amazon?

    Thank you

    1. I am laughing my head off here 17:01 because I picture you in a black gown and white barrister's wig gesticulating in front of the Bench Probably giving a 90 minute speech on the importance of the minutiae to an audience who fell asleep an hour ago.

      I don't consider myself a victim is all you need to know. I will go into more depth on the subject in my book. Take care :)

    2. “I am laughing my head off here…”

      I would like to express my utmost concern about your head coming off.

      May I humbly ask you, Lady Pot, now to imagine how the audience feel when you make your presentations whose length exceeds that of mine by orders of magnitude? But who am I to complain - the Devil is in the detail, I should know.

      “I don't consider myself a victim is all you need to know.”

      Patronising is rude and unbecoming your station, my learned Lady. Besides, your current pronouncements have no bearing on your unmistakably having implied you had been a victim.

      It would appear my timely, pertinent question as to your reputation and publishing attempts have been ignored. Oh well, as your Ladyship is known to like saying:”Ce la vie”. (Need I say I‘m envious of your voluptuous French, and indescribably fine attire, Lady Pot.)

      RH Silk Kettle III, the Devil’s advocate

    3. So, right honourable Silk Kettle the 3rd, and devil's advocate, lol, you are trying to entice me into a battle of semantics. How tiresome, and a bit naughty as you know, I am deep into my book.

      Are you a victim if your experience made you stronger? I cite ChumbaWumba, 'I get knocked down, I get back up again'. Discuss to your heart's content.

    4. My business is the Devil’s advocacy, I don’t do enticing, sorry.

      “How tiresome, and a bit naughty as you know…”

      No, I don’t know.

      “Are you a victim if your experience made you stronger?”

      According to you, you have been abused online, that makes you a victim of abuse, a victim.

      “Discuss to your heart's content.”

      You have made honest discussions impossible as only the brown-nosed have the right to reply on your blog nowadays, but thank you anyway. All other McCann blogs and forums are like that, you joined a good crowd, speaks volumes for your “Integrity”.

      RH S K

    5. You have been attacking my integrity for years RH, ergo in your eyes I don't have any integrity left anyway.

      Discussion is always welcome, I'm just now allowing you to use my blog to insult me, if you can't post without the insulting, that's your problem.

  12. Ros - had anyone heard of you before you started commenting on the Mccann case?

  13. Ros, will your book be free?

  14. Your prose has been on the Net for years. You couldn't take it back even if you wanted to.

  15. 10:32, 11:00 and 11:10 - you three grumps appear consecutively so I will reply to all of you with one post.

    Had anyone heard of me? Depends what you mean by 'anyone', but I was 'discovered' several times for my writing. Not 'A' list celebrity or even 'Z', just another struggling writer.

    Will my book be free? Hmmm. Let me think about that. What do you think? Does it begin 'the horror, the horror' and 'won't somebody think of the children'. Those aren't my lines btw, so do feel free to use them. If you spent your entire life perfecting an art or skill, would you then think, hmm, I should just go ahead and give everything I can do away for free? Actually, bad analogy, most of us do that all the time. Especially mums.

    I know it makes me sound like a weirdo or a diva, or heaven forbid, getting above myself, but I have never wanted to be anything other than a writer. I write all the time, and I battle my own criticisms, my own need to do better, those personal demons are tortuous. There is something a bit mad in having a perpetual dialogue going on in your head, you want it to stop but you also want to see which way it will go.

    11:10. Why would I want to take it back 11:10? If you a regular reader and I am guessing you are, you know that my approach to writing is honesty and integrity - I have chanted it many times. It served me when I wrote Cry and you Cry Alone, (which I wanted to call 'The Invulnerable Child'), in that I did not write anything I would not want my loved ones to read. Good or bad, I wanted to give them an insight into my character and I achieved that. If you are into navel gazing, writing a memoir is like a good long session with a therapist. You begin to see your memories in a new light, and you have the wisdom and experience to see it all from a different perspective. It's quite enlightening!

    Ahhh, but as for my prose. I never fail to be delighted that people, anyone, reads my work. When I began this blog, I vowed that I would keep on writing it, even if went down to only one reader. And believe me that vow, is the reason I am still here, doh! I take vows to myself very seriously. I'm the only one who doesn't let myself down :(

    I'm delighted to have my prose out there 11:10, and hope it will remain long after I am gone. I hope my writing style encourages others and takes away some of the snobbery of the 'elite' who believe that only formal writing should be valid. Ffs, a writer should never sound like a read person! Carry on reading those blogs and enjoy 11:10, take care.

    1. Ros @1542

      “Why would I want to take it back 11:10?”

      Who knows…?


      Rosalinda Hutton3 October 2020 at 16:45
      “But I must take my prose back where it should be.”

      Anonymous6 October 2020 at 11:10
      “Your prose has been on the Net for years. You couldn't take it back even if you wanted to.”

      Please stop being rude to your contributors – they not grumps.

    2. - they are not grumps.


    3. Let me clarify. I don't want to waste time on here squabbling with you, I have a book I am working on, and that is where I was 'taking my prose' back to. Hope that clears it up :)

      I think I was being quite kind using 'grumps' - because that is how they came across. Be well.

    4. Grumps = Grumpy persons
      Grumpy = Bad-tempered and irritable

      “Anonymous6 October 2020 at 10:32
      Ros - had anyone heard of you before you started commenting on the Mccann case?”

      “Anonymous6 October 2020 at 11:00
      Ros, will your book be free?”

      “Anonymous6 October 2020 at 11:10
      Your prose has been on the Net for years. You couldn't take it back even if you wanted to.”

      “Rosalinda Hutton7 October 2020 at 21:43
      Let me clarify. I don't want to waste time on here squabbling with you, I have a book I am working on, and that is where I was 'taking my prose' back to. Hope that clears it up :)

      I think I was being quite kind using 'grumps' - because that is how they came across. Be well.”

      Please can anyone point out bad temper and irritability in the above anonymous comments? Anyone?

    5. Anyone? anyone? Oh come on now, this poster is suffering the serious effects of being called a grump and is unlikely to ever get over it.

  16. I will not buy your book Ros - I have read the millions of words that you have written about the Mccanns and have never agreed with anything you have said and made up.

    You have nothing to add to what you have said hundreds of times before.

  17. I believe God will step in and stop your book.

    1. I'm sure God's got much better things to do 19:50, but I doubt he would like Kindly on your invoking him to curse or is it threaten, me?

    2. Hi Anon 7 October 2020 at 19:50

      God is not on the McCanns' side, but the devil is.

    3. @ Rosalinda Hutton7 October 2020 at 22:00

      I based my comment from a tweet you made:

      "Cristobell Author
      5 Oct
      It feels like God is intervening here...."

      Was that about Trump?

    4. @ Björn7 October 2020 at 22:48

      Did you hear that direct from God or the devil?

    5. Björn @22:48

      With respect, Bjorn, do you know that? I presume you haven’t a direct line to God and the Devil. You have noticed that Anon @19:50 talks about believing?

    6. Ah, so the God thing came from my tweet? That's kind of creepy.

      For reference, I was commenting on holier than thou Kayleigh Mc.... who had just tested positive for Covid.

    7. Ros @16:58

      How kind. Don't spread your sweetness and light too much, leave some for yourself.

    8. Hello Anon 8 October 2020 at 10:23, Anon 7 October 2020 at 19:50 and anonymous 8 October 2020 at 00:46

      We are all entitled to believe whatever we like and I believe that there are dark forces at play in the official narrative of the McCann case and I also believe that religion plays a part.

      If we are to believe the McCanns' story, then they exposed Madeleine to extreme dangers on several occasions before the alleged abduction, but they have never admitted any wrongdoing. On the contrary, they have blamed everything on others without showing the slightest sign of remorse. Yet, they must know so well that their “mistake”, as they prefer to call it, has led to the suffering of innocent people, one of whom is their own daughter, and that it has also caused unforeseen and gigantic costs for both the Portuguese and the British state.

      It must also be said, that the McCanns have explicitly wanted to inflict all the suffering in the world on those who question their ludicrous story about a monstrous abductor, so why would any sensible person want to praise them? I just don’t get it.

      If you read various posts and comments on the internet, which are related to the Madeleine case,(they indeed reflect reality) you can clearly see that only a small dwindling group of people still believe in the official version and the reason could well be that more and more people are now reading the accessible Portuguese police report, which was published in 2008. I suggest you all do the same!

    9. "Björn9 October 2020 at 13:27
      If you read various posts and comments on the internet, which are related to the Madeleine case,(they indeed reflect reality) you can clearly see that only a small dwindling group of people still believe in the official version and the reason could well be that more and more people are now reading the accessible Portuguese police report, which was published in 2008. I suggest you all do the same!"

      I suggest that you do not assume to be superior to other people who post on here and also you should stop pretending that you know more than the 3 Police forces that are currently investigation the Mccann case.
      Your constant condescending tone is boring and repetitive.If there was anything in the files that implicated the guilt of the Mccanns they would have been charged and taken to court -they never have been.

      It is you that is drawing wrong conclusions from the Police files. I and probably many others who post on here have read them but more importantly I have not jumped to wrong conclusions.

      The Mccanns are innocent until proven guilty and Amaral still hasn't produced the ace from up his sleeve in 13 years - I wonder why not?

    10. Hello Anon 9 October 2020 at 15:16

      My intention was not to be condescending or superior in any way. It may seem so, since I am trying to express myself in a foreign language. I apologize to all those who perceive it that way. However, I see no reason to apologize to the McCanns for anything I’ve said about them.

      Have a Nice Weekend

  18. That's OK 19:44, I hope my millions of words entertained you. I'm afraid I couldn't do it, if I dislike a writer, I tend never to pick them up again.

    But you have made a point. Yes, I have written millions of words about the Madeleine case over the years. Which now puts me in the happy position of sorting the wheat from the chaff - that is, with the wisdom of hindsight, I can look back on my opinions, the things that have transpired over the years, and I can pick out the topics that really mattered, and those that didn't.

    Everything is written afresh - with new, way better informed eyes and ears. I never, ever, reuse old material, it's a personal foible, and besides the story becomes much clearer when you look back, knowing what you know now. It makes the writing of it so much easier. My blog was the journey, my book will be the journey's end.

    1. Your words entertained me in the same way that you reading about Trump and listening to everything he says entertains you.

    2. The only way your book will be different: "My blog was the journey, my book will be the journey's end." Would be for your book to end with an apology to the Mccanns for the shit you have posted and the shit comments you have allowed to be posted on your blog.

  19. Actually, in a strange way I do enjoy reading about Trump, I find him endlessly fascinating, is that how you feel about me?

    1. No - and you hate Trump. I just dislike you.

    2. Ahhh, just dislike. I must try harder ;)

  20. 00:25. My book is already totally different to my blog 00:25 because I am now writing with hindsight.

    I'm not sure why I should apologise for challenging things that I can see are blatantly untrue. How do I begin? 'I'm sorry for catching you in a lie'?

  21. Sorry RH Silk, you will not see your posts published. The childish name calling was mildly amusing first time around but I am not giving you a platform to continue with it.

    1. No need to feel sorry, Rosalinda Hutton @17:10, my sense of humour is not everyone’s cup of tea.

      “You have been attacking my integrity for years RH, ergo in your eyes I don't have any integrity left anyway.”

      You are ether in the grip of an abnormal condition of the mind that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not real, or you are knowingly telling untruths. Whilst I understand you have a bug that appears to be resistant to the scent of hyacinth and vanilla, it is not in my brief to provide first aid and/or insult.

      I have no ‘ergo’ in my eyes. Please don’t ‘ergo’ me unless you make sure you use this word correctly. My eyes play no role in what I’m talking about. And again: No, I don’t do enticing. I have no way of knowing whether you have ANY integrity: I know only what you have written.

      It might help you, when your hand is two Tens, to bear in mind that I will always pull a Five to my sixteen, because I deal in facts, not illusions or insults.

      I am very well and hope you are too.

      Thank you kindly.

      RH S K

    2. Can't be arsed to engage in your comments RH, I don't care at all whether you like me or not. This is not a winning friends and influencing people exercise.

      Aaaah, 'Ergo', one of my favourite words and one I am using at every opportunity just now. I have zero time for grammar nazis, if you don't like my use of a word - well tough.

  22. Ros
    What do yo think about Hobs?

    1. Aaaah Hobs, sadly everything I read by her cannot be unread. The same goes for her creepy mentor Peter Hyatt. Their, falsely claimed, knowledge of language and semantics is pure, unadulterated quackery. Imbedded confessions ffs! Ooooh, so much more to say about them in my book, same goes for Richard Hall. What do Hyatt, Hall, Bennett and Hobs have in common? They all believe child sexual abuse lies at the bottom of this case. That is, of all the theories they could have picked, that's the one they went with.

  23. You claim the abduction industry only worked by blaming others. How does that work ?

    No theory 'works'. That's why it has to remain open. Nobody can close it with a definitive answer. The abduction only stands as no forensic evidence has been accepted as workable by wither force investigating the case. The alternatives to the abduction theory are riddled with conjecture that fails all scientific litmus tests as well as those assessing the soundness of mind of their supporters.
    PDL didn't lose any business whatsoever because of the case. Portugal, Spain, Greece and other destinations lost business due to horrendous economical damage inflicted by their own governments as well as the EU. That can't be blamed on one child disappearing. After all, One was chopped into pieces a few years before that, and before that several VIPs in Portugal had been found guilty of abusing children regularly.

    I think anyone with a reasonable IQ realises that anything on the mainstream is fictional. It's a propaganda outlet.This is regardless of the agenda being served.So press releases about anything are for a reason hidden from view.If it's hidden you need to find it and expose it.If nor it remains useless as information.

    Many have used the case of this tragic child as a cash cow. That's sickening. The police chief of Portugal being the worst case. I'm not suggesting you are doing it. I believe you have a more worthy intention.If you make a few quid then good.But please remember that everything's been said in print.Either online or in papers or in books.Words are words. It's what rumours are made of.Nobody can be arrested based on the suspicions of somebody who hasn't even been involved in the investigation.

    It's easy and, sadly, a bit obvious, to blame the parents in a case like this.It's typical of what happens to Joe Public who has grown up in a world in which detective stories out ell all books and get the highest views on TV.And of course the many documentaries crowded with psychologists calling everyone a narcissist.

    Evidence is usually your best ally.That stands for investigating journalists, policemen or budding authors. Without it, your voice is drowned by the choir.
    I found that examining the popular theories was the best route.

    I set out to destroy the ones most strongly believed and it was too easy.Again, it was lack of evidence and a mountain of made up rants.People using the case as a catharsis.

    I then did the same with the less popular and less salacious theories. I failed to produce a worthy argument against governmental involvement.I couldn't provide alternative answers to why so many were desperate to hinder the investigation and hinder the handling of the PR or why intel were needed so soon .

    So for me the evidence suggests that what is hidden is valuable to important people, not to careless or crazy parents.It's the only bare that makes sense when asking why so much money and time has been spent to keep things hidden.The parents,m y the way, i=under Portuguese law, would have faced around 12 years maximum in prison, and be out for good behaviour after 4. This all happened a lot longer ago.


    1. Hello JC, I hope you are well.

      Your post is very interesting, your writing divine, but you seem to have shifted stance somewhat. There have indeed been millions of words written about the Madeleine case, arguably everything that can be said has been said. But it is like the monkeys in a room with typewriters, there will be a lot of gibberish, but eventually, Shakespeare. And there is an awful lot of gibberish surrounding this case JC, it is like a maze, my aim is to clear a path through it, take down some of that overhanging knotweed obscuring the view.

      As for the Madeleine being used as a cash cow, it is a common theme used against non NUJ members daring to comment on this case outside of the mainstream media. In many cases it is a valid argument, there are/were indeed some (non NUJ) commentators who were trying to get a slice of the Missing Madeleine action, for a lot of people it was very lucrative. The lawyers, the police agencies, the missing charities, the private detectives, but most especially the newspaper barons hit pay dirt when the story broke, no wonder so many flew out to PDL the following day.

      I know you said you are OK if I earn a bob or two JC, but there is a consensus among many antis and pros (they all hate me lol) that I should stop with the writing and get a proper job more fitting to my station in life, stacking shelves for example. If I were a 'recognised' writer, I could writer Madeleine articles and books and get paid without anyone batting an eyelid. Did Summers and Swan get panned for cashing in on a tragedy? Sure they got panned for the terrible writing and nonsensical reasoning, but on the cashing in front, not so much, but they are established authors. Of course they should be paid for their talents and skills. So too should all those reporters who write for the tabloids.

      What I am doing, and what I have done is no different to all those paid articles you have read. The difference has been, that I have done it all for free. And I am happy to do so, with the vanity of a writer I am grateful that anyone reads my work! I've always been to be rich and famous, but strangely, it has never really been about the money. If it were, I would have submitted all the books and screenplays gathering dust in my loft. I am at my happiest when I am fully emerged in my writing, the marketing I am crap at.

      I won't be pounding any drums for activism JC, or crying out for justice. I have finally reached that 'it is as it is' stage. The time where wrongs could have been put right has long past. The paedophile hysteria continues, mostly because it is an emotive subject that most people know very little about. When people project themselves as experts, they are more likely to be believed, than not. And sadly, because the subject is yucky and most of us want to avoid it, including government ministers, it is passed to those 'experts' and their word becomes law. I have always hated the fear that was instilled in young parents, as if they don't have enough to worry about. Think for one moment about all the people in PDL, locals and holidaymakers, believing there was a child predator on the loose? Now everyone believes it is perfectly possible for a pervert to climb in a bedroom window and steal a child from her bed. It's pure 'Birth of a Nation', be afraid, be very afraid.

      Sorry for waffling there JC, but in full manic writing mode, ha ha.

    2. Reply appreciated, Ros.

      First off, It's occurred to me that one of your regular contributors is called jc.I recall the name from last year.I'm nor he. I apologise for the confusion.

      I wasn't criticising anybody making money from writing about this case. only some. I think you represent the minority who's first intention is to raise awareness about specific aspects of the case, the alleged evidence( or lack of) and contradictions among those investigating the case. If awareness is raised high enough it may cause enough people to ask questions and demand answers. After all, tax payers deserve to know where the housekeeping money went.

      Those who made a cash cow of this include the ubiquitous Clarence Mitchell who'll deliver goods for anyone if his palm is crossed with enough silver.Or at least thirty pieces a go. And his trusty Ward., Martin Brunt.But then they are attached to Sky . And we all know where their roots lead to...

      Then there's the Youtube nightmare. Just when you thought it was safe to turn away from the endless reality and talent shows in this horrible culture of chasing fame at any cost, we have 'experts' on youtube repeating phrases they've heard in TV documentaries.There's even a few claiming to be psychic. Worse, they've found each other and have discussions and speak as though channeling Madeleine. Madeleine's vocabulary is astonishing for a child of 3 going on 4. And there's the unintentionally hilarious Hi De Ho (Oh dear).

      There's many ways of profiting from this.Financially, through books,Youtube through ads, e-books, and popularity.To many, popularity is novel. So they crave it. Look at politicians. They fought to grab PR points over the case.That garners emotional support in the shape of empathy and humanity.It gets them votes which keeps them in their jobs which allows access to many, many business deals unrelated to politics.

      I get what you mean about leaving monkeys alone with typewriters. I've seen Hollyoaks and Emmerdale.

      The people who suggest you get a proper job like stacking shelves are probably shelf stackers. But then they log onto the internet where they are former or private detectives who understand forensic science as well as the law.They'll inform the rest of us of their suspicions and then write the infamous one -word sentence for effect : 'fact'. That one.Or 'end of'. Their word is enough.We need not question their expertise by asking for fripperies such as proof or evidence.These are professional shelf -stackers.

      With regard to your critics, when you try to run their life for them, allow them a say in yours. But, until then, leave them with their cold.You won't catch it if you don't go near it.

      Which brings me to one of your contributors posts from earlier( 9th October 17:01).

      He / she's nameless.So could be one of those 'experts'.

      They state Amaral was ''doubtlessly hosed down by two men''. Doubtless ?
      Amaral has never said he was hosed down.Nobody has.Doubtless ?

      Thy then continue exploding bombs. Talking about 'provable things' and the 'Portuguese job'' being 100% fantasy. Again- nothing to back it up.

      And then we get the obligatory claim of being an expert in body and facial language reading.Another industry that's grown since this case hit the youtube.Everyone's magic now.

      They finish with a claim that Madeleine is at home and was never in Portugal and that isn't just fact-it's 'pure fact'.

      These are the people who degrade the credibility of the genuine need for an investgation of the investigation by hurling nonsense all over the place which is then spread elsewhere.It gives the case, and those with a genuine interest in and concern for justice., a headache. Often by intention.

      Write away and let the chips fall where they fall.Ignore the frustrated rants and ramblings of the online sleuths.They have issues.That's a whole other book. I'll write that one for them.

      JC( Jura)

  24. Ros: “I was banned from every Madeleine site.”

    Not true.

    1. "Anonymous9 October 2020 at 10:05

      Ros: “I was banned from every Madeleine site.”

      Not true."

      Ros prefers to distort history when it come to her performance on the many forums she was on. Luckily the true history is preserved for anybody to check on.

    2. No-one is happier than I that the 'true history is preserved' 15:21, my writing philosophy of honesty and integrity means I never have to worry about any of my old writings being used against me. I have never made any salacious allegations, can others say the same?

    3. With you writing philosophy in mind, were you banned from every Madeleine cite?

    4. Site. Yeah that's kind of a sweeping statement, and not at all the kind of thing you use artistic licence for. I'm laughing here, because I'm thinking, my book is going to be pure torture for you.

    5. @ Rosalinda Hutton9 October 2020 at 16:35

      "No-one is happier than I that the 'true history is preserved' 15:21, my writing philosophy of honesty and integrity means I never have to worry about any of my old writings being used against me. I have never made any salacious allegations, can others say the same?"

      Even now you are in denial - I know for a fact that if I post examples of what you have said, you will not publish them. It has happened numerous times in the past even when they were direct non offensive posts.

    6. @ 18:43

      Thank you. Seconded. Same here. Years of experience. Only flattery and acquiescence are met with approval. Ros is always right and knows best. Quick to turn to abuse and vulgarity. Withholds replies to have the last word. Countless examples recorded.

  25. “And truth and accuracy will of course matter.”

    So, Ros, the McCanns “were regular, normal, if a bit geeky, … middle class professionals enjoying an early summer break£ or “the pair share a rare form of psychopathy, and students of psychology will be studying this case in textbooks for decades to come”?

    If the former is your view, then you might have to make excuses for the (defamatory) latter and remove it from your blog. If the latter is still your belief, then why are you now saying the former?

  26. 12:03, I haven't got the time or the inclination to discuss every pedantic point you raise. As to what's in my book, you will have to wait and see.

    1. Sure, because you thought you were doing well, but the pedant dealer has pulled a 5 to his 16 to make it 21. :)

    2. Not a gambler, but bravo on your attempt at humour. Would love to play but otherwise occupied. Aw shucks.

    3. The game’s up. You’ve lost. I know what will be in your book.

  27. Well it appears pretty darned evident that the concrete slab cover-up merchants are back in full force to bully you and shut you up, which they will if you don't get your facts right. Start from the beginning and do proper on-the-ground research, not in Portugal of course, that would be subscribing to a work of fiction.

    Goncalo Amaral was doubtlessly hosed down by two men with a brief, Grime and Harrison are up to their necks in it, and no, Madeleine did not die anywhere in Portugal, she was well dead and buried by then.

    Every other layer of the drafted and enacted Portuguese job was pure fantasy. Here's the absolutely undeniably provable thing, MBM never stepped a foot on Portuguese soil.

    It never happened, sweet Madeleine is 100% on home turf, and Gamble will be summoned to the dock before any Germanic alleged raping nonce. He will not STFU and it's getting beyond tiresome.

    Voce ent ende OC and British agency warriors? You should have apologised, ask [that was a hoax], Brunt. He won't tell you the truth in words, but his oddball body and facial language speaks volumes.

    In an English country garden, their arrogance and ungracious refusal to show humility, remorse and workable solutions have created this.

    Madeleine is in Rothley, pure fact! And, they all know it and have known it since 2006. Sue me, guys. It's your own fault because you all KNEW BETTER. I tried my best and you lot f**ked me over big time.

    So, f**ck you too!

    1. If that's some kind of cryptic message, I don't get it, and can't be arsed to try. I'm not writing a factual book per se, I'm not an ex detective who was assigned to the case. The finer details of this case, the forensics and all the evidence are discussed in great detail by scientific minds much more knowledgeable than I. I am a layman(woman), onlooker, telling my story, and that of thousands of others who watched this case unfold. The reasons behind how and why I dug into the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance and what I discovered. along the way.

      In your last line 17:01, you claim as 'pure fact' that Madeleine is in Rothley. Lol. It's stuff like that that reaffirms my decision to write a book. So much nonsense blurring the story lines here, nonsense that found itself hovering on the sidelines of the MSM. Unfortunately, with everything being censored, the public were bombarded equally, by official nonsense and the maniacal daydreams of weirdos who knew how to grab the front page.

      Those focussed on the minutiae, the 'pure facts' as you call them, implying that your mind is made up and therefore shut off. Madeleine was in Rothley, Madeleine died earlier in the week, There was no neglect...... All those tied to those 'pure facts' will forever be floating in purgatory. They will never find the answers, because their minds are shut off (completely), they remain stuck in the fog because they won't wipe their goggles!

  28. Btw Rosalinda, you won't believe any of the concrete facts of the last comment, and I understand why. But please be aware of this: I don't lie unless it's a life or death situation, which this is not.

    Thereby, it is the truth, it is a fact, and besides lying to two 15-year-olds, which they were categorically told not to do, it really pi**es me off. I'm sick of it, because it's sick to continue doing so at that age. It's not right, it's WRONG!

    I Will Follow Him, listen to the lyrics of that song, dear Kate. They remind me of you...

    1. I'm sure you don't lie, so tell me what you are on, bruv.

  29. A simple question Ros: Are you going to state in your book that the Mccanns lied about the disappearance of Madeleine?

    Your post Rosalinda Hutton8 October 2020 at 17:05 refers.

  30. Wow Ros 77 comments as I write this.

    Do you remember the heady days when you allowed any old shite to be posted here and you had to start a new blog?

    The crap you allowed is still available for all to see!

    Hey do you remember when you said you had seen blood splatter on the wall in 5A?

  31. A few points in your opening post cause some alarm, Ros.

    Since the 90s, well before Madeleine was even born, the scaremongers were convincing parents and schools that extra vigilance was needed because children were in danger of abduction and worse.Ask parents what happened to playing in the streets and parks and they would say then what they say now : ''you can't let them out these days can you''. It may well be an overreaction.Either way, It's hardly due to the reaction that was caused by this case 10 years later.

    I agree that too many online experts focused on the paedophile angle.And a lot more blamed the parents because they had left their children vulnerable by going to dinner and not having baby sitters.Given that adults who steal children seldom want them for anything other than to satisfy their own twisted urgings, the two became entwined. Suddenly the 'mean faced' parents were paedophiles.And they killed their victim to keep her quiet.

    Unfortunately this is the foundation for the endless theories that were to follow and that all attempted to fit one to the other and hope that no evidence was asked for. Instead, they relied on the spurious claims that it was all 'obvious' by the way the parents spoke and their body language.Something that evaded the trained eye of several detectives and psychologists, but very few who watched youtube videos.

    I also have grave misgivings with the inference made regarding DNA databases. This idea was first mooted in the 1970s. And repeatedly every decade since.The current counterfeit world pandemic seems to verify that the position is the same.Only now there is nano technology as well as Bill Gates and his internal 'tattoo'. How often, even within the MSM, did you see the call for DNA databases connected to the Madeleine tragedy ?

    You suggest the McCanns-both- suffer from a rare psychological disorder, or strain of psychosis. Can you name it or, at least, elaborate ? You also say they could have been victims of media moguls in the way they had to present and conduct themselves.In other words, we never got to see the real them, just the rehearsed, trained them. So there's no point in diagnosing a pair of characters created for a fictional presentation.

    From what i gather about the chasing of Amaral, it was for him to prove his accusations had a foundation wasn't it.He called his book The Truth Of The Lie but filled it from cover to cover with conjecture, speculation and accusations that put the parents in a bad light and accused them of being responsible for their child's death and subsequent vanishing. All things he failed to do when actually investigating the case. Given the reaction to his books by the wolves slavering for blood, they were right to demand some respect and a private life.Unless, of course, he, or the police could produce what is necessary to secure an arrest.

    Maybe, given the complete conviction of those who insist they can 'solve' the case and the fact that the vast majority have concluded that the parents are guilty, the best avenue of investigation now is to investigate the various officers involved in the case.Subject them to the same forensic and meticulous eye. They're still here even if Madeleine isn't. They alone, as the collective, can answer questions as to why not so much as a word in any statements or a sniff of evidence was ever found to convict the parents of anything or even arrest on suspicion.Maybe they can tell us why a sudden and unprecedented assault on the investigation was carried out by the British establishment from the ground up. All the way up to Downing Street via Whitehall and the intelligence services.

    JC ( Jura)

    1. My Learned Friend JC ( Jura)

      With utmost respect:

      I am not at liberty to disclose the details in my brief with regard to the alleged psychological disorder but I should like to assist by drawing your attention to Francis Bacon’s “Audacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret” (in his De Augmentis Scientiarum) with which you appear to be familiar for you say the following: “From what i gather about the chasing of Amaral, it was for him to prove his accusations had a foundation wasn't it.” A short categorical answer is no, it wasn’t.

      You are in a position to know that in the Portuguese Court of the First Instance the presiding Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro made unambiguously clear that the truth value of the very few Dr Amaral’s s’ own views he had expressed in his book was irrelevant to the case before Her. Nothing has changed in that regard since, and I am puzzled as to your sources. May I take it you do not gather magic mushrooms…

      Right Honourable Silk Kettle, the Devil’s advocate

    2. @ Anonymous10 October 2020 at 13:50

      Hell your posts are boring - they are not clever nor are they funny.

      It would be a far better blog if Ros did what she said she would: "Sorry RH Silk, you will not see your posts published."

    3. @17:06

      I appreciate your comment and can only imagine how you feel. Say no more. I wish I could help.

      Take a deep breath and try to look after yourself.

      RH S K

    4. Hello Kettle

      I'm not sure whether or not you were aiming at intellectualism or wit. I would guess you too had that problem.That would explain why you almost achieved both but fell and achieved neither.

      I was responding to the statement that Ros included in one of her posts about the pursuit of Amaral. It was to try and prevent the publication of his book which, in their opinion, was libellous in the many assertions it made and the innuendo clearly meant to lead public opinion. I believe they wanted it to be prevented on those legal grounds as it slurred their name and reputation as well as accused them of at least one heinous crime. He had been the co-ordinating detective with a better view of the case and investigation than anyone else.He never arrested or charged either of the parents then.If what he asserted later in his book had any merit he could have done.His successor could have done.Nobody did.

      The judge who presided over the libel trial commented in passing about the crimes alluded to within the book and that it[ the ruling on the decision regarding publication of a book ] wasn't to be taken as the court's judgement in anything concerning that.This would appear to be to emphasise and clarify that it was a trial concerning the rights to publish or not, and nothing to do with murder, manslaughter, abduction or any other crime. Such things are the remit of the higher court.

      Those who chose to interpret her judgement, and this summing up, as 'evidence' that the McCanns hadn't been cleared as 'the court had said as much', are clutching at straws.Bear in mind the court didn't say they were officially suspects either.And let's not forget, if you haven't been incarcerated for a crime , or even charged with one, you have nothing to be cleared of. Suspicion among the public doesn't count.

      Yes. Mushrooms and so on.

      JC( Jura)

    5. "my sense of humour is not everyone’s cup of tea." RH S K 9 October 2020 at 09:14

      You were certainly correct there. Have you noticed that no-one laughs at your attempts at humour?

    6. @15:39

      Thank you. I know I was. I presume you've found no errors in what I've said.

      RH S K

    7. JC ( Jura) @20:56

      I'm not sure whether or not you were aiming at intellectualism or wit. I would guess you had no such problem as you hit both with apparent ease. I’ve been saying for years your writing is divine. It has taken time for this to have been understood. I loved the RR on bricks btw.

      Let’s talk shop, Unless you cite sources, what you say will remain mostly tittle-tattle. Show me you hand, would you?

      Yours sincerely


    8. Hello again, Kettle.

      Can i offer you some advice. I hope so. You can ignore it of course.

      If your read the content of other posters more closely, you may get a more reliable grip of it; a better understanding. But, if you devote the larger slice of your focus on your own responses and trying to appear clever and cryptic and, at times, 'zany', then you're wasting your own time as well as those who read these discussions.Slow down, concentrate, and think. Then respond.

      JC ( Jura)

  32. Anonymous 9 October 2020 at 23:34

    Thank you very much for you comment.

    Would you be so kind as to tell me where in the opening post it is suggested that both the McCanns suffer from a rare psychological disorder.

  33. Hi Ros, I was wondering if you would be interested in coming on a live chat tonight Sat 10th October hosted by Maureen Cooke and Lizzie Hi de ho 4 on the McCann case.(You Tube/Maureen Cooke)
    Now I know you said you were involved in various McCann blogs and I hope I'm not wrong in assuming you will be aware of Lizzie Hideho.
    I would just love to hear you in the Live discussion.
    Or even see your comments in the live chat,it would be very interesting.
    Anyway, I only throw it up as a possibility ,entirely your decision.
    And again I look forward to your book.
    Take care and maybe see you later.

    1. Hi the ho. A very unusual and neurotic character.This case seized her from the beginning and brought out her inner nutcase.She is the go-to mine of made up information and guesswork. Wouldn't know a fact if it bit her on her mad nose.

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

    3. I am assuming the latest two long rambling, nonsensical posts are from RK, I published (for abut 2 minutes) to see it in full. It is full of crude insults, what rhymes with Brunt eh, libel and innuendo. It is deleted, so too the second one. All that effort and for what? Do you feel better now? Cause you look pretty stupid.

    4. @ Cooltide10 October 2020 at 13:21

      I was there at 20.30. it started 5 minutes late (why?)with Maureen Cooke talking for a bit then showing a pointless video. It then went to Lizzie Hideho - who waffled on so much about herself and nothing much else that I stopped listening and switched off after about 30 mins.

      I can prove that I was there as I noticed you asked people if they had heard of "Cristobelle" - with an "e" - Ros has never used that name.

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

    6. Rosalinda Hutton11 October 2020 at 17:44

      About a year ago you said they had changed the admin interface so that you could see all of the comment before publishing it.

    7. Hi Cooltide!
      Thanks to you, I got the opportunity to listen to Maureen Cooke and Lizzie Hi de ho last Saturday. I got the impression, that they talked to an audience, that hasn’t yet learnt so much about the case and in that respect they contribute to more people taking interest in the case, which only the McCanns and their tapas friends, with their “Pact of Silence”, might dislike.

      However, in 2007 their tapas friends, represented by Dave Payne, assured everybody that such a pact did not exist, but time has shown the opposite, so maybe social media can break up that pact and help the Portuguese police to solve the case.

  34. Thank you for your invite Cooltide and it is something I might consider at a later date. I'm very much in work mode at the moment and I don't want to get distracted, so much to say, and also so much editing to do....... Kindest wishes.

  35. The case remains unsolved. The fact that you have made up your mind beyond reasonable doubt is not only laughable it is unsaleable.

    You may think that saying this : "I haven't even looked up the Christian B story Bjorn, because I'm bored senseless with the so called suspects who pop up over the years". is clever and authoritative - but it just shows how shallow you are.

    You want to publish a book now to make money for yourself (using the name Madeleine). Every normal person knows that the case is not yet solved.

  36. And kind wishes to you 19:51. The idea that I have made up my mind beyond reasonable doubt may seem laughable to you, but for the many people who have read my blog over the years, it is the journey's natural end. Like many people I came to this case with hundreds of questions and lots of 'WTFs', I couldn't put it down because, quite frankly, it was a gripping story. Like a novel or a movie with lots of twists, turns and a cunningly false narrative. For my own peace of mind, I had to find the answers, above and away from the noise of the constant bickering on social media.

    I didn't set up a 'Madeleine' site, I set up a 'Cristobell musing' blog. And musing is the key word here. On the libel front, it means 'nothing to see here', because I am not claiming to know anything. I am not an ex police officer, scientist or criminologist, but I do understand human nature. It is a subject I have been studying my entire life, perhaps it is a 'writer' thing, it is certainly a common trait amongst us, we watch, we listen, we learn. No story is more tantalising than the darker side of human nature.

    Think me shallow all you like 19:51, but I learned many years ago not to get bogged down in reading obviously phoney Madeleine stories and sadly there are hundreds. They are not helpful, not enlightening, and for me, a waste of my precious time.

    And your finale, 'you're just using Madeleine's name to make money for yourself'. Yes, I am. And I have good reason. But it seems to me 19:51, a lot of people made a lot of money from the Madeleine case, especially the family who received millions in donations and spent it very unwisely. So too, all those lawyers, that's a given, but also all those journalists who sold interviews, articles and opinions.

    I have written, freely, about the Madeleine case for over a decade. And, as I say every time, I am always grateful to those readers who pop in. My writing on the Madeleine case became very popular - well popular may be the wrong word there, ha ha, because most readers profess to hate me, but they kept returning anyway.

    But let's return to the money issue. Let me put it this way, 19:51, if you had in depth knowledge of a subject that is still of interest to hundreds, perhaps thousands, and a talent for writing, what would you do? Especially if you have endured years of blacklisting and abuse because you simply do not believe a couple who lost their child abroad?

    There have been many books written using the name Madeleine 19:51, were they bad people? Did Summers and Swan give their services freely?

    My blog is here and it's free and always will be. My book, without having the McTroll hounds snapping at my ankles, will be far more unbound than anything that has gone before. Usually just as I am going off into the writing equivalent of Maria Callas singing One Fine Day, a McTroll beast starts gnawing on my foot, whilst barking abbbbwoofductor.

    I also think, if I am going to ask for money for this book, I'm going to work that bit harder. For all that I am rebel, I have always had a strong work ethic, I need to provide something worth paying for. For whatever reason, I know the reason lol, my drive and ambition has returned. It took me a while there to 'get back up again', but I have, I have a project to work on, and it feels good.

    Whether it makes money, I hope it does, doesn't really matter. I personally need a satisfying end to this story, in that I want to show, especially to all those who turned their backs on me, that I am not a bad person. A stubborn one, maybe, not a bad one.

    1. " I personally need a satisfying end to this story, in that I want to show, especially to all those who turned their backs on me, that I am not a bad person. A stubborn one, maybe, not a bad one."

      You had a satisfying end to the story when you stopped posting about the Mccanns - you have started it all again now.

      " My writing on the Madeleine case became very popular - well popular may be the wrong word there, ha ha, because most readers profess to hate me, but they kept returning anyway."

      You should think about that very carefully - people returning to see what is happening on a blog is completely different to people spending money on a book. The number of people that I have read on here supporting your book writing story is very small - do you think there are thousands in other places waiting for your book?

    2. Anyhoo, I admire you Ros, as you said, you are a great storyteller. You are kind, truthful, courageous, determined, clever and knowledgeable. Write and publish your book, and if it’s a flop, you can again re-work your material and publish another one. Do it until you are personally satisfied with the end to this story, in that you have shown, especially to all those who turned their backs on you, that you are not a bad person. Just a thought, why don’t you call you book My Apologia or perhaps even better still I Apologise, that would certainly trick those fickle bastards into buying and reading it. Good luck and all the best.

    3. I'm getting very mixed signals from your posts, assuming 14:38 that you are also the author of 13:42.

      I think I've mentioned one or twice, that ChumbaWumba's 'I get knocked down and I get up again' is kind of an old mantra of mine. OK, it's taken me quite a while this time around, but I'm back, my head is bloodied but unbowed.

      When I set my mind on something, I mean really set my mind on something, I see it through until the end. I got a degree, I became a lecturer, I had a play performed on radio (and nominated for a Sony) and I had a book published. Compared to my earlier goals, this one is relatively easy.

      Will it be a success. Who know's. Many books have been written about the Madeleine case, the most successful, Madeleine by Kate and Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral. Polar opposites, obviously, two sides of the same story.

      But of all the books that have been written about Madeleine's disappearance, mine will be quite unique. My readers don't stick with me because I forensically examine the evidence and stalk witnesses, but because I discuss the case sanely, that is, I use reason and logic. No hysterics or 'hate' here.

      I am writing from the perspective of all those, just like myself, who became hooked by the drama and intrigue of this case. It was like watching a reality show wound up a few notches, but more painful because a real child had disappeared. Over the years I have met hundreds, maybe even thousands of decent people, drawn to this case by curiosity who have found themselves in the chat room equivalent of madhouses. There they have been attacked mercilessly by all the psychos who have marked their territory. The majority, quite rightly, thought fuck this, and moved onto another pastime. Some stayed a while and fought, or took the wise decision just to watch from the sidelines. And happily my blog has been a safe place for those people.

      I don't know if you are being sarcastic or sincere with the kind words you have interspersed through your text, but I have taken them as kind good wishes, so thank you.

    4. Hi Anon 12 October 2020 at 14:38

      ”why don’t you call you book My Apologia or perhaps even better still I Apologise, that would certainly trick those fickle bastards into buying and reading it. Good luck and all the best”

      Could you please explain the underlying meaning of these lines (I'm Swedish you know). Is this some kind of sophisticated British satire, that I cannot understand and who are these gullible "bastards", that you mention. I am just being curious.

    5. "Rosalinda Hutton13 October 2020 at 19:42

      I'm getting very mixed signals from your posts, assuming 14:38 that you are also the author of 13:42."

      You assume wrong - yet again.

    6. Bjorn, I'm also curious. Perhaps Ros can answer your questions.

    7. In your experience, Bjorn, are gregarious, ambitious 30 somethings only interested in other gregarious, ambitious, 30 somethings, not kids?

    8. She can’t help it. It’s ‘beyond her control’. I don’t remember her assuming right, ever. Do you?

    9. No reply from the Anon 12 October 2020 at 14:38 Bjorn. Ask Ros what happened, not that she'll tell you the truth.

    10. I have always told the truth 23:00, firstly because it is my nature, and secondly, what could I possibly have to lie about? My only agenda has been to discover the truth, to wade through the smoke and mirrors of the MSM and the 'establishment' who actually DO have agendas. The case of missing Madeleine was huge, not just because it was a touching human story, or because the parents came from a very proactive family. It was huge because it fitted the agenda of many agencies, police, charities, lawyers and of course, the government.

      Actually, thank you for bringing up the issue of honesty, I will certainly use it as publicity blurb when I publish my book. For many years lots of watchers of the Madeleine case have come to my blog for the truth. They know I will never lie to them.

    11. Ros: "For many years lots of watchers of the Madeleine case have come to my blog for the truth. They know I will never lie to them."

      That is a lie. And I can prove it - I have never come here for the truth.

  37. Ros
    Do you still think Ziggy was a troll?

    1. I am not Ros but I think that Ziggy was a boring fart. Very similar to RH Silk Kettle III, the Devil’s advocate

    2. Or was he like you, a deep thinking and witty individual with a lot to contribute nowhere.

    3. Lol, I'm with 007. Probably a frustrated writer, part of the Team McCann cabal. Old school I would say, or more accurately old lack of schooling. He was 'set in his ways' - a phrase that is often used and misused. I'm set in my ways, but in an endearing way, naturally. I won't drink or coffee from a mug (as if!) and I will no longer be enticed away by twinkly eyes or a voice like Richard Burton, though I am still up for partying for a week with Jack Nicholson in New Orleans. I also have to have to cup of Ovaltine before nodding off.

      With Ziggy and his assortment of names, he has firmly held beliefs that are unshakeable. Now I know, in the past, why such a trait would be considered admirable, but we've moved on. Ziggy's is set in his ways, that is 'the ways' set by Ted Heath or maybe even Harold Wilson, circ 1960's. He likes to give the impression of 'tough working guy' from Liverpool. But not so much an ex docker as an ex parking attendant. Mioewwww, lol.

      Eeeeek. Just had a senior moment. Just wrote Mioewww on a paper notepad next to me and waited for spell check! As you can see it didn't work, lol.

    4. Ros
      Have you forgotten his MA in Psychology?  Don''t you appreciate  the quality of his writing and his sense of humour?

    5. Whichever ways he was set in, they helped lift the level of debates on this blog no end.He knew what he was talking about and he had a sense of humour and it was a nice aside to watch him tear apart the poodles on here who considered themselves lethal.And, let us not forget, Ros ( and feeder), he always backed up what he said and challenged those who doubted him. I never saw him lose a battle here. I sort of understand why you are so bitchy about him Ros. Then again he always did say you were only ever happy when making ad hominem attacks on people you couldn't debate.You just proved that he was right all along. And here you are still saying the same nonsense you were saying all that time ago.What you've been saying for well over a decade now.And it's still wrong.There's a message in that somewhere.

    6. 04:44, Aaaah, Ziggy on Ziggy, lol. Ziggy couldn't tear apart a bread roll. He didn't win any arguments, I'm still here and now writing a book.

    7. All that means is that you're writing a book. Nothing more. Do you think if you place all your opinions will suddenly become facts because they're put o pages ? Do oyu think Ziggy is alone in the world in his assertions that the child was abducted and that you and the people like you are failing to recognise the need for evidence and proof to prove a crime ? Do you think it's only him who recognise that you're hatred and envy of the parents is the main drive behind what you prefer to call a want of justice ? I disagree with your petty reply here, sorry. Bread rolls or no bread rolls, he tore apart the haters and their nonsense on a regular basis here. Your response ? Always to criticise or attempt to belittle him because his knowledge and understanding of the case and law left you looking far from the legend you tell everyone you are. Your attempts at overcoming his points and answering his questions were rare and when you bothered it was clear why they were rare. You were mauled. You constantly told everyone, as you still do, how intelligent you are. He showed everyone how smart he was. That's where your anger and bitterness has it's root.

  38. How similar is 'very similar'? Enough to be the same?

  39. Hello Rosalinda and others

    Just watched the 60 Minutes Australia presenting a documentary about Madeleine’s alleged killer under the title of;
    “Shocking new evidence: Madeleine McCann's suspected killer revealed”

    Sandra Felgueiras is actively participating in it. She wholeheartedly gives all her support to the German prosecutor Hans Christian Wollters and his team. Why?

    None of what this German prosecutor claims to be true is substantiated in the documentary. Otherwise, there are completely irrelevant facts, nothing to do with the case, and then of course there’re pure fantasies. Had Sandra Felgueiras “talked to the dogs”, which Gerry so scornfully asked her to do 12 years ago, she would have known better today.

    The purpose of the documentary is to make people disregard the PJ files in order to make them believe in a quite new story in which this notorious criminal Christian B is going to fit so well.

    The comments on YouTube are disabled. I’m not surprised.

    1. Hiya Bjorn, thank you for watching that 60 Minutes Australia documentary so we don't have to!

      I have always known, accepted in my mind, since 2007, that nothing but the truth, will fit the skeleton of the case. That is, those statements the McCanns and their friends gave that night the following morning, to the police would be carved in stone forever. The timeline, their actions, their reactions. All caught in time and documented.

      I hadn't, at that time, made up my mind on anything. In fact I spent many hours, weeks, months, pondering over ways and means in which an abduction could have happened. I spent quite some time giving the parents the benefit of the doubt (or trying to) by focussing on 5A being on the corner - ergo if a child were to be abducted from an apartment, ground floor, corner plot, would be a logical choice.

      On the subject of 'was there an abductor?', I think I spent as much time as Descartes did on the meaning of life. In a nutshell, here, there is no way a random child molester, burglar or whatever, could have stolen a child from her bed and gotten away with it. Trying to fit a person into the wrong place at the wrong time, within a 60 minute timeslot, isn't just virtually impossible it is impossible. Because, crucially, their every action on the night of 3rd May would have to fit the one hour time slot, exactly.

      1. Were they actually in Portugal on that night?
      2. Were they within running, while carrying a child, distance of 5A? No
      cars were seen pulling away.
      3. How did they get out of patio doors, and shut curtains and doors behind,
      how did they go down back stairs, carrying a child, and open and close
      two safety gates behind them, given father was standing across the road
      talking to his mate?
      4. Why didn't Madeleine, or indeed the twins, wake up?

      These are all part of the unanswered questions, the police had 48. I didn't believe there was a predator on the loose, because neither the McCanns or their friends believed it! They put their children, their remaining children, into the creche the very next day! That is 4th May. Madeleine hadn't been found, for all they knew, the poor could have been held captive in one of the holiday apartments or staff rooms!

      For the life of me I cannot understand how, having had one child stolen, the parents, or even their friends, could bear to hand their toddlers over to anyone they didn't know intimately. There were enough adults in the group to care for the kids, whilst each individual gave their statements to the police. This fact, which I confirmed with Kate's book, is among a series of 'WTF' (apologies for the language there) moments I highlight throughout my book. That moment when you hit a wall of logic and reason that you just can't get past. The 'none us know how we would act' kind of falls flat here. Err, yeah actually we do know how we would act.

    2. As for Sandra Felgueiras. I'm going to reply to that from the perspective that I have recently watched a Netflix movie about the goings on at Fox News! I am not saying the employers of Sandra Felgueiras are in any way sleazy, as in Fox, but I guess most news agencies are run in much the same way. That is, the presenters, the anchors, are required to read the news they are given and present it in the way their bosses want it presented. Basically, their opinions and ideals do not come into it, they are not the highest power.

      It might well be, and I'm guessing it is, that Portugal, as a whole, have decided to put this unsavoury investigation behind them. They don't come out of it so great. Firstly, could you imagine the terrible publicity of explaining why Goncalo Amaral was fired? And of course, why they have spent so many years investigating a crime without any charges being brought against anyone? SF I imagine has moved on Bjorn, she is probably in a very high executive position herself, with hopes of moving higher.

      I am quite glad to see that there is still interest in this case, a lot of curiosity, I'm glad I've made the decision to a write a book about it. I already know I am covering lots of stuff other writers have ignored :)

      Kindest wishes to Bjorn - how is the weather there? Here, it seems to have jumped very quickly from summer to autumn, bringing the chill with it. I feel we have all lost a year with this Coronavirus, life has changed so much. Anyway, my kindest wishes to you and yours Bjorn, stay well.

    3. Comparing the amount of time you have spent obsessing on a missing child and of hating it's parents to Descartes says a lot about your self aggrandizing as well as your failure to keep a grip on reality and sanity.

      Descartes pondered the world, the universe and existence.Is that what this case is to you ? Or is that what your obsessive hatred of the McCann family has become. Your universe and reason to exist ?

      You claim there's 'no way' an abductor could steal a tiny defenceless child away from her bedroom. Why ? Would he get beaten up ?

      You ten ramble about fitting every minute of their time fitting into an hour that night. You only have to fit two minutes into it when considering an abductor.

      Why would a car be seen pulling away from anywhere in an empty street ?
      You're talking about abduction or burglary.They tend to be sneaky.The apartment was close to a corner and facing a car park.

      Why didn't the twins wake up ? Ask Amaral the results of all the tests for medications. Ask the PJ why they haven't pushed things in that area of interest.

      They were at the centre of a global media circus and surrounded by policemen the next day.Yet putting the twins into a creche to spare them the confusion and upset is wrong to you. Why ?They'd be guarded in a creche and away from the spotlight.

      You can't understand why the parents and friends would hand over the care of their children to complete strangers. Not for the life of you.Yet when they chose not to you accused them of neglect.

      You don't know how you'd act.Not until you're in the situation in reality.It's easy to make glib guesses when nobody involved is even known to you.It's even easier to pretend to know when you want to sell your snake oil theorising to poison opinion against the family who suffered and leave the criticisms of the PJ and any other police force well alone.You're peddling an agenda. You've done it for years. After 13 years you look more strained and desperate than your shaky ideas.

    4. Aaah what it is to be human eh 05:02? I think therefore I am.

      I'll ignore the insults and questioning of my motives, and say that's probably the most effort a 'pro' has put in to address just a tiny sample of the many unanswered questions. An attempt at logic too, I'm impressed.

      Of course, the explanations you give are simply re-hashes of everything that has been said been said before, including 'there must be something wrong with you if you don't believe that'. Now, I'll be honest with you here, I have had people in the past, use that 'something wrong with you' argument many times, implying that I am mentally unstable and my judgment is flawed. It's very cruel, but sadly a technique often used in an abusive relationship. Not just me, I'm sure, but anyone who suffers from depression or any kind of mental health problems. It's a form of bullying, demeaning, breaking the spirit, it's not a logical argument. It's usually kept private of course, so others don't see, little whispers of 'you know what you are like' and 'I'm doing this for your own good'.

      Having suffered this kind of bullying on a personal level, and now having completely wised up to it, I see it for exactly what it is when it is coming from supporters of the McCanns. It is a nasty, bullying technique, used not only against me, but against anyone who's curiosity leads them to ask questions about the abduction story, it's been brutal.

      For me however, the 'your mental you are' arguments actually spur me on, it reminds me of all the bullying and nastiness I have seen over the years. And of course, it makes it personal, but I'll leave the last line to the divine Marilyn Monroe 'they think I'm crazy, but trust me I'm 100% there.

    5. June 16, 2007



    6. Ros: “Having suffered this kind of bullying on a personal level,”

      Having previously said “I don't consider myself a victim”, you are now saying you’d been a victim of bullying.

      What are we to believe?

    7. Do you really not understand that you can experience suffering without taking on victim mentality? Of course I have suffered in my life, many times and in many ways, but I get back up and carry on. I don't whinge that everything is unfair, I don't blame others, I don't ask people to pity me or feel sorry for me. I accept full responsibility for every decision I have ever made. I don't claim 'others made me do it'.

      I can tell my readers I have been bullied because I have. Bullying hasn't made me a victim, it has made me a fighter. I stand up to bullies, I don't kowtow them, and that's why I'm not a victim.

    8. Not quite accurate is it. If you detect so much as a whiff of someone being weaker or less knowledgeable than yourself you'll go to any length to bully them. All bullies call themselves 'fighters'. Then one day they make one mistake and end up in a real fight. Then the lesson's learned.

  40. When is a photo not a photo? When Bennett and his people decide it is a photo. His knowledge and ability to see the wood for the trees is as reliable and as positively Victorian as Jacob Rees Mogg's everything. And that's a fact:-)

  41. Hi Rosalinda,
    and thanks for your comments. Of course, the German investigation won’t lead anywhere, unless there is total corruption within the European police force, which would be devastating for all of us.

    The cold has gradually taken hold of our country, at least in the northern parts, but no snow has fallen yet, not even over our cottage in southern Norrland.

    No matter how awful the covid 19 virus may be, it still has a good effect on the climate, that is less carbon dioxide pollution. So maybe future generations will enjoy, as I’ve done, the cold bluish glistening snow, that I remember from my childhood.

    However, knowing that my longing for a cold winter with plenty of snow is not really what all the people who are stuck in hopeless situations in refugee camps around Europe wish, makes me feel bad about everything. What could we as individuals do for those, who’re not suffering as they do? Perhaps that could be another topic to discuss Rosalinda.

    Best wishes and have a nice weekend

    1. I love to hear descriptions of your beautiful Sweden with all it's snow Bjorn. I love the sight of snow and often watch movies just for the beautiful scenery. This quarantine has opened a whole new world for me in European and World Cinema - I have been missing so much! What I like especially is that I glimpse into what life is like in Russia, Germany, Sweden, South Korea. I am now obsessed with Moscow and it is on my tick list, I love the way they have shots of vodka at the drop of a hat! How are they not drunk all the time, or are they? Probably not the impression the Russian Federation wanted to give, ha ha.

      Kindest wishes to you and yours Bjorn, stay safe.

  42. The dog video is so blatant it has one of the most obvious media logos displayed in full view. Remember the intercepted conversation between Robert Murat and Brunt of the Yard re the contract?

    One contract only? No, I don't think so somehow, the system doesn't work like that.

    Have a fab evening.

    1. No idea what you are talking about 17:55, but you too, have a fab day :)

    2. The Sun, and every other affiliated media outlet connected to this cray-cray affair, including Sky.

      Pre 2007 history is your friend. Even The Olive Press was a brand new business in 2006. The constructed time limitations of the Luz presentation were nowt but theatre and illusion, dear Linda.

      And through it all, our Madeleine was in Rothley.

      Wishing you much illumination, growth and peace x

    3. 17 55

      can you elaborate on one or more of those odd sounding conspiracy theories please. I need a laugh.

  43. Willington Quay child abduction case
    "The girl was abducted from her ground-floor bath as her mother was in the next-door room. She was driven around the local area for 20 minutes, before being found naked in a snow-covered back alley."

    Can any of the child abduction experts that post on here and other places explain this?

    Ros - you can start.

    1. Hello anon16 October 2020 at 20:55

      Re: the Willington Quay child abduction was the case of the abduction and rape of a 6-year-old girl in Willington Quay,

      I'm not as you know an expert in the field of child abduction, but here is my view on the case.

      I quote what you’ve quoted

      “Assertions by the police that the crime had been a case of opportunistic abduction from the home by a stranger were initially met with scepticism, given the seemingly unbelievable nature of the crime."

      This is actually relevant with regard to the Madeleine case in that the investigation appears to have been focused on a stranger, but not so much on people related to the girl’s mother. I do not question that the girl was abducted, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a stranger.

      Peter Voisey, in this case, was/is obviously a notorious criminal character like Christian B . He was sentenced to life based on the following forensic findings:

      A footprint from the bathroom which matched a pair of shoes which he was supposed to have worn that day, a partial DNA trace from the girl's fingernails, some remnants of clothes that he had burnt in his garden and a few enigmatic words written in his diary stating “Phew, it’s over, Chill now”

      The victim, 6 years old, could also identify a Vauxhall Astra and even its year model, when she talked to a psychologist or a police investigator. Of course, every child aged 6 in my neighbourhood should know, that I have a Mitsubishi ASX (169), year model 2016. As for myself I’ve to look it up in my papers every time someone asks me.

      Although I’m not familiar with this specific case, I’d still I’d like to raise at least one red flag.

      Toilets, bathrooms and bathing of children are common in child sexual abuse and the perpetrators are often close to the victims.

      The evidence, as far as I can see, are of circumstantial character and if the same justice and the same rules were to be applied to the Madeleine case, the McCanns would be prosecuted and convicted immediately. Unfortunately, Christian B may have to atone for their sins, I’m afraid.

      Finally, seeing how the Madeleine case and the Assange case have been dealt with in the UK, I have little or no confidence in the British police.

    2. @ Björn19 October 2020 at 18:40

      Your attempt to rubbish a proven case of abduction where the perpetrator is in prison in noted. You appear to be saying that it was a miscarriage of justice and that the wrong person was traced, arrested, charged, taken to court and found guilty. You appear to be saying that instead it was someone known to the victim.

      "I do not question that the girl was abducted, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a stranger."

      "Toilets, bathrooms and bathing of children are common in child sexual abuse and the perpetrators are often close to the victims."

      If those two statements applied in this case then why didn't she identify the person who wasn't a stranger and was known to her? Maybe you have somebody in mind?

      You say "Of course, every child aged 6 in my neighbourhood should know, that I have a Mitsubishi ASX (169), year model 2016."

      That, in the words of Ros, is very creepy. Do you have an explanation of why all local 6 year old children should know you and your car so well?

    3. Hello anonymous20 October 2020 at 19:08

      If the perpetrator was unknown to the child, he could still be known to her mother or to any other member of the family. I doubt that the girl has identified the person who is now in jail, as there’re legal obstacles preventing this.

      My remark about “every child of six would know what type of car I have” , was ironic ( I suppose you’re familiar with this diction)Few small children in my neighbourhood would be able to tell exactly what car I drive, even if they may see it every day.

      A child at this age , who is taken away by a perpetrator in a car and thereafter becomes raped and molested wouldn’t be able to speak or analyse the situation like an adult. The child wouldn’t be able to give an accurate account of what has happened. No child at that age, even if he/she would not have been traumatized, as I suppose this girls must have been, could give an exact description of a specific car in which she/he has been on just one occasion and that’s one of many reasons as to why children aren’t allowed to testify in court, and they're often not even heard in a legal sense, but instead just listened to in an informal chat in the presence of a psychologist.

      This is considered an extremely rare case which is exactly what makes me so suspicious, but as I’ve said before, I haven’t read so much about the case yet.

    4. @ Björn21 October 2020 at 17:05

      You are just trying to look for reasons to defend/excuse a paedophile repeat offender.

    5. ''You are just trying to look for reasons to defend/excuse a paedophile repeat offender''

      Says the blogs most paedophilia obsessed contributor .

    6. @ Anonymous24 October 2020 at 00:19

      Thankyou for monitoring my posts - maybe just once you could comment on what I say and not the simple fact that I have posted something. I realise however that that is not your purpose on here - is it?

  44. Why thank you 20:55.

    I do remember this case, because it was of course so shocking, and so rare, have never heard of anything like it since. Without going back over the details of the case, I simply don't have the time, it was clearly opportunist and the child was found nearby. No road blocks, no border shut downs, no gangs of paedophiles plotting on the internet (had the internet existed then).

    I am surprised that you would cite this case 20:55, because it highlights the fact that the abductor wanted to get away quickly, he left the child behind, thankfully still alive.

    1. I highlighted the case because it is a rare example of an opportunist abduction of a young girl. You always state that you find abduction wrong in the Mccann case - without realising that strange rare things happen.

      "The brazen nature of the crime sparked widespread media interest and a Crimewatch appeal. It also sparked the largest ever man-hunt, at the time, by Northumbria Police. Assertions by the police that the crime had been a case of opportunistic abduction from the home by a stranger were initially met with scepticism, given the seemingly unbelievable nature of the crime."

      Sound familiar Ros?

    2. Err, did you even read my reply? I said basically the same as you, lol.

    3. Err, did you even read my reply Ros? You have repeatedly said that abduction in the Mccann case was so rare as to be impossible - therefore you have ruled it out. Open your eyes.

    4. I have never said that! LOL, I never reach solid conclusions on anything - I always leave room for doubt. You really don't know me at all. I always keep an open mind. I haven't even ruled out Madeleine being found, anything is always possible.

    5. @ Rosalinda Hutton18 October 2020 at 20:00
      " I haven't even ruled out Madeleine being found, anything is always possible."

      Maybe you could point your readers to any post on your blog, on the numerous forums that you posted on or in fact anywhere where you have ever said that.

      It should be quite simple for you to do.

    6. Ros
      Anonymous18 October 2020 at 20:33

      No reply so far.

      And what about the dogs, blood splatter on the wall, Amaral’s book? What has that been all about, Ros? Could you’ve been wrong about all that? So you don’t know anything, you’ve been just guessing?

    7. All the answers you are looking for 09:42 will be in my book, not too long now.

    8. Ros says: "Not too long now"

      Time is relative - see the Special Theory of Relativity

    9. Anonymous21 October 2020 at 23:09

      Not in this blog’s frame of reference.

    10. Ros

      “I haven't even ruled out Madeleine being found, anything is always possible.”

      “…you cannot claim Madeleine is in Rothley, I am deleting this and will delete any further similar claims.”

      What about blacksmith’s claims? Is it possible he, Bjorn, jc and you have been wrong, and Ziggy was right?

    11. Hi Anon 21 October 2020 at 09:42

      I’m writing from my memory here. I haven’t time to look up all details in the files, but here is roughly what was found in form of forensic evidence in the case. Do your own research and add or correct what I’ve written here. Please note that I'm not "guessing"

      Human organic residues were found in the McCanns’ car and blood was found in their apartment in the same spot, where one of the dogs alerted for blood (belonging to Madeleine, which Gerry has confirmed saying M. had had nose bleeding) and the other alerted for the scent of death.

      The DNA analysis of the sample found in the car showed that 15 of 19 markers matched Madeleine’s DNA profile. Even if it was inclusive, it’s still crucial in the evaluation of the whole chain of circumstantial evidence pointing in one specific direction. The scent of death was detected in their apartment, on Kate’s clothes, on Madeleine’s cuddle cat and in their hired car.

      The scent of a dead body cannot be explained away. Someone must have died in the apartment, whose body was taken into that car and then dumped somewhere. Who?

      Discussing the DNA in the car, Gerry has many times said that it could match the DNA of any of the family members, since it was inclusive, which is totally wrong as it could only be Madeleine’s or that of somebody unknown, who by chance would have a DNA profile matching those 15 markers in the inclusive sample.

      You cannot get around those lovely dogs and their findings.
      R I P Keela and Eddie

    12. Hello Anon 22 October 2020 at 10:32

      "What about blacksmith’s claims? Is it possible he, Bjorn, jc and you have been wrong, and Ziggy was right?"

      I don't think that Ziggy has ever said that the McCanns are innocent, nor that they're guilty. He's just been arguing against my, Rosalinda's, jc:s and others' arguments whatever hypothesis there may be.

    13. Bjorn @17:18

      Your argument is with Ros, an expert (I haven't even ruled out Madeleine being found, anything is always possible.“). I asked her. Are you answering on her behalf? Since you are not writing a book about the case and yourself, and aren’t at risk of making a fool of yourself, your repeating your well-known opinions is not an answer..

      I’m telling you in the friendliest way I can think of: You might consider doing your own research properly and correcting your own errors.

    14. Rosalinda Hutton18 October 2020 at 20:00

      Anon 18 October 2020 at 19:10: “You have repeatedly said that abduction in the Mccann case was so rare as to be impossible - therefore you have ruled it out. Open your eyes.”

      Ros:18 October 2020 at 20:00: “I have never said that!” Etc.

      Ros: “The abduction story that was impossible to believe over a decade ago, becomes more absurd with each passing year.”

      Please have mercy, Lord, have mercy on you.



    There is no "ME" (i.e. you Ros) in the Madeleine story.

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

    2. This makes no sense and enough with the conspiracy nonsense.

  46. Fish and chips. There are no chips in fish. :)

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

    1. Sorry 14:50, you can express your views, but you cannot claim Madeleine is in Rothley, I am deleting this and will delete any further similar claims.

  48. Ros - somebody is spamming this blog with a perverted, false and libellous theory that Madeleine is in Rothley and was never in Portugal.

    You may be happy to have your comments count boosted but by allowing publication of the repeated false lies you are making this blog a laughing stock similar to the cesspit.

    1. I agree and have taken steps to put a stop to it.

  49. Hello Rosalinda 17 October 2020 at 14:40

    I just had to give you an idea of what it’s like here Rosalinda, as you were talking about the Russians and their drinking culture, so different from the UK.

    Living within the so-called northern alcohol belt, we have extreme drinking habits here in Sweden. I believe that we are quite similar in this respect to our neighbours in the east.

    A party in the university world can start with participants in evening dresses, nice suits and tuxedos in a true ball-at-the-castle spirit, where everybody is behaving excessively polite and considerate. Later in the night or in the early morning some people, who are fairly drunk, may step up on the tables to sing tribute songs to what currently seems to be worth praising. At the same time, there is a splendid opportunity for those who so wish to say a few “words of truth” to their superiors, if they’re still there and if they care to listen, all of which will soon be completely forgotten and the speakers will be forgiven the very next day, that is if anyone remembers what there was to forgive.

    Such things happen of course outside the university sphere as well but not in this sophisticated dressed up manner, that eventually derails. I’m here talking about my past-time experiences and I don’t think much has changed since then Rosalinda.

    Have a Nice Evening

  50. And there was I thinking the Swedes were a sober race, lol. The university parties sound like great fund Bjorn, and probably not too dissimilar to wild office Christmas parties over here. And fortunately yes, most people forget or choose to forget what went on the night before!

    I wonder if excess drinking or love of alcohol is influenced by climate and geographic location? I've always thought the Russians penchant for vodka stemmed from their need to keep warm - from the inside! Alongside of course, steaming bowls of borsch! In the UK, Scotland is much colder than the UK, arguably, so too is Ireland, and the Scots and Irish have a reputation for drinking heavily and partying. Poor me, with a Scottish father and Irish mother, I had no chance. It was never a dull home, lol.

  51. The quality of mercy is not stranned...

  52. Ros: “I am probably considerably more harmful to the McCann case than poor Brenda was. Or even those who have devoted their lives to tweeting about Madeleine 24/7.”

    Because you are clever and knowledgeable, and you can see through their lies and that they share a rare form of psychopathy.

    Ros: “The McCanns and their trolls followed me relentlessly for years planting false stories and lies to demean and discredit me.”

    The McCanns?

    1. Can we please have some examples of the McCanns’ following you relentlessly for years planting false stories and lies to demean and discredit you, Ros? In the absence of indisputable corroboration, your statement is defamatory. Or do you think that’s just another story of a great storyteller?

    2. LOL, are the McCanns still employing lawyers to watch the internet?

      First, you are not a barristers, I am not in a witness box and this is not a court room. May I suggest you slap yourself across the face several times to bring yourself back to reality.

      My statement is defamatory, what a hoot. I have just replied to a comment about Brenda Leyland, remember her? I remember back at that time, the pro McCanns ran several (freaky and psychotic) websites, one of which collected literally everything I wrote online. Seriously, within 5 minutes of my tweeting, or posting, it would cut and pasted on their sicko Myths site. That is the file with all the 'troll' names and 'evidence' of their unsociable behaviour online. I believe they had over 100 pages on me, but of course all the shit was taken down following Brenda Leyland's suicide.

      But let's get back to that dossier, the one with the 100 pages on me. That dossier was handed to Sky News and the Police by the family. Then of course there was the evidence of Michael Wright, husband of Kate's cousin I believe, who said in the libel trial, last one, that he monitored the internet for the family. Not in his own name obviously, not those 'others' working so hard to change the conversation. If you go for defamation I will insist that all those who attacked me, on here, on the various forums, be unmasked.

    3. Another tall story then, followed by another one. Your blogs are full of them. The juice doesn’t help, get off it. Remember onus probandi?

    4. Not a tall story, the Stop the Myths site ran for years, thousands saw it, are you trying to pretend it didn't exist? Why's that? Are you ashamed?

      Everything is stored online, even if you delete it. I'm great about it, because my old 'honesty and integrity' comes through for me every time. I never have to worry about anything I wrote 5 years ago. How about you?

  53. Did anyone else notice that Ros and the anti Mccann forums did not mention Brenda Leyland on the anniversary of her death this year?

    I wonder why that was - is she she no longer a martyr?

    1. Oh she'll always be a martyr 18:47 and hopefully and a reminder of how far McCann supporters were prepared to go to stamp out the enemy online. What happened to Brenda Leyland, the exposure as a 'troll' to family, friends, neighbours, the venom of the tabloids, see 'fecked up bitch', the hounding by the newspapers, was pretty much everything the McCann supporters had threatened to anyone who dared disbelieve the abduction story.

      It was truly vicious stunt. And it was a stunt. The McCanns couldn't control the discussion on the internet, they wanted to shut down all the websites and chatrooms playing armchair detectives with their case. There wasn't a legal route as there was with the newspapers et al, they could only do it via public opinion.

      From the start they literally demonised anyone critical of the McCanns, then they started collecting names and digging into facebook and online apps. They believed if they could take out the leaders, ie make the public hate them, then all that discussion would just go away. Labelling them haters, pitchforkers, disturbed people hating on them because they are were in the public eye.

      If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Non believers of the McCanns were hated more than serial killers. They were truly evil for preying on a family who had a child stolen. It wasn't hard to set the we good, they bad narrative. Most of the tabloids were compliant, taking lines from online arguments to use as headlines to demonstrate how badly the McCanns were being persecuted. Again, an easy task for McCann supporters, all they had to do was engage with a disbeliever, and then wind them up until they said something outrageous.

      I haven't forgotten Brenda Leyland 18:47, there is a chapter about her in my book.

    2. Ros
      You've missed the pointof about the anniversary. It doesn't matter to you, does it?

    3. the point about the anniversary

  54. Ros:
    “It is in my opinion, the desire to burn books and destroy art is the height of ignorance.”

    And so is binning comments.

  55. You might have a point if the comments I binned were interesting, entertaining or enlightening, but I assure you they are not.

    1. You are so passionate about freedom of speech. So passionate about how wrong book burning is. Yet you abuse your privilege of hosting your blog by hiding what exposes your disinformation and weaknesses. Did you know people can screenshot their posts before sending and that the posts you ban can be seen by others via social networks and emails ?But it isn't 'censorship' if you do it.

      Yet you decide that a disgraced ex felon of a detective who prints accusations about two parents who had their child abducted is required reading for everyone, despite him never arresting them or producing an iota of evidence. You think lies that sick should be circulated globally without any evidence to support them. And the parents, who have already lost a child- are to be considered cold hearted and litigious.

      You have to be the most hypocritical commentator on this case online. And that's a very competitive contest. Hardly good as a sales pitch for your own book of nonsense is it. The only support you'll enjoy is from your faithful here. That is, a Swedish obsessive who swings from hatred to twisted like a pendulum. The other is some kind of rarely sober Scottish Terrier who can barely through the cigarette smoke and whisky fumes as he tries his hand at gallantry.

    2. Do you think I'm keeping the good comments back? lol Go post your poison pens wherever you like 00:32, but don't expect me to give you a platform here.

      I really object to your calling Goncalo Amaral a disgraced ex felon. GA is not disgraced, you can't just put that word in front of his name and claim it as fact. He won the libel trial, he has been completely exonerated. And what crime has he been convicted of? You can't add that label either. Tough for you that your legal powers do not extend to my blog, you cannot stop me or anyone else from talking about GA's book

      As to your final paragraph, I will let readers decide for themselves.

    3. @00:32

      “You are so passionate about freedom of speech. So passionate about how wrong book burning is. Yet you abuse your privilege of hosting your blog by hiding what exposes your disinformation and weaknesses.

      You have to be the most hypocritical commentator on this case online. And that's a very competitive contest.”

      I concur. Ziggy, come back.

    4. Hi Anon 24 October 2020 at 00:32

      If you were just a little bit more polite I wouldn't mind.

      “You think lies that sick should be circulated globally without any evidence to support them. And the parents, who have already lost a child- are to be considered cold hearted and litigious”

      Yes, and rightly so, as they can neither be said to be warm hearted, nor good-natured. They’ve threatened their critics in different ways and they’ve sued papers, who do not share their version(s)of the “truth”. The law suit against GA, which they lost, was not about finding Madeleine, but just about their own "suffering" and their own "reputation"

      Moreover, the appeal due to the loss in the Portuguese Supreme Court, which they apparently lodged with the ECHR a year ago or so, was just as preposterous as was their visit to the Vatican a few days after Madeleine had gone missing, asking the pope to bless them.

      Their claims, not to be confused with hopes, that Madeleine is still alive, despite evidence to the contrary, have led the Operation Grange in the wrong direction, that is if there was meant to be any direction at all (re. interview with Colin Sutton)

    5. Ros:
      "Do you think I'm keeping the good comments back? lol"
      I know you have been doing. You are so blatant in you denials that I start thinking you have a screw or two missing. Your assurances are worthless.
      No, I don't come here to read the endless repeats of your 'stories'. I come for the comments by people like Ziggy, T and a few others who play a straight bat and don't reverse field, it seems they are no longer welcome here.

  56. You decide for your readers?

    1. On what I publish on my blog, yes. You keep forgetting it is my blog, just as if it were my magazine or my newspaper, I decide what to publish and I'm not publishing hate mail. Do you know any publication that does?

  57. Replies
    1. I’ve noticed you think you are another Shakespeare, “The quality of mercy is not stranned...”, but surely the great storyteller is not a monkey.

      See you later, Oscar Slater

  58. I'm happy to say an unhealthy obsession with this case has now passed. I accept that some people can do bad things and get away with it, and that they can even be smug when questioned about it.
    I wouldn't want to be them, it will never leave them. I'm curious about what it was about them that the British state moved to cover up and bully the Portuguese.
    I will be dead when the papers are released to the public, and given the choice between spending the rest of my life seething about it, and accepting that bad people don't always face justice, I'll opt for enjoying my time on this earth.
    I believe the husband is truly psychopathic, and the only pain he will ever endure is the fact that people have said bad things about him. The mother I think has taken it harder, maybe one day she will break, who knows?
    What interest in this case has done for me is to really have a hard look at how the media works. I have repeatedly been gob smacked at how they can brazenly print untruths and circulate old lies.
    Conspiracy theorists see all sorts of connections that are not there. I believe it's a simple case of laziness that we all suffer as we become competent at work.
    If you can get away with the same tricks to make your day easier, you will.
    We see this now with the pandemic, where dullard reporters will happily regurgitate government spin, without a hint of a fact check. Is saying that there is an "explosion of ITU admissions," when they are actually lower than last October, any worse than repeating an unchecked fact that a "sinister" man took a phone call 30 minutes before the "abduction."
    My real scorn is for the victims of these scams. They have learned life by rote, believing that as long as they repeat what teacher said, they cannot be wrong, foolish or responsible.
    For, "what parent could live with that," substitute "we need to take care of each other." Both come from the same system of mind control, repeatedly planting phrases into the gullible's heads.
    It's Chicken Licken, and The Emperor's New Clothes combined, where any attempt to get to the heart of the matter is shouted down by the bleating of mantras.


    1. @ Oscar Slater25 October 2020 at 09:54

      "What interest in this case has done for me is to really have a hard look at how the media works. I have repeatedly been gob smacked at how they can brazenly print untruths and circulate old lies.
      Conspiracy theorists see all sorts of connections that are not there. I believe it's a simple case of laziness that we all suffer as we become competent at work."

      Exactly - how many false articles about the Mccann case did the papers have to remove/delete and apologise for. How many hundreds of thousands of pounds did they pay to the Mccanns and the tapas group and to Murat.

      It truly was terrible reporting.

    2. Oscar - do you have any official qualifications for saying this: "I believe the husband is truly psychopathic, and the only pain he will ever endure is the fact that people have said bad things about him."?

      Or you you doing a Ros and using your vast experience of nothing in drawing that conclusion?

      As you're "happy to say an unhealthy obsession with this case has now passed" there is no need to post on here when the subject is the Mccanns is there.

  59. Hello
    Oscar Slater25 October 2020 at 09:54
    Anon 25 October 2020 at 12:56
    Anon 25 October 2020 at 13:50

    "YouTube BBC News - Newsnight - McCanns on their worst fears for missing Madeleine 2011"

    Still at that time the McCanns were going around holding hands, at least in front of the cameras, though cuddle cat must have been left alone at home.

    Just as it is today, they’re in this interview expecting the British authorities to help them find their daughter and her kind-hearted abductor, who they believe has taken care of her.

    Perhaps not narcissists or psychopaths, but still a couple with rather distorted perception of reality, no self-insight and lack empathy. Time will eventually tell what kind of peple the McCanns truly are.

  60. 12:56 Fair's fair, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  61. Hello Anon25 October 2020 at 13:50
    re: your question to Oscar Slater

    Here is what Jordan Peterson, psychologist and university professor, has said about the McCanns and their friends. Interesting stuff and in this respect I do share his views.

    “psychopathic behaviours and values (so to speak) of conscienceless-ness and narcissism seem to have society’s seal of approval. From day one, the McCanns seemed to me to be curiously lacking in individuality, namely those cute little quirks of character that make each person a unique individual. Kate and Gerry and their friends were like composite average pseudo-people dreamed up by the marketing department of a middle-market department store or supermarket. They look like promotional photographs of people enacting stereotyped good times. I can’t imagine them reading poetry, listening to music or putting out food for the birds! Their main form of recreation seems to be purchasing clothes and keeping (physically) fit doing sport. No real inner life, only stereotyped image”

    He has also said that it’s inevitable that people who speak up will eventually though unintentionally offend someone, as it’s nature of arguing and disagreeing. As for myself, I’ve never intended to offend anybody and I’ve never felt offended by anyone, whatever choice of words some posters may use here in describing who they think I am, but of course, I would still appreciate a little more politeness especially from one anonymous poster on this blog.

    1. The picture of him sucking the lollipop and flirting with a friend three days later, the snarling response to the Supreme Court verdict in Lisbon, the self pitying performance in front of Leveson, and behaviour observed by Amaral - chatting to the Leicestershire cops about rugby, contrasted by his wife's shrine, his blog. All raise red flags.

  62. A fishing expedition, throwing out Madeleine McCann.

    "Madeleine does seem to have become iconic of missing children," Kate McCann told CNN in an interview.

    ‘Madeleine McCann case puts Germany's missing children in the spotlight’