You know, when we lucky ones open the mail for the dividend and royalty cheques and think of April as the sweetest month and well-known rockers Baldie and the Cesspits wait for that elusive McCann loyalty rebate and annual benefit upgrade notification and the MSM takes a deep breath, puts on its concerned embalming face and solemnly tells us that this year tragic Kate McCann will be feeling, well, tragic, since ex-employee (remember that?) and ex-spokesman (remember that?) and ex-part time helper of the grieving family (remember that?) and very much ex-PR whizz Moribund Mitchell has no doubt sent out a thousand word briefing note telling all broadcasters how tragic she'll be feeling by May 3 2018 but until then her personal feelings are embargoed until May 1, OK?
Of course it is.
All on the Same Side? Yes, but not as you know it
And the dear little Bureau will be all spoilsportish to everybody, saying nasty things like how's Wayback going folks? and how's the thirty-man Scotland Yard conspiracy squad Pat? And how's the serial libelling of innocent women going Hangdemhi, you revolting, snivelling, disgusting little coward? And how's the Holocaust denial going, Hall?
No results yet, anyone? Not even on twitter? Nothing to show? And no reprisals yet - what is the secret of the truthseekers' survival? Could they have all done secret deals to save themselves on condition they lie to us? Well, why not? By Baldie standards each of them should have to prove that their apparent invulnerability to the massed forces of conspiracy is not due to their protecting the McCanns, shouldn't they? Why, demands the Bureau, haven't the conspiracy people been killed?When are they going to provide the evidence that they are not working for the deep state and the right to non-decimal currency and free Viagra for inhibited bald males?
Somehow Tourette's Teddy Shepherd, that Cruikshank, nay Rowlandson, of our times, frayed cardigan and all, has evaded every attempt by the CIA to leave him lying dead in his kitchenette, identifiable only by his scorched carpet slippers; Marsden hasn't been waterboarded; Textusa, ah Textusa -- she hasn't been discovered horribly disfigured with a giant fat pimento thrust into her mouth and a note saying Farewell My Lovely, has she? Brown, all right, nobody would bother going after that but the rest are all, obviously, protected with the aim of convincing the world that all anti-McCanns are not only idiots but completely fucking mad. What a crew, what a horrible, miserable little gang of ill-educated, uncultured misfits out to bullshit us all and hurt innocent people!
So, we'll point out yet again the deep bond between the McCanns, their diminishing little clique and this conspiratorial Axis of Idiocy. One thing unites those three groups against all the rest of us: their utter dependence on the imagination, generally warped and their carelessness of the real pain they have deliberately caused others in the pursuit of their own obsessions, notoriety and self-indulgence - plus the utter absence of evidence for any of it, any of it! from Abduction at the beginning to Wayback at the end, that final straw that made the poor bastards look not just Rong but Wridiculous.
And end it is: nothing new coming out of either camp, just the same dead, repeated shit lies and fantasies for over two years now in the face of a blizzard of legal and investigative findings that make a mockery of their claims. As our contribution to Anniversary Time we'll remind people not of newspaper cuttings, let alone the fictions of the Pit, but of established matters of fact, all provided either from police or court documents or the words of the principals themselves. Sorry it's not more fun - the fact is there aren't many mysteries left to have fun with. Facts have taken over.
Statements of Fact
1) Madeleine McCann was last seen by independent witnesses early on the evening of Thursday May 3 2007.*
2) The Portuguese investigation officially records the disappearance as “Type of Crime: unknown”.
3) No forensic evidence of any kind was found of intrusion into the apartment by an outsider, either through the apartment front door, the unlocked patio doors or the child’s bedroom window. There is none.**
4) No support has been found for verbal claims to the police of intrusion or disturbance. In all such cases – “a moved door”, “raised shutters”, “light coming through the shutters”, “an open window” no evidence has ever been provided of these claims.***
5) The “moved door” was a subjective (“seemed”) suggestion and referred to a door that was afterwards moved by family members and friends before the police arrived. The “raised shutters” referred to shutters subsequently moved by family members before the arrival of the police; “light coming through the shutters” was a subjective claim made before family members moved the shutters and the curtains. The same applied to the “open window”. Thus none of them could be examined in their claimed state. Whether through chance or some other reason all these supposed eye-witness claims concerned objects that could never be checked by police.****
6) The police were not alerted until 10.41 when the local police were called. *****
Supervision of the Well-Being of the Child between 8.30 – 10PM
1) The holiday group accompanying the child claimed in their police statements that her well-being and safety was being checked by family members and by other members of the group at half-hourly intervals between 8.30 and 10PM. This was completely untrue, as established by the PJ and the prosecutors.*
2) There is no independent evidence that Madeleine McCann’s well-being was ever checked in that period.** The claims from the McCann remnants that waiters noting some of the group leaving the tapas bar apparently to check their children are evidence of checking well-being would be laughable if they weren't pitiable: they are evidence that some of the group left the tapas bar, period. If we accept, for the sake of argument only, the parental claim as “independent” then her well-being was checked once by her father just after 9PM. If we do not accept it - as we cannot - as independent evidence no checks whatever were made on her well-being by anybody during that period. It is extraordinary how often this is overlooked.
3) The “other members of the group” supposedly checking her well-being and safety did not exist. The only one who claimed to have done so was Oldfield and he was not telling the truth. How do we know that?***
The Claimed Evidence of an Abductor
1) The only evidence of the possibility of abduction by a non-family member was the famous Tanner sighting during the equally famous “window of opportunity” at 9.15-9.20 when a man was supposedly seen near the apartment with a child in his arms. Jane Tanner was the only person claiming to see somebody but the description and circumstances of the sighting were given to the police not by her alone but by the holiday group constructing, in writing and collectively, a figure who was not a sighting of any single human being but an exercise of imagination creating a narrative of a sinister stranger.*
2) According to the group’s “evidence” the man was “hurrying” away with an “unconscious, possibly drugged” child in his arms.**
3) As is well known now,** this fanciful and sinister creature described by the group in hundreds of melodramatic words, had no reality. A holiday maker eventually came forward and Scotland Yard are satisfied that is who M/S Tanner saw. One photograph of the real person has been released by Grange.
4) Kate McCann had, as she writes, “no doubt” that Tanner had seen the “abductor” and, again as she writes, made every attempt, overt and covert, to get the PJ to focus on him during the investigation as the key to the case. Judging by the message on the Find Madeleine website she feels the same way now.***
Like the fanciful claims of conspiracy and protection by the usual anti-suspects it is a free and unfettered creation of the human imagination with zero connection, let alone anchorage, to any facts at all. That is what unites the two sides.****
1) In her book Madeleine Kate McCann confessed to having lied to the British media in 2007 about the police investigation. The publication of the case files confirmed that Gerry McCann had repeatedly done the same in his blogs as well as on television. The aim in these cases was the same: to prevent the British public from discovering knowledge of the true direction of the Ribeiro PJ investigation and the fact that they were the prime suspects. *
2) Accordingly, it is impossible to accept the unsupported word of the pair on any matters regarding the disappearance of the child. This derives from the following question: when people are self-admitted and confirmed liars about a case in which they feature how can the police, or even the courts, ever know when they are lying and when they are not? How?
3) An aggravating factor in this question of their veracity as witnesses is Kate McCann’s further admission that she is able, at will and convincingly, to adopt a pose in complete opposition to her own feelings. How do we know? Because of her well-known statement in defence of her appearances on television which were the subject of widespread, if cheap and childish, comment about her “deadpan and emotionless” composure.**
4) Kate McCann stated that she was “advised by experts” to mask her real emotional feelings in order to avoid giving the abductor-who-never-existed a thrill or emotional control. A bad move: logically we don’t even have to know whether this statement of hers is true or false – her veracity disappears either way. If she wasn’t advised by experts then she is lying; if she was so advised and was capable of convincing many of the public that she was utterly heartless with such skill and conviction then she was, again, lying, this time, once again, to the English speaking public en masse.
1) On September 6, after their interviews with the PJ were completed, the McCanns met their lawyer Abreu at their apartment and, in the light of the fact that they were being made arguidos in the morning, had an exhaustive discussion of their position and options that went on until 4AM. *
2) All we know for certain is that a comprehensive discussion took place of whether to admit the police were right and they had disposed of the child’s body; that neither of them dismissed the suggestion out of hand but, on the contrary, explored, sometimes emotionally, sometimes cold-bloodedly in the light of the likely evidence against them, the pros and cons of doing so. And that eventually they decided not to.
3) As is now well known, the police had made no suggestion of a deal, as Abreu himself confirmed,** diplomatically describing Kate McCann's claim as a “misunderstanding”. There is no ambiguity about this. At no point does KM quote any officer offering her or her husband a deal or, indeed, anything at all. Kate McCann's sole "evidence" for the “deal” which her family, at her request, splashed all over the tabloids that morning was this:
“If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he [Abreu] said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.”
That is neither a deal nor does it derive from the police directly or indirectly. Nor is it evidence.Kate McCann has taken a simple statement of legal fact quoted by her lawyer that body disposal receives a lower sentence than homicide – quelle surprise! – and smeared the PJ with it. But with the factual record outlined above, are you surprised? The hidden subtext of the Madeleine version, of course, is the failed attempt to disguise that they were seriously considering admitting that they had indeed disposed of the child's body - in the face of no threats, deals or menaces from the police whatever.
4) So the 2007 case effectively came to an end, concluding, just as as it began, with a pack of lies.
5) And a reminder for the Axis of Idiocy: no publicly known evidence exists for a prosecution of the McCanns for involvement in the child's disappearance, as any solicitor anywhere will confirm for a hundred quid or so. None existed in Portugal in 2007 and none since. That is also a fact and the greatest joke against the Rong brigade of all: look dears, the McCanns have never had any protection behind the scenes because they have never once needed it. Can you really not understand that?
The Disappearance - sources
* Around 5.30. Established by the PJ investigation and confirmed by the prosecutors, whether you like it or not and whether you agree or not. You, and we, don't even come into it.
** That is not a matter of opinion. You can check the case files.
**** KM police statements; GM police statements; Oldfield police statement; Oldfield rogatory interview; GNR officers' statements; case files, forensic reports; KM Madeleine, e.g "in the children’s room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window. Rushing outside, he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side, too, not just from inside as we’d thought." Very good, Kate.
***** GNR logs.
The Supervision and Safety of the Child
*Archiving Summary conclusion: "they did not check with the frequency claimed";Prosecutor Menezes in Lisbon hearings "the group did not tell the truth about the checks". Irrefutable, of course. It follows, therefore, that KM's statement in Madeleine that the (supposed decision on checking) was "a collective one" means that it was a collective one that was not true. Think about the implications of that.
** "Independent evidence": evidence, forensic or historical. Eye-witness evidence from persons with no stake in the outcome of the investigation. In this context none of the group of Nine are independent both because of their proximity to the child, their possible stake in the outcome and the questions raised in the Archiving Summary about their veracity and motivation. A waiter unknown to the group would be independent, so would timed CCTV footage. Clearly a family member's evidence could never be independent, whatever its quality.
*** Because he was unable to tell the police whether the child was alive, dead or missing on his supposed visit: Therefore he could not have known whether she was even alive, let alone safe. It is irrefutable that he had not ascertained her well-being. Obviously the claim by Oldfield et al that he had checked previously by "listening at the shutter" was nonsense: listening and being satisfied at the "result" was perfectly compatible with all three children already being dead, unconscious or gagged. Such were the “half-hourly” safety checks. A pack of proven lies.
The Claimed Evidence of an Abductor
*Case files statements: case files: the typed timeline. There is no possible doubt about this. As the Bureau has pointed out previously, quoting the original text, not opinion, the words used by the group were not only part hearsay but were used in a dramatically suggestive way with an elaborate superstructure of menacing and subjective words (drugged etc.) conjuring a threatening image for which there was no possible justification and a deliberate "cuing" to a predetermined identification. It does not describe a "sighting" but a persona created by the group and agreed to by Tanner. In other words it does not correspond to and does not describe an actual human being but a collective invention - complete with those wonderful words "possibly" and "probably".
** Official statement from Scotland Yard. Attempts by McCann supporters like Bennett and others to wriggle out of this truth fail abysmally. If you wish you can fall back on the exact interim words of the Yard "we are almost certain that the person seen by JT was an innocent holidaymaker" but it won't do you any good: "almost certain" means 90% + probability, an extraordinarily strong claim for an unfinished investigation to make, usually only used of extreme cases, such as an armed suspect. The papers and images so far withheld will provide the confirmation. For further information on the subject see the Bureau for March 20 2017.
***Kate McCann has not said why she continues to believe this.
****And both sides, from McCann to Hall to Brown and the rest are stuck in exactly the same place: they made claims without foundation evidence but from the beliefs or hopes forming part of their imaginations. When you do that you can never, ever, be validated or vindicated. Can you see why? Because legal reality - the facts of the case - knows nothing of the contents of Kate McCanns beliefs and imaginations and, thank God, nothing of what lies within Bennett's dome or our own. How could it? It can only know of what you can point to and say "there - look". But since you started without a factual anchor you can never produce one and say look! because it doesn't exist except in your imagination. That's the way it is, Kate; that's the way it is, Baldie. Eleven years says so.
*The Bureau has quoted the sources exhaustively over the years. There is no getting away from it: Kate McCann denies ever lying to the media before August 2007 but then states that in the specific case - a very important one, perhaps the most important of the investigation - she and her husband lied outright and constructed a tissue of untrue cover stories. And her justification for this act of duplicity to the UK public? The whine that "we didn't feel we had any choice".
That, of course, makes her a proven equivalent of Bennett - united again - in the truth stakes, the latter found by the judge to have been disingenuous in his evidence in the High Court and who formally admitted his various claims against Kennedy, for example, were untrue and libellous. Bennett, whom we take as representative of the whole dishonest fantasy-anti movement, hasn't even offered a whine of attempted justification, just more and more crazed lies.
** KM, (famously) Madeleine. The experts, like so many people quoted by her, have not yet turned up to confirm her account in detail.
*KM version in Madeleine.
** Abreu made his sole on the record statement ("all a misunderstanding")at a public media conference shortly afterwards. In other words not even her own lawyer confirmed the claims she made supposedly in his presence - so they couldn't have been true, could they?