tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post1649503519602856063..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: MADELEINE - THOSE 'P' ALLEGATIONSRosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-12546633994575155962017-05-02T18:26:28.537+01:002017-05-02T18:26:28.537+01:00Hi, 19:28 thanks for raising the possibility that ...Hi, 19:28 thanks for raising the possibility that the lollipop conversation was a sign of immaturity.<br /><br />The way I have looked at it, is that it is extreme locker room talk, "sledging" if you like. Although I have never come across anything as extreme, I do know that men can be very silly when trying to wind each other up.<br /><br />A common theme is to tease another bloke about his mother or sister being hot. The nature of the game is to get the other guy to crack.<br /><br />I don't know if that was what they were about, but I think the possibility of "banter" has to be acknowledged, however inappropriate it is.<br /><br />As for the make up photo. I wouldn't have allowed it in my child, but when you consider the adult looking clothes on sale in the likes of Primark, and even M&S, bearing monikers like "Sex Slut", yet sold in infant sizes, again we have to accept that the boundaries of what is acceptable are blurred.<br /><br />I think it is just as likely that this picture is a clumsy attempt, by people with no empathy towards children, to create a game where all "the girls" can take part.Cataplananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-15741095351626102852017-04-03T20:31:14.793+01:002017-04-03T20:31:14.793+01:00Chairman Mao to Chairman Z:
What might have been ...Chairman Mao to Chairman Z:<br /><br />What might have been and what has been point to one end which is always present.<br /><br />So let's all sing and smile, shall we, Rosalinda?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-661193584474327072017-04-03T18:47:18.356+01:002017-04-03T18:47:18.356+01:00This devil needs no sympathy, major. :-)
Strange...This devil needs no sympathy, major. :-)<br /><br /> Strange, the first thing that came to my mind when i read 'mick and Dick' was Stellar Street :-) The second was akin to some questionable cartoon duo likely to appear on South Park :/<br /><br />Ooh, see the fire is sweepin'<br />Our very street today<br />Burns like a red coal carpet<br />Mad bull lost its way..<br />War, children, it's just a shot away<br />It's just a shot away..<br /><br />Z.Sawdust ; Chairman of The Cygnet Commitee.<br /><br />namasteZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-21344617284121957662017-04-03T10:39:50.662+01:002017-04-03T10:39:50.662+01:00ZiggySawdust3 April 2017 at 02:55
Indeed.
You ar...ZiggySawdust3 April 2017 at 02:55<br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br />You are obviously a man of taste. And so is ‘T’ it would appear.<br /><br />2 April 2017 at 22:48<br /><br />Your cot must’ve been rather large. Bespoke? A future man of wealth and taste?<br /><br />Pleased to meet you<br />Hope we’ve guessed your name, oh yeah<br />But what's puzzling us<br />Is the nature of your game<br /><br />You are awful, but we like you.<br /><br />Mick and Dick<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-48978912150226190592017-04-03T02:55:38.127+01:002017-04-03T02:55:38.127+01:00Anonymous3 April 2017 at 01:32
"who is this ...Anonymous3 April 2017 at 01:32<br /><br />"who is this 'we'..."<br /><br />We = Major Tom and Dick Emery.''<br /><br />That would have been some album..<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-14909320698756540892017-04-03T01:32:51.488+01:002017-04-03T01:32:51.488+01:00"who is this 'we'..."
We = Major..."who is this 'we'..."<br />We = Major Tom and Dick Emery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-38566247834914452017-04-02T22:48:00.521+01:002017-04-02T22:48:00.521+01:00Anonymous 31 March 2017 at 21.36
First things firs...Anonymous 31 March 2017 at 21.36<br />First things first. I apologise for the belated reply to your post . I think Ros slips them in when she's in her wine cellar sometimes ;-)<br /><br />'T', Major Tom, and your inner self Mr Richard Emery( i have vague memories of him..i watched from my cot..i swear.)<br /><br />Unlike the polishing and bottom-wiping process prior to a final draft of an essay, i tend to rush at these posts and their editing limits.As such, I tend to take for granted that readers such as your good self and Ros will know what I'm yelling about even if it's a loose reference.<br /><br />When i said that nothing about it being political I was pointing out, for emphasis, that politicians never invade murder, abduction or any other suspected crime committed abroad.They're politicians, not police.So, that the opposite is true in this case, it raises much bigger questions than most that are discussed. When I speak of murder, it's one of a handful of often repeated allegations( moreso since many point to sexual interference via the parents or tapas members).Amaral says accidental. Who knows ? But if they reported an accident i'd go with it.The concealment of the body is implying murder.I say that as i can only imagine that as a feasible reason as certain evidence could be yielded form a body.It's not my personal idea-it's my interpretation of a murder scenario.Accidental death would be elevated to murder if there was evidence of physical or sexual interference.I still favour the procurer theory.<br /><br />My references to haters are not a blanket criticism. If a group of people hold fast to the theory of the McCanns being guilty of nasty things it's their business and prerogative.But refusing to face the lack of 'official' support for it and then scrutinising their every word and photograph to go beyond conventional 'slating' and just being vicious is in hate territory. Dismissng any alternative, despite the ten years gap, and attacking or attempting to mock alternative views is reinforcing their stance and reinforcing the impression that they hate. What we hate makes us weak. Weak people lash out. It's possible to discuss sensibly.An independent observer of me can mind their own business :-)<br /><br />The parents contributory factor was leaving their children vulnerable.leaving them unsupervised.In danger.I wasn't( and still am not) quoting that, it's my own opinion.I'm the only link to my opinion.<br /><br />By the way, T..who is this 'we' you refer to..just curious...<br /><br />Nmaste<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-33870839036424719942017-04-01T11:05:52.278+01:002017-04-01T11:05:52.278+01:00@10:19
"I believe the 'abduction' to...@10:19<br /><br />"I believe the 'abduction' to have been proposed to them and anticipated by them."<br /><br />So do I.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-3848571359975225292017-04-01T10:48:10.042+01:002017-04-01T10:48:10.042+01:00@01:30
The following quotes are isolated merely i...@01:30<br /><br />The following quotes are isolated merely in order to facilitate making a concise point.<br /><br />"Clement Freud. We found out he was a paedophile post mortem.<br /><br />"Repeat offenders in this area of crime have a 'type'. Little girls of Madeleine's age weren't his."<br /><br />Indeed. And once a 'gal' has achieved the age of consent the lecherous actions of a lothario are not usually considered to be those of a paedophile exactly.<br /><br />It is undeniably true that some men are perfectly prepared to 'take advantage' of young women. On the other hand, not a generation passes without some young women placing themselves in a compromising situation and regretting it afterwards.<br /><br />With just a little exaggeration in certain quarters Clement Freud was made to fit the bill (or at least come close)<br /><br />"Freud entered the fray as a ghost- but a handy one fit for purpose in the eyes of the frantic."<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-52351854735217435522017-04-01T10:19:53.288+01:002017-04-01T10:19:53.288+01:00A modest correction to an earlier comment (31.3 @1...A modest correction to an earlier comment (31.3 @13:32) if I may.<br /><br />Last paragraph - I used the word 'ultimately' when 'penultimately' would have been more precise. I suspect (although I cannot yet prove) the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann was not the parents' idea.<br /><br />And no, that is not the crass remark it appears. I believe the 'abduction' to have been proposed to them and anticipated by them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-81964670340363213232017-04-01T01:37:54.191+01:002017-04-01T01:37:54.191+01:00( 2 )
My other point is about the Gaspar statemen...( 2 )<br /><br />My other point is about the Gaspar statement.<br /><br />The Gaspar statement troubles me.<br /><br />It's long and it's 'wordy. I suppose she had to be thorough.It would be savaged in a court.<br /><br />When she finally moves on from tedious introductions of characters and scene-setting, she moves to 'that' conversation.<br /><br />''I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario.''<br />There's the meat and potatoes there. Stand-outs : 'I think ' 'I can't remember the conversation in it's entirety' and 'but they seemed'.<br /><br />''I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’.''<br /><br />What did Dave say ? Who mentioned Madeleine's name ?<br /><br /> On the 'gesture' :<br /><br />''There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. ''<br /><br /> Probably.But where is Madeleine's name other than 'seemed'. Where is GM's half of the conversation ?<br /><br />She recalls an identical scenario that she'd witnessed a long time before( but didn't put her off socialising with them) :<br /><br />''In saying this, I want to mention once again that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary scenario, although I’m not sure.''<br /><br />Dave just sounds like he turns a bit weird when the wine's flowing. Gaspar forgets only important details( names for instance.But that was a natural follow on from the introduction :<br /><br />''One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’.''<br /><br />This skeletal statement was given flesh by a hungry pack of hounds desperate for some added spice to an already confusing stew.<br /><br />Early in the case, people had GM's miserable face or perceived arrogance.They added KMs coldness and aloof attitude.That identified the suspects before the PJ did. Years down the line, Gaspar's statement was added to their menu. It suggested something sexual.Even though Gaspar only uses terms like 'it seemed' and never Madeleine's name or GM saying a word.Details don't matter. Leave them for the Devil. Once the massed ranks had added sex to two mean-looking suspects, it was open season. The internet was plastered with it.Soon, the Governments media arm swung into action. Tales of child trafficking, child murders, ritual abuse and the like were pouring from every pen and being added to it all. The collective consciousness had already demonstrated it's readiness to accept these ideas more than happily. All we needed for the feast was a bit of blood. Cue the eternal tail-chasing 'dogs evidence' debate. And then there were 'those' photographs of a little girl( who was now a little victim) in her mum's make up. With all of the above already awaiting more flesh, no way would the ranks buy that( again, leave the details for the Devil).They were suddenly 'Lolita pics'. Freud entered the fray as a ghost- but a handy one fit for purpose in the eyes of the frantic.All it needed was 20/20 hindsight and imagination.<br /><br />I'll close there. It just seemed that somebody had to put things into perspective given the title of the thread.<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-68661270699214809292017-04-01T01:30:15.321+01:002017-04-01T01:30:15.321+01:00( 1 )
Just a couple of points as posts have been ...( 1 )<br /><br />Just a couple of points as posts have been inserted since earlier...<br /><br />Clement Freud. We found out he was a paedophile post mortem. There's a reason for that as we are finding out lately. When somebody from high office( or formerly of) is known by others to have enjoy that proclivity by peers who share it, nobody talks. It's the same as when Savile told a young female PC over 30 years ago : ''Take me down and i'll take your bosses down with me''. So that came out post mortem too. Of Freud's long -standing friends from the political world who shared his hobby, he was closer to Cyril Smith and Jeremey Thorpe than most . Same dance. I believe Freud was keeping the McCanns close for reasons beyond mere tea and sympathy.Let's not forget which tree this apple fell from. Nor let us forget,Matthew Freud's closest friends( Cameron, Blair, Brown) and his one time marriage to the Murdoch Empire Of Sleaze. He sold them a dummy. His 'jokey' references made to GM and KM about the press speculation was( no pun avoidable) a Freudian slip. That was his role. A point needs to be made here i'll keep brief because it's unpleasant. Repeat offenders in this area of crime have a 'type'. Little girls of Madeleine's age weren't his.The accusation of his well -publicised former victim were her ill-informed guesses. Another point I'd like to make is that, whatever anyone's opinion of Paedophilia may be( and I think it's obvious), beware the agenda in the brewing; this is going to be drip fed as an illness( which it is in a lot of cases) soon so the perpetrators are normalised as having 'a condition' rather than being criminals. <br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-69012977990434723362017-03-31T22:41:22.544+01:002017-03-31T22:41:22.544+01:00This is #McCann madness. There is not going to be ...This is #McCann madness. There is not going to be a lie-detector test.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-13391326142854972612017-03-31T21:36:25.072+01:002017-03-31T21:36:25.072+01:00ZiggySawdust 30 March 2017 at 23:36
With respect....ZiggySawdust 30 March 2017 at 23:36<br /><br />With respect.<br /><br />Just a few thoughts in passing.<br /><br />“Yet nothing about the case, be it a murder one or abduction, is political.”<br /><br />We see it differently. Top politicians and several agencies answerable to them involved themselves or had been involved in the case. That alone makes the case, or at least some of its aspects, political.<br /><br />Why do you speak of murder, by all accounts a most unlikely scenario? We recall your ‘justification’ for your use of ‘murder’: accidental death and concealment of the corpse taken together equate to murder. You are in a position to know you a wrong. What is one to make of your persistent references to murder?<br /><br />We know where you stand on the ‘abduction’.<br /><br /><br />Your frequent references to hate/r(s) are an unnecessary distraction and they are more often than not duly ignored. The apparent force of your condemnation of those you call haters is such that an independent observer would label you a hater.<br /><br />You accept that the parents were negligent and you did remark that their negligence would have been “contributory”. We would be grateful if you would expand on the “contributory” bit, in your own words and/or with a link or two.<br /><br />Your ‘War and Peace’ are long overdue, or have we missed it? We have been growing athirst to enjoy reading your masterpiece!<br /><br />You are awful but we like you.<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />Major Tom (better known as ‘T’) with Richard “Dick” Emery assisting<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-90776340140466941132017-03-31T18:19:07.941+01:002017-03-31T18:19:07.941+01:00to all above( too lazy to identify )
'anon...to all above( too lazy to identify )<br /><br />'anon' has given a fairly good interpretation of what i was saying and saying in the subtext. While i appear to be protecting the parents, I'm not.I'm just refusing to attack them.If you read me closely, my actual 'attacks' are directed at the 'invisible men and women' who pull the strings and press the buttons. The infamous 'hidden hand' that's worked it's magic for centuries and shows no sign of losing it's touch..<br /><br />I defend the parents on the grounds that the police forced/investigators etc have failed to offer something to take to court, and we have to accept it as much as we have to accept anything our owners do. I've maintained that, even with a gun at my head and no choice, i couldn't say with 100% conviction what happened that night. I can only call what i see and infer from that.If we're honest, we're all on that ship. I've hinted before that it's possible that the McCanns didn't do anything to their daughter or hide the body but that it didn't mean they were completely blameless. In other words, whatever happened is known to them and something prevented an arrest and replaced it with political smoke and mirrors. I've read the GM 'freemason' connection things and the like.I can't comment as they're only rumour( Freemasons are secretive, remember). Somebody in the wings or some people in the wings have something on someone.Or perhaps the parents have something on someone. There has to be a point where the factions get ravelled as there is NO reasonable explanation to justify the sheer volume of money and help( they knew this was going to be years-why else pay millions if Madeleine could have been found in days?).<br /><br />I can't accuse anyone of anything with total belief. So I won't. Amaral was bulldozed out of the way for a reason.Who brought the bulldozer and who drove it ? And who commissioned it ?<br /><br />As for lie detectors- no point. They're inadmissible in a court.They're unreliable. I could tell you i saw three pixies on a bus today and escape the detector. They work by first registering your vital signs, remember. What is Gerry's job again ? A good cross examination would yield more.<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-75890345639309976352017-03-31T17:23:26.355+01:002017-03-31T17:23:26.355+01:00@ Ros 11:36
" it would silence their critics...@ Ros 11:36<br /><br />" it would silence their critics if technology backed up their claims."<br />------------------------------<br /><br />Who are you trying to fool Ros - it would not silence you! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-24833720131297562892017-03-31T16:44:11.569+01:002017-03-31T16:44:11.569+01:00Rosalinda @15:06
"There is nothing 007 about...Rosalinda @15:06<br /><br />"There is nothing 007 about Gerry and Kate, they are not even special."<br /><br />With respect, we know no more about the McCanns than they have seen fit to reveal. Even the PJ couldn't access their medical records or credit histories. <br /><br />"They are articulate, erudite, professionals who allowed their daughter's face to be used to inflate bogus claims of child abuse and child abduction."<br /><br />Yes. After the fact.<br /><br />"I believe that what happened on the night of 3rd May 2007, is pretty much as described by Goncalo Amaral in his book The Truth of the Lie. <br /><br />"That is nothing premeditated, nothing pre-planned - all those who responded REacted to the situation, they didn't create it."<br /><br />That is the 'bill of goods' we were sold at the time, and have been ever since.<br /><br />"As I believe GA said, none of it needs to be embellished"<br /><br />I don't know what GA said personally. Has he passed any comment on GM's habit of receiving clutches of text messages daily from the same number, then immediately checking his voice mail?<br /><br />Probably not, since it appears to have been fraught, post-traumatic behaviour. Except the practice commenced on the morning of Wednesday 2nd May.<br /><br />Why couldn't Kate McCann 'bear to use her camera' once she'd taken that 'last photograph' of her daughter? What was so distressing about her being pictured beside the pool that Thursday afternoon, and with two days of their holiday left?<br /><br />A tendency for Kate to use her camera could not have been contingent upon the distress of an unexpected accident/abduction that lay in the future, and which no-one could have known anything about beforehand.<br /><br />There are reasons for believing Madeleine's famous pyjamas did not leave the apartment after all, and equally valid reasons for believing a report in Correio da Manha of the UK Ambassador's contacting the then PJ chief, Alipio Ribeiro, at dinner around 11:00 p.m. that Thursday night.<br /><br />Of course that's just a newspaper story - but, as with the sniffer dogs' behaviour, the McCann spin machine made no effort to repudiate it. Instead they came up with a fictitious explanation.<br /><br />And why is that important? Because, according to all accounts of how the word was spread, i.e. official (FCO/NPIA) public statements and the McCanns', no one contacted either the British Consulate or the British Embassy before midnight.<br /><br />In the immortal words of Clarence Mitchell:<br /><br />"there is somebody, perhaps one, or just two or three people out there who know what happened and that there was an element of pre-meditation, pre-planning went into it."<br /><br />You are of course at liberty to disagree.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-25996022737346488432017-03-31T16:36:23.537+01:002017-03-31T16:36:23.537+01:00Surely it depends on how trustworthy the person is...Surely it depends on how trustworthy the person is who is conducting the test Ros!<br />Would it be yet another member of Team McCann ?<br />They've "commissioned" plenty of those to churn out sympathy and support, Kate's gym buddy Tracy and discredited ex police with theories that simply ignore EVERY SINGLE TIME the evidence of the dogs - The identification of cadaver in areas and on Kate's clothes and blood spots. <br />Where would that leave all the advocates for a lie detector test?<br />Such tests are simply not acceptable in our courts. <br />They think we are all simpletons and fools!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-89756630683042771992017-03-31T16:17:56.282+01:002017-03-31T16:17:56.282+01:00"Sorry, I meant to add there, passing a lie d..."Sorry, I meant to add there, passing a lie detector test would go a long way to lift the cloud of suspicion from the parents. And it would be far cheaper and less time consuming that suing ex detectives. "<br /><br />Bollocks. Nothing the McCanns can do will stop the mob. Besides, this is the UK not the US - lie-detectors have no place here, and rightly so. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-20055985393636758932017-03-31T15:06:43.890+01:002017-03-31T15:06:43.890+01:00What the McCanns offered 13:32, was a 'poster ...What the McCanns offered 13:32, was a 'poster child', an attractive, appealing face to front child protection and missing kids. Sometimes the answer is directly in front of us. <br /><br />There is nothing 007 about Gerry and Kate, they are not even special. There are articulate, erudite, professionals who allowed their daughter's face to be used to inflate bogus claims of child abuse and child abduction. May their God forgive them. <br /><br />Blair and Brown are just as much to blame. They too used the cute Madeleine to boost their own popularity. Look at what compassion PMs we are to have taken time out to speak to the bereft parents personally. For the cynics out there, remember Tony Blair also supported the campaign to free Coronation Street's Deirdre Barlow. <br /><br />On first appearances 13:32, Gerry and Kate represented the British dream. Upwardly mobile professionals with 2.4 children, church going, law abiding, non users of drugs or substances. What's not to like? An updated OXO family. <br /><br />An ad agency couldn't dream that kind of stuff up, no wonder the airplanes to PLD on 4th May, were packed with lawyers and spin doctors. <br /><br />Gerry is not special (though he thinks he is), none of his campaigns have led to hordes of followers. The opposite in fact. Hacked Off who appeared to be doing quite well, nose dived when he took the helm. <br /><br />I believe that what happened on the night of 3rd May 2007, is pretty much a described by Goncalo Amaral in his book The Truth of the Lie. <br /><br />That is nothing premeditated, nothing pre-planned - all those responded REacted to the situation, they didn't create it. That it has gone far, is one embarrassment covering up another - there will be a sea of red faces when the truth is revealed. <br /><br />As I believe GA said, none of it needs to be embellished, and I would add, it is as it is. In order to clear the McCanns, Operation Grange will have to come up with a bespoke story, in the same way as they came up with a bespoke crecheman, to fit the statements of Gerry, Kate and their pals. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-23649187696016355172017-03-31T14:39:49.407+01:002017-03-31T14:39:49.407+01:00@Anon 31 March 09:41
Hi
Yes true in a sense. Still...@Anon 31 March 09:41<br />Hi<br />Yes true in a sense. Still the Supreme Court must have referred, even if it was implicit, to the final report of the Prosecutors' report dated 2008 regarding the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine, when it concluded that the McCanns had not been cleared in the investigation 2007/2008. Yes, there are two quite different cases, yet linked to one another as I've tried to describe.Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-32900937479377941272017-03-31T14:03:28.135+01:002017-03-31T14:03:28.135+01:00Hi Rosalinda
Thanks for feed back. In a few months...Hi Rosalinda<br />Thanks for feed back. In a few months we may hopefully get some kind of final report from the S Y, helping us to understand how they have co-operated with the P J and what final conclusion they may then have reached.Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-68964525550257324922017-03-31T13:32:52.227+01:002017-03-31T13:32:52.227+01:00"Presuming it is yourself"
Not this tim..."Presuming it is yourself"<br /><br />Not this time. It was a quote from ZS.<br /><br />I dare say he could offer his own 'clarification' (not the Mitchell approach I would hope), but for my part I cannot envisage a situation which lets the McCanns off the hook.<br /><br />Although others would disagree, I take the government interference as a 'given', which raises the question: 'On whose behalf, exactly?'<br /><br />'Ziggy's' previous argument(s), while recognizing the government's role, seeks absolution for the McCanns at the same time.<br /><br />Let's imagine for a moment the establishment's being desperate to conceal something perpetrated by one of its own, be it abduction, homicide or whatever, yet quite independent of the McCann family. Can we also envisage that family standing by for a promise of 'safety from prosecution', while their daughter has been 'taken' from them, permanently or otherwise?<br /><br />Not likely. Anyone who knew those responsible for such a crime against them (as they would have to in the face of government 'reassurances') would raise Cain, no matter where the blame ultimately lay. (I'm reminded of Richard Feynman's exposure of the culprit 'O-rings' at the inquiry into the Challenger shuttle disaster. His incontrovertible proof showed up the political bullies inside NASA for the imbeciles they were).<br /><br />The McCanns, however, appear not to know 'whodunnit' even now. So why should they behave in a seemingly clueless fashion if they DO KNOW what went on?<br /><br />The obvious answer, it seems to me, is that it is ultimately they who are being protected, either because one or other of them has something to offer, or has offered it in the past - absolution as a recompense for services rendered you might say. Quite what those services might be is another matter for discussion/speculation ad nauseam.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-61500828017191005312017-03-31T12:32:35.550+01:002017-03-31T12:32:35.550+01:00Your final sentence 'for an abduction? I don&#...Your final sentence 'for an abduction? I don't think so somehow'. Apologies, I don't know if that is your statement or a c/p 11:00.<br /><br />Presuming it is yourself, are you implying there is much, much more than an abduction? Perhaps you could clarify.<br /><br />Imo, the interference of the UK government in the summer of 2007 and perhaps ongoing, is enough to warrant a Public Inquiry. Basically, they prevented the Portuguese police from doing their job. And yes, WikiLeaks was very enlightening on that one. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-76413182751035737152017-03-31T11:52:11.160+01:002017-03-31T11:52:11.160+01:00When DCI Redwood introduced 'Crecheman', I...When DCI Redwood introduced 'Crecheman', I wondered if he had made a deal with Jane Tanner? JT would be facing pretty hefty charges of perverting the course of justice, if her sighting was invented. I'm not so sure now. I think if one had 'cracked', the rest would have swiftly followed. <br /><br />It is absurd to think that the PJ didn't check the night crèche records for 3rd May imo. Crecheman was created to fit the sketch given by JT, not the other way round, which was bizarre. <br /><br />But apart from covering JT's arse, the introduction of Crecheman changed the timeline - that is it added another 45 minutes onto the window of opportunity. DCI Redwood imo, opened that window of opportunity to bring forward new witnesses. It also validated the Smiths sighting (45 mins later) with those infamous efits that look just like Gerry!Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.com