Monday, 22 May 2017

ALL MCCANNED OUT

For anyone wondering why I am not commenting on the horror of the Manchester bombing, I'm honestly to afraid of what I might say right now.  Meanwhile, my kindest thoughts and prayers to all those affected and huge praise to the emergency services and the medics. 

_________________________


Apologies for my lack of participation lately, but I am afraid right now I feel all 'McCanned' or maybe even, all 'Ziggied' out.  I am not sure he has convinced anyone, but he has certainly worn me down.  I suspect he spent a former life marching around the walls of Jericho. 

I don't believe Gerry, Kate or any of their helpers.  And neither I, nor indeed anyone, should be afraid to say that.  It certainly shouldn't be a criminal offence, despite all the lobbying by the former head of CEOP and the McCann Campaign.  Make no mistake, among the many branches that have sprung from the name of the missing child, has been the Movement to curtail freedom of speech on social media.  Not only were the McCanns victims of a heinous crime, they were victims of the savage media and the lunatic trolls online.

Then we have the dreaded 'P' word - even typing the word draws us to the attention of those dedicated police agencies and vigilantes who's job it is to spy us on 24/7.  The Government and the Establishment have managed to convince us that our kids are in constant danger online and there are Paedophiles all around us.  How many lives are wrecked by nonsensical accusations, and does anybody care?  It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about paedophilia, because, in the 21st Century, the subject is so taboo, no-one knows anything about it!  The real experts, the psychologists, the academics, dare not contradict the accepted, and dominant ideology.  It would be career suicide.

The public wants, neh demands, an evil villain to despise and the easiest way to rally an angry mob, is to scream 'think of the children'.  Our need to protect our young is primal, it brings out our savage instincts, but not always in a good way.  The old fella who smiles at a child, or God forbid, gives them a sweet, is not out to brutalise them or murder them ffs, he probably just likes kids!  Single people, men especially, daren't go sit in the park!  Had Wordsworth stood and admired the daffodils these days, he would been frogmarched into a police car and had his mugshot taken.

But it is not a joking matter.  While we are all focussed on a suspected paedophile gang in an internet café in Bagdad, our kids are in real physical danger from 1) their own parents 2) a new partner/friend 3) a professional 4) any number of creeps who go into childcare so they can have access to kids. And the primary reason 'creeps' want access to children is because they are sadists.  Why sexual abuse is so highly prioritised over physical abuse astounds me!  Beat a child on a daily basis and that's life.  Ask an abused child which they prefer? 

That we are all looking the wrong way is quite an achievement.  From an economic perspective, it is far easier, and vote winning, to go after the public's choice of enemy.  The loner, the misfit, the socially inept, the idiots who will say yes to every expert's theory because they have found someone gullible enough to listen to them.  Those willing to appear on TV (albeit in a shadow) fitting the exact profile of the expert with a book to sell or a cause he needs funding for. 

The subject of child abuse is much the same as the subject of marijuana.  That is, the public are being sold a big fat lie.  Tony Blair commissioned a report on the effects of marijuana from Professor David Nutt, then sacked him when he didn't supply the report he wanted.  He also commissioned Operation Ore, a police operation based on a report from the USA that revealed thousands of alleged paedophiles accessing online child pornography with their credit cards.  That thousands of these credit card details were stolen, made no difference to all those who's lives were wrecked and who's kids were seized and taken into care.  Or those 39 men who committed suicide.  This little atrocity, Tony Blair heartily approved of. 

If 'they' truly wanted to tackle child abuse, they would be confronting child poverty and the cuts to the frontline child services.  Where are the crocodile tears for those kids returning from school to empty homes, empty fridges and no electric?   It is easy to see why the Bogeyman is just as big in the 21st century, as it was in the 19th.  

But I should at least mention the McCanns.  I think they are enduring their own kind of hell, and always will.  They have built their own prison - they must always live up to the phoney characters they created, never daring to allow their masks to slip.  Maybe as a writer, I understand their prison more than most.  It is the reason I created my 'unbound' blog.  As a former Catholic, I remember the agonies of 'my sins finding me out', tossing and turning through the night, torturing myself over which one of my 'so called' mates would spill the beans.  I can't go so far as to say I feel sympathy for Gerry and Kate, they have been too vindictive towards myself and others for that, but I do pity them.  The greatest freedom we have is to just be ourselves, complete with foibles and flaws. 

Unfortunately, the kind of obsessive creeps they attract online are but a small sample of humanity in any situation or environment.  That is, Gerry and Kate can never get away from it.  There will always be people out there who cannot and will not believe their account of what happened to their daughter.  There will always be armchair detectives, and there will always be those who are just as tenacious as themselves.  Those who have made it a personal vendetta, and who will never give up.  For them, it is personal.

For myself, I am still trying to accept the fact that the good guy doesn't always win.  I don't know if our society is more blatantly corrupt than it ever was before, or if I am just able to see things more clearly now.  At least this darn case has taught me something!   

At the moment, there is way too much going on the world to be discussing the Gerry lookalike carrying the Madeleine lookalike through the streets of PDL just as she went missing.  What happened on 3rd May 2007 was probably an unforeseen tragedy (though all the signs were there), but the unseemly haste of government officials and British police agencies to turn this particular tragedy into major marketing tool (like her dad and her family) has shamed this Country. 

The name of Madeleine has been exploited in so many ways, by so many, the list of defendants would be incalculable.  And it was probably this calculation that changed, or established, the whole course of Operation Grange.  I hope that I am wrong, but common sense may well be kicking in.  A police operation that is leading up to arrests and prosecution, logically thinking, would get bigger not smaller.  Operation Grange has dwindled down to just one office by the sounds of it. 

For the moment at least, those who would bring in new Laws to spy on us and curb our Freedom of Speech screaming 'think of the children' don't have the powers they yearn for. Sadly, that situation is precarious.  There are still Labour MPs jumping onto the CSA 'let's root out aged celebrities' bandwagon with a vigour rarely seen when dealing with real issues.  Not to mention all those MPs who want their critics removed from twitter.

I am beginning to see now that this case won't finish with a truthful ending.  I guess there are just way too many people involved, people who, at the very least, obstructed the Law.  I doubt very much Operation Grange are going to tear down any institutions, their task force has shrunk, it hasn't grown bigger, and it hasn't opened any new investigations.  The Madeleine Fund, for example, continues as it ever did, and the police continue to work on behalf of the family.  The major news networks still portray and sympathise with the parents as victims and politicians, especially by the look of that letter from Richard Benyon MP to the cesspit!  I had to take a peek, could anyone blame him for not reading that tedious shite?  - written by Bennett pretending to be an anonymous member, lol.  Mr. Benyon was spot on with his response!

I have no personal interest in making the lives of the family hell, as I mentioned above, they have done that to themselves.  My sympathy lies with those who have been the target of the McCanns aggressive campaign, Goncalo Amaral especially.  I feel morally obliged to comment on their vindictiveness towards this honourable man and the madness of their vendetta, heaven knows someone's got to.  A long running legal case doesn't just affect the disputing parties, it affects their families and all around them.  A case based on spite will never end well.

In the hours that followed the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this case became so much more than a simple missing child case.  It opened up a cause celebre, Madeleine was every child (our own beloved cherubs), the parents are nice (just like us), they are responsible (they're not), we are all at risk (we aren't).  And thus begins the false narrative.  At this late stage it is literally impossible for anyone to say the parents were involved.  It would be like saying Santa's a paedo, who climbs down chimneys to steal kids.  No-one wants to hear that. 

We have all been witness to one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in this country's history.  But I suppose the truth is, like generations who have gone before, we will have to accept that power and money tops truth and justice.  The disappearance of one small child pales to insignificance when contrasted to the sea of corruption that surrounds it.  For me it is not just that those responsible for that poor child's disappearance have got away with it, so too have all those who perpetuated the lie for their own ends.  Especially those who made this case 'Britain versus Portugal' who would prefer to waste £12million of taxpayers money rather than admit they were wrong and the Portuguese cop was right.



 

202 comments:

  1. "In the hours that followed the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this case became so much more than a simple missing child case."

    Some would argue the metamorphosis occurred in the days preceding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 22 May 2017 at 08:57

      “Some would argue the metamorphosis occurred in the days preceding.”

      Indeed.

      T

      Delete
    2. 4 October 2013

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24386130

      'Det Ch Insp Redwood said police were working backwards from the moment Madeleine went missing to understand what happened to her.

      "It's like peeling back the layers from an onion," he said.'

      --------------------------

      Oct 28, 2015

      http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-on-the-investigation-into-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-135459

      'Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, from the MPS said: "The Met investigation has been painstaking and thorough and has for the first time brought together in one place what was disparate information across the world.

      "This work has enabled us to better understand events in Praia da Luz the night Madeleine McCann went missing and ensure every possible measure is being taken to find out what happened to her."

      ...

      'Mr and Mrs McCann said: "We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years. The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt.

      "We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007."'

      --------------------------

      Apr 25, 2017

      http://news.met.police.uk/blog_posts/ac-mark-rowley-reflects-on-the-tenth-anniversary-of-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-56775

      Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley:

      "As detectives, we will always be extremely disappointed when we are unable to provide an explanation of what happened. However the work carried out by Portuguese and Met officers in reviewing material and reopening the investigation has been successful in taking a number of lines of interest to their conclusion. That work has provided important answers.

      Right now we are committed to taking the current inquiry as far as we possibly can and we are confident that will happen. Ultimately this, and the previous work, gives all of us the very best chance of getting the answers – although we must, of course, remember that no investigation can guarantee to provide a definitive conclusion."

      --------------------------

      Rosalinda: "In the hours that followed the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this case became so much more than a simple missing child case."

      08:57: "Some would argue the metamorphosis occurred in the days preceding."

      T: "Indeed."

      Concur.

      Delete
  2. You may be correct that the whole truth will never come out as too many people seem to have involved themselves at the beginning perhaps on the orders of someone else but I do believe there will be justice for Madeleine. You only have to look at the latest interview with G+K to realise they are worried about OG that interview tells me all is not good in the mccann camp however much they try to say all is ok, their body language speaks volumes, especially Gerrys. So I do have faith in OG, I believe they are drilling down to the truth but they have to get this right they can't afford to make any mistakes as they are up against the best lawyers, this is all my opinion anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My dear rose Rosalinda

    You’ve been missed!

    Bless.

    T

    PS Our Liverpudlian charmer must have partaken of the Clemensian wisdom to have taken the “easier” route.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you T, our mutual friend is nothing if not tenacious, his arguments may not be convincing anyone, but he is never going to give up!

      Delete
  4. In the heel of the hunt…

    It looks like rain and thunder for the Lilliputian wonder: Pretending to be David, Achilles is heeling Antikytheran gears.

    I’m looking forward to kicking up my heels and learning.:)

    And the glass and the rose are one (a compound paraphrase).

    All the aforesaid is incomprehensible nonsense(?). Perhaps.

    Spade in hand, back to the rose garden.

    Out.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rosalinda

    “..all 'Ziggied' out”

    Well, well…

    This happens to be a well researched affliction. A glass of Champús might help. Or would you prefer champs in quietude?

    Cheers!

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Champus unfortunately, but currently enjoying something pink and sparkly in my finest crystal with crushed ice. I very rarely drink these days, but I have reached a bit of a watershed. God forbid I should turn into a raging obsessive like Bennett, or the weirdos on twitter, who's life is so dominated by this case, they haven't realised there is about to be a General Election and there is a lunatic in the White House!

      In all honesty, the outcome of this case doesn't mean that much to me. I needed to know what happened, why it happened, and who covered it up. Not so much as an eager investigative journalist, but to provide myself with that 'satisfying end', the flicking over of that last page when all becomes clear.

      I actually now have enough of an answer to close the book. That is enough to satisfy my own gnawing curiosity. I haven't revealed all of it here, because I am enough of a target already. Let's just say, I have the confidence to look any one of those British police chiefs directly in the eye, and they will know that I know.

      For me it has never been about retribution. I'm fascinated by what it is that makes people evil. It is something I have been trying to get to the bottom of since I was 14 years old. But all a lifetime's research has revealed, is that 'bad' usually begins with 'sad'. It all goes back to the Nature versus Nurture argument.

      It all becomes very complex T, whilst there is a sense of satisfaction in a criminal being apprehended, the actual punishment part all becomes a bit icky. I am mightily relieved that there are people with strong enough constitutions to dish out real punishments.

      ....... continues

      Delete
    2. There is a sorrow I think in living a fake life. I personally couldn't imagine a greater hell. I remember the agonies I went through as a young catholic girl. The sheer torment of constant guilt because I was the opposite of what my faith and surroundings demanded. And I lied then, I lied all the time, because it was the only way to avoid punishment. Then I cried myself to sleep because I knew my 'lies' would be found out.

      Like most people my age, I have endured heartbreak, bereavement and sorrow, but I will never forget the chilling fear I felt each night I spent in that convent. One of the many vows I made on leaving, was never to live with fear again.

      For me the only thing that could compare, would be the fear of that knock on the door. It is pure Edgar Allan Poe Tell-Tale Heart. For the psychopaths and sociopaths (please someone give me a definite explanation for the difference!)the fear of being caught is thrilling, those around them meanwhile, are probably broken wrecks.

      I don't think there is a greater freedom than being able to live honestly. That is presenting yourself to the world as you truly are, without the need for affectation or falsehoods.

      I don't mean in a 'Wayne and Waynetta' (my first enemies online used to call me Waynetta, lol) - heaven forbid. I'm all for codes and conventions, etiquette and good manners - in fact one of these days I am going to write an angry blog entitled 'Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?'! As if I don't have enough enemies, lol.

      But I digress. Gerry and Kate have a life's sentence, so too all those around them who assisted. Some will thrive on it, some will break - it is what it is.

      Though no-one will say it loud, lessons have, I am sure, been learned - like maybe, how far should diplomatic interference go in a criminal investigation abroad? But ultimately, the Madeleine phenomenon is unique. Not in the sense of faked abductions, in that genre it is pretty run of the mill. It is unique however, in that it became a matter of nationalist pride. The Great British Empire simply couldn't and wouldn't, accept that the UK's finest could be involved in a heinous and grubby crime. They have bent over £12m backwards not just to protect that small group of National Health Doctors, but also to protect the scarily poor judgement of 3/4 PMs, and a parliament and MSM filled with closet racists and imperialists.

      Six weeks into higher education, I had a sudden realisation that there was no turning back, as too did another 'old bird' I palled up with. As I said in my blog, this case is sooooo much more than a missing child. Even the greatest McCann supporters must be wondering wtf is going on - 6 years! £12million! All the main witnesses ruled out at the outset!

      Having seen Donald Trump elected as US President, I'm just waiting to see an elephant fly and Gerry and Kate being elevated to the House of Lords. These days we can't rule out anything.

      Delete
  6. Reply to 9.36 Yes where has the ring of confidence and happy smiling faces gone? How weird it was to see the images of the McCanns & with reflection on them how really peculiar. Compared to the more recent BBC programme, where they look like the living dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the body language of G+K tells us something completely different to the words they use. Although there was some duping delight by Gerry he would also gulp nervously, this interview is the first time they haven't come across as being so sure of themselves. I suppose time will tell with OG but to an outsider it looks like something is going on that the public is currently not aware of, again my opinion.

      Delete
  7. Same old, same old.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Campaign still going on. Players only getting older. Maybe we can try to draw e-fits of the couple as they will look in another 10 years? Why this everlasting exposure of the same non-story? A new PR company, please!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ziggy rightfully IMO disagrees with the idea that the McCanns (plus others) could / did conceal the death of a child. The fact that RDH agrees with that explanation should serve as a warning to fellow believers.

    The problem with the McCann story is that to deny the death theory means the fall back position is to believe abduction, but even Ziggy seemed somewhat reluctant and found it difficult to explain... or should I say, his denial of death theory was much more reasonable than his explanation of abduction... but that's the problem with a two horse race.

    Maybe there's another explanation that people are not seeing, but for now I think you're right to back away from the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In many respects 14:02, I am as narcissistic as those I accuse. I am extremely precious with my time. I won't do what I don't want to do, nor will I will read anything that bores me or doesn't enlighten me, or at the very least entertains me.

      Some people, and I am fortunate to have many here, have the ability to lift the discussion to another plane - and for that I am eternally grateful.

      I think this case has reached a you believe them, or you don't stage. The official line will probably be that they victims of a heinous crime and all children are at risk of being stolen from their bedrooms. But unofficially, 90% of the population won't believe a word of it, but they have already moved on.

      Diehards like Bennett et all, will continue to write voluminous Mr. Angry of Harlow letters to official bodies who have no option but to read them (poor sods), and of course to himself under the guise of anonymous admirer, and, err, Jill Havern.

      I do indeed have the option to back away from the case, and for that I thank all the Gods there may be! I'm feeling a little guilty at the moment for not giving the media support I should to my friends on the Left. I have a bit of a phobia, because during the one football I ever watched in my life, Gary Neville missed the penalty for England! I, and all my male relatives, believe this was my fault! Such is the life of a guilt ridden, ex catholic, manic depressive!

      I LOVE Jeremy, though I also have a crush on John McDonald, who I could happily listen to for hours, preferably in a comfy chair, by an open fire with big swirly glasses of Remy Martin and a box of cherry liquors........

      But I digress. I am sure there will be 'other' explanations for decades to come 14:02, there is still a lot of economic mileage in Madeleine's name. Authors will come forward with the 'definitive' explanation, maybe even myself.

      My problem on that score is 1)I don't have the academic psychology accreditations 2)As much as 'I have no morals and I need he cash' [great line from Monica in Friends], I do actually have my own moral guidelines.

      I have studies this case, and the characters involved for 10 years - ergo, much longer than I studied for my degree. My speciality, is human behaviour.

      It is my understanding of human behaviour that 'holds me back' in my writing about this case. It would be immoral, in my opinion, to pile more agony onto a grieving family. And, no matter which way you look at it, they are a family who lost a child.

      I personally have a 'Line' I will not cross. I would never claim or even want to be, an investigator or research, lol. I muse. I consider myself especially fortunate that I have been surrounded by good people in my life. My dear old dad especially, who always told me, 'never hurt someone, just because you can'. But my feisty old Irish mother would add 'go for the jugular when needs be'. I lean towards the former, but I hold the latter in reserve ;)

      Delete
  10. 14:02

    "The fact that RDH agrees with that explanation should serve as a warning to fellow believers."

    Why?

    In some quarters it is believed that a pair of sniffer dogs with an unblemished record fell over themselves to give a dozen false alerts in Praia da Luz. If that is deemed a reasonable position to adopt then, by the same token, RDH could be wrong about many things but right as regards the McCann case.

    "The problem with the McCann story is that to deny the death theory means the fall back position is to believe abduction...but that's the problem with a two horse race."

    What's the problem? Two horses - one wins, the other loses (unless they're both called Devon Loch). Of course if you rule one out at the start, then you're totally dependent on the other staying the course.

    You don't like the idea of Madeleine McCann having died, but abduction is 'difficult to explain'. I don't like the taste of penicillin, but Aspirin isn't always enough.

    Sometimes we just have to accept and swallow the bitter pill.




    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous22 May 2017 at 14:28

    ''.. the body language of G+K tells us something completely different to the words they use...he would also gulp nervously... to an outsider it looks like something is going on that the public is currently not aware of..''

    That's typical of the public. It's their own fault for not learning how to read body language ( why don't they use youtube). Maybe they should include this 'skill' on the school curriculum in future. That way any army of detectives will have one amongst them to nail such complex cases with this kind of efficiency.

    If we could revive Marcel Marceau and have him preside over a case that has a deaf and dumb jury, we'd see justice.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 May 2017 at 18:35

    ''Thank you T, our mutual friend is nothing if not tenacious, his arguments may not be convincing anyone, but he is never going to give up!''

    That's not nice now, is it...

    My arguments are shared by many. They're denied or resisted by even more.Tenacity isn't a bad quality to have. Ask those at the top who've been so tenacious in their fictionalising of this nasty little narrative.Or those who've been ruthlessly protective of a chosen few that reach beyond the online 'folk devils' we know as Mr and Mrs McCann. I prefer to try and champion the course of justice, not join in the choir that voice the wisdom of crowds.I won't allow hatred to cloud my thinking or view.And i always bear in mind that imagination is a fine servant but a poor master.That's my kind of wisdom.

    However, If you'd prefer me to stop trying to bring balance, I will.I can see by the responses to my views and ideas that they bring little more than childish snipes that belong in the playgrounds of infants.

    I've held back from sharing my most strongly held beliefs about the case( who isn't being analysed enough and who is being analysed too much..who is connected to who in the background when and where..and the flawed logic of any theory that sees either an abductor or parent -or anyone- taking a child, unconscious or dead, down long and winding streets as the bars were emptying out). You'v e all seen the abductor. Everyone has. It wasn't a McCann. But too many are compromised. Not just UK officials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Walk away Ziggy. It's not worth the effort you put into it.

      Delete
    2. Wow Ziggy, you could use parts of post 19:26 as a plea to Pope Francis for a Sainthood. One can't help but wonder why you and your goody two shoes spend such an inordinate amount of time in this valley of darkness. You could not have chosen stonier ground to cast your seeds of misinformation.

      The idea that you are the only one who's judgement is without 'hate' is ludicrous. As you have been told time and time again, hate has got nothing to do with it.

      Let me explain how this works. The McCanns issue a statement/press release - the media and the public respond. They don't have the royal status of issuing proclamations, so it is the responding part that causes the McCanns so much grief. They believe they have the divine right to have their statements go unchallenged, and bizarrely, they have a group of professionals supporting them with this King Canute belief. Mad clients prop up many a legal firm. What's that? You want a lawyer to watch social media 24/7 - just write out the cheque. Happy days.

      As long as they issue press releases the game will continue Ziggy. It's Gerry and Kate's game! They are the owners of the ball, every time they throw it into the arena, the game begins again.

      While I have no doubt there are a large number of people out there who 'hate' Gerry and Kate without logical reasons, many more just cannot stand being lied to. And reading body language and the 80% of communication that is not the spoken or written word, is a primal instinct. Most of us have it!

      And let's not forget there is much to dislike about Gerry and Kate. Not least the unseemly way in which they marketed their missing daughter. Their lack of humility, their lack of gratitude, their constant whining. The fact that they frittered away millions of public donations on persecuting the former detective who searched for their daughter. Not likeable traits.

      I don't know what you are trying to hint at with your final paragraph - spit it out man, you are losing your audience, myself included.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda @13:54

      "It's Gerry and Kate's game!"

      I don't think so.

      But since we've all seen the abductor, according to ZS, I too would appreciate being reminded of his or her identity as I must have been looking the other way at the time.

      Delete
    4. ZiggySawdust22 May 2017 at 19:26

      Thank you Cristobell.

      I don't want to get into conflict with anyone Ziggy we all have different opinions and you have a different opinion to me fair enough. I go on my instincts in regards to body language as do most people.

      Delete
  12. Denying the dogs' findings is the only way to claim a non explicable abduction theory.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous22 May 2017 at 19:36

    ''Denying the dogs' findings is the only way to claim a non explicable abduction theory.''

    Two points:

    Forensic Science 'denied' the dogs. Those who want the McCanns to pay, only criticise anyone who points to this fact. Why don't they criticise and accuse the people who made the decision ?

    Who would want to claim an inexplicable theory ? Because the anti-McCann mob want justice( basically justice that only sees the parents pay) and the shelving of their best argument has robbed them of their victory, they all find vent in calling an abduction theory 'ropey' because there's no evidence of that either. At least those who tend to the abduction side have a missing child to point to as evidence.That's something.

    It needs to be borne in mind that the magic dogs were trained to detect blood and the scent of cadaver.Not murderers. An abductor can kill or injure too.

    Who will petition the forensics to revisit the evidence instead of banging the same annoying drum day in day out ?

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 May 2017 at 21:56

    ''In a nutshell 19:36! Thank you.''

    Denying the expertise of Forensic Scientists( and even the dog's handler) is the only way to claim a murder rather than an abduction.

    ( there's another nutshell)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 22 May 2017 at 22:59

      “Forensic Science 'denied' the dogs.”

      Wrong again, again and again.

      You (pretend to) fail to understand the “Forensic Science”, “the dogs” and the relationship between the two.

      T

      Delete
    2. It's really as simple as this : The dogs done their job, the scientists f*ucked up (or were 'ordered' to f*uck up by none other than prime minister, Gordon Brown).

      Delete
    3. @20:44

      Who knows?

      KM in her account of the truth:

      “My desire to go to Fátima had been increasing steadily over het preceding few days. As we neared our destination, I was filled with nervous anticipation and a peculiar excitement. Seconds before we arrived Gerry received a phone call from Gordon Brown. After their conversation Gerry relayed his message of support and encouragement to me, commenting on the marked empathy and sincerity in Mr Brown’s voice.”

      A quiet conversation.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 24 May 2017 at 10:29

      “A quiet conversation.”

      Indeed.

      T

      Delete
  14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 May 2017 at 20:47

    ''how far should diplomatic interference go in a criminal investigation abroad?''

    ''it became a matter of nationalist pride. The Great British Empire simply couldn't and wouldn't, accept that the UK's finest could be involved in a heinous and grubby crime.''

    ''They have bent over £12m backwards not just to protect that small group of National Health Doctors, but also to protect the scarily poor judgement of 3/4 PMs, and a parliament''

    How far should diplomatic interference go abroad ? It shouldn't. Possibly a communication between the British Embassy and our Home Secretary could be in order depending on how serious the crime was. The rest is a matter for the police.

    I keep reading about this mythical 'image abroad'. Our image abroad was in tatters years ago as far as tourism goes. Years of football violence and vandalism combined with years of binge drinking and drug taking in hotter climes only had one upside for our various hosts; lots of overtime for the police. It hasn't been a group of NHS employees receiving the dubious and no-expense-spared protection is it.They're only doctors. They aren't politicians or members of the clergy. Why is the arrest of one or more seen as a threat to national security ?National security has more serious issues to consider than our 'image'. I think it's the other way around in the context of this case. Bear in mind that it was only 2003 that their horrendous paedophile scandal was in the courts that involved politicians, doctors, and various members of the 'elite'. It would, therefore, serve their reputation better if it was tourists responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine. Besides, if, for instance, a couple of Italian GPs chose England to murder their child and then cover it up-would we judge Italy ?Just because of an isolated incident ? Moreover, would Italy smother the case and throw shed-loads of cash at it to see that they remained innocent in order that their country's reputation came out unscathed ?I doubt it very much. Just the way I doubt very much that this is the case in Portugal now. The judgement of 3/4 pms, a couple of Home Secretaries and chief whip may well be, as you say , 'scary'. But it only seems like 'poor' judgement to us.They wouldn't think so as they got the job done.Mission/s were, as they say, accomplished. Unfortunately, in our fine and proud democracy, these criminals not only make and enforce the law but place themselves beyond it's reach and answer to nobody.

    I'd like you to give this a go :

    https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/the-elm-guest-house-how-an-establishment-paedophile-network-was-covered-up-for-31-years/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dead child, paedophile gang, bandwagon.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You are right about paedophile hysteria; remember the dreadful Shieldfield Nursery scandal when two innocent people went in fear of their lives despite being acquitted by a court of law. Even the egregious Esther Rantzen ("Rumours aren't evidence") boosted the ratings of her programme by challenging them to come out of hiding and "prove their innocence". I do not believe that the McCanns are paedophiles. David Payne may be a dirty-minded so-and-so who cannot control his offensive mouth when he has had a few, but I do not believe he is anything more. However, be they innocent or guilty, they do not deserve to be lionised for an act of child neglect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for posting Highmyope, I have just looked up the Shiedfield Nursery scandal, it makes chilling reading. Unfortunately with the subject of paedophilia, the lunatics are running the asylum. Most people shun and steer clear of 'P' word and I have no doubt that includes government ministers and MPs who happily front popular causes they know nothing about. They act on the advice of the experts they surround themselves with - the police chiefs, the pressure groups. People who want to punish child abusers, beginning with elderly male celebrities and politicians. Have the crimes of Bert the plumber ever been exposed for example?

      People who won't ask awkward questions like 'why are we putting so much time, energy and resources into prosecuting 40 year old crimes?' Or maybe, how about pouring that cash into helping the hundreds of thousands of kids that are living in poverty and abuse NOW?

      One of the greatest wrongs in this case was the normalisation of leaving babies and toddlers alone while the parents go out. The lessons that should have been learned were buried in the hullaballoo that surrounded the parents. The parents wouldn't blame themselves, and no-one else should either. 'We're not the ones who did something wrong' Kate says, at every opportunity'. 'At worst we were naïve' says Gerry and 'they have suffered enough' cry the faux childrens' ambassadors.

      The real dangers of leaving such young children unattended were swept under the carpet. For most adults, the idea of toddlers being alone in a dark, unfamiliar apartment would send shivers down our spines. Madeleine was nearly 4, known to wake up and wander, wtf where they thinking?

      Toddlers are accidents waiting to happen on two wobbly little legs. Every parent knows they cannot turn their back for even a moment, and every new environment is scanned for danger with the expertise of the men in black. Tots walk into things, they climb, they eat and drink things they shouldn't, that's why they can never, under any circumstances, be left on their own. It is truly incredible that the danger became 'stranger abductor' and not the far more likely, accident.

      Delete
  17. Life is short so, unfortunately, this is now becoming a write-only forum because...well, we all know why, don't we?

    Anyway, like Z, the last of the McCanns' regular twitter supporters ("walker") is having a nervous breakdown and is literally posting gibberish today.

    People have different ways of facing intellectual and psychological defeat, as we shall witness more and more in the coming months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John, I may not agree with what Ziggy says, but he has the right to say it. I'm not comfortable with censorship - and besides, Ziggy is a handy vehicle with which to rebut the lies and fake news of Team McCann.

      Your final paragraph intrigue me, I hope I am not included lol. Actually, like yourself JB, I have watched the case grow and evolve, I don't understand the mentality of nailing your flag to a mast when there are so few details available.

      I have enough understanding of the people involved and the chain of events to put the pieces of the puzzle together, but even so, I wouldn't claim to know the definitive answer. Eejits like Bennett, RDH and Textusa are stuck forever more with their deviant sex theories. They have yet to realise that their theories say more about themselves, than they do about this case, lol.

      I've actually never in my life had a problem with being proved wrong. I actually welcome it, because it opens a new door to perception. I have no problem with 'pros' trying to convince me Gerry and Kate are innocent - they haven't so far, lol. Like them, I looked for all sorts of other options - no-one WANTS to believe the parents were involved. I'm sure most of us who cannot believe them, have, at some time, had a crisis of conscious.

      As for facing intellectual and psychological defeat. Interesting. I don't think there will be any winners JB - certainly not Gerry and Kate, even if they are officially ruled out. The internet is quite literally filled with libraries of information about missing Madeleine and the suspicions around their parents. Long gone are those heady, summer days of 2007 when their Fund was being inundated with cash and they were celebrated worldwide as heroes. For that they will always blame Goncalo Amaral - it was all going so well........

      I assume however, you are referring to the Christian soldier yonder, lol. I expect he will bust a blood vessel (at the very least) and increase his output of petitions and public appearances, gaw'd 'elp us.

      I don't often look in on the cesspit these days, though to be fair they do have some faithful foot soldiers who put up breaking news, which is sometimes useful.

      Delete
    2. Hello Ros. Of course you're not included: I have always supported you against the misogynists and JATK type rabble whose purpose has never been to refute your stuff but exclusively and solely to hurt you. The pleasure they take in their hate always gives them away. And I have always admired your openness and honesty in expressing your feelings, including your obvious struggle to decide which is the morally correct course to take in this affair.

      No, I am not awarding prizes for guessing the eventual outcome of Grange; I am talking about what has already happened, of which the "victory" of Goncalo Amaral is the most obvious symptom.

      That Amaral has won is not of the slightest interest to me in itself: I haven't done heroes since I was a very young man.

      Amaral's "victory", which of course is significant to him in terms of ending his suffering, is only important to the rest of us for one reason: it went all the way to the very top of the Portuguese judiciary, a symbol of the resources and thoroughness with which the whole question of the McCanns "chance to demonstrate their innocence" has been examined there.

      The examination has revealed that the intellectual and evidential case for the McCanns innocence is lacking. Half a million euros spent by the McCanns' defence and, just as I forecast would happen several years ago when I talked of the "empty cupboard", they were unable to provide a single piece of evidence or a single compelling and expert witness in Lisbon distinguishing them from the other unpleasant suspects in the case - except that while the burglars and lurkers have been exonerated, yes exonerated - the McCanns have not.

      Real life is too slow for most people's tastes, especially those on the net. The consequences of that comprehensive examination of the couple and their claims in Portugal will be working themselves out over the coming months and years. It should be obvious that the same body of facts which provided the verdict of the Supreme Court exist for use in other places: that is what happens with "established facts" - once they are established you don't go back to the beginning again, you build on them. That is what is taking place now elsewhere.

      Of course people, usually of a certain type,can deny and deny again the existence of established facts and the ultimate emptiness of their own case. That is what many are doing now. It won't make any difference - as, I repeat, they will find.

      The breakdown of the twitter poster today was not an isolated incident: anyone with eyes to see has witnessed an increasing stridency, incoherence, venom and sheer unreality from the strong McCanns supporters over the last couple of years as what was, in the early days, an intellectually defensible position, has crumbled away to insignificance. Most of them - the thick ones - will catch up eventually; the challenged ones, like Walker, like the people who attack you, will go on to the bitter end and then they'll start crying, without knowing why. It's just the way people are.




      Delete
    3. 23.5, 23:10

      "that is what happens with "established facts" - once they are established you don't go back to the beginning again, you build on them. That is what is taking place now elsewhere."

      Are you alluding to Operation Grange here? Your remarks are reminiscent of Mark Rowley's about taking the Portuguese findings as given.

      If so, do you not think it odd that Scotland Yard should build on solid indications of 'no forced entry' (or no entry indeed), coupled with strong indications of death before departure, and yet still manage to come up with a burglar or three by way of explanation?

      Delete
    4. john blacksmith 23 May 2017 at 23:10

      Good to see you back, john.

      “And I have always admired your openness and honesty in expressing your feelings, including your obvious struggle to decide which is the morally correct course to take in this affair.”

      I sign to that.

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 24 May 2017 at 08:56

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  18. Actually there is a scenario where the burglar / cadaver dogs / abduction fits.

    Burglar breaks into the McCann's apartment. Madeleine wakes. Burglar smothers her trying to keep her quiet. Burglar panics and fearing that he might leave his evidence on her body takes Madeleine's body and disposes of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And did he sit about for 90 minutes waiting on the odour to develop. If you listened to SY last interview they investigated that and removed the 3 burglars as suspects. Unless there was another 3 burglars running around in pdl at that time. Such a busy place that PDL

      Delete
    2. 12:55

      Actually there isn't.

      "Burglar panics and fearing that he might leave his evidence on her body takes Madeleine's body and disposes of it."

      Without leaving it first in the parents' bedroom for an hour or so (for cadaverine to develop), then for a sufficient time in the lounge for 'scent marking' purposes.

      Or did he deposit the body first and come back for it later?

      But weren't the 'checks' half-hourly?

      Don't reproach yourself over the lack of alignment. Operation Grange has struggled with it also.

      What was that line trotted out during the OJ Simpson trial ("If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit", or words to that effect)?

      It really does look like the abductor is off the hook. Which leaves...

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 23 May 2017 at 15:37

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  19. I do wish people would stop with the body disposal guesswork.

    If there was a body then I doubt it would have been dealt with like garbage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that is possible 15:39, it is the crux and heart of the matter! There is no way to make the original crime fragrant.

      We all hope the poor child's body wasn't dealt with like garbage 15:39 and we all hope that she will one day, have the kind of memorial she deserves.

      Delete
    2. 15:39

      "I do wish people would stop with the body disposal guesswork."

      Says he/she. Going on immediately to hazard a guess as to body disposal...

      "If there was a body then I doubt it would have been dealt with like garbage."

      Delete
  20. On the face of it, that could almost work 12:55, but more closely there are a number of major flaws. 1)Dogs - not enough time for cadaver odour to develop 2)No logic whatsoever to a burglar taking a body, but no mobile phones, passports or any item of monetary value.

    Common house burglars are not 'Master Criminals' and they are not likely to move in circles that can keep secrets for 10 years. Especially given the huge rewards that have been offered.

    I think whilst headline skimmers may accept that version, the accusations of cover up and conspiracy will increase dramatically. On top of which Scotland Yard will lose respect worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got to disagree - a recent survey carried out on cadaver dogs by the university at Berne in Switzerland concluded that a body only has to rest for a few minutes for dogs to pick up a scent. Also, if a burglar had accidently killed Madeleine then it is likely that he would have been too preoccupied with the thought of what he had just done and how to deal with it than looking for passports, wallets etc.

      Finally, when murder is involved, people tend to not open their mouths and discuss it with others (however I recall that you have suggested that the McCanns, their families and the 'Tapas' crew have managed to keep this secret for the last ten years!)

      Delete
    2. "a body only has to rest for a few minutes for dogs to pick up a scent."

      That's probably true of living ones also.

      The point you're missing is that cadaverine is not an instantaneous product resulting from death. Its natural synthesis takes more than 'a few minutes'.

      Hence your burglar having to wait an hour or so before the very recently deceased started to decay sufficiently for the scent to be present at all.

      Unless you can tell us that the good people at Berne tested cadaver dogs on corpses ranging from 'died on the spot that instant' to 'dead for a day, a week, a month' etc.

      Delete
    3. The full report is available at Science direct.com and is entitled "Cadaver dogs--A study on detection of contaminated carpet squares". The study was carried out in 2006/2007 - I think you should read it before giving us your 'expert' opinion!!

      Delete
    4. "I think you should read it before giving us your 'expert' opinion!!"

      17:40

      Thank you, I shall.

      Pity you didn't provide the reference when first you gave us your own (expert opinion).

      Delete
    5. 17:40

      Just read the abstract to the report you cited.

      The carpet squares were impregnated with cadaverine from a person deceased less than 3 hours prior, NOT someone who died just a couple of minutes ago and from whose corpse cadeverine would not be immediately emitted.

      If you're going to quote a scientific study, it's always best to make sure you properly understand it before being sarcastic.

      Maybe the burglar nipped upstairs for a cup of tea while waiting for things to 'mature' in 5A.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 24 May 2017 at 12:46, 17:40

      Respectfully.

      “…a recent survey carried out on cadaver dogs by the university at Berne in Switzerland…”

      “…recent…”?

      In the 21st century one does not refer to a ten-year-old scientific publication as “recent”, hon, unless one wants to be taken for another broken tooth from the dust-producing saw on this blog.

      Wouldn’t you agree that at least something like ‘…a survey carried out on cadaver dogs by the university at Berne in Switzerland 10 years ago…’ would save the curious a bit of time? Posting a link instead of being mysterious would do even better.

      Having known of the (irrelevant to your “Got to disagree…”) Bern study, I wasted about 15min yesterday searching for something ‘recent’.

      Please be so kind as to be considerate of the curious, my friend, when raising an important objection.

      No offence.

      Thank you for your time.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 24 May 2017 at 23:43

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 24 May 2017 at 23:43

      “17:40

      Just read the abstract to the report you cited.

      The carpet squares were impregnated with cadaverine from a person deceased less than 3 hours prior, NOT someone who died just a couple of minutes ago and from whose corpse cadeverine would not be immediately emitted.

      If you're going to quote a scientific study, it's always best to make sure you properly understand it before being sarcastic.”

      Concur.

      “Maybe the burglar nipped upstairs for a cup of tea while waiting for things to 'mature' in 5A.”

      Indeed. Pamela, kettle at the ready, would be all to glad to have company.:)

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
    9. So what you are saying is that Madeleine must have been dead for at least 3 hours in the apartment before the alarm was raised that she was missing?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 25 May 2017 at 18:44

      Who are you addressing please?

      T

      Delete
    11. I have read the full study and the conclusion is that the safe interval is around 1.5 hours after death . The minutes for contamination you mention is the actual contact with the carpet squares . You must have read only the synopsis . The full study needs to be bought . Moreover it is not only cadaverine the dog alerts to . It alerts to a group of volatile organic compounds all resulting from human decomposition . Isabel

      No tests have ever been made with bodies of people deceased less than an hour , I'm guessing due to ethical concerns .

      Delete
    12. "Both men had publicly collapsed and died despite comprehensive resuscitative efforts. At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively. Their body temperature was measured (...)"
      So , safe to say the 1. 50 minutes is the minimum , tested .

      Martin Smith sees who he sees at 22h00 , the child is not independently seen since 17h30. it's all really rather simple . It'sfar fetched theories that make it complicated and opaque . Isabel


      Delete
  21. john blacksmith23 May 2017 at 10:48

    ''Anyway, like Z, the last of the McCanns' regular twitter supporters ("walker") is having a nervous breakdown..''

    I support fairness and justice.What i say backs that up. Unlike the hypocrisy of so many 'commentators' who just want vengeance without evidence. Don't assume anything else until i say. The neurotic meanderings , rants and, let's not forget, pure imagination of the angry mob has been like watching an experiment in mass hypnosis go tagically wrong.It's been a horrible collective meltdown just because two people who have lost a child aren't suffering in a prison.

    ''People have different ways of facing intellectual and psychological defeat, as we shall witness more and more in the coming months.''

    Would you recognise either ? How are the McCanns doing out there in prison ? Look around most McCann blogs. Most stopped 2, 3 or more years ago. They're littered with 'it's coming to a close now' comments from the antis. They don't learn do they..
    Anonymous23 May 2017 at 12:55

    I said that further up ^^. It makes sense.So you( and me ) shouldn't really post it.

    Anonymous23 May 2017 at 13:31

    T

    ''Wrong again, again and again.''
    ''You (pretend to) fail to understand the “Forensic Science”, “the dogs” and the relationship between the two.''

    Did(do) the PJ and SY share my dilemma ? Whatever the 'relaltionship' is between Eddie and Keela, Eddie and blood, Keela and cadaver scent,Amaral and Grime( etc etc),more than 10 years have slipped by and the evidence hasn't been offered up as incriminating of the McCanns or anyone else.

    It's simple. It's the job of the police to find evidence of a crime that is considered proof.It's the job of science to tell the police what is or isn't proof and why it is or isn't. It isn't the job of a prosecution team to do either. All they have to do is turn up in court and then persuade a jury.

    Anonymous23 May 2017 at 09:25

    ''Dead child, paedophile gang, bandwagon.''

    I doubt many are still on that bandwagon. There are still a fair number on 'child stolen to order' one though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16:15

      "It's simple"

      So simple in fact that one wonders how you can get things so badly mixed up. So many words in such a hurry they come out like Eric Morecombe's version of Grieg's piano concerto - 'all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order'.

      Sadly I'm with André Previn on this one. Some of the notes are simply wrong.

      "Eddie and blood, Keela and cadaver scent"

      should read 'Eddie and cadaver scent, Keela and blood'

      "evidence hasn't been offered up as incriminating of the McCanns or anyone else."

      Offered up to whom? No-one has been charged with any offence and, in the absence of a trial, there is no requirement to place evidence before a jury. To speak of evidence as 'incriminating' or otherwise is therefore fatuous, since the forum in which such decisions are arrived at has yet to open its doors.

      "It's the job of the police to find evidence of a crime" (No it's not) "that is considered proof" (of what - the crime?).

      It's the job of the police to attend the scene of a crime and gather evidence in relation to it, not prove it occurred, unless you're talking about a death under suspicious circumstances. Even then evidence OF a crime may be uncovered by others besides the police (e.g., the medical examiner).

      "It's the job of science to tell the police what is or isn't proof and why it is or isn't"

      Again. It is NOT the job of science to instruct the police as to 'proof'.

      The responsibility of the (forensic) scientist/medical examiner is to examine the material (biological, physical or whatever) put before them and arrive at a determination as to its salience in respect of the investigation.

      Matching a bite mark to a given set of dentures (or DNA to a benchmark profile) is simply that. It is not 'proof' of guilt or innocence necessarily (Did you not earlier cite Alec Jeffreys on exactly this point?).

      "It isn't the job of a prosecution team to do either. All they have to do is turn up in court and then persuade a jury."

      ALL they have to do?

      Unless I'm mistaken it is PRECISELY the job of the state prosecutor's office (CPS/District Attorney etc.) to arbitrate as regards the strength of evidence BEFORE bringing a felony case to court. Once the trial has begun even the judge may have something to say, if called upon, concerning such matters as admissibility.

      Your attempt to portray state prosecutors as mere marionettes is facetious.

      You are tending to 'shoot from the hip' (or should that be 'lip'), thereby defeating your own object rather. You are less likely to garner support for your more credible position vis-à-vis the McCanns being shielded by those 'upstairs' if you persist in over-stating your argument(s) to the point of misrepresentation.




      Delete
    2. That sounds quite reasonable to me.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 23 May 2017 at 19:24

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  22. highmyope195523 May 2017 at 10:33

    Hi, high

    Esther Rantzen knows a lot more than people want to face regarding abuse, especially at the BBC. She's well connected.

    The 'hysteria' tag aside, paedophilia is rife here and Europe. it's only a 'recent' phenomenon because it's only recently been leaked .it's apparent sudden appearance makes it look like hysteria. It's been going on for years on a grand scale.

    As for David Payne...I agree, he doesn't sound like good company when he's had a drink or three. I'm guessing you'e referring to the now infamous 'obscene gesture' that accompanied his lewd comments which he made to Gerry McCann when they were all sat around drinking. Very seedy.But that statement has been pounced on as a conversation about little Madeleine.Nowhere in the statement of Gaspar has him actually mentioning her.No name is mentioned.If he was, I think Gerry McCann would have at least told him to shut it.But nowhere in the statement do we see a word from GM in a 'conversation'.Payne could have well been talking about a mutual friend from their junior doctor days or University. Gaspar said it was enough to put her off socialising with the crowd in the future. She also said he'd said and done the same thing over a year before but it didn't put her off then.

    As you say, the McCanns were neglectful.Nobody can argue against that. They argue to save face and deal with what happened because of it no doubt.But the accusations against them and the bile have been off the scale. Yet the same people responsible for it point the fingers elsewhere and talk about 'hysteria'.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Rosalinda and others

    I really hope that you and other non-believers will keep on discussing the Madeleine case till it becomes properly solved. I certainly will. I must say that I’ve always appreciated your attempt Rosalinda to illuminate what needs to be illuminated with regards to all the ambiguities and oddities this case and I hope that you will go on doing so.

    Leaving it in the hands of the British authorities and their proteges would be a historical injustice of a kind never seen before.

    Here are just some thoughts about personal responsibilities in the context of police investigations. Even if it may be a little bit off topic for what's being discussed right now, I think it's worth discussing.

    A police officer, who lacks human virtues, such as courage, conscience and real compassion will easily become a puppet on a string at the helm of its government and will therefore perform his/her duties in a way that his/her superior or society as a whole expect, whether morally defensible or not.

    I, personally, doubt that Mark Rowley and his colleagues have any fresh leads, let alone any rational or sensible lines of inquiry to follow, instead he and his team have been doing what Redwood did for more than 5 years, that is, randomly trying to find the tiniest little evidence, that might be helpful in order to incriminate someone outside the realm of the McCanns and their tapas friends. Redwood failed in this respect and so will others in the S Y who refrain from investigating the McCanns.

    As far as Rowley is concerned, he doesn’t have the guts to ask the McCanns any question regarding the circumstances around Madeleine’s disappearance. This was the essence of what he said in his “latest” interview in my opinion.

    He may deep inside, if he has a bit of common sense, be very suspicious about the McCanns’ innocence, but that will not prevent him from doing what he’s supposed to do, that is, keep on pretending that the S Y are making progress, although, I dare say, that it’s quite obvious that they haven’t.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn, I think it will be impossible NOT to comment, whenever the McCanns, their team and their sources keep issuing fake news as press releases. And the idea that children are in constant danger of being snatched from their beds is another wicked lie that needs to be stamped out. So many kids now getting fatter and more unhealthy because their parents are petrified to let them out to play!

      The police investigating this case will not come out of it well if they continue the cover up started by New Labour in 2007. The sword of Damocles will hang over their heads forever more. With so many involved, nothing is guaranteed, and it only takes one person to crack or whistleblow.

      My faith lies in the Portuguese police chief. He seems to be a lot more on the ball.

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      Yes, if the Portuguese PJ would just get the chance to investigate the McCanns without "a little help" from British "experts", this case could be solved, but as long as the S Y are "in charge", as it seems to me, nothing in terms of progress is going to happen.

      I always become so disappointed when I hear comments/statements by officials/detectives representing the the Met/SY about "helping" the McCanns to find their daughter. This is a crime case that needs to be solved and not a case about two parents, who need to be helped and comforted. The social situation of Madeleine's parents and their "desperate need" to find their daughter should not affect anything, that has with the police investigation to do. In this context the use of the words "help the parents" becomes almost synonymous with the words "exonerate the parents", and I've no doubts anymore about the SY now trying their best to "HELP" the parents.


      Delete
  24. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 May 2017 at 16:46

    ''Hi John, I may not agree with what Ziggy says, but he has the right to say it. I'm not comfortable with censorship - and besides, Ziggy is a handy vehicle with which to rebut the lies and fake news of Team McCann. ''

    Respect for that ( ''I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'')..

    As handy as a vehicle anyone might consider me,the rebutting isn't that easy is it. I won't refer to 'fake news' as I'm proud of not being an american. But lies ? If something can be destroyed by truth then it deserves to be.There's the problem. If 'truth' was available anywhere we wouldn't be talking about this after ten years would we. An opinion is an opinion.Nothing more.It doesn't matter how strongly anyone holds an opinion, it will always be nothing more than one.

    Anonymous23 May 2017 at 15:37

    ''Without leaving it first in the parents' bedroom for an hour or so (for cadaverine to develop), then for a sufficient time in the lounge for 'scent marking' purposes.''

    I questioned the amount of time it would take for scent to develop but oddly nobody gave me an answer. I was trying to understand how a parent would kill then run to a fridge or church yet still leave the scent. Apparently, from what i read about the subject, the so-called 'scent' begins as soon as breathing ends. I find that hard to believe but I'm not a scientist.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 May 2017 at 15:52

    ''On top of which Scotland Yard will lose respect worldwide.''

    SY are trading on history, little more. The Met are losing respect on a monthly basis at home never mind abroad.

    Anonymous23 May 2017 at 15:37

    ''It really does look like the abductor is off the hook. Which leaves...''

    a closer examination of that hook...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 23.5, 18:38

      "Apparently, from what i read about the subject, the so-called 'scent' begins as soon as breathing ends. I find that hard to believe"

      So do I.

      "It really does look like the abductor is off the hook. Which leaves..."

      'a closer examination of that hook...'

      Solid one-dimensional thinking there (cf. 'dogma')

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 24 May 2017 at 09:02

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  25. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 May 2017 at 21:45

    '' the idea that children are in constant danger of being snatched from their beds is another wicked lie that needs to be stamped out''

    Lie or opinion ? You can't stamp out opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are.The McCann online court has shown everyone that.You can easily stamp out a lie though.Expose why it is and then show the truth( as opposed to opinion).

    '' So many kids now getting fatter and more unhealthy because their parents are petrified to let them out to play!''

    A large ( no pun intended) section of kids are too bone idle to play.Even those who venture out only play on phones.They also eat 'supersize' everything and drink gallons of fizzy garbage.What about their parents' responsibility ?

    ''if they continue the cover up started by New Labour in 2007.''

    Cover up ? Of what and by who/m ? Elaborate ?

    Bjorn, I don't know how it works where you are but here in the UK the police follow orders from their superiors who follow orders from theirs. They swear an oath to the queen, not the people. By extension, they're swearing an oath to whichever set of psychpaths are in power at any given time. For all you, me and anyone know, there are officers who know what happened in 2007 but if the orders are to say nothing then that's what will happen.There's more than just weird freemasonic oaths sworn amongst these people. But, if we suspect high level interference from the UK and that the PJ were ordered to roll over and say no more then we're on the money. If we think all of that took place to shield a couple of doctors and our image abroad, we're on drugs-or should be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Z
      Ziggy
      "For all you, me and anyone know, there are officers who know what happened in 2007 but if the orders are to say nothing then that's what will happen"

      Here, I do, in fact, agree with you, though I may view things from a somewhat different perspective than you do, but it all has with loyalty to do.

      Loyalty is of course a highly valued quality in working life, just as much here in Sweden as in the U K, I suppose. However, being loyal to one’s country, which I believe both Redwood and Rowley are, without questioning its ethical and moral values, or its hostile actions, isn’t just cowardice but also the denying of one’s own ability to distinguish right from wrong.

      Delete
  26. ZiggySawdust 23 May 2017 at 22:59 (the last post on the previous blog)

    I am grateful for your comments.

    I am concerned with your failure/refusal to acknowledge that the validity of the dogs’ indications does not depend on the outcome of the DNA analysis.

    You are in a position to know that the dogs are not mentioned at your link. Nigel Hodge and Alec Jeffreys are, as far as I know, not experts in specialist dogs and therefore would be most unlikely to put themselves forward as such in a court of law.

    Thus my question ““Please substantiate your “…Nigel Hodge and Alec Jeffereysnot only explained why the EVIDENCE OF THE DOGS wasn't reliable but were /are prepared to testify to IT” remains unanswered.

    My “Oh dear, another branch of the same tree” = Oh dear, another defender of the indefensible (another bullshitter as you put it). I am speaking lovingly of course. Apologies for having been opaque.

    Everywhere you mentioned, T had been there.:)

    Still my guitar gently weeps…, as do those of others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laFlmWtWxyM

    “There are two things that don't have to mean anything: one is music and the other is laughter.”


    http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/01/haredim-launch-hechsher-for-music-234.html

    Namaste.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn24 May 2017 at 17:06

      ''However, being loyal to one’s country, which I believe both Redwood and Rowley are, without questioning its ethical and moral values, or its hostile actions, isn’t just cowardice but also the denying of one’s own ability to distinguish right from wrong. ''

      There are two games in play in the UK's great and proud democracy, Bjorn. The game we, and everyone else, can see, has laws and moral standards put in place .It's set in stone and it's our own choice whether we do right or wrong. If we do wrong, we can't complain as we know the risk in advance.It's all supposedly to maintain order in society.We answer to the law.

      The other game, we can't see. Those who rule over us have their own set of laws and right and wrong.This is evidenced by their behaviour and moral bankruptcy. While we are subjected to the full measure of the law should we 'forget' or evade paying taxes, they don't. If we commit murder or assault children, we go to jail via a court case.They don't.We conclude that ''they think they're beyond the law''. That's all we can conclude.But, if what they say is right for them but wrong for us, that's why they get away with it.Who do they answer to ? They're supposed to be public servants but they won't answer to us. It takes determined alternative investigators and reporters to bring their crimes out into the light.Only then, when they realise they have run out of excuses or explanations do they hold their hands up.That's why we hear about 'cover ups' and why we hear those responsible were /are in political office or the police force. That's why we should realise we're in a world with two rule books. Unfortunately, we examine their deeds according to the 'official' rule book and it leads nowhere.Nowhere until you accept we need their rule book to understand why they do what they like when they like.Redwood and his peers of similar rank know all of this.The MSM is their most useful tool in balancing just enough information to keep us looking the wrong way.The McCann case is a perfect example of all of this.

      Delete
  27. Dog of the Dead: The Science of Canine Cadaver Detection

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/dog-spies/dog-of-the-dead-the-science-of-canine-cadaver-detection/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 24 May 2017 at 17:41

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
  28. Anonymous23 May 2017 at 19:24

    ''should read 'Eddie and cadaver scent, Keela and blood''

    My point was along the lines of perm it all any way you like, the 'evidence' is on a shelf.Still.

    ''No-one has been charged with any offence and, in the absence of a trial, there is no requirement to place evidence before a jury.''

    You're picking as you go here. I said( on more than one thread) that nobody has been charged with an offence yet. I've said it was because no accepable evidence has been able to prop a charge up(dogs etc).It would naturally follow that a trial hasn't taken place for the same reason.

    ''It's the job of the police to attend the scene of a crime and gather evidence in relation to it, not prove it occurred, unless you're talking about a death under suspicious circumstances. ''

    Yes- evidence.Then, the next step would be to impress the prosecution service that the 'evidence' is strong enough to spend money on a trial.If the evidence impresses them sufficiently it would be based on how much confidence a prosecutor would have in it persuading a jury.Then, the prosecution would 'prove' that the crime occurred and that evidence provided by the police investigation had solved the case.

    ''unless you're talking about a death under suspicious circumstances.''

    Isn't everyone ? The dogs weren't brought in to detect signs of an argument having occurred.

    '' evidence OF a crime may be uncovered by others besides the police (e.g., the medical examiner).''

    I think he'd need a body to examine wouldn't he.

    '' Again. It is NOT the job of science to instruct the police as to 'proof'...The responsibility of the (forensic) scientist/medical examiner is to examine the material (biological, physical or whatever) put before them and arrive at a determination as to its salience in respect of the investigation.''

    In other words, examine the blood samples found, and the DNA samples, then tell the police if it constitutes sufficient proof of a crime and /or death.If they say it is, the police make arrests.If the prosecution is happy with the joint contribution of the police and forensics, a prosecution is the next step.

    ''Unless I'm mistaken it is PRECISELY the job of the state prosecutor's office (CPS/District Attorney etc.) to arbitrate as regards the strength of evidence BEFORE bringing a felony case to court''

    See above.

    ''Your attempt to portray state prosecutors as mere marionettes is facetious.''

    I didn't, so it isn't.

    I'm happy that i play all the right notes and in the right order.I can't be blamed for anyone needing more choir practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 18:59

      I really think your behaviour is best suited to 'Twitter'

      "My point was along the lines of perm it all any way you like"

      You may view your 'point' as being along whatever lines you wish. Your statement was inaccurate. Period.

      "Yes - evidence...blah, blah, blah"

      What makes you think I need to read an echo of my earlier observation to you? How quickly you forget your own naïve observations (e.g., "It's the job of the police to find evidence of a crime").

      "unless you're talking about a death under suspicious circumstances."

      'Isn't everyone?' No.

      'The dogs weren't brought in to detect signs of an argument having occurred'.

      No they weren't. And? Why the pointless statement? Puerile sarcasm is no substitute for sagacity.

      "In other words, examine the blood samples found, and the DNA samples, then tell the police if it constitutes sufficient proof of a crime and /or death. If they say it is, the police make arrests"

      Absolutely absurd.

      I cut myself shaving the other day and left a vestige of my blood/DNA in the bathroom. I'm still alive. Blood/DNA as evidence of a crime? Wake up!

      "Your attempt to portray state prosecutors as mere marionettes is facetious."

      'I didn't, so it isn't.'

      Really? You're telling porkies (and not for the first time). Read your original statement again (parentheses mine):

      "All they (the prosecution team) have to do is turn up in court and then persuade a jury."

      ALL THEY HAVE TO DO...

      "I'm happy that i play all the right notes and in the right order"

      I bet you are. I'm satisfied you're commenting merely for the sake of it. A time waster.

      Btw. (and to further illustrate how little attention you pay to detail) Grieg's piano concerto doesn't involve a choir (the clue's in the title).

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 25 May 2017 at 00:27

      Good day.

      All’s good.

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  29. Anonymous24 May 2017 at 12:32

    'T'

    ''I am concerned with your failure/refusal to acknowledge that the validity of the dogs’ indications does not depend on the outcome of the DNA analysis.''

    What does their validity depend on then ?

    ''Nigel Hodge and Alec Jeffreys are, as far as I know, not experts in specialist dogs and therefore would be most unlikely to put themselves forward as such in a court of law.''

    No, they're experts in DNA analysis. Mark Grime knows more about specialist dogs. What would he testify to in a court of law ? You might think it unlikely that they would throw their weight behind challenging the findings, but they did.I didn't invent that, i merely pointed it out.I didn't see a quote from Hodge regarding being a witness, but he's been happy to go public with his challenge. AJ offered though, and i gave you the link on the other thread.

    Apology accepted Re 'opaque'.

    Many thanks for the singing Jews-that guy does an excellent 'George'.Brilliant.All it needed was the Prince version of the guitar solo(RIP).

    ''I'm having so much fun
    With the poisonous people
    Spreading rumours and lies
    And stories they made up
    Some make you sing
    And some make you scream
    One makes you wish
    That you'd never been seen..''

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCqsJzBwjNQ

    https://play.google.com/music/preview/Ttlhrosikdslz34ovcm7vxymb3u?lyrics=1&utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=lyrics&pcampaignid=kp-lyrics

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 24 May 2017 at 19:18

      With respect.

      “What does their validity depend on then ?”

      First come, first served: “Please substantiate your “…Nigel Hodge and Alec Jeffereysnot only explained why the EVIDENCE OF THE DOGS wasn't reliable but were /are prepared to testify to IT”.

      Who is Mark Grime please?

      T

      Delete
  30. Can I just add something to the current context...

    With regards to a burglar scenario ..

    If a burglar was interrupted by a toddler he wouldn't pick her up and run. It would do the last thing a burglar needs-draw attention to him. He wouldn't see a need to kill either.He wouldn't need a degree in Law to realise how unreliable a toddler's testimony would be, nor would he think a toddler could help the police reconstruct what happened and come up with a description. He'd just turn and run once he realised the apartment wasn't empty.

    An abductor would have been watching that apartment to see the pattern of the 'check ins' by the parents and Tapas friends.So he/she/they would know the vantage point that gave them cover without spoling a view of the apartment and surrounding area.An abductor, therefore, would be familiar with that area, down to the roads and the lanes. They would be local, or frequent visitors of it. They would, therefore know the local bars and restaurants and when they're likely to be at their busiest and when it would be more likely that people would start pouring out of them and on to those lanes and roads. 10 pm ish would be a dangerous time to go walkabout with a child ( dead or unconscious) in your arms.To know exactly where to observe from and when to strike suggests meticulous planning.That kind of planning wouldn't overlook the dangers of being spotted walking away with a child who might scream or draw attention as you were rushing. An aerial view of the apartment would indicate that the route according to all those odd sightings would be out of the question when simply crossing the street in under 10 seconds and 10 yards would have you behind the walls of a car park out of view and by a car.

    If the cadaver scent is to be considered valid, all of the above still stands but not with a burglar or abductor scenario. It would be a a more disturbing scenario.And Madeleine would hold clues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Can I just add something to the current context.”

      You may AFAIC.

      “If the cadaver scent is to be considered valid…”

      Eddie’s indications were valid unless shown otherwise

      Once upon a time, a man nearly lost his life in a snow storm bound by his promise…to a horse… (A true story)

      RIP, Eddie, my word is good.

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy@24th May 19:44

      It would be the other way around, a burglar would more likely be local and an abductor would be someone from outside.

      Delete
  31. I have never spoken to Jim Gamble. I have never worked with him nor even actually met him. Happy to clear that up.

    https://twitter.com/colinsutton/status/867660680886968321

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous25 May 2017 at 00:27

    ''You may view your 'point' as being along whatever lines you wish. Your statement was inaccurate. Period.''

    My statement wasn't inaccurate.You either chose to take it out of context or misunderstood it.You appear to be getting very irritated very fast and not concentrating (period).

    ''What makes you think I need to read an echo of my earlier observation to you? How quickly you forget your own naïve observations (e.g., "It's the job of the police to find evidence of a crime").''

    Because your earlier observations echoed my own.There's nothing naive in thinking that it's the job of the police to find evidence of a crime if they suspect one has taken place. They were called to a possible abduction. They failed to find (or believe) evidence of such.They suspected something darker.It was their job to find it.

    '''Isn't everyone?' No.''

    At the time of my post and your hormonal reply the topic was 'the dogs'. The bone of contention in the case is the dogs role and their findings.One found(allegedly) the scent that suggested a death had occurred in some way. The other allegedly found blood and DNA was taken from it and other items.('The dogs weren't brought in to detect signs of an argument having occurred'.)
    ''No they weren't. And? Why the pointless statement? Puerile sarcasm is no substitute for sagacity.''

    Neither were needed, but you still didn't understand.

    ''Absolutely absurd.
    I cut myself shaving the other day and left a vestige of my blood/DNA in the bathroom. I'm still alive. Blood/DNA as evidence of a crime? Wake up!''

    Tell the police.They brought the dogs and Amaral is using their findings as an argument-not me.I believe they found blood from a previous tenant too-from shaving.If someone had come home and seen blood in your bathroom and it was identified as yours and you were never seen again, would your family assume ''he'll be home one day-he only cut himself shaving''.

    "All they (the prosecution team) have to do is turn up in court and then persuade a jury."
    ALL THEY HAVE TO DO...''

    Ok, all they have to do is turn up in court and then persuade a jury n captial letters.Better ?

    ''I bet you are. I'm satisfied you're commenting merely for the sake of it. A time waster.''

    I don't realise that it's time wasting until it's brought to my attention that it hasn't been understood.I don't think discussing logical points and not wasting any effort on accusations is worthwhile. If you feel that your valuable time has been wasted then I apologise. Slip some Griegs Concerto into your CD machine and pour yourself a cup of Chamomile.I hear tell of it's magical efficacy for the highly strung.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous25 May 2017 at 14:41
    Sorry, 'T'..
    Martin Grime, not Mark.

    the dog person /expert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 25 May 2017 at 17:06

      Thanks, Dusty.

      T

      Delete
  34. These dogs will NOT go away and be allowed any peace will they..The life support of the angry mob won't let them.

    The 'valid or not valid' argument has become too long and too cyclical.

    According to science the scent begins when life ends. Hard to believe, but they say it so i won't argue.
    Here's some bla bla :

    https://www.quora.com/Decomposition-How-long-does-it-take-for-a-dead-body-to-start-smelling

    With that in mind, I suppose the argument for the scent wold have a little more validity had the dogs turned up at the scene and started alerting.But they never. They turned up quite some time later. Which begs the question of how long a scent would linger ? Was the apartment hermetically sealed from May 03 until about 5 months after ? I didn't read in any file that it was. Logic would suggest that the longer it took to turn up with the dogs, the weaker a scent would be-if there was one at all.But logic and science don't always sing the same song I suppose. And so the debate began..can we trust the dogs.Yes, I know''the dogs don't lie'' ( altogether now). I don't dispute that, but they can make mistakes. Honest ones. Can we ( or the PJ) be sure of a cadaver scent if no body was found ?

    ''A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing''

    More bla bla

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/scent_of_a_dead_woman.html

    those sources ^^^ are the words of experts-not my good self. But, 'I concur'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17:25

      Pathetic.

      "According to science the scent begins when life ends. Hard to believe, but they say it so i won't argue."

      "Here's some bla bla":

      https://www.quora.com/Decomposition-How-long-does-it-take-for-a-dead-body-to-start-smelling

      If you're going to quote science then CITE SCIENCE, not a trio of random opinions!

      "According to science the scent begins when life ends"

      'Science' does not say that - nor do any of the three characters you identify as scientists for your purposes.

      "they say it so i won't argue."

      'They' being the three non-scientists to whom you refer.

      "A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing"

      Source? That statement does not feature in the barely relevant 'bla bla' at the link above, nor the following erudite (NOT) piece of journalism (your second 'bla bla' link)

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/scent_of_a_dead_woman.html

      You have previously quipped about misunderstanding. Rest assured, your words are perfectly understandable, even more so the manner in which you employ them, as summed up best by yourself:

      "I don't think discussing logical points and not wasting any effort on accusations is worthwhile."

      (see: 'Freudian slip')

      Delete
    2. ZiggySawdust 25 May 2017 at 17:25

      Please see Anonymous 25 May 2017 at 23:01, brother.

      T

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 25 May 2017 at 23:01

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  35. First come, first served: “Please substantiate your “…Nigel Hodge and Alec Jeffereys…not only explained why the EVIDENCE OF THE DOGS wasn't reliable but were /are prepared to testify to IT”.

    T..you keep asking and I keep answering..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17:27

      It's not enough just to pick up the 'phone. You're supposed to speak meaningfully into the receiver. All we've heard so far is heavy breathing (aka 'hot air').

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 25 May 2017 at 23:05

      Concur (metaphorically speaking :D).

      T

      Delete
    3. ZiggySawdust 25 May 2017 at 17:27

      “T..you keep asking and I keep answering.”

      You’ve omitted an adverb in the above, brother Sawdust (…”I keep [not] answering).

      T understands you must’ve been in a hurry.

      Lovingly…

      Sister T

      Delete
  36. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 May 2017 at 13:54

    ''Wow Ziggy, you could use parts of post 19:26 as a plea to Pope Francis for a Sainthood. One can't help but wonder why you and your goody two shoes spend such an inordinate amount of time in this valley of darkness. You could not have chosen stonier ground to cast your seeds of misinformation.''

    You spend too much time conversing with the dim and misguided.It's given you the mistaken impression that everyone is. I'm not.You can attempt to patronise me but that's a waste of your time and mine.Because i won't endorse theories and rumour or that I point to so many detectives failing to nail anyone-including the parents-doesn't make me a goody two shoes.I'm not choosing to believe Madeleine is dead -that makes me a goody two shoes does it ?I know how stoney the ground is here.You do too. You and your regulars have been sowing the same seeds on it for years . How's that gone? I refuse to pronounce that child dead.And where there's life there's hope.I know the odds are against it but sometimes outsiders win.By the way, can you support your Aunt Sally assertion and show my 'misinformation' ? Or are you just saying it to rouse the mob.

    ''The idea that you are the only one who's judgement is without 'hate' is ludicrous. As you have been told time and time again, hate has got nothing to do with it. ''

    Hate has everything to do with it. It's in the words that talk about the minutest and insignificant details concerning the McCanns perceived personality. It's in the words addressed to those who don't endorse your theory and dare to say so. The first rule of Hate Club, nobody calls it Hate Club.

    ''Let me explain how this works. ''

    I'm all ears..

    ''The McCanns issue a statement/press release - the media and the public respond''

    Not the PR team then.Are they not responsible for this ?

    ''They believe they have the divine right to have their statements go unchallenged''

    They are entitled to watch online a activity with so much rumour, lies and accusations being posted about them.Anyone has that right.

    ''They are the owners of the ball, every time they throw it into the arena, the game begins again''

    Tell me about that 'cover up' and New Labour you recently mentioned. Tell me that the UK didn't run onto the pitch and take that ball and change the game.

    ''And reading body language and the 80% of communication that is not the spoken or written word, is a primal instinct. Most of us have it!''

    It's the 21st century. A lot have become sophisticated enough to communicate with words and analyse those. Why have the McCanns alone been subjected to this magic and nobody else in the circus ?

    ''And let's not forget there is much to dislike about Gerry and Kate''

    I've never met them and no nothing about them. I can't assess or judge. How can you ?

    ''Their lack of humility, their lack of gratitude, their constant whining.''

    You missed out 'lack of daughter'

    ''I don't know what you are trying to hint at with your final paragraph - spit it out man, you are losing your audience, myself included.''

    Something I've talked about offline to a few people smarter than me.They don't post anything online but still follow and reflect on all the main moves from 2007. It won't be going online either I hope. There's too many cut-throats. Walls may have ears, but virtual ones have eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous22 May 2017 at 23:16

    ''Walk away Ziggy. It's not worth the effort you put into it.''

    Thoughts appreciated.

    Some people talk or type about justice.That's the easy part, and lazy.Some people are prepared to go down fighting.That's the hard part. But I'm good to my word.Often outnumbered, never outgunned. Justice is a good cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never knowingly under blocked also i suspect ;-)

      Delete
  38. Anonymous25 May 2017 at 23:01

    ''Pathetic.''

    You again.Has your Twitter account been closed down or have you been banished from the pit.You just won't flush away will you.

    ''If you're going to quote science then CITE SCIENCE, not a trio of random opinions!''

    Caps and an exclamation mark.I take it you never bothered with my recommended relaxation exercise.You're an excitable little onion aren't you.

    ''"According to science the scent begins when life ends"
    'Science' does not say that - nor do any of the three characters you identify as scientists for your purposes.''

    Will this help:

    Q :'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected'

    A: 'Cross-contamination is immediate.' ( Martin Grime)

    ''Source? That statement does not feature in the barely relevant 'bla bla' at the link above, nor the following erudite (NOT) piece of journalism (your second 'bla bla' link) ''

    '' But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof.''( Martin Grime) That any use ?

    ''Rest assured, your words are perfectly understandable, even more so the manner in which you employ them, as summed up best by yourself:''

    You have no idea how much that thrills me.

    ''(see: 'Freudian slip')''

    See somebody who can help you relax.

    Here's another source for you not to believe.

    http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/martin-grimes-witness-statement.html

    So, does Martin Grime lie ? He seems to have too much integrity to in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:52

      "You're an excitable little onion aren't you."

      Only when having to put up with turnips.

      "does Martin Grime lie?"

      No. But you do.

      "He seems to have too much integrity..in my opinion."

      I'm surprised you even know the meaning of the word 'integrity'.

      ZS: "According to science the scent begins when life ends."

      Scientific source cited in support of the above statement: None.

      'Helpful' (non-scientific) source now put forward in support of the above statement: martin-grimes-witness-statement.html

      From which we gather 'cross-contamination is immediate', in answer to the question: 'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected'?

      Which question is in no way related to that of how quickly cadaverine develops in a decaying corpse, and which prompted your earlier proclamations 'according to science'

      "Rest assured, your words are perfectly understandable, even more so the manner in which you employ them, as summed up best by yourself:"

      'You have no idea how much that thrills me.'

      Oh, but I do. Your verbal 'leger de mouth' might succeed in re-directing those prepared to take your observations at face value, but not otherwise.

      As for 'inter-gritty'...it defines the eventual size of the growing turnip. ('Small, tender varieties are grown for human consumption, while larger varieties are grown as feed for livestock')

      Given your incessant attempts at feeding everyone cattle fodder I think we have your measure.








      Delete
  39. Anonymous25 May 2017 at 23:05
    17:27

    ''It's not enough just to pick up the 'phone. You're supposed to speak meaningfully into the receiver. All we've heard so far is heavy breathing (aka 'hot air').''

    Hot air. Is it playtime again already.All i can do is reply to questions and post links to show you where they are from.Other than that, all I can suggest is that you annoy Google.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:55

      "All i can do..."

      You could indulge in sex and travel.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 26 May 2017 at 15:52

      What is sex please?

      T:)

      Delete
  40. 14 September 2007

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6995499.stm

    '"Madeleine's disappearance has been reported around the globe. But in Chile, it's Mr Caplan, known for representing General Pinochet, who made the headlines when it was reported this week that he's been hired for the case.

    "Because Pinochet is a controversial figure, so is Michael Caplan. People in Chile remember the main argument for the defence was his poor state of health. And the first image of Pinochet in Chile was when he got out the plane in a wheelchair then stood up and walked," says the BBC's Andrea Ernandez in Santiago.

    "So today some people think Michael Caplan is an excellent lawyer and Madeleine's parents are in good hands. Others who ask why they chose someone who defended Pinochet, a military ruler who was accused of crimes against humanity."

    But Mr Caplan has said that a lawyer has a duty to a client, just as a surgeon has to a patient. Clients don't want to be judged by their lawyers. What they want is ability and a safe pair of hands. In Michael Caplan, Kate and Gerry McCann have got just that.'

    ReplyDelete
  41. There could be no clearer proof of the “empty cupboard” that I mentioned than this 70+ posts thread.

    No, I’m not talking about the breakdown which all of us can see taking place here – the incoherence, the rambling, the self-obsession, inability to marshall thoughts etc. – and the sadness. You’re quite right about censorship, Ros, but is it right to put someone on public exhibition while they slowly disintegrate? Is it helping them?

    No, I’m talking about the extraordinary time-trap in which defenders of the McCanns are now stuck: it’s like watching the remains of flies caught in a spider’s web, faded, desiccated and no longer even struggling but just twitching in the wind.

    They don’t even flutter about wicked Amaral anymore, do they? Or about the Archiving Summary that “cleared” the couple. The dogs, the burglars and lurkers and the paedos – ten years gone by and thrashing those two subjects like poor old Basil Fawlty helplessly beating that car of his that, just like the evidence in favour of the McCanns, never gets going.

    No wonder they’re living in 2007. On one side of the balance sheet of the last ten years we’ve had the elimination, one by one, of all those lurkers and suspects pictured by the McCanns’ graphic novelists; the confirmation that the pair lied grotesquely in their blog and book about the Portuguese investigation, the denial by their own lawyer Abreu that the famous deal offered to the couple by the PJ though him never occurred – it was, he says, just a “misunderstanding”. Oh, really?

    The only so-called witness to an abduction – so important to the Tapas Nine that they collectively constructed their police statements around him and his “movements” such as opening and closing the bedroom door – has been revealed as completely non-existent by Scotland Yard. So who did open the bloody door, then?

    The only unidentified prime suspect left in the case, the one who has never come forward, is the one who’s a dead ringer for Gerry McCann with an inert kid in his arms, a resemblance that the Yard refuses to deny or even mention while also refusing to state that it is not Gerry McCann, not even “in their opinion”.

    Meanwhile readers will search for, but not find, all those decisive and comforting Grange statements over the last few years like “our inquiries have now satisfied us beyond doubt that the tragic couple could not have been involved” or “the evidence demonstrates that the parents had nothing whatever to do with the disappearance”.

    Even the pathetic and lukewarm “not-suspects”, the one Yard comment of the decade that the supporters have gasped at for support, one lowly little sprat among the sharks that have gathered and now encircle the McCanns, has now been devalued - by the Yard itself! For Rowley has told us irrefutably that they were not-suspects by prior exclusion from the investigation, not by elimination and evidence.

    For Christs’s sake get real, McCann supporters, and have the guts to start looking at the last ten years, not ancient history. And face the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, bless you JB. That was the reading equivalent of an early morning cappuccino and a croissant in sunny Provence! I will shamelessly promote it on twitter!

      I think it is the pick-me-up a lot of us need right now JB. Putting the Ziggy to one side for a moment, I think a lot, myself included, are seeing corruption everywhere. Who would have thought for example, that in 2017, we would see food banks all over the UK? We have reached that stage where it isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe the McCanns and the 'establishment' who back them, will win.

      I read your post a couple of times JB, and again it has caused a re-think! When you (and by you I mean me) become cynical/ disenchanted, even your logical thinking changes. That is, you look for signs of negativity to confirm your already established pessimistic opinion. I hope that makes sense, it does it to me!

      Lukewarm is a good word JB. What these parents need is an end their suffering, and that is what they have always needed. Some kind of official confirmation that they were not involved. In, is it nearly 6 years? Operation Grange have not given them that. In the real crime documentaries I watch (way too much), the police give reasons for eliminating suspects. Passed a polygraph, witness evidence etc.

      And you are right. Not Suspects, doesn't really mean anything. How many times have we seen police arrest 'Not Suspects' the very next day?

      I don't quite have the same sympathy (pity) you have for the supporters who are hanging on in there. That part of me that studies human behaviour is still intrigued. I know I am probably bordering on the macabre in this respect, but the (mad)scientist in me, is loathe to let go of such interesting subjects. I suspect the hardcore supporters are 'inner circle', that is, they would be directly affected if the McCanns are implicated. No-one, not even the craziest loon, devotes their entire lives to defending a family they don't even know.

      I'm afraid I have no conscience when it comes to ridiculing those falling McCann supporters. They are bullies, and quite possibly sociopaths. They have no hesitation in bringing misery to those they perceive as enemies of Gerry and Kate.

      Both you and I know only too well JB, these deranged supporters of the McCanns have patrolled social media for 10 years like armed thugs. They have a Blacklist! Writers and artists at the top!

      Whilst I am crap on the whole punishment side of law and order, I am a great believer in Karma. I am quite happy to see these malicious creatures squirm. Amongst many things, they accused me of being a producer of 'snuff movies'! Can you believe that? My sons have to preview most movies for me, even PG ones, so they can warn me when to hide behind my cushion! I weep when I watch The Tudors (often), not just because I can't get my mitts on Jonathan Rhys Meyers, but because of the brutality that existed in the 16th Century!

      continues..

      Delete

    2. But I digress. Ziggy presently has the Sword of Damocles hanging over him. There isn't much news on McCann, and what there is, has been completely buried by the rush of daily breaking news items that are of far more importance to most people. Maybe that's why I am indulging him.

      Both you and I know, we could squish him instantly. You won't, because you are probably kinder than I, lol. For me, the cat playing with a mouse comes in. Pride remains my greatest (and most fun) sin, ha ha. Although, if I am honest, it is usually followed by a fall. Right now, I am inner debating whether to give the Ziggy a word allowance, but I am not sure if that would just give him free creative writing lessons. I may just cut him off.

      I think it is very unlikely the McCann supporters will 'get real' JB. I suspect those still hanging around have much invested in the abduction story.

      But thank you for your thoughts JB. As I said at the beginning, it is so easy to allow negative thinking to take our eye off the ball. The truth still has the upper hand.

      We have reached 'end game' JB, not many of us left us standing. Those peddling lies have already been trodden under the pile. On the opposing side especially. And the extremist antis have become caricatures of their worse traits. Their focus on deviant sex exposes them as the freaks and weirdos we always thought they were! lol

      Apologies, I am digressing. We may not agree on our treatment of 'the enemy' in this instance, JB, but more times than I can remember, you have steered myself and I am sure many, back onto the right path! You are kind of like Reverend Scott (Poseidon Adventure, Gene Hackman) lol, shouting 'this way'. And bless you, for that!

      Delete
    3. Hello. Well, I'll return the compliment: I have always ducked out of taking on the whole paedo junk that is associated with this case but, unlike you, I've copped out and kept silent most of the time because people seem to lose their minds when discussing the subject and I didn't want any more hate than I'd already received. You, on the other hand, have taken it square on, perhaps the only one of all of us to do so.

      Delete
    4. Understand and much respect your point of view. But I really don't see it that way. Firstly the McCanns have to tow the 'respectability & responsible' low profile, because of the twins. equally they have adopted the 'silence is golden' very much so, since Grange silenced them.

      As for bleating on about GA, the courts and their legal status in Portugal, they need not say a word, whilst their various mouth-pieces do it for them. Why soil your own hands!

      The Low profile McCanns is just sign of the times. But wherever your point of view of the case, whilst most in traumatic situations sees the slight at the end of the tunnel, it has to be admitted for the McCanns, it appears to be getting darker.

      It's a waiting game, but can anyone really see more money being thrown at Op. Grange.

      Delete
  42. Ros you really have to start seeing ziggysawdust posts for what they are. As you say in your post they are not convincing anyone but that's not the intention the intention is to disrupt your message and distroy your blog. Look at the last half dozen blogs the last comments on each of them are numerous rants from him. This has the effect of having people look in and turn away rather than join a conversation. Stop posting it, he is the same posting Not Textusa that tried to diss the dogs evidence on this blog a while back. That time he went away when challenged this time he is using a new technique to drive commenters on your work away. Stop publishing his comments or at the very least stop trying to contradict his ramblings. You have given him ample opportunities to see your point of view ditch him now. Other posters don't respond to him John blacksmith summed him up well and didn't have the need to respond to Hmr when he came back. In his last attack on this blog as NOT TEXTUSA he directed a few comments to JB who promptly ignored him and that was the beginning of the end for hm that time

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm giving your response very careful consideration 12:45, as you say it may be Not Textusa trying to disrupt, or it may even be Team McCann trying to water down the truth. I'm not an obvious enemy to them because I do not 'troll', I don't libel them, I have nothing to hide regarding my motivation, and I take ownership of my flaws and foibles. They can't 'get me' legally, nor can they 'shame' me for anything, I'm not hiding.

      I am having a bit of a moral dilemma as far as censoring is concerned 12:45, but I have the self awareness to know there are far wiser people around than myself, and maybe I should listen. My dear old dad often despaired of my 'being too soft' - it ruled out a lot of caring professions (I would have been inconsolable)and often clouded my judgement. Just as I had (most of the time) the good sense to listen to him, I appreciate the kindness of posters like yourself 12:45, for your constructive advice. Thank you. :)

      Delete
    2. Ziggy gives me a sore thumb from scrolling down his / her comments, no disrespect but they're too long and too many . Not Textusa , however , is certainly not Ziggy . Not Textusa ,whichever his / her message, wrote with a humour and sharpness that is not possible to hide . Despite disagreeing with him / her the Not Textusa blog entries always made me laugh . Humour can't be replicated nor hidden . I have also never seen a blog by NT discrediting the dogs to be totally fair .

      Delete
    3. I honestly don't think Not Textusa would pull anything like that, Ros. I have always found her absolutely straight, despite the abrasiveness with which she disagrees with some people.

      Delete
    4. No, someone is getting mixed up here -see my post addressed to Ros below. I have read NT's posts for years and years - she is still posting now elsewhere - and while we have disagreed I have never once ignored her: she's too intelligent and reasoned to ignore. I presume someone is trolling in her name.

      Delete
    5. Sorry John my mistake whilst I don't share your admiration of NT I always respect your judgements on the case and accept it may not be her. I think her attempt to discredit the dogs anon at 13:45 was the reason she had a sharp shift from this blog the last time. Anyway that aside I stand by my advice to Ros re ziggysawdust

      Delete
    6. Thank you John . I agree.

      1925- thank you . I didn't read that blog by NT about the dogs . I find it surprising because from what I read by NT , she always wrote wisely re the EVRD and Keela .

      Delete
  43. john blacksmith 15:06, 15:10

    Concur.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 13:45

    Concur.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  45. john blacksmith26 May 2017 at 15:06

    ''I honestly don't think Not''

    what's that mean ?

    I've been accused of being the textusa character before when the haters start panicking.I googled. I don't now how you made the mistake. I particularly liked the snazzy picture of 'the child catcher' of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang fame on the blog's sidebar with the caption pointing out that it's in Portugal.A clever observation( if Portugal was in Germany).

    ''Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 May 2017 at 15:17

    ''Ah, bless you JB. That was the reading equivalent of an early morning cappuccino and a croissant in sunny Provence! I will shamelessly promote it on twitter!''

    I'm taking a shot in the dark here..does 'JB' consider that the parents are responsible for the death of, or concealment of, their own child ?

    ''No-one, not even the craziest loon, devotes their entire lives to defending a family they don't even know. ''

    Nobody will. If they ever need defending(which they are unlikely to if 10 years plus is a marker) they'll have a law firm.The 'craziest loons' spend their lives inventing signs of guilt in faces and speech and declaring a child dead without evidence.

    ''I'm afraid I have no conscience when it comes to ridiculing those falling McCann supporters. They are bullies, and quite possibly sociopaths''

    No conscience I believe.Bullies ? Bullies don't defend, they attack.That nutshell book of psychology isn't teaching you a thing.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 May 2017 at 15:19

    ''Both you and I know, we could squish him instantly. You won't, because you are probably kinder than I, lol. For me, the cat playing with a mouse comes in''

    Really.Because i remind everyone that the people who ran (and are running) the investigation are saying the McCanns aren't suspects and the evidence of dogs hasn't been worth anything in 10 years ?

    ''The truth still has the upper hand. ''

    Among the swirls of rumour and theorising there's only one truth-in the eleventh year nobody's been arrested.Investigated, yes, arrested, no.

    As for the posts above about 'ziggy'-I won't waste my ink.

    Question for the self proclaimed 'experts and commentators( legends)' of this case who have declared Madeleine dead and the parents guilty :

    If dogs alerted to cadaver scent and blood in the McCann apartment, McCann hire car, McCann clothes, and said dogs have an unblemished record - how come a McCann hasn't been arrested yet ? What's that about.Did the McCanns tell them to go away and they just did ? yep, that would be a rational conclusion..

    ReplyDelete
  46. John Blacksmith you rock. You keep your head while the rest of us are losing their

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi Ros,

    How lovely to see Blacksmith on your blog again. As usual, he is always readable and exerts a calming influence to those of us who were beginning to despair that OG were going to close the case with no outcome one way or another.

    As for Ziggy, I find him utterly unreadable and scroll through his posts. He writes in a very confusing way answering posts by others using only quotation marks.

    Using italics or a different font would be an improvement.

    However, your other posters would do better to ignore him and not feed the troll by replying to him. Answering him just makes him post more disruptive drivel.

    Thank you for your blog Ros. I (mostly) enjoy reading it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 18:00

      "posters would do better to...not feed the troll"

      Quite so.

      Delete
    2. Hi EF, yes JB does indeed have a gift for seeing the wood through the trees! He is absolutely right of course, the parents look far from relaxed and confident.

      As for Ziggy, scrolling through is a good idea. I think any discussion or forum will have a variety of contributors and opinions, some we like, some we don't. Tbh, I don't know what to do about the 'Z' problem at the moment, or even if he is causing a problem. Anyway, I'm glad you are still here EF, and thank you for posting.

      Delete
  48. In her book Kate informs us,Gerry spent a lot of time over many weeks delving into 'sniffer' dogs and their reliability and the veracity of their indications.

    She quotes two examples and lied over both.

    Why would two innocent parents with their daughter missing spend so much time and energy dismissing the reliability of sniffer dogs.

    A reasonable conclusion is, they know that the dogs indications were accurate and thereby must be discredited at whatever cost and if they need stooges patrolling this blog 24\7, writing fatuous nonsense ad nauseam,to deflect attention, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 26.5 @20:21

      Enough said on that subject.

      Btw. should you ever feel like providing a reference for your (much) earlier observation as to the premature arrival of CEOP reps. on the scene (i.e. prior to May 7) I for one would be most grateful.

      Delete
    2. Why indeed? And nice to see you JJ.

      In the face of losing your child, it goes off the bizarre scale JJ. If they were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance, the alert of the dogs would be of no consequence. Their missing child should have been their main, and only priority. Why waste precious time, money and resources on something that doesn't matter if they are telling the truth?

      Team McCann still think they can win the social media war JJ, though it is obvious they have only a few diehards left. There has been too much damage to the abduction story for them to win back public support. I don't just mean from GA's book, the antis on twitter etc, but from the visuals. The digging up of PDL, the multiple libel trials and their own strained tv appearances. Even claims by Scotland Yard that they're not suspects, are believed.

      I can't say I have very much sympathy for those still flogging the dead horse, but they are not winning arguments, so much as exposing their weak spots.

      Delete
    3. Oops, penultimate paragraph should read NOT believed.

      Delete
    4. Hi JJ
      "Why would two innocent parents with their daughter missing spend so much time and energy dismissing the reliability of sniffer dogs"

      Yes, why would they? I've asked myself that question many times.

      Then the fairy tale about a burglary going wrong came from somewhere, as an attempt by "someone" probably related to the McCanns in order to acknowledge the sniffer dog Eddie's findings of the scent of death, without incriminating the McCanns, which of course is possible if we are to believe that Madeleine was immediately killed by such intruders and that the they came back at least an hour later and fetched Madeleine's body. So I wonder, whether the McCanns still discredit the dog or if they prefer to believe in the burglary story.

      Delete
  49. EF26 May 2017 at 18:00

    '' those of us who were beginning to despair that OG were going to close the case with no outcome one way or another.''

    erm..that's the case.

    ''As for Ziggy, I find him utterly unreadable and scroll through his posts. He writes in a very confusing way answering posts by others using only quotation marks. ''

    How do you know if you don't read them.

    ''Using italics or a different font would be an improvement.''

    That only makes the words slant-you know that, don't you ?


    ''your other posters would do better to ignore him''

    ( nobody talk to ziggy when he comes back ok ?)
    Immature. Narrow minded.Fearful of open and critical thinking.Incapable of adult conversation or original thought.

    Anonymous26 May 2017 at 17:41

    ''John Blacksmith you rock. You keep your head while the rest of us are losing their''

    Their what- sentence ?

    My above question is there to be answered. I would appreciate guidance from those who are so dogmatic and confident that they hold all the keys to this mystery. If you know every 'wrong' theory and have such confidence in the 'truth' you've jointly discovered, before you furnish the police with it, please show me. Thanking you all in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 26.5 @ 20:57

      WUM ALERT!

      "I would appreciate guidance"

      What for? You know all the answers already, apparently:

      "You've all seen the abductor. Everyone has. It wasn't a McCann. But too many are compromised. Not just UK officials." (22.5 @ 19:26)

      Delete
    2. Your aggression and rudeness is not endearing Ziggy, in the real world I would have dropped you like a ton of bricks - I have zero tolerance for bad manners and disrespect.

      This not a forum fearful of open and critical thinking - the opposite in fact! I take pride in the fact that my blog is the most enlightened discussion group on the Madeleine case. It has the most intelligent, articulate contributors, who, like myself, can in no way be described as 'haters'.

      You reap what you sow Ziggy. If people don't like you and don't want to respond to you, then you must examine where you are going wrong. It is possible to hold an opposing opinion without making enemies. Some of my best friends have been Catholics and Tories. Your aggressive stance however, is a turn off. Why should people listen to you if you are insulting their intelligence?

      Let me give you a little writing tip. Don't preach. And don't ever underestimate the intelligence of readers. When you begin with the premise 'you're all thick, and I know better', you can visualise hundreds of readers quickly scrolling past.

      As you can see many of my readers are finding your posts tiresome Ziggy and I too am beginning to wonder if your aim is disruption.

      Delete
    3. EF is quoting from the beautiful Rudyard Kipling poem 'IF' ..... if you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs and blaming it on you'. You embarrassed yourself there Ziggy, but that's what happens when you use pedantry to belittle others.

      Delete
    4. Thank you Ros for coming to my defence but don't worry, it's like water off a ducks back as far as I am concerned!

      I enjoy reading your blog and am interested in everyone's point of view. Like many others I do not pretend to know what happened that night, but from the very first time Gerry and Kate came out to meet the press and Gerry had to use pre-prepared written notes in order to tell the world of their devastation, I just felt something was not right.

      I can't explain it better than that but I have heard others say the same thing.

      Ziggy can mock that as much as he likes but it was how I felt.

      Delete
  50. JJ26 May 2017 at 20:21

    ''Why would two innocent parents with their daughter missing spend so much time and energy dismissing the reliability of sniffer dogs.''

    Good point when you consider the investigators had alrady done that anyway. I suppose it's a more personal quest. Two people versus 100s of thousands of online pseudo detectives saying what they like and accusing them of what they like have decided that the official decision about the dogs findings don't matter if it clears the parents.

    ''A reasonable conclusion is, they know that the dogs indications were accurate and thereby must be discredited at whatever cost''

    It's more reasonable to remember that two police forces get to decide what is evidence and what isn't - not the victims of a crime and not a suspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If as you say the investigators had already dismissed the reliability of sniffer dogs why did Gerry feel the need to hand over to his legal team on 20 sept 2007 a dossier concerning his in depth investigation into the reliability of sniffer dogs throughout the world

      Who was Gerry trying to convince.You should note there was no official findings about the dogs when Gerry did this so your comment about 100s of 1000s of pseudo detectives is nonsense

      Delete
  51. Hi Ros,

    As you know I've always been a big supporter of your blog, but I now know that the McCanns will never be brought to justice, so with this in mind I have withdrawn from the Twitter hashtag, as I don't wish to be part of what is currently little more than a persecution gang. It seemed recently that we were so close to our goal, but obviously it is not to be. The McCanns are far too clever and devious to ever be charged. I guess the bad guys win sometimes and that's the way of the world. Many thanks for your great efforts in trying to find justice for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bananamouze, I felt much the same as yourself a few days ago, but the post from Blacksmith has again made me reconsider.

      I don't blame you for withdrawing from twitter. There are indeed some 'odd bods' on there who are best avoided. Whether the bad guys win remains to be seen. The abduction story is full of holes, it always will be, and there are hundreds of ways in which the truth can come out. There are way too many people involved and in this internet age, secrets are a thing of the past.

      The public no longer believe the tabloids, partly because of stories like Madeleine's, the truth is always just a click away.

      Anyway thank you for contributing Bananamouze, kindest wishes.

      Delete
    2. Bananamouze clever and devious they may be but I don't for one minute that's what is keeping them from prosecution. Law enforcers have overcame more clever and devious than then. I think we have gone to far down the road for police and government to let the abduction tale stand as Britians official line. They may never be prosecuted ( though I believe they will) but the least we will get is some official recognition of a version closer to the truth. BTW loved your twitter contribution

      Delete
  52. Rosalinda & others, what do you think of the fact that Kate McCann mentions Diana in ‘madeleine’?

    [After the McCanns left the villa and Praia da Luz.]
    “We were chased the whole way, mainly by Portuguese and Spanish press, who tailgated us dangerously. There were torsos hanging out of sun-roofs, huge video cameras balancing on shoulders and heavily laden motorbikes brushing the sides of our car as they skimmed past. A helicopter hovered overhead. It was utter madness, and extremely frightening for the children as well as for us. An image of Princess Diana flashed through my mind. It was easy to see now how her tragic death had come about.”

    I do not know how strong the impact of Diana’s death on the British public is/was, but I find it such a strange comparison. Gerry wasn’t drunk and entering a tunnel, was he?

    Speaking of a tunnel, according to Kate McCann, Gerry had an ‘extraordinary spiritual experience’ on Tuesday 8 May 2007, while he and Kate were praying privately at Nossa Senhora da Luz. Gerry felt himself enter a long tunnel with light at the far end of it. Is it just a coincidence?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi NL, I suppose there was a Diana comparison, but the irony is Gerry was the instigator! In that very telling interview with Vanity Fair, it seems Gerry tipped off the press that they were leaving.

      Kate's frustration lies in the fact that she and her husband couldn't 'control' the press as they wanted. Kate in her book and Gerry with his blog, cannot hide their condescending attitude towards the press and the police and Kate even cites an incident where she had to tell a journalist off as if she were a naughty child.

      I'm sure the news spinning pair had similar experiences to Diana, but they were actively working towards staying on the front pages, they were complicit.

      Gerry's extraordinary spiritual experience I think, was more to rally the Catholics in a Catholic country. According to Kate's mother, neither had been particularly religious - a cynic might say their sudden religious fervour was a good marketing ploy!

      Delete
    2. Agree Ros about the rally call for Catholics not just in Portugal but here in Ireland and I'm sure the UK also. The popes visit had the same objective and worked very well for them. However as you say even Ma Healy couldn't allow that one to run. I often wonder how Gerry and Ma Healy relationship really was like I know on the surface there appeared to be a united front but there was signs that Ma Healy couldn't hold her tongue, like the time she was sent home from Portugal after only a few days because of something she said.

      Kate always saw herself as a princess Diana figure, but for the dogs and the turn in the investigation I would have no doubt that we would have got a " I want to be the queen of people's heart" speech from Kate. Who can ever forget her there will be riots in the streets or words to the effect from her. I always think that the comments that Heather Mills made during her meltdown on GMTV when she compared her treatment to that of Kate & Diana is a good sign of how people like that see themselves. Where's HM now the public done with her what they done with Kate, they showed that they weren't easily fooled by nobody's who think they are somebody's. Both her and Kate gave a call to arms to the people and both lost miserably.

      Kate situation involves the death of a young child so takes it beyond the realm of WTF but her reaction is typical of someone who has been raised with a sense of entitlement. Like you I was reared as an Irisk catholic, I was never in a home but I was 1 of a large number of siblings so the effects of that was similar in that you never had any sense of entitlement. To this day I be amazed about how some people like Kate McCann think the world can be brought to their bidding

      Delete
    3. I think had they been truly religious and truly searching for their daughter, they would have been back to that little church in PDL every year at least. The devout Catholicism seemed to drop off when they returned to the UK, and their best clerical pal seems to be an Anglican. Perhaps being removed from the Vatican's website sullied their faith.

      Their sense of entitlement is something I itch to go into 12:12, but feel I have to hold back on at the moment. The families must shoulder much of the blame, 'give me the child until he's 5 etc'. Gerry is the doted on youngest sibling, Kate the only child. I think as well as being spoilt they have been put up on a pedestal. I'm amazed they haven't all fallen out tbh, Kate treats her sisters in law like the help.

      Then of course there is the strange use of the word 'hate'. The only times I have resorted to 'you hate me' in an argument, is when I have been drunk or irrational, or both. Having the gift of the gab I can usually think of a thousand other things before getting to the 'hate' word.

      The McCanns, even from the beginning, accused those who did not believe the abduction story of hating them personally. Even with the amount of real hatred I have had directed at me online, I rarely, if ever, assume someone hates me. Not even the nutters, they don't know me!

      People don't usually 'hate' without good reason. So little was known about Gerry and Kate when Madeleine disappeared, the assumption of hatred towards them personally was bizarre, but perhaps a tool to keep the focus away from their appalling neglect. Of course hated made no sense, so they had to find a reason for it. Everyone was jealous! They were too wealthy and successful, Kate was too pretty and slim. Anything unrelated to their terrible parenting and if complimented the parents, all the better!

      Delete
  53. Bananamouze27 May 2017 at 00:09

    ''It seemed recently that we were so close to our goal, but obviously it is not to be. The McCanns are far too clever and devious to ever be charge''

    'our goal' ? I thought everyone commented and discussed the case with a view to getting a deeper understanding of what happened and why nothing has happened since.To withdraw because it looks like the parents won't be charged would seem to tell a different-and truer- story.If the PJ(part 1 and 2) and SY can't nail them, maybe it's because they don't think they did it-or if they do, they need to cover it up-isn't that worth exploring ?

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 May 2017 at 10:51

    ''I have zero tolerance for bad manners and disrespect. ''

    I've seen far worse go unpunished on your blog, but it comes from the anti-parent brigade.So it isn't rude or bad mannered then. Double standards.No surprise.

    ''This not a forum fearful of open and critical thinking - the opposite in fact''

    No, it's fearful of both. Being open to discuss a variety of theories that focus on only one area of a complex case isn't open discussion or critical thinking.

    '' If people don't like you and don't want to respond to you, then you must examine where you are going wrong. ''

    I have done and I know. I'm going 'wrong' as you consider it, by suggesting that alternative theories hold as much weight( and evidence) as those that want to see a child dead and it's parents as guilty parties. The narrow focus has come to nothing.Not online, not by any police forces. If I'm wrong to suggest aiming unsupported allegations at two parents when no police forces have seen fit to charge them , then I'm comfortable being 'wrong'.

    ''Let me give you a little writing tip. Don't preach.''

    I hope you were going for irony there.

    ''As you can see many of my readers are finding your posts tiresome Ziggy and I too am beginning to wonder if your aim is disruption.''

    I asked a simple question a few posts up( still nobody can answer apparently).I'm holding up questions -that's all. That's how discussions begin.If considering that a ten year investigation throwing up nothing and the same ten years attacking the parents might be a waste of time and that maybe alternatives should be discussed just as much, all I'm 'disrupting' is the 'norm' here.If somebody new to this blog was to scroll threads for an hour-what do you think they'd consider it's main purpose is ?

    Anonymous27 May 2017 at 10:27

    "You've all seen the abductor. Everyone has. It wasn't a McCann. But too many are compromised. Not just UK officials." (22.5 @ 19:26)''

    I appreciate the monitoring.I didn't know I was so important.

    footnote:

    the'Diana comparison'.

    It begins and ends on 2 points. Both KM's plight and Diana's fate were global events via the media.Both are, in mine and may others' opinion, examples of how slick and organised Military Intelligence and politicians can work in concert to sell an alternative story rather than report the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The comments about KM etc being frustrated because she couldn't 'control' the press contradicts all ideas of the McCanns directing the media and making press releases.Both can't be correct.Either they have control or Clarence and his ilk do.

    I doubt the parents were particularly religious too. I doubt most Christians are, whichever branch of it they inhabit.Most who wave the religion flag are hypocrites.I have a particular dislike for the Catholic religion.I don't care who wants to jump out and criticise that as an ism-it stands and i make no apologies.The 'bells and whistles' and rituals are a better smokescreen than any incense they wave about.I despise the history of child abuse and murder involving The Vatican and their worship of Gold. It flies in the face of it' alleged 'spiritual' propaganda.

    What I find most annoying is those who pretend to be Christians are often the most acerbic in their condemnation of others and their readiness to judge.Forgiveness is 'Christian' when it suits, as is their 'judge not' mantra. These are the two instances that illustrate total hypocrisy more than any others. I'm proud of my late Grandad, God rest him. A quiet man who was mellow with it.But a big man and not a man to mess with.He threw the coat of a Priest out of the house and onto a pavement and did the same to the Priest after it for 'judging' one of his daughters.After the ex-communication the rest of us avoided being indoctrinated into that church.

    It's true, the Catholic religion(and Pope) is a great 'brand'.They often trot the globe for their own PR exercises and don't miss an opportunity to attach themselves to a 'pain' that's media friendly for them. Let's face it, that Tony Blair made his first call after leaving Downing Street a knock on the Vatican's door( an audience-just like that) to convert, says much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy, your double standards know no bounds as does your selective writing style. You have been asked serious questions on here many a time and you choose to igore what you cannot defend, much the same as walkercan on twitter. Your modus operandi is identical to his, as is your writing style.

      I for one think your time is about up on this blog, I doubt Ros is going to want to lose to many contributors for the sake of your posts, which have obviously worn thin on many.

      The funny thing is, after all the words you have written, no one knows what YOUR theory is in this matter. And thats how im guessing you will be remembered, someone with a lot to say, about nothing !

      Bye Ziggy, as the great Ruby Turner once sang " Id like to say that its been fun.....but Im not gonna lie! "

      Delete
  55. For God's sake Ros - who on earth are you trying to kid - ziggies comments keep the post count up - posts means points = money - the same as the stupid T with the hundreds of "concur" rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown 27 May 2017 at 19:46

      Unlike your good self, I suck nothing but eggs (my teeth ain’t there no more).

      I do thank you for your comment nevertheless. And I willl of course be looking into expanding my active vocabulary while you are learning to count.

      Peace.

      Grandma T (also not unknown as T)

      Delete
    2. T @07:32

      12 points!

      LOL

      Delete
    3. LOL, bless you 'T', methinks irony goes over many heads!

      Delete
    4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 May 2017 at 16:09

      Ah so you mean:

      "concur

      T"

      Is irony?
      I believe it is just to boost the post count as you and T have proven in the past that you are in direct communication - i.e. not on here.

      Delete
    5. Do you keep track of the number of my comments my blog receives 'Unknown'? Because I can't be arsed, lol. I'm not sure if I should be grateful or troubled that you keep such a close eye on proceedings, may I ask, whatever for?

      You little secret squirrels have no sense of self awareness whatsoever. In the presence of regular people, you look ridiculous. This is a regular run of the mill blog, not a covert operation on behalf of the KGB, do get a grip.

      Do get a grip. Wtf has it got to do with you who I liaise with? and as for bumping up the post count? The only one counting is you, lol. As I have said many times, I would still continue to write if I only had an audience of one. It is beyond my control.

      Delete
  56. " That was the reading equivalent of an early morning cappuccino and a croissant in sunny Provence!"

    When was the last time you did that Ros?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, a long time ago 19;50, but I do have the ability and imagination to close my eyes and imagine myself anywhere. We all do. You should try it sometime, it might make you less mean spirited.

      Delete
  57. Anonymous27 May 2017 at 18:26
    ''Ziggy, your double standards know no bounds''

    Discussing two sides of a subject isn't the same as having double standards.

    ''You have been asked serious questions on here many a time and you choose to ignore what you cannot defend''

    I always reply to anyone who addresses me unless I miss the post.That can happen sometimes. I think Ros might have an occasional 'grid lock' and tries to insert posts according to their subject. That can't be easy but it isn't me hiding from any issues. I've apologised more than once if I've been wrong or been late in replying.I support my ideas with sources if available or reasoning if they aren't. I find that when I ask various people to do the same-it's ignored.It isn't an 'anti-Ziggy gesture, it's because, despite how unambiguous my request, it's not easy to answer them.

    '' same as walkercan on twitter. Your modus operandi is identical to his, as is your writing style.''

    That's about the fifth time you(or 'anon') have implied I'm somebody from twitter called Walker. It makes no difference how many times you say it-I won't morph into him to quell your paranoia.

    ''I for one think your time is about up on this blog''

    This blog isn't about what one stranger thinks about another stranger miles away.Why are going so far in trying to build some bizarre pen - portrait of me ? It's a bit obsessive, not to mention petty.

    ''I doubt Ros is going to want to lose to many contributors for the sake of your posts, which have obviously worn thin on many.''

    Is that you trying to do 'subtle' ? That's both a threat and a request to Ros, disguised as an opinion about me. It's saying 'Ros, if you ban Ziggy. we'll all come running back'' . It's childish. Trying to discuss bigger issues takes broader consideration of as many details as possible.It can take place easily on a blog that wants that.If a blog is only interested in one single aspect of said issues, it can't. It would be better to dismiss my opinions or sources piece by piece. That would make me appear more like you'd prefer me to appear.No personal or snide remarks would be necessary.I'd be 'put in my place' by logic and reason and I'd deserve to be. It would also add to the overall discussion.

    ''The funny thing is, after all the words you have written, no one knows what YOUR theory is in this matter''

    You should scrutinise with more care. I believe Madeleine was abducted and probably for someone important. I believe the political interference is evidence of that and I believe the MSM has been gagged by them for the same reason.that's why so any false sightings and leads have had to fill space on air and in papers. I'm not convinced that the parents are completely in the dark or that they don't suspect those who hijacked a case and turned it into the greatest show on earth.

    I like Ruby Turner too much to reply to that comment.

    Unknown27 May 2017 at 19:46

    ''For God's sake Ros - who on earth are you trying to kid - ziggies comments keep the post count up - posts means points = money''

    You've posted that accusation before. While I know my views and ways annoy Ros and she addresses me like some kind of idiot, I have to defend her here. Ros will not be making money from this blog. Google took over Blog.com years ago.They decide on ads and they take all of any money generated by them. If anyone uses a strategy to monetise a blog ( affiliate marketing, re-directions to monetised blogs etc) Google jump all over it and the blog would be shut down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. . I'm not convinced that the parents are completely in the dark or that they don't suspect those who hijacked a case and turned it into the greatest show on earth.


      If you honestly believe that ziggy, then why have the parents not done something about it or shouted it from the rooftops during their countless tv/paper/docu appearances?

      Unfortunately, however people spin this case, the parents come of bad, it seems to me even the people on their side cant even really help them, and that is because, fundamentaly, the parents are the only ones to blame.

      Delete
    2. I don't have any control over where replies go Ziggy, nor any option to censor, it's simply publish, spam or delete. And apologies, I have just found a comment in spam that should not have been there. Please everyone, give me a prod if your comment doesn't appear.

      'abducted - probably for someone important'. Fantasyland Ziggy. Even someone who blended into the crowd, would have been able to hide Madeleine for 10 years. She is the most publicised missing child on the planet! Do you honestly think 'someone important' could suddenly acquire a 4 year old daughter who looked exactly like Madeleine could pass this off? Do you think she could suddenly appear in a classroom of 4 years, anywhere in the world, without someone asking questions?

      Or, heaven forbid, do you think the poor little was locked away in some sort of dungeon - deprived of light and human contact? Do you think Madeleine is alive? You didn't say.

      Thank you pointing out the Google facts Ziggy. I cannot understand the vindictive way in which 'antis' attack me over the money issue. They should bear in mind, that even while I was having a book released by Random House in 2011, I continued to challenge the injustice in this case. The 'pros' set out to destroy me. Not just as an author, but as a human being. I had websites devoted to me - one entitled 'The Lies of Rosalinda Hutton' with a photoshopped picture of me as a nun. They commented negatively on Amazon and wrote to my publishers to condemn me. Now their biggest concern is that I might earn a pittance from my blog if I get too many hits.

      Ce la vie. Though it is hard not to reflect on what might have been, I took the road less travelled by, and that has made all the difference. Not financially, obviously, but should I pop my clogs tomorrow (not planning on it btw), I will enter the next world with an open heart and open arms for all those I have loved and who have loved me. I do, these days sleep like a baby. I have managed to get rid of all that Catholic guilt that used to keep me awake at night. In fact, I would even go so far as to say, some of my sins, I am actually proud of!

      I am always motivated by my conscience however - I have never been driven money making. If I were, I would have focussed on marketing all these years not writing and enlightenment. I am the writing equivalent of the 'workshop of filthy creation' - it is beyond my control. I will continue to write if I have an audience of One, or thousands. If I'm honest, I write for myself anyway, that is, I write in a style I like to read. I have no patience for pretentious cryptic writers who have to take us on a trip around the universe before getting to the point (Ziggy, take note). Most do it to demonstrate their knowledge of big words and their skill at completing the Times cryptic crossword. I was once stuck for hours on a crowded rush hour train, when the very dignified old fellow next to me suggested swapping my half finished (blushing smiley) Daily Mirror Simple crossword with his mostly completed Telegraph Cryptic! We spent the next hour or so, giggling like school kids.

      But I digress, I'm drinking beer, lol. At the moment I wondering if and when to bring that axe down Ziggy. I acknowledge you have followers ....

      continues

      Delete
  58. Ros there he goes again with his disruption. The blog was continuing along with sensible contribution and then in jumps ziggysawdust with his 4 A4 size posts that add nothing to the conversation or to sensable dialogue. End off.....

    PS I have deliberately spelt sensible wrong so he can use up a paragraph or 2 ridiculing my English

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL 22:38, the Zig is no great shakes when it comes to the written word - when he ridicules others he reveals his own very limited education. How could he not recognise the first line of 'If'? And if anyone needs to read that beautiful poem - he does!

      I have a 'Poets Corner' in my West Wing (lol), that is I dine surrounded by the framed words of my favourite poets. Perhaps that's why his ignorance irked me so much. It's amazing how inspiring words can perk you up even in the most desolate of situations. For example in the wee small hours when I can always find something to torment myself with, 'be gentle with yourself, you are a child of the universe' usually does the trick! Unfortunately, at the moment, it is counteracted by the words of Stevie Smith, Drowning, not Waving! lol.

      Apologies for my indulgence there. Ziggy uses anonymity to claim all sorts of intellectual superiority, safe in the knowledge that we can't check him out. He has created a false persona, just like all those thousands who took to the internet to comment on the Madeleine case. Those still using that anonymity are trapped by the imaginary characters they created. That is why they are paranoid about their real identities being uncovered.

      I don't include those who comment here btw, no-one other than Ziggy is claiming to be the cleverest, most unbiased poster on here, and anonymity is a convenient option on a public forum.

      I mean those creatures who remain in the cesspit and the maniacal pro Myths and JATKY forums, those still clinging onto the offensive screen names they created 10 years ago. I haven't looked lately, but I guess they are still munching away at cyber popcorn and making crass remarks.

      Delete
  59. Great blog Rosalinda. Super informative.

    Pity about the disruption of Ziggy.
    Could he be a McCann mole?
    I'm thinking if he was eliminated (From your blog..that is), he would return as Anonymous anyway!

    Here's a final thought: I'm wondering what the Operation Grange police officers talk about among themselves. What do they really think of the simple truth of the case versus the false leads they (by their own admittance) have decided to follow.
    I would think those policemen must be rolling around on the floor of Scotland Yard laughing - or maybe even crying.

    J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello J, and thank you for your kind words.

      I too would love to know the private thoughts of Operation Grange! They have however, to their credit, run a very tight ship - they have been very selective in the information they have released.

      Now this is where I must confess my bias - I don't find anything likeable about Gerry and Kate McCann. Even putting 'all this' aside, they are just not the kind of people I warm to.

      Having said that, I don't what effect they have on other people, those who have met them in the flesh. Lorraine Kelly for example, seems positively smitten by them.

      Where the police are concerned however, I doubt they have any fans. Gerry and Kate revealed their condescending attitude to Police Officers almost immediately, treating them as incompetent minions.

      Then of course, the McCanns have been persecuting their Portuguese colleague Goncalo Amaral for 9+ years - not something that would endear them to those working on the investigation. Each, must ask themselves, will I be next? I think the anonymous contribution from 'met officers' to Goncalo's legal fund said far more than words.

      To imagine what they talk about, we probably need to put ourselves in their shoes for a couple of moments J. They are police officers, but they are also human beings. Mums, dads, aunts, uncles - their thoughts I would imagine, first and foremost, are with the little girl.

      Then imagine questioning Gerry and Kate. Is it likely arrogant cardiologist and professor Gerry, would treat police officers with respect, or even, as equals? How about Kate chanting 'f*cking t*sser', while being asked perfectly reasonable questions about her daughter's disappearance?

      In 10 years, no-one has come forward to tell us what warm, kind and compassionate people Madeleine are. No-one to reinforce all the 'niceness' that was being so heavily promoted while they were in PDL. How about all those journalists in the early days, who were being bossed around by Clarence and Gerry? Do they remember a 'lovely' couple?

      So much yet to be revealed J, no wonder so many of us remain glued!

      Delete
  60. Hi Rosalinda and others

    This may have been discussed earlier (some days ago) on this blog, still I feel that I've got to mention it again.

    Seeing and hearing Richard Bilton door-step the poor and defenceless Paulo Ribeiro in Panorama made me feel sick. I really wonder what the McCanns felt about that? Did they perhaps think it was fair enough? It’s just so repugnant and disgusting and it reveals much about Bilton’s view (and British MSM's in general) upon weak and vulnerable people, especially those of other ethnicities and nationalities.

    Martin Brunt isn’t much better. In The Telegraph (2 May 2017) he writes about how and why he confronted Brenda Leyland, that she didn’t wish to be interviewed ”formally”, and then, without any feelings of remorse, he just concludes, that she took her life.

    It would be interesting to know how other commentators on this blog emotionally feel about those journalists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was squirming as Richard Bilton questioned those men named as 'suspects' by the British police. Whichever British police officer took the decision to wreck those mens lives, should hang his/her head in shame. And Richard Bilton should carry the tagline 'establishment tool (or fool)' over his head. Would we, for example, ever see Richard Bilton or Martin Brunt door stepping or confronting British 'suspects' in the UK, asking them if they abducted or murdered Maddie?

      This case has certainly exposed the innate imperialism and downright racism of establishment journalists. And yes, the UK, like Russia and North Korea, has 'establishment' journalists.

      Richard's only purpose it would seem, in hounding those vulnerable men, was to absolve the fragrant British doctors. Why not aggressively question Jane Tanner who was loitering outside the apartments or her partner Dr. Russell O'Brien who was missing from the dinner for much of the evening. In fact, all those who refused to go back for a reconstruction.

      I did actually feel enormous sympathy for Martin Brunt, I think he was devastated by what happened to Brenda Leyland. However, he has lost every opportunity to make amends, and it now seems as though he is completely back in the fold. Why? Why would anyone with a conscience do that?

      As far as 'journalists' like Bilton and Brunt are concerned, there has been a huge shift in the paradigm. Those discredited by poor and biased reporting will eventually lose out to their more principled rivals.

      Anyone with more than a passing interest in this case, will be seeking the truth, and all these other versions by people like Bilton, Brunt, Mark Williams Thomas, Bennett, Hall et al will be discredited.

      I don't know about others, but for me, the moment a writer loses credibility, I stop reading. I won't for example, be buying books by any of the above, due to the fact they are all pathological liars - and nasty ones at that!

      Richard Bilton and Martin Brunt for example, took trolling to new heights. While the nutters on the twitter hashtag make all sorts of questionable accusations, they don't have access to a camera crew and the facilities to broadcast 'their accusations' on National television. Richard and Martin have the ability to destroy lives, and the will to use them, I'm deeply ashamed for them.

      Delete
  61. Anonymous28 May 2017 at 15:06

    ''Unfortunately, however people spin this case, the parents come of bad, it seems to me even the people on their side cant even really help them,''

    That's one way to look at it. An other way is to look at it through the same microscope of online 'experts' and consider that if two 'guilty' parties of such a heinous crime are yet to be charged after ten years, they've received all the help they need.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 May 2017 at 15:25

    ''abducted - probably for someone important'. Fantasyland Ziggy.''
    With respect, isn't every theory or opinion 'fantasy' until we ctually know the truth ?
    ''Do you honestly think 'someone important' could suddenly acquire a 4 year old daughter who looked exactly like Madeleine could pass this off?''

    Not for a second, no. I only said abducted to order. Portugal and Belgium are familiar ( to put it lightly) with 'important people' wanting children either delivered or made accessible.

    ''Or, heaven forbid, do you think the poor little was locked away in some sort of dungeon - deprived of light and human contact? Do you think Madeleine is alive? You didn't say. '

    I'll leave that shade of fantasising to Dave Edgar Alan Poe.The man who doesn't need a shred of evidence or anything bordering on credible to compose 1950s 'B' movie bullshit to justify his salary during the farce. I'd love to think Madeleine is still alive.Unfortunately, common sense and history would suggest otherwise.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 May 2017 at 14:17

    ''LOL 22:38, the Zig is no great shakes when it comes to the written word - when he ridicules others he reveals his own very limited education.''

    My education is far from limited.I don't need to tell you, Ros, about 'knowing your audience'. You're a writer, remember. This is only a blog.

    ''Ziggy uses anonymity to claim all sorts of intellectual superiority, safe in the knowledge that we can't check him out.''

    I don't claim anything. I certainly don't claim superiority. As for 'safe' in the knowledge etc. I'm in Liverpool. Realtime Liverpool. Paranoid about my 'real identity' being discovered ? Consider this an open invitation. Liverpool's a good place to visit.The accusations, imaginings and keyboard aggression online achieves nothing.

    ''Ziggy is claiming to be the cleverest, most unbiased poster on here,''

    I know you have integrity, Ros, you tell us often.So I know you'll show us all where exactly I made those claims.Otherwise it just reads like yet more ad hominem spite. I make no apologies for discussing alternative possibilities surrounding a case that's gone unsolved for ten years.I consider it more worthwhile than banging the same old drum day in day out for years and nothing coming of it.There comes a time when you have to accept a wrong tree is a wrong tree no matter how many dogs are barking up it.I'v said it before, I'll say it again ; it doesn't matter how many people agree with a bad idea, it's still a bad idea. There's no evidence required for that.You know why ? Because it's logical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 May 2017 at 13:05

      ''This case has certainly exposed the innate imperialism and downright racism of establishment journalists. And yes, the UK, like Russia and North Korea, has 'establishment' journalists. ''

      All mainstream journalists and reporters are 'establishment'. If they weren't, they'd be out of a job. The Gov and their close friends run the spin.Blaming the journalists for the 'scoop' they chase is like blaming the soldiers for shooting enemies dead.I don't think the average German and Englishman had an axe to grind with their opposite numbers-the men back in the safety of warm offices had the grudges.

      Occasionally, you can spot the integrity (or lack of) with these journalists. I've noticed more than once that Mark Austin ( News at Ten) struggles to hide his disgust at some of the garbage he's paid to broadcast.Brunt, on the other hand, loves it.It isn't enthusiasm that you're looking at, it's joy.Like many taking the money from Sky, he knows the reality of the game. If there's a Murdoch fingerprint on anything, even an old, fading one, it's bent.End of.If Brunt has a conscience, he hides it brilliantly. Professional liars can do that. They can hide anything brilliantly. When they get together, it can take years to find what they've hidden, or where.The why ceases to be important.

      Delete
    2. You can't compare journalists with wartime soldiers Ziggy, utter nonsense. Journalists have gone through extensive higher education, soldiers on the killing fields haven't. There is no comparison to be made.

      Of course there are establishment journalists who are just as much wage slaves as anyone else, but among them, there are journalists who are fearless, journalists who will risk their lives and careers. And those are the ones we see tearing down the walls of the establishment.

      Sadly for Rupert he no longer has the power to change a General election with a Sun front page. Neither he, nor the government have control of the news anymore.

      I'm not sure what the game is between Rupert, Gerry and Kate. He has done hundreds of stories supporting them, serialising Kate's book in the Sun and getting the Review they wanted from David Cameron.

      It's doubtful however that they are chums anymore. It was Rupert's Times article that pointed out the new revelation e-fits were in fact over 5 years old and kept hidden by the parents. Ouch. But was it payback for Leverson? In any event, the McCanns got another large payout (£50k I believe) that they said they were going to donate to charity.

      It may have taken a while, but I think Gerry and Kate have realised that Rupert and Rebekah, all of them actually, were only interested in shifting newspapers. Rights, wrongs and morals had feck all to do with it.

      Delete
  62. I personally do think there will be justice eventually. I don't think the government will have spent millions to just cover-up the case, the recent OG announcement maybe this was to quell public hysteria which was getting louder and louder just for a little while longer whilst decisions are made. For myself I only recently started paying attention because of the recent court judgement as did lots of other people, I thank all the people who have researched this subject over the years as there are so many factual resources available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon 18:55
      If the SY/Operation Grange/Mr Redwood/Mark Rowley haven't asked the McCanns a single question all these years, they have been busy doing something else and nobody really knows what that might be.

      They may have been trying to find an abductor, without having had any evidence whatsoever of an abduction and it's of course very embarrassing to admit that. In my opinion, the British and the Portuguese people are now entitled to an explanation as to why the British/Portuguese investigation hasn't accomplished anything, as it seems. So, whatever they've been doing all these years, Operation Grange and Rowley cannot possibly have found anything worth telling the world about and that's exactly what Rowley should have told us.

      Delete
  63. Ros says: "I don't know about others, but for me, the moment a writer loses credibility, I stop reading."

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous28 May 2017 at 18:55

    ''I personally do think there will be justice eventually. I don't think the government will have spent millions to just cover-up the case,''

    I'd like to share your enthusiasm, anon.But they spent it nonetheless for something. I think if it was just because our image abroad was at stake, everyone's due a tax rebate.I don't think anyone of sound mind would be that concerned, nor do I think a country anywhere would judge another country merely by one crime committed on their soil. A child disappeared, there wasn't a suicide bombing.Yet they're both considered 'national security' issues if the size of the UK political interest is any kind of guide. There's no way of justifying in realistic or believable terms why that happened. If there is, then there should be similar explanations as to why no other case( Needham?) has received the same attention from them.Don't hold your breath for either.

    ''the recent OG announcement maybe this was to quell public hysteria which was getting louder and louder just for a little while longer ''

    I agree totally. It was approaching a landmark( ten year anniversary) too and they would have known something would be expected.So we had the ''85 grand extra to look at one lead'' fed to us which nobody believed really.That nobody believed them says two things; they're over estimating their media magic now and the public are less gullible than they were ten years ago. What came of that 'significant lead' ? They're just watching and listening to the public now.They know which horse is favourite to win the race-the parents as guilty- but they've done too much to make that not happen( first PJ crew replaced, SY taking over, prime ministers getting involved etc). They can't pull an abductor out of a hat after all this time.They daren't approach the 'perversion in high places' theory due to recent disclosures in the last 7 years or so. I'd put my money on either a 'deathbed confession' or 'disclosure from an inmate' scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Björn @11:03/Rosalinda

    Journalists should be able to criticise abuse of power and should not misuse their power, but sensation sells apparently. Perhaps people are fed up with attention seeking celebrities wherever, who no one, including themselves, takes seriously anyway. Generally there’s no harm in highlighting them as it is mostly a win win situation.

    Common people on the other hand, got a lot to lose. Real suffering comes closer to home, affective and effective so to speak. It may backfire though, which is what I hope will happen eventually.

    In my view, the McCanns are a different kettle of fish altogether. They don’t strike me as altruistic, but I think they wish they could give up their ‘celebrity status’ “to sink back into the anonymity we took for granted before 3 May 2007 [(© KM]”.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
  66. Some good points there NL, it brings to mind the words of Trump last year, in that he could shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and still win the presidency. And of course for many 'celebrities' appalling behaviour is their USP.

    I don't believe Kate and Gerry ever wanted to return to anonymity NL. I remember back in 2007 when the parents and their extended family were giving out news bulletins hourly! At the time I thought they were becoming addicted to 'being centre of attention'. Everything seemed to be a photo and interview opportunity - their walks to the crèche each morning surrounded by paparazzi was bizarre. One would have suspected the daily media onslaught would have brought about a breakdown of some sort - these were parents who literally just lost their daughter. Gerry and Kate however, appeared to flourish, and that's just not normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi
      Rosalinda & NL

      The McCanns certainly fear the thought of a serious discussion in British MSM about the suspicion among a lot of people in the UK and elsewhere of their involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, therefore they are more or less compelled to talk about their own suffering and do what it takes to keep themselves in the public eye, as it deflects attention away from their own guilt.

      Staying in the limelight makes them feel, that they have a kind of control of what British MSM are writing about them. At least they are lulled into believing so. They are still doing their best to manipulate a few influential journalists, some of whom may still let themselves be fooled, but they can never convince all the sceptics on social media about their innocence.

      Going back to ”normal” life, which they should, just as you suggest NL, would eventually make MSM forget about the case, but truth seekers on social media never will, and the McCanns are well aware of that. Gerry McCann in particular hates the voice of the public, which he hopes will be silenced by the help of British MSM, which, in my opinion, is the reason as to why he and the team around him keep on feeding “reliable” journalists and newspapers with stories about how distraught he and Kate are and how much both of them miss Madeleine. Yet, nothing of that has anything at all with the real case to do.

      Delete
  67. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 May 2017 at 20:49

    That's one of Trump's few redeeming qualities; sometimes his insatiable ego takes over to the point he just blurts out the kind of crap the CIA have killed to keep secret for years.Yes, trump looks stupid( because he is) but let's look at the 'smarter' pack he's dropping into the pit too. I'll give Trump 10 out of 10 for having the kind of guts that matches is crass stupidity .When I think of JFK, a great speaker and well-read, and what happened to him, i can't help but conclude that the infamous Trump comb-over must be that way because he's concealing a bullet proof helmet.

    With regard to the anonymity question, it's a sort of double- edged sword really. Putting aside views of what may or may not of happened to Madeleine, it has to be taken into consideration that the Government threw a shield around them and gave them one of their best spin doctors to design a publicity and marketing campaign.How nice of them to be so selfless.It worked inasmuch as keeping Madeline's name prominent as well as her face. It also worked as the campaign was designed by Mitchell and Co to hit the hearts of all of us and, naturally, we were always going to extend that kind of feeling toward the parents. It's fair to conclude that all of this added up to a global army of support that gave the parents the strength to carry on and keep carrying on. On the flipside, as time ebbed away and the so-called 'investigation' gradually came to look increasingly incompetent as it was presented to us via MSM, it was natural that people would begin to question, then suspect a variety of scenarios that were not being allowed out of the box.Human nature being what it is, the eyes eventually looked at the parents and then the fingers started pointing that way and the tongues began to flap ( real as well as virtual).So, anonymity wouldn't have helped early on or helped the case remain prominent, but it would help later in the game as the McCanns have become the Folk Devils of the 21st century in every Kangaroo Court imaginable.it's a Limbo situation now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeh, I'm glad you brought Trump into it, because the picture you just painted could be Trump blaming all his staff for forcing him to be President!

      Gerry and Kate may well be as mad as a box of frogs, but, simply by their professions, they are among the higher educated. They don't have learning difficulties, they are not vulnerable adults. Clarence may have been in the room, but it was Gerry at the Whiteboard.

      Gerry and Kate have always had the option of withdrawing from the limelight. It's not difficult, see Andrew Ridgely. The fact is, they paid Lord Bell £500k (from the Madeleine Fund?) to keep them on the front pages for a year.

      The McCanns want it both ways Ziggy. They want to stay on the front pages, but only in a good way, and they have spend millions trying to achieve that. This is where the insanity comes in, and the shameful behaviour of all those around them, the professionals especially, who are clearly only in it for the money. On the advice of their lawyers, they have frittered away millions. Ultimately, they have won nothing. Like a frenzied gambler in Vegas, they have thrown their winnings back into the roulette wheel and lost the lot. Not only have they failed to clear their names, they have thrown several gallons of highly flammable liquid to the fire.

      I am not quite sure they are Folk Devils Ziggy, in the whole scheme of things, their story has fallen by the wayside, there are much bigger fish to fry.

      Delete
  68. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 May 2017 at 20:33

    ''You can't compare journalists with wartime soldiers Ziggy, utter nonsense. Journalists have gone through extensive higher education, soldiers on the killing fields haven't. There is no comparison to be made. ''

    The analogy was to point to rank , duties, and privilege.That's a fact, not utter nonsense.

    ''Sadly for Rupert he no longer has the power....''

    Ostensibly.There's a group of men(and a few women) on this planet it would be dangerous to underestimate.He's been among their number for decades, he still is.You never see the puppet master when you're watching the puppets.

    ''I'm not sure what the game is between Rupert, Gerry and Kate. He has done hundreds of stories supporting them, serialising Kate's book in the Sun and getting the Review they wanted from David Cameron. ''

    The Murdochs and the Freuds became intertwined through a marriage years ago.That marriage may be history but the bonds forged via the Chipping Norton set remain as strong as ever. Rupert might be quietly feeding Jerry Hall grapes on his yacht( i made myself feel sick then) but these families pass the torch down. Freud Communications is an example. Matthew, son of Clement( 'befriender' of the McCanns and later employer of Mitchell).

    ''It may have taken a while, but I think Gerry and Kate have realised that Rupert and Rebekah, all of them actually, were only interested in shifting newspapers. Rights, wrongs and morals had feck all to do with it.''

    Yep

    ReplyDelete
  69. http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/05/29/13/38/gerry-mccanns-unedited-weak-denial-in-new-footage-has-some-hallmarks-of-deception-expert

    'Mr McClish, who now trains police and military interrogators in the art of statement analysis, said Mr McCann's body language in the footage was also a possible area of concern.

    "When Gerry was first asked, 'Did you kill your daughter?' he looked down and brought his left hand up to his nose as he answered, 'No, no never.' Not being able to look the interviewer in the eyes while giving a specific denial is an indication of deception."

    'Mr McCann's denial was first aired in 2011 by Australia's Channel Seven, but his response – as is now apparent – had been heavily edited by the broadcaster.

    In the 2011 version, Maddie's father's answer to the question appeared to be a simple: "No, that's an emphatic no".

    However, those who follow the case closely were shocked to see Mr McCann's full and unedited answer on a Channel Seven documentary Gone in May this year, which marked the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 29 May 2017 at 08:35

      Many thanks.

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
    2. And thanks from me too 08:35. I think that Australian news channel have a penchant for selective editing, so it was interesting to see the rest of the segment.

      Whilst Gerry and Kate are both accomplished at the art of deception, Gerry often falters. Their relationship is symbiotic, that is why it is difficult to distinguish who holds the dominant role. I think they alternate - they prop each other up. When Gerry threw a wobbly in the Spanish interview when questioned about the blood found in the apartment, Kate was a cool as a cucumber 'he's a bit hot' she said, 'give him a moment' as if his tantrums were something she dealt with daily.

      Gerry clearly was clearly thrown by the very direct 'did you kill your daughter', it didn't seem to be a question he prepared for.

      I suspect the documentary as was, did not meet with the approval of Clarence, who seems to be running an Australian McCann Campaign.

      Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate, their interviews are filled with hundreds of 'tells' - I am sure their behaviour will be studied by 'ologists for many years to come. This is a study with endless resources!

      Delete
  70. ZiggySawdust
    ''abducted - probably for someone important'.

    And having a great life now hidden from the public, never allowed out ,no friends

    I guess the rich desperate family never thought it through , with all there money they could not persuade the agencies to allow them to adopt .

    Why Maddy? blonde 4 year olds are two a penny, oh she was special
    perhaps it was a strict muslim family that ordered her abduction
    nobody call tell its her as she is now fully covered .

    ReplyDelete
  71. I've been looking at a couple of 'oldies' in the case. As i was dipping in and out of the relevant one's i was distracted by various sidebars, as often happens to us online.So, I put my dipping aside for a little while to take a peep. They concern David Payne mainly-he of the loose lips.

    When he was contacted by the local press ( Sol) he told them that he knew 'they(parents) didn't do it'.I'm not being pedantic, but what is the 'it' ?Bearing in mind it was-and is- an abduction case, it would exclude an 'it' .The statement, therefore, seems to suggest Payne is saying the parents didn't abduct their child.That's stating the obvious.If the parents are taking a child away from their apartment it's called 'going out'-not abducting. His exercise in clumsy talking when't further when adding 'one of our party saw Madeleine being abducted'. Again, I'm not being pedantic, but if one of them saw one of their children being abducted they would have ran and rescued her wouldn't they ?So, one of their party couldn't have seen it.So that 'party' should have been asked why they didn't intervene or call the police and say they just saw one of their children being abducted.I'm presuming this is referring to what later became the infamous 'Tanner sighting'.Her 'sighting' was obviously given with the benefit of hindsight ( which isn't a benefit ) and adding two and two together.Or just lying. Payne ended the conversation by informing the newspaper of their pact of silence and stated that 'it is our business, nobody elses'.It was the business of the PJ surely.

    GM was angry.He called the reporter back and told them they would answer to the PJ and asked them if they considered themselves better than the Portugal Police.That would suggest that GM, contrary to common opinion had, at one point, faith in, and respect for, the PJ.

    I find these little 'lapses' in throw away remarks far more worthy of scrutiny than watching someone who might scratch his arse when he's saying something ambiguous. Having said that, I'd be interested to see if Mr McClish and others like him who profess that there are universal language patterns in body language and speech patterns would utilise their 'art' and study others and not just the commonly believed prime suspects.We haven't heard of him ( or Hyatt etc) before.When something as globally newsworthy appears, so do they.I'm cynical, I admit, but there's a hint of self-promotion in that.If they think there's a huge audience believing that a suspect or two going unpunished through lack of evidence or a cover up, they already have a huge audience onside.This enhances their reputation before it's even been looked at. I've scrutinised Murat and Redwood.The former has some striking 'hallmarks' in what he says, the latter has even more in what he doesn't-or won't- say ( see panorama 2012 five year anniversary). He doesn't seem able to provide a yes /no answer.He prefers to ramble off in all directions as if memorising his Boys Own Book of Policing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ZiggySawdust at 21:06

      "I find these little 'lapses' in throw away remarks far more worthy of scrutiny than watching someone who might scratch his arse when he's saying something ambiguous."

      So do I, but regarding the Channel Seven documentary I find the fact that Gerry McCann's response had been heavily edited in 2011 the most interesting.

      Delete
  72. Anonymous29 May 2017 at 18:00

    A 'strict' Muslim family wouldn't commit the sin. The western perception of strict Muslim practices in bringing up children and oppressing women are well founded but it isn't a religion that looks favourably upon stealing and harming children.It's too easy now to blame everything possible on the Muslim 'bogey men'. We're supposed to do that according to the psychopaths who rule the West. I don't consider for a second that Madeleine was kidnapped and smuggled to any African nation. She'd stick out like a sore thumb. If the kidnapped-for-childless-couple was where to look i think it would be European countries to consider where she'd blend. I don't think she was abducted for a childless couple anywhere to be honest. I think that theory has been influenced by too many TV dramas.

    ReplyDelete
  73. https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/869428126144643072

    WATCH: The 23 remarkable seconds CUT from Gerry's reply to 'did you kill you daughter?'

    “Gerry McCann’s unedited reply finally airs in 2017” and “Footage from 2011 showed how Gerry’s response was heavily edited, and made markedly different.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the answer to that question is an emphatic yes, judging by the response.

      Delete
  74. ZiggySawdust 29 May 2017 at 21:06

    Morning, Dusty

    “I've been looking at a couple of 'oldies' in the case.”

    T would also like to have a look at the couple of ‘oldies’. Would you please be so kind as to post links to where you’ve been looking?

    Namaste.

    Brother T

    PS I do hope your urinary tract is in order

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous 30 May 2017 at 06:08

    I concur.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/869540698185277441

      ...Did McCanns have editorial signoff on 2011 show? Sunday Night show pays $ to guests. 2017 doco no McCanns = no signoff?

      Delete
  76. @Ziggy
    Yes, linguistic analysis of speech may be even more useful than body language in finding out what’s false and what’s true in statements by witnesses and suspects.

    As for Dave Payne’s use of ”it”, I believe it refers to the concealment of Madeleine’s body, which must have been a kind of a Freudian slip by Payne. Despite the fact that nobody has ever accused the McCanns of having abducted their own daughter, he felt the need to defend them.

    @Rosalinda

    I really appreciate that you do not apply censorship to your blog Rosalinda.

    @ others who dislike Ziggy
    I must say, that I feel very bad about those, who commit themselves to bullying others. One way of doing so is to constantly ignore or encourage others to ignore a person, whose ideas, language or opinions he/she dislikes.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ZiggySawdust 29 May 2017 at 23:14

    "I don't consider for a second that Madeleine was kidnapped and smuggled to any African nation."

    Well, David Payne doesn’t agree with you, according to Kate McCann.

    Whilst Kate “was hitting out at things” and Gerry “had been over to the Mini Club above the twenty-four-hour reception, thinking that if Madeleine had been left somewhere, she might possibly make her way back to any place that was familiar to her.”, David was saying: “We need roadblocks set up. The borders to Spain, Morocco and Algiers need to be alerted.”

    ReplyDelete
  78. Björn30 May 2017 at 12:40

    "@Rosalinda

    I really appreciate that you do not apply censorship to your blog Rosalinda.

    @ others who dislike Ziggy
    I must say, that I feel very bad about those, who commit themselves to bullying others. One way of doing so is to constantly ignore or encourage others to ignore a person, whose ideas, language or opinions he/she dislikes."

    Thabk you, Björn, I say likewise.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous30 May 2017 at 13:10

    ''Well, David Payne doesn’t agree with you, according to Kate McCann.''

    With respect, David Payne's a doctor, not a sleuth.Yes, it's true to say that closing borders off would have made sense as it would be part of covering all bases.I know Amaral's been on the end of criticism for the delay in doing it too.But, to be realistic, if a planned abduction is to be considered-especially if it was to order- the closing of borders would have been anticipated and avoided.They were 5 minutes from the sea after all. Another abductor scenario which takes into account the alleged presence of blood suggests it wasn't a kidnap to order but something more sinister. Crossing the street from the apartment would take 10 seconds and they would be out of view. That would make more sense then following long and winding lanes as people were milling about.If the child's body was concealed. it could have been in a car in the car park or one of many empty properties / apartments ( it was off-season).

    ReplyDelete
  80. But I thought that the Mini Club that Madeleine allegedly attended that week was near the Tapas bar/restaurant? I thought that the children's club near or above the 24hr reception was the creche for toddlers and was the one attended by the twins that week? Why would Madeleine be familiar with the toddler club? Would she ever even have been there? I doubt it very much and suspect this is another of the beloved Mc double or triple bluffs. I doubt Madeleine became familiar with anywhere that week as I think something untoward happened quite early on in the week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @18:58

      The Mini Club was above the twenty-four-hour reception (the main reception) further away from 5A. The twins were in the Toddler Club for two-year-olds in a building next to the Tapas restaurant.

      As for Kate's statement that Gerry thought that Madeleine might possibly make her way back to any place that was familiar to her (i.e. the Mini Club), too much detail I'd say. It makes you wonder.

      Delete
  81. Anonymous30 May 2017 at 18:58

    '' I doubt Madeleine became familiar with anywhere that week as I think something untoward happened quite early on in the week.''

    I'd be interested in any evidence supporting the 'earlier in the week' scenario. I admit when it happened I checked the date and calendar and significance( with May 1st being important). It happening on May 03 dispelled any suspicions i had in mind in that area.

    The consensus, from what I've read, is that the event occurred on May 03, and that she had been seen earlier that day.What are the 'fors' and 'againsts' on this ? Was she seen by a witness considered to be unreliable or reliable ?

    Any scenario of Madeleine wandering off is hard to accept. I can believe she might wake up and look around but not go walakabout. She'd been(allegedly) heard crying the night before and hadn't gone walkabout. If the eye witness accounts are to be believed there was plenty of people around seeing other people. They can't all be child abductors. And, of course, a toddler that age would surely be too scared to wander off into the dark.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Why I think Ros's views are worthless.

    [All quotes by Ros]
    I don't find anything likeable about Gerry and Kate McCann.

    Lorraine Kelly for example, seems positively smitten by them.

    Where the police are concerned however, I doubt they have any fans.

    the McCanns have been persecuting their Portuguese colleague Goncalo Amaral for 9+ years

    Is it likely arrogant cardiologist and professor Gerry, would treat police officers with respect, or even, as equals?

    In 10 years, no-one has come forward to tell us what warm, kind and compassionate people Madeleine['s parents] are.

    They have bent over £12m backwards not just to protect that small group of National Health Doctors, but also to protect the scarily poor judgement of 3/4 PMs, and a parliament and MSM filled with closet racists and imperialists.

    I think a lot, myself included, are seeing corruption everywhere. Who would have thought for example, that in 2017, we would see food banks all over the UK?

    Not Suspects, doesn't really mean anything. How many times have we seen police arrest 'Not Suspects' the very next day?

    The abduction story is full of holes

    Gerry's extraordinary spiritual experience I think, was more to rally the Catholics in a Catholic country.

    Gerry is the doted on youngest sibling, Kate the only child. I think as well as being spoilt they have been put up on a pedestal. I'm amazed they haven't all fallen out tbh, Kate treats her sisters in law like the help.

    the Zig is no great shakes when it comes to the written word - when he ridicules others he reveals his own very limited education. How could he not recognise the first line of 'If'? And if anyone needs to read that beautiful poem - he does!

    Whilst Gerry and Kate are both accomplished at the art of deception, Gerry often falters. Their relationship is symbiotic, that is why it is difficult to distinguish who holds the dominant role.

    [End quotes]

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hi Anon 2 June at 23:32
    What's the point in quoting Rosalinda without actually comment on anything she says? As long as you don't explain to us why you believe that Rosalinda's views on the Madeleine case are worthless, your comment is in fact completely worthless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Bjorn, I too was wondering what the point of that comment was, lol.

      Delete