Friday, October 10, 2014

Coincidences? You decide.

I really should get back to the McCann case evidence. Still much to say about DNA, Dogs, slamming doors & whooshing curtains etc Yet I feel compelled to comment on recent events once again.

The Dossier

Many people who have an interest in the McCann case knew that tweets, posts & personal information about anonymous posters on facebook & twitter was being collected in a systematic an organised way. The people doing the collecting & collating made no secret of what they were doing. There was also little doubt that at some point at least some of the information gathered, along with tweets & FB posts deemed to be "hateful" or "threatening" would end up in the hands of the police. Though many seemed to think it would only be used to name and shame on FB or Twitter as had been done by both sides many times before.

The Book by Summers and Swan

This book came as much more of a surprise at least to me. Books of this sort often do come as something of a surprise so there is nothing very unusual about that. The authors did make some effort earlier in the year to contact a few so called "anti" McCann who post on forums, FB & twitter for comment. I have little idea what was said to these people, but it is clear that they did not widely publicise the fact that they had been contacted or that there was a book being written. Thus the book came to most peoples attention towards that end of August only when the pre-publication promotion began. There were notable exceptions to this surprised reaction to the books publication. Some, perhaps most, of the pro McCann lobby seemed to be expecting the announcement and showed little or no surprise. They also seemed to have a good idea that the book would be supportive of the McCann's abduction story.

It seems obvious to me now that the books main aims were twofold:

1. To promote the idea that there was real evidence that an abductor, or at least several people who could have been abductors, were at large in Praia da Luz in spring 2007. While at the same time dismissing, out of hand & with hardly any valid argument or discussion, all evidence that might incriminate the McCanns.

2. To make the readers aware of the online activity by people who question the abduction theory and think that the McCanns were involved in some way in their daughters disappearance. Such people were labelled as "haters"and many details given, often about the worst among them, in an effort to discredit all who post or tweet.

Of these it is possible that the main objective was the second. All the other information about the case was already in the public domain. There was very little if anything new in terms of facts, and certainly no new ideas or leads. However the so called "hate campaign", which is not a campaign at all, has not been widely reported. Only a few isolated incidents such as the silly London marathon "anyone got a gun?" post on facebook have been reported. It seems quite possible that the book was written, at least in part, with the intention of spreading the message that the McCanns were the subject of a "hate campaign" to as wide an audience as possible. Of course the seemingly very low book sales mean this objective wasn't achieved.

We now know, through a freedom of information request, that the authors tried to coordinate the publication of the book with the end of the Operation Grange investigation. The police refused a request for information about the end of Operation Grange

The Times lawsuit.

This was announced at the beginning of August 2014. The offending article had appeared in October 2013 soon after the CrimeWatch program. The Times had published an apology/correction soon after the original article was published. I don't know exactly when the lawsuit was filed, but it appears to have been in July or August with the resulting out of court settlement being made soon after the Summers and Swan book was published. 

The Damages Trial 

The trial in Portugal in which the McCanns are seeking damages from Goncalo Amaral and others had been hearing evidence in June and was due to conclude with the Judges verdict in September.

Coincidences?

Are these coincidences?

The book publication, lawsuit settlement and dossier all occur within a few weeks of each other.

The book publication, lawsuit and dossier all occur soon after Operation Grange completes digs and interviews in Portugal.

The book, lawsuit and dossier all occur at the same time as the judge in the damages trial was due to give a verdict.



Which of the explanations below seems more likely?

1. It is possible that the book publisher thought Sept 11th was a good time to release the book entirely independently & without knowledge of the dossier or the lawsuit. Perhaps thinking that the trial verdict would be at that time and chose not to postpone when it became known the trial verdict would be delayed. 

2. It is possible that the McCanns & their lawyers decided to sue The Times entirely independently & without having any influence over the book publication date or the dossier release. The long delay between the offending article and the lawsuit being due to?......I'm sure there must be a reason,but I can't think of one.

3. It is possible that those who compiled the dossier handed it to..... well we aren't sure who they handed it to, but never mind.....without having any influence over the book publication date or the timing of the lawsuit settlement. Presumably the dossier just happened to be completed at the beginning of September.

4. It is possible that the McCanns or people acting on their behalf could have exercised control over the timing of all three of these events in an effort to get maximum impact at the same time that a verdict was due in the damages trial in Portugal. 


Footnote:

While I was writing the above Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe spoke in an interview and said that the  the dossier was handed to the police by the McCanns. He may have made a mistake about this, but if he is correct it supports the suggestion that the McCanns might have coordinated these events.











7 comments:

  1. Nobody's commenting anymore on Richard Philips' page... Are posters afraid, in spite of anonymity, to be exposed like BL ?
    I bet I'm on the list, I've been threatened twice by Isabel Duarte and once by a certain KMC... who publicly warned me that I was on top of the list and should better fear!
    Ludicrous !
    It reminds me of Kate MC wishing Gonçalo Amaral fear.
    It must be terrible to be alone and fear.
    I'd adore to be interviewed by SY. I still remember the long silence of the SY police officer who called me when I suggested that, reading "Madeleine", he would learn who lifted the lid of a bin, only one, when the sun started rising on the 4th of May.
    I'll certainly never ever judge the MCs by any mean. I'm not interested at all by them, but the social phenomenon that they contributed to create is absolutely fascinating.
    It is very understandable that they handled to the Met the dossier provided by their social media's observers, they're legitimately very worried with what their kids will discover on the Web. Luckily they're twins and will support each other.
    The issue is just who told the media the identity of BL ? As she had chosen to remain anonymous, this was unacceptable..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your footnote..

    Yes, Bernard Hogan-Howe side stepped any responsibility whatsoever in Sky/Martin Brunt's doorstepping of Brenda Leyland and her death.

    He then went on to point the finger directly at those responsible for handing in the dossier, "the family".

    BHH had no intention of covering up how that dossier came to his attention or who the appropriate police force were to deal with it.

    And it clearly wasn't his force.

    Any thoughts of him saying, Im not at liberty to discuss who handed in the dossier, which is normal police speak, went right out the window when having to respond to questions on why a woman was found dead who was connected to that dossier.

    We could say he opted to tell the truth and be damned.

    Self protection in play there.

    A concerned group of anonymous people would never have managed to get that dossier right to the top without a big helping hand from those who could, "the family".

    A concerned group of anonymous dossier compilers, on their own, would never have got past handing it in any further than the reception desk at Sky.

    If Sky thought because the dossier was in the hands of the Police it would cover their backs, how wrong they were.

    IF the appropriate police force do decide there is just cause to act on names in this dossier we all know they won't be publicly door stepping anyone exposing them in front of TV cameras!

    If BHH had said nothing at all, it's not hard to work out in whose interests, this dossier, prior to any decision by the Police getting FULL TV/ MEDIA exposure benefitted the most.

    Hello Anne Guedes, I'm pleased to say I am not afraid to speak, and my name is not anonymous, getting my opinion down in black and white is very important to me and no one will ever discourage me otherwise.

    Sandra Ryan.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I deleted my comment because I couldn't edit it..

    Hello Sandra, I'm very glad you exist and use your right to express your opinion.
    This will encourage many, I'm sure of that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I decide that this is no coincidence that this blog was erased because "men in suits" convinced the blogger doing so AND that a week later this blog was sort of resuscitated with its interesting pages missing. The "men in suits" were very concerned that the blog got no carterrucked/killed look.
    But the blogger had to stop writing pertinent stuff...
    It was safer to stop writing anything at all...
    And that's what happened !

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm 100% not afraid, they are more than welcome to sue me or try.
    I don't think for one second that Brenda committed suicide, I believe that she was murdered. I fully believe that the McConn's are responsible for Madeleine very sad faith. I'm not hiding behind any anonymity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For me I have only two options: 1 ) Sexual abuse 2 ) Physical abuse, and when I say physical I mean, Madeleine somehow woke up crying hysteric and Kate came home after a few drinks, with a short fuse, and could not calm her down, picked her up and threw her to the sofa, but missed, and Madeleine hit the window ledge and died, and perhaps she had been sexual abused beforehand or heavily sedated.

    ReplyDelete