Happy Birthday Madeleine McCann - Spudgun

candyfloss wrote:Friday, 13 May 2011

Happy Birthday Madeleine McCann

It remains to be seen whether or not the British Government performs yet another U turn on their decision to fund the Metropolitan Police’s New Scotland Yard “review” of the evidence relating to the case of the missing girl, Madeleine McCann.


David, “call me Dave” Cameron has just announced that he is asking the Met’s finest to “bring their expertise to the case”. Or as Britain’s finest journo’s opine:

”Scotland Yard Hunt’s for Maddie” and

“Yard to try and bring Maddie back”.

As I currently write this, I understand that there are huge reservations and not an inconsiderable amount of discomfort amongst certain Senior Officers about this proposal. Ostensibly, because it means tying up much needed resources and manpower on what is, effectively, a VERY cold case.

I would also suggest that quite a few of those reservations are held by bemused officers who will also be wondering how on earth such a review can possibly take place, given that it is going to require MORE than their “expertise” in negotiating certain ‘aspects’ of the case.

Aspects that have categorically NO place in Team McCann’s agenda.

Aspects that unequivocally NEVER get mentioned in the British Press, nor are ever uttered from the mouths of its senior Media figures.

Aspects that have no place in the sentiments or thoughts of the wealthy business figures who have bankrolled many of the McCanns exploits and sojourns around the world in their quest to “find” Madeleine.

Aspects that have probably never even crossed the sycophantic leanings of the innumerable celebrities, pop stars, writers, TV presenters and public figures who have tied their ribbon on the Madeleine McCann cause.

Those aspects being the Portuguese aspects.

And what do those Portuguese aspects appear to be that we haven't heard from Goncalo already? We need to move forward not regurgitate nonsense

For, if there IS to be a review, then it cannot possibly take place without incorporating the Portuguese Police findings.

I think they are all aware of that, but I'm sure they'd thank you for your appreciation.

And as much as Team McCann and the British Press, (and clearly to a degree, the British AUTHORITIES), like to assert that the Portuguese closed the case by concluding that the McCanns, (along with Robert Murat), were CLEARED of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a thorough scrutiny of that final report reveals a rather different picture.

I don't know how thorough you want it but in a nutshell that their status as arguido had been lifted as no evidence could be found to suggest there had been any involvement into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann by her parents. And in very simple terms for you that means innocent until proven guilty. As it stands, they are innocent.

For the report clearly notes a number of issues which are worthy of mention and indeed, further evaluation. In fact, as I have pointed out previously, I often wonder if in fact, whether the Press or the Authorities have actually read the report at all, or have in fact read a DIFFERENT report.

Maybe its you that has a DIFERENT report.

From day one, this whole case has been beset with innuendo, supposition, conjecture, opinion, and theory, some of which is definitely conspiratorial. But the Police, IF they carry out a review, are going to have to address and explain away some FACTS that the McCanns and their supporters are going to find rather unpalatable.

Like the FACT that the ONLY, tangible evidence that Madeleine McCann was ever abducted originates from Jane Tanner.

And if they are going to try and validate and support Ms. Tanner as a credible witness, then they are going to have to try and explain not only WHICH of the MANY differing eyewitness accounts she and Team McCann assert to be genuine ARE, in fact, genuine:- (egg man, bundle man, spotty man, Robert Murat, hippy-man, paedo-man, FEMALE-man, god-knows –who- else –man), but also explain why ALL of the others are NOT.


I have a feeling that they look at the case files with less cyncism than yourself.

More importantly, (and I don’t profess to be a Scotland Yard ‘expert’), but if one is to conclude that Tanner is LYING, (and she clearly is unless she wishes to insist that ALL of her estimated 9 or 10 different descriptions are correct); then one would have to conclude that the evidence for an abduction is, NONE.

Look up the word 'lie'. You obviously have no concept of the meaning.

A Scotland Yard man of merit would then have to further read the report, together with all the Portuguese reports, statements, documents and contemporaneous notes. And he would have to explain away the clear “inconsistencies” in the witness statements made by the McCanns and their Tapas friends, as clearly pointed out in the report that Team McCann asserts to be the one that puts them in the clear. Inconsistencies surrounding their movements, their observations, their positions at any given time, what they witnessed, what they saw.

I think anyone with a little common sense will understand why there were inconsistencies......and some wont!

In order to clear this inextricable confusion and mess up, perhaps the Yard’s “expertise” can coerce the McCanns and their friends to undertake the essential reconstruction that the Portuguese could NOT persuade them to take.

What for? See above!

Another ASPECT that the Yard are going to have to contend with are the use of Enhanced Victim Recovery Dogs. Eddie & Keela’s findings in the McCann apartment and their vehicle and on many of the personal possessions of the McCanns are well documented.

It is a very simple matter for Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns to glibly refute their findings, explaining away their “unreliability” and inadmissibility as evidence by pointing to a case in the United States where such evidence was successfully challenged by a top US Lawyer.

Bit tricky to do the same thing when such dogs have made well documented, irrefutably PROVEN contributions to many Scotland Yard cases, not to mention hundreds of OTHER Constabularies all over the UK and elsewhere Worldwide.


That would be a complete waste of public money. There objective is to discover the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann and her abductor, not to waste time disproving the dogs which has been done time and time again.


Best NOT ask the dogs, eh Gerry?

Equally, perhaps the Yard can procure those DNA samples that were initially reported as being a “match” to Madeleine McCann, and explain why eventually, the FSS at Birmingham, (a department now facing closure) and who have for many years been Universally acknowledged as being “the BEST in the world”, eventually decided, (after much delay and confusion), that the material in fact, was “not identified to pertaining to anyone specific”.

The BEST in the world? Says who.....you! lol

Perhaps the man at the Yard can exercise his expertise and cast some light on that blue holdall that Martin Brunt NEVER mentions anymore.

If its significant yes, but highly unlikely.

No! I jest a little.

You jest a lot.


What I REALLY want the Met’s finest to do is ask Kate McCann exactly WHAT it was that was shown to Kate at her interview. As the final report clearly states:

“Kate Healy was not immediately made an arguida, but merely interviewed voluntarily as a witness. Only after her interview was she made an arguida, that is, after she was confronted with concrete facts that might lead to her incrimination”

“...concrete facts that might lead to her incrimination” ???

Concrete FACTS, Kate? Gerry? Mr. Mitchell? It can’t be brushed off as “scurrilous, unhelpful speculation” by those bungling Porto Plod. It’s right there. In black and white. In the report.

The report that Team McCann so vehemently wave in the faces of anyone who dares to doubt their version of events. You can’t pick and choose the good bits, Clarence, and dismiss the rest as hogwash.

I think you might just find that the Met will.........for all too obvious reasons.


I don’t personally care about the McCanns. I honestly don’t know what they did or didn’t do. In the great scope of things, it matters little.

I don’t even admonish or criticise them for systematically leaving their children unattended, an act that would obviously contribute to Madeleine’s disappearance, were an abduction genuine.

Why not? Because I believe that the fact that their children were alone has absolutely NOTHING to do with Madeleine being missing.

Come on then chief inspector, what did happen? lol Death the evening before and a 'doctored' last photo?

I’d so love for Madeleine McCann to walk home tomorrow; to confound the world and be found, safe and well. But that can’t surely happen. Because if we have to hold on to some vestige of common sense and sanity in this case, then we have to accept the findings of those dogs, no matter what Kate says. (Actually, Kate you’re right. The dogs DID want to please their handler, Martin Grime. Pleasing him is exactly the premise on which they function. For which they get a reward and a pat on the head. Pleasing their handler is ALL they know. That, and the scent of cadaverine or blood)

Erm no, to hold on to some vestige of common sense and sanity would be to ignore the findings of the dogs and concentrate the search for the abductor


We HAVE to give serious consideration to the truth that Madeleine died in Portugal, four summers ago. We have to do so, because the Portuguese investigated and believe so. It’s clearly documented in their reports, even if that ‘final report’ doesn’t quite specify so, but merely proffers it.

Only the British Media refer to the Policia Judiciaria as “bungling”, “inept”, “Porto plod” and “sardine munchers”. Prior to this case they were considered globally, rather like our OWN finest Police Force, as being amongst the best in the world.

Best in the world............ here we go again.

We also have to consider it so because it has been documented that Leicestershire Police ALSO advised of their belief that Madeleine died in Portugal.

Nomal practice in any investigation dumb dumb only the bungling Portuguese had to be prompted.

I haven’t yet seen any tabloid headlines calling THEM useless. Not yet, anyway.

See above


Kate’s book will, without a doubt, throw up HUNDREDS of yet MORE inconsistencies and contradictions. Not contradicting the Portuguese Police or other observers, but contradicting herself. When you tell so many untruths, it’s so hard to remember what you said in the first place.

What untruths are they exactly..........or is it merely a case of lack of understanding on your part. No need to answer.


Of course, it’s entirely possible that this “review” will never take place at all. At least, not in the form that it should.

Because now, I believe the case of Madeleine McCann to be at a most crucial crossroads. I believe that the outcome of this “review”will either decide that a historically unprecedented number of people are going to be subjected to some accusatory probing and be eternally embarrassed, including at least ONE ex- Prime Minister, by virtue of the Yard finding that the McCanns DO have something to hide, as purported by the Portuguese; OR.

OR.

The Government cut the Portuguese out of the “review” all together, meaning that the Britain’s finest Police Force will have to find in accordance with what they believe themselves. Or, rather, what they are told to believe.

And this case will continue to be a tragedy for us, one and all

We shall have to wait and see...............but your first reasoning will most definately not happen.




Happy Birthday, Madeleine, wherever you may be.
Posted by Spudgun at 21:39


http://spudgunsspoutings.blogspot.com/2011/05/happy-birthday-madeleine-mccann.html

RBxHN wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Friday, 13 May 2011

Happy Birthday Madeleine McCann

It remains to be seen whether or not the British Government performs yet another U turn on their decision to fund the Metropolitan Police’s New Scotland Yard “review” of the evidence relating to the case of the missing girl, Madeleine McCann.


David, “call me Dave” Cameron has just announced that he is asking the Met’s finest to “bring their expertise to the case”. Or as Britain’s finest journo’s opine:

”Scotland Yard Hunt’s for Maddie” and

“Yard to try and bring Maddie back”.

As I currently write this, I understand that there are huge reservations and not an inconsiderable amount of discomfort amongst certain Senior Officers about this proposal. Ostensibly, because it means tying up much needed resources and manpower on what is, effectively, a VERY cold case.

I would also suggest that quite a few of those reservations are held by bemused officers who will also be wondering how on earth such a review can possibly take place, given that it is going to require MORE than their “expertise” in negotiating certain ‘aspects’ of the case.

Aspects that have categorically NO place in Team McCann’s agenda.

Aspects that unequivocally NEVER get mentioned in the British Press, nor are ever uttered from the mouths of its senior Media figures.

Aspects that have no place in the sentiments or thoughts of the wealthy business figures who have bankrolled many of the McCanns exploits and sojourns around the world in their quest to “find” Madeleine.

Aspects that have probably never even crossed the sycophantic leanings of the innumerable celebrities, pop stars, writers, TV presenters and public figures who have tied their ribbon on the Madeleine McCann cause.

Those aspects being the Portuguese aspects.

And what do those Portuguese aspects appear to be that we haven't heard from Goncalo already? We need to move forward not regurgitate nonsense

For, if there IS to be a review, then it cannot possibly take place without incorporating the Portuguese Police findings.

I think they are all aware of that, but I'm sure they'd thank you for your appreciation.

And as much as Team McCann and the British Press, (and clearly to a degree, the British AUTHORITIES), like to assert that the Portuguese closed the case by concluding that the McCanns, (along with Robert Murat), were CLEARED of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a thorough scrutiny of that final report reveals a rather different picture.

I don't know how thorough you want it but in a nutshell that their status as arguido had been lifted as no evidence could be found to suggest there had been any involvement into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann by her parents. And in very simple terms for you that means innocent until proven guilty. As it stands, they are innocent.

For the report clearly notes a number of issues which are worthy of mention and indeed, further evaluation. In fact, as I have pointed out previously, I often wonder if in fact, whether the Press or the Authorities have actually read the report at all, or have in fact read a DIFFERENT report.

Maybe its you that has a DIFERENT report.

From day one, this whole case has been beset with innuendo, supposition, conjecture, opinion, and theory, some of which is definitely conspiratorial. But the Police, IF they carry out a review, are going to have to address and explain away some FACTS that the McCanns and their supporters are going to find rather unpalatable.

Like the FACT that the ONLY, tangible evidence that Madeleine McCann was ever abducted originates from Jane Tanner.

And if they are going to try and validate and support Ms. Tanner as a credible witness, then they are going to have to try and explain not only WHICH of the MANY differing eyewitness accounts she and Team McCann assert to be genuine ARE, in fact, genuine:- (egg man, bundle man, spotty man, Robert Murat, hippy-man, paedo-man, FEMALE-man, god-knows –who- else –man), but also explain why ALL of the others are NOT.


I have a feeling that they look at the case files with less cyncism than yourself.

More importantly, (and I don’t profess to be a Scotland Yard ‘expert’), but if one is to conclude that Tanner is LYING, (and she clearly is unless she wishes to insist that ALL of her estimated 9 or 10 different descriptions are correct); then one would have to conclude that the evidence for an abduction is, NONE.

Look up the word 'lie'. You obviously have no concept of the meaning.

A Scotland Yard man of merit would then have to further read the report, together with all the Portuguese reports, statements, documents and contemporaneous notes. And he would have to explain away the clear “inconsistencies” in the witness statements made by the McCanns and their Tapas friends, as clearly pointed out in the report that Team McCann asserts to be the one that puts them in the clear. Inconsistencies surrounding their movements, their observations, their positions at any given time, what they witnessed, what they saw.

I think anyone with a little common sense will understand why there were inconsistencies......and some wont!

In order to clear this inextricable confusion and mess up, perhaps the Yard’s “expertise” can coerce the McCanns and their friends to undertake the essential reconstruction that the Portuguese could NOT persuade them to take.

What for? See above!

Another ASPECT that the Yard are going to have to contend with are the use of Enhanced Victim Recovery Dogs. Eddie & Keela’s findings in the McCann apartment and their vehicle and on many of the personal possessions of the McCanns are well documented.

It is a very simple matter for Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns to glibly refute their findings, explaining away their “unreliability” and inadmissibility as evidence by pointing to a case in the United States where such evidence was successfully challenged by a top US Lawyer.

Bit tricky to do the same thing when such dogs have made well documented, irrefutably PROVEN contributions to many Scotland Yard cases, not to mention hundreds of OTHER Constabularies all over the UK and elsewhere Worldwide.


That would be a complete waste of public money. There objective is to discover the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann and her abductor, not to waste time disproving the dogs which has been done time and time again.


Best NOT ask the dogs, eh Gerry?

Equally, perhaps the Yard can procure those DNA samples that were initially reported as being a “match” to Madeleine McCann, and explain why eventually, the FSS at Birmingham, (a department now facing closure) and who have for many years been Universally acknowledged as being “the BEST in the world”, eventually decided, (after much delay and confusion), that the material in fact, was “not identified to pertaining to anyone specific”.

The BEST in the world? Says who.....you! lol

Perhaps the man at the Yard can exercise his expertise and cast some light on that blue holdall that Martin Brunt NEVER mentions anymore.

If its significant yes, but highly unlikely.

No! I jest a little.

You jest a lot.


What I REALLY want the Met’s finest to do is ask Kate McCann exactly WHAT it was that was shown to Kate at her interview. As the final report clearly states:

“Kate Healy was not immediately made an arguida, but merely interviewed voluntarily as a witness. Only after her interview was she made an arguida, that is, after she was confronted with concrete facts that might lead to her incrimination”

“...concrete facts that might lead to her incrimination” ???

Concrete FACTS, Kate? Gerry? Mr. Mitchell? It can’t be brushed off as “scurrilous, unhelpful speculation” by those bungling Porto Plod. It’s right there. In black and white. In the report.

The report that Team McCann so vehemently wave in the faces of anyone who dares to doubt their version of events. You can’t pick and choose the good bits, Clarence, and dismiss the rest as hogwash.

I think you might just find that the Met will.........for all too obvious reasons.


I don’t personally care about the McCanns. I honestly don’t know what they did or didn’t do. In the great scope of things, it matters little.

I don’t even admonish or criticise them for systematically leaving their children unattended, an act that would obviously contribute to Madeleine’s disappearance, were an abduction genuine.

Why not? Because I believe that the fact that their children were alone has absolutely NOTHING to do with Madeleine being missing.

Come on then chief inspector, what did happen? lol Death the evening before and a 'doctored' last photo?

I’d so love for Madeleine McCann to walk home tomorrow; to confound the world and be found, safe and well. But that can’t surely happen. Because if we have to hold on to some vestige of common sense and sanity in this case, then we have to accept the findings of those dogs, no matter what Kate says. (Actually, Kate you’re right. The dogs DID want to please their handler, Martin Grime. Pleasing him is exactly the premise on which they function. For which they get a reward and a pat on the head. Pleasing their handler is ALL they know. That, and the scent of cadaverine or blood)

Erm no, to hold on to some vestige of common sense and sanity would be to ignore the findings of the dogs and concentrate the search for the abductor


We HAVE to give serious consideration to the truth that Madeleine died in Portugal, four summers ago. We have to do so, because the Portuguese investigated and believe so. It’s clearly documented in their reports, even if that ‘final report’ doesn’t quite specify so, but merely proffers it.

Only the British Media refer to the Policia Judiciaria as “bungling”, “inept”, “Porto plod” and “sardine munchers”. Prior to this case they were considered globally, rather like our OWN finest Police Force, as being amongst the best in the world.

Best in the world............ here we go again.

We also have to consider it so because it has been documented that Leicestershire Police ALSO advised of their belief that Madeleine died in Portugal.

Nomal practice in any investigation dumb dumb only the bungling Portuguese had to be prompted.

I haven’t yet seen any tabloid headlines calling THEM useless. Not yet, anyway.

See above


Kate’s book will, without a doubt, throw up HUNDREDS of yet MORE inconsistencies and contradictions. Not contradicting the Portuguese Police or other observers, but contradicting herself. When you tell so many untruths, it’s so hard to remember what you said in the first place.

What untruths are they exactly..........or is it merely a case of lack of understanding on your part. No need to answer.


Of course, it’s entirely possible that this “review” will never take place at all. At least, not in the form that it should.

Because now, I believe the case of Madeleine McCann to be at a most crucial crossroads. I believe that the outcome of this “review”will either decide that a historically unprecedented number of people are going to be subjected to some accusatory probing and be eternally embarrassed, including at least ONE ex- Prime Minister, by virtue of the Yard finding that the McCanns DO have something to hide, as purported by the Portuguese; OR.

OR.

The Government cut the Portuguese out of the “review” all together, meaning that the Britain’s finest Police Force will have to find in accordance with what they believe themselves. Or, rather, what they are told to believe.

And this case will continue to be a tragedy for us, one and all

We shall have to wait and see...............but your first reasoning will most definately not happen.




Happy Birthday, Madeleine, wherever you may be.
Posted by Spudgun at 21:39


http://spudgunsspoutings.blogspot.com/2011/05/happy-birthday-madeleine-mccann.html