Monday, December 28, 2015

Public Anguish Was a False Front

Well goodness gracious me! There are so many unnerving similarities in this story, and far too many to highlight, I'm at a loss how to describe it. Not deja vous, a script perhaps? Yes a script, because that's what it reads like, a script for grotesque theatre, only played out at a different place and time.

I can only hope though that this is a five act play, because at the end of act four the plot is exactly the same, both sets of parents are still at liberty.

What of act five?

Public anguish was a false front. You don't say?

full article bottom of page.

The key to the mystery lies "certainly with Kate, a very special and disturbed woman", guarantees José Cabrera Fornero to CM, a forensic psychiatrist who has been following the case since the beginning. The Spanish man attentively watched "the staged interview" that the couple gave to Antena 3, and its purpose was "to have the Spanish people on their side". But 70 percent of the viewers who called the channel believe the McCanns are lying, and the psychiatrist sides with them - "by crying without moving a single muscle, Kate looked like a poker player".

Public Anguish Was False Front, Indictment Alleges

St. Petersburg Times
September 11, 1999

TAMPA -- In scores of public statements and months of public appearances since their baby disappeared, Steve and Marlene Aisenberg steadfastly maintained their innocence.

But a federal indictment suggests that was merely a facade to hide their guilt.

What the Aisenbergs were saying publicly was far different from what they were saying in private, the indictment alleges.

The most damning evidence federal authorities revealed Thursday was a series of secretly recorded conversations suggesting the Aisenbergs schemed from the outset to get their alibis straight and point investigators in the wrong direction. But investigators were suspicious almost immediately.

On the evening of Nov. 24, 1997, for instance, just hours after Marlene Aisenberg reported her baby Sabrina had been kidnapped, the Aisenbergs gave a videotaped statement pleading for her safe return.

But in interviews with detectives the same day, the couple gave inconsistent statements about the events leading to Sabrina's disappearance, the indictment alleges. They first said they were awakened by a noisy fish tank. Later, Steve Aisenberg said his wife's screaming woke him, and Marlene said she had been awakened by a television alarm.

Marlene Aisenberg said the family dog, Brownie, was inside the house when she and her husband went to bed. She later said she got up in the middle of the night to let Brownie in after she heard the dog scratching at a door.

On Nov. 25, Marlene Aisenberg failed to produce a list the FBI had requested of people they thought might have been involved in the kidnapping. Instead, the indictment alleges, she continued to "socialize and watch television."

Three weeks after Sabrina disappeared, Marlene Aisenberg's friends described her as anguished, shut away for hours in her bedroom with her children and her prayers. But authorities say the couple were distancing themselves from investigators.

They "repeatedly retreated" to their bedroom and turned on the stereo so loudly that detectives awaiting a ransom call in the kitchen could not hear any conversation. Five days later, the Aisenbergs asked the FBI to leave.

On Dec. 23, the day after the couple took part in a candlelight vigil for Sabrina, they read a prepared statement at their lawyer's office, asking for the safe return of their baby.

The next day, investigators eavesdropping on the couple allegedly heard a startling conversation.

"The baby's dead and buried!" Marlene yelled to Steve, the indictment alleges. "It was found dead because you did it! The baby's dead no matter what you say -- you just did it."

"Honey," her husband allegedly replied, "there was nothing I could do about it. We need to discuss the way that we can beat the charge. I would never break from the family pact and our story even if the police were to hold me down."

As the investigation stretched into 1998, the Aisenbergs decided to break their silence and embark on a media blitz.

On Jan. 9, the Aisenbergs granted an interview to the St. Petersburg Times. The next day they went to the Missing Children Help Center in Brandon. Two days later, the couple appeared with their attorney, Barry Cohen, on NBC's Today Show.

But agents were still secretly listening in on what the couple was saying privately.

The day they appeared on Today, Marlene privately discussed "a problem with the timeline" given to investigators, the indictment alleges. Marlene had said she went immediately to check on Sabrina, then the other children the day the baby disappeared. In another interview, she reversed it, saying she checked Sabrina's crib last. Marlene told Steven she worried she might be trouble, the indictment says.

On Jan. 21, Hillsborough sheriff's investigators showed the couple enlarged photographs of Sabrina taken from a videotape made two days before the child's disappearance. The photos showed apparent injuries to Sabrina's head and face.

Marlene ran from the room while Steve sat "'red-faced, and nervously rapped a writing instrument on the table," the indictment says.

Later that night, the couple was secretly taped talking about the pictures.

Marlene cursed, referring to the photos as "them f------ pictures, them f------ pictures." She told Steve they would have to get their attorney to explain the injuries.

Later, Steve said to Marlene, "I wish I hadn't harmed her." A prosecutor said in court Thursday that he added, "It was the cocaine."

The next day, the Sheriff's Office announced that the investigation continued to point to the Aisenbergs.

Still, the couple kept a high profile.

On Jan. 26, they opened an account at NationsBank for donations to help in the search for Sabrina. The next day, they flew to Texas to tape an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show. The couple said they knew nothing about what had happened to Sabrina.

But privately, the indictment says, they were still going over their story, especially now that they had been ordered to appear before a grand jury.

Steve worried about being overheard. On Jan. 31, the indictment alleges, he told his wife, "What we're gonna have to do is always turn on the radio if you presume they're listening."

On Feb. 17 authorities overheard the Aisenbergs discussing the grand jury, which they had appeared before six days earlier.

"'They don't know the truth, right?" Steve said to Marlene.

"Yeah," Marlene answered. "So, so in a way, you know, that means nobody knows what we did still."


In March 1998, four months after Sabrina disappeared, the Aisenbergs went on ABC's 20/20. They marked their 11th wedding anniversary that month, which they had hoped would be a family celebration when Sabrina would be given her Hebrew name. The celebration was not to be.

The Aisenbergs also were busy keeping investigators off their trail, the indictment alleges.

During the first days of March, the indictments say, the couple "schemed about trying to wrongly blame a Michigan man" for Sabrina's disappearance.

Three months after they opened the bank account for Sabrina's return, authorities say, the couple began using the money to pay off their credit cards. Source and photo's
H/T Mari Welzel - Maren

And if you think that is something, you ain't seen nothing yet.

From: Unsolved: Sabrina Aisenberg A five-month-old infant is kidnapped from her crib.

Marlene Aisenberg:

"I believe that somebody came into our home and just took her. It had to be someone who wanted a baby so bad and they couldn't have one themselves or they needed money so bad that they would want to sell her."

Steve Aisenberg:

"It could be that somebody just watched Marlene and I, and saw our habits of occasionally leaving the garage open and knew we had a baby. Or, it could have been somebody that knew us casually and then through others knew our habits. So it, you know, anything is just pure speculation."

Priceless, the pair of you.

Have a little topping for your pudding.

Submitted by Linda (not verified) on Tue, 01/27/2015 - 02:01

I agree, same as the mccans, something just doesn't sit right with their story. They just happened to leave their garage door open the one night a mysterious baby napper is on the hunt. Snuck in past the dog and sleeping family, got the baby they magically knew was in its crib asleep and then snuck back out. It doesn't make sense. I think something happened to the baby and they were scared about their reputation and their daycare business so they covered it up. Much like the mccans. Their reputation is too important. I feel like also there was something wrong with Sabrina, maybe some sort of development issue that they didn't want to deal with. comment

Update I have resisted illustrating the article below, and it's not for want of material, quite the opposite in fact, I have probably got image that would be suitable for every paragraph, if not every sentence.

José Cabrera Fornero is a forensic psychiatrist, but I'm not. I don't have to be, not to evaluate the McCanns I don't.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Kate cries like a poker player

Madeleine McCann Case: Kate cries like a poker player Correio da Manhã (article no longer available online)

26 October 2007
Thanks to Astro for translation

The key to the mystery lies "certainly with Kate, a very special and disturbed woman", guarantees José Cabrera Fornero to CM, a forensic psychiatrist who has been following the case since the beginning. The Spanish man attentively watched "the staged interview" that the couple gave to Antena 3, and its purpose was "to have the Spanish people on their side". But 70 percent of the viewers who called the channel believe the McCanns are lying, and the psychiatrist sides with them - "by crying without moving a single muscle, Kate looked like a poker player".

A specialist in facial expressions, Cabrera says that "the face of Kate is always the same, except for the tears - the first ones over the last five months, and curiously only after having been criticised for not crying". Now she did it but her face "doesn't express any emotion or feeling. When one cries, one's facial muscles move, and she didn't move a single muscle, just like poker players. That is highly significant", says the Spanish psychiatrist, and "brings us the certainty that she is hiding something".

Cabrera says the 30 minutes of conversation ended up being "a non-spontaneous interview, perfectly ordered in terms of the questions that were asked by the journalist. And it gives us the impression that the entire stance was staged by the couple".

The Spanish man even remembers Gerry's last sentence and even considers it "genial": "Don't talk until they take the microphone off you". This only proves that all of it was just a big theatre play, the entire interview was staged. That is clear".

José Cabrera noticed that "during half an hour of interview his only concern was to control her. It's extraordinary. Whenever she opened her mouth to speak, he squeezed her hand - and all of this because the key to this mystery certainly lies with her, she is a very special woman..."

Kate McCann "had psychiatric problems for a long time", the specialist guarantees, and "now they have become worse". Cabrera retained an interview that Maddie's grandparents gave to the Spanish television recently: "In their innocence, they said that Kate had told them, some time before the disappearance, that the little girl was looking increasingly like herself, which from a psychiatric point of view means a lot..."

For the Spaniard, the origin of a bad relationship between mother and daughter - that was reflected by the writings about Madeleine in Kate's personal diary - "which is highly significant" for all the specialists that have been following this case since early May".

Gerry's greatest concern has been "to control his wife's impulses in public - and that was once again well demonstrated throughout this interview", says José Cabrera Fornero. "He is the one who dominates the entire situation, he knows everything and he knows he must control her and her problematic personality, so she does not exceed herself in front of the cameras and talk too much..."

All the gestures and facial expressions "become fatal for someone who has something to hide" - this is dictated by the experience that was collected over the years by this specialist in forensic psychiatry. "And there is no way to avoid that."

Nothing moves José Cabrera "against this couple", whom he does not know, but he defended the McCanns' guilt in the 'Pros & Contras' show on RTP, when the Policia Judiciaria confirmed their suspicions on the couple - and yesterday he reinforced his theory to CM, one day after Kate and Gerry chose Spain for their first interview after becoming arguidos.

The English press itself confirmed yesterday that "70 percent of viewers that called Antena 3 believe the McCanns are lying", the online edition of the 'Daily Mail' announced.

José Cabrera was not surprised: "Any English person is cold, but there is something more to her - her personality is not normal. And she makes an impression by only worrying about her answers..."

"The interview was a circus act"

Moita Flores, criminologist, considers the interview was another act from the McCanns.

Correio da Manhã - What is your opinion about the McCanns during the interview they gave to Spanish television?

Moita Flores - The whole thing looked like a circus act to me, during which the couple repeated the usual commonplaces, once again escaping the essential. And once again they revealed that they have a lot to tell, but they don't want to...

CM - During this interview to Antena 3, Kate shows herself a lot more emotional that usual.

MF - But the curious thing was that even before this interview was made, it was known the lady was going to cry, which then happened. And she even managed to play the part well...

CM - Do you believe there was image staging during this interview?

MF - One should notice that it was known beforehand that the couple would take the opportunity to compliment the Portuguese police, which then happened...

CM - Gerry looks confident that the DNA tests cannot incriminate them.

MF - When he mentioned the tests, it was a silly reply to a docile interviewer. Everybody knows that DNA tests identify people, and they don't lie. But they do not condemn anyone on their own. That was miserable.

CM - How can the couple's statements be defined?

MF - It was an act that nobody believes in. After the kidnapping theory, now they insist on their innocence. An innocent person does not need this...

OK, two then. But it is just this kind of facial expression that yer man is talking about. Kate McCann's grief is about as genuine as my pic; letterbox mouth as Anna Esse once described her.


Anonymous said...

"As long as people are not put to the test by the authorities, it's fairly easy to maintain this kind of facade," Ewing said.

"They go on living, but they're always living with one eye over their shoulder waiting for the ax to fall," Ewing said. "That's got to be an awful existence."

Anonymous said...

"We want to believe them, and because we want to believe them, they get an awful lot of positive reinforcement with the story they tell," Ewing said. "In some cases, I'm convinced the parents come to believe their own lies after a while."


Unknown said...

#csainquiry. Reason enough to get gordon brown mp involved straightaway

Martin Roberts said...

'The Met’s Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley has stated that every possible measure is being taken to find out what happened to Madeleine.'

If indeed the Met’s Assistant Commissioner has so stated then he is as big a liar as that ubiquitous ‘source close to the McCanns’

‘Gerry McCann reacted claims he received a string of mystery texts the day before his daughter vanished.

‘But Gerry and wife Kate have dismissed the claims as "utter rubbish".

‘A source close to them said:

‘"Any suggestion of Gerry receiving 10 texts the day before Madeleine disappeared are utter rubbish.

[of course they are – the evidence (not the suggestion) confirms that he received not 10, not 16, but 14 from the same sender]

"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."

So Mark, why not take at least one possible measure and ask Gerry McCann who sent him those 14 texts he and his source pretend he didn’t receive? It should only take one 'phone call. Unless of course you already know the answer.

Anonymous said...

It's always "nonsenseThe"trewth" was outed."ludicrous" from the Mccann camp in this sad, sorry saga. Their few Web "supporters" see no fault in their holiday 'behaviour' and defend them as if it is their full time career to do so. Mainstream press do not seem to want to question them any more and their more high profile, laughable defenders just call those who do question, silly names like "troll" or "hater". Really is about time The"t

Anonymous said...

Previous post got jumbled .First line should read "it's always nonsense or ludicrous from Mccann camp"
Last line should be "really is about time The trewth was outed"

Himself said...

The Met’s assistant commissioner, Mark Rowley, said the scale-back had been discussed with Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann. “We still have very definite lines to pursue, which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case,” he said. “We have given this assurance to Madeleine’s parents.”

Rowley said: “The Met was asked to take on this exceptional case as one of national interest. We were happy to bring our expertise to bear only on the basis that it would not detract from the policing of London … the Home Office have additionally funded the investigation above normal grants to the Met. That will continue at the reduced level.”

In a statement, the McCanns paid tribute to the “meticulous and painstaking work [the force has] carried out over the last four and a half years”.

“The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt,” the family’s statement said. “Given that the review phase of the investigation is essentially completed, we fully understand the reasons why the team is being reduced. Whilst we do not know what happened to Madeleine, we remain hopeful she may still be found given the ongoing lines of enquiry.”

Cunning plot, not.

Himself said...

My bold.

. . . Since then the Operation Grange team say they have raised 7,154 actions and identified 560 lines of enquiry, taken 1,338 statements and collected 1,027 exhibits. More than 30 international requests have been sent to various countries asking for work to be undertaken on behalf of the Met.

Officers have investigated more than 60 persons of interest, considered 650 sex offenders and looked into reports of 8,685 potential sightings of Madeleine around the world.

That all seems clear enough, but to many sceptics who have followed the case closely it is all a show, a sham, a cover-up, a whitewash, a conspiracy to hide the truth. They allege the claim that Madeleine was abducted, which her parents have always been adamant about and which the police and mainstream press in the UK seem to accept, is a fabrication.

The Met, of course, will have none of it. Poring through a vast wealth of information and theories in the extraordinary circumstances of investigating a missing child years later in another country was always going to be an immense task and required a full team of 29 staff working on it, is the official view.

“While there remain lines of enquiry to follow, the vast majority of the work by Operation Grange has been completed,” according to the Met.

The team now consists of a detective sergeant and three detective constables who have been working on the case for a long time. They will continue to be overseen by Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Wall. Officers will deploy to Portugal if required to do so.

The Met’s Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley has stated that every possible measure is being taken to find out what happened to Madeleine.

Anonymous said...

What date in April did Control Risks Group arrive,and who exactly were they, how were they financed?

Anonymous said...

Martin R. @14:06

“The challenge is trying not to treat digital information any differently from other information. But obviously there are privacy rules around that,” Rowley says.

Cracking encrypted data and retrieving deleted information is another area the police have to be increasingly good at, he says. “And we have some fantastic experts.”

No doubt. M

Anonymous said...

'A source close to the couple's legal team confirmed that CRG had been working with the family since May but refused to discuss how the company was being paid.'


'Mr McCann first contacted private investigation companies less than three weeks after his daughter was reported missing on May 3 because of concerns that the Portuguese police were not properly checking out all reported sightings. But he had publicly to deny that they were using private detectives when Portuguese police said it would be against the law.'

McCanns Can't Remember Possibly Important Sightings

Anonymous said...

22 May 2014

Following a meeting with the media Assistant Commissioner Rowley said:


The family have also made their wishes clear about allowing us and the Portuguese the room to carry on with our work and this was reinforced this publicly by Kate McCann when Andy and his team were last in Portugal.


Himself said...

AC Mark Rowley

Be afraid.

Very afraid, because it's all Ed Snowden and Twitter's fault.

However, the Metropolitan Police do not like being challenged on their version of events. When a journalist questioned Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley about the position of the gun, and the inquest jury deciding that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot dead, Rowley sneered, ‘Do you think the police lie, do you think the police plant evidence?’ Well, actually Mr Rowley, I do and on an industrial scale.

Far be it for me to disagree.

' Frame-up kit carried in patrol car '

THE FLYING SQUAD CARRIES FRAME-UP KIT JUST IN CASE? It was discovered that cars driven by the elite squad often carried a kit of imitation guns, masks and burglary tools when they went out on operations such as stakeouts, raids and ambushes. It is said they were there to bolster evidence against suspects so that convictions could be more successful. It was also used in case they shot an unarmed suspect in which case a gun was planted so they could say the suspect pointed a gun at an officer -- this would justify opening fire. Three case have been reopened and are going to the Court of Appeal based on the officers who arrested them. The Internal Investigation unit are said to be looking into allegations of corruption.
About one third the way down in this extensive list of "trust me, I'm a policeman."

Anonymous said...

The entire system is ripe for snapping.

Anonymous said...


Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton said...

The 'abduction' of Sabrina Aisenberg is almost a template for the Madeleine McCann case, it demonstrates how easy it is for parents to claim abduction and get away with it.

However, there are big differences. What actually happened to Sabrina is a secret shared by the parents - their 'pact' consists of just two people. Unless the parents confess, there is little the police can do - what a shame the police did not bring in dogs like Eddie and Keela.

The Madeleine case by contrast, has a cast of at least 6, probably many more if you include all the family and friends who went out to PDL to 'assist' the parents. The McCann pact is not sustainable because there are too many people involved.

Though the police of Hillsborough know darn well Sabrina was not abducted, there was very little they could do about it other than plant listening devices in the Aisenbergs' home, which unfortunately backfired on them. Some might say it hindered future investigation of them.

The McCanns however are not off the hook. The Portuguese police have reopened their investigation and we know that when they close or shelve it, they will make their files public and there is nothing the UK authorities or the McCanns can do about it. So too, Operation Grange will have to account for their actions this past 4+ years. They have been publicly funded, ergo, they are publicly accountable.

Anyway, lets see what the New Year brings, I have a feeling it will be very interesting.

Happy New Year to you Ted, and many thanks for all the revelatory moments! Cheers!

Himself said...

And a happy new year to you Ros, thank you for your good wishes.

Thank you for your observations and input, there is little I could disagree with, particularly this, for above all else it is the most singular thing that gives me any hope that there might be justice one day.

The McCann pact is not sustainable because there are too many people involved.

Though I have uttered much in the past regarding the number of people privy to the McCann's sordid little secret, I voiced it most recently in my open letter to Andy Redwood.

Redwood of course was still in the job when I penned it. Did it have the slightest influence on the outcome? I would like to think so, but I very much doubt it. Still I did my bit, as I do constantly with the Home Secretary. you won't for shame Home Secretary cry . . . .

Peace to you my dear and each and everyone who reads or contributes to the well being of this blog.

Anonymous said...

A peaceful New Year and thanks to all on this blog.

Peace to Madeleine and all who are elsewhere.


Anonymous said...

rtgr @15.47,

Seconded here.

A happy new year to all! And thanks, as always, to Himself.

I hope that 2016 is a better year for Gonçalo Amaral.

Very best wishes,


Anonymous said...

Agnos @16:15,

Seconded here.

De beste wensen voor 2016!

Que la prospérité, la joie et la santé soient avec vous.


Anonymous said...

New year, old hopes.

Peace, guys and gals.


Martin Roberts said...

Happy New Year one and all (all those reporting for duty here at any rate)

Shop 99 said...

Very nice post, impressive. its quite different from other posts. Thanks for sharing.

buy weighing scale online

Anonymous said...

"Someone would have talked".

You hear this all the time from people who seek to deny the existence of a conspiracy.

But this Tapas 9 'pact' by definition is a conspiracy to willfully cover up the true circumstances surrounding the disappearance of a child who is most certainly dead. Ridding themselves of the body of a dead child is prima facie evidence of a murder. As long as any/all of the pact members can be implicated in a child murder ain't nobody gonna be talking anytime soon.


Martin Roberts said...

whodunnit @17:11


The popular misconception seems to be that anyone who has the goods on Kate and Gerry is but a breath away from turning queen's evidence(entering a plea bargain in other words). In reality they are primarily concerned with saving another ass altogether - their own!

'Too many people know'

How long is a piece of string? Hence, how many is too many? The probability of disclosure does not increase with the number of accomplices.

Adherence to the notion of abduction, or anything else, on the night of Thursday May 3, 2007, has to confront the undeniable indices of anticipatory behaviour on the part of the McCanns, who are no more clairvoyant than you or I. The degree of anticipation is quite immaterial.

Those preparations involved third-parties and their involvement means, as you say, a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Paradoxically, the fact that 'too many people know' is something of a benefit as far as the McCanns are concerned.



Himself said...

whodunnit 2 January 2016 at 17:11

I didn't include the Tapas in my "too many in the know."

As you rightly point out, self interest will always be their first consideration.

Himself said...

M.R. 2 January 2016 at 19:03

I understand what you are saying dear boy, and much of your reasons for saying so. But surely the more people that are in the know shortens the odds on disclosure of some description?

It only takes one who is privy to, if I might make so bold, the world's second largest conspiracy of silence* to turn round and say: "I've had my fill fill of this fucking pair, where's that whistle?"

*A bit of an overstatement perhaps, but it sure feels like it at times watching half the world toadying up to a pair who are as obviously guilty as they are unlikable.

Martin Roberts said...

Himself @13:38

Bonjour, bonjour!

"surely the more people that are in the know shortens the odds on disclosure of some description?"

It could well be that, like Robert Ford, they have nothing to gain but greater infamy in so doing, especially after eight years of silence in certain cases.

I don't think the 'pang of conscience' argument would make a convincing reply to the question, "What took you so long?"

But who knows? Maybe someone will make an irresistible offer of money such that the recipient will take a risk on the 'men in suits' paying them a visit.

Slightly off topic (but only slightly) in conducting their 'review' of the case, which, we were told, embraced all of the evidence, Operation Grange will have noticed the conspicuous inconsistencies (aka lies) of the McCanns and their Tapas crew on page 1.

Why then was it thought necessary to proceed with translation of all those files before moving to investigation mode?

The question is, of course, rhetorical. Who retires when on the verge of closing out one of the biggest 'kidnap' cases in history? Oh, I know, that nice man from Scotland Yard. I wonder how much they paid him to STFU? Maybe they just had him sign a gagging clause up front.

It may have gone rather quiet all of a sudden but I suspect there is yet more to come.

Regards (likewise to 'Mrs. Whodunnit')


Anonymous said...

Cheers and regards to Himself and Dr. Roberts!

Top of the mornin' to ye!

I suppose in a case of child murder involving a 'group' of people, those 'in the know' would by necessity only include those who are in some way compromised, ala Murat. To talk would be to risk severe consequences for their own actions, either in the commission of this crime of some earlier, exploitable offense. It would take an existential crisis of major proportions to induce such a one to face the music on behalf of justice for a long dead child.

As far the wider political cover-up of the crime just look at who was present at the resort at the time of the disappearance; he even offered 'evidence' of a sort to prove the continued existence of poor Madeleine past the critical April 30 date.


Martin Roberts said...

A question 'non-conspiracists' might care to ponder:

Given 'too many people know', just how likely is it that so many individuals in various positions of influence and authority can be THAT stupid as not to notice? ('notice what'? you say. The list is endless!)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 29.12.2015 @16:12

Present at Kennedy’s first meeting with the McCanns in London were representatives of Control Risks, a firm specialising in security and crisis management. It had already sent detectives to Portugal to see the couple right after Madeleine’s disappearance, at the expense of an anonymous donor whose identity has never been revealed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 30 December 2015 at 07:53

Thank you for the link which reaches the memory Mr and Mrs McCann cannot reach.

After a pint of that which 'reaches the memory':

Oh yes, here it is, that itchy neck of his at 0.18, and her shy smile and tender touching of hair at 0.43. How natural, sincere and gentle. What a kind couple, so tender. They are doctors and they like children and dogs.

I like children and dogs. I like Sandra, she is kind and she likes dogs I’m sure. She is not just a pretty face. I’m not a doctor.



Anonymous said...

When there is too much of ‘what is intended’ (praise in this instance), ‘what is intended’ is not what is intended.

rtgr after Lao Tzu

Himself 30 December 2015 at 13:23

‘Do you think the police lie, do you think the police plant evidence?’ Well, actually Mr Rowley, I do and on an industrial scale.

(Saying ‘not too much’) Well said, Himself. Salute!

Just a thought:

Mr Rowley’s training shines through: his re-enforced epistemological question (Do you THINK the police.., do you THINK the police..?) is in line with the strategy of choice when the questioner wants to avoid stating (admitting) what IS (on their own admission and on the findings of juries of peers, the police lie, the police plant evidence). Mr Rowley seems to be attempting to elicit an answer in kind and, if successful, thereby re-plant the discourse from the ontological domain to that of epistemology.

May I take it that you meant Well, actually Mr Rowley, THEY do and on an industrial scale, or even less ambiguously Well, actually Mr Rowley, THE POLICE HAVE LIED AND PLANTED EVIDENCE and on an industrial scale?

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Kind regards.


Anonymous said...

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 31 December 2015 at 11:16
Himself 31 December 2015 at 13:39

The McCann pact is not sustainable because there are too many people involved.

Not necessarily so.

A counterproposal:

The McCann pact is sustainable because there are too many people involved.

Too many well-placed people are involved with too much to lose.

If we accept the currently prevalent hypothesis (which rtgr rejects) that the drive to survive is the main contributing factor to the continuing existence of good life, we may have to also accept that the ‘too many people involved’ will continue to exist just as they have already done for over eight years. Keep your tongs still, it is said, and they listen.

My hope belongs with the young who will come to their own conclusions.

Kind regards.


Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton said...

Without a doubt the Pact has been a great success this past 9 years. Or at least that is the way it appears. However, there are chinks. Jane Tanner's story for example has now been discredited, how does she feel about that?

The very pro active McCann family, have said very little, if anything in 8 years. The McCanns, Gerry and Kate, have run a number of campaigns to find Madeleine (boost their funds) over the years, but the McCann family and the Tapas friends have been significant by their absence.

Kate and Gerry had unbelievable support when they were in PDL, with members of their family staying out there with them for months on end and their huge circle of close friends visiting regularly. People ready, willing and more than able to make public statements on their behalf. At one point, Sky News had an entire channel devoted to Madeleine news filled with statements from the very proactive McCann and Healy clans.

However, after Kate and Gerry became arguidos, the enthusiastic input of the McCann family stopped. From around September 2007, Kate, Gerry and Clarence have been the only public spokespeople for the Fund. In addition, there have been a huge number of resignations from the Board, including Gerry's brother John.

The civil trials in Lisbon also demonstrate the 'chinks' in the Pact. Significantly, none of the Tapas group appeared to support their friends and they clearly struggled to find any expert or professional witnesses to give evidence on their behalf.

A lot of people have a lot to lose that is true. But if we imagine the pressure these people must be living under, something has got to give. A chain is only as strong as each individual link, and these links are under enormous stress.

I am not a detective, but I watch a lot of detective shows, and it is always a game of cat and mouse. It is clear from the first statements given by the tapas group, that it would not take very much interrogation to 'break' them down. I can only imagine, and this is pure supposition on my part, that the McCanns and the tapas group have not co-operated with Operation Grange. Clearly, they didn't take part in the reconstruction by returning to PDL, because it was filmed with actors in Spain! Have they even been interviewed by Operation Grange, or have they too been protected by lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 6 January 2016 at 13:58

Dear Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton

I am grateful for and interested in your comments and will post my observations in reply later (I am now busy cooking and contemplating).

Kind regards.


Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton said...

I would be interested to know Martin's thoughts on how the tapas group reacted in their interviews with Operation Grange. If indeed they have participated in any interviews?

Purely from an outsider's perspective, I believe they would quickly crack. Their first interviews, and indeed their second, are filled with discrepancies and they sounded very nervous. Any interrogator could have torn their alibis to shreds in those early days, but as we know they stopped cooperating with the Portuguese police when the focus turned to them and were able from then on to avoid being questioned.

We have been told from the beginning that the parents support Operation Grange, it would follow therefore that they and their friends have been interviewed. I have a niggling feeling at the moment that they haven't.

I know Martin, that you and I come from opposite directions in the way we see Operation Grange going, but I find your posts enlightening nonetheless. How do you think, lets call them the tapas 6, coped with the endless questioning? I am beginning to suspect that they clammed up a long time ago and that OG have been eliminating everyone else so only 6 remain.

Martin Roberts said...

Rosalinda @18:21

You ask, "How do you think, lets call them the tapas 6, coped with the endless questioning?"

Personally I have no idea how they might have coped, had they been questioned. (Don't you just love the subjunctive? More under-utilised than understood by English speakers I fancy)

"We have been told from the beginning that the parents support Operation Grange, it would follow therefore that they and their friends have been interviewed. I have a niggling feeling at the moment that they haven't."

I suspect that whilst your 'niggling feeling' may be justified, your supposition of interviews across the board being contingent upon the parents' support is less so. It rather depends on the true significance of the word 'support' in this instance. (Alas, I do not profess the appropriate definition)

Your opening (and closing) question therefore invites my conjecture concerning "how the tapas group reacted in their interviews with Operation Grange - if indeed they have participated in any interviews."

I can only answer as above. As far as I am aware there has been no indication that the McCanns or their holidaying associates have been re-interviewed by Scotland Yard.

I too watch crime shows on TV, but I am disinclined to consider them paradigmatic as far as the relationship between Operation Grange and the McCanns et al. is concerned. However, in the absence of firm indications to the contrary, I take the view that the 'Rule out method', so beloved of Gerry McCann, is NOT that being pursued by Operation Grange.

As an erudite commentator has previously remarked, with respect to 'crechedad', DCI Redwood actually ruled him IN - and left him there!



Anonymous said...

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 6 January 2016 at 18:21


I am sorry I spoke. Have your questions been answered and everything settled therefore?

Have a good day.



Anonymous said...

whodunit 2 January 2016 at 17:11

With deference.

Just a few thoughts.

"Someone would have talked"

The available evidence indicates otherwise and your conjecture implying the existence of a conspiracy of silence (“…ain’t nobody gonna be talking anytime soon”) remains standing strong.

“…Tapas 9 'pact' by definition is a conspiracy…”

To demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy, it suffices to show that two people have unlawfully acted or intended to act together in secret. It is beyond dispute that Mr and Mrs McCann have been doing exactly that and therefore the case for conspiracy is established. Demonstrating that the conspiracy involves people other that the two, which it undoubtedly does is perhaps an unnecessary complication if the existence of a conspiracy is all that needs to be demonstrated. Once the conspiracy of the two is established, it does, on the strength of the available evidence, entail the participation of others, and thus we have a case for a wider conspiracy.

“…disappearance of a child who is most certainly dead.”

Very likely, not ‘most certainly’.

In the absence of Madeleine’s body, there can be no certainty that Madeleine is not alive unless there is an admission of murder, homicide, or misadventure. The burden of proof is on the party making the allegation. In this case, you are relying upon the strength of the circumstantial evidence available to you. Ultimately, it would be up to the court (jury) to decide whether your evidence amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing is certain in court as you well know. It seems that the weight of the evidence in the public domain for ‘not alive’ is overwhelming.

Be it as it may, in a court of law more than just two people would be very likely found responsible for criminal offences in the case of Madeleine’s disappearance.

“…ain’t nobody gonna be talking anytime soon.”

I think it will very likely be the case.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Whatever the truth is, we all wish Madeleine, bless her, peace and justice.

Kind regards.


Martin Roberts said...

rtgr 8.1 @13:44

Hi there

You're on the money in my estimation. Accuracy is all (it stood Wyatt Earp in good stead).

As regards 'typos' elsewhere, I must apologize sincerely for my own. Not due to Heineken (unfortunately), just age and oversight.

Kind regards


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 9 January 2016 at 10:48

Greetings and thanks.

I’ll be busy counting what I am ‘on’ then.

Wonderful how you put good old W E on the spot. I guess he would be as impressed with your as I am. Possibly he is...

‘Typos’ are ‘typos’, let them remain what they will so as long as we all understand each other in the way intended. I have noticed very few of yours. Mine are likewise not due to Heineken.

Respect to whodunit.

Kind regards.


Anonymous said...


"ELA CONTROLA GERRY PARA VER SE ELE AGE CORRECTAMENTE", José Cabrera Forneiro, especialista espanhol em psiquiatria forense, acredita que Kate esconde algo Disse que Kate tem cara de poker. O que significa isso?

José Cabrera Forneiro – A expressão facial não diz tudo, mas diz algo sobre a pessoa. Significa que não manifesta o mínimo rasgo emocional, como um jogador de poker. Creio que esconde algo.

– Está a representar?

– Creio que sim. Desde que Maddie desapareceu mantém sempre a mesma cara séria. Sempre a olhar para o marido para ver se a actuação dele é correcta. Ela controla todas as expressões emocionais de Gerry. Ele, que aparentemente controla o casal, está a esconder algo que ela sabe e ele também já sabe.


26 October 2007

"When the time is right they will be taking action against anyone who they feel has overstepped the mark. It is good that Correio printed the name of the Spanish psychologist whose opinions they published. He is one more person on the list of people to sue." [said a friend of the McCanns]


Mr Cabrera was not their only critic. Portuguese criminologist Moita Flores, a former detective with the Policia Judiciaria, said: "The interview was a circus act.



Kate McCann in 'madeleine'

By contrast, in the following weeks and months I would be subjected to cruel comments describing me as ‘cold’ and ‘poker-faced’. Had these critics not seen the television pictures? Or is it that people have short and selective memories?

Anonymous said...

Box labels written by Kate McCann. As you do when your daughter goes missing. M

Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’

“We sort the post into boxes labelled ‘Information/for follow-up’, ‘Well-wishers’, ‘Psychics/Dowsers/Visions’, ‘Nasty’ and ‘Nutty’. The ‘Well-wishers’ box is always by far the fullest, I’m glad to say. The ‘Nasty’ pile has never been huge, and it is rare nowadays for that box to be needed. The nonsensical letters destined for the ‘Nutty’ box, though, have arrived fairly consistently.”

It might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back. KM

Anonymous said...


'Dreams' has been turned into 'Dowsers'.

Himself said...


Anonymous said...

My comment disappeared!
It was 44 originally.
Walkercan may be the same person?

Anonymous said...

Have a word with Winnower.

Anonymous said...

Himself said...

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

Anonymous said...

Mysterious dissappearance. The same GIF, another number. Mx