You just gotta laugh…

Honestly, you have too, otherwise you would end up crying.  Not out of hurt but out of pity for these poor anti-McCann souls that inhabit twitter.

Well, there wasn’t much on TV last night, except CSI Miami, which I thoroughly enjoyed watching by the way. But from across the room, came the stares.  Yes you know those stares you get from the old man when he can’t hear the TV.

The stares you get when you are chatting on the phone to your best mate and giggling like a couple of teenagers. Or as of last night the fits of laughter that were emerging from me from behind a laptop as I was reading the #McCann tag on twitter.

Yes the nutters were out in force.  Honestly that is the only way to describe them.

Yes it stemmed over Bennett’s antics where someone posted up the clear libel yet again against Robert Murat, in the form of a twitpic.  Naturally I said to them, albeit a bit abrupt, that they are in fact repeating it for the whole of twitter to see by posting that twitpic.

Then it arrived the @Gasparstatement, straight in with abuse and to be honest I couldn’t be bothered to argue with such a non-entity.  A person who can’t read and can’t understand and comprehend  a police statement should really think twice before using that name on twitter.

Well, I decided to reply with a saying my mother has used many a time, when people are not talking sense, that being:

Why don’t you wind your neck in and give your ass a chance and then we might hear more sense. 

Well this @GasparStatement decided to libel me, by implying I had the oldest profession going. By the way, it’s not true, unless they were referring to me being a wife and mother, in which case I stand here in front of  you guilty as charged.

No way was I going to let them get away with this, so I promptly told them to either put up or shut up.  As I know full well they can’t put up I do hope they shut up before it lands them in deep water.  And of course to those on the Facebook group Justice4Maddie who also implied this, thanks for keeping the group open as I do have the screenshots.

Now if they think this is going to make me curl up and cry, forget it, I know the truth, my family know the truth and to be honest perhaps I too could get a conditional fee arrangement with a certain group of lawyers.. Oh well something for me to ponder.

But then the true hilarity really started, which made my laughter get even louder and ultimately started the tears rolling down the cheeks and the ribs aching. Simply, because the nutters that were inhabiting  twitter at the time also thought that another user @Greenink211, who was posting on twitter,was in fact Gerry McCann.

Gerry McCann on twitter, are they serious? Now it was getting so funny that no matter how much I tried to control my laughter I couldn’t; to which those looks continued and the old man had to ask, “What’s making you laugh like that?”

Of course when I told him that some anti-McCanns think another user is Gerry McCann, the old man replied, “They’re f***ing mental.  Bunch of bloody saddos, if they think the McCanns are on twitter.”

Of course it didn’t help because his reply made me laugh even louder, which by this time he decided to increase the volume and rewind the programme, so he could hear the bits he missed.

Now either some of these anti-McCanns are playing silly buggers at the expense of a missing child by trying to convince people Gerry McCann does post on twitter or they are as nutty as a fruitcake and saddos like the old man said.

Personally I opt for the latter.

Well from one that proclaims to be a lawyer, who is spreading this rumour about Gerry posting on twitter, surely she would know if she was a lawyer, the first thing any decent lawyer like Carter Ruck would advice their client, is not to reply to anything these people write, we will deal with it via court action if necessary should they people fail to cease and desist.

Come on seriously does anybody think that Kate and Gerry McCann can be bothered with what these non-entities say?  Of course they aren’t bothered, if need be they will use the law to stop these people.  They certainly won’t be posting on twitter.

But the hilarity continues this morning, as when I log into twitter on the #McCann tag I find this:

So I am Rosiepops now, and all this stemmed because Rosiepops apparently used a similar phrase.

Do you know what, a lot of people use a lot of phrases similar to one another, but it doesn’t make that person be someone else does it?

And one more thing @anotherviv, yes Deborah Bradley is innocent until proven guilty by a Court of Law.  And not by some so-called internet sleuths who want to play judge, jury and executioner on social networking sites, forums and blogs.

I thought as a lawyer, as you so proclaim, you would have understand that basic concept of Law.  Oh well strange things happen.  People have proclaimed to be what they are not in the past.


17 comments on “You just gotta laugh…

  1. Some people seem to have a really hard time trying to understand that you have actually made an effort to read the files and have come to your own independent conclusions. 

    Perhaps it’s simply not the done thing on Mars. 

    • Exactly Carana, nobody forced me and nobody blackmailed me, fate just played a hand and the rest is history.

      It does rather annoy me somewhat, the way that selective reading portrays in this anti-McCann agenda.

      We have statements that refer to burglaries in the area.  We have statements that even refer to problems with the lock in 5A.  But none of them consider a theory where someone could have had a key to the apartment/apartments and this started out as a burglary gone wrong.  The window being opened could have simply been to throw the police off of how they entered the apartment.

      Burglaries do go wrong and people get hurt and even killed.  We are now hearing on our news the trial of Vincent Tabak who pleads guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder.

      Only yesterday or the day before I heard them say how he held his hand over Joanna’s mouth because she screamed.  

      What if, this was an intended burglary and they heard Gerry and Jez talking outside, and Madeleine disturbed them.  Could they have put their hand over her mouth to stifle her cries and it went wrong?  Then they have a situation where they are responsible for murder/manslaughter.

      When you are at home you know who has keys to your home and how many sets there are.  Just think of the number of hands that those keys to that apartment have passed through.

      In statements it is mentioned that some people leave the key under the mat, or in a pot, especially if there are two sets of people and they each do something different during the day.  One set could return to the apartment far earlier than another, how do they get in?  Hence the reason for hiding the key.

      When you raised the point of the keys Carana, it wasn’t until then that I started to think how significant they could be.

      From reading Goncalo’s book and hearing what he has to say, I am left with the impression that he had it in his mind the parents were guilty and therefore nothing else mattered other than to make them confess and close the case.  He seems to have been unwilling to even entertain the idea that it could be a burglary gone wrong.

      Gerry’s statement was very significant, re the blinds, he did this in view of other people, so they could confirm this.

      —– The deponent ran to the apartment accompanied by the rest of the group who, at the time, were seated at the table. When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE’S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.

      —– Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.


      No-one would say they did this to the Police if they didn’t.  Because the police could ask any of the other members of that group whether they witnessed this or not.

      Could this have been staged but not by Gerry, Kate or any of their friends but by someone who wanted to cover the fact that they had keys to apartments?

      • Well, yes, Bren, that was the issue I was alluding to at the time. 😉

        Do you remember the scene in GA’s film where GA is listening attentively to a locksmith illustrating that the front door couldn’t have been opened by… whatever it was he had in his hand, a card or something?

        And somehow one is presumably supposed to accept that therefore no one could have come in through the front door. 

        But any holiday rental accommodation has several sets of keys. And keys do end up left under mats for tenants coming home at different times.

        To say nothing of the fact that this was staring at me in the files:  
        “Volume IIPages 412 – 414
        Miguel Goncalves Da Costa Palma 
        Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H40
        General Handyman

        The keys to the living quarters and apartments that are under the responsibility of the Ocean Club, and are kept inside a safe in the Maintenance Garage, **the access code to the safe is known by all maintenance workers**.”

        I’m not implying that an OC employee was involved, but it’s a possibility. Other possibilities could be a former employee, a friend/relative of one, anyone who may have overheard the code being mentioned, someone who could have taken keys and copied them from a jacket pocket, beach bag, doormat, car, or whatever. 

        And Mrs Fenn had had an intruder the week before. How did he get in? In her case it might not have been a spare key: he could have climbed through a window if one had been left open. But I haven’t found anything that follows up on that attempted burglary in the files. 

      • Very interesting that Carana, I wonder if the safe could have been seen by locals?  Where was the Garage was it accessible by the Public?

        Now I went looking for something and found this:

        and the Portuguese from the files

        Now didn’t Goncalo mention somewhere that he didn’t like the people from Lisbon interfering or something like that?  

      • Found it Carana


        A team from the Central Crime Fighting Directorate (DCCB) arrives from Lisbon, accompanied by their director. I wasn’t informed of this decision, but I agree with it. The reinforcements are welcomed, because we must get on very quickly. The experience of these police officers in the field of abductions and the taking of hostages is a plus for the investigation and the ways they operate are largely superior to ours. In addition, their experts are the most qualified of the police judiciaire. From now on, two deputy national directors, assisted by the coordinator of the Portimao Department of Criminal Investigation, will direct the investigations. A few months later, chief inspector Tavares de Almeida was to share one of his convictions with me: if we had remained solely responsible for the investigation, we would have advanced more quickly.

        In reality, I don’t know. I don’t think we can rewrite history with “if.” At that time the directorate of the police judiciaire had decided on it, and we had favourably welcomed the arrival of that team. It was about doing our best with these new participants and taking advantage of their ways of working. The motivations behind that decision, whatever they are don’t interest us in the slightest.

        From Chapter 3 


  2. I just checked the PT version: it does say “garagem”. I suspect it may mean a depot area as opposed to a car garage. 

  3. Meaning?”A few months later, chief inspector Tavares de Almeida was to share one of his convictions with me: if we had remained solely responsible for the investigation, we would have advanced more quickly.”

  4. Now it seems these shutters can be forced up to a certain degree with limited damage.


    – Back at 5A of the Ocean Club, on 26 September someone forced up the external blinds of the front bedroom to an oblique angle. There appeared to be no attempt to force open the window. The security guard stated between 21:00 and 21:05 he had done the ’rounds’ of the block, then walked down to the supermarket and back again whereupon he found the damage which he called in immediately.
    – He and a colleague from the same security detail had conversed shortly before 21:00 noting that neither had seen any strangers other than two Canadian television journalists, a man and a woman, who had been seen at a nearby bar.
    – Given the limited damage and that there had been many people at that location [presumably during the previous days and all authorised] there was no attempt to retrieve fingerprints, but inquiries were made of TV crews and journalists in and around Luz and Lagos, without result.

  5. I’ve never worked out how many keys actually existed (even before thinking about illicit copies). A minimum of 2, but probably several more. 

    In general:
    – The owner may keep one.
    – The tenants obviously get one.
    – A key for cleaning / maintenance: is this one or two kept in different areas?
    – A spare in case holiday-makers lose it during the holiday or forget to hand it back? If not, then there must be a really quick way of getting a duplicate made before the guests come back and need to get in / or the new guests arrive.

    • When we went away with stayed with Hoseasons, we had to pay £1 key deposit incase we didn’t bring back the key when we left.  You got your £1 back when you handed the key back.

      £1 is not a lot to loose especially if you are quite a few miles up the road and don’t want to turn back and you had forgotten to hand in the key for one reason or other.

      Yes there must be a way of getting those keys cut in an emergency, should one guest forget to hand them in or if they lose the key whilst on holiday.

  6. With the aim of explaining her routine, she
    states that employees arrived at 10H00 and the deponent takes from a
    safe in the laundry room, the keys to the apartments where they are
    scheduled to clean that day, and hands them to the respective employees.
    At the end of the work-day, shortly after 18H00, they reunite in the
    laundry-room in order to hand over their respective keys;
    . There is
    a preference to clean those apartments with children guests in the
    morning, with the rest being reserved for the afternoon;
    . She refers
    that along with her and the clients, the Ocean Club reception and the
    maintenance department have the apartment keys, with the function of the
    department to fix various things that the apartment may need;
    States that the entire department finishes work at 18H00, but at that
    time of the facts were not to be found in the immediate areas. She
    further adds that during the previous days, she did not notice anything
    relevant which called her attention, nor any one strange. She also
    states that the proper characteristics of the Tourist Complex make her
    constantly come across various people, who are related to, or not
    related to, the complex, without any control of access;
    . In ending,
    questioned, she refers to her department, which is made up of 28
    employees whose names are listed in this act which the deponent has
    handed over, duly initialled. Of these, 19 are actual staff, with the
    rest being contracted employees (proceeded by the numbers 88, 86, 87,
    89, 71, 92, 100, 60 and 90) only for the periods of major influx (the
    duration of contract could vary between 7 and 8 months) despite which
    they have maintained a professional relationship for many years, with
    the exception of employees proceeded with the numbers 88, 89 and 60 who
    have gained a contract for the first time, this year with the complex;
    . And nothing further was said. She has read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;
    . The document is duly signed by me, Tony Almeida, an Inspector with this Polícia Judiciária.

  7. Thanks Samantha, that was the other statement I was thinking of. 

    It’s not clear, but it was why I was wondering if there was a key for the cleaning staff and another for the maintenance staff. It doesn’t seem logical to only have one key for both functions – people would be chasing each other around all day to get the key to either clean or fix something.”With the aim of explaining her routine, she 
    states that employees arrived at 10H00 and the deponent takes from a 
    safe in the laundry room, the keys to the apartments where they are 
    scheduled to clean that day, and hands them to the respective employees.
    At the end of the work-day, shortly after 18H00, they reunite in the 
    laundry-room in order to hand over their respective keys; “

  8. So am I right in thinking that the cleaners take the respective keys from the laundry room safe and the maintenance team take them from the maintenance garage.

    Then if the holiday makers have a set, and reception that would make at least 4 sets of keys within the confines of the ocean club and then the owner would have a set and any person they may give a spare set to.

    • I don’t know. There’s obviously a minimum of 2, but there could easily be between 3-5 floating around. Any of which could presumably have been duplicated for licit or illicit reasons at some point.

  9. She refers
    that along with her and the clients, the Ocean Club reception and the
    maintenance department have the apartment keys, with the function of the
    department to fix various things that the apartment may need;

    It appears that the laundry room has a safe with keys

    The maintenance depot

    and reception.

  10. Well,  I’m still not sure… Could “garagem” from the maintenance guys equal the laundry room for the cleaning ladies – a different way of expressing the same thing? I doubt it, but I can’t find any clarification. 

    Was there more than one safe? What was this safe? (Singular or plural). A box set in a wall or a petty-cash type box? If there was only one spare, could the OC one be the same one in a box that goes around the services as needed or not? Without a spare in the event of a loss on the beach, etc? 
    It doesn’t seem practical to me, but the issue doesn’t seem to have been investigated, so a bit hard to work out.

  11. Sorry for going off topic for a minute but it seems the Libel Reforms could  affect blogs hosted by blogger and wordpress


    Libel trials by jury should be abolished for all but exceptional cases involving public figures, a parliamentary committee has recommended.

    The joint Commons and Lords committee on the draft defamation bill has proposed sweeping changes to the UK’s libel laws, including new measures to curb online defamation and proposals that would make it more difficult for large corporations to sue newspapers.

    MPs and peers recommended tackling the culture of anonymous online comments with a new notice and takedown procedure, proposing that unidentified commenters on blogs and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter should have allegedly defamatory material removed by internet hosts or service providers if they refuse to reveal their identity.

    The report also proposes replacing the so-called “Reynolds defence” of qualified privilege for responsible journalism in the public interest with a new statutory defence.

    Lord Mawhinney, chairman of the joint committee, said that current libel laws are “far too expensive, which is a barrier to all but the richest”.

    He added: “Our recommendations should help minimise the reliance on expensive lawyers and the courts, bringing defamation action into the reach of ordinary people who find themselves needing to protect their reputation or defend their right to freedom of speech.

    “They are based upon firm principles, which I am sure the government will support.”

    The wide-ranging recommendations have now been passed to the government and could be made law by next year.

    The report’s call for an end to libel trials by jury chimes with a proposal outlined in the government’s draft bill unveiled in March.

    It says the vast majority of cases should be heard by a judge, and trials by jury should be limited to cases involving senior figures in public life and “only when their public credibility is at stake”.

    The committee said abolishing jury trials would ensure trivial cases are weeded out before massive legal costs are incurred.

    The report recommends that any online posts that are the subject of a libel complaint should be taken down by the host – such as Twitter or Facebook – unless the authors are prepared to identify themselves “or there is an overriding public interest in publication”.

    “The committee recommends changing the law to promote cultural change so that, over time, the credibility of anonymous postings – and the damage that they can cause – is limited,” the report said.

    Where the author of defamatory online material is identifiable, the web host will be forced to publish a notice of complaint alongside the article. If the host, which could include Google’s Blogger site or WordPress, refuses to, it could be sued in the same way as a newspaper or magazine, the report recommends.

    “If the internet service provider believes that there are significant reasons of public interest that justify publishing the unidentified material – for example, if a whistleblower is the source – it should have the right to apply to a judge for an exemption from the takedown procedure and secure a ‘leave-up’ order,” the report added.

    “We do not believe that the host or service provider should be liable for anonymous material provided it has complied with the above requirements.”

    MPs and peers also propose making it more difficult for large corporations to sue publishers by having to demonstrate to a judge they have suffered “substantial financial harm” by the publication.

    Another change to the draft libel bill put forward in the report is for the Reynolds defence to be replaced by new legislation. The Reynolds defence of qualified privilege was established as a new defence for libel claims in 2001, for cases when the story is deemed to be in the public interest and the publisher is held to have acted responsibly. It is designed to protect investigative journalists acting in good faith and reporting on matters of public interest.

    “The Reynolds defence of responsible journalism in the public interest should be replaced with a new statutory defence that makes the law clearer, more accessible and better able to protect the free speech of publishers. The bill must make it clear that the existing common law defence will be repealed,” the report added.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: