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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Amy T’s tweet (28SEPT),

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

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

6. Brenda Leyland’s death (04OCT).

Redwood’s appearance was after the first two.

We also added to the list above 2 other moves:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank YOU!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SY doing a PJ on Gamble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What forensics are we speaking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Mr Amaral said then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lab Ref: 300655190

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

Scenic samples:

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

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

(…)

7A, 7B, 7C,

(…)”

The following was said about these samples:

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

Apparently follicle material was insufficient for standard DNA tests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Return of samples:

(…)

Delivery 286C: 34 items listed

(…)

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

(…)”

Items for return (from FSS) dated 27NOV07:

Ref 3000655190 states 33 items were returned.

7B and 7C are items 23 and 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As we know, this process was boycotted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post-Sriptum, 20OCT2014 10:25:

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

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

We have gathered this information from Sunday Times and Guardian:

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

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

These 2 articles put together say it was the McCanns handed this dossier to the Met on 09SEPT2014. Not the “Vigilante Woman” as stated by Sky News. Something Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe would confirm this on Tuesday, 07OCT2014 (transcript from JH Forum): “But in terms of that file [Tr*ll Dossier], what happened if you recall was that the family [McCanns] handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understand the timelines and so understand what happened:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. On Monday 29SEPT2014, 1 day later, only 18 days after being published, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Summers withdrew all references to their latest book “Looking for Madeleine” from their Facebook page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the snowglobe settles, things become clearer.