Perhaps Madam Home Secretary, given the harm done by your predecessor, Jacqui Smith, to the Office of the Home Secretary, you might wish to consider the behavioural patterns of the two people who have recently appealed to your person and to your office, the Doctors McCann.
Though I have no doubt, now ensconced in your new position, you might be somewhat ill disposed to reading about the conduct of your predecessor. Be that as it may, I cannot help but feel that the few lines I lay before you might be best read rather than ignored, if for no other reason than you might not wish to appear, shall we say, Jacquiesque?
I am far from alone in feeling displeasure about the performance of Ms Smith as Home Secretary, and it is not the claiming of, as her main residence, the spare bedroom in her sister's semi, no not that at all. It is rather Ms Smith's rather anomalous behaviour when charged with the duties of high office.
Far be it for me to remind you of those duties, and I leave this link only for the benefit of my global readership, and global it is, as it is with others who write about the travesty of the Madeleine McCann affair, such is the interest. As is I must add, scrutiny, and it too on global scale, scrutiny that focusses equally on the actions of yourself and your Office.
But fair to say you are charged with the general well being of the country, and of course not forgetting your mandate regarding the policing of this Nation.
Given then that these are the responsibilities of the Home Secretary and as such the Home Office to reflect the policies of the Secretary, it troubles me greatly the way these obligations have been implemented in the past.
Typically; the personal support by the then Home Secretary of the last two people to see Madeleine McCann alive, uncleared as persons of interest in her disappearance, and statistically the most likely persons to be involved in that disappearance, the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, is quite frankly, scandalous.
Included in the same example is a person and an organisation, who's actions and public stance constitute such an abuse of office that it can be deemed nothing short of a criminal. That person, Jim Gamble, that office the CEOP.
I quote:
"We absolutely support the McCann family," he says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London.
"They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'."
And the timing of this message of unequivocal support from Jim Gamble? thirty days after the McCanns were declared Arguidos by the investigating authority, the Polícia Judiciária.
From the press.
Better protection through better understanding
UK’s Centre for tackling child sex abuse launches new unit to increase knowledge on child sex offenders
Tuesday 30 October - Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon Jacqueline Smith MP will today accelerate the fight against the sexual abuse of children by opening a new dedicated unit focused on improving and sharing understanding of how sex offenders operate and think.
She will visit the UK’s dedicated organisation for tackling child sex abuse – the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre and see first hand how the Centre intends to link behavioural analysis of how offenders operate with a unique academic national qualification programme for child protection professionals who specialise in this area of criminality.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said:
I am serious about protecting children from sexual predators– online and in the real world. We are working hard to close the net around them to make it harder for them to prey on vulnerable children.
The UK has some of the strictest regulations to manage sex offenders in the world. CEOP’s new unit (Behavioural Analysis Unit) is another example of how we are leading the way in tackling child abuse. By studying the behaviour, mannerisms and language of both the abused and the abusers we will learn more about these crimes than ever before to help us investigate, deter and catch offenders – ultimately to prevent these horrific crimes.
Behavioural Analysis Unit! analyse this.
One of a pair of now iconic videos, behavioural analysis! you couldn't make it up.
And this is the other. No comment required.
To fully understand the importance of this clip one has take into account that having just fled Portugal, the McCanns feel free to tell all the lies they wish and to do so with impunity. Never realising of course to just what degree the files of the investigation would be made available to the public once the investigation was shelved.
I won't make mention of Kate McCann having the presence of mind to selectively delete the call register from her mobile phone, no that wouldn't be fair, not with her daughter just having been abducted n'all. But I have no such qualms in supplying this link that questions somewhat the veracity of NHS Doctor Gerald McCann's statement on the issue.
Blinking heck! and we have only just begun, but don't blink yourselves because you wouldn't want to miss, starting at the twenty second mark, a display that would give a criminal profiler nothing short of a category nine orgasm. It drones on from this point, though ten minutes long I couldn't get past the three minute mark, if this bugger can't keep his eyes open during the interview, then it's a big ask for me to do likewise. Behavioural analysis! you couldn't make it up.
There is much in this short video, Kate McCann talks about logic but that's by the by. Plenty of talk about "our investigators" and their many years of accrued experience. Experienced in what I must ask, drinking tea? because it doesn't sound as if it were investigative technique, and that's not just my opinion; this scathing article from the Daily McMail of all papers.
Try as she may, the interviewer attempts to pin the McCanns down on re-opening the process, they are having none of it, just the usual waffle and bullshit and of course no interview would be complete without the usual straw man, "who ever took Madeleine is sill out there."
In spite of a valiant effort from Sara Antunes de Oliveira pitching some decent questions we are treated to more nonsense from the McCanns until.....
Until that is, at the four minute forty second mark, the question is asked, "Do you consider the possibility of Madeleine not being alive?" then watch the reaction, this time, not just from Doctor Dangerous alone but from Doctor Dim as well. Guilt in stereo, behavioural analysis! you couldn't make it up.
Hey up! it's Doctor Angry. Have you heard this one before? "There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is absolutely no evidence that we were involved in her disappearance." and concludes his tirade with, "That is the conclusion of the process." Err, which process? It must be a different one to that which I read, the one I read is below, I'm at a loss to which one Doctor Angry is talking about.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE POLÍCIA JUDICIÁRIA REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2007:
“From everything that has been exposed, it RESULTS from the Files THAT:
A) the minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of the 3rd of May 2007;
B) a simulation of an abduction took place;
C) in order to render the child’s death impossible before 22H00, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was made up;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann;
E) at this moment, there seem to be no strong indications that the child’s death was not the result of a tragic accident, yet;
F) from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, doesn’t want to deliver the cadaver immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility that it was moved from the initial place of deposition. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.
Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:
G) a possible new questioning of the arguidos Kate and Gerald McCann;
H) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case; more
I include this one for the bizarre behaviour exhibited by Doctor Dangerous, in truth I have no idea what it is all about. At the one forty eight mark watch Gerry McCann invade Kate McCann's space. By her reaction and the look on her face there is something going on, but what?
Below, a still of the incident courtesy of the McCann Files.
Nothing quite so ambiguous in this short wooden performance by Kate McCann. Five seconds in it would appear Doctor Dangerous isn't too happy with Kate, wandering from the script? Whatever it is, we have McCann's eyes shut and a squeeze to madam's shoulder. A rather strange look passes from him to her after Kate has finished giving what has to be the most unconvincing appeal by any mother of a missing child in the annals of history. One minute seven seconds.
The now infamous reply by sniggering father of missing girl, "Ask the dogs Sandra." Sandra Felgueiras starts the questioning about the dogs at the four minute fifty mark, receiving a truly outrageous answer from the repulsive Gerry McCann.
Poor sound on the first clip, so you may wish to push the thing on to the relevant mark. A three second version on the lower clip.
Perhaps it's a blessing that I cannot find the clip from which these stills originated. I don't know about you guys but I have certainly had my fill of watching these two creatures for a while.
A few pics to wind up this sordid exhibition.
And no show would be complete without the dogs, but we all know just how terribly unreliable they can be. Just ask Gerry McCann.
To finish up let me try and apply some perspective to this staggering and blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice.
If our featured two were suspected of robbing a Post Office, and it's not by accident that I use a PO as an example, because, you may be surprised to know, there is no greater crime in the UK than making an unauthorised withdrawal from said establishment.
So if our two suspects, under questioning, displayed the same behavioural patterns as we have witnessed, what might you think the outcome would be?
Similarly, I have in the past asked pretty much the same question.
Jim Gamble CEOP a question if I may.
