Madeleine – 10th anniversary – thought #1

As the 3rd May 2017 trundles towards us relentlessly, I have to ask myself what is going to develop around the 10th anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

It may be that it is a non-event, much like the 9th anniversary was, with only a single media crew choosing to descend upon Luz. Equally, it may be seen as a significant juncture in the story, even if things tail off for the 11th, 12th and 13th anniversary, etc.

So the question uppermost in my mind at the moment is what should Luz do about the 10th anniversary? Should it simply hope it is a non-event? Alternatively, should it bunker down, in the expectation that the tide will wash in and then the tide will turn and peace and tranquillity will return to Luz? Or should Luz be pro-active?

The spate of non-stories used by the media this year suggests even the reporters are running out of ideas. Operation Grange is supposedly to close in April 2017 after going through £100k of Home Office funding. Perhaps or perhaps not. In mid 2016, Luz and Burgau were allegedly found to be paedophile centres because of (non) connections between Clement Freud, the McCanns, the Plough and paedo, Robert Murat, and why not throw in the Pig’s Head for good measure. And last month there was the Mirror’s penny dreadful about ghouls tours of Luz. In the absence of news, it is get more sensationalist and less believable by the minute.

I would expect a large spike in such ‘news’ stories around the 10th anniversary.

This is irrespective of whether Operation Grange has been refunded and is continuing. And whether the Oporto PJ effort continues. And whether the McCanns establish a further PI team to look into the disappearance. And irrespective of whether the McCanns win or lose ‘McCanns v Amaral’, ditto whether Amaral, or anyone else, publishes another book.

The 10th anniversary is a soft target for the media, and I fully expect it to be hit. But what will happen after that, and how to respond to the moment. That is the question.


14 thoughts on “Madeleine – 10th anniversary – thought #1

  1. Talking about anniversaries in the context of the Madeleine case, it should not be forgotten, that the McCann couple, knowing that their daughter would not be found within a few days, immediately planned to celebrate Madeleine’s 4th birthday publicly, in her absence.

    Shortly after that, Gerry officially declared that he would do something special to keep Madeleine in the public eye, and that would be an event, sooner than 100 days after Madeleine’s disappearance, he said. Moreover, the reason as to why Kate started to keep a diary, was the very same as to why she decided to publish her book “Madeleine” a few years later, that is, she wanted to give her two surviving children “an account of the truth”. So she has certainly known all these years, that there would be a 10th anniversary on which she would get the chance to give this book to her children, in which she so cleverly, many years earlier, could predict, that Madeleine would still be missing. If they have never questioned their parents’ innocence, their mother’s book will make them do that.

    Contrary to what the McCanns have always claimed, they have, all those years, known that Madeleine is not going to be found, at least not alive. So the MSM may lack imagination and fairy tale stories about Madeleine in order to make something interesting out of her 10th anniversary as a lost child. As far as The McCanns, and a few people around them are concerned, they know that there is no point in wasting any time looking for Madeleine, so they have had plenty of time preparing something for us, and has probably done so for a very long time. However, I doubt they have the courage to go back to PDL on that day.

    • You don’t half talk a load of shite, Bjorn. Sorry, no idea how to do the accent on your ludicrous name. You’re about as logical as the Swedish Chef from the Muppets. Hurdy burdy gurdy? Uhuh…. do tell us more.

      • Dear Loops,
        I’ll now try to explain to you, what I tried to say, by using a very simple language, that I hope you’ll understand.

        A paedophile snatches the daughter of an English couple in Portugal. Portuguese and British Police try to help the lost child’s devastated and distraught parents by all means. The mother (Kate) claims, that she knows what happened and she therefore immediately starts to keep a diary, so that her surviving children at some future point of time will be able to read the true story about the disappearance of their elder sister, because she ”knows” right away, that neither the Portuguese P J nor the Met will never ever find out what happened. Kate own words are ”give them (the twins) an account of the truth”. If you don’t find this strange, as I do, then somebody else is talking shit, I would say.

        P S I’ve no problem with your name or what you call yourself.

      • I know you’re a Swedish male, or whatever passes for one these days, so you likely consider that qualifies you as ‘in touch with your feminine side’, or some such utter bullshit. However, I doubt you’ve entirely mastered the psychology of a mother who has lost a child just because you’re a bit of a fruit.

        So, let’s get this straight- Kate McCann kept a diary- hence, she knew her child would never be found because she’d murdered her, and was planning on publishing said diary as propaganda and/or gifting it as an explanation of what happened to the child’s siblings ten years down the line? Case closed, then. You, sir, are an idiot.

        If I recall correctly, she was advised to keep a diary by an actual female (not a pseudo female) with the dual scope of helping her psychologically cope with the unimaginable trauma and so that she could gift the diary not to her siblings, but to Madeleine herself once she were found. The diary is of course internal monologue and occasional tracts addressed to… you’ve guessed it: Madeleine. If you had a heart, which you don’t, because you’re a dead-eyed Lutheran cold-fish, you might see the human tragedy in that. But alas, that’s not to be.

        In any case, I’d suggest you worry about some more pertinent issues that affect you directly: perhaps instead of a trip to Portugal to attempt to prove the guilt of the McCanns, you could shag off to visit the Wizard of Oz and see if he can sort you out for a heart, tinny.

  2. I guess that the toughest judges of what happened on May 3 aren’t members of the public any more. Those have made up their minds, one way or another, and are globally convinced that the little girl died, as a result of abduction or of accident. The difficulty now is limited to the siblings, but it will certainly not be an easy question to resolve. Apart from their natural curiosity to satisfy, there is their natural concern in a familiar issue that has concerned the whole planet before them. And there is the rub !

  3. Dear Loops
    (this is a reply to Loops’s latest comment)

    I really wonder who’s the idiot here. Why would Madeleine need to read about her mother’s “truth” in case she would be found alive, as she would then, which you cannot deny, be the only person on this planet capable of telling the world what really happened to her.

    • I think we’ve already established it’s you, and everyone else has already got that, so you can stop wondering now.

      It’s a fairly complicated question with several nuances how much the child’s mother believed her to be alive or dead. She’s made several statements regarding hope and a mother’s belief and feelings- which kept her going for years. I do believe in the earlier days she made reference to her diary keeping track of her efforts to find the child- that could be addressed to a living or dead child, and she feared both, naturally enough. In both cases she wanted Madeleine to know she was doing everything she could to find her and would never give up on her. The fact you can’t appreciate any of this really does reinforce the stereotype that Swedes are inhuman drones with zero compassion and who are deprived of any soul. Quite sad.

      But leave the human side, which is beyond you- let’s talk logic for a second. You’re suggesting the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of the child. Would you care to elaborate on which specific crime you are accusing them of having committed? Then we can move on to the next step of slowly explaining to you why you’re so obviously wrong. Or have you not the courage to be candid?

      • Dear Loops
        (as this is neither your blog, neither mine, we should keep it short)

        My starting point in all the discussions concerning the Madeleine case is the final report of the Portuguese P J, in which they state, that Madeleine was probably a victim of an accidental death, and that her parents disposed of her body. There can be many reasons as to why her parents chose to do so. Accidental death does not exclude that Madeleine had got an overdose of sleeping pills or just a too hard slap by one of her parents, making her fall and hit some hard object.

        Then, of course, I take the Portuguese Prosecutors’ final conclusion into consideration, who in their assessment of the report in question state, that it can neither be established whether there has been a stranger abduction or a crime in which the parents are implicated.

        Still it has to be one of these options, and I’m inclined to believe that the Portuguese police detectives were essentially right in reaching their conclusion, but as you know, the case was shelved in 2008, due to the pressure, that the British Government exerted on the Portuguese P J. So here we are. I also question that there has been a real investigation by the P J in co-operation with Operation Grange, which is said to have come about in 2011 or possibly 2013.

        No one, who has read the P J files, can deny that there is a solid chain of forensic- and circumstantial evidence to be found in them, which underpins my assumption about the McCanns’ involvement in their daughter’s disappearance, while there is nothing, that supports the McCanns’ claims about a stranger abduction. So I would be pleased, dear Loops, if you could give me just the slightest piece of evidence of an abduction. I’ve actually searched myself, but failed in finding any evidence whatsoever of such a scenario.

      • Ok, let’s keep it short. You believe Madeleine’s parents were indirectly responsible for her death due to negligence. Simple. I thank you for your candour. We all get the hypothesis. No Need to rehash it.

        Presumably you also believe in this hypothetical situation that said parents disposed of a corpse in some fashion, etc. etc. Got away with that crime too. Under the eyes of the authorities, locals, press corps, etc. And also, they foresaw the media shit-storm… people suspecting them… them inventing suspects to dissuade from what you see as the facts of the case.

        So, at 100 days, 1000 days or 10 years, if, in your hypothesis, the parents had gotten away with such crimes, why would they be striving to keep the case in the public eye and open?

  4. Dear Loops
    Just a few more words.
    You ask yourself the same question as do many people, who believe in the McCanns’ innocence. I’ve done that myself many times, because they could after all be innocent, though I don’t believe it, as you know. Yet, I still wonder why they keep on pretending to look for Madeleine and telling the world about it, if they in some way are implicated in a crime.

    What would have happened If they instead had chosen to keep a low profile and just gone back to lead a normal life, after the case was shelved in 2008, not caring so much about keeping Madeleine in the public eye. If they had done so, people may have become even more suspicious and more inclined to question their innocence. At least, the McCanns may have thought so. It could be as simple as that. Anyway I’m just pursuing a hypothesis about the McCanns’ guilt, not really accusing anybody and of course I could be wrong.

    • At least you can see that makes no logical sense. If you had committed a crime, you don’t spend 10 years campaigning for a closed investigation to be reopened into same, or to keep it in the public consciousness. You wait for people to forget and say nothing. If you had a child abducted, you’d move heaven and earth. So, with all due respect, you are, of course, wrong in your conclusion, as you can see. And you’re part of a rabble haranguing the victims of this crime. So, kindly desist and have some decency. Cheers.

      • Please direct me to where the Mccanns have been “campaigning” for the PF investigation to be reopened.

        Please point me in the direction of evidence that supports an abduction theory.

        You don’t know Bjorn is wrong. You cannot know. So , all positions seem valid to me , given that so many cling dearly to an abduction theory that has no evidence to support it and is dismissed by the PT police.

      • Sorry, but if you’re attacking the victims of an unspeakable crime with unfounded accusations, you’re not the top of my list of people to whom I wish to be polite. It’s unsubstantiated and in the worst possible taste.

        As for you, ‘truthseeker’, lol, seriously? You’re some kind of expert on the case, then, I take it? So, what, pray tell, was the ‘PF investigation’? I missed that one. PF as in ‘PFFFFFFFFF I can’t solve this, can you? No?’

        And direct yourself to where the McCanns campaigned (no inverted commas needed) for the reopening of the investigation. That’s not up for discussion- it happened, and if you missed it, I suggest you choose a different specialised subject when you get onto Mastermind. Or do you wish to take the opposite side in that debate? They’ve been onto every PM from Blair to May, but I suppose that’s not good enough to constitute campaigning over the last 10 years… which they did… relentlessly… around the fecking globe. Seriously, you cannot make such an idiotic claim and then expect anything but ridicule from me.

        If you’re one of these ‘oh, they never even searched’ types, and I’d venture you are, fact flies in the face of your fantasy, and you deserve all the scorn you get, IMHO.

        Now, unless you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I’ll bid you a good evening. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.