Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Casey Anthony and Jose Baez Under the Apple Tree


Remember this one from November 9, 2009?  A Blast from the Past!

I sure do. 

"Tot Mom" hasn't been in the news in quite a while, but will be making an appearance in my soon to be released book on deception, so I thought I would bring back a small but interesting aspect of the monstrosity that was the case of perverted justice for Caylee Anthony; the relationship between Jose Baez, the "Swarmy" defense attorney, and "Tot Mom", Nancy Grace's moniker for the dirty dancin' liar. 

"...don't sit under the apple tree with anyone else but me, anyone else but me, anyone else but me, no, no, no!"

I couldn't resist.  This was a pop tune when my parents were a courtin' back in the day during World War II and it is something I remember from my childhood. 

Jose Baez had a very tough job. He had to come up with a defense for Casey Anthony, accused of killing her own child, because Casey locked herself into the "Zanny the Nanny kidnapped her" farce.

Something as superficial as a few statements, looking back, seemed to mean nothing in the overall picture, yet they stand today as an example of principle in analysis.  It also may make a difference to future clients.  

Even with parents who went along with the charade, inspite of the horrific smell of decomposition that the grandmother attempted to wash out of Casey's clothes and scrub out of the car, Jose Baez has had to hold the family's party line and "search" for a child who was never missing. Since then, George and Cindy Anthony have retired to a life of luxury, going from being behind on the mortgage to George's new diamond earrings and cruises. No job for either.

Since Casey reported that Zanny kidnapped the child and had police search, Jose Baez has been forced to keep to that defense. His endless filing of motions shows one thing:

He does not have any clue as to HOW to defend her.

Ask yourself: would you?? I know I would not. I think the best he can do is seek a plea, but in his position, taking a plea means a loss of fame and fortune. He may not always continue as a lawyer: see below.  Attorneys used to take guilty clients and simply protect them from malicious prosecution.  It is how they once saw their jobs:  preserve justice, not pervert it as if it was a game to win or lose.

On the Geraldo show, Mr. Baez was asked if he was involved in an “inappropriate relationship with his client."  This was because he had been rebuked by prison officials on 3 occasions because he would not take his hands off of Casey. He was seen holding her very closely in public (on camera) many times and she was in his office, day after day, for up to 6 hours at a time.

When a person is asked a sensitive question, by not answering the question, they are giving you the indication that the question, itself, is sensitive to them.  What would make a question like this sensitive?

Ask yourself this: If someone asked you if you had an inappropriate relationship with person A, how would you answer? “No, I didn’t” is the only truthful answer if no inappropriate relationship took place. It is short, it is easy and it is very low stress. It is what innocent people say when facing an accusation.

People do not like to lie. It causes internal stress. Instead, they edit their account, or deceive by avoidance. When a guilty person is asked a direct question, a positive answer will then result in unbearable stress, including disbarment for Mr. Baez. Yet, a lie causes internal stress so that if proof is later offered, his denial on Television can be entered into disbarrment procedings. His is a lawyer.

Question: There were 4 dogs sitting on the grass. One decided to run off. How many were left?

Answer: we do not know. We know that one decided, but we do not know if he went through with running off after he made his decision. Editing should not be interpreting.

“I tried to complete my work” in the past tense is an admittance that the person did not complete their work, but wants you to think they did.  Perhaps they are seeking sympathy or praise.

Question: “Do you know about my surprise birthday party?”
Answer: “who me? I don’t know nothin’!”. This person has been asked a sensitive question and is seeking to avoid the answer.

Question: Did you smoke pot last night?
Answer: Who me? I am NOT a drug user.

This person may have smoked pot, and may have now made a vow to no longer use drugs, and is avoiding answering the question. They likely smoked pot last night. By saying "I am not a drug user" they are editing their answer. They may have stayed up late last night, and confessed to their partner, and now is enjoying Day One drug free. Yet, they skillfully avoided the answer.

"Did you have sex with Amy Fischer?"

"Never, Never, NEVER!" screamed Joey Buttafuouco. Never does not mean "no". Rather, it is something that liars like to use rather than a straight denial.

 Think of him before the judge: "100% NOT GUILTY!", rather than, "not guilty". His emphasis told Statement Analyzers (verbal polygraphers)...yep, he did.

When Jose Baez was asked if he was involved in an inappropriate relationship with Casey Anthony, he was asked a very straight forward question. If he did not engage in an inappropriate relationship, a quick 'no" will suffice. It is easy and without stress. Qualifiers are signs of deception.

Baez answered, “I’m not going to dignify that with an answer. I am not going to even dignify that with an answer.”

So, there you have your answer. (including the additino of the word "even", which is added.  Note that not only is it sensitive as seen in avoidance, it is highly sensitive since it is not only avoided, but the answer is repeated.

What your eyes saw on TV and what you read about with the prison officials repeated rebukes of Mr. Baez was not lying to you. When someone walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lands in your pond: go ahead and toss it a piece of bread. I don't think it is looking for Prime Rib.

If he (0r you!) did not have an inappropriate relationship then the best and most simple answer is the truthful one: “No, I didn’t”

When someone does not answer your question, remember: there is a reason why they will not answer a question.

When someone refuses to answer a question "based upon my lawyer's advice" know this:

It is not illegal for an innocent person to say "No, I didn't"

It won't mess up their case. It is not against counsel's advice. It breaks no rules and violates no laws.

Richard Jewel is a good example. He said "no I didn't". Why was he hounded?

Because law enforcement was split in two camps:

Statement Analysis: He didn't do it. Period.

Profiling: Yeah, he might have: he was white, mid 30's, lived with Mom.

This was really outdated. The S/A folks knew from his statements that he did not bomb anything. Verbal polygraphy is a science.

Jose Baez can never go against his client, lest she decide to talk.  One day, if she sells her story to the media, the romance of being alone in his office, 5 hours a day, may be part of the script.

42 comments:

Buckley said...

Since Casey reported that Zanny kidnapped the child and had police search, Jose Baez has been forced to keep to that defense.

Wasn't Zanny just for police? I thought by the time it got to court the defense was that Cayley drowned in the pool.

Carnival Barker said...


@Buckley

Good catch. In Baez's opening statement to the jury he said that Caylee was dead from drowning in George's pool.

By the time of opening statements, the real-life Zanny had already filed her civil defamation case against Baby Killer, so maybe Jose thought it best to abandon the Zanny story, since he knew it wasn't true anyway and would probably do more damage to Baby Killer's case in the civil lawsuit.

Layla said...

Peter, a bit off topic, but I posted the link you asked for to the Amanda Bynes twitter statements under the Baby Delano Wilson post. Would be very interested to read your thoughts on them if you have time.

ima.grandma said...

Hi Layla,
The following is a statement Amanda put out.

“My dad fondled himself in front of me so many times that I started recording him on my phone in hopes of catching him saying or doing something inappropriate around me so I could get him arrested and put in jail for the rest of his perverted life,” Bynes wrote. “My mom knows that my father’s literally and physically incestual [sic] towards his own daughter and the face that she never called the police on him embarrasses me to no end.”

Sus said...

OT Amanda Bynes
I see that Peter said her statements are reliable. (From her tweets.) On Amanda's last tweet she took back everything she accused her father of, and said "the microchip implanted in her made me say it." And that her father had the microchip implanted. Come on...that is so far out there as to know it is not true.

The statement ima.grandma posted above is also not reliable. She "started" to film him....no completion. "Fondle himself" became "something inappropriate" .

My question is the same as the Georgia baby case. Can a person be so mentally ill that their statements cannot be analyzed? Can a person believe their hallucinations so that their statements seem reliable?

Amanda is without a doubt suffering from some type of mental illness...schizophrenia or bi-polar...where hallucinations are involved. I think she believes her tweets AT THIS TIME. Will she under medication and stabilized?

Jen Ow said...

OT BYNES-

She also doesn't say he was 'literally and physically incestual' toward HER, but toward 'his own daughter'. Passive and distancing.

Where did Peter say her statement was reliable?

Anonymous said...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/this-perv-may-know-maddie-mccann-s-fate.html

tania cadogan said...

off topic



BULLHEAD CITY, Ariz. – Police in Bullhead City have arrested the mother of a 8-year-old girl who was killed last month on drug charges.

A police SWAT team arrested 29-year-old Tania Ann Grogan, 29, and her husband, 28-year-old Ralph Pat Leroy Folster III, at their home Wednesday evening. Folster refused to surrender for about two hours.

Police say they learned the couple were selling heroin and methamphetamine last month. They were booked on drug sales and possession charges and Grogan faces an additional charge of manufacturing meth.

The body pf Grogan's daughter, Isabella Grogan-Cannella, was found in a shallow grave on Sept. 3, a day after she was reported missing from her home.

A 26-year-old family friend has pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder, kidnapping, child abuse and abandonment of a body.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/16/bullhead-city-arizona-police-arrest-mother-murdered-girl-after-standoff-on-drug/

tania cadogan said...

Hi anonymous
It's old news

The report also errs in that it says the mccanns have been cleared of any involvement, they haven't (thought they would like the public to think that)
The only way they can be cleared is if they do the reconstructions as requested by the PJ, kate answers those 48 questions she refused to answer and the whole group fully cooperate with LE, something they failed to do from the get go, even to the prosecutors in Portugal saying they had the opportunity to tclear themselves and didn't and the chief of Lesicestershire police, also said they cannot be cleared of any involvement in the case.

Everytime something bad for the mccanns breaks we get sightings and claims of some new pervert being the next suspect. this is despite him looking nothing like any of the e-fits

Kate McCann said after he fled. “They told me they would monitor him. When he fled they didn’t bother telling me. I’m so angry he has been allowed to go on the run.” No it wasn't kate, it was the mom of the 2 girls he abused.
The only connection with the mccanns is he may know of a paedophile ring operating in the area.

However, since Maddie is dead and was not abducted by a paedophile alone or part of a group, this is just another non story to divert attention.

if they want to discuss paedophiles then they need to be talking to david payne who likes to bathe other parents children, and gerry mccanns who has a CATS file – Case Administration Tracking System (19309) which was mysteriously emptied , suspected done by jim gamble of CEOP who had full access to the files) currently has two modules – Child Protection and Domestic Abuse. CATS can also be configured to record information about Vulnerable Adults if required.

http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/cats-case-administration-tracking-system/

Anonymous said...

I disagree. The only thing it tells me is he fondled himself as well as acting innappropriate in other manners. Her actions wouldn't be unthought of if she was abused. Something somewhere created who she is today. She clearly hates him but I think he is holding something over her head.

tania cadogan said...

To the anon regarding the latest perv story and the mccanns.

He was used as a case example CEOP annual report of 2009-1010

He was in NZ at that time and nowhere near portugal.

http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/CEOP_AnnualReview_09-10.pdf

Scroll down to page 29.

it is just another piece of shoddy journalism by journos who can't think and are very gullible and bandied about by the mccanns and their spokesman claranece mitchell who are desperate for anything that will divert attention away form their involvement.

Anonymous said...

Amanda Bynes is using psychiatry to sell herself via the cause driven media. She, like CA, will throw her parents under the bus if it would bring her more fame.

John Grisham seems to be doing the same of late. He claims it is okay for old white guys to get involved in child porn as long as they are drunk and as long as they aren't viewing 10 year old boys.

What a hoot!

Hope you sell a lot of e-books off Caylee's demise.

Anonymous said...

The report says no such thing. Just because they caught him using a fake passport in 2009 heading to the UK, does not prove or even imply he was in NZ in 2007. He could have just as easily used one in 2007 and not been caught. He clearly moved around a lot evading police. Maybe he was in NZ in 2007, but the source you provide doesn't indicate that one smidgen.

The McCanns were indeed cleared by Portugese Police in 2008. You clearly don't like that, but it is a fact.

Since that official clearing, UK police as well as Portugese police have followed many leads that indicate they do not believe the McCanns are suspects. Perhaps the governments of two nations are engaged in an international conspiracy and a horde of Internet conspiracy "trolls" are right. Perhaps Mrs. McCann should answer the 48 million questions the Sheriffs of Nothing-ham pose to her. Perhaps, though not charged with anything, the McCann's should have no privacy while their anonymous troll detractors' privacy should be protected as they bully the McCanns year after year.

It's a sickening shame if they poisoned their child accidentally and then did something malicious to cause blood to get in the apartment. (Accidentally poisoned and intentionally bludgeoned? Egads, Watson!)

But their detractors have has seven years to convince authorities to arrest them. Seven years to find her body. Seven years to break even one of the Tapas group. To. No. Avail.

Amaral was found by one court to have lied in his book. He was found by another to be a perjurer. As a policeman he was demoted by transfer and resigned in embarrassment. He's nothing.

Truth is the McCanns will NEVER be arrested. It's time for some to begin to, if not accept that fact, begin to at least get a freakin grip.

tania cadogan said...

The contents of the District Attorney’s report

“Although the Portuguese authorities did everything to facilitate their journey to Portugal, for reasons unknown, and after clarifying the many questions they raised about the need for the journey, they decided not to attend. The people most prejudiced were the McCanns themselves, who lost the opportunity to prove what they had always protested, their innocence. It also hindered the investigation because the above facts remained unexplained”

Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007): “While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”.

tania cadogan said...

Anon, regarding the book, the mccanns lost both appeals in the banning of his book and had to hand over all copies or face fines/and.or prison.

Regarding the perjury, he was found guilty of covering for a crime that did not even occur, since the complainant on the numerous occassion she was presnted with identity parades, failed to identify any of her alleged abusers.
She was convicted of murdering her own daughter, something to which she confessed to along with her uncle.

Amaral was found guilty by a jury of falsified documents to help cover for his officers, following a seven month trial at Faro Court on the Algarve.

Today the three inspectors, Leonel Marques, Pereira Cristovao and Paulo Marques Bom, were all cleared of torturing the the Ciprianos, who are serving 16 years for murder.

have a nice day

Anonymous said...

"“I order…the filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy [the surname then used by Dr Kate McCann], as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”."

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

"“I order…the filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy [the surname then used by Dr Kate McCann], as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”."


Same old same old, always that one little piece from the report, how about all the other parts of the report you lot never mention?

n fact, on page 4648, he declares: “…it must be clearly understood that this is not equivalent to final and irreversible closure of the enquiry”.

The District Attorney, earlier in his report (page 4605), summarises the lack of evidence that Madeleine was abducted as follows: The possibility of abduction was exhaustively investigated. No ransom was ever requested, nor were there any sufficiently consistent clues found to support this theory”

Later in his report he notes: (page 4643, also pages 4597-8) “Whilst it is an undeniable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A in the Ocean Club, the manner and circumstances in which it happened are unclear, despite the huge number of investigations, and the potential range of crimes suggested. The potential range of crimes suggested throughout the enquiry - including abduction for sexual purposes or other uses and accidental death and hiding of the body - still stand

he District Attorney’s report is clearly unhappy with the many contradictions as between the different witness statements of the McCanns and their friends. On page 4597 of his report, for example he says:



“All members of the group including the McCanns were questioned exhaustively several times in order to compile as many facts as possible to help get at the truth. The witnesses’ statements revealed important details which were not entirely understood and coherent”. Later (page 4636), he emphasised this point again: “There were certain points in the statements and witnesses which, apparently at least, were contradictory or lacked physical support”. He went on to list five important contradictions, which can be summarised as follows:

Relating to the claim by the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner that she had walked up a lane between the Ocean Club and the apartment at around 9.15pm on the night Madeleine was reported missing
Relating to how the shutters and window of the children’s bedroom were found open with no sign of a break-in
Relating to doubts about how many times the McCanns and their friends checked on their children that night
Relating to multiple contradictions between the evidence of Kate McCann and the McCanns’ friend David Payne about an alleged meeting between them at around 6,30pm on the evening Madeleine was reported missing
Relating to the claims by Jane Tanner that she really saw someone walking with a child near the McCanns;’ apartment at around 9.15pm that evening.

Anonymous said...

She was beaten into a confession by police, Amaral went to prison for covering for those who beat her. That or the police explanation that she threw herself down a flight of stairs is actually true. Right. He went to jail for lying for his dirty cop friends.

tania cadogan said...

n order to get at the truth about what really happened on the day Madeleine was reported missing, the Portuguese police wanted to bring the McCanns and their friends back to Portugal for a reconstruction. They all refused to attend. The District Attorney says (page 4597):

“Despite every effort by the Judiciary Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, this was not possible”.

towards the end of his report, he writes (page 4638):

“Although the Portuguese authorities did everything to facilitate their journey to Portugal, for reasons unknown, and after clarifying the many questions they raised about the need for the journey, they decided not to attend. The people most prejudiced were the McCanns themselves, who lost the opportunity to prove what they had always protested, their innocence. It also hindered the investigation because the above facts remained unexplained”.

On pages 4628-9 of his report, the District Attorney states that:



“The results of the search with these dogs, filmed and on file, were as follows:

Eddie ‘marked’ the following areas where he detected the odour of a human corpse:

Area near wardrobe in McCanns’ bedroom in their holiday apartment
Area near window of the lounge of the McCanns’ apartment
An area in the garden below the veranda
In a wardrobe containing the pink soft toy ‘Cuddle Cat’ at the villa rented by the McCanns after they left their apartment
An item of clothing belonging to Kate McCann
Another item of clothing belonging to Kate McCann
A T-shirt of one of the children
An area below the driver’s door of the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns
The key of the vehicle (which police had hidden in a firefighting sandbox)


Additionally, Keela, the ‘blood’ dog, alerted to human blood in all these places which were also ‘marked’ by Eddie:

In the same place in the lounge in the apartment
Below the tiles in the lounge, after the tiles had been taken up
The bottom of the left curtain below the window in the lounge
The bottom right-hand side of the boot of the Renault Scenic
The storage pocket in the driver’s door, which contained the driver’s key
The driver’s key (again, when it was hidden in a firefighting sandbox)”

tania cadogan said...

The District Attorney added these three significant comments:



a) “The work of these dogs can be appreciated much better on film” (page 4629)

b) “These [particular] dogs have been used successfully many times by Scotland Yard and the FBI” (page 4630), and

c) “Scientist Dr John Lowe, from the British Forensic Science Service, Birmingham, says that the [police] normally accept the word of the handler” (page 4630)

Towards the end of his report, the District Attorney refers again to the alerts of the two dogs, and to the other evidence in the case, and writes this (page 4635):



“The fact that the parents were the last people known to have been with Madeleine, alive and in a known place, particularly with the possibility of a body having been in the apartment and in the vehicle used by the parents…meant they had to be placed under suspicion. The parents had no plausible explanation for these facts. Faced with the evidence produced by the dogs and the laboratories, they had to be named as suspects…”



It should be clear from these many quotations from the District Attorney’s report - the very report that the McCanns rely on to claim that they have been ‘cleared’ - that the report does not clear them. On the contrary, as can be seen, even in this District Attorney’s final report, there remain many grounds for suspecting the McCanns of active involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. The original investigation co-ordinator, Dr Amaral, commented: "This is not a declaration of innocence".

tania cadogan said...

Many current and former police officers, other experts and writers continue to cast serious doubt on the McCanns’ version of events. Here are just a few quotations from them:

Moite Flores, former police inspector and now political commentator in Portugal: “The only thing proven was that there was no abduction. I have no doubt that the child died”

Lee Rainbow, Britain’s top criminal profiler: “Madeleine's father was the last one to see her alive. The family is a lead that should be followed. Contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide”.


Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007): “While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”.

Former top British detective, John Stalker: “My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up”.

Ricardo Paiva, one of the chief detectives on the original investigation, told a Lisbon court in January 2010: “I share Gonçalo Amaral’s statement in the book. Maddie died, probably in a tragic accident, and all indications point towards the parents hiding the body”.

Director of the Portuguese National Counter-Terrorism Unit, Luís Neves: “Hiding a body and accidental death are possibilities”.

Anonymous said...

I know, Tania, if you throw everything you can, something is bound to stick.

I quoted that one passage because it proves, in an official act, LE cleared the McCanns, which you claim they did not do. They did declare the McCanns cleared.

" The possibility of abduction was exhaustively investigated. No ransom was ever requested, nor were there any sufficiently consistent clues found to support this theory”

Right, because the only possible reason for abducting a little girl is for a ransom.

Your last paragraph is "incoherent and not entirely understood." It doesn't mean you committed a felony.

tania cadogan said...

no they did not.

they were not charged with a crime since they did not know what if any crime(s) were committed. You cannot charge someone with something just because.

There is not and never has been any evidence of an abduction, there is however evidence of body fluids, blood and cadaverine, evidence which the mccanns either could not explain away or explained them as being from dirty diapers, rotting meat, sweaty sandals and seabass.

If there was no evidence, why did the mccanns come up with explanations for something that didn't exist.

From your own post

" The possibility of abduction was exhaustively investigated. No ransom was ever requested, nor were there any sufficiently consistent clues found to support this theory”

Right there it says there were no suffieciently consistent clues to support the theory of abduction.

Anonymous said...

That statement says nothing. It is about as passive as a statement could be. Further, following that statement made early in the investigation, police in two countries have indeed followed up on clues suggesting an investigation of abduction. If there is nothing to suggest abduction, why are they investigating efits, pedophiles, reports of theft in that area?

It seems the police who agree with you are genius and the police who do not are ignored or- what- dismissed as idiots?

"You cannot charge someone with something just because."

Yes, on that we agree- kind of my point.

tania cadogan said...

They are acting on inf generated by the mccanns and their supporters for one>
the e fits have been proven to have innocent explanations including tanner's alleged sighting.

They are invesigating and clearing all the efits and cliams passed onto them leaving us with the truth which is, the abdcution that the mccanns claimed happend did not in fact happen, and could not have in fact happened as claimed.

Why is there no evidence of an abduction yet evidence there has been a body in the apartment?

Why have the mccanns told the world Maddie is dead?

Why did they refuse reconstructions?

why did kate refuse to answer the 48 questions?

Why did they never physically search ( kate's told us she didn't)

why did none of their group of family actively search in the following days?

The statement does in fact say soemthing, the abduction theory was investigated and no evidence was found to support said theory.

If there is no evidence to support an abduction then the logical question then has to be, what did they do to Maddie?

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how this passage you linked:

He had been on the run since 2001 for alleged sexual offences against a child in Australia. He was tracked down and arrested in Portugal as a direct result of the activities of CEOP’s Overseas Tracker Team.
Robinson was first arrested in 2001 in Australia for the alleged assault of a young girl and was bailed pending court hearings. He failed to appear to answer the charges in 2001. Fleeing Australia, he entered New Zealand where he was arrested for child sexual offences allegedly committed there. He was granted bail with the requirement he surrender his passport. In November 2009 using a stolen passport, Robinson left New Zealand bound for the UK."

You still haven't explained how that proves where he was in 2007.

On searching being proof of innocence: the Cipriano mother searched for her daughter, yet you earlier seem convinced of her guilt. The more I read about that case- the 48-hour interrogation, the bruises being her throwing her down the stairs- the more I believe Amaral and his men beat a confession out of her- a confession she retracted the next day.

You cite that a court cleared three of the five officers of all charges- here, with no discussion of specifics, you feel the actions of the court must be proof of their innocence- despite two officers being convicted of lying to protect them. If they were not guilty, why lie to protect them? Yet if McCanns explain maybe "rotten meat" for cadaver hit, oh they must be guilty.

I think the Cipriano mother is innocent, not speaking to the uncle. However, the same team who beat a confession out of her is at least partly the same team who "produced" the evidence against the McCanns. We are to believe this team but not any if the subsequent ones who have moved away from the McCanns? Makes. No. Sense.

The dogs could have hit on blood hundreds of years old. The hit does not indicate who it was. The hit does not indicate who caused the smell of decomp to be there.

The Portugese police sucked at their job.

But if the McCanns have been able to sway the government of two nations to not only not arrest them, but continue investigations into other suspects, well that is a conspiracy for Guinness Book of World Records.

Or it's just a conspiracy THEORY.

Anonymous said...

No, that is not logic, it is a leap of faith. No evidence is a lack of evidence. That is not the same as proof of something else.

Anonymous said...

Let me put it another way:

"" The possibility of abduction was exhaustively investigated. No ransom was ever requested, nor were there any sufficiently consistent clues found to support this theory”

If we were to analyze this statement of a suspect looking for a confession, the length and passive voice would indicate it is a weak statement. There's no "I" or "we" investigated... There's no "we ruled out abduction." A strong statement would be:

Maddie was not abducted.

None of the people whose statements you quoted can bring themselves to say that. Therefore, we can't say it for them.

Anonymous said...

News Flash!

War Machine, self-orifessed Alpha male and beater of reality porn star, attempted suicide in jail. No more sucessful at ending his own life than that of those upon whom he snuck up on.

All that is left are photos of minor bruises barly visible through the tattoos. However, the charity drive for victims of domestic abuse continues (despite one chopped up reality porn star gone).

Anonymous said...

War Machine, self-confessed Alpha male and beater of reality porn star, attempted suicide in jail. No more sucessful at ending his own life than that of those upon whom he snuck.

Better?

Anonymous said...

No, you avoided an archaic grammatical rule, but now the verb is really not the best. Did he sneak them or sneak up on them?

Some verbs are prepositional verbs and include a preposition and ending a sentence with that type of preposition is okay. Would you really feel the need to revise:

I was determined not to give up.

Anonymous said...

War Machine, self-confessed Alpha male and beater of reality porn star, attempted suicide in jail. No more sucessful at ending his own life than that of those upon whom he intended to surprise and life he intended to end.

Better?

Anonymous said...

War Machine, self-confessed Alpha male and beater of reality porn star, attempted suicide in jail. He was no more successful at ending his own life than he was at ending the lives of Christy Mack and her lover whom he beat after sneaking up on them.

What a chump.

Anonymous said...

Here's a real chump and a professional writer's view of his chumpiness:

Andrew Walls, 32, claims that Delaware his surgeon co-workers performing his colonoscopy purposefully dressed him in pink panties while he was under anesthesia, according to lawsuit documents obtained by The News Journal.

john said...

OT Update:

"Loud music" shooter Michael Dunn gets life in prison

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-dunn-loud-music-shooter-gets-life-in-prison/

Anonymous said...

I am thrilled that CA is such old news that the post you dedicated to her can't even generate more than two comments about her.

Verbal Kint said...


John Grisham's comments have me wondering if he enjoys child pornography. I won't be purchasing his books any longer.

Verbal Kint said...


John Grisham's comments have me wondering if he enjoys child pornography. I won't be purchasing his books any longer.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Verbal Kint.

His language indicates closeness to the crimes along with a lot of minimising.

Personally anyone who minimises or supports minimal punishment dfor any form of paedophilia is open to suspicion.

His claim of causing no harm is the typical paedo response, he omits to mention that at some point a child was sexually abused and harmed even if he himself did not physically touch the child.

Viewing causes a demand for abuse, physical abuses causes a demand for viewing.

His apology smacks of a rapid backtracking, he did not expect the backlash , especially from his fans.

Many will no longer read his books and more than a few will now be reading closely hos past books looking for leakages.

Anonymous said...

Most of my comments disappear (as expected) but I still contend he (
Grisham) may have been baited by the Telegraph journalist to make such comments unaware of the crowd sourced causes they purport to promote in order to sell their own books.

These people are easily angered when one isn't as interested in their causes as they are. If their views do not align, they seek only those with the same views. What he said was ghastly; how does that relate to his new book, though?

In my area they think they can get drunk and hump on someone in the back seat of a car and then everyone should lay down their life, saftey, and pour their time and energy into protecting the very children they let run loose and intimidate others for their own profit or causes.

With that said, and no tin foil to add to it, I bid you adeau.
(coorect me if I'm wrong; I know you will)

tania cadogan said...

Anon Try opening eyes and engaging brains

Fleeing Australia, he entered New Zealand where he was arrested for child sexual offences allegedly committed there. He was granted bail with the requirement he surrender his passport. In November 2009 using a stolen passport, Robinson left New Zealand bound for the UK."

Quite clearly it says he was in NZ and he had handed in his passport.
In 2009 using a fake poassport he left NZ for the UK.
he left NZ in 2009 TWO (2) years after Maddie was allegedly abducted, he could not then have been in Portugal if he was still in NZ sans passport.

now be good and go read the mccann files which has every statement and interview and news article along with transcripts of same and all the publicly released police files.
It has some big words in it but if you use a dictionary you will be fine.

have a nice day

Anonymous said...

You can be as condescending as you like, but your talk of understanding big words is laughable when you so clearly don't understand the five letter word logic.

Simply put:

It never says he was in NZ in 2007.

It says he surrendered his passport either in 2001 or soon after. It says in 2009 he successfully had a stolen passport that he used to get to the UK.

It does not say "he remained in NZ every second in between."

The fake passport worked. In 2009, after leaving NZ, he was caught.

The only way for you to be accurate is if you can prove that authorities always catch anyone who uses a fake passport.

In other words, the fact that this man- quite adept at eluding authorities- engaged in international travel in 2009 DOES NOT preclude the possibility that he engaged in international travel, undetected by authorities, two years prior.

I don't mean to say for certain where he was, only that you have not.