Friday, 22 June 2018

Quick bit of maintenance

Evening all

I just need to close the blog for ten minutes to do a bit of maintenance - will be right back. Hold that thought :)

Okay - all done. If anyone has any problems accessing pages or leaving comments, let me know

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

Anyway, as I was saying......

Evening Folks - Okay, back to the book

This section covers events just before the arguido status was applied. Kate had attended for interview at the PJ headquarters. She is not yet an arguida at this stage

At 5pm, we had a fifteen-minute break, which I spent standing in the corridor outside the interrogation room. Carlos came over and told me not to be so definite in some of my answers. He was referring, apparently, to a couple of claims by witnesses put to me by the questioning officer: allegations that they had seen Gerry or me doing this or that.
Does anyone else find this surprisingly vague? 
I have noticed that there are times when Kate's determination to 'capture everything' deserts her somewhat, just as it did when the question of the cancelled reconstruction came up. There seems to be a rush to brush something aside, sweep it under the carpet

"This or that" - such as? She seems reluctant to go into detail

One thing worth pointing out at this stage is that there is nothing in the PJ file to account for these 'witnesses', which to me suggests they were UK witnesses, questioned by the UK police, not as part of the rogatory process, and by the very nature of their contact with the police, their testimonies are not in the public domain
As these claims were untrue, I had said so. I couldn’t understand why, as long as I was certain a statement was wrong, I shouldn’t refute it.
So what does her lawyer mean, here, when he apparently says she ''shouldn't be so definite in some of her answers'?  
Although Carlos’s stance bothered me, I tried to take his guidance on board. But it did rather undermine my confidence.
Now I find this puzzling too. If she was so certain, why take his guidance on board? To what was he referring? 

If someone said to you "Did you shoot this man?" and you didn't, would you reply "No, I didn't" or "I don't know - what angle was he shot from?"

There is something underlying this passage of key significance, I think. Is it because an outright denial would close the door on a lesser charge? I really don't know. 

 Back at the villa, Carlos informed me, as Ferreira had indicated, that he needed to speak to Gerry and me in private. We sat down in the sitting room with Carlos, and Sofia, Eileen and Trisha left us to it. Carlos still looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning.
First he cited video footage the police had shot of the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in apartment 5A and also around our hire car. I would be shown this on my return to the police station, he said. Presumably repeating what he had been told by the PJ, he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.I was totally perplexed. Although this news, if true, seemed to add weight to the possibility that Madeleine had at the very least been physically harmed, unusually I didn’t dwell too much on the frightening implications. I can only assume this was because what we were being told didn’t make sense. If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it? I could see no other explanation. The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.
As always, Kate goes straight to the car. I can't find a single example where either of them has responded to the dog alerts in the apartment.

My position would be : Forget about the car; what about the alerts in the flat? Because they don't seem to want to discuss them 
Next came the matter of a crumpled page the police said they had discovered in my borrowed Bible. It seemed this was felt to be highly significant because the passage on that page, in II Samuel 12, dealt with the death of a child. I knew nothing about any pages being crumpled, let alone in which part of the Bible. The fact that I had asked to see a priest on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance was also seen as evidence of guilt. What? I was beginning to find my credulity stretched to breaking point. ‘Don’t people in Portugal talk to priests in times of need?’ I asked Carlos. Apparently not. They only called for a priest when they wanted their sins to be forgiven. Good grief. This was definitely not the faith with which I was familiar.
Oh yes it is.
It is not normal for catholics to call out a priest in the middle of the night to ''pray with them''
You call a priest if you need a sacrament. Such as the last rites, or confession 
A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously. This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another.

Did they indeed? Word of advice - never say "It's his word against ours" when you are the one with the missing 3 year old
And it appeared that, as far as the PJ were concerned, our word counted for little.
I think that throwaway line is significant. I believe it indicates that the PJ believed they had an eyewitness to the pair of them carrying a bag.  
‘If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison.’The only conclusion I could draw was that we’d been framed, though this seemed completely implausible.
It is 

I'm going to throw something out there

If a witness did make this claim, and we have to assume they did, then I think we also have to assume that they were a witness from outside Portugal and probably from the UK. The existence of any such evidence would not have been permitted to be included with the released PJ files unless it was given directly to the PJ or an agreement existed between the force who did collect any such evidence. And the PJ would not have been able to speak of it.
I do recall at the time a report did briefly appear, claiming that they had been seen, if my memory serves, placing a bag in a bin at the supermarket, but I have never been able to locate the report, so I'm guessing it could have been pulled
Faced with something like this, way beyond the sphere of your experience, it is natural to dismiss it as impossible, but that doesn’t mean it is. When I thought about all that had happened so far, maybe anything was possible. In any event, it seemed we’d underestimated the magnitude of the fight we had on our hands. Even our own lawyer appeared to think, based on what he’d been told, that the police had a good case against us.
I think this is also significant. Would a disputed lab result constitute a good case? Maybe not on it's own. But a lab result plus an eyewitness seeing you with a big bag? That's a tricky one  
I could see by this time that Gerry was starting to crack.Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.Pardon? I really wasn’t sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name? And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her? This police tactic might have worked successfully in the past but it certainly wasn’t going to work with me. Over my dead body. ‘You need to think about it,’ Carlos insisted. ‘It would only be one of you. Gerry could go back to work.’I was speechless.

I don't think I would be speechless

I think my question would be "Well, to admit to that would mean admitting where I put the body - and I have no idea where the body is, so how is that going to work out?"

The incentive to accept this ‘offer’ seemed to be that if we didn’t agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder, and if we were found guilty, we might both receive life sentences. Was this what it came down to? Confess to this lesser charge or risk something much worse?Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again. The realization that we were at the mercy of an incomprehensible criminal justice system had hit him hard. It was excruciating to see him like this.
Okay, maybe it's just me, again, but my response would not be "Oh woe is me, we're finished" it would be "Hang on, this is bollocks. I am not having this"

Otherwise, films like the Shawshank Redemption would just consist of a man wailing "OMG I'm finished" and never bothering to wade through shit.  

Lazy bitch

Because the silly tart is too lazy or too stupid to do her own research

Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.

The NPIA no longer exists, so the links no longer work. But clearly, I have flown around the sun really, really fast in order to turn back time and make this up

Sunday, 17 June 2018

The hard of thinking

Evening all

I am going to address this one comment and one only

Lesly Frances Finn,

Grime says this:

“If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. A physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat”

Are you now telling us what Grime meant to say, semantically altering what he did say?
On several occasions, you attempted to alter the meaning of this sentence by omitting the words "If there isn't" from the beginning, so don't you dare accuse others of altering what he said.  

If you watch this video, you can hear Grime’s words for yourself compare with transcript in PJ files. Let’s not put words into his mouth.

The point we have made is that Grime speaks of the existence of a physical source emitting present when the Eddie was taken to apartment 5A.
No - that ISN'T the point. The point is, he says "If there isn't"

You quoted the Oesterhelweg et al paper in it's entirety. That paper deals exclusively with alerts to residual scent. The only residues those dogs were exposed to was residual scent captured on those tiles

No body fluids

No liquids

No cellular residues

Just scent molecules, attached to the carrier

I cannot believe that after all this time, you still can't grasp that concept 

If the body does not leave any residual physical scent source, as NT states very clearly, then the only physical article from which the scent can be emitting from is… the body itself.

Let me explain this as simply as I can

You can put a body in a room.

Then you can take it away again

A cadaver dog can signal to the odour of decomposition because the volatile molecules produced by the body can adhere to materials and surfaces in the room, as well as remaining in the atmosphere

There are no cells, no tissues, no liquids, no DNA remaining. Just volatile scent molecules.

Anyone who cannot understand this, form a line behind Textusa - you are going back to school. 

The ONLY way for BOTH Grime and NT to make sense is for the body to have been dismembered and someone having forgotten a body part in the apartment.
Total bullshit 

Nothing about semantics in that.

We respect every genuine opinion different from ours, but to have said respect it HAS to be genuine.
Every opinion other than yours is bound to be more genuine than yours is, given that yours is the product of utter fantasy, dreamed up by a diseased mind 

To be very clear, we respect all those who GENUINELY defend other theories with which we don’t agree with.
No you don't. 

Who we don’t and won’t respect are those who defend a theory just to avoid truth from emerging.
Oh just fuck off, you lunatic 

A message to many out there, pretence, no matter the effort, will never, ever equal genuine and honest conviction so it’s very, very easy to spot and so it only becomes shameful (or shameless?) exercise for those who practice it.

We don't laugh opinions off. We, unlike you Lesly, do not join “mocking mobs” like the one you were a part of in the ‘Justice for Madeleine’ Facebook group when NT was being fiercely promoted there.
You really are eaten up with jealousy and resentment, aren't you? 

Although it can hardly be qualified as a mob the 29 people (of which 7 are admin) who participated in the “let’s promote NT” campaign in a group that alleges having over 38,000 members.

By the way, do you know why Justice has lost their gusto in promoting NT, if he’s so brilliant and who has inputs that are, quoting Sade Anslow (our caps): “measured and intelligent, and based on FACTS”?

I have this to say to the members of that group. Hello, I hope you have enjoyed reading this blog. I hope you find it useful and informative. I welcome any constructive comments, I have no problem if you disagree, I am happy to debate the issue. Abuse is neither tolerated or given a platform, nor is unsupported bollocks like swinging or any other similar crap.

I apologise that Textusa has seen fit to take her resentment and jealousy out on you guys. My best advice is to treat her as you would a naughty toddler.

Have a good night.  

Saturday, 16 June 2018

Just shoot me now

I am in pain. Is it possible to laugh so much you displace a vital organ?

If so, I may be gone for some time

According to some brain donor on CMOMM, the following is evidence of photoshopping as it 'clearly shows someone with two heads'

Dear CMOMM lunatic

Human hair moves; it blows around in the breeze. Please do not base your research on Donald Trump, whose hair is literally superglued to his spinal cord

Friday, 15 June 2018

Another little diversion......

While I am waiting for Jill Havern to appear on Twitter and announce that she and Baldybollocks have been creating a DNA database of anyone who ever posted at the Pit - HINT; they will all have the same DNA and be called Andy - I want to address one point, simply because I am a little tired of the misinformation currently circulating

The reason why I took a look at the Smith sighting is quite simple - as far as I know, nobody else had, and yet there was actually one verified time point, possibly two, which sets it apart from every other aspect of this case. In my opinion, it was worth taking a look and actually doing a bit of analysis to see what the margin for error is, and if that margin opens up the possibility of any new conclusions.

Now I realise this was unpopular with some - I mean, why look at verifiable facts when you can have so much fun claiming that a table doesn't exist, that the creche records were faked or that some pillock waited for a geezer to get on a plane before phoning the police? I understand.

So, let's get a few things straight.

I did not in any way attempt, nor have I ever attempted to contradict, minimise or doubt what the Smiths said, or to devalue the sighting in any way. 

All I have done is take the fixed point which we have and which we can definitely associate with them - ie, the payment of the bill for dinner - and then work outwards from there to see what that, together with their individual recollections and statements, tell us about the proposed timeline.

That's it.

Any other suggestion is total bollocks. And if people would use their brains they might perhaps realise that the Smith sighting was written off by the PJ because they had witnesses placing Gerry somewhere else at that time, assuming that the time was 10pm

If it wasn't 10pm, then it's back in play

For the record, I am totally convinced that they saw a man carrying a child etc. Whether it is significant, I am not sure. The fact that as far as we know nobody has come forward and identified themselves for elimination may be explained by the time being inaccurate, if indeed it is.

So there you have it.

Or you can believe Textusa's endless guff. It's up to you. Frankly, I wouldn't place too much faith in someone who claims that I am someone else, but refuses point blank to say why, at the same time demanding I provide a list of my qualifications.

For Whiterose

Evening all.

Unless you are particularly interested, you can ignore this - it's just a response to a question posed on a forum. The person in question used to post on the same forum as me.

Hi Whiterose,

You are right about 'touch DNA' and the fact that DNA can be recovered from epithelial cells.

However, it is really fraught with difficulty, simply because of the possibility of innocent contamination. Imagine you went into a shop and tried on a jumper, but you didn't like it, or it didn't fit - anyway, you end up not buying it. Then someone else does.

If something happened to them, there is the possibility that your DNA in the form of epithelial cells, could be on their garment, yet you have never been in contact with them, or harmed them in any way. There was a weird thing in the case of Milly Dowler where a microscopic bit of DNA from her clothing threw up a match on the DNA database to a sample recovered from a break in at a church hundreds of miles away. I am not sure if they were ever able to explain it, but it wasn't in any way significant in terms of her murder.

So yes, DNA can be recovered from an item that someone has touched, by collecting epithelial cells, you were quite right, but as you can see the danger of convicting someone of a crime they had nothing to do with on the basis of the fact that they once picked up a lamp in a shop that the victim later purchased, mean that it could be a long time, if ever, before it can be relied upon.

Hope that helps and hope you're well. 

Thursday, 14 June 2018

Miss B Havern

Jill Havern is a very very foolish woman.

Tonight, she posted information identifying a member of CMOMM, announced that she had been tracking his activity for two years, along with another member, and was even using it to determine which way he was voting in polls

This is not just completely unacceptable, it is against the law