tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post1326470937035212811..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: THE MCCANNS, THE FREUDS AND THE CONSPIRALOONSRosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-54250082164661972232016-06-21T22:51:13.128+01:002016-06-21T22:51:13.128+01:00I do think paedophilia is a feature of this case i...I do think paedophilia is a feature of this case in one way or another. But, as with any type of abusive behaviour, the danger lies not so much with strangers but with those known to the child. Family, friends, others who have access to the child on a regular basis. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-90917227178956166102016-06-21T17:14:52.722+01:002016-06-21T17:14:52.722+01:00John Blacksmith 14:17
Ditto my earlier comment (1...John Blacksmith 14:17<br /><br />Ditto my earlier comment (18.6, 18:34)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-67437603861298584532016-06-21T14:17:46.091+01:002016-06-21T14:17:46.091+01:00Gosh, 11.48, you almost sound like Mr Bennett.
A...Gosh, 11.48, you almost sound like Mr Bennett. <br /><br />And then we have "Not for want of trying... It could be argued that the sites excavated...In the wake of a 'legitimate review'...I suppose...it might also indicate".<br /><br />Plenty of belief, plenty of supposition, plenty of implying without evidence. Facts? Just one, the layout of a TV studio.<br /><br />Goes with being an anon, I guess.john blacksmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129193861290186160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-83609357924039249082016-06-21T09:11:23.897+01:002016-06-21T09:11:23.897+01:0011:48 in response:
'Not for want of trying...11:48 in response:<br /><br />'Not for want of trying' - crecheman is McCanns strongest evidence, OG may have eliminated him, but K&G haven't. As for Payne, who says he is now ruled out?<br /><br />Regardless of what the public did with the image, OG put the giant image out there. The McCanns didn't want those images out there and they threatened legal action against the Private Eye that produced them. <br /><br />As for the McCanns knowing about Clement Freud's past, I'm not sure what you are implying. Is it:<br /><br />1. they have always been in league with him? or<br />2. someone tipped them off? If so, who?<br /><br />Whether they knew or didn't, horrified would imply didn't, it makes no difference, it was a disloyal reaction to someone who was their friend. <br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-17129148797665125462016-06-20T19:46:34.944+01:002016-06-20T19:46:34.944+01:00Many thanks John. I do like to keep a 'where w...Many thanks John. I do like to keep a 'where we are now' theme running through my blogs. The McCann press releases are intended to distract and confuse and many are intended to plant the idea that a paedophile gang were operating in the area. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the paedophile gang thesis is one that many of the antis have seized onto in order to explain the extraordinary cover up. For them, it is the only thesis that makes sense. <br /><br />Bennett, Hall and indeed Textusa, are convinced deviant sex lies at the heart of this child's disappearance, and their ears and eyes are shut to anything else. To them I would say, if child abuse was the agenda for this holiday, why did they go out of their way to spend as little time as possible with the kids? <br /><br />As for the facebook groups and the forums, to be honest, I got bored senseless talking about the clues, the discrepancies and the 'tells' - for those who have gone beyond reasonable doubt about the McCanns' involvement, we want to know why and we want to look at the wider implications. <br /><br />There are many forums I no longer post on because I refuse to be censored. The HideHo facebook group for example banned several of my blogs because I took the discussion 'outside the police files'. <br /><br />Other groups are appalled that I don't see anything sexual in any of the Madeleine pictures, not even the make up ones. My failure to see anything sexually deviant in a little girl dressing up somehow makes me a McCann apologist. <br /><br />As for the Clement Freud connection, my astonishment there lies in the fact that these traumatised parents were able to go out to dinner with a celebrity. I can only imagine what the response to such an invitation would have been from the parents of April Jones, Sara Payne or Holly and Jessica. When you look at genuine grief, it becomes all the more grotesque, especially the strawberry vodka and the nymphomaniac remark.<br /><br />The objective with the Madeleine case is not to cover up child abuse, it is to promote the myth that child abuse is everywhere and our kids are in constant danger. If we believe our children are at risk of being stolen from their beds by predators who have targeted them on the internet, we will be demanding the government set up a task force to police the internet. <br /><br />Those antis who believe the McCanns or even the entire village of PDL are involved in some murky paedophile ring that runs right through the heart of two governments are singing from the same hymnsheet as the witchfinders. They have bought the 'we are surrounded by predators' story, hook, line and sinker and they are living in fear. <br /><br />Anyway, once again, many thanks John. I rarely post anywhere else now because I can't be doing with censorship, nor can I be restricted to 'approved' topics. I want the truth, not an account of the truth, or the truth according to the conspiraloons. <br /><br />As for the comments I allow - I want to be challenged, I don't fear the pro trolls, I have been ready, willing and able to debate with them years, but they don't seem to have anyone capable of keeping a civil tongue. If they have better arguments than I do, let's hear them. Tell me just one fact that will convince me I am wrong. If they had valid arguments there would be no need for the personal abuse. <br /><br /><br /><br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-64626449890720887082016-06-20T12:28:09.901+01:002016-06-20T12:28:09.901+01:00I didn’t know I featured until now Ros. I don’t mi...I didn’t know I featured until now Ros. I don’t mind but you’ll probably get even more abuse from both sides with me being mentioned. <br /><br />For readers here: I started making occasional comments on this blog - the only one I read regularly - because it’s full of common sense, moves with the times and, if I may say so, has really found its feet in the last year or so and become more or less required reading.<br /><br />“Moves with the times”: there is something sad about the way so many sceptical bloggers and commentators are completely stuck in 2007 – the same mindset as then, the same pointless trawling through old press articles for the wonder clues that will crack the case – and the same complaints that “everything has been said”.<br /><br />But it hasn’t, far from it: With the chances of the child being found alive unfortunately now zero the course of the McCann Affair after May 2007 – what it reveals about the couple, about ourselves and those around us, high and low – is much deeper and more significant than what happened in PDL that night, tragic as that event was: the latter essentially concerned only one family and their friends while the former has raised questions for almost any thinking person, as its journey from Anglo-Portuguese diplomatic incident to Parliament to Leveson to Downing Street demonstrates. <br /><br />“Full of common sense”. Ros deals with those questions as they arise in a way that clearly resonates with a lot of pretty sensible readers. About the anonymous insulting comments she allows there is little one needs to say: whether they come from the libellers in the sewage camps or the supporters, come what may, of the parents, they have lost the argument, as their abusive and slightly self-pitying tone constantly emphasises: their claims and theories are not in accordance with revealed facts and there is nothing they can do about it. And it will get worse for them. <br /><br />john blacksmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129193861290186160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-42209985573781827262016-06-20T11:48:26.935+01:002016-06-20T11:48:26.935+01:00Rosalinda @09:30
"I don't think Pat beli...Rosalinda @09:30<br /><br />"I don't think Pat believes Operation Grange is legitimate"<br /><br />Of course not. It is your 'option 3' however.<br /><br />"The Review and the Investigation have done nothing whatsoever to clear them"<br /><br />Not for want of trying: 'crechedad' introduced, David Payne deleted.<br /><br />"The infamous Crimewatch shattered their public support, how could it not with a giant picture of Gerry as the chief suspect?"<br /><br />If you replay the original TV footage, rather than the stills mocked up for 'Twitter', I think you'll find that scene missing.<br /><br />"Then we had the digging in the vicinity of Apartment 5A."<br /><br />The digging was not specifically in the vicinity of 5A. It could be argued that the sites excavated were those familiar to the perpetrator, as is often the case when the disposal of a body or bodies is involved - subsequent to an escape, not during btw.<br /><br />"they haven't given Gerry and Kate anything that would steer suspicion away from them"<br /><br />Ditto my second answer above.<br /><br />According to your special guest: "we'll be getting some output from Grange soon."<br /><br />In the wake of a 'legitimate review' I suppose that will be something along the lines of: "The McCanns have been detained for questioning".<br /><br />You say in your article: "Kate and Gerry don't care who is accused as long as it's not them"<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />You view the speed with which the McCanns were 'horrified' by the Clement Freud news as 'undignified'<br /><br />Have you considered it might also indicate they were expecting it?<br /> <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-31459237255341956732016-06-20T11:03:12.096+01:002016-06-20T11:03:12.096+01:00"... do you think that the British government..."... do you think that the British government knew that it was ne'er going to go away until a proper review was carried out? "<br /><br />I'm sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough before replying and so I didn't actually answer your question in my rather speculative reply. Yes, that is exactly what I think. And yes, you and I seem to be thinking along similar ines. john blacksmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129193861290186160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-12597438844158307762016-06-20T09:30:26.644+01:002016-06-20T09:30:26.644+01:00I don't think Pat believes Operation Grange is...I don't think Pat believes Operation Grange is legitimate 08:32, and I'd be astonished if she believed the 'the McCanns are likely innocent'.<br /><br />However, as JB said above, do the McCanns look they have got what they wanted? The Review and the Investigation have done nothing whatsoever to clear them - it now looks more likely they were involved than when the Review began. <br /><br />If Operation Grange is intended to clear Kate and Gerry they are going a very strange way about it. The infamous Crimewatch shattered their public support, how could it not with a giant picture of Gerry as the chief suspect? Then we had the digging in the vicinity of Apartment 5A. The idea that a burglar or an abductor would bury his victim DURING his escape is of course ludicrous, even though Martin Brunt made a valiant attempt to tell Sky viewers, that's what happened. <br /><br />Operation Grange are not searching for a live child and there is no sign they are still looking for an abductor. Significantly, they haven't given Gerry and Kate anything that would steer suspicion away from them. And if they had anything, it would be cruel not to. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-55052401353501777302016-06-20T09:24:54.479+01:002016-06-20T09:24:54.479+01:00In reply to anonymous at 18:19, what is the motiva...In reply to anonymous at 18:19, what is the motivation in carrying on with this? 1 word simple answer... Greed<br /><br />They had got used to the celebrity lifestyle and having all that money. Then then money ran out. Yes they should have gone to ground then, we'd probably all have forgotten about them by now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-61507921928095241422016-06-20T08:32:17.188+01:002016-06-20T08:32:17.188+01:00"If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, T..."If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent" (Pat Brown - May 3, 2016)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-11632359819900125632016-06-20T01:08:31.720+01:002016-06-20T01:08:31.720+01:00I know it is! JB has a large following, he has be...I know it is! JB has a large following, he has been one of the few voices of reason throughout this long saga. I have a lot of respect for his opinion, so too do many who read here. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-87123392133682584552016-06-20T00:29:52.429+01:002016-06-20T00:29:52.429+01:00"Suspicious Minds7 June 2016 at 14:23
The off..."Suspicious Minds7 June 2016 at 14:23<br />The official sources lied about Hillsborough. Did that make it the truth? NO !!!"<br /><br />You made that link to Leyland and Hillsborough. On the Leyland blog.<br />-------------------------<br /><br />You then went on to say<br /><br />"Suspicious Minds7 June 2016 at 20:52<br />If the POLICE and the MEDIA can collude and tell despicable lies about the victims of Hillsborough (which they did) they can do anything. And compared to Hillsborough this is nothing."<br /><br />-----------------------<br /><br />And on this topic you have said:<br /><br />"Suspicious Minds18 June 2016 at 09:42<br />You were probably one of those people who thought all the Hillsborough campaigners were conspiracy theorists who couldn't accept the truth."<br /><br />--------------------------<br /><br />So maybe you would remind me of who mentioned Leyland and Hillsborough?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-59084190281386701892016-06-20T00:10:26.054+01:002016-06-20T00:10:26.054+01:00Cristobell Author @RosalindaHu 11h11 hours ago
C...Cristobell Author @RosalindaHu 11h11 hours ago<br /><br />CRISTOBELL UNBOUND: THE MCCANNS, THE FREUDS AND THE CONSPIRALOONS https://cristobell.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-mccanns-freuds-and-conspiraloons.html?spref=tw …<br />featuring JOHN BLACKSMITH<br /><br />ROFL - do you think that is an attraction?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-69254935226085212192016-06-19T21:58:07.801+01:002016-06-19T21:58:07.801+01:00Agreed, both are slightly ambiguous, but the first...Agreed, both are slightly ambiguous, but the first was distasteful as it brought the McCanns into something that was nothing to do with them.Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-32122015842330037162016-06-19T19:26:05.342+01:002016-06-19T19:26:05.342+01:00After re-reading the above posts, Ros, it appears ...After re-reading the above posts, Ros, it appears to me as if 19:07 is pro-McCann, and 02:48 is coming across as anti-McCann.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-52392258019374707052016-06-19T17:55:34.144+01:002016-06-19T17:55:34.144+01:00@Anonymous 19/06 19.43
"Hillsborough leads y...@Anonymous 19/06 19.43<br /><br />"Hillsborough leads you to Leyland"<br /><br />Yet again you destroy your own credibility by deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.<br /><br />At no point EVER have I said that Hillsborough leads to Leyland.<br /><br />If anyone here want to read my thoughts and those of others re. Leyland they can simply go to the 'Was Brenda Leylands death suicide' blog. There they will find a discussion between numerous people and full explanations of a shared opinion.<br /><br />They will also find your numerous and ridiculous "retorts". Even though you post anonymously your ignorance of all explanations makes you stand out a mile.<br /><br />In light of your ignorance, misrepresentation and distorting of opinions makes your questioning of credibility as meaningless as it is ironicSuspicious Mindshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04561167689590094213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-52531494078897192732016-06-19T16:05:20.019+01:002016-06-19T16:05:20.019+01:00I think you both sum it up well. People who have l...I think you both sum it up well. People who have limited input into the case often quote the fact that they "campaigned" for a review as evidence of their innocence. I often see the McCann mentality at work at home in Northern Ireland. People get behind some nobody because he/she identifies with an issue that they feel a strong emotional attachment to. The nobody then forgets that the support is for the issue not them and start to believe their own spin. Like the mccanns they believe that the public support allows them to push the boundaries in which we all have to live and that enviably leads to people with real power developing strategies to sidestep them and restore their own power. I think the granting of the 3rd option a full and legitimate review was a way of restoring power were it belonged. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-20719951021862324422016-06-19T13:31:34.151+01:002016-06-19T13:31:34.151+01:00I think you are right John, the McCanns have alway...I think you are right John, the McCanns have always bragged about their powerful contacts and used them as protection, but as with their 650k facebook likes, there doesn't appear to be any substance to them. Where were all their wealthy friends when they were struggling to reach targets for their sporting feats? Even an impromptu appearance by Gerry on Lorraine's show before his decathlon did nothing to increase his sponsors. <br /><br />For me, Clarence's statement to Vanity Fair summed up the Government protection. 'We tried to get an interview with the PM or Minister and all we were offered were low (may have been 'mid') level consuls'. That couldn't be any clearer - the government assistance had stopped. <br /><br />Even in Marxist Feminist mode, I agree with you that Cameron is a 'Tim, nice but dim' politician in matters that don't affect his, or his chums' wallets.<br /><br />Occasionally, tory ideology can be closer to protecting our freedoms, than the ideology of the Far Left or Nanny State Brigade. They don't want to give any ruling elite the right to poke their noses into their business, or indeed anyone else's. Cameron still hasn't implemented the recommendations made by Leveson, and he's never likely to.<br /><br />Bizarrely, and I will probably now get slated lol, I like the way Theresa May stands up to Jim Gamble and the Police Federation. She reminds me of those formidable Margaret Rutherford stiff upper lip women who roll up their sleeves and get things done. She is not the type to hide in a corner whispering and plotting. <br /><br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-58076480901531602502016-06-19T12:41:00.045+01:002016-06-19T12:41:00.045+01:00Hello. I disappoint a lot of people by not believi...Hello. I disappoint a lot of people by not believing that the McCanns have had any government protection but there isn't much I can do about that. <br /><br />Often the McCanns' motives are very easy to read but I don't find that the case here: we know almost nothing about the course of the McCanns' requests and discussions and the "scoping" document etc. and what we have heard comes almost exclusively from the two liars. There seems to have been a determined and apparently successful attempt by the pair to have contact at government level in secret - but letting it be known that such contact had occurred. Why? <br /><br />Well one definite possibility - and it is only that - is the reverse of what most people seem to believe: that it was the McCanns attempting to entrap the government into discussions precisely to make people think they were capable of "blackmailing" governments and getting their own way behind the scenes, just as they did by bigging up their minimal and harmless contacts with Gordon Brown. Don't forget that in Madeleine the couple made a clear threat that if their demand for a review was not met they would "have no option..." but to take action themselves. I think that also was BS, designed for public consumption to make them look more influential than they are. <br /><br />Unfortunately for my reputation also I happen to think that David Cameron is completely straight, not that bright and genuinely uncomplicated(!); like the rest of us he doesn't quite know what to make of the pair, while Theresa May clearly doesn't trust them an inch.<br /><br />So, as with the granting of a referendum, he gave them exactly what they were asking for, thus pricking the whole bubble. Despite the rumours the McCanns are not exactly boasting about what the review and Grange have achieved for them. Do they look like people who've got what they wanted to you?<br /><br />Still, it's speculation on my part. Never mind, I think we'll be getting some output from Grange soon. <br />john blacksmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129193861290186160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-85652295579337668142016-06-19T11:46:32.614+01:002016-06-19T11:46:32.614+01:00Brilliant post 18:19, thank you for bringing it he...Brilliant post 18:19, thank you for bringing it here. <br /><br />If I were a pro, I would probably give it a round of applause. It is indeed an incredulous story, but not so hard to believe if we accept that people do lie, thieve and murder. Such odious creatures can and do live among us. More often than not, they are shapeshifters, the character they present to the outside world is a compilation of what they believe are nice traits - the church going, the sporting activities, the responsible parenting. Inside they are seething with resentment, and it can't help but slip through. <br /><br />Is all of the above possible? Hell yeh. Who would have imagined it would take over 2 decades to get justice for 96 football fans? Who would have thought that our MPs were abusing expenses?<br /><br />This age of information has brought with it revelation after revelation. Anyone who still believes we are ruled by the just and the righteous should watch a few episodes of Armand Ianucci's 'The Thick of It'. Power corrupts.<br /><br />Why have the McCanns maintained a high profile? Well that's one of the most fascinating aspects of this case. It is not unique to them, there are many examples of parents suspected of staging an abduction, using publicity to 'prove' their innocence. The argument being that if they were guilty they would not be appealing to the public to look for their child, it takes the focus off them as suspects and is actually a very common ruse. <br /><br />For the McCanns it is has been far more successful than most. Possibly because they have had a lot more assistance. This is such an incredible story it was bound to stay in the MSM's radar, it is a simmering pot with the potential of weeks of sensational headlines and stories. 'How They Did It' will top the charts. <br /><br />Intriguing points though, and again thank you.Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-34566192698841041472016-06-19T11:03:50.835+01:002016-06-19T11:03:50.835+01:00Thank you cristobell that makes a lot of sense. Ka...Thank you cristobell that makes a lot of sense. Kate and gerrys motivation in calling for a review certainly wasn't option 3 but the PM used it to ensure that it was the preferred option. Thank you for your reply Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-18547801090030382142016-06-19T11:02:26.005+01:002016-06-19T11:02:26.005+01:0002:48 Only a McCann supporter would come out with...02:48 Only a McCann supporter would come out with something so distasteful, shame on you! Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-2960481213800788432016-06-19T10:55:09.366+01:002016-06-19T10:55:09.366+01:00Hope you don't mind my interjecting 02:51, I t...Hope you don't mind my interjecting 02:51, I think the request for a review was a publicity stunt for Kate's forthcoming book. I don't think it was meant to have been taken seriously. It was accompanied by a Petition with a target of 100K signatures, something that could have taken years to achieve.<br /><br />The review they wanted was based on the guidelines of Jim Gamble's report to the previous (Labour)Home Secretary. It was sitting gathering dust as they told us on their Autumn 2010 fundraising tour when they were going broke. <br /><br />I think it very unlikely that the review granted in May 2011 was based on the old CEOP report. By then, Theresa May and Jim Gamble had had a very public falling out, and Gamble was no longer head of CEOP.<br /><br />As we know, Kate and Gerry are incredible risk takers, in their minds, the odds were in their favour; 1. Their request would be turned down 2. It would be based on the report prepared by CEOP. 3. Rank outsider - A full and legitimate review. <br /><br />Methinks this was a case of be careful what you wish for! But, like yourself, would interested to hear JB's views on this. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-11095900648677728062016-06-19T10:29:48.102+01:002016-06-19T10:29:48.102+01:00I'm not filled with hate 19:47! My favourite l...I'm not filled with hate 19:47! My favourite literary character is P.G. Wodehouse's Uncle Dynamite. Like Uncle D, I like to spread sweetness and light - and maybe a little chaos :) <br /><br />If you are referring to the Madeleine case, I don't hate Kate and Gerry. The subtext of all my commentary is why? why? why? I'm interested in the reasons behind the actions, the human behavioural aspects - opportunities to study crimes (and characters) of this nature, as the plot thickens and unravels are probably once in a lifetime. <br /><br />For me, and I think for most people, hate is fleeting, transitory, it is usually combined with shock, anger and outrage. Right now I hate the man who murdered Jo Cox, but I know that intense feeling won't be with me for the rest of my life.<br /><br />It must be said I have found Gerry and Kate to be deeply unpleasant people - they seem to treat everyone around them as underlings - there to serve them. Whilst in PDL they even turned their family into secretaries, childminders and goffers. <br /><br />I also dislike their huge sense of entitlement and constant whining. No matter what the subject they always manage to get it back to how hard done by they are. <br /><br />I found the money raising for the 'search' obscene - I don't think I have ever seen such unfettered greed! Who knows how many millions have passed through their 'Fund' - yet little Madeleine doesn't even have so much as a memorial bench. <br /><br />I hate the malicious way Kate and Gerry have used all the power and money they have had to ruin the life of the former detective who searched for their daughter. <br /><br />I hate that Kate and Gerry are so callous towards the life and memory of Madeleine. Whatever happened before Madeleine's death may have been 'a moment of madness', but everything that has happened since, has been cold, hard and calculated. <br /><br />But most of all I hate the 'power' that lies behind the cover up of this child's death, and the way it has been used to persecute and intimidate innocent people who will not accept the abduction story.<br /> <br /><br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.com