tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post5521338992507936370..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: HAPPY NEW YEAR - REVELATIONS IN SIGHTRosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-6026926498924864642019-02-15T10:18:28.926+00:002019-02-15T10:18:28.926+00:00If it isn't a daft comment, but does anyone e...If it isn't a daft comment, but does anyone else think that there could be some 'burying of bad news' around the time of Brexit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-51488430158821115572019-01-31T18:15:52.949+00:002019-01-31T18:15:52.949+00:00I think the fact that Matt will not state whether ...I think the fact that Matt will not state whether he saw Madeleine points to one of two options which are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. 1. Madeleine was not there. 2. Madeleine was there but no longer alive. I think when Kate is reported as yelling out: 'the b*******' have taken her, she is referring to Madeleine (I suspect deceased by this point) having been removed from where-ever she had been hidden prior to 10pm on Thursday evening. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-74086761952826172422019-01-24T21:05:55.722+00:002019-01-24T21:05:55.722+00:001578: “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt ...1578: “Was the first attempt, the earlier attempt as you say. When was this drafted up”?<br /><br />ROB: “Erm this was drafted er around the time that the initial pair of Officers from the PJ came to 5A (inaudible) early in the morning of the fourth of May, two thousand and seven so erm I can certainly recall writing some of this, I think perhaps the neat, maybe the neater version erm sat down at the table in Gerry’s flat with Gerry erm Dave PAYNE and at least at some stage of it, the two Officers from the, from the PJ”.<br /><br />1578: “What would have been the time difference between these two documents”?<br /><br />ROB: “Er that I’m not too sure, I think what, what essentially I’m doing, is I’m, I’ve written something here fairly quickly for myself and then I’ve looked at it and thought it’s, it’s not actually gonna be useful to hand to anyone to read other than me, so I think they’re probably not that far, I’ve written that and then I’ve sat down, perhaps I was writing this with that being on my knee or something and never sat down, but I don’t, I don’t recall the time difference but, but we’re looking at from what I describe about my activities in the run up to this, to these being within you know, a short space of time, half an hour, maybe even less, I don’t think I wrote this, had it in my pocket for a night, the other thing that makes me think that is, is probably the front of the back cover of a book”.<br /><br />1578: “Yes”.<br /><br />ROB: “So I’ve probably, I’ve probably written it, thought that’s rubbish, even I can barely read it, let’s start again, I don’t think there’s much time difference”.<br /><br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm<br /><br />1578: “To the earlier version”.<br /><br />ROB: “Mmm mmm”.<br /><br />1578: “You see that at nine thirty five, you have written”.<br /><br />ROB: “Matt checks, Matt checks the twins, checks and sees twins”.<br /><br />1578: “Matt checks and sees twins”.<br /><br />ROB: “It looks like that, yeah that what it looks like, as I say it’s, it’s, it’s not even that great for me to read there, but it does say Matt, Matt checks and sees twins, so this is as I said after Matt left me in 5D, he’s gone back and I think there was a, certainly there was a concern that Matt was, whether he actually definitely saw Madeleine at the time or not, he can certainly (inaudible) certainly in the, in the days and hours afterwards I mean Matt was unsure about whether he definitely clocked Madeleine in the room, although he was quite convinced that he, he, both the twins were there, so I think that’s why I’ve written that there”.<br /><br />And so on.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-63086678468014659212019-01-24T20:49:01.417+00:002019-01-24T20:49:01.417+00:0011:31
'Gerald' http://www.mccannpjfiles.c...11:31<br /><br />'Gerald' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2578a.jpg<br /><br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm<br /><br />1578: “Which one came first”<br /><br />Russel O'Brien: “Erm as we discussed the other day, I’d forgotten these over the year but I think this is an attempt, this is a draft attempt, they’re both in my handwriting, this is a draft attempt, err and then I think I’m transcribing in a slightly more a neater writing, hoping that it’s more legible for other people to read as well, so I think this one came first”.<br /><br />1578: “So just to differentiate between the two documents”.<br /><br />ROB: “Mmm mmm”.<br /><br />1578: “One of them has the word ‘Gerald’.” <br /><br />ROB: “Mmm mmm”.<br /><br />1578: “Written towards the lower half of the document and the other one does not”.<br /><br />ROB: “Yeah”.<br /><br />1578: “You’re saying the one with ‘Gerald’ written on it, was the final document”.<br /><br />ROB: “Well it was certainly second one, I said I think I was writing this down in a hurry when I”.<br /><br />1578: “It came after this, this first one”.<br /><br />ROB: “It came after this one yeah, yeah”.<br /><br />1578: “So the one that doesn’t bare the name of ‘Gerald’”.<br /><br />ROB: “Is the earlier one”.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-75624246494030701392019-01-24T11:31:25.569+00:002019-01-24T11:31:25.569+00:00The Tapas timelines. The first one has the name &#...The Tapas timelines. The first one has the name 'Gerard' written under it. Why 'Gerard'? The second I presume was written by Russell? <br /><br />Note how the child is described as motionless/limp consistent with sleeping or possibly drugged. <br /><br />http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8617-the-tapas-timelineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-36791922695633927092019-01-22T12:16:16.802+00:002019-01-22T12:16:16.802+00:00it's even more simple than that. the police in...it's even more simple than that. the police investigating start with questioning the people who last see the missing individual...effectively removing them from their enquiries. this has not happened due to refusal to answer questions under caution by km....refusal to do reconstruction etc. the mc canns have never removed themselves from the enquiries therefore investigators can't look deeper than this starting point of the investigation. so although innocent till proven guilty they have not cleared their involvement in their daughters disappearence.Anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187534000871902285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-47513160723679965982019-01-20T23:34:52.532+00:002019-01-20T23:34:52.532+00:00The role of Jez Wilkins (and his partner Bridget) ...The role of Jez Wilkins (and his partner Bridget) is clearly of interest in this case as Dr Amaral's urgent fax demonstrates. It is of note that Bridget, in an article written in the Guardian months after the alleged abduction, claimed that the Portuguese police never bothered to contact Jez. She surely must have known this was not true? Journalist Bridget used to work for Crimewatch and Jez was/is a TV drama/documentary producer. The pair were apparently slumbering (Jez statement) as one of the biggest news stories of the decade broke around them and it was only in the early hours of that fateful Friday morning, apparently, that they were awoken from their dreams. Matt, in the company of the OC resort manager, told them that Madeleine had been abducted and that Gerry said he had seen Jez earlier that evening and wanted to know if he - Jez- had he seen anything. Jez's reply to this was: 'You're joking!' It is not entirely clear what part of Matt's speech he was referring to with this comment. But the couple appear to have considered there was nothing they could do, as they claim they didn't bother to go and look for Madeleine but stayed in their apartment and eventually went back to sleep after Matt's visit. <br /><br />This seems somewhat bizarre given that their daughter apparently played with Madeleine that week (Bridget's article) and also given their media roles. Why did they assume there was nothing they could do to help, especially when you consider that Bridget used to work for Crimewatch and would know how important the first few hours are after a child goes missing? Also - they are journalists and it was a potential news story.<br /><br />But no - they just go back to sleep. Weird....<br /><br />(The Jon Ramsay Bennett case does have some parallels with the McCann case in my opinion. Talking of written notes left, some time after the arrival of the police on the Thursday evening, the Tapas tore a page out of Madeleine's sticker book and wrote up a timeline of events which included Jane Tanner seeing Madeleine's 'abductor' at around 9.15pm. I think there may have even been two time-lines written up...?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-82933382524910574562019-01-15T20:01:08.982+00:002019-01-15T20:01:08.982+00:00There does seem to be some confusion as to what &q...There does seem to be some confusion as to what "ruled innocent" actually means in this case. It has nothing to do with the judicial term inocent until proved guilty. The McCanns were never ruled out, by the Portuguese police, of involvement in their daughter's disappearance and so remain suspects even though the arguido status was lifted. Hence the McCanns have not been "ruled innocent."ruth bashfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04948982017286104696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-39702884840138354332019-01-14T14:52:58.067+00:002019-01-14T14:52:58.067+00:00Hi JC thank you for taking time out to write such ...Hi JC thank you for taking time out to write such an eloquent post. <br /><br />The passing of time does nothing to support the parents' claims JC, in fact, when we look back on the summer of 2007, we can only wonder wtf were 'we' (actually mostly the media) were thinking? Gerry and Kate were articulate, well groomed, middle class professionals, a cut above the usual brits misbehaving abroad. They were taking boxes of chardonnay, not diamond white back to their chalets. The idea that someone in a suit or M&S casuals could be capable of a heinous crime is an aberration to the average Little Englander and an anointed police chief. <br /><br />The equally polished Ramseys used their wealth and status to demonstrate their innocence, but as you say, that letter written by Patsy Ramsey confirmed their involvement. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-39942485939155853852019-01-13T21:22:41.093+00:002019-01-13T21:22:41.093+00:00Data: 07-05-2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P...Data: 07-05-2007<br /><br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_510.jpg<br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_511.jpg<br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_512.jpg<br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_513.jpg<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-47902568122655989532019-01-13T19:18:30.686+00:002019-01-13T19:18:30.686+00:00"By FAX
Department of Criminal Investigation ..."By FAX<br />Department of Criminal Investigation at PORTIMAO.<br /><br />CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT.<br /><br />To : Detective Chief Superintendent Robert Hall<br />Fax: 00441XXXXXXXXX<br />From: Goncalo Amaral - C.I.C. no D.I.C. de PortimAo<br />C/C : Fax:<br />Data: 07-05-2007 . No pages : 03<br />Ref : N / ref : Inq. 201107.0 GALGS<br />Subject : Request for Collaboration"<br /><br />snip then:<br /><br />"2. In the spirit of Police to Police Cooperation we request the presence of a British Criminal Analyst who may be able to assist the enquiry.<br />Also the collaboration of the UK's "Child Exploitation Online Protection" may be useful if they wish to send one of their officers to provide assistance to the investigation,<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Coordinator of Criminal Investigation :<br /><br />Goncalo Amaral."<br /><br />http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-19364430073533057242019-01-13T16:28:49.689+00:002019-01-13T16:28:49.689+00:00Hi T
From the Truth of the Lie C5.
GA states we ...Hi T<br /><br />From the Truth of the Lie C5.<br /><br />GA states we start to welcome our colleagues from Leics on Monday 7th May.<br /><br />Monday 7th May C6.<br /><br />Bob Small of the Leics CID and a colleague meet us to take stock of the situation before making contact with the McCanns.<br /><br />GA knew nothing of the LP meeting the McCanns on Saturday, 5th May.<br />The LP activity was unlawful.<br /><br />GA - "We insist on knowing what our English counterparts are in Portugal to do. I assigned one of my officers to follow the English Superintendent like a shadow and keep me informed about his actions.<br /><br />I want to be informed of everything he learns, the names of people he meets and the places he goes to."<br /><br />It doesn't smell of close cooperation does it?<br /><br />Another most interesting player is Supt Graham Hill on secondment from Surrey police to CEOP.<br /><br />Why was he in PDL? ACPO had no idea and had not authorised his attendance. Who instructed Hill to break the law?<br /><br />Is it a mere coincidence his boss at Surrey in 2007 was Mark Rowley later to oversee OG? Corruption runs throughout this case and its why it is still continuing.<br /><br />The LP never ever thought the PJ would release the files and by doing so they confirm 19 people have either perverted the course of justice, attempted to pervert the course of justice, or carried out misconduct in public office. The 19 include 12 UK policemen but do not include Kate McCann, Gerry McCann or Jane Tanner or any UK politician.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-36158665662308479572019-01-13T11:37:09.111+00:002019-01-13T11:37:09.111+00:00Morning, JJ
Good to see you. Grateful for your c...Morning, JJ<br /><br />Good to see you. Grateful for your comment. Very interesting. I remember you are knowledgeable about the LP aspect. Would you be so kind as to expand a bit on your last paragraph and give the source? I would appreciate it.<br /><br />Nappy New Year.<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-25804452066604425282019-01-13T00:38:12.750+00:002019-01-13T00:38:12.750+00:00Hi Rosalinda,
How likely is it that three investig...Hi Rosalinda,<br />How likely is it that three investigations would be running parallel at a crime scene at the same time.<br /><br />First off is the investigation by police forces in Portugal where the crime took place.<br />Second there would be (and is) an investigation by British police because it turned out the suspects in the crime were (by bad luck for the Portuguese) a couple of know-nothing foreigners on vacation, two English doctors and their English friends.<br />Had these people had been Portuguese citizens and not fled the <br />country while on bail (basically, as "Arguidos")they would have been convicted years ago. <br /><br />Mr Gerald and Mrs Kate McCann's mode of attack, like bloodhounds on the prowl (apologies to Martin Grime and his forensic tracker dogs) would like us to think otherwise. They decided to organize a third (private investigation), still underway. <br /><br />The notion was that it was impossible that a respected heart doctor and his GP wife could ever be implicated in any sort of crime. <br />(The couple's public meeting with the Pope Francis, Tony Blair, and Oprah proved that).<br /><br />No. What happened was this : A criminal abductor was watching their holiday apartment and snatched their child while they were out drinking: end of story.<br /><br />Why would two loving doctors like the McCanns stage a fake abduction theory funded by donations from the public? <br />Because they care.<br />They care about saving their own skins and need to keep the police forces of the world searching for a daughter they alone know the whereabouts of. <br /><br />Laughable? except for the tragedy of the little girl used as a pawn to elevate the parents beyond reproach and help them become the victims themselves. They, the people who had already disposed of her body.<br /><br />I don't want to get too macabre on this beautiful Saturday afternoon, but in the Jon Benet Ramsey case the American police had at least the poor girl's body to go with as evidence. It still turned out to be not enough for a prosecution and in the end the Ramseys walked free.<br />I always thought the fake ransom note left by the killer (but really written by Patsy Ramsey) would doom them, but once again there was pressure in high places and the case was stalled. <br />Have a nice day.<br />jc <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-80316153013979042632019-01-12T22:50:32.646+00:002019-01-12T22:50:32.646+00:00@ Anonymous12 January 2019 at 12:15
How can anyon...@ Anonymous12 January 2019 at 12:15<br /><br />How can anyone be "ruled innocent" when they have never been arrested, charged and sent for trial?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-16903487999106826022019-01-12T19:50:43.487+00:002019-01-12T19:50:43.487+00:00@12:09
Good evening.
“But by not answering the q...@12:09<br /><br />Good evening.<br /><br />“But by not answering the questions , they were hampering the investigation<br />the police told her this”<br /><br />Tough luck for the police, they should do something to have the law changed in their favour. <br /><br />“This wasn't some random case know one knew about the worlds media were watching , so there was really no excuse for taking the 5th”<br /><br />Nothing to do with the McCanns who, having been made formal suspects, had the right to remain silent and needed no excuse to exercise that right. Gerry did answer questions.<br /><br />I love watching Joe Kenda on the Discovery crime channel , its interesting to hear his views on those that stay silent.<br /><br />The name inaudibly rings a bell. Since you’ve mentioned him, what are his views on the many of those who answered all questions, were convicted for the crimes they hadn’t committed, jailed and, later (sometimes very much later), their convictions overturned, released? Having read and understood my question, do you still think it wise to answer questions under caution when your eminent legal advisors say you shouldn’t? <br /><br />The Devil’s advocate<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-36417597997068162852019-01-12T18:06:47.068+00:002019-01-12T18:06:47.068+00:00The actions of the Leics police point to Madeleine...The actions of the Leics police point to Madeleine's demise. They were there in PDL on Saturday 5th May supposedly to assist the PJ.<br /><br />Leave aside for the moment the PJ knew nothing about this. On Sunday 6th May Lori Campbell reported her suspicions of Murat to the LP in England.<br /><br />She, nor any member of the media, knew there were UK police officers in PDL. The LP wanted to keep their presence hidden. They were not there to find M, or to gather info from expats or holidaymakers.<br /><br />The LP in England knew they had officers in PDL and could have given them the RM info and followed it up immediately on the ground with the PJ. But they did not. Because it would expose their illegal activities.<br /><br />So DC Hardy simply emailed a report to the PJ in Portugal to be picked up on Monday .<br /><br />No urgency whatsoever,to find or rescue Madeleine<br /><br />Either the LP completely failed in their duty to MM or they already knew her fate.<br /><br />The next day the LP got Campbell and Ian Woods of Sky, to lie over her suspicions (still available on the internet), proving OG is completely incompetent or deliberately corrupt.<br /><br />People forget Amaral had the LP under surveillance, from the off, as he did not trust them, particularly the head of Leicester CID.JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-16619559465445517702019-01-12T15:56:57.146+00:002019-01-12T15:56:57.146+00:00Anonymous 10 January 2019 at 15:06
I am sorry I d...Anonymous 10 January 2019 at 15:06<br /><br />I am sorry I didn’t see you comment yesterday.<br /><br />With respect.<br /><br />“Where in any statements or public evidence is it stated that, prior to Madeleine's disappearance (and the subsequent forensic testing of their toothbrushes), the family shared one toothbrush.” <br /><br />As far as I know, one toothbrush is a myth. I do not recall hearing the forensic testing of toothbrushes had been undertaken.<br /><br />But let’s get back to the salient point of our exchange. Where in my statement “One toothbrush for three siblings in a family of two medics [medics’ T] sounds disingenuous indeed.” have I referred to “the family”?<br /><br />If you would agree, we could end this discussion forthwith, with ten points for perseverance going to your good self.<br /><br />I do appreciate your attention to detail, for therein the Devil so often is.<br /><br />I really like the way you talk, and I really like the way you walk, and I’m most grateful for your having been so patient and civil.<br /><br />Kind regards.<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-91633125280891949812019-01-12T14:35:20.441+00:002019-01-12T14:35:20.441+00:00Kate as the client did not have to take her lawyer...Kate as the client did not have to take her lawyer's advice, ultimately the decision was her's. (I may have misused an apostrophe there lol). It is easy to blame the lawyer, and they have, but lawyers are servants not masters.<br /><br />The Law is often an ass T, an arena for one smartass to outwit another smartass. Ultimately the legal profession is based on 'I'm right and I can prove it', even if it means pouring over every musty old law book ever written including the Magna Carta. Happily, life, if not the law, evolves.<br /><br />I jest, mostly, I spent almost a lifetime working for musty old lawyers, and there was many a time I was able to scratch beneath the surface, figuratively speaking of course, ha ha. <br /><br />Perhaps if Kate had answered those questions we would not be here 12 years later T. Kate was not selective in the questions she chose not to answer, she refused to answer any of them. The not needed excuse that she could incriminate herself had she replied is weak and evasive. When interviewed Clarence should have been pushed harder, because her lawyer told her not to, wasn't then, and isn't now, good enough to convince her audience that her reasons for not co-operating with the police are innocent. <br /><br />Kate has of course, had ample opportunity to answer those questions T, in her book and in the campaigns they ran. She may have found the idea demeaning, and I'm guessing she did, but it would have gone a long away to lift suspicion from herself and her husband. Thus far, the McCanns have done nothing to disprove the allegations that have been thrown at them. I say nothing, because Kate's book and Gerry's blog were of the happy clappy everyone loves us (except the horrid Goncalo Amaral)because we are heroes variety, and both fail to address GA's theories directly. They had all the airtime and tabloid pages available to them, why did they not use that directly from God, gift to refute and rebut every argument put forward by Goncalo Amaral? Getting redtops to call him a sardine muncher, is the endgame of a playground squabble, not a valid rebuttal. Think of the millions they could have saved, if they had just presented their innocent credentials to the world on primetime TV? <br /><br />Anyway, Cheers T, I missed you for a while there, but glad to see you are very much still here. I agree you with you on JC, I too like fire! G'awd 'elp us from the monotone PC brigade who are determined to make everyone as dull as themselves.<br /><br />I am presently up in arms (if raising an eyebrow counts) at the hoo ha surrounding un PC, American comedian Kevin Hart. Even though I am a Marxist, feminist, socialist, ha ha, I have zero tolerance for the culture of victimhood. Those who scour the internet or obsess over celebrities, looking for words to be offended by have my least respect. Removing words from our vocabulary is an obscenity in itself, now they are attempting to suck out all the humour. In my experience gay people love gay humour (in all it's forms) just as Irish people love being ribbed for being Irish. Get a bunch of celts together and you have an evening of laugh out loud ribbing, followed by a punch up, forgiveness and promises of lifelong devotion ending with a coming together for a tuneless rendition of Oh Danny Boy. <br /><br />But, tis still the season of Hogmanay (does it last til Burn's Night?), so I will raise a glass of kindly cheer and wish you all the best for the new year :)Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-67147050297251906122019-01-12T13:52:42.145+00:002019-01-12T13:52:42.145+00:00Anonymous12 January 2019 at 10:40
“The most likel...Anonymous12 January 2019 at 10:40<br /><br />“The most likely reason for not answering the 48 questions was that the couple was being questioned separately and they feared that their answers would not be the same.”<br /><br />Yours is a very good guess. However, I think there must have been more to it.<br /><br />The McCanns had had plenty of time to get their story straight before they were questioned. KM could have answered the questions to which only she would have known the answers.<br /><br />The McCanns, undoubtedly, had access to, and followed, the best legal advice available. The advice was good: apparently, the Portuguese had no evidence against the McCanns that would justify preveningt them from leaving for the safety of Albion. And so… the McCanns left and have never looked back.<br /><br />You may wish to have a look at the penultimate paragraph of my Anonymous 9 January 2019 at 00:02 comment.<br /><br />Would you mind telling me if ‘Carolina’ rhymes China or Pinner?<br /><br /><i>Muchas gracias</i>.<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-58149302555600578552019-01-12T12:59:47.584+00:002019-01-12T12:59:47.584+00:00Aaah T, Happy New Year my friend :)
Apologies for...Aaah T, Happy New Year my friend :)<br /><br />Apologies for the delay in replying to your goodself and others T, I am going through yet another transition and the dice has not yet landed.<br /><br />I would agree that we don't need excuses to exercise our rights T, from a legal perspective that is, but it isn't just a legal argument. The Law may say we can't take any inference from a witness exercising his/her right to remain silent, but the actuality is, we do, or more importantly, the police do. I don't know the stats, but I suspect most innocent witnesses do not exercise their right to remain silent. Robert Murat didn't - he talked for as long as they wanted to listen.<br /><br />But again T, the moral argument overrides every other. As the mother of a missing child, it is incomprehensible that she would not want to tell the police everything she knew. And as a distressed mother, she could not have the judgment to know what was or wasn't relevant. That of course supports the lawyer being present of course, but unless the lawyer knows the truth, he/she won't know what's relevant either. <br /><br />Kudos to Team McCann, Clarence et al in their valiant attempts to make Kate's right to remain silent sound reasonable, but I am not sure it succeeds. Most would say the rights of the child to be found, from a moral if not legal perspective, should override Kate's rights to self preservation. <br /><br />We have all asked ourselves the question, why wouldn't Kate co-operate with the police, and we can only conclude it's because she had something to hide. Very few, outside of Team McCann, believe the Portuguese police were trying to set the parents up. Why would they? It was not in their interests to leave a child predator on the loose in their own backyards. <br /><br />continues<br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-83312659309611866572019-01-12T12:15:21.276+00:002019-01-12T12:15:21.276+00:00Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled inn...Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent when it comes to their daughter’s disappearance, a judge in Portugal’s highest court has said.<br /><br />The fund certainly helped , secure a top legal team , why they needed one as the victims of crime ? is anyones guess . well it isn't really is it Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-7812164053782567802019-01-12T12:09:14.109+00:002019-01-12T12:09:14.109+00:00But by not answering the questions , they were ham...But by not answering the questions , they were hampering the investigation <br />the police told her this , This wasn't some random case know one knew about the worlds media were watching , so there was really no excuse for taking the 5th <br /><br />I love watching Joe Kenda on the Discovery crime channel , its interesting to hear his views on those that stay silent Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-82473173670888825382019-01-12T12:04:30.011+00:002019-01-12T12:04:30.011+00:00I do happen to like the stream of consciousness wr...I do happen to like the stream of consciousness writing of JC, very few people can or do write naturally, it is a gift that JC has in abundance. Too many when they put pen to paper are so concerned with what other people will think of them that their writing becomes stilted and overly self aware, it is as uncomfortable to read as it was for the author to write.<br /><br />As for JC's words coming from a 'sick mind with nothing better to do etc', good heavens. Confronting reality is not 'sick', pretending reality doesn't exist is in fact sicker. This Stepford, Disneyesque world of perfection created by the McCanns and their crew, is a distortion of reality that the public are no longer buying. They got away with the whole 'princess being kept in a tower' mythology for way too long. They were asking not for a prince to rescue her, but loads of money. Pretending everything is nice can only work for so long, and for this sorry tale, time has run out. I think before long the whole world is going to know the reality 18:36, and it's anything but nice. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-85839093181915713802019-01-12T11:34:57.631+00:002019-01-12T11:34:57.631+00:00Anonymous 9 January 2019 at 14:35
TSHP
Asked clo...Anonymous 9 January 2019 at 14:35<br /><br /><b>TSHP</b><br /><br />Asked cloud. Awaiting answer. Faraday cage. Will advise. JB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com