Friday, 21 July 2017

THE CRUELTY OF THE MADELEINE MYTHS

UPDATE  22.07.17

I am flattered to see that Verdi refers to my blog as the major league - I'm going to go ahead and take that as a compliment, because it means that I, John Blacksmith, JJ and so many of my valued readers have been able to take discussion in this case back into the realms of sanity. 

The crazies and the extremists created such a malevolent and hostile environment on social media, that regular people and those with just a passing interest were quickly scared away. Gang mentality has ruled the roost for way too long in this case.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  How can you have a debate when only one side of the argument is heard? 

The ridiculous myths created by the internet sleuths are still around because no-one has been allowed to disagree with them!  Try it on the forums and the facebook groups and you are quickly banned.  OK, it may be a bit much for me to claim credit for changing public opinion - the dissent I suspect was always there, but I do at least provide a platform for ALL views.  I, and my readers, are just as interested in the pro side of the argument as we are in everything else.  Most posters are treated with civility and respect, especially if they are civil and respectful themselves. 

As for my rebutting HideHo's and Petermac's 'analysis' and 'research'  Verdi - to do that I would have to read it, and life's too short.  Analysis and research only becomes interesting if a ground breaking result is achieved by an acknowledged genius.  As fascinating as their analysis and research may be to them, it is of little or no interest to anyone else.  That's why I rarely, if ever, mention mine HideHo.  And let's stop being pompous here, research = reading.  None of you are actually in a laboratory boiling up acid over a Bunsen burner, you are just clicking on google. 

All HideHo and Petermac have demonstrated, is just how far a person is willing to go with a delusion.  Yes folks, obsession can tip you over the edge.  And they are trapped by what I refer to as 'I'm right, dead right' syndrome, which never ends well.  They haven't given themselves any leeway, their theories are carved in stone.  If the case is blown wide open and their theories revealed as the nonsense they are, they will carry on with them anyway, and claim a conspiracy.      


______________________________________

The problem the internet sleuths have with their batshit crazy theories, is their failure to apply logic, reason and common sense.  Whilst they have spent limitless hours scrutinising photographs under a microscope and going through crèche records with a fine toothed comb, they haven't spent one second's thought on the macabre reality of what they are alleging. 

And what they are alleging is that Madeleine died earlier in the week, and the parents and their companions continued with their holiday until the penultimate night - presumably to get their money's worth.  Never mind all the intricate details of the shadows in the last picture, and the blossoming of the shrubbery, what about the gravity of what these 'sleuths' are alleging? 

They are saying ignore the findings of Goncalo Amaral and the team of detectives who were there on the ground, because they have proved Madeleine wasn't there after Sunday 29th April and they'll fight anyone who disagrees with them.  Now this is where they trip up. They began their 'research' with confirmation bias. That is they had already decided Madeleine wasn't seen after the Sunday, and have searched for anything they can find to support it. They are not reading objectively, their minds are already made up.  Which is why they haven't asked such basic questions as:

1)  Just how sick/monstrous, do you think these people were, that they could carry on with their holiday, dropping off the kids (including a fake Madeleine) at the kids clubs, playing tennis, and dining nightly at the Tapas bar, with the body of a child stashed in the wardrobe? 

2)  Have they ever, in the whole history of the world, heard of a group of doctors (or indeed any professionals) getting together to sexually abuse and sexually exploit their own toddler children?  Even the darkest of horror films wouldn't come up with a sick plot like that. 

3)  How do they sleep at night?

I don't for one second think that Gerry, Kate and those around them are having an easy time, they have a huge dark cloud over them and now a huge debt to pay to Goncalo Amaral.  That they are the authors of their own misfortune, matters not, they are human beings under an enormous amount of stress and they have kids to look after. 

Unfortunately, these dark, disturbing myths have drawn many in.  When you fixate on one small detail you can often lose track of the bigger picture and in this case, the sleuths have opted for the least likely scenarios because they have totally ignored the characters and lifestyles of the main players.  They have literally created an alternate reality, a murky, sleazy reality that isn't recognisable to anyone but themselves.  I'm no fan of Gerry and Kate, but it is quite obvious, they don't spend their nights having drunken orgies with the neighbours, nor do they abuse their kids.  That is just pure fantasy on the part of those with microscopes in their hands.  And a pretty sick fantasy I might add.

257 comments:

  1. Ros, it has been refreshing over the last few days to see the forum wars stuff put aside for the moment to deal with the really serious matters you've just described so excellently.

    For once, almost everyone on here has been in agreement in exposing and condemning the truly horrible "fun hobby" of COMM and MM people. Mr Stardust and I on the same side! Who'd have thought it?

    Anyone with eyes has been able to see the pathetic absence of any evidence in their contributions here. Anyone with eyes has seen the lies and self-deception that go so deep that they are lost in it.

    That bare-faced lie that the PJ files supported Hiding Heidi's junk sums up the whole crowd. When challenged it came out that she had never seen the files, they never existed, but that she believed a forgery inspired by Paolo Reis was a PJ File. No apology.

    It's all there, isn't it? The lie, the refusal to admit it, the ignorance and the refusal to admit that, the malice and the absolute refusal to admit that. Instead, as you so rightly say, they try and wriggle out of taking responsibility for what they've done - before abusing the people who've asked for the evidence.

    Note, by the way, the self-pity which always comes to the fore when they are challenged - never a word of regret for what they've done to innocent people.

    Of all these, Hidiho epitomises, even more than Baldie, the empty wickedness at work. I left Maddie Case Files quietly because they gave that snivelling coward a platform for her persecution of innocent people.

    Before doing so I went through her evidence, just like here, on that site and challenged it.

    Do you know her response? She had no factual defence at all and instead had an attack of hysterics, played for the sympathy vote, said she'd "meant no harm" and apologised "if she'd offended anyone".

    Meant no harm! This horrible, dreadful little coward hides away in Canada rather than face the young women she accuses daily of having have helped cover up a killing.

    Well done, Ros. A smashing post

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, but am puzzled as to the identity of "the young woman she accuses daily" and cannot stomach wading through her reams of indulgent waffle. Is it one of the nannies?

      Delete
    2. Many thanks JB, I do wonder if some of those who claim Madeleine died earlier in the week understand what the implications of that are. How absolutely monstrous it would have been for the parents and their friends to continue with their holiday knowing that Madeleine was dead. That would take the crime to a level of callousness that is completely unheard of.

      I've not had the patience to wade through HideHo's claims - I'm not a fan, she like Bennett, Hall et al crossed 'the line' long ago. I agree on the claims of victim status, she is a grown woman, she knows exactly what she is doing when she publically accuses those innocent girls of lying.

      Again, many thanks for your kind words John, much appreciated.

      Delete
    3. Anon at 13.23

      I'm afraid it's women, plural, as I wrote, not one woman. It's every person who is supposed to have seen the child that week apart from the Nine. Most of these were nannies. I would rather not name them because that simply adds to their misery.

      Put briefly, her technique is invariable. In this instance she announces that there is no proof that the child was alive after, she says, April 29. She then invites people to prove a negative, i.e. prove that the child was NOT dead.

      Apparently she is unaware of the famous difficulties of proving a negative, despite the farcical fact that her partner in crime Bennett has personally and publicly demonstrated its truth: Baldie has been trying to prove on the net that he is NOT being paid by the McCanns, as he is very widely accused of being, and despite showing his bank statements etc. online he has found it completely impossible. But they never learn.

      Now, the list of those who have officially testified that they saw the child that week is very long. Hiding Heidi takes each of them in turn, droolingly giving their real names, and then invents - I mean it, completely and subjectively invents - reasons why their testimony is in every case "not reliable" or mistaken. It is such an outrageous piece of pure ignorance and mendacity that it would be extremely funny if the innocent victims were not being publicly traduced.

      Accordingly the number of people who are apparently acting as accessories to a killing, probably murder, by lying - which is, of course, the only real explanation for such mass eyewitness
      "unreliability" - now fills a small bus and continues to grow.

      I won't say anymore.

      Delete
    4. 00:27

      "She then invites people to prove a negative, i.e. prove that the child was NOT dead."

      Wouldn't proving the child was (positively) alive meet the same criterion?

      "Now, the list of those who have officially testified that they saw the child that week is very long."

      It excludes the Tapas 7, presumably, as..."pressed by the police to say when they’d last seen Madeleine, their friends found it extremely hard to do so."

      http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/absent-friends.html

      "people...are apparently acting as accessories to a killing, probably murder, by lying - which is, of course, the only real explanation for such mass eyewitness "unreliability""

      Is simply being mistaken an invalid explanation then?

      Delete
    5. "The police don't want a murder in Portugal, so they're blaming us" - Kate McCann

      Delete
  2. The cruellest of Madeleine Myths is the one propagated by her parents - that she was abducted.

    Perhaps we should spare a thought for the number of lives THAT has tarnished.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said, Anonymous at 12.13!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here Rosalinda. Not all people who entertain the possibility that an earlier date is possible, or even probable, do so because they think the parents were monsters or that the Ocean Club Resort was a den of iniquity populated by despots. I do not see, as you seem to imply, that it is morally superior and more rational or charitable to think Amaral's theory is flawless. The thought of any parent taking their child, not even wrapped in a blanket and looking for a makeshift hiding place in the dark is as chilling as it gets,IMO and is not somewhere I will allow my imagination to go to. I do believe there is, hyperthetically speaking,a third way, one that does not involve the extremities of callousness some people are willing to tolerate. I don't want to go there but suffice is to say I think this is a tragedy and like most tragedies hubris played it's part and it seems to me the McCanns have lost the one thing they wanted more than anything and that was social status and respectability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane with all due respects I don't think anybody even the most credible of commentators on this case believe that Amaral's theory is flawless but anybody who believes that he was not able to establish with accuracy the last known sighting of her and then relies on him as a credible detective is nothing more than an eejit.
      Did numerous judges not study the contents of the truth of the lie and decide it was a factual account of the investigation. Given that all his conclusions on the case and stated in the book are based on the premise of something happening to her after 5pm would these same judges not feel duty bound to point out the obvious weakness in the evidence to establish her last known sighting when making their ruling
      At home recently we had a murder of a young girl and I seen first-hand the pains the police went to, to establish the last known sighting of her. I can tell you they didn't rely on somebody might have seen somebody who maybe looked like her maybe in some shop at maybe some hour. People were interviewed and re - interviewed, hundreds of hours of reconstructions were carried out, an entire team was dedicated to establishing this.
      Maybe if you or Mr Bennet or Hidehio or whoever else who has such clear evidence that Mr Amaral’s conclusions on such a vital area of the case is so wrong you should have done the honourable thing and appeared in court on behalf of the McCann’s present you evidence and show how utterly ridiculous the case Mr Amaral’s presented was. After all its truth and justice you are all after isn’t it?
      BTW Ros great blog and belated happy birthday I’m only catching up with you now after the holidays and John Blacksmith you really do rock.

      Delete
    2. Hi Jane. What I am trying to say, probably badly, is that if you believe Madeleine died before the 3rd May, you must believe that the parents and their friends took the decision to carry on with their holiday regardless! That would be pretty monstrous.

      Regarding the scenario you suggest, though chilling (or monstrous), it could have been 'a moment of madness'. Something done out of desperation.

      The first I think is more chilling because it involves premeditation and conspiracy. The second, could perhaps be understandable.

      Delete
  5. fine toothcomb = fine-toothed comb
    No such thing as a toothcomb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothcomb

      Delete
    2. Not so.

      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/toothcomb

      "The forms toothcomb and fine toothcomb arose from a misreading of the compound noun fine-tooth comb, a comb with closely spaced teeth. However, in modern use all the forms are accepted in standard English."

      T

      Delete
    3. Still - no such thing as a tooth comb !

      Delete
    4. LOL - 'tooth comb' is one of my mental blocks, along with Nietzsche - I have been told off many times, but it just won't stick, doh

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 21 July 2017 at 19:25

      “Still - no such thing as a tooth comb !”

      Who says there is?

      Anyway, if it pleases you, you win, I loose. Never mind the dictionary!

      Good luck.

      T

      Delete
    6. A little something for you, Rosalinda, a paraphrase: an old woman to Zarathustra: "Thou goest to men? Forget not thy whip!"

      I will not burden you with the German original while you are being instructed in Latin and other ‘things’ by Ziggmund. However, bound by societal proprieties, I must tell you that he’s not been entirely frank with you: his legs are rather lovely in appearance, so much so that young Apollo’s would look like a couple of bowling pins in comparison. Ziggmund in fishnets is a sight to behold, trust me. Go for it!

      Bless.

      T:)

      Delete
    7. LOL T, perish the thought! As lovely as his pins may be, I think any time spent in the Ziggmund's company may result in me be arrested on assault charges! And I'm not a violent woman, ha ha.

      No, if I were ever to go down that crazy route again, at the top of my tick list would be a fella who says 'yes dear'. And not because I'm waving a whip or threatening to lock him in the under stairs cupboard, lol, but because he likes me. Now that I like myself, I'm hoping it will be a lot easier.

      My tick list is very specific. Impeccable manners and charm, a given, the classiest man I ever dated was kind and courteous to everyone, from the doorman, to the waiter, to the Duchess of Kent (he took me to Wimbledon finals).

      If he were a pie, he would have a big dollop of John McDonnell (who I currently have a huge crush on), I fantasise about fireside chats, brandies in hand, while I soak in his wisdom. Ahhh, now where was I, lol. A dash of Einstein, a large spoonful of Anthony Bourdain - I love guys who love to cook and are naughty enough to try anything, ha ha. There is a thing he does with his eyebrows when he's intends a double entendre, that gives me goosebumps!

      Amazingly at the age of 60, I still have free floating crushes, but these days, they are usually on wise, gentle, old men. Who am I kidding, lol, if I got the offer of a mad weekend in New Orleans with Jack Nicholson, I'd be there like a shot! Ditto if the divine Johnny Depp wanted to throw things at me.

      I jest of course, but I have been thinking of dipping a toe. I have presently got a friend working on a picture with a brush up app! lol.

      Still jesting and working on that tick list. I have a new found confidence that I really shouldn't have. Absolutely loving the fact that I can say 'but I'm 60' when asked to do anything I don't want to, and loving the fact that I can flirt with anyone without being seen as threat.

      Probably too much information my dear T, but I have been inundated this week with dear friends bearing liquor, hic, lol.

      Delete
  6. Ros, I see you are at your usual game of grossly misrepresenting the views of those you disagree with. No change there, then. And you cannot see that you have got things totally the wrong way round. The ones who are stuck are those like you who cannot move from: 'Maddie died after 6pm Thursday'. You and Blacksmith and JJ etc. are all fixated on that and, Nelson-like, put your telescopes to your blind eyes, refusing to look at any evidence to the contrary. Well good luck to you all, and while folk like HideHo and Richard Hal carry on informing millions of the real facts of the case on YouTube, by all means 'Carry On Backslapping' each other. lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 14.08

      In any police investigation into a missing person anywhere in the world the first thing to establish is when was the person last seen, by who and is it credible

      But to nutters like yourself, Bennett playing with his crystal balls, Peter mac his weather seaweed, Hideho talking to herself and Hall asking aliens to name but a few,not one member of the GNR, thePJ, G.Amaral, British Police and O.G.did this

      According to you all of these policemen are useless and dishonest.

      We are to believe with the combined resources of these police forces their computers, cross referencing systems and combined intellects, not one policeman doubted Madeleine was there on Thursday 3rd May.

      But a bunch of bedroom sleuths can say for sure Madeleine disappeared by Monday 30th April.

      Personally, I think you are barking mad but surprise us all and produce evidence, try something simple like official weather data for PDL or is it only for the select few like yourself to see?

      Delete
    2. I'm not fixated on anything 14:08, and I don't think Blacksmith and JJ are either.

      For myself, 'The Truth of the Lie' by Goncalo Amaral is the definitive Madeleine book. It is a first hand account of the original investigation - you can't get any closer to the 'source' than that.

      The idea that HideHo, Hall and Bennett know more about this investigation than Goncalo Amaral and the police who worked on it, is completely absurd, do you not see that?

      As for HideHo and Richard Hall informing millions of the 'real facts' - you really have lost the plot. They don't have any real facts - all these allegations come from their own lurid imaginations.

      They have taken a 'what if' and created an entire narrative around it discarding the facts and replacing them with speculation. And for what? Are they, in their delusional worlds enacting scenes from Perry Mason? The one where the shy, unassuming 'researcher' comes forward as the star witness and cracks the case?

      What are the chances that HideHo in Canada and Bennett in Harlow and Richard Hall somewhere in the solar system, have uncovered new facts that would blow this case wide open? Facts, they claim were missed by (30 years of detecting) Goncalo Amaral and his dedicated team. And, it would seem, 'facts' that have also been missed by the 30+ homicide detectives assigned to Operation Grange, and of course, the PJ ever since.

      Apart from how arrogant, how about how ludicrous it is to believe you (and by you, I mean all the loons who claim to have solved the case), above all those professionals, have solved a high profile crime from the comfort of your armchair and with 10 year old files.

      The loons have access to NOTHING, and I cannot stress this enough. They have no access to witnesses (thank God) and no access to any of the information held back when the PJ files were released.

      Do you not see the immorality of stalking strangers online 14:08, and then creating personalities and characters for them based on nothing more than a couple of photographs and your sleazy trawling of them on social media? I had a (brief) read of CMoMM today, but I didn't stay long. The comments these 'bitchy old women' make about these innocent young girls literally makes my skin crawl.

      HideHo and Richard Hall and Bennett, are not selling the real facts on YouTube 14:08, they are selling sexed up versions of Madeleine's disappearance purely for the delectation of those who miss salivating over the News of the World.

      Delete
    3. "Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five."

      Kate McCann (in her bewk, 'madeleine').

      Dawn through to 10.00 p.m, Thursday doesn't appear to count for some reason.

      Delete
    4. Hi 22:28, I must do a blog, or a discussion some time on the 'bewk'. I have (casually) deconstructed it myself several times, it is a rare opportunity to study a text while it is being played out in real time!

      I think however, it is another delicate topic for when the time is right. I have long predicated that this case will become the basis of many 'ologies.

      This case and Kate's book, for some inexplicable reason, reminds me of a Doris Day/Rock Hudson movie, where Rock Hudson, a gay man, plays a straight man pretending to be gay! There are quite a few layers to sift through before you reach the truth!

      Thursday counts 22:28, of that there is no doubt. It is deliberately vague I am sure, as it is the day they probably want to cover up the most! Mny thanks for your comment.

      Delete
    5. "Thursday counts 22:28, of that there is no doubt."

      Except it doesn't - at least not for KM in retrospect.

      "It is deliberately vague I am sure"

      What is? Thursday? There's nothing vague about the period between Wednesday and Friday.

      "it is the day they probably want to cover up the most!"

      Surely the day they wanted to cover up the most would be the one they discussed least? That would be the Monday.

      Delete
    6. Quite possibly 01:45, but I fear this discussion could turn into an online Rubic cube, and they drive me nuts!

      If you believe Madeleine died on the Monday, then you must believe the entire holiday group were psychopaths. How could anyone continue with a holiday in such circumstances?

      I hate to keep saying it, but the online sleuths are stark raving bonkers. The have taken delusion to a whole new level, and bizarrely, they have even managed to draw a gullible few into their collective fantasy. If you really want to go in depth, it is all a bit cultish.

      But I didn't mean to scold 01:45, it is not so long ago that I was gripped by certain pieces of this particular puzzle and presenting my brain with the herculean task of unravelling the statements etc, so I do understand where you are coming from.

      When I first began studying this case, I read literally everything available, and in the early days, everyone had an opinion. Eventually, I had to become discerning. I am very precious about my time. If they dismissed the evidence of the dogs, I stopped reading. If they created their own theories, paedophiles, swingers, I stopped reading. If they dismissed the findings of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, I stopped reading. And if they claim Madeleine died before the 3rd, I stop reading.

      I mention the above, for those who are looking for the truth and those who are new to the case and vulnerable to being led off on a tangent! There is so much out there to read, much of it super enlightening and informative. And the best way to begin is with Goncalo Amaral's The Truth of the Lie. For opinion, you can do no better than John Blacksmith - his, has always been the voice of reason.

      Delete
  7. Gordon Bennett21 July 2017 at 14:21

    At the risk of sounding boring or obsessed, the 18th May theory does not suggest anything happened before the 3rd May so would not mean lots of people lied and pretended nothing had happened for 5 or so days. So for me that means it is less absurd than the Sunday 29th theory.
    Forget the swinging lark or the peadeo nonsense, that theory could simply suggest something accidental had happened (or whatever) and an attempt to cover it up for again whatever reason. As we all know one lie leads to another and so on and you might later regret it, but cant go back and the lies get bigger (the photo?)
    Someone on a previous thread said when the last photo was taken proves nothing. I disagree. If it was taken on the 18th May with the whole world searching, then it was a major deception and can not be explained any other way.
    Textusa might be mad about swinging (maybe if a spinster she is hung up on sex or lack of )but I think she might have something with the photo.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The problem the internet sleuths have with their batshit crazy theories, is their failure to apply logic, reason and common sense."

    Yes, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You wrote:
    '' now a huge debt to pay to Goncalo Amaral. ''

    This implies GA comes away from this with NO DEBT.

    If he breaks even financially (in direct terms) & his sanity intact it will be a miracle.

    The debt the McCanns have to pay are GA, TV & publishers costs & those of the court.

    They don't pay any compensation. It's a small point but I feel it's valid.

    That aside I firmly believe Madeleine died in the apartment during that last evening she was left. I believe she was in the corner of the bedroom out of sight. Fear and panic took over. I'm iffy whether Mrs McCann at this point realised what had happened, certainly not on her check, but discovery on their return after the alarm. I can see NO evidence from the files that the apartment had any other persons there fore about 10 minutes.

    In other words, the Smith sighting has to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Textusa might be mad about swinging (maybe if a spinster she is hung up on sex or lack of) but I think she might have something with the photo".

    Textusa is not a spinster. Textusa is not 'Maria Santos' either. 'She' is actually a he, yes male, and is a swinger. Not at all what he pretends to be

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that information, but I don't see anything to support it.

      Anyway, kudos to you for posting in your 'real' Not Textusa ID, our last encounter wasn't pleasant. But, like anyone, you are welcome to post here if you can keep a civil tongue in your head. I still won't tolerate angry, meaningless rants.

      Delete
    2. You are not " not Textusa " .
      But you certainly are an unethical individual . people's private details are private for a reason . But it really goes in line with your behaviour . Now pretending to be someone else , a known blogger is s new low.

      Delete
    3. 12;16

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
    4. Oh dear.

      Whoever that was, it wasn't me. Happy to put a note on my blog to confirm this, but this comment will appear from my Blogger ID in any case.

      Don't worry, Ros, I won't be returning

      Delete
    5. Not Textusa 22 July 2017 at 15:44

      Good of you to confirm.

      “I won't be returning”

      That’s a shame.

      Thank you and all the best.

      T

      Delete
  11. "They are saying ignore the findings of Goncalo Amaral and the team of detectives who were there on the ground, because they have proved Madeleine wasn't there after Sunday 29th April and they'll fight anyone who disagrees with them".

    Their 'proof' of Madeleine being alive at 5.30pm is solely that provided by Cat Baker, the nanny - who said Maddie was at the 'high tea'. If Goncalo Amaral, before he was booted off the case, had had a chance to look at Baker's rogatory interview, and to find out that she was a friend of the daughter of Jon Corner - Madeleine's godfather - Amaral well might have very good cause to 'think again'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have any idea of how stupid that sounds 20:02?

      Cat Baker was a friend of the daughter of Jon Corner - Madeleine's Godfather, therefore she had to reason to lie in the case of a missing child, and possibly incur a decade a prison for perverting the course of justice? Would you or anyone commit such perjury for a friend, twice removed?

      Apply common sense and it all becomes much clearer.

      Delete
  12. I see the blog has descended into attacking Textusa again. What are you all frightened off. Time will tell that he/she was correct in almost everything wrote in his/ her blog. Ros I love reading your work but you encouraged these attacks on Textusa. In your last blog you made a comment about donning fetish gear before entering Textusa's site despite the fact that you know it's not that type of blog. Swinging may or may not be the reason for the cover up but Textusa backs up her arguments with solid well researched evidence. I have said many times that I feel you are all fighting what Textusa calls the great maddie war and disgusting remarks like accusing him/her of being s swinger along with remarks which suggest that spinsters are sex starved don't help any cause. If you can refute Textusa theory do so but the hurling of insults without reason helps no one

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blimey 22:45, you are taking my, admittedly, near the knuckle gags and treating them as though I am kicking puppies!

      Textusa, whoever he or he she is, why the need to hide his/her identity? has been spreading malicious gossip for years. Whatever 'good' work he/she may have done, is lost in the absurdity of his/her original claim. Swinging!

      I am not saying spinsters are sex starved btw, I am saying they might be incredibly naïve - the situation they suggest, an annual gathering of swingers, simply doesn't happen in the real world. Those with lots of sex in their pasts would ROFL at the absurdity of the idea.

      Now here's a thing 22:45, if the person (hiding) is putting out a theory that is completely bonkers, do you not think it should be challenged?

      Textusa's theory is extremely cruel and hurtful (so OK for him/her to hurt others?) those very real people and their children, have to live under the shadow of her seedy, lurid allegations. Could you imagine being a young teenager in a playground while the other kids are dissing your parents? In all these years Textusa has never shown one iota of compassion for all these people she is accusing of atrocities.

      I have no interest in reading or refuting Textusa 22:45, she lost me years ago with 'swinging'.

      Delete
    2. Ros " kicking puppies" lol no certainly not you style I just think that at times you group Textusa in with the like of Bennett and the rest of the crazies. She produces well researched conclusions and her work has undoubtly proved that there were a lot more people involved in this cover up than the Tapas 9. They haven't all got themselves into this position of preverting the course of justice simply out of loyalty to 2 (unlike able) doctors so something else is prompting the coverup. I wouldn't like to think that it has anything directly to do with the death of the child, I just can't bring myself to believe in any of the collective peado theories so what is the reason. Frankly swinging makes more sense to me than some of the theories put forward. I know you have said in the past that fear of charges of neglect may be the reason but I can't buy that I think preverting the course of justice in the death of a child far far out trumps any charges of neglect that may have been brought and besides them shown that they were well capable of lawyering themselves up and fighting any attempt to bring them back to Portugal for a reconstruction so I think they would have took their chances at fighting charges of neglect.
      I'm not an expert in the ways of swingers or anything like that but I know they do exist and I don't think the idea of an annual gathering is such a big jump for the imagination

      Delete
    3. 21.7 @23:12

      "Blimey 22:45, you are taking my, admittedly, near the knuckle gags and treating them as though I am kicking puppies!"

      I am not '22:45', but isn't this a variation upon the 'I didn't mean any harm' apology derided up-thread by Blacksmith?

      Delete
    4. Why does there need to be a 'deep, dark secret' 08:59, something more sinister than the death of a child? Isn't it enough that 6 NHS doctors were caught up in the potentially sensational story of 'doctors out on razzle while child died' front pages. These were ambitious professionals with much to lose, ergo the immediate saturating of the media with 'it wasn't neglect' stories.

      I'm sure swingers do exist 08:49, along with men having meaningful love affairs with their vacuum cleaners (I remember reading letters to Forum with my mates, lol), but like the men and their household appliances, they show an extraordinary level of discretion where their, let's say, little foibles are concerned. Let's just say holding an annual convention at a family holiday resort with kids and mother in law in tow, would be a no no.

      Delete
    5. Ros I think it's more than 6 NHS. Doctors out on the razzle just simply because so many people appear to be involved in the cover up. In reality while they immediately produced a timeline which suggested that they were checking regularly they also gave out information which made people detest them more like for example talking about one of the children being ill yet leaving them to their own devices to go out drinking. I honestly don't know Any parent which would do such a thing which makes me think that the neglect was mentioned to hide a deeper secret. Was neglect the big secret John Starker mentioned

      Delete
    6. We may have to agree to disagree 00:09, I think the neglect angle was just about as bad as it could get.

      With the cover up, I always imagine a 'thick of it' situation - a call taken by an intern in the middle of the night, an overwhelming urge to rescue the small British child. A case of act first, think later.

      How embarrassing would it have been for Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc if Gerry and Kate had been charged. These were parents who had the full backing of the UK government behind them.

      Gordon Brown should have stepped back and allowed the Portuguese police to get on with their investigation. But it seems he and his government were more interested in saving face.

      Many of the people involved in the cover up had their own agendas 09:09. The police agencies for example, each competing for funds and resources. New Labour were working towards a National Database, containing not only our private and confidential information but also our DNA.

      Gerry and Kate made a good case for everyone providing blood samples and stricter controls on borders under the guise of Amber Alert. Then of course there were the Charities, Missing People rarely if ever have such a photogenic toddler to promote their cause. Jim Gamble wanted to head up a police agency dedicated entirely to missing children and policing the internet.

      I would say there are deeper secrets 00:09, but they are really not so deep. Just look at all the people who have exploited and profited from Madeleine's disappearance. Maybe start with all those on the first planes out to PDL.

      Delete
  13. "Textusa might be mad about swinging (maybe if a spinster she is hung up on sex or lack of )but I think she might have something with the photo."

    "Textusa is not a spinster. Textusa is not 'Maria Santos' either. 'She' is actually a he, yes male, and is a swinger. Not at all what he pretends to be "

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Should also add that isn't it strange that not Textusa who hasn't commented on this blog for such a long time suddenly appears with a comments to support negative comment about textusa. Makes you think he or she was following the cristobell blog as another poster all this time

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think my enemies are my most avid readers 22:55, when they're not hating on the McCanns they are hating on me, lol.

      Delete
  15. ( part 1 )

    Picking up on a few tidbits posted so far ....and ducking beneath the latest round of truth versus proof versus facts ( while speculation lays anaesthetised)...

    I think Edgar Alan Poe and Wilkie Collins have much to answer for, not to mention Sir Arthur CD. They gave us the detective novel ( Poe actually inadvertently invented the term 'detective' for all you trivia buffs out there). They tapped into a basic human fascination with the unknown being made known. They also tapped into another fascination, which is our need to experience the 'darker side' vicariously, especially the darker side of human nature. The genre will always be popular and entertaining. But, thanks to the skills of these authors, they've created a universal admiration of their heroes and their skills which brings out our own inner detective when real life begins to imitate their art. The Mccann case is one of the most high profile cases ever, and the army of Sherlocks and Dupins have come out fighting and armed to the teeth with their own perceived skills. But they're not real detectives, nor do they understand the skills required to pay homage to the fictional ones. And therein lies the problem...

    In our modern world Police forces have an impressive arsenal at their disposal; fingerprinting, DNA,Blood analysis, CCTV, Psychologists and so forth. In the good old bad old days, none of these tools were around. A good copper had to be on his toes back then. Guessing was no good to anyone or anything. Those early authors knew this well. They supplied plots that took us on twists and turns throughout and the solving of the crime depended on the detectives intuition, observation and perspicacity. The most important of these was perspicacious inference. In common parlance, we call that 'gut instinct'. But it has little to do with gut. When the brain and the mind get together and partner up they can be an impressive dynamic duo. It's only when that intruder 'emotion' crashes the party that things begin to go awry. A gut instinct is reached when intuition and observation begin to compute at great speed and process probabilities. The possibilities are then swiftly narrowed down and presented to the detective as the likely solutions. It's the mind as computer. Sherlock Holmes embodied this idea a bit too extremely for my liking but it worked well. Note how there was no Mrs Holmes, No Mrs Poirot, no Mr Marple. The great detective of that era had to divorce emotions from thought in no uncertain terms to get results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very eloquently put Ziggy and a pleasure to read, I'm impressed at your knowledge of 'The Gothic', I may have mentioned it is a passion of my own, begun in my early teens when I read Edgar Allen Poe under the bedsheets with a torch and one I had the pleasure of studying when doing my degree.

      The Turn of the Screw by Henry James deserves an honourable mention here because it deals specifically with the power of the imagination. 'Make (the reader) think the evil, make him think it for himself and you are released from weak specifications'.

      Many of the antis, I fear, like the governess, have literally driven themselves insane with whatever it is they are imagining. It is a dark, and in fiction, a tantalising concept, but in reality it is very dangerous. The wild imaginings of the governess in Turn of the Screw, leads to her killing the child.

      Oscar Wilde described Henry James' book as 'a most wonderful, lurid, poisonous little tale', which of course it is. It captures that sense of paranoia as the imagined (or were they?) fears of the governess as they escalate.

      But how does this mini masterpiece compare to the McCann case? The 'readers' have thought of the evil for themselves:

      'No, no - there are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don't know what I don't see - what I don't fear!' [Henry James]

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 July 2017 at 11:31

      ''Very eloquently put Ziggy and a pleasure to read, I'm impressed at your knowledge of 'The Gothic''

      ''The Turn of the Screw by Henry James deserves an honourable mention here because it deals specifically with the power of the imagination.''

      ''But how does this mini masterpiece compare to the McCann case? The 'readers' have thought of the evil for themselves''

      'No, no - there are depths, depths! The more I go over it, the more I see in it, the more I fear. I don't know what I don't see - what I don't fear!' [Henry James]

      Why thankyou indeed :-)

      The Gothic module didn't last long enough for me back in my days studying.They went for quantity at Uni. I loved 'Frankenstein' if only for the variety of ways it can be interpreted.I enjoyed Turn Of The Screw, very gripping.A real assault on the mind.But before i knew it i was psychoanalysing F Scott Fitzgerald as i talked about Gatsby :/ Then on to Irish plays and poetry.Madness .Ironically, due to practical reasons, I ended up reading more about Henry's brother, William, when I became immersed in Psychology.What a mind. He's regarded as the founder of American Psychology and he was also a philospher of note. He wrote extensively and primarily about truth and belief and the cohesion of each . If you could construct the perfect brain the left would be inhabited by William, the right by Henry. I can't imagine a more impressive recipe to present a 'philosophy of everything' ;-)

      If I had a wish right now I'd bring the brothers back and sit them at a computer and give them a day to read the McCann case from the beginning.The lot. Then I'd ask them to go through all the forums and social media wars and ask them what they made of it all.I have little doubt they'd come up with something everyone has missed and delete far more than they'd keep.Henry would have the insight to the darker corners of the minds involved and an even firmer grasp on the minds that have insisted themselves into the mystery via the internet. William would take his pragmatism, truth and belief route.Marry all that up and bingo..case solved.Failing it being solved, at least a few mountains of madness would be dissolved and we could all enjoy that forgotten, unclouded view from ten years ago.

      Delete
  16. ( part 2 )

    When 'amateur sleuths' take it upon themselves to investigate mysteries they fall at the 'emotional' hurdle nine times out of ten. That's where they should stop. It's hard not to feel when an innocent toddler has been taken or killed. Hard, but necessary. It's as important as it is necessary too. If feelings cloud the view things quickly begin to go wrong in terms of examining things objectively .That's dangerous. Amateur sleuths have no history to call upon; no experience. Instead they bring a superficial observation of the main points at first then, calling on previous cases they've heard or read about and favourite whodunit stories, set about 'solving' the case. Worse, unlike the good old bad old days, todays amateur sleuths can view or read about the new sciences that are part of crime fighting now. They get the same buzz from CSI as our grandparents must have got from Sherlock. They can't wait to 'try it out' and get a bigger buzz out of successfully solving a crime like the McCann case. Am I really a lone voice when i say that this is naive ? This is why the subjective and crazier theories won't go away. The authors of those particular novellas are too stubborn to admit they're wrong and try another route. They've made it personal-which it should never be, and they get angry( emotional) if it's pointed out. Suddenly theories become facts and 'obvious'. Lies can be talked about without talking about the evidence of them being lies. Truths are treated in the same manner.

    I've been asked if I'm a 'pro' or 'anti'. I'm neither. I'm stood back asking more questions rather than suggesting 'truths'. I want evidence that can withstand challenge and solve a case . The way this case has gone( confusing statements, eye witness testimony, forensics not being strong enough) it has become an impossibility to use deductive or inductive reasoning to get anywhere worthwhile, or state anything categorically that can't be countered. A well worked plot by a cunning author ? Who knows...

    As for Smithman etc...

    It would have been easier for Smithman to recognise the carrier of the child as Gerry McCann if he already knew Gerry McCann.But he never. He saw a generic looking male in the dark at an angle. So now we have a large crowd who once used his 'sighting' as a stick to beat others with turning against him as a 'liar' for having second thoughts about the serious consequences which a mistaken identity could cause . I'm stating the obvious, I know. But I do so for a reason. If you don't think this little nugget demonstrates how unreliable eye witness testimony is, consider something else ; After May 03, the world had Madeleine McCann's face imprinted into their mind. A tiny, cute little blonde toddler with blonde hair and blue eyes. She was spotted by eye witnesses in shops and in broad daylight in quite a few countries by hundreds of witnesses who already knew her face well .All wrong.



    ReplyDelete
  17. "Time will tell that he/she was correct in almost everything wrote in his/ her blog".

    I admit he has got many things right and even where he hasn't, he does provide his readers with a lot of well-researched detail.

    An outstanding example was his demolition job on Nuno Lourenco's claim that Wojchiech Krokowski (the Polish bloke who wore cloth clothes, classic shoes and didn't look like a tourist) had tried to snatch his daughter outside a Sagres tea-shop. He proved beyond any doubt that Lourenco fabricated his sighting and also provided evidence that he did this with the deliberate intention of putting Amaral's men off the scent. And he was gloriously successful, Amaral's men getting German and Polish police to chase him to Berlin and Warsaw on an international wild goose chase.

    But I'm afraid Textusa's attempt to claim the Last Photo was taken on Friday 18th May was an inglorious failure of common sense, plus his fixation on Gerry's sunglasses and a complete ignorance of how a horizontal line (in this case the rim of the pool) can become vertical on a pair of sunglasses.

    But then Textusa has a very good reason for inventing a scenario that involves the Last Photo being taken on 18 May. He has wedded himself from early on to the 'Maddie died after 6pm Thursday' theory and - sorry Ros - it is absolutely necessary to look at all the evidence as to when Maddie died, people should be wary of rubbishing the careful research of people like HideHo and Petermac.

    By the way, one argument against 'death after 6pm Thursday' has been missed on this thread so far. Namely, if Maddie died between 6pm and 10pm in the apartment, how could they...keep this from the twins, remove the twins to another place, talk their Tapas 7 friends into going along with an abduction hoax, get them all to lie, clean up the blood, find a hiding place for the body, hide the body - and yet all sit down calmly for dinner at 8.30pm?

    No, I think this Thursday evening 'performance' required a helluva lot more preparation.

    But thanks for the topic anyway, Ros, your blog is buzzing

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ziggy's paragraph "As for Smithman etc..." must rate as one of his finest pieces of analysis to date - albeit that he makes just one very simple point, namely the unreliability of eye-witness testimony.

    With that in mind, these are the among the aspects of the Smithman sighting that the supporters in the 'Smithman = Gerry' camp have never been able to explain away:

    * How anyone could remember the facial features of a man seen only for a handful of seconds in the dark
    * How any of the Smiths could draw up any facial e-fit after each of the three of them (Martin, Peter, Aoife) told the PJ on 26 May 2007: 'We will never be able to recognise him again'
    * How it was possible for any of the Smiths to draw up any e-fits up to a year or more after their 'sighting' (Exton's visit to them was sometime in the spring or summer of 2008), and
    * Why they produced two very different images, apparently of the same man.

    Did Martin Smith draw them both up, saying "Well, I think he might have had a square-shaped face with a small nose, or, er, on the other hand, maybe he had a triangular shaped face with a long nose"?

    Or did Martin Smith say "He had a square face with a short nose" while Peter said "No he didn't, he had a triangular face with a long nose"?

    Or maybe it was the other way round? Peter went for the square face and Martin for the long nose?

    I would pay good money to watch a top Q.C. taking apart Martin Smith's claim that Smithman was Gerry (with 60% certainty) based on the way he was carrying a child on his shoulder (just like everyone else does).

    What a joke!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I would pay good money to watch a top Q.C. taking apart Martin Smith's claim that Smithman was Gerry (with 60% certainty) based on the way he was carrying a child on his shoulder (just like everyone else does).
      What a joke!!"

      Indeed!

      Delete
    2. I’m sorry but I flatly disagree.

      You are using the Bennett technique of piling on hypothetical questions of your own invention, thus putting a non-existent onus on others.

      “With that in mind, these are the among the aspects of the Smithman sighting that the supporters in the 'Smithman = Gerry' camp have never been able to explain away”.

      You and Bennett and a few others have decided that questions about the Smithman sighting “have to be answered” or “explained away”. Exactly as Hiding-in-Canada Heidi has decided that questions about the child’s existence or otherwise after April 29 have to be answered.

      They do not. There is no legal, moral or factual basis for this subjective – and crank – imperative of yours, or hers. None. Your statement is objectively untrue. Try and get your head round that.

      There is no question of anyone having to "explain away" anything. The Smiths have made police statements. In due time they will either be provided to court or excluded. In court they will come under cross-examination as part of the process of establishing the truth.

      But in court, as you well know, they’ll have the protection of the law ensuring that their statement is examined from both sides in the context of all evidence and within the rules of cross-examination. With a jury to assess the way they answer questions.

      Under the guise of “research” (!) you have abused the contempt of court laws, which protect both witnesses and defendants against one-sided prejudicial comments, abused the normal civility a member of the public assisting the police is shown and taken it upon yourself to cloak your hobby opinions in quasi-legal language.

      I wonder if, next time you have something stolen from your car or taken from your house, you are given a statement form to fill in beginning, “please note your words here will be made available to the public for them to comment on as they feel necessary. You may find this very distressing.”

      And then, to confirm that your post and your opinions have nothing whatever to do with research, you move to judge and to mock an innocent witness – a witness, mind you, not a defendant. One who cannot reply:

      “Or maybe,” you sneer, “it was the other way round? Peter went for the square face and Martin for the long nose?”

      You then add: “I would pay good money to watch a top Q.C. taking apart Martin Smith's claim that Smithman was Gerry (with 60% certainty) based on the way he was carrying a child on his shoulder (just like everyone else does).”

      That’s real research, isn’t it? Courtroom as zoo, witness as "a joke".

      The comments on these recent posts are providing merciless access to the mindset of the Pit, hidden until now, as you condemn yourselves with your own words: pure malice, cloaked in pretendy legalese.

      Delete
  19. John McCann claimed, mid-May 2007, that Sean said "Maddie's jammies, where's Maddie? If Maddie was gone before 3rd May, wouldn't his sister's absence be on his mind every day onwards? How could the McCanns be certain he wouldn't blurt his questions out wherever he went, thus blowing the "game" before the staged enactment on Thursday?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ PJQs

    [It was Amelie, not Sean, by the way]

    Of course, after 3rd May, either of the twins could blurt out 'Where is Maddie?' at any moment.

    If we suppose that Maddie was 'no more' by the morning of Monday 30th April, the same holds good, either twin could ask 'Where is Maddie?' And probably they would have done. And probably the parents would have given her some kind of answer, something like: "She's gone to stay with x for a while".

    But who would have known about any such questions? The parents kept the twins in the apartment at breakfast, lunch and evening after Sunday. The twins may possibly have interacted with the other Tapas families - and of course they were at the crèche during the day. They might well have asked their parents from time to time: "When is Maddie coming back?"

    Mouthy John McCann was present at a very interesting event. He was there when somebody displayed Madeleine's pyjamas, that is, the ones she was supposed to have been abducted in (this is covered in Dr Martin Roberts' article: 'A Nightwear Job' where he absolutely proved that the pyjamas held up by the McCanns on Crimewatch on 5 June and in Amsterdam on 7 June were Madeleine's).

    This was a 'trigger event' for little Amelie. She saw what she knew were Madeleine's pyjamas - and this prompted her to ask what had happened to her sister. And John 'motor mouth' McCann blurted out what Amelie said, so that the world now knows about it.

    What a great piece of evidence Amelie produced with her now-famous five words:

    1 Maddie is missing
    2 Those are Maddie's pyjamas
    3 Maddie wasn't abducted.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Anonymous22 July 2017 at 18:10

    Nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:19

      Because?

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous22 July 2017 at 21:54

      19:19

      Because?"
      -------------------

      Because you can't hide that a child has gone missing/is dead for several days and carry on as normal without people noticing. It is make believe dreamt up by haters trying to make something fit to their fantasy.

      As for Dr Roberts - perhaps you could give me a link to his/her qualifications in analysing anything?

      Delete
    3. 22:08

      "It is make believe dreamt up by haters trying to make something fit to their fantasy."

      That explains everything. As for part 2 of your reply, I'm not Anonymous 18:10 so perhaps not.

      Delete
  22. "john blacksmith21 July 2017 at 11:25

    Ros, it has been refreshing over the last few days to see the forum wars stuff put aside for the moment to deal with the really serious matters you've just described so excellently."
    ----------------------------------

    I found the forum wars stuff very interesting and I note that bennett has not posted on the cesspit, nor on twitter (as zampos) for quite a while.

    There were threats of police action - if it has shut him up then good. If it forces havern to post his garbage under her name then good. bennett will not like not being able to post under his own name or his numerous other names - the blonk will get frustrated for not being acknowledged and lauded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that Ros had chosen the wrong subject. I meant that something more than just that had come out on these pages over the last couple of days - people of the anti-McCann persuasion united with those of the pro-McCanns.

      Against the persecution of people who never asked to be part of the McCann circus, against defaming and targeting witnesses who did their duty as citizens in giving statements to the police, against innocent relations of the McCanns, to whom the Pit apply the rules of Sippenhaft - "all members of a criminal's family are guilty".

      The Pit and its denizens have had opportunity after opportunity to put a sensible, reasoned case in their own defence, together with the evidence that might justify some of their persecution of innocents.

      And we haven't heard a word, have we? I am amazed at the poverty of the "arguments" they've put forward, really surprised. It's just been muddled thinking, denial - they never, ever accept that they are genuinely hurting people - dreadful mistakes of fact - remember the Paolo Reis Case Files? and, as I said before, truly pathetic self-pity.

      And we can let them continue, so that the people from outside looking in on these pages go on learning more and more about their mindset and why their headquarters will always be known as the Cesspit.

      Now, I admit that this unity may not last but I have a suspicion that the worst of the behaviour on both pro and anti sides is behind us. Events - because, believe it or not two investigations are going on - are now beginning to overtake the fantasists on both sides.

      The "conspiracy favouring the McCanns" stuff has delivered literally nothing. Since Amaral's victory all the intellectual fire has gone out of the McCann supporters and their active numbers have dropped away radically: the abuse of opponents remains but the conviction has gone - you can feel it in their posts. McCann supporters are quietly beginning to steel themselves for the worst as they slip away, and they are right to do so.

      It won't affect the Pit. They are, I regret to say, genuinely lost down there, lost in the past, lost in their own souls.

      Delete
    2. Terrific post JB, I read and enjoyed it twice!

      The opposition do seem to have jumped ship - odd because they can inflict thousands of pages of tedious 'research' on unfortunate civil servants, but they cannot compile so much as one paragraph to support the abominable stance they have been selling for the last 10 years.

      It is indeed refreshing to be able to discuss this subject from EVERY perspective, and yes it is a revelation that both sides have been able to come together amicably. It is a delight for me to prove to all my tightass, right wing critics, that my lefty, libtard, laissez faire approach has brought everyone to the table and we are not killing each other, so in yer face.

      Missing of course, are the extremists, those who are 'right, dead right'. HideHo, Petermac, Tony Bennett, Richard Hall, Peter Hyatt, the venomous Verdi, the acrid Aquila and the tedious Thompson? All top of their game at slagging people off and making heinous accusations against those who cannot answer back, but each eerily silent when confronted by those who can.

      Yes, I think finally, the wind has gone from the sails of Team McCann. Their success has pretty much been reliant on popularity. All the while the public loved them, they ruled the world, but all that changed when they were made Arguidos - In their heads, it was when GA published his book.

      They put up a good fight, but it was pretty much downhill all the way after that. That final ruling of the Supreme Court has put an end not only to their claims in Portugal, but to the credibility of the abduction story. People will say, how could a Judge rule against parents who had a child abducted?

      Perhaps Gerry and Kate thought that not only would they get £1.25m in compensation but a Court ruling would be an official acknowledgment that their child was abducted.

      They are at the end of the road now, but there should be no sense of satisfaction for anyone. It should never have come to this. Still I ask, when and if, an adult and sane member of their family will intervene and say enough is enough. Right now they should all be thinking of salvaging whatever they can. They need to stop listening to self-enriching advisors, and start listening to people who genuinely care about them and their children.

      The Pit as you say, will never change, the few who remain, will continue to sit on their perches spewing bile and looking out for carcasses.

      Delete
    3. Mr Blacksmith do not delude yourself that because all is silent you have won the argument. The simple truth is that no one wants to talk to you and I for one will allow you to do your lap of honour around the empty playground. Note it is empty because no one wants to be around you. As you stand there, King of the empty playground, you will no doubt take comfort in your one true friend - that cavernous, fact-filled brain of yours - blissfully unaware that it is incapable of distinguishing between an error and a lie. You are the kid who thinks he is cleverer than everyone else: the loneliest kid of all...

      Delete
    4. Jane Cook @09:09

      It is regrettable, if not a little sad, that some of those sufficiently concerned by the McCann case as to want to discuss it ad nauseam appear to have lost touch with reality. They are more to be pitied than censured perhaps.

      Whatever you do, don't lose your own equilibrium. You are as entitled to hold an opinion about things, and about others, as anyone else (n.b. to scrutineers - I refer to holding, not expressing)

      Amidst all this 'bleating' about being hurtful toward others, intentionally or otherwise, something very obvious seems to have escaped the attention of the self-righteous.

      Comments, criticisms, even insinuations, can only affect the person on the receiving end, as it were, if they are read by, or reported to them.

      That is not to defend the libelling of others, but isn't it more likely that someone engaged in an on-line dialogue will actually 'tune in' to read what is being said? More likely even than a putative 'victim' looking in on CMOMM (or here for that matter) and discovering they are the subject of discussion.

      Who, then, is the more spiteful, and deliberately so: the casual commentator who shares his or her feelings with others of their ilk, on a forum established for that very purpose, or the individual who corresponds directly with a third party and proceeds to call them everything from a pig to a dog?

      I do not applaud unfounded accusations of any kind. I have no truck with malice. Nor do I with hypocrisy.

      As Peter Ustinov once wrote: "It is a mark of insincerity of purpose to seek a high-born dowager in a Chinese tea shop".

      In the present context, I fancy dowagers are more likely to be found elsewhere.


      Delete
    5. Anonymous 23 July 2017 at 12:35

      Hear, hear!

      It so good of you to say as you did.

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
  23. I see we're now heading away from unreliable eye witness testimony to the testimony of babies. That's a great improvement.

    I suppose this goes some way in clearing the father or his lookalike parading her around the streets in his arms as she lay lifeless in her pyjamas. But why remove pyjamas potentially holding DNA and leave it lying around rather than let it remain hidden on Madeleine ?Will this be filed under 'anecdotal evidence' as it's arrived 2nd or 3rd hand( hearsay) and is an interpretation of words that came from a pre- nursery aged child ?Or will it be nailed to the 'McCanns killers' post as it was spoken by a McCann. We won't call this McCann a liar though as it helps build the case desired by most . I wonder why neither team of investigators interrogated that baby...

    The early statements included details of Madeleine's PJs.These details found their way to the media before taking up permanent residence online. Realistically, would the parents display the PJs they say Madeleine was wearing - or would they hide them? And would this major cock up NOT be spotted by a detective anywhere ?

    The ' she might have asked' and 'she might have been told' both rely on imagination and require suspending rational thinking in favour of creative thinking.In this instance we need to create a scene ( at lunch or over breakfast), give a line to a toddler to speak and guess at a reply from a parent. Some of the best fiction ever written has been about people who didn't exist doing things that they therefore couldn't have.But the finished product is entertaining and often engrossing.But that's fiction. Police and QC's can only deal with reality and the rational. Imagination is a completely different theatre.

    ReplyDelete
  24. On the issue of Smithman, I remain on the fence.

    It is obviously a very crucial issue, so much so that the combined forces of the BBC and the Met Police in 2013 spent months, and millions, promoting him as 'the centre of our focus'. Four years later, it doesn't look as though he has yet been found.

    I freely admit that I have a number of major doubts about the validity of the Smith sighting.

    However, I am also very reluctant to go down the road of accusing Martin Smith and his two children of making it all up.

    I therefore am tempted down what I see as the middle road - namely that the Smiths didn't see a man carrying Madeleine, but someone else altogether. In which case his sighting becomes irrelevant.

    But I will just make this observation @ John Blacksmith.

    Your superior attitude, the evident hate you feel towards the likes of HideHo, Petermac and Bennett, all of whom have worked hard on the case whatever you think about their conclusions, your failure to deal with the arguments and instead abusing those you disagree with - none of this impresses me.

    I tend to feel that you have a weak case if you indulge in abusing others all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David r never mind about what you think of blacksmith just explain why you have doubts about Martin Smiths statements.....why would him and his family who have no connection to this case other than as witnesses lie..... Why would Martin Smith at a time when the the McCanns were riding high in the popularity charts feel the need to speak out and say that the person he saw was almost certainly Gerry McCann. There is only 1 reason for that he was not 60 - 80% sure he was 100% sure. Martinn Smith and his family are very private and honarable family his sense of integrity made him make the statement he did, he didn't make it off the cuff he knew the implications of what he was saying but knew it was the right thing to do. People like you who think saying you have serious doubts about the validly of the smith sightings and then try to be mr nice guy oh I'm not accusing them of of making it up disgust me. You are fectking accusing them you good for nothing gobshit otherwise you wouldn't be saying you doubt the validly of what him his family and his 12 year old child said. Who the feck did they see.....somebody whose been in a coma for 10 years and hasn't come forward stop stating your middle of the road opinion that they saw somebody else. How is that a middle of the road opinion it's calling them a outright liars how is that a middle of the road opinion........it's as right wing as you can get.

      Delete
    2. "DavidR"

      You are attempting to pass yourself off as some sort of middle-of-the-road ingénue who loves moderation in all things - oh, and hates abuse. But your words betray you.

      Pull the other one. You are posing.

      How do I know? Because of this:

      "However, I am also very reluctant to go down the road of accusing Martin Smith and his two children of making it all up.

      I therefore am tempted down what I see as the middle road - namely that the Smiths didn't see a man carrying Madeleine, but someone else altogether. In which case his sighting becomes irrelevant."

      Somebody in the "middle of the road" about this case would not even claim to be "reluctant to go down the road of accusing Martin Smith and his two children of making it all up".

      It wouldn't even occur to somebody in the "middle of the road", indeed to any normal person outside the Pit, to accuse a likely crown witness and their children of making it up. Do you not know how megalomaniac you sound? As though you have a right to be in charge of the Smith's destinies in some way?

      You are not just a McCann hobbyist but you are part of the Bennett clique - nobody outside your circle even thinks about the bona fides of the many witnesses in this case, let alone of accusing them.

      Get out of your bubble, for God's sake, and just leave Mr Smith and his family completely alone.

      It that really so hard? Is that such a terrible thing to ask you to do? Is it? Can you not understand that you aren't on the high ground in this affair - but somewhere quite elsewhere? That is why I christened it the Cesspit.

      Just leave innocent people alone. I do, Ros does,my wife does, almost everybody in the UK does. Why can't you have the decency to do the same?


      Delete
    3. Why don't you try the statistics route David. What are the chances of a man who looks exactly like Gerry McCann running through the streets of PDL carrying a child who looks exactly like Madeleine, at the time the child was declared missing.

      The Irish family saw the man 'up close and personal' close enough for the Nan to ask if the little girl was asleep? He ignored her and tried to hide his face.

      Shortly after this chance encounter, Jane Tanner claims to have seen another suspicious man walking away from the apartment block with a child across his arms. Conveniently at exactly the same time as Gerry was talking to Jez, and the man she saw had long hair at the back, so obviously not Gerry. Let's put it this way, it wouldn't work in fiction, too obvious.

      Now I have gone very easy on you David, JB, not so much, but the only reasons to doubt the evidence of the Smith family, come from the cesspit. They are based on a smear campaign conducted by known online stalker and busybody Tony Bennett. And let's not forget, for two years he was stalking and harassing the wrong Smith family.

      The Smith family have kept a dignified silence and a dignified distance from the Circus that grew out of Madeleine's disappearance. And because of that, crazies like Bennett and Hall have invented entire narratives around them, based only on speculation and their own lurid imaginations. They are despicable. If and when this case is finally wound up, I would like to see Bennett and Hall face criminal charges for harassing witnesses.

      To the Smith family, if you ever look in, stay strong, your quiet dignity has put you head and shoulders above all your adversaries. Be assured, most reasonable people (the majority)understand the position you are in.

      Delete
    4. I shouldn't applaud 00:36, but I will, lol.

      I agree completely 00:36, as I read Martin Smith's statement I could almost feel the pain of the terrible predicament he was in. As you say, at the time, the Gerry and Kate were being lauded as international heroes, he would have been a lone and very unpopular voice.

      That Mr. Smith and his family are honourable, decent, people, has been absolutely apparent to those of us who have followed this case with our eyes wide open. It truly pains me to see the vileness that is aimed at them.

      I once did a blog, or a long post on the way in which the brain captures and stores images, which is why I agree - that magic little camera in his head was 100% sure.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. @DavidR 23.21

      A small point but at least 5 members of the Smith family gave police statements.
      Check for yourself instead of repeating the dross of CMOMM

      Mistaken or not why would any parent insist on involving 12 and 13 year olds in very stressful police interviews
      Who can provide a sensible answer?

      Delete
    7. I would love to see that peice Ros if you ever can find it. What I found most telling about his testimony was the gardas discription of Martin Smith State of mind when he interviewed him. He discribed very well in a few words the pain of the moment for both of them. I can imagine then both sitting in the Garda Station with that errie feeling that when they set the wheels in motion of reporting what was said the hugh implications this was about to have. That Garda didn't just shrug his shoulders and say wtf I'll pass it on he took the time to study Martin Smith and felt the need to pass on the pain he felt in saying it and his opinion on how he presented himself as a honest and trustworthy person. He also was at pains to point out that Martin Smith wife felt the same way but highlighted the conflict that was going on within the family in that she didn't want to get involved anymore than she already was but he felt he couldn't walk away.

      Match that pain and that conflict with eejits like DavidR who has no problem coming out with his middle of the road statements. I wonder how many people DavidR would present you in the same light as that Garda was at pains to present Martin Smith as.

      Thank you Ros for highlighting this and I'm sure some members of the Smith family follow what is said on line here and your reassurance will be very welcome

      Delete
    8. I can't remember if the piece is here on my blog 10:25 - but in a nutshell, our brain stores millions, if not billions, of images every day, and very efficiently I might add. In the most simplistic form, if someone tells us an orange is an apple, we know it isn't because we have a stored image of an orange and we know what it looks it.

      Mr. Smith stored the image of the man he saw in his mind, probably subconsciously, and his brain retrieved it when he saw the same image again. I think a good example, is the old Carry On Spying movie, where Barbara Windsor, who has a photographic memory, blinks when she is storing pictures accompanied by the sound of a camera clicking.

      I think 10:25, that many of the people who have been drawn into this compelling mystery, forget that the names they bandy around are real people with real lives. It is as though they have been lulled into believing they are part of some interactive reality TV show where they can take pot shots at the contestants. A precursor to real live Hunger Games perhaps?

      I do hope some members of the Smith family look in, it must be so frustrating to see their well earned good name, attacked by online sleuths who lost the plot years ago. They will always be robustly defended here!

      The argument that any man walking down the airplane steps carrying a child would have triggered Martin Smith's memory is simply untrue. Our brains are far more sophisticated and precise than that. Had any other man in the McCann party, Gerry's brother, or Clarence for example, carried the child down the steps, the 'recall' simply wouldn't have been there.

      Martin Smith's statement stood out for me 10:25, for it's raw honesty. He was clearly in great turmoil and who could blame him. Absolutely no-one wanted to believe the parents were involved, himself included I'm sure.

      Delete
    9. Jane, I just got myself a nice coffee and sat down to reply to your comment, now gone, so I will respond generically.

      This blog is uncensored Jane, and quite often the discussions become heated. I don't have a problem with that, in fact, I quite like it, because that is when a debate gets to the point. My problem with forums and facebook pages, was the locking and shutting down of threads just as they got interesting.

      It is my belief that if an argument is allowed to run it's course, eventually a point of agreement will be reached - it has to be, or it's pistols at dawn.

      There have been many heated and lively debates on here Jane, both sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Happily, my laissez faire approach works quite well, like a local pub we can all go in the next day, dazed and unable to remember our soap box moment, but still just as welcome as we were before. I think the comment of the week, must be JB, 'who would have thought Ziggmund and I would be on the same side?'. So you see, stranger things have happened :)

      Delete
  25. Hi, first post so apologies if I say something wrong or already covered. Ros, could I ask what your theory is regarding what happened to Madeleine and when? I have read a lost of your blogs so I know some bits but I've never read a full account of what you think/believe may have happened. I believe that whatever happened, happened on 3rd may. I also don't believe that so many people could have been "in on it" I even wonder whether the tapas 7 were aware that Madeleine had died, or maybe a select couple were told. I think an accident occurred while they were out, possibly caused by sedation and the mccanns panicked and chose to cover it up. I think if it had happened earlier in the week, their story would have been much more convincing. I'm also intrigued to know what ziggy thinks happened, I know he's said he's neither a pro or an anti but with the knowledge he has, if he had to say one way or another, which way would he be swayed to go with? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome 00:12, and no worries, say whatever you like!

      I'm very much with Goncalo Amaral's theory as expressed in The Truth of the Lie 00;12. I don't think for one moment it was a 'perfect' family holiday. Really? With 3 lively, demanding toddlers?
      I was watching the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with their two little ones disembarking from a plane today, and even they looked fraught!

      I think it more likely the parents were fighting all week 00:12, Gerry sounded quite grumpy on the airport bus. When relationships are strained and tense, the risk of accident, or even a crime of passion, escalate. Like Goncalo I believe 'it' happened on the evening of May 3rd.

      I believe their biggest fear was charges of child neglect or child endangerment, something that could literally ruin them, their families and their futures.

      Gerry has, in a couple of interviews referred to a 'collective' decision. Does he mean they all decided collectively, to leave the children alone while they dined at the tapas bar? Or does he mean they all made the decision to play down their neglect and blame an abductor?

      If Madeleine suffered a fatal accident while all the adults were at the bar, they would have had a lot of explaining to do. We have all seen tabloid headlines of drunken brits abroad, change that to 6 NHS doctors and you have a full blown scandal.

      I don't think that anyone for one moment, thought Madeleine's disappearance would cause such a media storm. That they cashed in on it is where it became distasteful, but it was a runaway train.

      Unfortunately, one lie leads to another, and another and so on, and in this case, to the point of no turning back. To what extent the Tapas group were involved we do not know, they are not saying, but involved they most certainly are. How do I know this? Because on the morning of 4th May, they, like Kate and Gerry, put their children in the resort crèche. At that time, Madeleine had only been missing a few hours, and there was a possibility she was being held by someone who worked at the resort or a holidaymaker. With a child predator on the loose how could anyone leave their babies and toddlers with virtual strangers? I think anyone who put their kids in the crèche the very next day knew there was no abductor.

      But anyway, thank you for your input 00:12, I too would be interest to hear what Ziggy says!

      Delete
    2. Certainly Ros you have hit it on the head I don't think they thought it would cause the media storm it did and once they had decided to go down the abduction route there was no going back

      Delete
    3. Author's Update:

      “As for my rebutting HideHo's and Petermac's 'analysis' and 'research' Verdi - to do that I would have to read it, and life's too short.”

      So presumably you don’t read it.

      “As fascinating as their analysis and research may be to them, it is of little or no interest to anyone else. That's why I rarely, if ever, mention mine HideHo.

      "And let's stop being pompous here, research = reading. None of you are actually in a laboratory boiling up acid over a Bunsen burner, you are just clicking on google.”

      Shouldn’t that read “none of US”, since you claim to be engaged in similar ‘research’?

      “All HideHo and Petermac have demonstrated, is just how far a person is willing to go with a delusion.”

      Is that conclusion based on a ‘hunch’ or a third-party account, since you claim not to have the time to read the work you are criticising?

      "You cannot be serious" (J.P. McEnroe)

      Delete
  26. In the mean time £11+ million is spent on a burglary that didn't happen,why?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you for your detailed response Ros, I agree with most of what you've said, but as a relative newbie (reading cmomm for a while until I too noticed their complete disregard for anyone with an opposing opinion, I've watched them belittle and bully people who don't agree with the earlier theory, Verdi in particular is downright rude and sometimes nasty. Eventually you'll see they've banned whatever newcomer for "derailing threads" etc) the main part that baffles me though is why they involved the media themselves and made a much bigger scene than it needed to be. They could have used "Portuguese police had told us no media" and it wouldn't have blown up nearly as much as it did. Do you think they were so sure of themselves they thought they'd get away with it all and have the whole worlds sympathy? That's another reason that made me think the whole group might not have been complicit in this, the innocent party would want the media informed and trying to be helpful get as much a attention as possible to find Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately 11:13, a disproportionate number of doctors develop a 'God Complex', understandable they are making life and death decisions every day and no one questions them. They are one of the few professions where they are addressed by their titles, by all of us. In hospitals, they are surrounded by nurses and staff who carry out all their orders.

      I think it is quite possible they believed their status as doctors would put them above suspicion, that their word should be enough. I think they also viewed Portugal as a third world country, with their cops trained under the old regime.

      Their treatment of the Portuguese police was ill mannered and patronising. They treated the first police on the scene as underlings, demanding to speak to someone superior straight away. This is not the way you would treat the potential rescuers of your missing daughter.

      The media storm was quite deliberate imo, Mof3, they were trying to muddy the waters as much and as quickly as they could. They had to turn a negative into a positive with a 90degree turn on a motorway. It was an amazing feat.

      In a nutshell Mof3, if you believe you can do something - you can. And the McCanns and their entourage were hyped up on adrenalin and endorphins from all that running, they could have (and in fact I think attempted to) climb mountains. I used to have a monthly subscription to Reader's Digest and it is incredible what the human spirit is capable of.

      Regarding the whole group being involved Mof3, I think the answer lies in that 'collective decision'.

      Delete
    2. Thanks again for replying Ros, and I agree, there's not a hope in hell I'd have left my children in crèche the day after my daughter had allegedly been abducted from her bed, but then again I wouldn't have ever considered leaving them sleeping while I went out to eat and drink. I was of the belief that the police interviews 4th may had to be staggered to allow somebody to be there to look after the children? So wasn't aware that they had put them into crèche. It was certainly an easier way of getting stories straight if one lot went first, then came back and relayed what they'd said before the second lot went in. regarding the mediastorm, maybe they used this as an outlet to slate the PJ in the event that they were made suspects, they could say "we knew it was botched/corrupt, we've been right all along"

      Delete
  28. Rosalinda I deleted my earlier post because it contained a few typos and I do not want to give the sneering Mr Blacksmith any room to sneer.

    Your indulgence of this man shocks me, you allow him to abuse and you appear totally smitten by his words, even though they are substantially meaningless. Maybe you like authoritarian men?

    Anyhow I find this troubling. Such is his puffed-up triumphalism he now thinks he was won the argument because there are no more voices of dissent. He doesn't seem to realise he's Johnny no mates. The truth is you cannot debate with someone who is that unreasonable, with someone who chooses not to distinguish, for example, between an error and a lie. Someone so fallacious that if anyone questions Mr Smith's reliability as a witness, they are pounced on with pathological regularity and accused of lying, or character assassination and subjected to Mr Blacksmith's wrath and ritualistic humiliation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - a bit of Latin for you there Roz!

    He then pronounces that he has won the argument - a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.

    I have discussed/debated some of these issues with people I disagree with -
    I can't see the point in only discussing things with people who I'm already on the same page as, but I think there needs to be some boundaries of civility. Good luck with your resident bad-boy, Rosalinda, they appear to be de Rigeur in the McCann discursive world! I prefer to choose my male company a bit more carefully - hence I married a philosopher!

    Jane

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Jane, what a shame you and I are not sharing a coffee. This one is quite delicious. I am a bit of coffee snob and have been on quest to find the perfect 'instant' (any suggestions welcome). This one is an 'Americano' (half price in the Co-op lol)and has just taken the lead over L'Or (?)!

      Apologies for digressing, but when I saw the phrase 'Someone so fallacious', I said to myself there is a woman who needs to chill out ;) I had to look up fallacious btw, and it wasn't what I thought at all! ha ha.

      I had to smile at the 'you do love a bad boy' dig Jane, low blow, lol. I can't say I have ever envisaged JB as a bad boy, but in my experience telling a guy that, makes him grin from ear to ear.

      I can't and won't ask JB to hold back Jane. That would be a form of censorship, and censorship is one of my pet hates. I want to read his 'unbound' words, so do others.

      As for my being smitten with Blacksmith Jane, I am smitten with all the great characters who post here, each have unique qualities, the sweet, gentlemanly charm of T for example, sweeps me away to an age of elegance and refinement. Ziggy surprises me daily, I have been trying to use my 'mentalist' (yeh I know, my sons rib me mercilessly, lol) to figure out who he is. I had previously formed an image of the kind of guy who would punch the waiter if the soup was cold. But then he surprises me by revealing inner depths I couldn't have imagined. He is an enigma.

      But this is cyber world Jane, not reality. In real life JB is a happily married man, and I am a happily single and independent old bird.

      The reality is, I do love to flirt, I like to say things that might brighten up someone's day, it's all quite harmless, especially now that I am officially 'old' and my mojo's long gone.

      Besides which my 'tick list' is pretty definitive and begins with 'NO bad boys', lol. Thereafter it is more pedestrian, Whilst in my 30's I was willing to accept A-levels, now I must insist he is wiser than myself, an impossible feat because I am quite a smart arse, lol. Whilst bossing a man around still has certain appeal, I want someone I can look up to. I'm all done with the diet coke driking, yorkie bar eating neanderthals, I want someone who's knuckles don't drag on the pavement!

      Well I have amused myself even if I haven't amused you Jane (hope I have), and btw, I am green with envy that you married a philosopher {note to self: add another tickbox]. The only problem I see there, is, does he use his 'thinking' to get out of the washing up?

      Delete
    2. Jane Cook and anybody out there

      You quote repeatedly along with other kindred spirits the Smiths are either liars or mistaken.
      But why would anybody coerce their 12 and 13 year olds to be involved at all in giving stressful police statements.
      1000s of pages of waffle and in 10 years never a reply just innuendo smear evasion name calling and malice.
      So surprise us all and tell us in your opinion the reason the children were involved.What purpose did it serve you must have thought about this before smearing the Smiths




      Delete
    3. Hello JJ. Firstly, I'm an individual who likes to make up her own mind up so I don't like being lumped in with others' off the peg theories. I do not subscribe to 29th April but think there is evidence of some planning IMO, so I tend towards an earlier date of probably Tuesday pm. I do not think people who may have facilitated a cover up (after the event) would have to be demonic or amoral, just pliable and misguided. If the assumption was that there had been an abduction, I can imagine a scenario whereby people may have wanted to provide alibis for the parents - not out of malice but a misplaced belief that they were innocent and they felt they were doing the right thing. If this is the case then cracks would appear over time and those people would have time to reconsider. I do think that certain friends helped the McCanns - not all of the group but possibly four by my reckoning.

      Regarding the Smiths I again feel there are perfectly innocent reasons why their testimony is unreliable. I think it is likely that they did see a 'tanned man' who 'didn't look like a tourist'carrying a blond girl. The fact that at the time of his first statenent Mr Smith said he wouldn't be able to recognize the man from photographs but then later felt it was GM concerns me. We are all, to some extent or other impressionable and our memories are not always reliable. I do not think any of us will know how reliable or credible these testimonies are until they are scrutinized - but on paper I see issues. I do not agree with amateur Sleuths contacting witnesses but as long as the conversation remains theoretical I do not see any problem discussing the merits of various forms of evidence. I do not believe MM was in the apartment that night - there were people sat outside on their balcony who could easily have seen GM carrying a child. I think it would have been a very foolish, reckless plan if executed but that is my opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's. Some of my favorite posters on this case have theories I disagree with - I am interested in other people's ideas.

      Delete
    4. Jane Cook 17.50

      Could you answer the question what reason is there to coerce 12 and 13 year olds to give police statements.
      You have had 10 years to think about it.

      Delete
    5. Firstly, JJ who said any child had been coerced? I certainly didn't. Secondly, I haven't had ten years to think about this issue, I didn't show any curiosity regarding this case for a very long time. Thirdly, I am only aware of one child giving a statement so I'll have to refer back to the case file to check if it's children rather than a child. Finally, I see nothing wrong with the child's statement - it is certainly an interesting lead - but that's all I see it as. The delay in offering information to the police and the discrepancies between MS's first and second statements do concern me. In the first statement Mr Smith describes the man's gait as 'normal' and said he would not be able to "recognize the individual in person or by photograph." The question is does this first statement undermine the second? I think we probably disagree on that.

      Delete
  29. I don't have much to add. The neutral has just seen one of the longer suicide notes in history: their own words have said it all.

    A last thought for these neutrals. Most people with knowledge of the case have been struck by the virus-like contamination it brings – the way in which it has besmirched, corrupted and brought out the worst in so many who’ve been involved with the McCann affair since 2007.

    That lies in the origins of the case. Evil begets evil. Certain people on May 3/4 had a moral choice to make. They could either do what they knew was the right thing, knowing full well that the cost to them was going to be hideous, terrible; or they could take the other path.

    Like all humans they were free moral agents, not puppets. They chose the other path, which has had terrible consequences - a chain of events which has cost a policeman ten years of his life, bruised and hurt innocent people and led directly to the death of Brenda Leyland, God rest her soul.

    The second link in that long chain was the media. They also, within days, knew that there were moral decisions facing them and they chose to ride the tiger instead, knowing deep down that there was something wrong. They took the other path.

    It is unfashionable to discuss moral choices in the modern UK, even though everybody knows that they face their own daily and sometimes fail them. So people take refuge from this reality of what humans are and engage in soap opera, horror film “explanations” of what happened on May 3 as a form of evasion, turning the McCanns into “puppets of larger forces” or, in the case of the Pit, into perverted murderers.

    And, of course, in this morally stunted and infantile vision of a Manichean world of goodies and baddies, the denizens of the Pit are Goodies.

    The extraordinary thing is this: the People Of The Pit have never considered the question: have I also been contaminated?

    It’s beyond their mental reach. I know for myself that commenting on the case brought out a hardness about the couple which I had to stop and examine myself about.

    Others faced, and wrestled with, the same critical question – should we give up in case we’re wrong? The question was solved for me when the couple ambushed Amaral. No moral questions there: it was an unambiguously brutal and violent attempt to destroy someone. From then on I felt the moral duty to assist him outweighed scruples about the couple’s fate.

    There is no evidence that the people led by the half-mad Bennett and posting on here recently have ever considered that question, particularly as far as their persecution of nannies, Murat etc. are concerned. They are the “goodies”, end of story. And beneath that? They fear deep-down that they too are puppets. It is sad but there is nothing to be done for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found myself saying hear, hear all the way through John. Your chronicle of moral dilemma is not too dissimilar to my own. Firstly, I had to satisfy myself beyond reasonable doubt that the parents were involved. I could not have lived with myself if I had added to their pain if they were genuine.

      And like yourself, I was appalled at the cold, calculated way in which these parents set out to destroy Goncalo Amaral, not just his career, his family and his reputation, but Goncalo the man.

      I was also appalled at the innate racism of the British Establishment, their decision to believe the two suspects over the Portuguese police and the Portuguese Judiciary. The British media went into a frenzy of stories about sardine munching Portuguese cops having long lunch hours instead of looking for Maddie. They sneered at the them for looking scruffy, failing to mention they were working round the clock shifts and sleeping at the office. Until that time I had never thought of GB as racist and insular, with this case however, everything changed.

      As for the half-mad (only half?) Bennett and his little band of misfits, they have had plenty of opportunity and numerous platforms on which to put forward their case, without referring us to their tedious 'research'. See Mr. Einstein's quote on the right, 'if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it enough'. If HideHo and Petermac can't convince me in two lines, I've already moved on.

      They are of course welcome to state their case here if they can do so civilly and without links and references to 20,000 other documents. I would extend the same courtesy to Bennett, but I fear he may clog up the system with his complete works on Smithman. I doubt they have ever faced a moral dilemma in their lives, for them there is no line. Even today, their current threads carry passport photos and personal details of witnesses along with their sneering commentary. Even typing that sent a shiver down my spine.

      They are of course beyond hope, although they may in the future find another human tragedy to pounce upon and new 'Villains of the Day' to stalk. I'm not sure if it is sad or farcical, probably a mixture of both :)

      Delete
  30. You always have a light touch Ros, which I like and well if your taste in men extends to John McDonald and furry rugs then as disturbing and alien as the thought of McDonald's boudoir is to me I'll smile and say hey - there's someone for everyone. Mr Factsmith however, with his cavernous head filled with facts and nothing but facts sir! Well, that's a step into the darkside too far for me. I prefer the genteel T and always have done. I only ever had relationship with a bad boy surfer God's gift once and then it was straight back to the round spectacled clever boy from a 'nice' family. Let's just say I'm more Jacob Rees-Mogg than John McDonald, LOL.

    When I say I am married to a philosopher BTW, I did big it up bit there - he has a philosophy degree and yes he is very good at not cutting the grass and getting out of the washing up. He is always reasonable and mild mannered however and that might be why I find the likes of Blacksmith so infuriating, I probably don't get enough practise, unlike the saintly Mrs Blacksmith. I hope her apple crumble does not disgust him, or if she mistakenly puts it in the fridge rather than the freezer he doesn't have a melt down. LOL instant coffee, my husband also likes it and the same one. I like tea, Twinings is my favorite. Thanks for the virtual cuppa, have a nice day Rosalinda x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane Cook 14:02

      Please see up-thread (12:35) following an earlier comment of yours.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Anonymous @ 12:35 that was a lovely, uplifting post.

      Delete
    3. Jane Cook 23 July 2017 at 21:59

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  31. @ 'Unknown' somewhere up there ^^^

    Hello Unknown.

    What a great way to open your posting, pitting me and Roz against each other.It's like the US run up to their election. Trump at one mic, Hilary at the other.But it's now public knowledge that i have better legs than Hilary and Roz has better hair than Donald.

    As you rightly point out, I'm neither a pro or anti. I don't even like the concept of sides in this thing, I think it demeans it.I also think it does no favours for anyone who chooses a side.But I understand it's a reasonable shortcut for the purposes of discussion.

    I still refuse to be drawn on my theory / hypothesis. I'm not being awkward or sitting on any fence. I think the way to sharpen knowledge and broaden understanding is by questioning, not telling or merely repeating.But I will say I do lean in a certain direction more than an another.
    Before I was taken back to my cell last night, i began to type out a reply. I intended to state my feelings about the case and explain how i reached certain conclusions. It was intended to cover my observations of the McCanns and the observations made by the internet army of the couple.It was a sort of for and against from distance.I intended to do the same regarding Amaral.I wanted to question the level and depth of help from above.And naturally, the media have to be discussed as they're role, as always, is to control the conversation.The forensics would have received an honourable mention too. The intention was to give you, and anyone interested, my hypothesis but with a disclaimer that I couldn't make it stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.And there's the rub.It doesn't matter who thinks, suspects, or is even 'sure' of, the case has been lost in the mire created by many hands - not just the hands of the McCanns.

    I've logged in today and I see that it's kicked into gear.So, forgive me for having a change of mind.It's only temporary. I probably would have ended up penning a three-parter, and that annoys the folk of Webworld. I even had one ready covering the infamous Textusa after curiosity got the better of me and led me there.I'm exercising self control today as it's Sunday.

    By the way, Roz,Jane's hubby wouldn't use philosophy to get out of doing the dishes.If he truly knows his area, he'll know washing up is just an illusion. It worked for me.Then my wife became an illusion . Wimmin eh...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Ziggy, it was myself who asked the question of which direction you would be swayed and I very much appreciate your response although I must admit I'm a little disappointed you didn't divulge any more than you previously have. I wasn't attempting to pit you and Ros against each other so I hope it didn't genuinely come across that way. I'm just intrigued by either argument for or against the mccanns and I do believe both sides of the fence have very valid points. My view is of them having knowledge and involvement from what I have read and seen but my view is of no more importance than anybody else's, as a relative newcomer who has ingested as much as I possibly could for the past 6 months or so, I realise that there are so many more people with more knowledge and eloquence on the subject than me. I do sincerely hope that one day soon though you do tell us what your opinion would be if you had to be swayed one way or the other, just your opinion would be of great interest to me at least. Again thank you for replying, and to Ros too.

      Delete
  32. John McDonnell in Jacob Rees Mogg's house for me, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL 14:39! Perfect. Will add another tick box, 'must have separate 'wings' in case we fall out', ha ha.

      Delete
    2. Ros am I allowed to say I am Smitten by John Blacksmith he really does rock and my husband of 35 years while not a philosopher ( lol how sad do you need to be to be telling somebody what your husbands degree is in ) often ribs me about him asking what the world according to blacksmith today. I read his blog everyday even if it takes him months to do a new one. I,m certain that someone with such a command of the English language and such an understanding of human nature could never be described as Johnny no mates while I think somebody who feels the need to get onto a blog and proclaim that thank god their taste in men is better than yours probably could be described as Janey no mates.

      Delete
    3. Smitten is a lovely word isn't it 17:45? Please feel free to be smitten as you choose, it happens to me regularly :)

      Delete
    4. In the spirit of sisterliness that has coloured the day I'm gonna say well done for coming out with that one @17:45. I'm not sure if that's a weird crush or a symptom of psychopathy but hey - I'm on my third glass of Sauvignon Blanc and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. All I need now is Ziggy to pop up and come clean that his weird crush is Gerry Mccann and I'll have to start on bottle number two. We'll done sister - you were brave to admit that.

      Delete
  33. The good news @ 14:39 is that John would probably seize Jacob's house and render it property of the state and such would be his gratitude that any woman was willing to see him in a state of undress past taking his tie off, my guess is the house would be yours!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I don't think Madeleine necessarily died earlier in the week but I do think something untoward had happened by Monday. The McCann routine deviates from that of their friends after Sunday. This is a red flag. There are no reliable sightings of her after Sunday. I think sedation is an important feature of the case. And I think jealousy is a feature of the case (quiz nights). It is after the second quiz night that Kate leaves the table early. I think it was the week from hell and there is a marked difference between the jolly McCann/Payne group (apart from GM) arriving on Saturday and the subdued group at Paraiso on Thursday. It cannot just be a coincidence that the Tapas take their children to Paraiso on Thursday but the McCanns don't. There is a reason for this. Ditto David Payne's ridiculously over-embellished account in one rogatory of visiting the apartment early Thursday evening and seeing all thee children looking so well-cared for and looking like angels. This strongly indicates deliberate deception and suggests that by early evening on Thursday (6.30pm latest imo) MM is either dead or in a deep coma and dying. Dr Amaral might know a lot more than he wrote and might have opted for the least inflammatory explanation. By the time the parents left to go to dinner a course of action had been decided upon, imo. Jez Wilkins and the 9.15pm meeting put a spanner in the works and all hell broke loose. By their own admission TM are running around like headless chickens. Before, during and after the arrival of police. Kate and Gerry are reduced to prostrating themselves on the ground and then bed. Kate writes in her book of how she felt a wave of panic engulf her when police headed for the door of the apartment. Why? Because, imo, she is terrified of them going outside, searching the area and finding a body. Ditto GM who police pick up in a police car while he is out and about with one of the Tapas males. One might only speculate what they were doing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Anonymous 17.17, when were GM and Tapas friend picked up by the police? Is it in the files? Can't think I've ever read that before, would be very grateful for a link. Thank you in advance :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bullshit Bennetts "research" told him many years ago three adult Smith's gave police statements.(wrong)

    He believed Aoife was an adult and part of a conspiracy by the evil Smith's.

    Martin Smith was pure evil, he had a golf company.

    Shame, it was another Martin Smith and there was no proof that he was evil either but who cared?

    Bullshit Bennett loved it, he, the messiah had spoken, his disciples drooled at his "research", his word was God.

    But as shit sticks to shit, he was joined by other idiots and brain dead followers and they clung together to be known as CMOMM and years later, as usual, they produce no evidence, nothing except smear and innuendo and when challenged resort to the usual "oh, I won't answer you, you are so rude" and other crap.
    But if you choose to promote lies and fairy tales and denigrate other people with nothing but tittle tattle and malice, why do you believe you won't be challenged on here in a very robust way?






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JJ, do you remember when Bennett turned his attentions to the Smith family? I think it may have been after Bennett's last court appearance when he was left with a huge debt to the McCanns. Now I am not certain on this, but it may be you remember.

      One thing that has always puzzled me with Bennett's stalking and harassment of the witnesses, is why he always targets those on the periphery, rather than those in the inner circle, the Smith family rather than the McCann or Healy families for example. Why the need to prove the only independent witnesses were lying? Bizarre.

      Delete
  37. Jane Cook: Regarding the Smith sighting & subsequent recognition etc. As a former psychiatric nurse, body language, gait and posture are all important to the verbal & facial communication that we as people assimilate. What really clinches the Smith sighting for me, regarding recognition was gait & posture - rather that facial recognition which would be impossible considering the fleeting pass in the darkness of the night. Particularly, as it was a un-conscious activity at the time (by Mr Smith), rather than say a police parade\lineup where anticipation & expectation would render an experience too conscious.
    It is said for example a good doctor will know what is wrong with you, as you walk through the door set down .... well it goes towards the diagnosis.
    Now Jane Tanner's sighting has been put to bed by Redwood, the T9 are without their alibis and proves the point of the PJ wanting a reconstruction, which the T7 objected to. Too much time spent Tannerman - verses Smithman. Which means whatever Smiths saw, is as far as we know (some files withheld) the only sighting of 'someone' with a young child, in the time frame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could spot David Beckham from 200mtrs. from the way he walked , well before I could see his features , he was adept at spotting Photographers , this was during his Manchester United years , the point being , the trigger with the smith sighting would have been the gait

      Delete
  38. I used to post on Jill Havern's forum but stopped when it got really weird there. Tony had talked about the Smiths before 2013 (his court hearing) but only to say (as far as I recall) that he did not believe it was Gerry that they saw; nothing about them lying.

    It was after that time when he started pulling them and their statements to pieces and people were banned for trying to discuss the issue.

    Poor old Mr Smith (a different person) with the golfing company was branded a very dodgy businessman with possible connections to the IRA!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Margaret, that's how I remember it too. That is after the 2013 hearing he went hook line and sinker for the Smith family.

      Delete
  39. Ros says:

    "1) Just how sick/monstrous, do you think these people were, that they could carry on with their holiday, dropping off the kids (including a fake Madeleine) at the kids clubs, playing tennis, and dining nightly at the Tapas bar, with the body of a child stashed in the wardrobe?"

    But yet you believe that Gerry carried the body of his eldest child through the streets of PDL to dispose of it?

    And Ros - as the topic of this blog is Myths - can you stop saying that the Smiths saw a man (Gerry or not) "running through the streets of PDL carrying a child who looks exactly like Madeleine,"

    They saw a man walking towards and past them - I suppose "running" sounds more shady and guilty though doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Averting his gaze and trying to hide his face , is more shady and thats from the witness statement

      Delete
    2. @ anon 23.56

      the Smith family statements are here http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

      I did a word search of that page and "avert" does not produce a result. Maybe you can give a link to where it says that?

      Delete
    3. Anon at 23.56 - it's fake news spread by people like you that feed the armchair detectives.

      Peter Daniel Smith's actual witness statement: - "He adds also that the individual did not try to hide his face or lower his look, [doing] nothing [that would be] perceived as strange."

      I checked out the witness statements. All of the Smith's stated that they would not be able to confirm that GM was the same person and, indeed stated that the person carrying the child did not look like a tourist.

      Delete
  40. A question for Blacksmith.

    Toward the close of your 'Cracked Mirror' study you state:

    "as is well known in information theory when a number of independent sources carry the same data then it derives from a common source."

    Are you referring here to Information Theory as first expounded by Claude Shannon, or some other construct boasting the same title?

    Whichever it is, do you have a reference to any formal demonstration/proof of the principle referred to?

    My question is not a challenge. The observation is important and I would appreciate being directed to any publication of its formal proof.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. " Re: Robert Murat - An Apology – 21 July 2017

    Post Poe Today at 1:38 pm
    The whole thing reeks of the usual McCann tactic of deflection.

    I suspect that, since the McCanns can't deny that they met and dined with Clement Freud as Kate wrote about it in her book, they spoon fed the press the story that RM, a Maddie suspect no less, was his drinking buddy. The press print any old dross if it comes (indirectly) from the McCanns - probably because they know that The Mcanns won't sue if they provided the details. Robert Murat was just more McCannon fodder that the short-sighted and forgetful media did not expect to fight back.

    I don't suppose the McCanns care since the press did their job and diverted attention from the McCann/Freud connection when it was the in headlines and the apology has only appeared now when the original story is all but forgotten ...although not by us.

    All speculation on my part."
    -------------------------------

    A perfect example of how haters start myths based on absolutely nothing at all but a desire to link the hated Mccanns to anything and everything.

    Finish it off as "speculation" but anyone can see how the mind of Poe works.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Poe is one of my favorite posters on MMM. He/she is always mindful and makes an interesting well considered contribution to discussion, the fact that he/she clearly states the comment is speculation shows tbis. I think the example you give, which is supposed to illustrate how "haters start myths" demonstrates your own issues, not Poes. It is a fact that KM gushes over her fine dining with Clement Freud and demonstrates not only her gauche social climbing but her poor judgment, IMO. You need to stop sniping.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Ros

    Bennett gave solemn undertakings to the High court never to speak again in his lifetime regarding MM in May 2013

    Around this time summer 2013 the Mccanns kindly wrote off legal costs against Bennett from £370k to £27.50k
    A 93% reduction how they must love that man.

    At the same time Smethurst accepted £7.5k in damages and wrote off legal costs of £45k against Bennett.
    Bennett is truly blessed
    Later that year Fri 18th Oct 2013 to be exact Bennett on CMOMM began a topic in which Bennett asks
    "Did the Smith family actually see anyone at all - or is this a fabrication -made up to rescue a man he (Smith) was already well acquainted with" (Murat)
    And the campaign of smear, innuendo and lies began.

    It is worth noting the BBC Mccann Crimewatch programme was 4 days before the campaign of hate was started against the Smiths by Bennett.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is much to note in your post JJ.

      Bennett of course, didn't stop talking about the Madeleine case, but he did try to steer it away from the McCanns and towards first arguido, Robert Murat. The main thrust of Bennett's despicable campaign against the Smith family, is his claim that they are covering for RM.

      Since then he has invented all sorts of ridiculous scenarios to establish some sort of relationship between Robert Murat and Martin Smith - as if being on nodding terms with someone is enough reason to persuade your entire family to perjure themselves.

      I haven't been able to watch the Richard Hall videos in their entirety, I would prefer waterboarding, but from what I remember, Murat's their man. Bennett's obsession with Murat I think, derives from the fact that RM, like most men, had porn on his computer. For Mr. Brimstone and Fire, pornography is a self flagellating offence.

      It is hard not to make any connection between the unbelievable generosity of the McCanns and Mr. Smethurst and the change in direction of Bennett's hounding and stalking.

      Personally, I think Bennett is too dumb and duplicitous for anyone to make a deal with, even the desperate. But it is possible that some informal (and easily deniable) arrangement could have been made in the corridors of the RCJ.

      Regarding your final paragraph. I was at the time a member of CMoMM, and prior to Crimewatch being aired, Bennett sent me (and I'm sure many others) a private message asking me to sign a letter demanding the BBC cancel the screening. I of course replied I wouldn't dream of signing his letter, I wanted to see it! It's worth noting here, that Petermac had helped draft that letter. Why was Bennett so keen to stop the program eh?

      Delete
  44. "Anonymous 23 July 2017 at 17:17
    I don't think Madeleine necessarily died earlier in the week but I do think something untoward had happened by Monday. The McCann routine deviates from that of their friends after Sunday. This is a red flag".

    Quite so. Yet nobody here can give a rational explanation for this. Why do the McCanns tuck themselves away for breakfast, and for lunch? Why, on Sunday evening, do the Tapas group suddenly demand a block booking of the Tapas restaurant for the rest of the week?

    I fully agree with Anonymous 23 July 2017 at 17:17 - it is a red flag. A very big red flag, in fact.

    I would like to ask who can explain it?

    I know that Mr Blacksmith won't. That's because he's already told us that it's beneath his mighty dignity to have to provide rational explanations and answers for any questions. Indeed he rails and rants against anyone who dares to even raise a question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By Sunday there was no routine. They had been there for one day.

      They did not demand a block booking. They requested one because it was closer to the apartments where the children were left (I suppose you will say no neglect but I do not believe that theory nor is there any evidence of it in the files) .

      Also, it was only the McCanns who had the habit of leaving their children in the creche all day, everyday . The payne's did not do so and neither did Tanner. It is natural that the other couples' lunch time was not suitable for the McCanns. Or maybe they did not like to be in a big group all the time or maybe the others didn't like them much. So many possible explanations.

      Breakfast was too far for them, according to their statements . All simple verifiable things in which a lie makes no sense. Especially when you would have to have several independent (many) people lying to make the disappearance fall on the Monday.

      Delete
  45. For information purposes only.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p16p4134

    "In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous24 July 2017 at 12:03 is right, Cristobell. Your getting into bed with Blacksmith makes you as closed minded as he is. Don't let it happen.
    He is as obstinate and imperious as they come and makes Hideho look liberal. That and his immediate reaction to criticism being one of personal attack rather than backing up his claims.
    Please don't become another obdurate Textusa or Hideho by pinning your colours to Blacksmith's mono-themed mast.
    He is not some impeccable seer or guru, just a turn-off for debate, suggestions, fresh input, considerations and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't get into bed with anyone 14:14, as if lol, one of the joys of my life is having a big old double bed all to myself! ;)

      I would argue that John Blacksmith is a turn off for debate - and the surge in hits to my blog would support that. For many years I read JB and longed to pick his brains and from the number of responses I am not the only one.

      I have been a lone wolf(ess) in this case for nearly a decade 14:14, I have never joined anyone's gang nor aligned myself to any 'I'm right, dead right' theory.

      I am a long time admirer of JB's work, because he has always been a lone wolf. Like myself he has remained aloof, an onlooker to the circus going on beneath us, and many times over the years, the only voice of sanity.

      I am always the first to praise and admire talent 14:14, no matter which direction it comes from and JB is a very talented writer.

      I have many gurus 14:14, that is people with qualities that I much admire, including several on here! Happily, my aged brain has gone back to my early teens when I was smitten on an almost daily basis. I haven't gone quite so far as putting posters of John McDonnell on my bedroom wall (yet - he looks so cute in a cardie), but he is forgotten the moment a Johnny Depp film comes on.

      As for colours, I'm not sure I have any, and I certainly haven't pinned them anywhere. I'm loathe to align myself to anything, I'm a citizen of the world (except when drunk and someone starts singing Oh Danny Boy)and very proudly an independent thinker. If an argument is a good one I will be persuaded, but if it isn't, I will dismantle it.

      John Blacksmith is a controversial figure, but then so am I, I have been boycotted by all the big Facebook groups and forums for years. It is the fact that JB is so controversial that makes him such compelling reading. This is where the facebook groups and forums have failed, they censor and ban anyone interesting. I'm not going to do the same!

      John, is, I hope he won't mind my saying, one of 'big beasts' and if people want to take him on, they shouldn't come to me if they get their asses whooped, lol. The only way to beat an argument is with a better one - the ball is in their court.

      I feel very fortunate to have such great characters as Blacksmith posting on my blog 14:14, that we cannot predict what he will say, is a great reason to carry on reading!

      Delete
  47. I wasn't going to contribute anything else to the Smith persecution, but I see that he's still under the microscope.He shouldn't be subjected to the same scrutiny as a suspect, but I see it's heading that way.This seems to be because he changed his mind.That isn't the same as deciding to withold information or lying.

    The 'Smithman' sighting has become almost as important as 'the dogs don't lie'. Commentators seem to approach the sighting and subsequent change of heart / mind according to what they want to see happen.Needless to say, the majority who want Smith to stick to his initial theory of the man being GM are annoyed that he decided not to.Some hint that he's been 'persuaded' to change his mind, some say he's lying( ergo 'got at').

    The misconception that our memory works like a camera is offered as evidence that he couldn't be mistaken-whatever he thinks himself.But it's exactly that-a misconception.The memory as a camera is the tip of the tip of the iceberg.It's a far more complex process. There's three phases and each pahse has 'sub phases'. The three phases are Encoding,Storage and Retrieval.There are different ways to encode and store and each effect how well we retrieve. There are also a variety of factors that can effect how well we encode and how well we store and how they can effect the reliability of what we retrieve information.

    Smith could have changed his mind because he doesn't trust his own accuracy to the degree that he's prepared to allow it to be a deciding factor in the fate of a man for a terrible crime.I think that's showing responsibility.His initial testimony was showing responsibility too.It's easy to see why he offered the first once he'd seen the news.That was showing resonsibility too.

    It isn't for people who weren't there and who don't know Smith to imply he was right in the first place because they have some desperate hypotheses about 'gait' -let alone 'gait in the dark'.Everyone's gait changes when carrying a sleeping child be it on level ground or down stairs.Ask yourelf what this sounds like from a witness stand : '' well i couldn't swear about his face but I'd know that gait anywhere''.Consider directions to a jury'' if you have ANY doubt, any REASONABLE doubt, you must find not guilty'. 99% is doubt. 60% is a lot more doubt. Consider Mr Smith exercising common sense and responsibility. Sometimes things are just what they are.

    take a look at this youtube (17 mins).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNSbYuvVp2c

    or use the search : How Reliable Is Your Memory - Elizabeth Loftus.

    Read :
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

    (Google: scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/)

    They're not painfully academic but still informative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does this Martin Smith changed his mind statement come from Ziggy?

      Delete
  48. A footnote to the 'creche the next day' insinuations...

    It's been pointed out ( by Roz I think) that having three toddlers is a bit of a head -wrecker at the best of times.It's true-having one can be a torment at times.They don't switch off.It's their job.On Holiday, add excitement to the mix and it's probably worse than being at home.Thankfully at PDL there's creche facilities for kids and the adult equivalent with a bar.

    When something bad /sad or tragic happens in the family, it's hard for adults to keep the brave face in front of the kids. A lot of us have been there.But what do we do ? If a family member or a much older sibling is available we ask them to take the kids for a while.One, so they don't pick up on Mum or Dad's distress, two, because that could cause them distress. You want to shelter them.

    The day after the disappearance of Madeleine, the situation must have been chaotic.First there was the absence of Madeleine that the twins would wonder about.The panic of the parents and other parents would be easy to pick up on even for toddlers.There would be a heavy police presence and a heavy media presence and crowds of onlookers with their curiosity.What would you do if you had two toddlers trying to understand all of this ? Would you keep them glued to you and have them go through the constant questioning and voyeurism ? Or would you secure them in the creche where you knew they'd have plenty of activities to entertain and distract as well as other toddlers to play with under the watchful eyes of the staff ? There were some very important and serious 'grown up' things to contend with from that day. But it's seen as cold and cruel because it was done this way.Why ?Ignore the question mark-it's rhetorical.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Another unchecked outburst from Lee T.G.on MMM about Ros/Blacksmith/Ziggy.She hates everybody.
    An anger management course might not be sufficient in this instance,she seems completely unhinged.

    ReplyDelete
  50. re 17:39

    Sad to hear that. Three of my favourites...:) Watch out, Ziggmund, you are the youngest, cover yourself.:)

    T

    ReplyDelete
  51. @ Anonymous24 July 2017 at 17:39

    Is that in a private area?

    ReplyDelete
  52. re: "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 24 July 2017 at 17:01

    Where does this Martin Smith changed his mind statement come from Ziggy?"

    Let me see if I can help answer your question Ros.

    On 20 Sep 07, Martin Smith said he was '60% to 80% sure' that the man he'd seen over 4 months earlier was Gerry McCann. This was based on the fact that he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder (as countless other men do when carrying a 2-year-old) and the way he walked (he apparently remembered his gait after only seeing him in the dark for a couple of seconds) and the fact that he 'put his head down' (well, I would put my head down if I was about to walk out of an aeroplane onto some steep metal stairs, wouldn't you?).

    I'd be interested if someone could explain how that evidence would stand up in court as evidence of the identity of the man, but let that pass for a moment.

    So, did Martin Smith change his mind? We have these clues:

    1. He co-operated with Team McCann after Brian Kennedy contacted him in Jan 2008.

    2. He publicly expressed sympsthy for the McCanns and urged people to 'look for Madeleine and her abductor'.

    3. He co-operated with Kevin Halligen and Hanri Exton to produce two efits.

    4. When the 2009 docu 'Madeleine Was Here' was shown, he raised no objection to his man being the same as Tannerman, even though that sighting was 45 minutes earlier.

    5. He raised no objection in May 2009, when his sighting was uploaded to the McCanns' website via an audio recording. At no time has he ever said: "Hang on a minute! That man I saw was Gerry McCann!"

    6. He also raised no objection to the McCanns, for the purpose of the audio recording, changing the age of the man he said he saw to '34-35' (he first said it was 35-40, and in his second statement said '40'. Why (a) did he keep changing the age of the man and (b) did he not say 'Hey! I said '40', not '34-35'!

    7. We know that Martin Smith twice met with DCI Redwood of OpGrange or another senior Met Police detective, once in 2012, and once in 2013, ahead of the Crimewatch prog in Oct 2013. He must be presumed to have authorised the showing of the two quiet different efits; if he objected, he has never said so. He has allowed his sighting to be used in yet another programme which promotes the idea that Maddie was abducted by a stranger. Once again, why does he not say: "No. You mustn't do that! I am sure I saw Gerry McCann!"

    Martin Smith has never actually said: "I have changed my mind".

    But his conduct very clearly demonstrates that he has.

    As always, Ros, Actions Speak Louder Than Words'.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No 18:19, in this case speculation not action, is trying to drown out the words.

      Martin Smith and his family have kept a dignified silence for 10 years. The only words you have of his come from the statements he gave to the police.

      You say he co-operated with Brian Kennedy? How could you possibly know that? He publicly expressed sympathy for the McCanns - well of course he did, what did you expect him to?

      And why would you expect Mr. Smith to publicly disagree with DCI Redwood? He has quite rightfully left the investigation in the hands of the police, he is a witness, not judge and jury.

      Your 'evidence' is pure speculation, you are creating complete narratives out of the tiny bit of knowledge you have, and you are not even aware of how bonkers it is.

      Delete
    2. These questions / points were answered and explained in the previous thread . So I guess no matter how many times people explain them with facts you will pay no attention to it and keep on with the assassination of Martin Smith . Like Ros said , engraved in stone theory .

      Smith only mentions the age twice
      he cooperated with Exon who worked for Kennedy via halligen . You have no idea of the circumstances in which he agreed to the efit

      Please link a direct source that he expresses sympathy publically for the McCanns ( clue , no daily mail . Only a police statement or an interview where I can hear it ) . Martin smith did not entertain the press and I think that says it all . It's mentioned in the police statement and in the law suits he brought against several papers for miss representing him .
      The smith family is not responsible for the madness of OFM , nor for crime watch . You truly expected the Smith family to come out and start screaming the Met is wrong and it was Gerry ? He has done so in two police statements that , by the way , he never retracted .



      Etc . I guess you will keep on stating the same points forever regardless of any explanation . I fear that if smith himself told you he is sure it is Gerry you would say he is a crisis actor or similar .

      Delete
  53. "Yes folks, obsession can tip you over the edge. And they are trapped by what I refer to as 'I'm right, dead right' syndrome, which never ends well. They haven't given themselves any leeway, their theories are carved in stone. If the case is blown wide open and their theories revealed as the nonsense they are, they will carry on with them anyway, and claim a conspiracy."

    Yes, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anon 18.19

    When, on Tuesday 13th June 2017, at 23.32 on CMOMM Smithman 8 thread page 5, Tony Bennett wrote exactly the same bollocks using the exact same sentences (only more of them).

    He must have indoctrinated you completely, or you are TB.

    Point 6 above, you make the exactly the same mistake as Bennett wrote about Smith.

    How stupid are you. Try thinking for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Rosalinda & others,

    Mr Smith did not change his statement he made on 26th May in Portugal, but could it be a matter of increasing doubt?

    Just suppose, he has been told the police know or suspect who ‘Smithman’ is, i.e. an unnamed, wanted person. That said, I cannot believe Mr Smith co-operated to produce two e-fits. Is that an irrefutable fact?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is NL, but understandable. The efits were part of report prepared by the McCanns private detectives Exon.

      Mr. Smith's moral dilemma is laid bare in his statement NL, he doesn't want to believe it was Madeleine's father he saw and he doesn't want to disbelieve the abduction story.

      I am sure when he was approached by Exon, his only thought was to help find Madeleine NL, which is perfectly understandable.

      Delete
  56. 06-07-2017

    http://theportugalnews.com/news/portugals-authorities-doing-everything-to-recover-war-weapons-stolen-from-central-portugal-army-barracks/42458

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. Thank you.

      Delete
  57. On points since my recent post ...

    I suppose my 'change of mind / heart' remark could have been a little more accurate or I should have elaborated.
    I'm suggesting more than one state of mind in one man at different times - Martin Smith.

    Reports of what has become yet another Mccann case fiasco suggest Smith was in different mental states at different times and circumstances regarding one event.

    The news reports didn't move Mr Smith to run to the police the day after May 03.It seems it was a call from his son two weeks later that jogged his memory about seeing a man and child that night.This could be because , as he stated to the PJ- it wasn't unusual to see fathers taking children hom that time of night ( night creche etc).He said the man didn't look out of place ( possibly this adds to the bizarre 'not like a tourist' thing- even though he said the child looked pale,white and typically british).His wife( the only other Smith to make a statement) said they ''didn't think anything of it''.

    Drogheda Independent, 8 August 2007 :

    '' 'We are annoyed at how vague our description is’, said the family member.''

    Key word - vague.

    Smith was initially made aware the day after via a text from his daughter and at the airport via the son of a local builder who told his son, Peter - according to some reports.

    By August the Smiths had decided to fly to Portugal to give evidence.This is what leads me to believe he considered it the right thing to do even if just to eliminate a suspect.He was being dutiful and responsible.
    The vagueness is admitted. It's explained within the statement by pointing to : a dark night;bad street lighting;the sighting only lasted a few seconds ;nobody in the party said they would be able to recognise the man the saw again ;

    The efits referred to were drawn up over a year later based on descriptions from a couple of witnesses. It appears that this was presented to the world via Crimewatch UK.The don't say the witnesses were from the Smith family but they discuss it in context immediately after that part of the report and presentation ; 'two witnesses' is just two witnesses, not named.Redwood had excitedly told everyone that 'tannerman' had already come forward ( name ?) and been eliminated and I'd wager he was complicit in making up the two weird efits of fat face and triangle face.

    Martin Smith didn't hide the fact that his decription was vague as it was fleeting and in bad light on a dark night.That said, it would therefore lack credibility to claim a memory of the man was immediately 'triggered' on seeing a man descending the stairs of a plane in broad daylight merely because he too carried a child.Even the 60%-80% sure sounds ambitious. He did his duty and good for him. But i suggest he considered the evidence he gave as potential star witnesses as the responsible thing to do.On reflection he must have realised he'd given a vague recollection at the beginning and that would remove any credibility of the later claim so he wanted no more to do with it, nor did his lady wife.Again- responsble. The media saturation and efits from that day would be pounced on as 'priming' ( see eye witness testimony).Redwood's primary duty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are speculating just as much as Bennett Ziggy, you are creating narratives that come from your own head. Why can't you accept Mr. Smith's evidence as face value? Have you read his statements?

      You are certainly trying as hard as Bennett to play the sighting down. But here's a thing. The 2013 Crimewatch was publicised as a 'revelation', and that revelation was the efit pictures of Smithman. For all you and Bennett say the sighting doesn't count, or won't hold up in Court, for Operation Grange it is THE sighting of the night.

      Delete
    2. Ziggy 23.36

      His wife (the only other Smith to give a statement)

      The PJ files do not support your statement but lets do a Bennett and make things up, some fools may believe it

      Delete
    3. Ziggy , the Smiths statements were first made in Ireland ( date unknown ) , then on the 26 May in Portugal and then in September to the Irish and British police that passed it to the PJ ( Irish force ).

      from memory , Aoife Smith , Martin Smith and Peter Smith gave statements to the PJ. So not only Martin Smith and his wife . His wife 's statement is actually not in the files .

      As for maneirisms , which is precisely what led to smith thinking it was in fact GM , I have no doubts that he is being truthful and my opinion is that he is totally correct .

      Delete
  58. Anonymous24 July 2017 at 18:07
    ''re 17:39

    Sad to hear that. Three of my favourites...:) Watch out, Ziggmund, you are the youngest, cover yourself.:)

    T''

    Warning noted and appreciated, Major T. Stress not. Paranoid parasites who rarely log into the real world hold no fears for my good self. That's why my online presence is that of a pussycat. I try to keep it simple for such creatures. Let me know when one of these silly bastards lets it slip on one of their many social profiles that they're popping to Liverpool. Different game then :)

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Jane Cook24 July 2017 at 09:35

    ''It is a fact that KM gushes over her fine dining with Clement Freud and demonstrates not only her gauche social climbing but her poor judgment,''

    There is Clement Freud 1, and Clement Freud 2.

    Clement Freud 1. Made his public profile much bigger than an average MP by appearing on dog food commercials with his own odd hangdog expression and bizarre monotone voice. The nation loved both. It proved to be a springboard to numerous TV appearances ( panel games, cookery etc). He was one of the first big celebrities. We learned he was a dryly witty man as well as intelligent, a bon vivant and a bit of an expert cook of 'posh nosh' .He mixed in fashionable circles and was a regular at the racetracks. In short, it was quite a boast to be able to drop his name as a friend into your conversations.

    This was the Clement Freud that none of us criticised or disliked. He was a loveable toff. This was the Freud that befriended the McCanns. Why would it be 'poor judgement' to take him up on what any of us would have considered a friendly gesture ?

    Clement Freud 2. Child rapist. This Freud wasn't made public knowledge until he had died.

    Nobody accepted the extended hand of a paedophile knowingly but we can choose to ignore all of the above if we're searching under stones to find something to hold against the parents ( ''they even dined with a paedo'').


    Much has been made about Freuds secret games, the so-called 'PDL-haven for paedophiles' and they've been connected to complete a weird online jigsaw.


    I too use hindsight, but not with an agenda to gun someone down. I wonder at his sudden offer to befriend them. It's been suggested elsewhere he was getting his jollies vicariously knowing Madeleine had come to an unpleasant end. No evidence; no proof. I'm more interested in his conversations-as recalled by KM /GM being used to instigate thoughts about the press /media coverage. His opening gambits look clumsy to me. Bear in mind how Sky and Daily Mail monopolised coverage and who Freud's son is, and who his son's father in law was back then. Who previously owned his place ? These things seem a more reasonable and interesting area to look at .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Ziggy it's nice to talk to you. Okay - Clement Freud:1 - loveable? I think this is just another example of the BBC foistering someone thoroughly unpleasant on the nation, under the delusion that they are popular. They did it with Jimmy Saville and they are now doing it with Chris Evans (I'm not saying anything about Chris Evan's sexuality, only his unpleasantness). They fail to see that some people will tune in regardless of the despots they inflict upon us. So why would it be poor judgment to take him up on a friendly gesture? Well read the book, it's excruciating and the way the McCanns exploited their predicament to try and climb the social ladder is one of the reasons why a Gestalt light bulb went on in the heads of the British public from the moment they started name dropping JK Rowling and dining out on their tragedy.

      So no I don't think we're "searching under stones for something to hold against the parents". There's the exploitation of xenophobic tendencies (Johnny Foreigner wasn't up to the job), the self-aggrandisement with tours, PowerPoint presentations and a PR machine - the huge PR machine that cranked into action at an unseemly rate and with premature timing...The list goes on. I do not go there regarding the pedophillia - even if that is an angle it certainly would not be for the likes of me. Your last paragraph poses really interesting questions I'm not qualified to answer. The question of judgment is an interesting one though. I believe that self regard and social advancement was what this couple were about. Ironically, it has destroyed them but no one cares too much because they have trampled on so many, put their children through unnecessary misery and have taken far too many hostages to their own misfortune. So I don't think they "accepted the hand of a known pedophile" but I think their readiness to sip brandy with a bon viveur was very telling and is a red flag in terms of their motivation, as far as I'm concerned.

      Delete
    2. Interesting article...

      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/emails-between-paedophile-clement-freud-8234088.amp

      Delete
    3. I don't personally feel as though ziggy is trying to defend the mccanns per se, I feel as though he provides an alternative argument to somebody's theory purely to make us think logically about the situation under scrutiny. I found his argument regarding clement freud very valid, it wasn't until after he died that anything untoward about him was revealed, so I agree that anyone who uses this to beat the mccanns over the head with could not be talked around by reason anyway. Having said that I 100% agree with Jane that for me also is not the fact that they mixed with a (now known) pedophile, it is the crass, way in which they bragged about it that I find the most unsettling. If I was in that situation and my child had been abducted and I received a letter asking me to call in from an MP/minor celebrity the last thing in my mind would be to take a complete stranger up on this offer.

      Delete
  60. If those last few posts from ziggy don't prove he is working for the McCanns I don't know what does........Martin Smith never changed his mind nice try ziggy with weak evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is certainly putting as much effort into disproving what Mr. Smith saw, as Tony Bennett 08:01! This sighting is obviously a huge problem for the McCanns.

      Delete
    2. Not the Queen of Sheba25 July 2017 at 10:02

      There's another mystery now - where have Tony Bennett and his collection of socks gone? CMoMM is quieter than usual without him.

      Delete
    3. @Ziggy 24 July 23.36


      You're not reporting a fact or proof of anything.You're voicing an opinion and deciding that all opinions that counter it are wrong because your opinions reliable enough regardless of having no evidence, just your endorsement.That says more about you than your idea.

      After that nonsense you don't qualify to criticise anyone for ignoring 'evidence'. Words like 'believe' and 'if' reflect speculation , not fact.It won't take any air to blow a house of cards down that was built without a foundation.

      Your opinions are like your other guesswork-pointless and wasted. Talk less, listen more. Read more. If you enjoy the juvenile insult route you're in the wrong end of the pool with me.Swim back to the shallows before you drown.

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

      The above are your own words on the previous thread regarding speculation and opinion. Ergo - debate.

      I would suggest one of 2 things:

      1) STFU with the hypocrisy, and debate on the understanding that much on here is theoretical opinion extrapolated from the facts as the authors - INCLUDING YOURSELF - see them. OR

      2) Post ONLY facts and conclusions based thereon.

      Delete
    4. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 July 2017 at 09:57

      He is certainly putting as much effort into disproving what Mr. Smith saw, as Tony Bennett 08:01! This sighting is obviously a huge problem for the McCanns."
      -----------------------------

      Have the Mcanns ever said anything that leads you to that conclusion?

      Delete
    5. Ah 12:23, with the McCanns it is more what they haven't said with regard to the Smith sighting. The fact that they never made it the focus of the search when the whole world was searching for Maddie.

      They gave literally hundreds of interviews 12:23, many where they held up images of suspects - but never the images of Smithman produced by their own private detectives. They weren't used by CEOP either.

      Why not? To this day no-one knows who Smithman is, and he was seen by 9 people, no less, carrying a child who looked uncannily like Maddie at the time Maddie disappeared.

      Tannerman was ridiculed at the off and has been ridiculed ever since. The Smith family for example, couldn't see any pattern on the child's pyjamas, yet they were within 3 metres of her.

      So why did the McCanns go for Tannerman seen by one person, over Smithman seen by nine?

      Delete
  61. Anonymous25 July 2017 at 10:34

    ''The above are your own words on the previous thread regarding speculation and opinion. Ergo - debate.''

    ''I would suggest one of 2 things:''

    ''1) STFU with the hypocrisy, and debate on the understanding that much on here is theoretical opinion extrapolated from the facts as the authors - INCLUDING YOURSELF - see them. OR...

    2) Post ONLY facts and conclusions based thereon.''

    You followed me onto this thread then.Should I be flattered or sympathetic ? I tend toward the latter.the I can see you put some effort into that little outburst. It was wasted. Your suggestions to me are too. I'm not convinced you understand your own argument or complaint. I only know I'm not interested in little rants. Before you quote me in future, digest the words.

    Anonymous25 July 2017 at 08:01


    ''If those last few posts from ziggy don't prove he is working for the McCanns I don't know what does........Martin Smith never changed his mind nice try ziggy with weak evidence''

    You don't know your arse from a hole in the ground in that case either. Keep your paranoia quiet. Try understanding what you read in future. Or stick to Twitter one - liners.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Insult all you want Ziggy. I do know that Martin Smith (for a fact) did not change his mind.

      Delete
  62. I’ve finished with the thread’s specific subject but I’m struck by JJ’s post, 10.12, and Margaret, 21.23 about the timing of the Pit’s about-turn after which the site became a “weird place”.

    The significant dates are given in those posts. 2013 was when the investigative review turned into an investigation.

    People are claiming that Bennett works undercover to assist the McCanns.

    From 2013 to date, among the insanity of thousands of claims, we have three directions of repeated critical attack led by Havern and Bennett.

    1) Relentless assaults on the Smiths and their sighting, which Grange made clear is a critical lead under investigation.

    2) Clear statements that Amaral’s conclusions, and therefore the 2007 PJ investigation are mistaken.

    3)Repeated infantile attacks on operation Grange and Scotland Yard.

    --

    We can ask a question: What is it that the McCanns show real signs of fearing?

    Their statements in court, “Madeleine” and the OFM show that one terror is the Smith sighting. Another, naturally, is Goncalo Amaral. The Smith sighting is being studied and unpicked in Operation Grange.

    So these three major fears of the McCanns match exactly the above three subjects that Bennett dismisses as misguided or worthless daily.

    On the other side, what does the Pit constantly push as the correct key to the case?

    The one thing that the McCanns never show any signs of worrying about: a conspiracy to protect them by politicians, bent police officers “like Gamble”, mysterious millionaires like Kennedy, Freemasons or others unknown.

    Check the record: the McCanns – in glaring contrast to their behaviour and comments regarding the three subjects above – are completely unconcerned about what people say or claim about such a plot. In “Madeleine”, for example, KM works like one of the Springer spaniels to sniff out areas of danger to subvert or buttress: do a “find” on the e-text of Madeleine and you’ll see buttresses erected to strengthen the Tanner sighting, the Payne visit, other “abductor” sightings, 10PM in 5A, Oldfield’s check and so on.

    But she doesn’t bother with conspiracies. Far from hiding her “protection”, she boasts of it as if she wants us to believe the conspiracy theory – which, of course, she does.

    She gloats at the support from Gordon Brown, the Blairs, Gamble, Kennedy and Smethurst, Control Risks, Scotland Yard etc.

    Kate McCann is the main source for the conspiracy theory.

    --

    Lastly, Jill Havern. The lies and inability to state facts come from the top at COMM. In this letter, having described Grange as a “farce” she writes (to the PM!):

    “This is despite the fact that when the Portuguese investigation was shelved in July 2008, it EXPLICITLY DECLARED that they were looking at two distinct alternatives: 1) abduction by a stranger or (2) the parents, the McCanns, having hidden Madeleine’s body to prevent an autopsy, and having staged a hoax abduction.”

    The sentence is a complete invention and she’s sent it to the PM in June 2017! Is she also actually mad?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Kate McCann is the main source for the conspiracy theory."

      Does that exonerate the rest of the accused then, i.e. those repeatedly identified by Rosalinda and others?

      Delete
    2. No, it says what it says. Kate McCann, far from trying to hide the "hidden hands" assisting her, gloried in repeatedly giving their names. But have a look for yourself - they're all there. So she genuinely is a source. I find that very thought-provoking.

      It's well known that I have always found the conspiracy theories, which many people support, untenable. But that really is a matter of opinion, not fact: I am very happy indeed to wait for the outcome of the investigations to decide the matter, rather than calling those of the opposite persuasion "c**ts, as poor old Tourettes Teddy Prendergast Himself,for example, repeatedly refers to me.

      Delete
    3. "But have a look for yourself - they're all there. So she genuinely is a source. I find that very thought-provoking."

      I already have. And It is.

      As for your subsequent point, it's just as easy to give offence without 'name calling' of any kind. Either way, it serves no useful purpose as far as I can see, unless one considers emotional harassment to confer a benefit of some kind.

      Personally I should be surprised if the outcome of Operation Grange were to decide the matter of, shall we say, 'overall responsibility', either way. I am not venturing any predictions however.

      Delete
    4. No, among certain sections it will never be accepted, just as the Holocaust isn't accepted on many sites. Ask R.Hall, who plugged a book by a holocaust denier and interviewed him fawningly.

      But does that either matter or mean anything? People who believe that "the authorities" are always covering things up simply deny themselves the opportunity to use the tools available to them, don't they?

      For who else can they go to? R Hall? And if their house is burgled, what then? Hire COMM to sort it out?

      Delete
  63. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 July 2017 at 09:23

    ''You are speculating just as much as Bennett Ziggy, you are creating narratives that come from your own head...

    ''Why can't you accept Mr. Smith's evidence as face value? Have you read his statements?''

    ''You are certainly trying as hard as Bennett to play the sighting down''

    ''The 2013 Crimewatch was publicised as a 'revelation', and that revelation was the efit pictures of Smithman''

    ''The 2013 Crimewatch was publicised as a 'revelation', and that revelation was the efit pictures of Smithman.''

    ''For all you and Bennett say the sighting doesn't count, or won't hold up in Court''

    ''for Operation Grange it is THE sighting of the night.''

    The comparison to Bennett-the ultimate McCann blogger insult...dear oh dear. The dogs have been brought to the fight lol

    I'm not creating narratives from my own head. I'm considering the sighting and Smith's reluctance to offer himself as a witness and trying to understand and make sense of it. I'm not playing the sighting down just because I'm including the vagueness of Smith's description of the man. It was his vagueness, not mine. The Smiths said it was vague. Not me. Further up the thread I discussed the flaws of eye witness testimony and how it would relate to this sighting if it ever found it's way to court. Putting all of that together I consider it a realistic notion that it would cause Mr Smith to doubt himself and, therefore, his sighting. Suggesting that he is taking a responsible position isn't playing his sighting or him down. Did Crimewatch say the efits came from the Smith family ? Or witnesses. If the Smith family expressed doubt over their ability to recognise the man again, how did they contribute to an efit ? As for Operation Grange..Unlike the 'online elite task force' I don't buy into the 'truth' that they're investigating an abduction or a murder or an accidental death. I believe Operation this or that have been should have been called Operation Damage Limitation from day one.They release hollow and predictable statements and predictable excuses to mask the fact that they've kept a lid on things as ordered from the beginning. Who reads 'new leads' or 'new suspect' now and believes it's actually going to lead anywhere further than a tabloid or twitter ? Bullshit.

    Anonymous25 July 2017 at 12:49

    ''''As for maneirisms , which is precisely what led to smith thinking it was in fact GM , I have no doubts that he is being truthful and my opinion is that he is totally correct .''

    Efits aren't composed of mannerisms . neither is eye witness testimony. They're minor details that can be added to more reliable identification points and possibly reinforce them. You may have no doubts about Smith being correct but Smith isn't as sure, and it was him who saw the man.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin Smith knew who he saw

      Delete
    2. It's not an efit Ziggy . It's a police statement .

      Delete
  64. I know (well hopefully) all of us know this case, both from the files and following developments over the past 10 years. What has to be remember about Tannerman, is the check on the apartment afterwards by MO - talk about selling your mates down the river. He must have been one happy bunny when Redwood re-positioned the abduction\missing person after MO's check.

    MO as blind as a bat in the apartment, but able to navigate the sliding doors, masses of curtains (cloth & net) and the t.v. but not able to confirm seeing M in her bed. And the other three-wise-monkey, never saw, never heard - or what time it was JW.

    What was ^^ that just noise in the clutter F of the timeline, that never was needed.

    And so, here we are, back at the start. And yet, people query the Smith family sighting, why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi. "And so, here we are, back at the start". On this, just like a "glass half full/glass half-empty" person, I am a complete optimist.

      "Back at the start" could sound like nobody's achieved anything. To me it means that the Yard, as predicted, has completed a four year circle (of excluding everyone else) and is finally back where it has to be. Great!

      Delete
  65. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 July 2017 at 13:41

    ''Tannerman was ridiculed at the off and has been ridiculed ever since. The Smith family for example, couldn't see any pattern on the child's pyjamas, yet they were within 3 metres of her. ......So why did the McCanns go for Tannerman seen by one person, over Smithman seen by nine? ''

    Maybe you've answered your own question there, Ros. Besides, who or what the McCanns 'go for' doesn't matter, surely. They weren't conducting the investigation-the police were. It's who they go for that matters.Them what they do with the decision. How many years and how many men does it take to scrutinise a few statements and efits ?

    john blacksmith25 July 2017 at 13:56

    ''The one thing that the McCanns never show any signs of worrying about: a conspiracy to protect them by politicians, bent police officers “like Gamble”, mysterious millionaires like Kennedy, Freemasons or others unknown.''

    I agree that they don't show any fear. But I wonder if it's misplaced bravado or ignorance. That whole area is the Greyest in my opinion. It's also the the one sealed most tightly. If those 'above' have control of outcomes in this case I ask myself why the need. The whole population get 'played' via MSM outlets, I'm sure two more ( McCanns) wouldn't be too difficult-especially if they're given certain guarantees from the off.

    ReplyDelete
  66. " Re: We can't be sure Maddie WASN'T seen but is there Confirmation/Proof that she WAS seen?

    Post by HiDeHo Today at 15:43
    Not ONE piece of evidence that Maddie was seen after Sunday lunchtime

    We have NOT been searching to prove Maddie WASN'T seen. It is possible that she WAS.

    We are searching for the EVIDENCE and so far, there isn't any! WHY?"
    ----------------------------------

    the hopeless fool just dismisses everyone who said they saw Madeleine during the week and believes that means there is no EVIDENCE.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jane Cook25 July 2017 at 08:57

    ''Hello Ziggy it's nice to talk to you. Okay - Clement Freud:1 - loveable? I think this is just another example of the BBC foistering someone thoroughly unpleasant on the nation, under the delusion that they are popular. They did it with Jimmy Saville and they are now doing it with Chris Evans ...''

    Hi Jane..

    Loveable is accurate, yes. He was never publicly unpleasant - even politically. He was welcomed on to TV shows because of his appeal, not to create it. Negative opinions and adjectives exploded after he died and the truth came out about is private side. Jimmy Saville was always 'odd'. I speak for myself and everyone i knew at the time of his TOTP days. As teens DJs were employed for either their 'nicey nicey' ( Peter Powell ) 'good looks' ( bizarrely Noel Edmonds , Gary Davies ) 'zaniness' ( DLT , John Peel). Savile had none of the above and couldn't string a sentence together. Shifty bastard. As for Chris Evans... A 90s irritant who appeared to grow up in the noughties but hates the sound of anything interrupting his own voice talking about anything. I wouldn't call him(or the rest) 'despots' - a bit strong- but certainly annoying.

    ''it's excruciating and the way the McCanns exploited their predicament to try and climb the social ladder is one of the reasons why a Gestalt light bulb went on in the heads of the British public from the moment they started name dropping JK Rowling and dining out on their tragedy. ''

    The other side of that coin is the camera and publicity chasers who wanted to be publicly attached to the 'pain' of this to score major PR points ( JK, Becks, Branson etc).I don't see how exploiting the loss of their child could be exploited to advance the McCanns socially. A recurring theme throughout all of these so -called debates is the McCanns social superiority and how it's the reason so much protection has been given to them. Before I read any of these blogs, I was sure that the only person who could hold command of Prime Ministers, politicians, the police and media moguls, was The Queen. According to 'big names' commentating on the McCanns case, they too have that power and have exploited it to remain out of jail. How much further can they advance than that ?Dining with Freud wouldn't advance it. Incidentally, if a Gestalt lightbulb ever went off in the publics head without knocking them unconscious I'd climb Nelsons Column naked. There's a reason tabloids get rich.

    ''There's the exploitation of xenophobic tendencies (Johnny Foreigner wasn't up to the job''

    Yes, that was the 'official' reason that our UK politicians sent the met in to remove the PJ. That doesn't mean it had any validity. Amaral would tell you that too.

    ''the huge PR machine that cranked into action at an unseemly rate and with premature timing''

    Again, the Governments man, Mitchell. Taken from Whitehall to be a 'PR controller' and unofficial head of operation McCann.

    I get people mocking me and insulting me for trying to look at all sides of a thing and sometimes do the occasional 'reality test'. I call it discussion or debate. The people behind that mocking suggest that 2,3,4 prime ministers, 11 million quid , several detectives and 11 years all to protect the parents 'because of their social status and jobs'. Realistic ? According to Twitter, Facebook et all yes. The McCanns have received the limitless protection usually only afforded to Kings, Queens, Popes or fkng Moses. Because they have great jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous25 July 2017 at 15:54

    ''Martin Smith knew who he saw''

    Then he could have saved himself, his family, the internet army and the police a lot of time and stress and named him. That's even better than a sighting in the dark or etch-a-sketch efit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did name him in a police statement .

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 19:34

      60-80% certainty.

      Delete
  69. Hello Ziggy- it's good to get a range of opinions and it would be very dull if we only listened to people who agree with us. I think you are trying to be fair to the Mccanns and I can understand that - when I look at the photographs of a young couple setting out on their journey together I do think it's sad how things turned out. I think things snowballed and what started from something small just grew and got bigger and out of control. I don't subscribe to a government cover up either, I tend to think both Blair and Brown were the types to stick their noses in and look for opportunities for their own PR campaigns, so helping a distraught family who were suffering at the hands of Johnny Foreigner was a good opportunity for that and I don't think the high level intervention worked to their advantage in the long run.

    That said the McCanns have become increasingly unlikeable and detached from reality IMO. Reports that they stash unopened presents in a room in their house, ready for some fantasy reunion, stories that the twins received birthday cards from their sister in the early days and the clinging to the belief Madeleine may be found - even if these acts are sincere they just reinforce a ghoulish image IMO.

    So I think your motives are sincere and that's the most important thing for me. I really do think there needs to be closure now and I hope the PJ can provide that one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous25 July 2017 at 15:45

    ''Insult all you want Ziggy. I do know that Martin Smith (for a fact) did not change his mind.''

    I elaborated and expanded on my original comment( changing his mind) in order to clarify what i meant.Or doesn't that suit you.

    If my theory/hypothesis/reasoning ( etc etc ) about Martin Smith's uncertainty is seen as 'playing it down' I'm pissing in the wind obviously. I think if he and his son point to the darkness, bad lighting and limited time to view the passer by all amounting to 'vague'( not my word-theirs) then those who declare his sighting as 99% accurate are actually guilty of 'playing it up'. If he was that sure, something would have happened and he would have stated he was that sure, as would Mrs Smith. So, why hasn't he ? My idea has him as having doubts and concerns of possible consequences based on his judgement. It doesn't accuse him of lying. I'm merely recognising that he did what he thought was the right thing to do then had time to reflect and anxiety played its part.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy

      Do you ever stop talking total bollocks?

      Do you like the thrill of telling lies and being deceitful?

      Only today you state only Mr and Mrs Smith gave statements....total lies

      In Aug they decided to fly to Portugal to give evidence......total lies

      You claim to know what Mrs Smith wrote in her police statement .....total bullshit it has never been released to the public

      Produce one shred of evidence the Smiths (5) have retracted their statements

      You may believe you are insulted for trying to look at all sides but it may be that people think you are a dickhead and your utterings today greatly help confirm it.

      Delete
  71. Jane Cook25 July 2017 at 17:42

    '' I think you are trying to be fair to the Mccanns and I can understand that''

    I can see why i give that impression and why those obsessed with 'us against them' in their 'pros v antis' stupidity pounce without any critical thinking or consideration. It's not so much blindly defending them- or anyone- as attempting to keep some balance and think more openly instead of dogmatically making pronouncements which i couldn't support. It isn't me saying they're guilty or innocent. I prefer something one way or another that can't be dismantled by logic and evidence. Opinions and bias do what it says on their tins. For instance, I believe somebody resembling Gerry McCann was walking down the street with a small child resembling his daughter in the dark. That's all until further notice. I don't believe, in the meantime, that Gerry McCann was stupid enough to go walkabouts at that time of night even if he wanted to throw his daughters body away like rubbish. Does that mean i think the McCanns have clean hands ? No. It doesn't say what I believe, only what i don't.

    '' I tend to think both Blair and Brown were the types to stick their noses in and look for opportunities for their own PR campaigns, so helping a distraught family who were suffering at the hands of Johnny Foreigner was a good opportunity for that and I don't think the high level intervention worked to their advantage in the long run. ''

    level intervention worked to their advantage in the long run. ''

    Those two Zionist dickheads don't differ from any PM before them. They don't care about positive PR other than the kind that puts their policies and bullshit in a good light.They certainly show no signs of humanity. Portugal was up their street so to speak. They too had a dickhead running the country but unlike our Country had the balls to charge him and put him in prison. A lot has happened over there in the 21st century. None of it nice. They got a kicking from the EU and a dodgy / careless 'Golden Visa' scam going on. Kissing Chinese arses for money was supposed to be a British tradition. Nice that they found common ground. At a stretch it could be that they used the McCann event to slip over there for more 'politically sensitive' talks- like when Blair met Bush a la Harry met Sally under the scrutiny of Barrosso. Besides, since when did a Chancellor of the Exchequer get involved in crimes abroad ?

    ''That said the McCanns have become increasingly unlikeable and detached from reality IMO''

    I can't even put myself in that place. If i would have lost my toddler I'm not sure I'd be able to handle reality after it. I dare say I wouldn't be particularly sociable or likeable. The McCanns are only easily criticised for that appearance if the observer has found them guilty of a horrible crime. When they're found guilty in the real world, I'll join those observers. Is it really 'ghoulish' to keep Madeleine's memory alive or part of a coping strategy for themselves ? I know somebody personally who lost a 9 year old(choked) and he keeps his bedroom exactly as it was to this day. Ghoulish? Weird ? It helps him.. The 'image' it presents will be heartbreaking if somebody is eventually arrested and it turns out he or she had ended Madeleine's life. But until that happens the same image is coloured by the bias that has charged and found the McCanns guilty.

    ''So I think your motives are sincere and that's the most important thing for me. I really do think there needs to be closure now and I hope the PJ can provide that one way or another.''

    There's a man who would echo you word for word. His name's Amaral. He says closure will come ''when two countries have the political will.'' What could he mean ?



    ReplyDelete
  72. Thank you Ziggy - I think there's quite a lot we agree on there. I definitely find the idea of wrapping up presents each year and putting them away very odd and I can not see why anyone would do that, personally. If you haven't seen your parents since you were four, there isn't going to be some happy family reunion. For a start, they made Madeleine a ward of court. I also think it's a very strange thing to do because are you going to present a psychologically damaged adult with a heap of age inappropriate presents? To me this is very characteristic of the McCanns, a very grand and showy gesture that is ultimately meaningless, like huge billboards or the latest stunt asking people to take posters on holiday with them which show an out of date aged progressed image and just to add a surreal touch, an image of Madeleine when she was three. I don't like being cynical but their behaviour is so strange and IMO tacky it simply reinforces my already hardened opinions.

    I think the political will might be better now. Certainly in interviews I've seen there has been greater emphasis on working with each other rather than being antagonistic. As someone said earlier, if we end up where we started then provided abduction has been eliminated this strengthens the PJ's hand IMO. I think in law that's called evidence of absence I think? This is my hope, that the PJ will resolve things quite rapidly once OG ends.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Wow Jane your hatred of everything Mccann is really coming out today isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion Anonymous - a classic non sequitur I think! Just to clarify, I do not find them likeable but the absence of liking them is not the same as actively hating them - it's more they leave me cold and there is a void...

      Delete
  74. The Smiths saw someone walking and carrying a child passed them. They made statements to the Police. One of them thinks he was 60-80% certain it was Gerry Mccann.

    I don't believe they lied.

    But I don't believe they actually saw Gerry Mccann that night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .... and there remains the line drawn in the sand. But then who was it and why were the McCanns behind Tannerman to the exclusion of Smithman's possibilities and used all means to promote it. Why wouldn't the T9 play ball, K McCann 48Qs and T7 reconstruction.

      Delete
    2. @22:49

      Two of them, although no percentage of certainty is mentioned with regard to the second witness.

      "During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p16p4134

      Delete
  75. I see the cesspit is "researching" the personal life of Charlotte Pennington now.

    havern and her hellhole have a lot to answer for.

    ReplyDelete
  76. JJ (and others):

    It was never part of Bennett's undertakings that he couldn't discuss the case, just that he couldn't repeat allegations about Madeleine's parents. (Since the contempt of court he simply switched to making allegations about everyone else but the T9. His behaviour has been very transparent)

    And Carter-Ruck could have claimed in correspondence that their costs were £1m, but that wouldn't make it demonstrably true (it's one of the ways they bully people).

    ReplyDelete
  77. Wow! The sheer RAGE of JJ at Ziggy S...for what? - daring to express a mild doubt about the validity of the Martin Smith sighting.

    That attack on Ziggy was really nasty, full of hatred and raw anger. Just for expressing a doubt!!

    I am speechless.

    I also see much more clearly now one of the reasons that Blacksmith and Bennett are having constant spats. It seems to be (at least in part) over whether or not Operation Grange is a genuine search for the truth...

    -----------
    john blacksmith, 25 July 2017 at 13:56 said:

    "2013 was when the investigative review turned into an investigation. that Bennett works undercover to assist the McCanns. From 2013 to date, among the insanity of thousands of claims, we have three directions of repeated critical attack led by Havern and Bennett...
    1. Grange made clear that Smithman is a critical lead under investigation.
    2. -
    3. Repeated infantile attacks on Operation Grange and Scotland Yard.

    -----------

    I must say this is very odd. Right across the internet, nearly all on the Maddie forums, websites and blogs think of Op Grange as an expensive, long drawn-out cover-up of the truth.

    About the only people who still, after over six years, think that Op Grange is a sincere, honest search for truth, are Blacksmith, JJ and a small number of candyfloss's groupies over on MMM.

    And maybe you as well Ros?

    Are you - seriously - as convinced as Blacksmith that all those tens of thousands of documents seized, mobile 'phone records examined, suspects interviewed, statements taken, and of course all those pickaxes used to dig up rabbit bones on some patches of previously searched waste ground in Praia da Luz - are part of a bona fide police investigation?

    ReplyDelete
  78. "Kate McCann is the main source for the conspiracy theory."

    Surely the dopiest claim to have appeared on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous25 July 2017 at 15:14

    ''And so, here we are, back at the start. And yet, people query the Smith family sighting, why?''

    Good question.

    Anonymous25 July 2017 at 19:38

    ''It's not an efit Ziggy . It's a police statement .''

    Exactly, I know.I was pointing that out.They couldn't realistically provide an efit after saying they wouldn't recognise the man again.

    Anonymous25 July 2017 at 19:34

    ''He did name him in a police statement .''

    Anonymous25 July 2017 at 21:22

    ''60-80% certainty.''
    There's the good answer to that good question up there ^^

    60%-80% isn't gilt edged certainty. Whatever the general feeling regarding 'reasonable doubt' is, it would seem to suggest the doubt was reasonable enough to make Martin Smith reluctant to fully commit himself. Or the Police thought that it wouldn't be enough.

    Anonymous25 July 2017 at 22:49

    '' I don't believe they lied.But I don't believe they actually saw Gerry Mccann that night.''

    I agree.That situation is feasible.

    ReplyDelete
  80. JJ25 July 2017 at 19:41

    ''Do you ever stop talking total bollocks?

    Do you like the thrill of telling lies and being deceitful?

    Only today you state only Mr and Mrs Smith gave statements....total lies
    In Aug they decided to fly to Portugal to give evidence......total lies
    You claim to know what Mrs Smith wrote in her police statement .....total bullshit it has never been released to the public
    Produce one shred of evidence the Smiths (5) have retracted their statements
    You may believe you are insulted for trying to look at all sides but it may be that people think you are a dickhead and your utterings today greatly help confirm it''

    And there he is again. The man with a qwertyuiop spine and the social skills of a brain -damaged test monkey; the Pied Piper of the demented.

    First, thank you so much for your reply. As usual, it's hard to decipher the complexity of your syntax, but I get the feeling you're displeased with something. We can't have that now, can we. We can't have 'Mr Thought-provoking' in a state of displeasure.

    You constantly take the smallest points, quotes etc that people contribute and inflate whatever you can to make it rival Watergate. You'd be much better served applying that trick to your mentality. You could correct points, question points or even just state why you disagree with points. Instead, you pounce from the sky like a Kestrel then start demanding.Who are you to demand anything from anyone ? Calling people names and swearing like a child only impresses yourself or any idiots with the same mentality. Do you think you're intimidating ? Is that the look you're going for , Mr Rentaquote ? Forget it. Your noises only impress the gullible or narrow minded. Your attempts at intimidating with rants and quotes and perceived 'expertise' only serve to lower the tone of wherever you post them. You're what's wrong with lack of censorship and the safe shield of the internet. If you can't resist the temptation to address me and what I say, get some civility under your belt. Don't drag us all down.



    ReplyDelete
  81. Jane Cook25 July 2017 at 21:54

    '' I definitely find the idea of wrapping up presents each year and putting them away very odd and I can not see why anyone would do that''

    We can only speculate. If the McCanns are clinging to the hope that Madeleine is alive somewhere and will one day return then they could tell her and show her she was never forgotten maybe. As so many have already sentenced the McCanns, they can't see this as they have her buried-ergo the parents would be doing this and making it public knowledge to keep a charade going.

    ''To me this is very characteristic of the McCanns, a very grand and showy gesture that is ultimately meaningless, like huge billboards or the latest stunt asking people to take posters on holiday with them which show an out of date aged progressed image and just to add a surreal touch, an image of Madeleine when she was three. I don't like being cynical but their behaviour is so strange and IMO tacky it simply reinforces my already hardened opinions. ''

    The aged progression photographs were for the benefit of the media and the brainchild of someone other than the McCanns.They're naive at best, pointless at worst. I don't see 'showy' or 'tacky'. I see PR and cynical PR at that. Mitchell's a master. What about his behaviour ?Why do you hold 'already hardened opinions' ? Why are they hardened ? What influenced you ? Is it anything you think could stand up as part of a successful prosecution case ?

    ''I think the political will might be better now.''

    The fact that 'political will' is even part of this should raise your eyebrow. An abduction , murder, manslaughter and the like are all police matters. If you believe it will take political will, like I do, like Amaral does, and like many who question the level of political interference and monitoring do, doesn't that suggest something outside and above the McCanns have a vested interest in this ? If the SY and PJ have this 'ongoing good relationship' that the Met keep telling us via the media, then the PJ should have equal input and shouldn't have need to wait for OG to end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "An abduction , murder, manslaughter and the like are all police matters."

      Amen.

      Delete
  82. bennett is back in the cesspit but I notice his name is not in blue anymore and he is not shown as a "researcher"! or moderator or admin.

    ReplyDelete