Friday, 27 March 2015


1. Introduction

David Jones article on Monday in the Daily Mail about Maddie was very interesting.

It starts with the fact that it rivals in extent with some of our posts, 2,371 words to be exact. Not usual in a tabloid.

Then it’s about a move in this sick game Maddie has become, that wasn’t meant to be one but ended up being one, the closure of the Maddie case.

A relevant one as we hope to explain.

Something that focused our attention briefly between SY being clobbered by the press with its possible involvement in paedo scandals and Brenda Leyland’s Coroner’s court inquest on March 20 and has now returned to the spotlight

It’s an interesting article because it is written in a way that pleases all.

Those supporting that there’s an ongoing campaign for the archiving of Operation Grange, the Swinging Black Hats, are pleased because it seems to support them. It maintains the claims of the PJ’s ineptitude and botched investigations and states clearly that Maddie was abducted.

Those, like us, who believe there is pressure to convince the Swinging Black Hat Deciders that there is no way out of this other than to publicly unveil the truth, are also pleased because as we hope to explain, the article seems to be more in our favour than in theirs.

And because nothing can please two opposing sides simultaneously, it has to have another objective altogether besides dwelling on whether Operation Grange should be closed.

That is what makes it particularly interesting because it’s not about Operation Grange but about throwing Operation Grange right in front of us to distract from one of the most inconvenient episodes of this whole saga, Brenda Leyland’s death.

By giving us all something to chew on and fight about, it draws away attention from Brenda.

Yes, the written record of Brenda Leyland's inquest will be available soon but only to “properly interested persons” and that status is for the coroner to decide who it will be given to:

“A properly interested person can only be:

• a parent, spouse, child, civil partner or partner and any personal representative of the deceased;

• any beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased; • any insurer having issued such a policy;

• a representative from a Trade Union to whom the deceased belonged at the time of death (if the death arose in connection with the person’s employment or was due to industrial disease);

• anyone whose action or failure to act may, in the coroner’s view, have contributed to the death;

• the Chief Officer of Police (who may only ask witnesses questions through a lawyer);

• any person appointed as an inspector or a representative of an enforcing authority or a person appointed by a Government Department to attend the inquest; or

• anyone else who the coroner may decide also has a proper interest.”

Not seeing us ever being able to look at it from now until 2030, the time the coroner has to keep the records.

And what novelty could it possibly bring to the MSM besides confirming what the MSM has already reported and that it was a suicide?

Whatever is related to Brenda and what happened to her must be swiftly swept under the rug. The faster, the better.

2. Brenda Leyland

About Brenda we will just say the following: no one killed Brenda Leyland but Brenda Leyland.

It was her decision to take her own life and which resulted in her losing it. Not being harsh, judgmental or disrespectful to her but simply stating fact.

What made her make that tragic decision, is open for discussion and we hope to do it another day.

Wounds are still too recent making the subject too sensitive to be dealt with for now.

However, we will not embark in any murder conspiracy theory about her death.

At a certain point in time and for reasons we think we can guess, Brenda decided to do what she did and for that purpose probably searched the internet and acquired the necessary material, namely the helium canisters and in the privacy of the hotel room took her own life.

To discuss where she bought the material, when she bought it or if there’s CCTV images of her doing so is, for us, to dwell unnecessarily in gruesome details and being disrespectful to Brenda and to her memory.

We have witnessed all over the internet that Martin Brunt has taken the burden for her death. On March 20 he was able to do the almost impossible which was to walk into the Coroner’s court looking really bad and walk out looking even worse.

But we do not take part in any witch-hunting. We condemn such attitudes. It repulses us.

To criticise someone we must first find reason to criticise. Taking the easiest route has never been our way of being and we will always compose for ourselves the songs we sing.

Martin Brunt in this specific episode is, in our opinion, a character as much wronged has he has done wrong.

If the reader thinks we’re in any way exonerating Brunt from any responsibility please reread the words “has done wrong” in the previous paragraph.

Brunt was just the finger that pulled the trigger. Not even the hand and much less the man who did it. He was the “hitman” mandated to do a job and did it. It just went awfully and tragically wrong. Brunt made that very clear on March 20.

Consciences should really weigh heavy on those who know there’s weight on their consciences about Brenda. Unfortunately many have arrived in this world without one. “Collateral damage” is just a two-word expression to use conveniently.

That is all we want to say about Brenda for now. It was a tragic mishap that holds little mystery to us but about which we prefer to abstain providing a more substantiated opinion at the moment. For that reason only and not because of Mirror’s distracting article.

3. Corporate interests

David Jones literary piece last Monday March 23 in the Mirror is but a piece in a chain of events that began on March 12 and had nothing to do with Maddie.

Life does not revolve only around Maddie and the article proves that but it also proves that the Maddie case is one painful thorn in UK’s side which has created a purulent and pestilent sore recognised worldwide by its putrid smell and horrendous footprint.

People all around the world feign ignorance but the discomfort is evident. Whenever a Brit meets up with someone from another country the Maddie case in the subconscious of both is a taboo subject. As if the British have been branded with a scarlet letter “M”. A dark cloud that covers every inch of the country.

It has damaged the UK’s reputation beyond anything we have known in the past. By dragging the UK’s name in the mud one could eventually compare it with the “soccer hooliganism” phenomenon back in the early 80’s that shamed England.

It took the Heysel tragedy to make the UK face it head-on with all its horrid truths and so eradicate it. Since then England has restored on the various European pitches its lost credibility and prestige. Why? Because it had to face a problem it was pretending wasn’t as serious as it really was.

That should be a lesson to those persisting that the best solution to the Maddie case is to stick the head in the ground like an ostrich. These people should finally understand that whatever may emerge with the truth will be less damaging than the damage caused by each day this case is allowed to further putrefy in the hands of the foolhardy.

The biggest victim in UK of the Maddie case is SY.

One thing is to be told to go and sell sand to camels, another is to be told to say publicly in the 21st century that the Earth is flat and ordered to ignore all proof that Galileo Galilei was right. It’s degrading and humiliating.

Sky News, on March 16, with the article Met Investigated Over Child Sex Cover-Up Claims and Daily Mail with their 2 articles of March 17 Metropolitan Police to be investigated over claims of 14 separate child sex abuse cover-ups because MPs and officers were involved and Cyril Smith was spared court because he would have exposed other high-profile child abusers says former police detective and Mirror's Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe facing probe over child abuse 'cover-up'” on that same day reported on a possible involvement of the Met in paedo scandals.

Plus the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) said on March 16 that it was investigating the Met: IPCC to investigate allegations of historic corruption relating to child sexual abuse in the Metropolitan Police.

We think that this pressure put on SY is them being used once again as they have been used since 2011.

In our opinion, SY on the Maddie case is to Government Black Hat Deciders as Martin Brunt is to Sky News, it handles it according to what it is told to do. No independence of action whatsoever.

So with the publishing of these articles that say the Met may be up to its neck in covering up paedo scandals, the Government Black Hat Deciders are clearly showing the Swinging Black Hat Deciders that SY cannot afford any more scandals and much less one with the magnitude of Maddie.

But, as we said, there is life outside Maddie, and as Greece, Ireland and Portugal have known in recent years, public funds in all European Governments aren’t what they were and irrelevant of personal opinions on the necessity or not of its application one word has become familiar to all of us in Europe: cuts.

As in budget cuts.

So, with nothing to do with Maddie, Government announced a £600M cut in the Met budget over the next for the next 3 years. Completely within context with modern times.

For those with some difficulty in math, it’s exactly 60 Operations Grange. Less than that if the tab of this operation keeps growing.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, QPM, present Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (head of London's Metropolitan Police Service) reacted to these cuts. He went on BBC 2’s Newsnight and defended his organisation.

On this appearance he showed concern with mental-health related cases. Because other public services are also under pressure, emergencies often end up with police called and 40% of cases in London are concerned with mental health issues.

The cuts other services suffered ended up meaning a greater workload for the police as it was picking up the pieces of work other agencies - hospitals and social services - had passed onto them.

He also says that the sex offenders register has grown since its inception in 2002. It’s unsustainable for police to monitor it and it is growing.

The closest he comes to the Maddie case is to say that older, historic inquiries (child sex abuse, so nothing to do with Maddie) are going to take longer and be done more slowly.

It's harder to get corroborating evidence in these processes and that may require more officers – if one links this specifically to Maddie, which we think one shouldn’t, then he’s suggesting SY are trying to find corroborating evidence.

He says nothing about closing older, historic cases but that's because of cuts in resources there will have to be a discussion on priorities.

A decision on what to ration. Society will have to decide on priorities needed and that police, probation service, health service and fire service must work together effectively.

Spending will be reduced on everything and he wants a conversation with the public about their priorities.

He defends SY by noting that the Met has saved £600M over 3 years and was the  only force in the country which has retained its numbers. That they are capable of adapting, even when money is tight.

This conversation would take place, in our view, regardless of Maddie case.

Hogan-Howe is defending, as he should, the corporate interests of the organisation he leads and, in our opinion, did quite a good job on BBC 2 that night.

If one has to connect this interview with Maddie, then one could say he implies that if the case comes up with no results then questions may arise from the public in case Police officers lose their jobs because of cuts.

Following suit, the Metropolitan Police Federation met, in synch with Hogan-Howe, seeking to reinforce the idea that their members’ jobs were on the line.

Up to here, as the reader can easily understand, all this has nothing to do with Maddie. All to do with the appropriate defense of rightful corporate interests.

It’s the highest hierarchy of the Met simply expressing their discontent about the foreseen cuts, which not only is their right but is also their duty.

4. From cuts to Maddie

Enter the scene Jerry Lawton.

Since the proven/not proven facts court audience in January little or nothing has been released about the case so, probably pressed by his bosses, Lawton had to find something to write about Maddie. SY's discontentment about its budget cuts was a window of opportunity and he seized it.

Lawton would most likely know Metropolitan Police Federation chairman John Tully's opinions about the cuts in resources and probably asked him about what was to happen about the Maddie review.

The timing was not because Brenda Leyland’s inquest was coming up but simply because it was then that SY was voicing that older/historic cases had to be reprioritised.

We imagine Lawton asked Tully “will the Maddie case close because of cuts?”

The discussion had nothing to do with Maddie up to that moment, but when Lawton threw the line and Tully took the bait it became part of it.

This is what Tully said, as per Daily Star (March 18):

“It is time to re-focus on what we need to do to keep London safe.

We no longer have the resources to conduct specialist inquiries all over the world which have nothing to do with London.

The Met has long been seen as the last resort for investigations others have struggled with elsewhere.

But we have made £600m of cuts. We have closed 63 police stations across London. Another £800m of cutbacks are anticipated over the next four years.

It is surprising to see an inquiry like the McCann investigation ringfenced. I have heard a few rumblings of discontent about it from lots of sources.

When the force is facing a spike in murder investigations it is not surprising there is resentment of significant resources diverted to a case that has no apparent connection with London.”

Tully’s reply if read in the right context is, in our opinion, saying the following:

“Will the Maddie case be closed? Hell, no but it damn well should. It’s depleting our resources completely and taking people who are needed to do real policing instead of participating in a farce in times when Police officers have their jobs at risk!”

Not only that what he said led to misinterpretation as it is incorrect. Because the Maddie review is not budgeted by the Met but by the Home Office.

Cuts to SY do not affect the review as any cut in the review will not affect SY in terms of budget.

Tully also is not right about human resources. These are indeed being diverted to a task “outside” SY but are being paid out Home Office’s budget and once they end their mission and “return” their salary will weigh, again on the Met’s budget.

Closing the Maddie case will only aggravate SY’s budget problems, not ease them.

But we understand his position as a Federation representative with members’ jobs on the line and seeing £10M spent on an apparently fruitless investigation outside the UK.

Tully’s tweet on March 18 “I've no problems with the content of the article, although I didn't say what the headline suggests -Inference taken I suppose” seemed to be pulling back from what was written about what he said but acknowledged that could be interpreted that way:

Basically recognising that he took the bait.

The rest of the media were stunned. It was a surprise for all. The vast majority preferred to be silent about it. Only the Express' Is the hunt for Madeleine McCann over? Police urged to return and 're-focus' on UKand Daily Mail's It's time we ended the search for Maddie so officers can focus on threats to the public, says police union chief echoed the Daily Star.

Third-grade press reporting first-grade news while the first and second-grade media just ignored it. 

Besides these 2 tabloids at the time only the Portugal Resident also referred this issue with the article British police ready to drop Maddie probe as London faces increasing terrorist threat.

However, as we explained, something that was not supposed to be a move in the Maddie case, had become one.

But this move had a peculiarity, as it came from neither the Government Black Hat Deciders nor the Swinging Black Hat Deciders. It came from SY, expressing the enormous discontent felt within the organisation about the whole Maddie case.

SY didn’t mean to say it out loud but Lawton made it audible.

SY showed that it is really not happy at all about having to do this job. Up until June last year it tolerated it but since that painted wall in Luz and the traffic signs with the grafiti that followed the humiliation became intolerable, too great a burden to bear:

Even if without that intention of saying, SY told both Government Black Hat Deciders and Swinging Black Hat Deciders to make up their minds about the case. Close it, shelve it, prosecute somebody but just take SY out of the madhouse inferno they were put in and show some respect for the organisation.

5. Closure of case

About the closure of the case, it is a real possibility which we have repeatedly warned about. We have said that the case is now down to 2 possibilities: truth or archival. No other.

But naming the 2 means both are real. Both can happen depending on the political courage required for each option.

Closing the case benefits only one side, the Black Hats.

As we have been saying since 2012, for the Black Hats it shouldn’t have ever been reopened. It was a mistake. To return it to its original state would be a blessing for them.

But Jones is quite accurate in summing it up in a few words how all began “then, in 2011, at the behest of David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May, Scotland Yard’s finest were called in to clear up the mess.”

He who has started it is the only one who can finish it.

Even if it’s the Home Office to announce the fate of the process, it won’t be the Home Office doing it but doing it on behalf of Nº10.

Only Nº10 has the power for this decision. Cameron today or whoever tomorrow. No one else.

Even in this McCanns have got it wrong in the only comment, in the Daily Star on March 19, known to have originated from them, from a friend, “it is up to the Met, the Prime Minister and the Home Office to decide the longevity of the investigation – not the Police Federation which has its own agenda”.

No, it’s not up to the Met, nor even up to the Home Office. The McCanns have only got one in three right.

It's a rather apathetic and dispassionate reaction from the parents on receiving the news that the nation is possibly about to abandon all its efforts in finding their daughter who they believe to be alive. After all, these were the same parents who mustered up the courage needed to write directly to the Prime-Minister four years ago.

6. Considerations on possible closure

SY may moan and groan however it likes and it will serve them very little.

If a mother gives her son a broom to sweep up his room, it’s useless for him to whine about how the broom would be better used in the living-room. It’s for the bedroom, end of story.

And if the mother takes away the broom and gives the son the same task to do with a toothpick, then the room will be swept with that toothpick. The job may take longer, but no matter how much moaning and groaning there is, until the  mother changes her mind, it will be with a toothpick that the room will be swept.

But in this case, it was not a toothpick mother has given son, but the most modern hi-tech vacuum cleaner in the world and on top of that announced to the whole neighbourhood that she had done exactly that. Now how pleased will she be if the son comes back and tells her “sorry, the room floor is still as dirty as it was, I just wasn’t able to clean it with this hi-tech vacuum cleaner you gave me to do the job”?

To dash the mother’s hope of a clean floor after having publicly committed herself so adamantly to that objective would be as well received as in dashing the high hopes of a Prime-Minister, or as Jones so eloquently puts it “at least, that was the Prime Minister’s hope, and perhaps his expectation, when — apparently moved by a personal appeal from the McCanns — he ordered a team of Met detectives to be removed from their other duties and assigned to the case, codenamed Operation Grange”.

The press may equally holler as loudly as it can, and it hasn’t, it will produce the same effect. There are only two reputations at stake. Cameron’s for an absurdly unrealistic “hoping” which caused a significant waste of time (“a huge number of man-hours have been spent”) and national resources (“eye-watering £10million of taxpayers’ Money”) in times of cuts all across the board and May’s for dashing that enormous “hope”.

According to some, in the line only the present and the future of the Conservative Party. And all just because someone lost their temper in the early hours of a spring evening 8 years ago far away from the country.

But if one wants to convince the administration board to stop the production of a certain item does one remind them that it’s selling like hot potatoes? Because that’s exactly how Jones is selling the closure:

“Given the enduring global obsession with the case, we might think this quite extraordinary. As of today, the Daily Mail’s archive contains 11,450 stories about Madeleine. Googling her name, I found no less than 1,290,000 references — five times more than you get by tapping in ‘Madonna’ — and the number soars higher with each passing day. The public’s fascination has been matched by the exorbitant amount of time and money spent on trying to solve the mystery.”

The public has shown the greatest interest for the subject, even surpassing that shown for the queen of pop, so let’s close it.

Shouldn’t the rhetoric be instead about how that interest was waning?

Then there’s the “must” factor. UK is filled with examples on how its Prime-Ministers usually abide by the Press telling them what they should do on issues they have personally committed to. Not.

But, for reasons less strange than those that made this affair become what it has become, Nº10 may decide it is best to close the case. As we said, and repeat, it’s an option on the table at the moment.

All that is needed is for the public to accept that after interviewing only 14 people (hardy a “plethora” for a case of this magnitude), after “great swathes of wasteland in Praia da Luz were explored with sophisticated gadgetry last year”, after not explaining whether the forensics were indeed requested to Portugal or not and if they were what was tested and what were the results and after the negative propaganda against another country involving an ridiculous number of British little girls being sexually assaulted there (even though the local authorities firmly denied any of them ever having happened).

Note that all of the above is from SY’s mouth. Not from the press but official statements from the Met.

If we were to involve the press the number of unfounded “imminent arrests” announced comes to mind.

But even if Nº10 closes the case, there is one minor detail that is being overlooked: what about the Portuguese process?

Will it close first? Or a little after? Or at the same time? Won’t that make it a little too obvious that shenanigans are going on in both countries about this?

Will it go that the Portuguese will “promise” that they will not come to any sort of result and will re-archive it?

Or will it go that the PJ continues their process and find some result? That would be the worst scenario for UK.

Investigations in Portugal have expiration dates. Deadlines that are to be met. But as all that has to do with time in Portuguese law, the timelines set are but guidelines and can extended if justified.

Has the PJ investigation exceeded the initial deadline? We think it has and that means if it’s still open it’s because someone requested an extension and obtained it. But for that there had to be some sort of justification.

To re-archive the PJ process without any sort of result, seems to us it would be very vexatious to PJ and Portugal.

If these processes, in UK and Portugal, close without results we’re anticipating a certain (high) degree of discontent on the part of the public of both countries. And a disgusted shake of the head from the rest of the world.

Discontent usually leads to the seeking of information and nowadays people looking for details on a subject do not look for them in the media. They have the internet for that. For some reason the expression “let me google it” — used by David Jones in his article — has become so familiar to all, more than any other brand in the world.

People will continue to turn to the media for new news but it's the internet they use to know about all others. 

May we remind all those interested that once the process archived again in Portugal it can be looked at with the exact same public scrutiny as the PJ Files have been for the last 7 years.

So, by all means, UK, do close the process. It’s only history you’re making whatever decision you make.

But please have the message brought to us from where it has to come from and that is only from Nº10.

And Nº10 hasn't given any sign of wanting to do that. Not now, so close to the elections in May.

We're seeing Nº10 closing this process as much as we're seeing Nº10 announcing such a decision via a tabloid. We aren't.

Does anyone remember who conservative Robert Gascoyne-Cecil was? Or, better said, the Most Honourable Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury KG GCVO PC FRS?

No, no one does. But if history was to discover that he, as Prime-Minister (1886-1892), had in some way been involved in protecting Jack the Ripper allowing him to escape justice, we would all remember him today.

Sometimes it’s best not to be remembered than to be remembered only for the wrong reasons.

Gordon Brown is already negatively linked to Maddie.

David Cameron will either win the May elections or is very quickly about to lose the window of opportunity to not follow in the same path, or on the contrary, to be the one who will be registered in history as being responsible for closure of this case by having the truth outed about what really happened to the British little girl with an alleged coloboma in her right eye.

Closure of this case will never be found in the abrupt closure of the case.

Only in a closure with the truth.

Next week we will be taking our Easter break. Then we hope to return to Luz because it’s there that both the material truth and factual lies lay.


  1. Thanks for this post - I had been looking forward to it and it has been satisfying.
    What is the Prime Minister made of? I have never been able to decide having observed over the last years. I'd like to know

    1. Hi Textusa, It seems as though an all mighty amount of trust needs to be given by the public,especially when you have already been deceived,well done GB,former Home secretaries?
      Once bitten twice as shy!?
      I wonder if the Metropolitan Police had hidden surveillance objects on "Raisa"the horse lent to Rebecca Brooks, whose husband charlie and the PM had rode for several years, the horse "Raisa"was returned to the Metropolitan Police force in a precarious state and the Met had to have the Animal humanely destroyed,seems animals can be ill treated and no charges of neglect either?
      Such characteristic chaps the Chippon Norton set,you know,Jeremey Clarkson,media tycoons! Not your normal riff raff, Eton educated at the very least?
      SY certainly know how to string a case out, death of Private Investigator 10 March 1987 Daniel Morgan?

  2. My local bookseller told me a paperback edition of S and S book is coming out on May 8th. As a paperback edition has already been published, will this be a new edition, just in time for M's birthday?
    Accompanied by more lurid tr... stories? And promoted by Sky?

      Release May 7th.
      Maybe this IS first paperback edition

    2. Have they run this by the censors, Kate and Gerry or is Anthony Summers also allowed to profit from Madeleine demise,perhaps CM could clarify for us!?

    3. sadly I was fool enough to actually buy this book. And found that I myself know far more about the affair than these two writers. This became obvious from the start, because they base their information on the fact that the Mccanns have been exonerated, officially declared innocent. Of course anyone who checks this statement will find that this is not true. The case was archived, but if it is reopened they will be back in the arguido position again.


    Child abuse cover-up: IPCC to probe claims that MPs, judges, police, actors and clergy were protected


    If Maddie deserved a specific operation then Jill also should have one!

    1. Shows whatever SY inquiry does, documents will be pored over in years to come and questions will be asked about Maddie one day


      Police 'confident' of finding Dando killer

  5. Textural thank you another great blog. I think you have to wonder wonder why martin brunt a experienced communicator went into a court room and did the impossible as you say made himself look worse when he came out than he went in. It is my belief that either the phone cal was recorded in which case he knew not revealing it would blow up in his face in future. Or the relay well be another side of the story which he hopes when it comes out might paint him in a better light. Either ways while I agree with you that archiving the case is a option I think it's a very remote polssibility. People who themselves are not the perpetrators of crime but have in some way by their actions assisted cover-up are being thrown to the wolves on a daily baasis. It would take some very brave or very stupid person to ignore evidence which they know is on record some where ( like MB telephone conversation) that points to the truth about what happened to Maddie. The fact that the jill dandy murder keeps rearing its head no matter how much people try to bury it is testimony to this. Unlike the Maddie I have never heard any solid evidence that suggests that they know who did actually kill lher and yet the topic never dies


    Oh dear Nick Clegg, oh dear Liberal Democrats!

  7. Thank you Textusa, very interesting post.

    You said:

    May we remind all those interested that once the process archived again in Portugal it can be looked at with the exact same public scrutiny as the PJ Files have been for the last 7 years.

    This is something that most people appear to have forgotten, or at least I rarely see it mentioned. There are two police forces investigating Maddie's disappearance, and the PJ already decided in 2007, after an extensive investigation, that Maddie died in apartment 5A and her parents hid her body. Why anyone would think the PJ would have changed their mind about that I'm not sure.

    So if SY closes the investigation resulting in PJ shelving it, then we're going to have another lot of very interesting Portugese police files to pore over.

    This case isn't going to go away, SY closing it without result won't give closure, the opposite will happen, especially with the subsequent release of the PJ's files.

    Nuala x

    1. @Nuala
      I have always leaned towards a whitewash by SY and it's looking like everything is on schedule to end up that way. I still hope I am wrong. The fact that files will be released must have been considered by SY and HMG and factored in. But who can say just when they think all sides are covered is when the unexpected happens!

    2. Agree nuala every time I read textusa's blog I cringe at some of the things that were said by supposedly intelligent people. It must be a living nightmare for these people. I listened to an American podcast discussing the case and they had the impression that the British where a bunch of eejits unable to string 2 sensible words together. If it was me I would rather have done time in prison than live that sort of nightmare. I think people have been forewarned and rules the American podcast have got it right I think we should be looking at endgame


    In 2007 they were paying for their house with fund money and now 8 years later have a million of their own to pump into the fund. Where has this money come from?

    1. If they have a million of their own with only one working and two kids that would be very strange. No way have they saved a million. They would be struggling on one wage to meet day to day expenses, school fees, clothes, utility bills, car petrol, food, maintenance of house etc.
      Plus Kate claims to have put the proceedings if book in fund.
      This is shocking! They have no shame.


      Sun on Sunday today:

      EXCLUSIVE: Parents pump almost £1million into search fund

      Exclusive by Mike Hamilton

      The parents or Madeleine McCann plan to plough their own money into the search for their missing daughter if police halt their investigation.

      Kate and Gerry McCann both 47, of Rothley Leics, fear public donations have dried up as the search approaches its eighth anniversary.

      So they have pumped almost £1 million into a fund for Madeleine that would be running at a loss without their cash.

      The money came from Kate's book about Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal in May 2007 and the search for her.

      A top cop suggested this week the £10 million police probe into the case should be wound up.

      Met Police Federation chairman John Tully said "We no longer have the resources to conduct specialist inquiries all over the world"

      (With thanks to Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann site for this article)

    3. The link from the above on JH Forum:


      "Income is significantly up over the previous year because Dr Kate McCann has donated a further £400,000 'for the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine'. This appears under the heading Restricted Funds. She made a donation of £738,487 in the year ended 31 March 2012, £550,000 of which was allocated to Restricted Funds and the balance £188,487 was included in the total of £306,393 under Unrestricted Funds. The total donated by her to the Fund is now £1,138,487: £950,000 under Restricted Funds and £188,487 under Unrestricted Funds.

      It is not obvious why Dr McCann donated this additional substantial sum at this time. At the end of the previous accounting year there was £441,169 in the bank according to the Balance Sheet and creditors at that date were only £29,515.

      The only other income apart from Dr McCann's donation was £2,744 from sales of the book madeleine and £18,520 from other donations none of which came via the website."

      - States quite clearly that £2,744 have come from book

      - If royalties for book was 20% (normal is 10%) then book at £10, means royalties of £2. 500,000 books needed to make £1,000,000. Not counting taxes or any other costs.

      - The McCanns, alone, will have donated £1,138,487. Quite a feat for a single job family of 4.

      - Please note that the article spins previous donations ("have pumped") of £1,000,00 as if it was a new one ("Parents pump almost £1million into search fund").

    5. The book can be bought now for next to nothing. I've seen it in charity bookshops. Somewhere, there must be a site which shows how many copies of a particular book were sold?
      She got money to serialised the book in the Murdoch press, but where does this show in the accounts?
      And does the 500k they paid to Bell Pottinger to keep their story on front pages show anywhere?

    6. Moving personal money into a limited company in this way means that it is now protected in the event that the McCanns were to become personally liable for large court costs or other legal costs. That's one possible motive for doing it?

  9. Hi - watching a Miss Marple the other night she said ' Nothing is settled until it is settled rightly'... and I think the saying originated with Rudyard Kipling.

    There wont be a proper closure until this case is 'settled rightly'


    We should never give up hope on Madeleine

    By Lorraine Kelly, 29 March 2015 7.00am.

    If you look at it in terms of cold hard cash then I suppose you can understand why a police chief is saying it is time to stop looking for Madeleine McCann.

    The chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, John Tully, believes it is time to wind down the investigation.

    The best efforts of the Met Police since they began their own inquiry in 2011 haven’t really turned up anything new and the cost had been at least £10 million.

    And yet, how can you put a financial figure on the life of a little girl, and how can you walk away from this utterly heartbreaking case when her fate remains unknown.

    As we are all aware, three year old Madeleine disappeared on May 4, 2007, while her mum and dad were out having a meal with their friends during their holiday in Praia da Luz, Portugal.

    Since then Kate and Gerry McCann have worked tirelessly to find their daughter.

    I have interviewed them many times I am always struck by their determination and optimism.

    Even now after almost nine years they refuse to give up hope. And who can blame them. No parent can ever give up on their child.

    Poor Kerry Needham has never wavered in her determination to find her son Ben, who disappeared on the island of Kos in Greece 23 years ago. She has campaigned to have money made available to try to find Ben and there’s a hard-working movement on social media to keep the hunt alive. She will never stop searching and hoping and neither will Kate and Gerry.

    And there are plenty of stories to keep that hope alive.

    A woman in South Africa was recently reunited with her daughter after she had been missing for 17 years. Celeste Nurse was still in hospital after having given birth to her baby when the child was snatched from the ward at just three days old. The kidnapper was finally discovered all of those years later.

    Celeste said not a day went by when she didn’t think about her missing child and she wrote to Kate and Gerry McCann telling them that miracles can happen.

    So while there are calls to stop the search for Madeleine on the grounds of cost and manpower concerns, should we really be giving up on this poor child and others like her?

    Imagine now you would feel if it was your son or daughter who was missing. You would do anything in your power to find them and that’s exactly how all the parents of disappeared sons and daughters feel.

    There are some things that just shouldn’t have a price tag.

  11. News from 2013:

    Madeleine McCann's mum ploughs £1m from book sales into search for missing daughter

    00:00, 19 January 2013
    By Martin Fricker

    Mum Kate McCann made more than £1million last year from her book about vanished Madeleine.

    She ploughed the money into the search fund for her daughter which had run dangerously short of cash.

    The fund’s directors said: “Income from the book has significantly improved the position.

    "This will continue as a result of publication in other countries and the release of the paperback.”

    Official accounts show the bestseller which came out in May 2011 netted £738,487 after tax.

    Madeleine’s Fund hit £1.8million shortly after the three-year-old vanished from her family’s holiday flat in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007.

    But by 2011, after four years of ­fruitless searching, it had dwindled to £125,000.

    Kate and husband Gerry, both 44, from Rothley, Leicestershire, feared they might be unable to carry on the hunt.

    But official papers filed with Companies House show all Kate’s book cash went to the fund.

    And after a large percentage was spent on the continuing search and costly ad campaigns the remaining total now stands at £474,867.

    The fund report revealed it was no longer paying private investigators in Portugal after Scotland Yard announced a major cold case review.

    The McCanns hope this will lead to Portuguese authorities reopening their inquiries.

    The report added: “The fund scaled back independent efforts to avoid duplication.

    “It maintains sizeable resources so the search can be resumed quickly should the review not lead to the reopening of the case in Portugal.”

  12. From the last comment, it seems Mcs putting money into the fund is more recycled news from 2013.


    Swinger drowns in pool at 007-themed sex party

    00:32, 30 March 2015
    By Keith Perry

    The reveller, aged 35, got into difficulties while in the pool with six others and died at the scene

    A man has drowned in a swimming pool at a James Bond-themed swingers party in a mansion, it has emerged.

    The reveller, aged 35, got into difficulties while in the pool with six others and was pulled out of the water and given first aid by the mansion’s owner but died at the scene.

    Police and ambulance crews attended the scene at a luxury house in upmarket Radlett, Herts, but the man was declared dead at the in the early hours of March 28.

    The victim was attending an event organised by Radlett Adult Parties which hosts swingers parties on the fourth weekends of every month at the mansion.

    Friday nights are singles nights and couples’ nights are held on Saturdays.

    Richard Stanley, 66, who runs the business which hosts the parties, along with his partner Janet Harrison, 58, said: “Everyone is very shocked including me.

    “I heard somebody yell that there was someone lying at the bottom of our pool. There were about a dozen people there at the time and about six in the water. I dived in and pulled the man out.

    “There was a nurse present too and we gave him first aid.

    “I didn’t stop CPR until the ambulance crew turned up but sadly he was declared dead at the scene. We don’t know whether it was a heart attack - I gather a postmortem is being held this week to find out what happened.

    “We’ve never had a tragedy like this before. It was horrible to witness and I feel very sorry for the man’s family. The police said the death was not suspicious.”

    Radlett Adult Parties featured in a Channel 4 series last year called Jon Richardson Grows Up, in which the comedian travelled the UK examining the modern aspects of becoming an adult.

    The party website states: “Radlett is one of the UK’s most well established and popular swinging parties. Perfect for newbies and experienced swingers alike.”

    It claims its paying guests are “hot blooded sexual Olympians” who enjoy facilities that “include a 16 metre long covered pool, 10 metre dance room with dance pole, sauna, hot tub, 3 secluded acres for summer evening revelry”.

    Hertfordshire Police confirmed an investigation into the man’s death is underway and a postmortem will be held this week.

    A spokesman for Herts Police said: “Police were called to a social gathering at Radlett at 12.45am on Saturday 28th March.

    “When we attended we found a man had died at the scene.

    “An investigation is under way into the death and a postmortem will be held next week.”

    As well as the swimming pool, the mansion venue has a sex chamber, a dance room with a pole and a sauna.

    1. Anonymous 10.26 article, what are you insinuating, that a group of "Adults" enjoying adult time together linked to Madeleine's demise?
      The Tapas group of Doctors were just friends having a holiday, the censors Kate Gerry and Clarence will be in touch with Carter Ruck to have defamation of their character assassination if further insinuations continue,how very dare you?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Anonymous 30 Mar 2015, 10:46:00,

      Could you please explain why you consider belonging to "a group of "Adults" enjoying adult time together" is "to have defamation of their character assassination"?

    4. Hi, I would just like to point out that 12.45am is after midnight and not after noon.

    5. EF

      We stand corrected (hitting ourselves with a newspaper).

      Will delete comment and republish it without:

      "- "a social gathering at Radlett at 12.45am on Saturday 28th March"

      This shows that it is a business, for the upper class (and middle upper class) and that in broad daylight (in the morning to be specific) they were engaged in whatever activities swinging involve."

      Thank you for the heads-up!

    6. Anonymous 30 Mar 2015, 10:26:00,

      Thank you for this link.

      With all due respect to the personal tragedy reported, we would like to highlight the following:

      - "the scene at a luxury house in upmarket Radlett, Herts"

      - "Richard Stanley, 66, who runs the business which hosts the parties, along with his partner Janet Harrison, 58"

      This shows that it is a business and for the upper class (and middle upper class).

      We do note there's no use of "pervert" or similar terminology usually seen in these kinds of reporting.

      Instead the word "reveller" is used:

      intr.v. rev·eled, rev·el·ing, rev·els also rev·elled or rev·el·ling
      1. To take great pleasure or delight: She reveled in her unaccustomed leisure.
      2. To engage in uproarious festivities; make merry.
      n. often revels
      A boisterous festivity or celebration; merrymaking.

      Before our detractors highlight that fact (trying to convey the idea that swinging IS socially accepted) we would like to point out that in this article only the organisers and a TV reporter identify themselves and even show their faces.

      The organisers have no reputation to lose, they are selling their business and not lose it because of this tragedy.

      The TV reporter has no reputation that would involve him in the swinging. He, like the organisers, is trying to sell his product.

      We do wonder if he was not involved in the documentary referred if this news would not have a different way of being told.

      Please note that victim is nameless. We only know his age and gender.

      Note also that no other guests is named.

      The reputation of all who matter remain intact. They can continue to go to church, school and supermarket without being looked upon with judgmental stares from neighbours and peers.

      A lesson to be learned by those present in PdL on May 3, that it's always best to face the problem than to try and "escape" by inventing stories.

      Aggravated by the fact that no ref to swinging was needed in Maddie's case as she did not die as consequence of any sort of sexual act with her, and things could have been "settled" involving only the Paynes and the McCanns.

    7. Textusa, I think anon 10:46 is being sarcastic...the line ‘how very dare you’ is from a tv comedy series.

    8. hi regard to my post 10.26 and your reply, if the Tapas group were involved in adult things, I do not suppose that they would want it advertised as their "predilection"?
      As you have shown, if "Swinging"was their predilection it would not look too well to their family and friends,employment status were it to come to public's gaze.
      But it is allright to use the MSM to castigate Sweepyfaces identity, "well her Identity is not a secret any more, Eh Martin Brunt and cohorts!"
      One wonders how Brenda Leyland's Soul felt, with the continuous screening by Sky. Vindictive, pernicious spring to mind!
      Just who are these faceless MSM pundits, quite all right for them to not be shown on worldwide TV to the public leaving the Coroners inquest!?
      "Sardine Munches" He must Feel Fear!?
      I only Hope Goncalo Amaral be allowed to print as many books as he wants to about this unsolved missing/ Abducted Madeleine McCann?
      Seems as though Clarence is hard at work with the PR and the sudden influx of monies to be used should Operation Grange be wound down?
      Sorry to be so cynical.

    9. This is the organising couple, from an article from the Sun:


      WITH their respectable jobs, expensive clothes and mansion in a well-to-do London suburb, Richard Stanley and Janet Harrison don’t fit the typical swinger stereotype.

      But thanks to a TV documentary, The Real Wife Swap, the couple have become the public faces of the British partner-swapping scene.

      Amazingly, management consultant Richard 56, and Harley Street medical assistant Janet, 48, regularly host romp fests in their eight-bedroom home which boasts a 500sq ft sex dungeon.

      The shocking documentary, to be broadcast on UKTV on Monday, sees the couple preparing for more than 100 swingers to arrive for an evening of no-strings-attached recreational sex.

      In an exclusive interview Richard revealed: “People often say we don’t look like swingers but it just makes us wonder what people actually expect swingers to look like.

      We’re not flamboyant people and we don’t swing with flamboyant people.

      The people who come to our parties are social workers, judges, solicitors and lots of police officers.””

      The blog would almost like to underline the WHOLE article but let’s just highlight some of its phrases:

      “…respectable jobs, expensive clothes and mansion in a well-to-do London suburb…”

      “…[they] don’t fit the typical swinger stereotype”. But what is the typical swinger stereotype? They give a partial answer “we’re not flamboyant people and we don’t swing with flamboyant people”.

      They even answer the so many comments we get from our detractors saying they’re not seeing anyone wanting to swing with Gerry, Kate or any other character whose names has surfaced linked to having been in PdL that fateful night: “People often say we don’t look like swingers but it just makes us wonder what people actually expect swingers to look like”

      And what sort of people swing? Again, according to the the couple: “The people who come to our parties are social workers, judges, solicitors and lots of police officers.”

      Quelle surprise!

    10. "“The shocking documentary, to be broadcast on UKTV on Monday, sees the couple preparing FOR MORE THAN 100 SWINGERS to arrive for an evening of no-strings-attached recreational sex.”"

      THAT would justify a major cover-up IMHO.

  14. The blog has decided to bring the following over from the JH Forum:

    "Has MWT (Ugh!) let the 'cat out of the bag'?
    Post jeanmonroe Today at 3:51 pm

    MWT, not my 'favourite', on This Morning, this morning.

    Today Monday 30th March 2014.

    Discussing Jill Dando, Barry George.

    RL: Why do you think, what do you think,................?

    MWT: "Well It was a year on, the police under a huge pressure to get 'their man', and it's very difficult for senior investigating officers, (SIO's) in charge of police investigations, to step 'outside of the ring', (re: Madeleine 'remit'?) and see OBJECTIVELY from outside and be critical of it...............but what's clear is that there is lines of inquiries that have NOT be followed up,..............a specific piece of intelligence that came in AFTER Barry George was charged, but PRIOR to his conviction, which names the 'killer', says why they killed her, ....where gun was disposed........ and the senior investigating officer (DCS HC) 'marks' on that, 'NO FURTHER ACTION'

    And the 'senior investigating officer' (SIO) (on the Dando case) WAS.......................Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell

    The very SAME SIO assigned to the Madeleine McCann 'investigation', Operation Grange

    Background info to police 'investigations:'

    Every police investigation or review of a serious crime has an investigation co-ordinator, known as the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), and a deputy, called the Investigating Officer (IO). The role of the SIO is 'to set an investigation strategy' and to decide and obtain the resources he needs to do the work required – in this case, a review. The job of the IO is basically to carry out the agreed strategy and to direct operations.

    Sir Paul Stephenson decided to appoint one DCS Hamish Campbell as the SIO, (for Madeleine McCann 'investigation') with an additional requirement for the SIO to present his report to one Simon Foy. Andy Redwood, a Detective Chief Inspector, was appointed as the IO. Before long, Campbell and Redwood determined that they would need a staff of around 35 to 40 to carry out the review.

    The job of the IO, DCI A Redwood, is basically to carry out the 'agreed strategy' (THE 'abduction') and to direct operations.

    Cat 'out of the bag' re: OG?

    ONLY, with the total exclusion of 'other' explanations, 'investigating' 'AGREED STRATEGY'?

    On THAT, DCI Redwood 'did a good job' didn't he?

    However, is his 'conscience' totally CLEAR?

    (thinking emoticon)

    I think not.

    He knows, imo, probably, there ARE 'other explanations' as to why, Madeleine McCann is 'not here'"

    Note from the blog: We believe RL stands for Ruth Langsford who is one of presenters of This Morning. We're presuming it's her as the interviewer. MWT is Mark Williams-Thomas ex-Police officer.

    1. Do not count the "Chickens" until they have hatched?
      Letters can be sent to the IPCC if you think that will make one iota of difference?
      The former Prime Minister (unelected) knows about chickens,could be related to the new Scotland Yard breed,"Headless" Sorry, sarcasm getting the better of me, now where did I put my medicine.

    2. Hi Textusa, did David Jones of the Daily Mail MSM produce an article 10 October year? about Barry George planning to visit the resting place of Jill Dando, that was causing unnecessary hurt to her relatives.
      Simon Foy and Hamish Campbell were lead investigating officers into Jill Dando's Murder.
      Is Simon Foy in command of any thing to do with Operation Grange, as above article from jillhavern blog?Stranger Abduction!?

    3. According to the PJ files,wasn't there a UK Police Officer involved with the Madeleine McCann case of the name Mark Williams Thomas, is this the same former officer from the Jillhavern forum?

    4. Please allow me to bring the latest from jeanmonroe in same thread:

      Re: Has MWT (Ugh!) let the 'cat out of the bag'?
      Post jeanmonroe Today at 10:56 am

      Oh deary, deary me!

      Dosen't get any better, does it?

      Desperate detectives assigned an attractive undercover policewoman to try to trap Barry George into confessing to Jill Dando’s murder.

      Lead investigator Hamish Campbell, (latterly to lead OG, Madeleine McCann 'review/investigation') KNEW honeytraps had been discredited during the case of Colin Stagg who was charged with the 1992 murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common.

      His trial (CS) in 1994 collapsed over honeytrap evidence.

      Mr Stagg went on to win a police apology and £706,000 compensation from the Home Office.

      Under unusual features, (about BG) the police record said: “Eyebrows meet... Teeth broken... Talks with a lisp. Simple.”

      George had an IQ of 75, well below average.

      By calling him “simple”, police show they were aware of his vulnerablity, somebody who perhaps could be trapped into incriminating himself.

      Barrister Michael Mansfield, who represented George at his first trial, said the use of a honeytrap raised grave questions over the original police probe.

      Mr Mansfield said: "It has ALL the hallmarks of a DESPERATE investigation"

      “They did it because they had made all sorts of assumptions. It discloses the fact in THIS INVESTIGATION the police PRE-DETERMINED what THEY WANTED TO 'FIND'.

      "They wanted a loner, they wanted Barry George.

      “It seems they have a suspect in mind then try to get the evidence to fit.”

      A Met police spokesman said: “We fully investigated the circumstances into the murder of Jill Dando."

      “Two trials took place and the investigation was subject to an internal review.If new information comes to our attention then this will be investigated.”

      "DESPERATE"? Says it all really, imo..

      "They wanted a loner, ....."

      “It seems they have (had?) a suspect in mind then try (tried?) to get the 'evidence' to fit.”


      Could, say, a 'druggie/schitzo', that, ONLY, DCI Redwood of OG, er, 'identified', had in mind, as a possible 'suspect', relating to Madeleine McCann's, 'disappearance' be 'in the frame' if, IF, OG can 'get' evidence 'to fit'?

      The man IS 'aguidoed' BECAUSE 'on' DCI Redwood's 'insistance', i believe.

      The 'druggie/schitzo' must be eternally grateful, to the PJ, and Judiciary, that OG 'officers' were NOT given 'permission' to er, 'search' his 'abode'!

      Who knows WHAT 'evidence' they (OG officers) would have er, umm, 'found'?

      All, imo, obviously.

      "ring, ring"

      "It's a fair cop, guv, we, and our T7 'friends' WERE 'involved' from the 'get go' It was all just a 'scam' to enrich ourselves. After the first few million, in donations, was 'in the bag' via our private ltd company, Madeleine's 'fund', it was all meant to 'go quiet' That's why we never 'asked' for Madeleine's case to be 'unshelved/re-opened'

      (OG) "Don't be silly , Mr and Mrs McCann, we have four locals, in Portugal, 'arguidoed' on our say so. We just have to 'produce' evidence, they DID it. Just between us, the 'druggie/schitzo' is looking 'favourite'. We'll call you the moment they are 'nicked'"

      Last edited by jeanmonroe on Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:49 am; edited 1 time in total

    5. Ah, I see, it wasn't a conspiracy after all in our deluded minds,apparently thousands of young children just disappear never to be seen or heard from again and nobody has any contact with them?
      What a wonderful article from jeanmonroe!, is this what DCI Redwood and cohorts up to?

    6. Hi Textusa, for what it's worth,Mark William's Thomas has stated that a Mr Big from the Criminal under world ordered the Murder of Jill Dando?
      MWT had articles naming a gangster currently serving a sentence for the "Brutal Killing of an Eighteen Year old in a road rage incident." This person then took flight to Spain and was arrested there and extradited back to the UK,convicted of his murder.
      That person was previously charged with the Death of an under cover Police Man, but was acquitted on the grounds of "Self Defence" in that case!
      Under cover Police Officers had pictures of this person seen to be in contact with a Police Officer accepting a "Brown Envelope", the Police Officer who accepted the Envelope was assigned to protect the best friend of Stephen Laurence who was Murdered in London. When the killers of Mr. Laurence were finally convicted, one of the Killers was related to the Mr.Big!
      What a Murky Metropolitan Police Force the people of the UK have, not like the "Dixon of Dock Green, image EH"!

    7. Hi i have got the age wrong of the road rage killing, the young man was 21 when murdered, one of the witnesses at the scene of the murder,testified at court for the Mr. Big's conviction. This witness was later found murdered by a gun man who has never been caught!?

  15. Anon 31 Mar 2015, 12:45:00

    Here's something on MWT:

  16. Today, April’s Fools’ Day, quite aptly, the Telegraph has published the following article:

    “Madeleine McCann latest: are police any closer to knowing the truth?

    After a new detective takes over the helm of the investigation, Gordon Rayner looks at the latest news on the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann

    By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
    10:11AM BST 01 Apr 2015”

    What is interesting is the similarity of this story with the one put as comment in our blog on Jan 20, in our post “2015”:

    “Anonymous20 Jan 2015, 16:28:00


    Madeleine McCann: are we any closer to knowing the truth?

    After a new detective takes over the helm of the investigation, Gordon Rayner looks at the latest news on the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann

    By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
    11:52AM GMT 20 Jan 2015”

    And what is amazing is the fact that the two articles above show a remarkable resemblance to the one put as comment in our blog on Feb 08, in our post “Bladderman”:

    “Anonymous8 Feb 2015, 14:59:00

    Madeleine McCann latest: are police any closer to knowing the truth?

    After a new detective takes over the helm of the investigation, Gordon Rayner looks at the latest news on the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann

    By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
    11:24AM GMT 02 Feb 2015”

    And would the reader guess that the EXACT same story was published by the same paper on Mar 17? Just google it.

    Exact same article published 4 times this year: Jan 20, Feb 02, Mar 17 and Apr 01.

    Do note that the number of article, “11078595” is the exact same for all 4 times it was published. It's not rehashing but reproducing it by just changing the dates!

    Same paper, same reporter, different dates. Someone is really trying to tell us something or being terribly lazy.

    Happy Fools’ Day with the compliments of the Telegraph.

    1. This is churnalism at its very worst. Readers who buy that paper should ask for a discount.

    2. I'd say readers who buy that paper should ask for therapy.

  17. Note that Robert Murat was formally cleared in Telegraph article but only mention of Mccanns was to say investigation shelved and they no longer suspects!

  18. The Jill Dando Case

  19. Ex-detective adds his voice to the legions backing disgraced Maddie cop

    Nuala x

    1. Hi nuala x, I have just read the article and it is a pity that the UK so called journalist's cannot produce properly gathered information and produce it in the correct context?
      It is quite alarming when you come across information that former Police Officers,MP's, Judiciary and Establishment figures collusion in cover ups, makes you realise the contempt that these person's have had?
      The fact that they tried / had to "suppress the Truth from the public"is no excuse that mealy mouthed, mouth pieces use an excuse to prevent Anarchy! This just leads to a further injustice,"Justice Denied is not Justice?"
      If the "Establishment finds injustice" however unpalatable, the Truth must be told or written down for the public to peruse, the use of D Notices is still suppression!

    2. Nuala,

      We find strange in 2015 to be hearing only now from people who, allegedly, were “in Praia da Luz on the day Madeleine went missing in 2007”.

      It took this gentleman 8 years for his “exasperation” at the way things have been handled down the years” to make him decide to put “pen to paper”.

      Then he, has the Portuguese say, invents the gunpowder by saying “the theory that burglars could have abducted Madeleine simply “does not fit the profile”, he claims - and indeed, in his opinion as a criminal investigator, Merz does “not believe in an abduction” at all”.

      How many thousands have said so in the past 8 years? What makes his opinion more relevant than ours, yours or that of anyone else?

      Him being an experienced detective?

      Well there’s one called Edgar who also gave his opinion about the case, wasn’t there? You know, the one who called Tanner a liar by mistrusting what she allegedly saw right next to her and then trusting her credibility about a man she sees 50 yards away.

      And another, called Horrocks, who is certain Maddie is alive and has been taken by a Brazilian family.

      We would say this case has almost as most ex-detectives as sightings of Maddie. At least the sightings stopped in 2008.

      Before saying anything else, we would like to know what the gentleman’s theory is but for legal reasons the newspaper thought best not to publish: “we cannot go into the details of Merz’ theory as a criminal investigator with specific experience in murder cases as it would undoubtedly see us in legal hot-water.”

      We have seen many Mr Amara’s “supporters” with unbelievable theories.

    3. I agree Textusa, at first glance it does seem strange. However, I would find it even more strange if it was a pro-abduction/pro-McCann person suddenly appearing after eight years. That would make me very suspicious.

      How many thousands have said so in the past 8 years? What makes his opinion more relevant than ours, yours or that of anyone else?

      I think the answer to that is simply that he's written a letter to Mr Amaral and given it to Portugal Resident and they've written a piece about it. In other words, his opinion is no more relevant than any elses except that Portugal Resident has chosen to publish it.

      What I find very strange is that Portugal Resident chooses to describe Mr Amaral as "disgraced" repeatedly and disgracefully I might add, whilst at the same time publishing comments from a German ex-detective that supports Mr Amaral.

      That's very strange indeed.

      I can understand you being sceptical because Mr Merz claims to have been in Prai da Luz when Maddie disappeared, also claims to be an ex detective experienced in murder investigations, and happens NOW to suddenly make his voice heard, but there is nothing he's said (that's been reported) that is detrimental to Mr Amaral.

      Nuala x

    4. Nuala,

      Those who appear to support Mr Amaral aren't necessarily friends of the truth but we are sure that those who are friends of the truth are indeed Mr Amaral's friends.

      We don't know what Mr Merz claims happened. We agree with him on the fact there was no abduction. On the rest we don't know if we agree or not.

      We have nothing against Mr Merz. Simply stating what we find strange.

    5. From what date was this Portugal Resident article? Is it recent? Because it has vanished...I copied and pasted the link above and got a "this article is no longer available"!

    6. Anonymous 4 Apr 2015, 12:06:00,

      This is the article:

      "Posted by portugalpress on April 02, 2015

      Ex-detective adds his voice to the legions backing 'disgraced' (my inverted commas) Maddie cop

      A former German detective with years of experience working on murder investigations has added his voice to the legions of people backing 'disgraced' Madeleine cop Gonçalo Amaral.

      Ulrich Merz, 60, was in Praia da Luz on the day Madeleine went missing in 2007. He has been following the various investigations ever since with the eye of a trained professional.

      His “exasperation” at the way things have been handled down the years is one of the reasons for his decision to put pen to paper.

      He writes to Amaral as the latter waits on tenterhooks to hear the judge’s final decision over whether or not he is liable for the €1.2 million defamation claim taken out against him by Madeleine’s parents five years ago.

      Merz does not mince his words. Amaral’s theory, given the details available at the time, was “completely valid”, he tells the policeman.

      The theory that burglars could have abducted Madeleine simply “does not fit the profile”, he claims - and indeed, in his opinion as a criminal investigator, Merz does “not believe in an abduction” at all.

      Social media support for Amaral since he was “disgraced” - particularly by the British media - and removed from the original Portuguese investigation has been resounding, but this is perhaps the first time a trained police investigator has come out on record in this way.

      Non-English speaking, Merz is unconcerned.

      He claims the case is unique in that the Portuguese government “has allowed itself to be pushed around” by Britain, currently conducting the “Operation Grange” investigation into Madeleine’s almost eight-year-old disappearance.

      “The way this case has been handled is particularly unique because your conclusions differed from those of the British government,” he told Amaral, stressing his “exasperation” at seeing a fellow policeman’s work “denigrated”.

      The Resident learnt of Merz’ letter as it was handed to us to pass on to Amaral. We cannot go into the details of Merz’ theory as a criminal investigator with specific experience in murder cases as it would undoubtedly see us in legal hot-water.

      As Portuguese news media has long pointed out, Amaral’s theory, expounded in his book “The Truth of the Lie”, has seen him financially-strapped since its publication.

      Bank accounts have been frozen, the book ‘seized’ and withdrawn from sale for months, and his “civil position”, as the former detective refers to it, made untenable.

      In an open letter to his supporters as the long-running trial for defamation came to a close, Amaral reiterated his belief that the parents of the missing child have “sought to ‘asphyxiate’ him financially and push him to a civil death” - a position from which he would be “unable to react judicially”.

      “After five years, the parents of the child that mysteriously disappeared on the 3rd of May of 2007 in the Algarve were not able to fully achieve what they intended. I am alive, I'm able to financially sustain the civil suit, although not much more than that…”

      Since that message, Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral has issued a new bulletin saying the judge’s decision on the McCann parents’ suit should come after the judicial holidays which close on April 6.

      “We trust in justice and serenely await the judge’s decision,” the message came to its close.


    7. (cont)

      “God’s windmills move slowly,” Merz concluded in his letter to Amaral. “You are in a trap made by bad people, but I know that when someone shares the knowledge of the deed, the conscience always come out - even if it is unintentional.
      “I have strong hope in your complete recovery and rehabilitation,” he tells the Portuguese “colleague” whom he has never met.

      Endless column inches have been devoted to this eternal mystery but the truth is that Gonçalo Amaral has been fighting for his professional credibility in an arena bereft of mainstream support.

      It is this reality that prompted Ulrich Merz’ hand-written letter which comes in the wake of rumblings from the UK that the Metropolitan Police may at last be considering a renewed scale back of the multi-million pound investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance.


      From here:

    8. Thank you Textusa!
      Strange article...

    9. Anonymous 4 Apr 2015, 14:37:00,

      It seems that article not wooshed but edited.

      Word 'disgraced' changed with the word 'beleaguered'.

      We agree with the editing. Beleaguered better than the negative disgraced. It implies Mr Amaral has been hounded.

      This is the new link:

      Credit to JH Forum for spotting this:

    As some of us know, she didn't have an eye defect!

  21. Yes, I understand Textusa, I suppose I'm just not finding it quite as strange as you do, but then as you say we don't know what Mr Merz claims happened so we're basing opinions on incomplete information at the moment. Hopefully at some point we'll have the full story :)

    Nuala x

  22. Not only is closure an option - it seems by far the most likely one. The original remit never allowed SY to investigate the T9 and now, having exhausted every other possibility, the ONLY way forward is to investigate the parents or to close it down. Closure is cleaner, simpler and less embarrassing for everyone - and therefore far more likely.

    Exaro, an investigative journalists group says it wasn't Rebekah Brooks who lobbied DC, but executives from NI.
    As it was confidential to the inquiry, we don't know who they were.

    1. Former Prime Minister David Cameron has a very selective memory,he spoke to the "House of Commons" that child abuse was a "conspiracy theory"?
      David Cameron sat in on an Investigation into dishonest practices as a junior Minister, "Gilliings Inquiry"MP's, black mail, was that a conspiracy as well Dave?
      The murky world of the "Murdoch Empire"MSM!?

    2. Hi Textusa,Happy Easter.
      I have not read in any MSM news articles of the arrest of former detectives or CPS after Mark Williams Thomas stating it was not the "Original Suspect BG" who was responsible for the murder of Jill Dando?
      No Police Sirens!
      Are these "Person's exempted from prosecution" or as Hamish stated,"No Further Action required"?

    3. I have just seen the headlines from the Arch Bishop of Cantebury, Mr. Welsby stating the need to end persecution, perhaps he should speak with Martin brunt and Sky news Corp over their rather nasty disgraceful behaviour, "one thing it was certainly not good Journalism" or in the public's interest as claimed by Jonathon Levy?

    4. my post 11.58, this was in regard to the way the late Mrs Brenda Leyland was vilified for following what she believed to be the truth.

  24. Hi Textusa,I have just watched the taped interview recording that Sandra Felgurias had with Kate and Gerry 05/11/2009, the look on Gerry's face at about six minutes is certainly a look of dissonance at the question from Sandra, "Ask the Dogs, Sandra" Video?
    Every thing appeared to be okay, until Sandra asked Kate that question,"did you find anything disturbing or you were unaware of in the PJ files you had read"?

    1. In the same interview, was Gerry making a slip of the tongue,pact of silence Tapas group,"witnesses to the perpetrators of the crime"!?

  25. Textusa,

    Not that you don't deserve it but to clarify something I just saw on twitter. Are you making money out of the blog with hidden ads?

    1. Anonymous 6 Apr 2015, 13:53:00,

      Quite surprised someone would think that but to set things straight blog has no adverts, makes no money.

      Thank you for the heads-up.


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.