And conspiracy it is, rest assured. Criminally so in fact.
David Cameron, Theresa May and Bernard Hogan-Howe, to name but a few that choose to ignore the culpability of the parents in relation to the death of Madeleine McCann.
Not to be confused with Jim Gamble, who, without remit, inserted himself in this case from the outset. One can only wonder why?
There is no abductor, there is only the parents.
Season Greeting Mr Gamble...
Jim Gamble ex cop, befriender of Kate and Gerry McCann, collaborator, collaborating with dangerous online vigilantes/McCann supporters, collaborating also with Sky Crime Reporter Martin Brunt his Dodgy Dossier Report, who together, and with others I have yet to mention, played their parts in the attack carried out against Ms Brenda Leyland. This lady sadly and tragically, days after their assault, was found dead in a hotel room.
Gamble's conduct and involvement in the attack on Brenda Leyland is truly shameful, as is that of the McCanns, Brunt, Murdoch, Mitchell, and not forgetting the chubby, dumpy legged lady, the feeder of ducks, one of the online vigilantes, one of the main players, if not the main player in this malicious campaign, in this appalling act, the heinous attack on Brenda Leyland.
Other than being an ex cop I know little of Gamble. What I do know I have "heard" him say online, and in interview etc, and frankly he comes across boorish, vulgar, a common low breed, malicious, ignorant in every way -wickedness personified.
And for anyone who does not know of the type of comments he makes, the following one of his Twitter postings demonstrating, and leaving the reader in no doubt whatsoever the character of this man. Here we have Gamble congratulating Martin Brunt for attacking Ms Brenda Leyland a lady innocent of the accusations made against her by Brunt, Gamble and those online vigilantes who Gamble and Brunt both befriended/communicated with on Twitter/elsewhere to enable their planned assault on this lady.
Justice is often illusionary, of that I have no illusions. Equally I have no illusions as to whom the perpetrators are in the death and disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Unequivocally I can say, it was the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
I can see this, the world can see this; but somehow this observation is seemingly lost to David Cameron, Theresa May, Bernard Hogan-Howe, and not least, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood.
I say seemingly because it seems that way. It seems that DCI Redwood and his however many team of detectives, have trouble seeing things, not just the way we see things, but the way things actually are; the parents did it, plain and simple.
So I too shall keep it simple, other than leaving extremely germane links at the bottom of the page, I shall hand you over to the ever detailed analysis of Dr Martin Roberts, in what I might describe as, exclusive to this blog.
TAKING STOCK
In the annals of spectacularly successful reviews, there are to be numbered, the Great Durbar of 1911, the Grand Fleet at Spithead 1914 and….Operation Grange (ongoing).
Operation Grange, spectacular? (£8 million buys a lot of fireworks) Successful? Well that does rather depend upon one’s vantage point.
Once upon a time the McCanns, who showed little or no genuine interest in reviving the Portuguese police investigation into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, were simultaneously hinting, via the media and in the direction of the UK authorities, that what was needed was an ‘independent review’. Having passed up the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence while in Portugal, they obviously realised that to re-awaken the stalled investigation would simply move the train on to the original terminus, when they desperately needed a change of destination in order finally to exonerate themselves before the great British public. A mechanism was required to ‘demonstrate their innocence’, and said mechanism was most unlikely to be of Portuguese origin.
Enter Rebekah Brooks, former editor of The Sun, former editor of the News of the World, then CEO of News International, Rapunzel of Thomas More Square and visiting member of the Chipping Norton set, who shouted on the McCanns’ behalf, loudly and publicly into the ear of Prime Minister David Cameron, that a review of their case was overdue. No sooner the word than the deed. In May 2011 Scotland Yard, having been approached by the Home Secretary (and given a promise of immediate public funding), very quickly determined its feasibility and just as quickly announced their readiness to undertake the review as suggested.
So much for background. But what was this review intended to accomplish exactly?
In academia a literature review is usually undertaken within the context and constraints of a specific topic area and often conducted so as to marshal the evidence for or against some hypothesis or other. Whilst evaluating the arguments in favour of either (a) or (b), the ‘dark horse’ potential of (c), and its need to be accounted for, can sometimes emerge. Further research work should then clarify the situation, and allow another PhD to join the ranks.
Policing professionals would no doubt best understand their own situation when instructed to conduct a case review, but I should imagine their task to have more in common with an air crash investigation, insofar as they are required to formulate a coherent picture of events from widely dispersed evidence. Simplistically, air crashes also boil down to a choice, usually, between two conflicting hypotheses: mechanical failure vs. pilot error, the latter being a disturbingly common cause. Notably, however, the cause is not (nor can it be) considered until all the evidence is in. Unlike the ivory tower experience, where evidence is often gathered in connection with a theory postulated in advance, air crash investigators must keep an open mind.
And so to Operation Grange, the equivalent Metropolitan Police study of an air crash in Praia da Luz, Portugal. DCI Redwood, in charge of day to day proceedings, enthusiastically announced at the outset how his team was in the unique position of being able to draw together evidence from a variety of sources. Hence we witnessed them going about their duty with a very public display of confiscation, as the Barcelona arm wheeled boxes across the street and away from the offices of Metodo 3. Other sources will have included the Policia Judiciaria, responsible for the first official investigation on Portuguese soil, and, of course, Leicestershire Police, who had been invited to participate in that instance. Everyone, whatever their persuasion, had high hopes, not least the McCanns, who no doubt reasoned that without further (and dramatic) material evidence beyond what was already enshrined in the available data, the likelihood that a review of procedure would expose a glaringly unexplored avenue of inquiry would be remote in the extreme.
And there, at the very beginning, we see signs of irregularity in the process.
I don’t know if a case review conducted by any police force requires a proscriptive remit beyond the self-explanatory. Nevertheless, Operation Grange was given one, and by a committee whose membership has never properly been determined by those inquisitive enough to ask. It was to ‘examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter’.
So the nature of the beast had been decided before DCI Redwood had even loaded his DVD copy of the Portuguese files and, in consequence of what was to be an ‘investigative review’, the Portuguese were to be offered a little something new in exchange for Aladdin’s lamp. The altered designation of the activity ought not to have worried the McCanns either. Like the last song aboard Titanic, although the melody might differ here and there the chorus would remain the same.
Perhaps that’s reading too much into the situation. No reading was required however when the very Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stated publicly, in relation to Operation Grange: "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is".
The ‘separation of powers’ is as fundamental to the British Constitution as the Fifth Amendment is to the Americans. Except in this case.
No police force should be expected to divulge their methods or detail the progress of an investigation to the general public. On those occasions when senior members have seen fit to ‘go public’, either during or after an inquiry, they are typically circumspect, confining themselves to statements almost inert in their significance. It would have been well for representatives of Operation Grange to have done likewise. Better yet, to have said nothing at all.
One might counter that a couple of years and a few million pounds later, DCI Redwood and his colleagues felt under some obligation to present a justification or two. That would be understandable. However, Grange was a very public show from the off. Hence we have all come to learn of the parade of suspects, the visits to Portugal, the excavations, etc. Lately the flow of information has been sparse and attributable largely to vain attempts on the part of the media to construct a story or two in the absence of one. Nevertheless there is a veritable raft of ‘back issues’ unquestionably owing to Scotland Yard, and these give rise to some rather serious questions.
Once the police have opted for public pronouncement, however guarded, then said public has every right to expect that they be accurately informed. The function of the police is not to mislead in the course of their duties (except perhaps in ‘selling a dummy’ or two to their prime suspect). Yet DCI Redwood, on behalf of Operation Grange, seems to have been of an altogether different persuasion.
The glaring discrepancy between one-time suspect Euclides Monteiro and the British team’s favoured e-fits is one quizzical instance of dubious information, the re-appearance of an anonymous holiday-maker from 2007, together with a seven-year-old pair of his child’s pyjamas another (small wonder that, after a pause for thought, the McCanns chose to ignore it). And that’s not all.
DCI Redwood (4.7.2013): “Well, as we have worked carefully over the last sort of two years, through that review process, we have now processed some 30,000 documents”.
DCI Redwood (three months later, 4.10.2103): “The total number of documents we have to go through is 39,148, of which we have processed 21,614 so far”.
In other words, the review was proceeding backwards!
Ten days later we had the Crimewatch ‘special’, a collaboration between Scotland Yard and the BBC which featured DCI Redwood in person. His ‘revelatory moment’ (in the shape of ‘Tannerman’, as he has come to be known), has already been Identified as dubious. However, one or two other observations (or lack thereof) within this very programme deserve the same epithet, specifically scenes of Madeleine McCann (it is supposed) being carried back-to-front, and in the wrong direction (according to the previous statements of witness Jane Tanner and the newly recognised, though never to be identified, child-carrying holiday-maker). There is also the conspicuous absence from the filmed reconstruction of any character representative of Dr David Payne (the ‘extra’ initially booked for that role must have been well pleased). Accuracy, it seems, was unimportant here.
That was barely a year ago; a year during which we have witnessed visits by Operation Grange personnel to Portugal strangely coincident with developments in the damages trial involving the McCanns and former PJ co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral. So co-incident, in fact, that despite there being no apparent legal connection between them, progress in the civil affair has become almost as accurate a predictor of Operation Grange activity overseas as the Antikythera mechanism.
Among this activity of course has been the spectacle of an airborne survey of the local terrain (DCI Redwood ‘eyeballing’ PdL from inside a helicopter) and concomitant excavations afterwards conducted in the glare of publicity. The precise objectives of this work went unstated, hence the media and others were left to speculate as to its true purpose. One thing was abundantly clear however, even to the lay observer. If the Grange team were looking for a body, they were clearly looking in areas where someone abducting a child from apartment 5A of the Ocean Club would not have deposited one. On the other hand, the innocent victim of an unplanned homicide (killed by a panicking burglar, for instance) would simply have been left behind at the scene of the crime.
What were they up to?
A reasonable assumption is that the zones earmarked for excavation had some possible relevance to one or other individual already suspected of having ‘abducted’ Madeleine. But that is really not the nub of the issue.
As we know from its published remit, the Operation Grange review was to embrace every aspect of the original inquiry; an inquiry that involved British as well as Portuguese law enforcement agencies. Among the expertise we British exported to the scene was that of Mark Harrison, a highly regarded search specialist with notable experience of missing persons cases. After studying the situation in detail, Harrison produced a report recommending appropriate investigative actions to be undertaken by forces on the ground. This included searching specific areas determined by different crime scenarios. The recommendations were made with an eye to cost-efficiency, awareness of which was written into the very remit under which DCI Redwood and co. are supposedly operating:
“Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process”.
So, armed with Harrison’s report (among the 30,000 or so documents they will by then have read), how many of the Operation Grange excavations took place within terrain identified by the said specialist? (Think of a whole number between 0 and 1, not including the first positive integer).
What really makes the undertaking questionable though is that aspect of its remit just observed:
“Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever….”
Clearly this was never going to be an ‘ordinary’ review. But why the urgency to proceed to ‘investigation’ of a case over which no British police authority had any jurisdiction? The disclaimer that the Portuguese were, and would remain, the lead agency, as if Grange were to provide some kind of battery charge to the case overseas, was quickly exposed by the Portuguese themselves, when they re-opened their own investigation, introducing Euclides Monteiro to the world with a two-fingered gesture that Scotland Yard mistakenly took to be Churchillian.
It really doesn’t take much imagination to appreciate the perceived difference between, ‘We have reviewed the process and found it to be thorough/lackadaisical (delete as appropriate) and ‘We have investigated the abduction and found no evidence that the McCanns were involved’. There is every indication that the purpose of Operation Grange was never to endorse or further the original investigation, but to supplant it.
It’s all very well DCI Redwood announcing that neither the McCanns nor any of their friends were to be considered ‘persons of interest’, as if cueing up the operation’s primary purpose (to investigate abduction) but that investigation itself was to be pursuant upon a review of an extant, even if dormant, case, and investigators involved in that case had already arrived at certain mutually agreed conclusions. Had the honest intention of Operation Grange been to assist the Portuguese in getting to the bottom of things, they would have picked up where the first investigation left off. That they have not done so speaks for itself.
There are those who hold to the view that Scotland Yard are playing the ‘long game’ and that they must eventually examine the behaviour of the McCanns and their friends that Thursday night, May 3, 2007. Even after three years it is difficult to be certain, but if a criminal investigation is genuine in its purpose, there can be no reason why its leadership should not play with a straight bat toward a public encouraged to assist them.
With the impending retirement of DCI Redwood, the optimists among us will no doubt view his passing the baton onto an accomplished homicide detective as a positive sign, Redwood having literally done the spade work. His is not an ignominious withdrawal but a smart move. He has not ‘failed’ to solve the case. He never expected to do so in the first place. The intention was merely to find an acceptable ‘resolution’ if at all possible. Should that accomplishment fall to his successor, Redwood will be seen to have been thwarted by time alone. On the other hand, should the long-term outcome of Operation Grange remain indeterminate, DCI Redwood will have been long out of the cross-hairs.
Even if DCI Wall should surprise everyone on both sides of the McCann fence, with a valid conclusion, built towards via the seemingly unending dismissal of ‘likely ones’, the question will remain as to why, given the Yard’s emphasis on expediency, the truth was not arrived at until several years had elapsed and more millions been spent.
In any event the Metropolitan Police will be happy to pursue their inquiry all the while the special grants keep rolling in. In reality, cessation is no more than the closure of a cheque book away. It would only take one swingeing budget cut on behalf of this or the next government to see to that.
The whole program, the opinions and the drivel gushing from the talking heads, was assumptive.
And the basis for that assumption? I shall let Dr Martin Roberts give us the answer.
For seven years past a watching international community has been witness to a growing clamour of borrowed knowledge regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, hearsay tearing repeatedly through the fabric of reason like a succession of tornados in America’s mid-west, and bringing us more recently to the most ludicrous of situations; one in which a UK police force is given a seemingly limitless budget, so as to review and pursue a case over which it has no legal jurisdiction, and in deliberate disavowal of the evidence collated by the original investigators. In an admitted collaboration with the UK government, they are acting ‘as if the abduction happened in the UK’ without first, or indeed ever, establishing whether ‘abduction’ happened at all.
Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted Part 1
without first, or indeed ever, establishing whether ‘abduction’ happened at all
Consequently, a greater part of the content can be dismissed as irrelevant, pertaining as it does, and based purely on said assumption.
What was relevant however, were the words of family friend, Jill Renwick (o3:3o) Who, logic dictates, must herself have contacted, GM TV Today, while it was still on air Thursday morning..
"They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half hour, and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine."
Only the shutters had not been "broken open." But Jill Renwick was right on script
Before we had even heard the name Madeleine McCann, the script had been written, distributed, and was being learned by rote, albeit to an embarrassing degree, by seemingly every member of the McCann's extended family. The source of which, and undeniable, Kate and Gerry McCann.
Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted Part 1
As for the rest of it. I didn't see the thing in quite the way as others appear to have done. Yes there were moments when the program makers might have included snippets that could be construed as offering some kind of balance. I personally view these things as the occasional crumb. Whether offered intentionally or not I wouldn't like to say. This photograph for instance, dubbed by some as "Duper's Delight" Something I wouldn't want to argue with. For it cannot be argued, that, among the ubiquitous sneers of Gerry McCann, we have often been witness to classic examples of duper's delight, none more so than here. The film stills of Gerry McCann's smirk can be accessed here.
I cannot help but ask, both myself, and those that recommended I watch this program, have we not become so inured to the appalling one sided coverage, by both the press and digital media these many years past, that we see those few crumbs, whether real or imaginary, as something far greater than what they are? Loaves in fact.
You do realise of course, that a failure in duty, obvious or otherwise, to seek the truth in this matter, puts you, your career, and your retirement, solely at the pleasure and mercy of the Doctors McCann.
If this is indeed to be your career swansong, then might I suggest that it is sung with such clarity, as to be unquestionable.
Whereas I don't anticipate the Doctors McCann to be stood in the dock in the immediate future, it is the aspiration of far more people than just myself that this should come to pass. Such is the effect of injustice.
That effect being manifold I add, when we, the ordinary citizens of this country, perceive blatant injustice. And perceive it we do. How could we not?
History teaches us that the status quo is a fickle thing, subject to change due to all manner of influences, political will being just one I could mention. But that said, given what we have witnessed these seven years past, political will is currently the least likely of those influences.
Yet given the vast number of people now privy to the McCann's "secret", how confident can you be that said little secret, as dirty and foul as it is, will not one day rear its ugly head, exposing itself in all its shame, open to all in the public domain? Be that deliberately or accidentally, it matters not.
What will not change, however, will be the will of those ordinary citizens, who take exception to what they are witnessing. As we older ones fade away, others will take up the standard, others will carry on seeking justice for a little girl, seemingly lost in this heinous charade.
And how can I be so sure that these things will come to pass, and that this, if it is not justice, is forever?
To borrow a phrase:
They cannot stop us, for our struggle is greater than what they can comprehend.
Such is the feeling. Such is the affront we all experience on a daily basis.
With this in mind Sir, I ask you, take a moment or two to reflect on what your goals are in this bizarre and unprecedented . . . what, what can I call it, not investigation surely?
But whatever word I employ, if the outcome is not justice, or an attempt at justice on your part, there may yet come a day, a day when the Doctors McCann find themselves in a court of law, answering the multitude of questions that require answers under oath.
And should that day come to pass, it is not unimaginable, that you would find yourself in the witness box, as a civilian, answering questions as to your own role in this sordid affair.
Insight is a truly wonderful thing. It nourishes and advances those who are able to appreciate it. For the rest, knowledge is merely borrowed for the purposes of reference, not genuinely shared. Things are either what they are because we appreciate and understand what has been established, or they are simply taken on trust, on an ‘it is said by others’ basis.
For seven years past a watching international community has been witness to a growing clamour of borrowed knowledge regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, hearsay tearing repeatedly through the fabric of reason like a succession of tornados in America’s mid-west, and bringing us more recently to the most ludicrous of situations; one in which a UK police force is given a seemingly limitless budget, so as to review and pursue a case over which it has no legal jurisdiction, and in deliberate disavowal of the evidence collated by the original investigators. In an admitted collaboration with the UK government, they are acting ‘as if the abduction happened in the UK’ without first, or indeed ever, establishing whether ‘abduction’ happened at all.
It is at this point that I refer you wholeheartedly to the post that follows.
Besides being wonderful, insight is also scarce – so scarce in fact that, in all these seven years no one has truly been able to cut the Gordian knot that is the ‘abduction’ of Madeleine McCann, never mind cut it completely in two. Or three for that matter. For that we must defer to Himself. What he presents here is not ‘opinion’, coloured so as to conform to a context of allegiance, nor interpretation influenced by surmise. Here we have evidence, pure and simple - evidence conveniently shunted into a siding by all those who cannot bear to confront the truth, and largely undervalued by others unduly concerned with the incessant regurgitation of garnish so often first coughed up by ‘a source close to something or other’.
Law enforcement agencies, crime writers and Hollywood film producers are all perfectly aware that the crux of any crime resides at the point of commencement, when the perpetrator, however practised they may be, is most likely to have made a mistake. The disappearance of Madeleine McCann involved circumstantial criminals who did exactly that. To appreciate what these data are telling us therefore, it is necessary to discard the shroud that has been thrown over them in the intervening years and look afresh at what has been staring at us all from the outset.
How likely is it that two people can be independently mistaken about an open or shut situation? How likely is it that these same two people should independently, yet simultaneously, decide to ‘prune’ their respective cell ‘phone memories? How likely is it also that two different dogs, on two separate occasions, could show interest in different, yet mutually corroborating, scents, and at the very same loci?
These are the fundamental issues addressed here, and for which various bizarre, unrealistic, even childish explanations have been proffered over time – as knowledge for the undiscerning. If instead we open our eyes to another’s insight, it soon becomes apparent that the origins of, and explanations for, many of the reputedly paradoxical phenomena associated with the case of Madeleine McCann do indeed reside at the very beginning. - Martin Roberts
Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted
Should I so desire, I could lay before you, anomalies related to this case, by the score. As equally by the score, I could inundate you with unanswered questions. But that is not my intention here today. Rather, I present just three, but extremely important questions for your consideration.
But these three chosen questions are not exclusively for your perusal, they are in fact directed at what I shall call the McCann Establishment, or for ease here on in, the Establishment.
That the Establishment now includes the Prime Minister David Cameron, who as a result of pressure by Rebecca Brooks, pressure being a polite word for coercion, as coercion is for blackmail one must say, is for the intents of this post, quite academic.
As for the involvement of the Home Secretary, Theresa May, that involvement becomes a good deal less academic, given the Home Secretary's overall responsibility for the policing of the Nation. Granted that some of that responsibility is now diminished since the introduction of police and crime commissioners, a system laid bare to justifiable charges of nepotism, I easily add. But that is by the by and concerns us little, for there was no such office at the time of initiating a "review" of the Madeleine McCann case by DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard's finest. Something, I think I can maintain, that is unique in the history of English policing.
But that uniqueness is far from alone, as we shall see.
Is it not unique, that in the case of a missing child, presumed dead by the investigating police force and for good reason, that when the very cornerstone of the McCann's claim for a case of stranger abduction, turns out to be a tissue of lies, but is then seemingly ignored by those charged with this nonsensical review?
The McCanns set the parameters.
Before we had even heard the name Madeleine McCann, the script had been written, distributed, and was being learned by rote, albeit to an embarrassing degree, by seemingly every member of the McCann's extended family. The source of which, and undeniable, Kate and Gerry McCann.
"The shutters had been jemmied and poor wee Madeleine was taken." echoed every family member, with unwavering similarity.
Update: Pennies from heaven.
Meanwhile, Madeleine's uncle, John McCann, from Glasgow, countered criticism from those who say the couple were wrong to leave their children alone in the holiday apartment while they ate dinner at a nearby restaurant.
"If you look at the layout of that place, it was entirely safe. The issue at stake here was, that the flat was broken into, and wee Madeleine was abducted," he told BBC Radio Five Live. BBC online
Only the shutters weren't jemmied, and wee Madeleine was not taken.
Cause and Effect
So let us look at such.
"The shutters had been jemmied" cause.
"and poor wee Madeleine was taken" effect.
I hardly need to say it do I? No cause, no effect.
It is that simple and so fundamental to the McCann's claim of abduction. No jemmied shutters, no abduction.
Never forgetting, the jemmied shutters story was not some wrongly evaluated, mistaken concept, it was orchestrated by the parents of the missing child.
As simple as that may sound, it is in fact, of such profundity that it cannot, and should not, be ignored. The cornerstone for abduction, and all that surrounds it, is a house of cards. A house that took a shift years ago. The only thing propping it up now, is the litigious nature of the McCanns, to say nothing of a totally corrupt establishment.
Now call me old fashioned if you will, but this bothers me. But it bothers me more, that this fundamental and crucial component of this case, not only remains unaddressed, but seemingly, is totally ignored.
To finish up this part of the post, there being two other fundamental issues I wish to address, let me try and apply some perspective to this staggering and blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice.
If our featured two were suspected of robbing a Post Office, and it's not by accident that I use a PO as an example, because, you may be surprised to know, there is no greater crime in the UK than making an unauthorised withdrawal from said establishment.
So if our two suspects, under questioning, uttered the kind of testament or set in motion testament such as we have witnessed, what might you suppose, the outcome would be?
Parts two and three will be delivered when and whenever, creativity and the will to write are pretty rare commodities for me these days.
But do bare in mind, should you come under attack, from whatever quarter: No jemmied shutters, no abduction. And also remember who set the parameters, within which, enabled the child to be "abducted," the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
Part Two, The Deleted Phone Logs
Are they such an important issue you may ask? Well they were important enough for the McCanns to lie about them, so they must be.
That we have already ascertained in part one, the setting up with family members the case for abduction, the deleted phone logs, selectively deleted I must add, and at a time, the day before in fact, of Gerry McCann's announcement to the world that his daughter had been abducted. Via of course, the jemmied shutters that weren't
What follows, is the only section of this article where some parts are not provable, but given the circumstances, let us take a look at the situation circumstantially.
The speed, or should I call it indecent haste? (and being all the more suspicious for it) The indecent haste with which the McCann Machine (Government machine) rolled into action was, putting it mildly, quite staggering.
I think at this moment, I shall let the Portuguese coordinator of the case, Goncalo Amaral, take over the narrative. This on the 4th of May
GA: At ten in the morning, twelve hours after the disappearance, the British Consul to Portimão goes to the Department of Criminal Investigation.
We inform him of the actions taken up to then and the next stages being considered. He doesn't seem satisfied.
Someone hears him on the telephone saying that the police judiciaire are doing nothing. Now, that's strange! Why that untruth? What objective does he have in mind? Giving another dimension to the case? Perhaps, I don't know a thing about it, but this is not the time for conjecture; we have to concentrate on our work, of finding the little girl.
Why indeed?
A little later still on the 4th May John Buck, British Ambassador to Portugal, descends on the scene.
GA- The McCanns are put up with David Payne.
We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins.
Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.
GA- I'm sure this check is necessary.
JB- The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?
GA- Yes. What's the problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.
JB- Of course, but with this media hype...I don't think I have ever in my life seen so many journalists....And I didn't come down in the last shower.
I leave you to arrive at your own conclusions regarding that little nest of vipers.
To the phone logs then.
To fully understand the importance of this clip, one has take into account, that having just fled Portugal, the McCanns feel free to tell all the lies they wish and to do so with impunity. Never realising of course, to just what degree the files of the investigation would be made available to the public once the investigation was shelved.
Gerry and Kate McCann's fury after 14 texts slur
Gerry McCann reacted angrily yesterday to claims he received a string of mystery texts the day before his daughter vanished.
Police applied to Portugal's supreme court to seize his phone records after learning of the alleged messages.
They claim Gerry was sent 10 texts from an unknown number 24 hours before Madeleine disappeared.
And detectives say four messages arrived from the same mystery number the day after she went missing, according to court documents.
But Gerry and wife Kate have dismissed the claims as "utter rubbish".
A source close to them said: "They have had their phone records available for inspection for months. But the police never asked for them. And now they have formally asked, they have been refused.
"Any suggestion of Gerry receiving 10 texts the day before Madeleine disappeared are utter rubbish.
"He hardly used his phone during the holiday and most of the friends with them didn't even have mobiles.
"The only time his phone rang was when work called and he explained he was on holiday. There are no mystery texts. Gerry has nothing to hide. It's yet more nonsense coming from Portugal." more
So from whom, and what was the content of the fourteen texts messages that Gerry McCann selectively deleted and subsequently found the need to lie about?
Just one last question and then we shall move on. A question you might ask yourself for that matter.
Would Gerry McCann have the wherewithal to implement and carry out such hair-brained scheme as the one we have witnessed without the gears being set in motion by third parties of no little importance and influence?
Part Three, Cadaver Odour.
Disregarding the thousands of column inches that have been written on the subject. Disregarding the thousands of arguments for the accuracy of the dogs' alerts and to a lesser degree, the arguments against the importance of said findings, and quite shamelessly by some that, not should know better, but do know better, we have but a few things to consider.
Firstly, two irrefutable facts. No one had previously died in the McCann's holiday apartment, likewise nobody had previously met their end in the car hired by the McCanns.
Keeping in mind, that all that has been written about the dogs, for the purpose of this article, and for the sake of my argument, we shall ignore.
What we can't ignore however, are two simple facts, but by virtue of their simplicity, they do in fact become the most damning.
You may wish to remember, that the dogs alerted uniquely to things McCann without exception. On the other hand, you may choose to ignore these facts. It doesn't matter. And why doesn't it matter you may well ask?
It doesn't matter, because Kate McCann acknowledges the existence of both blood residue and cadaver odour, both in the hire car and on her own clothes.
The reasons for such we are asked to believe, range from rotting meat in the car (odour) to the transporting, however unlikely, dirty nappies of the twins. (DNA)
Regarding the cadaver odour on Kate McCann's clothes, what we are asked to believe is even more unlikely than the dirty nappies explanation. So unlikely in fact, it staggers the imagination.
The reason for Kate McCann's clothes smelling of cadaver, we are incredulously asked to believe, is that prior to the ill fated holiday in Praia da Luz, Kate McCann, as a part time locum in a general practice, came in contact with cadavers. Any number of them, depending on which source you read.
But that's not all we are asked to believe, she came into contact with said cadavers wearing her holiday clothes. And if you like that cake, I have some topping for it, she took Madeleine's soft toy, Cuddle Cat, along with her for the ride.
How hard to confirm or deny this, DCI Andy Redwood?
And of course, not only does Kate McCann acknowledge the existence of cadaver odour, but her husband too, Gerry McCann. Why else would he go to such lengths (America) to discredit the accuracy of the dogs?
And it was to such lengths he went, contacting lawyers in the US and quoting the Eugene Zapata case where the judge wouldn't accept as evidence, the alerts of the dogs.
How did that one work out for you Gerry McCann? Not too good when the Zapata eventually admitted to killing his wife and the subsequent revelations that the dogs were right all along.
How damning do the actions of the parents have to be? Madeleine McCann disappeared in the most controversial circumstances imaginable, and the last two people to see here alive, and statistically the most likely people to be involved in that disappearance, the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, are doing their utmost to explain or discredit the stench of death that surrounds them.
I'm sorry, not in my world. Madeleine McCann was not abducted.
For Brenda Leyland RIP
All issues mentioned here are searchable and verifiable.
Should I so desire, I could lay before you, anomalies related to this case, by the score. As equally by the score, I could inundate you unanswered questions. But that is not my intention here today. Rather, I present just three, but extremely important questions for your consideration.
But these three chosen questions are not exclusively for your perusal, they are in fact directed at what I shall call the McCann Establishment, or for ease here on in, the Establishment.
That the Establishment now includes the Prime Minister David Cameron, who as a result of pressure by Rebecca Brooks, pressure being a polite word for coercion, as coercion is for blackmail one must say, is for the intents of this post, quite academic.
As for the involvement of the Home Secretary, Theresa May, that involvement becomes a good deal less academic, given the Home Secretaries overall responsibility for the policing of the Nation. Granted that some of that responsibility is now diminished since the introduction of police and crime commissioners, a system laid bare to justifiable charges of nepotism, I easily add. But that is by the by and concerns us little, for there was no such office at the time of initiating a "review" of the Madeleine McCann case by DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard's finest. Something, I think I can maintain, that is unique in the history of English policing.
But that uniqueness is far from alone, as we shall see.
Is it not unique, that in the case of a missing child, presumed dead by the investigating police force and for good reason, that when the very cornerstone of the McCann's claim for a case of stranger abduction, turns out to be a tissue of lies, but is then seemingly ignored by those charged with this nonsensical review?
Before we had even heard the name Madeleine McCann, the script had been written, distributed, and was being learned by rote, albeit to an embarrassing degree, by seemingly every member of the McCann's extended family. The source of which, and undeniable, Kate and Gerry McCann.
"The shutters had been jemmied and poor wee Madeleine was taken." echoed every family member, with unwavering similarity.
Only the shutters weren't jemmied, and wee Madeleine was not taken.
Cause and Effect
So let us look at such.
"The shutters had been jemmied" cause.
"and poor wee Madeleine was taken" effect.
I hardly need to say it do I? No cause, no effect. It is that simple and so fundamental to the McCann's clam of abduction. No jemmied shutters, no abduction.
Now call me old fashioned if you will, but this bothers me. But it bothers me more, that this fundamental and crucial component of this case, not only remains unaddressed, but seemingly, is totally ignored.
To finish up this part of the post, there being two other fundamental issues I wish to address, let me try and apply some perspective to this staggering and blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice.
If our featured two were suspected of robbing a Post Office, and it's not by accident that I use a PO as an example, because, you may be surprised to know, there is no greater crime in the UK than making an unauthorised withdrawal from said establishment.
So if our two suspects, under questioning, uttered the kind of testament or set in motion testament such as we have witnessed, what might you suppose, the outcome would be?
Parts two and three will be delivered when and whenever, creativity and the will to write are pretty rare commodities for me these days.
But do bare in mind, should you come under attack, from whatever quarter: No jemmied shutters, no abduction.
This appeal, though part of a longer post, I made back in 2010. And now having witnessed the tragic death of, Brenda "Sweepyface" Leyland, who seemingly took her own life in consequence of being ambushed on her doorstep by the insidious, Martin Brunt of Sky News, I reiterate that appeal today.
I suppose I can thank the lovely Sandra Fegueiras for taking the edge off my very considerable ire, pretty women tend to have that effect on me.
But Ire it was, and ire it is, and ire it will always be, until that is, someone puts a stop to these two creatures.
Is there nobody in this country, is there nobody that has the wherewithal to end this obscenity, is there nobody prepared to say, enough is enough?
Is there not one politician, not one cop, not one journalist among you that will bring this thing to an end? And I deliberately refrain from using terms like grow some balls or find a backbone, because it doesn't take these things to do what is required, it takes decency, a sense of what is right, morals, or better, moral indignation; indignation at seeing the wrong that is going on all around us.
There must be so many of you in a position to end this, there has to be, and you know who you are, but I beg you, don't sit back and wait for the other fellow to act, you act, you have it in your grasp to stop this vile canker from polluting decency and polluting this country further than it has already.
Please I beg you, I beseech you, put a stop to it, bring this abomination to an end.
~ ~ ~
Let me make this quite clear, Brenda "Sweepyface" Leyland was not a "troll" as, even in death she was so described, by the deplorable hacks of the UK media.
Rather, Brenda Leyland was, like us all, just someone who wanted answers to this ongoing affront to decency and justice.
And as such, she asked questions and proffered both her opinion and snippets of information. Is it I wonder, those snippets of information that caused Brenda to be targeted by the McCann Machine, in the form of Martin Brunt?
A similar question I add, asked quite recently by Allan Sugar, Lord Sugar.
If the McCanns are not on Twitter, question must be asked who pointed out to media the so called trolling of the McCanns by Brenda Leyland.
Brenda Leyland's Facebook comments can be read here, and I ask you, are these the words of a troll? No.
But I wonder, was it content such as this, that caused the targeting of, Brenda Leyland?
Brenda Leyland Gerry McCann has a very short fuse, to say he is testy, is to put it mildly, Kate has perfected the " anguished face" to a tee, they now have a well oiled PR team and a constant flow of income generated from funds, I have heard that there are many at Glenfield Hospital ( Gerrys work place) who have expressed disquiet, however the McCann will sue at the drop of a hat.
Another one from the hack with no shame. What chance justice for Madeleine McCann, with fellows like this around?
Not a new article from the scurrilous MacIntyre, but having found the thing after it being lost to me, I wanted to preserve it for posterity.
And another reason, it allows me to reiterate, in the form of this old graphic, my feelings regarding theTop-secret US spy satellites story, that is mentioned therein.
Childless couple in link to Maddie mystery
10th July 2013
By Donal MacIntyre
POLICE are investigating a childless couple who they suspect could have abducted missing Madeleine McCann.
The pair, who had told friends they would kidnap a child after becoming frustrated with adoption red tape, are among the list of 38 new suspects drawn up by British cops.
A review by London’s Metropolitan police led them to the couple and detectives are now investigating the theory that they smuggled the missing toddler out of Portugal aboard a boat.
The man had inherited a large amount of money around the time Maddie disappeared on May 3, 2007, from her family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, and it’s believed he could have used the money to set up a new life.
And it’s the childless couple theory that is fuelling the last remaining hope that Maddie could still be alive.
This week cops said there is still no proof she is dead.
Other theories centered around paedophile gangs and lone sex offenders, but the investigation is now focusing on one individual who, having struggled with adoption procedures in Portugal, threatened to kidnap a child.
The individual is believed to have told friends that he was so frustrated with adoption procedures in a number of countries that “he would take his own child” if necessary.
The Metropolitan Police have been aware of this line of inquiry for the past two years, but it’s only since British PM David Cameron ordered a fresh review that they had the resources to follow it up independently of the Portuguese authorities.
Sources close to the new investigation have told the Sunday World that they believe Madeleine was stalked and targeted for abduction in the days before she disappeared.
The English suspect, who has never been interviewed by UK or Portuguese Police officers, is understood to have been driving a four-wheel drive car at the time of the kidnapping.
The theory suggests that the planned abduction of Maddie involved at least two people and it is claimed that the suspect used a newly-purchased yacht, which was moored about an hour away from Praia da Luz, to leave the country.
Scotland Yard officers involved in the new probe also believe that it is likely the suspect had somehow accessed a key to apartment 5A, where the McCanns stayed with their three children.
The new review – launched in 2011 amid frustration with the bungling of the original investigation, which saw the McCanns wrongly identified as suspects in their daughter’s disappearance – has discovered 195 new leads and 38 persons of interest, including known sex offenders who were in the country at the time.
The Scotland Yard team of up to 37 detectives have re-interviewed the McCanns and their friends who holidayed together and who were eating at the tapas bar in the resort when Maddie went missing. None of them are among the list of 38 individuals police confirmed.
Police also reviewed over 30,000 documents from the Portuguese authorities and material gained from the private investigators hired by the McCanns over the last six years.
The Metropolitan Police team has declared that the “new witnesses and new evidence” points to a likelihood that Maddie is alive and is being held captive in a similar vein to the spate of recovered childhood kidnap victims that have been discovered in Austria and in the US.
The McCanns and the Met officers have taken hope from these horrific cases and point most recently to the case of Cleveland monster Ariel Castro (52), who kept three young girls captive for a decade until cries for help from one of his victims, Amanda Berry, revealed their existence to the world.
Operation Grange’s Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who is leading the new inquiry, says: “The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses.”
The force is understood to have reviewed material from top-secret US spy satellites, which were recording material near the resort where Madeleine McCann disappeared five years ago.
The spy cameras, which can detect the number plate of a car from five miles up, had been denied to the Portuguese authorities, but details of it have been confidentially released to the UK review team to help them with the latest enquiry.
The satellite information – which will be used to help identify cars around the Mark Warner complex – was used to check out a red car which was spotted by witnesses on the night and has now been used to review movement related to the 4x4 vehicle.
Clarence Mitchell, the former BBC reporter and spokesperson for parents Kate and Gerry McCann said: “It was a big step forward in establishing what happened and, hopefully, in bringing to justice whoever is responsible for Madeleine’s abduction.” Sunday World
Given Jim Gamble's more recent blatant display of agenda, edifying the authors, Summers and Swan and their failed literary attempt, Looking For Madeleine. I thought it might be of interest, perhaps more so than ever, to re-up this post from 10 April 2010. Covering as it does, many of the issues surrounding the then head of the CEOP, Jim Gamble. Unfortunately I cannot guarantee all links, but there is still ample sufficiency, to hopefully hold your interest.
I think I can safely say that my previous article Jim Gamble CEOP A Question If I May established the fact that Jim Gamble is a competent policeman of some twenty five years experience, well versed in the ways of the world.
With that in mind, I have to ask the question, does this statement by Gamble reflect that experience, or is it in fact, given Gamble's career accomplishments, totally anomalous?
Though it defies all logic, Gamble's unequivocal support of the McCann's is not unique, he has previously been vocal in support of another, the extremely suspect, if not indeed outright corrupt, Colin Port, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset.
But that little nest of vipers I will address later in this article if not in a separate post altogether, because truth be told it makes my head spin. Everybody that is anybody is seemingly connected, from the disgraced Ronnie Flanagan, later to become Sir Ronnie, to Gamble, to Port, to murders and cover-ups, to you name it, everybody seems to coloured by the same brush. The hard part in all this, is trying to find the glue, if not to stick this shabby bunch together, then at least find enough cohesion to at least make an article out of it all. As I say, of this later, but don't be holding your breath.
The CEOP were active in this case from the very beginning, but before scrutinising that involvement, let me post a few relevant words, the rest of it being puff, from a Mirror article dated October 2007.
Cop hunts down net pervs
By Ros Wynne-Jones
EXCLUSIVE COP WHO HUNTS DOWN THE INTERNET PERVERTS PREYING ON KIDS
......And as head of the CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre, missing Madeleine McCann is inevitably never far from his mind.
"We absolutely support the McCann family," he says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London.
"They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'." Mirror 7th October 2007
"We absolutely support the McCann family, they are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness."
Well, there's no ambiguity in that statement, crystal clear, unequivocal support from, and I shall not use the CEOP acronym here, lets call it as it is, because to do otherwise would be somewhat diversionary; unequivocal support from Jim Gamble.
Now that is quite a statement coming from an officer of the law, I assume that's what he still is, that he holds a rank of some description. It becomes even more of a statement, considerably more, when we consider to whom it pertains. And to whom it pertains is the parents, and the last two people to have seen to have seen Madeleine McCann alive before allegedly being abducted.
I have little inclination to quote chapter and verse as to what evidence there was at the time in support of this allegation by the parents, quite simply, it is the same amount today as it was then, nothing, zero, zilch. Likewise I have no inclination to spend a week making a list of factors that point to to the contrary. What I am inclined to however, is to state quite categorically that this statement of support by Gamble should have had alarm bells ringing from one end of this country to the other.
But if we add to the equation that which I have so far left out, then what I previously described as quite a statement becomes something else entirely. It becomes astonishing, and given that it is issued by a man supposedly charged with protecting children it becomes more than astonishing, it becomes sinister, and more than sinister it becomes criminal, both morally and legally.
So what is the missing expression in our fore-mentioned equation, it is the date?
The date of publication which quoted Jim Gamble's "absolute support the McCann family" was the Seventh of October 2007,a month to the day after the McCanns, quite understandably, had been declared Arguidos, persons of interest, suspects in all but name in the case of their disappeared Daughter.
Now you can call me old fashioned, you can call me whatever you wish, but I have a problem with this statement of support from Jim Gamble issued under the guise of the CEOP.
As much as he may like to think it is, the CEOP is not Jim Gamble's personal fiefdom, it is a Government organisation funded from the public purse. It's purpose, so we are told, is to combat child abuse via the internet. It is not platform for Jim Gamble to utter statements of support to suspects, period, no matter who they may be.
The CEOP was not conceived and brought into being in order that Jim Gamble may pursue his own agenda. The CEOP is not be vehicle from which to launch "Minute for Madeleine" video clips in an effort to legitimise the McCann's claim of abduction, when there is not one scrap of evidence to support this claim and there being much to indicate the impossibility of such an occurrence taking place.
Let us move on.
We know that the CEOP were on the ground in Portugal, "helping with the investigation" within two days, and what do we know of their activities there.
We know that they Profiled Robert Murat, this from Goncalo Amaral's book A Verdade Da Mentira. I include the rest of the passage for context and interest.
Members of the British agency CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre), take a close interest in Murat and work to develop his psychological profile. GA
With amazement the police officers discover a series of books and manuals exclusively intended for police services and government agencies.
Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management, National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children;
Training Courses, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre);
Making Every Child Matter...Everywhere, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre).
Mark Harrison himself wonders how Gerald McCann could have obtained these books.
Which led to, again from Goncalo Amaral.
FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY
Since Murat's first interview, which they attended, the specialists have continued to refine the profile of the suspect. They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, Murat had an affirmed penchant for bestiality.
He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes Murat as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist. We are somewhat sceptical.
All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.
Yes it does seem a bit easy doesn't it, perhaps they had other reasons for reaching the conclusion they did.
Nevertheless Murat ended up as Arguido, but not before a little help from Jane Tanner, Lori Campbell and no doubt the odious one helping things along from under some nearby rock.
But I would be remiss if I didn't mention the expediency of Leicester Constabulary in forwarding to the PJ Campbell's suspicions of Murat. Pity they couldn't manage quite the same urgency when it came to forwarding the statements of possible paedophillic behaviour by Gerry McCann and David Payne. But never mind, they did manage to find the energy to fly out to Portugal to try and suppress the release of the documents when it be became apparent that the statements were to be made public.
It does make me beggar the question, I wonder how much time the CEOP spent profiling the statistically most likely persons to know her fate and the last persons to see her alive?*
The photo appeal; I don't want to dwell on too much, but suffice to say much was made of it by all concerned. Let me paste this from the Times, it being the shortest report I have but still includes all the players, Gerry McCann apart that is, for he was pleased as well. And you might want to remember herself from the NPIA, there being a chance she might pop up in the future.
May 21, 2007
Madeleine police appeal for holiday pictures
“We will then assess those pictures – at a rate of 1,000 pictures per hour – so that over a quick period of time we will pass meaningful information to the Portuguese authorities.”
The appeal was launched today by the UK law enforcement agencies assisting the Portuguese authorities – Leicestershire Constabulary, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), CEOP and the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).
Anne Harrison, Detective Chief Superintendent from the NPIA said that it was possible Madeleine was still in Praia da Luz but was being hidden and appealed for anyone that knew where she was to come forward.
“We do not know the reason why she was taken but the Portuguese authorities have searched extensively around Praia da Luz and she has not been found. It is possible she is being hidden or concealed in some way and if you know where then by now you may have realised it is in everybody’s interest that she is returned to her family”.
She also wanted anyone who took part in the initial search for Madeleine before the Portuguese police arrived to contact them on 0800 096 1233. Times
Now I might not be so cynical as to the reason for this appeal if the CEOP had actually sent a pic or two to the PJ. But they didn't and I remain just as cynical as ever I was.
And lastly, the blatant attempt by Gamble to whitewash the McCanns, legitimise the abduction theory, and as far as I am concerned, pervert the course of justice.
An attempt I might add, as crass as it is obvious, and as distasteful as it is illegal.
These screen shots taken from, and with a voice-over approved by hardened crime fighter of twenty five years experience, Jim Gamble, CEO of the CEOP.
She will now be six years old. It says it all.
Judgement or Agenda?
To round off, a few opinions of others that I have saved along the way, I concur with the writer's opinions, and the talking points the make do save me writing more at this ungodly hour.
No names no pack drill, but thank you all for your contributions and pray forgive me taking liberties with your words.
What evidence do the CEOP have that the mysteriously disappeared child has been abducted? What evidence do the CEOP have to support she has been abducted by paedophiles? If the CEOP have evidence to support that the mysteriously disappeared child was abducted and was abducted by paedophiles then why has this new evidence not been presented to the Portuguese authorities who have primacy in this investigation? If the CEOP have evidence to support abduction an abduction by paedophiles then this I believe is new evidence. New evidence that could re-open the archived case!
~ ~ ~
And CEOPS merrily go along with age-progressed pictures of a child whose dead body has been scented by two recovery dogs? Purrrrrlease!
~ ~ ~
Jim Gamble is being used to threaten any would be dissenters, letting everyone know that Gerry is still in total control of the UK police and all their investigations. How bizarre that given that Madeleine’s fate is still unknown senior policemen are sharing a platform with the statistically most likely person to know her fate and the last person to see her alive.* Even if one is convinced of the parent’s innocence it is an inexplicable way for a police officer to behave
~ ~ ~
What is it about Gamble that instinctively seems to concern so many of us? I cannot put my finger on it and I cannot even fully justify the feeling I have. I just know that it does not sit easily in my mind at all that he is seemingly ignoring the findings of the dogs and statements of Martin Grimes , the Gaspars etc., etc., etc., and that there is an inordinate amount of information to be ruled out before he can sit at conferences with these people as if he is their friend and victim support aid.
I would feel much happier about Gamble if he took a more objective role in this case. Or at least come out publicly and told us why these currently ex-arguidos are totally innocent in the eyes of CEOPS.
If, like Kate McCann, he knows something that nobody else knows, wouldn't it be better for him to come out and tell the public and put us all out of our misery? Because, after goodness knows how long, Kate McCann is sure as Hell never going to tell us how she 'knew' Madeleine was abducted. Her just 'knowing' is absolutely no compensation for the millions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of hours spent.
Where is Gamble's shred of evidence of abduction? Just one will do!
~ ~ ~
I have posted some additional reading below, because human nature being what it is, I have no doubt there will be visitors here from the CEOP, so in a way I could say this is for you.
Perhaps after reading these four articles, assuming you can be arsed, you might want to ask yourselves why the CEOP is involved in this case at all, but more particularly you might ask yourself a further question, why has the CEOP given, and continues give, it's categorical support to the McCanns and their abduction theory. A theory I might add that is so implausible that it becomes contemptible to any thinking person.
Please feel free to make use of the comments facility, particularly if you can argue the case as well as is done below.
Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted: The Shutters Revisited
How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of nomore than 3-4 minutes?
by Barbara Nottage
One of the curious aspects of the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann is the extraordinarily tight timetable in which the abduction is supposed to have taken place. Dr Gerald McCann says he went to check on the children at about 9.05pm on 3 May 2007. He also said elsewhere that he had been an unusually long time in the apartment toilet, and that he had been inside all four rooms of the apartment. In addition, he told the world that he had had time during his visit to gaze down on Madeleine, whom he was to describe as ‘lying in the recovery position’, and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter. By this reckoning, He could not have left the apartment until around 9.10pm or several minutes later.............
.........The abduction scenario
So let’s examine this situation more closely.
The scenario put forward by the McCanns and their friends runs as follows:
· The abductor must have been watching the apartment for several days before snatching Madeleine on 3 May.
· The McCanns went down to the ‘Tapas bar’ at the Ocean Club at around 8.30pm that evening, with other members of the group arriving during the next half-an-hour or so.
· Dr Matthew Oldfield ‘checked the apartment from the outside’ at around 9.00pm to 9.03pm.
· Dr Gerry McCann returned to his apartment (5A) from the Tapas bar to check on his children at around 9.05pm. The walk to the apartment would have taken one to two minutes. So on his own timing, he would have arrived there around 9.07pm.
· Dr Gerry McCann was briefly in all four rooms of their holiday apartment, during which time he checked his children. He also says he spent an unusually long time in the toilet - maybe up to 5 minutes, though we have never been told why. He tells us that he paused briefly over Madeleine’s bed and thought to himself how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.
· Dr Gerry McCann says he noticed that the door to the children’s room was ‘wider open than before’. He says that at 8.30pm it had been open at an angle of about 45 degrees (half open). He remembers (he says) that when he went to check the children at 9.05pm, the door was now open at an angle of 60 degrees (two thirds open).
· The fact that the door - according to Dr Gerald McCann - was now (at 9.05pm) more open more than it was before (at 8.30pm), has been used by him to suggest the possibility that the abductor may have been already in the apartment when he checked on the children, although he says he only realised this possibility some months after the events of the day. Dr Gerry McCann has said that the abductor might have been hiding behind a door or in a wardrobe while he spent several minutes doing his ‘check’ on the children. more
.
Let's Not Concern Ourselves, They're Only Details
by Himself
Just what does it take to get arrested by the Leicester police?
The corner stone of this nonsensical abduction story offered by the McCanns has always centred around the window and the "jemmied shutters."
I have written about the shear impossibility of such a scenario here, and Dr Martin Roberts addresses the same likelihood and can be found at this link.
Below in black and white and on video tape are the accounts of McCann family members and friends, etched in stone as it were, and there is only one indisputable source for these accounts, Kate and Gerry McCann.
But firstly, prior to reading these accounts, we have to take a good look at the latest incredible words of Kate McCann.
This single paragraph is but one of many taken from the McCanns feeble effort to limit the fallout from what came to light in Lisbon. This latest blog entry written by Kate McCann? after their failed and misguided attempt to silence Goncalo Amaral and as such silence the truth.
The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it. Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown.It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'
In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious, you really really cannot be serious.
Apart from a few lines by way of introduction, I have just posted the relevant parts of various articles.*
~ ~ ~
Agony as 3-yr-old vanishes from holiday flat
A HUGE hunt was going on last night for three-year-old Maddy McCann, feared snatched from her holiday flat.
Maddy is believed to have been taken as she slept in the complex on Portugal's Algarve as her doctor parents ate at a bar 120ft away. Her scent was picked up by a police sniffer dog. But it petered out after 400 yards.
Yesterday, 24 hours after the young child vanished in quiet Praia da Luz, anguished parents Gerry and Kate, both 38, of Rothley, Leics, begged for her return.
A friend said: "Kate rang us totally hysterical, saying Maddy was abducted. They're devastated."
The appalling news that three-year-old Maddy McCann was feared kidnapped from her holiday flat came in a distraught phone call early yesterday from her dad.
Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trishin Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.
Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying 'Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted'."
Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroomand shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken. more
The Rapidly Revolving Door
by John Blacksmith
Gerry McCann went back to the third version of his checking visit, the dodgy printed timeline which matched what he had told the police in his first witness statement, where he also mentioned the lavatory visit, timing his trip at 9.05. That document was never going to be accepted by either a judge or jury, not just because of these very changes but because the group had effectively colluding in preparing it after their first witness statements, so it was both worthless and suspicious, as the McCanns’ lawyers knew.
Never mind. Something had to be done, and so Gerry became the first ever victim of MMR syndrome – McCann Memory Recovery - when, four and a half months after the event, he suddenly recalled “sensing” an intruder’s presence in the apartment. To strengthen the story there was that wide-open bedroom door that Mathew Oldfield had seen. Gerry and Kate only ever left it ajar, never wide open or closed. That, surely, was clear evidence that someone was already there, in hiding, ready to leap into action as soon as the patio doors clicked shut. Now, with the actual approach and entry all having taken place before his arrival, the only time required as he walked down the back staircase to encounter Jeremy Wilkins, was fugitive exit time.
But this was like playing with a Rubik Cube because of what the Tapas 7 had already put in their witness statements: move one, you may have to move them all. If he’d done his check at 9.05 what had he been doing between 9.07, say, and when Jane Tanner saw him by the back gate about 9.20 at the earliest? A trip to the loo, a gaze down at his daughter – and then what? He must have been talking to Jeremy Wilkins, that’s where the unaccounted 10 -15 minutes had gone. But argh! Jane Tanner had said in her statement that, whatever time they had both gone, she had followed him only five minutes afterwards.
Shrug. That was another bridge that would have to be crossed if they ever went back to Portugal. For now it would be good enough: out went Clarence with the story that so enraged the Portuguese cop. more
Decisions, decisions
by John Blacksmith
The background to Mitchell's untruthful statement to the press lay in the problems that the defence team were uncovering in the abduction claim, problems that they patiently outlined at their offices to Gerry McCann one afternoon in September.
Mathew Oldfield confirmed that at just after 9.30, when he supposedly checked the apartment, while missing Madeleine herself, the children' bedroom door was open wider than Gerry McCann left it. So the abductor supposedly seen by Jane Tanner must have moved it, committed the crime and departed before Oldfield's arrival but after Gerry's departure, which was itself fixed in time by another witness, Jeremy Wilkins. Was there enough time for the abduction to occur within these limits?
In the famous “Let’s Dismember Noddy” timelines, the ones that the Tapas group insisted were truthful, there are two times given for Gerry’s visit. The first version says he checked at 9.10 – 9.15 PM.
On the second, the one with “Gerald” on it, Gerry, who was wearing a watch during his check, has corrected it to 9.15 exactly.
The same document, as can be seen, says that Jane, who was not present during the Noddy massacre, went for her check at 9.20, something she confirms in her witness statement, “five minutes after Gerry”.
So in that five minutes everything has happened. Gerry has made the two minute walk to his apartment, more
.
~ ~ ~
NI police colluded with killers
Police colluded with loyalists behind over a dozen murders in north Belfast, a report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has confirmed.
Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch.
It said two retired assistant chief constables refused to cooperate with the investigation.
Special Branch officers gave the killers immunity, it said.
The officers ensured the murderers were not caught and even "baby-sat" them during police interviews to help them avoid incriminating themselves.
The Special Branch officers "created false notes" and blocked searches for UVF weapons.
They also paid almost £80,000 to leading loyalist Mark Haddock, jailed for 10 years last November for an attack on a nightclub doorman.
Responding to the report, Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde offered an apology to the victims' families.
He said the report made "shocking, disturbing and uncomfortable reading".
NI Secretary Peter Hain said: "I am convinced that at least one prosecution will arise out of today's report."
Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said republicans would "not be surprised or shocked by the revelations".
"We think that it's an incentive that the mechanisms which were put in place for accountability, which we put in place and which we have argued for, now need to be deployed, not only to make sure that this does not happen (again), but if it does, that those guilty will be dealt with properly," he said.
The report, published on Monday, called for a number of murder investigations to be re-opened.
But it is unlikely that any of the police officers involved will be prosecuted - the ombudsman said that evidence was deliberately destroyed to ensure there could not be prosecutions.
Nuala O'Loan said investigation was a lengthy task.
"What emerged during our inquiries was that all of the informants at the centre of this investigation were members of the UVF," she said.
"There was no effective strategic management of these informants. As a consequence of the practices of Special Branch, the position of the UVF, particularly in north Belfast and Newtownabbey was consolidated and strengthened over the years. How could this happen?"
Mrs O'Loan said former Chief Constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan was interviewed by her office, but was unable to assist the investigation.
The report said: "Others, including some serving officers, gave evasive, contradictory, and on occasion farcical answers to questions.
"On occasion those answers indicated either a significant failure to understand the law, or contempt for the law."
The ombudsman's investigation began more than three years ago when Belfast welder Raymond McCord claimed that his son, also called Raymond, had been killed by a police informer.
The former RAF man, 22, was a member of the UVF who had some involvement in drugs.
In 1997, he was beaten to death and his body dumped in a quarry.
Mr McCord has said he wants those who murdered his son to be put in prison.
He said he had received a death threat at the weekend from the UVF.
Among the investigations which could be re-opened are the murder in north Belfast in 1992 of 27-year-old taxi driver Sharon McKenna, who was shot at the home of an elderly friend.
The names of the police officers and the informers have not been made public.
However, it is known that the main informer at the centre of the investigation is Mark Haddock, who was named in the Irish parliament 15 months ago as a UVF killer.
Some of the Special Branch officers criticised in the report have rejected the ombudsman's allegations as "unfounded and incapable of substantiation".
In a statement, the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers' Association said they had always acted in the best interests of the pursuit of justice and had nothing to be ashamed of.
The officers also challenged the ombudsman to disclose the details of any evidence of their criminal behaviour discovered during her investigation. BBC NI
