Freitag, 23. Mai 2014

I beg to differ...

For the moment, they may be solving cases right and left, but something is seriously wrong with the Madeleine McCann case and here are ten reasons why I think this is not business as usual and there is a political coverup going on of some sort.
1) The amount of funds being allotted to Scotland Yard to investigate one missing person's case - a case which is not even  within their own jurisdiction, a case in which the parents' own neglect of their children and refusal to cooperate with the authorities is shameful - is unprecedented and outrageous.

2) Scotland Yard began their "review" by publicly stating that the parents were not suspects instead of simply saying no one  can be excluded from suspicion who does not have a solid alibi as is the usual statement made by police right out of the gate.

3) Scotland Yard constantly says they are updating the parents of the missing child, something that is only done if the parents are absolutely not suspects.

4) Scotland Yard did not do a reconstruction of the crime; they only did a reenactment of the McCann version of the crime for television.

5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.

6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible.

7) Scotland Yard relatively large "Operation Grange" team has spent three years reviewing files that should have taken no more than a few weeks or months.

8) After reviewing all the evidence and leads in the files, Scotland Yard is investigating suspects that have no connection to the case.

9) Scotland Yard wants to search for Maddies's body (and, yes, they would be searching for a body as all other evidence would be long gone after seven years) in the most unlikely place to find her, right near the apartment in a very open-to-the-view-of-the-public location with hard-as-rock ground where no shallow grave could have been missed by the PJ or anyone walking by.

10) In spite of the fact the PJ has asked for there to be no press about the case, Scotland Yard has its own people still giving interviews.

A flaw in reason and logic: This reason given is in no way supporting the claim. It is on the contrary supporting the opposite. If there was to be a cover-up why start a review, turn it into a full-fledged investigation, get the country that was treated so badly into their boat and press on for 5 years? I am sure Hewlett would have been able to be made into the perfect scapegoat - and I do believe that this was contemplated by some forces at the time - if that would be the current purpose.

The examples for the exact same conduct in other cases are too numerous to be listed. There is no reason why Scotland Yard should adjust to the purported need of interested parties on the internet against common practice. Especially in the stages of an review.

Of course a police force HAS to inform the parents of a missing child until these parents are charged and a suspicion is drafted. As to extent of the information given we only have Clarence Mitchell's word to judge by.

It was the request of the Policia Judiciaria for a reconstruction. It was requested to verify or discard the witness statements regarding the timeline of events, mainly to prove that Jane Tanner would have been unable to be where she claimed to have been and to see what she had claimed to have seen. No other statements could have been verified by a reconstruction since no third party witnesses were present. Not the time of the alarm, not the alleged checks. Since Scotland Yard had already smashed the Gordian Knot that Jane Tanner's statement presented to the case there is no need for a reconstruction, something police forces (UK, Germany) very rarely use anyway.

This is debatable but in my opinion a genius move. We know she lied, she knows she lied, the police know she lied, but the petty reward for outing her lie through a reconstruction was discarded for the destruction of Gerry McCann's alibi at the "moment of her abduction". And the way for the Smith sighting was opened. And an offer was made to Jane...

The claim that Tanner saw the abductor was refuted which is so much more important than to prove Jane was lying (which would have proved rather difficult anyway). The ultimate truth is more important than petty revenge on Jane.

The bulk of the review was most certainly done on those parts of the files that have not been published: the reports about (mainly british) paedophiles or alleged paedophiles or rumours of paedophiles in the area. Taken together with the innumerous sightings that have been discarded by those following the case with a now preset mind this amounts to a huge workload that would have to be done BEFORE any conclusions could have been reached. A quick skim through the 10000 pages of the files can form an opinion but leads to a position that can be attacked in so many ways. (q.e.d.)

All the leads Scotland Yard are following and of course have to follow are part of the case. As mentioned above there are the sightings and reports about paedophiles in the area and of course those alleged incidents that only recently and miraculously turned up have to be verified and investigated even though some might turn out to be mere creations of distraction no unlike some of the sightings we had to put up with the previous years. But by investigating them, evidence might even come from these. In the prospect of the world's biggest court case ever, they better make sure that every other possibility is properly investigated and excluded or I would be very unhappy.

IMO there has yet an exact location to be named where they might be looking for evidence. The location in the center of Praia da Luz would be ideal to distract the world's media from the real procedings. Should they be close to finding her body they would never let the media partake in any unearthings. This open space in PdL is just sweetly perfect for the staging of excavations, with ample parking at hand...

The PJ and Scotland Yard have asked the media to behave and lately Clarence has received the firm instruction to finally stfu.


I am sure that at some stage in the past seven years there were efforts being made to cover-up the case and the hype around Hewlett was the closest we got to the presentation of a patsy. He was perfect, DNA evidence could have been provided and the public would have bought it.

But luckily there was never a general consent for a cover-up between all involved parties.

In the past year we had the alibi of Gerry destroyed, Smithman brought to the public's attention, the cover-up of the photofits exposed, Madeleine's death accepted and even the dog's mentioned in connection with a fresh search for her body. I have no idea WHAT would convince the sceptics, but it can hardly have been better than that.


  1. You and I do not see things the same way, although I have taken every opportunity to give you credit for perhaps the most important single achievement of any blogger in this case: your dialogue with David James Smith, which finally got the MSM demonstrating how they work out of their own mouths. Once again I thank you for that.

    Your calm dissection of Brown's reasoning is probably more valuable than my more choleric attack. The question is - which is the greater betrayal of the reading public? The deceptions of DJS or the childish piling of supposition on supposition of M/S Brown? Both betrayers claim a spurious authority: Smith uses the cloak of MSM authority, the bona fides and reliability that mere appearance in the supposedly vetted and fact-checked MSM provides, according to the Kier Simmons school of MSM defence; Brown hides behind the spurious authority of "profiling". Both, obviously, wish to gain something from the reader - Smith a financial living, Brown - what?

    One thing is clear. The amount of actual information about the McCanns and their activities in Smith's main article is vast, based on interviews and hard work and, when read very carefully, extremely valuable to people like you and I. In Brown's work, as far as I know, actual original information, rather than assertion, is zero.

    So, although I don't know is the greater betrayer, Smith, for all his odious faults has done more for us.

    What a dreadful choice!


    1. Thank you Blacksmith for your input.

      Do we really have to evaluate the various pieces in the puzzle that the case consists of? As much as the lies and deceptions of the main protagonists have lead us towards the truth, as much do the voluntary or involuntary deceptions of the MSM and the opinion articles in blogs and posts on forums give us the opportunity to dissect and evaluate every little piece of this charade in order to ultimately come as close to the truth as possible. And everybody plays a part in this.

      Without DJS I would not be convinced that it was indeed the neglect and the fear of the consequences that motivated Jane Tanner in the first place. And we would not have actual evidence of the direct approach the parents took to manipulate the public with the help of the media in the light of the upcoming rogatory interviews. It has also shown us that Jane was a witness that had to be supported and to be jollied along. The weakest link.

      I met Pat once and appreciate her as the person she is. A very couragous lady who fights for her beliefs. In this case she has done a lot to keep it in the mind of the american people. She is also a kind of katalyst that let's you reappraise your own opinions. With her evaluation of the case she is imo very close to the truth but seems to get sidetracked by the handling of the case by Scotland Yard. And I have to agree with her in that it is not completely standard procedure of how cases are normally handled or should normally be handled. But this is not a normal case. And to get a chance to be able to charge somebody in the near future, let alone prosecute somebody, unique measures are being taken. All imo of course.

  2. Both of you are losing your heads here I'm afraid (I'm sure temporarily) but there's no problem at all with Pat giving her opinion. Pat's very consistent opinion is there to see in her articles going back to 2007 (if you really haven't read her writing before, Mr B, I'd suggest you do).

    Pat's a good writer, she's intelligent, she communicates pleasantly with anyone who wishes to communicate with her: all of these qualities do not apply to the idiots operating on forums and facebook.

    Why are you attacking her, and by doing so encouraging them?

  3. I am not attacking her and this is not the place to discuss a different blog. Please bear this in mind. Thank you

  4. If it wasn't for the diverse opinions surrounding the case, the general level of debate would be at zero. Across the board I take on information and opinions, whether I agree or disagree, it's the right to express them, even from the supporters of the McCanns. I want FACTS, information and another way of seeing things. So I thank everyone I've communicated with in the last seven years.

    I support Pat's right to give an opinion not only on her freedom to give it, but she has given support to the cause since day one and remains among the few who have made the effort to meet Sr Amaral (and for all we know has confidential information) and trod the paths of PDL.

    As for DJS - since his major first 'Beyond the Smear's - it's that article that became a measure of all that was to follow - and let's be honest, we have not been (sarcastically) disappointed.

    We now enter another phase, the DIGGING up of PDL. Which should be very interesting. (again I say sarcastically)

    But let's flag up where the real, day to day issues remain:

    How could the MET airbrush out Tannerman and then whooooshed in with crèche-dad, and make it plainly simple that he if they are to dig up PDL it has to be after the Smith family sighting.

    Lastly, ticking away, now the MET is looking for a body, and remind me, bodies\remains are of DEAD people, where does this put the ongoing\stalling of the Lisbon Hearing. Probably approaching the courts recess, no doubt.
    aka Missypuddleduck

    1. ""How could the MET airbrush out Tannerman and then whooooshed in with crèche-dad, and make it plainly simple that he if they are to dig up PDL it has to be after the Smith family sighting.""

      I did a blog post about it once I think. It was Jane's greatest wish that she should not go into history as the world's biggest liar. I guess this wish was granted... maybe in return for something else.

      Latest news: "he planned searches will be based on mobile phone data, intelligence and evidence from witnesses."

  5. Hello Johanna

    I should have thought more carefully before making that comment since it could be (has been?) taken to imply that you share my violently critical view of M/S Brown. Clearly you do not and your post, in contrast to mine, was a courteous intellectual disagreement with someone you know. My apologies for my thoughtlessness.

  6. Some other points:

    @1 “Why start a review if only to conduct a cover up?” Cameron was effectively coerced into establishing the review by RB. The Met themselves expressed reluctance. RB would be unlikely to care about the Review's direction, just so long as it generated stories. The status of 'investigation' remains debatable. We have seen Redwood's bluster. Not his teeth..not yet.

    @2 Yes. But there are also questions of nuance. “Nobody, as yet is considered to be a suspect.”

    @3 Correct. Yet still a question of nuance. “Answers for Kate and Gerry”. That is a an unnecessary and unusual familiarity. (Admittedly that may not tell the whole story.)

    @4 UK and German forces rarely use reconstructions. True. The Portuguese do. If Amaral is to be believed then the parent’s participation in a reconstruction would have allowed the case to be reopened considerably earlier. Both Redwood and the parents made calls to the Portuguese to reopen, but neither party raised the possibility of returning to PT for a reconstruction.

    @5 Debatable, yes.

    @6 “The claim that Tanner saw the abductor was refuted which is so much more important than to prove Jane was lying..” Any such importance has yet to be decided upon. Forum/blog analyses are one thing, credible court witnesses are another. In any respect the MSM won't go near such detail with a barge pole. Like so much else in this case it might simply rattle around the Internet for years to come. “What might have been”.

    @7 “The bulk of the review was most certainly done on those parts of the files that have not been published:” You know this how? Your assertion?

    @8 “...they better make sure that every other possibility is properly investigated and excluded” Simply not possible. Not in any case. Never.

    @9 I agree

    @10 “Clarence has received the firm instruction to finally stfu.” Again, you know this how? Another assertion. Perhaps the parents do, at this stage, genuinely want restraint. The media instructions were a broad signal to many parties.

    That all said: “I am sure that at some stage in the past seven years there were efforts being made to cover-up the case and the hype around Hewlett was the closest we got to the presentation of a patsy. He was perfect, DNA evidence could have been provided and the public would have bought it.”

    I disagree entirely. Such a coverup would be monstrously difficult to enact, and a huge risk.

    Operation Grange has simply floundered at the edge of many political/legal tides (and may yet drown altogether). The media events have had the air of hurried amateurism (reactive rather than proactive).Redwood has been buying time. Two windows are required - the investigative one (known to both the PJ and SY), and the political one, hopefully to be retrieved amidst such damaged relationships. Why has Redwood been quite so verbose? Why feed the trolls?

    There won’t be a coverup. Either the appropriate people will be arrested, or as with many other cases, there will be an ugly withdrawal that leaves neither party satisfied. Status quo.

    1. ""If you get any information ahead of our actions do not publish anything that may give suspects advance notice.""

      That's Rowley telling the Mirror not to print the stuff Mitchell gives them.

  7. Are there numerous cases where a review is started after an exchange of open letters in a newspaper between a prime minister and a mother who is suspected of harming her child, a review which was granted on the eve of a book release by the mother?

    Isn’t it strange that Scotland Yard would find it necessary to state that the McCanns are not suspects when it was Mrs. McCann who requested the review? And was it really necessary for the man leading this investigation / review to make numerous appearances on TV for no other purpose than to hammer the point in the public’s mind that the McCanns are not suspects? It’s one thing to state that the McCanns are not suspects but one has to wonder about a man who looks into the camera and states that anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy theorist.

    Yes, Scotland Yard asked the media to behave but aren’t they the ones who have been telling the media what they are up to?

    I’m not a criminal profiler but logic tells me that a police force shouldn’t ignore the people that were with the child. Logic tells me that a police force doesn’t base its investigation on eliminating every possibility of abduction, because no one can state with certainty that there are a fixed number of possibilities. And even if it were possible to verify that there were X possibilities of abduction and to prove that these X possibilities didn’t occur, that will not result in the McCanns being convicted.

    I understand everyone sees the world differently, that’s what makes life interesting; I respect people’s opinions even if they are different from mine. I’ve never called anyone an “idiot,” “a loser” or suggested that they are beneath me because they see the world differently. If I encounter people in my life who behave this way, I ignore them.

    1. Everything is a matter of perception and indeed debatable. And that is what we are here for. Imagine us getting fed up and leaving the case to those that worship the parental abilities of the DOCTORS. Nah....

      Nobody owns the truth. Only the community of those that struggle for it will eventually see a glimps of it. But debate is essential. And hope as well...

  8. I cannot believe that two highly intelligent people who have contributed so much to the debate as JB and Johanna can stoop so low as to attack a blogger who holds a different opinion than they do on the issue of Scotland Yard's review. I can only presume that your vanity has been stung by Pat Brown not mincing her words when commenting.on your own theories (and theories they are, not facts, although I happen to share most of your opinions). I cannot for the life of me imagine that JB has not read her blog before - it is rather prominently featured on the McCann files , and is very much worth reading. I do hope that PB is wrong when she suspects a cover up, and you are right when you assume that the weird behaviour of SY is a fiendishly clever method of drawing the culprits out (and we all think we know who they are) but I would not bet on it. But that you of all people start losing your objectivity and start turning against people who should be your allies because they are looking for the truth, too, leaves me rather shaken.

  9. Johanna,

    I hope YOU are right!



  10. I've been reserving judgment on Scotland Yard's efforts. I'm reminded of the character "Columbo" on TV. His investigations always included a lot of dithering that was increasingly nerve wracking for the guilty party.

    I think when one factors down the police activities of late, they are a signal from the police to the McCanns that the police think they are involved in Madeleine's disappearance. Digging implies a strong suspicion that Madeleine is dead. Burying Madeleine implies a strong suspicion that the parents buried her. An opportunistic killer would not be bothered to bury her, particularly in the locations suggested. Did someone try to bury her in the flowerbed at the foot of the stairs leading to apartment 5A? Dogs detected scent there. I think SY is drawing the net a little tighter around the McCanns. It looks like a lot of aimless dithering but I'm not so sure of that. I think that someone in politics may have decided that quite a lot could be gained by nailing the McCanns.

  11. Guten Tag
    Ich habe die Schlagzeile gelesen, "wir graben nicht nach Maddies Körper". Ich habe darüber nachgedacht, wonach dann gegraben wird. Im Ferienort wohl nach den verschwundenen Gegenständen (Bettwäsche der Zwillinge, verschmutzt z.B. von der Reinigung des Hotelzimmers?).
    das impliziert aber auch, dass die Polizei weiss, dass Maddie am Urlaubsort nicht zu finden ist.
    Wenn man zugehörige Gegenstände aus dem Hotelzimmer aber finden würde, hätte man wohl DNA und ein entsprechendes Licht fiele auf die Eltern. Ein anderer Täter hätte die Gegenstände vor allem im Falle einer Entführung wohl im wörtlichen Sinne mitgeführt/weggeführt. Den Eltern fehlte aber bekanntlich das Auto.

    Noch eine Frage: Stimmen die Telefonpunkte aus der früheren Rubrik "Pingggg" des Vaters nicht mit dem vermuteten Ort des deutschen Sehers Michael ... überein? Der Mann hat ja offenbar schon zur Aufklärung verschiedener Verbrechen beigetragen. Zudem kann ich mir doch gut vorstellen, dass ein Tourist sich an diesen Ort begibt....

    1. Scotland Yard hat sich nicht wirklich festgelegt ob überhaupt undwenn ja wonach gegraben wird. Sie halten sich gottseidank bedeckt. In denAkten gibt es keine Hinweise auf verschwundene Gegenstände, und nein, der Scharlatan, der den Tod eines Mädchens zum Geldscheffeln nutzt hat einen völlig anderen Ort "gesehen"

  12. Liebe Johanna
    @4 ja, mit einer Rekonstruktion wird man wenig erreichen können. Ich meine sogar,dass es unerheblich ist, wer wo gewesen ist. Wichtig scheint mir zu sein wo sie nicht gewesen sind, nämlich am Tapas Tisch. Dort sind alle 5 min. Leute aufgestanden bzw. zurückgekommen (gemütliche Atmosphäre!). Dadurch kann kein unabhängiger Zeuge sagen wie lange Einzelne weggeblieben sind und ob überhaupt alle 9 anwesend waren. M.E. hat man einem von ihnen ein Alibi für fast 2 h verschafft.
    @5, stimme ich nicht so ganz zu. Wenn ich einer der Ermittler wäre, würde ich als erstes Jane Tanner aus der Schusslinie bringen. Möglicherweise ist sie keine bewusste Lügnerin. Wie Du mit " how to carry a child" sehr gut dargestellt hast, liegt in Janes Aussage mglw. eine Projektion von tatsächlich Erlebtem auf eine andere Situation oder Fiktion vor. Damit würde, wenn auch unbewusst, ein Geständnis bzw.eine Zeugenaussage vorliegen mit dem sich forensische Psychologen befassen können.
    @ Smith-Sichtung, unser beider Streitpunkt. Ich bin nach wie vor davon überzeugt, dass sie inhaltlich so wertlos ist, wie die anderen Sichtungen auch. Trotzdem kann sie für eine Anklage sehr wichtig sein, sie überführt Gerald öffentlich (nicht nur in GB, was auch immer dieses bedeuten mag) der bewussten Unterschlagung von Phantom-Fahndungsbildern und damit der Manipulation von Ermittlungen zum Verschwinden seiner Tochter.
    Auch Kate lässt man zeitgleich die ursprüngliche Tatortbeschreibung 3x öffentlich wiederholen. Diese deckt sich nicht mit der Tatortbeschreibung von portugiesischen Polizeibeamten, die nicht nur keinen Hinweis auf einen Eindringling fanden, sie fanden auch im Apartment keinen Hinweis für die hysterische Suche einer Mutter nach ihrem Kind.
    Liebe Grüße, Josefine

  13. ""Ich bin nach wie vor davon überzeugt, dass sie inhaltlich so wertlos ist, wie die anderen Sichtungen auch""
    Gottseidank scheint SY vom Gegenteil überzeugt zu sein. Der wesentliche Unterschied zu allen anderen Sichtungen besteht doch genau darin, dass alle anderen Sichtungen breit getreten wurden und diese hier vertuscht.

  14. You and Pat could both be right. The really clever game to play would be to reassure those who are dictating a cover up while at the same time getting the evidence to support arrests. So SY will come up with "disappearance by person or persons unknown but likely to be X or Y (deceased)" and at the same time leave the PJ with the satisfaction (and the resultant 'aggro') of arresting those responsible.

  15. Johanna1. Juni 2014 10:19. Wouldn't we all, but there are occasions where British deception is honed even sharper, e.g.