Friday, 28 July 2017

IS OPERATION GRANGE A COVER UP?

Such is the nature of lively debates and discussions, the last subject has changed once again, but strangely, things are becoming clearer, as far as the 'antis' (disbelievers) are concerned.

Whilst there are hundreds, possibly thousands (I'm being kind here) of people out there who believe the parents of Madeleine McCann were involved in her disappearance, I don't in any way think it could be described as a 'Movement'.  The idea of a 'Movement' is another myth that needs to stamped out.  There have of course been plenty of wannabe Vigilante leaders, but they were all so obnoxious they couldn't get on with each other, let alone lead troops.  Each set up their own little fiefdoms with forums and facebook pages, where they could rule absolutely.  Each deserted as the fiefs discovered freedom of thought.

I am not sure if the 'pro' McCanns started the myth of an Anti-Movement, or those puffed up charlatans who believed they were leading thousands, but in any event, tis a myth.  I think of it as the glorious scene in Life of Brian when all the freedom groups fought each other to the death under the palace floor.  Bennett of course, is the Popular Front, the fella in the arena sitting on his own. 
 
The reasons for disbelieving vary from a common dislike of the smug middle classes to a paedophile ring that runs through the entire British establishment (especially politicians and celebrities), down to a kindly bi-lingual local guy in PDL who tried to help.  I'm being flippant of course, there are too many reasons to list. Some are simply here because they smell a rat.

The rational, and I count myself in that particular group believe the findings of the original Portuguese investigation and the book of Goncalo Amaral.  I can't speak for all the 'rational', but for myself, I find the theories of armchair detectives absurd, and their meddling in this case extremely distasteful. 

I think now the hysteria has been taken out of the discussion, it becomes more obvious how ludicrous most of the conspiracy theories have become.  Time has not served them well. 

However, one idea that seems never to go away is the claim that Operation Grange is a cover up.  Why a cover up?  Because someone of presidential importance was involved.  Quickly flown out of PDL and a whitewash begun.  The alleged involvement of this VIP is deviant sex of some sort, and I really don't want to go there. 

I personally don't think Operation Grange is a cover up.  That's not to say a lot of covering up hasn't been done, especially in the early days, but OG is not part of it.  Whilst I would believe almost anything of politicians and despicable billionaires, I simply cannot believe that 30+ homicide officers from Scotland Yard would do anything to cover up the death of a child.  That feel's pretty tough to believe on occasion, but to believe these men, women, mums, dads, uncles, aunts, would desert the victim, would just about finish off my faith in human nature.  When doubts hover, I think of that donation to Goncalo Amaral's legal fund from the Met Police, and sanity returns.

Hopefully, by now, a poll has appeared in the side bar - please take a moment to vote.  I am guessing most of the antis believe that Operation Grange is a cover up, but curiosity has got the better of me and it would be interesting to see what the general opinion is.

200 comments:

  1. Ros, consider this. Crimewatch with Redwood on it and the Mcs. He puts up a picture of Crecheman. A man who does not exist (No, not Michael Knight).
    THAT is an out and out fabrication and lie.
    A man did NOT come forward after being in a coma for 6 years and say, "Hey! You know what? That Bundleman was me, gosh how silly of me not to realise for 6 years"
    Now if that isn't enough I don't know what is to denote OP Grange as a complete farce and part and parcel of the McCircus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, footnote, Ros. Police? Bent? Who would have thought? You forgotten Hillsbro? The police do as they are told when the government is involved. And the government is seriously involved in this case.
    For Op Grange to have been bona fide they would have requestioned the Mcs and Tapas 7 and demanded a reconstruction.
    Neither happened. Yet you think they are for real?
    And no, they are not biding their time; I think we all know time is something they have had in spades.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bet You Don't Publish This28 July 2017 at 19:20

    "I personally don't think Operation Grange is a cover up."

    You haven't read the remit then. Just like your claim the McCanns lost at the ECHR. A less informed blogger would be hard to find. Why even bother?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "IS OPERATION GRANGE A COVER UP?"

    No.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One witty reader on here christened him SixYearsInAComa man, lol, so I see where you are coming from!

    I think I may have mentioned, several times, that I am a great fan of real crime documentaries. I don't think I have ever seen one where the police are open and transparent with the suspects and the public. Especially if they are playing an extended game of cat and mouse.

    Some detectives go to extraordinary lengths to create scenarios that might, err, bring forward new information. We don't know what information they are seeking, neither do the suspects, but I doubt everything is exactly as it seems at face value.

    I wouldn't like to guess what the police are up to, and if I did it could only be as fictional plot, which I am sure will never match the real thing.

    Police the world over use television and the MSM to advance their investigations. The televised pleas of loved ones are scrutinised closely for any signs of deceit. Statements are examined and compared to previous statements.

    We aren't privy to the police investigation, and that's as it should be 18:47, but once again the sleuths have created their own narratives out of the small amount of information they have.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Rosalinda

    "I simply cannot believe that 30+ homicide officers from Scotland Yard would do anything to cover up the death of a child."

    Really?

    What do you think happened in the case of Stephen Lawrence, then?

    In fact, have you ever actually spoken to any police about such matters?

    Look what happened in the Hillsborough cover-up; all the orders filtered down from above, and the various police on the case either had their notes amended or were forced to participate in the lash-up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a fair comment 19:52, but I am not sure it is a fair comparison.

      I agree that even today, it is hard to comprehend the magnitude and pure evil behind the Hillsborough cover up. Those lies were to protect those police at the top who made the wrong decisions and then went on to fabricate a web of lies to protect themselves.

      OK, seeing more comparisons here, but there are stark differences too. The original crime, the disappearance of Madeleine, happened before the authorities headed off to PDL, no VIPs are implicated in that.

      Though it may seem complex, this case involves ONE child and the details of the original investigation are accessible on line - to everyone.

      Hillsborough occurred in the age before the internet, when, arguably, the MSM were at their most powerful. The 'establishment' could put out almost any message it wanted, and at that time, Thatcher, like Theresa May now, was at war with the working classes. Blaming the victims has always been tory ideology, we will probably see the guy in Grenfell Tower with the dodgy fridge charged.

      With many of the police involved in the Hillsborough cover up, they have had a lifetime of torment and regret. However, all these years later it is only those at the top facing prosecution, the no doubt hundreds of foot soldiers, were following orders.

      This is a more enlightened age, whistleblowers are not the traitors and outcasts they once were. There are simply too many involved, not just the officer of Operation Grange, but also their counterparts in Portugal and the millions of McCann files just about everywhere.

      For the Officers of Hillsborough, most if not all are retired or at the end of their careers. This is not the case with Operation Grange, each Officer will take their investigation of this case with them on their CVs. It will directly impact on their future careers, and many, I am sure are very ambitious. Who wants to be the cop who worked on a case for 6 years and didn't solve anything?

      But I am not among those bashing Operation Grange, I accept that they know far more than I do, and like the Good Lord, may well be working in mysterious ways.

      I actually find it extremely crass to accuse people of things that you have made up in your own deranged mind. You can see why antis are thought of as haters - just as they are ready, willing and able to accuse the McCanns, RM, the nannies, the Smith family (running out of room here), of all sorts of heinous crimes, they are doing the same with the police.

      I actually cringe when I see the British police officers of using this case to go on jollies to the Algarve. I want to say to them, 'why, is that what you would do?'. They really don't know how much they project of their ugly characters.

      Anyone with even a miniscule of social etiquette would not make such vicious assumptions about the police, or indeed anyone. Again they have made themselves Judge and Jury, and found all those men and women working on Operation Grange, guilty.

      Do they have any idea of how pompous and judgemental they sound? Clearly not lol, I doubt they have even kept count of the amount of people they have found guilty and condemned, hating for them is a way of life. Sad.

      Delete
  7. Fully five years ago Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, had this to say about Operation Grange:

    "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

    I suggest you read his statement slowly, carefully - and more than once if you find it difficult to grasp. Then you can go back to sleep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike yourself 20:12, I don't take something said by someone 5 years ago as carved in stone. I also take into account that Scotland Yard, and any officer on their behalf would not divulge details of their investigation in a press release.

      Police do not catch crooks by being boy scout honest with them - that should really be taken as a given. When SY make a statement to the public, they are aware that the public includes the suspects - whoever they might be.

      Has anyone ever heard of an investigating police force acting for and on behalf of former suspects in a potential murder case? This cosy, friendly, relationship is a myth created by Clarence Mitchell, and indeed Gerry and Kate, who positioned themselves as equal partners in the investigation with the PJ. I don't think that has been possible with SY.

      I think a polite, civil, relationship exists between the two parties, but it could very well be that it is very chilly. Neither are heaping praise on each other, and the parents aren't begging them to keep the investigation open.

      Operation Grange cannot clear the McCanns, only a Court can do that. And I'm really not sure how far they could go in bringing any prosecution. The original crime falls under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese Judiciary.

      I think you 2012, are exactly the sort of audience Sir BHH was aiming for. That is, he gave you just enough to keep you in heated squabbles for 5 years. Scotland Yard have a very sophisticated public relations strategy 20:12, who are more than aware of the nitpickers who will analyse each word for hidden meanings. He was, it appears, thinking of your fun.

      You accuse me of not reading because I don't get caught up on the tedious drivel you recommend. I am able to see the bigger picture, something denied to yourself by your narrow mind and blinkers. I stopped taking the written word as gospel at around the age of 5, I suggest you catch up.

      Delete
    2. "There it is, neutral readers, all laid out for you. I don't need to say a word".

      Delete
  8. To all the trolls now telling me I'm demeaning my blog with a poll - According to yourselves, haven't I demeaned it a zillion times already? lol

    Whilst I find your concern for the dignity of my blog touching, I am genuinely curious. It is an anonymous, and I hope everyone votes. I suspect it will reveal how few people care one way or the other, but we shall see.

    Meanwhile the silly little snipes add nothing, erg they will not be published.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not sure the full truth whatever that truth is will ever come out. I've only been following the case since the verdict of not cleared. I prefer to believe like you do Cristobell that the MET would not do a cover-up as like you said these officers will have children of their own, I suppose time will tell with OG.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ros, you wrote:

    "The rational, and I count myself in that particular group believe the findings of the original Portuguese investigation and the book of Goncalo Amaral".

    OK. You believe Amaral.

    So do I.

    Amaral said, and I quote: "When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth".

    Ergo, this is an MI5 cover-up.

    If you voted 'No' in the poll, now is the moment to change your vote!

    Amaral has deemed this a over-up! So therefore must you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why, on the thread just before this one, i suggested that the diehard Amaral supporters can't dismiss the cover up in high places.Dismissing them dismisses Amaral's argument.Cherry picking bits and pieces of his theory would be to fit the picker's own personal theory. If the cover up begins at the top, everyone beneath has to fall in line. So, who is 'beneath' in this case..

      Delete
    2. LOL 22:43, I tried to keep the poll as simple as possible, but even so I confused myself!

      I believe there WAS a cover up 22:43, the largest part of it taking place in the summer of 2007, where I do actually suspect MI5 were involved. Not for the same reasons as yourself I suspect, but because the sitting PM and his administration made a huge blunder. One they were too embarrassed to admit then, and those presently in power, are too embarrassed to admit now. In those early days it was simply a matter of discrediting one Portuguese detective, job done. They did not factor in Goncalo Amarals high principals and tenacity.

      Perhaps I should have been more specific in the poll question. With cover up THEN and cover up NOW options. I agree with GA's statement that we will know the truth when the files of MI5 are opened up, particularly with regard to those early days, but is he saying it continues now, I'm not sure.

      Delete
    3. No, I don't think that follows. In the absence, to date, of a trial to test the evidence, those who accept his opinions do so because his resources were greater than ours as individuals and so is his expertise.

      That does not apply to the UK intelligence services. He has no expertise or personal knowledge in that area whatever, only an opinion.

      I know a great deal more about the UK intelligence services than Mr Amaral, just as he knows a great deal more than I do about the Portuguese ones. On this matter he is mistaken in his views. That is neither a crime nor an impossibility.

      Delete
    4. john blacksmith31 July 2017 at 17:28

      “No, I don't think that follows”

      What is “that” that doesn’t (logically) follow, john, please?

      T

      Delete
  11. Hi Ros, Just one thought, If creche dad was in fact tannerman as Mr Redwood said hes fairly sure he is in his revelation moment on crimewatch, then why oh why did he say that crechedad was walking from RIGHT to LEFT and we all know that tannerman was walking from LEFT to RIGHT as JT said. One of the two of them is telling porkies or one of them does not know their right from their left, and I dont believe that for a second. Please dont try to tell me this was just an honest mistake as they spent a very long time putting that episode of crimewatch together. I want to have faith in operation grange, but tie this together with the fact that crechedad had been in a coma for 6 years with his clothes in stasis I find it hard to swallow. Still loving your blog Ros and the fact you let everyone contribute. I to left Cmomm just after you when I to realised no other theory could be discussed there. Just like to give a shoutout to BLACKSMITH, you sir are AWESOME!!!

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lovely post AFAN, and I don't know how I missed it.

      I think 6YearsInAComa man, and I love how you described him too, is one of those vexing enigmas wrapped up in a mystery, or whatever the saying is, lol. Who knows AFAN? Maybe Operation Grange were testing Jane Tanner, waiting for her to point out the discrepancies.

      And no, I would never say it was mistake, honest or otherwise. These mini productions are overseen with an enormous amount of attention paid to detail, almost as much as that paid to a high priced car advert. Nothing is unintentional. For media students out there, lol, it is similar to 'product placement', items, eg. cans of coke, are positioned to catch our eye, it is a form of subliminal messaging. But who were they messaging eh?

      And I agree AFAN, Blacksmith is AWESOME! We are very lucky that he posts here. :)

      Delete
  12. Can 30 police officers maintain a cover-up?

    YES, if the top 2 or 3 know that it's a cover-up, and are being suitably rewarded (promotion, offer of civilian police job post-retirement to top up their fat pension etc.) - AND if the rest are just offered non-jobs that don't get them near the heart of the case.

    Which in this case means:

    * Reading lots of pointless documents
    * Travelling to Portugal for lots of pointless meetings
    * Checking the mobile 'phone records of 20,000 people from 31 countries
    * Checking on 600-plus known sex offenders
    * Keeping pointless statistics just to brag to the press about what good work they've done
    * Digging up pointless rabbit-holes on some waste ground in Praia da Luz
    * Producing pointless TV shows like Crimewatch with bogus reconstructions
    * Spending money on pointless age-progressed sketches of Madeleine
    * Reading countless e-mails which never get answered
    etc.

    Oh, and dreaming up lies like Crecheman / Coma-man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sounds like a good summary

      Delete
    2. Hmm, you have done your homework 22:56, and I have to admit, that if the entire investigation were being staged to lull the former suspects into a false sense of security, it would be on par with the production costs of Anthony and Cleopatra.

      Some of your list is damning and does indeed beg many questions. The age progression pictures especially, but it doesn't really leave us any the wiser. We don't know what they are up to, and they aren't going to tell us.

      I think what is clear, is that this is much, much more than one missing child. The actual crime could not be more simplistic to decipher and was indeed solved within a few short months by Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese police. The problem lies in the McCanns, and some might say, the British Establishment, vigorously opposing those findings.

      They may have hoped to do this by finding an abductor/schmuck to take the blame for Madeleine's disappearance, but 10 years on, they have nothing tangible. It should be noted however, that in the 5+ years Operation Grange has been live, they have never given the McCanns anything tangible either. If Gerry and Kate had any evidence from OG that supported their innocence, they would be on the breakfast TV sofas telling us about it.

      Delete
    3. I do wonder if the investigation goes deeper than just an "abducted" child, when you look at the fact that GM has an empty CATS file - was it emptied so that the general public couldn't see what is involved, the fact that GM conveniently "lost" his credit cards when in London, the Gaspar statements, the fact that Pete Townsend of the WHO was found perusing child porn internet sites through his credit card details then said he was doing "research" - how many more are there like him operating under the radar. It does make you wonder what is really going on under the surface and how many people are being investigated.

      Perhaps my imagination is getting the better of me but that's the only reason why I can think that it's taking so long.

      Delete
    4. @ Anon 15:49

      I believe you should go to your doctor concerning your Sunday afternoon imagination.

      Delete
    5. 30 July 17.47 - thanks for that informative reply.

      What is your take on the Gaspar statements and the fact that GM has a CATS file and pls don't tell me that it's a matter of course to open a CATS file and put nothing in it. What happened to the information that was in it?

      You can't ignore the Gaspar statements, they've been made and are in the public domain. So what is your thinking on those?

      Why were the children being bathed by other people, why did Kate McCann say that Madeleine could have cried when she was being bathed. So who was bathing the children if GM and KM didn't even know their own child had been crying.

      The mind boggles as to what went on on that holiday.

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous31 July 2017 at 16:02

      Yes I am sure that your mind boggles all the time.

      Delete
    7. To add to my comment on 31 July 16.02 I've found this blog re Clement Freud -

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/clement-freud-part-downfall/

      It is hard to know what to make of Freud owning a holiday villa close to where Madeleine McCann disappeared. Clement was apparently not in Portugal at the time. When you add in the fact that the McCanns’ sleazy “spokesman”, Clarence Mitchell, works for Freud’s son Matthew, the coincidences do add up. I am not jumping to any conclusions at present.

      But I found the following fascinating.
      Clement Freud assured Kate McCann she had nothing to fear from the cadaver dogs giving a positive response inside the McCann’s hire car, hired after Madeleine “disappeared”. They had no evidential value. “So what are they going to do? One bark for yes, two barks for no?” asked Freud.

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

      Why would Clement Freud ask two complete strangers to go to his villa for dinner, apparently he'd never met them so how would he know what happened to their daughter, he then ridiculed the dogs, the best in the world.

      Isn't he now known as a pedophile.

      Delete
    8. Unknown at 31 July 17.06

      I see you have no answer regarding the Gaspar statements and GM having a CATS file, your only response is to ridicule me.

      What about the Gaspar statements and GM's CATS file, they won't go away, no matter how much you stick your head in the sand and ridicule anyone who mentions them.

      And the fact that Madeleine was being bathed by someone other than her parents.

      Delete
    9. @ anon various posts.

      How about you telling the blog the reason you are posting about those items and the conclusions that you draw rather than just randomly posting?

      I am sure that the research you have done has cleared your boggled mind, so why not tell us the outcome eh?

      For your information all of the items that you list (apart from your "find" on Freud)are available from the files - are you accusing the Portuguese authorities of failing to investigate them to your satisfaction?

      Delete
    10. I think Clement Freud having a villa in the area is no more than coincidence. The two girls that he abused were easily accessible, one living within his home, climbing in bedroom windows wasn't his modus operandi. In fact the idea that any celebrity would steal a toddler from a family holiday is resort is just plain ridiculous. If royalty and the rich and famous want to sexually abuse underage girls they simply go to a yacht party or on a Lolita flight with one of their equally rich chums. In fact, the Donald was telling the boy scouts about it, just the other day.

      Clement Freud, like Tony Blair, and the huge rush of celebrities and VIPs were deeply touched by the McCanns plight, or they wanted to jump on the popular bandwagon. In PDL a lot of British ex pats reached out in friendship to their fellow Brits.

      This idea of paedophile rings in PDL is pure myth, most of it comes from the McCann camp, but the antis convinced deviant sex lies at the bottom of this mystery, are more than happy to join in.

      Delete
    11. 31 July at 20.00

      Why should I tell the blog the reason I was posting those items, I think they are clear for anyone to read. I don't have any conclusion about them, it's up to the PJ to deal with the facts.

      My mind isn't boggled at all, but you seem to be insulting me for printing the facts. Are you scared of the facts being known?

      I know all the items I list are on the internet, but I was just drawing them to people's attention to remind them what they may have missed. Is that OK with you? Probably not,but I really couldn't care what you think.

      Delete
    12. @ anon 21:12

      so you are just listing things that have been available and discussed for 9 years in case people may have missed them? Pure co-incidence of course that they are all of a "sordid" and pedophile (sic) nature.

      Mind boggles stopped now have they?

      I should thank you for bringing those items to the attention of the blog - you have done a real service and should be rewarded.

      Delete
  13. Police lies and cover-ups?

    Jimmy Savile
    Hillsborough
    Daniel Morgan
    Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford child sexual abuse cover-ups
    North Wales Childrens' Homes
    Gordon Anglesea
    Kincora Boys Home
    Islington Children's Homes
    Greville Janner
    Peter Righton
    Plebgate
    Operation Tiberius
    Stephen Lawrence

    & Lots more

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leon Brittan .. Cyril Smith..Clement Freud .. Elm House..

      Delete
  14. Anonymous28 July 2017 at 20:12

    "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

    Bit of a slip up there by Bernie. The PR releases give the hard-to-believe 'we' as the great working relationship between the met and the pj. That statement, on the other hand, seems to suggest a different 'we'. It also indirectly admits things will take a 'decision'. Yet PR releases talk about hope, suspects and leads. This from the same man who fed the tabloids the line 'we have the best possible chance of finding Madeleine McCann' in 2013 and that there was a chance she was alive in the hands of child snatchers because a small blonde girl had been found alive in Greece with a gypsy family.

    That's the skilled reasoning of the Chief Of Police in London. The force which criticised the PJ .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does sound a little ludicrous Ziggy, but makes sense if he were speaking in a 'compassionate policeman' role. It would be a bit harsh on the parents of any missing child if the Chief of Police were to announce there was no chance of their child being found alive.

      Delete
  15. Is grange a cover up? yes and no,I believe they are and have been genuine in looking at an abduction as per their remit,the fact that after all this time they neither have have suspects or made arrest's should be enough to tell you in all likelihood there wasn't one,that is where they are at, how to close it imo and all that.The PJ recently said that their investigation is not dependent on grange continuing,maybe that is another pointer,grange know not what the pj are up to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting reply 08:57.

      It is beyond bizarre for a police investigation to be opened with a press conference informing the general public of their sole, set in stone, objective - a remit to clear British citizens of any involvement in the crime that took place in PDL.

      That might be exactly what they did, but it remains bizarre. Did the police investigating the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey say, the investigation was restricted to those outside the family?

      I think any Scotland Yard announcements are made with angry mobs in mind. That is, to throw the sniffing hounds off the trail. All public bodies watch social media for public opinion, and they are all too well aware of how misconstrued statements can go viral.

      As for Scotland Yard and the PJ not working together, I think that very unlikely - I feel if there were a serious rift the case would have closed long ago.

      At the moment it is pretty impossible to believe that 30+ Scotland Yard detectives would go along with a conspiracy, I wonder do the 'conspiraloons' think the Portuguese Judiciary also want to protect Gerry and Kate?

      Delete
  16. Ros, look at the number of posts showing you how corrupt the police can be/are. Please don't support the legitimacy of Op Grange just because Blacksmith does. Continue to go your own way, with your own thoughts, even if they do conflict with Blacksmith's. Leave him and textusa at their big round table and forever go your own sweet way. Please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I have to admit the replies to this blog certainly show how disillusioned people are with the British police, though it could be said this is a somewhat niche audience 09:11.

      I don't support the legitimacy of Operation Grange 'just because Blacksmith' does - that implies I am a little woman looking for a strong male voice to follow, and really not my style. I have been a feminist since toddlerhood (I had a big brother to fight), I've never considered male opinion to be superior to my own.

      Common sense tells me that a government would not appoint a 30+ police task force to whitewash the disappearance of a child. If such a 'whitewash' were discovered it would destroy the legacies of two tory PMs and the careers of all those police officers involved. Any crimes that were committed, were committed under the watch and with the assistance of New Labour. The tories have no need to be involved with anything murky here. I doubt TM wants to be remembered as the PM who covered up the disappearance of a child.

      John Blacksmith and I appear to be in the minority on the cover up issue, but as much as I am a lone wolf(ess), JB is a lone wolf, as subversive writers, holding different views to the majority is a way of life.

      Delete
    2. TM is in a pile of pooh with out the boots for it,the outcome of a police investigation is the least of her worries.

      Delete
    3. Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers and anyone over 60, torments themselves daily on what their legacy will be. Those in loftier positions will always compare themselves to their predecessors and those who might follow them. Tiberius for example named Caligula as his heir, a bigger monster than himself.

      I agree TM is presently in a pile of poo lol, and the Madeleine case very low in her priorities, but in the years ahead of her, every judgment she has ever made will come under scrutiny.

      I once saw a terrific television drama about Tony Blair, which captured perfectly the pain and stress we see etched on his face. When he left office he converted to Catholicism and hang religious paintings in all his properties, as though the sign of the cross and a bit of holy water wash away his sins. He may have fame and wealth beyond his wildest dreams, but he is not a happy man.

      TM may have much on her plate 12:02, but she is not going to take the fall for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

      Delete
  17. FAO john blacksmith

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-cruelty-of-madeleine-myths.html?showComment=1500846513932#c1441403132932120950

    “Anonymous 23 July 2017 at 22:48

    A question for Blacksmith.

    “…do you have a reference to any formal demonstration/proof of the principle referred to?”

    “The observation is important and I would appreciate being directed to any publication of its formal proof.”


    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-cruelty-of-madeleine-myths.html?showComment=1500850229926#c5138598680223563270

    Your reply, john: “Sigint.”

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

    With respect.

    Sigint (SIGINT) is not an answer.

    As presented in The Cracked Mirror, the argument under consideration relies on authority.

    To begin with, would you kindly provide a proper reference to the formal demonstration/proof you were asked for, john, to enable me to consider said argument myself and see where it takes me?

    Many thanks and have a good weekend.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would 'T' (and Blacksmith) please kindly refer to the question above at 09:19, 29.7.

      Many thanks.

      Delete
    2. Bless you 'T' for pursuing this.

      Information Theory as developed by Shannon and Weaver is a set of statistically complex considerations.

      Leaving aside its seemingly anti-Darwinian purpose, a very much simplified description of the key principles can be found here: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/information-theory-made-simple/

      It does not include the feature explicitly identified by Blacksmith however.

      In addition, the response of the NSA (who are very much concerned with SIGINT) is that the question raised is 'outside their purview' (?)

      Blacksmith's casual observation is potentially important, but can only be viewed as conjecture unless he is prepared to grace us with a citation of some kind.

      As things stand, although common sense observation suggests he is correct, it cannot be advanced as proof in connection with any other argument on the basis that it was previously mentioned on the internet by someone called Blacksmith!

      Let's hope he can oblige us.

      Delete
    3. I don't want to oblige you! I don't want to convince you of anything. I only came here in the last week to ask you and people like you to leave innocent people alone. What you think doesn't interest me - it's your cowardly actions I condemn.

      Delete
    4. 00:45

      Have you completely lost the plot?

      Being offensive, obnoxious and avoiding a civil question is no way to answer it, unless of course you have no answer, in which case why not just say so?

      The question was put by 'T' btw. What you think of me doesn't interest me either, but your tarring him/her with the same brush is uncalled for.

      No one needs convincing of anything. A simple citation is all that was asked of you.

      Delete
  18. John Blacksmith is clearly an Establishment plant, and the fact that you, Rosalinda, are so impressed by and infatuated with him, leads me to question whether or not you might be, also.

    Particularly in light of your refusal to accept that the UK's police forces may not be as pure as the driven snow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good heavens, are we in a playground? 'so impressed and infatuated by him', seriously? You think I base my opinions on schoolgirl crushes? That I simply ditch all my qualifications and all my years of study, just so a stranger online will 'like' me? What you are actually doing is projecting your own adolescent train of thought onto yet another imagined scenario. Perhaps you are thinking 'that's what I would do'?

      That John Blacksmith is an 'Establishment Plant' is pure cuckoo land - maybe read it back when you sober up or the knock on your noggin gets better.

      Delete
    2. I will add to the above, one of my all time favourite books is 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. The words of Dale Carnegie are never far from my thoughts.

      I never hold back in expressing praise and admiration, wherever I may be. I know for example, telling a stressed out mum what a beautiful baby she has, will brighten up the rest of her day. When I was teaching I praised my students for their strengths, rather than criticise them for their weaknesses and it brought out the best in them.

      The truth is we all NEED praise, from the small child writing their first words, to Shakespeare when he went off on one.

      JB like myself, takes lots of knocks, and we are not made of stone. There are a lot of 'ouches'. Thinking of hurtful things to say is the full time job of some malcontents, and some arrows get through.

      Writing about this case is a thankless task, it has made both John and I the enemies of both the antis and the pros. As is usual with gang behaviour the 'hatred' is easily transferable.

      I know myself how much I appreciate praise and kind words, as a 'tortured artiste' it is always reassuring to hear that I am not actually crazy.

      I am effusive in my praise of JB to salve some of the knocks, just as he has done the same for me in the past. I have followed Blacksmith's blogs for years, his has always been the voice of sanity, especially when hysteria was it's peak and I am a great admirer of his work.

      But returning to the 'effusive praise', I make no apologies, I strive to be 'effusive in praise' whenever I see or read something I admire. If I can make someone feel a little better about themselves, what's wrong with that?

      It is sad that some find compliments disarming, as a society we are very stingy with them and those on the receiving end often don't know how to respond. Happily those who's faces light up make up for it.

      Delete
  19. Gordon Bennett29 July 2017 at 12:56

    A white wash for me, as if it was genuine, one of the first things done would have been to re-interview the Mccanns and the rest of the group. To rule them out at the start means it cannot be a serious enquiry. (Unless of course they mean to do it at some point but want to catch the group unawares...unlikely in my view)
    I do think they are in a quandary though on how to end it and will probably say abduction by person or persons unknown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think any of us can know for sure whether the McCanns and their friends have been re-interviewed by the police GB. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, the McCanns have been estranged from OG for a long time. Their modus operandi has always been to tell us how much support they have from the police, almost as if the police are acting on their behalf rather than independently. They did this firstly with the PJ telling us the police were assuring them they were looking for a live child.

      To a certain extent they have done this with SY, particularly in the early days, but in recent years, not so much. At this point, one would have expected a friendly, easy going relationship between the parents and the investigating officers - they are on the same side - but there are no signs of this. From the number of real crime documentaries I have seen, the loved ones of the missing pester the police relentlessly, begging them almost daily, not to give up.

      Once again, we are seeing from the parents, the same laissez faire attitude they had when the original Portuguese investigation was shelved. That is, they are not fighting to keep Operation Grange open.

      When the Portuguese investigation was shelved and the parents were relieved of their Arguido status, they were jubilant. Their 'Expresso' interview is one of their most revealing, they have had a weight lifted from their shoulders and have let their guard down. Their behaviour was of course wholly inappropriate - the police were no longer looking for their daughter!

      I feel if Gerry and Kate were officially ruled Gordon, and they would know about it long before we do, they would be far more confident in their TV appearances than they have been for the past 3 or so years Gordon. There is a marked difference between their confidence levels in the early days, and those confidence levels now, they look and act as though they are under considerable stress.

      Delete
  20. "I simply cannot believe that 30+ homicide officers from Scotland Yard would do anything to cover up the death of a child."

    Frankly, I "simply cannot believe" that anyone could be that naive, closed-minded, or thoroughly stupid.

    Goodbye, I shan't be checking in again.

    (I genuinely cannot understand why Ziggy wastes his time here - he's the only one speaking any sense).

    ReplyDelete
  21. I simply cannot believe that people online can get so worked up about my beliefs - or lack of, lol. What possible difference does it make to you?

    I still have a smidgeon of faith left in human nature 14:38, and I find it odd that some can make such harsh judgements about people they don't know. You are effectively accusing 30+ police officers of being corrupt, and indeed much, much worse, involving them in the crime of covering up the possible death of a child. Do you ever think of the gravity of charges you are laying at the door of these serving police officers? Do you ever think?

    I happen to think it is naïve, closed-minded and thoroughly stupid to make judgements about people I have never so much as spoken to. You might just as well hand out flyers as to who 'we' should all hate on a daily/weekly basis. Oh yes, that's right, you do with your 'villain (or is it victim?) of the day' spot, where you gather together to throw stones at a chosen target.

    Ah well, regardless. Au revoir 14:38, I hope you find a writer, or writers, more in tune with your own thought - I haver deliberately gone for singular there, I'm assuming you have just the one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Ros,
    I am currently reading about the big bang theory and there is a wonderful and compelling image written by the astronomer Arthur Eddington to illustrate the state of the big bang model in the early 1930`s, you may think it could have been written for operation grange, tell me what you think.

    How much of the story are we to believe? Science has its showrooms and its workshops. The publice to-day, I think rightly so , is not content to wander round the showrooms where the tested products are exhibited, they demand to see what is going on in the workshops.You are welcome to enter; but do not judge what you see by the standards of the showroom. We have been going round a workshop in the basement of the building of science. The light is dim, and we stumble sometimes. About us is confusion and mess which there has not been time to sweep away. The workers and their machines are enveloped in murkiness. But I think that something is being shaped here- perhaps something rather big. I do not know quite what it will be when it is completed and polished for the showroom.

    Thank you for your lovely reply up thread Ros, though I would like to say I am not the one who came up with the tag 6yearsinacoma man. )

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great analogy AFAN, and I see what you mean there, most of us are familiar only with the finished product, we don't know how many experiments and theories it took to create it.

      The Big Bang theory sounds very indepth to me AFAN, I've had the Hadron Collider explained to me several times, but I am not sure I am any the wiser!

      Many thanks for the above, certainly a point to ponder.

      Delete
  23. Ros you take some crap on your blog not least for your appreciation of JB work and that from people who gave us such honeyed words as JB is an establishment plant and so are you and make up your own sweet mind ( pathetic patronising ). I suspect your reason for appreciating JB work is that he is a wonderful writer, wise and humerous and that his theories resonate with you and make sense.

    My thought on OG I think that the McCann case had become a great embarrassment to the UK. The British press treatment of the PJ and the Portuguese people was disgusting. There were strong allegation whether true or not of political interference. Theresa May through the skill of Team McCann PR machine had managed to get herself into a couple of embarrassing photo shoots with Kate McCann. The files had been released everyone could see the blatant lies and inconsistencies and the release of Kate McCanns book had been a mitigated disaster. Something needed to be done and I think that is where the review came from. I believed Redwood when he said he was bringing it back to zero and when it became an investigation I believe the evidence led them to conclude that what the McCanns and their friends said was a load of crap. As for the couple and their friends never being interviewed as you said nobody knows whether they have or not however I suspect if they haven't it's because some of the friends were able to fill in the gaps for them. There were reports in 2007 that some wanted to change their statement then and as you state about 30+ policemen I can't believe all 7 of their friends will continue to prevert the course of justice.

    I don't agree that it's the least of TM problems she has been involved from the early stages and now she finds herself as PM it is going to have a massive impact on her when the conclusions of grange whatever they are are known. Off topic though there has been a lot of talk about TM taking herself of on a 3 week holiday in the middle of a cris. The longest holiday for a PM in like forever.......my guess it's a make your mind up break I wouldn't be shocked if she resigns after it.


    As for all the questionable statements made by OG don't forget they gave us she may not have left the apartment alive and they gave us the digging for evidence outside apartment 5A. For the 6yearsinacoma man and the rest of the crap AFan latest posts answers that better than I ever could

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir/Madam, you are to kind!
      AFAN

      Delete
    2. Great read 19:27. I suspect the case of missing Madeleine will become known in history as the Great British Embarrassment - and possibly the title of a book, lol. It is a great example of how one lie can spawn millions and become unstoppable and a great example of why governments shouldn't interfere with crimes abroad.

      I don't see the photos of TM with KM as embarrassing - it was obviously a meet and greet with many attendees. I don't think TM can be held accountable for the guest list.

      For me the nub of TM's involvement in the McCann case is her falling out with Jim Gamble of CEOP - I very much doubt the Review (that preceded the Investigation)was based on the recommendations given in the CEOP report. In fact, Kate was quite scathing of TM, 'all she gave us were fluffy words'.

      That, as you say, changed when Kate's book was released - best summed up by John Blacksmith as the longest suicide note in history. The narrative of Kate's book bears little comparison to reality. The perfect family, on a perfect holiday with perfect kids - who can relate to that?

      TM will be remembered as the Home Secretary who gave the go ahead to a Review, an Investigation and the seemingly limitless public funding. If the conclusions eventually given by Operation Grange are not believable, blame will lay at the foot of her door.

      I don't think she will allow that. Her public spat with JG and the Police Federation may still niggle.
      JG was a Blair/New Labour appointee, who she clearly thought had gotten much too big for his boots. She is now (albeit it may be temporary)PM and he works in the private sector. His dreams of a government funded army of internet vigilantes in tatters - it will never be supported by TM nor the next PM, Jeremy Corbyn.

      And talking of dreams fading and dying, Gerry and Clarence's dream of a giant (publically funded) missing children corporation and TV channel has also gone west. All those dire warnings of 'your child could be next' never really took. Stranger abduction of a child remains as rare as it ever was.

      I'm afraid I'm so captivated by the appalling Trumps at the moment that I am missing vital bits from our own politics. So thank you v.much for that catch up on TM. A 3 week holiday in the middle of a crisis is indeed bizarre!

      .....continues

      Delete
    3. Your final paragraph I think, puts to bed any notion of a cover up. How incompetent would they be to add more fuel (in this case several gallons) to the fire, by mentioning death in the apartment.

      And of course, no amount of spinning will convince anyone, let alone a Court, that a 'burglar' buried the child in the immediate vicinity of the parents' apartment whilst a search was underway.

      Delete
    4. Ros you are so right about JG and his involvement in the case, I was thinking about him as I wrote the comment but couldn't articulate his role as well as you. His removal by TM was a big blow to team McCann and his attempt to get the public on his side with his infamous " the C in CEOP always stood for children" was just another pathetic version of think of the children. As you say she is now PM and he is flogging security apps to security firms who buy them as gimmicks rather than serious child protection tools. His public appearances are limited to the occasional comment on radio phone ins or doggy panarama programs where he can't hide his dislike of TM and his anger at her humiliation of him. He always has to have a pot at her whereas I think TM at this stage will only think of him as an annoying fly she had to swat on the way

      Delete
    5. Ah yes 10:07, 'think of the children!' - as a care leaver, words that automatically send a shiver down my spine and I am sure down the spines of any other kid seized by those thinking of the children. It's an introduction to a whole new hell, far worse than the one you just stepped out of.

      But returning to Theresa May, as bad as she is, she is unlikely to authorise anything as authoritarian as New Labour planned. Blair was heading down the whole dictatorial route, ID cards, DNA database, phone hacking (big time), new 'terrorist' laws to prevent protests, and of course, policing of the internet.

      He gave the go ahead for Operation Ore, we saw hundreds of men dragged from their homes with hoods over their heads. Each accused of buying child pornography via the US. The majority of the men accused were innocent, their credit card details had been fraudulently obtained.

      Naturally, all their lives were wrecked. Their children seized and taken into care, their families and careers gone. Thirty nine of these men committed
      suicide.

      I don't know how many children CEOP ('C' for children) helped in those dawn raids as they broke down doors and dragged their fathers away for interrogation with hoods over their heads. At least 140 were taken into care. Their lives, I imagine, are wrecked beyond repair.

      Most of us don't known what child pornography is. 1)Because we don't want to know, and 2)and word combo with the words 'child' and 'porn' may result in a dawn raid on ourselves.

      For example, as a support worker, I once looked after an elderly gentleman who had a penchant for young girls and their short skirts and knickers. Something he often looked up on the internet. But he was much 'worse' than that, he openly leered at schoolgirls in the park Benny Hill style.

      Was he harmful, about as harmful as a wounded sheep. He wept profusely when 'told off' and swore he would never do it again, but his mental health problems, mean't he always forgot.

      Some might say he is just the type of pervert the angry mobs should lynch, except he wasn't. He was sweet and kind and always the first to help his housemates. At less than 5ft, he was physically as well as mentally disabled, he wouldn't and couldn't hurt a fly.

      I suspect he is representative of the majority of those who google 'underage' or whatever - that is a man of limited intelligence, with very few social skills who shies away from any personal contact with strangers, kids especially.

      Delete
  24. A question (3, actually) for John Blacksmith.

    I have read your 'Cracked Mirrot' article (revised version).

    In it, you say this:

    "To look at the case through the eyes of the investigators is not to impute guilt. The archiving summary ends, after all, with the unassailable statement that there is no evidence of the commission of any crime by the McCanns and, as we know, abductions do happen: when something with a very low probability does occur then suspicion can easily attach itself to innocent people".

    Based on that sentence, could you please answer - in plain words that we all understand (like 'Yes' or 'No') - these three questions:

    1. Do you agree with the archiving summary that there is "no evidence of the commission of any crime by the McCanns"?

    2. Do you agree that abduction by a stranger remains a possible reason for Madeleine's disappearance?

    3. You never once mention the alerts of the dogs. Is that because you think these are irrelevant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello.

      1)I am not impressed by your sense of entitlement or your manners.

      2) But that is unimportant compared with the fact that even in a simple forum post you are incapable of dealing with evidence or being straight with the facts.

      You wrote: Do you agree with the archiving summary that there is "no evidence of the commission of any crime by the McCanns"?

      "O arquivamento dos Autos quanto aos Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann e Kate Marie Healy, por nao existirem indicios de os mesmos terem praticado qualquer crime nos termos do disposto no artig 277 1 do CPP."

      Recognise those words? Get a translator and compare it with what your ignorant and dishonest sentence says.

      Stick to the Pit.



      Delete
  25. ( part 1 )

    Maybe the question should be 'part of' a cover up, rather than a cover up. Madeleine vanished into thin air May 07.UK politicians gatecrashed the event in 2007.Amaral was removed in 2007.Operation Grange began in 2011.They come on just before half time.The Met don't have the authority to get on a plane like navy seals, turn up in another country, and tell the presiding police force that they're not only joining in, but making changes, including removing their lead detectives.The protocol would be for our Home Secretary to contact their Portuguese counterpart and let it be known that the UK police are at their disposal if and when needed.The Met couldn't have shown up without it being rubber stamped beforehand.The 'political will', to coin an Amaral phrase, was that this would happen.Any 'cover up' would be above the heads of the police.The police force is a hierarchy and so is the Government.It isn't a case of 30 plus detectives being party to a cover up, it's a case of 30 plus detectives following orders.Maybe some know the game, maybe not.They have orders and that's it.It isn't a question of them being corrupt.It's analagous to calling British troops corrupt for slaughtering Iraqis as the war was illegal.They have orders.Blair, Bush, and Rumsfeld knew they broke international law under the banner of 'war of liberation'. David Kelly refelcted later and spotted it.When you have half an hour Google his last 48 hours.

    When approaching the area of cover ups in this case I find it best to stand back and try to understand what seems to colour the opinions of those with an opinion.I tend to bypass the chorus of 'conspiraloons' choirs as they usually offer little of worth to counter said conspiracy theories that doesn't sound stupid. It seems that the majority ( those who think the McCanns killed Cock Robin and Gandhi) have trouble reconciling certain points.

    The 'champion' of the antis is Amaral. He was and is adamant that the parents lied in their statements.Right away that's perverting the course of justice at least if it's proven.He contends that the forensic evidence is not only valid, but if allowed, would prove his assertions to be right ergo the parents guilty of at least something.He insists that these things were not allowed to happen once the UK Prime Minster and Chancellor-and MI5-hijacked the case and influenced his superiors to remove him.In brief, he's implying that he was wrongfully removed, as was the incriminating forensic evidence. The McCanns, innocent until proven guilty,tried to silence him as they viewed it as defamation as no evidence could support him. This was seen in simplistic terms as a sign of their fear and guilt, and Amaral being on the money.The ruling( Libel) that allowed his claims to be published as theory was grasped like a lifeline by all antis to use as 'proof'.And that's were we are.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ( part 2 )

    The antis are happy to quote Amaral ad nauseam. They seem reluctant to support him and his plight by making claims about a cover up by forensic teams or the people who who had him removed - and why.I don't see much about the UK takeover being responsible for his dismissal or discuss much in the way of it being a disgrace.Sure, they can repeat mantras about dogs not lying etc, but what about dogs being silenced ? To get some perspective, let's consider two things about Amaral. Number one : He is on record as calling the McCanns, without any apparent anger, liars. he says they know the fate of Madeleine and her whereabouts.Strong stuff.If he's right-why did the McCanns lie ? It's obvious really I know.Because they didn't want to go to jail.Their mythical 'high social status' has nothing to with it logically.It's prison.Anyone who's committed a crime denies it.It's expected unless they're mental patients.Number two : When asked, given the ongoing stalemate, if he thinks the case will be solved, he says-again, calmly- ''when the political will of two countries is there, yes''. That second assertion , stood next to the first, is a mountain next to a molehill.We know why the accused (or suspects) lie-it's a fear of prison.Nobody is shocked.In his second assertion, he's talking about Prime Ministers( two countries) and Military Intelligence being in full knowledge of the facts all along.Further, his assertion is implying that they could solve it today if they just had the will( or agreed).Think about that.

    In the meantime, what started in 2007/08 as the new game, continues.Ten years plus.How do you fill that kind of timespan ? You use media moguls first to create updates and leads via their various outlets and platforms.It never leads anywhere( which supports Amaral's hypothesis). You use high ranking officers to throw stories and theories around.You set up a 'crack task force'(OG?) to create that sense of urgency and determination( it doesn't matter that they're chasing steam).This justifies the cost and generates income for the media.The preferred impression is one of an ongoing investigation with the best men for th job on the case of 'a missing person'.

    I'd like to think that corruption is off the table in our corridors of power and within our police forces.But I don't. I live in the real world.It isn't nice but it's better than walking in my sleep.
    All talk of TM and how she'll be remembered is redundant in the context of this case.Since May 07 she's our fourth( yes 4th) PM.We had a Labour party in May 07 then a Tory one and then a new PM. Her last photo op with the McCanns looked staged and embarrassingly 'PR'. She was going through the motions.It was old news then, it's older now and she wasn't involved in any of it in 2007/8. I think little things like Brexit, the balls up election she called, and an up and coming struggle to keep hold of Scotland and not piss Ireland off is slightly more important.

    Final thoughts.The tenth anniversary went big on stating the McCanns are not, and never were, 'official' suspects. They were never charged. Still I see talk of them not being cleared. Cleared of what ? You can't be cleared of a bad reputation.And that's not official anyway.But, that aside, I'd be interested to know what the Amaral supporters consider constitutes 'no political cover up that involves the police' if they stand by him and against the McCanns.
    By the way... For those who haven't dipped into it, I recommend getting your Googles out and typing 'Dial M for Murdoch' and ' The Fall Of The House Of Murdoch'. You'll find a few excerpts from it on Amazon book pages.Interesting reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdus t29 July 2017 at 23:19

      Morning

      “The ruling( Libel) that allowed his claims to be published as theory…”

      What does “(Libel)” refer to, comrade?

      T

      Delete
    2. Yeh, I'm going to pick up on that one too T.

      ......allowed his claims to be published as theory?

      The Court didn't make any rulings as to how the content of 'The Truth of the Lie' should be read Ziggy, no provisos that it shouldn't be taken as fact, those little add ons are yours alone. They gave back the freedom of speech that the McCanns wanted taken away.

      Both you and the McCanns seem to forget that thousands took to social media following Madeleine's disappearance because they did not believe the parents. And this was long before the name of Goncalo Amaral was even known.

      For all those rushing to assist Gerry and Kate, there was an equal number saying wtf? The abduction story has never been believable Ziggy and as I have said many times before, we are genetically programmed to spot deceit, some of us better than others, it is all part of our survival instinct.

      In the summer of 2007, the internet was buzzing with McCann gossip - not really surprising as every newspaper and media outlet was doing exactly the same. Most were astonished at the parents' behaviour Ziggy, the opening of an online shop, the slick media campaign, the polished TV appearances, the lack of emotion, all of these were setting off alarm bells, all at a time when the name of Goncalo Amaral wasn't known by the public. It wasn't GA who started the suspicions Ziggy, it was the McCanns themselves.

      Delete
  27. Can we have a vote on how much a TWAT, Verdi is on CMOMM.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  28. (Brian Paddick : 2012 )

    ''He said the fact that "the police are investigating themselves" and are "relying" on News International's co-operation, "leaves open the possibility that, should evidence severely damaging to both the reputation of the Metropolitan Police and News International be discovered, such as the collusion of very senior police officers or those at the highest levels in News International, it could be covered-up to the benefit of both parties."

    This would seem to confirm what i said earlier ( media / police collaboration toward a mutually beneficial end). There seems little or no doubt about the collusion between the Murdoch Octopus and the powers that be. The only question unanswered seems only to be one of scale.We get to see and hear what's left after the damage limitation has been completed. We are left to only imagine or suspect what was there prior to it. I'd venture to say that the analogy posted up above this post would be more aptly applied to this situation.

    ''But I think that something is being shaped here- perhaps something rather big. I do not know quite what it will be when it is completed and polished for the showroom.'' (Anonymous29 July 2017 at 18:15)

    Yet all the most fierce arguments are based on what they leave in the window.No wonder so many have lost the plot.

    https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/police-tried-to-manage-reputations-leveson-inquiry/s2/a548065/

    ReplyDelete
  29. Would 'T' (and Blacksmith) please kindly refer to the question above at 09:19, 29.7.

    Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @12:33

    I will as soon as I'm able, tomorrow morning at the latest.

    Good day.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. T @12:33

      Hello. I really wanted to draw your attention (and Blacksmith's) to my comment which now follows your earlier post.

      What you may notice as a duplicated request to you is just the result of a technical hitch at my end. At least you've spotted it so all's well.

      Delete
  31. "I simply cannot believe that 30+ homicide officers from Scotland Yard would do anything to cover up the death of a child."

    Doesn't this have a somewhat familiar ring to it?...

    Wait, yes, I've got it: cue Clarence Mitchell:

    "To suggest that they somehow harmed Madeleine, accidentally or otherwise, is as ludicrous as it is nonsensical... indeed, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious."

    check for yourself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myv7P81h2Bs

    So, there we have it, Rosalinda.

    I think you and your fanclub have been well and truly found out, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crikey, didn't know Inspector Gadget was on the case ;) Game up, I'll come quietly, lol.

      I don't need to look IG, I remember that statement well. It is one of the worst mis-uses and strangulation of the beautiful English language I have ever seen. It is so crass and botched it offends me. If it were on an A-level exam paper, I would strike a line through it, and put a note in the margin telling the student to stop being such a pompous twat.

      My belief is in the men and women of Operation Grange 17:26, not a spin doctor.

      Anyway, you go celebrate whatever it is you have found out, and I hope your head gets better.

      Delete
    2. '' If it were on an A-level exam paper, I would strike a line through it, and put a note in the margin telling the student to stop being such a pompous twat. ''

      and

      ''When I was teaching I praised my students for their strengths, rather than criticise them for their weaknesses and it brought out the best in them.''

      See me after class, Ms Unbound .

      ( you would have been great in Anfield Comp when i was an occasional pupil)

      Delete
    3. LOL Ziggy, you got me there!

      I'm afraid abuse of the English language brings out my inner battleaxe, it makes me yearn for the days when abominations such as the above, could be stopped in their tracks with a sharp rap on the knuckles with a ruler. Words, skilfully strung together should be music to the ears, the above is the equivalent of a cat scratching a blackboard.

      Among my role models are Margaret Rutherford (yeh, I know) and the eternally delightful Professor 'enry 'iggins' created by George Bernard Shaw.

      I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Higgins, why can't the English teach their children how to speak? I did with my kids what my mother did for me, that is, I gave them a clout round the ear if they didn't speak properly, lol. Now they have turned the tables on me, figuratively speaking of course. Younger son called me a 'fishwife' the other day! The cheek of it! I couldn't be more Mrs 'Bouquet' if I tried!

      Delete
    4. all the more ironic that Rex Harrison was born and raised in one of the roughest parts of Liverpool( Huyton).Not many 'enery 'igginses round there these days ;-)

      Delete
  32. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 July 2017 at 09:08

    ''no provisos that it shouldn't be taken as fact, those little add ons are yours alone. They gave back the freedom of speech that the McCanns wanted taken away.''

    The ruling was explained. It was allowed to go to print as a 'literary work'. Not as fact.If it was the other way around there would be an appeal.The McCanns wanted to sue for defamation and libel once what they considered as slander went to print.How do you translate that as the McCanns wanting frees speech taken away ?

    ''Both you and the McCanns seem to forget that thousands took to social media following Madeleine's disappearance because they did not believe the parents. ''

    The great 'public domain'. Thousands think she's in a well.Thousands think she went in someones coffin.Thousands think she was taken by paedophiles. Thousands think the parents and friends are paedophiles. Thousands believe the parents.Thousands think someone high up is being protected by politicians.

    ''The abduction story has never been believable Ziggy and as I have said many times before, we are genetically programmed to spot deceit''

    And detectives are trained to sharpen those senses.It doesn't matter what outsiders suspect, or what publicity chasers online claim they can do with magic mime and speech reading.Two police forces had opportunities to act on it.

    'In the summer of 2007, the internet was buzzing with McCann gossip''

    I hadn't thought about that.Puts a whole new slant on things.Gossip.

    ''the polished TV appearances, the lack of emotion, all of these were setting off alarm bells''

    The photographs of KM in tears and distraught( seen as acting by the magic people, though the brave front and composure was pounced on as 'cold and evil').

    ''It wasn't GA who started the suspicions Ziggy, it was the McCanns themselves.''

    Suspicions that kept them from being official suspects according to the ten year anniversary.And we're talking about a book based on serious suspicions written by Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Ziggy, I did a long informative reply to you but it is lost in the sands of time because I accidentally pressed the flight button, doh!

      I'll give you the short version. Whoever advised Gerry and Kate to hide their emotions was wrong. So what if the 'abductor' got his jollies from it, the appeals were going out to millions who's empathy they needed! That's what started the suspicions Ziggy.

      At some point, I'm going to have a big old argument with you about body language being a science Ziggy, but not tonight, lol, I haven't got the energy.

      And the McCanns' fixation on Goncalo Amaral has also aroused many suspicions Ziggy. Many people just cannot understand why grieving parents would spend 7/8 years on suing the detective who searched for their daughter. And using the search fund to do it.

      The parents are their own worst enemies, not so much 'How to win friends and influence people' as 'How to lose friends and alienate people' (latter, a book title by the ghastly Toby Young). They were already on dodgy ground before they started their attack on Freedom of Speech.

      Delete
    2. I did the same earlier.That recaptcha gizmo is a pain in the arse.I gave up in the end.

      ''Whoever advised Gerry and Kate to hide their emotions was wrong. So what if the 'abductor' got his jollies from it, the appeals were going out to millions who's empathy they needed! That's what started the suspicions Ziggy.''

      Who said they were told to ? If I'm not mistaken, it's been pointed out one or two(thousand) times that the parents are so coldly robotic they wouldn't need this instruction.If anything, if sleuths are to be believed, they'd need instructions to turn them on. I think in cases like this appeals are for help-not empathy.

      ''At some point, I'm going to have a big old argument with you about body language being a science Ziggy, but not tonight, lol, I haven't got the energy.''

      That's a relief :-) Let me clarify what i think of this area. I accept that body language and non-verbal leakage etc can be read and that certain universal markers exist. I've studied it and I've studied NLP ( to a point) and conversational hypnosis. I didn't do this for anything other than 'reading' the finished 'cocktail' that we get to see from podiums all over the planet from professional psychopaths we call PMs and Presidents.They're coached, ergo, it's artificial;an act with an aim. That said, i think the element of the abstract and the relaince of one single 'reading' being the right one when too much of it is subjective by nature fails to convince that this is a discipline, or science. It certainly wouldn't be relied on in a court.Imagine an 'expert' saying under cross examination 'yes I accept how suspicious they look but their body language, facial gestures and certain speech patterns tell me they're innocent and hiding nothing' and then getting a not guilty verdict.How would that be accepted by the masses who were sure they were guilty of cattle rustling all along.

      What those who have the parents already in the electric chair do is sit and watch with that bias.They have their verdict and then set about looking for something to confirm or support it.A no-no in any school of real psychology, let alone police or legal fields. Amaral's had criticism for soing similar in his pursuit of the McCanns. Let me put another slant on it.If you wanted to learn the nature of a lion you could watch it in a jungle from a safe distance or a zoo from behind bars.Which would yield reliable results ? Natural or artificial ? All the experts online have observed the McCanns in a media zoo. Lights cameras and journalists and one subject up for discussion.You'd probably learn more about their 'character' from a CCTV on a Saturday afternoon as they went about a normal day.I don't accept that observing somebody in an artificial setting that has a fixed protocol can give a reliable reading of real character.

      The 'fixation' as you call it was on what Amaral said and claimed about their charaacter by accusing them of lying and concealing the body of their child.It wasn't on him, it was on those allegations.If he couldn't support them or prove them and they aren't being held, what else could they do? What would you have done ? Why is reacting against being accused of concealing your childs body seen as 'suspicious' ? If they're innocent they won't stop trying to clear what they consider a slur.

      I'm all for freedom of speech and freedom to think.We were born with brains and voices.Unfortunately a lot of people who use their voice too much seem incapable of using their brains.The result is a world being taken over by loud shouty lunatics and a one where common sense is viewed as a superpower of the gifted.

      Delete
    3. LOL Zig, my fear was that I would have to explain body language to you as if you were a 4 year old, lol, but I see you are familiar with NLP, so you are spared!

      What you and the parents just don't seem to get Ziggy, is that anything thrown at the parents shouldn't matter - they have lost their daughter! And, I'm sorry to say, but also the reputations they had prior to Madeleine disappearing. A victory in a Lisbon civil court was never going to get that back.

      And their reputations are so much bigger than the words of one Portuguese detective. They are judged more on their own behaviour than on a book most of the public haven't read. 'Madeleine' sold millions, 'The Truth of the Lie' was removed from bookshelves and has never been published in English. So which of the two books were more influential? (hmm, maybe the subject for a blog)- Kate had the same opportunity as Goncalo to 'set the record straight', more so in fact, her book wasn't banned. If the pair were in front of Judge Rinder, Kate didn't prove her case.

      Delete
    4. ''What you and the parents just don't seem to get Ziggy, is that anything thrown at the parents shouldn't matter - they have lost their daughter!''

      You mention empathy a lot, Roz. Put yourself in their place. You've lost your daughter abroad and there seems no chance of her coming back, which leaves all the usual fears and nightmares to the front of your mind and makes the suffering even worse.Then you discover the detective who was removed has publicly accused you and your husband of lying because you hid her body.That shouldn't matter ? I've put myself in their position and suing the detective was my third choice.

      ''And their reputations are so much bigger than the words of one Portuguese detective.''

      And the safety and well being of your toddler is far more important than your own life, career or reputation.

      ''They are judged more on their own behaviour ''

      By who ? And why ? Who has the right ? The public do, as long as they've been charged, stood trial, and been found guilty.Whether they both write books are open a supermarket has nothing to do with what happened to Madeleine and nothing to do with the complete failure to close this case.

      ''If the pair were in front of Judge Rinder, Kate didn't prove her case.''

      TV Celebrity judge.He'd make some camp innuendo to the gallery obviously.Now you mention him, I think he'd be the perfect judge for the huge online kangaroo court ;-)

      footnote :

      The NLP /Body Language thing. If we agree that at least some 'tells' are universal i can ask if you've studied a few of the main players of this circus( as I have), or just the McCanns and the online youtube ones who only study the McCanns.If the case is a so-called 'mystery' full of misinfo /disinfo and red herrings and half blind eye witnesses, why not use this to look at a few of them.I found it quite revealing.

      Delete
  33. So when is bennett going to publish details of the warnings he has received?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not the Queen of Sheba30 July 2017 at 18:46

      Is this relevant to the topic, Unknown at 17.51?

      I have to ask what warnings though.

      Delete
  34. What warnings are they, Unknown?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Classic delusion:

    " by BlueBag Today at 19:16
    Friends and family of David Payne will read this thread.
    If they do, they need to ask him what it's all about."
    ------------------------

    ROFLMAO

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm a bit late but I've voted for no cover up. My thinking is that if OG is a cover up, it's a really, really bad one! For a start they had the perfect patsy and although he was a prime suspect for a while it came to nothing. If it's a cover up they need a patsy because if OG ends without finding any evidence of an abduction or an abductor, then surely that only reinforces the most statistically likely scenario that there wasn't an abduction and Madeleine came to harm and someone close to her knows what happened. Perfect patsy Euclides Monteiro was an ex-junkie and and a disgruntled ex-employee of the Ocean Club. He died in a tractor accident and he was an absolute gift to OG if they wanted to wrap things up - but they didn't . Instead it looks like they will not find any evidence of an abduction and that is very damning for the McCanns - it means they can't say it's all the fault of Johnny Foreigner anymore and if only... So I think things are moving in the right direction, slowly and methodically. Tick tock...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've voted 'don't know' as I don't know.I have an opinion and a suspicion.But i don't think they can be called knowledge.But I think it's a bit stupid to wait 4 years to cover something up that had already been cold since day one.No point. But OG plays an important role in terms of announcing 'fresh leads' and making it look like it's still an investigation.Without it, careless journalists and members of the public would have been demanding explanations. That has the potential to tarnish the image of the trustworthy Met and their bosses who decided the public were to become unwitting executive producers of this open ended horror film with their tax pennies.As for Patsies-they're all over the stage.I think choosing a patsy is too high risk.It would open up even more tedious 'sleuthing' further down the line and it's a certainty some idiot would drop the ball.Once that happens it would be a given that a cover up had taken place.You don't need a patsy unless you're covering up. As long as the perpetrator is 'invisible' the job's been done.No Patsy needed.The real and most important question is that of whose liberty and reputation was so important that it was decided that no expense was too great and no time limit would exist and who had the kind of influence that caused the leaders of two countries to share the 'will' to leave the case unsolved.Beginning by removing the detectives who were chasing leads and questioning the official results of the forensics team.

      Delete
    2. I think that is one of the best and most concise arguments I have seen on this subject Jane, thank you.

      If a cover up were their objective, why drag it on for so many years, and as you rightfully say, they have had opportunities to blame a 'Patsy' in the past, especially with the disgruntled ex employee who died in a tractor accident.

      And I don't think Operation Grange have done much, if anything, to steer suspicion away from the parents and the Tapas group. The suggestion that Madeleine might have died in the apartment for example, puts them firmly in the frame. If their objective is to cover up the fact that there was no abductor, they are not doing very well.

      Delete
    3. And you think that Portuguese authorities would ever allow Euclides Monteiro to be framed or named as a patsy by OG? Never. Not Euclides Monteiro not any other patsy.

      In saying this, OG is a face saving exercise, not so much a cover up. It will close in a vague way abducted by person unknown , killed in a burglary gone wrong by unknown.

      As for 30 police officers, I am afraid that is not accurate. In 5 years OG used up to 80 G4S staff in their investigations. It would be interesting to have the actual number of real Met officers used.

      Ros I admire your optimism, but I am afraid that if you think of Hillsborough or even this latest case with Ben Needham you will see that saving face is not that uncommon.

      Also, as per OG own words

      The McCanns are not suspects, they are satisfied with that, their own words on TV so no media manipulation.

      The McCanns were never interviewed under caution, OG's own words direct on TV, no room for manipulation by media

      Their job was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK, their own written words

      I think all this is a clear indication of a vague closing by unknown. SImply because Portuguese authorities will never allow a patsy to take the blame. Dead or alive. Frankly, I believe that even SY police will have a very bad suprise from Greek authorities soon regarding the attempt to frame Dino Barkas in what is clearly a PR exercise by the police .

      Because a patsy will not be possibe and only a vague conclusion reached I believe this will put the McCanns in a very fragile position, but accidentally so , that was not the original intention.

      Delete
    4. You make a good case 13:25, but the officers of Operation Grange are murder detectives, not boy scouts. It is ingrained within them not to give the game away.

      The remit is too simplistic 13:25, written it would seem to curb the gossip on social media and more interference from the armchair sleuths. Who ever heard of a police investigation announcing their exact remit to the public? Ask yourself 13:25, does it make sense?

      As for how it will end, I look at the wider picture 13:25 - that is, other missing child cases worldwide. There are several where the parents remain suspects and the cases remain shelved. That is, there are no active police forces looking for those children. No-one suspects conspiracy, they accept the situation is as it is - the police do not have enough evidence to bring charges.

      The same could easily have applied to Madeleine's case, it could have been left as an unsolved mystery and in time it would have been largely forgotten.

      In Madeleine's case there are two live police investigations the police both here in the UK and Portugal are still looking for a result. That is, they are not prepared to shelve it and move on.

      This has never happened before in a missing child case. We like to think that crimes are solved and villains nailed within the hour it takes the slick investigators of CSI, but that's not reality. Reality is, there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases, where police can't prosecute because they don't have enough evidence. Many seemingly get away with their crimes, they go on to live normal lives, but they are in permanent fear of that knock on the door.

      I don't think a vague conclusion will be an option 13:25 - if it were, they would have used it long before now, and the Home Office wouldn't have continued ploughing money into it. But, as always, we shall see, perhaps even as early as September.

      Delete
    5. As you say, we shall see, yes. I was in no way criticising you, it really is just what I believe will be the outcome.

      The remit does not so much bother me as much as their words on TV on the occasion of the annivesary. I am afraid what they said is really what they mean.

      What kind of force would let innocent men like Euclides Monteiro and several others be splashed as suspects in the media if this was some kind of an elimination process (4.5 years now) ?

      I believe we do not have long to wait now. More funding after September will not be possible, is my belief. I suppose we will know by then.

      The Portuguese investigation, well things being as they are, there is no evidence that will stand in a court of law. There is intelligence, but no charges can be brought on it . Unless new evidence or a confession happens, I see an archival there as well.

      As I said, I do hope I am wrong.

      Delete
  37. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 July 2017 at 16:56


    ''I believe there WAS a cover up 22:43, the largest part of it taking place in the summer of 2007, where I do actually suspect MI5 were involved''

    If you visit MI 5's website it has their motto atop : ''Keeping Our Country Safe.''

    In your opinion, why would our Government deem it important to send them to Portugal because one of our children had been abducted or worse ? How would this police matter pose a risk to our country ? Bearing in mind the historical context, 2007 was all about Global terror and Al-Qaeda having lunatics on every corner of the UK and US and the so called 'cyberterror attacks'. I can't see how a couple losing their child abroad constitutes anything like a threat to the UK, especially as the investigation by the PJ was barely underway ? Somebody here has to alert Military Intelligence to act and act fast. Why the red alert over this ? And why would MI5 collude to 'protect the parents from blame' along with the Met ( as Amaral asserts) ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Methinks you may have been dabbling in the potcheen when you penned the above Ziggy. You are using 'Keeping our Country Safe' in a similar way to the Donald.

      The Prime Minister, Blair at the time, responded to the heart wrenching pleas of two distraught British doctors abroad. He (recklessly) offered them the full resources of our government, including top notch spies who could quickly find and retrieve the missing child. He was riding the same tidal wave of popularity as the McCanns, a missing child unites a nation.

      I suspect the massive 'Oops' came later, perhaps when the top notch spies reported back that everything was not quite as it seemed. WikiLeaks btw, is quite informative on this.

      The British troops of course, went charging in all gung ho on the orders of the Prime Minister. Representatives of specialised police agencies and task forces - all competing to rescue the stolen blonde child for Queen and country. With a few minor tweaks, it's the plot to D.W. Griffith's, Birth of Nation.

      In a nutshell, I think the reason the case drags on, lies in that 'reckless' decision of Tony Blair. Having committed the incumbent government to supporting the parents in every way, they set in motion an unstoppable train. One lie begat many, it was preferable to accuse the Portuguese police and judiciary of incompetence, rather than admit the British shouldn't have interfered. It is clear from a statement given by Jim Gamble (on the release of the Summers and Swan book iirc) that the British police agencies who flew out to PDL, were at odds with each other. JG and CEOP for example have always firmly believed the parents were not involved. Mike Harrison of NPIA advised the PJ to investigate the parents.

      I suspect, that is only a fraction of what the Portuguese police had to put with. Along with the patronising assumption of the British that they could do the job better. You can kind of see why we are still here 10 years later.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton31 July 2017 at 13:47

      ''Methinks you may have been dabbling in the potcheen when you penned the above Ziggy. You are using 'Keeping our Country Safe' in a similar way to the Donald. ''

      https://www.mi5.gov.uk/


      As you can see if you Google MI5- it's their motto and it's on their website.I'm merely the (sober) messenger. Yes, it's very 'Donald' ( or, in common parlance, untrustworthy bullshit ), but it's very ( insert the name of any PM or President post 1964 ).They sing from the same hymn sheet and share a common interest in conning their sheep.

      ''The Prime Minister, Blair at the time, responded to the heart wrenching pleas of two distraught British doctors abroad.''

      Yes, I can understand how a superficial reading of his own personal PR campaign would fool the majority into seeing that.Those who question rather than accept like a good boy or girl are less easily duped.

      in 2002 in Soham (England) Holly and Jessica were snatched from their own village square ( not by a family member despite the 99% stats the antis like). Blair had ample opportunity to imitate suffering and anxiety then. There were heart wrenching pleas from tens of millions of people here.There were two sets of parents doing the same. Once the Military Base was cleared of any suspects or involvement( where the girls were finally officially found) he left it to the police.All the claims of an agenda to microchip and set up DNA databases had been stirring for years prior to it and that presented a perfect opportunity; two of our own, abducted and killed in a peaceful village.But-nothing.All those theories came to life after Madeleine .Why ? because it's difficult to focus all accusations on the parents at the same time as acknowledging a political interest that borders on panic. Political self preservation shifts the focus away from the parents( and we can't have that now can we) so we can reconcile the two by saying the parents did it and the politicians were all over it to serve the own interest in micro-chipping and DNA banking. Blair's responding to Madeleine was 5 years after Soham. In that 5 years he'd been accused of instigating an illegal war which cost the lives of thousands . And all fingers pointed his way after the mysterious murder-sorry, suicide- of David Kelly for questioning him and letting it go public. To this day Blair is still manufacturing himself as a fking saint.

      It's a shame David Shayler went a bit mental.He is ex MI5 and Labour party. He did some time for 'breaking the official secrets act'. He coincidentally went public telling us Blair was ex MI5 too. But then he lost a lot of weight, changed his lank greasy hair for a blonde wig , started wearing mini skirts and changed his name to Dolores.I don't think he'll be taken seriously now.

      When police know that their bosses are 'pulling one' it's inevitable that some will stoically go along with it as they didn't make the decision.The minority will be pissed off as they still have a conscience but that doesn't pay the mortgage.I don't believe every copper at Hillsborough was bent - just enough.Same goes for the McCann case. And all coppers know that most if not all high ranking officers swear a separate oath at their lodge.They take that one far more seriously.At least the one they swear to Frau Windsor isn't one of blood.

      The PJ are rightfully annoyed. They should never have been replaced early doors.They hadn't requested assistance before the politicians involved themselves.They should have been given longer.They could always have requested help later.


      Delete
  38. Let's make this simple. Andy Redwood, after immediately ruling out MBM's parents, presented us with SixYearsInaComaMan on the McCrimewatch prog. This was a total invention to get Tanner off the hook for lying her arse off.
    So who was he? No name? Just so happened to have the same holiday kit. As you do.
    And you think Op Grange is real? Seriously?
    Tanner saw nobody. She invented Bundleman because the Smiths saw Crecheman. And lo. 6 years later Redwood "found" him. Fleshed him out. Colluded with the McMyth of Tannerman "Ah! Here he is! The actual Crecheman - with no name. Hey, what's six years, eh? Nobody will think that's ridiculous, surely?
    Honestly. What more do you need to know?

    ReplyDelete
  39. 30.7, 23:51

    "why would MI5 collude to 'protect the parents from blame' along with the Met (as Amaral asserts)?"

    If we knew the genuine answer to that one we'd be 'home and hosed'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. And Operation Grange will keep all eyes looking in different directions but not the right one.And there's the role within the cover up; a supporting one.

      Delete
  40. @ Ziggy 23:51, 30 Jul

    Another great post.

    Do you remember this?

    On 31 January 2008, the Daily Mail reported: "British police and child protection officers do not suspect Madeleine McCann's parents of involvement in her disappearance, the couple's spokesman said. Clarence Mitchell said officials had assured him in private briefings that they were treating the case as one of ‘rare stranger abduction’. He was speaking last night as he launched an outspoken attack on the 'appalling' standards of some media coverage of the disappearance of Kate and Gerry McCann's daughter in Portugal in May”.

    Who briefed Clarence Mitchell?

    It says 'private briefings' (plural). How many of these were there? Two ? Three? Ten?

    Did Clarence Mitchell demand evidence that it was a stranger abduction?

    @ Ros

    I see that so far the numbers in your poll who doubt that Operation Grange is a genuine search for the truth (those who voted 'Yes' or 'Unsure') are more than double the number who agree with you that it is.

    Any chance that you might at least spend time reconsidering your stance, in view of the evidence presented on this thread?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have spent my entire life being in the minority view 10:30 - I see not being with the majority as a challenge, lol. In any case, I'm not sure why my stance matters, stances are not really my thing 10:30, a stance I think, implies your opinion is carved in stone. I like to keep an open mind.

      I agree a lot of people have put forward a lot of good arguments, the Lord, or in this case, Operation Grange, does indeed work in mysterious ways. That's not to imply I have blind faith, I don't have blind faith in anything.

      The sheer scale of the UK's meddling in the original Portuguese investigation, if and when it is revealed, will cause enormous embarrassment to the British establishment. Ten years on that 'embarrassment' has been contained to a certain extent by most of the decision makers no longer being in public office, but a huge scandal simmers beneath the surface nonetheless. And I am sure it is that simmering, yet to be seen scandal, that keeps the OG details of this case under wraps.

      That doesn't mean Operation Grange is a cover up. It means they have very good reason to keep the details of their methods and their findings out of the public arena.

      Just how much detail do those who believe there is a cover up want? Do they not consider it a tad ludicrous (and I hate that word) to expect SY to keep them fully informed of a live police investigation?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous31 July 2017 at 10:30 says:
      "I see that so far the numbers in your poll who doubt that Operation Grange is a genuine search for the truth (those who voted 'Yes' or 'Unsure') are more than double the number who agree with you that it is."
      ------------------------------

      Conversely I see that those who think OG is genuine combined with the don't knows - is more than those who think it is a cover up.

      (current figures 25, 17 and 11)

      Delete
    3. ''I have spent my entire life being in the minority view 10:30 - I see not being with the majority as a challenge,''

      It's usually the best way. The 'majority' is what makes up the public domain and agree upon false consensus.Their safety in numbers mentality seems to place their collective wisdom(cough) beyond reproach( ask them, they'll tell you).I like to weigh up as much as possible and use the brain i was born with-not theirs. But, in relation to this case, a pie chart would probably indicate (in my opinion) a huge slice ( 90%) would show the 'get the parents' are by far and away the majority. The other 10% would be split between those who can't or won't commit, suspect a cover up to protects politicians, an abductor or the rest.That's quite a sizeable majority to challenge. How you doing with that one Roz ;-)

      ''''And I am sure it is that simmering, yet to be seen scandal, that keeps the OG details of this case under wraps. ''

      I agree. It's certainly a lot bigger than the protection of a pair of doctors.

      ''''That doesn't mean Operation Grange is a cover up. It means they have very good reason to keep the details of their methods and their findings out of the public arena.''

      That good reason being simple - it's a secret.And they've been brought in to control the alternatives to it . If we're going for the 'they don't release all information to the public because the real suspects read papers and watch TV' argument, then I think that strategy would have brought a result somewhere in the ten years worth of mist.They can't hide behind that forever.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous31 July 2017 at 10:30

      ''Another great post.''

      I thank you.And yes, i remember what you're referring to.I think the fact that Mitchell was scrambled in from a Government position says a lot. Max Clifford would have got the gig under normal circumstances as he's the Jesus of damage limitation and protection.Maybe he was being investigated for sex crimes against minors or something ;-0

      One of the popular misconceptions is that Mitchell's roles were separate ( politics /pr).Who bought that-seriously ? Once a Government man etc...

      I think a telling sentence-as posted above in a youtube short- was :

      '' i am prepared to forego my political career to assist them''

      Only a nutcase would forego easy money for this.logic and common sense suggests he was dragged in with no say.

      Here's some other little gems :

      ''Mr Mitchell is not being paid by the McCanns – his salary is being met by an anonymous benefactor who he will join once the Madeleine case is resolved.''

      ''''“Clearly, however, given the inter-Governmental sensitivities surrounding Kate and Gerry’s case, my position as an impartial civil servant working for the British Government became untenable from the moment I accepted the role''

      Yes, Clarence, of course.We get the message, you're no longer in politics now, you're a PR controller( on their behalf). 18 Sep 2007

      http://portugalresident.com/former-bbc-man-is-mccanns-new-spokesman

      ''‘I have to be careful what I say, but somebody who has good connections with the police decided early on, it appears, that they were somehow involved, and decided to plant stories.’'

      Who? What 'connections' ? Plant what stories ? Anyone would think you're telling us there's disinformation already in motion.Cover up? What cover up ;-)

      ''''‘But I couldn’t help them beyond the odd phone call, bec­ause officially the Government couldn’t be seen to be involved.’'

      28/nov/2007

      Why couldn't they ? They were seen to be 'getting involved' pretty damn quick with the passing of phone numbers to the victims and meetings with Portugal's finest.You say 'couldn't 'officially' be seen'. So they can only be involved secretly then. A covert operation sort of thing. I getcha..

      remind me..did someone mention a cover up being on the table..

      http://www.prweek.com/article/769746/profile-clarence-mitchell-spokesman-mccann-family


      Delete
  41. Anon 30.08 @17:29

    A friend from abroad is asleep in the room where my comp is. When he gets up, breakfast and perhaps lunch will follow.

    I've seen your comment and I'm very interested.

    I'll post as soon as I'm free.

    Many thanks and kind regards.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I've seen your comment and I'm very interested."

      So has Blacksmith, and he's rudely uninterested.

      Delete
  42. O.G. is not an investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    It is an "investigative review" of the various investigations that have been conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance.

    That is basically to collate, record, and analyse the previous investigations undertaken by:

    The PJ
    UK Law Enforcement agencies
    Private Detectives/other organisations

    and gather this data together in one place.

    Any new leads emanating from these enquiries would be passed onto the PJ for an evaluation and to obtain their permission to continue if deemed necessary.

    The British Police have no jurisdiction whatsoever to investigate a crime in a foreign land.

    There is no need for OG Officers to be corrupt, or to cover anything up.
    Their function was/is as glorified filing clerks,and to keep passing the parcel to hide the politicians stupidity for however long it needs.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jane Cook30 July 2017 at 19:55

    '' My thinking is that if OG is a cover up, it's a really, really bad one! For a start they had the perfect patsy and although he was a prime suspect for a while it came to nothing''

    '' Instead it looks like they will not find any evidence of an abduction and that is very damning for the McCanns''

    ''So I think things are moving in the right direction''

    Very damning for the McCanns equals moving in the right direction then basically.No bias there then.

    Why does a cover up - or lie- require a Patsy ? A cover up requires the removal of evidence and witnesses ( or their testimony) that could incriminate somebody -or some people- and a narrative put in it's place that will become the 'official' line authored by those behind the cover up.It's that simple. If somebody important is assassinated to order, that's when a Patsy is required ( Oswald,Sirhan Sirhan etc).All this mystery required was the new narrative agreed upon in the wings and some red herrings to feed the public via the media.In this case the nearest thing to a Patsy is either of the McCanns, because it's the major draw that keeps it in the news via the millions of pretendy detectives and CSI addicts. OG and their cliff hanger updates is their opium.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton31 July 2017 at 12:55

    ''I think that is one of the best and most concise arguments I have seen on this subject Jane, thank you. ''

    ( shakes head-again)

    ''If a cover up were their objective, why drag it on for so many years, and as you rightfully say, they have had opportunities to blame a 'Patsy'''

    The object of a cover up is to make the truth disappear.It isn't to make it disappear and then reappear later.That would defeat the object. I think that's one of the reasons we still don't know the real truth about JFK 50 years later.That's why this media -led circus has been 'dragging on for so many years' to answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hey Ziggy, I am biased insofar as I think the parents should be investigated, particularly if after eleven million pounds there is absolutely no evidence of an abduction uncovered by OG. This is the way investigations usually develop, you start by looking at the people closest to the victim or in this case the person who has disappeared. This is because statistically, most perpetrators are known to the victim. I do think there was political interference but I think that was misguided political interfering rather than a full-blown cover up. There was a middle class mindset at play which seemed to think it was inconceivable that doctors could be capable of staging an abduction. That stinks.

    Rosalinda I agree with you, if there was a cover up it would make sense to wrap things up quickly. Allowing it to drag on all this time does not help the McCanns and public support has all but disappeared over the years. So I might be being naive but I think it's too clunky for a cover up.

    I follow the Steven Avery 'Making a Murderer'. SA was convicted of the murder of Theresa Halbach, a young photographer who had visited Avery to photograph a truck for Auto Trader magazine. Anyway Avery's attorney has just filed his post conviction motion and she has named her prime suspect and guess what, it's the jealous ex boyfriend with a history of stalking! The point is, he was never investigated - he wasn't even asked to provide an alibi and he was given many privileges by the police, who had fixated on Avery.That's all I want, a full investigation that isn't based on an abduction hypothesis.

    Jane


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane says: "That's all I want, a full investigation that isn't based on an abduction hypothesis."

      Yes - you believe the Mccanns "did it" and you want them investigated without interference.

      Delete
  45. Anonymous31 July 2017 at 21:13

    Hi Jane

    ''Hey Ziggy, I am biased insofar as I think the parents should be investigated''

    ''particularly if after eleven million pounds there is absolutely no evidence of an abduction uncovered by OG.''

    Is there any evidence that there wasn't an abduction according to an official 'file' anywhere ? Officially the 11 million pound investigation has said no. In defence of OG, they're not there for that. They weren't dreamed up until 2011. The abduction evidence / no evidence and dogs(etc) were old by then. The way the tax payers money is spent is down to whichever Government is in power at the time, not the police ( or the Mccanns).

    ''statistically, most perpetrators are known to the victim.''

    What is the average age of victims who are abducted in this survey ? The abductor / killer of Holly and Jessica wasn't. What are the statistics regarding children that get abducted abroad ? If we're going to use statistics, we may as well use ones relevant to the case. Whatever the percentage is, let me know. My bet is it isn't most.I'd guess least is a better bet.

    ''There was a middle class mindset at play which seemed to think it was inconceivable that doctors could be capable of staging an abduction. That stinks. ''

    And you think that explains the political interest? If you believe a detective with 25 years under his belt being removed and another police force hijacking the case, a handful of Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries and a Chancellor Of The Exchequer, 11 million pounds and ten years is all about protecting two middle class doctors, that smells worse.

    History is littered with poor investigations, wrongful convictions and shoddy trials. We don't need US documentaries( even though they have hundreds), the UK has an impressive record of cock uppery.

    ''That's all I want, a full investigation that isn't based on an abduction hypothesis.''


    Basically an investigation that doesn't consider what the parents claim and what has been an abduction case for ten years. That's a strange interpretation of bias.


    ReplyDelete
  46. JJ You are wrong. OG began as an 'investigative review' It later morphed into a formal investigation.

    I also observe that you and blacksmith both go to great lengths to try to convince is that OG is genuine.

    Most of us smelt the coffee the moment OG was set up - with Hamish Campbell in charhe, the man who (probably) helped to frame Barry George for Jill Dando's murder

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can assure you I have no wish to convince you, or anyone who thinks like you, of anything at all.

      Delete
    2. @ 23.51

      On what date did it become a formal investigation?

      Are you stating Hamish Campbell headed the Gold Command group?

      To become a formal legal investigation into the disappearance of MM in Portugal would require at least one Act of Parliament to be enabled,on what day did T.May as Home Secretary bring forward this legislation?

      Your answers will be of great interest,thanks.

      Delete
    3. Oct 28, 2015

      Update on the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

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

      "Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007 have been working through material and following investigative inquiries since the Home Office requested a review of the case in May 2011.

      Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues.

      While there remain lines of inquiry to follow, the vast majority of the work by Operation Grange has been completed.

      This work included reviewing all the material relating to the case which were brought together for the first time and amounted to collating over 40,000 documents from United Kingdom and foreign law enforcement agencies, as well as various private investigation companies.

      Officers worked meticulously through the information. Some of the material had to be translated into English, facts had to be cross-referred and diligently analysed to ensure an oversight of what the MPS was examining and to search for new lines of inquiry.

      Once this work had been completed the review became a full investigation in July 2012."

      Delete
    4. @08.32

      On Dec 21 2015
      in response to FOI request 2015120000612
      the Met Police wrote
      "Operation Grange is an ongoing "investigative review"
      of the investigations that have been conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine Mccanns disappearance"

      Please note in Dec 2015 an ongoing "investigative review"
      When were the Met given the authority to investigate crimes outside the UK.
      They have no jurisdiction or authority to do so and it is why the brief is deal with the abduction as if it happened in the UK.
      The Met are only obeying the orders the politicians dealt them.

      Delete
  47. Anonymous31 July 2017 at 16:02

    ''You can't ignore the Gaspar statements, they've been made and are in the public domain. So what is your thinking on those?''

    Only just spotted this.

    Why can't we ( like both police forces) ignore the Gaspar statements ? I ignore them. I was drawn to them, like you and a million others online, by the dramatic headline and what it was trying to imply.So I read it.

    Can you quote anything from the Gaspar statement that states David P referred to Madeleine by name ? Or anyone at all by name that David P was referring to when the infamous 'lewd gesture' was made ? Could he have been talking about a woman both he and GM knew or had known ? He could have been but he doesn't state it.Like he doesn't mention Madeleine.And the alleged 'conversation' doesn't contain GM's contribution to it or his reaction.These are questions Gaspar would have to face in a trial.

    ''Why were the children being bathed by other people''

    Trust. The parents of those children all knew each other well enough to drink and eat together and holiday together.The few million 'antis' know none of them.But they've filled in empty spaces of a statement with a scenario that frames Payne as a creepy paedophile and GM as being ok with it due to the 'conversation' at dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi Ros,

    I agree, I don't believe Op Grange is a cover up. Too many people involved as someone would have blown the whistle by now. I have a theory about Crecheman coming forward after 6 years. What if this was SY's invention to judge the reaction of the tapas 7, particularly JT's statement. As mentioned previously SY could be investigating everybody involved, as I believe they know Madeleine never left the resort hence why they carried out forensics around the apartment. Which brings me to the previous blog, I believe The Smith Family sighting was of Gerry and because of this Crecheman was born, hence the similar description, but with different times to provide Gerry with an alibi. Also the reason why the dogs didn't pick up the cadaver scent on Gerry's clothe could be down to how long he was in contact with the cadaver.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "john blacksmith1 August 2017 at 00:54
    I can assure you I have no wish to convince you, or anyone who thinks like you, of anything at all."
    --
    Luckily, most people are reassuringly immune to your misplaced, didactic lofty arrogance and inability to state anything clearly, so please continue to impress yourself because no one else gives a rodent's arse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blacksmith @00:42

      "I am not impressed by your sense of entitlement or your manners."

      People who live in glass houses... eh John?

      Delete
    2. Good.

      Now, when are you going to stop persecuting and libelling innocent nannies and Scotland Yard officers from behind a coward's screen of anonymity?

      Delete
  50. john blacksmith 1 August 2017 at 00:45
    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/is-operation-grange-cover-up_28.html?showComment=1501544736186#c8984536332393555823

    With respect, john.

    Your good self at http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/was-smithman-gerry.html?showComment=1500392298755#c619455328844114529 :

    “I'll leave aside the unintentional comedy of the "sources" you have quoted and point out the facts.

    What you quested is known as "an argument from authority". People gave up using that as a method of discovering the truth in about 1450 CE so you're around half a millennium out of date.

    Try and get it into your head that nothing ever follows from people's opinions except more opinions. You don't really understand that, do you?”

    Many thanks for sharing your knowledge and thoughts.

    Have a good day.

    Peace.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  51. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Intelligence_Limited

    ReplyDelete
  52. john blacksmith 1 August 2017 at 00:45

    “I don't want to oblige you! I don't want to convince you of anything. I only came here in the last week to ask you and people like you to leave innocent people alone. What you think doesn't interest me - it's your cowardly actions I condemn.”


    john blacksmith

    You are pretentious and dishonest in open debate.

    I hereby challenge you to substantiate your contemptible ad hominem comments by quoting me, so that everyone can come to their own conclusion as to who is “a disgusting liar”.


    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When are you going to stop persecuting the innocent nannies from behind a coward's screen of anonymity?

      That's all I'm interested in.

      Delete
    2. Oh yes, the innocent nannies. Here's an example for you Blacksmith:

      Jackie “That on 3rd May at about 22.05 she was working at the Mini Club, at the "dinner time period" together with colleagues Charlotte and Amy, when a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2), being a guest who was staying at the resort and who left at the end of the week, who told her that a girl called "Maddie" has disappeared, and that the girl's parents needed help in looking for her.”

      So Jackie was working at the Mini Club and a female arrived, whose name she does not know BUT that female is the mother of one of the children she's looking after. Well how does that work?

      Unknown Female Person: "Hello, you don't know me, and you don't know my name but I'm the mother of little David over there who you're looking after and I've come to take him away"

      Nanny Jackie: "No problem. David, here's a lady come to take you away. I don't know who she is, I don't know her name, but she can take you anyway, that's how we operate here".

      Nuala

      Delete
    3. john blacksmith 1 August 2017 at 20:04

      First thing first.

      “When are you going to stop persecuting the innocent nannies…?”

      Morning, John

      I’m puzzled by your continued insistence that I stop doing something I have not been doing. If you could be so kind as to tell me what you have in mind that makes you think you are entitled to insult and libel me, we could come to a peaceful resolution in no time and one of us would have to apologise. Do you think what I’m suggesting here is reasonable? BTW, I’m against persecuting the innocent.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    4. Nuala 1st August 23.41

      Yet another spiteful slagging off of a nanny with nothing but your own bile and malicious intent.

      Why do you feel the need to make events up and lie about young people you do not know.

      Read her statement properly, if you are capable, it makes complete sense. Not your drivel interpretation.

      What is wrong with you?

      Delete
    5. I made nothing up, nor did I lie, I quoted what the nanny in question said.

      She said "a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2)".

      It speaks for itself. She was looking after the child, but didn't know the name of the child's mother. What about the signing in and signing out of each child?

      Regarding the same incident Nanny Charlotte says:

      “an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child".

      Charlotte doesn't even know that she's looking after a child belonging to this "unknown woman" it seems. The "unknown woman" just identifies herself as "a tourist lodged at the complex" apparently. Or perhaps "unknown woman" forgot she left a child in the night creche.

      Interesting timing as well, cos "unknown woman" was at the night creche within 5 to 15 minutes of Kate McCann screaming "they've taken her" to tell the nannies that the missing girl's parents needed their help. Really? So who is this "unknown woman" who knew within minutes that Maddie wasn't going to found hiding under a bed or whatever, and dashed straight off to the night creche, situated several streets away in the Ocean Club main reception to inform the nannies?

      All utter nonsense.

      Nuala

      Delete
    6. You made NOTHING up?Read your last three paragraphs.
      No truth, just your sad vicious interpretation.
      Tell us where the nanny, any nanny allows little David to be taken away.

      The malice is in your head it never happened but you still spout your hate.
      What is wrong with you that you must try so hard to destroy young peoples lives.

      The statements do not support your drivel

      Delete
  53. Perhaps the people who covered this up are smarter than Operation Grange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anon 12:43

      Covered what up?

      Delete
    2. And perhaps that's why they're in better jobs above them.Besides, i'd never accuse the faces running OG of being smart anyway. It's slander.

      Delete
  54. Perhaps some of you are familiar with the "The Bogart", who occasionally publishes videos on You Tube.

    He's a rude, arrogant piece of work, but his analysis of evidence is usually thorough.

    He's recently posted this, which would seem to open a whole new can of worms:-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq9g1OyJhPQ&t=287s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These 'names' are spoken of too much for my tastes.The Hi de Hi thing or whatever it's called has hijacked youtube with nonsense.The 'up and comer' is Bogart.He is also an 'expert'. How do I know ? I've endured a few of his videos and he tells me so.He's currently in the lead of the 'it's about me,not anyone else' crowd.See 'Bogart destroys(insert name- there's a choice) or 'The Bogart lectures'( experts lecture don't they, and fools, of course).I mocked at first but then had to take him seriously as he started to wear Black sunglasses and black tee shirt with a black baseball cap( and it's reversed too).His cam is worms-eye view and his speech is becoming more hushed so it must be 'sensitive' information he's allowing us to share.Or it could be that his family have locked him in the attic and he doesn't want them to know he's found an old computer...

      Delete
    2. "He's a rude, arrogant piece of work, but his analysis of evidence is usually thorough".

      The same could be said of someone who posts here currently, although on present form the descriptor 'usually thorough' might merit re-thinking

      Delete
    3. See...curiosity led me to that video.I really have to stop allowing that to happen.'Bogey' is all out on that little gem isn't he.Gerry McCann looks to the floor, possibly because there's cameras clicking ten to the dozen and questions coming even faster and he's trying to focus.Or, as Bogeyman reads it, he's 'devastated' because his link to Murat has been exposed.Brilliant. Then we're informed of Murat's penchant for dirty chat rooms and online children( and GM don't forget) and the allegations are ignored by the police at first but he's arrested because of the McCann case. But the clincher is something that Scotland Yard and the PJ and even Amaral all missed : None of them went undercover with a hidden camera to get 'information' from a hairdresser. This is probably half the reason the case isn't solved. If it happened in 1972 the police could have flooded the Laundrettes, Hairdressers and Bingo halls everywhere. Collectively, these made up the blueprint for Social Media platforms.I think you should edit in 'deluded' to your description of Bogey ;-)

      PS anon - you owe me 10 minutes.

      Delete
  55. @Anonymous 31 July 2017 at 16:02
    ("Why were the children being bathed by other people...")

    Assuming it's true, one possible explanation is that, although they were "all in the same boat" (NG/KM), compared with Gerry McCann, MO, ROB and DP were "attentive ‘new men’" (KM).

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

    Witness statement of Nicky Toni Gill (Kate's friend) 2008.05.07

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm

    "I knew that they were going on holiday to Portugal and I talked to Kate about how difficult it would be with three small children. She was hopeful that all would go well, as all of the members of the group also had small children, and that they would all be in the same boat."

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

    According to KM in her account of the truth, on Wednesday, 2 May 2007:

    “As far as Gerry was concerned, it was late, he was tired, and he was going to bed. End of story. I am not sure why I was miffed by his lack of social graces that particular evening. Perhaps because the other guys in the group were all attentive ‘new men’, compared with Gerry, at least, and I was a bit embarrassed."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anon 16:06

      I think you are confusing "boat" with "bath".

      Delete
    2. Unknown 1 Aug 19.13

      Yes, I agree. It has been mentioned in statements to the PJ that most of the group really didn't know each other, I think it was only the McCanns and the Paynes (?) who had been friends for some time. Pls correct me on that if I'm wrong.

      So why would Kate McCann state that "did Madeleine cry when she was being bathed", KM obviously doesn't know if Madeleine cried if she and GM weren't there when she was being bathed, so obviously that still leaves the question who was bathing her.

      Mrs Gaspar must have been alarmed to make the statement she did otherwise she wouldn't have got involved. I don't doubt it was a very difficult thing to do to get involved but she obviously felt she had to make a statement.

      Delete
    3. '' So why would Kate McCann state that "did Madeleine cry when she was being bathed", KM obviously doesn't know''

      I don't know how you got anything 'obvious' at all from that. That statement as you call it is a question.

      ''Mrs Gaspar must have been alarmed to make the statement she did otherwise she wouldn't have got involved.''

      The incident she referred two was incident number 2. The statement includes a reference to the same man doing the same thing when Madeleine was a baby.Who was he talking about that time I wonder.And why wasn't it seen as lewd enough to stop the kids being in that company in the future.

      Gaspar was probably influenced by panic, fear and suspicion. Maybe that's why she didn't hear any names mentioned or the other half of the alleged conversation.She's lucky Payne didn't sue for slander or defamation.He had grounds.

      Delete
    4. I really don't know what to make of the Gaspar statements as they are quite vague.

      Regarding Kate's statement I'd say, crying is a sign of being alive.

      Delete
  56. @John1001 August 2017 at 01:45

    ''I agree, I don't believe Op Grange is a cover up. Too many people involved as someone would have blown the whistle by now.''

    OG can be part of a cover up without being a self contained independent cover up.They wouldn't have the authority to go 'rogue' as cover ups of this magnitude can only come from the top.Either way, the success of a cover up depends on the reliability and loyalty of those involved. A Whistleblower would have to blow the whistle from the moon.

    '' I have a theory about Crecheman coming forward after 6 years. What if this was SY's invention to judge the reaction of the tapas 7, ''

    In other words, a blatant lie( a common feature of cover ups). I agree, i don't buy crecheman's coming forward.It's too convenient. If we were allowed to see innocent residents of PDl being persecuted on TV why can't we see him ?The reaction of the Tapas group would mean nothing.

    ''I believe they know Madeleine never left the resort hence why they carried out forensics around the apartment''

    That was to determine if foul play had occurred or an accident( blood).Also if any DNA / prints were there from a potential abductor.Whether or not they found anything significant doesn't suggest anything about the eventual destination of Madeleine.

    '' I believe The Smith Family sighting was of Gerry ...''

    Smith isn't as sure.

    '' the reason why the dogs didn't pick up the cadaver scent on Gerry's clothe could be down to how long he was in contact with the cadaver.''

    If you buy into the story that Gerry McCann decided to go walkabouts at closing time with a dead child then you have to also consider that he'd have more cadaver scent on him and his clothes than anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous1 August 2017 at 11:00

    ''Try and get it into your head that nothing ever follows from people's opinions except more opinions. You don't really understand that, do you?”

    Tsetung ( T ), old chap. I'm not intruding upon this current spat as I'm a man of peace, tranquility and occasional bouts of unhinged violence.But I have to say that the above quote I've extracted is the most important one I've come across among all things McCann. It's inspiring to know that no matter how vast the haystack, and how tiny the needle, the trudge is worth it when things like this happen. I believe that it should stand astride every single McCann blog and the like all over the internet.It would be the perfect leveller when the irrational experts insist their 'facts' on people regardless of any 'sides'. A simple ''see top of page'' instruction restores parity.

    So,everyone, everywhere who comments, debates, postulates and so on about what 'really happened' that night in May07..read it, digest, and remember ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  58. "poster Yesterday at 12:59 pm
    And if it is true that GM is not Madeleine's biological father (the paper that made this claim was never sued as far as I know)"
    -----------------------------------

    Can you believe that was just posted yesterday - not 10 years ago - yesterday!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some people still live 10 years ago lol. For 1 the paper went into liquidation and IMO the child was the picture of Gerry McCanns Brother

      Delete
    2. Not the Queen of Sheba2 August 2017 at 15:31

      Yes, the poor child looks like Uncle John here!

      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bm/12.jpg

      Delete
    3. @ Not the Queen of Sheba2 August 2017 at 15:31
      and
      @ Anonymous2 August 2017 at 12:51

      Not funny nor clever.

      perhaps you would like to post photos of your children so we can all make comment about their appearance!

      Delete
  59. Hi Ziggy@19:34

    Re: Crecheman, it could also be SY saying to the tapas group, we know your statements are bollocks, so we'll chuck in a grenade and say Mr Crecheman has came forward and has been eliminated from our enquiries. The tapas group can't query it because they know he didn't exist, it was I believe to counter the Smith sighting. Also Crecheman is still on the McCanns Find Madeleine website which says was spotted by a witness no mention of JT. Also didn't they have a falling out with DCI Redwood afterwards?

    ReplyDelete
  60. John1001 August 2017 at 22:53

    Evening, John .I see what you're driving at. Sometimes a slick detective and his team will pull a stunt like this as a sort of bluff and wait for the panic. While i haven't seen anything in Redwood that suggests anything that slick I suppose his team could have prompted him to have a go. But I'm not sure that Grange or Redwood would benefit.If the Tapas group are the tight knit and organised 'gang of 7' that people think and have the organised 'pact of silence' in place, they'd be ready for anything.On the other hand, if they don't genuinely suspect the group of anything anyway, they wouldn't bother.At worst, if the stunt paid off, a charge of perverting the course of justice would be as bad as it could get for them-well not so much them as Jane Tanner.Even then she could stick to her story and claim that they had a crecheman but she must have seen a different one. Back to square one.
    The 'revelation' ( or light bulb moment in Redwoods dulled senses as I call it)is bordering on a childlike ignorance of reality.

    First joke. The side by side images of the efit and the man who allegedly came forward.We all recognise the drawing.It's basically Jonathan Ross minus facial features walking like one of the undead carrying a faceless lifeless toddler. Juxtapose to this is the 'revelation man'( my name for him).Clearly dressed in clothes taken from the efit. Either that or he wore them in 2017 and they still looked pristine and were never worn again until this PR stunt and they still fit like a glove. He has shorter hair now, and he too is missing features on his face-apart from pixels. Why would someone so innocent want his identity hidden ? He's 'revelation man'-he's blown the case wide open. He's a hero .

    But, here's the real punchline...

    Just in case the pixilated piccy didn't convince, we're told that apart from keeping the clothes from 6 years previously that still look like they'd been bought on the way to Scotland yard and fit perfectly, he also brought along the 'distinctive frilly pyjamas' that his two year old was wearing that night 'to help prove his innocence'.He was unknown, so why would he have to prove his innocence ? He didn't exist until he decided to turn up. So, you tell me, who keeps their kid's pyjamas from when she was two years old if she's now 8 years old ? Seriously ? I dare say some will say ''well i kept my two year olds in case i had more babies' (blah blah) but let's be realistic.Or maybe we should call him 'OCD man' as he NEVER throws any clothes away and only wears them once.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html



    ReplyDelete
  61. I'll be digging around Operation Conifer soon.That's 2 years in now. Like the discussion currently underway on this thread, it has nothing of genuine worth on any MSM front pages but a lot of nervous establishment figures from the not -too- distant past and present. Needless to say, that ensures that that the same MSM are on alert and ready with the usual propaganda and cries of 'conspiracy theorists' spin to feed us when it hits the fan . This case has a determined detective who refuses to bow to the establishment or the MSM and vows to unleash it.That's refreshing ( and rare).I thought I'd mention it for those who might occasionally tire of circles and twitter ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Before we leave the subject of cover ups and corruption, I draw your attention to these two links. The subject of whistle blowers usually receives a little attention, naturally, when these things are discussed.That particular aspect has been quite a trend in the last few years to the point that it's often mentioned glibly. But it shouldn't be. Whistle blowers often have their lives threatened or ended, let alone their careers. These two links make interesting reading.( I'll include key words for Mrs I Cantcopyandpaste) :-)

    ( city of london police corruption.co.uk)

    http://www.cityoflondonpolicecorruption.co.uk/


    And Richie Allen is always worth a listen regardless of the topic. This particular show ties in with the earlier link :

    (Ian Puddick " Scotland Yard Detective Told Me He Was Ordered To Stop Investigation Of Leon Brittan.")

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQVUNbfPr9Y

    ReplyDelete
  63. I don’t want to raise the temperature unnecessarily about matters which inevitably raise passions, so I’ll give people a break for the moment. Thank you, Ros, for the space and the way your excellent posts and replies have stimulated debate – more than my own. There’s been nothing resembling the McCann Affair in my lifetime and I’m only aware of the Dreyfus case in recent history.

    I wrote a piece in the Bureau once called “The Acid Tears of Time”. The phrase came when I visited Athens, the spiritual home of all debate, decades ago and saw the Acropolis for the first time, at eight on a thin, cool and sunny morning, absolutely alone. I was staring at the exquisite faces of the Erechtheion statues, a moment of profound appreciation - but also one of sadness and melancholy as I observed the way two and a half millennia of acid rain and sixty years of engine exhausts had etched away the delicate features and how, one day, there would be nothing left but the stone cores.

    Well, we all have our poetic moments, don’t we? In fact Western people, rather than staring, acted to save the Acropolis, the Caryatids were removed and given a gallery of their own and perfectly presentable replicas stand in their place. The Acropolis still floats above the city.

    It was this message of hope overtaking melancholy that stimulated the Bureau piece, for, by 2014 or so, it was becoming clear that a quite different process of erosion was taking place, one independent of the rage of debate, uncontrolled and uncontrollable: time itself was the acid etcher, the core was not ruined stone but truth and what was being washed away was untruth. In the long run only truth, is sustainable. Why, nobody knows.

    The McCann Affair, which began with hostility between McCann supporters and sceptics and which reached its nadir in the death of Brenda Leyland – yes, we’re talking about real life and death here, not fine words in a post – has changed irrevocably.

    One side has been left without the resources to fight on and has largely fallen silent, whether in the MSM or online. The bright ones have, without exception, gone. The others, unable to see or understand what’s happening, struggle on but without facts to sustain them or use as ammunition, only insult. I feel sorry for some of the sincere ones.

    It wasn’t Amaral’s victories that destroyed them: it was the stony truth-core revealed at last by the erosion of lies and fictions that lay behind Amaral’s victory. If you haven’t got facts to present, rather than opinion – or questions! – your cause, in court or in public, is doomed by the acid tears of time.

    Soon, many of those we’ve heard here – loudly – for over a week will face the same difficult times as the McCann supporters, for there is no core. Like the former, they’ll be on their own and will have to cope as best they can. Truth does that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Blacksmith "In the long run only truth, is sustainable. Why, nobody knows" .....For somebody like me who likes the craic and doesn't take life too seriously these words bring tears to me eyes. Has there been more beautiful words written in the English language.......don't proud parents measure their success on how their children live within this statement.

      A title surely ROS for one of your blogs

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 2 August 2017 at 13:12

      Oy vey. ”Jesus just left Chicago…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMjqgIZ1_YM
      (Seems to be difficult to google this rendition.:()

      Have my handkerchief, dear. I feel like crying too - good for the soul.
      _ _ _ _ _

      It is indeed a moment of profound appreciation - but also one of sadness and melancholy as we watch the Great Man exit this humble blog. His task accomplished. His lies told. His “enemies” abused. He is proceeding with dignity towards the rising Sun. More battles ahead. Many an enemy to face. But he will overcome all, with lies and abuse on his side.

      “Mum, he’s naked!”

      “Shh… Hold Uncle Teddy’s hand, he’s very quiet today.””

      (Live transmission. Translated from Klingon.)
      _ _ _ _ _

      “Has there been more beautiful words written in the English language....”

      Yes, dear, there have: “cesspit”, “pit”, ”disgusting liar”. Sublime! Amazing wordsmith! Have another hanky, dear. Here you are…

      “I don’t want to raise the temperature unnecessarily about matters which inevitably raise passions, so I’ll give people a break for the moment.”

      Yes, dear, he is such a kind soul after all, our favourite iron man. Such humility… Such tenderness… Such discernment… Quiet kinda guy. Couldn’t stand the heat. I sure would cross the road to piss on him if he set himself on fire. Yes, dear, we’re all forlorn now… Oh Heavens…:( Perhaps a drop of Veuve Clicquot , my dear, to hold back the tears?
      _ _ _ _ _

      I’m gonna fight for you jb

      I believe you got a bad deal
      And that's something I want put right
      Well, I wanna people hear your blues
      And keep them thinking day and night

      https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2010/06/john-mayall-im-gonna-fight-for-you-jb.html
      (to google: i'm gonna fight for you jb music paste magazine)

      T :(

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 19:29 much as I am a fan of John Blacksmith my comment wasn't about me considering him a kind soul, a favourite iron man, a great man or any of the other titles you mock him with. I merely commented that his words " in the long run only truth is sustainable, why nobody knows" resonates with me. I am so touched that we live in a world where it is a certainty that the truth will always prevail. Maybe you shouldn't use me as an excuse to have a rant at John Blacksmith if you want to do that please do it of your own accord. It's not nice and does little for your own credibility

      Delete
    4. Blacksmith 2.8, 12:08

      So what's the 'truth-core' at the heart of your Information Theory claim about independent channels and a common source, and its being recognized as true among the SIGINT community?

      "If you haven’t got facts to present, rather than opinion – or questions! – your cause, in court or in public, is doomed by the acid tears of time".

      Delete
    5. Apologies John, I had been drawn away by other matters, and only now have the time your beautiful, though somewhat melancholy, words deserve. Your analogy is haunting and makes me think of Tony Blair and Ozymandias - 'look on my works, ye Mighty, and Despair....'. Words Clarence could call upon if he ever picked up a book.

      I agree there has never been a story like this in our lifetimes, and I think had the truth broken 3/4 or even 2/3 years ago, it would have caused yet another media storm.

      But the world has moved on dramatically, the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and a potential change in the paradigm, and the lunacy of the Trump Presidency. Every tweet he makes dominates the front pages. With Trump we are probably in the most turbulent period of history in the West, since the last time a raving lunatic was given armies and weapons. I am advising friends, tell your children, tell your grandchildren (should we survive)to remember these times. The days before we had a Trump Tower on every corner and streets filled with military ready to gun down anyone who laughs at the President's hair. (I feel Theresa May would agree to this, and the smarmiest get rich quick creep who succeeds her).

      But back to the Madeleine case, we may have to share the frustration of the police in not being able to make any charges. Or, come September, there will be a media storm, whatever announcement Scotland Yard make, will be met with thousands of questions.

      But on the media storm chart, it would barely make a category 3, everything is much bigger now, it is unlikely a human interest story will ever create such a phenomenon again. Such is the zeitgeist, the headlines are dominated by the super rich and celebrities A-Z, ANY story can be knocked off the front pages by an increase in Kim Kardashian's arse or a Trump curtsy to a middle eastern oil sheik. But as always I may be wrong, the Lindbergh baby caused just as much of a stir as wee Madeleine.

      Anyway, please do not stay away too long old thing (or at all) we are just a month away for another, yet to be extended, lol) deadline. There could be fireworks and Trump's gone off on vacation, so too
      Theresa May (yes, that thought crossed my mind too and yuck, yuck, yuck on behalf of us all).

      I am sure, like myself, the eyes of many light up when we see you have posted. Your wisdom really is much appreciated. I am trying to find an inspiration quote, from a famous writer, something along the lines of, if people don't hate me, I'd not doing it right. Can't find it, but have found one equally as good: 'Someone who hates you normally hates you for one of 3 reasons. They see you as a threat. They hate themselves. Or they want to be you. I've experienced all three, lol, but last one being the most bizarre. I was befriended by a new colleague, who over the course of a few months became more me than me! It was the plot from Singe White Female, lol, she spoke like, laughed like me, dressed like me, and flirted like me! (bleddy cheek!). Though she didn't quite try to hack my head off, she did take my job and get me the sack. My boss, I fear, was quite happy, she had all my attributes, plus she was a competent secretary! :(

      But I jest, as Dickens would have said had he written his words to a piana - you can go, but be back soon! :)

      Delete
  64. john blacksmith2 August 2017 at 12:08

    ''It was this message of hope overtaking melancholy that stimulated the Bureau piece, for, by 2014 or so, it was becoming clear that a quite different process of erosion was taking place, one independent of the rage of debate, uncontrolled and uncontrollable: time itself was the acid etcher, the core was not ruined stone but truth and what was being washed away was untruth. In the long run only truth, is sustainable. Why, nobody knows''

    I suppose it's debatable regarding when the state of affairs became clear. I personally thought nothing of any genuine worth had been done from 2007, and by 2008 i was sure it wouldn't.As King Lear would have it : ''nothing will come of nothing''. I include in that 'nothing' what you refer to as ''debate, uncontrolled and uncontrollable''. A historically recognisable lunatic is Hitler, but even he kept it calm in debates, preferring to lose his marbles at various podiums in front of the massed ranks of sheep.A fitting truism applicable to vocal exchanges or debate is that when you shout, people hear you, when you talk, people listen. This works as effectively with the printed word.


    You say the 'McCann Affair' began with McCann supporters and sceptics and reached it's nadir with the death of Brenda Leyland. I think, in the real world, the McCann affair began with a small child disappearing and a chaotic response by investigators .What began with the McCann supporters and sceptics was an online over reaction and hysteria that mushroomed out of control. Brenda Leyland was the victim of abuse from the MSM. Whatever either side thinks, that's what happened. We all saw the Brunt ambush.

    It doesn't matter what 'one side' has or hasn't done. This is about a missing child not a dark game of one upmanship raging online. One of the main reasons-if not THE main reason- it rages is because of a mistrust of police, politicians and media.On top of this there is(officially) no reliable evidence of anything. Was real evidence suppressed ? Or is it a case of there simply wasn't any ? The truth of the matter isn't known by anyone other than the investigators. But there's 'sides' there too ; UK say nothing ;Amaral says suppressed.Logic points to a cover up owing to the unprecedented political panic ( or interest as they prefer).

    Too many commentators insist they talk about truth when it's only a hypothesis.They support it with more hypotheses.The amount of hypotheses and the amount of people who agree it could be true is taken as what they call irrefutable evidence.But it isn't.You see, your beloved Erechtheion statues weren't always there.They were once hidden in featureless slabs.It was only the skillful, patient, and meticulous chiseling away that revealed them. That's how truth appears too.If those statues were always there, but slowly covered in layers of dust, dirt and rubbish, nobody would find them.They'd be lost forever.And that's what's happened to the truth in the McCann case. The same meticulous skill and patience appears to have been applied to that process.

    Predating your statues slightly was a man with a firm grasp of justice, truth, and tragedy by the name of Sophocles. His words are very apt to all these 'debates' and anger :

    ''What people believe prevails over the truth''

    Whereas the sage advice of another ( William Penn) have been ignored from day one :

    ''In all debates, let Truth be thy aim, not Victory''

    ReplyDelete
  65. @ZiggySawdust 2 August 2017 at 19:52

    "She's lucky Payne didn't sue for slander or defamation.He had grounds."

    Or Payne is lucky, because there are worse things than being falsely accused? Unlikely. The Gaspar statements aside, there must be a reason why Payne didn't want to draw attention to himself. Or someone else didn't want to draw attention to Payne?

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

    'Document missing from DVD: Processo Volume XIII, Page 3909.
    In a memorandum dated 24 October 2007 (Processo Volume XIII, Page 3909) reference is made to a document written by Dr David Payne which document had been read carefully by British Detective Constable Mike Marshall, the author of the memorandum.
    The document written by Dr Payne is not in the DVD.

    To: Ricard Paiva
    From: DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL
    Ref: David Payne
    Date: October 24, 2007

    Leicester Police Constabulary

    Ricardo,

    As requested, appended are the statements of Arul and Katherina Gaspar.
    "I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne."
    but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.

    When asked with whom he was on the afternoon of May 3rd, he declares that this information was already offered to the police and cannot remember if anyone else was there.

    He does not remember what he was wearing that afternoon.'

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it possible to sue someone for what they say in a police statement?

      It's not the same as posting what may be completely untrue allegations on the Internet.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous3 August 2017 at 06:38

      And your point is?

      Are you accusing Payne of something?

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous3 August 2017 at 06:38

      Are you accusing Payne of something?

      I notice that this is a "hot" topic on the cesspit at the moment - why are you bringing it here?

      Delete
    4. "The document written by Dr Payne is not in the DVD."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

      Delete
    5. ''Or Payne is lucky, because there are worse things than being falsely accused? Unlikely. The Gaspar statements aside, there must be a reason why Payne didn't want to draw attention to himself. Or someone else didn't want to draw attention to Payne?''

      Being correctly accused is worse as it brings a charge with it and then a trial and then a penalty. What could the reasons be for David Payne not wanting to draw attention to himself ? There could be more than one. He hadn't lost his child but his friends had.That's one.

      The investigation was about the McCanns and their child, not the Payne's and theirs.It's possible that once he( and his wife) had signed a statement and been allowed to leave, they wanted to stay in the background like everyone else while the police went about their business.I suppose if he booked a flight half an hour after that, it would look suspicious. But when the McCanns weren't being hounded by photographers and Mitchell I'm guessing that Payne and Co were rallying around the McCann parents. I know this sounds a bit too 'common sense' for most and that they could( if you really stretch) read this as them all whispering behind patio doors to make sure they had air tight alibis.But we can't work with peoples' favourite 'imagined scenarios'.If we go down that road again we'll end up with the tapas group relieving the pressure with all night games of strip Backgammon.

      Delete
  66. There seems to be a belief ( dream, hope etc) that Payne has 'tendencies'. These tendencies haven't made any detectives suspicious. They've sat and listened to him and read his statements.What about the McCanns suspecting him ?

    Two things rouse suspicion.One, he bathed children( not in secret, the parents knew). Two, a garbled recollection concerning a lewd gesture he made to Gerry McCann as they all sat around drinking which contained no recollection of Madeleine or any other child and could well have been about a woman or girl both men knew or had known.The same gesture the witness Gaspar had witnessed a year before from Payne but hadn't been startled by.

    When you're on holiday, you're there to enjoy and relax-not monitor or record every place you go to, how long you stay, where you go next.That's not a holiday, that's an exercise.If you're in a group of couples /families there would be a flow; spontaneity. If someone asks you ''but why where you in their apartment that afternoon and for how long'' and you can't give precise details, that's normal. It doesn't mean you're having a memory lapse because you're a paedophile.

    As for it being libelous, defaming or slander, if Gaspar is going on record suggesting she thought Payne had such tendencies to the point she'd be keeping her children away from him and that she considers that he was talking about sexual matters concerning Madeleine or any other child, of course it is.If someone went on record with a police force saying it about you, you'd sue.I would. I'd probably knock her of a cliff personally.Or is this protected by the mysterious sub-section of 'free speech' law that means there's no such animal as slander, defamation or libel. Only Payne knows why he let it go.Nobody online does.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous 2 August 2017 at 22:04

    Dear comrade Anonymous 2 August 2017 at 22:04

    Respectfully. In no particular order.

    T presumes that your “John Blacksmith” = john blacksmith.

    “I am so touched that we live in a world where it is a certainty that the truth will always prevail.”

    T sympathizes with you and is sad for those to whom you refer as “we”. What a life in a world where ”the truth” doesn’t always prevail…. At least they find comfort in thinking that they “live in a world where it is a certainty that the truth will always prevail”.

    You are not talking in terms of the Christian biblical canon perchance, are you?

    T lives in a world of uncertainty. In T’s world, uncertainty rules and is most unlikely to be dethroned by another abstract concept in the foreseeable future if ever.

    “…my comment wasn't about me considering him a kind soul, a favourite iron man, a great man or any of the other titles you mock him with.”

    T did not say it was. There is no mention in T’s post of “a great man” “The Great Man” was an indication of respect afforded to john blacksmith by the presenter of live transmission of john blacksmiths’ exiting this blog.

    T wasn’t mocking anyone per se. T was doing unto john what john had been doing unto others.

    “I merely commented that his words "in the long run only truth is sustainable, why nobody knows" resonates with me.”

    The correct quote would be “In the long run only truth, is sustainable. Why, nobody knows.”

    The two above-quoted sentences are poorly punctuated and logically unsound. T conjectures that the sentiments presented therein are likely to have been due to a ‘poetic moment’ at work. T is not in a position to comment with regard to anything resonating with your good self.

    “Maybe you shouldn't use me as an excuse to have a rant at John Blacksmith.”

    No one should and T doesn’t. T doesn’t need excuses. T doesn’t “rant”. You are mistaken. In T’s post, T referred not to your good self but to your post.

    “if you want to do that please do it of your own accord. It's not nice and does little for your own credibility”

    T doesn’t “want to do that” and he doesn’t, but T is thankful for you “please”. Everything T does is of T’s own accord. T doesn’t know what “it” which is not nice is. T likes only “nice”. T doesn’t have credibility and is not concerned about that which T doesn’t have.

    “…I am a fan of John Blacksmith…”

    Commiserations.

    T and I are most grateful for your post and your tenor.

    Kind regards and good wishes from both of us.

    Peace.

    Chairman Mao Tse Tung

    PS T is unable to reply himself being rather tightly embraced by the merry widow. I am posting the above transcript on T’s instructions.

    To all here present.

    I hereby bestow the title of john of Iron upon one john blacksmith, joI for short (rhyming with enjoy).

    Chairman Mao Tse Tung

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More T vicar ?
      Glad to hear that T is in the grip of a merry widow . We live in dark times and all's fair in love and war just as long as it doesn't frighten the horses. Keep an eye on those electrolytes, Chairman.

      I tend to agree with the whole 'truth' thing.it is the only thing sustainable.As for the often used buzzword types I'm afraid they don't. In 2007 the Jonbenet Ramsey case was already 11 years old.That's another candidate for 'crime of our time'. The truth hasn't found the light of day even now.And that case has a body. If any 'truth' is being sustained, it's the truth that justice can be denied as long as the hiding place is never discovered.And to both 'sides' I'd say this : there are three sides to every story; yours, theirs, and the truth. And the truth fears no trial.

      Delete
    2. Ten plus years ago when the case of Madeleine was 'hot', every scenario would have been on the table. I expect everyone who knew the McCanns and the tapas group, were wracking their brains for memories of anything that could help find Madeleine.

      Who knows what was going on in the Gaspers minds at the time, but lets go back to Henry James, where the writer allows the reader to imagine the evil themselves.

      We know nothing about Mrs Gasper, and that's as it should be, so it would be wrong to assume she were being hysterical, but in a child's disappearance, hysteria is never far from the surface.

      The fact is, in 10+ years there has never been any substance to the allegations that arose from those statements. Those still tormenting David Payne and his family, should perhaps put the prodding irons down for a short while, and think about they are alleging.

      Do they honestly believe that the police forces of both Portugal and the UK would leave young toddlers in the hands of child abusers?

      There comes a point where many antis are simply being cruel for the sake of being cruel. For whatever reason, they WANT to believe that this middle class group of professionals are trying to cover up their deviant sex lives rather the disappearance of a child. Bizarre.

      That there has never been a crime of such a nature and magnitude (in the history of the world) as these porn sleuths are alleging, matters not. They truly believe this group of families, went to a family holiday resort, with the mother in law, to sexually abuse their children.

      One big fly in the ointment is the fact that they spent as little time with the kids as possible, one would assume they would need to be in the same room, or even the same building, if abuse were to take place.

      They were also handing their small children over every day to nannies and crèche staff. Small children have no filter! They tell anyone anything. Abused children are kept away from strangers, especially nannies who they would chat to all day. The idea that these kids were abused at night, then handed over to carers the next day is absurd.

      Not only as these accusations the product of sick imaginations, they make no sense and they certainly don't lead to the truth. Unfortunately those so hung up on them, have backed themselves into a corner. They can't admit they might be wrong, so they keep having to find 'evidence' to support their filth. They are not looking to find the truth, they are merely trying to save face.

      Delete
    3. Ziggmund

      Wonderful footwork once again, comrade! Zig, zag, zig, zag. Such speed, agility and control! You never fail to amaze! Reminds me of George’s… Loved him… But, as the song goes, “If you cannot be with the one you love, honey, love the one you are with”. And that’s where you come in, my Liverpool petal.

      Glad you’ve dropped the habit of biting what others want you to chew. Always be careful with fishes, unless the food parcel is from Stanza della Segnatura or from Yeshu Ha-Notzri (Bulgakov or Book of the Strong Hand, take you pick).

      Talking of strength. Regrettably, you seem to have missed my invitation to a ball (previous thread, 28 July 2017 at 13:05 http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-cruelty-of-madeleine-myths.html?showComment=1501243533930#c6000706688337998813 ). We could add arm wrestling (and discuss your mistakes while we are at it) and a spitting match to what I proposed therein. I’ve been pumping Iron. Get your guns ready and don’t shed tears when you see mine. Unbridled violence suits me fine should I find you in one of your finer ‘unpoetic’ moments. Come on, come on, toy boy!!!

      In the meantime, I’ll do my utmost to entice Rosalinda to referee, she is not a violent lady as we know. A bottle of ‘the merry widow’, Clicquot, on the table, Rosalinda likes it pink. Not to mention your good looks.

      As to your latest epiphany, remember what I’ve been telling you: legs aren’t everything: you have your head to eat with. And stop shaving your legs, it ain’t hot no more.

      Thank you for the “T”, Your Grace. Just in time. Much appreciated.

      Solemnly

      TEA

      I hear you didn’t turn up to face Deep Blue the Younger. Ignominy for Liverpool, Your Grace! How is you prepping for the trivium going? Logic in particular?

      No impropriety, offence etc. intended. (Just in case)

      Peace.

      Delete
    4. LOL TEA, I feel as though I have wandered into the drawing room of one of young Bertie Wooster's more eccentric Uncles, ha ha. I have to admit, I have great admiration for those who can offend with such courtesy and good grace. It totally confuses the opposition.

      As for Ziggy's good looks - how would we know? He may be a complete gargoyle, or living in the basement of an opera house with half his face covered in a mask? He sounds kinda matey and a regular kind of guy, but for all we know he could be stroking a hairless cat and chucking his minions into piranha pools, though I doubt it.

      Delete
  68. Why are so many posters on here trying to appear clever/amusing and failing miserably.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. maybe they're not trying ..

      Delete
    2. Perhaps Unknown, it is because they have found a friendly environment where they can express themselves freely. An environment where wit and intellect is celebrated, rather than derided and scorned.

      The key word in your one line Unknown, was 'miserably' - and it reflects on you, not us. We are enjoying the opportunity of speaking directly with people who share our interests. And if that sometimes goes off topic, so what?

      I feel immensely privileged to have such a wide variety of interesting posters, no matter which side of the divide they come from.

      I don't pour scorn on those people who take the time and trouble to post a comment on my blog, I treat them as if they were a guest in my home or at my table. Being online is no reason for bad manners. And this case I'm afraid, has been dominated by the utterly charmless. Especially those facebook and forum hosts and hostesses, who can no longer recognise dysfunctional behaviour, either in themselves or their members.

      Incidentally, I should add, do you think it more honourable to discuss the imagined deviant sex lives of real people with children and families who may read what I am now going to call 'sleuth porn'. Notably that bit where you all get to discuss the way in which perverts send hidden messages to each other via their toddlers' photographs, you fecking freak.

      Delete
    3. ' sleuth porn'
      Excellent and appropriate phrase. I fear you should have kept that one under your hat for a while and secured the copyright on it first ;-)

      Delete
    4. @ Ros 23:17

      You could not be more wrong. I do not discuss "imagined deviant sex lives of real people" and in fact I challenge those who post on here referring to it - you for some reason allow comments from the cesspit dwellers who come here just to point to imagined deviant sexual practices.

      Delete
    5. To Ros
      (August 2017 at 23:17)
      I was going to write to you about this and commend you (and here) for allowing a platform for everyone.
      The Facebook forums are partisan mono-themed: CMOMM and Hideho both "toe-the-line-or-sod-off" lecture dens, MMM great for knitting patterns, the Twitter Mc hash tag a pointless hate-fest that goes nowhere.
      Here is Goldilocks' porridge. Everyone DOES get a say, a chance to reply, to opine and offer up what they think. You don't let it get like Twitter whilst allowing your own opinions to be challenged. Right now it is the only active place on line to debate every aspect of this case, hence the increased daily footfall.
      Good on you for allowing criticism as well as praise.

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous at 09:23.
      Well said.

      @Unknown at 08:53
      Nobody posts on her referring to "imagined deviant sex lives of real people". Some posts refer to the PJ files.

      Delete
  69. Hi Ziggy@15:11

    There is also Yvonne Martin's statement about DP. One statement about DP I can agree with you why he didn't take it through the courts but two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening John

      As I say, only DP knows those answers. maybe he didn't want the headlines to effect his family. He would also be aware that the lunatic mobs out there now don't bother to see smoke before they call 'fire'. he'd have a cloud of suspicion over him even when he won a court case.but he has kids. you can imagine what they'd be open to after it.

      Yvonne Martin's presence was a question mark for me, let alone her statements about things. She 'reacted' to a news report over breakfast ( Sky news, obviously). PDl was her holiday home, not UK home. She had no jurisdiction in Portugal so turned up as a good Samaritan( yes, another one). She turned up as KM was crying 'intensely' sat with GM, and a friend was there to help his friends ( by fending off intrusions).She flashed her credentials but they didn't impress the McCanns or 'friend' who we know now was DP.

      It takes a blend of empathy and imagination to place yourself into the mindset of a parent who has lost her toddler only hours earlier.The fear, panic and doubt and a thousand horrific scenarios must be fighting to get to the front.Speculation, speculation, speculation.It's all a parent has.Fearing the worst is natural but that one is forced to the back. It would be easier to stay sane imagining a couple had snatched her as it leaves a possibility of a return.Yvonne Martin found all of this 'strange' though. Unusual for someone who worked for CPS.

      Eventually DP politely sent her packing and she got no information( even though she was only there to 'help'). She later identified the man who sent her packing vaguely as someone she may have recognised from her past professionally as a 'witness or a suspect'.

      If Yvonne Martin was there out of the goodness of her heart and not to get a head start on reporters, that should have been the end of it and she should have driven home.But she then went to the management of the Ocean Club and asked questions only the police would be interested in.She isn't working for the police and she isn't a reporter.She isn't working in Portugal full stop . She was one of a small group of seed planters in the play.The other two are equally subtle.

      Her imagined 'recollection' of DP from her past was vague enough to plant seeds. He spoiled her party that day.I'd also suggest she wanted it to remain vague in fear of repercussions. A Child Protection Officer isn't supposed to, and doesn't need to, remain 'anonymous' when asking a Police Force to run checks on anyone, which is what she did later.And the police wouldn't share that information with an 'anonymous'. They could check after an anonymous report- that's different

      Delete
  70. Hi Ziggy@00:36

    YM's anonymous statement to the police puzzled me as well. She has the authority & clout to access police data bases as a CPO. DP authenticated her credentials on the day in question & I'm sure she can easily check if she had come across him before. As with the Gasper's statements it's possibly a misunderstanding from all concerned.
    However the statements can't be ignored, it's were do they fit in this jigsaw puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to add - the findings of Eddie and Keela can't be ignored either. Or the blood splashes up the walls behind the sofa, and the fact that the sofa had been pushed against the wall under the window, where indications were noted by the blood dog on the floor. Where do they fit in this jigsaw puzzle. Perhaps Ziggy could give us one of his very long explanations, or maybe not on second thoughts.

      Delete
  71. Hi John
    That's what I mean.She knows the protocol if there's a 'suspicious character' in her line of work.But ten years later, the seeds she planted are still bearing fruit- albeit online where the lunatics live. Gaspar's statement was in hindsight and possibly informed more by suspicion and fear rather than reason. To put it in perspective and hopefully clarify why they're unreliable, here's the highlights;
    ( Gaspar wife)

    ''I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like ?she?, referring to Madeleine, ?would do this?.''

    Key words : 'i believe' ' i don't remember' 'possible scenario''

    ''I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. ''

    Which were ?

    ''Apart from this, I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to mention again that it was during a conversation, in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say precisely what it was about.''

    How many red flags does she need if it's possible or realistic that the subject was that of a child ?

    ''I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, L., though I'm not certain''

    key words : 'believe' 'not certain'. This time the same sexually provocative gesture was recorded as being performed by a completely different toddler.

    ''I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he made the gestures I referred to, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, even though (page five) I believe that it was later on''

    I think if anyone witnessed what they consider a an adult discussing sexuality from a toddler, they'd remember where they were when it happened.

    ''I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different way from me or from the others. I imagined that maybe he had visited Internet sites related to small children. In short, I thought that he might be interested in child pornography on the internet.''

    How's that for a leap of imagination ?

    Gaspar husband :

    ''I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple''
    ''I remember that when I saw this gesture I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having''

    Good point.But the 'context' is quite important nonetheless.

    ''I can say that Dave was a pleasant person. I do not remember him having any unusual characteristics''

    What about his unconventional table manners.

    ''During the holidays Dave never behaved in an inappropriate manner with Madeleine or with any of the other children. Dave was popular with the children and I took this to be because he was a close friend to the family.''

    So they had no fears or kept no distance then.

    ''It was during the days following the news of the abduction that we discovered that Fiona and David Payne were also with them in Portugal.....It was at this moment that Katherina showed concern at the gesture made by Dave in Majorca in 2005''

    Mrs Leapy imagination again.

    ''At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.''

    Because her name was never mentioned.

    This all adds up to suspicion, fear , panic and imagination versus reason.And these two are married so not on any 'side'.





    ReplyDelete
  72. Ziggy 4 August 00.36 said -

    It takes a blend of empathy and imagination to place yourself into the mindset of a parent who has lost her toddler only hours earlier.The fear, panic and doubt and a thousand horrific scenarios must be fighting to get to the front.Speculation, speculation, speculation.It's all a parent has.Fearing the worst is natural but that one is forced to the back. It would be easier to stay sane imagining a couple had snatched her as it leaves a possibility of a return.Yvonne Martin found all of this 'strange' though. Unusual for someone who worked for CPS.

    Eventually DP politely sent her packing and she got no information( even though she was only there to 'help'). She later identified the man who sent her packing vaguely as someone she may have recognised from her past professionally as a 'witness or a suspect'.

    - - - - - - - - - - -

    You seem to be living in the shoes of the McCanns, are you a McCann, a relative or someone else who they know, or are you a fantasist thinking you can read the ins and outs of what happened to Madeleine and poo poo everyone else's idea of what happened to Madeline.

    And why do you take so many paragraphs to say very little, you seem to be overwhelming this blog, or is that the idea that everyone gets bored and gives up reading/posting. Is that a tactic in the McCann camp, I believe it may be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '' are you a fantasist thinking you can read the ins and outs of what happened to Madeleine and poo poo everyone else's idea of what happened to Madeline.''

      I take it your 'everyone else' have the facts then, and not hypotheses, imagined scenarios, suspicions and irrational, unfounded hatred.I have no idea what happened to Madeleine.I say it often enough in case some dickhead misses it and comes up with drivel like you just have.

      ''You seem to be living in the shoes of the McCanns, are you a McCann, a relative or someone else who they know, ''

      And you call me a fantasist. I believe the appropriate online repsonse to that is ''lol'' Get a grip .

      ''And why do you take so many paragraphs to say very little, you seem to be overwhelming this blog''

      You understanding very little isn't me saying very little.Don't be so scared of reason or perspective.

      ''or is that the idea that everyone gets bored and gives up reading/posting. Is that a tactic in the McCann camp, I believe it may be.''

      Well, if you believe it, it must be true.It's not like you're ruled by a warped imagination or fantasy is it.

      Little tip ..if you see anything i write and you consider it to have no foundation or you disagree, feel free to express why you think it. Don't fool yourself into believing you're a psychic. Psychics aren't real anyway.Unfortunately, paranoia is.

      Delete
  73. Anonymous4 August 2017 at 15:10

    ''Perhaps Ziggy could give us one of his very long explanations, or maybe not on second thoughts.''

    Yes, go with with your second thoughts.Your first ones resemble a delightful tableau from an episode of Dexter.I'm sure that the PJ files and Sy have an explanation more important than mine.Or perhaps you could demand explanations from them both as to what happened to their eyesight regarding that scene. Or what happened to the scientists judgement.After all, it wasn't me who rejected any findings.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous4 August 2017 at 14:40

    Major Tea
    Thank you for your Willy Wonka inspired tour around the surreal playground you call your mind. I find myself wondering sometimes if Salavador Dali and Viv Stanshall secretly had a weekend in Brighton once upon a time and you are the result.I can see you now, serenading Ros :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hcZ4s9cvpw

    ( you're welcome)

    Liverpool Petal -good grief.In my youth i used to lay on the charm as a porter near the sea with all the old dears, who loved calling me their 'long haired lover from Liverpool'.It was a common occurrence to have a thrupenny bit squeezed into my hand for an extra dollop of jam on a cream tea( erotic smutty innuendo purely unintentional).But to compared to the great George is an honour.I could have been him but for constantly spilling my pint as i tore down the right wing trying to amaze.My clumsiness was football's loss...

    This invitation to arm wrestle....myself and Freddie Trueman of indoor league legend ( ''al sithhee'') are confused. You do this often; you post a link to somewhere on the blog but it only leads to a page rather than the actual post.Be more precise. We didn't win two world wars by posting vague links now did we.but, be warned..'I taught the hellhound to sit..Cheatin Satan playing cards..I taught the hellhound to sit...Cheatin Satan playing cards..I pulled a knife on the devil...When he damned my heart...'

    I doubt Ros is up to the job of refereeing. She lacks the testosterone for the occasion.She can walk around the ring in something low cut and hold up the round cards.Then she can tend to your cuts. My good looks will remain intact.I learned many years ago that it's a bad idea to lead with your face.I'm not quite at Ros's ever so politely suggested 'gargoyle' stage just yet.I cut quite a dash in the dark.Half my face in a mask indeed..i'd only do that if i was Andrew Lloyd Webber. I'd do it for sure if it pulled Sarah Brightman(I loved that opera she was in 'Hot Gossip',Very artistic). But she came close with her suspicions.I just won't say which ones.She's an author so she can fill in the gaps ( when she's finished writing her dirty book)

    So, Major..can you clarify your earlier request please....

    (Well, bring on that hooded bugler..he can sound his taps for me..bring on that hooded bugler, he can sound his taps for me..but when the reaper comes..he best be packin' heat)

    ZiggerZagger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear Ziggy, 18.40 you just can't help yourself can you.

      What the hell has your comment to do with anything regarding finding Madeline McCann FFS -

      "I doubt Ros is up to the job of refereeing. She lacks the testosterone for the occasion.She can walk around the ring in something low cut and hold up the round cards.Then she can tend to your cuts. My good looks will remain intact.I learned many years ago that it's a bad idea to lead with your face.I'm not quite at Ros's ever so politely suggested 'gargoyle' stage just yet.I cut quite a dash in the dark.Half my face in a mask indeed..i'd only do that if i was Andrew Lloyd Webber. I'd do it for sure if it pulled Sarah Brightman(I loved that opera she was in 'Hot Gossip',Very artistic). But she came close with her suspicions.I just won't say which ones.She's an author so she can fill in the gaps ( when she's finished writing her dirty book)"
      - - - - - - - - -

      It's an insult to Ros though, but I expect she is too aware that you trying to close down this blog. A tactic used many times by the McCann camp. If they can get rid of Brenda they can get rid of anyone.

      Although I expect Ros will take it as a joke, although her blog is being undermined by dark forces as all Madeleine blogs are eventually closed down, DS for an example.

      Delete
    2. The link works with both MS Edge and Mozilla Firefox. After the blog page appears on the screen, it takes a few seconds for the post to come up. I always check the links I post.

      You’ve got the wrong end of the stick. The fault must be entirely mine. Thank you for your comments and link nevertheless.

      Good wishes.

      T
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


      “Anonymous28 July 2017 at 13:05


      ZiggySawdust 27 July 2017 at 23:25,23:31

      Magic, comrade, magic! And a very nice one from ‘Ogie’, peace be upon him. Shame he did not tell his readers the “nature” of democracy and of utopian fallacies is one and the same. That’s what mixing Balliol with the wrong Krishnamurti does to one, comrade, but this you already know from my Big Red Book.

      Bright shines your conspiratorial lantern late into that good night. When you’ve taken over the world, you will remember the minor who called you the Rising Sun, won’t you. A backhander here and there never hurts…

      Thrashing and hurling insults at passers-by… Splendid! Right up my street! At The Crown once you’ve risen? Ties, tights and cleats?

      The day is beckoning.

      Respect.

      Comrade Tse”

      Delete
  75. Ziggy 4 Aug 16.34

    Oh dear, Ziggy, you seem to have blown a fuse.

    Yes, I'm sure SY and the PJ have an explanation more important than yours and even if you are a McCann they won't be telling you what it is any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous4 August 2017 at 18:20

    ''It's an insult to Ros though, but I expect she is too aware that you trying to close down this blog. A tactic used many times by the McCann camp. If they can get rid of Brenda they can get rid of anyone.''

    Have you ever seen 'Poltergeist' ? That image of the little girl disappearing into the TV.I see that as the perfect image to represent the day you finally got sucked into the virtual world via your monitor.Walk into the light....walk into the light...

    ''Although I expect Ros will take it as a joke, although her blog is being undermined by dark forces..''

    the light...walk into the light....

    Anonymous4 August 2017 at 17:52

    ''Oh dear, Ziggy, you seem to have blown a fuse. ''

    No, don't be fooled by this darkness.It's only 'forces'.

    ''Yes, I'm sure SY and the PJ have an explanation more important than yours and even if you are a McCann they won't be telling you what it is any time soon.''

    That's jolly unsporting of them.That's it, I'm getting on the phone now to call Uncle Gerry and Auntie Kate.( damn, you tricked me with your intricate mental dexterity)

    Perfect example of how allowing yourself to be consumed by an unhealthy obsession and the internet can completely crush a sense of perspective and reality.No wonder stupidity has become the most dangerous virus online.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ziggy 4 August 19.29

    "Perfect example of how allowing yourself to be consumed by an unhealthy obsession and the internet can completely crush a sense of perspective and reality. No wonder stupidity has become the most dangerous virus online."

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Well, I think that goes two ways doesn't it Ziggy. You have your belief that the McCanns had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance and you ignore the findings of Eddie and Keela as if they never existed yet many others go the other way and believe the McCanns are lying through their teeth.

    So whose sense of perspective and reality is being crushed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Well, I think that goes two ways doesn't it Ziggy. You have your belief that the McCanns had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance..''

      Which part of don't ''don't fool yourself into believing you're a psychic'' didn't land ? Apart from you imagining I'm a McCann and part of 'dark forces' tying to undermine this blog before i have t shut down, you now see my thoughts and beliefs ? take some advice..before you start trying to invade other peoples heads out of boredom and obsession, sort your own out first, or get someone who can. I could do it, but no freebies. In the meantime. spend some of your boredom trawling the internet and come back with a single quote that has me saying the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance or that they did.

      ''you ignore the findings of Eddie and Keela as if they never existed ''

      I've debated and discussed the Eddie and Keela story to death on other threads here.Find me a quote that has ME ignoring anything to do with them.The forensic teams were responsible for any reports regarding the validity of them. Not me. The questions I raised were addressed to those who refuse to accept the results and prefer to stay with the hypothesis that they proved guilt of a crime and evidence of a death.Basically, i wondered then, and do now, what their opinions are in that area.

      ''many others go the other way and believe the McCanns are lying through their teeth.''

      I couldn't give a Donkey's bollock what 'many others' believe. Many believe that the tapas group were swinging paedophiles. Many believe Madeleine was used as a Lolita object. Many believe she was an experiment in cloning.Who cares what 'many' think when 'many' talk shite so consistently ? Many think Jack The Ripper was Queen Victoria and that the world is turned by pixies on a pushbike. It doesn't matter who you, me or anyone 'believe' were lying . It matters who the police of two countries believe. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.The state of play would be the same even if I said nothing.

      ''So whose sense of perspective and reality is being crushed?''

      Not mine, because it isn't possible.Not yours as you have neither.

      Don't address me again unless you're lucid.

      Delete
  78. POLL UPDATE

    48 (68%) think OpGrange IS a cover-up or MAY BE a cover-up.

    23 (32%) think it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should work for the McCanns in manipulating information. Using your reasoning it's 48 think it's not a coverup or MAY BE not a coverup compared to 35 who think it's a coverup

      Delete
    2. There is no MAY BE option in the poll.

      35 people think it is a cover up
      23 people think it is not a cover up.

      Delete
    3. It's hovering around 50 /50 ( yes - 50, no /don't know 50). I think it's less a case of some sinister manipulation by someone who doesn't hate the McCanns properly and more a case of figures changing because votes come in after posts.The 50/50 might be 60/40 in an hour..who knows.It is what it is - a realtime virtual ballot box.

      Delete
  79. If you think OG is a cover up then you must think that the current or even the previous PJ investigation is the same,there is enough evidence around not least in the FOI request mentioned up thread to show that OG is constrained probably legally to be only able to investigate what is contained already in the first investigation.Listen to Hogan Howe last year,"its essentially a Portuguese police enquiry".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The investigation, in my opinion,became a show once the UK influenced Portugal to remove their detectives and hand over the lead to them.That smacks of a cover up. Why they would cover it up is the only mystery.All that can be inferred with any reason is that the UK wouldn't send in MI5 and a couple of Prime Ministers to protect someone from Portugal.They oly act that fast and with that much attention to detail to cover themselves and each other-NOT two holidaymakers. There was far bigger more important matters to attend to back home( Blair seeing his term out, MPs campaigning to take his place etc).Would all that take a back seat to protect two doctors in the real world ? Even if anyone desperately clings to that theory out of a fear of seeing the parents as other than evil, it has to promote the notion that those covering for them see nothing wrong in throwing your child's body away like rubbish as long as the Brit's don't lose their mythological worldwide 'respect'.Bollocks for my money all that. OG can't be a self contained independent cover up of anything as they came in 4 years after the crime.It was already safely covered up. They're just playing their part in maintaining the illusion of 'police determination' for the press statements and media profits.They're scattering crumbs to the starving.

      Delete
  80. POLL UPDATE

    38 (52%) think OpGrange is NOT a cover-up or don't know.
    35 (48%) think OpGrange IS a cover-up.

    ReplyDelete