Own Goal


Most definitely, that is all I can say about some people.  They are very prone to scoring own goals and anyone can see how deluded they actually are. Well I know this is an old article written in the middle of May this year, but today is the first time I have read it.  Well as I don’t sit on a PC day in and day out, unlike some, it is evident that some of the articles I read are fairly old news.

The article in question was an interview with Clarence Mitchell by Gorkana.

As per usual the resident bully on twitter and repeater of myths JillyCL had to resort to abuse to get her point across.

She tweeted this in reply to my posting the article on twitter for others to read.

And she is now saying that this is a piss-take article.  Oh my god has she read the About Us on the Gorkana home page…. no, doubt it, otherwise she would have realised they are a legitimate company who values their reputation.

Their About Us states:

We bring together the UK’s most recommended Media Database, Multi-channel Media Monitoring and PR Measurement services for PRs and marketers representing all kinds of organisations.

Thousands of brands use our services to help them plan campaigns more accurately, develop closer relationships with journalists, keep track of mainstream and social media coverage, manage brand reputations and demonstrate the impact of their communication strategies.

Since coming together as one company in 2010, our three individual service brands: Gorkana, Durrants and Metrica now come under the Gorkana Group umbrella. Headquartered in the UK, we currently have offices in London and New York.

We also run the UK’s leading journalist and PR recruitment site and provide daily media and PR industry news through our Media Alerts and PR News services.

Communications professional? Find out how we can help.

Journalist? Get the latest news, moves and jobs in media and journalism.

Hardly some tin pot company with a repertoire for satire are they?

Carry on Jilly be as deluded as you wish, but nothing will take away the fact that what Clarence Mitchell said about the likes of you is true, will it?  You know the part in the article where he said:

What surprised me was the viciousness and the bile and the downright inhumanity which was being spread by people who are very brave on a keyboard and under a pseudonym.

Yep Clarence that is the likes of Jilly, as proven by her abusive tweet to me… So kind of her to provide evidence to prove what Clarence said is actually true…

Own goal… there girlie.


24 comments on “Own Goal

  1. If there’s two sides and Mitchell’s on one, I want to be on the other one

  2. Well, Guest, that is your prerogative to choose which side you wish to be on… personally I prefer the side of truth and justice.  And there is no justice in hounding the family of a missing child. 

  3. Bren, nobody apart from the people who were there knows the truth about what happened that night. I don’t know why you changed your mind about the case but on your forum I see you spinning the words of Mr Redwood to suit your line on the abduction. You have learned a lot from Mitchell, but essentially your approach is no different to those you attack for their behaviour on twitter – you’re only looking at the bits of the evidence you want to see and ignoring the rest. I’ll always be one of Kate’s ‘little old ladies’ until they tell us the truth.

    • You have learned a lot from Mitchell, but essentially your approach is no different to those you attack for their behaviour on twitter

      Please could you show me where I have made tweets, wishing people would F off and Die, or where I call someone a primate and accuse them of being paid mercenaries.  I agree I will argue my point and won’t back down if I know what I am saying is factual, but I don’t resort to the abuse I have seen online by some people.

      Wishing people would die, snapping necks, and other acts of violence have never been tweeted by myself and I have never threatened a person online with violence. So I really don’t see how you can accuse me of being as bad as those who do.

  4. There is zero evidence of an abduction, yet you cling to that theory religously – that’s why your approach is the same as some of those attacking the McCanns. You only see what you want to see, and ignore the rest. I stay away from twitter, so don’t know what goes on there. I’m not making excuses for those people, and didn’t say you use twitter like them. But you are simply spinning in one direction just as rigidly as some of those people spin in the other. Your selective use of Mr Redwood’s words proves that.

    • There is, according to DCI Redwood a chance that Madeleine McCann is alive.  To deny her that right is wrong. Now you say I twist DCI Redwood’s words please could you point to the post where I did this?  I have checked and most comments are either from a newspaper, an actual video of DCI Redwood speaking or a Panorama interview.

  5. In The Last Hope, and your linking to JATYK, where the spinning of Mr Redwood’s words couldn’t have be bettered by Mitchell himself. ‘This is a criminal act. A stranger went into the apartment and took her’ – clearly Mr Redwood said this is one line of enquiry, that’s true, but it is only one line: he is not saying this is a fact.

    Of course there is a chance Madeleine is alive – we (you, me and everyone at JATYK) don’t know what happened on May 3rd – only the parents and their friends know that. What I do believe is that they acted more in their own interest than Madeleine’s, and you have to wonder why they chose to do that, but I don’t know what happened to her – nobody does.

    I’m interested in why you changed your mind. Do you explain your decision anywhere that I could read?

  6. If you are referring to this Post, the transcript of the Panorama interview, 
    https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/transcript-of-panorama-madeleine-mccann/ where I commented on a post made on JATYK2 forum by a member called Greenink211, then I stand by what I said. They made an excellent observation and were spot on with their comment. How can Amaral write a book and call it the truth, when he openly says that the truth is only known when the investigation is concluded.

    And if you are referring to The Last Hope post, then I can’t find where I have linked back to JATYK2.  And Andy Redwood speaking on that video is just a copy of the preview for the Panorama Interview.

    If you would care to provide the link, I will comment.

    As for changing my mind, well I read the files properly.  There was no bodily fluids in the hired car that belonged to Madeleine.  The dogs are only indicators there are not evidence and the evidence that came back was inconclusive.There was failings on part of the PJ and it wasn’t the McCanns that contaminated the crime scene, it was the PJ and GNR themselves.. The files state that they could not retrieve footprints due to canine hair and red forensic dusting powder.

    A GNR officer disobeyed a direct order from his Sgt to preserve the crime scene when he arrived, and when the Sgt arrived he also failed to preserve the scene as reported by the PJ Forensics person.The missing pink blanket that keeps getting eluded to by Goncalo Amaral was in fact used by the sniffer dogs.The boxes from the apartment, says 4 boxes 2 suitcases but the pictures show 5 boxes and 2 suitcases.The dogs videos – amount of time spent on McCann hired car compared to other cars in the parking lot.The way Eddie was more interested in the area between the McCann car and the other car and he even barked at that area.The fact that Goncalo Amaral was made an arguido the day after Madeleine disappeared because of claims of torture in another missing child case.  He should never have been put in charge of the case.The fact that the apartment was relet before the dogs were brought in.The report of six dead bodies…. yet nothing in the files.  Even Kate’s interviews do not cover this.The fact that Goncalo Amaral was annoyed because the British Police wanted to investigate all lines of inquiry and he didn’t want that and even said Paiva was sent to dismiss things.The fact that documents were produced that were denied by Sofia Leal but were clarified as being correct in a court case in Portugal, where she states her husband threatened to harm her and was driving her daughter around whilst drunk in a Police car.The way the PJ were leaking stuff to the PT media whilst telling the McCanns that if they said anything they could face 2 years in jail for breaching judicial secrecy.There are many things, when I read the files and investigated that were true.  But people were saying the pros are saying this to discredit Amaral.  How can a person be discredited when someone is actually telling the truth about how the investigation was conducted.

    The Brooks sighting, at Lagos Marina, it was only Rebelo asking Paiva about what was done about it, that we know that it was dismissed.  No paperwork, statements from Brooks or others or a paper trial telling why this sighting was dismissed.  Just dismissed.Do you want me to go on…  Myths were spread by certain quarters, I foolishly believed them.  I repeated those Myths only to find what I was originally believing in was nothing but a smear campaign against the family of a missing child.

  7. “Of course there is a chance Madeleine is alive”
    Indeed. She disappeared from an apartment. There is no proof that she’s joined the angels, ergo, she could still be alive. Those who know and love her can’t switch off from that hope.

    Why do some (nearly all anonymous) posters insist that she isn’t in the absence of any proof?

    • No parent could just switch and write their child off as dead. There is always hope, no matter how slim it might be, it is still there.  I can fully understand what drives Kate and Gerry McCann, they (as told by Kate) live with their guilt on a daily basis and if they could they would turn the clock back.

      But the sad truth is they can’t so they have to do what is right by Madeleine and for their love of Madeleine, and that is to find her, bring her home to where she belongs.

      It is all too sad when a child’s body is found and that flicker of hope is finally extinguished, but hope that they will find their daughter should be all they concentrate on now.  Finding Madeleine is number 1 priority.

  8. Thanks for replying Bren. I understand you had a horrible time on 3a’s (I wasn’t any part of what went on there, I was reading but rarely a poster) and also on twitter. I’ve read more of your site now and those tweets are shameful. I’m no part of that either. I’d never seen the full videos of the dogs before either, and will watch them carefully later. Thanks for putting them here.

    I agree there was considerable misinformation on the Mirror forum and 3a’s and it was deliberate and we all fell for some or all of it to varying degrees.

    JAYTK are just as nasty as those tweets, but choose different targets. What is the point in trying to smear Mr Grimes when he doesn’t claim it’s an exact science? Attacking him personally is shameful. I’m not saying your criticism of him is personal, but you’re linking to a forum where it is very personal.

    But there is a great deal of information that isn’t myth that shows the parents and friends acted to protect themselves rather than do what would help Madeleine – i.e. tell the whole truth about what happened that evening.

    I can’t deny there were failings in the investigation but some of them were caused by the extraordinary media and political interference, which the Portuguese just weren’t used to or in a position to handle.

    I respect everything you’re written, but I still don’t understand how you can now accept as truth everything the parents have said, and say in the book. They say they didn’t contaminate the crime scene, but they had an hour or so to do exactly that before the police arrived (if they’d had that intention)

    I can’t state for a fact they did that but I also don’t take what they’ve said and written as facts either. I’d almost stopped following the case but decided to read Kate’s book and it’s a good job I did do – there’s so much they don’t even bother to mention in it and they do a poor job of trying to convince they were ever really interested in the ‘sightings’. That is one of the biggest areas that gave rise to so much suspicion back in 2007 isn’t it. I was expecting the book would include a lot of information about their searches that we’d never heard of before – but it doesn’t. That confirms my suspicions.

    Bren, ask yourself why the family and friends back in the UK were telling the papers on May 4/5 about “jimmied” and “smashed” shutters, and then Kate simply writes in her book something like “oh the abductor may just have used the patio doors”.

    Anyway, I wish you well and hope the case is resolved one day one way or the other. Linking to JATYK isn’t good though I think, they’re just as biased as the worst anti-McCann tweeters and posters.

    • Hi Guest, I don’t get involved in what other people do on their forums and how they run them.  The only forum I am a member of and post on is Stop the Myths.  That comment on JATYK2, that I copied over was an excellent observation.  

      There is a lot in this case we don’t know about, but just imagine the position the McCanns and their friends were in, they were in a foreign country, they didn’t understand the language.  

      You ask me to question the McCann’s actions, I have and to be perfectly honest, the knew a damn site more that you or I do.  They were there… they knew how they were being treated by the PJ under the leadership of Amaral.  But ask yourself how can a couple do what they are accused of and then normally go out for dinner and not act suspiciously or out of character.

      People condemn the McCann’s for not flying off here there and everywhere when a sighting is mentioned.  If they did that, they would be criticised for spending the fund money unnecessary.  Whatever Kate and Gerry McCann do, there will always be those that are willing to condemn them.

      Have you never been in a situation of fear, panic, where you are crying, you are frantic, because when the McCanns made those calls home that is the state they must have been in.  Through the tears and the shock things get over heard.

      I doubt the conversations were calm, and went, “Oh Hi just ringing to let you know Madeleine has gone missing.”  and the other person said “Thanks for letting me know.”  There would have been two people in shock, fear and with all the commotion things get lost in speech.  We are not privvy to those conversations, so we can’t stay what was said and what was not said.  It could have simply been someone’s interpretation of what was said and they got the wrong end of the stick and thought the shutters were jemmied.

      We saw, by PeterMac, how easy it was to open those shutters from the outside and guess what… nobody came to stop him or phoned the police.  Shutters going up and down in hot country’s and holiday resorts and the sound they are made are ignored.

  9. We know the McCanns already had the ambassador, two consuls, Alex Woolfall and the embassy press officer, Mark Warner staff and numerous others assisting them very early on May 4, so I don’t think the strangers in a foreign land idea is very true. Nobody in their situation ever had as much assistance as the McCanns had.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree about the shutters – if Madeleine was abducted it wasn’t though that window. I’ve looked in the book again and Kate is still claiming “the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside raised all the way up”, presumably since 9.15ish to tie in with Tanner’s sighting and yet neither Oldfield, O’Brien or Tanner noticed the shutters up and window open when they walked past it seven times in their comings and goings from 9.15 onwards.

    And if the abduction took place through the patio doors that doesn’t match with Tanner’s sighting, it requires the abductor to be behaving very irrationally and apparently trying to draw attention to himself by first walking in one direction and then doubling back where he came from.

    The statements and timelines still don’t make sense and they still haven’t been questioned by the UK press. I think the answer still lies there, and I think Mr Rebelo thought that as well.

    But I don’t want to turn your blog into pointless arguments like past forums. We can just agree we disagree and hope it ends well.

    Thanks again for having the full dogs videos here. I am about to watch them.

    • My last post, which was to you, Guest, didn’t appear as a reply. Sorry about that.
      “” …have to agree to disagree about the shutters – if Madeleine was abducted it wasn’t though that window. I’ve looked in the book again and Kate is still claiming “the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside raised all the way up”, presumably since 9.15ish to tie in with Tanner’s sighting and yet neither Oldfield, O’Brien or Tanner noticed the shutters up and window open when they walked past it seven times in their comings and goings from 9.15 onwards.”

      Not following… Kate describes how she found the shutters at 10 pm. She hadn’t been there since they left for dinner. 

  10. Hi Guest, Alex Woolfall et al were bought in by Mark Warner along with the crisis team, which Alan Pike was part of.

    Now you speak about noticing the shutters open.  Unfortunately I can’t find the picture I want that explains this better.  But this one will do.

    When they walked back to the apartments, Jane and Russell went back to the apartment they would have walked past the wall, beyond that wall is a car park, the lighting was dark and the entrance to the car park and the apartments was further up than the McCanns apartment.  I have walked past things and not noticed things…. And at the time everything was OK, remember they had for 5 nights used these child checking measures and nothing had happened so technically they were in a false sense of security.. and perhaps were more relaxed about it, hence the checking times.
    When Matt went to check on Madeleine and the twins, he probably didn’t pay much attention to the blinds… And he would have entered via the patio door and left via the patio door and walked the same route as Jane and Russell, again not walking directly by the shutters.

    So yes I can understand fully why they never noticed the shutters of apartment 5A as they had not directly walked by them.

    I have been in situations where I have gone and done things and for the life of me couldn’t remember the exact times I went or someone has said something and then I have questioned, did I see that or do that or not. 

    From a personal point of view, I would be more suspicious if the timelines between the McCanns and their friends were spot on.

    I don’t think we are arguing, Guest, I call this reasonable debate.  It is what adults do, it is only some that have to resort to name calling and to be perfectly honest, when people do that they have immediately lost the debate in my opinion.

    • I agree with you Bren, it was dark. But they were as close to that window when they rounded the corner as Tanner was to the ‘abductor’ – and yet she saw him and they never saw the open window. Oldfield was even closer because his apartment was next to 5a. I think they didn’t see it because it wasn’t open.

      Gerry McCann himself in his first statement to the police said the shutter was closed when Oldfield checked at 9.30 – unless people are still saying those translations aren’t true, that they’ve been mistranslated for nefarious reasons, but I’ve heard that argument used many times (with the rogatory interviews too) and yet correctly translated versions never materialise.

      If the window wasn’t open at 9.30 then you have to believe Tanner’s abductor used the patio doors and then behaved very stupidly by reversing his path to end up walking in front of her. Not likely.

      If it wasn’t open at 9.30 and Tanner’s man was the abductor then the window was opened later by someone else and the friends and family back in the UK appear to have been misled about the shutters, for whatever reason.

      One of the timelines written on the cover of Madeleine’s book doesn’t mention Oldfield’s 9.30 check at all.

      This is why Rebelo wanted them to do the reconstruction and why the case was archived when they refused to do it.

      I definitely agree with what you wrote earlier, “they know a damn site more than you or I do” – only they know why they behaved the way they did after whatever happened happened. But I’m sure they weren’t telling the truth to their family and to the world.

      • One of the timelines written on the cover of Madeleine’s book doesn’t mention Oldfield’s 9.30 check at all.

        I don’t find that suspicious at all.  If they were trying to write down a perfect timeline that fitted neatly with their story they would NOT have given both copies to the Police.  I can imagine the panic in that apartment.  They wrote one timeline and then someone says something and they read and then remember Matt did a check so wrote it out again.  

        If there was something suspicious in them writing on that book they would have given the Police only one copy and destroyed the other.  

        As for them writing on Madeleine’s book, I suppose they wanted something quick to write on and Madeleine’s sticker book was at hand.  Again they are condemned but if Madeleine had been found that night and returned her parents would have bought her another book and explained they were worried and wanted to write things down.. She would have understood.

        You mention the reconstruction, but what good was that going to be if it was not being televised to jog memories.  If it was going to be a crimewatch reconstruction and they refused then yes… but think about it from another angle.  The initial cop leading the investigation was charged with possible torture of another person.. They had and probably did read up on what happened and feared for their safety.. as to whether they would be told everything was OK and they just wanted assurances, assurances that protected them from being slammed in jail on some jumped up charge.

        The reconstruction that was most beneficial to finding Madeleine was the one that Kate and Gerry McCann wanted in May 2007, the one the PJ refused to do, due to having to close down airspace, tourists, media etc.  

      • “If there was something suspicious in them writing on that book they
        would have given the Police only one copy and destroyed the other.”

        Unless they’d been seen writing it out. They couldn’t destroy it then.

        Would the proposed May 2007 reconstruction have involved their 7 friends as well?

  11. “…Ask yourself why the family and friends back in the UK were telling the papers on May 4/5 about “jimmied” and “smashed” shutters, and then Kate simply writes in her book something like “oh the abductor may just have used the patio doors”.
    I’m not sure that I’m following your train of thought.

    Are you suggesting that an initial impression conveyed to family members in the immediate aftermath of a panic situation should never be reviewed to reflect other possible explanations as to why a closed shutter was apparently found open even years after the fact?

    • I’m suggesting that perhaps at the time it was very important, for whatever reason, for them to want people to think whatever happened happened at the front of the apartment not the back. Perhaps because they didn’t want their family (and world) to know the patio doors were unlocked (if they actually were – we only have their word and Oldfield’s for that)

      I’m suggesting the family weren’t just told the front window was open, they were told it had been opened forcefully (‘jemmied’, ‘smashed’)

  12. Hi guest will have to reply to you here as there are no more nested quotes… Here is a link with background information on the 

  13.  Thanks for that. I think Amaral’s comments just reflect that the police within days were under media and international scrutiny like they’d never known before and they didn’t know how to react. By the time he’s saying that discussion about a reconstruction took place the focus had been diverted to Murat of course, and I can understand the point about how a request to have the parents take part in a reconstruction at that moment might have been received by the British media. I can well remember just how intense the media coverage was and all sides agree Portugal had never seen anything like it before. British police struggle when media interest that high as well – exactly the same thing happened in Soham.

    I think the Portuguese police’s idea of a reconstruction and Kate & Gerry’s are two different things entirely. By the middle of May the supporters of the parents were so focused on the abduction theory no doubt that’s what they wanted to highlight – Crimewatch style – not a reconstruction of the whole evening.

    We’ll never know now of course, but the friends could still do what Rebelo wanted now. Kate & Gerry are arguido no longer so that legal problem no longer exists.

    On the friends motives for not going back in May 2008 we’ll have to agree to disagree again.

  14. I agree that UK and PT reconstructions are quite different. One is an appeal for witnesses and the other is more of an interrogation technique of potential or actual suspects.The PT press would no doubt have cottoned on and the T9-what-dunnit headlines would have started even earlier than they did. However, the PJ could still have invented an excuse such as clarifying precise timeframes in which an abductor could have entered and exited, determining vantage points of potential accomplices, etc., and wheeled out Sousa to announce to the press that that was the purpose.I don’t see what a reconstruction years later would actually achieve. I would find it strange if the PJ had not already carried out a reconstruction on their own in any case. 

  15. I’m sure they have CaranaC. I think it’s clear the police wanted the friends to return in 2008 because they had done their own reconstrction and didn’t believe the timelines. And that’s really why the friends didn’t go back in my opinion – because they knew the police wanted to demonstrate to them certain things didn’t make sense.

    I agree with you about the proposed May 2007 reconstruction. Amaral does say there was disagreement and many did want to do it and perhaps thought something like you suggest was possible. Too late now.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: