Friday, 17 October 2014

SY's Significant Moves (with 20OCT2014 Post-Scriptum)

We don’t like to fit pieces into the puzzle. They belong where they belong and nowhere else. When a piece is placed where it belongs, that happens because it fits and doesn’t need to be made to fit.

It will always be the piece of the puzzle that will tell us where it belongs and not the other way around.

It’s the information the piece provides about its shape and pattern that then, comparing with the overall picture we have of the puzzle assures us we’re certain that we have put the right piece into the right place.

It has to be a 100% match, 99,9% simply won’t be enough. That difference of 0,1% dictates that the 100% piece is another and not that one.

We have said this many times before and are now repeating it.

This because very recently we had a piece that didn’t fit. Both its “pattern” and “shape” were all wrong: on Tuesday 16SEPT2014, 5 days after Summers & Swan published their book, we had BBC’s Crimewatch – Living with Murder, in which Andy Redwood appeared with Bundleman in the background. Bundleman who, from Redwood’s mouth, was just a British tourist, Crèche Dad.

It was #3 in the list of events we compiled in last week’s post “New Pieces, Same Game”.

And in the list of events, Redwood’s appearance seemed not to have anything to do with the other 6 moves that led up to the tragic death of Brenda Leyland:

1. The airing of the 01SEPT Sky News Report,

2. The publication of S&S book (11SEPT),

3. Amy T’s tweet (28SEPT),

4. The deletion from S&S Facebook all that had to do with the book (29SEPT),

5. The exposure of Brenda Leyland by Sky News (02OCT),

6. Brenda Leyland’s death (04OCT).

Redwood’s appearance was after the first two.

We also added to the list above 2 other moves:

1. The 1st report on McCann v The Times libel suit (16SEPT),

2. The 2nd report on McCann v The Times libel suit (02OCT).

We explained that in our opinion these 2 events about the libel trial between the McCanns and The Times happened in order to “archive” the issue in the best possible manner for it not to be noticed, or in the least not be given any relevance, by taking advantage of the distraction guaranteed by the noise generated by what we now call the Hate-Trinity: Sky News (Martin Brunt), Jim Gamble and Summers & Swan.

So the 6 + 2 events listed above were, in our opinion, related.

This left Andy Redwood on Crimewatch. A sole piece that didn’t seem to fit. It seemed to be an isolated event with, apparently, no links to the Hate-Trinity or the “aborted” libel trial.

Why had Redwood appeared on national TV with a picture of Bundleman behind him and with a very clear and readable “Tanner Sighting 9.15 pm approx.”?

Hadn’t Redwood clarified in October 2013 that for SY, Bundleman didn’t exist because he was Crèche Dad? Yes, he had. A “moment of revelation” he said then.

Was Redwood trying to tell us that the mysticism he built around that revelatory moment was so great that it was nothing but a collective delirious mirage on the part of the Met? That they all had seen an “oasis” in the middle of the desert that wasn’t there?

No, that couldn’t be it. Redwood was quite clear that he had spoken to the man, so not a hearsay witness, the sort Anthony Summers loves to refer to in his literary work. Quite the opposite, Crèche Dad seemed to be a credible witness, from SY’s point of view At least the Met had spoken, or so they said, directly to this man and not to one of his friends.

Was Redwood with this Crimewatch appearance conceding defeat to the other side?

We all know that after the OCT2013 UK Crimewatch, the findmadeleine website stubbornly kept Bundleman as a possible abductor, or THE abductor.

This not only blatantly contradicted SY as it clearly showed that it was very important for the other faction, who we’ve called Swinging Black Hats (BH), that Bundleman remain “alive” and considered as THE abductor.

So now, by appearing with Tanner’s vision behind him it seemed like Andy Redwood was rehashing Bundleman and saying to the other side ok, you’ve won, forget what we’ve said, we got Crèche Dad wrong, this is the main suspect and I’m here to humiliate myself.

This piece of the puzzle, although apparently unrelated from the 6 + 2 listed above, just kept gnawing in the back of our minds.

The question as to why just kept repeating itself time and time again:

Sure, it was a SY move, but why? If Redwood was there to humiliate himself then surely he would have given a justification, however lame it would be, for this glaring change of mind. But he said nothing about it.

So we had 2 options. Either “force” this piece into place by attempting to attribute some meaning to it or place it down on the table, set it aside and wait patiently for it to tell us where it would fit. Our opening paragraphs explain the reasons we opted for the latter. That’s why we said it was a move made by SY and left it at that.

And we rightfully did so because it was the absence of the pressure of having to understand it was what made us realise what it was all about.

We were looking at it much too much. We were not realising that our eyes were being betrayed by an unfortunate camera angle.

Redwood was not appearing in front of a reborn Bundleman but instead in front of a set of 2 pictures depicting faithfully SY's version of Tanner's Sighting in UK’s Crimewatch of exactly a year ago, last Tuesday.

If one just stops for a second, one can see next to Bundleman there’s a picture of Crèche Dad. This is what was on that wall:

Showing OCT2013 UK Crimewatch's main attraction: Crèche Dad.

In our opinion it couldn’t be clearer that SY was keeping to its storyline. It was an unfortunate camera angle that had made it seem the exact opposite.

16SEPT14 Crimewatch was not reviving Bundleman, instead it was to confirm his demise.

We are not here today to judge whether Bundleman is real or not, we have done that before. Nor to say whether we agree or not with Bundleman’s “assassination” by SY as we have also done that already.

Today is about evaluating the importance of Redwood appearing on 16SEPT2014 Crimewatch confirming SY’s storyline of 14OCT2013 UK’s Crimewtach.

As shown above, this was after the 01SEPT2014 Sky News – The Secret Report and after Summers & Swan published their book (11SEPT2014).

As we explained in our “New Pieces, Same Game” post, the 6 events listed above were all part of a carefully coordinated campaign by the Swinging BH Deciders.

We now believe it to have been a counter-offensive against the tightening of the siege they have been enduring for the last 3 years, and with particular acuity in the last one.

The Swinging BH forces under the command of “Lord” Gamble launched the attack on 2 fronts.

One, the 01SEPT14 Sky News Report, under the orders of “Major-General” Brunt, was to attack SY’s rear in an effort to penetrate its lines.

The other, the book published on 11SEPT2014,  with “Major-General” Summers in command, was to begin a scorched earth warfare attack against all who dared speak against the McCanns, namely on rhe internet. The September Hate-Campaign.

As a Reserve, a group of internet vigilantes had the mission of fuelling the conflict in support of the Hate-Campaign..

In Phase 2 of the campaign, in the beginning of October, Brunt and Summers were to join up their troops and together, under Brunt, were to assault “Leyland Hill”.

From there, exploit the success, make a final push and conquer “Stall-Grangeville”, the ultimate objective.

Unfortunately for Gamble, Summers’ forces collapsed right from the start. They were so ridiculous on the battlefield that instead of generating hatred, they generated laughter. Instead of causing the intended insult-spree and vitriol exchange they were limited to be looked upon as some circus freak phenomenon.

But, unwittingly, they did achieve some success for their side. By being utterly ridiculous, Summers’ forces were able to pin their opponents, us, to their positions. Not because of “military” knowledge or prowess but because when one is laughing at something one is unable to focus on anything else.

That’s why the covert Libel-Trial troops were able to flee the battleground almost unnoticed, where they had been exposed back in August by our “scouts”.

And that’s why while all were scorning Summers, Brunt was able to manoeuvre his troops and charge “Leyland Hill”, continuing the campaign as planned.

But this charge was inept, inadequate, arrogant and disastrous. As we all, unfortunately, now know.

Let’s now fit 16SEPT2014, the night Crimewatch aired, into the sequence of events.

It was 11 days after the beginning of the campaign and just 5 days after the “Summers Offensive”.

On that day, no one, except those in the know, had linked the 01SEPT Sky News Report and the book to an organised and coordinated Hate-Campaign.

We were the ones who linked up all events of this Hate-Campaign that would cost Brenda Leyland’s life, and we only did this last week, on Friday 10 October, with our post “New Pieces, Same Game”. Some now claim the theory as their own but unfortunately, did not commit their theory to written form, as we did.

By now we’re used to seeing our ideas being used by others without acknowledgment. It’s part of being hypocritically ostracised. As they cannot acknowledge us, for reasons we understand but refuse to accept or abide, some resort to appropriation of our ideas. It’s like we’re all fighting for the same but because the blog suffers from some sort of leprosy for defending the swinging theory we are not allowed to participate alongside others. It makes one wonder why the swinging theory is so feared.

For us, what matters is that our ideas are spread. How it’s done, matters little. For example, when we said there was no negligence, we were beaten to a pulp, now it’s a commonly accepted fact among those who are seriously interested in the case and that is what matters. Are we acknowledged? Our leprosy apparently forbid others to do so.

Fortunately, our isolation has little to do with our readership:

Thank YOU!

But, anyone outside the “in-the-know circle” who says that on the 16SEPT2014 they linked the 01SEPT Sky News Report and the book to the Hate-Campaign is not telling the truth, and that would include us if we had said it and we haven’t.

On that date, 16SEPT2014, everyone was looking the Sky News Report as a mere publicity stunt on the part of Summers to promote his book and everyone was revelling in the fact that its selling numbers were really being disastrous.

That’s why Redwood’s appearance on Crimewatch went almost unnoticed. In fact, if it wasn’t for Bundleman in the background, it would have gone so completely.

We would all have missed a very important message the Government BH Deciders were sending to the Swinging BH ones.

And the message was that in response to Gamble doing an SY on SY, SY did a PJ on Gamble.

SY, like the rest of us on 16SEPT2014, wasn’t aware of the Hate-Campaign as such but we think they were conscious of the sucking-up manoeuvre done by Gamble with the 01SEPT2014 Sky News Report.

In our opinion, the 16SEPT2014 Crimewatch appearance was a direct response to that.

The Swinging BH by keeping Bundleman on their website showed that for them he’s still the abductor no matter what SY had said to the contrary.

Redwood, appearing in the peak of the Swinging BH offensive with Crèche Dad behind him, was telling them, sorry not interested in your help, please continue with your little game, while we continue with our own… without you, thank you.

SY doing a PJ on Gamble.

Doing what PJ had done to SY on its hands and knees and nails scratching dirt in Luz in June: please, by all means have fun but don’t count us in.

Remember PJ, arms crossed, watching SY doing a dirty work literally? No one is able to forget that pitiful image SY has forever left of itself to the world.

On 16SEPT Crimewatch, SY had the exact same attitude towards Gamble and his campaign.

But SY’s messages to the other side didn’t stop here.

On the list of events we did in our “New Pieces, Same Game” post we spoke of 2 events that were supposed to have happened but didn’t: the final allegations of the McCann v Amaral damages trial and the postponement of the 2nd SY’s visit to the Algarve.

This last one, SY’s visit to the Algarve, in view of recent events, has taken significant relevance, in our opinion.

Much has been said about the public prosecutor Ines Sequeira. About her powers and objectives that she simply doesn’t or cannot have.

The Portuguese justice system is going through chaotic times and priorities for dispatching processes are being followed.

A rogatory letter from UK about a case of 7 years is NOT among those with higher priorities. Not saying that it’s being put on the bottom of the pile, simply saying it’s not being taken off it. It’s just being left exactly where it is: after the process that it’s following and before the one that’s preceding it and all waiting for the respective dispatching.

But suddenly, out of the blue, Redwood appeared in Portugal in the beginning of this week.

Reasons? We have been given 2: to see what is happening with the rogatory letter in Faro and have a meeting about the forensic evidence of the case at the INML in Coimbra.

Marisa Rodrigues. Jornal de Noticias, says that 5th rog still being considered.

Guardian Online, 13OCT2014 by Brendan de Beer, quoting Portuguese police sources says British forensic analysts are revisiting evidence from 5A and visiting the Portuguese lab on 16/10/14.

In our opinion, the answer as to what was going on with rog letter was probably given in the meeting that took place in Faro on Monday 13OCT2014 and we guess it followed very simple and straightforward lines:  please wait, when your turn comes, you’ll be notified of the decision.

Or it may have been a concession to the pressure. But all could have been done by phone, mail or letter. No need to have a face to face meeting because of this.

Yet, SY felt the need for their presence to be seen in Portugal.

In our opinion, it had to do with the other objective: give relevant visibility to forensics. SY is interested in forensics and is showing clearly that it is.

What forensics are we speaking about?

Wasn’t all forensics done by UK’s FSS? And didn’t Portuguese forensics experts at the crime scene collect samples under direct supervision and very specific instructions from the British?

Forensic samples were collected in the way the British wanted them to be collected, so that UK’s FSS could best perform its job. Not the Portuguese INML.

If UK hadn’t destroyed its forensic evidence of this case, they wouldn’t now have to be submitting themselves to the Portuguese bureaucracy. And if it’s being proven that there’s an absolute need to revisit this destroyed evidence, then where is the responsibility of those who ordered the destruction of all forensic evidence in the most high-profile case in the UK?

But were hair samples destroyed? We see no reason why nor where it says they were. Perishable samples, such as blood, were destroyed but the fate of the non-perishable is not as clear:

“The part of these samples [non-perishable], which were removed for examination, will be retained by the laboratory for the period of time as specified in the 'Memorandum of Understanding for Retained Materials' (3, 7 or 30 years) from the date of this notice to allow access to other legitimate parties. After this period, in the absence of written instruction to the contrary, the retained samples will be destroyed and a record made of their destruction.”

So, in theory, UK should still have the hair samples stored somewhere and available for reanalysis. No need to ask Portugal for anything. In theory.

If one remembers, the Portuguese forensic experts were even prohibited to test any sample from anything in the apartment. All testing was supposed to be done exclusively by FSS. We’re talking about the blood stains in the East wall of apartment behind couch.

What other forensic areas of interest could there be that may have “escaped” the FSS control? We can only think of 2: the bedroom and the Renault Scenic.

Could SY want to retest the hairs that Mr Amaral, on Porto Canal TV Channel on Friday, 14MAR14, spoke of that were in Portugal and that should be reanalysed?

This is what Mr Amaral said then:

“And then there is another situation, that it still is possible, to know or to gather clues if in fact that those dogs have failed or not, if indeed ... if that ... in the trunk of that car, I'm referring to the car rented by the McCanns about 15 or 20 days after the disappearance, where traces of blood were found, traces that... that the laboratory says they may be, but there is no absolute certainty that they are from Madeleine McCann and that hair was also found.

Hair, says the laboratory, by the coloring, that’s how the examination was done in the old days, examination, comparing if the hair color was or wasn’t from a person.

Nowadays it is possible to do and, even then it was, do DNA tests to the hair.

There are those who say, and some laboratories say that, that it’s only possible to identify the DNA with the hair root. The English Laboratory says it's not possible because these don’t have the hair root, the root ... and so they won’t do the examination.

These hairs are in Portugal, they were returned to Portugal and are attached to the process. It’s simple. It is the Public Ministry, who has the investigation, to take those hairs and send them to a European or other Laboratory where it’s done this kind of examinations without requiring the hair root.”

Could Mr Amaral be bluffing about hair samples which may have come from Madeleine being in the possession of a Portuguese lab? Besides not thinking the man would do such a thing, the files seem to prove he’s not.

Andrew Palmer – FSS, Outros Apensos 1  vol 2  372-333   09NOV2007 remitted by Portuguese lab and Leicester Police

Lab Ref: 300655190

“The objective of my examination is to determine if there exist body hair or hair in the objects recovered from the Renault Scenic 59-DA-27and if affirmative, to determine if those may have come from Madeleine McCann.”

Scenic samples:

“Objects from the Renault Scenic - licence plate 59-DA-27

The following objects recovered from the scenic were subjected to examination:


7A, 7B, 7C,


The following was said about these samples:

“Four hairs- one from 7B and three from 7C were sent for LCN DNA tests. The results of these tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.”

Apparently follicle material was insufficient for standard DNA tests.

Undated correspondence from Paulo Rebelo, (presumed to be to the FSS, although no recipient is named) requests samples to be tested to determine whether “antemortem or post-mortem deposition.

Processos Vol X111 3578-3590 - numerous samples from the Scenic are listed. The significant samples are those below, because they are the samples sent to Lowe for LCN testing by Palmer.

“7B. Fibres and possible head hair from the back of the left seat in the vehicle luggage area.

7C. Fibres and possible head hair from the bottom in the left area of the back seat.”

Lowe reports about these samples (FSS – GF- 679 Emissao 2 pagina 8):

“My colleague, Andrew Palmer, submitted various hairs collected from the Renault Scenic for tests, using LCN. These hairs were designated as 7B hair 1 and 7C hairs 7, 13 and 15

Attempts to obtain a DNA profile of each hair by LCN were unfruitful, because no DNA profile was obtained by LCN, possibly due to there being an insufficient quantity of good quality DNA.”

Returns of above 4 samples were received in Portugal (VOLUME XIIIa, Pgs 3465/3466)

“Return of samples:


Delivery 286C: 34 items listed


- Items 1-9, 11 (all hairs and fibres) referenced in Palmer report;


Items for return (from FSS) dated 27NOV07:

Ref 3000655190 states 33 items were returned.

7B and 7C are items 23 and 24.

It’s signed for and the signature seems to be that of Fernando Viegas. It isn’t dated.

Fernando Viegas and Luis Viriato accompanied Professor Corte Real, President of the Portuguese forensic service to Leicester Police in November 2007, to obtain a decisive report on the DNA. As reported in Diário de Notícias on 30NOV2007. So was it handed over at that meeting? The form indicates return of items was BY HAND.

We think this must be the material GA refers to in the Porto Canal programme, when he says the hairs were returned and are appended in the process.

Mr Amaral, in that appearance described how vital leads in the case appear to have been dropped deliberately.

He talked of high-level political involvement which left DNA samples untested and key witnesses overlooked. He also said that DNA evidence from the McCanns’ rental car could have been more thoroughly tested and that hair samples were not followed up because the British lab claimed hair samples without roots couldn’t be tested.

He says it was possible to test at the time and is now possible. All that needs to be done is to send the hair samples that are in Portugal to a European laboratory, or anywhere where these examinations are done without roots.

He must be referring to the process - the PJ files - which were made available in 2008 and therefore available for checking.

Two IFs follow here: IF this is the material Mr Amaral is referring to and IF the hairs are sent for testing and prove to be Madeleine’s, is this decisive proof? Would an innocent explanation for hairs being found in these particular locations be feasible or would it become part of a body of circumstantial evidence?

A darkened band at the root portion of the hair – this post-mortem hair banding is a sign of decomposition. It seems to take several days to develop. But admissibility of this evidence seems to depend on judge’s interpretation as to the scientific reliability of such evidence. Refers to Casey Anthony trial in 2011 where FBI analyst testified hair from car trunk was probably from a dead body.

Note that up to here, no MSM report has mentioned the Renault Scenic. However, in the expression “evidence collected in 2007” the Scenic has to be included.

Let’s now see a CMTV news report, aired Wednesday 16OCT2014 regarding SY’s visit to INML:

Studio anchor: “And the British Police was this morning in a meeting in the INML in Coimbra, to know how the vestiges, found in 2007 when of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, were analyzed. Scotland Yard will ask for a reanalysis of the samples taking into account the development of technology of the last seven years.”

Reporter: “Much of the biological evidence collected in May 2007 is in this building and may now be reanalyzed at the request of Scotland Yard. In the meeting which lasted for about three hours, the English police wanted to know how INML did the analysis of these samples.”

Francisco Brízida Martins (FBM) – President of INML: “The English police authorities sought to clarify about the procedures that were used by the INML during the undertaking of the examinations at the starting phase of the process, examinations under genetic and biology contexts, very extensive examinations, moreover, this process led to the…  was to the Institute the process to date in which more tests were performed..."

Reporter: “The advances in technology over the past seven years may bring new answers. For the evidence to be reexamined the British investigators will have to write new rogatory letter requesting the diligences.”

FBM: “The Institute is naturally available to undertake other examinations, being certain, however, that everything has to be ordered and determined under... the judicial authorities, under the investigation that is running in Portugal by the Public Ministry, and eventually under judicial cooperation that is to be requested by the English entities.”

Reporter: “The reanalysis of the evidence may be done in Portugal or in England. The techniques and procedures used will be the same as in 2007, however the technological evolution now allows more information be obtained.”

FBM:“The expertise itself will be the same, the results that can now be obtained, now we’re talking in the context of markers, for example, and today you can go farther…  this is the lead that eventually can be looked for. Trying to go farther today than it could have gone a few years ago.”

Reporter: “The coordinator of the English investigation, Andy Redwood refused to comment on the meeting in which elements of the LPC Scientific Police Laboratory and of Faro’s PJ were also present.”

A lot of confusing information. It's about methodologies and procedures after all. Same procedures, new results. From same samples.

Brízida Martins says nothing about possible new evidence that may have been found during the searches and excavations in the terrain of PdL in June.

He’s quite clear that SY wants a repeat. A technologically updated one. One that is to bring new results from old samples.

If the hairs Mr Amaral speaks of were now indeed to be Maddie’s, it would be game over for the McCanns.

To us, in 2007 PJ tried to make a “body” of accumulating circumstantial evidence, no one part of which was conclusive, but together, built a picture of parental involvement.

As we know, this process was boycotted.

But now, however much can be invented to explain how hairs were transferred by some means to the unlikely place of a tyre well, if they were to discover any evidence of post mortem banding and are able to now say this hair was from Maddie, it would change everything. The McCanns would have to explain why the hairs of a dead Maddie were in the Scenic. Game over, no question about that.

But we must ask one very important question: was it really necessary for Andy Redwood to come to Portugal for this? To say they wanted the DNA evidence to be reanalysed?

Why was SY’s physical presence really required? It's seems unlikely it had to be to show Redwood, a layman, how a scientific process is done.

After all, SY has already written 5 rogatory letters so one more, which seems they will have to do anyway, would be a simple task to do.

No, Redwood wanted to give big visibility to this diligence. Draw lots of attention to forensics. Have the words forensics, samples, evidence and examinations said publicly as many times as possible.

What SY really needs is to be seen really, really interested in forensics.

Forensics is the scientific analysis of data to be used in a court of law. In criminal courts. A crime is not necessarily murder although murder is always a crime. Forensics is always used to convict a murderer but is also used with other “minor” crimes.

But to the general population, the word “forensics” is unquestionably linked to Maddie’s death. The dogs, the debate about DNA being found in the Scenic, all were MSM headlines in 2007.

To speak of forensics in the Maddie case is to confirm that SY publicly thinks, very strongly, that Maddie is dead. Commissioner’s Hogan Howe’s “murder” slip of the tongue makes absolute sense.

But the timing is fundamental. For some reason SY didn’t want to wait for a decision on the 5th rog letter and appeared in Portugal unannounced.

If the 16SEPT2014 Crimewatch appearance was a response to the 01SEPT2014 Sky News Report, as we think it was, then SY’s October visit to Portugal comes only a week after the collapsing of the Swinging BH September Offensive because of the unfortunate consequence the Brunt’s disastrous charge on Brenda Leyland had.

That’s the message SY is now sending: your counter-offensive has been defeated, we’re going for the kill.

A word to SY. We hope you have taken something from Brenda Leyland’s death.

Besides being your moral duty for her death not to have been in vain, the Swinging BH September offensive showed very clearly that on this side of the fence are well educated and informed people who will not allow you stray very far from the truth.

And our reaction to Brenda’s death showed how stoic and determined we are. Not filled with hatred, as the MSM tried to pass, but filled with rightful conviction and absolute passion.

If you wish to opt for the whitewashing scenario, straying away from truth, do so at your own risk.

In the end, you will have to present a result. It will have to justify the £10,000,000 UK has spent on this.

We know you know that whatever result you present, it will be rigorously scrutinised.

Post-Sriptum, 20OCT2014 10:25:

Thanks to Anonymous 19 Oct 2014 12:29:00, we have now been able to see the unveiling of another piece, or event, in the succession that happened between the 01SEPT2014 Sky News Report and Brenda Leyland’s unfortunate death.

This “new” event was the fact the “Tr*ll Dossier” was handed by the McCanns to the Met on 09SEPT2014, 2 days before Summers & Swan published their book.

We have gathered this information from Sunday Times and Guardian:

- Sunday Times’ article “Trolls face longer jail terms for spreading misery” by Tony Grew on 18OCT2014 15:57: “Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets, Facebook messages and posts from online forums abusing them and accusing them of being involved in the disappearance of their daughter.”

- Guardian’s article “Online abuse dossier directed at Kate and Gerry McCann is handed to police”, by Press Association, on Thursday 02OCT2014 07:27: “A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.””

These 2 articles put together say it was the McCanns handed this dossier to the Met on 09SEPT2014. Not the “Vigilante Woman” as stated by Sky News. Something Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe would confirm this on Tuesday, 07OCT2014 (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”.

Question 1. Did the “the woman who organised the dossier” and who according to Brunt said “she contacted police because the abuse was getting worse and internet service providers refused to help stop it” fool him? If so, why didn’t Brunt check his facts before reporting? If she made Sky News lie about an ongoing investigation, shouldn't the network expose this individual?

Question 2. Why was Martin Brunt holding a copy of this dossier and showing it publicly? Is it normal in UK for MSM to flaunt evidence under investigation by British police?

Question 3. What has alleged online harassment, even if true, to do with Operation Grange? Is Operation Grange so over manned that it can spare its officers to deal with something that didn’t happen in Luz or with Maddie? If Gerry has his wallet stolen again will it be Operation Grange investigating it? Is Operation Grange the “McCann’s Praetorian Guard” paid by the British taxpayer?

We understand SY should have handed the dossier to Leicestershire Police, which would make sense, as that is where the McCanns live and it wouldn't be a matter for Operation Grange. Commissioner is not clear about this. By saying SY “were liaising with Leicestershire police” it’s not clear as to who is currently in charge of this investigation.

On 07SEPT14, 4 days before S&S book, and 2 days before the dossier was handed over to the Met, a BH on a BH site, wrote that “Next, I’m sure, there will follow a TV documentary, based on the book, where the leading sc*m will be fully exposed to ridicule from the Great British Public (…) Some of you will be publicly named and shamed. I hope your friends and neighbours get to read about you, and spurn you in the street.”

We have already explained why we think SY did a PJ on the Swinging BH when it felt that a SY was being done on them.

Now we think SY did even more. We think they did a repeat of a “McCann Case Phenomenon”: they did a Smith on the Swinging BH!

Remember how, in our opinion, Smith was supposed to have come forward on the 4th or 5th of May 2007 but only “remembered” to do so, for reasons we have also explained why, at the end of the month?

Well, in this instance SY didn’t come forward when they were expected to come. In fact, unlike Smith who eventually did, SY didn’t even come forward.

Understand the timelines and so understand what happened:

01SEPT2014, the Sky News Report to butter-up SY and introduce S & S book.

8 days later, 09SEPT2014, the “Tr*ll Dossier” was given to the Met.

2 days later, 11SEPT2014, a Pulitzer Prize nominee publishes a book denouncing internet haters.

5 days later, 16SEPT2014, SY on Crimewatch was to, in our opinion, confirm the “haters” and “trolls” by speaking of how SY was officially investigating them.

Note the upscaling of the hostilities against “haters” would subtly have come from “independent” sources: a Pulitzer nominee and BBC.

It couldn’t get more credible, it couldn’t get more serious.

But SY didn’t do what was expected. They failed to “show up”. Worse, SY took it further and rubbed Crèche Dad in the Swinging BH’s face.

This must have surprised the BH. It took them almost 3 weeks to react. And they continued the hate-campaign as we now know and with the drastic consequences known to all.

This 09SEPT “Handing of the Dossier” event allows us to better understand the importance of the 16SEPT “SY Crimewatch”.

We would at this point in time say the timeline was:

1. On Monday 01SEPT2014, Sky News Report – Madeleine McCann, the Secret Report.

2. On Tuesday, 09SEPT2014, 8 days later, McCanns give SY the “Tr*ll Dossier”.

3. On Thursday 11SEPT2014, 2 days later, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan published their book “Looking for Madeleine”,

4. On Tuesday 16SEPT2014, 5 days later, BBC’s Crimewatch – Living with Murder.

5. On Friday 19SEPT2014, 3 days later, The Press Gazette reports The Sunday Times was sued by McCanns over the article of 27OCT13 which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police.

6. On Sunday 28SEPT2014, 9 days later, Amy T’s alleged tweet is “outed”.

7. On Monday 29SEPT2014, 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.

8. On Thursday 02OCT2014, 3 days later, the “Sky News Special Report – McCann Tr*lls”.

9. On that same day, Thursday 02OCT2014, the Guardian reported that the McCanns had been handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned The Sunday Times.

10. On the following day, 03OCT2014, Sky News reports “Gerry McCann Says Make Example of Web Trolls”

11. On Saturday 04OCT2014, 2 days later, the body of Brenda Leyland or Sweepyface, 63, is found in a hotel in Leicester.

12. On Monday 14OCT2014, 9 days later, SY appear in Portugal for a meeting with PJ in Faro, supposedly about 5th Rogatory letter.

13. On Wednesday 16OCT2014, 2 days later, SY visited INML in Coimbra to ask for new tests on old samples from the evidence collected in 2007.

As the snowglobe settles, things become clearer.


  1. Very happy to read your interpretation of recent events, with particular regard to SY.
    Thanks. You are key.

  2. Hats off once again to you sisters.

  3. I do hope that you are correct and that justice is finally delivered.

  4. ''Why had Redwood appeared on national TV with a picture of Bundleman behind him and with a very clear and readable “Tanner Sighting 9.15 pm approx.”?''

    If we cast our minds back to the first break from the imposed Portuguese silence, was the world wide promotion of Mrs Tanner on the BBC Panorama programme with the artist impression, those that were used again on the BBC Crimewatch. Could it simply be, the BBC don't really follow the case.

    But on the subject of Creche dad: let us remind ourselves of what Mrs Tanner said in her rogatory interview: draw your own conclusions

    sorry requires two posts

  5. Part two: SORRY THREE POSTS :(

    about half way:

    4078 “Go on to tell me about that then as slowly as you can?”
    Reply “Yes, erm, I was, I think I was nearing the top of the road, it’s a bit of a, I’m trying to think how, but I can’t really remember how much of a hill it is, but it is definitely a hill going up there, and just as I got to the top somebody did walk across. And the thing that really struck me was the, erm, the bare feet. And the thought that came into my head was, I’ll say when we’re in Leicester, our children were quite adaptable, and what we used to do is, we used to walk round to Dave and Fi’s house for, erm, the kids, for tea with the kids, the kids would play, we’d put them in a travel cot there and we’d sometimes stay a bit later and then carry the kids home, because it’s only, it’s like the next road. And we’d wrap them in a blanket or whatever, but you could always, their feet would fall, their feet would fall out the bottom and you’d think ‘Oh they’re going to get cold feet’ because they’d always wriggle. So one thing I thought was ‘Oh a bit of a bad parent like us, you know, that kid’s obviously being taken home’ or whatever. And I think that’s all, you know, that’s sort of, erm, I think that’s where the sort of I thought ‘Oh’, and that was the only reason I really clocked it I think. Because at that point I thought it’s a person taking their child either back from the crèche or, you know, just some father carrying their own child, so it didn’t really, you know, and that didn’t. I’m making it sound like it really registered at the time, but it didn’t, that is literally, I thought ‘Oh’”.
    4078 “That moment in time?”
    Reply “Yeah, I just thought that”.

  6. Part three (hopefully)

    4078 “Yes, us Brits abroad like to try and brave, if we’re on holiday we like to have, wear holiday clothes, don’t we?”
    Reply “Well”.
    4078 (inaudible)
    Reply “Yeah, and I think it was just that factor was, it just didn’t look quite, you know, it just didn’t look quite like a tourist on holiday or somebody you would imagine on a MARK WARNER holiday carrying their kid home. As I say, this is all in hindsight”.
    4078 “I know, yeah. And also you said that, you know, your immediate assumption or not probably even thought about it that much at the time, but you thought he might have been carrying a child home from the crèche?”
    Reply “Yeah, well I think you did see people, I mean, not that late at night, and, again, that should have made me think more, but especially sort of, you know, earlier on you’d see them carrying children in pyjamas to the, the crèche where you can leave them at night and then pick them up again”.
    4078 “Would that fit in with the direction he had come from?”
    Reply “Well, again, no. Well, it would have been, I mean, at that time, you would of more expected him to be going the other way, coming back from the crèche maybe. But he could have gone, if he’d have gone that way and then cut down, there is a way you could have cut down to the crèche, going that way, so”.
    4078 “Okay”.
    Reply “So really, you know, at the time, I thought. And I think I did actually think ‘Oh a bit odd’, but never in a million years would I have thought ‘That’s Madeleine’. And I think, well Gerry was standing on the bloomin’ road, so I thought he’d, not thought, he’d just, he had just checked, you know, I thought he’d just checked”.
    4078 “If you had have thought that was Madeleine at the time you would have said?”

    How many children were being carried around PDL that night inappropriately dressed! - but much depends on who creche-dad really is, do the evening creche records substantiate the attendance, timed in and out! Yet alone, exactly who he might be.

    Next - following the flow of recent events, distraction, hype whatever. There was a poster on twitter encouraging everyone to follow them, 2&2TV or something like that, in order to promote a series of videos on the subject of Madeleine's disappearance, hoping to go viral on or before, but working towards 12th October. The a total NON APPEARANCE, it looks suspicious this was TRAWLING! And posters need to be aware of being drawn into the NET. rip Brenda.

    One might care to invite 2&2 (sorry if name is wrong) to the table and offer up an explanation, since IMHO it doesn't particuclarly look good in view of recent events.

    Admin: sorry to have inconvenienced you hope it all comes together.

  7. On the ball. dasteelman. RIP Brenda

  8. Managed to understand all of this Textusa, Makes so much more sense now.
    Here's hoping this is the last hurdle. Much respect to you girls.

  9. Nigel at McCann files hasn't posted since 15/8. Does anyone have any idea why?

  10. No matter what conclusions will be deduced from further analysis of the DNA it will tell its own story, but I can'y help but wonder why the Eddie and Keela videos are still on YouTube.

    Surely if they weren't meant to be there they wouldn't be.

    Just my opinion only.

    Thanks once again for your analyses, as always, your work is much appreciated.



    CDM is saying British cops don't know what tests they want done!

  13. tex in your hearts of hearts do you really think the mccanns can be or will be prosecuted for anything thanks

    1. Anonymous 17 Oct 2014 15:36:00,

      If we did not believe the McCanns will be prosecuted, we wouldn’t have taken up arms in the first place.

      Your question is pertinent as the system showed us clearly that if we didn’t do something they wouldn’t be.

      Justice is for the people, and BY the people. When the people are forgotten in the equation, it’s the duty of that same people to step forward, show their presence and remind the system of their importance and expectations.

      We, the people, are never a mob but a significant number of human beings who believe that the collective is always made up of individuals with the capability to stand for what is right.

      Answer to your question: yes, because all of us have done, are doing and will do something about it and our collectiveness is one mighty opponent.

    2. A great reply.

      I love to hear people speak like this.

      It's not heard often enough nowadays.

      It is good to remind people what justice and truth is all about - and who it's for.

  14. Great reading.
    If any of you followed the O.J.Simpson trial then you would find almost all the forensic evidence tampered with, samples missing, samples mislead, cross contamination, possible as the forensic expert told the court, even according to the case the defense claimed that the police had planted DNA on O.J.Simpsons clothing, then it was rejected, and later well it is possible that DNA walked by it self to the clothing. What was the very first thing O.J.Simpson did before he turned himself in to the police, well he contacted all news media, knowing that it would seriously hinder the police investigation.

    Now to all of you, siding with the McCann or against, did you think that O.J.Simpson was guilty ?

  15. Brilliant post. Thank you. Sums everything up perfectly. Let's hope it really is Endgame.

  16. Textusa thanks for a great post. Very hearting for those who follow the case to have hope that SY are on the ball and in the right direction. With regards to your observation about other blogs repeating your analysis without giving you due credit. If i was a bit younger i would write lol lol. I too observed after your last post people on other blog suddenly linking the SKR the online haters campaign etc as if it was just common information. You are way above the rest Textusa it will be your blogs that the film will centre around

  17. Can someone please explain how, without a body you can match Madeleine's' blood, when blood doesn't, as far as I'm aware, contain any D.N.A? And as far as the banding of the hair follicle, without a body, you haven't got a definite match.

    Thank you

    1. Anonymous 17 Oct 2014 23:23:00,

      Clear that White blood cells contain DNA.

      If DNA could be obtained from any hairs and it matched Maddie's profile, which is shown in full in PJ records and does not require a body to be found.

      And if those hairs showed post-mortem banding, then the answer is obvious.

  18. Good story......

    But if they will focus on finding suspects dna........ it's a different story......correct?

    1. Anonymous 18 Oct 2014 10:27:00,

      As we have said in our post "Maddie's Pandora's Box":

      "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."

  19. We go this posted on our Facebook timeline by Lorraine Holden:

    "Hi loved your latest blog always enjoy them but I'm a natural pessimist unfortunately
    Can you explain to me because I'm struggling with it big time
    If we are to believe Sy are going after the McCann's why have the Portuguese refused joint investigation and why arn't they pushing for the dna to be retested if they are investigating Madeleine's disappearance too?
    Hope you can help...x"

    1. Lorraine,

      We feel there's a need to douse the optimism generated by this post.

      It speaks only of intent. We believe SY is driving things for the kill, but we do not, even for a minute, underestimate the adversary.

      For some reason it has taken this game has taken so long and for some reason SY has been forced into the role of a very inept and unconvincing actor in a very evident pantomime.

      This is a very serious game, we cannot stress that enough. And Brenda Leyland’s death has just upped the stakes. Now it’s no longer about an accidental death, now it’s about, allegedly (waiting for coroner to confirm), a suicide for reasons directly linked to the cover-up.

      Maddie’s death happened. Brenda’s death was allegedly caused.

      So to say things are coming to a head, is, at this point in time, just wishful thinking.

      Resistance to things coming to a head is expected and will be found. In a game of chess, your planned move may be changed in response to the next move your opponent makes.

      However, each step taken towards the truth is a step nearer to it. We think these 2, the 16SEPT Crimewatch and SY's Forensic Visit, to be significant ones, thus title of post.

      But why is SY, while still having a rog letter still to be dispatched, giving now such visibility to a diligence that they requires another? In theory, it is something that will still take time.

      We have explained why PJ has refused to a joint operation, and in our opinion very correctly so. Why should Portugal trust SY after what happened with all, including forensics, in 2007/2008?

      We don’t know on what PJ is working on. And that includes forensic evidence. It can’t be said that PJ is not pushing for DNA to be retested. The only resistance from INML about retesting DNA (for SY, mind you) was to say it has to be done within Portuguese legality. That’s not resisting, that’s simply not being subservient.

      This is a political game and as such please don’t forget to leave logic outside. To bring it in is only to interfere with the “logic” of this case.


    Loved it!

  21. SY by asking to do tests in UK they're saying they don't trust Portugal.
    The excuse for using FSS was that they had more advanced methods at the time, but it seems Portugal subjected material to tests more advanced than UK, according to Portuguese press report.
    There is no excuse to ask for tests in UK now. The only conclusion to be drawn is lack of trust, probably on both sides.

  22. Can someone tell me how the SY or PJ would obtain the DNA of Madeleine ? White blood cells can contain DNA, but where to get the blood sample from ?
    Madeleine is missing so there we can not get the sample.

  23. It would not surprise me if SY where to get a blood sample from the apartment 5A and plant it on one of their " Suspects " Look we have the guilty guy here, blood sample matched that from apartment 5A. SY only want to close the case and make David Cameron look good, and get the McCann's off the hook.

  24. Otto Willum Nielsen,

    Each person’s DNA is unique. From wherever in our body it comes. Be it from our saliva, hair or blood. We spoke of this in our “DNA is… DNA post”.

    If hair samples yield DNA and it proves to be Maddie’s then it is Maddie’s.

    We will not be drawn into a discussion from hair to blood. This post is about hair.

    If you want a more complex tutorial, please research the internet as we are not the blog to provide it as we are not experts in this area.

    About linking any DNA to a possible "foreign" suspect we think the answer at 18 Oct 2014 10:45:00 that we gave to Anonymous 18 Oct 2014 10:27:00 is sufficient to clarify our position on that subject.


    Three women who could solve riddle of Maddie’s disappearance
    THREE women are the key players in determining whether Scotland Yard's costly Madeleine McCann investigation will succeed or fail.

    Madeleine McCann on the day she went missing [PA ]

    The trio hold top positions in the Portuguese judiciary and police and all have privately vowed to do everything in their powers to discover the fate of Madeleine and bring those responsible to justice.

    For the first time in years all the vital departments are working in tandem, which is a major relief to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who heads the Yard's Operation Grange team trying to solve the seven-year riddle.

    Ines Sequeira, the chief state prosecutor covering Praia da Luz where Madeleine vanished in May 2007, and the one with the most power, has given the case priority status.

    The 49-year-old mother of four high flier is a breath of fresh air in the department.

    She has instructed her team to let nothing stand in the way of bring a successful conclusion to the investigations.

    She is based in a huge office in the grand marble-clad court house in Portimao, a large coastal town some 12 miles from Luz on the Algarve.

    It will be she who decides on whether to prosecute or not.

    Slim and stylishly dressed Ms Sequeira trained in Lisbon, where she is believed to have met her husband, now a judge.

    She was the main prosecutor in the town of Silves, 10 miles from Portimao for years, working on robberies, murders, sex offences and assaults.

    A colleague said: "She quickly built up a very good reputation in Silves, particularly with her work on homicides.

    "She is very precise and demands high standards.

    "She can see mistakes before others realise their significance and weeds them out.

    "No one was surprised she won promotion.

    "She likes to work away from the spotlight, quietly and methodically in her office."

    She works with Ana Paulo Rito, the criminal co-ordinator of the Policia Judiciaria in Portimao, the role once taken by Goncalo Amaral, who is now locked in a libel action with Kate and Gerry McCann over his claims that Madeleine died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club.

    A legal source said: "Both women are clear thinking, driven, hard-working and utterly determined to do whatever they can to solve the case.

    "They have brought fresh minds to the case and have similar character traits with no big egos and a quiet and efficient work ethic.

    "They are both ambitious and career minded and they want results without cutting any corners.

    "Both are quite new in their positions and they want to prove themselves and bring pride to their departments."

    The third woman is Ms Helen Monteiro, who leads the Portuguese detectives' review of the case in Porto in the north of the country.

    Work by her team has greatly helped the Yard in their efforts to finally solve Madeleine's disappearance.

    Three Algarve men have been given arguido or suspect status and the Yard wants to speak to them further.

    Last week there was clear evidence of the new spirit of cooperation with an unprecedented meeting about potentially case breaking DNA material from the flat where Madeleine McCann was taken.

    Hairs found inside the apartment have not been matched to any of the people who were known to have entered the property before or after Madeleine vanished aged nearly four in May 2007.

    So now they are set to be examined in Britain or Portugal in the coming months.

    Francisco Brizida, Portugal's leading expert in forensic science, last week told Yard officers that curtain fabric, potentially harbouring DNA samples, is also available for testing.

    1. Is Express speaking of Team Textusa???

      "Three women who could solve riddle of Maddie’s disappearance"

    2. "It will be she who decides on whether to prosecute or not."

      This is correct in case she has been nominated to dispatch the process after PJ sends it to her.

      Naming her is the same as in naming someone in the CPS and adding that CPS prosecutor had "instructed her team to let nothing stand in the way of bring a successful conclusion to the investigations" of Operation Grange.

      It's Helena and not Helen.

    3. "So now they are set to be examined in Britain or Portugal in the coming months."

      Britain, BIG mistake! Weren't any lessons learned from the FSS fiasco?! It will be a case of "entregar o ouro ao bandido" (relinquishing the gold to the bandit)
      Portugal, leads the way to discredit "inconvenient" results, "labs not reliable", the "third world country" song all over again...
      Choose a third party, some neutral ground, please, please!

  26. Hi amazing post!! The only part I couldn't understand is: if the hair situation would be game over, how is it that the dogs situation wasn't game over?Thanks in advance

    1. Anonymous 19 Oct 2014 03:13:00,

      The evidence of the dogs was only indicative. Grime's report in PJ files makes that very clear from the outset. In every case, any indications found by dogs must be supported by other evidence.

      All the dogs show is that blood and cadaver odour was deposited and where. Not when, whose or how.


    1. Will it feature a pedophile abductor with bandaged feet?


    "She was the main prosecutor in the town of Silves, 10 miles from Portimao for years, working on robberies, murders, sex offences and assaults.
    A colleague said: "She quickly built up a very good reputation in Silves, particularly with her work on homicides."

    experienced at robberies, murders, sex offences and assaults...good reputation built on solving HOMICIDE cases...not one single mention of ABDUCTION cases!

  29. Just a thought.
    When it's said that Sequeira has instructed her team to let nothing stand in the way of bringing a successful conclusion to the investigations if it's a recognition that the previous public prosecutors did indeed let something stand in the way of bringing a successful conclusion to the investigations.

  30. Sunday Times today, confirms that it was the McCanns who handed the dossier to the police.

    Trolls face longer jail terms for spreading misery
    Tony Grew
    18 October 2014

    © Times Newspapers Limited 2014

    THEY are the modern scourge: cowards who use the anonymity of the internet to viciously abuse people by issuing threats to rape, mutilate or murder.

    Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, better known for his tough stance on the European convention on human rights, has turned his fire on so-called trolls, people who use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to harass and intimidate victims.

    “People are being abused online in the most crude and degrading fashion,” Grayling said last night.

    “We must send out a clear message: if you troll, you risk being behind bars for two years.”

    Many of the victims of these trolls are women, among them the Labour MP Stella Creasy, the TV presenter Judy Finnigan and her daughter Chloe Madeley, and Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine.

    Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets, Facebook messages and posts from online forums abusing them and accusing them of being involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Some of the messages were directed at their other children, nine-year-old twins.

    So another chance for Carter-Ruck to sue the Sunday Times for libel? Is this really responsible journalism or just another "good marketing ploy" to coin a phrase?

    Regardless if it were indeed the Mc's who handed over the dossier, we will never get to know if it were true.

    1. Is this the whole article, or additional comments? If it is the complete article, there's a certain criticism built in that is VERY curious.

  31. This is another movement on the chessboard against the McCanns, imo

  32. New BBC drama...

    Re: The Missing - 'echoes the case of Madeleine McCann' 28th of October

    from the Beeb's own blurb:

    2006. Tony and Emily Hughes’ life changes forever when their five year-old son Oliver goes missing on a family holiday to France.

    A huge manhunt led by Julien Baptiste, one of France’s finest detectives, is launched. The French police face an uphill struggle in their mission to find the young boy – Oliver seems to have disappeared into thin air. Tony and Emily are in a foreign land, they do not speak the language and do not understand the rules. As their desperation and profile of the case grows, Tony and Emily find themselves thrown into a media maelstrom, learning the hard way that not everyone they meet is willing to operate in their best interests.'

    I wonder if the plot is written to last seven years, ending in Tony and Emily being sent down?

  33. To readers,

    We inform that we now have now added what we consider a relevant Post-Scriptum to the post.

    Thank you.

  34. Hi Textusa - found the post I was looking for - Luck of the Irish - thanks! Needed to refresh my memory

    1. Anonymous 20 Oct 2014 11:09:00

      We're supposing you were Anonymous who posted the following comment on our "The Smith Sighting" post (30MAR2010):

      "Anonymous 20 Oct 2014 10:59:00

      Hi Textusa - thanks for latest.
      I'd like to read back your opinion on the Smith sighting with regard to the delay - are yo able to provide the name of the post. I could look through them all but if you could name the specific post it would be of help"

      Recommend you also read the following posts:

    2. Yes - that was me - in haste posting my query on the wrong post!

  35. Who gave Brunt his copy?
    The MSM in UK have been played like a fiddle with this story. Or some have been playing the fiddle?

    1. Who told Brunt there was a full DNA match in the hire car, and what was the telephone conversation about a contract with Mr Murat all about?

    2. Brunt was having long lunches with Metropolitan Police around that time !


  37. Again, Text, your PS strengthens encouragement that this whole thing is set to blow wide open.

  38. For info, see the link to Met Police UK - updated page on 14th Oct 14 - reflecting believed identification of Bundleman - Crecheman

  39. How can there still be any doubts about who gave Brunt the "tr*ll dossier"?!
    The same who called Sky News before they called the cops, on the night of the 3rd may 2007...

    1. Anonymous 20 Oct 2014 16:46:00,

      It's the blog's opinion that the dossier wasn't given by the McCanns but given to them to give to the Met.

      It would be interesting to know, in our opinion, who gave Brunt what he showed in the 02OCT2014 Sky News Report. Note that on the documentary he doesn't refer to it as a copy but as the original. At 08:41 Brunt says "This is the dossier that was sent to the Commissioner at Scotland Yard, all 67 pages of it. The letter that went with it urged detectives to take urgent action."

    2. I suspect Tracey Kandohla was involved as the unidentified woman in Brunt's article sounds very much like her voice, she lives in Rothley + is pals with Clarence Mitchell !

  40. At Tony Bennett's trial he handed the judge a dossier of information of all blogs, newspapers etc where everything he has said was freely available and could be said by anyone in the world apart from him. The judge said that was true but the rest of the world hadn't given an undertaking not to say these things like he had. Apart from that the BHs hat a field day with this saying TB had named/outed everyone personally which was not true now we hear the Mcs have done that very thing themselves.

    Instead, we will pursue people who send tweets we decide are abusive.

  42. Oscar Pistorius sentenced for 5 years. The longest he will have to spend in prison will be 10 months.
    Is it worth fighting? For what? For this mockery?
    I'm ashamed of the human race.

  43. I dare all those who are calling Brenda Leyland a tr*ll still today to make up a top-10 list of her worst tweets from the thousands of "abusive" ones she wrote.
    Write them down so all can see where the idea she was a tr*ll. If 10 not enough please write 15 or 20 but write them up. Show the world why you think she was the tr*ll you say she was. If you can't, shame on you.

    1. Recommend strongly:

  44. Where is Martin Brunt???
    I thought he was supposed to be reporting Pistorius trial. Haven't heard from him all day.

  45. Textusa i hope i pasted this link correctly katie hopkins and jim gamble arguing on live radio over brenda and the mccanns. I can,t help thinking that it was deliberately thrown in as a way ofstarting to get the debate out therere the media blackout. I listen to Stephen Nolan often and i have seen him at this old trick before i.e. pretending he is objecting to the way the discussion is going but allowing it to go on long enough to get a point accross

    1. I tried to listen but couldn't. Can someone help me?


      Denise Welch pays tribute to Lynda Bellingham, and should internet trolls face prosecution? 20th October 2014

      Not a definitive account. JG was shouting over KH a bit

      JG – While talking about online abuse JG referred to the tweet from KHs with regards BL about how many more people must die before the Mcs recognise that their neglect is at the root of all their problems. JG made the point that the case of Brenda was very tragic.

      SN – Allowed KH the right of reply

      KH – Stands by everything that she said in that tweet. Stated that this poor woman (Brenda) had died for having an opinion which did not conform news had ousted her......that everyone knows there is a media blackout on this case and sometimes social media was the only way people have ........freedom of speech.................

      I just felt the shouting by JG and the interruptions by SN were part of an act while still allowing KH enough room to get the point across that BL was an innocent woman, hounded to death by Sky news because she had an opinion of something which was currently subject to a media blackout and everyone knows it.


    McCann troll Brenda ¬Leyland driven to suicide by Twitter death threats

    DEATH threats were allegedly sent to the woman found dead in a hotel just after she was publicly accused of trolling Kate and Gerry McCann over their missing child Madeleine.

    By: James Murray
    Published: Sun, October 12, 2014

    In tragic irony, the hate messages directed at lonely divorcee Brenda ¬Leyland were tweeted by someone who aggressively defended the McCanns on the internet.

    The Sunday Express has passed on the five disgraceful messages to Leicestershire Police who are preparing a report for the coroner over the unexplained death of mother-of-two Ms Leyland, 63.

    They were sent on Friday, October 3, from someone calling themselves Rainne and addressed directly to Ms Leyland’s Twitter account, @sweepyface.

    The following day her body was found at the Marriott Hotel in Leicester where she had fled to after being identified as the sender of tweets expressing her views on the Madeleine mystery.

    Today we can disclose some of the appalling comments sent to her. The first states: “Hoping you get beaten so bad you beg for mercy, only to have gasoline thrown on you and set ablaze.”

    The next adds: “You have reached the end of your torturing campaign against the McCann family, understand.”

    The third message is a direct threat against her life with the sadistic author stating: “Death is waiting and watching for u @sweepyface..Do you feel it????”

    The next attack was so disgusting it is unsuitable for publication.

    The last message states: “Sweepyface, we’re coming for you. Do you feel us?? The decent kind folk who pray for this family and their sad loss.You go to hell *****.”

    Police are trying to establish the details of the sick pro-McCann troll, who may face prosecution, and discover whether Ms Leyland read the messages and if she discussed them with any family or friends prior to her death. A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: “We are investigating the circumstances around the death. If any offences are disclosed, we will investigate appropriately.”

    There is no suggestion that Kate and Gerry McCann or any members of their wider family know Ms Leyland’s troll.

    Ms Leyland was confronted about her Twitter comments about the McCanns by Sky News, which revealed that Scotland Yard detectives on the Operation Grange squad were examining a so-called dossier of anti-McCann trolls.

    She was not named in the report and crime reporter Martin Brunt did not say she lived at Burton Overy, a village just 15 miles from the McCanns’ home in Rothley, Leicestershire. However, her identity quickly became known.


  47. cont

    After the report Gerry McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged. We do not have any significant presence on social media or online and I’ve got grave concerns about our children as they grow up and start to access the internet.

    “I’m glad to see the law around this area has been reviewed. We need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”

    A friend of Ms Leyland said she “couldn’t live with herself” after being outed and feared going to jail.

    The neighbour, who had been due to accompany university-educated churchgoer Ms Leyland to a harvest festival the day after her death, said: “We never dreamed she was trolling the McCanns. That was very wrong.

    “Brenda was a proud, very bright, articulate and upstanding lady and the thought of a prosecution and a prison sentence hanging over her would have devastated her. Sadly she couldn’t live with herself.

    “I’ll really miss her, yes she was eccentric and opinionated but she was flamboyant and fun too.”

    Today we can reveal fresh momentum in the investigation to find out what ¬happened to Madeleine, who vanished from a holiday home in Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007.

    Scotland Yard detectives are due to fly to Portugal tomorrow for a meeting with Portuguese officers and possibly Ines Sequiera, the new prosecutor for the case, who is reported to be “utterly determined” to crack it.

    They want their Portuguese counterparts to interview three of seven suspects for a second time and search their homes.

    McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell, responding to alleged online death threats against Brenda Leyland, said yesterday: “We will not be commenting. It is a matter for the coroner.”

    A source close to Kate and Gerry said: “Abuse online seems to go in either direction but it has nothing to do with Kate and Gerry. They do not encourage or condone anything online. People seem to say anything they want.”

  48. I do not know what the final outcome will be in this case, but I, like so many others hope that there will be transparency and finally justice for Madeleine, for 7 years we have been fed nothing more than PR stories from our media, this is why the public ask for answers. Brenda was the same as the rest of us she was not satisfied with the PR spin that the media presented us with, and this is not just the papers, it is how the Mccanns have manipulated and presented their story to us via TV and the media. None of us are trolls we just ask for justice, we see inconsistencies in the mccanns statements we see things that do not add up, things we cannot make sense of, and so we ask questions, as would any curious human, it is in our nature to question, if what is presented to us does not add up. It is a terrible thing the media has done to Brenda attempting to blacken her name, by calling her a troll. This case has shown the media has no compassion and is afraid of printing anything that may prove to be controversial to the system, the media turns a blind eye to the truth and is afraid of investigative journalism. Here we can debate and question what is put before us, we know the mccanns version has come from hastily written scenarios by scared people written in a childs story book. We know there was no neglect, why take three children on holiday to abandon them every night, the neglect story aided the abductor story, without neglect there could be no abductor, and that is not a fairy story its a nightmare!

  49. Please would concerned readers consider signing the petition on the Prime Minister's website calling for a full and public inquiry into the conduct of the official and private investigations into the reported disappearance of Madeleine.

    As of 9 pm this evening, 1,213 people have signed. I found the information on this petition posted by TB on the JH forum.

    Thank you!


    "...... the pair thrive on enmity, they are in thrall to it. Watch their dozens, hundreds, of interviews and public appearances and look into their eyes: hers are now dead, like those of a flabby cod on a marble slab; his flicker like those of a stressed and watchful lizard; both are straight out of a horror film. Only one thing ever brings their eyes to a semblance of life as the rest of us know it - hatred."

    "Other people, it now seems, can die as part of the effort to prevent them (the McCanns) being "hurt". Not once have they ever addressed their own responsibility."

    "Have you ever heard the couple make an appeal for moderation? Ask people not to demonize their "enemies"? .......... No, instead they spread and encourage the hate virus in their demented followers. To this day these supposed victims organize Facebook sites with a clear agenda of hatred and retaliation ......"

    Why are the media so afraid of this dubious couple?

    1. Anonymous 24 Oct 2014 07:56:00,

      Fear of speaking about the McCanns should never be confused with fear of the McCanns. Only the first exists.

  51. What is important for ALL FOLLOWERS of this saga, is WHO WERE THESE PEOPLE who hounded & taunted Brenda.

    If we use the two well used & known labels PRO AND ANTI and look at the behaviour of the Pro group that is to attack the individuals, rather than the content of the post, rather than the Anti's who tend to want to discuss the content of the case, of course not always that simply.

    Just occasionally, people SWAP sides deliberately and play WUM we don't know who they are by longevity, since they always tend to be 'new kids on the block' but they serve their corners, then fade in to oblivion. The purpose being to show one or the other in bad light.

    Next up and this is important for true followers of the case, from either camp, WHO WERE THE TROLLS and their agenda who, on this occasion attacked Brenda?

    Since they may actually have not had any interest in the case of missing Madeleine McCann, but merely jumped on the #trend as do the porno-merchants, for anything that is popular.

    Were they PURELY and simply WUM - trolls. Not to be confused with people who have an interest in the topic.

    Were recent behaviours seen on #McCann just opportunities or was this really some who actually thought they supported the McCanns.

    It's time for everyone to take stock and examine their behaviour and motives. There will be no winners whatever happens unless the level of debate is raised above the gutter.

    After seven years, no one wants to read, debate or find the solution - MSM continues walk the tight rope, and it's amazing to read Murray's article above, but more of interest to read what he hasn't written.

    In fact I actually think if truthseekers want to really help, we should take ALL OUR MATERIAL and debate, out of the public arena in to confidential circles.

    Now that really would stir a hornets nest!

  52. With regard to SY's moves, I am wondering if you think, Textusa, that the absence of the Payne family from the October 13 Crimewatch was a significant move and if so, how or why..

    Thanks in advance


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.