Friday, 15 November 2013

Perhaps... Confusing


In the apparently absolute insanity that the Maddie Affair has become, we stubbornly make the effort to keep our sanity intact and not allow ourselves to be distracted from our objectiveness.

Up to now, we've had little surprises. If we were to elect what has surprised us the most lately, we would choose how some thought that a 6,5 yr marathon would end with a short sprint.

Those people should be aware that besides their legs and lungs, long distance runners only have one tactic available to them to break the will of their opponents: alter the rhythm of the race by increasing the pace.

By doing that they force others to react unexpectedly and so waste precious energy both in compensating as in after trying to return to former effort.

Many have dropped out of long-distance competitions because of these “tactical short sprints”.

The harsh reality is that western civilization,  with particular acuteness in Britain, has gone back to medieval time.

The media, with their power to determine who is who and what is what, has taken over what then was nobility's role.

The legal system, with the fear generated by their arbitrary and selective disciplinary actions, has assumed the role of the medieval church.

The police has been resumed to their role of Sheriff of Nottingham: serve without questions or reservations the interests of those who keep them obedient.

George Orwell smiles sadly while Winston Churchill bows his head in shame.

In our DNA is... DNA post we said we were going to deconstruct all the information in the FSS Final Report about the stains found in the corner of apartment 5A that UK Crimewatch "forgot" to highlight  (Discrepancy 05 - The Living-Room Corner). 

We said were going to deconstruct it in 3 major areas "DNA Results", "Apparently Originating From" and "FSS Opinion".

The early September post, DNA is DNA, was about the first area, "DNA Results".

The second area, "Apparently Originating From" was too complex for a single post so we deconstructed into two posts: Remarkable Marksmanship and DNA - The Bar Code

Today, is about the third: "FSS Opinion":

Stains from the FLOOR:


#1No opinion. 
#2“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#3“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”

Stains from the EAST wall:


#4 “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#5“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. In my opinion, Fernando Viegas could have contributed DNA to this result” 
#6“…contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison” 
#13“…no profile was obtained”

Stains from the NORTH wall:


#7 “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#8“…contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison. 
#9“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. Also, this result did not match in any way the profile obtained from swabs 286A/2007 CRL 1A & B” 
#10“In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” 
#11“…no profile was obtained” 
#12 “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”

Stains from the COUCH:


#14“In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results” 
#15 “In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results”

This report apparently couldn’t have come to a more definitive conclusion: according to FSS there’s no relationship between the DNA found in the 15 stains in the corner of the living room of apartment 5A and any member of the McCann family.

The FSS opinion states that a very clear majority, 67%, of all stains (10 out of 15) found in that particular corner had nothing to do with the McCanns.

If we only take into account the 10 stains in which DNA was found, then that majority rises to a staggeringly and absolutely clear 90%. 

So, FSS conclusions couldn’t be more conclusive. NOT

For example, we have stain 14 that although its "results are not adequate for comparison purposes" the FSS is quite clear in concluding that it's completely unrelated to the McCanns:

"286A/2007-CRL 14A & B Swabs collected from the rear of the sofa
 

Weak and incomplete DNA results consisting only of some unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from the cellular material present in these wet and dry swabs. In my opinion the results are not adequate for comparison purposes. These samples were submitted for LCN analysis.
 

A mixed, low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in each of the swabs. In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results." 

We arent't told if stain 14 is from a male or a female or told if stain 14 is single-DNA or multiple DNA but one thing we are told: stain 14, although not adequate for comparison purposes, is not from the McCanns.

Based on what?

It could be on the FFS Interim Report of Sept 06 2007: "Incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b..."

So it seems that DNA from stain 14 has degraded with time.

What in Sept 2007 was "from more than one person" became in June 2008 "not adequate for comparison purposes".

After SY's brilliant justification as to why Bundleman is Crèche Dad (UK Crimewatch Discrepancy 11 - The Direction), we've learned not to pressure logic too much when it comes to all official conclusions pertaining to Maddie.

But albeit that, one has to ask why is there a conclusion about stain 14?

And why is there NO conclusion about stain 1?

"286A/2007-CRL 1A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

An incomplete DNA result, apparently originating from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs."


As can be seen, in it, DNA has been found with enough quality to state categorically that it’s “from a male individual but not matching any other profile obtained in this case”

If it’s possible to determine that no other in the case matches its profile it can only be because it was “strong” enough for such a conclusive comparison.

Lowe confirms that by saying that DNA profile in stain 1 was among the 4 he considered “strongest” (the others being 4, 9 and 16) to be compared with the “286 voluntary database”:

“For informative purposes only, a database from voluntary samples was constructed with the purpose of monitoring information. In accordance with the available records, the database is made up 286 voluntary samples, four of which were rejected. The voluntary DNA profiles were compared with the following samples:
286A/2007/CRL1A & B
286A/2007/CRL4A & B
286A/2007/CRL9A & B
286A/72007/CRL16A & B”

So why no opinion?

Mind you, Lowe doesn’t say he doesn’t have an opinion he just doesn’t write up one.

Stain 1 is the only one of the 10 stains in which "comparable" DNA was found that doesn’t merit a “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”.

One more or one less wouldn’t make much of a difference, now would it?

This absence seems to indicate sloppiness more than intention.

This apparent sloppiness extends to abuse in the use of “perhaps” language.

This is used by all of us in two circumstances. When we aren’t certain, legitimately or not, and when we don’t want to commit ourselves to a statement or statements.

We defend ourselves by populating the paragraphs of what we write with subjective terminology and the most diverse synonyms of “perhaps”.

The most commonly used are all expressions related to “opinion”. One thing is to say “It’s our opinion that…” and another, completely different in terms of assertion and certainty, is to say “We conclude that…”.

If you haven’t noticed, our posts are filled with the expression “in our opinion”. This is an intentional introduction on our part, for obvious reasons, of a subjectivity in our statements.

It’s not an innocent use of the expression. It’s intentional and we would like you to note that. In the exact same way and manner in which we want you to note how Lowe has also used it.

The job expected from Lowe was, through his scientific expertise, analysis and experience, to take out all possible subjectivity out of said circumstances that forensic science would allow him to do and certainly not to add subjectivity by selective word usage.

In a nutshell, it was expected of him to be as scientifically objective as possible.

An “opinion” is subjective and can always be corrected later, “indications” aren’t certainties, to “justify” is not to substantiate and a “theory” can be accepted or not and/or be controversial or not.

So to use “my opinion”, “indications”, “justify” and “theory” in the same sentence, meant to be precise and conclusive, isn’t exactly, in our opinion, appropriate use of words in a scientific report by someone bearing the titles of BSc, CBiol, MBiol and RFP.

Especially taking into account that said scientific report refers to the “Crime of the XXI Century”.

About those titles, we believe that Member Biologist (MBio) is the lower membership grade of Institute of Biologists, Chartered Biologist (CBio) is higher membership grade and Fellow of the Society of Biology (FSB) is the highest.

We will not question Lowe’s use of two titles referring to the same type of qualification but we will, and do, question: wouldn't someone at fellowship level membership be required to do this job on such a high profile, controversial case?

We do think a better qualified person should have been used. A professor. But maybe not, for obvious reasons.

We also noted the use of “theory” in the supposedly conclusive sentence. We honestly don’t understand what it refers to.

Was PJ investigating a theory? Please don’t confuse theory with hypothesis.

All hypothesis should have been investigated. A conclusion, or theory, occurs when one or more hypothesis are confirmed or validated and all others are discarded.

This is what we would expect from the FSS Final Report:


For each hypothesis, an explanation. Nothing of the sort in FSS Final Report.

So when Lowe says In my opinion, there are no conclusive indications that justify the theory" it's like one being diagnosed with the possibility of having cancer and after undergoing all possible tests one is told by the doctor: “Well, maybe, it may be that you might perhaps not have cancer.”

Really reassuring.

No, we’re not downplaying cancer or minimally being humorous about it. We are comparing the seriousness and severity of both situations.

This is a scientific report, signed by a scientist, in reference to a possible death under suspicious circumstances of a little girl. It just can't get more serious than that. 

A high profile case at its peak of notoriety.

The minimum expected from a Final Forensic Report to such a case would be to constitute a volume by itself. Filled with annexes, appendices and addendums, each filled with pictures, lab results, comparisons and other scientific gibberish, unintelligible to the common mortal but easily understood by the scientific community.

Instead we got pages filled with a lot of  “perhaps”.

It begs the question… why “perhaps”? Why not go full out and simply state “the DNA tests confirmed that all DNA samples don’t match with that of any of those from Madeleine Beth McCann or with those from any of the other member of the McCann family.”

If “In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” wasn’t substantiated beyond these words, a statement adamantly denying any contribution from the McCanns to the swabbed DNA wouldn’t need any different type of substantiation.

It would be sufficient just to say it, so why wasn’t it said?

Why the “perhaps” style? Why this “either-way” report?

The explanation is simple once you understand the timings.

This report was signed in June 2008. But it was preceded by an interim one of Sept 06 2007.

The Interim Report is a document written, in our opinion, to intentionally confuse.

If one was to number its paragraphs we would see it has 30 paragraphs. This is how the various biological samples are referred to in the Interim Report:

01 - Introduction and objective

02 - McCanns’ samples: DNA profiles CB/1, CB/2, SBM/2, SBM/3 and SJM/1

03 - Stain 3

04 - Stain 14

05 - Stain 15

06 - Stain 15

07 - Living room tiles: CRL (2) and CRL (3)

08 - Living room curtains: CRL (16(2))

09 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(2))

10 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(2))

11 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10(1))

12 - Renault Scenic: CRL (12))

13 - Various: Stain 14 and Stain 15, CRL 16 - living room curtains and CRL 2 and CRL 3 – Renault Scenic

14 - Renault Scenic: CRL (10)

15 - Stain 1

16 - Stain 4

17 - Stain 1 and Stain 9

18 - Stain 2, Stain 5, Stain 7, Stain 10 and Stain 12

19 - Various: Stain 11 and Stain 13 and CRL 3 - living room tiles

20 - Stain 6 and Stain 8

21 - Living room tiles: CRL 1, CRL 6, CRL 7, CRL 8, CRL 10 and CRL 11

22 - Living room tiles: CR/L 5

23 - Living room tiles: CR/L 9

24 - Living room tiles: CR/L 4 and CR/L 12

25 - Stain 3

26 - Stain 3

27 - Renault Scenic: CRL10 (2)

28 - Various: CR/L 16 – living room curtains, CR/L 1 – living room white curtains and CR/L 21 – bushes

29 - Living room tiles: CR/L 13, CR/L 14, CR/L 15, CR/L 16, CR/L 17, CR/L 18, CR/L 19 and CR/L 20

30 - Closing remark

Really confusing isn't it?

Information scattered all over the document with absolute no logic or sequence. Or should we say intentionally non-sequential?

So confusing that even Lowe got it wrong when it came to transposing the information to the final report as shown by the lack of coeherence on what is said in both about stains 1 and 14.

Introduce the “perhaps” factor and you have 6 pages of an intentionally really confusing document.

As was intended to be.

Remember how we showed, in our DNA - The Bar Code post, how specious Lowe was when using the expressions “apparently originating from at least two people”, “two persons” and “more than person”.

Confusion piled on top of confusion.

Add to all of the above that fundamental ingredient that most civilised nations have abandoned but which Britain, going against the grain, insists on using on any misinformation/disinformation campaign: xenophobia.

Look at what Lowe has to say about stains 5 and 17 (stain 17 is outside the scope of our current analysis at the moment but we're bringing it in to prove a point):

286A/2007-CRL 5A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment
A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two persons, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result. In my opinion, Fernando Viegas could have contributed DNA to this result.”


286/2007-CRL (17) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 2
A DNA profile that appeared to be from at least two sources was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area. In my opinion, the major part of the profile matched that of Lino Henriques. Departing from the principle, for it to have had a DNA contribution from Lino Henriques then the remaining information in the smaller part of the result is too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.”
 

So 2 forensic experts, collecting evidence from the scene of the worldwide most spoken of crime at the moment of collection, go and taint with their DNA said evidence and try to hush the fact by not reporting anything about it.

As everyone knows, one's DNA just jumps uncontrollably out of one's body, so maybe they weren't paying much attention and didn't see their little bits of DNA crawling out and creeping stealthily into those stains.

As they were Portuguese this not only is absolutely natural as is expected.

We bet they were doing the collection dressed in jeans or shorts and smelly and sweaty undershirts, dangling toothpicks in the corner of the mouth, belching and sneezing all over after each one having had, at least, a bottle of whisky for breakfast.

They should be blamed for contamination! One must be grateful that they only contaminated a stain each!! Those bungling Portuguese sardine-munching coppers!

But not all is lost.

John Lowe's conclusions solves the mystery for us all: it must have been Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, 2 forensic experts, who must of had a fight behind the sofa over a woman who happened to be hit when she stepped between them.

The woman, as her DNA appears in stain 4, must have been an unnamed Portuguese forensic expert also! Please don't ask us to describe her attire...

So there you have, two males and one female to explain all.

Add CG, a 2 yr old boy, into the brawl and you have all you need to explain those 15 blood stains in the corner of the living room of apartment 5A.

3 people positively identified: 2 Portuguese forensic experts, Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, and 1 little boy, months younger than the McCann twins at the time, CG.

But wait a minute... what was the Brit, Jonathan Smith who was supposed to technically oversee the collection, doing during this fight or "stain-contamination-process-without-reporting"?

You know, ...it was also requested that the signatories were to contact a scientific advisor of English nationality, named Jonathan Smith, so that he would indicate the manner in which to proceed with the collection of the referred stains.

Oh,  that's easily explainable. Jonathan Smith wasn't present because, it seems, Tapas had this peculiar policy and that was to offer free wine to any Brit (you had to be Brit to get this offer) who walked within a "good parenting distance" of Tapas.

As soon as he set foot in that apartment he just had to drink up as he had no choice but to take up the offer. So he wasn't there when the 2 Portuguese forensic experts were fighting.

But, say you, do wait another minute... if they were there to collect forensic evidence, wasn't that evidence already there before they started to fight over the woman?

Is there any other reason for them to be fighting it out behind the couch in apartment 5A?

Oh shoot... you are a real spoilsport aren't you?

You're right, that can't be explained, so please ignore our completely realistic hypothesis.

On a more serious note, we really think that someone should ask these 2 forensic professionals, Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques, about how did their DNA get into those stains.

We would be very, very interested in hearing their opinion

Both documents, the Interim and Final Report, are, as shown, objectively confusing. Scientifically written to be unscientific.

As we said, they were written that way because of their timings.

What was happening on Sept 2007? And what was the implication for Jun 2008?

The answer in the next post.

63 comments:

  1. The McCanns through the media have deliberately misled the public over so much in this case that it really does make the mind boggle the lengths that this guilty pair will go to trying to convince the public they are innocent !!!

    a child probably died in apartment 5a there is forensic evidence to support that, so the McCanns used Portugal's secrecy laws to their advantage and leaked information to the press to reinforce the ridiculous abductor scenario, but now the abductor scenario has run its course it is just plain impossible no matter how hard they try and change time lines or introduce new characters there was no abductor, there has never been any independant evidence of an abductor. The press became the McCanns puppets selling the abductor story which in turn sold newspapers, and so it went on. The biggest crime here is why have the McCanns not been charged, if Sr Amaral had been left to continue with this case they would have been charged by now body or no body. Their faces when they were made suspects gave so much away they knew it was over as Gerry said to Kate "we are ruined" and she said "what will my parents say" not exactly the words you would expect from innocent parents, but then the McCanns are not innocent and thanks to their persistance with keeping the (fairy)story in the press it will be their undoing because just about everybody has an opinion on the McCanns and the vast majority of people have lost patience with them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tonight on TV Children in Need so far has raised 6 million pounds, the public can be very generous with emotional issues, and this is how the Mccanns have manipulated the public. People have given their hard earned cash believing it was helping a desperate couple only to realise that it has been spent on wages for Mitchell and litigation cases, little of it has been spent on searching. The Mccanns have cheated many charities out of money people only have so much money to spend and once it is spent it has gone, they took from pensioners and children, in their worldwide campaign they used celebrities to push their message out about abductors. Now 6 years later we are left with websites all questioning the McCanns and asking why they were ever allowed to continue this farce.

    Kate and Gerry McCann will go down in history for what they are. I cannot find words to describe how I feel about the McCanns for what they have done, they are pure evil. This pair of criminals are despicable and bring shame to the human race. Kate and Gerry McCann the most despised couple in the world, they have shown no compassion or humanity, whenever I see photographs of evil this pair I feel physically sick for their duplicity and lies I am just grateful that I do not live anywhere near Rothley.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent post Textusa, thanks xx

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't believe for one moment that Gerry and Kate McCann were important enough to get this special treatment - there have been plenty of favours called in for this cover-up. The McCanns are worried hence this media frenzy. Clarence is off to Brighton to enhance his politital career the backers that once supported the McCanns are nowhere to be seen, they are on their own, the rats have left the sinking ship. Tic toc Mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I work in a supermarket and I can honestly say that the Madeleine McCann story does not sell newspapers. If the McCanns are front page people generally disregard those papers because as they feel that the front page headlines are what sells a paper and if it is recycled news like the Mccanns story people don't bother buying those papers, at the end of the day we have loads of papers to bundle up and they are always the well spun old stories that people are not interested in and that specifically includes Madeleine McCann. Readers want fresh factual news to read not PR spin.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mais uma vez um excelente post, Textusa. Muito obrigada.
    Nunca percebi porque é que, tendo o desaparecimento ocorrido em Portugal e tendo nós óptimos serviços de Medicina Legal, foi necessário enviar as amostras para o UK.
    Este foi um dos aspectos que me deixou perturbada logo desde o inicio e apesar de totalmente leiga na matéria.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I AGREE!
    I feel powerless living in this era of communication and yet being fed what those in power choose to feed us. We know things are not what we are being told and we have communication channels to voice our thoughts but have the threat of litigation if we say something the powers don’t want known. The judiciary seems to make things up as they go along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spy in the bag. Article in yesterday's Guardian expresses scepticism. SY conclusion not being accepted by press and public. People are laughing at them.

      Delete
  8. Just a thought... A sample of Madeleine's DNA had to be recovered from the UK. Cuddlecat had been deep cleaned, which would be the last thing any normal human would do. But that paved the way for her DNA to be gotten from England. Supposing the DNA supplied was of a close relative - aunt/uncle/cousin etc - then it would be plausible enough against any samples analyzed, but there could never be an exact match.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/lazer/tv--media/cmtv-faz-a-reconstituicao-do-caso-maddie

    Gonçalo Amaral, Moita Flores e o então ministro da administração intena, Rui Pereira, em estudio para comentar.

    CM reclama apresentação de imagens inéditas.

    Vamos ver se é desta que o jornal decide começar a desmascarar a verdade.

    Alguém me sabe dizer se as emissões da CMTV são abertas, ou são só para assinantes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 16 Nov 2013 06:23:00

      CMTV is one of many that are the responsibilty of Portuguese TV providers.

      The subscription to view it, either on TV or via internet, is a generic one covering all channels the provider offers.

      Delete
    2. CMTV é um canal de cabo/satélite, é preciso subscrever um "pacote" fornecido pelos operadores de cabo, MEO; ZON, etc.
      Uma opção é entrar no site da CMTV e ver os videos dos programas.

      Delete
    3. Eu só naõ entendo é esta recente visibilidade mediática, este recente "interesse" do Sr. Rui Pereira em relação ao caso Maddie...porque é que agora tem vindo a publico opinar sobre o caso, e opinar em sentido contrário à sua actuação aquando dos acontecimentos, altura em que exercia funções de alta responsabilidade, e em que fez NADA, absolutamente NADA para garantir a isenção e indepêndencia da investigação. Também ele tem culpas no cartório relativamente ao "assassinato" da investigação, não defendeu a honra das polícias, nem o direito das mesmas trabalharem sem interferências externas, calou e consentiu, devia ter vergonha de agora andar por aí a "botar opinião"!
      Gostava que o Dr. Amaral, no programa, lhe perguntasse em directo porque é que ele, enquanto ministro da admn. interna, responsável pelas polícias, se calou perante a avergonhosa campanha de difamação e enxovalho a que a PJ foi sujeita (e continua a ser) nos media nacionais e estrangeiros...? Posso estar a ser injusta com o Sr. Rui Pereira, ele até pode ter sido "obrigado" a engolir as suas opiniões e "dançar conforme a música", mas se assim foi, um homem de honra e convicções ter se ia demitido, mas ele não o fez...

      Delete
  10. Something very serious happen to that little girl and something very shameful involved the activities of the Tapas 9 in the OC to force forensic reports to be so fraudulent.
    Why the portugueses government ( at the time) eat that pie is what surprises me. They must had a big tail of corruption to hide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Freeport...
      google for José Sócrates and Freeport case (it's in Wikipedia)



      Delete
  11. I agree that there is something fishy about the sample of Madeleine's DNA given by Gerry. Why would he have to go to the UK to get it? Otherwise, it could be from one of the twins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lynette,

      Thank you for your comment.

      The McCanns' DNA will never alter and if they were retested for any reason, either at that time or in the future, the deceit you suggest would be revealed.

      Delete
    2. There is no deceit. I wish you people would educate yourselves. The DNA sample was not from one of the twins. Analysis of the sample showed it to be a female child, the daughter of Kate and Gerry McCann. It was checked against Amelie's DNA - it wasn't a match. It was subsequently checked against a known sample of Madeleine's DNA, taken when she was a baby, and found to be a match. QED, it was Madeleine's DNA. All this information is in the PJ files if you would only look.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 16 Nov 2013 09:40:00

      We agree there was no deceit. It would be a stupid thing to do when there is always a risk of DNA being retested.

      The pillowcase was said to be female child. Lesley Denton then asked for another check to make sure it was Maddie's and it was. She said as they had second female child she needed to check this.

      It's on Lesley Denton's reports in PJ files.

      We did not intend our comment to support deceit theory, just the opposite.

      However right or however angry one may be, it doesn't seem to us appropriate to tell people to get educated. One must always assume that one's wisdom and one's wiseness is not the wisdom and wiseness others may have. Others may know more or know less.

      Delete
  12. "The police has been resumed to their role of Sheriff of Nottingham: serve without questions or reservations the interests of those who keep them obedient."
    John Lowe was just being obedient.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Textusa,
    Your posts make me despair. I congratulate you for all your hard work but I come here and see that the octopus has his tentacles much deeper than I thought.
    Sorry for the pessismism. But I can't help feeling that if a disgrace happens we depend on falling in the "good graces" of the state. After having so many of its own involved in the cover-up, how can we expect any truth to be known? A line can't be drawn up to determine who gets to be blamed and who doesn't. There are too many involved.
    Please don't stop because of my pessimism. I would rather be pessimistic, helpless but aware of the truth than pessimistic, helpless and be called stupid.
    Wherever she is, Maddie thanks you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I also felt it was odd about Gerry coming home to UK for the DNA sample, there should have been plenty of Maddies DNA in the apartment, hairbrushes, clothes, flannels, bedding etc. Gerry loves attention when he came back to UK it could have been something else unrelated to DNA such as his marketing ploys and PR team. Gerry has never shown any effort or emotion towards Madeleine in the police station in pdl he stood joking and sucking a lollipop also the time he was filmed laughing on his apartment balcony or coming out of the church in pdl laughing days. If he had to come back to UK just to get Maddies DNA he would not have bothered, he'd have got someone else to do his running around he's that sort of person. He just loves attention and creating confusion he is a very sick individual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 28/6/07 Lesley Denton FSS:

      "In my opinion, the results detailed provide extremely strong support for the view that the profile obtained from the pillowcase originates from a natural child of Kate Healy and Gerald McCann. Please note: I understand that the McCanns have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her..."

      The saliva was later identified as Maddie’s, not Amelie’s.

      There are no doubts in our minds that the DNA collected from the McCanns was genuine.

      Because it was the interest of those deciding to have, in their possession, the proof.

      Once one has the capabilty to manipulate what information is released then one is not afraid of results, so no "in-house" fraud is required.

      The McCanns wouldn't dare try to fool their "helping hand".

      We went over all that with heelprick test and will not go over old ground again, as this is a distraction technique we observe on other blogs.

      Please read older posts on the subject, where similar comments appear with frequency.

      We suspect the origins of the comment which initiated the debate, which is now closed.

      No more comments referring the thesis of McCanns’ DNA samples being fraudulent will be published.

      Thank you for understanding.

      Delete
  15. An outstanding read Textusa. You are certainly dedicated. Who is responsible for the 'coverup' and why ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 16 Nov 2013 11:30:00

      Thank you for your comment.

      Why? The social stigma of being branded a sexual pervert.

      Who? An uncontrolled snowball initiated by those who would be most hurt by the social stigma referred above.

      Delete
  16. To our disruptor(s), we never did receive an answer to our very simple question:

    What was/were the constituent/s of the DNA yielding stains in the apartment?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Textusa - I appreciate the stigma of being branded a swinger, however 2 nothing doctors would not have the capability to orchestrate such a coverup. So who is being protected ? E*****s ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. That's what we keep telling people.

      Sorry, did not grasp what "E*****s" means.

      Delete
    2. Unpublished Anon at at 16 Nov 2013 12:30:00, thank you for the clarification. We were already aware of it.

      Delete
    3. Unpublished Anon at 16 Nov 2013 13:07:00,

      We are aware of the family connection but have no evidence to prove or disprove whether any influence brought to bear, so prefer not to publish, but will bear in mind your observations.

      Delete
  18. As we said we wish to end all discussion here about the veracity of the McCanns’s samples.

    We have stated our position and will not publish any more comments on the subject, including those supportive of our point of view such as the one received at 16 Nov 2013 12:40:00

    ReplyDelete
  19. Our position on the Maddie Affair is very clear. As we have said repeatedly, we owe loyalty only to the material truth.

    That excludes everyone and everything else, including Mr. Amaral.

    However we owe respect to this man.

    For the way we consider him responsible for outing the content of the PJ Files to the general public with his book, which caused the snowball effect of the collective response which we are proud to be a part of.

    Respect is also due to the man for the way he was needlessly slandered and persecuted beyond any contempt.

    We are going to keep silent, for now, about yesterday's CMTV show, with Gonçalo Amaral and Moita Flores in studio.

    For the same reason we have abstained from commenting on recent news.

    We feel that any commenting on our part may jeopardise the achievement of purported objectives, whatever they may be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      Também gostava de ser capaz de nao comentar o exercicio da CM tv mas a indignação é superior. Baseio-me apenas no video disponivel online. Não sei se é a totalidade, não está disponivel o debate.
      Se é este o video, mais uma vergonha que nào correspondeu a publicidade. Cadê as imagens inéditas, além de pela primeira vez nos dizerem que a mesa do Tapas é oval? Onde estava essa mesa que não apareceu nas fotos tiradas por diversos jornalistas nem no livro de GA? Fabricada nos ultimos anos para acomodar 10 pessoas num jantar que tudo indica nunca aconteceu.
      E que dizer das roupas dos actores? Jane Tanner com aqueles calções e sem casaco.... Contrastando com o "creche dad" que foi todo encasacado buscar o filho descalço e mal agasalhado.
      Pelo menos o jantar estava bem regado. Vinho não faltava, em contraste com a abstinencia do Crimewatch.
      Mais um exercicio paupérrimo que nada teve de reconstituição ou de revelação de imagens inéditas. Foi mais da desinformação em que anda empenhadono CM. Só não percebo porque aceitaram participar no debate, GA e Moita Flores. Foram enganados, por certo. Já o ex- ministro, deve andar a tentar limpar a consciência dos remorsos que muitas vezes o devem assaltar. Ajudou, voluntária ou involuntáriamente, a deixar impune um crime.

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Nov 2013 16:28:00

      Delete
    2. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      Afinal o video da CM TV ( meu comentário anteriot) é o spot publicitário. Vamos ver se acrescenta algum dado inédito, mas começa mal com uma mesa oval.

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Nov 2013 17:13:00

      Delete
    3. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      http://mariacpois.blogspot.pt/2013/11/o-cdm-e-as-migalhas.html

      http://mariacpois.blogspot.pt/2013/11/nao-importa-pois-nao.html


      http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/lazer/tv--media/especial-maddie-passa-este-domingo-na-cmtv153311000

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Nov 2013 17:32:00

      Delete
  20. Gerry and Kate deliberately set out to confuse and flood the media with infomration. many myths were created that it was difficult to know what was the truth, and this was their intention.
    IMO They are all involved and Madeleine died early evening the group all needed to be together that particular evening to give each other alibi's, other evenings they would have split up and all did whatever but it was very important for that evening to all be together. Diana Webster was aware of the covering for each other hence her comment 'what do you want me to do' when Kate signalled Madeleine had gone, it was all pre-arranged right down to the time lines and the checking scenaro. Following by the pact of silence.They chose the Tapas bar because they felt it was close enough to their apartments to be 'dining at the bottom of the garden' and the checking system seemed plausible. This gave the opportunity for the abductor to strike and the group were all safely seated together with alibi's away from the apartment.
    How did Maddie die? probably an accident as Amaral stated. Murders are rare but an accident can happen for all sorts of reasons. Why did they cover-up? Because as Textusa has mentioned they were all involved probably swinging it would have affected their careers and reputations and they would all have been obliged to remain in pdl for the investigation they would have lost wages and could not afford the ruin and stigma attached to such an activity. Others would have been involved in this swinging and it is those others that are protected at all costs, who knows who they are maybe Royalty,MP's Polititians .Was this swinging the reason Murat booked his flight with such short notice? it will all come out one day similar to how the Jimmy Saville case has evolved from gossip to fact. So many people knew about the activities of Jimmy Saville but decided to keep quiet and the same applies to the McCanns there will be those in the know that prefer to keep quiet whilst the money making McCann machine continues to spread more confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/351048/Friends-fear-for-frail-and-tired-Kate-McCann

    more rubbish journalism from the daily star

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 07:09:00

    ReplyDelete
  22. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    Reconstituição a SÉRIO só pode haver UMA, aquela que for feita sob a orientação da PJ e com os intervenientes que constam no processo: - os McCann e o grupo de amigos, os empregados do Tapas, os responsáveis do Ocean Club que responderam à emergência naquela noite, como Silvia Baptista, as nannies, etc., NADA de actores e figurantes (e figurões!)!

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 10:21:00

    ReplyDelete
  23. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    If the DNA in 5a was from two men and one woman, was one of the men Gerry, or is his DNA is one of the other apartments?

    it surprises me not that they attempt to cover up their adult activities. Good post Tex

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 17:39:00

    ReplyDelete
  24. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    I do not believe that none of the stains DNA were the McCanns of course they were, this is like Clarence when he said something along the lines of 'everything has a perfectly innocent explanation' what nonsense. They set out to confuse but this DNA from two men and one woman not either McCanns could suggest that swinging did happen in the apartment when the children were out at the creche.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 17:45:00

    ReplyDelete
  25. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    I cannot understand why all the forensic evidence appears to be buried, it is never mentioned. All we ever read about is the fake abductor, nothing about any forensics. It is disgusting how our taboids pander to the McCanns.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 17:48:00

    ReplyDelete
  26. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":
    584,322 page views - well done Textusa, soon be a million, thanks xx

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 17:50:00

    ReplyDelete
  27. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    "The "Creepy Man" that time forgot... but never The Sun McCann Files"

    A brilliant research at Mccannfiles exposing also the involvement of some witnesses like Paul Gordon, who claimed to have been in the 5A before the Mccann's, and Gary Cooper.

    And that: ..."Following Mrs Cooper's further statement to the police, and the press conference four days later, a further sighting was reported by a Donegal woman, who did not wish to be named."....
    "Donegal"? Was not that the place the Mccann's went on previous holidays? I strongly believe that, almost all that holidays, were related with the swing and like a drug adicted, all swingers use to holiday on the same places. That's why they were forced to lie and get involved due to the circumstances.
    Why Paul Gordon accepted to have his son DNA messed up in a crime scene with adults, and where hypothetically another child was abducted? Why did not he strongly refused that confusion and request the samples to be tested to eliminate his son?
    The weakness of this characters is amazing, compared with the way they get involved with the newspapers to deliver confusion. They lie... To help who and why, is the wuestion.
    And what about Kate and Gerry Mccann assuming to Sandra Felgueiras that the guy who abducted their child was the Creepy man seen by Jane Tanner. Now SY, says Jane Tanner saw a creche dad. Adding the two, Creepy man is the Creche dad. Then, the Mccann's believe Creche Dad was the one who abducted their daughter. Why no movements on SY side to frame Creche dad and charge or dismiss him? The various liars with their lies, left SY on a corner without much room to help on the cover up and came out of the case cleaned.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 18:30:00

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      Anonymous18 Nov 2013 18:30:00

      Thank you for your comment.

      We think you mean GAIL Cooper and not GARY Cooper, the actor.

      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 19:24:00

      Delete
    2. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      Thank you Textusa, yes is Gail Cooper

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Nov 2013 20:41:00

      Delete
  28. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    Do exercicio do CM, retiro 3 pontos:
    - A cama em que Maddie terá dormido era a que estava encostada à parede e não a que estava por baixo da janela, como os pais reclamavam e onde foi filmado o cuddle cat.
    Penso que a investigação de Textusa já demonstrou que Maddie não terá dormido em nenhuma das camas e na que estava encostada à parede, a ter dormido alguém, seria Kate.
    2 -Os cães pisteiros terão assinalado sangue da criança na sala atrás do sofà, levando os investigadores a pensar que a criança terá subido ao sofá para ver o que se passava lá fora e caído.
    3- os mesmos cães pisteiros também assinalaram sangue na parede do quarto dos pais.
    ( este dado é novo, porque até aqui dizia-se que era no armario do quarto).
    Então isto pode querer dizer que Maddie se magoou com uma hemorragia violenta que projectou sangue para as paredes ao ser transportada da sala para o quarto, numa hipotética tentativa de a socorrerem? Se foi assim, também é possivel que sangue tenha sido projectado para as paredes da sala, daí o problema levantado ao investigador
    forense. Teve de arranjar desculpas para as amostras recolhidas e se a desculpa fosse sempre a mesma, dava nas vistas. Arranjou duas ou 3 que encaixavam no menu para deixar tudo inconclusivo sem se comprometer com uma investigação futura.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 19 Nov 2013 10:35:00

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      Anonymous 19 Nov 2013 10:35:00

      Few corrections to your comment that don’t forfeit its interest.

      We said in our Mistaken Identities post that we think Maddie slept in the bed near the window, a natural choice to have a child her age sleep as it shies away from the incoming light of the window.

      Obviously, if we think she died early evening May 3rd, we don't think she used either bed, or for that matter the room, that evening/night.

      We also said in that post that Kate did not sleep in that bed as she alleges to have done out of jealousy bout (1st statements) or feeling mistreated by Gerry (her book).

      She says she sleeps there to justify an unmade bed after having hastily allocated the other to Maddie.

      When they made up the story, apparently it made more sense to them for the abductor to have looked through the window and see Maddie and that the best one for Kate to realise that her daughter had been abducted was the bed near the door.

      Whatever went through their minds to make this decision we don't know but it's a fact they made it.

      This bed confusion just highlights two things: the haste in which things were done after Kate’s extemporaneous alarm and that their collective concentration had been focused outside the bedroom.

      We now know that their efforts were centred in having no one to notice anything unusual in the corner of the living room.

      They never turned their attention to the room. Otherwise the cots would have had sheets and the window would have been really jemmied when the GNR arrived.

      The dog signalled blood in the closet. The images seen is the dog first reacting by the closet and then inside the closet once opened.

      In the scenario you propose, you forget that there were 2 dogs. Cadaverine was also found in both places.

      That means the body was not immediately transported from the living room to the parent’s room (closet) but remained long enough for cadaverine to develop in that corner.

      All the rest you say is possible and plausible.

      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 19 Nov 2013 11:13:00

      Delete
  29. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    Then the forense clues are between the living room, the parents room and the plants bed near the balcony, where probably the body was kept while waiting for the best moment to take it, even if it was only few minutes. After the cadaverine start developing, was easily left, like a trail.
    The room was setled up as the only possible scenario to allow sleeping children while their parents went for a dinner. The only scenario, under what they could create an abduction. Since was setled on a rush, they committed many errors on the details. Things, they ignored but are in fact very relevant.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 19 Nov 2013 13:28:00

    ReplyDelete
  30. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    When cadaverine was found on the plant bed could this have been when Gerry was talking to Jez, maybe Gerry was removing Maddies body and Jez came along so Gerry crossed the road to speak to him to stop him from seeing the body amongst the plants. Earlier in the evening the body could have been hidden in the closet where the dog alerted and Maddie could have died behind the sofa where the dog also alerted.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 19 Nov 2013 18:54:00

    ReplyDelete
  31. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    From the beginning the McCanns lied, why did they state the windows were jemmied when they knew they were not (was the plan for somebody else to jemmie the window and they couldn't do it). Were the deleted phone calls to the rest of the tapas group and why would Mitchell say they did none of this group took their phones with them in the evenings, but whatever they did with Madeleines body they feel confident it will not be found.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 19 Nov 2013 20:33:00

    ReplyDelete
  32. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    As the cadaverine was also alerted to in the scenic and on Kates clothing could this have been due to whatever they used to transport Madeleine's body then being carried in their car, and Madeleine's body was never put into the scenic but whatever they used to cover her was. Did they check all rented vehicles that family and friends used for Maddies DNA. I noticed that Michael Wright has been in court in the Lisbon case and he was also a named driver on the Scenic. The mileage on the Scenic was exceptionally high, but this could have been a deliberate ploy by the McCanns to create confusion especially with the Heulva trip. Now we have more facts, what Gerry wrote in his blogs could be checked against what happened on those days. Days he refers to as quiet and not much happening such as when the dogs alerted are significant but he plays it down, perhaps they should check back on his blogs this could be why he had these blogs deleted. He lied about his wallet being stolen thats for sure so what else happened that day?

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 19 Nov 2013 20:45:00

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      I think that Kate's clothes had cadaverine on it from holding her daughter when she visited her body where it was kept. That would explain her clothes having it and Gerry's not.

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 19 Nov 2013 21:47:00

      Delete
  33. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED REPOSTED (could not remember to which comment this reply is related to. My apologies)::

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    Well said. Also in my opinion SY are champing at the bit to find a solution to this case and cannot admit that there are other police services be it in Portugal, France etc who find the culprits in a few months or even days. I am sorry to say this but SY is just a fallacy and have absolute no credibillity in my mind. So we have Detective Redwood in his fancy suit talking smirking etc and playing games with us. Well I never. They are an absolute disgrace all of them to the British society.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Nov 2013 15:30:00

    ReplyDelete
  34. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED (could not remember to which comment this reply is related to. My apologies):

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

    I sincerely hope that you are right.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Nov 2013 15:32:00

    ReplyDelete
  35. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":
    Everyone is laughing at SY. How degrading for such an establishment to put forward such fallacies.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Nov 2013 15:47:00

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REPLY DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

      Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":

      Totally agree. They are even being compared to Hindley and Brady. There must be a reason for this

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Nov 2013 16:04:00

      Delete
  36. COMMENT DELETED BY ACCIDENT, NOW REPOSTED:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Perhaps... Confusing":
    I actually woke up at 5 this morning and the first thing in my mind was maybe Clarence wasn't such a bad guy after all and had been specially trained to deal with this sort of thing and put close to the couple to really susss them out. Pigs cannot fly.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Nov 2013 15:49:00

    ReplyDelete
  37. Forensics found only Kate's handprint on the window could Kate have slept in the second bedroom with Madeleine and the twins every night, in her book she lays claim to only sleeping once on that room, but supposing her and Madeleine and the twins always shared the same room because her marriage to Gerry was not going well, hence his comment I'm not here to enjoy myself. Kate went off on a sulk when Gerry paid attention to the Games Mistress and she also makes reference in her book as to how Gerry was not attentive and went off to bed one night leaving her with Payne as Gerry was tired, its all in her book, and I feel we must read between the lines, her fingerprints could have been on the window because she always slept in that room with the children.
    Gerry McCann looks like a bully, he is not husband material and definitely not father material. Men like Gerry McCann are thankfully few and far between but sadly for Maddie he was her father but not her protector.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 21 Nov 2013 20:03:00

      Your “supposing her and Madeleine and the twins always shared the same room because her marriage to Gerry was not going well” is a supposition on a supposition as Gerry’s comment is enigmatic and many an interpretation about it can be made. Yet you continue with your comment as if your double supposition was fact.

      It seems odd for a couple to expose their unhappiness in such a public manner even if their marriage was rocky.

      In case of a marriage crisis, the comment doesn’t make sense within the context of an attempted reconciliation. And, still in the same unconfirmed hypothesis, if it wasn’t to attempt reconciliation, then why make the trip in the first place?

      I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t find it minimally enjoyable going on a holiday trip with a couple, however friendly I could be with either, who would bring an unpleasant aura to the trip.

      The episode you say Kate sulks has different versions, within the McCanns. One is that it was due to jealousy. The other, the 2011 book, was the one you refer. We will wait for the next version before deciding which (not) to believe.

      We see absolutely no relationship between Kate having slept in that bedroom and her fingerprints on the shutters.

      Since you rely so much on Kate’s book we find strange why Gerry’s fingerprints weren’t found on those shutters. Kate clearly says that he pulled the shutters down and as far as we know he wasn’t wearing any gloves.

      We, in our Mistaken Identity post, say that Kate did NOT sleep on the bed next to the window. This is based on the photo that’s in the PJ Files. Not hearsay but easily verifiable fact.

      The photo shows clearly that the bottom of the bed is NOT unmade as it would be if an adult had slept in it. Clearly only a small child slept in it.

      Taking into account that the only small child, within the McCann household, that didn’t sleep in cots was Maddie, we have supposed that it her that used the bed last.

      Your “Gerry McCann looks like a bully, he is not husband material and definitely not father material” is baseless.

      Delete
    2. Textusa,

      Although I love to read your responses to the "polite trolls", this time I must disagree with you on one point: the only context needed to justify saying that Gerry is not father material is this whole sad affair. What father would do what he's done with his daughter? Besides covering up her death he and his wife have used her image to go up the social ladder. I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned Gerry is simply disgusting as a father.

      Delete
  38. The only thing confusing about this case is why have the McCanns not been charged!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Kate looks haunted now and I believe its due to their lies and attempted cover up, it shows in her face and as a mother she must regret her actions. Gerry on the other hand appears as he could not care less, still as smug as ever believing that he is invincible. I almost feel sorry for Kate to have been married to such an ego-head as Gerry McCann.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 21 Nov 2013 20:12:00

      We ask not to make any personal comments about the McCanns without context.

      We seek material truth and not personal judgement of character.

      Delete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa