Follow by Email

Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

The McCanns: Forgiveness, Prayers, Misery & Fear





Since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from Portugal in 2007, the World Wide Web has been awash with theories, suppositions, conjecture and notions about what may or may not have happened to the little girl.


A trawl through the various forums, blogs, Facebook pages and other websites dedicated to the mystery reveals a veritable cornucopia of discussion and topics, from the downright bizarre to the obviously ridiculous.


For my own part, ever since the girl disappeared, I have written blogs and opinions as well as subscribing to several forums, partaking in discussions.


For the RECORD, (not for the first time, and at the risk of sounding like a stuck record), my own stance on this case has always been simple and immovable:

I do not ponder whether Madeleine’s parents were complicit in the disappearance of their daughter. I give no thought as to what part, (if ANY), was played by their Holiday-making friends, the ‘Tapas mob’.  


I do not even contribute to, nor necessarily concur with, the general consensus of opinion that the McCann’s were even negligent in leaving their children alone whilst they dined. 


For me, it is the simple and unassailable fact that, having STUDIED the available Police files and contributory documentation, witness statements and testimonies, including those made by the McCann’s themselves, (as well as those of their friends); the events, circumstances and situations that they describe, and which they and their seemingly endless entourage of wealthy Lawyers, business friends, Politicians and PR companies continue to insist happened; cannot possibly have occurred.


And I also firmly believe that, were anyone else to undertake the same studies, they too would arrive at the same conclusions.


As, indeed, many have DONE so already. 


Including, of course, Anthony Bennett.


It may have slipped most of the world by, given that there hasn’t been a whole lot of publicity surrounding it, but Mr. Bennett is currently involved in High Court litigation with the McCanns.


Ostensibly, they are seeking to stop him from suggesting that they are linked to their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, but in reality are FAR more interested in procuring Bennett’s life savings for having breached an EARLIER undertaking to the Court that he would cease to espouse such suggestions.

Of course, the McCann’s and their Major League City Lawyers, the infamous and renowned Carter-Ruck, could have singled out any one of the VERY many who have expressed and published exactly the same opinions as Mr. Bennett, myself included.


Alas, Bennett has been a particularly troublesome thorn for the McCanns for a long time.


Three Months after Madeleine went missing in 2007, Bennett set up a fund called The Madeleine Foundation to fund a private prosecution for alleged child neglect.


In November 2007, he started such a prosecution against Gerry and Kate McCann.  The initial hearing was dismissed on the grounds that it was a matter for the Portuguese authorities, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of British courts.


Undeterred, Bennett and his supporters took to leafleting the streets of ROTHLEY, the McCann’s home town, with pamphlets reproducing sections of the official Portuguese files. 

The, (by now), servile British press labelled Bennett and members of his Foundation “sickos” and “stalkers”, terms which were surprisingly deemed by the Press Complaints Commission to be justified in being used.

The UK Media were well and truly dancing now to the tune of the McCanns PR Mogul and spokesman, Clarence Mitchell.
 
In 2009, Bennett was issued with an order from Carter-Ruck solicitors, instructing him: 
"Not to repeat allegations that the McCanns are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann, and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done"


Which brings us up to the present day, where Messrs. Carter Ruck and their privileged clients are in the High Court to argue that Bennett was:
not abiding by the terms of his undertaking and was continuing to spread false allegations against them”.





Tony Bennett is a curious character. Unquestionably eccentric and seemingly idiosyncratic, who cuts a disheveled, unkempt figure. 


His critics, and there are very many, (mainly Kate and Gerry McCann well-wishers), tabloid journos and bloggers who refer to him, variously, as “perverted”, “sick”, “evil”, “twisted”, “depraved”, “weird” and “a liar” to name but a few monikers they have coined.


I knew of Mr. Bennett through a previous campaign which he was involved in, and which the Media company I worked for were investigating. 


I have met him, twice, and I thought him to have a very good academic brain. 

I also thought him to be a passionate and driven man.


Having led a fairly unspectacular Legal and Political career, Bennett has involved himself with a great number of campaigns; researching, representing and offering legal advice to a variety of people whom he has considered to have been wronged or for whom he believed justice had been denied.


It would be easy to suspect that he is something of an attention seeker or possessing delusions of grandeur, were it not for the fact that much of his efforts and work goes unrewarded financially and, in a large number of the cases he has involved himself with, has placed himself at considerable physical harm, risk and potential retribution from dangerous, criminal elements.


I am categorically NOT seeking to put Bennett on a pedestal here. Far from it. I personally believe that he has undertaken a number of cases for all the wrong reasons and has conducted himself carelessly and unprofessionally, as well as being overzealous in writing and reporting  his findings and opinions.


Especially, with his actions and writings relating to the Madeleine McCann case.


But I DO, wholeheartedly, want to defend him and offer him some support. 


Not least because, as already stated, not only do I SHARE some of his opinions on the McCann case but I have actually blogged, written and opined similar material for which he now finds himself in dire trouble.


And he IS, in dire, dire trouble.


Like myself, and many others, Bennett elects to believe that the Portuguese Police investigation, their dossiers, evidential documents and their conclusions represent a far more accurate picture of the truth relating to the missing girl than anything propagated by the McCanns and their vast, expansive, (not to say EXPENSIVE), PR machine. 


And it IS important to note that, far from being the fantasist and serial liar that he is frequently accused of being, he has only ever really concentrated on and repeated the sections and details from those official Portuguese documents.


As I have written previously, despite the McCanns repeated claims to the contrary, Kate and Gerry, along with their ‘Tapas’ friends were NOT “cleared” of any involvement with the disappearance of Madeleine according to the final report by the Portuguese Authorities.


I have blogged elsewhere about the contents of this report and do not wish to elaborate here, (it is also widely available on the WEB from many other sources). 


However, the documents DO make clear, to my mind, that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with any prosecutions and although the ‘Arguido’ status of both the McCanns and Robert Murat were lifted, there is very clear and compelling evidence detailed in the report that DOES suggest serious wrongdoing by the McCanns and their friends; that their testimonies were contrived and that there WAS a cover-up relating to some of the incidents that occurred in Portugal.


There are a number of very successful and widely available books on the European Continent, written by academics, criminologists and psychologists, all of whom utilise the Portuguese evidence as research and all of which reach the same conclusions as many other people, including Tony Bennett.


NONE of these publications are available in the UK, of course, nor are they ever likely to be.


The ex-head of the regional Polícia Judiciária in charge of the Madeleine McCann investigation, Gonçalo Amaral, knows only too well the consequences of writing anything that differs from the official version of events as propagated by the McCann Machine and enforced by Carter-Ruck, as he discovered when he penned his own account of the case, 'A Verdade Da Mentira', (The Truth of the Lie).






The resultant Court Action by the McCanns, (still ongoing), seeks to eradicate his book from circulation, as well as to glean a cool, one MILLION Sterling from the “Hapless Senor”.

Despite the fact that this Libel Trial is almost certainly doomed to fail, Senor Amaral is in a no-win situation.


Firstly, even though the Courts have granted the recirculation of his book , it will never be published in the UK, (certainly not in the foreseeable future), thanks to the obedient and sycophantic British PRESS. 


Furthermore, thanks to the huge disinformation and SMEAR campaign perpetrated by Team McCann, their supporters and Press from the outset, Amaral will forever be known as that “boozy”, “corrupt”, “inept”, “Porto plod”. 

OR, as he was so loquaciously ordered by Tony Parsons in the Daily Mirror, to "keep your stupid, sardine-munching mouth shut!"

For his troubles, alas, he will at least probably get to keep his family’s home and possessions.

 


Unfortunately, there will be NO such luck for Mr. Bennett.


As I write this, he is awaiting Judgement on his High Court case, due in any day. 


Officially, the McCanns assert that their Action is being brought against him because his writings are “harming the search for Madeleine”.  


But that claim holds very little water given that, as I have already stated, there are HUNDREDS more bloggers, writers and social networkers all opining and repeating the same thing.


Which suggests that Bennett must have some OTHER commodity which they want.


Money.


Bennett is NOT a rich man, but he does have life savings which would, to some people, represent a tidy sum.

Certainly, to the McCanns, it represents a USEFUL sum.


For despite the fact that Kate McCann in her book, ‘Madeleine’, suggests that Carter-Ruck do a “vast amount of work, unpaid” on their behalf, documentation shows that their fees “To Date” amount to over a quarter of a MILLION Sterling


And THAT sum, as well as any punitive damages awarded to the McCanns, will have to come from somewhere.


Mr. Bennett is under no illusions as to the outcome of his case, as he awaits the Judges findings.


There is a strong likelihood that he is facing imprisonment; unquestionably, he will be made completely and unequivocally bankrupt.


It matters not one iota whether what he has ever believed, written or asserted turns out to be factually accurate. 

The laws of Libel in the United Kingdom are very complex, complicated, draconian and frequently unfair.


Libel Courts are the playground reserved ONLY for the rich or privileged.





Kate McCann appears to have a very strange and nonsensical manner of apportioning culpability and ill-will sentiments to the people whom she deems to have wronged her.



To the person whom she alleges abducted Madeleine, the person who potentially would subject her daughter to the most vile, horrendous, tortuous deeds, as suggested in her book, where she very lucidly and disturbingly refers to “images” where she imagines her daughters’ genitals “torn apart”.


To THIS person, both in her book and in subsequent interviews, she speaks of “forgiveness” and “PRAYERS”.


To anyone who doubts that Madeleine was ever abducted, who casts aspersions on what she, her husband and her supporters insist is the truth, she wishes only misery and fear:

He deserves to be miserable and feel fear”; she wrote of Gonçalo Amaral,  who clearly from the early stages did NOT believe the McCanns or their friends’ testimonies.


So Kate shall, no doubt, exact further comfort from the knowledge that Tony Bennett is, unquestionably, experiencing both misery and fear in abundance.


For in addition to being a pensioner facing an uncertain future, bereft of everything he owns, he DOES share one misfortune in common with Senor Amaral.


The long, uncertain, legal threats, letters, Actions and subsequent litigation, undertaken without any legal representation, (Legal Aid NOT available in such cases, Mr. Bennet represents himself), has very much taken its toll on his family.


He and his wife of almost 40 years, have seperated....


Despite her unwavering support and loyalty, the tribulations and stresses of the past few years have proven too much.


So too, OTHERS in his family, close members, who have watched him fight his cause and lose, despite their efforts in warning him of the consequences; relationships strained, damaged perhaps irreparably.


Of course there are many who will say Bennett is deserving of such consequences, that he is merely reaping what he has sown. 


It is also true, to a degree, that he is the architect of his own misfortune. 

We are all free to make our own choices and to formulate our beliefs. 


Tony Bennett's ardent belief is that Madeleine McCann was NOT abducted and that the continued insistence by the McCanns, their Press and their network of supporters that she WAS, amounts to a cover-up.


And whether you choose to loathe, love or pity him, he has, in his own words, put his "head above the parapet".

He has assiduously and steadfastly fought for his choice, his beliefs and his freedom of speech and, in doing so, has made a stand for the freedom of speech of others. 


And that is something immeasurably more than most of us have ever done. 


Not least the multitude of faceless, nameless cowards, sycophants and trolls who hide and haunt the gutters of forums and social network sites, spewing their scripted and orchestrated hatred and venom, gleefully celebrating and applauding his downfall.


But this is NOT a blog to appeal for help for Bennett, financially or otherwise.


Nor is this a rallying cry to lambast the McCanns or those who support and empathise with them.


This is a simple appeal; a request; to all and anyone who ever expressed an interest in what is amongst the most perplexing and baffling missing person cases of all time.


An appeal to look BEYOND the innumerable, dubious reported ‘sightings’, the ludicrous potential suspect line- ups of dead or dying sex offenders, “swarthy foreigners”, Middle-Eastern paedophile rings, Moroccan gangsters and clearly contrived ex-pats and British tourists who seemingly remembered, years after the event, seeing Madeleine in a potentially precarious situation with strangers.


This and hundreds of other examples of fabricated garbage that fills the Newspapers, and has done so with alarming regularity ever since the McCanns managed to accrue huge sums of money from Express newspapers for printing nothing more than what every other journal on the planet had printed.


This is an appeal to look BEYOND all that. Beyond the writings of opinion columnists, Z-list celebrities and day-time TV presenters. 


Beyond the writings, blogs and twitterings of all others, INCLUDING my own!


It is an appeal, a PLEA; to read and research the official Portuguese police files, the Rogatory files and interviews conducted by British police forces and a host of other official documentation, dossiers and transcripts that are freely and readily available on the Internet.


An appeal, above all else, for people to make up their OWN minds. 

Not to have them made up for them by my words or those of anyone else. 


Certainly not by those who would abuse, bully, vilify, threaten and berate anyone whose opinion dared to contradict theirs.

Bennett isn't sick, twisted, evil, deranged, perverted or deluded. Or any of the hundreds of other things he is labelled.

He merely believes, as I do, and as I have opined previously, that the Madeleine McCann case is so much more than a case of a missing child. 


Tony Bennett placed every single thing he ever owned and ever cared about, on the cause he resolutely believes in. 


And lost.......

Perhaps Kate will remember him in her prayers.......




Godbless, Madeleine, wherever you may be. 

273 comments:

  1. Watch intelligence expert Michael Shrimpton videos on youtube where he talks about Madeleine and what he says happened and why.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good Article Spudgun. It should be given a wider circulation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. good post yet again,what ever the outcome is re,Tony Bennett,he has made quite a few more people aware of the tactics of the mccanns and i am very gratefull to him for that.what ever the outcome, Tony Bennet can hold his head up high.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent post,it's made me realise that Tony Bennett's methods may not always be right,but he has more courage than any editor or journalist in this country today.I've followed this case since the beginning but i don't think the truth of what happened to Madeleine on that fateful holiday will ever be reported by the media.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Coming from somebody who has read the pj files and studied the freely available evidence, all I can say is I agree 100%.
    It may be weeks, days, months or even years but the truth will eventually come out. There are to many people involved and one day the burden / pressure / guilt will be to great and one of them will spill the beans.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is Tony now going to retract his application to lift the stay, or will he carry on, and risk a full libel trial?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He won't be able to afford to the way the current matter will be settled.

      Delete
  7. Makes me laugh to see all these people urging Tony onto a 'full libel trial' - if all these people are so desperate for it why don't they reprint the 60 Reasons booklet themselves, and stick their own names and addresses on it. Then they could have their wish.

    Except their wish is to have their cake and eat it - a trial, but with Mr Bennett taking ALL of the risk.

    These people aren't supporting Tony, they are hiding their own cowardice.

    Unfortunately Tony is now paying the price for disobeying the Court Order. That's the truth of it. He disobeyed it because none of his so-called supporters would out their own necks on the line themselves.

    He's a brave man. But a very badly advised one. Sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. it was from reading the files that I firmly believe the McCanns to be innocent. It's no good claiming that armchair detectives have better investigative skills than Scotland Yard professionals who have ALL the files not just some of them. - because they simply don't.

    Bennets cruel parady of Silent Night and his letter from the grave are disgusting, and only a disgusting person would get pleasure out of writing them.

    I hope he gets the justice he so richly deserves.



    ReplyDelete
  9. Merci pour cet article très clair, honnête et courageux Spudgun.

    Frencheuropean

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spudgun...well said.

    ReplyDelete
  11. very tragically & sadly TB is a very foolish guy it is definately not his business or others to stalk The McCanns. SY know the true score.I have personbally read the files and followed this since day one and I cannot see The McCanns are guilty, but they definately know now they should not have left the children alone thinking it was safe. All of you please backoff and let the true professionals deal with this not you armchair detectives. I can assure you they did not hurt their daughter and only wish for her to return home and to be loved as she always has been and will be for ever.I will not reply to this posting if anyone comments as one cannot converse with the anti's they are on a different planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can assure us? How? Were you there? And what professionals are you talking about? The infamous Método 3, the fraudster Kevin Halligen, the several worthless rent-a-cops hired by the McCann couple who created more noise and false sightings than anything else? Oh, you mean the professional Scotland Yard team, whose spokesman said on TV that Madeleine was like Schrödinger's cat and that they're following 195 leads of fake sightings and psychic visions. Yeah, right.

      Delete
    2. @ Sardine Muncher. Are you posting from a mental hospital. The Professionals mentioned are the PJ and Scotland Yard- relevant professional services, not little minded bitter people with meaningless lives who get their jollies by defaming other people. Keep taking the pills!

      Stupid antis like you will even harass Scotland Yard rather than admit that this mess might have a fairly logical conclusion.

      Delete
  12. Spudgun,

    I share most of your views, but I am not at all convinced that Judge Tugendhat will not deliver a fair and balanced decision.

    Let's wait and see.

    Portia

    ReplyDelete
  13. In reply to Anonymous 05.47 above. I agree. It is not the right of a police officer to seek to rework in the public arena a case on which he failed in real life; for money! It is not the role of serial interferer and stalker to add the McCanns to his long list of hate figures that he has acquired over the years. There is real Free speech and there is abuse of the privilege. Both these men have abused the right and deserve to answer to the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the McCanns for leaving 3 children alone for 5 nights on a roll deserve what? For selling wrist bands, books, t shirts and other merchandising on the back of their daughter deserve what? For committing one of the biggest frauds - spanning 6 years, deserve what?

      Delete
    2. @ sardine muncher. They deserve to be judged by the law. They have been. Get over it. Leaving the children alone in PdL was stupid and despicable, but not illegal under either Portuguese or English Law. Raising money ostensibly for searching is not illegal. The company may be doubtful morally but not illegal. It is only in the warped minds of haters like you that the McCanns need punishing. Nothing has been or will be proved. Get over it and get a life. You disgust me with your small minded and stupid attitudes.

      Delete
  14. In reply to Portia- he may not decide the case in the manner that you want, but it could be your view that is 'unfair and unbalanced'. The Judge will decide on the letter of the law- Case Law as well as Statute and Common Law, and his decision will be appealable to the higher courts and to the ECHR if necessary- that provides a fairly good safeguard that the decision will be 'fair and balanced'. You cannot require that decisions in law comply with your own perspective; that is not how the rule of law works.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Perhaps the legal separation is a pre emptive move re. the issue of bankrupcy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have read all of the available details on the case over the last five years. I am certain that from what there is available, the Portuguese final decision not to prosecute was the correct one. I am also of the belief that no legal action in the UK is possible.

    The only way that the case files and other evidence can be seen to show a prosecutable case against the Mccanns is if the reader STARTS with the belief in their guilt and seeks support for that fact. The Law starts with belief in their innocence and then tries to build a case- in this matter that was not possible.Just because people 'believe' that the Mccanns are culpable does not affect the truth that two legal systems have decided that there is no case to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. At Anonymous 06.03- are you talking of the legal separation of Tony Bennett's intelligence and common sense from his behaviour in this matter?

    ReplyDelete
  18. In reply to 05 56 I thoroughly agree with your posting 100 per cent. Find all of this extremely tragic for GA,TB & others that just cannot stop stalking. Ppl. interfere too much get on with their own lives,back off. Suggestions, voluntary work, helping others might occupy the stalkers. Sadly this will not stop them. The McCanns,twins,family,friends, have suffered enough over the years all they want is to know what has happened to dear Madeleine and for her to return home.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The whole McCann circus, Pro and Anti is now a massive train wreck. I now look on from outside in exactly the manner I would look at football fans rioting in support of their teams, or any other tweedledum/tweedledee disagreements. Surely there are better things to do with their lives than continually rehash what is a tiny ripple in the forum world and which has no real effect in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree with this. I don't know what to make of the whole thing, I really don't. All I know is that I have a life and it's too short to be consumed with this case. Sure I'm interested and I read some stuff (this is an excellent blog btw), as I am with other cases, but I have 2 kids of my own to look after, rather than be consumed with someone else's child. It is not going to bring Madeleine back (I think we are probably safe in assuming she is no longer alive).

      Delete
    2. Agreed- it is just the case of two obsessed and stupid sets of people arguing for the sake of it- no nobility, no higher causes- merely a football team to cheer. The whole lot of them, pros and antis make me sick. Their out-pourings are nothing more than emotional masturbation- and mutual masturbation at that- sickening.

      Delete
  20. My prediction for the Tony Bennett Contempt Case. He will not be imprisoned. He will not at this stage be fined. He will not even at this stage be asked to pay costs to the McCanns. He will be reminded of the solemnity of his undertakings to the court and be told that should he commit one more breach, he will be returned to court and judgement imposed as if the case was one of an injunction- and then he would be liable for damages and costs and possibly imprisonment. The court will ensure that he is the sole architect of his own fate. He will have the choice- shut up and go away, or continue to comment and go to jail. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hasn't he already been the architect of his own fate the past 3 years since the Court Order?

    It didn't stop him talking about the case. Just sought to stop him saying certain things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that the court (Tugenhat) will want any draconian punishment to be TB's clear and legal fault, thus absolving the court system of blame. TB will have a difficult choice!

      Delete
    2. I see your point now :)

      Delete
  22. Thanks for all the comments. I am curious as to how or why so many seem to feel that this is a question of GUILT?

    So many here stating that they have read the files and in their opinion the McCanns are not guilty.

    I am not SEEKING to establish their guilt, nor am I accusing them of anything. All I have stated, as I have clearly blogged, (jeez, now I AM a stuck record!), is that:-
    "the events, circumstances and situations that they describe..... cannot possibly have occurred".

    This is NOT a matter of opinion. It's simple logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. What you have stated is that in your OPINION:
      "the events, circumstances and situations that they describe..... cannot possibly have occurred"
      You have started from the assumption that it was impossible for there to be an innocent explanation. You lack experience in evidence handling which would have taught you that every case is full of contradictions.

      I agree that the McCanns may or may not be guilty of the crime. It is true that the available evidence may be contradictory. But that does not give people licence to imply that the McCanns have lied or otherwise acted unwisely or illegally.

      It is perfectly possible for an experienced person to read the files and to see in them the totally normal mishmash of truth and error that is common in every case.

      You mislead yourself by suggesting that your opinion is the only one possible.

      Delete
    2. I do NOT mislead myself. I state FACT. Both Kate and Gerry McCann have made statements in TV Interviews and in the PRESS and in their testimonies and in the book, Madeleine, ALL of which are about the same event and ALL of which contradict each other. Are you suggesting that all versions are correct?

      Delete
    3. You do not state fact, you state opinion. Serial Interviews always show this problem. Memory is not Iconic but Constructive- reconstructive in fact. A little psychology and a little law would help your interactions with the real living breathing people that you seek to harm. Try admitting that you are not all powerful in this matter. I hope to god that you have a little job where your views cannot harm innocent people.

      Delete
    4. I'm sorry, so is your answer as to why the McCanns have different explanations for the same event due to a well known psychological flaw, common to all who give interviews about the same point in question? Please do elucidate this. I and a million others would love to learn of it.

      You my choose to call it "reconstructive memory". Where I come from we call it bullshit, and if you're going to lie you need a good memory.

      I frequently profess to not being powerful in this matter, and I equally fail to see where my writings "seek to harm" anyone.

      Delete
    5. Try elementary Psychology texts on the construction of memory. Try googling "Lost in Mall" experiment, Atkinson Shiffrin Model and Nadel and Moskovitch on Memory consolidation. Relying on bullshit baffles brains is a poor debating technique! The analysis of human memory supports serial change in accuracy seen in the McCann's statements and elsewhere. If you disagree with this, please provide well referenced answers to the models proposed above which are widely accepted in legal and academic circles.

      The fact that you fail to see how your various postings over the years have been harmful goes right to your inadequate moral centre. As I stated, I hope your amateur psychology and abysmal legal knowledge are not exercised in any role you fulfill which involves power over other people.

      Delete
    6. Yes, I am conversant with Moskovitch and others on memory and its anomalies.

      I still don't correlate those observations with anything spoken by the McCanns.

      My moral centre is sound, thanks all the same, and I am still awaiting your clarification as to what HARM I have caused. Come to think of it, I'm waiting for evidence of my "abysmal legal knowledge".

      Delete
    7. If you are conversant with the research that shows (as I said) that memory is constructive and not iconic, then you must accept that every interview and every recall is affected by its past history and its present situation. This explains many apparent anomolies in statements (even ignoring translations and misinterpretations by others.) Perhaps you can provide peer reviewed research that shows that anomolies in statements are always an indication of 'bullshit' and lies.

      Anyone who pillories people from behind a pseudonym on the internet is a sad stalket devoid of any meaningful moral core. That's you that is! I kind of hope that your IRL ID was in the 17 pages that Bennett gace to the court describing others who similarly maligned the McCanns. In fact I must check the spreadsheets to see if your RL ID was revealed in the Beowulf fiasco on the 3As.

      Delete
    8. @Spudgun As you have not replied with any research countering that that I have offered, I assume that you have accepted that any serial set of statements is almost certain to contain serious contradictions of fact and feelings. Perhaps now you will stop saying that 'logic' shows that you are right. It is merely your biased opinion that leads you to that conclusion

      Delete
    9. I have not REPLIED because I tend to limit my communications with trolls. YOU have NOT replied elucidating my alleged lack of legal knowledge and elaborating on how I have hurt or harmed anyone with my writings.

      I have already countered that your comparisons with the McCann's apparent differing statements are due to a well known psychological effect but I have yet to see or read of any similar anomalies where a person gives FOUR entirely different versions of the same event, not least when ONE of them was only formulated after having got together as a group after having returned to the UK.

      You spend so much time on here, berating and abusing posters and, deeply flattered as I am, it would probably be more expedient were you to write your OWN blog.

      Delete
    10. Accusing people of trolling is a good way to avoid entering into rational debate.

      Let us see how you react when Scotland Yard report back and they confirm the Prosecutor's final reports that there is no criminal case to be made here against the original three arguidos.

      What will you do then- accuse them of Masonry, or Middle Class Bias, or acting under political orders. There are enough conspiracy sites on the internet about dead people where the worst they can do is accuse the dead. Here you accuse and harass the living. What else do you do for fun, pull the legs off insects?

      Delete
    11. WRONG. I accuse you of being a troll because that's exactly what you are. I fully expect Scotland Yard to exonerate them.

      Cameron wouldn't obey Rebekah Brooks in the first place to stitch the McCanns up now, would he?

      I have always laughed at the suggestion of their alleged Masonic links and their Class is entirely irrelevant, so you are categorically and unequivocally WRONG on all your points. But you would have KNOWN that, had you read all my blogs...which you SHOULD have done, given the inordinate amount of time you spend here abusing others...

      Delete
    12. A 'troll' as misused here means someone who disagrees with your own set of myths and prejudices. I am addressing facts and myths about them here- Statements, DNA and Dogs in an attempt to present an opposing point of view as a means of changing minds. A troll merely argues to cause offence. It is a bit like your use of logic and knowledge- you use them (misuse them) to support your own set of beliefs which you believe to be correct but for which there are obvious (to the unbiased observer) alternative theories. Both the Pros and Antis in this case have retreated to their respective corners where they are protected from valid arguments against their fixed beliefs and myths. I attempt to counter this problem by laying out the alternatives. I only make quick and sudden forays now into the matter when an opportunity arises to address one side or another. I will leave you to decide who spends the most inordinate amount of time on the case- pot/kettle/pot. At least you are allowing the discussion to flow in public unlike the various fora that ban for the slightest deviation from the party line!

      Delete
  23. @ Anonymous13 February 2013 05:56
    whay utter rubbish,its people like you who would have every thing swept under the carpet.
    Its people like Amaral and Bennett that have tried to stop this from happening,dont you want justice for Madeleine ,do you agree that her parents should help the police in any way they can,like do a recon and answer the questions.
    what have they got to hide,thats what Amaral and Bennett and most people would like to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The case has been fully investigated by the Portuguese Justice system with the Attorney General deciding that there is insufficient evidence for the case to proceed and hence it has been shelved. We shall soon have Scotland Yard's take on the matter.

      I do want Justice for Madeleine, but that justice needs to be legal and not extra-legal.

      Amaral and Bennett are trouble-makers with no legal or moral platform.

      No. I do not agree that suspects should be made to answer questions- that is a key part of our democratic system- far more important IMHO than libel laws. And that includes too little too reconstructions aimed at fitting up suspects- they can always do that with police acors to check timings against the statements- they failed to do so. It was a publicity stunt and they should have known better.

      Try taking off your blinkers for a second- it will help you.

      Delete
    2. The case wasn't fully investigated - obviously you're not Portuguese and you don't know about the PT legal system. The two main reasons for the process to be archived in Portugal were the lack of cooperation of the McCann couple and the lack of cooperation of the Tapas 7 - as explained in the archival, which also states it could be reopened at a latter time pending for better evidence. Do you want better evidence than the reconstruction or Kate answering the 48 questions she refused to answer! Scotland Yard review is a futile and costly exercise in politics - it won't do anything for Madeleine, the results will be for the UK's internal consumption, aka the McCann's final whitewash.

      Delete
    3. Getting your defence in early for the Scotland Yard report I see.

      I know the Portuguese System better than I wish I did. The case was fully investigated to the extent of the law. Arguidos cannot be forced to answer questions and witnesses cannot be forced to attend reconstructions- neither we nor the Portuguese live in a police state.

      Even if the process was archived because of the refusal to do the reconstruction and the refusal to answer 48 questions- both of these were legal actions by those people- it is important that (as in the English system) suspects cannot be forced to answer questions- a very basic right.

      Try to find a noble hobby to replace your current monomania.

      Delete
  24. WOW LOOK,all the tony bennett bashers have come out to play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given his record of serial harassment and criminality, it is not surprising that sensible law-abiding people despise him for what he is- a nasty little bottom inspector deserving of his comeuppance. I believed this before he became involved in this case as I have watched his antics for several decades.

      Delete
  25. Spudgun as you were not there, also nor was I or others that post have read the files,processed hopefully the true points regarding this tragic case and not twisted them at all (which some ppl certainly have to suit themselves) I cannot see they are guilty. Please leave it to SY they definately do not think they are guilty, full stop. Best to back off and leave The McCanns alone.
    Re logic where does that come into it Spudgun it seems I hear or seen that went down the drain ages ago re this tragic,sad case of little Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  26. last comment on this answering 07.02 excellent posting,true words have been spoken, lets wait to see report from SY not arm chair detectives. Like yourself I want justice for Madeleine not stalk The Mcanns everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The comment above at 03.40 - "it was from reading the files that I firmly believe the McCanns to be innocent"

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tony to BBC Midlands

    "I've got no plans to carry on because I'm exhausted from it all, from these proceedings, having to defend myself so, ermm, its not my intention to continue, no."







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then the next day he boasted that the sales of his books on the McCann case had improved!!!!!

      What a cnut.

      Delete
    2. the books sold are different to the original book , no problems there

      Delete
    3. Except that his continued behaviour is an open invitation to the McCanns to take out a Harassment Order against Bennett- I can see that coming!

      Delete
  29. Re this bit of your blog:

    "Which suggests that Bennett must have some OTHER commodity which they want.

    Money.

    Bennett is NOT a rich man, but he does have life savings which would, to some people, represent a tidy sum.

    Certainly, to the McCanns, it represents a USEFUL sum."

    ---------------------
    Can you please tell me how the McCanns will make money from this contempt of court hearing? If they wanted money out of Mr Bennett, why didn't they just proceed with the libel case in the first instance? Why did they merely accept his promise to stop accusing them of heinous crimes instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point well made. As I have noted above, I suspect the whole shebang will be suspended allowing Tony Bennett to choose his fate and take responsibility for his actions- STFU or give up his house. His choice.

      Delete
    2. the mccanns dont want to see the inside of a coutrt - theyve backed out of amaral case and wont want libel trial as the public can see all of their discrepancies too easily

      Delete
    3. Both sides in the AMaral case have agreed to try to reach an amicable arrangement. There is, so far, no indication that either side has backed down.

      There is no indication that the McCanns are reluctant to go to court. Unless you can show otherwise. They have already taken express group to the cleaners and received assurances from others that they will cease libelous articles when threatened with a court case. You can't have it both ways, either the McCanns are overly litigious or they are trying to avoid court involvement- they can't be both! (Except in the eyes of a blind hater that is).

      Delete
    4. It was the McCanns who asked for the suspension and to negotiate and the defendants in the libel case were very surprised at the couple's request. This is certainly no amicable arrangement as you wish to believe, especially after what those people subjected Gonçalo Amaral and his family to. All their other cases were out of court settlements and if they are so sure of winning their case against GA and others, why did they ask for the hearings to be suspended.

      Delete
    5. Amicable? The McCanns don't do amicable. They do fear and destruction. If they are not in a position to destroy someone, they back down and this is the case. That is the behaviour of bullies.

      Delete
    6. The McCanns have been very restrained IMHO. They are currently shutting up their main harasser- judgement next Thursday. They have ensured that the Press do not defame them by their clear wins against the Express Group. Next will be the other tall poppies in the Stalk and Harass world of the antis- Haverns, Missing Madeleine and maybe this blog. If McAlpine is successful with his case against the Twitterati, Twitter will follow.

      I am not aware of them backing down at any point. Perhaps you could elucidate. I am aware of them operating on advice from CR about when legal action is going to increase or decrease the defamation. Tony Bennett's case has hardly made him out to be a hero in the eyes of the press and the other anti-mccann sites are referred to in the general media as stalkers, harassers, nutters and freaks. Good PR there.

      Delete
    7. to anonymous 01.35
      Best evidence is that the agreement to suspend the Amaral case was agreed between both sets of lawyers as the best way forward- a not uncommon procedure in civil matters. There is no evidence that either side requested it from a position of weakness.

      Delete
    8. Maybe you want to believe your fairy tale but the truth is that the plaintiffs, the McCanns, asked for the suspension just before the trial was to begin. Gonçalo Amaral has never been afraid of facing the couple in court and if he has come this far, there is no way that he would ever have asked for the negotiation. If the McCanns are not prepared to pay a large compensation to him the case goes to court, quite simple. Whether you believe it or not, the McCanns are in a position of weakness and want to get out the corner they have painted themselves into.

      Delete
    9. And your supportive evidence for this assertion is.....

      Delete
  30. Once Tony has made his decision, I suspect the McCanns will go after the next fount of libel- maybe Haverns itself, maybe elsewhere. The short term increase in publicity lasting no more than a few days will be weighed against the long term pernicious dripping of self appointed fanatics seeking to be pretendy policemen and little lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. reply to 07.34 again TB I hear posted on his site soon after this comment to BBC he can never stop. JT been informed by another poster. Very sad for him & others. End of topic I hope after nearly 7 years for the sake of little Madeleine and her parents,twins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bennett certainly has some signs of obsession and mania in his behaviour. It may be that is compulsion to become involved in exciting news stories which are really none of his concern are going to be his downfall. However he cannot use his mental health state to excuse the direct damage he is recurrently doing to the McCann's reputation. It is always open to the judge to seek an order for commitment for treatment under mental health laws- now that would be interesting.

      Delete
    2. He might end up in the same institution as Kate.

      Delete
    3. "TB I hear posted on his site soon after this comment to BBC he can never stop"

      I never saw him saying that. I don't think he did.

      Delete
    4. Never saw him saying what? He was interviewed by BBC local news in the East Midlands and said that

      "I've got no plans to carry on because I'm exhausted from it all, from these proceedings, having to defend myself so, ermm, its not my intention to continue, no."

      Delete
    5. Put your glasses on :)

      I never saw him saying "I can never stop" - which is what the message I was replying to alleged.

      Delete
  32. It's clear if you read the Leveson transcripts especially Pilditch on 21 Dec 2011 that the lawyers to the Inquiry and Leveson LJ have access to and have read the PJ files released a few years ago. If so I would imagine that these have been translated by accredited translators and a FOI request should confirm the existence of - and release of - these files in English. The translations will have been paid for by the taxpayer after all. If I were threatened with libel proceedings it is these translations I would want to rely on in court (with all due respect to the diligent translators over the years). Recognition by the court is important in such matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point.

      Delete
    2. pilditch

      LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, you can consider over the --

      2 no, I won't ask you to do that.

      3 A. Could I just say something in relation to this?

      4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right.

      5 A. It's not just the police file that I'm referring to

      6 here. I'm talking about statements that have been made

      7 in courts, and in fact the chief -- the head of the

      8 police inquiry has written a book, and I'm talking about

      9 a whole series of different sources of information that

      10 are now in the public domain --

      11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, well, then --

      12 A. -- that weren't in the public domain at that time. It's

      13 not just the police file in isolation I'm talking about.

      14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: THEN ACTUALLY YOUR SENTENCE IS QUITE WRONG IN PARAGRAPH 24,
      because your sentence in

      16 paragraph 24 says:

      17 "Through the release of those documents [that's the

      18 police file] and subsequent legal actions in Portugal,

      19 it's now a matter of public record that the reports I'm

      20 writing were truthful and accurate."

      21 A. YES.




      Delete
    3. So Pilditch admitted that his statement in para 24 was wrong and he wasn't only referring to the police files.

      Delete
    4. I believe Pilditch was also referring to sworn testimony by police officers during the book banning hearings in January 2010 which also confirmed that the articles in the Express were not lies or inventions.

      Delete
  33. reply to 09.59 TB did not say this remark I cannot stop I said it in reply to what he quoted on the BBC and then posted on the site.I find all of this very sad for him & others. It certainly is not The McCanns fault re his marriage, sad but they cannot take the blame he would not stop and perhaps this is why it has happened. who knows???? PPl. get on with your own lives and leave The McCanns alone.

    ReplyDelete
  34. SPUDGUN: "the events, circumstances and situations that they describe..... cannot possibly have occurred".

    This is NOT a matter of opinion. It's simple logic.
    ................

    Spudgun, you are absolutely correct. Their version of events could not possibly have happened the way in which they claim. That is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is NOT a fact. A fact is something that can be proved by evidence to be the case. What we have here is a mesh of contradictory evidence with no rational explanation- common in criminal and civil investigations.

      Additionally, you cannot use 'logic' in this way to prove a negative. Logic and forensics just do not work that way.

      See Russell's Teapot amongst other supports.

      Delete
    2. If you don't use logic, how do you expect the police to solve crimes?

      Delete
    3. Logic is essential. Unfortunately it is logically impossible to prove a negative (see Logic 101). It is always possible to prove or fail to prove a positive statement.

      Logic must be used, not misused.

      Delete
  35. and like the mccanns expensive lawyer had to admit on oath that the abduction theory is only what the mccanns had told her !!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All are theories and beliefs. None are facts. The best criminal investigators in Portugal could not decide what had happened.

      Many innocent people have used expensive lawyers.

      Delete
    2. The Portuguese police did come to a conclusion as to what happened but they were not allowed to go any further due to political pressure. I would like to know how many parents of a missing child have a PR man within days of the disappearance? To me it is just weird.

      Delete
    3. It is weird but legal. There is no current criminal case against them and they have never been charged with criminality.

      I would be interested to see your EVIDENCE of political pressure- otherwise we shall just have to assume that it is just a defensive product of your biased mind.

      Delete
  36. reply to 10.37 this is not correct as none of us have a view of all the files. Please let SY deal with this and make the report and tell what they know is the truth. All of us must have open minds us pro's and antis. Re the lawyer she would not know anymore than we do,abduction does seem to be the most prominent in many peoples eyes. Lets help others not keep stalking its not good for the soul & wellbeing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous13 February 2013 09:42


    Anyone who pillories people from behind a pseudonym on the internet is a sad stalket devoid of any meaningful moral core..

    Reveal who you are please, real name?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not pillory 'people' in the real world. Merely point out people on line who do pillory people using their victim's real life identities.

      A very different matter!

      If I call out a coward who hides behind a pseudonym to attack people in the real world, that is quite moral. Hiding behind a handle and doing it TO people in the real world is a different matter.

      Delete
    2. Sorry I don't understand, you are using an anonymous name to pillory someone online, a real person with a name in the real world.

      Delete
    3. I am using an Anonymous name to pillory another identity using an anonymous name (unless he is Mr Spudgun).

      Delete
    4. I see, one anonymous pilloring another. So you wouldn't pillory someone using your anonymous name if they used their real name, you would revert to your real name first?

      Delete
  38. Wow, Spudgun you obviously hit a nerve this time.!!
    1.There is no evidence of an abduction, none whatsoever.
    2.Jane Tanner "saw" a man carrying a bundle whilst passing within inches of Gerry and Jez- neither of who saw Jane whilst Mr Smith saw a man carrying a child, a man who he says looked like Gerry,.
    3.They all went to bed at 2.30 - they said so !!! - not one of the 9 of them got footsore and weary or had to be dragged in to rest.
    4. And, of course, those damned dogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1/ What do you mean by 'no evidence of abduction'? It is a stupid anti mantra with no content. What would you accept as proof of the possibility of abduction. The Prosecutor thought that abduction or abduction and killing were certainly possibilities. Was he wrong?
      2/ Perhaps you will try in future to report what is in the files rather than what you want to be there.
      3/ Memories change- as above- I see Spudgun has not tried to refute that argument with any real support.
      4/ The dogs, as Mr Grime repeatedly said, mean nothing unless supporting forensics are found; none was.

      Delete
    2. Forensics were found and they could not clarify whether or not the victim contributed to the samples. That is not an exclusion and no where in the report is the term exclusion or excluded used.

      Delete
    3. 4/ The dogs, as Mr Grime repeatedly said, mean nothing unless supporting forensics are found; none was.
      Not strictly true, 14 out of 19 markers pointed to the DNA being that of Maddy, some countries will go for prosecution on such a high percentage of possibility. 70%+ that the DNA was Maddy's tho not enough for prosecution in Portugal.

      Delete
    4. No admissable persuasive forensics were found. The DNA from the LCN DNA was as common as a mix of any 4 or 5 people's DNA and given that the family was also a possible source, it was meaningless. No other DNA was found save Dr G McCann's blood on the Key Fob. People need to understand that Madeleine would have shared all her DNA markers with her parents and siblings- only a completely uncontaminated sample could possibly give any evidence; there were no such samples. What other forensics were there?

      Delete
    5. @12.23 This is a common misunderstanding. The markers for Madeliene were in a retrieved sample from at least three people. Given that she shared these makers with her parents and her siblings, the 15 (out of 43 IIRC) markers meant nothing. In fact it was pointed out that the admixture of, say four or five unrelated west Europeans' bloods reduced to 43 markers would also be likely to show 14 of Maddies. Difficult to believe, but obvious when you actually know how the system works rather than just believe forum myths.

      Delete
    6. 70% + the DNA was that of Maddy, not 70%+ of her parents or siblings.

      Delete
    7. In order to state that there were enough components for someone to identify an individual, the sequence of those components have to ‘match’ the sequence of markers (components) in that particular individuals reference sample. In other words enough components or markers to distinguish whose DNA it was. In this instance – (quote from the report) - “ ALL confirmed corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann.”

      Delete
    8. Genetics 101. A child gets all its DNA from it's parents- half from one parent and half from the other. A child shares half its DNA with siblings (on average.) If Gerry's and Kate's DNA were mixed and then analysed, it would contain all 19 markers. (They happen to share one marker in common.)If the twins DNA was mixed, it would be likely to share about ten or more markers with Madeleine.

      Delete
    9. @ 12.38. And four or five western Europeans mixed samples, reduced to 43 markers would be more likely than not to also show 14 markers in common with Madeleine. I do not think that you understand how genetic markers work in LCN DNA retrieval.

      Delete
    10. Quote from the FSS Report - - “If the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material."

      So why did they appear to exclude the very person they were supposed to be looking for as a possible contributor, well they didn't did they, they stated that they couldn't clarify whether or not it belonged to her, so is that a definite exclusion?

      Delete
    11. You (Conveniently) leave out the qualifying sentence:

      "If the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material.

      The significance [import] of a match may then be analysed in relation to the probability of obtaining that match by chance."

      The chance of this happening with inter family mixtures is almost certainty, and with LCN DNA methods using a sample retrieved from 3-5 random people, the chances are IIRC about 50%.

      Delete
    12. Must go and cook now. Try to read the FSS reports with an open mind rather than an anti-mind, look up LCN DNA analysis of partial fragments on the internet and you will begin to understand where you are making your errors. Education and Knowledge are good; myth and belief are bad.

      Delete
    13. So they based there conclusions on the the "chance" that it wasn't her DNA ? They based there conclusions on chance rather than science? using chance as a probability means that there is as much a chance or probability that it was as wasn't. Hence stating that they could not clarify WHETHER or NOT it belonged to her, rather than stating it was an exclusion.

      The counter argument is of course that what everyone is debating is in reality the balance of probabilities and there is as much a probability that it wasn’t a chance match or event. So, the question has to be asked - Is it proper to base conclusions about a missing 3 yr child on a chance event?

      Enjoy your cooking.

      Delete
    14. One other point, I know all about " drop in's & drop outs" and they should have calculated for those when considering extra components.

      good night.

      Delete
    15. @ Ian Wheeler. So you misundestand statistics as well. Every decision about DNA is one of probability. There is a good explanation of this as part of the FSS report. THE PJ and you fail to understand how these probabilities are calculated. If you have a single person sample that yields all available markers, then 14 out of 20 markers is a on in the billions chance of being incorrect. However with the sample that they have where the alleles were sourced from three or more people, thr probability of 15 markers out of a mix of 43 drops to about evens- it is as likely as not that the person contributed to the sample, so no firm decision is possible. It is of course complicated by the potential of other people from the family who share the same markers being involved. The PJ's misinterpretation of this was a major error on their part which (together with the over-valuation of the dog indications) led to them chasing up a blind alley. This is quite often the case in Police investigations that reach a 'wall' which is why second teams are called in to major enquiries after a few months to review again from scratch in the UK. I look forward to the considered view of Scotland Yard which, I believe will lead to an explanation to the public of the limitations of the DNA and Dog evidence. I expect them to state clearly (as the Portuguese Prosecutor has already stated) that there is insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusions from the evidence available and that it is unlikely that any further evidence will be found.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous, if you wish to talk statistics then here's something you really should bare in mind.

      You do know don’t you that siblings will only have a roughly 1 in 250,000 chance of matching over 10 markers?

      So what are the chances of random matches – ie random unrelated people matching over 10 markers – 1 in 1000000, or more - I’d go Higher,- and you say up to 3 random people might have contributed, so 1 in 30000000 + ?
      Now u tell me, Based on chance then, what are the probabilities of it being genuine or a random match?

      It isn’t a matter of thinking with a “Pro” or “ Anti” mind, it’s a matter of thinking realistically and understanding facts.

      Now put your thinking cap on for this next questions.

      So what’s the big deal about finding a sample belonging to Madeleine ?,
      Why are the McCann’s and “pro’s” so intent on denying it was genuine, what are they afraid of?
      y You tell me, because I think realistically there’s every possibility and indeed every probability that her DNA could have gotten into that hired vehicle, and I’m sure the police do, don’t you ?
      As a matter of fact I’d go as far as saying that it would be VERY strange if some of her DNA wasn’t, wouldn't you ? !!


      Delete
    17. Here’s one statement from the report that I think u should consider very carefully:
      "What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine – because Madeleine has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car, or whether Madeleine merely appears to match the result by chance."
      Slight give away in that statement isn’t there - , “ whether the match is genuine – because….”

      How it got there – by chance or not, does not alter the fact that the evidence sample according to the writer was ‘ genuine’ and that the genetic profile corresponded with the person who they were trying to locate.

      As I pointed out in the previous post it would be VERY strange given the circumstances if some of her DNA hadn't been found in that hire vehicle!

      Delete
    18. @ Ian Wheeler. The report from the FSS was quite clear- a sample of recovered LCN DNA from 3 or more people where 15 alleles out of a full total of 60,80 0r 100 (depending on whether the sample was from 3, 4 or 5 people is INCONCLUSIVE. This is especially so when there is possible presence of familial DNA in the batch.

      DetSupt Prior in his report (Processo 10 - VOLUME Xa; Case file pages 2653-2658)

      says of this particular sample:

      "A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the fibre coated luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(1))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage."

      In his later letter he states:
      10- Processo 10 - VOLUME Xa; PDF page 123-124; Case file pages 2617-2618.
      "A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
      Why - ...

      Well lets look at the question that is being asked

      "Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

      It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

      What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

      Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

      The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation"

      I cannot find the reference but in a later letter to Portugal Lowe explains that with LCN DNA a misxture of 3-5 random bloods from his own workers is likely to show Madeleine's alleles.

      You really need to understand that the 'makers' are recognisable strings of chemicals that are found at certain areas of the full DNA profile. These twenty chosen 'markers' have a variability from 3 possible at one site to about 20 possible at another site. This works fine when you have a clean sample, but when you have a mixed sample from an LCN DNA procedure it becomes impossible to make a definite decision as chance admixtures are just as likely to show several markers for the target person merely by chance.

      Lowe states this clearly but it is ignored by stupid antis becasue it flies in the face of their myths.

      Delete
    19. Anonymous ,
      The report itself clearly indicates that a person whose DNA profile is matched ( that means that the markers or components in that sample correspond with the markers in that individuals profile sample ) along with other people who’s components correspond with the profile, may in fact be considered as potential contributors to the evidentiary sample – this is NOT an exclusion!

      Mix it up as much as you like, it’s there in black and white. - “If the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material." - this principal applies to all samples in all cases and it does not by any stretch of the imagination rule out Madeleine as a potential contributor.

      There will always be matching ‘familial ‘components because an infant’s DNA strand contains the genetic coding of the parents, this applies to all samples in all cases and is not unique to this case because DNA profiling as evidence of genetic relationship based on respective DNA profiles showing predictable biological inheritance patterns which identify relatedness ( common markers ) between parents and children / siblings / close family is not sufficient to prove that an evidence sample specifically belonged to Madeleine. Also there will always be common markers which we all share, again not sufficient to prove that an evidence sample specifically belonged to Madeleine and not unique & applies in all cases. So by your standards effectively all DNA samples ever taken are in question.
      There is one unique factor, which is they did managed to identify one particular match to a specific member of that family – which just so happened to the missing family member. "Let's look at the question that is being asked: “ Is there DNA from Madeleine on the swab, It would be very simple to say 'yes', simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.” - in other words enough corresponding to components to identify one individual !!

      To suggest one should depart from the principal that the sample came from a single source is understandable if the sample also proves to show unidentified DNA components – but they weren’t actually unidentified DNA components were they, they have stated that they corresponded with the components in Madeleine’s profile sample ( no sequence variations in the alleles there then) .
      So it appears these 3 other people amazingly must share the same genetic profile! That means 3 other peoples sequence of genetic markers ( 10 or more ) all correspond with Madeleine McCann’s genetic profile – Pull the other one !! You’d have more chance of convincing me and a jury if it came to it that the Moon is made of cheese.
      Also by those same standards one should question whether or not the report should detract from the principal that the evidence also indicates that it shows all confirmed components belonging to the one person who they were trying to locate.

      Quote - “The fact that there exists in the case of all partial profile evidence the possibility that "missing" alleles might dismiss someone altogether does not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting such evidence. “

      Last point I will make on the subject - Once again It is without doubt Very Very strange for anyone to conclude that given the circumstances, none of Madeleine’s DNA was in that vehicle.

      Delete
    20. You do not understand the science. Of course you cannot exclude the possibility that the markers came from Madeleine- that would be logically and scientifically impossible. What can be stated is that given the LCN DNA process, the number of various markers found (maybe 3-5 contributors) and the scinece, the finding of 14 of Madeleines's markers in such an admixture would occur about fifty percent of the time from any random admixture of five blood samples.

      So Madeleine cannot be excluded as a contributor, but the process gives no indication that she was a contributor- the sample could have come from five random samples of bloods. Do you understand that reasoning?

      Why is this the case? DNA matching looks for strings at a particular site on the DNA strand- only tiny samples, but areas where there is known to be differences in the strings. Each site has between 3 and 20 different possible strings. Some of these strings can attach to more than one site. In straightforward DNA testing where each of the twenty markers (sites) can be investigated directly, it is possible to match each marker to each site exactly as the process looks at the entire and intact string. If fourteen sites are found to be identical in marker between two samples, identification certainty is up in the millions. In LCN DNA all that is recovered is the markers themselves as the process destroys the structure of the string. The information available now is merely the structure of the marker with no possible identification of which site it came from; as a marker may adhere to more than one site, the level of information is much lower. If only one sample is being examined, for identification, 14 markers would reduce the likelihood of the two samples being from the same person would be in the low thousands- that is to say that there are thousands of people who would show that profile. In the case we are looking at these isolated strands without any information on which site they came from are derived from 3-5 people. The statistics now show that any admixture of 14 isolated strands from 3-5 people would occur at about chance level- that is to say everytime you mixed 3-5 samples there would be a 50% chance that it would include those markers.

      You really need to understand how the two different systems work- one is information rich- specific marker in a specific place leading to very high probabilities, and the other is information poor- just strands of markers with no order between them, which is information poor.

      This misconception occurred with the PJ and with all the anti myths.

      Lowe is quite clear that this sample is of no evidentiary value- it is meaningless in any probative manner.

      Delete
    21. Anonymous
      "So Madeleine cannot be excluded as a contributor, but the process gives no indication that she was a contributor- "

      I almost stopped reading your post there because you are wrong and the reason I think that is because the report states otherwise.

      As pointed out in an earlier post I am familiar with drop ins & drop outs.

      Let’s be clear about something, if a case was won in court based on the reasoning you have given here, it’s likely every person convicted using DNA as evidence would run to their lawyer and appeal.


      good night

      Delete
    22. I am afraid that it works the other way. The swab from the Scenic is totally lacking in evidentiary validity.

      If only you understood the science, you could see it, but your bias stops you doing this. Lowe states quite clearly that no inferences can be drawn from the sample.

      Delete
    23. Lowe also stated;

      “If the profiles are equal [match], then that person, together with other persons having the same DNA profile, may be considered as a potential source of the material."

      Can't have it both ways.

      Either persons having the same profile may be considered as a potential source which is of evidentiary value - or not.

      All the same, It's still extremely odd for anyone to conclude that none of Madeleine’s DNA was in that vehicle.

      bak to work so good night

      Delete
    24. In English, May implies may not- it is an undecided. What Lowe is saying is that it is logically (used correctly here) impossible to prove that the sample does not contain Madeleine's DNA, but that statement also covers many thousands of other people. There is a string likelihood that it also includes 14 markers from you and 14 markers from me. There are only a couple of hundred markers available and these are shared by the entire population. This is VERY different from clean DNA analysis where each marker is known to be in a particular position and where identifications can be made with some certainty.

      Delete
    25. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    26. In my English it implies can be as in there is every possibility as the conclusion of the report indicates and given that it would be totally unrealistic to suggest that her DNA couldn't have gotten in that vehicle, it is understandable.

      Delete
    27. "May" and "can"- no difference. There is an explanation for those markers being there even if Madeleine's DNA never came into contact with the vehicle. And as Lowe states, any such admixture of any 3-5 people's DNA would be expected 50% of the time to contain those markers.

      The sample may or may not have contained Madeleine's DNA. There is no indication from the test that it did in FACT contain her DNA, and no such conclusion can be drawn.

      Delete
    28. If they had stated that they may not be considered I would tend to agree but not when it’s clear the report states that they may be considered.

      We can argue genetics until the cows come home, and confuse everyone with genetic/ DNA sequencing but It will not change the fact that the conclusion states that they were not able to clarify whether or not the DNA found in the vehicle was Madeleine’s. In other words there is as much a chance or probability as not that it was a genuine match and given that it would be totally unrealistic and IMPROBABLE for anyone to suggest that her DNA could not have gotten into that vehicle, it would be very difficult for anyone to state with any certainty that the analysis resulted in a definite exclusion.

      The need to consider ALL the circumstances surrounding how the DNA was deposited, in addition and more crucially, when and how that DNA could have been deposited onto the areas tested is extremely important.

      Now tell me was this done? – Oh yes – it could have got there by chance and could have been a chance match ……. Unbelievable!

      Perhaps they should have tried pendulum list searching eh!

      Delete
    29. As I have said, the chances of Madeleine contributing to that sample is the same as for you or me. The sample provides no evidence at all.

      Get over it.

      Delete
    30. Really I didn't realize you'd been in that vehicle, I certainly wasn't I can guarantee you. Come to it neither were the scientists who's DNA the report states could have belonged to them! Still best not start ruling people out had we,that is apart from the one person who it was they were supposed to be looking for.

      Delete
    31. Exactly my point- it is not necessary for someone to be in the vehicle ( or in he country) for 14 of their markers to be found in such a sample.

      You seem to be getting close to understanding the situation.

      Delete
    32. Carry on with your genetic/ DNA sequencing and let us know when you’ve managed to include 99.9% of the Western population as contributors to the sample in the vehicle, the other 1% including the missing child of course ruled out.

      Oh, and when you find the part of the report that states that they have categorically excluded her, do post it won’t you ……… then I’ll believe you.
      That’s- the part of the report that states that they have categorically excluded her

      No waffling explanations, just that bit, you can copy paste it, then I think we might reach some understanding.

      WIA

      Delete
    33. I have already shown that any such mixed sample of 3-5 persons DNA in isolation (with no information about what position the marker was in) will include 14 markers from approximately 50% of the Western European population. There are only about 200 possible markers and when not in position they carry very small amounts of information. DNA identification to near certainty requires marker PLUS position;LCN DNA Analysis gives marker ID but not position. This why such an analysis will only exclude half of any population. If we had 14 clear markers out of 20 AND their position, we would have good ID. 14 MARKERS out of 37 with no positions gives little information about ID.

      Delete
    34. Let me get this straight, according to you, my DNA & your DNA and anyone else who wasn’t even in the country or near that vehicle could have their DNA in that vehicle and so could be considered as contributors to that sample. – Theoretically true, but I’m not the one who’s DNA it was they are looking for and I wasn’t in or anywhere near the vehicle, so you can rule me out –I would think the same applies to you and the same principal applies to the scientists who it’s said could have contributed - and to 99.9% of the Western population. …….. YET a child who was not only in the country but is the closest connection couldn't have contributed her DNA and couldn't be considered?

      Do you see why it would be easier to convince people the Moon is made of cheese? And I’m not trying to be funny, I’m being perfectly serious here.

      You’re strung out on genetic sequencing (excuse the pun), think DNA profiling.

      Delete
    35. You just do not have the capacity or open-mindedness to understand and accept the science and statistics.

      If we took a similarly mixed sample of body fluids from 3-5 unrelated people from different Western European countries and listed 40-50 markers from that sample (out of less than 200 available) the chance of that remaining 40-50 markers sharing. 14 markers with you, me, Madeleine, David Cameron and Camilla Duchess of Cornwall. The statistics are obvious- there are only less than 200 markers in total available. Perming 14 markers from 45 allows virtually no identification validity. The only reason why clean intact DNA analysis is much more discriminating is because each of 14 markers are known to have a particular order.

      If you cannot grasp this you are either educationally impaired or blinded by bias.

      Delete
  39. I'am guessing Spudgun like many before and after him, have been banned from the Jill Havern site for not agreeing with Tony Bennett 100%.
    Personally I think Bennett is nothing more than a fucked up ego maniac. Having said that, I do believe the McCann's have been economical with the truth regarding the disappearance of their daughter.
    Unlike Bennett, I will keep my hypothesis of what happened to Madeleine McCann to myself and allow the powers that be to deal with the matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you say there. I too have my theory about why there are so many inconsistencies- and it is not because of anything the Tapas group did or allowed to happen to Madeleine directly. Accept that they were lying to cover their backs to protect themselves from child neglect allegations to protect certain careers in the UK, and then there is no real case to answer for 'concealing a corpse' etc. It opens the door fully to abduction as an answer if they were embroidering the truth in early days. I think it came back to bite them later! Doesn't make them nice people, but doesn't mean they killed Madeleine or concealed her body. Antis get so bogged down in unprovable myths- Dogs, DNA, statements etc that they cannot see the wood from the trees.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I have to disagree with you "lying to cover their backs to protect themselves from child neglect allegations to protect certain careers in the UK". In Portugal child neglect charges can only be brought where "intent" for the child/ren to come to harm during the period of abandonment, therefor the T9 had no reason to lie on that front.

      Delete
    3. They had no reason to know that law in detail at the time the cover up started- when they wrote their timeline on the cover of Maddie's book. Once they were committed to the story, they needed to defend it. You must admit that if that is the case (or partially the case in that they overstated rather than invented their trips around the apartments) then there is no ground at all for claiming that abduction isn't possible. If they sexed up their rota, then abduction is really quite possible.

      Delete
    4. they wrote 2 different timelines on Madeleines sticker book they tore up , before the police arrived

      Delete
    5. During my working life I had considerable contact with medical and nursing staff during enquiries and such. The first instinct in health care is cover your back and cover the backs of your colleagues. The Rota is redolent of ready-made explanations of clinical accidents offered by groups of staff after a critical incident. I saw that from almost day one before anyone was really critical of them and it seemed like a simple case of a missing child. The hand written semi-contemporaneous account (the rota) was the give away.

      Delete
    6. @ 12.20 which supports my case that they were constructing an explanation.

      Delete
  40. @ Anonymous13 February 2013 11:43
    spudgun is NOT banned from havens site,he posted on there today.YOU need to get your FACTS
    straight before spouting lies,you need to take your head out your arse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  41. I know there are more than 3 camps

    ReplyDelete
  42. Does no-one want to address the argument:

    "If their statements about checking were sexed up and over blown (they did not check as often or as thoroughly as they claimed) then chances of an abduction having occurred increase considerably. The anti myth that no abduction is possible is entirely reliant on the absolute correctness of the Tapas statements. If these were falsified, then abduction becomes much more likely."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the statements were falsified it would mean they mislead the police investigation into their child's disappearance and deliberately denied her a real chance of being recovered alive. If Maddie was abducted by a paedophile, would her own parents be so cruel as to expose her to abuse and certain death by skewing the timelines, just to save their own necks and reputations? That would not only be unforgivable, it would also be perverting the course of justice (and perhaps a host of other charges) and actually worse than if she had died in an accident.

      Delete
    2. Once they had made formal statements, it would have been dangerous to their registrations to admit that they were inflated. The PJ did not start to consider them as suspects for many weeks while they searched for Madeleine as a person who had been abducted. By the time the police switched to the parent theory, their statements were ancient history.

      You must admit that if the statements were over-egged, the silly anti claim that abduction was impossible goes right out the window.

      As I have said, providing immediate contemporaneous statements that potentially absolve the recorders of responsibility by the bending or addition of 'facts' is SOP for NHS enquiries, as is the fact that professionals will stick together and support their collective backs.

      Delete
  43. Madeleine may have met her fate by accident inbetween checks or no checks

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree Spudgun. It didn’t happen the way they would have us believe - not remotely possible. Some of his actions may have been mistaken, but I do sympathise with Tony Bennett and I believe he a decent man. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he sign those undertakings on the advice of a solicitor? If that is so, he was given very bad advice. Were we all been bound by the same undertakings as Tony Bennett we might just as well live in a dictatorship.

    Now we have the bizarre spectacle of Gerry McCann acting as spokesperson for the Hacked Off campaign though supposedly not hacked himself. And, surprise surprise, it appears Hacked Off has taken a leaf out of the McCanns book by using a dodgy petition site instead of the No 10 petition site. The use of an easily manipulated petition site is most worrying given this group is attempting to force through new legislation. It’s obvious that Hacked Off decided on this course of action because they knew they would not get the required support by using the official government petition site. If Gerry McCann gets his way the media will be even more restricted than it already is. I doubt he’s in this for altruistic reasons as he claims, more a case of self- interest I’d say. Call it a pre-emptive strike. It’s terrifying that a few individuals can interfere with the laws of the land purely for their own personal agenda. There must be an awful lot of people with a lot to hide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Leveson enquiry was into phone hacking AND press intrusion. Stupid antis have never understood this and have criticised the McCanns for being involved- they did suffer from Press Intrusion.

      Many anti campaigns including those run by Bennett have used 'dodgy' sites.

      I happen to disagree with both Gerry McCann and the current Government proposals for the press.

      Delete
    2. Press intrusion? The McCanns invited the press, courted the press and now they want to bite the hand that fed them. They were happy to pose with their children, give interviews, walkabouts, smile when leaving the church on their daughter's birthday, as if they were some movie stars.

      Delete
    3. Even in the USA a person who is propelled into the press arena by the commission of a crime is still guaranteed the protection of personal status. Only those people who enter the Press world of celebrity in order to progress their own career or lifestyle lose those protections. Thus US law generally would keep Gerry McCann as a protected private person, while still able to investigate the lives of film stars and TV celebrities as well as politicians etc.

      Delete
  45. Eddie was known to alert to cadaverscent from over 100 years ago.
    He could sniff out cadaverscent from up to 3ft beneath the ground.
    Hair, fingernails, teeth and other bodily fluids from LIVE people give off cadaverscent.once they are separated from their owner.
    .
    When nothing is found at the site of an alert by Eddie, no-one could say

    1. who the scent belonged to.
    2. how long it had been there - recent or ancient.
    3. whether it was from on the surface or up to 3ft underground.
    4. whether it was from a dead person or a live person
    5. whether it was a residual scent - left after total decomposition.
    6. whether it was pigmeat - as no sniffer dog can tell the difference
    7/. whether it was from directcontamination or cross contamination.

    And that is why Martin Grime emphasizes that corroberrating evidence is essential, because without it, there are many variables to consider and not all of them involve cadavers.

    Eddie also alerted to blood. Both he and Keela alerted to the car key fob. Forensics identified Gerry McCanns DNA on it.
    GM is not a cadaver.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Eddie alerts to both blood and cadaverine, surely then it would be a pointless waste of time training the likes of Keela alerting to blood.
      Talk about stating the obvious with regard to the key fob, of course his DNA would be on it.
      One thing the P.J. should have asked Kate McCann.."Were you menstruating at the time you were tending the flower bed outside your children's bedroom window?"

      Delete
    2. Mr Grime, his handler, repeatedly says that Eddie reacts to blood and scents due to putrfaction. Eddie does react to blood- it is there in Black and White! This is another thing that stupid antis cannot understand because it undermines their case.

      The identification process goes like this-

      1/ If Eddie and Keela react, it is blood OR cadaver odour.
      2/ If Eddie reacts and Keela does not, then it is cadaver odour.

      Keela is deployed to EXCLUDE blood.

      The manner in which the searches were carried out was not a search that was planned to really alert to cadaver odour as many times eddie was deployed without Keela following- the cars for instance.

      To repeat- If Keela is not used, Eddie's alerts indicate blood OR cadaverine.

      The use of two dogs magnifies the single statistical error by the square; so if a dog alone is 80% correct, a two dog appraisal drops this to 64% accuracy- one chance out of three of being wrong. Using the same dogs on clothes and belongings that have been stored together also leads to what are known as serial errors.

      TB had agreed to most of this when he was forced to debate on the Aussie Football site.

      A major problem with this case is that the pros and antis have largely withdrawn to their own sites and never hear opposing views. All sites ban people for arguing against the belief set of the forum and consequently develop there own set of unexamined myths.

      Delete
    3. @1344

      I am pretty certain that cut hair and nail clippings do not give off any cadaverous odour; if they are pulled from the flesh and contain flesh and fluids they would (as do teeth) but I have never seen a reference for hair or nail clippings being alerted to.

      Delete
  46. If Eddie alerts to both blood and cadaverine, surely then it would be a pointless waste of time training the likes of Keela alerting to blood.
    ---------------------------
    There is no 'if' about it - read Martin Grimes statements. He always sent Eddie in first. If he alerted then he sent Keela in. If she alerted at the same spot - he assumed a blood detection. If she did not alert at the same spot - he ruled out blood. If Eddie did not alert at all, he didn't send Keela in.

    Nothing was found at the flowerbed. Therefore any of the variables mentioned previously could apply.

    It's all in Martin Grime's statements, if people would just bother to read them.

    ...



    ReplyDelete
  47. So, in summary, IF the confessions were somewhat exaggerated, AND IF the dog results are not what antis would like to believe, AND IF the DNA results are not as certain as antis would like to believe, THEN the whole "Abduction is impossible" case FALLS DOWN.

    In my view we cannot decide on the evidence available whether we have a case of Abduction or other event. I believe that Scotland Yard will concur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, ten hours and no reply to this thesis. Kind of blows the 'logic' argument out of the water, doesn't it!

      Delete
  48. Will Bennett bring his toothbrush at 12 Noon next Thursday- the date and time of his dispatch have been announced!

    ReplyDelete
  49. So two negatives don't make a positive. Abduction took place because the pudding was over egged!
    The behaviour of the parents, towards their children were WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF RESPONSIBLE parenting; that is we accept they were frequently checked (kids x nights x check times)
    BUT
    we have to accept the pudding was over egged

    So what is it? One lie is acceptable in order to facilitate abduction, yet opens the question of child neglect.

    So which do we now find acceptable? the over egged pudding & abduction or these kids were neglected?

    What is to be, you can't have both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't 'want' either. I am just pointing out that IF the statements given initially were 'sexed up' to provide a defence should the case come before the GMC, then every anti claim that 'abduction is impossible' clearly becomes a false claim as it relies on the statements. Given that blinkered antis also mis direct themselves (through bias) about the dogs and DNA, they fail to see how tissue thin is the curtain of myths that they have draped over this case. Even TB had to agree on the Aussie Football site when he could not ban people that Eddie alerts to blood, and that this is counter to what he has stated in his bookies.

      Delete
    2. Bookies? Has Bennett had a bet on this?

      Delete
  50. Wise up folks!

    The McCann's don't really have supporters. What they do have is paid agents who prance around the sites spewing clever PR talk. You'll see this once you understand PR techniques. Their agents are playing mind tricks with you.

    Only someone with training talks the way they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another silly anti myth. There are many like me who sit on the fence and criticise both sides. I mainly do it to determine how fixed the false beliefs and myths still are after all these years. The key feature that you are identifying as 'training' is in fact 'education', debating skills' and scepticism'- something patently lacking in myth believers on both sides.

      Delete
    2. ............ and your opinion on this case is what?

      63 words and not one opinion on the case, merely anti this or pro that, typical training in the school of TROLLS

      Don't feed the trolls

      Delete
    3. Pleased that you can count; shame about your logic. I have posted at length about my views above. My reply was of the same tone as the post above to which it was addressed.

      This is typical of blind stupid posters- not noticing that my reply (apparently a troll) was unwanted, but the original (just as off topic, accusing pros of astro-turfing and being paid) is not criticised at all.

      As I say, arrogance, bias, lack of judgement and inability to see the truth- all features of people susceptible to myths and false beliefs.

      Delete
  51. Quote from Spudgun
    "the events, circumstances and situations that they describe..... cannot possibly have occurred".

    ----------------------------
    According to Andy Redwood, who DOES have all the facts before him, it is possible, otherwise why would he say:-

    ''We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive''

    Are you claiming that you know more about forensic analyses and have a superior knowledge of the case than he and his team of professional experienced investigators have?

    With respect - I think not.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on Spudgun- let's have a 'LOGICAL' answer to that. Have you noticed how the difficult questions just go unanswered?

      Delete
  52. @ Spudgun- you say-
    "Like myself, and many others, Bennett elects to believe that the Portuguese Police investigation, their dossiers, evidential documents and their conclusions represent a far more accurate picture of the truth relating to the missing girl than anything propagated by the McCanns and their vast, expansive, (not to say EXPENSIVE), PR machine."

    Why do antis never mention the reasoned middle way summarised by the Final Report of the Prosecutor who states clearly that Abduction remains a possibility?

    Logic- bollocks!

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Spudgun- you say-
    "Firstly, even though the Courts have granted the recirculation of his book , it will never be published in the UK, (certainly not in the foreseeable future), thanks to the obedient and sycophantic British PRESS."

    Anyone of all the publishers in the UK is able to publish it. If (as is in fact the case) the account is riddled with inaccuracies brought about by Amaral's errors and biases, and this makes it defamatory, then they would have to defend it in court. Simples. Now if there was a book based on the Final Report, then that would be legal in the UK becasue it is truthful, fair and balanced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that the 3 judges who overturned the book ban ruled that the book was accurate and in accordance with the investigation as given in the police files. They also stated that the book did not infringe the couple's civil rights. The final report is no final report, as the judges stated, the "final" report is only the opinion of the prosecutor who wrote it and and his opinion is no more valid than that of GA or the intermediary report of September 2007. This tired argument was used by Isabel Duarte during the hearings in January 2010 and certainly did not convince the judges in the appeals court or the Supreme court.

      Delete
  54. Oh dear.. I seem to have touched a few nerves (see my earlier post and the replies).

    I'll repeat.. ONLY PAID AGENTS SUPORT THE McCANNS! Their 'support' is fake. Scamming the public out of millions is what allows them these luxuries.

    The proof is in the pudding. McCann's supporters each time they speak use standard public relations techniques. An ordinary member of the public cannot accidentally stumble upon these techniques. I'll repeat... ONLY SOMONE WHO HAS GONE THROUGH TRAINING TALKS THE WAY THEY DO.

    No self respecting human being hangs around a website's comment section 24hrs a day, supporting/promoting a dubious version of events for which they have no responsibility whatsoever. Only someone who has been assigned to, would do that. The time and energy involved is not something an ordinary member of the public burdens himself with... despite the claims being made in some of the replies.

    Now back to the PR techniques.. now I could go through them one by one. But you know what? I got better things to do in life... google it for fok sake!

    Yours sincerely
    Eddie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Eddie

      What a load of unsupported male cow dung.

      Delete
  55. @ 11.16

    I don't believe that is what they said. Try using their actual words.

    Just because it is legal to publish under Portuguese law does not mean it is true!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can read the "acordão" on the internet if you do not believe me.
      If you could just point out one statement in the book that is a lie it would help this debate. I have asked several other posters in the past and I have never received an answer. Maybe you could help.

      Delete
    2. Link to that please. The book may not have any lies (I am sure he believes what he wrote) but it is riddled with errors- misunderstandings, mis-statements etc.

      Delete
  56. Lack of response from Spudgun noted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Logic works both ways :)

      Delete
  57. Quote from Anon. ''I believe that the 3 judges who overturned the book ban ruled that the book was accurate and in accordance with the investigation as given in the police files.''
    -------------------

    Here are a couple of examples of Amarals 'accurate' book.

    From Amarals book
    ''their parents were dining a hundred metres away.''

    NOT TRUE - they were dining 50 metres away

    ''Tuesday May 1st
    For an hour and a quarter, between 10.30 and 11.45pm, in the apartment where she is in the company of her brother and her sister, Madeleine does not stop crying and calling out for her father. She does not calm down until after her parents return.''

    NOT TRUE Mrs Fenn said she heard a child crying she did not name Madeleine.


    ''Wednesday May 2nd
    At breakfast, Madeleine asks her parents why they left her to cry the night before, and did not come back immediately.''

    NOT TRUE - Madeleine spoke to her parents at breakfast on Thursday May 3rd not Wednesay 2nd and said ''Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night''

    Note how Amaral craftily changes the date and also leaves out Sean's name to make it fit in with Mrs. Fenn only hearing ONE child and to make it seem that Madeleine spoke to her parents the very next morning.

    His biggest lie was that Jane Tanner formally identified Robert Murat as the abductor.

    NOT TRUE, because if she had he would have got her to the police station at the speed of light to get a signed witness statement, as that evidence would be MASSIVE. He would not have told her she didn't need to sign anything and that she could go on home. If JT had formally identified Murat it would be top of the list of reasons given in the Attorney Generals report as to why Robert Murat was made an Arguido.
    It is not mentioned - because it didn't happen.

    So much for Amarals claim that everything in the book is a faithful reproduction of the Pj files.











    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 50 metres away! If you walk it going around the swimming pool and the road it is 100 metres.
      Mrs Fenn reported hearing a child crying and screaming Daddy, Daddy and the police of course assumed that it was Maddie.
      Also, if Maddie had asked her parents why they did not come when she cried it would have been the day after (2 May) Mrs Fenn heard the crying. IMO, Kate made this story up (and with different versions) because any psychologist will tell you that a child that age does not reproach his or her parents' actions and certainly not the day after when the child would have probably forgotten already.
      Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat when she was in the white van in front of his house. So what's the problem? No lie there. The McCanns' friends Fiona Payne, Rachel Mamphilly and RussellO'Brien also stated that they saw RM the night of 3 May in the OC area althoug no one else did.

      Delete
  58. There is a pattern appearing here- the total failue of Spudgun or his supporters to back up their wild allegations. Almost every thread above ends up with an unanswered request for support for the Anti position. No-one comes forward with any such support.

    From the top:

    Anonymous14 February 2013 21:56
    Spudgun fails to answer the challenge to the validity of his arguments by shouting TROLL and running away. Very adult.

    Anonymous14 February 2013 09:17
    An anonympus poster seems to demand that a suspect be FORCED to answer questions and witnesses to be forced against their will to travel across Europe to jump through police hoops. When confronted with the anti-liberal and similarly impossibility of this under English Law, he RUNS AWAY.

    Anonymous15 February 2013 12:42
    An anti alleges that it was the McCanns that requested from a point of weakness that the Amaral trial we suspended whereas best information suggests that this was an amicable arrangement between the two sides. I challenged the poster to provide evidence that it was the McCanns who requested this. He RUNS AWAY.

    Anonymous14 February 2013 09:33
    An anti suggests that the McCann case was archived becasue of political pressure. When asked to justify this with some evidence he RUNS AWAY.

    Anonymous15 February 2013 14:51
    In the DNA thread there is a total reliance by the antis on misquoting documents and deliberately misinterpreting English. When challenged on these issues, they IGNORE the full statements and continue to insist on unsupported myths.

    Anonymous13 February 2013 23:47
    Total failure by the antis to even consider the possibility that the original statements were sexed up. This is because to even consider this would queer their insistence that abduction is impossible.

    Anonymous14 February 2013 00:00
    Ignoring or failing to take on board that Eddie reacts to blood as well as cadaver odour. Again to admit such a thing considerably weakens the anti myth.

    Anonymous14 February 2013 00:10
    This TOTALLY unanswered by any anti- after two full days no anti has even acknowledged it:
    "So, in summary, IF the confessions were somewhat exaggerated, AND IF the dog results are not what antis would like to believe, AND IF the DNA results are not as certain as antis would like to believe, THEN the whole "Abduction is impossible" case FALLS DOWN."

    Anonymous15 February 2013 06:36
    Unanswered and unacknowledged after more than a day:
    Quote from Spudgun
    "the events, circumstances and situations that they describe..... cannot possibly have occurred".
    ----------------------------
    According to Andy Redwood, who DOES have all the facts before him, it is possible, otherwise why would he say:-

    ''We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive''

    Are you claiming that you know more about forensic analyses and have a superior knowledge of the case than he and his team of professional experienced investigators have?
    With respect - I think not.

    Quite a parade of FAILURE TO DEBATE

    ReplyDelete
  59. No one here runs from debate. Most of us don't spend 24 hours in front of the computer like you, we have other things to do such see family and friends, walk the dog, go to movies and concerts,go shopping, or even to demonstrations.
    As to your comment about the comments being sexed up, are you implying that the PJ added things to the original ones?
    I am not alleging anything about the libel trial here, I am stating a fact (which was confirmed on Portuguese television) that the plaintiffs asked for the suspension of the trial just days before it was to begin because they do not want to see the inside of a courtroom and because anything said during court proceedings can be freely reported in the press. This is what the McCanns want to avoid at all cost.
    No one is suggesting that Kate should have been forced to answer the 48 questions. However, if she were innocent she would not have hesitated if she had wanted to help the investigation. IMO, it had been decided between Kate and Gerry that he would answer all the questions while she would remain silent in order to avoid any differences in their replies.
    Of course there was political pressure to shelve the case. Why else would a case of a missing child have been shelved? If the PJ and the Portuguese authorities had the slightest indication that the child had been abducted they never would have continued the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: "As to your comment about the statements being sexed up"

      Delete
    2. I spend little time here compared with those who keep the anti sites flowing with myths.

      There is an abject failure, detailed above, of antis to reply to challenges to their myths.

      If you had bothered to read my posts you would know that I am suggesting that the Tapas 7 may have over stated their checking to avoid a potential case of child neglect which they may have feared.

      Your statement about Kate and the questions is just a reflection of your biases. Given the abusive and accusatory nature of the questions, I can understand why she walked away even if she were innocent. You then goon tomake biased assumptions about what the McCanns 'planned'- just a guess on your part. Where is your EVIDENCE of political pressure.

      Your reply is riddled with biased assumptions.


      Delete
    3. > If you had bothered to read my posts you would know that I am suggesting that the Tapas 7 may have over stated their checking to avoid a potential case of child neglect which they may have feared.

      So, if their first instinct after the disappearance of a child was to lie in protecting their own backs - how can you believe anything they say about anything else?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. That's not how it works though is it. If they were all in a court, and doubt was created about the frequency of checks claimed - that would impact on everything else they claim too: the 9.30 checks and man seen walking across the top of the road.

      If they exaggerated the frequency of checks, they may also have embellished other evidence (for whatever reason).

      I could well imagine a scenario where some of them do actually believe Madeleine was abducted, but others are running around saying nobody is ever going to believe it. From there (perhaps) mistakes were made I'm sure they regret now. Those seven people were under such enormous pressure that night between 10pm and the first formal police statements the next day.

      Amaral is man enough to defend his words himself. He doesn't need me. None of us know what exactly went on between Tanner and the police.

      Delete
    6. They would not have thought about it coming to court. Glad that you now accept that it is possible the statements could have been embellished, explaining inconsistencies and allowing for the possibility of abduction.

      Delete
    7. I can't deny the possibility of abduction.

      But I'd suggest embellishment (aka lying) suggests the truth may lie elsewhere.

      If a child disappears I think one of the very first things to enter the mind of the parents, and their friends, is that the police are never going to believe it wasn't us who were responsible for it. After the panic about the child, the second panic wave is surely that they are the police's prime suspects. That's certainly what I would think if it were my child.

      I think it's likely that's what the T9 were thinking as well, especially when they're in a foreign country.

      If people accept they may have exaggerated the frequency of checks in an effort to combat possible suspicions of child neglect, what else may they have done in order to combat possible suspicions of involvement in a child's murder?

      I don't think you can calmly accept they may have embellished the frequency of checks without considering they may have wished to protect themselves that night against more than just suspicion of child neglect. It's not logical to state they may have lied just about the frequency of checks, but accept they told the truth about everything else.

      Delete
    8. It is not my concern to ascertain what really happened. I do not claim to be a pretendy policeman like most people do. I am just concerned to bust myths. Such a possibility makes the anti myth 'no abduction is possible' to be the error that any rational person would admit.

      Delete
  60. Quote from anon
    I am not alleging anything about the libel trial here, I am stating a fact (which was confirmed on Portuguese television) that the plaintiffs asked for the suspension of the trial
    End quote

    It doesn't matter who made the first move only the Claimant can ask the Court for a suspension There is no legal provision for a Defendant to request a court for a suspension.

    Therefore while it is true to say the McCanns requested the suspension, it is not true to say this means they made the first approach.

    If the McCanns approached Amaral, they would be the ones to request a suspension.

    If Amaral approached the McCanns, it would still be the McCanns who would be the ones to request a suspension.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reports in the Portuguese Press merely say that the accord was reached without saying who requested it. When a TV report was quoted by Morais it became 'the Mccanns requested it.' I have seen no neutral source to say who requested what. If you have it, please link to it.

      Delete
  61. @05:39 commentator:

    "It is not my concern to ascertain what really happened."

    With respect what are you doing here then?

    If you aren't interested in the truth, and you concentrate on busting the myths on one side of the case but not the other, your efforts might possibly be aiding those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

    Doesn't that concern you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or is your philosophy: it was possible, therefore it happened?

      Delete
    2. I have been banned from all pro sites for pointing out their set of myths.

      My philosophy is that of Wittgenstein- "Whereof one cannot speak,thereof one should remain silent".

      I am happy to accept that the Met review will offer something close to the truth and that it will be closer to the Prosecutor shelving statement rather than Amaral or Rebelo!

      It will be interesting to see the anti reaction to this.


      Delete
    3. If the press report it fairly as conclusive of nothing then sensible people will not complain. But if they report it the way they did in 2008 - as exoneration of Madeleine's parents - people will continue to speak out.

      Delete
    4. The prosecutors' shelving report specifically said that their was insufficient evidence against any arguido that justified charge or trial.

      If the Met review concurs, will you accept it?

      Delete
    5. It also said that Madeleine's parents and their friends hadn't fully cooperated with the investigation, and that therefore it was incomplete.

      I don't know what you mean by "accept it". I accept now there is insufficient evidence for charges, but if you mean will you accept it and stop talking about the case - no, never. If the press keeps on stating abduction is a fact, people will keep complaining about it.

      Delete
    6. It was their right under Portuguese law to do so. Do you harass and scapegoat every person who exercises their legal rights?

      Delete
  62. quote from Anon
    50 metres away! If you walk it going around the swimming pool and the road it is 100 metres.
    Mrs Fenn reported hearing a child crying and screaming Daddy, Daddy and the police of course assumed that it was Maddie.
    Also, if Maddie had asked her parents why they did not come when she cried it would have been the day after (2 May) Mrs Fenn heard the crying. IMO, Kate made this story up (and with different versions) because any psychologist will tell you that a child that age does not reproach his or her parents' actions and certainly not the day after when the child would have probably forgotten already.
    Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat when she was in the white van in front of his house. So what's the problem? No lie there. The McCanns' friends Fiona Payne, Rachel Mamphilly and RussellO'Brien also stated that they saw RM the night of 3 May in the OC area althoug no one else did.

    End quote

    The apartment was 50 metres as the crow flies and 70metres to walk to the back door. As that is the route the McCann used why pretend they had to walk 100 metres.

    Why would the police 'assume' it was Madeleine Mrs Fenn heard crying - it could have been Matt and Rachels child next door to 5a - or even Jt's children

    Why would KM make up a story about what Madeleine said to her? And why make up a story which put her and Gerry in a bad light when they didn't have to. That makes no sense.

    JT never at any time identified Robert Murat. Read her statement. Neither did she say she saw RM on the night of the 3rd. The people who made that claim were FP,Rachel M, RO'B, Charlotte Pennington Ms Annie Wiltshire Jayne Jensen,and a British Barrister.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > Why would KM make up a story about what Madeleine said to her? And why make up a story which put her and Gerry in a bad light when they didn't have to. That makes no sense.

      The theory is that by the time they gave their first formal statements that were well aware JT wasn't being taken seriously, and that therefore there was no evidence of abduction. The comment attributed to Madeleine is supposed to suggest to the police something also happened the night before "the abduction".

      Delete
    2. I am talking about the timeline statements.

      Delete