I'm a pitchforker and that's OK!

........
..........
Madeleine McCann was abducted. How was she abducted? She just was! Says who? Her parents have been saying this from the moment that Kate McCann allegedly returned from the Tapas Bar at 10pm on Thursday, May 3rd 2007, on 'one of my checks,' though it was her only check, to find that Madeleine's bed was empty and the child had disappeared into thin air. Kate McCann knew immediately that Madeleine had been 'taken.' Why? Well, that has never been fully explained. The information was initially covered by the Portuguese law of judicial secrecy, but since the case was archived and the files made public, Kate McCann has not sought to enlighten us about how she just knew immediately.

In certain quarters, those of us who say, 'Well where is the evidence that a stranger took Madeleine?' are being labelled as 'pitchforkers.' So, what kind of creature is a 'pitchforker.'?

In my quest to discover whether or not I may be a 'pitchforker,' I looked to Google for definitions. A simple search brought back nothing. So, I interrogated the Urban Dictionary and found that 'pitchforker,' had not as yet been defined.

I must admit to not spending hours searching for a definition, but I probably did more research than Gerry McCann, who is a funded researcher: on his expedition into the nether regions of Google to prove Eddie and Keela (dem doggies) unreliable, Gerry came up with a sample of one, the Zapata case, where, unfortunately the perp confessed. Who funds someone who comes up with a sample of one to prove a hypothesis?

When the end of my research resulted in zero, zilch, and coincided with the end of my toast and giving the butter-coated crusts to the cat, I took the easy route and decided that a 'pitchforker,' was probably someone who used a pitchfork.

Who might use a pitchfork and why might I be a 'pitchforker' because I'd like to have the answers to certain questions? The image that comes to the minds of many people will be the happy peasant, labouring in the sunshine, forking hay onto a cart, reminiscent of a Turner painting. He's a simple chappie, happy to sweat in the field, sitting at noon against a hay bale, eating his cheese and chunky bread. He goes to the village pub at set of sun and slurps his ale from a large tankard. He's simple, but he's happy. Ah bless!

So, I'm left to surmise that we are 'pitchforkers,' because those people in certain quarters think we are as simple-minded as the happy peasant in the field, because those folks aren't actually defining 'pitchforker,' either. 'Hey, what makes you so sure that Madeleine was abducted?' 'She just was, not shut the f*ck up, pitchforker!'

Returning to the bucolic scene and the happy chappie, toiling in the sunshine, let's explore what said chappie does as he looks forward to his jug of ale once his simple toil is over as the sun sets. Can you see him, his skin leathery from living the outdoor life, pitchforking (to pitchfork: verb tr.) the hay over his broad shoulders onto the cart, which the sturdy horse will pull to the barn, where the hay will be stored for feeding the cattle through the winter.

Happy chapess, pitchforking.

The barn is the storehouse of the harvest from the earth, that grew through the spring and summer, was gathered and stored safely, making sure that it wasn't baled when green: heat can build up and burn the bales and the barn. It has to be properly processed, stacked and stored. And all this is achieved by the simple, bum-scratching peasant 'pitchforker.'

So, fill oop me quart jug wi' Hookie me lad, cors I think I must be a 'pitchforker!'

So, where, you might ask, is the evidence that I must be a 'pitchforker'?

I gather information. Sometimes, like the grass in the field, that information looks rather green, not ready for harvesting. So, I watch and wait for the light of further information to bring it to maturity and I store it. I organise it and stack it chronologically, with due credits and references, so that we know which 'field,' it came from. Like the hay barn that is left open, to allow air to circulate, my gathered information is here, open for anyone to read and I am always willing to amend what is written if the fresh air of new information blows through.

I consider that I am not the sole or anything like the best 'pitchforker,' with a 'barn,' full of stored information, ready for when it is needed. I have read this morning that one very diligent 'pitchforker,' has gathered all the available articles on the Madeleine McCann case and stored them chronologically: over 35,000 articles.

So, I shall carry on pitchforking happily, trying to bring the light of truth to the information available, and I think some of those, 'she just was, so shut the f*ck up,' people, should try a little forking (transitive verb - takes a direct object) themselves. Yes, they should just go and fork their direct objects!

Thanks to Himself for the above image.

HiDeHo's video in support of Gonçalo Amaral

.....
...........

Hey Gerry! They're making up stories again!

...........
.............
According to the McCanns' evidence to the Leveson enquiry, they were frightened by press photographers following them when they went out in the car with their children. I don't know how often that happened, but I guess it could have been quite scary, though in what way they don't say. I haven't ever heard the McCanns mentioning how scary it could have been for three children to be left on their own in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country. Kate and Gerry have told us that the children were asleep when they left each evening for the all-inclusive wine and nosh at the tapas bar, but small children don't always stay asleep. Imagine being two or three years old, waking up in a strange place and calling for mum or dad and nobody comes: now that's scary, I reckon.

Kate and Gerry said rather a lot at the enquiry about how the press had intruded into their lives.

Addressing the Leveson inquiry on media ethics today, Gerry McCann said that he did not believe their phones were hacked, but that newspapers had simply “made up” stories they published about the investigation and the family.

The newspapers 'made up stories.' Well, I can think of a few other people, perhaps nine of them, who appear to have made up stories: those statements from the merry band of night-time boozers at the tapas bar have so many holes in them, one could almost think they were made up. But, I digress. The newspapers 'made up stories.' Well, somebody should tell Gerry McCann about The Star this Sunday. The story they published doesn't seem to have been whooshed like the Guardian's 'hush,' money headline. It's still there, as far as I can ascertain, and screams out in its headline that 'Cops rule Maddie abducted.' Result from the Met review already? The cops have rules that Maddie was abducted, according to The Star. While the rest of us thought we would be waiting for a very long time for a result, the cops told The Star!

POLICE have finally admitted Madeleine McCann was abducted four years ago.

Admitted? Finally? What, the Portuguese police didn't spend months and a whole loada dosh investigating the case as an abduction, following up leads all over Europe, North Africa, and even on the other side of the Atlantic? So what did the police tell The Star?

Met police spokesman ­Simon Fisher told the Daily Star Sunday the terms ­allowed for "investigating any sort of lead" from ­studying the files.

Now, that doesn't read to me like the police have admitted anything. They are "investigating any sort of lead," which may or may not include the abduction scenario. No admission of anything there.

Do you think Gerry has complained to The Star, the PCC or had their legal eagles Carter-Ruck chase up the unnamed journalist? The article is still there, but it does rather look like a made up story. One that suits and agenda, methinks. So that's OK, like the media attention when Kate and Gerry were happy to have the News of the World publish positive stories or turn up at any event the McCanns honoured with their presence.

The text of the Star article belies the headline, but people remember the headline when they forget the rest. Somebody was aware of that when the Guardian 'hush,' money headline got whooshed with great alacrity. What will stick for many people is that the police have decided that Madeleine was abducted, when there has been no such decision. But, as Gerry has said, the newspapers do make up stories.

News of the World made hush payment of £125K to McCanns

......
.......
...or at least that's what the Guardian online was saying for at least a few minutes!
But then the 'hush,' got hushed somehow and the headline didn't seem quite so conspiratorial!

Observe, gentle readers, the before and after!

The original wording at the start of the article:

News of the World made hush payment of £125K to McCanns

Confidential deal towards search fund for Madeleine was part of apology for tabloid's publication of mother Kate's diary extracts

Daniel Boffey
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 17 December 2011 13.48 GMT
Article history

Gerry and Kate McCann Leveson Inquiry
Kate and Gerry McCann giving evidence at the Leveson Inquiry over coverage of their daughter Madeleine's disappearance. News of the World made a confidential payment for publishing Kate's private diaries. Photograph: Pool/Reuters

The News of the World paid £125,000 to the fund supporting the search for Madeleine McCann as part of an apology for publishing Kate McCann's diaries – on condition that the terms of the deal remained secret.

The payment was made after the missing girl's parents expressed their outrage at the story, which Kate McCann said made her feel "mentally raped". All the parties involved in the negotiations over the payment, which was agreed in September 2008, were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement hiding the scale of the newspaper's culpability.

The..emm...kind of cleaned up version! Something got hushed, or rather, whooshed!

Confidential deal towards search fund for Madeleine was part of apology for tabloid's publication of mother Kate's diary extracts.

Kate and Gerry McCann giving evidence at the Leveson Inquiry over coverage of their daughter Madeleine's disappearance. News of the World made a confidential payment for publishing Kate's private diaries. Photograph: Pool/Reuters

The News of the World paid £125,000 to the fund supporting the search for Madeleine McCann as part of an apology for publishing Kate McCann's diaries – on condition that the terms of the deal remained secret.

The payment was made after the missing girl's parents expressed their outrage at the story, which Kate McCann said made her feel "mentally raped". All the parties involved in the negotiations over the payment, which was agreed in September 2008, were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement hiding the scale of the newspaper's culpability.

And I'm now going to shamelessly nick a little verse that 'almostgothic' posted on the Missing Madeleine forum!

Hush, hush, whisper who dares!
Daniel Boffey's been given the scares!

Maddy police 'following eight major new leads.'

....
.......
Or so says This Is London in their headline of today's date. However, they don't actually tell us who said that!

Scotland Yard detectives searching for Madeleine McCann are examining up to eight "very important" new leads after meeting Spanish private investigators, it was claimed today.

Claimed by whom? Scotland Yard removed 30 boxes of documents from the Metodo 3 offices, and Francisco Marco, told the British detectives that, "there were "six, seven or eight very important leads" within the files which he claimed could help police to solve the case."

That doesn't mean, though, that those leads are either, 'major,' or being followed up. I haven't read anything from the detectives themselves to say that they are following up those leads, only that Francisco Marco has indicated that they are there within the handed over files.

Metodo 3, who started working for the McCanns in September 2007, I believe, and were paid £50, 000 a month to search for missing Madeleine McCann. Funny choice of agency, if you ask me, a bunch of dodgy geezas (just my opinion of course!) who had never been involved in searching for missing adults or children.

Yes, dodgy geezas, folks! This is the band of intrepid investigators, who were going to have Madeleine home by Christmas. That was published on December 14th 2007, giving them 11 days. They claimed to know who had taken Madeleine and that she was going to be back in the bosom of her family in time to take her place at the Christmas dinner table! I assume they meant Christmas that year, but who knows!

The same bunch of highly paid private investigators, who, in February 2009, were under investigation for embezzlement and money laundering and who, in March 2008 were accused of paying witnesses in Morocco to say they had seen Madeleine.

One of the detectives working for Metodo 3 had paid witnesses who claimed to have seen Madeleine in Morrocco. The accusation is made by a source from Morroccan security, responsible for witness interrogation in the kingdom, where Metodo 3's working methods are criticised by the authorities.

The arrest of Antonio Jimenez, one of the private detectives working for the McCanns, who is accused of links to the theft of several hundred kilos of cocaine and corruption of public servants, has reinforced the authorities suspicions regarding the work of the agency.

In the report of the interview, one of the witnesses heard by Morroccan security admitted to having received several thousand Euros from the Spanish detective, who asked him to keep the arrangement secret, "in order to not affect the investigations"*

So, I'm not too sure that the Scotland Yard detectives have carted away 30 boxes of documents in order to follow up these 'six, seven, or eight very important leads.' If they only found out about them as the boxes were being trundled off to a waiting vehicle, there may have been other reasons for removing them in the first place.

And who's next? Kevin Halligen, being charged with money laundering, to whom the McCanns paid £300,000 to look for Madeleine?

The McCanns appear to have found a few dodgy geezas in their choice of detectives to look for their daughter! Bad luck or what? I'd hazard a guess it's the 'or what.'!!

*This blog from an article posted by Duarte Levy on SOS Madeleine McCann

Metodo 3 posts: http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/search/label/Metodo%203

Gonçalo Amaral: Justice Works In Silence

..........
.......
His life has been ripped apart since he led the police investigation into the Millennium’s greatest mystery, and came into legal confrontation with Kate and Gerry McCann. Gonçalo Amaral has lost his family, his business, his assets and the income from his controversial book that states all the reasons why he believes three-year-old Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A in Praia da Luz back in May of 2007.

Now, four-and-a-half years down the line, he faces another hurdle: a trial for defamation of the McCanns – due to start in Lisbon in February – in which the couple are claiming 1.2 million euros in damages. Does he think he can win? “Of course”, he says. This is the man whose maxim is “justice works in silence”. He still believes the case of the world’s most famous missing person will be solved. And he told Algarve123 what he thinks is needed to get there…

You wouldn’t miss him in a crowd. Gonçalo Amaral, 52, is strikingly tall with a penchant for hats. He was wearing a long black coat, a black fedora and a bright red scarf when we met him on the terrace of Casa Inglesa in Portimão. He looked much more like an intellectual than a former police officer, but these days his life is spent largely writing - an activity he’s come to love as much as the police work that used to fill his days.

Our first question: “How’s life?” elicited the reply “Bad!” so any further niceties went by the board.

What Amaral has always maintained is that the McCanns’ zeal for litigation “will not bring their daughter back”. He claims various legal suits against him, and a number of other Portuguese public figures who have verbalised “anti-McCann-story” sentiments, are totally out of keeping with the Catholic faith so fervently embraced by Madeleine’s mother Kate.

“Is it Catholic to hold sentiments of vengeance? To seek to destroy a family as mine has been destroyed?” he asks.

“This litigation will carry a heavy price – but I have faith that the mystery will be resolved. “Even if I “disappear” in the process - as Kate McCann has written that she wishes I would in her book - I have a daughter and lots of friends who will make sure justice is done”.

It may sound theatrical - but Amaral is not about theatre. He is about truth – hard facts, solid investigative work.

“The case has to be re-opened, and I have faith that it will be,” he said. “It will either be when this current “procurador” leaves, or when the current chief of police leaves. It’s not something I am pushing for - even if I could - it’s just something I feel certain will happen. And when it does, the first, most essential thing to be done will be a reconstruction of that very first night – the night Madeleine disappeared. Because that’s what happened: she literally disappeared! The reconstruction will have to involve all the parties: the McCanns and their friends. You see, there are so many inconsistencies in these people’s statements that a reconstruction will very quickly highlight where they have not told the truth”.

An example of the power of reconstructions came only weeks ago in Spain where a father claimed his two children were abducted from a park. A police reconstruction quickly proved that the father had never taken his children to the park: witnesses who had seen him arrive in his car but hadn’t noticed the children in the back seat, were surprised to discover that in the reconstruction the child-sized dummies in the back were clearly visible. The children’s father is now in jail – although the children are still missing.

Amaral explained that when Madeleine disappeared police didn’t organise a reconstruction in Praia da Luz “because there were so many journalists on the ground” – and once the heat had died down, “the McCanns refused. They said any reconstruction should be made by actors – but the whole reason for reconstructions is to use the people involved, and see where their stories don’t add up!”

Going back to that first night is logical: the initial 48-hours after any disappearance are crucial. They can literally mean the difference between life and death – but in Madeleine’s case, Amaral is convinced of the latter. The theory that has led to his prosecution by the McCanns for defamation is clearly set out in his book “A Verdade de Mentira” (The Truth of the Lie) – banned from sale in 2009, and then “released” by the Appeals Court a year later. We say “released” because the books were actually never returned to publishers Guerra & Paz, and thus they and Amaral have had nothing to sell…

“It’s another part of the whole plot to assassinate my civil position,” Amaral says matter-of-factly. “I’ve been left with no chances; no way of paying my debts; liens on my property. I’ve had to move away from my family in order to protect them. My marriage, well, it’s not so good. Not good at all, really. My life seems to be all about divorce…”

So how does he find the strength to move forwards?

“Well, I put the McCanns in a metaphorical box and I am not really thinking too much about the trial in February. I think I will win, and then they will appeal – but I have to have a path. I want to open another consultancy. I had one when I left the police force, but that was destroyed when the McCanns went after me over “A Verdade de Mentira”

.So that’s one thing - and the other is writing. I have recently brought out a new book: “Vidas sem Defesa” about missing children cases in Portugal, and I have another one almost ready (I am not going to tell you what it is about!). After that, I would like to take police “mysteries” and study them and write stories, not novels; stories based on facts to show what I believe really happened. There’s a real lack of books of this type.

”So he’s not angry over the agonies and frustrations he’s endured from what came from essentially doing his job?

“I have my anger well-guarded. No feelings for revenge. Like I say, they will pay for what they have done to me and my family – but through the courts. Even after everything that has happened, I still have faith in the Portuguese justice system”

.And does he have any clues as to what catapulted the Madeleine case into the stratosphere of media attention? Why did the McCanns receive so much help from the British authorities right from the very beginning? And why were they and the so-called Tapas 7 never taken to task for child neglect – considering that they all left their children alone at night during the ill-fated holiday?

“Ah, now there we’re getting into politics – and quite honestly, those are questions for the British public to ask. I don’t have to have theories about them. My job was to find Madeleine.”

A job handed to him nearly five years ago – and one that he will never forget.


Algarve 123.com

8th December 2011

Addendum

An interesting post from the Enfants Kidnappés blog of August 4th, 2008, about the investigation continuing after the case was archived: this is an extract.

"Madeleine McCann: the investigation goes on."

The investigation goes on.

The PJ had announced during the archiving of the case file: The investigation is neither closed nor abandoned and fortunately the investigation is not over with because alive or dead, Madeleine has not been found. The PJ had stated that they were continuing the investigation away from the media buzz, in calm and serenity. Today, while the file called the, "Maddie case," is being made public and all the journalists have reserved access, it is clearly established that part of the file will remain stamped secrecy of justice. There would be several parts involved. It would be the British authorities who would have requested that specific documents were not disclosed to the public. Another part would have been at the request of the PJ for documents judged to be extremely important. We can deduce here that the PJ are continuing their investigation and this would explain, as I have already stressed, a certain excitement on the part of the PJ. A third part remains under the secrecy of justice, this being the result of a private request. We will come back to that later.

A calculated strategy?

Is the fact of having made the case file public without drawing conclusions concerning the suspects while carrying on with the investigation, an intentional strategy? It can obviously be thought, yes. The PJ making all the elements or nearly all, public, but without accusing anyone, occupies everyone, the parents' lawyers, the parents themselves, the press, the whole of the media etc. While everyone is focussed on the report then on the case file, while everyone is watching the contents of the DVDs (the case file is on DVD) as for the PJ, they can get on with their investigation in peace.

The entire article can be read here.

The Madeleine Foundation and 3 Libel Actions

........
.........
THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION and 3 LIBEL ACTIONS



Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary, 9pm, 3 December 2011


BRIAN KENNEDY

Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.

EDWARD SMETHURST

In Thursday’s post (1 December), I received a costs estimate (as per High Court procedures) of the likely costs incurred by Edward Smethurst if he pursues his libel claim against me, assuming I continue to defend his claim. I would be liable to pay all those costs if I lose (i.e. if the court holds that any one of my statements about him on Jill's forum libelled him).

In their letter, Carter-Ruck say that Smethurst's costs to date are £28,390 and that his future costs, assuming a three-day libel trial, will be £143,086.50, making the total £171,476.50.

This is based, as set out in a 10-page document, on much of the legal work being done by a Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck who charges £562.50 an hour for his time (inclusive of VAT).

Faced with such huge costs, I clearly must think carefully about my options in advance of a Case Management and Costs Management hearing in the High Court next Wednesday.

MCCANNS

At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.

There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.

I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.

Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.

In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.

There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):

“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.

To have spent hundreds of hours on Jill Havern’s forum for the past few months ‘painstakingly and time-consumingly’searching, and searching, for possible libels, without any payment whatsoever, would indeed be regarded by many people as an act of very great generosity.

I cannot conclude this statement without giving an honourable mention to Mr Mike Gunnill of Kent, a past member of Jill Havern’s forum, and, for all I know, a present one, under one of his many personas, aliases, and ‘socks’. Mike Gunnill, it may be recalled, was the photojournalist who took the photograph of Debbie Butler (near whom he lives), used by the Sunday Express alongside their front-page headline: ‘The McCanns’ Stalker’ on 16 August 2009. His website at the time was remarkable for including over 100 photos he took at the gruesome ‘House of Horror’, Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, scene of decades of child abuse and possibly even child murders by depraved paedophiles. Some on this forum may recall how Gunnill e-mailed me in January 2010 under one of his many pseudonyms, ‘Michael Sangerte’, claiming he lived in ‘Berkshire’, asking to buy a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ (other names used by Gunnill in previous correspondence with me (before I knew his real identity) were Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin).

I refused. He then wrote me a further begging letter stating that he really wanted an original copy of ‘60 Reasons’ because of his ‘historical research’, adding that he was ‘willing to pay a high price’ for a copy. I then offered to obtain a copy belonging to a close relative and asked him to send £5 including postage, which he did. He asked me to send the book to Michael Sangerte - not in Berkshire, but at an address in Kent. Subsequent enquiries showed that this was Mike Gunnill’s home near Maidstone, Kent. The very day after the book was sent to him, he bragged on a McCann-believer forum that he had obtained a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ and had already sent it to Carter-Ruck, who were apparently ‘delighted’ to receive it. He later openly stated on that same forum that he was being employed ‘on a mission’.

This, however, is how this incident is reported in Isabel Hudson’s affidavit, paragraph 37:

“We continued to monitor the situation, and in early February 2010 we received evidence (again from a well-wisher) which suggested that the Defendant had sold at least one further copy of the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (one of the publications specifically complained about in the libel claim form which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining undertakings to the court)…I exhibit a copy of the e-mail thread between this well-wisher and the defendant (which should be read from top to bottom) at page 26 of Exhibit IJH5”.

+++++++++++

To deal with these two separate court actions will require a great deal of time and attention. For that reason, and for other reasons, I have decided not to contribute any further postings to the publicly-viewable part this forum until at least these two sets of court proceedings are concluded. Depending on the outcome of those two court cases, I will then consider my position in relation to whether or not to rejoin in any public discussions in the future (or even whether the court will allow me to). In the meantime, and subject as always to the consent of the forum-owner, I shall continue to remain a member of the forum and to contribute where I can to those parts of the forum which are not publicly-viewable.

This withdrawal, whether temporary or permanent, comes at a time when Jill Havern’s forum has remained the most visited Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet for the past four months, and its membership has grown to nearly 1,500 members. Very informative discussions are taking place on the forum, to which many contribute.

As Clarence Mitchell himself said nearly a year ago, even the McCanns admit that Madeleine’s abduction is but ‘an assumption’ or a ‘working hypothesis’. Moreover, despite over four years of searching, using private investigators that have cost the McCann Team millions of pounds, the McCann Team are still unable to give us one single usable piece of information about who is supposed to have abducted her, and, if she was abducted, where she was taken. Nor do we really know which of 18 suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries’ (two of whom are women) we are supposed to still be looking out for.

In those circumstances I wish all of you on here committed to discussing what happened to Madeleine every success in getting ever closer to the truth.

Is Madeleine Alive?

........
..........

Contact information for HiDeHo, with thanks and appreciation for this excellent video.

YouTube - HiDeHo4

Forums - HiDeHo

Email - hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter - HiDeHo3