As we have informed our readers, this post is to allow comments to continue as they have almost reached 200 in the first comments continue post, the limit Blogger has for comments per page.
So we still have no proper response to whether it is: A) Mr Smith made up a story and told it to Gemma knowing it was false. Or B) Gemma invented speaking to Mr Smith and wrote the article as if she had. If that is the belief then one of the two is, as you say, a liar. I'm sure you and your readers are still very much interested in which one is!
As we have informed readers, we have been working on something that we deem to be of vital importance (to explain why Operation Grange CANNOT question the McCanns and why if it does it will play decisively in favour of the other sides’ hand) which we thought of publishing either today or tomorrow.
It will be published as a comment and not as a post as we maintain the reasons why we have decided to stop publishing posts.
Unfortunately, one of the team members has suffered a personal loss and that means that the publication will have to be postponed for 2 or 3 days.
May 2018 – 11th Anniversary of Madeleine’s Abduction
It gets harder to know what to say or write as each anniversary of Madeleine’s abduction approaches then passes. Life is full and busy which helps but Madeleine is still missing and she is still dearly missed. Information continues to come in (incredible as it may seem after so long, although we are grateful for that) and work goes on. Perseverance and hope remain.
Thank you to everyone who continues to support us and wish us, especially Madeleine, well. After eleven years such warmth and persisting solidarity is truly remarkable, and at the same time a real tonic and boost to our spirit. We couldn’t bear for Madeleine to be forgotten or to become just a ‘story’. She is a real person and still our ‘little girl’ and as we always have, we will endeavour to do whatever it takes to find her. Thank you so much for staying with us on this mission.
Official Find Madeleine Campaign
May 2018 – 11th Anniversary of Madeleine’s Abduction
It gets harder to know what to say or write as each anniversary of Madeleine’s abduction approaches then passes. Life is full and busy which helps but Madeleine is still missing and she is still dearly missed. Information continues to come in (incredible as it may seem after so long, although we are grateful for that) and work goes on. Perseverance and hope remain.
Thank you to everyone who continues to support us and wish us, especially Madeleine, well. After eleven years such warmth and persisting solidarity is truly remarkable, and at the same time a real tonic and boost to our spirit. We couldn’t bear for Madeleine to be forgotten or to become just a ‘story’. She is a real person and still our ‘little girl’ and as we always have, we will endeavour to do whatever it takes to find her. Thank you so much for staying with us on this mission.
Poor Madeleine goodness knows what pain she has been through but rip sweet baby but I am fed up with listening to people going on about Gerry and Kate how even if she was killed how they show no emotion about the CHILD.Of course they feel guilt y heartache it has not been easy to convince people they are innocent its been bloody hard work even Kate said they had been so busy to look for her .Every dog has its day and so will everyone when they grow a pair and stick the money where the mouth is .Madeleine bless her has gone lets have no sentiment anymore.Madeleine imo has gone because of the actions of the parents STOP going on about poor poor Madeleine her sole lies in whatever you believe in.Kate and Gerry have turned this into a soap opera in the end they all get caught and they are no different to the rest Kate is not a super model never has been just a average woman newspapers have come up with crap going on about a attractive doctor imo no just a average person by the way I am plump not ugly but ordinary so before anyone says it I am not in the least jealous of her I cannot FIND ANY REASON WHY media want to paint this woman as some sort of super model she may believe this but I am sure there are plenty of people think the same way . Lets not forget Madeleine a child but sadly people are its not about her anyone yes of course people want justice for her but its not going to be but Gerry AND Kate will have their own demons to think about in the shape of the twins growing up and lets face it without their parents one babysitter or another even now someone is looking after them the kids are not without a brain they will question the parents they will accuse them TEENAGES that's what they do WHY WONT YOU LET ME WHY CANT I OTHER MUMS AND DADS LET THEIR KIDS DO IT had it all The Mccanns downfall will be from within their own.Just think how much money they could make by selling their story little things they heard little things they witnessed no need to depend on the bank of mum and dad WOW what a scoope that would be ,Mybe a junior from which ever walk of life would be prepared to tell how it really was people change priorities change if only someone had the guts to tell little rant over but anyone outthere had the guts to tell the truth they would make more money than the MCCanns ever made .TIME WILL TELL THEY WOULD BE HEROES Maybe Mr Amarals family they deseve it kids growing up in curcumstances that their Father orMother could prevent GO ON SOMEONE TAKE THE CHANCE GIVE YOUR FAMILY A CHANCE there would be lots of people behind you
Buenas tardes,con motiv de los once año de la desaparición de Madeleine, quisiera decir,hoy podemos saber que fue lo que te sucedió,cual fue el motivo de la desaparición ,quién te desapareció ,y como.eso fue lo que un señor un día hace once años trato de saber,lo intento y casi lo lo logro, pero los que no querían se esclarecieran las cosas trataron de desviar la atención hacia otro lado,ignorand i por completo ,el olfato y sabiduría de otros.ojala algún día se aclare todo y ese angelito al fin pueda descansar en paz,y todo el que la quiso como una hija más,tenga un lugar donde llevar una rosa ,a nueve días de cumplir 15,años.que arrebataron sin explicación,y once añitos que quien sabe dónde estás.Andi
Interesting that this has came up on this particular day....prompting the idea that things keep slowy working down the years. There is an article on Sky website and much more detailed report on tv ....even panning past a shuttered (barred in this case ) window.
Investigators believe it is possible that Katrice, now aged 38, is still alive, having been abducted and raised with little memory of her early years.
Hi Textusa,sorry to hear of any tragedy of demise your friends. Just One simple point of the Madeleine McCann case that links both Countries,UK,Portugal,"Freeport-Lisbon Treaty" political connection to the removal of Detective Goncalo Amaral by Gordon Brown, then Blackmailing Jose Socrates,counter signed agreement provided"Special Friends allowed to leave Portugal,then issuing of D notice on "National Security"Gordon Brown to thawrt MSM? If this is correct,the UK and the World will have to wait for at least One hundred years for the Truth?
Hi anon 20.23,the point being,it is about their Daughter Madeleine,not the Parents,they maybe innocent of involvement of the disappearance of Madeleine,but evidence being determined by FSS and Eddie,Keela,Martin Grimes Crime Dogs point in another direction? Remember the flippant answer by Gerry,"Ask the dogs" Sandra!
We notify our readers that this comment may well be the most important thing that we’ve ever written about the Maddie case.
If we were to continue to write posts, we would hesitate calling it “Grange’s legal conundrum” or “Entrapping Grange”.
This has evidently to do with the popular surge that we have witnessed since Colin Sutton’s rise to stardom during the 10 yr anniversary last year, about how Grange should have considered the McCanns suspects from the beginning in 2011, which they said they didn’t, or in the desire of many that they should have the McCanns taken to the nearest British police station and question them, which they haven’t.
This surge had the recent attempted feeding by Sonia Poulton’s video “The McCanns and the Police [Part One]”
We inform readers that what we intend to explain today is that if what is being requested is satisfied, the Maddie case will be killed. To be clear, precise and concise, if Operation Grange ever questions the McCanns, any of the remainder of the T9 or any person who may bear guilt in the case, the case will be killed. Finished.
Note, not seriously compromised but finished.
This is the reason for one of the titles above “Entrapping Grange”, as easily can be seen there are people, and Colin Sutton is not alone, pressuring for that to happen.
Upfront a disclaimer. None of us are legal experts or have any educational background in law. So, we may be wrong in the assessment we make and if there is one occasion we want to be wrong, this will be it. If anyone is able to prove us wrong, we will be the first to jump for joy and gladly, very gladly, correct our hand and take back all we are going to say next.
We will sum up in 4 words what is at stake: sovereignty, jurisdiction (or legality), credibility and reality (or interests).
But before we explain how they matter and how they interlink with each other, one has to understand fully the meaning and differences between the words ‘can’, ‘should’ and ‘would’. We are not playing with words, we don’t pretend to give a grammar lesson or teach anyone English.
What we want to do is clarify their use in the Maddie case. They are often misused, or at least we see some people using them without realising what they really mean.
‘Can’ is indeed what one can do, while ‘should’ is of the universe of what one can do, what one should do.
We often mistake these words. For example, one says one can’t kill another human being. One can, however no one should.
The main deciding factor between what one should or should not do (so, something one can do) is something called a consequence. One can indeed kill another person but the consequence of doing it is such that it is or should be deterrent enough for one not to do it. It’s a ‘shouldn’t’ that borderlines the ‘can’t’ but it’s not a ‘can’t’.
In the case above the consequence between ‘should’ and shouldn’t has legal consequences. But this is not always the case.
For example, as far as we know, smoking in a closed room with children present is not illegal. It’s something one can do, it’s not illegal but something one just shouldn’t do. The consequence? One ruining the health of the kids in that room.
One can smoke in such circumstances, but one shouldn’t not because it’s illegal but because common sense after evaluating the consequences one decides not do it. A decision made not on what one can but on what one should unquestionably do.
In our opinion, Operation Grange and hearing the McCanns falls right into this category: it can be done but shouldn’t be. In this particular case, not because common sense advises but because reality demands it not to be done.
Can the UK can prosecute British citizens for crimes committed outside the UK?
Yes, it can. There’s no question about that.
The Offences Against Persons Act of 1861, states clearly that:
“Sections 9 and 10: Jurisdiction Murder or manslaughter abroad. Section 9 gives the courts in England, Wales and Ireland extra-territorial jurisdiction over homicides committed by British subjects overseas. (Note however the restricted definition of "subject" under section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948.) Section 10 gives these courts jurisdiction over fatal acts committed by British subjects overseas where the death occurs in England, Wales or Ireland, and jurisdiction over fatal acts committed in England, Wales or Ireland by anyone, including aliens, where the death occurs abroad. (The word "criminally" in that section has been held to exclude fatal acts done by aliens overseas although the death occurs in England, Wales or Ireland, since such acts are not punishable under the criminal law.)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_Against_the_Person_Act_1861
We have also found the following more recent legal norm that states very clearly that it can be done:
“Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (“GCA”) Section 1(1) of the GCA states: Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions or the first protocol shall be guilty of an offence” https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/criminal-law-blog/legal-update-universal-jurisdiction-which-foreign-crimes-can-be-tried-in-the-uk
Clearly it can. Now the question is, in the Maddie case should it or shouldn’t it and if not, why not?
The crime happened in Portugal. A sovereign nation, member of the European Union and NATO just to name 2.
There are 2 possibilities, the case is either prosecuted in Portugal where it happened or it is prosecuted in the UK, which as we have seen, it can be.
For it to be prosecuted outside Portugal, where the crime happened,
and there be no consequences there is only one way for that to happen: Portugal agreeing fully to that.
In no other scenarios are there no consequences if the case is prosecuted in the UK.
Will Portugal agree? We are certain it won’t and will explain why.
We have already spoken on the blog of an ongoing “legal battle” between Portugal and Angola. It involves Angola’s Vice-President from 2012 to 2017, Manuel Vicente. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Vicente
The case in question is called Operation Fizz. The crimes Manuel Vicente is accused of happened in Portugal.
Angola has requested for Manuel Vicente to be tried in Angola (note, the Angolan regime has clearly stated that the intention is not to exempt him in any way but simply to have him tried by their national courts and not the Portuguese ones – (readers, please start establishing parallels between this case and the McCanns) and there hasn’t been final decision taken yet.
The request was made by the Angolan President in a public intervention. He has stated that the economic interest of Portugal in Angola may be seriously compromised if the trial does not take place in Angola.
Operation Fizz is currently on trial. The solution found up to now for this diplomatic/legal/political problem was to separate whatever concerned Manuel Vicente in the process from the current court proceedings.
All other defendants of this process are presently going to court but Manuel Vicente’s trial has not begun.
A diplomatic/legal/political conundrum between the 2 countries and we honestly don’t know what the outcome will be. The Portuguese justice system seems very unwilling to forfeit its independence as well as not wanting to lose the credibility such concession would implicate.
What does this matter in connection with the Maddie case? The parallels are evident but the McCanns are not former Vice-Presidents of any country.
The Portuguese and Portugal’s interests in Angola have been publicly threatened because of the Manuel Vicente situation and yet there has been no final decision from Portugal on this case.
So, to the question will Portugal accept that the McCanns are prosecuted by the British in Britain? The answer seems to be a clear no.
Sovereignty determines that the McCanns have to be prosecuted in Portugal.
So, only left is the option of UK doing it without Portugal giving it explicit consent. Convince Portugal to pretend it doesn’t see it happening. Like many alleged anti sites who pretend they don’t read us.
The Maddie case has too much international visibility for such a solution. It can’t be solved in a “Nigel Nessling” manner. It will always be news. World-wide news.
Basically, if the UK was to prosecute the McCanns in the UK it would be like comparing Portugal and its legal system with Syria, which is in civil war since 2011, and its legal system. Portugal, we repeat, is a member of the EU and NATO. https://www.ukpolicelawblog.com/index.php/9-blog/84-murder-abroad
If in the case of Manuel Vicente, the Portuguese justice system seems to be fiercely unwillingly to let go of its independence and credibility then we’re not seeing it allowing itself to suffer such an insult, such damage to its credibility because of the McCanns.
Only if the UK wants to insult Portugal and face the consequences on the international stage for doing so, will the McCanns ever be prosecuted in Britain for what happened in Luz.
And would the Portuguese PJ Files from an insulted Portugal be used by the insulting British in the British courts? What experts on the subject matter would take the stand to defend the evidence from the prosecution? Certainly not anyone sent by the Portuguese.
And it would not only insult Portugal, it would send a very wrong message to the EU by showing that the UK would disrespect the sovereignty of member nation to hide skeletons in its closets. That negative message would also be heard worldwide.
Thus, we having said above that it can prosecute the McCanns in the UK but it shouldn’t and using an expression we have already used, it’s a ‘shouldn’t’ that borderlines, if not encompasses it, a ‘can’t’.
A ‘can’ that becomes a ‘can’t’ because reality determines that must be so.
Up to here, we hope to have explained that ONLY the Portuguese justice system will prosecute the McCanns if they are ever to be prosecuted.
And this is what makes the McCanns untouchable to Operation Grange. Yes, you read it correctly, untouchable.
Here is where jurisdiction comes in.
Please don’t limit jurisdiction to a physical space wherein a national sovereignty applies.
That sovereignty applies where the specific legal rules of a sovereign nation apply. The specific set of rules the said nation has chosen throughout its existence to elect when constructing its legal edifice.
That’s why in places disputed by 2 sovereign nations 2 sovereignties are enforced. In these cases, 2 or more countries think that they and only they have the right to apply their own set of laws to a certain piece of land. Which law is indeed applied depends on the international recognition of the sovereignty of the territory by those in dispute and that may not be clear. The Middle-east conflict is the perfect example.
Sovereignty is exercised by the ability of a state to enforce its own laws. When it can’t do that, then it has lost sovereignty. That means its laws are only valid where it has jurisdiction where other laws from other states have absolutely no legal value.
I had a teacher who said if law was simple then there would be no lawyers.
When one walks into a grocery store to buy a dozen apples, it’s simple as everyone agrees what a dozen means and what apples are. No one disputes it.
In law that doesn’t happen.
The written law speaks of the concept of what is a dozen and the concept of what is an apple. That means that to some a dozen may represent something and to another something slightly different depending on what interests are at stake.
If one looks at it analytically, the courts are basically people defending their interpretation of what dozens and apples are.
How is this relevant to the Maddie case?
Each jurisdiction has its own subtleties in their laws. This comes from the way each country deals with the “dozen v apple” question according to the laws they constructed.
In a country’s jurisdiction laws from other countries are not accepted even if the issue in question is the same.
Let’s exaggerate to exemplify. Let’s invent a country which we shall call Birbitain. Let’s imagine that the Birbitish justice system doesn’t allow the presence of lawyers during any stage of the questioning.
There, in Birbitain, the statements are taken from witnesses and suspects alike with only them and the police present. No one is allowed the presence of a lawyer much less to request one. In Biribitain and in accordance with their judicial system, the defendants’ lawyers only come into the process after the police have gathered all the evidence the way they deemed necessary and questioned all to their satisfaction.
Now, imagine that in Birbitain, a British person confesses under these legal conditions to a crime in Britain.
The Birbitish authorities, in good-will, decide to send this so-called evidence to Britain, which we remind you, is a confession of a crime.
Would this be accepted in Britain as evidence? Of course not. Why? Because the questioning in Birbitain did not comply with the rules of questioning under the British legal system’s jurisdiction.
The defendant’s rights had not been guaranteed as per British law.
The British courts, and rightfully so, only accept as evidence what has been collected according to the rules for the collection of evidence that it has set out for its own jurisdiction. And one of these rules is that it has to be obtained by their legitimate legal agents for that effect and in a legitimate manner.
See where this is going? Evidence collected by the Portuguese without the supervision of the British police is not accepted in British courts. The exact same happens the other way around.
For the Portuguese justice system, only collection of evidence that was done under the supervision of the legitimate agent, the Portuguese police, and no other is acceptable.
Those familiar with the case are aware of a status that exists in Portugal that does not exist in the UK: the arguido.
The arguido status is all about the guarantee of rights, in Portugal it’s considered essential. In any process, if not complied with it’s sufficient to nullify a case. Close it. End it there and then. If there’s guilt, the system prefers not to know rather than to harm individual rights. A sacrifice in the name of the rights of their citizens.
If the McCanns are ever heard by Operation Grange without any request by and under the supervision of the PJ, they cannot be heard as arguidos, simply because that status does not exist in the UK.
That in turn means that whatever information Operation Grange would then be able to obtain from them would not be admissible as evidence in Portugal, the only place, as we have explained, the case can be tried.
But the consequence is much more serious. The spirit of the arguido status is to ensure rights for ALL those who the police think there’s a POSSIBILITY of them having broken the law.
For example, a person is called into a case as a witness. At a certain point in time, what s/he says incriminates him or herself. At that moment things must stop as the police cannot pretend that they didn’t hear what it did and continue. If there’s the possibility of that person before them of having to face charges, then s/he must immediately be protected and given the arguido status. Note, the key-word is protected. And note we did not use the words “suspect” or “accused”.
That means that if the McCanns are called in by Operation Grange, whatever the they say will be tainted by the fact they were heard without the possibility of being protected by the arguido status.
Note, it can be done in the presence of a lawyer but all that entails being given the arguido status is not present.
A simple good morning said by the McCanns under oath to Operation Grange pertaining to the Maddie case would represent to the Portuguese legal rules an inadmissible violation of rights.
It’s what the Portuguese call an insurmountable error. Case closed.
Note, we’re not even speaking of them walking in under the belief that the police thought they did something wrong. For anyone, not only the McCanns, there’s always a possibility of them surprising all and be discovered of possibly having done something and the triggering of individual rights that is contemplated in Portuguese law, is not in Britain because there it simple doesn’t exist.
Because there is no possibility from the outset, to give the McCanns, just in case, the arguido status in Britain, if they are questioned there the process it would be irreparably tainted in terms of Portuguese justice.
Any evidence collected by Operation Grange without any intervention by the PJ is not acceptable in a Portuguese court. It wouldn’t need a brilliant legal team to tear it apart if it was tried.
For those saying that it would be possible for the McCanns to confess in the UK and then be sent to Portugal to confess again, that would only make things worse. Not only what is said above remains as there would be a serious risk of a huge embarrassment for the UK: the McCanns would go silent in Portugal with a public confession that serves absolutely nothing, because for the Portuguese it was obtained in an illegal manner, known publicly.
This would be a fiasco as the Portuguese would only be legitimately exercising their jurisdiction.
The same goes for the hearing of any other witnesses or suspects. It’s either done under the supervision of the legitimate agents of the Portuguese justice system or it’s not admissible in its courts.
But, the reader may say, there are rogatory statements in the files.
Those were done by the British police under the supervision of the PJ. Their presence validated the evidence collected then.
To be noted, in 2008 the British were in support of the Portuguese investigation. That means a hierarchy between the Portuguese and the British investigations existed.
As far as we know, the processes that are open in both Portugal and the UK regarding Maddie are independent and separate.
What the arguidos/witnesses said to Operation Grange in Portugal cannot be used by the Portuguese investigation.
The hearings were done under the rules of the Portuguese justice system but were under the mandate of a different jurisdiction and to be used there, so not admissible in the Portuguese process.
One has to look at the Portuguese officers as subject matter experts, like the translators. They are doing other people’s jobs and don’t have a say. They named the July arguido’s as arguidos because technically, according to the rules of the legal system where the interrogation took place which are more restrictive to the interrogator than those in the UK, they had to give them that status.
To say otherwise is to say that the PJ agreed with the homeless man and the young one being named arguidos which we are certain was not the case. It was Operation Grange telling the PJ, when requesting their questioning, that they were to be heard because the British investigation estimated they could have done something wrong and that in Portugal automatically triggers the arguido status.
Operation Grange were said to have interviewed people in the UK.
One we identified was Kelsie Harris and the Moyes also, as they gave DNA samples. Also reported were people interviewed in countries other than Portugal. We can’t rely on press but Moyes were quoted directly.
We maintain what we have said. However, one thing has to be said and that is we don’t have the equivalent of the PJ Files to know how the collection of this evidence was done. It could have been under the request and supervision of the PJ. If it was, it would be evidence accepted in the Portuguese courts, if not, it isn’t.
Does this mean that any of those heard by Grange in Portugal are off the hook?
No, with the exception of the mystery witness who was supposedly heard in the UK.
All others, even though what they said can’t be used, they can be heard again as the Portuguese justice system guarantees more rights than the British system (i.e. the arguido status) their individual rights are intact.
What they said to Operation Grange, remains in Grange and cannot be used in Portuguese courts. What they are to say eventually to the PJ, can.
So, as long as the information they gave at that moment (they can repeat it later) they can be questioned again, this time under the Portuguese jurisdiction.
Basically, to sum up what we have said up to now, if Operation Grange ever hears the McCanns it will kill the case there and then, even if whatever the McCanns may say be damning to them or not. The McCanns being questioned by Operation Grange without the intervention of the PJ and the case is over in Portugal. And over in the UK because it won’t risk the insult that means to Portugal.
We hope now that readers understand why Colin Sutton and others are pressing for Operation Grange to move on the McCanns.
Moving on to what we find the most interesting aspect of Poulton’s documentary- Colin Sutton.
Rather than repeat everything he says, we recommend readers watch Colin Sutton from about 25 minutes into her video “The McCanns and the Police [part 1]”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1M_CulIDrQ
It all sounds very encouraging as Sutton speaks of the limited nature of Operation Grange and how he would have wished to do a proper investigation, whereas he says there was no question of looking at guilt on the part of the McCanns. Pat Brown then gives her opinion that Operation Grange was not a proper investigation, which should have gone back to “ground zero”.
At 31.43 Sutton says “I can’t tell you why abduction was the only thing that was pursued, but I can certainly say that from what I’ve seen, from what I know, that appears to be the case because not only did I get the kind of warning off but I’ve subsequently looked at the terms of reference for OG which talk about abduction, but perhaps, even more tellingly in the CEOP’s report which really was the basis for setting up Operation Grange. It goes through the chronology of what’s gone on in terms of British support for the Portuguese and the British law enforcement response and we can see then that when the first Gold Steering group was formed, which was on 8th of May, so 5 days after Madeleine went missing, they are already at that point using the word abduction, talking about supporting the Portuguese investigation into abduction. So, it seems to me that there was a mindset that was taken on at very early stage of this investigation and which has persisted all the way through up to the current time with Operation Grange.”
So, thank you Sonia, for confirming what we had already written – that Sutton did have access to the CEOP Scoping Report, written by Jim Gamble. And we believe they are still singing from the same hymn sheet. Note Gamble’s words in 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/interview-with-jim-gamble-fmr-head-of-the-child/4033022
Kerry O’ Brien – interviewer about Gamble – “He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government… Jim Gamble, let’s get one obvious question out of the way, first-up: from everything you know personally about the McCanns and the case, do you believe they had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?”
Jim Gamble – “If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked.” [“If it ever came out” an interesting choice of words which the blog has noted]
(…)
KoB – “Why do you say that?”
JG – “Well, from everything I know about it, it’s not that as a professional police officer they wouldn’t have been first on my list of suspects, because actually, of course they would- they’re the parents, they were there, they had last access…”
After that equivocal statement, he then continues to say, having met the McCanns, he would be shocked if either one of them were proven to be involved.
KoB - “If I understand your position correctly, if you had conducted an investigation like this, you’d have started with the parents and taken a very quick look and either established there was something suspicious, or you’d have ruled them out and moved on. Now, if I understand it correctly, the Portuguese were kind of the other way around. It took them some time to suddenly develop the view that the McCanns might have been suspicious.”
JG - “Well, I think that’s a fair assessment. When we carried out the scoping review, in order to be fair, what we did was, we said, “Let’s take a sleepy seaside town somewhere in the UK, and imagine that, you know, late in the evening, a couple had come to us who didn’t speak English as their first language and who were Portuguese and said ‘Look, our child has gone missing.” I think what we accepted immediately is we would have faced a complicated scenario similar to that which the Portuguese did. You’re not sure whether the child has simply walked away or been taken away and it does take a period of time to get that information together, so there were clearly difficulties, and we would all face those. In the immediate aftermath, the systematic approach is what is key, and certainly as professional detectives, we use the phrase ‘ clear the ground beneath your feet’. Look at that which is immediately in front of you first of all. And the only key difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects I would have looked at would have been the parents.”
Please note the words “And the only key difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects I would have looked at would have been the parents” and now consider what Sutton says to Sonia, after a quote from Rowley.
Sutton: “What I take that to mean is because we know that at the time we are told Madeleine McCann went missing from flat 5A, we know her parents and their friends weren’t in that flat at the time, therefore they could not have taken her, or they’re not suspects. That doesn’t follow does it? That’s not logical, that is not a forensic way of looking at it because that’s based on some pretty large assumptions.”
Sutton goes on to speak of major inconsistencies of fact in the witness statements and the need for a filmed reconstruction, to get a composite story that’s closer to the truth.
At 42:50 Sonia asks what can be done with the remaining money for the investigation.
Sutton: “The starting point has got to be back at ground zero. This is when the report was made, these are the last people to see her, this is what they say, these are the people close to her. Let’s eliminate those, let’s get them out of the way and that would serve everybody, you know, that would be in the interests of both the general public but also Kate and Gerry McCann, because there’s an awful lot of tittle- tattle on the internet and rumours. This is a case which has aroused so many opinions, quite strong opinions in some cases. If you conclusively, comprehensively, forensically eliminate Gerry and Kate McCann and friends from any involvement, then that squashes all of that rumour mill. That takes it all away.”
Is “Let’s eliminate those, let’s get them out of the way and that would serve everybody, you know, that would be in the interests of both the general public but also Kate and Gerry McCann” as positive as some would believe?
We say it’s inflaming public opinion to pressure Operation Grange to question the McCanns and make that fatal mistake.
Before we proceed we would like to note that after Sonia Poulton’s video, we have now to the best of our knowledge: she and Martin Brunt seem be the only 2 reporters to have had access to the CEOP Scoping Report.
Please correct us if we’re wrong Sonia, if it’s a different secret report.
We must confess that we don’t see a reason for either of them to have access to a secret document of a highly sensitive case that has embarrassed the UK worldwide. But with Martin Brunt one might find a sort of explanation as he’s the best-known TV reporter linked to the Maddie case, working for the TV network best known to defend the McCanns.
In the case of Sonia Poulton, one must find it strange. The Portugal Resident on Dec 26 2014, says: http://portugalresident.com/damning-new-madeleine-documentary-promised-for-2015
“A damning new “evidence-based” documentary is being prepared for screening in 2015 and promises to tell the “Untold Story of Madeleine McCann” - alleging that “no abduction took place at all”.
Orchestrated by independent journalist and social activist Sonia Poulton, the project got underway following the death of 63-year-old grandmother Brenda Leyland - the so-called internet “troll” “outed” over tweets that questioned the official version of events “as put forward by mainstream media”.”
We all know what a fierce public defender of the McCanns Jim Gamble is. So we cannot help but find it strange that a highly secret document of highly sensitive information authored by him would find his way to the hands to a reporter alleging that “no abduction took place at all”.
But then, as far as we know, Sonia Poulton has been the only “hostile” reporter able to doorstep Kate McCann – an act we admonished then – taking with her 2 reporters (one to film the other filming Poulton knocking on the Rothley door) and have Kate open the door to her.
One thing we think should be clarified is whether Ben Thompson, who she names as one of her researchers for the video and is an admin of the FB Group Justice for Madeleine, has also had access to this highly secret CEOP document.
We have criticised Katie Hopkins in the blog for after having accused the McCanns of negligence, she did not do any further research and continued to promote it, so to be coherent we must do the same with Sonia Poulton.
In her favour, we have also said that we don’t mind the negligence promoted by Pat Brown. We know it didn’t happen but as it links said negligence with the parents being involved with Maddie’s death we will let it fall by itself as we are certain once things are focused on the involvement of the parents in her death, the truth will surface unhindered.
However, having dedicated herself to the case as she has, in the period of time she has and having the support she has said she has, one would expect that she would add the word ‘alleged’ whenever she mentioned negligence.
Another thing we would like to know is, if the objective was to highlight the British police bias in favour of the McCanns, why weren’t the Gaspar statements mentioned? After all, the couple was heard in May 2007 and only in October sent to the PJ and only after requested. Is there more an evident bias than that?
The other clarification we would find useful is for Sonia Poulton to clarify whether the interview with Colin Sutton was made before 2017. If what he says in the video is before or after he said that “The Mauritania line is certainly a possibility and needs to be looked at” among other things and before or after it was reported that “The ex-Metropolitan Police officer [Colin Sutton] said there is no evidence the couple or their friends had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.” http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/02/sutton-is-name-meddling-is-game.html
If we are right, then there’s a move to sabotage any prospect of prosecution in Portugal.
If so, it dates back to Gamble trying the same in 2012 when he says much the same as Colin Sutton now. Going back to beginning and looking at the parents happened at the outset. That’s what the PJ tried and the British sabotaged. And clearly among those saboteurs was Jim Gamble.
And lest we forget, in the TV appearance with Martin Brunt on Sky News marking the 10th anniversary, Colin Sutton said (our caps:” “I think WE say in there that…” being the “in there” the highly secret CEOP report. So we can assume that Sutton was also among the saboteurs.
Saboteurs know the game well. They are betting on one of 2 things, both producing the same result: close Operation Grange.
On one hand, this pressuring the Met into questioning the McCanns, we call it the OJ Simpson without a trial card.
Everyone thought he was guilty but a brilliant legal battle caused the American justice system to be unable to sentence him.
With the McCanns, the idea is to stop things short of prosecution. Everyone thinking they are guilty but a legal technicality stopping them being sentenced.
All others involved can finally breathe in peace.
We recommend readers to revisit our post “The McCann trial”. http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2017/03/the-mccann-trial.html
We recommend readers to be aware of all those fervently in favour of having the McCanns dragged into the Met for questioning, as well as all those fervently supporting those fervently in favour.
We would urge all those asking in their good faith for Operation Grange to call in the McCanns to stop immediately.
The purpose of these words is to help people to be able to look with different eyes at all those who will continue, after reading this, shouting for Operation Grange to question the McCanns, as now it will be known that what they hope to achieve is to create a popular pressure that will make it commit a fatal mistake.
Remember when we said that the case against Mr Amaral was not a libel case but for damages? We were then hit by “friendly fire” about how wrong we were. Time has proven us right. Now we will see what reaction we will get to this post.
Please remember our initial words in this comment. IF we are proven wrong about what we have said above, we will be glad to recognise it and retract all.
One useful thing is that this sabotage helps us understand a few things.
Like the £12 million figure said to have been spent – by the way, does everyone remember how fast it went up to £8/£9 million but then “stagnated” at basically the same value? – by Operation Grange.
As we have said before, the other thing the other side is trying to achieve is to have Operation Grange closed due to “over-expenditure”.
Knowing now that Operation Grange’s hands are effectively tied, as they cannot speak to anyone under the penalty of causing the closure of the case, we would say that Operation Grange main expenditure is on wages.
If we subtract the wages, the Luz circus, the 2 hearings in Faro, the visit to the INML in Coimbra and one or 2 more visits by Redwood to Portugal we would say costs have been exaggerated just to inflame the public to pressure government to close Grange.
Grange is just the police being used by the politicians in a diplomatic/legal conundrum which the British have put themselves in.
Another positive note, is what we have witnessed all these years is the Met fully aware of the trap and ignoring it. For some reason they have said that the parents were not people of interest, even said they were not suspects. They said that all diligences that the PJ did on the parents were sufficient for the Met. Can the reader see now how spot on this was?
A complete and absolute farce but legally impeccable. Flawless.
Not because of incompetence, not because of legality (the can v should question addressed above) but because of reality.
As we said, both the PJ and Grange are waiting for the political nod, so nothing can be expected from either except, nothing until then and this nothing is good. No legal battles to fight about jurisdiction nor opening of doors for annulment of the process.
What we can do is sit and watch. Each day Operation Grange does nothing is a day that Operation Grange exists. And as long as Operation Grange exists we can hope truth is outed.
So, let’s them be cops playing cops. It’s embarrassing but much less than it would be to archive the case after Whitehall archive the case after agreeing that there was one final key lead/witness or, and that would even be worse, because of a legal error.
The fact the government has not yet conceded to the pressure it has received because it continued funding it even though it continues to get put in the media AND social media that Grange is useless (because it doesn’t question the McCanns) and a waste (because it’s wasting public money) tells us that outing the truth is an option being seriously considered by government to end the case.
And the few pitiful blanks the other side fired to celebrate the 11th anniversary was very much telling.
The case as is, remains intact and perfectly ready to move towards prosecution.
Is this possible? Yes, of course it is AND it passes through Grange.
All that is needed to happen is for there to be some “fluke” analysis of the files by Grange and they suggest to the PJ that a certain line of inquiry is worth pursuing. Then, the “convinced” PJ will request, under Portuguese supervision, that certain people be heard in the UK by Grange.
Another possibility, which is more likely, is for the PJ to be given the green light by the political power to contact Grange with “new” forensic evidence and request what is said above.
Under Portuguese supervision, all evidence then collected by Grange is admissible in the Portuguese courts and the case can be prosecuted in Portugal.
If the reader doesn’t like to just sit and watch and wants to exercise pressure, then that should be directed at the PJ and not the Met. Their diligences are the only ones that matter really in this case.
Who helped us have this lightbulb moment? Insane, of course. We effectively, as we have recognised, misread his statement saying that he had a source who told him Grange was questioning former British immigrants who had resided in Luz.
We thought he had said that Grange was questioning Brits in Luz, which would be illegal, when he had said nothing of the sort.
However, this got us thinking. Why would Grange be questioning people who had once resided in Luz as this would be useless evidence for Portugal… oh, wait a minute, it wouldn’t only be useless to the Portuguese prosecution BUT be ruinous for the case if not done by the British without Portuguese supervision.
So that’s why they are pressing to have Operation Grange call in the McCanns!
Thank you, Insane. Again. We’ve lost count the times you’ve helped us. As the Portuguese say, God writes straight along crooked lines.
"However, this got us thinking. Why would Grange be questioning people who had once resided in Luz as this would be useless evidence for Portugal… oh, wait a minute, it wouldn’t only be useless to the Portuguese prosecution BUT be ruinous for the case if done by the British without Portuguese supervision."
Gay Gibson, Suzanne Pilley, Muriel McKay. Just a few of the cases where convictions have been obtained without a body. In Gay Gibson's case they stopped short of hanging the accused.
Thank you Textusa. Whilst I freely admit that I don't understand the legalities of this case. I always knew there was a reason for the 'Farce'. It all makes sense now.
The case as is, remains intact and perfectly ready to move towards prosecution.
Is this possible? Yes, of course it is AND it passes through Grange.
All that is needed to happen is for there to be some “fluke” analysis of the files by Grange and they suggest to the PJ that a certain line of inquiry is worth pursuing. Then, the “convinced” PJ will request, under Portuguese supervision, that certain people be heard in the UK by Grange.
Couldn't they have done the same thing back in 2013 at the start of their investigation?
How can Sonia Poulton state in her documentary that she managed to get a look at a classified document - the CEOP report, written by Jim Gamble. Who helped her get her hands on it, and what other nuggets are in it, and how does it effect the case? Strange how there's complete silence from Poulton, Ben Thompson (who seemed to have assisted in the documentary) and Sutton on this matter.
We want to take the opportunity and use your comment to clarify something.
As our readers remember, there was recently some tension between the blog and Ben Thompson.
We are not going to revisit that issue, however it can be interpreted as us having named Ben Thompson because of it.
This is not a game. This is not about egos. This is not who crosses imaginary lines first nor about who gets imaginary gold medals. We have said it before and will say it again, our loyalty lies only with the truth and our consciences.
Sonia Poulton names as “additional researchers” Ben Thompson and Cheryl Moncrieffe. We have mentioned only Ben Thompson because from what we were able to see, we couldn’t find any link between Cheryl Moncrieffe and the case, while about Ben it’s well known his interest in the case.
That means we don’t know in what way Cheryl could have helped Sonia, while we can make a reasonable assumption as to what extent Ben could.
It is only because of this, and only this, that we “singled out” Ben Thompson. If Cheryl Moncrieffe happened to be an admin of a Maddie related blog/FB group/forum, we would have equally named her in the comment.
The reason Ben is named is simple. We as a team share information about the case. There is information that we don’t share among team, more specifically sources who we have individually. The question we have raised we think is pertinent and easily clarified: did the research team of this video share the entirety of the information or not. If it did, then the report shown (about which we also wait conformation if it is the CEOP report or not) is included.
Any other interpretation away from this is speculation for which we are not responsible.
In case it wants for evidence to be collected in the UK, the PJ submits a request in which it informs what they want that is to be clarified by questioning a certain person.
Then it’s the legitimate British judicial agent who interacts with that person.
If you look at the rogs in the files, the questions are put by a British police officer (the legitimate judicial agent) but are not read out. It’s evident that the questioner has a leeway in the subjects to be covered as he is the “technician”, however one can easily see that there are pre-set subjects which the questions must address.
This pre-setting was done by the PJ and the questioning done by the British police. The PJ watches and verifies that all subjects have been covered and that all, even though done under British legal rules, do not conflict with the Portuguese ones.
It happened the other way around when Grange requested to hear people in Portugal. Grange informed the PJ what they wanted to be clarified from each individual and then the PJ questioned them.
One thing is the collection of evidence (which is the product to be obtained) and another is who collects it.
Textusa, both Insane and Petermac say you have got it wrong and that being interviewed under caution is the same as being made arguido. Are they right?
Procedural rights: #1 - To attend those acts in the proceedings directly concerning him; #2 - To be heard by the court or the investigative judge whenever they must take a decision affecting him personally; #3 - Not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with about the contents of his statements concerning them; #4 - To choose a defence counsel or ask the court to assign him one; #5 - To have a defence counsel acting on his behalf in every act of the proceedings he participates in and to communicate with him, even in private, when remanded in custody; #6 - To intervene in the inquiry, giving evidence and requesting the investigation he deems necessary; #7 - To be informed of his rights by the judicial or prosecuting authority or by the criminal police body before which he is compelled to appear; #8 - To appeal from unfavourable decisions taken against him as provided by law; #9 - To request legal aid at the social customer services
Procedural duties #1 - Appear before the judge, the Public Prosecution Service or the criminal police bodies whenever required by law and having been duly summoned for that purpose; #2 - To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record; #3 - To provide a statement of identity and residence immediately after being held a defendant; #4 - To submit himself to investigations for the gathering of evidence and, as provided by law, to coercive measures and a guarantee in property, ordered and performed by a competent authority.
Warning – Section 39 of Act no. 34/2004, of July 29, 2004 The defendant was informed that when neither choosing a defence counsel, nor requesting legal aid, or in case this legal aid is not granted, he may be liable for the payment of the defence counsel’s fees, as well as for the expenses he incurred with his defence.
In the interview under caution, the caution is: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-003-2152?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
The reader just has to compare both and see if they represent the same.
Not even bothering to analyse the remainder listed, we would simply point duty #2: "To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record".
Only to these is the arguido obliged by law to tell the truth. About all else s/he can lie. And if the arguido says white during the investigative process and then decides to say black in court, it's black that counts and s/he is not accountable for having said white before nor can that white be used as evidence against him/her.
Textusa, I'm anon @ 14.22. I don't have a link, I was just asking a question. But I think Petermac is right; he should know, he was a police officer and he has a law degree.
So, if we understood you, whatever PeterMac tells you, you assume to be true?
It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living.
We would like to know if PeterMac’s degree in law is in Portuguese law.
About PeterMac having credibility because he was a policeman, we don’t think alleged weather conditions on May 3, the lack of published holiday photos or unconnected people not seeing Maddie alive is proof of anything.
If that’s what British police officers consider to be compelling evidence in the UK, then it speaks poorly of the people serving in the British police forces. As we don’t believe that to be the case – that of British police considering such flimsy evidence as compelling – we will maintain the respect we have for all police officers serving in the UK.
We have noted that PeterMac doesn’t mention Prof. Hany Farid in his book chapter about the last photo, about which we would welcome the CMOMM forum putting that evidence to a REAL test.
About the weather conditions of May 3 and about which PeterMac is absolutely certain that there was absolutely no possibility whatsoever for a sunny picture to have been taken, in his chapter book about the weather, he places a picture for that day in the Algarve not of a cloudy sky but one of a sky with clouds: http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.pt/2016/08/chapter-15-almost-last-word-on-last.html http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/03/the-pool-photo.html
Paraphrasing Groucho Marx, who are you going to believe, PeterMac or your own eyes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM
I'm anon @ 17.10, Textusa. "So, if we understood you, whatever PeterMac tells you, you assume to be true?
It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living."
There was no need to be rude to me. I asked a question and you said yourself you had no legal education, but Petermac does. Seems like you want me to assume that what you tell me is true, so who is the con-artist here?
Sorry to hear of your members loss Textusa. As expected we had a flurry of last minute stories after the post I wrote last week, seems they are digging deep now using katrice and her poor father as guinea pigs as a motive behind the story to what makes Madeleine so special and worth more than any other child. As we know and a lot of the general public do now and it involves a massive cover up but not the sexual one that has been pushed to the forefront. That IMO would have been dealt with much more swiftly and effectively the UK secret services are I fear masters of covering such horrific perversions so that leaves it down to a political mess. For some they cannot understand how it can be anything else sadly these are the people who know very little about how the government and the rich work,you only have to look at the anger of ex empire countries who were asset stripped and exploited yet the UK citizens were being fed how we helped and enlightened everywhere we went. This for any rational freethinker is complete and utter tosh as the ones who benefited as usual the most were the rich and connected, hundreds of years later nothing has changed we are still being lied to but now we have a community of people who understand and are fed up with the status quo. I have said more then once on more than one that forum operation grange should not exist, the case does not belong to them and they have no jurisdiction that lies with Portugal. Sadly some people just do not listen or comprehend the game that is being played which includes them too. As i don't read the papers or watch the news I guess I escape the bull sh-t influence pushed by msm.
Taking into account that GP Totman was, supposedly, only a tourist who happened to be there and, supposedly did not know any of the T9 or anyone linked to the case, how would he kbow the description made by Tanner in such a detail that he instantly thought it could be him, and even went to the GNR (so many days before the Tannerman description was made public (which, supposedly, strongly influenced Yvonne Martin)?
Rather strange, isn't it?
And people are still saying other guests aren't involved....
See the article for what it is,it mentions grange winding up in October, on whose say so?,an ex cop saying he was sure Tanner saw the abductor,thus casting doubt on any witness statements. I wonder if the officer would kindly inform the world when it was established Madeline was abducted. Desperate times,desperate times.
Dr Totman---not only is he Crecheman then, he also bears an uncanny resemblance to the creepy looking man on the beach photographed by Gail Cooper the week before the Mccanns arrived
Express Creepy Man article https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/175407/Madeleine-McCann-Is-this-the-man-who-snatched-her
Crecheman pic http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com.eg/2013/12/how-bundleman-became-real.html ----credit to Jean Monroe at Jill Havern who first noticed this
Actually the Sun story is just confirming that Tannerman never saw an abductor,given that Smithman is unlikely to have either and no one else has come forward that leaves??????????????
10:34:00, OG helped by ruling out all abductor suspects?
Bilton pursuing innocent Portuguese was to make us all beg OG to stop interviewing suspects because this made everybody angry? Stop, because we need suspects to remain out there, forever potential abductors and an ongoing fund.
Anonymous7 May 2018, 11:17:00 Nafeesa, Totman looks nothing like Gail C
He doesn't look like the one she originally complained about, the one they made an artists impression of But he does look like the one she photographed on the beach, he's the one in the Express article I linked to
You say: “The portuguese police were asking people if they had seen a man carrying a child. It wasn't a secret”
No, they were not. The first announcement was made on May 25, the Totmans, supposedly, were not in Portugal (supposedly arrived April 29, left May 12) then to contact GNR, much less be ignored by one of its officers.
From our post the “Saint of Salem” http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/09/the-saint-of-salem-i.html
““Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007
Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".
The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.”
The above is from here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html”
But this is an either or scenario and neither look good for Totman.
If “he portuguese police were asking people if they had seen a man carrying a child”, as you say, and if Totman had walked up to a GNR officer then, had told him he could be the man and would be ignored? How realistic is that?
Not sure if the British insulting the Portuguese is a favourite past-time or simply a guilty pleasure. Evidently the GNR would have taken him immediately to the nearest PJ officer.
But suppose Totman overheard Tanner (who didn’t even think important to inform the McCanns that night she had seen Tannerman) speaking about it, why would Totman go to the police instead of immediately approaching whoever he was overhearing and inform that he was the man carrying his daughter?
Why just approach GNR and do nothing more? And wouldn’t Totman speak to McCanns and say it was me your friend saw in order to immediately clear himself of any suspicion and reassure the family?
With such media hype then, and on seeing that the Portuguese authorities were doing nothing (he didn’t even consider the possibility the GNR misunderstood him, and so should have gone again to the police? After all, he memorised and held on to the clothes he wore that night), wouldn’t as a possibility to head to the media present and raise it with them and get the police to take it seriously?
"He said: “They just showed me this outline which apparently gave me the impression that it had high cheekbones and a long face but other than that, no eyes, no nose, no mouth, so I call it an egg, it was an egg with hair.”
He went on: “I have heard that other people who have been interviewed have said that there were clothes involved. The police never asked me about anything to do with clothing.
“All I got was an impression of a head with hair with a side parting.
“I smiled when they showed it to me. What else could anyone do?”
He went on to say that the image was not even recognisable as an e-fit."
That's not the point, is it? You said they weren't speaking to people and they were. Bridget O'Donnell mentioned it in her article too, about a GNR officer coming round the day after.
As far as we could see, we haven't seen any statement from the Portuguese authorities prior May 25 about a man CARRYING A CHILD. And that's the entire point.
Thank you for helping us understand this article. It really honours and pleases us.
(do spare us from you saying we confuse every dissenting anon with you, bla, bla,bla...)
On May 7, the Bucks Herald referred to "the Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas which reported that the image which the police had put together was based only on the rear view of a man seen with a child in the area. (...) The Portuguese newspaper said: "The person was seen from behind, we see more of the back of the head and the hair rather than the actual features in the portrait of the man that was seen with a child that night." http://themaddiecasefiles.com/confusion-over-madeleine-suspect-bucks-herald-07-0-t18386.html
This is Jane T's version of Tannerman according to GMC and KMC in their respective May 4 statements, very different of what Jane stated on that same day.
As we said, we wish to close the debate about Totman. As we said, we believe it to be a distraction.
We will leave it up to the readers to judge whether Totman read the Portuguese 24Horas or the Bucks Herald and then decided to go to a GNR officer to say it could be him and did nothing else about like, for example, tell the PJ directly or the parents themselves.
Textusa, I just find it interesting, very interesting, the huge difference between JT's tale on 3/4 night and her statement at the Portimao DIC on the 4th.
GM was playing tennis with some guys one of which is probably Totman,on returning from the beach JT along with others stopped off at the tennis courts for a chat,yet some 3 hrs later doesn't recognize Tannerman/Crecheman yeah right.
07:23 Agree. Other point is Totman knew G from tennis. He must have seen G and Jez in the street, if it had actually happened. Then next day, he would see the press coverage of the apartment and say, I passed by last night, I’d better tell G. I also remember 2 men and a buggy as I walked past
Very interesting thoughts, Textusa, which bring a question: what is the whole point of Operation Grange? Why was it launched in the first place? If the intent was really to solve the case, wasn't it enough to encourage Portugal to re-open it? Grange made UK look like trying to achieve the exact opposite: create a smokescreen in front of the truth in order to keep the “official version” under control. I don't know why Portugal reopened its inquiry in 2013 but it looks like it has been at at a standstill since the start... perhaps not surprising. As you point out, the case “remains intact and perfectly ready to move towards prosecution”, but how does Grange help?
Anonymous, at 7 May 2018, 13:31:00. By accident I deleted your comment. Did not see if it was in reply to Anonymous 6 May 2018, 23:50:00 or if it was a stand-alone comment. My apologies. I’m risking it was a reply. If wrong please correct me. Here is your comment:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue II":
Did "Clever" Gerry,think of such a risky strategy to ask for a review of Madeleine's case,aka.Rebekah Brooks David Cameron at a time they were seeking damages from Mr Goncalo Amaral,started in August 2008 and ended in the Portugal Supreme Court decision 25th January 2017, was this used to exonerate Once and for all any suspicion of involvement in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance? Aka Mr Colin Sutton's recent statement Sonia Poulton documentary?
The McCann Family must have known via Isabel Duarte the Supreme Court would have to finally deliberate on the defamation case after the appeals process exhausted?
The McCann family could not afford to challenge on Two fronts a"civil Redress case" and a further "Private Investigation"scenario,as this would have exhausted the find Madeleine fund,So a Review was necessary!
If the Supreme Court would have found in Favour of the McCann Family, Operation Grange would have been shelved by now!
To say it wouldn't be inconvenient to have a review of Madeleine McCann's case when a"Defamation case" was being challenged on a Basis of the Portugal PJ jurisdiction,which in effect ruled,that the"McCann Family had Not been found innocent of what had happened to their Daughter Madeleine,who was reported to have disappeared 3 May 2007 apartment 5a Ocean Club.
Within five Months of deliberation of the Portugal Supreme Court Final determination, mysteriously Scotland Yard has the Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner retires from office and the Assistant Commanding Officer Mark Rowley moved to a "New role" Head of Security,after both "Officers" had an extremely close relationship offering unswerving support for the Family of Madeleine McCann! Have the UK Police been used by the UK Government as "Political" pawns in the full knowledege that D notices(National security) apply to Madeleine McCann' disappearance via Gordon Brown's,sticky little fingers?
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 7 May 2018, 13:31:00”
Hi textusa anon 13.31. yes they are my comments,the Madeleine McCann case is shrouded by"Spooks" from UK services,especially with mouth pieces such as Sheree Dodd,Justine Maguiness,Clarence mitchell, who couldn't save the Cambridge analytical Company,acting strangely similar to Bell- Pottinger,African Elections,with strange associations to the Conservative Party,Brexit,election of American President Donald Trump? It's a small world isn't it!
Proof that the police were asking about a man seen carrying a child in the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.
From Jez Wilkins statement, given on May 7th
"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children.
He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks he may stay in one night'
I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes."
From the letter from Amaral with the questions Jez should be asked (same date, 7th May)
"- Did he meet GERALD and at what time ? - Where was GERALD coming from at this time ? - Exactly where was this meeting with GERALD ? (please obtain confirmation of the exact location on the attached map) - What was the distance of this meeting from GERALD'S apartment ? - Can Jeremy provide a sketch map of the location ? - What did they talk about at this time and for how long ? - When he was talking with GERALD, did any of Gerald's group pass by ? - If so, who ? - When he was talking with GERALD did he see whether anyone passed by carrying a child in the road near the apartment block ?"
So I am right that witnesses were being asked if they had seen a man carrying a child, long before a public appeal was made.
We think it’s consensual that the Sun’s Totman article is, we shall be kind, ridiculous.
Before we get to the reasons why it is indeed ridiculous let’s first look at how useful it is.
The first positive note is that like in the “Woman-in-purple” articles that exposed Jenny Murat, this one exposes Julian Totman.
Totman appears on the Crèche sheets that we know are fake. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01-pages-107-111[105-109]/processopdf01page111-CrecheRecords2.jpg
Totman appears on the Tapas dinners bookings (got up early on May 1 to queue up and as able to reserve a table) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg
Tapas dinners we know never existed (except the May 3 one but that wasn’t exactly a dinner in the terms we are forced to believe those dinners were supposed to be). But what luck Totman had! He made jackpot as he also got to play Quiz Night (according to Quiz Mistress) and which we say also never happened http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/03/quiz-night-at-tapas.html
He certainly can tell us who won and who lost and what prizes were there were to win!
This article also confirms that it was J Weinberger the 3rd witness who saw Pimpleman in the 2009 Mockumentary, the other 2 being Derek Flack and TS: “The force also failed to follow up on information from Paul and Julia Weinberger, pals of the Totmans, who said they had seen a pock-faced man hanging around the McCanns’ aparment twice that week.”
Another character appearing in this article is detective Ian Horrrocks, who we spoke of in our post “Friends Reunited” also appears: “Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way.” http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/06/friends-reunited.html
We don’t know from where Horrocks got the idea Totman says west to east. If he had told Redwood that, how could the Met rule him to be Tannerman as they did?
And again, a question that must be asked time and time again: why do retired police officers know exactly what witnesses have said to Operation Grange, know exactly who is being considered a suspect, etc? Is the Met running an internal “school-paper” which is also distributed to former officers and one of its columns is “Latest on Grange”? It seems to be the case.
Quite a lot of lambs to sacrifice with a ridiculous post, isn’t it? There has to be a purpose.
Let’s first see the timing. What is happening with Maddie? Outside one tiny little thing, nothing.
The decision to continue funding has been taken and even the article sates October as a possible closing date. Sacrificing lambs in May to produce results in September (time of the next funding decision) is ridiculous.
The anniversary has passed. Kate read a poem she had already read in 2012 and the lack of news was deafening and telling.
And it must be noted that the Tannerman picture remains up in the McCann website. It seems that they continue not to agree that Tannerman is Totman. So this article didn’t even change that.
Outside this, what was/is happening?
Let’s first say what we think it was planned to be happening at around this time by the other side: the internet running amok with paedophilia and outrage to close wasteful and biased Grange.
Neither is happening. And under the risk of sounding self-important or even arrogant, we believe that is so because of this blog. We have annulled both those “courses of action”.
Insane says we have only 6 readers. Well, it seems you half a dozen are nothing short of brilliant as we’ve been able to echo effectively and efficiently what we say in the blog.
Without paedo and with the “Grange legal conundrum on the table” another subject for people to pick on was urgent to find: thus Totman.
Thus, the reason to be ridiculous. Easy to pick and deconstruct, ideal to feed distraction. Intentionally ridiculous.
Sacrifice the lamb to distract. Something was needed to distract discussion away from the legal discussion.
The way Insane has reacted (among other things, coming in defense of PeterMac) to the comment told us that we were on the right track.
To show that the other side is just playing (and wasting) trump after trump, shows they are in a disarray.
The fact that Insane has retaken up the Walkercan1000 twitter account, tells us that the other side has given up (have just been informed that the account was suspended).
All has gone back to the pre-October 2017 tactics (before the decision to take Nigel Nessling to court) which not only produced absolutely nothing as it antagonised government.
They have nothing left but confrontation. We will see how successful this tactic will be.
So, in accordance with the above, we will not be distracted from the comment we made. We will continue to speak about it to our 6 readers and not be Totman-distracted.
We will no longer publish comments about Totman. All that was needed to be said about it, has been said.
We will continue on the comment we published showing why Grange cannot question the McCanns under the penalty of closing the case if it ever does that.
So far, we have only seen counter-arguments from PeterMac and Insane. We will address both soon.
I wonder if Walker wanted it suspended and deliberately advertised Silverdoe’s address? A vile thing to do to her. He was making terrible statements about GA. If he’s been suspended for other reasons, he may not be pleased.
As readers can see, we have published comments regarding Totman after we said we wouldn’t.
We’re human and we do make wrong decisions and that was a bad decision.
In our defense, readers must understand that engaging in a debate with Insane is like being inside an unfunny Dead Parrot sketch, over and over again, with us telling him that the bird is dead and him saying that he’s only resting as no vestiges of blood have been found in the cage.
We shouldn’t let that frustration ever influence our decisions, and we mostly haven’t, but seldomly we do.
When we made our decision, we overlooked the phenomenal opportunity that this blog was given by the Totman episode.
The truth is that we were blinded by the ridiculousness of the article and we failed to see the blessing it was for the truth.
We maintain all of the above. Even the self-importance. We only withdraw not accepting comments about Totman.
He was a distraction but when one scrambles to distract more often than not one makes things worse for oneself. This was such a case for the other side.
As far as we know, for the last 9 and a half years we have been the only ones implicating others outside the T9. The only other person implicated has been Robert Murat for reasons we have disagreed publicly and which are related with the Smith sighting.
Outside that, we are the only ones saying that guests, Ocean Club staff, Mark Warner staff and British immigrants are in on the hoax.
The Totman article, however ridiculous it may be, is very serious about one thing: the Totmans and the Weinbergers are playing a game. Why, it must be asked.
Finally we see published uncontested evidence that people supposedly unrelated with the T9 are willing to lend their names to distort truth in this case. Why?
So, it will be interesting to watch how people will fit Totman/Weinberger into their narratives.
How do Totmans/Weinbergers fit in the negligence narrative? And in the paedophilia narrative? And in the death before May 3 narrative?
We will be interested to know how, so we’ll be watching.
For example, look at this tweet from Insane’s BFF Tigger, replying to Insane’s supporter K9:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gcnjones/status/993563939119206401 “tigger@gcnjones Replying to @K9Truth V interesting. Both Weinberger and Totman extra helpful. Both nr Salisbury? 7:51 pm · 7 May 2018”
Oh Tigger, we have covered that so many times. Weren’t you listening? Do revisit this, for example: http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/03/its-all-baloney.html
And the comment from Anonymous we withheld and are now publishing:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue II": I hope it is now sinking in to people, and it appears to be (when reading forum posts), that guests at the OC that week were linked in their purpose for being there. When looking at the guests who were there that week, do people find it strange just who was taking their 'holidays' in a low class holiday accommodation, off peak week in April / May 2007? A little easy research tells us that many were well paid professionals... it certainly looks like there was common goal for being there and it certainly wasn't to play golf! Regardless of whether you believe swinging was the common goal (and I certainly do) , people must now be acknowledging that it was not just a coincidence that found these people together in the OC. Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 8 May 2018, 10:47:00”
So we have revised our decision not to receive any more comments about the Totman article (we already had).
The debate about Operation Grange questioning the McCanns can now wait.
We will return to it. For example, we will thank PeterMac for proving us right as well as continue to show how wrong he is when he says: “And then he [Textusa] starts on about "arguido" status and says it does not exist in England. It is exactly [in bold] the same as being interviewed under Caution with a lawyer present, and everything recorded on tape or video”
Interesting tweet, in the line of “Village of the Damned”:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Meadowuk/status/993757226866180096 "Lee Meadow@Meadowuk #mccann What is the common factor: T9, Smiths, JW, Fenn & Trotman. I mean are there no Portuguese in Portugal? Can it really be so, that a child disappears and the only witnesses are non-Portuguese, English speaking. 8:39 am · 8 May 2018"
That has always struck me as odd that not one independent eye witness was Portuguese because if you believe the official fairytale it makes it look like the locals walk around with their eyes shut. The nanny managed to pop everywhere a sighting or alibi was needed, all the main players who as pointed out as Brits(yes very convenient that) who lied through their back teeth in support of the McCann's and the hoax should be charged with perverting the course of justice. That goes for who pulled the string to start this charade and that includes Brown who made sure they had all the help they needed. Anybody who denies something fishy about the hoax story when a blind man can see the collusion going on which is clear as the nose on your face,it was in their interest to lie because they want to keep their extra activities hidden.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaroleShooter/status/993754709566672896 “InEz ShOoTa!@CaroleShooter The "It's YOUR HOLIDAY too Creche" for all safety conscious swingers. #mccann 8:29 am · 8 May 2018”
He’s too tall to be mistaken for Gerry. It would be something mentioned by the Smiths.
Totman has never come forward to say he saw the Smith family and we remind that it was in the same programme that he was revealed to the world (Crèche Dad) in the same programme that revealed the Smith sighting e-fits, so shouldn’t Smithman been as dismissed by the Met for the exact same reason they dismissed Tannerman?
Where would Totman be heading for if he had passed the Smiths? Was he lost? In the UK Crimewatch there’s nothing said about him being lost nor is it in this article.
By the way, Totman doesn’t explain why no blanket or some kind of jacket on a cold night? JT was wearing a fleece jacket
Wouldn’t the Totman couple take both children home together, dad carrying the older boy and mum carrying the girl?
Where was the mum when he says he did the Tannerman crossing?
The famous Tannerman picture (which is still up on the McCann website), the one with the dangling feet of a child, there's no blanket. To replace Tannerman, we are assuming that Crêche Dad did not use a blanket that night either.
The Totmans brought along 2 children. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_336.jpg
The Tapas reservation does say 2+1 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg
We don’t know who the 3rd person may be. Did they put one of their children in the crèche and took the other with them to dinner? Why? One was 4 and the other 3, so age difference does not play a part.
I think one child was 2 and the other 3, hence capable to sit at a table and share dinner with his parents. The picture I meant was the "rotten pyjama" one where there's also a blanket.
As the tapas dinners didn't happen those bookings are meaningless to get information about numbers of people at tables. They may of course be bookings for something else but not dinners.
Textusa, I try to avoid believing as much as possible. I always thought that the exhibited pyjamas and blanket picture was taken in May 2007 (who would keep "rotten" clothes ?), perhaps the LC asked for it because Crecheman answered a questionnaire and said his 2 yrs daughter was at the night creche on May 3. Why his answers weren't sent to the PJ, I don't know, but generally speaking the LC forwarded almost nothing. When it passed AR's mind that he was about to retire without having brought anything to the case, he thought he had to destroy Tannerman who didn't make sense but had been the official suspect for so many years. That was the least he had to do, since the PJ had very quickly put Tannerman in a bin. To kill the VIP, he had to identify him. So he picked up the less implausible child carrier he could find and that was it. Perhaps AR doesn't have much sense of direction...
Besides other discrepancies, there is a major one that is being overlooked and that is the fact that the Totmans were in the same building as Jez Wilkins, Block 4, the one to the West next to Block 5.
There's absolutely no explanation for him to cross the street from West to East as reported by Tanner. If he had come from the West, he would have to have passed in front of his apartment building, so can't even say he was lost.
For him to go in that direction, means he was leaving the apartment and taking his daughter somewhere.
We believe a 4 yr old grows as impatient as a 3 yr old when having to sit for a significant period of time at a table. One would either bring both or neither to dinner.
The night crêche was free of charge so no reason to "deposit" only one child there.
According to this, the Crèche Dad photo had exit data which if correct, shows that Totman was photographed 6 months before the Crimewatch programme, in April.
So it wasn’t, as you are suggesting, taken in 2007.
He may have kept the clothing as evidence but that would suggest he thought his version of events might be questioned or that he might be accused of being involved in taking Maddie.
Looking back doesn't it seem like one big farce took place from the very beginning? No wonder people, especially in mainstream media, feel sorry for them.
Textusa, I didn't suggest that CrecheDad's photo was taken in 2007. Of course it wasn't, as it is clearly an attempt of copy catting the "artist"'s sketch. I mean the picture of the pyjamas and blanket. If you can prove that this pyj/blanket photograph was taken later than 2007, it is worrying. On this link you can see it at 22'40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y
https://mobile.twitter.com/aFairDebate/status/993783449264771072 “Jules...@aFairDebate Who sent #Totman up shit creek without a paddle.. Where was he taking his bare footed sleeping daughter, seen as he was walking away from his own apartment... Are #McCann taking everyone down with them... 10:23 am · 8 May 2018”
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/993884963685765120 “Andy Fish@AndyFish19 ... So what was the ratio between the number of guests staying at MW/OC at the time & those in (or connected to) the medical world? Any ideas anyone? Thanks #McCann 5:06 pm · 8 May 2018”
*****
Stephen and Carolyn Carpenter Jensen sisters The Sperreys Graham McKenzie Neil Berry and partner Raj Balu and partner Jeni Weinberger Gail Cooper Derek Flack Jez Wilkins and Brigid O’Donnell
Just to name a few NON-DOCTORS who were more directly involved, such as witnesses or reporting sightings
Anonymous9 May 2018, 10:50:00 Hi Textusa Not sure if I submitted my last comment successfully - but if I didn't - I was adding the Boyds to the list - Vicky and Daniel
I'm not 'insinuating' anything and I don't want to 'make up' anything!
I was interested in seeing a ratio as per my tweet and question.
Seeing as you claim to know everything about this case and pasted my tweet to your blog, then I thought maybe you could answer it in simple terms without going round the houses as per.
Gerry and Kate McCann, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield (please don't forget to add Jane, Rachael and Dianne to the NON-DOCTORS) Paul Jerome Weinberger - BIVDA and other connections pharma related. Graham McKenzie - Blue Pelican - medical recruitment possibly? Curtis Brain’s partner was a doctor - Dr Hume.
Jill Havern blog in the old days (Stella?) had list but as it isn’t our research we can’t vouch for it.
If I knew the answer then I wouldn't be asking the question!
I asked the Q on twitter, as at the time there was some chat going on about the amount of Medical bods over in PDL, since another GP (Totman) was plastered over the MSM!
I only replied on here as Textusa copied my tweet over and then started talking about 'Non-Doctors' etc...
MADDIE BOGUS LEAD Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead – despite GP saying it was probably him?
Julian Totman always thought he was the man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child in a pink pyjama top the night Madeleine disappeared
EXCLUSIVE By Mike Sullivan, Crime Editor 6th May 2018, 10:25 pm Updated: 6th May 2018, 11:12 pm
COPS spent four years trying to identify a man seen carrying a child on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared — despite a GP saying it was probably him.
Julian Totman walked near the McCanns’ apartment holding his two-year-old girl after getting her from a creche at the resort in Praia da Luz.
But Portuguese officers continued to pursue the line of inquiry triggered by Jane Tanner, a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann.
She said she saw a dark-haired man wearing a brown jacket, dark shoes and tan trousers carrying a child in pink and white pyjamas.
As well as matching much of the physical description of “Tannerman”, Dr Totman also wore the same clothes.
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
“When the police finally realised the significance it was too late to really help.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
“But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.”
Ms Tanner was one of the so-called Tapas Seven — the friends and family members dining with the McCanns at the time Maddie disappeared.
She was on her way to check on her kids at 9.15pm when she saw the man near Kate and Gerry’s apartment.
Gerry was nearby with pal Jeremy Wilkins having just looked in on Maddie and her younger twin siblings Sean and Amelie.
Kate then discovered their eldest child was missing when she went to check again at 10pm.
Ms Tanner later defied police orders to not comment publicly on what she saw.
She said: “I think it’s important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.’’
And with Portuguese laws prohibiting the release of photofits of suspects, the McCanns put out an artist’s sketch of “Tannerman” in October 2007.
But efforts by the Totmans, who live in the South West, to point out the importance of Julian’s movements fell on deaf ears.
They were never contacted by Leicestershire police, whose officers were responsible at the time for collating all UK inquiries.
The force also failed to follow up on information from Paul and Julia Weinberger, pals of the Totmans, who said they had seen a pock-faced man hanging around the McCanns’ aparment twice that week.
The Portuguese probe was concluded in July 2008 and it was not until 2011 — when then-Home Secretary Theresa May ordered the Met carry out a review — that the Totmans’ account was finally taken seriously.
Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood described it as a “moment of revelation”.
He said: “We are almost certain now this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.”
The Met probe then dramatically shifted focus to a sighting by Irishman Martin Smith at 10pm of a man — dubbed “Smithman” — carrying a child down a hill away from the Ocean Club.
They also appealed for information over a spate of burglaries at the resort in the period leading up to Maddie’s disappearance 11 years ago last week.
The British police investigation has now been scaled down and is likely to be shelved in October.
But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor.
Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way.
He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment.
hi textusa,so according to Metropolitan Police Detective Ian Horrick's,West to East moment,perhaps Mr Totman had forgotten to take his compass with him on the night Creche Dad run or could he have then been diverted to a North to South direction turning down those narrow streets,baby on one shoulder compass in the other hand for directions,whilst all of the time going in the"Opposite"direction of the Night Creche?
Now we know how that self-proclaimed anti-McCann and so much sought safe-harbour by our critics, Insane/Not Textusa/(ex-)Walkercan1000 stands on the Totman issue:
“[quoting blog] So, it will be interesting to watch how people will fit Totman/Weinberger into their narratives. [end of quote] Well, these are completely innocent people, so no doubt you will call them worse than shite
[quoting blog] How do Totmans/Weinbergers fit in the negligence narrative? And in the paedophilia narrative? And in the death before May 3 narrative? [end of quote] They don't, you tinfoil-hatted loon”
*****
Tigger might not be very happy as Insane is also accusing him/her of defaming these “completely innocent people”.
Tigger implies that these people are not "completely innocent" whilst Insane is adamant they are:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gcnjones/status/993563939119206401 “tigger@gcnjones Replying to @K9Truth V interesting. Both Weinberger and Totman extra helpful. Both nr Salisbury? 7:51 pm · 7 May 2018”
Blacksmith is saying you are lying once more. He reckons you and Tony Bennett did not believe the man in the tannerman/redwood photo existed...and i guess by implication he must be saying it is totman pictured...or is he?
If I I wish I knew the answer to this farce...I always try to question everything said and hold it up to the light...including yourselves (whoever you all are!). But if Anthony Sharples thinks the McCanns are due to be nabbed...then he should tell the today programme (Gez was on) and Ed Milliband as he called them victims in Parliament today. It don't fit his theory(or does it??) whereas it kinda fit your good selves!
Thats Blacksmiths idea....Jane Tanner was loyal to her friends and gave the abduction theory credence. She mistook his direction but managed to see buttons on his pants a duffy type jacket and a design with piping on the pjs...going over and over with police and friends but never remembering the crucial direction!
Ed Milliband was high enough up the tree to have an idea of what happened in PdL imo.
Imo she misled for the good cause, i.e the fight against monsters, but she turned out being a big nuisance in this case, so manipulatable (as we see in the pseudo reconstruction) and believing stubornly that end justifies means. She was perhaps the most touching person in that group, but imo a caricature of how it is dangerous to let emotions dominate reason.
Blacksmith’s latest post tells us he believes Jane Tanner did see a man carrying a child on the night on May 3rd and that man was Dr Julian Totman.
Surprisingly, many of those promoting his post used to decry the Tanner sighting and agreed with the PJ, who discounted her sighting. Given the distance and the lighting, it was impossible to have seen the amount of detail she claimed, according to Goncalo Amaral. Silvia Batista’s statement is also sceptical about Tanner’s ability to see what she claimed.
Equally surprising is to see those who mocked Totman, the Crecheman as ridiculous – which it is – supporting Blacksmith’s post in which Totman is, seriously, Crecheman. Funny u-turns life makes some make.
To be clear about our position:
We believe that the photograph of Totman, taken in April 2013 and shown on Crimewatch in October is genuine. We will come back to this later.
Given that even Blacksmith regarded the Crechedad identification exercise by Redwood as “irregular” and that “he posed the holiday-maker against a non-police, collective late sketch, not, against details exactly matching her police witness evidence…” and a man wearing “a syrup of figs on top of his head” it’s hardly surprising if we and others, at the time, thought it could be a hoax. Something done to eliminate the sighting and focus on the Smiths’ sighting. We wondered then if he was calling their bluff. The police may be economical with the truth in what they say publicly if it suits their purpose in achieving a prosecution. http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.pt/2018/03/the-death-of-manccannsteins-monster.html http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/stranded-by-events.html
We don’t believe that Tanner saw a man carrying a live child and we agree with the PJ that it’s a tale to deceive. One inconsistency between reality and Totman is that if he was carrying his daughter home that night, it not be in a position shown in the photo and described by Tanner. So, the photo depicts a lie.
We don’t believe it’s possible to be coming from the creche and heading to Block 4 where the Totmans were staying, that he would be going in the direction clearly described by Tanner. Neither do we understand why he was only collecting one child, by himself, when the Totmans have 2 children.
We don’t believe that Totman went to the GNR next day and wouldn’t think to contact his tennis partner, Gerry, to describe his walk that night, particularly as he would have been an important potential witness. Did he not see 3 people in the street, one with a buggy?
We don’t believe that Jane could describe the dress and appearance of the man so clearly, yet fail to spot he was Totman - who played tennis, who Carpenter says they met at the introductory coffee meeting and who took his children to the crèche her child also attended.
We don’t believe that she didn’t see that the man was tall. She says 1.7m.
We don’t believe that Operation Grange leaked the story of the Totman sighting.
We don’t believe that Totman would allow a photo of himself to remain on the McCann website as the potential abductor unless he was in agreement with it remaining
We don’t believe that Redwood necessarily believed the sighting was genuine. Note how a blanket is included in the photo of the pyjamas when Tanner makes the point that the child was uncovered on a cold night. Note also that Crimewatch has the man carrying the child in the opposite direction
We don’t mind what Blacksmith thinks about us or want to indulge in blog wars but attacked we respond and Blacksmith has once again attacked us.
On his comment on Insane’s blog (which we transcribed to ours) he has accused us of being unable to grasp what we read: “I am not being abusive when I say that, exactly like Bennett, she cannot actually read. Like him she is able to go through the motions of reading perfectly well; like him, when she says a sign saying "Platform One straight ahead" she understands it. And both can converse verbally with others.
But when a factual and explanatory text on a subject that interests them is placed before them, something goes wrong,as psychological testing would prove within twenty minutes. They are both quite quick to read and grasp the basics of an argument - too quick, much too quick:in contrast to most "normal" readers of their educational and cultural background, their brains establish the message of the sentences before the words have actually been understood.”
But then goes on to say this: “Oh, and this little gem: "The British police investigation has now been scaled down and is likely to be shelved in October." Once again, fitting in nicely with the Usual Suspects' agenda.”
The “Usual Suspects” can only be us and Bennett as he previously said this: “As we've said elsewhere about both Textusa and Bennett, and ignoring, for the moment, the rest of this tiny clique of self-publicists and nutters like Hall, Brown, Hidiho and Morais, the lies they peddle come not so much from their absurd "hypotheses" but from their attempts to fib, bluff and cover up when evidence starts to refute their previous claims. Then they're off, piling lie upon lie, libel on libel, in the vain attempt to talk their way out of trouble. “
So, Blacksmith accuses us of wanting Operation Grange to close. This is not even misreading, this is stating an opinion about something one has not read.
We don’t believe that OG should be terminated. Precisely the VERY OPPOSITE- we believe that nothing should be done which would jeopardise a court case in Portugal. We have already begun to explain why the questioning of the McCanns by the UK police would do that.
Has the reader noticed the obsession Blacksmith has in joining us at the hip with Tony Bennett?
This is a tactic started by Insane in his blog to make people who read him feel that we, us and Bennett, share the same opinions on the case. A tactic now being followed by Blacksmith.
We have called Bennett a liar. Explicitly. And unlike Blacksmith who calls people liars but doesn’t substantiate, we do. We explained why we have called Bennett a liar in our post “The Pool Photo” http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/03/the-pool-photo.html
There we were very explicit and clear: “Of the above, we would like for Mr Bennett to show us, under the penalty of being a liar if he doesn’t, where have we said the following:”
He hasn’t shown anything to this day. And yet he continues to lie about us:
“https://mobile.twitter.com/zampos/status/994248345869783040 Anthony Bennett@zampos Who now disagrees with Petermac’s analysis of the Last Photo? If so, on what basis? It wasn’t faked on 18 May as #Textusa claims. It’s genuine. It wasn’t taken on cloudy Thursday. An understanding of when this photo was taken changes everything #McCann > (link: http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-pool-photo-refuses-to-go-away.html) …penedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-po… 5:10 pm · 9 May 2018”
On the “The pool photo” post we couldn’t be clearer: We do NOT believe the pool photo was taken on 3rd of May and have recently revised our opinion, backed with photos, that it MAY have been taken on May 12th. Hope Mr Bennett finally understands the meaning of the word “MAY”.
So, we do object strongly to being linked to Tony Bennett. We do NOT believe that Maddie died before 3rd of May and we do NOT believe that she was abused in any way before her death.
Anyone familiar with the case knows that we and Bennet don’t share a thing. To state it is to deceive and one only deceives with intent. We will leave it up to the readers why Insane and Blacksmith chose to do so.
“For years this uneducated rabble [Textusa and Bennett (the link again)] has maintained that Redwood lied and that the person photographed by his team doesn't exist. The idea is so crazed that it hardly justifies rebuttal. Yes, take it from us, the man exists.”
We have never said that the person photographed by Grange as Chrècheman doesn’t exist. Even before he was outed as Totman, he certainly didn’t look like a drawing. We thought it was someone for Grange posing. So, we have never questioned the existence of the man in the photo.
What we question, and state he doesn’t exist, is Crècheman. The fact that Totman has come forward to assume the role, doesn’t mean the character he’s playing is based on real life. It is not, it’s a fictional character.
In that sense, Redwood has lied. As so many have shown since the article was published by the questions they have put regarding blatant discrepancies with the Totman story.
It was not the only time we have said Redwood has lied. He has, for example, lied when he said that Operation Grange was looking for Maddie’s body in both locations in Praia da Luz. Grange was not looking for anything but simply putting on a show.
About us telling hundreds and hundreds of lies, we have challenged John Blacksmith to list them. In batches of tens to facilitate his life. A challenge he has yet to meet, instead he preferred to write about much more pressing matters of the case like body shaming Mitchell’s scalp and highlighting the alleged imposed silence on the T7 who only have been silent since 2009, and if one discounts the 2009 Mockumentary, even before that.
And we have to use some of the words he uses against us, against him.
How could the McCanns have complained the photo was a hoax unless they were prepared to say the man never existed?
So when Blacksmith says “if there was the slightest chance that Redwood had made any of it up then within days writ-servers acting on behalf of Jane Tanner and the McCanns would have appeared at the gates of Scotland Yard to summon its head to the High Court” one can only respond with his “the idea is so crazed that it hardly justifies rebuttal”.
To be very clear, we DO believe that the Smiths were genuine in their statements and we believe that the man they saw was Gerry, carrying a living child.
We do NOT believe OG should be halted and support further spending if this is what it takes to achieve the truth.
JB's latest doesn't refer to you at all.. I am glad. To link this blog with the likes of AB was just pure wrong and idiocy. As far as I have read, this blog has never promoted anything except the truth otherwise I wouldn't be reading it.
I think they are included as the usual suspects. Could be wrong...tho he is less keen to cross swords today. Maybe you should publish some of his old blog views...so we know where he stands?
If JBS feels the case against the Mcs, based on circumstantial evidence known so far, is insufficient to prosecute, then, if I were him, I would just shut up and keep my opinions to myself. In this case, the Mcs would be entitled to do what they have done. He’s not a cop, a lawyer, psychiatrist or even a qualified social worker but that hasn't stopped him from straying beyond his expertise. So please don’t criticise the peasants for doing the same.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/586684324760979?view=permalink&id=1704299996332734 JBS is quoted which shows what a hypocrite he is to call you liars. He’s changed his tune since he wrote this. It’s what you said - crecheman is a creation He IS now saying JT saw a man and that man is Totman. If he disagrees with your analysis, he needs to say so.
Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog, all sides deserve to be heard, allowing readers to make their own analysis:
“Blacksmith's post yesterday certainly caused a stir, more so on Twitter than here. A lot of people say he talks in riddles and often confuse what he means with the exact opposite.
So I'll try to get across what he means, and then at least if he must be slated for what he believes then he can be, on what he has actually said.
Blacksmith does NOT claim Tanner was telling the truth about her sighting (I’ll use Tannerman to refer to that). In fact, in several quite recent posts there are more than enough quotes that undeniably clarify how Blacksmith feels about Tanner’s “abductor”. A selection -
‘It does not describe a "sighting" but a persona created by the group and agreed to by Tanner. In other words it does not correspond to and does not describe an actual human being but a collective invention - complete with those wonderful words "possibly" and "probably".’
‘it is a free and unfettered creation of the human imagination with zero connection, let alone anchorage, to any facts at all.’
‘As is well known now,** this fanciful and sinister creature described by the group in hundreds of melodramatic words, had no reality’
If these words aren't clear enough to make Blacksmith's stance obvious, I can't help.
So what is he saying about Redwood? How can he say Redwood didn't invent Crecheman if Tannerman isn't real? First of all, who knows if Tanner saw a person carrying a child on that night or day or any other? What difference does it make if she did? None. Because the ‘sighting’ (Tannerman) she and the rest of the group created, along with the timeline, was a complete fabrication. Redwood and Grange knew this just as the PJ knew it.
As Redwood stated in 2013, after talking to families who had left their children in the night creche on 3rd May, one person came to believe he could be who Tanner claimed to have seen. He was walking near the McCanns' apartment and evidently carried his child ‘home’ from the creche. And isn’t he just uncannily similar to the person Tanner saw?!
Well is he? No. Not at all, apart from the similarities of being an ‘average’ build - what I would say if a person couldn't be described as very large, or very muscular for example. Just average.
What else? Hair? No. Shoes? No. Clothes? No - light coloured trousers, probably standard attire for quite a number of men on holiday. Everything else; his jacket, looking like “not a tourist”,and of course, the best part; his skin colour(!), just not similar at all.
But with Crechedad compared to the sketch, the sketch that bore no resemblance to Tanner's eye witness statement to the police in 07, these details were of no consequence - they looked uncannily similar enough to state with absolute certainty one thing:
The one and only claimed piece of ‘evidence’ of an abductor is worthless, discarded. The timeline, carefully constructed to allow that abductor the ‘window of opportunity’, worthless and discarded.
And what did Grange decide was obviously far more important after the revelation? The Smith sighting. So whose side are they on?
So did Redwood invent a person as Crecheman to ‘exonerate’ Tanner or give her sighting credibility? I personally can't think of anything more unlikely. Did he invent a person to expose Tanner as a liar? Again, unlikely, as Blacksmith pointed out quite clearly that had he done so, Grange wouldn't still be running today.
On the question of Julian Totman supposedly being fine with the McCanns peddling him as an abductor for 11 years, and having nothing to say to Gerry - who he was apparently friendly with at one point - about the sketch remaining on the FM site. The McCanns never agreed that Crechedad was Tanner's ‘sighting’(obviously!) and would have surely told him so had he complained to them. Crechedad, now named as Totman, would have also been reassured by Grange that he was under no suspicion. His identity was unknown, so what difference would it make to him? I obviously can't speak for him though. Now his identity has been revealed, perhaps he'll speak for himself.
The bottom line is this - Grange’s actions have done nothing, absolutely nothing to benefit the McCanns or anyone else involved in the lies peddled in 2007 and since. They have already eliminated any chance of an abductor - or rather, the McCanns and Co did that all by themselves, when it comes right down to it."
People have now realised themselves that JBS has caught them out. Agree with him and you agree: JT saw a man That man was Totman Totman was an innocent dad
Therefore JT didn’t recognise Totman, the tennis player, although she could describe everything about the man. That the PJ we’re wrong to disbelieve her sighting, given distance and lighting. Totman didn’t see JT, G or Jez Totman the tennis partner didn’t tell G he had passed by the night before and didn’t see anyone else carrying a child. He just spoke to GNR. He doesn’t ask to speak to the PJ. Totman never contacted the Mcs in all those years. That LP who held the info in 2012 didn’t pass it to OG or the Mcs That Totman didn’t ask the Mcs to remove the picture of crechedad from their site as it still remains. That Totman didn’t contact OG directly and the info came from LP after OG got involved. That Totman was walking home in the wrong direction according to JT’s description. That Redwood had him walking in a different direction in Crimewatch - did he believe JT or Totman, given we still don’t know from Totman or Redwood about the agreed direction of travel?
11:09 The acid tests will be whether Blacksmith clarifies what he meant (did Tanner see Totman?) and whether crechedad picture will now be removed from the Mc website. If it remains Bundleman is still on the loose. Then next question will be: Did Totman see Bundleman as they passed each other at the top of the road?
I wonder how Totman explained his strange child carrying style to Redwood? If it was chilly, any parent would hold the child closely. A sleeping child would be totally unsupported. It’s also not a sustainable position to carry the weight of a 2 year old for any distance. Why wasn’t Tanner’s first observation “I was drawn to the strange way he was carrying the child”? It’s the position you’d expect for carrying a dead child.
“[quoting blog] The debate about Operation Grange questioning the McCanns can now wait. [end of quote] Too many difficult questions?
[quoting blog] We will return to it. For example, we will thank PeterMac for proving us right as well as continue to show how wrong he is when he says: “And then he [Textusa] starts on about "arguido" status and says it does not exist in England. It is exactly [in bold] the same as being interviewed under Caution with a lawyer present, and everything recorded on tape or video” [end of quote] And this will be the bit when you pick over the definition to highlight the differences, hoping that people will forget what you claimed, namely that to interview the McCanns in the UK would be to disqualify any future action against them in Pt, which was of course utter cobblers I can guarantee, readers, that she is massively kicking herself for the ''retirement'' stunt which she can't back out of now”
*****
Just to remind readers that this issue is not forgotten and we will return to it. “Namely that to interview the McCanns in the UK would be to disqualify any future action against them in Pt, which was of course” absolutely correct.
Weekend approaches and fortunately this one appears to be a rather busy one, so we will only tackle this after it.
Meanwhile we suggest readers read this, courtesy of Insane, which he kindly put in his blog: “For anyone who wants to compare, the rights of a person being questioned in the UK are listed under PACE - see here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdf
And explained here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014"
"JBS is quoted which shows what a hypocrite he is to call you liars. He’s changed his tune since he wrote this. It’s what you said - crecheman is a creation He IS now saying JT saw a man and that man is Totman. If he disagrees with your analysis, he needs to say so."
No, Tannerman is a creation. Crechedad is Totman, a real person. He has not changed his tune.
In reply to "How could the McCanns have complained the photo was a hoax unless they were prepared to say the man never existed?"
Because they would insist he isn't who Tanner saw, which is exactly what they have done. If he didn't actually exist, their lawyers would have found out and raised hell.
In reply to:
"We don’t believe that Totman would allow a photo of himself to remain on the McCann website as the potential abductor unless he was in agreement with it remaining"
It's a sketch, not a photo. McCanns uphold it is not Totman. Totman would have no grounds to allow or not allow them to have a sketch of a person they don't believe to be him, on their website. At the time, his identity was unknown. Granted that may change now his identity is known. As for Totman not contacting Gerry to suggest he was who Tanner saw. Who here has any proof that he didnt? He probably did, and what was Gerry going to say? Knowing the sighting had been manipulated and concocted into an evil abductor? Knowing that if he said "Ah cheers mate, that's that cleared up!" Then they would have no "abductor"?
The most sensible comments which, as is usually the case, seem to have been disregarded;
"It could be simply that Totman was actually out and about and the fabled Tannerman was loosely based upon this,Redwood saw through it."
"Thats Blacksmiths idea....Jane Tanner was loyal to her friends and gave the abduction theory credence. She mistook his direction but managed to see buttons on his pants a duffy type jacket and a design with piping on the pjs...going over and over with police and friends but never remembering the crucial direction!"
Finally, no one knows the details of what Grange and Totman discussed resulting in his conclusion that it could be him Tanner saw. Until then not much more can be said. Blacksmith is not going against the PJ either - the PJ discounted Tanner's sighting and Blacksmith has done EXACTLY the same. Please, as I said in my original post, if you must slate someone, at least do it for what they have *actually* said.
“No, Tannerman is a creation. Crechedad is Totman, a real person. He has not changed his tune.”
So, if we are understanding you well, Tanner invents a character so similar to the real person Totman (so similar in time, location and physical description which includes direction and way child was being carried) that it made an experienced cop like Redwood to assume Tanner’s invention as truthful while the whole time she was lying?
By the way, do you have an explanation as to why real person Totman was walking away from apartment when carrying the child? He couldn’t be lost because he had just passed in front of the building of his apartment.
I beg your pardon, I should have used the word sketch as it’s obviously not a photo. Tannerman is a creation - on that we agree. So it’s not a lie to state that? Totman was the man in the police photo, but wasn’t Tannerman. Bundleman, for want of a better name, is therefore still a possibility as far as Mcs are concerned. Agree none of us, or majority of us, don’t know what OG and Totman discussed. If Blacksmith has discounted JT sighting, and you may be right about this, I’m sure he can confirm that himself. It’s often unclear to me what he’s actually saying, but obviously it is to you. If the Mcs do think Bundleman exists and they must do, if he’s on the website, they have 2 men with girls in pyjamas, carrying the girl in a strange way, at the same time. Totman May have told OG he saw Bundleman passing by him, going the opposite way, but as you say, we don’t know what was said. Thank you for your interpretation.
Textusa, your idea of so similar is obviously different to mine. Please look at Tanner's eye witness statement and compare that to Totman, rather than the sketch. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Redwood assumed Tanner's invention as truthful, in fact I am exasperated by that comment. Of course Redwood didn't think she was truthful. Neither does blacksmith, neither do I. I really cabt make it any clearer. What Totman was doing and where he was going is irrelevant in my opinion, he has been ACCEPTED by Tanner as the person she saw, accepted by Grange as the person she saw, destroying the sighting of the abductor that never was. If Tanner hadnt accepted it, and wanted to say the police were trying to coerce her or ridicule her statement, I think we can be sure we would have known about it! That's why blacksmith says Tanner is co-operating with grange, as there's no other logical deduction.
Anon, I was referring to Textusa's comment about the photo, not yours. You used photo in the correct context. I fail to see the confusion over Blacksmith's stance on Tanner's sighting, I have provides quotes to show exactly what he thinks. They cannot possibly be any clearer.
"What Totman was doing and where he was going is irrelevant in my opinion", sorry but cannot see where this is irrelevant, on the contrary, it is of the utmost importance.
As per our reply to H, if Crecheman was a woman, would that be irrelevant?
Please provide where Tanner has accepted that Totman has been accepted bt Tanner.
UK Crimewatch is the evidence that Totman has been accepted by Redwood as Tannerman.
If crecheman was a woman then that woman would never have thought she could be the man Tanner claimed she saw. A silly comparison. The point is, Totman has been presented to Tanner and the world as the person Tanner claimed she saw. Redwood and Grange, the PJ, the entire world, knew her description was a fabrication. Tanner also knew it, obviously. When you compare the non-similarities, there's more than enough for Tanner to say "No, definitely not, that's not the guy. The guy I saw had xxx and xxx. Like *dark skin* for example! So why didn't Tanner fight against Redwood's 'almost certainty' that Totman was Tannerman? Why didn't The Sun splash over their front page that bungling cops at the Met were trying to discard Tanner's sighting of the abductor with some guy who didn't actually look like him? Please consider those questions then ask if it's important what direction Totman was going in, when it wasn't even important what ethnicity he was.
Of course it's all speculation, but it's the simplest things that make the most sense.
If crecheman was a man walking in a different direction that man would never have thought she could be the man Tanner claimed she saw. Not a silly comparison.
For Redwood to have said that Tannerman has been discarded because it is just Crecheman, a dad carrying his child after coming from the crèche, doesn't that NECESSARILY mean that the direction has to be the same?
Or, are we to expect one of these days, for OG to come up with someone who says he was walking up Rua da Escola Primária, after having approached the Smiths from behind and Grange say that he is Smithman and thus the Smithman mystery is solved?
True. But apparently Redwood did not think Tanner was lying. Otherwise he would have told Totman, thank you for coming forward but that whole sighting is a lie.
I agree on the first paragraph,but I'm justing pointing out every one assumes the direction of travel,with only one direction mentioned.To assume makes an ass out u me. The second part,that presumes that grange is being allowed to get to the truth ,bit of a long shot that.
There is only one direction: away from Blocks 4 and 5.
Let us exaggerate to prove our point. Let's imagine that Crecheman is not a dad but a mum. A woman had come forward as having crossed there and then when carrying a child. Would Redwood say, we are no longer considering Tannerman because we now know it's this woman?
No, it has to be a man. It has to be a man going in that direction and only in that direction. It has to be a man, going in that direction, carrying a child across his arms.
If that is not the case, then Crecheman has absolutely nothing to do with the Maddie case.
But, and now it's too late to go back, the Met ruled out Tannerman because, now we have learned, of Totman. So Crecheman is linked to the Maddie case. Either that or the Met is highly incompetent. Is that what JBS is insinuating?
How does it play with your theory of Tanner seeing GM carrying away Madeleine if the one supposed to have been Tannerman is indentified as some one else.
We believe that Crecheman doesn’t exist, never existed, so him being identified as someone doesn’t fit in what we believe happened.
We believe that Tanner described what she saw. And we believe she saw, from INSIDE apartment 5A, Gerry carrying dead Maddie’s body to Murat’s property where it was placed, we believe in a vehicle, up until around 4am that night and then taken from there to the water treatment station.
We believe that Tanner describes quite accurately the man she saw because there could have been someone looking down on the street at that moment (someone smoking a cigarette, someone sitting in a balcony enjoying the night, someone in a kitchen looking out the window, etc) who would have seen that man carrying a child in that particular odd manner (the way one carries the dead body of a child) and which would make the abductor become real.
No one saw him other than Tanner but no one had any idea that no one had when they remembered to use it (because INDEED there had been a man, Gerry, exactly as Tanner describes).
Tanner only lies in 2 things: from where she saw the man and the hair. The hair was evidently to distance Tannerman from Gerry but that would be a detail someone from a window wouldn’t pick up.
Yet Redwood is happy to state that the person seen by Tanner exist's and wasn't an abductor nor GM,either he's fallen for some yarn or there really was some stranger walking around with a child that night. I posted earlier that I think its possible that this is the case and Tanner loosely based her description on this. You may be wrong you may be right in that Tanner saw GM,but if its correct then SY really have been sold a pup and to this day it really is a farce. H
Those supporting JBS - Crecheman real (Totman) and Tannerman fake - are saying that the Met is made up of real incompetent people. A few logical questions would quickly make it evident that they couldn't possibly be the same person but apparently, according to JBS at least, Redwood just simply took the word of Totman and without doing any further checking, announced literally to the world (via UK Crimewatch) that Tannerman was Crecheman, who we now know to be Totman.
As we said, however one spins the Totman story, it simply is unspinnable.
Ok,ignore the press,Redwood says that some one came forward,Redwood says that the guy was there at the exact same area,the guy who told Redwood must know this because of what he saw at this time,why? be so precise about it.Crecheman is real Tannerman is not. To dispute crecheman is to dispute Redwood and Grange,would they really spend £12 million built on this lie? in the open,is that what cover up's involve.
Hi Textusa,Creche Dad,Smithman,Totman could all be fake sightings to back up an abductor,DCI Andy Redwood,Operation Grange?
The real evidence was first and foremost given as 100% Martin Brunt video, Renault Scenic hired Twenty One days after Madeleine's reported disappearance,then Martin Grimes Crime dogs,Eddie,Keela, Portugal PJ were given a verbal fact by UK Police Officers it was Madeleine's DNA/LCI 15;19 Markers,FSS Birmingham. The FSS had wrote to Portugal PJ,they had 21 days to comply with whether or Not the DNA/LCI samples would be returned to Portugal? Quite alarming that a UK Police force was now willing to destroy vital DNA/LCI on a still missing person,when this DNA/LCI sample could allude future results of identification,that they were willing to dispose of this evidence on"Health Grounds" Now that must be a first in Police Training methods,destroy possible vital evidence,knowingly or unknowingly,inadvertently! Now several Months later the now"Official 100% DNA/LCI" was being downgraded,by call me "Stu Prior" with an alarming amount of personal calls between various UK very Senior Police Officers and a Mr Mr McCann as can be verified by the Phone messages from the PJ files With No questions being asked,why was a former Arquido making contact with evidence appertaining from a Crime Scene Apartment 5a Ocean Club? Special deals for special person's?
Hi Textusa,anon 15.41.Just recently the Metropolitan Police Service are being asked to examine DNA evidence appertaining to a vast number of cases questioning the verification of the tests undertaken and the results standing up to the procedures followed?
The Metropolitan Police Service are ruling out that any tests carried out between the year 2000-2005 are the Tests most at risk of faulty diagnosis? On this determination any materials that may have been retained by the Madeleine McCann case,would be "Outside of the parameter" of test to DNA/LCI Re-analysis!
Wheres the Monopoly board,now Do I take a Chance or Community Twist?
Congratulations ladies you have well passed 3 million page views!! Im sure vast majority are regular readers but i think JBs has to take some of the credit for the past few days surge in readership..does make you wonder what they are watching for??
Do not publish Anonymous to Textusa at 11 May 2018, 21:12:00,
Thank you! Will watch as soon as we can. Please do understand that this weekend we've set it aside for social priorities. Will get back to you on it. Thank you.
Anonymous9 May 2018 at 17:30 The McCanns must have heard about Textusa by now, I wonder just what they think of her accusing them of swinging for all these years?
Not Textusa10 May 2018 at 10:45 I'm sure they must have; they probably have a good laugh at her expense. There is no way they will ever sue her; she's simply not high profile enough
********
So Insane thinks accusing people of swinging is reason enough to sue? Really?
Seriously, Insane… really?
So one accusing another of doing something completely and perfectly legal AND according to you something that no one cares about anymore deserves one getting sued about?
Do note, Anonymous speaks only of swinging, Insane is the one speaking about suing.
PS: Insane, please memorise this. It will save us the trouble of having to repeat ourselves when in the future you will demand proof “of that false claim” of us saying that you think swinging is worth suing for.
I see Insane thinks you have to be 'high profile enough' to be sued. In other words, you'd have to have to have the dosh to pay for the *inevitable outcome. Was that also the thinking behind suing Amaral and friends..?!
"Accuse" has a moral connotation of blame. I think it's not reasonable to use that word. I'm pretty sure that the MCs, at least through their social network spy MW, are aware of what has always appeared to me as a theory, i.e a refutable position, contrary to their thesis that has of a thesis only the name, since one can't contradict it without risking a Newgate long drop hanging.
The SUN are doing a hatchet job on Tannerman,with just for balance some ex copper saying he still believes that Tanner saw the abductor,can he please show where its been determined this happened. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6274030/gerry-mccann-tennis-tannerman-madeleine/
We’ve been observing all day, to see if it was a technical issue, particularly since it seems it was closed by an external source. Waiting to see if the crèchedad image was removed or replaced by Doppelgänger dad.
Also have noticed the interesting silence from many on this issue. Namely from some of our most fierce critics.
I read that findmadeleine site wasn’t due to expire until 2019 so although technical explanation is possible, failure to renew the registration doesn’t appear to explain it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/S100Maggie/status/995575801356673025 Says renewal May 16 2018 but registered to 2019 Is renewal automatic? I read it is, but not sure
According to site coordinator, it seems credit card held by the site had expired.
We may be wrong but it seems to us a feeble excuse. One usually pays 2 years upfront for domain name, and then, it seems to us that as a basic commercial policy that one issues first a warning and only then pulls the plug.
As the site is up again, it cannot be claimed that the client was no longer interested in continuing.
So, as per all McCann related things having to be peculiar, odd and extraordinary at the same time, the provider instead of warning that due date of credit card was coming, they just shut the site down 3 days before contracted and waited for the McCanns to provide a valid credit card.
One could even come to the conclusion that the website provider doesn't trust the McCanns at all, that they think the couple and all those managing the site are dodgy, not to be trusted people.
So Totman wasn’t the man JT saw. It was Doppelgänger dad, who wore similar clothes and carried a girl in the same way, but wasn’t seen by Totman. Or anybody else. Guess next story will be that Totman was walking in the opposite direction to Dopdad. There were 7 other families using the night crèche who didn’t come forward to say they carried their children home. But they can’t have seen anything either, otherwise they would have spoken by now?
The site had ONE year and 3 days left of the 2 year contract. The host does NOT hold credit card details anyway. An expired card is the lamest excuse I have ever heard for the site being down.
Now they have blamed the credit card they can"t now say the site was down due to technical issues beyond their control and they certainly cannot say it was down because it was being updated with this latest information.
Textusa well they got that right as only dodgy people collect and make money from a child they know who is dead. Shame they let them reopen it they should have put a nail in the coffin of the fraud fund. The McCann's and associates have no morals or scruples their world tour and begging bowl proved that!!
Interesting announcement concerning the Mac's as Portugal has new head of the PJ who worked on the case against them and even testified on GA behalf in support in court. Also an Australian news channel has reported the Mac's sent their appeal to the Echr on the 28th of July last year but have not heard anything so far?
Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.
So we still have no proper response to whether it is:
ReplyDeleteA) Mr Smith made up a story and told it to Gemma knowing it was false.
Or
B) Gemma invented speaking to Mr Smith and wrote the article as if she had.
If that is the belief then one of the two is, as you say, a liar. I'm sure you and your readers are still very much interested in which one is!
Many dogs are barking all of the sudden. Is it because they sense a threat on their masters?
ReplyDeleteAs we have informed readers, we have been working on something that we deem to be of vital importance (to explain why Operation Grange CANNOT question the McCanns and why if it does it will play decisively in favour of the other sides’ hand) which we thought of publishing either today or tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteIt will be published as a comment and not as a post as we maintain the reasons why we have decided to stop publishing posts.
Unfortunately, one of the team members has suffered a personal loss and that means that the publication will have to be postponed for 2 or 3 days.
Thank you for understanding.
Official Find Madeleine Campaign
ReplyDeleteMay 2018 – 11th Anniversary of Madeleine’s Abduction
It gets harder to know what to say or write as each anniversary of Madeleine’s abduction approaches then passes. Life is full and busy which helps but Madeleine is still missing and she is still dearly missed. Information continues to come in (incredible as it may seem after so long, although we are grateful for that) and work goes on. Perseverance and hope remain.
Thank you to everyone who continues to support us and wish us, especially Madeleine, well. After eleven years such warmth and persisting solidarity is truly remarkable, and at the same time a real tonic and boost to our spirit. We couldn’t bear for Madeleine to be forgotten or to become just a ‘story’. She is a real person and still our ‘little girl’ and as we always have, we will endeavour to do whatever it takes to find her. Thank you so much for staying with us on this mission.
Official Find Madeleine Campaign
May 2018 – 11th Anniversary of Madeleine’s Abduction
It gets harder to know what to say or write as each anniversary of Madeleine’s abduction approaches then passes. Life is full and busy which helps but Madeleine is still missing and she is still dearly missed. Information continues to come in (incredible as it may seem after so long, although we are grateful for that) and work goes on. Perseverance and hope remain.
Thank you to everyone who continues to support us and wish us, especially Madeleine, well. After eleven years such warmth and persisting solidarity is truly remarkable, and at the same time a real tonic and boost to our spirit. We couldn’t bear for Madeleine to be forgotten or to become just a ‘story’. She is a real person and still our ‘little girl’ and as we always have, we will endeavour to do whatever it takes to find her. Thank you so much for staying with us on this mission.
Kate and Gerry
Bampots
Why would you write "approaches then passes" before it's passed if you truly believe she will return? just saying...
DeleteRIP Maddie
ReplyDeleteLamento a perda Pessoal , que um dos elementos desta Equipa, sofreu.
ReplyDeleteMy condolences to one of the team members has suffered a personal .
Dear Textusa, je me joins à Mariac pour présenter également mes sincères condoléances to your team member.
DeletePoor Madeleine goodness knows what pain she has been through but rip sweet baby but I am fed up with listening to people going on about Gerry and Kate how even if she was killed how they show no emotion about the CHILD.Of course they feel guilt y heartache it has not been easy to convince people they are innocent its been bloody hard work even Kate said they had been so busy to look for her .Every dog has its day and so will everyone when they grow a pair and stick the money where the mouth is .Madeleine bless her has gone lets have no sentiment anymore.Madeleine imo has gone because of the actions of the parents STOP going on about poor poor Madeleine her sole lies in whatever you believe in.Kate and Gerry have turned this into a soap opera in the end they all get caught and they are no different to the rest Kate is not a super model never has been just a average woman newspapers have come up with crap going on about a attractive doctor imo no just a average person by the way I am plump not ugly but ordinary so before anyone says it I am not in the least jealous of her I cannot FIND ANY REASON WHY media want to paint this woman as some sort of super model she may believe this but I am sure there are plenty of people think the same way . Lets not forget Madeleine a child but sadly people are its not about her anyone yes of course people want justice for her but its not going to be but Gerry AND Kate will have their own demons to think about in the shape of the twins growing up and lets face it without their parents one babysitter or another even now someone is looking after them the kids are not without a brain they will question the parents they will accuse them TEENAGES that's what they do WHY WONT YOU LET ME WHY CANT I OTHER MUMS AND DADS LET THEIR KIDS DO IT had it all The Mccanns downfall will be from within their own.Just think how much money they could make by selling their story little things they heard little things they witnessed no need to depend on the bank of mum and dad WOW what a scoope that would be ,Mybe a junior from which ever walk of life would be prepared to tell how it really was people change priorities change if only someone had the guts to tell little rant over but anyone outthere had the guts to tell the truth they would make more money than the MCCanns ever made .TIME WILL TELL THEY WOULD BE HEROES Maybe Mr Amarals family they deseve it kids growing up in curcumstances that their Father orMother could prevent GO ON SOMEONE TAKE THE CHANCE GIVE YOUR FAMILY A CHANCE there would be lots of people behind you
ReplyDeleteBuenas tardes,con motiv de los once año de la desaparición de Madeleine, quisiera decir,hoy podemos saber que fue lo que te sucedió,cual fue el motivo de la desaparición ,quién te desapareció ,y como.eso fue lo que un señor un día hace once años trato de saber,lo intento y casi lo lo logro, pero los que no querían se esclarecieran las cosas trataron de desviar la atención hacia otro lado,ignorand i por completo ,el olfato y sabiduría de otros.ojala algún día se aclare todo y ese angelito al fin pueda descansar en paz,y todo el que la quiso como una hija más,tenga un lugar donde llevar una rosa ,a nueve días de cumplir 15,años.que arrebataron sin explicación,y once añitos que quien sabe dónde estás.Andi
ReplyDeleteInteresting that this has came up on this particular day....prompting the idea that things keep slowy working down the years. There is an article on Sky website and much more detailed report on tv ....even panning past a shuttered (barred in this case ) window.
ReplyDeleteInvestigators believe it is possible that Katrice, now aged 38, is still alive, having been abducted and raised with little memory of her early years.
https://news.sky.com/story/katrice-lee-police-to-search-german-riverbank-for-british-toddler-missing-since-1981-11353655
They pointed out she was born with a distinctive eye condition in her left eye which would have required two medical operations to correct.
Bampots
Bampots,
DeleteYour original comment (this one) was in the "waiting to be published" box.
Don't know why we were not notified as we usually are. Thank you for re-submitting it again.
Publishing the original and deleting your re-submission.
Our apologies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5685683/amp/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-insist-hope-perseverance-remain.html
ReplyDeleteDidn’t see K’s parents or Wright in the crowd. Maybe they were keeping out of sight or maybe they didn’t attend?
Deletehttp://kathleenjonesauthor.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/tuesday-poem-clare-pollard-contradiction.html?m=1
DeleteThe poem Kate supposedly read this week was read in 2012
Hi Textusa,sorry to hear of any tragedy of demise your friends.
ReplyDeleteJust One simple point of the Madeleine McCann case that links both Countries,UK,Portugal,"Freeport-Lisbon Treaty" political connection to the removal of Detective Goncalo Amaral by Gordon Brown, then Blackmailing Jose Socrates,counter signed agreement provided"Special Friends allowed to leave Portugal,then issuing of D notice on "National Security"Gordon Brown to thawrt MSM?
If this is correct,the UK and the World will have to wait for at least One hundred years for the Truth?
Surely that would apply to the McCanns as well,they wrote the letter to Cameron.
DeleteHi anon 20.23,the point being,it is about their Daughter Madeleine,not the Parents,they maybe innocent of involvement of the disappearance of Madeleine,but evidence being determined by FSS and Eddie,Keela,Martin Grimes Crime Dogs point in another direction?
DeleteRemember the flippant answer by Gerry,"Ask the dogs" Sandra!
I hear what you are saying especially in regards the dogs,no one wants to mention them,no one even asks that font of knowledge Sutton,strange innit.
DeleteTeam member would like to thank those who expressed support in these troubling last few days.
ReplyDeleteWe inform our readers that we are planning to publish our long comment tomorrow morning, still uncertain at exactly what time.
We notify our readers that this comment may well be the most important thing that we’ve ever written about the Maddie case.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to continue to write posts, we would hesitate calling it “Grange’s legal conundrum” or “Entrapping Grange”.
This has evidently to do with the popular surge that we have witnessed since Colin Sutton’s rise to stardom during the 10 yr anniversary last year, about how Grange should have considered the McCanns suspects from the beginning in 2011, which they said they didn’t, or in the desire of many that they should have the McCanns taken to the nearest British police station and question them, which they haven’t.
This surge had the recent attempted feeding by Sonia Poulton’s video “The McCanns and the Police [Part One]”
We inform readers that what we intend to explain today is that if what is being requested is satisfied, the Maddie case will be killed. To be clear, precise and concise, if Operation Grange ever questions the McCanns, any of the remainder of the T9 or any person who may bear guilt in the case, the case will be killed. Finished.
Note, not seriously compromised but finished.
This is the reason for one of the titles above “Entrapping Grange”, as easily can be seen there are people, and Colin Sutton is not alone, pressuring for that to happen.
Upfront a disclaimer. None of us are legal experts or have any educational background in law. So, we may be wrong in the assessment we make and if there is one occasion we want to be wrong, this will be it. If anyone is able to prove us wrong, we will be the first to jump for joy and gladly, very gladly, correct our hand and take back all we are going to say next.
We will sum up in 4 words what is at stake: sovereignty, jurisdiction (or legality), credibility and reality (or interests).
But before we explain how they matter and how they interlink with each other, one has to understand fully the meaning and differences between the words ‘can’, ‘should’ and ‘would’. We are not playing with words, we don’t pretend to give a grammar lesson or teach anyone English.
What we want to do is clarify their use in the Maddie case. They are often misused, or at least we see some people using them without realising what they really mean.
‘Can’ is indeed what one can do, while ‘should’ is of the universe of what one can do, what one should do.
We often mistake these words. For example, one says one can’t kill another human being. One can, however no one should.
The main deciding factor between what one should or should not do (so, something one can do) is something called a consequence. One can indeed kill another person but the consequence of doing it is such that it is or should be deterrent enough for one not to do it. It’s a ‘shouldn’t’ that borderlines the ‘can’t’ but it’s not a ‘can’t’.
In the case above the consequence between ‘should’ and shouldn’t has legal consequences. But this is not always the case.
For example, as far as we know, smoking in a closed room with children present is not illegal. It’s something one can do, it’s not illegal but something one just shouldn’t do. The consequence? One ruining the health of the kids in that room.
One can smoke in such circumstances, but one shouldn’t not because it’s illegal but because common sense after evaluating the consequences one decides not do it. A decision made not on what one can but on what one should unquestionably do.
In our opinion, Operation Grange and hearing the McCanns falls right into this category: it can be done but shouldn’t be. In this particular case, not because common sense advises but because reality demands it not to be done.
(Cont 1/11)
(Cont. 2/11)
ReplyDeleteLet’s then start the analysis.
Can the UK can prosecute British citizens for crimes committed outside the UK?
Yes, it can. There’s no question about that.
The Offences Against Persons Act of 1861, states clearly that:
“Sections 9 and 10: Jurisdiction
Murder or manslaughter abroad. Section 9 gives the courts in England, Wales and Ireland extra-territorial jurisdiction over homicides committed by British subjects overseas. (Note however the restricted definition of "subject" under section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948.) Section 10 gives these courts jurisdiction over fatal acts committed by British subjects overseas where the death occurs in England, Wales or Ireland, and jurisdiction over fatal acts committed in England, Wales or Ireland by anyone, including aliens, where the death occurs abroad. (The word "criminally" in that section has been held to exclude fatal acts done by aliens overseas although the death occurs in England, Wales or Ireland, since such acts are not punishable under the criminal law.)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_Against_the_Person_Act_1861
We have also found the following more recent legal norm that states very clearly that it can be done:
“Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (“GCA”)
Section 1(1) of the GCA states:
Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions or the first protocol shall be guilty of an offence”
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/criminal-law-blog/legal-update-universal-jurisdiction-which-foreign-crimes-can-be-tried-in-the-uk
Clearly it can. Now the question is, in the Maddie case should it or shouldn’t it and if not, why not?
The crime happened in Portugal. A sovereign nation, member of the European Union and NATO just to name 2.
There are 2 possibilities, the case is either prosecuted in Portugal where it happened or it is prosecuted in the UK, which as we have seen, it can be.
For it to be prosecuted outside Portugal, where the crime happened,
and there be no consequences there is only one way for that to happen: Portugal agreeing fully to that.
In no other scenarios are there no consequences if the case is prosecuted in the UK.
Will Portugal agree? We are certain it won’t and will explain why.
We have already spoken on the blog of an ongoing “legal battle” between Portugal and Angola. It involves Angola’s Vice-President from 2012 to 2017, Manuel Vicente.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Vicente
The case in question is called Operation Fizz. The crimes Manuel Vicente is accused of happened in Portugal.
Angola has requested for Manuel Vicente to be tried in Angola (note, the Angolan regime has clearly stated that the intention is not to exempt him in any way but simply to have him tried by their national courts and not the Portuguese ones – (readers, please start establishing parallels between this case and the McCanns) and there hasn’t been final decision taken yet.
(Cont. 2/11)
(Cont. 3/11)
ReplyDeleteThe request was made by the Angolan President in a public intervention. He has stated that the economic interest of Portugal in Angola may be seriously compromised if the trial does not take place in Angola.
Operation Fizz is currently on trial. The solution found up to now for this diplomatic/legal/political problem was to separate whatever concerned Manuel Vicente in the process from the current court proceedings.
All other defendants of this process are presently going to court but Manuel Vicente’s trial has not begun.
A diplomatic/legal/political conundrum between the 2 countries and we honestly don’t know what the outcome will be. The Portuguese justice system seems very unwilling to forfeit its independence as well as not wanting to lose the credibility such concession would implicate.
What does this matter in connection with the Maddie case? The parallels are evident but the McCanns are not former Vice-Presidents of any country.
The Portuguese and Portugal’s interests in Angola have been publicly threatened because of the Manuel Vicente situation and yet there has been no final decision from Portugal on this case.
So, to the question will Portugal accept that the McCanns are prosecuted by the British in Britain? The answer seems to be a clear no.
Sovereignty determines that the McCanns have to be prosecuted in Portugal.
So, only left is the option of UK doing it without Portugal giving it explicit consent. Convince Portugal to pretend it doesn’t see it happening. Like many alleged anti sites who pretend they don’t read us.
The Maddie case has too much international visibility for such a solution. It can’t be solved in a “Nigel Nessling” manner. It will always be news. World-wide news.
Basically, if the UK was to prosecute the McCanns in the UK it would be like comparing Portugal and its legal system with Syria, which is in civil war since 2011, and its legal system. Portugal, we repeat, is a member of the EU and NATO.
https://www.ukpolicelawblog.com/index.php/9-blog/84-murder-abroad
If in the case of Manuel Vicente, the Portuguese justice system seems to be fiercely unwillingly to let go of its independence and credibility then we’re not seeing it allowing itself to suffer such an insult, such damage to its credibility because of the McCanns.
Only if the UK wants to insult Portugal and face the consequences on the international stage for doing so, will the McCanns ever be prosecuted in Britain for what happened in Luz.
And would the Portuguese PJ Files from an insulted Portugal be used by the insulting British in the British courts? What experts on the subject matter would take the stand to defend the evidence from the prosecution? Certainly not anyone sent by the Portuguese.
And it would not only insult Portugal, it would send a very wrong message to the EU by showing that the UK would disrespect the sovereignty of member nation to hide skeletons in its closets. That negative message would also be heard worldwide.
Thus, we having said above that it can prosecute the McCanns in the UK but it shouldn’t and using an expression we have already used, it’s a ‘shouldn’t’ that borderlines, if not encompasses it, a ‘can’t’.
A ‘can’ that becomes a ‘can’t’ because reality determines that must be so.
Up to here, we hope to have explained that ONLY the Portuguese justice system will prosecute the McCanns if they are ever to be prosecuted.
(Cont. 3/11)
(Cont. 4/11)
ReplyDeleteAnd this is what makes the McCanns untouchable to Operation Grange. Yes, you read it correctly, untouchable.
Here is where jurisdiction comes in.
Please don’t limit jurisdiction to a physical space wherein a national sovereignty applies.
That sovereignty applies where the specific legal rules of a sovereign nation apply. The specific set of rules the said nation has chosen throughout its existence to elect when constructing its legal edifice.
That’s why in places disputed by 2 sovereign nations 2 sovereignties are enforced. In these cases, 2 or more countries think that they and only they have the right to apply their own set of laws to a certain piece of land. Which law is indeed applied depends on the international recognition of the sovereignty of the territory by those in dispute and that may not be clear. The Middle-east conflict is the perfect example.
Sovereignty is exercised by the ability of a state to enforce its own laws. When it can’t do that, then it has lost sovereignty. That means its laws are only valid where it has jurisdiction where other laws from other states have absolutely no legal value.
I had a teacher who said if law was simple then there would be no lawyers.
When one walks into a grocery store to buy a dozen apples, it’s simple as everyone agrees what a dozen means and what apples are. No one disputes it.
In law that doesn’t happen.
The written law speaks of the concept of what is a dozen and the concept of what is an apple. That means that to some a dozen may represent something and to another something slightly different depending on what interests are at stake.
If one looks at it analytically, the courts are basically people defending their interpretation of what dozens and apples are.
How is this relevant to the Maddie case?
Each jurisdiction has its own subtleties in their laws. This comes from the way each country deals with the “dozen v apple” question according to the laws they constructed.
In a country’s jurisdiction laws from other countries are not accepted even if the issue in question is the same.
Let’s exaggerate to exemplify. Let’s invent a country which we shall call Birbitain. Let’s imagine that the Birbitish justice system doesn’t allow the presence of lawyers during any stage of the questioning.
There, in Birbitain, the statements are taken from witnesses and suspects alike with only them and the police present. No one is allowed the presence of a lawyer much less to request one. In Biribitain and in accordance with their judicial system, the defendants’ lawyers only come into the process after the police have gathered all the evidence the way they deemed necessary and questioned all to their satisfaction.
Now, imagine that in Birbitain, a British person confesses under these legal conditions to a crime in Britain.
The Birbitish authorities, in good-will, decide to send this so-called evidence to Britain, which we remind you, is a confession of a crime.
Would this be accepted in Britain as evidence? Of course not. Why? Because the questioning in Birbitain did not comply with the rules of questioning under the British legal system’s jurisdiction.
The defendant’s rights had not been guaranteed as per British law.
(Cont. 4/11)
(Cont. 5/11)
ReplyDeleteThe British courts, and rightfully so, only accept as evidence what has been collected according to the rules for the collection of evidence that it has set out for its own jurisdiction. And one of these rules is that it has to be obtained by their legitimate legal agents for that effect and in a legitimate manner.
See where this is going? Evidence collected by the Portuguese without the supervision of the British police is not accepted in British courts. The exact same happens the other way around.
For the Portuguese justice system, only collection of evidence that was done under the supervision of the legitimate agent, the Portuguese police, and no other is acceptable.
Those familiar with the case are aware of a status that exists in Portugal that does not exist in the UK: the arguido.
The arguido status is all about the guarantee of rights, in Portugal it’s considered essential. In any process, if not complied with it’s sufficient to nullify a case. Close it. End it there and then. If there’s guilt, the system prefers not to know rather than to harm individual rights. A sacrifice in the name of the rights of their citizens.
If the McCanns are ever heard by Operation Grange without any request by and under the supervision of the PJ, they cannot be heard as arguidos, simply because that status does not exist in the UK.
That in turn means that whatever information Operation Grange would then be able to obtain from them would not be admissible as evidence in Portugal, the only place, as we have explained, the case can be tried.
But the consequence is much more serious. The spirit of the arguido status is to ensure rights for ALL those who the police think there’s a POSSIBILITY of them having broken the law.
For example, a person is called into a case as a witness. At a certain point in time, what s/he says incriminates him or herself. At that moment things must stop as the police cannot pretend that they didn’t hear what it did and continue. If there’s the possibility of that person before them of having to face charges, then s/he must immediately be protected and given the arguido status. Note, the key-word is protected. And note we did not use the words “suspect” or “accused”.
That means that if the McCanns are called in by Operation Grange, whatever the they say will be tainted by the fact they were heard without the possibility of being protected by the arguido status.
Note, it can be done in the presence of a lawyer but all that entails being given the arguido status is not present.
A simple good morning said by the McCanns under oath to Operation Grange pertaining to the Maddie case would represent to the Portuguese legal rules an inadmissible violation of rights.
It’s what the Portuguese call an insurmountable error. Case closed.
Note, we’re not even speaking of them walking in under the belief that the police thought they did something wrong. For anyone, not only the McCanns, there’s always a possibility of them surprising all and be discovered of possibly having done something and the triggering of individual rights that is contemplated in Portuguese law, is not in Britain because there it simple doesn’t exist.
Because there is no possibility from the outset, to give the McCanns, just in case, the arguido status in Britain, if they are questioned there the process it would be irreparably tainted in terms of Portuguese justice.
Any evidence collected by Operation Grange without any intervention by the PJ is not acceptable in a Portuguese court. It wouldn’t need a brilliant legal team to tear it apart if it was tried.
For those saying that it would be possible for the McCanns to confess in the UK and then be sent to Portugal to confess again, that would only make things worse. Not only what is said above remains as there would be a serious risk of a huge embarrassment for the UK: the McCanns would go silent in Portugal with a public confession that serves absolutely nothing, because for the Portuguese it was obtained in an illegal manner, known publicly.
(Cont. 5/11)
(Cont. 6/11)
ReplyDeleteThis would be a fiasco as the Portuguese would only be legitimately exercising their jurisdiction.
The same goes for the hearing of any other witnesses or suspects. It’s either done under the supervision of the legitimate agents of the Portuguese justice system or it’s not admissible in its courts.
But, the reader may say, there are rogatory statements in the files.
Those were done by the British police under the supervision of the PJ. Their presence validated the evidence collected then.
To be noted, in 2008 the British were in support of the Portuguese investigation. That means a hierarchy between the Portuguese and the British investigations existed.
As far as we know, the processes that are open in both Portugal and the UK regarding Maddie are independent and separate.
What the arguidos/witnesses said to Operation Grange in Portugal cannot be used by the Portuguese investigation.
The hearings were done under the rules of the Portuguese justice system but were under the mandate of a different jurisdiction and to be used there, so not admissible in the Portuguese process.
One has to look at the Portuguese officers as subject matter experts, like the translators. They are doing other people’s jobs and don’t have a say. They named the July arguido’s as arguidos because technically, according to the rules of the legal system where the interrogation took place which are more restrictive to the interrogator than those in the UK, they had to give them that status.
To say otherwise is to say that the PJ agreed with the homeless man and the young one being named arguidos which we are certain was not the case. It was Operation Grange telling the PJ, when requesting their questioning, that they were to be heard because the British investigation estimated they could have done something wrong and that in Portugal automatically triggers the arguido status.
Operation Grange were said to have interviewed people in the UK.
One we identified was Kelsie Harris and the Moyes also, as they gave DNA samples. Also reported were people interviewed in countries other than Portugal. We can’t rely on press but Moyes were quoted directly.
We maintain what we have said. However, one thing has to be said and that is we don’t have the equivalent of the PJ Files to know how the collection of this evidence was done. It could have been under the request and supervision of the PJ. If it was, it would be evidence accepted in the Portuguese courts, if not, it isn’t.
Does this mean that any of those heard by Grange in Portugal are off the hook?
No, with the exception of the mystery witness who was supposedly heard in the UK.
All others, even though what they said can’t be used, they can be heard again as the Portuguese justice system guarantees more rights than the British system (i.e. the arguido status) their individual rights are intact.
What they said to Operation Grange, remains in Grange and cannot be used in Portuguese courts. What they are to say eventually to the PJ, can.
So, as long as the information they gave at that moment (they can repeat it later) they can be questioned again, this time under the Portuguese jurisdiction.
Basically, to sum up what we have said up to now, if Operation Grange ever hears the McCanns it will kill the case there and then, even if whatever the McCanns may say be damning to them or not.
The McCanns being questioned by Operation Grange without the intervention of the PJ and the case is over in Portugal. And over in the UK because it won’t risk the insult that means to Portugal.
We hope now that readers understand why Colin Sutton and others are pressing for Operation Grange to move on the McCanns.
(Cont. 6/11)
(Cont. 7/11)
ReplyDeleteMoving on to what we find the most interesting aspect of Poulton’s documentary- Colin Sutton.
Rather than repeat everything he says, we recommend readers watch Colin Sutton from about 25 minutes into her video “The McCanns and the Police [part 1]”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1M_CulIDrQ
It all sounds very encouraging as Sutton speaks of the limited nature of Operation Grange and how he would have wished to do a proper investigation, whereas he says there was no question of looking at guilt on the part of the McCanns. Pat Brown then gives her opinion that Operation Grange was not a proper investigation, which should have gone back to “ground zero”.
At 31.43 Sutton says “I can’t tell you why abduction was the only thing that was pursued, but I can certainly say that from what I’ve seen, from what I know, that appears to be the case because not only did I get the kind of warning off but I’ve subsequently looked at the terms of reference for OG which talk about abduction, but perhaps, even more tellingly in the CEOP’s report which really was the basis for setting up Operation Grange. It goes through the chronology of what’s gone on in terms of British support for the Portuguese and the British law enforcement response and we can see then that when the first Gold Steering group was formed, which was on 8th of May, so 5 days after Madeleine went missing, they are already at that point using the word abduction, talking about supporting the Portuguese investigation into abduction. So, it seems to me that there was a mindset that was taken on at very early stage of this investigation and which has persisted all the way through up to the current time with Operation Grange.”
So, thank you Sonia, for confirming what we had already written – that Sutton did have access to the CEOP Scoping Report, written by Jim Gamble. And we believe they are still singing from the same hymn sheet. Note Gamble’s words in 2012.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/interview-with-jim-gamble-fmr-head-of-the-child/4033022
Kerry O’ Brien – interviewer about Gamble – “He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government… Jim Gamble, let’s get one obvious question out of the way, first-up: from everything you know personally about the McCanns and the case, do you believe they had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?”
Jim Gamble – “If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked.” [“If it ever came out” an interesting choice of words which the blog has noted]
(…)
KoB – “Why do you say that?”
JG – “Well, from everything I know about it, it’s not that as a professional police officer they wouldn’t have been first on my list of suspects, because actually, of course they would- they’re the parents, they were there, they had last access…”
(Cont. 7/11)
(Cont. 8/11)
ReplyDeleteAfter that equivocal statement, he then continues to say, having met the McCanns, he would be shocked if either one of them were proven to be involved.
KoB - “If I understand your position correctly, if you had conducted an investigation like this, you’d have started with the parents and taken a very quick look and either established there was something suspicious, or you’d have ruled them out and moved on. Now, if I understand it correctly, the Portuguese were kind of the other way around. It took them some time to suddenly develop the view that the McCanns might have been suspicious.”
JG - “Well, I think that’s a fair assessment. When we carried out the scoping review, in order to be fair, what we did was, we said, “Let’s take a sleepy seaside town somewhere in the UK, and imagine that, you know, late in the evening, a couple had come to us who didn’t speak English as their first language and who were Portuguese and said ‘Look, our child has gone missing.” I think what we accepted immediately is we would have faced a complicated scenario similar to that which the Portuguese did. You’re not sure whether the child has simply walked away or been taken away and it does take a period of time to get that information together, so there were clearly difficulties, and we would all face those. In the immediate aftermath, the systematic approach is what is key, and certainly as professional detectives, we use the phrase ‘ clear the ground beneath your feet’. Look at that which is immediately in front of you first of all. And the only key difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects I would have looked at would have been the parents.”
Please note the words “And the only key difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects I would have looked at would have been the parents” and now consider what Sutton says to Sonia, after a quote from Rowley.
Sutton: “What I take that to mean is because we know that at the time we are told Madeleine McCann went missing from flat 5A, we know her parents and their friends weren’t in that flat at the time, therefore they could not have taken her, or they’re not suspects. That doesn’t follow does it? That’s not logical, that is not a forensic way of looking at it because that’s based on some pretty large assumptions.”
Sutton goes on to speak of major inconsistencies of fact in the witness statements and the need for a filmed reconstruction, to get a composite story that’s closer to the truth.
At 42:50 Sonia asks what can be done with the remaining money for the investigation.
Sutton: “The starting point has got to be back at ground zero. This is when the report was made, these are the last people to see her, this is what they say, these are the people close to her. Let’s eliminate those, let’s get them out of the way and that would serve everybody, you know, that would be in the interests of both the general public but also Kate and Gerry McCann, because there’s an awful lot of tittle- tattle on the internet and rumours. This is a case which has aroused so many opinions, quite strong opinions in some cases. If you conclusively, comprehensively, forensically eliminate Gerry and Kate McCann and friends from any involvement, then that squashes all of that rumour mill. That takes it all away.”
Is “Let’s eliminate those, let’s get them out of the way and that would serve everybody, you know, that would be in the interests of both the general public but also Kate and Gerry McCann” as positive as some would believe?
We say it’s inflaming public opinion to pressure Operation Grange to question the McCanns and make that fatal mistake.
(Cont. 8/11)
(Cont. 9/11)
ReplyDeleteBefore we proceed we would like to note that after Sonia Poulton’s video, we have now to the best of our knowledge: she and Martin Brunt seem be the only 2 reporters to have had access to the CEOP Scoping Report.
Please correct us if we’re wrong Sonia, if it’s a different secret report.
We must confess that we don’t see a reason for either of them to have access to a secret document of a highly sensitive case that has embarrassed the UK worldwide. But with Martin Brunt one might find a sort of explanation as he’s the best-known TV reporter linked to the Maddie case, working for the TV network best known to defend the McCanns.
In the case of Sonia Poulton, one must find it strange. The Portugal Resident on Dec 26 2014, says:
http://portugalresident.com/damning-new-madeleine-documentary-promised-for-2015
“A damning new “evidence-based” documentary is being prepared for screening in 2015 and promises to tell the “Untold Story of Madeleine McCann” - alleging that “no abduction took place at all”.
Orchestrated by independent journalist and social activist Sonia Poulton, the project got underway following the death of 63-year-old grandmother Brenda Leyland - the so-called internet “troll” “outed” over tweets that questioned the official version of events “as put forward by mainstream media”.”
We all know what a fierce public defender of the McCanns Jim Gamble is. So we cannot help but find it strange that a highly secret document of highly sensitive information authored by him would find his way to the hands to a reporter alleging that “no abduction took place at all”.
But then, as far as we know, Sonia Poulton has been the only “hostile” reporter able to doorstep Kate McCann – an act we admonished then – taking with her 2 reporters (one to film the other filming Poulton knocking on the Rothley door) and have Kate open the door to her.
One thing we think should be clarified is whether Ben Thompson, who she names as one of her researchers for the video and is an admin of the FB Group Justice for Madeleine, has also had access to this highly secret CEOP document.
We have criticised Katie Hopkins in the blog for after having accused the McCanns of negligence, she did not do any further research and continued to promote it, so to be coherent we must do the same with Sonia Poulton.
In her favour, we have also said that we don’t mind the negligence promoted by Pat Brown. We know it didn’t happen but as it links said negligence with the parents being involved with Maddie’s death we will let it fall by itself as we are certain once things are focused on the involvement of the parents in her death, the truth will surface unhindered.
However, having dedicated herself to the case as she has, in the period of time she has and having the support she has said she has, one would expect that she would add the word ‘alleged’ whenever she mentioned negligence.
Another thing we would like to know is, if the objective was to highlight the British police bias in favour of the McCanns, why weren’t the Gaspar statements mentioned? After all, the couple was heard in May 2007 and only in October sent to the PJ and only after requested. Is there more an evident bias than that?
The other clarification we would find useful is for Sonia Poulton to clarify whether the interview with Colin Sutton was made before 2017. If what he says in the video is before or after he said that “The Mauritania line is certainly a possibility and needs to be looked at” among other things and before or after it was reported that “The ex-Metropolitan Police officer [Colin Sutton] said there is no evidence the couple or their friends had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.”
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/02/sutton-is-name-meddling-is-game.html
(Cont. 9/11)
(Cont. 10/11)
ReplyDeleteIf we are right, then there’s a move to sabotage any prospect of prosecution in Portugal.
If so, it dates back to Gamble trying the same in 2012 when he says much the same as Colin Sutton now. Going back to beginning and looking at the parents happened at the outset. That’s what the PJ tried and the British sabotaged. And clearly among those saboteurs was Jim Gamble.
And lest we forget, in the TV appearance with Martin Brunt on Sky News marking the 10th anniversary, Colin Sutton said (our caps:” “I think WE say in there that…” being the “in there” the highly secret CEOP report. So we can assume that Sutton was also among the saboteurs.
Saboteurs know the game well. They are betting on one of 2 things, both producing the same result: close Operation Grange.
On one hand, this pressuring the Met into questioning the McCanns, we call it the OJ Simpson without a trial card.
Everyone thought he was guilty but a brilliant legal battle caused the American justice system to be unable to sentence him.
With the McCanns, the idea is to stop things short of prosecution. Everyone thinking they are guilty but a legal technicality stopping them being sentenced.
All others involved can finally breathe in peace.
We recommend readers to revisit our post “The McCann trial”.
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2017/03/the-mccann-trial.html
We recommend readers to be aware of all those fervently in favour of having the McCanns dragged into the Met for questioning, as well as all those fervently supporting those fervently in favour.
We would urge all those asking in their good faith for Operation Grange to call in the McCanns to stop immediately.
The purpose of these words is to help people to be able to look with different eyes at all those who will continue, after reading this, shouting for Operation Grange to question the McCanns, as now it will be known that what they hope to achieve is to create a popular pressure that will make it commit a fatal mistake.
Remember when we said that the case against Mr Amaral was not a libel case but for damages? We were then hit by “friendly fire” about how wrong we were. Time has proven us right. Now we will see what reaction we will get to this post.
Please remember our initial words in this comment. IF we are proven wrong about what we have said above, we will be glad to recognise it and retract all.
One useful thing is that this sabotage helps us understand a few things.
Like the £12 million figure said to have been spent – by the way, does everyone remember how fast it went up to £8/£9 million but then “stagnated” at basically the same value? – by Operation Grange.
As we have said before, the other thing the other side is trying to achieve is to have Operation Grange closed due to “over-expenditure”.
Knowing now that Operation Grange’s hands are effectively tied, as they cannot speak to anyone under the penalty of causing the closure of the case, we would say that Operation Grange main expenditure is on wages.
If we subtract the wages, the Luz circus, the 2 hearings in Faro, the visit to the INML in Coimbra and one or 2 more visits by Redwood to Portugal we would say costs have been exaggerated just to inflame the public to pressure government to close Grange.
(Cont. 10/11)
(Cont. 11/11)
ReplyDeleteGrange is just the police being used by the politicians in a diplomatic/legal conundrum which the British have put themselves in.
Another positive note, is what we have witnessed all these years is the Met fully aware of the trap and ignoring it. For some reason they have said that the parents were not people of interest, even said they were not suspects. They said that all diligences that the PJ did on the parents were sufficient for the Met. Can the reader see now how spot on this was?
A complete and absolute farce but legally impeccable. Flawless.
Not because of incompetence, not because of legality (the can v should question addressed above) but because of reality.
As we said, both the PJ and Grange are waiting for the political nod, so nothing can be expected from either except, nothing until then and this nothing is good. No legal battles to fight about jurisdiction nor opening of doors for annulment of the process.
What we can do is sit and watch. Each day Operation Grange does nothing is a day that Operation Grange exists. And as long as Operation Grange exists we can hope truth is outed.
So, let’s them be cops playing cops. It’s embarrassing but much less than it would be to archive the case after Whitehall archive the case after agreeing that there was one final key lead/witness or, and that would even be worse, because of a legal error.
The fact the government has not yet conceded to the pressure it has received because it continued funding it even though it continues to get put in the media AND social media that Grange is useless (because it doesn’t question the McCanns) and a waste (because it’s wasting public money) tells us that outing the truth is an option being seriously considered by government to end the case.
And the few pitiful blanks the other side fired to celebrate the 11th anniversary was very much telling.
The case as is, remains intact and perfectly ready to move towards prosecution.
Is this possible? Yes, of course it is AND it passes through Grange.
All that is needed to happen is for there to be some “fluke” analysis of the files by Grange and they suggest to the PJ that a certain line of inquiry is worth pursuing. Then, the “convinced” PJ will request, under Portuguese supervision, that certain people be heard in the UK by Grange.
Another possibility, which is more likely, is for the PJ to be given the green light by the political power to contact Grange with “new” forensic evidence and request what is said above.
Under Portuguese supervision, all evidence then collected by Grange is admissible in the Portuguese courts and the case can be prosecuted in Portugal.
If the reader doesn’t like to just sit and watch and wants to exercise pressure, then that should be directed at the PJ and not the Met. Their diligences are the only ones that matter really in this case.
Who helped us have this lightbulb moment? Insane, of course. We effectively, as we have recognised, misread his statement saying that he had a source who told him Grange was questioning former British immigrants who had resided in Luz.
We thought he had said that Grange was questioning Brits in Luz, which would be illegal, when he had said nothing of the sort.
However, this got us thinking. Why would Grange be questioning people who had once resided in Luz as this would be useless evidence for Portugal… oh, wait a minute, it wouldn’t only be useless to the Portuguese prosecution BUT be ruinous for the case if not done by the British without Portuguese supervision.
So that’s why they are pressing to have Operation Grange call in the McCanns!
Thank you, Insane. Again. We’ve lost count the times you’ve helped us. As the Portuguese say, God writes straight along crooked lines.
Typo, it should read:
Delete"However, this got us thinking. Why would Grange be questioning people who had once resided in Luz as this would be useless evidence for Portugal… oh, wait a minute, it wouldn’t only be useless to the Portuguese prosecution BUT be ruinous for the case if done by the British without Portuguese supervision."
Brilliant analysis,if you're wrong I'd like to see the counter argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat a tangled web they try to weave,wonder who put Sutton up to his tricks.
How can any investigation proceed in this particular case without a confession or a body? I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteGay Gibson, Suzanne Pilley, Muriel McKay. Just a few of the cases where convictions have been obtained without a body. In Gay Gibson's case they stopped short of hanging the accused.
DeleteThank you Textusa.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I freely admit that I don't understand the legalities of this case. I always knew there was a reason for the 'Farce'.
It all makes sense now.
The case as is, remains intact and perfectly ready to move towards prosecution.
ReplyDeleteIs this possible? Yes, of course it is AND it passes through Grange.
All that is needed to happen is for there to be some “fluke” analysis of the files by Grange and they suggest to the PJ that a certain line of inquiry is worth pursuing. Then, the “convinced” PJ will request, under Portuguese supervision, that certain people be heard in the UK by Grange.
Couldn't they have done the same thing back in 2013 at the start of their investigation?
How can Sonia Poulton state in her documentary that she managed to get a look at a classified document - the CEOP report, written by Jim Gamble. Who helped her get her hands on it, and what other nuggets are in it, and how does it effect the case? Strange how there's complete silence from Poulton, Ben Thompson (who seemed to have assisted in the documentary) and Sutton on this matter.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 5 May 2018, 16:48:00,
DeleteWe want to take the opportunity and use your comment to clarify something.
As our readers remember, there was recently some tension between the blog and Ben Thompson.
We are not going to revisit that issue, however it can be interpreted as us having named Ben Thompson because of it.
This is not a game. This is not about egos. This is not who crosses imaginary lines first nor about who gets imaginary gold medals. We have said it before and will say it again, our loyalty lies only with the truth and our consciences.
Sonia Poulton names as “additional researchers” Ben Thompson and Cheryl Moncrieffe. We have mentioned only Ben Thompson because from what we were able to see, we couldn’t find any link between Cheryl Moncrieffe and the case, while about Ben it’s well known his interest in the case.
That means we don’t know in what way Cheryl could have helped Sonia, while we can make a reasonable assumption as to what extent Ben could.
It is only because of this, and only this, that we “singled out” Ben Thompson. If Cheryl Moncrieffe happened to be an admin of a Maddie related blog/FB group/forum, we would have equally named her in the comment.
The reason Ben is named is simple. We as a team share information about the case. There is information that we don’t share among team, more specifically sources who we have individually. The question we have raised we think is pertinent and easily clarified: did the research team of this video share the entirety of the information or not. If it did, then the report shown (about which we also wait conformation if it is the CEOP report or not) is included.
Any other interpretation away from this is speculation for which we are not responsible.
Could the PJ carry out rog interviews under ILORs in U.K.? If so, would this mean they could gather information for a prosecution in Portugal?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous6 May 2018, 09:51:00
DeleteIn much the same way it was carried out in 2008.
In case it wants for evidence to be collected in the UK, the PJ submits a request in which it informs what they want that is to be clarified by questioning a certain person.
Then it’s the legitimate British judicial agent who interacts with that person.
If you look at the rogs in the files, the questions are put by a British police officer (the legitimate judicial agent) but are not read out. It’s evident that the questioner has a leeway in the subjects to be covered as he is the “technician”, however one can easily see that there are pre-set subjects which the questions must address.
This pre-setting was done by the PJ and the questioning done by the British police. The PJ watches and verifies that all subjects have been covered and that all, even though done under British legal rules, do not conflict with the Portuguese ones.
It happened the other way around when Grange requested to hear people in Portugal. Grange informed the PJ what they wanted to be clarified from each individual and then the PJ questioned them.
One thing is the collection of evidence (which is the product to be obtained) and another is who collects it.
Textusa, both Insane and Petermac say you have got it wrong and that being interviewed under caution is the same as being made arguido.
ReplyDeleteAre they right?
Que ideia e proposta mais idiota por ser completamente descabida!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6 May 2018, 14:22:00,
ReplyDeleteThe list of arguido’s rights /duties as per notification of arguido signed by Gerry McCann (our numbering)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2565.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P10/10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2566.jpg
Procedural rights:
#1 - To attend those acts in the proceedings directly concerning him;
#2 - To be heard by the court or the investigative judge whenever they must take a decision affecting him personally;
#3 - Not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with about the contents of his statements concerning them;
#4 - To choose a defence counsel or ask the court to assign him one;
#5 - To have a defence counsel acting on his behalf in every act of the proceedings he participates in and to communicate with him, even in private, when remanded in custody;
#6 - To intervene in the inquiry, giving evidence and requesting the investigation he deems necessary;
#7 - To be informed of his rights by the judicial or prosecuting authority or by the criminal police body before which he is compelled to appear;
#8 - To appeal from unfavourable decisions taken against him as provided by law;
#9 - To request legal aid at the social customer services
Procedural duties
#1 - Appear before the judge, the Public Prosecution Service or the criminal police bodies whenever required by law and having been duly summoned for that purpose;
#2 - To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record;
#3 - To provide a statement of identity and residence immediately after being held a defendant;
#4 - To submit himself to investigations for the gathering of evidence and, as provided by law, to coercive measures and a guarantee in property, ordered and performed by a competent authority.
Warning – Section 39 of Act no. 34/2004, of July 29, 2004
The defendant was informed that when neither choosing a defence counsel, nor requesting legal aid, or in case this legal aid is not granted, he may be liable for the payment of the defence counsel’s fees, as well as for the expenses he incurred with his defence.
In the interview under caution, the caution is:
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-003-2152?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
The reader just has to compare both and see if they represent the same.
Not even bothering to analyse the remainder listed, we would simply point duty #2: "To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record".
DeleteOnly to these is the arguido obliged by law to tell the truth. About all else s/he can lie. And if the arguido says white during the investigative process and then decides to say black in court, it's black that counts and s/he is not accountable for having said white before nor can that white be used as evidence against him/her.
But that's just the caution, Textusa. You haven't said what their rights are so how can we compare them?
DeleteAnonymous 6 May 2018, 16:26:00,
DeleteCan you please provide a link where the rights of those being questioned under caution are listed?
We have already mentioned one difference: not being duty bound to tell the truth.
That alone means that anyone heard under caution in the UK does not enjoy the same rights as an arguido in Portugal.
In turn, that results of the individual rights of the questioned under caution, under Portuguese law, have not been respected.
There are other significant differences, but we will wait for your link.
Textusa, I'm anon @ 14.22. I don't have a link, I was just asking a question. But I think Petermac is right; he should know, he was a police officer and he has a law degree.
DeleteAnonymous 6 May 2018, 17:10:00
DeleteSo, if we understood you, whatever PeterMac tells you, you assume to be true?
It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living.
We would like to know if PeterMac’s degree in law is in Portuguese law.
About PeterMac having credibility because he was a policeman, we don’t think alleged weather conditions on May 3, the lack of published holiday photos or unconnected people not seeing Maddie alive is proof of anything.
If that’s what British police officers consider to be compelling evidence in the UK, then it speaks poorly of the people serving in the British police forces. As we don’t believe that to be the case – that of British police considering such flimsy evidence as compelling – we will maintain the respect we have for all police officers serving in the UK.
We have noted that PeterMac doesn’t mention Prof. Hany Farid in his book chapter about the last photo, about which we would welcome the CMOMM forum putting that evidence to a REAL test.
About the weather conditions of May 3 and about which PeterMac is absolutely certain that there was absolutely no possibility whatsoever for a sunny picture to have been taken, in his chapter book about the weather, he places a picture for that day in the Algarve not of a cloudy sky but one of a sky with clouds:
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.pt/2016/08/chapter-15-almost-last-word-on-last.html
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/03/the-pool-photo.html
Paraphrasing Groucho Marx, who are you going to believe, PeterMac or your own eyes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM
You seem to have made up your mind.
I'm anon @ 17.10, Textusa.
Delete"So, if we understood you, whatever PeterMac tells you, you assume to be true?
It’s your choice and we must respect it. All we can say is that’s how con-artists make a living."
There was no need to be rude to me. I asked a question and you said yourself you had no legal education, but Petermac does. Seems like you want me to assume that what you tell me is true, so who is the con-artist here?
Anonymous 6 May 2018, 21:52:00,
DeleteOne does not need a degree in science to see with one's own eyes that gravity exists.
One just has to hold a stone, drop it and see it, with one's own eyes, fall.
On the subject of relationships between police forces of different countries, we recommend readers revisit this:
ReplyDeletehttp://textusa.blogspot.pt/2017/11/operation-task.html
Sorry to hear of your members loss Textusa. As expected we had a flurry of last minute stories after the post I wrote last week, seems they are digging deep now using katrice and her poor father as guinea pigs as a motive behind the story to what makes Madeleine so special and worth more than any other child. As we know and a lot of the general public do now and it involves a massive cover up but not the sexual one that has been pushed to the forefront. That IMO would have been dealt with much more swiftly and effectively the UK secret services are I fear masters of covering such horrific perversions so that leaves it down to a political mess. For some they cannot understand how it can be anything else sadly these are the people who know very little about how the government and the rich work,you only have to look at the anger of ex empire countries who were asset stripped and exploited yet the UK citizens were being fed how we helped and enlightened everywhere we went. This for any rational freethinker is complete and utter tosh as the ones who benefited as usual the most were the rich and connected, hundreds of years later nothing has changed we are still being lied to but now we have a community of people who understand and are fed up with the status quo.
ReplyDeleteI have said more then once on more than one that forum operation grange should not exist, the case does not belong to them and they have no jurisdiction that lies with Portugal. Sadly some people just do not listen or comprehend the game that is being played which includes them too. As i don't read the papers or watch the news I guess I escape the bull sh-t influence pushed by msm.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
ReplyDeleteSo Tannerman is, supposedly, GP Totman.
Interesting.
Taking into account that GP Totman was, supposedly, only a tourist who happened to be there and, supposedly did not know any of the T9 or anyone linked to the case, how would he kbow the description made by Tanner in such a detail that he instantly thought it could be him, and even went to the GNR (so many days before the Tannerman description was made public (which, supposedly, strongly influenced Yvonne Martin)?
Rather strange, isn't it?
And people are still saying other guests aren't involved....
See the article for what it is,it mentions grange winding up in October, on whose say so?,an ex cop saying he was sure Tanner saw the abductor,thus casting doubt on any witness statements. I wonder if the officer would kindly inform the world when it was established Madeline was abducted.
DeleteDesperate times,desperate times.
The portuguese police were asking people if they had seen a man carrying a child. It wasn't a secret
DeleteDr Totman---not only is he Crecheman then, he also bears an uncanny resemblance to the creepy looking man on the beach photographed by Gail Cooper the week before the Mccanns arrived
DeleteExpress Creepy Man article
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/175407/Madeleine-McCann-Is-this-the-man-who-snatched-her
Crecheman pic
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com.eg/2013/12/how-bundleman-became-real.html
----credit to Jean Monroe at Jill Havern who first noticed this
Actually the Sun story is just confirming that Tannerman never saw an abductor,given that Smithman is unlikely to have either and no one else has come forward that leaves??????????????
DeleteNafeesa, Totman looks nothing like Gail C man
Delete10:34:00,
DeleteOG helped by ruling out all abductor suspects?
Bilton pursuing innocent Portuguese was to make us all beg OG to stop interviewing suspects because this made everybody angry?
Stop, because we need suspects to remain out there, forever potential abductors and an ongoing fund.
10:34:00,
DeleteWho says Smith didn’t see anything?
Anonymous7 May 2018, 11:17:00
DeleteNafeesa, Totman looks nothing like Gail C
He doesn't look like the one she originally complained about, the one they made an artists impression of
But he does look like the one she photographed on the beach, he's the one in the Express article I linked to
Anonymous7 May 2018, 08:56:00
DeleteYou say: “The portuguese police were asking people if they had seen a man carrying a child. It wasn't a secret”
No, they were not. The first announcement was made on May 25, the Totmans, supposedly, were not in Portugal (supposedly arrived April 29, left May 12) then to contact GNR, much less be ignored by one of its officers.
From our post the “Saint of Salem”
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/09/the-saint-of-salem-i.html
““Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007
Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".
The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.”
The above is from here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html”
But this is an either or scenario and neither look good for Totman.
If “he portuguese police were asking people if they had seen a man carrying a child”, as you say, and if Totman had walked up to a GNR officer then, had told him he could be the man and would be ignored? How realistic is that?
Not sure if the British insulting the Portuguese is a favourite past-time or simply a guilty pleasure. Evidently the GNR would have taken him immediately to the nearest PJ officer.
But suppose Totman overheard Tanner (who didn’t even think important to inform the McCanns that night she had seen Tannerman) speaking about it, why would Totman go to the police instead of immediately approaching whoever he was overhearing and inform that he was the man carrying his daughter?
Why just approach GNR and do nothing more? And wouldn’t Totman speak to McCanns and say it was me your friend saw in order to immediately clear himself of any suspicion and reassure the family?
With such media hype then, and on seeing that the Portuguese authorities were doing nothing (he didn’t even consider the possibility the GNR misunderstood him, and so should have gone again to the police? After all, he memorised and held on to the clothes he wore that night), wouldn’t as a possibility to head to the media present and raise it with them and get the police to take it seriously?
Anon @ 12;22,Smithman never saw an abductor,the same as Tanner never saw one.
DeleteNo, you're wrong
DeleteThat might have been the first public appeal, but the police were speaking to individuals
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/madeleine-suspect-picture-like-an-egg-with-hair-309891.html
As the Totman's were staying nearby and had contact with the McCanns I would have thought they would have been spoken to
Anonymous 7 May 2018, 13:34:00,
DeleteAnd the similarity between an egg with hair and a man carrying a child is?
And quoting the article:
Delete"He said: “They just showed me this outline which apparently gave me the impression that it had high cheekbones and a long face but other than that, no eyes, no nose, no mouth, so I call it an egg, it was an egg with hair.”
He went on: “I have heard that other people who have been interviewed have said that there were clothes involved. The police never asked me about anything to do with clothing.
“All I got was an impression of a head with hair with a side parting.
“I smiled when they showed it to me. What else could anyone do?”
He went on to say that the image was not even recognisable as an e-fit."
That's not the point, is it? You said they weren't speaking to people and they were. Bridget O'Donnell mentioned it in her article too, about a GNR officer coming round the day after.
DeleteInsane,
DeleteAs far as we could see, we haven't seen any statement from the Portuguese authorities prior May 25 about a man CARRYING A CHILD. And that's the entire point.
Thank you for helping us understand this article. It really honours and pleases us.
(do spare us from you saying we confuse every dissenting anon with you, bla, bla,bla...)
On May 7, the Bucks Herald referred to "the Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas which reported that the image which the police had put together was based only on the rear view of a man seen with a child in the area.
Delete(...)
The Portuguese newspaper said: "The person was seen from behind, we see more of the back of the head and the hair rather than the actual features in the portrait of the man that was seen with a child that night."
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/confusion-over-madeleine-suspect-bucks-herald-07-0-t18386.html
This is Jane T's version of Tannerman according to GMC and KMC in their respective May 4 statements, very different of what Jane stated on that same day.
Anne Guedes,
DeleteAs we said, we wish to close the debate about Totman. As we said, we believe it to be a distraction.
We will leave it up to the readers to judge whether Totman read the Portuguese 24Horas or the Bucks Herald and then decided to go to a GNR officer to say it could be him and did nothing else about like, for example, tell the PJ directly or the parents themselves.
Textusa, I just find it interesting, very interesting, the huge difference between JT's tale on 3/4 night and her statement at the Portimao DIC on the 4th.
DeleteAnne Guedes,
DeleteApologies and thank you.
GM was playing tennis with some guys one of which is probably Totman,on returning from the beach JT along with others stopped off at the tennis courts for a chat,yet some 3 hrs later doesn't recognize Tannerman/Crecheman yeah right.
Delete07:23
DeleteAgree. Other point is Totman knew G from tennis.
He must have seen G and Jez in the street, if it had actually happened.
Then next day, he would see the press coverage of the apartment and say, I passed by last night, I’d better tell G. I also remember 2 men and a buggy as I walked past
Anonymous 8 May 2018, 08:03:00, now 08:06:00
DeleteYour comment deleted as requested.
Very interesting thoughts, Textusa, which bring a question: what is the whole point of Operation Grange? Why was it launched in the first place? If the intent was really to solve the case, wasn't it enough to encourage Portugal to re-open it? Grange made UK look like trying to achieve the exact opposite: create a smokescreen in front of the truth in order to keep the “official version” under control. I don't know why Portugal reopened its inquiry in 2013 but it looks like it has been at at a standstill since the start... perhaps not surprising. As you point out, the case “remains intact and perfectly ready to move towards prosecution”, but how does Grange help?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, at 7 May 2018, 13:31:00.
DeleteBy accident I deleted your comment. Did not see if it was in reply to Anonymous 6 May 2018, 23:50:00 or if it was a stand-alone comment. My apologies.
I’m risking it was a reply. If wrong please correct me. Here is your comment:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue II":
Did "Clever" Gerry,think of such a risky strategy to ask for a review of Madeleine's case,aka.Rebekah Brooks David Cameron at a time they were seeking damages from Mr Goncalo Amaral,started in August 2008 and ended in the Portugal Supreme Court decision 25th January 2017, was this used to exonerate Once and for all any suspicion of involvement in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance?
Aka Mr Colin Sutton's recent statement Sonia Poulton documentary?
The McCann Family must have known via Isabel Duarte the Supreme Court would have to finally deliberate on the defamation case after the appeals process exhausted?
The McCann family could not afford to challenge on Two fronts a"civil Redress case" and a further "Private Investigation"scenario,as this would have exhausted the find Madeleine fund,So a Review was necessary!
If the Supreme Court would have found in Favour of the McCann Family, Operation Grange would have been shelved by now!
To say it wouldn't be inconvenient to have a review of Madeleine McCann's case when a"Defamation case" was being challenged on a Basis of the Portugal PJ jurisdiction,which in effect ruled,that the"McCann Family had Not been found innocent of what had happened to their Daughter Madeleine,who was reported to have disappeared 3 May 2007 apartment 5a Ocean Club.
Within five Months of deliberation of the Portugal Supreme Court Final determination, mysteriously Scotland Yard has the Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner retires from office and the Assistant Commanding Officer Mark Rowley moved to a "New role" Head of Security,after both "Officers" had an extremely close relationship offering unswerving support for the Family of Madeleine McCann!
Have the UK Police been used by the UK Government as "Political" pawns in the full knowledege that D notices(National security) apply to Madeleine McCann' disappearance via Gordon Brown's,sticky little fingers?
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 7 May 2018, 13:31:00”
Hi textusa anon 13.31. yes they are my comments,the Madeleine McCann case is shrouded by"Spooks" from UK services,especially with mouth pieces such as Sheree Dodd,Justine Maguiness,Clarence mitchell, who couldn't save the Cambridge analytical Company,acting strangely similar to Bell- Pottinger,African Elections,with strange associations to the Conservative Party,Brexit,election of American President Donald Trump?
DeleteIt's a small world isn't it!
Proof that the police were asking about a man seen carrying a child in the days immediately following Madeleine's disappearance.
ReplyDeleteFrom Jez Wilkins statement, given on May 7th
"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children.
He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks he may stay in one night'
I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes."
From the letter from Amaral with the questions Jez should be asked (same date, 7th May)
"- Did he meet GERALD and at what time ?
- Where was GERALD coming from at this time ?
- Exactly where was this meeting with GERALD ? (please obtain confirmation of the exact location on the attached map)
- What was the distance of this meeting from GERALD'S apartment ?
- Can Jeremy provide a sketch map of the location ?
- What did they talk about at this time and for how long ?
- When he was talking with GERALD, did any of Gerald's group pass by ?
- If so, who ?
- When he was talking with GERALD did he see whether anyone passed by carrying a child in the road near the apartment block ?"
So I am right that witnesses were being asked if they had seen a man carrying a child, long before a public appeal was made.
Insane,
DeleteMust commend you on your tenacity.
Jez was very early implicated due to his encounter with Gerry. On May 7th the PJ is fully aware of Tannerman.
Perfectly natural for him to be asked by the PJ, WITHIN investigation, about Tannerman.
Are you implying that Jez Wilkins went around telling the guests that the PJ had asked him about Tannerman?
How else would Totman know about a man carrying a child?
What you showed above was not known to the public.
We think it’s consensual that the Sun’s Totman article is, we shall be kind, ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteBefore we get to the reasons why it is indeed ridiculous let’s first look at how useful it is.
The first positive note is that like in the “Woman-in-purple” articles that exposed Jenny Murat, this one exposes Julian Totman.
Totman appears on the Crèche sheets that we know are fake.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01-pages-107-111[105-109]/processopdf01page111-CrecheRecords2.jpg
Totman appears on the Tapas dinners bookings (got up early on May 1 to queue up and as able to reserve a table)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg
Tapas dinners we know never existed (except the May 3 one but that wasn’t exactly a dinner in the terms we are forced to believe those dinners were supposed to be).
But what luck Totman had! He made jackpot as he also got to play Quiz Night (according to Quiz Mistress) and which we say also never happened
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/03/quiz-night-at-tapas.html
He certainly can tell us who won and who lost and what prizes were there were to win!
This article also confirms that it was J Weinberger the 3rd witness who saw Pimpleman in the 2009 Mockumentary, the other 2 being Derek Flack and TS: “The force also failed to follow up on information from Paul and Julia Weinberger, pals of the Totmans, who said they had seen a pock-faced man hanging around the McCanns’ aparment twice that week.”
Another character appearing in this article is detective Ian Horrrocks, who we spoke of in our post “Friends Reunited” also appears: “Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way.”
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/06/friends-reunited.html
We don’t know from where Horrocks got the idea Totman says west to east. If he had told Redwood that, how could the Met rule him to be Tannerman as they did?
And again, a question that must be asked time and time again: why do retired police officers know exactly what witnesses have said to Operation Grange, know exactly who is being considered a suspect, etc? Is the Met running an internal “school-paper” which is also distributed to former officers and one of its columns is “Latest on Grange”? It seems to be the case.
Quite a lot of lambs to sacrifice with a ridiculous post, isn’t it? There has to be a purpose.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteLet’s first see the timing. What is happening with Maddie? Outside one tiny little thing, nothing.
The decision to continue funding has been taken and even the article sates October as a possible closing date. Sacrificing lambs in May to produce results in September (time of the next funding decision) is ridiculous.
The anniversary has passed. Kate read a poem she had already read in 2012 and the lack of news was deafening and telling.
And it must be noted that the Tannerman picture remains up in the McCann website. It seems that they continue not to agree that Tannerman is Totman. So this article didn’t even change that.
Outside this, what was/is happening?
Let’s first say what we think it was planned to be happening at around this time by the other side: the internet running amok with paedophilia and outrage to close wasteful and biased Grange.
Neither is happening. And under the risk of sounding self-important or even arrogant, we believe that is so because of this blog. We have annulled both those “courses of action”.
Insane says we have only 6 readers. Well, it seems you half a dozen are nothing short of brilliant as we’ve been able to echo effectively and efficiently what we say in the blog.
Without paedo and with the “Grange legal conundrum on the table” another subject for people to pick on was urgent to find: thus Totman.
Thus, the reason to be ridiculous. Easy to pick and deconstruct, ideal to feed distraction. Intentionally ridiculous.
Sacrifice the lamb to distract. Something was needed to distract discussion away from the legal discussion.
The way Insane has reacted (among other things, coming in defense of PeterMac) to the comment told us that we were on the right track.
To show that the other side is just playing (and wasting) trump after trump, shows they are in a disarray.
The fact that Insane has retaken up the Walkercan1000 twitter account, tells us that the other side has given up (have just been informed that the account was suspended).
All has gone back to the pre-October 2017 tactics (before the decision to take Nigel Nessling to court) which not only produced absolutely nothing as it antagonised government.
They have nothing left but confrontation. We will see how successful this tactic will be.
So, in accordance with the above, we will not be distracted from the comment we made. We will continue to speak about it to our 6 readers and not be Totman-distracted.
We will no longer publish comments about Totman. All that was needed to be said about it, has been said.
We will continue on the comment we published showing why Grange cannot question the McCanns under the penalty of closing the case if it ever does that.
So far, we have only seen counter-arguments from PeterMac and Insane. We will address both soon.
I wonder if Walker wanted it suspended and deliberately advertised Silverdoe’s address? A vile thing to do to her.
DeleteHe was making terrible statements about GA.
If he’s been suspended for other reasons, he may not be pleased.
Does anyone have a copy of Walkman's latest statements? Have they led to his account being suspended, or is there any other reason?
DeleteHow come everyone who is aggrieved or offended by an answer from your blog (you being 'rude' etc) ends up whining to Insane in his blog?
ReplyDeleteUnpublished Anonymous at 8 May 2018, 10:47:00,
ReplyDeleteYou beat us to it! We are just writing about that so not publishing your comment because it would be a spoiler.
Will either include your comment in our own or publish it as a reply to it.
:)
As readers can see, we have published comments regarding Totman after we said we wouldn’t.
ReplyDeleteWe’re human and we do make wrong decisions and that was a bad decision.
In our defense, readers must understand that engaging in a debate with Insane is like being inside an unfunny Dead Parrot sketch, over and over again, with us telling him that the bird is dead and him saying that he’s only resting as no vestiges of blood have been found in the cage.
We shouldn’t let that frustration ever influence our decisions, and we mostly haven’t, but seldomly we do.
When we made our decision, we overlooked the phenomenal opportunity that this blog was given by the Totman episode.
The truth is that we were blinded by the ridiculousness of the article and we failed to see the blessing it was for the truth.
We maintain all of the above. Even the self-importance. We only withdraw not accepting comments about Totman.
He was a distraction but when one scrambles to distract more often than not one makes things worse for oneself. This was such a case for the other side.
As far as we know, for the last 9 and a half years we have been the only ones implicating others outside the T9. The only other person implicated has been Robert Murat for reasons we have disagreed publicly and which are related with the Smith sighting.
Outside that, we are the only ones saying that guests, Ocean Club staff, Mark Warner staff and British immigrants are in on the hoax.
The Totman article, however ridiculous it may be, is very serious about one thing: the Totmans and the Weinbergers are playing a game. Why, it must be asked.
Finally we see published uncontested evidence that people supposedly unrelated with the T9 are willing to lend their names to distort truth in this case. Why?
So, it will be interesting to watch how people will fit Totman/Weinberger into their narratives.
How do Totmans/Weinbergers fit in the negligence narrative? And in the paedophilia narrative? And in the death before May 3 narrative?
We will be interested to know how, so we’ll be watching.
For example, look at this tweet from Insane’s BFF Tigger, replying to Insane’s supporter K9:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gcnjones/status/993563939119206401
“tigger@gcnjones
Replying to @K9Truth
V interesting. Both Weinberger and Totman extra helpful. Both nr Salisbury?
7:51 pm · 7 May 2018”
Oh Tigger, we have covered that so many times. Weren’t you listening? Do revisit this, for example:
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/03/its-all-baloney.html
And the comment from Anonymous we withheld and are now publishing:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue II":
I hope it is now sinking in to people, and it appears to be (when reading forum posts), that guests at the OC that week were linked in their purpose for being there. When looking at the guests who were there that week, do people find it strange just who was taking their 'holidays' in a low class holiday accommodation, off peak week in April / May 2007? A little easy research tells us that many were well paid professionals... it certainly looks like there was common goal for being there and it certainly wasn't to play golf! Regardless of whether you believe swinging was the common goal (and I certainly do) , people must now be acknowledging that it was not just a coincidence that found these people together in the OC.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 8 May 2018, 10:47:00”
So we have revised our decision not to receive any more comments about the Totman article (we already had).
The debate about Operation Grange questioning the McCanns can now wait.
We will return to it. For example, we will thank PeterMac for proving us right as well as continue to show how wrong he is when he says: “And then he [Textusa] starts on about "arguido" status and says it does not exist in England. It is exactly [in bold] the same as being interviewed under Caution with a lawyer present, and everything recorded on tape or video”
Interesting tweet, in the line of “Village of the Damned”:
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/Meadowuk/status/993757226866180096
"Lee Meadow@Meadowuk
#mccann What is the common factor: T9, Smiths, JW, Fenn & Trotman. I mean are there no Portuguese in Portugal? Can it really be so, that a child disappears and the only witnesses are non-Portuguese, English speaking.
8:39 am · 8 May 2018"
That has always struck me as odd that not one independent eye witness was Portuguese because if you believe the official fairytale it makes it look like the locals walk around with their eyes shut. The nanny managed to pop everywhere a sighting or alibi was needed, all the main players who as pointed out as Brits(yes very convenient that) who lied through their back teeth in support of the McCann's and the hoax should be charged with perverting the course of justice. That goes for who pulled the string to start this charade and that includes Brown who made sure they had all the help they needed. Anybody who denies something fishy about the hoax story when a blind man can see the collusion going on which is clear as the nose on your face,it was in their interest to lie because they want to keep their extra activities hidden.
DeleteAnother interesting tweet:
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/CaroleShooter/status/993754709566672896
“InEz ShOoTa!@CaroleShooter
The "It's YOUR HOLIDAY too Creche" for all safety conscious swingers. #mccann
8:29 am · 8 May 2018”
We agree fully.
Could this be be to pass Totman as Gerry (they do look alike) and make him Smithman?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 8 May 2018, 12:52:00,
DeleteHe’s too tall to be mistaken for Gerry. It would be something mentioned by the Smiths.
Totman has never come forward to say he saw the Smith family and we remind that it was in the same programme that he was revealed to the world (Crèche Dad) in the same programme that revealed the Smith sighting e-fits, so shouldn’t Smithman been as dismissed by the Met for the exact same reason they dismissed Tannerman?
Where would Totman be heading for if he had passed the Smiths? Was he lost? In the UK Crimewatch there’s nothing said about him being lost nor is it in this article.
By the way, Totman doesn’t explain why no blanket or some kind of jacket on a cold night? JT was wearing a fleece jacket
Wouldn’t the Totman couple take both children home together, dad carrying the older boy and mum carrying the girl?
Where was the mum when he says he did the Tannerman crossing?
Crecheman exhibited a blanket on the pyjama picture.
DeleteThe Tapas booking was for 3 Totman.
Anne Guedes,
DeleteThe famous Tannerman picture (which is still up on the McCann website), the one with the dangling feet of a child, there's no blanket. To replace Tannerman, we are assuming that Crêche Dad did not use a blanket that night either.
The Totmans brought along 2 children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_336.jpg
2 adults and 2 children. Why booking sheets confirm 4 people.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME%20_IIa_Page_618.jpg
The Tapas reservation does say 2+1
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg
We don’t know who the 3rd person may be. Did they put one of their children in the crèche and took the other with them to dinner? Why? One was 4 and the other 3, so age difference does not play a part.
I think one child was 2 and the other 3, hence capable to sit at a table and share dinner with his parents.
DeleteThe picture I meant was the "rotten pyjama" one where there's also a blanket.
Anne Guedes,
DeleteSo we know, do you believe what Totman told the police?
As the tapas dinners didn't happen those bookings are meaningless to get information about numbers of people at tables. They may of course be bookings for something else but not dinners.
DeleteTextusa, I try to avoid believing as much as possible. I always thought that the exhibited pyjamas and blanket picture was taken in May 2007 (who would keep "rotten" clothes ?), perhaps the LC asked for it because Crecheman answered a questionnaire and said his 2 yrs daughter was at the night creche on May 3. Why his answers weren't sent to the PJ, I don't know, but generally speaking the LC forwarded almost nothing. When it passed AR's mind that he was about to retire without having brought anything to the case, he thought he had to destroy Tannerman who didn't make sense but had been the official suspect for so many years. That was the least he had to do, since the PJ had very quickly put Tannerman in a bin. To kill the VIP, he had to identify him. So he picked up the less implausible child carrier he could find and that was it. Perhaps AR doesn't have much sense of direction...
ReplyDeleteAnne Guedes,
DeleteBesides other discrepancies, there is a major one that is being overlooked and that is the fact that the Totmans were in the same building as Jez Wilkins, Block 4, the one to the West next to Block 5.
There's absolutely no explanation for him to cross the street from West to East as reported by Tanner. If he had come from the West, he would have to have passed in front of his apartment building, so can't even say he was lost.
For him to go in that direction, means he was leaving the apartment and taking his daughter somewhere.
We believe a 4 yr old grows as impatient as a 3 yr old when having to sit for a significant period of time at a table. One would either bring both or neither to dinner.
The night crêche was free of charge so no reason to "deposit" only one child there.
Anne Guedes,
Deletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/ericson_niklas/status/993580871071485953/photo/1
According to this, the Crèche Dad photo had exit data which if correct, shows that Totman was photographed 6 months before the Crimewatch programme, in April.
So it wasn’t, as you are suggesting, taken in 2007.
He may have kept the clothing as evidence but that would suggest he thought his version of events might be questioned or that he might be accused of being involved in taking Maddie.
Looking back doesn't it seem like one big farce took place from the very beginning? No wonder people, especially in mainstream media, feel sorry for them.
DeleteTextusa, I didn't suggest that CrecheDad's photo was taken in 2007. Of course it wasn't, as it is clearly an attempt of copy catting the "artist"'s sketch. I mean the picture of the pyjamas and blanket.
DeleteIf you can prove that this pyj/blanket photograph was taken later than 2007, it is worrying.
On this link you can see it at 22'40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y
https://mobile.twitter.com/aFairDebate/status/993783449264771072
ReplyDelete“Jules...@aFairDebate
Who sent #Totman up shit creek without a paddle.. Where was he taking his bare footed sleeping daughter, seen as he was walking away from his own apartment... Are #McCann taking everyone down with them...
10:23 am · 8 May 2018”
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/993884963685765120
ReplyDelete“Andy Fish@AndyFish19
... So what was the ratio between the number of guests staying at MW/OC at the time & those in (or connected to) the medical world? Any ideas anyone? Thanks #McCann
5:06 pm · 8 May 2018”
*****
Stephen and Carolyn Carpenter
Jensen sisters
The Sperreys
Graham McKenzie
Neil Berry and partner
Raj Balu and partner
Jeni Weinberger
Gail Cooper
Derek Flack
Jez Wilkins and Brigid O’Donnell
Just to name a few NON-DOCTORS who were more directly involved, such as witnesses or reporting sightings
Please add to the NON-DOCTOR list:
DeletePhilip Edmonds
The Fosters (couple who provided photos and short video clip to their local police)
DeleteAnonymous9 May 2018, 10:50:00
Hi Textusa
Not sure if I submitted my last comment successfully - but if I didn't - I was adding the Boyds to the list - Vicky and Daniel
What about James Gorrod, lawyer?
DeleteThe Naylors
DeleteHe’s banker, she’s stockbroker
Totmans G4M
DeleteNaylors G4N
O’Donnell / Jez Wilkins G4O
Jane Tanner sailed with Naylors.
If you're going to copy and paste my tweet to your blog, then at least have the decency to try and answer the original question!
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could write a list instead of everyone THAT WAS connected to the Medical/Pharma world that WAS staying at the MW/OC at the time?
Thanks.
Andy.
Andy,
DeleteWhy don't you do just that? Make up a list of the names MEDICAL/PHARMA guests instead of insinuating that the majority of guests were?
I'm not 'insinuating' anything and I don't want to 'make up' anything!
DeleteI was interested in seeing a ratio as per my tweet and question.
Seeing as you claim to know everything about this case and pasted my tweet to your blog, then I thought maybe you could answer it in simple terms without going round the houses as per.
Thanks.
Andy.
Andy,
DeleteTo help for starters.
Gerry and Kate McCann, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield (please don't forget to add Jane, Rachael and Dianne to the NON-DOCTORS)
Paul Jerome Weinberger - BIVDA and other connections pharma related.
Graham McKenzie - Blue Pelican - medical recruitment possibly?
Curtis Brain’s partner was a doctor - Dr Hume.
Jill Havern blog in the old days (Stella?) had list but as it isn’t our research we can’t vouch for it.
Hope this helps you get going.
Thank you. So in other words you don't know!
DeleteA simple answer to a simple question would suffice.
Cheers.
Andy.
Andy, why don't you enlighten us?
DeleteIf I knew the answer then I wouldn't be asking the question!
DeleteI asked the Q on twitter, as at the time there was some chat going on about the amount of Medical bods over in PDL, since another GP (Totman) was plastered over the MSM!
I only replied on here as Textusa copied my tweet over and then started talking about 'Non-Doctors' etc...
Hope that clarifies that, anon 15:43!
Regards,
Andy.
Hi Textusa
ReplyDeleteNot sure if I submitted my last comment successfully - but if I didn't - I was adding the Boyds to the list - Vicky and Daniel
Anonymous 9 May 2018, 10:50:00,
DeleteThank you!
Your original comment did not come through. Copying and pasting this one above.
We ended up not bringing the article over to the blog. Doing that now:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
MADDIE BOGUS LEAD
Why did cops investigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance waste four years on ‘Tannerman’ lead – despite GP saying it was probably him?
Julian Totman always thought he was the man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child in a pink pyjama top the night Madeleine disappeared
EXCLUSIVE
By Mike Sullivan, Crime Editor
6th May 2018, 10:25 pm
Updated: 6th May 2018, 11:12 pm
COPS spent four years trying to identify a man seen carrying a child on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared — despite a GP saying it was probably him.
Julian Totman walked near the McCanns’ apartment holding his two-year-old girl after getting her from a creche at the resort in Praia da Luz.
But Portuguese officers continued to pursue the line of inquiry triggered by Jane Tanner, a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann.
She said she saw a dark-haired man wearing a brown jacket, dark shoes and tan trousers carrying a child in pink and white pyjamas.
As well as matching much of the physical description of “Tannerman”, Dr Totman also wore the same clothes.
He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
“When the police finally realised the significance it was too late to really help.
“We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner.
“But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.”
Ms Tanner was one of the so-called Tapas Seven — the friends and family members dining with the McCanns at the time Maddie disappeared.
She was on her way to check on her kids at 9.15pm when she saw the man near Kate and Gerry’s apartment.
Gerry was nearby with pal Jeremy Wilkins having just looked in on Maddie and her younger twin siblings Sean and Amelie.
Kate then discovered their eldest child was missing when she went to check again at 10pm.
Ms Tanner later defied police orders to not comment publicly on what she saw.
She said: “I think it’s important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.’’
And with Portuguese laws prohibiting the release of photofits of suspects, the McCanns put out an artist’s sketch of “Tannerman” in October 2007.
But efforts by the Totmans, who live in the South West, to point out the importance of Julian’s movements fell on deaf ears.
They were never contacted by Leicestershire police, whose officers were responsible at the time for collating all UK inquiries.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteThe force also failed to follow up on information from Paul and Julia Weinberger, pals of the Totmans, who said they had seen a pock-faced man hanging around the McCanns’ aparment twice that week.
The Portuguese probe was concluded in July 2008 and it was not until 2011 — when then-Home Secretary Theresa May ordered the Met carry out a review — that the Totmans’ account was finally taken seriously.
Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood described it as a “moment of revelation”.
He said: “We are almost certain now this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.”
The Met probe then dramatically shifted focus to a sighting by Irishman Martin Smith at 10pm of a man — dubbed “Smithman” — carrying a child down a hill away from the Ocean Club.
They also appealed for information over a spate of burglaries at the resort in the period leading up to Maddie’s disappearance 11 years ago last week.
The British police investigation has now been scaled down and is likely to be shelved in October.
But one retired Met Police detective, who visited the resort with The Sun, is convinced Jane Tanner saw the real abductor.
Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way.
He added: “The police seemingly dismissed this sighting after discovering the account of the British holidaymaker taking his daughter back to their apartment.
“I cannot see how it can be totally dismissed.”
hi textusa,so according to Metropolitan Police Detective Ian Horrick's,West to East moment,perhaps Mr Totman had forgotten to take his compass with him on the night Creche Dad run or could he have then been diverted to a North to South direction turning down those narrow streets,baby on one shoulder compass in the other hand for directions,whilst all of the time going in the"Opposite"direction of the Night Creche?
DeleteTheme tune from Benny Hill!
Now we know how that self-proclaimed anti-McCann and so much sought safe-harbour by our critics, Insane/Not Textusa/(ex-)Walkercan1000 stands on the Totman issue:
ReplyDelete“[quoting blog] So, it will be interesting to watch how people will fit Totman/Weinberger into their narratives. [end of quote]
Well, these are completely innocent people, so no doubt you will call them worse than shite
[quoting blog] How do Totmans/Weinbergers fit in the negligence narrative? And in the paedophilia narrative? And in the death before May 3 narrative? [end of quote]
They don't, you tinfoil-hatted loon”
*****
Tigger might not be very happy as Insane is also accusing him/her of defaming these “completely innocent people”.
I don't understand this comment - Tigger etc. Can you explain?
DeleteAnonymous 9 May 2018, 14:52:00,
DeleteTigger implies that these people are not "completely innocent" whilst Insane is adamant they are:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gcnjones/status/993563939119206401
“tigger@gcnjones
Replying to @K9Truth
V interesting. Both Weinberger and Totman extra helpful. Both nr Salisbury?
7:51 pm · 7 May 2018”
Blacksmith is saying you are lying once more. He reckons you and Tony Bennett did not believe the man in the tannerman/redwood photo existed...and i guess by implication he must be saying it is totman pictured...or is he?
ReplyDeleteForgot...to sign my post above.
DeleteBampots
Bampots,
DeleteAs we said, we would be enjoy seeing people desperately wiggle in Totman into their narrative.
We're doing just that: enjoying watching.
Let's watch them a little bit longer before reacting.
If I I wish I knew the answer to this farce...I always try to question everything said and hold it up to the light...including yourselves (whoever you all are!).
DeleteBut if Anthony Sharples thinks the McCanns are due to be nabbed...then he should tell the today programme (Gez was on) and Ed Milliband as he called them victims in Parliament today.
It don't fit his theory(or does it??) whereas it kinda fit your good selves!
Keep on trucking!
Bampots
Miliband obviously never has a wish to read of their no love making exploits again.Sorry Tex off topic.
DeleteIt could be simply that Totman was actually out and about and the fabled Tannerman was loosely based upon this,Redwood saw through it.
DeleteThats Blacksmiths idea....Jane Tanner was loyal to her friends and gave the abduction theory credence. She mistook his direction but managed to see buttons on his pants a duffy type jacket and a design with piping on the pjs...going over and over with police and friends but never remembering the crucial direction!
DeleteEd Milliband was high enough up the tree to have an idea of what happened in PdL imo.
Bampots
Imo she misled for the good cause, i.e the fight against monsters, but she turned out being a big nuisance in this case, so manipulatable (as we see in the pseudo reconstruction) and believing stubornly that end justifies means.
DeleteShe was perhaps the most touching person in that group, but imo a caricature of how it is dangerous to let emotions dominate reason.
Blacksmith’s latest post tells us he believes Jane Tanner did see a man carrying a child on the night on May 3rd and that man was Dr Julian Totman.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, many of those promoting his post used to decry the Tanner sighting and agreed with the PJ, who discounted her sighting. Given the distance and the lighting, it was impossible to have seen the amount of detail she claimed, according to Goncalo Amaral. Silvia Batista’s statement is also sceptical about Tanner’s ability to see what she claimed.
Equally surprising is to see those who mocked Totman, the Crecheman as ridiculous – which it is – supporting Blacksmith’s post in which Totman is, seriously, Crecheman. Funny u-turns life makes some make.
To be clear about our position:
We believe that the photograph of Totman, taken in April 2013 and shown on Crimewatch in October is genuine. We will come back to this later.
Given that even Blacksmith regarded the Crechedad identification exercise by Redwood as “irregular” and that “he posed the holiday-maker against a non-police, collective late sketch, not, against details exactly matching her police witness evidence…” and a man wearing “a syrup of figs on top of his head” it’s hardly surprising if we and others, at the time, thought it could be a hoax. Something done to eliminate the sighting and focus on the Smiths’ sighting. We wondered then if he was calling their bluff. The police may be economical with the truth in what they say publicly if it suits their purpose in achieving a prosecution.
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.pt/2018/03/the-death-of-manccannsteins-monster.html
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/stranded-by-events.html
We don’t believe that Tanner saw a man carrying a live child and we agree with the PJ that it’s a tale to deceive. One inconsistency between reality and Totman is that if he was carrying his daughter home that night, it not be in a position shown in the photo and described by Tanner. So, the photo depicts a lie.
We don’t believe it’s possible to be coming from the creche and heading to Block 4 where the Totmans were staying, that he would be going in the direction clearly described by Tanner. Neither do we understand why he was only collecting one child, by himself, when the Totmans have 2 children.
We don’t believe that Totman went to the GNR next day and wouldn’t think to contact his tennis partner, Gerry, to describe his walk that night, particularly as he would have been an important potential witness. Did he not see 3 people in the street, one with a buggy?
We don’t believe that Jane could describe the dress and appearance of the man so clearly, yet fail to spot he was Totman - who played tennis, who Carpenter says they met at the introductory coffee meeting and who took his children to the crèche her child also attended.
We don’t believe that she didn’t see that the man was tall. She says 1.7m.
We don’t believe that Operation Grange leaked the story of the Totman sighting.
We don’t believe that Totman would allow a photo of himself to remain on the McCann website as the potential abductor unless he was in agreement with it remaining
We don’t believe that Redwood necessarily believed the sighting was genuine. Note how a blanket is included in the photo of the pyjamas when Tanner makes the point that the child was uncovered on a cold night. Note also that Crimewatch has the man carrying the child in the opposite direction
We don’t mind what Blacksmith thinks about us or want to indulge in blog wars but attacked we respond and Blacksmith has once again attacked us.
On his comment on Insane’s blog (which we transcribed to ours) he has accused us of being unable to grasp what we read: “I am not being abusive when I say that, exactly like Bennett, she cannot actually read. Like him she is able to go through the motions of reading perfectly well; like him, when she says a sign saying "Platform One straight ahead" she understands it. And both can converse verbally with others.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteBut when a factual and explanatory text on a subject that interests them is placed before them, something goes wrong,as psychological testing would prove within twenty minutes. They are both quite quick to read and grasp the basics of an argument - too quick, much too quick:in contrast to most "normal" readers of their educational and cultural background, their brains establish the message of the sentences before the words have actually been understood.”
But then goes on to say this: “Oh, and this little gem: "The British police investigation has now been scaled down and is likely to be shelved in October." Once again, fitting in nicely with the Usual Suspects' agenda.”
The “Usual Suspects” can only be us and Bennett as he previously said this: “As we've said elsewhere about both Textusa and Bennett, and ignoring, for the moment, the rest of this tiny clique of self-publicists and nutters like Hall, Brown, Hidiho and Morais, the lies they peddle come not so much from their absurd "hypotheses" but from their attempts to fib, bluff and cover up when evidence starts to refute their previous claims. Then they're off, piling lie upon lie, libel on libel, in the vain attempt to talk their way out of trouble. “
So, Blacksmith accuses us of wanting Operation Grange to close. This is not even misreading, this is stating an opinion about something one has not read.
We don’t believe that OG should be terminated. Precisely the VERY OPPOSITE- we believe that nothing should be done which would jeopardise a court case in Portugal. We have already begun to explain why the questioning of the McCanns by the UK police would do that.
Has the reader noticed the obsession Blacksmith has in joining us at the hip with Tony Bennett?
This is a tactic started by Insane in his blog to make people who read him feel that we, us and Bennett, share the same opinions on the case. A tactic now being followed by Blacksmith.
We have called Bennett a liar. Explicitly. And unlike Blacksmith who calls people liars but doesn’t substantiate, we do. We explained why we have called Bennett a liar in our post “The Pool Photo”
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/03/the-pool-photo.html
There we were very explicit and clear: “Of the above, we would like for Mr Bennett to show us, under the penalty of being a liar if he doesn’t, where have we said the following:”
He hasn’t shown anything to this day. And yet he continues to lie about us:
“https://mobile.twitter.com/zampos/status/994248345869783040
Anthony Bennett@zampos
Who now disagrees with Petermac’s analysis of the Last Photo? If so, on what basis? It wasn’t faked on 18 May as #Textusa claims. It’s genuine. It wasn’t taken on cloudy Thursday. An understanding of when this photo was taken changes everything #McCann > (link: http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-pool-photo-refuses-to-go-away.html) …penedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-po…
5:10 pm · 9 May 2018”
On the “The pool photo” post we couldn’t be clearer: We do NOT believe the pool photo was taken on 3rd of May and have recently revised our opinion, backed with photos, that it MAY have been taken on May 12th. Hope Mr Bennett finally understands the meaning of the word “MAY”.
So, we do object strongly to being linked to Tony Bennett. We do NOT believe that Maddie died before 3rd of May and we do NOT believe that she was abused in any way before her death.
Anyone familiar with the case knows that we and Bennet don’t share a thing. To state it is to deceive and one only deceives with intent. We will leave it up to the readers why Insane and Blacksmith chose to do so.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteAbout Blacksmith calling us liars. He says:
“For years this uneducated rabble [Textusa and Bennett (the link again)] has maintained that Redwood lied and that the person photographed by his team doesn't exist.
The idea is so crazed that it hardly justifies rebuttal. Yes, take it from us, the man exists.”
We have never said that the person photographed by Grange as Chrècheman doesn’t exist. Even before he was outed as Totman, he certainly didn’t look like a drawing. We thought it was someone for Grange posing. So, we have never questioned the existence of the man in the photo.
What we question, and state he doesn’t exist, is Crècheman. The fact that Totman has come forward to assume the role, doesn’t mean the character he’s playing is based on real life. It is not, it’s a fictional character.
In that sense, Redwood has lied. As so many have shown since the article was published by the questions they have put regarding blatant discrepancies with the Totman story.
It was not the only time we have said Redwood has lied. He has, for example, lied when he said that Operation Grange was looking for Maddie’s body in both locations in Praia da Luz. Grange was not looking for anything but simply putting on a show.
About us telling hundreds and hundreds of lies, we have challenged John Blacksmith to list them. In batches of tens to facilitate his life. A challenge he has yet to meet, instead he preferred to write about much more pressing matters of the case like body shaming Mitchell’s scalp and highlighting the alleged imposed silence on the T7 who only have been silent since 2009, and if one discounts the 2009 Mockumentary, even before that.
And we have to use some of the words he uses against us, against him.
How could the McCanns have complained the photo was a hoax unless they were prepared to say the man never existed?
So when Blacksmith says “if there was the slightest chance that Redwood had made any of it up then within days writ-servers acting on behalf of Jane Tanner and the McCanns would have appeared at the gates of Scotland Yard to summon its head to the High Court” one can only respond with his “the idea is so crazed that it hardly justifies rebuttal”.
To be very clear, we DO believe that the Smiths were genuine in their statements and we believe that the man they saw was Gerry, carrying a living child.
We do NOT believe OG should be halted and support further spending if this is what it takes to achieve the truth.
JB's latest doesn't refer to you at all.. I am glad. To link this blog with the likes of AB was just pure wrong and idiocy. As far as I have read, this blog has never promoted anything except the truth otherwise I wouldn't be reading it.
ReplyDeleteI think they are included as the usual suspects. Could be wrong...tho he is less keen to cross swords today. Maybe you should publish some of his old blog views...so we know where he stands?
ReplyDeleteIf JBS feels the case against the Mcs, based on circumstantial evidence known so far, is insufficient to prosecute, then, if I were him, I would just shut up and keep my opinions to myself. In this case, the Mcs would be entitled to do what they have done.
ReplyDeleteHe’s not a cop, a lawyer, psychiatrist or even a qualified social worker but that hasn't stopped him from straying beyond his expertise. So please don’t criticise the peasants for doing the same.
If your number counter is anything to go by lots of people who say they dont read you,must!! Its whizzing up to 3 million page views.
ReplyDeletehttps://m.facebook.com/groups/586684324760979?view=permalink&id=1704299996332734
ReplyDeleteJBS is quoted which shows what a hypocrite he is to call you liars.
He’s changed his tune since he wrote this.
It’s what you said - crecheman is a creation
He IS now saying JT saw a man and that man is Totman. If he disagrees with your analysis, he needs to say so.
Anonymous 11 May 2018, 10:01:00
DeleteThank you. Bringing it over to the blog, all sides deserve to be heard, allowing readers to make their own analysis:
“Blacksmith's post yesterday certainly caused a stir, more so on Twitter than here. A lot of people say he talks in riddles and often confuse what he means with the exact opposite.
So I'll try to get across what he means, and then at least if he must be slated for what he believes then he can be, on what he has actually said.
Blacksmith does NOT claim Tanner was telling the truth about her sighting (I’ll use Tannerman to refer to that). In fact, in several quite recent posts there are more than enough quotes that undeniably clarify how Blacksmith feels about Tanner’s “abductor”. A selection -
‘It does not describe a "sighting" but a persona created by the group and agreed to by Tanner. In other words it does not correspond to and does not describe an actual human being but a collective invention - complete with those wonderful words "possibly" and "probably".’
‘it is a free and unfettered creation of the human imagination with zero connection, let alone anchorage, to any facts at all.’
‘As is well known now,** this fanciful and sinister creature described by the group in hundreds of melodramatic words, had no reality’
If these words aren't clear enough to make Blacksmith's stance obvious, I can't help.
So what is he saying about Redwood? How can he say Redwood didn't invent Crecheman if Tannerman isn't real? First of all, who knows if Tanner saw a person carrying a child on that night or day or any other? What difference does it make if she did? None. Because the ‘sighting’ (Tannerman) she and the rest of the group created, along with the timeline, was a complete fabrication. Redwood and Grange knew this just as the PJ knew it.
As Redwood stated in 2013, after talking to families who had left their children in the night creche on 3rd May, one person came to believe he could be who Tanner claimed to have seen. He was walking near the McCanns' apartment and evidently carried his child ‘home’ from the creche. And isn’t he just uncannily similar to the person Tanner saw?!
Well is he? No. Not at all, apart from the similarities of being an ‘average’ build - what I would say if a person couldn't be described as very large, or very muscular for example. Just average.
What else? Hair? No. Shoes? No. Clothes? No - light coloured trousers, probably standard attire for quite a number of men on holiday. Everything else; his jacket, looking like “not a tourist”,and of course, the best part; his skin colour(!), just not similar at all.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteBut with Crechedad compared to the sketch, the sketch that bore no resemblance to Tanner's eye witness statement to the police in 07, these details were of no consequence - they looked uncannily similar enough to state with absolute certainty one thing:
The one and only claimed piece of ‘evidence’ of an abductor is worthless, discarded. The timeline, carefully constructed to allow that abductor the ‘window of opportunity’, worthless and discarded.
And what did Grange decide was obviously far more important after the revelation? The Smith sighting. So whose side are they on?
So did Redwood invent a person as Crecheman to ‘exonerate’ Tanner or give her sighting credibility? I personally can't think of anything more unlikely. Did he invent a person to expose Tanner as a liar? Again, unlikely, as Blacksmith pointed out quite clearly that had he done so, Grange wouldn't still be running today.
On the question of Julian Totman supposedly being fine with the McCanns peddling him as an abductor for 11 years, and having nothing to say to Gerry - who he was apparently friendly with at one point - about the sketch remaining on the FM site. The McCanns never agreed that Crechedad was Tanner's ‘sighting’(obviously!) and would have surely told him so had he complained to them. Crechedad, now named as Totman, would have also been reassured by Grange that he was under no suspicion. His identity was unknown, so what difference would it make to him? I obviously can't speak for him though. Now his identity has been revealed, perhaps he'll speak for himself.
The bottom line is this - Grange’s actions have done nothing, absolutely nothing to benefit the McCanns or anyone else involved in the lies peddled in 2007 and since. They have already eliminated any chance of an abductor - or rather, the McCanns and Co did that all by themselves, when it comes right down to it."
I find it impossible to work out who is saying what. Isn’t there some way to make it clearer?
DeletePeople have now realised themselves that JBS has caught them out.
ReplyDeleteAgree with him and you agree:
JT saw a man
That man was Totman
Totman was an innocent dad
Therefore JT didn’t recognise Totman, the tennis player, although she could describe everything about the man.
That the PJ we’re wrong to disbelieve her sighting, given distance and lighting.
Totman didn’t see JT, G or Jez
Totman the tennis partner didn’t tell G he had passed by the night before and didn’t see anyone else carrying a child. He just spoke to GNR. He doesn’t ask to speak to the PJ.
Totman never contacted the Mcs in all those years.
That LP who held the info in 2012 didn’t pass it to OG or the Mcs
That Totman didn’t ask the Mcs to remove the picture of crechedad from their site as it still remains.
That Totman didn’t contact OG directly and the info came from LP after OG got involved.
That Totman was walking home in the wrong direction according to JT’s description.
That Redwood had him walking in a different direction in Crimewatch - did he believe JT or Totman, given we still don’t know from Totman or Redwood about the agreed direction of travel?
11:09
DeleteThe acid tests will be whether Blacksmith clarifies what he meant (did Tanner see Totman?) and whether crechedad picture will now be removed from the Mc website.
If it remains Bundleman is still on the loose. Then next question will be: Did Totman see Bundleman as they passed each other at the top of the road?
I wonder how Totman explained his strange child carrying style to Redwood? If it was chilly, any parent would hold the child closely. A sleeping child would be totally unsupported. It’s also not a sustainable position to carry the weight of a 2 year old for any distance.
ReplyDeleteWhy wasn’t Tanner’s first observation “I was drawn to the strange way he was carrying the child”? It’s the position you’d expect for carrying a dead child.
No matter how one spins the Totman story it's unspinnable.
ReplyDeleteIt's irrelevant who created the Crecheman, what is relevant is that it's a creation.
And EQUALLY RELEVANT is that Julian Totman, a guest, has accepted to play the part of this creation.
Interesting how the Totman topic has all of a sudden became an off-topic on Twitter. Why?
Are people really looking for the truth or just after the McCanns in any way, shape or form?
The difference is not subtle. One is to be part of justice, the other of a raging mob.
By the way, has anyone else noticed the silence from the McCanns about Totman?
From Insane’s blog:
ReplyDelete“[quoting blog] The debate about Operation Grange questioning the McCanns can now wait. [end of quote]
Too many difficult questions?
[quoting blog] We will return to it. For example, we will thank PeterMac for proving us right as well as continue to show how wrong he is when he says: “And then he [Textusa] starts on about "arguido" status and says it does not exist in England. It is exactly [in bold] the same as being interviewed under Caution with a lawyer present, and everything recorded on tape or video” [end of quote]
And this will be the bit when you pick over the definition to highlight the differences, hoping that people will forget what you claimed, namely that to interview the McCanns in the UK would be to disqualify any future action against them in Pt, which was of course utter cobblers
I can guarantee, readers, that she is massively kicking herself for the ''retirement'' stunt which she can't back out of now”
*****
Just to remind readers that this issue is not forgotten and we will return to it. “Namely that to interview the McCanns in the UK would be to disqualify any future action against them in Pt, which was of course” absolutely correct.
Weekend approaches and fortunately this one appears to be a rather busy one, so we will only tackle this after it.
Meanwhile we suggest readers read this, courtesy of Insane, which he kindly put in his blog:
“For anyone who wants to compare, the rights of a person being questioned in the UK are listed under PACE - see here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdf
And explained here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014"
Sell in May and go away come back on St Leger day,that'll be Grange dealt with until mid September when the next tranche will be asked for.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to this comment:
ReplyDelete"JBS is quoted which shows what a hypocrite he is to call you liars.
He’s changed his tune since he wrote this.
It’s what you said - crecheman is a creation
He IS now saying JT saw a man and that man is Totman. If he disagrees with your analysis, he needs to say so."
No, Tannerman is a creation. Crechedad is Totman, a real person. He has not changed his tune.
In reply to
"How could the McCanns have complained the photo was a hoax unless they were prepared to say the man never existed?"
Because they would insist he isn't who Tanner saw, which is exactly what they have done. If he didn't actually exist, their lawyers would have found out and raised hell.
In reply to:
"We don’t believe that Totman would allow a photo of himself to remain on the McCann website as the potential abductor unless he was in agreement with it remaining"
It's a sketch, not a photo. McCanns uphold it is not Totman. Totman would have no grounds to allow or not allow them to have a sketch of a person they don't believe to be him, on their website. At the time, his identity was unknown. Granted that may change now his identity is known.
As for Totman not contacting Gerry to suggest he was who Tanner saw. Who here has any proof that he didnt? He probably did, and what was Gerry going to say? Knowing the sighting had been manipulated and concocted into an evil abductor? Knowing that if he said "Ah cheers mate, that's that cleared up!" Then they would have no "abductor"?
The most sensible comments which, as is usually the case, seem to have been disregarded;
"It could be simply that Totman was actually out and about and the fabled Tannerman was loosely based upon this,Redwood saw through it."
"Thats Blacksmiths idea....Jane Tanner was loyal to her friends and gave the abduction theory credence. She mistook his direction but managed to see buttons on his pants a duffy type jacket and a design with piping on the pjs...going over and over with police and friends but never remembering the crucial direction!"
Finally, no one knows the details of what Grange and Totman discussed resulting in his conclusion that it could be him Tanner saw. Until then not much more can be said.
Blacksmith is not going against the PJ either - the PJ discounted Tanner's sighting and Blacksmith has done EXACTLY the same. Please, as I said in my original post, if you must slate someone, at least do it for what they have *actually* said.
Sade Anslow,
Delete“No, Tannerman is a creation. Crechedad is Totman, a real person. He has not changed his tune.”
So, if we are understanding you well, Tanner invents a character so similar to the real person Totman (so similar in time, location and physical description which includes direction and way child was being carried) that it made an experienced cop like Redwood to assume Tanner’s invention as truthful while the whole time she was lying?
By the way, do you have an explanation as to why real person Totman was walking away from apartment when carrying the child? He couldn’t be lost because he had just passed in front of the building of his apartment.
I beg your pardon, I should have used the word sketch as it’s obviously not a photo.
DeleteTannerman is a creation - on that we agree. So it’s not a lie to state that?
Totman was the man in the police photo, but wasn’t Tannerman.
Bundleman, for want of a better name, is therefore still a possibility as far as Mcs are concerned.
Agree none of us, or majority of us, don’t know what OG and Totman discussed.
If Blacksmith has discounted JT sighting, and you may be right about this, I’m sure he can confirm that himself.
It’s often unclear to me what he’s actually saying, but obviously it is to you.
If the Mcs do think Bundleman exists and they must do, if he’s on the website, they have 2 men with girls in pyjamas, carrying the girl in a strange way, at the same time. Totman May have told OG he saw Bundleman passing by him, going the opposite way, but as you say, we don’t know what was said.
Thank you for your interpretation.
Textusa, your idea of so similar is obviously different to mine. Please look at Tanner's eye witness statement and compare that to Totman, rather than the sketch. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Redwood assumed Tanner's invention as truthful, in fact I am exasperated by that comment. Of course Redwood didn't think she was truthful. Neither does blacksmith, neither do I. I really cabt make it any clearer. What Totman was doing and where he was going is irrelevant in my opinion, he has been ACCEPTED by Tanner as the person she saw, accepted by Grange as the person she saw, destroying the sighting of the abductor that never was. If Tanner hadnt accepted it, and wanted to say the police were trying to coerce her or ridicule her statement, I think we can be sure we would have known about it! That's why blacksmith says Tanner is co-operating with grange, as there's no other logical deduction.
DeleteAnon, I was referring to Textusa's comment about the photo, not yours. You used photo in the correct context.
I fail to see the confusion over Blacksmith's stance on Tanner's sighting, I have provides quotes to show exactly what he thinks. They cannot possibly be any clearer.
Sade,
Delete"What Totman was doing and where he was going is irrelevant in my opinion", sorry but cannot see where this is irrelevant, on the contrary, it is of the utmost importance.
As per our reply to H, if Crecheman was a woman, would that be irrelevant?
Please provide where Tanner has accepted that Totman has been accepted bt Tanner.
UK Crimewatch is the evidence that Totman has been accepted by Redwood as Tannerman.
If crecheman was a woman then that woman would never have thought she could be the man Tanner claimed she saw. A silly comparison.
DeleteThe point is, Totman has been presented to Tanner and the world as the person Tanner claimed she saw. Redwood and Grange, the PJ, the entire world, knew her description was a fabrication. Tanner also knew it, obviously. When you compare the non-similarities, there's more than enough for Tanner to say "No, definitely not, that's not the guy. The guy I saw had xxx and xxx. Like *dark skin* for example! So why didn't Tanner fight against Redwood's 'almost certainty' that Totman was Tannerman? Why didn't The Sun splash over their front page that bungling cops at the Met were trying to discard Tanner's sighting of the abductor with some guy who didn't actually look like him? Please consider those questions then ask if it's important what direction Totman was going in, when it wasn't even important what ethnicity he was.
Of course it's all speculation, but it's the simplest things that make the most sense.
Sade,
DeleteIf crecheman was a man walking in a different direction that man would never have thought she could be the man Tanner claimed she saw. Not a silly comparison.
The only description of any direction is by Tanner,Redwood says in the same area.
ReplyDeleteH
H,
DeleteFor Redwood to have said that Tannerman has been discarded because it is just Crecheman, a dad carrying his child after coming from the crèche, doesn't that NECESSARILY mean that the direction has to be the same?
Or, are we to expect one of these days, for OG to come up with someone who says he was walking up Rua da Escola Primária, after having approached the Smiths from behind and Grange say that he is Smithman and thus the Smithman mystery is solved?
Smithman is completely different, because the people who saw him were not lying through their teeth.
DeleteSade,
DeleteTrue. But apparently Redwood did not think Tanner was lying. Otherwise he would have told Totman, thank you for coming forward but that whole sighting is a lie.
I agree on the first paragraph,but I'm justing pointing out every one assumes the direction of travel,with only one direction mentioned.To assume makes an ass out u me.
ReplyDeleteThe second part,that presumes that grange is being allowed to get to the truth ,bit of a long shot that.
H.
H.
H,
DeleteThere is only one direction: away from Blocks 4 and 5.
Let us exaggerate to prove our point. Let's imagine that Crecheman is not a dad but a mum. A woman had come forward as having crossed there and then when carrying a child. Would Redwood say, we are no longer considering Tannerman because we now know it's this woman?
No, it has to be a man. It has to be a man going in that direction and only in that direction. It has to be a man, going in that direction, carrying a child across his arms.
If that is not the case, then Crecheman has absolutely nothing to do with the Maddie case.
But, and now it's too late to go back, the Met ruled out Tannerman because, now we have learned, of Totman. So Crecheman is linked to the Maddie case. Either that or the Met is highly incompetent. Is that what JBS is insinuating?
How does it play with your theory of Tanner seeing GM carrying away Madeleine if the one supposed to have been Tannerman is indentified as some one else.
DeleteH
H,
DeleteWe believe that Crecheman doesn’t exist, never existed, so him being identified as someone doesn’t fit in what we believe happened.
We believe that Tanner described what she saw. And we believe she saw, from INSIDE apartment 5A, Gerry carrying dead Maddie’s body to Murat’s property where it was placed, we believe in a vehicle, up until around 4am that night and then taken from there to the water treatment station.
We believe that Tanner describes quite accurately the man she saw because there could have been someone looking down on the street at that moment (someone smoking a cigarette, someone sitting in a balcony enjoying the night, someone in a kitchen looking out the window, etc) who would have seen that man carrying a child in that particular odd manner (the way one carries the dead body of a child) and which would make the abductor become real.
No one saw him other than Tanner but no one had any idea that no one had when they remembered to use it (because INDEED there had been a man, Gerry, exactly as Tanner describes).
Tanner only lies in 2 things: from where she saw the man and the hair. The hair was evidently to distance Tannerman from Gerry but that would be a detail someone from a window wouldn’t pick up.
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/10/tanners-abductor-tale-told-by-special.html
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/11/way-i-see-what-tanner-saw.html
Yet Redwood is happy to state that the person seen by Tanner exist's and wasn't an abductor nor GM,either he's fallen for some yarn or there really was some stranger walking around with a child that night.
DeleteI posted earlier that I think its possible that this is the case and Tanner loosely based her description on this.
You may be wrong you may be right in that Tanner saw GM,but if its correct then SY really have been sold a pup and to this day it really is a farce.
H
H,
DeleteThat's exactly what we have said.
Those supporting JBS - Crecheman real (Totman) and Tannerman fake - are saying that the Met is made up of real incompetent people. A few logical questions would quickly make it evident that they couldn't possibly be the same person but apparently, according to JBS at least, Redwood just simply took the word of Totman and without doing any further checking, announced literally to the world (via UK Crimewatch) that Tannerman was Crecheman, who we now know to be Totman.
As we said, however one spins the Totman story, it simply is unspinnable.
Ok,ignore the press,Redwood says that some one came forward,Redwood says that the guy was there at the exact same area,the guy who told Redwood must know this because of what he saw at this time,why? be so precise about it.Crecheman is real Tannerman is not.
DeleteTo dispute crecheman is to dispute Redwood and Grange,would they really spend £12 million built on this lie? in the open,is that what cover up's involve.
H
Hi Textusa,Creche Dad,Smithman,Totman could all be fake sightings to back up an abductor,DCI Andy Redwood,Operation Grange?
ReplyDeleteThe real evidence was first and foremost given as 100% Martin Brunt video, Renault Scenic hired Twenty One days after Madeleine's reported disappearance,then Martin Grimes Crime dogs,Eddie,Keela, Portugal PJ were given a verbal fact by UK Police Officers it was Madeleine's DNA/LCI 15;19 Markers,FSS Birmingham.
The FSS had wrote to Portugal PJ,they had 21 days to comply with whether or Not the DNA/LCI samples would be returned to Portugal?
Quite alarming that a UK Police force was now willing to destroy vital DNA/LCI on a still missing person,when this DNA/LCI sample could allude future results of identification,that they were willing to dispose of this evidence on"Health Grounds" Now that must be a first in Police Training methods,destroy possible vital evidence,knowingly or unknowingly,inadvertently!
Now several Months later the now"Official 100% DNA/LCI" was being downgraded,by call me "Stu Prior" with an alarming amount of personal calls between various UK very Senior Police Officers and a Mr Mr McCann as can be verified by the Phone messages from the PJ files
With No questions being asked,why was a former Arquido making contact with evidence appertaining from a Crime Scene Apartment 5a Ocean Club?
Special deals for special person's?
Hi Textusa,anon 15.41.Just recently the Metropolitan Police Service are being asked to examine DNA evidence appertaining to a vast number of cases questioning the verification of the tests undertaken and the results standing up to the procedures followed?
DeleteThe Metropolitan Police Service are ruling out that any tests carried out between the year 2000-2005 are the Tests most at risk of faulty diagnosis?
On this determination any materials that may have been retained by the Madeleine McCann case,would be "Outside of the parameter" of test to DNA/LCI Re-analysis!
Wheres the Monopoly board,now Do I take a Chance or Community Twist?
Congratulations ladies you have well passed 3 million page views!! Im sure vast majority are regular readers but i think JBs has to take some of the credit for the past few days surge in readership..does make you wonder what they are watching for??
ReplyDeleteI raise a tinfoil hat!
Bsmpots
Bampots,
DeleteThank you. Not even in our wildest dreams. Quite astonishing indeed. Thank you to all!!!
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2010/04/thank-you.html
Do not publish Anonymous to Textusa at 11 May 2018, 21:12:00,
ReplyDeleteThank you! Will watch as soon as we can. Please do understand that this weekend we've set it aside for social priorities. Will get back to you on it. Thank you.
Do not publish Anonymous to Textusa at 11 May 2018, 21:12:00,.
DeleteThank you, we will use when we feel it's appropriate to do so.
Major foot in mouth by Insane/Not Textusa.
ReplyDeleteFrom his blog:
Anonymous9 May 2018 at 17:30
The McCanns must have heard about Textusa by now, I wonder just what they think of her accusing them of swinging for all these years?
Not Textusa10 May 2018 at 10:45
I'm sure they must have; they probably have a good laugh at her expense. There is no way they will ever sue her; she's simply not high profile enough
********
So Insane thinks accusing people of swinging is reason enough to sue? Really?
Seriously, Insane… really?
So one accusing another of doing something completely and perfectly legal AND according to you something that no one cares about anymore deserves one getting sued about?
Do note, Anonymous speaks only of swinging, Insane is the one speaking about suing.
PS: Insane, please memorise this. It will save us the trouble of having to repeat ourselves when in the future you will demand proof “of that false claim” of us saying that you think swinging is worth suing for.
I see Insane thinks you have to be 'high profile enough' to be sued. In other words, you'd have to have to have the dosh to pay for the *inevitable outcome. Was that also the thinking behind suing Amaral and friends..?!
DeleteInteresting that Agenda 21 mentions an end to national sovereignty as it's first priority:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ukcolumn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/your-life-in-their-hands.pdf
Problem/reaction/solution?
"Accuse" has a moral connotation of blame. I think it's not reasonable to use that word. I'm pretty sure that the MCs, at least through their social network spy MW, are aware of what has always appeared to me as a theory, i.e a refutable position, contrary to their thesis that has of a thesis only the name, since one can't contradict it without risking a Newgate long drop hanging.
ReplyDeleteThe SUN are doing a hatchet job on Tannerman,with just for balance some ex copper saying he still believes that Tanner saw the abductor,can he please show where its been determined this happened.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6274030/gerry-mccann-tennis-tannerman-madeleine/
findmadeleine.com suspended.
ReplyDeleteWonder why?
Anonymous 13 May 2018, 16:42:00,
DeleteWe’ve been observing all day, to see if it was a technical issue, particularly since it seems it was closed by an external source. Waiting to see if the crèchedad image was removed or replaced by Doppelgänger dad.
Also have noticed the interesting silence from many on this issue. Namely from some of our most fierce critics.
Why hasn’t the FB account explained what’s happened to the findmadeleine site?
DeleteIn their last update (May 3), they said it was "getting harder to know what to say".. Anyhow, can they still expect donations ?
DeleteI read that findmadeleine site wasn’t due to expire until 2019 so although technical explanation is possible, failure to renew the registration doesn’t appear to explain it.
Deletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/S100Maggie/status/995575801356673025
DeleteSays renewal May 16 2018 but registered to 2019
Is renewal automatic? I read it is, but not sure
Anonymous 13 May 2018, 20:43:00,
DeleteWe read it the same way. But even if we're misreading, why close site down 3 days before renewal due date?
If this is yearly, we don't recollect site having pulled out around this time last year.
It could be that they finally resolved or found a way to twist the Gygès ring.
ReplyDeletehttp://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
ReplyDeleteWith Tannerman still there!
According to site coordinator, it seems credit card held by the site had expired.
DeleteWe may be wrong but it seems to us a feeble excuse. One usually pays 2 years upfront for domain name, and then, it seems to us that as a basic commercial policy that one issues first a warning and only then pulls the plug.
As the site is up again, it cannot be claimed that the client was no longer interested in continuing.
So, as per all McCann related things having to be peculiar, odd and extraordinary at the same time, the provider instead of warning that due date of credit card was coming, they just shut the site down 3 days before contracted and waited for the McCanns to provide a valid credit card.
One could even come to the conclusion that the website provider doesn't trust the McCanns at all, that they think the couple and all those managing the site are dodgy, not to be trusted people.
So Totman wasn’t the man JT saw.
DeleteIt was Doppelgänger dad, who wore similar clothes and carried a girl in the same way, but wasn’t seen by Totman. Or anybody else.
Guess next story will be that Totman was walking in the opposite direction to Dopdad.
There were 7 other families using the night crèche who didn’t come forward to say they carried their children home. But they can’t have seen anything either, otherwise they would have spoken by now?
The site had ONE year and 3 days left of the 2 year contract. The host does NOT hold credit card details anyway. An expired card is the lamest excuse I have ever heard for the site being down.
DeleteNow they have blamed the credit card they can"t now say the site was down due to technical issues beyond their control and they certainly cannot say it was down because it was being updated with this latest information.
https://mobile.twitter.com/The_Truth_II/status/995961642033864704
DeleteAgree, no site would be closed without a warning, particularly as it still has a few days more to the end of the year
Textusa well they got that right as only dodgy people collect and make money from a child they know who is dead. Shame they let them reopen it they should have put a nail in the coffin of the fraud fund. The McCann's and associates have no morals or scruples their world tour and begging bowl proved that!!
DeleteIf you remove him what else have you got.
ReplyDeleteInteresting announcement concerning the Mac's as Portugal has new head of the PJ who worked on the case against them and even testified on GA behalf in support in court.
ReplyDeleteAlso an Australian news channel has reported the Mac's sent their appeal to the Echr on the 28th of July last year but have not heard anything so far?