extracts from the article 21 June /19

by dragonfly 23.06.11 18:13

'What moves Gonçalo Amaral: dispair ou craziness?'

“Kate needs to blame others for what happened to her daughter, at least, as a result of his gross negligence.”
Sadly, only an hideous man like Amaral could emerge with such an absurd idea.

' What torments Gonçalo Amaral?'

The inspector did not find the two missing children under his ‘responsibility’, but he claims that he is now an expert on the subject – in fact, he knows everything about children that disappeared! And he cries that the first 24 hours are critical in such cases – says the man who dismissed the case and went to bed, leaving the crime scene to everyone that would go in and out, says the man that hadn’t considered by any chance to closer the borders everywhere.
who writes this crap?

More sad than Gonçalo Amaral, only the one that aloud him to wander around, repeating such great hoaxes.

Gonçalo Amaral was an investigator of the Portuguese Police, a police force with proven expertise.

Gonçalo Amaral took advantage of that experience perceived. He used as he owned that experience.

He was, probably, a victim of the Peter’s Principle and was “promoted to his level of incompetence”, as he worked at least in two cases of missing children, to name only the most recent, where he was not able to finish it as he couldn’t find any of those children or at least effectively prove what might could had happened to them.

He was not even able to project a credible scenario, which could be proven

Unfortunately, this neglect has been the success that allowed the abduction of Madeleine and her removal from where she belong – with her family.
what??? they are blaming him for her 'abduction'?

Having them the opportunity to read the book, journalists now can realize the damage. The vain accusations. Then can perceive now the ‘weight of the evil’ they helped create. And, as they were defrauded by Gonçalo Amaral, the journalists have neither space, nor patience probably, for the former inspector. Maybe now the balance of the information arises. Perhaps they are prepared to dismantle the lies trumpeted by Gonçalo Amaral. The former inspector who can’t investigate or doesn’t have a clue about coordinating. The one that as too little from a policeman.

is this not libelous ?

by lj 23.06.11 22:57

Read Kate's book: everyone is to blame for everything, St Kate is the victim the martyr.

A true sociopath.

by dragonfly 10.09.11 22:42

The latest offerings from Kate's friend/s at the wotw, link provided by official FB page

from rioters to this make of it what you will
quote
'I’m loathed to give any more publicity to an opinionated, self–serving blogger whose 15 minutes of fame are hubristically extended only by virtue of social media, but note that epetitions can work both ways. It is as much an indicator of public support by virtue of high numbers as a demonstration of the lack of it when it is supported only by a tiny number of time-wasting people who may not have thought things through.

Those who initiate a senseless epetition and claim it to be supported by the government are at best pushing the boundaries of truth in the first instance, but are, one sincerely hopes, destined for a fall when they discover that their support comes from a disillusioned minority who have barely been able to consider the facts, let alone conclude that their actions do nothing to contribute to finding a missing young girl and bring the perpetrators of her abduction to justice.

http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/08/29/riots-moral-collapse-and-epetitions/

responses
Justine Spencer Says:
Yes indeed. Those who are without investigative degrees, long term police careers and access to the facts would be better served pursuing other less damaging hobbies. Tea dances
are quite popular at this time of year.

Claire Says:
I think the author of this piece gives these people too much credit. Pushing the boundaries of truth is an understatement. These people lie to support their idiotic theories. They then post them all over the Web and then spout that they are the truth. Just because someone else repeated it. Repeating a lie still doesn’t make it true.
As for finding Madeleine…none of these people want Madeleine found. It would prove how morally corrupt they are. It would also effectively end all of their fun at trying to hurt Madeleine’s family. It’s all a cruel sport to them. Meanwhile, a child is out there and she needs to be found and reunited with her family.

by Me 12.09.11 11:21

dragonfly wrote:
Claire Says:
I think the author of this piece gives these people too much credit. Pushing the boundaries of truth is an understatement. These people lie to support their idiotic theories. They then post them all over the Web and then spout that they are the truth. Just because someone else repeated it. Repeating a lie still doesn’t make it true.
As for finding Madeleine…none of these people want Madeleine found. It would prove how morally corrupt they are. It would also effectively end all of their fun at trying to hurt Madeleine’s family. It’s all a cruel sport to them. Meanwhile, a child is out there and she needs to be found and reunited with her family.

Typical, twisted, inaccurate and warped “analysis” which has no bearing in the truth.

Which people “lie”? And how can taking information from the official police files and working from there considered to be pushing the boundaries of truth?

I’d advocate that pushing the boundaries of truth and idiotic theories are more in tune with the on-going disregarding of the PJ files and the support for an abduction theory that has no merit in fact or evidence.

That is truly the one idiotic theory flying around in this case.

Loving the line “Repeating a lie still doesn’t make it true” because that fits in so very neatly with the Team’s (and especially Jane Tanner’s) version of events.

Now we go into full on mental mode (a trait often demonstrated by the pro’s). Who doesn’t want Maddie found?

I don’t recall ever seeing a post from anyone on this forum stating they wish she was never found. The very reason for these and other forums like it is precisely to find out what happened to Maddie but we all fear that she will never be found alive.

Still it’s a stick these people use to demonise those of us who simply won’t accept their cult’s version of events. It says more about them for throwing out comments like that than it does about those sceptical of the cult’s propaganda.

I can only speak for myself but I would like nothing more than for her to turn up somewhere alive. The problem is I can’t see that happening.

Nobody takes any fun out of her family. What I feel is disgust and contempt at their actions both in leaving their children unattended and their subsequent strategy at media manipulation, libel bullying and fund raising.

Meanwhile what evidence is there to support the idea that there is a child out there waiting to be found? None. Until such time as there is we’ll use our heads and continue to question the version of events put forward by her parents which has no basis in fact or reality.

by puzzled 12.09.11 11:46

Me wrote:

I can only speak for myself but I would like nothing more than for her to turn up somewhere alive. The problem is I can’t see that happening.

Nobody takes any fun out of her family. What I feel is disgust and contempt at their actions both in leaving their children unattended and their subsequent strategy at media manipulation, libel bullying and fund raising.

Exactly. I think most people would be delighted if she was found alive. But statistically, that's very unlikely. It's not being callous or cruel to accept that, it's just acknowledging facts long known to the police and criminal psychologists. If she really was taken by a nonce, then we known that 75% of them kill their victims within hours. And even if she lived longer than a day, the massive publicity in this case would almost certainly motivate a kidnapper to kill her, just to protect themselves. These aren't pleasant thoughts, but they are the facts that police and criminologists have to deal with.And whatever the parents may or may not have done, that does not give them the right to try and destroy people, like they are trying to do with Amaral.

by happychick 12.09.11 11:52

Who doesn't want Madeleine found?

How about her parents who:

1. Don't advertise the reward
2. Told the world, against police advice, that she had a coloboma - then told the world it was just a hardly noticeable fleck.
3. Issued old, possibly photoshopped, photo's of Madeleine.
4. Refused to answer questions which may have helped find Madeleine
5. Refused to co-operate with an official reconstruction
6. Asked for money to find Madeleine then used some of it to pay their mortgage

And that's just for starters...and they have the nerve to say it's us who don't want her found? I am sure people would rejoice if Madeleine was found.

by lj 12.09.11 15:16

happychick wrote:Who doesn't want Madeleine found?

How about her parents who:

1. Don't advertise the reward
2. Told the world, against police advice, that she had a coloboma - then told the world it was just a hardly noticeable fleck.
3. Issued old, possibly photoshopped, photo's of Madeleine.
4. Refused to answer questions which may have helped find Madeleine
5. Refused to co-operate with an official reconstruction
6. Asked for money to find Madeleine then used some of it to pay their mortgage

And that's just for starters...and they have the nerve to say it's us who don't want her found? I am sure people would rejoice if Madeleine was found.

All so true, happychick.

by dragonfly 12.09.11 16:58

puzzled wrote:
Me wrote:

I can only speak for myself but I would like nothing more than for her to turn up somewhere alive. The problem is I can’t see that happening.

Nobody takes any fun out of her family. What I feel is disgust and contempt at their actions both in leaving their children unattended and their subsequent strategy at media manipulation, libel bullying and fund raising.

Exactly. I think most people would be delighted if she was found alive. But statistically, that's very unlikely. It's not being callous or cruel to accept that, it's just acknowledging facts long known to the police and criminal psychologists. If she really was taken by a nonce, then we known that 75% of them kill their victims within hours. And even if she lived longer than a day, the massive publicity in this case would almost certainly motivate a kidnapper to kill her, just to protect themselves. These aren't pleasant thoughts, but they are the facts that police and criminologists have to deal with.And whatever the parents may or may not have done, that does not give them the right to try and destroy people, like they are trying to do with Amaral.

good posts

Where do the Mccann's get the American statistics, that their is some happy ending and the children come alive and well? Happy ending for whom The parents? The public?
if people believe Madeleine will be found alive, she will be placed with the very parents whose own belief 'there is no evidence to suggest she has come to any harm' have they thought how that would impact Madeleine? stating that she could be taken by peados but 'there is no evidence to suggest she has come to any harm' if people believe Madeleine will be found alive, I think it is very rose tinted view to think that she will be scooped up and the nightmare has ended , Not for any of the other girls such as jaycee ,Natascha Kampusch, Sabine Dardenne, "Elizabeth Smart, Fritzel's daughter , who were all missing from public view, lived a nightmare and the psychological effects it has on a child and the long term damage is unthinkable,
I dont think these other people are being realistic, The sad facts are she would have lived more of her life in her present reality, than her past, The trauma and abuse this poor child could of gone through , she could be severely damaged finding out her parents neglected which caused her to be in that situation, and spent money from the fund on a PR machine and defence lawyers and taking people to court ,she could develop Stockholm syndrome, if she was in a different country , being then bought back to England the culture shock not speaking the language, not to mention the abuse the living conditions PTSD, The list is endless, The bottom line is of course we would want her to be found alive and well , with people who cared for her, The reality and statistics is another thing, The outcome either way dead or alive both outlooks are unthinkable for this innocent child

by scotclogs 12.09.11 18:40

[quote="Wendy"]

dragonfly wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night

Did they not leave 3 children alone that night? Is that not a crime? If not, then why are other people in jail for doing the same?[/quote

Mccanns admitted most nights they were left

nspcc website - Neglect involves failure to meet a child's needs that does or could harm the child.
That explains the constant quote of

She's apparently with a friggin' paedophile isn't she? What's he supposed to be doing with her? You McCann supporters make me sick to my stomach.

WELL SAID wendy clapping1

" 'There is no suggestion that Madeleine has come to any harm'
dragonfly :please: What planet are you on, I don't think you have read the the files if you have then read them again this time sober :drunken: or you just do this lalala

I hate to tell you but IMO POOR LITTLE MADIE HAS COME TO HARM Thats what sick paedophile do dear THEY HARM. ask Kate she will tell you all about it.

by dragonfly 12.09.11 19:26

[quote="scotclogs"]

Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night
I did not write that look at my post
Did they not leave 3 children alone that night? Is that not a crime? If not, then why are other people in jail for doing the same?or=blue]YES ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!!
Mccanns admitted most nights they were left

nspcc website - Neglect involves failure to meet a child's needs that does or could harm the child.
That explains the constant quote of
I AGREE RE READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She's apparently with a friggin' paedophile isn't she? What's he supposed to be doing with her? You McCann supporters make me sick to my stomach.
ARE YOU WINDING ME UP? OR ARE YOU THICK? RE READ MY POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY has some one changed my words I did not say that, READ MY POST CORRECTLY ! I can not see wendys post, I am quoting the Mccanns! Mccanns said there is no evidence,
not me! I can not believe some one is thick enough to think I am sticking up for them, the total opposite

WELL SAID wendy
" 'There is no suggestion that Madeleine has come to any harm'
dragonfly :please: What planet are you on, I don't think you have read the the files if you have then read them again this time sober :drunken: or you just do this I hate to tell you but IMO POOR LITTLE MADIE HAS COME TO HARM Thats what sick paedophile do dear THEY HARM. ask Kate she will tell you all about it.

by dragonfly 12.09.11 19:30

dragonfly wrote:
puzzled wrote:
Me wrote:

I can only speak for myself but I would like nothing more than for her to turn up somewhere alive. The problem is I can’t see that happening.

Nobody takes any fun out of her family. What I feel is disgust and contempt at their actions both in leaving their children unattended and their subsequent strategy at media manipulation, libel bullying and fund raising.

Exactly. I think most people would be delighted if she was found alive. But statistically, that's very unlikely. It's not being callous or cruel to accept that, it's just acknowledging facts long known to the police and criminal psychologists. If she really was taken by a nonce, then we known that 75% of them kill their victims within hours. And even if she lived longer than a day, the massive publicity in this case would almost certainly motivate a kidnapper to kill her, just to protect themselves. These aren't pleasant thoughts, but they are the facts that police and criminologists have to deal with.And whatever the parents may or may not have done, that does not give them the right to try and destroy people, like they are trying to do with Amaral.

good posts

Where do the Mccann's get the American statistics, that their is some happy ending and the children come alive and well? Happy ending for whom The parents? The public?
if people believe Madeleine will be found alive, she will be placed with the very parents whose own belief 'there is no evidence to suggest she has come to any harm' have they thought how that would impact Madeleine? stating that she could be taken by peados but 'there is no evidence to suggest she has come to any harm' if people believe Madeleine will be found alive, I think it is very rose tinted view to think that she will be scooped up and the nightmare has ended , Not for any of the other girls such as jaycee ,Natascha Kampusch, Sabine Dardenne, "Elizabeth Smart, Fritzel's daughter , who were all missing from public view, lived a nightmare and the psychological effects it has on a child and the long term damage is unthinkable,
I dont think these other people are being realistic, The sad facts are she would have lived more of her life in her present reality, than her past, The trauma and abuse this poor child could of gone through , she could be severely damaged finding out her parents neglected which caused her to be in that situation, and spent money from the fund on a PR machine and defence lawyers and taking people to court ,she could develop Stockholm syndrome, if she was in a different country , being then bought back to England the culture shock not speaking the language, not to mention the abuse the living conditions PTSD, The list is endless, The bottom line is of course we would want her to be found alive and well , with people who cared for her, The reality and statistics is another thing, The outcome either way dead or alive both outlooks are unthinkable for this innocent child

where am I defending them WHERE?????? WHY IS WENDY CHANGING MY WORDS??????? RE READ MY POST , are people reading something that I have not wrote?
Read back through ALL my posts

by dragonfly 12.09.11 19:40

why has wendy changed my words? where has wendy's post gone to? I can only see scothdog post with wendy quoting fake words from me
re read my original post

by scotclogs 12.09.11 19:46

[quote="dragonfly"]

scotclogs wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night
I did not write that look at my post
Did they not leave 3 children alone that night? Is that not a crime? If not, then why are other people in jail for doing the same?or=blue]YES ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!!
Mccanns admitted most nights they were left

nspcc website - Neglect involves failure to meet a child's needs that does or could harm the child.
That explains the constant quote of
I AGREE RE READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She's apparently with a friggin' paedophile isn't she? What's he supposed to be doing with her? You McCann supporters make me sick to my stomach.
ARE YOU WINDING ME UP? OR ARE YOU THICK? RE READ MY POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY has some one changed my words I did not say that, READ MY POST CORRECTLY ! I can not see wendys post, I am quoting the Mccanns! Mccanns said there is no evidence,
not me! I can not believe some one is thick enough to think I am sticking up for them, the total opposite

WELL SAID wendy
" 'There is no suggestion that Madeleine has come to any harm'
dragonfly :please: What planet are you on, I don't think you have read the the files if you have then read them again this time sober :drunken: or you just do this I hate to tell you but IMO POOR LITTLE MADIE HAS COME TO HARM Thats what sick paedophile do dear THEY HARM. ask Kate she will tell you all about it.

First of all I am NOT THICK BUT YOU ARE VERY NASTY But I will go back and read your post again OK angry

by dragonfly 12.09.11 19:52

[quote="scotclogs"]

dragonfly wrote:
scotclogs wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night
I did not write that look at my post
Did they not leave 3 children alone that night? Is that not a crime? If not, then why are other people in jail for doing the same?or=blue]YES ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!!
Mccanns admitted most nights they were left

nspcc website - Neglect involves failure to meet a child's needs that does or could harm the child.
That explains the constant quote of
I AGREE RE READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She's apparently with a friggin' paedophile isn't she? What's he supposed to be doing with her? You McCann supporters make me sick to my stomach.
ARE YOU WINDING ME UP? OR ARE YOU THICK? RE READ MY POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY has some one changed my words I did not say that, READ MY POST CORRECTLY ! I can not see wendys post, I am quoting the Mccanns! Mccanns said there is no evidence,
not me! I can not believe some one is thick enough to think I am sticking up for them, the total opposite

WELL SAID wendy
" 'There is no suggestion that Madeleine has come to any harm'
dragonfly :please: What planet are you on, I don't think you have read the the files if you have then read them again this time sober :drunken: or you just do this I hate to tell you but IMO POOR LITTLE MADIE HAS COME TO HARM Thats what sick paedophile do dear THEY HARM. ask Kate she will tell you all about it.

First of all I am NOT THICK BUT YOU ARE VERY NASTY But I will go back and read your post again OK

please show me where I have been very nasty? I come on here to see wendy quoting words I have not said and your self putting up avatars of lalalalala fingers in the ears, avatars holding up signs and asking what planet I am, for defending an innocent kid? look at your posts and then mine and tell me who was being rude?

by scotclogs 12.09.11 20:06

[quote="dragonfly"][quote="scotclogs"]

dragonfly wrote:
scotclogs wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:
Wendy wrote:
dragonfly wrote:There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night
I did not write that look at my post
Did they not leave 3 children alone that night? Is that not a crime? If not, then why are other people in jail for doing the same?or=blue]YES ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!!
Mccanns admitted most nights they were left

nspcc website - Neglect involves failure to meet a child's needs that does or could harm the child.
That explains the constant quote of
I AGREE RE READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She's apparently with a friggin' paedophile isn't she? What's he supposed to be doing with her? You McCann supporters make me sick to my stomach.
ARE YOU WINDING ME UP? OR ARE YOU THICK? RE READ MY POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY has some one changed my words I did not say that, READ MY POST CORRECTLY ! I can not see wendys post, I am quoting the Mccanns! Mccanns said there is no evidence,
not me! I can not believe some one is thick enough to think I am sticking up for them, the total opposite

WELL SAID wendy
" 'There is no suggestion that Madeleine has come to any harm'
dragonfly :please: What planet are you on, I don't think you have read the the files if you have then read them again this time sober :drunken: or you just do this I hate to tell you but IMO POOR LITTLE MADIE HAS COME TO HARM Thats what sick paedophile do dear THEY HARM. ask Kate she will tell you all about it.

First of all I am NOT THICK BUT YOU ARE VERY NASTY But I will go back and read your post again OK

please show me where I have been very nasty? I come on here to see wendy quoting words I have not said and your self putting up avatars of lalalalala fingers in the ears, avatars holding up signs and asking what planet I am, for defending an innocent kid? look at your posts and then mine and tell me who was being rude? [/quote

flag

Well it not nice to be called thick dragonfly and I was not trying to wind you up , I have looked again at your post and I have read it wrong I am very sorry for that dragonfly roses

by Guest 12.09.11 20:09

Now can we all be friends

by scotclogs 12.09.11 20:12

[quote="candyfloss"]Now can we all be friends

[/quote

Yes and I am very sorry for that candyfloss friends

by dragonfly 12.09.11 20:29

dragonfly wrote:Blog - from April 14th -The writing of the wrongs

OK, I’ll keep this short and sweet. I am getting more and more irritated and infuriated by being constantly told I need to read the files. Every time I go onto anywhere on the web that allows people from both sides of the argument to post together, such as newspaper comments section, and I make a comment in support of Kate and Gerry I get replies like, “You need to read the files, they are very illuminating.” Or, “Check the files, then you wouldn’t be so keen to support a couple of child murderers.” Well, for the information of all those who parrot this phrase over and over, I HAVE read the files, VERY carefully. Also the rogatory interviews, the Gaspar statements and a ton of other stuff to do with the case.

And guess what? It all leads me to the inevitable and inarguable conclusion that the Portuguese Attorney General, a man who has forgotten far more about the due process of the law than all of us keyboard warriors ever knew, was RIGHT. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night, which in itself leads me to another inescapable conclusion. All of those people, all the McCann critics who have ever told ME to read the files have clearly and obviously NOT read the files themselves. Perhaps it is because they are so over-confident in their belief that the McCanns are guilty of something that they have utterly convinced themselves that there MUST be something incriminating somewhere in the files, so it is not necessary for them to read them but it is vital that us supporters do, so as to educate us to the ‘Truth.’ This, on their part, is either the very heights of arrogance or the very depths of stupidity, though I am not quite sure which.

So, can all those critics of the McCanns who continually tell people like me to read the files please do me a favour. YOU read them, because you are quite right, they ARE very illuminating.

scotch clogs I owe you an apology violin

, I have looked back to see why wendy has said what she did, Wendy has wrongly quoted me as saying ' There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night' These are not my words but the words from writing of the wrongs ! Despite it clearly saying it is from the blog from 14th April , I can only assume you read wendys quote attributed wrongly to me , (again maybe she did not realise it was not my words we all make mistakes ) and you did not see my original post stating it was from writing of the wrongs, I did provide a link to the blog I can see go get em has removed it by edit , but the original words are from WOTW site , hope that clears that up, and am very sorry airkiss

by scotclogs 12.09.11 20:48

dragonfly wrote:
dragonfly wrote:Blog - from April 14th -The writing of the wrongs

OK, I’ll keep this short and sweet. I am getting more and more irritated and infuriated by being constantly told I need to read the files. Every time I go onto anywhere on the web that allows people from both sides of the argument to post together, such as newspaper comments section, and I make a comment in support of Kate and Gerry I get replies like, “You need to read the files, they are very illuminating.” Or, “Check the files, then you wouldn’t be so keen to support a couple of child murderers.” Well, for the information of all those who parrot this phrase over and over, I HAVE read the files, VERY carefully. Also the rogatory interviews, the Gaspar statements and a ton of other stuff to do with the case.

And guess what? It all leads me to the inevitable and inarguable conclusion that the Portuguese Attorney General, a man who has forgotten far more about the due process of the law than all of us keyboard warriors ever knew, was RIGHT. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night, which in itself leads me to another inescapable conclusion. All of those people, all the McCann critics who have ever told ME to read the files have clearly and obviously NOT read the files themselves. Perhaps it is because they are so over-confident in their belief that the McCanns are guilty of something that they have utterly convinced themselves that there MUST be something incriminating somewhere in the files, so it is not necessary for them to read them but it is vital that us supporters do, so as to educate us to the ‘Truth.’ This, on their part, is either the very heights of arrogance or the very depths of stupidity, though I am not quite sure which.

So, can all those critics of the McCanns who continually tell people like me to read the files please do me a favour. YOU read them, because you are quite right, they ARE very illuminating.

scotch clogs I owe you an apology , I have looked back to see why wendy has said what she did, Wendy has wrongly quoted me as saying ' There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night' These are not my words but the words from writing of the wrongs ! Despite it clearly saying it is from the blog from 14th April , I can only assume you read wendys quote attributed wrongly to me , (again maybe she did not realise it was not my words we all make mistakes ) and you did not see my original post stating it was from writing of the wrongs, I did provide a link to the blog I can see go get em has removed it by edit , but the original words are from WOTW site , hope that clears that up, and am very sorry

It's ok

as I said I looked again and said ooops

and felt very silly , blushing1

heh I hope

by lj 12.09.11 21:55

Going back to dragonfly's post that is so true:

dragonfly wrote:

good posts

Where do the Mccann's get the American statistics, that their is some happy ending and the children come alive and well? Happy ending for whom The parents? The public?
if people believe Madeleine will be found alive, she will be placed with the very parents whose own belief 'there is no evidence to suggest she has come to any harm' have they thought how that would impact Madeleine? stating that she could be taken by peados but 'there is no evidence to suggest she has come to any harm' if people believe Madeleine will be found alive, I think it is very rose tinted view to think that she will be scooped up and the nightmare has ended , Not for any of the other girls such as jaycee ,Natascha Kampusch, Sabine Dardenne, "Elizabeth Smart, Fritzel's daughter , who were all missing from public view, lived a nightmare and the psychological effects it has on a child and the long term damage is unthinkable,
I dont think these other people are being realistic, The sad facts are she would have lived more of her life in her present reality, than her past, The trauma and abuse this poor child could of gone through , she could be severely damaged finding out her parents neglected which caused her to be in that situation, and spent money from the fund on a PR machine and defence lawyers and taking people to court ,she could develop Stockholm syndrome, if she was in a different country , being then bought back to England the culture shock not speaking the language, not to mention the abuse the living conditions PTSD, The list is endless, The bottom line is of course we would want her to be found alive and well , with people who cared for her, The reality and statistics is another thing, The outcome either way dead or alive both outlooks are unthinkable for this innocent child

All these cases named were girls much older than Madeleine. It is absolute nonsense to say that there are no indications that Madeleine has come to harm. This is their mantra because if she had, they would be guilty of criminal neglect. As most of you know I have not a high opinion of the morals or intellectual capacities of the McCanns. But even I don't think they are THAT stupid. They are however stupid enough to think people will buy it, and guess what some idiots like muratfan does. There is no scenario thinkable where Madeleine was not harmed. Even the scenario of Pedro with the fluffy towels (in which she was taken by a childless couple, being spoiled rotten and always dried off with fluffy towels after her bath -the creep-) would include taken an almost 4 year old completely out of her environment, and -as much as I despise her parents- that in itself is harmful. Having said that, of course it would be lovely if Madeleine would be found alive, but then .........

by Me 13.09.11 8:30

dragonfly wrote:Blog - from April 14th -The writing of the wrongs

OK, I’ll keep this short and sweet. I am getting more and more irritated and infuriated by being constantly told I need to read the files. Every time I go onto anywhere on the web that allows people from both sides of the argument to post together, such as newspaper comments section, and I make a comment in support of Kate and Gerry I get replies like, “You need to read the files, they are very illuminating.” Or, “Check the files, then you wouldn’t be so keen to support a couple of child murderers.” Well, for the information of all those who parrot this phrase over and over, I HAVE read the files, VERY carefully. Also the rogatory interviews, the Gaspar statements and a ton of other stuff to do with the case.

And guess what? It all leads me to the inevitable and inarguable conclusion that the Portuguese Attorney General, a man who has forgotten far more about the due process of the law than all of us keyboard warriors ever knew, was RIGHT. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Kate or Gerry ever committed any crime that night, which in itself leads me to another inescapable conclusion. All of those people, all the McCann critics who have ever told ME to read the files have clearly and obviously NOT read the files themselves. Perhaps it is because they are so over-confident in their belief that the McCanns are guilty of something that they have utterly convinced themselves that there MUST be something incriminating somewhere in the files, so it is not necessary for them to read them but it is vital that us supporters do, so as to educate us to the ‘Truth.’ This, on their part, is either the very heights of arrogance or the very depths of stupidity, though I am not quite sure which.

So, can all those critics of the McCanns who continually tell people like me to read the files please do me a favour. YOU read them, because you are quite right, they ARE very illuminating.

I wanted to comment on this blog post from that site.

The writer is correct up to a point but I disagree with his claim that the “anti’s” scream read the files. From looking back at old threads yesterday it is the pro’s who constantly spit out that mantra.

What the pro’s fail to understand is that most sensible people can see, that at the point of archiving the case there was insufficient evidence to find the McCann’s guilty. Where they get confused or deliberately choose to be obtuse is in ignoring the fact that the investigation isn’t complete.

So it’s one thing for the Team to be found innocent at the end of an investigation quite another for there to be insufficient evidence against them in an incomplete investigation. Particularly when you consider that the investigation wasn’t completed as a direct result of the Team’s refusal to assist in completing it.

So how can you rely on the files to be the definitive answer when by definition the investigation isn’t completed? The files only have limited value in drawing definitive conclusions of guilt or innocence.

Leading on from that we return to the mantra of “read the files, read the files”. My take on the files and particularly the later Rogatory statements is that the information contained in them must be placed in context against the background information we know of. Namely that infamous meeting in a Rothley hotel whereby all the Tapas crew and their legal counsel met and discussed who knows what (well we can have a good guess). So we know that in between the first statements and the Rogatory interviews there was at least one meeting to discuss the evidence. Anywhere else that would be called witness collusion or tampering.

So the evidentiary value of those statements is compromised by the fact that they have clearly been worked on with other witnesses and indeed the main suspects. They therefore cannot be relied on as the definitive account of what actually happened. Their value is less than the original first statements which haven’t had the lawyers and the Team working on them.

So how do we conclude things? Well we believe there isn’t enough evidence to push to trial but the investigation isn’t complete. The pros can’t use one passage from the archiving report without using the other salient part, which specifically refuses to clear the Team of suspicion as a result of their refusal, for reasons unknown to help further the investigation.

We also have to consider the Judge’s verdict in Amaral’s book trial which did validate Amaral’s theory as a valid and police led interpretation of the facts of the case. So who knows how a case would go in court given that verdict, even with the investigation incomplete.

There are plenty of things in the file, irrespective of the author’s claims to suggest widespread lying (once again confirmed by the Judge – see my signature) and collusion. The pros claim that many of these contradictions see the respective witness or member of the team being “wrong” or making a mistake. But how many times can someone be “wrong” before suspicion starts to mount? At what point does wrong become plain lying and covering up, and at what point do you have to wake up and smell the roses?

I saw a quote today which I believe applies to the McCann supporters:

The silly being led by the sinister.

by dragonfly 13.11.11 0:18

What a vulgar poem done in Madeleine's name from the Writing of the wrongs

I am the ball that scores political goals

I am the force for bigots and trolls

I am the reason to justify a cause

I am the flag that is taken to wars

I am the paper for writing poison in stacks

I am the bullet that starts the attacks

I am the knife that stabs in the dark

I am the confrontational spark

I am all of these things but not from my choice

I am unable to speak with my stolen voice

I am crying for everyone to know who I AM

The missing child who is Madeleine McCann

poison knife stab dark war
what sort of words used in a poem for a little girl very negative

by scotclogs 14.11.11 10:04

dragonfly wrote:What a vulgar poem done in Madeleine's name from the Writing of the wrongs

I am the ball that scores political goals

I am the force for bigots and trolls

I am the reason to justify a cause

I am the flag that is taken to wars

I am the paper for writing poison in stacks

I am the bullet that starts the attacks

I am the knife that stabs in the dark

I am the confrontational spark

I am all of these things but not from my choice

I am unable to speak with my stolen voice

I am crying for everyone to know who I AM

The missing child who is Madeleine McCann

poison knife stab dark war
what sort of words used in a poem for a little girl very negative

You are so right dragonfly, call that a poem
The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook - Page 3 442375629

WHAT A SICK PERSON, IT NEEDS HELP The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook - Page 3 968430

:evil:

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.11 23:14

Here's a quick poem by way of response:

Mrs Fenn heard a girl crying, ‘Daddy’ she did shout

Rachael was next door, she said she heard just nowt

May 3^rd was good, in fact the very best

Only two holidays pics, where are all the rest?

Payne went up to Kate- through the open patio door
.
Kate though heard a knock that she couldn’t ignore

She only had a towel; Dave was sent away -

But Dave does not agree, maintains she bid him stay.

Tanner saw a figure, Gerry was standing by

So was Jerry Wilkins, the photographic guy.

Except the two men never saw her, was she really there?

Yes, said Jane, he WAS - mustard chinos and black hair.

Matthew left the table, listened at the door

Did he go inside? He really wasn’t sure.

Abducted via the shutters, a jemmy was the tool

No! You left the patio door open, you silly, daft old fool...

tbc

by **Jill Havern** 15.11.11 8:31

The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook - Page 3 Mccann10

Tony Bennett wrote:Yes, said Jane, he WAS - mustard chinos and black hair.

The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

extracts from the article 21 June /19

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Aug 29th

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

horrid poem

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Re: The Writing of the Wrongs Articles - promoted on The McCanns' Official Facebook

Log in for more topics