The Harrowing of Kate McCann

The harrowing of Kate McCann

Kate misses her chance to set the record straight in a book that adds little to an extensive canon, writes Eilis O'Hanlon
May 22 2011

Madeleine

Kate McCann

Bantam Press, €22.99

Why Kate? From the moment that their daughter vanished from a rented holiday apartment in Portugal's Praia da Luz resort, it was Gerry McCann who provided the public face of the campaign to bring Madeleine home. He was the one who dealt with reporters, set up websites, wrote a regular blog updating the search. If anyone was going to write a book about that time, it was surely Gerry who would've been expected to do it.

But it was always Kate who fascinated observers. Mothers are expected to behave in certain ways and Madeleine's didn't seem to be playing her role properly. She was criticised for being too cold, for not showing her emotions more. The public can be cruel juries. They want their pound of flesh. Four years on, with the fate of Madeleine still unknown, Kate has now stepped forward to tell her own story -- though her motive for doing so remains typically obstinate.

She may have kept a journal throughout the search, so that the couple's twins, Sean and Amelie -- and Madeleine too, if and when she returned to the family -- would know what happened during those terrible days, but the only reason it is being released to a wider audience now is to fund the continuing search for a missing child. "We are now the only people looking for her," as Kate notes poignantly, and that takes money. Whether it makes for much of a book is the difficulty.

It's hard to review this book with any objectivity, especially when it is such an extraordinarily controlled piece of writing. In many ways, the book suffers from the same shortcomings which led to Kate being vilified so horribly in certain quarters. She's clearly an intensely private person, for whom opening up does not come easily. Too often, there is a sense in these pages of holding back. There are some highly intimate details, for example about how she needed therapy to overcome her "revulsion" at sex after the abduction, and she writes with piercing intensity of her feelings of guilt, but it is as though these passing details are masking what is otherwise a psychological absence at the heart of the book.

After an initial preamble about her life before the holiday, the book settles down into a pedestrian chronological account of the public events that followed, peppered with asides about how she felt at certain moments.

The Tapas Nine are shadowy figures throughout; we never really get a sense of who they are. Goncalo Amaral, the Portuguese police chief who became such a thorn in the couple's side, is a peripheral presence. The night Madeleine went missing -- on which everything hinges -- is dealt with in just a few pages. The exact state of the room, and the comings and goings of the various characters in the tale, remains frustratingly vague.

This was Kate's best chance to set the record straight, but the book adds little to an already extensive canon. Time and again, her response to allegations against them is simply to reiterate what they said in statements at the time. It certainly won't change anyone's mind. Supporters of the couple will focus on the passages describing her harrowing grief and sense of guilt. Those who are suspicious will find further fuel in the dismissive and perfunctory way in which Kate answers some of the most serious allegations laid against the couple. When specially trained cadaver dogs, for example, detect the scent of death in the family's apartment, Kate is quick to highlight the unreliability of sniffer dogs. It makes absolute sense insofar as they know they didn't do anything to harm their beloved daughter.

But as a parent, surely you'd be terrified by what the dogs sensed? The fact that a strong indication of death had been found at the scene immediately raises the likelihood that something terrible happened to your daughter in that room; but Kate and Gerry are almost militant in their belief that their daughter is not dead. "Madeleine is alive until someone proves otherwise," she still insists. Maybe that's the only way you can carry on -- Kate does admit to having terrible visions intermittently of her daughter being abused and killed -- but the response still feels unsatisfactory

Perhaps that's just repeating the original error of wanting more from Kate McCann than she is willing or able to give. All too often she writes like a spectator to events, not a participant. Therapeutically, that may be a common reaction in people who have undergone traumatic experiences, but it makes for a weirdly detached and uninvolving book. It's almost as if Madeleine isn't the only one who went missing that night, but Kate as well. - Eilis O'Hanlon Independent ie

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

In Answer To Your Question, I Don't Know Any Either. And Other Bits

When your a parent and you go out drinking.... Dontcha just love that line?

When your a parent and you go out drinking and leaving your babies at home to fend for themselves, you have only your self to blame when harm comes to them. A parent’s job is to put their children first and themselves last. When a disaster happens and you do wrong, the least you can do is beg forgiveness and say sorry for messing up.

Arming yourself with spin doctors and campaign managers whilst swanning all over the world in private jets laughing and joking when its only been 50 days at the expense of a fund set up by people who seem too care about your child more than you ever did puts the good people of the world’s back up.

The limited company may bite them on the bum in years to come. Every expenditure will have to be listed for tax reasons and I bet every safety pin and shoe lace for the McCann’s and their entourage is paid out of the fund. These people are living a paid for lifestyle on money which should be going solely on finding Madeleine. That's my take on it.

My question is that so many people seem to be supporting The McCanns why not look at it from the eyes of the people who are asking questions wondering what a doctor with a missing little girl is doing writing blogs and out jogging. How many fathers who genuinely loved their children would carry on like this pair. I don’t know any. source

Neither do I lass, neither do I. But then my acquaintances tend to be Homo Sapien.

Nor do I know many societies where mothers ask questions like this.

And receive answers!

i am a mom of two babies and a husband that travels a lot. i am looking for something only for protection. and of course planning learning the proper way to use it safely. i do not need or want any answers from anti-gun activists. this is something i feel i need for my safety and the safety of my children especially with the horror stories you hear today with the crazy people out there. another note i currently know nothing about guns regarding different kinds or types. thanks for the help!!!!! source

More like this.

If I do the writer a disservice, my apologies, but I can't decide weather or not this is a faux blog and it's true purpose is being a vehicle to carry advertisements.
Hence, both articles pasted in full.

~

In what now appears to be my second career, sending a message, through what now must be a multitude of pics, and if you will forgive me saying so, some have been quite brilliantly spot on, inspired if you will.

Having modestly awarded myself such an accolade and presented myself with a bouquet of flowers for the "quite brilliant" ones, what then does it say of the rest?

Well, having set that kind of metric, I suppose the only way from there is down, downward yes, but by degrees, you would afford me that surely?

Degrees that have covered the full spectrum, top to bottom, from close, but no cigar, to totally off the mark. I do however, in my own defence say, I did have a little help with the graphics that fell into this category, Paulo Rebelo for one, and the Express for another. Need I say more?

This first picky below I think typifies those in the "close, but no cigar" category. Why so you may ask, it's not a million miles from the truth as you or I might see things? Perhaps at the time you might have even thought the thing worthy of a cigar, perhaps it was.

But things change, that's if they don't stop as they are of course, but change they do, or perhaps develop and progress might be a more accurate way of putting things. Ever since the Express rolled over, delighting us all with a display of its true colours ever since, we have seen increasingly the attempts to gag the ungaggable, the internet.

Such attempts, and some enjoying local success it must be said, but such attempts, in reality, are futile. Not to understand this futility, that no one person can censor the net, though making numerous attempts to do so, is I think, a measure of the world that said person inhabits.

Though I could, and have done so on numerous occasions past, describe Adam Tudor in numerous and far from pleasant ways, I would never think to call him things that would question his intelligence. That is simply something I cannot do for reasons obvious.

So with this in mind, and in light of ever increased threats, accompanied by a cacophony of Sabers rattling, makes me but wonder if Adam Tudor is giving his client the best advice possible, or heaven forbid, his love of Mammon supersedes the interests of his client?

Shurely not, shurely shome mishtake? But a question nonetheless that brought about a subtle change in our featured piccy.

~

And lastly, my man Montoya. It took me a long time to forgive Juan Pablo Montoya his brutal act of betrayal, buggering orf as he did from Formula One to go boogity boogity boogity racing.

For me F1 was never the same after JPM's departure, but I followed him into Nascar and much like Montoya, learned a new trade, him driving and me watching.

Now I have to admit that I wouldn't be natural NASCAR fan material, I don't pray to Jesus and I don't keep guns racked up in a truck I don't have. Nevertheless I stayed with the man, and over the three and a bit years I have been doing so, have come to appreciate there is a lot more to Nascar than just turning left. Going so far I might add, to declare something I never thought I would, Nascar gives better and more exciting racing than F1. Mind you, that wouldn't be hard these days, it's not a motor race anymore, it is, thanks to the FIA, an obstacle race.

Anyway after all that, look what fell into my inbox. Argh!





Montoya passing Raikkonen

As the title.

A bit of everything in this one, it's not a "wreck video," there are plenty on Youtube if that's your bag.





A brilliant archival film of the 1960 Daytona 500. Err, no thanks.
On the minuscule chance you're a devotee of the golden era of
car design, catch the 60 Electra duece and a quarter pace car.

1960 Buick, but not the 225.

As a Society, We Need to Know How That Occurred

As often in life, one thing invariably leads to another and this is no exception. It was a comment left here that led to..., which in turn led to this previous post, which I have no problem re-upping, particularly in light of recent proposals by Jim Gamble of the CEOP.

No it's not a problem at all, because it's really a duty I owe. I owe duty to the original poster, "MiceanMen" both for content and concept of his short piece, which was by the way, never an article, but a comment on a board.

I owe duty to integrity, something that is totally lacking in Jim Gamble, something totally lacking his own little fiefdom, the CEOP, and equally bereft of integrity, his proposals for a review (rubber stamp) by his various and equally impoverished chums.

"As a society, we need to know how that occurred" We certainly do, but we must guard against, "our need to know" being presented to us in the form of a bucket of whitewash. Because make no mistake about it, that is just what any proposal by Gamble is, a proposed whitewashing of the McCanns. But how futile an exercise that would be, for no matter how many coats he lashes on the McCanns, the black will always come through.

Now who else do I owe a duty to? of course, silly me, it's to a little girl in a red dress. A little girl in a red dress who, save for a few, has no voice. How easy she is to forget amid the Gala Balls, the Fun Runs and the Non-Charity Bicycle Rides.

So easy to forget, perhaps the McCanns might issue a new aged progressed image of the dead girl. CEOP endorsed of course, it must be that, it wouldn't be legitimate otherwise; would it?


Originally posted under the header: Yet Nobody Says a Word

~

Yet Nobody Says a Word

I started to tuck this on the end of the post below, but that would have been unworthy of the thing, both of the sentiment as a whole, and of this line particularly.

As a society, we need to know how that occurred.

We certainly do, as individuals, and as a society.

Yet nobody says a word.

MiceanMen wrote:

It doesn't matter what the parents think.

Nine adults tell us that a child disappeared, into thin air, whilst in their care.

As a society, we need to know how that occurred. In detail.

Audited detail, as opposed to unaudited.

That includes all of those who participated in the "system of vigilance", especially those who claim that the 3rd of May was the the very first time that they had "checked".

Their word is not enough.

As with any real Audit, checkable, verifiable, evidence is required, as PROOF.

h/t MiceAnMen, composer.

I just have to add a bit here.

The man's daughter goes missing under extremely dodgy circumstances, he, his wife and and his holiday companions lie about those circumstances from the very beginning.

His apartment, his wife, and his car stink of dead bodies, he will not go back to Portugal for a re-enactment because it will show the abduction and for what it is, a fabrication and a tissue of lies.

Add to that the obfuscation, the inconsistencies and all the doubts that have been voiced, add to that, behaviour so repugnant, so vile and so unacceptable that I shudder and cringe at its mention, add all that lot together, and what have you got?

But before we make the addition, pray pardon, for there are things other to be added to the column.

His daughter goes missing, and what does the father do? he trademarks his daughter, he trademarks his daughter and turns her into a shop.
And please I beg, allow yourself a minute or two to take in the true reality of this act, never seen before in all the annals of history and unlikely to ever be witnessed again.

And what is the sum total of all this?

Well it's this, it is a country that chooses to ignore such obvious details, details equally noxious and unacceptable as they are obvious.

It is a country that by comparison would make the likes of Las Vegas, seem cultured, dignified and tasteful.

It is a country where the unacceptable has become the acceptable, a country in which the suspect hides behind a man, a man who's job description is but a euphemism for liar. A liar I might add, provided by the Government.

A country in which the Media have found a new level, moving from gutter to sewer in their fawning rush to whitewash the guilty, in a manner I might add, so distasteful that I am shamed.
The same Media that by compare would make Pravda seem like a shinning beacon of truth and light on the darkest of nights.
A Media who's crass display of xenophobia towards Portugal and all things Portuguese, would again by compare, make Das Reich read like The Socialist.

The column adds up to many things, but far from least, it adds up to a country that has allowed this man to become a Celebrity, nae, not just allowed, but actively aided and abetted him.

And nobody says a word, and I despair.

~

The subject matter caused me to have a look through the archives. Whereas we can find whitewash marketed under quite a few different brands, I'm sure that these are but a few of the many available.

You might want to give them a try yourselves, but I must warn you, they are all a bit thin.

The McCann Twins: Que Sera, Sera

On reflection I have decided to make this a separate post. Not least so I can illustrate it.
Edited


This whole thing started life as a reply in the comments section, like the noses of various people it's just kept growing.

~ ~ ~

Rather than use the comments section, where I have neither the luxury to edit, or to add to, I thought I might furnish a reply here, to a comment left on this post, which I also bring here.


I do need that luxury, it's getting quite late and I have had a busy, but welcome day away from these pages.

Should you feel so inclined, please don't hesitate to add your own thoughts on the subject.

This then, posted by Anonymous, and might I appeal once again that you use some form of nickname. As you compose and leave your comments here, or anywhere else for that matter, you have your own inherent sense of identity, but to to me you are just one more anonymous among dozens of others, that I can neither relate to, or develop any kind of rapport with.


The subject, the already much discussed future of Sean and Amelie McCann.

Anonymous, and possibly American? wrote:

Whilst I share the emotions expressed here about the McCanns, I refuse to accept that the twins are doomed to become equally despicable people.

There are many cases where children grow up to utterly surprise "nature" and to choose an entirely different path from that of their parents.

Those two little people do have a chance, even raised by beasts, to become honorable decent members of society. Don't write them off, they are too young to be sentenced to that type of prediction.

My fury with the McCanns themselves is exasperated by the fact that social services has not stepped in to protect the twins from them - parents who, at the very least, were guilty of severe neglect and more likely guilty of many other crimes.

Nor has the extended McCann family stepped in (as far as anyone knows). That family is full of people who undoubtedly know the depth of the lies and the danger to the twins. Nothing can be done for Maddie now, but SOMETHING could be done for her siblings.

I refuse to believe they are doomed. It won't be an easy life if they are raised by their natural parents, but maybe there is a spark somewhere in those two that will ignite when they mature.

In the hope that Sean and Amelie surprise the world...

What I think dear Lady, is entirely academic, what will be will be.

What I am saying is, that such a start in life should not be wished on any child. But that start is but what it is, a start. As each day passes, that day, and each and every day to come, those children will have spent it as the siblings to the most famous missing girl in the world.

And as each and every day that passes, every one of those days will have have been spent as the offspring of Kate and Gerry McCann. And I have, as I am sure you will appreciate, little need to elaborate on the significance of that particular cast of the die.

Whereas you or I might choose to disassociate ourselves from this grotesque pantomime, for whatever period of time we may choose, that same luxury will never be afforded to Sean and Amelie McCann. I fear ne're a day will pass that they will not be reminded of the situation that surrounds them, and often quite cruelly I shouldn't wonder, 'orrible little bleeders being what they are, 'orrible little bleeders.

Theirs will be the most unenviable of positions, aggravated day upon day, by their own inevitable maturing, and with that maturing, an ever increasing awareness of just what has really come to pass, and just exactly what it is that constitutes the make up and the moral fibre of their parents.

The moral fibre of the parents, life on Mars.

Just how long they will have to endure this growing realisation, will of course be dependant on the time-scale before this case reaches the only conclusion it can; the prosecution of the McCanns. And it is a question of when, not if. There will come a point, well we have already reached that point and passed it as a matter of fact, but their will come a point where their guilt will become even more so undeniably obvious, that there will be no other option available, other than to prosecute our parents of the year. A title I must add, now held by them for four consecutive years, quite amazing isn't it?

What must be understood, is that things can never improve for the McCanns, they can only deteriorate. Time is not their friend, the same each and every day that I speak of, is just another day in the worsening of their situation, and another day of delaying the inevitable.

Jim Gamble, Brian Kennedy, Clarence Mitchell, and all others of their ilk, oh, and I would be remiss were I not to mention the Editors of our wonderful National Press, reserving special mention for Paul Dacre of The Mail.

Forgive me this digression, which is far from my original post, for flying off on this little tangent, but during editing, and after adding "National Press" to the mix, came to the fore, the words: 'so much so that it should be "Shouted from the rooftops,"' which in turn led to just the briefest of Google Image searches.

Well as you probably know, I don't do supernatural, but the result of that search was a tad jaw dropping to say the least, because it has never happened before, in fact it's usually the complete opposite when I go a searching, but lo there it was, first piccy on the first page. So much so that it got me to thinking, is there a big picture provider up in the sky? Well I don't think there is, but I wasn't about to incur his wrath if there was such a magnificence, because we all know what them buggers are like when it comes to wrath, by gum we do!

If you don't believe me give it a try yourselves, shout it from the roof tops, for all I care!
And then not only that, another search, this time for 'daily mail kate mccann' brought forth a cry of "fuck me!" words so reminiscent of the duchess. very naughty linky, and not one for you gals. Taken from the even naughtier, well vulgar really,original of.... no perhaps not.

Which all boils down to, and results in, via a somewhat serpentine , if a not altogether circuitous route, this here piccy.



The Mail and Kate's agony, yes it's fucking agony alright.


Where the Divil was I? Ah yes!


Not least those that have aligned themselves with, and attempted to protect the McCanns, in, I must add, in ways so utterly and obviously transparent, that as to be beyond embarrassing; these people aren't clever, these people are fools, fools in the extreme.

When this house of cards comes tumbling down, as inevitably it must, so will these people come tumbling down, as inevitably they must.




And this is, and will be, the climate in which these two poor unfortunates find themselves, and it is in this climate that they will have to aspire, to mature into balanced adults.




A.task, that I think will be as equally difficult as it is daunting, and not one that should burden the shoulders of adolescents, never mind the shoulders of children of such tender years.
Though I might wish them every success in their endeavours, do I think they will succeed? no, not in truth I don't.

Everything that I have written here, we could disregard, we could say it's totally inaccurate, wrong in the extreme, would then I change my opinion? not in the least, why?

Why?

Porque? 2008.
Porque? 2008.

Por Que? 2009.
Por Que? 2009.

Yer Fuckin What? 2010.

Those kids are fucked. Nice one mummy and daddy.


In duty of care, Leicester Social Services, as Leicester Constabulary, as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, as the National Policing Improvement Agency, as the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, the list is endless, in that duty of care have, quite simply, been derelict. Whether we could ad a tag to Social Services, with the same ease that we could add it to the rest of this shabby bunch, I really do not know, but rest assured we can add the tag, criminality with an ease that is more than a little disturbing and should give us all reason for concern.

This little group, charged with upholding the law of the land and to do so with honesty, with integrity, and with dignity, have failed their charge, as equally and as shamelessly as they have failed Madeleine McCann.

The are worthy of such a tag, worthy of such an accolade, they have earned it, and they have earned it with distinction.

Goncalo Amaral, Policeman. Dignity in the face of adversity.

And regarding the rest of the family, I don't think I want to discuss these people tonight, or tomorrow, or at all in fact.


And finally, of dignity, wouldn't it be nice if the Mail discovered a little, not to mention the parents.

This from the Mail, and yes, the date is correct.

12 May 2007
Blank-faced and hiding behind her hair, she appeared almost catatonic as she stood silently beside her husband, clutching, as always, Madeleine's favourite toy, called Cuddle Cat by the little girl. The Daily Mail, Paul Dacre Editor.

12 May 2007

Perhaps Mr Gamble Would Care To Answer This Part

An issue of far greater importance than that which has everybody's attention at present. I myself prefer to stay with the issues, particularly this one.
Why are you trying to legitimise McCann and his abduction theory?

This is the important part of Tony Bennett's letter to Jim Gamble, it is this issue that requires an answer before anything else. Are you going to give us one?



Click it again once you have opened it.

Your degree of commitment, on behalf of CEOP, to the McCanns, has been immense, despite the doubts prompted by their being made ‘arguidos’ and being pulled in for questioning and the contents of the interim police report of senior police inspector Tavares de Aleida.

You have heavily featured Madeleine McCann on your website and in other publications about your work. You appeared together with the McCanns 12 months ago in a one-minute ‘viral video’, strongly emphasising that Madeleine was still alive and needed to be found. You also appeared on morning news shows side by side with the McCanns.

You also invited Dr Gerald McCann in January to be the keynote speaker at a conference of the abduction of children by paedophiles, a matter that concerned many of us, as there is not a shred of evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. On top of all that, Home Secretary Alan Johnson recently asked you to recommend a new British police force to carry out a review and possibly a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance and, according to press reports, you have already delivered your recommendation to him. In view of this intense activity on behalf of the McCanns, then, you are without doubt in a powerful position to advise them as to their choice of images being used to remind people about Madeleine. We trust you will provide suitable advice to them.

I hadn't planned on going down this path this morning, I'm working on a bit of something, but I'm not sorry I did. The questions surrounding Gamble's association with McCann go to the very heart of the matter; that we receive answers is paramount.

~

Straw men have come into conversation of late, not that the above falls into this category, but no better an example will you find than that depicted below.




Every now and then, in the entertainment field, a little gem comes out of America. Only two shows in the last twenty years would I consider worthy of the "Gem" tag. The all time winner for me would have to be, HBO's Deadwood, the best bit of television and television series I have ever watched. Made even more remarkable by a superb performance of an actor I had always considered a bit of a tosser.

Ian McShane as Lovejoy was that tosser, but Ian McShane as Al Swearengen was little short of brilliant. Thoroughly recommended but not for delicate ears.




You might be wondering by now why I'm rattling on about all this. Well truth be told I have an hour or two invested in what turned out to be a very disappointing search for sufficient clips of Allan Shore, Boston Legal, to make a decent post out of them; hence I'm stuffing them on the end of this one.

In fairness I have to say, it is only due to brilliant script writing and the performance of James Spader as Alan Shore, that for me, gives the thing gem status.

As I say, it was a disappointing search, so two clips on Scientology, and one that has been overlaid by a political skin, not by the way, is the thing any worse for it. An unadulterated version I couldn't find, however don't let it detract you from script or performance.

Home of the brave, land of the free!

Our Day Will Come

I love him, he's a darling man, and I'm sure he wouldn't take exception if I described as a sweet old dear, not being the gentle soul that quite obviously he is. I speak platonically of course, and I speak of Richard Dawkins, or more accurately Professor Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, or more accurately still, and a tad surprisingly, Professor Clinton Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL. Clinton indeed, well I never! something newly discovered when I went in search of the man's letters, named after Daddy by all accounts.

Love him or hate him, and much would depend on your religious beliefs, and I say, intellect and intelligence, and it is not of the design type of intelligence that I speak. But there again I suppose it is, but how one equates intelligence and Intelligent Design heaven knows, if you will pardon my pun. As I say, love him or hate him but don't deny him his well earned status of one of the world's leading intellects of our age.

Another misconception that Google has today righted, for I thought Dawkin's philosophy was original, but no, he readily admits to being guided by, and adopting the philosophy of Stephen Gould back in the Eighties. And why shouldn't he have taken that advice, obviously a much younger man at time, and Dawkins is after all, a biologist and not a professional television show guest, though I might add, he equips himself well these days in that area.

Is this about appearing on television then, well not really? What it is about is recognition, or more precisely, the refusal to recognise. The refusal to recognise the validity of the other side's argument, for to do so, to respond to the argument of the other side, would in fact, give recognition that there is indeed an argument to be argued and would, by accepting the challenge, validate the fact.

This then, the relative piece from Dawkins, Why I Won't Debate Creationists.

Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive:
"Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

And that my dears, is it in a nutshell, and if I might make so bold, something to remember on occasion.

For a while now I have wanted to sit down and write a few dispassionate words, not always an easy thing given the amount of lies and propaganda that bombards us daily. Lies and propaganda bad enough, but blatant lies and propaganda that's a bird of an entirely different colour, a different species even. And if I consider all the institutions, all the sources that are shamelessly fostering this blatant propaganda, then I think I have the right, if not a duty, to get a tad warm now and then; but today no.

I read two articles in the Mail yesterday that I wanted to make mention* of, both relating to the Catholic Church as it happens, but of that a little later. Hard as it might be for you to comprehend, but I do read the Mail on occasion when I visit my Mother, the papers being passed on second hand to her dear self. But it was a comment left at the McCann Gallery that finally goaded me into writing.

With all the structure of a creationist argument against evolution, and with sentiments expressed towards the gallery that I'm quite sure were disingenuous, for I have seen previously, examples of what issues from a place called the chaosraptors, thankfully though, little enough. And the content of this comment? nothing. Nothing to argue so little recourse left to them but to attack others, not me I add.
Something we have become rather accustomed to of late, and something I need not explain further, I'm sure you would agree, as I'm equally sure would Goncalo Amaral.

So with the good Professor Dawkins in mind, we don't argue with the other side, for they are armed with nothing, save a tissue of lies, a bucket of vitriol, and whatever else they can manage to scrape up. Whereas we on the other hand have more than a little pertinent data, that in any just society would be sufficient to call for the arrest of ten men tenfold, but what are a few details in this safe, just and tolerant society that the Home Office tells us that they are building for us, but who wants to live in Utopia I ask myself?

We, on this side, are also possessed of something else, something elementary, something that without it, by the wayside would we would have fallen long long ago; we have right on our side, every last one of us crusades under that banner. We have right, you know it, I know it, and equally important, our adversaries know it.

And by adversaries I'm not talking about the demented McCann cultists, I'm talking about the establishment of this country. This corrupt and sordid Government, the equally corrupt and sordid forces of law and order, if you will pardon me the term. The Association of Chief Police Officers, self serving bunch that they are. The National Policing Improvement Agency, guest of honour tonight, non other than, Gerry McCann!

But special mention must be made, must be signalled out, for the consummate, the inimitable, man of twenty five years policing experience, non other than Jim Gamble of the CEOP, guest speaker today, you guessed it, Gerry McCann!

Right on our side, without it we wouldn't do what we do, I certainly wouldn't. Right on our side, it's a banner but it certainly isn't a shield, it offers no protection, ask what protection it afforded Robert Green when he was arrested in Aberdeen on trumped up charges ask Robert Green what protection it offered him the second time when he was re-arrested in Warrington and dragged up the motorway on trumped up charges, his only crime being to seek justice for the serially abused Hollie Greig, a brave woman, her and her mother both. Ask Robert Green, brave brave man that he is, ask him why he crusades the way he does, why he hasn't fallen by the wayside, I wonder if he might reply, we have right on side?

But as Newton said so many years ago, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, something that is being realised by the even more sordid and corrupt establishment North of the border. they have give it there best shot and it hasn't worked, the Genie is out and there's no way he's going back in that bottle. The game's up, you just don't know it yet.

One day there will be justice for Hollie Greig, one day there will be justice for Madeleine McCann, and why?

We have right on our side.

Our day will come, and we will have justice.




* I shall leave this for another occasion.

And Now for Something Completely Different

And how refreshingly different, that after all this time slugging away at this case, and in a climate not best suited to inspiration or creativity, that someone can still manage to pull something novel out of the hat, is as unexpected as it is, as I say, refreshing.

I came across this little gem whilst reading the contributions to the forum, Missing Madeleine.
But I'm not being terribly accurate when I say gem, because having read the first, and what I thought only piece, I was then treated to some very unexpected repartee from other members of the forum.

Reprinted with kind permission and well deserving of a mighty flourish of the cap.

~ ~ ~

by Nospinnaker.

I’ve got this really big bumper size jigsaw puzzle.

It has thousands of pieces, some of them small and subtle, some of them highly coloured and complicated.

The picture on the box is of an abduction. It’s not the sort of thing that would normally interest me, but it looked fiendishly difficult and I can’t resist a challenge.

I have tried it all ways, I compare the reality of the piece with the picture on the box, and for the life of me I can’t make most of the bits fit anywhere. The edges don’t match up. The colours and patterns are wrong. Sometimes a picture emerges, but whatever it is it’s nothing like the abduction on the box.

What’s more, there are, it would seem, bits that belong to some other puzzle. There’s one of an email button from the website that is just a picture of a button with no function behind it, and I can’t make it fit into an abduction anywhere.


There are dogs, too, and surely they can have no place in an abduction. There’s a piece with hair and fluid on it, but there’s another piece that says there’s no hair and no fluid. There’s a bizarre inflatable billboard that seems to zip into view and then zip out of it again very rapidly. There is a tidy apartment and a piece that smells of bleach, and there are lots of bits with pictures of wine bottles.

There’s just nowhere to put the one with child friendly toppings, nor the one with mention of resuscitation, nor all those bits of wrists with no watches. I can’t find a home for the piece with a likeness of His Holiness, and I can’t seem to fit into the puzzle the picture of Huelva on early closing day.

There are bits missing, too. There should, I’m sure, be a piece with a reward on it, but it’s not in the box. There should be fingerprints, too, but they have been missed out in the packing process.

Lots of pieces seem to have churches, in Portugal or in Yorkshire or Leicestershire. There are shady men on the fringes of lots of the bits.



There are three sorts of bits. There are those that are photorealistic and three-dimensional, printed on a reassuringly solid plywood base. Then there are some which are still on plywood but are out of focus, I’m not sure if they are really pictures of something. And then there are those which are over-bright, high contrast, unnatural, and poorly constructed of the flimsiest stuff.

And there’s another thing. Whenever I sit down to concentrate on my puzzle, there are, would you believe, people coming into the room, snatching the piece I’m pondering and ruining my concentration. They keep on doing it.

Strangest thing of all there’s a bit that looks just like the baby space creature in Alien, when it clamps itself onto one of the astronauts. On his face, like a draped starfish. Weird and scary. But when you turn it upside down it turns out to be a picture of someone’s haircut!


This puzzle hasn’t beaten me yet. Occasionally bits arrive unannounced – like from Portugal a few weeks ago there came a piece with advice from British Police on it.

But whatever I do, whichever way I turn my puzzle, it doesn’t look remotely like the picture on the box.

Maybe I’ll ask for my money back.




by Anna Esse

I think I've got a similar jigsaw. I've never been a fan of jigsaws, preferring either thriller novels as a pastime, where you know all the bits are going to come together in the end and the story will make sense, or real-life stories about how crimes were solved. However, I took up this strange jigsaw that had a picture of an abduction because it presented a real challenge, with lots of gray areas that I knew would present a challenge and lots of intricately coloured areas.

The problem I had to begin with was that however much I tried to force some of the bits into place, strange windows and doors for example, I wasn't getting anywhere. Then the manufacturers started sending updates to the picture and extra pieces that fitted neither the original picture nor the updated one.


To further complicate matters, I have also been presented with pictures that seem to have nothing to do with the original puzzle. There is an idealised picture of a happy family sitting round a dinner table, like something totally unreal that should be on a chocolate box rather than part of my abduction puzzle.

Now, I am being told that my puzzle is being recalled because someone is claiming that the bits got mixed up, through no fault of the manufacturers, but because it got interfered with after some party or other and nobody bothered to investigate who did it.

Still, I'm going to keep it and hope that eventually I get the right picture that fits all the bits I have managed to accumulate, bits the manufacturers actually told me didn't exist!





by Sasha

There seems to be a lot of these jigsaws about. My husband bought me a couple for my birthday this weekend. On one of them the picture on the lid was of some curtains but when I opened the box they went whoosh. The other had a picture of shutters but try as I did, I couldn't get the box to open ( maybe I should have made a hole in the box crawled in and opened it from the inside?)






by LJC

Yes, on my jigsaw I had a similar thing happen. Everything was going nicely until I couldn't make the pieces with Robert Murat's face on fit. Then I hoped to complete it with a hillside burial ground but lost that piece also. Then I came across a piece with men searching a lake, but nothing would fit together. Then I lost the pieces with the Lead Detective in the case. Blimey, after I lost him, the whole thing just went up in the air I'm afraid.

A Blight On Humanity: Gerry McCann

The result of a much needed and long overdue throw out of all the rubbish I have saved over the months is a pot pourri of bits and bobs that would be better for being aired rather than being hidden away and forgotten.

As with many things that cross our path, particularly when times are hectic and there is lots happening all around, I think we tend to miss much, and it is only in retrospect that we can fully appreciate the content and the implications behind what has been previously said, written, or laid before us.

That said, it doesn't apply to me in this particular case, I wouldn't have saved the relative passages had it been so.
From the very off, as soon as I heard the words and had them confirmed in black and white some short time later, the full implication was all too apparent, as it was equally all too disgusting; a total affront to decency.

I have no wish to highlight any of the more loathsome parts of what was uttered by this vile creature, all I ask is that you read the thing slowly and appreciate the true horror and enormity of what this abomination of a man is saying.

Read it slowly, and perhaps as you do so, you might spare a thought for the girl that once had this reptile for a father.

"Freedom of speech should not include distortion of the truth, lies, fabrication and slander," said Kate McCann on Friday.

Gerry McCann added: "The key thing here is we're here to fight for our daughter, and if anyone steps over the lines then they should be prepared to defend what they say in court."

“We are pleased with the Judge’s decision preventing further distribution and sale of Mr Amaral’s book and DVD –‘The Truth of the Lie’.

“Mr. Amaral’s central thesis has no evidence whatsoever to support it. To claim as he did, that Madeleine is dead, and that we, her parents, were in some way involved with her disappearance, has caused our family incredible distress and it continues to do so.

“Without doubt, Madeleine will have suffered as a result of the negative effect this book and DVD will have had on the search for her.

“Sean and Amelie need protection too from such awful claims.

“Hopefully this injunction today will go a long way towards reducing further unnecessary and unjust distress to us all and allow people to concentrate completely on what is important - finding Madeleine,” the statement read.

“There’s one thing that has been revealed in the case files which is that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is no evidence to suggest that Kate and I were involved in any theories. It’s about Madeleine. As her parents, I hope people understand that we have to do what we are doing.”

In a statement after his participation, McCann asserted that, although there was no advancement in the investigation, there is also “absolutely no indication that she suffered any hurt or harm, therefore we must believe that she is alive out there and we cannot stop looking for her”.

“As parents, it is our obligation to continue searching for her; we must convince people that the searches must continue, and we should return to Portugal”, he said.

On a slightly lighter note, saved for it's contribution to that of which I am so fond, common sense.

By Bestbefore

The other great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

No prizes for guessing these were filed under the "Mantra" heading, probably taking no more than a few minutes in the gathering.

What a loathsome piece of shit he is.

There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine has been seriously harmed and therefore, as her parents, we have to believe that she is alive,
and out there, and we cannot give up looking for her."


It will be clear to everyone now, that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Madeleine has been seriously harmed. 15 08 2008


-There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed. blog 30 08


"There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead or has been seriously harmed," times march 08


'There is absolutely no reason to believe that she is not alive.'


I think it's partly fact in that there is no evidence at all to suggest Madeleine had come any harm.
-oprah


It will be clear to everyone now, that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Madeleine has been seriously harmed. Knowing this, we there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Madeleine has been seriously harmed. It's fundamental - without that evidence she's alive and the search is ongoing."18/5/09


"As far as Kate and I are concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead. 14/9/07


.....strongly believe that Madeleine is out there and can be found. blog 14/8/08

Woodward wrote

In my opinion, Jim Gamble is being used to threaten any would be dissenters, letting everyone know that Gerry is still in total control of the UK police and all their investigations. How bizarre that given that Madeleine's fate is still unknown, senior policemen are sharing a platform with the statistically most likely person to know her fate and the the last person to see her alive. Even if one is convinced of the parents innocence it is an inexplicable way for a police officer to behave.

Ain't it just Woodward, ain't it just.

And again.

Woodward

There is no "presumption" of abduction, even according to the conclusion report by the compliant shelving DA. I am truly astonished that Jim Gamble and his colleagues are not familiar with the investigations conclusions but appear to have accepted the McCann's version of the report's conclusion ,very sloppy.

Perhaps more astonishing than sloppy.


Without doubt I could fill pages and pages with the writings of those that comment on this case, but these are product of the previously mentioned clear out in but one corner of the garage.
I would dearly love to get my hands on, and pick the cream out of, the writings of Prof Moriarty, alas I fear, lost forever.