Too much going on. It’s like someone dumped a new big load of puzzle pieces on our table.
Let’s go bit by bit. Let’s make a list of what we witnessed lately:
1. On Monday 01SEPT14, we had the “Sky News Report – Madeleine McCann, the Secret Report”, by Martin Brunt and in which starred Jim Gamble. In it, for no apparent logical reason, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan make the “public debut” of their book “Looking for Madeleine”. We did a post on all this, “Sky News – The Clarifying Report”.
2. On Thursday 11SEPT14, 10 days later, we had Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan publishing their book “Looking for Madeleine”, sales of which broke all known negative records. The reaction to this book concentrated all attention from blogs/forums in the following 2/3 weeks. We also did a post on this, “Summers by Summers”.
3. On Tuesday 16SEPT14, 5 days later, we had BBC’s Crimewatch – Living with Murder, celebrating 30 years of the program and taking the opportunity to disrespect all those who very unfortunately have had the tragedy of murderous violence befall on those near them by putting in the middle of these victims, the McCanns. During the brief 2 minutes the issue had in the program, we had Andy Redwood appear with Bundleman in the background. Bundleman who, from Redwood’s mouth, was just a British tourist, Crèche Dad.
4. On Friday 19SEPT14, 3 days later, The Press Gazette reported that The Sunday Times was sued by McCanns over the article of 27OCT13 which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police. The article ends with the transcription of the apology published on 28DEC13. Anything that may have happened after that is not reported.
5. On Sunday 28SEPT14, 9 days later, a tweet allegedly from Amy T (flyer@basilandmanuel) was revealed. It said “Sex with strangers Can be very rewarding , I like To indulge”. Amy T was one of the nannies present in PdL in 2008 and the one who said she had printed off the photos of Maddie on May 3 on her own printer. One person who decided to provide her opinion about Amy T’s alleged tweet was one Sweepyface.
6. On Monday 29SEPT14, 1 day later, only 18 days after being published, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Summers withdrew all references to their latest book “Looking for Madeleine” from their Facebook page. In those 18 days, whoever is responsible for that page carefully deleted all polite comments questioning the authors about their work, leaving, besides the handful of supportive comments, only the more “emotional” and passionate comments in a clear attempt to link the word “hate” to all those questioning the contents of the book.
7. On Thursday 02OCT14, 3 days later, we were literally bombarded with the “Sky News Special Report – McCann Tr*lls” by Martin Brunt announcing that SY was investigating internet tr*lls who tweeted against the McCanns.
It exposed an alleged twitter “tr*ll” whose worse crime was to answer a question saying they should have a miserable life for the remainder of their days. Maybe her crime was for infringing copyrights of Kate McCann’s “He [Mr Amaral] deserves to be miserable and feel fear".
The woman, whose face and house was clearly shown but was only identified by her twitter name, Sweepyface. This report was news that rivalled in importance that day with the news of a possible confession by the man who killed 2 British tourists in Thailand. The day before, Alice Gross’s body had been found and became the next day, yesterday’s news. This report, according to Sky News was much more important. During the day, every 15 minutes, Sky News showed Martin Brunt apparently ambushing this woman. Making his appearance in this report, Jim Gamble, head of INEQE, an organisation that as far as we know has, currently, absolutely nothing to do with Maddie, confirming him to be Brunt’s “fetish-actor”. The question whether Martin Brunt is a reporter or a short-film director is something that ought to be debated, in our opinion.
8. On that same day, Thursday 02OCT14, the Guardian reported that the McCanns had been handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper, The Times, over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter. Something the Press Gazette completely failed to report just 13 days earlier, although all was “after an 11-month battle for redress”. And The Times silence on all this is strange, to say the least.
9. On Saturday 04OCT14, 2 days later the body of Brenda Leyland or Sweepyface, 63, is found in a hotel in Leicester. Sky News only reported her death on their site on 05OCT14, almost midnight. And only spoke, very briefly, of Brenda at around noon on 06OCT14. What had been just 48 hrs before a huge scoop for Sky News had become the network’s worse nightmare. Just like Sky News’ reprehensible “scoop” turned out to be unbearable for the abused Brenda.
Nine events in little more than a month. One of them with a tragic outcome of historic proportions.
Gerry’s waste of letters and words in an article in the Guardian, also on 02OCT14 is not, in our opinion, to be considered an event as the above listed. We think it was simply an evident counter-balance to the Guardian's libel article (event #8) whereby this newspaper used the McCanns for their own agenda of trying to get Leveson implemented. And to the man we only have to say that, no Gerry, there will never be another like you. You and Kate are unique, you will not be repeated.
But we will consider as events 2 of them that didn’t happen but were supposed to happen.
One was SY’s delayed 2nd trip to Algarve, to question, apparently, 4 new persons of interest to the case. The total blockage by the incomprehensible malfunction of the software, CITIUS, which supports the whole judicial processes in Portugal. This malfunction has even forced Portuguese government to pass a law to alter the current periods of prescriptions for processes to compensate for this colossal mishap that still today is far from being solved. Maybe this will convince one and all that it is completely impossible to coordinate whatever with the Portuguese judicial system’s erratic timelines.
The other one was the session for the final allegations of the McCanns v Amaral damages trial in Lisbon. Initially estimated to have happened in the beginning of this year, it was delayed this time because of the breakdown of the software CITIUS. When will it be? Unlikely this year. If it is, it will be a pleasant surprise.
Of the 9 events that did happen only 1 was obviously not supposed to ever have happened: Brenda Leyland’s tragic death.
Are they connected with each other? We think they are. At least 8 of them. We consider CW’s “Living with Murder” an event apart from the others. It was a SY move and this post is about other players.
The remaining 8 events are the airing of the 01SEPT Sky News Report, the publication of S&S book (11SEPT), the 1st report on McCann v The Times libel suit (16SEPT), Amy T’s tweet (28SEPT), the deletion from S&S Facebook all that had to do with book (29SEPT), the exposure of Brenda Leyland by Sky News (02OCT), the 2nd report on McCann v The Times libel suit (02OCT) and Brenda Leyland’s death (04OCT).
All, in our opinion, linked and intertwined. Some links between them are evident, others not so much but are there as we will hope to show.
One has always to wait for the snowglobe to settle before forming an opinion. But in this case, although many things are still floating about, we feel we owe to show our readers what our current assessment is and the situation requires we do.
There were things that struck us as odd which would prove decisive to our understanding of what was really was going on, in our opinion.
One of them was why did Summers and Robbyn appear in the 01SEPT Sky News Report? What had a book about burglars in Algarve and haters on the internet to do with a TV report about UK agencies having bungled up the initial Maddie investigation?
Publicity for the book? Only if one considers the best way to publicise peanut-butter is to have a jar of it in the background of a beer commercial.
No, there had to be another reason for Summers to be asked to provide an opinion in the 01SEPT Sky News Report about something he hardly speaks about in his book.
Another thing that called our attention was the way Jim Gamble came out to defend Summers’ book during its agonisingly painful and historic flop.
Here, the question is inverted. What was Gamble’s interest in a book that had nothing to do with him? One can argue that it was because of the numerous quotes from CEOP that Summers used in the book but hadn’t Gamble recognised that CEOP hadn’t been up to standard in the 01SEPT Sky News Report?
Besides, we saw absolutely no criticism against CEOP in the very negative feedback the book caused. What we saw was Summers and Swan being accused of very poor craftsmanship and being incomprehensibly and unacceptably biased in favour of the McCanns. Nothing about CEOP or Gamble.
Gamble was the main common factor between 01SEPT Sky News Report and S&S. This idea would be confirmed with his presence in the O2OCT14 Sky News report that outed Brenda Leyland.
Plus, we also had Summers and Swan present on this Sky News report on how hateful were the people who were against the McCanns.
There was a clear trinity present: Jim Gamble, Sky News (Martin Brunt) and Summers and Swan.
So we had to go back and revisit the 01SEPT Sky News Report and the S&S book to see what they had in common.
They seemed, as we have said, to have very little or nothing. In fact, although Summers and Swan do appear in the first, the 01SEPT Sky News Report, there’s nothing, on a first glance, of the 01SEPT Sky News Report reflected in the second. Yet they seemed to be joined at the hip.
The 01SEPT Sky News Report was about how the UK Agencies, including CEOP, had, apparently out of excessive good-will, bungled the initial operation and because of this it was absolutely comprehensible SY was facing very big difficulties in working with a resentful PJ. The intended message was, SY has our full support and we really understand the difficulties they’re facing, so well done chaps, as far as we’re concerned you’re doing a brilliant job.
The book was so badly written that it was very hard to understand what it hoped to achieve. Within team we drew straws and the one who was assigned to read this piece of… didn’t take this assignment well and still is not on speaking terms with the rest of us. Just kidding, we all had to undergo this gruelling sacrifice but will keep to ourselves who did the most whining.
On an attentive reading one can see that it isn’t as much pro-McCann as it is pro-SY.
The McCanns are portrayed as neglectful fun seekers who if they had known there had been a burglary spree in the region they would simply have locked the doors but that would not stop them from leaving the children on their own to on the lash.
With Mummyman – surgical mask and laundry around feet – and Mommyman – man seen leaving living room with young girl in it – Summers, with his Pulitzer nomination gives credibility to the story SY has been defending. The story SY has been defending publicly.
It’s easy then to see that the common intent of the two, 01SEPT Sky News Report and book, was to brown-nose SY. To stick nose so far up the Met’s behind until... we won't say as we don't want to be too graphic.
Why would Jim Gamble be brown-nosing SY?
The answer is quite simple, Gamble was doing a SY on SY.
“Doing a SY” is what the Met is trying to do to introduce itself in the PJ investigation. PJ is keeping SY at arm’s length and SY is doing all it can to overcome that.
But who is Jim Gamble to want to get into Operation Grange? By himself, no one. But if one takes into account that he once was the trusted man of the Black Hat (BH) Deciders between 2007 and 2010 then all becomes clear.
We have been explaining there’s a fierce battle between 2 factions of BH. One, the Government BH (GBH) who want closure on this issue and the other, the Swinging BH (SBH) who want nothing of the sort as that would mean many a ruined life and career by the unacceptable exposure of private and legal peccadilloes.
Operation Grange answers only to Government BH Deciders. The Swinging BH Deciders are, naturally and probably intentionally, left out of the loop.
The Swinging BH want to know what Operation Grange is doing as much as the Met wants to know what PJ is up to.
This wanting to get into the respective investigation, SY into PJ’s and Swinging BH Deciders into SY’s, is not only a matter of curiosity. It’s mostly to seek the ability to exercise influence. To direct it where convenient, to stop looking where it’s not convenient and, most important, to delay diligences or even stall the whole thing. To be able to do any of these things one has to be present.
So the Swinging BH Deciders, in our opinion, called on “their” man, Jim Gamble. Jim, you were the man now get us in.
Much the same way SY is trying with PJ – and not seeing any other way of doing it – the tactic is to show the “victim” that as we’re all on the same side and we really all want the same thing, it’s of your best interests to invite us in as we will be a relevant added value and if you don’t you’re really being very ungrateful with our goodwill and public opinion won’t understand your stubbornness.
The book is said to have been written in the last 2 years but the majority of its “factual data” is only from the last 12 months. Unless SY has been lying to us all, the burglary spree (which we called the sex-assault-spree) was only under SY’s radar after the UK Crimewatch which aired in only October 2013. The assault-spree was only news in February this year, if we’re not mistaken. Not seeing the authors knowing of this before SY.
It’s our opinion that this book was commissioned less than a year ago.
And it was commissioned to use the credibility of a Pulitzer Prize nominee to show how serious the Swinging BH support for SY’s theories was. The book had also another objective, which was to start a hater-campaign. We will return to this later in the post.
This project had one very serious problem on its genesis and that was that each party involved overestimated the capabilities the other party was supposed to have and bring onboard.
For Gamble, Summers should be able to produce a credible work worthy of a Pulitzer Prize nominee and for Summers, Gamble was an “Establishment” man who should be able to push the product into the market in the way a work from a Pulitzer Prize nominee deserved.
Both were wrong. Or maybe both were sloppy trusting the other would live up to expected standards. In our opinion the book was sloppy because it trusted anything could sell and the selling strategy was sloppy because it was designed for a product that would sell by itself.
Both were wrong and both were humiliated.
Summers revealed that he wasn’t exactly the investigative writer he was perceived to be and Gamble had flopped completely before those who tasked him with the task, his masters.
The book became a huge embarrassment. A liability for all. It had to be erased. The damages it was causing it were unacceptable. For example, for Summers this pathetic episode will appear before his Pulitzer Prize nomination to anyone now googling his name. And with each passing day this phenomenon worsened.
It was absolutely necessary to divert attention from this book. Two things were done.
The first was, in the best Orwellian Big Brother methodology, the book was erased from its biggest showroom, the Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan’s Facebook page. Do note how it is hardly talked about at the moment, it didn’t last a month, just a little over a fortnight.
The second was to step up the hater-campaign. This stepping up was done with the Amy T alleged tweet. As said, we will leave this for the end of the post. But please note the deletion of all book refs on Facebook page takes place the day after (29SEPT) Amy T’s alleged tweet is revealed (28SEPT) and all attention directed to it.
To better understand things, one must stop for a moment to look at a key player in all this: Rupert Murdoch.
In our “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” post we said he was turning coats and in our “Sky News – The Clarifying Report” we said he had done so.
We were wrong.
But before you think we are going to retract anything, we aren’t.
We have to apologise to Mr Murdoch for saying he was turning coats. He wasn’t. He has always worn the same jersey: his. A player of this calibre never wears a shirt other than his own.
When he sided with the Swinging BH, from 2007 to 2011, he wasn’t wearing their shirt but his. And neither is he turning coats when he sides with Government BH, like he did with the 01SEPT Sky News Report.
Rupert Murdoch is a mercenary of his trade. A very successful and powerful one. That allows him to be a free player. He lends to others, momentarily, his means but never his soul. He sells what makes him money and for a long time Maddie filled his pocket.
In our opinion, the blog created a problem for Mr Murdoch. When we exposed his game with our “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” post, as we think we did, we nullified his possibility to use the UK courts to be libelled by the McCanns and come out of it as a hero.
We may be small and we may be read only by the stubborn and the loyal but what we write is public. What is small can become big in an instant in this world and Mr Murdoch cannot afford walking up an avenue that someone had exposed before. We were fully conscious of this when we published that post.
Although the libel case had been filed it could no longer be used. It had to be trashed and an excuse had to be found.
On 19SEPT14, the Press Gazette reports a libel suit of events in 2013. It says nothing about the McCanns not being happy with The Times apology of 28DEC13. Neither does it refer any payment. Or any court settlement. Or any 11-month legal battle. In fact, its content implies that things had been settled with the published apology.
But, just 13 days later, on 02OCT, we have an update that the McCanns had won £55,000 from The Times.
One has to ask, was this verdict between 19SEPT and 02OCT? If so, why didn’t we hear anything about it? Why didn’t the Press Gazette follow this news?
If this was before 19SEPT14, didn’t the Press Gazette know of this? If so, it shows very poor reporting on their part, not to speak of the rest of the UK MSM.
We are very curious to know when this court decision was taken.
Also, we think that £55,000 is rather a ridiculous amount for a penalty. The Express, who had to pay out £650,000 in 2008 must be fuming.
£55,000 is the sort of amount Rupert Murdoch reaches for his wallet, pays and says keep the change.
And why was this money given to charities? When, in 2008, the Fund was robust, Express’ £650,000 went straight into it. Now, that it has much less the money the £55,000 go to charity? But aren’t the objectives of the Fund noble enough? So why give this money to charities when there's never enough to look for one’s missing daughter?
But do note that The Times “defeat” is news on 02OCT14. The exact same day, certainly by coincidence, Sky News aired the report on Brenda Leyland and kept repeating it all day.
Sky News bombarding us during the day with this report but not saying a single word about something that had happened with a paper, The Times, of the same corporation.
The McCanns, who were shown to be unsatisfied with a written apology, apparently were without any public retraction from the offender. Strange to say the least.
If the settlement required silence on the part of the McCanns why give the £55,000 to charities? One only does that when the opponent’s defeat has a public relevance that satisfies the restoration of one’s honour which one has fought for. In this case the plaintiffs were satisfied to have their honour restored very discreetly and without any financial compensation for them. Does it fit the profile? No, it doesn't.
But we may be wrong. We don’t have all the information about this libel case and one wonders who has. But until proven wrong we have to think that Mr Murdoch seized the opportunity to fly under the radar with this one and be “defeated” without anyone noticing.
That would be one reason for contributing significantly with his Sky News in generating the noise around Maddie that began with the 01SEPT Sky News Report.
Now, to the tragic death of Brenda Leyland.
As we said, the book, besides trying to win favours with SY, had another objective and that was to generate a hater-campaign.
Both objectives with one ulterior objective: influence Operation Grange so that it can be stalled.
Understand the tactic. On one side, keep pressure on SY to continue investigating, publicly, bogus theories with the help and support of Swinging BH and in the other relieve the pressure exerted by those scrutinising everything on the internet.
All this to last up until next election. Next government is to be dealt with when time comes. Now is the time to launch last offensive. Create all conditions that anything against the McCanns is not advisable.
The idea behind the hater-campaign is to link inextricably all possible violent pejoratives to all those who question the official version(s) of the case. Cement the idea that they are cruel, hateful and soulless people who are on life missions to spill bile and vitriol against the couple.
Contrary to what one may think, this is quite easy and effective. Easy because a negative message has much more impact than a positive one. That’s why a reputation takes years to build and a minute to ruin.
Effective because the internet is vast and the general population is both tired and afraid of the Maddie case. It knows it’s strange and knows there’s high-protection involved, so to avoid any sort of trouble it keeps the Maddie case at a safe distance. The average citizen asks why but, out of fear, doesn’t really do anything to find out.
The average citizen has been effectively tamed and when made to read in the MSM that there are people menacing the McCanns the McCanns the reaction intended is not for the person to believe in this but to increase the distance of safety s/he puts between him/herself and the issue.
This battle is ongoing. One just has to see how Brenda Leyland, even deceased in tragic circumstances, continues to be been branded a tr*ll by the MSM. All opinions expressed are based on the assumption she was one. The t-word and Brenda Leyland have become inseparable.
And we’re helping the enemy. Unwittingly but we are. We have advised readers to stop using the t-word with Brenda. Not only because of respect but to counter-attack this significant offensive.
When we fill our sites with words such as tr*ll, hate and other similar in nature what we are in fact doing is populating our sites with vile and violent words. Yes, you have used them in a defensive and clarifying context but words are words. Whenever you defend an insult with an insult you have just doubled the initial insult in the content of your site. You will have done the same when you, even defending her, join the word tr*ll with Brenda.
Instead of saying “Brenda was not a tr*ll”, just say “Brenda is not what they’re saying she is” and continue with the compliments you think she deserves.
Note on how in the last 4 paragraphs we censored 4 times the word tr*ll.
Search engines disregard context. They simply highlight the frequency of word usage. The more we use aggressive words and language, independent of context, the more that “agression” will be linked to Maddie and our sites and that, combined with a well-orchestrated MSM campaign, keeps the eyes of the average citizen away.
If there are a thousand pictures of a naked emperor in the internet that aren’t seen, it’s much easier to convince the crowd that his new clothes are real.
Be courteous, don’t respond to insult with insult or even bring insult over. Ignorant eyes will only see bickering and fighting. If the insult stays where it has originated it will count for their stats not yours.
If you want to vent, insult the parrot. It will be as repetitive and pointless as arguing with some who just want to engage in pointless and repetitive debate.
Make the effort to use positive language only. Not only are you being polite but most important is that you’re fighting the fight with efficiency. Besides, by doing so you obviously deflate all the anger that is being thrown at you.
The upside to all this is that more and more people are coming to read about the case. With a huge difference than from 2007 to 2009, and that now there's more information. Consolidated information. That will help them make up their own minds.
And if we are target of this hater-campaign, as we think we all are, is because they fear us. We have the power to influence and it’s scaring them.
The S&S book sets the scene for this new offensive, the hater-campaign. A Pulitzer Prize nominee author exposes in his book this dark side of many who for no apparent reason strongly dislike the McCanns.
Up to now we were only a minority who didn’t deserve any attention. Summers says we are more than that. A phenomenon to take into account. He’s setting the scene.
He dedicates 2 chapters to haters. Chapters 15 and 16. The word “hater” is used and abused in these pages. Intentionally to create a subliminal message that will ingrain the idea in readers that anyone opposing the McCann is a hater.
The intention was to produce a Streisand effect. As the book contains little commitment to fact to provoke any sort of profound debate, a reaction was expected from those branded haters. A passionate reaction from all those in blogs, forums, twitter and FB pages. An aggressive counter-reaction would spike things up and get the hate-debate rolling with the expected abundance of insult and vitriol. The Streisand effect being a book supposedly about Maddie degenerating into a “surprisingly” heated debate about hatred. And whose fault? According to BH the haters, those degenerates.
That would be the message to newcomers. The book, by a credible Pulitzer Prize nominee, was to spawn curiosity over the issue and people new to the issue would come and “confirm” the MSM’s idea that the “Maddie world online” was made up people set on exchanging insults constantly and gratuitously.
But the book was an absolute failure. Hardly anyone who was unfamiliar with the case has read it or will read it. The Streisand effect intended was not the one obtained. Because there was one indeed.
Newcomers who came opted to read what was said on the internet about the book instead of reading the book itself. Why would one read the book when one could read the annotated and relevant passages commented on online? Especially when all annotations and comments made sense?
It has backfired completely. Anything it said was to be taken with the contrary meaning. Maybe call this a Summers-Swan Effect? The effect whereby one says white and everyone understands black.
That’s why it was very quickly decided to trash the book as quickly as possible. For Summers it was ruining his reputation irreparably and to Gamble it wasn’t just a failure but was in fact working against his objectives.
The hater-campaign had to be stepped up. To mitigate the failure and even try to go for a win on this front.
That’s why Amy T’s alleged tweet is important. Subtly, it implements the campaign initiated by the book while providing a cover for its removal.
We might be completely off mark but find it really strange for someone to publish such a personal message on a public communication vehicle like twitter. A tweet, unlike a mail, is meant to be seen publicly. It can be retweeted. Seen by countless strangers. To say one indulges in sex with strangers is not a common message on twitter.
In our opinion, this was a message destined to cause passionate reactions. And with the appropriate responses it could easily degenerate into insult. Exactly as was intended. A preamble to the campaign that was launched with the 02OCT Sky News report on Brenda Leyland.
At the blog we didn’t fall for this. We do not approve of outing people be they WH or BH. If someone wants to reveal him or herself, then it’s up to the person to do so.
This campaign is ongoing. MSM and BH sites continue to reinforce the idea that Brenda was a tr*ll. They want you to repeat many times she wasn’t and preferably be passionate about it. Collateral damage for the ruthless is just a small stone that only makes one widen the stride but doesn’t make one stop walking.
It’s up to Martin Brunt, who we have already exposed in our “Swan Lake – Act 3” post, to know exactly under what circumstances and reasons was Brenda Leyland involved in this.
It’s up to Martin Brunt, who at a certain point in time said “and they told us that the police were going to play games with false leads”, as we showed in our “Playing Games” post, to know the reasons why he exposed Brenda Leyland the way he did.
But we're not joining the band-wagon of persecuting Martin Brunt. Only he knows how much he’s responsible for and how much he was following orders and guidelines when he gave his face and name to this report.
In our lives we all follow orders and/or guidelines and no one could have predicted this tragic outcome.
It was a foolish act but it’s up only to those responsible to know where the foolishness resides.
But we will join the band-wagon of those saying Brenda Leyland wasn't what they are accusing her of being.
Like any other human being she may have been many things and not be many others as well but after reading her tweets one concludes that they aren't abusive. Even the question/answer one, which was basically the one Sky News thought relevant, it's an answer, an opinion which one may agree or disagree but is not one that can extrapolate abuse from.
Here are Brenda Leyland's tweets.
The false accusations against Brenda Leyland come only from 2 sources: one, from people who, frankly, have lost touch with reality and basic common values and the other, journalists committing criminal journalism as per our “Serial Journalism” post.
For Brenda it was just too much too cope with.
We believe she will be decisive in the opening of the true Maddie’s Pandora’s Box.
Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe’s appearance on Eddie Nestor on BBC London on Tuesday 07OCT14, 3 days after Brenda’s death, is just a sign of this.
This is what the Commissioner said then (transcript from JH Forum): “But in terms of that file [Tr*ll Dossier], what happened if you recall was that the family [McCanns] handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter. The file was handed to that team and we were liaising with Leicestershire police which is where the McCann family live.....”
First, the Commissioner contradicts Martin Brunt on the report. At 3:58 Brunt says: “The woman who organised the dossier said she contacted police because the abuse was getting worse and internet service providers refused to help stop it.”
So it was either “the family” [McCanns] who contacted and handed the dossier over to the Met or it was this woman. If Commissioner wasn't sure who handed dossier in, he should have stated this.
Second, the word murder pops up. “Murder” and “missing” have in common the first letter but due to the sensitivity of each they’re not confused with each other by anyone much less by the Commissioner. And the word murder is said with clarity.
Pressure does tend to make truth leak into one’s language.
Either the Commissioner is putting both feet into mouth or sending a message. Or by doing the first he’s unintentionally doing the second.
Bernard Hogan-Howe is Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as of 12 September 2011, only 4 months after Operation Grange was ordered by the PM David Cameron.
We would say Commissioner Hogan-Howe and Operation Grange are joined at the hip. He’s ultimately the one responsible for the Met not to allow Brenda’s death to be in vain.
Rest in Peace.