Tuesday, 27 October 2020


 In response to Unknown, 21 hours ago, I didn't publish you on the previous blog, mostly because there are too many comments there now, but also because your post amused me.  So, herewith, verbatim, I had to write it out in manuscript (still can't c/p) and retype, so herewith:

'Ros, you are incapable of defending your views and that's why you bin many comments.  I never use vulgar or abusive language. Shame on you'.

Let me respond to the second part first.  Err, well done on not using vulgar or abusive language. Take a bow.  No, your modus operandi is hurt and degrade, arguably, the nastier choice for abuse.

To the first part.  I am happy to defend my views against anyone, bring it on.  Have been saying this for the past 13 years!  I think I am despised by the antis as much as the pros.  Probably because I unmasked many of them, for the phonies they were.  As for the pros, the truly psychotic ones who posted on the Myths sites, Tigerpussy or whatever his name was, I slayed the lot of them.  They were so bad at dissing me, even I couldn't be arsed to read it, and I love reading about myself! Lol, even the bad.

So here we are October 2020, in a pandemic that has gone on for 8 months and getting worse.   On the Madeleine McCann case, what views do I need to defend?  We still have free speech, I'm allowed to have any views I want.  Happily, as much as they tried, the McCanns and all their cohorts were not able to bring in legislation that would take away free speech.  They stopped books being published and newspapers from reporting facts, but they have never been able to silence social media.  I don't think it should be forgotten how hard they worked to silence journalists and put them in jail and how badly misguided the 'hacking' campaign was.  Definitely worthy of a chapter.

As for the defend yourself challenge,  I have easily slayed every creep from the Myths sites, Tigerpussy wannabe and all the rest of them.  And I would say to anyone, literally anyone, from any of the Madeleine websites, anti or pro, bring it on.  Do you think I tremble in fear of the El creepos, Bennett, Hall and Hyatt?  Or indeed, any 'renowned' journalist, ha ha ha, I would love to hear how they know so much more than me.  

Bring it on unknown from 21 or is it now 22 hours ago.  Bring forth your genius and destroy my views and opinions.  Tell me where I've gone wrong.  Talk about the case, not me on a personal level, the evidence, the statements, the truth you think I have misconstrued.  You sound fired, unknown at 22 hours ago, write something cohesive and persuasive, the floor is yours:


  1. Publish all the comments you've been withholding and let's see whether you've been telling the truth. I know you haven’t. Take this as a challenge.

    1. I'm not going to trash my own blog with petty belligerent one liners and personal attacks from very strange people.

      Your above comment offers nothing new, nothing original, nothing interesting to discuss, except the offence you feel you have suffered from my not publishing your spiteful remarks.

      Why don't you go see if you can compose, say, one paragraph, that will prove once and for all there was an abductor. Take your time.

    2. Your topmost comment, and you are in the bullying gear.

      “the offence you feel you have suffered from my not publishing your spiteful remarks.”

      All false, again. I have noticed that you are already withholding comments on this blog.

      “Why don't you go see if you can compose, say, one paragraph, that will prove once and for all there was an abductor. Take your time.”

      This blog is ostensibly not a composition competition; besides, you’ve got no way of knowing my view on the abduction hypothesis. This blog is ostensibly for you to defend your views.

    3. Thank you for telling me what my blog is ostensibly about, much appreciated.

      I feel your pain, regarding the injustice of it, how dare I run my blog, my way. I feel you should have some sort of higher power to appeal to, your mum, and the ladies on playground duty, not being an option.

      Let me give you a couple of pointers if you want your posts published. Make them interesting ffs, your barrister act of trying to pin me down on one word or one statement, is tedious. What you going for there? A headline, lol.

      Why don't you write something constructive? Something that debunks everything Goncalo Amaral has written, or indeed, anything that I have written. And do it politely. Did you even know that it is possible to win an argument with charm and good manners? I read recently, that Ronald Reagan when running for president was considerably older than his opponent and when asked about the age factor, he replied, I won't use my opponent's lack of age and wisdom against him. Now that was funny, and point made.

      And why don't you take out the anger and hostility from your posts, it makes you sound psychotic. And desperate. If you were confident in your arguments, you would be far more relaxed. Stamping your feet and demanding here, really doesn't work. The reason? This is, ostensibly, my blog.

    4. Rosalinda Hutton28 October 2020 at 15:47

      More bullying, abuse and wasted space. No mater. The only sentence that counts is the last to arrive: “This is, ostensibly, my blog.” Indeed, and you dedicated it, ostensibly, to your defending your views, not to bullying and abusing your contributors. So far you’ve done much talking, and no defending.

      You are welcome.

    5. I am not on trial 18:12, you might love the idea of seeing me in 'the dock', but this isn't it. Nor am I going to indulge your petty bickering, your modus operandi for keeping the discussion away from the facts of this case.

    6. Had to do a quick pop in, working v.hard on book just now, but just for you 18:12, as you may know, I often have 'fav words' that once in my head, impel me to use them often. Ostensibly is currently featuring often in my chapter on Perfection. That just a working title, it may change. But my overuse of ostensibly will stay :)

    7. Ros @13:04

      You ability to defend what you say is on trial here, YOUR choice.

      “keeping the discussion away from the facts of this case”

      Another lie. See my today’s @12:21 comment addressed to Bjorn, where I correct your error re Amaral etc, that you haven’t published, remember?

      You are welcome.

  2. First submitted on 24 Oct @1455
    Ros: “And I make no allegations”
    You have alleged that the McCanns followed you relentlessly for years planting false stories and lies to demean and discredit you.

    1. I cite the Myths pro Mccann websites and the file submitted to Sky News and the police. Over 100 pages on me from the family. I rest my case.

    2. Rosalinda Hutton28 October 2020 at 11:14

      “Over 100 pages on me from the family.” . On you or on your blogs? What you say will remain an unconfirmed allegation unless you provide a copy or a link.

    3. Ahhh, so be it. Don't forget to file it away safely and cross index it. You can show them how eager you are when you apply for Law School. I am sure you will be commended on your filing.

  3. 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.”

    Which one is true, Ros?


  4. Whatever you like Ray, I haven't got the time or patience for your pedantry.

    1. “Tell me where I've gone wrong.”

      I’ve pointed out where you’ve gone wrong: you made two statements that contradict one another. I asked you to resolve the contradiction and tell me your true opinion.

      Having said “Talk about the case, not me on a personal level…” your answer to my simple question is “Whatever you like Ray, I haven't got the time or patience for your pedantry.” Is it, again, one rule for you, another for your contributor?


  5. "Rosalinda Hutton11 April 2015 at 08:07
    Kate even did the washing on the Saturday, less than two days after her daughter was 'taken'. Strange, because she has stated many times that in the first 48 hours she and Gerry were virtually non functioning, but she was functioning enough to get the laundry on."

    Do you stand by that statement Ros?

    1. @ Rosalinda Hutton28 October 2020 at 13:58

      You will never publish a book about the Mccann case Ros.
      If by some miracle you do publish something I will not buy it - I will wait for someone to post it for free and then I may glance at it. The same as you and thousands of others did with Amaral's book.

    2. @15:48

      Same here.

    3. I shall certainly buy the book and look forward to reading it. Anyone who has looked at the McCann case, with an open mind, knows that Madeleine was not abducted. The abduction is just a fairy-story!

    4. Ruth you should read what the owner of this blog - who says she is going to publish a book says:

      "Rosalinda Hutton18 October 2020 at 20:00

      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."

      Maybe Ros believes in fairy stories?

    5. Thank you Ruth. I have tried to explain the reasoning behind why the Madeleine story became such a huge phenomenon. All the people who benefited from convincing the public this was an abduction. From an incumbent government who wanted us all tagged and our details stored on a national database, to police agencies telling us child abduction was rampant, and to a media who have consistently ignored all the evidence that points to the abduction being a hoax. Including the actual Portuguese police files and a book by the detective who ran the original investigation.

      All the answers are there Ruth, but they are not the kind of answers the extremists want to hear. I really struggled for a word there, by extremists, I mean those anti factions that have made their minds up sexual deviancy was involved. Either by an imaginary network of paedophiles online or, God forgive them, those claiming the holiday party were abusing their kids. Unforgivable.

      I promise Ruth, in my book, you will find all the answers you are looking for. Though more in the style of Armando Iannucci than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ;) Kindest wishes to you and yours Ruth, stay safe.

    6. Oh dear 15:42, you really don't understand the concept of an open mind do you? Did every lesson you attended end with that's end, end of subject?

      I am not ashamed of those words, you dingbat, I am proud that I always keep a door open for doubt. It is a trait I admire in all the great academics that I have read. Claiming to know everything, in the moment, is a great marketing technique, but it never stands the test of time. Even Goncalo Amaral who was on the scene, up to his ears in the investigation and wrote a detailed account of the events of the summer of 2007, does not claim anything as 100%.

      Your argument, whatever it may be, is just plain stupid. How do you not see that?

    7. @Ros 17:03

      So why are you promising Ruth to provide her with all the answers if you haven't reached a conclusion? How will you convince her that abduction is not a fairy tale?

      By the way Armando Iannucci writes political satire and sitcom. Will your book be a comedy Ros?

  6. Ros challenges: "I am happy to defend my views against anyone, bring it on."

    Are you so sure about that after reading your comments so far on here?

    "Find out in the book" really doesn't live up to your challenge does it?

    1. @15;22
      You realise that Ros is withholding some comments under false pretences?

  7. Hi Anon 28 October 2020 at 11:55, and others

    I had to say a few words here. It is actually very interesting to see how some posters here try to find as many faults as possible in Rosalinda's posts about the Madeleine case ,when the McCanns’ own account of the “truth” is so inconsistent and contradictory on many levels.

    I here quote your quote of Rosalinda’s line regarding her view on Kate ”…Strange, because she has stated many times that in the first 48 hours she and Gerry were virtually non-functioning”

    Whatever they were, they weren’t “non-functioning”, because within that time frame they laid the foundation for the lie about the abduction. I would need 100 pages to talk about what they and their friends did.

    Jane Hill BBC, in 2007 asks Kate (I don’t remember how many days or weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance) if she as a mother didn’t feel that she should go and look for Madeleine that week, which so many other did and Kate as an excuse for not having done so says that she was non-functioning for 48 hours and refers to Gerry’s general knowledge about how victims like them normally would react, and Gerry nods and agrees.

    Yet in her book she claims that she and Gerry went out around 4 am in the dark and empty streets of PDL to look for Madeleine. Both versions cannot be true. At least one has to be a lie or perhaps both.

    Jane Hill's interview was apparently done before the McCanns had attended any media courses and also before Clarence Mitchell had started writing the script for their initially poorly worded lie about the an abduction.

    PS The McCanns should be investigated, not those who don't believe in their implausible fairy tale.

  8. Bjorn

    “Yet in her book she claims that she and Gerry went out around 4 am in the dark and empty streets of PDL to look for Madeleine. Both versions cannot be true. At least one has to be a lie or perhaps both.”

    A fair, well- known point.

    Now, if you look at https://cristobell.blogspot.com/2020/10/defend-my-views-if-i-must.html?showComment=1603830950278#c5276736366715969963 , you’’ll find a logically identical situation. What conclusion would you suggest?

  9. Ros: “am familiar with all the different factions, and more importantly, the agendas and ulterior motives of all the different factions.”

    What is you motive, Ros? Do you still maintain that it’s “to spread sweetness and light”?

  10. Morning, Björn

    You: “He [Jordan Peterson] 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.”

    Sounds good. Perhaps you could attempt to explain to Ros the benefits your kind of attitude brings to a debate, as well as express your opinion on censorship in general and hers in particular. She has binned many of my comments, and I don’t think I’ve have ever beyond sarcasm.

    Thanks, Björn. Keep well. A bear hug from me.

  11. Ros

    This blog is only a day old, and you’ve already succeeded in savaging the opposition. That’s the way, girl. Well done. So proud of you.


    1. Oscar Wilde, I presume? Honored to make your acquaintance, Sir. Ray Charles.


  12. Ros

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

    Ergo, after years of arguing, you have tacitly accepted that it might be the case that Ziggy has been right all along. He has been saying, correctly, in my view, that all your pivotal assertion and ‘’discoveries’ are not facts.

    And you have repudiated Amaral’s “definitive book”.

    Your continued withholding of comments makes you “defence” a sham and puts paid to your Honesty and Integrity proclamations.

    You are welcome.

    Anonymous 27 October 2020 at 20:08

    1. I always keep an open mind 11:01, that's why my blog became so popular. I'm not standing before you definitely saying anything. The inner teacher within me, never goes away, and, as all teachers know, allowing students to get to find the answers themselves, is always far more satisfying. And, of course, non libellous.

      You have taken things I have said and jumbled them up, simply to engage me in bickering. All the answers you seek will be in my book.

  13. Ros: “I didn't publish you on the previous blog, mostly because there are too many comments there now, but also because your post amused me.”

    There aren’t too many comments here since you’ve ‘been busy binning, and, to ‘amuse’ you, I repeat: You are incapable of defending your views and that's why you bin many comments. I never use vulgar or abusive language. Shame on you.

    What would you say now? Are you still amused?

  14. Ros, if you continue insisting that all the comment you bin are abusive or whatever other excuses you make, I‘ll re-submit all of mine that you’ve binned and this one, film my doing so and put the film on the net for all to see and make up their mind as to your truthfulness and integrity. My comments you’ve binned are many, none of them vulgar or abusive. Good idea to sort out our differences on your censorship, don’t you think?

    1. Lol, no I won't be doing that 12:16. I should also add I have no idea who you are or what comments to attribute to you, you don't identify yourself with even a letter. I'm afraid the only person interested in this petty bickering is you.

      Should add, I despise sarcasm, which may be the reason many of your comments have been binned. It isn't clever, it isn't wit, and it's embarrassing to read. If you cannot raise your dialogue to interesting at least, more might get through.

  15. I’m waiting to go on and show that every assertion regarding your views you’ve made on this blog is false, Madam Censor. Have your ability and resolve to defend your views evaporated and you withdraw your Bring It On challenge?

    1. I was quite excited to receive this comment, perhaps we will finally get to a debate worth having. You are going to prove that every assertion I have made is false, should be interesting. If you submit posts along those lines I will happily publish them.

      However, if your next post is based on trivia, pedantry, banality or sarcasm it will be binned. Ditto if you start tearing into Goncalo Amaral. To be fair I can see that attacking GA is the only defence you have, but he had nothing to do with the 'collective' decision, nor the McCanns lack of searching or their refusal to co-operate with the police.

      Timewasters will continue to be binned.

  16. Ros, you are incapable of defending your views and that's why you have binned so many comments on this blog.  Shame on you.

  17. Shame on me, lol.

    Actually, I'm about 100,000 words into defending my views in my forthcoming book 15:02 so 'incapable' doesn't really apply.

    You on the other hand, have yet to put forward one coherent paragraph dismantling my views. Not shame on you, shame on the education system.

  18. "Rosalinda Hutton7 November 2017 at 16:18

    Yes, I think the woman in purple was Jane Tanner too Bjorn, and I think she was acting as a look out.

    What a shame the police did not record what each member of the group was wearing that night. Though it does seem odds on, Gerry was wearing his beige cargo trousers with buttons up the side. The police recall him dropping to his knees outside for some inexplicable reason - perhaps he was getting witness evidence for why the front of his trousers were dirty. In any event, the stricken Kate was able to do some laundry on the Saturday - during the 48 hours when they weren't functioning."

    Do you stand by all of that statement Ros?

    1. I stand by everything I have said 17:58, I have never had reason to retract any of it. The McCann lawyers have passed me by. Mostly, I will agree, because I am probably insignificant, but also because I know a fair bit about libel law myself. 1.I was a legal secretary and 2.I have had a book for publication 'legally' read. And of course, 3, I have no fortune for the McCanns to seize.

      The thing with you pulling out statements that I have made over the years is the very obvious one, that I have grown, both as a human being and as a writer. All the opinions I have now, have evolved with life experience and newer knowledge. I have no problem with the extract you have selected, but I have no idea where you pulled it from or in what context I said that.

      It really is a tad pathetic to go after words I have used years ago, are you getting tips from the trump campaign? I don't know what your angle is here, you are c/p my words, yet still seem to have none of your own.

  19. Hello Rosalinda

    I don’t know if you would like to publish this. IMO it has a bearing of a lot of topics we’ve discussed earlier.

    This video showing a man/boy climbing out of a window at Buckingham Palace can be seen on the internet. Unfortunately, it seems as if YouTube has taken it down. Anyway, I’ve chosen to link to https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ib547

    I have the responsibility as a Swede to tell as many people as possible the truth of a very scary and disputed Swedish video clip, which was shot outside Buckingham Palace, making me believe that there’re a lot of creepy things going on in the UK?

    Watching the guard parade outside Buckingham palace, which is filmed by someone who has two women in his/her her company. One woman’s voice is heard talking to the person who is filming and to the other woman in that group;
    “It looks like they come from a completely different time, doesn’t it?”
    When the two women then see the naked man / boy, one of them secretly and in a whispering voice says to the other woman;
    00: 23-00: 24
    “Ahh you're coming?” (probably a sexual allusion)
    And then, the same or the other woman;
    ”Ha, Ha, is he naked?”
    At the end of the video, the same woman again, who is now seen in the picture, turns to the person who’s filming;
    00: 41-00: 42
    “Did you film this, or .....”

    Here is a very short analysis of this conversation.
    The woman, whose voice we hear, speaks the Stockholm posh dialect. However, nothing suggests that she and her friend, comrade or sister would be particularly intelligent. The change of guard, just like all other traditions, whether it’s Swedish or British, has its roots in a different time, otherwise it wouldn’t be a tradition, so what did the lady in question expect.

    What I want to say with this is that these people (a group of at least 3 persons)could not possibly have participated in a cleverly false video, as some people seem to believe. Nobody can so credibly depict something that has never happened.

    Therefore, it must be established once and for all that a young man or boy at that time made an unsuccessful attempt to get out through one of Buckingham Palace's windows high above the ground and that that person failed in holding on to his rope of sheets.

    This person most likely died when he hit the ground. At least he must have been seriously injured. Who was he? Why does the Met as well as the royal house deny the existence of this TRAGEDY? What’s behind this? What is covered up and why? Has the royal family gone mad and invited young exhibitionists who are suicidal and lawless?

    1. OMG Bjorn, that sounds incredible, I will go look on Youtube, everyone has a camera these days, there must be something....

    2. Hello Rosalinda and others who take interest in morality and justice.

      I just had to add this to my previous post.

      “In a profile on BBC News, Snopes is described as “the go-to bible for many fact-checkers.”

      So, this is how Snopes explained the hair raising incident regarding the man/boy who apparently climbed out of a window at Buckingham palace back in 2015.

      I here quote what Snopes believes and link to;

      “That clip, in turn, was a stealth promotion created for the upcoming premiere of the E! Entertainment television series “The Royals,” a “drama about a fictional British Royal family who inhabit a world of luxury and regal tradition that also involves intrigue and unexpected twists, revealing the complexities faced by royals trying to maintain high-profile relationships under scrutiny”:

      Yes, stealth indeed as this clip has had so few viewers and that almost no one has been able to associate this clip with “The Royals” drama, let alone seen anything of an existing official original videoclip or trailer showing a boy jumping from the Palace.

      Why would a young Filipino-looking boy undress just to risk his life by pretending to fail to escape from Buckingham Palace, without the presence of an ambulance or any trained rescue workers. Why would he choose to go up in smoke before commenting anything about his heroic effort to promote a drama series in which, as far as we know, he has never had a role.

      The unthinkable comes to my mind Rosalinda. What a horrible world we’re living in.

    3. Ros @ 17:06

      When two great minds meet…

      Bjorn: “This person most likely died when he hit the ground. At least he must have been seriously injured. Who was he? Why does the Met as well as the royal house deny the existence of this TRAGEDY? What’s behind this? What is covered up and why? Has the royal family gone mad and invited young exhibitionists who are suicidal and lawless?”

      Ros:“ OMG Bjorn, that sounds incredible, I will go look on Youtube, everyone has a camera these days, there must be something....”

      There is, Ros: Your Swedish academic friend has been forgetting to take his meds. As for you, you are an intelligent and educated woman guided by logic and common sense, as usual.

      The unthinkable comes to my mind, Ros. What a horrible world you’re living in.

    4. God Evening Mr. Anonymous9 November 2020 at 08:31

      An extremely stupid comment on my post about an unknown person falling from a window at Buckingham Palace. If you know more than me about this, why not share this knowledge with us.

      If you believe that I am mad, I kindly advise you to look up Parkinson's interview with Jimmy Savile on the internet and you will see if it's me or the people in the Palace who're weird.

    5. Björn 8 November 2020 at 14:58, 21:05

      Wonderful find, Björn, thanks. The Devil, however, is in the detail - the architectural detail.



    6. Björn 9 November 2020 at 17:46

      Der Schein trügt. Nicht alle sind Diebe die der Hund anbellt, Björn

    7. “Dahlberg is on LinkedIn as an e-commerce manager with "digital marketing" and "online marketing" listed among his skills, so he obviously knows a thing or two about manipulating the Internet.”


      Sounds familiar?


      Jon Corner (4:28): “You’ve got to translate your vision, your ideas and the potentials of the digital world...

    8. Hallo anon 9 Nov. 2020, 23:27
      "Der Schein trügt. Nicht alle sind Diebe die der Hund anbellt, Björn"

      ja sicher, aber diejenigen, die nie auf das Bellen des Hundes hören wollen, werden bald ausgeraubt, oder?

    9. Hello anonymous10 November 2020 at 08:30

      The link refers to Simon Perry’s article in a digital paper called explore People
      uploaded March 01, 2015 11:30 AM

      Here, the journalist expresses both doubt and ingenuity regarding the author of this videoclip.

      “Lastly, it’s the only video uploaded to Dahlberg’s YouTube account, which is suspicious in and of itself – generally, the smaller a person’s Internet presence, the less trustworthy their content is. (Or at least that’s what we tell ourselves.)”

      It’s interesting to see how the journalist tends to overestimate this Youtuber’s ability and intelligence. I completely agree with the author of the article in that this would be a masterpiece of manipulation if he had been commissioned to create something believable but still sensational for the launch of E!'s scripted show The Royals. Isn’t that what the journalist tells us between the lines.

      Five years later, this Dahlberg has still not made a name for himself. No new marketing ploys and nothing of interest has been uploaded to his YouTube channel since then. No, this is so eerily real in every way, simply inconceivable and that is precisely why we try to find innocent explanations for what we do not dare to realize.

      The two Swedish women cannot believe their eyes. Everything becomes so shockingly absurd that their psychological defense mechanism becomes expressed in laughter. If this was a young naked Filipino stuntman, which of course I do not believe, then both Dahlberg and the entire film crew must have sacrificed his life to create interest. How come the royals do not wish or cannot comment on this????

    10. Nein, Björn, never say never. I didn’t..

      Der Weg zur Hölle ist mit guten Vorsätzen gepflastert: You hear the dogs barking and you shoot ‘in defence’… and find a dead postman.. Who is at fault? The postman? The dogs?

      Die besten Gedanken kommen allzeit hinterdrein. Erst denken, dann lenken/

      Are you now satisfied that the wall with a naked man on it isn’t of \Backingham Palace?

      Do you realise Ros has binned at least twice as many critical comments submitted to this blog as she published? Some of those she binned were addressed to you. May I take it you need Ros to decide what comments you should deal with yourself?

      Thanks. Take care.

    11. Hi Anonymous10 November 2020 at 20:43
      "Are you now satisfied that the wall with a naked man on it isn’t of \Backingham Palace?"

      Whatever building this boy jumped from. Whatever commercial it's supposed to be. Whatever the boy and this Dahlberg were promoting, this young boy must have died, regardless where this scene was shot, and regardless who filmed it.

      My only question, where is that boy now. Buried in the lies of MSM?

    12. Hello Anonymous9 November 2020 at 20:49,
      Anonymous10 November 2020 at 08:30 and others.

      Re; Video Clip showing a boy falling from Buckingham Palace window

      The more I reflect on what I see in that video clip, the more real it appears to be.

      Why would a Swedish guy act like a tourist and film the changing of guards, while allowing two Swedish women to comment on an non-existent naked male body in SWEDISH and thereby excluding 99,99% of the world’s population, who wouldn’t be able to understand a single word of what these two ladies were talking about.

      He would then go home and manipulate the clip by adding a falling boy to his masterpiece. Even I as a native speaker of the mentioned language, due to the background noise and the low voices, had to listen several times before I could understand what they said. In what way would such a video promote “The Royals”, which by the way is nothing but a boring, predictable ridiculous and humourless American soap opera without the slightest satirical touch.

      Isn’t it most unlikely that the producer of such shit, or his hired agent, are capable of thinking in unconventional terms to create interest in a new way. A naked fleeing man as an advertising pillar rhymes badly with what I now for an hour or so had to put up with when I watched a bit here and there at different episodes.

    13. https://www.thatsnonsense.com/naked-man-escapes-buckingham-palace-video-debunked/

    14. Hello Anonymous9 November 2020 at 20:49 and others

      Re; the falling Boy at Buckingham Palace.
      “Wonderful find, Björn, thanks. The Devil, however, is in the detail - the architectural detail”

      Some sceptics on social media have implied that the façade on which this Filipino boy tried to descend would be that of the mansion at Moor Park Golf Club. I admit that there’re similarities, besides the whole castle/mansion at Moor Park seems to have the same colour (whitish) as the façade of the main entrance at Buckingham Palace, which is seen in this disputed video clip.

      However, I looked it up a little closer and found that there’s another façade of Buckingham Palace of a light greenish or greyish colour and that’s exactly the colour of the wall in Dahlberg’s video clip from which this young boy apparently fell. I cannot see any façade of that colour on the Moor Park castle.

      So I still persist, that 5 years ago a naked young man or a boy fell at least 20 feet from a window at Buckingham Palace and that there isn’t yet any comprehensible explanation as to why this happened and who were involved. Even more horrible, this event has been stolen by an Indian advertising media outlet, that sells smartphones, thus a terrible crime in disguise of a commercial. Nice work!

    15. @ Björn - is it usual for Swedish women to laugh and joke when they see someone fall at least 20 feet?

      How many times magnification did you have to use to determine it is a Filipino boy?

    16. Björn 12 November 2020 at 10:31

      Björn my friend

      I hope you are well and sound.

      You seem to be denying the obvious by refusing to accept that the wall with a man isn’t a wall of Buck palace, nor are the windows. If you compare the wall of the palace in the two photographs you’ve been given links to with the wall in the clip, you’ll see that the walls and windows are clearly very different. Therefore, the clip is a forgery. What building the wall in the clip belongs to is irrelevant to the question of the clip’s authenticity.

      Do you doubt the authenticity of the two photographs? If you adon’t, then I don’t see the basis of your argument.

      Best wishes.


    17. Hello T my friend. Nice to see that you're back. I shall take a real close look at all details here and I'll let you know what conclusion I'll reach.

      Take care of you T. As for myself I'm right now isolated here up north. Still doing well, though

    18. Hi T, so good to see you. I hope you are well. What do you think about Ros’s defence? Good wishes to you. Take care.

    19. Anonymous 14 November 2020 at 15:37

      Thank you kindly, I’m very well. I hope you, too, are well.

      I think there are enough exchanges published on this blog by now for anyone with a modicum of discernment, and a little help from logic and common sense, to be able to make up their mind as to what’s what.

      “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
      Often ascribed to Nietzsche, incorrectly afaik.

      “Nicht daß du mich belogst, sondern daß ich dir nicht mehr glaube, hat mich erschüttert.”
      Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse

      All the best and keep well, my kind, curious friend. :)



    20. T @14:09

      Thanks for your reply and great quotes T. I’m well. I hope you stay.

      Take care.

  20. "Sadly though, all blockbuster, film or book, potential in the Madeleine case is now gone - the interest simply isn't there, the world has moved on."

    I wonder who said that a year ago?

  21. Just a reminder of the CONCLUSIONS drawn by Amaral as detailed in his book:

    "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:

    1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;

    2. There was simulation of abduction.

    3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.

    4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;

    5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children."

    1. Thank you for posting that 19:05, those cold hard facts are stark in comparison to the pedantic bickering of the few remaining 'pros'. To that, I think we should add, in 14 years, no police investigation has produced anything to disprove the conclusions reached by the PJ. That's pretty significant too.

      It's strange 19:05, that I had wonder whether I could publish your post, I wondered if the McCanns' legal stranglehold could extend to my humble little blog, or publishing extracts of a 'forbidden' book. Then I remembered it's 2020, all those manoeuvres and stunts to police and censor social media failed. No-one was ever put in the dock for trolling. I'm using trolling generically here, as in everyone calls their online critics trolls. The (narcissistic) McCanns have always felt entitled to legislation specifically for themselves. As in 'our children shouldn't have to read bad stuff about us on the internet'. It's a pretty naive and blinkered not to understand that such a law would have to apply to ALL parents in the public eye, actually, all parents. It is only when you widen the picture that you can see how ridiculous their legal demands were. But I can see where their arrogance came from, they had successfully 'silenced' the British mainstream media and publishing industry, why not social media too? They began, day 1, to portray anyone who didn't believe the abduction as a 'hater'. And the MSM accommodated them by finding the most despicable examples of the so called 'antimccann movement' online and splashing them across the front pages of the tabloids. I would name them, but most I think will know who I am talking about. The point was 'this is the type of person' who is persecuting the parents online. Not believing became persecuting. Somehow the McCanns managed to convince the watching world that it was only people who hated them personally (for their nice house etc,) who were criticising them. And kudos to them, those momentary masters of the universe for managing to turn a (poor) playground argument into a real thing. Those defending the McCanns would use it all the time, as in 'shame on you (you lowlife) you don't believe Kate and Gerry because they are rich and successful. As if those who haven't made it to the PLU were an envious, resentful, underclass, their judgement of the Madeleine case, tainted by jealousy of the parents good looks and success. I'm just saying out loud here, what many are thinking. That 'hater' became a thing was a huge success for the idea guys, no-one wanted to be seen as a 'hater', and the McTrolls online were working their socks off to silence people with threats of exposure as a, err, hater. They divided the nation with that one. Kudos where it is due. Pity there isn't an Oscar Ceremony for the dark arts.

      Anyway, I have work to do, I am starting to see my book as iconoclastic, that is, I am trying to incorporate all the 'wtf' moments I experienced watching the Madeleine story unfold. Even as a former Media teacher, I had no idea how far the rabbit hole went. Yeah, we all kind of knew Rupert Murdoch was picking PMs, but we never expected to see him in a court room being pelted with a custard pie. The Leveson Inquiry exposed much that the public did not know, ie. the parasitical relationship between Downing Street and Rupert Murdoch. It was a major blow to the future of tabloids.

      nravelling the Madeleine story began to make sense.

    2. Good heavens Ros - if that is an example of what your book is going to be like then I am glad I am not going to buy it.

      Do you still think that "Amaral who was on the scene, up to his ears in the investigation and wrote a detailed account of the events of the summer of 2007, does not claim anything as 100%."?

      What about conclusion 1.?

  22. Hi Anon 8 November 2020 at 19:05
    Yes,thanks we really need to be reminded about this as it made the British police start looking for a live child and the "stranger",who abducted it, which has now been going on for more than 10 years. Isn't it amazing?

    1. @ Björn9 November 2020 at 09:25

      Yes it really is amazing because Ros says:

      "Even Goncalo Amaral who was on the scene, up to his ears in the investigation and wrote a detailed account of the events of the summer of 2007, does not claim anything as 100%."

      I don't read any ambiguity in 1. 2. and 5. do you?

    2. Hello Anonymous9 November 2

      “I don't read any ambiguity in 1. 2. and 5. do you?”

      Neither do I, but the Prosecutors’ office apparently needed more details from the investigators in order to prosecute the two main suspects.

      Unfortunately the PJ were not allowed to go on pursuing the most logical line of inquiry, which for unknown reason was halted in 2008 after the so called rogatory letter exchange between the PJ and the tapas 7 had been completed and assessed.

      Neither the PJ, nor the Met/SY or any other authority have investigated the McCanns after the shelving of the first investigation. The PJ are not actively working on the case, just answering questions asked by the SY, that’s all. It’s as simple as that.

      Ever since I learned about the case many years ago my only quest has always been to make people understand that the McCanns themselves endorsed the shelving of the case in 2008 and that they never asked the Prosecutor to open it again, and since then they’ve not been investigated by any authority in the world, apart from social media.

    3. Björn9 November 2020 at 21:35

      ““I don't read any ambiguity in 1. 2. and 5. do you?”

      Neither do I”

      That puts you squarely among those who challenge the view that “"Even Goncalo Amaral … does not claim anything as 100%."

      Ros dedicated this blog to her defence of her views, so let her.

      You are intent on avoiding/changing the subject while not answering the questions put to you.. Why, Bjorn?

    4. Bjorn

      Ros: “I stand by every thing I’ve ever said.”

      Ros will change (has already changed) her stance for the book.

      Will Brenda rest in peace if Madeleine is found and she had been abducted? What will Ros say then about Amaral’s “definitive book”, the dogs that didn’t lie and had never been wrong, blood on the wall, the smell of death,, the truth two clicks away and easy to find, her OCD research and examination of the story from every angle, and years of anti-McCann agitation and lies?

      Having insisted that Madeleine had been dead for years, she’s now saying she has always had doubts.

      Would you mind telling what you think about all that?

    5. Goodness me 12:31, you really do know how to take words out of context and twist them into your alternate reality, lol.

      It is my life's philosophy not to believe anything 100%, probably why I didn't fare so well in the convent. Actually, the convent experience left me highly suspicious of those who insist I believe them, forcefully.

      But I have wandered, I'll get back to laughing at the idea that you know what my book what will be in my book. LOL, I'm halfway through and even I don't know. One of the joys of having an unstable mind is never knowing where it will take me next. I think it's my unpredictability that keeps readers returning and keeps me writing, we all want to see what I'm going to say next ;)

      I have said from the beginning and throughout, that Madeleine could be found, and if it happened, I would rejoice with everyone. But that chance is miniscule, highly unlikely. I'm just not the kind of person who states I know something absolutely, even when I do [know something absolutely], I add the proviso, 'but what do I know'.

      That little window, that I always leave open, doesn't change my views and opinions, so I'm afraid you are getting all excited over nothing. Should add, that little window has served me well throughout life, especially in the case of Madeleine McCann. All those who claimed to know what happened to Madeleine and wrote books about it, and those who claimed to know extra/ juicy/salacious details about the case, have painted themselves into a corner. I never have, and yes, I am enjoying the moment. My dear friend John Blacksmith was of a similar mindset, he too, always had a little window, bless him.

    6. Hello Anonymous10 November 2020 at 12:31

      If Rosalinda now would suggest that there is a microscopic possibility that Madeleine was actually abducted and that she could also be found alive, I do not see that such doubts in any way is inconsistent with what she has written about the case all these years. It just means that she as well I sometimes doubt things, even if it happens right before my eyes. It’s just human, you know.

  23. Ros, please defend your following views::

    “we are not mad at Kate and Gerry because they have got a nice house, we are mad at the horrific crime that is being covered up.”

    What was the “horrific crime” and who committed it?

    “parents can't just make their children disappear with no questions asked”

    So the McCanns made Madeleine disappear, yes?

    “Sadly, there is no happy ending for Madeleine, she died long ago”

    1. For myself, the logistics of the horrific crime are contained in the PJ files and the book of Goncalo Amaral. Concealment of a cadaver. GA puts forward the only plausible explanation as to what happened to Madeleine. No other explanation, and there have been hundreds, fits.

      I know the McCanns and yourself hate GA and disagree with the PJ's findings, your prerogative, but having weighed up all the evidence I lean towards their version rather than that of the McCanns. My prerogative.

      We do not have Thought Police, thankfully, so you cannot punish people for thinking differently to yourself. I think Gerry and Kate know what happened to Madeleine. There, I said it out loud. Was that illegal? Libellous? Do you want to put me in the dock for not believing Gerry and Kate? Do you want to put me in the dock for believing a child not seen since 3rd May 2007 is dead?

      Maybe you are looking for headlines you can use to label me a 'hater', a tormenter of the parents, a subversive who refuses to believe what she has been told to believe. I know I am not on the popular side of free speech here, but there are still a lot of people out there who want to know what happened to Madeleine McCann, and wtf we were watching for 10+ years. Those alternative facts, that skewed narrative from the mainstream media, the myth building and the downright lies. Watching the Madeleine case unfold, was like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone, all our senses were telling us one thing, while all those TV people (who we had formerly trusted, hang your head in shame Lorraine Kelly, were telling us another. A lot of people still want to make sense of all that, and I unravel it for them in my book.

    2. Rosalinda Hutton10 November 2020 at 15:12

      Thank you for your reply.

      “Talk about the case, not me on a personal level, the evidence, the statements, the truth you think I have misconstrued.”

      “For myself, the logistics of the horrific crime are contained in the PJ files and the book of Goncalo Amaral. Concealment of a cadaver. GA puts forward the only plausible explanation as to what happened to Madeleine. No other explanation, and there have been hundreds, fits.”

      The key words are “For myself”. Look up “logistics” and point out the logistics (what and how) of a “Concealment of a cadaver” in the files and in Goncalo Amaral’s book. Your fantasies and those of others about such “logistics” are no substitute for facts.

      Moreover, Amaral, according to you, is not 100% sure, so you both are guessing. Whether or not your guesses are right remains to be established..

      “.the horrific crime that is being covered up”, your implying that the McCanns made their child disappear, “Sadly, there is no happy ending for Madeleine, she died long ago” are your phantasies you’ve been selling for years as facts. This is “the truth you … have misconstrued”.

      There haven’t been hundreds of explanations. You speak out of ignorance or simply make it up..

      “I know the McCanns and yourself hate GA and disagree with the PJ's findings.

      You know nothing about me but find it necessary to go for the messenger. There goes your “Talk about the case, not me on a personal level.” Well, please defend you view that I “hate GA and disagree with the PJ findings.” You said it, shouldn’t’ be difficult for you to demonstrate its truth..

      “having weighed up all the evidence I lean towards their version rather than that of the McCanns.”

      Is it, then, also a great storyteller’s view that “Sadly, there is no happy ending for Madeleine, she died long ago” tells of ‘leaning’ towards a “version” of events?

      “A lot of people still want to make sense of all that, and I unravel it for them in my book.”

      Before you unravel something for others, you should be able to unravel it for yourself. This you haven’t done and haven’t been seen to be capable of doing - you don’t know what happened, you pretend you do. You sell yourself, me me me, and your fantasies and untruths, not facts.

    3. Why thank you for so carefully deconstructing my post, yet still you are unable to extract any meaning from it. I use the key words 'for myself' often and variations thereof to avoid accusations of libel, it's something I have got used when writing about this case.

      Fair dues, you got me on assuming hate GA and disagree with the PJ findings. I based that opinion on your hostile posts, both here and in my spam box. And if you are trying to debate with Bjorn by insulting him, those posts are in spam also.

      As for the unravelling - that I did a long time ago, which is why I became bored with the case. I had achieved a satisfying end for myself, in that my obsession with finding out what happened, why it happened and how it happened, was complete in my mind. I could move on.

      Now, however, the time is right to share all that unravelling with those who read my blog, past and present and also new readers who might not find what they were expecting. Naturally, I have battled my conscience over whether it is the right thing to do, for the sake of the parents and families, all should just be forgotten. And that I went along with for a while, but others have been hurt by this case and heck I have been hurt hurt by it.

      I don't want 'hater of a family who lost a child' to be my legacy. Or even, the writer of a 'hate blog'. All those who read this blog and have for years, know that simply isn't true. I have challenged lies and make no apologies for it, and the act of challenging doesn't make me a hater. Accepting lies is far, far worse.

      Yes, you have got me there again, there is a lot of me, me, me in my writing. Err, that is my writing style - some like it, and besides I am far too long in the tooth to change it now to suit you.

      As for fantasies, yes beginning with an 'f' not a 'ph', what fantasies? I'm the only commentator* who has avoided going off into fantasies, lol. Well not just avoided, dismissed as bo**ox. I have read the PJ files and statements, I have played multiple games of 3 dimensional chess in my head, considering every angle, every possibility, 3, 4 and 5 moves ahead*.

      This case doesn't need any fantasy or untruths (from me), it doesn't need any embellishment whatsoever. It is an amazing story without any of that. It's not just about what Kate and Gerry did, it is about what the establishment did, the government, the police, the media, all potential forces of mass control. So it's iconoclastic too :)

      *apart from John Blacksmith
      *Forgive the chess metaphors, recently watched Queen's Gambit and it was great!

    4. Rosalinda Hutton11 November 2020 at 19:56

      Thank you for your reply.

      To cut straight to the chase please defend the following:

      Your failure to point out the logistics (what and how) of a “Concealment of a cadaver” in the files and in Goncalo Amaral’s book.

      The “hundreds” in your “No other explanation, and there have been hundreds, fits.”

      Your view that my comments are hostile in the sense that they are more than criticism and dissent and that their alleged hostility exceeds that of your own comments. How do you know which comments are mine?

      That your assertion (just one of many such assertions) “Sadly, there is no happy ending for Madeleine, she died long ago” tells of you ‘leaning’ towards a “version” of events.

      Your view on your almost all-embracing censorship on this blog – where you stand as the accuser, the judge and the jury.

      Your view on my two comments you binned the day before yesterday, one of them a re-submission of a previously binned comment for Bjorn.

      The “debate with Bjorn by insulting him” in your “And if you are trying to debate with Bjorn by insulting him, those posts are in spam also.” Evidence please. I put it to you that you are knowingly telling an untruth.

      Your “your modus operandi is hurt and degrade, arguably, the nastier choice for abuse” as a comment on a contributor’s “Ros, you are incapable of defending your views and that's why you bin many comments. I never use vulgar or abusive language. Shame on you.”

      Your “Why don't you write something constructive? Something that debunks everything Goncalo Amaral has written, or indeed, anything that I have written. And do it politely. Did you even know that it is possible to win an argument with charm and good manners?” followed by “And why don't you take out the anger and hostility from your posts, it makes you sound psychotic. And desperate.” Particularly bearing in mind that you dedicated this blog to your defence of your views.

      Please look up ‘phantasy’. Also might be of interest: Spillius, E.B. (2001). Freud and Klein on the concept of phantasy. International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 2001 April.

    5. Gosh, so much hurt in that post I don't know where to begin other than there, there, why don't you have a nice cup of tea and chill.

      I find it odd that you want me to go into graphic detail on the concealment of a cadaver conclusion of the PJ and Goncalo Amaral when they themselves didn't. That is, presumably, you want me to fill in the gaps for you. Your motive I suppose, is that if I cannot figure out how they did it, then I must be wrong. That, I think, is one of the best defences the McCanns have, no-one can figure out HOW they did it.

      For what it is worth, I think the PJ theory that Madeleine fell from the sofa while trying to look out the window fits the logistics - the sofa had been moved, the dogs, both blood and cadaver alerted to the area behind the sofa.

      As for my binning comments, I make no apologies, I have zero tolerance for time wasters.

    6. Rosalinda Hutton13 November 2020 at 15:27

      Respectfully, Ros, I can see that you feel strongly about this case and have obviously made up your mind, but I don't see how attacking individuals contributes to the debate.

  24. Hello Rosalinda and others
    I've thought about this for a long time now, so I might just as well mention it publicly. I worry about the McCanns children.

    (Kate McCann 'Press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together)

    The McCanns children have always been exposed to danger, due to the McCanns’ lack of normal human emotions. In this video clip Kate's statement definitely alludes to collective suicide and proves that she knows that Madeleine is dead. How else could they all be together again if they were all gone?

    All of their children were at risk before Madeleine had gone missing (child neglect) and their twins were still at risk after Madeleine had disappeared, as Kate’s revelations of her suicidal thoughts shows.

    If their twins today would know more about what happened to Madeleine than Kate and Gerry suspect, they are still at risk in that they may be living in a trauma, not knowing how to relate to the official reality that their parents expect them to never question.

    1. Kate reminds me of a woman I once knew, actually several women I have met along life's way. Usually mothers, usually painfully thin, usually juggling work, kids and absent husbands. By absent, I mean leaving everything to the woman, the kids, the house, as well as an outside job. Many men leave 'all that' to the wife to demonstrate how egalitarian they are. Also it gets them out of nappy changing, feeding and arranging childcare. Many women are happy to take it all on and cope admirably, but many do not. It may be that Kate and Gerry were with a group of friends who shared the work load equally.

      I read a lot into the video of the tapas group on the bus heading towards the resort. It didn't show Gerry in a very good light, so I wonder who 'leaked' it, and who did they leak it to? The positioning of Kate, Gerry, Kate and the kids spoke volumes. Gerry sat apart from his family, no child on his knee or kid paraphernalia on or around his person. Mum on the other hand, has the kids close by her, and I am sure, bags packed with bottles, nappies and changes of clothes. It doesn't take a psychologist to see the difference between a 'hands on' dad, and a dad, who still sees himself primarily, as one of the lads. To me it looked as though one family there would not be having such a good time.

      As for the twins. It simply isn't possible for the mainstream media and social media, to block anything unpleasant they might see. But that is a universal problem, it applies to every kid! The parents might say, do not read GA's book, or do not google your sister's name, but they will anyway.

      I'm reluctant to guess how the subject is treated within the family home, I would imagine the parents would have to continue with their hopes of finding Madeleine, though I doubt their campaign is active. Happily Bjorn, most kids are very resilient and indeed adaptable. They have grown up with the search for Madeleine and all the Court cases and newspaper headlines that have followed. That is their environment, it is all they have ever known. I personally think Kate should write an honest book, lift all that weight from her shoulders, it can't be more awful than living with the fear of what might be found out.

      I remember the interview you refer to Bjorn. Kate was particularly manic, her arms waving, that 'about to cry' quiver in her voice, she had had enough. I think this was at a time when reporters were pushing them beyond the approved questions, and her anger, and disdain, was coming out. It says 'how dare you question me' and 'I'm going to take this argument to the ridiculous so YOU look bad'. It's the kind of behaviour more commonly seen in angry toddlers, but it continues into adulthood if it has worked thus far. For Kate it has, hence the frustration it wasn't working on that occasion.

      She is what I would describe as being in a constant state of high anxiety. I would add usually a chain smoker, but Kate consoles herself with running.

    2. Oops, ignore bottom line above.

      Kate I think has anger issues. She said herself that she kicked the bed frame, punched walls and banged her arms on iron railings. Basically the physical violence is towards herself. Odd, yes in my opinion. That is off the scale anger. And it has come to the forefront, many times during press conferences. Timid, sweet Kate, gripping onto her husband's arm, can turn into a ferocious tiger within a split second, angry, unpleasant Kate, is never far from the surface.

      The same can be said of Gerry, which is why it is difficult to understand their balance of power. Gerry too is quick to anger, we've seen him hostile, sarcastic, belligerent, full of his own self importance, especially when dealing with the press. Are the two of them united on every front? Is their anger directed at others, does it always go outwards, away from the family? Standing together against the world is quite bonding. And to be honest, I think that is the only way they have been able to keep the whole abduction story intact. They are manacled together forever, is that a good thing?

      The kids, returning to your fears, I think are probably protected and coddled more than most, but the parents can't shield them forever. In my experience kids appreciate honest above anything, but is that an option for them?

    3. Hello Rosalinda
      "I personally think Kate should write an honest book, lift all that weight from her shoulders, it can't be more awful than living with the fear of what might be found out"

      Yes Rosalinda, there are a lot of reasons for her to do that.

      Anyway,one of the twins will probably sooner or later give her/his account of the truth.

      I don't believe that Kate and Gerry have managed to indoctrinate their children, because children often tends to listen much more to what their parents aren't saying, than to what they're actually saying. Their children must have learnt what it is that makes their parents become silent.

  25. Hello Everybody
    Jimmy Savile Takes Young Girl To Prince Philip.
    (Jimmy Savile interview at Parkinson talk show)

    In this interview, Jimmy Savile brags about how he once smuggled a young girl to Prince Philip in Buckingham Palace. When the said royalty suddenly appears behind a door, the girl becomes amazed, confused, surprised and captivated, just as Savile with a body movement so illustratively describes. This drama takes place in the presence of Savile's niece Amanda McCanna, according to Savile's own story, not my imagination.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Amanda+McKennJimmy Savile's niece and Savile’s partner discuss the rumours - This Morning 15th June 2012
    (Amanda McKenna, Savile’s niece and Sue Hymns alleged, fiancee of Savile)

    Here both women vehemently defends Savile against all rumours about paedophilia.

    Savile's close contact with the royal family was well known at that time but it wasn’t much discussed in this talk show.

    Anyway, I cannot be the only one who wonders what happened to that child, who was lured into the Palace. Savile believed that that girl would still to this day remember what happened and so would his niece Amanda do as well, as she was there and probably was the same age as Savile’s prey. Why wasn’t she asked about that by any of the two hosts?

    So what did Prince Philip do after he had revealed himself in the doorway? Amanda McKenna would perhaps be able to give us a truthful account of this, even though she at that time was only a child, as was Savile’s trafficked girl. Why doesn’t anyone ask such inconvenient questions? The Queen might perhaps get upset and push some servant out of a convenient window.?

    1. "The Queen might perhaps get upset and push some servant out of a convenient window.?"

      Bjorn, do you think it's a nice/clever thing to say, not that I mind? Shall we talk about some real, well-documented adventures, say, those of one Sofia?

    2. Hello Anon 15 November 2020 at 11:19
      And thanks for comment
      "The Queen might perhaps get upset and push some servant out of a convenient window.?", I said.
      Your comment; “Bjorn, do you think it's a nice/clever thing to say, not that I mind? Shall we talk about some real, well-documented adventures, say, those of one Sofia?”
      Maybe too sarcastic, I admit that, but shouldn’t people in power tolerate a little bit more than ordinary people and that applies of course to princess Sofi as well, who by the way now exercises her power so well.
      The British royal family is now beginning to live up to its dubious reputation, which I find far more reprehensible than princess Sofia’s innocent past time adventures.
      I wish you a good night’s sleep

    3. Björn15 November 2020 at 13:59

      Thank you, Bjorn. I might disagree with you but I appreciate your honesty. Respect.

  26. Hello Rosalinda, T and others


    Suppose, we had lived in the late 20s in the middle of Berlin's decadent entertainment life and some clairvoyant person had claimed that the German elite, with the help of all highly educated academics, philosophers and particularly with the support of successful and recognized scientists and famous writers, not to mention the support of the German working class, were about to reorganize their own and others’ mindsets so that it would be legitimate to exterminate all Jews, all Gypsies, all homosexuals, and all people with reduced mental or physical ability. The little man/woman, who could sense all that (there were in fact a few) could only warn others not to follow the elite of folly, but would certainly (as in Germany) have been declared an idiot and also accused of spreading conspiracy theories.

    Never underestimate the evil of the elite

    1. I would love to get into this debate because I have real fears about the rise of the Right, especially in the US. I have been glued to the elections and the aftermath, today Trump is having a MAGA millions march in Washington today, organised by the Proud Boys, no less. It will be interesting to see how that goes, the Left are staying away, happily, so whatever they do, it will be all them. I'm hoping it will be a flop and terrified that it won't be.

      I'm trying to stay focussed on my book however, my list of chapters keeps growing, so too the word count, I will have to be ruthless with my editing! My hope is to explain this case and all its' offshoots, simply, in a way regular people can understand. The conspiracy theorists unfortunately, have always led the way on social media, creating crazy new narratives, that have sadly been accepted by many in lieu of any information from the authorities.

      Happily, most people who followed Bennett and the facebook pages, have returned to normality, awakened from the hypnosis, and moved on. Time hasn't been kind to the conspiracy theorists, in that zilch of their fantasies have panned out, who'd of thought eh? I have to add here, I don't think they were all bad people, they started out thinking/knowing the parents were somehow involved, looked online and found themselves caught up in cult like chatrooms. It's easy done, I fell in the same trap myself, several times, lol.

      I think, hope, that all the curiosity is still out there. That a few people will be looking for that 'satisfying end'. Not an end in which justice has been done visually and dramatically, but an explanation as why this case lingers in purgatory.

      Take care my friend, I hope you are enjoying your snowy sojourn in the North Bjorn, I am sure your dog is is doggy heaven. I had a little mutt, literally a mutt, the vet said there were at least 16 breeds in him, who loved his walks around around snowy lakes. He had me out in all weathers! lol

  27. A straightforward question for you Ros - what substances was Eddie trained to alert to?

    1. I think yours is too easy a question to put to an expert.

  28. Ros

    You said you were ready to defend your views against anyone. I see here many challenges, and judging by your apparent attitude and what you’ve been saying here, it’s difficult to doubt that you’ve binned many more. Where is your defence?

    1. And I have binned a lot more today. I'm simply not going to publish nasty, sarcastic posts, that are simply attacks on me and that add nothing to the debate. In fact, they are focussed on stopping any debate. A tactic pro McCann trolls have used since day one.

      Worth mentioning, in the non cyber world, if a person sent hate mail to someone on a daily basis going back many years they would be arrested and charged with stalking and harassment. Those sending hate mail to me on a daily basis would be mortified if their real identities were to be revealed, they are always anonymous, too cowardly to even sign off with one letter. Perhaps I should arrange a meeting with a police officer from one of these new cyber crimes units, I am sure they would be able to trace in a moment, where all the hate mail is all coming from.

      As for, where is my defence, it is here, throughout my blog, I have, time and time again, explained the reasons behind my views, there are literally hundreds of thousands of words throughout this blog. The questions you have raised on this current blog have been asked and answered, you have simply not accepted the answers, so you keep asking the same questions over and over. You have my defence of my views, you just refuse to see it.

    2. Rosalinda Hutton14 November 2020 at 16:16

      "The questions you have raised on this current blog have been asked and answered, you have simply not accepted the answers, so you keep asking the same questions over and over. You have my defence of my views, you just refuse to see it."

      Entirely untrue. See
      Anonymous13 November 2020 at 12:29

      Where is your defence?

    3. Yawn, groan, yawn, that's the last of my attention you will get.

  29. Ros: "My hope is to explain this case and all its' offshoots, simply, in a way regular people can understand."

    As that is a statement by you Ros - would you care to define what you mean by "regular people" please.

  30. What word are you struggling with, regular or people?

    1. The words in quotations marks "regular people". i.e. both as a description of .........?

    2. "regular people" - define please Ros - it is your term so you must know what you mean by it.

    3. "Worth mentioning, in the non cyber world, if a person sent hate mail to someone on a daily basis going back many years they would be arrested and charged with stalking and harassment."

      Your blog allowed anyone to say anything about the Mccanns for years and you loved it.

    4. Ros @17:33

      Your sarcasm is, as always, clever and appropriate. Well done, mama Ros.

    5. I've published these to illustrate how petty and facile the comments I bin, are.

      'Regular people' is not difficult to understand, it's not cryptic, it doesn't have any alternate meanings - sometimes a spoon is simply a spoon.

    6. Would you describe yourself as a regular person Ros?

      Or are you irregular?

    7. "sometimes a spoon is simply a spoon."

      Would that be a teaspoon, table spoon, desert spoon, soup spoon, sugar spoon, ice cream spoon, cocktail spoon, salad spoon, serving spoon or maybe a slotted spoon Ros.

    8. Goodness me 13:43, you are like a puppy with a chew toy.

      Actually I will tell you exactly what was going through my mind when I wrote those two words 'regular people'. I toyed with 'normal', but how do you define 'normal'? Regular seemed more apt, because I also had in my head separating the McCann junkies, yes myself included here, from the majority. That is most of the public who have only ever skimmed the headlines of this case - all those not playing armchair detective but are curious as to what happened to Madeleine and what was behind the furore that followed.

      13:55 how about a silver spoon? Or actually, silver tongs, I always use sugar lumps :)

    9. Thankyou for your reply at 14:57 Ros.

      Do you really think that casual headline skimming regular people are going to buy your book?

      Don't forget - your book does not have a conclusion because you keep an open mind and anything could have happened.

    10. LOL, no 17:26, you still can't guess the contents of my book, you will have to wait and see.

  31. Once you express your amateur opinion about the Mccanns and their personalities instead of debating the case - you fail.

    I am free to express my amateur opinion about you and you personality.

    Do you have a problem with that Ros?

    1. Ahha, so that's your motivation eh? You are an avenger for the McCanns, got it.

      You are of course free to express your amateur opinions on me, good luck getting it published.

    2. I don't mind being an avenger for the Mccanns at all.

      Believe me Ros - my amateur opinions of you are regularly published.

    3. So the cesspit's still going strong then 17:29, lol.

  32. Rosalinda dear

    Do you really think it’s fair/just/unbiased of you to have been telling of your passion for freedom of expression, calling your contributors, whose comments you have asked for, dingbats, stupid etc. and scolding them with sarcasm on the one hand, whilst taking exception to only some, very mild by your standard, humorous/sarcastic contributions and bin them on that pretext, on the other?

    Come and visit me on the planet Earth, my dear friend. I know you can. :)




    1. I know that you are among those who would like to see the insults published T, in fact I have had to bin nasty comments from yourself. And worse you expect me not to defend myself, to allow the comments section of my blog into a notice board for anonymous malcontents to smear and insult me.

      My feet are firmly planted on plant earth T, I have never been more focussed.

    2. As a further example of my feet being firmly planted on the ground T, I am not publishing your latest missive. I have always been happy to publish opposing views - they are a great source for me to comment on. You may want to see all the sarcasm and abuse but I don't want that for my blog. As I said before this is not a noticeboard for people to post nasty personal comments about me. I am a person who must protect my mental health, publishing such relentless abuse would be the equivalent of self harming. And of course it would escalate, I've seen it a hundred times before.

      Happily I now have the wisdom to understand that I don't have to tolerate abuse in any walk of life. I have the option to walk away, and I use it all the time. With my blog, it is, finally, a no brainer, I do actually have the power to get rid of the junk mail.

      Now, T, do you have a specific point you want to discuss? Or do you want to stick with those round and round in circles arguments about semantics?

  33. Hello Rosalinda, T and others


    I wouldn't go on discussing this "incident" if it hadn't any bearing on what has been discussed here for many years in the context of freedom of expression, governments covering up crimes, traditions, religions etc etc.

    Anyway, here is a transcript (the best I could do) of the two young ladies’ conversation in connection with what they seem to have caught a glimpse of while watching the change of guard at Buckingham Palace in 2015.

    Of all the shared and modified YouTube clips of that event, this one seems to be the original or at least closest to the original one. And that’s the reason as to why I’ve chosen this 43 second-clip as a basis for my translation of what I can hear. I haven’t found any translation into English elsewhere, neither in recent days, nor did I find that 5 years ago!

    Here, I just want to emphasize that the recording of the voices in the following clips is authentic and natural, as are the two Swedish ladies, whose voices can be heard. They do not play the roles of innocent Swedish tourists, because that’s what they most likely are. Trust my judgment!

    Regardless of what the pictures in this video are supposed to convey, a simple audio-analysis clearly proves, that one of the ladies is commenting on some old English tradition related to a horse parade, when they suddenly see a naked man or boy appear in front their eyes.

    The first lady;
    “They seem to come from a completely different Era”
    The same lady who apparently sees something beyond, before, beneath or above the horse procession; says almost inaudible.
    “Du, kameran”, which would mean “Hey-the camera”, as though she wanted to make the cameraman aware of the person she saw, so no sexual allusion as I previously thought.
    Same lady;
    “Is he naked?”
    The same lady turns to the cameraman and says;
    “Is this for real, nooo it can’t” and then giggles
    The other lady affirms “no” and giggles too
    The first lady then turns to the cameraman and says;
    Did you film that?

    If this were meant to be a marketing ploy, why would an American film company hire an agent who produces a mediocre film clip, which isn’t even subtitled in English and therefore cannot be fully understood by its potential viewers?

    Whatever wall this boy/man is trying to descend and for whatever reason, he is not a stuntman. Nor is he a cartoon character. Having experienced climbing myself, I clearly see the lack of all such skills in the video. So if this were a stunt, he would’ve been seriously wounded in that staging, even if he had managed to hit a pile of mattresses below.

  34. Hello Rosalinda
    “Madeleine McCann: Public Relations & Saving Reputation”

    Just watched the above documentary by Sonia Poulton in which she challenges the official “truth”. You come across as an intelligent and eloquent person in it. Who could think otherwise.

    What I appreciate about your approach to the Madeleine case, based on what you’ve written on your blog all those years, is your overall understanding of the case, which keeps you from getting caught up in unnecessary boring details.

    As for the new turn of the case this year, why wasn’t there any British journalist, that directly had the guts to dismiss the ludicrous German claims about Christian Brückner's involvement? In any case, he is no longer under investigation anywhere, so we can rule him out together with all other falsely accused queer characters, who have been made suspects by media to please Clarence Mitchell and to distract attention away from the McCanns’ guilt.

    What I can now clearly see, is that whoever argues against the official narrative becomes more or less excluded, especially from the influential media world and in particular from all British talk shows, where nothing controversial or enlightening is being discussed.

    I cannot understand why the soap opera “The Crown” is now being discussed in British media, while there’s still suspicion about the “real royals’” close connection to sex offenders such as Jeffrey Epstein and Jimmy Savile. Although they’ve passed away, the suspicion will not.

    Doesn’t that suggest Rosalinda, that there could be a very widespread corruption in the UK, making it possible for severe criminals in high social positions to get away with heinous crimes. The Royal House of Windsor, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Fremasons , the House of Lords in Westminster, the Murdoch media empire, all of them in the service of a society that fears the truth may explain why the Madeleine case hasn’t yet been solved and why Julian Assange is still being kept prisoner at Belmarsh.

    Wish you happy Weekend

    1. Thank you for your post Bjorn, it is much welcomed.

      Thank you for reminding me about the Sonia documentary, and my views are much the same (at 34.00 mins in). But you are right, and thank you for pointing out, that I have, for quite some time now, been more concerned with the bigger picture. And when you look at the bigger picture, everything begins to fall into place.

      Who knows why Herr Bruckner was pulled into this case, perhaps it was a bravado moment for the German police, as in, 'look we caught Maddie's abductor'. It is guaranteed headlines. I'm not sure such headlines are sought by the McCanns anymore, in the old days they were welcome because they kept the abductor story going.

      I suspect there is widespread corruption in the UK Bjorn - I feel my eyes have been opened to much of it, just by following the Madeleine case all these years. But I think the corruption is more likely to be of a financial nature than anything seedy involving kids.

      But having said that Buckingham Palace does have a bit of a reputation for high jinks below stairs. It has always attracted homosexual men who love all the pageantry and splendour, I suspect they were attracted to the jobs as much for the social life as the prestige.

      Above stairs, hijinks would not be so easy, I suspect. I remember reading how Princess Diana has to hide her lovers on the backseat of her car. Prince Andrew is a ghastly man, much despised by his staff I am sure, so I doubt there is much he could get up to in the UK though I think I read he invite Epstein and Maxell along to the Palace on at least one occasion though I don't think Andrew would commit any crimes under mummy's watchful eye.

      As for the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, they have always been a powerful force for control, and, dare I say, corruption. When children were put in catholic or indeed Anglican, children's homes the church would be paid inordinate amounts of money from the local authority's to care for that child. Imagine, church gets paid £1,000 to care for child for a month, actual cost £50 or less. A very wise man once told me the answer to EVERY question is money.

      Corruption I suspect runs throughout society Bjorn, not among ordinary people like us, but among those in positions of power and influence. Unfortunately, I don't think it is something that can be cured, every generation brings new ways and means to make something for nothing. I am sure the same plotting, scheming and currying favour that went on in the Roman Senate and the Court of Henry VIII goes on in the small town councils and the House of Lords. Perhaps it all seems more obvious now because we have access to so much information. Why the Madeleine case hasn't been solved I can explain (in forthcoming book), but why Julian Assange is kept prisoner, I do not know.

      Happy weekend to you too, stay safe.

  35. I wish you a Happy New Year Rosalinda but above all a better year than the previous one. It's been a long time since anyone posted here including yourself, so here are just a few words from me in case someone would be interested in the subject.

    In a few days, a British court, which in the Assange case is nothing but a kangaroo court consisting of some soulless puppets and a biased judge, will decide once and for all whether freedom of speech in our western democracies should be preserved, restricted or abolished.

    If Assange were to be extradited to the USA, regardless of whether there will be long appeal processes delaying it or not, a free press might perhaps cease to exist in our western democracies, given that any investigative journalist, who seeks the truth about crimes committed by the US administration in sources related to classified documents, must face the consequences of being extradited to that country, which used to be a democracy, and then charged with fabricated crimes, so that the real perpetrators will get away with their crimes.

    Moreover, there’s no doubt about Julian Assange being psychologically tortured, which he in fact was even before he ended up in Belmarsh prison. His arrest and the entire judicial process are straightforward political and violate national and international law and it’s therefore a shame for both the British government and the Swedish one, who have been involved in this dirty mess for more than a decade.

    Once again Rosalinda, my best wishes to you and all people in the UK, struggling in their lives in trying to defeat the constant pandemic threat.

    1. Hello Bjorn and happy New Year to you too. Apologies for taking so long to reply, I have been enjoying a long sojourn from my blog to work on my book and to enjoy freedom from my postbox, which quite honestly was getting me down.

      I think it is is awful what is being done to Julian Assange, it is not as if he incited sedition and rebellion! I am hoping Trump will pardon him, it's a wild card for sure, but if those lobbying point out how much it will piss off Hilary Clinton, he might have a shot. I think that is the angle they should go for. Arguably, Assange targeted the democrats by a quirk of fate, they were in power as Wikileaks ascended. As it was, Assange turned out to be advantageous for Trump, his people were reaching out to Assange, it became part of the Mueller/Russia probe.

      It is doubtful Trump will have any loyalty towards Assange (or indeed anyone) but it may be useful to him as a parting shot towards towards the democrats. I am on tenterhooks waiting to see the 'Pardon List', today predicted at about 100+, so we shall see.

      My kindest wishes to you Bjorn and I hope you can understand my reluctance to post recently. To be fair, there hasn't been any comments but that has been a blessed relief, I had reached point where my heart would sink just opening my post box. Without it I was able to enjoy a cosy, stress free Christmas and New Year which was quite delightful.

      I expect you are enjoying the beauty of your winter wonderland right now and I am sure your little dog is enjoying it too. I used to own a little rescue dog of indeterminate origin, the vet said there were at least 15 breeds in there, who absolutely loved the snow, even when it came up to his chin! Kindest wishes to you and yours.

  36. Hi Rosalinda

    Thanks for comments,. At least I know that you're OK now. I'm enjoying the snow here, as does my dog, and I'm hoping it'll last a few more weeks so that we may have a normal spring.

    Let us wait and see what happens in the USA politically, economically and socially and how Biden is going to deal with the Assange case. As for the Covid 19, I'm afraid we will have to live with it for a long time.

    Take care of yourself and let us stay in touch.

  37. Hi Cristobell,

    I hope you are well. Best wishes!