Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

93 thoughts on “A Day Off Politics

1 2 3 4

    Public opinion, Legion though it is, is not a substitute for proper evidence of guilt. Everyone has an opinion/anus and through the megaphone of outrage that someone must be punished, comes a horse, darkly. The Lindberg and McMartin cases come to mind.

  • Jives


    It’s troll tag-team in here,recently.

    You must be close to the truth Craig.

  • Scouse Billy

    Funnily enough, Jives, I was thinking exactly the same.

    These callous entities seem to forget the real victim who still awaits a thorough investigation and the chance of justice.

  • Paul Rees

    McCanns guilty? Of concealing Madeleine’s death, yes.
    Of sundry other crimes resulting from that criminal action? Yes again.
    Hardly a surprise to the 20,381 members of the Facebook group The Madeleine McCann Controversy who analyse police statements freely available online since 2008 but, mysteriously, a no go area for the UK MSM.
    Scouse Billy seems aware of the protection being afforded to the McCanns, who dare not step out of the media spotlight and are thus tuck in the prison they have built for themselves.
    They chose to ride the tiger, knowing they can never dismount. But how will the nation be prepared for their fall from grace?

  • A Node

    2nd post in this thread, I said “I don’t buy it, Craig.”
    Having followed many links posted here, particularly those concerning David Payne, I am now considering buying it.

  • Kev

    I think if people read the official police files which were released they might agree with Craig. E.g. Mccanns lied about the patio being open, they totally changed their original police statements, they told relatives the shutters were jemmied, it was proven impossible (in the Amaral libel case)for an abductor to have climbed out of the window with Maddie, two different types of highly trained dogs separately alerted to two different substances(blood & cadaverine) in exactly the same spot underneath a sofa that Gerry had moved. Eddie the cadaver dog had never once false alerted and he alerted to cadaverine in 11 spots which only related to the Mccanns including on Maddies cuddly toy AND in a hire car they hired 3 weeks after she disappeared.

    Blood was found in the hire car and found to have 15 of 19 alleles common with Maddies DNA. Enough in an English court of law!

    The Mccanns refused to cooperate with the Policia Judicaria and Kate would not answer 48 simple questions to endeavour to find out what happened. What innocent parent would refuse?!

    People like me on twitter who publish and discuss these known facts are constantly abused, stalked and attacked for simply highlighting the police facts. This in itself is telling. The Mccanns themselves have taken legal action against anyone that has opined on these published facts using funds from the ‘find Madeleine’ fund.

    It is also my firm opinion that they are as guilty as hell

  • joan butterworth

    To the poster(s) who surmises why if the McCanns were guilty do they keep the case in the public eye: It is a time-worn strategy of a guilty criminal to try deflect attention in the opposite direction. I suspected the former Olympic sprinter Linford Christie of steroid use as soon as he called for drug-cheats to banned. Much more seriously, remember Ian Huntley’s conduct at the time of the Soham murders? They are two random examples. And when you’ve people at the highest levels of government protecting you and a cast-iron certainty you’ll never be brought to justice. When you have the BBC and the British Press deifying you and vilifying the conclusions of the Portugese Police… you see my point?

  • Lyall

    Kev, your post is certainly a lot more pertinent than the one from Mr Rees (but it was 15 from 37 I think?)

    But let’s not go spamming Mr Murray’s blog, folks. I’m sure he knows what he thinks about the case already. He doesn’t need our help.

  • Kev

    Lyall, no it was originally 15 of 19 which as I said is enough in UK but requirement was changed as Portuguese law requires the set to be 37. It still tells us it was ‘indicative’ of being Maddies blood 3 weeks after her disappearance. Gerry’s phone pings showed up in some very remote places during this time and one theory is that Maddies body was moved in the hire car.

    This isn’t spamming. It’s designed for comment and we’re staying on subject. It just validates Craig’s statement and backs it up with published facts from the official police files.

    It’s important to tell the truth as the main stream media will print anything but

  • tracy kemp

    From day one the McCann’s have systematically lied and deceived both the police and the onlooking public. Just a brief amount of time looking into the enormous amount of evidence against these parents is enough to sway the opinion of any poster that is not supporting them in some type of a protection agenda. The consensus I see most is that Maddie McCann was dead well before the exercise was put into place to announce her missing. The fact that incredibly the statement made by a Dr Gaspar which implies that Gerry McCann and David Payne have a sexual interest in infant girls has not been seized on by the media is utterly astounding but perhaps Carter Ruck has played a part in that. I also feel that the overall public perception of this case is changing at an alarming rate and just a thought to end on, why would the parents of a missing child need a ltd company that certainly appeared to be a charity within days of her going missing when surely she could have turned up at any given minute. The fact that Gerry McCann hogged the camera with his long term strategy gave me the impression that he knows only to well that his daughter would never be found.

  • Petsy

    “If you post anything further that libels Mr and Mrs McCann you’ll be keelhauled though the courts, quite rightly.
    Recently someone was jailed for doing just that.” This is from a post signed by someone called “Wanker” on 25 May at 12:23.
    I wonder if Wanker would be so good as to tell us WHO was jailed for “libel” of “Mr and Mrs McCann” as I have been following this case from the very beginning, but I seem to have missed that.

  • Phil Blake

    @ Tracy Kemp 2:39pm

    You just posted my exact thoughts Tracy. No case I can recall places so much evidence in one direction.

  • Phil Blake

    @ Petsy 2:40pm

    Well it would appear the courts would be rather busy as it seems most of the country think we are watching a complete farcical extravaganza taking place in which two parents have faked an abduction scenario in order to gain profit.

  • Paul Rees

    Lyall, please explain why you consider my comment to not be pertinent; I genuinely cannot understand your reasoning.

  • craig Post author

    Just to say no suspicious reason for non-appearance of post – not had time to finish it yet,

  • Nick

    Craig, I look forward to your post.

    In particular, I would be interested to read your opinion on the behaviour of Ambassador John Buck, who immediately charged down to the Algarve and insisted that the PJ hold an early press conference, aimed primarily at the UK press, to announce that the poor girl had been abducted.

    I appreciate that it is the duty of the FCO to provide all necessary legal, medical and even financial assistance to British subjects in a spot of foreign bother, but it is highly unusual for a UK diplomat to prematurely impose a groundless (conspiracy) theory on a foreign police force and to help orchestrate a media campaign on behalf of the prime suspects. One is tempted to ask how John Buck could be so sure that it was an abduction within a day or two, when we have yet to see a shred of evidence for abduction a full seven years later.

    Indeed, one is reminded of the embarrassment of Carter Ruck’s Isabel Martorell’s admission in court that there was no evidence for abduction and that her affidavit’s assertion that “Madeleine was abducted” was based solely on what the McCanns had told her.

    Doubtlessly Buck was acting on orders from London (at a time when Blair was still PM), although it subsequently emerged that an unnamed diplomat had expressed doubts to the FCO about the McCanns (re their inconsistencies and lack of cooperation with the PJ).

    Suspicions of TPTB complicity in what is increasingly looking like a national scandal are further fuelled by the Sunday Times report that “a PJ officer had been surprised to find a member of MI5 at a UK meeting about the case”, by the extraordinary chauffeuring service provided to the McCanns on their return to Britain by Special Branch (supposedly responsible for national security), and by the recognition by one of the Tapas 7 lawyers that “the economic and political lobby surrounding the couple is truly frightening to anybody”.
    (From an interview with the Evening Standard, long since whooshed but still available at

  • craig Post author


    I know John Buck fairly well. A nice man, but the chances of him ever doing anything without a direct instruction are nil.

  • Kev

    I’d like to make one further comment to ponder.

    Gerry Mccanns first statement to the police, which is likely to be the most honest, stated that he and Kate entered the apartment by the front door using keys.

    This would mean walking all the way around to the front if the building so suggests that the patio was locked otherwise it’d be a no brainer.

    This proves that 5a was locked and without any signs of break in but a ‘staged’ opened from the inside window it tells us that abduction was impossible.

    This is why the PJ made them Arguidos

  • Nick

    Craig, I take your point about John Buck. He was clearly acting under instructions from London and was most probably the unnamed diplomat who reported his concerns about the McCanns back to London. Political pressure on a reluctant ambassador sounds like familiar terrain for you.

    Further government involvement is indicated by Kate McCann’s rather desperate remarks to Ricardo Paiva on September 3 2007, after he told her that she was going to be brought in for more questioning:

    “but the Portuguese police is being pressured by the Government to end the investigation!”

    That one statement is very very telling indeed, once you make the not unnatural assumption that she was referring to the British government.

  • tanya faunt

    Its utterly remarkable that our so called best police in the world are going along with what one poster rightly described as a complete farce. It is common knowledge that these parents used money from donations (fund) to suppress the e-fits that literally pointed the finger directly at Mr Gerry McCann. Now it doesn’t take a genius to draw the conclusion that clearly they (the McCann’s) were fully aware that those e-fits resembled Mr Gerry McCann to an uncomfortable degree hence the 5 year suppression. And the most intriguing part of it being the Mr Redwood would have us believe it was NEW potential evidence knowing full well it was indeed not. Ultimately time will tell if the McCann’s are indeed a pair of liars and set about an incredible hoax or indeed just a pair of heartless parents who thought nothing of leaving 3 tiny infants alone in order to pursue their liking of wine and food. Surely any caring loving parent would have sacrificed their social time to care for a 3 year old child that had by her mothers admission already cried and complained at being left alone. The Gaspar statement in conjunction with the multitude of clearly fabricated statements from the group of friends (especially that of Jane Tanner) should have had Scotland Yard knocking on the McCann’s door with some very pressing questions many years ago. However someone somewhere is not allowing that and until that person is found and the reason exposed the McCann’s will continue this stage show and cement a legacy as the parents who got rich from neglecting 3 infants.

  • david

    Am curious to see the post, and to know why you haven’t published it Craig.

  • Petsy

    People can’t be jailed in the UK for libel. It is a civil, not a criminal, offence. I believe Mr Bennett received a suspended jail sentence for contempt of court. So not only has Wanker lied on this blog, trying to scare people off, he’s got his facts wrong as well. It makes one wonder why supporters of the McCanns feel the need to intimidate people like this.

  • glenn_uk

    Petsy: You’re wrong. People can be jailed for anything, literally (and I use that term advisedly) – anything at all, in this country. Even (for instance, as an illustration is probably incumbent upon me at this point) for walking on cracks in the pavement, or feeding pigeons. I suggest you read up to understand the awesome power that various terrorism legislation, ABSOs, special “security” protections and so on have allowed for. Hell, you could land yourself in jail for making just a single inappropriate comment here.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.