..........
.......
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.
Friday, 9 December 2011
Sunday, 4 December 2011
The Madeleine Foundation and 3 Libel Actions
........
.........
THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION and 3 LIBEL ACTIONS
Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary, 9pm, 3 December 2011
BRIAN KENNEDY
Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.
EDWARD SMETHURST
In Thursday’s post (1 December), I received a costs estimate (as per High Court procedures) of the likely costs incurred by Edward Smethurst if he pursues his libel claim against me, assuming I continue to defend his claim. I would be liable to pay all those costs if I lose (i.e. if the court holds that any one of my statements about him on Jill's forum libelled him).
In their letter, Carter-Ruck say that Smethurst's costs to date are £28,390 and that his future costs, assuming a three-day libel trial, will be £143,086.50, making the total £171,476.50.
This is based, as set out in a 10-page document, on much of the legal work being done by a Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck who charges £562.50 an hour for his time (inclusive of VAT).
Faced with such huge costs, I clearly must think carefully about my options in advance of a Case Management and Costs Management hearing in the High Court next Wednesday.
MCCANNS
At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.
There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.
I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.
Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.
In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.
There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):
“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.
To have spent hundreds of hours on Jill Havern’s forum for the past few months ‘painstakingly and time-consumingly’searching, and searching, for possible libels, without any payment whatsoever, would indeed be regarded by many people as an act of very great generosity.
I cannot conclude this statement without giving an honourable mention to Mr Mike Gunnill of Kent, a past member of Jill Havern’s forum, and, for all I know, a present one, under one of his many personas, aliases, and ‘socks’. Mike Gunnill, it may be recalled, was the photojournalist who took the photograph of Debbie Butler (near whom he lives), used by the Sunday Express alongside their front-page headline: ‘The McCanns’ Stalker’ on 16 August 2009. His website at the time was remarkable for including over 100 photos he took at the gruesome ‘House of Horror’, Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, scene of decades of child abuse and possibly even child murders by depraved paedophiles. Some on this forum may recall how Gunnill e-mailed me in January 2010 under one of his many pseudonyms, ‘Michael Sangerte’, claiming he lived in ‘Berkshire’, asking to buy a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ (other names used by Gunnill in previous correspondence with me (before I knew his real identity) were Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin).
I refused. He then wrote me a further begging letter stating that he really wanted an original copy of ‘60 Reasons’ because of his ‘historical research’, adding that he was ‘willing to pay a high price’ for a copy. I then offered to obtain a copy belonging to a close relative and asked him to send £5 including postage, which he did. He asked me to send the book to Michael Sangerte - not in Berkshire, but at an address in Kent. Subsequent enquiries showed that this was Mike Gunnill’s home near Maidstone, Kent. The very day after the book was sent to him, he bragged on a McCann-believer forum that he had obtained a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ and had already sent it to Carter-Ruck, who were apparently ‘delighted’ to receive it. He later openly stated on that same forum that he was being employed ‘on a mission’.
This, however, is how this incident is reported in Isabel Hudson’s affidavit, paragraph 37:
“We continued to monitor the situation, and in early February 2010 we received evidence (again from a well-wisher) which suggested that the Defendant had sold at least one further copy of the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (one of the publications specifically complained about in the libel claim form which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining undertakings to the court)…I exhibit a copy of the e-mail thread between this well-wisher and the defendant (which should be read from top to bottom) at page 26 of Exhibit IJH5”.
+++++++++++
To deal with these two separate court actions will require a great deal of time and attention. For that reason, and for other reasons, I have decided not to contribute any further postings to the publicly-viewable part this forum until at least these two sets of court proceedings are concluded. Depending on the outcome of those two court cases, I will then consider my position in relation to whether or not to rejoin in any public discussions in the future (or even whether the court will allow me to). In the meantime, and subject as always to the consent of the forum-owner, I shall continue to remain a member of the forum and to contribute where I can to those parts of the forum which are not publicly-viewable.
This withdrawal, whether temporary or permanent, comes at a time when Jill Havern’s forum has remained the most visited Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet for the past four months, and its membership has grown to nearly 1,500 members. Very informative discussions are taking place on the forum, to which many contribute.
As Clarence Mitchell himself said nearly a year ago, even the McCanns admit that Madeleine’s abduction is but ‘an assumption’ or a ‘working hypothesis’. Moreover, despite over four years of searching, using private investigators that have cost the McCann Team millions of pounds, the McCann Team are still unable to give us one single usable piece of information about who is supposed to have abducted her, and, if she was abducted, where she was taken. Nor do we really know which of 18 suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries’ (two of whom are women) we are supposed to still be looking out for.
In those circumstances I wish all of you on here committed to discussing what happened to Madeleine every success in getting ever closer to the truth.
.........
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.
Saturday, 3 December 2011
Is Madeleine Alive?
........
..........
Contact information for HiDeHo, with thanks and appreciation for this excellent video.
YouTube - HiDeHo4
Forums - HiDeHo
Email - hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter - HiDeHo3
..........
Contact information for HiDeHo, with thanks and appreciation for this excellent video.
YouTube - HiDeHo4
Forums - HiDeHo
Email - hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter - HiDeHo3
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Who Died In The McCanns' Apartment?
............
..........
With thanks to HiDeHo for this video.
http://www.madeleinemccann.aimoo.com
Forums - HiDeHo
Email - hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter - @HiDeHo3
YouTube - HiDeHo4
..........
With thanks to HiDeHo for this video.
http://www.madeleinemccann.aimoo.com
Forums - HiDeHo
Email - hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter - @HiDeHo3
YouTube - HiDeHo4
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Kate and Gerry McCann give evidence at the Leveson enquiry
....
....
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:
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:
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.
(To be continued)
With thanks to HiDeHo for her sterling effort in producing and uploading the video.
....
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Saturday, 24 September 2011
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Monday, 22 August 2011
The McCanns need to return 7,500 copies of Gonçalo Amaral's book.
....
.....
Video produced by HiDeHo
Email: hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter: @HiDeHo3
YouTube: HiDeHo4
Translations by Joana Morais
Madeleine's portrait: http://jesse.aimoo.com
.....
Video produced by HiDeHo
Email: hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter: @HiDeHo3
YouTube: HiDeHo4
Translations by Joana Morais
Madeleine's portrait: http://jesse.aimoo.com
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Thinking about those riots and what may follow.
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!
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!
Monday, 15 August 2011
Friday, 29 July 2011
Madeleine McCann is not in India!
...
...
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.
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:
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...
....which is really quite strange since yesterday, in the Indian newspaper, News One, local police in Leh denied all knowledge.
...
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.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.
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.
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.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.
"We are liaising with the Indian authorities over the incident and await the results of the DNA test."
Transcript from 0.25.
So, back to The Daily Mail and that story about Kate and Gerry's 'dashed hopes.'
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.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.
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.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Madeleine McCann - New videos - absolutely no evidence of abduction
................
................
Videos produced by HiDeHo.
email: hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter: @HiDeHo3
YouTube: HiDeHo4
................
Videos produced by HiDeHo.
email: hideho1@hotmail.com
Twitter: @HiDeHo3
YouTube: HiDeHo4
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
LulzSec say they will release Murdoch email archive.
..............
.............
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/19/sun_hack_more_lulz/
.............
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/
Monday, 18 July 2011
Monday, 11 July 2011
Rebekah Brooks admits to paying police (2003)
...............
................
References:
The Telegraph Monday July 11th 2011
................
References:
The Telegraph Monday July 11th 2011
The Guardian Monday April 11th 2011Mrs 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 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.
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Friday, 8 July 2011
Ex News of the World writer tells all
..............
.............
Paul McMullan worked at News of the World for more than a decade.
.............
Paul McMullan worked at News of the World for more than a decade.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Friday, 24 June 2011
"Madeleine McCann parents' rare moment of joy."
.
.
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":
Wendy goes on:
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!
.
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
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!
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Pat Brown, criminal profiler talks about the Madeleine McCann case
..
..
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
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.
..
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 BrownRead the full review on the "Women in Crime," blog (Link above)
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.
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.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Madeleine McCann: new defamation action launched in Portugal by her parents
...............
.............
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/
.............
Paulo SergeantoThe 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/
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Kate McCann: "Metodo 3 made significant strides."
....................
.....................
This is what Kate McCann states on page 283 of her recently published book, "Madeleine."
"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."
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!
.....................
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!
Friday, 3 June 2011
Complaint against the BBC upheld: Gonçalo Amaral did not use offensive language about the McCanns
.........................
.......................
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
.......................
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.
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Kate McCann: I always wanted to write down the truth, really, for my three children.
.............
.................
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?
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!
.................
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)