Anna Andress

"Belle Famille," - by Arthur Dreyfus - Chapter 20

2012-01-29T21:24:00.028+01:00

.............
...........
Résumé of chapter 20 - original French from Frencheuropean.

Tony calls and tells Laurence they need "a media plan."

The Josserands leave for France with the other two boys. Laurence wonders if she misses Madec and observes:

"For a while, her son's disappearance has occupied a more important place for her than her son himself. She would have wanted to hold him tightly in her arms - which he struggles against somewhat. Mule head. The mother remembered a colouring session. Why did Madec go over all the edges? Laurence had snatched the red crayon and filled a tomato in properly. In spite of the example, Madec still went over the edges. Snatching the book from her son's hands, Laurence had emptied out a box of felt pens and set to colouring all the other vegetables."

Andreotti arrives at the Macands' place. The Murdoch lead has gone nowhere. He will be interrogated again with a psychologist present and with the use of a lie detector. Laurence's blood runs cold when the inspector informs her that one of his friends is dead, having jumped from the top of the cliff and that divers are going to search along the coastline.

The hotel manager requests that the Macands leave the premises by noon the following day.

Madec's uncle wants to create a "buzz," to move the world. Necessary for that: 1 - money, 2 - getting known.

He is going to contact Yannick Noah, through a friend. (Note: Yannick is a former French tennis player, now a singer, who has set up a charity, with his mother, for underprivileged children)

He joins his sister in Italy and before the journalists, he declares: "I am spokesman for the Macand family."

Laurence can hardly believe her luck when she learns that all the divers have brought back is the body of Simone Cazzi.

"Belle Famille," - by Arthur Dreyfus - Chapter 19

2012-01-29T18:59:00.026+01:00

......
......
Résumé of chapter 19 - Original French by Frencheuropean.

Laurence is astonished to see the photo of Murdoch, who looks more like George Clooney than like a paedophile. Anyway, she considers that as he was found guilty of the worst crimes, he could pay twice.

She turns on the tears and exclaims:

"What's awful, inspector, is that he saved his life before."

A week has gone by and the investigation has become a murder case. Forensic analysis to do with Murdoch turns up nothing. Andreotti is not convinced of his guilt.

The media gathers in front of the chalet. The Macands pretend to ignore them. The magazine VSD offers 15,000 Euros for an interview. Laurence is flattered by the offer.

"She estimates that if they wait for more the bids will get higher. She comes to a standstill. Would haggling like this play on her conscience? It's all for Madec. For the happiness of his brothers and his family: for the possibility of living without him."

Obsessed by his past and by the weight of the recent suspicions, Murdoch thinks about committing suicide by throwing himself of the top of a cliff, but another man beats him to it and throws himself off first. That puts Murdoch off.

"Belle Famille," - by Arthur Dreyfus - Chapters 16,17 and 18

2012-01-27T20:40:00.044+01:00

...........
..........
Résumés of chapters 16,17 and 18 - from the original French by Frencheuropean.

Chapter 16

Still single at age 46, Paulo Andreotti lives, as is the custom, with his mother. He is happy with his life and commits a lot of time to his investigations.

It's strange that, if the child was abducted, he didn't make any noise and wake his brothers. No trace of chloroform was detected by the forensic police. What were the cucumbers doing in the entrance hall when they should have been found in the child's bedroom or in the kitchen? Unless it was the child who placed them there before going outside where he was kidnapped?

He is going to re-interrogate everyone, check up on criminal records and alibis.

He feels some affection for Laurence, who reminds him of a former conquest.

He thinks of his best friend, Simone Cazzi, who never had a chance in life: beaten by his parents; born on a February 29th (a present every four years) and who, just when he was happy, having customised the car of his dreams, saw that car crushed in just a few seconds by a bin lorry. He hasn't fared very well since.

Chapter 17

Laurence, who has not eaten in four days, pushes away the image of Madec's body that surfaces from time to time, repeating to herself, "I didn't kill him," On reflection, she concludes that "what's missing for the case to advance is a guilty party."

Her blood runs cold when Andreotti comes to inform them that the maritime brigade is exploring the coasts, searching for a body. She imagines the return to Granville in shame and sadness.

Andreotti also announces that the press is about to arrive to interview them and advises them to be wary.

Laurence, who flatly refused to begin with, looking offended, is quite happy however when Andreotti makes the remark that the press may be able to help in the search. She then pretends to be resigned to it: "in that case, of course..."

That evening, she fears the worst when the inspector knocks on the door. He brings them a photo, that of a suspect.

Chapter 18

Ron Murdoch thinks of his past. A teacher in an English school in Italy, he had been sentenced to 16 years in prison in England for interfering with young pupils. He had pleaded guilty, regretting that the death sentence didn't exist. On leaving prison, he found a job in a bar in Leicester. He fled to London because a 20 year-old barman, Magnus, had fallen in love with him and he had sworn never again to associate with young adolescents. Magnus, however, found him and they set up home together.

To please him, Ron, who had just had an inheritance from his mother, offered to take him on holiday. Magnus chose Italy, in a quiet holiday village. Ron hesitated and then agreed. However, shortly before the departure, he takes on to tell Magnus everything about his past. Magnus, knowing everything, reproaches him for having, with that confession, raised a wall between them and he leaves.

Ron leaves for Italy by himself. At the swimming pool, he goes to the rescue of a child who is drowning. Later, he goes to spend two days visiting the monuments of Florence.

On his return, he is visited by the police and the inspector informs him, in a quiet voice, that he is the prime suspect in the abduction of a little boy: Madec Macand.

"Belle Famille," - by Arthur Dreyfus - Chapter 15

2012-01-27T17:47:00.031+01:00

...
...
Résumé of chapter 15 - from original French by Frencheuropean.

Two days have gone by. Searches have turned up nothing: no one saw anything.

German Shepherd dogs were deployed on the ground, to the great consternation of Laurence, but since it had rained, they found no traces. They couldn't search the chalet, which Laurence had surreptitiously locked from the inside. She had scrubbed the floor and the skirting boards in the kitchen with bleach again.

The Josserands were only told the day after the disappearance. Sylviane and Laurence agree, with some regret, that a holiday is now out of the question. Sylviane suggests taking the boys back. Laurence reckons that the boys are a handicap for her. When they are around, she has to be strong, but when she is strong, she cannot cry. For the media, she has to be able to cry: "truth shines through the tears." And then, with their departure, the Josserands are also one less burden.

The site manager, who is worried about the upheaval caused by the disappearance and the consequences for the customers, is curtly sent packing by Laurence. Laurence then discovers, within herself, an unknown strength: "that which mothers gain during their pregnancy."

A regional newspaper, "France West," tries to contact them by telephone. Stéphane is quite flattered but he is brought into line by Laurence who tells him that it's enough with the police, that "it's a case of abduction," and that they are not going to recount their life for the tabloids.

To herself, however, she imagines the front page of the newspaper, the photos. She hears herself saying: "I insist that the faces of my other two children are blurred," The small world of Granville seemed suddenly quite shabby to her.

"For Madec, Laurence was seeing bigger things."

"Belle Famille," - by Arthur Dreyfus - Chapter 14

2012-01-26T20:32:00.026+01:00

...........
..........
Résumé of chapter 14 - from original French by Frencheuropean.

The 'flying squads,' comb the surrounding area. Stéphane spends the night at the police station while Laurence stays with the boys.

At seven o'clock in the morning, her husband returns with Inspector Paolo Andreotti, who speaks very good French. Well-built and with a youthful appearance, he has a lopsided smile, which gives him a deceptively idiotic look.

They sit down in the kitchen while the police search the lounge. Laurence remarks, with interest, that there are too many people in such a small space.

"Laurence stared at the totally innocent soles of the police officers' shoes, which were erasing the traces of her secret." They were erasing the traces, which could have revealed the accident.

Stéphane produced an account of the events up to the arrival of the police. Laurence, practically shaking, says she confirms what her husband has said, but Andreotti comments that that is not enough and that she must relate what happened when she went back with the cucumbers, without her husband.

"When I opened the lounge door, my son was already asleep. I hugged him.
- What time was that?
- It was early in the evening: perhaps 21.15
- Did you close the door when you left?
- The front door?
- Did you lock it?
- I believe so. I wouldn't have left the children without doing that."

Laurence is quite satisfied with her answers. Not so difficult after all! Andreotti is perplexed: no evidence of tampering with the shutters, a locked door. In search of a significant detail, he asks Laurence what she did with the cucumbers. She says she doesn't know. Andreotti notes that they are sitting on a small piece of furniture in the entrance hall.

The investigation begins with the customary enquiries about the Macands' activities.

A photo of Madec will be posted on every public building in Tuscany before the evening comes.

In the course of the day, Laurence toughens herself. The memory of Madec's body slips away, little by little, like a little raft drifting towards the horizon. Stéphane, totally disoriented with sadness and worry, nevertheless reckons that his dear wife, Laurence, will never be the same.

"Belle Famille," - by Arthur Dreyfus - Chapter 13

2012-01-22T19:19:00.039+01:00

........
.........
Résumé of chapter 13 from the original French by Frencheuropean.

Her friends ask her if the cucumbers calmed Madec. Without thinking, she answers, "Yes," and then corrects herself immediately: "He was sleeping when I went in." She thinks that Madec is somewhat like an unreal death at the cinema. When they get back to the chalet, the door is half-open and the light is on. Not finding Madec, the father says he is going to have a look around outside because he wouldn't be surprised if the child was wandering in the middle of the night. He asks his wife to drive round in the car while he goes to the swimming pool and the beach. He goes out, double locking the door.

Laurence drives mechanically towards the place where the body is hidden. She feels ill when she realises that it's really Madec's body. She takes it in the boot of her car. She drives along the cliff road, overhanging the sea, and pulls onto the verge, where a rough path, forbidden to the public, opens into the void. She drops the body, which falls into the crashing waves.

She starts to sneeze and is relieved to find a handkerchief in her pocket. It's creased, "but still clean."

Ron Murdoch, who has been out for a walk to relax, recognises her at the wheel of the car as she returns.

Meanwhile, the father and the security guard have contacted the police.

Laurence goes to the kitchen and she see the scorpion on the floor. And suddenly, she realises that it wasn't a simple accident, but that "she had killed her son," She collapses onto to the floor in a violent fit of hysteria, the suddenness of which, her husband does not understand.

She hears the police arriving, questioning her husband. She is going to be interrogated.

She thought about Antonin and Vladimir, How much she loved them.

For them, she makes a decision.

That decision is comprised of three words, which she speaks in a low voice, for the very first time.

"Madec has disappeared."

"Belle Famille," - by Arthur Dreyfus - Chapter 12

2012-01-19T20:14:00.024+01:00

.......
.....
"Nice Family," - résumé of chapter 12 - from original in French by Frencheuropean.

The restaurant cannot supply cucumbers, so Laurence and her husband go to buy some from a grocer's shop and go back to the restaurant.

Madec, who is very frightened of the Kappas, decides to find the scorpion, which his mother has hidden, because only the scorpion can protect him from the monster. While he is in the kitchen fetching a large meat fork from a drawer, he deduces that his mother must have hidden the key ring in a high place. So, he tries to reach the top of the cupboard by climbing onto a bar stool, onto which he places an upturned couscoussier, and finally on top of the cupboard, he makes out the shape of the scorpion. At the very moment when he grabs hold of it, his balance is disturbed and he falls over backwards, hitting his head on the corner of the table. As he falls, he skewers his neck on the meat fork. He dies. The noise does not wake his brothers.

Laurence, who leaves the restaurant to take the cucumbers to him, arrives at the chalet, finds that he's not in the lounge and comes across his body in the kitchen.

A small amount of blood has run from his throat. Without a second thought, she puts everything back in place, wraps the body in the tablecloth, cleans the blood-stained floor with a baby wipe soaked in bleach, puts that into the tablecloth and carries the body to the boot of her car. She drives to the edge of the holiday park and, in the rain, drops the body into a small, muddy, waste water drainage channel. Then she covers it with branches. She drives back.

"A short time later, a Peugeot 807 is seen parking in front of 'La Buona Tavola.' A woman in damp clothing is seen to get out. She is seen going back to her friends' table, tidying her hair, using her fingers as a comb, cutting out the cold part, which she deplored, of a 'four season pizza.'. She is seen eating. She is seen laughing."

"Belle Famille," - "Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus

2012-01-17T13:06:00.017+01:00

....
....
"Nice Family," - résumés of chapters 8,9, 10 and 11 from original in French by Frencheuropean.

Chapter 8

They arrive at the site of identical-looking chalets in a pine grove, with a swimming pool and close to the sea, but Laurence is disappointed because it's not as good as it looked on the web and she wonders what the Josserands, who are due to arrive tomorrow, are going to think. She consoles herself with the thought that, "as it's expensive, we won't be with the peasants." They decide to go to the swimming pool. Before leaving, because she cannot throw the scorpion key ring into the bin, she decides to place it on top of the highest kitchen cupboard.

Chapter 9

At the swimming pool, Madec, who is constantly in search of new experiences to spice up a dull life, dives under the water. While he is coming back up, his brothers hold his head under the water. Madec passes out.

Ron Murdoch, who was on a deck chair beside the pool, jumps in and brings out the unconscious child. Laurence, seeing the crowd, rushes over and gives her son emergency aid and succeeds in reviving him.

She gives her grateful thanks to Murdoch, who turns down her invitation to a meal. The brothers are not told off, but Madec gets a bit of spoiling: his bed is made up in front of the telly in the lounge and his food is brought to him.

The brothers apologize to him. He asks for his scorpion key ring, but Laurence is stubborn about it and comes up with the excuse for herself that the object could harbour bacteria. She explains to Madec, in an offhand way, that she has lost it. Furious, Madec does not believe her.

Chapter 10

Laurence recounts what has just happened, in an offhand way, to her husband, who has just returned, stressing the kindness of the Englishman. Their conclusion about the incident is that there was "more fear than danger." The Josserands arrive and their chalet is at the other end of the complex. Julien, tall and handsome, is an architect. His wife, Sylviane, envies Laurence her slender figure, but finds solace by telling herself that she has big bones. Laurence delights in learning that Julien has been unfaithful to Sylviane with his secretary, which consoles her a bit for having a husband with such a repulsive scar. The Josserands have a daughter called Mahud. The friends organise a get-together at 2 o'clock on the beach.

Chapter 11

On return from the beach, Laurence gets her oldest son, who is eleven years old, to read a book that contains scenes of violence, that is much too difficult for him. They have milk pudding, a traditional dish. Afterwards, Laurence adds, "...now you're going to bed because after being so busy with you all day, father and mother want to spend the evening with their friends." Stéphane goes to fetch the Josserands.

A short time later. Fabien arrives with his daughter Mahaut and brings as a gift for Madec, an old book, found in a second-hand shop, which tells the story of Kappa, a monster who hides in the water to drown kids. As such, he says, it will be a souvenir for Madec of his own drowning. There follows, told by Fabien, who likes a good laugh, a horrible tale of this aquatic monster, devourer of children with the most atrocious suffering. But to reassure a terrified Madec, Fabien reveals that only cucumbers, the Kappas' favourite food, takes them away from children. Laurence, who has put the other children to bed, puts out the light, and doesn't understand why Madec starts screaming and asks her to bring him some cucumbers.

A bit bothered, Fabien arranges with Laurence to meet at the restaurant.

"Belle Famille," - "Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus

2012-01-14T20:59:00.022+01:00

..........
...........
"Nice Family," résumé of chapter 7 from original in French by Frencheuropean.

Laurence is well-balanced physically, but too steely to be considered graceful. Her features are mordant, her cheeks smooth, her forehead finely lined, her hair a Nordic blond. But in herself, she is a person of tight-lipped principles. She is a dominant woman who has no truck with contradiction and writes off those who contradict as madmen or cretins. "She knows what she knows."

Stéphane gives way to her for the sake of peace and as she directs the cardiology service, he prefers to leave her with the illusion of power.

More adolescent than grown man, smooth face, and at 46 years old, a full head of hair.

Their relations are coldly regulated, love and sex have no place there.

Between this accommodating father and this very strict mother, Madec, in contrast to his brothers who adjust to the situation, feels very alone. His mother, because of this, thinks that he doesn't love her and attributes her frequent migraines to a son she doesn't understand. She sometimes has nightmares in which she sees herself as an animal, devoured by her own children.

During a stop in Italy, a kind shopkeeper offers Madec a keyring with a scorpion embedded in resin, which fascinates Madec and reminds him of Big. His mother is obliged to accept, but refuses to give it to her son because with a scorpion "it's not meant for a child of seven."

"She knows what she knows."

"Belle Famille," - "Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus

2012-01-12T19:03:00.029+01:00

..
.
"Belle Famille," (Nice Family) - résumés of chapters 4,5, and 6 from original French by Frencheuropean.

Chapter 4

When his parents are on duty, Madec likes to watch television in their room. On seeing a woman on the screen getting herself accidentally devoured by a tiger at the zoo, before the eyes of visitors, suddenly interested in animal life, he plays with the idea of violent death.

Then he looks back on Sundays at mass, where he spends his time observing people and notably the old women (he calls them the hens). He notes that his mother often cries during the hymns and doesn't know why. She doesn't elsewhere.

Chapter 5

One day, after mass, he asks old father Garrec if he can go with him to the farm to see the cows. At the house, the old man recounts old stories while drinking red wine. The child insists on drinking a glass of it, then two and falls asleep. Also drunk, the old man goes to sleep. He is awoken by the police, who have been searching for hours for the child. The imp found asleep with the cows with alcohol in his blood, is given into the care of six child psychiatrists to see if he has suffered from the sequestration and is examined by a doctor who establishes that he has not been abused. The old man is committed to a psychiatric hospital. After consulting her lawyer, the mother does not have him prosecuted, but gives him fifty days to leave town. That will not be necessary; he dies after three weeks in hospital, like his forty cows that no one has thought to water in his absence.

End of Part 1

Chapter 6

Leaving for Tuscany. A dull journey, listening to the father's boring stories and searching, unsuccessfully, for restaurants that are open.

Laurence remembers her first meeting with her husband during a surgical operation where she was assisting him. She had decided to seduce him because she wanted to be a mother. It was only in the car park that she realised with horror, as he no longer had his surgical mask on, that a horrible scar crossed the lower part of his face. All the same, she noted that he had regular features and clear eyes and calculated that that mark would make him more vulnerable and attentive, which decided her.

Five years later, their first child Vladimir is born.

******************

Note: the novel, "Belle Famille," can be purchased from Amazon France

"Belle Famille," - "Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus

2012-01-12T14:02:00.048+01:00

....
....
Chapter 3 - résumé from original French by Frencheuropean

Madec, who is seven years old, has an older brother called Vladimir and a younger brother, Atonin. While the other two are blonde and of easy-going temperament, Madec, who is ginger haired, instead has the manners of a peasant, as odd in his family as his first name.

The father, Stéphane, really took to that Celtic sounding first name during a medical conference in Ireland. His wife reluctantly accepted it, while saying to him that he "was taking responsibility for that kid," two weeks after the child was born by emergency Caesarian because of a rare accident involving the umbilical cord.

Laurence, who has strict educational principles, and imposes on her family a bland organic diet, has, all the same, bought a video game for her sons. Madec, seeing his brothers stupidly zapping with the remote control doubts that he is of the same flesh and blood as them and decides to go out.

It is a Wednesday in Autumn and not a school day. The parents are on duty at the hospital and as the Macand brothers are incredibly sensible, they are left to their own devices for the day. Madec goes down, bare-footed to the beach and thinks about his chameleon, which his father has welcomed with enthusiasm, because he doesn't have very much to say to his son and the chameleon always gives him something to talk about.

To see just how red his skin can go, Madec undresses completely and goes bathing. He is happy because he is totally red in the waves.

Across from the beach, the nurse Francine Frêle sees him and rushes to cross the road and find him. Her chin meets the bumper of a lorry carrying ten tons of oysters. She dies and her brain is mixed up with the crushed shells. Madec comes and asks if she is dead.

Stéphane Macand gives his wife his opinion of the event in this way:

"With breath smelling of Aquavit, Stéphane Marcand explains to his wife that there was nothing they could have done, that they weren't there, either of them - you as well as me.That accidents just happen by accident."

Laurence, dissociating herself from manslaughter by her son, is more shocked by the fact that he was walking around totally naked in public view, placing the blame on the proximity of the nudist (and homosexual) beach, set up by the complaisant authorities according the permissive values of the left.

Regarding her husband, she finds him feeble and uninteresting. He turns to alcohol and that is even the object of "private jokes," at the hospital, but as he is a good diagnostician...

Laurence, a frustrated woman, enjoys underlining that her husband is a loser.

Madec is punished, the nurse is buried. Later there will be an investigation to determine the extent of responsibility of the nurse and Madec's parents for the accident.

With strong glue provided by the town council, school children are each going to stick an oyster shell onto the victim's grave. In the course of time, this will become a renowned place of pilgrimage, which will bring in a lot of money for the town council, which, being grateful, will honour Sandrine Frêle, "for her involvement," in this process.

**********************

Note: the novel, "Belle Famille," can be purchased from Amazon France

"Belle Famille," - "Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus

2012-01-10T14:18:00.022+01:00

..........
.........
"Nice Family," (Belle Famille) by Arthur Dreyfus - Resumé of Ch 2

At her house, Laurence is angry with her forty-year-old brother, Tony, who is always bringing back strange and useless objects for her from his distant travels. This time, he has brought back, for his nephew, a chameleon, which the child Madec watches in its plastic box. Not very easy to chuck that in the bin.

Tony has fun recounting for his sister his rather disreputable adventures in Columbia, knowing that she, who only lives in the present, is not listening. In fact, Laurence is busy worrying about the droppings the chameleon will produce.

Tony teases his sister by reminding her that she had decided to give up on a lovely romantic relationship in Argentina (and not leave Stéphane) during her internship. Furious, Laurence who, since that episode, has denied herself any happiness, thinks about at least getting rid of the chameleon. She is delighted to see that Madec seems to be disappointed with the chameleon (which is less attractive than in the photos) and suggests to him that the chameleon sleeps in his room, because she has seen that the creature disgusts him somewhat and she hopes that he will refuse the gift for fear of having the animal close to him in the night.

But the child, guessing his mother's intentions, says that he likes the creature and calls it Big. The mother then comes up with a perverse plan: as they are just about to leave for their holiday in Tuscany, she will organise things so that the child forgets to take the chameleon and during the journey, she will exclaim that she has forgotten to feed the chameleon, but that this is not serious because these animals survive without food in the jungle.

On their return, Big will be found, lying on his back, dead, totally shriveled up and all will be well that ends well.

Note: with thanks, once again, to Frencheuropean for the original of this resumé in French.

"Belle Famille," - "Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus - Ch1

2012-01-09T17:11:00.014+01:00

............
..............
"Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus

Chapter 1 - Resumé (Original French by Frencheuropean)

Granville is situated in Normandy, north of Mont St Michel. Granville's inhabitants live by trading in fruits de mer but are loathe, perhaps even frightened, for some obscure reason, to eat them.

In the bay, at the beginning of the century, high tides often carried away children who had gone to fish for mussels and since then children have had an obsessive fear of salt water instilled in them.

The mayor would like to tax those who harvest the fruits de mer at low tide, but the fishermen consider that it's the law of the sea that applies. A good many of the inhabitants support the mayor for financial reasons, except when their children bring back shellfish because then they have their doubts.

The dignitaries keep the best houses on the cliff for themselves and the fishermen's children never climb the hill where the residences are like forbidden Monopoly.

"Belle Famille," - "Nice Family," by Arthur Dreyfus

2012-01-09T11:21:00.023+01:00

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

The Prologue

I don't believe in the truth. Like the human spirit, it has its moods. It has its humour. You think you can grab it by the tail. Then it shies away, forcing us to dream. That is all the writer is doing: dreaming the truth. In his way, he changes it: like the soft caramel produced by the 'white aprons' on the streets of Brittany.

The novelist's basic approach is not rigid. It floats around him. There are tears. There are stories. Some, almost invisible, like those in a provincial newspaper, some over impressive, like a column in a national.

Magritte painted a man looking at an egg, painting a pigeon.

I am grabbed, cautiously, by this egg. I have emptied it. From inside, I have poured new life.

Like the man with the pigeon, I only succeed with one of the possible ways of reality. Among many thousands. Apart from the rays of the sun and the wind off the sea, a quick calculation of probabilities subsequently induces me to confess that everything is false. Save for my opening of the shell, any resemblance to real people and situations, past or present, can only be attributed to what Louis Aragon called the eternal rights of the imagination.

The writer is never faithful to the truth. He prefers her little sister, possibility. Forgive him this allegiance, because you must agree that a pike, a snake or a seagull lies more comfortably in an egg than three hundred and thirty Bengal tigers.

Notes:

Thanks to Frencheuropean for sending the original to me.

The book can be purchased here.

Belle Famille - "Nice Family" by Arthur Dreyfus

2012-01-07T17:44:00.019+01:00

...
....

'Belle Famille,' a novel in French by Arthur Dreyfus, in which a French family by the name of Macand, the parents both doctors, go on holiday to Tuscany, and lose one of their children, whose name is Madec Macand. Madec dies accidentally in the kitchen of the parents' holiday accommodation, while the parents are dining at a restaurant with friends.

Brief description featured in the online magazine Cultura:

A strange, uncommunicative and lonely child, Madec lives in Granville with his parents and his two brothers.

While the family is on holiday in Tuscany with a couple of friends, Madec almost drowns in the swimming pool. He is saved by an Englishman, Ron Murdoch, an ex-convict who served a long sentence in England for paedophilia.

One evening, while his parents are dining at a restaurant with their friends, Madec dies accidentally in the kitchen of the bungalow.

Going back, for some reason, in the middle of the meal, Laurence finds her son dead on the tiled floor. Without a second thought, she takes the body and gets rid of it, before rejoining the others in the restaurant as though nothing has happened.

On their return to the bungalow, the disappearance sets off a general alert. Searches, more searches, police investigation, paparazzi: within a few days, the parents become celebrities.

The child’s uncle orchestrates a press campaign which gets world-wide attention – reaching Pope Jean-Paul II. Led by an Italian inspector, the investigation is followed closely in high places in France.

The Englishman Murdoch is soon accused of having abducted and killed Madec. His past works against him..Drawing inspiration from a recent news item, Arthur Dreyfus describes that family, set in their silence and spinelessness, with an often cruel irony and Madec’s solitude with entrancing poetry.

Progressively, a climate close to madness sets in, in which the mother, mysterious and silent, plays a central role. Little by little it will be understood why she hides her child’s body.

Published by Gallimard on January 5th 2012, the book is available from Amazon France

I'm a pitchforker and that's OK!

2011-12-22T11:06:00.043+01:00

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

2011-12-21T00:21:00.006+01:00

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

Hey Gerry! They're making up stories again!

2011-12-19T16:18:00.014+01:00

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

2011-12-17T21:00:00.026+01:00

......
.......
...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.'

2011-12-14T23:01:00.027+01:00

....
.......
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

2011-12-09T23:05:00.040+01:00

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

2011-12-04T20:57:00.006+01:00

........
.........
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?

2011-12-03T23:55:00.007+01:00

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

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

YouTube - HiDeHo4

Forums - HiDeHo

Email - hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter - HiDeHo3

Who Died In The McCanns' Apartment?

2011-11-27T15:53:00.010+01:00

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

With thanks to HiDeHo for this video.

http://www.madeleinemccann.aimoo.com

Forums - HiDeHo

Email - hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter - @HiDeHo3

YouTube - HiDeHo4

Kate and Gerry McCann give evidence at the Leveson enquiry

2011-11-24T19:19:00.038+01:00

....
....

The video starts a few minutes into the interview. What we don't hear on the video is the McCanns being thanked for coming and being asked to verify the statement of truth at the end of their statements.

Gerry McCann is asked why he agreed to give evidence and this is his reply:

I think it's for one simple reason, in that we feel that a system has to be put in place to protect ordinary people from the damage that the media can cause by their activity, which falls well below the standards that I would deem acceptable.

Gerry McCann is asked if he feels it is helpful to have Madeleine permanently in the public eye, to which he replies that he has said on several occasions that it is not helpful. Well, I've just searched on Google under 'Madeleine in the public eye,' and there are thousands and thousands of links to Kate, Gerry and the extended McCann and Healy families all calling for Madeleine to be kept in the public eye. I wonder who Gerry said that to because there are links going back to the McCanns' trip to Berlin soon after their daughter's disappearance. (See references)

Kate McCann answers a question about their being in the public eye and she responds that as Madeleine's parents appeals have more impact.

When the questioning moves to the night of May 3rd 2007, Gerry McCann is asked:

You tell us in your witness statement that a photograph was made immediately available, provided to the broadcast media and to the press, and was, as it were, displayed everywhere. Is that correct?

The video takes up at this point where Gerry is responding by referring to having had digital cameras with them.

The first element was what we were doing on the night and obviously we had digital cameras and we were trying to get photographs printed of Madeleine from the holiday.

To give to the police, but secondly, a very good friend of ours who we spoke to in the early hours of 4th May, took upon himself to issue photographs of Madeleine to all the major media outlets in the UK.

Gerry McCann's vague use of language fascinates me. Perhaps I'm just prone to being pedantic, but I'd have asked him to be rather more precise in places. "You were trying to get photographs printed? How? Did you succeed? Which ones from the holiday did you get printed? And by the way, why didn't the last photo from the holiday appear until over three weeks after Madeleine disappeared?" The use of the imperfect, "trying," implies an ongoing activity, with no end to that activity implied here. Now, I am not intending an accusation here, but people who are lying will often keep things vague. Keep precise details out and you don't have to remember them.

So, Gerry McCann talks about "trying," to print those photos from the holiday for the police (in Portugal I assume!), but doesn't state here that they succeeded, just that in the early hours someone did succeed in getting photos to the major UK media outlets. What we do know is that the first posters placed around Praia da Luz and shown in public appearances were of a younger Madeleine, using an older photo. Why? If they had digital cameras and photos from the holiday, which would show the most up-to-date image, why use a photo of a much younger child? And was that a photo on one of the cameras or a photo they had with them on holiday? How are people expected to look for a missing child with an old photo that does not represent how they looked at the time of their disappearance?

Alerting the UK media was nothing to do with Kate and Gerry. A very good friend 'took upon himself,' to issue the photographs to the UK media. Right? Why the UK media when Madeleine had just disappeared a few hours before in Portugal?

And then the world's press arrived! Well, what did they expect when all major media outlets in the UK had been informed and issued with photographs? And what did the very good friend expect or want those major media outlets to do by sending the photographs? He had not intended to encourage them to follow up on the story? Why send the pics then?

And it occurs to me that if this 'very good friend,' was one of the people the McCanns spoke to on the phone, in the early hours, that this may explain why the first photos of Madeleine, which were released to the press, were not from the holiday, but were older ones, in which Madeleine looked younger than she did in the holiday pics. There has been much speculation about why photos of a younger Madeleine were released. Perhaps this is the reason, though why did the photo of a younger Madeleine appear all over Praia da Luz?

The complete transcript of this part of the interview is available online and I shall add the link at the end. For now, I intend to just comment on particular statements.

At 04.55 on the video, Gerry is asked about the process by which the British press obtained stories from Portugal. He is asked if it would be accurate to say that the Portuguese police were leaking information to the Portuguese press, information which was then picked up by the British press.

Gerry McCann: I cannot tell you for certain that it was Portuguese police who were leaking information, but anyone who followed the headlines in July, August and September, 2007, I think it would be a perfectly reasonable assumption to make that elements of the enquiry were speaking to the Portuguese police. I do not know...emm, sorry, the Portuguese press. I do not know if they were speaking directly to the British media, but what we clearly saw were snippets of information, which, as far as I am concerned, the British media could not tell whether it was true or not, which would then be reported, often exaggerated, and blown up into many tens, hundreds of front page headlines.

Was that just a slip of the tongue, due to nervousness maybe, when Gerry talked about elements of the enquiry speaking to the Portuguese police? Something there, Gerry? Worried about who might have been talking to the police? Sometimes it's a bit like 'don't think of pink elephants,' when these little bits of information slip out accidentally. Just a little bit of speculation there, Gerry, just an idea and I know you are not against people voicing theories! We'll come to that later.

(To be continued)

With thanks to HiDeHo for her sterling effort in producing and uploading the video.

Madeleine: A Small Window Of Opportunity - 3 Minutes!

2011-09-24T18:41:00.007+02:00

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

With thanks to HiDeHo.

Gerald Celente and Alex Jones: The House of Presstitution 2/2

2011-08-23T18:31:00.005+02:00

....
.....

Gerald Celente and Alex Jones: The House of Presstitution 1/2

2011-08-23T17:40:00.004+02:00

......
.....

The McCanns need to return 7,500 copies of Gonçalo Amaral's book.

2011-08-22T15:56:00.011+02:00

....
.....

Video produced by HiDeHo

Email: hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter: @HiDeHo3

YouTube: HiDeHo4

Translations by Joana Morais

Madeleine's portrait: http://jesse.aimoo.com

Thinking about those riots and what may follow.

2011-08-16T17:13:00.023+02:00

The recent riots with attendant looting and burning of property were not political. If they had been political uprisings the rioters would have been targeting the big banks, the Houses of Parliament, MI5/6 etc.

At the top end of the economic scale the banksters are looting and pillaging and so we have looting at both ends of the spectrum, but nicking a laptop from Curry's and selling it on Ebay is not a political statement.

What bothers me, though, is that trend analysts, like Gerald Celente and Max Keiser, are forecasting the worst economic collapse ever, in which case we will possibly see real political uprising. Meanwhile, our government could use the recent riots to impose draconian measures that will close down the social media in the event of any civil unrest and give the police far-ranging powers to quell protests.

The social media, which has been lauded as boosting change in Arab states, is not being seen as such a wonderful channel for social change in the UK. Those yobs had access to Twitter, Facebook etc, and look what has happened! In the UK power to organise criminal activity has been handed to those who will clean out PC World and Primark! You don't need a weatherman, said Bob Dylan, to know which way the wind blows and it doesn't take a psychic to predict that David Cameron's coalition will give itself power to close down the social media in the event of more unrest.

At the top end of the socio-economic spectrum, the banksters and stock brokers are looting and pillaging, the US is printing money and the whole of Europe may need bailing out when there's no one left to do the bailing. When real political unrest happens, as it will I am absolutely certain, the police will be able to quash any demos with impunity because of powers now being handed to them.

There seems to have been a coincidence between stock markets world-wide taking a dive and those riots kicking off. If we are to give credit to people like Gerald Celente and Max Kaiser, there's going to be incredible civil unrest following a major economic collapse. By introducing draconian measures as a result of what seems to be obvious criminality, the police and the government get support for those measures. Deal with those yobs! Bring in the army! Oh yea! Let's impose curfews. All in place to deal with mass protests should there be hikes in food prices as well as fuel prices and more companies going into liquidation with mass redundancy. More police will be trained in riot control. Perhaps I am being paranoid, but I think I detect a hint of forward planning here.

Gerald Celente has advised American people to get prepared with guns and food for the coming economic collapse. Well, I'm glad to say that we in the UK can't walk into Walmart (aka ASDA) and pick a firearm off the shelf, but maybe we should be stocking up the freezer and the pantry!

Paranoid? Moi? Maybe, but I'm still stocking up the pantry!

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown on the Jim Bohannon Show - Part 1 of 2

2011-08-15T11:53:00.005+02:00

...
....

Madeleine McCann is not in India!

2011-07-29T15:41:00.074+02:00

...
...

Above: age-advanced images of what Madeleine McCann may have looked like at age 6. The image on the right is said to represent her should she have been taken to a hot country, but surely fair hair would go fairer in a hot country, though I guess this may be a suggestion that Madeleine's hair could be dyed.

For the past few days, certain UK journalists have been going a bundle on the latest reported sighting of Madeleine McCann, in Leh, a town in the Kashmir region of India. The first newspaper to break the news was the Chandighar Tribune on July 23rd.

Leh, July 23
High drama prevailed in the busy Fort Road market of the city last night when three persons identified a six-year-old girl as Madeleine McCann, a British girl who went missing while on a holiday in Portugal in 2007.....

....Last night, a British woman saw a French woman with her Belgian husband roaming in the market with a girl who looked like Madeleine. She immediately informed the British police and the Leh police. The local police has taken the passports of the suspects for verification.

For some reason, it took the UK press a few days to catch up, but on July 28th, the Daily Mail reported that DNA tests were being carried out on the child who was spotted in the Indian market. That article seems to have disappeared now, but some of it was saved:

Kate and Gerry McCann's team of private investigators say they are working with police in the northern city of Leh.

The link to the article ( here) will now take you to a story where Kate and Gerry McCann say the child is definitely not Madeleine. (More on that later)

Today, The Sun reports that Kate and Gerry's 'hopes are dashed,' but it's still reporting that DNA tests are being carried out on the child...

Indian detectives arrived and confiscated passports belonging to the mother and father, a Belgian man and French woman. DNA tests are being carried out to establish the girl's identity.

....which is really quite strange since yesterday, in the Indian newspaper, News One, local police in Leh denied all knowledge.

Srinagar, July 28 (IANS) The Jammu and Kashmir Police Thursday denied media reports that a British girl who had reportedly gone missing in Portugal four years ago was found in Leh.

Talking to some media persons here Thursday evening, Abdul Gani Mir, deputy inspector general of police (DIG), said: ‘We have not recovered any missing foreign girl from Leh.’

‘There is no question of carrying out a DNA test since we don’t have the girl. Our field staff in Leh have confirmed that no such girl has been recovered by them.’

‘A British media report said that a girl missing for the last four years from Portugal had been sighted in Leh district of the state. We have no such confirmation from either the police or the district administration,’ the DIG said.

Earlier, a British newspaper report had said a four-year-old British girl, who was allegedly kidnapped while on a holiday in Portugal in 2007, has reportedly been tracked down to Leh city in India’s Jammu and Kashmir state.

The report in the Daily Mail also said the parents of Madeleine McCann are, however, awaiting the results of a DNA test on the girl.

Kate and Gerry McCann’s team of private investigators said they were working with Leh police who were alerted after a British woman spotted a girl she thought to be Madeleine. The abducted girl would now be eight years old.

So, how come the McCanns' private investigators were, according to Clarence Mitchell, as reported in the Daily Mirror, on July 28th, liaising with Indian authorities? Which authorities? The police know nothing about the child or any DNA tests being conducted!

Kate and Gerry McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said: "Our private investigators are aware of the reports from India over the weekend about a possible sighting of Madeleine.

"We are liaising with the Indian authorities over the incident and await the results of the DNA test."

And just in case, Clarrie should at some point allege that he never mentioned anything about the police. here he is being interviewed on ITV news, on July 28th.

Transcript from 0.25.

Clarence Mitchell: It was reported to local police, which was absolutely the right thing for people to do under the circumstances and the police say that they..emmm...they checked the parents' identities. The parents denied that they were anything but the natural parents...ummm..and the police have been looking into it..."

Which police, Clarence? The Chief of Police for the region states that they know nothing about this: no child, no DNA tests. So, they haven't checked out any parents and they're not looking into it. Where did you get this from, Clarrie, and who were your PIs liaising with, because it doesn't appear to have been the local police in Leh.

So, back to The Daily Mail and that story about Kate and Gerry's 'dashed hopes.'

But after studying a photo of the child, the McCanns announced this afternoon that the girl was not their daughter.
Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the couple were 'certain' the girl was not Madeleine, who would now be eight-years-old.
He said: 'Kate and Gerry do not believe the child seen in India was Madeleine. They have seen photographic evidence and concluded that it was not her.

So, let's get this story straight, according to Clarence Mitchell and the UK press. A bunch of tourists spotted a child in a market in Leh, India. One of the tourists grabbed the child, whom they were all convinced was Madeleine McCann. The local police accosted the parents, took their passports and took swabs for DNA testing from the child.

No! It didn't happen! And if the McCanns have this 'photographic evidence,' I wonder who it was who took photographs of a young child, possibly without the permission of her parents. Or, was the whole thing just a hoax? Someone is telling porkies here, Clarrie or the Indian police and I know who I'd believe!

Interesting articles:

David Bret: "THE INDIA SIGHTING WAS A HOAX."

Steel Magnolia: "Maddie is dead and the McCanns are in the business of fraud."

Pat Brown's book pulled by Amazon.

2011-07-26T18:55:00.006+02:00

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

Madeleine McCann - New videos - absolutely no evidence of abduction

2011-07-23T20:37:00.014+02:00

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

Videos produced by HiDeHo.

email: hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter: @HiDeHo3

YouTube: HiDeHo4

LulzSec say they will release Murdoch email archive.

2011-07-19T17:26:00.020+02:00

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

Rebekah Brooks apparently not a password genius.

By John Leyden

19th July 2011

The hacktivists behind a hack on The Sun's website claim to have extracted an email archive which they plan to release later on Tuesday.

News International's systems were hacked on Monday night. As a result, visitors to The Sun's website were redirected towards a fake story on the supposed death of Rupert Murdoch by infamous hacktivist collective LulzSec. The group also redirected visitors to the main News International website to the LulzSec Twitter feed. In addition, the hack may have allowed LulzSec to gain access to News International's email database.

Sabu, a prominent member of LulzSec, said via Twitter that the group was sitting on emails of News International staffers that it planned to release on Tuesday.

In the meantime, Sabu released email login details for former News International chief exec Rebekah Brooks, a central figure in the News of the World voicemail-hacking scandal.

Brooks (then called Wade), edited The Sun between 2003 and 2009, and – at least according to LulzSec – had been using the password 63000 to access her email account at the paper. As IT blogger John Graham-Cumming points out, 63000 is the same number as the text tip-off line used by the Sun.

LulzSec also posted the supposed password hash – but not the password – of Bill Akass, former managing editor of the News of the World.

The hackers also posted the mobile phone numbers of three News International execs. This information seems to have come from, at best, an old database. The Telegraph reportsthat one of the phone numbers belongs to Pete Picton, a former online editor with The Sun who left to work on News Corp's iPad-only publication, The Daily, last year. Another phone number belongs to Chris Hampartsoumian, an IT worker. Hampartsoumian recently announced, via Twitter, that he does not work for any News Corp firm.

LulzSec certainly obtained deep enough access to News International systems during the Monday break-in to pull off a redirection hack on The Sun, but whether it obtained the depth of access it claims to have done remains unclear. A News International spokeswoman declined to comment when we asked if the organisation was taking the email hack claims seriously or whether it was taking any remedial action.

She said the firm was "aware" of the website redirection hack on The Sun, adding that all News International websites were now up and running as normal.

However The Guardian reports that News International took its webmail systems and remote access systems offline as a precaution following The Sun website redirection hack. Passwords were reset before remote access and other systems were restored on Tuesday morning, the paper adds.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/19/sun_hack_more_lulz/

Sean Hoare on Panorma

2011-07-18T22:55:00.008+02:00

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

Rebekah Brooks admits to paying police (2003)

2011-07-11T08:15:00.029+02:00

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

References:

The Telegraph Monday July 11th 2011

Mrs Brooks has previously appeared to confirm that she was aware of police officers being paid for information.

She told a Commons committee in 2003: “We have paid the police for information in the past.”

It is believed that officers are attempting to speak to Greg Miskiw, a former assistant editor at the News of the World, whose signature appears on a contract for Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator jailed alongside Goodman in 2007.

The Guardian Monday April 11th 2011

The former Sun editor, Rebekah Brooks, told a powerful group of MPs on Monday she has no knowledge of any actual payments the paper might have made to police officers in exchange for information.
In a letter to the chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, Brooks, who is now chief executive of the paper's parent company News International, said she had no "knowledge of any specific cases" in which payments to police might have been made.
Brooks was responding to a request from the committee made last month to detail how many police officers received money from the Sun, which she edited from 2003 to 2009, and when the practice ceased.

Brooks, who edited the Sun's sister title the News of the World before moving to the daily in early 2003, told MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee eight years ago:"We have paid the police for information in the past."
In her letter to the home affairs select committee chairman, Labour MP Keith Vaz, Brooks said she was grateful for the opportunity to clarify the evidence she gave in March 2003.

The Milly Dowler Story

2011-07-09T13:08:00.008+02:00

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

Dr David Manning: "Murdoch's Criminal Media Empire Will Fall."

2011-07-09T12:36:00.005+02:00

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

Ex News of the World writer tells all

2011-07-08T23:51:00.005+02:00

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

Paul McMullan worked at News of the World for more than a decade.

Casey Anthony - Judgment Day

2011-07-06T17:25:00.004+02:00

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

"Madeleine McCann parents' rare moment of joy."

2011-06-24T15:18:00.036+02:00

.
.
According to the Mirror 24th June 2011 A "rare moment of joy," eh?

And according to The Express, "At last, sad Kate can smile again." Again? And here she is! Is that a smile or is she showing off the work of her orthodontist?

I note, in passing, that Gerry has changed his hairstyle. Is this because he is trying to conceal the fact that he is rather follically challenged, or could it be so that he looks less like suspect number two thousand and twenty-four, "Spotty Man."?

Returning to the Mirror and that "rare moment of joy":

KATE McCann flashed a rare smile as she and husband Gerry promotes their book Madeleine in Holland.

Perhaps Wendy Fuller, who wrote the brief article for the Mirror, would change her mind about Kate's "rare smile" if she were to view this video from September 2007?

Wendy goes on:

She has struggled to hide her grief since her daughter vanished from Portugal four years ago

Since when, Wendy?

Kate and Gerry leaving the church in Praia da Luz, just a few days after Madeleine disappeared. Well well! Just a few days after her daughter disappeared into thin air, Kate McCann appeared to have been winning that struggle to hide her grief!

And doing just as well on a trip to the zoo with the twins in Portugal just a short time later!

I shall leave you with this video from May 2008, "The Rare Smiles of Kate & Gerry McCann."

Pat Brown, criminal profiler talks about the Madeleine McCann case

2011-06-22T14:04:00.031+02:00

..
..

Towards the end of the video, another case is mentioned, which is said to have some similarities. That was the case of Sabrina Aisenberg, who disappeared in 1997, at the age of 5 months. Her mother stated that she put Sabrina to bed in her cot and some time later, Sabrina had disappeared. Because of inconsistencies in their statements, the Aisenberg parents had their home 'wire tapped,' and over 60 conversations were recorded, which were thrown out of court because they were inaudible. In 2008, a 'jail snitch,' came forward and stated that he believed another inmate, Scott Overbeck, was somehow involved.

We have a child who disappeared without trace, parents whose statements hold inconsistencies, alleged odour of decomposition, although it doesn't sound like dogs were brought in.

Note at 0.24 of the video, Marlene Aisenberg, Sabrina's mother, appears to be using the script later used by Kate McCann, "Sabrina needs her mother and her father.." She also talks about Sabrina's siblings. Nothing suspicious, I suppose, in the similarities here: it's just worth mentioning, in my opinion, that the McCanns appear to have had a previously used script to follow. Also worth noting is that the Aisenbergs sued the police!

Pat Brown has written a review of Kate McCann's recently published book about Madeleine's disappearance.

"Madeleine: Wherein lies the Truth."

Women in Crime blog

by Pat Brown

It is said there is often a lot of nonfiction in fiction and a lot of fiction in in nonfiction. Kate McCann's new autobiography, Madeleine, is a prime example of this axiom. I say 'autobiography' because Kate's book is not so much about what happened to her missing daughter, Madeleine Beth, but about Kate McCann nee Healy - her life, her loves and her losses, her trials and her tribulations. In reality, very little of the book is about the missing little girl who vanished in Praia da Luz, the lovely vacation destination in the Algarve of south Portugal; it is a carefully crafted revisionist history of one of the most puzzling missing children's cases in recent years and a strident defense of the characters and behaviors of Kate and Gerry McCann.

Read the full review on the "Women in Crime," blog (Link above)

Pat Brown has also written a book about the Madeleine McCann case, which is available, though only on Kindle, from Amazon, "

"Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (Updated)"

42 reviews of Pat's book on Amazon are all 5 star.

Pat Brown again, speaking about the case when Madeleine had been missing for three years.

Madeleine McCann: new defamation action launched in Portugal by her parents

2011-06-17T11:55:00.045+02:00

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

Paulo Sergeanto

The action launched by Kate and Gerry McCann seeks an, as yet, undetermined amount in damages.

According to the summons - which I have managed to get hold of -, Madeleine McCann's parents have decided to pursue action for defamation against the psychologist Paulo Sergeanto, the well known presenter Manuel Luis Goucha and the journalist Hernâni Carvalho.

The three personalities of the small screen in Portugal began to be interviewed yesterday, Wednesday, and were constituted "arguidos" - the equivalent in French law of being cautioned.
The criminal complaint, which was instituted by the couple's lawyer in Portugal, also cites the private television channel TVI and its administration.

The complaint cites the contribution of the three "arguidos" during the broadcast of a talk-show where details of the Portuguese police investigation were discussed.

Sergeanto, who also appears as a legal expert in Portuguese courts, confirmed the information, stressing that he did not respond to the Prosecutor's questions yesterday, but "that he did not speak yesterday but that he intends to do so during the proceedings because he has knowledge of elements which may lead to the reopening of the inquiry related to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.”

An unusual detail, in contrast to other trials, is that the secrecy of justice has not been requested in this case.

According to a source close to the McCanns, who confirms the action in progress, "other actions aimed at other people and media are still under consideration."

Duarte Levy in The Tribune 16/06/2011

http://sosmaddie.blogs.dhnet.be/

Kate McCann: "Metodo 3 made significant strides."

2011-06-07T17:33:00.030+02:00

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

Francisco Marco; director of Metodo 3

This is what Kate McCann states on page 283 of her recently published book, "Madeleine."

We have no doubt that Metodo 3 made significant strides, but unfortunately, in mid-December, one of their senior investigators gave an overly optimistic interview to the media. He implied the team were close to finding Madeleine and declared that he hoped she would be home by Christmas Gerry and I did not pay much heed to these bullish assertions”.

"Significant strides."? In what way? How did they do this? Kate McCann doesn't actually say what these "significant strides," were, though she goes on to tell us that one of the "senior investigators," hoped that Madeleine would be home by Christmas. Of course, we all know that she wasn't, but I wonder why we never read in the newspapers that reported this hope that Kate and Gerry thought Metodo 3 was making "bullish assertions."

So, Kate McCann waffles on without giving details of the "significant strides."

“That glitch apart, Metodo 3 worked very hard for us and, just for the record, their fees were very low: most of the money they were paid was for verified expenses…we maintain good relations with Metodo 3 today. We had the sense that they genuinely cared about Madeleine’s fate…”

Wow! A "glitch."!! A child is missing, allegedly abducted from her bed by a paedophile, and a company's overly optimistic suggestion that she would be home by Christmas was just a "glitch." Nothing to get worked up about. We've now got a spare place at the Christmas dinner table, let's invite one of the relies! I guess I might have seen it as a bit more than a "glitch," a trivial set back, but hey ho! I've never mislaid a child.

Who introduced this company to the McCanns? They were in search of a group of private detectives to carry on the search for their daughter. So, who introduced Metodo 3? Why not a company that had experience of searching for missing people/children? Surely some research would have found such a company? Metodo 3 had no previous experience in that field of investigation.

Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis presented a run-down on the previous work undertaken by this agency. They had no previous experience of dealing with cases of missing children, their work having been focused on clients from the commercial and industrial sectors, dealing with such issues as money-laundering and security. Based in Barcelona, Metodo 3 was responsible for the new phone line set up after an appeal for information from the McCanns. The Portuguese police had not been consulted about this phone line.

So, what did Metodo 3 do for the McCanns? This information from Duarte Levy

November 10th 2007: An Irish citizen on holiday in Bosnia contacted Metodo 3 to report that he had seen Madeleine in a Bosnian city. Clarence Mitchell said this sighting was being taken very seriously.

November 18th 2007: Francisco Marco states that he knows who kidnapped Madeleine.

November 20th 2007: A woman gives a witness statement to Metodo 3, stating that she had seen Michaela Walczuch, Robert Murat's friend, in Morocco, close to where Madeleine had been sighted.

Ah yes! If nothing else crops up, point the finger at Robert Murat!

December 22nd 2007: Metodo 3 admits never having known where Madeleine was, although they had assured that they would have Madeleine home by Christmas.

December 28th 2007: Metodo 3 comes up with two witnesses who say they had seen Robert Murat in the vicinity of the McCanns' apartment on the night she disappeared.

Names of these witnesses? Payne and Tanner by any chance? None of the local people saw Robert Murat that night.

February 23rd 2008: Metodo 3 detective who had been involved in their hunt for Madeleine, is arrested for theft of cocaine from a police warehouse in Barcelona.

March 13th 2008: A detective working for Metodo 3 in Morocco is alleged to have paid witnesses to say they had seen Madeleine, according to a senior Moroccan police officer.

February 2nd 2009: Metodo 3 under investigation for money-laundering.

In spite of all of the above, Kate McCann states: "..we maintain good relations with Metodo 3 today." Why? Suspected of theft of cocaine? Money-laundering? Paying witnesses? Suggesting that they would have Madeleine home by Christmas and then owning up to the fact that they never had any idea where she was? Perhaps, Kate and Gerry need to maintain good relations with that cheap (that's what Kate said!) bunch of detectives because of what they might have to tell about their so-called "investigation," into Madeleine's disappearance?

I'd love to know what those "significant strides," were that Kate McCann mentions, but does not describe. She is quite descriptive in her details of what a paedo might be doing with her daughter and at times the minutiae of her daily life in Portugal, but not about the work done by Metodo 3 in the search for Madeleine. We know that on the day she disappeared, Madeleine had been wearing clothes from Gap and Monsoon, but we don't know what Kate McCann considers to be significant in Metodo 3's search for her. Apart from the many false sightings reported by Metodo 3, too many to mention, what did they do?

What were those "significant strides."? None that I have seen being reported. Perhaps it's all very sensitive information that will now be handed over to the joint teams of Portuguese police and Scotland Yard who will be reviewing the files? Somehow I don't think the file they might hand over would be very thick!

I wonder if Kevin Halligen also made "significant strides," for his money! He disappeared with £300,000? Well, he definitely wasn't cheap!

So, come on Kate McCann, what exactly did Metodo 3 do that was so significant because in your place, I'd be downright embarrassed to admit any connection with that bunch of cowboys!

Complaint against the BBC upheld: Gonçalo Amaral did not use offensive language about the McCanns

2011-06-03T20:28:00.014+02:00

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

The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit has published its ruling on complaints that one of their reporters had misquoted Gonçalo Amaral outside the court in Lisbon.

BBC East Midlands 30/05/2011

ECU Ruling: East Midlands Today, BBC1 (East Midlands), 12 January 2011

Publication date: 30 May 2011

Complaint

The programme included a brief exchange between a reporter and Gonçalo Amaral (a former policeman who had worked on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and had since written a book on the case). One word in the exchange was bleeped, and the report gave the impression that this was because Sr Amaral had used offensive language about the MrCanns. A viewer complained that this was inaccurate and unfair to Sr Amaral.

Outcome
The reporter's belief, reinforced by others on the programme team who viewed the recording, was that Sr Amaral had indeed used an English phrase which included an offensive term applied to the McCanns. On further examination, however, it became clear that Sr Amaral had been speaking Portuguese, and that an inoffensive phrase had been misconstrued. Upheld

Further action
The Editor of the programme has discussed the outcome with the producer and reporter involved. In future, the team plans to use interpreters if clips from interviews are unclear.

Kate McCann: I always wanted to write down the truth, really, for my three children.

2011-05-22T15:08:00.041+02:00

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

Kate McCann: I always wanted to write down the truth, really, for my three children.

So, you thought it was important that your three children knew that you "couldn't make love to Gerry"? And that they would appreciate being able to read about your very vivid imaginings about what a paedophile might be doing to Madeleine? If Madeleine were to turn up at some time in the future, I'm not sure that she would appreciate being reminded, if she had been abducted by a paedophile and somehow had managed to live and escape.

Do your children really need to read what you have written on page 129 of your book?

"I asked Gerry apprehensively if he'd had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her perfect little genitals torn apart"

That sounds almost twee. And it reads like you're talking about a child's expensive material possession being damaged. I can imagine adoring relatives, leaning over a crib and making gushing remarks about a baby's "perfect little fingers and toes," but who would talk about the baby's "perfect little genitals."? If an examining physician were to lean over and coo about the child's "perfect little genitals," wouldn't alarm bells be raised? Is this how you imagine, Kate McCann, that the readers will be persuaded that you are a loving mother? You have visions of "perfect little genitals."? Well, I may be just an internet nutter, but I'm appalled beyond words to describe my disgust.

Kate McCann: I guess the reason, well the trigger reason, why I actually...why it became a book and why it was published, was because we have to fund the search for Madeleine and the fund was running low. So, we had to raise money.

You also need to raise a bob or two for the costs awarded against you for the legal action in trying to get Gonçalo Amaral's book banned, costs to Carter-Ruck and costs for the upcoming libel action against Gonçalo Amaral.

Kate McCann: If I'm honest (And why wouldn't you be? And what would you be saying if you weren't being honest?) I suppose I was hoping that we'd have more public support, really, but because we were at such a low ebb, and things couldn't have got any worse than they were in September 2007, I suppose I'd hoped that someone would come forward and publicly show support or basically , you know, say what they felt about certain bits of information that were appearing in the media.

I really can't make very much of that vague waffle. The question to which Kate McCann may have been responding may have been edited, but if she is still talking about why she wrote and published the book, which I assume she is, then this is just a load of waffle.

"More public support."? In terms of money? As soon as the fund was set up, the money rolled in: pensioners sent donations from their meager income and schoolchildren made and sold cakes. Or is Kate McCann referring to more recent times when the fund was running low and Gerry sent out begging letters to people who had previously given very generous support, people like JK Rowling? Did the rich sponsors not come up with the goods, then?

What does how things were in 2007 have to do with the fund running low, publishing the book and being at a low ebb at an unspecified time? Kate just knew she had to get in a mention of how bad they felt when they were made arguidos by those nasty sardine-munching Portuguese cops?

And when was it she had hoped this person would have come forward and "publicly shown support." September 2007? Around the time she decided to write and publish the book, and it didn't happen? As a response to Gerry's begging letters to rich supporters who would publicly have thrown a great wad of cash their way and no one did, so she had to get the book written?

Kate McCann sounds like she desperately needs to cover a few important details, but they're all kind of thrown into a cognitive blender and have come out as information mousse. She thinks that no one came out and said what they felt about "certain bits of information that were appearing in the media."? What bits of information? When? When they were made arguidos? Who would she have wanted to make this public display of support? A politician? A journalist? Does Kate McCann have a specific "someone," in mind here and she's telling that "someone," how let down she felt?

I just don't know what Kate McCann is waffling on about there.

Gerry McCann: We have proceedings underway against Gonçalo Amaral. That's all we really want to say about it.

Oh dear! Does that mean they're going ahead with the libel action? I wonder what their legal representative, Isabel Duarte, is advising them on this. Since three judges, sitting at the Lisbon Court of Appeal decided that "The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," (Guardian 19/10/2010) I would have thought the McCanns would have reconsidered pursuing this action. Do they seriously think that a lower court will ignore the deliberations of the Court of Appeal and decide that Amaral's book does breach their rights?

Ah well! I guess the McCanns will just keep on doing what they've been doing: think that if they repeat something often enough, shout as loudly as they can, like small, spoilt childen, they'll get their own way. One of these days, somebody's gonna shut them up. And please God make it soon! I still think a reconstruction would put paid to their fairy stories! Maybe the Scotland Yard team and the Portuguese police will jointly request it. They really should. And like lots of other internet nutters, I am eternally optimistic that justice will be done one of these days for Madeleine.

Somebody do something to shut up that pair of lying eejits!

The McCann case - What I'd like to see in a reconstruction - Part 1

2011-05-18T18:37:00.024+02:00

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

Well, what would I like to see in a reconstruction of the events of May 3rd 2007, when Madeleine McCann was reported missing, having mysteriously disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz?

First of all, the child that Jane Tanner reported that she saw being carried by the alleged abductor. The child chosen to take the part would have to be the same height as Madeleine was said to have been at the time: 90cms. I can't quite believe that she was that small, but that's the height that was given out in a description by her parents. So, that's the height the child should be.

Then there's those pyjamas! I doubt that Marks and Spencer has the identical pyjamas still on sale, but the basic style is popular and so should be easy to come across. Kate can let the police know the size, I am sure, although the size Madeleine was wearing is probably a matter of record.

So, the child should be the same height and wearing pyjamas just like these ones.

And she should be carried just as described by Jane Tanner, as seen in the image below, which Jane Tanner verified as a good likeness of the alleged abductor and correct for the way the child was being carried.

But, can someone tell me, just a simple explanation will do, how the pyjamas being held up by Kate and Gerry McCann could end up looking like those in the image verified as accurate by Jane Tanner?

How could baggy, cropped leg pyjamas end up tightly around the ankles? Those pyjamas would ride up to the knees on a child being carried like that.

This is one of the very first inconsistencies that could be shown up in a reconstruction of the events. If Jane Tanner did see a man carrying a child in that manner, wearing pyjamas as shown in the image she accepts as an accurate representation, then it wasn't Madeleine McCann whom she saw.

There could be several explanations for the inconsistency:

1) Jane Tanner didn't see a man carrying a child.

2) She did see a child being carried, but it wasn't Madeleine and under the sodium street lights, she was confused about colour and the pyjamas weren't pink.

3) It was Madeleine and Kate and Gerry lied about what she had been wearing that night.

However, as Jane Tanner slip-slapped her way up the alleyway, in her flip-flops, and apparently passed very close to Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins, neither of the two men saw her.

So, were any of those three lying? Rather seems like it. Who and why? They can't all be telling the truth? And Marks and Spencer's pyjamas are like dogs in a way: they don't lie!

I think there has to be a reconstruction of the events so that this and other inconsistencies can be addressed. This would be the best possible start, in my opinion, to finding out what happened to Madeleine.

Kate and Gerry McCann: "Absolutely no evidence.."?

2011-05-18T17:42:00.012+02:00

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

Video #2 in the "Discrepancies," series by HiDeHo

For more information:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.com

http://www.madeleinemccann.aimoo.com

Kate McCann - further re-writing of history!

2011-05-18T07:41:00.002+02:00

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

Kate McCann: "The curtains went whoosh!"

Re-writing the story of "How I knew that Madeleine had been taken."

Kate McCann:

I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it.

I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding.(See image below) and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and Cuddle Cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.

Above: photo of Madeleine's bed from the police files. It was perfectly flat, as though it hadn't been slept in. What was there that Kate McCann could have mistaken for the bedding or Madeleine? Perhaps if the bedding had been bunched up, she could have wondered what the bulge was, but there's no bulge.

Referring to her relating of the story, Kate McCann opened the door and as she went to close it, it slammed. She opened it again to have a look at the children, (She went back in? She hadn't mentioned actually going in!) something like a gust of wind blew the curtains open. Something like a gust of wind? What could be like a gust of wind, apart from a gust of wind?

Anyway, no mention of going anywhere else before the curtains went whoosh! She opened the door immediately for the second time and the curtains went whoosh.

And here we have Kate McCann talking to Piers Morgan with a greatly embellished account of how she knew!

PM: What was the exact moment...I'll ask you Kate...when you realised that Madeleine was gone?

KMcC: Well, I went back to do a check at ten o'clock, emm...and I went through the patio doors at the back..emm...and I listened for a minute in the living room and it was all quiet. And I just noticed that the...the door to the children's bedroom was quite far open and we always leave it so that it's slightly ajar, just to let a little bit of light in. And..emm...I thought to myself, did Matt leave the door open at half nine...errr... because Matt checked on them at half nine...emm..and I thought that must be what happened.

Emm...so I went to close over the children's door and just as I was about to close it, there was a..it kind of slammed, like a gust of wind had shut it. And then I thought, did I leave the patio doors open? (So, she didn't think I'll just take a look at the children at this point?) So I just checked (Didn't mention that before) and they were closed. And then I went back just to open the door a little bit (Not to look at the children?) and just as I was doing that, (So, incidental to closing the door?) I just...emm...I just glanced at Madeleine's bed (Not..oh there's the twins in their cot? And you didn't hallucinate a flat bed into bunched up bedding or a child?) which was by the wall. and it was really dark and I couldn't make her out. And I just kept looking for what felt like minutes, thinking, you know, where is she?

At this point in the original telling, when the door was opened for a second time, the curtains went whoosh!

And it seems daft now because normally you'd think I'd put the light on. It's that inbuilt thing of don't wake the kids up...emm...and then I looked and realised she wasn't there and I thought, so has she gone through into our bedroom?

No, this was where Kate McCann told us previously that she knew Madeleine had been taken because the curtains went whoosh and Madeleine's bed was empty, apart from her pink blanket and Cuddle Cat.

Emm...you know...that would explain why the door was open as well. So, I just quickly looked in our room and she wasn't there and that's probably the first time I..that panic started to build. So, obviously (Obviously? Not from the previous telling!) I ran back into her room and...emm..just as I did that, the curtains, which were closed, just kind of blew open and as they did that, I noticed that the shutter was up and the window was open.

PM: And what did you think in that moment?

KMcC: I thought someone's taken her.

PM: You went down to tell Gerry straight away?

KMcC: Yeh, I...I basically whizzed round the apartment. About 15 seconds. I don't know why. In my head I was just thinking if someone's been in and she's cowering somewhere, I guess, which is why I did it. And then I just flew out through the back, down the stairs to the restaurant.

I don't know how Kate McCann can do this. Does she think she's addressing an audience who are two sandwiches short of a picnic? Does she think none of us remember what she said before and can compare? Surely someone could have/should have suggested that she just take a glance at her old interviews and make sure she remembered the story as she had told it in the past? Kate McCann seems to think it's OK to re-write history. The question is why? Why would she think it's OK? Because there isn't a journalist out there who will call attention to the glaring contradictions? Yes, that's exactly what I think. Not one of them has the cojones to say, "Hang on a minute.."

What happened to investigative journalism? Is there no one at all who will ask the obvious questions? Shame on the lot of them and especially those who have filled their pages over the past few days with the utter garbage that Kate McCann has written.

Kate McCann: "We haven't put too much emphasis on her eye."

2011-05-17T14:18:00.002+02:00

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

Madeleine's very distinctive eye pattern is discussed on this video where Kate and Gerry McCann are interviewed by Piers Morgan.

Watch from 0.35 - 1.30

Transcript:

PM: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

KMcC: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye because I think you have to be very close to her to see it, but her eyes are slightly different colours and one of them has a brown fleck in it...emm...but you do notice particularly on photographs, but...

OK then, who produced these posters?

Why is Kate McCann wearing a badge that says, "Look into my eyes."?

And what does the text on the poster Gerry is holding say? Can it be, "Look into my eyes."?

But they haven't put too much emphasis on her eye!

Oh dear, Kate McCann seems to have forgotten something. Again! She doesn't appear to remember not just all of the above, but what Gerry said in an interview for Vanity Fair magazine, that was published in January 2008. I guess that is rather a long time ago! Kate McCann says she never reads what bloggers and other people on the internet have to say, but she might at least read the official interviews!

Vanity Fair January 10th 2008 (See page 5)

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

It was a what, Gerry? A good marketing ploy! But you haven't put too much emphasis on her eye!

Another piece of the history of this case being re-written after the all those posters, the Bryan Adams song, "Everything I do," as the theme to videos and Gerry admitting that it was a good marketing ploy!

How does that cliché go? Ah yes! You couldn't make it up! Well, it appears that Kate and Gerry McCann can!

Madeleine McCann - Former police commander calls for a reconstruction.

2011-05-16T15:58:00.026+02:00

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

Above left: the image of the 'abductor, which Jane Tanner stated resembled the man she had seen carrying a child whom she was sure was Madeleine.

Above right: the man seen on a beach by a witness who reported that the man had been behaving strangely on the beach in Praia da Luz.

In the Sunday Express, dated May 15th 2011, Dai Davies, former Yard Commander, suggested that a reconstruction of the events surrounding Madeleine McCann's disappearance could be vital in encouraging new witnesses to come forward. There was a request for a reconstruction in 2008. What happened?

When top Portuguese detective Paulo Rebelo took over the case he was frustrated at not being able to stage a reconstruction as he believed it could provide a breakthrough.

However, at that time there were strains in the relationship with the McCanns, the so-called Tapas Seven and Portuguese police and there was suspicion about the motives of such an exercise.

So, what happened to the original call for a reconstruction from Paulo Rebelo? For information purposes on just what did happen to that suggestion, I copy here a report at the time which appeared in http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/, written by Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis. (10/08/08)

McCann Case: the failed reconstruction.

In April 2008, Paulo Rebelo gave a detailed response to the McCanns' friends about their arguments and doubts on the subject of the reconstruction of the events of May3rd. He stated that one of the conditions put forward by the group, that of first of all withdrawing Kate and Gerry's arguidos status - was impossible to accomplish, because only the Prosecutor held the legal power to do it, not the PJ.

On the subject of the reconstruction, the main problem for the McCanns' group of friends was clear: if the PJ believed their statements, then the reconstruction wasn't necessary, or the PJ were trying to obtain something strange with this activity.

They wanted to know what the PJ's true intentions were. After several exchanges of emails, going first through Stuart Prior, the Tapas 7 group were not convinced of the usefulness of such a reconstruction.

In the replies that followed, Kate and Gerry's friends placed as a condition, not only the lifting of the McCann couple's arguido status, but also the announcement of a press release by the PJ dispelling the lies published by the Portuguese media, emphasising that there was no suspicion about the seven friends.

As it was impossible to accept or accomplish these conditions, Paulo Rebelo, in an email addressed to Stuart Prior on April 29th, requested that a final decision was taken. Jane and Russel O'Brien were the first to respond, saying yes, but waiting for further advice from their lawyers. Rachel and Matthew sent a similar response, but stressing that they couldn't be in Portugal between May 15th and May 17th.

Diana, Fiona and David Payne also accepted, while waiting for advice from their lawyers. After the PJ's detailed explanations, Jeremy Wilkins was willing to participate, on conditon that the other witnesses were also in Portugal.

The criminal court took the decision to set a new date: 29th and 30th of May 2008. Then Gerald McCann requested a change to this new date, because his lawyer had another meeting planned before the Lisbon court, for May 29th. His request was refused because it was impossible to make a further revision of the date, due to the numbers of people involved.

On May 10th, Rachel and Matthew Oldfield sent an email to Stuart Prior, communicating their final decision to him: they would not be in Portugal to participate in the reconstruction. Russel O'Brien, also on May 10th, told the Superintendent that as he had learned that Jeremy Wilkins, the Oldfields and the Payne family had now decided not to go to Portugal, there was now no need for their presence, because the Prosecutor had said that the reconstruction could not take place unless all the witnesses were present.

On May 23rd, all seven of the McCanns' friends sent a formal reply to the Prosecutor's request for a reconstruction, saying that they would not be attending, after advice from their lawyers.

The reconstruction was therefore cancelled by the Judge for the Court of Criminal Investigation, on May 26th 2008.

Duarte Levy & Paulo Reis

http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/

10/08/08

(To be continued)

Discrepancies in Kate McCann's book - the plea bargain

2011-05-14T18:59:00.004+02:00

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

Page 129 of Kate McCann's book.

2011-05-13T19:24:00.008+02:00

..................
....................
(Click on image to enlarge)

I have no words to express the shock and disgust I feel that Kate McCann should have written the book for her children and include something like that.

Kate McCann, I've got news for you: The Langoliers are not coming!

2011-05-11T18:43:00.014+02:00

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

"The Langoliers," was a short story by Stephen King in which the eponymous "Langoliers," gobbled up the past. They were like huge, bouncing balloons that opened up and made holes in the landscape that had been the past.

I sometimes wonder if you think those Langoliers exist, Kate McCann, because you seem to forget that the past not only exists in people's memories, but it also nowadays exists on this wonderful internet. It was rather different in the days before such technology not only made instant communication from far-flung parts of the world possible, but kept a record of it too. YouTube, Kate, YouTube. Newspaper archives. Portuguese people to translate police files and upload them. These all hold records of what you have said in the past, in the four years since your daughter disappeared. And the Langoliers have not gobbled it all up.

Oh how dreadful when people throw one's words back in one's face! And oh how utterly awful when those words cannot be taken back or denied.

You want a "for instance"? Well, for instance, how about the following from an extract in The Sun from your about to be published book? It's that much-reported incident where Madeleine apparently asked you why you hadn't come when she was crying.

At breakfast time on the Thursday, Madeleine had a question for us. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?"

Now, because of this wonderful internet, I can call up all sorts of things, which have not been gobbled up by those very unhelpful Langoliers (where are they when you need them?)

Well, would you have a look at this? From the police files. Here is what Kate and Gerry McCann said on May 4th, 2007, the day after Madeleine disappeared.

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m.

On the morning of May 3rd, MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into her bedroom when the twins were crying. The deponent had heard nothing and therefore had not gone into the room, yet he thought his daughter’s comment was strange, even because it was the first time that she made it.

Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m.

She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday the 3rd, Madeleine asked the witness why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The witness states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom, nevertheless she found her daughter’s comment strange because it was the first time she had made it.

(Note: No time specified!)

And here is what Gerry said on May 10th 2007. The details had changed!

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.

On the day that MADELEINE disappeared, Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time, between 07H30 and 08H00. When they were having breakfast, MADELEINE addressed her mother and asked her "why didn't you come last night when SEAN and I were crying?" That he thought this comment very strange given that MADELEINE had never spoken like this and, the night before, they had maintained the same system of checking on the children, not having detected anything abnormal. When he questioned her about the comment, she left without any explanation.

(Note: There is now a specified time, but the bedroom isn't mentioned!)

Again from today's copy of The Sun:

"We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they'd gone to bed?
...Gerry and I were disconcerted. Could Madeleine and Sean have woken up while we were at dinner?"

Now, on May 4th 2007, both Gerry and Kate reported that Madeleine had asked why they hadn't come to her bedroom. Now, in this book, Kate is telling us that they asked Madeleine if the crying had been when she and Sean were having a bath. Not what was said on May 4th 2007!

I'll return to addressing you directly again, Mrs Kate. The Langoliers are not coming. All your statements are recorded and archived on this amazing World Wide Web and can be called up in an instant. I really think you should have done a bit more research for this book, particularly with regard to your own well-documented utterances. This is the kind of thing a friend should have told you and I believe your friend Fiona Payne helped jog your memory about events. Pity her memory is as bad as yours or maybe she would have pointed out the glaring errors of recall.

Some people are actually calling these errors lies, Mrs Kate, but I think you got a bit mixed up. I reckon you thought this book was going into the 'Fiction,' section and you totally forgot that the Langoliers were not coming.

In the words of a lovely older lady I know, who comes from 'oop north, "It's all me eye and Peggy Martin."

That book of yours, Mrs Kate, from what I read the other day to the lovely lady who is almost blind, "It's all me eye and Peggy Martin."

And for those who are not from 'oop north and don't know anyone from way up there, a quick translation.

It's pure fantasy!

Kate McCann: "Did they expect me to confess to a crime they had made up?"

2011-05-09T19:47:00.036+02:00

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

Now, there's a great deal I could say about Kate McCann's book, which will be released on May 12th, extracts of which are being published in The Sun, but today's offering is as good a place to start as any.

Kate McCann describes in her book how the police, via their lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, had offered a deal.

If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I'd receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I'd be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.

So, that, according to Kate McCann, was the deal: confess and we'll go easy on you. And what was her response?

Pardon? I really wasn't sure I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name?

And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her?

Well, first of all the ignominy of having such a charge against her name. Not, "I would never have harmed my daughter and I'm not going to confess to having done so. I'm going to look for her with every last breath in my body." Her good name!

And what might the result be? That the whole world would stop looking for Madeleine. Note: not that Kate McCann would therefore not be able to look for her child, but everyone else might stop. Somebody else can do it! The world's press can keep Madeleine's name in the public's attention. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?

There's going to be a riot when news of all this reaches people back in the UK.

Why should there be a riot? They're not Posh and Becks! No, no rioting in the streets! Just pictures of Kate and Gerry hot-footing it out of Portugal with uncommon haste!

There's no way our government will stand for this. (Four months down the line and still so naive!)

Now, why should the UK government stand for or not stand for the work of the police of another sovereign nation? Why should the government intercede on behalf of the McCanns?

Then we come to dem doggies!

I knew exactly where this line of questioning was going and as much as it riled me, I refused to rise to it. Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. "These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate," he said, waving an A4 document in front of me.

"Two hundred cases and they've never failed. We have gone to the best laboratory in the world using low-copy DNA techniques."

His emphasis suggested this was the gold standard. I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them than I did.

So, what did it matter that the dogs had never been used in Portugal? And at that point how did Kate McCann know that? He knew little more about them than she did? I very much doubt that, but we must read on to find out exactly how little Kate McCann knew about those dogs, exactly how little she managed to find out even given that there is so much information readily available on the internet.

The dogs in apartment 5A, according to Kate McCann:

Each dog ran around the apartment, jumping over beds, into the wardrobe, generally having a good sniff.

At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this site.

The dogs ultimately "alerted". I felt myself relax a little. This was not what I'd call an exact science. In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs began to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture.

And the vehicle which was hired some time after Madeleine disappeared?

The film show continued. Now we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic.

It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an "unblinded" study, one that is susceptible to bias.

One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.

The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed; returning to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking.

Neither of those descriptions from Kate McCann is accurate, as can be seen from actual footage of the dogs with the vehicle and in the apartment.

In the underground car park.

As can be seen very clearly, Martin Grime drew Eddie's attention to each of the vehicles in turn, bringing him back to sniff. It wasn't just to the McCann's vehicle.

Eddie and Keela in apartment 5A. Video from Duarte Levy.*

Note that Martin Grime allows Eddie to run around the apartment and then directs him to specific areas, none of which Eddie pays particular attention to. When Eddie 'alerts,' in the wardrobe at 4.00, Martin Brime is actually standing back, not giving any direction.

After being directed very clearly to very specific areas, when Eddie jumps onto the sofa, he nearly disappears behind it: from 6.00. So, the sofa was not particularly chosen, not indicated for attention any more than all the other areas that Grime drew Eddie's attention to.

When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasised that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence.

'The conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.' In over 200 successful cases? Well, either Martin Grime had information about those cases that meant there was no need for the dogs: just let Martin Grime have a good sniff! He's cheaper to hire than the dogs anyway! Or Grime is psychic!

Now this part of Kate McCann's writing about the dogs is very significant, as far as I am concerned.

As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the "odour of death", putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than 30 days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.

Now, I ask myself, why should any timescale be important? Kate McCann is wrong, by the way, as she would have found out by doing some very easy searching on Google. I'll post links at the end to good information about the length of time in which a cadaver dog can still detect the odour, but I'll leave that for now and just focus on this 30 days issue. (See Addendum)

Why is it important? Why would it matter at all if Kate McCann knew that while she and her husband had the vehicle no dead body, or anything that had come into contact with a dead body, had been transported in the vehicle?

Has Kate McCann inadvertently given something away here? Does it matter because it was more than 30 days since a dead body had been in the vehicle? Did it matter because after 30 days 'There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find.'? Because it was, in fact, more than 30 days since there had been 'decaying body parts,' in the vehicle, so therefore there were none and the dogs were wrong?

Imagine!

Kate: They've got us bang to rights, Gerry. Those dogs are spot on every time.
Gerry: No, we're in the clear. The odour only lasts for 30 days. Look at the calender!

Why the need to find out what the time period was in which a cadaver dog could still detect the odour? It was a fairly new vehicle and no one had died in it or been transported dead in it previously. So, why 30 days?

As I said, why does the timescale matter if Kate McCann knew, that as far as she and her husband were concerned, there had been no dead body in the vehicle while it was in their possession?

Can we assume a 'therefore,' between, 'As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the "odour of death", putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than 30 days.' and 'There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.'

Something to ponder? Aye!

* http://duartelevyinfo.blip.tv/file/1271542/

Addendum

Residual scent in buildings: http://www.csst.org/residual_scent.html

The case of Jean Zapata.

Jean disappeared in 1976. Friends never believed that she had abandoned her young daughter. In 2005, the case was re-opened and cadaver dogs were brought in.

Madison Police Officer Carren Corcoran has trained and handled cadaver dogs for the last ten years.

"It's hard to imagine that a dog can detect something from 30 years in a basement. How is that possible?" Schlesinger asks.

"I think that an entire body decomposing, possibly early on and in a space like the crawlspace, which was really [a] primo environment to contain scent. There's no wind. There's no rain. The temperature stays about the same all the time," Corcoran explains.

On Jan. 6, 2005, Statz, Corcoran and Cleo the cadaver dog went to work in the crawlspace. "Right away she started really working and working, and working the area of both outside the crawlspace, and into the crawlspace. And then she eventually provided a formal indication, which is a bark for Cleo," Corcoran remembers.

Then, a second dog reacted the same way. Police started excavating the crawlspace.

"We found some hairs. We collected bug carcasses and a Burger King cup. We found things. But we did not find anything that we could tie to Jeanette Zapata," Statz says.

Jean's husband, Eugene confessed to her killing.

CBS News

Madeleine McCann - The police files video - Updated

2011-04-28T09:11:00.005+02:00

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

Madeleine McCann - The police report video

2011-04-23T16:22:00.005+02:00

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

Madeleine McCann - without Jane Tanner's abductor the house of cards falls.

2011-04-12T13:58:00.025+02:00

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

....................
The question has been asked many times: where is the proof that Madeleine McCann was abducted? Without Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of an alleged abductor, what is there?

The shutters were not 'jemmied,' there was no DNA left by a stranger and the only fingerprints on the window of Madeleine's bedroom belonged to Kate McCann.

Jane Tanner's first description of the person she had seen was of a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child. Her description went through various developments over the course of the next few months, but the first development was following what she referred to as 'a cognitive technique.'

Jane Tanner - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007, 23.15pm

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas."

- Quoted in The Sun, 20 November 2007

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html

So, we then had the addition of the pyjamas, which Jane Tanner was able to identify as white or 'light pink,' a colour that would, in my opinion, not be recognisable under sodium street lights.

About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain. (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html )

On October 25th, 2007, a sketch of the alleged abductor appeared in the press. This was the most detailed one to date, one which Jane Tanner agreed matched the person she had seen carrying the child, which by this date was definitely Madeleine. Now, I realise that I'm skipping a lot here, but the important detail I'd like to focus on is the actual pyjamas that Madeleine was said to have been wearing when she disappeared on the evening of May 3rd 2007 from the unlocked apartment in Praia da Luz.

So, on October 25th 2007, this was the image of the abductor which was presented. Note the legs of the pyjamas, reaching the ankles, tight around the legs and ankles.

Here is the campaign photo of Kate and Gerry McCann holding a pair of pyjamas, which were said to be identical to those worn by Madeleine when she disappeared.

Note the legs of those pyjamas, the ones that are identical to those reported to have been worn by Madeleine when she disappeared. Would those pyjamas have been tight around the legs and ankles of the child who was wearing them? They're baggy and cropped. It's my opinion that if a child wearing those pyjamas were to be carried in the manner illustrated, the legs of the pyjamas would ride up over the knees. The child's calves would be seen to be bare and if any of the pyjama bottoms was visible, it would be just the frilled parts, peeking over the knees.

What can we conclude from the above?

Jane Tanner's memory was not as good as she thought it had been perhaps. She did see a man carrying Madeleine away from the apartment, but she just didn't quite recall what the pyjamas were like, though she did state that she had seen bare feet and not bare legs.

Still, Jane could have just been a bit hazy in her recall. The person who would know what the pyjamas were like and what they'd look like on a child whom she probably helped into and out of them on quite a few occasions would be Kate McCann. Surely Kate McCann would look at the sketch and realise that it wasn't accurate? Wouldn't she? Wouldn't Kate McCann know and tell us that those pyjamas would not have been seen to be tight around the legs and ankles of a child being carried like that because they were baggy and cropped?

If Kate McCann did not contradict the details shown on the sketch, why not? If she presents an inaccurate image as true, knowing it to be inaccurate, then she is colluding with a lie. Whether that lie is just about the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing or is about anything more sinister, only she and Jane Tanner and a few others may know. We do know that Kate McCann is lying about the accuracy of the sketch, simply by her actions.

(* Still is from the video posted below)

It would seem that the sketch is not an accurate representation of the way Madeleine was said to have been clothed when she was abducted. So, why does Kate McCann have what appears to be the original of the sketch next to her computer? Why isn't Kate McCann pointing out the inaccuracies? Why isn't she saying that if Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas like that it wasn't Madeleine? By accepting that sketch and using it in her campaign, she is colluding with the inaccuracy of it and, in my opinion, lying by omission.

Why?

Perhaps because that sketch is all she's got to back up a story about an abductor having taken her daughter. And if that is false, then what is left? Nothing. The house of cards built on Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of an abductor falls.

* Image is shown at 4.49 on this video.

Spam called Maddie McCann

2011-04-11T17:22:00.011+02:00

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

Spam: spam, spam or trash is an unsolicited communication via email. In general, it's sent in huge numbers for advertising reasons.

Four years after her strange disappearance, a photo of Madeleine McCann may very soon arrive in your email inbox. In any case, that's what an Australian daily newspaper tells us, quoting aunts of the little British girl.

According to Phil and Diane McCann, this will be the case for 80% of internet users world-wide. "I am asking everyone I know to forward this chain email, because the case is not covered outside the United Kingdom, Ireland and Portugal," says Phil McCann, stressing that the family do not believe that Maddie is still in Portugal.

The objective of this initiative, according to Diane, "is to highlight the distinction in Madeleine's eye," - information, however, which has already been broadcast world-wide. "The pupil runs into the blue-green iris."

Maddie's disappearance was reported on the night of May 3rd 2007 in Praia da Luz, a very peaceful tourist village in the south of Portugal.

As the fourth anniversary of the disappearance approaches, Maddie's parents, Kate and Gerry, are getting ready to publish a book which tells their version of the case.
Originally planned for release on April 29th, the book, "Madeleine," finally comes out on May 12th, "to avoid clashing with media coverage of the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton."

Further reading:

Kate McCann teme ser agredida (In Spanish)

Hunt for Madeleine McCann: the next chapter (In English)

Duarte Levy

SOS Madeleine McCann 10/04/11

Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry are 'negligible parents,' who were dining in the restaurant next door!

2011-04-11T13:59:00.038+02:00

.....................
It's that perennial problem when there's been some kind of serious problem in the family. "What shall we tell the children?"

So, what have Kate and Gerry McCann told their twin children, Sean and Amelie and what will they tell them as the twins grow old enough to ask serious questions and perhaps find information for themselves on the internet?

Well, Aunty Phil, what have Sean and Amelie been told has happened?

Philomena McCann, in response to the question, "Sean and Amelie, what have they been told has happened?"

'No, they haven't been told. Eh, they ask about Madeleine, they ask quite regularly, but Gerry and Kate have not told them where she is...'

They have not told the twins where Madeleine is? What?!! Does that mean that Gerry and Kate know where she is?

Quick correction by Aunty Phil!

'Well, we don't know where she is, but they haven't actually said, eh, that she's missing. They think that maybe she's with...'

They? Which they? The twins or Kate and Gerry? Whoever they are, who is it that they think Madeleine is with? And why should they think Madeleine is with that person/persons?

Quick change of course here for Aunty Phil. Bet she wishes her niece had disappeared in the pre-internet days when interviews were paraphrased by reporters and it was easy to deny having said something! But woops! It was out of her mouth and recorded! Who thought Madeleine was with the unnamed person/people? Kate and Gerry? Who would they think Madeleine was with? The twins thought that? Maybe they assumed or were told that Madeleine was with her grandmother in Scotland or were just allowed to think that?

And so Philomena carries on, waffling away to try to cover up, in my opinion, that she's just said that and the rest of what she burbles on about is not an answer to the question and it's really apropos of nothing.

No, (No what? What was she saying 'no,' to?) because we have a large family and they appear regularly (They 'appear,' like Frankie Howard might say, 'Just like that!'? The members of this large family just 'appear,' and Madeleine just disappears into thin air! for their next trick!) out in Portugal or when they were down in Leicester. (Which they?) So, they're kinda used to the kids being taken away for a day or their..(Suspended sentence here? Their what? Or their who? Doing what?) And you know, kids at two don't realise how long a period of time is. You know, it's different. They know they're not seeing Madeleine (It would be pretty strange if they didn't know they weren't seeing her!) They'll ask and then they're away playing again.

Well, I think that was not very helpful for Kate and Gerry, Aunty Phil! You've given the impression that Kate and Gerry know where Madeleine is and that they or the twins think they know who she is with. Not helpful at all!

And oh dear! Here's one you made earlier!

'The childcare facilities, you're leaving people (the children?) with other folk that you don't know. (Well, actually, it was the nannies who ran the daytime creche who did the evening child care!) Gerry and Kate are in a clear line of sight of their kids (No, they could see the top of the balcony. So, unless the kids or an abductor walked out on very tall stilts, no hope of seeing anyone coming or going!) They regularly go across to check maybe if the kids have been disturbed, or crying or anything or if they'd come out the front they'd have seen them. (Right!)
It is obvious that someone with malicious intent went through that window (Skinny Malinky?) and took Madeleine from the safety and security of her family. (She was in an unlocked apartment and her 'family,' couldn't even see any of the doors. Safety and security? So, how were they keeping her safe and secure?)'

Here it comes folks!

'To suggest in any possible way that Kate and Gerry are negligible par...negligent pair....negligent parents...'

I'll stop there! The rest is just more damage limitation waffle!

So, what will Kate and Gerry tell the twins when Sean and Amelie start asking those very awkward questions, like, 'Where were you when our sister disappeared?'

Mr McCann said: ‘Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.
‘They know they went to sleep and when they woke up she had disappeared. But they still don’t understand that somebody took her.
‘When they become aware of this I think they will want to know where we were. And we will have to explain to them that we were having dinner in the restaurant next door.’( Daily Mail May 2nd 2010)

Now look, Kate and Gerry, I wouldn't try telling the twins that because they'll find out for themselves when they can browse the internet that the 'restaurant next door,' was 120 yards away, down a public road, through a reception area into the secure (ha!) resort, and round the swimming pool. I guess your excuse could be that you just didn't say what it was next door to! 'Well, it was 'next door to' the swimming pool. Silly me,' says Gerry, 'shoulda said that!'

Sean and Amelie move into the junior section of their school this year. And they're going to be mixing with children up to the age of eleven, some of whom will have heard people discussing Madeleine's disappearance or found information for themselves on the internet and kids cannot always be relied on to keep their mouths shut! So, what will Kate and Gerry tell Sean and Amelie when they come home asking questions, perhaps in the not-too-distant future? Those school kids will come out with some not very helpful things. I imagine the response might be that it's just those 'internet nutters.' There's a lot of us nutters around, Kate and Gerry. So, I think you'd better start practising your script for when those questions get asked!

'Why did you hire all those dodgy detective agencies mummy and daddy?'

'What did you spend three million pounds on mummy and daddy?'

'Why didn't you go out looking for Madeleine on the night she disappeared?'

And many more I should think!

It's coming Kate and Gerry. And what will you tell them? What indeed!

Gonçalo Amaral interview April 4th on W9 with Sidonie Bonnec and Paul Lefèvre.

2011-04-07T19:09:00.040+02:00

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

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

Sidonie Bonnec

The preview: (This programme was due to have been aired about 2 years ago, but was cancelled)

On Monday April 4th at 8.40pm on W9, through two unpublished documentaries, 'Enquêtes Criminelles' proposes to focus on the strange disappearance, on May 3rd 2007, of little Maddie McCann.

Maddie: the banned investigation.

Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese police office who directed the investigation before being thrown off it, is convinced of the parents involvement in the death of their daughter. According to the police officer, the little girl died accidentally in the apartment where the family were spending their holiday. Then the parents made it look like an abduction. For Gonçalo Amaral, the McCann couple lied to the investigators "because they were negligent with their children. They went to dinner leaving them alone. Such behaviour is reprehensible. They then set up the kidnapping story." Gonçalo Amaral returned to the scene of the drama. Before our cameras, he reconstructed, minute by minute, everything that happened on the day of the disappearance and put forward the contradictions from the various witnesses. You will see exclusive images recorded by the Portuguese police, which notably show the reaction of the police dogs as they went through Maddie's parents' apartment.

The parents' argument

In spite of Gonçalo Amaral's statements and the archiving of the investigation, Gerry and Kate McCann still believe that their daughter is alive. A few weeks ago, they published an age-advanced image of their daughter in the hope of finding her. Moreover, they have engaged two detectives who continue the investigation. The two men went back to the scene in Praia da Luz to produce a filmed reconstruction of the day of the drama. They found new witnesses who stated that they had seen a man hanging about near the McCanns' holiday apartment, several days before Maddie's disappearance. For them, that leaves no doubt: the man is the abductor. Following the detectives' investigation, you will see how, two years after the events, the McCanns are trying to live in their home near Leicester, in the English midlands, with their twin children.

What follows is a translation of a transcription of the programme which aired on the evening of Monday April 4th. Bonnec and Lefèvre present, 'Enquetes Criminelles' on French TV Channel W9.

The documentary produced with Gonçalo Amaral, based on his book, 'A verdade da Mentira,' (The Truth of the Lie) was shown first, followed by the interview with Gonçalo Amaral. Then came a video entitled, 'The parents' argument,' which is no longer available on the W9 web site, but from the transcript it seems to be part of the programme made for Channel 4, otherwise known as 'the mockumentary.'

This is Part 1 of the Amaral documentary, the rest of which I shall post at the end of this transcript.

Start of the broadcast. Sylvie Bonnec recalls the circumstances of May 3rd and how G Amaral was thrown off the investigation but remains convinced that sooner or later the truth will see the light of day (images from the documentary) She introduces Paul Lefèvre, a legal journalist. She recalls that 4 years later, the parents were exonerated after having been suspected. She presents surprising images recorded by the police. Kate’s appeal to the abductors is shown from start to finish and then a voiceover says that the official conclusion of the investigation states that the little girl had been abducted while she slept. SB then says that according to Amaral, the little girl died on May 3rd (and that the parents were involved in her disappearance), a version that many would like to see quashed.

She leads into the two documentaries, stating that they are unpublished in France: Amaral’s and the McCanns’ (with no further clarification as to their provenance) If I heard the phrase “4 years after,” correctly, it may be that the programme has been partly remade and the old footage added. It’s quite confusing.

Amaral footage: female voice commentating in French, apparently faithful in translation and intonation.
Return to the set with Amaral. Interview. (rough transcription from what I can remember, but there are certainly gaps) Transcription by frencheuropean.

L: You were taken off the investigation. Why does it bother you?

A: Before replying, I’d like to clarify one point. The parents were not innocent. That’s wrong. The case was closed, the parents could have opposed it but they preferred to use private detectives. It’s wrong to say that they were innocent.
It bothers me because I am telling the truth. The book represents 5 months of the investigation: the theory from the investigation. It’s the conclusion of the process in September 2007. Afterward, only one theory was retained, that of kidnapping. Other people were asked to keep quiet (myself and others)

L: I have experience of police investigations and sometimes the police have convictions and want to fit everything into that conviction. That’s the feeling I have here. No other theory seems to interest you.

A: That’s wrong. There is a beginning, a middle and an end to an investigation. The book ends in the middle of the investigation. At one time it was leaning towards kidnapping. But an investigation needs to run its course. Well, the investigation was prevented from concluding. The book is police work that some would like to be kept hidden.

B: I don’t understand why you attach so much importance to the fact that Kate did not shout from the balcony, took the long way round rather than the shorter route to warn the tapas, bearing in mind the dark night and the cold.

L: It’s a minor point but specialists say that the first reaction is to protect the remaining children. Kate left them alone (in these circumstances)

B: Why not have taken the little girl to the hospital (in the case of an accident)?

A: The investigation was half-way through. We were just beginning to see things. It should have run its course. There were perhaps other theories: a burglar who could have killed the child and taken her body elsewhere, for example….other tracks. (Note: the reply does no really relate to the question. There is a cut in the interview?)

L: OK, you say that the police officer who followed you gave up, lay down and that there was political pressure.

A: Your interpretation is correct.

L: (Explains the different roles of the two dogs) What were the English dogs looking for, a living or a dead person?

A: They were looking for a body.

L: You say the child was killed falling from the sofa. Can a child really be killed falling 60 centimetres?

A: It’s possible.

B: What more could you have done?

A: Look for the freezer, who had one. At that time I was dismissed and nobody looked in that direction.

L: How could the parents have got rid of a body? They were under constant surveillance that evening.

A: We should bear in mind that the police were informed well after the alert was raised. The alert doesn’t coincide with the “kidnapping,” any more than the witness statement from Tanner who says she saw the kidnapper at 9.30pm and didn’t alert the police. Why? In reality, when the parents gave the alert, all worries about transport (of the body) were taken care of.

McCanns’s documentary. Return to the set.

L: 3 witnesses (those who saw a man watching the apartment) were heard by their detectives: did you rule out these witness statements or did you miss this?

A: Everybody near that busy road was interrogated. The police interrogated all the witnesses, even a musician who was sleeping in his car.

L: Did you find that man?

A: It was D Payne, the McCanns’ friend who was often with them and the witness statement of the young girl was not reckoned to be of any value. (Note: the one who saw the horrible spotty man, I assume)
Concerning the man carrying the child seen by Tanner: there is a huge problem. J Tanner produced a lot of discrepancies, going from great uncertainty at the beginning through certainty with the progression of successive statements.
The Smiths were 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann…The film (the McCanns’) speaks of two witnesses (with similar statements) but Smith talks about the child carried with her head on the shoulder and Tanner across the arms.

L: You are a well-known man in Portugal, a man of experience. Do you really think that this nice, middle-class English couple, are calculating and Machiavellian enough to have done this?

A: It’s not the problem posed by an individual who believes something. It’s a police investigation, within the context of police work
Someone goes on holiday in a foreign country and thinks the laws are the same. Concerning the law, in England abandoning children is severely punished…

L: (cutting Amaral off by bursting out laughing) Everybody does it!

A: (Raising his voice, sounding angry) Yes, it’s abandonment to leave children on their own like that….it’s non-punishable negligence in Portugal. In England it’s punishable and the tapas know it.

L: Is that why they concealed the body?

A. There could be other reasons: so that the state of the body would not be known. But there wasn’t time to explore the theories. Perhaps if the investigation had been completed they’d all have been done?

End of the interviews. S. Bonnec concludes by saying:

“Maddie’s parents did not wish to come and have their say.”

On Monday this week, Kate McCann was having an 'emotional battle' finishing her book about Madeleine.

2011-04-01T13:50:00.028+02:00

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

And today, we read in the very same newspaper, the Daily Express:

Kate’s 384-page memoir, Madeleine, is being published on the missing girl’s birthday on May 12 and has been translated into several languages, including Portuguese and Spanish.

So, on Monday March 28th the book wasn't finished and by Friday April 1st, the book has been translated into several languages? Bear in mind that the Express article was featured on the Sky News web site before midnight on March 31st and available to read online after midnight. So, the book had been translated by Thursday, just three days after Kate McCann was struggling with her 'emotional battle' to finish it. Now, I may be just one of those internet nutters, who are still not convinced that Madeleine McCann was abducted from her bedroom in apartment 5A in Praia da Luz, but I really don't believe the publishing industry works like that or as fast as that.

The family’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Kate is writing the book to raise awareness of her daughter’s disappearance and to pay private investigators to continue the search to find her.

If there is anyone in the developed world who has never heard of Madeleine McCann and needs to have their awareness raised after nearly 4 years of the McCanns seeking every possible opportunity to keep themselves and Madeleine's name in the media, then that person has been in a coma or lost somewhere in one of the few places in the world where the internet has not spread its web.

And those private investigators, where have any of them looked? There was Metodo 3, who had no previous experience of finding missing people, Kevin Halligen, now fighting extradition to the USA on charges of fraud and money laundering, and Edgar and Cowley, working from their office in Knutsford. Have they checked out those 'hellish lairs,' just a few kilometres from Praia da Luz? Have they interviewed that ex nightclub bouncer, who claims to know for certain that Madeleine was abducted by an international paedophile ring and taken to the USA?

Kate, and her husband Gerry hope the book will be read by Madeleine’s abductors and even by their daughter, who will turn eight next month.

So, are they trying to tell us that they think the international paedophile ring that abducted Madeleine will have taught her to read? And if Madeleine had been abducted by a bunch of paedos, who for some reason have not responded so far to all the media hoop-la, those abductors will buy a copy of the book, have a good cry, and take Madeleine back home? 'Oh we have been such naughty paedos. Here she is and we have made sure she has not missed out on education or been harmed in any way.' Remind me of the date today, someone. It is April 1st, isn't it?

A friend said: “Kate is hoping the book will keep the search going for another year.”

So, not expecting Madeleine to be found in the near future then? The McCanns think it may take more than a year for the abductors to feel really bad or for that 'someone who knows something,' to have an attack of conscience? Who's the fool today? The Express for printing this carp or anyone who believes it? Both probably!

'Family warns kidnappers.'? Warns them about what?

A friend said last night: “The book is another warning from the family that they will never stop searching for their beloved daughter. Whoever snatched Madeleine should be warned that the book will only bolster the search efforts.”

They will never stop searching? I didn't know they'd started. Paedos and residents of 'lawless villages,' beware! A horde of people armed with copies of Kate McCann's book will be descending on you, to beat you about the head with the 384 page hardback. I'm sure they're all quivering!

They also hope “whoever may be with her is treating her with the love and respect she so deserves”.

Right! So, the McCanns will be hoping that those kindly abductors are not leaving her on her own to go down the pub, then?

Kate has recently accused the Government of giving up the hunt for her daughter, saying a series of ministers had shrugged off her pleas for help.

She said: “We need action, not fluffy, worthless words.”

Action? Kate McCann wants action? Well, she could take action herself. She could go back to Portugal and answer the 48 questions she refused to answer, knowing that her refusal could hinder the investigation into her daughter's disappearance. She could also insist that a reconstruction of the events of the evening of May 3rd 2007 is carried out. If she is expecting us to believe that after nearly 4 years, her book could jog someone's memory about Madeleine's disappearance, then a visual re-enactment of the events, as outlined in the witness statements given at the time, would surely be a very helpful compliment to the book.

'Not fluffy words,' words, Kate, but I have my doubts that your 'account of the truth,' will be anything more than that, unless you will be explaining all the contradictions and discrepancies in witness statements from you, your husband and your seven holiday friends, and how your daughter managed to disappear into thin air with absolutely no trace of any stranger having entered the apartment and no credible sighting since then.

But hey ho! You hadn't finished the book on Monday and by Thursday it had been translated into several languages. Who am I to question this? I'm just an internet nutter of a blogger!

If I may be so bold, Mrs Kate, about that book of yours....

2011-03-28T12:07:00.040+02:00

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

..at the moment I don't think I'll be buying it, but if I thought I'd find at least some of the answers to lots of questions that have been buzzing round the internet and my head since your daughter Madeleine disappeared, I might reconsider.

For a start, those shutters. Were they, in fact jemmied, shattered, smashed or otherwise interfered with? And if they weren't why did you tell all your friends and relations that they were?

In the hours after Madeleine disappeared into thin air, several people received phone calls. Gerry phoned his sister Trish Cameron at 23.40 on May 3rd.

Daily Mirror May 5th 2007

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken."

One of the people you phoned, Mrs Kate, was your good friend, Jill Renwick, though why you'd be on the phone to a friend in the UK at 7am on May 4th, rather than out scouring the bushes is beyond me, but there you go, I'm just one of those internet nutters asking questions.

Close family friend Gill Renwick, of Liverpool, who also spoke to GP Kate yesterday, said: "Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn.
"Madeleine has obviously been taken. She couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters were forced." (Daily Mirror 5/05/2007)

Then there was Jon Corner, Godfather to the twins. Contacted at 3am, May 4th, by Mrs Kate.

"Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her. Kate was incredibly upset. I've spoken to her since, and she's still completely devastated."

I think there were a few others Mrs Kate, like your childhood friend Linda McQueen, whom you phoned at 2am, who also received calls about those shutters, but that'll do for now. The shutters were 'forced,' (Jill Renwick) 'jemmied,' (Trish Cameron) 'smashed.' (Jon Corner)

However, when Gonçalo Amaral's team arrives on May 4th, what do they find?

- apartment has no signs of a break in, as opposed to what the parents say and what "Sky News" reports (McCann Files)

Another statement from the police.

In early September, The Sunday Times spoke to a detective from the Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR), the local police, who was called to the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. "What we found did not seem to be the scene of a kidnapping," he said. "There were no signs of forced entry, the shutters had not been forced from outside and the apartment had clearly not been broken into." (McCann Files)

So, how come all those folks reported that the shutters had been interfered with? All those people reported in media interviews, soon after Madeleine disappeared, that they had been told about those shutters being jemmied, smashed or forced. So, why?

Then there is the question, Mrs Kate, about how you know immediately that Madeleine had been taken?

"She searched the flat three times and realised she was gone." Cuddle Cat was abandoned in the bedroom. Kate was frantic. She searched the apartment but knew immediately Madeleine had been abducted. "I never thought for one second that she'd walked out," she said. "I knew someone had been in the apartment because of the way it had been left. There wasn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind she'd been taken.(The Sun 28/04/2008)

You couldn't tell us at the time, Mrs Kate, when you were bound by the secrecy of justice and especially when you were made an arguida, but you could have told us when your status was lifted or when the case was archived and the files were released. Are you going to finally tell us in your book how you knew immediately and what it was about how the apartment had been left that told you immediately that Madeleine had been abducted? That would be very helpful in understanding how you were so sure that Madeleine couldn't have wandered off. I hope you don't think this is a ludicrous suggestion on my part because I don't think I'm the only internet nutter who'd like to know!

On November 25th, 2008, your dear sister-in-law, Philomena McCann was quoted in the Press and Journal thus:

Ms McCann said: “Kate is mainly doing it and I know she has written some very truthful and scathing things relating to the Portuguese police.

Things relating to the Portuguese police? Well, seems that there were quite scathing reports immediately about things relating to the Portuguese police.

Speaking to the BBC later, Ms Renwick said the McCanns, who had been holidaying with three other British families, had felt let down by police in Portugal. "I spoke to them this morning and they said the police had done nothing overnight and they felt as if they'd been left on their own. They just don't know where to turn."

However, the manager at the Mark Warner resort, John Hill said the police had been doing all they could. He said around 60 staff and guests at the complex had searched until 4.30am while police notified border police, Spanish police and airports. (McCann Files)

I guess maybe you didn't notice all those people out searching while you were busy making phone calls!

On June 14th 2007, Mrs Kate, you and Gerry were contacted by an anonymous person who claimed to have knowledge of Madeleine's whereabouts. A demand was made for 2 million Euros and working with police in The Netherlands, contact was set up and Gerry was to take a phone call about organising the handing over of the money. Now, what I'd like to know is why Gerry was so nonchalant while he was waiting.

From Chapter 5 of "The Truth of the Lie."

The atmosphere got heavier as the waiting drew out, but McCann, relaxed, was reading trivia on the internet and discussing rugby and football with the English police, while licking a lollipop. On the telephone, he laughed with friends who called him. Perhaps this was nervousness; sometimes it's totally displaced, given what is at stake at the time. His attitude shocked. When, two days later the dutch police informed us that the individual had been arrested, that he was not holding any information and had lied from start to finish with the sole objective of extorting money from the couple, we were not surprised.

So, there they were, the police and Gerry waiting for a phone call from someone who claimed to know where Madeleine was, and Gerry was browsing the internet, talking about sport and sucking a lollipop. Will you mention this in your book and maybe explain why Gerry just didn't seem too bothered? Potentially, he was about to learn how he could get his daughter back and you'd think he'd be on the edge of his seat, but Gerry didn't seem in the least nervous. Very odd if you ask me.

To be continued:

The 48 questions.
The pink blanket.
Gerry and the lollipop.
"I know. I was there."

And anything else I recall in the meantime!

McCanns' appeal against lifting of ban on Gonçalo Amaral's book turned down by Portugal's Supreme Court of Justice

2011-03-18T14:49:00.012+01:00

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

According to today's online edition of Sol.pt the Supreme Court of Justice has turned down the McCanns' appeal against the lifting of the ban on Gonçalo Amaral's book 'A Verdade da Mentira,' by the lower court.

The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, must now return all copies of Amaral's book, which were seized following the original order to ban the book.

Contacted by Sol, Isabel Duarte refused to comment on the ruling.

Gonçalo Amaral interview April 4th on W9 with Sidonie Bonnec and Paul Lefèvre.

2011-03-15T18:38:00.015+01:00

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

Sidonie Bonnec

On April 4th, Enquêtes Criminelles, a magazine programme for French TV Network W9, will feature an interview with Gonçalo Amaral on set with Sidonie Bonnec and Paul Lefèvre.

According to Le figaro TV Mag Enquêtes Criminelles will feature 2 unpublished items on the Madeleine McCann case.

We'll have a hoedown an' a hootenanny cos Maddie's in the USA!

2011-02-18T09:30:00.035+01:00

......................................
.....................................
No, folks, she's not in Dubai with this man....

.......and she's not in a 'hellish lair' within 10 miles of Praia da Luz, where Dave Edgar, super-sleuth employed by Kate and Gerry McCann told the Belfast Telegraph:

“Maddie is most likely being held captive, possibly in an underground cellar, just like Natascha or Elisabeth, and could emerge at any time,” he told us.

And on 14th December 2007, when Metodo3 gave themselves just 11 days to have Maddie home for Christmas, it was lucky we didn't organise a welcoming committee, even though Mr Head Super Sleuth was so sure:

The director general of Metodo 3, the private detective firm hired by the McCanns, confidently predicted Madeleine would be rescued from her kidnappers in North Africa or the Iberian Peninsula.
Despite not knowing exactly where Madeleine is being held, Mr Marco proclaimed to a Spanish newspaper that he was certain which group of paedophiles had taken her and he was gathering proof so police could arrest them.

Madeleine McCann was handed over to a millionaire Australian in Barcelona, she was kidnapped to order by a Belgian paedo ring, she was seen in a Belgian city, accompanied by a woman wearing a Muslim robe, she was seen by a great many witnesses in Morocco, she was alive and well and attending a school in the USA.....hold on! She is in the USA. How do we know? Well, it's in The Sun, so it's got to be true. An 'amateur sleuth,' knows who took her! Here you go!

Woops! Wrong one! He's dead! And I don't think he was ever in the USA!

So, this is it, folks! Sure, Madeleine has been seen on all five continents, sometimes on the same day, but this is it now. This man definitely knows who took Madeleine and at the risk of his own life, he has finally been 'brave,' enough to tell the cops! Only took him nearly four years and he may even be in time to get the details squeezed into that book Kate's writing.

AN INVESTIGATOR has told cops Madeleine McCann was taken to the US - and he has named two key suspects.
Marcelino Italiano, 36, said she had been snatched by an Algarve-based paedophile ring. The amateur sleuth added: "They can get away with anything."

Would The Sun tell us fibs? Do you reckon they think they can get away with anything at The Sun, as long as it has 'Madeleine McCann,' in the super-sized headline? Well, I the Queen of Sheba, believe every word.

Claims ... what Italiano says
Italiano, 36, said the ring was based in Faro and Albufeira, but had high-level contacts in Portugal's judiciary and links to a legal practice in London.

The judiciary? I bet it's that judge who unbanned Amaral's book. Cunning, eh? Bet he eats sardines during his two hour boozy lunches! (The Mirror told us about those sardine-munching cops!)

Links to a legal practice in London? Come on down Carter-Ruck! You've been rumbled!

So, let's have a hoedown an' a hootenanny, folks, cos Maddie is definitely in the USA! (Unless those cunning Portuguese paedos are fooling us and she's really unharmed in that 'hellish lair.')

Sorry folks, I just can't be @rsed to post any more of that shoite published by The Sun. You'll just have to read it for yourself. I'm going to do something much more useful with my time. Think I'll go poke a mad dog with a long stick! I'll probably get a lot more sense out of it!