Almost there

by **Jill Havern** 21.10.17 9:08

Friday, 20 October 2017

Almost There

The Madeleine McCann Affair, as opposed to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, was created between May 4 and May 10 2007. In that one week the nine people at its heart created a written narrative of events for the police, which they submitted prior to their second round of interviews. Simultaneously the McCann family, against the wishes of the police, created a quite separate narrative for the media.

The motives for the two parallel actions remain unknown to this day. The results of them do not. It is now clear that, as a direct result of their actions, neither the police in the first instance, nor the public in the second were able to find out what had happened on May 3.

The Narrative Provided to the Portuguese Police

That statement does not impute criminal guilt of any kind to the parents or their friends, since, as a direct result of their actions, nobody has been able to establish publicly just what those actions were. That is why the 2007/8 investigation was shelved under “type of crime: unknown”. The nine people, all of them close to the child and her activities and whereabouts, most of them checking on her well-being while she slept that evening, had not even provided sufficient information for the justice authorities to determine whether she had been abducted!

The Archiving Summary stated there was no evidence of a specific crime against anyone. Not against the three arguidos, who were released from their legal restraints, not against their friends and not against person or persons unknown. The same summary noted that the group of nine had refused to assist the police in resolving issues concerning their evidence and the disappearance “for reasons unknown”.

Ten years later it is quite clear that the investigation failed because the Nine collectively created a narrative of events that does not correspond to the now known facts. Again, that does not impute guilt; but it is certain that it did not assist the police in taking the first step in every investigation – forming a clear picture of what the people closest to a crime scene were doing before and during the crime itself. They never did find out.

There is no way round this whether you are a supporter or an opponent of the McCanns. The document they produced is firstly a travesty of what witness evidence should be. What possessed a group of educated people to “recollect collectively” rather than give their individual statements to the police is unknown. Much worse than this breach of all witness norms is that they “filled in gaps” in each other’s stories rather than giving witness evidence of what each of them had seen and experienced. And it is packed with subjective assumptions and spin which completely subvert the idea of witness evidence. Words used in their document supposedly describing events include, in order, "believed", "possible", "possibly", "may well have been", "possibly drugged", "possibly", "possibly", "probably", "perhaps", "probably", "possibly", "perhaps".

When did you last experience a "possible event"? Experienced a "perhaps event" recently? Felt "possibly drugged" lately?

Yes We Will...No We Won't

So the first job of the Portuguese police in interviewing them was to try and unravel this stuff as well as the possible reasons for its creation – instead of being able to concentrate their limited time on finding the child. They were unable to unravel it because seven of the nine refused to help them do so. Previously Jane Tanner had stated on television:

BILTON: So you said you're prepared to answer questions.

JANE: Yeah.

BILTON: In some ways would you like to?

JANE: I'd love to, yeah, I think.. you know, I actively want to be re-interviewed. If there is a feeling that what we're saying is wrong, you know, be interviewed.. you know, and we can clarify that it's not wrong, you know, we're not making things up, it's just what happened.

BILTON: Have you been asked to return to be questioned?

JANE: No.

BILTON: Would you be prepared to?

JANE: Yes. Yeah of course we would. Yeah, and I mean if it helps to find Madeleine, be interviewed tomorrow, you know, we're obviously key witnesses.”

As we all know she wouldn't and didn't.

The Man Who Never Was

But the greatest charge against the Nine’s "evidence" is that their document, headed “Sequence of Events: Thursday 3rd May 2007 - 2030 to 2200.As recalled by [the nine names]” was no such thing: it was a document that collectively claimed, suggested or hinted throughout that someone who is now, according to Scotland Yard, known never to have existed, had left traces or clues of his existence in the McCann apartment. For the philosophers amongst us a modern definition of truth is a “statement in accordance with the facts”. The written statement was not in accordance with the facts: in other words it cannot be true.

Read the document, as both Portuguese and British police forces have done many times. This “collectively” says things like the door is slightly ajar (about 45 degrees), and adds, just in case the police didn't get their gist, which is unusual, making it fit perfectly with the idea that the “abductor” seen a few minutes later by Tanner had moved the door as he entered the room. It is followed by the ludicrous on leaving the room, GM shuts the door to approximately 5 degrees, (do you routinely measure your door-gaps to an accuracy of 1/72 of a circle? Of course you do) preparing the way for the later MO enters flat... He does not enter the bedroom but can see through a now quite open door (greater than 45 degrees) into the room. Another perfect fit. And, inevitably, we have of KM’s 10 PM visit, She is about to leave, when she notices the bedroom door was open (approximately 60 degrees).

Readers will get the message by now and perhaps or possibly ask themselves the question, “if the abductor seen so well and described so vividly does not, as Scotland Yard states, exist, then who in Christ’s name had been opening and closing doors?” According to the document there are no timeslots available for anyone else to have got into the apartment before 9.35PM - after the door had already been moved twice.

The words “seen so well and described so vividly” do not refer to Jane Tanner's description. Out of the 1153 words in the document supposedly covering an hour and a half “sequence of events”, over three hundred (25%) are spent describing the person whom Tanner claimed to have seen for approximately fifteen seconds or so at dusk . We’ll simply state as fact that Tanner's police description of what she saw here has been augmented collectively to fit the narrative of a child abductor: she did not describe all those features in a police statement.

And only when the identity of the person whom Tanner actually saw becomes known – as it will, one way or another – will we all find out how well he and the child ever matched the Nine’s comprehensive description. All those details lovingly described, including that the child was looking "possibly drugged", all written down and sitting waiting patiently to be compared with the age, build, appearance and clothing of the man the Yard say she actually saw.

Ever wondered why he hasn't been identified yet? Ever wondered why he's being kept under wraps like a smallpox sample? He hasn't been identified because his appearance might prejudice, and more than prejudice, a trial, and we'll say no more about it. But whether a trial comes or not, he will be identified, and back-identified, by someone wanting the huge fee that a tabloid is likely to offer once Grange and any associated legal processes, are finished. That will be interesting, won't it?

So much for the “assistance” that those nine witnesses gave to the PJ. As far as is publicly known, not one of them ever made an effort to undo the damage before Operation Grange. In the Leicester interviews of 2008, where the police were constrained by treaty in the questions they could ask, not one of them helped unravel the confusion they had caused. The oldest of them, a sprightly sixty-plus M/S Webster, claimed to remember hardly anything about a holiday taken only a year previously; the rest, in every single case, made the confusion even worse.

Inescapable

There is no need to comment further on this performance except to repeat: along with the parallel extra-legal media narrative of the McCann family, this is how the Madeleine McCann Affair began. Had the Nine not prepared that pre-emptive evidence together, and had they not refused to explain their actions to the police ever since, then the “Affair”, with all the opportunities it provided for fund-raising, media campaigning, public hysteria and endless conspiracy theories, would almost certainly have ended many years ago.

It’s at this point that we part company with those who say that this dismal and thoroughly strange performance means the Nine are guilty of a crime. That's not for us to say or to suggest. That their performance has damaged the investigation is obvious, as the Archiving Summary attests; that they not only colluded in preparing an untruthful “narrative of events” (see the definition of untruthful above) but also lied individually about the “checking” (attested to by the co-author of the Archiving Summary in court in 2009) is established. But why, and what pressures short of a crime may have made them do so, have remained unknown.

Until now. No reinvestigation could possibly avoid confronting these indisputable facts. No reinvestigation could progress without taking “the first step” referred to above. No re-investigation could possibly be wound-up without the questions surrounding the Nine’s narrative having being clarified in depth and in detail. In other words that has already been done by the police re-investigations (nothing whatever to do with "interviews as suspects"), apart from the loose ends.

What the consequences will be we don’t know. But it’s all we’ve ever wanted, apart from the now-achieved vindication of Goncalo Amaral, and it’s been well worth the wait. It's done!

Almost there Madeline-McCann-Kate-Gerry-10-Years-Maddie-Praia-da-Luz-iVigil-Rothley-Leicestershire-611102

Blacksmith (the sane one).

by Guest 21.10.17 10:20

Poor devastated Gerry McCann, he has not been able to work or move on since his daughter disappeared. Endless sleepless nights . . . days, weeks, months and years . . . endlessly searching for her while his life stopped on that awful night.

Wait a minute . . .

by MayMuse 21.10.17 11:39

"It's done?"

Is it?

It may be that the McCanns and fellow friends have "done" themselves by all their nonsense blabbering in trying to hide the "unthinkable" but it's what led many (along with evidence/facts) to think that "unthinkable" ....

Their credibility of which theyve gone to extreme lengths to protect cannot be salvaged in any shape or form.....what is done is done on their part by themselves with a more than a little help from their "friends" , but for me and probably countless others ...it's not done for Madeleine, she still deserves as much justice today and respect, something I feel she did not get on that "holiday" or since....she has become a little girl "lost" in every sense of the word, unfortunately if truth and justice doesn't count for Madeleine then how can it count for any other innocent child?

No it's not done!

All my own opinion of course.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.10.17 12:04

Stepping in for a moment as I just cannot let this post by 'Blacksmith' go by without comment.

I am sorry to see this post on the forum for lots of reasons, but in particular this from 'Blacksmith':

QUOTE "The Madeleine McCann Affair, as opposed to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, was created between May 4 and May 10 2007. In that one week the nine people at its heart created a written narrative of events for the police..." UNQUOTE

This has been 'Blacksmith's' line all along. He has utterly dismissed, throughout the past 10 years, any suggestion that something very serious may have happened to Madeleine in the days before Thursday 3 May.

Furthermore, if you read his main comment on the Madeleine McCann case, his article 'The Cracked Mirror', he states quite clearly in that article that he believes if it possible that Madeleine may have been abducted, as the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends claim.

Many very good posters on CMOMM have taken the trouble to point out that the evidence suggests that that the 'creation of a narrative of events' by the McCanns, the Tapas 7 and others, occurred well before Thursday 3 May. 'Blacksmith' always wants to take people away from that conclusion.

The burden of CMMOM's research is that a script for the abduction claim began to be written well before 3 May. Only after that did the McCanns and the Tapas 7 compile the typewritten 'narrative of events', produced on 10 May.

'Blacksmith' may be clever.

'Blacksmith' may (for some) write entertainingly.

But Blacksmith is a deceiver....

by Verdi 21.10.17 12:09

It pains me to admit, that's actually an excellent summation of the campaigns objective and the resultant 'McCann effect'.

There is only one stumbling block that I can see, which is yet to be explained - Operation Grange !!!

Sorry blacksmith (if it is thee), Operation Grange was, is and will always be the gatekeeper that's preventing the truth from revealing it's grotesque head. If it can be proven that the establishment, operating under the guise of Grange for the past six years +, have been legitimately reviewing/investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, then I'll gladly retract my every word of criticism.

Somehow I can't envisage that happening, although not clairvoyant.

by Verdi 21.10.17 12:21

Tony, our paths have crossed!

I agree with what you say about the general stance of the blacksmithbureau but as I see it from this latest piece (which if I might say is more pithy than the usual waffle), from the perspective of public knowledge, the McCann campaign narrative was propagated from the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007. Not Friday 4th as opined by the blacksmith - the wheels were already in motion directly following Kate McCanns cry of 'she's gone' !!!

I doubt very much if it changes the blacksmiths' general view on the case but in this instance I don't think the realistic time frame for Madeleine's disappearance comes into play. It might not be meant as such, nonetheless that's how I'm interpreting it for the purpose of passing comment.

by Liz Eagles 21.10.17 12:22

It all boils down to whether anyone can believe Operation Grange has any integrity or whether it is a complete and utter farce and from what I've seen and read to date I can only believe it is a farce because it has achieved nothing and has cost a great deal.

There is a suggestion patience is needed, Operation Grange has had its hands tied in red tape and the rogatory interviews were difficult.

I seem to recall Jim Gamble inferring a similar observation along the lines of things were uncoordinated in UK, everyone was trying to do their best and a single command operation was needed. I believe CEOP was absorbed into the NCA not long afterward/around that time.

Here's the latest message from Blacksmith 'you gotta have faith'.

It's difficult to have faith in the garbage surrounding this case which has literally ruined lives and ended one.

'Bad boys, bad boys, what ya gonna do, what ya gonna do when we come for you' is the signature tune of a US police television production shown on UK television. This is a very old song which has continued to play for years. Isn't PR great!

Except the case of Madeleine McCann or the 'Affair' as Blacksmith prefers to label it doesn't instill any faith at all and the headline is misleading to say the least.

by Verdi 21.10.17 12:41

Apologies, I should heave been more thorough rather than generalizing on the 'McCann effect'. I most definitely part company from here..

"It’s at this point that we part company with....."

The blacksmithbureau implies inside knowledge (a familiar trait) - knowledge it does not have! It is but supposition based on blind ignorance as regards the blatant cover-up of this heinous crime. Taking the moral high ground one might say.

Being politically correct and namby-pamby doesn't expose the evils of the world, nor does it solve crime. Casting aside all the sanctimonious 'thou shalt not bear false witness..' - just prove to the world that Operation Grange, working on behalf of the establishment, is a legitimate force. Who, aside from routine policing, have thoroughly investigated the 'McCann affair' [sic], all but tying up the loose ends.

So we're almost there are we - and where might that be? Does it really take six + years? To coin a phrase - where's the evidence! From where I'm standing, the PJ were making monumental strides forward during the summer of 2007, Dr Amaral was removed from the case, from whence the investigation went all wishy-washy. Then came Operation Grange, like a knight in shinning armour, to go where no man had dared go before - have they made monumental strides forward? Nah! They have however managed to cast asunder the meritorious work of the PJ.

Lest they forget..

Almost there Dogs

"Ask the dogs Sandra..." - "No Gerry, I think I'm asking you..."

bingo

<---- Ex-DCI Andy Redwood having a 'revelation moment'

by MayMuse 21.10.17 13:01

Almost there......it's done

The start and the end of Blacksmiths article..... neither here nor there!

As per my previous post...it certainly is not done!

by Liz Eagles 21.10.17 13:05

Blacksmith does love a good schmooze with Cristobell...and Mr Kipling makes exceedingly good cakes. That'll keep him laughing for a moment or two.

by Verdi 21.10.17 13:08

You can always tell a person by the company they keep.

by Phoebe 21.10.17 17:04

The author of "Almost There" has, IMO, written this piece blinkered by the tunnel vision of focusing narrowly on the Tapas 9's contradictory explanations re. who checked, when did they check, what did they see - and by suggesting these contradictions are the source of "The McCann Affair".
For me, the McCann "affair" is governed by the fact that a child has vanished and that two dogs, experts in their respective fields, have clearly indicated that a cadaver and human blood were present in the apartment from which she allegedly disappeared in such incredible circumstances. Cadaver odour was also found on items belonging to the missing child and her parents. Their hire-car and its key-fob also gave positive alerts for human blood and cadaver odour.

There are only a few possibilities - 1. both dogs were wrong for the first time in their careers. Their errors were, for some inexplicable reason, simultaneous and only happened when dealing with places/items connected to the McCanns. 2. Someone from the police, without Martin Grime's knowledge, somehow managed to plant cadaver odour and got hold of blood which initially tested positive for 15/19 alleles of Madleine's D.N.A. 3. Martin Grime was "in on it" and got his dogs to lie by giving false alerts. 4. A corpse had been in 5A, and its odour was transmitted to clothing, cuddlecat and the car key-fob. This corpse had also been in the hire-car boot, and was responsible for the blood and cadaver odour found there.

While the Tapas 9's ramblings arouse suspicion they are nothing as important as this simple fact - a child has vanished from an apartment in unlikely circumstances, the dogs say someone bled and died in that apartment. That's the crux of "The Affair".

by nglfi 21.10.17 17:14

Phoebe that summarises it perfectly. There's really nothing else to say, and it remains extraordinary that those are the salient facts of the case, yet the British public either remain unaware or have been brainwashed into forgetting. Who can blame them really, when the police seem to be confirming this by conducting an 'Operation' which refuses to investigate the McCanns.

by willowthewisp 21.10.17 17:24

Verdi wrote:You can always tell a person by the company they keep.

No need to draw a Gerry Company list,of mysterious well intended cohorts,could also call it a Operation Grange Christmas Quiz?
How many years now Nichola,"I Don't nick erm before the y know there'yr nicked",Four years,Sonia's documentary is taking as long??
"Oh tie a Yellow Ribbon around the Old Oak Tree"

by sandancer 21.10.17 17:32

nglfi wrote:Phoebe that summarises it perfectly. There's really nothing else to say, and it remains extraordinary that those are the salient facts of the case, yet the British public either remain unaware or have been brainwashed into forgetting. Who can blame them really, when the police seem to be confirming this by conducting an 'Operation' which refuses to investigate the McCanns.

Refuses to investigate the McCanns

Refuses to acknowledge or even mention the findings of Eddie and Keela !

by MayMuse 22.10.17 12:18

Indeed whatever happened to Madeleine, under whatever circumstances seems a no go zone for truth!

One thing that bothers me , well one of them as there are many, is this....

"Window of time"
OG are investigating the remit of "abduction" as has been made clear .....Revelationary this "window of time" was extended when tanner man became crecheman and eliminated from the "mix".....(Crimewatch/Redwood)

So the focus was then supposedly narrowed on this "window of time"

And yet the many inconsistencies and anomalies presented by the "key witnesses" who by all accounts were in the thick of this time span, most of which have been consistently contradictory, have been and are seemingly blatantly ignored by SY.....

Madeleine's caregivers and the dogs findings completely sidestepped...nothing to see here? So if OG truly is a farce, a cover up as many have this impression and it's interest is to protect the parents and/or the real truth being revealed... why the need to remove a "potential abductor" ?

What purpose did it serve?

If this "window of time" was believed to be the opportune moment Madeleine went missing, why eliminate what would be the obvious and convenient "choice" to adhere to the remit of "abduction"....?

What did it leave OG to then "work" with? Where did their "focus" concentrate?

More critical lines of enquiry?

Last throw of the dice?

154K

Sounds like a Gamble?

What if the " investigation" is real behind all the media commentary?

Was this revelationary moment a "shot in the foot?" or a well thought out "gotch cha" message?

What if they're playing the waiting game for their "opportune moment" or the nod of the head from "a.n.other" in the "know" to nail the "window" down?

by Verdi 22.10.17 12:44

MayMuse wrote:
So if OG truly is a farce, a cover up as many have this impression and it's interest is to protect the parents and/or the real truth being revealed... why the need to remove a "potential abductor" ?

What purpose did it serve?

To get Jane Tanner off the hook - she who had been living with the ghost of her own creation (with a little help from her friends) for six years. That's a long time to be haunted by the past.

During the same 2013 Crimewatch production that covertly disposed of Tannerman, another 'person of interest' (duel faceted) was introduced - said to have been based on a key witness sighting, widely known as Smithman.

As far as I'm aware, said Smithman is still roaming free. This to me does not indicate a legitimate operational Operation Grange - it has all the markings of a scam of huge proportions.

Whatever, neither Smithman, Tannerman nor crecheman have materialised into flesh and blood - they are but cardboard cut-outs to dress or undress, whichever takes yer fancy. So much more convenient to introduce an 'unfindable' make believe abductor.

Meanwhile on with the show..

by MayMuse 22.10.17 13:11

Yes Smithman who remarkably resembles GM and efits hidden for a considerable number of years....

So why introduce "him" ?

It made things more questionable...

Why "save" JT and throw someone else under the bus ?

IF none exist..if both fabricated...if efits not real.......the objective is?

Sorry I fail to see the point if other than there must be a reason somewhat?

Don't buy to confuse the public
If that's what it was?

It didn't work for many!

by willowthewisp 22.10.17 14:43

MayMuse wrote:Yes Smithman who remarkably resembles GM and efits hidden for a considerable number of years....

So why introduce "him" ?

It made things more questionable...

Why "save" JT and throw someone else under the bus ?

IF none exist..if both fabricated...if efits not real.......the objective is?

Sorry I fail to see the point if other than there must be a reason somewhat?

Don't buy to confuse the public
If that's what it was?

It didn't work for many!

International rescue called 30 April,RM to Portugal 1st May 2007?
April 30th Wayback time machine 2/500billion chance of malfunction,Madelenie,jpeg CEOP release date 3 May captured?
No person is supposed to have met RM before Friday 4 May 2007,when Russell,Ste Carpenter introduce to chief amigo Gerry,08.30-09.00?
Sandra Felguiras ,"Do you know Robert Murat,Before Madeleine disappeared",Cough,I'm not going to comment on that?
RM told porkies of his whereabouts when asked by Portugal PJ.
JT,fingers Robert Murat,as Abductor?
Smithman states RM not the Abductor.
Martin Brunt,Sky News,has secret recorded messages between RM,Lawyers,SKY?
Brian Kennedy,Robert Murat,Legal Barristers from both sides,whilst investigation is ongoing,when they are not supposed to be discussing the case?
April 2008,UK JT withdraws the Identification of Robert Murat as the Abductor!
I think the point is,they do not care who happens to be beneath any moving vehicle as long as they are not underneath it?

by Verdi 22.10.17 21:29

MayMuse wrote:Yes Smithman who remarkably resembles GM and efits hidden for a considerable number of years....

The Crimewatch e-fit only resembles Gerry McCann if the viewer wishes is to. A rough sketch of a head without colour nor contour nor body is hardly conducive to possible identification.

Henri Exton had a serious grievance with his ex-employer Halligan. It could be argued that the alleged secreted e-fits based on the Smith sighting as reported by the Murdoch mogul empire The Times, was invented by Exton as revenge against Halligan. Whatever, it favoured the McCanns with the handsome sum of 55,000k as an out of court settlement - funny that innit?

So why introduce "him" ?

A potential abductor who will never ever be located because he doesn't exist

It made things more questionable...

Why "save" JT and throw someone else under the bus ?

You can't throw a fictitious character under a bus - only in story land.

IF none exist..if both fabricated...if efits not real.......the objective is?

Already answered above - a potential abductor who will never be located because he doesn't exist

Sorry I fail to see the point if other than there must be a reason somewhat?

Don't understand what you mean.

Don't buy to confuse the public
If that's what it was?

It didn't work for many!

by **Jill Havern** 27.10.17 11:21

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Almost There - Part Two

The History of the Madeleine McCann Affair Foretold

“The Madeleine McCann Affair, as opposed to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, was created between May 4 and May 10 2007. In that one week the nine people at its heart created a written narrative of events for the police, which they submitted prior to their second round of interviews. Simultaneously the McCann family, against the wishes of the police, created a quite separate narrative for the media. The motives for the two parallel actions remain unknown to this day. The results of them do not.”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Now we come, briefly, to the second track.

But let’s jump ahead for a moment to September 2007. Kate McCann is describing her well-practised modus operandi in making a false claim (that the PJ had offered her a blackmailing “deal”) go right round the world.

“Friday 7 September. After a measly two hours’ sleep we got up and braced ourselves for the day ahead. I remained calm. For a good couple of hours we were on the phone, calling family and friends to make them aware of the situation and to give them the green light [our italics] to voice their outrage and despair if they wanted to. Nobody needed a second invitation. They’d all been struggling to contain their concerns for a long time.”

Months before, early on May 5, one of the McCann family had given a broadcast interview for exactly the same reason using exactly the same method, even though their elaborate PR team hadn't yet been created. She had been extensively and comprehensively briefed by Gerry McCann during the preceding thirty hours and had the information and authority to discuss the matter – the green light – even though the couple had been asked not to contact the media. These are her words. The comments in italics are ours.

__________________________________________________________________________________

PHILOMENA MCCANN: Absolutely. It was hours before the local police turned up [1. Complete invention] and we're talking two bobbies [2.Note the intentionally contemptuous description] that totally downplayed the incident [3.Complete invention] and said that Maddie had maybe just wandered off, and that... but what 3-year-old would wander off for hours on their own? [Note the dismissal of the childish “sardine eaters” investigative abilities compared with the McCann family's weighty investigative powers] It took the CID 5 hours before they responded [4.Complete invention] to come and even then it was, kind of, shrug of the shoulders [5.Complete invention and more defamation]. There's been no feedback from the Portuguese police to Gerry [6.Complete invention]. The stress levels have been through the roof because of this, it's just been shocking. [6.Job done]

1. We all know the true timings. Gerry McCann and she lied.

2. “Intentionally” is the word that matters.

3. They dismissed nothing; they could find no evidence of an abduction and were troubled by the responses of the parents to the incident. They gave their time and service and searched. For this they were spat on.

4. Note that Woolfall, very close to the parents for the first couple of weeks, states that they “appeared to think” that she might have wandered off. So who was kidding whom?

5.”It took the CID…shrug of the shoulders”. Did this woman realise the international forces that would be unleashed by inflammatory libels like this – or was she simply stupid?

6. The start of the myth of the suffering martyrs, deliberately created by the pair.

_________________________________________________________________________________

And there it is, the history of the Madeleine McCann Affair foretold. First, set up a channel for lying to the media about the Portuguese investigation, before any “Government” advisors/conspirators have had time to prompt or help them. Second, lie about it from the very beginning. Third, whip up feelings against the Portuguese and their lack of response to the theft of a British baby from her bed by their criminal countrymen, thus guaranteeing media hysteria in both countries.

Fourth, dismiss the investigators themselves with contempt as incompetent, bungling amateurs, thus triggering the UK “Parson’s Response” of credulous ignorance and abuse of the Portuguese that has gone on ever since. Fifth, attempt to dismiss in the public mind any possibility of anything but abduction – exactly as Smethurst was to do openly months later in Panorama. Sixth, lie about the way the parents were being treated terribly by the Portuguese, sending their stress levels “through the roof”, resulting in a surge of sympathy money from the public, who thus financed their own deceivers for the next decade. And all along the way make on-the-record statements that you are "co-operating with the investigation" which you have "complete confidence in".

That’s the second track laid out in embryo but entire in its aims and methods. Everything else - the recruitment of paid liars, the millions of articles and interviews all carrying the same messages, the McCann blog, the McCann book - was just repetition and elaboration of what you've read above.

by Guest 27.10.17 13:35

Either PHILOMENA MCCANN is a LIAR or she also was deceived by her little brother. If it was the latter there must have been a point in the last ten years where she thought "wait a minute . . .". If so she then had a decision to make as how to act in the future. The saying by Mark Twain springs to mind, 'It's easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled.'.

by willowthewisp 27.10.17 16:05

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Almost There - Part Two

The History of the Madeleine McCann Affair Foretold

“The Madeleine McCann Affair, as opposed to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, was created between May 4 and May 10 2007. In that one week the nine people at its heart created a written narrative of events for the police, which they submitted prior to their second round of interviews. Simultaneously the McCann family, against the wishes of the police, created a quite separate narrative for the media. The motives for the two parallel actions remain unknown to this day. The results of them do not.”
__________________________________________________________________________________

Now we come, briefly, to the second track.

But let’s jump ahead for a moment to September 2007. Kate McCann is describing her well-practised modus operandi in making a false claim (that the PJ had offered her a blackmailing “deal”) go right round the world.
“Friday 7 September. After a measly two hours’ sleep we got up and braced ourselves for the day ahead. I remained calm. For a good couple of hours we were on the phone, calling family and friends to make them aware of the situation and to give them the green light [our italics] to voice their outrage and despair if they wanted to. Nobody needed a second invitation. They’d all been struggling to contain their concerns for a long time.”
Months before, early on May 5, one of the McCann family had given a broadcast interview for exactly the same reason using exactly the same method, even though their elaborate PR team hadn't yet been created. She had been extensively and comprehensively briefed by Gerry McCann during the preceding thirty hours and had the information and authority to discuss the matter – the green light – even though the couple had been asked not to contact the media. These are her words. The comments in italics are ours.
__________________________________________________________________________________

PHILOMENA MCCANN: Absolutely. It was hours before the local police turned up [1. Complete invention] and we're talking two bobbies [2.Note the intentionally contemptuous description] that totally downplayed the incident [3.Complete invention] and said that Maddie had maybe just wandered off, and that... but what 3-year-old would wander off for hours on their own? [Note the dismissal of the childish “sardine eaters” investigative abilities compared with the McCann family's weighty investigative powers] It took the CID 5 hours before they responded [4.Complete invention] to come and even then it was, kind of, shrug of the shoulders [5.Complete invention and more defamation]. There's been no feedback from the Portuguese police to Gerry [6.Complete invention]. The stress levels have been through the roof because of this, it's just been shocking. [6.Job done]
1. We all know the true timings. Gerry McCann and she lied.

2. “Intentionally” is the word that matters.

3. They dismissed nothing; they could find no evidence of an abduction and were troubled by the responses of the parents to the incident. They gave their time and service and searched. For this they were spat on.

4. Note that Woolfall, very close to the parents for the first couple of weeks, states that they “appeared to think” that she might have wandered off. So who was kidding whom?

5.”It took the CID…shrug of the shoulders”. Did this woman realise the international forces that would be unleashed by inflammatory libels like this – or was she simply stupid?

6. The start of the myth of the suffering martyrs, deliberately created by the pair.

_________________________________________________________________________________

And there it is, the history of the Madeleine McCann Affair foretold. First, set up a channel for lying to the media about the Portuguese investigation, before any “Government” advisors/conspirators have had time to prompt or help them. Second, lie about it from the very beginning. Third, whip up feelings against the Portuguese and their lack of response to the theft of a British baby from her bed by their criminal countrymen, thus guaranteeing media hysteria in both countries.

Fourth, dismiss the investigators themselves with contempt as incompetent, bungling amateurs, thus triggering the UK “Parson’s Response” of credulous ignorance and abuse of the Portuguese that has gone on ever since. Fifth, attempt to dismiss in the public mind any possibility of anything but abduction – exactly as Smethurst was to do openly months later in Panorama. Sixth, lie about the way the parents were being treated terribly by the Portuguese, sending their stress levels “through the roof”, resulting in a surge of sympathy money from the public, who thus financed their own deceivers for the next decade. And all along the way make on-the-record statements that you are "co-operating with the investigation" which you have "complete confidence in".

That’s the second track laid out in embryo but entire in its aims and methods. Everything else - the recruitment of paid liars, the millions of articles and interviews all carrying the same messages, the McCann blog, the McCann book - was just repetition and elaboration of what you've read above.

Yes,who announced most of the Portugal PJ, Philomena version of events,a fella in a"dirty mac"known as Martin Brunt? His friends,Gerry,big Jim,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe?
But now well known for Maliciously hounding Mrs Brenda Leyland, via Sky News Corporation,now who first broadcast the disappearance,Brenda was terrorised by Brunt on whose behalf,for her opinions or facts of the case,remember that dossier Bernard,handed to you by a"Family member"?
Also note who has been most prominent in the events emerging from Operation Grange,the dirty mac wearer and one Colin Sutton,joined at the hip?
The main question still remains unanswered,will "Justice or Truth"emerge on behalf of Madeleine McCann,reported missing by her parents on 3 May 2007,Portugal,apartment 5a Ocean club?
Since that date,the spin meisters have colluded with whoever they needed to or seek affinity to,to openly deceive a wide audience of people to this very day?

by Liz Eagles 27.10.17 16:22

Tony Bennett has already painstakingly pointed out that Blacksmith is a deceiver.

No doubt my comment will label me a 'Bennett Babe' in some quarters, specifically the area of Twitter.

Blacksmith posts on his own blog with varying degrees of consistency (other than a propensity for scatology and a dislike for Tony Bennett and CMoMM which are a constant), offers no right to reply on his blog and hangs around Cristobell's blog, soothing her libertarian attitude to all things.

Why give houseroom to a snake?