|(Image from here)|
The game seems to have picked up tempo.
And there were strong signs of chaos coming from the other side.
It was like watching a failed magician trying desperately to save his career by jumping on the stage begging for applause after hastily and wildly throwing all the tricks he had near him at that moment into his hat, coat and trousers and performed without minimal rehearsal or idea of what to do.
All he knew was he had to do something and he did. Something, whatever and he just did whatever.
So, he performed old illusion after old illusion before a crowd long disillusioned and fully aware of how all his tricks were being done.
The only positive reaction he got from the audience was the occasional laugh of pity when the pack of cards flew from his hands when it shouldn’t have and a dove flew out of his coat while doing a levitation trick.
An already shamed artist who walked off that stage much more shamed than he had been before.
2. Jim Gamble
Let’s start with something that happened before Whitehall decided to continue funding Operation Grange which went unnoticed by all except us: Jim Gamble and his paedo vigilantes.
We’re talking about the BBC online article of Sept 21 2017 from its Northern Ireland section (why were no reporters willing to give their name to this?) “'Recruit paedophile hunters' says ex-CEOP boss Jim Gamble”
“Police forces should vet and recruit paedophile hunters, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) has said.
Jim Gamble called for the creation of a "citizens' army" which would work with police to identify and gather evidence.”
We don’t know about the reader but we, if we were the police, would not take it well if someone outside our institution told us how best to run our business.
Not that police should not be open to criticisms or suggestions but there’s a huge difference between that and a tutorial.
And a tutorial about the possible use of vigilantism which is the exact opposite of what police exist for, which is a legitimate force, trained and qualified to uphold the law.
It seems that Jim Gamble has forgotten that he has left the police and so has nothing to do with the way it operates and is now just an entrepreneur with his private company.
Immediately one has to wonder what he spent doing all that time in CEOP.
That agency was supposed to be a police unit specialised in tracking down online paedos. Then, if or memory doesn’t betray us, he didn’t call out for vigilante support to help him fulfil his task (only that of children as we will see later). So why propose such a dangerous absurdity now?
So, does he think his successors who are currently fighting paedophilia in the police are not as good at doing their job as he was? That they need external help such as his to guide them?
Or when he was in CEOP, the agency was way too busy with other businesses – speculating, such as the Maddie case – and Gamble is not really all that familiar with the tactics and techniques used by the police to fight this heinous crime?
Vigilantism is a very, very dangerous thing.
In fact, in the BBC article from Sept 18 2017 (just 3 days before ‘Gamble’s article’ was published) in its England section (again no named reporter) “Police 'may work with paedophile hunters'” that seems to support the usefulness (NOT) of vigilantes the police are quite clear they don’t want any of:
“The vigilantes pose online as children then film the people they meet.
Police have admitted that persuading them to stop is proving difficult.
Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the national lead for child protection at the National Police Chiefs' Council, said: "[These] vigilante groups are putting the lives of children at risk.
"They might not perceive it that way, but they are potentially compromising our operations."
However, Mr Bailey said: "I'm not going to condone these groups and I would encourage them all to stop, but I recognise that I am not winning that conversation."”
Yet, Gamble wants to force on the police something that police clearly don’t want. Why?
He’s trying to strike what he deems to be a popular chord: let’s get together and hunt paedos.
One is reminded of the time back in 2010, while he was still the head of CEOP wanted to have a Facebook panic button for children to use?
And Facebook told him to go and play with his marbles elsewhere as immature individuals, as kids could just put their parents or any other adult under serious and damaging suspicion just because they were grounded or not had their way for some reason or just out pure and simple dislike.
As we said back then, kids have, or should have permanent panic buttons and they are called parents.
But back to Gamble and his 2017 paedo vigilantes.
We think that he’s trying to show that he’s still useful for society. Or, to be precise, that he’s still useful and one only has to prove that one is useful if one fears or feels that one is seen to be no longer that.
But he’s not only trying to show that he’s useful. He’s in our opinion doing something more than that.
We think he’s really striking hard the paedo key.
That key that got him into CEOP in the first place via Operation Ore.
An appeal, a desperate one, to all the names that are on it.
To note that this vigilante thing appears at the end of September, when those with inside knowledge knew, or at least had strong suspicions that Operation Grange was to continue to be funded.
We think that Jim Gamble is really feeling the crosshairs on his skin too close for comfort.
We think he has reason to fear such a scenario taking into account the lack of love between him and Theresa May is as palpable as the air if it were made up of jelly.
Mr Gamble forgets something which has haunted many who know the truth but cannot speak about it: the power of information comes not from having it BUT from being able to use it, to voice it.
It’s preferable not to know something than to know it and having to be silent about it.
Knowing and being able to use it is an asset, not knowing it is blissful ignorance as it affects no one but knowing it and not being able to use it is a handicap, a strong one at that.
Jim Gamble may know a lot that many powerful may not want others to know but we doubt that at this stage of the game he will ever be able to find a voice, even his own, folly enough to air such knowledge.
3. The McCann questioning
We think everyone noted the huge leap the case went in the direction of the truth with the Sun article on Oct 1 2017, 4:33 pm (updated: 2nd October 2017, 5:58 pm) by Charlie Parker “MADDIE QUIZ: Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been quizzed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’”:
“Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents
THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann and their “Tapas Seven” holiday pals have never been quizzed as witnesses by Scotland Yard into her disappearance.
The £12million six and a half year police probe into Maddie’s feared kidnap, which is hunting “a person of significance”, has not once asked Kate and Gerry, their friends and other key witnesses, for their account on the night the youngster vanished.
The Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of key interviews with British witnesses, and have never conducted their own, The Times has learned.
Neither Gerry and Kate McCann nor their seven friends they dined with on the night Maddie vanished have been formerly interviewed.”
A huge leap towards the truth between this and what we were told by Andy Redwood in the 2013 UK Crimewatch:
“Neither her parents or any of the member of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”
And the media then, using the Guardian as an example, echoed this ‘official’ clearing of the McCanns and the T7: “Officers do not consider the McCanns themselves as suspects or persons of interest to the inquiry.”
A witness is by definition a person of interest to any police case.
When the UK police say someone is to be heard as a witness in the UK it has a completely different meaning from when the Portuguese police say the same thing in Portugal.
In Portugal, to be a suspect has a legal meaning and it has legal implications and guarantees extra individual rights to the person in question.
As the people familiar with the case know, anyone who is a suspect in a police case is formally declared an arguido.
This is the reason why we think Pedro do Carmo has stated with total clarity that the McCanns are (present tense) not suspects for the PJ. If they were, legally they would have to have been made arguidos.
To simplify, in Portugal a suspect is an arguido and a witness is a witness. Distinct legal statutes.
For the Portuguese authorities to come out publicly and say that they want to hear a person as a witness, then it is stating that, at that moment, it has no legal reason to consider that individual as a suspect.
Please don’t forget that in Portugal one can go into police questioning as a witness and during it become an arguido.
Such a distinction doesn’t exist in the UK.
A witness is by definition a person of interest to the case.
And by putting in all caps the word NEVER in the phrase “NEVER been quizzed” is to make it insignificant if it’s as a witnesses or not.
It’s simply expressing loudly and clearly a total incredulity for that never having happened after “£12million six and a half year police probe”.
Is it true? Have the couple been kept away from the investigation?
Officially they have never been formally questioned as we know but haven’t we been led to believe that the couple has been continuously updated on the goings on of Operation Grange? Meaning that their inputs, via informal talks, have certainly been taken into account.
To us it seems to be quite clear that there has been a lot of communication between SY and the McCanns in these 6 and half years.
So why this incredulity? Or should we better ask, why this highlighting of the fact that the McCanns and their friends have not been heard officially by SY?
It seems obvious to us that we are being informed publicly that Operation Grange seems to have been mandated to turn their guns towards the McCanns and the T7.
That is certainly the sensation that all those not familiar with the details of the case get when they read that headline.
4. The bizarre article
We think that many of our readers remember in July that we were surprised with a very odd headline which happened to kick off what would be a media storm on Maddie and Ben Needham.
It was an article asking who were the McCanns and how many siblings Maddie had, as if the world didn’t know.
We were on our Summer Break and then thought that it was some sort of ‘intro’ of things to come. And they did. Especially that bit about the forensics in Ben Needham’s case that needed to have a “missing” kid in Luz to stop it short before it became too far out of hand.
To our surprise, if one googles for that article in July 2017 it no longer exists.
And to make us even more surprised that article was now published by the Sun by Sam Webb and Richard Wheatstone on 2nd Oct 2, 10:30 am (updated: October 2 2017, 10:34 am) “A DECADE OF PAIN: Who are Madeleine McCann’s parents Kate and Gerry and how many brothers and sisters does Maddie have?”
As if it was only published now.
Are we now before the ‘intro’ to something that was supposed to have happened in July and got postponed? That what was supposed to have happened in July didn’t reach completion and which will be now?
5. The need for the Portuguese
The Sky News article published Sept 28 2017 “Madeleine McCann: Police investigation gets more funding from Home Office” has this to say:
“Sky's crime correspondent Martin Brunt says the funds will be used for operational, administration and employment costs for the small Scotland Yard team still investigating Madeleine's disappearance.
"There is an ongoing theory about what happened to Madeleine McCann," he said.
"It is complicated work, it involves a certain level of diplomacy, and the search for the clues that would corroborate that theory may take some time to emerge."
He said the Scotland Yard team has been described as "minding the shop" while their Portuguese colleagues search for the illusive clues that would confirm the latest theory.”
First, the funds allocated (£154,00) were significantly higher than the previously given – £100,00 for compelling evidence a year ago and £85,000 for the key witness earlier this year – so the “small Scotland Yard team still investigating Madeleine’s disappearance” has been mandated to do much more than it has previously done.
Then Brunt inserts the word “diplomacy” into his rhetoric.
Why? Isn’t this supposed to be simply a police case? Why bring diplomacy into this? SY has already come to Portugal to question people (including Murat, the Hills and Silvia Baptista) and there were no diplomatic channels to be used for that to have happened.
Also, Andy Redwood visited the INML facilities in Coimbra to talk, we imagine, about forensic evidence and then again we didn’t see any diplomacy having to be used for this. Just a professional relationship between two police forces of two nations belonging to the EU.
Why bring up diplomacy now?
Is the UK officially recognising that the case is political, which is the only level a state uses diplomacy?
If so, then things must be gaining a scope much wider than just that of a couple of mid upper-class doctors and their friends.
Lastly Brunt is very clear that they are waiting for something from the Portuguese side of things.
The same side that via Pedro do Carmo’s words has said that in his heart the case has been solved.
And lest we forget, it was the same Brunt who in the Sky News article published Sept 07, 2017 “Search for Madeleine McCann set to be extended as police ask for more funds” said this:
“Early ideas about sex predators, child traffickers and "a burglary gone wrong" were largely dismissed before both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory.”
Dismissing sex predators, child traffickers and the botched burglary, what other line of inquiry is there that has “compelling evidence”, a “key-witness” and justifies a significant increase of funds granted in times of crisis and uncertainty?
6. The time warps
It seems this case has jumped in time in two things.
One we have already mentioned and that was that bizarre article questioning who were the McCanns and how many siblings Maddie’s had. We have a time jump from July to now.
However, it cannot be taken as strange because it was not the first time this sort of thing has happened.
If memory doesn’t fail us, the Telegraph published the exact same article not twice but 3 times.
We think it was called “What does the police know about Maddie up to now” or something similar to that.
We apologise to our readers for not going back and finding the link(s) but we thought it didn’t merit such an effort.
But the fascinating thing in which time stopped was on the key-witness.
The key-witness who was the reason why Whitehall continued funding Operation Grange for the second semester of the 2016/2017 fiscal year.
This time the time jump was from April to now.
It seems like time stopped then and has been picked up now. It seems SY is looking for that that key-witness again, after unknown reasons for having put this “search” on hold.
What happened in this hiatus of time?
The Bilton/Gamble BBC documentary. That is what happened.
This retake of the key-witness means that documentary and all it meant to convince us of has been scrapped.
7. Jerry Lawton’s time warps
Jerry Lawton, the Maddie Kandohla in trousers, published on Oct 3 2017 in the Daily Star the article “Maddie McCann cop: We are chasing paedo clues”
That article has as a subtitle: “POLICE probing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are examining a theory she was targeted by sex predators.”
And inside this:
“Seven holidaymakers reported that children had been sexually assaulted – some in their beds.
Five happened before Madeleine vanished. While police have tracked down some people seen acting suspiciously at the time, not all of them have been traced, said the Met’s Mark Rowley.
The assistant commissioner for Specialist Operations said: “We have a significant line of enquiry that is worth pursuing. Until we have gone through it, I won’t know if we will get there or not.””
We’re back to the Burgundyman, who would later be ridiculously described by the ridiculous Summers & Swann ridiculously wearing bandages around his feet:
Pathetic, or beyond sad as a friend of ours as said privately. No, not the Summers & Swann description but the fact that someone was ridiculous, or desperate enough to regurgitate this idiocy.
The botched magician trying out a trick everyone has seen and had been unconvinced by it on its first performance in 2014.
By the way, if memory doesn’t fail us, the sexual assaults that never existed numbered in the tens, and not only 7.
Either the Daily Star is wrong or Sky News is because Brunt said, as we have shown: “early ideas about sex predators, child traffickers and "a burglary gone wrong" were largely dismissed before both detective teams joined forces to focus on the latest theory.”
And Lawton insisted on playing botched old tricks. Even ones that have caused tragedy. We are evidently talking about Brenda Leyland’s death which anniversary we commemorated just 2 days ago.
He decides to bring up again the troll issue in his Daily Star article published 05 Oct 05 2017 at 18:10 (updated same day at 20:10) “THE official website set up to help find Madeleine McCann has been "barraged with hate"”
The exact same one that led to Brenda taking her own life.
The title is preceded with a “Official Madeleine McCann website 'barraged with hate' by online trolls”.
And in it:
“The Official Find Madeleine Campaign Facebook page now includes a link to an investigation by US news website ProPublica into trolling.
The McCanns' coordinator wrote: "We've been barraged with hate via Facebook and are sure others have too.
"Help ProPublica investigate hate speech on Facebook.''
The page urged visitors 'let’s keep the page positive', adding: "PLEASE do not feed trolls. Trolls feed on havoc and causing chaos.
"If we do not feed them, they will starve for attention and hopefully spread their hate someplace else.”
We don’t approve of any sort of direct harassment against the McCanns, be it on any of their websites (Fraudulent Fund website and Facebook page(s)) or anywhere else.
For example, we use this blog to express our theories and our opinions. Personal attacks are pointless. We urge people to only attack the inconsistencies and lies.
In fact, we have many times come to the defense of the McCanns as we believe them as mere pawns, puppets with strings pulled to obey orders and however unpleasant and arrogant they seem to be, they are not to be blamed for a great deal of things that the bloodthirsty mob blames them for.
There are many that subtly feed this mob, so we wouldn’t be surprised that many ‘hypnotised’ people (and let’s be honest, trolls as well) spew their anger as Lawton reports.
But certainly not in a barrage. And the examples Lawton quotes, clearly show that:
- “Opinions on "leaving children alone" have already been banned from the site” – leaving the children alone is something the McCann have assumed having done. We know this negligence is untrue but it is factual that they have assumed it publicly. Reminding them of something they have assumed does not seem to be trolling the couple in any way.
- “We are not a debate page nor a place to analyse the investigation” – analysing the investigation is at worst (and it isn’t) trolling SY not the McCanns;
- “Do not ask questions about the investigation” – needs no further commenting.
8. The botched magician
If by the above the reader thinks that we’re saying that the botched magician is Jerry Lawton, then the reader is mistaken.
Jerry Lawton is just that scantily clad magician’s assistant just handing him the props for the tricks. He’s just a prop himself.
The magician is the “the other side”. Lawton is just a trained parrot dancing to a tune.
The magician seems to be so desperate that he just grabs the first thing his hand can find in the hat and pulls it out in a hopeless attempt to please the crowd.
But the crowd is just sickened by all. Totally nauseated.
9. The Sutton card
Can the UK trust what Mr Barnier has said publicly during the Brexit talks?
Or can the EU trust what Mr Davis has said during the same briefings?
According to Collin Sutton they can’t.
The UK has to trust that what their translators are saying is indeed what Mr Barnier has said and as there is no other country, with the exceltion of Ireland in the EU 27 that has English as an official language, each one of these 26 countries has to trust that their own translators are saying what Mr Davis has said.
Translators leave enormous room for error, so says Sutton:
“Former Met detective chief inspector Collin Sutton, said: “I would conduct fresh interviews with all the key British witnesses. We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.””
Let’s first set aside the incompetence that Sutton is explicitly accusing the PJ of, again according to him and only him, that the PJ Files official documentation may contain English to Portuguese translation mistakes.
And the extreme incompetence of SY for not have realised that possibility only now after all these years and millions.
Let’s explain how things happen in a PJ questioning that is not being video recorded, which was the case in the 2007 PJ interviews.
Let’s start with the PJ questioning a Portuguese individual.
A question is asked in Portuguese, the individual answers in Portuguese and then and there, the answer is typed. Only then is the process repeated the times it’s needed to be.
At the end, the individual reads his/her answers, and if agrees that it was what s/he said, signs the statement.
Now with questioning a foreign individual. A translator is present.
The question is addressed to the translator. The translator translates it to the questioned individual who answers in his/her native language. The translator translates answer to Portuguese and that answer is there and then typed. Only then the next question is asked using the same procedure.
At the end, the translator reads and translates each answer given by the questioned and s/he agrees with it. Then BOTH the translator and the questioned sign the statement.
This procedure is not done to minimise any translating error. It is done to eliminate any possible room for error.
Once the statement is signed, the document becomes legally binding with all the consequences that implicates.
Mr Sutton, as a former police officer knows this. For him to question it must be because he has other reasons than the pursuance of truth. But we already knew that.
One signs a witness statement to agree it’s accuracy. If any doubt, one shouldn’t sign.
And there’s been plenty of time for witnesses to object after PJ files released and none have.
Plus, the McCanns have said they paid a lot of for files to be translated for them.
Again, pathetic and again quoting our friend, beyond sad.
Why is Sutton doing this?
Desperate times require desperate actions even if they are ridiculous and shameless.
Sutton is the other sides’ last ‘credible’ card.
How can anyone give this man any credibility is beyond us.
A man who in the Sun article by Neal Baker, Jon Lockett, Paul Harper and Gemma Mullin published Oct 2 2017, 9:05 am (updated: 2nd October 2017, 9:07 am) “THE HUNT GOES ON: What happened to Madeleine McCann, how many alleged sightings have there been and what’s the latest in the investigation?” has this said about him:
“Former Scotland Yard detective Colin Sutton says the most “most likely and credible scenario” for Maddie’s disappearance is a targeted kidnap - possibly to replace some grieving parents’ own dead child.”
This article, on this particular issue, links up to a previous one by the same paper but this time by Laura Burnip published on April 22 2017 “WAS MADDIE KIDNAPPED TO ORDER? Top Brit ex-cop says Madeleine McCann could have been snatched by traffickers to replace grieving parents’ own dead child” in which it is said:
“A TOP ex-cop believes Madeleine McCann could have been taken by people traffickers at the demand of grieving parents to replace their own dead child.
Former Scotland Yard detective Colin Sutton says the most "most likely and credible scenario" for Maddie's disappearance is a targeted kidnap - once those closely linked to the tot have been ruled out.”
And to those claiming that he hasn’t read much on the case, let us remember what he has said in his own blog on May 9 2017:
“At the outset I should say that I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann. All the evidence available to me – and there is more and deeper information available to the public on this than any case I have looked at – does not convince me of any theory or scenario being proved.”
So it seems he has read quite a lot.
But if some people insist on giving him credibility there’s nothing we can do about it.
However, in our opinion, someone from the other side is using this supposed credibility that Sutton is supposed to still have.
Sutton is laying out the excuse for many – all those who have much to answer for when the dam finally breaks – and who will use it when things will get tough: blame having been fooled on the PJ translators (one of which, we must remind people, was Robert Murat later an arguido and a person of interest for questioning by Operation Grange).
These people – and we are thinking of one in particular – will say they were fooled by the McCanns because of the errors in the translations.
It’s absolutely pathetic but what else do they hold on to outside it?
As we said, the game has a name: Theresa May.
The only way we are seeing for truth not to be the chosen path is for Theresa May to be ousted from the Tory Leadership.
Taking into account the results of the last election, we don’t think the Conservative party wishes to have any other election soon and May has clearly said she won’t leave from her own choice.
But even if there’s a Tory leadership change, the Maddie case has become way too ridiculous and is making the UK look so ridiculous now that archiving the case is no longer a minimally realistic option unless the entire country doesn’t mind being a laughing stock to the world for a long, long time to come.
That’s why the magician is just frantically pulling rabbits, doves, handkerchiefs, confetti and whatever else out of the hat while the audience is looking under their seats for sick bags.