OLD REBUTTALS AND NEW REVIEWS

 No motive, no means and no opportunity. The lack of the investigation’s categorical trinity, that undermines Amaral’s thesis.

There is not a single, credible, coherent account of how the parents (and/or friends) could or would have committed the crime of disposing of Madeleine’s body. Nor is there any evidence that they did so. No case, indicative or otherwise, could be constructed by the PT police, and none has been subsequently by any of the Internet Colombo’s following this case.

We accordingly have 2 anti camps: Those who simply invent outlandish stories piled on top of each other to account for the key questions. And those who simply avoid them, dwelling instead on their suspicion’s and snippets of information, considered entirely in isolation of the key questions.

The dog alerts, the samples, the forensic analysis – all have been put under the microscope by those less qualified than the experts who conducted the investigation, and in every case, our forumista’s consider themselves qualified to cast doubt upon the actual findings.

This is wishful thinking with no more credibility than the crazy conspiracy theories. It is all there in the reports: No evidence; not only no evidence, but no expert opinion backing up the, forum experts. Martin grime does not say: “No forensic evidence but my dogs are never wrong and I consider this highly indicative that a corpse was present”. No, he says the alerts are only ‘suggestive’ of contaminant and that “No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from them”. Unless or until one of our forum ‘expert’s’ can produce the credentials to challenge the findings under peer review conditions, I think I’ll stick with the real experts, and anyone who does otherwise is a fool.

And even if you believe your suspicions to have sufficient weight to cast doubt on the experts, you still need to account for the basics: who, when, why, where, how.

A word on demeanour, because this keys into character. It’s often claimed that the McCanns demeanour was inappropriate for the events. If you actually read the accounts of those around them, who have seen them, over time, it seems to be entirely within normal range: Hope, despair, grief, determination; and caused no suspicions amongst those qualified to comment. To maintain the ‘demeanour’ accusation, demands that those prejudiced against the McCanns, selectively analyse mere moments in the thousands of hours that have passed since the events, and pin entire character histories and accusations to these fragments of time. Caught smiling – must be guilty. Reported to be crying – must be acting.

The illogicality and sheer nastiness of this particular line of suspicion in incredible. There is no manual on how to respond to a tragedy, and history is full of examples of people reacting in all sorts of ways. Rarely can it ever be analysed as an indicator of complicity, and in the few cases that it can be, there is a substantial and clear evidence base analysed over time by those qualified to do so. Not by the prejudiced who hate the sight of them, and twist anything and everything to suit their discriminating agenda.

More significantly, there is absolutely no character history to indicate any of these people have the psychological mind set to both commit a terrible crime (perfectly) and then go on to parade their criminality in our faces though setting up a fraudulent fund and barefaced maintaining the lie over a substantial period of time. Any ‘normal’ person attempting to do this would have collapsed under the strain. Only a psychopath could maintain such a level of incongruity, and there is nothing in either character history (let alone both or more) to indicate psychopathy. Psychopaths cannot sustain careers, jobs, friendships, relationships; they lie, cheat and damage people around them. Anyone who has ever been ‘close’ to a psychopath knows it, even if they cannot put a diagnostic term upon it. Psychopaths are not created overnight, they leave a long history trail behind them, and there is nothing in the McCann family histories to indicate anything of the sort, and significant indicators to rule them out of this category. These are facts.

Finally, statistics: Statistically the likelihood of the parents pulling off the most successful and audacious crime in living memory under the circumstances we know is incalculable, because it would be unprecedented, therefore it is statistically far less likely than an abduction. It’s that simple.

And still, there is motive, means and opportunity to be accounted for.

No motive:
Most that have ever been offered -such as risk of loss of career, status etc. are predicated upon a psychopath’s response to a situation, and there is no evidence to substantiate this, nothing to suggest these people would be anything but devastated and immobilised by grief had they found their child dead. Accordingly, more and more bizarre motives are invented, all without any evidence base. Illegal drugs, swinging, p.a.e.d.o.philia, murder. Nothing to support any of these claims.

No means:
How would these parents have disposed of a body, unseen? Only by resorting to methods that are again predicated upon an assumption of psychopathy. Stuffing bodies into bags, burying them on the beach, digging them up again, freezing them, driving around with a corpse in your car, nipping off between media appearances to dig graves without even breaking sweat, wandering brazenly through PDL openly with the corpse of your child in your arms. All without being spotted, or your actions being discovered, or the body ever being found. None of this is credible, not for one moment.

No opportunity:
To have done all or any the above would take an army of resources and local knowledge, it would certainly take more than two people (thereby increasing the unlikelihood of it having happened), it would have taken ‘staging’ of proportions the opera house would struggle to muster, since no person was absent from others view for anything like the time required to pull these stunts off. It just didn’t
happen.

Original article by Snoop

I am all for freedom of speech. Without it, we would be existing in a subjugated civilisation, bereft of all the other basic rights and freedoms that go with living in a democratic society. Rights and freedoms that we, today, take for granted. Rights and freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for, and our sons and daughters still defend. Defend, because tyranny is never far away. Because always there are those who would seek to stifle our freedoms to suit their own, twisted ends.

Everyone, regardless of race or creed, has the right to hold an opinion. But with rights come responsibilities. We all of us have the responsibility to respect the opinion of the person next to us, no matter if we disagree with it. No-one has the right to stamp on, stifle or supress a differing opinion, for that is the pathway to hatred and destruction. Witness the rise of fascism, and the Nazi party, in 1930’s Germany.

Under Hitler, only one opinion was allowed; that of the state. The party told the people what to think, how to act. Free speech was banned, and dissent led to beatings, prison, or the gas chamber. Part of this manipulation of the masses was huge, public book-burnings. Under state control, certain books were considered ‘Subversive,’ and ‘Un-German.’ Because they didn’t toe the party line, didn’t agree with the Nazi principles. At one of the largest such burnings, no less a person that Joseph Goebbels said,

“The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you.”

Sadly, for the German man, and woman and child, this education was nothing less than state-controlled censorship. History teaches us that it all ended badly for Germany in general, and the Nazi’s in particular, but not before the World had paid a terrible price.

But if we learn nothing from the mistakes of history, then we are doomed to repeat them. And one such group of internet Nazi’s are once again attempting to determine what the great British public should be allowed to read. I award no prizes for guessing that I am referring to the anti-Madeleines, those people who laughingly refer to themselves as ‘McCann doubters.’

Now, as I said before, I respect other people’s right to hold an opinion, even if I disagree with it myself. What I do have a problem with, however, is those people who go online, and ram their opinions down the throats of anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path, and refuse to listen to any other point of view. I particularly resent these people claiming their opinions as fact, when the truth is that every one of these so-called ‘Reasons to doubt the McCanns version of events’ has been soundly rebutted and shown to be totally baseless, or in many cases, out-and-out lies.

Worst of all, though, is that anyone who does offer dissent from the McCann-doubter party line is bombarded with ridicule, abuse and even threats. All shades of 1930’s Germany, don’t you think? Within the Nazi party, the fastest risers were usually the most ignorant and violent.

As it happens, a matter of a few weeks ago, a particular book, ‘Looking for Madeleine,’ was published. Dealing with the abduction of Madeleine McCann, the books authors are two highly respected and successful investigative journalists, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Pulitzer prize finalists, no less, these two have spent several years pouring over the original Portuguese police files, comparing witness statements and studying all of the available forensic reports. As a result, they reached the conclusion that there is no evidence that the McCanns, Kate and Gerry, had any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. They are innocent, in other words. It should have come as no real surprise, as Scotland Yard, the current Portuguese investigative team, even Portugal’s own Attorney General have all reached the same conclusion.

Naturally, this did not go down well within the anti-Madeleine Reichstag. This conclusion amounted to subversion, dissent, bucking of the party line. It had to be stamped out, and fast. So, over in their cess-pit websites, the faithful members of the internet Nazi party gathered together and drew up their insidious plans. Their answer was a public book-burning. Not literally of course, not even the anti-Madeleine fascists could get away with that these days, but a virtual one, on-line and on Amazon. So together they donned their shiny black jackboots and are even now goose-stepping all over the Amazon book-site, leaving dozens of fake, negative, one-star reviews for this book. Why? To dissuade the public from buying this excellent book. Book-burning, in other words, on a virtual scale. The parents are guilty, THAT is the only opinion the party will allow, no others will be tolerated. Joseph Goebbels would be so proud.

Ah, but what of the parents, I hear the anti-Madeleines cry. Are they not guilty of the very same tactics? Are they not also attempting to stifle any opinion other that their own, that they are innocent?

No, my little Adolph’s, no they are not. Remember what I said, about how rights come with responsibilities? Everyone has the right to have their good name respected. No-one has the right to traduce another person’s good name, or to besmirch their reputation, without evidence. The McCanns have only ever taken action against those who have committed libel against them, and only the worst examples at that. Those who have hurt their family, leafleted their neighbours, and called them murderers or worse. People such as the original lead investigator into the case, goncalo amaral. His book, wherein he accuses the McCanns of faking the abduction, contains not a shred of evidence, and bears little resemblance to the original files. It is, therefore, libellous. He has the right to freedom of speech, as does anyone, but he has no right, under any law, to commit an act of libel.

And NO-one has the right to attempt to censor what the rest of us can read, by the burning of books, real or virtual. Remember, the pathway to state-controlled censorship leads only to bitterness, hatred and ultimate destruction.

Where one burns books, one will, in the end, burn people.
Heinrich Heine, German-Jewish poet. (1797-1856)