Friday, 31 May 2019


Never one for knowing when to cut their losses, admit they were wrong, apologise and move on, textusa has continued to dig themselves into a hole so deep that it'll take a rescue mission and a pack of dogs trained to alert to bullshit to find them. I can't imagine the queue for volunteers will  make the record books. In fact I doubt it would even meet the required participation figure of two. 

Still, whilst textusa continues to lie about the investigation, it's important to drown their misinformation with truth and facts. 

For years the abilities of Eddie and Keela, what they were trained to alert to, and how they were used, have been known by most. It's been known by most as we have access to the words of Martin Grime, their internationally recognised and respected handler. 

Now though - and not for the first time, textusa is attempting to rewrite the files, change Martin Grime's words, and con every single one of their readers. 

With their usual "take no prisoners" style, NT has taken textusa to task, brilliantly:

Monday, 13 May 2019

The Truth of The Dogs - Part Two.

Exposing Textusa...Again

The majority of people who follow this case online are only too aware that textusa is a raving mad megalomaniac who cannot admit when they're wrong. Many moons ago textusa dreamed up a theory, one they refuse to show any evidence for, and when challenged, refuses to admit to any mistakes.

Instead of admitting fault, the barmy blogger will argue the toss, ask questions then refuse to publish the answers thus digging themselves into holes as they go. If all else fails, they'll attempt to frame you as a pro.

The truth and textusa have never got along, and it's because of people like them and Tony Bennett, that those who genuinely believe the McCanns to be guilty, are fooled into believing a number of things are stone wall facts when they're not. It's these lies that are told from the aforementioned pair of wazzocks, that can be easily refuted by team McCann and as such make genuine antis who trust the two, to be easily laughed off.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, so let's get down to business.

Yesterday, whilst Textusa was scouring Twitter so they could do their usual troll's trick of copying and pasting others tweets in a feeble and bitter attempt to discredit them, they decided it would be my turn.

The tweets they chose were of my personal opinion on the alerts to the McCanns' hire car:

Textusa12 May 2019, 10:16:00
⚡Bugsy ⚡‏ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @regretkay @MancunianMEDlC and 
Personally I don't think Madeleine was ever in the hire car. There's certainly no proof of it...or wasn't when the PJ shelved their case in 2008.
2:11 PM - 11 May 2019 


⚡Bugsy ⚡‏ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @maxine68711804 @regretkay and 34 others
Of course. We can form opinions based upon behaviour, but for me personally I won't subscribe to the theory that Madeleine's body was in the boot because there's no publicly available proof to support that theory.
10:25 pm - 11 May 2019

...and so it begins, the bitter bullshitter who is too much of a coward to comment anywhere unless they have full control over what is and isn't published decides to copy my tweets.

I thought at first a spoof account, but no, Ben T is now saying he doesn’t believe M was carried in the car!
What’s the approved theory from this lot now?
For the record, I've said for many years that the alerts to the hire car didn't necessarily mean a corpse had been in the boot. Proof of this can be found in any of the groups I've commented in, and to the idiot who says they thought my account was a "spoof", you'd do well to read the files before you make a gigantic tit of yourself.

As for the "approved theory" and the alerts from Eddie to the hire car, who would be the best person to quote? Someone who knew the dogs better than anyone else. 

Eddie and Keela's handler, Martin Grime:

"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' 
contaminant OR human blood scent."

You might be asking yourself why Martin would say that? Why he would say Eddie's alert could be to human blood. That's because like Bennett, the fuckwitted blogger didn't tell you that Eddie also alerted to human blood. They don't tell you because it doesn't fit with their theories. 
It's the simplest thing in the world to grasp and it's all available to read in the files, and indeed on part one of this blog, where myself and Syn debunked every pro McCann excuse for the dogs' alerts:


"The dog (Eddie) EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."


"The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen, sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood."

So, we have Eddie who is trained to alert to the target scent of a human corpse and also human blood.

We have Keela who alerts to human blood only.

Eddie and Keela were used in tandem as a fail-safe method to eliminate any chance of false positives.

Eddie's original training was to human blood, and latterly, to cadaver scent using pigs and human cadavers; Keela purely to detect human blood. That's why the dogs were used in tandem.

Eddie would be sent in first to a location as part of an investigation to check if he alerted, then Keela was sent in to see if she also alerted. If Keela also alerted then the alert was to blood, as that is all that Keela is trained to detect. If she did not alert also, then Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent.

It's not difficult, is it? Apparently, for the bumbling half-wit, it's more difficult than swallowing hedgehog whole.

When faced with a fact from an anonymous visitor...

He's always said that. Martin Grime also states the alert wasn't necessarily to where a dead body was. "The approved theory", as you describe it is in the files. Maybe you should read them "anon"?

...textusa forgets he's an adult:

Anonymous 12 May 2019, 15:09:00,

Well, that just makes Mr Amaral not to look but to have been a real fool all these years, doesn't it?

Oh, are you by any chance Mr Thompson's John Barron?

Barron only had great things to say about Trump...
Quite what Donald Trump has to do with the dogs' alerts is anyone's guess, but one of textusa's main tactics is to go off on a tangent, hoping to bore his opponent into submission. It's what trolls do, and textusa is one of the most prolific.

The next response from a reader has been "censored" for no other reason than it contained facts textusa didn't want to share. 
Censored comment:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The protection of the McCanns by Josรฉ Antรณnio Sara...": 

(censored) Just so we're clear, from the available evidence can you say that Madeleine's body was definitely in the boot of the hire car? 

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 12 May 2019, 16:40:00


Yes, it’s called reasonable doubt. 

Dog alert + human blood in Scenic+ cadaver scent in Scenic + cadaver scent in apartment + blood in apartment + no explanation for cadaver scent in apartment + no explanation for blood in apartment + no explanation for cadaver scent in Scenic + Maddie missing from apartment + Scenic hired 23 days after Maddie disappeared = beyond reasonable doubt that all locations alerted by the dogs (including boot) means the body was definitely in all of them, without exception and that includes the car boot.

No matter how much you try to cast doubt over the dog alerts, it won’t work.

You have not answered the Barron question. Are you Mr Thompson’s Barron?

Post Scriptum #1: You are paying attention to the blog like a hawk.

Post Scriptum #2: Have you noticed no pro has picked up on you agreeing with them? That’s how toxic you are.

Can you make head or tail of that word salad? No, of course not. It's complete and utter gobbledegook.

The reply that came was perfectly reasonable:
Why censor my comment when there was no bad language, only facts?

Eddie alerted to human blood as well as the scent of a dead body. 
There was no alert from Eddie that wasn't backed up by Keela. 
Keela alerted to blood only.
Blood was found on the key fob.
There is no evidence that a body had been in the boot.
There is evidence of blood. 
You are claiming it's a fact that a body was in the boot, but you cannot back it up. 

Martin Grime's words regarding the boot (my caps):

"It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' 
contaminant OR human blood scent."

Eddie's alert in 5A (that wasn't corroborated by Keela), is much more conclusive of a dead body being present in 5A.

I'm not interested in your Trump nonsense, only facts. You've never understood how the dogs work and constantly try to contradict Martin Grime.

Do you understand now? 

Form your theory any which way you wish, but don't try to mock others who stick to facts and state their opinion when you're passing speculation off as fact.

Next up is one of textusa's groupies - a small bunch of easily manipulated muppets.

Gonรงalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.

How can you state that?

Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.
Now as anyone knows, I support the vast majority of what Goncalo Amaral says, unlike textusa who discredits him at every turn. However, when it comes to the dogs, the only expert in Portugal, was Martin Grime. Portugal had never used EVRD or CSI dogs and so the police there weren't fully aware of how they worked. That's not to say Amaral was wrong in his assertation, just that my opinion differs, as does that of anon below:

Anon 18:44:00

Martin Grime: ""It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant OR human blood scent."

Who was the expert on dogs, Martin Grime or Goncalo Amaral? Bear in mind that neither EVRD or CSI dogs had ever been used in Portugal before.

Note Amaral said "it may be speculation"

Textusa: Do you seriously think the key fob didn't come into contact with the car or that Gerry's cut hand didn't?

Do try to use a little common sense.

All this because you, Textusa, are more interested in attacking those who fell out with you as opposed to admitting Ben has said nothing that isn't based upon fact. I can't fathom why you discredit yourself so.
Now here's where things get highly entertaining. With spade in hand, textusa begins to dig. The bumbling blogger digs so deep, that it becomes obvious he's never read the parts of the files that refer to the dogs. For someone who acts like they're the font of all knowledge on the case, who mocks others on a daily basis, who trolls people calling them "thick" for not subscribing to a flimsy theory they show no evidence for, this is where it gets really embarrassing:
"Textusa: Do you seriously think the key fob didn't come into contact with the car or that Gerry's cut hand didn't?"

Says someone who says she only deals with facts.

I can only assume textusa has never been in a car, because how in the name of shivering shite, do they think it funny that it's not a fact that Gerry McCann's hand, the one with a cut that was proven to have deposited blood onto the keyfob didn't then touch the steering wheel, or that the keyfob itself didn't come into contact with the car? 

Five-year-old children would know this. They know to turn a key in a toy car "brum brum, parp parp" and they know to put their hands on the wheel.
Image result for noddy car parp parp

But never mind that, look at the files:

"Thus, the Renault Scenic vehicle was moved to parking level -3 and subjected to an expert 
examination by officers from the Police Science Laboratory and another canine inspection that 
began at 03h49 on 7 August 2007 by the dog Keela, that detects traces of human blood, it having 
been verified the following result: 03h53 - the dog 'marked' an area of the lower right-hand side of the interior part of the baggage compartment of the car; 04h11 - the dog 'marked' the 'tidy' compartment [map/glove pocket] on the side of the driver's door, which was found to contain the car key, the plastic electronic card type, with a key-ring of the Budget rental company."

The car key was in the fucking car! The dipstick - not the one under the bonnet of the Scenic, but the one that thought it would be hilarious to put a string of laughing emojis, didn't even know where the key was found!

Anon replied to textusa:

OMG, have you been on the Port?

How would the key have NOT come into contact with the car?
How did Gerry drive it without using his hands?
Well said, anon! But wait, here comes more madness, and titter ye not, it's textusa again.
Do go on. Do keep digging your hole.

Maybe it was the other way around, the Scenic contaminating the key FOB? LOLOL

And then the key FOB contaminating the dinner table at the villa. No, no alert there. Maybe then contaminating Gerry's trousers... no, wait, it was Kate's not Gerry's...

Highly intelligent contamination. We would even say we were before MI5 trained contamination!!


The fact that Eddie alerted to the Scenic AND the the key FOB means BOTH had direct contact with the body. Liek all other objects and locations that Eddie alerted to.

Now I don't know about you, but if you're going to "LOLOL" and cry laughing, then it's always wise to know the difference between knowing you're shit and knowing your shit - textusa is the former.

What they're actually saying is that every single alert by Eddie was a cadaver alert, despite the fact that Eddie alerted to human blood as well, and despite the fact that Keela (blood only dog) alerted to some of the same places. Bear with me, it'll get better.

Oh dear, Textusa, do you not know Eddie alerted to human blood as well as the target scent of a dead body?

You're contradicting everything Martin Grime says about the dogs and are confirming you have either have absolutely no clue as to how they work, or that you're ignoring how they worked. Which is it?
Image result for plug comic character
It would seem not, anon.

In the distance, can be heard the galloping of hooves, a sound of a it the cavalry? No, it's the wooden-headed wing-nut, Whispering. Here he is now.

Whispering has come to back textusa up and support the claim that the alerts to the car were cadaver alerts, only the vapid fool chooses a section of the files that relates to Keela, the human blood only dog.

Silly Whispering.

From the JP files. Seems pretty obvious to me. Whispering...

15.27 ? the dog ?marked? vehicle n?4 ? Renault Scenic ? number plate ? 59-DA-27, the rental car currently used by Gerry and Kate McCann.

The Renault Scenic vehicle ? number plate 59-DA-27 was removed to the third floor of the underground car park and was subjected to a forensic search by officers from the Scientific Police Laboratory and another sniffer dog inspection that began at 03.49 on 7th August by the dog KEELA, which detected human blood remains, the following results were noted:

03.53 ? the dog ?marked? a zone on the right inferior side of the inside of the luggage compartment of the vehicle;

04.11 ? the dog 'marked' the compartment on the driver's side, which was seen to contain the vehicle's key, of a plastic electronic card type, with a key ring from the Budget car rental agency.

With the aim of confirming whether the dog had effectively ?marked? the vehicle's key, which was inside the compartment on the driver's side, at 04.13 the key in question was removed from the vehicle and hidden in a place far from the vehicle on the third floor of the underground car park.

At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle's key had been hidden.

At approximately 04.50 a new sniffer dog inspection was carried out using the dog EDDY which detects cadaver odour, using the vehicle key which for this purpose was hidden on the fourth floor of the underground car park, far away from the vehicle.

At about 04.51, it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of the box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which the key had been hidden.


What Whispering has actually done, is to reinforce the fact that Eddie made blood alerts to the keyfob. How do we know this? Because Keela alerted, Eddie alerted, and...

"An incomplete, low-level DNA profile that matched corresponding components in the profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material present on the card key -  (286C/2007-CRL (12))."

Both dogs did exactly what they were trained to do - they alerted to the scent of human blood, Gerry's blood. The dogs are not trained to differentiate from one human to the next, but only to alert to the scent they're trained to. Which is exactly what they did.

But, textusa still thinks it's a fact that despite Gerry's blood being on the car key, identified as such, and alerted to by two dogs able to detect human blood, that the alerts show the key came into contact with a dead body.

textusa grabs the spade once more, not that one, a spade for diggi...never mind.

  • Begs the question... what are are the dogs good for? Absolutely nothing, according to you.

    Silly Supreme Justice Court.

    Pros couldn't try better to muddy up waters.
  • Oh, and of course, silly Mr Amaral...
  • Anon hits the nail on the head with:
    Now you're being childish because you feel foolish for not knowing Eddie alerted to blood.

    "Silly Amaral"? You just said further up that one of his theories was absurd.

    I have you all ends up here, all because you were driven by spite toward someone who knew more than you about the dogs. Perhaps you should think before you mock in future.
    ...and she's right

    I forgot to show you textusa's disdain for Goncalo Amaral, didn't I. Remember I only published a couple of tweets, stating my opinion, one based on facts? Well, here's textusa at their spiteful best, berating a theory of Goncalo Amaral...and a few of us know why

    For us, and we are giving a personal opinion, the coffin theory is so absurd that it falls out of the possible (the dog alerts on the Scenic contradict it and the coffin theory is based on somebody having said that they saw people by the church at odd hours in night but these statements are not in the files nor have they ever been identified (probably because they don’t exist or if they do, are fantasists)) and so, if we were in charge of the investigation, we would waste little resources to it or even none.

    textusa is claiming that Goncalo Amaral's theory is "absurd". They're even going as far to say he's lied about witnesses. Back in 2014, I was told by two very reliable sources that Goncalo Amaral cannot abide textusa, and with words like the above, coupled with textusa's fondness for portraying the PJ as inept, it's hardly surprising.

    Anon goes on to educate the useless blogger further:

    From Martin Grime.

    'The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.'

    This is all VERY basic stuff. How can you not know this? 

    At which point, the petulant blogger responds with:
    To all those now saying that Eddie was a blood dog as much as he was an EVRD dog, did Keela signal the key FOB? If not, why not?

    And the Scenic door? If not, why not?

    "As much of a blood dog as he was EVRD"? Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous in your entire life? As much of a blood dog? What the fuck-a-doodle-do is going on in textusa's head here?

    Picture the scene, Eddie is at a crime scene, his handler, Martin Grime at his side. All of a sudden, Eddie gets a whiff of blood, he's just about to alert when another scent comes to him from the bedroom, "ooooooo cadaver" thinks Eddie, "I much prefer that smell to blood! I'm going to go through there and alert instead."

    Bimbling buffoonary. A dog will alert to what it's trained to alert to, it doesn't prioritise. It doesn't favour one scent over another. This is just yet another example of textusa inventing complete and utter twaddle.

    The answer, which I'm told textusa refused to publish, is simple.

    Yes, Keela did alert to the fob, I've shown you that above. If you or Whimpering had actually read his comment, you'd have seen that Keela alerted to the fob.

    Why didn't Keela alert to the door seal?

    Because, as I said at the start of the blog, the dogs were used in tandem. Eddie alerted to the door seal, he could smell one of the scents he was trained to alert to coming from the door. At that point, Keela was brought to the car and alerted in several areas. Eddie wasn't required in the car because he'd have only alerted to the same places. If you think he'd have found a different spot that wouldn't have corroborated with Keela's alert (I'm aiming this comment at textusa), then not only do you have no idea where a car key goes or where the driver's hands go, but you must also think a car is the size of a fucking house, you absolute shit-biscuit.

    ...and to the wankers that joined the thread at the end whilst textusa allowed no further comments that showed him to be incorrect, you're as ill-informed as the melon you read and revere.

    Before I conclude, let's take a look at what the soundly beaten textusa signed off with.

    Did textusa admit to being totally wrong about the dogs?

    Of course not, the obsessive pillock reverted to old faithful:

    Insinuate anyone who doesn't agree with misinformation and lies has a plan, that they're part of a gang and that they work for the government.

    Interesting sudden change of tactics from the gang on the dogs.

    We are back to Sept 8 2007. The tactic of pinning all on the McCanns and them alone has failed (obviously, we have been alerting that this is impossible for year).

    Next, will be to prove what Netflix tried: sorry folks, nothing for you to see here, do move along now.

    Something to end on, well it's simple.

    When looking at the alerts from Eddie and Keela, look at the alerts Eddie gave that Keela did not. 
    The wardrobe in the parents' bedroom. Bear in mind that whilst this alert was directly at the wardrobe, due to airflow (something else numb-nuts doesn't understand) the actual location of the target scent could have been somewhere else in that room. 

    When Martin Grime states that the scent source can be in a different place to where it can end up, he is referring to cadaver scent, not blood.

    There were no blood alerts in that room! Keela did not alert.

    "What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case, is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else, but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But *strong indication and I would say it's positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief."

    For me, that is the alert that tells us Madeleine's body was in the parents' bedroom. Keela's alerts were superb, she alerted to what she was trained to alert to, and most were corroborated by Eddie, but because tests couldn't confirm anything that could be used in court, their importance diminishes as far as securing a conviction goes. That isn't "dissing" the dogs, if anything it's human failure, either by the way the swabs were taken (I don't think that's the case), or by the method used by the FSS, as covered in the link below:

    Whilst we have morons like Tony Bennett and textusa telling us total lies about what the dogs found, then it's no surprise that people wonder why arrests haven't been made. This is a very complex case, far too complex for the likes of textusa and Bennett to comprehend and the reason for that is simple.

    The pair of them are so far up their own arses, twisting the evidence and lying about the case so they can stroke their massive egos, that they couldn't see daylight if they bent over and mooned at the sun.

    If anyone who comments on this case is lying about and discrediting the dogs, it's the pros and idiots like textusa, who, for all intents and purposes is as close to being a pro as you'll find.

    Friday, 3 May 2019

    Filicide and Parental Profiling

    Written by Blaze.

    Image result for madeleine mccann play area
    Twelve years ago, a three-year-old girl disappeared without a trace while on holiday with her family in the Algarve. Since that fateful evening of 3rd May 2007, the whole world has been repeatedly told, despite the conspicuous absence of a single shred of supporting evidence, that the explanation for her disappearance – the only explanation – is stranger abduction. Like millions of other people who didn’t come down in the last shower, I do not buy that story. Here, I explore another possibility – no less awful, I grant you, but marginally more credible, especially in light of what little evidence we do have.

    This article looks at filicide in Britain, America, and Australia over the past 20 years, and as such has some very distressing and harrowing content. My intention is not to accuse the McCanns (or anyone) of having murdered Madeleine, but to identify the complicated issues we are up against in trying to determine what crime/s were actually committed against her, and by whom, and – trickiest of all – why, if indeed there is a ‘why’. And also to illustrate how 'murder' is no more outrageous a theory than 'covered-up accident', and certainly no less plausible than abduction by an opportunistic fleet-footed child-stealing stranger.

    In Australia, at least one child is killed by their parent (or other 'guardian') every fortnight. In the U.K., it is estimated that two children a week die due to maltreatment at home. In the USA, there are 400-500 filicide arrests every year, although according to data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), 49 States reported a total of 1,700 child fatalities in 2016 alone (see, which means nearly five children died from abuse or neglect every day. More than 70% of children killed by their own parents/ guardians were six years old or younger.

    Often a child dies due to parental neglect/ negligence (rather than sustained physical abuse), momentary loss of control, distraction/ oversight, reckless behaviour, intoxication, ignorance/ incapacity or inadequacy, extreme stress or exhaustion... For example, inadvertent bathtub drownings, or accidentally leaving an infant in a hot car. In these situations, the parent invariably did not intend for the child to die.

    Because I don't believe that whatever happened to Madeleine McCann was entirely accidental or unintentional, this post is specifically about the small but significant minority of child deaths caused by parents that are deliberate or even planned - in other words, murder. (Although often the charge of murder is reduced due to 'diminished responsibility' - for example Andrea Yates, detailed below, was found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.)

     Again, I reiterate that I'm not outright accusing either of the McCanns, or anyone else, of murder; I'm offering it up as a consideration that needs to be seriously examined before it can be conclusively eliminated. It is not ‘ludicrous’ or ‘evil’ at all to suggest that a child who has not been seen for 12 years was murdered back in 2007, and her body hidden so as never to be found. In fact, it’s arguably the most plausible scenario, given the inordinate amount of cash ostensibly spent on ‘finding’ her. Everyone has a right to ask questions about a nonsensical, inconsistent and questionable story, and certainly, we all have the right to refuse to believe the unbelievable.

    The table below shows 'motivations for filicide'. I’m not convinced that any of these apply in this case, at least not as one clear standalone reason, although certainly, it is worth considering that two or three of them might feasibly have some relevance.

    'Motivation' and 'profile' (as explained below) really do set this case apart from every other missing child case in which the parents are or were considered suspects. Even the McCanns bestow their purported 'abductor' with a fantastical (indeed preposterous) motive for stealing away their daughter - i.e. to offer her a charmed life filled with love and laughter. A clear, astonishing example of this frankly insane delusion is when Gerry paraphrases (some might say wilfully misinterprets) something that Ernie Allen, the Chief Executive of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, had assured him: that "not all" abducted children are taken to be harmed or killed, and as such, who's to say that Madeleine isn't out there somewhere, healthy and happy and completely alive, and furthermore she "might not even realise she's missing"?

    This unabashedly batshit performance by a visibly elated (possibly high) Gerry in 2011 is definitely worth watching, and my challenge to you is to watch this 80-second clip of a beaming father-of-an-abducted-child waxing lyrical about how young children are ‘incrrrrrredibly adaptable’ without incredulously muttering to yourself 'what the entire fuck?':

    So perhaps we need to ask a few uncomfortable questions, such as: who (if anyone) has actually benefited from Madeleine's mysterious and still-unexplained disappearance? Has Madeleine benefited? Of course she hasn't. Has the Algarve tourism industry benefited? Well, that's also a big nope. Have any of the T7 benefited? Whether we believe them to be complicit or not, accusations of paedophilia, child neglect and perverting the course of justice will haunt all of them to their dying days, and their names are associated forevermore with a scurrilous, shameful scandal that virtually the entire world knows about and will not forget. So even their 'freedom' comes at a heavy price. And so what about the 'abductor'? Even if he exists (let's assume for just a second he does), how exactly has he 'benefited' from capturing the world's most recognizable, most widely publicised and searched-for little girl? If he wanted money, the reward offered by News of the World in summer 2007 would have dwarfed whatever he might have received in exchange for his precious abductee, who overnight became a liability for any child-trafficking criminal due to the immediate and unimpeded actions of her parents.

    What are such immoral lowlifes likely to do when their stolen 'asset' becomes a 'liability'?

    So again I ask: who has benefited? And is anybody still benefiting from this tragedy, 12 years on?

    Below I've outlined just a small selection, in chronological order, of reported filicide cases in Britain, America, and Australia since 2000. I'm aware that sadly there are many more: possibly tens of thousands in total worldwide over the past two decades, although it is difficult (if not impossible) to obtain an accurate figure. In addition to these confirmed murders, there have also been a few cases of missing (presumed dead) children who have still not been found – three-year-old William Tyrrell (Australia, 2014) and two-year-old DeOrr Kunz Jr (America, 2015) to name just two.

    Image result for william tyrrell

    Image result for deorr kunz

    There are of course also many cases of filicide prior to 2000; for example, murderous mothers of the 1980s and 1990s included Susan Smith, Susan Eubanks, Diane Downs, and Dora Buenrostro.

    And it's not always youngsters (under-18s) who are killed by their parents: in 1984, on the day before his 45th birthday, R&B singer Marvin Gaye was shot dead by his father.

    Image result for marvin gaye death

    The point of this post is not to gratuitously speculate over the reality of family violence but to consider this horrific, unthinkable crime in relation to 'criminal profiling'. Every single one of these killings was perpetrated by a biological parent (and/or step-parent or other 'caregiver') who in some way 'fitted the profile' - in other words, had a history of mental illness/ emotional instability, aggression, religious fundamentalism, crime, alcoholism/ drug abuse or family dysfunction, and was typically 'on the radar' of local authorities/ social services. For example, while Andrea Yates was described by those who knew her as a "wonderful mother", sadly the deaths of her children occurred as a result of unchecked and compounded postpartum psychosis which, along with her involvement in a religious cult, sent her into an inexorable downward spiral of murderous madness.

    Image result for McCann family photo
    One point we all must concede about the McCanns: they do not 'fit' the profile. At all. Nothing about them appears to align with anything a seasoned criminal profiler might realistically theorise about whatever dreadful fate befell their daughter. This is (partly) what has made it so easy for them to 'pass the blame' - all of it - onto their imagined, maligned 'predator', the elusive 'baddie' that has always, by necessity, loomed large in their narrative.

    If we really were obliged to take them at face value, the McCanns are to blame for nothing. Just behold their moral and intellectual superiority! They are well-educated, affluent, righteous, successful, apparently devoted and responsible parents of longed-for children in an apparently loving marriage, with no (confirmed) mental health issues, no criminal record and no history of violence or drug abuse - as far as we can ascertain. But…. something just doesn’t add up, does it?

    In terms of their characteristics, backgrounds and presumed motives (to end their child's life and/or cover up her death)... as Gerald quite boldly stated in his 'embedded confessions' interview with Rahni Sadler, "you'd have to start with WHY?"... and yes, it simply makes NO LOGICAL SENSE to outright accuse the McCanns of anything more serious than negligence, narcissism, greed and (at a push) misappropriation of funds.

    But we do keep coming back to that colossal loaded question, as demanded by Gerald: WHY? Yes Professor McCann, we really must start with WHY. This is the question that will crack the case, and as with most crimes, it is the most problematic to address or definitively answer. Many crimes, particularly murder, are quite simply senseless.

    And so, for the final time, I ask: WHO (if indeed anyone) has benefited from the as-yet-unspecified crimes committed against Madeleine McCann?

    Maybe, just maybe, the answer to that question can help us to start tackling the WHY. See source 14, ‘One possible motive’, and remember how Gerry McCann, on camera as early as 25th May 2007, compared the loss of his daughter to exceeding his student overdraft limit. And then miraculously, once the fund had been set up, some might say with indecent haste – yet still with no positive signs of being reunited with his abducted little girl – he felt chirpy again, “buoyed” according to his brother, John, uplifted, brighter" as his Dear Old Ma is quoted as saying, or “back in the black” to use his own mystifying words…

    Once again with the oft-uttered phrase “what the almighty fuck” at the forefront of my mind, I ask you, what can we infer about such hideously stupefying statements? What must we infer from them? Reducing his daughter to a bank balance, and doing so without the slightest blush of hesitation; indeed with a discernible smile on his face. (See from 10:10 here

    There are usually clues that are (or should be) obvious to those who are acquainted with parents who end up killing their children. "Prior to a homicide, lots of lay people know these men and women are having difficulty parenting. The public has to be better educated in recognizing how to intervene and how to support child abuse prevention". (Source 7)

    And, interestingly (source 8): "The women who killed with intent are very different from the other groups. They tend to be older. Many of them went to great lengths to adopt or to get pregnant. I mean, they’re often described as perfect parents. It's always stunning how afterwards, people are like: 'I can’t believe she killed her kids. She was such a good parent."

    Filicide since 2000:

    Image result for victoria climbieIn 2000, eight-year-old Victoria Climbie died after a relentless campaign of sadistic abuse perpetrated by her great-aunt Marie-Thรฉrรจse Kouao, who had been Victoria's appointed guardian since 1998. Kouao's boyfriend Carl Manning was also convicted of child cruelty and murder. The poor little girl experienced unimaginable daily torture for the final two years of her life, failed by the "blinding incompetence" of the authorities who bore witness to the many signs of abuse: "During her life in Britain, Climbiรฉ was known to four local authorities (four social services departments and three housing departments), two child protection police teams, two hospitals, an NSPCC centre, and a few local churches". (See source 1a and 1b.) Kouao was arrested on the day that Climbiรฉ died, and Manning the following day. Kouao reportedly told the police, "It is terrible, I have just lost my child". (Remind you of anyone ?)

    "On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned each of her five children (from left to right on the photograph below) Luke, Paul, John, Noah, and Mary, aged six months to seven years, in her bathtub. She was charged with multiple counts of first-degree murder with death penalty specifications. Her earlier life provides no clues that she would later commit an infamous crime. She graduated valedictorian of her high school class of 608 students. Upon completion of her Bachelor's degree in nursing, she became a highly regarded nurse at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. After her marriage, she was determined to be a 'super mom.' Every witness at her trial agreed that she was a wonderful mother. (See source 2 for more details.) Mrs. Yates's attorneys entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) in her first trial in 2002."

    Image result for mARY YATES 6 MONTHS OLDImage result for andrea yates victims


    Image result for joshua and luke laney

    Late one night in May 2003, Deanna Laney led her two oldest sons, eight-year-old Joshua and six-year-old Luke (right), outside her home, where she proceeded to smash in their skulls with a giant rock. She too was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

    Image result for paris dayton murder

    China Arnold was accused of killing her three-week-old daughter Paris (left) in a microwave oven in Dayton, Ohio, on Aug. 30, 2005. Arnold was sentenced to life in prison without parole Sept. 8, 2008. Judge Mary Wiseman told Arnold during the trial, "No adjectives exist to adequately describe this heinous atrocity. This act is shocking and utterly abhorrent for a civilized society."

    Image result for baby p

    The death of Peter Connelly (right) in London, U.K., in 2007 at the age of just 15 months - "Baby P" as he was referred to by the media - was a clear-cut case of appalling parental neglect and horrifying abuse, enabled by a series of catastrophic failures of duty by social services.

    Image result for daniel pelka

    Four-year-old Daniel Pelka (left) was murdered by his mother and her partner in Coventry, U.K., in March 2012; he had been starved and severely beaten. Both his mother, Magdalena ลuczak, and her partner, Mariusz Krฤ™ลผoล‚ek, were imprisoned for life but died within three years of their sentencing.

    Image result for ellie butler

    Ellie Butler
    , a six-year-old British girl, was beaten to death by her monstrous father in 2013. See source 4.

    Image result for mikaeel kularWhen the news of 3-year-old Mikaeel Kular's disappearance broke in January 2014, many of us knew, almost instinctively, that his mother was responsible. The reported circumstances were, to say the least, highly suspicious, and sure enough it later emerged that the internet search history of Mikaeel's 34-year-old mother, Rosdeep Adekoya, included "I love all my children except one", "why am I so aggressive with my son" and "how to get rid of bruises". (OFM very briefly featured the news "in support of the search for Mikaeel" on their Facebook page, but swiftly pulled it as soon as it became clear that the poor little boy had been beaten to death by his mother.) See source 5.

    In 2014, in one of Australia's worst cases of filicide, Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday stabbed to death seven of her biological children and her niece, aged between 18 months and 14 years old. Their names were Malili Warria, Vita Thaiday, Shantae Warria, La'Torrence Warria, Azariah Willie, Daniel Willie, Rodney Willie, and Patranella Willie.  Thaiday, also known as Mersane Warria, was eventually found unfit for trial due to suffering a psychotic episode triggered by undiagnosed schizophrenia at the time of the murders. [Note: I wish to make it very clear that schizophrenics are actually rarely violent - more often they are the victims of violence, and do not deserve the bad press they get.]
     Image result for cairns murders

    Image result for Andrew 'AJ' Freund Jr

    Five-year-old Andrew 'AJ' Freund Jr was reported missing in an eerily calm 911 call by his father on 18th April 2019. The boy had already been dead for three days, and his body was discovered a week later, wrapped in plastic and buried in a shallow grave near Woodstock, about 10 miles from the family home in Crystal Lake, Illinois. Both his parents were promptly charged with first-degree murder, among other charges, and held on $5m bail.


    11. Filicide: Mental illness in those who kill their children:

    12. Understanding the triggers for filicide will help prevent it:

    13. Maternal filicide in a cohort of English Serious Case Reviews: