It was interesting to watch the reactions to our previous post.
Some immediately saw it as us tearing Gemma O’Doherty from limb to limb when we did no such thing.
In that post we commented on what was in the article and what we disagreed with:
What we have disagreed with is highlighted in yellow. The red line on the 4th page represents from where Colin Sutton was literally inserted into the article, so below that line the agreeing or disagreeing has nothing to do with Gemma O’Doherty.
As can be seen, we agree with the vast majority of the article, so how could we tear from limb to limb someone with whom we essentially agree with?
To be clear, the objective was indeed to tear someone apart but that someone was Colin Sutton.
And it seems that we were pretty successful.
Other than our reader Marsha who stood up, at least momentarily, for what she believed, what we witnessed was more of the same: hyenas of the kind we all have seen in the Lion King getting together in their little smirk parties giggling between themselves like the cowards they are, doing all they could to discredit something they claimed they haven’t read, the usual excuse given when one doesn’t like what one reads but can’t dispute it factually.
Last week we said we would leave our opinion about Gemma O’Doherty and her article for this week.
As the reader will see, it’s all very complex and so escapes the unrealistic simplicity of a mere black and white world in which some pretend they live in and falls in that multitude of greys which real life is made of.
2. Losing to win
We will praise Gemma O’Doherty wherever we feel we should and criticise her in the exact same measure.
Being in the singular position of understanding between which powers she saw herself, we would and will praise her much more than criticise her.
However, having a positive opinion of a person does not mean we believe what they say is gospel. And when one sees that they are wrong, one has the moral duty of constructive criticism.
But not always is a mistake an error, as sometimes when one is wrong there’s a valid reason for one to have been wrong.
One may be wrong because of ignorance. Then when enlightened one just has to be thankful for the information one has just learned.
If one is wrong out of distraction, then one just has to correct and apologise after realising it or is called out on it.
However if one makes a mistake intentionally then it serves a purpose.
The most common of times is the persistence of opinion, whereby one is simply being stubborn, terrified that a change of opinion may wipe a reputation, when the exact opposite is true.
This is most often the solution the stupid and diligent resort to. They think geniuses, and so will insist on treading their path as it has to be the right one simply because they have determined it is.
But the mistake we want to focus on today is the intentional one that brings gains with it.
Not deceit, far from it. It’s losing to win.
When one is apparently losing when in fact one is winning.
When in school, I remember David, a friend of mine, who witnessed day in and day out another small boy, Jack, also from our class being bullied by a group of boys, led by a big one who I shall name here John.
Tired of witnessing Jack’s misery, David walked up to Jack, took him aside and said:
“Listen Jack, I can go and stand up to John and his goons but will only make your situation worse. Only you can solve it and as you can’t avoid them, you must face them. Yes, what I’m saying sounds crazy and foolish but hear me out. When they pick on you, you have to go for John as he’s the strongest of the pack. But you must really go, really fight him. And yes, he’ll beat you up, he’ll probably hurt you, I won’t lie. If after that they continue to pick on you, just continue going for the strongest one there. Do it as many times as you need. The more they hurt you, the worse they will look and, more important, once they realise that you will fight back even if you know you don’t stand a chance in hell, they will move to easier targets. Look at it like having to suffer a short loss but obtaining a long-lasting victory versus enduring a long-lasting pain at their hands.”
And Jack turned on John and got smacked silly.
But his bruised-eye and swollen lip earned him respect from the rest of the school and John’s reputation diminished for beating up a much smaller and weaker boy. Jack stopped being bullied.
His defeat in that fight became a victory.
For Jack to attack John was a mistake, in all accounts it was wrong and he had the bruised-eye and swollen lip as the evidence of that fact but he lost to win, made a mistake to gain.
3. Starting at the end
To understand what we think happened with Gemma O’Doherty’s article we have to start at the end.
One has first to look at the end-result to understand the journey that made it be what it is.
So, independent of whether one agrees with what she has said in the article – and as we have shown we agree with most – we think it’s consensual to say it had 2 main messages: one, the Smith sighting is key to solving the Maddie mystery and two, that the BBC misled the public about this sighting in their BBC Panorama of last May, presented by Richard Bilton.
The first objective was achieved by her saying that the sighting continues to be according to what can be seen in the PJ Files and that Martin Smith and his family not only stand by what they said then as they affirm they never changed their minds about it between then and now.
The second objective was achieved by having the BBC acknowledge that there was a mistake “made in good faith” in Bilton’s BBC Panorama and have it cut out from their iPlayer the few seconds where in it Richard Bilton says the Smiths now thought they had seen someone else.
The Smith sighting, its truthfulness or not, the Smith’s alleged changes of heart will be subject of a different post. This post is about Gemma O’Doherty’s article.
So, to sum up, the article has 2 main pillars: Smith sighting and BBC misleading.
4. Gemma O’Doherty’s tweeting timeline
Having those 2 major objectives in mind, let’s then consider Gemma O’Doherty and look at the article’s journey about which we only got to know of on January 7 when Gemma O’Doherty first tweeted about it.
Below, pictures of showing the summary of each of her tweets and the day she tweeted them:
This is then how Gemma O’Doherty tweeted about her article before publication:
5. Gemma O’Doherty’s Tweets
Let’s now look in detail at each of her tweets. In parenthesis the GMT time (Gemma O’Doherty’s Twitter account has a lag of 6 hours relative to Greenwich Mean Time):
“I will soon publish details of my investigation into the #MadeleineMcCann case including the many inconsistencies in her parents’ accounts of what happened, the Donegal links and how the British media have failed Madeleine and the public by refusing to ask hard questions”
02:54 am - 07-Jan-18 (07/01/2018 08:54)
[Our note: This is the opening tweet. The one that supposedly establishes objectives. Let’s go over one by one of what is mentioned in the tweet:
- “…many inconsistencies in her parents’ accounts of what happened”, is mentioned in the article when it’s said that “Some [YouTube videos] are compelling to watch and have highlighted what appear to be discrepancies and confusion in certain accounts given by the McCanns and some of their friends about what happened in the period before and after Madeleine disappeared”. These are 38 words of an article made up of 2,130 of them, meaning that 1 of the 3 proposed initial objectives has ended up getting less than 2% of the entire content and even then, by using unspecified videos to make the argument. Do note that the article only says “what appear to be discrepancies and confusion in certain accounts” and not that what they show ARE discrepancies;
- “…the Donegal links”, not a single mention in the article;
- “…how the British media have failed Madeleine and the public by refusing to ask hard questions”, not a single mention. Please do not confuse having said the BBC has misled the public, which the article addresses with the proposed showing how the media did not ask hard questions.
We would conclude that 1/3 of this tweet and even then heavily watered down included in the article]
“The night before #MadeleineMcCann went missing, 2/5/07, Gerry left the tapas bar without his wife Kate, upsetting her. It was 11.50pm. She said she returned to the apartment ‘literally 5 minutes later’ and claimed Gerry was ‘snoring’. She slept in the children’s room that night”
02:59 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 08:59)
[Our note: Not sure what Gemma intended to pursue with this tweet. When we read it together with other tweets that follow it, we thought she was going to address the sedation scenario, or in other words, negligence leading to Maddie’s death.
If sedation was it, then it was not included in the article.
If one links this tweet with the next one, published 11 minutes later, it’s clear the implication of sedation, as 2 adults argue, one enters the apartment 5 minutes after the other and not only finds the other already sleeping as she goes into the children’s bedroom and sleeps there.
Two adults separately enter the apartment and one even goes into their bedroom and the children apparently don’t react]
“On the day #MadeleineMcCann went missing, she was upset in the morning and asked her parents why they had not come the night before when she and her brother were crying. Kate and Gerry McCann left their children alone again that night.”
03:10 - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 09:10)
[Our note: Clearly linked to previous tweet. Gerry walked in apartment, Kate goes to the kids’ bedroom and sleeps there, and Maddie instead of asking that night (if she was frightened as allegedly she seems to have been), only asks next morning where her parents were. One has to conclude that means the kids were likely to be sedated. If all wasn’t a “McCann narrative”, which it is, of course.
Conclusion, as sedation is not mentioned, neither this nor the previous one are included]
“The parents of #MadeleineMcCann have denied claims they gave their children sedatives before they put them to bed so they could Gemma O’Doherty out in the evening. Yet Gerry McCann says the so-called abductor may have sedated all three children. Why does he push this theory?”
03:36 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 09:36)
[Our note: Subject, sedation, conclusion, not included in the article]
“This is Gerry McCann‘s response when asked if sedatives had been given to #MadeleineMcCann:”
03:49 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 09:49)
[Our note: Subject, sedation, conclusion, not included in the article]
“This is an interesting compilation of clips showing Gerry McCann’s body language when he is asked difficult questions #MadeleineMcCann”
04:02 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 10:02)
[Our note: If Gemma O’Doherty wanted to make a point about this in the article she didn’t. The best she comes close to mentioning it is when she says “Countless videos have been posted on YouTube by armchair detectives challenging the parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour, in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them”, if one watches the video, the behaviours observed are mostly due to discomfort and not by having the finger of blame pointed at them. In tweets published later Gemma O’Doherty does deal with the “finger of blame” so we will consider that this tweet in not included in the article.
Please note that the video linked deals also with one of the objectives initially proposed and not included in the article which is the media not asking any hard questions.]
“In the weeks before #MadeleineMcCann was taken to Portugal, she went to Donegal with her parents. Her grandparents Ellen and Johnny came from there”
04:34 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 10:34)
[Our note: The Donegal connection was not mentioned in the article]
“What did Gerry McCann have to laugh about in the days after #MadeleineMcCann disappearance?”
10:39 pm - 08-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 04:39)
[Our note: Although this would apparently be included in the “seemingly at times bizarre behaviour” it isn’t as it has nothing to do with “in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them”. So, another tweet not included in the article.]
“Gerry McCann loses his cool during an interview #MadeleineMcCann”
10:41 pm - 08-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 04:41)
[Our note: The is “the parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour, in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them”. However, these are 22 words out 2,130 and that is only 1% of the article. We will say the article has included this tweet but its importance has been significantly watered down]
“Gerry McCann’s reaction when asked if he killed his daughter #MadeleineMcCann:”
10:45 pm - 08-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 04:45)
[Our note: Like with the previous tweet, this is within “the parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour, in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them”. Again same 22 words out 2,130 and which are only 1% of the article and which now have to be divided by 2 tweets. Water the watering down, please
We recommend readers view the video on the tweet above, right up until the end. It seems to be the same video but it is not]
“A reminder of the 48 questions Portuguese police put to Kate McCann after declaring her an arguido or suspect in September 2007. She refused to answer all of them. #MadeleineMcCann”
12:15 pm - 09-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 18:15)
[Our note: No mention of the 48 questions in the article]
“Tony Blair went out of his way to help the McCanns. Why them, when 380 children Gemma O’Doherty missing in the UK every day? Like Gerry, Blair had strong Donegal links and spent summer holidays in Ballyshannon, his mother’s hometown. McCann’s parents were also from Donegal #MadeleineMcCann”
03:59 pm - 09-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 21:59)
[Our note: No mention of the Donegal connection in the article]
“A mother who is covering up her own daughter’s disappearance offers consolation to the McCanns. Ann Boyle also admits she knows the McCanns due to their connections in her part of Donegal #McCann #MaryBoyle”
12:54 pm - 10-Jan-18 (10/01/2018 09:51)
[Our note: No mention of any link between the Boyles and the McCanns nor of the Donegal connection. Note that up to now, Gemma O’Doherty has mentioned this connection 3 times in her tweets and nothing of it appears in the article]
“My investigation on the #McCann case will be published later this month in @VillageMagIRE. Until then, I will publish information which I consider to be of general public interest about the case here”
03:51 am - 10-Jan-18 (10/01/2018 18:54)
[Our note: Accomplished, as she “until then” does publish information of public interest. But it’s not part of the article or meant to be]
“When Kate McCann discovered #Madeleine was missing, she says she ran back to the restaurant to tell her friends. If this is the case, why did she leave her two-year twins behind in the apartment, given that she believed #Madeleine had been abducted? #McCann”
02:54 am - 11-Jan-18 (11/01/2018 08:54)
[Our note: This is included in the passage “Kate McCann said she went back to the apartment at around 10pm, entering through the patio doors that they had left unlocked. She said she noticed that the door of the children’s bedroom was “completely open” and that the window was also open and the shutters raised. She said she scoured the apartment, then left the twins asleep in their beds before running back to her friends in the tapas bar and claiming Madeleine had been taken”. Gemma O’Doherty states it as fact and unlike she does in the tweet, doesn’t question it. So, we will consider the tweet is part of the article but heavily watered down]
“Blood-soaked body of Dublin-born #MadeleineMcCann private eye found at his Surrey mansion. This case gets murkier by the minute. My investigation in @VillageMagIRE will be published in next month’s edition with new revelations and questions”
01:16 pm - 13-Jan-18 (13/01/2018 19:16)
[Our note: Halligen’s death is not mentioned in the article]
“These two precious girls, whose lives were so cruelly snatched from them, have been failed utterly - by the police, the media and by those who clearly have questions to answer about their disappearances. It’s time the public came to their defence #MadeleineMcCann #MaryBoyle”
02:43 pm - 14-Jan-18 (14/01/2018 20:43)
[Our note: By implying that the police did not give importance to the Smith sighting (which the PJ clearly has) and by exposing the misleading of the BBC in Bilton’s Panorama one could, if one made the effort, say that the failing by the police and media has been included in the article. But one would have to really make the effort and it certainly does not meet the expectations raised by this tweet. Also, the article has totally omitted the failure “by those who clearly have questions to answer about” Maddie’s disappearance. Mary Boyle is not mentioned in the article. Conclusion, tweet is not addressed in the article]
“What was Gerry McCann laughing about a few days after his daughter #MadeleineMcCann disappeared?”
06:59 pm - 16-Jan-18 (17/01/2018 00:59)
[Our note: This is tweet #8 published again. We have already made our considerations about it]
“When Kate McCann made her 10pm check on the children, she said she found their bedroom door open ‘quite wide’ and not as they had left it. She then says she went to close it. Did she do so without checking on the children first? #MadeleineMcCann”
02:34 pm - 19-Jan-18 (19/01/2018 20:34)
[Our note: This question is not made in the article. It only says that “She said she noticed that the door of the children’s bedroom was “completely open” and that the window was also open and the shutters raised”. Tweet not included in the article]
“Why did #McCann private investigators fail to make the most basic of inquiries before announcing a so-called major breakthrough in the case which apparently came to nothing?”
03:32 am - 20-Jan-18 (20/01/2018 09:32)
[Our note: This is not included in the article and we honestly don’t understand where Gemma O’Doherty was going with this ridiculous Barcelona’s Victoria Beckham story.]
“Kate recalls being upset by Gerry the night before #MadeleineMcCann went missing. The next morning, Madeleine asked her parents why they hadn’t come when she and Sean had been crying the night before. They left their children alone again that night and Madeleine was ‘taken’”
05:16 am - 20-Jan-18 (20/01/2018 11:16)
[Our note: Linked to tweets #9 and #10. That makes those 22 words having now to be divided by 3, a percentage of 0,3% per tweet of the article on this subject]
#22. https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/954765506292133890 (DELETED)
“Why does Gerry McCann get so angry and walk out of an interview when he is asked to comment on the blood that police found in their apartment? #MadeleineMcCann”
09:20 am - 20-Jan-18 (20/01/2018 15:20)
[Our note: Interesting this tweet was deleted. Why? Even though there’s no mention of blood in the article, this would certainly fall under the “parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour, in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them”]
“Death of 3-year-old Sherin Mathews, whose body was found by a cadaver dog, inspires #SherinsLaw in Texas which would make it a crime to leave children at home alone. Her father has been charged with her murder”
10:34 am - 21-Jan-18 (21/01/2018 16:34)
[Our note: No mention of cadaver dogs in the article]
“In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance, friends and family members said the McCanns told them the bedroom shutters had been tampered with. Why did the McCanns later retract this claim? #MadeleineMccann”
02:38 am - 22-Jan-18 (22/01/2018 08:38)
[Our note: In last week’s post we said that we would explain this week why we didn’t agree with the passage of the article saying “She said she noticed that the door of the children's bedroom was “completely open” and that the window was also open and the shutters raised”. The reason is simple and can be seen, or better heard in the video in which Jill Renwick clearly states “…the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken…”. Gemma O’Doherty states in the tweet that the “bedroom shutters had been tampered with” but in the article limits herself in saying that they had simply been raised. Tweet not included in article]
#25. https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/955392298342285312 (DELETED)
“In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance, friends and family members said the McCanns told them...”
02:50 am - 22-Jan-18 (22/01/2018 08:50
[Our note: This tweet has been deleted, we suppose because it was a repeat of tweet #24]
“A reminder of how cadaver dogs reacted to the McCann’s rental car and apartment in Portugal (1/2)”
11:30 am - 28-Jan-18 (28/01/2018 19:30)
[Our note: No mention of cadaver dogs in the article]
“A reminder of how the McCanns reacted to a question about the reaction of the cadaver dogs (2/2) https://youtu.be/kc84bVldT-4 #McCann”
11:33 am - 28-Jan-18 (28/01/2018 19:33)
[Our note: No mention of cadaver dogs in the article]
“The BBC and Madeleine: How the public were misled about a key sighting that could help to unlock the mystery of her disappearance. My investigation will be in @VillageMagIRE this weekend #McCann”
02:17 pm - 31-Jan-18 (31/01/2018 20:17)
[Our note: All included in the article]
“As part of my #MadeleineMcCann investigation, the #BBC have admitted to me they made a mistake in their coverage of a potentially critical sighting of a man and child on the night she disappeared. Police say this sighting could hold the key to the entire mystery #McCann
Gemma O'Doherty added,
Village MagazineVerified account @VillageMagIRE
Village's February edition will be out and in shops tomorrow, Saturday 3rd”
07:59 am - 02-Feb-18 (02/02/2018 13:59)
[Our note: All included in the article]
6. The included and the excluded
Only 2 tweets out of 29 are fully included in the article: #28 and #29. Those that are about the Smith sighting and the BBC misleading the public about it.
Tweet #1 has 1/3 of it completely watered and 2/3 of it is not mentioned.
Tweets #9, #10 and #21 are of the same subject and watered down. In fact, tweets #1, #9, #10 and #21 were so watered down they are almost like the blood in the living-room of apartment 5A, only after dogs and forensic tests can one see it that after Maddie died, it was always there.
Tweet #14 is not supposed to be a part of the article as it’s only an announcement, that leaves us with 23 out of 29 tweets are not included in the article.
As we said, we are not agreeing or disagreeing with what Gemma O’Doherty promised to deliver via her tweets. We are just listing them and looking if she mentioned their content in the article.
For example, she doesn’t mention things that she implied she would which we don’t consider relevant like Kevin Halligen’s death (please take into account that we are limiting ourselves to the Maddie case and even though we think his death to be relevant, we don’t consider it to be within the context of the case) nor has she mentioned something we find ridiculous which is what Barcelona’s Victoria Beckham story is.
We don’t consider either important in the Maddie case but it is factual that she mentioned both in her tweets and neither ended up appearing in the end-result.
We found it strange she didn’t mention Mary Boyle as she so much implied in the build-up.
One thing she didn’t mention we don’t know if it’s important or not. That is the link she was to reveal between the McCanns and Donegal, between the McCanns and Anne Boyle and between the McCanns and Tony Blair (with some kind of relation with Ballyshannon).
We will remain in ignorance of these alleged links as it’s factual she doesn’t any of this in her article.
We don’t think there was any sedated children before Maddie died but it’s again factual that Gemma O’Doherty implied repeatedly she would bring it up, and didn’t.
She also left out the explanation about why the British media failed Maddie and the public by refusing to ask hard questions nor why the police, the media and those who clearly have questions to answer about the disappearances of Maddie and Mary Boyle have failed.
Nothing about a laughing Gerry a few days after Maddie disappeared
No mention of the 48 questions Kate refused to answer nor has she questioned why Kate allegedly left the twins in the apartment to go to Tapas and raise the alarm.
No mention of the shutters being broken nor of Kate having closed bedroom door before checking on the children
And, most importantly no mention of blood or of the cadaver dogs which was the link establishing the McCanns and Maddie’s death we so much hoped to see made public and which was not.
But let’s look at the above represented in the picture below:
Surely the reader can see the problem immediately.
If one takes into account that tweets #28 and #29 were published on Jan 31 20:17 and Feb 2, respectively, basically all Gemma O’Doherty announced on Twitter between Jan 7 and Jan 28 19:33 (time of second tweet on cadaver dogs) was excluded.
It was this difference between the promised and the delivered that made us immediately replace the scale on content from the 1 to 10 with a new one that only went up to 5.
Nothing to do with if what was said was truthful or not but because so much was left out. Why we ended up giving it a 2 out of 5, we will discuss later.
7. The independence of a journalist
Gemma O’Doherty claims herself to be an independent journalist and we think she’s really proud of having earned that reputation.
The same applies to the Village Magazine.
So, something must have happened that forced Gemma O’Doherty to have dropped so much from her article and include only those 2 last-minute tweets things, regardless of how important the things that were left out may be and we all know how important the dogs and the blood are.
That something had to be quite a big something to make a journalist so proud of being independent to make such a hard-turn after the build-up made by herself.
Something that had to be big enough to make her jeopardise the reputation she has built according to Village Magazine article by Gerard Cunningham of June 16 2016 “GEMMAD as Hell”:
“Independent investigative journalist, Gemma O’Doherty, has slammed a culture of fear in Irish newsrooms and a stifling environment, as media ownership is concentrated in fewer hands.
Speaking at the the Newsocracy conference organised by MEP Nessa Childers in partnership with the Institute For Future Media and Journalism (FUJO) at Dublin City University, O’Doherty addressed the topic ‘When Journalists become Spin Doctors’.
O’Doherty, who wrote for the Irish Independent for 17 years, is currently working on a series of documentaries on unsolved Irish murders, including the disappearance of Mary Boyle, Ireland’s youngest missing person.
“Most politicians have neither the courage nor the backbone to tackle the critical issue of media ownership in our country, which is having such a harmful effect on the public interest and democracy”, O’Doherty told the gathering.
O’Doherty was made compulsorily redundant by the Irish Independent in August 2013 following an investigation into the garda-penalty-points scandal, during which she called at the home of the former Irish police commissioner, Martin Callinan. She later settled her case for unfair dismissal at the unemployment appeals tribunal.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”, she said.
“Journalism in Ireland is in crisis, and this is primarily because ownership of so much of the media has been allowed to fall into the hands of so few. A culture of fear has consumed certain newsrooms, creating a stifling environment where some reporters behave less like dogged agents of the public interest, and more like compliant diplomats, spinning for the powers-that-be as if their jobs depended on it”.
“They choose to ignore the true function of our still-noble vocation, to hold power to account, to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, to defend the public’s right to know, and to seek the truth and report it.
A robust, independent, adversarial press is the lifeblood of a functioning state and a free society. But in Ireland in 2016 we have nothing close to that”.
O’Doherty said that it would be necessary to “smash the cosy cartel that exists between the press, politicians and the police in this country, because it is so harmful to the public good”.
“In order to tackle these incestuous relationships, we must talk about the elephant in the room. The fact that the pet-name of the biggest owner in Irish media is ‘Redacted’ says it all. One big voice has far too much power and prominence in our small country. Let’s just look at some of the ways Denis O’Brien has tried to limit press freedom and free speech in our country.
O’Doherty noted the proposed “journalists’ charter” introduced at INM in 2013, the court case last year which led (temporarily) to several media outlets being unwilling to report a speech covered by Oireachtas privilege, and said that Transparency International had reported O’Brien to the UN for making legal threats against journalists.
“Is it healthy for democracy”, O’Doherty asked, “that someone who takes such an interest in silencing our right to speak be in control of so much of our media? I don’t think so”. O’Doherty also criticised “the lazy propaganda that RTÉ pumps into Irish households night after night”.
“There is no doubt that a culture of institutional complacency now dominates RTÉ, where some presenters earn more than David Cameron and Barack Obama, and no one wants to tell us what some of the senior management earn”.
“But for me, their greatest failure has been how they have shut the door in the faces of victims. Victims who have damning stories to tell, especially those who have suffered at the hands of An Garda Síochána.
O’Doherty said in the case of Mary Boyle, a six-year-old girl who disappeared and was believed murdered in 1977, the authorities “refused to bring the chief suspect in the case4 to justice, amid allegations of garda corruption and political interference”.
She said that when she visited a US Congressman in Washington to highlight the case along with Mary Boyle’s sister Ann Doherty RTÉ, “despite countless requests”, refused to inform the public of the visit. And she charged that the national public broadcaster also ignored visits to Stormont, Westminster, and Brussels, and a case against the state instigated by Ann Doherty.”
Gemma O’Doherty, it must be asked: what has happened to you, where have you gone?
Maybe, we should better ask, what powers have made you bend?
And if one adds her having to swallow Colin Sutton to all the issues left out of the article, as one must, then the questions above should be doubly asked.
8. The war
We have said before and will repeat it again: no one appears on the media about Maddie without a purpose beyond themselves.
Even if one may think, as we believe Gemma O’Doherty may have, that they are doing it out of pure idealism, the truth is that when it comes to Maddie, the issue is so politically sensitive that there are always other interests being pursued.
For anything related to Maddie to hit a media outlet, significant or not, there has to be a green light which is superior to its editor’s authority.
To put it bluntly, the editor must know he can print it and for that to happen he has to feel he has his back covered.
We must point out that he end-result of Gemma O’Doherty’s article is the closest we have seen to an independent article to be about the issue and that is something we will address later.
But it is far from being independent as we have said in our last post “Sutton is the game, meddling is the name”. The article has been meddled with and besides Sutton’s presence in it, the omissions shown prove it
To fully understand what happened we have to invent a war.
Let’s call it for now, a war between the Green and the Blue Armies.
Only with time is history able to judge what really went on the Headquarters of the forces involved in a war.
Only then will we be able to fully comprehend what we witnessed in real time. But at that moment all we can do is observe the movement of troops, the soldiers fighting.
What they do and how they act allow us to speculate on what their orders were and what objectives they were trying to achieve.
9. Walkercan1000, the soldier
We have already identified a soldier, Gemma O’Doherty, and we will inform the reader that she’s from the Green Army.
If the reader thinks that would make Colin Sutton a Blue Army soldier, the reader would be wrong.
Sutton belongs to the Blue Army but he’s not a soldier, he’s merely a weapon.
He gets pointed, someone else presses the trigger and off he goes.
A soldier has deciding power, has a will, s/he obeys orders and can think for himself which way s/he feels best to achieve the objectives s/he was ordered to accomplish.
A weapon is blind. A soldier has a brain, a bullet only has lead, it goes where it has been fired.
But we do have a soldier from the Blue Army which we can observe and that is Insane/Not Textusa/Walkercan1000.
When in his Not Textusa outfit, Insane is dedicated to us, so to bring Gemma O’Doherty up on his blog would be out of context.
But before we analyse his Walkercan1000 behaviour in this “Gemma crisis”, one must note something very interesting about his Not Textusa persona and his blog and that was that he came out with his insulting guns blazing in defense of Colin Sutton.
If the fact that Not Textusa felt the need to come to Colin Sutton’s rescue doesn’t open the eyes of those still supporting Sutton, it can only be because they will keep their eyes firmly shut no matter with what reality will try to prise them open.
Interestingly, Not Textusa’s post was called “Grate Expectations........”.
The word ‘grate’ which Walkercan1000 is so fond of:
“Replying to @Heavy_Dave @Loverandomleigh
You don't like it do you? It grates. Shame about that. XXX #mccann”
7:51 am - 14 Jan 2018
“Replying to @its_owen87 @BourgeoisViews @paultessterry
I, nor the #mccann s have to provide proof of nothing. Sorry if it grates. XXX”
4:01 pm - 27 Jan 2018
Just one of the many coincidences the 2 insist on having.
As Not Textusa was not the right costume to fight Gemma O’Doherty, Insane used his Walkercan1000’s one to fight this particular crisis.
Anyone following on Twitter the #McCann knows Walkercan1000.
He publishes daily many tweets, 24/7/365 job. So much so that when stops putting out tweets for a single day it’s noticed.
This was Walkercan1000 tweets published from Jan 7 to Feb 2:
07-Jan (23 tweets): 11:07, 11:15, 11:17, 11:24, 13:13, 13:17, 13:31, 14:51, 15:48, 16:13, 21:38, 21:40, 21:44, 22:48, 23:07, 23:22, 23:23, 23:24, 23:25, 23:26, 00:31, 00:34 and 00:37;
08-Jan (21 tweets): 19:56, 19:56, 19:57, 19:58, 20:11, 20:28, 20:29, 20:59, 21:03, 21:35, 21:45, 00:05, 00:07, 00:09, 00:12, 00:13, 00:22, 01:04, 01:07, 01:22 and 02:11;
09-Jan (21 tweets): 06:51, 07:12, 18:35, 18:39, 19:15, 19:25, 19:37, 19:39, 23:58, 23:59, 00:04, 00:05, 00:06, 00:12, 00:13, 00:14, 00:16, 00:28, 00:34, 02:57 and 03:14;
10-Jan (36 tweets): 06:32, 15:58, 16:17, 16:28, 16:44, 16:47, 16:58, 18:03, 18:09, 18:14, 18:17, 18:53, 18:58, 19:03, 19:13, 19:16, 19:19, 19:27, 19:38, 19:46, 19:57, 19:58, 20:00, 20:10, 20:14, 20:23, 20:24, 20:27, 20:31, 20:35, 20:42, 20:49, 00:07, 00:20, 00:51 and 02:13;
11-Jan (6 tweets): 17:31, 18:04, 18:39, 18:49, 18:57 and 19:24;
14-Jan (46 tweets): 10:06, 10:14, 15:19, 15:35, 15:37, 15:38, 15:43, 15:46, 15:49, 15:51, 15:54, 15:58, 16:01, 16:09, 16:09, 16:11, 16:25, 19:44, 20:07, 20:08, 20:10, 20:16, 20:46, 21:10, 21:13, 21:22, 21:24, 23:14, 23:18, 00:48, 00:49, 00:54, 00:56, 00:57, 00:58, 01:06, 01:09, 01:13, 01:29, 01:48, 01:50, 01:50, 01:50, 02:07, 02:17 and 02:20;
15-Jan (63 tweets): 12:50, 13:12, 13:37, 13:46, 14:10, 14:24, 15:02, 15:12, 15:41, 15:48, 15:54, 16:30, 16:31, 16:35, 16:37, 16:38, 17:07, 17:09, 17:13, 17:15, 17:16, 17:23, 17:31, 17:40, 17:51, 19:36, 19:44, 19:44, 20:00, 20:03, 20:07, 20:13, 20:14, 20:27, 20:28, 20:29, 20:46, 21:21, 21:27, 21:47, 21:53, 22:01, 22:15, 22:16, 2:27, 22:27, 22:28, 22:29, 22:35, 22:41, 22:42, 23:41, 23:44, 23:48, 23:55, 00:00, 00:13, 00:33, 02:06, 02:20, 02:22, 02:28 and 02:49;
16-Jan (13 tweets): 17:39, 17:40, 22:34, 22:38, 22:40, 22:43, 22:47, 22:49, 23:31, 23:45, 23:48, 00:05 and 00:14;
19-Jan (06 tweets): 14:31, 14:36, 14:38, 14:51, 14:59 and 15:02;
20-Jan (12 tweets): 14:24, 23:59, 00:00, 00:08, 00:13, 00:15, 00:17, 00:39, 01:14, 01:16, 01:17 and 01:19;
23-Jan (17 tweets): 21:32 21:34 22:03 22:05 22:25 22:26, 22:41, 22:50, 22:55, 22:56, 23:01, 23:04, 23:07, 23:07, 23:17, 23:23 and 00:49;
27-Jan (21 tweets): 22:50, 22:56, 23:01, 23:04, 23:31, 23:37, 23:44, 23:45, 23:51, 23:52, 23:54, 23:54, 00:00, 00:01, 00:06, 00:07, 00:09, 00:14, 00:17, 00:24 and 00:25;
28-Jan (9 tweets): 22:28, 22:52, 22:56, 23:01, 23:04, 23:07, 23:09, 23:20 and 23:39;
29-Jan (6 tweets): 22:03, 22:05, 22:06, 22:10, 23:03 and 23:07;
30-Jan (14 tweets): 10:54, 11:00, 11:13, 12:01, 12:20, 12:24, 14:31, 20:58, 20:59, 21:08, 21:23, 22:29, 22:43 and 22:59;
31-Jan (2 tweets): 22:31 and 00:17;
01-Feb (13 tweets): 14:27, 15:05, 17:26, 17:46, 18:25, 18:26, 20:29, 20:33, 20:34, 20:49, 20:51, 21:36 and 21:47;
02-Feb (21 tweets): 11:28, 18:21, 19:05, 20:00, 20:02, 20:04, 20:07, 21:58, 22:00, 22:05, 22:34, 23:43 and 00:28.
A total of 342 tweets.
We have listed each day as a “working day”. Meaning that we considered that whenever thet tweeting went beyond midnight of that day, we considered the publication of those tweets belonging to it, so that the reader can observe the working hours of this individual on Twitter, exclusively dedicated to defending the hoax in the vilest manner possible.
The first thing that one can notice is that this is a person who lives off this.
He has no other profession. In fact, we question if it’s a single person using this account, although we firmly believe that if there it is more than one user, it’s all managed and controlled by the person we call Insane. We question that because when one analyses the times of publication from this Twitter account, there are too many tweets sent at the same minute or with just a minute of difference to be humanly possible.
Copying and pasting could account for this but many are replies which means they are a reaction and not a prepared action.
To exemplify, between Jan 7 and Feb 13 he sent 14 tweets within the same minute and 71 in the minute after his previous one. That’s 85 tweets out of 579, 14.7% of all tweets that he published in that period of time. On Jan 14 at 17:50 he was even able to send out 3 tweets in the same minute!
Please note that the list above (Jan 7 – Feb 2) is an “odd” sample.
If the reader thinks the problem above is an excessive number of tweets please realise that what it shows is exactly the opposite.
There are too few tweets for what is usual for Walkercan1000 and that is very telling.
To understand better, if one breaks down those 342 tweets into 24H periods, from midnight to midnight:
07-Jan: 20 tweets,
08-Jan: 14 tweets,
09-Jan: 20 tweets,
10-Jan: 43 tweets,
11-Jan: 10 tweets,
14-Jan: 29 tweets,
15-Jan: 72 tweets,
16-Jan: 19 tweets,
17-Jan: 2 tweets,
19-Jan: 6 tweets,
20-Jan: 2 tweets,
21-Jan: 10 tweets,
23-Jan: 16 tweets,
27-Jan: 12 tweets,
28-Jan: 18 tweets,
29-Jan: 6 tweets,
30-Jan: 14 tweets,
31-Jan: 1 tweet,
01-Feb: 14 tweets,
02-Feb: 13 tweets.
This means the following in terms of tweets per day Walkercan1000 posted between Jan 7 and Feb 2.
One can see that during this time he had 4 periods of over a day in which he did not publish any tweets: for 2 days and 14 hours (17-Jan 00:14 – 19-Jan 14:31), for 2 days and 14 hours (11-Jan 19:24 – 14-Jan 10:06), for 2 days and 20 hours (21-Jan 01:19 – 23-Jan 21:32) and for 3 days and 22 hours (24-Jan 00:49 – 27-Jan 22:10).
Also, in this same period, he was absent for almost a day for 4 times: 22 hours and 03 minutes (28-Jan 00:25 – 28-Jan 22:28), 22 hours and 24 minutes (28-Jan 23:39 – 29-Jan 22:03), 23 hours and 22 minutes (19-Jan 15:02 – 20-Jan 14:24) and 23 hours and 32 minutes (30-Jan 22:59 – 31-Jan 22:31):
If one considers, as one should, that between 30-Jan 22:59 and 01-Feb 14:27 he sent only 2 tweets (31-Jan 22:31 and 01-Feb 00:17) it can be considered that he was in practical terms silent for 1 day and 15 hours (30-Jan 22:59 – 01-Feb 14:27).
Putting all the above together, in yellow the time Walkercan1000 was absent between Jan-7 and Feb-2:
Hopefully the reader will now understand why we say that those 342 tweets represent way too few than what would be expected.
Anyone following the #McCann, knows this is a very, very strange behaviour from Walkercan1000.
Not if one takes into account “Storm Gemma”.
10. The alterations of the state of mind
We have highlighted in the blog during this period 7 tweets from Walkercan1000.
The first was the one we put it as a Post Scriptum to our post “The reliability of the cadaver dogs”:
“Michael Walker @walkercan1000
Madeleine #mccann. The first little girl in the world to play dressing up and messing with make up.”
3:07 pm - 23 Jan 2018
The other six were in a comment we put in that same post:
“Textusa 3 Feb 2018, 18:25:00
Can anyone tell the difference between these 2 WalkerCans:
Replying to @gemmaod1
Yes, it's a well known fact that journos, totally disconnected from the case, know more than 2 police forces who've spent about $20M. Get a life, make your money elsewhere and not out of a grieving family. Vile. #mccann
5:17 am - 7 Jan 2018"
“Michael Walker @walkercan1000
The more the new Irish Journo Tweets about #mccann (Copying Troll Hate Youtube Videos) the more you realise the #MaryBoyle video had no substance. I'd like to see what "awards" she bills it as having.
4:12 pm - 9 Jan 2018”
“Michael Walker @walkercan1000
Replying to @nowayjomo @BoyleLance and 2 others
I think @gemmaod1 is just using the #mccann case to provoke reaction to the Boyle story. I don't, for one minute, consider her to believe the shite she's posting about Madeleine. In itself it's a form of abuse.
5:12 am - 15 Jan 2018”
“Michael Walker @walkercan1000
It's laughable to think that some unemployed "journo" thinks she has anything to add to the #mccann case. Just a joke. Some "people" will do anything to generate an income.
7:12 am - 15 Jan 2018”
And this one:
“Michael Walker @walkercan1000
Apparently the #mccann s are going to be arrested. Tomorrow. LOL. XXX
3:39 pm - 28 Jan 2018”
“Michael Walker @walkercan1000
Have you noticed? Everything is "tomorrow" with the #mccann Bum Trolls. LOL
12:59 pm - 30 Jan 2018”
We then replied to that comment with:
“Textusa 3 Feb 2018, 18:49:00
And we'll answer our own question:
Walkercan1 is scared, worried.
Walkercan2 is cocky, goading.”
Let’s list chronologically these 7 Tweets:
The scared and worried Walkercan1000:
- 5:17 am - 7 Jan 2018 – GMT 07/01/2018 13:17:00
- 4:12 pm - 9 Jan 2018 – GMT 10/01/2018 00:12:00
- 5:12 am - 15 Jan 2018 – GMT 15/01/2018 13:12:00
- 7:12 am - 15 Jan 2018 – GMT 15/01/2018 15:12:00
The “make-up” Walkercan1000:
- 3:07 pm - 23 Jan 2018 – GMT: 23/01/2018 23:07:00 (please note that he published another tweet in the same minute he did this one and had published another just 3 minutes before)
The cocky and goading Walkercan1000:
- 3:39 pm - 28 Jan 2018 – GMT 28/01/2018 23:39:00
- 12:59 pm - 30 Jan 2018 – GMT 30/01/2018 20:59:00
The fact that Insane felt the need to launch his ultimate distress signal, the “make-up” picture, tells us that until then the Green Army was not only being victorious as their shells were hitting very close to his bolthole.
The Green Army attack had caught his Blue Army by surprise and things were looking really bad for him.
We have said here that we consider Insane to be their top-minion.
The fact, us speculating of course, that he’s ranked the highest among the minions allows us to get a feel of how things are going on the other side at battlefield level.
Being a top-minion has 2 sides to it. Even though he decides how vicious and vile the minions should be by setting the example he is nonetheless just a minion, he has no real deciding power and needs to ask – beg, demand, bang his fist on the table – for help when he feels he’s in a tight spot.
And he felt at that moment he was in a real tight spot. That picture has only been used once before by the other side and it was back in 2010 when it first appeared.
To see it being used again, must mean things were really heating up for him.
Either they kept him out of the loop and being anguished he “reminded” those above him that he should be remembered or, following but feeling powerless, when he saw things going really wrong for him, he saw the need to send out a meaningful warning.
The fact that he needed to fire up that particular flare into the darkest night sky tells us that when things go wrong (not if) he feels he won’t go unscathed, otherwise he, like the other minions would continue going through their sick routines completely unaware of the seriousness of the situation.
Please note that we are only observing the period before the article being posted. The aftermath is equally interesting but that we will leave for another time.
What matters is that on Jan 23 Walkercan1000 was going through tough times because of Gemma O’Doherty.
And his Jan 28 “tweet” may have not been cocky after all.
Gemma O’Doherty tweeted that day at 19:33 and 20:17 about the cadaver dog (she had already mentioned cadaver dogs on Jan 21 16:34, meaning she intended to include them in the article) and Walkercan is “cocky” at 23:07.
By coincidence, we had published our post “The reliability of the cadaver dogs” just 2 days before those 2 cadaver dog tweets, on Jan 26.
Those 2 tweets must have caught Insane by surprise and we believe that he truly thought all had been agreed upon when those 2 bombs explode right next to his hole.
He interrupts his silence and fires that “cocky” tweet. A silence which only had been broken once since the 23rd. That night he starts only at 22:28, sends out 8 meaningless tweets and then at 23:39 sends out that one. Then calls it a night and leaves again for 22H24.
A twitter-spree of just 01H11 for that one night. Very strange for the character.
Our interpretation is that it was not cockiness but a warning. Telling Gemma O’Doherty and others he communicated with that an agreement had been reached and the journo was clearly breaching it.
So, we would change the worried/Mayday/cocky picture into this:
He was only really cocky on Jan 30 20:59 when he sent his only truly cocky tweet, before Gemma O’Doherty finally conceded practically 24 hours later, on Jan 31 at 20:17, when she tweeted her first Smith/BBC tweet.
But even then, he wasn’t that certain with his cockiness because he stayed away again for another day. The “Gemma crisis” was really hitting hard.
11. Summer games all over again
We shall now yank the readers from the ground of the battlefield all the way up to the political level of the war and recommend that our post “Summer games” be revisited.
There we explained that the Bilton’s BBC Panorama had been the result of an overall agreement focused on Brexit.
We then said that Theresa May had been convinced by some to call snap elections, having been shown how a vast majority was certain. Among many other concessions, we believe she gave the green-light for Bilton’s programme.
To be clear, the TV programme was about Maddie. But how it came to be allowed to be produced and aired was within the context of Brexit.
And now the Gemma O’Doherty crisis happened in the same way. Maddie was the theme but it was neither the context nor the overall objective to be achieved.
And it wasn’t the UK that triggered it.
And, this may not please Gemma O’Doherty to hear but they used her, her independence and passion to achieve their goals and which they have.
Brexit is unquestionably the hot topic all over Europe.
This is for Theresa May her most upfront and biggest worry of all. But, let’s not discard that Brexit is not only about the UK. All the other EU member nations have a DIRECT interest in it as their own national interests are at stake, more or less depending on each country’s relationship with the exiting UK.
For Theresa May, the Maddie case is twofold.
On one hand, it is a leverage she has against those opposing her. She has used it after the disastrous election results as we have seen by continuing funding Operation Grange and the sex-pest list.
On the other, it’s a national shame.
A burden every Brit has to carry both inside the UK and outside it. Inside, whenever people have to read yet another ridiculous article of evident, shameless and embarrassing fake news about the girl, outside when they have to look away whenever the issue pops up when they are abroad and a child is reported missing. Or just because of an awkward and inconvenient question from a curious person that no Brit is able to answer without feeling ashamed.
The fact that it is an internal and external shame, it’s something that weakens the UK significantly in these critical Brexit times.
In international relationships there are no friends, only interests.
And If there is one country interested in a weak UK during the Brexit process it is the Republic of Ireland.
First, it’s public that it aspires to draw much into of the City to Dublin. The direct and public competition is with Frankfurt.
It’s not exactly rocket science to understand that one has the upper hand at a negotiating table when on the other side of it sits a weakened opponent.
And here is where we establish a parallel between the UK Summer games of 2017 with the Gemma crisis of 2018: Maddie being a mere tool, one of many, used by governments in their political games. In both cases, Brexit being the crux of both.
What we called Summer games, was about Theresa May winning her Brexit battle within the Tory party. The Gemma crisis is about the Republic of Ireland exploiting Maddie in its favour in the Brexit battle it has, as other EU member nations, with the UK.
On reading Gemma O’Doherty’s bio, one is able to see that she has indeed fought against the established powers of her country, so as shown not to be afraid of them.
And yet, as we saw, it seems that this particular time has backed down.
If the established powers of her country have not been able to bend her up to now, then logic dictates that only a higher power than the established powers of her country could.
And higher than the established powers of a country, only the country itself. The difference? When one acts against an established power, one only acts against part of the system. If against the police, one is not attacking the judicial. If against the judicial, one is not attacking the politics.
But when one has the entire country against oneself, one is fighting national interests. Those of us fighting for Maddie know exactly this difference and which makes us understand the silence of many truly honest journalists who are silent about the little girl.
12. Ipswich Star v Village Magazine
Does the reader remember the Ipswich Star?
That “unimportant” media outlet chosen to release Nigel Nessling sentence so that it would be picked up by the social media but not by the relevant mainstream media?
This time, with the exact same purpose, the Village Magazine was chosen.
Use a minor media outlet so as to avoid seeing it spilled over to the significant mainstream media.
Let’s imagine for a moment that some very influential governmental ‘Irish someone’ found a way to convince both the editor of Village Magazine and Gemma O’Doherty that they could go full Mortal Kombat on the McCanns.
Let’s imagine that Gemma O’Doherty did some research and let’s speculate that set out the terms which she would do such for a story the following way:
“I believe that the McCanns over-sedated their daughter, something they did every night that week, and when they arrived in their apartment on Thursday they found her dying and tried to resuscitate her, that caused blood to spurt out and she died there and then which later the dogs confirmed by signalling the apartment and the car they rented days later. They contacted Tony Blair, reason why I think they are being protected – who they know from Donegal as far as I could investigate and were told to take her body to a safe house but when Gerry was doing that he crossed with the Smith family and they recognised Gerry as that man. This is what I want to be allowed to say it if I’m going to write the story”.
As our readers know, we subscribe to almost nothing of the above – with the exception that Gerry did cross with the Smiths but with a live child and that the dogs did signal the presence of a corpse and blood in both apartment and Scenic – but we are speculating based on what we were able to pick up from her tweets.
Continuing to speculate she proposed to this to the editor who then contacted whoever s/he was able to contact, probably that very influential governmental ‘Irish someone’ who in turn gave the green-light and so Gemma O’Doherty received the green-light to proceed.
Note, in no way we are putting in question Gemma O’Doherty ’s independence or professionalism.
She was given a sensitive subject and, in our speculation, she set the terms to write the story in the most independent manner that she thought possible. She asked if there was a problem with the way she wanted the article written and was told, dear lady, by all means give it all you’ve got, the scoop is yours.
And we are certain she jumped at the chance.
Who better to cover the biggest cover-up of all other than a journalist who has dedicated a significant part of her career on a case she thinks is also a cover-up, the one of Mary Boyle? No better or motivated person to do it, we would say.
And she launched the first tweet on Jan 7.
And when she did, the Green Army launch the attack.
Objective? Weaken the UK in the Brexit negotiations by using Maddie.
It took the Blue Army by surprise.
And who is the Blue Army?
If the UK was the final target as it clearly was, it would be natural to say that the Blue Army would be the UK.
However, as events have shown for the last years, the UK establishment is divided when it comes to Maddie.
During the Brown rule, there was no division but when he left power, there started to be one between the government and a British elite who we believe are linked in a personal and/or professional web of interest to the VIP group of swingers that were in Luz at the time Maddie died, and which we in the blog call the “other side”.
Operation Grange was launched by the government in 2011 because it wrongly thought that it could put an end to the issue by arresting and sentencing the McCanns.
And because that wasn’t possible as we have explained in our post “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box” Grange ended up making that division between the government and the other side irrecoverable.
The Government cannot allow itself to be made a fool of by closing up an investigation without result that was launched with such pomp and circumstance.
The other side cannot, like it didn’t allow in 2007, for the truth to emerge as the interests of their personal and/or professional relationships will be severely damaged because the understandable damage that will result from being branded perverts due to the social condemnation that being outed as swingers always does in British society.
To those doubting theses consequences of this very real and harsh social condemnations of legal sexual behaviour, all we have to say is “sex-pest list”.
One of the many publicly shamed had to resign for putting a hand on a woman’s knee – the same woman who publicly came out to say that she saw no evil in the act – and another for looking at pornography.
The division between the government and the other side was set aside last spring, as we explained in our post “Summer games”, because a greater good was at stake: Brexit.
It would have been a permanent healing if it wasn’t for the electoral results.
They not only reopened the separation, they widened it as they made the government resentful for having agreed to whatever it was convinced them that the snap election was a good idea.
So, in terms of the UK, in the Maddie case, this government has no skeletons in this particular closet. For them it’s just a tool that it can use to give leverage against those it feels “betrayed” by during last spring. That’s all it is, useful but expendable. Will use it until it’s useful but if it loses, it’s no big loss.
However, for the other side it is something they have shown that they will go around the globe on foot twice to stop the truth.
So, when Gemma O’Doherty sent out that first tweet, the UK was attacked on both sides of the Maddie divide.
The government was attacked because not only the issue shames the UK and this results in a weakened UK at the Brexit table negotiation as it saw the Maddie truth being exposed in a third country. This was doubly humiliating and only the weak are humiliated.
The other side was attacked by seeing imminent the materialisation of their biggest fear, the falling of the first layer of the truth: having in a media outlet in unquestionable and definite terms Maddie’s death linked to the McCanns.
As the reader can see, the issue is complex and many are the variables on of this equation.
One has to separate them on 3 three levels, which is what constituted the Blue Army:
- On the highest, the political level the governments of both nations;
- On the operational level the other side and on the Irish side whoever nudged the editor and journalist along on this adventure;
- On the tactical level of this battle, the already mentioned editor and journalist and on the UK side, Insane’s boss.
This battle was on a much higher level than the one Insane is allowed to participate in.
The only thing he could do, and did, was to send out a threat which was just a desperate distress call. At that point in time he didn’t see real commitment on the UK part – probably he felt that the UK delegation didn’t give the required importance by dismissing the whole thing as mere “Ipswich-Star-level” news – to stifle things and he had to resort to a threat to “motivate” it.
Those thinking that one walks to a negotiation table and just because one engages in negotiations one has to take something from them have a pretty naïve vision of life.
If one goes in with nothing to force the other side’s hand then one walks away with the exact same one had when walking in, and if the other side has something then when walks out with much less.
So, when engaging in negotiations on this issue what did the Blue Army have?
in legal threats it had nothing. Any legal proceedings would be in Irish courts and as the Lisbon trial showed, they are something the UK cannot control. Besides there are no grounds to sue as the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court has TWICE made it clear that the McCanns have not been cleared.
The Blue Army only had the economic/influential threat. The capability of the UK elite threatening to sanction the Republic of Ireland in case the story wasn’t killed.
Here the problem the Blue Army has resides with Brexit.
Within the EU the Brexit elite were important. Note the past tense. We would say that before together with the German and French they were the most influential ones.
After Brexit, the British elite has lost completely its EU importance.
The Republic of Ireland is much more interested in satisfying the interests of the French and German elites than it is to the UK.
It’s not because it speaks English that the Republic of Ireland defends English-speaking interests. The Republic defends its own interests and as the EU member it is, it prioritises the interests of the EU over those of the UK.
Plus, one has to remember that time erodes everything. Those who were powerful 11 years ago are much less powerful today and will be even less so tomorrow-
With each passing day, the importance of the influence of those who will be affected by the revelation of the Maddie truth diminishes.
The only thing working in favour of the UK in these “Gemma crisis” negotiations is the relevance for the Republic of Ireland the trade between the 2 nations has.
The Republic of Ireland wants a weakened UK in the Brexit negotiations but not a too weak one. Only just that “right amount” of weakness that guarantees that its interests are completely safeguarded.
We don’t know what was negotiated nor what was conceded or obtained by each party outside the Maddie case because of Gemma O’Doherty’s article, or even if anything was at all.
But we do know what was negotiated within the case because we witnessed the build-up and have read the end result.
We are now able to tell that the Blue Army was able to get out of the article all but the Smith sighting and that they were able to introduce this “Colin Sutton” part in which included this:
“To date, Operation Grange, which now consists of four detectives from a peak of 31, has cost the British public more than £11m making it one of the most expensive police investigations in history. It was launched in 2011 after the Portuguese closed their enquiry in 2008. Funds are expected to run out at the end of March. Grange has been heavily criticised for refusing to reinterview Gerry and Kate McCann and the so-called Tapas Seven. The Met said local police had already done this and there was no need to repeat the process, but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings and best practice in cases like this dictates it is always important to eliminate those closest to the child first.”
A total waste of money that it is now one of the most expensive police investigation ever, Grange heavily criticised for not questioning the McCanns and for basing their investigation on the Portuguese extremely flawed one and as it running out of money there are only 2 options, either start over and waste millions again, or bow head, say all was wrong and call it quits.
We have dismantled this argument last week in our post “Sutton is the name, meddling is the game.”
This is what the Blue Army got out of this battle. If one analyses quantitively what was dropped to what remained and adds the Colin Sutton bit, one would say that it came out victorious from this battle.
And seen in that simplistic manner, it did.
14. Debunking the myth of waste of money
Before we proceed, let us debunk once and for all the myth that Operation Grange is wasting public money.
The funding is to pay the salaries of those involved in the operation, currently, as we have been told, made up of 4 officers led by DCI Nicola Wall.
Let’s imagine that Operation Grange is closed tomorrow. Will these 4 officers stop receiving their salaries? No, they will evidently continue to do so the only difference being that it will come from a different budget fund.
The money will be the same. None has been wasted and none will be wasted.
Saying that Operation Grange is wasting money to the detriment of searching for other missing children is simply to exploit people’s emotions.
To fully understand this, let us clarify it with a question: we learned at the end of last year that DCI Nicola Wall was responsible for the Finsbury park murder case:
When she worked on this case, from what budget fund was her salary being paid from?
Did she receive her salary from 2 budgets, a bit from Operation Grange and the other bit from whatever budget the Finsbury Park fell under? Of course not.
She continued to receive it from Operation Grange, meaning it is not exclusive to Maddie related business. It is to pay the salaries of those 4 officers who are working in whatever cases they are required to work on as in the Maddie case until they receive order from the politician there’s nothing for them to do.
So, when government decides to continue funding Operation Grange, it’s not wasting any money just making a choice of which budget fund the 4 officers’ salaries are being paid from.
Those saying that Operation Grange is wasting the tax-payer’s money are just throwing sand into people’s eyes.
By coincidence, or maybe not, Walkercan1000 puts this figure way above the rest of us mortals at a staggering £20+ million.
We ask people to stop calling for the ending of Operation Grange. They will only be helping the other side.
15. Gemma O’Doherty’s options
We can only imagine what has been going on in through Gemma O’Doherty’s mind after she sent out that tweet.
We bet she was naturally enthusiastic about the project.
Being able to give her opinion about what had happened to Maddie was certainly a project she would love to put her hands on. Her tweets show that.
According to our speculation, she had been cautious.
Knowing as everyone in the world does that the Maddie case stinks more than a rotting fish in a closed cabinet locked in for 3 days in the middle of the Sahara Desert, she made sure she had all she required to put her name to the project.
But although she has had experience in fronting the powerful, her game is journalism and not politics.
And that’s the only mistake we think she made, the one of not realising that because Maddie is politics, when she agreed to send that tweet, she was agreeing to being a politician and not a journalist.
When they gave her a month to publicise the article that should have fired up red flags.
To allow such an amount of time it meant that not only was a reaction expected as it was wanted, the whole point of the exercise, in fact.
But her passion to defend children doubly victimised – first by losing their lives and then by being disrespected – got the best of her.
Judging from her tweets, we would say that all went well up to the 22nd.
Then, sometime between then and the 28th, when we believe the basics had been agreed on between the Green and the Blue Armies on the political and operational level, she was “strongly advised” on what she could have or not in her article.
To put it bluntly, she was told to stick to the Smith sighting and to that only. And to accept the Colin Sutton part.
At that moment it dawned on her that her independence had flown out of the window the moment she sent that tweet on Jan-7.
Saying now she had an agreement had very little “legal” value in the “Political court”. In such courts the rule of law is one: Real Politik.
One may argue that once realising that the article was going to be very much different than the one she had agreed to she should have packed up her bags and left.
Very easy to say that and, again, extremely naïve.
First because if there was no article that would render the entire exercise pernicious for both countries on a political level.
For the Republic of Ireland all would not only have been useless, as it would show that the UK had the capability to reach and meddle with the Irish 4th estate.
Then, for the UK government it would seem that the other side had a capacity greater than the UK government would allow it to appear to have.
It would be seen as if the UK’s other side – note, NOT the UK government – had such a powerful boot that on its own had gone into another country and simply stomped out a “rebellion”.
An article signed by Gemma O’Doherty was physically needed under the penalty of that being humiliating for both the governments of the Republic of Ireland and that of the UK.
She had no choice.
For her to deny publishing the article that would mean moving out of the country and seeking a career elsewhere. No matter our idealistic we may be, the pragmatic need of putting food on the table overrules all.
Note, she was not told to lie, or at least not in a significant way when compared with the truth she was being allowed to mention and which she did say.
In fact, she was invited to tell the truth, to have the honour of being the first English-speaking journalist to write truth about Maddie in an English-speaking medium, post September 2007.
That is an honour no one can take away from her. That she has achieved.
The fact she tweeted with videos of Eddie and the word “cadaver” clearly written on Jan 28, means she was not only unhappy but that she was also fighting back.
The 2 Smith/BBC tweets were that of resignation demonstrated by having tweeted a single tweet after the publication for days.
We, fully understand her options and will not criticise her for her decisions. She did all she could and we respect her for that.
16. Evaluating content
Time to explain why we gave the article a 2 for content after downgrading it from a 3.
We have already explained that taking into account what we had expected to get, we got very little and that made us limit our top marks for content to a 5, independent of novelty, truthfulness and accuracy that the article contained.
As we said repeatedly we agree with the vast majority of it but having that Colin Sutton bit made us reduce that 5 to a 4 – independent of him being in the article against Gemma O’Doherty ’s will as we believe happened.
And that statement that the Portuguese investigation was littered with mistakes, put right at the end where the readers take away their “last taste” of the article made us downgrade that 4 into a 3.
Last week we showed that outside the Colin Sutton part, we have disagreed with Gemma O’Doherty on 5 occasions:
- When she said “The crowds of summer had yet to arrive and the normally bustling streets of the old quarter lay quiet”, she probably meant that the streets were normally bustling in summer but summer crowds hadn’t arrived yet and therefore it was quiet but it could be misinterpreted into the streets being bustling that week and exceptionally that night they were quiet. The nights in that village are quiet, as we showed in our post “Praia da Luz”, it has no significant night-life, so very unlikely to have bustling streets even with its summer crowds. The crowds that fill it in the summer seek the beach. It’s a to the beach or pool in the day, apartment or hotel at night kind of secluded town. Anyone staying there and wanting to have fun at night, best head for the nearby city of Lagos. It’s important that people realise that Praia da Luz’ night is far from being busy as the above said in the article makes it appear to be and even less so in the off-season, when Maddie disappeared, reason why only the Smith family saw the man. This in no way affects what is stated in the article: that the Smiths saw a man they are 60-80% certain was Gerry carrying a child in a deserted street;
- When she reduces the people on social media seeking the truth as a bunch of people merely observing the McCann body language she’s merely resorting to stereotypes and in nothing alters the fact that independent of how we or our opinions are perceived, it’s completely irrelevant as the decision about this case is solely with the British government;
- When she says the children were left alone, we believe it is in what she really believes. As we have said before, we have nothing against seeing negligence being promoted as long as it links the McCanns to Maddie’s death. Even though the article does not make that link, it does not exempt the couple from that link being made, in fact it implies by raising the high likelihood that Gerry was Smithman;
- When she limited herself to saying the shutters were only raised and not stated broken as shown in one of her tweets, nothing alters the truth and we have, if memory doesn’t fail us, John Hill saying both that the shutters were broken and that they weren’t;
- Saying the Smith sighting didn’t get the attention it deserved from the authorities we trust that she was referring to the way it was treated by the British media, Channel 4, Sky One and BBC and not a statement based on research.
So, even where we disagree, we do not see it affecting significantly the truthfulness of the 2 basis pillars of the article.
So, if we don’t disagree with what she basically wrote, in fact we even agree with it, why haven’t we given her the maximum possible mark of 3 after downgrading the scale for the reasons we have explained?
Because on analysing the content little of it is new.
Mr Amaral in the TVI document has exposed the sighting and we are certain he reached many more people with it than Gemma O’Doherty was able to do with her article.
Gemma O’Doherty’s article, unless we are shown otherwise, has only 2 novelties: that Mr Smith never changed his mind and stands by what is in the PJ Files and that BBC misled about this in the Panorama programme and have acknowledged and corrected that mistake made in “good faith”.
Both novelties, it must be said, are very important as we will see when we analyse the relevance of the article.
They are important but we are only analysing in terms of content, one of them and one of them, the supposed change of mind, is not in the PJ Files.
There, there’s no reference of a change of mind by the Smiths. We will address this in a separate post but the only way we have got to know that the Smiths had, allegedly, changed their minds was through the British media and we all know how reliable it is when it comes to reporting about the Maddie case.
In those articles, not once was he quoted nor was did any reporter say “I talked to him and he said that he now believes that the man he saw that night was not Gerry McCann”. Gemma O’Doherty says very clearly that she spoke to him and that he told her that he never changed his mind.
So, it was good to know that he confirmed that the British media have lied about Maddie and it was good see the BBC being particularly exposed and to know that it backtracked.
Because of all of the above, we have given it a 2.
17. Evaluating relevance
Upfront, we only don’t give it a 10 because the article was published in a media with less readership than the Ipswich Star.
But to be fair and as we said that was the intended, to have the “excuse” for it not to be picked up by the any more important mainstream media outlets.
If in terms of content it was indeed disheartening, in terms of relevance it exceeded the proposed initial objectives.
We have been accused of downplaying Gemma O’Doherty .
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
We, who have been fighting those she now saw herself against, are the first to understand her position and it would be wrong on our part to criticise her.
When we said that the article had been disheartening – because a mountain had given birth to a mouse – we were not criticising her but stating fact as we have shown in this post.
When we said that we saw immediately she was not the independent journalist she claimed to be, we were not criticising, simply stating fact.
One is only as independent as reality allows.
When one abides by it for valid reasons as we believe she did, one not only does not merit criticism as much as one deserves commendation.
And that is what we think she’s worthy of: praise.
We have pointed out what she left out, we have shown what the Blue Army was able to see dropped from the article and we have even said that it could claim victory.
But we now bring back the story of Jack the bullied and John the bully. Whereby one loses in order to win.
Negotiations happened and Gemma O’Doherty saw her article been slashed left, right and centre and even saw Colin Sutton being inserted into it which we believe was against her will, and yet has achieved a significant something which has forever changed all: she got the Blue Army to concede.
True that at the end of these negotiations the end-result does not have the dogs nor the blood and Colin Sutton is there in all his glory BUT it has the TRUTHFUL Smith sighting.
The Blue Army was forced to concede to the Smith sighting.
Conceding to the confirmation of the Smith sighting is literally the last possible concession the other side can make before admitting the link between the McCanns and Maddie’s death and body disposal.
And that is the entire beauty of this move. There had to be a concession to something truthful. The article could not be made up of the usual fake news because that would amount to the same embarrassment to both governments if there hadn’t been an article.
It didn’t matter what was conceded but it had to be something and it had to be truthful.
The Blue Army appeared victorious but the biggest loser was the other side.
But the loss did not end there, as there are 2 twists which make this concession even more significant.
The first and most evident is the exposure of the BBC lie, which they said was an honest mistake. It is left to explain why the BBC ignored Martin Smith’s protest and only acknowledge and correct the situation after a freelance reporter working on a story for a minor magazine (apologies Village Magazine but it’s important to note that) calls them.
What had the BBC to fear from Gemma O’Doherty? Nothing, unless it was told to “fear” her and so correct the hand – can the reader see the external hand in helping the BBC be humble?
And by admitting and correcting this error, however made in “good faith”, the BBC has dragged down with it Sky One and Channel 4 mainstream media complicit in minimising the link Martin Smith clearly made between Smithman and Gerry McCann in 2008.
The second twist is Martin Smith himself.
This concession has determined that Martin Smith is now off-limits.
No more saying in the British press that he now says he’s certain that the man he saw, wasn’t Gerry.
He’s now officially protected by the Irish government against any wrongdoing from the UK. That is a strong statement by itself.
In our opinion, Gemma O’Doherty ’s article was a battle engaged by the Republic of Ireland with the clear intent winning by intentionally losing it.
We don’t know if the UK has conceded anything outside the Maddie case because of Gemma O’Doherty’s article.
What it has obtained within the case was sufficient to make it a successful campaign.
Even though the Blue Army can claim, shall we say, mathematical victory this campaign had 2 big losers.
The first was the UK because it highlighted how shameful the Maddie case is to the country and how much it is weakened by it in these complex Brexit times.
But the biggest loser was the other side. It had to concede and liberate Martin Smith. It has no more margin of manoeuvre whatsoever. It’s down to the skin of their teeth.
An Irish magazine with a low readership was used and they had to concede.
It leaves in the air 2 questions. What would have happened if a more significant media outlet was used? What would have happened if there had been no warning time?
These 2 questions lead to a third one, can the UK afford for that to ever happen?
On the battlefield it continued to be interesting to watch both Walkercan1000 and Gemma O’Doherty after the article was published.
We will analyse the Smiths’ “change of mind” in a separate post.
We would like to leave a word of thank you to Gemma O’Doherty. Her article was quite disheartening in terms of content but very, very uplifting.
To finalise we would like to quote Walkercan1000 addressing those who found infuriating the fact that the mainstream media did not pick up on this story, to be confident because as he tweeted on Feb 13 at 10:33 (GMT) “The thing is, those that need to know, know…” and 50 minutes later that “those in the know, know…”