Friday, 17 March 2017

Extreme backfiring


1. Introduction

Quoting ourselves on our last post “The McCann Trial”:

“To sum up a very long post, it [the complaint] was to have the McCanns continue to be perceived as being declared innocent by the Portuguese when government has to decide about granting or not Operation Grange further funds for the next fiscal year.”

And we learned this week that the UK government has granted Operation Grange further funding for the next 6 months.

Or, in practical terms, that it won’t take any action on the case until the complaint has been decided by the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court.

The other side has achieved what it wanted: further funding before the start of the next fiscal year.

In that same post we also described what would be their next step:

“This way, the other side can turn to the government and say, see, the people are now quenching their thirst in seeing the McCanns punished, so now is the ideal time to blame it all on them to have given a window of opportunity for Maddie to have been killed in apartment and her body taken by that infamous but illusive European human trafficking gang.

In their defense they will say that if one looks at things properly, the McCanns and the T9 will have been punished and the British elite will remain protected and unharmed.

The only victims will be Mr Amaral, who is Portuguese and nowhere near being part of its elite, so is an understandable and acceptable casualty and Brenda Leyland who can be considered a collateral victim.”

But not every win is a victory. Sometimes it’s a huge defeat.

Can the reader looking at things where they are standing now, see from the above where is the enormous, significant and decisive difference between what the other side intended, expressed above, and what they can now expect to happen?

Before we explain what we mean, we can start by saying that things are really not looking good for them.


2. Infuriating government

We would like to remind readers of what we said about this

In our “The McCann trial” post:

“That [the complaint] was, or is, a risky move, or one filled with uncertainty.

Uncertainty not about the outcome of the complaint but because it may not convince the government and it may even backfire as the response from the Supreme Justice Court will highlight even further how the McCanns were never cleared.”

And this about the making of Gerry as an NHS wonder-hero:

“We do have to say that bringing in the NHS and its financial difficulties into this issue seems to us quite a desperate move and quite an antagonising one. Not seeing this generating any sympathy from the government.”

The week before that in our post “The complaint”, we had also said this:

“Note, nowhere have we said we think this tactic [the complaint] is destined for success, we have just described it.

In fact, it may even infuriate government as no one likes to be forced into a decision.”

Even though a massive campaign by the Daily Mail, the Mirror, the Sun and ITV to promote neglect and to boost the public lynching of the McCann couple, it was only the complaint against the Portuguese Justice Court that we think ended up pressuring the government into giving in to what the other side wanted.

But did they really get what they wanted? We don’t think so.

First of all, it cannot be considered a surprise that after placing the government in a position of being seen wasting yet another £85,000, on top of the many, many millions already wasted, that it wouldn’t be pleased.

Millions wasted on a farce that everyone knows to be a farce in a country where there are people struggling to make ends meet, the NHS is struggling to survive and all the future seems to hold is cuts in benefits and hikes in prices and taxes.

One cannot poke a wasp’s nest with a 2-inch stick and then claim to be surprised because one has been bitten mercilessly.


3. Alibi

We have, we think, made our point about why we think negligence is of the utmost importance to the other side: it creates the window of opportunity for the evil men to have come, have entered the apartment, killed Maddie and taken her body with them.

What we haven’t mentioned yet, and it’s important that people realise that, is that negligence is also their alibi.

It’s what keeps the McCanns away from the crime scene.

It’s what keeps Gerry away from the Smith sighting.

This alibi is the main reason for many, who believing that Maddie is dead but because they continue to firmly believe that the McCanns were negligent come to the deduction that what happened to the little girl was something accidental on her own, and so condemn much more the alleged and confessed negligence than whatever caused Maddie to die.

Negligence means they weren’t there when Maddie died, to these people, the most they are guilty of involving the direct reasons why Maddie died, is to have over-sedated the girl completely by accident.

To them, that is perfectly forgivable and to those who think she died alone in an accidental fall, do not even have that to condemn them.

What they want the McCanns to be punished for is their alibi: negligence.


4. The importance of being vague

But what we want to draw the attention to is something outside negligence that is equally as important: vagueness.

Although we have already pointed it out several times, we haven’t given the necessary emphasis to the importance of the vagueness that the evil men who killed and took Maddie must have.

The patsy being a vague entity is absolutely mandatory for the other side be able to pull of the “Third Option”.

There can only be a vague patsy, like as vague as the European human trafficking gang so many times referred to before.

Note that it has to be European. Best not pinpoint it to just one country because that may make that country react to discredit the whole thing by denying with detail.

Just let it be said that it’s a European gang, as it has, and every European country will think it is from another but their own and so will allow it to fly.

Any further detailing and it will give people the opportunity to go investigate and call the bluff.

Pin it on a man, any man, and the “Third Option” has absolutely no legs to walk not only no one will accept such a burden without having caused it, as the man’s life will be scrutinised to the utmost minute detail.

With thanks to Ben Thompson

That’s why, once we got to know that the Sunday Express was going to run that story on its front page, we all waited anxiously on Saturday night to see who was that man who it was said would be the key to the mystery.

It turned out to be “one person who detectives want to speak to who was near to the area where Madeleine disappeared almost 10 years ago”.

Or, in other words, very vague.

It could be anyone who was in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared. That basically told us absolutely nothing because if anyone is to be chosen to take the fall, then the only certainty there will be is that he was in Praia da Luz on the evening/night of May 3rd.

Imagine if a name had been given.

The internet would rush to check that person inside out to the point of when the rooster at the first light of Sunday crowed the name of the person of interest in the Maddie case, some chicken would cluck him to silence and tell him how it had already been found out how ridiculous that name had turned out to be, note the past tense.

There cannot absolutely be a palpable patsy only a vague one.


Can the reader now fully understand the REAL importance of the Express’s headline “Madeleine Bombshell: Police net closes in on just one man who is key to the mystery”, by Caroline Wheeler, published Mar 12 2017?

Indeed a bombshell.

It has the beauty of being vague by itself, as we just said, while it simultaneously disintegrates into microscopic fragments the vagueness absolutely needed to the other side to pull off the “Third Option”.

From the article: “just one man”, “have identified a person”, “there is a specific person of interest”, “there is one individual”, “find the “person of interest””, “a “solid live lead””, “there is just one person” and “on the key lead”.

Not identified but certainly NOT a vague man, according to SY. From that moment on, that unidentified but clearly known individual could no longer ever represent the vague European human trafficking gang.

According to the Express, SY have said that they had a clearly identified person and for that person to be the key to the mystery, as he’s said to be and Whitehall and the Home Office have agreed with enthusiasm, then he clearly has to be able identify other possible suspects with the precision and the detail expected from him.

This is what the other side didn’t expect to hear and certainly didn’t want to hear.

On February 7, they didn’t expect or want to hear that the Portuguese justice system had never cleared the McCanns and on March 13 they didn’t expect or want to hear that their so much needed European human trafficking gang had forever been thrown out with the bath water.

The government granted them what they wanted, the further funding of Operation Grange but at the same time pulled the carpet right from under their feet.

They are now left with one of 2 options, outside truth: a real palpable patsy or archival.

One not being possible, they can only fight for the other. And that’s what they are doing.


5. The other side reacts

This caught the other side totally by surprise, as one would expect it would. It’s not everyone who is able to react with calmness after seeing all their blueprints go up in flames from one minute to the next.

To understand what happened, let’s see how things developed on this issue.

The Daily Mail, the interesting Daily Mail, was the first to break the news about the further funding of Operation Grange, or the victory for the other side, on May 11 2017 at 22:54, in an article by Tracey “Lazzeri” Kandohla “McCanns are given £85,000 boost to fund Madeleine search for another six months as police reveal they are closing in on her kidnapper”.

“Kate and Gerry McCann tonight said they are 'very grateful' for the continued support by Scotland Yard amid fears the controversial £13million investigation into Maddie's disappearance, codenamed Operation Grange, was being shelved.”

And the Mail was also the first to report on the ‘key-witness’:

“A Met Police spokesperson (…) refused to say if they were now trying to quiz one final Portuguese suspect, simply saying: 'We are cracking on. The Operation Grange team are not prepared to discuss any lines of inquiry while the investigation is ongoing.'”

No one had spoken before about a key suspect, much less a Portuguese one, so what was the Mail then asking the Met to confirm or deny?

They speak no more of this individual in the article. Its slant is all about expressing how wasteful the £85,000 is. How indeed Operation Grange had gotten another chance to keep head above water but all was just a waste of time and money.

The other side wasted no time.

In the same article where their victory is acknowledged, they immediately proceeded to pressure the government into closing the process by saying, look how bad you, government, are looking now and as the McCanns have already been appropriately punished by public vilification, isn’t it best to blame it all on that evil gang, close the whole thing and put this all behind us and just focus on Brexit?

We think they either tried to minimise the importance of the key-witness or failed to realise it then as they were in a hurry to press on with their campaign.

Unfortunately for them, they were in for a surprise.

Exactly at 00:01, Sun, Mar 12, 2017 when the Express wrote “just one man”, “have identified a person”, “there is a specific person of interest”, “there is one individual”, “find the “person of interest””, “a “solid live lead””, “there is just one person” and “on the key lead”.

It seems they were stunned. Their first reaction was to do the same as with the Jodie Marsh tweets, and that was to bring in Kerry Needham to distract by sympathy.

She, certainly by coincidence on Mar 12, 2:02 pm, made the same appeal she made in early January. As we keep saying, it would be interesting to know why she was repeating it without ever pressing publicly the South Yorkshire Police about the details of their certainty as to what happened to Ben.

This appeal appeared by the hand of Natasha Rigler, in the Sun, that together with the Daily Mail and the Mirror completes the tabloid triumvirate, in the article “PLEASE TELL SOMEONE WHERE I AM, Missing Ben Needham pleads for help ‘from beyond the grave’ in fresh appeal written by toddler’s desperate mum

Truth be said, it distracted little or nothing.

It took time for the other side time to react.

After all the word “bombshell” in the Sunday Express headline could simply not be ignored or to pretend it wasn’t written. The vagueness of the European human trafficking gang had suddenly gone, so naturally they struggled.

Only at 22:25 did the reaction come, through the Mirror, the Daily Mail’s sidekick in this matter, by the hand of Tracey Kandohla – who else? – and Matthew Young, “Madeleine McCann cops hunt worker at resort as they fear he 'kept secrets' from local police

They identify key-witness quite clearly:

“police are hunting for a worker from the resort where Madeleine McCann vanished who they believe has clues about her ¬disappearance.

The Portuguese man was at the Ocean Club in Praia Da Luz when the three-year-old was snatched in 2007.

He gave a statement at the time but detectives fear he may have kept secrets.

A local police source said: “British officers are very keen to question him.”

The former resort worker being hunted by police on the Madeleine McCann case gave a -witness statement two days after the girl vanished.

But British officers trying to find the youngster fear he may have kept secrets from local detectives that could have led to a ¬breakthrough in the case.

And they now want to speak to the former staff member who worked at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz on the Algarve, where three-year-old Madeleine vanished in May 2007.”

On reading this, one would say the other side was enthusiastic knowing that SY had this key-witness.

But then one has to read the following to fully understand what is going on:

“They are not suggesting he stole Maddie but he may know people who could have been involved after a burglary went wrong. The investigation in Britain seems to be grinding to a halt and they want to rule him out of the case if not rule him in.”

Note first that the hypothesis is placed for consideration that this key-witness could even be of no interest to the case.

That, of course, contradicts what the Express said: “the Met is taking the development so seriously that leading Whitehall officials are being briefed on its progress” and “detectives are now confident the net is closing in on the key lead which is why an application was made to the Home Office for extra funding and a stay of execution for the investigation.”

We would say that £85,000 is quite a large amount for Whitehall to have committed on an uncertain ‘so-and-so’ lead.

Whitehall and the Home Office are shown to be absolutely convinced that this is it, that this is the break investigators were looking for, that this is what will finally solve the mystery!

The second thing to note is the most important words in the above: “a burglary went wrong”.

To note that the same Tracy Kandhola, just 2 hours before the Mirror article co-signed another together with David Pilditch (at 20:06, later updated at 20:47) published by the Express “The McCanns welcome extra funding for Maddie search as police chase new lead” in which the McCanns are shown to be grateful for the £85,000 but where there’s no mention of the burglary or of any suggestion that the person of interest didn’t steal Maddie.

Two hours later, we are back to the bungled burglary it seems.

The bungling burglar, the theory that had been abandoned in favour of the European human trafficking gang, is now back. Out of the blue, popping out like a rabbit pulled from a magician’s hat.

We had Gerry McCann saying during the 2016 anniversary celebrations that there wouldn’t be any more anniversary celebrations and now we are all bracing, since early February, for what appears to be quite intense activities to celebrate the 10th anniversary in May; we had in August last year the McCanns so broke that they had to fire Clarence Mitchell and now we have them not only able to financially continue the search but to be able to rehire Clarence Mitchell, to pay all legal bills from the Lisbon trial and to pay Carter-Ruck in case anyone dares cross the line; and we also saw last year the bungled burglary abandoned and now it seems it’s back as the most likely hypothesis.

Finally, it’s a farce.

The missing comical bit that was at fault has now been fitted in to make it complete.

If this is not cringing, we don’t know what cringing is.

The third thing to note is how the article immediately withdraws any guilt from the key-witness. You may not be important but if you are you are not a participant you are just a witness. One who has failed to come forward all these years.

The British justice system is indeed unique, able to rule out people before it hears them. It did that with the McCanns, so said Andy Redwood, and now it seems, is doing it again with a key-witness.


6. Guidelines for the other side

So, to understand what is going on, the other side was suddenly faced with the fact that the vagueness of the European human trafficking gang had gone straight out the window, and also the possibility of there being a real key witness – we will speak of this person later on – it is doing the only thing it can do: pressuring the government to archive.

They do have their hands completely tied by the unquestionable fact that this person is not vague.

That is a huge limitation and within the very narrow space they have to manoeuvre, we think the other side will follow the following four guidelines:

#1. Get back into making the bungled burglary possible. Keep the storyline, it wasn’t the gang but a burglar. Find a way for it to be deemed unsolved and continue to pressure the government into archival. If archival not possible, then try to find a way to fit key-witness in a ‘useful’ way into a Ben Needham style finish, even knowing the bungling burglar did not steal anything and took the body with him. If the Ben Needham scenario doesn’t work, then as a last and desperate resort point all and every possible firepower into making the McCanns take the blame on their own;

#2. Continue to pass the idea the McCanns can continue the search and will understand completely if Grange closes with the archival. Convey the idea that the UK has done ALL it could so it’s best the rest be left to the couple. The fact that this goes against every principle in the relationship of citizens and their state matters not, the McCanns can continue, so please close the case;

#3. Shame on  the government for overspending the £85,000. The sooner this thing is closed the less of the £85,000 will be spent, so best quickly be determined that key-witness is not key after all and determine the case as unsolved, so close the darn thing;

#4. Stoke and keep the fire of the popular trial of the McCanns very much alive and strong by pursuing negligence relentlessly. It will always be, until the fat lady sings, the window of opportunity for a bungled burglary, for a Ben Needham finish, for archival and most importantly it is what provides the alibi from the crime scene.

As can easily be understood, the ice they are skating on is quite thin, to say the least.

As the Portuguese say – and we are not promoting hunting – he who has no dog, hunts with a cat.

They have little to cling to, so will cling to it for dear life.

They have lost the initiative, so are limited to reacting. Guideline #1, shows clearly they will shoot in any direction.

But please note that outside Guideline #1, which had to be altered very quick and unexpectedly, the other 3 are in accordance with what was planned previously.

If it wasn’t that the key-witness was so clearly identified, all would be going to plan for the other side.


7. Good Morning Britain

In this context, one can now understand what happened on ITV’s Good Morning Britain of March 13.

From here, (Anon 13 Mar 2017, 21:30:00)
Matthew Freud’s pal, Piers Morgan, hosted the debate about how wasteful it was to give £85,000 to the investigation with so many other unsolved murder cases, how botched the Portuguese investigation had been and how negligent the McCanns were:


- Jim Gamble’s CEOP pal and fellow speaker at INEQE’s conferences, Graham Hill,

- McCann anointed and libel sanctified negligence accuser Karen Danczuk,

- retired Met Officer Sue Hill

Due to technical difficulties we did not get to see negligence being debated, and although Graham Hill states that having a BBQ in a backyard with two walled entrances and a public road in between it and the house is perfectly normal, we didn’t get to see Karen Danczuk’s wagging finger about the couple’s negligence.

We think the idea would have been to have on one side Sue Hill and Piers Morgan discuss how the £85,000 was or wasn’t being wasted and on the other Graham Hill fight it out with Karen Danczuk whether the McCanns were or were not neglectful.

The first debate we got to see, the second didn’t happen due to sound problems.

The intended end result?

Having the mob shouting at the top of its voice, which it did, that yes, it is a scandalous waste of money, and yes they were criminally neglectful!

Then it was fed by the media how the public felt outraged about the £85,000 and how wrong the mob thought Piers was in defending that it was money well spent.

If the debate between Hill and Danczuk had happened, we most probably would have witnessing the mob raging against Hill for defending that the McCanns had not neglectful.

And because that negligence debate didn’t fly off, along come Kirstie Allsopp and Dara O’Briain, publicly defending the McCanns to make sure the mob was kept entertained with the subject.

Common denominator in all this: a raging mob going after anyone not supporting that the  government should be ashamed to have given Operation Grange the money and clobbering anyone supporting that the McCanns had not been neglectful.

And didn’t we get just that? We did.

The Pied Piper plays the music and the children just follow him.

As they can’t control what role the key-witness is to play, all they can do is try to dissuade the government by continuing to put pressure on neglect and on the wasteful £85,000, while making the best in passing the message that it will be alright for the investigation to close unsolved.


8. The other side front-runners

Certainly by sheer coincidence, it seems that Piers Morgan, Kirstie Allsopp and Dara O’Briain are from the same PR company, NMP Live.

And has anyone else noticed how, even though Maddie continues to be right up there on the headlines and the enthusiasm she showed by having been seen by millions, Katie Hopkins has fallen silent on the subject?

The latest tweet on the subject, as far as we can tell, was to criticise the £85,000 in a tweet in which she annexed the radio show where she clearly promotes that Maddie was taken because she was left alone.

Point is, when one lists all these minor celebrities engaged in favour and “against” the McCanns, one can see quality is much to be desired. Very much like looking again at the list of people that the plaintiffs called to take the stand in the Lisbon trial.

On one side we have Katie Hopkins, Mark Williams-Thomas, Jodie Marsh, Karen Danczuk, Piers Morgan, Graham Hill, Kirstie Allsopp and Dara O’Briain, while on the other we have Whitehall and the Home Office.

And we wouldn’t call the Prime-Minister a referee in this but rather say she is an interested party for one of the sides. We will let the reader guess which one we think it may be.

The other side’s team may be making a lot of noise, and it is, but if that’s the best team the other side has to present then things are really looking bad for them.

The need to continue antagonising the government after having done so and causing a serious backfiring, shows things are really going bad for them.


9. Pat Brown

A question some may be asking is why we aren’t criticising Pat Brown as she clearly has also publicly defended neglect:

“Ms Brown said Madeleine most likely died an accidental death that was “covered up”.

“The evidence supports the theory of an accident occurring through neglect and possible medication,” she said.””

We have publicly shown our disagreement with her. We think there was no negligence and no medication.

However, the negligence that Pat Brown defends is the one we agree should be debated.

Note that all others promoting neglect shy away from death in the apartment. Jodie Marsh was silenced and Karen Danczuk backtracked very conveniently.

The negligence Pat Brown defends, and with which we disagree, is one we have said  we wouldn’t mind seeing being defended. We welcome it because it allows for a serious and reasonable debate.

By linking neglect to Maddie’s death and by stating very explicitly that abduction is absurd, Pat Brown can now be questioned what sort of accident does she think Maddie suffered, as well as when it happened and if the parents were there or not and if not, and if not if anyone else was present.

All within the negligence scenario she defends.

Same happens with Moita Flores who seems to defend, at least apparently, the Tapas dinners. We disagree with him on that as readers know.

However, he does ask for a reconstruction to be done, in fact states that it is the only way to clarify what happened and we agree with that.

Such a reconstruction should start with the group sitting down around a table equal to the one pictured and signalled in Mr Amaral’s book. No other. Not even the one used in Mr Amaral’s TVI documentary.

If they don’t fit around that table,  the one  in Mr Amaral’s book, then the group AND the Tapas staff should be asked how were the T9 able to have so many meals there and even find space for the Quiz Mistress.

Even though we disagree with both we are fully aware that when they stated abduction is ridiculous and that death happened inside the apartment is to validate the dog findings in our opinion.

And that opens the can of worms we want opened.

Unlike with Katie Hopkins’ ‘they-took-her-negligence’ or ‘abduction-negligence’, we fully support the spreading of the word of Pat Brown’s ‘she-died-negligence’, even though we don’t agree with it.

The wider it spreads, the better it is for truth even though we think it is not true. It allows the debate and that is what matters.


10. The key-witness

The question one has now to ask is who is this key-witness is and if it poses or not a real threat to the other side.

Carlos Anjos in the CMTV debate about this individual seems to imply that they are pointing to a homeless man, a man who has a miserable life:

“This man worked at the Ocean Club, it is said (referring the news segment) that it's not known whether he is Portuguese or not, actually he is Portuguese, and it is not true either that he has vanished, he might not have a fixed address because he might be without a home, given the miserable life that he has. This man committed a crime of burglary in the morning, close to noon, at a time the child was in the beach with the mother, and the father.”

He seems to be pointing to one of the 4 July 2014 arguidos.

In our post “Outrageous” we then said that we thought that José Carlos Silva and Sergei Malinka were the only ones who were of interest to the case, and the homeless man and the drug addict were only brought in to distract, abused because they are poor and powerless.

We disagree with Carlos Anjos, and we think he’s just guessing based on what can be read in the British press.

Yes, a burglary is mentioned but it is also clearly said that the witness is not implicated in it, as we have shown in this post. So, if what the press says is true, then the key-witness is not a burglar. The press says he was an Ocean Club staff member in May 2007.

We have to be coherent and must point out, as we have done with the Ben Needham case where we have repeatedly called readers attention that only the media has mentioned Dino Barkas as the culprit for Ben’s accident near the farmhouse, we have to say all we have on this person is what is being reported by the press.

The Express said that he was just an individual who was in the same area of Portugal when she went missing and the Mirror gave further details and says he’s a worker from the resort, a Portuguese man, who gave a statement at the time two days after Maddie disappeared.

Both articles imply the same thing and that he needs to be found, which we deduce means he has gone under the radar for some reason.

We can only speculate.

And we will only speculate in saying that things are pointing towards Tapas waiter José Baptista.

Anorak blog has this post on Oct 23 2007:

“DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE – ‘McCANNS OR A FRIEND MUST BE TO BLAME’. Tapas bar waiter’s astonishing attack”

José Baptista served the McCanns and party on that night Madeleine disappeared. “I did not think she had been taken by an abductor,” says he. “I told them [the police] it had to be one of the family or a friend. It had to be someone close”

Mr Baptista is a “crucial eyewitness””

Then this was published by the Daily Mail, on Dec 16 2007, by Rebecca Camber “Key witness casts doubt over Kate McCann's account of Madeleine's disappearance

“A crucial witness has cast fresh doubt over Kate McCann's account of the night her daughter disappeared in a new police quiz.

Detectives consider the testimony of an Ocean Club waiter as the "trump card" in their investigation, it was claimed today.

The holiday resort employee was first on the scene moments after Madeleine's mother discovered she was missing at 10pm on May 3.

His evidence, which highlights a number of contradictions in the McCanns' statements, is said to be so vital to the police inquiry that they have re-interviewed the waiter for the third time in recent days.

Crucially, the member of staff, who has not been identified, claims that the parents and their holiday friends, the so-called Tapas Nine, did not check on their children every 30 minutes.

Contrary to what Kate McCann told police, the tapas restaurant worker also said that Kate McCann did scream: "They've taken her, they've taken her" when she learnt Madeleine was missing.

He said instead of running back to the tapas bar where she was dining with her husband Gerry and friends, Mrs McCann raised the alarm from the balcony of their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

The mother's precise words have become a pivotal issue in the case, with Portuguese police questioning why she would automatically assume Madeleine had been abducted.

His version of events contrasts dramatically with the account friends of the couple have given.

They claim that the 39-year-old GP raised the alarm when she ran back to the restaurant on 3 May shouting "Madeleine's gone, Madeleine's gone."

The highly respected Portuguese newspaper, Diario de Noticias reported today that the eyewitness account is considered a "trump card", critical to pining down supposed contradictions in the accounts of the Tapas Nine.

The Ocean Club employee has been re-interviewed at Portimao police station in recent days about the McCanns' behaviour where he reaffirmed his original statement.

Policia Judiciaria detectives believe the key to unlocking the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance lies within the group and alleged inconsistencies in their witness statements are at the heart of the investigation.

The revelation comes as police prepare to fly to Britain where Kate and Gerry McCann and their holiday friends will be re-interrogated about their movements on the night she went missing.

Police suspect that Madeleine died in an accident in the apartment and the McCanns disposed of her body - an allegation the couple have denied.

Detectives are working on the theory some of their friends helped cover up the crime and some could be named as suspects when they are re-interviewed.

But the McCanns have always insisted Madeleine was snatched from their Ocean Club apartment while they were dining with their friends just yards away.

The waiter's account mirrors that of nanny Charlotte Pennington who said she heard Kate McCann scream: "They've taken her, they've taken her!"

But other waiters working at the holiday complex have disputed key elements of his evidence, saying that the group checked on their children every 20 minutes.

Yesterday the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell furious denied the claims.

He said: "This is all lies. Kate has consistently and categorically absolutely denied that she said that on the veranda.

"But in the evening she may have said it at some stage as a general remark, but she did not run out with this phrase.

"Whoever this guy is and if he is saying this, he is either making it up or he is mistaken.

"Kate, Gerry and their friends told the truth. They will continue to maintain their stories, because it is the truth. Whatever this guy is saying, we reject it, it is not true."”

The Express confirms this story as well:

“MADELEINE: POLICE QUIZ WAITER FOR THIRD TIME

Monday December 17,2007

By David Pilditch in Praia da Luz

Detectives trying to solve the mystery of Madeleine McCann have questioned a crucial witness for the third time.

Portuguese police believe he could prove that her parents are lying over her disappearance.

Yesterday it emerged that the witness – a waiter at the tapas restaurant where Kate and Gerry McCann dined with their friends every night – has provided investigators with key evidence.

The Portuguese man is said to have been the first person to see Kate McCann as she raised the alarm after discovering her daughter had gone missing from the family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. He has allegedly given a dramatically different account of the events on May 3 from statements made by the McCanns and their friends.

It is because the waiter’s testimony is considered so critical that he has been interviewed three times.

The latest interview took place just days ago as detectives were drawing up a list of questions to be put to the so-called Tapas Nine. The group are set to be interviewed in Britain by police in the presence of the Portuguese officers heading the case.

As part of the process, the McCanns and their friends could later be summoned back to Portugal for a face-to-face showdown with the witness.

In Portugal, detectives can set up a confrontation between key witnesses and suspects to find out who is telling the truth.

Yesterday one report in Portugal said: “The employee’s testimony will be one of the ‘trump cards’ in clearing up the McCanns’ contradictions and those of their friends.”

The witness claimed that instead of running back to the tapas restaurant, which is part of the Ocean Club complex where they were staying, Kate raised the alarm from the balcony of her apartment.

He told investigators that Kate screamed: “They’ve taken her. They’ve taken her”.

A series of other witnesses have since come forward to back his evidence, including British nanny Charlotte Pennington, 20.

Kate’s first words became a central issue as they appeared to indicate she had already rejected the possibility that Madeleine had simply wandered off. Police questioned why the 39-year-old GP was so certain that her daughter had been abducted, and regard it as possible evidence that she was already engaged in a cover-up.

In contrast, friends insisted that rather than shouting from the balcony, Kate ran straight back to the restaurant crying: “Madeleine’s gone. Madeleine’s gone.”

The waiter also disputes the Tapas Nine’s claims that they were taking it in turns to check on their children every half an hour.

He is said to have told police that members of the party left the table much less frequently.

Yesterday a report in respected Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias said: “This waiter is a witness considered crucial to the investigation.

“The investigators want to find out about what happened during dinner – the conversations and the McCanns’ behaviour as well as their alleged trips to the apartment.

“The employee still insists it is not true that the child’s parents checked their children every half hour.”

Alleged inconsistencies in the Tapas Nine’s evidence have been raised by a series of independent witnesses.

Another waiter at the tapas restaurant, José Baptista, told The Daily Express that only male members of the party had left the table during the evening.

His evidence led Portuguese detectives to question why it was Kate who discovered her daughter had vanished.

But last night the McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, dismissed reports of the waiter’s testimony as “all lies”.

He conceded that Kate may have said “They’ve taken her” at some point but they were not her first words.

He said: “Kate has consistently and categorically absolutely denied she said that on the verandah. She may have said it at some stage as a general remark, but she did not run out with this phrase.

“Whoever this guy is, and if he is saying this, he is either making it up or he is mistaken.

“Kate, Gerry and their friends told the truth. They will continue to maintain their stories, because it is the truth. Whatever this guy is saying we reject it – it is not true.””

On the next day the Express confirms the witness went into hiding:

“MADELEINE: WITNESS GOES ON THE RUN ‘TO PROTECT HIS EVIDENCE’

Tuesday December 18,2007

By David Pilditch in Praia da Luz

THE key witness in the missing Madeleine McCann case was in hiding last night after fleeing Portugal.

Police have sworn the waiter to secrecy over his vital testimony and know where he is.

But friends say he is terrified his identity is about to be revealed and that he will come under pressure from rival factions in the case.

He is scared of British and Portuguese government influence in the probe. Friends claim he is also wary of the team of private eyes hired by Kate and Gerry McCann to help find their daughter.

The mother of expat British estate agent Robert Murat – the only other suspect in the case – has accused investigators of bribing witnesses into changing their stories.

The tapas bar waiter – described by police as their “trump card” – has given what detectives believe is the most reliable account of what happened the night the four-year-old vanished. They have questioned him three times, most recently last week.

Officers say his story can prove Madeleine’s parents are lying over her disappearance. Many of the 100 questions officers want to ask the McCanns and their holiday friends – the so-called Tapas Nine – are thought to be based on his information. But, according to former colleagues at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, the knowledge he is playing such a vital role in the case that has gripped the world has horrified him.

One said: “He does not want to be involved in any of this. He was just a restaurant worker. His only problem was remembering food orders. He’s terrified.”

The waiter was the only resort worker to see Kate, 39, raise the alarm after apparently discovering her daughter missing just after 10pm on May 3. She insisted she ran into the tapas bar where her husband Gerry, 39, and their friends were eating and screamed: “Madeleine’s gone. Madeleine’s gone.”

But the waiter is understood to have told police Kate raised the alarm from the apartment balcony 75 yards away, screaming: “They’ve taken her. They’ve taken her.’’

Detectives want to know why she assumed so quickly her daughter had been abducted – and not simply wandered off to look for her parents.

Police value the waiter’s account because they cannot understand why – if Kate thought Madeleine had been snatched while unattended – she would then leave her twins Sean and Amelie in the apartment to run back to the tapas bar.”

The articles don’t name the waiter but we think it’s reasonable to think that it’s José Baptista, as we showed in our May 24 2013 post “Mind your Ps”.

If José Baptista went into hiding he was spotted by Danny Collins the author of the book “Vanished” because the book says this about this waiter as we showed in our “The lady vanishes” post of May 31, 2013:

“A large round table held 9 revellers, all medical professionals with their partners who were now enjoying an after-dinner quiz, organised by the Ocean Club aerobics teacher. Najova  Chekaya. Waiter José Baptista thought it unusual that the loquacious British group should linger so long every night after dinner at the table they claimed as their own, talking and drinking local wine until after 10pm…..but tonight, finding tables would be no great problem, as only a few were taken up by the group’s fellow quiz competitors

Thursday was 3rd May and the normally busy resort was still in low season that wouldn’t end until the advent of the official early summer on 25th of May. Besides, the group paid well for the best poolside table, consuming an average of 8 to 10 bottles of wine with and after their meals each night.

José noticed one of the men of the group from what he gleaned from conversation at the table to be doctors, raise a finger and indicate an empty wine bottle. He smiled in reply and nodded, crossing over to the wine rack against the wall of the adjoining restaurant.

That evening, the arrivals of the British party at the bar had been erratic ….with a worried Jane Tanner arriving later with her husband, before leaving almost immediately, to check on her sick daughter once again.

Gerry went back to check on the children within half an hour of arrival …soon after Jane Tanner’s return…. It was the turn of Mark Oldfield to rise and look at his wristwatch. He said something to the Scottish couple and a woman José assumed was his wife, before leaving the table to walk towards the Ocean Club apartments to fulfil his shared obligation of looking after the group’s children.

Of the group who had holidayed in Greece the previous year and found their child watch system to work admirably with no need of in-house babysitters, only Dr David Payne and his attractive doctor wife Fiona weren’t called to take part in the routine, having invested in a radio baby monitor.

José Baptista shook his head and clicked his tongue in disapproval as Dr Oldfield left the group… it was 9.38 pm. He often saw this man and his dark-haired wife during the day, sitting next to the pool with their two young daughters in the company with the Scottish couple and their own three children.

It seemed to José that the children were always left alone at night. He had overheard club crèche staff remark that the late diners never took advantage of the crèche or on-site offer of babysitters…. one of the men would leave the table at approximately half – hour intervals that got increasingly more erratic as the evening progressed. Meanwhile, the little ones were left alone in the apartments for up to 3 hours.

José Baptista thought about his own large family and the love lavished on his nephews and nieces by his sisters and brothers and their partners

The doctor with the difficult English accent, the one the group called Gerry  had taken his turn to visit the apartment earlier: 9.05 pm. If the group stayed drinking and talking to past 10 pm as was usual. José supposed Dr Gerry would follow the nightly ritual and his turn would come around again 30 minutes after Dr Oldfield returned.”

From his statement:

“When asked he says he clearly recalls the appearance of the girl’s parents, he does not know their names, together with a group of  English tourists who generally accompanied them, as for almost a week prior to the disappearance they would dine practically every day in the Tapas restaurant. On the occasions he saw the group dining at the restaurant, he never saw the children. He does not remember ever having seen Madeleine’s face, which only happened when he saw her photograph after the disappearance.

During the dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred…. Remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food back…when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.

He was in the kitchen between 22.00 and 22.30 when he was informed by a colleague that a client had entered the restaurant shouting.”

When it’s time to serve meals, the dishes usually arrive at approximately the same time as it doesn’t make sense for some to be watching others eat. When that happens, customers complain. The standard procedure of any restaurant is to try and serve the food to the customers of a table at the same time.

So, even if by coincidence when the food was being served, one of the T9 would be temporarily absent and require for his or her food to be reheated, that would mean it would happen once a night, the time the dishes were being served. That customer would be away, and his plate be served when he returned. A one time occurrence per night.

We know that he was only on the night shift twice that week, Wednesday and Thursday.

We don’t think twice, Wednesday and Thursday, qualifies as “would often have to take a plate of food back”

And lest we forget, the Tapas was packed. Please remember people had to line up early in the morning to get a reservation for that day, and that day only.

So is it natural for a waiter to remember so much detail about a certain table? Memorise that only men were getting up from it? Did he memorise from all the other tables, supposedly with diners, all those who went from every single table to the loo or those who having forgotten something in their apartment, went back to it to return?

Oh, wait a minute, Collins is quite specific: “but tonight, finding tables would be no great problem, as only a few were taken up”.

We think that, unquestionably, José Baptista is a person of interest to the case, and if he happens to be the key-witness, then we agree that he is.


11. Back to 2007

We remind readers that we are doing what we think Carlos Anjos also did, and that is to guess.

We have no certainty the key-witness is even an Ocean Club staff member.

Please be aware that we were told that by the other side’s voicepieces.

A question that one has then to ask, is why is the other side pointing the finger to José Baptista, if he can be so damning?

Because José Baptista, confirms all the negligence AND isolates the blame on the couple and the group.

Please read again Guideline #1: first try bungled burglary, then archival, then a Ben Needham finish, then as a last and desperate resort point all and very possible firepower into making the McCanns take the blame on their own.

The other side is clutching at straws, it has to play the hand it has been dealt and their hand doesn’t even have a pair of deuces.

They will shoot in every direction and as things with this key-witness having obliterated vagueness, things quickly disintegrated.

If there’s a key witness, let it be one who pins all on the McCanns.

That’s why it’s interesting to see how the other side tackled Moita Flores saying he had no doubt Maddie died in the apartment.

First the Sun published on March 15 2017 05:34 (updated 05:49) the article “SICK MADDIE CLAIMS, Portuguese crime expert launches vile attack on Kate and Gerry McCann over their daughter’s disappearance” by Tracey Kandohla and Amanda Devlin.

Indeed it is filled with such expressions as “launches vile attack”, “spouts further outrageous claims”, “latest vile attack”, “shocking outburst”, “this pure speculation” and “rubbished Mr Flores' comments” but is quite explicit why a reconstruction is needed:

“Knocking down the abduction theory Flores added: “It would have been impossible to get through a window with a child.”

Mr Flores is now urging British police to put some of their new £85,000 Home Office cash boost towards conducting a reconstruction in the resort.

He said: “It is the only way to resolve the case.”

(..)

Ex-cop Mr Amaral, who led the initial hunt for Maddie, has previously called for her parents and their holiday friends to fly to Portugal to relive the fateful night in May 2007.

He has always stated a full reconstruction could produce a vital breakthrough in the £13 million Scotland Yard investigation.”

Of course we have to point out this in the article: “They don’t want to be litigious, and they can’t sue everyone, but it appears that people are saying whatever they like” which speaks for itself.

Also, we would like to note that Graham Hill and Mark Williams-Thomas were not mentioned in the article, and we think they might be offended for their services not having been acknowledged. Or maybe they are grateful they are not mentioned.

Then the Mail, at the end of that day, March 15 2017 21:41 (updated 22:13) published the article “'Maddie died in that apartment': Kate and Gerry McCann face fresh misery after Portuguese crime expert makes outrageous claim about the night she vanished”  by Abe Hawken.

It is much more generic and is much more toned down than the Sun and it does place as a sub-title that “Crime expert Moita Flores claimed that their daughter 'died in their apartment'”.

Crime expert and not bungling crime expert, or so-called crime expert. Just plain crime expert.

And has also the following: “Mr Flores, a researcher and a writer, wants British police to invest a portion of their new £85,000 Home Office money to fund a reconstruction project in the Algarve” and “Referring to claims that the toddler was abducted, Mr Flores added: 'It would have been impossible to get through a window with a child', reports The Sun Online.”

We had the Sun also bringing in Pat Brown by the hand of Tracey Kandohla in the article published March 16 “SICK MADDIE 'COVER-UP' CLAIMS, Madeleine McCann’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann suffer fresh heartache as second crime expert claims ‘Maddie died in that apartment’

It slams Pat Brown but it also has this:

“She told Australian website news.com.au she believes Maddie was never snatched, saying: “An abduction was extremely unlikely based on the amount of time, evidence at the scene, and every other shred of evidence there has ever been.”

She believes the three-year-old died in accidental death that was “covered up” through neglect and possible medication.”

And then we had Closer publishing on March 16 2017 the article by Emma Dodds “Portuguese crime expert: 'Madeleine McCann died in that apartment'

The very same magazine that censored Jodie Marsh – we then supposed it was because she dared link death in apartment with the McCanns by bringing up cadaver scent – and that brought in Kerry Needham to criticise Marsh for having criticised the McCanns.

What is very interesting about this article is that there it doesn’t use any negative wording against Moita Flores:

“As the 10-year anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance looms, Portuguese crime expert Moita Flores claims that Maddie “died in the apartment”

Nearly 10 years after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, her case continues to stay in the public eye.


(…)

And a Portuguese crime expert has now claimed he thinks the three-year-old died in the apartment.

Moita Flores, who used to work in connection with the Policia Judiciaria, the Portuguese police who began the initial search, said: “Maddie died in that apartment, I have no doubt.”


(…)

He then commented on the abduction theory, saying: “It would have been impossible to get through a window with a child.””


And, to wrap it all beautifully, why not stop the search altogether? Maddie is dead and that solves it.

With thanks to Lorraine Holden

At least that is what Jerry Lawton seems to be suggesting in his article of March 16 in the Daily Star “Shock as expert says Brit cops ‘wasting time’ searching for Maddie – because ‘she’s dead’”

But he also says this in that article:

“Her [Pat Brown’s] claims were backed yesterday by criminologist Moita Flores, who was involved in the original police investigation.

He said he had “no doubt” the youngster was dead and felt cash should be used on a reconstruction of the night Madeleine vanished as “it is the only way to resolve the case’’”


Pat Brown and Moita Flores are being promoted by the other side.

It seems they have thrown the towel in and are paving the way to pinning it all on the McCanns, in case their begging for archival doesn’t work that seems to be what is most likely to happen.

We seem to be being transported back to 2007.

We have to remind the other side that was tried back in September 2007 and it was without success as the 6 questions we have placed in our “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box” post have to be answered and they couldn’t be then, or at least not by blaming only the McCanns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By pinning it all on the McCann, can they be all answered now? We are eager to find out.

The other side may bombard us with information, as it’s doing with the current media frenzy, to distract or pressure but at the end of the day is that these 6 questions have to be answered. Nothing else matters.

In 2007 a scandalous U-turn was done, we all remember that. But there are very significant differences between now and then: the public opinion, the vast majority not educated on the subject, is much less sympathetic to the couple, there are a lot more educated people on the subject who were back in 2007 and then the government worked together with the other side and now, if not a clear and significant disconnect, it’s clear they are not walking side by side on this.


12. The UK’s version of Emperor’s New Clothes

We seem to be in a new version of this tale. In the original story, the little boy points to the Emperor and points out that he’s naked. The crowd then falls silent, and the Emperor recognising his nudity, covers his privates and flees from the scene.

What we seem to be witnessing in this version, is not only one little boy shouting out that the Emperor is naked, as are all the other boys, girls, men and women in the crowd.

But the twist of this version is that the Emperor is refusing to recognise he was fooled and so pretends he can’t see all the fingers in his direction and continues to pretend that he’s dressed.

Not only is this Emperor putting on a poor spectacle for a monarch but is also prolonging endlessly the farce that is ridiculing him before the crowd and the world.

With each passing day the laughter at the Emperor is becoming more difficult to hide and all is becoming really embarrassing. 

This to say that things are really crumbling down and the farce has now become too much of a farce, so we are not sure if the government should, or can afford to wait for the decision on the complaint.

Too many people in the crowd are blatantly pointing the finger at this absolutely naked Emperor.

The UK is just belittling itself before the eyes of the world by showing it can’t put a stop to this cringing ridiculousness.

Tell the truth is what we would recommend to this Emperor.

Like an injection, truth will be unpleasant and will hurt a bit, but as it cures once and for all the illness, is much better than pretending not to be sick when one is bedridden with the disease.  


13. Conclusion

The British government has made a move.

In our opinion, a decisive and a revealing one which made the other side completely lose their footing and scramble frantically but unsuccessfully to find it.

We believe the other side is antagonising the government more out of lack of other options than from believing it is the way to success.

The other side may be counting on the foreseeable storm of events which may take priority over this case.

However, Operation Grange will have to reach some sort of conclusion and we don’t see any enthusiasm on the part of Whitehall or the Home Office to defer it unless it rather enjoys to continue to be insulted.

After all they have enthusiastically just now funded Operation Grange with £85,000 based on a solid bombshell, so we think they would look really foolish now if SY came up with nothing or with a very vague Ben Needham kind of solution.

The other side’s trumps, or personalities are weaker by the minute.

The importance of the key witness is immense for the truth and wraps up all very nicely.

That staff member can very easily join up all the dots and even the one represented by Euclides Monteiro, who we spoke of in our post “Person of interest”.

If that is done, then Operation Grange joins up with the PJ investigation and all is well when it ends well and it has all the conditions to end well.

Back to watching ostriches fly.

135 comments:

  1. Once again Textusa explains what I can not see until I read the explanation. Thank you again sister.
    Not being a Daily Express reader, I notice that everytime there is a story on this case there is a picture of a royal on the page. Maybe they put on a royal each front page. Do they? Or is it only with the Maddie saga.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Try to live under that perseverant cloud of suspicion, always there, never going away, every day and night for the rest of your life. Even when you're lying in the sun in 'the back of your garden'. Even when you win Britain's Got Talent with the missing people choir. Even when you're celebrated as the saviour of a football monument. Even if OG should find a patsy-out-of-heaven. Even when you're allowed to celebrate the fifteenth, twentieth, twentyfifth, etc ... birthday of The Lie."
    A source close to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Textusa as always. Very encouraging news indeed. You have such an amazing and accurate way of interpreting the fake news and the real meanings behind the words.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/jade-robran/inspector-explains-her-explosive-madeleine-mccann-theory

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not necessarily for publication. What was Cressida's exact job before becoming Commisioner. May be important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 17 Mar 2017, 11:14:00,

      We see no problem in publishing your comment.

      An anon has left a comment in our post "The complaint" about that:

      "Anonymous25 Feb 2017, 12:29:00

      http://www.thecanary.co/2017/02/23/britains-new-top-cop-bad-news-whistleblowers-heres-why/

      New SY boss is establishment to the core"

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2017/02/the-complaint.html

      Delete
  6. This may interest you:
    https://www.facebook.com/jodiemarshofficial/photos/a.203477833079429.48520.167714036655809/1308237552603446/?type=3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 17 Mar 2017, 13:32:00,

      Thank you. Bringing this over to the blog:

      "Jodie Marsh (Official)
      Like This Page · 16 hrs ·

      Yes yes yes, hate hate hate, moan, moan moan. I had Katie Hopkins in my bed today and we made a video for YouTube that's going live on sunday. It's hilarious, emotional and just brilliant. Before you go calling her a bully, please think about it and ask yourself if I would entertain a person who I truly believed was a horrible bully? (Maybe also look up the definition of bullying). I won't be replying to comments on this post as I can already predict the vile nature of some of them, but I will say this: you shouldn't judge a person who's story you don't know and who you've never met. Katie has never killed anyone or raped anyone or done anything horrific to anyone. She's not afraid to say what she thinks and I admire that in ANY person. I'd rather hear the hard truth than a dressed up lie. Katie has been through a lot in life and has the strength of an ox and more positivity than anyone I've ever met. I like her. A LOT. Yes, you're gonna say "I've lost respect for you jodie", and "you're disappointing jodie" - well guess what? I don't care. I have never cared what people think of me - if I did I would be a quivering, whimpering wreck. I'm living my life the way I want to live it and I WANTED to interview Katie. And I'm glad I did because I not only got exclusive content but I saw the REAL her and we talked everything from vaginas and boobs to her famous Mccann video to her brain surgery to her recent libel case (and why she wouldn't walk away without a fight). And it's fascinating. You CAN like and respect a person without agreeing with absolutely everything they say!! I'm so proud to have secured this interview and also proud that Katie trusted me enough to do it and to open up to me. She's brave and strong and feisty and REAL! And as we both say in the video: I'd rather talk to someone who's real than someone who's fake. The video will be up on sunday on my YouTube. Do me one favour and give me the benefit of the doubt and see if it changes your mind about someone you've already decided is "awful"......"

      Delete
  7. I find it abhorrent that they 'celebrate' her disappearance every year.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous at 7 Mar 2017, 14:17:00, as your comment had a lot of blank lines, took the liberty of copying it and reproducing it here:

    “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Extreme backfiring":

    Example of extreme backfiring

    The other side certainly do have a bad hand. Piers Morgan saying that what the Mccanns did was fine and that he cant see the problem, only to be shown up by someone posting a video of him on GMB castigating a woman for popping to the shop at the end of her road and leaving her 5 year old alone for a few minutes. He said, if you cant be bothered to look after your kids, then you shouldnt have them etc etc. Hilarious the hypocrisy!!

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Mar 2017, 14:17:00”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that Textusa ladies.
      Heres the link by the way that I forgot to add to OP.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8mpVyEnHz0&feature=youtu.be

      Delete
    2. Here is the link to the youtube video I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8mpVyEnHz0

      Delete
  9. And so the neglect angle continues....
    https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-prosecute-the-mccanns?recruiter=232977331&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unpublished Anonymous Textusa at 17 Mar 2017, 16:11:00,

      We are not publishing your comment because this blog does not believe, so will not feed it, that Clarence Mitchell is an all powerful character.

      He is not. He's just a puppet. His face is being used to hide the faces of those who don't want to show theirs.

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2009/08/clarence-mitchell-luckiest-unluckiest.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2016/09/mitchell-walking-plank.html

      If he was a tenth powerful as he's said to be, he would be a MP at the moment.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 17 Mar 2017, 15:56:00,

      As you might expect, it's understandable. They have opened the flood gates of negligence, so to stand in front of the waters to stop them is folly.

      One just has to let the ground soak it up, and it will. From what we have witnessed, comments contesting negligence have grown significantly.

      As we also said in the post, those 6 questions have to be answered at the end of the day.

      Delete
    3. The neglect angle is also a mechanism that helps to point out the involvement of the parents. Carter-Ruck is everywhere, also in Australia where Pat Brown was interviewed and the presenters let her speak out, then, at the end, uttered their so eh called disbelief in regard to the claimed theory. "Hi, Carter-Ruck, you've heard us? We personally don't believe her theory, fluff, fluff." While Pat's theory was laid bare for more than seven minutes, in a video for everyone to view and to review.

      Delete
    4. Maybe I stated CM as an example only, but this petition pushes negligence and this is my point. Most educated people who have read the files, certainly your blog, would not entertain starting/signing such a petition as they do not believe in negligence, I certainly don't and see it as just a cover. This is why I wondered if it might have originated from somewhere on the other side.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 17 Mar 2017, 17:23:00,

      So readers know what we didn't publish:

      "Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Extreme backfiring":

      Set-up through a proxy by Clarence?

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 17 Mar 2017, 16:11:00"

      We agree that it might have originated from somewhere on the other side.

      What we don't believe, at ALL, is that it is Mr Mitchell the one doing it.

      He just lends his name and face.

      Delete
    6. The petition appears to be set up by a female who has a new twitter account & on being informed the UK (& therefore Theresa May) has no jurisdiction to prosecute the Mccanns, has decided instead to petition the President of Portugal!

      Great blog today Textusa & has made sense of all the madness going on with the media just now.

      Delete
  10. Hi Textusa - any news from Insane recently? Any thoughts if the answer is "No"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 17 Mar 2017, 16:08:00,

      All we know is that he suddenly lost interest in his blog.

      Challenged to counter our "Third Option" post a year ago (March 11 2016) he had this to say: "Yep, seen it. It'll have to wait a day or so, I'm kind of busy. Still, it shouldn't take too long, she's off her head as usual :-)"

      It seems he's been busy since, although he was quite active in another blog trying to pass on a credible persona without much success.

      We believe he continues to be active on Twitter and is playing David Bowie cover songs on internet territory with which he's familiar.

      As we hope you understand, we don't want to share our thoughts on what that means.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for replying Textusa, I'm always interested in your thoughts as they are so balanced. Of course I fully understand your last sentence.I have a feeling you might have a good feeling who is though, or at least who he is related to. Have a nice evening!

      Delete
    3. The last time he featured on that blog he had to delete all his comments. He will need to do some deleting this time to delete the crap he had written

      Delete
  11. Great blog I has to laugh at the presenters on Austrialian morning show with Pat Brown. They were acting as though they were shocked at what Pat had suddenly started saying to say, as if they had no editorial control over it and totally disagreed with her. Arent presenters well briefed about the likely content. It was like being back in 2007 when they were made aguidos, only in 2007 the media went for the throat and came out and said they had killed maddie. This time they are getting other people to say it and then covering themselves with worlds like vile rant. It's like saying we don't believe a word of it but wait until you here what this eejit " expert in her field" who has worked the case extensively has to say.

    Anyway I sense we are getting towards the end. I thought another reason for granting the £85k was to buy time in relation to Brexit and wonder do you think Brexit will delay the final move by the government or will it be required before article 50 is triggered. Happy Saint Patrick's day to you all

    ReplyDelete
  12. The theatre is ready, the decorum is set, the actors are a bit nervous, the public is taking its seats. You can already hear the coughs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. IMHO

    Madeleine was left to her own devices, she was nearly four - a far cry from a just three. Woken when the last checker checked. Played in the room, on the spare bed under the window, that is if she wasn't actually already there! obstructed by the cots. Either playing with the shutter cords, or simply fell off the edge of the bed - possibly landing awkwardly, unheard - died simply because of closed airway (don't need blood, gore or guts). Hidden from view, by the cot & chair. Mother in her frantic panic was 'looking' for noise, sound not quiet. The very sense missing from being so far away in the Tapas bar, not that she would have been heard. Wasn't heard as stated by Mrs Fenn heard crying (from someone) for over an hour Tuesday night.

    There is no evidence that once mother had returned to the Tapas, saying the famous words, they have taken here! that anyone other than the McCanns RE-ENTERED the BEDROOM until Diane Webster arrived, at which point Mr McCann wasn't there.

    Any reappraisal of the scene, should specifically confine itself to the bedroom and the time frame of 9.45 Mrs McCanns check & the sighting by the Smith family at 10pm, particularly in view of the subsequent observation of the Mr Smith.

    Everyone that night was looking for a crying, screaming child, even her mother. First overlooked in a darkened bedroom & then subsequently what happened in & around the time of the Smith sighting.

    Motive & opportunity has never been kind to this case. Just look at the obvious. Overlooked, overlooked, never heard & panic!

    Other evidence, i.e. the dogs, splatter in the lounge under the window, is not supported by forensic evidence - therefore not admissible. Always of interest that it was necessary to travel to the UK to obtain Madeleine's pillow for DNA analysis - what was wrong with the bedding in Portugal or personal items.

    If the UK MSM and their well heeled friends, support leaving three very young children, in an unlocked apartment, for four nights. Out of sight and sound of the parents, it a sad day for the children of the UK.

    I appreciate many believe neglect is the cover story for something else. Personally, I believe neglect & panic is the cause & effect. But I don't accept it as an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 17 Mar 2017, 19:18:00

      We will let readers soak in for themselves your theory.

      We would like to correct you on a statement you have made:

      “Other evidence, i.e. the dogs, splatter in the lounge under the window, is not supported by forensic evidence - therefore not admissible.”

      We disagree and have showed that in the following posts:

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/06/clean-party-floor-phenomenon.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/08/super-kid.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/10/remarkable-marksmanship.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/11/dna-bar-code_1.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/11/perhaps-confusing.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/12/does-size-matter.html

      To correct you, we think, as per above, the dog evidence was DEEMED by a very specious, not to say dubious, report by John Lowe to be ‘inadmissible’. We have written this way because the same report can be read in a way that condemns the McCanns.

      But you may disagree with us, and we respect that.

      We think that you agree with us when we say John Lowe found DNA, human DNA, in those stains in the living-room.

      We wrote about that in our post “DNA is… DNA”.
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html

      We have many questions for you but prefer not to disperse, so will ask you one by one.

      Could you start by asking the question we have put in that question, which is if that DNA is not blood than what do you think it is?

      Thank you.

      Delete
  14. Great post thank you.I have a different view of Carlos Anjos he's an ex cop with many friends and pj colleagues I'd imagine,so he's probably talking from insider knowledge. He's not quoting msm although clearly watching. He gives information on the man Sy want to question again and explains their conclusions already on that individual,the way they spoke was quoted factually and never in their opinion. They clearly state when it's opinion based,not so when talking about this Bombshell...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lorraine, we disagree again :).

      We don’t think there’s any solidarity between the officers of the 2 forces, PJ and SY.

      However corporate interests and solidarity there may be in other cases, it stops when things get political and when personal interests start to be jeopardised like, one’s job and one’s capability to put food on one’s family’s table.

      We think you are making a mistake that many make when it comes to Mr Amaral, and that he would have access to the British reality, as in what the police was up to. We are firm believers that ALL those who helped him, or those he thinks helped him, were mandated to help.

      Or, in other words, what he got to know, all those interested in the UK knew, and most of what he was fed, was false or misleading.

      We think Mr Amaral had absolutely no way of knowing who, or dare we say what, he was really up against.

      In much the same way, whatever is being decided on a political level is not, we think, being leaked, even on a personal level to Portugal. Even if only one thinks there are supposed to be only 4 people in the know in Britain, so very quickly that leak would be discovered.

      Delete
  15. Text,thanx for your response however I didn't mention Amaral. Carlos Anjos stating one thing and you another,I believe you are wrong on your assumption of the man and what he may or may not know. No disrespect but these ppl are real investigators retired yes but, not lost the knack or contacts imo. I'm pretty sure if our msm know there's a person of interest,then my monies on Carlos Anjos and Flores knowing a hell of a lot more,especially when you consider Sy have to make requests from Portuguese officials probably some friends of the aforementioned.After the leaks of 2007 do you honestly believe it's stopped and no one gossips at the water cooler anymore :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lorraine, if things were about to be pinned on the July 2014 arguidos drug addict and/or homeless man, the other side wouldn't be running around like a headless chicken in a media frenzy that is shooting in all directions nor allowing death in apartment to be so widely spread.

      Delete
  16. Text.again I never mentioned patsy pinning. We agree on that. I don't think anyone will be charged at all tbh.Imo another excuse for Government to give funds whilst Amaral's case is on going once that is finally over I honestly believe Sy will be too always have. Pj is a review not investigation and in many ppls opinion opened to facilitate Sy,obviously diplomatic relations are more important than Madeleine McCann sadly. X

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is this the level the other side can only stoop to.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3119195/kate-gerry-mccann-marco-pierre-white-jnr-twitter-maddie/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This article is bizarre. I am on twitter (way too much!) and I never saw or was aware of his "rant" til I read this an hour ago. Usually someone will bring anything bashing the mccanns over to the hashtag. In the article it says it was on Thursday. Quick look at his TL & it didn't generate much of a response either way, no way near what KA & D'OB did, still running on days later. So why oh why did Tracey feel the need to run a story on it?!

      Delete
    2. Tis said idle hands are the devils workshop.

      Delete
    3. Bringing article over to blog:

      MADDIE FURY
      Kate and Gerry McCann blast ‘ignorant’ Marco Pierre White Jnr for sick Twitter rant about Maddie

      The troubled reality star tweeted a shocking outburst against the couple

      Exclusive
      By Tracey Kandohla
      17th March 2017, 11:20 pm

      THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann have today hit back at a foul-mouthed Twitter rant by Marco Pierre White Junior saying his cruel taunt is “entirely unjustified.”

      Despairing Kate and Gerry hope “any right minded person will see his totally ignorant abuse for what it is,” their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said.

      The troubled reality star, 22, tweeted a shocking outburst against the couple, who are now bracing themselves for the painful milestone 10th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance in less than seven weeks.

      In what could prove to be a legally “malicious and libellous” posting, he spouted a torrent of hate which he even stupidly mis-spelt.

      Mr Mitchell told The Sun Online: “Kate and Gerry will not be dignifying his foul-mouthed abuse with any other comment.”

      The heavily tattooed model, 22, son of celebrity chef Marco Pierre White, has a well documented problem with both drugs and his own mum.

      He posted on Thursday for his 40,000 Twitter followers to see a vile rant with expletives.

      He wrote: “Kate and Gerry MacCann are f*****g guilty sick mother f*****s defiantly killed there daughter. Look at money (dollar sign) they’ve made out of it in 10 years”

      Big Brother favourite Marco not only mis-spelt the family’s surname documented millions of times but also said “there” daughter instead of “their” and used a dollar symbol, for allegedly bagging cash, instead of a pounds sign.

      A source close to ex-GP Kate, 49, and heart doctor Gerry, 48, form Rothley, Leics, said: “He comes across as a complete and utter idiot. His father must be appalled by his behaviour.

      (Cont.)

      Delete
    4. (Cont.)

      “But even mentioning him and like-minded people might give them some sort of spurious credibility.”

      Three-year-old Maddie vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007 while her parents were dining in a nearby tapas bar.

      The couple are clinging onto a glimmer of hope their daughter could still be alive. She would now be aged 13, nearly 14.

      They previously said in a statement: “We don’t accept that Madeleine is dead until we see evidence, clear evidence, that this is the case. We still have hope.”

      The Sun Online revealed this week how two criminal investigators – an American and Portuguese – joined in the sickening rant against the anguished McCanns.

      Both claimed the British child had died in the Algarve flat and her accidental death was covered up by her parents.

      Respected US profiler Pat Brown states in an outrageous online rant: “There’s no point spending all of this money as nothing they do is going to make that child be found alive.”

      It came after Portuguese author and TV crime expert Moita Flores insisted: “An abduction was extremely unlikely based on the amount of time, evidence at the scene, and every other shred of evidence there has ever been.”

      They spoke out Scotland Yard was granted an extra £85,000 to fund the search for another six months.

      They have been hunting for Maddie for the past six years, on orders in May 2011 from then Prime Minister David Cameron.

      But their investigation, codenamed Operation Grange and running at a near £13 million cost to the taxpayer, has been criticised for failing to unearth any new clues.

      LBC radio host and Social commentator Katie Hopkins, glamour model Jodie Marsh, MP’s estranged wife Karen Danczuk have also criticised Maddie’s parents over the past weeks while on Monday retired Met Police officer Sue Hill slammed on breakfast TV the extra funding they were receiving as a waste of British workers’ hard earned cash.

      Now Marco junior has jumped on the bizarre and cruel bandwagon.

      The McCann pal added: “As if Madeleine’s poor parents didn’t have enough to deal with. It’s nearly a decade since their beloved daughter disappeared and they still have no idea if she is dead or alive.

      "They don’t need armchair detectives and a group of opinionated people trying to garb the headlines by speaking about a family they know absolutely nothing about in a bid to gain a speck of publicity for themselves. It’s appalling.”

      Delete
    5. “Mr Mitchell told The Sun Online: “Kate and Gerry will not be dignifying his foul-mouthed abuse with any other comment.”” so let’s just give him the visibility of an entire newspaper (?) article.

      Quoting ourselves from our post “The McCann trial”:

      “Vector #5 – Discredit truth-seekers

      (…)

      f. Discrediting Hopkins, Williams-Thomas, Marsh and Matthews

      But what we want to point out is the calibre of the people involved in pushing the message of neglect.

      They are being used but one of their use is their ‘unpleasantness’, in the lack of a better word.

      Katie Hopkins is like using a gnarling Rottweiler to convince people that dogs are cuddly, Mark Williams-Thomas is as laughable as is theory and Karen Matthews a convicted woman of a crime against her own daughter.

      As we said, we think Jodie got involved by accident but with all due respect to the woman, her followers are more interested in seeing either parts of her body or what clothes she’s wearing to cover it.”

      To these add, up to yesterday, Piers Morgan, Piers Morgan, Graham Hill, Kirstie Allsopp and Dara O’Briain.

      And now add Marco Pierre White.

      The full current list:
      Katie Hopkins
      Mark Williams-Thomas
      Jodie Marsh
      Karen Matthews
      Karen Danczuk
      Piers Morgan
      Graham Hill
      Kirstie Allsopp
      Dara O’Briain
      Marco Pierre White

      If these people were selling mouthwash, would one put their product in one’s mouth?

      At the end of the day, what matters is that Operation Grange has to come to a conclusion. One that includes a key-witness who filled with enthusiasm both Whitehall and the Home Office.

      Delete
  18. Textusa why do you think that there are contradictions over whether Kate McCann shouted from the balcony rather than ran back to the table. Surely it would have sounded better that she didn't leave the twins when she thought there was a madman stealing babies on the loose. Yet CM apparently reacted furiously over this suggestion by the waiter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because when a liar tells a lie, that lie has to become an integral part of the narrative.

      When 2 liars lie about the same tale, it's bound to happen there being be significant discrepancies between the lies the liars tell.

      When 2 liars lie differently about the same thing, than the most powerful liar's lie has to prevail as the truth for the narrative.

      Delete
    2. Thanks brilliant explanation and so true

      Delete
  19. Kate Liverpool accent is much stronger in relaxed company- I think the Jon Corner interview is a prime example. After a couple of bottles of wine, I'm sure it would be even more so.

    "They" is used frequently in place of he/she, as a quick Youtube search for Harry Enfield's "The Scousers" would show. This feature of the accent is the basis for many of the jokes.

    "Theev tachen er" is how it would probably be spoken, and doesn't mean more than one person, just someone of unknown gender.

    Like the poster above, the question is why insist that it wasn't said, any not just clarify and move on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 18 Mar 2017, 11:26:00,

      Your comment has generated a debate within team. So decided to share with readers our thesis-antithesis-synthesis about it and let readers come to their own conclusions as always:

      Team member #1:
      Agree with last comment
      ‘They’ is used in everyday language in UK meaning he or she, not just be Liverpudlians.
      As in – our house was burgled, they took everything – when we don't know if there was one person or not.

      Team member #2:
      I disagree.
      It has to do with a subtlety difficult to explain.
      When one is certain, one uses ‘they’ as you say.
      Certain about what happened and not necessarily about who did it.
      In K's case, a first reaction would be to say ‘someone’ took her, as if to give a plausible explanation.
      In your example, it would be on, a first reaction – our house was burgled, someone broke in – and then later like you say, they took everything.
      With K, once confirmed abduction, she would then later say ‘they’ in the sense you say, as not meaning plural.
      Not sure if I explained it well.

      Team member #1:
      I understand.
      I believe K's use of ‘they’ indicates a real knowledge of more than one person but was just pointing out that the expression is common and therefore can’t be conclusive.
      I would have thought something like – my daughter M is missing from her room, please help to look for her. Someone might have taken her, she could have been abandoned somewhere…
      I also agree with your sequence
      First ‘someone’ then later ‘they’.
      Maybe a good answer to that comment?

      Delete
    2. "They" is more undetermined than "someone" as it involves the indetermination of number as well.
      What surprises me is that the child is treated like an object, as if she was bound to be passive, as if she didn't react at all in the stealing operation. They've taken my father's golden watch, ok, but they've taken my child, weird. Now they've taken the cadaver, afraid that DNA would betray them, sounds all right.

      Delete
    3. ''They'' or ''they've'' is also the infantile blame game. THEY did it. Therefore, not me! Cilla Black was a prime example of someone who would slip between being one of the people and otherwise educated & travelled, which is why it's difficult to attribute the use of the word ''they've'' to Kate's immediate reaction, although it might be an indication of stress, as much as anything. Who knows!

      Delete
    4. As it is pretty difficult to search for a child whom you know isn't findable, it is hard to scream pathetically that the child has been abducted when you know she wasn't. So one tends to repeat lines including metonymies heard quite often in series, like "they've taken the Picasso" for instance.

      Delete
    5. i picture a desperate shocked Kate McCann almost child like looking to the rest of the group pleading they,ve taken her. She knew that they as in some prearranged fixers were going to move the child but the shock of discovering her gone was too final for her.

      Delete
  20. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3121387/kate-mccann-sue-maddie-book/

    'IT'S NOT ABOUT MAKING MONEY'
    Kate McCann threatens to sue social media users for stealing extracts from best seller book about missing Maddie

    She has also hit out at claims she is cashing in on her daughter’s disappearance

    Exclusive
    By Tracey Kandohla
    18th March 2017, 2:24 pm
    Updated: 18th March 2017, 3:11 pm

    FURIOUS Kate McCann is threatening legal action against social media users stealing extracts from the best seller book she wrote about missing daughter Madeleine.

    The mum warns them: “It is illegal and you are violating copyright.”

    She has also hit out at claims she is cashing in on her daughter’s disappearance, saying: “For those posting that we are trying to make money, you are absolutely wrong.”

    In a rare online reaction Maddie’s mum has vented her anger on a Facebook page promoting the hunt for her daughter.

    The official Find Maddie Campaign is endorsed by ex GP Kate and heart doctor husband Gerry of Rothley, Leics. All posts by the site’s un-named web chief, a mum who runs the site with a group of fellow supporters, are approved by the couple.

    On Kate’s behalf she today writes: “I would like to remind those who are sharing Kate’s book online, you are violating copyright law.

    “Kate’s publisher has notified Facebook and other social media networks of the links and people engaging in this illegal activity.

    “You risk having your Facebook account terminated and could face prosecution brought by the publisher. Downloading and sharing copyrighted material is illegal.”

    The Webmaster urges campaigners: “If you see Kate’s book posted online out of the normal ways to purchase an e-book, please let us know.

    “We will notify Kate’s publisher and they will have the links removed and determine if the person posting should be prosecuted.”

    Kate, 49, and Gerry, 48, are bracing themselves for the painful milestone 10th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance in less than seven weeks.

    Three-year-old Maddie vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007 while her parents were dining in a nearby tapas bar with pals.

    They are clinging onto a glimmer of hope that Maddie, who would now be aged 13, nearly 14, would still be alive.

    The McCann’s have recently been subjected to a cruel torrent of online abuse from minor celebrities and so-called criminal experts.

    (Cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. (Cont.)

    They spouted off after it was revealed Scotland Yard had been handed an extra £85,000 of taxpayers’ money to continue the Maddie hunt. So far the inquiry codenamed Operation Grange and set up in May 2011 has failed to unearth any new clues.

    The Campaign Webmaster adds: “For those posting that we are trying to make money, you are absolutely wrong! By posting the book online, you are stealing from the publisher.

    “Kate was given an advance for her book which was put into the fund. This isn’t about us making money. It’s about participating in an illegal activity and stealing from the publisher, which is punishable under the law. If you don’t want to purchase the book, that’s fine. Just don’t steal it!”

    In May 2011 Kate penned her memoirs “to give an account of the truth” and to help boost the dwindling public fund set up to find her daughter.

    The £20 book simply called “Madeleine” and published by Transworld, part of Bantam Press, was a huge success. It was serialised by The Sun newspaper.

    It netted her £1million from sales which went straight into the Maddie pot.

    In the forward to the 383-page hardback the anguished mum wrote: “The decision to publish this book has been very difficult, and taken with heavy hearts. Writing this memoir has entailed recording some very personal, intimate and emotional aspects of our lives. Sharing these with strangers does not come easily to me.”

    The website states: Here's where you can legally purchase Kate's book. http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/madeleine_book.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering the book was to help find M, one would think K would want the info out there, providing the whole book wasn't being provided online against copyright.

      Delete
    2. We stand corrected.

      In our latest post “Extreme backfiring” we said that we were back in 2007.

      We are wrong, we are not back in 2007 but 2011.

      The clocks have turned back to the exact moment when David Cameron opened Operation Grange.

      What is the difference between May 2011 and September 2007?

      For starters, the PJ Files that were released only in July 2008.

      But also Kate’s book. A very important self-incriminatory piece, written back then to have the McCanns tie themselves up in knots.

      We were just reminded of that. That there is this book that can be used against the McCanns.

      Delete
    3. Fair use prevails as Supreme Court rejects Google Books copyright case

      Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement in US intellectual property law.

      David Kravets (US) - 18/4/2016

      The Supreme Court on Monday declined (PDF) to hear a challenge from the Authors Guild and other writers claiming Google's scanning of their books amounts to wanton copyright infringement and not fair use.

      The guild urged the high court to review a lower court decision in favor of Google that the writers said amounted to an "unprecedented judicial expansion of the fair-use doctrine." (PDF)

      At issue is a June decision (PDF) by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals that essentially said it's legal to scan books if you don't own the copyright. The Authors' Guild originally sued Google, saying that serving up search results from scanned books infringes on publishers' copyrights even though the search giant shows only restricted snippets of the work. The writers also claimed that Google's book search snippets provide an illegal free substitute for their work and that Google Books infringes their "derivative rights" in revenue they could gain from a "licensed search" market.

      The Supreme Court let stand the lower court opinion that rejected the writers' claims. That decision today means Google Books won't have to close up shop or ask book publishers for permission to scan. In the long run, the ruling could inspire other large-scale digitization projects.

      Fair use is a concept baked into US copyright law, and it's a defense to copyright infringement if certain elements are met. The US Copyright Office says the defense is decided on a case-by-case basis. "The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission," the US Copyright Office says. There are, however, at least four factors that judges must consider when deciding fair use: the purpose of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market.
      https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/04/supreme-court-google-books-fair-use-copyright-case/

      Delete
  22. They had to get an advert in for the bewk somehow...

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't think that Google Books would have put large extracts on line without being solicited.
    https://books.google.pt/books?id=PIT6SeWkVcAC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  24. PJGA

    18 Mar 2017
    Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão

    Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.

    The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".

    In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:

    1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

    2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

    3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.
    http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much, Anonymous 18 Mar 2017, 20:49:00,

      On a very first read - meaning we may not be correct - but memory tells us that when SJC said "that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants" was quoting the archiving dispatch and not giving an opinion, so hardly can it be considered a presumption and much less an erroneous one.

      What seems the McCann team wants to see debated, is whether that archiving dispatch means, or not, the presumption of justice and we think the SJC has answered it: yes, it does.

      What seems is not asked, probably on purpose, is if presumption of innocence means innocence. It doesn't. The SJC has said that very clearly.

      Delete
    2. http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2017/03/arguicao-de-nulidade-do-acordao.html

      Having read the document, we would recommend readers open the original document and 'read' it even if you don't understand a word of Portuguese.

      The font is quite insulting, using big letters as if writing to a 3 year old who requires that parts of the text be written in large letters to understand their importance.

      In terms of content, it's quite amusing to read that they defend that the interpretation made by the court could only be true if there were new elements.

      Which begs the question, if those elements do arise, and they are accepting they can, which would prove them not innocent, then wouldn't be declaring them innocent now be proven wrong?

      Delete
  25. After having read the thing – to describe it using the words it deserves would mean having to stoop to vulgar language – 3 or 4 times (needed to really understand one is really reading a document addressed to a Supreme Court of a nation, I almost skipped finding the bit about frivolity so distracted I was:

    “Visto isto, parece aos Recorrentes que essa Secção do STJ não pode levianamente vir dizer no acórdão agora reclamado, necessariamente sem cair e ostensiva contradição de fundamentos, que o arquivamento em apreço "foi determinado por não ter sido possível ao Mº Pº obter indícios suficientes da prática de crimes pelos recorrentes (cfr. o nº 2, do citado art. 277º)”

    My translation:

    “This seen, it looks like to the Appellants that that Section of the SJC cannot frivolously come to say in the acórdão now being complained, without necessarily falling in an ostensive contradiction of grounds that the archival under appreciation “was determined for not being possible to the Public Ministry obtain enough indicia of the practice of crime by the appellants (as per nº2, of the quoted art.º 277º)”

    To note the above written took 7 of the 15 lines of text that filled an entire page. Yes, a page with 15 lines, so big was some of the font used and the spaces between paragraphs.

    As a friend has just said, it looks like a school paper that had to have 9 pages, and the student could only come up with 4 pages of information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bet that this document will have some difficulty just to be read by the STJ judges, unless they have patience and benevolence to spare. Luckily it's extremely short, but arrogant, yes, though it is evident that Dra Duarte's assistant, who signed it (he's the one who made the final kilometrical and soporific allegations of the first instance judgement), reads in documents, if he reads, only the reality that suits him.

      Delete
    2. I'm not Portuguese but I feel ashamed. The poor guy, always sent on the battle front when any chance of surviving is excluded, is what we call in French a fuse. Being highly meltable, the fuse protects big or little brother.

      Delete
  26. DO NOT PUBLISH at 18 Mar 2017, 23:20:00,

    Unfortunately agree fully with what you say and will be waiting for the end-result :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/780952/family-man-interviewed-over-Madeleine-McCann-call-police-close-case

    Family of man interviewed over Madeleine McCann call on police to close case

    THE family of a man interviewed over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have called on police to close the case.

    By James Murray, In Praia da Luz
    PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Mar 19, 2017

    They claim it lacks evidence, is casting a cloud over their lives and is unfair.

    Their relative is one of three men living in the Algarve town of Praia da Luz named in the Portuguese press as “arguidos” – a legal term loosely translated as “suspects”.

    Scotland Yard detectives felt the trio should be interviewed, as phone records suggested they were in contact when Madeleine was taken on May 3, 2007.

    All denied having anything to with the three year old when interviewed three years ago by Portuguese detectives with Scotland Yard officers present.

    Two have jobs and the other suffers from mental health problems.

    He has told friends the continuing investigation is unjustified and is affecting his health. None can be named for legal reasons.

    However, a sibling of one of the men said: “This investigation is just so unfair.

    “My brother is 100 per cent innocent. He has spoken with police, like the others, but he cannot talk about it because of judicial secrecy laws in Portugal. “He is working, has a responsible job and just wants to get on with his life without this cloud hanging over him.”

    The man works on the Algarve in the tourism industry and has a wide circle of friends who are standing by him.

    One said: “All this nonsense has affected him. He was the centre of the party years ago, before all this, and loved hanging out with his friends, going to parties, cycling around town and just having a good time.

    “Now he likes to lead a quiet life and tells friends he wants all this to go away.

    “Like everyone in Luz he wants the mystery to be solved.

    “This investigation by Scotland Yard has gone on too long. If they can’t get anywhere, they should speak to the Portuguese authorities and let them formally close it down.

    “The file would be shelved again and only opened if there is a significant development. That is more fair than having a cloud of suspicion hanging over the Algarve.”

    The Home Office has given the Yard’s Operation Grange team £85,000 more, to fund the four-strong team, headed by Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Wall, who are looking into the case.

    The Portuguese are in charge of the case and the Yard has to work closely with them to carry out enquiries.

    Some newspapers in Portugal have suggested a man Scotland Yard want interviewed further – not one of the three men – had links to the Ocean Club, from where Madeleine went missing.

    There was also a report that the Yard wants to speak to a homeless drifter on the Algarve, allegedly involved in petty theft on the day Madeleine disappeared.

    As the 10th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance approaches, Scotland Yard is considering what to do to capitalise on the global interest in the case.

    So far officers have ruled out producing an “age progression” picture of what Madeline would look like at 13 and are reluctant to hold a press conference.

    But a high-ranking officer may give television and radio interviews.

    Madeleine’s parents Kate, 49, and Gerry McCann, 48, a heart expert, are considering giving one television interview, possibly to Piers Morgan or ITV News presenter Mary Nightingale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And we stand corrected AGAIN!

      We said it was now a farce. No, it’s not a farce. It’s a Monty Python sketch.

      And now for something completely different…

      Delete
    2. Ah! but the more things change the more they stay the same.
      Interesting none the less in that its the Express that is running with the story about the interviewee and his family regarding it as unfair.

      Delete
    3. We owe an apology to James Murray and of course to our readers.

      Last night, flabbergasted, shocked or whatever else I was after having read the original complaint document submitted by the McCann legal team that I failed to capture the true meaning of this article.

      It not only supports what we said in post, as it confirms it as it also wags a finger at those who pointed towards the July 2014 arguidos.

      It says this quite clearly (our caps):

      “Some newspapers in Portugal have suggested a man Scotland Yard want interviewed further – NOT ONE OF THE THREE MEN – had links to the Ocean Club, from where Madeleine went missing.

      There was ALSO a report that the Yard wants to speak to a homeless drifter on the Algarve, allegedly involved in petty theft on the day Madeleine disappeared”

      The man SY is interested in, or the key-witness, is NOT any of the July 2014 arguidos.

      If there is an interest in a homeless man – article doesn’t say there is, just ventures the possibility – then it’s NONE of the July 2014 arguidos.

      Basically this article comes in defense of the July 2014 arguidos and says leave them alone and stop using them as an excuse for the key-witness.

      Unfortunately this whole affair is a farce and good things do sometimes appear farcical.

      Again, our apologies.

      Delete
  28. https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/874-we-have-a-problem-with-the-website.html
    I wonder why?
    Strange a website would only have a problem with 2 pages. The gallery may be understandable if it's a database added to the server but a home page is different. Normally a site would say routine maintenance being done.
    There must be items on both those pages that needs to be removed?

    ReplyDelete
  29. So James Murray now echoing Carlos Anjos's noon burglar :-) I won't say I told ya so lol x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might read it that way, Lorraine but our understanding is that Murray is trying to stop any and all echoing that key-witness may be any of the July 2014 arguidos.

      Key-witness is NOT one of them says Murray and we think Anjos was referring to one of them.

      If it's another homeless man Anjos was referring to who he thinks may be the man of interest to SY, then we are here waiting to be told all the details.

      Delete
  30. …and let’s continue to fuel the “abduction-negligence” debate. Interesting to note that this article is by “Mirror.co.uk”. No reporter willing to lend their name to it?

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-hopkins-brands-injustice-mccanns-10055899

    Katie Hopkins brands it an 'injustice' the McCanns didn't face punishment for leaving children alone - and asks why Kate washed Madeleine's toy
    The new comments, made in an interview with Jodie Marsh, will reignite the row between the parents of missing Madeleine McCann

    By Mirror.co.uk
    11:33, 19 MAR 2017
    Updated12:00, 19 MAR 2017

    Scathing Katie Hopkins has said it is an injustice that Gerry and Kate McCann did not face any punishment for leaving their children alone on the evening Madeleine was snatched.

    Her fiery comments, which were made in a YouTube interview with Jodie Marsh, are set to reignite the row with the McCanns and the columnist.

    Mum-of-three Kate, who opted for baby blue pyjamas for "in bed" chat with Jodie, said she thought any other parent would have faced very different circumstances if their child was snatched - and she slammed the parents for washing Madeline's beloved Cuddle Cat.

    Just four weeks ago Hopkins was slammed by many Twitter users for her insensitivity to the McCanns, who continue to hunt for clues on what happened to their daughter, who went missing during a family holiday in Portugal in May 2007.

    The three year-old disappeared while her parents were eating in a nearby Tapas restaurant but there has never been any evidence of negligence by the McCanns.

    In the 90 minute interview, Hopkins said: "If it was any other parent they would not have got this special treatment, the injustice of it all. I wouldn't leave my kids, even if they were in sight, even if they were in a hotel room."

    And then referring to Kate washing Madeleine's toy - Hopkins was extremely scathing.

    "My children's beds, they all have a rabbit, there are three of those toys, I know that they can't be washed," she said.

    "When you have a baby and you wake up the next morning... you look at it, and you say that's mine .I know can never let that thing be hurt. You have this thing - I call it the fear and it's with you.

    "The idea that someone would, touch that thing, take that thing, that's with you always. I know those teddies and I would never leave them again...

    "I would take that child with me in case they could see me they could know I still cared.

    "I would never leave that, I think that's what we struggle with with the Mccanns.

    "I don't really mind what happened but I do mind if that same situation happened people who came from normal families, maybe council houses, whatever home you have it doesn't matter, I didn't come from anything, something different would have happened.

    "And I thinks in an injustice thing we talk about its not them as parents, I am not bothered by them personally but I feel it's an injustice for people who would have been treated differently.

    "It's an emotional thing."

    Hopkins made controversial comments on her radio show - blaming the McCanns for leaving their children alone - adding: "I've always said, you know, I don't believe we should have spent £11 million pounds, for example, to look for Maddie.

    "And I do not believe we've seen an equal treatment."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An interesting paragraph suggesting there's never been any negligence! We all know that's true...

      Delete
    2. Nothing like 2 women in pjs talking in bed about something to give it the seriousness it deserves...

      Delete
  31. Shocker never saw that coming lol

    Madeleine’s parents Kate, 49, and Gerry McCann, 48, a heart expert, are considering giving one television interview, possibly to Piers Morgan or ITV News presenter Mary Nightingale.

    Must have turned down the 30+ Mitchell had lined up last year :-)

    ReplyDelete
  32. The following is taken from a screengrab of a comment in a FB page made by Pamela Gurney:

    “Pamela Gurney
    58 mins

    Right everyone, listen up please!

    The Sun is publishing untruths.

    Operation Grange have never stated they are chasing after anybody in Luz. They have stated they are not in the business of giving a running commentary and they are not doing so now.

    Take all you read from Tracey Kandhola with a large pinch of salt as she is making it ALL up, including Kate & Gerry saying they are going to sue ALL trolls. It is rubbish, although I hope one day the police will prosecute a good few of the ringleaders.”

    It’s official then, Tracey Kandhola is not to be believed. She must have been one real happy chick when she read this.

    Antonella was never treated this way, it must be said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what's going on with this? I do think Tracey Kandhola has been stirring the pot with her stories but why is Pamela Gurney the one to be so vocal? How connected is she? Would she have the Mcann's backing to say this?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 19 Mar 2017, 20:02:00,

      Maybe because some of the FOUR July 2016 arguidos are too close to home, so to speak, so best not only not attract attention to them but do the utmost to drive it away from them?

      Just speculating, of course.

      Delete
  33. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3128358/maddie-mccanns-parents-fight-tooth-and-nail-if-prosecuted-over-leaving-kids-alone/

    FIGHTING THEIR CORNER
    Maddie McCann’s parents vow to fight ‘tooth and nail’ if they are ever prosecuted over leaving their kids alone

    The 10-year milestone of Maddie's mysterious disappearance is looming

    Exclusive
    By Tracey Kandohla
    19th March 2017, 9:39 pm
    Updated: 19th March 2017, 9:50 pm


    THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann vowed they would have “fought tooth and nail” if they had ever been prosecuted for abandoning their missing daughter and her twin brother and sister, a close pal has revealed.

    As outspoken radio host Katie Hopkins today brands it an “injustice” that Kate and Gerry escaped punishment for leaving three children alone during a family holiday, their friend said: “They were well aware they could have been charged with child neglect and naturally very concerned.

    “But in legal terms they were doing everything well within the bounds of respectable parenting.”

    The source insists: “Any legal action against them would have failed.

    The McCanns left their three children, all under the age of four, asleep in a holiday apartment in Portugal while they were dining nearby with pals.

    The couple could have faced jail under Portuguese law if they had ever faced a charge of abandonment and been convicted.

    Mum-of-three Katie, in a global YouTube interview with glamour model Jodie Marsh, claims they should never have escaped justice.

    She also claimed Kate was insensitive for ever washing her snatched daughter’s favourite cuddly toy, Cuddle Cat.

    Three-year-old Maddie vanished from the un-locked doored flat in The Algarve’s Praia da Luz in May 2007.

    Her parents chose not to pay for a baby sitting service while they ate and drank in a tapas bar with chums, dubbed the Tapas Seven.

    Ex GP Kate, 49, and heart doctor Gerry, 48, of Rothley, Leics, were never prosecuted for abandoning their kids out of “compassion”, a former Portuguese law chief revealed last year.

    Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed the decision not to charge the McCann’s with “the crime of abandonment.”

    He revealed in a TV interview how top officials, out of “compassion” for the parents, ruled out charges citing Brits’ “peculiar cultural customs, thinking it is natural for them to leave children alone.”

    Last week the McCanns faced fresh misery when a Portuguese crime expert spouted further outrageous claims over their daughter’s disappearance.

    In a shocking TV outburst Francisco Moita Flores said: “Maddie died in that apartment, I have no doubt.”

    Hopkins had previously stated on national LBC Radio: “Maddie was lost because she was left to be found.”

    Marsh, in a Twitter rant, added that her parents should be searching “on their hands and knees digging up the bare earth rather than be side-tracked and busying themselves suing people.”

    Maddie’s parents are bracing themselves for the painful milestone 10th anniversary of her disappearance in less than seven weeks.

    They cling onto a glimmer of hope that their daughter, who would now be aged 13, could still be alive.

    McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell today declined to discuss the latest rant, having previously said: “Kate and Gerry will not be fuelling any of this pure speculation with any comment whatsoever.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quoting ourselves:

      “#4. Stoke and keep the fire of the popular trial of the McCanns very much alive and strong by pursuing negligence relentlessly. It will always be, until the fat lady sings, the window of opportunity for a bungled burglary, for a Ben Needham finish, for archival and most importantly it is what provides the alibi from the crime scene.”

      Now the McCanns are coming out and saying they accept the legitimacy of the popular tribunal AKA lynching mob.

      All because of the Hopkins-Marsh pyjama party! Surprised? We aren’t.

      Maybe someone who is pals with the Gurneys could go over there – we’re kidding! – and just ask Pam if is this is something from Kandhola we should believe or is it just the usual bs?

      Better not, no need to take your off your slippers, as we already know the answer.

      Delete
    2. Comment picked up from the Justice For Madeleine FB page:
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/permalink/1287937854635619/

      Heather Hopper - I waded through the sexual banter and the wishing for a gay son and bigger boobs. Imo a wasted opportunity. Thousands will watch that video for one reason or another and the only fleeting mentions of Madeleine McCann were relating to neglect and the opportunity for abduction because of this supposed neglect. Yes a wasted opportunity.
      Unlike · Reply · 4 · 5 mins

      Delete
  34. There is evidence within statements they planned listening service before leaving .uk but whether neglectful or not the apartment was locked and cadaver odour takes 90 minutes to settle no one could have taken Madeleine without McCann's knowledge they were checking every 30 minutes according to them,so they ruled out their own abduction alibi

    ReplyDelete
  35. Cadaver odour doesn't take 90 minutes to settle, no, in a series of double blind experiences (US 1996-97) in a closed building ONE dog among 16 managed to smell death on a pad that had been in contact for 20 minutes with a body whose post-mortem interval (PMI) was 85 minutes. The question was when does a dog stops smelling an individual living scent to smell a universal cadaver scent. All dogs identified pads with residual scent (no visible or palpable substance) of PMI between 150' and 180'.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/20/14/18/madeleine-mccann-cadaver-sniffer-dogs-reaction-apartment-car-didnt-make-sense


    Bampots

    ReplyDelete
  37. The notoriously reliable Dr. Gerry McCann, saviour of the NHS, husband of the ambassador of Missing People and the Missing People choir and tireless pursuer of bungling police officers and uncurable trolls, has a problem: the dogs are definitely back in business. As they have always been.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you very much Bampots!
    Bringing article over to the blog:

    http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/20/14/18/madeleine-mccann-cadaver-sniffer-dogs-reaction-apartment-car-didnt-make-sense

    Crime
    2:18pm March 20, 2017

    Gerry and Kate's reaction to sniffer dogs hitting on McCann holiday apartment and rental car 'didn't make sense'

    By
    Mark Saunokonoko

    The footage of sniffer dogs searching the McCann's holiday apartment and rental car was one of the most jarring moments to emerge from the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.

    Gerry and Kate McCann, who resolutely claim Maddie was abducted, have always questioned the reliability and objectivity of British dogs Eddie and Keela, despite their impressive credentials.

    During those searches, Eddie, a cadaver dog trained to detect the odour of a dead body, is seen alerting and barking in Kate and Gerry's bedroom of holiday apartment 5A.

    Eddie also "hits" and barks loudly behind a blue couch in the living room of the Praia da Luz apartment where the McCann family stayed in 2007.

    A second sniffer dog, Keela, trained only to detect human blood, also alerted behind the couch.

    Six days later, on August 6, both dogs alerted on a Renault Scenic rental car the McCann's hired 25 days after Madeleine vanished.

    Though the work of cadaver and blood dogs cannot be submitted as evidence, investigators hoped Eddie and Keela would provide crucial clues as to what might have happened to Maddie on May 3.

    Just days after the dogs finished searching, the McCanns were sensationally named 'arguidos' (a person being questioned under caution) by Portugal's Policia Judiciaria. Ten months later, Kate and Gerry were cleared of 'arguido' status.

    US criminal profiler Pat Brown, who for almost a decade has studied the case and written extensively on Madeleine's disappearance, described Kate and Gerry's reaction to the sniffer dogs as "just not right".

    "What dogs do is either help you find a body or they help you understand what happened to a body or that there has been a body there," Brown told Nine.com.au.

    "[The McCann's] reaction to the dogs hitting on things, their reaction and behaviour was incorrect. It didn't make sense," Brown claimed.

    Brown believed it strange that the McCann's did not appear "very concerned" that the work of the dogs indicated a dead body had been in their Algarve holiday apartment.

    The footage of sniffer dogs searching the McCann's holiday apartment and rental car was one of the most jarring moments to emerge from the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.

    Gerry and Kate McCann, who resolutely claim Maddie was abducted, have always questioned the reliability and objectivity of British dogs Eddie and Keela, despite their impressive credentials.

    During those searches, Eddie, a cadaver dog trained to detect the odour of a dead body, is seen alerting and barking in Kate and Gerry's bedroom of holiday apartment 5A.

    Eddie also "hits" and barks loudly behind a blue couch in the living room of the Praia da Luz apartment where the McCann family stayed in 2007.

    (Cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  39. (Cont.)

    A second sniffer dog, Keela, trained only to detect human blood, also alerted behind the couch.

    Six days later, on August 6, both dogs alerted on a Renault Scenic rental car the McCann's hired 25 days after Madeleine vanished.

    Though the work of cadaver and blood dogs cannot be submitted as evidence, investigators hoped Eddie and Keela would provide crucial clues as to what might have happened to Maddie on May 3.

    Just days after the dogs finished searching, the McCanns were sensationally named 'arguidos' (a person being questioned under caution) by Portugal's Policia Judiciaria. Ten months later, Kate and Gerry were cleared of 'arguido' status.

    US criminal profiler Pat Brown, who for almost a decade has studied the case and written extensively on Madeleine's disappearance, described Kate and Gerry's reaction to the sniffer dogs as "just not right".

    "What dogs do is either help you find a body or they help you understand what happened to a body or that there has been a body there," Brown told Nine.com.au.

    "[The McCann's] reaction to the dogs hitting on things, their reaction and behaviour was incorrect. It didn't make sense," Brown claimed.

    Brown believed it strange that the McCann's did not appear "very concerned" that the work of the dogs indicated a dead body had been in their Algarve holiday apartment.

    The crime expert, who as part of her repertoire analyses human behaviour, pointed out that the McCanns could just be "off the charts as an anomaly" when it comes to ways people might typically react to events. Brown added it was in no way a singular sign of anything untoward.

    Another possible explanation, unrelated to Brown's analysis, was that Kate and Gerry simply could not bring themselves to concede Maddie had died.

    During a 2009 television interview with Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueira, Gerry McCann was asked about the cadaver dogs alerting to the scent of a dead body in apartment 5A and their rental car.

    "I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they're incredibly unreliable," McCann replied.

    Kate McCann made similar assertions in the book she wrote about her family's ordeal, titled Madeleine.

    Sniffer dogs Eddie and Keela had been brought to Praia da Luz in July 2007 at the request of Mark Harrison, a British investigator and national adviser to UK police, who specialises in searching for people missing, abducted or murdered.

    Harrison's remit from Portugal's Policia Judiciaria was to solely explore the possibility that Madeleine had been murdered and her body was concealed in surrounding areas, according to police files.

    In one of his preliminary reports, Harrison said any alerts by the dogs may suggest that a body had been in the property and then removed. He added "no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence".

    As Harrison delivered his report, Policia Judiciaria were submitting and awaiting results on forensic evidence taken from behind the sofa in apartment 5A and the boot of the Renault car.

    A British scientist from the now defunct Forensic Science Service, John Lowe, came back to Portugal's detectives with forensic results that appeared inconclusive but open to interpretation.

    In a September 3, 2007 email, Lowe stated the swab taken from behind the sofa produced an "incomplete DNA result".

    However, Lowe continued: "All of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann".

    (Cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. (Cont.)

    Lowe said his testing of the swab from behind the sofa could not determine what kind of bodily fluid made up the DNA sample.

    But, as would be later noted by the handler of sniffer dog Keela, his canine was only trained to alert to human blood, nothing else.

    The forensics taken from the boot of the Renault Scenic was judged by Lowe to be "too complex for meaningful inclusion and interpretation".

    However, Lowe also concluded that 15 of 19 components present in the sample could be linked to Madeleine.

    Though "complex", the forensic results from the rental car mean it was possible that Madeleine may have been present in the Renault Scenic.

    In his book, Goncalo Amaral, the Portuguese detective the McCanns tried to silence, said his team confirmed nobody had ever died in apartment 5A, prior to the arrival of Madeleine's family.

    Martin Grime, the handler of cadaver dog Eddie, said the dog appeared immediately "very excited" when they arrived at the door of 5A.

    "As soon [Eddie] has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises," Grimes said in a police interview in August 2007.

    He detailed how the dog barked in two places in the apartment, in the bedroom close to a large wardrobe with shelves, and behind the sofa.

    "What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that," Grimes said in the interview.

    Grimes also added in the police report that the work of his dogs Eddie and Keela should be backed up and confirmed with corroborating evidence, such as forensics.

    Cadaver dogs are used widely by Australian police forces to locate dead and missing bodies, according to NSW Dog Unit Commander, Acting Superintendent Sheridan Waldau.

    A/Supt Waldau told Nine.com.au he was unsure how cadaver dogs were used in the McCann case, but that his unit can "detect minute amounts of blood or remains across large designated area".

    "Cadaver dogs … have proven vital to uncovering evidence in past investigations," he added.

    Several studies have tried to pinpoint the minimum length of time it takes for a dead body to emit a cadaver odour.

    A 2007 study from the University of Bern in Switzerland recorded highly trained dogs accurately alerting to cadaver scent within three hours of a person dying.

    Other studies have shown human corpses with begin to emit cadaver that dogs can detect within 90 minutes of death.

    NEXT UP: More insight and analysis from criminal profiler Pat Brown; follow me on Twitter for next instalment

    READ MORE:Scotland Yard investigation into Maddie's disappearance like a 'ridiculous charade'

    © Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2017

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The article contains the video showing the dogs.

      All the article states is TRUE and is why we FULLY support the promoting, as widespread as possible, of Pat Brown's 'negligence and sedation' theory even though we don't agree with her.

      Delete
  41. 'Not for publishing' Anonymous at 19 Mar 2017, 13:22:00 and 19 Mar 2017, 13:32:00,

    Apologies for the late reply.

    We think the threshold was set BELOW Freud and not above him. The people you mention are above him, so in our opinion not much concerned about the outcome of the case.

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.fox13news.com/trending/242474019-story

    This is why Mcs wouldn't leave kids by themselves

    ReplyDelete
  43. Strongly recommend the reading of this post:

    https://joana-morais.blogspot.pt/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We stand corrected. Unfortunately in this case and not because we were proven wrong but because, unlike we said, the process involves more people of the Supreme Justice Court than we thought it would for a complaint. From Joana Morais' post:

      "It should be noted that a request for the annulment of a Supreme Court of Justice ruling is exceptional, rare. And that this request has a suspensory effect. Being suspensive, means that all the consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling are suspended, that is, there is no final and unappealable decision, and therefore, the decision is not definitive and can not be fulfilled, meaning, yes, that Gonçalo Amaral will have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court on the request for annulment.

      Gonçalo Amaral was notified of the request for the annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling. As there is always the right to adversarial proceedings, Gonçalo Amaral can respond, saying that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice does not warrant any rectification or criticism. Then all parties have to await for the ruling of the Supreme Court's conference.

      The totality of the judges of the civil section is the conference, the request will be assessed by all judges of the civil section of the Supreme Court of Justice, including those who have deliberated on the judgement called into question. The mechanism should be similar to the distribution of the appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice.

      As for the forecast date of the decision, in the Supreme Court of Justice the deadlines are extended. The judges will first submit the draft judgement, then the conference of judges will gather in order to assess the draft, then they will see if there are more votes in favour of or against, then it will be decided what the ruling is, after the judge rapporteur will write the final wording of the judgement according to what was decided by the conference, then the conference will reconvene for the final vote of the decision and for the presentation of the defeated votes, if there are any."

      Delete
    2. A long drawn out process it seems. How long it will take this time? Unfortunately, even after all these years, I doubt the court will give any consideration to the fact that GA's assets are still frozen.

      Delete
    3. Every move of Team McCann, leading to tons of paperwork, weeks, not to say months of evaluating, intensive studying, wording and rewording of interpretations and clarifications, always points in the same direction: utmost discomfort. Not because of the loss of their daughter but the loss of their reputation. They created this situation themselves, on a day in may, now almost 10 years ago. It's like an avalanche. It takes everything with it on its way down: the people they've caused it, the people who happen to be in the region and sometimes those who rush to aid. But anyone who already has experienced an avalanche from nearby knows that when it stops the silence is deafening. And then ... the searches and clearance works can start.

      Delete
    4. The same process exists in the ECHR, the decision belonging to the ECHR, but the grounds for submitting a request to the plenary assembly have to be very special and serious.
      How shall we know whether the plea for nullity is considered acceptable or not ? Does Joana's jurist know ?
      If the plea is accepted I'd like to see the judges' faces looking, before reading, at the document.

      Delete
    5. I've read JM blog
      It's all very complex
      My understanding is that archiving was done under wrong section 277/1 when it should have been 277/2, the latter being when insufficient evidence to proceed rather than no evidence against arguidos.
      However, SCJ clarified this and made their decision on understanding of insufficient evidence. So the complaint has no grounds?

      Also that Mcs may have forced a clarification of Archiving Dispatch that may rule definitively that they remain potential suspects and that further evidence could be used to make them arguidos again?

      The process seems laborious and even if rare, shows SCJ can in effect, be appealed, call it whatever - complaint -contrary to what we all thought.
      That also ECHR is unlikely to accept any appeal as SCJ made a ref to this possibility when arriving at their decision, so had made a ruling with this possibility in mind.
      As I understand, even if ECHR accepted, it wouldn't stop any final decision from Portugal being implemented.
      It could take years and only a small number of cases submitted are accepted.
      It would be an action against the Portuguese State which would be a huge insult by the Mcs.
      But narcissism knows no bounds, particularly when they are cornered.

      Delete
    6. Thinking twice, you see that it is the only chance ever for the MCs to have their innocence sanctioned. OG is no hypothesis. Be certified innocents is imo what counts for them more than anything else.
      Joana M. raised the idea that asserting the exoneration by filing order was perhaps deliberate. An attempt to obtain innocence sanctioned, hoping that the STJ wouldn't notice ? They would lose, yes, but they would exhibit the ruling as confirming innocence ? Or, and this is what's happening, the ruling would be exhibited as evidence of Portugal hostility and pathetic attempt to conceal the insufficiencies, corruption etc. of its police forces ?
      Imo, less craftily and though it was unnecessary to mention absolution for the sake of her allegations, the confusion Dra Duarte makes between ethics and justice, as I noted in 2010, explains that crass mistake.
      I remember staying for a couple of seconds alone in the Court lift with GMC and wondering about telling "get yourself another lawyer". But I am slow off the mark, a default that Diderot called "spirit of the.. lift".

      Delete
    7. “Stealing” this from Joana and bringing it over to the blog fully:

      Home Justice McCann Portugal Supreme Court On the McCanns' request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling - Update

      On the McCanns' request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling - Update
      by Joana Morais 4 days ago

      “Therefore, if the previously mentioned archiving dispatch is not in the strict sense a judicial decision, nor does it have a permanent nature, it would be even less justified calling upon the principle of presumption of innocence to restrict the freedom of expression.” “And it cannot be said too that the applicants were declared innocent through the archiving dispatch of the criminal process. In truth, the aforementioned dispatch was not issued due to the fact the Public Ministry had acquired the certainty that the applicants had not practise any crime. Such archival, as was the case, was determined since it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practise of crimes by the appellants. Therefore, there is, a distinct difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the archiving dispatch. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence. Thus we consider, the invocation of the violation of the principle of innocence should not be taken into account here, since that principle is not relevant for the decision of the question that we must decide.” in Extracts from the Supreme Court's ruling

      In a concise manner, the grounds invoked by the Appellants come down to a technicality.

      The Appellants argue the Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch filed the criminal investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) article 277.º, no.1, and that the Supreme Court's ruling states they were not exonerated within the no.2 of that same article.

      In other words, they allege the Public Ministry prosecutor José de Magalhães e Menezes, and the joint prosecutor João Melchior Gomes archived the process because they were not suspects of any crimes and that, on the other hand, the Supreme Court's judgement was wrong to state that the Archiving Dispatch established that there was not enough evidence gathered to bring charges.

      We will go into the legal explanations in the second section of this article, but we would like to stress that the appellants and their lawyer fully dismiss the integrant reasoning and legal groundings of the archiving dispatch, holding on exclusively to this particular article.

      This is invoked by the Appellants within the framework of the presumption of innocence, despite the fact that this particular point was never in question. The Supreme Court of Justice went to great lengths to explain this point, concluding: “It should be noted that in the present process, the matter of their penal responsibility is not in dispute, that is, their innocence or culpability, concerning the facts that lead to their daughter's disappearance, so it does not have to be appreciated here. What is under discussion is, and only that, the civil responsibilities of the defendants, due to the fact that they expressed and divulged the thesis/opinion previously mentioned with respect to that disappearance. So much so that the outcome of this process is not susceptible of calling into question the extra processual dimension of the presumption of innocence. That is, even if the action (lawsuit) is rejected, that will not imply, even in the general public eye, any consideration regarding the responsibilities of the Appellants, since such an outcome can never be equated to an assertion of guilt.”

      (Cont.)

      Delete
    8. (Cont.)

      We will just stress again that the presumption of innocence assists any defendant of a penal case, i.e. of a criminal process. It must not be confused with being exonerated nor cleared.

      In simpler terms, the archival of the criminal investigation does not exonerate the Appellants but these will always benefit from the presumption of innocence should criminal proceedings eventually be brought against the Appellants. Even though we believe this will never take place for lack of will and true commitment by the authorities in both countries.

      Finally, the Appellants seem to have opened an unexpected Pandora's box, their actions may now force a written correction of the article that should have been used in the Archiving Dispatch .

      Quid iuris?



      Legal explanations with the valuable insight of a Portuguese jurist

      The judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) shows that their arguments are based on two points: firstly, that Gonçalo Amaral's thesis goes against the right to the presumption of innocence that they enjoy; secondly, that there is a collision of rights between their honour and their good name and the right to freedom of expression of Gonçalo Amaral and, in this case, the later must cede the right to freedom of expression.

      As it is known, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that there was no depreciation of the right to presumption of innocence, even because that issue was not in question. And, they are correct in judgement. The right to presumption of innocence is extended to all criminal proceedings, but here we are not in the context of a criminal process, but rather an action seeking to assess Gonçalo Amaral's civil liability for the violation of the McCanns' rights. Therefore, there is no connection between what Gonçalo Amaral has said and the principle of presumption of innocence in this case, since the presumption of innocence is only related to the criminal process and here we are in the context of civil proceedings. The only issue to assess is which of the fundamental rights in conflict should prevail, and from then a conclusion can be drawn as to whether or not Gonçalo Amaral has violated the McCanns' fundamental rights and therefore has to compensate them.

      It should be noted this issue was started with the decision of the first instance court which one could argue had an erroneous assessment of the situation of conflict of rights - it was the first instance that messed up by accepting the argument that the principle of the presumption of innocence was in question at a civil case. Concerning this matter, see pages 68 and following of the Supreme Court´s ruling.

      Then, the other question is, according to the Supreme Court's ruling (page 70), the conclusion of the Public Ministry in the Archiving Dispatch is wrong. To clarify: the Archiving Dispatch has a reasoning. Throughout that reasoning, the prosecutor goes on to say how the facts were ascertained, how blood was found in the car rented by the McCanns, that there were traces of blood in the apartment, how the most likely thesis is that of homicide, but also that it was necessary to admit the possibility of abduction. Then the prosecutor goes on to say that the canine markers were not confirmed, that no evidence of the homicide was collected, but that Madeleine could have been killed in the apartment, even though it was not possible to conclude by whom; that the abduction is a possibility to be taken into account due to the witnesses, etc. That is, the reasoning of the Public Ministry suggests that the filing is due to lack of sufficient evidence that the McCanns have committed the crime. However, upon finishing the dispatch, the prosecutor affirms that the archival is done under art. 277/1 of the CPP, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.

      (Cont.)

      Delete
    9. (Cont.)

      In short: the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch goes in the sense of art. 277/2 of the CPP, but in the last paragraph the prosecutor states the archiving is done under the terms of art. 277/1, that is to say, the reasoning goes towards supporting that "there was not enough evidence collected to prove that it was the McCanns" but the last sentence goes in the sense of "it's archived because it was concluded that it was not the McCanns who committed the crime".

      Obviously, there is a contradiction in the Archiving Dispatch. And what matters is the reasoning. And the reasoning goes in the sense that it did not collect sufficient evidence that it was the McCanns who committed the crime. This is what both the Lisbon Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice state in their judgements.

      Now, it can only be concluded that it was not the arguido who committed the crime in two situations: when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.

      However, what the Public Ministry prosecutors conclude is that there was a crime (if not of homicide, at least of abduction). In this scenario, only if it was known who the real author was, that is, only if the evidence was conclusive in respect to another person could the prosecutor state "it was not the McCanns". In fact, what the Public Ministry concluded was: (1) there was a crime; (2) there is no conclusive evidence that it was the McCanns. This is the result of the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch. Therefore, the filing was made under art. 277/2 and not of art. 277/1, as, certainly by mistake, the prosecutor affirms.

      It turns out that the McCanns cling, with tooth and nail, to the last paragraph of the Archiving Dispatch and to the mention of art. 277/1 to claim that the Public Ministry states that they were not the ones who committed the crime, and that, thus the Archival Dispatch innocents them. And therefore, any claim, whatever the source, that they are guilty or have something to do with their daughter's disappearance is false and therefore offensive to their honour. This is how crafty the McCann's thesis is.

      The problem with their thesis is that it expires if we take into account the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch - that is, that there is insufficient evidence, so far, to prove that it was them. And that's where it all goes: the McCanns are not right because the Archiving Dispatch did not exonerate them (nor it could, unless it was known that the author of the crime was someone else).

      The Lisbon Court of Appeals explained that the McCanns were not right and why. The Supreme Court of Justice limited itself to corroborating the position of the Court of Appeals: “It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence.”

      Now, let us look at what their reasoning for the annulment of the judgement is.

      The McCanns allege the Supreme Court has given as proven fact that the Archiving Dispatch, where the aforementioned last paragraph referring article 277/1 of the CPP is included, was due to the fact that it was concluded that they had not committed a crime.

      Then, they argue: if the Supreme Court gave that as proven fact, it cannot then decide that the archiving was done under the article 277/2, nor it can, therefore conclude that they were not exonerated by the Public Ministry. And also, the Supreme Court cannot therefore state that their right to honour has not been violated because, if there was a declaration of innocence, any statement to the contrary violates the good name and reputation of the McCanns.

      Therefore, they say, there is a contradiction between the proven facts and the decision of the judgement, which renders it null, an annulment they now request.

      (Cont.)

      Delete
    10. (Cont.)

      It is our understanding that they are not correct because there is no contradiction. The Supreme Court says that the Archiving Dispatch is based on the insufficiency of evidence and, therefore, it is not a declaration of innocence and then decides in accordance with this understanding.

      What the McCanns do is to read the judgement up to that fact given as proven and then read the decision, ignoring all of the Supreme Court's arguments that will justify why the court understands that there is no declaration of innocence. They may ignore it, but it is there written, so, without the slightest doubt they will see the request for annulment rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

      The Appellant's request will not be upheld because the Supreme Court has already explained in the judgement why it reaches to the conclusions established in the ruling and, as explained, there is no contradiction between the Supreme Court's reasoning and the decision, which is why the McCanns' request will be rejected.

      In other words, the McCanns' request in which they seek the annulment of the Supreme Court's ruling is admissible because it meets the eligibility requirements (it was done at the right time, at the right court, it invokes an alleged contradiction between the reasoning of the judgement and its decision, which is the basis for the annulment). But the request will not be upheld, that is to say, it will be rejected, because the McCanns' argument cannot be accepted, since the alleged contradiction does not exist. This is to say that one thing is the admissibility of the request (which will occur, the request will be admitted) and another thing is the decision on the request (which will dismiss it as unfounded).

      As to the hypothesis that more than a dilatory strategy, what that they want is to somehow have an argument to proceed with a complaint to the ECtHR. One could argue that there are always these tactics when we are talking about the McCanns. They are free of going to the ECtHR, of course. But if they go there, it will fall flat on its face. And for the very reasons previously invoked.

      There is a “frivolity” in the annulment request that is a bit pushing what is acceptable, but still, it can be allowed in the scope of the broader freedom of expression that lawyers have when they are defending their clients.

      One hopes the Supreme Court judges would state on the annulment's decision something like: “the Appellants accuse this court of frivolously drawing conclusions, but those who frivolously ignore the reasoning of this court's ruling are the Appellants”.

      It should be noted that a request for the annulment of a Supreme Court of Justice ruling is exceptional, rare. And that this request has a suspensory effect. Being suspensive, means that all the consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling are suspended, that is, there is no final and unappealable decision, and therefore, the decision is not definitive and can not be fulfilled, meaning, yes, that Gonçalo Amaral will have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court on the request for annulment.

      (Cont.)

      Delete
    11. (Cont.)

      Gonçalo Amaral was notified of the request for the annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling. As there is always the right to adversarial proceedings, Gonçalo Amaral can respond, saying that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice does not warrant any rectification or criticism. Then all parties have to await for the ruling of the Supreme Court's conference.

      The totality of the judges of the civil section is the conference, the request will be assessed by all judges of the civil section of the Supreme Court of Justice, including those who have deliberated on the judgement called into question. The mechanism should be similar to the distribution of the appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice.

      As for the forecast date of the decision, in the Supreme Court of Justice the deadlines are extended. The judges will first submit the draft judgement, then the conference of judges will gather in order to assess the draft, then they will see if there are more votes in favour of or against, then it will be decided what the ruling is, after the judge rapporteur will write the final wording of the judgement according to what was decided by the conference, then the conference will reconvene for the final vote of the decision and for the presentation of the defeated votes, if there are any.

      Update
      Sooner than we expected, and no doubt due to the weakness of the reasoning presented in the request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling, the Supreme Court of Justice conference has now rejected the McCann's request for annulment.

      Delete
  44. In reply to cadaver odour,whether it's 10 or 90 minutes it's dosen't explain away Kate's clothes cuddle cat or t shirt I'd like to see her squirm out of that one. Nobody will buy 6 dead bodies at work accompanied by those items. Eddie is a cadaver dog all alerts cadaver keela just looks for evidence left behind. No one is stupid enough to believe any other fairy tale,this is why the dogs are avoided at all costs by everyone involved in this cover up Eddie is the fly in the ointment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lorraine,

      Outside one VERY IMPORTANT thing, your comment is absolutely valid and that thing is you saying: “whether it's 10 or 90 minutes”.

      It is very important not to mislead readers who have less knowledge on the subject that cadaverine only takes 10 minutes to develop in sufficient quantities to contaminate a surface that will in turn be detected by a trained dog.

      AnneGuedes 20 Mar 2017, 01:32:00 says:
      - 1 dog, 20 minutes + 85 minutes = 105 minutes
      - Other dogs, 150 to 180 minutes.

      So your words should have been “whether it’s 90 minutes or more”.

      This is very important because if the other side can convince people of the absolute untruth that cadaverine develops quickly, then they will be able to “explain away Kate's clothes cuddle cat or t shirt”

      They will just say it develops so quickly that cadaverine did indeed develop in the few minutes burglar (now no longer European human trafficking gang) was inside the apartment with Maddie’s body before taking her.

      Then say that all the dog signalled was successive contaminations that followed.

      For cadaverine to take 90 minutes or longer, that is impossible to pull off. It’s very important people be aware of this.

      We dealt with this subject on the following posts:

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/05/cadaverine.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/06/cadaver-compound.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/06/playful-molecules.html

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2016/03/third-option.html

      Delete
    2. The dogs' findings are certainly most determinant, not only the team Eddie/Keela, but mainly that team in connection with the GNR dogs, Numi, Rex and Zarus whose tracking was unfortunately neglected by the PJ.

      Delete
    3. Dogs were offered pads that had remained for 20 minutes on the abdominal skin of a dead body and others on the abdominal skin of a living body, the difference being the PMI (from 70' to 3 days) in the case of the "death" pads.
      Another important variable is the pad's "age" (from 1 month to 6), any pad being used only once. Only one dog for PMI 85' but all dogs for PMI between 150' and 180'.

      Delete
  45. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3133605/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-delete-find-maddie-faceboook-trolls/

    'WE CAN'T TAKE IT'
    Madeleine McCann’s parents Kate and Gerry delete their Find Maddie Facebook account after barrage of abuse from trolls

    A message posted to the account said that the page would be back in a few days

    Exclusive
    By Brittany Vonow and Tracey Kandohla
    20th March 2017, 2:26 pm
    Updated: 20th March 2017, 3:56 pm

    THE official Find Madeleine Campaign Facebook page has been taken offline after being inundated with abuse from trolls.

    In a distressing post shared to its followers, the administrator of the page wrote they needed to “take a break” from the online world, with trolls and false stories “taking a toll” in the search for Madeleine McCann.

    The official Find Madeleine Campaign is endorsed by Kate and heart doctor husband Gerry McCann and all posts by the site’s unnamed web chief, a mum who runs the site with a group of fellow supporters, are approved by the couple.

    But the distressed webmaster appears to have posted a message on the page before pulling it down, writing: “Our page isn’t gone, just unpublished for a few days.

    “Need to take a break and clear my head.”

    The post then added: “The trolls and the media encouraging them with false stories are taking a toll on my mental health. Be back in a few days.”

    It is not clear if there was a specific incident that sparked the Facebook page to be pulled.

    It is not the first time that the Facebook page has had to be pulled down, with The Sun Online revealing that it was temporarily closed after a surge of false “leads” flooded the website three months ago.

    Maddie’s heartbroken parents were left “distressed” at sick gifts being offered for sale online, including T-shirts for the fictitious “McCann’s Gym,” featuring the slogan “Unfit for parents.”

    At the time the Webmaster posted: “Some of you may have noticed our page not being available these past few days. Due to an increase of fabricated so called ‘leads’, I’ve been turning the page off to keep people from posting/spreading false information.

    “It’s imperative the public keep looking for Madeleine, but we need to make sure false information is not being given over true leads.”

    A McCann source said: “It’s upsetting and distressing for Kate and Gerry and they have advised the website organisers to be vigilant and act if anything inappropriate is posted.”

    It comes after Kate and husband Gerry’s hasty decision 17 months ago to shut down an online Twitter account after being abused by “toxic” supporters, including some followers of tragic Ben Needham’s family.

    It was revealed earlier this month that Madeleine McCann’s parents were hit by 150 vile tweets a day from online trolls.

    They were earlier forced to hit back at a foul-mouthed Twitter rant by Marco Pierre White Junior, slamming his “unjustified” taunts.

    Interest in Maddie’s case has increased in the past couple of months as the agonising 10th anniversary milestone of her disappearance nears.

    The three-year-old had vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007 while her parents were dining nearby with pals.

    The couple have since been forced to confront rumours around their daughter’s disappearance, with the couple vowing to fight “tooth and nail” if they are ever prosecuted over leaving their children alone.

    Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007, when her family, from Leicestershire, were holidaying in the Algarve.

    Parents Gerry and Kate left their three children – including toddler twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping in their apartment while they dined at a nearby tapas bar.

    When Kate returned to check on the kids at around 10pm that evening she discovered Maddie was not in her bed and was missing.

    But the search has been mired in controversy, with the parents of other missing children criticising the the money and attention heaped on the little girl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please note how Ben Needham followers are starting to also be labelled as "toxic":

      "It comes after Kate and husband Gerry’s hasty decision 17 months ago to shut down an online Twitter account after being abused by “toxic” supporters, including some followers of tragic Ben Needham’s family."

      Delete
    2. The trolls and the media encouraging them piece reminds me of K Williams in Carry on Cleo,"infamy,infamy they all have it infamy".

      Delete
    3. http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/pagina-do-facebook-find-maddie-suspensa-135405

      Página do Facebook ‘Find Maddie’ suspensa

      Redação
      18:04

      Kate e Gerry, pais de Madeleine McCann, decidiram eliminar temporariamente a página.

      A página oficial da campanha para encontrar Madeleine McCann- ‘Find Maddie’ , encontra-se suspensa, depois de ter sido alvo de vários comentários trocistas, noticia o “The Sun”.

      O administrador da página escreve que precisa de “fazer uma pausa” do mundo online e das falsas histórias sobre o desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, em 2007, na Praia da Luz, no Algarve. A página não será eliminada, apenas suspensa por alguns dias.

      Segundo relata o “The Sun”, Kate e Gerry gerem a página da campanha, no entanto, as publicações são feitas por outra pessoa, juntamente com um grupo de apoiantes, que são previamente aprovados e autorizados pelos pais da criança.

      Delete
  46. The dogs are all over the place again. Eternal life for Eddie and Keela, recognized by Team McCann and its educated critics as the pivotal elements in this 'case'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The dogs done their job, they alerted to cadaver odour and blood. It was the humans who failed to secure the corroborating evidence to back those alerts up.

      Initially, the FSS were confident that the samples were 100% match to Madeleine. That famous news report of Brunt telling us about the 100% DNA match is still available to view on Youtube.

      But then it became too 'political.'

      FSS backtracked saying tests were inconclusive.

      (up to his neck in it) Gordon Brown pays FSS a visit.

      Not long after, they are closed down!

      Delete
  47. https://mobile.twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/843821226426621952

    Katie Hopkins‏ @KTHopkins
    Enough of the silencing. I will speak out for those who no longer have a voice. #brendaleyland
    Insert
    Daily Mirror‏ @DailyMirrorKatie Hopkins brands it an 'injustice' the McCanns didn't face punishment for leaving children alone (link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-hopkins-brands-injustice-mccanns-10055899) mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-…
    1:47 PM · 20 Mar 2017

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 20 Mar 2017, 18:39:00,

      Didn't Brenda mention dogs? Maybe Katie should too!

      Delete
  48. Someone has caused Jodie Marsh to bring up Eddie. Let's see where this goes.

    Jodie Marsh @JodieMarsh
    As far as I'm aware, the cadaver dogs had been correct in 200 cases. Apologies if I'm wrong.....
    Jodie Marsh added,
    Steph Goodwin @stephollie09
    @JodieMarsh what's your thoughts on gerry saying the cadaver dogs are unreliable?
    11:08 - 20 Mar 2017

    https://twitter.com/JodieMarsh/status/843887074294059008

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suggest same be done with Katie Hopkins

      Delete
  49. So it was all just a PR exercise?!

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3133605/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-reopen-find-maddie-facebook-trolls/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a sympathy trawling publicity stunt. Reinforcing Neglect

      Delete
    2. Bringing over article to the blog:

      BEATING THE BULLIES
      Madeleine McCann’s parents Kate and Gerry re-open their Find Maddie Facebook account amid outpouring of support after taking ‘break’ from trolls

      Initial message posted to the account said that the page would be back in a few days

      Exclusive
      By Tracey Kandohla and Brittany Vonow
      20th March 2017, 10:30 pm
      Updated: 20th March 2017, 10:35 pm

      A HUGE outpouring of love and support for Madeleine’s McCann’s parents has encouraged them to re-open the official campaign Facebook page which they had taken offline after being inundated with abuse from trolls.

      As the page administrator switched it back on she vowed to “continue to turn the page off if we receive hateful posts”.

      She was immediately flooded with overwhelmingly positive comments on behalf of Kate and Gerry, some of which made her cry.

      A supporter JW Dale, echoing the sentiments of others, pleaded on the newly re-opened site: “Take no notice of the haters.

      “Don’t let them hinder using this page to find Maddie.

      “Just delete negative posts and move forward. Don’t let the haters win. They don’t count.”

      Silvia Martin commanded: “This is a site where love for a little missing girl rules.”

      She added: “The internet’s brilliant in so many ways but the downside is that is also gives the haters a golden opportunity to spread their hatefulness far and wide.

      “So happy the police have been given extra funding to continue the search for Madeleine.”

      Fiona Ryan posted: “I’m delighted to see you’re back, this is a support page and people trolling it, is well beyond disgusting and vile.

      “Don’t let them break you, and just remember why we’re all here. Hope for Madeleine.”

      A concerned Dennis Doherty even suggests Maddie’s parents are given a social media “policeman” to sift through any online bile.

      He asks: “Has the family thought of a way of dealing with the disgusting stuff on social media.

      “Maybe it’s time for them to have their own social media ‘policeman’ to review allegations people are spouting with a view to suing.”

      The Sun Online revealed earlier today how the distressed web chief of the Find Maddie site needed “to take a break” with trolls and false stories “taking a toll” on the search for the missing girl.

      The unnamed mum, who launched the page six months after three-year-old Maddie vanished from a Portuguese holiday apartment in May 2007, said: “I have turned the page back on for now.”

      Referring to herself simply as the ‘Webmaster’, she added: “I urged Gerry and Kate to have a page setup on Facebook.

      “I post on their behalf and they trust me to run this page. I do this as an act of love for Kate and Gerry.

      “Contrary to what some think, I am not paid and wouldn’t take any money even if it was offered.”

      (Cont.)

      Delete
    3. (Cont.)

      She said some posts “made me teary-eyed” and added: “Thank you for keeping the page positive and hopeful.”

      Sheila Clews paid tribute to the page administrator, who has previously been subjected to a torrent of abuse from trolls, to being a stalwart for Maddie’s parents, saying: “Thank you for being that person for Kate and Gerry.

      “I still continue to hope this little girl will be found some day.”

      In a heartfelt posting Louise Hunt waded in: “I get so angry and upset at the amount of abuse Kate and Gerry get.

      “Yes they made a huge mistake, but they are only human and they are paying for it for the rest of their lives.

      “Why can’t people leave them the Hell alone now. It’s so cruel. I don’t know how they manage to get through it.”

      Chrisitine Hewitt wrote: “I am heartened by the good and positive work you do.

      “I am sickened and horrified if I ever see cruel or truly damaging comments.

      “We think and pray for the family every day and thank you for re-opening the page.”

      Sandra White chipped in: “I just don’t understand how cruel and heartless some people can be.

      “As a parent myself I can only imagine the guilt and the heartache that Kate & Gerry must feel on a daily basis. They don’t need or deserve to be victimised on a daily basis.”

      Linda Law added: “Well done! Maddie will be found please just continue to tell that to her family so they know they have our support, thoughts and prayers. We are with them every step of the way.”

      Mhairi Harris agreed: “Thank you for keeping the page running, you do so much to keep Madeleine in everyone’s thoughts.”

      Leithia Bell piped up: “Why do people have to leave such nasty messages, yes I agree they (the children) shouldn’t have been left but surely Kate and Gerry are paying the price for that.

      “Wish we could get closure on this and hopefully find Madeleine.”

      Brenda Tarry posted: “I can’t begin to imagine how they continue daily life not knowing what happened to Maddie.

      “My heart goes out to them and I would desperately love to see them reunited or at least find out what happened to her.”

      Moira Trainor urges Maddie’s parents: “Ignore the inhuman morons. Can’t understand how anyone would be so cruel. I wouldn’t wish on anyone the horrors which Kate and Gerry go through every day.”

      Ex GP Kate, 49, and heart doctor Gerry, 48, from Rothley, Leics, are bracing themselves for the agonising milestone 10th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance in six weeks.

      Maddie vanished from a holiday flat in the Algarve’s Praia da Luz after being left alone sleeping with her younger twin siblings while her parents were dining in a nearby tapas bar with pals.

      Kate and Gerry are clinging into a glimmer of hope she could still be found alive after nearly a decade. They have pledged never to stop looking for their daughter, who would now be aged 13, nearly 14.

      Scotland Yard’s six-year hunt to find Maddie – at a near £13 million cost to the British taxpayer with an extra £85,000 just granted – has so far failed to unearth any new clues.

      The decision to re-open the official campaign Facebook page comes after Kate and husband Gerry’s hasty decision 17 months ago to shut down an online Twitter account after being abused by “toxic” supporters, including some followers of tragic Ben Needham’s family.

      (Cont.)

      Delete
    4. (Cont.)

      It was revealed earlier this month that Madeleine McCann's parents were hit by 150 vile tweets a day from online trolls.

      They were earlier forced to hit back at a foul-mouthed Twitter rant by Marco Pierre White Junior, slamming his "unjustified" taunts.

      Interest in Maddie's case has increased in the past couple of months as the agonising 10th anniversary milestone of her disappearance nears.

      The three-year-old had vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007 while her parents were dining nearby with pals.

      The couple have since been forced to confront rumours around their daughter's disappearance, with the couple vowing to fight "tooth and nail" if they are ever prosecuted over leaving their children alone.

      Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007, when her family, from Leicestershire, were holidaying in the Algarve.

      Parents Gerry and Kate left their three children – including toddler twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping in their apartment while they dined at a nearby tapas bar.

      When Kate returned to check on the kids at around 10pm that evening she discovered Maddie was not in her bed and was missing.

      But the search has been mired in controversy, with the parents of other missing children criticising the the money and attention heaped on the little girl.

      Delete
    5. Errmmmm…. If FB page closed, where was this “HUGE outpouring of love and support for Madeleine’s McCann’s parents has encouraged them to re-open the official campaign Facebook page” shown?

      Delete
    6. They were planting non-news and dito facts from the beginning. To end it, you just need one big sniff and one big bark. And the willingness to take the necessary steps, of course. Never give up the dogs.

      Delete
  50. It's always been their intention to get innocence of any crimes declared by a civil court. If a prosecuting authority had the inclination to charge them for crimes, they know there is real possibility that they will be found guilty. They are now exploring the likelihood of 'neglect' as being the crime and are most likely in dialog with their lawyers regarding best and worst case scenarios. Unfortunately, Lowe of the FSS, mislead authorities on the forensics in order to curry favour in case they called it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ironical part is that, had they assumed in an act of contrition their failure as responsible parents and showed off a mea culpa proper to resuscitate the enormous compassion they attracted first, most of their detractors, who blame them obstinately and boringly for neglect, would have been satisfied that at least their rebuke had been heard and would have never thought of looking closer into the innocence issue.
      But they wanted the butter (the innocence) and the money to buy it (the parental responsibility). If this antagonism could work , we would know.

      Delete
    2. Their lawyer should have been far more competent. Trying to get such results from a civil court is just plain incompetence or expecting judges to be incompetent. Arrogance can kill you. As we have seen.

      As for neglect, I suspect the statute of limitations applies for neglect without intent to harm(5 years)and, even in the worst case scenario, the maximum neglect charges are of ten years. That would also be "expiring" on the 3rd May 2017, statute of limitations of 10 years. So, they know full well they can no longer be charged with regards to neglect. It is all a marketing campaign, as it always was. One that snowballed.

      Really what must worry us now is that the statute of limitations for the most severe crimes is of 15 years. In 5 more years and a couple of months these people will be beyond any charges in Portugal.

      Delete
  51. Unpublished Anonymous at 21 Mar 2017, 12:15:00,

    We are not publishing your comment as we have to maintain the blog up to a certain level, although we cannot say in any way that you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Understood Text...
    Just thought it was a good example of what a complete and utter farce this whole case has become
    No need to publish this one too though :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. It couldn’t be any clearer! UK was given all the information from Portugal and not only sat on it they perverted the course of justice! Redwood appearing on TV looking stupid is explained by being tasked with investigating as though it was an abduction knowing the true facts are held by the Home Office. No wonder he got out when he could. The investigating officers must be wary of exposing anything they are not supposed to while appearing to be genuinely searching but in reality only Portugal have jurisdiction regardless of whatever they do. What I don’t understand is why Portugal doesn’t press charges when they know the truth unless they have a skeleton in their own cupboard as well.
    I don’t suppose there has ever been an international case like it.

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/259644/Madeleine-McCann-Key-files-into-probe-kept-top-secret-to-avoid-Portugal-row

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no evidence to press charges. One needs a body, a confession, a witness or new forensics. We have none of these. all there is is circumstantial evidence. No charges can be brought on that.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 21 Mar 2017, 17:16:00,

      Wasn't it reported that Operation Grange has a NEW witness?

      So NEW that Whitehall and Home Office were convinced straight away?

      Delete
    3. Portugal doesn't know the truth and survives not knowing..

      Delete
  54. http://www.stj.pt/ficheiros/tabelas/Decididas/Civeis/1s-2017-03-21.pdf

    Mr Amaral has won

    YESSSSSS

    ReplyDelete
  55. This rejection is great news but as you say Text totally expected. Yesterday, the Morais article suggested this can go on and on, but next day a result, bravo! I wonder what the next steps are for both sides now, interesting times?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Fantastic news on the win for Mr Amaral

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it victory for GA ? I'd rather say it's victory for common sense. But some time was gained and the news that their plea was overruled could turn them into victims again on the Portuguese front.
      They just have to announce they go to Strasbourg to kill in the egg any mention they might be innocent but they might not be..

      Delete
  57. This goes some way to explaining the Blitzkrieg of newspaper articles over the past week....a reasonable indicator that something is about to happen....well done and lets hope his money is on its way soon!!!!

    Bampots

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

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

Textusa