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.