Friday, 11 March 2016

Cattle Mutilations. More down to earth than we may think

I wasn't aware of cattle mutilations until we attended a fairly recent talk. It sounded disturbing; the photos were horrendous, but the mystery of who (or what) and why reeled me in.

To cut a long (and probably repetitive) story short: Some believe it's a government body behind the 'mutilations' while others favour aliens. The majority of articles written on the subject suggest that precision surgery was used to remove organs and body parts from the animals. The words 'laser-like' or 'surgical' cuts certainly gives that impression. There are those who tell us that a few animals had broken bones, that there were deep indentations (some say up to three inches deep!) beneath the carcasses, suggestive of being dropped from a height. Then there's the mention of cattle found in trees which can only lead the reader (or listener) to reach the conclusion that the animals had been airlifted, either by helicopter or beamed up by aliens, and then unceremoniously dumped (from a huge height apparently) into the field they had originally been taken from.

But for me there's too many unanswered questions with that scenario. Why go to all the bother of snatching animals under the cover of dark, secret them off to a lab somewhere for testing and then return their 'mutilated' bodies? Why not simply test the foliage, grass or animal feed? If the animals are key to whatever experiments is supposedly going on, then why not tell the farmer/rancher that one or two of his cattle require testing for whatever reason they may care to fabricate (new virus? New disease? How about good ol' foot and mouth?) with the promise of compensation. Why not buy cattle and graze them nearby? Even if I screw on my 'bestest' conspiracy head, it doesn't make sense to steal an animal and then return it, surely that would only cause a stir and risk an investigation (which did happen in the 70's). Or are we to believe that it was designed that way to start the rumour of aliens in the vicinity? Which ever way I look at it, either scenario will cause too much interest. Surely the last thing any covert operation needed was curious reporters or extraterrestrial believers setting up camp let alone an investigation which could very well blow the lid on the supposed secret tests.

All very mysterious that I found myself looking into it. What I discovered behind the 'mutilations' though is somewhat less mysterious and more down-to-earth.

Cattle had been dropped from a great height

Indentation beneath the carcass
I can find no evidence of this supposed “deep indentation” beneath the cows in any of the numerous available photos of 'cattle mutilations', in fact all photos show cows laid on the surface. You would think with this being one of the most pivotal statements to prove alien's are behind the 'cattle mutilations' that there would be at least one. So where did this story come from?

The only documented source I could find that suggests a cow being dropped from a great height is from Dulce, New Mexico (April 20, 1979). An officer claimed “he had seen one mutilation case in which a 600-pound cow was found in the branches of a tree – indicating to him it must have been dropped there by some type of aircraft.

The officer mentioned is Gabriel ('Gabe') L Valdez.

The problem with this is that he apparently later admitted “...that the animal was not actually in the tree but was found at its base”. So if true it removes the suggestion that the cow had been dropped from a great height. It seems his story has been embellished over the years, morphing into “deep indentations in the ground”.

Conclusion: There is nothing to substantiate the claim that 'mutilated cattle' (or any animal for that matter) was dropped from a great height.

Side note: The only photographs of large animals I could find lodged in trees were deer but they are obvious hoaxes.

Broken bones
Another statement to indicate the cattle were dropped from on high is that some had broken bones.

The source appears to originate from the same police officer in Dulce, New Mexico, and again there is nothing to substantiate this story. In fact, there is no mention of broken bones in the autopsies written by trained veterinarians. What makes matters worse is that his associated officer was later interviewed and stated that although a hard-working, dedicated policeman, he has become too emotionally involved in cattle mutilations and “sees things that are not there.” When asked for an example, he mentioned an incident in Taos which both he and the officer had investigated together. The officer, he said, “claimed the animal had broken bones when it did not.

Conclusion: Nothing to substantiate broken bones as proof of being dropped from a height.

Tranquiliser and anti-coagulant found in the liver
A tranquilliser and anti-coagulant tested positive in a bull, leading to speculation that the animal was rendered unconscious and an anti-coagulant administered to enable the blood to be completely drained.

According to Rommel's investigation, the tranquilliser was Chlorpromazine. It's usually injected but can be added to animal feed or given orally in tablet form. Apparently this is done to calm the animal when it's ill and acting 'goofy'. Chlorpromazine can remain in the body for some time depending on the size and metabolism of the animal.

The anti-coagulant was citric acid.

Dale Spall of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who had performed the original blood tests, said he had found only a trace of chlorpromazine in the blood and was not significant enough to have affected the animal. Also found was high level of napthalene which indicated the animal had been on a hormone feed. He had originally thought the amount of citric acid exceeded normal levels, he has since determined, through additional tests, that the amount of citric acid (anti-coagulant) was normal. The drug, he pointed out, occurs naturally in all animals.

Conclusion: Misunderstanding of 'drug' usage.

Circular 'tripod' marks
These marks/tracks, approximately 4” (four inches) in diameter, have often been cited as proof that alien spacecraft (or hovering craft) had landed in the vicinity of the 'mutilated' cattle; the circular depressions in the ground indicating that the craft was heavy. While this may seem like solid proof that aliens are indeed involved, further reading finds that there is probably a more down-to-earth explanation. The problem with looking for specifics to back a story is that the obvious is sometimes overlooked.

No impressions of the tracks/marks were taken, but I have no reason to doubt Gabe's report, he seems like a genuine and honest police officer who was merely reporting as much as was humanly possible no matter how significant or insignificant. However, Rommel had observed on a number of occasions that the marks are due to a combination of certain weather and soil conditions prevalent in the south-west, the preserved hoof marks from a cow and horses can quickly erode to a circular-like depression of approximately the size mentioned.

Conclusion: Mistaken representation of marks/tracks

During a recorded interview Gabe Valdez stated categorically that it is "humans not UFOs or Satanic groups or people from Mars". Although still determined that the cattle were mutilated he states that “it was humans” and he believes researchers carried out the acts using helicopters.
Read more at Koat NewsAlbuquerque

In another interview (2011) regards the Dulce 'cattle mutilations' he said "I'm not saying it's a government agency or not, but we were able to find some physical evidence at the crime scene...gas masks, er, glow sticks and er, some type of instrument that was monitoring or, whatever it was for we couldn't determine what it was for, because it had to be some form of advanced scientist that knew what they were working on".

I don't know whether or not he mentioned gas masks or glow sticks in his original police reports at the time of the so-called mutilations, but if he did then how have the UFO hunters miss that? If he didn't, then it's mind boggling why he would choose to omit it.
Although there are no other such statements made then, or since, by any other law enforcement, veterinarian or indeed any professional bodies, this story remains, to this day, as the very basis of the belief that aliens are behind the “cattle mutilations.”

No thrash marks or signs of struggle
Apart from other diseases that can cause sudden onset of death in cattle, “a massively underestimated cause of sudden deaths is one of the oldest bacteria of them all – clostridia. They are spread throughout the world and take the lives of cattle, sheep and most other farm livestock on a daily basis

Clinical signs are rarely observed and cattle are simply found dead.

Clostridium disease includes: Black disease; blackleg; malignant oedema; tetanus and botulism). Black disease is triggered by various factors which damage body tissues activating latent spores, followed by rapid multiplication in the animal's body with toxin production, causing death within hours.

Some of the carcasses did indeed test positive for Black Leg.

Why are there no signs of blood on the ground?
The blood naturally coagulates inside the animal soon after death. Once the heart stops beating the blood begins to settle in the parts of the body that are closest to the ground. It partly dries and water content evaporates. The video, posted further down, gives a good example of this.

In some cases a dark black outline is left on the grass surrounding the animal which appears to be a burn mark
When the body goes into purge, the fluids leak and soak into the ground causing a dark 'pool' around the body. This fluid is so nitrogen rich that it initially kills off any vegetation and gives the impression of 'burn'. The vegetation (grass) will grow back the following year.

Something is mutilating the cattle! If it's not aliens or covert operation to collect data then what is it?
This time-lapse video shows the decomposition of a cow in natural surroundings. Unfortunately it was taken in Australia rather than America or UK but it still gives a good idea of what goes on.

As this time-lapse video was taken over a seven day period it flashes through rather quickly. Day one and two go by in a blink of an eye. Those two days are the most important to illustrate how the 'classic' signs of 'cattle mutilation' occur naturally, so the video may have to be paused several times.

The video starts on 1st October. By the 2nd October the anal area has already been 'cored' out and the body bloats. Most of the anal core activity is done by carrion animals, while the crows do their work during daylight hours. During day two, although there is no outward visible signs of entry to the stomach area (no cuts to the underbelly), the stomach starts sinking as the internal organs begin decomposing and ingested by seemingly invisible eaters (insects/blowflies/maggots that have invaded the body). The layman looking for clues as to how the 'missing' organs were extracted may reach the mistaken conclusion that suction was used through the mouth or anal cavity.

Note the lack of blood on the time-lapse video and the dark 'burn' patch (caused by purge fluid as explained in the previously) that becomes noticeable on 4th October when the carcass is moved.

As the video is shot from the rear of the cow it's difficult to see exactly what is happening to the eyes, eyelid, ears and tongue, however, going by the crow activity they do seem to be working on the head. Note that in most cases of animal 'mutilations' it appears only one ear and/or eye is missing. This is probably because the exposed ear and eye is easier to reach than the ear and eye laid to the ground:

It might be worth mentioning that with the internal body temperature remaining warm after initial death, the internal organs decompose faster than the external body, turning 'mushy'.

Who or what is behind the 'cattle mutilations'?
In a nutshell: The animal kingdom.

Why is it that certain areas on the cow appear to have been mutilated?
Most probably because the skin covering those areas is only about a fifth as thick as the hide on the the animal, so the soft tissues that make for easier pickings – eyes, sexual organs, udders etc – will be pecked, nibbled and eaten first.

What about the appearance of 'laser-like' or 'surgical' wounds?
I know it's hard to believe when the 'laser-like' appearance has been drummed so hard, but it is a fact that large and small carrion help to create the illusion of surgical cuts. Vultures, ravens, crows, foxes, dogs and hogs, eat the soft tissues while the nibbling of blowflies and maggots give the impression, to the untrained eye, of smooth edges. Any veterinarian will be able to tell the difference between a cut made by a knife/laser to the natural process of decomposition. Also, in some cases the skin can tear cleanly when it becomes stretched during postmortem bloat.

In the past many veterinarians have stated the reason for these 'mutilations' is natural decomposition and scavenger activity yet some still refuse to accept the obvious. Before poo-pooing anything I've offered, perhaps browse the internet and read some forensic and pathology reports/articles. They really do make for interesting reading.

I have no personal beliefs regards extraterrestrials, except to say that as yet I haven't seen any proof they exist. I have no problem with those who wish to believe wholehearted, come what may, that aliens from a distant galaxy visit planet earth. I just feel uneasy about so-called 'experts' on the subject of 'cattle mutilations' repeating stories they've come across without checking them. They may have genuinely mistaken various words to mean something else – but I can't help feeling that truth rarely sells as well as a good ol' mystery.

Further reading: Operation Animal Mutilation
Report of the district attorney, 1st judicial district, state of New Mexico, June 1980 
By Kenneth M Rommel, Jr. (Project Director)

Dulce, New Mexico. Scans of the original letters, reports, chemical analysis, autopsy reports etc

Saturday, 27 February 2016

Our Attendance at Richard D Hall's talk in Aylesbury

Apologies in advance for the shoddy photos. My camera is not very good in the dark. 

We had already watched Richard's documentary “When Madeleine died?” (more on this in another article) but still looking forward to attending his talk in Aylesbury and I'm glad we did decide to buy tickets and make the effort.

The route to the Railway Club was not as easy to find as we'd imagined. Our SatNav announced “you have reached your destination.” A row of houses on either side and nothing to suggest there was a building in sight that might be the Railway Club was not boding well. With time closing in on the start of Richard's talk we were a little apprehensive. Pulling up on two occasions to ask directions was met with the same reply “I've just been asked that by someone else. I'm sorry, I don't know.” Small mercies; at least we were not the only ones. Driving up and down the road an ice-cream van pulled up, Mr Morsal was convinced that if anyone would know where this Railway Club is then it would be him. And Mr Morsal was right! Perfect directions from Mr Ice-cream man. We arrived a few minutes late, Richard had already started his talk, but at least we weren't so late that we missed anything important.

The room was packed. We headed to the back and seated ourselves on a line of tables (how embarrassing!) But it turned out to be a blessing in disguise because we had a higher advantage point than the numerous people in front of us.

Richard touched on the McCann case but also introduced a variety of other subjects, some of which got my brain ticking. I had heard of animal mutilations and the oddness surrounding their deaths, but I had not heard that there's also human equivalents until Richard mentioned it (more on this later). That aside, for me the most important part of his talk was the opportunity to get a 'feel' of Richard as an individual.

I knew before we met him that Richard was someone who walked the path of truth seeking but didn't use his talks or documentaries to make money. As far as I'm aware he sells his DVD's until he has made enough to cover his costs plus some to help with future investigations and then he put his DVD's/documentaries on the internet to be viewed free of charge. What a good soul he is.

He wasn't exactly breaking the bank either with asking a mere £12 a ticket.

Okay, Richard gets some things wrong sometimes, but don't we all? I certainly have in the past. This is what happens in truth seeking. We think we have something right but later learn that it might be wrong. The difference with Richard is that if he does get something wrong he will put his hand up and say so and put it up on his site

What more could you ask?

I digress...

...I met Richard...well, I kind of thrust myself on him...I think he was heading to the bar for another glass of water during the break when I advanced with hand held out to introduce myself. He was pleasant and as friendly as I'd imagine him to be. There was absolutely no arrogance about him at all – a persons person; down to earth and certainly someone who has patience. What I noticed is that he made me feel at ease. As soon as we shook hands I didn't feel as if I was in the presence of someone who felt himself above others; I felt I was with a friend. That's how at ease he made me feel.

Later during the break I bought a hard copy of Richard's latest McCann DVD “When Madeleine Died?” Richard kindly signed the cover insert for me at my request. I'm not one for idolising celebrities, but having met him I'm pleased to think that he would sign it for me.

The second half of his talk began. Mr Morsal found certain subjects more interesting than me and I found subjects more interesting than him, which would indicate that Richard is reaching out to a wider audience in his talks. 

All in all, an evening well spent. Thank you to Richard. Your talk has inspired me to dig deeper on subjects that I had previously merely glanced over. Certainly there is more going on that requires our attention and I hope that other people are similarly widening their viewpoint.

Friday, 27 March 2015

The Whoa-us-me Syndrome

The 'Whoa-us-me' Syndrome, or WS for short, is a silent disease that is transmitted from blood-sucking  pathogens of the Whoa-us-me virus (WV), the most commonly known ones are Jeremy Kyle Show, Big Brother and Eastenders, but there are many. Some are hard to discern because they can disguise themselves as friendly bacteria, these harder to trace pathogens are C4, BBC 1 & 2 and MSM. 

These pathogens infect their victims by penetrating the eyesight (also known as the monkey-see-monkey-do keyhole) of the impressionable and slowly ingrains itself into the brain, specifically the emotion quadrant, creating neurotic behaviour over something that isn't really there.

Once it's taken hold then the sufferer begins to show signs of irritability and have irrational beliefs that there is something missing in their normal and happy lives. They first start to crave sorrow and seek out darkness where the pathogen can multiply within the emotion quadrant, then it  progresses to a need for hosts (as later explained).

The Whoa-us-me Virus thrives in emotionally fuelled environments and if left untreated it will eventually mutate from the monkey-see-monkey-do to a  more severe stage of fits-all-and-everything.

First signs of mutation is irrational behaviour such as castrating themselves over a death of a stranger because the sufferer believes there is a link no matter how tenuous, ie: may have attended the same school as the sufferer at some point in their life. They will feel a need to lay flowers at the gates, sob into the shoulders of other Whoa-us-me Syndrome sufferers followed by a week or more, depending on the extent of the infection, to wailing over the stranger-death until the onset of depression has been established.

The most severe cases of Whoa-us-me Virus is when the fits-all-and-everything reaches fever pitch and the thirst for hosts (aka: sympathisers) is most noticeable. This is when WV is at its most contagious and if hosts are also impressionable then the transmission and spread of WV is swift. Once a group of infected hosts coagulate then hashtags begin to appear causing the emotion quadrant to become unstable and ultimately cause the WS sufferer to share neurosis in the form of irrational – or adopted feelings of – depression/devastation over the actions or death of external entities (aka: celebrities) who are unknown to the sufferer and with whom they are never likely to meet. This stage is the most critical and if left undiagnosed it may become lethal. 

It should be noted that those who are Independently Strong, and who bare no signs of Sheeple Instability, are probably immune to WV and its pathogens, but this is not to say that they may not become infected if they encounter a sufferer in the later stages of WV 'fits-all-and-everything'. The best defence is to isolate oneself from the sufferer.

Prevention is better than cure! Thankfully there is an antiviral compound which can be used prior to the onset of Whoa-us-me Syndrome. This is known as the Remote-a-meter with a red swollen spot that can be pressed sufficiently enough to kill EastEnders and other pathogens and thereby preventing it from penetrating the monkey-see-monkey-do keyhole.

For those who are already infected and in the first stages then it is advised that they use the Remote-a-meter but then promptly seek Oxygen Therapy to help eliminate the infection and further strengthen their immune system to protect the  monkey-see-monkey-do keyhole. Oxygen Therapy can be found in daily walks, gardening or socialising with the Independently Strong who show no signs of Sheeple Instability.

For those who are in the later stages of  Whoa-us-me Syndrome, where the sufferer has reached beyond the Monkey-see-monkey-do stage to the Fit-all-and-everything, then it is advisable that they are isolated completely from any environment which may give the WV access to the monkey-see-monkey-do keyhole. They should then be fed a diet of Wholesome Goodness, i.e.: books, crafts or any other activity that will keep the mind occupied thus destroying the Whoa-us-me virus while at the same time helping sufferers' immune system to build sufficiently enough for the diet to be replaced with the Remote-a-meter. 

WARNING: Because of the depth of previous infection, the Remote-a-meter is only as affective as the person who has regained control of their lives and therefore carers must be vigilant. Any signs of relapse must be quickly noted and the sufferer returned to the diet of Wholesome Goodness until the sufferer is once again back on the road to recovery.

We have hope that one day there will be no need for a Remote-a-meter and that a widespread diet of Wholesome Goodness as well as Oxygen Therapy will eventually wipe out the Whoa-us-me virus, its pathogens and ultimately Whoa-us-me Syndrome!

Help and further reading for those suffering with Whoa-us-me Syndrome:

Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Is reconsideration a dirty word?

This may come as a surprise to some, but having returned to Jane Tanner's statements/rogatory and cross referencing I can find no apparent discrepancies regards the man she says she saw 'striding purposefully' across the road.

What I did notice in her rogatory (10 April 2008) is that she was able to explain herself better considering she was speaking with a British police officer. This is not to suggest that the previous translation are incorrect, only that she appears to have found it difficult to make herself understood.

There is a possibility that Jane Tanner has been misunderstood, called a liar, simply because the mainstream media gave misleading reports in the early days – child wrapped in a blanket in one article and then barefooted in another; man walking in one direction then walking in another. In fact,  reading through her statements, Jane Tanner has always maintained that the child is barefooted and that the man she claims to have seen was striding 'purposefully' across the road was always heading in the same direction.

Personally I believe that she may very well have seen someone crossing the road but I don't believe he was the supposed abductor. There's a possibility that when the alarm was raised the memory of the man 'striding purposefully' across the road came to mind and perhaps she envisioned a pinky hue to the pyjamas. While talking with the British police officer who was interviewing her she admits that “I thought I saw pink pyjamas and I thought I could see colours, but I don't know, it was fairly orange so I don't know. With a turn-up.

What I found strange is the conflicting testimonies between Gerry McCann, Jez Wilkins and Jane Tanner regards who was standing where at the time that Jane Tanner passed the two men as they chatted in the street. Although Jez Wilkins didn't see Jane Tanner his memory of where he was standing concurs with her positioning of the two men, therefore, the sighting could not have been concocted by Gerry McCann, but it does beg the question why he disagrees with both of them and is adamant that it's Jane Tanner who has the positioning wrong, so much so that he discounts her positioning during the 'reconstruction' filming (and, in essence, that of Jez Wilkins too).

So why didn't Jez Wilkins see Jane Tanner and why didn't Jane Tanner say anything as she passed? Mr Morsal and me chatted about this and although only from a personal perspective it seems quite plausible that if someone is unknown to us (in this case Jez Wilkins) who is chatting with someone we do know then we would simply pass by – it would be rude to interrupt. If the person we knew looked in our direction then we'd say hello. So, according to both  Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins positioning, Gerry McCann would have had his back to Jane as she passed. As Jane Tanner didn't know Jez Wilkins then the likelihood of her saying anything is zero. Why didn't Jez Wilkins see Jane Tanner passing? That, I admit, is a tough one and only guess work because I wasn't there, but to give an example...we are regulars at a particular supermarket and chatty with some of the checkout women there, one of which (later told us) saw us in MK City Centre but didn't say hello because we were discussing something. I didn't see her. Same thing? I think so.

All in all, I feel Jane Tanner has been misunderstood and that she did perhaps see someone that evening, albeit not an abductor.

It's not wrong to be mistaken but it is wrong not to correct it once you realise!

Regards the following chart please note:

1. There appears to be no mention of certain details in Jane Tanner's 10 May 2007 rogatory. This might be because she had “maintained the honesty of her initial version” and therefore no need to repeat every detail in this particular statement.

2. In the last column there's various descriptive details, this is because it's a transcript of a recorded interview and the descriptions have been taken from several areas throughout the transcript where Jane Tanner has offered details voluntarily, been prompted by DC Ferguson (the interviewing police officer) or Jane Tanner has corrected DC Ferguson on reading her statement back to her. Any corrections made by Jane Tanner are in brackets.

4 may 2007 statement
10 May 2007 statement
8 April 2008 rogatory

Friday, 14 November 2014

Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession

Another documentary on Madeleine McCann.

Date: Tue 18 Nov
Time: 19:00
Channel 5

Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession

The blurb:
Documentary looking into the reason why the disappearance of Madeleine McCann continues to make headline news when hundreds of children go missing every year? Journalist Martin Frizell - who broke the story in the UK in 2007 - analyses the unprecedented campaign run by Madeleine's parents to keep their daughter in the public eye. 
It's pretty easy to see why the disappearance of Madeleine McCann continues to make headline news, least of all that her name sells newspapers. But it's because of their constant and prolonged (with no real news) headlines that has the public wishing the story would go away. They can say nothing new because there is nothing new and after seven years of the same thing is it any wonder that the public have grown tired of seeing the McCann faces and hearing their voices going over the same thing which basically amounts to nothing more than 'please give to the fund'.

Perhaps it's time for a documentary on Ben Needham or other missing children? Now wouldn't that be something.


...It's no secret that journalist Martin Frizell is married to Fiona Phillips, the woman who appeared to fawn over the McCann couple during interviews. Martin Frizell was once editor of GMTV before he was unexpectedly sacked after an ITV takeover, while his wife, Fiona Phillips, resigned soon afterwards, which is surprising considering she was midway through a long contract reportedly worth £300,000 a year. She sited the long gruelling hours and the need to be with her children as her reasoning behind her resignation.

But what some may not know is that in November 2007 Fiona Phillips was offered a ministerial job by Gordon Brown and there's been suggestion that she was also offered a peerage. She declined both. Now there is the odd thing – she declined. It might seem, if theories are to be believed, that she might have been offered that job as a pat on the back, a thank you for services rendered, after all, she did appear to be fawning over the McCann couple during her interviews with them. But then why decline such a prestigious job offer?  Why resign after her husband was sacked from GMTV?

I'm not a great a believer in the theory that Gordon Brown was  involved in some elaborate protection of the McCann couple regards the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I personally believe that as he sought recognition during his time as Chancellor – and later in the campaign to become Prime Minister – he  jumped on the disappearance of Madeleine as an opportunity to become popular; a 'hands on' people's person to gain votes. But when dots join in an ever increasing circle of coincidences (such as Brown offering Phillips a ministerial job at the height of Madeleine's disappearance) it's easy to understand why some have reached the conclusion that the McCann couple must be something more than  mere doctors, or have something over those in power to be able to manipulate them.

I personally doubt that Fiona Phillips believed everything she was told during her interviews with Kate and Gerry McCann. She strikes me as a woman with her own mind, strong willed and determined to succeed in whatever task was slid onto her plate. But to succeed in the world of TV or indeed any profession they resign themselves to a script and disregard any personal opinions if the desired success is to be accomplished.

Going back, for a moment, to the need to be something … Kate McCann didn't help the rumours or theories with her constant name-dropping in her book 'Madeleine'  – a sad indication of a woman who desperately sought recognition and perhaps a longing to be important in someone's eyes, to climb the social ladder and appearing to be surrounded by celebrities. It is her name-dropping that has, perhaps, been the catalyst for the cycle and instigation of various theories popping up over the internet forums and blogs.

But she is not alone, Gerry McCann has also been a catalyst for the same thing. Like his wife he is fond of naming names and brands – perhaps a need to show people that he is in the 'know'. I have long sensed that Kate McCann, like Fiona Phillips, is strong willed and, in my personal opinion, wears the trousers, but there is a difference – Kate seems to be the apologetic flow for Gerry while Fiona is happy to stand by her man without the apologetic side – Kate states in her book that Gerry can 'get over things' so much quicker than her. It's almost as if she is trying to head off the critics who say he didn't act like a grieving father, laughing on the balcony six days after Madeleine's disappearance.Why does she feel a need to direct opinion?

 If it's true that Gerry McCann has a narcissistic personality then he will be devoid of any natural feelings and will act like a chameleon, adopting the reactions that he thinks he should be displaying. And Kate McCann may be 'guilty' of that too. Who can forget the puppy-dog way she appeared to stand by Gerry in the early days, the way she seemed to trail behind him or allow him to drag her away from the cameras...on cue. Yet in her book 'Madeleine' and in her own words she shows a glimpse of her quick temper, her inability to understand why she and her husband were under scrutiny and her deliberate way of not naming names if/when those names may lead to questions against their abduction scenario. No, in my personal opinion, Kate McCann is not that puppy-dog image displayed for the cameras. She is very much her own person.

I've side tracked...

...So what of this new and upcoming documentary “Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession”. Will we be enlightened? That is extremely doubtful. It's more likely to be in favour of the McCann couple...not because they have any sway over those in power; but because they have the money to threaten libel against anyone who does not follow their abduction scenario...people who want to climb the ladder to success will always do as the money dictates.

So why make another documentary on Madeleine McCann? Because her name sells and brings in the needed viewing totals. Nothing more.

How sad.

Perhaps one day someone somewhere will realise that the fame they so crave isn't in the fear of libel that they believe makes them tow the line but asking the right questions and unearthing the truth – how journalism once was.

Madeleine McCann – the name that sells newspapers and documentaries.

Thursday, 16 October 2014

Roderick MacDonald, the latest unlikely link to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Roderick MacDonald (previously known as Roderick Robinson) has become the latest link to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The mainstream media has spent the past couple of days insinuating that he may have been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, helping to set in the minds of the public that paedophiles are at the heart of the whole case.

Any journalist worth their salt would report on a particular fact, and that fact being … Roderick MacDonald/Robinson was NOT in the Algarve at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

Perhaps the mainstream media should employ the super-sleuths at Jill Havern's forum because they have done an outstanding job of unearthing the truth.

MacDonald/Robinson was in Australia and New Zealand between 2001 and 2009. He later absconded to Portugal and was arrested there in 2010. Where did the super-sleuths of Jill Havern's forum track down this fact? From CEOP's (Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre) own documentation (on page 29):

“A 72 year old British man, Roderick Robinson, arrived in Australia on Sunday 6th June 2010 following his extradition from Portugal. He had been on the run since 2001 for alledged sexual offences against a child in Australia. He was tracked down in Portugal as a direct result of the activities of CEOP's overseas tracker team.
Robinson was first arrested in 2001 in Australia for the alleged assault of a young girl and was bailed pending court hearings. He failed to appear to answer charges in 2001. Fleeing Australia, he entered New Zealand where he was arrested for child sexual offences allegedly committed there. He was granted bail with the requirement he surrender his passport. In November 2009 using a stolen passport, Robinson left New Zealand bound for the UK.
Piecing together intelligence on his transient movements in the UK, CEOP investigators worked with local police and the UK Boarders Agency and located him in Portugal. The overseas tracker team disseminated intelligence on Robinson to Portugal, via INTERPOL, to advice them of the threat he posed to children in their country. In response to Australia's request for Robinson's urgent provisional arrest, Portuguese police arrested Robinson in March 2010 and he was extradited to New South Wales, Australia to face charges.”

So, cutting through all the blurb and working from the bottom up:

2001 – in Australia
2001 to 2009 – in New Zealand
2009 to 2010 – in Portugal.

2007 – Madeleine's disappearance

It chills me to the bone to think that every time Madeleine McCann's name gets mentioned now it includes reference to a paedophile, when in reality the actual reason for her disappearance remains an absolute mystery.

Sunday, 12 October 2014

Way too soon to declare suicide for Brenda Leyland?

So the Express have kindly reported to the police the name of a person on Twitter who had sent Brenda Leyland death threats. Strange then, how they have only offered Rainne's profile (assumed) name. Why didn't the Express publicise the fact that Rainne's Twitter username is @dirndllass? After all, the mainstream media were quick to publicise Brenda Leyland's username @sweepyface.

But notice the Express headline: "McCann troll Brenda Leyland driven to suicide after Twitter Death threats"

Even if Brenda had read those abusive remarks made towards her on Twitter, it seems unlikely it would have driven her to apparent suicide given her relative anonymity at the time. However, once she had been filmed by Sky News outside her home, and later her name released, then perhaps those threats made by Rainne became a serious concern to Brenda. Either way, I feel her apparent suicide (if indeed that is what it was) is as a direct result of her privacy being invaded and broadcasted by Martin Brunt reporting for Sky News.

Or perhaps naming Rainne without her Twitter username and headlining the article with “...driven to suicide after Twitter death threats” is a useful diversion?

Perhaps Rainne is nothing more than a means to 'look over here; not over there'. I doubt she is anything more than hot air, spouting words to scare and intimidate Brenda – but that is not to lessen the impact that it may have had on Brenda, if they did at all, once she was 'outed' by Sky News.

Some things bother me about Brenda's apparent suicide, least of all that it's been mentioned  how Brenda loved her pets and would not leave them alone to fend for themselves. Then there's the way the mainstream media have painted Brenda as being lonely.

Unlike what they would like us to believe, Brenda did have friends. She was about to meet up with them when Martin Brunt doorstepped her and in the same Express article which insinuated Brenda is lonely it was reported that a neighbour had been due to accompany Ms Leyland to a harvest festival the day after her death. She doesn't sound very lonely to me.

As she had friends who she could, presumably, turn to, why would she segregate herself by holing up in a hotel room? And what have the mainstream media got to gain by painting Brenda as a lonely person or by suddenly publishing the death threats made by Rainne when that information was readily available before Brenda's untimely death?

Is it a case of diversionary tactics employed to move the eye of suspicion from someone else perhaps?

At the risk of stepping into the cloak and dagger world of conspiracy theorist, I wonder if Brenda booked the room or was it booked on her behalf? Was she advised to go to a hotel room or invited there? I also wonder if CCTV from the Marriot Hotel might show anyone in particular entering after Brenda.

Something else that seems odd, at least to me … Martin Brunt and Swan & Summers had a hard copy of the dossier that had been compiled and given to the police (as outlined in  the video below this paragraph). Why would they be in receipt of that dossier if this wasn't a concerted effort to single out Brenda...a person who's tweets were evidentally the least threatening on Twitter regards the McCann couple. Why haven't the mainstream media commented or publicised the worst commentators on Twitter? What was it about Brenda that appears to have shaken the ground beneath someone enough to single her out?

It has not yet been declared who found Brenda's body, but soon after her body was discovered the mainstream media were quick to declare she had committed suicide, stating it as fact, although the Leicestershire Mercury reports: Sgt Taylor confirmed that a post mortem examination had taken place, but no cause of death had been determined and the results were not yet complete. 

And the Guardian  reports the following:

"Opening the inquest, the Leicester coroner Catherine Mason was told there was no evidence of foul play or third-party involvement in the death.
Police Sgt Kevin Taylor told the coroner he was informed that Leyland was dead after being sent to the Marriott Hotel in Enderby.
The officer said: “At the scene I was joined by another officer and a county ambulance first responder unit.
“I was then informed by the paramedic and the other officer that there was a deceased female within the room.”
Taylor added that officers were awaiting the results of additional postmortem tests and were still undertaking inquiries into the death.
Adjourning the inquest until 18 December, Mason said: “It’s quite clear from the evidence before me that I am not in a position to conclude [the inquest] today.
“The cause of death is still not known and police inquiries are rightly ongoing.
“Therefore, with the sergeant still tasked to complete the police inquiries and the pathologist still to provide a cause of death, I am adjourning the inquest.”
So many oddities surround the McCann case, least of all the fact that Brenda (sweepyface) didn't only tweet on the McCann couple but also the possibility of paedophilia within the UK government...yet the mainstream media have conveniently left that part out!

A record of Brenda's tweets from 2010 to date can be read here: Sweepyface Tweets

Thursday, 9 October 2014

Video documentary: Buried by Mainstream Media: The true story of Madeleine McCann

Four part documentary “Buried by Mainstream Media: The true story of Madeleine McCann” by Richard D Hall.

 Part 1: The Initial Storm

Part 2: Dogs don't lie

Part 3: Private Investigators?

Part 4: Government Agents