Getting Proactive

by rainbow-fairy 07.05.12 10:13

I've been a wee bit busy... I've decided, enough is enough. After FIVE YEARS of disbelieving the abduction hypothesis, and shouting out at the papers, tv and computer screens in frustration at the appalling articles (which did no good at all!), this weekend, I've been proactive.
I was asked to buy The Sun for my neighbour who has it for the TV mag on a Saturday. Noticing that Lorraine Kelly had written a short piece in her column about the 'importance of keeping the updated image out there' (the one that WASN'T shown in the trailer for the McCann 'anniversary' interview I then saw that dear AntyNutty Lazzerri had written a double page piece.
They both had their e-mail addresses listed, so I've e-mailed them - both!
Here is what I sent (for starters);

Lorraine Kelly;

Dear Lorraine,
I have never e-mailed a journalist or anyone before but I feel I have to in this case.

I do hope that you kicked some ass over the trailer to your 'interview' with Kate and Gerry McCann, considering as you say and I quote 'It is so important to keep her name and her UPDATED IMAGE in the public eye...' (Rest snipped).
You do realise, I take it, that it was an out-of-date image shown on your trailer?

I actually find the fact that the 'seven year old twins have vowed to help their parents find Madeleine' sickening, not 'moving'.
Even if we disregard the statistics for a child under seven 'abducted from home' (which includes holiday abode, relative home etc) which are that 99 out of a 100 are killed by a family member or close friend, the chances of poor Maddie being alive are so infinitesimally, vanishingly small as to be non-existent.
I would LOVE to think she is alive, but what I want doesn't matter.

The fact the twins are being fed a fairy story is plain wrong. They are old enough to be gently told the likelihood their sister is gone, but maybe just maybe she could be found. Far kinder in the long run. All this talk of Sean 'getting a sword and getting the man who took Maddy' is just obscene.
The damage being done to their poor little minds haunts me daily. It is mental cruelty, and there would've been no need in the first place had their 'parents' bothered to use the FREE babysitting service (the same nannies the children were dumped on every day during a so-called family holiday!) Was a tapas meal really so much more important than their 'so loved' daughter?

To be brutally frank, had Kate and Gerry been on benefit or lower-working class they'dve been hung out to dry.
The media reporting speaks for itself - Karen Matthews is 'vile' but everyone forgets to mention that she said the inspiration for the hoax came from the Maddie case!
To add, in case you are wondering, no, I have no sympathy for Kate and Gerry. Their spiteful litigious ways are turning even former supporters against them. ALL my sympathy is for Maddie and the torment (at whomevers hands it was) she went through. I hope the angels are loving her.

Bearing in mind the 'importance' of using up-to-date pictures, at the time of Maddie's disappearance WHY was a 2 year old picture used? Why was the 'last' pool photo not used for THREE WEEKS (after Gerry returned to UK, coincidentally). Why not use the 'tennis ball pic' (which I believe Kate in 'madeleine' claims she captured yet JANE AND RACHEL also claim THEY took it!)

I wonder if you could explain also how two highly trained, respected UK police dogs, one cadaver recovery, one a blood dog (who had a 100% record) could both so suddenly be wrong in EXACTLY the same places in Praia da Luz? All with areas or articles associated with the McCanns? The UK police actually instructed Portugal to look at the McCanns as suspects as Gerry had made certain 'statements and inconsistencies' which pointed to his, let's say, knowing more than he should.

All this leaves me to say is I would love NOTHING more than to believe Maddie is alive, but I would feel 99.99999% comfortable staking everything I own (which isn't much) on the fact that she sadly died, and likely long before the alarm was raised that fateful night in PDL.

Oh, and the SY 'review'... £2m+ to conclude that "Maddie may be alive, but sadly she could be dead"?!? I could've concluded that for less than a penny.

It would be nice to get a reply, even if its just to be told what a vile creature I am for not swallowing all the media nonsense. But hey, that'd be ok, I've read all the files and statements, because I want TRUE justice for a little girl who disappeared off the face of the planet in 2007.

Yours respectfully,
Miss ** *******

And this to Antonella Lazzeri;

Dear Ms Lazzeri,

I've never e-mailed a journalist before but after reading the above named article I feel that I need to bring up a few things with you.

I was very upset by a certain paragraph;

...Snipped "I hope Praia da Luz can be remembered not for what happened to (Kate and Gerry McCann), but what we did for them"

Were these your bracketed thoughts or Haynes Hubbard's?
Because I think it wouldve read better "not for what happened to MADELEINE"...

What 'happened' to Kate and Gerry was, at the very least, a result of their own stupidity and selfishness (not naivety, they were pushing forty doctors, not 16 year old benefit claimants).

What 'happened' (and that, five years on, we still have not been told) to Maddie was preventable by those who should've been putting her welfare before Tapas and New Zealand wine.

I also take umbrage with your misleading paragraph about Snr Amaral, the man who had the misfortune of this case landing in his lap:

"...snipped "The man many hold responsible for bungling the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance has 'mercilessly cashed in on the little girl'"

That is patently untrue. His assets were frozen! His marriage is over. He has lost everything, bar his determination to put to bed what happened to Maddie.

So, Ms Lazzeri, do you find it okay that the parents of the missing girl can 'cash in' and be treated like VIP's?
I don't.
Through their selfishness -at least - a bright little three year old, a life of potential, has in all likelihood been snuffed out.
My sympathies lie with Madeleine and her twin siblings who will grow up in the shadow of this almost mythical sister. Heartbreaking.

A reply would be nice, if you can spare the time (is it sunny in PdL?)

Yours respectfully
Miss ** *******"

Now, I don't know if Lorraine Kelly's e-mail has changed (if so, does anyone know it?) as within seconds of sending I received this:
From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

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

However, no such message with the Lazzeri e-mail - will update if I get any replies, I'm sure I'll be sending more very soon...

Thank you PeterMac etc for the inspiration with your OP e-mails) and of cousre Tony Bennett. I thought it high time for someone else to stick their head above the parapet; might as well be me!

Any suggestions for questions etc to include in future most welcome...

by pauline 07.05.12 10:28

well done rainbow fairy.

regarding the undelivered email - ring the paper and explain you used the email in the paper yet it bounced back. See what email they give you. If its the same as you used, say there must be a problem with it - is there another one I could use, has she a secretary who could fwd my email to her.

I think it would be terrific if members of this forum emailed journalists commenting politely (I stress polite because don't give them a chance to say that McCann haters use foul language). Also where a journalist shows even an indication of an open mind praise him/her. Normally a newspaper will give you an email address if you ring up.

Also keep the emails relatively short - give the key facts - and use neutral language re the McCanns. Offer to give them an interview, be named and photographed.

by rainbow-fairy 07.05.12 10:58

pauline wrote:well done rainbow fairy.

regarding the undelivered email - ring the paper and explain you used the email in the paper yet it bounced back. See what email they give you. If its the same as you used, say there must be a problem with it - is there another one I could use, has she a secretary who could fwd my email to her.

I think it would be terrific if members of this forum emailed journalists commenting politely (I stress polite because don't give them a chance to say that McCann haters use foul language). Also where a journalist shows even an indication of an open mind praise him/her. Normally a newspaper will give you an email address if you ring up.

Also keep the emails relatively short - give the key facts - a
nd use neutral language re the McCanns. Offer to give them an interview, be named and photographed.

TY for the advice pauline :) I'm not very good on phones with people I don't know, but I'll give it a try!

Do you think my e-mails were polite and brief enough? Looking back at Ms Lazzeri's perhaps I shouldn't have asked if PdL sunny - that may've sounded a little sarky! Wink

by pauline 07.05.12 12:26

RAINBOW FAIRY I thought the length and content were fine except i thought maybe the reference to the sun went too far - but I understand why you wrote it.

Indeed perhaps better to write from the heart as long as you avoid libel and hysterical content - rather than perhaps than the sanitised emails/letters I proposed.

Another suggestion - if the journalist ignores you - contact his her/immediate boss - that could be the news editor or the features editor and their name and email may be on the papers website. but ring if you cant get it elsewhere.

And contact the features editor/other relevant persons in the media asking them to do a feature putting the view of the Mccanns sceptics. Features editors need ideas for articles. Obviously they would need to get a journalist with at least half a brain to do this!

by **PeterMac** 07.05.12 12:39

Well done. I admire the calmness of the approach

by Fred Up 07.05.12 12:53

Great stuff, RF! A very cool and calm message there. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be invited for a head-to-head with the McCs on LK's sofa? What a coup! Ah well, one can dream...

by nomendelta 07.05.12 13:06

Good luck with those emails - although in both cases I sadly suspect they will have had emails from others and will routinely dismiss them.

I only know of Lorraine and she is hardly what one would call a thinking journalist. She's a mouthpiece for whatever drudge the media want to portray and her vocabulary would be halved if we removed her ability to use the word "really".

I do wonder how many people in the media actually DO actively believe the McCanns and how many are aware they are just following orders?

by rainbow-fairy 07.05.12 14:20

Well folks, she didn't ignore me, sadly though I fear there will be no more as Aunty Nelly has flounced like a hormonal teenager (causing me to be a bit less friendly than I'd like - but I wished her well at the end! Actually, I'm really unimpressed by her writing. She misses out words! I had to read her first reply twice as I thought I was losing my mind.
Here is the exchange in full. My e-mails blue, hers red;

Dear Ms Lazzeri,

I've never e-mailed a journalist before but after reading the above named article I feel that I need to bring up a few things with you.

I was very upset by a certain paragraph;

...Snipped "I hope Praia da Luz can be remembered not for what happened to (Kate and Gerry McCann), but what we did for them"

Were these your bracketed thoughts or Haynes Hubbard's?
Because I think it wouldve read better "not for what happened to MADELEINE"...

What 'happened' to Kate and Gerry was, at the very least, a result of their own stupidity and selfishness (not naivety, they were pushing forty doctors, not 16 year old benefit claimants).

What 'happened' (and that, five years on, we still have not been told) to Maddie was preventable by those who should've been putting her welfare before Tapas and New Zealand wine.

I also take umbrage with your misleading paragraph about Snr Amaral, the man who had the misfortune of this case landing in his lap:

"...snipped "The man many hold responsible for bungling the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance has 'mercilessly cashed in on the little girl'"

That is patently untrue. His assets were frozen! His marriage is over. He has lost everything, bar his determination to put to bed what happened to Maddie.

So, Ms Lazzeri, do you find it okay that the parents of the missing girl can 'cash in' and be treated like VIP's?
I don't.
Through their selfishness -at least - a bright little three year old, a life of potential, has in all likelihood been snuffed out.
My sympathies lie with Madeleine and her twin siblings who will grow up in the shadow of this almost mythical sister. Heartbreaking.

A reply would be nice, if you can spare the time (is it sunny in PdL?)

Yours respectfully
Miss ** *******

Amaral himself recently admitted the investigation was bungled. The
McCanns have not cashed in they have raised money for a fund to pay to
search for their daughter They above anyone that leaving her was a
mistake.
That is what Rev Hubbard said. Now try to follow his example and try
to find some caring in your heart for two people who have suffered so
much

Hi again,

Amaral knows he made mistakes, that is not the issue.
From the first minute he was against the wall.
Put yourself for a moment in the place of a parent who claims their child has been abducted (from your articles I know you can do so). Would you allow all and sundry in to rummage, trample and destroy possibly vital evidence?

Amaral did not ask for this case. He has not 'cashed in mercilessly', and the continual character assassinations and smears are unnecessary. He has access to all the information and came to a sane, sensible conclusion from that evidence.

Re the Limited Company, though not as 'transparent' as promised, we can see that every penny has NOT been used to search for Madeleine. How were the McCanns so unlucky as to employ three PI con-companies? How much are Carter-Ruck, Isabel Duarte being paid? HOW, in your opinion, are these litigations helping to 'search' for Madeleine?

If that truly is what Rev Haynes Hubbard said, "what happened to (Kate and Gerry") then he is not fit to wear a collar. Its what happened to Madeleine that is important. Its pointless reiterating the fact that if she was abducted it was because her parents declined the free babysitting service, but perhaps you could answer these two questions for me please.

1)Bearing in mind the 'importance' of using up-to-date pictures, at the time of Maddie's disappearance WHY was a 2 year old picture used? Why was the 'last' pool photo not used for THREE WEEKS (after Gerry returned to UK, coincidentally). Why not use the 'tennis ball pic' (which I believe Kate in 'madeleine' claims she captured yet JANE AND RACHEL also claim THEY took it!)

2)I wonder if you could explain also how two highly trained, respected UK police dogs, one cadaver recovery, one a blood dog (who had a 100% record) could both so suddenly be wrong in EXACTLY the same places in Praia da Luz? All with areas or articles associated with the McCanns? The UK police actually instructed Portugal to look at the McCanns as suspects as Gerry had made certain 'statements and inconsistencies' which pointed to his, let's say, knowing more than he should.

But I'm sure you know all this already!

I can assure you that I have much, much much compassion in my heart for a lost girl who seems to be forgotten amongst a midst of litigations, PJ bashing, and spin.
Also for her siblings who will have to grow up in the shadow of a sister they will likely never know, their lives devoted to 'searching'. Its utterly tragic.
If Kate and Gerry asked for the case to be reopened, by doing the reconstruction that is plainly needed or Kate answered the questions she refused to answer at the time, my compassion levels would be higher for them too.
Unfortunately it seems they are not in too much of a hurry if, as Gerry says 'the answers lie in Portugal'.
If they are innocent what have they to fear from a reconstruction?

Thank you respectfully in advance
Miss ** *******

I am not entering into an argument with you apart from to point out to
you that the dogs are not 100 percent accurate. I was in Jersey with
Eddie where he signalled loads and all that was found was a piece of
coconut shell

Sent from my iPhone

Well, what a disappointment you turned out to be!

I don't blame you not 'getting into an argument with me' (was I arguing???) if the best you can do is not answer question one at all and for question two you reply with "I am not entering into an argument with you apart from to point out to
you that the dogs are not 100 percent accurate. I was in Jersey with
Eddie where he signalled loads and all that was found was a piece of
coconut shell'

The fabled coconut shell - its always that one - who FOUND (ie dug up) the items? A HUMAN.
Eddie signalled to what he is trained to. Human cadaver odour.
Two words for you: Eugene Zapata...

Oh dear. Well I see why you are stuck working for The Sun, climbing a very greasy pole no doubt.

I wish you all the best. Truth can't be hidden forever

Respectfully yours
Miss ** *******

by aiyoyo 07.05.12 14:28

Well done, RF.

by pauline 07.05.12 15:03

While you haven't converted her RF, and you didn't expect to, I think it is good that she responded however inadequate we might find the reply.

You could now try to contact her editor and while acknowledging that she dealt promptly with your comments, suggest they might like to get another member of staff to look at the case with fresh eyes.

by Ashwarya 07.05.12 18:53

Well done for your effort, RF, and I hope it hasn't put your blood pressure up too much. Lazzeri is either hopelessly dim and uninterested in educating herself about this case, or she is being paid to toe the party line. Either way she is not worth bothering with, but I admire you for trying.

by Guest 07.05.12 19:12

I would find it very difficult to be polite to Antonella so well done Rainbow-Fairy. I can just about stomach the nice but dim types like Lorraine and Fiona but, when someone spits venom the way that Antonella does (vile lies, disgraced cop etc), it takes considerable effort not to respond in kind.

The woman is an utter disgrace.

by Ribisl 07.05.12 19:18

Go for it Beetroot. You are on cracking form I see. clapping

by Blimunda 07.05.12 19:48

Jean wrote:I would find it very difficult to be polite to Antonella so well done Rainbow-Fairy. I can just about stomach the nice but dim types like Lorraine and Fiona but, when someone spits venom the way that Antonella does (vile lies, disgraced cop etc), it takes considerable effort not to respond in kind.

The woman is an utter disgrace.

I agree. Great emails Rainbow Fairy! I actually think you were very polite. yes

I wouldn't be able to adress myself to those two ladies the way you did.
As Jean, I think it's difficult no to use the same words Antonella usually uses towards other people.

by Nina 07.05.12 19:55

I am of the opinion that some people will defend the McCanns regardless of whatever may come to light. As a previous supporter of them myself for many months I just cannot understand why these people have not read all that is available and altered their own minds.

by friedtomatoes 07.05.12 20:32

Well done RF! I think you probably anticipated the exact response you would be getting, but letting journos know their rubbish is not swallowed always has to be a good thing. AL is not the sharpest tool in the box anyway. Her proof that the shutters were jemmied by the abductor is that they were repaired on May 1st! by Ocean Club maintenance men.

I am surprised you got more than a sentence back.
big grin

Having said all that perhaps it's a fact she gets told what to write, and if she doesn't agree with it in any way, that's her integrity out the window.

As for LK, after watching her latest interview with the Mccanns something told me she too has secret doubts.

by rainbow-fairy 08.05.12 7:07

Thank you so much for all you kind words!

I was, I must admit, slightly surprised to get a reply at all. I don't know what it was about these two articles that spurred me into action - however I think the "I hope Praia da Luz can be remembered not for what happened to (Kate and Gerry McCann), but what we did for them"
really stuck in my craw! Where was Madeleine in all this???

I am though just pleased to be able to prove that us sceptics are not all illiterate oiks with an IQ smaller than our shoes and a need to use gutter language. In fact, I was quite appalled by her rudeness - she never once used my name (it was put at the end of every e-mail), I felt she wrote like a sulky girl rather than a professional.
There again, I am not convinced she even believes the guff she writes...

I read all her responses out and when I read the final one about the 'coconut shell' he rolled his eyes, laughed and said "Is that all they've got?"
Just about sums it up really!

Pity I couldn't get the e-mail to send to Lorraine - haven't had time to follow Pauline's good advice yet. BUT, friedtomatoes, I wasn't around the watch the Lorraine interview - two hungry horses to feed - not sure I could've stomached that pair so early either BUT I've been having doubts about her doubts, if you see what I mean? I think she over-does the sugar and sympathy and, like the McCanns, just doesn't seem genuine. I'll try to watch on youtube if its been put up...

by Gillyspot 08.05.12 7:17

rainbow-fairy wrote:Thank you so much for all you kind words!

I was, I must admit, slightly surprised to get a reply at all. I don't know what it was about these two articles that spurred me into action - however I think the "I hope Praia da Luz can be remembered not for what happened to (Kate and Gerry McCann), but what we did for them"
really stuck in my craw! Where was Madeleine in all this???

Your attempt to get some sense from her was admiral & I think you were civil and polite. - As regards the above snip. - What exactly does "what we did for them" mean?

a) What the Sun did for K & G McCann - since Sept 2007 endless unquestioning support and xenophobia of Portugal on their behalf
b) What the McCanns and UK media (particularly Murdoch's press) did for Praia Da Luz - Killed it as a tourist destination and forced many innocents out of work.

by **tigger** 08.05.12 8:10

RD - you

rock!
The Sun is just running another sighting, so you were honoured that Lazzeri even bothered to reply - yes she does sound like a sulky schoolgirl.

The McCanns will probably get an award for services to British Industry pretty soon.

by **PeterMac** 08.05.12 8:16

tigger wrote:RD - you rock!
The Sun is just running another sighting, so you were honoured that Lazzeri even bothered to reply - yes she does sound like a sulky schoolgirl.
The McCanns will probably get an award for services to British Industry pretty soon.

There is another thread on it. It is wonderful. It dates back the full 4 years. Priceless !

by sweetex 08.05.12 8:40

Being from Africa.... we hardly ever have news about the McCann case. For some reason this morning there was a short insert on our local radio station's hourly news about British police following up on several sightings and the believe that Madeleine McCann is still alive. I did not hear the specific part, but a friend called me to tell me. I decided to e-mail them just to make them aware of a few FACTS. I dont' expect to get a response from them, but just maybe someone reads it and it triggers their mind.

This is my e-mail:

Good morning

I believe that during the news broadcast this morning you had a short insert about the Madeleine McCann case.

Being a faithful follower of the case for the past 5 years, and especially because the McCanns have been in the news again recently, I would just like to make a few comments:

1) The Portuguese police have made all evidence of the case available which could be read here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2) Goncalo Amaral (The Chief Inspector of the case in PT) has written a book "Truth of the lies" regarding the evidence and his conclusions which were:

The parents are responsible for concealing the body of the their daughter after a possible "tragic accident" in the apartment
The parents are responsible for staging an abduction

The political interference in this case made impossible for the detective to continue and complete the investigation, as he was taken of the case on 2 October 2007.

The McCanns opened a "Libel" case against Goncalo Amaral but the case was overturned, and he is allowed to sell his book in all languages including English.

The Portuguese police will not reopen the case unless "solid evidence" is found. They made it clear that the "leads" found by Scotland Yard are mere speculation and will not act upon it. The British press and government (Including Scotland Yard) are looking at "psycics" and pursue sightings and believe she is still alive whereas the initial investigation team of the case has made their conclusions (above-mentioned). There is no reason to re-open the case and pursue sightings if they already know what happened.

It would be nice of we could somewhat have some balanced reporting on this case. The McCanns are treated as celebrities while all the evidence points towards them.

Regards

by rainbow-fairy 08.05.12 9:22

Nice one, sweetex! Let's get more of these e-mails out, peeps! Wink

It might make no difference, but always remember the saying:-

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing"

by Me 08.05.12 10:26

Tell this fragrant "journalist" to read this thread, and others relating to "coconut" on this site:

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

Then ask her to come back with her evidence that is was coconut the dogs alerted to and her rebuttal.

by david_uk 08.05.12 10:27

pauline wrote:While you haven't converted her RF, and you didn't expect to, I think it is good that she responded however inadequate we might find the reply.

You could now try to contact her editor and while acknowledging that she dealt promptly with your comments, suggest they might like to get another member of staff to look at the case with fresh eyes.

Superb idea. Her response where so awful I would definately forward your conversation to her superior and question the quality of her research and articles.

by Me 08.05.12 10:44

Send her this:

Dear Miss Lazzeri

Thanks for your email but i am slightly shocked at the nature of your research regarding the fabled coconut shell found in Jersey.

Please note the following reagarding the Jersey investigation:

On 9th April 2008 Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the following entry:

9 April 2008
On
8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The
report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The
fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the
phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found
in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the
earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the
Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

On
8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the
fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture
and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation
that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite
conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my
findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we
discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the
fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the
pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on
it.”

Ms Brock a lab technician noted the following:

“Hi
Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the
phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely
unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

“During the first acid
washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The
Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was
poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The
Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained
virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told
you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we
would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

“As
there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly
degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get
for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if
we should proceed with a date.”

Now,
if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly,
they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it.

Secondly,
they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found
in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and
say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’
and ‘bone.’

If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone
say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed
again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she
said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the
fragment was.

The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was
carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’
She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then
finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as
I described it.”

So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation and the dogs have been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK".Information taken courtesy of this site:

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

Further information can be found at thie above site and i would respectfully suggest you studied it in some detail in order to correct the misinformation you appear to be under.

Please feel free to contradict or rebutt this information but if you are unable to do so then clearly your comments regarding the dogs are at best misinformed or worse deliberately false, misleading and agenda led.

I would have expected more from a journalist to be honest.