Friday, 26 September 2014

Maddie's Pandora's Box

Update on Friday, 03OCT14 09:00:

We are leaving the present post for another week, as we think its relevance can be assessed in the light of recent developments on twitter.

Any action seems to have a counter-reaction and we wait with interest to see what that counter-reaction might be.

The best way to see how this chess game is being played is to spend time analysing the moves. So that's what we will focus our attention on this week – watching, rather than writing.


We think many in the Maddie case are confusing a moment of glory for glory itself.

Confusing the “Raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima” with the “V-J Day”.

The V-J Day was the end of WWII. On August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. It had its official ceremony on September 02 on-board USS Missouri.

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (23FEB45) on Mount Suribachi didn’t even represent any victory of any battle. It was just an iconic moment of one. A milestone of the Battle of Iwo Jima (19FEB45 – 26MAR45).

It happened 4 days into what would be a 35 day battle. Many would die on the following 31 days on that island on that battleground In fact 3 of the Marines appearing on the photograph, Harlon Block, Franklin Sousley, and Michael Strank were killed in action over the next few days.

And many millions would lose their lives in the war between that moment and V-J Day.

It was a glorious moment, filled with symbolism and it caused an enormous impact on public opinion but it was, as said, only an iconic moment and nothing more than that.

Just like it will only be an iconic moment when the McCanns are officially charged. Nothing more than that.

Only a milestone. The “war” will continue and each inch of terrain still has to be conquered with all the “casualties” that it represents.

And that is what we think some in the Maddie case seem to be failing to realise. They cry for that moment without realising exactly what they’re wishing for. All in our opinion, of course.

All because of what we call MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX.

This case has to have one. There is no way around it. It’s not optional. And some have not realised that nor the full consequences of what that entails.

We’re not saying, although we do advocate it, that charging the McCanns will open the truthful MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX, the one that would reveal the real scandal behind this case. We’re just saying that a Pandora’s Box, whichever one will be chosen, will be opened. But one has to be opened and that is what the moment the McCanns are charged truly represents.

Many, we repeat, in our opinion, are overlooking this. Failing to realise that whatever one is opened it will have to reveal names, faces, institutions, locations and, above all, reasons.

To find closure on this subject the general public has to have its thirst quenched in what pertains to the following:

1. Why did the case take so long to solve?

2. Under what circumstances (who, why, when, where and how) did Maddie die?

3. If Maddie died in the apartment, why was body taken away from it?

4. If Maddie died in apartment and body taken away, where was it taken to between 10pm – 4am and subsequently on the following hours and days?

5. What happened to Maddie’s body and who and why helped for that to happen?

6. Who protected the McCanns and why were they protected the way they were?

Six simple questions that have to be answered. Have to and not should be.

Only the last question may go unanswered but that is only in one instance, the whitewashing scenario, the only one that doesn’t contemplate the McCanns being charged. But even then answers to all the other 5 questions is mandatory.

In all scenarios in which the McCanns are charged all six questions have to have an answer.

And each answer to each one of the questions, be the charges whatever they may be, has to be satisfactory. Clear and clarifying. The public demands it. It's sick and tired of the circus the Maddie case became and wants to have explained why it had to endure such penance for so long.

And in all scenarios where the McCanns are charged, a MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX has to be opened. Publicly. As we said, absolutely no way around this as we will show.

All those thinking that the day that charges are brought against the McCanns for Maddie’s death and/or disposal of her will mean the end of things are only fooling themselves. No one will be saying “that’s all folks, let’s clear the area now as there isn’t anything more to see here”, because there is more to see: the answer to the six questions.

Plus, it has to be a Pandora’s Box indeed. It has to reveal secrets. It has to provide those anticipated scandalous elements that everyone is expecting and won’t settle until they get them. Only then will the crowd empty the public square and return to their homes.

Attempting to limit things by only saying the nation protected them because they were pretty and seemed lost on that foreign land, won’t do. It will be futile and only exasperate people further.

There will have to be skeletons flying out of the closet. Enough of them to justify why truth was held hostage for so long.

And that, we think, will have disastrous consequences for some of those now advocating the McCanns be brought to trial. And we’re not only including the “WH” – or pretendy White Hats – but also Government BH Deciders. SY is only their piece on the board.

Those who think it’s possible to bring the McCanns to justice without ever having swinging brought up in the process.

Let’s try and prove our point. Let’s imagine we are able to distribute Aladdin’s Lamps all around. Each one is to rub the one they’re given and ask the respective genie to have the McCanns charged exactly the way they want them to be charged – no more, no less. Charges tailored to fit as per the accuser’s desire.

For example, the paedo-scenario believers are to ask the genie to have Payne charged with Maddie’s murder and for having sexually molested the 3 yr old girl. The McCanns are to be charged with all that involved protecting the murderous nepiophile who killed and abused their daughter.

All believers of each one of other scenarios please formulate the respective charging scenario accordingly. The respective genie is to grant these wishes.

Let’s proceed from that moment. The moment the McCanns are officially charged as per scenarios above.

First thing that one has to realise is that once that happens for a certain scenario all other disappear. Once the McCanns are charged the chosen scenario will be the one. One cannot have the McCanns charged within the paedo-scenario and then when one may find out that it doesn’t have legs to stand on or that it’s becoming too compromising for some to change to death by sedation. What is done cannot be undone.

Once charged the chosen scenario must be taken to the end. There can’t be changes. Those charges have to be unique. And whatever official MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX scenario that opens it will be the only one that will be opened. All others will be thrown away.

This one will then become the official MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX. The one that has, we repeat has, to answer all the six questions satisfactorily.

UK cannot risk for that not to happen. UK cannot risk having been “duped” once with the abduction and then finding out it has been “duped” again. That would be too much of a travesty.

No turning back once the McCanns charged.

To exemplify what we mean we have to pick a scenario. Let’s choose Maddie having died from sedation. Among the many we have read it’s the less sensitive one. The one that has the least controversy.

Why the investigation took so long would be easily explained by the fact there is no body so it would be very difficult to find the appropriate proof. True, if we discount the fact that hairs could have always been tested for these substances all these years as, it seems, there are still some hairs out there.

But all other questions will be very difficult to have an appropriate answer.

If she died of simple sedation, and for whatever reason the parents and friends wanted to hide that fact, why on earth did the UK mobilise all national means possible to hide it?

Was death by sedation really a reason to warrant a cover-up of such magnitude?

If she died by sedation, wouldn’t it have been easier just to say she had died of sudden death and then control all autopsy processes? Unfortunately many die with no explanation every day, so it seems quite a plausible excuse to use to avoid raising any suspicions from authorities. Only an autopsy would contradict this but that could be overcome by having the ambassador request the body be flown back to UK and have the autopsy done there.

But, we insist, even if the autopsy contradicted the “sudden death” what would be the big problem for UK if it was found out that she had died indeed of sedation? It would be only a case of parents being caught in a lie. What serious harm would the McCanns going to prison, or not, bring to UK? We see none and it would show how ridiculous it was for a nation’s ambassador to have rushed from Lisbon to Luz because of a group of friends who committed indeed a crime were having problems with the law. Why were the McCanns protected above and beyond all their national peers in such similar circumstances? The answer very difficult to provide.

If Maddie did indeed die of sedation why not be transparent about it? Having the Portuguese authorities find out that was the way she died would be problematic for the parents, no question about that, but the parents were just a middle class couple from Rothley. They should take whatever was coming like everyone else. So, again, why all the fuss and hurry UK showed in helping this couple?

They are doctors. We came up with the sudden death and I’m sure this group could invent something better if needed until “proper” help arrived. Would any medical explanation given by doctors be found suspicious by local authorities? We don’t think so. GNR would call PJ, simply because it was procedure, and PJ would in turn call coroner on duty.

What had UK to lose if the sedation was discovered? British doctors accidentally killed their daughter by sedation is news that wouldn’t last more than 24 hours. UK must have owed something to this couple, or their friends, to commit itself the way it did and that has to be explained. Can it? We don’t think it can unless another Pandora’s Box is opened. You know, the one with all the expected scandals.

Someone would have to be explain exactly which card was played by the T9 to make UK come and to protect them. A reason for that would have to be given. But more than a reason, we would have to have a face, or faces, of those who folded under pressure to this McCann, orT9, blackmailing and an explanation from him/her/they as to why that happened.

Anyone seeing someone coming forward to accept this role? We’re not.

But some reason has to be given for UK’s utter commitment to the couple just because of a sedation.

But even if all of the above can – we don’t see how but will pretend it can – be explained, that is not the worst obstacle this scenario has to face to be credible. The biggest obstacle it faces is all that concerns what happened to the body. And this obstacle is one all non-swinging scenarios face

Why it was taken away from apartment?

Where was it taken to and when did that happen? Who helped and why?

Who, where, when, and how was the body disposed of?

For example, was the body taken to the sea and dumped there? Then the exact place where that happened must be shown. The public will want to know that. And once it is shown it will be historic, it cannot be changed. No longer a hypothesis but a reality to be put straight into history books.

So this part of the storyline has to be nailed very tightly shut. No question about that.

Also there will have to be an explanation as to why the body didn’t wash up somewhere. What were the special tide conditions that night that enabled that to have happened? From what we know, the sea was “normal” during those days, nothing extraordinary was ever reported. Chilly evenings do not affect tides and currents.

The body should have washed up in the following days. Why didn’t it? That coast line was combed to the inch in those days by air, sea and land.

What about the intentionality of the Smith Sighting? Will it be ignored?

We have thoroughly explained this intentionality and have only been contested with a sporadic “I can give you many reasons as to why Textusa is wrong about the Smith Sighting” but then giving none.

If the proposed scenario is to state it was the “creation of an abduction” as we say it was, then the explanation of what happened to the body has to take that into account.

If the proposed scenario is to state that it was Gerry walking around with the body then it has to be ignored. That will bring the risk of being questioned in the future as many have read our posts and people will still be able to come and look here and ask themselves why wasn’t logic taken into account.

Were signs like this put up in Praia da Luz on the night of May 3rd?

We have debunked any sort of body disposal at the beach. But let’s imagine they will say that was exactly what happened. That Gerry dug with his own hands a shallow grave on the beach sand and returned later to collect the body.

Again, it will have to be shown where this grave was dug. It will have to be explained when he returned to it and, most important, where he took the body afterwards.

Did he take it to someone in Luz? Who? Why? And how and when did Gerry get this help? Did he walk up and knock on an ex-Pat’s door and asked if they minded having over the dead body of his daughter who he just happened to kill by sedation?

Or was it some sort of covert UK organisation who covertly came to get the body and took it to UK that night? Because of a sedation?!? And would the UK ever recognise that? If it didn’t happen, and we are certain it didn’t, we’re not seeing that happening.

Was he taking the body to the church? We debunked that too. Who called the priest? Why did the priest accept doing this ignoble favour to people he didn’t know? Will the priest acknowledge all this?

The problem with invented scenarios is that for them to become real they rely on having people taking the blame for doing something they didn’t do. Why should they? Let me, who I didn’t do anything, condemn myself so that the McCanns, who are guilty of doing, get away with it and don’t get the blame? Whenever required, do replace “McCanns” with whichever names are appropriate.

To aggravate this further, these people, who have to admit to something they haven’t done, will have to confess (invent) why they hid a body they didn’t hide.  Why they allowed themselves to be convinced to participate in a crime involving a death by complete strangers.

For example, look at the paedo scenario. Someone from UK will have to come forward and say yes we knew all along that Payne was a paedo and that he did kill Maddie but we decided to protect him because…

What reason can there be and who will volunteer to play this ignominious role? No one.

Unless it’s true but then it will not be role playing.

Here let us be very clear that if time proves that Maddie’s death resulted from a paedo crime, we demand the above referred be fully exposed: why was a nepiophile protected and who in the establishment covered-up this horrific crime.

Unlike with the swinging-scenario, in which we respect that most of the names of those present there swinging are not to be named as they haven’t committed any illegality nor contributed to the state of events, if the paedo one is the truthful one we think all names associated should be exposed as all would be accomplices to a monstrous crime.

We are not competing with other theories. We only want to find the truth. We respect difference of opinions. We do not claim we’re right. We may be missing connections or misinterpreting either way the importance of this or that event. We accept others may interpret things in a different manner.

We may not yet have pieces of information that may change our opinion. If and when that happens, we will welcome it. If we’re proven wrong we will easily change our minds because our opinions are not fruit of stubbornness or pride.

One thing we don't do is to pretend to look the other way whenever we see something that seems conflict with what we believe happened. Truth is unique and all its pieces have to fit. Nicely and without forcing any of them into place.

We, the swinging-scenario believers, want the paedo-scenario to be completely and thoroughly investigated. Because if it’s the truth, it’s the truth we want outed and also because we believe that a full investigation on it would produce interesting results supporting our theory.

However we have to say we do not see from the paedo-scenario believers this same type of interest in having the swinging-scenario thoroughly investigated but note this with interest.

But it’s not only the paedo-scenario that warrants this very specific question.

If it was real-estate then what exactly was the deal hidden and what names were involved.

If a scientific experiment, what was it and why was it hidden and, again, what names involved.

If death before the third, the Ocean Club will have to explain why it collaborated in this horrendous crime – crèche records show a live Maddie up to that afternoon – and Mr Philip Edmonds will have to explain why he’s lying when he states clearly, in a letter to Mr Tony Bennett, that he was with Maddie on the afternoon of the 3rd and why he manipulated photos showing Maddie in the background:

“Dear Mr Bennett,

I am in receipt of your letter of 22 July regarding Madeleine McCann.

I am sure you would appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment too much, as we do not know each other, and I have no idea what your connection to the case is. However, I would also not want further conspiracy theories to fester by simply ignoring your letter. Therefore, I can confirm that whatever information I had (including some photos of my sons taken on the day Madeleine disappeared, which showed her in the background) was passed both to the police and to the McCanns at the time.

Having been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and seen all of the events first hand, there is not one shred of doubt in my mind that the events as reported were correct. In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller.

I’m afraid I won’t enter into further correspondence on this matter with you.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Edmonds”

There has to be a MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX but any MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX, including the truthful one, will have to reveal names. The truthful one will reveal the names of those who were really involved while all others will only expose volunteers for the fall. And what a fall it is.

One good thing Mr Summers did with his book was to confirm the importance of the Maddie case. It lies with the likes of 9/11, the JFK assassination and Marilyn Monroe’s death. It is indeed the crime of the 21st century.

That’s why we, the swinging-scenario believers, welcome the charges against the McCanns, whatever they may be. For the exact same reasons we said we welcome a full and official investigation on the paedo-scenario.

We believe it will be the most significant step in unfolding the material truth.

As we said, the moment the McCanns are charged the MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX becomes the one and only. It cannot be changed.

And that’s what SY has been struggling with since 2011: to find a scenario where there’s no MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX to be opened – at the same time find closure on the subject that dignifies Mr David Cameron. Like we explained in our Covering-up the Cover-up post

It’s an impossible task. The closest they can get to it is the scenario we described in our Rats post, whereby Gerry dumps Maddie’s body at sea.

But being close is not being there. Far from it. Ask any silver medallist of the Olympic Games. That storyline contains the events to the T9 but fails to answer who the protection question. A British couple and friends killed a little British girl and dumped her body at sea, so why has UK come together to defend them?

Is it alright for a parent (or their friends) in Britain to kill their daughter and then help dispose her body? If it is, why isn’t it so if done in Portugal? If it’s not, why isn’t it also in Portugal?

Someone will also have to explain why the authorities have turned a blind eye on blatant evidence for over 7 years.

Explain why only now the dogs are considered reliable and why only now aren’t the authorities buying the T9 story. To then say it was because they only now started to see that the wooshing curtains and the window jumping didn’t add up… will beg the question, it took them more than 7 years to realise that?!?

The only other possibility is the burglary. It is the ONLY scenario that doesn’t require a MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX. If they can pull it off.

All that is required is to have a name (or names), to have a face (or faces), to have a plausible story as to why, when and how was Maddie killed – having to justify also the blood spattering, to have a plausible story as to why, when and how was the body taken out the house – having to justify also the cadaver scent behind couch and in the closet, to have a plausible story as to why Rua da Escola Primária was chosen – also justifying why wasn’t a car used, to have a plausible story as to why, where, when, how and who received the body, moved it and disposed it, and to have a plausible explanation as to why were 2 police forces and entire populations fooled for over 7 years.

All this in an absolutely iron-clad non-alibi of the suspect(s) – as opposed to having one.

Besides the above, it has to be justified why there was cadaver scent and Maddie’s DNA in the Renault Scenic. Had the burglars stolen it from the car rental company that night and returned in the morning without anyone realising?

And wherever the body went that night it must be made clear why 800 people combing a 3-5km radius couldn’t find it as reported by BBC on 05MAY07:

“Tourists, local people and expat residents alike have turned up at the Mark Warner village in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz to join the hunt.

So far approximately 800 of them have helped comb an area between 3-5km from the resort alongside teams of police officers and firefighters, as well as members of the Red Cross.”

Not that simple or that achievable.

Our opinion is that SY is pursuing the Burglar theory to show the Swinging BH Deciders that it’s not even a dead-end but really a brick wall. Banging the head against it will only make one bleed and not bring it down. It’s illogical, challenges the mind of anyone over 3 and, most importantly, will meet a fierce challenge.

Mr Summers book was proof of that. It’s astonishingly negative selling surprised all even its detractors and being ridiculed the way it was all across the board, showed very clearly – if still there was no doubt about it – that UK cannot afford to even try to commit to that avenue.

To sum up, the McCanns are either charged with the truth and accept the opening up of the truthful MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX or the case is to be re-archived. Any solution in-between will always open an uncontrollable can of worms.

We believe that too much time and all kinds of resources have been spent for the last 3 yrs by UK to settle for a re-archiving solution.

To come up with some lame excuse for all the humiliation and all the money spent is simply to pile a bigger problem on an already huge problem and, although delaying – uselessly – the explosion, but will only seriously aggravate the effects when it does go off. Because it will. Sooner or later and we think sooner than later.

SY will always have to explain what they were doing searching West and East of Praia da Luz in June 2014 and why they did that. Was it indeed a Portuguese man seen by a British woman speaking English on a mobile while holding a little girl? Because if that is the case then we have a true plague of men holding little girls at 22H00 on May 3 2007 in that true Village of the Damned: Crèche Dad, Smithman (who SY says is seen heading East towards beach/church) and Sockman who heads West.

And if none of these is the abductor (of Sockman only a sock was found so no Maddie where he was seen heading) then please add the fourth: the abductor!

Exclusive to Praia da Luz

We think PdL should put up a specific traffic warning sign: danger, man carrying a blonde little girl ahead.

But in what way does the McCanns being charged benefit the credibility of the swinging scenario?

First because the mandatory existence of a MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX guarantees us that things will not be contained within the T9.

Then because once any “fake” MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX is opened we think all in danger of being involved will do all they can to not be caught in the whirlwind and will push those who were really involved into it. For example, we expect all those involved in the body disposal to have to step forward. Once they do, who knows who else will follow?

A “fake” MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX is a sure way for the real truth to surface.

That’s why we have been advising to use the truthful MADDIE’S PANDORA’S BOX right from the start.

To those thinking a re-archiving will be a solution because it will make things dwindle away, please think again.

Mr Amaral has made it quite clear that it’s his life mission to see the couple charged. He will not be stopped or stop.

Now is the time for the Deciders to choose between putting an end to this quickly or allowing it to continue to be an agonising issue for UK for many years to come. It’s their call.


  1. Thanks once again for an illuminating post. I can just hear the men in their offices saying "well, yes but... can we just explore this option... " . Understandably, they are and have been looking for a way out of opening the truthful Maddie Pandora Box but surely after three years someone can start being a man not a mouse. The truth will out.

  2. This shows very nicely the complexities of this case. It's such a pity those responsible let things get completely out of control. A lie just generates 10 more new lies and so on and things like this happen

  3. Thank you for explainig this extremely deep and thought provoking Maddie's Cube. The longest journey starts with the first step. If only they would just start!
    A good in-depth look at what may be the future ahead. I just hope it's not shelved as it would mean more waiting for justice for Maddie.

    1. My apologies I wrote "Maddie's Cube" by mistake it should have been Maddie's Box - sorry.

  4. Thank you Textusa for opening this Pandora's box a very interesting article and one that cannot be dismissed, Mr Amaral is strong and steadfast and on the path of truth, the truth will out maybe it will take longer but eventually it will be told and the Mccanns and their friends will be seen and known for what they are.

  5. Superbly argued.

    It was in my library.

  6. This post spells out with great clarity why SY are taking so long. Trying to square a circle is a UK expression that comes to mind.

  7. What if the Pandora's Box was the reason for all the secrecy? What if DP knew something terrible about some high-level paedo politician and threatened to expose him. That would make UK act the way they did IMO

    1. Anonymous 27 Sep 2014 10:32:00

      Let’s imagine that DP has indeed the kind of information you say he could have.

      So what?

      Information only has value if it can be used. As in the question “"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

      If one cannot use it, it’s useless.

      One can only blackmail if one has leverage. Without it, it’s simply a ridiculous exercise. It’s called calling the bluff. If one cannot stand a reaction to a threat one is wiser not threatening.

      Imagine DP, under the circumstances you’re supposing, called Politician X and said “Hey, listen I killed this girl by accident and need, no, not need, I want you help. If you don’t, I will tell all about you and what you do to children”

      If the answer was “You do that. I dare you to” what would DP do? Call the papers? And would the papers print the story or say “Hey, glad to know that but please take that somewhere else because we’d rather not use it”?

      We think all know the answer.

      And would DP even risk an answer of “Are you threatening me?!? Well, little man, you thought you had problems with whatever you just did but now I’m going to show you what real problems really are…”

      One does not use this kind of sensitive information (again, repeating that we’re only supposing such information would exist that night) just because one wants to. One has to be able to.

      We cannot see what leverage a doctor at a not particularly prestigious hospital could have held over a powerful politician that would make the latter afraid of the first.

  8. Is Crechedad the person Tanner saw, as Redwood stated on Crimewatch in October 2013?
    Is Crechedad still on Mcs Site?
    Why was Crechedad seen in the background shots in recent Crimewatch 30 year anniversary special if Redwood ruled him out?
    Why is Tanner sighting mentioned in Summers's book, without any mention of revelation moment by Redwood on October CW, revealing Crechedad?
    Was Crechedad unaware that he was featured on Mcs site as a suspect after giving his details to Leicester Police years ago?
    Same question applies to LP.
    Was Crechedad a bluff? Those PJs featured on CW looked too big for a 4 year old.
    In short, what the hell's going on?
    Explain this Mr Summers, if you can.

  9. I very much admire your coolly-analytical approach Textusa, but I still find one thing in it puzzling: if, as you rightly say, a case of accidental death by negligent parents would be news for only 24 hours and would scarcely warrant a 'cover-up' of these proportions, then why should the grubby but hardly wicked activities of a few provincial would-be adulterers in an ordinary foreign holiday resort? Or am I being especially dim? I agree entirely with the Pandora Box line of reasoning

    1. Stephen Brody

      Could you please clarify what you mean by “few provincial would-be adulterers”?

      Do you have privileged information that allows you to make the claim those present in Luz that week were all “provincial”?

      For example, we hardly think that Mr Philip Edmonds could be called “provincial”. We’re not saying he was swinging but that he was present that week as he does recognise he was.

      Along with Mr Edmonds, who else was present there that should not be called “provincial”?

      The swinging scenario involves many more outside the T9. Not just “a few”. And from different layers of middle-upper and upper society.

    2. I don't know, and of course I don't have "privileged information", except that they all seem very ordinary to me. Are you suggesting that these individuals are in some way 'important'? Even so, I would find it very hard to believe that their mundane little peccadilloes would rate so highly on a scale of wickedness as to justify the extent of the 'protection' which is so obviously going on. I'm not very convinced by the 'paedophile' theory either. What a mystery it all is.

    3. Stephen Brody,

      Again we must ask you what individuals are you referring to so that our opinion may be objective.

      If you're referring to the T9, agree they're not important enough. In fact, that is, for us, a clear indicator that cover-up went above and beyond them.

      If you're referring to those present in OC that week we have no intention of attributing names to swinging but one has just to look at the guest list and other non Mark Warner guests for a general overview of backgrounds of people who can be identified.

      Many were people who would not be described as provincial. Professionals with company directorships, lawyers, pharmaceutical executives, bankers...

      Each one, if they were swinging, would have their own network of connections, more or less powerful, more or less influential, to protect themselves from being publicly exposed.

    4. I have thought for quite some time that the key to all this is is, indeed, Mr Edmonds.
      Why would a man of his wealth and stature holiday, in May, at a down-market complex like the Ocean club?
      I would imagine that the garage on his Swiss property has more appeal.
      From Edmonds, the link to British circles of sexual perversions is short and strong.
      The name Margaret Hodge should set alarm bells ringing everywhere.


    1. Anonymous 27 Sep 2014 11:29:00

      We have developed a hard-nosed scepticism about dramatic revelations, be it Crèche Dad or Birch.

      We will adopt a wait and see position on this.

      However, our first reaction is to say that unless there’s a video actually showing the moment Maddie died, we cannot see what is to be shown that would be more condemning to the McCanns that hasn’t already been shown and “ignored” by the appropriate authorities.

  11. BBC should explain as they featured JT Bundleman in the background during Living with Murder CW.
    Didn't Redwood watch the programme and wonder why he was shown?
    Perhaps a FOI request to SY is required. Asking whether they have received further information about JT sighting which now means there were 2 men sighted, carrying pyjama-clad girls in the dead child position, at the same time, followed by another sighting with a child in sleeping child position.

    1. There is a brief reference by Summers to Redwood's revelation, which mentions a father carrying his daughter home from the crèche, "which might mean there had all along been an innocent explanation for Jane Tanner's sighting of a possible abductor."

      But this equivocal statement seems to suggest that Redwood has not ruled out JT's sighting after all. So what was all that publicity about, with SY showing the photograph of Crechedad and how the clothes he wore matched JT's description?
      I can only conclude that we are now being led to believe that there were 2 men carrying a pyjama-clad girls in dead child position, unless we have some clear statement from SY to the contrary.
      As members of the public, we have a right to expect truth and clarity about who we are supposed to be looking out for. And Crimewatch has a duty not to misinform its audience.
      We are being treated with contempt.

    Not even a swinger! No mercy in UK for sex scandals. Even between consenting adults

  13. Textusa my point is that if the reason for the cover up is that the uk msm is ruthless when it comes to sex scandals and it would distroy the lives of high level people if their swinging activities were revealed why does this ruthless msm not follow their nose and investigate it. If its the case that these high level people control the msm why not just allow the mccanns to be arrested at the time and control the msm sufficiently to prevent exposure of the swinging activities. Is it (sorry im thinking as i write) prehaps as you aluded to that some eejit went with the plan to claim abduct and although it was a crazy idea once put in motion couldnt be recalled

    1. Anonymous 28 Sep 2014 09:09:00,

      The McCanns certainly used the media at the outset but they didn't gain control of it for some time.

      They acquired people with skills in reputation management and specialist lawyers to exert control.

      The headlines up to that point were not at all sympathetic.

      Also, we think when the accident happened, media control wouldn't be uppermost in their minds.

  14. lifted from a comment on JH forum today, may be of interest to you.

    Peace, Love, Justice @LarryPKay

    NANNY and TWEETER at Mark Warner Ocean Club Praia de Luz when Madeleine #McCann VANISHED admits
    S W I N G I N G

    1. Anonymous 28 Sep 2014 15:38:00,

      On reflection, we are wary of accepting this as evidence of the nanny being a swinger.

      We are not users of twitter,but it seems it is possible that someone could have posted that comment mischievously. We have no idea who the person making the comment is.

      Twitter users can block comments but once a comment is made, it may be seen by a number of followers of that twitter before further comments are blocked.

      If we have got that wrong, I'm sure somebody will tell us.

      Much as we like to have evidence to back up our theory, we want it to be solid and reliable evidence.

      As usual, we will see how this story develops.

    2. I took it to mean that maybe she was admitting to swinging taking place in general at the ocean club.??? not necessarily as the nanny being involved.
      anyway, I just passed it on as I am an avid follower of your blog and thought it may be of you say, lets see how this pans out.
      Keep up the excellent work !!!

  15. A comment in a DM article:
    "Neil Waterhouse, Basingstoke, 4 days ago
    I wonder if he could help Kate and Gerry find the blue Sports bag that Portuguese Police wanted to find !!??? The one that appears in Police crime scene photographs, exactly where the Police sniffer later barked its head off as it could detect where a human corpse had been..... But which people in the UK are obliged to believe never existed because the PR team and Gerry says he never had one !"

    Read more:
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    LOL ! LOL ! LOL !

    Not only did the comment get through the DM moderators, but it is still there !

    (also in Jill Havern's forum)

    Are Summers and Swan ashamed of the book and have now disowned it?

  17. I think this link may be useful for people to use to check if a FOI request is listed, particularly to check whether there is a request regarding Summers meeting with SY in February 2014.

    The the person that did book review by chapters has closed his blog.
    "I have been persuaded by men in suits that I should not publish another post about the McCann case"

    1. Anonymous 29 Sep 2014 18:02:00,

      Sad to hear this.

      All those wishing to read what was in that blog:

    2. It can also be read here:

    3. I have noticed for a week or more that the book Looking for M. has disappeared from my local Eastons. When it was published there was about 6 copies and they were not well publicised in the shop. Then at the begining of last week they had all gone. Prehaps it was that they were all sold...I don't think so but if they were they were never replaced.

    4. All chapters of the book:

    5. Sorry, previous comment said book and meant the closed blog. Sorry

  19. Philips states very boldly that they are dishonest and misleading, with clear evidence to back up his assertions.
    It was probably very hard work to cross check with PJ files, K's book and press accounts, but he does quite a good demolition job.
    If he was threatened by lawyers, he probably has an excellent defence but it costs a lot of money to do that.
    But, Summers withdrawal of all refs to the book suggests it has been fatally wounded, as the cross references which contradict him are now easier to use as checks.
    The fact that Summers gives no ref notes or sources leaves him open to these criticisms.
    It shows the book, even if only first 7 chapters, is riddled with errors, omissions and misleading connections.
    I'm sure there's plenty more to be found.
    Even if it was all correct, it's a badly written book. The style is cringingly bad in places, with stupid rhetorical questions. I had to force myself to continue reading.
    And it's very short, considering the wealth of information in this case.
    Seems hastily written and a composition from different contributors.
    A lot just seems to be padding - the poem by Simon Armitage and quotes from the books that M said to like.
    I think interns that Summers thanks in intro may be responsible for some of crap writing.

    1. Anonymous 30 Sep 2014 19:20:00,

      Thank you!

  20. Dear Textusa Sisters, you may have this link - - (posted on twitter today) "Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police" report by William Turvill on 19 September, 2014

    1. Anonymous 30 Sep 2014 20:46:00,

      Thank you for the link.

      We already had it on a previous post but out reply was that case number was dated 2014, which makes us think there is another case listed for this year, as yet unheard.


    Interesting comment about Summers and MSM:
    "Summers has always been one who likes to be in the MSM limelight. And he is familiar with what it takes to get there. Even if the MSM is dying a slow death."

    And it seems he's usually vague about all. His speciality is to use many words to say nothing.
    " I asked him a few questions, like who he believed killed JFK, and who covered it up, but he hasn't answered yet."

      See last para about libel case in 1980's
      It's now clear what Summer does. Picks up bits and pieces, adds his own words and doesn't interview primary sources. Tom Mangold complained that he was a source who could have been interviewed over the death of Stephen Ward, in the Profumo affair, as Mangold was there on night Ward committed suicide.
      What Summers has done is open all of his books to closer scrutiny of his methods.

  22. Is this a form of "a middle man" ?

    1. Anonymous 2 Oct 2014 10:28:00,

      Could you clarify what form are you referring to?

      Thank you

    2. Sorry I was replying to above post at 1st October 2014 16:25:00 having problems with posting with iPad - sorry.

  23. Hi Textusa
    do you have any comment regarding the news in The Times / Mail / Sky relating to the Mc Canns being targeted by venomous internet trolls?

    1. Anonymous 2 Oct 2014 11:00:00,

      Any abuse is condemnable and should not be accepted or clearly reprimanded to set an example.

      That’s the blog’s policy and we intend to maintain it. “Any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse” aren’t accepted.

      We think ALL abuse, from either side of the fence, is to be investigated and wonder if the Pro-McCann abusers will get the same publicity.

      We will obviously be watching which “abuse” is targeted and which isn’t. This will show clearly which agendas, BH and “WH”, are being allowed.

  24. It maybe wishful thinking but I am hoping that today's media articles regarding venomous threats towards the Mc Canns is part of a staged approach in Murdoch emerging as a hero. Am i being a little too optimistic?

    1. Anonymous 2 Oct 2014 11:03:00,

      Nice thinking! Well, all we can say for now is that it appears MSM is screaming “People, please do go on the internet and search about Maddie!”, doesn’t it?

    Why does Martin Brunt hold the original 67 pages? Is it a habit for SY to hand over evidence to reporters to help them out when filming?
    I'm sorry the woman didn't react to Brunt by asking him "And aren't you ashamed of what you're doing about Maddie?".

  26. Todays PR spectacle of martin brunt clearly bullying the lady who had commented on the mccanns will hopefully ensure more people go online and check out the mccanns version. The public should be made aware of the controversy surrounding this case, information which is currently not reported on but this information is freely available on-line. As the lady in the interview stated there are many questions the public and surely the met need clarification on. The mccanns cannot silence the internet try as they may and the freedom of speech and information that it provides.
    The reason the public comment on the mccanns is because their story is so unbelievable for example the numerous abductors and varying and differing descriptions..... and oh so much more!

  27. Martin Brunt arrived outside the womans home uninvited with a camera crew. Her confidentiality was compromised how did he get her address and personal details? what right did he had to interview her without her permission accusing her of being a 'troll'. She should take legal action against Sky. Why did he have a folder given to him by the police with personal information on members of the public ?
    This latest stunt coincides with the publication and the adverse publicity generated by the summer and swan book and the mccanns are using scare tactics again to silence their critics.

    1. It was all fake she was part of it. The usual McCann smoke and mirrors.
      Maybe Martin Brunt will be awarded an acting Bafta for his role as 'concerned investigative reporter'. The police would never release confidential files to news reporters enabling them to wave around during interviews.
      PURE PR.

      Sweepyface named
      Lived in Leicestershire

    3. To all readers,

      We inform that we will not allow any more comments about this woman. We don't know if she's an abusive White Hat or a Black Hat (a fraud White Hat or as we like to say, "WH") and she's being attacked as both.

      We won't add to attacks on her as we strongly disapprove of outing anyone, be they White Hat or Black Hat, in this way.

      However, IF, we repeat IF, this woman turns out to be a fraud, we would like to point out that this wouldn't be the first time Martin Brunt "manipulated" a report on this issue as shown in our Swan Lake - Act 3 post:

    4. Unpublished Anonymous 2 Oct 2014 23:21:00,

      Thank you for the information which we won't publish, for reasons already stated but as you have given information which we can check, we want to acknowledge that.


    Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout
    Kate McCann and Gerry McCann

    Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.

    McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.

    The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”

    Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeats calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.

    After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.

    The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.

    In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.


  29. cont

    “This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”

    Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.

    The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”

    Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago.

    In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.

    His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “The cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family, who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.

    “So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”

    A dossier of online abuse directed at the family is being examined by police. Members of the public have handed Scotland Yard a file stretching to more than 80 pages of tweets, Facebook posts and forum messages, according to Sky News.

    The material is said to include suggestions that the couple should be tortured or killed. One comment reportedly said: “These 2 should burn in hell.”

    Scotland Yard said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange [the Met’s involvement in the search for Madeleine]. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.”


    Leveson has changed nothing– the media still put ‘stories’ before the truth
    McCann trial against former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral

    Nearly three years ago my wife, Kate, and I appeared before the Leveson inquiry to talk about the campaign of lies that was waged against us after our daughter Madeleine went missing. We described how our lives had been turned into a soap opera so that newspapers could make money, with no regard for truth, for the distress they were inflicting, or for the damage caused to the search for Madeleine. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that in future things would be different and that nobody would ever again have to endure the dishonest reporting we experienced, or at least that there would be some quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers.

    Nothing has changed since then. Big newspaper companies continue to put sales and profit before truth. The protection for ordinary people is as feeble as it always was.

    A year ago, when Kate and I were experiencing a time of renewed hope as the Metropolitan police stepped up its new investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, we received an email late on a Thursday night from the Sunday Times. Its reporter asked us to comment on information he planned to publish. This turned out to be a claim that for five years Kate, I and the directors of Madeleine’s Fund withheld crucial evidence about Madeleine’s disappearance. We rushed to meet his deadline for a response. In the vain hope that the Sunday Times would not publish such a clearly damaging and untrue story, we sent a statement to the newspaper. We denied the main tenet of the story and emphasised that since Madeleine’s disappearance we had fully cooperated with the police and that the directors of Madeleine’s Fund had always acted in her best interest.

    However, the Sunday Times went ahead and published the report on its front page, largely ignoring our statement. We tried to settle this matter quickly and without legal action. I wrote to the editor asking for a correction, but all we got in response was an offer to publish a “clarification” and tweak a few lines of the article – but still to continue to publish it on the newspaper’s website. Indeed, further correspondence from the paper only aggravated the distress the original article had caused, created a huge volume of work and forced us to issue a formal complaint to get redress through our lawyers.

    Eventually, two months after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page – the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages, all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell the public that we had won the case. But the cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there.


  31. cont

    Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family – who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.

    So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Absolutely nothing. Newspapers continue to put “stories” before the truth, and without much care for the victims.

    They treat the people they write about as if they don’t exist. Wild animals are given more respect. They hide behind talk about the rights of the press while they routinely trash the rights of ordinary people. They constantly claim to stand up to the powerful, but they are the ones with the power, and they use it ruthlessly.

    Legal action should be a last resort. A final route when all else has failed. I don’t blame Leveson. He recommended changes that would make a big difference. He wanted a press self-regulator that was not controlled by the big newspaper companies and that had real clout. If a paper told lies about you, you could go to this body and count on fast and fair treatment: it would not just let papers off the hook. More than that, Leveson wanted a cheap, quick arbitration service so that ordinary people did not need to resort to the law. Our experience shows this is a vital reform.

    Parliament backed Leveson’s plan. The public backs it. So do we, and almost all the other victims who gave evidence to Leveson. Only one group of people is opposing this change – the perpetrators themselves, the same editors and newspaper owners who were responsible for all that cruelty. Instead of accepting the Leveson plan, these people, including the owner of the Sunday Times, have set up another sham regulator called Ipso, which is designed to do their bidding just like the old, disgraced Press Complaints Commission.

    If in another year’s time the press still rejects the royal charter – itself already a compromise – then it will be time for parliament to deliver on the promises the party leaders made, and ensure that what Leveson recommended is actually delivered. Otherwise elements of the press will go on treating people with total contempt. This time, once again, it was Kate and I who were the targets. Next time it could be you.

  32. Martin Blunt and the woman were 'acting' she was part of the PR. Why after 7 years chose just one person to make an example of, and then threaten action against others. The internet is full of sites and commentators and tweets with valid points questioning the Mccanns. Why chose this random woman who said absolutely nothing on camera? If she had been genuine and been tweeting about the mccanns she would have said more as this would have been her opportunity the whole thing if you look at it again is nothing more than a PR exercise to scare people off from having a critical opinion about the Mccanns.
    The Mccanns are so predictable this is yet another PR exercise, don't be fooled by them.


    Correio da Manhã

    O Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) confirmou a condenação da pena de prisão de Afonso Dias, já condenado pelo Tribunal da Relação do Porto pelo rapto do jovem Rui Pedro, desaparecido em 1998. O advogado do arguido vai recorrer da decisão.

    O STJ decidiu o indeferimento do recurso apresentado pelo advogado de Afonso Dias, que tinha pedido a nulidade da sentença, decretada a 6 de junho último e que também determinara que Afonso Dias cumprisse três anos de prisão efetiva pelo crime de rapto do jovem Rui Pedro.

    O advogado Ricardo Sá Fernandes, que representa a família de Rui Pedro, disse à Lusa que mais importante que a condenação de Afonso Dias é saber o que foi feito de Rui Pedro. "E isso vamos continuar a tentar saber", frisou.

    No tribunal de primeira instância, Afonso Dias foi absolvido por não ter sido provado o crime, mas a família de Rui Pedro, criança que tinha 11 anos quando desapareceu a 4 de março de 1998, recorreu para a Relação do Porto, que viria a condenar o arguido a três anos e seis meses de cadeia.

    Efeito suspensivo

    Paulo Gomes, advogado de Afonso Dias, acrescentou à agência Lusa que o recurso que vai apresentar no Tribunal Constitucional tem efeito suspensivo, pelo que Afonso Dias vai continuar a aguardar a decisão em liberdade.

    Sobre a decisão do STJ - a quem o advogado recorrera pedindo a nulidade do acórdão que condenara Afonso Dias pelo rapto de Rui pedro -, o advogado disse não a estranhar.

    "Não esperava outra coisa", disse Paulo Gomes em declarações à agência Lusa, acrescentando não ter sido ainda notificado desta decisão do STJ.

    O advogado recorrera da decisão tomada pelo STJ, a 5 de junho último, quando este tribunal confirmou a sentença do tribunal da Relação do Porto, reduzindo, contudo, a pena de prisão efetiva de seis anos e seis meses para três anos.

    Após ser notificado, o advogado de Afonso Dias tem agora 10 dias consecutivos para apresentar recurso da decisão do STJ para o Tribunal Constitucional, recuso que tem efeito suspensivo e que faz com que Afonso Dias continue a aguardar em liberdade.



  36. Winston Churchill wrote "History is written by the victors". At present, history is being written by us all, but let's remember what is at stake here because this is not a game, it is not about wining or losing it IS about right and wrong, it is about the truth and most of all it is about justice for MBM. It does not take a detective nor a genius for that matter to work out that the Mc's are guilty of at the very least neglect. This is where one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt of a wider conspiracy because if the Mc's had to answer to that it would lead to a wider investigation, hence the 'abduction'. All the nonsense about sovereignty and it happening on foreign soil is utter cr*p, if the UK authorities wanted to do something about this from the off they would and they know it. Seven years on we see a spectacular own goal by the all involved now and the latest 'vile troll' nonsense. Luckily we have the internet that is not controlled by North Korea and the 'truth' is continuing to surface about this case. We live in interesting times...

  37. I dont know if your woman was a pretendy WH but she did make brunt look a bit foolish. Also she didnt seem surprised to see a television crew chasing up the street after her. All very strange

  38. Unpublished Anonymous 4 Oct 2014 21:43:00

    As we said, we don't publish personal details of people we research, but you're correct in saying that some people speaking against the McCanns are not always as they appear.

    Your information seems to support your doubts. 

    We suggest that people do their own research when there appears to be something strange going on.

    We don't advocate making it public but it does inform the way one can see the game being played.

    We also keep our own archives, in case we ever need to use them to support our position.

  39. If Brunt doorstepped me, I'd have a lot of questions to ask him!

    1. Anonymous 5 Oct 2014 11:48:00,

      We would recommend readers revisit our Playing Games post:

      The recommendation to revisit Swan Lake - Act 3 post remains valid:

  40. For info Matthew Freud in £250 milllion split from wife Elisabeth

    Read more:

  41. The following article from the link shown gives a clear picture of what we can expect from OG.

    Monday, 28 April 2014

    A biography of Hamish Campbell, the man chosen to head Operation Grange


    This article is an examination of the man chosen as the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Grange, the review of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Its remit was eventually prised out of the Metropolitan Police by means of a Freedom of a Freedom of Information Act question. It was:

    “To examine the [disappearance of Madeleine McCann] and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter….The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness”.

    Although when the investigation had been archived in Portugal two main alternatives were suggested - either abduction, or the hiding of Madeleine’s body by her parents - those who set up Operation Grange were clear. From the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary to the then head of the Met, Sir Paul Stephenson, abduction was the only hypothesis to be investigated. The review, as the Prime Minister’s spokesman clarified, was ‘to help the family’ (the McCanns).

    Given this, the ‘agenda’ is set from the start, dismiss all possible thoughts that the parents were/are involved in the disappearance in any way.

    The likelihood of OG turning on the T9 is remote, therefore the only possible way for the investigation to cover all angles is for massive public support for an independent public enquiry, firstly into the remit of OG and why it was only to investigate the hypothesis of abduction...


    1. This is a tragedy for her family and friends.

      It is for them to express their condemnation of what has happened to her.

      We will not intrude on private grief by making any further comments ourselves or publishing comments on the blog.

    2. It's 19:20 here in UK
      Sky New's silence about this is offensive. Sorry for the rant.

    3. If you do a search for her name on the Sky website there are 0 results.


    5. My condolences to Brenda's family. RIP

    6. UK press disrespect Brenda by continuing to call her a "troll". Disgusting.

    7. Sky news and Martin Brunt are COWARDS with blood on their hands !
      Shame on them!!!

  43. Unpublished Anonymous 5 Oct 2014 23:08:00,

    We understand fully what you're saying and can even go as far as telling you that some of what you state has our concurrence but we prefer not to publish your comment as your words could, at this time, be misinterpreted.

    Thank you for understanding.

  44. RIP Brenda - Martin Brunt should be ashamed of himself he brings disrespect to his proffession

  45. This poor lady even in death she is named as a troll. How disrespectful. Martin Brunt is himself a troll for the way he treated her and why was she targeted by Sky when there are so many critical opinions online concerning the mccanns almost everybody has an opinion of the mccanns. Sky news will need to address this but so far they have stayed silent. Cowards all of them!

  46. Sky and Martin Brunt are nothing more than a bunch of bullies. They have no right to doorstep members of the public waving police files and frightening them with police action. The police should investigate SKY and its illegal reporting policies.

    1. Myself, and three members of my family have just cancelled our Sky TV subscription. When asked why, we told them. There was almost a ghostly silence on the other end of the phone.

      I have signed up to a Virgin package.

  47. Will the death of this poor woman push SY to close the review as quickly as possible? It should

  48. Unpublished Anonymous 6 Oct 2014 08:42:00,

    We will hold your comment back for publication at a later date, whilst we give the family time to comment, if they intend to do so. We agree with your sentiments and will publish this and similar comments as soon as we feel it's appropriate.

    Once again appealing to our readers' understanding but we are waiting for a family response before saying any more.

  49. Sky News has lost completely this. The time to apologise has passed. Reading FB/blogs/forums people are very angry about this.
    Now there's even a FB page to sack Martin Brunt:
    Let's not forget Gamble and S&S are also a part of this.

  50. SKY NEWS:

    21:56, UK, Sunday 05 October 2014
    McCann Abuser Believed To Have Been Found Dead

    Has now been replaced with:
    09:01, UK, Monday 06 October 2014
    McCann Abuser Found Dead In Hotel Room

    More than 24 hours later, Sky News only BELIEVED she was dead. UNBELIEVABLE!!
    I'm FURIOUS!!!!

    1. For the record original news:

      McCann Abuser Believed To Have Been Found Dead
      21:56, UK, Sunday 05 October 2014

      A woman who abused the parents of Madeleine McCann on social media is believed to have been found dead in a Leicestershire hotel.

      Brenda Leyland was featured in a Sky News report on internet abuse earlier this week.

      A spokesman for Leicestershire police said: "Police were called at 1.42pm on Saturday 4 October to a report of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park, Leicester.

      "Officers attended the scene, and a file is being prepared for the coroner.

      "Identification of the deceased is a matter for the coroner, and the death is not being treated as suspicious."

    2. For the record, corrected article:

      McCann Abuser Found Dead In Hotel Room
      09:01, UK, Monday 06 October 2014

      A woman who abused the parents of Madeleine McCann on social media has been found dead in a Leicestershire hotel.

      Brenda Leyland was featured in a Sky News report on internet abuse earlier this week.

      A spokesman for Leicestershire police said: "Police were called at 1.42pm on Saturday 4 October to a report of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park, Leicester.

      "Officers attended the scene, and a file is being prepared for the coroner.


    3. "A woman who abused the parents of Madeleine McCann"
      Where is the presumption of innocence?! Sky News is not retracting anything! It's continuing to accuse. Where is Brunt? I want to hear from him now! Someone should walk up to him now, in front of his house and stick a camera in his face and ask him what he has to say about this.


    News > UK > Home News
    Brenda Leyland dead: Sky News faces online backlash following death of Madeleine McCann parents' 'troll'

    James Rush
    Monday 06 October 2014

    Sky News is facing an online backlash following the death of a woman accused of being an internet troll who has been found dead.

    Brenda Leyland, 63, was identified as one of a number of "trolls" posting abusive messages aimed at Gerry and Kate McCann, whose daughter went missing in Portugal in 2007.

    Mrs Leyland was found dead in a Leicestershire hotel on Saturday. A police spokesman said the death is not being treated as suspicious.

    Last week Mrs Leyland was tracked down to her home in Burton Overy, Leicestershire, by Sky News and confronted by reporter Martin Brunt about her online activities.

    Mr Brunt asked Mrs Leyland why she was using a Twitter account to attack the McCanns, to which she replied: "I'm entitled to do that."

    The encounter was shown earlier this week, and days later, it was reported she had fled her home.

    Police have not commented on any connection between the two incidents.

    Some Twitter users have now criticised Sky News and Mr Brunt for the report.

    One Twitter user wrote: "Abhorrent hounding of a Woman who's mental strength was obviously unimportant to you. Shame on @Skynews @skymartinbrunt RIP #BrendaLeyland".

    Another wrote: "Sky News and Martin Brunt should seek advice about peoples Mental Health before confronting them on the street. #RIPSweepyface".

    A Facebook page entitled Sack Martin Brunt has also been set up in the wake of Mrs Leyland's death.

    A Sky spokesman today told The Independent: "We were saddened to hear of the death of Brenda Leyland. It would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further at this time."

    Leicestershire Police have said officers were called at 1.42pm on Saturday to reports of a woman's body in a hotel room.

    A police spokesman said: "Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner.

    "Identification of the deceased is a matter for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious."

  52. The Times today reports that " Mr and Mrs McCann were cleared by police in 2008 of having any part in the disappearance. "

    Can anyone confirm is this is indeed true?

  53. Today, after reading through Reader comments in 'The Times' I have come to the sad conclusion that the majority of Times readers firmly believe the Mc Canns tale of neglect leading to abduction. I guess this is only to be expected but very disheartening.

    1. Anonymous 6 Oct 2014 10:16:00,

      Understand your frustration.

      Please allow us to correct you. First it is not the majority of Times readers but majority of commentators to that particular article.

      Plus, it's the majority of PUBLISHED comments. If one was to accept only these as the expression of a general majority, then the general majority did find Summers & Swan book an excellent book because the majority of comments left on their FB page (before total deletion) were highly supportive of the book.

      Second, understand the The Times is in the same "boat" as Sky News. This thing has gone completely out of control and the paper is playing with all its credibility to mitigate damages.

      We have read the comments. Ans must confess that we too felt frustrated how some can still express such opinions at this time. But each one is responsible for each one's conscience and so free to speak their mind.

      Readers can read comments here:

    2. Thanks Textusa - and yes agree with your corrections. In fact, that is why I return to your site time and time again. To get a more objective and rational perspective on events.

    3. Anonymous 6 Oct 2014 11:01:00,

      Also look at this by the following angle, when caught wrong the first reaction is to deny responsibility.

      Sky News reaction, is very similar to what went on in Luz on May 4th. Everyone is struggling to come up with a "plot" that will magically exonerate them. Like the negligence+abduction in Luz.

      Only this explains the heavy and ambarrassing silence from the TV that just last Thursday had the scoop on this.

  54. The Maddie's Pandora's Box about to open?

    1. My thoughts at this precise moment too! This tragic death is just the beginning of all sorts of ugly things coming out of the box,,,

  55. Brunt having a file given to him (probably) by those paid on Mc team is appalling. So now we have journalists acting alongside the police. Have I doubt the BH tweeters are in that file yet say terrible things about mc disbelievers, would MB doorstep them???? We know the answer to that!


  57. This is all very very sad. My heart goes out to the family. I hope that this is dealt with properly by the authorities as an absolute abuse of power by a journalist who should know better than to attack a vulnerable woman. I hope this doesn't get sucked up into a battle between the pro and anti McCanns like it seems to be at the minute. Some people seem to think anything goes in their defence of them even to the event of gloating about the death of this poor woman. I find it all very depressing because I feel that after levison and all the other scandals about abuse of power by the MSM we are still where we were 5 years ago.


    Guido's blog has the most outrageous comments and he now writes a column for the Sun. Politicians are insulted as well as lots of media people.
    Good luck to him, although I don't agree with most of what is written.
    What hypocrisy about twitter comments in the McCann case. They are regarded as above any criticism.
    I don't agree with gratuitous insults against them on tweets, but I have to ask - what is the media agenda here? Will Guido defend the principle of free speech in this case?


    Facebook group urges Sky reporter’s sacking after death of alleged troll

    Martin Brunt fronted the exclusive report alleging Brenda Leyland was one of those abusing the McCanns on Twitter

    Tara Conlan, Monday 6 October 2014 13.04 BST

    A Facebook campaign is calling for Sky News reporter Martin Brunt to be sacked following the death of a woman the broadcaster alleged to be one of the internet trolls abusing the McCann family.

    The woman, who was subsequently identified by the media as Brenda Leyland, was found dead in a hotel room days after she appeared on Sky News in an investigation into internet “trolling”. The campaign, based at a Facebook page called Sack Martin Brunt, follows Brunt’s exclusive report.

    Sky News has a rigorous set of internal guidelines for its reporters but insiders say each story is handled on a case-by-case basis. Although she appeared on camera, Leyland was not named and registration plates on nearby cars were pixellated.

    During the report, Brunt and his team took extra precautions such as not naming the village where Leyland lived and Brunt referred to her only by her Twitter name, @sweepyface. However, she was subsequently named in newspaper reports.

    The Guardian understands the story was looked at closely by Sky’s lawyers before it was broadcast and Sky is confident that proper procedures had been followed. The broadcaster is reviewing in the situtation in the wake of Leyland’s death. Sky News’ guidelines state: “Any grounds for an investigation that involves significant intrusion into any individual’s privacy must be very strong. Before we start out we must be certain that any such intrusion is outweighed by the seriousness of the story and the amount of public good that will be delivered by its publication and/or broadcast.”

    The detailed guidelines also say: “People who are the subject of reports should not be treated unfairly. Where wrongdoing is alleged, they should be offered an opportunity to respond.

    “Where there may be doubt or uncertainty over a legal issue – in the first instance check with the Head of Home News or Head of International News, as appropriate. Remember: if in doubt, do not proceed, broadcast or publish. Always refer upwards.”

    Brunt – who has himself become the subject of online abuse –- is said to be upset by Leyland’s death but has not yet made any comment.

    Sky News is not expected to comment further beyond a statement that said: “We were saddened to hear of the death of Brenda Leyland. It would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further at this time.”

    • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

    • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.

  60. EXCUSE ME?!? So how does a normal troll act like?!?

    Brenda Leyland 'different to most Twitter trolls'

    4 hours ago

    Brenda Leyland was "different" to the majority of so-called Twitter "trolls" that use the site as a platform for sending abusive messages, psychologist Dr Arthur Cassidy has said.

    The 63-year-old woman, accused of directing abusive posts towards the family of Madeleine McCann, was found dead in a hotel in Leicester on Saturday 4 October.

    Dr Cassidy, who specialises in the psychology of social media, explained that her well-educated, middle-class background is unusual for someone sending such messages.

    First broadcast on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday 6 October.

    1. ...perhaps Dr Cassidy, who specialises in the psychology of social media can explain why the Mc's who incidentally or should that be allegedly are well educated and come from a middle class background, have done entirely the same thing...!?

    2. Ah, but I think Dr Cassidy is wrong. Brenda Leyland was not a troll she was a well educated, middle class sceptic who voiced her opinion. There are many, many more like her and that is a problem for Team McCann.

    3. ...exactly the point I was trying make. Why should we have to believe what the Mc's tell us when there is so much contradiction in what they say? Oh and just in case Gerry is reading this...dogs don't lie, unlike some people who have done it for the past 7 years...

  61. DEP, Brenda Leyland.......

    O que eles Te fizeram!


    Was Brenda Leyland really a troll?

    Accused of trolling the McCanns, Leyland didn’t conform to our stereotyped idea of a troll – but those stereotypes quickly fail

    Claire Hardaker, Monday 6 October 2014 15.17 BST


    McCann internet 'troll-hunting' site deleted after death


    maddie mccann
    Encontrada morta a mulher que ameaçava os pais de Maddie no Twitter
    6/10/2014, 9:44 188 partilhas

  65. Read this and I would like to share it with you, just about sums up this tragic case...
    'Sunday, 5 October 2014
    So Sky's rolling news day on McCann trolls has resulted in the death of Brenda Leyland (Sweepyface) a middle aged lady angered by the lies of Gerry and Kate McCann. Seven years on, despite being suspects in the eyes of the rest of the world, in the UK they are still being treated like victims and being compensated financially. No amount of money will satisfy Gerry and Kate, they have had over £4m, they also want the Laws to be changed so their crimes will never be reported. We have had a news blackout in the UK for the past 7 years. Why?

    The McCanns didn't have any threats against them or their children. Their witness claimed this in the Lisbon libel trial, but could not substantiate it. Several months on, no-one has been arrested or charged for threatening the McCanns. A bit like the abductor.

    The biggest threat they could find to the McCanns was poor old Brenda, an obviously shy, timid lady who clearly presented no danger to the McCanns whatsoever. But she was to be the scapegoat, the face of the cruel campaign against an innocent family. She was the line of least resistance - had they doorstepped any of the more outspoken among us, we would have given them an interview they couldn't broadcast, on the hour, every hour, etc without Carter Ruck jumping down their throats - now re-employed by McCanns it seems and kerchinging nicely.

    Did Martin Brunt threaten her? If so, what with? He had pretty much done the worst thing imaginable, but it clearly left her in great fear. She fled from her village. More doorstepping perhaps? Her past raked up? Did she have mental health issues? Did any of her family? Was she a vulnerable adult in any way? Surely Sky News would not have carried out such a catastrophic public attack without making a few basic checks? cont...

  66. cont The biggest threat they could find to the McCanns was poor old Brenda, an obviously shy, timid lady who clearly presented no danger to the McCanns whatsoever. But she was to be the scapegoat, the face of the cruel campaign against an innocent family. She was the line of least resistance - had they doorstepped any of the more outspoken among us, we would have given them an interview they couldn't broadcast, on the hour, every hour, etc without Carter Ruck jumping down their throats - now re-employed by McCanns it seems and kerchinging nicely.

    Did Martin Brunt threaten her? If so, what with? He had pretty much done the worst thing imaginable, but it clearly left her in great fear. She fled from her village. More doorstepping perhaps? Her past raked up? Did she have mental health issues? Did any of her family? Was she a vulnerable adult in any way? Surely Sky News would not have carried out such a catastrophic public attack without making a few basic checks?

  67. cont. Were the McCanns going to go after her financially, as they have done with Goncalo Amaral, demand that she sell her house? Was she facing threats of financial ruin? How could a regular person stand up to Carter Ruck? Her limited 'I thought I was entitled to' - portrayed her as ignorant, but what else did she say when she took the crew inside her house?

    What did the police say to her? Afaik, she was not arrested or cautioned, but did they give her a 'stern' taking to? And how stern was that talk? Normal people with no criminal record or dealings with the police would be terrified. What Laws did Brenda break, if any? Lets hope the police taped their interviews with her, if I were her family, I would demand they be revealed at the Inquest - and there should definitely be an Inquest.

    However, Jim Gamble's hope of using 'outing' as a device to stop people asking questions about the McCanns, or indeed anything, has spectacularly backfired. The consequences of such sinister threats have become all too apparent. I would imagine legal talks are frantically underway as we speak, Sky News cannot just brush this off, they must at the very least, issue an apology to Brenda's family. No Court in the world (maybe N.Korea or UK under McCann Rule) would have found Brenda guilty of anything. If worse tweeters exist, then why didn't Sky go after them, why go after a fragile, quiet lady in a pretty village, who clearly posed no threat to the McCanns whatsoever. The cynic in me pictures the McCanns looking up the property prices as one reason, but more likely the subliminal message was 'it could be you'. There were threatening undertones in that news report, and more than a tinge of cruelty in the way the story was reported. They couldn't hide their glee at exposing a respectable middle aged lady as a vicious internet troll to all her friends, family and neighbours. It was pitchforking at its very worst.

  68. cont..However, any gleeful thoughts Gamble and McCanns may have of outing people on a regular basis must now be treated with the seriousness it deserves, as Brenda's tragic death has proved. The punishment Brenda received (based on no evidence) was way beyond anything a Court could have dished out. It seemed more like payback, than a genuine news story, Her face, and home, was broadcast every hour, on the hour, as she was publically labelled as a 'Hater', continually hounding the family of Madeleine McCann. She wasn't. She was angry at this blatant miscarriage of justice as many are. Nothing she did deserved the kind of punishment she received. The death of a child is always emotive, especially when those charged to uphold the law appear to be covering it up. Sky News acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner. Brenda is dead because of what she was accused of, not because of what she did. She probably said a lot more in that Sky interview than 'I thought I was entitled to', but will we ever know? They wanted to label her as evil, and they did.

    Brenda, bless her, knowingly or unknowingly, may well set off a chain of events that will bring about the final downfall of the McCanns and their minions. Jim Gamble and the McCanns wanted to use her as an example of what will happen to anyone criticising them, but her suicide has turned the tables. Now they have to justify what they have done to her.

  69. Following section also belongs with above post...'Were the McCanns going to go after her financially, as they have done with Goncalo Amaral, demand that she sell her house? Was she facing threats of financial ruin? How could a regular person stand up to Carter Ruck? Her limited 'I thought I was entitled to' - portrayed her as ignorant, but what else did she say when she took the crew inside her house?

    What did the police say to her? Afaik, she was not arrested or cautioned, but did they give her a 'stern' taking to? And how stern was that talk? Normal people with no criminal record or dealings with the police would be terrified. What Laws did Brenda break, if any? Lets hope the police taped their interviews with her, if I were her family, I would demand they be revealed at the Inquest - and there should definitely be an Inquest.

    However, Jim Gamble's hope of using 'outing' as a device to stop people asking questions about the McCanns, or indeed anything, has spectacularly backfired. The consequences of such sinister threats have become all too apparent. I would imagine legal talks are frantically underway as we speak, Sky News cannot just brush this off, they must at the very least, issue an apology to Brenda's family. No Court in the world (maybe N.Korea or UK under McCann Rule) would have found Brenda guilty of anything. If worse tweeters exist, then why didn't Sky go after them, why go after a fragile, quiet lady in a pretty village, who clearly posed no threat to the McCanns whatsoever. The cynic in me pictures the McCanns looking up the property prices as one reason, but more likely the subliminal message was 'it could be you'. There were threatening undertones in that news report, and more than a tinge of cruelty in the way the story was reported. They couldn't hide their glee at exposing a respectable middle aged lady as a vicious internet troll to all her friends, family and neighbours. It was pitchforking at its very worst.



    Threat made 9 months ago
    @sweepyface ~ you'll piss off when they come knocking at the door. It's happened to others,so be prepared

    Pamela Gurney's alter egos...Jencalo_Amoral, and...Insane, perhaps...?


    Go to page 5 of the comments and read the horrible tweets made against Sweepyface, I wonder if Sky News and Martin "Zorro" Brunt will hunt down those horrible people and show at their doorsteps with cameras on...? Are those people on the police "list" too? If not, why not? They most certainly should be on that list, or is there one set of laws for us, the common mortals and another for the McCanns? My goodness, Windsors eat your hearts out! The McCanns are given more protection the royals!

  73. The police say they're not treating Ms. Leyland's death as suspicious...well, In view of the vile and criminal threats made in twitter against Sweepyface I think the most definitely should!

  74. To our readers,

    We have decided to stop linking the "t" word to Brenda Leyland.

    From now on we will refer to her as abused Brenda.

    We advise readers to do the same here and elsewhere. And to avoid using the "t" word in full.

    1. well said Textusa, what Martin Brunt and Co did to that poor woman so they could get a news story was pure abuse, they scared her to death.

  75. Lets hope you are the first of many to address Brenda ,as an abused woman Textusa.,I feel Sky,because of their constant pro MaCaan reporting ,now IMO have commited the "sin of blood on their hands"Many,many people should be holding their heads in shame ,in their outpourings against her.Shame on all of them,they know who they are.

  76. If Gamble replies to a tweet, disagreeing with the person expressing scepticism, without invitation, does that make him a tr*ll?


    Brenda Leyland: Did the press act responsibly when reporting the abuse directed at Kate and Gerry McCann?

    The death of ‘Twitter troll’ Brenda Leyland has sparked a heated debate on a number of social media platforms about how the press should act.

    Reporter Peter Warzynski speaks to Dr Paul Reilly, a lecturer in Media and Communication at the University of Leicester, about the role of journalists and responsible reporting.

    PW: This is a contentious issue, but should there be a line drawn? Was Sky (Martin Brunt) wrong to approach Mrs Leyland and confront her about the tweets?

    PR: “Clearly we await further details from the police on the exact circumstances surrounding the death of Brenda Leyland.

    “However, it would appear that her outing as a ‘Twitter troll’ might have played a role in this tragic incident.

    “Mrs Leyland seems to have had no idea that she was the subject of a police investigation and appeared to be visibly shocked at this, so Sky News may face some form of enquiry into the conduct of the journalist who approached her.

    “Questions may be raised about whether the reporter should have ‘doorstepped’ someone who the police had not yet spoken to in relation to an alleged criminal offence.

    “This potential for ‘trial by media’ would appear contrary to the ‘presumption of innocence’ for potential suspects in such cases.”

    Abhorrent hounding of a Woman who's mental strength was obviously unimportant to you. Shame on @Skynews @skymartinbrunt RIP #BrendaLeyland

    — Sarah Thomas (@ArsenalSarah) October 5, 2014

    PW: Could things have been done differently and more importantly, do you think this will change the way reporters approach similar situations in the future?

    PR: “I think the news media will be more circumspect in their reporting of similar situations in the future.

    “I imagine that most journalists will choose to focus their attention upon those facing criminal prosecution in the courts rather than ‘doorstepping’ those who have yet to speak to the police.

    “However, the 'trial by media' of public figures, such as politicians and celebrities, is unlikely to disappear in the immediate future. “Such coverage is often market-driven, as rival media organisations compete for ratings and audience share.”

    No matter what Brenda Leyland wrote, Sky News doorstepping her on-screen, showing it every 15 mins for a day....because of twitter comments

    — Dave Raybould (@DaveRaybould) October 6, 2014

    PW: How do you see the media’s role in all of this?

    PR: “Clearly the ‘trolling’ of celebrities and public figures is always likely to generate some form of public interest.

    “Therefore, it may be unrealistic to expect the news media to refrain from covering such stories.

    “However, the manner in which they challenge those suspected of ‘trolling’ and other social media offences must surely be re-examined in light of this incident.

    “The news media must be mindful of how the ‘naming and shaming’ of individuals might not only impede police investigations into such offences, but also might lead to tragic events, such as those that appear to have led to Brenda Leyland’s death.”

  78. I make no apologies for reporting my view to OFCOM that Brunt and Sky were complicit in the tragic death of Brenda. In fact Gamble and GM had a part to play too. We can not allow the truth to remain buried just because TM want the world to believe their contrived lies. More people need to complain to the authorities about this abuse of the press because let's face it the MSM won't publish any anti Mc stories for fear of being Carter-Rucked. Brenda must not have died in vein. Stand up and be counted. RIP 'sweepyface'.


  80. Journalist speaks out questioning Mccanns version


    Seeking the truth.



    McCann parents silent after death of bullied woman

    October 7, 2014 4:06 PM MST

    Madeleine McCann's father Gerry said he wanted an example to be made of so called "trolls" who speak against his family on Twitter. Now a woman is dead after being bullied in the media over her alleged use of social media to talk about the disappearance of the little girl -- as well as her suspicion surrounding the parents. She's not alone in that suspicion, considering Katie Hopkins has recently tweeted against Kate and Gerry, according to this Tuesday news report. Hopkins asked on Twitter:

    "How many more must die before the McCanns accept negligence is at the heart of their grief?"

    Katie Hopkins is definitely not alone in feeling that negligence played a role in Maddie's disappearance. After all, she was left alone by her parents at only three-years-old with her two infant siblings. Whatever happened to the child may not have happened at all had a proper babysitter or nanny been present while the parents were wining and dining at a nearby tapas bar. Unfortunately, the UK media appears to think that simply expressing the above sentiment on social media some how equates to directly "trolling" and targeting the parents of the missing tot. Since when is having a controversial opinion the only criteria for becoming a troll?

    Brenda Leyland -- aka @Sweepyface -- supposedly took her own life after days of torment and online abuse from actual trolls. These trolls targeted her with an obscene level of vitriol after Sky News carelessly exposed her as "the McCann troll" in a highly publicized display. However, she may not have even been a troll at all. This news report shares that Leyland posted 1000s of "hate tweets," but none of them directly targeted Kate and Gerry McCann with death threats or any other threats. However, Leyland on the other hand was subject to numerous threats after her identity was exposed by Martin Brunt via Sky News.

    It's interesting to note that neither Kate or Gerry McCann have addressed the media over this death -- especially just days after Gerry himself declared that he wanted an example made of those who "troll" them on the internet. Never mind the fact that Kate and Gerry reportedly don't use online social media, but it needs to be noted again that Brenda Leyland never appeared to directly threaten Kate and Gerry. So now that an example has been made of one of those who dare speak their opinion on this case, what happens next? Will Kate and Gerry ever make a statement about this horrible tragedy?

    1. How deceived people who bring up neglect are...we all know that the so called "neglect" never happened, as the children were never alone, I believe supervised by a nanny/nannies, but it was the crucial stepping stone to allow for an abduction scenario. However, if the supposed "neglect" that has been pushed down the public's throat is the only path that leads to bringing the Tapas9 before justice, I say BRING IT ON ! let's all pretend we buy it!

    2. Does Kate McCann qualify as a troll for writing words like these?:

      «...“Under my breath I found myself whispering, “fucking tosser, fucking tosser”. This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser’…” »
      (Kate McCann in her book titled Madeleine, on the disdain she felt towards the Portuguese police liaison officer)

      "I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". (from Kate's diary/notes, July 18th 2007)

      "He deserves to be miserable and feel fear." ( in the book "madeleine", about Mr. Amaral)

      I say she does!
      Care to make your wife the first to be punished as that "example" you talk about, Gerry?...begin with the trolls inside your own home...

    3. Anon 13:40
      Yes I find myself getting extremely frustrated reading about negligence all the time and wondering if it is being pushed deliberately or just said in ignorance - like you say - at least it creates high profile

  84. On BBC, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on mccann listen from 25:38


    Hundreds of people react on Facebook and Twitter after learning about the death of Brenda Leyland, the woman accused of sending abusive message to Kate and Gerry McCann

    By PA_Warzynski | Posted: October 06, 2014


  87. Hogan said the dossier was given to the police by the McCanns. Despicable foul couple.
    RIP Brenda.

  88. It's interesting to note that neither Kate or Gerry McCann have addressed the media over this death -- especially just days after Gerry himself declared that he wanted an example made of those who "troll" them on the internet. Never mind the fact that Kate and Gerry reportedly don't use online social media, but it needs to be noted again that Brenda Leyland never appeared to directly threaten Kate and Gerry. So now that an example has been made of one of those who dare speak their opinion on this case, what happens next? Will Kate and Gerry ever make a statement about this horrible tragedy?

  89. What,I wonder will all the "powers above" in this debacle,be saying to their "mouthpiece " Mitchell, to divert attention from their "OWN GOAL"


    The coroner cannot find a cause of death!

  91. Way back in May 2007, Gerry Mc Cann said 'its a disaster' referring to what had happened to his daughter Madeleine. Now, in October 2014, the 'disaster' is very much still in evidence - 2 lives lost. How much more tragedy relating to the disappearance of Madeleine do we have to experience before our government will recognise this 'disaster' and muster the political courage to 'resolve' the situation?


    "Sky News chiefs now face a police probe over the apparent suicide of a housewife they unmasked as the Twitter troll."

  93. Mrs Brenda Leyland took Her life after been a stalking big victim.

    Why only Sky News? Not the only! Much more helpers where together to commit , to push to the suicide.

    Brenda Leyland, like Maddie , will never have UK real justice.


    " WaS Brenda Leyland Murdered Because Of What She Had Just Found Out!???"
    Post WeAreOne Yesterday at 10:59 pm

    Im new here and I am suprised this hasn't been mentioned more (forgive me if it has) but to me it is a HUGE fact, which no body seems to be talking about.

    Has anyone read Brendas last few tweets that she had sent? They mention not only the fact that she was being stalked but also it appears she had found something out about one of the pro mccans supporters called Amy (i think that was her name, not able to check right now and provide a link maybe someone can help Fixed see below) Brenda says something about it being big news, it appears that this Amy is on the mccans payroll and a witness? and is busy pro mccan tweeter/campaigner."

  95. Here is the link to see the last 3 years of Brends tweets-

    516694464455528448|Mon Sep 29 21:02:14 +0000 2014|#mccann Just noticed @skymartinbrunt is following me, why Martin won't you investigate some of these facts and show neutrality ?

  96. 516663733024985088|Mon Sep 29 19:00:07 +0000 2014|#mccann " Men in suits want me to stop " but not until I have told every body about their presence

    Where have I read this before...?
    Oh, here:
    "I have been persuaded by men in suits that I should not publish another post about the McCann case"

    I smell a rat! I smell rats galore! A verdict of "death by drug overdose" does not necessarily equal's one of the easiest ways to masquerade homicide...

  97. The PANDORA BOX is now officially OPEN !

  98. Has Hogan-Howe let the cat out of the bag when he says police are "investigating, er reviewing the MURDER of, er sorry, reviewing the missing girl...."

  99. I am really shocked and saddened by the reporting of Brenda`s death. If the manner of her death and the actions leading up to it had been about anything other than this case i think the MSM would be demanding an enquiry. I honestly dont think even the death of Myra Hindly provoked such contemp. Then again can we ever be surprised with this case, nobody would have believed that the MSM would have displayed such utter contempt for a poilice officier from a soveriegn country


  101. 'Daily Star, 3 October:

    "The McCanns want @Sweepyface prosecuted, a source close to the couple said last night. "This wicked person and the other trolls out there are very sad individuals,'' he said.

    "Kate and Gerry hope police take action against her, and if she gets prosecuted all the better. It is a criminal act and she needs to pay the price.''

    Scotland Yard officers probing the catalogue of online abuse have spoken directly to the McCanns."

  102. In the course of the week we withheld 2 comments, as we thought convenient to do so.

    We now think we should publish them as much as been said about Brenda Leyland’s death and we have no reason to stop these 2 readers from expressing themselves.

    We at the blog are waiting for the coroner's report before jumping to any conclusions about Brenda's death.

    Here are the 2 comments:

    Comment 1:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Maddie's Pandora's Box":

    I found the dead very suspicious. she was persecuted by reporters, live, in an unseen way, neighbours said she was pictured and then disapear to be found in a hotel room, dead? very suspicious. why the reporters target her in millions that do the same all over the world? why she left her house to a hotel? who was pressuring her and why? who could benefit from targeting people like that? who don't question the way the Mccann's have dealt with the disapearance of their daughter? only people without a pinch of brain did not question them and did not condemn their arrogance and their absolute effort to leave the disappearance of their daughter as mystery forever. For me, the dead of this lady is absolutely suspicious and nothing surprises me on that saga.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 5 Oct 2014 23:08:00

    Comment 2:

    “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Maddie's Pandora's Box":

    Brenda's children I hope will take legal action against Sky News as they seem to be a law unto themselves. Brenda had not been charged with any offence and if she had it is a police matter, nothing to do with SKY interrogating and hounding her.
    The Mccanns would have been aware of this incident and this is exactly what they were complaining about happening to them so why didn't they say leave the lady alone, instead of sitting back and doing nothing. Gerry wanted individuals to be made examples of the media stated.

    This sad news will make more members of the public search the internet for information on the mccanns they will read of how the Mccanns have hounded Amaral, and read the pj files and then question why this one single woman was targeted for having an opinion. This lady lived alone in a small village and for her to see her image as SKY news main story is utterly disgusting. Martin Brunt did not know anything about her mental state or even if she was depressed. He should be sacked for his reckless behaviour.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 6 Oct 2014 08:42:00”

  103. I think it would be quite interesting to know the details of the hotel booking...who/when booked that hotel room...?

  104. I was reading your blog yesterday on another post and you made mention of the Summers and Swann book and I went to Amazon and was checking out the reviews and noted one person had basically threatened Brenda with harm, this was on October 4th at 20.41, she died the next day as far as I can ascertain.

  105. Also I noted that Brenda's son is studying law and whilst he may only be young I am sure he knows more about legal matters than the average man in the street..........


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.