Madeleine McCann Books

- Then there's Hotrod's diversions about Goncalo Amaral. He repeatedly uses the phrase 'criminal conviction', but you'll note that he makes no effort to identify what the conviction was for. When pressed, he'll use words like 'corruption' and 'lie' and 'perjury', but he won't tell you that actually none of those terms apply and that the charge Amaral served sentence for was somewhat vexatious and unnecessarily harsh, disregarding extenuating circumstances, and involved Amaral obstructing an internal judicial process which was proven to be actively and deliberately engaged in a conspiracy to frame and convict two of Amaral's detectives for crimes they did not commit (proven fact) for the sole purpose of discrediting Goncalo Amaral and his investigative team, with evidence that parties acting within the paid interest of the McCann Organisation had interfered in an unrelated case in which convicted murderers were persuaded by the conspirance of their legal defence team to claim that their confessions were beaten out of them and that thus all investigations conducted by Amaral and his team (including the Maddie case) should be dismissed.

In summary, a bunch of supposedly 'innocent' suspected people found themselves having the same exact interest as a bunch of certainly guilty convicted people, and ended up having a unified interest in seeing a lie promoted and justice perverted in order to see the cases against them dismissed by being able to call Goncalo Amaral a 'disgraced cop' and a 'convicted criminal' and so on. And oddly enough, now that the Portuguese system proved that no beating of confession took place, and no culpability could be levelled at a lead detective who was not even present at the alleged incident, the only people with a devoted, vested interest in repeatedly calling Goncalo Amaral a 'disgraced cop' and a 'convicted criminal' and so on, are the bunch of supposedly 'innocent' people that he formerly suspected, and wrote a book about his suspicions, a book which - incidentally - was affirmed last month by a Portuguese court as being virtually identical to the official police investigation's conclusions.

Ask yourself this: you are allowed to read the opinions of hack journalists who have no expertise in this case and who have failed to interview the Portuguese detectives about their findings and experiences, but for whom everything, every scrap of evidence presented is hearsay, gossip and tabloid nonsense which is neither backed up by police or legal undertakings, or academic professionals. You are not allowed to read the opinions of the lead investigator who arrived at the same conclusions noted in the official police files. The journalists who wrote this volume of drivel are held up as great, profound, intelligent and oh-so-correct authorities on the case. The detective is routinely rubbished as a 'convicted criminal' or a 'corrupt cop.' The prowess of the journalists is not proven. The skill and general integrity of the detective is. Criticism of the journalists and their work is called 'trolling'. The fabrication of a spurious and nonsensical list of indiscretions and alleged offenses against the detective is considered gospel, regardless of its almost entirely fictional content. The journalists' work is not only inadmissible in court, it is also already obsolete and outdated, having been broadly disproven and discredited by the work of a second police investigation, that of Scotland Yard. The detective's work, however, has been shown in court (twice) to be substantially entirely consistent with the official police investigation's published casefiles which are affirmed and referenced by Scotland Yard. Further, in spite of all the claims Hotrod makes of the fundamental and criminal untrustworthiness of the detective, his friends have just spent two years dragging the detective through court for damages (which they insinuate is the same as a libel accusation) and have been unable to raise a single instance of an accusation against the man's integrity or honesty which would discredit him in court, and instead the court has rather embarrassingly pointed out the lack of honesty and integrity in presenting truthful arguments by the McCann Organisation and has proceeded to substantially uphold the position taken by the detective.

It should be a matter of record also that on the day the court published the findings with regard the allegations made by the McCann's, the mainstream media took the same position as the McCann apologists like Hotrod, heralding the impending victory of the McCann's in the case. Of course, that was back when the mainstream media's 'source' was a McCann apologist. When they read the actual words, rather curiously, they changed their story, headline and all, and revealed what has been almost universally interpreted as a chronic butt kicking for those living in McCann-land. These are not internet forum speculations. These are documented facts.

So when Hotrod injects hyperbole like 'the authors researched the case meticulously and actually read the files unlike Vten 'or any other McCann critic', I think we can safely point out that NO ONE has read the case files more thoroughly than the case file authors and the judge who was given the job of examining the ridiculous case the McCann's brought against the lead detective who has spoken against them, and for certain her findings only prove that the magical interpretation and understanding that Summers and Swan have on the case files is now the academic equivalent of a floater, awaiting flushing.

And what's even better, is that every point I've raised, the facts speak for themselves, no magical interpretations or convenient ignorance nor blind eyes required.

But if you really want to see through Hotrod for the shill that he is, just consider his closing words...

"Accept the comment above as valid in any way, shape or form and you run the risk of aiding and abetting the abductor, by diverting your attention away from a little girl, still missing, whereabouts unknown, but for whom there is no proof of her death."

Chilling. Think for yourself, and you're aiding and abetting the alleged abductor.

Well, since Hotrod is so keen on sticking to only what is either proven or in evidence, I can safely assure you that you will be guilty of no such complicity. Since NO evidence of abduction exists, and NO evidence of an abductor exists, and NO evidence of the child leaving the apartment in the custody of anyone other than a close circle of friends who formed a 'pact' of silence following her disappearance, and NO evidence of the child leaving the apartment alive (as confirmed by Scotland Yard) then we can safely state the polar opposite to Hotrod's claim: that since no evidence exists which supports the OFFICIAL narrative of events that Hotrod promotes, it must therefore be your DUTY to NOT ignore the inconvenient details of the case files and the conclusions of the only investigation which has physical jurisdiction and full authority, it must be your DUTY to examine all possibilities rationally and intelligently, lest you find yourself GUILTY of AIDING AND ABETTING whoever covered up all that evidence from the apartment where the child went missing. What kind of people would have so much invested in single-mindedly pursuing a theory for which there is NO evidential support whatsoever while attempting to completely discredit internationally recognised convention on the statistical probabilities of outcome involving children of such a young age going missing in such closely guarded circumstances?

Don't be fooled by Hotrod. Lack of 'proof' is not necessarily lack of 'evidence.'

There is no proof the girl is deceased. There is evidence for it. There is NEITHER proof nor evidence for an abduction. There is no proof that anyone within a close circle of 10 or 12 people were involved in staging an abduction, but there is evidence for it. If there wasn't, there is no way that two police forces would draw the conclusion and then spend seven years being stuck at an impasse over it, whether it proves to be true or not, to argue that it doesn't exist is simply ridiculous.

In an exclusive extract from the updated edition of their book Looking for Madeleine, award-winning investigative journalists Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan report on the current developments in the Madeleine McCann case

Forensic evidence - a fingerprint or DNA lying forgotten in a police exhibit store in the Algarve - remians the best hope of a conclusion to this case.

This week, a senior source on the Scotland Yard investigation carefully said, “no comment” when pressed as to whether there is possible progress on the forensic front. Carefully, too, he has said there is still progress and that the case is “solvable”.

But the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The investigation will come to an end sooner or later and Kate and Gerry will use the official Madeleine fund and any awards made to them to continue their own search.’’

PeterMac wrote:Let us NEVER forget that BRUNT told the world that there was a 100 % match of DNA from the car with Madeleine's DNA.
He has NEVER resiled from that.  Never corrected it, never said he had been given information which he now realises was not as strong as the impression he might have given, and that he wishes both personally and on behalf of Sky to apologise to the Mccanns  . . .  NEVER ONCE has he, nor SKY said any such thing

Just suppose he was telling the truth - I know it is difficult, but just suppose that, perhaps by chance alone, he had been telling the truth !

PeterMac wrote:We should collect all the You Tube refs by Brunt to
100% DNA
Kate to be arrested tomorrow
Murder
Broken shutters

Might make an interesting compilation for HiDeHo to work on !

Admin wrote:Just look at the cover of the updated paperback book - genuinely frightening - forensically detailed - Judy Finnegan!!!

Seicento wrote:

Admin wrote:Just look at the cover of the updated paperback book - genuinely frightening - forensically detailed - Judy Finnegan!!!

Judy Finnegan wouldn't know a good book if I threw it at her head. Like really, really hard. I should know, I bought The Lovely Bones on the back of their recommendation.

As a consequence, I now just assume she'll say anything for money.