British Embassy Lisbon. You really Cannot Be Serious!

I cannot comment on this tonight, words fail me.

What an unenviable and abject nation we have become.

Madeleine McCann

Madeleine McCann has been missing from a holiday resort in the Algarve, Portugal, since 3 May 2007. The Portuguese police authorities are leading the investigation into her disappearance, with the support of UK police authorities.

If you have any information that you think might be relevant to the investigation, please contact the police authorities:

Polícia Judiciária
Rua Pé da Cruz, 2
8500-640 Portimão

Tel: +351 282 405 400
Fax: +351 282 412 671
E-mail: dic.portimao@pj.pt

Or contact the Find Madeleine investigation team:
• Email: investigation@findmadeleine.com
• Investigation Line: +44 845 838 4699

For more information, see the Official Website to find Madeleine McCann.

Link http://ukinportugal.fco.gov.uk/en/news/005-mccann

Or contact the Find Madeleine investigation team
For more information, see the Official Website

Have you no shame?

h/t badger5014

Wot, No Onions? The Home Office is Dirty

Dirty and squirming to be more precise.

It's not by accident that I have chosen this particular slice above of all the other tripe that the Home Office is trying to dish up.

So no prizes for guessing why I chose this, it becomes self evident when you read the thing. This then just part of the reply from the Home Office in response to a freedom of information request from Tony Bennett.

We have to balance, on one hand, the inherent public interest in the Home Office being open and accountable whilst, on the other hand, how the public interest would be served by us providing answers that could prejudice these investigations or be otherwise detrimental to the work of the police, the government and the McCann family in their efforts to locate Madeleine. Would it be in the best interest of the public for the Home Office to be seen as releasing information that might prejudice the investigation? Probably not. Would it be in the public interest for the Home Office to release information that could potentially jeopardise relationships between the United Kingdom and policing authorities with which cooperate around the world? Would these authorities be willing to work with us in the future if we released information that potentially prejudices an ongoing investigation? The answer to both is no. Would it be in the public interest to release information that could help Madeleine’s captor evade detection and arrest? Most certainly not. More and be sure to follow the link from the complete article.

Oh THAT Antonella Lazzeri

Update:

Needless to say, it is equally outrageous that Yeremy Vargas is also written about in this article which attempts to bring suspicion on O'Neill in regard to Madeleine. Even the placement of photographs gives emphasis to Madeleine rather than the woman brutally murdered by Charles O'Neill and William Lauchlan.

In my opinion, this is the worst case of opportunistic victimization by a McCann propagandist (Antonella Lazzeri) to date. more

The one that brought us, among other things, these.





It wasn't my original intention to make yet another post featuring McCann shill, Antonella Lazzeri. Initially the intention was to add this little piece below as an update to my previous post. That intention however changed when I took on the most unenviable of tasks, opening the links from the previous post and spending an hour or two reading the shamelessly biassed drivel written by our aforementioned shill, Antonella Lazzeri.

How things *do* change...

I am still attempting to find anything credible that even remotely links Charles O'Neill to Madeleine McCann. It certainly appears as though every article written about the "potential" link stems from a few that came directly from the pen of Antonella Lazzeri. more

Whilst wading though the cesspit of Lazzeri's journalistic achievements, far from a pleasant experience I assure you, in that distasteful process I came across the three graphics above.

Finding them wasn't novel or a revelation, I had seen them on publication; and though they were ripe for exploitation I just couldn't go near them. Now as then, they are still too offensive and distasteful to work with; they give me all kinds of problems.

Problems that go beyond the offence and beyond the appalling taste, for what these ghastly things represent is but part of the story, part of an incomplete comic strip if you will, by natural progression there has to be more.

Contrary to what some imbeciles would have us believe, small girls don't get abducted so that someone can love them, small girls invariably get abducted for far more sinister reasons, and again the natural progression culminates in the death, after horrors untold, of that same small girl.

But that shitty little rag, the Sun, doesn't seem to have a problem publishing this trash, as equally, shitty little scribbler, Antonella Lazzeri, doesn't have a problem with putting her name to the piece. original Sun article
In a recent exchange of emails that have been published on the net, and in spite of the many column inches of shite she has written, Lazzeri clearly demonstrates her knowledge of the actuality, her knowledge of the facts, is probably much the same as that of her readers, non-existent or flawed at best.

Let us take a brief look at just one part of this exchange.

Although it is the middle one of these three short paragraphs that interests us the most, I have included the other two because it's not every day that you come across three straw men in just two paragraphs.

The first paragraph speaks for itself, it being all straw man. Then we have "Britain's foremost criminologist" in conjunction with it being "completely impossible" for there having been a cover up. Not bad going by anyone's standards.

But it is the bit that I have highlighted that concerns us the most, and I have to remind you, this coming from a woman who purports to be a journalist. The cracker then, the piece de resistance, the jewel in the crown, the magnum opus of Lazerri's journalistic achievement, the worn out mantra of Gerry McCann.

Lazerri writes.

There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine came to any harm (in the flat.)

I don't know if you recently saw a TV series in which eye witness reports were tested, the differences between what people saw and then recalled was amazing.

There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine came to any harm in the flat, Britain's foremost criminologist who I interviewed said it was completely impossible for so many people to have covered up Madeleine's death and lied about the abduction and to have kept it up for so long.

I feel very sorry for the McCanns to have lost a child is terrible, to then have such horrible, vile things put about them on the internet is just not human. As for myself, I am not paid by them, or Clarence Mitchell or anyone else apart from my newspaper. source

So Madeleine didn't come to any harm in the flat, and there is no evidence that she has been seriously harmed, in spite of being: (captions from the graphics)

Held by gunman ... artist's impression of scene on French motorway when a man
brandishing a gun threatened a lorry driver who saw him with a half-naked little blonde girl


Dragged to airport ... our recreation of the sighting of a child like Maddie being forced
along the road to Faro airport in Portugal on the night she disappeared 60 miles away


'Little elf' in pyjama top ... a witness described a scene like this near Murcia, Spain, just 12 days after Madeleine vanished in 2007. A scruffy man orders a lookalike from a shop

So what are we being asked to believe here, Madeleine didn't come to any harm in the apartment? and Daddy keeps insisting, that in spite of being abducted by evil paedos, "It will be clear to everyone now, that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Madeleine has been seriously harmed."

So if we are believe this, then it must be just a case of finding the girl, but here's the rub, it takes loadsamoney to facilitate such a search, so can I ask you to keep donating, and if you haven't done so already, please do.

And should you be at a loss as to where you can do this, let me direct you to the website of Leicestershire Constabulary, who, I will have you know, "provide a second to none police service," you can find a link there.

Original caption.

And just to round off, a little trivia, the original source of my oft used misquote.

As I Please
in Tribune
1 September 1944
George Orwell

IT IS not my primary job to discuss the details of contemporary politics, but this week there is something that cries out to be said. Since, it seems, nobody else will do so, I want to protest against the mean and cowardly attitude adopted by the British press towards the recent rising in Warsaw..............

........I cannot discuss here why it is that the British intelligentsia, with few exceptions, have developed a nationalistic loyalty towards the U.S.S.R. and are dishonestly uncritical of its policies. In any case, I have discussed it elsewhere. But I would like to close with two considerations which are worth thinking over.

First of all, a message to English left-wing journalists and intellectuals generally: ‘Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet régime, or any other régime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore. more: As I Please

Antonella Lazzeri's Long List of Shame

Perhaps not so much with our intrepid reporter, she being quite blatant and seemingly shameless about the drivel she writes, but as is often the case, it's only when a list is made does it give us cause to say, hey up! what's going on here?

Never more the case than, Antonella Lazzeri's Long List of Shame.

Antonella Lazzeri Once a Journalist Always a Whore

Not unlike the writer of the article below, I too feel I do a disservice to the truth and to the written word in describing Antonella Lazzeri as a journalist.

If you only follow the one link in the article from Newsoutlines, then click on the "She has written about the McCanns" link. It's quite a list, to say nothing of an agenda.

Journalism in the Age of McCann

Topping the list of those I consider to be a disgrace to the journalistic profession is Antonella Lazzeri, who I'm not even certain can be labelled a "journalist", nor can I say that the "Sun" is a NEWSpaper. Her coverage of the McCann case is quite simply a disgrace. She has written about the McCanns more than she has written about any other topic and I have not found a single unbiased article. Not one. Her articles about Goncalo Amaral were shameful "Maddie's Leech Cop" "Liar Cop" etc.. She covered the Raymond Hewlett "abductor" claims, writing that Hewlett had "twice seen Maddie" (not clarifying that it was on TV & posters) and she is now covering the "White Van/Gypsies" "abductor" claims. more

Wapping, home of the Sun, where the streets have no shame.



And I mustn't forget the others, but they almost seem like "also rans" in comparison to our featured slag.







Oh THAT Antonella Lazzeri

Yes; It is an International Disgrace

Update: Tax evasion, fraud and mortgage anomalies cited in dawn raid.






Not to mention the homespun variety.

Three posts from the Maddie Case Files, chosen for their salient talking points and re-published with the permission of, and thanks to, the authors.

From Midas

All that anybody really knows for sure, is that a three years old child was reported to be missing from the bed that she allegedly slept in. We know this for a fact because her parents came on the telly and told us so. And since that moment we have been shown that the holiday-makers trust each other implicitly and asked to believe that there is an SAS-trained swarthy, predatory paedophile who has never struck the area before or since, but is holding Madeleine in a safe place where she is not being harmed.

We have been shown wrongly dated video and photographs. We have not been asked to help find this child but told to. Indeed people have even been asked to pay for the privilege of looking for this child who was (allegedly) not being supervised by her parents or anybody else at the time she was allegedly snatched from her bed. Most parents consider themselves lucky to find that their child is high-lighted on a police web-site, but Team McCann wants people to invest in holiday-packs of posters that the public have to pay for. They should re-mortgage their home or get their rich pals to buy these for them, and then hand them out for free.

It is an international disgrace that these seemingly ordinary big gang of people have been allowed to give both the law and the public, the biggest run-around since Al Capone and his chums. To blindly agree with the holiday-makers various versions of what is supposed to have happened from the beginning of their holiday is not only stupefyingly stupid, but leaves Madeleine's memory in limbo forever. We need more truth.

Despite all the factual and logical ways some of us purport to be working on this case, we have to remember that some of it defies logic. We have not been working from logical and simple statements, and we are not working with logical and simple people.

The scheming was acknowledged by the Embassy within hours of getting hold of the story. Why would anybody wish to doubt the Embassy at search an early stage? Why did the Government not take any notice of their own Embassy? Why were the staff moved on so quickly? Why were the PDL nannies shipped out so quickly? Why were witnesses in the case allowed to chat to each other and make visits after the 'disappearance? Why are people like BK and Hogg involved?

This is not just about an ordinary three year old child who didn't come home from an ordinary holiday with ordinary people. If this sounds like I am being conspiratorial. So be it.

~ ~ ~

From Meadow

Whilst we all want to deal in FACTS about this case, and if we whizzzz back to those early days on MF when perhaps it was one of the only 'open' debates, much followed and contributed. We have to acknowledge the difference between FACT & FICTION. But there is this other grey area of hearsay. When the only information came via the 'source' friends and family of the McCanns, those early pieces of information, and I'm talking here about the first 48 hours were consistent. Furthermore they were probably PRE-knowledge & warning of the judicial secrecy, pre-lawyer speak and pre-putting your foot in it.

McKenzie
Here and here.

So, we set the scene everyone is running around like blue-ass bumble bees and Mr McCann is on his mobile, it's about 11 pm. Mr McKenzie overhears the telephone conversation, he is so alarmed by what he hears, it sufficient to report it to the police.

So, here we have confirmation about phone calls back to the UK. My take on this, generally is the content of those phone calls and what was repeated by the recipients is basically true. Words like ''jemmied'' and ''they've taken here'' are probably repeated almost word for word. The word for example ''jemmied'' would not have been replaced with ''signs of a break in'' or vice versa, jemmied is specific. Yet there are no signs of damage, force entry or a crow-bar\implement. So those repeating such information must have been fed it from somewhere, they couldn’t have read it in the press or heard it in the media, they were the ‘source’

So we have the scene of total panic (well it should have been) we have Mrs McCann hitting walls, others producing written timelines, photographs, organising calls to the police, finding people to translate, others organising a ‘’managed\rehearsed’’ missing child procedure. And Mr McCann on his mobile, of course you can search and talk at the same time, but he was at that time back at the apartment (McKenzie).

People who have the benefits of social\professional\family networking capability no doubt would put it into full swing, but why within an hour ? Why, when you would be so filled with optimism that Madeleine may be soon found, nearby - perhaps you don’t believe lost (W&W) but dumped by the would be abductor for whatever reason, but that would your hope. When would you phone home? When would you extend the need if you could to call in favours. Let us remind ourselves that by midnight, this had gone full-circle between two countries. Isn’t there a statement somewhere, either BBC or Sky asking for confirmation that the police had yet to attend ?

McKenzie seemed to have stumbled onto something that night, that he thought sufficiently peculiar to inform the police, not once but twice. I wonder now, three years on what he is thinking when he recalls that night overhearing the father of Madeleine, when she was never found or any closer to knowing what might have happened to her.

Do the Smith family think about what they saw and how it should have impacted on the case?

Do the nursery workers\MW staff who assisted that night in searching for Madeleine, stop to wonder all these years on what happened, why the silence from the participants.

Just compare now, in the UK in the aftermath of this most recent case of Mr Bird’s killing rampage, 12 dead, 25 injured, photographs, timelines, interviews, background. Everyone has a theory. We know about his financial dealings, inner family conflicts and so and so on.

The McCanns and the T7 - NOTHING. We didn’t even know they had faces. In three years time, do you think the 12 dead people will be represented in the media as individuals, no - time will have passed on, like Hunger ford & Dunblane.

So why with such anonymity OF THOSE INVOLVED, can the case of Madeleine McCann be held so high in the public domain based manly on the initial shock of HEARSAY.

‘’They’ve taken her’’ the shutters were jemmied.

~ ~ ~

From Meadow

When we think of the T9Timeline (or alibi) The cluster f*** at 9.05 - 9.15.

Then one nasty grey area, time and time again by-passed and in the best of the 'whodunits,' it was the person\s not there (in the Tapas). Nothing accounts for the timing & reason for O'B to re-check the children within 10 minutes of JT's return and the reason why Oldfield then checks the McCann children within the apartment within 15-20 minutes of McCann's return.

So, two people missing from the Tapas, who are given the perfect alibi that they couldn't possibly have had anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine alleged disappearance, because she had ALREADY GONE, and that includes the person who failed to notice it.

I mean whether these adults failed their children by the apparent neglectful behaviour, which I totally fail to see why they didn't openly and frequently get 'stick' for, apart from being made ambassadors for child welfare! we are still left with the Timeline that will forever haunt them. Their timeline which they wrote.

Just how does someone in a room no larger that 10 ' x 10' miss a child, when 50% of the beds are un-occupied, whether he knew which one she slept in or not.

How do, two adults chatting in a road, miss a person passing them by, within a couple of feet in the quiet of the night, yet this same person can see yards ahead to the end of the road to identify the frill on the bottom of a child's PJ's, whilst being abducted.

It will be the timeline that will come back to haunt this case, if the media chose to understand it's complexity and inconsistency, yet alone the probability that it could have happened this was would be pushing the boat out too far.

But nothing we haven't all said so many times before. Somehow it was easier to discuss the probabilities of this case, without the apparent FACTS gained from the official file.

~ ~ ~

Like a lot things, this doesn't seem to be applicable to the McCann Case.

Locard's exchange principle
From Wikipedia.


The Locard exchange principle, also known as Locard's theory, was postulated by 20th century forensic scientist Edmond Locard.

Locard was the director of the very first crime laboratory in existence, located in Lyon, France. Locard's exchange principle states that "with contact between two items, there will be an exchange" (Thornton, 1997).

Essentially Locard's principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so the perpetrator(s) will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene. Every contact leaves a trace.

“Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value. ”

—Paul L. Kirk. 1953. Crime investigation: physical evidence and the police laboratory. Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York.

Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at—or taken from—a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.

When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.

An easier way to remember this is that "Every Contact Leaves A Trace." Wiki

h/t almostgothic