My blog on the case...

ultimaThule wrote: Rabbitsland and I trust you will appreciate that the following critique of your blog is directed solely at its inaccuracies and is in no way to be construed as any criticism of, what I'm sure is, your very good self.

First, and most importantly, Gonçalo Amaral was not "sacked".  Dr Amaral was removed from the case cOctober 2007 and, as far I recall, resigned from his 27 year career with the PJ sometime in 2008 in order to be free to publish his book, The Truth Of The Lie, with intention of refuting the scurrilous comments which had been made about his handling of the investigation by the McCanns, their relatives, and the xenophobic UK MSM.  

I'll put the word "sacked" in quotes or change to 'removed from the case' - thankyou.

As it would seem you are not familiar with the chain of events which led to the preventable death of Jean Charles de Menezes, I would suggest you read this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and make the necessary amendments - the fact that Mr de Menezes had overstayed his visa played no part in the proceedings and he most certainly did not run 'like hell' at any time after leaving his flat and embarking on what was to be his fateful journey on London's public transport system.

It is dragged up (unfortunately) by certain people to infer that somehow that makes it ok and that he had it coming to him. As for whether he was running away at the point he was shot, or had attempted to run away, I'll come back to you. That's what I read in several sources and I'll come back to you.

Furthermore, had it been suspected or established that Mr de Menezes died at the hands of one or more of his fellow nationals, Brazil would have had the right to exercise jurisdiction in the matter and, subject only to the customary formalities between nation states, their investigating police officers would have worked in a spirit of co-operation with the Metropolitan Police in much the same way as Op Grange has conducted itself with the PJ, which has been with a distinct absence of "stomping around" Praia de Luz, or any other venue in Portugal, "like thugs in uniform as if they owned the place"..

There was no "flunked polygraph test".  On 7 September 2007 Kate McCann was asked 49 questions by the PJ and refused to answer all but the last one [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The word 'flunked' belongs in quotes - in the context that Kate had offered to do the test in the first place, no comment x 48 = ?

Eddie, the "cadaver dog" now sadly deceased, and Keela cannot be said to have "solved" any cases.  However, neither dog gave any false alerts in the more than 200 cases they were deployed on together.  On 6/7 August 2007 both dogs alerted to the Renault Scenic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which the McCanns had hired on 27 May 2007 and which was used by them until their return to the UK on Sunday 9 September 2007.  

The McCanns returned to the UK some 48 hours after being made arguidos.  It can't be said or implied that "they really weren't supposed to" leave the country as, unless they'd been able to cross the border into Spain as was considered by Gerry (see p.254 of Exhibit KH1), it's unlikely they would have got out of the country without the blessing of the Portuguese judicial authorities.

With regard to "What we do know is that some of the money was spent on hiring a god awful and highly dodgy 'private investigation' company who proved to be every bit as useless as the guy hired to persuade Sideshow Bob to leave Springfield. You won't be surprised to hear they came up with the square root of zip...and were later done for fraud", the McCanns hired a series of questionable 'investigation companies' but my concern is that your statements may be read as if you're suggesting that the McCanns were "done for fraud", rather than Kevin Halligen of Oakley International who was extradited to the USA where he was tried, convicted, and served jail time for defrauding a London law firm..

I was of course referring to the firm and not the McCanns themselves.

In addition, your statement that "A sum in the millions has also been spent silencing hacks who raise issues such as the ones being mentioned here" requires qualification otherwise you may find that you are, indeed, "about to join them"

I'll qualify and add one or two bits and pieces to it.

Having read some of your other blogs, imo this one does Mr de Menezes, Madeleine McCann,and yourself a disservice  - there's plenty of space to get the essential facts across and it's up to you to take the time necessary to disseminate accurate information rather than add to the plethora of inaccurate statements made by those who haven't bothered to study the case in any great depth.

In conclusion, in order to avoid any confusion and/or comparison with this site and as a precaution against unwelcome correspondence, I would also suggest you create a new title for your blog along the lines of 'My personal opinion of the curious case of Madeleine McCann".

Ok I will do - have already had a bit of nastiness from McCann luvvies - thought it was hilarious.

Thanks for your comments.

Knitted wrote:@UltimaThule

Hi, since I bumped the thread I feel I must comment on your response to it as I think you and I have interpreted it entirely differently

I don't use social media very much at all, (I have just four friends on my personal Facebook and think that's far too many! :D ) and I thought blogs were informal, 'cheeky' and personal. I read the blog differently, and as intentionally being 'sloppy' to poke fun at the media myths we're fed.  

For example... Let's take the first point you challenge about Prof. Amaral. I know he wasn't sacked, you know he wasn't sacked, everyone on here knows he wasn't sacked... and so when the blogger said he was sacked I presumed it was the writer poking fund at the MSM in their saying that was the case.  As I'm sure you know, if you just Google 'Amaral sacked' there are countless UK media newspapers that perpetuate the myth,  (The top search return on my PC, as I type, is from the ''Guardian' when it happened:  http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/03/ukcrime.uknews4...It uses the word 'sacked' in its headline, although when you read on it's not quite so clear cut!).

You then challenge the blogger by saying "the fact that Mr de Menezes had overstayed his visa played no part in the proceedings "... which confuses me a bit as that's exactly the same point that they are making. Again, everyone knows he apparently did not run, (or jump over the barriers without a ticket)... but that was what the MSM reported at the time to vindicate his being shot. Again... I know that, you know that, everyone here knows that and I think the blogger knows that and was, in an informal way, having a 'pop' at the way we are fed expedient lies.

Sorry, but the politics and subtle and not-so-subtle nuances of social media do my head in  ... It seems that what I read as a "tongue-in-cheek, informed and cheeky dig" might also be interpreted by others as malicious and ignorant misinformation!!  I guess I'll just stick to data, facts, measurements and logic in future.... I'll never understand people! (Been married twice and counting both of them I've still not got close to having a 1st anniversary!). People, and what they actually mean, have always puzzled me and I always misread them, (& they do me!) 

Please consider my 'bump' well and truly rescinded and I'll stick to measuring shadows on the Last Photo in future :D

A little from column A and a little from column B probably - have made one or two tweaks as Ultima makes some good points on questions of interpretation and clarification. Thanks both.

aquila wrote:A bit weird to join a forum, make one post and introduce your own blog.

What else can I say?