The House on the Black Rock

by **Jill Havern** 29.12.16 7:41

Lizzy Hideho Taylor shared a link.
8 hrs
Thank you Ben Salmon for this amazing piece of research. Here in HDH we don't consider our effort is to 'solve' the case, more to get the info from the files out to the UK public. However, this does have the credibility of relating to the files as Ben discovered accidentally! Is it possible that Ben has discovered something that may be of real interest? With his knowledge of phone records and call timings, it is certainly food for thought. GREAT RESEARCH Ben!

The House on the Black Rock

December 28, 2016 Ben Salmon

Ben is CMOMM member 'April 28th'

Rocha Negra, in English, translates as ‘Black Rock’.

It’s a title that seems made for a movie. Yet, I have found myself increasingly of the belief that one small property sat atop the Rocha Negra may have initially been used to occult the cadaver of Madeleine McCann.

Why, and how?

This discovery started when I was recounting a couple of well known events in the McCann case: the arrival of Danie Krugel, and Kate McCann’s dream of seeing Madeleine’s body lying on a hill. Both of these things would appear to be related, in a way I was not expecting to find.

For the sake of this article, I will not pass comment on Danie Krugel’s device, or credibility – as I believe he was potentially brought in as either a distraction, or as one who would ‘find’ something at an opportune time. I will go into this further on.

Kate McCann’s ‘dream’ was referred to as a turning point in the case.

“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there…She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”

– Ricardo Paiva

You can read more about it in this Telegraph article: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The location given for this sighting was reported in the press as the Rocha Negra. While we should be careful about taking this as gospel, it’s worth pointing out that this story was never retracted, and the articles with maps are still online and they circle the Rocha Negra. There is never any hint that Kate was imagining a hill ‘outside Praia da Luz’.

This phone call occurred when Gerry was away in America (in fact he seemed oblivious to the call having occurred outside the courtroom, saying cleverly that Kate never had a dream about seeing Maddie ‘buried’) – alone and fragile. Was she perhaps trying to point towards this area for a reason?

Let’s turn momentarily to Danie Krugel. Contact with Krugel is initiated on June 9th, when at 21:48 Gerry calls him for 12 minutes 38 seconds. According to the records in the PJ Files, he had been recommended via email (also from South Africa). It will be over a month before Krugel arrives in Portugal. During this time – and just after he leaves – there are a smattering of contacts between Gerry, Krugel and Susan Puren (an South African investigative journalist). It is later said that whilst in Portugal, the McCanns effectively ignored Krugel, and when they finally met – before Krugel and Puren left – it was a very abrupt meeting in which the South Africans were ‘made to feel like they were meeting Royals’.

This is rather at odds with the fact that it was Gerry who initiated contact. Why initiate contact and request help, only to completely ignore that help until the last possible moment?

Whilst Krugel was on site, Mark Harrison was brought in – but more on that later.

Krugel produced a map, showing the areas he had searched, and which he felt would be worth further investigation.

More here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **HiDeHo** 29.12.16 15:34

What I found most amazing is that this research was done BEFORE the comment by Mark Harrison was found, adding CREDIBILITY to the possibility.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mark Harrison wrote:An inhibiting factor is that since the disappearance of the child an old empty house adjacent to the Trig Point on the Rocha Negra has been demolished and all rubble removed, If she was concealed within this property the search would be unlikely to detect her now.

by **sharonl** 29.12.16 15:44

HiDeHo wrote:What I found most amazing is that this research was done BEFORE the comment by Mark Harrison was found, adding CREDIBILITY to the possibility.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mark Harrison wrote:An inhibiting factor is that since the disappearance of the child an old empty house adjacent to the Trig Point on the Rocha Negra has been demolished and all rubble removed, If she was concealed within this property the search would be unlikely to detect her now.

Very interesting.

Would a property developer be able to gain prior access to information on properties that are scheduled for demolition?

by Verdi 29.12.16 15:48

I'm rather concerned as to where this information emanates, aside from the Telegraph press report. Considering the date of the press article, 13th January 2010 (unlucky for some), I am assuming (hopefully correctly) that the report refers to the Lisbon court proceedings on 12th January 2010. As far as I'm aware, this was the only occassion Ricardo Paiva took the stand during the trial at that period - this is the transcript..

Live text: Afternoon session Sky News

By Jon di Paolo - Tuesday January 12, 2010

3:28-- We're back in court. The mcanns are here but mr amaral is missing.

3:29-- Mr amaral has just walked in and we're under way.

3:33-- Inspector ricardo paiva, of the portuguese police, has taken the stand.

3:34-- Insp paiva says he was the family liaison officer for the case but was taken off at the mcanns' request.

3:45-- Paiva is asked whether he ever got the impression from the mccanns they thought maddie could be dead. He says yes.

3:47-- Kate whispers something in gerry's ear and gives him a little smile. He stays looking straight in front.

3:52-- Gerry has put his arm round kate as they listen to paiva's testimony

4:03-- Paiva also says the mccanns were made suspects after the british sniffer dogs were brought in.

4:04-- Paiva: there was total collaboration between british and portuguese police on the case

4:09-- Paiva: it was scotland yard who first thought it could be a murder case.

4:09-- Paiva: amaral's theories are based on the facts of the investigation.

4:12-- Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.

4:13-- Paiva: mccanns never pointed me towards any evidence that maddie was still alive.

4:16-- Mr amaral looks like he's dozing off.

4:29-- Paiva: we found the 'merchandising' operation with wristbands and so on very strange.

4:31-- Paiva: if she was being held somewhere publicity would be more likely to hasten her death.

4:55-- The mcanns' lawyer is taking an aggressive tone as she cross-examines mr paiva.

5:08-- Proceedings have ended for today.

5:11-- Some confusion here- that wasn't the end of proceedings, just a break before today's final witness.

5:29-- Ok, that's all we have time for. Back tomorrow morning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As can be seen - no mention of the quote reported by the Telegraph on 13th January 2010..

“She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there…She gave the impression that she thought she was dead it was a turning point for us.” – Ricardo Paiva

So I ask - when and where is he supposed to have said about receiving a phone call from a distraught Kate McCann, describing a vivid dream she'd had?

Taking it a step further, Kate McCann had this to say on the subject of a call to Ricardo Paiva around 23rd July 2007, when her husband was in the US of A..

'That evening I phoned Ricardo Paiva to ask for his help with a couple of letters I needed to have translated.

He sounded strange, distant; certainly not his usual self. He mentioned the forthcoming ground search, adding that Encarnação wanted to talk to us before it began. I distinctly remember him saying, ‘Our investigation will be changing direction.’ Danie Krugel’s report had given them a bit of a jolt, he told me.

I was surprised. Surely the police couldn’t be placing too much faith in the findings of an unknown and untested magic machine? I began to worry that perhaps they had some more solid lead that supported Danie’s theory. I hoped to God I was wrong.'

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

No mention of the alleged dream, so again I ask, when did a distraught Kate McCann have this conversation with Paiva about a dream?

In addition Kate McCann has this to say in her book, about how Kruger came into their lives..

'At our next meeting with Neves and Encarnação, on 28 June, we tentatively raised the possibility of bringing in Danie Krugel, a South African ex-police officer who claimed to have combined DNA and satellite tracking technology to develop a device that could be used to locate missing persons. I know this sounds mad, so let me rewind a little to explain. Danie’s name, and his offer of help, had reached us via a variety of sources within the first few weeks of Madeleine’s disappearance. At the time we were in too much turmoil to pay much attention to anything so esoteric, and in any case we had all our hopes pinned on the police investigation.

Towards the end of May, a friend of Danie’s arrived in Praia da Luz and virtually pleaded with me to take up his offer. She spoke of references from the South African police, for whom his machine had brought results, of its 80 per cent success rate and of the support of the South African minister for justice. Whether we were influenced by the distance this young mother had travelled just to talk to us, or whether we were simply plain desperate, I can’t be sure – putting it in perspective today, I’d say it was the latter – but by now we were more receptive.'

Putting it all together, it would appear to me that the Telegraph report is nothing but a collation of misinformation taken from various sources to make a sensational story - nothing unusual there!!!

"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true and what isn't" - Gerry McCann

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Besides - does anyone really believe a seasoned police officer would allow a dream reported by a potential suspect to change the direction of a serious crime investigation into a missing child. Never forget, the parents McCann were under suspicion from the very beginning.

by **HiDeHo** 29.12.16 16:19

Gerry denies the dream in a response apparently, to what was said in court.

My understanding is that Inspector Paiva was on the stand from 3.33pm until 5.08pm. Why should quotes said during that time be considered not believable? Maybe I am not understanding.

by Verdi 30.12.16 0:11

Gerry McCann having a rant outside a Lisbon court when confronted by a wall of journalists does not, to my mind, confirm nor even suggest that Ricardo Paiva said what has been claimed whilst on the stand in the court. I haven't finished on this subject but cross referencing is time consuming so just for the moment - it seems to me that a suggestion is being made that Kate McCann's alleged dream and Kruger's visit to Praia da Luz, changed the direction of the investigation and led to Mark Harrison being called-in as well as UK police dogs, Eddie and Keela. That in itself I find unbelievable.

In the interim, I frankly can't understand why April28th uses other members on this forum to post information on his/her behalf - the last time I think (at least that was confirmed) was posted by member [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. In addition April28th repeatedly posts information which is never confirmed or followed through; I have myself asked for further information in the past which is never answered.

I realise that members aren't under any obligation to justify information they post (at least not for my benefit) but in the interest of clarity and openness it would be extremely helpful.

Just my opinion.

by Guest 30.12.16 9:17

it seems to me that a suggestion is being made that Kate McCann's alleged dream and Kruger's visit to Praia da Luz, changed the direction of the investigation and led to Mark Harrison being called-in as well as UK police dogs, Eddie and Keela. That in itself I find unbelievable.

I can't see Kate or Gerry self-incriminating - I don't think the "dream" - if there was one - means anything.
And I think crackpot Kruger had no impact on the investigation at all.

by skyrocket 30.12.16 9:46

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just to put the record straight, rather than relying on assumptions, thinking very hard I do have recollections of bringing one piece of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s research to the table. Your post above states collusion and that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is reluctant to post here himself. The first point is wrong and I have no idea about the second, but if and when I come across any research/comments by anyone else (member or otherwise) which I feel has merit and may be of interest to others on here, I will naturally post them.

In the past, I have found [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s input (including the above proxy post) to be not only well researched but very interesting - I think other members will agree. If and when you complete your cross-referencing/research (something many, including [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], seem to do before commenting) with the court transcript and you find no mention of the widely reported dream I will be genuinely very interested to know.

Happy New Year in advance everyone.

by Verdi 30.12.16 12:45

I see Kruger on a level with Birch and his wizard body detecting machine - a bit of a joke! So the Kruger package came complete with a recommendation from the South African police and minister for justice? Well, any country that continues into the 21st century being heavily influenced by voodooism, then I guess Kruger's body diviner is a very useful tool in SA policing. Kate McCann had this to say about Kruger's untested, unauthorized device..

"I remember talking to Gerry and Sandy, trying to decide what to do. Even Sandy, who dismisses anything lacking logic or transparency as mumbo-jumbo, felt, as we did, that since the investigation appeared to have ground to a halt, it was worth trying anything. What else did we have? What harm could it do?"

"So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa"

"A week or so afterwards, Danie informed us that he had obtained ‘signals’ relating to Praia da Luz, but that he would need to come over in July and operate the machine in the Algarve to produce more accurate results and pinpoint Madeleine’s location. This all seemed to make sense...."

Ms Healy - you cannot be serious!

Just to add a bit more spice to the dish from the mind of a seriously unstable individual..

When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about, and it ate away at us.

The truly awful manifestation of what I was feeling was a macabre slideshow of vivid pictures in my brain that taunted me relentlessly.

I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab.

‘The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me over and over again.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Still, it turned out to be a handy little distraction to move attention away from the focal point of the investigation. I say again, what well respected experienced police officer/s would allow the story of a suspects dream to influence the course of an investigation into a serious crime? Humbug!

I doubt this dream ever happened and even if it did, it could have no influence on the investigation any more than Kruger's machine could have assisted in any way. Bang goes another theory!

by Guest 30.12.16 13:06

I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab.

‘The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me over and over again.

The fact she put this in writing is quite disturbing.

It's almost pornographic.

Did anyone edit her book?

by tinkier 30.12.16 13:10

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just to put the record straight, rather than relying on assumptions, thinking very hard I do have recollections of bringing one piece of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s research to the table. Your post above states collusion and that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is reluctant to post here himself. The first point is wrong and I have no idea about the second, but if and when I come across any research/comments by anyone else (member or otherwise) which I feel has merit and may be of interest to others on here, I will naturally post them.

In the past, I have found [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s input (including the above proxy post) to be not only well researched but very interesting - I think other members will agree. If and when you complete your cross-referencing/research (something many, including [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], seem to do before commenting) with the court transcript and you find no mention of the widely reported dream I will be genuinely very interested to know.

Happy New Year in advance everyone.

Not a court transcript, but youtube footage of GM denying Kate ever had that dream Around 1.28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4iLtXs3Jbw

by Verdi 30.12.16 15:27

BlueBag wrote:
I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab.

‘The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me over and over again.
The fact she put this in writing is quite disturbing.

It's almost pornographic.

Did anyone edit her book?

It's not the sort of thing any rational parent would even allow themselves to think about their missing child, let alone put in writing for all the world to read. This is a classic example of where denial would kick in - even if lurking in the sub-conscience a parent, particulary a mother, would never admit the possibility even to herself.

Edit her book? I'm not convinced she wrote it - she lacks basic articulation. I believe she provided the detail but a ghost writer did the rest. Whether or not the final product was vetted by their legal team is a matter for conjecture - in the light of their action against Goncalo Amaral, I venture to suggest there is material there within that could be considered quasi libel.

Under the circumstances, a very strange defence strategy to accuse the Portuguese police of malpractice and/or ineptitude.

"He deserves to be miserable and feel fear" - Kate McCann

by hogwash 30.12.16 17:46

Not only the whole world, Verdi, but one day the twins in particular will read it if they haven't already.

by **HiDeHo** 30.12.16 18:13

CLICK HERE to see Verdi Quote:

I am not sure exactly sure why questioning the 'dream' is of importance in comparison to the amazing research that has been put into this blog post.

As far as the dream goes, we have no transcript of the hour and half Inspector Paiva was on the stand, but personally when I see his testimony comments quoted directly in several news articles, hear Gerry refer to the dream outside the courthouse (on the day after Paiva testimony but already published in several newspapers - hence my belief why he quickly returned to UK to stop the more than 50 articles on 13th continuing... shockingly only a few days later there was not ONE article about the McCanns in the newspapers but thats another curiosity for another day)

Mark Harrison was brought in prior to the call to Paiva but on July 23 Kates diary claimed she took a jog and felt alone and frightened' 'Please God don't let Madeleine be buried here'. On that day Mark Harrison suggested the dogs.

We don't know if the call was the reason the dogs were brought in or whether the cost could be justified without the call suggesting that Madeleine may be dead... but I believe the likelihood that the call was of importance or at least a consideration in the decision as suggested by Inspector Paiva in his testimony.

The issue of the 'dream' aside it troubles me to see amazing research minimised.

There is nothing in the blog post that says it IS the place that Madeleine passed through but it certainly shows the possibility and that should not be ignored ESPECIALLY as it is a location that Mark Harrison referred to (and not the reason for the research, just a validating comment found AFTER the research)

Whether April 28th should have posted and whether there are reasons he didn't are not of any consequence. I had planned on posting but Jill did it (which was during the night for me). I don't see that as an issue.

I would love to see the focus on the content of the blog post suggesting it MAY have been a significant place regarding Madeleine's whereabouts after the disappearance.

by Verdi 30.12.16 20:14

Speaking for myself only, the reason I place emphasis on Kate McCann's alleged dream and the involvement of Krugel, is because this whole episode of research is based on those two issues alone.

The research itself is inaccurate, speculative and wholly misleading. This kind of distraction does nothing to assist the search for truth. One single inaccuracy in such an extensive work of research weakens the whole context - unchallenged it leads to a false conception.

My reason for commenting on the posting issue I have already explained.

The end!

by Verdi 30.12.16 20:57

hogwash wrote:Not only the whole world, Verdi, but one day the twins in particular will read it if they haven't already.

The twins - how old are they now? Soon to be twelve? I'll wager they've long since read, or been made aware of, those disgusting words by the hand of their own mother.

What a legacy - frightened witless by the thought of nocturnal child snatching monsters; thoughts of their lost sister's final hours; demoralized by living in the shadow of one they barely remember; forced to leave gifts in a shrine; always brushed aside by the living dead; shackled by a guilty secret and doomed to a life of uncertainty. All thanks to a syndicate of horrendous proportions, too horrendous to rear it's ugly head - the PACT of silence!

by cloak'ndagger 30.12.16 21:28

Verdi wrote:Speaking for myself only, the reason I place emphasis on Kate McCann's alleged dream and the involvement of Krugel, is because this whole episode of research is based on those two issues alone.

The research itself is inaccurate, speculative and wholly misleading. This kind of distraction does nothing to assist the search for truth. One single inaccuracy in such an extensive work of research weakens the whole context - unchallenged it leads to a false conception.

My reason for commenting on the posting issue I have already explained.

The end!

I think it is an amazing piece of work by Ben Salmon.

Are we a wee bit jealous then Verdi?

I see no good reason to attack the researcher.

by JohnyT 30.12.16 21:37

Verdi wrote:
hogwash wrote:Not only the whole world, Verdi, but one day the twins in particular will read it if they haven't already.
The twins - how old are they now? Soon to be twelve? I'll wager they've long since read, or been made aware of, those disgusting words by the hand of their own mother.

What a legacy - frightened witless by the thought of nocturnal child snatching monsters; thoughts of their lost sister's final hours; demoralized by living in the shadow of one they barely remember; forced to leave gifts in a shrine; always brushed aside by the living dead; shackled by a guilty secret and doomed to a life of uncertainty. All thanks to a syndicate of horrendous proportions, too horrendous to rear it's ugly head - the PACT of silence!

Do you really think the twins will be thinking all that? I certainly don't !
JohnyT

by sandancer 30.12.16 21:43

Verdi wrote:
hogwash wrote:Not only the whole world, Verdi, but one day the twins in particular will read it if they haven't already.
The twins - how old are they now? Soon to be twelve? I'll wager they've long since read, or been made aware of, those disgusting words by the hand of their own mother.

What a legacy - frightened witless by the thought of nocturnal child snatching monsters; thoughts of their lost sister's final hours; demoralized by living in the shadow of one they barely remember; forced to leave gifts in a shrine; always brushed aside by the living dead; shackled by a guilty secret and doomed to a life of uncertainty. All thanks to a syndicate of horrendous proportions, too horrendous to rear it's ugly head - the PACT of silence!

Well said Verdi !
Madeleine is beyond harm now , the twins continue to live under this awful shadow with parents who are more interested in themselves than their own vulnerable children who are victims of that night and I'm sure wll be victims of bullying by others. The PACT of silence wll not protect them sadly it is their own parents who should do that . Wll they ? Somehow I doubt it .

by **HiDeHo** 30.12.16 21:44

Verdi wrote:Speaking for myself only, the reason I place emphasis on Kate McCann's alleged dream and the involvement of Krugel, is because this whole episode of research is based on those two issues alone.

The research itself is inaccurate, speculative and wholly misleading. This kind of distraction does nothing to assist the search for truth. One single inaccuracy in such an extensive work of research weakens the whole context - unchallenged it leads to a false conception.

My reason for commenting on the posting issue I have already explained.

The end!

Your prerogative to an opinion is noted and respected Verdi.

Whether this location is anything of note is one thing, but I would be interested to see why you consider it inaccurate?

I believe Ben made it clear that his was not reliant on Krugel's credibility or the dream. Only as a reason to look and not realising what he would find or WHETHER he would find anything. Thats the nature of research. Its not to make things fit, it is to go where the findings take you.

Mark Harrison specifically makes note of it and that, for me gives some kind of credibility worthy of looking at it more closely.

I have seen many replies(elsewhere) to this blog and so far they are all very positive, which tells me that though you may not find it worthwhile a good majority are as impressed with the research as I am.

by Guest 30.12.16 22:06

OK.. OK... maybe I'm thick.

But in what way has this research moved us forward?

by Pyrite 30.12.16 22:14

BlueBag wrote:
I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab.

‘The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me over and over again.
The fact she put this in writing is quite disturbing.

It's almost pornographic.

Did anyone edit her book?

It's a story.....she's writing a story. What mother could write such a thing otherwise....even if you think it.

by Verdi 30.12.16 23:30

HiDeHo wrote:
Your prerogative to an opinion is noted and respected Verdi.

Whether this location is anything of note is one thing, but I would be interested to see why you consider it inaccurate?

Mark Harrison specifically makes note of it and that, for me gives some kind of credibility worthy of looking at it more closely.

I have seen many replies(elsewhere) to this blog and so far they are all very positive, which tells me that though you may not find it worthwhile a good majority are as impressed with the research as I am.

1. How kind.

2. I have not said anything about a location being inaccurate. In context, a location cannot be inaccurate.

3. Mark Harrison noted a considerable number of locations he felt worthy of further attention.

3. Good - all is not lost!

by Verdi 30.12.16 23:33

sandancer wrote:
Verdi wrote:
hogwash wrote:Not only the whole world, Verdi, but one day the twins in particular will read it if they haven't already.
The twins - how old are they now? Soon to be twelve? I'll wager they've long since read, or been made aware of, those disgusting words by the hand of their own mother.

What a legacy - frightened witless by the thought of nocturnal child snatching monsters; thoughts of their lost sister's final hours; demoralized by living in the shadow of one they barely remember; forced to leave gifts in a shrine; always brushed aside by the living dead; shackled by a guilty secret and doomed to a life of uncertainty. All thanks to a syndicate of horrendous proportions, too horrendous to rear it's ugly head - the PACT of silence!
Well said Verdi !
Madeleine is beyond harm now , the twins continue to live under this awful shadow with parents who are more interested in themselves than their own vulnerable children who are victims of that night and I'm sure wll be victims of bullying by others. The PACT of silence wll not protect them sadly it is their own parents who should do that . Wll they ? Somehow I doubt it .

Not only that but the parents have the bare faced audacity to use the twins to garner sympathy and bolster their defence strategy.

RED ALERT !!!

by Verdi 30.12.16 23:43

cloak'ndagger wrote:
Verdi wrote:Speaking for myself only, the reason I place emphasis on Kate McCann's alleged dream and the involvement of Krugel, is because this whole episode of research is based on those two issues alone.

The research itself is inaccurate, speculative and wholly misleading. This kind of distraction does nothing to assist the search for truth. One single inaccuracy in such an extensive work of research weakens the whole context - unchallenged it leads to a false conception.

My reason for commenting on the posting issue I have already explained.

The end!
I think it is an amazing piece of work by Ben Salmon.

Are we a wee bit jealous then Verdi?

I see no good reason to attack the researcher.

1. Unwittingly you prove my point. You are clearly judging the work at face value - you need to brush up on the case, only then will you realise that the "piece of work" is inaccurate, speculative and misleading.

2. Please don't be childish.

3. I'm criticizing the inaccurate, speculative and misleading information contained in the "piece of work" - not the person who wrote it.