The McCanns, a load of dodgy detectives and £100,000

Following on from the reports yesterday that a polish man, who had been cleared by Portuguese police of any involvement in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, had now handed a great wad of photographs to the Sunday Mirror, today we have 2 whistleblowers and the case of the swindled £100,000.


According to The Sun, the Find Madeleine Fund was ripped off to the tune of £100,000 by someone who was paid to help the search for Madeleine, but who used the money to fund his own lifestyle. This information was handed to The Sun by two whistleblowers and it has now been passed to the McCanns.

So, who might this terrible person be? The McCanns have employed various organisations over the eight years since Madeleine disappeared. When they were in Portugal, they hired Control Risks Group, an organisation which is usually involved with helping companies to set up in areas of the world that are a bit risky and then helping them get out if trouble arises. Why the McCanns should use that company is open to speculation. However, according to The McCann Files (24/09/2007)

A private security firm has been secretly investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for four months because her parents feared that Portuguese police were failing properly to search for their daughter.Control Risks Group (CRG) is believed to have been checking reported sightings of Madeleine from around the world and building up profiles of likely abductors.

Firstly, it is illegal in Portugal for a private investigation to take place while there is an on-going police investigation. Maybe that's why the investigation was secret. Who knows, but it was, ostensibly an illegal activity. Secondly, why employ a company that was usually involved with corporate security. If CRG ever did very much, it certainly didn't help the investigation, unless it was CRG who found all the sightings of Madeleine all over the world.

Then there was the Spanish outfit, Metodo3. No previous experience in looking for missing children, but the McCanns paid them a handsome monthly fee out of the fund. Metodo3 were accused of paying witnesses in Morocco (this blog), embezzlement and money laundering (this blog) attempted murder (this blog) and theft of cocaine from a Barcelona dockyard. (The Telegraph) Now, I reckon that lot were a bit dodgy, but they were probably paid well in excess of £100,000 and amazingly, Kate and Gerry said that Metodo3 had done some good work. Go figure!

Next! Well, next came Kevin Halligen.

A conman who set up a firm to search for Madeleine McCann has denied he funded a lavish lifestyle using cash donated by the public.

Supporters of Kate and Gerry McCann handed over around £300,000 to Kevin Halligen's Washington-based company, but his contract was terminated early and he was later convicted of fraud in America on a separate matter. (The Mirror 3/06/2014)

Now there's an accusation about funding a "lavish lifestyle," but the McCanns claim that he was paid £300,000, not £100,000. If the whistleblowers are referring to Halligen and he did indeed rip off the fund to the tune of £100,000, where did the other £200,000 go that Kate and Gerry say was paid to him?  So, were the McCanns unlucky enough to have two men, separately, rip them off for mega bucks to fund a lavish lifestyle?  And who was the other man? Maybe they should have done some investigating themselves before throwing money at dodgy geezas!

And finally (I think!) Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, otherwise known as Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley. Retired Cheshire detective Edgar and his sidekick Cowley, worked from an office in a house in Knutsford and don't appear to have done very much at all. In August 2009 Mirror writer Tom Wordon asked why the McCann detectives didn't ask more questions when they went to Barcelona to investigate that strange case of the "Victoria Beckham lookalike" who was allegedly hanging about in the vicinity of a marina waiting for someone to hand over a child to her. Apparently, Edgar sent a few detectives out there, but they failed to ask any questions of anyone who might have had contact with the suspicious woman. In fact they didn't ask anything of anybody at all by the sound of it.

Edgar and Clowley's weirdest bit of detecting, in my opinion, was when they declared that Madeleine was being held in a "hellish lair in a lawless village," near Praia da Luz, but somehow they weren't worried enough about her apparent suffering there to go and have a look.

However dodgy Edgar and Cowley were, sitting there in their little office in Knutsford, there is no report of their having gone on to be living a lavish lifestyle, so my money is not on them for the rip-off.

I don't know of any other people hired by the McCanns to search for their daughter. It may be that Halligen was only paid £100,000 by the McCanns, which could turn out to be rather embarrassing to say the least, since the fund was said to have paid him £300,000. Halligen is the only former contractor for the search who appears to have spent search money on his own lifestyle.

The McCanns haven't said that they know who this person is, who has defrauded the search fund, only that they would be willing to help with any investigation. If the two whistleblowers are friends of the McCanns, cynical me wonders if this is a ploy to garner sympathy and get some more cash pouring into the fund. If they are not friends of the McCanns, then perhaps this missing or ripped off £100,000 will turn out to have been paid to some anonymous searcher...or just someone anonymous! Who knows! I hope we'll find out.

Brenda Leyland: hounded by the media and the real "trolls."

On Saturday 4th October 2014, the body of Brenda Leyland, who posted on social media site Twitter as @sweepyface, was found in a hotel room in Leicester, two days after she was doorstepped by Martin Brunt of Sky News in relation to comments she had made on Twitter about the Madeleine McCann case. Following this "outing" Brenda Leyland was all over the media as a "McCann Troll," and Brenda left her home and went into hiding. 

This is the video that appeared on Sky News on Thursday October 2nd, 2014. 

"Police Investigate Madeleine McCann Family Online Abuse" presented by Martin Brunt.

At 0.10 on this video, Jim Gamble, ex-Chief Executive of CEOP, says that there is "...a hardcore small group of individuals, who will lie, who will menace, who will bully" 

Like this, Mr Gamble? I think this fits with the second and third of your descriptions related to that "hardcore small group.." 

Posted by Rainne@dirndllass on Twitter on October 3rd, the day after Brenda was accosted by Martin Brunt. 

At 0.42 Jim Gamble states that in his opinion, those people who will lie, menace and bully should be held to account in a court of law for what they have done. Well, the above is still, at 7.20pm on October 9th, available to read on Twitter. Does Mr Gamble think that woman should be held to account for what she did on October 3rd, the day after Brenda Leyland was doorstepped by Martin Brunt and one day before Brenda's body was found in a hotel in Leicester? Seems rather like menacing and bullying to me.

At 0.50 on the video, Martin Brunt is seen approaching Brenda Leyland. He states that "this woman uses Twitter to attack the parents of Madeleine McCann" 

At 1.20 Martin Brunt tells Brenda, "You know you've been reported to the police, to Scotland Yard? They're considering a whole file of Twitter accounts and what supporters (who are these supporters?) say is a campaign of abuse against the McCanns." 

Brenda says very little in response. But Martin Brunt later goes on to say...

"The Crown Prosecution Service is considering it. Are you worried about that?" 

Well, it's true that a file was handed to the police, but keep that second quote about the Crown Prosecution Service in mind because I will refer to it later in the light of what Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Head of the Metropolitan Police Service says in a radio interview. 

The question that immediately occurred to me on watching the Sky News video was: if this was a file handed to the police, how did Martin Brunt of Sky News come to be in possession of it? If indeed the CPS was considering, whatever Martin Brunt thought they were considering, should he have been presenting her with that information and publishing it on a news web site for millions of viewers? 

On October 4th, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Head of the Metropolitan Police Service, was interviewed on Radio London's "Drivetime," show by Eddie Nestor. In this extract from the interview, the discussion is focused on cyber crime and on the dossier regarding "McCann trolls" on Twitter. 

EN: Let's talk about cyber crime then, more specifically bullying. Tell me about that file that was handed to you re the McCanns and concerned individuals. And certainly that story's been in the headlines with tragic consequences yesterday. A file handed to you. Are you looking at it at the minute?

HH: What happened then. First of all, you may have seen over the last ten days, we've launched a cyber crime unit of 500 officers. That's really intended to target people who steal things, not necessarily bullying. I think that's going to be a real challenge to us in the future, just in terms of bullying. 

Errrmmm, in terms of that file, what happened, if you recall, is that the family handed it to our team, who were investigating or reviewing the murder of..sorry..reviewing the missing girl, errrrr.. the McCanns' daughter. 

(Note: murder? Investigating the murder of......the McCanns' daughter? Now why did Hogan-Howe refer to "murder" and then do a woops!) 

The uh..file was handed to that team ..err...and we were liaising with Leicestershire Police, which is where the McCann family live...err.. and sadly it turned out that possibly the person who was trolling or abusing people..err..may well have been. So, the file was in the process of being considered, partly by the Met, partly by Leicestershire, but it was likely to have been dealt with by Leicestershire Police, not by the Met. 

(Note: does Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe mention the Crown Prosecution Service here? The CPS is usually brought in when evidence gathered by the police is presented with a view to consideration for prosecution, but all Hogan-Howe says above is that the file was being considered by the Met and Leicestershire Police. It does not appear that the file had been referred to the CPS, so why did Martin Brunt tell Brenda Leyland that the "Crown Prosecution Service is considering it"?)

EN: Just give us an idea of what trolling is actually, because on Drivetime we've been arguing...errr... I can say, "I don't like the Commissioner." I can say "I don't like the way he talks to me." That's an opinion. That's not trolling, is it? At what point, where is your line, because as far as I'm aware, it looks to me like a subjective line. Where's your line, Commissioner? 

HH: It's not really where my line is, it's where..err..what does the law say? So, where does...

EN: What does it say?

HH: Where does abuse become a criminal offence? And of when, I don't like you, you don't like me, we are neither conversational nor abusive. As human beings that's what happens in life, isn't it? But, of course, if you become racist errrr...

(Note: like this, Commissioner? 

Rainne @dirndllass Oct 4Damned nigers,gonna bring the fucking plague on the rest of us )


...if you become threatening, if you threaten to kill someone, these are very different forms of things as human behaviour. That becomes a crime. (Is Rainne going to be investigate then for racism?) If you threaten to kill someone, you can go to prison for ten years, if they believe it and you want them to believe it. If you are racist (Rainne!!) there is a consequence. If you are threatening in your behaviour. If you transfer that into the cyber crime, it's broadly the same. Then, you know, abusive behaviour between individuals, sadly, rightly or wrongly, well the police can't get involved in all human behaviour. They can only get involved where there is a crime. And generally, it's where there are very aggravating circumstances. You cannot blackmail people, you cannot threaten them, you cannot be racist. And generally, that's the sort of line that we draw in cyber, in cyber area. 

(Note: having read tweets posted by @sweepyface (Brenda Leyland) it doesn't appear to me that Brenda was threatening or blackmailing the McCanns and the case does not appear to have been handed to the CPS for prosecution) 

EN: ???? (unclear) ...challenges, isn't it?
HH: Yes, frankly, we the police cannot get involved in all bad behaviour between human beings. I mean, sometimes if we were to be defamatory with each other, you know, we might have to go to the civil courts, not to criminal courts. Well defamation is a different area altogether. The police don't get involved in that, thank goodness. You have to go to the civil court for that. In some of these areas, it's the civil courts that have to consider remedies. It's not always going to be the criminal law or the police.

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

Brenda Leyland, posting on Twitter as @sweepyface, posted tweets like: "must the Mccanns suffer' answer 'for the rest of their miserable lives'."

Not very nice, but then she wasn't threatening to make them suffer, was she?

Now, Kate McCann, referring to Gonçalo Amaral wrote that, "He deserves to be miserable and feel fear."

Is that very different to what Brenda Leyland wrote? Not in my book.

So, of the many thousands (and I do mean many thousands) of people on social media questioning the McCanns' account of what happened to their daughter, why was Brenda Leyland singled out? Why did Martin Brunt think it was OK to accost her on her doorstep, telling her that the Crown Prosecution Service was considering...? And if there was a police investigation, how did Martin Brunt come into possession of details from it, including Brenda's real name and address?

I think these questions needs answers and I am glad that there will be a police investigation into Sky News reporting of this affair. I hope that those who were abusive towards Brenda, those like Rainne on Twitter, will also be investigated. Brenda was hounded by the media and by a few people on social media, who would rightly, in my opinion, be called trolls and there are many of us who want to know why.

Katie Hopkins did not cause a "Twitter Storm." The hounding of Brenda Leyland caused it and I hope there will be a full and rigorous investigation.

Kate and Gerry McCann: new video from HiDeHo4 "The Road to Hell."

McCanns - The Road to Hell - The Shocking... by HiDeHo4

Kate and Gerry McCann: Body Language

This is a TED Talk video with short snatches of videos of Kate and Gerry McCann spliced in to demonstrate the ideas the speaker is describing. Very telling. 

Kate and Gerry McCann playing the waiting game

Video by HiDeHo4 June 16th 2014

When there was a dig on a Greek island in the search for Ben Needham, who went missing as a toddler, his mother, Kerry, was there while the work was being carried out. Kate and Gerry McCann, on the other hand, decided not to go to Portugal while digging was going on in the search for their daughter. Their official Facebook page carried a message that they had been asked not to go, but I'm sure they could have gone anyway. No one forced them to stay away. However, last weekend, Kate and Gerry found time to fly to Portugal for their libel case against Dr Gonçalo Amaral, which was scheduled to start today at 9am. Kate and Gerry had been hoping to give statements to the court on how Dr Amaral's book had affected their lives, but this was not to be because the case has been postponed, following a letter delivered to the court this morning by Gonçalo Amaral.

Oh dear!

Thanks to HiDeHo4, we have the video of Kate and Gerry outside the court this morning. I'm not going to transcribe the whole of that video or comment on all of it: it's the Kate and Gerry pity party and I haven't had my supper!

Just a few extracts then.

Gerry McCann: "..it's a blatant and cynical attempt to wear us down and it's Madeleine who's suffering."

Well, Gerry, you didn't wear yourselves down searching for your daughter the night she disappeared. Neither of you went out looking for her, preferring to spend your time phoning all the friends and relations and telling them about the "jemmied shutters," which weren't actually damaged at all. You have also put a great deal of energy into having Dr Amaral's book banned (subsequently overturned) and pursuing this libel action.

So, it's "Madeleine who's suffering."? In what way might Madeleine be suffering, if she were alive, because this libel case has been postponed? I'm not with you there, but hey, let's just throw that line in to get some sympathy! None from this quarter! I believe that Madeleine's suffering was over a long time ago.

Kate McCann talks about "the pain and stress that Mr Amaral has brought to us and our children." Dr Amaral's book was published soon after the case was archived in July 2008. Let's talk about the waiting game here. It wasn't until May 16th 2009 that the media carried the story that you and Gerry had found that the book had caused you great distress and suffering and that you had decided that you would take legal action. Why wait so long? It didn't cause great distress and suffering immediately? Or maybe you hadn't expected it to be so successful. Or maybe, once you had counted up what you thought Dr Amaral had earned from the book, you began to feel upset and distressed. All that money! Waaaaaaah! Let's sue him for the lot!

Moving on, Kate McCann tells the eager reporters that every time she and her hubby have to go to Portugal, "we have to make arrangements for our children to be looked after." Good God! They're now using babysitters! If they had paid out a few quid for a babysitter in May 2007, they wouldn't be in this position. Enough with the "poor me."!!

They have to book flights and hotels? What a hard job that must be! And I don't believe for one minute that even a penny of their own money was used in the process, not with a fund produced from public donations to dip into, that fund that was supposedly set up to look for Madeleine. Madeleine was not at the Vatican and she's not in the court in Lisbon.

The next part of Kate McCann's spiel is rather worrying. She states that Gonçalo Amaral, with reference to the search for Madeleine, is trying to, "stop her that human right of being looked for and found." Really? With all the suspects that have been lined up since the book was published? Kate and Gerry, instead of hiring dodgy detectives, you could always have looked for her yourselves, especially on the night she disappeared. But it's the next part that's really worrying. Kate McCann goes on to say, "It has happened to other children. It can happen to Madeleine." Is there a direct link there? Is she implying that Snr Amaral has stopped other children being looked for and found? It certainly seems like that to me. Sounds rather libelous if that is what she's implying.

So, here we have Kate and Gerry playing the waiting game. They've played that game rather a lot since their daughter disappeared into thin air. I believe they waited from 10pm, when Madeleine was said to have been found to be missing, until around 10.40pm before one of their holiday companions called the police. They waited nearly a year to decide to sue Gonçalo Amaral because of hurt and distress caused by his book. Their lawyer, Isabel Duarte, waited some considerable time after the ban on Amaral's book was overturned to actually comply with a court order to return those books. Well, now it's their turn to wait a little longer. They could always spend some time investigating those "hellish lairs," in the "lawless villages," around Praia da Luz that two of their detectives spoke of.

Gonçalo Amaral has also been waiting. As a result of this court action, his assets were frozen and he has had to rely on his father for a roof over his head. He hasn't had access to a few million quid in publicly donated money to pay his bills and fund a few jaunts around Europe. He has waited five years and I guess he can wait a little while longer.

Good luck Dr Amaral. You have many friends around the world who are on your side, the side of justice for Madeleine.

Madeleine McCann: Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.

Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Libel Trial

Judge rules that Kate and Gerry McCann do not possess the authority to sue Gonçalo Amaral in their daughter’s name.


The judge at the Civil Court of Lisbon who is trying the ‘libel’ case which Kate and Gerry McCann have filed against Gonçalo Amaral and 3 other parties has issued a decision concerning the matter of Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court.

On the 3rd of January 2014, Gonçalo Amaral had argued before the Lisbon Court that Madeleine’s parents do not possess the necessary power to represent their daughter in this action, since the child had been made a Ward of Court in the United Kingdom.

The judge decided that Mr Amaral should present a certificate of the relevant British judicial ruling. That certificate was delivered to the Court on the 2nd of May, after a lengthy, expensive process.

The judge then had to decide whether or not Madeleine’s parents were entitled to represent their daughter in this lawsuit. In the judge’s recent ruling, it is mentioned that “within the 'Wardship', the High Court holds ultimate responsibility over the child, but it does not suppress or annul the exercise of the parental responsibilities”. The High Court takes control over “the most important decisions for the life” of the child. The judge further considers that “the decision to file a judicial action in the name of the child” is a decision “of the magnitude that is demanded for the agreement or consent of the court”.

The judge’s ruling further notes that the matters that have been brought before the High Court that holds the Wardship have been matters of an “eminently judiciary nature, like the revelation of confidential information and documents, that are related to the child’s disappearance and were in the possession of the local police”.

The text continues with the consideration that because Madeleine was made a Ward of the Court on the 2nd of April of 2008, her parents did not possess, in 2009, “the necessary capacity of representation of their daughter to file the present action without the authorization from the British court”.

Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.

http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/06/ward-of-court-decision-issued-by-judge.html

Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral June 1st 2014

For me, the above highlighted text suggests that Kate and Gerry McCann must show that before they took their libel action against Gonçalo Amaral they had authorisation to bring the action in Madeleine's name. The text above states that the McCanns must produce the documentation "in the records," of the British court, i.e., something which already exists, rather than something they will now apply for. 

Madeleine McCann: "What You Know Is Not The Truth"

Daily Star, Sunday October 13th

The small text window says:

Key details of the original Madeleine McCann investigation were wrong, police said last night.

They will reveal a new timeline of the crucial minutes when Maddie, three, was snatched in Portugal in 2007.

And they'll release several E-fits of suspects.

What we know is not the truth? So, what do we know? We have statements from the McCanns and the friends they went on holiday with and we have the police files. We also have the timelines drawn up by the McCanns and friends on the covers of a childrens' sticker book on the evening that Madeleine disappeared into thin air.

Version 1

Version 2

Slightly different, but not significantly.

So, if what we know is wrong and there is a new timeline, what does that mean in terms of what the McCanns and friends have stated as the timing of events?

I've spent the day today feeling quite confused about what the police are being reported as having said, such as the statement about the tennis balls photo in today's Sky News article. The voice-over on the video on this page describes a tennis match played by Kate and Gerry as being the "backdrop to her last photo." I don't recall reading about that tennis match and Maddie being ball girl in any of the statements by the McCanns or their friends. The tennis balls photo was originally stated to have been taken by someone, Kate McCann or Jane Tanner, on the day that Madeleine's creche group took part in "Mini Tennis." That was on Tuesday, May 1st 2007, according to Kate McCann in her book, "Madeleine."

Kate McCann states in her book that she ran back to the apartment to get her camera to record the occasion. So, she wasn't playing tennis and Madeleine wasn't being ball girl on the occasion that photo was taken! Rachael claims that Jane Tanner took the photo. There is also a question of who was actually there at the time because of discrepancies in describing which tennis court the Mini Tennis was held on and whether it was taken on that day or on another day. If the tennis balls photo was taken at Mini Tennis on May 1st, how can it be the "last photo," of Madeleine when Sky news prints the image below as having been taken on the day before Madeleine disappeared, which would be May 2nd?

And again, if the tennis balls photo is the "last photo," what about the one which has been purported to be that for over 6 years now? 

When was the tennis balls photo taken? When Kate and Gerry were playing tennis or, as Kate McCann states in her book, during the Mini Tennis session for Madeleine's creche group? And when did they have a tennis match? 

If what we know is not the truth and the police have drawn up a new timeline, focusing on the time period between 8.30pm, when the McCanns stated that they had gone to dinner at the Tapas Bar, and 10pm when Madeleine was reported missing by Kate McCann, what is the truth and what is that saying about the timelines drawn up by the McCanns and friends?

But wait folks! Dr Martin Roberts thinks the Mini Tennis session was on Monday April 30th! Here is just a little snippet from his "Anyone for tennis" article on The McCann Files about that tennis session, when it took place and who took that photo!

In short, Rachael describes how Jane took the photograph on Thursday, Jane describes the event taking place on Wednesday and Kate describes how she (Kate) took it on Tuesday. Imagine. 'Just hold that pose, dear!' 'How long for?' 'Er...tomorrow.'
And yet the photograph cannot have been taken during a mini-tennis session on the Tuesday either, because there wasn't one. Mini-tennis took place, according to the 'kids' club' schedule, on the Monday morning. If, this photograph is construed as representing Madeleine McCann's 'last hours' therefore (as a recent Sunday Telegraph report would suggest), then these will have been spent on the morning of Monday April 30th, not the early evening of May 3."

Notes From A Potting Shedder: "The McMobile Trawl"

Brilliant blog post by "A Potting Shedder."

"The McMobile Trawl"

October 2013 - London's Metropolitan Police say authorities are combing phone records of tourists and residents who were in a Portuguese resort at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood told reporters Thursday that authorities were trawling through phone traffic of people in Praia da Luz around May 3, 2007, when the then-3 year-old vanished.


Interesting, but I thought the British authorities had already participated in this? Or have I got deja vu again..

Read the whole blog post here

Well done Potting Shedder!

Police chief's book made Madeleine McCann's family's grief ‘one hundred times worse

THE distress of missing Madeleine McCann’s parents was “multiplied a hundred times” after a police chief accused them of being involved in her disappearance, a court heard yesterday. Daily Express Thursday October 3rd

Their grief was 100 times worse than this? 

Above: Kate and Gerry McCann on Madeleine's fourth birthday in 2007, just days after she disappeared.

Happy Birthday Gonçalo De Sousa Amaral - Updated

Five years ago today, on his birthday, Gonçalo De Sousa Amaral was removed from the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Today, the libel case against him brought by Kate and Gerry McCann resumes in Lisbon. 

Forca Snr Amaral!

With thanks to Anne Guedes, this is the possible line up of witnesses for today:

MCCANN Versus GONCALO AMARAL - Trial will resume Wed 2nd Oct

WITNESSES who would have been heard on 27th Sep are as follows - (Henrique Machado (journalist of Correio da Manhã), Eduardo Dâmaso (political analyst) and Mrs Cameron). 

From this I deduce that 1) Mrs Healy will not be heard and 2) Mrs Cameron is the last witness for the accusation. Presumably, if the judge grants Gerry McCann's request to appear as a witness, then he will take the stand also.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2417.msg78649#msg78649

Thanks to Joana Morais for updates. Gerry McCann has once again been refused permission to give evidence. The judge will decide by October 10th. Mrs Healy, Kate McCann's mother, was unable to give evidence as the McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte had removed her from the witness list. Oh dear!

There is an ongoing translation of a Portuguese news video on Joana's web site. Link above. 

Leonor Cipriano sentenced for lying about torture by Portuguese (PJ) police officers

Eight-year-old Joana Cipriano disappeared from the village of Figueira, near Portimão, Portugal, on 12 September 2004 and was later assumed to have been murdered, though her body has never been found. A lengthy investigation ended with the conviction of Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano and  Leonor's brother, João Cipriano, for murder. Leonor subsequently accused a number of PJ (Polícia Judiciária) officers of having beaten a confession out of her even though a prior confession is not admissible in Portuguese courts.

Today, Leonor Cipriano, who is serving 16 years in prison for the murder of her daughter, was given an additional 7 months sentence for lying about the torture. 

Read the background to the Joana case here (McCann Files) and here (Gazeta Digital)

The Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation and ordered a police line-up, with the CID officers named and accused by Leonor Cipriano of beating her;
The line-up took place with Leonor Cipriano behind a two-way mirror and she couldn’t recognize any of the aggressors;
The Public Prosecutor’s Office magistrate that was in charge of the criminal investigation decided to accuse the five CID officers, but didn’t mentioned, in the accusation sent to the Court, that Leonor Cipriano couldn’t identify any of the aggressors, in the police line-up; (Gazeta Digital)

Leonor Cipriano's original lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, has recently taken himself to Brazil and Leonor was appointed a public defence lawyer. Marcos Aragão Correia was allegedly paid my Metodo 3, a group of Spanish private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry McCann to search for their daughter Madeleine, to dig the dirt on Gonçalo Amaral, the PJ inspector who worked on both the Joana case and the Madeleine McCann case.

The trial of the PJ inspectors revealed many attempts by Leonor Cipriano's lawyer to discredit Gonçalo Amaral, both professionally and personally. The lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia - who previously hit the headlines when he organised an underwater seach for Madeleine's body at the Arade Dam, in Portugal - has admitted that Metodo3 ordered him to do "an investigation" into the accusation of torture but he denies he is being paid just to frame Gonçalo Amaral. (McCann Files)

On 22 May 2009 Gonçalo Amaral received an 18-month custodial sentence, suspended for the same length of time, for misrepresentation of evidence. He was acquitted of the charge of failing to report a crime.

Following the delivery of the verdict, Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, said: "Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted".

In December 2011, Scotland Yard detectives who are currently working on a review of the Maddie case, removed 30 boxes of files concerning the case, from the Metodo 3 offices in Barcelona. Those boxes of files may reveal what the detective agency, whose previous investigations centred around cases of money laundering, actually did in their alleged search for Madeleine McCann. The agency had no previous experience of searching for missing children. In February this year several detectives employed by Metodo 3 were arrested on charges of spying. 

The McCanns, as we know, have not been too lucky in their choice of detectives in the search for their daughter. Apart from Metodo 3, there was Kevin Halligen, recently extradited to the USA to face charges of fraud.

We now await the start of the delayed libel case being brought by Kate and Gerry McCann against Gonçalo Amaral for alleged defamation in his book "A Verdade da Mentira", in which he detailed the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance and the conclusion of the joint working teams of English and Portuguese police that Madeleine had probably died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. Personally, I don't see how Kate and Gerry McCann can win this case when the highest court in Portugal, the Supreme Court, upheld the decision of the Appeals Court in October 2010 to overturn the ban on Amaral's book. At the time of the successful appeal by Amaral..

The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."

"The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," the court said, according to the Jornal de Noticías newspaper's website.
"The book is an exercise in freedom of speech," Amaral told Portugal's Lusa news agency. "Portuguese democracy has won, as banning the book was unconstitutional." (The Guardian)

So, let's see where we have arrived at: Leonor Cipriano, her lawyer who has scarpered to Brazil, a bunch of dodgy detectives and a libel trial based on a book which has already been judged by both the Appeals Court and Portugal's Supreme Court not to have breached the McCanns' basic rights. 

Good luck Dr Amaral! This truly is a tangled web! 

Savile, Armstrong and the McCanns: if you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one!

Excellent video by Reggie Dunlop, who spotted that the sighting of Madeleine McCann in Brazil was actually a photo of the evacuation of Ibiza airport, following a bomb scare!  

How DARE Gerry & Kate Claim the PJ Did NOTHING!

..
..

Hey Gerry! They're making up stories again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



(To be continued)

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

Madeleine 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/

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?

"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!

Now you see it - Now you don't.

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

By guest author CountySet.

Now you see it - Now you don't.

A nice turn of phrase and one that down the ages has come to signify the work of those who would deceive. There can be many reasons to deceive and not all of them are with criminal intent. A magician at a children's party with the words "Abracadabra" elicits many genuine oohs and ahhhs of wonderment from his excited young audience with the most simple of visual gags. No one child has ever been harmed and the sole purpose of the trick is to amuse and delight. To adult sensibilities childish tricks like making a rabbit disappear and reappear from a top hat is only one of the more annoying aberrations which magicians are able to conjure from their special larder store of physical laws.

At the McCann's villa, the Vista Do Mar, their final abode in Praia Da Luz on the 8th of September 2007 at around mid-morning Michael Wright drew open the villa's large green painted metal gates. The moment the gates were open to their fullest extent the McCann's Renault hire car was seen reversing at some speed across the gravel driveway and towards the posse of photographers and journalists gathered outside. They beat a hurried retreat to the sides of the adjoining lane to allow the car access to the lane and the asphalted road.

The press were all keyed up that day to see who would be lucky enough, the lucky one, to snap the first pictures of Gerry McCann on this the first full day Gerry McCann was set to spend as arguido or suspect in his daughter's disappearance. The previous night Gerry McCann had returned to the villa in the early hours of the morning. As he got out of the car to open the gates to the villa driveway he was asked by a reporter if he had anything to say. Gerry McCann paused for a moment and no doubt remembering one of his newly acquired rights was the right to silence, replied with almost detectable glee, "I've been told I can't say anything". Smirking at his eloquent use of the phrase Gerry McCann then returned to his car and drove up the driveway to the villa, the precise position from which the car reversed today.

The Renault hire car having started in reverse had to continue on reversing down the short lane and even though the car was moving at some speed it could not help but pass close by the multitude of cameras and videos of the assembled pressmen, photographers and broadcasters. The cameras peered in at the windows as the car passed each one in turn hoping to catch a glimpse of the occupants inside. The car was no more than a couple of feet from the camera's peering lens and yet despite being so close for some reason it was almost impossible to make out who the occupants of the car were or even who was the driving the Renault hire car.

Image 2: That yellowish smudge in the rear child's seat is Sean. Apparently.

Image 3: That blank car window seen in the top two frames - is Gerry McCann sitting in the rear passenger seat. As the car came to a rest and executed the first part of a three point turn the face of Sandy Cameron can just be made out, along with the shape of a light haired woman sitting alongside Sandy in the other front passenger seat.

Image 4: As the car '3 pointed' it stopped. It was at that moment these shots were taken from across the bonnet. Sandy Cameron is just a shade more visible, as is the mystery woman at his side. She now appears to be large with light coloured off the shoulder hair and to be wearing a white cardigan with a badge on her right lapel.

Image 5: The car must now complete its manoeuvre and in doing so it must yet again drive within a few feet past the waiting cameraman. The camera only a few feet away - the car accelerated - some loose stones from the tarmac spun up - and these four shots are all we are left with as the car shot by and spun off down the road. From these pictures it is possible to identify the mystery woman who was in the McCann's Renault hire car on Gerry's first day as suspect and that woman was Eileen McCann, Gerry McCann's mother.

Image 6: The press were dumbfounded. Who was that in the car - did you get a picture of Gerry McCann - was he there - he drove straight past - you couldn't see. They were all incredulous at their misfortune in not getting a useable shot. They were puzzled as to who was in the car and as to where it was going. One member of the press was invited to share in the McCann's privileged information. That solitary pressman can be seen running up to the McCann's car to talk to Gerry as the car stopped a small distance off from the rest of the press.

This series of pictures suggest Gerry McCann was photographed taking his mother along with Sean and Sandy to Faro to see Eileen McCann onto a flight back to the UK as these were the last shots taken of Eileen McCann in Praia Da Luz.

Sandy Cameron was the chauffeur that day for the McCanns. This was a job Sandy was well used to undertaking. As usual the McCann's Renault hire car had been turned out a treat. The bumpers glistened and shone. The bodywork groaned under the layers of wax emulsion, each lovingly layered, and the glass surfaces shone so much they appeared not as windows but more like mirrors reflecting all casual gazes and all but the most persistent of glances even those from a telephoto lens.

Kate and Gerry McCann: action replay of some of their best moments!

.............................
...............................
I wonder if Kate and Gerry McCann have ever wished they lived before the internet age, immediate world-wide communication, and videoed interviews, rather than paraphrased quotes reaching the newspapers from Europe a day or so after the event.

Well, here are a few of their best moments, some of them from the friends and relations.



Mother's Day in Portugal, three days after Madeleine disappeared into thin air. In similar situations where a child has gone missing, I usually really feel the emotion coming from the parents, and I feel choked up. However, when I saw this video, I was amazed that I felt no empathetic response. For me, Kate McCann made a letter box of her mouth, and just seemed to be trying out the expressions she thought that a mother in that situation would be feeling.



Dear Auntie Phil, telling us about Gerry and Kate not wanting to leave the children with the strangers who looked after them in the creche all day, every day, and about that 'clear line of sight to their kids.' May 5th 2007. Did she ever bother to find out the truth? Hard to miss it really, unless she has spent the last three years like those German people Kate and Gerry appealed to, who might have information - somewhere in La-La Land, where there is no telly, newspapers, radio, internet, or other human beings with eyes and ears and a way of communicating with the rest of the world, or even just their neighbour!



Brian Kennedy, Madeleine's great uncle, with his wife, Janet, talking about children going missing and the shock of it, 'especially in what you think is a safe complex.' Obviously, no one had told them, at that point, on May 5th 2007, that the McCanns' apartment was not within a 'safe complex,' but outside the Ocean Club, overlooking a car park and a public road.



John McCann, Gerry's brother, May 9th 2007. Just a load of twaddle!




Eileen McCann, Gerry's mother, describing how much brighter Gerry sounds on the phone, because of all the support. Brian Kennedy, talking about the fund and its intended purpose.

Presenter: Tell me, Brian, about all the people that have been coming up to you today, literally stuffing money in your hand.

Brian Kennedy: ....touching. Very touching.......the money can be used for all sorts of reasons, but probably mainly for legal expenditure.

Legal expenditure? On May 17th 2007 Brian Kennedy stated that the money being donated would be 'probably mainly for legal expenditure.' What legal expenditure was being foreseen at that time?



Jane Tanner: listen carefully to her description of the way the child was being carried. She says, 'I was carrying....'



Kate McCann: that 'whoosh cluck,' moment, when she looks like she's having trouble getting her mouth under control.




And finally, a brilliant video from Claudia7929, The McCanns - Their Best Moments. (20/09/08)