Grâce à la liberté dans les communications, des groupes d’hommes de même nature pourront se réunir et fonder des communautés. Les nations seront dépassées.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Fragments posthumes XIII-883)

18 - JAN/AOÛ - Blacksmith Bureau (13a)

We had to open a brief but special Bureau to mark the tragic end of the Derry & Toms roof garden in London's Kensington, once the epitome of style, elegance and hope.
It had survived many painful episodes more or less unscathed but once leaseholder Richard Branson made it available for a "charity McCann night" its fate was sealed: the McCann Curse always strikes in the end. Still, it gave us perhaps the most perfect photograph of the McCann couple in all their glory ever taken.
Otherwise our comments and services are, as we said before, no longer required. We've seen no evidence to convince us that Kate and Gerry McCann ever harmed their daughter or were responsible for her disappearance and, in any case, that isn't a matter for us to determine.
What clearly has been determined with certainty is that no abduction ever took place. Kate McCann has never claimed the slightest eye-witness evidence of an intruder, only that "I knew that she had been taken". In other words she had no information of value about an abductor to provide and came to a fanciful conclusion erroneously and before any examination of the facts, a forgivable error given the state she was no doubt in. Gerry McCann, as we know, saw nothing but naturally supported his wife. A decade has revealed that supporting evidence for abduction does not exist. The only person who claimed possible direct eye-witness evidence of an apparent abductor, Jane Tanner, is now co-operating with Scotland Yard.
Other people can do the talking, not us. The law is taking its course.

Bilan (envoyé à ce forum "libre-penseur")
I haven't lost interest in the case but I think that commenting - except on a relatively neutral forum like this - offers no gain but considerable loss. Leaving aside my unpopular assertion that the case is in good hands we also have a curious situation that has crept up on us: the Affair is now at a mirror image stage compared with 2008-2012.Those four years, from the release of the case files to the publication of "Madeleine" were of extraordinary and definitive success for the sceptic case. The files themselves, the Amaral book, the breakthrough in the Lisbon Court in 2009/10 (we owe Sky a debt for Jon de Canio), the Portuguese Appeal Court judgement, the self-revealing nature of "Madeleine" - all these and others revealed that everything that had been claimed by the parents was either a lie or had simply never existed, from A for Abduction, through R for "rogue cop" to Z-list celebrity author KM and her "I wrote this book to tell the truth". Everything. I had never dreamed that all the evidence would be so unambiguous and can still hardly believe it to this day.

Now, it doesn't matter even if there are bent cops at the bottom of every garden, the facts once established can never be extinguished and are beyond anyone's control. Forget bent police squads, the German state swore silence, burnt and ground the bones of their victims to dust, razed the killing installations and ploughed the powder deep into the ground. It made no difference at all to the truth becoming known over the next thirty years. Facts have a life of their own; justice is a different matter. It is that success for our cause that guaranteed that eventually the case would be re-opened, whatever people believe about Rebekah Brooks's "powers". The Portuguese police, it turns out, had never closed the case and, as the court records show, went on adding to the files and then, without the temptation of glimpsing M/S Brook's persuasive miniskirts, established a new CID squad in Porto long before Grange. But the result, as I said, is a mirror image. All the critical areas of the case that matter to us (the sceptical public) have now been resealed since 2012 as a result of the re-investigations. We have, in fact, less to go on now than in 2007 because at least then we had the leaks and counter leaks from the PJ and the Team to suggest which way the wind was blowing. Now it's like a mummy's tomb.

How much have the dogs' indications been systematically followed up? We don't know. Have there been new forensics? Ditto. What exactly have the wireless tracks achieved? That's right. How goes the Smithman investigation that Redwood said was a critical line? Nope. What do the police tell us about questioning the Nine? Complete, sometimes stoic, sometimes (di Carmo) flustered, denial & refusal. And so on.The McCanns and their few supporters have always coped with the situation by their own refusal - to accept, or even acknowledge, that any of the 2008-2012 revelations exist. The subsequent five years have worked 100% in their favour publically since the vacuum surrounding what is really going on has been filled with Cesspit-type theories. These are manna for McCanna, their strongest card in fact, because they are laughably easy to ridicule, let alone refute. But only in the short term, only if you believe that policemen in two countries can't read the facts as well as we can.

Meanwhile the supporters have now reached a level of bitter, at times psychopathic, abuse which contaminates those who attempt to counter them, as twitter demonstrates. Trying to engage with people whose critical judgement is so poor that they fell for a fairy story and can now no longer comprehend what is happening, is a recipe for continuous toxic hate, hate, hate. I'm told that the latter is no good for karma. We can never win that one. ETA, just a reminder that police squads may misbehave but the UK Crown Prosecution Service, the people who both analyse the case files and take the prosecution decisions, are career civil servants, independent in theory and in practice from the government. Ask Keir Starmer.

Correction - 13.02.2018
Fuss time about Gra
nge once again: an opportunity for us to correct something we'd assumed about it. It appears that Grange are telling us the full truth when they state that the McCanns are not suspects in this investigation. Why is that the case ? It runs like this. First, no minister, prime minister or any other member of the government can order the investigation of anybody, despite the wonderful powers allotted to UK governments by assorted McCann sceptics. That's just the law and it protects us all against the assorted lunatics and bastards - always excepting the wonderful Mr Rees-Mogg - who govern on our behalf.

But, as we all know, it can, via the Home Office, authorise an "investigative review" in certain cases. The McCanns asked for one and the government, after consultation with the Portuguese, granted it. In this case Mr Bennett, to give that awful character his due, is correct although, as always, his reasoning and his inferences are wrong: the remit and therefore the legal status of an "investigative review" matters very much indeed. There is no provision in such a remit for naming any targets, for "clearing" them or for making them suspects: it is purely what it says, a review of investigations that have already taken place, despite the fact that a second, so-called "investigative" phase of the Grange review was initiated in 2013. There was never any question of the McCanns or other named individuals being targeted for investigation - it would still have been illegal: only when  prima facie evidence of an offence is publicly available  can an investigation of individuals  be ordered via the prosecution service (not the government) and there was no such evidence in 2013.  So, the Yard officers were being perfectly truthful in 2012 in stating that they were not suspects in any way in the review.  That remains the case today.
But what about evidence emerging in the course of the "investigative phase" of the review from 2013 onwards ? Could that affect the couple ? It is not a question that anyone is willing to answer or discuss  or even pose publicly; not the police, not the McCanns, not the lawyers. It does not suit any of them to do so. In that sense it is exactly analogous to the hole left in Operation Grange's history by the refusal of the same three parties to discuss the implications of  Redwood's new timeline and the apparent identification of the person seen by Jane Tanner: it does not suit any of them to do so. 
Given the extremely muddy words of the Yard's description of their 2013 investigative phase - i.e. not giving any defensible legal definition of it - it appears that Grange, in order to proceed with one at all, agreed to exclude the McCanns as suspects from that as well. No, said the Bureau wearily, that wasn't a cunning plan to protect guilty people, no, equally wearily, the Yard wasn't ordered to. They were obeying the law and putting the review above legal challenge,  as somebody should perhaps tell Mr Sutton.
The parents aren't and never have been suspects or "persons of interest"  in Grange. They never will be. The PJ, who have their own laws, have, as we know, adopted exactly the same position. After Grange ends such undertakings have no meaning, of course: it does not lie within the powers of any of the above parties to exclude evidence garnered lawfully and within the terms of the remit during Grange from consideration by the Ministry of Justice in Portugal or the CPS over here.  
Everything remains on target.

To sum up the deception: taking the three famous timelines chronologically, readers can see for themselves not only how a hearsay sighting of a person with a child was turned into a monster but exactly how the group, beginning with O' Brien, Gerry McCann and Payne* on the night of May 3, conspired to make him the history and centre of the entire affair by creating a “slot” for him compatible with the Tanner abductor's time of departure, all with supposedly remembered suggestive (or at least "possible") evidence ** – alas, no longer available once the police had been called and the apartment trampled – of his presence. Doing so involved them in altering and disguising their real movements.
Keep It Simple - It Is
Forget detailed and head-spinning analysis: that's what they always wanted you to look at and get confused by.*** Just keep it very simple, look at what they say they were doing in the first timeline, which takes about two minutes, watch them alter them in the second to create the slot and then look at the final typed timeline. All the timings have been changed progressively with one intention, initial estimates being replaced by ludicrous pseudo-exactitude to squeeze them in. In the third document, indeed, which states that “all timings are approximate” the Oldfield movement has been shunted from 9-9.05 to 8.57 (!!!) PM and Gerry McCann is awarded a watch to look at as he supposedly leaves the bar for the apartment at, why, exactly 9.05.
It is, as both the PJ and Scotland Yard know, all in vain, as is normally the case with criminal group lies. Reality – always in flux and movement – is too complex to be defeated by conspiracies. The result is like watching chimpanzees trying to operate a model railway.
As they discover while they struggle to get the invented story straight over the next four days. Either their timings make GM shoot away from Tapas station too soon or send him chugging off too late, put him on a direct collision course with Oldfield or leave him gormlessly staring down at his daughter in bed with love in his heart after she’s been snatched or as the crazed monster is forcing his way in.
Or Oldfield has to be struck blind so he can’t see whether shutters are open or closed; or the unwelcome constraint of Wilkins’ presence at the gate means that MancCenstein must be seizing the child just as Tanner is watching him “hurry away” – unless Tanner is held at a stop signal while the monster is kept circling a loop until released to move.
And Fail
The problems are endless and can never be resolved, despite Gerry McCann’s copious and timely urination and unconscious shiver at the prospect of the slavering monster he can sense behind the bedroom door - added by him and the ever-helpful Mitchell months later.**** And as for those suggestive little door movements and locked and unlocked gates that Manccanstein left behind him – oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear, if he didn’t exist any more than Mary Shelley’s creation, who in Christ's name moved them?
It’s all there in writing. For ever. A criminal conspiracy to mislead the police.***** It took six years for them to unravel it. But unravel it they have.
"I Know What I Saw"
But now let’s turn to the monster’s unlikely origins on the twilit streets of Praia da Luz that night.
All Too Human
Like most people we tend to be generous to the wily but seriously fragile Jane Tanner, never having suggested that she invented her sighting, quietly admiring of that stuff she spun to an aghast and bewildered PJ about the brutish Anglo-Saxons always leaving their children unsupervised - quite the cultural historian is Jane, at least when attempting to hang onto her child. And who can't warm to a woman who confessed, Textusa, that the thought of swinging with Gerry McCann, either on the top of a big round table, no doubt, or perhaps in an antique chaise d'amour, made her retch?
But let’s face it, and ignoring her naughty refusal to tell Leicester Police whether she identified Murat in the van that famous night or not, as an eyewitness she’s a fucking disaster.**
Show Business
With Operation Grange still running it cannot permit itself to give the full facts about its relationship with Tanner and the holidaymaker, for reasons we’ve given elsewhere. Full visibility will only come after the conclusion of the investigation. Thus, we’ll indulge nice Mr Redwood for his identification exercises which are far more irregular than Amaral’s (and the Yard's) van episode ever was, will never be brought into court and which extend a great deal of slack to Tanner. We’ll accept also that, in order to gain agreement or co-operation in the exclusion exercise, he posed the holiday-maker against a non-police, collective late sketch, not against details exactly matching her police eyewitness evidence.
We’ll also have to accept various other liberties - that the origin of the holidaymaker’s clothes is unknown, that what he was actually wearing is unknown, that whether he has been asked to grow hair etc. to the length it was in 2007 is unknown and, equally important, the time and direction of his presence is completely unknown.
But that doesn’t matter: the only aim of this elaborate television performance by Redwood was not to question Tanner’s eyewitness evidence or to build a case or to make an identification - that was already done - but to announce formally and definitively but without causing trouble for non-suspects, that the abductor, in the timescale and form claimed by her group, does not exist, end of story. Any court will accept that.
So How Did She Do?
Mr Redwood is one of those people whose richly Celtic warmth and niceness is likely - look at his eyes - to be a signal of something quite else and when he's as nice on Crimewatch about how strikingly and wonderfully similar the holiday-maker' appearance and M/S Tanner's versions are, then it's time to start looking for the open door before the cuffs come out.
The sub-text beneath the Carnish sweetness is, of course errors occur, of course it's easy to make mistakes, no, no, it doesn't mean your behaviour is questionable, nobody's going to think any the worse of you my dear, not at all my lovely, no, no, you are completely above suspicion of anything. Mistakes happen.
So here's the holidaymaker, around since 2013, though the McCann clique don't seem to be too keen on discussing him, do they? The photograph of the man M/S Tanner saw. ***

Looks like a syrup-of-figs on the top of his head, doesn't it? Mr Redwood clearly doesn't want us to see too much of the real hair yet, does he?
But before we get onto objective metrics about such evidence can we say something from the heart? Look carefully at him.
And then look at this, an internet collation of some of the vile, stinking, filthy images that the McCann camp and its beshitted spokesman created, revelled in and thrust at us month after month, year after year as the truth of the world until Grange finally stopped them diverting the investigation any longer. But that is only their world, the McCann world.
They could be inhabitants of another planet, couldn't they? And they are: created by the disturbed and fearful minds who, with the gift of free will, took the decision to enter it and be bound by it. Then look back at the mild, inoffensive and thoroughly decent-looking human being that those criminals claim is the origin of their filth. No, the photograph shows an inhabitant of the real world, our world, not theirs, the one they will never re-join. They are now in hell, of their own invention and their own actions. Just looking at their creations on the page makes one want to have a wash. Now, back to work.
Brilliant, fantastic, scrumpical likeness Jane. Arr!
JT to the police in 2007: He was dark-skinned
The person she saw at twilight: He is light skinned. He is light-skinned! JT accuracy score: 0/10.
JT: About 1.7M high.
Person: The Yard have provided no measuring marks. 0/0
JT: Aged 35-40. Slim build.
Person: Six years on and he is clearly younger than 35-40. 5/10 + 9/10
JT:Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back.
Person: Darkish and wavy, textured not lank. Completely incompatible with the later non-police artist's version. Hair that will not lie flat at the back unless wet. Prominent sideburns. 5/10.
JT: Trousers linen type, straight, beige to golden. Adds 'the same as "corticine",' a cork-based, dark brown floor covering, in colour.
Person: Linen, beige. 10/10.
JT: Shoes dark, "classic type," with a slight heel.
Person: Brown. Unheeled. 5/10.
JT: Jacket a dark "Duffy"***** - not duffle - jacket. These are defined as extra-warm insulated kagools or anoraks. She adds that it was "not that thick".
Person: A short blue-grey lightweight casual jacket or anorak. 1/10.
Additional or Overall qualities
JT: A hurried walk.
Person: Not known, no information provided. 0/0
JT: His clothes were somehow unusual.
Person: The clothes are bog-standard casual resort wear. 0/10
JT: He was "very warmly" dressed.
Person: He is wearing lightweight resort wear. 0/10
JT: Not a tourist. 0/10.
Person: A British tourist.
So , finally, in 2018, you have a good measure of how accurate and dependable Jane Tanner is as an eye-witness. Leaving completely aside that she then willingly joined the rest of the conspirators to turn this minimal and misleading little blur - essentially a flash of pyjama'd legs, a patch of beige at the bottom and black at the top, clouded completely by a set of (invalidated in the photo above) prior assumptions - into a criminally misleading decoy that took six years to destroy, we have the verdict: utterly worthless.
As Amaral always suspected.
* together O Brien rogatory, section 3.
** evidence McCann police statements, Oldfield rogatory, Madeleine.
*** confused by examples on almost every page of rogatory interviews, especially by the males. The confusion is so vast and spidery that the group, Payne particularly, cannot makes sense of their own words, get completely lost and the interviews come to temporary halts while the police attempt to retrieve the thread of meaning.
**** months later The disgraced and beshitten Mitchell's words were fed to the media on behalf of the McCann defence team when the pair were safely back in the UK.
***** A criminal conspiracy to mislead the police The irrefutable evidence is in front of you, documented. The police were misled and the McCanns insisted to the PJ that they must make this phantom the focus of their efforts. Had they succeeded the police might still be looking for the dark-skinned, somewhat demonic, foreigner today.
* made her retch Tanner rogatory (less colourfully). Supposed cultural history of leaving children alone in her police statements.
** she’s a fucking disaster. Look at her eyewitness statement again. Starting with "dark-skinned" and ending in "not a tourist".
*** photograph Crimewatch archive on net.
**** Tanner's words Both police statements and one reference to the bogus creation of the McCann camp (the hair)
***** Duffy definitions Google

Buffoons, naturally
The little Bureau is famous for its contemptuous dismissal of all the conspiracy theories so dear to the heart of the under-educated anti-McCann "researchers". So it's amusing that only the Bureau is at all bothered with studying a prolonged and well-funded professional conspiracy that has been taking place for the last five years. And, judging by results, a successful one.
What results? Funnily enough, the comments and teachings of the anti-McCann nutters themselves.
The fake suspects conspiracy started when Operation Grange reached its investigative phase, has run continually since and its last initiative took place as recently as November 2017. The suspects themselves are either invented or plucked out of old files and shaped as needed. Or they are based on the names of people Grange has questioned but with characteristics added that are not derived in any way from police sources.
What Do we Know about the Conspirators?
They use the MSM as the vehicle for their deceptions, not politicians or millionaire businessmen or the famous Brownshirts, the crack Scotland Yard killer and whitewash squad. They are almost certainly a small group, but well-funded. They are, without doubt, media professionals with extensive contacts in the MSM and a serious working knowledge of how to use the hollowed-out MSM to get false stories published. It is a genuine conspiracy in the sense that there is a deliberate intention to pass themselves off to the public as police spokesmen or policemen with inside knowledge. That is where the criminality comes in.*
Who are they actually working for? A good question.
Are they just spreading fake suspects? No. The group's aims are constant and targeted.
There is a clear plan of triple objectives over the past five years. These are:
Misdirection - consistently pretending to identify Operation Grange suspects who all share the same characteristics.*
Sabotaging Grange's reputation* - the "suspects" never come to anything. Pursuits fail, forecast arrests never take place. The clear impression given is that Grange is hopelessly incompetent and comical.
Attempting to starve or kill Grange.* - the incompetence is so clear and transparent that whatever they conclude will be worthless. Funding should be discontinued.
The evidence and modus operandi are laid out in the footnotes/source notes below.
Secret Leader of the Brownshirts Hit Squad
Is The Conspiracy Working?
By one, rather surprising, measure it most certainly is. For it is typical of life’s constant ironies that it's the publicly noisy “anti-McCann” FB, twitter and website camp that has fallen more completely for this transparent bullshit than anyone else, including the majority of the “unenlightened” British public.
If you check twitter McCann now you will find all the anti-McCann "research groups" and experts, with a few honourable exceptions, foaming away with exactly the same message that the conspiracy has relentlessly drummed home - and into their unsuspecting minds, the poor bastards:
No more money for the Yard! If they do this one more time I predict a riot!
Have OG given any hint of their yet again one last line of enquiry is about this time purple woman obviously got "whooshed". [sic]
Only wishful thinking and a failure to comprehend the full scope/scale of the coverup support your ongoing faith in Op Grange.
And much more. That's what happens when you believe what you read in those utterly poisoned wells, the newspapers. The dark, slightly crazed, beauty of it is that the victims don't even have an idea that they're being played like fat, lazy trouts.
So Who is the Conspiracy Working For?
It isn't very difficult to find the truth. All you have to do is some work, proper work - find out how many people in the UK have the expertise, experience and contacts to do the job and then research where the misdirection is pointing to and who could possibly benefit. The MSM, who brought you the original lies, know who it is, naturally - they've been in close contact with them during the construction of the stories, obviously - but they won't give sources.
But first you'd have to take your arse out of the past, stop using poisoned wells as "sources", tear yourself away from eleven year old, hopelessly out-of-date case files and look, for once, at what's going on around you now. But that won't be possible for people who, as we can see, are being so successfully played: there's no way out for them.
There you go, nice easy reading. The boring evidence is below but challenged researchers can, of course, skip it.


* Criminality. There can be no doubt about the pattern of deception. There is a clear intention to pretend, for example, that the stories derive directly from official police sources; there is a pretence that police officers and Grange are being quoted verbatim by using phrases like “sources close to the police”, “a spokesman close to the police investigation” and so on. And they know exactly how far they can go in getting the MSM to carry their false claims. Only long experience in working with the MSM can produce that.
The professional experience also shows in the structure of the news feeds – encouraging each MSM outlet to “personalize” the supplied stories while preserving the core provided. Thus some go over the top with “arrests [of the ‘suspects’] soon” while others are cautious. Readers unfamiliar with MSM ways then assume that each paper has gained the information independently, thus providing further cover for the sole originators.
*Misdirection. There is a striking and undeniable consistency in the selected "suspects". The misdirection is always:
Away from professionals with no criminal records and towards “criminal types” and “lurkers in the shadows”. Away from victims of accidents and the unpredictable and towards pre-planned crime. Away from recognizable human beings you might meet in the tube, on the plane or on a sunny beach and towards “monsters” such as the “stinking binman” dribbling over undressed girls. Away from people with their faults and misjudgements towards organized wickedness such as “paedophile rings”. This is a statistical impossibility if the "suspects" are a random cross-section. The conclusion is that, for whatever reason, misdirection is at work: somebody is selecting these types - and ignoring others - for a reason.
*Sabotaging Grange's reputation. The accumulation of suspect stories has been to make the Scotland Yard investigation look incompetent, stupid and, worse, ridiculous. The soap opera background given to these inventions or ornamentations is almost always childishly unreal – curiously similar, in fact, to the fairy-story monsters and loners provided by Team McCann’s 2009-2011 wretched artists’ impressions supposedly – but not actually – based on Jane Tanner’s memory.
The conspirators know from experience, as well as a profound cynicism about people, that almost nobody reads the official media releases from Scotland Yard. Instead they read newspaper versions, and nobody more so than the anti-McCann "researchers". So they add fiction to what the police actually said time after time, hardly anyone sees the differences and it is those additions, not the words of Scotland Yard, that are used to ridicule Grange. Easy really.
*Attempting to starve or kill Grange. The fake stories present groundless over-optimism followed by a void, meaning, and intending to mean, that what the Yard say can never be trusted because only failure follows. “Arrests expected!” “Police home in on Maddie suspects!” Nothing ever happens.
The most recent plant, the 2017 Purple Woman story – has everything in it, starting with the outright lie “…police are now scouring her home country in an attempt to make a breakthrough in the long-running case”.
Misdirection? Away from “non-criminal normals” and towards the shadows , “It is thought that police interest is linked to discoveries about her late partner’s history…understood to have been a paedophile…”
Incompetence and buffoonery? “During the past six years, a string of theories and suspects have come and gone," says the story fed to the Mail. "Variously, the spotlight has fallen on a group of British contract cleaners working in the resort, a smelly, pot-bellied man, a burglary gang posing as charity collectors, child-traffickers, gypsies and so on.” Don’t you love that “and so on.”? Note that "the spotlight" referred to is not the official statements of Scotland Yard but the fake additions provided by the conspiracy group.
Attempting to kill Grange? “But the brutal and tragic truth is that it is more than probable the woman in purple is unlikely to be the key to solving this mystery,” says the fake story. Grange has never said it was the key, nor anything similar.
And then the cream on the cake, tucked away near the bottom, the final misdirection: “It is this woman in purple, the Mail understands, who is keeping alive Operation Grange, the marathon reinvestigation of the Madeleine McCann case by Scotland Yard, now in its sixth year.”
Yep, the Purple Woman is the famous last lead, not Smithman.

Concluding our views on the criminal conspiracy targeting Operation Grange - about which nobody except the Bureau is bothered. The available evidence is laid out here: 
Its Actions
The small group behind the conspiracy invents important Grange suspects and plants them in convincing tabloid media stories (packages). All of the “important suspects” are fakes and most have never existed at all.
The planted, fake stories, all pretending to be written by journalists on the various tabloids they appear in, give an impression of buffoonish incompetence by Grange – picking, chasing and losing suspects, following false leads, never producing results, always promising arrests soon. 
Its Aims
In the four years that the conspiracy has been in operation its underlying message – the conclusions they want you to draw from the fake facts – has progressively strengthened. It has always concealed its motives but at first it also concealed its intentions.
So for a couple of years it pretended to be in favour of Grange, even though its claims were always detrimental to the real investigation. As time has passed, though, the message that Grange is a failure that should be denied further funds and scrapped has become stronger and stronger.
Entering Desperate Times
With the latest stories the attack has intensified to desperate levels and the mainstream press has once again been corrupted not just into carrying the plants - unwise but perhaps forgivable in this hard world - but adopting them and suggesting to the public they are true. That is deception.
It is what happened in early 2007. Then, for example, the MSM all carried claims fed to them via friends, contacts and family of the McCanns that the apartment 5A “shutters had been damaged” or “jemmied” – inventions that the claimants have never repeated since.
But it was only as the affair progressed that the MSM adopted the line that the McCann family were truthful witnesses of what happened, meaning that they were telling the public the jemmied claims and other lies weren't lies at all. That was the beginning of the MSM's descent into disguising paid-for opinion derived from hidden sources as factual news: deception. Exactly the same deception as Piers Morgan allowed at the Mirror to make himself money from share deals. There the MSM remain.

Look at what the Mail is now saying for itself:
“Why is the British taxpayer being asked to finance Operation Grange further when all other leads have come to dispiriting dead-ends?”
"But there comes a time in every police inquiry into a disappearance when the question of how long it should continue has to be asked.”
So, just as in May 2007, the Mail has slipped from printing fake stories provided by hidden sources down the slope into presenting them to its readers as the truth.
So much for the lost, corrupted and rudderless MSM, which in 2007 were used by people in the McCann camp and in 2018 are being used, once again, to influence people’s opinions, this time by people unknown. Nothing has changed - not because the media are monsters but because the intelligence, expertise and methods of those who've penetrated ("hollowed out") the MSM exceeds that of journalists and editors.
Who Gains?
But who is using them so effectively? These things cost time and money; we’re not talking pranksters or hobbyists here but funded and professional operators working for years in the dark world of planted “news”. And what’s in it for the originators?
They want Grange to end, obviously – they want it dead. They want people to believe it’s useless. The suspects, they say, are ridiculous. The lines of investigation go nowhere. And so on. Despite the fact that there’s no evidence at all that the McCanns themselves are behind this conspiracy the similarities to the 2007/8 Portuguese investigation are creepily similar: someone is using the same methods to discredit another Madeleine McCann investigation.

Thus, for example, the MSM in 2007 carried the consistent message that the Portuguese investigation had failed; that it was junk; that it was led by an untalented buffoon; that its prime suspects were not the McCanns. And so on.
Someone is frightened that Grange is a success. The only people who could be frightened of that are potential or actual suspects.

Maybe the Bureau's writings on this scandal are finally having a result.
For the very first time Clarence Mitchell has moved to distance the McCanns from what has been going on for four years.
“The Met Police have requested extra funding and have been granted it," he tells the tabloids. “It’s not helpful and is very hurtful for retired police officers and in the past so called crime experts and other families to say the investigation should be wound up and is a waste of public money."
Understandably Mitchell has failed to mention that he has been a contributor - not a proven conspirator but an enthusiastic contributor - to nearly all the corrupt packaged stories the Bureau has been writing about, both as a "a source" and as "a pal" or "a friend" and under his own name
We suggested that the conspirators had gone too far with the latest, desperate effort, the Purple Woman junk which took the subversion of Grange to new levels. And they have. And guess who participated in that story -
"It is this ‘woman in purple’, the Mail understands, "who is keeping alive Operation Grange, the marathon reinvestigation of the Madeleine McCann case by Scotland Yard, now in its sixth year.
A source told the Sun : 'There is no evidence they [M/S Purple and Mr Paedophile] were involved [!!] but it would be good to eliminate them from the investigation."
Now who do you think that was?


Singing From the Same Sheet
The giant difference from 2007 is the supposed “opposition” to the hollowed-out MSM: internet groups. The overwhelming 2007 internet view was that the media were being conned or had been corrupted and the truth was not being printed – and they were absolutely right, as Kate McCann, of all people, has proved with her written confession that the pair had concealed the explosive fact that in August 2007 they were police suspects - not arguidos but suspects whose home had been raided - by lying to the media.
But gradually something very weird has happened, as we mentioned in our first piece on the conspiracy: almost all the well-known internet groups now, on FB, twitter and websites, have swung 180 degrees and are in complete agreement with the Mail and the other junk tabloids. Some opposition!
Look at the twin paths of these supposedly opposed groupings: the Mail and its peers have gone from swallowing the lies offered to it in May 2007, through believing the clanking, steam-driven PJ publicity “machine” feeds that the McCanns would be toast by October, to the libel courts, apathy, then "disgraced cop Amaral” land and finally, in 2018, opting to publicise a conspiracy’s attempts to discredit and kill an investigation into the fate of Madeleine McCann.

The internet “opposition”, following the loss of most of its sane and intelligent commentators years ago, has gone from scepticism about the McCanns, to believing the same PJ “toast” feeds, to crushed disappointment at the archiving and the libel courts, and thence, defeated, on to a journey away from reality into fantasy so deep and deranged – Brownshirt killer squads, switched Madeleines, premeditated murder conspiracies between the McCanns and the ex-head of CEOP and the rest – that it can no be argued with rationally: they are genuinely beyond contact except from fellow sufferers.
They always gained their information chiefly from newspaper stories, not real sources, and our "researchers" are now paying a horrible price for drinking from such poisoned wells: none of them has the slightest idea of who or what to believe anymore, having played at attacking all sources of information indiscriminately and so they've been forced to fall back on the only thing left they trust - their out-of control imaginations which lured them into these quicksands in the first place. Thus defeated they find themselves, like sleepwalkers, parroting the words of the MSM and backing attempts to discredit and kill an investigation into the child's fate.
On Tuesday the Mail, under the heading "Mr Sutton slammed a decision to hand the Met an extra £150,000 for the search", welcomes the hapless Colin Sutton into the latest assault on Grange. Another recruit.
Meanwhile, thank God, the police in both countries appear to remain on target. Unknown conspirators have made the Bureau even more certain of that. It's not their bullshit that convinces us, though. It's the fact that people with their liberty at risk aren't frightened of buffoonish and failed investigations: they lie awake at night wondering how to deflect the scary ones, those that are on the right track.


OK Craig, you've written, "I am going to come straight out with this... in the full knowledge that some decent people will be outraged, here it is."
What are you going to come out with? And what evidence have you got?
We plough through the hearsay and the suspicions and the gossip and the stuff about McCann parenting - come on Craig, everybody says that, what's your inside ambassadorial knowledge that fixes the conspiracy, where's the smoking gun that you suppressed in 2014 and that will outrage decent people?
Ah, got one, a source! Yep, the nutter Anglophobe internet conspiracy theorist Joana Morais, who wasn't there either. Uh-huh. Craig, you're supposed to be supplying people like her with confirmatory evidence, not the other way round. Oh, and a Belgian newspaper "no longer available". Dearie me, we thought you were talking with inside knowledge. Oh well, when you can't quote Tony Blair verbatim, Joana Morais will have to do.
Finally, after hundreds of words of junk gossip we get to what Mr Murray, the insider, knows. Prepare to be outraged, decent people, by his conclusions.
"I do believe [meaning "don't know", our italics] that the McCanns were less than exemplary parents," [that's a state secret, isn't it?] "I believe that New Labour’s No.10 saw, in typical Blair fashion, a highly photogenic tragedy which there might be popularity in appearing to work on.
And I believe there is a genuine danger that the high profile support from the top of the British government might have put some psychological pressure on the Portuguese investigators and prosecuting officers in their determinations [their what?]."
Fucking devastating, isn't it? Murray turns out to be lost in the quicksand himself.

Magic – 20.04.2018 
That's the End of That One
It looks like the purple woman story may have been the peak of the "derail the investigation" game which has been running intermittently since 2013, a genuine, visible conspiracy which has hitherto been ignored by everyone, internet or MSM, except the Bureau.
This time the plotters overreached themselves and they know it. Now it will go quiet until the next stage of the investigations is reached, when the five year old strategy will have to be ditched for a rethink anyway: this one has failed. Always remember what the Bureau wrote back in 2012: "it's when the criminal lawyers start appearing, or getting mentioned, that we'll know the home straight is in sight."kSensible Posters Surface
In the last few weeks a lot of the energy has gone out of the kill Grange stuff. We've been gratified to see people re-asserting common sense at last, on twitter and elsewhere. At least some among those who, we regret to say, have been fooled by the hidden schemers into attacking the wrong target, have apparently been secretly re-assessing their own actions, or suddenly discovering new and Very Important Things to post about.
Others have simply gone quiet. Of course it's always good when people start to wonder if they've been mistaken - our own non-criminal conspiracy over the past few years has been to get that process going - but it would be unwise to expect any recantations. Because, once again, it isn't down to changes of attitude or anything similar; it's down to the continuing, genuinely magic, component of the McCann Affair: the Empty Cupboard.
The Bureau invented that term back in 2011, when gaps first began to appear in the shelves where the Evidence for Abduction lunch-boxes had been before they rotted away. Hunger first weakens, then slowly destroys sufferers, initial defiance and anger slowly fading into profound lassitude and then silence. Such is the fate of all those who've tried to live on the 
Abduction diet since 2007. Just look around you and listen.

And the Rest are Fading Away
Unfortunately our usual suspects, the Brown-shirts, the Pit Dwellers and the rest, made a horrible error in the face of this inexorable process: they thought it couldn't apply to them. It does. Why? Because of the one magic ingredient that none of us can ever master - time. The Bureau hasn't out-argued anybody or "won" with a theory of its own, common sense hasn't struck, nobody has demolished any claims in "internet debate". Time has worked alone without anyone having to lift a finger. Time has revealed that there is nothing there.
Abduction was the first to be starved out. Oh, some of its supporters pretend they still believe in it but it doesn't matter: it's not belief that's missing, it's strength and energy - which need feeding - that have gone, as anyone who reads the comments of the few remaining believers will immediately discern. There are only so many times people can post up that paragraph from the Archiving Summary before wondering how much longer they can go on.
But since 2013 or so the same starvation-at-source has afflicted the Usual Suspects and their "theories". Just as the early claims for abduction - what the Bureau calls the Shutter Effect - were never followed up with supporting facts as statistically they should have been, so all the hints and suspicions of Wayback, government cover-ups, Murdoch protection and the rest have been followed up by nothing - except more hints and suspicions.
Show it to us!
Hints and suspicions alone, however prolonged and repeated, are strictly masturbation: fine for the indulger but incapable of being shared or influencing others. As the Archiving Summary said "Let Us See" - if you've got evidence then don't hint of it, don't drown yourself in HTML, don't wrap its non-existence in thousands of words of blue-pencilled dross or impenetrable Spanish Labyrinths, don't just call people cunts for wanting to see it, but show it to us. That's all evidence is: show it to us. Otherwise you're on your own.
There is nothing to show.
The last time we stood, swaying, over the edge of the Cesspit, that positively Bilderberg Institute of research and hidden influence, the sense of enervation was overwhelming, as if they were struggling to stay awake in the presence of the sewer gas. The statistics panel said it all: the member numbers are listed as 8 000 plus, the peak daily poster numbers, many years ago now, in the hundreds. The Number of members posting the other evening? Six.

Dr Roberts, the well-known Wayback expert, has either been assassinated by Gamble or been muted by Pat Brown's killer squad, so limp is his silence; Only In America, the pensioner's weekly, has succumbed, apparently, to senility as well as Tourette's and starvation; Textusa appears to be saying that her blog is ending. Or not. Or maybe. Who knows? Starvation strikes people in different ways. The Madeleine McCann support website looks, and reads, like a neglected cemetery. And, strikingly, what we called the 30/40 club, the core of troubled, sometimes compromised, abduction fanatics whose numbers remained the same from 2008 until Amaral's victory, is down almost to single figures, with whole weeks passing without a post.
All the people mentioned, and the McCanns themselves, have hope that things will improve in their favour. Not a chance, chums. People, good or bad, need hope but the Bureau's analysis and conclusion since 2011, if it is correct - and time has convinced us that it is - means that there isn't the slightest hope as far as the known claims of either side are concerned: you can't produce something from an empty cupboard. Show it to us.
The cupboards are empty for good: the claims are just claims. The magic of time, as the Bureau has said before, is in fact the magic of truth, for time washes away falsity but leaves the truth untouched, like rocks emerging from the tide.  
Ask Grange, whose shelves are bulging. 

JB writes: I hadn't seen Richard D Hall’s 2008 comment in the Northern Echo that “there’s very strong evidence [my italics] we have been visited by a race from Zeta Reticuli, the small grey alien that comes from that star. There is evidence of other aliens from other stars, but less.” Well, that's all right then. Don't you love that detail about the "grey"?
He adds that once people breach the wall of silence that governments impose on us and we find out what’s really going on, “…the world…could be unrecognisable. There could be solutions to the energy crisis. We could find out man’s true evolutionary path, how the universe works, why.” And, even more important, it seems, "we could find out why the pyramids were built." The universe I can take or leave but finding out why the pyramids were built - wow!
Hall himself, apart from being clearly insane, is a person of the utmost insignificance, which is why we didn’t bother to mention him in our last post - but his huge reputation amongst the leaders of the anti-McCann camp, the Usual Suspects, is another matter, and not one that is adding to their credibility.
Hall’s belief there's “strong and compelling” evidence for alien infiltration removes any objective meaning at all from the word “evidence”: it is a perfect example of what we described yesterday as “masturbatory thinking” - thinking that tries to put the contents of one’s own imagination on exactly the same level as the real facts in the outside world. As such it is, of course, self-defeating: evidence, after all, is, at root, nothing but a control mechanism to keep your imagination in line with the real world. Stop using it and you're in trouble, as Mr Hall and a number of the Usual Suspects demonstrate rather clearly.


Give them a Break!

But in one regard this policy of staying silent and letting the McCanns give us the news has a definite down side. Since 2013 the Bureau has repeatedly asked why Grange has never publicly announced the key information in their possession that finally and unmistakeably exonerates the couple.

Obviously, there must be plenty of it from five years digging and, equally obviously, there is no reason why a redacted version that gives nothing away about the real suspects can't be made public.
Just a 200 word official précis of the evidence – photographic, biological, eye-witness, phone-tracking - can bring us the "demonstration of their innocence" that would silence their enemies. And the pair would at last be able to sleep at night without the continuing, and quite appalling, long-term afflictions the couple described so graphically in their libel claim against Goncalo Amaral.

It would be so easy! The news going round the world in minutes and the couple's lives changed for ever.
And there is a precedent. Look how the Yard overrode the legal nay-sayers and let humanity prevail when they broke the news on Crimewatch that Madeleine McCann was not in the hands of a dark-skinned, kidnapping pervert wearing a fright wig and with terrible taste in shoes. The world didn't collapse at this breach of secrecy, did it? Do you remember how much that excellent news meant to Kate and Gerry when they heard it for the first time? The Yard should bring them more of the same. Much more.
Officer Rui “The Fist” Gigante: Come trouble-maker, we go for little walk on the stairs. I show you the quick way down.
Blacksmith: [writhing] Let go - or I’ll call Pat Brown!

"But that doesn’t matter: the only aim of this elaborate television performance by Redwood was not to question Tanner’s eyewitness evidence or to build a case or to make an identification - that was already done - but to announce formally and definitively but without causing trouble for non-suspects, that the abductor, in the timescale and form claimed by her group, does not exist, end of story. Any court will accept that. " The Bureau, March 21 2018
The Usual Suspects' hysteria over the last few days about Bundleman's origins has been marvellous to behold.

As we've said elsewhere about both Textusa and Bennett, and ignoring, for the moment, the rest of this tiny clique of self-publicists and nutters like Hall, Brown, Hidiho and Morais, the lies they peddle come not so much from their absurd "hypotheses" but from their attempts to fib, bluff and cover up when evidence starts to refute their previous claims. Then they're off, piling lie upon lie, libel on libel, in the vain attempt to talk their way out of trouble.

As long as the case was surrounded by a sea of doubt and uncertainty they could get away with it. But with the progress of the twin Portuguese and British investigations the tide has gone out, leaving the Usual Suspects gasping, flopping and threshing about in the sand and mud. They'll stay in denial till the end. 
For years this uneducated rabble has maintained that Redwood lied and that the person photographed by his team doesn't exist.

The idea is so crazed that it hardly justifies rebuttal. Yes, take it from us, the man exists.

Do we really have to spell this out to grown-ups? Do we really have to explain that, if there was the slightest chance that Redwood had made any of it up then within days writ-servers acting on behalf of Jane Tanner and the McCanns would have appeared at the gates of Scotland Yard to summon its head to the High Court. There they would be accused not only of acting ultra vires, that is, beyond their legal powers, but also of conspiracy to intimidate or provide false evidence against a witness.

The certainty of more six-figure pay-outs would have been preceded by the immediate suspension of Grange. In other words certain suspects' dreams would have come true. 
Jane Tanner knows perfectly well that Redwood was not making it up, which is why, as we've said repeatedly, she is co-operating with the Yard. Lawyers for the McCanns know it too - one phone call to the Yard would tell them so, together with a name. Their case is slightly different from Tanner's because Grange hasn't accused Tanner of any potential wrong-doing: when all the truth comes out Tanner will be able to plead an honest mistake, despite the damning nature of her collusion with the others in misrepresenting her sighting in the famous typed timeline. "Dark skinned", indeed! Others are much more in the line of fire.

All of them know that the affair is in suspension until the investigation is complete; till then Grange, which was so anxious to point out the serious implications of the "new timeline" for the case on Crimewatch, has not said, and never will say, a single syllable about the myriad implications of the death of Bundleman and, in particular, the exposure of the Nine's collusion.

If the Yard say a single word then, again, lawyers for the couple can plead that Grange has selectively leaked information prejudicing any possible legal process against them. But it won't happen until the police hand is disclosed - before that they have to act "above it all". 
Unless desperation supervenes. 
Both Mad and Guilty 
Now, we go back to the nub of the Bureau's accusation against the Usual Suspects and it's a really serious one. Ignore the fact that they are all, without exception, drawing their theories and supposed facts from their imaginations - the definition of theorising without the firm anchor of fact. Forget that the Bureau may be jealous of their brilliant successes, forget personal dislikes and the clash of opinions and personalities and consider carefully the main charge we have been making against all of them for the last couple of months.

Our claim is that the group have been deliberately duped by false newspaper stories into acting in ways that support suspects and non-suspects in the case: in other words they have been penetrated and are being actively used to support people with a possible case to answer. They have been carefully chosen for their gullibility and lack of grey matter. And the aim, of course, is to kill off Grange or make Grange show its hand early. They have betrayed the trust that rests on any commentator anywhere.
Misdirection Again
We need hardly repeat that the McCanns have never shown  the slightest concern that their supposed protective umbrella of political/powerful/secret people might be exposed. Since May 4 2007, indeed, they have lost no opportunity to highlight it, starting with Gordon Brown, moving on to Blair; being photographed next to the Home Secretary; photographed with a member of the House of Lords; boasting in Madeleine that Yard officers like Bob Small were "on their side" and would take calls from them to put things right and any time of night.

If you look you'll find these McCann hints that they are being protected everywhere: they want people to believe that there is political protection for them, because they know they have nothing whatever to fear from that direction, ever. And characters like the husk Mitchell - who invented a fantasy role as a sinister ex-government official "controlling what comes out in the media" precisely to make gullible people believe that the McCanns had backstairs hidden power - make sure that the Usual Suspects get their little gobbets of fantasy to confirm their beliefs. 
Wait and see. 
As for the latest feed, people, bless them, have already publicly noted the extreme lengths that the Mail and the Sun have gone to "show" that it has nothing to do with stunned and beleaguered Camp McCann. No Tracey, with her close links to the pair, but the Sun crime editor is, most unusually, credited. In the Mail it is a chief correspondent.

No Mr Pal, no Mr Friend, in either of them, no reactions whatever from Kate and Gerry McCann, no comment from a named Clarence Mitchell. Oh, and this little gem: "The British police investigation has now been scaled down and is likely to be shelved in October." Once again, fitting in nicely with the Usual Suspects' agenda.

And the loonies think that Grange made the leak!

None of the gossip alters the dead Bundleman situation. The doctor's wife says absolutely nothing about Grange, nothing, in fact, that gives a clue to what's going on. But it says a great deal about the desperation of certain suspects.

You've stuck it out this long - now enjoy it!

A Usual Suspects' Claim in 2018. Worse to Come

Join the club, go on, be uncool: believe in the boring truth that we've been bringing you for years and that not one person has ever refuted. Give yourself a break from depressed, corrupted, thicko internet bullshit merchants and cheer up.

"Blacksmith gives us hope," someone used to write regularly about us years ago, which was the finest compliment we've ever had. That hope was not misplaced. Relax and enjoy it. You deserve it. 

Do you believe that Kate & Gerry were involved in the disappearance of their daughter?
JB writes: If I did I certainly wouldn’t say so publicly. Who wants to be a loser? It would be a stone cold libel for which no truth defence exists. As Carter Ruck warned their victim Bennett, his right to his views is absolute, as is his right to pass them on to the police – but saying it publicly, which means attempting to persuade others that the McCanns are guilty, is another matter. One can do it as long as one has the irrefutable evidence to support it. For being too stupid to understand that point Bennett is now financially supporting his "enemies" and thus helping them prosper. Again.

But it would also be morally wrong. I've always asked myself, “if I was on a jury would I vote to convict the couple, given the evidence made public since 2007?” The answer is no, I certainly wouldn’t. I couldn't. So why would I want to make such a terribly serious claim without the absolute proof to justify it?
As far as neglect of the child is concerned, the Archiving Summary provides the evidence that they had not broken the Portuguese law by their actions. I’m neither knowledgeable about, nor interested in, the subject.
So what is your problem with the McCanns? 
I won't bother to repeat the proof that they've lied spectacularly about this affair. That is open and shut. More important is the question of that dreaded word principle, that from the very first day they set out to influence the public about their behaviour on a colossal scale while ignoring – no media! – the instructions of the police and attempting to go over their heads, either via secret channels to the media or by appealing for Foreign Office and thus government help against the police.
This was, without exaggeration, the greatest, and grossest, attempt to bypass the legal and judicial system in modern European history, which is why it became so notorious world-wide. Instead – expunge it! – they engaged an elaborate and highly expensive legal team not to argue their case to a coroner or a jury but to engage in a systematic campaign to convince the British public of their innocence, as the head of their defence admitted. By influencing the public mind - which smoothly ranges from sentimental hysteria to lynch mob savagery with very little in between, has no collective reasoning process and is therefore a much easier beast to tame than a jury - it would be easier to ensure that the pair would never be extradited to Portugal. They were right. It succeeded. But nobody yet knows for certain why they did it.
I’m not interested in small children; bringing them up was enough for me, thanks. I’m not particularly interested in cause-celebres or flesh-creeping mysteries. And I don’t much care about the future of a couple of doctors.
But their attempt to substitute the paid media-blitzing of the public for the rule of law was an insult, a perversion of everything that democracy stands for. It was only possible at all because of the international nature of the case: had the crime taken place in the UK all such behaviour would have been illegal, a serious contempt of court.
As a fanatical democrat, I was determined to challenge this attempt to co-opt all of us, without our agreement, into being their defence witnesses. Not on your life.

Why did you support Goncalo Amaral so strongly?
First of all it’s in the past, a subject I’m not interested in. We won. End of story.
Secondly, there was not the slightest sentiment involved. I have never met GA, have never spoken to him directly and communicated with him only through intermediaries. Both Amaral and I had the same aim: to see the McCanns' claims tested in the judicial arena for the very first time, not indulged by star-struck MSM interviewers or smoothed by paid Crisis Management liars. That was why I agreed to become a defence witness for him.
The difference is that Amaral was fighting for his life and I was risking almost nothing but so what? The co-incidence of interest did no harm and, once we managed to persuade Sky to cover the Lisbon 2009/10 hearings we were home and dry: it turned out exactly as we'd suspected but had never dared to fully believe. For the very first time the facts that the couple and their lawyers had worked so hard to conceal – the fact that GA was mainstream PJ, not the “rogue cop” they claimed, the fact that all the PJ detectives involved dismissed their version of events as a “fairy story”, the fact, as prosecutor Menezes stated, that the group had lied about the checking – were out in the open. A few days later the McCanns’ meltdown on the court steps took place and things, as we knew, would never be the same again.

Why have you turned on other commentators on the case? Aren’t you all on the same side?
Of course we aren’t on the same side, and never have been. Up to 2009 or so there were large numbers of people with real brain and expertise who were as hurt and offended as I was at the couple’s attempts to act extra-legally and I listened to, learned from and communicated with them. The 3As in particular had lawyers, broadcasters, scientists, creative people in abundance, most of them specialists in their own field. A genuine expert on DNA appeared, for example, from whom some of us learned a great deal but he was strictly factual so, of course, the owner Brenda, then a fanatical anti-McCann, drummed him out SAP for being "biased".
But after 2009 sensible people began to turn their back on the case and get on with their lives while continuing to read about the case. What was the point of continuing to obsess? I was a writer anyway so I decided to continue.
The loonies and operators descended. Bennett, whose personal emails and “cunning plans” were all passed on to us by Gonçalo unacknowledged, so that we knew exactly what he was up to, came in late with his dodgy business partner. They began by rubbishing the rogatory interviews that we had published in the UK – one copy to a pro-McCann, one to an anti, one to a neutral – as forgeries, dismissing my assurance that I had examined them very carefully and that there was no doubt of their genuineness. That gives you some idea of their analytical talents.
He and his partner then tried to exploit the nervous collapse of owner Brenda to take over the pitiful remnants of the 3As, stealing email addresses from the database en passant. They followed that by trying to exploit Nigel Moore’s money troubles and take over McCann Files.
They failed at that too.
Do you seriously think I’m on the same side as that? Do you think I should be?

So why are you attacking them all so strongly now?

Because all of them, every one, are betraying the hopes of people – thousands of them – who were baffled, hurt, insulted, deeply troubled, at the wrong the McCanns had done in using them as involuntary defence witness and their apparent immunity. How had it happened?
What was going on in this country? Bureau reader Brenda Leyland died, for Christ’s sake, died, because of her despair that a couple of monstrous liars could exploit and manipulate modern media and breach the spirit of UK law and get away with it.
Now, at last, there are firm, solid, evidence-based reasons to be hopeful about this case. Perhaps, eventually, to glory in it. Yet the Usual Suspects are apparently intent on claiming that there is no point in even hoping, since the leader of the investigation is corrupt, the Grange squad, according to that famous expert on British institutions, Brown, is entirely corrupt, the Home Office is corrupt and the government loves sodomy with under-aged kids so much that it too is hopelessly corrupt. But that's exactly the shit that Kate McCann claimed about Portugal!
"The country was already reeling from a child-abuse scandal involving Casa Pia, a state-run institution for orphans and other disadvantaged children (when this finally came to court in 2010, six men, including a TV presenter and a former UNESCO ambassador, would be convicted) – the first such case ever to be tried in Portugal. Perhaps it was more convenient and less troubling to lay Madeleine’s disappearance at the door of her foreign parents, put an end to the matter and move on. Who knows?" (Madeleine)
The McCanns, as we know, had a very good and continuing reason, a motive, for making such claims - to devalue or wreck the Portuguese investigation or reputation. So what's the difference? What's the reason for the Usual Suspects identical claims? Well, what is it?

If they just stuck to their stuff on facebook then one could ignore it. But they haven’t. All of them, including the worthless Brown - so busy plugging her own pamphlet on twitter that she hasn’t got time to study the facts of the case – are, in practice, if not in intention, acting as agents for the people who have very special reasons to want Grange closed down. There is no way round that.
The public supporters of the parents don’t merit attention anymore – they were defeated in 2017 and have become irrelevant. The MSM is no longer actively promoting the cause of the couple and therefore don’t need countering. In fact the MSM itself is now being used as a mere conduit to get to social media and influence the more gullible there rather than in the tabloids, in keeping with the loss of credibility and reach of the MSM itself.

The McCann Affair has always been about the truth - its establishment, its vital significance in everyday life, its intrinsic moral worth, whether to a Christian, Muslim or humanist - not just about a missing child. Thank God that so many people, still see truth itself as something to value, defend and aspire to. And the Usual Suspects are as guilty as the McCanns in not telling, or valuing, the truth.
And it’s that we’re highlighting.

That Bus Doesn't Stop No More - 16.05.2018
Rather a lot has been happening since the Bureau dropped its little bomb at the end of March about the people trying to discredit Operation Grange, hasn’t it? 
Six weeks! Pure enjoyment for some of us ever since, a rather different matter for those we christened the Usual Suspects – the nutter mob who, crushed, irrelevant, found-out and now, most of all, absurd – are brawling among themselves like porno mud-wrestlers in the cess. It couldn’t have happened to nicer people.
Down in the dark stuff with them is the Hendon Husk, only six weeks ago a supposed master of the dark arts, now suddenly revealed as a hollowed-out wreck, mocked and reviled by his own industry for his recent performances and, more significantly, dismissed as an embarrassment and an appalling failure by a PR house-journal, accused there of giving the crisis management industry a bad name. The crisis management industry! Imagine being a creature so low, such a flatworm, that even those bags of dirt are embarrassed and ashamed of him. Apart from the Cess, there's nowhere lower than that.

Almost certainly it was money that drove the Husk (Clarence M) into the Cambridge Analytica suicide mission once Gerry McCann had grown tired of waking him up in the morning to get some work done. Despite the grandiose titles of the few jobs he’s had since 2011, Mitchell hasn’t been able to monetise the brand he thought he’d built for himself from fragments of a broken family.
Few people make real money in the crisis management world and the Husk isn’t one of them, as a glance at his public accounts, as well as his public record, demonstrates. As a professional PR man he is finished: nobody in the biz will ever again give him a decent job.

Vraiment ?
He joins the long line of people who under-estimated Gerry McCann and thought they could use him as a stepping stone. Bad move! GM in his King Midas days had a use for him and took this grey-faced nonentity, who’d never earned more than seventy grand a year, and made him a thing of value, just as Picasso did when he signed similar dirty kitchen dish-cloths and made them worth thousands overnight.

Only the Usual Suspects and the more credulous Portuguese believed the sad little myths he encouraged about himself - “controlled the media”, “worked for the intelligence services.” Yes dear, of course you did dear.
GM has used him up and there's no way back. Not even in Australia. And his ordeal has only just begun.

Can't Believe the Press
Now, we don’t wish to intrude on private grief overmuch, so we’ll just observe that while the nutters are falling out over the best way of escaping from the closed loop they’ve created for themselves – it can't be done, as they'll discover – the media, currently cowed into silence and deceit by the Brownshirt killer squads and their masters known as Them Up There have pointed out the following in the last five weeks: 

1) Mudlin’ Memorial Day, which, in its overblown vulgarity and hysterical credulity transformed the UK into the gaudy, rubbish-filled back streets of Naples on San Gennaro Day, was killed off by Scotland Yard after eleven years.
The McCanns were “advised” by Scotland Yard that interviews were not a good idea. Their lawyers made no comment.
The Bureau says: That alone has been worth twelve million quid.

2) A Dr Julian Totman has been identified by the Sun - owned, of course, by McCann protector Rupert Murdoch – as the man walking near the McCanns’ apartment whom Jane Tanner apparently mistook for an abductor. The Sun, which described the sighting as a “bogus lead” most helpfully pointed out that Ms Tanner, one of the so-called Tapas Seven, saw the man with Gerry McCann and “pal” Jeremy Wilkins nearby, the former having “just looked in on Maddie”.
Even more helpfully, the Sun added that MS Tanner later defied police orders to not comment publicly on what she saw.

3) On May 12, the Sun said Jane Tanner told police she saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas near the McCanns’ apartment on the night Maddie went missing - but she did not recognise him as Dr Totman.

4) On May 13, the Sun wrote that Jane Tanner “spent up to half an hour watching Gerry McCann and Dr Julian Totman play tennis on May 3, 2007” but less than three hours later she failed to recognise him.

5) A police chief involved in making Madeleine McCann’s parents suspects after her disappearance has been named the new head of Portugal’s PJ force.


The Bureau says: Well yes.

5A) KM writes about one of her earlier encounters, when Luis Neves seemed quite compliant, that, “My frustration with their lack of progress, combined with what they were actually telling us about him, whipped up a storm of fury in me that was completely out of character. It seems to me now as if for several months I was possessed by some demonic alien that infiltrated my thoughts and filled me with anger and hatred. I needed a face on which to pin all this rage, someone to blame.”
It all comes round, Kate; it all comes round.
On Wednesday August 8, (six days after the “we’d never lied…” crap), Nice Neves was somewhat different:
“Tell us about that night, they [he and his colleague] said. Tell us everything that happened after the children went to bed. I gave them every detail I could remember, as I had before, but this time they responded by just staring at me and shaking their heads.”
“Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events. It ‘didn’t fit’ with what they knew. Didn’t fit? What did they know? I was sobbing now, well past the stage of silent tears and stifled sniffs. I began to wail hysterically, drawing breath in desperate gasps.”
They proposed that when I’d put Madeleine to bed that night, it wasn’t actually the last time I’d seen her…. They tried to convince me I’d had a blackout – a ‘loss of memory episode’, I think they called it…”

Just as Grange and nice Mr Redwood has offered Jane Tanner an exit route that will be honoured – that she made a mistake in good faith – so KM’s lawyer Abreu later spotted that the suggestion that she had suffered “an episode” (see 5A above and the phrase “demonic alien” and consider the implications of that paragraph) offered Kate McCann a similar exit route.
A month later, the night before they were made arguidos, Abreu advised her to take it. Kate, as we know from Madeleine, did not refuse the suggestion. The evidence that she didn’t, smothered though it is in purple prose, is irrefutable, as we’ve demonstrated from the text many times – the last one being when Nessling publicly accepted that our claim was correct.
It was Gerry McCann, a cleverer man than Abreu, who sussed that the PJ were still short of evidence (“they’ve got nothing”) and, after weighing it all up, turned the advice down on her behalf. But it was self-admitted liar to the media about Portuguese police interviews to protect themselves (in her Madeleine description of Gerry's "virus" to cover the August 2 police raid) and self-admitted victim of near-psychotic episodes (in the passage above), Kate McCann, who organized the lying media campaign the next morning.
That was again to conceal police activity, this time just how close she and her lawyer had come to admitting PJ accusations, claiming through her dupes and family that the wicked PJ had tried to "fit her up", to use her family's argot, and force her to confess to something she hadn't done. A disgusting claim. And Neves was one of the officers she so grossly defamed.

Danger: can cause sinking feelings - Luis Neves
"Viruses" or "fit-ups", it was all the same to Kate McCann. Somehow we suspect that bus won't be coming past again.


Still, all this stuff is trivial, isn't it, compared with what Robert Murat and Gerry McCann plotted together under Textusa’s table with the last photograph in their hands and Brian Kennedy on the line and Halliwell in the wings while Control Risks and the secret Pat Brown killer squad formed a ring of steel around them as the nannies and faked crèche records arrived, Mitchell got the OK from his MI5 boss and, finally, der Tag had come - and Jim Gamble pressed the Activate Operation Abduction! button - on April 1.

Isn't it?


The Accomplice - 11.05.2018
We couldn’t let Mitchell’s involuntary early retirement pass without an appreciative excerpt from his collected works – but where does one start? The most subtle tribute and one that the educated McCann cognoscenti, our target audience, would alone appreciate, would be to pick out from Mitchell’s back catalogue a non-lie and print it deadpan.
Unfortunately our slower readers in the cheap seats wouldn’t appreciate that at all, irony not being their strongest suit – but the problem solved itself: try as we might, beavering through thousands and thousands of words uttered in that inimitable house-style of his – think Ray Winston after cheap elocution lessons and terminal depression – we couldn’t locate a single statement that we were certain was true.
Anyway, we took a vote and selected a suitable and moving testimonial, a single comment that captures the essence of the man and his place in the McCann story.

The Background
At the beginning of October 2007 Mitchell had joined enthusiastically in the defence
effort to convince the UK public, not the Portuguese justice system, that the McCanns were truthful people whom the crooked Portuguese authorities had tried to “fit up” or frame. The couple were now safely back in the UK and the only way they’d ever be dragged back again would be via extradition.
But extradition would ultimately need the agreement of the Home Secretary, at that time the unlikely, in all senses of the word, figure of M/S J. Smith, and 
the Home Secretary’s job in an extradition case is not to look at the facts but to respond to the politics: if there was hysterical popular agreement that the McCanns were innocent victims of wicked Dago criminality then, on the appointed day, she would refuse the extradition, pulling a large onion from one of her bodily crevices if necessary to help her weep about the terrible injustice that might result, the risk of suicide by Kate McCann in the Lisbon dungeons etc. etc. we listen to you, please vote for us next time.
So this "indirect" defence strategy - openly admitted by its head - was to 
target the public who would, in turn, convince the Home Secretary of their support for the pair. And a great success it was, with the Portuguese accepting defeat and not seeking extradition. Les Portugais n'allaient certainement pas faire un bras de fer, ce qu'ils voulaient first thing c'était se débarrasser de la batata quente. Events suggest that if the Portuguese had continued they would have lost: a similar exercise in PR, politics, and onion production from crannies at the expense of the facts worked a treat for Gary McKinnon, whom the public, after a slow start, “took to its hearts” (the British public only operates in cooking-fat sentimentality or shrieking hysteria mode, then and now) like a thick but loveable polar bear cub about to be clubbed to death.

The Revisions
When lawyers examined the evidence it became clear – as it is clear to this day – that the information provided to the Portuguese police by the Nine not only smelled of stinking fish but actually made an abduction between 9.10 and 9.15 effectively impossible, as Goncalo Amaral always claimed. That is why Scotland Yard have now excluded it.
The famous timeline that the Nine
had given the PJ* was an exercise in over-cleverness: by pretending that the group’s movements could be timed to the minute where necessary and altering or blurring other movements to fit an abductor they provided information against themselves. C'est pourquoi certains ont dû contredire la ligne de temps dans leurs auditions. There simply wasn’t time for an abductor to get the job done between GM’s last visit and the sighting of a “dark-skinned” [© M/S J. Tanner] man carrying an “unconscious, possibly drugged” [© D.Payne et al] child a minute or two later.
Back to the drawing board: Gerry McCann and Clarence Mitchell together began inventing things to plug the holes. They couldn’t do anything about the police statements the pair had already made but Gerry could start “remembering things” pas seulement lui and
Clarence Mitchell could help him sell them to the British public.
In doing so Mitchell crossed a line: he moved from promotion and evasion to criminal deception. He had no immunity in law in lying about the most critical part of the whole case because he was not a professional.
In law he was acting as either a) an agent paid by the McCanns to deliberately spread false information about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance or b) as a voluntary accomplice or friend of Gerry McCann to do the same thing.

The Reaction
The PJ, gradually realising what they’d let slip between their fingers, knew what the McCanns were up to. 
Carlos Anjos, the Portuguese police federation head, made his well-known statement that the pair were using what he called “diversion tactics”. He was most troubled by what he called the "ridiculous episode" of Gerry McCann letting it be known that on his – yes, you’ve guessed it – last check on his daughter, he had noticed a door was ajar when it had been left closed but “thought little of it at the time”. Non, une porte était plus ouverte qu'il ne l'avait laissée.
And, to cap it, since then he had “begun to realise” his daughter's abductor could have been hiding there in the apartment, yards away. Did you have to read that last sentence twice? You should have done because it doesn’t make any sense. The reason it doesn’t make sense is that Gerry McCann had made it up afterwards to halve the time necessary for an abduction by 
having the intruder do all those boring intrusion things before his (Gerald's) arrival: the seams of the lies stick out like barbs.
McCann and Mitchell had been trapped into using non sequiturs
Le non sequitur peut désigner un sophisme. Bien que la conclusion puisse être soit vraie soit fausse, le raisonnement est fallacieux car il ne suit pas les prémisses. Tous les sophismes sont en fait des sortes différentes de non sequitur because they were falsely claiming that McCann thought and observed these things at the time even though he hadn’t said anything about them then. There’s no way of doing that without giving yourself away.
So Anjos, who’s not stupid but a rare voice of common sense in the case, called Mitchell and McCann out in the Portuguese media. And Mitchell came back, widely, in the British media. Mitchell first tried more nonsense, stating again that GM’s realisation that he had been in the same room as the abductor only came to him later, a repeat of the previous impossibility (check the meaning of realise). He added, "There is nothing that has come out recently that should be of surprise to the officers."

Criminal Accomplice
And then he entered much more serious territory by adding: Clarence Mitchell: "This was said in the original witness statement." Here’s the section of Gerry McCann’s original witness statement dealing with the event. 
As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.
He then went to the WC where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, returning after that to the restaurant.
Nothing was said about the door because nothing had happened to the door: it was a later invention. Non, c'était une invention pendant la nuit. Nothing was said about a hiding intruder because it was a complete invention to cover weaknesses in the story.
Mitchell hadn’t just sugared the pill, or pleaded for understanding or corrected McCann haters. He told a lie in order to protect the McCanns from justice by inventing what had been said in the investigative documents. He was a lying accomplice, an accessory. That’s the epitaph for this walking corpse whose sins have consumed him.

* Created after the first round of statements and the opportunity to compare notes and given to the PJ by the Nine via the British embassy staff Les FLO just before the 10 May serious questioning was about to begin. That was also the time when the embassy staff were given certain claims about the PJ by a McCann "family member", the contents of which were so offensive about the Portuguese police that the Foreign Office still won't release them. Belt and braces grande prudence comes to mind.

We began highlighting the four-year-long attempts to sabotage or discredit the UK investigation into the fate of Madeleine McCann in late March, and we’re very pleased indeed with events since then.

A lot of rowing back has been going on.The absurd Purple Woman story, which had been in and out of the news since November last year, has fallen to pieces. It was an act of desperation by a team that is not only losing the battle but which has lost its previous touch for implanting fake stories in the MSM without too grossly overstepping the mark. This time their use of tired and wilting fictions – getting the tabloids to quote “a source”, or a “source close to the investigation” to give credibility to completely false stories, getting a “friend of the McCanns” to respond to the stories before they had even been published – went too far. Not only did the liars claim that Grange was all over Europe searching for this key witness but they made the very serious, and completely untrue, statement that this stage-farce junk was the famous “last lead”, referred to on the record by Scotland Yard officers. And then they watched while the story was folded into the “don’t give Grange any more money” stories of 2018.

Too far. It was always going to come one day. The Yard has been very careful, not to say over-careful, in its responses to the team deceptions over the years. Perhaps this time it acted. In April, Clarence Mitchell finally tried to distance the McCanns from these efforts with a highly unconvincing appeal for Grange to be left alone.

Common Sense Breaks Out
Since then there has been relative silence, not just from the MSM itself but from the previously noisy Usual Suspects whom the deception team had so successfully enlisted, one way and another but chiefly by exploiting their credulity, in their support. So the internet has been witnessing far fewer anti-Grange, anti-funding tweets and posts than previously.
M/S Pat Brown, the only one of these sources to call herself a professional, and who advertises her consultancy services to law-enforcement agents in the United States, has not, however, withdrawn her repeated and defamatory claim that 30+ corrupt police officers are working within Scotland Yard to abort operation Grange. Nor has she provided the evidence for such a claim.
It should be remarkably simple for her to do so, shouldn’t it? No truly professional criminology consultant would make the claim without evidence to hand. But no, nothing. One wonders whether the claim will be featured in future on her website list of qualifications and achievements; one wonders also whether its existence is going to encourage US police forces to use her services.
As for the others, well, it’s a free country. Evidence is the last thing we’re going to get, isn’t it? Asking for evidence from them is like waving a crucifix at a room full of vampires. We’ve never had it before and we won’t get it now.

It Gets Better
But the good news doesn’t end there. The transparent “appeal” from the discredited and somnolent Mitchell was followed by the very carefully worded news from that Friend of the McCanns that, well, er, Gerry and Kate McCann had been asked to – how shall we put this – turn the f****** noise down, by none other than Scotland Yard. Now that was worth waiting for, it really was. A warm glow of satisfaction and pleasure suffused us and brought smiles of pure enjoyment to our cynical lips, and not for the first time this year.
Neither Mitchell nor the McCann couple, nor even a “friend” or a “close friend” of theirs, and most definitely not Scotland Yard, want to release the actual words used to the pair by the police. Now why would that be?
And then we had that unclaimed orphan of stories, the Dr Totman junk, put up as what the information trade calls a “trial balloon”, a highly anonymous attempt to get people to show themselves. It caused great excitement in netland, since it was in the newspapers and therefore really mattered, but since it doesn’t fit in with the well-established Usual Suspects’ view of the case (because, unlike the previous deception campaign stories, this one wasn’t aimed at them) – it led to incoherence and confusion.
And above ground? The MSM dried to drip feed the Totman "story" for the next few days, its originators still hoping for a reaction, but the trial balloon failed to float. Now why would that be?

Goodies 1 Unknowns 0
Once again, the McCanns and Mitchell had nothing to say and nor did the Yard. And, once again, nor did Jane Tanner. The Bureau had been telling the Suspects and their followers for months - not from secret sources but from simply analysing the known on-the-record statements of the Yard - that none of them are going to talk because doing so will give away the trajectory of the investigation. And none of them want that yet for very different reasons. So why are they so puzzled? Still, there are always those trusty standbys in a free country, the dogs and a ten year old photograph: they'll go on running and running to the end.
Anyway, there we are, the best few months since Goncalo Amaral won his case, perhaps even better. For the moment the theme remains welcome quietness.

The Bare Bones
1. In late April 2018 the McCanns provided an exclusive newsfeed to the Sun via their own anonymous source. It said that Scotland Yard had been in contact with the pair on the subject of their public media statements and interviews.
2. Gerry McCann, according to that source, said that he had been “specifically advised” by the Yard not to undertake such media initiatives because they “could” – his word – hinder the Operation Grange investigation.
3. McCann was quoted as saying that he had complied with police wishes and that “if police don’t want them to discuss publicly their life without Madeleine they will not do so”.

Eternal Recurrence
It is a remarkable newsfeed, isn’t it? Like a tiny history of the McCanns’ use of the media since May 2007. Now, as then, its first, unwritten, text is how do we cover our tracks? How do we disguise our aims, how do we hide what was actually said to us, how do we hide what we want to get across with trashy soundbite irrelevancies?

Hence the use of a deniable “source” so their version of events cannot be exposed as untruthful or playing with the facts; hence the pathetic, oozing, soap-opera conversion of a significant event into a sentimental narrative drama suitable for thick, easily fooled people – their target audience ever since May 4: coping for all these years…the twins…the search... always compliant with police wishes. And, inevitably, the regular little implant for the thickos' brains that they are victims and equal co-workers in the investigation, not in any way under suspicion: operational reasons...really appreciative of the police...first to know from them of any updates...fully informed.

In a remarkable symmetry this feed, quietly announcing the end of their unfettered use of the UK media after eleven years, is a mirror image of the first ones. The deniable sources – in McCann-world family members, however close, are always, like Mitchell, dispensable and deniable, as the “shutters” feeds prove; the greasy and misdirecting sentiment laid on with a trowel within hours of the disappearance; the careful editing or omission of police instructions – no media! for example; the public praise for the police effort even while, on May 5 2007, a “family member” - anonymous of course - was saying the police had "let them down".

Nothing has ever changed. One of the reasons for the surreal, groundhog-day nature of this interminable affair is the rigid constancy and repetitiveness of the McCanns’ behaviour over the years. That same flat, dead monotone and deader eyes reciting the script year after year for a decade under the harsh studio lights and the mean gaze, pinched cheeks and tight clasp of her icy husband, over and over until the innocent watcher is almost screaming just stop, please, just stop!

But they cannot stop. They can never escape from the narrative they and their friends put down on paper that week in May and can never amend or rescind it, so they are condemned to repeat and repeat until the end for fear that this time - every time - they might let something slip.

And their remaining supporters follow the couple's lead and do the same on the internet - Amaral and the dogs, bad Martin Grime, Amaral and the dogs! Bad Amaral and the dogs - as though nothing at all has happened in the intervening eleven years. For they cannot ever comment on, or even refer to, the developments in the case since - including the firm evidence of the couple's incessant lying, the exposure of the supposed "deal" and all the rest - without risking making a slip themselves, the poor sods. Gerry's handclasp reaches a long way, doesn't it?

Who Knows?

What exactly did the police say to them?

They won’t tell us, even though Scotland Yard made it clear they were free to comment publicly – factually – about the matter. They could have given a simple, neutral statement – even as one writes the words one laughs at the impossibility of such a thing – or they could have said nothing. Instead they spin, including pushing the limits of what the Yard will let them get away with by suggesting - "but if police don’t want them to discuss publicly..." - that the constraint only applies to them "talking about their life without Madeleine". Oh no it doesn't.

And why did the news come out in April? Clearly the police wanted to act ahead of anniversary time, the spoilsports. Now why would that be?

Nothing to do, of course, with what the Bureau has been writing about for four months now: the conspiracy to damage Grange - you know, the one that has so successfully brainwashed our "anti-McCann" Usual Suspects into attacking the only large-scale, comprehensive and well-funded investigation ever undertaken into the disappearance as a criminal fraud that should be killed off.

Since 2015 these carefully planned media disinformation initiatives by the conspirators have largely taken place in the spring – before and around both anniversary time and, of course, Grange funding renewal time. Disappearance Day guarantees peak annual media demand for McCann stories and peak annual deception time for the conspirators.

But not this year. Not only have we been spared the greasy breakfast TV McCann-fests, the Mudelin drone and the desperate - don't slip! - handclasps but, unlike spring 2016 and 2017, the annually planted fictions about the failures and absurdities of Grange and the pressing need to withdraw its financing have been mysteriously absent.

What a coincidence! Why, you’d think that the conspirators working against Grange and on behalf of the McCanns, whoever they are, have also been called out and told to shut up, wouldn’t you?

La suite ici