Your Twitter Questions Answered

Always glad to help.

 

A Mr Cerb 32 writes: “As arguidos, the mccanns had no choice. The PJ could have summoned them back for a reconstruction at any time.” Is that true?

Answer: No, it is completely untrue, even though the McCann clique and its tattered remnants have been claiming it since 2009. That’s what they do.

 

Leaving aside the fact that  slapdash Cerberus is unaware that no police force, such as the Portuguese PJ, can summon anyone from overseas, the Portuguese prosecutors had  no power whatever to summon them to a reconstruction.

They would have had to apply for extradition from the UK to get them back and extradition for a reconstruction/clarification is debarred, correctly, as a legal “fishing expedition”. As we know, Kate and Gerry McCann very unwisely told  BBC Radio Four  at the time of the rogatary interviews that they “would not be going back to Portugal in the near future.”

The Portuguese prosecutors had no so-called  prima facie evidence against the McCanns so they could not get them back. End of story: Cerberus has told a fib and will be unable to provide any evidence to support it.

****

James Donlan asks: “How do you [Mr A Fish] know it [the Oldfield 9.30 check] never happened? Unless you were there."

Answer: The Tapas Nine described exactly, and in detail what a “check” meant: establishing that the child being “checked” was in no danger, either accidental or otherwise and was healthy and well.

It is a matter of agreed fact  that not only did Oldfield not establish that the child was in no danger, nor that  she was healthy and well but the bastard did not even establish whether she was dead or alive, as his evidence proves:  the “check” therefore never happened. Mr Fish is quite correct. 

****

A fan of the Bureau writes: “Oh, so now it would it be illegal for Op Grange to investigate K&G #McCann? But not other assorted burglars + boatmen? Sorry, none of this makes any sense.”

 

Answer: Quite right, that statement makes no sense. An investigative review, by definition, can have no suspects when it begins and nor  can it  be used as a backdoor way to investigate people, however popular or unpopular, against whom there is currently no CPS case. It's no use saying it on Twitter but I will anyway: governments do not prosecute or clear people, the judicial authorities do.

Neither prime ministers nor the public can "order" investigation into free citizens. Any evidence found by a “backdoor” route against the McCanns would have to be excluded from a trial, as their lawyers know perfectly well. Therefore a trial of the McCanns using any such evidence would collapse immediately, since it is a matter of fact that there is no prosecutable evidence in the public domain as of now.  Is that what you want?

But in any case much of this is just words. Making the McCanns "suspects", were it even possible, would have no impact on the case itself. So, apart from getting has-beens like Colin Sutton all excited, what difference does it make anyway?  They cannot be forced to co-operate, they cannot be forced to answer questions, they cannot be forced to do anything except spend a few hours in the nick. It would, of course, make a very great difference to the way people, the public, felt, wouldn't it? Hidifacts and the rest would be out on the streets cheering and twiddling a fucking noose.  Do you think that would help get a verdict?

 

I do not understand your comment about “other assorted burglars or boatmen”. Scotland Yard  has stated that, out of all the hundreds of “investigative opportunities” revealed in the opening phase of the review, it has investigated just four named suspects and eliminated them. All other names in the media are inventions of the conspiracy that I have described.

Both the PJ and Scotland Yard have taken exactly the same action of excluding the parents of the missing child as suspects and both have used identical scripts in discussing the matter publicly. Why would that be? Why? If you believe that the PJ is crushed or  compromised or is the “charade” that you believe Grange is, then you should say so and tell people how British politicians have managed to do it. But do you really believe that?

****

A M/S Falconer writes: “It was the Portuguese judiciary that stated she died in the apartment and would have wrapped things up if it wasn't for our meddling government,  who for some reason covered it up and only allowed the abduction theory to be followed.” Is this true?

Answer: No, it’s a complete  invention and sadly typical of twitter.   The Portuguese judiciary have never once stated anywhere that she died in the apartment. The Portuguese judiciary have, indeed, not yet been involved in the case. Neither they nor the Portuguese  prosecutors have claimed there is any evidence at all against the McCanns regarding the disappearance. That is why they were released from their arguido status.

The statement about the “meddling government” is a product of the imagination, I’m afraid, not the evidence. Sorry. 

****   

A Technical Director writes: “They will never give their reasons because there isn't any. No #McCann supporter will ever able to prove an abduction theory being plausible because there is no evidence backing it.” Is this true?

Answer: Yes, it is a statement of fact. Even the parents have provided no evidence of abduction. What they have provided are their opinions - perfectly valid ones, especially given the shock - about what happened, i.e. that   she had been "taken". They must bitterly regret that they are unable to produce the evidence to support (shutters, door, window for example) their subjective opinions. Still, I suppose Gerry McCann just had to check that the shutters "could indeed be opened from outside" by going outside, without gloves, and lifting them up before the police arrived.

The Archiving Summary, much quoted at the time by supporters of the parents and even today by the more obtuse of that tiny remnant, is a very, very clever document in the Latinate legal tradition (essentially “bend with the wind, sow the seeds, bide your time”). It gets a little more dangerous to certain parties every time it is formally examined and presents another layer of meaning, exactly as it was meant to do, whether in the Human Rights Case appeal, the Libel Case proceedings or the  Supreme Court final judgement. It was built to last, believe me. About evidence against the McCanns it wrote, essentially: “If you’ve got some then show it to us.” Nobody could.

Now, eleven years later,  the words apply exactly to those who claim there is any abduction evidence: OK, fine,  so just show it to us. They can’t. And not even Grange has  given them a microgram  of evidence to shut people up and console the couple with, even though the Pat Brownshirt Grange Killer Squad has had five years and 12 million – and access to laboratories – to manufacture some. Ever wondered why they haven’t?

Cheers.

Successful Conspiracy

Buffoons, naturally

The little Bureau is famous for its contemptuous dismissal of all the conspiracy theories so dear to the heart of the under-educated anti-McCann "researchers". So it's amusing that only the Bureau is at all bothered with studying a prolonged and well-funded professional conspiracy that has been taking place for the last five years. And, judging by results, a successful one.

What results?  Funnily enough, the comments and teachings of the anti-McCann nutters themselves.

The fake suspects conspiracy started when Operation Grange reached its investigative phase, has run continually since and its last initiative took place as recently as November 2017.  The suspects themselves are either invented or plucked out of old files and shaped as needed. Or they are based on the names of people Grange has questioned but with  characteristics added that are not derived in any way from police sources. 

What Do we Know about the Conspirators? 

They use the MSM as the vehicle for their deceptions, not politicians or millionaire businessmen or the famous Brownshirts, the  crack Scotland Yard killer and whitewash squad. They are almost certainly a small group, but well-funded. They are, without doubt, media professionals with extensive contacts in the MSM and a serious working knowledge of how to use the hollowed-out MSM to get false stories published. It is a genuine conspiracy in the sense that there is a deliberate intention to pass themselves off to the public as police spokesmen or policemen with inside knowledge. That is where the criminality comes in.* Who are they actually working for? A good question.  

Are they just  spreading fake suspects? No. The group's aims are constant and targeted. There is a clear plan of triple objectives over the past five years. These are:

1. Misdirection - consistently pretending to identify Operation Grange suspects who all share the same characteristics.*
2. Sabotaging Grange's reputation* - the "suspects" never come to anything.  Pursuits fail, forecast arrests never take place. The clear impression given is that Grange is hopelessly incompetent and comical.
3. Attempting to starve  or kill Grange.* - the incompetence is so clear and transparent that whatever they conclude will be worthless. Funding should be discontinued.

The evidence and modus operandi are laid out in the footnotes/source notes below.

Secret Leader of the Brownshirts Hit Squad

 

Is The Conspiracy Working?  

By one, rather surprising, measure it most certainly is. For it is typical of life’s constant ironies that it's the publicly noisy  “anti-McCann” FB, twitter and website camp that has fallen more completely for this transparent bullshit than anyone else, including the majority of the “unenlightened” British public.

If you check twitter McCann now you will find  all the anti-McCann "research groups" and experts, with a few honourable exceptions,  foaming away with exactly the same message that the conspiracy has relentlessly drummed home - and into their unsuspecting minds, the poor bastards:

No more money for the Yard!  If they do this one more time I predict a riot!

Have OG given any hint of their yet again one last line of enquiry is about this time purple woman obviously got "whooshed". [sic]

Only wishful thinking and a failure to comprehend the full scope/scale of the coverup support your ongoing faith in Op Grange.

And much more.  That's what happens when you believe what you read in those utterly poisoned wells, the newspapers. The dark, slightly crazed, beauty of it is that the victims don't even have an idea that they're being played like fat, lazy  trouts.

So Who is the Conspiracy Working For?

It isn't very difficult to find the truth. All you have to do is some work, proper work - find out how many people in the UK have the expertise, experience and contacts to do the job and then research where the misdirection is pointing to  and who could possibly benefit. The MSM, who brought you the original lies, know who it is, naturally  - they've been in close contact with them during the construction of the stories, obviously  - but they won't give sources. 

But first you'd  have to  take your arse out of the past, stop using poisoned wells as "sources", tear yourself away from  eleven year old, hopelessly  out-of-date case files and look, for once, at what's going on around you now. But that won't be possible for  people who, as we can see, are being so successfully played: there's no way out for them.

There you go, nice easy reading. The boring evidence is below but challenged researchers can, of course, skip it. 

 ____________________________________________________________________

* Criminality. There can be no doubt about the pattern of deception. There is a clear intention to pretend, for example,   that the stories derive directly from official police sources; there is a pretence that police officers and Grange are  being quoted verbatim by using phrases like “sources close to the police”, “a spokesman close to the police investigation” and so on.  And they know exactly how far they can go in getting the MSM to carry their false claims. Only long experience in working with the MSM can produce that.

The professional experience also shows in the structure of the news feeds – encouraging each  MSM outlet to “personalize” the supplied stories while preserving the core provided. Thus some go over the top    with “arrests [of the ‘suspects’] soon” while others are cautious. Readers unfamiliar with MSM ways then assume that each paper  has gained the information independently, thus providing further cover for the sole originators.

*Misdirection. There is a striking and undeniable consistency in the selected "suspects". The misdirection is always:

Away from professionals with no criminal records and towards “criminal types” and “lurkers in the shadows”. Away from victims of accidents and the unpredictable and towards pre-planned crime. Away from recognizable human beings you might meet in the tube, on the plane or on a sunny beach and towards “monsters” such as the “stinking binman” dribbling over undressed girls. Away from  people with their faults and misjudgements towards  organized wickedness such as “paedophile rings”.  This is a statistical impossibility if the "suspects" are a random cross-section. The conclusion is that, for whatever reason, misdirection is at work: somebody is selecting these types - and ignoring others - for a reason.

*Sabotaging Grange's reputation. The accumulation of  suspect stories has been to make the Scotland Yard investigation look incompetent, stupid and, worse, ridiculous. The soap opera background given to these inventions or ornamentations is almost always childishly unreal – curiously similar, in fact,  to the fairy-story monsters and loners  provided by Team McCann’s  2009-2011 wretched artists’ impressions supposedly – but not actually – based on Jane Tanner’s memory.    

 

The conspirators know from experience, as well as a profound cynicism about people,   that almost nobody reads the official media releases from Scotland Yard. Instead they read newspaper versions, and nobody more so than the anti-McCann "researchers". So they add fiction to what the police actually said time after time, hardly anyone sees the differences and it is those additions, not the words of Scotland Yard, that are used to ridicule Grange. Easy really.

 

*Attempting to starve or kill Grange. The fake stories present  groundless over-optimism followed by a void, meaning, and intending to mean,  that what the Yard  say can never be trusted because only failure follows.  “Arrests expected!” “Police home in on Maddie suspects!” Nothing ever happens.

 

The most recent plant,  the 2017 Purple Woman story –  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5051251/Maddie-detectives-scour-Bulgaria-woman-purple.html has everything in it, starting with the outright lie “…police are now scouring her home country in an attempt to make a breakthrough in the long-running case”.

   

Misdirection? Away from “non-criminal normals” and towards the shadows , “It is thought that police interest is linked to discoveries about her late partner’s history…understood to have been a paedophile…”

Incompetence and buffoonery? “During the past six years, a string of theories and suspects have come and gone," says the story fed to the Mail.  "Variously, the spotlight has fallen on a group of British contract cleaners working in the resort, a smelly, pot-bellied man, a burglary gang posing as charity collectors, child-traffickers, gypsies and so on.” Don’t you love that “and so on.”? Note that "the spotlight" referred to is not the official statements of Scotland Yard but the fake additions provided by the conspiracy group.

Attempting to kill Grange?   “But the brutal and tragic truth is that it is more than probable the woman in purple is unlikely to be the key to solving this mystery,”  says the fake story. Grange has never said it was the key, nor anything similar.  

And then the  cream on the cake, tucked away near the bottom, the final misdirection: “It is this woman in purple, the Mail understands, who is keeping alive Operation Grange, the marathon reinvestigation of the Madeleine McCann case by Scotland Yard, now in its sixth year.”

Yep, the Purple Woman is the famous last lead, not Smithman.

 

 

 

 

The Death of MancCannstein's Monster

 

 

 

To sum up the deception: taking the three famous timelines chronologically, readers can see for themselves not only how a hearsay sighting of a person with a child was turned into a monster but exactly how the group, beginning with O' Brien, Gerry McCann and Payne* on the night of May 3, conspired  to make him the history and centre of the entire affair  by creating  a “slot” for him compatible with the Tanner abductor's  time of departure, all  with supposedly remembered suggestive (or at least "possible")  evidence ** – alas, no longer available once  the police had been called and the apartment trampled – of his presence. Doing so involved  them in altering and disguising  their real movements.

 

Keep It Simple - It Is

Forget detailed and head-spinning analysis: that's what they always wanted you to look at and get confused by.***  Just keep it very simple, look at what they say they were doing in the first timeline, which takes about two minutes, watch them alter them in the second to create the slot and then look at the final typed timeline. All the timings have been changed progressively with one intention, initial estimates being replaced by ludicrous pseudo-exactitude to squeeze them in. In the third document, indeed,  which states that “all timings are approximate” the Oldfield movement has been shunted from 9-9.05 to 8.57 (!!!) PM and Gerry McCann is awarded a watch to look at as he supposedly leaves the bar for the apartment at, why, exactly 9.05.

It is, as both the PJ and Scotland Yard know, all in vain,  as is normally the case with criminal group lies. Reality – always in flux and movement – is too complex to be defeated by conspiracies. The result is like watching chimpanzees trying to operate a model railway. 

Crash!

As they discover while they struggle to get the invented story straight over the next four days. Either their timings make GM shoot away from Tapas station too soon or send him chugging off too late,  put him on a direct collision course with Oldfield or leave him gormlessly staring down at his daughter in bed with love in his heart  after she’s been snatched  or as the crazed monster is forcing his way in.

Or Oldfield has to be struck blind so he can’t see whether shutters are open or closed; or the unwelcome constraint of Wilkins’ presence at the gate  means that MancCenstein  must be seizing the child just as Tanner is watching him “hurry away” – unless  Tanner is held at a stop signal while the monster is kept circling a loop until released to move.

And Fail

The problems are endless and can never be resolved, despite Gerry McCann’s copious and timely urination and unconscious shiver at the prospect of the slavering monster he can sense behind the bedroom door - added by him and the ever-helpful Mitchell months later.****  And as for those suggestive little door movements and locked and unlocked gates that Manccanstein left behind him – oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear, if he didn’t exist any more than Mary Shelley’s creation, who in Christ's name moved them?

It’s all there in writing. For ever. A  criminal conspiracy to mislead the police.***** It took six years for them to unravel it. But unravel it they have.

__________________________________________________________________________________

"I Know What I Saw"

 

But now let’s turn to the monster’s unlikely origins on the twilit streets of Praia da Luz that night.

 

All Too Human

Like most people we tend to be generous to the  wily  but seriously fragile Jane Tanner, never having suggested that she invented her sighting, quietly admiring of that stuff she spun to an aghast and bewildered PJ about the brutish Anglo-Saxons always leaving their children unsupervised - quite the cultural historian is Jane, at least when attempting to hang onto her child. And who can't  warm to a woman who confessed, Textusa,   that the thought of swinging with Gerry McCann, either on the top of a big round table, no doubt, or perhaps in an antique chaise d'amour, made her retch?

But let’s face it, and ignoring her naughty refusal to tell Leicester Police whether she identified Murat in the van that famous night or not, as an eyewitness she’s a fucking disaster.**

Show Business

With Operation Grange still running it cannot permit itself to give the full facts about its relationship with Tanner and the holidaymaker, for reasons we’ve given elsewhere. Full visibility will only come after the conclusion of the investigation. Thus, we’ll indulge nice Mr Redwood for his identification exercises  which are far more irregular than Amaral’s (and the Yard's) van episode ever was, will  never be brought into court  and which extend a great deal of slack to Tanner. We’ll accept also that, in order to gain  agreement or co-operation in the  exclusion exercise, he posed the  holiday-maker against a non-police, collective  late sketch, not against details exactly matching her police eyewitness evidence.

We’ll also have to accept various other liberties -  that the origin of the holidaymaker’s clothes is unknown, that what he was actually wearing is unknown, that whether he has been asked to grow hair etc. to the length it was in 2007 is unknown and, equally important, the time and direction of his presence is completely unknown.  

But that doesn’t matter: the only aim of this elaborate television performance by Redwood was not to question Tanner’s eyewitness evidence or to build a case or to make an identification - that was already done - but to announce formally and definitively but without causing trouble for non-suspects, that the abductor, in the timescale and form claimed by her group,  does not  exist, end of story.  Any  court will accept that.

So How Did She Do?

 

Mr Redwood is one of those people whose richly Celtic  warmth and niceness  is likely - look at his eyes - to be a signal of something quite else  and when he's as nice on Crimewatch about how strikingly and wonderfully similar the holiday-maker' appearance  and M/S Tanner's versions are, then it's time to start looking for the open door before the cuffs come out.

The sub-text beneath the Carnish sweetness is, of course errors occur, of course it's easy to make mistakes, no, no, it doesn't mean your behaviour is questionable, nobody's going to think any the worse of you my dear, not at all my lovely, no, no, you are completely above suspicion of anything. Mistakes happen.

So here's the holidaymaker, around since 2013, though the McCann clique don't seem to be too keen on discussing him, do they?  The photograph of the man M/S Tanner saw. ***

 

 

Looks like a syrup-of-figs   on the top of his head, doesn't it?  Mr Redwood clearly doesn't want us to see too much of the real hair yet, does he?

 

But before we get onto objective metrics about such evidence can we say something from the heart? Look carefully at him.

 

And then look at this, an internet collation of some of the vile, stinking, filthy images  that the  McCann camp and its beshitted spokesman created, revelled in and thrust at us month after month, year after year as the truth of the world  until Grange finally stopped them diverting the investigation any longer. But that is only their world, the McCann world.  

 

 

 

They could be inhabitants of another planet, couldn't they? And they are: created by the  disturbed and  fearful minds who, with the gift of free will, took the decision to enter it and be bound by it.   Then look back at the mild, inoffensive and thoroughly decent-looking human being that those criminals claim is the origin of their filth. No, the photograph shows an inhabitant of the real world, our world, not theirs,  the one they will never re-join.  They are now  in hell, of their own invention and their own actions. Just looking at their creations on the page makes one want to have a wash. Now, back to work.

 

Brilliant, fantastic, scrumpical likeness Jane. Arr!

JT to the police in 2007: He was dark-skinned.

The person she saw at twilight: He is light skinned. He is light-skinned! JT  accuracy score: 0/10.

 

JT: About 1.7M high.

Person: The Yard have provided no measuring marks. 0/0

 

JT: Aged 35-40. Slim build.

Person:  Six years on and he is clearly younger than 35-40. 5/10 + 9/10

 

JT:Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back.

Person: Darkish and wavy, textured not lank. Completely incompatible with the later non-police artist's version. Hair that will not lie flat at the back unless wet. Prominent sideburns. 5/10.

 

JT: Trousers linen type, straight, beige to golden. Adds 'the same as "corticine",' a cork-based, dark brown floor covering,   in colour.  

Person: Linen, beige. 10/10.

 

JT: Shoes dark, "classic type," with a slight heel.

Person: Brown. Unheeled. 5/10.

 

JT: Jacket a dark "Duffy"***** - not duffle - jacket. These are defined as extra-warm insulated kagools or anoraks. She adds that it was "not that thick".  

Person: A short blue-grey lightweight casual jacket or anorak. 1/10.

 

Additional or Overall qualities

 

JT: A hurried walk.

Person: Not known, no information provided. 0/0

 

JT: His clothes were somehow unusual.

Person: The clothes are bog-standard casual resort wear. 0/10

 

JT: He was "very warmly" dressed.

Person: He is wearing lightweight resort wear. 0/10

 

JT: Not a tourist. 0/10.

Person: A British tourist.

 

So , finally, in 2018, you have a good measure of how accurate and dependable Jane Tanner is as an eye-witness. Leaving completely aside that she then willingly joined the rest of the conspirators to turn this  minimal and misleading little blur - essentially a flash of pyjama'd  legs, a patch of beige at the bottom and black at the top, clouded completely by a set of (invalidated in the photo above) prior assumptions  - into a criminally misleading decoy that took six years to destroy, we have the verdict: utterly worthless.

 

As Amaral always suspected.

__________________________________________________________________________________

* together O Brien  rogatory, section 3.

**  evidence McCann police statements, Oldfield rogatory, Madeleine. 
*** confused by examples on almost every page of rogatory interviews, especially by the males. The confusion is so vast and spidery that the group, Payne particularly, cannot makes sense of  their own words, get completely lost  and the interviews come to temporary halts while the police attempt to retrieve the thread of meaning.
**** months later The disgraced and beshitten Mitchell's words were fed to the media on behalf of the McCann defence team when the pair  were safely back in the UK.  

***** A  criminal conspiracy to mislead the police The irrefutable evidence is in front of you, documented. The police were misled and the McCanns insisted to the PJ that they must make this phantom the focus of their efforts. Had they succeeded the police might still be looking for the dark-skinned, somewhat demonic,  foreigner today.

__________________________________________________________________________________

* made her retch Tanner rogatory (less colourfully). Supposed cultural history of leaving children alone in her police statements.
** she’s a fucking disaster. Look at her eyewitness statement again. Starting with "dark-skinned" and ending in "not a tourist".
*** photograph Crimewatch archive on net.
**** Tanner's words Both police statements and one reference to the bogus creation of the McCann camp (the hair)
***** Duffy definitions Google

 

 

 

 

It's that Time Again...

You know, when we lucky ones  open the mail for the dividend and royalty cheques and think of April as the sweetest month and well-known  rockers Baldie and the Cesspits wait for that elusive McCann loyalty rebate and annual benefit upgrade notification and the MSM takes a deep breath, puts on its concerned embalming face and solemnly tells us that this year tragic Kate McCann will be feeling, well, tragic, since ex-employee (remember that?) and ex-spokesman (remember that?) and ex-part time helper of the grieving family (remember that?) and very much ex-PR whizz Moribund Mitchell has no doubt sent out a thousand word briefing note telling all broadcasters how tragic she'll be feeling by May 3 2018 but until then her personal  feelings are embargoed until May 1, OK?  

Of course it is.

All on the Same Side? Yes, but not as you know it

And the dear little Bureau will be all spoilsportish to everybody, saying nasty things like how's Wayback going folks? and  how's the thirty-man Scotland Yard conspiracy squad Pat? And how's the serial libelling of innocent women going Hangdemhi, you revolting, snivelling, disgusting   little coward? And how's the Holocaust denial going, Hall?

No results yet, anyone? Not even on twitter? Nothing to show?  And no reprisals yet - what is the secret of the truthseekers' survival? Could they have all done secret deals to save themselves on condition they lie to us?   Well, why not? By Baldie standards each of them should have to prove that their apparent invulnerability to the massed forces of conspiracy is not due to their protecting the McCanns, shouldn't they? Why, demands the Bureau, haven't the conspiracy people been killed?When are they going to provide the evidence that they are not working for the deep state and the right to non-decimal currency and free Viagra  for inhibited bald males?

Somehow Tourette's Teddy Shepherd, that Cruikshank, nay Rowlandson, of our times, frayed cardigan and all, has evaded every attempt by the CIA to leave him lying dead in his kitchenette, identifiable only by his scorched carpet slippers; Marsden hasn't been waterboarded; Textusa, ah Textusa -- she  hasn't been discovered horribly disfigured with a giant fat pimento thrust into her mouth and a note saying Farewell My Lovely, has she?  Brown, all right, nobody would bother going after that but the rest are all, obviously, protected with the aim of convincing the world that all anti-McCanns are not only idiots but completely fucking mad.  What a crew, what a horrible, miserable little gang of ill-educated, uncultured  misfits out to bullshit us all and hurt innocent people!

So, we'll point out yet again the deep bond between the McCanns, their diminishing little clique and this conspiratorial Axis of Idiocy. One thing unites those three groups against all the rest of us: their utter dependence on the  imagination, generally warped and their carelessness of the real pain they have deliberately caused others in the pursuit of their own obsessions, notoriety  and self-indulgence  - plus the utter absence of evidence for any of it, any of it! from Abduction at the beginning to Wayback at the end, that final straw that made the poor bastards look not just Rong but Wridiculous.  

And end it is: nothing new coming out of either camp, just the same dead, repeated shit lies and fantasies   for over two years now in the face of a blizzard of legal and investigative findings that make a mockery of their claims.  As our contribution to Anniversary Time we'll remind people not of newspaper cuttings, let alone the fictions of the Pit,  but of established matters of fact, all provided either from police or court documents or the words of the principals themselves. Sorry it's not more fun - the fact is there aren't many mysteries left to have fun with.  Facts have taken over.   

Statements of Fact

The Disappearance

1)      Madeleine McCann was last seen by independent witnesses early on the evening of Thursday  May 3 2007.*  

2)     The Portuguese investigation  officially records the disappearance as “Type of Crime: unknown”.

3)     No forensic evidence of any kind was found of intrusion into the apartment by an outsider, either through the apartment front door, the unlocked patio doors or the child’s bedroom window. There is none.**

4)     No support has been found for verbal claims  to the police of intrusion or disturbance. In all such cases – “a moved door”, “raised shutters”, “light coming through the shutters”, “an open window” no evidence has ever been provided of these claims.***

5)     The “moved door” was a subjective (“seemed”) suggestion and referred to a door that was afterwards moved by family members and friends before the police arrived. The “raised shutters” referred to  shutters subsequently moved by family members before the arrival of the police; “light coming through the shutters” was a subjective claim made before family members moved the shutters and the curtains. The same applied to the “open window”. Thus none of them could be examined in their claimed state. Whether through chance or some other reason all these supposed eye-witness claims concerned objects that could never be checked by police.****

6)     The police were not alerted until 10.41 when the local police were called. ***** 

Supervision of the Well-Being of the Child between 8.30 – 10PM

1)     The holiday group accompanying the child claimed in their police statements that her well-being and safety was being checked by family members and by other members of the group at half-hourly intervals between 8.30 and 10PM. This was completely untrue, as established by the PJ and the prosecutors.*

2)     There is no independent evidence that Madeleine McCann’s well-being was ever checked in that period.** The  claims from the McCann remnants that waiters noting some of the group leaving the tapas bar apparently to check their children are evidence of checking well-being would be laughable if they weren't pitiable: they are evidence that some of the group left the tapas bar, period.  If we accept, for the sake of argument only, the parental claim as “independent” then her well-being was checked once by her father just after 9PM. If we do not accept it - as we cannot - as independent evidence no checks whatever were made on her well-being by anybody during that period. It is extraordinary how often this is overlooked.

3)     The “other members of the group” supposedly checking her well-being and safety did not exist. The only one who claimed to have done so was Oldfield  and he was not telling the truth. How do we know that?***

The  Claimed Evidence of an Abductor

1)     The only evidence of the  possibility of  abduction by a non-family member  was the famous Tanner sighting during the equally famous “window of opportunity” at 9.15-9.20 when a man was supposedly seen near  the apartment with a child in his arms. Jane Tanner was the only person claiming to see somebody but the description and circumstances of the sighting were given to the police not by her alone but by the holiday group constructing, in writing and collectively, a figure who was not a sighting of any single human being but an exercise of imagination creating a narrative of a sinister stranger.*

2)      According to the group’s “evidence” the man was “hurrying” away with an “unconscious, possibly drugged” child in his arms.**

3)     As is well known now,** this fanciful and sinister creature described by the group in hundreds of  melodramatic words, had no reality. A holiday maker eventually came forward and Scotland Yard are satisfied that is who M/S Tanner saw. One photograph of the real person has been released by Grange.

4)      Kate McCann had, as she writes, “no doubt” that Tanner had seen the “abductor” and, again as she writes, made every attempt, overt and covert,  to get the PJ to focus on him during the investigation as the key to the case. Judging by the message on the Find Madeleine website she feels the same way now.***  

Like the fanciful claims of conspiracy and protection by the usual anti-suspects it is a free and unfettered creation of the human imagination with zero connection, let alone anchorage, to any facts at all.  That is what unites the two sides.****

 

Veracity

1)     In her book Madeleine Kate McCann confessed to having lied to the British media in 2007 about the police investigation. The publication of the case files confirmed that Gerry McCann had repeatedly done the same in his blogs as well as on television.  The aim in these cases was the same: to prevent the British public from discovering knowledge of the true direction of the Ribeiro PJ investigation and the fact that they were the prime suspects. *

2)     Accordingly,  it is impossible to accept the unsupported word of the pair on any matters regarding the disappearance of the child. This derives  from the following question: when people are self-admitted and confirmed liars about a case in which they feature how can the police, or even the courts, ever know when they are lying and when they are not? How?

3)     An aggravating factor in this question of their veracity as witnesses is Kate McCann’s further admission that she is able, at will and convincingly, to adopt a pose in complete opposition to her own feelings. How do we know? Because of her well-known statement in defence of her appearances on television which were the subject of widespread, if cheap and childish, comment about her “deadpan and emotionless” composure.**

4)      Kate McCann stated that she was “advised by experts” to mask her real emotional feelings in order to avoid giving the abductor-who-never-existed a thrill or emotional control. A bad move: logically we don’t even have to know whether this statement of hers is true or false – her veracity disappears either way. If she wasn’t advised by experts then she is lying; if she was so advised and was capable of convincing many of the public that she was utterly heartless with such skill and conviction then she was, again, lying, this time, once again, to the English speaking public en masse. 

 

Aftermath

1)      On September 6, after their interviews with the PJ were completed,  the McCanns met their lawyer Abreu at their apartment and, in the light of the fact that they were being made arguidos in the morning, had an exhaustive discussion of their position and options that went on until 4AM. *

2)     All we know for certain is that a comprehensive discussion took place of whether to admit  the police were right and they  had disposed of the child’s body; that neither of them dismissed the suggestion out of hand but, on the contrary,  explored, sometimes emotionally, sometimes cold-bloodedly in the light of the likely evidence against them, the pros and cons of doing so. And that eventually they decided not to.

3)      As is now well known, the police had made no suggestion of a deal, as Abreu himself confirmed,** diplomatically describing Kate McCann's claim as a “misunderstanding”.  There is no ambiguity about this. At no point does KM quote any officer offering her or her husband a deal or, indeed, anything at all. Kate McCann's sole  "evidence" for the “deal” which her family, at her request, splashed  all over the tabloids that morning was this:  

 “If  we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he [Abreu] said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.”

That is neither a deal nor does it derive from the police directly or indirectly. Nor is it evidence.Kate McCann has taken a simple statement of legal fact quoted by her lawyer that body disposal receives a lower sentence than homicide – quelle surprise! – and smeared the PJ with it. But with the factual record outlined above, are you surprised? The hidden subtext of the Madeleine version, of course,  is the failed attempt to disguise that they were seriously considering admitting that they had indeed disposed of the child's body - in the face of no threats, deals or menaces from the police whatever.

4)      So the 2007 case effectively came to an end, concluding, just as as it began, with a pack of lies.

 

5)   And a reminder for the Axis of Idiocy: no publicly known evidence exists for a prosecution  of the  McCanns for involvement in the child's disappearance,  as any solicitor anywhere will  confirm for a hundred quid or so. None existed in Portugal in 2007 and none since.  That is also a fact and the greatest joke against the  Rong  brigade of all: look dears, the McCanns have never had any protection behind the scenes because they have never once needed it. Can you really not understand that?

___________________________________

 

The Disappearance - sources

 

 *   Around 5.30. Established by the PJ investigation and confirmed by the prosecutors, whether you like it or not and whether you agree or not. You, and we, don't even come into it.

 

**  That is not a matter of opinion. You can check the case files.

 

***See (5)

 

**** KM police statements; GM police statements; Oldfield police statement; Oldfield rogatory interview; GNR officers' statements; case files, forensic reports; KM Madeleine, e.g "in the children’s room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window. Rushing outside, he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side, too, not just from inside as we’d thought." Very good, Kate.  

 

***** GNR logs.

________________________________________

 

The Supervision and Safety of the Child

 

*Archiving Summary conclusion: "they did not check with the frequency claimed";Prosecutor Menezes in Lisbon hearings "the group did not tell the truth about the checks". Irrefutable, of course. It follows, therefore, that KM's statement in Madeleine  that the (supposed decision on checking) was "a collective one" means that it was a collective one that was not true. Think about the implications of that.

 

**  "Independent evidence": evidence, forensic or  historical. Eye-witness evidence from persons with no stake in the outcome of the investigation. In this context none of the group of Nine are independent both because of their proximity to the child, their possible stake in the outcome and the questions raised in the Archiving Summary about their veracity and motivation.  A waiter unknown to the group would be independent, so would timed CCTV footage. Clearly a family member's evidence could never be independent, whatever its quality.  

 

*** Because he was unable to tell the police whether the child was alive, dead or missing on his supposed visit: Therefore he could not have known whether she was even alive, let alone safe. It is irrefutable that he had not ascertained her well-being. Obviously the claim by Oldfield et al that he had checked previously by "listening at the shutter" was nonsense: listening and being satisfied at the "result" was perfectly compatible with all three children already being dead, unconscious or gagged.   Such were the “half-hourly” safety checks. A pack of proven lies.

__________________________________

 

The Claimed Evidence of an Abductor

 

*Case files statements: case files: the typed timeline. There is no possible doubt about this. As the Bureau has pointed out previously, quoting the original text, not opinion, the words used by the group were not only part hearsay but were used in a dramatically suggestive way with an elaborate superstructure  of menacing and subjective words (drugged etc.)  conjuring a threatening image for which there was no possible justification and a deliberate "cuing" to a predetermined identification. It does not describe a "sighting" but a  persona created by the  group and agreed to by Tanner. In other words it does not correspond to and does not describe an actual human being but a collective invention - complete with those wonderful words "possibly" and "probably".

 

** Official statement from Scotland Yard. Attempts by McCann supporters like Bennett and others to wriggle out of this truth fail abysmally. If you wish you can fall back on the exact interim words of the Yard "we are almost certain that the person seen by JT was an innocent holidaymaker" but it won't do you any good: "almost certain" means  90% + probability, an extraordinarily strong claim for an unfinished investigation to make, usually only used of  extreme cases, such as an armed suspect. The papers and images so far withheld will provide the confirmation. For further information on the subject see the Bureau for March 20 2017.
         

***Kate McCann has not said why she continues to believe this.
 

****And both sides, from McCann to Hall to Brown and the rest are stuck in exactly the same place: they made claims without foundation evidence but from the  beliefs or hopes forming part of their imaginations. When you do that you can never, ever, be validated or vindicated. Can you see why? Because legal reality - the facts of the case -  knows nothing of the contents of Kate McCanns beliefs and imaginations and, thank God, nothing of what lies within Bennett's dome or our own. How could it? It can only know of what you can point to and say "there - look". But since you started without a factual anchor you can never produce one and say look! because it doesn't exist except in your imagination. That's the way it is, Kate; that's the way it is, Baldie. Eleven years says so.

_______________________________________

 

Veracity

 

*The Bureau has quoted the sources exhaustively over the years. There is no getting away from it: Kate McCann denies ever lying to the media before August 2007 but then states that in the specific case - a very important one, perhaps the most important of the investigation - she and her husband lied outright and constructed a tissue of untrue cover stories. And her justification for this act of duplicity to the UK public? The whine that "we didn't feel we had any choice".

 

      That, of course, makes her a proven equivalent of Bennett - united again - in the truth stakes,  the latter found by the judge to have been disingenuous in his evidence in the High Court and who formally admitted his various claims against Kennedy, for example, were untrue and libellous. Bennett, whom we take as  representative of the whole dishonest fantasy-anti movement, hasn't even offered a whine of attempted justification, just more and more crazed lies.   

 

** KM, (famously)  Madeleine.  The experts, like so many people quoted by her, have not yet turned up to confirm her account in detail.

____________________________________________

 

Aftermath

 

*KM version in Madeleine.

 

** Abreu made his sole on the record statement ("all a misunderstanding")at a public media conference shortly afterwards. In other words not even her own lawyer confirmed the claims she made supposedly in his presence - so they couldn't have been true, could they?