Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Explaining once again the dogs findings, notice, ONLY concentrating on blood found, dismissing the cadaver findings but at the same time admitting one dog is reliable!!!! includes sedation of the children....March 12th 2011. I think this blog gives us a pretty good idea of what Kates 'account of the truth' will contain, a rebuttle of the police files.
For the McCanns information Cadaver has been sufficient for a conviction without forensic back-up.
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/03/two-kates-and-cadaver-detected-in-both.htmlThe Almeida Interim Report – Time to Move on
March12
In fairness, most people have. Only those who continue to insist that Madeleine died in apartment 5a and that the McCanns had something to do with Madeleine’s disappearance are still stuck there.
PJ inspector Tavares Almeida wrote what came to be called the ‘interim report’ in September 2007. It was, ostensibly, deeply damning of the McCanns but, actually, deeply flawed.
Almeida missed two crucial facts about the cadaver dog Eddie: that he reacts, also, to the scent of blood lost by living humans, and that his alerts are meaningless unless corroborated by forensic analysis in a laboratory.
We must assume, in ignorance of both these facts, Almeida peppered his report with references to “findings” of cadaver scent by Eddie.
In fact, his reaction to the car was proved to be blood.
Eddie was never deployed inside the car, but his canine partner Keela, who reacts only to human blood, was.
She detected blood on the igition card, which was then placed inside a sandbox and buried for Eddie to test a second time. He again reacted, proving that his response was to blood on the card. In the UK forensic laboratory in Birmingham, it was confirmed that the blood was Gerry’s.
A witness statement of a visitor to apartment 5a two weeks before the McCanns, a Mr Gordon, states that he cut himself shaving, bled for 45 minutes and paced the whole apartment trying to stem the flow of blood with tissue.
If even minute traces were shed in the apartment, that would be sufficient to create a scent for Eddie to detect and react to.
Almeida asserts that Kate’s father, Brian Healey, “confirmed” that Kate and Gerry used sedatives with the children.
He did no such thing.
He actually confirmed what Kate and Gerry themselves had both already told the PJ – that they occasionally used the children’s drug [i]Calpol[/i], an analgesic or pain reliever, with no sedative properties whatever, and with an excellent record of safety in use with children.
It is a medicine readily available in shops and is not prescribed by a doctor. The McCanns told the PJ that they had it with them on that holiday but that they didn’t use it.
After suspicion fell on them, the McCanns pleaded with the PJ to test the twins for drugs in their systems.
Almeida refers to this in his report, dismissing their request on grounds that (according to him) it was by then too late.
He makes no reference to the fact (revealed on this blog in an earlier article) that the McCanns first queried with the PJ whether there had been drug-use in the abduction just 2 days after it happened. They would scarcely have been likely to do that if they had anything sinister to hide in respect of the use of drugs.
There is more to say.
But that is enough, I think.
Move on and leave the Almeida report behind.
It tells us nothing about what happened to Madeleine, and casts dark shadows, rather than shedding light, on events of May 3rd 2007.
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/03/12/the-almeida-interim-report-%e2%80%93-time-to-move-on/
Just Like That"
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
[size=7]22 March 2011
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
[size=7]22 March 2011
"JUST LIKE THAT"
So there was Gerry McCann, at the computer, doing his Kojak impression, as the PJ were trying to interest him, somewhat unsuccessfully, in an apparent sighting of his daughter. Busy planning the marketing strategy no doubt. 'Like this and like that' (momentarily taking the lolipop from his mouth). Even the seemingly hapless illusionist prepares his performances. Who can forget the late lamented Tommy Cooper (a contemporary in 'variety' of Max Bygraves) and his hysterical 'Glass-bottle. Bottle-glass' routine, when he suddenly found himself unable to control the persistent emergence of concealed bottles from inside the same cylindrical container - 'just like that.' Kojak and Cooper each dealt in evidence; the one keen to establish what was true, the other to demonstrate what wasn't. While Gerry McCann may aspire to be some sort of Kojak, in reality he leans more toward Tommy Cooper.
'You can't prove a negative' said Gerry, once upon a time. There speaks the voice of experience. Although it wasn't for want of trying. Like the illusionist, Gerry set his stall out to convince the world of something that was not. Sky TV's Jon di Paolo, reporting live from the court in Lisbon in January of last year informed us:
12:24: The McCanns' lawyer makes the point that 'evidence' usually sightings – has suggested Madeleine is still alive.
12:25: He says that the McCanns are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.
(Quote) Now there's two things there (unquote). Evidence suggesting Madeleine is still alive usually takes the form of sightings, implying that, on occasion it might take some other form. Whatever form this 'evidence' may take however, the McCanns are not responsible for generating (i.e. fabricating) it - says the McCanns' lawyer, defending against a charge that has not even been made. No surprises then if one should inquire into the possibility, surely?
'Kate and I strongly believe Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment.' That’s encouraging, although it's difficult to see why Madeleine should not have been alive at that time, whenever it was. She was left asleep after all. Yet every belief carries an element of uncertainty - it wouldn't be an act of faith otherwise, but a conviction based upon fact. Given the scenario so often outlined in the past, this indeterminate belief invites two questions simultaneously: Was Madeleine alive? Was Madeleine asleep? Since Kate and Gerry McCann themselves could not be absolutely positive, it stands to reason that they would have anticipated a degree of circumspection on the part of their audience also, and the best way of dispelling doubt is, of course, to offer evidence in support.
All together now: The McCanns are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.
They are not responsible for the sightings worldwide, discredited almost as quickly as they are put forward, nor, we are to understand, those reported in Portugal, Praia da Luz specifically, both before and after Madeleine was reported missing. These would include the 'evidence' attributable to Jane Tanner, the Smith family and, let us not forget, David Payne.
It is important to bear in mind that the McCanns and their friends put the seal on their incredibility very early on, in delivering up to the PJ a typed timeline that represented a statement made on behalf of a committee. It follows from this simple act of collusion, if nothing else, that the various statements made by these same individuals subsequently cannot in any way constitute 'independent' corroboration of anything at all.
So, should one decide to question the McCanns' 'belief' that Madeleine was alive at 9.05 p.m. that Thursday night, based on Gerry's claim to have seen her asleep, we cannot look to David Payne's reported last sighting of her for confirmation that she was in good health somewhat earlier that evening. Notwithstanding Payne's membership of the evidential 'committee' we have to consider the veracity of his account in the light of his claims to have seen Madeleine for the last time, twice - at 5.00 p.m. and later at around 6.40 p.m.! Thus there is no independent corroboration of Madeleine's being alive that Thursday night. We have only the McCanns' word for it, i.e. the word of a couple who, for the duration of the official inquiry, were considered suspects in their own daughter’s disappearance. Apparent sightings made later (e.g. those of Tanner and the Smiths) do not attest to the status of the child the witnesses may or may not have seen being carried through the streets. For one of the Smiths to have asked 'is she asleep?' confirms they did not know that to have been the case. Nor could Jane Tanner have gleaned as much from glimpsing a pair of dangling legs.
If Madeleine's physical condition that Thursday evening remains open to question, so too does her somnolence. 'We believe' is clearly not enough to alleviate all suspicion. But what to do about it? Well, if she were taken at night from her bedroom then she should, by rights, have been asleep. And if she were asleep she'd have been dressed appropriately, i.e. in pyjamas of some description. So, describing the pyjamas should go some way toward firming up the account, shouldn't it? Madeleine missing in these pyjamas paints, especially for an emotionally primed audience, an altogether more convincing picture of nocturnal kidnap.
First mention of Madeleine's distinctive pyjamas comes from the McCanns, during their respective witness statements of 4 May. For her part, the suggestible Jane Tanner quickly exhibits what can only be described as progressive enhanced recall, jumping through the gears like a car with a defective clutch; from man carrying something, through carrying a child in pyjamas, to carrying what is presumed to be a little girl, on the basis of a 'pinky' top, which is completely obscured from view despite an 'orangey' street light. She was equally determined the interviewing police officer should 'think pink' during her Rogatory Interview with Leicestershire Constabulary a year later.
Jane Tanner (Member of the evidence committee don't forget) sustains the story of the pink pyjamas after 9.05 but, for some reason known only to himself, David Payne fails to pinpoint this same detail. He'd like us to believe that Madeleine was perfectly well in the McCanns' apartment earlier that evening. In his Rogatory Interview he mentions having seen all the children, but dressed in 'night attire,' and predominantly white at that. Categorically pink pyjamas were there none. Interestingly Kate too declines to clarify what Madeleine was wearing at this time. In her own statement of 6 September 2007, she describes what she herself was wearing (a green long-sleeved t-shirt, blue denim trousers, sports shoes and white socks) as well as 'putting pyjamas and nappies on the twins,' but she does not reveal how, exactly, Madeleine was dressed.
Hence, once again, we have only one serious claim to the observance of a very significant detail. And once again it is attributable to the McCanns, who 'are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.'
Leaving aside the issue of whether Madeleine McCann was actually abducted on the Thursday night, there really is no evidence, in the shape of independent corroboration, that she was in good health earlier that same evening, or removed from the apartment while asleep, as the insistent reference to her pyjamas would have us suppose. And if you should think this is flying a kite, then do please recall to mind another of Kate McCann's notoriously ungrammatical banana skins:
"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep."
"I know it happened under other circumstances."
The crux of this particular verbal contortion is that 'circumstances', in this instance, are not themselves causal. To leave a child asleep is not necessarily to commit an act of contributory negligence which brings about an undesired outcome. Parents do it all the time when they go to bed themselves (leave their children asleep, that is). Kate McCann clearly compares 'leaving the children asleep' to 'other circumstances.' Whatever 'happened' was independent of either. What she tells us, quite categorically, is that it did not happen while the children were left asleep. And if the children were not asleep when 'it happened' then Madeleine may well not have been wearing pyjamas either.
But the sightings...the sightings!
Very well then. The sighting (Jane Tanner's we can consign to the realm of Hans Christian Andersen). The only remotely credible reference to a very young girl seen out in the streets of Praia da Luz that Thursday night, May 3, 2007, is that provided by the various members of the Smith family who, for entirely selfless motives, anxiously contacted the Portuguese police regarding their collective experience, of which they gave a full account in due course - on 26 May 2007. Here are the three most pertinent statements concerning the little girl they saw being carried along at around 9.55 p.m.
Martin Smith
• She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour.
Aiofe Smith
• She was wearing light trousers, white or light-pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was light and could have been cotton.
• She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers but the trousers were light.
Peter Daniel Smith
• He does not remember her clothing very well but believes it was light summer clothing, light in colour.
It would be bold, and frankly speculative, to conclude that the little girl seen by the Smiths in the dark was wearing pyjamas even, never mind pink ones, and much less pink ones resembling those supposed to have been Madeleine's, which, as the authorised press releases of the day reveal had short sleeves.
Was Madeleine alive when she was 'taken'? The McCanns believed so. Was she asleep when 'taken'? The McCanns have told us she was. Is there unequivocal confirmation from any independent quarter as regards either detail? No. Just like that.
With thanks to http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
So there was Gerry McCann, at the computer, doing his Kojak impression, as the PJ were trying to interest him, somewhat unsuccessfully, in an apparent sighting of his daughter. Busy planning the marketing strategy no doubt. 'Like this and like that' (momentarily taking the lolipop from his mouth). Even the seemingly hapless illusionist prepares his performances. Who can forget the late lamented Tommy Cooper (a contemporary in 'variety' of Max Bygraves) and his hysterical 'Glass-bottle. Bottle-glass' routine, when he suddenly found himself unable to control the persistent emergence of concealed bottles from inside the same cylindrical container - 'just like that.' Kojak and Cooper each dealt in evidence; the one keen to establish what was true, the other to demonstrate what wasn't. While Gerry McCann may aspire to be some sort of Kojak, in reality he leans more toward Tommy Cooper.
'You can't prove a negative' said Gerry, once upon a time. There speaks the voice of experience. Although it wasn't for want of trying. Like the illusionist, Gerry set his stall out to convince the world of something that was not. Sky TV's Jon di Paolo, reporting live from the court in Lisbon in January of last year informed us:
12:24: The McCanns' lawyer makes the point that 'evidence' usually sightings – has suggested Madeleine is still alive.
12:25: He says that the McCanns are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.
(Quote) Now there's two things there (unquote). Evidence suggesting Madeleine is still alive usually takes the form of sightings, implying that, on occasion it might take some other form. Whatever form this 'evidence' may take however, the McCanns are not responsible for generating (i.e. fabricating) it - says the McCanns' lawyer, defending against a charge that has not even been made. No surprises then if one should inquire into the possibility, surely?
'Kate and I strongly believe Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment.' That’s encouraging, although it's difficult to see why Madeleine should not have been alive at that time, whenever it was. She was left asleep after all. Yet every belief carries an element of uncertainty - it wouldn't be an act of faith otherwise, but a conviction based upon fact. Given the scenario so often outlined in the past, this indeterminate belief invites two questions simultaneously: Was Madeleine alive? Was Madeleine asleep? Since Kate and Gerry McCann themselves could not be absolutely positive, it stands to reason that they would have anticipated a degree of circumspection on the part of their audience also, and the best way of dispelling doubt is, of course, to offer evidence in support.
All together now: The McCanns are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.
They are not responsible for the sightings worldwide, discredited almost as quickly as they are put forward, nor, we are to understand, those reported in Portugal, Praia da Luz specifically, both before and after Madeleine was reported missing. These would include the 'evidence' attributable to Jane Tanner, the Smith family and, let us not forget, David Payne.
It is important to bear in mind that the McCanns and their friends put the seal on their incredibility very early on, in delivering up to the PJ a typed timeline that represented a statement made on behalf of a committee. It follows from this simple act of collusion, if nothing else, that the various statements made by these same individuals subsequently cannot in any way constitute 'independent' corroboration of anything at all.
So, should one decide to question the McCanns' 'belief' that Madeleine was alive at 9.05 p.m. that Thursday night, based on Gerry's claim to have seen her asleep, we cannot look to David Payne's reported last sighting of her for confirmation that she was in good health somewhat earlier that evening. Notwithstanding Payne's membership of the evidential 'committee' we have to consider the veracity of his account in the light of his claims to have seen Madeleine for the last time, twice - at 5.00 p.m. and later at around 6.40 p.m.! Thus there is no independent corroboration of Madeleine's being alive that Thursday night. We have only the McCanns' word for it, i.e. the word of a couple who, for the duration of the official inquiry, were considered suspects in their own daughter’s disappearance. Apparent sightings made later (e.g. those of Tanner and the Smiths) do not attest to the status of the child the witnesses may or may not have seen being carried through the streets. For one of the Smiths to have asked 'is she asleep?' confirms they did not know that to have been the case. Nor could Jane Tanner have gleaned as much from glimpsing a pair of dangling legs.
If Madeleine's physical condition that Thursday evening remains open to question, so too does her somnolence. 'We believe' is clearly not enough to alleviate all suspicion. But what to do about it? Well, if she were taken at night from her bedroom then she should, by rights, have been asleep. And if she were asleep she'd have been dressed appropriately, i.e. in pyjamas of some description. So, describing the pyjamas should go some way toward firming up the account, shouldn't it? Madeleine missing in these pyjamas paints, especially for an emotionally primed audience, an altogether more convincing picture of nocturnal kidnap.
First mention of Madeleine's distinctive pyjamas comes from the McCanns, during their respective witness statements of 4 May. For her part, the suggestible Jane Tanner quickly exhibits what can only be described as progressive enhanced recall, jumping through the gears like a car with a defective clutch; from man carrying something, through carrying a child in pyjamas, to carrying what is presumed to be a little girl, on the basis of a 'pinky' top, which is completely obscured from view despite an 'orangey' street light. She was equally determined the interviewing police officer should 'think pink' during her Rogatory Interview with Leicestershire Constabulary a year later.
Jane Tanner (Member of the evidence committee don't forget) sustains the story of the pink pyjamas after 9.05 but, for some reason known only to himself, David Payne fails to pinpoint this same detail. He'd like us to believe that Madeleine was perfectly well in the McCanns' apartment earlier that evening. In his Rogatory Interview he mentions having seen all the children, but dressed in 'night attire,' and predominantly white at that. Categorically pink pyjamas were there none. Interestingly Kate too declines to clarify what Madeleine was wearing at this time. In her own statement of 6 September 2007, she describes what she herself was wearing (a green long-sleeved t-shirt, blue denim trousers, sports shoes and white socks) as well as 'putting pyjamas and nappies on the twins,' but she does not reveal how, exactly, Madeleine was dressed.
Hence, once again, we have only one serious claim to the observance of a very significant detail. And once again it is attributable to the McCanns, who 'are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.'
Leaving aside the issue of whether Madeleine McCann was actually abducted on the Thursday night, there really is no evidence, in the shape of independent corroboration, that she was in good health earlier that same evening, or removed from the apartment while asleep, as the insistent reference to her pyjamas would have us suppose. And if you should think this is flying a kite, then do please recall to mind another of Kate McCann's notoriously ungrammatical banana skins:
"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep."
"I know it happened under other circumstances."
The crux of this particular verbal contortion is that 'circumstances', in this instance, are not themselves causal. To leave a child asleep is not necessarily to commit an act of contributory negligence which brings about an undesired outcome. Parents do it all the time when they go to bed themselves (leave their children asleep, that is). Kate McCann clearly compares 'leaving the children asleep' to 'other circumstances.' Whatever 'happened' was independent of either. What she tells us, quite categorically, is that it did not happen while the children were left asleep. And if the children were not asleep when 'it happened' then Madeleine may well not have been wearing pyjamas either.
But the sightings...the sightings!
Very well then. The sighting (Jane Tanner's we can consign to the realm of Hans Christian Andersen). The only remotely credible reference to a very young girl seen out in the streets of Praia da Luz that Thursday night, May 3, 2007, is that provided by the various members of the Smith family who, for entirely selfless motives, anxiously contacted the Portuguese police regarding their collective experience, of which they gave a full account in due course - on 26 May 2007. Here are the three most pertinent statements concerning the little girl they saw being carried along at around 9.55 p.m.
Martin Smith
• She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour.
Aiofe Smith
• She was wearing light trousers, white or light-pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was light and could have been cotton.
• She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers but the trousers were light.
Peter Daniel Smith
• He does not remember her clothing very well but believes it was light summer clothing, light in colour.
It would be bold, and frankly speculative, to conclude that the little girl seen by the Smiths in the dark was wearing pyjamas even, never mind pink ones, and much less pink ones resembling those supposed to have been Madeleine's, which, as the authorised press releases of the day reveal had short sleeves.
Was Madeleine alive when she was 'taken'? The McCanns believed so. Was she asleep when 'taken'? The McCanns have told us she was. Is there unequivocal confirmation from any independent quarter as regards either detail? No. Just like that.
With thanks to http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
No evidence of abduction ....?
'Writing the wrongs' trying to tell a nice little story but leaving out ALL the important pieces. Is this a snippet from the book ? could well be.
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/03/18/evidence-of-abduction/Lets take a look through this 'explaining 'how there IS evidence Madeleine was abducted.
Those who doubt the McCanns, I do not doubt the McCanns , the McCanns are both pathalogical liars.
Kate and Gerry not only invented the whole abduction they also fabricated evidence by moving a cot from one room to another. They also phoned family and friends to lie about a break-in, jemmied shutters etc....
There is the question of a blue sports bag that Gerry was seen with the afternoon of May 3rd, a sports bag that disappeared as quickly as Madeleine. Gerry had the bag so why did he not say to police yes it was also missing? so simple and would have got him out of a lot of hot water, because it is KNOWN McCann did have this bag. However, had he done so, the assumption would have been the child was removed from the apartment in the sports bag and if this was so, surely this would have been a screaming , protesting Madeleine, or a dead Madeleine and why would an abductor go to all the trouble to abduct a child, kill her and remove her in Gerrys blue sports bag ? no that would not have worked besides Gerry wanted to be seen or rather he wanted a child to be seen answering the description of Madeleine. Gerry took the bag therefore for another reason.
Lets move on.
Fingerprints in the apartment and why should Kates not be on the window ? The window in the beginning of the McCanns fabricated abduction was the 'key' to how the abductor left the apartment. The McCanns wanted everyone to LOOK at the window. The window according to family and friends the morning of May 4th was broken, smashed. I have no doubt the window would have been damaged had Jez Wilkins not arrived and put McCanns nose out of joint. McCann of course could have returned to the apartment and broken the window after Jez had left but did Jez know if McCann was leaving or arriving to check on the children ? either way McCann would have noticed within minutes that Madeleine was missing and the window damaged, (by himself)seems timing was everything..and the timing of the abduction was to be around 10 pm.
Nice little alibi at the end to remind us Gerry was at the table so Martin Smith could not have seen him.
The Caylee Anthony case at this very moment discussing the 'smell of death' in the trunk of the car owned by Casey Anthony.
'Writing the wrongs' blog trying to explain the blood found was from Mr.Anthony Gordon and yes Mr.Gordon did cut himself whilst shaving, but Mr.Gordon did not die in the apartment and leave 'the smell of death'.
The above, all facts and no need to mention Dr.Goncalo Amaral, who played no part in the disappearance of their lovely daughter Madeleine.
Evidence of abduction?
March18
One of the key elements of the arguments put forward by those who doubt the McCanns version of events is the supposed lack of evidence of abduction.
This, it is said, proves that no abduction ever took place, and that, therefore, Madeleine died in the apartment and Kate and Gerry invented the whole abduction story.
Well, firstly, I would like to quote from the great detective author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, famous for his Sherlock Holmes books. In one of Holmes adventures he told his trusty ally, Watson, “The absence of evidence of a crime must NEVER be taken as evidence of the absence of said crime.” In other words, just because you can’t prove something happened, doesn’t mean it DIDN’T happen.
That said, it is not even true to say there is NO evidence of abduction, though it should be born in mind that to FIND evidence, first you have to LOOK for it.
In this respect the investigation, under Amaral’s command, was woefully inadequate, with the apartment not being properly secured as a crime scene for almost three months, by which time such evidence as there may have been would have been trampled, cleaned and eroded into oblivion.
But even despite the failings of Amaral’s enquiry, within the files, so often ignored by the McCann sceptics, there IS in fact evidence of abduction.
Firstly, there are two sets of DNA as yet unidentified.
Guest? Staff? Or abductor?
Secondly, the window had not just one fingerprint, as is often erroneously claimed, belonging to Kate, but five.
One is indeed Kate’s but that is not surprising, given that she had spent the best part of a week in the apartment.
One other was identified as a policeman, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR.
Three others were also found but were so smudged as to be unidentifiable.
Whose prints were they?
They may have been unclear but none the less SOMEONE left them.
And of course we have two, at least, eye witness accounts of a man seen in the vicinity carrying what appeared to be a child, moving briskly away from the apartment.
Since eye witness accounts, including the McCann party waiter, put Gerry at the table at this time that rules out the oft favoured but unsubstantiated claim that this was Gerry disposing of the body.
So, no evidence of abduction?
Hardly.
In fact I would say the exact opposite: that there is more than enough, but there is none whatsoever that Madeleine died in the apartment.
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/03/18/evidence-of-abduction/
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
I believe the sudden swirl of hatred for Dr.Amaral (more than usual) is a very healthy sign. 'Writing the wrongs' blog, suddenly feels they have to try and explain the cadaver dog findings (or at least one of them) after all this time ,does'nt anyone find that interesting ? Goncalo Amaral is going to be OK. I have no interest in seeing the McCanns behind bars not even for fraud, what good would it do? No let them continue . This influx of hatred can only be coming from the McCanns inner circle, how do I know? because the 'deadly duo' have kept it out of the British Press. The McCanns are hurting and thats a home goal for Madeleine Beth,bless you sweetheart wherever you may be xx
http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-to-incite-racial-and-judicial.html?spref=tw
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/03/22/whats-in-a-cut/
Writing the wrongs blog...
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/03/22/whats-in-a-cut/
Writing the wrongs blog...
Writing the wrongs.
I had thought this was just another McCann supporter blog. However, I have read that the McCanns mention 'writing the wrongs' on their fraudulent site. I, by chance stumbled upon this rather childish looking blog sometime back and within moments had a viewer from Rothley.
I am going to stick my neck out and suggest that this is the McCanns themselves who are childishly 'writing the wrongs' .
I had always thought McCann, one day ,would like to explain away the blood found in the apartment but for him to do so would have been rather difficult as to admit to one dog picking up the blood spilt by Paul Anthony would also be an admission that the cadaver dog was maybe not so 'unreliable'.
What better way than to start your own blog as a third party , go through the files and explain away the PJ files findings.
Paul Anthony Gordon also made a statement to the police of how he was harassed by the McCanns groupies,'writing the wrongs' would rather they left that part out though, forget about the cadaver and concentrate on Mr. Gordon and his blood spillage.
I am looking forward to 'writing the wrongs' explanation as to why McCann had to go to Rothley to collect Madeleines pillow case for DNA and what happened to her hair and toothbrush...or does one not keep such precious momentos after your child has died?
I am anxious to also see if ' writing the wrongs' mentions the cleaner who saw a cot in the room the McCanns are alleged to have occupied , the missing sports bag that McCann was seen with the day the parents decided would be the night of the abduction because you see I am unclear when Maddie died, I only know she is dead.
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/03/22/whats-in-a-cut/
I am going to stick my neck out and suggest that this is the McCanns themselves who are childishly 'writing the wrongs' .
I had always thought McCann, one day ,would like to explain away the blood found in the apartment but for him to do so would have been rather difficult as to admit to one dog picking up the blood spilt by Paul Anthony would also be an admission that the cadaver dog was maybe not so 'unreliable'.
What better way than to start your own blog as a third party , go through the files and explain away the PJ files findings.
Paul Anthony Gordon also made a statement to the police of how he was harassed by the McCanns groupies,'writing the wrongs' would rather they left that part out though, forget about the cadaver and concentrate on Mr. Gordon and his blood spillage.
I am looking forward to 'writing the wrongs' explanation as to why McCann had to go to Rothley to collect Madeleines pillow case for DNA and what happened to her hair and toothbrush...or does one not keep such precious momentos after your child has died?
I am anxious to also see if ' writing the wrongs' mentions the cleaner who saw a cot in the room the McCanns are alleged to have occupied , the missing sports bag that McCann was seen with the day the parents decided would be the night of the abduction because you see I am unclear when Maddie died, I only know she is dead.
http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.com/2011/03/22/whats-in-a-cut/
The ability to distil all germane information from a longer document into a readable and lucid, yet shortened, form is priceless. People are more inclined to read and comprehend that which is concise and clear than they are something longer. Hence, you have a better chance of getting your message across to a wider audience. But the peril of precis is that something vital might be missed.
There are two versions, on line, of the statement of Mr Paul Anthony Gordon, who stayed in apartment 5a about 2 weeks before the McCanns. One detail from his statement is important because it might very well explain why the cadaver dog, Eddie, reacted in the apartment. Mr Gordon cut himself shaving and bled for about 45 minutes. Eddie reacts to the scent of human blood. Here is how that incident is described in the precised version:
There were no other incidents whilst we were in Portugal except that I cut myself whilst shaving in the bathroom. The cut bled for about 45 minutes. As far as I know, nobody else cut themselves in the apartment.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic80.htmlHere is how the same incident is rendered from the full translation:
While we were in Portugal there were no incidents worthy of record,beyond this man that I have described, however there was a time when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about a 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding,
during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htmIn the context of Eddie’s reactions, the added detail that Mr Gordon paced the whole apartment is important, because if he deposited even minute traces of blood anywhere in the apartment, that might have been sufficient to trigger a reaction in Eddie.
As Grime explains, the place where Eddie reacts is not necessarily where there has been a deposit, as, with time, airborne molecules that carry a scent can shift with movement of air in an enclosed space to a different location.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)