Thursday, 16 February 2012

Illegal CENSORESHIP! "The fact of the fact"...
"Madeleine McCann was a British girl, born and bred in England, a land famed the world over for its freedoms, including the right of free speech. Yet Dr Amaral’s book cannot be published and sold in this country. Indeed, not only that, former Madeleine Foundation Secretary Tony Bennett currently faces a term of imprisonment for, amongst other things, referring to that book. In July 2010, for example, the Madeleine Foundation published a leaflet about Dr Goncalo Amaral, in which this statement appeared:

“In ‘The Truth About A Lie’, Dr Amaral explains why he and his team had good grounds for believing Madeleine had died in her parents’ apartment and [her parents] covered up her death”.

That was and is a true – 100% factual statement. Yet as The Madeleine Foundation reported last year, the McCanns believe that the British public should not even be able to read that sentence. Carter-Ruck told the Madeleine Foundation that that sentence in their leaflet was libellous.
The world has turned upside down. Over a billion people worldwide can read the account by the initial senior detective in the case of the history of, conclusions arrived at, in his investigation.
But the people in the land where Madeleine was born, so the McCanns say, should not be allowed to read it."
Read more clicking on the link given above. Will I get threatened of EMPRISONMENT for "daring" exposing this fact of the fact of the other fact related to soooooooo many other facts?
It has truly become demential. I REFUSE to have to think twice before I publish any thoughts. So far I have never been classed as insane or otherwise dangerous so CARTER RUCK AND MCCANNS you may STICK your injunctions and super evilness where the sun never shines!

How do you call it you there! HEY YOU! Over THERE at Carter Ruck team! How do you call it when two hypocrites wait to call the plice because, mmh,,,, their kid has been missing" while they were NOT at "50 meters" as Mr Hypocrite Number One stated to the POLICE, but at LEAST at 120 yards! 120 YARDS AWAY from their Children!!!! LEAVING THEM UNATTENDED!!!! WITH THE DOOR BEING UNLOCKED!!!!!!!

And what do YOU make of ALL the LIES your Clients have asked YOU to represent?! What does that make YOU, CARTER RUCK?

CARTER RUCK, you behave like you create the laws! I hope that Mr Bennett DENOUNCES and SHOWS UP the LIES your darling clients have ridiculed YOU with. Do you realise that the WHOLE Planet will now know that you represent lying hypocrites?

And what do you call this? I call this being the DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, Sir!

also see: on BOOKS BANNING AND BURNING - Also Google - The Inquisition - The Middle Ages - Islam - Autodafé - Hitler - FASCISM


"Trip Advisor" shows this photo on a web-page for the Algarve. Notice the BLUE chairs.... and look at the photo of little Madeleine with the make-up on, below:

NOTE this photo was edited to ADD lightness - see photo above from the press for more accuracy... I see a mark on the child's chhek (old tear?, rubbing?) and on her neck (see copy of press-original above). Anyway... Where and when was this? At home like the articles state? ("raid on Mummy's dressing table... which a forum comments as contrasting with another statement of Kate Healy (mother) who would have said (?) that a private beautician did it ( I obviously read it but would like more information about the quote and the references for it).
Nevertheless, doesn't this background match the flat in the Algarve (photo above by Trip Advisor), showing external location, wall of a creamy colour - same as Algarve photo) AND a blue plastic chair?
So I would really be interested in the forum comment about the contradiction between what is rumoured to be Kate's words (again, not for certain, but often there is no smoke without fire) and her previous statement to the British press (raid on Mummy's dressing table).
Thank you for caring about this case - and Little Madeleine.


  1. tries to work his eyes. Delete or close the eyes. How do you feel? Conjunction with the bruising ......

  2. There sure is some bruising/ marking on this photo. Ka Ossis had spotted marks on her neck that she enhanced with a special technique. One mark shows below the left eyebrow. +, on Sasha's version (removed make-up) it shows even more about this kid's age: this is definitely NOT a 3 or nearly 4 years old child!

    (and why lie about how did this make-up 'happen'?!) - if this was done in the Algarve and NOT in Rothley as the McCanns have stated, it's serious matter for investigation. (ALL this combined with the visible track of a fresh tear on her right cheek...)- it makes me feel like we've been told a LOT of Porkie-Pies!

    1. Yes. We sure have been told lies. From the very first day till now.
      Donating to this er ' fund '

    2. Hi and thank you for your very relevant comments. Welcome ( I have a feeling I know you a little somehow - TLP?! ;-})


    1. Great links given and VERY interesting reading.

  4. (then again what I interprete as a tear may well be big marks of bruising...) - this kid looks to me like she's been battered and then forced to be made-up before she finally was forced to sit in this awkward position. his child is obviously NOT happy there. But the English social services think it's perfectly OK NOT to investigate this!

  5. When the McCanns put this photo out there. You thought - how low can they go. Then the book came out. More lies, contridictions and down right excuses. What happened back then is set in stone and Kate McCann needs to try and remember that. The PJ files are out on the net and the Gaspar statement speaks volumes. While David Payne and Gerry McCanns silence about the Gaspar statement is loud. Kathie 20

  6. Ty Kathie!
    Yes this silence speaks volumes, so does the selective memory and topics of Kate, the "mother". Somewhere I've left a list of OMITTED topics by 'her highness' in that rapido book of hers titled "madeleine" [sic, no upper case]... this includes the window and the shutter, NO MENTIONED as to why these were described as "SMASHED" and "TAMPERED WITH" by herself and her husband Gerald... and why was she always so quick at "remembering" Madeleine? She used to talk about her in the past tense, saying "Madeleine WAS.... She WAS...."

    -anything to do with an older child by any chance? The second embryo who is mentioned by Kate in her book on the SECOND chapter called "Madeleine"? (Curiously the FIRST chapter is titled "Gerry"...)

  7. Amaral is not standing alone.
    We will all be there
    " Quietly working behind the scenes "

    Gerry the snoop LOL
    What's up ?
    Too much TRUTH
    ............ The Truth always OUTS someone will tell, one day.
    Kathie 20 and I got no money LOL

  8. That photograph is vulgar. Poor choice / poor taste.
    Will Healy tell us the name of the
    " Travelling beautian ?" Or would it be like the ' UNNAMED ' social worker. Who said their parenting skills were more or less ok. DOH.
    Their parenting skills were not ok.
    Its a scandal and an utter disgrace. How they can show their faces, I don't know. There is no shred of moral fibre in the pair of them. Kathie 20

    1. Hi Kathie, FAB Comment! Yes WHY did Kate lie about this photo? Why say to the press 1 thing and yet another on her book? Finally she isn't half as clever as people even think she is. Because she claims to be a doctor, everybody assumed that she is Mrs Smart. But she's not! She is misses Imbecile. (sorry: forename: Greedie. Ms Greedie IMBECILE who keeps slipping up and giving 2 different backgrounds for each fabricated cliché.)

      I've never liked this photo. There is something in the eyes of this Child.

    2. Hi Mega. Yes indeed Mrs Greedy child neglector jog on Katie. Isn't it shocking that some stupid people think " don't punish the parents" Thankfully the VAST MAJORITY of us are working behind the scenes to see justice being handed out to the pretend Drs McCann. The McCanns will not escape justice by using the mainstream media. The TRUTH will oneday out. Kathie

  9. Thank god for the many working behind the scenes, sourcing, collating, saving, discussing this precious child.

    For Truth's sake not to punish the parents.

    1. Hi Su and welcome aboard, thanks for commenting.
      "... not to punish the parents", well if we look at other cases, it's not a matter of punishing decent people who have suffered hell and still do - I have in mind the Ben NEEDHAM case right now, which I cnsider as genuine.
      When the parents have rushed to fabricate stories and even used their own family members and close friends + other contacts, and then have wasted no time to create a FUND that has appeared to be based on a mere excuse [=to search for their child], time after time, then it becomes evident, to many people and myself, that a trial is needed to examine these lies and contradictions.
      The McCanns have always used the sentimental factor as a weapon to prevent normal, standard procedures from applying to themselves. So I don't know how (in which way) you say this: "For Truth's sake not to punish the parents", anyway so far it has always been the case of preventing the truth to be found thanks to the one-sided "suffering enough" blackmail.

      Enough is enough. Truthfully I do NOT care if the McCanns have suffered, have "grieved" or still do, because it's Madeleine who matters, not them. I feel a very old trick here, a common tactic of "STOP LOOKING AT THE CASE, WE ARE SUFFERING!" - whereas when I see Ben Needham's Mother on television, it makes me cry and I really care for her, as well as for Ben.

      I see in the McCanns' behaviours a sense of domination. They crawl to high political spheres to get protection, then appear victorious in front of cameras, knowing that millions of people may be watching them. That arrogance is very misplaced for people who are supposed to be devasted, consumed by grief and guilt. "Ask the dogs, Sandra!" - "If it what the investigation thinks"... are only 2 examples of what, somehow, doesn't fit in the psychological condition they would be: if they were genuine, they would have tried not to avoid any police question, or at least used tact and showed true sadness/ depression (Kate would have burst in tears rather than using arrogance and disdain); and they would have freaked out at the dogs' discoveries, wanting to know more, immediately.
      The fact they ignored this (and also provided alibis for it!) but still maintained their fund to search for what seemed to be proven as a dead child (!) is simply revealing. What parent, when hearing that there was CADAVER odour in the flat where their child was seen last, doesn't faint or cry,/ bursts in a nervous breakdown/ asks for more medical support? Was the world not expecting Kate to melt at the police station crying, sobbing, begging the police to TELL her if her daughter was DEAD?! Well instead we see in her book how she reacted. Cold. At the most intrigued or puzzled... Oh, my child, missing, has left cadaver smell behind her but I feel a bit PUZLED about it... Oh these idiots must be inventing things, after all they're not British... They're NASTY, nasty and I was puzzled but now I am happy to show my true personality to the world via my book "madeleine". HEY "kate"...


  11. To su, Why should the parents not be punished ? Are you for real ? Neglect and wilfull abandonment are serious offences. The McCanns left three toddler children all under 4 in an apt with the door unlocked night after night. Would you leave three children that age alone in a bath of water ? NO you wouldn't, so what makes it ok for them to fend for themselves ? I think your view of the parents not to be punished is a down right disgrace. OHHH YES let's make all child neglectors walk free from the courts. Karen Mathews is in prison for faking an abduction. She only stuffed her child under a bed base but at least Shannon is ALIVE. Should we let Karen Mathews walk free ? After all what's good for the McCanns is good for them all. If it wasn't for Madeleines selfish parents she would be here today. I think you are in the wrong place here. I don't support child neglect in any shape or form or regardless of who they are. What is wrong with you ? Disgusting. Kathie

  12. Have you seen this ?

    "In a new epilogue for the paperback edition of her book, Madeleine, Kate reveals that drugs filmed being removed from the apartment they were renting in Portugal were actually ­Parkinson’s drugs to treat her father Brian, who has the illness, and not sedatives."

    Was the father on holiday with them ? I'm not aware that he was, which begs the question as to why a doctor would be holding someone else's prescription You''re not meant to do that, even a doctor or should I say especially a doctor, but why take someone else's prescription on holiday, when presumably it is not required ?

    I don't have the detailed knowledge of others. I just pose the question that perhaps for which others may be able to provide an innocent answer.

    1. Hi "Anonymous" and yes, this is a very relevant comment you've sent, thank you.
      I'd need to search this again - but it looks like it's another 'enigma' for the McCanns to answer- as I saw it too on a video / blog / article recently, Kate rushing to say: 'But it was my FATHER's medication!!' Exactly. But was the father anywhere near then?? No, he wasn't. According to a Friend (and formerly co-author of this blg, Ka Ossis), Kate's father only visited them in that villa 2 weeks later... ie. AFTER the filming was done with these tablets./? / --> I will now leave the matter Open, here, for Kate Healy to come and reply herself - she is very welcome to do so.

      (and if Ms Healy accepts my challenge, I then also urge her to reply on my latest blog-post regarding the LIES about the "smashed window" and the "tampered shutter". Thank you if you do, even in a near/ distanced future. We'd all love to hear it from you! "An account of the truth" might be better than nothing?

      -by the way, lots of Viewers here would like to ask you other questions, in all humanity and politeness, decency. I have a good filtering set for the Comments Facility, and try to watch regularly, however this blog is open to all, and as Google does, I personally decline any responsibility outside my own writing command.)

      Megafundline. (sorry I can't be signed in now as it conflicts with other sign-ins.)

  13. The puzzling thing is that the reason given is delivered in such a provocative fashion

    "Kate-McCann-s-attack-on-lies" and, of course, the term 'Parkinson's drugs' is in itself vague.

    As general background I am able to confirm personally that Dr P was working at the General Hospital, Urology Dept., Leicester in December 2007.

  14. There seems to be some hidden truth behind all this and the truth will eventually show us. The process of GMC revalidation takes into account if doctors have been involved in any such happening or not.


Thanks for leaving a comment: