Tuesday 22 May 2018

The Accomplice

We couldn’t let Mitchell’s involuntary early  retirement pass without an appreciative excerpt from his collected works – but where does one start? The most subtle tribute and one that the educated McCann cognoscenti, our target audience, would alone appreciate, would be to pick out from Mitchell’s back catalogue a non-lie and print it deadpan.    
Unfortunately our slower readers in the cheap seats wouldn’t appreciate that at all, irony not being their strongest suit – but the problem solved itself: try as we might, beavering through thousands and thousands of words uttered in that inimitable house-style of his – think Ray Winston after cheap elocution lessons and terminal depression – we couldn’t locate a single statement that we were certain was true.   
Anyway, we took a vote and selected a suitable and moving testimonial, a single comment that captures the essence of the man and his place in the McCann story.

The Background

At the beginning of October 2007 Mitchell had joined enthusiastically in the defence effort to convince the UK public, not the Portuguese justice system,  that the McCanns were truthful people whom the crooked Portuguese authorities had tried to “fit up” or frame. The couple were now safely back in the UK and the only way they’d ever be dragged back again would be via extradition.
Jackboots Jackie -you're safe in her hands
But extradition would ultimately need the agreement of the Home Secretary, at that time the unlikely, in all senses of the word,  figure of M/S J. Smith,  and the Home Secretary’s job in an extradition case is not to look at the facts but to respond to the politics: if there was hysterical popular agreement that the McCanns were innocent victims of wicked Dago criminality then, on the appointed day, she would refuse the extradition, pulling a large onion from one of her bodily crevices if necessary to help her weep about the terrible injustice that might result, the risk of suicide by Kate McCann in the Lisbon dungeons etc. etc. we listen to you, please vote for us next time.
So this "indirect" defence strategy - openly admitted by its head - was to target the public who would, in turn, convince the Home Secretary of their support for the pair. And a great success it was, with the Portuguese accepting  defeat and  not seeking  extradition. Events suggest that if the Portuguese had continued they would have lost: a similar exercise in PR, politics, and onion production from crannies at the expense of the facts worked a treat for Gary McKinnon, whom the public, after a slow start, “took to  its hearts” (the British public only operates in cooking-fat sentimentality or shrieking hysteria mode, then and now) like a thick but loveable polar bear cub about to be clubbed to death.
So loveable

The Revisions

When lawyers examined the evidence it became clear – as it is clear to this day – that the information provided to the Portuguese police by the Nine not only smelled of stinking fish but actually made an abduction between 9.10 and 9.15 effectively impossible, as Goncalo Amaral always claimed. That is why Scotland Yard have now excluded it.
The famous timeline that the Nine had given  the PJ* was an exercise in over-cleverness: by pretending that the group’s movements could be timed to the minute where necessary and altering or blurring other movements to fit an abductor they provided information against themselves. There simply wasn’t time for an abductor to get the job done between GM’s last visit and the sighting of a “dark-skinned” [© M/S J. Tanner] man carrying an “unconscious, possibly drugged” [© D.Payne et al] child a minute or two later.
Back to the drawing board: Gerry McCann and Clarence Mitchell together began inventing things to plug the holes. They couldn’t do anything about the police statements the pair had already made but Gerry could start “remembering things” and Clarence Mitchell could help him sell them to the British public.
In doing so Mitchell crossed a line: he moved from promotion and evasion to criminal deception. He had no immunity in law in lying about the most critical part of the whole case because he was not a professional. In law he was acting as either a) an agent paid by the McCanns to deliberately spread false information about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance or b) as a voluntary accomplice or friend of Gerry McCann to do the same thing.  

The Reaction

The PJ, gradually realising what they’d let slip between their fingers, knew what the McCanns were up to. Carlos Anjos, the Portuguese police federation head, made his well-known statement that the pair were using what he called “diversion tactics”. He was most troubled by what he called the "ridiculous episode" of Gerry McCann letting it be known that  on his – yes, you’ve guessed it –  last check on his daughter, he had noticed  a door was ajar when it had been left closed but  “thought little of it at the time”.
And, to cap it, since then he had “begun to realise” his daughter's abductor could have been hiding there in the apartment, yards away.
Did you have to read that last sentence twice? You should have done because it doesn’t make any sense.  The reason it doesn’t make sense is that Gerry McCann had made it up afterwards to halve the time necessary for an abduction by having the intruder do all those boring intrusion things before his arrival: the seams of the lies stick out like barbs.
McCann and Mitchell had been trapped into using non sequiturs because they were falsely claiming  that McCann thought and observed these things at the time even though he hadn’t said anything about them then. There’s no way of doing that without giving yourself away.
So Anjos, who’s not stupid but a rare voice of common sense in the case,  called Mitchell and McCann out in the Portuguese media. And Mitchell came back, widely, in the British media. Mitchell first tried more nonsense, stating again that GM’s realisation that he had been in the same room as the abductor only came to him later, a repeat of the previous impossibility (check the meaning of realise). He added, "There is nothing that has come out recently that should be of surprise to the officers."

Criminal Accomplice

And then he entered much more serious territory by adding: Clarence Mitchell: "This was said in the original witness statement."
Here’s the section of Gerry McCann’s  original witness statement dealing with the event.
“As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.
He then went to the WC where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, returning after that to the restaurant."
Nothing was said about the door because nothing had happened to the door: it was a later invention. Nothing was said about a hiding intruder because it was a complete invention to cover weaknesses in the story.
Mitchell hadn’t just sugared the pill, or pleaded for understanding or corrected McCann haters. He told a lie in order to protect the McCanns from justice by inventing what had been said in the investigative documents. He was a lying accomplice, an accessory.

That’s the epitaph for this walking corpse whose sins have consumed him.


* Created after the first round of statements and the opportunity to compare notes and given to the PJ by the Nine via the British embassy staff just before the 10 May serious questioning was about to begin. That was also the time when the embassy staff were given certain claims about the PJ by a McCann "family member", the contents of which were so offensive about the Portuguese police that the Foreign Office still won't release them. Belt and braces comes to mind.  

Wednesday 16 May 2018

That Bus Doesn't Stop No More

Rather a lot has been happening since the Bureau dropped its little bomb at the end of March about the people trying to discredit Operation Grange, hasn’t it?
Six weeks! Pure enjoyment for some of us ever since, a rather different matter for those we christened the Usual Suspects – the nutter mob who, crushed, irrelevant, found-out and now, most of all, absurd – are brawling  among themselves like porno mud-wrestlers in the cess.  It couldn’t have happened to nicer people.
Down in the dark stuff with them is the Hendon Husk, only six weeks ago a supposed master of the dark arts, now suddenly revealed as a hollowed-out wreck, mocked and reviled by his own industry  for his recent performances and, more significantly, dismissed as an embarrassment and an appalling failure by a PR house-journal, accused there of giving the  crisis management industry a bad name. The crisis management industry! Imagine being a creature so low, such a flatworm,  that even those bags of dirt are embarrassed and ashamed of him. Apart from the Cess, there's nowhere lower than that.
Liar and bullshitter Nix - just Mitchell's type
Almost certainly it was money that drove the Husk into the Cambridge Analytica suicide mission once Gerry McCann had grown tired of waking him up in the morning to get some work done.  Despite the grandiose titles of the few jobs he’s had since 2011, Mitchell hasn’t been able to monetise the brand he thought he’d built for himself from fragments of a broken family.
Few people make real money in the crisis management world and the Husk isn’t one of them, as a glance at his public accounts, as well as his public record, demonstrates. As a professional PR man he is finished: nobody in the biz will ever again give him a decent job.
He joins the long line of people who under-estimated Gerry McCann and thought they could use him as a stepping stone. Bad move! GM in his King Midas days had a use for him and took this grey-faced nonentity, who’d never earned more than seventy grand a year, and made him a thing of value, just as Picasso did when he signed similar dirty kitchen dish-cloths  and made them worth thousands overnight.
Only the Usual Suspects and the more credulous Portuguese believed the sad little myths he encouraged about himself  - “controlled the media”, “worked for the intelligence services.” Yes dear, of course you did dear.
GM has used him up and there's no way back. Not even in Australia. And his ordeal has only just begun.  
Can't Believe the Press
Now, we don’t wish to intrude on private grief overmuch, so we’ll just observe that while the nutters are falling out over the best way of escaping from the closed loop they’ve created for themselves – it can't be done, as they'll discover – the media, currently cowed into silence and deceit by the Brownshirt killer squads and their masters known as Them Up There have  pointed out the following in the last five weeks:
1) Mudlin’ Memorial Day, which, in its overblown vulgarity and hysterical credulity transformed the UK into the gaudy, rubbish-filled back streets of Naples on San Gennaro Day, was killed off by Scotland Yard after eleven years.
OFM Italia.com? Tat-Italian Style
The McCanns were “advised” by Scotland Yard that interviews were not a good idea. Their lawyers made no comment.
The Bureau says: That alone has been worth twelve million quid.  
2) A Dr  Julian Totman has been identified by the Sun -  owned, of course, by McCann protector Rupert Murdoch – as the man walking near the McCanns’ apartment  whom Jane Tanner apparently mistook for an abductor.
The Sun, which described the sighting as a “bogus lead”  most helpfully pointed out that  Ms Tanner, one of the so-called Tapas Seven, saw the man with Gerry McCann and “pal” Jeremy Wilkins nearby, the former having “just looked in on Maddie”.
Even more helpfully, the Sun  added that MS Tanner later defied police orders to not comment publicly on what she saw.  
3) On May 12, the Sun said Jane Tanner told police she saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas near the McCanns’ apartment on the night Maddie went missing - but she did not recognise him as Dr Totman.
4) On May 13, the Sun wrote that  Jane Tanner “spent up to half an hour watching Gerry McCann and Dr Julian Totman play tennis on May 3, 2007” but less than three hours  later she failed to recognise him.
5) A police chief involved in making Madeleine McCann’s parents suspects after her disappearance has been named the new head of Portugal’s PJ force.
The Bureau says: Well yes.
5A) KM writes about one of her earlier encounters, when Luis Neves seemed quite compliant, that, “My frustration with their lack of progress, combined with what they were actually telling us about him, whipped up a storm of fury in me that was completely out of character. It seems to me now as if for several months I was possessed by some demonic alien that infiltrated my thoughts and filled me with anger and hatred. I needed a face on which to pin all this rage, someone to blame.”
It all comes round, Kate; it all comes round.
On Wednesday August 8,  (six days after the “we’d never lied…” crap), Nice Neves was somewhat different:
“Tell us about that night, they [he and his colleague] said. Tell us everything that happened after the children went to bed. I gave them every detail I could remember, as I had before, but this time they responded by just staring at me and shaking their heads.”
“Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events. It ‘didn’t fit’ with what they knew. Didn’t fit? What did they know? I was sobbing now, well past the stage of silent tears and stifled sniffs. I began to wail hysterically, drawing breath in desperate gasps.”
They proposed that when I’d put Madeleine to bed that night, it wasn’t actually the last time I’d seen her…. They tried to convince me I’d had a blackout – a ‘loss of memory episode’, I think they called it…”
Just as Grange and nice Mr Redwood has offered  Jane Tanner an exit route that will be honoured – that she made a mistake in good faith – so KM’s lawyer Abreu later spotted that the suggestion that she had suffered “an episode” (see 5A above and the phrase “demonic alien” and consider the implications of that paragraph) offered  Kate McCann a similar exit route.
A month later, the night before they were made arguidos, Abreu advised her to take it. Kate, as we know  from Madeleine, did not  refuse the suggestion.  The evidence that she didn’t, smothered though it is in purple prose, is irrefutable, as we’ve demonstrated from the text many times – the last one being when Nessling publicly accepted that our claim was correct.

It was Gerry McCann, a cleverer man than Abreu, who sussed that the PJ were still short of evidence (“they’ve got nothing”) and, after weighing it all up,  turned the advice down on her behalf.  But it was self-admitted liar to the media about Portuguese police interviews  to protect themselves (in her Madeleine description of Gerry's "virus" to cover the August 2 police raid) and self-admitted victim of near-psychotic episodes (in the passage above), Kate McCann, who organized the  lying media campaign the next morning.

That was again to conceal police activity, this time just how close she and her lawyer had come to admitting PJ accusations, claiming through her dupes and family  that the wicked PJ had tried to "fit her up", to use her family's argot,  and force her to confess to something she hadn't done. A disgusting claim. And Neves was one of the officers she so grossly defamed.  
Danger: can cause sinking feelings - Luis Neves
"Viruses" or "fit-ups", it was all the same to Kate McCann. Somehow we suspect that bus won't be coming past again.
Still, all this stuff is trivial, isn't it, compared with what Robert Murat and Gerry McCann plotted together under Textusa’s table with the last photograph in their hands and Brian Kennedy on the line and Halliwell in the wings while Control Risks and  the secret Pat Brown killer squad formed a ring of steel around them as  the nannies and faked crèche records arrived, Mitchell got the OK from his MI5 boss  and, finally, der Tag had come  - and Jim Gamble  pressed the Activate Operation Abduction!  button  - on April 1.  
Isn't it?

Saturday 12 May 2018

Suspended Hostilities

Lifeboat Crew Yearning For An HR Department
AS writes: I was in touch with our, ahem,  friends at the Mail this week over the apparently trivial matter of the Whitby lifeboat "scandal". So, it seems, were quite a few others.
Anyway, this is the result of all our efforts.
Visit the page, visit the RNLI site. Read them and weep. It's like stumbling on a bank robbery gang's secret stash.
Once you've read what they're up to I hope that some of you at least, whatever your feelings on other matters, will let the RNLI know your views. The nub of it all is this:
Life saving at sea in the UK is carried out almost exclusively by unpaid volunteers, as it always has been.
 Sennen Cove Lifeboat Station
When I surfed a lot I stayed for long periods in Cornwall's Sennen Cove  and often  watched them, transfixed, as they forced their way out  in the middle of the night. But I was looking out from the bedroom of  a warm cottage behind the shed while below the boat was paused at the top of the slip by the red door like a hesitant, suddenly doubtful,  swimmer. The noise was constant, banshee, horror-film loud and  speech was impossible.
The men stood, tiny,  on deck while the boat searchlight, like a giant torch,  picked out the demented seas directly ahead that would tower over them as they reached the end of the slip. Nobody who has watched such chilling scenes can ever forget them. And then they launched, completely alone.
All of it takes place in a land where the  churchyards and cemeteries, like those of Cape Cod,  are filled with the multiple or mass graves of the people who have perished in these seas, including children by the score. Yet the sadness is offset by the pervasive knowledge of what these fishing communities, poor themselves, have been willing to do over centuries for the strangers of the waves. Sometimes the male voice choirs from these Cornish stations will give voice to the power and tragedy of what they do with short concerts in the boathouses, the old songs surging and falling in that Celtish way, like the sea itself.

It is a noble vocation. Perhaps the most noble of all.
Sennen Cove
The lifeboat station is on the right with the curved roof. Yes, they really do launch into seas like that. In the winter I've seen worse 
The RNLI makes a great fuss, when its agents hold their sweaty hands out, about its voluntary nature. They make no mention of the huge amounts of money - tens of millions annually - that the fund raisers take as their cut before it even reaches Bloat City.
Ideally, there shouldn't be any wage costs at all.  All right, it's not a perfect world - but £75 million in labour costs last year? £75 million?
The real reason for plugging the "volunteer" side is to get hold of your ackers. Then loads of people get their hands on it - money sticks as it goes round and round - but the lifesavers get nothing. They don't complain: they aren't in it for the money, inconceivable as that might be to charity "workers". But for a tiny group of superb people to drag along this bloated, stinking, dead-fish  tail behind them  is not just wrong but an insult to the communities and volunteers and the values that keep them going.
Personally, I said  I'll never support them again until I've seen evidence of change - the sort  that is slowly being forced on the other fatsos of the charity world, you know the ones behind  the darkened windows of the SUVs  you see throbbing along, the dust from their huge tyres whirling onto  the bony, half-starved tribespeople slumped down at the side of the road.
The beauty of withholding is - you won't hurt any of the lifesavers by doing so. You'll boost their morale. 
Go on, starve some of the fat cats out. Now, where were we?

Thursday 10 May 2018

Your Questions Answered

Do you believe that Kate & Gerry were involved in the disappearance of their daughter?
JB writes: If I did I certainly wouldn’t say so publicly. Who wants to be a loser? It  would be a stone cold libel for which no truth defence exists. As Carter Ruck warned their victim Bennett, his right to his views  is absolute, as is his right to pass them on to the police – but saying it publicly, which means attempting to persuade others that the McCanns are guilty, is another matter. One can do it as long as one has the irrefutable evidence to support it. For being too stupid to understand that point Bennett is now financially supporting his "enemies" and thus helping them prosper. Again.

But it would also be morally wrong. I've always asked myself, “if I was on a jury would I vote to convict the couple, given the evidence made public since 2007?” The answer is no, I certainly wouldn’t. I couldn't. So why would I want to make such a terribly serious claim without the absolute proof to justify it?
As far as neglect of the child is concerned, the Archiving Summary provides the evidence that they had not broken the Portuguese law by their actions.  I’m neither knowledgeable about, nor interested in, the subject.
So what is your problem with the McCanns?
I won't bother to repeat the proof that they've lied spectacularly about this affair. That is open and shut. More important is the question of that dreaded word principle, that from the very first day they set out to influence the public about their behaviour on a colossal scale while ignoring – no media! – the instructions of the police and attempting to go over their heads, either via secret channels to the media or by appealing for Foreign Office and thus government help against the police.
This was, without exaggeration,  the greatest, and most blatant public  attempt to bypass the legal and judicial system in modern European history, which is why it became so notorious world-wide. Instead of working within the law they engaged – expunge it! – an elaborate and highly expensive legal team not to argue their case to a coroner or a jury but to engage in a systematic campaign to convince the British public of their innocence, as the head of their defence admitted. By influencing the public mind - which smoothly ranges from sentimental hysteria to lynch mob savagery with very little in between, has no collective reasoning process and is therefore a much easier beast to tame than a jury -  it would be easier to ensure that the pair would never be extradited to Portugal.  They were right. It succeeded. But nobody yet knows for certain why they did it.
I’m not interested in small children; bringing them up was enough for me, thanks. I’m not particularly interested in cause-celebres or flesh-creeping mysteries. And I don’t much care about the future  of a couple of doctors.
But their attempt to substitute the paid media-blitzing of the   public for the rule of law was an insult, a perversion of everything that democracy stands for. It was only possible at all because of the international nature of the case: had the crime taken place in the UK all such behaviour would have been illegal, a serious contempt of court.
As a fanatical democrat, I was determined to challenge this attempt to co-opt all of us, without our agreement, into being their defence witnesses. Not on your life.
Why did you support Goncalo Amaral so strongly?
First of all it’s in the past, a subject I’m not interested in. We won. End of story.
Secondly, there was not the slightest sentiment involved. I have never met GA, have never spoken to him directly and communicated with him only through intermediaries. Both Amaral and I had the same aim: to see the McCanns'  claims tested in the judicial arena for the very first time, not indulged by star-struck MSM interviewers or smoothed by paid Crisis Management liars. That was why I agreed to become a defence witness for him.
The difference is that Amaral was fighting for his life and I was risking almost nothing but so what? The co-incidence of interest did no harm and, once we managed to persuade Sky to cover the Lisbon 2009/10 hearings we were home and dry: it turned out exactly as we'd suspected but had never dared to fully believe. For the very first time the facts  that the couple and their lawyers had worked so hard to conceal – the fact that GA was mainstream PJ, not the “rogue cop” they claimed, the fact that all the PJ detectives involved dismissed their version of events as a “fairy story”, the fact, as prosecutor Menezes stated, that the group had lied about the checking – were out in the open. Not long afterwards the Sky twitter-feed man, Jon di Paolo, tweeted those words so ominous for the couple's  future, that "M/S Duarte seems to be very angry and has started to shout". A few days later the McCanns’ meltdown on the court steps took place and things, as we knew, would never be the same again.
Why have you turned on other commentators on the case? Aren’t you all on the same side?
Of course we aren’t on the same side, and never have been. Up to 2009 or so there were large numbers of people with real brain and expertise who were as hurt and offended as I was at the couple’s attempts to act extra-legally and I listened to, learned from and communicated with them. The 3As in particular had lawyers, broadcasters, scientists, creative people in abundance, most of them specialists in their own field. A genuine expert on DNA appeared, for example, from whom some of us learned a great deal  but  he was strictly factual so, of course, the owner Brenda, then a fanatical anti-McCann, drummed him out SAP for being "biased".
But after 2009 sensible people began to turn their back on the case and get on with their lives while continuing to read about the case. What was the point of continuing to obsess? I was a writer anyway so I decided to continue.
The loonies and operators descended.  Bennett, whose personal emails and “cunning plans” were all passed on to us by Goncalo unacknowledged, so that we knew exactly what he was up to, came in late with his dodgy business partner. They  began by rubbishing the rogatory interviews that we had published in the UK – one copy to a pro-McCann, one to an anti, one to a neutral – as forgeries, dismissing my assurance that I had examined them very carefully and that there was no doubt of their genuineness. That gives you some idea of their analytical talents.
He and his partner  then tried to exploit the nervous collapse of owner Brenda to take over the pitiful remnants of the 3As, stealing email addresses from the database en passant. They followed that by trying to exploit Nigel Moore’s money troubles and take over McCann Files. They failed at that too.
Do you seriously think I’m on the same side as that? Do you think I should be?
So why are you attacking them all so strongly now?

Because all of them, every one, are betraying the hopes of people – thousands of them – who were baffled, hurt, insulted, deeply troubled, at the wrong the McCanns had done in using them as involuntary defence witnesses and their apparent immunity. How had it happened? What was going on in this country? Bureau reader Brenda Leyland died, for Christ’s sake, died, because of her despair  that a couple of monstrous liars could exploit and manipulate modern media  and breach the spirit of UK law and get away with it.
Now, at last, there are firm, solid, evidence-based  reasons to be hopeful about this case. Perhaps, eventually, to glory in it. Yet the Usual Suspects are apparently intent on claiming that there is no point in even hoping, since the leader of the investigation is corrupt, the Grange squad, according to that famous expert on British institutions, Brown, is entirely corrupt, the Home Office is corrupt and the government loves sodomy with under-aged kids so much that it too is hopelessly corrupt. But that's exactly the shit that Kate McCann claimed about Portugal!

"The country was already reeling from a child-abuse scandal involving Casa Pia, a state-run institution for orphans and other disadvantaged children (when this finally came to court in 2010, six men, including a TV presenter and a former UNESCO ambassador, would be convicted) – the first such case ever to be tried in Portugal. Perhaps it was more convenient and less troubling to lay Madeleine’s disappearance at the door of her foreign parents, put an end to the matter and move on. Who knows?" (Madeleine)

The McCanns, as we know,  had a very good and continuing reason, a motive, for making such claims - to devalue or wreck the Portuguese investigation or reputation. So what's the difference? What's the reason for the Usual Suspects identical claims? Well, what is it? 
If they just stuck to their stuff  on facebook then one could ignore it. But they haven’t. All of them, including the worthless Brown - so busy plugging her own pamphlet on twitter that she hasn’t got time to study the facts of the case – are, in practice, if not in intention, acting as agents for the people who have very special reasons to want Grange closed down. There is no way round that.
The public supporters of the parents don’t merit attention anymore – they were defeated in  2017 and have become irrelevant. The MSM is no longer  actively promoting the cause of the couple and therefore don’t  need countering. In fact the MSM itself is now being used as a mere conduit to get to social media and influence the more gullible there rather than in the tabloids, in keeping with the loss of credibility and reach of the MSM itself.
The McCann Affair has always been about the truth - its establishment, its vital significance in everyday life, its intrinsic moral worth, whether to a Christian, Muslim or humanist  - not just about a missing child. Thank God that so many people,  still see truth itself as something to value, defend and aspire to. And the Usual Suspects are as guilty as the McCanns in not telling, or valuing, the truth.
And it’s that we’re highlighting.

Wednesday 9 May 2018

Stranded By Events

"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. " The Bureau, March 21 2018

The Usual Suspects' hysteria over the last few days about Bundleman's origins has been marvellous to behold.
As we've said elsewhere about both Textusa and Bennett, and ignoring, for the moment, the rest of this tiny clique of self-publicists and nutters like Hall, Brown, Hidiho and Morais, the lies they peddle come not so much from their absurd "hypotheses" but from their attempts to fib, bluff  and cover up when evidence starts to refute their previous claims. Then they're off, piling lie upon lie, libel on libel, in the vain attempt to talk their way out of trouble.  
As long as the case was surrounded by a sea of doubt and uncertainty they could get away with it. But with the progress of the twin Portuguese and British investigations the tide has gone out, leaving  the Usual  Suspects gasping, flopping  and threshing about in the sand and mud. They'll stay in denial till the end. 


For years this uneducated rabble  has maintained that Redwood lied and that the person photographed by his  team doesn't exist.
The idea is so crazed that it hardly justifies rebuttal. Yes, take it from us, the man exists.
Do we really have to spell this out to grown-ups? Do we really have to explain that, if there was the slightest chance that Redwood had made any of it up  then  within days writ-servers acting on behalf of Jane Tanner and the McCanns would have appeared at the gates of Scotland Yard to summon its head to the High Court. There they would be accused not only of acting ultra vires, that is,  beyond their  legal powers, but also of conspiracy to intimidate or provide false evidence against a witness.
The certainty of more six-figure pay-outs would have been  preceded by the immediate suspension of Grange. In other words certain suspects' dreams would have come true. 


Jane Tanner  knows perfectly well that Redwood was not making it up, which is why, as we've said repeatedly, she is co-operating with the Yard. Lawyers  for the McCanns know it too - one phone call to the Yard would tell them so, together with a name. Their case is slightly different from Tanner's because Grange hasn't accused Tanner of any potential wrong-doing: when all the truth comes out Tanner will be able to plead an honest mistake, despite the damning nature of her collusion with the others in misrepresenting  her sighting in the famous typed timeline. "Dark skinned", indeed! Others are much more in the line of fire.
All of them know that the affair is in suspension until the investigation is complete; till  then Grange, which was so anxious to point out the serious implications of the "new timeline" for the case on Crimewatch, has not said, and  never will say, a single syllable about the myriad implications of  the death of Bundleman and, in particular, the exposure of the Nine's collusion.
If the Yard say a single word then, again, lawyers for the couple can plead that Grange has selectively leaked information prejudicing any possible legal process against  them.  But it won't happen  until the police hand is disclosed - before that they have to act "above it all". Unless desperation supervenes.

Both Mad and Guilty

Now, we go back to the nub of the Bureau's accusation against the Usual Suspects and it's a really serious one. Ignore the fact that they are all, without exception, drawing their theories and supposed facts from their imaginations -  the definition of theorising without the firm anchor of fact.  Forget that the Bureau may be jealous of their brilliant successes, forget personal dislikes and the clash of opinions and personalities and consider carefully the main charge we have been making against all of them for the last couple of months.
Our claim is that the group have been deliberately duped  by false newspaper stories into acting in  ways that support suspects and non-suspects in the case: in other words they have been penetrated and are being actively used to support people with a possible case to answer. They have been carefully chosen for their gullibility and lack of grey matter. And the aim, of course, is to kill off Grange or make Grange show its hand early. They have betrayed the trust that rests on any commentator anywhere.

Misdirection Again

We need hardly repeat that the McCanns have never shown the slightest concern that their supposed protective umbrella of political/powerful/secret  people might be exposed. Since May 4 2007, indeed, they have lost no opportunity to highlight it, starting with Gordon Brown, moving on to Blair; being photographed next to the Home Secretary; photographed with a member of the House of Lords; boasting in Madeleine that Yard officers like Bob Small were "on their side" and would take calls from them to put things right at any time of night.
If you look you'll find these McCann hints that they are being protected  everywhere: they want people to believe that there is political protection for them, because they know they have nothing whatever to fear from that direction, ever. And characters  like the husk Mitchell - who invented a fantasy role as a sinister ex-government official "controlling what comes out in the media" precisely to make gullible people believe that the McCanns had backstairs hidden power - make sure that the Usual Suspects get their little gobbets of fantasy to confirm their beliefs.

Wait and see.

As for the latest feed, people, bless them, have already publicly noted the extreme lengths that the Mail and the Sun have gone to "show" that it has nothing to do with stunned and beleaguered Camp McCann. No Tracey, with her close links to the pair, but the Sun crime editor is, most unusually, credited. In the Mail it is a chief correspondent.
No Mr Pal, no Mr Friend, in either of them, no reactions whatever from Kate and Gerry McCann, no comment from a named Clarence Mitchell. Oh, and this little gem: "The British police investigation has now been scaled down and is likely to be shelved in October." Once again, fitting in nicely with the Usual Suspects' agenda. 
And the loonies think that Grange made the leak!
None of the gossip alters the dead Bundleman situation. The doctor's wife says absolutely nothing about Grange, nothing, in fact, that gives a clue to what's going on.  But it says a great deal about the desperation of certain suspects.

You've stuck it out this long - now enjoy it!  

A Usual Suspects' Claim in 2018. Worse to Come  
Join the club, go on, be uncool: believe in the boring truth that we've been bringing you for years and that not one person has ever refuted. Give yourself a break from depressed, corrupted, thicko internet bullshit merchants and cheer up.  
"Blacksmith gives us hope," someone used to write regularly about us years ago, which was the finest compliment we've ever had. That hope was not misplaced. Relax and enjoy it. You deserve it.

Wednesday 2 May 2018

So What Else Hasn't Grange Told Us?

Quote of the Century
Clarence Mitchell, in the Sun, April 27:
“They are not trying to be awkward or evasive with the press"

Grange Cares

When you think about it, it’s quite nice of Grange to let the parents, via their non-spokesman, tell the world that the Yard are giving “specific advice” to the McCanns on what they may comment on in the media but without actually saying so publicly themselves.
Perhaps they  worry about people  misinterpreting such a statement or, worse,  having to agree it with the couple's lawyers, or,  even worse, among themselves, but it does raise a few questions. Still, perhaps we'll find out their reasoning in one of their transparent media releases in the future.  
That's when Mr Rowley's replacement  might say (they all talk the same when discussing the status of the pair)  I want to make it quite clear that this does not necessarily agree the way our thoughts are progressing and about of the direction we take, on occasion, or in the face of new facts that could happen  in taking steps or stepping takes at the different stages in the near past possibly, which translated into English means, “It’s better all-round if we don’t say a public word about Kate and Gerry McCann except that we love them and want their suffering to stop, OK?”
Martin “Dirty” Brunt: But why? Do you mean such an announcement could lead to speculation…?

PJ Head Paolo do Karma-is-Coming: [Interjecting] He means they are not suspects. Not suspects. Not suspects. Can you understand that? Can you get that into your tiny weasel-cock head? Or do you want to come down to the basement with me and Protection Officer Gigante here to help you fall down the stairs? Eh? Eh?

Martin "Stains" Brunt: [to Grange officer] I take it that means “no comment”.

Rowley Lookalike: Look, we couldn’t be clearer on where our thoughts are deriving to and eventually by heading and that’s a snapshot, only a snapshot, of the present point at which we are leaving, obviously, because circumstances can be going backwards as well as in the unexpected direction of events even and telling the truth I am.

Brunt: Yes, I quite understand. Could I have a drink of water?

Do Karma-is-Coming: In the bowl over there. No, on the floor. The one that says Fido.

Martin "Killer" Brunt: Thank you so much.


Give them a Break!

But in one regard this policy of staying silent and letting the McCanns give us the news has a definite down side. Since 2013 the Bureau has repeatedly asked  why Grange has never publicly announced the key information in their possession that finally and unmistakeably exonerates the couple.

Obviously, there must be plenty  of it from five years digging and, equally obviously, there is no reason why a redacted version that gives nothing away about the real suspects can't be made public. 
Just a 200 word official précis of  the evidence – photographic, biological, eye-witness, phone-tracking - can bring us the  "demonstration of their innocence" that would silence their enemies. And the pair would at last be able to sleep at night without the continuing, and quite appalling,  long-term afflictions the couple described so graphically  in their libel claim against Goncalo Amaral.
It would be so easy! The news  going  round the world in minutes and the couple's lives changed for ever.
And there is a precedent. Look how the Yard overrode the legal nay-sayers and let humanity prevail when they broke the news on Crimewatch  that Madeleine McCann  was not in the hands of a dark-skinned, kidnapping pervert wearing a fright wig and with terrible taste in shoes. The world didn't collapse at this breach of secrecy, did it? Do you remember how much that excellent news meant to Kate and Gerry when they heard it for the first time? The Yard should bring them more of the same. Much more.

Officer Rui “The Fist” Gigante: Come trouble-maker, we go for little walk on the stairs. I show you the quick way down.

Blacksmith: [writhing]  Let go - or I’ll call Pat Brown!