I have procrastinated about the bush somewhat in deciding whether or not to feature this article, but having re-read the thing again, and although it's against my better judgement I suppose I must.
I only say this because I don't normally wish to associate with the likes of these people, in any shape or form, and to what they have to say? quite simply my dear I don't give a fuck.
I don't know who the author of this thing is, it's academic really, so let us look to the content rather than the writer.
If we look beyond the climate in which it was penned, the panic, the fear and the desperation and look at the thing in it's entirety, then what does it suggest?
Little more than a badly written, inaccurate, ill informed, poorly argued load of drivel ever to grace the internet in quite sometime.
That is of course if we take the article at face value.
How else might we take it?
Well an imaginative cynic might possibly consider the author a fifth columnist perhaps, infiltrating an organisation and after establishing his bona fides writing the literary equivalent of a homing torpedo.
And when said organisation printed such nonsense as penned by our fifth columnist/member they launched that torpedo but failed to see, perhaps blinded by their own crusade and righteousness, that there was only one target in sight, their own tenuous credibility.
How likely the possibility of this little scenario being true? about as likely as me getting a spare seat on the next space shuttle I would think.
I had thought about highlighting some of the more outrageous passages in the piece but you would then justifiably accuse me of being patronising, the whole thing is in fact a highlight, with much emphasis on the previously mentioned desperation and on the not hitherto mentioned stupid.
Exclusive to members of 'Missing Madeleine':
10 answers which show that it’s a load of lies
Reason 1: Statistics show that the vast majority of young children reported abducted from their homes are already dead
RESPONSE: Rubbish! Loads of children are abducted from inside their homes every day. Anyway, even if in 99% of such cases the child is dead and the parents are responsible, that’s no clue to what happened to Madeleine. The case of Madeleine McCann might be the exception that prove the rule.
Reason 2: The world-renowned British sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela, detected the scent of a corpse in 10 places which strongly suggested Madeleine died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment
RESPONSE: Total rubbish and lies again. These dogs can’t tell a corpse from rotting meat. Why, in Jersey they couldn’t tell a corpse from a coconut. Even Martin Grime admitted his dogs’ evidence was useless without corroboroating evidence.
Reason 3: The strange reactions of the McCanns when they became aware of the sniffer dogs’ findings
RESPONSE: Surely everyone except the authors of that vile ‘10 Reasons’ leaflet knows by now that Dr Kate McCann attended six corpses at work during the fortnight before her holiday. They also know that she took ‘Cuddle Cat’ to work an dthat’s how the ‘smell of death’ got there. It’s obvious that the dogs confused the smell of death with rotting meat and dirty nappies in the boot. It was only natural that the McCanns would immediately seize on one U.S. case and one Irish case where these cadaver dogs’ evidence was held to be ‘unreliable’.
Reason 4: The sheer impossibility of the abduction scenario
RESPONSE: Impossible? Do they not realise how easy it is to ‘case the joint’ for days without being seen, to walk in through an open window, to pick up Madeleine from a bed in the dark without waking her or the twins, then climb out of a window three feet above the foud and about two feet by two feet, all without waking the children or leaving any forensic trace. There was loads of time for him to do this. Dr Gerald McCann finished his check at around 9.12pm having spent ‘an unusually long time in the loo’ and Jane Tanner saw him (though Dave Edgar thinks it might have been a ‘her’) at 9.15pm. That’s oceans of time to accomplish an abduction without being seen by anyone other than Jane Tanner.
Reason 5: The refusal of the McCanns and their friends to help the police
RESPONSE: The police were hostile from the word ‘go’ and refused to search for Madeleine. No wonder Dr David Payne referred to their ‘Pact of Silence’. Dr Kate McCann was right not to answer any of 48 questions from a police force that ludicrously and unhelpfully placed them under suspicion. With a police force like that, wouldn’t you deleted your mobile ’phone records. Wouldn’t you refused to allow the Portuguese police to examine your medical and financial records including credit card records? Wouldn’t you refuse to take a lie detector test? Wouldn’t you refuse to attend a bogus reconstruction designed purely to frame you?
Reason 6: Changes of story by the McCanns and their friends
RESPONSE: Utter rubbish. They never changed any statement. They just made a simple mistake in the initial panic when they said the abductor jemmied open the shutters. Anyway, you always get inconsistencies when witnesses try to recollect events. Why, even the McCanns’ chief detective Dave Edgar said this on that brilliant Cutting Edge documentary.
Reason 7: The McCanns’ rush to appoint lawyers and PR experts
RESPONSE: See our response to Reason 5. They needed lawyers and PR experts because they were dealing with incompetent and corrupt police officers.
Reason 8: The strange reactions of the McCanns and their friends after she claimed to have found Madeleine missing
RESPONSE: There’s no set response to one’s child going missing. There’s no guide book telling you how to react. Every parent reacts differently.
Reason 9: Making long-term plans to mark Madeleine’s alleged abduction - whilst claiming she was alive and could still be found
RESPONSE: Madeleine’s not been found yet. So clearly making long-term plans was right.
Reason 10: Dr Kate McCann washing the toy ‘Cuddle Cat’
RESPONSE: The idea that Dr Kate McCann washed ‘Cuddle Cat’ because it had the smell of death on it is ludicrous. She clutched it everywhere she went and made sure it was always visible when there was a photographer around. No wonder it got dirty.
