That Rainbow Report

Assorted nasties are trying to make something out of nothing again, because there is nothing at all odd in a police expert recommending the family be looked at; it is surprising that a UK officer apparently had to tell Gonc that...

But they do cherry-pick that report.

Why don't they want to talk about the work of the UK profilers? Is it because they did NOT point at the McCanns as having anything to do with Madeleine's abduction?

I suppose the pitchforkers do know who the UK profilers thought was involved? No? But they all claim to have read Gonc's book from cover to cover, to have memorized it as if it was the Bible...

I suggest they all reread Chapter Seven. Not only will they be shocked at Gonc's callous treatment of the dead pet - which is what has given rise to suspicions that he knew EXACTLY how the dog came to be injured - but they will see that it is GONC who first starts sniffing around Murat.

And it gets worse:

FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY

Since Murat's first interview, which they attended, the specialists have continued to refine the profile of the suspect. They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, Murat had an affirmed penchant for bestiality. He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes Murat as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist. We are somewhat sceptical. All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.

Anyone think that part of the report is going to be waved around in court by Team Gonc?

No, me niether.

It's always good to have independent corroboration of these things ...

I hasten to add, there is no more reason to think Gonc is telling the truth about Murat, than to think he is about the McCanns, HB...

I hauled that out as a perfect example of the selective blindness which afflicts so many in certain quarters.

And, again, if Murat was going to be suing anyone, it would be Gonc, by pitchforker logic.

Their logic states that Gonc's book is 100% truthful; in which case, it is GONC who was responsible for Murat's troubles.

Not Jane Tanner, not UK journos.

It's Gonc himself who first starts sniffing round Murat.

It's this whole smoke and mirrors story-telling that comes from Team Gonc, HB; they insist his book is absolute truth - but ignore parts they don't like.

They ignore the fact that he has plain and simply invented a lot of the contents.

Look at this section of Gonc's book:

On May 14th, Kate Healy is indignant about the attitude of the liaison officer, who asks her where her daughter is. Neither she nor her husband accepts anyone doubting their word. The officer will be sent packing - and his colleague too - a week after his arrival. That attitude is, to say the least, shocking on the part of parents confronted by such a situation, that, what is more, is in a foreign country. Those two police officers, who distinguished themselves through long experience in the management of situations of kidnap and abduction, were, all the same, entirely at their disposal; they provided daily logistical and legal support, and afforded them all the help they could have needed.

Curiously, the English do not consider it expedient to disclose the incident and the PJ are not informed. Myself, I only learn of it indirectly. Finally, a solution is found quickly: the two men are replaced by a Portuguese man who speaks fluent English.

That is absolute garbage - and hearsay garbage at that.

Look again at what Gonc actually says:

Myself, I only learn of it indirectly.

So, who told him, as the PJ were never told about this? Could it be that he yet again made something up, because

IT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, DID IT?

Go and read all the statements by the REAL family liason officers, as opposed to the ones who only existed in Gonc's imagination:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic226.html

They all say much the same thing.

Cartas Rogatorias Vol V

Page 13

LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE FORCE

Witness Statement by Michael Graham
Occupation: Police Officer

This statement, consisting of one page, signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief .

Date: 21 April 2008
Signature:

I am police inspector 1127 Graham of the Leicestershire police, currently based in the criminal unit.

In 2007 in relation to the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I was sent to Portugal in the official role of liaison officer to the McCann family.

According to the Letters of Request from the Portuguese police, I was asked to respond to the following question:

Was anything said or done by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your contacts that may have raised any suspicion that they had knowledge of what happened to Madeleine, besides the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators?

My response to the above question is: No.

This statement was made by me and is in accordance with my understanding.


What to believe? Properly-recorded witness statements by UK police officers who were actually there?

Or hearsay nonsense from someone with a criminal conviction for lying?

Bit of a no-brainer, isn't it? Yet they happily use Gonc's utterances as the basis for their entire hate campaign.

I am quickly checking, HB. The only reference I can find to any tension is on p130; the McCanns hadn't known that official suspicion had fallen on Murat, and the first they knew of it was when they saw it on the TV.

quote:

We stood there, paralysed, watching live pictures of the police going in and out of Murat's home. We were terrified that the next thing we were going to see was an officer carrying out a little body bag.

One of the British FLO's apologises later, Kate acknowledges it wasn't his fault, the damage had been done.

I wonder if someone in Team Gonc put feet, legs and a tail on this, to take away from his shocking failure to keep the McCanns properly informed?

There is so much in the book, I find it's easy to miss important sentences.

Many thanks, HB - that bears little resemblance to Gonc's version, does it?

And this is interesting too:

The Portuguese police were divulging very little to the British police and vetoing many of their suggestions - bringing out specialist dogs, for example, or staging a reconstruction.

There is more about this on p 171 - Crimewatch wasn't allowed to film a reconstruction, because of 'secrecy laws'.

How totally, absolutely stupid! The PJ were leaking information as and when it suited them, including that ghastly Cabrita woman getting hold of what should have been privileged information about witnesses - but the one thing that could have helped find Madeleine, a proper reconstruction, was vetoed.