|(image from here)|
We haven’t researched the Ben Needham’s case as well as we have with Maddie’s.
The reason we have dedicated ourselves to Maddie’s case is because of the political, economic, judicial and media powers involved and of the incredible amount of accomplices from all layers of society in obstructing justice and perverting its course, make it absolutely unparalleled in history and certain to never to be matched ever again.
Our quest is for the truth. Nothing but the truth. And if we strive for that for Maddie, we have the exact same desire for Ben Needham.
Up until recently, the 2 cases shared 3 things:
- A British toddler went missing from a Southern European sovereign country: Ben in Kos, Greece and Maddie in Praia da Luz, Algarve;
- The public took a very passionate interest in their cases;
- Both had an especially dedicated British police force dispatched to the towns they went missing from, twice in Ben’s case and once in Maddie’s.
Outside this, as of last month they also started to share what we call a “prospective patsy”.
In the case of Ben, it was a bulldozer driver, Konstantinos Barkas “outed” in the Mirror article of Sept 16, 2016 by Lucy Thornton “Ben Needham investigation breakthrough as cops probe witness claims missing tot was killed” and later confirmed in another article from the same paper on the same day by Tom Parris, Lucy Thornton and Andy Lines “Digger driver at centre of Ben Needham police probe was successful businessman who 'knew everyone on the island'”
In the case of Maddie we have had a dying, now deceased, paedo, an arrested one, a pig farmer, an Ocean Club driver, a drug addict and a homeless boy.
All of the above burned at the stake by the Brit tabloids, if we missed any, we apologise.
Even if one of them was or is guilty then all others would have been cruelly slurred without excuse. Is anyone expecting for the tabloid press to learn anything from that? Those who are, please put on your dunce hat and stand in the corner with your back turned to the rest of the class.
One has to wonder why the tabloids don’t pick on people who can afford lawyers. No, one doesn’t have to wonder, because when it comes to justice and more specifically to the Brit libel justice, Orwell grins upon us from the skies with his “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. An effective gag that many dictators envy.
Then we also had a deceased water treatment plant worker, Euclides Monteiro.
However Euclides had the peculiarity of having the Brit tabloids insisting that he had been cleared by the PJ. Not that great of a mystery as we explained in our “Person of interest” post.
Outside the above, until last Monday, that’s all they shared. A separate post would be needed if we were to detail differences between the two cases.
As of Monday, they now officially share death.
Scotland Yard says: “Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine (…) added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.”
South Yorkshire police says: “Ben Needham died as a result of an accident”.
In Maddie’s case, Scotland Yard officially thinks Maddie may have not left the apartment alive and in Ben’s case South Yorkshire police states Ben died as a result of an accident near the farmhouse where the family was staying.
But the interesting difference between the 2 cases is what has resulted from the statement that was read in Kos and later published on South Yorkshire’s FB page: South Yorkshire have committed themselves to a thesis and Scotland Yard have yet to do that.
South Yorkshire police has gone down commitment lane.
From their statement on Monday:
“It is my professional belief that Ben Needham died as a result of an accident near to the farmhouse in Iraklis where he was last seen playing.”
“The recovery of this item [toy car], and its location, further adds to my belief that material was removed from the farmhouse on or shortly after the day that Ben disappeared.”
With these words South Yorkshire police have committed themselves to a thesis, one they say they don’t have doubts about: “However, based on the information that I have now, as a result of an extensive and thorough investigation, it is without doubt that the current line of enquiry is the most probable cause for Ben’s disappearance.”
With the above said South Yorkshire police has now to answer the following questions:
- What is the evidence that says Ben died?
- What is the evidence that says that death resulted from an accident?
- In exactly what way did the finding of the toy car made police deduce that Ben died in an accident?
- What exactly was that accident, how did it happened and who exactly was present?
- What exactly were the materials removed from the farmhouse on the day Ben disappeared?
- What exactly were the materials removed from the farmhouse “shortly after the day” Ben disappeared, taking into account that the place would not only be crowded but evidently the centre of all attention?
- What happened to Ben’s body? By whom, from where and when was it taken?
We will be waiting for the answers to these questions specifically.
South Yorkshire police HAS to be able to answer them. They derive from what they have stated as certainties.
South Yorkshire police in Ben’s case has gone down a path from which they can no longer return from.
Please be aware that in no way means that path is one of truth, it just means that they have committed themselves to something and we are waiting to know what it exactly is.
It has to be something. The poker player has now sat at the table and has started to bet. The public want to see the cards. No way back now.
Before telling us off because we are disrespecting the South Yorkshire police officers who have spent the last 3 weeks in Kos, recent history has shown that any action from the British police deserves the highest degree of scepticism.
The Maddie case is very unfortunately just one of many examples why such scepticism is not only due but expected.
In fact, we think Ben Needham is an opportunity for the British police to regain some of the credibility the British authorities are so desperately in need of. All they have to do is present us with the truth, whatever it may be.
Unfortunately, in the same paragraph they said Ben died as a result of an accident DI Cousins from South Yorkshire police, said “My team and I know that machinery, including a large digger, was used to clear an area of land on 24 July 1991, behind the farmhouse that was being renovated by the Needham.”
This makes it seem like the line of inquiry they are about to reveal that they have chosen is in making effective the “prospective patsy”, the Greek bulldozer driver.
|(image from here)|
A hit and run accident with a bulldozer with the body being picked up and taken is not exactly a fast event nor a discreet one.
Not wanting to get into gruesome details, one would expect that even if body taken, the damages that a bulldozer would cause a body the size of a small toddler – or any other body of any other size for that matter – would leave very evident forensic traces on the ground and we are led to believe the ground was minutely scoured by the authorities and nothing of the sort was found.
People do say the darndest things, one just doesn’t expect for the police to do the same.
We do hope that, IF the option is to stray away from the truth (which we truly hope is not the case and if it is then one will have to ask why), at least one expects that whoever is coming up with the fake storyline is aware that a book has been written on the subject with many, many details about what happened.
Facts are facts. To bend fiction around fact doesn’t make it fact. What it normally does is to make it be the key that opens the Pandora’s Box. That’s what history teaches us all and what so many have refused to learn or think they are able to fool it.
One thing we are witnessing is people failing to see how important the toy car really is.
We will wait to know the specific details of where and how it was found as well as the results of the soil analysis that we are certain has been done.
|(image from here)|
It would be impossible to think that after 3 weeks of intense and minute searching, an object that colourful not to have been noticed if it was above ground.
3 weeks of searching just in 2016. Add to that the searching done in 1991 and 2012. All with a very fine tooth comb.
The visibility of the object tells us that it was found buried. Those familiar with the Greek hot and dry climate and soil are not surprised why it was so well preserved. If it had been contact with the atmosphere all these years it would have suffered significant erosion.
The fact that it must have been buried raises a lot of interesting points.
First, if we are right, it discards the hypothesis of it having been discarded or dropped accidentally. To have been buried shows intent.
As we don’t think Ben could have buried the car himself, someone else must have done it.
As no one has come forward to say they did it before he went missing, and by now they would have, it means it was buried after he disappeared.
It also means that someone wanted to hide this vestige. Someone who found that being seen with this particular toy would be compromising.
In a hit-and-run-by bulldozer scenario it would mean the person would have taken the body and then return to the crime scene and bury the toy car there.
Let’s first tackle the hypothesis that the criminal returning to the crime scene (very common and feasible) and on his way there finds the toy car had been dropped by Ben when he accidentally killed him.
That alone would have to withstand how such a visible object so near the farmhouse had not been spotted by anyone by then. When searching for the little boy, that yellow toy would be a significant indication of which direction Ben could have gone.
We aren’t seeing how it would be possible for it not to have been seen by searchers but let’s suppose that is what indeed happened.
Upon finding the toy car, in a forensically free location, what does a criminal decide to do? Instead of picking it up and quickly getting away with it as fast and as discreetly as he could from there, he decides to kneel and bury the toy.
With what tools? Hopefully they won’t tell us it was with his bulldozer.
And when people are all around searching for a missing child, a man on his knees digging near the farmhouse is not noticeable? No one, would come up and ask him what he was doing and why?
Nor would the freshly moved earth be noticeable afterwards?
If it wasn’t because the criminal found an accidentally dropped toy and having buried it there and then, it could only be that whoever had Ben’s body decided to return to the crime scene with the car with the intent to bury the toy near the farmhouse. To taunt the family when it would be found many years later?
And is the toy car one of the items removed “on or shortly after the day that Ben disappeared” from the farmhouse?
If so, what was the reason to remove the toy car from the farmhouse?
If not one of the items removed, in what way does the material South Yorkshire police say it was removed fit in with the toy’s burial site?
Maybe, just maybe, Maddie’s bungling burglar is the same man as Ben’s bulldozer toy burier. If not the same fictional character, then the world is starting to have one too many fictional criminals who defy any basic logic and reasoning.
Knowing the Greeks, without strong evidence we wouldn’t advise exploring the bulldozer driver thesis too much.
If anything the Maddie case should have taught the British authorities is that the people from Southern Europe aren’t natives nor should be treated as such. They are nationals in their own country as much as Brits are when in the UK and are as much pleased in seeing foreign police digging up their terrain as any Brit would be if foreign police came to the UK to investigate a crime scene.
Brits should treat nationals in their territory in the exact same way they expect to be treated by foreigners in the UK. The mistake of confusing hospitality and politeness with submission seems to be a common mistake made by British authorities.
How many Brits would accept the Greek police to come digging in a farmhouse in their territory because of a case of a missing Greek boy that the Brit police had been unable to solve for 25 years?
And as a result of that digging on British soil how many Brits would be happy to have a Brit bulldozer driver being accused by the Greek police of accidentally killing that little boy without very solid evidence?
We’re certain that a phrase made up of 3 words (how, dare and they) would fill the papers and airwaves of the Brit media with rightful indignation.
The response from Valantis Barkas, Konstantinos Barka’s son, in the Daily Mail article of Oct 18, 2017, by Nick Fagge “'My beautiful father did NOT kill Ben Needham. Why has his name been dragged through the mud?' Fury of Kos digger driver's son who claims Ben's mother 'should be ashamed'” says it better than anyone.
It’s clear that he’s very willing to fight in his father’s name and for his father’s name.
He’s not the only one not happy about this. People are picking up that this bulldozer story is not a very likely one, much less one that can support minimally any kind of accusation. This is a comment we received yesterday and chose not to publish but preferred to include it in today’s post:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The messages":
2001: Documentary / reconstruction of the day by the family, grandfather finds a small child's toy car near farm : Christine , Ben's Grandmother : -"That's not Ben's. He had two toy cars. We never found them, never seen them, or looked for them. I never even thought about it until you just said that."
2012, digs in Kos : "Crucially, they have found the wheels and bonnet of metal Dinky cars Ben was playing with at the time.
Inspector Colin Hope said: “We are clearing the mound. We have been able to excavate down and we are recovering items like old beer cans which have sell-by dates of 1992.
“So we are certainly down to the level we need to be at and beyond.
“We have small parts of what look like tiny, little cars.
“We have found plastic bits of toys, little bits of dolls, from two metres out from the house to 30 metres. Some of those have been taken down and shown to the Needhams.
“They don’t recognise them, but that’s to be expected after the time we are looking at.”
The search is on course to be finished by the end of the week."
2016: Toy car is found that leads SY Police to conclude Ben died in an accident and his death was covered up by a digger operator.
Why now, why only now when this has been a constant in the investigation? Why also, accept it now but not then?
From Kerry's Book "Ben" : PG 84
"It was a blissful afternoon. Those who wanted the sun sat in it and those who didn’t sat in the shade of the trees. And it was so peaceful. Earlier in the day there had been a digger truck transporting rubble from a building renovation at the bottom of the lane to the top. The driver had to pass the farmhouse to dump the hardcore ready to be used to improve the dirt track before driving back down again, kicking up a trail of dust with it’s heavy wheels as it went. But now building work had stopped there for the day, and they were able to eat undisturbed."
Blaming a man who cannot defend himself anymore on no evidence is a despicable act. He may be no longer with us , but he does have a family who is.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Oct 2016, 12:23:00”
One must stress that as far as we know, at this point in time the South Yorkshire police have not explained under what exact circumstances they think Ben died.
They have not yet said it that it was Konstantinos Barkas who did it. They have strongly suggested that’s what they are going to do but they haven’t done that yet.
They have only committed themselves to something and we are waiting to find out what that something exactly is.
The only certainties they have given us is that they think Ben is dead and that he died in an accident.
And if they are determined to follow truth as much as we are then all will make sense, all will be clear, all pieces will fit and all questions will have a quick, transparent and logical answers with no ermms... whatsoever. Truth is unique, raises no questions, leaves no doubts.
On our part we will wait for further details from the police on the case, such as being shown where and under what circumstances the toy car was found (for example, we do want to understand how deep in the ground it was buried), to make any more assessments on this case.
We have only commented about what South Yorkshire police have chosen to tell us when they committed themselves to their theory.
And they do have to say something. Leaving things as they are, without saying anything further, is not only not finding closure as it would make, without a shred of evidence, absolutely no reason and without any fair trial, for the blame to gravitate towards Konstantinos Barkas like metal to a magnet. People would then have to ask why.
That’s exactly what we want Operation Grange to do, to commit themselves to a thesis. They can say it was Superman, a bungling burglar or even the Tooth Fairy who abducted Maddie, we don’t care, we just want them to tell us something and commit themselves to that.
Then, like we are doing with the South Yorkshire police now we will listen attentively and ask the questions we feel we should.
The longer South Yorkshire police come out with the specific details of their theory, the more reasons they give to those who possess a very high propensity to fabricate that things are always fabricated.
Now on Commitment Lane they can go either into Deceit Alley or into Truth Avenue. The choice is theirs.
We won't publish comments on theories about what happened to Ben but we will read comments with interest.
The last thing we would like to highlight from the police’s statement is this:
“The fact that we have not had a direct result during this visit to Kos does not preclude the facts that we know to be true.”
We don’t think we need to expand on this and on how it also relates to the Maddie case.
And talking about noticeable things, isn’t it strange the silence from the McCanns since South Yorkshire police declared Ben dead?
|(image from here)|
As we explained in our Oct 14 “The messages” post, the ghoul tours move was a double-barrel shotgun shot in it’s own foot to the other side that really hurt their cause.
Unlike some who pretend they continue to live in some alternate reality bubble, the other side decided to issue an apology.
It came in the form of an article from the Sun on Oct 17, 3 days after our post, written by Antonella Lazzeri who alone is responsible for the redefinition of what a woman of ill-repute is.
Quite the title: “WORLD'S HUNT FOR MADDIE - We reveal the 8,685 ‘sightings’ of Madeleine McCann across 101 countries as desperate parents Kate and Gerry McCann continue search”
We think that someone should point out to Antonella, or if it’s not her doing it then to whoever is responsible, that Azores is not a country but an integral part of Portugal. Just like the Canary Islands and Ibiza are a part of Spain.
8,685 is quite a number!
And if one is to go by the subtitle, then one has to feel sorry for Operation Grange: “The Met police has collated reported sightings under Operation Grange, but not all details have been released”
6,865 sightings reported under Operation Grange! Wow!
Operation Grange only opened shop in 2011, so if one takes into account that “sighting fever” happened much before that in the summer of 2007, then how many total reported sightings have there been??
But one just has to go into the 3rd paragraph to see that it wasn’t exactly so: “Many of the sightings were collated by Portuguese cops and stamped “NFA” – No Further Action – as they believed the youngster, left, was dead, compounding the despair of parents Kate and Gerry.”
So not all under Operation Grange then.
The 2007 Maddie sighting summer made the sightings have a credibility of almost zero. We say almost because they still have to earn some points to rise up to that value.
If 1 of those 8,685 sightings was really of Maddie that would mean that 8,684 of them were wrong. A very significant amount of bogus information, even if a good quantity of these sightings could have been well meant and well intentioned, for Operation Grange to lose their time and resources in ruling it out.
We do think the majority of the sightings were to deliberately misinform. Those of us who lived through that summer seriously considered tagging our little daughters and granddaughters with a sticker saying “I’m NOT Maddie”.
And hasn’t Kate McCann dismissed the sightings as ridiculous when she said Maddie wasn’t taken a ‘million miles’ from the Algarve?
The Sun on Feb 15 this year published an article with the title “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve despite worldwide sightings, says Kate McCann”
And who wrote that article? Not sure if people are familiar with her but it was one Antonella Lazzeri.
So why bring up this ridiculousness now?
Because it makes it seem that Operation Grange has been really busy. A praising article. Or as the Portuguese say “caressing the dog’s fur” to calm it down.
To calm Operation Grange after the stupid ghoul tours blunder.
To be noted is the bit about the McCanns on the headline “as desperate parents Kate and Gerry McCann continue search” especially taking into account that the couple is not mentioned again in the article.
So this was basically a “Well done, Scotland Yard, you’re the greatest of the great!” followed by a whimpering “could you please archive as Gerry and Kate will continue?”
No, Antonella, the McCanns don’t have any money to continue. That has been made very clear.
Even in an apology, Antonella blunders. But then again, when has Antonella done anything right?
Oh, and other side, you having Jim Gamble on Sky TV criticising Theresa May, doesn’t seem to us to have been the best of ideas:
After all, do you think defiance is the best way to go about things? It does make it seem you really didn’t mean to apologise, doesn’t it?
We recommend that readers view this video on Ben Needham’s case made in 2001: