Friday, 26 December 2014
A damning new “evidence-based” documentary is being prepared for screening in 2015 and promises to tell the “Untold Story of Madeleine McCann” - alleging that “no abduction took place at all”.
Orchestrated by independent journalist and social activist Sonia Poulton, the project got underway following the death of 63-year-old grandmother Brenda Leyland - the so-called internet “troll” “outed” over tweets that questioned the official version of events “as put forward by mainstream media”.
According to Poulton, Leyland wrote in a tweet last year that “should she die in odd circumstances” she hoped “people would question, and not just accept the first version of events”.
This is what Poulton claims has spurred her on. In a Christmas message posted on Youtube, the former broadcaster with Internet TV station The People’s Voice reveals her documentary should be ready by the end of March.
Poulton claims her investigation has already flagged up “plenty of evidence to suggest there was not an abduction”. Her focus, she explains, has been on “interviews with “central characters” in the disappearance.
“As you can imagine, these have not exactly been forthcoming”, she adds.
Thus, the decision to “door-step” those she believes have “questions to answer”.
This far Poulton claims to have door-stepped four key characters in the mystery, and she says her investigation has also “traced someone involved in the campaign” to maintain the official version of events, whose identity will “shock people”.
Read the whole article at:
Sonia Poulton talking about her upcoming documentary on the Madeleine McCann case.
Thursday, 9 October 2014
On Saturday 4th October 2014, the body of Brenda Leyland, who posted on social media site Twitter as @sweepyface, was found in a hotel room in Leicester, two days after she was doorstepped by Martin Brunt of Sky News in relation to comments she had made on Twitter about the Madeleine McCann case. Following this "outing" Brenda Leyland was all over the media as a "McCann Troll," and Brenda left her home and went into hiding.
This is the video that appeared on Sky News on Thursday October 2nd, 2014.
"Police Investigate Madeleine McCann Family Online Abuse" presented by Martin Brunt.
At 0.10 on this video, Jim Gamble, ex-Chief Executive of CEOP, says that there is "...a hardcore small group of individuals, who will lie, who will menace, who will bully"
Like this, Mr Gamble? I think this fits with the second and third of your descriptions related to that "hardcore small group.."
Like this, Mr Gamble? I think this fits with the second and third of your descriptions related to that "hardcore small group.."
Posted by Rainne@dirndllass on Twitter on October 3rd, the day after Brenda was accosted by Martin Brunt.
At 0.42 Jim Gamble states that in his opinion, those people who will lie, menace and bully should be held to account in a court of law for what they have done. Well, the above is still, at 7.20pm on October 9th, available to read on Twitter. Does Mr Gamble think that woman should be held to account for what she did on October 3rd, the day after Brenda Leyland was doorstepped by Martin Brunt and one day before Brenda's body was found in a hotel in Leicester? Seems rather like menacing and bullying to me.
At 0.50 on the video, Martin Brunt is seen approaching Brenda Leyland. He states that "this woman uses Twitter to attack the parents of Madeleine McCann"
At 1.20 Martin Brunt tells Brenda, "You know you've been reported to the police, to Scotland Yard? They're considering a whole file of Twitter accounts and what supporters (who are these supporters?) say is a campaign of abuse against the McCanns."
Brenda says very little in response. But Martin Brunt later goes on to say...
"The Crown Prosecution Service is considering it. Are you worried about that?"
Well, it's true that a file was handed to the police, but keep that second quote about the Crown Prosecution Service in mind because I will refer to it later in the light of what Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Head of the Metropolitan Police Service says in a radio interview.
The question that immediately occurred to me on watching the Sky News video was: if this was a file handed to the police, how did Martin Brunt of Sky News come to be in possession of it? If indeed the CPS was considering, whatever Martin Brunt thought they were considering, should he have been presenting her with that information and publishing it on a news web site for millions of viewers?
On October 4th, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Head of the Metropolitan Police Service, was interviewed on Radio London's "Drivetime," show by Eddie Nestor. In this extract from the interview, the discussion is focused on cyber crime and on the dossier regarding "McCann trolls" on Twitter.
EN: Let's talk about cyber crime then, more specifically bullying. Tell me about that file that was handed to you re the McCanns and concerned individuals. And certainly that story's been in the headlines with tragic consequences yesterday. A file handed to you. Are you looking at it at the minute?
HH: What happened then. First of all, you may have seen over the last ten days, we've launched a cyber crime unit of 500 officers. That's really intended to target people who steal things, not necessarily bullying. I think that's going to be a real challenge to us in the future, just in terms of bullying.
Errrmmm, in terms of that file, what happened, if you recall, is that the family handed it to our team, who were investigating or reviewing the murder of..sorry..reviewing the missing girl, errrrr.. the McCanns' daughter.
(Note: murder? Investigating the murder of......the McCanns' daughter? Now why did Hogan-Howe refer to "murder" and then do a woops!)
The uh..file was handed to that team ..err...and we were liaising with Leicestershire Police, which is where the McCann family live...err.. and sadly it turned out that possibly the person who was trolling or abusing people..err..may well have been. So, the file was in the process of being considered, partly by the Met, partly by Leicestershire, but it was likely to have been dealt with by Leicestershire Police, not by the Met.
(Note: does Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe mention the Crown Prosecution Service here? The CPS is usually brought in when evidence gathered by the police is presented with a view to consideration for prosecution, but all Hogan-Howe says above is that the file was being considered by the Met and Leicestershire Police. It does not appear that the file had been referred to the CPS, so why did Martin Brunt tell Brenda Leyland that the "Crown Prosecution Service is considering it"?)
EN: Just give us an idea of what trolling is actually, because on Drivetime we've been arguing...errr... I can say, "I don't like the Commissioner." I can say "I don't like the way he talks to me." That's an opinion. That's not trolling, is it? At what point, where is your line, because as far as I'm aware, it looks to me like a subjective line. Where's your line, Commissioner?
HH: It's not really where my line is, it's where..err..what does the law say? So, where does...
EN: What does it say?
HH: Where does abuse become a criminal offence? And of when, I don't like you, you don't like me, we are neither conversational nor abusive. As human beings that's what happens in life, isn't it? But, of course, if you become racist errrr...
(Note: like this, Commissioner?
...if you become threatening, if you threaten to kill someone, these are very different forms of things as human behaviour. That becomes a crime. (Is Rainne going to be investigate then for racism?) If you threaten to kill someone, you can go to prison for ten years, if they believe it and you want them to believe it. If you are racist (Rainne!!) there is a consequence. If you are threatening in your behaviour. If you transfer that into the cyber crime, it's broadly the same. Then, you know, abusive behaviour between individuals, sadly, rightly or wrongly, well the police can't get involved in all human behaviour. They can only get involved where there is a crime. And generally, it's where there are very aggravating circumstances. You cannot blackmail people, you cannot threaten them, you cannot be racist. And generally, that's the sort of line that we draw in cyber, in cyber area.
(Note: having read tweets posted by @sweepyface (Brenda Leyland) it doesn't appear to me that Brenda was threatening or blackmailing the McCanns and the case does not appear to have been handed to the CPS for prosecution)
EN: ???? (unclear) ...challenges, isn't it?
HH: Yes, frankly, we the police cannot get involved in all bad behaviour between human beings. I mean, sometimes if we were to be defamatory with each other, you know, we might have to go to the civil courts, not to criminal courts. Well defamation is a different area altogether. The police don't get involved in that, thank goodness. You have to go to the civil court for that. In some of these areas, it's the civil courts that have to consider remedies. It's not always going to be the criminal law or the police.
Brenda Leyland, posting on Twitter as @sweepyface, posted tweets like: "must the Mccanns suffer' answer 'for the rest of their miserable lives'."
Not very nice, but then she wasn't threatening to make them suffer, was she?
Now, Kate McCann, referring to Gonçalo Amaral wrote that, "He deserves to be miserable and feel fear."
Is that very different to what Brenda Leyland wrote? Not in my book.
So, of the many thousands (and I do mean many thousands) of people on social media questioning the McCanns' account of what happened to their daughter, why was Brenda Leyland singled out? Why did Martin Brunt think it was OK to accost her on her doorstep, telling her that the Crown Prosecution Service was considering...? And if there was a police investigation, how did Martin Brunt come into possession of details from it, including Brenda's real name and address?
I think these questions needs answers and I am glad that there will be a police investigation into Sky News reporting of this affair. I hope that those who were abusive towards Brenda, those like Rainne on Twitter, will also be investigated. Brenda was hounded by the media and by a few people on social media, who would rightly, in my opinion, be called trolls and there are many of us who want to know why.
Katie Hopkins did not cause a "Twitter Storm." The hounding of Brenda Leyland caused it and I hope there will be a full and rigorous investigation.
Thursday, 2 October 2014
Sunday, 7 September 2014
Friday, 25 July 2014
Thursday, 10 July 2014
Where did Kate McCann read Gonçalo Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie" in 2008? As far as I know mine is the only complete English translation on the internet.
When the French edition became available, my daughter ordered it for me via Amazon France. Bourin Editeur 2009. I posted each chapter as I completed it, simultaneously on my blog and on MM forum. So, since chapter 1 is on MM forum Feb 21st, even though I re-organised consecutively on my blog early 2010 and lost original dates, I know it was started Feb 2009.
Now, since I was working full-time, there is a good chance that I finished the translation and posted the last chapter somewhere around the end of April/beginning of May. Coincidence that the McCanns stated they would sue Amaral on May 16th, 2009?
Sunday, 22 June 2014
Monday, 16 June 2014
Video by HiDeHo4 June 16th 2014
When there was a dig on a Greek island in the search for Ben Needham, who went missing as a toddler, his mother, Kerry, was there while the work was being carried out. Kate and Gerry McCann, on the other hand, decided not to go to Portugal while digging was going on in the search for their daughter. Their official Facebook page carried a message that they had been asked not to go, but I'm sure they could have gone anyway. No one forced them to stay away. However, last weekend, Kate and Gerry found time to fly to Portugal for their libel case against Dr Gonçalo Amaral, which was scheduled to start today at 9am. Kate and Gerry had been hoping to give statements to the court on how Dr Amaral's book had affected their lives, but this was not to be because the case has been postponed, following a letter delivered to the court this morning by Gonçalo Amaral.
Thanks to HiDeHo4, we have the video of Kate and Gerry outside the court this morning. I'm not going to transcribe the whole of that video or comment on all of it: it's the Kate and Gerry pity party and I haven't had my supper!
Just a few extracts then.
Gerry McCann: "..it's a blatant and cynical attempt to wear us down and it's Madeleine who's suffering."
Well, Gerry, you didn't wear yourselves down searching for your daughter the night she disappeared. Neither of you went out looking for her, preferring to spend your time phoning all the friends and relations and telling them about the "jemmied shutters," which weren't actually damaged at all. You have also put a great deal of energy into having Dr Amaral's book banned (subsequently overturned) and pursuing this libel action.
So, it's "Madeleine who's suffering."? In what way might Madeleine be suffering, if she were alive, because this libel case has been postponed? I'm not with you there, but hey, let's just throw that line in to get some sympathy! None from this quarter! I believe that Madeleine's suffering was over a long time ago.
Kate McCann talks about "the pain and stress that Mr Amaral has brought to us and our children." Dr Amaral's book was published soon after the case was archived in July 2008. Let's talk about the waiting game here. It wasn't until May 16th 2009 that the media carried the story that you and Gerry had found that the book had caused you great distress and suffering and that you had decided that you would take legal action. Why wait so long? It didn't cause great distress and suffering immediately? Or maybe you hadn't expected it to be so successful. Or maybe, once you had counted up what you thought Dr Amaral had earned from the book, you began to feel upset and distressed. All that money! Waaaaaaah! Let's sue him for the lot!
Moving on, Kate McCann tells the eager reporters that every time she and her hubby have to go to Portugal, "we have to make arrangements for our children to be looked after." Good God! They're now using babysitters! If they had paid out a few quid for a babysitter in May 2007, they wouldn't be in this position. Enough with the "poor me."!!
They have to book flights and hotels? What a hard job that must be! And I don't believe for one minute that even a penny of their own money was used in the process, not with a fund produced from public donations to dip into, that fund that was supposedly set up to look for Madeleine. Madeleine was not at the Vatican and she's not in the court in Lisbon.
The next part of Kate McCann's spiel is rather worrying. She states that Gonçalo Amaral, with reference to the search for Madeleine, is trying to, "stop her that human right of being looked for and found." Really? With all the suspects that have been lined up since the book was published? Kate and Gerry, instead of hiring dodgy detectives, you could always have looked for her yourselves, especially on the night she disappeared. But it's the next part that's really worrying. Kate McCann goes on to say, "It has happened to other children. It can happen to Madeleine." Is there a direct link there? Is she implying that Snr Amaral has stopped other children being looked for and found? It certainly seems like that to me. Sounds rather libelous if that is what she's implying.
So, here we have Kate and Gerry playing the waiting game. They've played that game rather a lot since their daughter disappeared into thin air. I believe they waited from 10pm, when Madeleine was said to have been found to be missing, until around 10.40pm before one of their holiday companions called the police. They waited nearly a year to decide to sue Gonçalo Amaral because of hurt and distress caused by his book. Their lawyer, Isabel Duarte, waited some considerable time after the ban on Amaral's book was overturned to actually comply with a court order to return those books. Well, now it's their turn to wait a little longer. They could always spend some time investigating those "hellish lairs," in the "lawless villages," around Praia da Luz that two of their detectives spoke of.
Gonçalo Amaral has also been waiting. As a result of this court action, his assets were frozen and he has had to rely on his father for a roof over his head. He hasn't had access to a few million quid in publicly donated money to pay his bills and fund a few jaunts around Europe. He has waited five years and I guess he can wait a little while longer.
Good luck Dr Amaral. You have many friends around the world who are on your side, the side of justice for Madeleine.
Friday, 13 June 2014
Sunday, 1 June 2014
Madeleine McCann: Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.
The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.
On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.
The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.
The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.
The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.
The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.
Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.
After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.
The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.
Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral June 1st 2014
Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral June 1st 2014
For me, the above highlighted text suggests that Kate and Gerry McCann must show that before they took their libel action against Gonçalo Amaral they had authorisation to bring the action in Madeleine's name. The text above states that the McCanns must produce the documentation "in the records," of the British court, i.e., something which already exists, rather than something they will now apply for.
Friday, 30 May 2014
Wednesday, 21 May 2014
Kate McCann and the Child Rescue Alert system: an alert would not have been triggered for Madeleine under this system
Coral Jones, mother of murdered April Jones, and Mrs McCann, mother of missing Madeleine, unveiled a digital billboard at King’s Cross station in London promoting an enhanced Child Rescue Alerts system to inform the public about missing children whose lives are considered at risk.
The scheme will use social media including text messages, email and digital billboards across the UK in addition to traditional broadcast media to issue the alerts when it is launched on Sunday, International Missing Children’s Day.
The Child Rescue Alerts System, which has been introduced in the UK recently, is based of the French Alerte Enlèvement system, which has been in operation across the EU for a number of years. The UK is one of the last of the member states to introduce this system for missing children.
I think Kate McCann is showing her usual arrogance in appearing in public to promote this alert system after attempting to replace it in 2008 when she and Gerry went to Strasbourg to sponsor the American Amber Alert system at a time when the French system was already being tried out in several EU states.
An alert system had been active in some member states of the EU for some time when the McCanns went to Strasbourg. In fact, Portugal was the second country after Hungary, to introduce an alert system in 2002, in accordance with an EU directive.
In June 2008, the McCanns went to Strasbourg to gather support for a Europe-wide system, based on the American Amber Alert. They presented a written declaration to the Commission, but this was not their own work, rather it had been drawn up by Edward McMillan-Scott, then Vice-President of the European Parliament, but presented by the media-savvy, media magnets, the McCanns.
The McCanns had simply tried to hijack an initiative that had already been working its way through the European Parliament for some time, turn it into something else and claim it as their own.
In December 2006, an extraordinary meeting of the member states approved an initiative of the European Commission to reserve certain numbers (Starting with 116 ) for a Europe-wide alert system for missing children. This was the system which had been in operation in France since 2006 and had proved to be effective in several cases.
Since 2006, the French system, known as "Alerte Enlèvement," which is the system now introduced across most of the EU territory and finally in the UK, has recovered many missing children through rapid response to reported cases of abduction. The success of the system, according to Rachida Dati, former French Justice Minister, is due to there being very strict criteria for launching an alert. Four criteria must be met.
1) It must be a confirmed abduction and not just a disappearance, however worrying.
2) The victim's life or physical safety must be at risk.
3) The Public Prosecutor must be in possession of sufficient information which, if broadcast, would help to locate the child or the suspect.
4) The victim must be a minor.
Would an alert have been triggered when Madeleine McCann disappeared?
1) A confirmed abduction? No. All that was known was that Madeleine had been reported by her parents as having been in bed when they left the apartment to go to the Tapas Bar and that when Kate McCann went to check on the children at 10pm, Madeleine wasn't in her bed. In spite of what was stated to friends and relations of the McCanns by telephone in the early hours of May 4th, 2007, there was no evidence of a break-in at the apartment: the shutters had not been "jemmied," and no trace of an abductor was found in the apartment. Apart from the above, we have Jane Tanner's statement about having seen a man she originally described as "carrying a bundle that could have been a child," which gradually developed into a man carrying a child who was definitely Madeleine McCann.
So, no, criterion number one was not met.
2) Was Madeleine's life or physical safety at risk? Well, she wasn't tucked up safely in her bed and she was not hiding in the apartment or anywhere in the vicinity. She was a missing three-year-old, so a child at risk since it was not and still is not known what had happened to her.
3) Was there sufficient information that would have helped locate Madeleine or the suspect? The question is, what kind of information would have helped? The first and most important piece of information would perhaps have been a description of a suspect, but Jane Tanner's description of "an egg with hair," would not have been very helpful! Secondly, the description of a vehicle that could possibly have been used by a suspect. None. So, based on a vague description of "an egg with hair," there would have been insufficient evidence, which if broadcast would have helped recover Madeleine or find a suspect.
Number 3 not met.
4) The victim must be a minor. Yes.
As for little April Jones, an alert would probably have been triggered in her case. Several of April's friends reported having seen her getting into a white van. So, there would have been sufficient information, which if broadcast may have helped the police recover April, or at least discover her whereabouts. Madeleine McCann's disappearance is very different in many ways to that of April Jones. There are no independent witnesses outside the McCanns circle of friends who can state that Madeleine had been in bed when she vanished into thin air, but April was seen outside her home by many of her friends. April's case was an obvious abduction: Madeleine's disappearance was not. Even Andy Redwood, who is leading the team of British police officers investigating Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal, has stated recently that there is a chance that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. Is he suggesting that an intruder took away a dead child or is he suggesting something else?
So, here we have Kate McCann appearing in public to promote a missing child alert system that she tried to replace with the American Amber Alert system, under the strict criteria of which, an alert would not have been triggered for Madeleine. That woman has some Chutzpah! But that's nothing new as far as Kate and Gerry McCann are concerned! They admit to having left three children under the age of 4 in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country while they wined and dined with their mates and have been behaving like celebrity victims ever since, courting publicity at every opportunity. That's amazing Chutzpah in my book!
Thursday, 17 April 2014
The woman who reported the disappearance, presenting herself as the child's aunt, has been remanded in custody.
The story began on a fake Facebook page, which was almost certainly set up by the two teenagers, with photos stolen from other accounts on the social media web site. Three characters were created, one of whom, Rayane Basinio, was supposed to be Chayson's father and the nephew of the woman who invented the story.
A bad joke or revenge?
The investigators began to have their doubts when they noticed an increasing number of inconsistencies in the witness statements of the pretend aunt and her relatives. Chayson's parents happened to be separated, unable to be contacted and of unknown address. The police don't know how long the drama went on for on social media, but the reporting of the disappearance coincides with the time when the photo originally used on Rayane's account was withdrawn.
It is still not known if this story arose out of a bad taste joke or if it hides more malicious intent. "We're working on the motives, whether it's a psychological problem, or some hidden agenda, vengeance or something else." Anyone reporting an imaginary crime risks a six month prison sentence and a fine of €7,500.
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
As British television networks once again descend on Praia da Luz in the run-up to the seventh anniversary since Madeleine McCann went missing, a local resident has come out fighting.
“It’s time to turn things round,” she told us. “Every year it is the same … British journalists arrive and dredge up more nonsense about Luz. We are meant to be overrun with child molesters, burglars, homosexuals, Eastern European child-snatchers ... Whatever next? Will it be the Taliban?
“They are back again now and this time they have interviewed a homeless person and a ‘prophet’,” the long-term resident told us on Saturday. “They have paid for these interviews. Now, they are apparently looking for a well-known gay man.
“These are the stories the British newspapers are looking for! They are not interested in the views of the real people of Luz - all of whom are fed up to the back teeth with the village being shown in such a bad light.”
The "homeless person" - a "perfectly pleasant man, but never sober" - is not a representational figure of local residents, explained the woman, and the “prophet” is someone who wears a turban and “walks around with a pole with a light on the top of it”.
"Neither can be considered typical Luz residents, but nor are they in any way threats to the community," she added.
The expat woman, who asked not to be named as she has “no wish to be a hero”, said: "It is time Luz had a voice."
“Last year, when the news people were asking questions as they do every year, I went up to the interviewer and said I would like to say a word or two.
“I said I wanted to know why they weren’t interviewing the McCanns for gross negligence that had led to a fatal result. He just dropped me because they don’t want to hear anything like that. They only want to report about people they can label as "weirdos".
“Quite honestly, I feel it is time Luz turned round and sued the McCanns for slander.
“I would like to stand as a voice for Luz. Who will want to come here after all the negative publicity? The British newspapers paint the village as one full of terrible people. This is grotesquely unfair. It has got to stop!”
A high-ranking staff member at Luz Ocean Club told the Resident earlier this year: “Luz has taken such a battering over the last seven years. It really is time to do something for this community - help it rally round.” But, like the anonymous "voice of Luz", the man asked not to be identified.
Meantime, the Ocean Club is one of the prime movers behind a community triathlon event planned later this month precisely to promote the picturesque village “before the holiday season gets underway”.
For more information see www.algarvetriathlons.com
By NATASHA DONN
Thursday, 23 January 2014
This man has a really good line in confidence tricksterism. He does it really well and he seems to have got it down to such a fine art that I'm fairly sure he's done this before and that he'll do it again.
So beware people of Leamington Spa and Warwickshire.
This is how a young man of around 25/30 managed to gain my confidence and leg it from my house with the purse my daughter gave me as a present and £240 in cash.
He came to my door a few nights ago, just as I was about to go out. He reminded me that he had done a job for me a while back, clearing some wood from my garden. He said he had fallen on bad luck and he had been homeless for a while, but he had written to his grandmother up north and she had said he could go and stay at her house. Unfortunately, he was a few pounds short of what he needed for the train ticket and was there perhaps a little job he could do for the £5 something he needed. He wasn't looking for a handout! No, he was looking for somewhere to get his hands into and grab whatever he could get to and bloody leg it!
It's a good story he's peddling. A really good one and I got drawn into it and ended up having to take the penny jar to Sainsbury's so that I'd have cash to put fuel in my car to get to work.
But, I'm getting ahead of myself here. On that night, a few days ago, I was in a rush to go out and get to work (work, scumbag! That's where you honestly earn the money you need!) and I didn't have any little jobs he could do. However, I felt that I had the opportunity to help this poor (not so poor now, thieving barsteward!) man to get on a train and not spend one more night sleeping rough. So, I gave him £10 to make up the money for his train fare and get a sandwich on the train. And off he went, ever so grateful! Oh yea!
So, anyway, yesterday afternoon this poor man, who turned out to be a thieving scumbag con artist, turned up at my door again. He had bought an advance ticket for the train and couldn't go until Friday and now he'd like to repay me for my kindness by keeping himself busy by doing a little job for me. And the effin' scumbag did repay my small act of kindness in a devious and abusive way. Initially, I told him that it wasn't necessary, but he told me he'd rather be busy than hanging around on the streets and could he just clear the garden a bit. Well, since he was so keen to do something and thinking well, he needs to do something for me, I went out to the back garden to fetch the rake he asked for. I then went back out to fetch the spade he wanted, while leaving the front door ajar: it's rude to close the door in someone's face!
I even offered this thieving, lying scumbag a hot drink, thinking he'd been sleeping rough, but when I came back with the coffee (Illy, because I thought he deserved a decent coffee after sleeping out on these cold nights!) he had disappeared. So, I sat here at my desk for a while, wondering where he had gone, leaving the rake and the spade propped up in the porch, actually worrying about the thieving low life's (you're guessing by now that I'm rather angry!) coffee getting cold.
Slowly, it dawned on me that he wasn't coming back and I felt a sudden gripping of my stomach. My bag was hanging on a door handle within sight of the front door and there was rather a lot of cash in my purse, which I had taken out of the bank to pay for some work on my car. With a quickly growing nausea, I grabbed my bag and reached in. No purse! I searched the house, top to bottom, thinking don't immediately think the worst: maybe I'd put my purse down somewhere else. But I really knew I hadn't. My money was gone with the lovely pink purse my daughter gave me as a present.
I phoned the police and two officers came quite quickly. I had felt like such an idiot for being taken in by someone with such a good line of patter, but the police assured me that it wasn't my fault.
I have cancelled the bank cards that were in my purse and to get cash to buy fuel for my car so that I can get to work, I have had to take the "pennies jar" to the change machine at Sainsbury's. That was change I'd been collecting for some time for a treat for my two grandsons. So, that man, who claimed to be homeless and just wanted to help himself to a better life, helped himself to £240 of my hard earned cash and legged it! He not only stole from me, but from two little boys, aged 7 and 3.
It's a good line he's peddling! I'm still of the belief that most people out there are honest and good, but unfortunately there are con artists, who will use any ruse to take what does not belong to them.
Please be aware, people of Warwickshire, this man is still on the loose. He is white, around 25/30 years old, slim build. Yesterday he was wearing a short-sleeved white T shirt over a dark long-sleeved one. The white T shirt had solid black writing on it. He had a small rucksack on his back. If he turns up on your doorstep with a story about being homeless and wanting to do some small jobs for you, phone the police. Try to keep him there, but close your door! Quote crime number S/14/658 for the police.
As I said, most people out there are honest and most of us, given the opportunity, would help a homeless person in a positive way, which was what that man was pretending to be asking for. It's a good line he has and he does it really well, which makes me think he'll keep doing it. Please phone the police immediately if he comes to your door.
Thanks for reading this!
Be careful folks! I believe this is known as a "distraction burglary" and it's just a new line on the old "I'm from the council/Water authority/British Gas" but it's a good one!
Thursday, 9 January 2014
Message from Astro on TMCF forum
A huge thank you to all of you who have already contributed, and to those who will contribute to help Mr Amaral. I would like to explain that this is a bank account that is formally held by two friends of Mr Amaral, in representation of a group of friends who decided to help him because it was obvious, back in 2009 already, that this was going to be a long, expensive process and that without financial support, Gonçalo Amaral was not going to be able to defend himself. This account has been used solely to pay for court expenses and legal costs, and that is all that it will ever be used for. It is an informal gathering of friends, and it has only been possible to continue due to the incredible generosity of many more friends.
I would also like to thank everyone who is not able to make a donation, but has been showing their support online. The times are not easy for anyone and so often, a kind word means a LOT. Thank you.
If you wish to help, please follow the link to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral:
Use the bank account number in the right hand corner (scroll down to Doação | Donation) or click on the Paypal image there & it will link you to the project's account.
Once more, thank you very much."