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.

"McCann fury as new libel cop case begins "

The Daily Star today laments how the poor McCanns are furious that so much money has been raised by "Internet trolls," to help Gonçalo Amaral launch his appeal against the decision of a civil court to award the McCanns a huge amount of money in damages against him. For a start, nothing new there: the McCanns seem to have been furious on quite a few occasions since their daughter disappeared into thin air.


So, what has the daily fish and chip wrapper said?


"They could help to strip the couple of £357,000 they hope to use to find her."
Now, is that the money they were hoping to get out of Gonçalo or the amount that they could have to pay in legal fees out of their handy pot of cash, the Find Madeleine Fund should Gonçalo succeed with his appeal?


"Ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral, 56, has been flooded with nearly £50,000 in public donations since he lost a libel hearing against Kate and Gerry McCann six months ago." Now that conjures up a strange picture. Gonçalo has been been "flooded." What with? A funnel? No, silly Mr Lawton, the account has been flooded! And since you have given the fund such good publicity, it now stands at over £50,000 and is rising steadily.


"The GoFundMe webpage donors include trolls who have abused the McCanns online." So, Jerry Lawton has been going through the list of donors and can identify people who have supposedly "abused the McCanns online"? Are those the people who have been asking awkward questions like, "Where is the proof of abduction?" Maybe he could ask the McCanns for a copy of the dossier that "the family" gave to the police, the one that got into the hands of Martin Brunt, who used it to doorstep Brenda Leyland. I doubt he'll actually want to read the sickeningly abusive messages to Brenda Leyland that were posted on Twitter by supporters of Kate and Gerry. Mr Lawton has firmly set himself on the side of those who are never going to accept any responsibility for the loss of their daughter and who instead are ready to sue anyone who contradicts their version of events.


"A friend of the couple admitted they were “exasperated” by the appeal and the source of its funding." Well, how awful for them that Gonçalo is able to exercise his legal right of appeal. And the source of its funding? The money donated to Gonçalo's defence fund will be used for the stated purpose. The money the McCanns are using to sue Gonçalo has come from the money donated by the public to help the search for Madeleine. So, the McCanns making a statement about the source of funding seems rather hypocritical to say the least.


"It seems strange indeed these people may be indirectly able to influence civil court proceedings. Kate and Gerry are exasperated.” Yes, I imagine that they are rather exasperated. They must have thought they had Gonçalo by the proverbial short and curlies since they have had his assets frozen. Thousands of people donating to the appeal fund have proved them wrong and left them "exasperated." Those who have given to the fund will not, of course, influence civil court proceedings, either directly or indirectly. What they are influencing is whether or not a Portuguese citizen is able to exercise his rights in law, a right the McCanns would take from him if they could.




May justice prevail for Dr Amaral and for Madeleine McCann and all those people like Brenda Leyland. They, and not Kate and Gerry, are the victims of this saga.



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 McCann: where did she read "The Truth of the Lie," in 2008?

Where did Kate McCann read Gonçalo Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie" in 2008? As far as I know mine is the only complete English translation on the internet.

When the French edition became available, my daughter ordered it for me via Amazon France. Bourin Editeur 2009. I posted each chapter as I completed it, simultaneously on my blog and on MM forum. So, since chapter 1 is on MM forum Feb 21st, even though I re-organised consecutively on my blog early 2010 and lost original dates, I know it was started Feb 2009.

Now, since I was working full-time, there is a good chance that I finished the translation and posted the last chapter somewhere around the end of April/beginning of May. Coincidence that the McCanns stated they would sue Amaral on May 16th, 2009?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id244.html

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. 

Kate McCann and the Child Rescue Alert system: an alert would not have been triggered for Madeleine under this system

Coral Jones, mother of murdered April Jones, and Mrs McCann, mother of missing Madeleine, unveiled a digital billboard at King’s Cross station in London promoting an enhanced Child Rescue Alerts system to inform the public about missing children whose lives are considered at risk.

The scheme will use social media including text messages, email and digital billboards across the UK in addition to traditional broadcast media to issue the alerts when it is launched on Sunday, International Missing Children’s Day.

(WalesOnline May 20th 2014)

The Child Rescue Alerts System, which has been introduced in the UK recently, is based of the French Alerte Enlèvement system, which has been in operation across the EU for a number of years. The UK is one of the last of the member states to introduce this system for missing children.

I think Kate McCann is showing her usual arrogance in appearing in public to promote this alert system after attempting to replace it in 2008 when she and Gerry went to Strasbourg to sponsor the American Amber Alert system at a time when the French system was already being tried out in several EU states.

An alert system had been active in some member states of the EU for some time when the McCanns went to Strasbourg. In fact, Portugal was the second country after Hungary, to introduce an alert system in 2002, in accordance with an EU directive.

In June 2008, the McCanns went to Strasbourg to gather support for a Europe-wide system, based on the American Amber Alert. They presented a written declaration to the Commission, but this was not their own work, rather it had been drawn up by Edward McMillan-Scott, then Vice-President of the European Parliament, but presented by the media-savvy, media magnets, the McCanns.

The McCanns had simply tried to hijack an initiative that had already been working its way through the European Parliament for some time, turn it into something else and claim it as their own.

In December 2006, an extraordinary meeting of the member states approved an initiative of the European Commission to reserve certain numbers (Starting with 116 ) for a Europe-wide alert system for missing children. This was the system which had been in operation in France since 2006 and had proved to be effective in several cases.

Since 2006, the French system, known as "Alerte Enlèvement," which is the system now introduced across most of the EU territory and finally in the UK, has recovered many missing children through rapid response to reported cases of abduction. The success of the system, according to Rachida Dati, former French Justice Minister, is due to there being very strict criteria for launching an alert. Four criteria must be met.

1) It must be a confirmed abduction and not just a disappearance, however worrying.

2) The victim's life or physical safety must be at risk.

3) The Public Prosecutor must be in possession of sufficient information which, if broadcast, would help to locate the child or the suspect.

4) The victim must be a minor.

Would an alert have been triggered when Madeleine McCann disappeared? 

1) A confirmed abduction? No. All that was known was that Madeleine had been reported by her parents as having been in bed when they left the apartment to go to the Tapas Bar and that when Kate McCann went to check on the children at 10pm, Madeleine wasn't in her bed. In spite of what was stated to friends and relations of the McCanns by telephone in the early hours of May 4th, 2007, there was no evidence of a break-in at the apartment: the shutters had not been "jemmied," and no trace of an abductor was found in the apartment. Apart from the above, we have Jane Tanner's statement about having seen a man she originally described as "carrying a bundle that could have been a child," which gradually developed into a man carrying a child who was definitely Madeleine McCann. 

So, no, criterion number one  was not met.

2) Was Madeleine's life or physical safety at risk? Well, she wasn't tucked up safely in her bed and she was not hiding in the apartment or anywhere in the vicinity. She was a missing three-year-old, so a child at risk since it was not and still is not known what had happened to her. 

3) Was there sufficient information that would have helped locate Madeleine or the suspect? The question is, what kind of information would have helped? The first and most important piece of information would perhaps have been a description of a suspect, but Jane Tanner's description of "an egg with hair," would not have been very helpful! Secondly, the description of a vehicle that could possibly have been used by a suspect. None. So, based on a vague description of "an egg with hair," there would have been insufficient evidence, which if broadcast would have helped recover Madeleine or find a suspect.

Number 3 not met.

4) The victim must be a minor. Yes. 

As for little April Jones, an alert would probably have been triggered in her case. Several of April's friends reported having seen her getting into a white van. So, there would have been sufficient information, which if broadcast may have helped the police recover April, or at least discover her whereabouts. Madeleine McCann's disappearance is very different in many ways to that of April Jones. There are no independent witnesses outside the McCanns circle of friends who can state that Madeleine had been in bed when she vanished into thin air, but April was seen outside her home by many of her friends. April's case was an obvious abduction: Madeleine's disappearance was not. Even Andy Redwood, who is leading the team of British police officers investigating Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal, has stated recently that there is a chance that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive. Is he suggesting that an intruder took away a dead child or is he suggesting something else? 

So, here we have Kate McCann appearing in public to promote a missing child alert system that she tried to replace with the American Amber Alert system, under the strict criteria of which, an alert would not have been triggered for Madeleine. That woman has some Chutzpah! But that's nothing new as far as Kate and Gerry McCann are concerned! They admit to having left three children under the age of 4 in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country while they wined and dined with their mates and have been behaving like celebrity victims ever since, courting publicity at every opportunity. That's amazing Chutzpah in my book! 

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.

Kate McCann and those Death Threats!

"DEATH THREAT FEAR FOR TWINS"

That's the newspaper headline we see as the video opens. So, where is this unspecified threat? I've never seen any online or otherwise threats to the McCann twins.

"We both feel very strongly that more should be done about internet abuse."

I feel like that too, Mrs McCann. I've never been abusive towards anyone on the internet, but a couple of years ago I had to place comments on this blog on pre-moderation because I was receiving vile abuse and death threats from people purporting to be supporting you. Someone actually went to the trouble of setting up a blog about me, giving my full address. Not only that, but they included my son's name too. That's what I call abuse and I do think more should be done about it. I contacted Google, who informed me that their procedure was to take down pages hosted by them only when there was a legal order to do so. Now, you may be able to afford the services of Carter-Ruck at around £600/hour to take down web pages, but this ordinary person can't.

"People wouldn't get away with behaving like that on the street and yet they can hide behind a computer at home."

Mrs McCann, the name on the heading of this blog is my real name. I may be sitting at home on my computer, but you have been sitting behind a PR spokesperson for nearly six years now and have used very expensive legal representatives to sue those whom you have seen as speaking out against you in ways that you don't like. Most of us sitting at home behind computers don't have those options. Do you agree with people who post personal details, like mine, online? Do you agree with the posting of lies on such a blog? How about a well-known forum where people who claim to be supporting you have posted vile abuse about Jimmy Savile's victims, saying those victims were just out for money? Do you think that's OK? How about the person on Twitter, who goes by the name "Muratfan," who doesn't discuss information presented, but simply posts abusive comments? Is that OK with you? I am left to assume that all of the above is OK with you, that those who are posting vile abuse online, stating that they are supporting you and your hubby, Mrs McCann, do so with your approval because I have not seen anything from you that disagrees with their behaviour. That kind of abuse is OK then?

And how about Pamela Gurney, aka "The Balloon Dancer," who seems to spend 24 hours a day online, hurling abuse on YouTube, Twitter etc at anyone who disagrees with her unconditional support of you? If I'm ever in trouble, I hope that I have the unconditional support of my family and my good friends, but Lord save me from the kind of support you get, Mrs McCann. Not the kind of support I would find helpful. Me? I'd make sure everyone knew I'd disowned that type of person.

THE mother of Madeleine McCann is terrified for her other two children after receiving sick online death threats.
Kate, whose eldest daughter disappeared aged three in 2007, told how internet trolls have vowed to kill her this weekend. (Daily Star April 19th)

Online "death threats."? Plural? Where? The video mentions one comment on a Facebook page, which was investigated by the police and found not to be a serious threat against Kate McCann's life.

And why should Kate McCann be terrified for her "other two children"? Has anyone threatened those children? If so, where? When? Who would threaten the McCann twins, now aged eight? In my opinion, no one who has followed this case since Madeleine disappeared into thin air and the shutter were found not to have been "jemmied." No one who is concerned because one child has been harmed (if Maddie was abducted, abduction is not harmless for children) would wish to harm or threaten to harm two more.

If there are online death threats other than the cleared Facebook one, then someone show them to me, please, because I haven't seen them.

And finally!

But she told ITV Daybreak host Lorraine Kelly: “Even sometimes when I do think they’re cowards and I’m not even going to go there, I think about my children and I think it’s not right that they should come across stuff like that as well.

Stuff like what? Mrs McCann, you claim to have written your book "Madeleine," for your twins and for Madeleine. Do you think it's OK to write a book for small children in which you refer to a police family liaison officer as a f*cking t*sser and on page 129 of that book to describe what you imagine a paedophile doing to your daughter? Is that the kind of "stuff" that's OK for Sean and Amelie to read? That may be the stuff of your nightmares, but your children don't need to read about it.

Disown "Muratfan," Mrs Trolley and the rest of those vile people who hide behind their computers, accusing victims of sexual abuse to be just after money and I might think that all this publicity recently wasn't just because the anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance was coming up and there was the annual opportunity to fill the coffers of your private limited company, otherwise known as "The Madeleine Fund."

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!  

Sofia Leal's OPEN LETTER to Kate McCann "A Disgrace."

See also these previous blog posts:

Transcript of Sofia's letter

Madeleine McCann: “One and one has to make two. Until the answer is found he will not give up.”

Kate McCann interviewed by Jon Corner. August 2007

Should Kate McCann be 'Ambassador' for Missing Children?

.
.

Another fine video from HiDeHo

Forums: HiDeHo

Email: hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter: @HiDeHo3

YouTube: HiDeHo4

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.