This week we promised that we would help the UK with the reconstruction proposed by Mr Amaral. You know, the one he dared SY to do it with their Crèche Dad.
However two other things that have dominated the past week: Sharon Osbourne’s words of McCann negligence and the filing of the appeal to the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court by the McCanns.
So, we apologise to the UK and ask for patience for just one more week.
2. The “Friend”
The week started with “Sharon Osbourne blasted by missing Madeleine McCann's parents after she brands them "insane" for leaving girl alone”.
That was the title of the Mirror article of 23:00, 21 May 2016 (09:47, 22 May 2016) by James Desborough , Emma Pryer , Dan Warburton.
It turns out that it wasn’t by the parents who called Sharon “ignorant, ill-informed” but a friend of the McCanns .
The article is clear: “A family friend said: “It’s very disappointing when someone with such a high profile makes this sort of ignorant, ill-informed comment.””
Not the McCanns but this “family friend”. Please don’t say it was Clarence Mitchell as he has outlasted his use, a long time ago.
This person, whoever s/he is, is far from being a friend of the McCanns even though s/he boasts of having the title.
In fact we think that the McCanns have so few true friends left right now that someone should think of starting up a foundation to save this endangered species from extinction.
However we do fear that the Save the Friend of the McCanns would come too late already as it seems, even their close and monitoring family have turned their backs on them.
As we have already pointed out, if it wasn’t for this “friend” we wouldn’t ever have heard of the story.
Sharon Osbourne answers candidly a question about leaving children alone, and in her mind, as it happens with everyone else in the planet, whenever it’s mentioned that a child has gone missing or that one was neglected, Madeleine McCann comes to mind.
And when the issue is about neglect, as was the case with the questions put to Sharon Osbourne, then Madeleine does not come to mind on her own but hand-in-hand with the fact that her parents got off scot-free with the horrible neglect that enabled her to have disappeared.
This is what the vast majority of the world thinks, and we are certain was what was behind Sharon Osbourne’s candid answers .
“Sharon, 63, and her panellists were discussing a thread on Mumsnet social media site. A British woman had asked if parents would leave a 10-month-old child sleeping peacefully at home for seven minutes.
Another questioned whether it was acceptable to leave a baby sleeping while they picked something up approximately 50 metres away.
Reacting to the suggestion, mum-of-three Sharon said: “This is insane. It is like so many things happen in just a second. If you leave a candle on and the curtain blows on it and it caught on fire.”
Next, who did Sharon Osbourne think up to criticise parents who leave children alone? The McCanns.
She doesn’t even mention their name but everyone, literally everyone, knows who she’s speaking about:
“I will tell you a very quick story. There was a husband and wife on holiday in Portugal.
They left their baby in the room sleeping, sleeping while they went to dinner in the restaurant.
While they were in the resort their baby was taken. And it is like, ‘Oh but we can see everything that is going on’ and it is, like, insane.”
No intention of attacking them but simply using an example which everyone knows, Maddie, to prove her point.
Sharon’s words would have gone unnoticed if it wasn’t for the “friend” who was set drawing the attention to them.
This “friend” certainly wasn’t very much worried “about the effect it could have on Madeleine’s brother and sister, as well as the wider family” when literally forcing this under the brightest spotlight possible.
To prove that she didn’t mean to attack the McCanns, Sharon Osbourne later apologised or her words in a tweet:
@MrsSOsbourne: "I'm truly sorry if me bringing this case up again has brought distress to the McCann family."”
Sharon Osbourne may still think, in her ignorance of the case, that she should be worried to speak the truth about the McCanns. Someone should warn her that it’s no longer the case. Clobber away, Sharon, now it’s so fashionable that we won’t be surprised if the next in line to take a hit on them will be the Kardashians.
Sharon Osbourne’s apologies reinforces the idea that if it wasn’t for the “friend” this would never be news and news it was.
Then the “friend” shows what a great friend s/he really is:
“Kate and Gerry were with other parents at a restaurant a few hundred metres away and the adults took it in turns to pop back to check on their kids.”
A “few hundred metres”???
No one has ever said it was even a hundred metres! Even Martin Brunt in the report where he faked the Big Round Table says it’s about 80 paces.
Now the “friend” comes and puts the meal at a distance of at least 300 metres (100 would be “a hundred”, 200 “a couple of hundred”).
That would have been further than the Baptista Supermarket!
More than half way to the Millenium.
What next? Is it going to be said they had their meals near a Post Office where they could quickly send a letter to their kids in case it was needed?
What a great friend the “friend” is! Who needs enemies with friends like these?
And one cannot help noticing that it took 3 Mirror journalists to write this article! And even after its first publication an update was needed.
3. Insane supporting “insane” negligence
We know that the intention was to spread negligence further, so it was really unsurprising to see Insane supporting Sharon Osbourne, or rather, fiercely supporting negligence.
That fact alone, that Insane supports negligence so vehemently, should fire red flags to all those following the case.
We even thought best to bring his post on the subject because it really shows what we want to show.
For obvious reasons, we have censored it and will refrain to provide a link. In blue what Insane copied from the Mirror, in red his inputs to the subject:
It is very rare that I'll comment specifically on a newspaper article, mainly because they are usually unremitting (censored), but I can't let this one go without adding a few words. This is from the Mirror on Sunday 22nd May 2016. I'll be editing out a few bits simply because they get a bit (censored) about people lifting whole articles, but it won't significantly alter the piece
Sharon Osbourne blasted by missing Madeleine McCann's parents after she brands them "insane" for leaving girl alone
Okay, let's start there. After listening to the clip, it's clear she refers to the course of action as ''insane'' and not the parents themselves. So that's one fib for starters. Also, who the (censored) are they to be 'blasting' her, even if she had referred to them as insane? They're the ones who got themselves into this (censored).
Kate and Gerry hit back at 'ignorant' 'Ill-informed' star after she accuses them on TV
What, precisely, is ignorant or ill-informed about her comments? Well, let's see, shall we?
Outspoken star Sharon Osbourne has been blasted by the parents of missing Madeleine McCann after she branded them “insane” for leaving their daughter alone.
Yes, we've done that.
Former X Factor judge Sharon made the hurtful claims on her US chat show The Talk as she criticised parents for leaving children without supervision.
Hurtful? Well, the truth hurts. Tough (censored).
In a clear attack on Kate and Gerry McCann, Sharon said: “I will tell you a very quick story. There was a husband and wife on holiday in Portugal.
“They left their baby in the room sleeping, sleeping while they went to dinner in the restaurant.
“While they were in the resort their baby was taken. And it is like, ‘Oh but we can see everything that is going on’ and it is, like, insane.”
I see no attack. I see a brief account of what took place. She didn't even name them.
They did leave the children in their room, sleeping
They did go to dinner
Their daughter did disappear at some point that evening
They did claim that they had full sight of the flat. That was a lie.
All I see is a perfectly factual description
The comments on Friday’s CBS show have outraged Kate and Gerry.
Have they? Have they really? Well, frankly, I don't give a (censored). They seem to be outraged at everything that doesn't go their way, this pair
A family friend said: “It’s very disappointing when someone with such a high profile makes this sort of ignorant, ill-informed comment.
It isn't ignorant
It isn't ill-informed
It is absolutely accurate, according to the McCann's own statements
“She should think about the effect it could have on Madeleine’s brother and sister, as well as the wider family.
No, Mr and Mrs McCann. The only people responsible for the effect on the family are the two of you. Whatever happened to your daughter that night was precipitated or facilitated by your unfathomable parenting, so don't you dare blame others for the grief you have caused your relatives
“Kate and Gerry have never forgiven themselves and this should not have been aired in a random way, as it apparently was.
Nor should they ever forgive themselves. But they don't get to say when something is aired. The discussion was about parents leaving children home alone, like they did. If they didn't want to be part of the subject matter, they shouldn't have done it.
“It’s based on ignorance of the true facts. While she’s entitled to her view she should keep it to herself.”
It is not based on ignorance of the true facts. Those are the facts as recorded in their statements and reported by the Portuguese court
Of course she is entitled to her view and she is under NO obligation to keep it to herself. Who do you think you are? Do you think you can simply silence anyone who speaks about your case? You have a (censored) nerve.
Maddie was snatched from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007, days before her fourth birthday and has never been found.
Kate and Gerry were with other parents at a restaurant a few hundred metres away and the adults took it in turns to pop back to check on their kids.
Sharon, 63, and her panellists were discussing a thread on Mumsnet social media site. A British woman had asked if parents would leave a 10-month-old child sleeping peacefully at home for seven minutes.
In the UK there is no legal minimum age below which it becomes an automatic offence to leave children home alone, but the advice of government and child welfare organisations is that babies and young children should NEVER be left home alone, not even for five minutes
Another questioned whether it was acceptable to leave a baby sleeping while they picked something up approximately 50 metres away.
Reacting to the suggestion, mum-of-three Sharon said: “This is insane. It is like so many things happen in just a second. If you leave a candle on and the curtain blows on it and it caught on fire.
“And I think of all these scenarios in my head and there is no way in a million years that you would ever do that.”
Good. All caring, responsible parents would, I'm sure, agree with Sharon on that.
Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, have previously admitted being plagued by guilt over missing Maddie
Days after her abduction dad Gerry said: “Hindsight has proven we made a mistake and we would never leave the children again.”
So he acknowledges they were in the wrong
And as Kate launched her book, Madeleine, in 2011, Gerry said: “Blaming us takes it away from the abductor. Someone stole a child. Of course we feel guilt. But it doesn’t bring the child back. So we tried to take control of things you can influence, to help the search.”
Well, to be strictly accurate, we don't know what happened to Madeleine, do we? There was no witness to any 'abduction'. It's conceivable she got out of the apartment, wandered off and ended up in the sea or falling into a hole. The police have also considered other scenarios, that she met with an accident in the apartment and someone removed her body. Of course, none of those things could have happened had you been there
Kate said: “People say, ‘Why didn’t you get a babysitter?’ Having a babysitter implied there was a risk situation and we just didn’t see it like that.
Excuse me? When is it 'not necessary' to have a babysitter look after toddlers when you go out to dinner?
Why does one engage a babysitter? To ensure there is someone to care for the children. To keep them safe. In case there is an emergency. In case they wake up and become distressed. To feed them, provide drinks or change nappies. To prevent abduction is well down on the list. Why? Because of all the things that could happen to an unsupervised child, that is one of the least likely
“We didn’t think it was necessary. It wasn’t to save money.”
You didn't think it was necessary? You didn't think it was necessary to have someone watch over three tiny infants and make sure they were okay? What do you normally do at home, Kate? Do you go out and leave the kids alone there?
But she later added: “It goes without saying that we now bitterly regret it.”
I bet you do. You've never urged others not to do it though, have you?
Cardiologist Gerry has also said: “Who’s thinking about child abductions in a little sleepy out-of-season tourist resort?
“It never entered our minds. We felt very safe — it was a family resort.
No, it probably wouldn't enter mine either - I'd be too busy worrying they might get out of bed, trip and fall, hurt themselves, try to run a bath and fall in, get into the kitchen and get hold of a knife, get out of the apartment through the door left unlocked and disappear into the street, get knocked down by a car, fall into the swimming pool.
So how come you weren't thinking of any of those dangers when you decided they were perfectly safe?
“At home you put your kids to bed and go off and do things about the house and garden and don’t think about it.
At home, yes. You are still on the premises.
“We were checking on our kids only metres away.
100 metres, Gerry. With a swimming pool, a wall and a road in the way.
After, we were consumed with guilt. But we can’t change it.”
No, you can't change it. But neither can you impose a worldwide opinion blackout because you don't like being reminded what you did
Sharon’s publicist was approached for comment but did not respond.
Probably just as well. So let me tell you what my response would be.
Sharon Osborne gave an accurate account of the lack of childcare provided for your three infants in Portugal.
You may not like it, but you have absolutely no right whatsoever to criticise her or try to silence her or anyone else, for that matter. As for saying she should keep her opinion to herself, my response to that would have been that I regard you as deeply irresponsible parents who are far more interested in your own reputations than you are in finding your daughter. I wouldn't let you look after a hamster, let alone a child.
I cannot imagine how you think these 'enraged' articles will help you. All they do is allow the world a little glimpse into your true character. It is not a pleasant experience.
One last thing -
What is not generally known is that you decided you were going to leave the kids home alone and dine out before you even left these shores. Before you knew in which apartments you would be staying. Before you had seen the resort. Before you knew how far away the restaurant would be. Before you had any inkling how quiet or busy it would be.
So don't give me all that ''it felt so safe'' (censored). The decision was made before you landed in Portugal. You even tried to negotiate a discount because the resort didn't provide a baby listening service.
No question that no one can accuse more the McCanns of being negligent than Insane!
Insane who says what the ERVD dog found in the Scenic was because the McCanns got whiffed on with cadaver scent in the apartment, a scent which was there because it lingered there in the air for those 3 months irrelevant of how much the apartment was ventilated by the cleaning staff and those staying there.
Insane who says that the scent outside in the backyard signalled by the ERVD dog was either human bones in fertilizer or apartment 5A is on top of a medieval graveyard!
Insane who says all this behaves now like the most keen teacher’s pet raising his hand before anyone else in the class to eagerly support the McCann’s “friend” in letting the world know how negligent Sharon Osbourne said the McCanns were. Even comes out of “retirement” to do so.
The fact that Insane is such a dedicated negligence supporter tells us immediately that there was no negligence whatsoever because if there had been any he would be the first not to draw attention to it.
He just shows how really desperate the other side is to push the idea that the McCanns were insanely neglectful.
To put the focus on the McCanns and pressure whoever has to decide about Operation Grange to go for the Third Option: the neglectful McCanns and the bungling Portuguese burglar who killed Maddie in a panic moment.
4. Comment and reply
On this topic we would like to call the attention of our readers to a comment placed by an anonymous in our post last week “Lions and the Settlement of Truth”:
“Anonymous 23 May 2016, 18:00:00
There is a lot of Anti Mc Cann feeling being generated from these articles in which the neglect narrative is being reinforced. A minority understand that Team Mc Cann push neglect to 'enable abduction'. Many members of the public believe neglect actually occurred. Its frustrating to see neglect being widely accepted -does Textusa feel it is damaging the likelihood of the truth finally emerging? OK, we are seeing widespread feeling against the Mc Canns but I'm not sure if it s a good thing or not - for those of us in pursuit of the whole truth emerging.. “
This was our reply:
“Textusa 24 May 2016, 14:48:00
Anonymous 23 May 2016, 18:00:00
Apologies for the late reply.
There’s no question that the BH are forcing for a “Third Option” solution to the case. Really, really pressuring that the McCanns are found guilty of neglect and that it was this which enabled Maddie to be killed and/or abducted by some mysterious person.
Reinforcing what we have said in our comment of 22 May 2016, 22:16:00 , it has been noted to us that Sharon Osbourne only mention the subject in response to a question. The spontaneity of the answer tells us 2 things: it wasn’t rehearsed and Maddie is indeed a worldwide phenomenon, a cultural happening ingrained in humanity’s brain.
A child went missing? Remember Maddie. A child was left alone? Remember Maddie.
Sharon doesn’t even mention their names. This would have gone completely unnoticed if it hadn’t, as we said, the BH forced it down our throats.
What we have seen in terms of the escalation of the issue is that it really interests the other side that the public perceive the McCanns as neglectful.
In our current post we have given one reason why: focus the attention on the McCanns.
In our post “Third Option” we have given the other: close the case with neglect, no one is charged but the McCanns – and only the McCanns – get “punished” for the rest of their lives for having been neglectful.
In that post we have given the reasons as to why we think it would be a really stupid thing to go for the Third Option.
You ask if we feel that neglect being widely accepted as it seems to be will be damaging the likelihood of the truth finally emerging.
Very good question.
Let us answer by proposing that you compare the BH as someone who has been sold to us as a brilliant poker player but that we know he isn’t – please note that we’re just making an analogy and not, in any way, passing any sort of judgement about the capabilities of the people of the other side.
To call this player’s bluff there’s only one way: have him sit at a poker table and play.
You have to sit him there. No other way to disprove him.
Only at that table will he prove what kind of a player he is.
Outside that table and before playing he can be anything. You can waste a million words with factual information of what a bluff he is and he will just respond with words saying that what you say is not true no matter how much fact put before him.
Sitting and holding his cards and winning or losing money is the proof of the pudding. The only proof.
So do let them push the Third Option as much as they want. If that is what will get them sitting at that poker table, then good.
Once there, all they have to do is answer the questions we put in our post “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box”.
If they can, then they are holding 4 aces and we were wrong.
If they can’t, if they are just bluffs, then the truth will emerge by itself.
Now, why do we think we live in positive times? Well, they haven’t sat at that table yet but they are showing signs that they haven’t been given any other option but to do so.
The despair and intensity with which they are pushing the neglect tells us clearly that.”
To finalise this issue we say if the other side really wants to be stupid, by all means they should go for the Third Option. We will be here waiting.
5. Negligence = Abduction
Please do not be mislead by the subtitle. It doesn’t say that negligence enables abduction – which we fully agree it absolutely does – but that negligence equals abduction.
Before we explain what we mean, let us just say to those who say there was no need to have negligence to simulate abduction because the child could have been taken away from the bedroom while parents sleeping, that you’re letting yourself be carried away by your imagination. You’re even sounding like SY and their Algarvian Paedo predator who entered into bedrooms with his alcoholic breath and bandaged feet, while their parents slept next door.
The Portuguese apartments are much too small. Unless the abductor sat in their living-room for a couple of days before, noting what a heavy-sleepers the McCanns were and they left the front door open while they snored it would not have been minimally credible to say the child had been snatched while they were inside. Those shutters make one hell of a noise to allow that to happen. And one cannot “pick a lock” to open those windows from the outside. Plus, the window is not by the road. To go there one has to have the intention of going there.
No way can an abduction scenario be with the parents inside the apartment. And the choice made for them to be outside was to make them neglectful.
And this is exactly where negligence equals abduction: they are both hoaxes.
In 2007, they did all they could to make the abduction hoax a reality. The scripting was poor, the actors muddled up their lines and that hoax quickly fell. So they went into the next one, the negligence hoax. A very successful one.
If up until now, it was camouflaged that all was regrettable but within “responsible parenting” (the idea to cause an exact and opposite reaction), now it’s being explicit that the McCanns are to be known as neglectful.
We would like to address the media for a minute.
From 2007 onwards you pushed the hoax that Maddie was abducted. Time has proved that it didn’t go well. You lied about this little girl and people won’t forget you did that.
Now in 2016 you are pushing another hoax: negligence. You’re trying to cover a lie with another lie. Covering lies with lies never works. Please be careful with the choices you make. Please don’t let negligence become abduction whereby it’s reached a point of not being able to backtrack.
Remember Hillsborough. Always remember Hillsborough.
6. The McCann appeal
|From Sky News, Jan 14 2010|
As expected, the McCanns have filed an appeal to the Supreme Justice Court. We said they had to do it, even if to just save face, and they did it.
Now we have to wait and see if the court accepts the appeal or not .
As we have also said, this acceptance/refusal by the court has nothing to do with content of said appeal.
Whatever legal grounds the plaintiffs have decided to base their appeal on will be analysed if the appeal is accepted. The decision of the court is regardless of what it is said in the appeal as to why appealed decision is, according to the appellants, being appealed.
Sometimes we tend to forget that any appeal has to be an appeal in the first place.
Said like this, it may even sound as stating the obvious but it isn’t as there are a certain amount of rules that an appeal must obey.
These rules exist to avoid the clogging of the system so no one simply appeals just because one is not happy with what the court decided even though one knows the court is right and one doesn’t even have any arguments against the decision one is unhappy about.
To allow that would be to allow a waste of time for all and a needless allocation of court resources, human or other, to that waste of time.
For that reason, there are parameters within which the appeal must fall within for it to be considered an appeal.
If an appeal is filed outside these parameters then it is considered having a technical error, or a “vice of form” [in Portuguese: vício de forma] to speak legalese, independent of its content. It is to be stopped at the door so to speak.
That’s the analysis that’s ongoing now with the appeal the McCanns filed.
If their appeal is accepted it doesn’t mean in any way that it has legs to walk, it just means it has obeyed all the rules and legal parameters an appeal to the Supreme Justice Court has to obey.
For the same reasons, if it is refused it doesn’t mean the legal grounds it contained weren’t valid but just that the Supreme Justice Court looked at it and literally said “we can’t look at this”, justifying why it refused to look at its content.
The probability of the McCann legal team incurring in a vice of form is very much low.
To us, what matters is that if it’s accepted the sick saga will go on, and if it’s refused, the Appeal Court sentence will “transit in judgement”, meaning it will be executed.
As we have already said, taking into account the appeal was submitted on May 25, we expect a decision on the second half of June.
If it’s not accepted, game over for the McCanns as far as the Portuguese justice system is concerned.
If accepted, then Mr Amaral will have the time determined by law to counter-appeal. We are not certain what the given is but would risk saying it isn’t under 30 working days.
That would throw things to September as from July 15 the system enters the Summer recess.
Once the counter-appeal is submitted, then it goes for analysis and decision of the court.
We would really, really love to say something different from what we will say next, but not seeing a decision taking less than 5 months. Yes, we’re talking February 2017. After Christmas 2016. Our friend Isabel is more optmistic as the reader will see.
If it’s the case the appeal is accepted we so wish to be wrong and her right.
For those, and we know there are many, pulling their hair with frustration with the time a process takes in Portugal, let us just say that Daniel Abreu’s mother – yes, remember the little baby who in January 2014 was said by the parents to have been abducted and was found a few days later (our post “Daniel Abreu”) – is only now, almost half way into 2016, going to trial for simulating the abduction of her son.
Please save your hair. You have reason to pull it but it won’t do anyone any good and will only damage your skull.
7. An opinion
Our friend Isabel wrote this on the McCann appeal subject:
At this moment we don't know what the appeal consists of. So below are some general terms of procedure in appeals to STJ [Supreme Court of Justice] as well as a subjective interpretation of the possible outcome .
The Supreme Court of Justice can only reject appeals in precise circumstances. Namely, in some occasions where the principle of “Double Concur” takes place. In simple terms, let’s imagine that the first instance court and the Relação Court [Appeal Court] had the same legal decision. Then an appeal could, in theory, be rejected. Such is not the case here. We have two decisions that are diverse. First Instance for the McCanns, Relação for GA.
Then an appeal can be rejected if a mistake is there, I doubt that a good lawyer like ID [Isabel Duarte] will make any mistakes or misjudge the possibility for an appeal.
Then we have cases where the STJ may refuse appeals since these are not within the scope of its competence, which is not the case here.
The Appeals Court may confirm the decision of the lower instance court, it may alter that decision or send the case for a new trial (this last option being only in rare and very specific circumstances).
Since only in very rare cases can the STJ introduce new evidence, the evidence given as proved or unproved in the 1st Instance Court is the one that prevails.
In this case, reading all the proved and unproved facts in the first instance decision, gives a clear indication that the book is factual and coincident with the criminal investigation files released to the public before the book was published. There can be no illations then taken to establish a cause effect between the damages allegedly suffered because of the book since the following were proved:
- The book is factual and coincident with the criminal investigation that was then public;
- The same theories already circulated online with the knowledge of the applicants [McCanns];
- There were more books written portraying the same theory, with the knowledge of the applicants and these were not pursed legally by the same;
- That the applicants sought publicity themselves and did put themselves in the public sphere:
Appeals decision translated here for reference, namely proved and unproved facts:
The duty of reserve was put aside by a superior court and it is not a matter of proved or unproved facts. Regardless, it would be quite unusual that a decision by a superior court on a simple point of law would be wrong or subject to a different interpretation by the STJ.
As for the conflict of rights, this was also decided by the Appeals court in favour of the constitutional right of freedom of expression in this particular case since it was not the book that caused distress not did it propagate new information, the decision stressing, once again, that the book is coincident with the criminal investigation that had already been released to the public.
Then we also must consider the following: although totally different cases, one resulting from an Injunction (Cautionary Action) and the other from a declarative civil law suit for damages, the Relação court has, in effect, two decisions on this same matter. All decisions coming from a superior Court are Jurisprudence and this will, no doubt, be weighed in the STJ revision of the case. Furthermore, these two decisions of a superior court were made with all 3 judges in agreement, in each case respectively.
Some sort of deadline, although I am not too sure of the legal timeframe, will be given to GA’s Lawyer. All taken into account, we could be talking around 6 months and expect a final decision by October/ November.
Pretty much the same as the Relação appeal. A collective of 3 judges will decide on the case and their decision will then be communicated to the parties’ lawyers.
Finally this appeal is not a surprise and ALL are entitled to due process and using the justice mechanisms to safeguard their rights (if we agree or not is another matter).
As before, let’s serenely wait for the final decision on this case.
The bad news with the appeal is that the other side has gained precious time at a crucial time.
Until the floor goes from under his feet, the condemned man will cling to whatever hope for life even when blindfolded and with the rope around his neck.
Those backing the McCanns have just gained precious days and so keeping their hopes alive, even though the rope is causing a rash on their necks.
In effect, with the appeal, they have thrown the decision of acceptance or not of the appeal to the time of the Brexit Poll.
If the vote is to get out of the European Union, we’re not seeing Cameron continuing in office. That will mean Theresa May will have been unsuccessful with the Maddie case.
Another Prime-Minister and Home Secretary will inherit the poisoned chalice.
However, and taking into account both the fact that the opposition will also lose in case of a Brexit and David Cameron’s survival instincts and capabilities, we wouldn’t be surprised if this issue wouldn’t be used to distract attentions and allow things to continue as they were, only now outside the EU (in case Brexit wins, that is).
If there is to be one, we’re not seeing a new government starting with a unanimously unpopular decision which the archiving of Operation Grange would be.
One thing is certain, and that is with each day, each month, the issue will be more and more scandalous. The embarrassment around it grows.
The crowd is becoming a mob – and it is becoming a mob because of you Establishment – and is becoming more and more restless and the anger is growing. There are many examples in history of what restless and furious mobs can do.
The main reason why biological weapons are not used in warfare is because once released the outcome is always uncertain. Living beings are unpredictable and a biological weapon can very easily turn against the ones using it and in an uncontrolled manner.
We have seen the McCanns being compared with the most horrific criminals of history.
A child has died and no one can change that but now we’re seeing 2 youngsters pay a price no human being should ever pay.
Third Option apologists, as it’s obvious you’re indifferent to reason, at least stop and think about them.