Saturday, 5 May 2018

Once more, with feeling

Well, dear friends, we waited long enough.

Here it is. Here is the post that will challenge everything you have ever known

Or not......
As security wrestled Textusa to the ground she could still be heard screaming "Swingers!" at the judge

    1. We notify our readers that this comment may well be the most important thing that we’ve ever written about the Maddie case.
Nothing you have ever written has been important, so that bar is lower than a limbo dancer's arse cheeks.

    1. If we were to continue to write posts, we would hesitate calling it “Grange’s legal conundrum” or “Entrapping Grange”.
Oh well - that ship has sailed, hasn't it? You have hung up your crayons for good.

    1. This has evidently to do with the popular surge that we have witnessed since Colin Sutton’s rise to stardom during the 10 yr anniversary last year, about how Grange should have considered the McCanns suspects from the beginning in 2011, which they said they didn’t, or in the desire of many that they should have the McCanns taken to the nearest British police station and question them, which they haven’t.
Which popular surge is this, then? Because I seem to recall Brunty's interview with wotshisface being the impetus for that

    1. This surge had the recent attempted feeding by Sonia Poulton’s video “The McCanns and the Police [Part One]”
Attempted feeding? What was she doing - inserting tubes up people's noses and spooning in puree?

    1. We inform readers that what we intend to explain today is that if what is being requested is satisfied, the Maddie case will be killed.
Oh yes? Killed, you say?
    1. To be clear, precise and concise,
Not possible for you
    1. if Operation Grange ever questions the McCanns, any of the remainder of the T9 or any person who may bear guilt in the case, the case will be killed. Finished.
Will it? Will it really?

    1. Note, not seriously compromised but finished.
Okay-dokey. Why is that, then?

    1. This is the reason for one of the titles above “Entrapping Grange”, as easily can be seen there are people, and Colin Sutton is not alone, pressuring for that to happen.
*Removes tinfoil hat from pouch. Places it on head*
    1. Upfront a disclaimer. None of us are legal experts or have any educational background
So very true
    1. in law.
That too.
    1. So, we may be wrong in the assessment we make and if there is one occasion we want to be wrong, this will be it.
Your wish is granted
    1. If anyone is able to prove us wrong, we will be the first to jump for joy and gladly, very gladly, correct our hand and take back all we are going to say next.
No you won't. You will accuse them of being half a dozen assorted tweeters and then sulk for a bit.

    1. We will sum up in 4 words what is at stake:
Go on then....
    1. sovereignty,
    1. jurisdiction (or legality),
    1. credibility and reality (or interests).
Only yours

    1. But before we explain how they matter and how they interlink with each other, one has to understand fully the meaning and differences between the words ‘can’, ‘should’ and ‘would’. We are not playing with words, we don’t pretend to give a grammar lesson or teach anyone English.
A generation of English teachers thanks you

    1. What we want to do is clarify their use in the Maddie case. They are often misused, or at least we see some people using them without realising what they really mean.
I think the problem is they don't mean what you would like them to mean.

    1. ‘Can’ is indeed what one can do,
You can't include the word you are trying to define in its definition, Professor
    1. while ‘should’ is of the universe of what one can do, what one should do.
So your definition of can is 'can' and your definition of should is 'should'. Well thank you, that is so much clearer.

    1. We often mistake these words.
You certainly do.
    1. For example, one says one can’t kill another human being. One can, however no one should.
More's the bloody pity, sometimes

    1. The main deciding factor between what one should or should not do (so, something one can do) is something called a consequence. One can indeed kill another person but the consequence of doing it is such that it is or should be deterrent enough for one not to do it. It’s a ‘shouldn’t’ that borderlines the ‘can’t’ but it’s not a ‘can’t’.
I hope you are getting all this, readers. It's like the Gettysburg Address. 

Although Textusa talked complete bollocks for 3 hours, 45 minutes, the crowd were in agreement - the beard really suited her

    1. In the case above the consequence between ‘should’ and shouldn’t has legal consequences. But this is not always the case.
Gripping stuff, isn't it? 

    1. For example, as far as we know, smoking in a closed room with children present is not illegal. It’s something one can do, it’s not illegal but something one just shouldn’t do. The consequence? One ruining the health of the kids in that room.
Or smacking a blogger around the head and telling them to get on with it? Not sure that would be considered illegal either. 

    1. One can smoke in such circumstances, but one shouldn’t not because it’s illegal but because common sense after evaluating the consequences one decides not do it. A decision made not on what one can but on what one should unquestionably do.
One understands. 

    1. In our opinion, Operation Grange and hearing the McCanns falls right into this category: it can be done but shouldn’t be. In this particular case, not because common sense advises but because reality demands it not to be done.
So this is it, is it? Your "point"?  

    1. (Cont 1/11)
Oh, part one of eleven. I'm guessing not, then.
    1. (Cont. 2/11)

      Let’s then start the analysis.

    1. Can the UK can prosecute British citizens for crimes committed outside the UK?

      Yes, it can. There’s no question about that.
Indeed it can 

    1. The Offences Against Persons Act of 1861, states clearly that:

      “Sections 9 and 10: Jurisdiction
      Murder or manslaughter abroad. Section 9 gives the courts in England, Wales and Ireland extra-territorial jurisdiction over homicides committed by British subjects overseas. (Note however the restricted definition of "subject" under section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948.) Section 10 gives these courts jurisdiction over fatal acts committed by British subjects overseas where the death occurs in England, Wales or Ireland, and jurisdiction over fatal acts committed in England, Wales or Ireland by anyone, including aliens, where the death occurs abroad. (The word "criminally" in that section has been held to exclude fatal acts done by aliens overseas although the death occurs in England, Wales or Ireland, since such acts are not punishable under the criminal law.)”

      We have also found the following more recent legal norm that states very clearly that it can be done:

      “Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (“GCA”)
      Section 1(1) of the GCA states:
      Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions or the first protocol shall be guilty of an offence”
There are others, too. Fraud, terrorism, child sex offences, bribery, blogging without due care and attention....... 

    1. Clearly it can. Now the question is, in the Maddie case should it or shouldn’t it and if not, why not?
Should it what? *scrolls back up* 

    1. The crime happened in Portugal. A sovereign nation, member of the European Union and NATO just to name 2.
Unless she was carrying a nuclear payload at the time, I don't think you need worry about NATO 

    1. There are 2 possibilities, the case is either prosecuted in Portugal where it happened or it is prosecuted in the UK, which as we have seen, it can be.
Okay - let me stop you there, just for a minute.

There are several issues here, the first one being evidence, as in 'have they enough evidence to charge anyone with anything?'

The second one is the charge or charges. The issue of whether anyone could be charged in the UK would depend on what they were being charged with.  

    1. For it to be prosecuted outside Portugal, where the crime happened,

      and there be no consequences there is only one way for that to happen: Portugal agreeing fully to that.
Only offences committed abroad which are covered by the relevant legislation can be tried here and the permission or agreement of the nation where the crime was committed is not required.

    1. In no other scenarios are there no consequences if the case is prosecuted in the UK.
More rubbish 

    1. Will Portugal agree? We are certain it won’t and will explain why.
It wouldn't make any difference 

    1. We have already spoken on the blog of an ongoing “legal battle” between Portugal and Angola. It involves Angola’s Vice-President from 2012 to 2017, Manuel Vicente.

      The case in question is called Operation Fizz. The crimes Manuel Vicente is accused of happened in Portugal.

      Angola has requested for Manuel Vicente to be tried in Angola (note, the Angolan regime has clearly stated that the intention is not to exempt him in any way but simply to have him tried by their national courts and not the Portuguese ones – (readers, please start establishing parallels between this case and the McCanns) and there hasn’t been final decision taken yet.

      (Cont. 2/11)
    2. (Cont. 3/11)

      The request was made by the Angolan President in a public intervention. He has stated that the economic interest of Portugal in Angola may be seriously compromised if the trial does not take place in Angola.

      Operation Fizz is currently on trial. The solution found up to now for this diplomatic/legal/political problem was to separate whatever concerned Manuel Vicente in the process from the current court proceedings.

      All other defendants of this process are presently going to court but Manuel Vicente’s trial has not begun.

      A diplomatic/legal/political conundrum between the 2 countries and we honestly don’t know what the outcome will be. The Portuguese justice system seems very unwilling to forfeit its independence as well as not wanting to lose the credibility such concession would implicate.
How interesting. However, there is no extradition treaty between Angola and Portugal, so the situation is entirely different 

    1. What does this matter in connection with the Maddie case?
There is no common ground here 
    1. The parallels are evident but the McCanns are not former Vice-Presidents of any country.

      The Portuguese and Portugal’s interests in Angola have been publicly threatened because of the Manuel Vicente situation and yet there has been no final decision from Portugal on this case.
That's a diplomatic row rather than a legal one 

    1. So, to the question will Portugal accept that the McCanns are prosecuted by the British in Britain? The answer seems to be a clear no.
Total nonsense. If the UK sought to prosecute the McCanns it would have to be for one of the designated offences and Portugal would have no say in it 

    1. Sovereignty determines that the McCanns have to be prosecuted in Portugal.
Depends what they were being charged with 

    1. So, only left is the option of UK doing it without Portugal giving it explicit consent.
It is not required 
    1. Convince Portugal to pretend it doesn’t see it happening. Like many alleged anti sites who pretend they don’t read us.
This delusion of yours that people ''pretend'' not to read you is totally bizarre, as is your conviction that the BBC does

This is the BBC, bringing you the latest from the Western Front, No 10 Downing Street, Buckingham Palace and lunatic blogger Textusa

    1. The Maddie case has too much international visibility for such a solution. It can’t be solved in a “Nigel Nessling” manner. It will always be news. World-wide news.
It would be world wide news wherever it took place 

    1. Basically, if the UK was to prosecute the McCanns in the UK it would be like comparing Portugal and its legal system with Syria, which is in civil war since 2011, and its legal system.
Absolute rubbish. It would simply be the UK asserting its rights under its own statutes. 
    1. Portugal, we repeat, is a member of the EU and NATO.
Yes, we know.But Madeleine wasn't an aircraft carrier, so the NATO bit is irrelevant  

    1. If in the case of Manuel Vicente, the Portuguese justice system seems to be fiercely unwillingly to let go of its independence and credibility then we’re not seeing it allowing itself to suffer such an insult, such damage to its credibility because of the McCanns.
It would have no choice in either case - no extradition treaty with Angola, statutory provision for  prosecuting in the UK (given that the charges were covered by statute)

    1. Only if the UK wants to insult Portugal and face the consequences on the international stage for doing so, will the McCanns ever be prosecuted in Britain for what happened in Luz.
Absolute cobblers. These charges are pursued from time to time without war breaking out

    1. And would the Portuguese PJ Files from an insulted Portugal be used by the insulting British in the British courts?
There is no insult. It is set out in law. And no-one would be whipping out an amateur translation off the internet and waving it at the jury
    1. What experts on the subject matter would take the stand to defend the evidence from the prosecution? Certainly not anyone sent by the Portuguese.
Defend for the prosecution? Do you mean to give evidence? The evidence would be given by the person or persons whose evidence it was. Expert witnesses have to be accredited by the court; that's a different matter 

    1. And it would not only insult Portugal, it would send a very wrong message to the EU by showing that the UK would disrespect the sovereignty of member nation to hide skeletons in its closets.
That is total bullshit. If you decide to prosecute someone, how is that 'hiding away'? Anyway, by the time any of this made it to court, the UK would be post-Brexit 
    1. That negative message would also be heard worldwide.

    1. Thus, we having said above that it can prosecute the McCanns in the UK but it shouldn’t and using an expression we have already used, it’s a ‘shouldn’t’ that borderlines, if not encompasses it, a ‘can’t’.
No, let's get it right - it can only prosecute if very specific, serious charges were involved. If the crime suspected did not fit into those categories, the UK could not prosecute UK citizens for crimes committed abroad 

    1. A ‘can’ that becomes a ‘can’t’ because reality determines that must be so.

    1. Up to here, we hope to have explained that ONLY the Portuguese justice system will prosecute the McCanns if they are ever to be prosecuted.
You have failed miserably 

    1. (Cont. 3/11)
    2. (Cont. 4/11)

      And this is what makes the McCanns untouchable to Operation Grange. Yes, you read it correctly, untouchable.
They are not untouchable 

    1. Here is where jurisdiction comes in.

      Please don’t limit jurisdiction to a physical space wherein a national sovereignty applies.

      That sovereignty applies where the specific legal rules of a sovereign nation apply. The specific set of rules the said nation has chosen throughout its existence to elect when constructing its legal edifice.
I feel I should probably offer a prize for anyone who wants to have a stab at translating that into an Earth language 

    1. That’s why in places disputed by 2 sovereign nations 2 sovereignties are enforced. In these cases, 2 or more countries think that they and only they have the right to apply their own set of laws to a certain piece of land. Which law is indeed applied depends on the international recognition of the sovereignty of the territory by those in dispute and that may not be clear. The Middle-east conflict is the perfect example.
That has absolutely nothing in common with this case. At all. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.  

    1. Sovereignty is exercised by the ability of a state to enforce its own laws. When it can’t do that, then it has lost sovereignty. That means its laws are only valid where it has jurisdiction where other laws from other states have absolutely no legal value.
Also bollocks.

Sovereignty is the ability of a nation or state to govern itself. Exercising sovereignty does not strip another nation of its statutes

    1. I had a teacher who said if law was simple then there would be no lawyers.
Was he trying to put you off? 

    1. When one walks into a grocery store to buy a dozen apples, it’s simple as everyone agrees what a dozen means and what apples are. No one disputes it.

      In law that doesn’t happen.

      The written law speaks of the concept of what is a dozen and the concept of what is an apple. That means that to some a dozen may represent something and to another something slightly different depending on what interests are at stake.

      If one looks at it analytically, the courts are basically people defending their interpretation of what dozens and apples are.

      How is this relevant to the Maddie case?
It isn't. 

    1. Each jurisdiction has its own subtleties in their laws. This comes from the way each country deals with the “dozen v apple” question according to the laws they constructed.

      In a country’s jurisdiction laws from other countries are not accepted even if the issue in question is the same.

      Let’s exaggerate to exemplify. Let’s invent a country which we shall call Birbitain. Let’s imagine that the Birbitish justice system doesn’t allow the presence of lawyers during any stage of the questioning.

      There, in Birbitain, the statements are taken from witnesses and suspects alike with only them and the police present. No one is allowed the presence of a lawyer much less to request one. In Biribitain and in accordance with their judicial system, the defendants’ lawyers only come into the process after the police have gathered all the evidence the way they deemed necessary and questioned all to their satisfaction.
This is nothing to do with jurisdiction and everything to do with the rights afforded to a defendant. You need to research this a great deal more - for example, a country may not extradite a suspect to face a charge which is not a crime in the extraditing nation, so for example the UK would not extradite a subject to face a charge relating to homosexual acts between adults, or apostasy, or anything else which is not a crime in the UK. 

    1. Now, imagine that in Birbitain, a British person confesses under these legal conditions to a crime in Britain.

      The Birbitish authorities, in good-will, decide to send this so-called evidence to Britain, which we remind you, is a confession of a crime.

      Would this be accepted in Britain as evidence? Of course not. Why? Because the questioning in Birbitain did not comply with the rules of questioning under the British legal system’s jurisdiction.

      The defendant’s rights had not been guaranteed as per British law.
Indeed. But this has nothing to do with this case. 

    1. (Cont. 4/11)
    2. (Cont. 5/11)

      The British courts, and rightfully so, only accept as evidence what has been collected according to the rules for the collection of evidence that it has set out for its own jurisdiction. And one of these rules is that it has to be obtained by their legitimate legal agents for that effect and in a legitimate manner.
Actually, it is up to the trial judge to decide what evidence can be placed before the jury; sometimes circumstances dictate that the usual procedures are waived. For example, a dying declaration can be offered in evidence. This does not mean that evidence collected outside of the jurisdiction is inadmissible.  

    1. See where this is going? Evidence collected by the Portuguese without the supervision of the British police is not accepted in British courts.
    1. The exact same happens the other way around.
Also bullshit. 

    1. For the Portuguese justice system, only collection of evidence that was done under the supervision of the legitimate agent, the Portuguese police, and no other is acceptable.
Also bullshit.

How is it you don't know this? Police forces seek the assistance of police in other jurisdictions all the time - why do you think Interpol and Europol exist? One country will frequently ask another to gather evidence for it - that's what the Letters of Request are for. It might be to take a statement, it could be to undertake a search, or follow a suspect. It happens ALL THE TIME. 

    1. Those familiar with the case are aware of a status that exists in Portugal that does not exist in the UK: the arguido.

    1. The arguido status is all about the guarantee of rights, in Portugal it’s considered essential. In any process, if not complied with it’s sufficient to nullify a case. Close it. End it there and then. If there’s guilt, the system prefers not to know rather than to harm individual rights. A sacrifice in the name of the rights of their citizens.
Uh huh.... 

    1. If the McCanns are ever heard by Operation Grange without any request by and under the supervision of the PJ, they cannot be heard as arguidos, simply because that status does not exist in the UK.
No, but suspects can be interviewed under caution - that is our version 

    1. That in turn means that whatever information Operation Grange would then be able to obtain from them would not be admissible as evidence in Portugal, the only place, as we have explained, the case can be tried.
Rubbish. That's the whole point of interviewing under caution. 

    1. But the consequence is much more serious. The spirit of the arguido status is to ensure rights for ALL those who the police think there’s a POSSIBILITY of them having broken the law.
So is an interview under caution. 

    1. For example, a person is called into a case as a witness. At a certain point in time, what s/he says incriminates him or herself. At that moment things must stop as the police cannot pretend that they didn’t hear what it did and continue.
Exactly the same as an interview under caution 
    1. If there’s the possibility of that person before them of having to face charges, then s/he must immediately be protected and given the arguido status. Note, the key-word is protected. And note we did not use the words “suspect” or “accused”.
Exactly the same as an interview under caution. If they are not cautioned, nothing they say, or their silence, can be used in court 

    1. That means that if the McCanns are called in by Operation Grange, whatever the they say will be tainted by the fact they were heard without the possibility of being protected by the arguido status.
No it won't 

    1. Note, it can be done in the presence of a lawyer but all that entails being given the arguido status is not present.
It is if they are interviewed under caution 

    1. A simple good morning said by the McCanns under oath to Operation Grange pertaining to the Maddie case would represent to the Portuguese legal rules an inadmissible violation of rights.
No it wouldn't. 

    1. It’s what the Portuguese call an insurmountable error. Case closed.
Complete bollocks. 

    1. Note, we’re not even speaking of them walking in under the belief that the police thought they did something wrong. For anyone, not only the McCanns, there’s always a possibility of them surprising all and be discovered of possibly having done something and the triggering of individual rights that is contemplated in Portuguese law, is not in Britain because there it simple doesn’t exist.
It does exist, you cheeky bitch. 

    1. Because there is no possibility from the outset, to give the McCanns, just in case, the arguido status in Britain, if they are questioned there the process it would be irreparably tainted in terms of Portuguese justice.
No it wouldn't. Seriously, this is all absolute cobblers. If they were to be questioned on suspicion of any offence they would have to be cautioned first. 

    1. Any evidence collected by Operation Grange without any intervention by the PJ is not acceptable in a Portuguese court. It wouldn’t need a brilliant legal team to tear it apart if it was tried.
Absolute bullshit 

    1. For those saying that it would be possible for the McCanns to confess in the UK and then be sent to Portugal to confess again, that would only make things worse.
Who is saying that?! 
    1. Not only what is said above remains as there would be a serious risk of a huge embarrassment for the UK: the McCanns would go silent in Portugal with a public confession that serves absolutely nothing, because for the Portuguese it was obtained in an illegal manner, known publicly.
No it wouldn't. 

    1. (Cont. 5/11)
    2. (Cont. 6/11)

      This would be a fiasco as the Portuguese would only be legitimately exercising their jurisdiction.

    1. The same goes for the hearing of any other witnesses or suspects. It’s either done under the supervision of the legitimate agents of the Portuguese justice system or it’s not admissible in its courts.

    1. But, the reader may say, there are rogatory statements in the files.

      Those were done by the British police under the supervision of the PJ. Their presence validated the evidence collected then.
No, they were collected under LOR - Letters of Request. The PJ did not HAVE to be there. This is a method which is used all the time, across Europe in particular. 

    1. To be noted, in 2008 the British were in support of the Portuguese investigation. That means a hierarchy between the Portuguese and the British investigations existed.
At that time, yes. That does not prevent the UK police pursuing charges if appropriate 

    1. As far as we know, the processes that are open in both Portugal and the UK regarding Maddie are independent and separate.
As far as you know - but there has certainly been international co-operation, if not an actual JIT (Joint Investigation Team) 

    1. What the arguidos/witnesses said to Operation Grange in Portugal cannot be used by the Portuguese investigation.
Of course it can. But it can't be published if the investigation is shelved

    1. The hearings were done under the rules of the Portuguese justice system but were under the mandate of a different jurisdiction and to be used there, so not admissible in the Portuguese process.

    1. One has to look at the Portuguese officers as subject matter experts, like the translators.
Nope, they are not subject matter experts 
    1. They are doing other people’s jobs and don’t have a say.
No they are not 
    1. They named the July arguido’s as arguidos because technically, according to the rules of the legal system where the interrogation took place which are more restrictive to the interrogator than those in the UK, they had to give them that status.
Nonsense. Those interviews would have been conducted under caution in the UK 

    1. To say otherwise is to say that the PJ agreed with the homeless man and the young one being named arguidos which we are certain was not the case.
That isn't the point. If they were going to be asked questions which could pertain to their being involved in the crime, they would have to be declared arguido first. You have no idea what the PJ thought 
    1. It was Operation Grange telling the PJ, when requesting their questioning, that they were to be heard because the British investigation estimated they could have done something wrong and that in Portugal automatically triggers the arguido status.
Exactly - so what is your point? 

    1. Operation Grange were said to have interviewed people in the UK.
No shit, Sherlock 

    1. One we identified was Kelsie Harris and the Moyes also, as they gave DNA samples. Also reported were people interviewed in countries other than Portugal. We can’t rely on press but Moyes were quoted directly.
And your point is? 

    1. We maintain what we have said.
Colour me stunned. 
    1. However, one thing has to be said and that is we don’t have the equivalent of the PJ Files to know how the collection of this evidence was done. It could have been under the request and supervision of the PJ. If it was, it would be evidence accepted in the Portuguese courts, if not, it isn’t.

    1. Does this mean that any of those heard by Grange in Portugal are off the hook?

      No, with the exception of the mystery witness who was supposedly heard in the UK.
Well, they are no longer arguidos. And which 'mystery witness' do you mean? 

    1. All others, even though what they said can’t be used, they can be heard again as the Portuguese justice system guarantees more rights than the British system (i.e. the arguido status) their individual rights are intact.
Of course it can be used, and the Portuguese system does not confer more rights 

    1. What they said to Operation Grange, remains in Grange and cannot be used in Portuguese courts.
    1. What they are to say eventually to the PJ, can.
Oh ffs 

    1. So, as long as the information they gave at that moment (they can repeat it later) they can be questioned again, this time under the Portuguese jurisdiction.
They do not need to be heard again. Provided they were afforded the same rights, as they are, they do not need to be heard again 

    1. Basically, to sum up what we have said up to now, if Operation Grange ever hears the McCanns it will kill the case there and then, even if whatever the McCanns may say be damning to them or not.
Absolute bollocks. 
    1. The McCanns being questioned by Operation Grange without the intervention of the PJ and the case is over in Portugal. And over in the UK because it won’t risk the insult that means to Portugal.
Even more bollocks 

    1. We hope now that readers understand why Colin Sutton and others are pressing for Operation Grange to move on the McCanns.
I doubt whether any of them are still awake, tbh 

    1. (Cont. 6/11)
Fucking hell, we are still only about halfway. Kill me, kill me now.  
    1. (Cont. 7/11)

      Moving on to what we find the most interesting aspect of Poulton’s documentary- Colin Sutton.

      Rather than repeat everything he says,
Oh why not - go on, spoil yourself 
    1. we recommend readers watch Colin Sutton from about 25 minutes into her video “The McCanns and the Police [part 1]”.

      It all sounds very encouraging as Sutton speaks of the limited nature of Operation Grange and how he would have wished to do a proper investigation, whereas he says there was no question of looking at guilt on the part of the McCanns. Pat Brown then gives her opinion that Operation Grange was not a proper investigation, which should have gone back to “ground zero”.

      At 31.43 Sutton says “I can’t tell you why abduction was the only thing that was pursued, but I can certainly say that from what I’ve seen, from what I know, that appears to be the case because not only did I get the kind of warning off but I’ve subsequently looked at the terms of reference for OG which talk about abduction, but perhaps, even more tellingly in the CEOP’s report which really was the basis for setting up Operation Grange. It goes through the chronology of what’s gone on in terms of British support for the Portuguese and the British law enforcement response and we can see then that when the first Gold Steering group was formed, which was on 8th of May, so 5 days after Madeleine went missing, they are already at that point using the word abduction, talking about supporting the Portuguese investigation into abduction. So, it seems to me that there was a mindset that was taken on at very early stage of this investigation and which has persisted all the way through up to the current time with Operation Grange.”

      So, thank you Sonia, for confirming what we had already written – that Sutton did have access to the CEOP Scoping Report, written by Jim Gamble.
I don't see that you can draw that conclusion, considering the number of leaks from the report which are in the public domain. 
    1. And we believe they are still singing from the same hymn sheet. Note Gamble’s words in 2012.

      Kerry O’ Brien – interviewer about Gamble – “He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government… Jim Gamble, let’s get one obvious question out of the way, first-up: from everything you know personally about the McCanns and the case, do you believe they had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?”

      Jim Gamble – “If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked.” [“If it ever came out” an interesting choice of words which the blog has noted]


      KoB – “Why do you say that?”

      JG – “Well, from everything I know about it, it’s not that as a professional police officer they wouldn’t have been first on my list of suspects, because actually, of course they would- they’re the parents, they were there, they had last access…”

      (Cont. 7/11)
    2. (Cont. 8/11)

      After that equivocal statement, he then continues to say, having met the McCanns, he would be shocked if either one of them were proven to be involved.

      KoB - “If I understand your position correctly, if you had conducted an investigation like this, you’d have started with the parents and taken a very quick look and either established there was something suspicious, or you’d have ruled them out and moved on. Now, if I understand it correctly, the Portuguese were kind of the other way around. It took them some time to suddenly develop the view that the McCanns might have been suspicious.”

      JG - “Well, I think that’s a fair assessment. When we carried out the scoping review, in order to be fair, what we did was, we said, “Let’s take a sleepy seaside town somewhere in the UK, and imagine that, you know, late in the evening, a couple had come to us who didn’t speak English as their first language and who were Portuguese and said ‘Look, our child has gone missing.” I think what we accepted immediately is we would have faced a complicated scenario similar to that which the Portuguese did. You’re not sure whether the child has simply walked away or been taken away and it does take a period of time to get that information together, so there were clearly difficulties, and we would all face those. In the immediate aftermath, the systematic approach is what is key, and certainly as professional detectives, we use the phrase ‘ clear the ground beneath your feet’. Look at that which is immediately in front of you first of all. And the only key difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects I would have looked at would have been the parents.”

      Please note the words “And the only key difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects I would have looked at would have been the parents” and now consider what Sutton says to Sonia, after a quote from Rowley.
What quote from Rowley? You posted a long quote from Jim Gamble, then make reference to a quote from Rowley which you have omitted.  

    1. Sutton: “What I take that to mean is because we know that at the time we are told Madeleine McCann went missing from flat 5A, we know her parents and their friends weren’t in that flat at the time, therefore they could not have taken her, or they’re not suspects. That doesn’t follow does it? That’s not logical, that is not a forensic way of looking at it because that’s based on some pretty large assumptions.”

      Sutton goes on to speak of major inconsistencies of fact in the witness statements and the need for a filmed reconstruction, to get a composite story that’s closer to the truth.

      At 42:50 Sonia asks what can be done with the remaining money for the investigation.

      Sutton: “The starting point has got to be back at ground zero. This is when the report was made, these are the last people to see her, this is what they say, these are the people close to her. Let’s eliminate those, let’s get them out of the way and that would serve everybody, you know, that would be in the interests of both the general public but also Kate and Gerry McCann, because there’s an awful lot of tittle- tattle on the internet and rumours. This is a case which has aroused so many opinions, quite strong opinions in some cases. If you conclusively, comprehensively, forensically eliminate Gerry and Kate McCann and friends from any involvement, then that squashes all of that rumour mill. That takes it all away.”

      Is “Let’s eliminate those, let’s get them out of the way and that would serve everybody, you know, that would be in the interests of both the general public but also Kate and Gerry McCann” as positive as some would believe?

      We say it’s inflaming public opinion to pressure Operation Grange to question the McCanns and make that fatal mistake.
What a load of absolute nonsense. Sutton suggests that it would serve everyone's interests to rule the McCanns out and you suggest that was to try to bounce Operation Grange into something you wrongly suggest would be a fatal mistake? You are an idiot.

Basically, this entire "theory", the latest in a long line, is based on your claim that if the Met ever interviewed the McCanns, they could never be prosecuted in Portugal - a claim which is utterly wrong and based on your complete ignorance of the law. 

    1. (Cont. 8/11)
    2. (Cont. 9/11)

      Before we proceed we would like to note that after Sonia Poulton’s video, we have now to the best of our knowledge: she and Martin Brunt seem be the only 2 reporters to have had access to the CEOP Scoping Report.

      Please correct us if we’re wrong Sonia, if it’s a different secret report.
Where does she indicate she had access to it? 

    1. We must confess that we don’t see a reason for either of them to have access to a secret document of a highly sensitive case that has embarrassed the UK worldwide. But with Martin Brunt one might find a sort of explanation as he’s the best-known TV reporter linked to the Maddie case, working for the TV network best known to defend the McCanns.

      In the case of Sonia Poulton, one must find it strange. The Portugal Resident on Dec 26 2014, says:

      “A damning new “evidence-based” documentary is being prepared for screening in 2015 and promises to tell the “Untold Story of Madeleine McCann” - alleging that “no abduction took place at all”.

      Orchestrated by independent journalist and social activist Sonia Poulton, the project got underway following the death of 63-year-old grandmother Brenda Leyland - the so-called internet “troll” “outed” over tweets that questioned the official version of events “as put forward by mainstream media”.”

      We all know what a fierce public defender of the McCanns Jim Gamble is. So we cannot help but find it strange that a highly secret document of highly sensitive information authored by him would find his way to the hands to a reporter alleging that “no abduction took place at all”.
So where is the evidence that she has seen it? 

    1. But then, as far as we know, Sonia Poulton has been the only “hostile” reporter able to doorstep Kate McCann – an act we admonished then – taking with her 2 reporters (one to film the other filming Poulton knocking on the Rothley door) and have Kate open the door to her.

      One thing we think should be clarified is whether Ben Thompson, who she names as one of her researchers for the video and is an admin of the FB Group Justice for Madeleine, has also had access to this highly secret CEOP document.
I am not sure what he would have to say, but I suspect "Fuck off, Maria" might cover it. 

    1. We have criticised Katie Hopkins in the blog for after having accused the McCanns of negligence, she did not do any further research and continued to promote it, so to be coherent we must do the same with Sonia Poulton.
There is evidence that the children were left alone. There is no evidence for your loopy theories 

    1. In her favour, we have also said that we don’t mind the negligence promoted by Pat Brown. We know it didn’t happen but as it links said negligence with the parents being involved with Maddie’s death we will let it fall by itself as we are certain once things are focused on the involvement of the parents in her death, the truth will surface unhindered.

      However, having dedicated herself to the case as she has, in the period of time she has and having the support she has said she has, one would expect that she would add the word ‘alleged’ whenever she mentioned negligence.
You are unbelievable!
You are criticising Pat Brown for not saying ''Alleged'' negligence, but you happily accuse people of perjury, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice etc without once adding ''alleged''! 

    1. Another thing we would like to know is, if the objective was to highlight the British police bias in favour of the McCanns, why weren’t the Gaspar statements mentioned?
Are you really that fucking thick? Why do you think? Are they supposed to be out there, in the public domain?

    1. After all, the couple was heard in May 2007 and only in October sent to the PJ and only after requested. Is there more an evident bias than that?
According to you - but let's be honest, you are not exactly on the ball, are you? 

    1. The other clarification we would find useful is for Sonia Poulton to clarify whether the interview with Colin Sutton was made before 2017. If what he says in the video is before or after he said that “The Mauritania line is certainly a possibility and needs to be looked at” among other things and before or after it was reported that “The ex-Metropolitan Police officer [Colin Sutton] said there is no evidence the couple or their friends had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Where does that quote come from? I am not delving through your back issues 

    1. (Cont. 9/11)
    2. (Cont. 10/11)

      If we are right,
You're not 
    1. then there’s a move to sabotage any prospect of prosecution in Portugal.
There isn't. 

    1. If so, it dates back to Gamble trying the same in 2012 when he says much the same as Colin Sutton now. Going back to beginning and looking at the parents happened at the outset. That’s what the PJ tried and the British sabotaged. And clearly among those saboteurs was Jim Gamble.

      And lest we forget, in the TV appearance with Martin Brunt on Sky News marking the 10th anniversary, Colin Sutton said (our caps:” “I think WE say in there that…” being the “in there” the highly secret CEOP report. So we can assume that Sutton was also among the saboteurs.
Oh ffs - Not only is there no evidence of anyone wanting to sabotage anything, the act which you are claiming would derail the investigation, wouldn't.  

    1. Saboteurs know the game well. They are betting on one of 2 things, both producing the same result: close Operation Grange.

    1. On one hand, this pressuring the Met into questioning the McCanns, we call it the OJ Simpson without a trial card.

      Everyone thought he was guilty but a brilliant legal battle caused the American justice system to be unable to sentence him.
They were unable to sentence him because he wasn't convicted. Try to keep up. 

    1. With the McCanns, the idea is to stop things short of prosecution. Everyone thinking they are guilty but a legal technicality stopping them being sentenced.
That's not how it works, sweetcheeks. Nice try, though. 

    1. All others involved can finally breathe in peace.

      We recommend readers to revisit our post “The McCann trial”.
I really wouldn't bother 

    1. We recommend readers to be aware of all those fervently in favour of having the McCanns dragged into the Met for questioning, as well as all those fervently supporting those fervently in favour.
All fervently urging them to do something you claim would scupper the investigation, because you are a fucking idiot.  

    1. We would urge all those asking in their good faith for Operation Grange to call in the McCanns to stop immediately.
I bet you would.... 

    1. The purpose of these words is to help people to be able to look with different eyes at all those who will continue, after reading this, shouting for Operation Grange to question the McCanns, as now it will be known that what they hope to achieve is to create a popular pressure that will make it commit a fatal mistake.
Remember how you said you had no education in the law? Well........... 

    1. Remember when we said that the case against Mr Amaral was not a libel case but for damages? We were then hit by “friendly fire” about how wrong we were. Time has proven us right. Now we will see what reaction we will get to this post.
Laughter, mostly 

    1. Please remember our initial words in this comment. IF we are proven wrong about what we have said above, we will be glad to recognise it and retract all.
No you won't. But I have posted a link to the CORRECT information on my blog, for those wanting to check it out. 

    1. One useful thing is that this sabotage helps us understand a few things.
Well, that would be a first. 

    1. Like the £12 million figure said to have been spent – by the way, does everyone remember how fast it went up to £8/£9 million but then “stagnated” at basically the same value? – by Operation Grange.

    1. As we have said before, the other thing the other side is trying to achieve is to have Operation Grange closed due to “over-expenditure”.
It's not coming out of your taxes, sweetie 

    1. Knowing now that Operation Grange’s hands are effectively tied, as they cannot speak to anyone under the penalty of causing the closure of the case, we would say that Operation Grange main expenditure is on wages.
Of course it is. This is not news. 

    1. If we subtract the wages, the Luz circus, the 2 hearings in Faro, the visit to the INML in Coimbra and one or 2 more visits by Redwood to Portugal we would say costs have been exaggerated just to inflame the public to pressure government to close Grange.
Tinfoil hat time. 

    1. (Cont. 10/11)
    2. (Cont. 11/11)

      Grange is just the police being used by the politicians in a diplomatic/legal conundrum which the British have put themselves in.

      Another positive note, is what we have witnessed all these years is the Met fully aware of the trap and ignoring it. For some reason they have said that the parents were not people of interest, even said they were not suspects. They said that all diligences that the PJ did on the parents were sufficient for the Met. Can the reader see now how spot on this was?
You clearly don't have a clue. 

    1. A complete and absolute farce but legally impeccable. Flawless.
Maria, you would recognise legal impeccability if it crapped on your shoes, honey. 

    1. Not because of incompetence, not because of legality (the can v should question addressed above) but because of reality.
Ah yes. Reality. Textusa-style.  

    1. As we said, both the PJ and Grange are waiting for the political nod, so nothing can be expected from either except, nothing until then and this nothing is good. No legal battles to fight about jurisdiction nor opening of doors for annulment of the process.

      What we can do is sit and watch. Each day Operation Grange does nothing is a day that Operation Grange exists. And as long as Operation Grange exists we can hope truth is outed.

      So, let’s them be cops playing cops. It’s embarrassing but much less than it would be to archive the case after Whitehall archive the case after agreeing that there was one final key lead/witness or, and that would even be worse, because of a legal error.

      The fact the government has not yet conceded to the pressure it has received because it continued funding it even though it continues to get put in the media AND social media that Grange is useless (because it doesn’t question the McCanns) and a waste (because it’s wasting public money) tells us that outing the truth is an option being seriously considered by government to end the case.
I have literally no idea what she is on about in this paragraph. You are on your own, guys. Sorry.  

    1. And the few pitiful blanks the other side fired to celebrate the 11th anniversary was very much telling.

      The case as is, remains intact and perfectly ready to move towards prosecution.

      Is this possible? Yes, of course it is AND it passes through Grange.

      All that is needed to happen is for there to be some “fluke” analysis of the files by Grange and they suggest to the PJ that a certain line of inquiry is worth pursuing. Then, the “convinced” PJ will request, under Portuguese supervision, that certain people be heard in the UK by Grange.

      Another possibility, which is more likely, is for the PJ to be given the green light by the political power to contact Grange with “new” forensic evidence and request what is said above.

      Under Portuguese supervision, all evidence then collected by Grange is admissible in the Portuguese courts and the case can be prosecuted in Portugal.
And you think this is going to happen, do you? Uh huh...... 

    1. If the reader doesn’t like to just sit and watch and wants to exercise pressure, then that should be directed at the PJ and not the Met. Their diligences are the only ones that matter really in this case.

      Who helped us have this lightbulb moment? Insane, of course. We effectively, as we have recognised, misread his statement saying that he had a source who told him Grange was questioning former British immigrants who had resided in Luz.

      We thought he had said that Grange was questioning Brits in Luz, which would be illegal, when he had said nothing of the sort.

      However, this got us thinking.
I can only apologise to the world. I am really, really sorry I made Textusa think. Please forgive me. 
    1. Why would Grange be questioning people who had once resided in Luz as this would be useless evidence for Portugal… oh, wait a minute, it wouldn’t only be useless to the Portuguese prosecution BUT be ruinous for the case if not done by the British without Portuguese supervision.

      So that’s why they are pressing to have Operation Grange call in the McCanns!

      Thank you, Insane. Again. We’ve lost count the times you’ve helped us. As the Portuguese say, God writes straight along crooked lines.


      1. Typo, it should read:

        "However, this got us thinking. Why would Grange be questioning people who had once resided in Luz as this would be useless evidence for Portugal… oh, wait a minute, it wouldn’t only be useless to the Portuguese prosecution BUT be ruinous for the case if done by the British without Portuguese supervision."

She might as well have said "I saw Insane riding a bike and this made me realise Mrs Fenn was a Soviet agent" for all the sense that made

Now here is your one paragraph summary - or your final red island of rest, if you like.

Textusa reckons that people want Operation Grange to interview the McCanns because she erroneously believes this would scupper the entire case. She justifies this on the basis that the UK has no equivalent of the protection offered by the Arguido status; however she seems completely unaware of the term "interviewed under caution" which is applied in exactly the same way as the Arguido designation is, and to the same end.
The rest of her claims are the usual frantic conclusions of an overworked brain apparently trying to adjust to ever-decreasing levels of some vital neurotransmitters.


  1. Good Lord ��
    Thanks again, I tried reading it earlier and nearly died. It's so much better to wait for you to slice it up :)
    There was another researcher named at the end of Sonia's doc, doesn't Textusa wonder if that person has seen a secret document too? No? Just Ben Thompson, because he called her out on her lies?

    It's funny that she apparently based this whole thing on something you said, when she didn't even understand what you'd said in the first place!
    Oh, I've just realised I am to blame for this too then, as it was in reply to me that you'd said it...sorry all ��


  2. Don't worry, she would have found a way to blame me if I'd been incommunicado for a decade. Today's effort is truly feeble - rarely has one tiny idea been spread over such a wide area. It is, of course, completely bonkers, but that's nothing new.

    The bit I can't understand is why she talked it up so much

  3. Well it's a bit like that old post you put up the other day, she'll have been ironing and had a 'lightbulb' moment. But for her, it's when the iron trips the fuse box and all the lights go out, rather than on!


    1. Very good analogy! I have been weeping with laughter reading some of her old posts, but sometimes the replies are even funnier, idiots fawning all over her like she's the Messiah. :))

  4. Thanks for the time you've put into the latest, I skimmed through most of the text post, she firmly believes her views but for me it doesn't make sense, if and when all the ducks are in a row the perpetrator(s) will be arrested. Oh well that's her theory but what is odd is taking a little snippet of what you've said and making it fit, anyone reading your thoughts can see you are only on the side of truth.

    1. Thank you. Honestly, I have given up trying to figure out how her brain works. I have concluded that basically it doesn't.


  5. Can anyone help me out here? Textusa makes reference to something by 'PeterMac' about the arguido status - does anyone know what she means? If you could point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

  6. I think the following is what they are referring to:

    1. Yes, looks like that's it - thank you!

      I agree with him on this, he has pointed out the same as I did - that it is exactly the same as an interview under caution.

      I suppose that means she is now going to conclude that I am PeterMac!


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