Tuesday, 6 September 2016

Metagrabolized muppet Motson makes a mess of McCann matters...

For those of you who follow our blog, you may remember the piece we wrote that totally ridiculed, and exposed, the lies and smears of Nigel Nessling. That blog is available to Goncalo Amaral, should he decide to take action against the organised team of 'pro McCanns' who, in a desperate attempt to paint Kate and Gerry in a saintly glow, have actively sought to defame, and libel Snr. Amaral.

For those who didn't read it, or would like a reminder, CLICK HERE

That blog was both enjoyable, and satisfying, and, as I tap this one out, I hope to gain the same sense of well being from putting another of the court jesters to the sword.

Today's prevaricator is the lesser known Ste Motson. For those of you who don't know Stephen, or 'Ace Ventura' to give him a more suitable name, he enjoys nothing more than taking the moral high ground; tricky if you're standing on a bank of blancmange. You see Ace, is another Amaral hater, a conspiraloon, and, whilst not tracking down missing cats...a bit of a dick.

Enough of the pleasantries though, let's get down to business... For the avoidance of doubt, I have put the quotes from Ace Ventura's blog in red. It seemed the logical thing to do given that what he claims to be true, is in fact bumbling bollocks.

Ironically titled “A Tale of True Blunders”, Ace wastes no time in blundering his way into a paragraph littered with lies

"Amaral’s investigation: Amaral walks into the apartment where the child went missing. He assumes that the child has simply wandered off – big mistake. He fails to put out the necessary alerts. He doesn’t interview the parents, or the last person to have seen the child, under suspicion and makes no effort at all to eliminate them. He is so ill-prepared for the investigation that he has to borrow a piece of paper to scribble down some notes. He does not seal the potential crime scene for future forensic testing, in fact he does the exact opposite and lets people and dogs wander aimlessly in and out of the apartment making it extremely difficult for any future forensic tests to extract any useful or useable information. He doesn’t even notice that at least one of the forensic professionals dusting for prints wasn’t even wearing gloves! Da Sousa (Amaral’s boss) later remarked that, “the crime scene was totally compromised from the very beginning.”  
Of course, all of the above is a big fat lie.

As explained previously, Goncalo Amaral was the operational coordinator of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

For the avoidance of doubt, let's break that down:

Operational: of or relating to the operation of a business or machine, (in this case the machine being the PJ)

Coordinator: someone whose job it is to make different groups work together in an organized way to achieve something. That being said, quite why 'Ace' is implying Snr. Amaral was the first on the scene, or was under the illusion "the child (classic pro McCann terminology, one has to wonder why these people struggle to use Madeleine's name), has simply wandered off". Snr. Amaral did not think Madeleine had simply wandered off, nor did the first officers on the scene. Taken from The Truth of The Lie chapter 3:

"We need information about the parents and their friends, to know who they are, what they do, if they have problems in their country, if the children were victims of abuse, if the family, neighbours, friends could have noticed any suspicious behaviour, what are their jobs, if they work full-time, etc. Is any member of their family depressed or suffered from depression in the past? Do the couple maintain good relationships? Are they implicated in serious litigation? Do they have enemies? For what reason? So, I telephone Glen Powers, the English liaison officer in Portugal, inform him of events and request that he relay our requests for reports. We consider these to be of the greatest importance and await sensitive responses to guide our investigation."
The above quote relates to Goncalo Amaral's actions before he even set off for Praia da Luz, and is fully backed up in the files. So right there, we can see Ace is lying. Goncalo hadn't, at that point, walked into the apartment, and he hadn't suspected that 'the child had simply wandered off'

Whilst we're on the subject, and contrary to Ace's claims that our man Snr. Amaral was of the belief Madeleine had simply wandered off:
 

"On reading this report, which was given to me on the morning of May 4th, I understand that there is no evidence sufficiently convincing to tip the investigation in one direction rather than another. There are many possible leads: voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar."
 


Moving onto the second part of Ace's quote:


"He fails to put out the necessary alerts."


The police at Faro airport had already been informed before Snr Amaral was even alerted to Madeleine's disappearance. A control post had been set up on the Guadiana bridge, connecting Portugal and Spain, all police in Portugal had been informed as well as Interpol. CCTV had been requested from the two main motorways in the area. Spanish customs at two ports with links to Morocco, Tarifa and Algeciras were also alerted. Contact was made with all marinas, and video recordings, the 
Municipal Aerodrome Portimao, as well as registers of all boats leaving and entering within the last few days were requested.
Of course, due to the fact 'Ace' has gleaned all his information from ancient pro McCann scriptures, I will point him in the direction of the true facts:

Click here to read PJ files records of boat movements.

Click here to read PJ files re Municipal Aerodrome Portimao


Click here to read PJ files documents and maritime police.
Third part of Mr Ventura's claims now: "He doesn’t interview the parents, or the last person to have seen the child, under suspicion and makes no effort at all to eliminate them."
Ace claims to have resourced his information from the ACPO guidlines. Quite why he would expect a Portuguese cop to follow guidelines from Great Britain, is a mystery, but we will indulge our pet finding expert for now. 

The ACPO guidelines don't state that parents should be immediately interviewed as suspects. Could you imagine the uproar if every parent whose child had disappeared were interviewed as suspects before the basic facts of the case were understood? 
Both the parents were questioned upon arrival of the police, and again the following morning, as well as later in the investigation. I'm not going to put links to each interview here, they can all be read under the heading Gerry, Kate and Madeleine McCann, on the following link:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm


Perhaps Ace collars every owner of a missing animal, aims a spotlight into the face of the distraught owner, exhales the smoke from his cigarette along the beam of the light, and in a strong German accent, parodying such films as 'Lives Of A Bengal Lancer', shrieks:

"Ve haff vayz off making you tok"

An entertaining thought, and of course utter fantasy.

I shouldn't mock... 


"He does not seal the potential crime scene for future forensic testing, in fact he does the exact opposite and lets people and dogs wander aimlessly in and out of the apartment making it extremely difficult for any future forensic tests to extract any useful or useable information. He doesn’t even notice that at least one of the forensic professionals dusting for prints wasn’t even wearing gloves! Da Sousa (Amaral’s boss) later remarked that, “the crime scene was totally compromised from the very beginning.”  
I have to ask myself if 'Ace' is after the vacancy left by Clarence Mitchell; his words spin like a love struck teenager's head.

The crime scene had already been compromised prior to the police the police arriving, something Snr. Amaral considered could have been a deliberate act by the parents.

As for the reference Ace makes to 
Olegário de Sousa, firstly, he was the Chief Inspector of the PJ, not 'Amaral's boss'. Secondly, regarding Snr. de Sousa's claims the crime scene was totally compromised, our Ace drops a massive clanger. Snr. De Sousa was referring to the McCanns, the friends, and Ocean club employees - before the police arrived. As confirmed here:
Crime scene compromised before police arrival.


Sorry Ace. That's the way the cookie crumbles. 
Once the PJ arrived however, the parents were removed from the apartment, and forensic testing began. 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

As for the above lie that Snr. Amaral doesn't notice one of the forensic team weren't wearing gloves, this was in relation to one of the team dusting for prints on the outside of the window, and it was noticed, as detailed below:
"Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palm prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair. We notice with dismay that one of the technicians, who is working on the outside of the McCann children's bedroom window is not using the regulation suit, thus risking contaminating possible clues. These images of negligence start to circulate world-wide; this isn't, however, the usual behaviour of judiciary police technicians." 
I haven't forgotten about Ace's claims of "dogs wandering aimlessly" around 5a. I can only suggest that he contacts police dog teams worldwide and requests all dogs work a safe distance from crime scenes...possibly even from home.

Moving on to Ace's next paragraph, and immediately we're slapped in the face with more lies:

"The contact details of all of the people in the immediate area were never taken and to this day there is still around 700 people, all potential witnesses, who have never been questioned."

LIES. From the police files, it's clear to see they were. Between the 5th of May, and the 9th of May, 143 statements were taken from hotel staff. Additionally staff on duty that night were spoken to informally at the time for any relevant information. To contact and arrange to interview 143 people is a mammoth task for any police force, and it was done in just 5 days. Additionally 27 residents were interviewed at various times as necessary.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MW_STAFF.htm

"Some years later, other potential witnesses, who were in the area but had not been spoken to at the time by the PJ (the Portuguese Police), approached the UK police to say that the PJ had refused to speak with them because they did not speak Portuguese!"

Newspaper talk again Ace? I guess you have a lot of time to read The Sun whilst you're staking out a tree, trying to entice moggy down with a packet of Dreamies.

As the files prove, the PJ spoke to many English speaking witnesses; to suggest otherwise just proves your agenda, and your flawed researching skills. 

Next Ace waffles on about why CCTV wasn't checked, well it was:

CCTV was monitored on the motorways running to and from Praia da Luz, it was from one of those cameras, that a possible sighting was noted. 

From The Truth of The Lie, chapter 3.

"Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken in a service area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimão in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative."

The Ocean Club itself didn't have CCTV, as confirmed by Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista, and Vitor Manuel dos Santos, in the PJ files. PDL is a quiet, resort, it isn't Beijing. Portuguese law states that it is not permitted to have CCTV filming its citizens in public spaces. such as streets, beaches, etc. Private business are however allowed to do so if they wish. 

https://www.cnpd.pt/bin/legis/nacional/LEI_9_2012.pdf

Ace muses further as to why the CCTV wasn't checked :

"...a nearby hotel had wiped their CCTV tape by the time Portuguese detectives had finally decided to ask questions there.  The hotel owner confirmed that the camera would have caught the infamous ‘Smith’ sighting (a man witnessed carrying a small girl in his arms just minutes after Madeleine went missing)."


Given that the Smith family didn't contact the PJ until 4 months after Madeleine's disappearance, they couldn't have known that there had been a sighting at that particular place. 

Nevertheless, Snr. Amaral did hold regrets over the failure to gain the CCTV footage from that evening:

“I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over.

"It was a mistake and I will always regret it."


In fairness, the coordinator of the case was being particularly hard on himself. Independent investigations suggest, that in accordance with Portuguese law the CCTV in question wasn't pointing at the street; it was in fact only covering the grounds of Estrela da Luz.

https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/madeleine-estrela-da-luz-cctv/

I could go into the fact that Kate and Gerry McCann withheld the efit of this sighting for 5 long years, and that they stopped their team of private investigators from following up on the lead. It wasn't until Crimewatch in 2013, that Scotland Yard announced that the man Mr Smith was up to 80% sure was Gerry McCann, was now the main focus of their investigation, but time is getting on, and Mr Ventura has taken up enough of my time already.

Next blunder from Ace, and here he tells us that:

"...the Portuguese press printed a story, from a source within the PJ (I wonder who that could have been) stating that the blood they had found in the apartment was Madeleine’s blood (even though the forensics had identified the blood as male!)"

Now I have two issues with this claim, the first being Ace's clear attempt to lay the blame for leaks to the press firmly at the feet of Goncalo Amaral.

Leaks did have a pivotal, and prejudicial impact on the case. The McCanns through various friends/employees have enjoyed a long, and beneficial relationship with the press.

Clarence Mitchell, "a friend close to the McCanns", "a source close to the McCanns", Philomena McCann, Justine McGuinness, Lori Campbell... The McCanns have had many, many leaks attributed to them over the years, and not just to the Portuguese press. Clarence Mitchell spoke to press agencies worldwide: 

Mitchell's interference drew the following comment from Portuguese police union chief Carlos Anjos:

"Mr Mitchell wants to discredit the Policia Judiciaria and invent excuses so the McCanns do not come to Portugal to participate in the reconstruction of the night she disappeared."

"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth.


"Finally we know what side truth is on."


"While the Policia Judiciaria were fulfilling their duty of investigating what happened to Madeleine, her parents' spokesman was manipulating public opinion."


That comment was a true then, as it is today.

My second issue with Ace's claim of the only blood being found in 5a was male, is this:

He's a liar.

Taken from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

"However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result (swab 3a),match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."

As we know, sample 3a was a swab taken from behind the sofa. The area that both Eddie and Keela alerted to. 

The rest of Ace's blog highlights his lack of understanding of how Eddie and Keela work. Our very own Syn0nymph already drew attention to Motty's miserable attempts to discredit Eddie and Keela, and in particular his uneducated mutterings of nonsense, so I won't go over those again. All the apologists excuses are roundly debunked here:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html

Finally, I'd like to share one of Ace's rather ironic passages:

"Believe it or not, despite all of this, there are some gullible people, who have neither looked at the evidence objectively, or with any degree of impartially, nor who have sufficient knowledge of how an investigation such as this should have been carried out."

All talk no trousers Ace. 

Whatever you're tipple, I suggest you take more water with it. 

In your case the saying "don't give up your day job", is something no man should ever say to you. 

I only hope that there aren't many missing pets relying on you to find them; you couldn't find your own nose in the dark. 

etc. etc.



"Alllll-righty then"




Friday, 2 September 2016

Frances Gallagher/Murray - McCann case Trojan Horse.

Well Frances, this wasn't what I wanted. You could have just stopped with the lies and smears, but after 2 years, and no sign of any let up, you and certain members of your admin team, have forced my hand.

Where to start? Well let's do this chronologically shall we. You have posted a screenshot on your page 'The Right To Reply', and then (looking at the names involved), what appears to be a transcript from an admin chat that pre-dates me being an admin anywhere on any social media platform. Describing this screenshot, you have insinuated that Ann Bartlett was one of my 'lieutenants'. The page you run even goes as far to say:

 "What a nasty excuse for a human being. Who talks about and to people like this? I'll tell you - spurned, bitter people who would not know the truth if it bit them! I hope his mother is proud."

There wasn't even a male in that conversation, let alone me. I've never had any sort of friendship with Ann, if you can show otherwise, please do.

The screenshot from Ann (you hid the date, but just left part of her name showing), appears to be a discussion of you accusing someone of rape, again, long before my time, so not something I would know anything about.





















Some very interesting stuff there. Accusations of Frances talking to Bren Ryan; accusations of her being a pro; accusations of Frances posting links to pro McCann sites on her facebook wall. All denied by Frances of course:


Ooopsy!

The first time we were in admin together, as you know, was 2014. Not long after I created the group, you came to me having being kicked out of admin by Lizzy at HDH. You told me how all you wanted to do was post, and get the truth out. You told me how Lizzy had treated you so badly, and I fell for it. At the time, I had two other admin, who left shortly after you arriving. They had heard of your reputation, and with you pleading innocence, and me stupidly believing you, they left. At that point, I was contacted by so many people, all of whom had first hand experience of your scheming, and lying. They all warned me you were bad news, but I stubbornly, and through misguided loyalty, stuck by you, causing me to lose friendships with some.

We added more admin, and to your's, and everyone else's credit, the group grew fast. You're right when you say you played a big part in the growth of the group, you did. Over time, cracks began to appear though, other admin began leaving, because of you. People would find themselves removed from admin, with no explanation. Funny how that's a problem that followed you through four groups isn't it; it stopped when you left them all though, so that was good. 

Then of course the trial in Lisbon came up. I met you at the court. Whilst we were sat in the courtroom, and for the remainder of the day, you will recall a certain 'Robert Guest' posting comments in HiDeHo, he was saying I was lying about being in Lisbon. To which I have a question:

If (as you wildly, and without so much as circumstantial evidence to back up your claim), as you say I am Robert Guest/Will McMahon, and whoever else you feel fit to fit me up as, how could I possibly be commenting as Guest, in HDH, when I was sat next to you the entire time.

The only time I used the internet, was to write a post, in the bar, with you watching?

No, Guest has always been the one you've cosied up to Frances, but we'll get to that.

Firstly, let's get onto the rather silly matter, of me fancying you, taking the huff because you didn't reciprocate my (non existent feelings), that I was raging, that it was this non event that was the reason you were removed from admin, and I've been on a bitter, obsessed, mission for two years. 

Yep, read it. That's what you claim.

You know fine well why you were removed from admin. You took the huff (can't believe I'm actually having to do this), because I wasn't answering your PMs. I was in bed with food poisoning, and couldn't be bothered with facebook. You then chose, to block all admin, and tell me to 'get fucked'. It's right there in the screenshot below. 


That was when you left admin, you were in a huff because I didn't reply to you. You left us no choice but to remove you. How can an admin team work, if one decides to block all the others? 

What followed was extraordinary. You kept contacting me, sending the wackiest messages. Stirring, trying to cause trouble, even accusing Lisa, whom you had been friends with for years, of being a troll called Holly. You then accused me of being Lisa, despite having met me. In the end, I told you to stay away from the group, and admin. The things you were saying, just like you are now, made no sense. They were just desperate attempts to regain favour, get back into the group, and be noticed again. 
















After a while you got someone to ask me if you could post again in the group. Against my better judgement I agreed; in hindsight I should have said no, but after you apologised I decided to give you another chance. Despite using a sock account, and asked to keep a low profile, you swamped every thread, making it obvious who you were, and started sniping at admin. Again you were removed, and off you went to start AbScam.
Your new group started, you would have thought you would be happy. No such luck, you created a secret group, added members from Justice who commented/posted regularly, and set about your campaign. You posted lies; encouraged people to report my account; told people you wanted to see Justice For Madeleine shut down; created sock accounts to PM pros information (not caring if it was true or false).

Not content with that, you started copying and pasting posts, from the very people you spoke badly of, passing them off as your own, then IF confronted, bleated about being harassed, and pretended it was an accident. Tell me, did you trip, fall, land on the keyboard in such a fashion that you typed out the exact letters, in the exact order, to write the exact same post?


From at least two of your accounts you even began PMing Guest, handing him little tit bits, lies mostly; accusing innocent people of whatever you think will make others dislike them. You couldn't even do your own dirty work, you used a pro. Not for the first time, and I very much doubt for the last:









Finally, though I have kept this as brief as possible, you got your group taken over. Despite being warned by Chris Roberts, that Will McMahon was Guest, YOU made him admin. Your group was taken, and you announced it had been 'hacked'. You knew fine well what had happened, yet you let your members, and admin, believe that a 'hacking' had taken place. You created hysteria - your members were tagging the MSM about it. You made people look foolish. Eventually, you came clean, and claimed you had proof that Will McMahon was Guest/Holt. The pros even outlined how easily they took the group from you. Yet, as it suits your agenda, you are now blaming me, saying I was Will McMahon, that I'm also Guest, and that I took your group, and gave it to the pros. 









You even seem a little confused about that. Depending on which story you're telling at any one point: See that's the problem with lying Frances, you need a cracking memory. 























Then you start searching for a syntax expert. Only one thing that strikes me as odd...


Prior to you posting the above, you stated (below), that you already had a syntax expert. Second opinion was it?





As for this screenshot below, words fail me. You're using the word of a pro, Guest at that, to use against me, in your campaign to make people believe I'm Guest. It get's no crazier than that:



Bonkers.


Face facts Frances, there are no levels to which you won't stoop to inflict misery on anybody you see fit to. 

Nobody apart from a select few of your admin believe you Frances; they don't believe you because you've become too desperate.

What really gets me, is that one of your admin posted a link to a narcissistic post, in AbScam, that took your members straight to your page that lied about me. Again, conning your members, feeding them lies, and all for your own benefit. You're beneath contempt.

Oh, 'one more thing'.

All the blatant, dangerous, and deplorable lies you told about me, then denied.

Disgusting, and potentially dangerous lies such as me giving Sky News Brenda's details.






That I was 'raging', when an event you made up in your head, didn't happen.











That I gave someone a nervous breakdown.











That I am a druggie who lives at home with my parents.









That you said Jill Havern was 'jealous' of you.












What next Frances? That I have developed red skin, horns, and scour the world wide web with a trident for a mouse?


Finally, taken from your page. How pretentious, (and lacking in respect for true victims), could you be, when despite what you've actually been doing, you come out with this comment:



You called me out Frances, you kept on with the lies, the smears. You asked me to prove my claims, I have.

Now, bugger off!