Friday, 16 February 2018

Very important concessions

1. Introduction

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. (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. (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)  #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:

This one:

"Michael Walker‏@walkercan1000
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.

13. Negotiations

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.

18. Conclusion

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…”


  1. Thanks for this post -it does explain the high level games being played. It is frustrating in that those of us who simply are interested in wanting truth & justice are made to wait whilst the political games are being played. I can understand that the case gives TM leverage and she will naturally wish to hold on to that leverage and use it when needed. However, there must be consequences also for holding on to the case for too long without providing resolution. I can only feel a certain satisfaction that however difficult it is for all of us who keenly wait for the 'truth', it must be terrible for those involved having to wait whilst always looking over their shoulder. I feel it is morally wrong for politicians to use the case... simply because a little girl died and she deserves for her death to be acknowledged in a dignified manner. I understand that the case has little now to do with Maddie and has become a very longterm 'game'. Disgusting but true. Do we have no choice but to sit and wait and watch? Also, I am still interested to know if you intend to do a post about the makeup photo - it fascinates me.. Thanks again Textusa for your involved post which explains the intricacies of the 'game'.

    1. Anonymous 16 Feb 2018, 12:54:00,

      We don’t want to do a post about the make-up photo. We will only do it if we really feel we have to.

      In this post, we have already gone further than we ever intended to go but the situation required it.

      The picture was used in 2010 by the other side with the exact same purpose as Insane has used last month: to warn, to threaten.

      Then, it was to tell the new PM to let this particular dog lie. A report had already been commissioned by the government on the issue and that did not please the other side.

      As we don’t believe there’s such a thing as ignorance at this level, the message was received and understood.

      However, we believe the government, together with whoever was advising it on this matter, overestimated its capability to reach the objectives it proposed to achieve: nail the T9 and only them to the cross.

      So, they saw the message, understood it and responded by ignoring it, as if to say, don’t worry, all is under control.

      One can establish a parallel between this picture and the Gaspar statements. Recommend you revisit our post “The Brit Snitch” about it.

      One just has to think.

      Would a heavily pro-McCann (to understate) media allow the surfacing of a picture of Maddie reeking of paedophilia if the secret to hide was that?

      Of course not, only if they were idiots.

      And they are not idiots and it was in the mainstream media the picture first appeared.

      And that’s all we want to say about this picture.

    2. Thanks - I sort of get you... paedophilia has always been used as a massive distraction at pertinent times. It immediately gets people talking about paedophilia (which I agree with you is simply not directly involved in M's disappearance). So when WalkerCan used it - it was a 'last resort' flashcard...
      I suppose i dont get the other implications i.e. yes, it makes people talk and get distracted quickly but it is obviously sending out a message to specific people who are extremely sensitive to it..
      But I do respect your decision not to say anymore on the subject unless you have to ...thanks!

    3. But it was about establishment paedophillia. It was targeted at government figures...a "we know about your predilections" warning shot. New government in place etc. Still think using paedophillia to hide swinging alone is too big a stretch though. The reverse would be far more likely.

    4. What i also mean is establishment don't threaten establishment using twitter warriors and media. Those threats and games are played well out of public view.

    5. “Anon” 24 Feb 2018, 12:29:00,

      We have withheld all your 3 comments because we intend to write a post about them. However, the questions we are going to put to you and would like to see you answer them are not the subject of said post, so we have decided to publish your comments.

      You state with absolute certainty that all is “about establishment paedophilia”

      No ifs or buts. Not even giving an opinion but stating a certainty. It is establishment paedophilia is what you say is the reason for the cover-up.

      So, Maddie’s disappearance, according to you, had nothing to with that ridiculous human trafficking gang theory but with a cover-up by the “establishment paedophilia”.

      As you know, we disagree with you but let’s entertain you.

      We’ll start by correcting you.

      As we said in our post “Nepio v Paedo” about, if the covering up of Maddie’s disappearance had to do with paedophilia, then one has to be specific and correct that say it was not about paedophilia but about nepiophilia (our caps):

      “Wikipedia has the following definition for paedophilia: “is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger. NEPIOPHILIA (INFANTOPHILIA) IS PEDOPHILIA, BUT IS USED TO REFER TO A SEXUAL PREFERENCE FOR INFANTS AND TODDLERS (AGES 0–3 OR THOSE UNDER AGE 5). Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents.”
      Although nepiophilia is paedophilia, we would divide this disgusting pathology into 3 categories:
      Paedophilia – ages 6 –10;
      Hebephilia – ages 11 –14.”

      According to you, Maddie was raped and killed by a NEPIOPHILE as she was only 4 yrs old.

      So, it wasn’t “establishment paedophilia” but establishment nepiophilia or establishment infantophilia.

      In our post “Red-card”, we saw that Nigel Nessling was sentenced because he had in his possession category A images of paedophilia, among other less serious.

      We remind you that category A images are those involving penetrative sexual activity and/or ones of children involving sexual activity with an animal or sadism with children. Heinous.

      But Nigel Nessling had only possession of such heinous images. He has not been convicted of raping or killing any child below the age of 5.

      So, according to YOUR scenario of nepiophilia/infantophilia under which Maddie would have been raped and killed, the nepiophile who did that to Maddie would be without a shadow of a doubt 100 times more disgusting than Nessling.

      Let’s continue with facts.

      Operation Task was name given to the operation through which the UK handled the Maddie case, so you are basically saying that it was an operation covering-up for the establishment nepiophilia/infantophilia.

      Taking that into account, we have some questions we would like to ask you.


    6. (Cont)

      In the Operation Task debrief some entities are listed as being “represented on the Operation Task Gold Group”, so active participants in the cover-up:

      Question #1
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the HOME OFFICE do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #2
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (FCO) do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #3
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the CEOP do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #4
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the NPIA do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #5
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #6
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Operation Task also lists other entities has having given an “unprecedented level of response to this crime”, which we assume were active participants in the cover-up:

      Question #7
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AGENCY do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #8
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the NATIONAL HI-TEC CRIME UNIT do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #9
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the ANTI-KIDNAP AND EXTORTION UNIT do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #10
      How many TELEPHONE ANALYSIS EXPERTS do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #11
      How many MEDIA COMMUNICATION EXPERTS do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?


    7. (Cont)

      Question #12
      We would like to know how many people who worked in the FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE (FSS) do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Then there are entities that Operation Task debrief says they were “were represented on the Operation Task Gold Group” but are NOT included in those that gave an “unprecedented level of response to this crime”, so we have to assume they are active participants in the cover-up as well:

      Question #13
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #14
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the ACPO do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #15
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the SIO do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Operation Task debrief says, without naming them, that “a large number of UK law enforcement agencies” that also gave an “unprecedented level of response to this crime”, so, again, part of that cover up.

      Question #16
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in these “LARGE NUMBER OF UK LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES” do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Not named in the Operation Task debrief but it’s certain they are also involved in your cover-up:

      Question #17
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the BRITISH EMBASSY IN PORTUGAL do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #18
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in Nº10 do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Taking into account that for 11 years, the hoax has had unfaltering support of the British media, one must ask also the following 2 questions:

      Question #19
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in the BRITISH WRITTEN MEDIA from the broadsheet (the Times, the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Observer) to the tabloid (the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Express, the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Star) do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #20
      We would like to know how many people who worked and are now currently working in THE BRITISH TV MEDIA (BBC, Sky News, ITV and Channel 4) do you believe knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?


    8. (Cont)

      Then there are the questions that issues raised by our blog that must also be asked:

      Question #21
      Do you believe that the MANAGEMENT OF THE OCEAN CLUB who tampered with Booking sheets knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #22
      Do you believe that the TAPAS STAFF who stated there were the Tapas dinners that never existed knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #23
      Do you believe that the MARK WARNER CHILDCARE STAFF knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #24
      Do you believe that the REMAINDER OF THE MARK WARNER STAFF knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #26
      Do you believe that GUESTS, namely Wilkins, O’Donnell, Bullen, Balu, Berry and Carpenter knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #27
      Do you believe that BRITISH IMMIGRANTS, namely like Robert and Jenny Murat, Fenn, Martin, Geraghty, Cooper, TS, Jones, the Ghoul blog author and Flack knew they were aiding, know they have been aiding and know they are aiding a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Question #28
      Last question. When you are done answering the previous 27 questions (no need to be precise, a rough estimate will do) can you tell us what kind of a “gun” was put to the head of so many respectable and respected people that made them aid a nepiophile/infantophile 100 times more repugnant than Nigel Nessling who raped and killed Maddie McCann?

      Thank you.

    9. "Anon" 24 Feb 2018, 12:47:00,

      "What i also mean is establishment don't threaten establishment using twitter warriors and media. Those threats and games are played well out of public view."

      When messages are sent to a collective, they have to be done publicly, usually done in a cryptic way so that the general public doesn't understand them but those meant to understand, do.

      Mind you, twitter warriors working for the establishment are only foot warriors and only have Twitter at their disposal to send out their threats.

    10. Whoa!!! I'm not who you think i am and maybe you misunderstand me. I don't think madeleine was raped and killed...i believe known paedos in establishment are having their predilections used against them to aid the cover up....thats what i mean about the warning shot. Its the tool that keeps individuals in place. Look at cyril smith....south yorkshire police used him as an example of untouchable paedo when training new recruits in the late 70's. Do you really think things have changed? Course not. I agree that madeleine probably died in an accident...i just don't think swinging was the tool used to keep people toeing the line whether swinging happened or not.

    11. Anon 2 Mar 2018, 19:25:00,

      We have never said swinging was the tool to keep people toeing the line.

      What we have said and repeat is that the power the swingers who were present in Luz has been sufficient to keep people toeing the line in protecting their swinging.

      And the example you speak of supports us: "known paedos in establishment are having their predilections used against them to aid the cover up..."

      So, swingers, if they hold power to silence others about their sins, will do so and what we have said all along is that those present in Luz that week have that kind of power.

      And yet, on a previous post, you commented that, in a single word, no, you didn't agree with this.

    12. Anon 2 Mar 2018, 19:25:00,

      And to clarify things, we can assume that you agree with what we have said in our most recent post: "the heavily pro-hoax mainstream media had been immense idiots to the point of giving a warning shot to hide the paedophilia involved in what had happened to Maddie by using a picture of Maddie that reeked with paedophilia. Basically, trying to hide paedophilia around Maddie by linking Maddie with paedophilia".

      Is this true?

      We would also like to know your answers to the 28 questions we have put to you.

    13. Unpublished Anon "please do not post this comment",

      We never check IP addresses.

      It doesn’t prove anything and we have no way of accurately knowing which comment is linked to which IP address and there are many ways to go around this.

      People who check incoming IPs are just wasting their time as if someone doesn't want the blogger author(s) to not know from where they are coming from there are many ways to do that.

      Plus, your comment implies that we know what Insane's IP is and we haven't the faintest idea.

      If you don’t feel safe telling us anything, then please don’t. Protect yourself as a priority-

    14. The 28 questions boil down to the same answer....if you find out what is going on but feel powerless to do anything...then by extension one would be complicit no matter how you view the scenario. Secret services agencies have often honeytrapped individuals who wield power to have leverage...these individuals really couldn't care how nasty someone is. The teason i said in a was because anon was taking the point too far. Strip it back to simplest form and it makes more sense. Evil people kept in line because their predilections are known about. Which makes people complicit. Again using the cyril smith example where the head of sy police admitted he knew what was going on. Technically he is then complicit even though he hated the man.

    15. Anon 3 Mar 2018, 07:37:00,

      Thank you for your reply.

      The point of us having put you 28 questions (to be precise, 27 +1) was to show the huge number of arms that were, have been and continued to be twisted, or in your terms, honeytrapped.

      If one can twist an arm or two, figuratively speaking, to pull favours to cover-up one’s shortfalls, we think impossible to twist hundreds if not of thousands of arms, unless they didn’t mind having their arms being twisted. The kind of thing one allows to help a friend.

      When it involves paedophilia, we have witnessed many allowing their arms being twisted but nowhere near this scale.

      The Savile case is used as an example. Note we are talking of only many people in the BBC and some people in the police and we would even go as far as saying in the government.

      But do note the differences. First, there was a PASSIVE cover-up, not an ACTIVE one like we have witnessed with the McCanns.

      We did not see numerous UK agencies or the government coming forward and VISIBLY closing ranks around Savile.

      He was a dark secret that many knew of but it was secret that was not spoken of. There weren’t headlines after headlines sanctifying Savile. He was a performer and the news that were heard of him were within the showbusiness context.

      Plus, no victim of Savile was the age of Maddie. We believe if Savile had targeted infants there would not have been any silence.

      When speaking of Savile we are talking of the SILENCE and not PARTICIPATION of many BBC people, a restricted number of police and governmental people.

      Our 27 questions were to show that with Maddie we are talking of the active PARTICIPATION of all the people mentioned in those 27 questions (many others we left out because their names did not come to our memory when we wrote them) which we think is an impossibility of arm twisting.

      Their participation has to be voluntary. And that to us tells us that large number of people know the secret in question is not a heinous one.

  2. I have read elsewhere that you missed Gemma saying it was her first article

    1. Anonymous 16 Feb 2018, 13:18:00,

      When we first read the article, on that Saturday 3, faced with so much of the expected missing, it was one of the first things we checked to see if it was a first part of a series.
      We haven’t found a quote to indicate that.

      The only thing that can be taken for that is her initial words of in this tweet:

      “As part of my #MadeleineMcCann investigation, the BBC have admitted to me…”

      The “part” mentioned is her mentioning one bit of the investigation she did and not that the forthcoming article would be a first part of a series.

      If that someone from that elsewhere knows better, then we would really like to know.

      Gemma O’Doherty has only tweeted twice on this subject after article published:
      “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
      Louth man Martin Smith has confirmed he remains 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. Police are keen to talk to the man he saw, who has yet to come forward and identify himself. My report is in @VillageMagIRE today #McCann
      3:10 am - 3 Feb 2018”
      “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
      My investigation on Madeleine #McCann, the key sighting that police believe could unlock the mystery of her disappearance and how the BBC misled the public about it:
      1:55 am - 10 Feb 2018”

      In neither time does she indicate that she’s going to continue. We hope she will, but very much doubt that the powers behind all this will allow it to continue as the objectives have been fully achieved.

      We’ll be more than happy If she proves us wrong.

    2. In fact in the beginning #29 was:

      "As part of my investigation into the Madeleine McCann case, 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. My first report will be published tomorrow in Village Magazine."

      Later Gemma O'Doherty edited it.

    3. Anonymous 16 Feb 2018, 17:53:00,

      If what you say is true (and we're not implying it isn't, only acknowledging the fact that unless there's a screengrab of the original we have no way of confirming it) then it confirms she has no intention of continuing, making this the first and only article she intends writing about it.

      Again, we hope we are wrong.

  3. Well, unfortunately I don't have a screenshot, but this is also on her Facebook page, unedited:

    1. Anonymous 16 Feb 2018, 18:26:00,

      Bringing it over to the blog:

      "Gemma O'Doherty
      2 February at 16:34 ·
      As part of my investigation into the Madeleine McCann case, 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. My first report will be published tomorrow in Village Magazine"

      What we have said above stands. If Gemma O'Doherty has edited the tweet as all indicates she has, in our opinion she's clearly showing the intent of not continuing.

    2. To be clear, this is what we published as a comment:

      Textusa2 Feb 2018, 16:15:00
      Tweet #29

      “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
      Gemma O'Doherty Retweeted Village Magazine
      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
      7:59 am - 2 Feb 2018

      This means Tweet was NOT edited.

      On Feb 2 she added "My first report will be published tomorrow in Village Magazine" to that text on post on her FB page.

      That leads to the conclusion that on Feb 2, she apparently intended to publish following articles (which we will welcome, if they come).

      However, as we said, the 2 tweets post publication don't seem to indicate that is the case.

    3. We have been informed by a reliable source that it's not possible to edit tweets.

      No one from our team uses Twitter and we apologise for our ignorance and as stated in the post, we thank this heads up.

      Gemma O'Doherty tweeted at 7.59 am (13.59 GMT) what was quoted above.

      At16.34, when publishing a FB post, she copied the text of the tweet and added "My first report will be published...".

      So, there was no editing. There was a tweet and a FB post.

      Our apologies.

      We maintain that after the publication of the article, she hasn't indicated that she was publishing any more articles.

      Repeating ourselves, we wish she does.

  4. My apology. It is possible that I first saw the FB status, then the tweet. When I saw the tweet, I thought that something is missing. The human memory is a very strange thing. I'm very sorry.

    1. Anonymous 17 Feb 2018, 06:35:00,

      No problem and thank you for your participation.

      At least the blog learned something from this, and that's always positive!

  5. Hi Tex
    Your advisor on Irish politics needs to explain to you the meaning of the Gaelic phrase tiocfaidh ar la (our time will come,....for a United Ireland). When you understand this, you will see that the Brits, now declared as post Brexit have no power over Irish politics. They may claim influence, but they don’t. It was for other reasons.Your deconstruct on the evolution of Twitter tweets is excellent, including spotting the insertion of Sutton and recognising it is a failed false flag, but really your theory that Gemma O’Doherty’s article changed due to the perfidious Albion and the internal UK political machinations over Brexit are tenuous in the least. Recognise the long Irish game here.
    Nb TAL are also a notorious Provo gang linked to Glasgow Celtic football club; if we wish to look for further Dr G McCann connections.
    Take a step back Tex, if Gordon Brown had a McCann price to Portugal for signing the EU Lisbon treaty, then there is now no cost to maintaining good relations with the UK in European eyes. In fact Portugal can gain EU kudos by making the weak UK squirm; and the very schwerpunkt is the Macann cover up and abduction conspiracy hoax, as neatly defined by Det. G Amaral who concluded that they were aided and abetted by UK MI5. It is time for the PJ to make their stand.

    1. Anonymous 17 Feb 2018, 09:12:00,

      Thank you for your comment, but we don’t have an Irish advisor.

      When we used the example of Jack the bullied and John the bullied, we in no way meant to imply that Jack was the Republic of Ireland and John the UK.

      We only used it as the simplest example we could to illustrate the engagement of an exercise with the intent of losing it knowing that one will profit from it.

      We could have used historic examples which would involve political complexities but the blog does not wish to be in any way political.

      So, we believe that whoever in the Republic of Ireland engaged in this exercise never meant to win it, meaning that it wasn’t meant to be followed through, thus losing it.

      We have never said or implied “the Brits, now declared as post Brexit” have power over Irish politics.

      However, no nation lives on its own. As long as they live, as they do, in an intertwined web of interests, one nation’s politics will always exert power over the other.

      If country A imports needles from country B, country B’s politics will have the amount of influencing power over country A directly related with the importance the needles are for that country.

      Also, one must not forget the anational economic powers. The best example of this is Rupert Murdoch, who being an Australian born American has a very strong influence in Britain.

      He is a public figure but there are many unknown other Murdochs in this world, powerful people from a nation who have economic power over other nations.

      One thing appears factual and that is Gemma O’Doherty’s article underwent external interference, which ended up altering it.

      It was only in the interest of the UK for that article to have been altered.

      If the UK influence was forced down on the Republic of Ireland or if it happened because the last would always allow it as it was the objective of the exercise from the outset, we will leave that for the readers to judge.

      Your comment does help prove one of our points: the Irish Republic would never allow the article to have been written in a Kandohlisd style because then that would indeed imply that the UK would have had power over the Irish and that would be unacceptable.

      Reason why the article is 90% true.

    2. Who do you believe are the ones in the UK that have convinced or forced Gemma/The Village to alter the article?

      Are you hinting (or hoping?) the 10% change was a polite request from OG as they are now so close? Or was this a more sinister political interference?

      Or am I misunderstanding you?

    3. Anonymous 17 Feb 2018, 13:28:00

      We don’t think anyone from the UK “convinced or forced Gemma/The Village to alter the article”.

      What we have speculated is that whoever convinced Gemma was from the Irish side.

      If one engages in an exercise in which one intends to lose (and so win), then if the other side does not win, one ends up winning which in reality means losing.

      Although the UK had little or no leverage, it was in the Irish Republic’s interests to have Gemma O’Doherty’s article “shortened”.

      The UK could not afford having revealed more than indeed.

      When we said it was 90% true, we were wrong as it’s true much more than that.

      If one looks at it attentively, outside what we would call the “Colin Sutton” part, it only contains 1 lie and which was the real relevant thing the other side had real interest in having it there, and that was being said that the children were left alone, while the parents were at Tapas.

      We, who are familiar with the case know those dinners never happened and that the children were never left alone.

      However, as we said in the post, this seems to be something in which the journalist believes in, so we don’t think any convincing happened there, only the exploitation of her belief and letting that continue to be there.

      But this and the Colin Sutton part, in which the falsity of saying the Portuguese investigation was littered with mistakes, was an allowance not a concession.

      The only ones conceding, and bigly, were those forced to allow the truthfulness and respective importance of the Smith sighting be made public.

      About who made up the “UK delegation”, we can only speculate – and have between ourselves – but won’t do it publicly.

      However, Colin Sutton’s presence in the article is telling.

    4. Thanks for the detailed reply (I'm still struggling with it TBH!) but have to ask why it would be in the Irish Republic's interest to shorten Gemma's article?

      Why would Gemma seemingly agree to this shortening? What could possibly convince such an independent journalist that has been wronged by the very same people (I assume government here) as before with her political sacking?

      The article was hyped by her on Twitter for weeks beforehand and so why didn't TPTB (whoever they are) just stop the article being published if they have such power?

      I really feel this is all being made out to be far more complicated than it actually will prove to be.

    5. Anonymous 17 Feb 2018, 17:43:00,

      When we said shorten, it was a figure of speech because of what was left out of it, which it it had been included would have made it be a much longer article.

      The rest of your questions we have tried to answer the best way we could in the post.

    6. With all due respect how do you know anything was left out?

      Frankly I would only believe parts were left out if Gemma posted so on Twitter or made a video stating such. That isn't going to happen, though.

      If Gemma is 100% genuine then it doesn't follow she would fall at the last hurdle and fold to TPTB like you suggest here.

      If your previous post addresses any of the above I apologise in advance for being too dumb! Keeping things simple works much better for me.

    7. Anonymous 17 Feb 2018, 18:26:00,

      Please refer to the following headings of present post:

      #4. Gemma O’Doherty’s tweeting timeline
      #5. Gemma O’Doherty’s Tweets
      #6. The included and the excluded

      Thank you

    8. Morning Textusa.

      OK I agree she was talking in Tweets about other subjects in the case in the hype up phase but that these subjects didn't make the cut could (as you alluded to yourself) be down to article length.

      It would have took every page of that issue and more to include everything and a lot had to be edited out. The Tweets were her way to get the message (that she has done her research into the case) across.

      Playing devil's advocate and say you're 100% right about interference. Who benefits? I don't believe any MSM in the UK have even mentioned this article so what would be the point for the almighty powerful "other side" to meddle with a random Irish article?

      The only people to have discussed this are this and a couple of other blogs and the two small McCann forums. Hardly a good reason to go to such trouble.

    9. 10.30
      Do you believe Brexit is played out in a couple of other blogs and the two small McCann forums? If this was about Brexit like Textusa said, what social media had to say about the article mattered little.

    10. Journalists when writing for a media outlet, are informed how many words minimum/maximum their article/column is to have. The reason has nothing to do with censorship but with space management of their pages.

      To say that Gemma O’Doherty has left out 26 of her 29 tweets promoting her article because she would have to write a book instead is as absurd as Insane promoting that the cadaver scent is purely gaseous.

      One does not promote frying pans to sell mattresses. One promotes what one wants to sell. Reason why we say Gemma Odoherty promoted what she thought she would be able to sell but then dound found out that really couldn’t.

      The reason why we think the Irish Republic engaged in this exercise. This means that it’s our opinion that the only ones deciding in this issue was whoever initiated it.

      We have never said that someone in the UK convinced or forced Gemma O’Doherty/The Village to alter the article.

      The UK, we said, did not have any leverage. It had to concede. And it didn’t concede anything to Gemma O’Doherty but to whomever started this exercise.

      Gemma O’Doherty, as her cadaver dog tweets seem to show, was not happy with what had been agreed and that, if true, automatically rules out she being part of the negotiations.

      Saying that Operation Grange has requested anything on this, is again diverting the attention away from those indeed involved in this from the UK.

      First, and we will say it as many times as need be, Operation Grange is nothing but using the Met in a sick political game. It has no participation, it is sitting in the sidelines waiting for the manager to tell it to enter the pitch.

      One has to look at Operation Grange as an expensive player that a football club has bought in 2011 but and has only played 1 time in 2014 (the UK Crimewatch) and 4 times in 2015 (the Luz circus, the July arguidos, the INML visit and the December hearings).

      Other than that, he has sat on the bench. Everyone knows he’s a football player, everyone knows he’s allegedly costing the club a fortune and everyone knows that he’ll be decisive either when if and when he is to enter the pitch again or when he’s declared to have an irrecoverable lesion that won’t allow him ever to play again.

      That said, OG had nothing to do with this. And it would be quite strange for it to have taking into account that someone who has publicly dissed it, Colin Sutton is part of the article and criticises it “Grange has been heavily criticised for refusing to reinterview Gerry and Kate McCann and the so-called Tapas Seven”. Is Grange masochistic?

      The way we read what happened was if the UK did not react to the article, then Gemma O’Doherty would be allowed to write the piece without restrictions. It would not echo in the mainstream media but the social media would explode beyond control. The UK had to react.

      Once shown how much the Maddie case weakens the UK, it was in the interest of the Irish Republic to allow the UK to save face. Lose to win, as intended.

      The “the almighty powerful "other side"” – which has to be in the UK very powerful indeed as it has been able to silence the truth for 11 years – had no power in this case. Reason why they were the biggest losers in all this.


    An image if you scroll down of someone mentioned in Gemma o D article.....have neer seen this before.


    1. Bampots,

      You mean this passage from this Oct 15 2013 Daily Mail article?


      It has now been suggested Madeleine was abducted a few minutes before her mother raised the alert at 10pm on May 3, 2007.
      Last night’s appeal focused on two previously unreleased computer e-fit images of a man seen carrying a child 400 yards from the McCanns’ holiday apartment at this time.

      The suspect was seen by an Irish family from Co Louth. Martin Smith, who was holidaying with his wife and two children – and other family members – said the man was carrying a child along a deserted side street and that she was blonde with ‘typically British’ skin. She was also wearing similar pyjamas to those worn by Maddie.

      The account of Mr Smith, who provided details for one of the e-fits, has been called into question because he initially told investigators the suspect walked and looked like Madeleine’s father Gerry McCann. But British police say they are certain Mr McCann had absolutely nothing to do with his daughter’s disappearance."

  7. Yes...i struggled to copy without advert pollution.


  8. Is this mysterious influence connected to Jim Gamble? I seem to remember one if the comments on previous post commented that JG was now following Gemma O D on twitter and vice versa....before the article was published.

  9. I’m not convinced Gemma O’Doherty left material out of her article because of length. In my opinion there was quite a lot of padding up front with ‘the interesting stuff’ left until later - a rather thin article all told. Crucial information, like the dogs altering to death in 5a, should not have been left out. To do so is to turn your face from the truth.

    1. Anonymous 18 Feb 2018, 19:18:00,

      Thank you.

      If Gemma O'Doherty intended on Feb 3 for this to be a first of many parts, why would she start at the end?

      The Smith sighting was the last episode before the alarm. Wouldn't it make much more sense to start, for example and going by her tweets, with the alleged fight between Kate and Gerry on the Wednesday night?

      We, say without any irony or sarcasm when we say we will welcome enthusiastically a following truthful piece by Gemma O'Doherty on the subject.

      However, we have to be honest with ourselves and our readers, and thinking we fully understand the forces involved she saw herself facing, we have to say, without criticising or condemning her, we don't believe she will.

      If she does, good!

  10. Walkercan hasn't tweeted for ages. Gone thanks to you?

    1. Anonymous 19 Feb 2018, 12:46:00,

      We have also noticed his absence but we don’t think we have anything to do with it.

      After the publication of the article on Feb 3, Walkercan100 went “AWOL” at the following intervals:

      - from 05/02/2018 00:53 to 06/02/2018 18:16 (01d 17h 23’)

      - from 07/02/2018 05:22 to 08/02/2018 15:47 ((1d 10h 25’) – but if one takes into account that on Feb 7 he only tweeted for 14 minutes at strange hours (05:08 to 05:22), one should consider that this silent period started at 06/02/2018 21:15 and that would mean a break of 1d 18h 32’)

      - from 12/02/2018 01:10 to 13/02/2018 10:29 (01d 09h 19’)

      - from 13/02/2018 19:22 to 14/02/2018 19:28 (01d 00h 06’)

      We published our post at 16/02/2018 09:00.

      He then broke his silence of 2d 18h 24’ (which had started at 14/02/2018 22:27) at 17/02/2018 16:51, tweeted 7 times in 37’ minutes and hasn’t returned since 17/02/2018 17:35.

      So, credit is due where credit is due and his “tweeting crisis” started long before we published this post, as we said in it, it was equally interesting to watch the afterwards of the post as it had been watching what had happened before it.

      These silence periods are between him and his higher echelon, in our opinion nothing to do with us.

  11. Excel is a wonderful tool. Please see how many working days of 8H+ Walkercan1000 had since this Gemma O’Doherty article crisis began:

    - From 09-Jan 06H51 to 10-Jan 03H14 (21 tweets) Total hours: 20H23
    - From 10-Jan 06H32 to 11-Jan 02H13 (36 tweets) Total hours: 19H41
    - From 14-Jan 10H06 to 15-Jan 02H20 (46 tweets) Total hours: 16H14
    - From 11-Feb 09H38 to 12-Feb 01H10 (29 tweets) Total hours: 15H32
    - From 03-Feb 10H08 to 04-Feb 00H13 (48 tweets) Total hours: 14H05
    - From 15-Jan 12H50 to 16-Jan 02H49 (63 tweets) Total hours: 13H59
    - From 07-Jan 11H07 to 08-Jan 00H37 (23 tweets) Total hours: 13H30
    - From 02-Feb 11H28 to 03-Feb 00H28 (13 tweets) Total hours: 13H00
    - From 30-Jan 10H54 to 30-Jan 22H59 (14 tweets) Total hours: 12H05
    - From 09-Feb 12H32 to 10-Feb 00H19 (31 tweets) Total hours: 11H47
    - From 10-Feb 12H34 to 11-Feb 00H01 (45 tweets) Total hours: 11H27
    - From 20-Jan 14H24 to 21-Jan 01H19 (12 tweets) Total hours: 10H55
    - From 04-Feb 14H26 to 05-Feb 00H53 (18 tweets) Total hours: 10H27
    - From 08-Feb 15H47 to 09-Feb 00H58 (33 tweets) Total hours: 09H11
    - From 13-Feb 10H29 to 13-Feb 19H22 (14 tweets) Total hours: 08H53

    Please note that in the 48-hour period of 9/10 Jan, this individual worked for 40H.

    This clearly shows how seriously the Gemma Doherty’s article frightened the other side if it had gone without being meddled with, even if a “minor” media outlet such as is the Village Magazine.

    As shown in post, please add to this erratic behaviour the fact that he didn’t send out any tweets on the following working days: 12-Jan, 13-Jan, 17-Jan, 18-Jan, 21-Jan, 22-Jan, 24-Jan, 25-Jan, 26-Jan, 05-Feb, 12-Feb, 15-Feb, 16-Feb and 18-Feb.


    How bad would it look if Mcs took legal action against anybody now?

    1. Bringing it over to the blog:

      Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
      Dirty swines ex-pats avoiding HMRC and hiding child sex attacks to preserve their holiday lets. When the #mccann NoWin NoFee lawyers turn up McAlpine style (en masse) they and the libellers will be taken to the cleaners. All Trolls are easily found when they break the law. XXX
      4:40 pm - 20 Feb 2018

    2. And also this one, in the same context:

      Words‏ @QuotesMcCann
      "As you can imagine Madeleine's parents are distraught and not doing very well at all. It's still questionable as to whether it's abduction. We are hoping that Madeleine is found as soon as possible and safe and well." John Hill BBC News 04/05/2007 #McCann

      Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
      Replying to @QuotesMcCann
      Is that the John Hill who worked for Mark Warner who with the local authority worked to conceal child sex crime in the vicinity to protect and preserve their tourist dollar. That one? #mccann
      2:17 pm - 20 Feb 2018

    3. 2 very interesting tweets above.

      Guess one could also include this one:

      Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
      Replying to @Loverandomleigh @nowayjomo and 2 others
      Interesting that @gemmaod1 had to imply some sort of sinister Irish connection between Boyle and #mccann to drum up inquisitiveness. Typical journo (albeit unemployed) tactic worthy of the gutter press. What a fail, first Malinka now this fraudster. Poor Trolls.
      12:49 pm - 8 Feb 2018

    4. I can see Insane having a breakdown soon. He has his finger stuck in a dam and can’t move away or he will be the first to be washed away when the dam bursts. He must be more heavily involved than I imagined.

    5. Textusa @11.10
      IMO Insane's tweet means Hill is involved otherwise he would risk action against him.
      Is he biting the hand that has fed him?


    John Worboys case: Met Police loses 'landmark' appeal
    9 minutes ago

    Victims of serious crime may now be able to sue police for breach of their human rights if they fail to investigate their cases effectively.

    It comes after a Supreme Court ruling against the Metropolitan Police over its handling of the John Worboys case.

    Two women who were both raped by the black cab driver, had argued their treatment by police - who did not believe them - caused them mental harm.

    The Metropolitan Police said it fully accepts the decision.

    Human rights organisation Liberty said it was a "landmark" ruling.

    One of the victims, known as DSD, who was the first of Worboys' victims to make a complaint to the police in 2003, said: "It has been an emotional day. Fifteen years."

    Referring to the police, she added: "Had you done your job properly, there wouldn't be 105 victims, there would be one.

    "I can take the one. I can't take the 105."

    Her lawyer Harriet Wistrich said: "It's a very, very important judgment - very important for vindicating the rights of my two clients but also for the other victims of Worboys."

    The women are also separately pursuing a judicial review of the Parole Board's decision to release Worboys.

    Worboys was able to continue to attack women until he was convicted of 19 offences in 2009, when he was ordered to serve at least eight years in jail.

    The Met believe he may have carried out more than 100 rapes and sexual assaults on women in London between 2002 and 2008.

    The women brought their claims under article three of the Human Rights Act - the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.

    Until then, police could not be found to be negligent for generally failing to identify and apprehend an unknown suspect.

    The police appealed, arguing that its duty was fulfilled simply by having practices and procedures to investigate in place, although it was agreed that the damages awarded to the women would not be recouped if the appeal succeeded.

    Giving the Supreme Court's ruling, Lord Kerr said: "By a majority, we have held that failures in the investigation of the crimes, provided they are sufficiently serious, will give rise to liability on the part of the police.

    He continued: "The important point to make is that, if the investigation is seriously defective, even if no systemic failures are present, this will be enough to render the police liable."

    The Met Police said it "unreservedly apologises to the victims we failed".

    Sir Craig Mackey, deputy commissioner of the Met Police, said in a statement that it had appealed because "police forces needed absolute clarity on the boundaries of police responsibility and liability for their investigations".

    He added: "There is no doubt that it will have implications for how we resource and prioritise our investigations."

    Victims let down 'horrifically'


  14. (Cont)

    The appeal followed a 2013 High Court ruling which found the Met was liable to the women - known as DSD and NBV - for failures in its investigation.

    DSD said she suffered a depressive disorder as a result of her treatment by officers during the 2003 investigation and was awarded £22,250.

    NBV claimed she suffered serious distress, anxiety, guilt and an exacerbation of post-traumatic disorder and depression because of her treatment by police. She was awarded £19,000.

    Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said: "Having already let these women down in the most horrific way, the Met could have accepted the High Court's ruling four years ago.

    "Instead, they used taxpayers' money to drag them all the way to the highest court in the land."

    The case comes a month after the government announced it would not challenge the Parole Board's decision to release Worboys after he had served less than 10 years in prison.

    Inset in the article:

    Analysis: Legal correspondent Clive Coleman

    The ruling is highly significant for both victims of serious violent crime and for the police forces that investigate it.

    It means that if a police force conducts an investigation into the crime which fails in a way which is deemed sufficiently serious, it will be liable to a human rights action brought by the victim.

    Successful claims will result in compensation to the victims. The ruling means that there is an additional rigour placed on police forces to ensure they properly investigate violent crime.

    The 2010 report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission disclosed many serious failings in the police investigation in Worboys.

    So the ruling is likely to lead to more claims by his victims.

    However there will be many other victims of violent crime who feel that they were let down by serious police failings, who will now want to consider bringing claims for breach of their human rights.

  15. It is very interesting to note that Insane’s very good friend, Tigger, has felt the need to resurface after just 779 days of silence (03/01/2016 12:32 to 20/02/2018 12:57) and comment on his blog.

    A break that has lasted 2 years, 1 month and 19 days.

    Even Insane was surprised! Insane, who was absent as Not Textusa for quite a long time as well, as we all know…

    Are we by any chance witnessing a resurfacing in a desperate attempt to avoid a lid being closed?

  16. Are you able to tell us the name of the blog?
    There was a tigger blog -
    but I cant see a new post there..Thanks


    Dont think tigger is entirely silent re mccanns...she has retweeted things and made some of her own i think...tho i dont see her name very often at all ....she is still there.


    1. Bampots,

      We were wrong about Tigger’s absence. We must confess that we only checked on Insane’s blog and Tigger’s last comment before yesterday on that blog was on Jan 3 2016.

      However Tigger was at least active in his/her blog

      We will leave it up to readers to judge for themselves how can someone write what is in this blog and support Insane’s blog.

      Tigger posted a “good-bye” post on his/her blog on Oct 17 2016, in which curiously commented on Nov 22 2016 at 12:10 that “Unfortunately nottex doesn't post anymore…”

      After that, Tigger posted on the following dates: in 2016, Dec 3 and in 2017, March 7, March 18, April 20, April 22 and October 10.

      We commented because we were informed that Tigger made the following comment in Insane’s blog:
      “tigger20 February 2018 at 12:57
      This cult is fast reaching the point where all the true followers volunteer to follow Textusa to Planet X by taking poison.”

      To which Insane replied:
      Not Textusa20 February 2018 at 15:44
      Tigger! Good to see you :)…

      Opening up your link, we now have seen that Tigger continues active on Twitter.

  18. It seems something interesting may be coming.

    Insane has already given an excuse for a forthcoming absence from Twitter:

    Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    Following my success last year in France, Spain, Amsterdam and Egypt my USA event kicks off next week. All tickets are sold. However, in Cuba, due to visa problems, the event is still not confirmed. Apologies, but my team r working hard to resolve the issue. #mccann #bamber #knox
    1:40 pm - 22 Feb 2018

    After being absent since Feb 14 (returns on the Feb 17 for only 37 minutes and send just 7 tweets) Walkercan1000 returns on Feb 19 at 20:30 to send 33 tweets in 3H30 minutes.

    Then has 2 frantic 12h+ working hour days:
    - From 20/02/2018 11:59 to 21/02/2018 00:40 (54 tweets) Total hours: 12:41
    - From 21/02/2018 11:23 to 21/02/2018 23:52 (47 tweets) Total hours: 12:29

    Then on Feb 22, ignoring 1 odd tweet he sent at 08:32, starts his working day at 11H38 and keeps his rhythm by sending 9 tweets for 1H51, until 13:39.

    Between 13:39 and 21H17 he puts out only 3 tweets, 14H49, 15H10 and 20H19. In all practical terms, a break of 8H04. A very strange break.

    At 21H17 quickly fires 6 tweets in 23 minutes, ending with the one at 21H40 warning us he’ll be busy next week.

    Waits 44 minutes to send the next one and resumes his front-cover.

    We also noticed that he received a strange comment the other day on his blog:

    “Anonymous 21 February 2018 at 08:42
    It's closing in - yes someone VIP is going to be named... yes - they are!! And you'll never guess just who is going to do the dirty deed...ppppppppp”

    It may be nothing, or it may be something. We will wait and see.

  19. We would like to call the attention of our readers to the replies to the FIRST comment we received in this post by Anon 24 Feb 2018, 12:29:00/24 Feb 2018, 12:47:00 and our replies to him/her

    1. And impossible to agree with the list of questions without blindly believing that child sex abuse was the reason for a cover-up. It’s absurd...

  20. Totally ridiculous to think paedophilia was the reason for this cover up.It is frustrating that so much time is taken in even discussing it. It is clear there were a large amount of 'guests' at the OC that week, that lots of staff were at their disposal to perform child-minding. Lots of women and mothers present- the idea that they were there as part of some kind of circle of paedophilia is ludicrous. They were there to have a good time, knowing their children were well cared for.They were there to indulge in adult fun with like minded people. They didn't want their names in the papers, and when a child died, they panicked and made a stupid decision and it snowballed. 60 + guests haven't all lied to cover paedophilia.
    However, they must love it that when someone plants it in a blog / forum/ media, everyone spends days being distracted by it..

  21. WOW! So there we have external verification of your swinger hypothesis TEX, your ANONYMOUS states that the 'guests' at the OC were there for a bit of out of season adult fun. They panicked when a child died by covering it up, creating a conspiracy of silence and eventually disposing of the body [RIP Madeline].
    So 60+ guests did not indulge in paedophilia, but we can conclude that they did conspire to prevent the course of justice (a criminal offence) by providing the false abduction story and frustrating the Portuguese police investigation and their legal process.
    This conspiracy has been on going now for 10 years. It wont go away and is not sustainable for ever. There will be heavy hearts with guilty consciences out there, both in the PDL expat community and UK and yes it is also economically damaging to the local community. ANON; it is time for the minor participants to come clean to the PJ (turn queen's evidence) and move on with their lives. Leave the heinous ones to face up to justice.

  22. Hi Tex.
    I wonder if you reached out to Gemma for comment ? I'd be very interested to hear her side of things - maybe she would open up, even if 'off the record' ?
    Keep up the good work. :-)

    1. Anonymous 2 Mar 2018, 11:12:00

      Our way of communicating with the outside world, is via what we publish.

      However, if the outside world wishes to communicate with us, they can always submit a "Do not publish" comment and we will help the truth the best way we can.


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.