Wednesday 28 March 2018

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 – 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.