Translate

Friday, 9 February 2018

Grate Expectations........

Well, folks, it's Friday. 

 The name Friday comes from the Old English Frīġedæġ, meaning the "day of Frige", a day on which, traditionally, the crones of each village would compose an utterly fuckwitted post about Gerry McCann taking a ''fridge'' to the tip.

Hence began Textusa's ritual 

So what does she have to say this week?

Let's find out..........



Sutton is the name, meddling is the game

1. Introduction

There’s only one certainty about Gemma O’Doherty’s article on the McCanns published in the Village Magazine, on Saturday, Feb 3 2017, and which is best expressed in a popular Portuguese expression: the mountain gave birth to a mouse [a montanha pariu um rato].
Well, no; the other certainty was that you would write some ill-informed bollocks about it

It was disheartening, that’s a fact.
Good.


In it and around it, it has many other facts, open to interpretation. As always, we will say what we think and leave it for the readers to make their own judgement about our opinions.
You have never, ever done this. You welcome discussion and challenge like you would embrace an ebola victim

I promised a friend on the night before the article was due to be published, that I would tell her on a scale on 1 to 10 what I felt about it once I read it. On Saturday, I told her this “I think it’s a 3 or a 7, note that is not from 3 to 7 but one or the other, but I’m still not sure what value to give it”.
I bet she's sorry she asked

We have since changed our minds and have downgraded that 3 into a 2.


2. Meddling

When we saw that Colin Sutton was part of the article as a reliable source we knew instantly that the article had been meddled with by the other side.
Sigh.

Wind that tinfoil a bit tighter, Maria
We will get back to Gemma later but it only took this for us to see she is not the independent journalist she claims to be. Nor the magazine is as independent as it claims to be.
Well, that is extremely offensive. Presumably you define ''independent'' as ''some colossal fuckwit who agrees with Textusa"

This post will be about Colin Sutton but do keep In mind that in reality it isn’t, as it’s about Gemma O’Doherty’s article.
No-one cares, dear.

But Sutton’s presence in it is so important that we feel that it merits being analysed in depth and hopefully at the end of the post our readers will agree with us.
Your bots always agree with you

The article says this about Sutton “According to media reports. Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at.”

We dealt with this in detail in our post “New knight in town” and we shall repeat here the motto we invented then “Shalt thou speak against the McCanns and thine is the glory, the respect and the awe owed to a hero by his fellow citizens”.
So what's your point?


3. Widening a narrow focus

Let’s start with a correction of what was stated above in Gemma O’Doherty’s article.


When Sutton first stepped on to the stage to play the lead role in a play called “Biased Grange, useless Grange” he said something different than the “who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at” from the article. Then it was said very clearly that the “'Narrow focus' [of Operation Grange] would be to prove Kate, Gerry and Tapas Nine innocent, he [Colin Sutton] said.”

So you are basing this on a Daily Mail article, a newspaper so lacking in the truth it belongs in the Fiction section?

And then, after he said it, he backpedalled to say that after all no one told him there was a narrow focus and this was all an assumption on his part.
Quotes, please

One does not make a mistake with which costume one walks onto a stage wearing. For example, one does not show up dressed as Macbeth to play the lead role of Robin Hood.

However, one may make the mistake of choosing the wrong clothing for the costume of the role one intends to play.
Oh for fuck's sake.....

The “assumption” of a narrow focus, was just Sutton entering the stage all dressed up as Robin Hood but forgetting to put on the tights. On realising he made a mistake he goes off, puts them on and returns, expecting the audience to forget what they had seen.
What utter bullshit

But as the play had the music score composed by the Pied Piper and was being played by the Symphony Orchestra of Hamelin, many seemed to “forget” that he had forgotten to wear tights when he first entered the stage.
Any more genres you want to include? 


4. Debunking a myth

The people enticed by Sutton’s Pied Piper music didn’t even notice how deceitful the title of the Daily Mail article was: “UK detective refused to head up Madeleine McCann probe”.
ALL Daily Mail titles are deceitful. It's their USP

Time to debunk the myth that Sutton refused to head Operation Grange. In fact, as we will show later, we have reason to believe he accepted it when it was offered by someone who didn’t have the authority to make such a proposal.
What does this have to do with, well, anything? Anything at all, on God's green earth.

To refuse something one has to be offered something, and publicly no one has offered the job to Sutton.
When are jobs ever offered publicly?

We would like anyone to show us where him or anyone else has said that he was offered the job.

His “friend” warned him of an offer that would be made. That offer didn’t materialise as far as we know.

So why say he has refused when there was nothing to refuse? That Pied Piper can really play a flute, can’t he?
It's the Daily Mail. It's always bullshit.


5. Sutton and evidence

Sutton, 6 days later after that Daily Mail article says this in his own blog says “At the outset I should say that I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann.  All the evidence available to me – and there is more and deeper information available to the public on this than any case I have looked at – does not convince me of any theory or scenario being proved.  Soon, in the coming months when my other projects are less busy, I hope to take a proper analytical look at it all and come up with some conclusions.  But as things stand my position is that I don't know.”
And your point is?

So, he has looked at evidence because he not only says “there is more and deeper information available to the public on this than any case I have looked at” as what he read has allowed him to not be convinced “of any theory or scenario being proved”.
And your point is?

But on the other hand he also says that “Soon, in the coming months when my other projects are less busy, I hope to take a proper analytical look at it all and come up with some conclusions”, and so implying, not stating, that he, on May 9 hadn’t looked at ALL the evidence, which the previous sentence implied he did.
Bullshit. He referred to taking a  "proper, analytical look at it all". That does not imply he had not previously looked at it, but that he intended to apply his analytical skills gained from many years as a detective.

Not that you would understand, because you don't have any. In fact, you are barely sentient.

Quite a ballet twist! All options left open with only one move!
Cobblers, it was nothing of the kind

But let’s just spend a little time to look at what this individual who has read all but hasn’t really, has to say about what he knows of the case.
It'll be more than you.


6. Fertile period

We recommend that our readers do what we did and Google Collin Sutton for the period between April 20 2017 to April 30 2017.

The period before the Daily Mail article above was published. The reader will be surprised.
I doubt it. More media sources, which are about as reliable as a 9 shilling note.

Let’s start with him pointing a finger at an Ocean Club employee.


 That particular 'documentary' was widely derided for claiming to have ''brand new information'' and delivering nothing of the sort.

“Scotland Yard police officer Colin Sutton revealed to Sunday Night evidence suggests a worker at the Ocean Club Resort could solve the case.

There is an employee, somebody who worked within the Ocean Villa complex who has some information or some knowledge that may be of assistance,' he said.”

Based on what is such a statement made?

Note he uses the word “evidence”.
Can you produce footage of this documentary, or a transcript? No? Then stop wasting everyone's time

How did he know of it and who told him?

If he got this from Operation Grange, is it a standard procedure for the Met to leak to its retired officers information of ongoing investigations?
You have no idea what information he has or how he got it.

Especially in an ongoing one that only has 4 officers dedicated to it and is highly sensitive politically to the point of reporting directly to Whitehall?

Hardly likely. And if that is not the case as all indicates it isn’t, who is he running errands for?
What evidence is there that he is ''running errands'' for anyone? Don't judge everyone by your own pathetically low standards

Please note (those who Googled like we did will have seen that) at this time he defended that the most likely scenario was the human trafficking gang.
It's a far more plausible theory than yours, which is utter conspiralunacy


The Mail again. Seriously? Behave, Maria.

“Colin Sutton said 'most likely' scenario was she was taken by human traffickers”

But behold, in that same article he also says this:

“He said those closest to Maddie, including her parents, would have been the first line of inquiry for police.
And your point is?

But he added he believed Portuguese police appeared make this their only line of investigation early on in the probe.

He said: 'By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.'”

Yes, please read it again.
Once was enough, thanks.

He is criticising the PJ for doing what he would a few days later criticise Operation Grange for not having done: focusing on the McCanns.
No he isn't. His criticism was of the folly of restricting the investigation to ONE line of inquiry, you lying gobshite.

If one thinks the Mail misrepresented Sutton on this, this same thing was said in the original article from the Mirror and the mirrored one in the Sun.
Yes it could. Especially as they usually emanate from one press association source. So why the fuck are you quoting them as if they were gospel?

In the Mirror:


“I can understand why the Portuguese police asked questions about the McCanns and the Tapas Seven.

As uncomfortable as it is, the first place I would have started looking is their group.

Without any other information to go on, the most likely scenario when a three-year-old girl disappears into thin air is that someone close to her knows what happened.

However, the police do appear to have decided quite quickly that was the only line of investigation they were going to take.

By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.”

And in the Sun:

“Sutton said those close to Maddie - her parents and their friends - would be his first port of call as a detective.

But he said Portuguese cops appeared make this their only line of investigation early on in the probe.

He said: "By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route."”

Note, this is a man, who we would learn a few days after, that before he was the beholder of the information given to him years before, that Operation Grange was supposedly biased against the McCanns and instead of praising the PJ for focusing on the couple, he criticises it.
He was asked for his opinion and he gave it.

So get to the fucking point - what is your problem with him?

Criticises the PJ for having done just what he would propose instead of going off on wild goose chases which anyone who has just glanced at the PJ Files knows that all pointed to the couple.

But let’s continue.
Must we?

This same man, who is then supposedly the “exclusive” beholder of the information of this bias of looking away from the couple, which is something that to him rots away the honesty and objectivity of Operation Grange has this to say in the Daily Star article by Michael Havis on Apr 24 2017, ““MADELEINE McCann may have been kidnapped-to-order for a wealthy buyer, an ex-Scotland Yard detective claims.”:
Another load of tabloid bullshit


“Colin Sutton, formerly of the Met Police, told the Mirror: "The Mauritania line is certainly a possibility and needs to be looked at.

"If someone wanted to get a three-year-old child into Africa it’s the obvious route. The infrastructure and contacts for people smuggling are clearly there."”

The man who would muster up the courage to denounce Operation Grange’s bias is helping it by promoting a theory that everyone knows to be ridiculous.
That everyone knows to be 'ridiculous'?

What - because you don't agree with it?

I'll let you into a secret, Maria. Your theory is so ridiculous that even Bennett wouldn't buy it, and he's a famous loon. Even other loons laugh at you. The only people who believe you are a small group of perhaps ten sad, inarticulate lonely women, who are even more stupid than you - a feat which deserves a sympathetic round of applause

And, be prepared to be baffled, the man who, sorry to repeat ourselves, says Operation Grange is biased in favour of the McCanns, has this to say about what he thinks of the guilt the McCanns may have in the Daily Star article by Douglas Patient article of April 23 2017, “Madeleine McCann: Top detective reveals what he believes REALLY happened”:
More tabloid bullshit


“The ex-Metropolitan Police officer said there is no evidence the couple or their friends had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.”

No evidence?

So, one has to conclude, he has read the files! Otherwise, how could he make such a statement?
He never said he hadn't

And what does he believe “REALLY happened”, as stated in the headline? This:

“And nearly 10 years on, he fears the case will never be solved and the only hope may be a death-bed confession.

(…)

"But unless someone comes forward and tells us what really happened, then I’m afraid I don’t think we’ll ever know," he continued.

"It remains and may always remain the greatest mystery of our generation."”

Note, all of the above refers to the period we mentioned, the last 10 days of last April. Just before he came in, opened the saloon doors to be the new hero in town.
Basically, Maria, this is just a personal attack on the man because he has an opinion and the opinion does not accord with yours. In other words, it's just you being a twat, as per usual.


7. Busy months

As we said, he pulled off that ballet twist whereby one is unable to determine if Sutton has read the PJ Files or not, as although he says never has so much information on a case been available to him, he will dedicate more time to the case, implying that he has to look at ALL the evidence but hasn’t yet.
If there is one thing Colin Sutton does not look like he could pull off it is any kind of ballet step. Stop making up ridiculous claims


We would like to note that since May 9 2017, Sutton has only written 2 more posts on his blog, on July 26 and 27 2017, none related to Maddie.
So?

As he on May 9 2017 said “Soon, in the coming months when my other projects are less busy, I hope to take a proper analytical look at it all and come up with some conclusions”, we can only assume he’s still too busy with all his other projects.
Yes, unlike you, he is gainfully employed

He just found a bit of time to have a talk and collaborate with Gemma O’Doherty, it seems. 
So what is your issue with that? Are you going to lay down the law about who people can talk to? Did you try to get in touch with her, only for her to tell you to fuck off, Maria, was that it? After all, that would be the sensible response


8. Portuguese failures

Gemma O’Doherty had this to say about the Portuguese investigation: “The Met said local police had already done this and there was no need to repeat the process, but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings and best practice in cases like this dictates it is always important to eliminate those closest to the child first.”

The Portuguese investigation was littered with failings, says O’Doherty.

Guess who said, on April 21 2017 (still that same fertile time period) that the Portuguese investigation was filled with errors?

You guessed it, Colin Sutton!
Many people have said it, you stupid cow


Let’s transcribe on its entirety the Mirror article by Paul Jollands on that day – do note this article was updated on May 2 2017 – “The 6 errors Madeleine McCann detectives made in the search for the missing youngster”:
Why bother? It's another piece of tabloid bullshit.

“Detective Colin Sutton claims some of the mistakes made by the Portuguese police could have hampered the investigation

Portuguese police were accused of making a string of basic errors in the early days of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

They range from failing to properly seal off apartment 5A to pointing the finger of blame at her parents.

Colin Sutton says some of the Policia Judiciaria’s errors hampered the investigation.

But he also said Portuguese authorities received unwarranted criticism concerning other aspects of the massive probe.

Here the ex-Met detective confronts the biggest errors made by the PJ – and defends other decisions they took.

1 The alarm was raised at 10.15pm, but first officers did not arrive in Praia da Luz until 11pm and the disappearance was not taken seriously enough

“This is an unacceptable delay, regardless of what they thought had happened to Madeleine,” says Colin.

“Even if they thought she had innocently wandered off, it should not have taken them 45 minutes to arrive.

“In a missing person case there is a judgment to be made about how it is treated. If it’s a 21-year-old who is missing after being out clubbing, you are not as worried as you would be about a missing three-year-old.

“I would like to think that any police officer who is told a three-year-old girl has gone missing will be instantly taking it extremely seriously.

“The question is do you treat it like a crime scene that needs to be preserved right from the start or is the most likely explanation that she wandered off? The Portuguese police were widely criticised for not sealing off the scene, making it a crime scene.

“But if there is a chance the missing girl could be wandering around lost in the immediate area, then that rightly takes priority. You are prioritising searching the immediate area rather than sealing off the scene.

“If there is sign of a violent struggle or forced entry then it would be different, but that wasn’t the case with Madeleine’s disappearance.

“If there was sign of forced entry, then your thinking starts going down the line of crime rather than just a missing person. But in the absence of any evidence your natural thought is she has wandered off.

“You think, ‘Let’s start looking for her’, rather than thinking of anything as sinister as abduction.

“That would have been the call for the uniformed officers who were first on the scene at the Ocean Club.

“Once she was not found in the immediate area then I would have asked the officers to look for evidence of a crime.

“I can well imagine that the Portuguese police’s initial thoughts were that they were going to find the little girl wandering around in her pyjamas no further than half a mile from the apartment.

“When the searches have proved fruitless I would want to talk to the parents.

“Very quickly there should have been the realisation that this was a crime rather than something more innocent. That should have been realised within 30 minutes, but in Madeleine’s case it clearly wasn’t realised all that quickly.

“It was not taken as seriously as it should have been.”

2 Spanish border officials were not notified about her disappearance until the following day and roadblocks were not put in place

“Abduction across the border is very rare, so the temptation is not to push the buttons on border alerts because it’s not worth it.

“There is a reluctance in policing to ‘overreact’. In 95% of cases such as this, there is an innocent explanation.

“There is a reluctance to escalate things until you are certain they need to be escalated. For example the Metropolitan Police get 30,000 missing person reports every year. In 2012 it was reported that 30 children had gone missing in Portugal since Madeleine’s disappearance.”

3 House-to-house inquiries were haphazard and in some cases did not happen at all

“House-to-house, or in this case apartment-to-apartment, inquiries should have happened straight away. It is a simple case of knocking on doors and asking the occupants if they saw anything.

“If you’re on holiday and see a three-year-old girl wandering outside in her pyjamas, the natural thing is to bring her inside and figure out where she is from.

“For all the police knew, Madeleine could have been inside one of those apartments. But it takes lots of resources to do that. Because it was a holiday complex, it was the equivalent of knocking on as many doors as an entire housing estate in the UK.

“That takes the kind of manpower that would not have been immediately available to the Portuguese police.”

4 The limited CCTV footage from the local area was not checked

“There would not have been too much CCTV in Praia da Luz 10 years ago. There still isn’t now.

“Therefore it might not have been at the front of their minds to check whatever cameras were around. In the UK, securing CCTV is among the first things you do and proves crucial to every investigation.”

5 Lack of information released to public from Portuguese police

“There was no publicising the case from the local police, which is unheard of back home.

“The public assistance in a case like Madeleine’s would have been huge because of the emotive subject - a missing three-year-old girl. It defies belief that they did not publish e-fits once they had them.

“Their lack of PR explains why the McCanns were so pro-active on that front. They were trying to fill the vacuum.”

6 Forensic examinations of the McCann apartment were poor and no DNA tests were carried out on Madeleine’s toy Cuddle Cat

“In a case like this, you start by looking where Madeleine was when she was taken.

“She was in her bed, probably clutching her fluffy toy Cuddle Cat. So that’s where the forensics begins. The abductor would have had to pull back the duvet, probably physically remove Cuddle Cat from Madeleine’s arms.

"If the reports are true that no DNA tests were carried out on Cuddle Cat before Kate washed it, that’s astonishing.

“There were photographs of officers in their normal clothes, not even wearing gloves, doing fingerprints. It looks like they just didn’t do a good job.”

Need we say more? 
You need not have bothered at all. Why not just cut and paste all the tabloid coverage, save yourself some time? Oh I forgot - it's because none of them agree with you

Does the reader now know the hand that held Gemma’s hand when she wrote that paragraph?

No, it wasn’t Sutton’s. Sutton is just a mere and pathetic parrot.
Then why have you spent an entire article supposedly about her going on about him?


9. The detail he should not have known

We won’t even try to correct all the inaccuracies stated by the man but there’s something that he says which has to be highlighted, and that is “#6 – Forensic examinations of the McCann apartment were poor and no DNA tests were carried out on Madeleine’s toy Cuddle Cat.”

Particularly when he says “The abductor would have had to pull back the duvet, probably physically remove Cuddle Cat from Madeleine’s arms”.

As an experienced police officer, he should know that removing an item without a struggle the only forensic evidence one leaves is fingerprints.
Bullshit.

The Cuddle Cat is made up of a material that does not allow the reading of fingerprints of those who picked it up.
DNA can be recovered in those circumstances, fartpebbles.

And if the Cuddle Cat would have, according to him, possible forensic evidence of the alleged abductor, why not suggest the duvet be included in this test as well? After all, according to him it was pulled back by the abductor and then put back in place by him as it was found!
Maybe he did.

But the fundamental question one has to ask Sutton is, apart from if the Cuddle Cat should have been forensically tested or not, how does he know the Cuddle cat was not forensically tested?
Because it is in the files

To know such a detail, one would have to have read the PJ Files in detail, and he still, on May 9 claims he still has to look at ALL evidence.
No he didn't, liar. He said he would take a proper analytical look at it. Stop lying, Maria, it's utterly pathetic.


So, exactly, what evidence hadn’t he looked at yet on May 9?

Apparently, enough of it as he between Apr 20 and Apr 30 was able to criticise the PJ by bringing up details in the files, have the opinion that human trafficking was the most likely scenario, recommend that the possibility of Maddie being taken to Morocco should be looked at, point the finger at an unknown Ocean Club employee, criticise the PJ for only focusing on the McCanns and state that there was no evidence against the McCanns.

Either that or he’s just a blabbermouth who has absolutely no credibility at all, throwing soundbites to try and fool people.

The truth? Probably found if the reader replaces the words “just a blabbermouth” for the word “someone”.

Are we finished with Sutton? Hardly.
You are such a hypocrite. Your story is that the PJ were so stupid that they failed to realise that everyone around them was lying and they were all participating in a massive conspiracy. So how dare you take someone else to task for voicing his opinions? At least he is qualified to do so and not some menopausal fucktard with a swinging fetish


10. Sutton and the Grime dogs

On his way to attempt for “anti-stardom”, Colin Sutton appeared on May 5 2017 in Martin Brunt’s Sky News documentary “Searching for Madeleine”.


Marin Brunt who, we remind readers will forever have his name linked to the tragic death of Brenda Leyland, in 2014.

This Sky News documentary was aired the day after the Daily Mail article was published in which Sutton criticised Operation Grange for being biased (the quoting from this video is taken from Pamalam.)

MB [Martin Brunt] : 10 years on we can now reveal details of a secret government report. It lays bare the failures of all the agencies involved in the search for Madeleine.

Colin Sutton (ex-DCI de Scotland Yard): I'm not certain that it was investigated properly at the beginning and I still don't think it's been investigated properly now.”

Sutton is clearly implying that the said report states the Portuguese did a bad job.
No he isn't. You are.
He persists in the idea that the Portuguese investigation was flawed even though we are certain he knows it wasn’t.
According to you, it was. According to you, they all missed what was going on under their noses.

Lying hypocrite.

The report, on which we will focus later, was done by the British and the British were only there to obstruct, pardon, support the leading agency that was investigating the crime which was the Portuguese PJ.

So, he keeps insisting that wasn’t properly investigated at the beginning. Please read again the “6 mistake” list above proposed by him and not a single one of them is one.

The only mistake the PJ made was not to realise the number of people who were willing to get involved in covering up what happened but who in a reasonable state of mind can blame them?
What absolute cobblers. Even now, you are taking other people to task for their criticism of the PJ whilst at the same time blaming them yourself.

Immoral, lying bitch.

Sutton states “We mustn't apply our standards in the UK too strictly to what goes on in other places, they have a different system, they have different police forces doing with different aspects of the law.”

One must ask him, as he had absolutely slandered the Met the previous day, if when he says “our standards in the UK” that he thinks these are benchmarked by Operation Grange.
Like you slandered the PJ?

In the documentary, Brunt introduces the dogs:

MB : Almost 2 months after Madeleine disappeared, a news report revealed a pact of silence. It said police were suspicious of the parents' involvement. The article in the weekly paper SOL said the MCs and their friends were thought to be hiding something. This was the first public indication of where the early investigation was focused. Portuguese police asked the British authorities to bring over two specialist dogs, (note 4) one who detects dead bodies, the other traces of blood. The dogs reacted in the MC apartment and in the family's rental car which wasn't hired until 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Forensic swabs were taken and sent to the UK for analysis (note 5). The leaked results or at least the Portuguese interpretation of them caused a sensation.

(reportage) : In the car the scientists have also found another, a second full match and police say that is the most damning evidence that's been returned by these forensic test results.

The dogs the forensic tests that followed, that was the turning point, wasn't it ?

CS [Colin Sutton]It was the turning point for the arrests, yes, certainly, but we need to remember that the dogs are there to indicate areas where proper forensic tests, evidential tests should be made. Dogs certainly in the UK are not used as evidential things, it's just indication to focus the search for forensic materials.”

We also transcribe here the notes mentioned by Pamalam:

Note 04: This is not true. The idea of bringing the British dogs was Prof. Mark Harrison’s, as his July 23 report reveals. The PJ was then hardly aware of HRD (Human Remains Detection) dogs. Following the NPIA criminal profiler Lee Rainbow, the head of the PJ asked the assistance of the National Policing Improvement Agency expert Mark Harrison MBE.”

Note 05: It is not less interesting to mention where the dogs didn’t alert. Sent in the two flats occupied by the MCs (one before and the other after the disappearance) and the three flats occupied by the MCs' friends/acquaintances, the dogs only alerted in the flat where MMC had been seen for the last time.”

Look at how dismissive of the dogs Sutton is.
He wasn't dismissive.

Are you ever going to get to the point, Maria? Is this just one of your typical personal attacks? 

His answer could be used by any pro pretending to be anti: yes, the dogs are important but…

What he says is true but is very specious.
It can't be both at the same time. Is it true or is it specious? Why not use words you understand, eh?

As we saw in our post “The reliability of the cadaver dogs”, forensic dogs used in tandem, as were Eddie and Keela, are absolutely reliable for the conditions presented to them in apartment 5A.
No, that wasn't demonstrated

Yes, their signalling needs the proper forensic backing to become evidence, no question about that.
So what's the issue?

But to put this backing on simple terms, the dogs state with absolute certainty that a corpse was present in the location they signal and it’s then up to the forensics to answer the question, whose corpse was there.
That's not how it works and it is evident that you still don't understand what the dogs do and what the standard of proof is. Still, I wasn't hopeful, what with you being a famous idiot.

Forensics do not question the reliability of the dogs. They only have to answer the question above.
Utterly meaningless statement.

If it turns out that it wasn’t the body they initially thought it would be, then the question remains: whose body was it? And that needs to be answered.
Again, utter bollocks. In fact, deliberately misleading, as was demonstrated in the Oesterhelweg paper.

If the dogs signal a location that the possibilities to answer that question are reduced, e.g. an open field where it could be anyone, then it will be very difficult to answer. But in the case the options are very limited, that limitation itself becomes evidence.
Bullshit

The fact that Eddie signalled 2 locations in that apartment, doesn’t by itself mean it was Maddie. It could have been another body. BUT it had to be a body. The identity of that body is needed to explain the presence identified.
More bullshit. As demonstrated by the presence of false positive responses

It’s a fact that a deceased person was in this apartment, in 2 locations inside (living-room and bedroom closet) and 1 outside (the flowerbed).
No it isn't. Liar. 

Other facts linked to this: no one is known to have died there, a child of a family spending a holiday there and allegedly last seen alive inside it disappeared, there were no visible signs of a break-in nor were there any vestiges that were left by anyone that could not be explained, there was human DNA found splattered on 2 walls and the back of a couch and about one of these stains (stain #3), the FSS report concludes the following:
Oh dear - back to this again. This is so easy to understand, my dog could have grasped it by now

“286A/2007-CRL 3A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

An incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from the cellular material present in the dry swab (3A). The attempt to obtain a result from any cellular material that may have been in the same area and present in the wet swab (3B) was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN tests.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area. 

[Note that John Lowe does not say his usual “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”about swab 3A, from stain #3]
Of course he doesn't say that. It would have been wrong. Yet again, you seem utterly unable to get your head around the fact that they are two separate swabs. You report on them individually, it's called 'Science'. Something which was clearly missing from whatever little schooling you managed to acquire

A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.”  

[A very specious thing to say, as this is only true for swab 3B. However, he has just stated above that another sample (swab 3A) from that same stain (stain #3) is from the McCanns, so he’s basically using very speciously the true inconclusiveness of Swab 3B to hide the damning conclusion of Swab 3A. 
I really can't be bothered with your ignorance any more. Most people who read here are perfectly able of working out for themselves that you are both profoundly stupid and profoundly deceitful.

By not providing a conclusion on Swab 3A and giving one (a truthful one) for Swab 3B, he deliberately misleads those reading him and no one can accuse him of lying. 
Absolute bullshit.

There are no 2 ways about it. If one includes both Swab 3A and Swab 3B in the statement “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” implying that he’s speaking about stain #3 as a whole, then it is completely false as he has said above that Swab 3A is from the McCanns; and if one instead opts to say he’s just referring to Swab 3B, then the statement is true but then that means he has stated with absolute clarity that Swab 3A is made up of DNA from the McCanns]

But it’s also a fact that in Sept 2007, the same John Lowe in the Interim Report said this about both these swabs from stain #3:

“An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

A low level LCN DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3b). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Madeleine McCann contributed DNA to this result.” 

[Note that John Lowe here reaches independent conclusions for each of the swabs, so same reasoning should be applied to his words in the final report]
Just out of interest, what does any of this have to do with Colin Sutton? 


Stain #3 is made up of 2 stains of 1 cm each, on the floor close to the wall and behind one of the couches.

It doesn’t take much to connect the dots above, all FACTS, to come to the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt what Eddie and Keel signalled in that apartment.
Cobblers

If one adds to the above the signalling by these same dogs of the Renault Scenic and of clothing and items only linked to the McCanns one HAS to go into unreasonable territory to conclude they don’t mean what they mean.

But, Colin Sutton is dismissive of the dogs.
No he wasn't. He, however, understands the limitations of this evidence, unlike you, who merely tries to wish it away

When Brunt throws this question at him, when he had just the day before accused Operation Grange in clear terms of not having questioned the McCanns, shouldn’t he have jumped at the chance and say something like: “It was the turning point for the arrests, yes certainly, and we need to remember that the dogs are there to indicate areas where bodies have been which proper forensic tests, evidential tests should be made which would answer who they were. As it’s not known of any deaths in that apartment and Maddie disappeared from there, the dogs are one major reason why the focus should have been centred on the parents and a very important fact that Operation Grange has ignored”?
He wouldn't say that as it would be wrong and unlike you, he isn't a lying fucktard

Note, by saying the above he wouldn’t be accusing the McCanns of anything, just using the dogs to give a very valid reason for Operation Grange to question them and see what they had to say about it.

But Sutton doesn’t seize this blatant and evident opportunity given to him to fight for the truth. Instead he dismisses the dogs importance with his “…but we need to remember that the dogs are there to indicate areas (…) it's just indication to focus the search for forensic materials”.

Are we finished with Sutton, now? No, we’re not.
Of course not. 


11. The secret government report

We break away for a moment from Sutton and focus on something that as we have said, Brunt brings up: a secret government report:

MB : 10 years on we can now reveal details of a secret government report. It lays bare the failures of all the agencies involved in the search for Madeleine.”

We mentioned this report in our post “Sky News - The Clarifying Report”. Then we said the fact that its author was Jim Gamble, then head of the CEOP, was very telling and clarified for us a lot of things.

During this documentary, the report is mentioned again the following times (we are again quoting, including notes, from Pamalam):

MB : The early confusion was detailed in a secret report ordered by the Home Office and we've got a copy of it. It reveals an astonishing catalogue of mistakes, accusations and growing distrust. What do you make of it ?”

(…)

MB : I've got hold of a secret government report that details the problems that arose from the beginning, not just in the Portuguese investigation, but in the reaction of the British authorities too. The then home secretary Alan Johnson commissioned the scoping report in 2009. It led to the involvement of Scotland Yard.  (note 3) 

Note 03: Martin Brunt mentioned already that “secret” report in 2014. In 2009 Jim Gamble suggested it to the then HO Secretary Alan Johnson. AJ was substituted by Theresa May in May 2010. The report was then ready, but the issue was no priority for TM, hence there was no reason to solicitate Scotland Yard’s help.

[Our note: The secret report passes judgement on the PJ, something we didn’t see mentioned in the Operation Task debrief]

(…)

“MB : The confidential report said that relationships were strained by cultural procedural and legal differences and the UK was accused of acting like a colonial power.”

[Our note: This is consistent with the Operation Task debrief. However, cultural procedural and legal differences are not mistakes. The Portuguese telling the British what they can or cannot do on their jurisdiction is not them being bullies nor are the British being victims. If mistakes happened because of this, these would have been British mistakes and not Portuguese ones]

(…)

MB : As the search of Madeleine went on, her parents put their faith in God, the village church became an almost daily refuge. In Fatima,  Portugal's holiest site, they prayed at the shrine of the Virgin Mary. In Rome they met the Pope, he blessed a photograph of Madeleine. Thousands of supporters tied yellow ribbons to await Madeleine's safe return. While all this was happening, Portuguese detectives were making a crucial error, according to the author (Jim Gamble) of the secret Home Office report : I was shocked first and foremost when the MCs went immediately under the Portuguese system considered suspects. That was the first critical mistake, it was unfair and for the investigators unfair with regard to the integrity of the forensic evidence that would be captured and unfair to the MCs themselves. Clear the ground beneath your feet first and foremost.

MB : According to the Home Office report, statistics suggest that in the majority of cases where very young children go missing and are later found dead, the family is involved. In addition to not questioning the MCs as suspects, the report says the UK team felt more could have been done by the Portuguese police to record quicker the details of all employees and there was a lack of confidence that enough work had been done around potential witnesses and suspects.”

[Our note: One, it confirms that Jim Gamble of CEOP was the author and two, the Portuguese are being criticised for doing what Sutton was claiming Operation Grange hadn’t done and should have, which was to zoom in on the McCanns.

Also, why does Brunt blatantly lie when he says “In addition to not questioning the MCs as suspects, the report says the UK team felt more could have been done by the Portuguese police to record quicker the details of all employees and there was a lack of confidence that enough work had been done around potential witnesses and suspects”? When did the PJ not question the McCanns as suspects? When did the PJ not record quicker the details of all employees?
Jesus, Maria, this really is one of your most tedious posts ever. How can you accuse him of lying when he is apparently quoting from a report that he has seen and you haven't?

Note, this “lack of confidence” mentioned is shown by the authors of the report and not by any of the McCanns.

And doesn’t this “lack of confidence” demonstrate that from the British point of view they were the ones supervising the investigation and were quite displeased with the way the natives were going on about it?]

(…)

MB : 4 months after their daughter vanished, her parents were questioned and then released. Their formal status, arguido, meant they were suspects.

Lawyer (sept 2007) : No charges have been brought against them...

MB : A devastating turn of events which did nothing for their poor relationship with the police. It simply got worse. According to the secret Home Office report, the MCs complained of a lack of clarity and communication with the Portuguese police, and they said they were left for hours waiting to speak to someone. They described the situation as inhumane, it led to a long-lasting distinct lack of trust between all parties, the MCs, the Portuguese police and the UK authorities. This criticism is that the Portuguese reject.”

[Our note: When and where were the McCanns treated inhumanly? In fact, they were indeed treated differently compared to what any Portuguese citizen would in similar circumstances: they were discriminated positively]

(…)

MB : According to the secret Home Office report, the MCs felt the original Portuguese investigation was inadequate and so they had to take matters into their own hands. The MCs sued the Leicestershire police because they felt they weren't telling them what was being done to find their daughter. The force eventually agreed to give them some information. The MCs had already been using a number of different private investigators. The confidential Home Office report reveals that the private investigators working for the MCs gathered a large amount of information which does not appear to have been shared fully with Portuguese or UK police. The report recommends the MCs are encouraged and persuaded to share this information. The document adds that it's "unusual" for private investigators and police to work together but, because of the "unique nature" of the case, it would be good to do so.”

[Our note: The Leicestershire police was sued? When? As far as we know, the McCanns made a bid for information as reported by the Telegraph on June 20 2008 (one month before the case was archived in Portugal and even before the FSS had finished writing up its specious report) in the article by Gordon Rayner, “Madeleine McCann: parents' court bid for information”, in which is said “Kate and Gerry McCann are to ask a High Court judge to order the release of police documents which they hope will kick-start the search for their missing daughter Madeleine, The Daily Telegraph can disclose” and “The McCanns hope their application to Mrs Justice Hogg will result in Leicestershire Police opening their files on scores of reported sightings of Madeleine, most of which have been passed on to them by police in Portugal, where the four-year-old disappeared in May last year.” Basically, arguidos demanding, not asking, for information they had no right to access, and that can hardly be interpreted as suing.]
That is PRECISELY what it means to ''sue''. They initiated legal proceedings against LP, therefore they sued them

Do say if you can't keep up

(…)

“MB : The Home Office report commissioned by Alan Johnson recommended that Scotland Yard get involved and that's what happened. First the Metropolitan Police reviewed the case and then launched their own investigation, Operation Grange, in 2013. (note 8)

Note 08: The MCs sent an open letter, published in The Sun on May 11, 2011, to David Cameron, then Prime Minister, to remind him his pledge to think of MMC and ask for a review of the PJ Files. David Cameron was pressured by Rebekah Brooks who threatened to criticise daily Theresa May on the first page. So he yielded. And that’s how Scotland Yard was asked to make a review of the case, the funding coming from the Home Office.

[Our note: A blatant lie, which Operation Task debrief shows very clearly. We will get back to this later]
What is a lie? I see no lie

(…)

MB : Ten years on the police seems no nearer to solving the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance. I've been looking at what's gone wrong. A key source of evidence in any modern crime investigation is mobile phone data. In this case, according to the secret Home Office report, there was lots of it, but it was badly handled by Portuguese investigators. The report says "a vast amount of cell site data has been gathered.. There is no evidence to indicate that the data has been fully investigated or analysed.. The Portuguese should be encouraged to accept UK help".

(to Colin Sutton) How vital to the original police investigation would that have been a more thorough analysis of the mobile phone data ?`

[Our note: “The report says "a vast amount of cell site data has been gathered.. There is no evidence to indicate that the data has been fully investigated or analysed”. Really? It’s not what the PJ Files show.

“The Portuguese should be encouraged to accept UK help”. Why? Are the Portuguese children of a lesser god? What did the British have in terms of technical resources, both material and human, that the Portuguese didn’t? Nothing.

Is anything outside the UK to be considered by the British as “backward country”?]
Jesus, this is sooooooo tedious. I'm going to skip forward a bit

(…)

MB : There is no British equivalent of Ernie Allen's missing child centre, but the Home Office report did recommend one to avoid the confusion and ill feeling that so dogged the first Madeleine investigation.”

Many times is this secret report mentioned as can be seen.

Please note that we don’t know what sort of security clearance that Brunt has, but apparently, a journalist of Sky News can read a secret report that none of us can.

That means he can say whatever he likes about what the report says without anyone being able to contradict him.

Has this report been distributed to other journalists? If so, why haven’t they spoken about it. If not, why only to Martin Brunt?

And if he doesn’t have a special security clearance, which we see no reason for him to have, wouldn’t him having access to a classified document be considered a serious breach of security and this be subsequently investigated?
No. There is no indication that it is classified. You should not be provided with access to it as you cannot be trusted

He has shown he knew of this secret report in 2014 and had no problems whatsoever to speak of it again in 2017, so maybe the secrecy of the report is not exactly for security reasons.

By the way, just as a side note, we wonder who is the beholder today of this report,


12. Why lie about the Met?

We said that there was a blatant lie above. When this was said about the report:

“MB : The Home Office report commissioned by Alan Johnson recommended that Scotland Yard get involved and that's what happened. First the Metropolitan Police reviewed the case and then launched their own investigation, Operation Grange, in 2013.”

This was also mentioned in the Daily Mail article that attempted to catapult Sutton into “anti-stardom”, on May 3:

“The documentary [the Sky one from which we quoted above] revealed details from a Home Office report on the case, ordered by then Labour minister Alan Johnson before the 2010 election, seen by Sky News' Martin Brunt.

The report shows that Gerry and Kate McCann's relationship with Portuguese police after they closed the investigation into her disappearance.

The Met took the unusual step of getting involved in the case in 2010 after the report was compiled, and recommends police collaborate with private investigators hired by the McCanns because of the 'unique nature of the case'.”


The following are quotes from NPIA’s Operation Task debrief:



“This incident room also had a Portuguese speaking British officer permanently assigned to it. This officer was from the Metropolitan Police and had experience of working on a previous serious crime inquiry in Portugal.”

(…)

“The unprecedented level of response to this crime also involved the following agencies:

- The Home Office; 
- The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO);
- A large number of UK law enforcement agencies;
- CEOP;
- The NPIA;
- The Serious Organised Crime Agency;
- The National Hi-Tec Crime Unit;
- The Anti-Kidnap and Extortion Unit; 
- The Metropolitan Police Service; 
- Telephone analysis experts;
- Media communication experts;
- The Forensic Science Service (FSS);
- The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).”

(…)

“During the course of the investigation, the MIR was reviewed by the Metropolitan Police Service in accordance with ACPO policy for major crime inquiries.”

(…)

“Operation Task was overseen by a Gold Group led by an ACC from Leicestershire Constabulary. This consisted of:

- The CPS; 
- The FCO;
- The Home Office;
- ACPO;
- CEOP:
- The Metropolitan Police Service;
- The NPIA;
- The SIO.”

(…)

“The following were represented on the Operation Task Gold Group:

- The CPS; 
- The FCO;
- The Home Office;
- ACPO
- CEOP
- The Metropolitan Police;
- The NPIA;
- The SIO.”

(…)

“There is no nationally agreed model for carrying out a risk assessment of this sort. He factors that will be relevant will differ between developments as will the range of ways in which risks can be managed. Officers from the Metropolitan Police who attended the workshop suggested that the following headings had proved useful in the past and they are offered here as a guide to the type of issues that should be considered:...”

It’s very clear that the Metropolitan police was involved from day 1.

So why say this lie on the Daily Mail that “The Met took the unusual step of getting involved in the case in 2010 after the report was compiled”, which Brunt repeats in his documentary?
Is that it? Is that the ''blatant lie'' you claimed earlier? You are a fucking idiot. 


13. The running mouth

The reader may be asking themselves why have we deflected to this report, on a post about Gemma O’Doherty’s article on the McCanns – or should we say the Smith sighting? – and which had been until then solely concentrated on Colin Sutton.
I am sure anyone who is still awake is asking themselves precisely that

We did it to emphasize the link we believe exists between Colin Sutton and Jim Gamble.
Oh ffs

In our post “New knight in town”, we questioned how did Jim Gamble know that there was going to be a review on the Maddie case and that Sutton would head it, even before Theresa May was Home Secretary.

To those saying Sutton refused the job and that shows him to be good man, we remind them that he didn’t refuse anything because he wasn’t offered anything. And if he was offered something then that  we don’t know, then that something was offered by someone who didn’t have the authority to offer it as time has proven.

He hasn’t even suggested he would refuse if the alleged proposal had materialised, In fact the NOTW article of May 9 2010, suggests the opposite:

PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton
“Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.”
He had experience in the field. Jesus, is that what all the pages of guff was about?

If his friend had called him, as he Sutton claims, and if Sutton had felt disgusted about the idea of leading such a biased investigation, would his name have made it to the article? With a picture of him? No, it wouldn’t.

It shows a man feeling quite honoured to have been the chosen one.

Or are people suggesting that first the paper published his name and then his friend called him? Or that his friend called him, Sutton showed disagreement and even so someone insisted in putting his name and picture in the paper?
Have you been drinking? This is basically just a random series of ''what if?'' musings

But the involvement between Sutton and Gamble goes, in our opinion, much deeper, and we have Martin Brunt to thank for showing us just that.

In the documentary this happens:

MB : The early confusion was detailed in a secret report ordered by the Home Office and we've got a copy of it. It reveals an astonishing catalogue of mistakes, accusations and growing distrust. What do you make of it?

CS : I think we say in there that the various agencies and parties that were involved in the early parts of the investigation had different priorities and they sometimes competed against each other and I think we will see that they hampered the investigation from the very start.”

Let us put in caps what is relevant: “I think WE say in there that…”

Who is WE?

Sutton is admitting co-authorship of the report, together with Jim Gamble.
Absolute fucking bollocks. The use of 'we' does not identify him as the author. It does, however, identify you as an idiot

There is the English expression of this being a “slip of the tongue” but we think this is best described by the Portuguese one that says “his mouth ran towards the truth” [fugiu-lhe a boca para a verdade].

To those now scrambling to find an excuse for this faux pas, we only have to say that you can only speak if you haven’t before picked up on any slip of the tongue made by the McCanns and held them accountable for it. Please use the same filter and standard.

The connection between Sutton and Gamble is evident.

If Sutton was not part of the hoax, would Martin Brunt have even invited him to the documentary? Of course not.
Oh dear. So Sutton is now part of your fucking deranged fairytale, is he?

Brunt has shown through the years that when it comes to Maddie and what happened to her, truth is not exactly his objective, as Brenda Leyland tragically found out.


14. The Sutton fallacy

Sutton states, and ONLY in May 2017, that Operation Grange should question the McCanns. This is not only a fallacy as it is helpful to the other side as we will show.
Fallacy? What are you on about? How is a suggestion that they be questioned a fallacy? Do you even know what a fallacy is?

In terms of it being a fallacy, we all know the McCanns and the other Tapas 7 were extensively questioned and all is in the files.
Nope, it seems you don't.

A fallacy is a mistaken belief, a misconception, faulty reasoning - are you now suggesting that the McCanns should NOT be questioned?

Why the fuck not?

There is nothing more that, individually, any of the Tapas 9 could be questioned about.

Some argue that Kate still has the 48 questions to answer but this is a false argument.
Bullshit

Firstly, because if that’s what Sutton is on about, he should clarify that and not put Kate’s lack of answering together with Gerry, who answered all the questions put to him by the PJ.

Sutton should then separate the 2 and say clearly that “Operation Grange should question Kate as she hasn’t answered 48 questions she was asked by the Portuguese authorities”.

Secondly, even if it was all about making Kate answer those 48 questions, it would be useless and if Sutton doesn’t know that, he should.

Kate did not answer those questions because the Portuguese justice system allowed her to do that. An arguido is allowed that.

This means that even if the UK gets her to answer those 48 questions, that would only satisfy the curiosity of some as it would be void of any value legally.
You are literally the stupidest person on the planet

Lest one forgets, Portugal is not “backward country” and the prosecution of this process is its responsibility.

Unless Kate McCann volunteers to answer those questions under the legal rules of the Portuguese justice system and is supervised by them while doing it, any answer outside this to those 48 questions has no legal value in Portugal.

So, we only don’t say that Sutton asking for the McCanns to be questioned by Operation Grange is just a soundbite from his Pied Piper’s flute because the people who are pulling his strings may REALLY be interested for that questioning to happen.
You really need to bone up on UK law, you daft twat

Having the McCanns brought in and questioned without success, would be seen as Operation Grange exhausting all possibilities without success, running out of all possible diligences.

Having done that, Operation Grange could say, see, we have done ALL we could and there’s REALLY nothing there AND as there’s nothing more we can do, the ONLY thing we HAVE to do is to archive the entire thing, our apologies for not having been able to do better and having wasted so much of our time and of your money. Now, go home.

Basically, just saying what Sutton said in Brunt’s documentary:

MB : So are you saying that the past six years and 12 million pounds has all been a waste ?

CS : I suppose I am, because we're not really any further forward, we're not any closer now to knowing what happened to Madeleine on that night, and I think we could have been.”

Need he be any clearer on what he wants?
He has not made any indication of what he 'wants', but no doubt you will make something up anyway

But to those persisting that Sutton is a good man we have a challenge for them: defy Sutton on something.
Oh ffs

There is ONE diligence left to be done.

Mr Amaral has challenged in 2016 for the authorities to do: the reconstruction.

We spoke of this in detail in our post “Reconstruction for May 3 2007”.

So, all they have to do is ask Sutton directly if he supports a FULL reconstruction of the events of the evening of May 3 2007. It’s a yes or no answer.

If he says yes, then using the exact same power he had to expose Operation Grange as biased, we want to see headlines saying “Madeleine McCann: Top detective tells Operation Grange to help the Portuguese police do a FULL reconstruction”
He is nothing to do with the investigation you vacuous bitch. You might as well ask Eddie Izzard.

And with the following subheading: “VETERAN detective Colin Sutton says that Operation Grange should help the Portuguese police do a FULL reconstruction of the events of the evening Maddie disappeared.”

If we ever get to see the above, we will fully apologise here to Mr Sutton.
No you won't. You are a disgusting sociopath who doesn't give a shit about anyone.

Hopefully, our readers have realised why Sutton’s presence made us see immediately that the article had been meddled with.
Meddled with. For fuck's sake.

Okay - prove it. 

This has a good side to it, and that it clearly shows Sutton is their last man standing. No one else seems to have both the shamelessness and the lack of self-dignity required to play the part Sutton has.
There is absolutely no reason for your personal attack on him 



15. Gemma’s article

About Gemma’s article, some people may be tempted to piggyback us in trying to discredit Gemma O’Doherty, we would strongly advise them not to do that.

Some did just that after our “Sagresman” post and it turned out to be rather unpleasant for them.
That sounds like a threat, Maria. That's probably very unwise. 

We have said that we are going to give a 2 or a 7 to Gemma’s article.

And will now say the 2 is for content and 7 is for relevance.

In terms of content, we first gave it a 3 but have downgraded it to a 2. We will explain why next week, hopefully.
When you have had time to pull something out of your arse 

Please note that we have said in a comment that we think the majority of the article is truthful.

And we will say right here and right now what we don’t agree with in the article:

“The crowds of summer had yet to arrive and the normally bustling streets of the old quarter lay quiet”because as Mr Amaral states in his book the nights then were NORMALLY very quiet. Gemma should have clarified that the bustling happened in the summer months and it didn’t happen in the timeframe Maddie disappeared to which the article refers.
Oh for the love of god - you are arguing the toss over semantics, you fucking troll. 

“The very opposite is true on social media. The internet swirls with allegations and theories that the McCann story is littered with holes and does not stack up. Countless videos have been posted YouTube by armchair detectives challenging the parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour, in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them” because she calls us armchair detectives while we prefer to call ourselves online journalists
Ha ha! You are the furthest thing from a journalist on this side of Jupiter. You are a bored housewife with a personality disorder and time to kill.
and because she implies that we are only picking on the McCanns behaviour (such as body language and subjective interpretations of their words) and even then only when in the interviews in which they are blamed of something. The true online journalists, in which we include ourselves, dispute facts with facts.
Yes, they do. You, however, don't, as illustrated by your sick, imagined pornographic scenes involving Kate, Madeleine and David Payne  
For example, when above we explained the relevance of the dogs, we listed FACTS and not once did we mention any “bizarre behaviour.”
You never mention facts, unless it is to immediately deny them.

“Gerry McCann. a consultant cardiologist from Scotland and his Liverpool wife Kate, a GP and anaesthetist. said they had put their daughter and two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie to bed at around 7pm, had drinks together for almost an hour and then left the children alone to go to a tapas bar 50 yards from their apartment” because saying the children were left alone is to promote a negligence that promotes the abduction. 
See, this is exactly the bullshit you denied in the last paragraph. The evidence states that the children were left alone. Claiming they weren't is conspiralunacy.

“She said she noticed that the door of the children's bedroom was “completely open” and that the window was also open and the shutters raised”, the reason we disagree with this we will say next week.
She is describing what was reported. No-one gives a fuck whether you agree with it or not, but she is doing what a journalist should.

“But while Martin's evidence seemed compelling, independent and without motivation. much to his frustration. it was not given the attention it seemed to deserve”, because as the PJ Files show clearly that it was given the appropriate importance and the TVI documentary shows also that. This sighting has only been minimised by the UK Media (Channel 4 with the 2009 Mockumentary, Sky News with the 2014 UK Crimewatch and BBC with Bilton’s Panorama) and Gemma failed to point this out.
Bullshit. 

“The Met said local police had already done this and there was no need to repeat the process, but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings and best practice in cases like this dictates it is always important to eliminate those closest to the child first”, because of all we said in this post.
More bullshit 

And finally, “According to media reports. Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at”, basically the subject of this post.
She is quoting the source. You might not agree, but hers is accurate reporting, not your Fantasy Island fuckwittery 

We have a slight disagreement with her when she says “The man carrying the girl was middle-aged and more formally dressed than the average tourist, beige trousers and a dark blazer-like top”, because we believe that when one says “not dressed like a tourist” one means a person dressed normally (not in flip-flops, shorts and t-shirt for example) and is not making a judgement on whether one is a local or not. We think the way she describes him dressed to be a composite of the Smith statements and that results in a more ‘formal’ picture than we think happened in reality.
She is quoting the source, you fucking fool 

Please be aware that there are only 3 Smith statements in PJ files, Martin, son Peter, daughter Aoife. The statements from wife Mary and grandson Tadhg aged 13, are not there and we believe that Gemma has spoken to all of the Smith family. There’s a detail in the article that tells us that.
There is no indication they gave statements. I see nothing in the article to suggest she spoke to all the family 

As our readers know, it doesn’t matter to us how Smithman was dressed, only the  FACT that in no way a man holding a compromising child in his arms would cross with the Smiths unless he intended to do that (so he could be seen and so materialise the abductor).
Fucking nonsense 

We were in Praia da Luz and walked where Smithman walked, so we know that nothing but intent explains that man having crossed with that family as detailed in the PJ Files.

With the rest of the article we agree.
Big whoop. 

Giving it a 2 in content does not mean we think it’s not credible. It only means we were promised a mountain and got delivered a mouse.

But it is a truthful mouse as we will explain next week.
Jesus wept. She promised nothing of the kind. 


16. Conclusion

We have come to the conclusion that Sutton’s presence in Gemma’s article means the article has been meddled with by the other side.
Who and how? I see you are not brave enough to commit to that.

That didn’t alter in anyway the 2 main points that the article intended to convey: the Smiths confirm all and the BBC were not truthful about the Smiths in Bilton’s Panorama programme.

In the grand scheme of things, the falsities it contains matter little with the exception of one, and that is when it says the Portuguese investigation was littered with mistakes.
No-one has accused them of making more mistakes than you have. According to you, they walked around with their eyes closed, ignoring all the shagging guests

It is but one stain on a big tablecloth but as anyone who has received guests for dinner, if one insists on using a large tablecloth with a wine stain on it having the option of using a spotless one, then one is only showing disrespect for one’s guests.

And it seems that Gemma O’Doherty has insisted on using a stained tablecloth.
Oh do fuck off, dear 

We believe there are reasons for her to have done what she did and will explain them hopefully next week.

On our post “Gemma O’Doherty” we then said this about her:

“We would like to make it very clear that we think that Gemma O’Doherty is an absolutely independent journalist – from what we have read about her, we think that is something she’s very proud of – so we are, again to be very clear, not implying she’s playing any game within the game.”

Of the above we would now only add an asterisk after the word ‘independent’ in “is an absolutely independent journalist” and in a footnote say it meant “to be determined”.

If it seems we have a negative opinion of Gemma O’Doherty, that may not be the correct picture to make. We simply have said that she insisted on using a stained tablecloth  and that on seeing Sutton’s name we saw that “she is not the independent journalist she claims to be”.
Nobody gives a shit, Maria. You are as unimportant and irrelevant as a small fart in a very large sandstorm. 

And that may be subject to many interpretations, one of which, ours, we will provide in next week’s post.

Even though we rated the article a 2 for content (again please be very careful in judging what that means), for some reason we have given it a 7 for relevance.
That would be your incipient madness, dear 

6 comments:

  1. And here is another woman of science (J Bresnik):

    “#113
    Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?
    Post by Get'emGonçalo Yesterday at 11:48

    One of the members of CMOMM facebook is a geneticist and I know I've posted one of her articles on this forum, although can't find it at the moment, but I saw a comment from her the other day which seems apt to post on this thread:

    Janine Bresnick There is no actual evidence that her body was in the car weeks later.
    Tiny traces of her blood was found which could have come from previously frozen, bloodied cleaning cloths and clothing that was subsequently transported to the tip and it melted.


    Regards

    Ag

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Afternoon Ag,

      Hmmmm. I have heard of this woman before and read one or two posts by her, but for all her qualifications I have seen some strange claims.

      First - the body in the car.
      I agree that there is no evidence connecting Madeleine to the car, or any definitive evidence that a body was transported. It's obvious that there was a great deal of confusion between the forensic service, the UK police and the PJ over what was found in the car. There was mention of bodily fluids, melting ice etc, none of which were correct. There is nothing to support any theory involving previously frozen cloths, either. I think it's probably quite simple - items in the possession of the McCanns elicited a positive bark response from a cadaver dog. I suspect a response to the car is more likely to be associated with secondary transfer from items carried in the car.

      This is the problem - there is rarely only a single interpretation of any piece of evidence; it is better to underclaim and overdeliver than to do the opposite.

      Delete
    2. Most grateful for your comments, NT.

      J Bresnick (apparently referring to the car): Tiny traces of her blood was (sic) found…

      ?

      Ag

      Delete
    3. Me again, NT.

      Putting it differently:

      Were there forensically confirmed traces of her (Madeleine’s) blood found in the car or anywhere else in PDL?

      Regards

      Ag

      Delete
    4. In short, no.

      The only sample which was positively identified as blood in the entire investigation was from the car key fob and that yielded a full profile for Gerry.

      I honestly don't know what she based her comment on as there is nothing in the forensic reports to account for it. I think some of it has been generated by Chinese whispers, to be honest. It has become folklore and gathered a momentum all of it's own.

      NT

      Delete
    5. Thanks, NT.

      'No' is indeed the answer as far as I know. There was no Madeleine’s blood found anywhere in PDL.

      Unlike you, I’d never come across J Bresnick prior to reading the post I quoted. My commiserations. :D

      Best.

      Ag

      Delete

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email nottextusa@gmail.com