There will be no more updates, time to move on.
Monday, 15 December 2008
Do you actually employ this clown or is it as I suspect just an internet myth?
The gloves are off...By Nigel Moore/Martin Roberts11 December 2008Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', in October 2007, Clarence Mitchell said that Madeleine could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in."There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell reversing the statements made by the McCanns to their closest family and friends in the immediate hours after Madeleine's reported disappearance."I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."Mr Mitchell's words overlook the fact that the abductor would have had to, at the very least, open the window and shutter from inside the apartment - using one or other hand in the process. In so doing, they would, like Kate McCann, have left a trace i.e. a fingerprint or two, unless, of course, they were wearing gloves.Close inspection of the Tanner authorised artist's impression, sufficiently detailed as to convey the pattern on the child's pyjamas, reveals that both the subject's hands were bare. No fingerprint means quite simply that this person, whoever he may have been, did not open the bedroom window of 5A between 9.05 (Gerry's visit) and 9.15 (the Tanner sighting).
And let us not forget this pearl of all pearls, this drivel without compare.
"There is no suggestion she has been harmed or killed," says Clarence Mitchell. "They believe she has been hidden somewhere. It could be a Romany family who have taken her. It's unusual but not completely rare. As long as there is money in the find to pay for investigators, the investigation will continue. If and when it runs out, there are ways to bring more money in."
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Just a little thought for today.
As we see ever more information being released on the web and in particular the rogatory interviews, this case is becoming so obviously transparent that it's reaching a point where even the most ardent pro-McCann must be feeling embarrassed.
Why then from the establishment am I hearing only silence, is there no one in law enforcement, in the press or in the realms of the monied prepared to get off their arses and say enough is enough?
This case is never, and I mean never, ever going to go away, and it won't ever go away because bloggers won't let it.
And why won't bloggers let it go? and it's not just the McCann Case, there are political bloggers all around the globe that are doing a sterling job, but bloggers won't let this go because bloggers are the new independent press, free from owner/editorial interference, free from D Notices, free to say to the Main Stream Media, we don't like what you print, we object to being fed your daily drivel and we are having none of it.
We on this side of the search for the truth know every last one of the T9 are lying through their back teeth, take for instance this extract from O'Brien's piece of fiction.
I know it's a dreary read, not least because he's murdering my sweet mother tongue, but here he is explaining (in a very strange fashion) how they are all putting Murat at the scene.
Reply “’After the first weekend after Madeleine’s disappearance’, so I’m not entirely sure of, of which day we started, which day we completed on, but it certainly, well I don’t think it was as early as the Saturday or the Sunday, I think I said on, the other day that it was probably the sort of Monday or Tuesday of the next week, but I’m not entirely sure, but as I say, it wasn’t the Saturday or the Sunday, it wasn’t that quick. Erm, and then up until ‘comments’, everything else I think is, erm, is fine. Erm, it’s rather brief in terms of what I’ve written about, erm, Robert MURAT and then there’s a whole, my whole third statement is, is solely about our meetings, erm, so there, there is a vast amount of information that, that isn’t there, but obviously in my third statement is, is a sort of testimony for that. I think what I’ve written here really is that, erm, we gave that statement, erm, within a few days of him being made aguido, certainly before, erm, any details of, of his movements, according to his statement, had been, had been leaked or had come out into the open. Erm, we certainly, the three, you know, the three of us, all immediately thought, when we saw him on the television, that we recognised him and that he was there on the night and the statements that were given were given relatively soon after the event and at the time I had absolutely no doubt that that was, that those were accurate. The reason I brought this back up here is because I cannot see what he stood to gain by not, by not being, well by saying he wasn’t there on the night when there was the potential for so many people to have seen him. Erm, and it’s been a bit difficult, kind of, erm, you know, he was trying to knock a square peg into a round hole here, because I certainly had a great deal of faith in what I said at the time, you know, there was no, I didn’t have any doubts, was it the evening, sorry, was it the night, was it the next morning, but with him denying it, with no further evidence coming out, with no questions in here whatsoever that kind of led, that would, that sort of said, you know, ‘What about Robert MURAT’, I can only speculate that there’s, that there is no further evidence, erm, that kind will push, will push the case further on him. Erm, and then I also got the information from the likes of Charlotte PENNINGTON and, and, erm, at least earlier on, Sylvia, erm, well sort of the Housekeeper, and Press reports saying that other people also placed him there on the night, that kind of made me think, well this is, that I, you know, that I am correct”.
00.41.47 1578 “So is there anything that you would like to add to that paragraph?”
Reply “Well only that it’s, it’s out, out of the context of what I’ve just been saying again there”.
1578 “Is there anything you would like to add to improve?”
Reply “I think at the end ‘that he would have an alibi’, erm, ‘Although’, ‘Although convinced of the accuracy of our statements at the time of’, erm, ‘of giving’”.
1578 “Okay. ‘Although convinced’?”
Reply “’Convinced of the accuracy of our statements at the time of giving’”.
Reply “’And further backed up by the testimony of Fiona, Rachael’ and potentially a number of other people if you believe the Press”.
1578 “’And further backed up’?”
Reply “’By the testimony of Rachael, Fiona and other people’. It not going to make sense this, after this, is it, it’s one of these long O'BRIEN sentences that don’t really end, erm”.
1578 “’Backed up by the testimony of Rachael, Fiona and others’ did you say?”
Reply “’I cannot understand why Robert MURAT would deny being there and I do not wish to change my statement but have’”.
00.43.38 1578 “Which statement?”
Reply “Well ‘I do not wish to change’, you know, the”.
1578 “’My original statement’?”
Reply “’The original kind of statement’”.
Reply “’But have’, you know, ‘the niggle that unintentionally we have’, ‘that we have got a time wrong and that it was in the morning’”.
1578 “’A niggle that unintentionally’?”
Reply “You know, ‘I may’, ‘I may have the time wrong’. Erm, let you write that”.
Reply “Erm, can I just see how that. Erm, ‘However Rachael and Fiona report they only saw him once and it was on the night’”.
1578 “Sorry, ‘However’?”
Reply “’However Rachael and Fiona said they’, you know, ‘they firmly place him there on the night’”.
00.44.44 4064 “(DC HOLLIDAY enters the interview room). Can I borrow you a minute?”
00.44.57 DC GIERC leaves the interview room.
00.45.58 DC GIERC re-enters the interview room.
00.46.04 1578 “Okay”.
Reply “Should have just started from the start of the morning, ha ha”.
1578 “I have just had some clarification that in respect of Robert MURAT”.
Reply “Uh hu”.
00.46.13 1578 “You will be given the opportunity in a short time to expand on”.
Reply “To go over on film like we did the other day?”
1578 “The idea of clarification of this statement, the content of this statement are the notes made by monitoring Officers”.
Reply “Uh hu”.
1578 “And really”.
Reply “So we just want to get through this?”
Reply “Alright, fair enough. Erm, all what I’ve added there was, was fine. And I think I was just carrying on. ‘Our statements were previously given in good faith and positive our statement was right at the time’, erm, I think just delete ‘at at the time’ because it implies that it’s not right now”.
1578 “I’m sorry?”
Reply “It just says here ‘What I said in my statement was right at the time’, I think those statements were correct, it’s just with the passage of time and all the other news has made me doubt, has made me doubt whether I’ve got what I saw on the morning and the evening mixed, but I’ll come back to, I can come back to that”
But then later down his statement he puts Murat not just with the cops but actively helping the GNR sort out a problem.
Now I know your average plod ain't the sharpest chisel in the box but nobody is going to tell me that these two cops wouldn't remember a situation like this and wouldn't remember who sorted it out for them.
So the only conclusion that can be drawn from O'Brien's statement, and here I borrow a comment from the same place I got the transcript, RoB is a lying tosser.
this is where I believe I had my first meeting and conversations with, with, with Robert MURAT, he’d helped break up a little bit of a, of a fracas between a couple of guests and the, and the Police, the couple of Police who were, who were there and were standing outside the apartment or just a little bit up from it, erm, and, erm, they weren’t, they weren’t visibly doing very much and I think a couple of the, either British ex-pats who live there or tourists, one of whom, they were both in kind of their fifties, if I remember rightly, they were getting quite, quite mouthy, they were quite, they had a very clear idea of what they thought that should be done and, erm, at one point they were, they were saying this quite loudly to, to, you know, a couple of members of the GNR whose English obviously wasn’t good enough to hear a, a shouted colloquial rant in English at them, erm, and I’ve a recollection of, of, of MURAT sort of saying, you know, ‘Hang on guys they can’t understand you’, you know, being actually very helpful and that is my recollection of him on the night, that he came across as concerned, like a lot of people, you know, said ‘I’ve got a daughter the same sort of age, this is terrible, this is terrible’, helping defuse the situation with, with the, erm, with the, erm, with a couple of members of the GNR
Edited 26/02/09 to add for clarity: Given that the PJ must have known that O'Briens statement and those of the Tapas Seven was nought but a pack of lies I am at a loss as to the reason for making Murat an arguido, after all the place was alive with cops of one stripe or another so how hard would it be to place him at the scene or nay. Something doesn't sit quite right about the situation.
Jane Tanner! well I shan't go into Madam Tanner's world of porkies just at present, for it is my intention that, given a little more time and with a little more research, that I hope to prove by their own words alone that they, the Tapas Nine are a lying bunch of cnuts and that all their statements are , as we already know, a croc.