CLOSETS, CLOSETS, CLOSETS AND MORE CLOSETS!

Not much in the mood for words just now but since starting morally-trolling quite liking sharing my thoughts and personal opinions this is all I have to say for now........

CLOSETS

Eddie (God rest his soul) alerts to cadaver odour in apt G5A

CLOSETS

Eddie alerting to cadaver odour in villa rented by McCann's

CLOSETS

Times report that McCanns hid vital evidence

AND MORE CLOSETS

While it would appear the McCann's like to hide things in actual physical closets, the 'pro McCanns' apparently just like  to hide in the proverbial closets. I am by no means suggesting there aren't that many willing to say they are pro McCann, they are actually there in their droves but it would seem all scurrying away to find a closet (if they aren't already in one). I have come across very few both online and in the real world who are willing to speak up and actually discuss why they think 'trolls' like me are wrong. 

Of those few who did discuss or debate anything McCann related with me, I can say they were (like myself) polite and willing to hear the flip side.

I would imagine that there are tons who feel they do not know enough about the case to have any such discussion but will hear nothing which would suggest that the McCann's were in any way, shape or form involved in Madeleine's disappearance (let it be noted I do not suggest they were involved only that it is my opinion that the evidence in the P.J. files is very damning). I do not believe this group of supporters are hiding in that proverbial closet, more sitting under rocks and stones (perhaps looking for Madeleine).

The pro's who are actually in the closets are the one's who after having had their say, providing no actual evidence or sources to back up their opinions, go on to spew obscene vulgarities at anyone who does not take their word for gospel, hidden behind protected accounts that you cannot reply to either in your own personal defense on the absurd slurs to your character nor to provide any factual source to disprove their silly claims. I would like to say here that this group are only online and I have never come across such vile cases in the real world, I always imagine that one day I will and they will sit with fingers in their ears singing la la la la la la every time my mouth opens. If my grandchildren were to be present I could kill 2 birds with stone by doing my sea bass impression, keeping the childrens' innocent little ears away from the not so nice language whilst keeping them amused at the same time.

In my 6 + years of researching this case out of personal interest I have seen many comments and videos from such people, none of which provided any factual evidence, most of it including the troll like behavior that the rags have tarred non-believers with. Some of it downright defamatory! There is NEVER any way in which to engage with these people.

While I am not saying non-believers are perfect and do not have a similar group, it seems the pro type troll are much larger in numbers than the non-believer trolls. Non-believers like myself tend to encourage communication, are willing to listen to both sides of an argument and will provide fact after fact to get their side across. Pro trolls don't provide any facts but plenty of hearsay, they block any sort of communication to their own profile but are very willing to deface profile's of others. When faced with actual fact from qualified experts in their own field the pro will go on to discredit said expert any which way they can (usually echoing Gerry McCann with the words incredibly unreliable and no other reasoning behind that).

What else is hiding in closets?

At that I will leave you with some food for thought, not hidden in any closet or small space like a refrigerator but out there in the open, free for anyone who wishes to embark on a factual reading session or 2.

Martin Grimes report (10 pages, includes report of searches in Praia da Luz, experience, training, accreditation and case samples of dogs and dog handler) - http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm 

Video of dog searches (over 90 mins) -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8

Sunday times article referenced in image - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3906190.ece

Official P.J. Files - http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk 
 *Note I feel it necessary to mention that the McCanns paid £100,000 for their copy of the official P.J. Files to be translated into English. They have never made these files available to anyone. The mccannpjfiles site (and many forums) contains the official files available to anyone for free, many of which have already been translated into English by volunteers (and they continue to translate the vast amount for free even today, 5 years after they became available). I would like to give my thanks to all the volunteers for their very hard work and their dedication. 


As always my posts are either fact or my thoughts and opinions and are not intended to harm anyone or any company, libelous or otherwise. Your thoughts and opinions are always welcome.

Keep trolling - morally
Morag Trollop - morally-trolling


 

Can photos tell stories?

Well can they tell stories? Actually I believe they can, in fact they can tell many stories depending on the story teller e.g. I have a photo of a dog I used to have many years ago, my grandchildren are too young to remember the dog so their story is Grandma had this dog. My story and that of my children are very different, those stories contain memories of the time the dog did this or the time it did that and they raise questions like do you remember when this happened or the time we went here or there? An expert analyst could tell a very different story from my digital image like when (and since 2012 where) it was taken, which type of camera, the settings used, copyright info etc etc. The expert if given a printout of the photo might also have the knowledge and tools to provide the type of paper used, the ink used, roughly how long ago it was printed (not always), using DNA and/or fingerprints who has all held it and many other things.

There has been lots of speculation surrounding the photos of Madeleine McCann which were on those 1st posters. McCann camp say the hotel printed them, the rags say the hotel printers weren't capable, police check local photo print shops who don't even stock that paper, people asking why they would carry photos that size of Madeleine yet none of the twins. So let's move on and try to get a story from the pictures and hopefully raise some questions and point in possible directions of the truth on those pictures. There are 4 photos the P.J. have that Gerry McCann gave to the G.N.R. on the night of 3rd May 2007. I know from the P.J. Files that in fact the 4 photos were all of size 6 inch x 4 inch but they consisted of 2 copies each of 2 different poses. These 2 photos were the images used in the first missing posters put up around Praia da Luz the following day (4th May 2007).

Two very similar poses but nonetheless different, one a closer up image of the other, not zoomed in and cut from the other but taken separately. Since Madeleine is still striking the same pose and small children seldom sit still for long I would say they were taken together with very little time in between. Given the difference in color/lighting and the fact that the corner of the room meets the girls' hand in one pic and her wrist/arm in the other then the camera was likely in a slightly different location for the 2nd pic to be taken (or perhaps even a 2nd camera). Who hasn't done that? She is such a cutie and I know I have tons of photos which at first glance look like duplicates. I only have in my possession these copies of the posters and not the actual photos taken so cannot give any other information about them, perhaps someone who has the actual digital copy (if they were taken on a digital camera) could find out more like date etc provided the exif data had not been altered or tampered with.


I can tell you more about their journey since being taken.......... 

According to the statements made by Silvia Batista on 2nd October 2007 she was notified that Madeleine was missing at around 22.30 - 23.00 and travelled back to the Ocean Club immediately. She arrived shortly before the G.N.R. arrived and went straight to apartment 5A but spoke to no-one as she had been informed of G.N.R. arrival in the reception. She went to reception to meet them and was followed by Gerry who did his praying arab routine then all parties went back to the apartment in the G.N.R. car. Silvia says she was asked (as she spoke fluent English) to obtain the family's passports and photos of the missing girl and Gerry went back out to the car with her to hand them over. Silvia reports in her statements "Gerry gave the Commandant of several photographs of the missing girl. They were postcard-like pictures, taking into account their size and shape and seemed all the same to her."

We now know that the 4 photos were in the McCann's possession when G.N.R. arrived (according to Silvia at approx 23.00h).

The first 2 G.N.R. officers to arrive Jose Roque and Nelson da Costa confirm on 16th May 2007 in their witness statements that they did indeed arrive at the Ocean Club around 23.00h. They do not mention Gerry giving them the photos however when giving a further witness statement on the 17th October 2007 Nelson's statement reads "He also notes that he saw various photographs on normal A4 paper of the girl, which had been printed at the reception, as well as other photos on photographic paper, poster type 10x15, that could not have been printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that it was not possible for them to have been printed at the reception." On that same date Jose making no mention of the photos being handed over does mention that at some point between 23.00 and 02.30 the post commander arrived.

So by 23.00h on 3rd May 2007 the McCanns already have in their possession the 6 x 4 (or 15cm x 10cm) photos AND the A4 posters in their apartment.

Looking at Commander Antonio Duarte's witness statements we find that he arrived at approximately 23.50 and makes no mention of the photos on 16th May 2007 however on the 8th November 2007 his statement reveals he was given the photos at about 02.00 but he does not know by whom. He did not see the posters only the 5 photos, 1 annexed to a document and sent to the tribunal the other 4 handed to the police.

The police send the photos to their science lab to answer a few of their questions about them. They wanted  to know how old the photos were from the paper or ink, if they were standard size or cut and what type of machine printed them. From the P.J. files we know that the science lab could tell them for definite that the paper type was Kodak Xtra Life paper which had been available for about 2 years, they were printed by pigment sublimation and therefore could not be dated. There were lines on the back of the photos which suggest they could have been printed using a 47xx series booth type machine or a G600 domestic dock printer. Analysis by Kodak in the US could determine the exact model used to print the photos.

Police then did a bit of leg work. They visit photo printing shops in the area on 16th August 2007 and all of them say they do not have that type of paper. On the 2nd October 2007 they go back to the Ocean Club where Silvia Batista states she printed hundreds of photos at John Hill's request but yet she made no mention of this in any of her prior statements to police (She was interviewed on more than one occassion and acted as interpreter for police numerous times but apparently didn't think printing posters was important enough to mention). While John Hill did mention them in his statement, on this day he states that he, with the help of his wife and at the request of Russell O'Brien printed 'large quantities' which "were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May". From the same documents we get "For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hills desk." 

So with no booth type printer or a Kodak G600 dock printer this means that it is the posters that were printed on the hotel printers not the actual photos handed to the police. So where did the five 6x4 prints come from? If the posters were printed 'on the morning of the 4th' then does that mean Officer Nelson da Costa saw them on the 3rd in apartment 5A by means of premonition?

Russell O'Brien makes no mention of either photos or poster printing request in his statements to police. However he does say in his Rogatory statement on the 10th April 2008 that "We tried to find a picture of Madeleine Kate checked her camera but these were mainly of her at home or not such a clear picture.  We found a picture of Madeleine but we couldn’t print it off.  Cat or one of the nannies said that they had a printer and took the camera away to get some photos copied.  A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster- but I do not know who that was"  In his tape recording of that same statement the conversation was different. It went as follows

 *Note this video recording on the 10th April 2008 was to clarify the written statement taken after several hours of questioning on the 8th April 2008 when the video recording equipment for whatever reason failed to record during all 5 sessions of questioning on the 8th.
1578 (police officer)    “What about if we say ‘Kate checked her camera and found some pictures’'”
 Reply (Russell O'Brien)   “Yeah, yeah, or ‘Kate’s camera was checked’, I don’t think Kate was in no, in no state whatsoever to check her camera”. 

1578    “Okay.  So ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’'”
 Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “’Kate’s camera was checked’'”
 Reply    “Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.
 

1578    “Okay.  But ‘Kate or one of the Nannies’'”
 Reply    “Yeah, ‘Kat or one of the Nannies’, I mean, Kat was there and Leanne was there, but whether it was actually their printer or lead, I’m not sure. 

OK so we know the photos are from Kate McCann's camera but still do not know for sure where or when they were printed. According to John Hill the hotel printed the posters on the 4th May using the photos from a memory stick and at the request of Russell O'Brien. Russell doesn't know who printed the posters, only that it was somebody from the hotel and he doesn't mention when. He also thinks that Cat the nanny printed the photos on her printer on the 3rd May and that both Cat and Leanne were there. Or did he say they took the camera to their room to get a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal, there's a little office in there? Let's see what the nannies have to say....

Leanne Wagstaff gave her statement on 6th May 2007 and she states she saw Madeleine once but didn't know her, she also saw the parents once when they picked up the twins but didn't speak with them. On the night of the 3rd May she was heading out with some colleagues when she came across Amy searching the gardens with a torch. She helped with the search and complied with the missing child procedures but makes absolutely no mention of Cat and no mention of photos, printers or something that would connect to a printer.

Cat Baker makes no mention of photos, printers or something that would connect to a printer or Leanne in her initial PJ statement on the 6th May 2007. However in her Rogatory statement on the 18th April 2008 she does mention the search and Leanne "When I finished work that day, I headed for home. Some of my colleagues were going out but I was very tired and did not accompany them. I stayed in the apartment with my friend Rhiannon Fretter and we went to sleep. Two colleagues later returned to the apartment. I was confused and did not understand was happening. They eventually explained to me what had occurred around 22h30-22h35. Emma Wilding told me that Madeleine has disappeared. Leanne Wagstaff also was present.

I helped in the searches near the beach and after returned to the meeting point in the Tapas bar. The director indicated to us where to search; we looked in all areas. I searched on foot the majority of streets where Madeleine had passed and may have been familiar to her. I also searched the streets of the Tapas Bar, to the Minis Club, and of the Minis toward the beach looking between zones in the beach where she may have had access. All seemed to be concentrated on searches on the beach.

I did not see Kate or Gerry that night."

Hmmm strange that she does not mention the photos or posters or something that would connect to a printer. So if Cat or Leanne make no mention of printing the photos perhaps Russell just got their names wrong. So who were the 2 staff members who took Kate's camera? Well since Amy, Rhiannon Fretter and Emma Wilding have been mentioned perhaps we should continue with them...

Lynne Rhiannon Fretter works as child educator and gave her statement on the 7th May 2007. In that statement she says Leanne informed her of the missing girl around 23.30, she got dressed and joined in the search, she searched until 4am and then resumed at 8.30am but makes no mention of photos, printers, posters or something that would connect to a printer.

Emma Wilding works as infant teacher and also gave her statement on the 7th May 2007. She learns of the disappearance around 22.00 and helps in the search. Again no mention of photos, printers, posters or something that would connect to a printer.

Amy Tierney makes no mention of the photos when interviewed on the 5th June 2007 while Robert Murat sits in as intrepreter but almost a year later on the 17th April 2008 with Silvia Batista sitting in as interpreter she is asked about the photos and claims "When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.
 
She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera."

She also says that the printer is a Kodak EasyShare G60 which matches the expert advice received on which type printer had printed them but she no longer has the printer as her boyfriend in France has it. 

Further correspondence with the Science Lab (LPC) reveals that they would not be able to determine if that printer printed the photos but they had already identified that type of printer as a possibility.

WOW! Officer Nelson da Costas certainly did have a premonition that night! Not only did he see the posters in the room the night before they were printed but he also saw the photos about an hour before they were printed. Who would have thought that 2 simple photos of a small girl could tell such a story? Here is how our story timeline pans out...

So the photos and posters were in fact printed at the hotel but yet again we have discrepancies with the timelines. I also find it quite astonishing that when a small child goes missing and lots of people are questioned in the few days that follow none of them (with the exception of John Hill) actually mention the printing of photos or posters. Even though most of them were repeatedly questioned over the coming weeks and months and at the end of each session were asked by police if they have any other relevant info they still don't mention this, what I think, important factor in a missing child inquiry. 

The 1st people to remember took a staggering 5 months to recall the fact they printed hundreds of posters and one of them acted as interpreter for the police so must have some idea of what sort of information would be relevant and plenty of opportunity to say to police erm I don't know if this is important but I printed lots of posters. Even all the things reported by media about the mystery surrounding the photos and posters didn't jog memories! Did she really take 5 months to remember printing hundreds of posters or did it take that long for some external force to persuade her that's what she did? 

Poor Russell he took about a year to remember it was him that requested the printing of photos and posters but after all the bumbling um you know I mean erm you know I mean he did I'm not surprised. Wonder if he actually remembers anything from med school.

And then there was Amy, who also took a year to convince remember that she printed photos of a missing girl. I kinda wish I was her printer then I could call myself Morag Trollop - globetrotter.

And don't forget Nelson da Costa actually saw both the posters and the photos in apartment 5A when he first arrived and searched the apartment at approx 23.00 - about an hour prior to the photos being printed and the night before the posters were printed. How amazing is he?

All of that from 2 photos, lots of questions and uncertainty, will we ever know for certain when and where they were printed? 

Once again if you managed to stay till this point thank you for taking the time. If you have any theories or questions on what I have written here then please do leave a comment.

Remember anything I write on my blog are either facts or my personal thoughts and opinions and I mean no harm libelous or otherwise to any person or company.

Keep trolling - morally
Morag Trollop - morally-trolling
 
 

 


 

What is morally trolling all about?

Let me see, where do I begin?

I am just a normal every day grandmother. At least that's my view but everyone is entitled to an opinion, aren't they? I do try to be open minded about many things, after all none of us are perfect, some just think they are! But I do at times get pretty heat up about some things that I have an opinion on and well I do like to get my point across, as we all do.

I have my own opinions about the whole Madeleine McCann case and have followed the case closely since the very beginning. I have trawled through many many blogs, forums, news articles, videos and even the official police files on numerous occasions. I do not claim to be or even pretend to be an expert on the subject (or any other for that matter). I am not intending to offend anyone, accuse anyone or even be libelous towards anyone or any company.

Up until now any opinions I have aired on the Madeleine case have all been offline among friends and I will admit that it wouldn't be the first time I have heard one of them say "Oh my God how can you think such a thing?". Obviously I then go on to explain whatever opinion of mine they have been shocked at and I do give them what I feel are very good reasons, I tell them where to find the evidence to back up what I have said. I don't convince them every time but like I said everyone is entitled to have their own opinion and I do not ever expect everybody to share mine. I certainly don't make comments to entice a row with someone who doesn't share the same opinions. I have respect for their opinions and expect others to have respect for mine. I intend to conduct my online self in the same way. Morally.

Anyway enough about me as this (my very 1st blog post on my very 1st blog) is supposed to be about this blog morally-trolling. Like I said I do not usually air my opinions about Madeleine's case online but have been to many other places where opinions of others are aired along with facts and evidence and I have total respect for these places and the people who do post there, so much so that when somebody says anything personal that would perhaps upset or offend them, it also upsets and offends me. Just because I haven't said anything there doesn't mean that I'm not a part of that online community. Over the years many offensive things have been said and well to me it has been like water off a duck's back but recently the Mirror has labelled people online who are not necessarily anti-McCann but do believe the facts presented by the Portuguese police as "Vile Trolls". http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/vile-trolls-target-madeleine-mccann-2472668 It was this article that made me think maybe I should use my online voice.

Yes I have read the article, yes I do take offense to it. I do not condone the behavior of some that have been quoted in the article, e.g. the kidnapping of the twins, or prank calls of any sort but then I always do take what's in newspapers with a pinch of salt (and sometimes vinegar). The actions or words of a very small minority do not in anyway accurately describe the rest of the community, most are just normal people like myself who are caring enough to seek justice for a little missing girl they do not even know, just because they do not believe the same as you does not make them all vile like the minority who were quoted. It certainly doesn't make them a troll, for a description of internet troll see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll  Going on that description in the wiki link I am far from a troll as are the many people I have come across in that online community. The majority of them post relevant comments in places where they ARE meant to be posted and I feel it is high time I opened my online mouth to stick up for them. I do not mean harm, I will be aiming to post only facts and/or my opinions and if that makes me or anyone who agrees with me a troll then so be it. It is from this I then get the name morally-trolling for my blog. Hope you like it!

I myself, like some mentioned in the Mirror's article, considered phoning Crime Watch to say I thought the e-fit was very like Gerry McCann. They were pictures that I had already seen, a long time ago, I'm not sure where but think it was maybe from the police files (I will double check when I have more time and update this post accordingly). I didn't phone Crime Watch but only because I knew I would not be taken seriously, not because I didn''t think the e-fits look very like Gerry.  I already know that Goncala Amaral and his team of police officers had already taken witness statements from the Smith family and it is my understanding that these descriptions were used to produce the e-fits. A few months after giving their statements the Smiths called back to say that when they saw Gerry McCann get off the plane carrying his son Sean, they recognized him as the man they saw carry the little girl at around 10pm the night of 3rd May 2007 heading towards the sea. These are not just my ramblings, these details are all in the official police files including the statements taken from the Smiths. So I am left slightly confused at why Crime Watch are saying new details have come to light and these are new e-fits.

This weeks Sunday Times article about the McCanns paying Oakley to investigate the case back in 2008 then later threatening them with legal action to keep the report from being made public knowledge gave me that extra push to start my blog (and further confused me on the origins of the 'new e-fits'). The Oakley PI's send a report which is very similar to that of the Portuguese police reports and the McCanns threaten legal action to hush it up! Really? The parents of a missing child pay half a million pounds to private investigators then dismiss the findings as "Hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends". The parents who have vowed to do everything possible to find their daughter, spend that much in publicly donated money for a report, then hide it? Five years of suppression!

Quite cheeky of them when you think that Portugal's respected officer Goncala Amaral has been in court the last few years on a libel charge for hindering the search for Madeleine. Isn't it sitting on reports that is hindering the search? Or perhaps the continuous changes to the events of that time which are confusing possible witnesses or sightings? There are lots and lots of unanswered questions (more than 48) which may or may not be hindering the case but let's not digress. The article in the Sunday Times was I feel a very brave article and the editor would be a fool if any word of it is untrue or hearsay!

So how is it that I have previously seen the e-fits? Were they obtained by police in Portugal or by the PI as suggested in the Sunday Times, or from the Scotland Yard enquiry? Either way they are said to be from the Smith's and as they say in Crime Watch these 'new' findings change the timeline so hopefully now Madeleine will be found soon.

And so here it is my very first blog and if you have managed to stay through my ramblings as far this point then thank you for taking the time and welcome to morrally-trolling.

I have no idea as yet what my next post will be or even when but I'm sure I will soon have more opinions or ramblings to air, perhaps on a subject far from the Madeleine McCann case. Maybe one of you would like to hear my opinion on something? Do post and let me know and if I have any on your chosen subject I will share them in a future post.

UPDATED:17/11/2013 - Sunday Times article moved, link updated. As yet I am still not able to locate were I had already seen those 'new' e-fits several years ago.

Keep trolling.....morally.
Morag Trollop,  morally-trolling.