|(image from here)|
The Portuguese have this belief, to them much more than a saying, that it’s bad luck to celebrate an anniversary early. It brings bad luck.
We have been commemorating Maddie’s 10th anniversary since February, when we were informed that many, many TVs were willing to pay a lot of money to have the privilege of being them to host the celebrity couple on that occasion.
And this past fortnight the commemoration really scaled up as it seemed they have brought in the fireworks in the form of a media storm such was the bombardment about Maddie.
It culminated with two spectacular fireworks: the Australian Special by Rahni Sadler and a public update by the Met, by AC Mark Rowley.
If the first angered and fired up everyone into action, the second has deflated the will of many who have felt SY have declared the parents not suspects and that their remit is abduction and nothing else.
2. The Aussie show
Little needs to be said about that show besides referring to its audacity in manipulation. And it was so bad that it displeased everyone, even the other side.
It edited what Pat Brown said when interviewed to the point that the profiler felt the need to take legal action.
And it went as far as making up an interview that never existed between Sadler and Mr Amaral.
We noted in the comments we made that the Brit media recognised that Pat Brown’s participation in this show had been manipulated but were careful not to correct what had happened with Mr Amaral even though he publicly denied ever participating and even called it a scam.
May we remind people that this was not the first time images were manipulated in reports about Maddie. The first time we remember this being done was by Martin Brunt and we showed it in our post “Swan Lake - Act 3”
And we keep seeing a picture of a restaurant being used as showing Tapas when a pro-McCann blogger has already clearly identified that it isn’t: “The ‘fake’ Tapas restaurant appears to be Hotel Luz Bay in SE Luz.”
3. The Media bombardment
We really seem to be back to 2007 and don’t recollect any anniversary getting so much media hype and so early on. And it’s all so confusing, she wasn’t taken by a caring family and then she was, she has wandered off and then she couldn’t, she was taken by gypsies and lest we forget, rape was added to the so many other things about Praia da Luz, the Village of the Damned.
All promising that final clarifying clue that would explain all and unsurprisingly none delivering.
But all delivering the same message: the McCanns left the children on their own. That is the baseline from which all the stories begin.
We would like to bring up a very unlikely person into this story: Bill O’Reilly.
For those who don’t know whom Bill O’Reilly is, he was just the TV host with the highest ratings, we think for 15 or 16 years, in the America TV with his show “The O’Reilly Factor”, on Rupert Mudoch’s Fox News.
The reason given for his firing is that the New York Times reported that the presenter and the network had allegedly paid up to 13 million USD in 5 settlements against sexual harassment charges.
But between the breaking of those news reports and him being taken off the air some time passed and he continued to present his show.
There had been rumours before of Bill O’Reilly having had to deal with legal issues regarding sexual harassment charges.
He was taken off the air, quite surprisingly, during one of his shows, when the last segment – which is thought to be about something rather unimportant, the Spring Break – never aired.
The real reason why Bill O’Reilly was fired was because advertisers started to pull out from his show. 60 of them, we think. Causing losses in the billions.
Why are we bringing this over to the Maddie case?
As a warning to all the British media peddling a lie that everyone knows to be a lie. Everyone has its master, and the masters of the media are their advertisers.
Advertisers do not enjoy throwing money away. And the money of the advertisers that they spend in advertisement comes from the consumers.
Or, to be quite precise, the masters of the media are the advertisers and the masters of the advertisers are the consumers.
To put it bluntly, is it a good investment to pay for an advert in a paper or a TV commercial that calls their readers or viewers stupid? That insults their intelligence?
Well British media, please look across the Atlantic and see how the unthinkable has happened.
Continue peddling the Maddie story and you are pushing people away and by doing that you are pushing your advertisers away as well.
It’s your doing, please don’t whine afterwards.
4. The Met update
The Daily Mail, the ever so interesting Daily Mail put out this video:
Watching it, after 01:20, it seems quite clear that AC Rowley declares that the parents having been suspects was something in the past and done with and that the Met thinks Maddie was indeed abducted.
The Australian TV show seemed not to have taught many something: truth needs no manipulating, only falsehood does.
The Daily Mail video interview heavily edited. One does not hear the questions.
One does not hear that before he says what he says from 01:20, he was asked this:
“Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident of Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.”
It does not have a question mark at the end but that was the question. To which AC Rowley answers:
“Two points to that, firstly the parent’s involvement, that was dealt with at the time there’s no… that was dealt with by the original investigation by the Portuguese, they have all to the material, we are happy that’s completed and dealt with and there’s no reason whatsoever to reopen that or to start a rumour that’s a line of investigation, the McCanns are the parents of a missing girl who we are trying to get to the bottom of what happened.
In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she wasn’t old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment… she has been abducted. There’s no she hasn’t… It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing who maybe this… maybe this foul play or maybe they decided to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and so there has to at the heart of this has to be at least an abduction.
We’ve got no definitive evidence as to whether Madeleine is alive or dead, so we have to keep an open mind and that’s why we describe it as a missing person inquiry…”
Nowhere does he say the parents were not suspect.
He responds to the accusation of Operation Grange having a “closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement” by simply saying he’s satisfied with the way the Portuguese police handled that issue in particular and feels there’s no need to do anything more regarding that.
And what conclusions did the original investigation come to?
That the parents were involved in the disposal of the body and there was a cover-up. The prosecutor found then that there wasn’t enough conclusive evidence to substantiate such a thesis and dispatched the process to be archived and be reopened if new evidence came to light.
Or, in other terms as we know very clearly by now, that the parents haven’t been cleared by the Portuguese and that is the same opinion the Met has, according to AC Rowley’s words.
To the accusation of Operation Grange having a “closed mind” he responds with the words “so we have to keep an open mind”.
And about being abduction, he’s not defending that the Met thinks it’s an abduction – it may think that, we have yet to know – but simply justifying why Redwood used that expression.
A person goes missing for one of two reasons, by their own will or forcefully.
AC Rowley said that if the missing is not by their own will, well, then the word abduction can be applied. A colleague covering up for what another colleague had said.
If the Met was trying to convey the idea that it believes in abduction would he say “at least” an abduction?
5. The blog
What is strange is that AC Rowley felt the need to write a blog about this update. As if he felt the need to do so.
“Blog post • Apr 25, 2017 21:00 BST
As an investigation team we are only too aware of the significance of dates and anniversaries. Whatever the inquiry, we want to get answers for everyone involved.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is no different in that respect but of course the circumstances and the huge public interest, make this a unique case for us as police officers to deal with. In a missing child inquiry every day is agony and an anniversary brings this into sharp focus. Our thoughts are with Madeleine's family at this time - as it is with any family in a missing person’s inquiry - and that drives our commitment to do everything we can for her.
On 3rd May 2017, it will be 10 years since Madeleine vanished from her apartment in Praia Da Luz, a small town on the Algarve. In the immediate hours following her disappearance, an extensive search commenced involving the local police, community and tourists. This led to an investigation that has involved police services across Europe and beyond, experts in many fields, the world’s media and the public, which continues to this day. The image of Madeleine remains instantly recognisable in many countries across the world.
The Met’s dedicated team of four detectives, continues to work closely on the outstanding enquiries along with colleagues of the Portuguese Policia Judiciária. Our relationship with the Policia Judiciária is good. We continue to work together and this is helping us to move forward the investigation.
We don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead. It is a missing person’s inquiry but as a team we are realistic about what we might be dealing with - especially as months turn to years.
Now is a time we can reflect on an investigation which captured an unprecedented amount of media coverage and interest. The enormity of scale and the complexity of such a case brings along its own challenges, not least learning to work with colleagues who operate under a very different legal system. The inquiry has been, and continues to be helped and supported by many organisations and individuals. We acknowledge the difference these contributions have made to the investigation and would like it known that we appreciate all the support we have and continue to receive.
Since the Met was instructed by the Home Office to review the case in 2011, we have reviewed all the material gathered from multiple sources since 2007. This amounted to over 40,000 documents out of which thousands of enquiries were generated. We continue to receive information on a daily basis, all of which is assessed and actioned for enquiries to be conducted.
We have appealed on four BBC Crimewatch programmes since April 2012. This included an age progression image which resulted in hundreds of calls about alleged sightings of Madeleine; an appeal for the identity of possibly relevant individuals through description or Efit; and information sought relating to suspicious behaviour or offences of burglary. These programmes collectively produced a fantastic response from the public. The thousands of calls and information enabled detectives to progress a number of enquiries. This was in addition to over 3,000 holiday photographs from the public in response to an earlier appeal.
The team has looked at in excess of 600 individuals who were identified as being potentially significant to the disappearance. In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.
We will not comment on other parts of our investigation - it does not help the teams investigating to give a commentary on those aspects. I am pleased to say that our relationship with the Portuguese investigators is better than ever and this is paying dividends in the progress all of us are making.
We are often asked about funding and you can see that we are now a much smaller team. We know we have the funding to look at the focused enquiry we are pursuing.
Of course we always want information and we can't rule out making new appeals if that is required. However, right now, new appeals or prompts to the public are not in the interest of what we are trying to achieve.
As detectives, we will always be extremely disappointed when we are unable to provide an explanation of what happened. However the work carried out by Portuguese and Met officers in reviewing material and reopening the investigation has been successful in taking a number of lines of interest to their conclusion. That work has provided important answers.
Right now we are committed to taking the current inquiry as far as we possibly can and we are confident that will happen. Ultimately this, and the previous work, gives all of us the very best chance of getting the answers – although we must, of course, remember that no investigation can guarantee to provide a definitive conclusion.
However the Met, jointly with colleagues from the Policia Judiciária continue the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with focus and determination.”
Nowhere the word abduction. Nowhere implying the McCanns were off the hook by assumption.
6. The battle
The above blog, filled with confidence and certainty is the opposite of what Martin Brunt tried to convey to viewers on Sky News.
He says repeatedly that AC Rowley conveyed the idea that OG was going nowhere. He rules out Euclides Monteiro and the manhunt for a key-witness in same interview. We would even think he’s read what we’ve said about Baptista and Euclides!
We believe that there’s a battle between Operation Grange and the other side.
If that was not so, if what AC Rowley said, or what many believe he said, fitted perfectly what were the intentions of the other side – parents not suspects and that it was indeed an abduction – why on earth would Mark Williams-Thomas come out and complain about false hopes being given to the parents in the Sun article by Lauren Fruen on April 27 2017, 00:32 am, updated same day at 02:34 “HOPES DASHED, Madeleine McCann’s parents given ‘false hope’ by cops who claim they are chasing ‘critical leads’, ex-detective says”.
Brunt says Operation Grange has said it’s going nowhere while Mark Williams-Thomas says it’s giving them false hopes! Which is it?
This shows clearly that the other side seems to be like a contestant in a reality show where they have walk through a supposedly haunted house and are screaming and punching in every direction against every noise they hear and the ones they imagine they are hearing.
The parents’ 10th year anniversary message came on April 24. Isn’t that suspiciously early?
What happened to that marathon runner that Kate McCann sponsored? Did he finish the marathon? And if so in what place?
What has happened to Katie Hopkins and the Minor Celebrity League, now that Maddie is constantly on the news?
We thought Mr Brunt had learned a lesson from Brenda Leyland’s loss of life but it seems he hasn’t.
We see a side that is shooting in every possible direction contradicting themselves except on one issue, that the McCanns were negligent
On the other side we see caution. But we also saw the PJ tell Brunt that if the British close the investigation that doesn’t mean that they will close theirs.
Mr Amaral was given a voice in one of the most read and prestigious weekly magazines in the country, “Sábado” – it rivals with another magazine “Visão”.
We see in the written statement a concern to show how well Operation Grange and the PJ are working together so well.
The game is being played rough and hard. Nothing less than we expected it to be.
Back to watching.