Saturday, September 20, 2014

Madeleine McCann: Hacks n' Ho's


As you may know, I have in the past, preserved for posterity, those that have either shilled for those responsible for the death of Madeleine McCann, or have got rich off the back of this tragic four year old.

Even though for the most part, I have put image making behind me, I see no reason why the latest pair of abominations to sully the memory of Madeleine McCann, scurrilous hacks, Summers and Swan, should be spared the same infamy.

The only difference of course, unlike those that have feasted on the body of the dead child previously, Summers and Swan's attempt to get rich in the same manner, has like their book, been an abject failure.

And no amount of shilling by third parties, will lift this odious piece of trash from the cesspit where it surely belongs.

I have added one or two others of the aforementioned shills and slags to this little gallery, just to remind us who they are. And it is a few, there being dozens more I could have readily added.

But to open the play, first up second up fifth up (pride of place is now given over to twenty five year career cop Jim Gamble's tweet, which, in one hundred and forty characters, manages to speak volumes. Not about the book I add, but about Gamble himself)  is the original graphic I stumbled upon, and as is said, the rest is history.



That must be why it has sold a grand total of twenty six copies on Amazon, over the past week.




Not much child protection going on here, Jimmy.




































Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Looking For Madeleine: More Withering Words


More withering words from the pen of  "Vten"

Customer Review
4.0 out of 5 stars See your doctor - not a quack
16 Sep 2014
By
Tim Buckley

This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
Once upon a time - a long time ago - my brother went missing. He was 5 or so. My parents were more and more desperate every 5 minutes but after 2 hours he was found, safe and sound.

We hear about so many desperately tragic stories involving abductions. The ones about children are of course the most harrowing. They are supposed to be our future and futures are not supposed be cut short. If it is through "God's will" it's difficult enough...

The Madeleine McCann disappearance is the most highlighted one in our time. Plenty of other similar stories do not at all reach our attention, or at most to a small extend. The parent's heartbreak in all these unknown stories is obviously no less than that of the McCann's.

In today's world of mass media and super fast spread of information and opinion, it is inevitable that unchecked facts and moronic opinions find their way faster than light to those who are receptive to them. In communities similar things happen in the case of witch hunts (we all know about McCarthy-ism) - where ignorance and unchecked facts could lead to the demise of innocent people and the world of medicine - where 10 quacks have more treatments than one proper doctor can ever dream up. Quackery is a business still practised by many and making victims everywhere. The victims are receptive... some of them are even considered intelligent.

I choose not to be treated by a quack. I also choose not to listen to the quacks in the world of politics and crime. I choose to believe that Elvis is really dead and that the US Government was not secretly behind the attack on the Twin Towers. I have no time for attention seekers and mad conspiracy theorists. And I am grateful that our hospitals in general are filled with good, well-educated doctors and not with quacks.
If only the same standards applied to the world of publishing and its mirror world of reviews, where well-educated, serious and commended writers can be lambasted by the "Ignoranti" and journalistic quacks, because they dared write about "Maddie" and either dismiss or disagree - implicitly - with "quack-ist" opinions and theories.

I got this book because since I read "Official & Confidential: The Secret Life of J Edgar Hoover" and "The Eleventh Day", I am impressed with Summers and Swan.

They are the journalistic equivalent of proper doctors and not Quacks. That's why I got "Looking for Madeleine".

However, I don't do Idolatry either, so while I have great admiration for the team, I don't rate this a 5 star book automatically. I do however believe that anyone who is genuinely interested in how the whole workings of various authorities can hamper the efficient investigation a dramatic case, should buy this book.
Just don't expect the proper doctors to come up with a quack's solution to the disappearance.



Vten says:

Well, Tim Buckley, I almost felt like a proud father hearing 'Hallelujah' sung for the first time when I read your review.

It certainly was eye-opening and provokes some serious thought.

I was so impressed, in fact, that I went looking to see what else you've reviewed in order to find out what you think on other topics.

Funny thing though...

Not only did I notice that the only reviews in your collection were dated two days ago, including reviews for a number of books which are far older than this week's 'hot topic' titles, but I also noticed that they didn't say very much. In fact, they didn't mention any detail at all. None. Excise them from all connection to the titles they are associated with, and they're surprisingly generic... almost like the person writing them hadn't actually read them, certainly never connected with them, and was trying to make it sound to the rest of the English class and the teacher that he'd been doing his homework and had lots of good thoughts about what he'd read.

This was especially a nice touch, that instead of writing your own review for one title you, only two days ago, read through some other reviews for it, found one which was two years old, and then posted a comment which said in paraphrase 'I don't need to write my own review for this, because I agree with everything this reviewer said.'

I won't think too deeply about the interesting review for the outdated, underpowered and decidedly average computer that you paid over the odds for at the weekend after your own computer 'exploded' on your desk the weekend previous, but I'm glad that when you ordered it that weekend, it only took until Tuesday to arrive. I do appreciate Amazon's rapid delivery service almost as much as I appreciate their honest reviewers.

Thankfully I have strong faith in humanity, because certainly any lesser person than I might begin to think that you had arranged to write this most detailed 'glowing report' on this title by agenda, and that in order to not get trimmed by Amazon when the pruning of the trolls goes down, you had concocted some fake reviews in order to look like an active participant in the Amazon Review community.

Clearly that cannot be the case, and so I welcome your comments, because I too have a story...

I was present, much more recently than 'long ago', when a child in my holiday group went missing. They didn't go missing from an unattended apartment. They didn't go missing from childcare facilities. Their parents were very present when they vanished. They were included in all the family activities, watched like a hawk throughout, and their parents didn't go out eating, drinking and attending quiz night while they cried themselves to sleep every night, alone and in an unsecured apartment in a strange holiday resort. They actually didn't go missing in anything resembling avoidable circumstances, or as a result of anything resembling neglect. Instead, they darted the wrong direction in a crowded place, letting go of the hand they were holding on to, and became disorientated and wandered further and further, looking to objects and locations that piqued their interest. Thankfully they were found a few minutes later, safe and sound. Curiously, their mum and dad cannot stop telling people, months on, how guilty they felt for that moment of lapse, and how they would never again be lacking in vigilance. But then, their mum and dad also insist on having family meals, family activities, keeping babysitters to a minimum, and being present all the time on family holidays. The one thing that couple, my friends, do not do is look at the McCann's and say 'it's only sheer luck that we're not just like them today... oh there but for the grace of God...'

I'll tell you what else...

When that child disappeared, no one screamed... no one threw a tantrum... no one began immediately ringing the press in another country... no one rang the foreign office... no one even screamed for the police to come... no one shouted 'the f****** b******* have taken her', no one began pointing in random directions and claiming that some stranger must have spirited them away... Know why? Because in the moment of shock, disbelief kicks in. The brain, courtesy of the flow of adrenaline and other hormones, prompts the 'fight or flight' mode, which is universally acknowledged as utterly precluding calculations, elaborate reckonings, wild hypothesising, and theorising - all of which take time. Instead what is provoked is the most basic reaction of all... to look, personally, for YOUR child, as YOUR responsibility, in YOUR charge, as if YOU and YOU ALONE had the ONLY hope and duty of finding that child. It takes several moments of burning the adrenaline and diluting the other hormones and calming the heart rate before you're even capable of something more, something which does not come as a 'reaction' but as a 'realisation' (a process of rationality, not impulse) - that something is very wrong, cannot be solved imminently, has utterly escaped your control, and you need help.

To further highlight just how true to profile this accounting of reactions actually is, it is common policy of most Western police departments to be wary of, and not panicked by the frantic finger pointing and theorising of parents and guardians, whether they are agonised in their fear or not, and to allow a due process to take place by which hysterical and knee-jerk reactions and overblown responses (call out the helicopters, close the borders, 'they' could be getting away) are avoided UNLESS there is evidence, physical or eyewitness, which highlights a scenario of abduction. Why? Because the vast majority of children which parents would report as 'missing' are either found not far away, unharmed and wandered, or are in the custody of someone close to them and known to the parents, as was the case earlier this year in Australia, and as, it seems, was the case of 'Daniel' in Portugal earlier this year in an instance which was heralded by the media as 'the New Maddie.'

Now... to the commentary on the book.

You make frequent reference to 'unchecked facts' and 'moronic opinions.' The material that you're referring to is also known as the 'Case File' belonging to the Portuguese Policia Judicia. It is a matter of public record and freely available. Frankly, if those 'facts' are not checked and valid, then there are actually NO facts for the authors of this book to write anything based on, since all that will be left is the opinions of the parents, their friends, and a whole lot of people who weren't there, but have vested interests in claiming to be authorities on what took place.

Herein lies the enigma. Without the detail of what was reported to Portuguese police, you have nothing. Nothing, that is, except for British parents with a child missing, who say that she went missing in Portugal in a resort, but you would have only their word and that of their friends that they were ever there... If you're going to accept SOME of the objective facts reported to the Portuguese police in their investigation, then you have to accept ALL of what is reported in that investigation. You can't take some, and not others, because to do so means that you have to have a standard of choosing which states 'I reject X because the people with the most to lose say I should reject it' and 'I accept Y because the people with the most to gain say I should accept it.' If those police files aren't the sum total of every material fact known about this case, then nothing is. There's nothing to work from.

The authors acknowledge this, but they don't like its implications. The parents acknowledge this, but they don't like its implications. Neither of them have contended that the material in the police files is false. Neither dispute that what Kate and Gerry and others reported to the police, or saw collected and taken from their property, or watched being removed from their rental home, is not real nor accurately recorded in the police files. They just have a reaction to the conclusions that the evidence leads objective, intelligent detectives to reach. In fact, the ONLY conclusion that CAN be reached considering all the available evidence.

So any counter argument against this book which stems from questions presented by the Policia Judicia Case Files is not 'unchecked facts and moronic opinions.' They're a matter of police record and the subject of extensive analytical consideration, arriving at a conclusion which is both predictable, high in likelihood and probability, and an oft-repeated, globally recognised 'principal profile' for the cause of such occurrences. It is, in short, love it or loathe it, the most statistically supportable likelihood in every modern nation on earth. Einstein said that insanity was defined as doing the same things repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. It would be insanity for any police force to actually expect the most likely scenario and the most evidentially supported scenario to be the least likely conclusion. Their experience tells them that.

That's not speculation, nor quackery.

Now... you talk about how you read this book - and believe it - because you hate conspiracy theorists and the 'quacks' who promote them, and you cite the good journalistic authorship of this book. You comment that you appreciate an author who affirms that the US Government was not secretly behind 9.11 (Summers) and you appreciated the Summers volume on J Edgar Hoover. Did you read Summers' most critically acclaimed book, the one that earned him his kudos? The one he wrote defying the official government story, and claiming that JFK died as the result of a massive conspiracy theory - a conspiracy theory which many claim is 'quackery?' A conspiracy theory that many would claim Summers is a quack for writing in support of?

Do you realise, for example, that 'conspiracy theorists' claimed that the Reichstag fire was staged, that the attack on Pearl Harbour was known to be imminent and not reacted against, that Hillsborough was covered up, that Jimmy Saville and a number of high-level establishment pedophiles including MP's were routinely and massively abusing children in the care home system, that there was never any WMD in Iraq and that the Watergate Affair was an inside job?

Do you feel more enlightened, academic and authoritative by rejecting and living in ignorance of anything that such 'conspiracy theorists' and 'quacks' say?

Personally, I'd rather not be spoonfed my information or my opinions by any 'sacred cows' of journalism in single 'definitive' volumes. I'd rather use my brain and decide for myself where the evidence leads and whether the people who make the details of the evidence, not the generalisms of the condensed and abridged summative the central topic of discussion, and I'd hope other readers do too.

Glad you enjoyed it, though. Most people would have read your comments and concluded that you'd barely read past the index, or that curiously you already knew what it was that the book said, as if by psychic impression. Obviously I wouldn't begin to imagine you were as underhand and deceitful as that.

I mean... that would be like telling people you'd written the definitive book, even though you left out most of the details and failed to mention that you weren't legally allowed to write any other, without fearing being sued. Amazon

Monday, September 15, 2014

Comments and Link Dump


Kate McCann Curtains. Blah blah.

Looking For Madeleine: Bad Book Good Comments



There are some that contribute to a vibrant internet and there are some that don't.

Some, who's sole contribution to said vibrancy, is commonly found to be little more than a whinge on someone else's blog or website, and oft irrational in the process.

Topping this latter group are trolls, be they amateur; sad little people who really should get a life, or professional trolls, equally sad inasmuch as they fuck for money but refuse to call themselves whores.

Trolls who's activity on the web, and must be said, those that engage them, often constantly, fit only one description: mindless. Totally bereft of any intellectual input or value, mind-numbingly mindless.

As such, my standard policy is never engage with the trolls, and never recognise them on these unhallowed pages. But . . .

But on this rarest, no, on this unique occasion, we have, in a minor role must be said, one such troll. As ubiquitous as she is mindless, our Pamela.

But why you might ask, why on this occasion? Well, apart from being quite funny, very much so in places, our Pam is an essential part of this post, being as she is, the perfect foil that enables me to present to you, more of the imitable writing of the previously featured "Vten."

I have edited out the chaff, the less interesting, but the essence remains intact.
  
Drive on. 

Customer Review
5.0 out of 5 stars Very impressive
By Zombie Flickfan

At last we have an independent, easy-to-read book from accredited authors who spent two years studying the case before publishing.

"Looking for Madeleine" delivers the promise of being a definitive account as it painstakingly sorts through the mire of myth and counter myth about this heart-breaking case.

The authors take the reader through every aspect of the case, from the events leading up to almost-four year old Madeleine's abduction, all the way through to the most recent developments of the Scotland Yard investigation. It is a professional and unbiased account which focuses purely on established facts and no attempt has been made to gloss over the faults of any of the parties involved.

We are used to hearing criticism of the Portuguese investigation, but refreshingly, the authors have highlighted many aspects of the investigation where praise is due. For example, the thoroughness of many aspects of data collection and the tireless dedication of many of the police officers working on the ground.

The book deals sensitively with the private and often crippling despair of the parents as they struggled to come to terms not only with the disappearance of their daughter, but the Goliathan task of having to conduct a worldwide search for her on their own. As one of the benefactors who stepped in to help them said, how can you find a needle in the haystack when you can't even find the haystack? We also learn of the cruel, vicious and often sinister campaign of hate and "black propaganda" which rages unbound on the world wide web.

It is clear that Summers and Swan have gone to a great deal of effort to research and verify the evidence of the case - i.e. the sniffer dogs and the forensic findings. However, the explanations are then relayed to the reader in layman's terms and facts pertaining to the various instances of corruption within the Portuguese legal system are diplomatically handled.

This is a fast and effortless page-turner of a book which I read in a single sitting.

I would therefore recommend to readers that if you only read one account of this tragic case, then make it this one.


pamelag says:
I look forward even more to reading this after your review Zombie Flickfan. I am at a loss to know why I have to wait until Thursday but assume demand has been high.


pamelag says:
I look forward even more to reading Looking for Madeleine after your review Zombie Flickfan. What I have seen already has my interest.


Vten says:
One question... how can you credibly claim that this work is in any way authoritative and trustworthy based on 'two years' of the authors studying what is an active, unconcluded case? This is not a case that can, by definition, be objectively assessed unless one is prepared to make reference to one troubling fact: that two police forces in two countries have investigated the case, the first of which concluded that the most likely and most evidenced scenario was the one involving the parent's culpability, the second having spent millions of pounds and having failed to find a single scrap of evidence which made the former (and still most likely) conclusion any less likely. There is no credible, objective, 'investigative' way to address the fact that all the available evidence points to a conclusion which is very inconvenient for the very people who insist that the story leads in an unevidenced, unsupportable, unquantifiable direction away from themselves, and no other evidence exists which materially supercedes the place that the initial investigation arrived. Nor is there any address of the fact that there are literally dozens of nations on earth whose police forces have acknowledged that they also would have held the same suspicions, conducted the same investigation, and come to the same conclusions as the Portuguese.

A pattern is emerging. The McCann Organisation rejected the work of the investigating police department, and hired their own string of abysmally poor private dicks to propagate their narrative with half truths, non-truths and anecdotal fact-ettes. Then they rejected the work of a second investigating police department and continue to run with the nonsense drafted together by their own string of corrupt private dicks, and peppered the world with frivolous court cases intimidating dissenters and investigators from turning a critical eye on them. And now, in the UK, the only nation in Europe which has banned books which cast a critical eye on this unsolved, still active police investigation, we have a mysteriously favourable dynamic duo of apologetic journalism writing the 'definitive' tome, not on the evidence, not on the fate of the missing girl, not addressing the contradictions and issues, but re-affirming the elevation above suspicion attained by the globally recognised most likely prime suspects in the case.

Not to mention that referring to skeptics and investigators with contrary conclusions as 'haters' is grossly unprofessional. This is the first time I've ever read investigative journalists acknowledge cadaver and blood dogs positively identifying predictable crime scene locations and then moving quickly on to dismiss that this should be taken as meaning anything. Clearly the authors have done no objective research in the statistical probability that the dogs drew incorrect conclusions and that the identified scenes were coincidental to the prime suspects and/or the case.

I agree that it is a fast and effortless page-turner of a book which can be read in a single sitting. For a work claiming to be 'journalistic' and 'investigative' and 'objective' on a case as complex and STILL ACTIVE as this, I think that's a shameful indictment. It testifies more to the book being designed to deliver a bite sized narrative which is easy to remember than it does to the intricate examination of the literally hundreds of inconvenient facts, details, evidences and contradictions which would be essential to genuinely investigate the case and come up with a conclusion on either side of the controversy.

I would also urge readers to have the utmost caution in reading these comment threads, as they appear to be being hijacked by characters like the ubiquitous 'pamelag' who is almost certainly an eternally-active pro-McCann apologist known as Pamela G***** who voraciously and viciously spends the bulk of her time attacking skeptics and investigators who doubt this very same 'safe' narrative via Facebook and Twitter. It would be safe to say that her conclusions and views are not remotely based on the reading of this book, since this book conforms with curious precision to the views she espouses by foregone conclusion as part of her ongoing association with the McCann Lobby.


pamelag says:
I am shocked as well Zombie Flickfan but it has indeed shown the size of the malicious campaign of hate that has come about post Madeleine's abduction. I find it all very sad.

I am getting into the book now and Anthony and Robbyn have helped in explaining just how confused everyone was by Madeleine's disappearance and how and why the media were contacted (also the British Embassy). Nothing most family & friends wouldn't have done in an effort to get a little child found surely?

I do hope Amazon get their act together soon and stop these malicious and planned attacks on authors such as Summers & Swan. Unjustified hate campaigns and the people to feel sorry for are those conducting this sorry and sordid campaign, not the authors.


pamelag says:
Don't let's get into the subject of Joana Morais or Mercedes or whatever her name is. It is quite obvious which side of the fence they sit firmly on but that is hardly surprising seeing as they are Portuguese like yourself I take it?

pamelag says:
Now why would Amaral give thanks for Mark Harrisons report? I would be very suspect of all goings on during that period of time. Why did Harrison ask for Grime for a start?


Vten says:
I'm sorry, but I raise an objection to that kind of racism, Pamela Gurney.

You are incessantly campaigning about a 'crusade' on Amazon because people who have read this volume expecting authority, authenticity, objectivity and information are getting nothing of the sort and instead are reading a re-hash of the same question-ignoring, evidence-overlooking, fantasy-propagating implausible apologist nonsense that you yourself are known for almost professionally publishing through social media.

As far as I can tell the only determined cyber-activist with an agenda on these Amazon comments is you.

In fact, your interference not only shows you up for the one-track foregone conclusion that you are and doubtless makes people wonder how one person can have so much time and energy to herald the innocence of people who've made themselves look guilty before the whole world, and can become an apologist for reckless child abandonment in tourist resorts WITHOUT being in the paid employ of someone with a vested interest.

If nothing else it will hopefully inform readers that they don't need to depend on a single book for their conclusions (which is what you and the McCann Enterprise would like to have everyone do - switch off the internet, and just read the book) but can research the ACTUAL POLICE FILES online quite freely and quite accurately in as much lurid detail as they like, and draw their own conclusions where information is not only freely flowing, but can even read about people like you and the extraordinary extensive efforts you make to be chipping in anywhere online that the name 'McCann' is even mentioned...


pamelag says:
Oh dear! I don't see anywhere that I have been racist Vten! I also refute that I am everywhere "chipping in" as you put it. Apart from at the moment trying to get through to the knuckle headed antis swamping Summers & Swan facebook page in their usual hordes. You are all extremely transparent I might add.

As for the police files please everyone remember they were translated by anti McCanns or the ones available to you are. Fortunately the police are the only ones to have the true and definite files in at their disposal.

I worked long and tirelessly on this case with many others some years ago and we too came quietly to our conclusion on the matter and that was Madeleine McCann was abducted professionally by persons known to the police but as yet found out. Professionally abducted and passed on to others for disposal and hopefully to a family not to paedophiles.

You see there is always that very good chance but you people, for some extraordinary reason are dead set of her having met her end in Praia da Luz without a single shred of evidence to that effect.

I think giving up on Madeleine is wrong and hopefully our Government will see fit to pursue this matter to the end and with the desired result.


Vten says:
So now you're suggesting that Mark Harrison and Martin Grime were corrupt and deliberately attempting to set up the McCann's?

For the public information, Mark Harrison was the Scotland Yard endorsed expert investigator dealing with Missing Children who was dispatched to work with the Policia Judicia and who was shocked and appalled that the PJ were actually following lines of investigation based on the noise the parents of the missing child were making pointing away in every direction other than themselves, and instead he advised the PJ that the starting place in any missing child investigation is to place the last people to claim to see the child alive and present, especially when they are the parents, based on tried and tested globally acknowledged police investigative methodology. No?

And you're insinuating that his work cannot be trusted and that he was corrupt and framing the McCann's.

And for the record, Martin Grime is the expert cadaver and blood dog handler from South Yorkshire Police with a sterling track record, who attended Praia da Luz at the request of the Scotland Yard investigative coordinator seconded to the Policia Judicia to have the dogs forensically examine the scene, resulting in them signalling strong positives for death scent and/or blood in multiple locations in the McCann's holiday apartment, on items of their clothing, on the child's soft toy, and then even more bizarrely, strongly in the hire car that was not in their possession until many days after the disappearance and on the hire car key, affirming Mark Harrison's suspicions and those of Goncalo Amaral as well as several other prominent police officers around the world who were not working on the case but were familiar with criminal behaviour, evasion, profiling and statistical probability, including John Stalker and investigators with the FBI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Martin Grime and his dogs also attended a now infamous location on Jersey where it was alleged that the massive exploitation and murder of children in care was taking place, and the dogs identified secreted chambers, and the scent of both blood and death, before being mysteriously dismissed in the wake of both of these cases which bear the hallmarks of a cover up and are extensively reported upon by investigative journalists seeking to expose corruption. And unless I'm mistaken, those with a vested interest in Grime's dismissal from both those cases, and his discreditation, heralded his departure as a sign of his obsolescence, of the inaccuracy of the dogs, of the unreliability of the findings, and declared that there was (like Summers states) 'nothing to see here'. And yet I don't hear you mentioning that arguably the most prestigious police force in the world, the FBI, was falling over itself to contract Martin Grime's services - and those of the dogs Eddie and Keela - and all of them went on to successfully and flawlessly assist in a number of cases including several in which parents claiming 'missing' children had been kidnapped actually turned out to have deliberately or accidentally killed their offspring and disposed of the body, as indicated by Grime's dogs, and that in fact not only confessions but convictions have been achieved in the absence of strong physical evidence or the discovery of a body, based on the reliability and authority of blood and cadaver dog detection.

And you're insinuating that his work cannot be trusted and that he was corrupt and attempting to frame the McCann's?

Surely there's actually more statistical likelihood that he is impartial, professional, his work was spot on, the dogs were right, and now political interference in two cases has been conducted by those with a vested interest. This is, in fact, the only logical conclusion, given the number of times blood and cadaver dogs have been right compared to the number of times those in the frame for heinous murder or a wrongful death and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice have been proved conclusively to be right...

Just so long as we're clear to make sure the actual facts about Mark Harrison and Martin Grime (and Eddie and Keela, the blood and cadaver dogs who indicated that the McCann's knew far, far more than they were telling) are known for the sake of fairness, rather than you leaving it at mentioning their names and insinuating that these unimpeached professionals were in some way corrupt or unreliable.

Perhaps you could also explain why it is that Mark Harrison and Martin Grime are, in the midst of all this controversy about why an 'official' investigation has utterly disregarded their inconvenient findings, prevented from discussing the matter in the public arena or writing their own book in defence of their work - when it is not remotely uncommon for investigating officers to write accounts of their investigations?

Vten says:
Actually, when you assert that someone's opinion is incorrect or invalid 'because' they are a particular nationality - Portuguese - it is extremely racist. You have no evidence that the Portuguese have made an incorrect investigation, assessment, or drawn an incorrect conclusion. In fact, a British court affirmed that there is no evidence to contradict the Portuguese conclusions of the parents involvement, other than the say-so of the missing child's parents. Further, to insinuate that not only were the Portuguese inherently inept, or wrong, but that inevitably by being Portuguese a commentator must be equally inept and wrong is utterly scandalous.

I hope to God that the Portuguese don't think that I as a British person am inherently bound to supporting the lies, contradictions, inconsistensies and misdirection offered forth on behalf of these people, nor imagine for a moment that I'm the kind of person who would leave my children night after night in an unlocked holiday apartment, in a place I didn't know, while I ate and drank with friends, half friends and barely friends on the other side of the resort during a 'family' holiday in which half my 'family' had spent approximately ninety percent of their waking time utterly estranged from me, being taken care of by child care professionals, just because I'm British and we must all be the same.

Incidentally, Gurney... I commend you on denying on the one hand that you are 'everywhere' on the internet playing apologist for the McCann's, while not only being able to reply to this post within mere moments, but affirming that you are actually currently engaged in setting the record straight for any and every outraged person who considers this book a travesty of investigative journalism and who refuses to believe the lies you're actively helping to spin. Talk about transparency.

YOU have never worked 'long and tirelessly' on this case. You're a nobody. You're an internet nothing. You have no authority, no investigative kudos, you're just a very active internet bully, alongside several others on both sides of the opinion, and frankly those of us who do care about truth and corruption are sick of the lot of you hazing this case with your spin and your unsubstantiated claims and your elaborate plots by paedophiles or government agents or whoever else.

This case is very simple. Amaral knows it. Stalker knows it. Harrison knows it. Grime knows it. And Redwood knows it. Your friends definitely know it. And we, the majority of the British public, know it too.

And part of the 'how' we know it is that people like you and the McCann Organisation, the Clarence Mitchells, the Anthony Summers, all have to repeatedly attempt to swing and sway what we think in order to gloss over the glaring problems, in order to satiate searing consciences, in order to satisfy guilt and fear. Innocent people, simply looking for their child, would never in a million years give a damn about what the global public believe about them. It would make no difference to them. They would gladly acknowledge their own guilt in endangering their child, accept the consequences, and go on looking. No press conferences. No Oprah show. No books. No refusal to answer police questions. No wild speculations and conspiracy theories. No crusades and campaigns. No guilt-tripping the public into funding the search. No lawsuits to suppress speculation. No slandering the investigating police force. Just the quiet dignity of getting on with life in the knowledge that I screwed up looking after my own children big time, that people hate me for it, and that as a result of my actions I now fall under suspicion that I would have avoided entirely if I'd been a better parent. I'll be honest, I'd be so disgusted with myself, that I couldn't even make a self-righteous appearance in a court to attempt to prosecute anyone for thinking or speaking ill of me. The loss would so outweigh anything that could be a personal cost of my loss of reputation.

There is no, precisely no, zero evidence that the girl was kidnapped by anyone. That's an acknowledged, court-recognised fact. None. No credible lead or sighting. No evidence.

There is, however, evidence of the presence of blood and cadaverine in places that they simply shouldn't be, all seemingly coincidentally linked by their commonly being in the possession of the McCann's. No other viable explanation for them. Then there are all the telltale behavioural and linguistic giveaways, as identified by numerous profilers of international police forces. There are the numerous contradictions. There is, in fact, nothing BUT evidence that the girl met her end in PDL. And by contrast, precisely ZERO evidence that she ever moved out of that place. What is not available, for one reason or another, is the PROOF of that evidence. But the evidence is abundant. There are police files and years of after-the-fact observations that demonstrate it. In several countries of the world, the available evidence would have already resulted in a conviction. You may argue that it would be a wrong conviction, and that's your opinion. But the idea that there is 'no evidence' is nonsense. In some modern, civilised countries, the evidence is enough to convict. And cannot be countered by anything amounting to 'reasonable evidence' to negate the conclusion.

I agree that giving up on Madeleine, for the sake of justice, is wrong. I believe in going where the evidence leads. I believe that one investigation did that. And that investigation was ended on the say so of diplomats, not investigators. And then to start a second investigation without any consideration of the prime suspects and the available evidence is equivalent to the madness of doing something over and over again and expecting different results. Until the prime suspects and the available evidence are being considered, Scotland Yard cannot bring anything to a conclusion, and I notice your careful use of the term 'this matter to the end and with the desired results.'

I want the results that the evidence demands. I'm quite sure you and your friends have a strong idea of what the 'desired results' of investigation are. And you may get them. But if you do, there will be no end to the speculation and the books written by those who smell a rat.


pamelag says:
Blinkered and biased Vten in your endeavour to support Amaral and his book of lies. I've no more time to discuss this now. Amazon


Sunday, September 14, 2014

Looking For Madeleine: A Book Review



Without comment, posted and preserved for posterity. You will however, find a clip or two below, where Summers and Swan opine on other subjects.

Atrocious representation of a problematic narrative, fraudulently disguised as 'objective investigative journalism.',
12 Sep 2014
By Vten "Vten"

This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)


This is a genuinely troubling work.

Much of Anthony Summers 'kudos' stems from his work debunking government narratives and 'official' accounts of controversial events, not least in his work on the Kennedy Assassination, which is effectively what made his 'name' in this kind of field of research. His volume on that subject is considered a staple of speculative 'research' and earned him some degree of respect.

It was on that basis that Summers allowed himself to be regarded as an 'investigative journalist' or an 'investigative reporter' (whichever he prefers) and indeed he certainly epitomised the altruistic skeptic, cutting through the 'official story' to dig through the nuggets of inconvenient, irrepressible, undeniable facts which defied the attempts at establishment whitewash, refused to go away, the testimonies and evidences which called loudly to be heard above the white noise of government narratives.

Sadly, and inexplicably, Summers has taken recently to becoming an apologist for incredulous 'official' narratives - for writing volumes which reassure the reader that it is safe to overlook the inconvenient, irrepressible, undeniable facts which defy attempts at whitewashing, to disregard them. He did so lazily with the subject of 911, a topic which would certainly have lent itself to requiring far more pages even to debunk the circulating theories and claimed misinformations. An investigative journalist should not merely form a narrative, but should investigate. With depth. Thoroughly. And one claiming to be 'impartial' or 'independent' or 'objective' should do so affording equal opportunity to the troublesome points of issue or debate.

This volume is no exception. It is nothing short of an emotionally sickly rehash of a tired and unconvincing narrative in which the author(s) (and I suspect that this is more of her work than his) has managed entirely to avoid objectively investigating troublesome points of issue or debate in this case. Indeed, the author appears to be inexpllcably proud of the very minimal amount of contact and interview that has been conducted, which shows in the content of the book.

I've actually had to resort to skim reading the book, because there's literally nothing new in it, and I'm shocked and appalled by the sheer amount of foregone conclusion and logical fallacy involved in glossing over a very small number of the glaring problems in the Tapas Group's narrative and the 'official story.'

Once upon a time, as with the JFK controversy, the very inconsistensies and incriminating evidences (sniffer dogs alerting positively to McCann apartment, hire car and clothing) would have a serious investigative journalist straining for a pen in order to get to the bottom of those very damning details. Summers, however, clearly past his prime, is doing little more than giving (if at all) a fleeting reference to these inconveniences and offering a reassurance on the basis of his own claimed authority and acumen, that there is 'nothing to see here.'

For certain, his is an utterly unique work in this field.

But not for the reasons he'd like you to think. Not because his work is definitive. Not because his work is so cutting edge and accurate. Not because he's gotten to the truth.

Rather, his work is unique because it is so utterly redundant, and pointlessly benign.

You see, he's offered nothing that isn't already being pushed by the McCann family and their agents including PR guru Clarence Mitchell. He's offering nothing that hasn't already been published, ad nauseum, by the apologists.

But that's the point. You cannot declare yourself an 'investigative journalist' or an 'objective reporter' on a subject where critical or contradictory analysis CANNOT be legally published. In the UK the texts which take a dim view of what should be, in any case like this anywhere in the world, the prime suspects and the smoking gun evidence, have been banned by request of the people who have the most to lose from the eye of critical assessment.

In short, the ONLY narrative that can be printed in book form in the UK and sold for profit is a narrative which affirms the 'official' story. Yet that 'official story' is not supported by any independent, testable, credible evidence whatsoever. Rather, it exists only in the testimony of the people who were claimed as being present at the time - testimony which, the official PJ files show, has changed a disturbing number of times. From the outset, it was never possible for this book to exist and to deliver anything other than this very same affirmative narrative irrespective of the facts, the evidence and the wealth of contradictory opinion - all of which are available freely in the public domain.

On this basis the author makes several false statements and perpetuates several fallacies which are repetitions of staple claims and insistences made by the McCann Organisation, but which bear no resemblance to the statements made by the appropriate investigative authorities in Portugal or the UK. Similarly, the author's work is already out of date. The authors, like the McCann organisation, make frequent insinuations about the mysterious figure allegedly seen carrying a limp girl through the chilly streets during the mere moments of incredulous 'windows of opportunity' presented by the Tapas Group in their numerous contradictory statements, as identified by one of the Tapas Group as an 'afterthought', when in October 2013 Scotland Yard and the BBC Crimewatch team began a comprehensive dismissal of this 'mystery' figure by identifying and eliminating from enquiries the individual in question. The authors also make reference to optimistic claims by senior detectives at Scotland Yard that the missing child is probably still alive, while the reality is that the lead detective at Scotland Yard has lent a disproportionate support to the 'consensus' that the child did not leave her family's holiday apartment alive.

This work cannot be considered a credible, independent, objective evaluation of this mysterious and controversial case while it is so clearly formed from the outset around drawing and reinforcing foregone conclusions without any kind of credible examination of inconvenient facts, critical assessment of incriminating evidence, or fully revelatory examinations of the case against the only universally recognised prime suspects in the case.

In actual fact, you would learn more about the statistical probabilities, tried and tested likelihoods, and investigative due process in 'missing child' cases by watching some old episodes of 'Without A Trace' than you will from reading this book, because here the authors immediately dismiss what patterns and profiles police departments have established internationally from examining such cases, and declared - solely on their own testimony - the prime suspects to be free of culpability and above scrutiny and suspicion.

Even more incredulously, the authors have become apologists for the controversial actions of parents who left their own children for multiple nights in a row home alone in a strange, unlocked holiday apartment while they ate and drank in a holiday resort in which, it seems, the bulk of their holiday was spent sending their children off to organised activities to be looked after by holiday resort staff.

An apologetic is not an objective assessment. It is a pre-determined agenda. Informational sleight of hand.

This volume is strong on regurgitated narrative, and bereft of actual, critical, objective factual examination.

Similarly, it is premature. Summers previous work has been on 'cold case', biographies and investigations into past and concluded matters. This is an ongoing, unsolved investigation which has been the subject of significant political and media interference and is as yet unconcluded and leaves a significant population of the UK, and a sizeable majority of the US, Australia and Europe strongly questioning the carefully screened and deliberately spun narrative presented via the mainstream media where this matter is concerned. This cannot, by nature, be a post-mortem of a case, which begs the question as to why Summers and Co felt the need to wade in with such selective partiality. In the UK no books can be sold which offer a contradictory or controversial analysis of the case and the 'official story', although in Europe the media market is free enough to allow citizens to purchase and read the work of unconstrained investigators and journalists who yield a very different conclusion to that presented in UK media. So this volume is, as a supposedly 'critically objective' work, utterly redundant. It instead appears to be an unnecessary contribution to the steering of public opinion in favour of the mainstream media, regurgitating and reinforcing the already well-established 'consensus' account of the case.

There is, literally, nothing here for readers that has not been heard ad nauseam and without challenge, for seven years - great sections of the book are simply lifted from case files, media interviews and so on. There is naught original here, nothing brave or challenging about this writing, and the curious reader would be far more enlightened and intrigued by referencing the PJ Police Files directly or in their translated form, or reading the commentary from investigating officers in Portugal.

In view of the informational and misinformational mess that this case has become with too many parties with vested interests dipping a stirring spoon into the pot, particularly in recent months, it almost seems like this book comes along to lift the Tapas Group's carefully contrived and harmonised narrative out of the noise of the active investigation and to reinforce it with the illusion of a safe, impartial, academic authority.

As a work, this isn't worth the paper or the pixels that its printed with, because it has no academic or informational value that could not be better served elsewhere for free.

In Reply


M. Goldberg says:
Excellent appraisal. Put into words thoughts I could never articulate so succinctly. It is, in essence, a eulogy for the McCanns. The authors knew that straying from the official narrative would have them carpeted at Carter Ruck and that Amazon would never stock it.
We are inured to the Mitchell driven spin surrounding the McCanns and this has his rank scent rising from it from cover to cover. Summers and Swan have literary, sorry, literally sold out. Oxfam and remainder fodder.


Response

Vten says:

I think so.

It's a shame.

Truth is truth. Even in a sea of misinformation, even in a flood of speculation and negative comment, truth will prevail and those telling the truth can maintain a quiet dignity in knowing what they know. They have no need to hire a Carter Ruck and they have no need of a PR expert. Indeed, this is one of the details that has done this family the most damage. Many rational human beings the world over cannot even fathom that the parents of a missing child would engage in anything other than upping sticks and spending every last penny and every last breath doing everything they can to help the police and to make the search their own. Many rational human beings immediately sense the hairs on the back of their neck bristling when they hear about parties, however unfairly scandalised, who bother giving gossip and unkindness the legitimacy of a PR campaign to counter, or a law firm to sue, or superinjunctions to silence. It immediately sends a message which speaks of anything other than the conviction of innocence and a commitment to stay on track and on topic in the relentless, ceaseless, tireless quest for a missing child.

The establishment of a media-savvy organisation which gives new jobs to family and friends, the crusade of searching four star hotels and chat show sofas across the Western world, the endless fundraising activities, the lack of cooperation with the primary investigating police force and the bypassing of due process in order to steer attention and information toward a privately owned (and ultimately predictably corrupt and useless) investigation team - all these have done this family far more damage than any word uttered by any skeptic anywhere in the world. Even the mainstream media (Channel 5) recently recognised this, and began - as much as the injunctions would allow - to explore the theme of where this did tremendous damage.

I was personally disappointed, not because I have a dog in this hunt. I have very clear opinions about this case, based on the objective analysis of all the available (freely available - thank you Policia Judicia) evidence, and arrived at conclusions (if not complete theories) which I believe no rational, reasonable thinking adult could fail to reach, even with the greatest desire to believe the best. More than that, however, I'm fascinated with the extensive government and organised media interference, and again, it is this abundantly evident exceptional involvement which prompts the suspicion of a cover-up and a dark truth waiting to be revealed, seemingly of the scale of Watergate and in the spirit of every great conspiracy to cover-up the dastardly.

Summers should have been a researcher capable of handling this subject intelligently and objectively. And he didn't. As you rightly say, this content and conclusion was predictable for whichever author produced it, and makes me wonder if it wasn't the publisher that commissioned the content. After all, this is literally the only book on this subject which could sell. If a publisher could crack the injunctions and conspiracy against free press that is currently suppressing Goncalo Amaral's 'The Truth of The Lie', then that is certainly a volume which will spin straw into gold, and should this case ever crack in that direction, and the power of Carter Ruck be rendered null and void, I can't imagine a media organisation on the planet that wouldn't kill to sign the rights.

With this, the incredible absence of speculative, albeit controversial texts, is evidence of the suppressive nature of whatever legal threat is in place. And in those circumstances the publisher - who is almost certainly ambivalent to the conclusions which can be drawn, impartial in opinion, is simply seeking the opportunity to make money. Whether Summers and Co were chosen by the publisher, commissioned by an outsider, or have succumbed to some kind of intellectual dementia or the dulling effect of greed, the publisher makes money on the sale of a title which I suspect they grossly overestimated a demand for. I doubt Summers and Co will be overly excited about their earnings on this one. And let's face it, News Corporation would serialise the inventory of a grocer's shop, if they thought it would sell copy. These people are morally ambivalent by nature, and no publicity is bad publicity. All of it has plausible deniability built in. The duped can turn hero. The sued and censured can be vindicated. The fence straddle can come down on the right side.

I wanted this to be a good, intelligent, investigative read - a comprehensive study of the wealth of evidence and the inconvenient conclusions they lead to. It wasn't anything even close.


Reply

M. Goldberg says:

Thank you for your reply. Once again hammered down into a succinct precis of my thoughts this past seven years. Having followed the Soham Murders and their parents machinations and demeanour it was immediately evident that, with the McCanns, something was rotten in Rothley.
Where are Summers and Swan's analysis of the plethora of footage of Gerry shutting Kate up in interviews? Their true colours shining incandescently outside the Lisbon Court? The ridiculous implausibility of a part time GP visiting 6 corpses two weeks before her holiday taking her child's soft toy with her? The reversal of Gerry's initial statement regarding his choice of entrance to 5A? The risible "Ask the dogs, Sandra?" His less that empathetic comment, quote, "Gerry: "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment - why would that be our fault?" end quote.

Have they established what time it was Dr Payne visited 5A the "last day", a person Crimewatch managed to omit completely in their "reconstruction"?
Do they not question the McCann prescience of arranging forthcoming anniversaries of 100 days missing weeks in advance when she could so easily walk right back in through the Villa door? The monumental and unprecedented protection of the McCanns, ranging from Gordon Brown and Special Branch to the mainstream media's luvvies. The UK media, when held up against any other country, smacks of Government gagging. The banning of a book here takes me back to a Totalitarian Fascist-like state akin to 1930's Germany.

None of this has reached us via the TV and pulp media here, all filtered out after the media found themselves successfully sued by serial wannabe litigators, the McCanns.
What of the crooks they hired, Metodo3, Halligan (whichever way he spells it these days)? Of Edgar and Cowley's jury rigged ramshackle little unregistered outfit?
And Summers and Swan don't spot a theme, here?
It is, of course, another pro McCann ditty, a guarantee (they thought) of making money, possibly part of the publisher's requirements to fulfil their output quota deal.
Having seen Swan on Sky calling Eddie and Keela "so-called cadaver dogs" was sufficient for me to know the ostensible purpose of this cozy little literary genuflect to the media lionised McCanns.
I'm not sure what category this "book" could be nominated for. I don't think Pulitzer give prizes for obsequious potboiling.


Response

Vten says:
Not at all...

You don't need a work of fiction to serve a purpose or carry potency. You don't need poetry to serve a purpose or carry potency. You don't even need a shameless apologetic or even a biography to serve a purpose or carry potency.

But when a piece of writing claiming to be investigative journalism, claiming to be the result of years of objective analytical study, which presents itself as having the authority of riding on the coat-tails of critically acclaimed pieces of writing where materially implausible 'official stories' were debunked by precisely focusing on the mass of detail found in the evidence which has formally been overlooked, ignored, childishly explained away, suppressed, or by consideration of the glaring inconsistensies and contradictions, then I maintain my view that without purpose and without potency in doing so, the work is utterly pointless and shamelessly commercial.

In musical terms Summers has stepped beyond the artistic concept album, he's left behind the cutting edge punk explosion, and he's settled squarely in the field of middle-of-the-road geriatric pop. He has the right to do so, but to feel any obligation to accept where he's at as having in any way been the result of a process of maturing, improving and advancing would be nothing short of madness.

In terms of prematurity, this work is as ill-placed as if he had written, four years ago, an 'expose' of Hillsborough in which overlooked the majority of available testimony, glossed over the pertinent details which court controversy, and simply affirmed that everything the British police had already said was entirely true, regardless of the fact that experts from across the world were screaming that something was stinking.

Heck, for the sake of journalistic integrity in the field (Summers' former field) of conspiracy theory alone, you would be compelled to at least devote a chapter to how tried and tested it is to recognise extraordinary government intervention and the extraordinary and exceptional behaviour of nationally controlled police and secret service agencies which was neither precedented nor has ever been repeated in this case, as bearing the hallmarks of something extremely suspicious, even if only by the absolute abstractness from form of those actions and interventions.

These are the premises under which Summers worked when he penned earlier titles. When American police forces (FBI or otherwise) ignored information, destroyed vital notices that rang alarm bells. When police gave right of access and even right of control to non-police individuals or agencies, that rang alarm bells. When the authority of a sailor shut down the investigation which should be led by a pathologist, that rang alarm bells. When tried and tested forensic science was declared irrelevant, because it produced a result which to all intents and purposes was valid but inconvenient, that rang alarm bells. When witnesses were omitted from official investigation, and untraceable but convenient witnesses were conjured up to affirm the official story, that rang alarm bells. When government departments with much better things to do stepped into situations that were outside their remit and enacted measures which were not their usual way of dealing with similar matters, that rang alarm bells. When timelines were changed, when conclusions and divergences were being publicised before even the dust had settled, before a forensic examiners briefcase had even been opened, that rang alarm bells. And Summers, like others including those whose shoulders he stood on to pen his unoriginal but comprehensive work, was writing in response to the very valid alarm bells.

With this work he's doing nothing short but muffling them.

I can tell you this... As a journalist if I got used to seeing my local police force night after night picking up abusive drunken wifebeaters, bouncing them down the garden path, tossing them head first into a black Mariah, dragging them out again dripping in the urine they excreted against the side of the van, endured the spitting and the verbal abuse before booking them in and tossing them in a cell to cool off until a court appearance in the morning, if I was hearing that on one such occasion the police escorted a man away from the scene while referring to him as 'sir', refused to handcuff him in case he felt insulted, said 'thank you' when he urinated and laughed heartily at ever curse and insult, offered him the front seat in the van and asked if he was comfortable enough and what radio station he'd like playing, covered his head and refused to book him in under any name other than 'Mickey Mouse' before escorting him to an unsecured lounge so he could sleep it off with the assurance 'don't worry sir, this will never go to court' then as an 'investigative journalist' I think I'd be utterly failing in my job if I was not all over that exceptional, extraordinary case with the fully correct suspicion that this wasn't merely a 'generous day' down at central, but that - in fact - the subject who had been removed from the arrest-worthy situation was someone extremely important, who was in the process of escaping justice. I think my sense of indignance would be heightened if I then heard that back at the crime scene it was a body that had been discovered, and the police were busy inside staging a sham of an investigation and were even then engaged in attempting to find a drunk or degenerate mentally ill person in the neighbourhood who they could frame.

Whatever this work is, there's one thing it is not. It is not a piece of investigative journalism. To be that, it would have to be objective, it would have to be investigative. Instead it is part biography, part apologetic, and appears in whole to be simply an attempt to catalogue in one 'definitive' volume only the information and the conclusions that certain vested interest parties would like to be known for, published by someone other than themselves in order to create the illusion of verified authenticity.

Reply

M. Goldberg says:

I was drawn to, quote, "When witnesses were omitted from official investigation, and untraceable but convenient witnesses were conjured up to affirm the official story, that rang alarm bells." end quote.
As an author who investigated JFK, Summers will not have failed to notice that that is exactly what the Warren Commission did. The Government cover up demands a narrative from which anyone straying is labelled a "conspiraloon", "nutter" "fantasist and so on.
Summers and Swan's reactions to criticism of their book has echoed that, talking of alarms bells.
Their book is like a "Fanzine" compendium, a Christmas bumper collation of all the disinformation supplied by Mitchell and the McCanns this past seven years. It is ostensibly designed as the definitive McCann manual, which, in the extant days of the Internet, would be laughable were it not inherently a very serious subject.
If anyone wishes to read the antithesis to the McCann "official" fable they should read the PJ files online and/or Amaral's book instead, as all you have here is nothing more than yet another feeble endorsement of, or rather attempt at, the McCann's exoneration. Customer Reviews Amazon


Summers & Swan "A plane absolutely did hit the Pentagon"



Mais oui.

9/11 - NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON - only once aired report




The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of September 11 and Osama bin Laden (Summers & Swan)

Summers and Swan: Building 7 fell down due to "damage by falling debris"



But of course.




Come, take my hand.



Footnote: Should "Vten" wish to avail himself of a platform, for this or any other subject, I would be delighted to offer a spot as a guest writer. Your input, as your eloquence, is not without appreciation. Thank you.

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

The Lost World Of Mitchell And Kenyon with Dan Cruickshank


I had, in a previous post, bemoaned the vandalism visited upon Blackpool's Victoria pier, (North) by the then Borough Council of the day. Inasmuch as they stripped the old girl of her magnificent Victorian ironwork and replaced it the very worst of Twentieth Century Modern.

It was only by chance, earlier today, that I stumbled upon the first clip which gives us a hint of former days of elegance and grace. To say nothing of the popularity of the pier and the resort in general.

And as things do, that led to me posting the The Lost World Of Mitchell And Kenyon, early, everyday film of everyday life, that be good luck and good fortune fortune, remains with us today.



Victorian Britain - Seaside Holidays



Thanks to uploader Mr Allsop


~ ~ ~

The Lost World Of Mitchell And Kenyon
The series showcases films made by Mitchell and Kenyon, lost for almost a century, rediscovered in 1994 and restored by the BFI. Most of the films are simply records of life, sport and culture at the beginning of the 20th century.

Dan Cruickshank presents and narrates the series; in addition, descendants of some of the people featured in the original films provide commentaries upon them; and (in what many critics considered the series' weakest feature) scenes from the life and work of filmmakers Sagar Mitchell and James Kenyon are dramatized in speeded-up form like incorrectly screened silent movies (although the actual film excerpts are shown at the correct speed.

With sincere thanks to uploader Kay Dee.

The Lost World Of Mitchell And Kenyon













A little bonus, pictures from the streets in London of the 1876-1877 Depicting the good old days.



Thanks to uploader MarcM77

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Justice #USA America’s Corrupt Institutions


I don't know how many of you reading this, truly understand how the US Justice System really functions? Well it functions just like Paul Craig Roberts says it does, shamelessly corrupt and about as far away from justice as is possible to be.

I am just featuring the first part of Craig Roberts article, the non-specific part, the part where to be alone charged with a felony, leads inevitably to a conviction. It is that simple. It is that frightening.


America’s Corrupt Institutions

Paul Craig Roberts
August 27, 2014

Every public institution in the United States and most private ones are corrupt.

To tell this story would be a multi-book task. Lawrence Stratton and I have written one small volume of the story. Our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, now with two editions and multiple printings, documents the corruption of law in the United States and has been cited in rulings by Federal District and Appeal Court judges.

Law is just one public institution, but it is a corner stone of society. When law goes, everything goes.

Only about 4 percent of federal felony cases go to trial. Almost all, 96 percent, are settled by negotiated plea bargains. Law & Order Conservatives condemn plea bargains for the wrong reason. They think plea bargains let criminals off easy.

In fact, plea bargains are used by prosecutors to convict the innocent along with the guilty. Plea bargains eliminate juries and time-consuming trials, that is, plea bargains eliminate all work on the part of prosecutors and police and lead to high conviction rates for prosecutors, the main indicator of their career success. Once upon a time, prosecutors pursued justice. They carefully examined police investigations and only indicted suspects whose conviction they thought could be obtained by a jury. Sloppy police work was discarded.

No more. Once indicted and provided with a lawyer, the defendant learns that his lawyer has no intention of defending him before a jury. The lawyer knows that the chances of getting even a totally innocent defendant found not guilty is slim to non-existent. Prosecutors, with the consent of judges, suborn perjury for which they are permitted to pay with money and dropped charges against real criminals, and prosecutors routinely withhold evidence favorable to the defendant. If a prosecutor detects that a defendant intends to fight, the prosecutor piles on charges until the defendant’s lawyer convinces the defendant that no jury will dismiss all of so many charges and that the one or two that the jury convicts on will bring a much longer sentence than the lawyer can negotiate. The lawyer tells the defendant that if you go to trail, you will be using up the time of prosecutors and judges, and the inconvenience that you cause them will send you away for many a year.

In some state and local courts it is still possible on occasion to get an almost fair trial if you can afford an attorney well enough connected to provide it. But even in non-federal courts the system is stacked against the defendant. Many prisons have been privatized, and privatized prisons require high incarceration rates in order to be profitable. The same holds for juvenile detention prisons. Not long ago two Pennsylvania judges were convicted for accepting payments from private detention prisons for each kid they sentenced.

Judges prefer plea bargains despite the fact that plea bargains amount to self-incrimination, because plea bargains dispense with time-consuming trials that cause backed-up and crowded court dockets. Trials also demand far more work on the part of a judge than accepting a plea bargain.

The fact of the matter is that in America today you are expected to convict yourself. Even your lawyer expects it. The torture is not physical; it is psychological. The system is severely biased against the defendant. Conviction by a jury brings a much heavier sentence than conviction by a deal that the defendant’s attorney negotiates with the prosecutor’s office. All the prosecutor wants is a conviction. Give him his conviction for his record as an effective prosecutor, and you get off lighter.

The injustice lies in the fact that the rule applies to the innocent as well as to the guilty.
The prosecutor and often the judge do not care whether you are innocent or guilty, and your lawyer knows that it does not matter to the outcome.

The police have learned that such a small number of cases go to trial that their evidence is seldom tested in court. Consequently, often police simply look for someone who might have committed the crime based on past criminal records, select someone with a record, and offer him or her up as the perpetrator of the crime. This police practice is one explanation for high recidivism rates.

In the totally corrupt American criminal justice (sic) system, anyone indicted, no matter how innocent, is almost certain to be convicted.

Let’s take the case of Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. more



Lady Justice Wiki

Justice Wiki

Footnote: It was this very thing, the blatant injustice of the American system, that first galvanised me into my blogging "career."

Saturday, August 09, 2014

Buried by the Mainstream Media - Investigative Documentary on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann



Presented without preamble, other than to say, for the most, I fully endorse this four part documentary on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. How could I not, given the coverage therein, reflects ninety five percent of my own coverage of this affront to the many values we hold dear, not least the truth.

I might if I may, ask you first to watch thirty seconds of Detective Chief Inspector, Andy redwood of the Metropolitan Police, who heads the government ordered review of the Madeleine McCann affair.






That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
 – PC Hodgell


~


Buried by the Mainstream Media - The True Story of Madeleine McCann

The Madeleine McCann disappearance has become one of the most enduring mysteries of our time. It has generated thousands
of front page headlines in the UK press. Despite the unprecedented coverage, few people have any detailed understanding of the circumstantial and physical evidence of the case. The mainstream media has been used to create diversion and confusion over what really happened, rather than inform their readers about the facts.

The first film in this series, entitled “The Initial Storm” examines in a level of detail never described before in any TV documentary, the evidence of the first night when Madeleine is alleged to have disappeared. The second film, “Dogs Don’t Lie”, reports on the compelling findings of one of the worlds top sniffer dog handlers, Martin Grime, whose two dogs searched for scent at key locations in Praia Da Luz. The third film exposes the so called private investigations instigated by the McCanns, details of which have never been aired on TV before.
We reveal evidence and detailed testimony about the government agencies who were claiming to be searching for Madeleine or helping the McCanns, but was this really their agenda? Our four documentaries represent the most detailed film based analysis of the Madeleine McCann story, leaving the viewer with an understanding of the comprehensive establishment led cover up, and offer suggestions as to what all the evidence really points to.










Part one on BlipTV Richplanet


Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha