Raymond Hewlett: a very sick man near the end of his life.
The Sun, September 1st 2010, by Antonella Lazzeri and Andrew Crick.
MADELEINE McCann suspect Raymond Hewlett confessed on his deathbed that he KNEW what happened to the little girl, The Sun can reveal.
In a letter to his estranged son Wayne, he denied having anything to do with Maddie's disappearance.
But he said he knew she had been stolen to order by a gipsy gang who kidnap children for wealthy couples unable to have kids or adopt.
Now, consider these wealthy couples who are unable to have kids or adopt: too old to adopt? What other reasons might there be? And wouldn't these wealthy couples want a very young child who would adjust easily to a new environment?
Madeleine McCann was nearly four years old and therefore cognitively mature enough to have a good vocabulary, good communication skills and the developmental level of memory to recall where she came from. Amelie, on the other hand, was two years and three months old, also a blonde child, but, as her parents pointed out when asked if the twins might be able to talk about what had happened to Madeleine, she did not have the necessary verbal skills. So, if one of those wealthy couples had 'ordered,' a small, blonde child, why not take Amelie, who would surely have adjusted more readily to a new environment?
We are to believe that Madeleine McCann was stolen by a 'gipsy gang,' for one of these wealthy couples. Does this mean that we are also to accept that not one person associated with this gipsy gang was tempted by the huge reward on offer for Madeleine's safe return?
Hewlett, a serial paedophile seen near the spot where Maddie was snatched in Portugal, said they had a "shopping list" of potential targets - such as a little girl with blonde hair like Maddie.
Private detectives working for Maddie's parents Kate and Gerry are "extremely interested" in Hewlett's claims.
A source close to their ongoing investigation said: "What he says fits the No1 theory, which is that she was stolen to order."
And what of this wealthy couple now? They have the world's most famous missing child, but they must keep her hidden, never send her to school, never take her out in public in case she inadvertently says something, mistrust everyone they know who might be tempted by a huge reward. But, this does fit neatly into Gerry McCann's oft repeated mantra about Madeleine's not having come to harm. She has been stolen to order for a wealthy couple who really wanted a child of their own. Yea right!
The 'No1 theory.'? Whose number one theory? Not that of the Portuguese police or indeed the English police who were part of the original investigation. Only the McCanns and their friends and relations seem to hold to this as their number one theory.
Hewlett died of throat cancer in April, aged 62, after persistently refusing to meet the McCanns' detectives.
He became a suspect because of his appalling record of rape and abduction of children.
And he was living as a nomad in Portugal with his second family when Maddie vanished from the McCanns' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in May 2007.
Hewlett's letter to builder Wayne, 40, was delivered to the son by a mystery man - thought to be a solicitor or a private eye - a week after he died.
Most of it was an apology for how his vile crimes had affected his first wife Susan and Wayne.
But then he went on to write about Maddie, who was nearly four when she went missing.
Wayne, of Telford, Shropshire, said: "It was a bolt from the blue and I shook when I read it.
"He stated he didn't want to go to his grave with us thinking he had done such a horrible thing.
"He said he had had nothing to do with taking Maddie but did know who had.
"He said a very good gipsy friend he knew in Portugal had got drunk and 'let it out' that he had stolen Maddie to order as part of a gang.
"My dad said this gang had been operating for a long time and had snatched children before for couples who couldn't have children of their own.
"Maddie had been targeted. They took photos of children and sent them to the people they were acting for. And they said Yes or No.
"Dad said the man told him it was nothing to do with snatching children for a paedophile gang or for a sexual reason.
"He said there were huge sums of money involved. And he totally believed what this man was saying."
The account fits with others surrounding the Maddie mystery.
Several strange men were seen taking photos of children around the Ocean Club resort in the days before she vanished. And The Sun revealed earlier this year that a British expat thought he had seen Maddie in a white van driven by a gipsy couple the day after she was lost.
'Several strange men were seen taking photos of children around the Ocean Club resort in the days before she vanished.' Ahem! It's a holiday resort and I expect there were lots of men, who probably were not in the least bit strange, taking photos of their own children. That's what people do on holiday, though not the McCanns, judging by the number of photos they appear to have taken of Madeleine during her holiday in Praia da Luz.
Wayne, who had no contact with Hewlett for nearly 20 years, said his father's letter seemed "very genuine".
He added: "I don't know if this is what happened to Maddie or not, but it does make sense. I can't believe he'd go to those lengths to make up some elaborate lie when he was so weak and ill."
Wayne said he considered going to Kate and Gerry with the letter but was worried it could cause them more heartache if it gave them false hope. He added: "I actually burned it because it unnerved me so much.
So, Wayne Hewlett burned a letter that at least a few tabloids would have entered a bidding war to get their hands on? Yea right! How very convenient!
"To have a letter from someone you hated for so long was just mind-blowing. I couldn't deal with it."
Wayne did not contact The Sun about the message. We learned of its existence through a friend.
But now he intends to sit down with the Maddie detectives to tell them everything he knows.
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night: "We are extremely grateful to Wayne for coming forward with this information and the detective team will be interviewing him as a matter of priority."
And what might this detective team do once they have interviewed Wayne Hewlett, the man who burned a letter about the world's most famous missing child? Well, if Maddie is with a wealthy couple, she's probably not in a 'hellish lair,' in one of those, 'lawless villages,' near Praia da Luz that the detectives didn't get round to visiting and Kate and Gerry managed to avoid when they last visited the area.
Wayne is going to tell the detectives, 'everything he knows.'? I wonder if he will be like Jane Tanner who, through cognitive interviewing, discovered there was a great deal that she hadn't known she knew!
This is all very convenient: Raymond Hewlett is dead and can therefore neither confirm nor deny having written the letter and Madeleine has been stolen to order for a wealthy couple who really wanted a child, so she will not have come to harm. This gipsy gang had been watching, taking photographs and waiting for that very small window of opportunity when, by sheer coincidence, Jane Tanner just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be able to see the paid abductor making off with a child in Maddie's pyjamas! Yea right!
Kate and Gerry McCann arriving at the Lisbon Court February 2010
In February this year, the McCanns were successful in persuading a Portuguese judge that their right to a 'good reputation,' was more important than Dr Gonçalo Amaral's right to freedom of speech, and the injunction banning Dr Amaral's book, "The Truth of The Lie," was upheld.
By the McCanns' own admission, they left three small children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country, night after night, checking on them every 30 minutes, as though a couple of doctors had no idea that a child could choke in just a few minutes, meet with an accident in a strange apartment, or wander out of that unlocked door. We were told though that their daughter Madeleine, who disappeared into thin air on one of those alone nights, could not have wandered off, but we haven't yet been told why her parents were so sure of this.
Gerry and Kate McCann, as we know, have maintained a global media presence since Madeleine disappeared, apparently intent on finding the person or persons who abducted their daughter. No other thesis is acceptable to them: she is alive, she could not have wandered off, she has been abducted, but there is no evidence that she has come to harm.
A child who has been abducted by a stranger has not come to harm? I guess if you seriously think that three small children alone in an unlocked apartment cannot come to harm, then believing that a child taken from her bed by strangers has not come to harm might not be too much of a leap of faith. She would, of course, be able to walk into her old home and take up that, 'spare place,' at the dining table. Nae bother! If either of you, Kate or Gerry McCann were my doctor, your reputation as health professionals would have suffered serious harm. I don't think I could trust a doctor who thought it was OK to go out wining and dining while their three small children were alone in an unlocked apartment and who also thought that abduction was not bad for a child's physical and emotional well-being.
Anyway, in search of upholding their good reputation, our fine doctors hired Carter-Ruck, who describe themselves as, 'the UK's pre-eminent media law practice.' In doing so, the McCanns are in a special kind of company! Carter-Ruck is the law firm that stopped General Augusto Pinochet's extradition to Spain to answer to charges of human rights violations. Carter-Ruck is also the firm that unsuccessfully tried to prevent the Guardian newspaper from publishing an MP's question in the House of Commons on the activities of the oil company Trafigura.
The latest well-publicised Carter-Ruck client is Nadhmi Auchi, whom Mark Kirk, US Republican, has linked to Democrat Senate candidate Alexi "the Mob Banker" Giannoulias. Warner Todd Huston of the blog Chicago Now has responded to Carter-Ruck's attempts to silence American bloggers on this issue:
And, before you Carter-Rucksters begin to start addressing another threatening email this time to me, don't bother. Your email will be ignored and THIS post will stay up. Just like the Illinois Review, THIS post is just reporting the news. If the allegations made against your client are false, that is YOUR problem. Not mine. You should take up your concerns with the Illinois GOP.
Still, don't get your hopes up. Unlike your foreign experience, in America libel is properly hard to prove. Here we do not cotton to libel tourism as they cater to in England. Basically I'm telling you attorneys and your client Nadhmi Auchi to pound sand.
Oh dear! They're not impressed by Carter-Ruck's reputation, are they?
The McCanns hired Carter-Ruck soon after their speedy exit from Portugal. Was that because of Carter-Ruck's experience as media lawyers, or because they had managed to successfully save Augusto Pinochet from extradition? Either way, why would two medical doctors, intent on protecting their good reputation, hire lawyers who had defended the likes of General Augusto Pinochet? You are not only judged by the company you keep Kate and Gerry, but by the help you hire!
Carter-Ruck have threatened various bloggers and The Madeleine Foundation (Read Carter-Ruck's letters under the 'Newsletters,' link on the Madeleine Foundation web site) and anyone else who dares to question the McCanns' version of events, that version being that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of that abduction. According to Locard's Exchange Principle:
No matter how much someone tries to clean up a crime scene, something is generally left behind. It may not always be detected, or even be visible to the human eye, but it's almost impossible to take any kind of violent action without shedding something. This principle, called Locard’s Exchange Principle, has become one of the motivating factors in the development of forensic science.
Yet, the person who allegedly abducted Madeleine McCann, whom Gerry McCann felt may have been hiding in the apartment when he checked on the children at around 9.05pm, left absolutely nothing of himself, not even glove prints. The shutters had not been damaged and the only prints on them were Kate McCann's and from their position, it appeared that she had been trying to manually lift the shutters from the inside.
Now, back to the hired help! There was Metodo 3, Spanish detective agency that had no previous experience if searching for missing children. According to SOS Madeleine McCann in February 2009, Metodo 3 agency was under investigation for money laundering. In July 2008, SOS Madeleine McCann reported that Metodo 3 was under investigation for attempted murder: a former cell-mate of João Cipriano, uncle and convicted murderer of Joana Cipriano, had allegedly offered information to Metodo 3, but after receiving payment, had failed to deliver and his life had been threatened as a consequence.
Francisco Marco, director of Metodo 3
Is that the kind of hired help that enhances the reputation of our good doctors?
Then there was Kevin Halligen whose company Oakley International, was paid £300,000 in 2008 to look for their daughter.
A 48-year-old man wanted by the FBI who allegedly defrauded people across the world, including the Madeleine McCann fund, was arrested last night at a hotel in Oxford.
Kevin Halligen, from Surrey, was hired by the Find Madeleine fund as a security consultant. His Washington-based company, Oakley International, was awarded a six-month £500,000 contract by the fund, but Mr Halligen allegedly disappeared with £300,000. He had allegedly boasted that his contacts in the US capital could provide high-tech satellite imagery to help the search.
He is also said to have made £1 million from links with Trafigura, the controversial Dutch company accused of causing mass illness after waste was dumped on the Ivory Coast.
Links with Trafigura? Now, that's interesting!
What of the unpaid help and how that might affect one's reputation? Well, there's Brian Kennedy of double-glazing fame, who according to SOS Madeleine McCann was prepared to finance Kate and Gerry for the rest of his life. Does that mean out of his own pocket, should his business empire collapse owing to breach of covenants on loan agreements? (The Business Desk)
Oh dear! Is that the kind of support that is good for one's reputation?
And finally, Jim Gamble, of CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre) who produced the video, 'A Minute For Madeleine.' Jim Gamble was the senior police officer who presided over Operation Ore.
Operation Ore was a major police operation in Britain which became known to the public in 2002 targetting thousands of alleged users of child pornography websites. In the words of Wikipedia, the statistics were:
7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned, 879 investigations underway, 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations (although the definition of what constitutes such, has varied and remains vague) and an estimated 39 suicides.
The work of journalist Duncan Campbell amongst others has already cast serious doubt over the integrity of the police investigation in Operation Ore.
As I write, Liverpool solicitor Chris Saltrese is taking a test case to the Appeal Court for wrongful conviction:
In the UK, thousands of people were implicated and convicted or cautioned even though they protested no knowledge of having visited the site or any interest or intention to access child pornography.
It has since emerged that the blueprint employed to incriminate suspects was fundamentally flawed, so that many people may have been implicated in a crime they did not commit.
With the help of experts, Chris Saltrese Solicitors has carried out groundbreaking evidential and legal research into Operation Ore. Some apologists have used Operation Ore to campaign for our current set of laws around child abuse. For example Margaret Moran MP who quoted incorrect and misleading statistics as fact in a debate in the House of Commons in 2005.
Characters such as controversial Senior Police Officer Jim Gamble, who presided over Operation Ore and has refused seriously to consider the possibility that significant mistakes were made, and perhaps some figures originally from the world of Child Protection Charities, will be in a very difficult position. (Matt Wardman.com)
The test case being brought by Chris Saltrese has been postponed until late 2010.
Concern about the prevalence and accessibility of child pornography has magnified in recent years with the growth of the internet.
The law is clear that it is a serious crime to intentionally access or possess such material. However, when it comes to identifying intention and criminal acts in this complex ephemeral medium, there are many pitfalls ensnaring the innocent as well as the guilty.
Operation Ore was a large-scale police investigation supposedly targeting paid subscribers to an internet child pornography gateway.
In the UK, thousands of people were implicated and convicted or cautioned even though they protested no knowledge of having visited the site or any interest or intention to access child pornography.
It has since emerged that the blueprint employed to incriminate suspects was fundamentally flawed, so that many people may have been implicated in a crime they did not commit. With the help of experts, Chris Saltrese Solicitors has carried out groundbreaking evidential and legal research into Operation Ore. Leave for appeal was granted for a test case before the full court in Spring 2010 but has been postponed. It is hoped it will be heard before the end of 2010. This will unveil fresh evidence and expert opinion. If you were wrongly convicted or cautioned in relation to Operation Ore, please get in touch and we may be able to assist. (Chris Saltrese)
So, for me, what kind of reputation does all this give to the McCanns? Simply in my opinion, what am I left with thinking? What do they have a reputation for and as?
Two doctors who left three small children, with a combined age of seven years, alone in an unlocked apartment while they wined and dined with friends. I'd call that child neglect or even abandonment.
People who don't care about the tactics used by a very expensive firm of media lawyers, as long as they can silence anyone who disagrees with their theory of abduction.
Two supposedly well-educated people, who, nonetheless cannot seem to find a reputable detective agency that has experience of finding missing children.
People who are guided by a man who buys up companies, liquidates them leaving customers with nothing for their money, and breaches covenants on loans. (Perhaps someone will leave a comment about Mr Kennedy's visits to witnesses)
People who, having lost a child, are supported by a man who presided over a major police operation, now thought to have been seriously flawed, which allegedly wrongfully convicted many people.
................................ ................................ NBC Chicago August 11th 2010
Has the rhetoric in the Illinois Senate campaign sunk to libelous levels?
Nadhmi Auchi, the human peg with which Mark Kirk tied oppenent Alexi Giannoulias to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has sicced his lawyers on the North Shore Congressman. Kirk accused the Iraqi-born businessman and Broadway Bank client of handling the personal accounts of Saddam Hussein and selling him Italian warships in the 1980s.
Auchi’s attorneys, Carter-Ruck, responded with a seething letterobjecting to the “serious and false accusations that you made about our client at the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs on 8 August 2010.”
According to the letter, “it is wholly untrue that Mr. Auchi was ‘a banker to Saddam Hussein or involved in ‘arms deals to Saddam Hussein.’ Mr. Auchi had absolutely no ties or links to Saddam Hussein … Saddam Hussein was in fact responsible for murdering one of Mr. Auchi’s brothers. Mr. Auchi was imprisoned, beaten and tortured by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Auchi left Iraq in 1980 and did not return until after the U.S.-led invasion and the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
The letter charges that the newspaper articles that formed the basis of Kirk’s accusation came from the British newspaper The Observer. Auchi took legal action against the paper, forcing the paper to admit the articles contained “significant inaccuracies,” and removing them from their website. Carter-Ruck is demanding that Kirk “withdraw the false allegations and … apologize to our client.”
Kirk seems inclined to do nothing of the sort. In fact, a Kirk aide linked to the letter in an e-mail to supporters, and wrote of Auchi, “Maybe he’ll even threaten to sue us for mentioning his well-documented criminal past.” Just so you know that Kirk isn't intimidated by a litigious British billionaire.
Kirk's campaign also provided Ward Room with a link to an Observer articleinsinuating that Auchi supplied warships to Saddam Hussein's Navy. (See Note)
The aide's e-mail also mentioned that Auchi had been convicted of fraud by a French court for receiving illegal commissions in an oil scandal, and has been banned by the State Department from entering the United States. Auchi did not dispute those allegations, only the characterization of his relationship with Saddam Hussein.
“The reporting of the New York Times and the Observer of London concerning Mr. Auchi, a convicted felon who is barred from entering the United States, speaks for itself," Kirk spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in a statement. "The very fact that Broadway Bank has a long track record of loaning money to thugs, criminals and mobsters like Auchi and Rezko should tell voters everything they need to know about Alexi Giannoulias, his judgment and whether he is suited to represent them in the United States Senate.”
Kirk seems to be daring Auchi to sue him for libel. Does Kirk really want to get into another battle over who’s telling the truth? If Auchi does sue, it won’t be the first time Kirk has been accused of playing fast and loose with the facts, but it will be the first time he’s hauled into court for it.
Note: This is the Observer article which Carter-Ruck claims has been deleted from the newspaper's web site.
Nadhmi Auchi in 2004 with Illinois Governor Blagojevich.
On Monday August 9th, Republican Mark Kirk referred to billionaire Nadhmi Auchi in comments to journalists following a speech on foreign policy.
Kirk again harped on a nearly $23 million loan recently reported by the Chicago Sun-Times that went to a development company with ties to convicted Illinois political insider Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire who was embroiled in a fraud scandal of his own.
Auchi was convicted of receiving illegal commissions as part of France's giant Elf-Aquitaine oil scandal that sent top executives to jail. In 2003, Auchi got a suspended sentence and was fined. He has denied any role in the scandal.
Carter-Ruck is acting on behalf of a man who was convicted of fraud in 2003 by a French court.
A controversial Iraqi-British billionaire who funds one of the UK's most strongly anti-Zionist websites organised a banquet in honour of Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, and a fundraiser for Susan Kramer, the party's candidate in the high-profile seat of Richmond Park.
Nadhmi Auchi, 73, was convicted of fraud in the giant French Elf-Aquitaine oil company trial in 2003 and given a suspended sentence, although he is seeking to appeal the verdict.
And what about Mr Auchi's former business associates?
"Tony Rezko's Billionaire Buddy."
On a spring day in 2004, Nadhmi Auchi, one of the world's richest men, flew in to Midway Airport on a private jet. Met by a welcoming party that included Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (there at the request of the Blagojevich administration) and businessman Tony Rezko, Auchi was brought to a downtown hotel where he was the guest of honor at a reception hosted by Blagojevich.
The Iraqi-born billionaire -- who lives in London -- had come to Chicago on business. He would go on to invest nearly $170 million in a prime piece of vacant land in the South Loop -- 62 acres along the Chicago River that Rezko wanted to develop.
Now, Auchi is surfacing in Rezko's corruption case, set to go to trial Monday. Auchi is mentioned by prosecutors in the court filing that got Rezko's bail revoked and landed him in jail.
Rezko was indicted in October 2006 in a scheme to shake down firms seeking state pension business to enrich himself and Blagojevich's campaign fund. He got $3.5 million from Auchi's company in April 2007 but never told a judge about it, raising concerns that Rezko, a native of Syria, might flee the country.
Auchi wasn't accused of wrongdoing regarding Rezko. But he had faced legal troubles in Europe, prosecutors noted, having been "convicted several years ago in France on fraud charges" and sentenced to 15 months in prison, "but the sentence was suspended as long as Auchi committed no new crimes."
They raised the possibility that, even though Auchi's Luxembourg-based General Mediterranean Holding has taken control of the valuable South Loop property from Rezko, Auchi might be barred from entering the United States. "In November 2005, after Auchi was unable to enter the United States, Rezko directly appealed to the State Department to permit Auchi to enter the United States and, it appears, asked certain Illinois government officials to do the same," prosecutors wrote.
So how was Auchi not allowed in the United States in November 2005 but able to come here in 2004 -- despite his criminal conviction in France in 2003?
Auchi's London-based lawyer, Alasdair Pepper, wouldn't answer that. State Department and Homeland Security officials said they couldn't comment.
So, now I turn to the controversial Wikileaks site for their:
"Debunking The Carter-Ruck Defence of British-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi."
It's a very long entry on the Wikileaks site. So, I shall just copy significant parts of it and ask you to read the article in its entirety on the web site. This article seems to totally debunk Carter-Ruck's claim that Nadhmi Auchi was not associated in any way with Sadam Hussein.
“A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser (dual US-Syrian citizen Tony Rezko) just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses. The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr. Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.” -- The Times of London February 26, 2008
The Auchi-Rezko-Obama connection came to public attention with federal marshals pounding on the door of Tony Rezko’s Wilmette Chicago mansion in the early morning of January 28, 2008. They hauled Rezko to jail after his bail was revoked for concealing a $3.5 million Auchi loan from the court. The Times outlines the story in two sentences. It should be of tremendous interest to the American public and the world.
But there is more to this story than run-of-the mill political corruption. Nadhmi Auchi is alleged to have a long affiliation with Iraqi Baathism and Saddam Hussein—which his attorneys deny. How close were they? According to a 1960 US Embassy report, Auchi was convicted along with Saddam by an Iraqi court for his part in a failed 1959 assassination attempt against then-Iraqi Prime Minister Qassim. For his crime, Auchi earned a sentence of “three years rigorous imprisonment.”
The US Embassy report is an interesting counterpoint to Auchi’s September, 2004 interview with the LondonTimes in which he claims, “I left the Ba’ath party in 1962 and was jailed in Iraq when the party came to power in 1963….” What does “was jailed” mean? For those unaware of the 1960 US Embassy report, Auchi’s claim implies he was jailed by the Baathists when they came to power. But it might also mean he was still in jail from the 1960 sentence.
An anonymous phone call from a Portuguese woman alerts the authorities to the "abductor" Murat, one week before the Englishman was known around the world
The denunciation from a journalist, an anonymous phone call and Jane Tanner, the McCann couple's friend who saw a man carrying a child on the evening that Maddie disappeared, produced the first arguido in the investigation. Murat's over-helpful posture was one of the first indicia that turned him into a suspect. But what led to his anonymous incrimination, days before he was known around the world?
The Polícia Judiciária was first in suspecting Murat. On the 7th of May, they already possessed diverse information about his personal and professional life: what he did, his bank accounts, where and with whom he lived, among other details.
On the 8th, one week before the suspicions were made public and Murat was made an arguido, another log fed the fire. A female voice makes an anonymous phone call, in Portuguese, to the PJ and states that the abductor is closer than the police thinks. The inspector asked who she was referring to and the female voice explained: it is an individual who resides in Praia da Luz, from a British mother, fluent in Portuguese and in English, who walked around in the area to help the authorities.
The author of the anonymous phone call added that the abductor was called Robert, that he visited chats of a sexual type and that he managed to encrypt his emails.
Suspicious British journalist…
The suspicions about Murat are also raised by a British journalist. Three days after Maddie's disappearance, on the 6th of May, the reporter gets in touch with the English police, to share her suspicions about a man, who lived in the area and was excessively helpful.
Born British, he has been living in Portugal for a long time. The fluency of his Portuguese and his English soon rendered him useful to the Portuguese authorities, which were confronted with a case that involved British tourists. Furthermore, he had a daughter of Maddie's age, from whom he was separated, as the child lived in England with her mother.
The journalist remembered a case that had taken place in England, where the criminal had a similar attitude and even helped in the searches of his own victim.
Serving as a translator
Even after the suspicions were assumed, the Judiciária continued to use Murat's translation services in several questionings, to English employees of the Ocean Club resort, until the 9th of May. "In order to prevent the suspect from noticing something", they then justified.
It is only at a later date that Jane Tanner, a friend of Kate and Gerry, is confronted with the possibility that Murat is the individual that she saw carrying a child. Despite the fact that the physical description that Jane gave and Murat's look are not the same, the English tourist had no doubts in stating that he was almost certainly the man that she had seen.
It is worth reminding that after having been made an arguido, other members of the group that was on holidays with the McCanns asserted that they saw Robert Murat participating in the searches, on the night of the disappearance. A fact that was always denied by himself, who said that he had been at home with his mother. He only heard about the alleged abduction on Friday the 4th. The GNR itself confirmed to the PJ that it only remembered seeing the Englishman on the following morning.
But the English profilers also guaranteed that there was a 90% chance of Murat being the abductor. And as if that was not enough, an alleged childhood friend asserted that as a teenager, he revealed an inclination to have sex with animals.
A set of circumstances, a friendly behaviour, a suspicious sighting, an anonymous phone call and convenient testimonies turned Murat into the first arguido by Portuguese justice to be financially compensated by British newspapers, for becoming a suspect in a crime that nobody managed to prove to exist.
Without evidence to support that any crime was committed, the Public Ministry archived the Maddie process, on the 21st of July. Kate and Gerry, together with Robert Murat, saw their arguido status lifted.
................................. .................................. This letter, reproduced below, is the Madeleine Foundation's response to a communication from Carter-Ruck on behalf of their clients, Kate and Gerry McCann. The communication from Carter-Ruck can be read on a previous post on this blog.
Carter-Ruck
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street LONDON EC4A 3AE
Wednesday 21 July 2010
Your ref: Stevie Loughrey
AT/IH/SVL//13837.5
Dear Sirs
re: Your clients Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann - Your letter of 16 July
This letter follows my responses to your e-mail of 15 July by telephone from Bournemouth on Friday 16 July at 10.28am and again at 1.28pm and my e-mail to you dated 19 July (reproduced below) and timed at 7.36am.
Further actions following receipt of your letter
In addition to the actions mentioned in my previous e-mail that we have already taken in response to your letter of 15 July, we have made several further changes to the material on our website concerning Mr Gonçalo Amaral, Gonçalo Amaral Day etc. In specific response to the demands you made about our leaflet, The Madeleine Foundation has decided in addition not to distribute this leaflet any further nor print further copies of it. Several thousand copies had already been distributed in the weeks leading up to Saturday 17 July which we termed ‘Gonçalo Amaral Awareness Day’.
The claims of breaches of my undertakings given on 13 November 2009
I have carefully studied your letter.
You claim that: “We have advised our clients [the McCanns] that your conduct represented a number of clear breaches of your undertaking to the court…it is clear that on a number of occasions you have breached [your] undertaking…there can be no doubt whatsoever that notwithstanding your undertakings, you remain intent upon continuing to allege at every available opportunity that there are strong grounds to suspect our clients of being responsible for the death of their daughter, and of conspiring to cover it up”.
In support of this claim, your letter refers specifically to the following six matters only:
My letter to Theresa May, Home Secretary, dated 4 July 2010, a copy of which you and your clients have clearly seen
A posting on a thread on a forum now called ‘The complete mystery of Madeleine McCann’, run by a Mrs Jill Havern. The title of this forum was I understand named after your clients’ Chief Public Relations Officer, Mr Clarence Mitchell, himself referred to the disappearance of Madeleine as ‘a complete mystery’ in a Channel 4 TV interview in March this year
The contents of The Madeleine Foundation’s recent leaflet: ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’, of which you claim “…readers of this publication will have understood it to mean that here are indeed strong grounds to support Amaral’s suspicions that Madeleine McCann died in our clients’ care and that they subsequently conspired to cover up her death…”
An internet posting by me on a forum, said to have been made at 1.03am on 12 July which you said “…would lead readers to have understood that Amarals’ theory is correct and that our clients did indeed conspire to cover up the death of their daughter. This theory is, however, completely untruehe sees as the truth [my underlining] about… Madeleine…” [your underlining] and simply does not withstand proper scrutiny’. You based this on my words that “Amaral…has sacrificed the rest of his career to bring us what
Allegedly ‘hiding behind’ quotes or purported quotes from other people ‘when publishing outrageous slurs of our clients’ (although you do not cite a single example in your letter)
The video recording: ‘Madeleine McCann: The 48 Police Questions Kate McCann Refused to Answer’.
You do not give particulars of any other alleged breaches of my undertakings.
You also in the penultimate paragraph of your letter advised that any individual ‘linked to’ The Madeleine Foundation’ who ‘disseminates serious falsehoods’ about your clients places her/himself at risk of being pursued for ‘appropriate legal relief’.
On page 3 of your letter, you made four demands. I respond as follows:
Demand 1. The Madeleine Foundation has agreed not to republish ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’ nor to authorise anyone else to republish it. We shall not be making any further distribution of the leaflet.
Demand 2. The downloadable version of ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’ was removed on 18 July from The Madeleine Foundation website as a result of your request. The non-downloadable version has also been removed from our website since your letter. Other material about Gonçalo Amaral remains on our website though in view of the undertaking I gave to the court we do not on The Madeleine Foundation website link to his book nor indeed to the documentary he made, although as you must know, many other forums and blogs do so.
Demand 3. The YouTube video you refer to which went live on 13 July was removed by YouTube as you already know on 16 July. We have no plans to republish it on YouTube or elsewhere. Having said that, we do not accept that to reproduce what the Portuguese Police have themselves published as the official record of the questions they asked Dr Kate McCann can possibly be construed as ‘libellous’, especially since these have been in the public domain for almost two years and, so far as I am aware, your clients have made no challenge to date as to their authenticity. The BBC website carries exactly the same list of 48 questions that your client refused to answer; it can easily be found in its archive for 2008
Demand 4. I have endeavoured at all times to draw a distinction between the information which Mr Amaral gives in ‘The Truth About A Lie’ about his investigation and the deductions he makes from that information. For example, in explaining the ‘Gonçalo Amaral Support Project’, we wrote this: “Why is G.A.S.P. needed? ANSWER: Before giving you the details, why did we set up our new campaign on behalf of Mr Amaral? Our reasons include: The fact that without his book, A Verdade daMentira (‘The Truth About A Lie’) there is much important information [my underlining] surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that otherwise we would not know”. To give one example, in one chapter of his book, Mr Amaral explains how your clients’ friend Jane Tanner on the afternoon of Sunday 13 May came to identify Robert Murat as the man wearing mustard chinos she said she’d seen carrying a child at around 9.15am on Thursday 3 May, the night Madeleine was reported missing. These and other facts, we say, are important to an understanding of the case, whether Mr Amaral is right, or mistaken, in his views on what really happened to Madeleine.
To give a second example, Mr Amaral explains how, when he was re-interviewed by police on 10 and 11 July 2007, Mr Murat gave a very different story about his movements from 1 to 4 May 2007 inclusive than he did when first taken in for questioning on 14 May. We are advised that there can be no ban on reasonablediscussion of these and other important facts in Mr Amaral’s book. His theory is another matter.
I am happy to repeat my undertakings given previously to the court. In particular, in the light of your e-mail, I will refrain from suggesting that Mr Amaral’s suspicions about your client may be correct, whilst at the same time we are advised that to continue reasonable discussion of the information he has provided us is not libellous.
So far as Mr Amaral is concerned, it must also be remembered that your clients’ libel action against him has not yet been heard. It could well be that the Portuguese libel court will not uphold your clients’ allegation of libel. He has just as much right to defend himself against what he sees as lies and smears against him in the British media (and to have people in Portugal, the U.K. and elsewhere support him), as your clients have a similar right to defend themselves against what they claim is libel.
In your clients’ case, they appear to have been able to call on the services of your firm with regularity. As your clients have but one wage-earner, it seems reasonably clear that your fees must be being paid from other sources, possibly unnamed benefactors (such payments would of course be liable to be declared to the Inland Revenue as income). One assumes that the donations made by the general public to the Find Madeleine Fund are not being used since we recall statements by your clients and their Chief Public Relations Officer that those donations would not be used to fund lawyers’ fees and court costs etc. Mr Amaral is in a very different and difficult financial position. There does not appear therefore to be an ‘equality of arms’ in the current libel action against Mr Amaral although this principle is now enshrined in British civil litigation. That is another reason behind our support for him.
Furthermore, the legal advice I have received is that neither myself nor anyone else can be prohibited by a libel court or otherwise from reporting on and making reasonable comment on information in the public domain, and especially so given that this information comes specifically from police sources. I give two examples. The interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, dated 10 September 2007, gives an accurate summary of the police investigation up to that point. It has been published. It can therefore be commented on, both by those who disagree with what he says, and those who agree.
Similarly, in the interlocutory hearing in your clients’ libel action in Lisbon in January 2010, the Public Ministry Prosecutor, Magalhães e Menezes, who made the decision to archive the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, was quoted by the press as saying: “The death thesis is the most likely one to explain Madeleine McCann’s disappearance”. Furthermore, Inspector Tavares de Almeida, who was actively involved in the investigation, was quoted in the same hearing as saying: “Gonçalo Amaral does not usurp the conclusions of the investigation; his conclusions come from investigation itself”.
These comments were made on oath in a court of law. They cannot easily be dismissed. The legal advice I have received is that anyone is entitled to publish these statements (as the Portuguese press and media have done) and, within reason, comment on them. Similarly, as you will appreciate, the final report of the Policia Judiciara archiving the investigation specifically left on the table the two main theories in the case: (a) that Madeleine was abducted and (b) that Madeleine died in your clients’ apartment.
This incidentally is why I and others have raised perfectly legitimate concerns with the Home Office about the statements that have been made in the press since March about your clients having meetings with the former and current Home Secretaries and their senior civil servants about a possible ‘review’ or ‘re-investigation’ into Madeleine’s disappearance. It appeared to us (we may be wrong) that your clients were seeking to persuade the Home Office to approach an as-yet unnamed British police force to carry out a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance which would have concentrated exclusively on your clients’ assertions that Madeleine was abducted, and would not examine other possibilities.
As I have done in the YouTube video of the ‘48 Portuguese Police Questions’ which your client refused to answer, I will in any comments on the disappearance of Madeleine give due prominence to your clients’ ‘take’ on any matter. In that YouTube video, I refrained from making any comment except to ensure that, right at the beginning, your client’s position was fairly explained, i.e. your client’s right to silence, your client having relied on legal advice in refusing to answer questions, and your client believing the police were wholly wrong to place her under suspicion instead of looking for Madeleine.
The Madeleine Foundation Committee has asked me to point out that under our Constitution, our objects include: “To pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007”. The Committee plans to continue to research and analyse all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine and that includes giving due prominence to all cogent evidence that Madeleine was abducted.
I reproduce my e-mail sent on Monday (19th) below.
Yours faithfully
Anthony Bennett
E-mail sent to Stevie Loughrey of Carter-Ruck 19 July 2010
Dear Sirs,
Both myself and some members of The Madeleine Foundation Committee have now had an opportunity to view your letter.
This follows my telephone call to you from Bournemouth at 10.42am on Friday 16 July and my voicemail message left at 1.28pm the same day, to neither of which you responded.
In response to your letter e-mailed to me at 6.10pm on Thursday 15 July:
(1) The '48 Questions' video with myself reading out the 48 questions that your client Dr. Kate McCann refused to answer on 7 September 2007 does not seem to us to be capable of being construed as libellous. Not only is it merely the reading out of the questions she refused to answer, but I took the specific precaution in the introduction to the video, acting on legal advice, to put your client's point of view, namely:
a) that she had the right to remain silent (under both Portuguese and British law) and was acting on legal advice, and
b) that she believed the Portuguese Police were in error in suspecting her and her husband of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, and were not therefore looking for Madeleine as she believed they should have been.
Your letter asks me to "Remove the video referred to above from YouTube'.
The video was taken down by YouTube during Friday 16 July. Your letter urged us to 'seek legal advice upon this letter...' I am in the process of seeking legal advice and that will include advice on whether that YouTube video is libellous.
(2) You asked for the leaflet about Mr Goncalo Amaral 'to be removed from our website(s)'. The Madeleine Foundation Committee agreed to remove this last night, and where the downloadable version used to be, there is now the following notice:
"On 15th July Carter Ruck asked us to remove this downloadable leaflet on Goncalo Amaral. We have agreed to this request pending receipt of legal advice".
(3) You objected to a paragraph in a posting I made on 4 July this year on a forum run by Jill Havern, at this link.
I have taken immediate action to remove the paragraph you objected to and the following notice now appears on Mrs Havern's forum instead of the offending paragraph:
NOTE: The first sentence of this posting has been removed following legal objections to it raised by Mr Stevie Loughrey of Carter-Ruck in a letter I received from them on 15 July 2010.
(4) In the light of your letter, an urgent review of the content of The Madeleine Foundation website has been undertaken, and last night additional material and links have been removed where there was a doubt in our minds as to whether any material could be construed as libellous.
I shall address the remainder of your letter as soon as practicable and of course after taking the legal advice which you urge me to take in the final sentence of your letter.
Finally, your letter is marked: 'STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL'. I should like to advise you that a vociferous and regular supporter of your client on the internet, namely 'muratfan', whom we believe to be Mr Ian West of Norwich, is boasting that he has read your letter.
