Returning to the subject of jurisdiction and whether the McCanns should be interviewed by Operation Grange, as many voices, including Colin Sutton are suggesting, we are taking the discussion in steps.The reason, is that we expect to be bombarded with questions and contradictions.If we don’t get that bombardment, then something is wrong with our critics who said what we had said to be complete nonsense. We are now giving them the chance to criticise and/or correct us.if we showed our arguments as a whole, the expected bombardment would happen on all fronts and then we would run the risk of missing to respond to something. By doing it in steps we make sure that doesn’t happen.Also, if we get a fair criticism or correction, we can consider before making any false assumptions at the next step. Build our case on solid blocks.We will start with the police caution in England and Wales.PeterMac on CMOMM argued that an interview under police caution and arguido status is “EXACTLY the same” (our caps, he wrote it in bold).We disagree. Whilst there may be some similarities, such as the right not to answer questions and have a lawyer present, similarity does not mean the same.https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rightsAnd, so we’re not accused of not using information provided, the links published by Insane in his blog:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014The wording of the caution is:“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 caution is a warning that adverse inferences can be drawn by a jury in court when the defendant has exercised the right of silence when questioned under police caution. This includes not stating any alibi, not answering questions as to presence at a time or place, about substances or objects found...In other words, In the UK exercising the right to silence can have negative consequences in court. Any lies that were told under caution can be used as evidence.We will look at arguido status as the next step and make comparisons.But first, let’s see if there’s any disagreement about this summary.
Common Law is the origin of the right to silence, more precisely American Law. The CJEU and the ECHR sort of imported it in juridical systems in which the basic right not to testify against oneself had no part. However it is not an absolute right.
https://www.noticiasaominuto.com/pais/1011325/diretor-nacional-da-pj-abandona-cargo-ja-ha-substitutoLuis Neves vai ser o novo director da PJ.
Not to publish identified reader at 15 May 2018, 16:29:00,Unfortunately, we maintain that the decision is with the political powers.Let's hope time proves us wrong. That would make us very happy!!
Pedro do Carmo will go back to the Public Ministry.I saw Luis Neves in court, he's the kind of person nobody notices. Kate MC understood on August 8 that she would lose any arm wrestling against him.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/343916/Maddie-mum-begs-court-Let-me-clear-my-name/ampSeems to me he was gaining their confidence but didn’t believe them?
Luis Neves didn't say that "GA's conclusion that MMC was dead was accepted by the parents" (Mr Lawton wasn't in Lisbon). He said that the MCs were the first to talk of death (that was to convince the PJ to let the hair device hunter to come to PDL).
Actually, after what KMC passed through (according to "Madeleine"), I guess that, at least on August 8, the time of confidence had passed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anne Guedes, Can you please justify why you removed your comment?
While we wait for Anne's response, we see no inconvenience in publish the link that was in her comment:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6295328/police-chief-who-made-madeleine-mccanns-parents-suspects-now-heads-portugals-crime-squad/
Sorry, Textusa, I was trying to depoluate as I saw (too late) that Anonymous 21:19 had sent the same link before I did.. If, for some reasonable reason (fake news for instance, I deleted a post, I would explain why in another post. I hesitated but thought it was self-explicit as the same link was right after.
Anne Guedes,Thank you for replying. The problem is with our readers who don't have, like we do, access to all comments and were left wondering why the deletion.Once explained, all has been clarified!
Anonymous 16 May 2018, 15:22:00,We have shown that their claim has not been processed:https://www.facebook.com/bronte.textusa/posts/1183861385083844
Up to now, we have not seen anyone presenting any counter-argument against our summary about being heard under caution in the UK.From PeterMac we have only seen silence up to now, so we can only assume full agreement.From Insane we got the first sign of sedition away from PeterMac.First, Insane had this to say about PeterMac’s opinion about our comment:“I am going to say up front that I absolutely do not agree with PeterMac on some issues, but that does not mean that there are not areas of agreement between us, too.What he has said here echoes what I said in my response to Textusa, in particular what I pointed out about an interview under caution. Textusa's claim about the arguido status having no equivalent is just plain wrong. So thank you, PeterMac, for pointing that out.”Now Insane has this to say:“There will always be differences between the law from one jurisdiction to another - there are significant differences between England/Wales and Scotland, for example - but that does not mean that your claim has any substance. It doesn't. But that is hardly unusual for you, is it, Mrs Swingathon?”So, Insane has gone from agreeing FULLY with PeterMac’s “EXACTLY the same” with his “the arguido status having no equivalent is just plain wrong” to now disagreeing with his “there will always be differences between the law from one jurisdiction to another”.‘Differences’ and ‘exactly’ do not marry. However insignificant the differences may be. Now, if the differences are significant, as they are, then that divorce is even more litigious.One would have to ask if the “significant differences between England/Wales and Scotland” that Insane speaks of aren’t sufficient to invalidate any legal proceedings in case they are not respected by one side in case it intends for it to be used by the other? We would say it is. If not, then why the differences?And that is within the UK.So, for starters, Insane has now publicly backpedalled on his agreement with PerterMac who we remind says he’s a “retired Police Superintendent with 30 years experience plus a Law degree”.
To clarify what Insane has said, there are specific protocols between England / Wales and Scotland. If one travels to Scotland and commit an offence and is arrested then return to England, one returns to Scotland to go to court and any community sentence one receives in Scotland which has an equivalent in England can be transferred, as an example.
Sade Anslow,From latest Blacksmith:“Just as Grange and nice Mr Redwood has offered Jane Tanner an exit route that will be honoured – that she made a mistake in good faith”So, according to JBS, Totman IS Tannerman who is Crechedad. So not two different people as you read from his words, one real, Totman and another, completely different and made-up by Tanner.So, according to JBS, Operation Grange believes that BOTH Totman and Tanner are being truthful.That, in turn means that Totman was walking AWAY from his apartment carrying his daughter like a tea-tray without any jacket or blanket and with no sign of his wife and other child nearby.*****John Blacksmith,You say in your latest post:“Still, all this stuff is trivial, isn't it, compared with what Robert Murat and Gerry McCann plotted together under Textusa’s table with the last photograph in their hands and Brian Kennedy on the line and Halliwell in the wings while Control Risks and the secret Pat Brown killer squad formed a ring of steel around them as the nannies and faked crèche records arrived, Mitchell got the OK from his MI5 boss and, finally, der Tag had come - and Jim Gamble pressed the Activate Operation Abduction! button - on April 1.”From the above irony we extract that you don’t believe us in what we say about the Big Round Table and about the crèche records being fake.Do you have an explanation as to why we haven’t ever seen photographed the table where the T9 were supposed to have used to this day, and why in its place we now have a BIG octagonal table?http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/03/the-proof-ocean-club-reads-textusa.htmlhttp://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/11/swan-lake-act-3.htmlAnd the Post Scriptum of:http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-help-and-tennis.htmlDo you have an explanation for the typed characters in the crèche sheets and for the other discrepancies noted in our post “3 Penguins in the desert”:http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/05/3-penguins-in-desert.htmlPlease put your money where your mouth is.By the way, we have also noted that you believe that Operation Grange offers people “exit route that will be honoured” in their investigations. Interesting.
Textusa, I'll afford you the courtesy of admitting I'm assuming what you mean in what you've put to me, before I answer. If I'm wrong, I'll happily correct my answer accordingly. So it looks as if you're saying I've said - and said Blacksmith believes - that Totman and Tannerman were two different people. I have never said that, nor as far as I can see has Blacksmith.I am once again exasperated at the misreading of my comments that are intended to help people understand BS- and the irony isn't lost on me. I don't mind a laugh at myself. So I'll try, again, to be really clear on some key points. Totman is a real person, is who Tanner saw, and is who Redwood revealed as an innocent holiday maker; crechedad. Tannerman was the LIE, the INVENTION of the group, namely DP, MO and GM, who *manipulated* Tanner's description and fabricated the timeline to fit around the sighting. It's not a case of there being more than one person. Totman can be real and crechedad can be real but Tannerman can never be real because the description was *manipulated* and *misrepresented* (* BS words, to clarify his position)But basically, yes they're all the same person. Tanner allowed this to happen, though BS doesn't state explicitly how complicit she is with regards to allowing her random, flash of a sighting be used in the way it was. He would need to speculate too much to do so, so doesn't. The quote "That she made a mistake in good faith" is not necessarily BS opinion on Tanner but on the exit route offered to her, which is apparently encouraging her co-operation with Grange. That doesn't mean Grange believe Tanner to be completely innocent of any wrong doing or truthful about her eye witness statement. He was dark skinned, remember?! I really don't think I can explain it any further, I'd be going round in circles. So if that still doesn't make sense I can't help. But if it doesn't make sense, always better to say so and ask for clarification than to simply invent things people have not said.
"Totman was walking AWAY from his apartment carrying his daughter like a tea-tray without any jacket or blanket"The blanket is an important difference between Crechedad, alias Totmandad (?), and Tannerman. Tannerman was tea-tray carrying as Totmandad, but he used no blanket, a detail that shocked Jane T because it was chilly. Totman, then named Crechedad, produced a photograph that had obviously (imo) been taken in 2007, likely after he LC asked for it. The blanket on that picture can't belong to the nightcreche, unless Totman stole it.Abductors from bed snatch kids, not blankets, the Lindbergh baby was put in a bag, the supposed abductor had to go down a ladder. Would a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket against his breast arouse suspicion ?
NOBODY believes what you say about the big round table
Anonymous 16 May 2018, 19:02:00http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm“4078 “And who was there when you got there?” Reply “Kate and Gerry were there already and they were talking to, I don’t know their names, but they were talking to the two people that Gerry played tennis with in, erm, in his group, who were sitting in the restaurant”.4078 “I haven’t seen a photograph of the inside of the Tapas Bar”. Reply “Umm”.4078 “Could you just briefly describe as you go, is there only one door, is it a kind of open?” Reply “It’s open more or less, yeah, so”.4078 “Just give me some idea of what it looks like?” Reply “Yeah, so as you walk, so you walk in past, yeah, it is past the pool, and there was sort of a tarpaulin bit, I’m going to go this way because I can’t”. 4078 “Visualise it, left and right (inaudible)”. Reply “Yeah, so the tarpaulin is here and you’ve got the tables here and then it’s all open from that side, so, and the big table for us in sort of the middle, they’d put a table there and then there was some more tables down the side by the tarpaulin. And I think our table had moved slightly that way because, as I said, the other nights I’d had the monitor behind me on sort of the ledge where the tarpaulin was, I think there was actually a table between us and the tarpaulin this night, so I think we’d actually gone a bit. I can’t remember, I was talking to Russell about this last night and he couldn’t remember, but I’m sure, purely because of the fact I’d been putting the monitor there, so it was actually, it was only that much nearer, but that made the difference, so, erm”.4078 “Was it a table specifically for a large group or had they sort of mackled together a group of tables?” Reply “Erm, I think they’d put some together, but it was round, it was just one big round, a big round one. I can’t remember to be honest. But, I mean, I think the first time we’d gone there we’d had the thing we’d had with the Millennium the first night, you know, we was all trying to put tables together, so now they knew we were coming we had a, we had the, erm, you know, the big table there waiting”.So, EVERYBODY believes Jane Tanner and the Big Round Table made up of “mackled together” smaller round tables?
There is film of it, you stupid woman
Anonymous 18 May 2018, 00:06:00.You mean this film by Brunt?http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/11/swan-lake-act-3.htmlNote, not even when trying hard, and he did try really hard to pull it off, was he able to mackle together small round tables into a big one.Again, paraphrasing Groucho Marx, who ya gonna believe, Brunt or your own eyes?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM
I know nothing whatever about the Big Round Table and have never read any of your posts about it. All I know is that people talk about Textusa's table. I have only ever read one post of yours, incompletely. I followed it up by asking what your evidence was for claiming that fat and creepy dogfood advertiser Clement Freud, from an immigrant Jewish family well known for its streak of insanity and sexual peculiarities, was a "powerful figure" in the British establishment.You replied with a piece of snot that you no doubt thought was devastatingly patronising and then provided your evidence: the length of Freud's funeral cortege. I see. So Ronnie and Reggie Kray were also members of the British establishment, were they? The forged crèche record nonsense had nothing to do with you: I didn't even know that you'd mentioned them. My knowledge was based on a richly comic 3As thread that eventually ran for a thousand pages without result. Are you seriously suggesting that I read those links of yours? Really? I don't want to devalue your arguments, just as I don't go up to strange, mumbling people in street doorways and demand that they justify their words. I believe in free speech. I'm not going to repeat what I said about your methods on NT's comments page; I did you the courtesy of making it clear here afterwards that, while I find you identical to Bennett in your inability to read carefully,I don't find you a malicious person like he is at all. Just untruthful.Which one of your acolytes then claimed was me "grovelling" to you and backing off. Oh dear, they don't help you much, your followers, do they? By the way you appear to have difficulty in "placing" NT. Apparently you believe he/she is the Weirdo Walker, who waits patiently for the next moron in line to quote an obvious falsehood about the McCanns - they turn up on twitter every five minutes or so, like fat pilchards to a pike - and slaughters them. He/she is well known by most people on the scene and has been for years: no friend of the the McCanns but, like me, preferring to let the legal system provide evidence rather than making it up. Ever wondered why it's only you and Bennett (and the latter's' madder disciples) that provoke his/her fierce scorn? There is no need whatever for debate between us: if you are convinced that your views and analyses are correct then the opinions of nasty, arrogant oddballs like me are quite irrelevant. You will be able to sit back and glow a little as the confirmatory evidence keeps ticking up, just as I'm doing now. It's a very nice feeling. But first you will have to stay the course and then find a way of breaking out of the vicious circle that you are trapped in by your belief that the truth is negotiable rather than absolute.You won't be able to do it, textusa: it is genuinely impossible for you, as you will discover because, like the rest of the Usual Suspects, you have absolutely no route back to the truth. None.As the evidence keeps falling out the wrong way you'll do what 99% of the McCann supporters did after 2016 - shout louder and then go very quiet. And then depart the scene entirely. Cheers.
Blacksmith,Thank you for your replyIn the absence of comment about what Sade has clarified, we presume you are happy with her interpretation of your words. If you are, we will correct any misunderstanding on our part.Walker hardly mentions Textusa, it’s Not Textusa who dedicates his time to us.Walker is more than a critic of tweeters who get their facts wrong and is a staunch defender of the McCanns. Walkers has made nasty comments about Brenda Leyland, who you appear to support passionately, particular the comment about the sales of white leggings going down since her death:https://mobile.twitter.com/Michael75432056/status/996508555242037249Walker says vile things about Brenda Leyland, who we both feel was treated in an appalling manner, so we fail to see why you’re minimising his behaviour on twitter.But it’s NT who claims to be a sceptic.About his NT’s scorn (again you join us with Bennett) all we have to say is that we feel honoured by the scorn of someone who says that there’s no need to have been blood in the apartment 5A for Keela to have alerted there (a dog he states to be reliable and trained to signal blood), that the cadaver odour that Eddie signalled inside that same apartment simply wafted in and the scent that this dog signalled in the backyard came was from a medieval graveyard and that the locations where these dogs signalled the location of Maddie’s body inside the apartment are toileting spots. Being scorned by a person like that is a compliment. His insults, as the Portuguese say, “batem na carapaça da nossa indiferença”.We have no say about who you side with, only find it strange that you do with someone who says that Operation Grange is a waste of money. And who calls Cristobell a liar, on Thursday, 25 February 2016 in a post:“Liars I don't like liarsI specifically don't like liars [Cristobell] who ask me to leave their blog then lie about the reason why I went.Enjoy the quietPosted by Not Textusa at 16:08”He received the following comment:“Anonymous26 February 2016 at 01:13I asked mrs mutton why you had been deleted.....silence!”To which NT replied:“Not Textusa26 February 2016 at 02:16She asked me to go. It's in there amongst her posts. Then lied about me refusing to answer questions - silly cow.I deleted my comments for two reasons - one, because I don't see why they should serve as clickbait for her, and two, because I have no further wish to be associated with her blog. I have a copy, naturally, in case she wants to deny anything.Unfortunately, Ros, for all her grandstanding, is just another blogger whose knowledge of the case mostly comes from the TV. It became increasingly obvious that many of her readers are profoundly stupid people who can see no further than the 'kneejerk' reaction they pull whenever anyone points out to them that half of what they think they know about the case is total bullshit.”(Cont)
(Cont)Again, it’s up to you who you side with.As we said, we ignore NT’s insults and scorn (again, as the Portuguese say, “as uvas estão verdes”) and we only discuss fact. And when he’s right we have no problem with correcting our hand.And a broken clock tells the right time twice a day, so NT is right sometimes. For example when he says For example, when he asks “Would Baldylocks or Jill "Confessions of a driving instructor" Havern mind explaining their claim that two named doctors were employed by the Porton Down NCB facility? (Which, incidentally, isn't based at Porton Down)”, he’s correct, although we find insulting people to be distasteful, and as all kind of violence, something only the weak resort to.If it were us, we would correct our hand. What Bennett and Havern will or not do is their business.From what we understood from your comment you provide opinions based on hearsay, the Big Round Table an example.However, we find strange how someone who doesn’t read us says “I don't find you a malicious person like he is at all. Just untruthful”. How do you know we are untruthful?We have asked you to state where we have lied, you have failed to do so to this day.We aren’t aware of any politicians who attended the Kray twins funerals as we aren’t experts on the Krays, but stand corrected if there were.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2879142/Mourners-including-gangster-Eddie-Richardson-attend-funeral-notorious-enforcer-Mad-Frankie-Fraser.htmlIn Freud’s funeral there were politicians. Like Gordon Brown.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/apr/24/sir-clement-freud-funeralYou say “Which one of your acolytes then claimed was me "grovelling" to you and backing off. Oh dear, they don't help you much, your followers, do they?” Could you please clarify this? We don’t know what you are speaking about.Whether our reasoning is the same or not, we agree with you that there is pressure being applied in the MSM to have OG closed down and that stories have been planted to inflame public opinion against further spending.And we think also agree that it would be wrong for OG to question the McCanns - you say because it’s illegal for OG to stray beyond its remit. We also say because it could jeopardise a court case in Portugal- as we are in the middle of debating with NTPost Scriptum: We have spoken of Walker and NT in the comment above but as our readers know, we believe they are one and only: Insane.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
We have addressed what it means to have the right of silence when being questioned under caution.To understand the differences of the right to be silent between the UK and the Portuguese justice systems one must understand the etymology of the words “arguido” and “caution”.Let’s start with the etymology of the word “caution”The word caution stems from the latin ‘cavere’ and ‘cautio’https://www.etymonline.com/word/cautionCavere (beware, avoid, take precautions/defensive action; give/get surety; stipulate)http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/cavereCautio (precaution; stipulation, proviso, exception; taking of precautions/care)http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/cautioNow, let’s address the word arguido which comes from the latin ‘arguo’Arguo (accuse, complain of, charge, blame, convict; disclose; prove, argue, allege)http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/arguoJust from etymology one can see the differences. Under caution clearly states a warning of there being effective consequences if one choses to be silent, while arguido is all about arguing, to be given the possibility to argue under accusation and the chosen silence means just that, a choice not to argue.While under caution is “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” in the arguido status it is said “[You have the procedural right] not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with about the contents of his statements concerning them”One states clearly that there may be taken inferences from the right to not answer (in the UK) while in the other there are no inferences that can be taken from the silence.Going back to the etymology of the wording we did above, both nations ensure the right to not answer the question but the reasons are different. In the UK, the reasoning behind the right to remain silent is to allow the questioned not to incriminate himself but that silence is taken as an answer, unless under certain specific circumstances which the law details, like when defendant expresses the wish to have the presence of a lawyer and one is not yet present).Outside the detailed circumstances, the silence is taken as an answer. A silent and a compromising one as the person choosing to remain silent has been warned that this silence can be used as evidence. Can be used as adverse inference.(Cont)
(Cont)To be noted, in the UK a defendant can’t be convicted if the only evidence against him is adverse inference. The prosecution must have adduced other evidence of his guilt before the court is asked by the prosecution to draw an adverse inference. The fact is that in the UK the exercise of the right to remain silent can have legal consequences and the caution is to warn about exactly about that possibility.In Portugal, NO adverse inferences can be drawn if an arguido refuses to answer a question It’s interpreted that it’s a choice to not wanting to debate, to not to want to argue and that’s it. Not because there’s guilt but because there’s a wish to not collaborate.It’s like the defendant with his/her silence is simply telling the authorities, you think I’m a suspect, well, then work it out for yourselves why you think I’m guilty, sorry, but I’m not helping you out with that.It’s is the defendant’s right to best judge how to help himself. If he feels that not helping authorities is the best way to achieve that, then he has that choice.There is no assumption of self-condemnation in that silence, just a statement of not wanting to collaborate. Why? Could be many number of reasons, like wanting to see what evidence there is to sustain the accusation before s/he says anything.One thing the police can’t do is to draw then adverse inferences.It’s different with witnesses. They are truth-bound (something we will deal with later). If a witness remains silent in Portugal, then adverse inferences can be drawn. But then, a witness can request to become an arguido and from that moment on, as said, no adverse inferences can be drawn.For some reason Kate did not answer those 48 questions and she suffered no consequences for not having done so. No admission of guilt. Just the right to not collaborate with the investigation.In the archival dispatch there cannot be seen any adverse inferences taken from her silence to those questions. In Britain, it would certainly would have been pointed out and would have weighed in the verdict reached by a jury.So, the right to be silent is significantly different between under caution in the UK and arguido in Portugal. Significant differences are the opposite of things being EXACTLY the same.Before we proceed we will wait and see who disagrees with this.
Silence can never be taken juridically for an answer, silence is by nature ambiguous. And this is the issue with it. It may work in favour or against the silent person, depending on the context, on what that person had said before or will say after. Silence is sometimes described as eloquent, but it is only a subjective feeling. Keeping silent has sometimes deep reasons, it's not always tactical.In Kate MC's case, I don't think she had reasons not to answer, the lawyer had.
Could you please inform me of any criminal case in the UK where some accused person suffered some or any (no matter how minor) consequence because they exercised the right to do a "no comment" interview. There is no point in cautioning accused people about the consequences of remaining silent and then not doing a follow-up and charging people. I cannot remember reading about any case where this happened. If it ever happened I would be very pleased to hear of it. If it didn't happen then there is no difference between the British and Portugeses systems.
“Jimmy”,Suggest you contact British lawmakers and demand they remove from the terms of caution the “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.”Make it from “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” to just “You do not have to say anything”.The rest, according to you is just there for decorative reasons. Maybe British lawmakers just to imitate the Americans and their Miranda Rights reading we see in the movies, and so make the whole thing look cool?And while you at it, please tell them to remove “ANNEX C RESTRICTION ON DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM SILENCE AND TERMS OF THE CAUTION WHEN THE RESTRICTION APPLIES” from the “CODE C Revised Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by Police Officers”. Again, according to you, it’s there for no reason.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdf
This is what was deleted by "Jimmy Simms"So, so familiar:"Jimmy Simms has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue III": Do you not publish comments which put up a reasonable and polite comment because they might just differ a tiny bit from your fixed views? I asked a simple question and my comment wasn't published. I usually read your blog and agree with a lot of what you print but now that I realise you are too delicate and fragile to accept questions that might differ slightly from your stated position I will not be reading your blog any longer. Posted by Jimmy Simms to Textusa at 17 May 2018, 22:33:00"
"Jimmy"We know you will keep coming back, and back, and back and then back again and then again back.
We inform readers that we do occasionally go to bed, go shopping, drive a car, ride a horse, entertain friends, go to the cinema and theatre, do our jobs...Unlike paid people we do not spend 24/7 on the internet hawking over what's being said about Maddie on the internet.Fascinating how deluded some people are who think that just because they whistle all others must immediately jump.Now, we have to go through a profound introspection process because we honestly don't know how we will cope now knowing that "Jimmy" won't visit our blog anymore.We're devastated.
Not to be published identified reader at 17 May 2018, 20:06:00,About the word ‘arguir’:https://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/arguirar·guir |güí| - Conjugar(latim arguo, -ere, mostrar, provar, afirmar, acusar)verbo transitivo1. Imputar, acusar, censurar (repreendendo).2. Inferir, deduzir.verbo intransitivo3. Argumentar (impugnando).
Insane’s response to our comment:"The Criminal Justice and Public Order act which introduced this change sets out very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn. I can list them if you want, but in short it covers the specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court, ie. in their defence. The jury cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence, but because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up.It is not a carte blanche to take their silence as an indication that they are guilty, and the judge must specifically instruct the jury if they may draw an adverse influence, having ensured that all the conditions are met.Therefore, the right to remain silent is an absolute right. All that has changed is that the defendant cannot wait until they get to court and then offer up a cock and bull story at the last minute. (Insane then quotes from our comment from where we say “in the arguido status it is said “[You have the procedural right]…” to “…can be used as evidence. Can be used as adverse inference.”Bullshit. They are not warned that their silence allows an adverse inference, but rather that if they don't mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later, it may harm their defence. The reason that it may harm their defence is that the judge may instruct the jury that they may draw an adverse inference from the fact that the accused waited until his court appearance before claiming that someone else must have stolen his car, run over the deranged blogger, and parked his car back on his drive. I appreciate that this is a subtle difference and you're not very bright, so you probably won't understand."
Insane: “…introduced this change sets out very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn”There are no “very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn” in Portugal when one is arguido.Insane: “I can list them if you want, but in short it covers the specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court, ie. in their defence.”There is no list of “specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court” in Portugal when one is an arguido. One can say white during the investigation and black in court and only black can be taken into account AND the fact that one has said white IS disregarded.Insane: “The jury cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence, but because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up”Trial by jury (very rare) or the collective of judges (much more common) “cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence” NOR “because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up” in Portugal when one is an arguido.Insane: “They are not warned that their silence allows an adverse inference, but rather that if they don't mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later, it may harm their defence.”In Portugal an arguido can simply not “mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later” in court and in no way harm their defence.Insane: “The reason that it may harm their defence is that the judge may instruct the jury that they may draw an adverse inference from the fact that the accused waited until his court appearance before claiming that someone else must have stolen his car, run over the deranged blogger, and parked his car back on his drive.”As in Portugal an arguido say one thing during the investigation (in fact an arguido can say many things as he’s not bound to the truth) and say another in court, this has no application.Thank you Insane for showing how right we are.
Please note that we have only addressed up to now the consequences of opting to be silent between when under caution in the Uk and arguido in Portugal.Remember, both PeterMac (a man who alleges having a law degree) and Insane say that it's EXACTLY the same.We still have to address the differences when the defendant opts to speak, although above we have already shown one: in the UK it's unwise to pull something out of a hat which in Portugal that has no consequence other than make the prosecution deal with the "surprise" information then.For example, one can state during the investigation that one has stolen a car. Repeat it endelessly up until court. If in court one then says one has not stolen the car, then only that counts and what one has said before matters nothing.If the police have relied the accusation solely on the arguido's confession and doesn't have any other evidence to sustain the theft, then one just walks free.
Insane's nasty example of running a blogger over with his car, then lying to a court about it speaks volumes.Why do people align themselves with him? Presumably they find his “humour” equally amusing.
The launacy continues...Blacksmith/Sharples who ever it is appears to have started an offensive over the past few weeks. Other Blacksmith supporting blogs appear silent with scant activity as they wait. Is he the heroic knight out to silence the few blogs interested in the truth(leaving aside cmomm) of what happened that night. A laxitive to purge the McCann toxic information thats left on this site? It certainly looks that way. Here is man who reads none of your posts,but has enough knowledge of your blog to call you a liar? He manages to post questions to blogs he never reads. Eleven years of McCann reading and blog writing to what end? Does make you wonder why he invests so much time in demonisining,ridiculing and slandering your good selves. Who his paymaster??
Blacksmith hasn’t yet contradicted Sade, so we can assume they are on the same page?
"Other Blacksmith supporting blogs appear silent with scant activity as they wait" Please, if you wouldn't mind, direct me to these. Waiting in anticipation 🙂
Hi Textusa,Martin Brunt video,100% DNA,quotes that the McCann family were in Portugal for Two weeks?Jez Wilkens statement 3 May 2007,Gerry McCann,outside apartment 5a,that Jez(wishes he was in Portugal for more than one week)Gerry McCann then states this is their Second Week!The McCann's were supposed to have been spotted on a Nudist Beach in Portugal April 21-28th 2007,but it couldn't be them due to David Payne arranging the Hotel accommodation booking?Who booked the flights from Birmingham Airport,East Midlands for April 28th to 5th May 2007(DP,Fiona or Gerry,Kate)?Bell Pottinger in Prai Da Luiz April 21 2007,Mark Warner,same time as the McCann's,"They(McCanns) paid me,Bell-Pottiger £500,000,Leveson Inquiry-Red Top News Papers?Who booked the McCann's Holiday (DP) flying out from Birmingham,Video of Madeleine on Bus(Gerry, *uck off),climbing steps onto the plane?Were the Flight tickets fabricated?GP Julian Totman,Block G4 apartment for Two weeks,but only took up residence for the Second week,did a financial Doctor induced Family take up a "weeks Free" holiday,since being in Southern Ireland,Donegal?Eleven Years later a GP Julian Totman claims to be"Creche Dad" DCI Andy Redwoods revelation moment moving time frame to One Hour of abduction process,Smithman?Was there ever an Abductor or was it all in the mind,manipulated into the story?When will the lies and deceit stop in Madeleine McCann's disappearance,when they are all firmly locked away incarcerated to reflect on their deceptions?
Unpublished Anonymous at 18 May 2018, 15:29:00,We would never speak of the character you refer to in the same breath as Brenda Leyland.To even mention him in the same sentence is a profoundly disgusting insult to the poor woman.
Textusa setting out the extract from Jane Tanners statement really shows the ridiculousness of a the big round table. I very disappointed in John Blacksmiths attack on your blog. I always thought both of you were fighting the GMW together. He done a good job of reinitiating what you had to say about the MSM putting pressure on to close Grange and often I thought while he didn't share your conviction of powerful people supporting the McCanns his work did compliment a lot of the work you done. I've always supported him in his condemnation of Bennet and Co but by turning on you I feel he has undermined a sense of fair play on his behalf.
Just reading K’s book about Neves.Particularly interesting her comments about Murat and blaming Neves for making her suspect him.Neves was far more involved with her than GA and accused her, he saw her complete breakdown and almost got a confession, as GA says in his book.K doesn’t like him, quite clearly and if I were him, I’d be pretty angry about what she says.I don’t think his promotion will please them.It’s also Neves who tells K that Silvia B saw Murat outside the apt that night. K says Sylvia was supposed to attend the confrontation with Murat and T3 but Sylvia didn’t attend. Interesting.
Apologies for an error in my last comment. It wasn’t GA who mentioned a potential confession by K in his book. I knew I’d read something and went back to check what I’d said when I couldn’t find it in his book.I knew I’d read something about GA in relation to a confession and now find it was Blacksmith’s blogAh, that mystery - July 2011It was a response to a question he asked GA. “I was told that the parents’ lawyer Abreu had initiated an attempt to find the most favourable charges possible against his clients, at the McCanns direct request.”He writes that they were anxious to make a clean breast of the matter.Sorry, no intention to mislead, but it’s not easy to always accurately recall who said what and where. I should have checked first.
Silvia B wasn't sure the man she saw was RM, according to her description it could have been Adriaan Jacobus Van Marais. By July she might have made up her mind that she didn't see RM that night. She requested a meeting with the PJ and was heard on the July 26 about Jane T's first description of Tannerman, quite different from what Jane told the PJ the following day.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm#p9p1975to1977
Luis Neves was much tougher than GA, sure, and imo not susceptible to KMC's charms, but he didn't write a best seller (followed by a documentary) ruining the idea that MMC got out of 5A alive.
Anonymous 22 May 2018, 11:08:00, 13:31,It seems somebody has read you today:https://twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/994132574376288256“Canine Truth@K9TruthVery interesting piece by Blacksmith (from "Ah, that mystery" on July 18th 2011) about what happened between Abreu + the PJ in September 2007. It seems his info about Abreu's overtures + the PJ's expectations did not come directly from Amaral, but from an intermediary. #McCann https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd0G_SxVAAAMo_d?format=jpg5:23 pm · 22 May 2018”*****The picture attached to this tweet contains the following text:“It is some six months since, in response to questions I had asked Goncalo Amaral, I was told that the parents' lawyer Abreu, had initiated the attempt to find the most favourable charges possible against his clients' at the McCanns' direct request. This, by the way, was not based on panicky misunderstandings on September 6 but had been under exploration since the crucial August 8 police interview, the details of which have only been made partially public now, by Kate McCann. There was no plea bargaining. Instead the police were willing to accept that Kate McCann was a sick woman, as Kate's description of their comments on August 8 illustrates. Incidentally their diagnosis of her as revealed in that interview stands up very well, and fairly, when compared with her revelation that for months in 2007 she suffered from feelings of disassociation and demonic possession that can only be described as psychotic. Where she and the PJ differ is that she suggests that the psychosis developed after 10 pm on May 3 while they believe it had begun before that. We’ve had four years to watch the woman while the PJ had three months: they did well. Given what they believed to be her state of mind it was obvious that a punitive sentence was never going to be demanded by coppers with any insight and human decency — which these officers, despite the filth that the parents, their employees and their supporters have thrown at them — possess in plenty, the woman needed help, for Christ's sake, as she still does. It was the unanimous view of the three officers and Amaral that the parents and their lawyer left on the night of September 6 anxious to make a clean breast of the matter. And months after the Portuguese messages along comes this desperately disturbed woman to confirm the broad picture. In the wild and emotional discussions with Abreu which accompanied their change of mind that night there were few claims that they might do so because of their innocence. Gerry McCann's collapse onto his knees, tearfully shouting that they were finished, that their lives were over, was not followed by any ringing peroration as he eventually rose to his feet that they were innocent or being framed. No, he spat out words more fitted to a Glasgow crook than to an innocent doctor - "they've got nothing".Did lawyers Michael Caplan QC and Angus McBride really help Kate McCann? Really? I can't even be bothered any more to list the number of problems that we have the answers to now. What about that famous, if ignominious, argument in their favour, for instance, that no couple could have gone on behaving "normally" at the tapas table that night, knowing their child was dead. Really? Now read the August 8 stuff in Madeleine to see the state they were in and the incredible accusations that the police had put to them. Then check Gerry McCann's blogs and their interviews for any hint of what must have been churning away in their minds. That pair would act naturally if they'd been turned into pillars of salt. Nah, there are details to wrap up but the challenge is gone. We know what happened. From now on it's just a question of whether they’ll face criminal justice — can anyone really be bothered? — before Amaral eventually cleans them out in the libel courts. But that's just postscript.”
Textusa,Yes, K9 shows he has read me because he slightly misinterprets my correction.There was no intermediary, Blacksmith says GA answered his question.My correction/apology was that GA didn’t say anything in his book, but it was Blacksmith who said GA told him.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1692779634152147&id=294140824016042Ben Thompson: You're an out and out liar, Textusa. You are framing the author of the NotTextusa blog, as the vile pro McCann, "Walker". NotTextusa is NOT a pro. Just someone who can see right through your bullshit. You're a con artist.******1 like to date: Sade Anslow
It’s always interesting to see our fiercest critics agree with us. In this case, Meerkat.Meerkat seems to agree with us that Crechedad = Tannerman = Totman.https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/993387959171809280aleksandr orlov@2for1Tickets“I mean, really? Who's next? Dr Kidnicker? Nurse Nabber? Prof. Pinchem? #mccann https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dck5CvNWsAELV6d?format=jpg8:12 am · 7 May 2018”******The picture attached to the tweet has 3 versions of Tannerman.From left to right.- Crèchedad holding a ginger cat (guesses at what this may mean, we don’t have any idea, maybe his/her closest friends can ask him/her)- Tannerman, with bagpipes (which we suppose means Gerry as he’s Scottish)- Totman, holding Crechedad.Inset in the picture is the following:“Winner of THIS month’s “I was Bundleman” Award TOTman! ©®”This particular tweet from Meerkat has 17 likes, the first of which is from SadeElisha86. Interesting.https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/993387959171809280/likes
Just a confirmation how much the Meerkat agrees with us (however it must be said that although we have said that Operation Grange, as a police operation is a farce - but the only tool available to us to out the truth, we haven't gone as far as the Meerkat in calling Redwood a complete idiot):https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/994132574376288256“aleksandr orlov@2for1Tickets"In the year 25-25, if Bundleman is still alive..." #mccann https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/994132574376288256/photo/19:30 am · 9 May 2018”*****The GIF attached to this tweet is made up of the following slides:Slide 1From the liar [Jane Tanner] who brought you… ..EGGMANwho miraculously morphed into BUNDLEMANSlide 2To the complete idiot [Andy Redwood] who gave us… ..A LAUGHwith a man 6 years in frozen suspension CRECHEMANSlide 3Just when you hoped he’d [Clarence Mitchell] buggered off…. ? OH FFS“Yay! I outdid that cryogenic Crechedad!” TOTMANSlide 4SO WHAT THE HELL NEXT….?Slide 5PAC-MAN? [images of Tannerman, Crechedad and Totman]Slide 6 PAC-MAN? [images of Tannerman, Crechedad and Totman] (from slide 5)OP GRANGEGAME OVERPLEASE INSERT ANOTHER £150k*****Interesting the Meerkat hasn’t tweeted since May 9
https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/982264064742014977Orlov thinks RM involved.Has he told Ben? Blacksmith wouldn’t approve.
Anonymous 22 May 2018, 23:18:00,Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog:“aleksandr orlov@2for1TicketsReplying to @xxMichelleSxxI've gone over as many scenarios I can summon, listened to so many more, yet every one has a flaw that wipes it all out. I think we can conclude Gov protection & not an abduction - but that's about it. I happen to think Murat is involved, others don't. Hell, who knows?!!3:29 pm · 6 Apr 2018”******It seems that everyone can express their opinions on the case. Only when we do it, it’s offensive, disgusting, etc…
Hi Textusa,so the Parents of Madeleine McCann have sought a "judicial Review" of the UK Governments decision to axe a "Leveson 2" through court action,which was to inquire of Government and Police influences,phone hacking,collusion etc?So what "strange, mystical powers" do the McCann family possess to persaude a Court upon a review taken by a Government Minister, Mr Darren Hancock and fellow MP's vote not to proceed with a Leveson 2 Inquiry,(Blackmail MI5)?So the same Government(s) who have assisted the Parents and Family of Madeleine McCann,for the past Eleven years, Tony Blair,Gordon Brown,David Cameron,Theresa May,Operation Grange,Rebekah Brooks persauding(Blackmailing Leveson)into a review? Now having the"Special couple" urinate on the front lawn in appreciation that have have done for them these past Eleven years?Nipping nastily at Theresa May's heels,Operation Grange,put up or shut up!
Anon 18.17 its Matt Hancock not Darren,Matt Hancock fancies himself as a Michael Gove type of character,an oily little twonk more like it,sorry Matt,but if the cap fits?
Anonymous 22 May 2018, 18:17:00,The McCanns are on a list of people in the body of the article. There’s nothing to suggest this came about solely because of their influence.It’s just an attention grabbing headline. Not even sure they’re an asset to Hacked Off these days. Or to Murdoch.
We would like explain to readers the reason for our latest silence. We have been looking at the implications the European Investigation Order may have in what we have been writing about what we have stated (and maintain): that if Operation Grange questions the McCanns, it will kill any prosecution of the case in Portugal.In this, we were contested by PeterMac and Insane.We will soon continue to publish comments on the issue but there’s no longer any urgency to do so as we have noted that the calls for OG to interview the McCanns seem to have died down.We don’t know why that happened. It certainly cannot be because of our blog and its only 6 readers.
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/the-accomplice.htmlAs Blacksmith has not yet confirmed or denied that Sade Anslow's interpretation of his words is the correct one, we will continue to trust our reading abilities and think he believes that Tannerman = Crecheman = Totman.Here is another area in which we are in total agreement with Blacksmith. We’ve always said the same. For years, since 2009.http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2009/08/clarence-mitchell-luckiest-unluckiest.htmlMitchell is a nobody and suggestions he is working for MI5 are nonsense.They employ people with intelligence and an ability not to make total fools of themselves.If he was paid to lie, then he deserves everything coming to him, under the law and delivered by the justice system.
Hi Textusa,just a quick point,what with all the lies,deceitfulness and manipulations involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the Cover Up for the past Eleven years?There was an infamous couple from the 1960's who were named as "Monsters" both now deceased.If it ever "Transpires" that a certain known group of collective friends had become involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,the UK Dictionary may have to use a very different word,or is this just another reason as to use a D-Notice in this case,"On grounds of "National Security" !
If Blacksmith says JT sighting is an exit strategy which will be honoured, that surely means he is saying that JT will be exonerated by OG and others who may be involved with any potential prosecution, as she DID actually see a man carrying his daughter across his arms, and Totman demonstrated that position in his police photograph; so he WAS the man she claims she saw?
Although I don’t like to get drawn in to these exchanges I’m perfectly happy to clarify.But first I’m going to ask people a question for themselves. If you decide, for whatever reason, to claim that Scotland Yard, a British ambassador, and David Cameron, for example, are not telling the truth, then how on earth do you determine who you are going to believe?I ask not to prove a point – it’s a bit late for that – but out of puzzlement: can you not see the self-defeating nature of such a mind-set? You are left with nobody. Except personal preference, which is by far the most untrustworthy guide of all. I always think of waiting for a train. At any given time there is no way of knowing that the station announcer is telling the truth. Yet most of us assume that the he/she has not just gone mad, or been seized in the last half-hour and forced to broadcast information that will result in a crash; instead we listen to the announcements and walk towards the relevant platform expecting to find a train home, not a nail-filled bomb.Because what alternative is there? Refuse to use trains? Creep up to the announcer’s booth to see if they are foaming at the mouth every evening?It is what being part of a society means: a provisional agreement that members of our own democratic group can be trusted to follow the rules that most of us were taught at school, whether they are train announcers, cab drivers – there could be gas vents – or politicians. Because it suits them and us. If it clearly and unmistakeably breaks down then that’s a different matter and the killing will begin. Until then most of us make working assumptions of trust.Now, the question. Yes, I believe that Grange is sticking to the truth and therefore I accept, broadly, what it says. Do you expect me to accept what Peter Mac or R. Hall say instead? I’ve said nothing about exoneration. An “exit route” means that she is not being accused of anything except making a mistaken identification. That’s fine, that does the job: the identification is dead but JT is not being accused of any wrong-doing since a mistake is not a crime. Do people here have an alternative strategy? Accuse her of making it all up? With what evidence? And what will she do then? Get a lawyer, as is her right, and say nothing. Is that what you want? Can’t you understand that she is the door that opens the way into the case and silence is the one thing you don't want? Next. While I accept Grange’s Crimewatch statements that JT saw an innocent man rather than inventing someone (but, as Redwood didn’t add, because it didn’t suit him, embroidered him in the timeline) I have seen no evidence whatever that Totman is the man.For the thousandth time, seeing something in the newspapers doesn’t make it true. It is quite possible that it is him, just as it was before the Sun story, but that story has added nothing to the facts except a possible name. The photographs neither validate not rebut the identification and alter nothing about Grange’s work.The origins of the Sun piece are also exceptionally murky: there is no way of knowing why it has been produced - but that it was produced for a reason is absolutely certain. So it stinks too much to be of any use, apart from evidence that the press are willing to wind up the McCanns again. And I’ve never been one for having my strings jerked by anonymous scum journalists.
Blacksmith,“While I accept Grange’s Crimewatch statements that JT saw an innocent man rather than inventing someone”, tells us that when Sade says you say JT is lying, she, Sade is wrong.“For the thousandth time, seeing something in the newspapers doesn’t make it true. It is quite possible that it is him [Totman]”, tells us that if we are to believe the Sun then she saw Totman, if we are not, then it’s only possible she did.But, if we’re left with the it’s only possible she did – means we have to trust the Sun and if we don’t trust this newspaper then one cannot say, as Sade says you say, that Totman is real.According to you, if we trust the Sun, then Sade is wrong because Tanner saw Totman and if we don’t trust it then Sade is wrong in saying that Totman is Crecheman because we only have the Sun telling us that.You seem to say there’s no evidence that Totman is the man. That means Tanner sees Jez and Gerry and they don’t see her. She sees one tea-tray man carrying a girl when at the same time Totman was also carrying his daughter in that strange position that night at that T-Section but only sees one of them.Totman does not see the other tea-tray man, Tanner doesn’t see Totman. Totman doesn’t see Tanner, Gerry and Jez. Gerry and Jez don’t see Totman nor the other tea-tray man.So how many men were there carrying a girl in that strange position that night at that time?Quite a strange crowd on that T-section that night.Honestly, your comment causes more confusion that resolves anything.Blacksmith:#1 - Do you believe Tanner saw a tea- tray man carrying a girl? Yes or no.#2 - If yes to the above, do you believe that tea-tray man was Totman? Yes or no.#3 - If yes to the above, do you believe Totman was carrying his daughter in such a strange manner and walking away from his apartment which he had just passed by? Yes or no.#4 - Do you believe that Redwood interview Totman? Yes or no.We don’t expect an answer as to whether Redwood believed either Tanner or Totman. Nobody but him knows that.
My opinion, for what it’s worth:JT didn’t see anyone carrying anyone.Totman may have carried his daughter home, but I don’t believe in that position and not going in the opposite direction to his apartment.Why he came forward to demonstrate that he carried his daughter home in that position is an important question.Did he say this to help JT when her sighting was questioned by the PJ?Nobody who believes it was Totman has explained why he was walking in the opposite direction to his apartment, or explained his direction of travel.Agree we only have the Sun (so beloved in Liverpool) to rely on for identifying Totman, but no denial from him so far.All the attempts at clarification so far have seemed like attempts to square a circle.
I'll be patient.1) What Sade says is a matter for her and you, not me. I have said nothing about JT lying: I am not going to libel people by calling them liars without having the evidence to back it up.So forget it. FWIW I have never believed that JT invented a sighting out of nothing as part of a planned course of deception. That's because, again, there is not the slightest evidence that she did so. 2)"...tells us that if we are to believe the Sun then she saw Totman, if we are not, then it’s only possible she did."With respect that is complete and utter nonsense. I really wish you would listen to me about reading skills. The Sun does not, repeat not, say that JT saw Totman. Here's the link for you again https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/ Please show me where it says anything of the sort. Do you think they don't have lawyers? For Christ's sake, just for once read the words. They are very carefully written. Out of this complete failure to read what even a tabloid newspaper actually says you then construct a sandcastle of assumptions in the following paragraphs that are yours alone. I cannot help you with those. You wrote "You seem to say there’s no evidence that Totman is the man." Of course there is no evidence in the Sun that Totman is the person. You think a hearsay story with a man's wife that doesn't mention the Grange enquiry at all, doesn't quote the doctor saying "I know it was me", gives no record of who spoke to her, doesn't give the circumstances of the interview and what else was said and, I repeat, does not claim that Totman is the person - you think that is evidence that he is? Where are you at?It's a useless and no doubt contaminated source: if Totman is the person then it will be confirmed elsewhere in a reputable manner. I'm happy to wait till then. And I repeat also, it makes no difference whatever to what we already knew. Now the evidence, not my opinion: JT claimed a sighting of an abductor. That's in the files. The head of Grange stated, on the record, to the public, that she didn't. That's it, that's what matters in the case of the missing child.He then added that she saw a holiday-maker carrying a child and he made a photograph available of the latter posing in supposedly accurate clothes. That's it. He accused her of nothing, as the transcripts show.Five years later a tabloid newspaper comes out with a story about it, with the faults I've described above and a single blurry photograph. It neither criticises nor confirms nor, of course, refutes the formal evidence I've given you above. I'm not interested, except, as I wrote, that the press are being a little more suggestive about the case.I'm sorry but the tea-tray questions etc. are incomprehensible and a matter for you, not me.
"JT is not being accused of any wrong-doing since a mistake is not a crime."A mistake is certainly not necessary a crime, but context sometimes turns mistakes into crimes. JT didn't invent the way the child was carried, though that detail didn't strike her, she was stunned by the barefeet and the absence of blanket (btw Crechedad used a blanket). What JT invented in her May 4 statement at the DIC of Portimao is (at least) where she was and where Tannerman was when she spotted him, as well as her passing GMC and JW just before. Her report of Tannerman to Rachael, Fiona, the GNR, Silvia B makes no mention of passing by GMC and JW, locates Tannerman in Agostinho da Silva (not at the T junction) and herself in the corridor along block 5, in the night of May 3/4. A mistake this, really ?
Blacksmith,About reading skills, we have never said that the Sun said Tanner saw Totman. What we read, and if we were not able to read properly please be patient again and correct us, is that the Sun is the ONLY source speaking about Totman as the man identified by the Met in the UK Crimewatch as the man the Met, not the Sun nor Tanner, say Tanner saw that night, as per PJ Files.So, what we are saying is that to believe Totman is real, then one must believe in the Sun.One thing is certain, he appears to be real, as even though reported in an unreliable paper as the Sun, as Anonymous 23 May 2018, 22:49:00 has said, Totman has not to this day said the article was false.You say:“Now the evidence, not my opinion: JT claimed a sighting of an abductor. That's in the files. The head of Grange stated, on the record, to the public, that she didn't. That's it, that's what matters in the case of the missing child.He then added that she saw a holiday-maker carrying a child and he made a photograph available of the latter posing in supposedly accurate clothes. That's it. He accused her of nothing, as the transcripts show.”No, that’s not it. Factually, when “The head of Grange stated, on the record, to the public” that Tanner didn’t see an abductor was BECAUSE “he then added that she saw a holiday-maker carrying a child” instead which the Sun now says is Totman.Thus the deduction, which we believe is a reasonable one to make, that the Met has publicly stated that Tanner saw Totman.And unless the Met is prone to jump baselessly to conclusions, we have to assume that for them to have said, as they did say publicly, that the man the Tanner saw that night was not a possible abductor but simply a guest carrying his daughter home after picking her up from the crèche (who the Sun now says is Totman), then it was because that guest carried the child in the same way as pictured by Tanner, was at the time and place Tanner says she saw the man, was walking in the direction Tanner says he was walking and was approximately dressed the way Tanner says he was.Agree?
Blacksmith’s station announcer analogy isn’t convincing - what incentive does a station announcer have to lie?Yes, we all want and need to believe that our democracy - our politicians, our media, police , legal institutions can be relied on to achieve justice.But we also knew that our idealistic hopes are often abused.We need to know why so many people seem to be obstructing justice in this case.
Blacksmith,About Sade Anslow. And about being between her and us. It's not.She decided to take up your banner for some reason on the internet and explain in her own words what you had said.As we and Sade read differently your words, we simply wanted to make it clear what you had said from what she said you had said. It seems we were right in wanting to do that as it's evident there seems to be significant differences between what you say you say and what she adamantly states you do.
Oh for crying out loud! I shouldn't even bother, I really shouldn't! But actually, now you use my name in your perfidious insistence to discredit ANYTHING and ANYONE who dares not bow down to you, I simply must. And I've lost all manners.There is a MAN He goes by many names In some forms he exists In some he is pure fabricationThe template of this man is the cardboard cut out upon which many have decorated, with their truth pens, their lie pens, their not sure pens, and, not forgetting, those "fuckwitted" mental pens. You really shouldn't have tied yourself in to comments only Textusa, cos I for one could REALLY do with a few diagrams and arrows right now to get my point across - the same point I've been trying to make for approximately 84 years.My best attempt, in words. There was "a guy", identified by Grange as an innocent holiday maker. That guy, was likely seen by Tanner, innocently carrying his child home (no, nobody gives two shits as to how much like carrying a tea tray it was, because how many people, still alive have ever seen anyone carrying a f**king tea tray??) Tanner's "sighting" of 'the guy' was MANIPULATED by the group, and it's fair to assume she - Tanner- went along with this deception somewhat, probably out of sheer panic, pressure and god knows what other emotions that becomes of *one* in a situation like this. 'The guy' has had many nicknames, each arising from ridiculous, ever changing assertions about his appearance. There is still only ONE 'guy'The guy *apparently*, actually seen, and the guy he morphed into courtesy of team McCann. Now, quite recently, 'the guy' is outed - outed! - and named as a Mr Julian Totman. We cannot prove Mr Totman has the slightest thing to do with 'the guy' (crecheman, eggman, bundleman et cetera, et cetera.But we can assume the "story" of Totman is tying in to the rest of the narrative regarding 'the guy', can we not? Presumptuous, of course. But so incredibly rare that there could be some other scenario where he might fit, I'd say presumption can be forgiven here. So no, we don't know if a guy *actually* named Totman exists, or if he thought he could have been 'the guy'. It's just a name after all. Textusa, it is not the name Totman that is important. This 'news' from those who deliver anything but, is irrelevant. BS believing Tanner saw 'a guy' DOES NOT equate to BS claiming Tanner was TRUTHFUL. If you can't get your head around that incredibly simple fact you really do need to walk away, there is no help to offer. I'll repeat now what I've said before (again, all credit to Blacksmith) ; Redwood DID NOT Think Tanner WAS TRUTHFUL about her sighting- he was DARK SKINNED.Redwood insists his 'Crecheman' (named now as Totman) was the man she saw The McCanns refute this, stubbornly refusing to take the sketch efit down from the website. Tanner, interestingly, has NEVER refuted it. Why is that? Why? Well come on, show it to us! 🙂
John when you say that " An “exit route” means that she is not being accused of anything except making a mistaken identification. That’s fine, that does the job: the identification is dead but JT is not being accused of any wrong-doing since a mistake is not a crime" do you believe this to be true that her part in this whole saga was simply mistakenly identifying an innocent holiday maker for an abductor. I feel that while as you say Payne and co conviently fitted this case of mistaken identity into their abduction narrative Tanner herself continually lied and lied some more changing the discription of who she seen and her false identification of Murat in the surveillance van
JT, once she signed the invention of passing GMC and JW just before spotting T, could hardly step backwards. Hence a lying process that likely started as the defence of a noble cause. JT's narratives are more revealing than concealing.Without JT's first Portimao statement, we wouldn't be here discussing over and over again a case that imo is basically a denial issue. Protecting the self by questioning reality (the real didn't occur), the denial of reality, like faith, is capable of lifting mountains : to return a fact like a pancake, to make the opposites compatible, to abolish responsibilities... Most people in fact don't want the truth, they only want to be continuously reassured that what they believe is the truth.
The Sun article got it wrong.Jane says she would recognise the man, in her statement. In that case, even if she couldn’t remember the face of the fellow tennis player from the coffee morning introduction that night, Leicester police could have asked her if it was possible she had seen Dr Totman, who had now come forward to say he was carrying his child home in the way she described, at that time.I’m sure they could have produced a photo of him to remind her.If it was Totman passing by, would LP have asked him why in that direction.Then when Redwood took the photo of the man we presume is Totman, did he not ask Jane to identify him as the man she saw without mentioning his name, before releasing the photo to the public? He could have shown her the unedited photo. She could then say yes, no or not certain.Redwood makes no mention of asking Jane to do so.
Apologies, forgot to link the Mirror article in my comment. Here it is:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027.ampSun article doesn’t mention the LP questionnaire. If Mirror article is true, LP have known if Totman is the man for a long time.We don’t know which 81 LP documents were released to the Mcs after the Ward of Court hearing, but this could have been one of the documents.We don’t know who leaked the identity of Totman and why. If we did, it would tell us a lot.
Hello.I will repeat for the last time that I'm not interested in what the Sun has to say about anything and I cannot help you with the difficulties you seem to be having.The assault I made on the Usual Suspects this spring was that they had been successfully manipulated - conned, tricked or brainwashed, take your choice - into whipping up feeling against Grange by newspaper stories that purported to be factual but were part of a planned campaign of false stories. And now that is happening to you and, I presume, some of your readers, with the Sun story. Stop reading newspapers about the case! You will lose absolutely nothing except the confusion that unknown parties have so successfully implanted in your minds. Stop reading them, they are poisoned wells! The fate of the McCanns is being decided elsewhere.Now Sade. From what I've seen of her comments she has simply followed the pointers from the primary sources I provided - and which I always provide - thought hard about them and then come to a similar conclusion to me based on that available evidence, not on some esoteric secret knowledge of my own. Or she may have got there first, I wouldn't know.All I've done in this context is ignore bullshit newspapers and refer to the JT statements in the files, to the typed timeline in the files and to the head of Grange's on the record statements to the public. When there is some more, unpoisoned, primary evidence that advances our knowledge I will let you know. I get the impression, somehow, that Sade thinks very much for herself. And by the way, Sade, I was very moved and impressed by your story of the child with difficulties and the progress being made. Marvellous news. Just as the news that Grange's work is coming to fruition is marvellous news for the rest of us. How could it not be? Cheers.
Blacksmith,We will then withdraw the Sun from the question we put in our comment made at 24 May 2018, 08:38:00:Unless the Met is prone to jump baselessly to conclusions, we have to assume that for them to have said, as they did say publicly, that the man the Tanner saw that night was not a possible abductor but simply a guest carrying his daughter home after picking her up from the crèche, then it was because that guest carried the child in the same way as pictured by Tanner, was at the time and place Tanner says she saw the man, was walking in the direction Tanner says he was walking and was approximately dressed the way Tanner says he was.Agree?
In summary, In order to obtain Tanner's "colaboration" it was necessary she was not treated as a suspect but as someone who made a mistake. I put colaboration in "" as she may be actively colaborating or it may be a case it was necessary only to shift the time frame without implying she made a false statement. Tanner could have seen someone carrying a child earlier or later and adapted him to suit the narrative. It is irrelevant, as it is irrelevant how the man carried the child or not and in which direction he is walking. All that is required here is to take the abduction from that time frame and for that one has to gain Tanner's "colaboration". How was it done? Very simply. Redwood got the night creche records or the control risks statements sees that someone was walking with a child at around that time of night.He presented new crecheman to the world in 2013. It was the only way to make it an innocent mistake by a witness and further give credence to Martin Smith by focusing on his sighting. Do I think he believed her? No, personally I don't. Do I think she lied. Yes I do but that is only my opinion . But this is clearly a way out for her without further legal consequences. The Sun's article is irrelevant as are most media articles about this case. Over 90% of the article about this case are incorrect and some pure inventions that go to the point of creating dialogues that never existed , as is the case with articles that put Martin Smith or his family speaking to Smithman. He never did and neither does Gemma O' Doherty claim that. The only thing Gemma confirms with Smith is the fact that he never took back his claim that he saw GM and addresses the BBC lie regarding the same matter and their refusal to correct it after M. Smith contacted them . The remaining of the article comes from several sources as PJ statements and media. Never a good idea. One sticks to the statements and some very few articles that don't even reach double digits. Still regarding the Sun, it is clear Totman is not the source for it and I believe neither is his wife. Should it be him, the Sun would certainly not need to get a picture of him printed years ago in a local paper. Who is behind it and why was itprinted , no idea. The more one gets caught up with media articles the farther one is from the actual facts.
Hi Txtusa,So Operation Grange are still Not looking for Smithman after the failed e-fits or like wise Smithman Not exonerated,Abductor?
For someone who doesn’t bother with the Sun - BS certainly quotes it a lot! http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.ie/2018/05/that-bus-doesnt-stop-no-more.html?m=1
Anonymous 24 May 2018, 17:17:00,Why is the way Crechedad carried the child irrelevant? That’s the main characteristic of the man Tanner claims she saw. Nobody carries a child like that. Why do you think that Totman on seeing his face on the Sun linking him to the Maddie case and says or does nothing to this day?Why do you think Totman, supposing he was correctly identified, pose as he did? Or are you saying it’s not him in the photo? In that case, why do you think he sees that he’s clearly linked to that photo put out publicly by the Met, knows it’s not him and also does nothing about it?And neither does the Met correct the Sun?Why?The crime editor, Mike Sullivan, who wrote Sun article was found not guilty of phone hacking a few years ago.http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-crime-editor-mike-sullivan-cleared-after-14-months-police-bail/We would think he would now be wary of printing any fabricated fact such as naming a person. We know it’s the Sun, a paper we wouldn’t soil our hands with but he’s not just a low-level journalist on the paper nor is Dr Totman some poor helpless man Maybe somebody can ask him about outing Totman, on his twitter?https://mobile.twitter.com/crimejournoAs for Gemma O’Doherty, you say “Over 90% of the article about this case are incorrect and some pure inventions that go to the point of creating dialogues that never existed , as is the case with articles that put Martin Smith or his family speaking to Smithman. He never did and neither does Gemma O' Doherty claim that.”You are wrong. Gemma O’Doherty claims it VERY CLEARLY: “A member of Martin’s family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping but he did not respond or make eye contact, keeping his head down as he hurriedly headed in the direction of the coast.”http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-ambush.html
Textusa, you aren't going to get a word from Grange about the Tanner affair until they are ready, whatever you assume. And I've got nothing more to say about it. Until more facts are available.
Blacksmith,We were only asking your opinion about what was ALREADY said by Grange about Crechedad.
"Textusa, you aren't going to get a word from Grange about the Tanner affair until they are ready, whatever you assume."How do you know, Blacksmith? Is Grange sharing information with you? Reading your posts it looks like they do! Why would they do that with a blogger?
Assuming for once, the Sun article about Totman is true and putting to one side whether he was or wasn’t seen by Tanner, he was a vital witness to events of that evening; something he recognised , according to his wife, as he approached the GNR.What he didn’t do is speak to the McCanns or their friends. That I find unbelievable, especially as they had played tennis together.Wouldn’t he want to tell them where he was when M went missing and the fact he didn’t see anyone suspicious?What a witness who was in the vicinity at the time didn’t see can be as important as what they did see. It could have been important for any assessment of timings.
Anonymous 21:47, had the GNR be approached and had they found that JT was an interesting witness, they would have sent him to the PJ to make a statement. It seems that JT answered a LC questionnaire and that the LC didn't find it interesting enough to share it with the PJ. If JT knew what Tannerman looked like, hence could be him, despite no e-fit was published (except for the hairy egg), he was very likely informed by the MCs.
"Nobody carries a child like that". First aiders, firemen carry this way children either dead or in a coma because it would be more difficult to carry them the way Smithman carried the MMC lookalike.
John Blacksmith,If we shouldn't believe in Totman because we shouldn't believe in the Sun then what "exit route" was offered to Tanner that you speak of in your blog?
Textusa, let's start with Gemma O'Doherty. As I explained in my post, her account of her conversation with Martin Smith is regarding the BBC and the fact that it was claimed he had retracted his statement. The remaining of the article is an account of events based on statements and media. Reading the article shows that the account of the actual conversation starts from this paragraph on: -"In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting."https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2018/02/maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/The Crime Editor of The Sun was not found guilty of hacking, I find it hard to relate that fact to the subject at hand. Hacking and printing fables , as is the norm in The Sun, are certainly not comparable. What could possibly happen to him for exercising the Sun's usual poetic licence? His sources, even if they don't exist, are protected. Good luck with proving he made it up or got it by dubious means. Why did Totman say nothing? I wouldn't know, but so many options are possible. He can be the man who picked a child from the creche and may not be allowed to speak as he is part of an investigation, he may not want to get involved with the Sun, he may have written to them and his complaint was not published, he may not give a damn, who knows. Grange, have you ever seen them asking the media to retract anything in relation to this case? As for the remaining questions, I addressed them in my original post and there is no need to repeat myself as we would only be going around in circles. I am not here to prove you wrong or to change your mind and I don't appreciate being asked circular questions formulated so that you get a reply that will suit you. Neither will happen.
Who is Jane Tanner to be offered a deal by the Met? To rat on the Mcs? Seriously? The T9 are just a group of normal people so why the need for such a special treatment?Only if it's not them who are being protected. That is obvious to all.
It's not them who are being protected, but the important people who believed them who need protection.
Thank you John Blacksmith, very kind words.Can I just stress, whatever people think of my recent speaking out in support of Blacksmith's blogs, it is really nothing more than the fact I've just finished 3 years of university, and have found much more time on my hands of late, as I'm sure can be imagined! What I like to do with spare time is read, especially reading creative. Coupled with my interest in the McCann case, the bureau is the perfect choice for me. Ive only ever tried to explain it how I interpret it because I want others to benefit from the 'hope' it brings, and of course because it makes a lot of sense, what Blacksmith says. I've only gotten irritated over it with you Textusa because it has felt like you deliberately try to find fault or confusion in every sentence. That said, I don't actually feel as angry as I might come across sometimes- this is just the internet at the end of the day. But I apologise anyway, it's not how I prefer to hold discussions at all. So I'll leave it at that now, I won't get into it with you again Textusa.Hopefully we can all make sense of it all in some shape or form, but if not, I'm sure Grange will remain unaffected 🙂
Is there a reason for you not publishing my last comment Textusa? As I see the one above was made after mine?
We have now addressed the significant differences of opting for silence between being questioned under caution in the UK and while being an arguido in Portugal. From one’s silence, inferences can be taken, while in Portugal there cannot be any inferences taken from that option. The 48 questions Kate refused to answer demonstrate our point.But another relevant point is the differences between when one decides to speak. The rights are significantly different.The terms of the caution are clear about that (our caps): “The wording of the caution is:“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.”In Portugal there is ONE and ONLY ONE thing an arguido has to be truthful about, his/her name: Listed as a procedural duty: “To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record”.Note, when and only when required by law, has the arguido to be truthful about his criminal record. Very easy to sum up: “ALWAYS truthful about his/her name, always truthful WHEN REQUIRED about his/her criminal record”. About anything else s/he says, is not liable to be “given in evidence”.About this, we won’t expand any further. It’s so obvious that we think what is said above proves the point that it’s an absolute nonsense saying that being heard under caution in the UK is exactly the same as being heard as an arguido in Portugal.So now, we want to focus on the fact that an arguido can be untruthful to the authorities in Portugal without any consequences while the same does not happen in the UK and see what our critics have to say.If this is not a significant difference, we don’t know the significance of significant.
"an arguido can be untruthful to the authorities in Portugal without any consequences". Where did you find this, Textusa ? An arguido who, by speaking or keeping silent, did consciously hide the truth, will see that taken into account in Court. Why shouldn't he ?
What has happened to the Cristobell site?No one seems to comment anymore.Have all the coffin dodgers over there finally kicked the bucket?
Nice to see Gemma O’Doherty retweeting her article:https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1000143140475559937Gemma O'Doherty @gemmaod1Remembering this precious child tonight on #InternationalMissingChildrenDay. Her parents, the London Met and the British media have so many questions to answer about her disappearance #McCann https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2018/02/maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeE44rhXUAAIuvj.jpg:large3:34 pm - 25 May 2018*****The blog hopes she will continue to dedicate her attention on this issue, as we have seen her dedicate herself to other noble causes.We wait eagerly what more she may have to say about the Maddie case.
We inform readers that with the new settings due Blogger has stopped sending comments to our mailbox.Reason why we haven't published some comments in time. Sade Anslow, that's the answer to your question.We will try to solve this problem as quickly as we can.Thank you for understanding.
Do not publish Anonymous at 25 May 2018 ????,Please go ahead!
Comments are moderated.Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.Textusa