Sunday 5 March 2017

THE DAMAGING IMPACT OF MCCANN TROLLS



I was interested to see that three university forensic psychologists have published the results of their research into online trolling, focussing on the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

I can of course see why the case of missing Madeleine was selected.  Madeleine vanished at a time when social media was in it's infancy, arguably Madeleine was the first missing child to have the power of the internet behind her.  Gerry didn't don hiking boots to search for his daughter, he opened his laptop, and, some might say, Pandora's box. 

From the perspective of studying trolling and antisocial behaviour online, the McCann hashtag might well be unique. I haven't looked, but I understand there are similar hashtags in the cases of Amanda Knox, Oscar Pistorius and Jonbenet Ramsey.  Dr. Synnott may be interested to know that notorious 'pro' McCann, Jayelles, was equally gripped by the Jonbenet case, though against the parents on that occasion. 

What troubles me about Dr. Synnott's research, and I admit I haven't read the full paper, is that it doesn't seem to explore the reasons behind the trolling.  How it began, how it evolved and why it is still going strong 10 years later.

The paper appears to begin with confirmation bias, that is, they had already labelled their subjects malevolent and antisocial.  Easy to do on the McCann hashtag admittedly, but not an open minded approach to research. It is entitled 'the damaging impact the McCann' trolls behaviour has had on those victimized both online and offline'.  If that isn't a title with an agenda, I don't know what is?  It feels like a precursor to some sort of new clampdown on McCann critics, bringing that same eerie feeling that came with the Summers and Swan book and Jim Gamble's determination to get the lot of us into the dock.  Just before Sky News pounced on Brenda Leyland.  In any event, another snidey way in which to silence subversives on the internet, critics of the McCanns especially.
 

The big question of course is WHY these alleged trolls do what they do? Why are some of these people  obsessively tweeting virtually the same information over and over again?  I agree many of them do tick a lot of the abnormal behaviour boxes, and some are just downright mean.  The reasons for their meanness btw, can be found in their off script words, there is usually a lot of projecting going on.  That they are unleashing their anti social alter egos online under anonymous pseudonyms is not rocket science or even brain surgery. Just wait until (and if) you get around to researching the behaviour of the anonymous 'pro' McCann trolls, they take psychopathic behaviour to a whole new level. 

But getting back to the still active 10 years on McCann hashtag. Did those researchers, during any phase of their study, ever consider that the 'trolls' might believe they are right, or indeed, might be right?  That they might have good reason to believe the parents were involved in Madeleine's disappearance and are involved in what could well be the biggest crime story of the 21st Century?  If they have excluded those questions from their study, they have missed out on at least 50% of the reasons people still show an interest in this case, and in some cases, obsessively. A small child disappeared and the main suspects appear to be above the law.  Some might say they are protected by the establishment, maybe in the form of university papers that stress the parents' innocence and pronounce their critics bonkers. 

Dr. Synnot and his team seem to have approached their subject with the objective that anyone who doesn't believe the McCann's abduction story has got something wrong with them.  He says for example the researchers tried to join the discussion by 'introducing a scientific paper that debunks the core piece of evidence cited by the McCann Group.......'.  [the dogs].  Dr. Synnot it would seem, is not aware that the McCann media monitors have been trying to debunk the evidence of the dogs, since May 2007. That he thought this paper would win him friends and influence people, is bizarre, especially for a psychologist.

But let's get back to how it all began.  Gerry and Kate deliberately created a media sensation when their daughter disappeared, and for 10 years they have done everything in their power to keep that media sensation going, even paying Lord Bell £500k to keep them on the front pages for a year, which he did.  Does Dr. Synnott explore the fact that the 'victimized', the McCanns, have PR agents and a spokesman who ensure they are constantly in the news?  The Portuguese Supreme Court did.  

I also wonder if Dr. Synnott and his colleagues explored the phenomenon of 'paid shills'.  He seems to dismiss them as some sort of urban myth.  The fact is 'shilling' (if that's the right word), is probably one of the fast growing industries in the 21st century.  Social media can make or break careers and reputations, I would imagine most corporations, politicians, super rich etc, employ 'media monitors'.  Anonymous shills who will attempt to change opinion or disrupt.   In the Libel trial, Michael Wright revealed in the witness box, that the media monitoring began from the start.  That those they tried to silence fought back was inevitable.  Battles are no longer fought on sodden moors Dr. Synnott, they are fought on social media. 

 

83 comments:

  1. All of these blogs have these people who are there spending hour after hour disrupting and preventing any reasonable discussion.

    This blog has its own, his latest spoutings "I do what I like, when I like, where I like, I am that important to the internet" and other copious utterings of tripe.

    They inform us plebs they have more degrees than a thermometer and anybody putting forward items of interest, for discussion, are drowned out.

    On any blog, it matters not whether the Mccanns were involved, what must never be aired is the involvement of the Leics police.

    They had no authority or permission to met the Mccanns on Saturday 5th May.

    Amaral states he knew nothing, regarding the arrival of the British police until Monday 7th May, so what was the role of these officers.

    If they were in PDL in an honest capacity, they would have made themselves known, but they did not.

    Leicestershire officers knew by Sunday 6th May that Murat had been mentioned as a possible suspect.

    Did they inform their PJ colleagues on the ground, no they did not,as it would have exposed their unlawful activities in Portugal.

    Was it them that got Ian Woods of Sky, to cover up their presence in PDL and why if the Macs were totally innocent,why did the Leicestershire police feel the need to undermine the PJ.

    We know the Home Secretary, John Reid, authorised this activity. We are never meant to ask why.

    The man whose self importance knows no bounds came on to this blog shortly after attention was drawn, regarding the criminal offences of Rachel Oldfield and Fiona Payne another item never to be examined.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The so called 'shills' always pop up when the need for them is urgent (The Myths revisited). After all this years we should be able to live with them. Maybe it would be wiser not to answer them all the time. They also know the facts from the files. The notoriously unreliable dogs sniffed and barked the abduction 'theory' to pieces, for once and for all. The McCanns knew that. That's why they told us all that strange stories about 6 cadavers in England, sea bass loving twins, dirty nappies in the back of a car and on and on. You simply don't need that sort of 'explanations' when you don't feel the urgent need to hide your hastily invented (?) / preplanned (?) 'truth'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said 14:20. As someone else said: "What matters is the acknowledgment of cadaver odour and the subsequent efforts to excuse the cadaver odour."

      Delete
    2. I find the absolute acceptance by the forensic psychologists of the 'scientific paper' debunking the dogs' baffling. Did they read any scientific papers supporting the use of blood and cadaver dogs? Did they check out the success rate of Eddie and Keela? British dogs, highly trained by Scotland Yard. For the one expert debunking the alerts of the dogs, there are hundreds if not thousands of cases where specialist dogs have proved successful.

      In venturing onto the McCann hashtag with another load of nonsense intended to discredit the 11 alerts of two specialist dogs who have never been wrong before, these researchers are demonstrating a bias that completely invalidates their results.

      What kind of response did they expect with their 'I'm right and your wrong' approach?

      Delete
    3. ''JJ5 March 2017 at 12:27
      All of these blogs have these people who are there spending hour after hour disrupting and preventing any reasonable discussion.''

      Not agreeing that the McCanns are guilty is opening up discussion, it isn't disrupting.A genuine discussion, or debate, has more than one side.

      ''his latest spoutings "I do what I like, when I like, where I like, I am that important to the internet" and other copious utterings of tripe.''

      Point one- you aren't smart enough to accuse me or anyone else i see post here of 'spouting tripe'.If you took that remark as serious, you lack a sense of humour as well as intelligence.Your obsession with what i say here is disturbing.Where is your filter ? It's no good to yell personal insults and juvenile swearwords at people who post and then to think you qualify to give opinions on trolling or shills.All I say is nobody 'knows' what happened to Madeleine McCann.My evidence of that is an empty cell awaiting a new inmate.

      As for the more lucid of your observations, I'd say any protocol broken by UK Police or any similar anomalies are not down to the McCanns. If Amaral, or anyone involved with the PJ smelt a rat, they should have questioned it as soon as it began.I agree and have said from the outset that too many 'procedures' were ignored and replaced by new ones, and that something about that alone suggests there's more to Madeleine's 'disappearance' than just an abduction or murder. Far too many people involved themselves that shouldn't have( diplomats etc) and too much was done to stop the initial investigation. Anyone who thinks all of this was done by a married couple abroad on holiday isn't thinking as critically as they pretend to be.

      Delete
    4. Your medication needs strengthening. Please tell me where there are any juvenile swear words in my post above. Yelling on the internet is accepted as capitals, there are none.

      I never mentioned you by name but you recognised yourself by my description of a man whose self importance knows no bounds, it says it all really.

      You keep sayng everyone is entitled to an opinion but that I am not qualified to have one, you seem to be under the illusion this is now your blog. I do have a great sense of humour, you make me laugh, as you are a complete and utter clown.

      Delete
  3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 March 2017 at 15:39

    '' I find the absolute acceptance by the forensic psychologists of the 'scientific paper' debunking the dogs' baffling''

    I don't even know why psychologists-forensic or otherwise- were asked for, or even offered, an opinion about the finding of the dogs.Are you sure ?

    Rule one of Psychology is that there is no right or wrong-only a hypothesis that is supported significantly or not.Rule one of forensic investigators is that evidence doesn't lie. There's no way a psychological speculation can stand up against scientific , tangible evidence.

    The success rate of the dogs in question is impressive, but it's not a guarantee. Great detectives get one wrong eventually.Dogs can too.Referring to the overall success of cadaver dogs isn't worth anything.Different dogs;different cases.If that was an argument, you know a defence would find enough cases, no matter how few, where dogs evidence has been wrong.One or two would be enough to introduce 'reasonable doubt'.

    If the McCanns are guilty (as the vast majority of online detectives seem to think) then, as pointed out just above me^^ the efforts to excuse the cadaver dog's evidence is yet another important area that needs less speculating by the public and more investigating and explaining by those who excused it.Again, it could NOT have been merely at the command of the McCanns. Why would that happen for a pair of holiday makers ? How could the McCanns command two governments, two( plus) police forces, a media machine, and have everything funded and reported to keep them innocent of all charges.What power have they got ? Why has everyone I've just mentioned bent over backwards to keep them free ? What did so many people in high places have to lose by just charging them and letting the law take it's course ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy @17:38

      "Again, it could NOT have been merely at the command of the McCanns."

      Agreed.

      Delete
    2. The Leicestershire police met the McCanns unlawfully in PDL on Saturday 5th May.

      At this unlawful meeting the McCanns gave the Leicestershire officers a number of questions they wanted followed up and answered by the PJ. The officers statements are in the PJ files for anyone to read.

      So at the very first meeting with the British police, the McCanns were giving their orders, why do people keep denying it?

      Can anybody name another case where the possible suspects were dictating the questions to be asked?

      Delete
    3. Gerry and Kate always bring to mind those people who have attended assertiveness classes JJ. Or perhaps they never needed to.

      You are absolutely right JJ, what on earth were the most likely suspects doing directing the investigation? The arrogance is astounding but leads into my own pet theory that the 'God Complex' has played a major part in the planning and the operation of the entire 10 year (and counting) debacle. Who among us would have the sheer nerve to maintain a lie in the face of so much opposition. 'When a doctor does go wrong, he is the first of criminals. He has the nerve and he has the knowledge' [Arthur Conan Doyle].

      I don't think anyone can dispute Gerry and Kate took charge straight away JJ. Whilst others searched, they were directing operations via their mobile phones and the UK.

      They were instructed by the police not to seek publicity, but they did the opposite. They were also telling the police to distribute photos, put up road blocks and shut the borders.

      Then of course, they ran their own investigation alongside that of the police. Appealing to the public to visit their website and contact their telephone number. 'We hope the police can work with us' said John McCann. That was good of him.

      The only other case I can think of at this late hour JJ, is Jeremy Bamber. By the time the police arrived, he has already established who did what, where and why. From his perspective, the police were simply there to clean up.

      I would really love to know what the police detectives working this case really think. Are they frustrated that their hands are tied? Are they angry on behalf of Madeleine and fellow detective Goncalo Amaral? Do they draw straws as to who reads Bennett's and Petermac's endless drivel?

      I a loathe to criticise the officers of Operation Grange because I am not cynical enough to believe that so many police men and women would abandon a small child. Those fine principles held by Goncalo Amaral, that is justice for the victim, are, I am sure, universal.

      Delete
  4. JJ @12:27

    "Leics police...had no authority or permission to meet the Mccanns on Saturday 5th May."

    See link

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F-xWr9jZ7o

    Why was john Buck there 'to introduce them to the family' (that is the 3 FLOs who had just arrived, and who were supposed to be assigned in pairs)?

    Why was Bill Henderson not allowed to do the introductions? It was more his job. He was in PdL by 10:00 a.m. on the Friday, hours before Buck arrived. Glen Power (Police - Embassy liaison) was there also. Even he could have managed those few formalities.

    Hence we have police arriving without proper authorisation and an Ambassador who has nothing better to do than drive south for 3 hours in order to function beneath his pay grade, like a Chef waiting on tables.

    Closely followed by ACPO, CEOP, Elizabeth Dow MBE (Lisbon Consul) et al. (they all get a mention in 'madeleine').

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have discussed the McCanns' assertiveness above 17:40, we have all watched in wonderment as their demands have been met.

      Was it their ability to 'get things done', that gave them instant VIP status? Who did they call to get such a rapid consular response? Don't most distressed tourists have to go along to their embassies and sit in line for 20+ hours?

      The response from the British Government was way over the top. Never seen before, and I'm sure, never to be seen again. Government Spokesman ffs!

      I used to think PMs Blair and Brown latched onto the Madeleine case because it was a popular bandwagon. It had undertones of nationalism without actually saying the Portuguese are a shower of sardine munchers. That is, it rallied the great British nation behind Gerry and Kate, it united us in a cause. The plight of an innocent small girl. Nothing political about it.

      But now I'm not so sure. The 'popular bandwagon' theory is being taken over by something much more sinister. It begs the question, 'who's got what on who?'. Why have there been so many necks so willing to go on the line? Why would a PM (any of them), who must have had access to the non abduction side of the story, continue supporting a falsehood that could be exposed at any time?

      I have a feeling though that Government support for the McCanns stopped in June/July 2007. So too Warners freebies, they had to rent a villa. You probably know better than I JJ, but I don't think Clarence was still a government employee at that time?

      The Vanity Fair article is probably one of their most revealing interviews. It was quite amusing actually, because in many parts they thought they were speaking off the record - they weren't. Significantly in this interview Clarence states they had asked for a meeting with the PM or a Minister but all they were offered was some medium level consul. From this statement, it appears as though Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson etc, were beginning to distance themselves. Though of course, in the September, Gerry couldn't resist telling us that they had a motorcade of Special Branch to escort them home.

      I think government assistance stopped, or was severely cut back around midsummer 2007 JJ. At that time other British police agencies were involved. It was in July that British search specialist Mark Harrison suggested the PJ look at the parents and bring in the dogs.

      Delete
    2. John Reid the Home Secretary who authorised the illegal activity by the Leicestershire police resigned on the 27th June 2007.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda @02:14

      "Who did they call to get such a rapid consular response?"

      They didn't.

      "The first report to a UK agency in relation to the McCann case was made on 3 May 2007, in a call to the FCO duty officer in Portugal from the operator of the holiday resort where the family were staying. The duty officer informed the FCO in London on the same day, by which time a member of the McCann family had also made contact with the FCO" (p.13, NPIA debriefing report, 2009).

      The 'by which time' part about the McCann family member is BS. It was nearing midnight before any relatives in UK were contacted. What's left of this statement is highly suspicious therefore.

      "The 'popular bandwagon' theory is being taken over by something much more sinister. It begs the question, 'who's got what on who?'"

      It does indeed beg such a question. With a number of key initiatives being attributable to the Ocean Club, perhaps we should be looking more carefully in that direction.

      Delete
    4. So John Reid resigned on 27th June 2007, many thanks for that John. Something changed around June/July, that seems obvious. The media and the VIPs were still onboard, but the UK government, maybe not so much.

      I wonder when he was elevated to the House of Lords?

      Delete
    5. Ah, so the Ocean Club itself is the villain of the piece. Certainly, a new and novel approach 10:39.

      I don't know where you are going to go with that one 10:39, the whole PDL is a haven for paedophiles has never really taken off. I appreciate some well known dirty old men have had homes there, but the same could apply to any geographic area with or without idyllic views.

      Anyway, please don't be put off by my gentle ribbing, I look forward to hearing more.

      Delete
    6. Anon 6 Mar 10:39

      They did get a rapid and unprecedented consular response.

      We all saw the British Ambassador Buck in PDL on Friday 4th May giving a press conference.Why was he there?

      We know the consul, Bill Henderson, was in PDL by 10am. You state NPIA report is bullshit about the Mccann family contact to the FCO.

      Do you have any evidence to support any of this? According to the PJ files it was 23.40 when the phone call went to the UK, so it was perfectly possible for the FCO to be contacted before midnight.
      Opinion is fine but evidence is so much better

      Ros, Reid first put his nose in the trough at the House of Lords on the 16th July 2010.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda @15:03

      Who said anything about paedophiles? I didn't.

      The NPIA statement speaks for itself and, if you recall, some PR heavy hitters (Resonate/Bell Pottinger) were already at the Ocean Club at the invitation of Mark Warner.

      So the week is, in effect, bracketed by initiatives taken either by or on behalf of the facility, including a 'UK agency' being first contacted 'that day' (3 May) by an OC operator no less (the NPIA document refers elsewhere, and in a different context, to 'the management'. Its author(s) were aware of the distinction at the time therefore).

      Coincidentally(?), a 'phone call was made to the British Vice Consulate, Portimao at 14.04 'that day' (3 May).

      Ziggy Sawdust is under the impression that consulate switchboards virtually glow red hot with activity in any case, but ask yourself this: What is the likelihood of two calls being made to the BVC from the same tourist venue, on the same day (when even the McCanns didn't lose their passports - and they were burgled)?

      If we take into consideration (and I accept that perhaps you would rather not) the possible utilisation of apartment 5J of the Ocean Club for nefarious purposes, and the fact that the Murats are related to the Symington family, who had a fiscal interest in the place, then there would appear to be reasonable grounds for turning one's gaze in that direction.

      As I recall, Robert Murat returned in something of a hurry, in order to provide his urgent signature to some legal documentation. A cursory glance at his itinerary on landing, however, suggests that any such urgency was soon forgotten.

      Who might have succeeded in getting him post haste to PdL if not his solicitor? How about his mother, living just 100 yards down the road from the Ocean Club, who collected him from the airport and curiously treated him to a very leisurely drive home.

      But to reiterate, I do not believe paedophilia to be the connection.

      Delete
    8. Many thanks JJ. Please know that I am very grateful for your interesting contributions. The hits to my blog are currently 'going through the roof'. I am hoping this is a good sign, but alternately, I do fear I'm about to be extraordinarily renditioned!

      Delete
    9. Apologies 16:04, I let my imagination run away with me there :)

      I am curious however as to what you mean by 'nefarious purposes' in apartment 5J? Whatever do you mean, and why would you need a holiday apartment for nefarious purposes?

      I honestly don't believe Robert Murat was anything other than a friendly, helpful guy, who was trying to assist with his language skills. If he got a little carried away, so what? Who could blame him, he was in the midst of a circus he didn't create.

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda @16:30

      "I am curious however as to what you mean by 'nefarious purposes' in apartment 5J? Whatever do you mean, and why would you need a holiday apartment for nefarious purposes?"

      You ought to inform yourself about the nervous reactions of the original search and rescue animals (not Eddie or Keela) outside 5J. The same dogs behaved in a similar fashion around 5A. (But don't mention your findings to Ziggy or 06:21. You wouldn't want to upset them).

      "I honestly don't believe Robert Murat was anything other than a friendly, helpful guy"

      That's your prerogative. The PJ thought otherwise and I'm inclined to agree with them.

      Delete
    11. Anon 6 Mar 16:04

      More regurgitated nonsense, what is wrong with people?

      Murat did not return in something of a hurry. He booked his ticket on Monday 30th April confirmed at 01.57am. And flew on 1st May at 7am.

      29 hours later.

      The 1st May is a public holiday in Portugal and solicitors and Murat would know that. Why wouldn't he and his mother have a leisurely drive home, if they were not in a hurry.

      Don't believe all of Bennetts bullshit, read the PJ files instead. Let us have facts rather than innuendo and smear.

      I would bet, Murat wished he never came home, to this cauldron of crap.

      Delete
    12. JJ @15:11

      "They did get a rapid and unprecedented consular response."

      Yes they did. My negative answer was to the question 'Who did they call?' 'They' being the McCanns.

      According to the NPIA it was not the McCanns who initiated the onrush of diplomacy but the Operator of the Ocean Club 'in a call to the FCO duty officer in Portugal' (which one, I wonder?).

      Anyway, said 'duty officer' then telephones London 'on the same day'

      Which leaves me wondering why the author(s) did not use a more appropriate turn of phrase, such as 'immediately', shortly thereafter', 'that same night' etc.; they had several to choose from.

      Anyway, back to the plot.

      "You state NPIA report is bullshit about the Mccann family contact to the FCO."

      Not quite. I said the 'by which time' part of it was.

      Apparently the duty officer 'phoned London 'that day' which, by definition, must have been BEFORE midnight and, according to the same report, AFTER someone from the McCann family had already done so.

      "According to the PJ files it was 23.40 when the phone call went to the UK, so it was perfectly possible for the FCO to be contacted before midnight."

      Yes and yes. But that 23:40 call terminated at 23:51, following which the recipient (Tricia Cameron) must have put the receiver down before picking it up again in order to ring Strathclyde police for advice (as she explains in her statement of 15.4.08), after which her husband could call the Embassy in Lisbon, once he'd found the number (his corroborating statement also dated 15.4.08).

      That still leaves the small matter of a McCann family member 'phoning the FCO before the duty officer in Portugal.

      23:52 and GM makes a two-minute call to 'Uncle Brian' in Leicester. Perhaps he then made the all-important call.

      But there remained only five minutes for him to do so 'that day', and for the duty officer in Portugal to follow suit.

      According to an early report in the Telegraph, an 'FCO spokesperson' announced that the McCanns 'reported it straight away'. That was presumably to the someone at the Ocean club, as the police were not called until 10:40 (not exactly 'straight away').

      So we have the operator of the resort(not the telephone operator) reporting an emergency to a duty officer in Portugal, who then waits the best part of 2 hours before contacting London?

      Kate McCann tries to camouflage all of this in her book, describing calls to all and sundry as having been made by the Camerons and Uncle Brian.

      When set against the NPIA statement (the official word, shall we say) it simply doesn't work. Any more than the fable of Gerry's first call to a diplomat friend, which he never even made.

      I hope that clarifies things.




      Delete
    13. JJ @15:11

      I have already submitted a comprehensive reply but it has yet to appear. If it's landed in the 'spam' bucket, then I hope Ros. can resurrect it. Otherwise you'll just have to content yourself with this acknowledgement.

      Delete
    14. Retrieved and published JJ, apologies. I don't why it does it does that

      Delete
    15. JJ @19:16

      "Murat...booked his ticket on Monday 30th April confirmed at 01.57am."

      Do you have a link for that? I presume the e-mail's in the files somewhere but I have yet to find it.

      "I would bet, Murat wished he never came home"

      Probably.

      Delete
    16. JJ

      Please ignore the above request for a link. I've found the page at last.

      Delete
  5. @ Ros 15.39

    "Did they check out the success rate of Eddie and Keela? British dogs, highly trained by Scotland Yard."

    Were Eddie and Keela trained by Scotland Yard?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They certainly weren't trained in the McCann circus.

      Delete
    2. @ 19.00

      Congratulations your comment is straight from the cesspit rule book of replies.

      Not funny, not informative and completely irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. I can live with that. Don't mention the dogs.

      Delete
  6. ZiggySawdust5 March 2017 at 17:53 :

    ''Your obsession with what i say here is disturbing.Where is your filter ? It's no good to yell personal insults and juvenile swearwords at people who post and then to think you qualify to give opinions on trolling or shills''

    JJ5 March 2017 at 21:32 :

    1 -''Please tell me where there are any juvenile swear words in my post above... I do have a great sense of humour, you make me laugh, as you are a complete and utter clown.''

    2-''I never mentioned you by name''
    3-''Your medication needs strengthening''

    4-'' Yelling on the internet is accepted as capitals''

    1- The content quoting me is juvenile.Your ranting AT me is on every thread Ros begins.

    I'm no clown.Your opinion, or anyone elses, of me, is redundant.Worthless.

    2- You quoted me and passed( yet another) opinion about me.

    3- The 'you're mad, you' jokes are only hilarious in your own mind.Repeat until funny doesn't work in this case.Grow up.

    4- Thanks for that tip- I'll treasure it if i ever bang my head.

    Now- annoy someone else.You won't be getting any more attention from me. Think yourself lucky you've had any at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (1)
    @Ros

    I dug out the psychologist you talk about..

    "It is encouraging to see that ministers have called the major social media platforms to Whitehall to demand that they do more to protect people online from cyber bullying and trolling or face sanctions. This is a step in the right direction by making these platforms responsible for negative behaviour that they unfortunately enable."

    I can't prove it or be arsed to research it, but I suggest the good doctor had been commissioned to come up with this crap on behalf of the UK Government.He and his 'Igor' claim the McCann trolling debacle presented an 'opportunity' to expose the dangers.Bollocks it did.It might make sense as to why poor Brenda Leyland stopped being a pawn and was promoted to a chess piece of much higher value...

    ''"Trolls are hiding behind the facility to be anonymous, which Twitter enables to a certain degree. Our research can contribute to an understanding and a reduction in trolling behaviour and one of the main interpretations is that the level of anonymity provided by certain social networking sites is a massive enabler."

    Psychobabble for 'you can hide you are and say what you like'.Wow- who knew.

    ''Also, media reports that condemn the trolls' actions have the effect of "showering them with the very attention they appear to covet".

    No-really ? You mean one gang( MSM) attack another (Trolls) and the latter retaliates ? I wonder why. You identify an army of 'anonymous' abusers who love causing trouble or involving themselves in it and then find out they hit back if you attack them ? It took a 'dr' to find that out for us-thanks doc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. (2)
    @Ros

    ''It was found that "the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCanns and the pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended"

    And the Governments answer is to spy online.Great.Not jump on Social Networks and tell them to shake things up.These mega advertising companies that pretend to be social networks only need to make it clear that 'flaming' will not be tolerated.One strike, you're out.End of.But that would kick potential buyers off the site and also give Big Brother a headache.

    ''The theme of motherhood implied a strong female presence in the anti-McCann group, whereas earlier research has suggested that trolls are mostly male, because of frequent misogynistic sentiments''.

    The sexist ticket- gone are the days that could sell so easily.Welcome to 2017.The actual anger toward the mother was also directed to the father.There's no statistic to support that that anger wasn't 'parental' rather than just maternal.The good doctor says its all about anonymity but now he and Igor can spot the gender ? Unscientific. If this 'study' was presented to a tutor in a University for seconding it would fall on it's arse.This hasn't because of who likely funded it.

    'the continuation of research exploiting the ways in which aggressive forms of trolling materialise, so that we might consequently establish ways in which to effectively deal with them".

    'We' as in Big Brother.
    I think a more valuable area of research for the good doctor would be to go back to about 12 years.There are certain names that will be yielded via Google that talk about 'cyber bullying', 'trolling' and 'defamation and slander'. These key names were usually Prime Ministers ( past, current, future) and Home Secretaries.They became terribly concerned about us out here in their idea of a democracy.We were becoming more concerned about what alternative research and independant ( not controlled) journalists were putting online about-you've guessed it- Paedophilia in the highest of places from 1960 until now. McCalpine laid eggs. Janner and Brittain laid more. Big Cyril Smith must have been terrified.And then there was Andrew's 'relationship' with Epstein...

    Yes, the 'loose cannons' out here were firing off all kinds of salvos and the bunnies were on the run.Still are.

    The real shills- i mean serious paid shills, are called in and paid big by people of power.The remit is simple.Defend.Defend those in power who pay you.Discredit all arguments that contradict the official versions with logic.Get someone with letters after their name and make it look academic.Like The Warren Report. Like the 9/11 official investigation.Like the Weapons of Mass Destruction. You know the score.

    It's problem, reaction, solution.They wanted Big Brother powers for years. We've wanted our liberty for just as long.They present the problem-inflate it, get the reaction, and there you go-solution- snooping powers to 'protect' the people.Mission accomplished. It's in poor taste to hijack the Madeleine McCann case to accomplish it.It's up there with George Osborne, during 'questions' less than 24 hours hours after we all raged at the TV after the Mick Philpott documentary, stating that he brought in 'benefit measures' because of it( Philpott's case).No mention of the kids who died-just exploiting it to justify his war on the poor and trying to establish class apartheid.Cue 'benefit street' and the likes from their MSM. Bastards.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Ziggy, like yourself I would be interested to know who commissioned the report, or indeed if it was commissioned.

      Unfortunately, the word troll is not definitive, it can and is being used to target those who ask awkward questions. The simple solution to trolling is to ignore it, who the heck cares who the weirdos are, they hide behind anonymity because they are cowards.

      I don't think it should be a case of ridding the internet of trolls Ziggy, they will always be with us, and not just online. What we need to change is people's attitude towards trolls by pointing out that troll threats and insults are pathetic. There really isn't any need for bodyguards and a panic room because a stranger online thinks you are dickhead. I thought Richard and Judy were the worst parents on earth when their daughter threw a hissy fit about online taunts. Instead of telling her 'what a load of nonsense', they called in the police, labelled her a victim and ensured she would spend the rest of her life living in fear.

      Your 'one strike' and you are banned for life rule is draconian and impractical. Anyone can have an off day, and its the kind of fuzzy ruling that would be exploited by jobsworths and authoritarians. No internet for you!

      There are many among the elite who would like to keep the wonders of the internet solely for themselves - no riff raff. With the amount of information that is available to everyone, there is a real threat of revolution and world upheaval. The paradigm is shifting.

      At the moment, the major social media networks are owned and administered by a new breed of philanthropists, the Masters of the Universe are no longer the bankers and the traders, they are the owners of the information. And happily they are way too rich to be bought off.

      Governments are restricted in the reasons they can put forward to spy on us. Terrorism of course is a given, but coming up swiftly behind is the fear of paedophiles. They need access to everyone's private and confidential online information in order to weed out the perverts. If you put 'think of the children' in front of new initiatives you can usually get them through.

      This group of academics are studying the damage done by online trolls. That is, they are looking for evidence to support the argument for policing the internet.

      Gerry and Kate are probably the most high profile victims of online media attacks, the first port of call when comments on trolling are required, and who are always more than willing to emphasize their distress and suffering - usually because they have an ongoing claim for damages. They can't or won't recover until they beat Goncalo Amaral.

      Putting aside that it is in the McCanns' interests to claim 'pain and suffering', it is also in their interests to have those who question their abduction story silenced. Suing them is one way, labelling them 'trolls' is another.

      Delete
    2. I do think this study was commissioned (in the same way the dossier was compiled). It is far to biased to be a genuine study. Do you have any idea if Sonia Poulton's documentary will be aired or has it been stopped?

      Delete
    3. Might well have been 14:07. The constant highlighting of the discrepancies in the abduction story does seem to be having a negative affect on the 10 year anniversary plans.

      I don't know what is happening with Sonia's documentary, but logic would dictate the time just isn't right.

      Delete
    4. Sonia got carried away and then realised her mistake.

      Delete
    5. @15:50

      Perhaps you could explain what a missing child has to do with national security.

      Delete
    6. @17:23

      Perhaps you could explain what your comment has to do with mine.

      Delete
  9. No sensible human being, including the McCanns, takes trolls (whether anonymous or not) seriously. Well-informed, open-minded and truly influential people, are the real threat.

    Strange as it may seem, so is ‘anonymous’, in a sense. If we are supposed to believe that the internet is full of anonymous cowards, then who exactly are the McCanns’ helpers behind the scenes Anonymous seems to be McCanns' own worst enemy.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cowards NL are those who use anonymity to behave in a way they would never dare in the real world. That is, rude, spiteful and obnoxious. They are unleashing the anti social sides of themselves that they hide in real life. Their inner thug.

      I don't have a problem with anonymity NL, my eternal wish is to get everyone writing, it matters not whether it is under a pseudonym, as I did with 'Cristobell', or anonymously. Though I would urge those who post anon to be creative! Online you can be anyone, in 'Christabel' [correct spelling] I chose the bi-curious heroine of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's gothic ballad. Not that I have ever been bi-curious, that I remember, lol, though I do have lots of girl crushes, I chose the name for the mystique.

      It will be interesting to see what Dr. Synnott discovers when he gets around to studying the 'pro' McCann trolls, lol. As if!

      Why have all the pro McCann helpers kept their identities hidden? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I can see that it would have made them targets of seedy 'online investigators' like Bennett, but it still strikes me as disloyal. Something I wouldn't even consider if a loved one were under attack.

      Their fear of online trolls goes above and beyond rational behaviour. But to be fair, so too does the behaviour of online trolls. The rational solution would be to stop interacting with them. The wars on the McCann twitter hashtag will only stop when the armies retreat. And there's no sign of that happening.

      The losing side are again asking for government intervention, they want the enemy marched off the field in chains. And they are playing dirty. Hmm, lets bring in a group of forensic psychologists to highlight the damaging impact trolling [McCanns] has on it's victims? Let's get those questioning the abduction story in the dock!

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      "It will be interesting to see what Dr. Synnott discovers when he gets around to studying the 'pro' McCann trolls, lol. As if!", you say.
      Yes, indeed and all the victims on both sides.

      Seriously, “Exploring the world of the Madeleine McCann trolls”, as the headline reads of University of Huddersfield’s newsletters or journal, may very well be an interesting subject of research as long as the Madeleine case will be used to do research in behavior, language use and anonymity on internet in a general sense, just as this Dr John Synnott tries to make us believe “The paper doesn’t attempt to take a position on the case, but rather aims to explore trolling behavior in general”, he affirms, which I sincerely doubt is his and his research groups main objective”.

      In serious scientific research there cannot be any preconceptions, so the issue that should be addressed, in my opinion, is instead the widespread perception about people being victimized by aggressive so called internet trolls using offensive language, but Dr Synnott
      does not question whether the so called McCanns trolls have victimized people or not, but as the following paragraph quoted from the above journal shows, accepts that as a fact.

      “the damaging impact the McCann trolls’ behavior has had on those victimized” makes necessary “the continuation of research exploiting the ways in which aggressive forms of trolling materialise, so that we might consequently establish ways in which to effectively deal with them”.
      So, not only does he claim that the so called ”trolling” is a problem, especially in the McCann case, but promises also to propose a solution, and that has of course to be about choice of words, use of language on internet and most of all about freedom of expression, what else could it be. So having accepted, as Dr Synnott obviously has, that there is a problem related to the language used by angered people who are wholeheartedly committed to various cases, that are being discussed on the internet, the solution proposed must be some kind of censorship, either through legislation, through self-censorship or through some sort of internet filter.

      If REAL academic research would end up in similar lines of thoughts as those represented by Dr Synnott in his research/investigation about “internet trolls”, then scientists at our universities would rather deal with issues of morals and politics, than commit themselves to scientific research. What kind of world would we then have?






      Delete
  10. KM (‘madeleine’):

    "At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was ‘becoming the story’. I am not quite sure what he meant by this. Clarence was certainly a visible presence and perhaps his open, affable style prevented him from being quite as anonymous as the Foreign Office would have liked."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you 13:59, Kate's book really is one big auld witness statement pointing out accessories after the fact, lol. Gerry receiving friendly warnings from the Director of Communications at the Foreign Office. Hmm.

    As for Clarence having an 'open, affable style', I had Kate all wrong. She does have a sense of humour!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous6 March 2017 at 14:07

    ''I do think this study was commissioned (in the same way the dossier was compiled). It is far to biased to be a genuine study''
    'Reseach' is a great gravy train for psychologists at the best of times.I think the bias shown reflects the wishes of whoever commissioned it.Who would want trolling to be seen as the new Isis ?Same people who are terrified by unbiased reporting and information sharing or alt media? Coincidentally, the same people who ignored international protocol so they could jump on the McCann case so fast. This wasn't-and still isn't- about political point scoring.Labour were in power 2007 then Con 2010.

    Anonymous6 March 2017 at 13:48 (NL)

    ''who exactly are the McCanns’ helpers behind the scenes Anonymous seems to be McCanns' own worst enemy.''

    The 'faceless'' suits and string pullers.I don't think the McCanns knew the game early on.I believe they-or at least Gerry- caught on a few years in.I wonder what he'd write if he joined the budding Bloomsbury Group spawned by this case.My opinion is that it would never make print.

    Anonymous6 March 2017 at 13:59

    KM (‘madeleine’):

    "At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was ‘becoming the story’

    Note that this concern is about PR and not the investigation that they were about to start feeding with money. I contend that a fair reading of that statement alone says a lot about the 'faceless' and puppeteers.Puppeteers have to remain invisible if they want to be successful.People( the public) were watching.What they saw was Clarence-the-cleanup-man too often.People wondered why he did the talking and answering.Why he wouldn't allow the McCanns to. In circumstances like this, the parents talk.If they're too upset or too nervous on camera, a family spokesman is usually a solicitor or police family liaison officer.

    The government should have had much bigger things to worry about.Things like the 'terrorists' that were 'taking over the world' and the austerity measures that were sinking the public's morale.But they were concerned about how their planted spokesman was coming across in the public eye over a so-called investigation into a missing child ? I don't think so, somehow.

    The Government are in to deep to drop it now.The dwindling interest in a ten year anniversary has less to do with the credibility of the McCanns than it does with the credulity of the public. Less people are interested after ten years of lies about sightings and suspects ( none of which were invented by the McCanns). People talk about two things now; the McCanns guilt, and the government sending our police in to criticise and stop the investigations early progress.It gives an impression that people see a link between the two.If there was, it would suggest the McCanns had an awful lot of power.But they haven't have they ?That leaves a possible abduction. That looks to me like an abduction and tends to fit the procurement theory thanks to the Governments over-interest in the case itself, the McCanns being kept in the firing line, and the Governments 'concern' as to how they( Mitchell) are coming across.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 March 2017 at 14:48

    ''
    As for Clarence having an 'open, affable style', I had Kate all wrong. She does have a sense of humour!''

    Maybe now you'll give my suspicion some consideration. If ever evidence was needed of a ghost writer-there's your smoking gun.I doubt Clarence has never been called affable in his life by anyone. As for open- he's a Tory politician.That statement has to be a late addition to the book. You can't be clever enough to become a GP and have such dire character -reading skills.

    Clarence Potter and The Leaked Pages

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 March 2017 at 15:54

    ''The cowards NL are those who use anonymity to behave in a way they would never dare in the real world. That is, rude, spiteful and obnoxious. They are unleashing the anti social sides of themselves that they hide in real life. Their inner thug.''

    That's no way to talk about our Government- Tory or Labour. But it's true, to be fair.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 6 March 2017 at 15:54

    ''The wars on the McCann twitter hashtag will only stop when the armies retreat. And there's no sign of that happening.''

    Key word 'wars'.

    A social network is intended, by definition, to be social; socialise.Ergo, no place for 'wars'. That's not rocket science for the owners and shareholders of these dives to get their collective heads around.I don't think it's 'draconian' to display the rules of conduct at the top of the pages or in emails when you are 'welcomed' to the jungle.If the generally accepted definition of these places are that they're real places with real people really interacting, then real rules should be in place.Outside, amongst the tumbleweed where the old fashioned people socialise, they have rules and laws in places. That's not draconian.If you were enjoying a meal with friends somewhere nice and a drunken rabble were kicking off nearby and causing the evening to slide downhill you would complain to the manager-if he hadn't already dealt with it.If the manager told you he didn't want to be draconian or take away people's right to free speech he clearly shouldn't be in charge of anything. It's simple- if the rules say 'no flaming, no offensive language, no personal insults' what's the problem ? It's only a problem if you're intending to use the place for those little kicks.If you're not,it's all good. Feelings, opinions, theories and the like can be discussed without any of the above.

    ''The losing side are again asking for government intervention, they want the enemy marched off the field in chains.''

    See, this is the problem....

    There shouldn't be 'sides'. That's why people who assume a 'side' face opposition from another gang who assume the other 'side'. The McCann case is between the McCanns, the joint forces of the police and that's it. Nobody is out on bail, nobody is held on suspicion.

    I used to think, like most, that the parents looked ' a bit sus' . Then i looked and saw alternatives. I was never on a side. I believe Madeleine was abducted but not to be on a side. I can't prove that I'm right as it's only my theory based on the limited evidence and bizarre intervention of politicians.Nobody can prove anything if they have no direct involvement in the investigation. Amaral can't, Scotland yard can't. Or won't.The McCanns can't prove a negative- nobody can.

    I prefer to weigh up things as meticulously as seems needed. Hopefully, it will leave me with an informed opinion.I trust that more than the proverbial( and often lazy) 'gut instinct'.Also, I'm aware of 'the madness of crowds'.That's why i do my best to avoid them or, if unable to, keep quiet and utilise eyes and ears only.Crowds are just noisy.Too many empty vessels and echoes.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'And the gates of this chapel were shut, And Thou Shalt Not writ over the door' [William Blake].

      Rules, regulations and Thou Shalt Nots are really not my thing Ziggy and the kind of rules you espouse seem more fitting to the Wheeltappers and Shunters club.

      The idea that internet providers are responsible for the behaviour of their customer is absurd. Some places on the internet will be social and polite, some won't. We all have freedom of choice Ziggy, if a forum is unpleasant, don't go there! What does it matter to you if others are knocking 7 bells out of each other elsewhere? Their choice.

      It really isn't necessary to put up a list of 'thou shalt nots' Ziggy, the majority of us act decently and politely because that is how we were raised. The assumption that we would spit, swear and be rowdy without a notice on the wall, is insulting. And. I'm quite sure, wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to your hypothetical drunken rabble.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy,
      I've so many times experienced what you call a "drunken rabble", who actually has been "kicking off nearby and causing the evening to slide downhill" while out drinking/eating with friends. Never, have I considered to ask a waiter/owner of the place for help, unless it would be a physical threat, which I've never ever experienced. Inviting such a person to our table, arguing, talking to him/her or possibly ignoring him/her if that's what appears to be the best tactics is what I've done in such situations.

      So, of course I'm no different on internet when there are rude people who just want to discredit what I say addressing me as if I were this "Swedish cook" in the Muppet show. In my opinion nothing is so nasty or silly that it doesn't deserve a polite answer.

      Delete
    3. Amen to that Bjorn. It's always been my experience that if you listen to a person's grievance the matter can be peacefully resolved. Not always of course, but like yourself I behave as I would in the real world, and simply walk away.

      I think most aggression stems from the frustration of not being able to communicate. I'm very much with George Bernard Shaw on this one 'why can't the English teach their children how to speak!'. I'm going to do a blog about it one of these days, it makes me so mad!

      But back to topic. I have to say most of the drunken rabble I have bumped into on nights out have been great fun! Covent Garden and Soho especially, which used to be buzzing with drunken rabble of every nationality, ethnicity and socio economic group, on a Friday night. I'm grinning from ear to ear at the happy memories!

      Delete
  16. Anonymous6 March 2017 at 17:34

    ''You ought to inform yourself about the nervous reactions of the original search and rescue animals (not Eddie or Keela) outside 5J. The same dogs behaved in a similar fashion around 5A. (But don't mention your findings to Ziggy or 06:21. You wouldn't want to upset them).''

    Mention them all you like.It wasn't me who dismissed the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDX-KvKh96E

    1:02

    JM: "The Portuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because I was here with him that night, so, I know there’s nothing."

    The Portuguese police don't tell you anything...

    Who told them there is absolutely nothing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'The PEOPLE who did it...who set him up' maybe?

      Delete
  18. JM: "The Portuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because I was here with him that night, so, I know there’s nothing."

    The Portuguese police don't tell you anything...

    Who told them there is absolutely nothing? ''

    Probably the detectives . The reporter should have asked who told them - or maybe our own beloved and much often quoted Daily Mail.Unless they were scared of the answer of course( Clarence wasn't around to police the Q n A).

    I think 'people' is mildly interesting as an off the cuff remark, but only that.The bungled burglary /trafficking gang rumours were around by the time she was ambushed at her back door.

    I think the more interesting aspect of this 60 second epic is Mummy Murat setting the stage for the compensation.She is pre-empting any claim of police harassment or wrongful arrest etc, and tells of how agonised he is and how long he's needed off work to 'recover'.It's easy to consider the 'if' factor . 'IF' it was me I'd be happy to come to those reporters -or any others- and show my face and use the time to tell the world how those incompetent detectives had victimised me and blackened my name.I wouldn't be suffering any more, I'd be relieved and happy.I'd have nothing to sit and simmer in private about if I was innocent and had been vindicated publicly.

    But this was Mummy Murat.Her powers of recollection are second in the amnesia department only to those of her son. Their statements are crazy when you sit them next to each other.

    But, all's well that ends well.What did he get for his agony ? Over half a mil from our amazing MSM i believe.I bet he wouldn't have earned that in 3 months .

    'Nothing will come of nothing'
    ( King Lear act 1 - YEARS before Robert Murat was born)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 March 2017 at 22:25

      ''the kind of rules you espouse seem more fitting to the Wheeltappers and Shunters club. ''

      Walk around Liverpool any Friday or Saturday night, Ros. City centre. There's a lot of really nice and up -market places.You'd be surprised how many freedom fighters get put on there arse once removed off the premises for 'being free'.

      ''The idea that internet providers are responsible for the behaviour of their customer is absurd. ''

      I agree-but i didn't suggest otherwise did i ? I said social networks should be responsible how they operate their platform. Twitter et al provide the internet for nobody.

      ''It really isn't necessary to put up a list of 'thou shalt nots' Ziggy, the majority of us act decently and politely because that is how we were raised''

      That would make perfect sense if it was 1946 .It's nowhere near that now.Offline or online.

      ''The assumption that we would spit, swear and be rowdy without a notice on the wall, is insulting. And. I'm quite sure, wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to your hypothetical drunken rabble.''

      Is that a deliberate misreading of the clear analogy i made ?

      If rules as mentioned make no difference to the imaginary 'rabble', that's more reason to run a decent ship for decent people.Too many idiots only reveal themselves once their foot is in the door.They'd be refused admission if they identified themselves as loud or disruptive on entrance. I like the 1960s 'freedom' throw away remarks and mindset as much as anyone.But, today's world looks very different.Some people embrace freedom, most abuse it.Looking after number one is ok, but 'fk number2' isn't. We're supposed to be evolving.

      Delete
    2. Ziggy 22:45.

      Well I don't really know what to say to all that! I very rarely encounter loud and disruptive people, therefore I have never felt the need to take any precautions.

      Who are the 'idiots' you fear? The ones who should be refused admission? How do you quantify 'idiot'?

      Delete
  19. The truth in this case will not be found in academic studies, though it would be interesting to know why the lauthors chose the soft target of contribut or to a twitter hashtag as the focus of their research rather than the more challenging question of who actually is responsible for the child's disappearance and how it happened. That would have been well worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous6 March 2017 at 23:30

    ''The truth in this case will not be found in academic studies''

    Nail on the head.So we know the truth, once again, isn't topping any important lists.

    There are a small number of Forensic Psychologists in the UK that are, arguably, the best in the business, and have solved many a riddle that was baffling Police Forces( David cantor is probably the best).But, if any where brought in, they would have nobody's agenda in mind,and they would investigate statements, crime scenes and the geography of PDL. They'd probably contribute more in the way of naming likely suspects or, at least, agree upon a good psychological profile of one.The investigation could only benefit from their addition to it.It could well lead to conviction(s). It makes you wonder why they've never been brought in really(not).

    Brown wanted everyone who has internet access to prove their real ID as people can use different IP addresses.he stated it just after Madeleine went missing.He wasn't( to the best of my knowledge) suggesting that the internet had anything to do with her fate, but he had the spotlight and used it to peddle his agenda.That whispers of his dubious past had been circulating online ( along with those concerning Blair,Hague, McCalpine, Brittain ,Smith(Cyril) et al) just recently might explain his sudden 'concern' about 'trolls'.It mirrored the paranoia and panic in America's halls of power( they pretended it was isis though).






    ReplyDelete
  21. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 March 2017 at 08:49

    ''Who are the 'idiots' you fear? The ones who should be refused admission? How do you quantify 'idiot'?''

    I don't fear idiots.I just have little or no time for them-why would i have any ? Quantifying an 'idiot' isn't rocket science. They do the work for you. If it's not their noises, it's their actions.It's rarely subjective. Most times it's just about recognising a spade as a spade.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ZiggySawdust

    “Anonymous6 March 2017 at 23:30

    ''The truth in this case will not be found in academic studies''”

    The truth in this case will not be found.

    “So we know the truth, once again, isn't topping any important lists.”

    It is (topping a very important list) - the list marked ‘Never To Be Disclosed’.



    “…speak again.”
    (King Lear act 1)

    On what ‘unbiased’ (as opposed to Amaral’s and Kate’s books) source/s of information about the MM case have you been relying to say as you do?

    Is it your view that the McCanns’s having been walking free for ten years indicates their innocence?

    Do you know of any indication/s supportive of the view that there was no abduction?

    Do you know of any indication/s that the McCanns have been
    aware that they are part of a conspiracy?

    Namaste.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 March 2017 at 09:53

    ''I think most aggression stems from the frustration of not being able to communicate''

    Not being able to communicate can be down to a few things. Frustration is one. Lazy mindedness is one.Not being able to find the right word or phrase is one.Being drunk or stoned are another two.None of these reasons amount to even a half decent reason to subject anyone else to aggression.

    ''George Bernard Shaw on this one 'why can't the English teach their children how to speak!'.''

    He'd be turning in his grave if he could hear most of them today. Especially if he could hear 'the chicken children' ( see Micky Flanagan').The slang is nowhere as imaginative as years ago and i have no idea whatsoever why the younger dickheads insist on trying to sound like they have roots in Jamaica.The white kids sound ridiculous.It's almost as though 'stupid' is a badge of honour.

    '' buzzing with drunken rabble of every nationality, ethnicity and socio economic group, on a Friday night''

    That describes every overstretched A and E in all major cities now, unfortunately.All those free spirits.I sound cynical.I am . I'm not wrong though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. http://catalanmonitor.com/2017/01/12/two-ex-detectives-of-metodo-3-private-detective-company-reported-to-have-worked-for-operation-catalonia/

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ 'T' (1)

    ''It is (topping a very important list) - the list marked ‘Never To Be Disclosed’.

    Agreed, T. By 'not important' i was implying that the most important list should be topped by a determination to investigate the case thoroughly, honestly, and as transparently as possible with a view to solving it then closing it.The Police are public servants and have a duty to us.

    ''On what ‘unbiased’ (as opposed to Amaral’s and Kate’s books) source/s of information about the MM case have you been relying to say as you do?''

    I think of 'unbiased' as refusing to be swayed by public opinion, newspapers opinions, and a lot of direct quotes from the McCanns, Amaral or politicians.I prefer to read about the step-by-step events of May 3.I compare direct quotes to former quotes. I allow a margin for error from all parties as everyone is human.I don't 'add' anything to facial expressions or a blink or body language as so many are observed in 'unnatural'( TV, cameras, scripts) circumstances.I question the involvement of politicians because it's a departure from the norm and i doubt we'll see it again.If i read sources online i tend to find an occasional needle in a haystack of well reasoned and impartial observations. They're rare, though.

    ''Is it your view that the McCanns’s having been walking free for ten years indicates their innocence?''

    Yes- until they're arrested, charged, and found guilty.

    ''Do you know of any indication/s supportive of the view that there was no abduction?''

    The blood/DNA/Dog evidence was dismissed.Eye witness testimony was too wide ranging and unreliable.Too much of the potential evidence was contaminated.If , as many contend, bleaching had been undertaken, I'm sure damp would have been present and i think in an apartment so small, it wouldn't have taken a dogs nose to smell it.Of all the main players, if it wasn't a stranger- abduction or procurement( which amounts to the same)I suspect Murat more than the McCanns or Tapas posse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy and Rosalinda
      As for Murat. Both Fiona Payne and Jane Tanner were suspicious about Robert Murat, and Kate herself, in her diary says something like "I know it's him.... I feel like wanting to kill him". However, at a certain point of time, for unknown reason, Kate does just not dismiss him as a potential perpetrator, but I've also the impression, that she begins to protect him. If she would still suspect him, which she apparently does not, she could have suggested a new dig in his garden, referring to Birch's claims about there being a void in the garden of Casa Liliana. I've never believed in Birch's hypothesis, but there is no need for me to discuss that, but what has made me so confused is, that I've never understood what it was that made Kate change her mind about Murat. Have I missed something?

      Delete
  26. @ 'T' (2)

    ''Do you know of any indication/s that the McCanns have been
    aware that they are part of a conspiracy?''

    Any indication would purely be my own personal interpretation. I think the McCanns believed an abduction had taken place.I believe any of us in those circumstances would fear the worst and suspect paedophile involvement because almost all-if not all- children who are abducted by a stranger end up dead after being 'used', shall we say.I think any parent would, deep down, have to entertain the reality of it.That either or both of the parents voiced this fear, in my opinion, was normal. That the vast majority of online haters( sorry, i mean detectives) read that as a 'slip' that indicates they 'know' what happened or that they 'know because they did it' is pretty disgusting.They're subjective conclusions heavily informed by an irrational bias that nobody can offer genuine official evidence for.

    I think Gerry displays a lot of suppressed anger and it increases with time.Some is over his daughter, obviously.But the parents aren't stupid people.The money spent, the time taken, the amount of PR 'given' to them by the government's man and the red herrings all over the globe to make it look like that money and time isn't being wasted, isn't sitting well with GM. He's asked for fresh 'independent' enquiries.That's telling in itself.He's complained on camera about 'media moguls' after losing his cool.I think he's been put in a position that would make it seem the height of ingratitude to complain about the help.The police and their 'sightings' is a double edger ;it makes them look busy, but when it inevitably comes up blank, it keeps the McCanns in the firing line.The police may be ostensibly serving the McCanns but they answer to their big chiefs.I can't, and won't, put words into Gm or Km's mouths, but my guess is that they can smell something.They're between the proverbial rock and a hard place.They're being protected from the hoards because those who protect them put them in the firing line of the hoards.

    Namsate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 7 March 2017 at 18:22

      Many thanks. I take note of everything you’ve said.

      “I think of 'unbiased' as refusing to be swayed by public opinion, newspapers opinions, and a lot of direct quotes from the McCanns, Amaral or politicians.I prefer to read about the step-by-step events of May 3.I compare direct quotes to former quotes.”

      “If i read sources online i tend to find an occasional needle in a haystack of well reasoned and impartial observations. They're rare, though.”

      Could you please post a link or two to what you’ve read?

      “The blood/DNA/Dog evidence was dismissed.”

      A link to “dismissed” if you could please.

      “Of all the main players, if it wasn't a stranger- abduction or procurement( which amounts to the same)I suspect Murat more than the McCanns or Tapas posse.”

      The way you’ve put it lets me infer that you accept that the non-abduction conjecture has merit, although you “suspect Murat more than the McCanns or Tapas posse”.


      ZiggySawdust 7 March 2017 at 18:27

      “''Do you know of any indication/s that the McCanns have been aware that they are part of a conspiracy?''

      Any indication would purely be my own personal interpretation.”

      I would have quoted Kate’s admitting (in her account of the truth) to conspiring with her husband to deceive, but I realise you would not be interested such an admission on what appears to be the she-would-say-so-wouldn’t-she grounds.

      “They're between the proverbial rock and a hard place.”

      I believe they are indeed, for reasons different from those you cite, and they don’t find it funky.

      “There are a small number of Forensic Psychologists in the UK that are, arguably, the best in the business, and have solved many a riddle that was baffling Police Forces( David cantor is probably the best).But, if any where brought in, they would have nobody's agenda in mind,and they would investigate statements, crime scenes and the geography of PDL. They'd probably contribute more in the way of naming likely suspects or, at least, agree upon a good psychological profile of one.The investigation could only benefit from their addition to it.It could well lead to conviction(s). It makes you wonder why they've never been brought in really(not).”

      Once bitten, twice shy.

      Once upon a time Mark Harrison advised: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

      To seek David Canter’s opinion/advice would be somewhat masochistic, wouldn’t you think?

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
    2. Ziggy,

      In my 8 March 2017 at 12:05 post “…you would not be interested such an admission…”

      Should've been “…you would not be interested in such an admission…”

      Sorry.

      T

      Delete
  27. Anonymous @14:25

    Now that Ziggy's answered your four questions, might I do likewise (in style currently adopted by Ronnie O'Sullivan):

    1. Is there such a thing (as an unbiased account/source)?
    2. No
    3. Yes
    4. Yes

    Next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 7 March 2017 at 21:31

      “Anonymous @14:25

      Now that Ziggy's answered your four questions, might I do likewise (in style currently adopted by Ronnie O'Sullivan):

      1. Is there such a thing (as an unbiased account/source)?
      2. No
      3. Yes
      4. Yes

      Next.”

      How interesting… I again find myself in agreement with you.

      Next (my answers):

      1. My pragmatic (as opposed to full-blown ‘ontological’) answer to your question is: No, there isn’t “such a thing” in a rational discussion of MM case – the case I’m most concerned with here. Ziggy appears to hold an unsound contrary view.

      Furthermore. While being quiet about his source/s, Ziggy has been telling us about how he deals with the information available to him. In the absence of Ziggy’s answer as to his source/s, we remain “unbound” (:D) to draw our own inference/s in that regard.

      2. No
      3. Yes
      4. Yes

      T

      Delete
  28. Björn7 March 2017 at 20:02

    '' I've never understood what it was that made Kate change her mind about Murat. Have I missed something?''

    Who knows Bjorn.In my reply to 'T' above ^^^ i suggested that the McCanns may have eventually began to smell something wasn't right.Her initial suspicion about Murat and her feelings about him, suggest she was angry at the thought of him being involved, and a rage was simmering in her. Again, it could have been down to the detectives creating another suspect to make them look thorough. Or, maybe they genuinely suspected him.It all came to nothing and he walked away a lot richer.It's either a case of KM being satisfied that he wasn't a suspect after all, or, more likely, that she knew that she, GM, and the rest of us, had been sold a dummy again.That might have been a pivotal moment for them.Maybe they realised that the red herrings and games were underway and maybe then they suspected that a conspiracy somewhere seedy and important was in motion.The change of heart is too extreme and too sudden to be just down to Murat being 'cleared'.Does 'cleared' mean innocent ? Who knows. Maybe the McCanns and Murat are being kept on a shelf next to the evidence.They may come in handy if the case needs finally closing one day.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Björn 7.3 @20:02

    I think Kate had to change her mind (insinuation I’d say) about Murat when it was no longer credible/sustainable to suggest Murat was Tannerman. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I believe Jane Tanner saw a man (not Murat) carrying a child. I also believe Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O’Brien saw Murat outside the McCanns' apartment on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi NL
      Yes you're right, some of their tapas friends said that they had seen Murat near the apartment, but none of them confirmed that, when they were later asked by the Portuguese police. Anyway, I've always thought that it's so strange that any of their tapas friends, possibly also Kate believed that Murat could be, or at least could have a connection to "Tannerman", and that they believed that Murat, in spite of this, decided to appear on the scene of the crime just one or two hours later too see and hear what the police were doing, and even (which is a fact) offer his assistance to translate the next morning.

      It would be interesting to hear Kate herself say exactly when she dismissed Murat and why. Is there something about that in her book? I've just read some parts of it.

      Delete
    2. Bjorn 11:20

      Opinion is fine but could we just for once stick to the facts given in police statements.

      If you or anybody else has evidence/proof, that the Tapas friends withdrew their ID of Murat outside 5a, can you produce it.
      They did not and have not.
      They repeated their allegations in a confrontation with Murat at the police station, the video is there for everyone to look at of the tapas 3 entering the station

      It is Bennett's/Hall bullshit repeated, ad nauseam, and it is not true.

      And all Kate has ever said regarding Murat is "I came across nothing that could be classified as evidence against Murat" (hardly a ringing endorsement).

      I know people like gossip but the truth is far more interesting.

      Delete
    3. Björn @11:20

      Perhaps the following might be of interest? NL

      (After Kate’s description of her thoughts and feelings towards Murat, which filled her with anger and hatred (it is an ‘intensely personal account’ after all), there is a sort of change of direction in 'madeleine’.)

      “Nothing we were told by the police indicated that Murat took Madeleine or was in any way involved in her abduction. We had no context for the disconnected pieces of information Neves and Encarnação did pass on to us, which we assumed were all they were allowed to reveal. In isolation these suggested it was possible Murat was linked in some way to the events of 3 May, and for a long time we didn’t know what to think. Once we fell victim ourselves to the vagaries of the Portuguese police system, we soon discovered how easy it was for two and two to be put together to make five.

      When I read through the PJ files in microscopic detail after their release to the public in 2008, I found nothing to implicate Murat. It is clear that the police never had any credible case against him.”

      Delete
    4. Thanks a lot JJ and Anon 14:38
      You may well be better informed than me, I've always thought that Fiona and Jane T. changed their witness statements.

      As for Kate's reasoning in her book. Interesting, but it was years after her writing in her diary, so she really had plenty of time to think what would be the best for her to say. One thing, however, is quite clear, and that is that Kate at some point of time considered the possibility of Murat being involved, but that she now, at least publicly, don't think so anymore

      Delete
    5. I think Robert Murat was selected by British forces based on a profile they created. Ie. single man, living with his mother, knows the area etc. This was conveniently supported by an anonymous phone call to the PJ that claimed RM was a weirdo with small animals as a child. In other words textbook stuff, straight from every US crime program and the childhood of Jeffrey Dahmer.

      In addition, there was the helpful tip off from Lori Campbell, tabloid journalist, who saw similarities with Ian Huntley and the Soham child murders.

      To me it looked as though Robert Murat was being set up to take the heat off the parents. I believe him when he says he did not become involved until the following morning. So do the police.

      I curse myself that I am unable to c/p, but there is a good account of Jane Tanner's participation in an police uncover operation to identify Robert Murat in Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie'.

      JT positively identifies Robert Murat as he walks across the top of the road. The following day RM was named Arguido, and 3 members of the Tapas group, recognising him on TV, then remember seeing him there on the night of the 3rd.

      The locals who were outside 5A on the night, and who know RM, did not see him. All the 'evidence' against RM came from the British. Four members of the tapas group, Lori Campbell and the police agency who drew up the 'profile', CEOP, I believe, who were trying to make it some sort of internet crime.

      Jane Tanner now vehemently denies that she identified RM during the police stake out and there was going to be a civil action, but there have been so many I can't remember offhand who was going to sue who!

      Delete
  30. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2017 at 17:22

    I think that's more or less what i was saying when suggesting the detectives had 'created' another suspect( red herring). I take your point Re the cliches that abound based on iconic cases as seen on TV ( Dahmer, Brady etc).Ridiculous.As for 'tabloid journalists', don't go there.I have that phrase in my Unofficial Book Of Oxymorons. I'm surprised nobody has offered up any comparisons to Norman Bates ( ''m-m-my..m-m-mother wouldn't like that'').

    Murat does come across as-different.Maybe unconventional.That doesn't make him a 'weirdo' as many suggest.He might be, he might not be, but people who don't know him personally don't qualify to have an opinion and expect it to be taken seriously. We're told of his closeness to his mother, his distance from his ex wife( and daughter) and difficulty holding on to a woman.Then there's his friendship with a Russian who was designing a web site for him.He's Russian- so must be evil or 'up to something' right ?

    I can't remember the name, but there's a man in PDL-also a brit- and you could take him as Murat's identical twin.It's eerie.I wonder if he gets any problems from other eagle-eyed brits by mistake.I wonder if he's been in places far from Murat and been mistaken for him.It might explain some 'sightings' of Murat or explain why he was in two places at once.It isn't helpful really.

    Jane Tanner. That name is annoying in all things McCann.Somebody should have abducted her tongue.

    Telling comment :''To me it looked as though Robert Murat was being set up to take the heat off the parents.''

    Now Ms Unbound.Explain to me...

    Who would set Murat up and why ? Who would want to take the heat off the McCanns-and why.Early in a case like this, detectives don't-and shouldn't anyway- care who they put the heat on.It's either an abduction of a toddler or worse.Everyone there , nearby, or involved with the complex and/or McCanns should have the 'heat on' until a good reason to remove it is arrived at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies Ziggy, I have started a new blog and discussion on Robert Murat! Don't get carried away!

      Delete
  31. Could people stop this nonsense, that Murat could have been mistaken for somebody else.

    It might be an opinion but it is totally worthless, as both Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield have signed police statements stating, he was outside 5a that night, he came up to me, shook me by the hand and said, I am Robert Murat, I noticed he had a squint.

    If you are stitching somebody up, could you be any clearer in your identification?

    As for repeating Bennett's bullshit what does it achieve?

    It isn`t helpful really

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have just rushed out a blog on Robert Murat, would value your opinions there. :) Imo, it really is time to 'blow up' the nonsense of Bennett and Hall. They are both seedy opportunists who will invent anything to sex the case up!

      Delete
  32. According to all the eye witness testimony, the suspects are : casually dressed; tall;short;stocky;skinny; of scruffy appearance;smart but casual; 'not a tourist'(?) ;collar length greasy hair;clean cut;having a 'bad skin problem' ;'like Gerry McCann. And that's probably about half of them only...

    If people can't describe someone they've seen recently, i don't think that mistaking Murat for someone else( or vice versa) is so nonsensical.It was late(no daylight), and he is the only player in the tragedy who could actually claim a lookalike that borders on a doppleganger.One that's also English and has a place nearby. It's ok to quote and cite e-fits that look like they've been put together by a drunken monkey with felt tips, but to cite a 'double' that actually exists is nonsense ? I'm not suggesting skullduggery by the two men, i'm suggesting that the eye witness testimony is already a joke for the most part .A lot of what remains is fiction or 'mistakes'. Witnesses talked to him;witnesses didn't. It's a mess.

    If somebody holds a different view to your own, that doesn't make there view 'bullshit' or any other trolling adjective .Even if you suffer from a superiority complex, theories and opinions are of equal merit if none have proof of credibility.It can be hard to face for certain types of personality.

    I can't recall his name other than Angus.It doesn't matter, anyway, it just seemed relevant to where the discussion was heading.He's just Joe Public.Murat's Joe Public too-albeit a bit of an enigmatic one. Neither look like the abductor.Nor do the McCanns. The abductor's a 'secret'.He's a riddle wrapped up in a MI 6 file :)

    ReplyDelete