Translate

Wednesday, 15 August 2018

Grimestalking

Yesterday, I posted an FOI request and response on the topic of the South Yorkshire Police sniffer dogs who went to PdL. Most of the questions centre around the dog Eddie.

This request was NOT made by Nick Townsend

Just to have it handy for reference, here is that request and response again:

I would like to request the following under the FOI Act:
1.         Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in within the South Yorkshire Force area over the last five years?  Please provide a breakdown for each year.
2.         Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in outside the South Yorkshire Force Area over the last five years? Please provide a breakdown for each year.
3.         What does the South Yorkshire constabulary charge for Eddie the sniffer dog’s services?
4.         Please could you provide a breakdown of the fees and expenses charged for each case Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog has been deployed in outside the South Yorkshire area in the last three years?
5.         To whom is money made payable for the services of Eddie the sniffer dog?
6.  Who owns Eddie the sniffer dog? 
7. What training did Eddie receive to assist him in his duties?

Exemptions Applied: 

None

SYP Response: 


1. Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in within the South Yorkshire Force area over the last five years? 
Eddie, the specialist dog is no longer with South Yorkshire Police. He and his handler left the Force in August 2007. The information supplied therefore relates to his service between 2003 and 2007.
Information relating directly to the nature of each Victim Search Dog deployment, if made public could cause unnecessary distress to the persons and families connected with the deceased. However, we can provide the following details regarding Victim Search Dog deployments between 2003 and 2007:
As two teams working together: handler Ellis and dog Frankie, with handler Grime and dog Eddie have been deployed on twenty occasions, with the recovery of four bodies.
Working alone, Grime/Eddie have been deployed on seventeen occasions with the recovery of one body and Ellis/Frankie have been deployed on five occasions with the recovery of three bodies, this includes the recovery of two women in one grave.

2. Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in outside the South Yorkshire Force Area over the last five years? Please provide a breakdown for each year.
Out of the twenty occasions where the dog teams were deployed together, two deployments were in the South Yorkshire Police Force area and the remainder were out of the force.
All seventeen deployments for Grime/Eddie working alone were to external forces.
Two deployments for Ellis/Frankie were in the South Yorkshire Police Force area and the remaining three were to external forces.

3. What does the South Yorkshire constabulary charge for Eddie the sniffer dog’s services?
The daily charges for the deployment of Eddie were £700 per day Monday to Friday and £900 per day for weekly leave days and bank holidays. These charges have not changed over the last five years and are still applicable to date.

4. Please could you provide a breakdown of the fees and expenses charged for each case Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog has been deployed in outside the South Yorkshire area in the last three years?
The breakdown for the fees and expenses charged for the deployment of Eddie the Springer Spaniel Victim Search Dog outside the force area are calculated as follows:
The figures are based on 2006-2007 costing:
Salary cost Police Constable: £41,900, 8 hour productive day £192.20
Deployment based on 16 hour day Mon to Friday more than 7 days notice
Cost for 8 hour working day
Cost for 8 hours overtime
NI on above
Cost dog for the day £10.52
Use of vehicle based on 300 miles
5% Admin fee
The total amounts to £837 but SYP would charge £700
Deployment based on 16 hour day Saturday or Sunday including Bank Holidays or less 7 days notice
Cost for 16 hours at double time
NI on above
Cost dog for the day £10.52
Use of vehicle based on 300 miles
5% Admin fee
The total amounts to £1035.50 but SYP would charge £900
5. To whom is money made payable for the services of Eddie the sniffer dog?
All monies received for the deployment of Eddie during his time with South Yorkshire Police were paid to South Yorkshire Police.
6. Who owns Eddie the sniffer dog? 
Ownership of Eddie was transferred from South Yorkshire Police to his handler Martin Grime when he retired from the Force in 2007.
7. What training did Eddie receive to assist him in his duties?
When Eddie was with South Yorkshire Police he received training in line with the ACPO dog committee standards for specialist dog training. The training was and in relation to current dogs is 18 days per annum.

A couple of points to note:

This FOI response is still available on the SYP disclosure log (the reference number and the link are available on the previous post)

As previously mentioned, the FOI was not made by Townsend.

Despite the information in this response, Townsend frequently lies about a number of aspects.

I'll be listing these later

Now we'll move on to the FOI requests which were made by Townsend

With regard to your request in relation to:

"1. Can you confirm that the cadaver dog "Eddie", formerly a police dog under
dog handler and dog instructor Martin Grime, now retired from your force, was
sent to America to be trained on human cadavers and be upgraded to "enhanced"
victim recovery dog?

2. Can you confirm that South Yorkshire Police uses, or has used, an American
device for trapping scents, a "Scent Transfer Unit" or "STU100" in the
training of its cadaver dogs?"


RESPONSE

1. South Yorkshire Police holds information which would tend to confirm this part of your request. This information is contained within the anual Personal Development Review of retired PC GRIME for the year 2005/2006 and states at various points,

"(PC GRIMES) has deployed police dog 'Eddie' to train on human remains in the US. This training has been valuable as it is not possible to utilise human remains in the UK. A full report from the F.B.I. to document his training and operational deployments whilst in America remains pending"

"Deployments have been on a national scale and a recent visit to the F.B.I. in America has created some income generation potential in terms of training."

"Complete sponsored visit to FBI to educate on C.S.I. Dog capabilities - Achieved"

2. From enquiries I have made it would appear that South Yorkshire Police have not deployed or used a device known as a 'Scent Transfer Unit' or 'STU100' within Force either operationally or for evaluation. However the Force does hold information that would indicate that Mr GRIME, whilst serving with this Force IN 2006, did utilise such a device whilst engageD in another Force area. A section of a statement apparently made but not signed by Mr GRIME reads: -

" I developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles by a ST 100 Scent Tranference Unit.

The unit is designed in a two main-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. Ther is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second main part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated the ST 100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.

The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.

Use of the ST100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.

Operational use of the STU 100 is in a developmental stage"

And the follow-up

 Freedom of Information Request - Reference No:20110231
 [Following a response to request 20110186]
Can I ask, did that FBI report described as 'pending' turn up?
RESPONSE
SYP did not receive a report, therefore there is `no information held'. 

Again, a couple of points to make

Both these requests WERE made by Townsend.

He does not provide the initial request, just the response, nor does he provide any online link, screenshot or scan.

I have provided both the reference numbers, but it is worth noting that these requests and responses have both been removed from the STP disclosure log. 

This is not an issue of dates, as the previous FOI request was two years earlier, but can still be located in the disclosure log.

I can confirm that Townsend's requests were available in the log at some point in the past, then removed


Okay - so that's the background. So how has Townsend used these replies?
Well, quite simply, he has misrepresented or told outright lies about their content to support his endless harassment of Martin Grime.

Here is a little example:

 "Grime went to America in the New Year 2006 on a trip billed in advance as so that Keela could (sic) assist the FBI in two murder enquiries.
This is a 'deduction' made by Townsend on the basis of a newspaper report 
Advanced publicity of that trip contained no reference to Eddie (then unknown outside police circles).
There is no indication that the trip where Eddie was taken for additional training is the same trip as the one referenced in the newspaper report, or that the lack of reference to Eddie means he wasn't included on that trip 

Grime returned back to England (having made the trip, so far as I can gather, without dogs)
Townsend has NO information to support that claim, in fact quite the opposite, nor does he have access to that information 
and in a PDR, pulled the wool over the eyes of some dope in a PDR that he had taken Eddie
Now - lets just pause there. 

We will cover this in more detail later, but basically this is the situation

Townsend asked for confirmation that Eddie had been taken to America for additional training.

The response was that they held information which tended to confirm this.

Townsend's response was to claim that Grime's senior officer was ''a dope'' and that Grime had ''pulled the wool over their eyes''

He also claimed that Grime had lied about taking the dog to the states. Townsend's 'deduction' is on the following basis: 
(who, then, would have been aged about 5 or 6, and just 18 months from retirement as a police dog) across to America for "enhanced" training on human remains.
He did not seek to confirm this deduction, or question the response he received. Nor did he apparently make any enquiries into how long a dog may continue to work in the private sector 
Two FOI answers to questions submitted by me confirm that SYP have no record of any training on human remains in America (for Eddie).
That is simply a lie. It was confirmed to Townsend that  the force DID hold information that Eddie had been taken to the states. What they were missing was a later report from the FBI which was outstanding.

So now seems a good time to list some of the lies Townsend has told where he has either misrepresented the FOI response, applied his own 'interpretation' or simply flat-out lied about it. These actions have given rise to a whole string of myths he has been propagating for years. 

1. The lie - Martin Grime was working on a freelance basis in PdL
The truth - no he wasn't. As confirmed by both the FOI response and by Grime's own statement, he was still employed by South Yorkshire police at the time he went to PdL

2. The lie - that Martin Grime benefited financially from the dogs usage in PdL.
The truth - no, the FOI response confirmed that all receipts went to SYP. In addition, the rates quoted by SYP in their reply concur with the rates quoted in the PJ Files.

3. The lie - that Eddie was never trained on human tissues
The truth - this was one of the reasons for the visit of the dog to the USA. This is confirmed within Mr Grime's Personal development review. 

4. The lie - that Mr Grime falsified parts of his PDR including falsifying a visit by the dog to the USA
The truth - not only is this nonsense, but it is also both libelous and offensive, including the reference to his senior officer as ''a dope''. Townsend is too stupid, presumably, to realise that such a trip would have to be signed off by a senior officer and would create a paper trail

He has used many variations of the above to try to discredit Mr Grime or applied his own tortuous thinking to arrive at the wrong conclusion. For example:

"Martin Grime was working freelance in PdL"

FOI says NO, but Townsend says "He wasn't in uniform; he was working two dogs etc"

None of which is relevant. 

"He didn't take the dog to the USA"

FOI says, "Yes he did", but Townsend says "but he was getting old, we don't train dogs on humans etc"

None of which is relevant.

I even recall one incident where Townsend tried to pass the interaction off as follows :

"Can I ask, did that report described as pending turn up?"

"(SYP with a pensive frown) No, it didn't"

....until he was reminded that the interaction was on paper, not in person ๐Ÿ˜†

Of course, as things stand there is no proof of the wording of those FOI responses as they have been deleted from the disclosure log. I wonder why that could be?




Tuesday, 14 August 2018

Martin Grime


As many of you will know, a certain N.Townsend likes to tweet about Martin Grime. Strangely he forgets to include parts of the FOI response. There were basically two requests - here is one, the other to follow when I find it.


But in brief, from this one we can discern that Martin Grime was indeed still employed by the South Yorkshire police, when deploying the dogs in Portugal, not freelance as Townsend has claimed, and that all monies were payable to the force.

https://neighbourhood.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/sniffer-dog-deployments-costs

Sniffer Dog Deployments & Costs




Reference Number: 

20090062

HideDates

Request Date: 

Thursday, 19 February, 2009

Response Date: 

Monday, 30 March, 2009

Request Details: 


I would like to request the following under the FOI Act:
1.         Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in within the South Yorkshire Force area over the last five years?  Please provide a breakdown for each year.
2.         Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in outside the South Yorkshire Force Area over the last five years? Please provide a breakdown for each year.
3.         What does the South Yorkshire constabulary charge for Eddie the sniffer dog’s services?
4.         Please could you provide a breakdown of the fees and expenses charged for each case Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog has been deployed in outside the South Yorkshire area in the last three years?
5.         To whom is money made payable for the services of Eddie the sniffer dog?
6.  Who owns Eddie the sniffer dog? 
7. What training did Eddie receive to assist him in his duties?

Exemptions Applied: 

None

SYP Response: 


1. Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in within the South Yorkshire Force area over the last five years? 
Eddie, the specialist dog is no longer with South Yorkshire Police. He and his handler left the Force in August 2007. The information supplied therefore relates to his service between 2003 and 2007.

Information relating directly to the nature of each Victim Search Dog deployment, if made public could cause unnecessary distress to the persons and families connected with the deceased. However, we can provide the following details regarding Victim Search Dog deployments between 2003 and 2007:

As two teams working together: handler Ellis and dog Frankie, with handler Grime and dog Eddie have been deployed on twenty occasions, with the recovery of four bodies.

Working alone, Grime/Eddie have been deployed on seventeen occasions with the recovery of one body and Ellis/Frankie have been deployed on five occasions with the recovery of three bodies, this includes the recovery of two women in one grave.

2. Which cases has Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog been used in outside the South Yorkshire Force Area over the last five years? Please provide a breakdown for each year.
Out of the twenty occasions where the dog teams were deployed together, two deployments were in the South Yorkshire Police Force area and the remainder were out of the force.

All seventeen deployments for Grime/Eddie working alone were to external forces.

Two deployments for Ellis/Frankie were in the South Yorkshire Police Force area and the remaining three were to external forces.

3. What does the South Yorkshire constabulary charge for Eddie the sniffer dog’s services?
The daily charges for the deployment of Eddie were £700 per day Monday to Friday and £900 per day for weekly leave days and bank holidays. These charges have not changed over the last five years and are still applicable to date.

4. Please could you provide a breakdown of the fees and expenses charged for each case Eddie the Springer spaniel sniffer dog has been deployed in outside the South Yorkshire area in the last three years?
The breakdown for the fees and expenses charged for the deployment of Eddie the Springer Spaniel Victim Search Dog outside the force area are calculated as follows:

The figures are based on 2006-2007 costing:

Salary cost Police Constable: £41,900, 8 hour productive day £192.20

Deployment based on 16 hour day Mon to Friday more than 7 days notice
Cost for 8 hour working day
Cost for 8 hours overtime
NI on above
Cost dog for the day £10.52
Use of vehicle based on 300 miles
5% Admin fee
The total amounts to £837 but SYP would charge £700

Deployment based on 16 hour day Saturday or Sunday including Bank Holidays or less 7 days notice
Cost for 16 hours at double time
NI on above
Cost dog for the day £10.52
Use of vehicle based on 300 miles
5% Admin fee
The total amounts to £1035.50 but SYP would charge £900

5. To whom is money made payable for the services of Eddie the sniffer dog?
All monies received for the deployment of Eddie during his time with South Yorkshire Police were paid to South Yorkshire Police.

6. Who owns Eddie the sniffer dog? 
Ownership of Eddie was transferred from South Yorkshire Police to his handler Martin Grime when he retired from the Force in 2007.

7. What training did Eddie receive to assist him in his duties?
When Eddie was with South Yorkshire Police he received training in line with the ACPO dog committee standards for specialist dog training. The training was and in relation to current dogs is 18 days per annum.

FOI Category: 



They walk among us........

A xenophobia special.


The staff discovered that breaking the words into smaller grunts was the only way of getting Textusa to say them



Evening all,

Well, Textusa and her minions are doing their bit for international affairs, stirring up xenophobia and ill-feeling - obviously this is nothing new, Textusa has always been dreadfully xenophobic and racist, but it has thrown up a few gems.

Like this, for example :


Basically, we got the sensation that there were 2 kind of people in Praia da Luz, the Brits who owned the place and the Portuguese, foreigners in their own land, poor and working for the Brits.

And one feels watched, it’s a small town living under permanent suspicion because of Maddie. And when I returned there, I felt things had aggravated and from what you say (maybe because of what we wrote) things have gone worse, reading your words.

If it’s because of us, they can relax and ease up on the “security” as we have all we need to know about Luz so it’s not in our plans to return there in the near future.
Let's gloss over for a second the fact that she spent about half an hour in the village before buggering off to have lunch somewhere else, and ignoring her comments about 'foreigners in their own land', and focus on this:


 And when I returned there, I felt things had aggravated and from what you say (maybe because of what we wrote) things have gone worse, reading your words.
Did you get that? Textusa seriously believes the madness she writes in her shitty column has the power to affect a change in the fiscal stability of the area.

Matron - the large syringe, if you would be so kind!

But it doesn't stop there. Oh no.


If it’s because of us, they can relax and ease up on the “security” as we have all we need to know about Luz so it’s not in our plans to return there in the near future.
Hear that, lads? It's okay, you can stand down the army and the massed ranks of the GNR, she's not coming back ๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†

I know it seems incredible that one person should have such an inflated opinion of their own importance, but there you have it.

And it doesn't end there


Textusa has made us aware of people I blindly trust/ed as I expected they post for a child abandoned by her parents how cruel to act in a certain way for an agenda of which Textusa Sisters will reveal more but as we've seen, for one, they try to cry about OG, loud and clear. 

Oh yes - batten down the hatches, because this is where we stand now:

1. Regardless of your other opinions about this case, if you don't believe in Textusa's central thesis, that they were swinging the night away, then you are the enemy. You are part of a conspiracy.

2. You have an agenda. We don't know what it is yet, because the gigantic fruit bat in human form has yet to tell us. Presumably it's because of that approval process. Tsk! 

Monday, 13 August 2018

Textusa of the Yard

Christ, this one doesn't half talk some crap

This is part of Operation Guedes - Textusa's attempt to 'get even' with Anne Guedes for making her look ridiculous. 

Let's be honest, Text - you can't un-ring that bell.

We join the rant halfway through, mainly because I just can't be arsed.
The officers were delighted to see Textusa and invited her in for a chat.


  1. About the justice we want for Maddie. It’s the DUTY of a sovereign state to clarify to society FULLY of what has happened to a missing person and it has the DUTY to do all that it is possible to do to achieve that total clarification.

    Equally, it is the RIGHT of every citizen to demand from the sovereign state – through its legitimate legal agents – the fulfilment without reserve of that DUTY the state has.
Okay, RantyPants - let's hold it right there.

The role of Law Enforcement agencies is to balance the rights of the victim, the offender and society in general, whilst adhering to the rule of law.

So shall we look at your demands one at a time?

It is not the duty of a sovereign state, or it's nominated law enforcement agencies, to 'clarify fully' what has happened to a victim of crime. It does have a responsibility to investigate as fully as it can, whilst balancing the rights of others.

It does not owe YOU any specific responsibility. You have an expectation as a member of society that those agencies uphold the law and investigate the crime, whilst balancing the rights of victim and offender, but you do not have the right to tell it how to do this or to demand specific actions or answers. Nor do you have the right to demand actions 'without reserve'. You don't raise taxes or pay the bills

  1. That’s the reason we are here. To demand that both states do their DUTY about Maddie McCann
And both states are equally able to invite you to fuck off and mind your own business. 

  1. Her disappearance happened in Portugal, so, we would like the Portuguese justice system to answer the 6 questions we have put in our post “Maddie’s Pandora’s box”:
    http://textusa.blogspot.com/2014/09/maddies-pandoras-box.html
Here is one example where "Fuck off, loony" would be an appropriate response. In fact, let's suggest some responses for them, shall we? 

  1. “1. Why did the case take so long to solve?
"Because there wasn't enough evidence, silly person" 

  1. 2. Under what circumstances (with whom, why, when, where and how) did Maddie die?
"If we knew that, we wouldn't be sitting here, would we? "

  1. 3. If Maddie died in the apartment, why was body taken away from it?
"Who are you, exactly?" 

  1. 4. If Maddie died in apartment and her body taken away, where was it taken to between 10pm – 4am and subsequently on the following hours and days?
"Look, we just solve the cases, pet. Why are you trying to make me draw triangles?" 

  1. 5. What happened to Maddie’s body and who and why they helped for that to happen?
"Try it again in an Earth language, love" 

  1. 6. Who protected the McCanns and why were they protected the way they were?”
"Who said they were? Can you get your foot out of the door please Miss?" 

  1. We only wish for these questions to be answered satisfactorily.
"In other words, you want the case solving. Well, dur."  
  1. We seek no punishment, as that is up to the legal entities to decide if there is to be any or not and for us to accept any decision it makes.
"Well, that's good to know. In which case, can you dismantle that scaffold and take your bloody chains with you? "

  1. Once these 6 questions are answered satisfactorily by the Portuguese justice system, we evidently hope that that the answers will be such an embarrassment to the UK that the only way it will have to save face will be to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law the 2 crimes committed in the UK: the fraudulent fund and obstruction of justice.
You mean, once the Portuguese have solved the case you want the UK to pick over the bones of what's left? Always assuming they can prove any of it, of course. 

  1. (Cont)

    About the last, we do hope that all those who have committed the crime of obstructing justice, both all those all those who knowing what happened have expressed publicly purposefully misleading statements to obfuscate the public opinion from knowing the truth as well as all those who paid and were paid to enable and promote the hoax be prosecuted by the legitimate entities of their respective countries.

Well, quite. Because if anyone has obstructed justice then they have committed a crime. However, I seriously doubt that shrieking "They didn't believe in the swinging! Arrest them!" will get you very far. Because that's really what you want, isn't it?  

This is not a forum

Her loonyship has made the following claim

Now please compare the style above with the one in a comment published in NT’s blog also, allegedly, from Nick/Anon:

“Nick10 August 2018 at 15:19
Yip...as i thought she's held off to let others attack Anne. Why on earth does Anne need to answer those questions textusa. You have presented a premise-Anne has questioned evidence for that premise. Cut out the political/civil service debating style of answering a question with a question. Its cringe inducing as you are not very good at it”

Evidently not the same person. The style is clearly from NT.
Neither the above or the earlier one she refers to, were written by me. She has frequently mis-identified anonymous posts as being written by Nick. She seems obsessed with him. 


Why have we published these comments and what are we asking readers to think about?
Why indeed 


That this shows that we are before an organised team who share passwords accounts. 
Nope.

Let me make this clear. There is no ''organised team'' and there is no sharing of passwords. This is not a forum; you access via a google account or anonymously, consequently there ARE no passwords, except for one's own google account.

We know, however, that Textusa's posts are all subject to group discussion, sharing and approval because she clearly said so. They even have a formal approvals process. 

I am the only one who approves posts here 


This makes the debates around whether this nick is the same person behind that nick to be a pure waste of time, a distraction.
Which, presumably, is why you are doing it. 


More than one person can use a single nick. One only needs to have the password access to the account and that is easily shared.
And still doing it 


So, by telling a fellow gang member to log into one of them and by engaging with him/her using that other nick in a live convo, one is able to convince others that the other nick is from a different person (because at that moment, it is).
Again, there is no membership and no password. Nor is there any such thing as a 'live convo' as all posts have to be approved by me.

Thanks for sharing with us how YOU do it, though.


Then the fellow gang-member can just log out, and the person can continue to use the 2 accounts after having “proved” that “the 2 nicks mean different people”.
You don't have to log in or out. It's not a forum 


The evident style discrepancy between the 2 comments above from supposedly the same person show that it is all a game of smoke and mirrors. What matters is to know that we are before a well-organised gang.
You decided that both were from Nick, although one is anonymous, then said there was a style discrepancy. I think that makes YOU the discrepancy.


Fortunately, less and less people are willing to shamelessly disrespect the memory of a little girls and shamelessly disrespect the suffering inflicted on Sr Amaral and his family and so it is becoming harder and harder to find new recruits to do such a soulless work.
Sorry to be pedantic, but it is "fewer and fewer" 


That’s why infantile mistakes like the one above, are being made with more and more frequency.
You know, Textusa, you really should stop making these declarations. you are always wrong and always emerge looking like a twat. 

Sunday, 12 August 2018

Slip-sliding away



Dear readers,


As you may remember, Anne Guedes has been looking for the answers to a couple of questions she asked Textusa. And Textusa has been slithering away like a seal glazed in olive oil.

Here is the latest shameful chapter 



Do not publish identified reader at 11 Aug 2018, 20:50

There are no sacred cows in this case. To be clear ‘sacred cow’ comes from a Portuguese expression “nรฃo hรก vacas sagradas” and has nothing derogatory about it as it expresses that there’s no one above criticism or opposition. No one is untouchable.
No, it's origins lie in the English language. That's just a Portuguese translation 

Not even Sr Amaral is a sacred cow in this blog. We profoundly respect the man and seeking to find the truth about the case, is our way to compensate him and his family for the suffering they went through caused by all those who have helped and are helping continuing of the hoax.
So your regular Friday rambles, all of which completely contradict his conclusions, are your way of showing him you care, are they? Behave yourself, you duplicitous harpy.  

Some, like the McCanns, were openly against him but the hoax could not have survived without the help of those pretending to be on his side when all along all they intended was for him and everyone else not to know why Maddie’s death has been covered up all these years.
Oh here we go - this is the bit where you claim that everyone who doesn't agree with you, which is basically everyone else, is 'pretending' to be on his side and 'pretending' not to believe you, yes? Maria, you need to see a mental health professional as soon as you can.  

And to protect that they were willing to watch him and his family suffer while they pretended they cared for him when he was in that situation because they collaborated in putting him in that situation. What we have called the Fake Florence Nightingales.
So the people responsible for his suffering are the ones who believed him. Would you like to have another stab at that, you pathetic creature? 

But our respect for him does not mean that he didn’t make mistakes. And we point them out whenever we see he was wrong – without resorting to personal judgements of calling him a Marialva or making absolutely personal assessments like him leaving information out of his book out of some kind of “Machism” pride – with the absolute certainty that under the circumstances no one would have done any better.
Ah - so that's a cowardly attack on Anne Guedes. Thought so. 

His courage, his professionalism, his determination and his honesty whilst heading the investigation against forces (both enemy AND “friendly”) that it would have been inhuman to be asked of him to understand a fraction of them, much less their entirety, deserve the highest praise.
This is the same man who clearly missed every 'clue' you spotted, who is according to you an utter hero but couldn't be expected to see what your 'super-brain' can see?

๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜†๐Ÿ˜† 

And after leaving the investigation, we admire his determination and resilience in restoring his honour. It was quite a painful process to watch people who we knew had put or helped put him in the necessity of having to defend his honour – paying for it the price of his family, his career and for years that of his assets – shedding tears for him. We are firm believers that consciences do catch up with people.
Oh do name all those people, Maria. All those people who shed crocodile tears for him. I dare you.  

We are continuously insulted, anonymously and by named bloggers and Anne Guedes has been rather rude to us.
Anne has been anything BUT rude to you. She has been remarkably patient and unfailingly polite, something you haven't deserved 
If your certainty is correct, then she’s free not to comment in our blog any more, as it’s her choice and her right.
What 'certainty' would that be, you cowardly gobshite? 

It would only show that she takes offence easily and can’t take any opposing views, as we have not seen her be insulted, only being opposed. Passionate words have come from people who defend Sr Amaral and others have questioned her motives. Aren’t they entitled to?
In my experience, Anne has been patient and polite with everyone who takes an opposing view, not just here, but in other places too. She merely asked you two questions which you have failed to answer, you spineless cockwomble 

Our comments to Anne Geuedes, even though addressed to her are open letters to our readers.
Good. Then I can tell you to fuck off, even if she never will. 

Answering one of her questions which NT deems to be of the utmost importance,
I haven't deemed anything of the kind, merely pointed out that you haven't answered either question 
we don’t know how many pageviews are by people who agree with us, by people who disagree with us or by people who just happened to find the blog by accident and have never returned is something impossible to estimate and we honestly didn’t understand the question but here was the answer.
But you must have an idea how many of those who comment, agree with you and express that agreement. That's how I read her question.


We do what we can do and that is to put up the pageviews (not number of visitors) something NT, who was so worried about the question above, seems shy to do same.
I have never done so and I don't intend to start. I value the privacy of my visitors. 

We don’t run polls, we seek only to satisfy our consciences and do our anonymous duty of citizenship and we’re not after popularity.
I can't remember which part of the 'anonymous duty of citizenship' includes the harassment of innocent third parties and witnesses - perhaps you can help us there? Just as well you weren't hoping for popularity, though, as you are about as toxic as an undercooked chicken leg, simmering in Chernobyl water, served with a side salad of Novichok coleslaw. 

We write only for our 6 readers, and without associating Anne Guedes with her supporters over at NT, we are very grateful that we’re not popular in some quarters. Really happy and really couldn’t be more grateful.
You are not popular in ANY quarters. Even your local Domino's won't deliver 

We will continue to explain to her why we believe the “abduction hoax” was a decision to avoid a sex-scandal involving very prominent members of UK’s society who were swinging in Luz.
And Anne merely asked for your evidence of that and you haven't supplied any 

If Anne Guedes continues or not to reply, it’s her choice.
Well, you haven't answered her yet, so perhaps she will 

However, we feel that it’s our duty that we should clarify to our 6 readers all her questions and correct some statements that she has made

Go on then, you repulsive shite. Clarify away.  


Then up popped this wee dickhead.

Anonymous12 Aug 2018, 15:11:00"And to protect that they were willing to watch him and his family suffer while they pretended they cared for him when he was in that situation because they collaborated in putting him in that situation. What we have called the Fake Florence Nightingales."
Disgusting, heartless cowards IMO you should name and shame them !
Oh yes, do! Do identify those people, I could do with a laugh 
Hope their consciences do eat their insides out ! It's the least they deserve.

I think their consciences will be just fine