Friday, 25 July 2014
Thursday, 10 July 2014
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
Sunday, 22 June 2014
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.
Monday, 16 June 2014
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.
Friday, 13 June 2014
Sunday, 1 June 2014
Madeleine McCann: 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
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.
Friday, 30 May 2014
Wednesday, 21 May 2014
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.
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!
Thursday, 17 April 2014
The Child Reported Missing in the Allier Region of France Did Not Exist
The woman who reported the disappearance, presenting herself as the child's aunt, has been remanded in custody.
The story began on a fake Facebook page, which was almost certainly set up by the two teenagers, with photos stolen from other accounts on the social media web site. Three characters were created, one of whom, Rayane Basinio, was supposed to be Chayson's father and the nephew of the woman who invented the story.
A bad joke or revenge?
The investigators began to have their doubts when they noticed an increasing number of inconsistencies in the witness statements of the pretend aunt and her relatives. Chayson's parents happened to be separated, unable to be contacted and of unknown address. The police don't know how long the drama went on for on social media, but the reporting of the disappearance coincides with the time when the photo originally used on Rayane's account was withdrawn.
It is still not known if this story arose out of a bad taste joke or if it hides more malicious intent. "We're working on the motives, whether it's a psychological problem, or some hidden agenda, vengeance or something else." Anyone reporting an imaginary crime risks a six month prison sentence and a fine of €7,500.
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
‘Please Help Luz’ plea as Madeleine “circus” descends on village again
As British television networks once again descend on Praia da Luz in the run-up to the seventh anniversary since Madeleine McCann went missing, a local resident has come out fighting.
“It’s time to turn things round,” she told us. “Every year it is the same … British journalists arrive and dredge up more nonsense about Luz. We are meant to be overrun with child molesters, burglars, homosexuals, Eastern European child-snatchers ... Whatever next? Will it be the Taliban?
“They are back again now and this time they have interviewed a homeless person and a ‘prophet’,” the long-term resident told us on Saturday. “They have paid for these interviews. Now, they are apparently looking for a well-known gay man.
“These are the stories the British newspapers are looking for! They are not interested in the views of the real people of Luz - all of whom are fed up to the back teeth with the village being shown in such a bad light.”
The "homeless person" - a "perfectly pleasant man, but never sober" - is not a representational figure of local residents, explained the woman, and the “prophet” is someone who wears a turban and “walks around with a pole with a light on the top of it”.
"Neither can be considered typical Luz residents, but nor are they in any way threats to the community," she added.
The expat woman, who asked not to be named as she has “no wish to be a hero”, said: "It is time Luz had a voice."
“Last year, when the news people were asking questions as they do every year, I went up to the interviewer and said I would like to say a word or two.
“I said I wanted to know why they weren’t interviewing the McCanns for gross negligence that had led to a fatal result. He just dropped me because they don’t want to hear anything like that. They only want to report about people they can label as "weirdos".
“Quite honestly, I feel it is time Luz turned round and sued the McCanns for slander.
“I would like to stand as a voice for Luz. Who will want to come here after all the negative publicity? The British newspapers paint the village as one full of terrible people. This is grotesquely unfair. It has got to stop!”
A high-ranking staff member at Luz Ocean Club told the Resident earlier this year: “Luz has taken such a battering over the last seven years. It really is time to do something for this community - help it rally round.” But, like the anonymous "voice of Luz", the man asked not to be identified.
Meantime, the Ocean Club is one of the prime movers behind a community triathlon event planned later this month precisely to promote the picturesque village “before the holiday season gets underway”.
For more information see www.algarvetriathlons.com
By NATASHA DONN
news@algarveresident.com
Thursday, 23 January 2014
There's a Con Artist on the Loose in Leamington Spa
This man has a really good line in confidence tricksterism. He does it really well and he seems to have got it down to such a fine art that I'm fairly sure he's done this before and that he'll do it again.
So beware people of Leamington Spa and Warwickshire.
This is how a young man of around 25/30 managed to gain my confidence and leg it from my house with the purse my daughter gave me as a present and £240 in cash.
He came to my door a few nights ago, just as I was about to go out. He reminded me that he had done a job for me a while back, clearing some wood from my garden. He said he had fallen on bad luck and he had been homeless for a while, but he had written to his grandmother up north and she had said he could go and stay at her house. Unfortunately, he was a few pounds short of what he needed for the train ticket and was there perhaps a little job he could do for the £5 something he needed. He wasn't looking for a handout! No, he was looking for somewhere to get his hands into and grab whatever he could get to and bloody leg it!
It's a good story he's peddling. A really good one and I got drawn into it and ended up having to take the penny jar to Sainsbury's so that I'd have cash to put fuel in my car to get to work.
But, I'm getting ahead of myself here. On that night, a few days ago, I was in a rush to go out and get to work (work, scumbag! That's where you honestly earn the money you need!) and I didn't have any little jobs he could do. However, I felt that I had the opportunity to help this poor (not so poor now, thieving barsteward!) man to get on a train and not spend one more night sleeping rough. So, I gave him £10 to make up the money for his train fare and get a sandwich on the train. And off he went, ever so grateful! Oh yea!
So, anyway, yesterday afternoon this poor man, who turned out to be a thieving scumbag con artist, turned up at my door again. He had bought an advance ticket for the train and couldn't go until Friday and now he'd like to repay me for my kindness by keeping himself busy by doing a little job for me. And the effin' scumbag did repay my small act of kindness in a devious and abusive way. Initially, I told him that it wasn't necessary, but he told me he'd rather be busy than hanging around on the streets and could he just clear the garden a bit. Well, since he was so keen to do something and thinking well, he needs to do something for me, I went out to the back garden to fetch the rake he asked for. I then went back out to fetch the spade he wanted, while leaving the front door ajar: it's rude to close the door in someone's face!
I even offered this thieving, lying scumbag a hot drink, thinking he'd been sleeping rough, but when I came back with the coffee (Illy, because I thought he deserved a decent coffee after sleeping out on these cold nights!) he had disappeared. So, I sat here at my desk for a while, wondering where he had gone, leaving the rake and the spade propped up in the porch, actually worrying about the thieving low life's (you're guessing by now that I'm rather angry!) coffee getting cold.
Slowly, it dawned on me that he wasn't coming back and I felt a sudden gripping of my stomach. My bag was hanging on a door handle within sight of the front door and there was rather a lot of cash in my purse, which I had taken out of the bank to pay for some work on my car. With a quickly growing nausea, I grabbed my bag and reached in. No purse! I searched the house, top to bottom, thinking don't immediately think the worst: maybe I'd put my purse down somewhere else. But I really knew I hadn't. My money was gone with the lovely pink purse my daughter gave me as a present.
I phoned the police and two officers came quite quickly. I had felt like such an idiot for being taken in by someone with such a good line of patter, but the police assured me that it wasn't my fault.
I have cancelled the bank cards that were in my purse and to get cash to buy fuel for my car so that I can get to work, I have had to take the "pennies jar" to the change machine at Sainsbury's. That was change I'd been collecting for some time for a treat for my two grandsons. So, that man, who claimed to be homeless and just wanted to help himself to a better life, helped himself to £240 of my hard earned cash and legged it! He not only stole from me, but from two little boys, aged 7 and 3.
It's a good line he's peddling! I'm still of the belief that most people out there are honest and good, but unfortunately there are con artists, who will use any ruse to take what does not belong to them.
Please be aware, people of Warwickshire, this man is still on the loose. He is white, around 25/30 years old, slim build. Yesterday he was wearing a short-sleeved white T shirt over a dark long-sleeved one. The white T shirt had solid black writing on it. He had a small rucksack on his back. If he turns up on your doorstep with a story about being homeless and wanting to do some small jobs for you, phone the police. Try to keep him there, but close your door! Quote crime number S/14/658 for the police.
As I said, most people out there are honest and most of us, given the opportunity, would help a homeless person in a positive way, which was what that man was pretending to be asking for. It's a good line he has and he does it really well, which makes me think he'll keep doing it. Please phone the police immediately if he comes to your door.
Thanks for reading this!
Be careful folks! I believe this is known as a "distraction burglary" and it's just a new line on the old "I'm from the council/Water authority/British Gas" but it's a good one!
Thursday, 9 January 2014
Please contribute to help Gonçalo Amaral's defense in the libel trial.
Message from Astro on TMCF forum
A huge thank you to all of you who have already contributed, and to those who will contribute to help Mr Amaral. I would like to explain that this is a bank account that is formally held by two friends of Mr Amaral, in representation of a group of friends who decided to help him because it was obvious, back in 2009 already, that this was going to be a long, expensive process and that without financial support, Gonçalo Amaral was not going to be able to defend himself. This account has been used solely to pay for court expenses and legal costs, and that is all that it will ever be used for. It is an informal gathering of friends, and it has only been possible to continue due to the incredible generosity of many more friends.
I would also like to thank everyone who is not able to make a donation, but has been showing their support online. The times are not easy for anyone and so often, a kind word means a LOT. Thank you.
If you wish to help, please follow the link to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral:
http://pjga.blogspot.com/
Use the bank account number in the right hand corner (scroll down to Doação | Donation) or click on the Paypal image there & it will link you to the project's account.
Once more, thank you very much."
Saturday, 28 December 2013
"Maddy Cops Prime Suspect Blunder" (Daily Mirror)
The main focus of the hunt for whom? The Portuguese police appeared to have ruled him out as the "abductor" when they made Kate and Gerry McCann arguidos. Also, who reported having seen this man carrying a child in pyjamas identical to those that had been said to have been worn by Madeleine when she disappeared? Only Jane Tanner. She stated that she had walked up the road, slip-slapping in flip-flops, on the same side as Gerry and his friend Jez Wilkins, but neither of those men saw Jane Tanner or this "innocent dad."
Bungling police had the details of the “main suspect” in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for SIX YEARS without realising.
So, tell me, who were these "bungling police."? (Later folks!)
The innocent dad came forward in 2007 to say he was the person seen carrying a child in Portugal at the time the three-year-old vanished.
The innocent dad came forward in 2007 to say he was the person seen carrying a child in Portugal at the time the three-year-old vanished.
Who did he say this to? And if he is an "innocent dad," is there a guilty dad? Yes, I am as pedantic as that!
But the information was overlooked and the British holidaymaker remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives finally tracked him down.
But the information was overlooked and the British holidaymaker remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives finally tracked him down.
Overlooked by whom?
The revelation will be a blow to Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, as they endure a seventh Christmas without their oldest daughter.
The revelation will be a blow to Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, as they endure a seventh Christmas without their oldest daughter.
Not much of a blow since the McCanns still have the E-fit of this "innocent dad" up on their official Find Madeleine web site. (See "IMPORTANT: Who are these people?")
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
Right! They completed a questionnaire for Leicester police! Is there any proof that Leicester police forwarded this to the Portuguese police? And if they did, was this done any more quickly than the statements from Katherine and Arul Gasper which were given to Leicester police on May 16th 2007 and forwarded to the Portuguese police approximately six months later?
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
That'll be the night creche then, the one that parents can leave their children at while they have dinner, the one the McCanns didn't use, preferring to leave their three children alone in an unlocked apartment.
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
Surely Leicester police looked at it in 2007? And where is this man? Why hasn't he gone to the Daily Mirror or one of the other tabloids that would surely have been delighted to put him on their front page? He could have remained anonymous!
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
Around the time of the sighting doesn't mean that he was anywhere near the place where Jane Tanner alleges that she saw the man definitely carrying Madeleine.
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
And what did Leicester police do with the information received? Did they forward all of it, some of it, all of it at six months intervals?
It is not clear if the questionnaires were analysed by the British force or simply forwarded to Portugal.
Or forwarded to Portugal at all. The Leicester police don't seem to have exhibited any great alacrity in forwarding statements.
Ms Tanner, a close friend of Kate and Gerry, previously told officers that she saw the dark-haired man carrying away a child wearing pink floral pyjamas at 9.15pm on May 3, 2007.
I don't believe Jane Tanner saw anyone carrying a child. Her initial statement about the "sighting" was that she had seen a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child. This metamorphosed into a man carrying a child in pyjamas identical to those worn by Madeleine. That "bundle" became more and more clear with time! Gonçalo Amaral did not believe that Jane Tanner saw "Bundleman."
One of the so-called “Tapas Seven”, she had been dining with the McCanns in a nearby restaurant when their daughter went missing.
A nearby restaurant? Nearby to what? It was over 120 yards from the McCanns' apartment, down a public road, through a reception area and round a swimming pool.
Her sighting meant that from 2007 onwards, Portuguese and British police presumed any abduction most probably took place between 8.30pm, when the McCanns went to dinner, and 9.15pm.
The Portuguese police ruled out abduction when they made the McCanns arguidos and that is obvious in the details of the legal case currently before the court in Portugal, where the McCanns are suing Gonçalo Amaral for his account of the investigation which concluded that Madeleine had probably died in apartment 5A.
The realisation that it was a false lead has shifted detectives’ focus on to a later sighting at 10pm when an Irish family reported seeing a man walking towards the beach carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas.
This would be the man drawn in the E-fit which the McCanns' private detectives obtained five years ago and which the McCanns did not pass onto the Portuguese police. Perhaps the fact that Mr Martin Smith stated that he was fairly sure that the man he had seen was Gerry McCann had something to do with the decision not to share the information until Scotland Yard retrieved it from the detectives this year. But why do the McCanns still have "Bundleman" on their official web site?
The revelation was described by DCI Andy Redwood, the Met officer leading the new investigation called Operation Grange, as a “revelation moment” when it was finally made by his team.
Well, it wasn't much of a "revelation" to those of us who have been following this case for six and a half years and have had doubts about Jane Tanner's "sighting."
DCI Redwood said in October: “Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine’s abductor.
Hallelujah! Give that man a lollipop!
“It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.”
Look at a few maps, Mr Redwood. The Smith sighting was not close to the apartment!
The innocent dad agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz at the time to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.
A very frugal "innocent dad" then. He had those clothes six and a half years later?
His two-year-old’s pink pyjamas, which were described by Ms Tanner, were also brought to Scotland Yard to help prove his innocence.
And he still had the pyjamas? That stretched credulity just a bit for me! But then, Jane Tanner only "saw" the bottoms of Madeleine's pyjamas, which were not pink.
The new prime suspect was spotted by Martin Smith from Drogheda, Co Louth, as he returned to his apartment in Praia da Luz about 9.50pm.
And reported at the time and described to the McCanns' private detectives over 5 years ago!
He saw a British-looking man carrying a motionless, barefoot girl in pyjamas. Madeleine was noted to be missing by Kate at 10pm.
So, there we have it! Must have been the abductor!
The Smith family provided two efit images of the man more than five years ago. However, the sighting was viewed as too late to be significant because of Ms Tanner’s sighting– which is why the efits were only released publicly in a Crimewatch appeal broadcast in October.
The E-fits were only released publicly this year because they had been withheld by the McCanns!
Detectives from Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange said they received an “overwhelming response” from viewers.
I wonder how many of them thought the E-fits looked like Gerry McCann?
The programme featured a new reconstruction of the hours leading up to the three-year-old’s abduction.
Now that Scotland Yard has the E-fits from the McCanns' detectives and finally the Smith sighting is being taken seriously! Anyone pointing a finger at a "guilty dad."? Ask Mr Martin Smith!
In a statement, Kate and Gerry said at the time: “We are absolutely delighted with the overwhelming public response to Crimewatch. We know that the public desperately want to help the search for Madeleine. We are genuinely hopeful that one or more of these responses will lead to a major breakthrough in the investigation.”
How very gracious of the McCanns. The public have been very helpful over these six and a half years, with so many "sightings," weird characters hanging around in Praia da Luz and so many new suspects! Pity the McCanns themselves were too busy on the night Madeleine disappeared to do any searching themselves!
They added: “If anyone was in Praia da Luz around the time of Madeleine’s abduction and has not spoken to the Metropolitan Police, or if they know who any of the Efits might be, please have the courage to come forward and speak to the police in confidence.”
Excuse me, but Mr Martin Smith spoke to your private detectives and you kept his descriptive E-fits to yourselves!
More than 1,000 people have come forward with fresh information and several named the same man as the prime suspect.
The "guilty dad."? Has he been arrested yet? Who is he? We should be told!
Leicestershire Police yesterday refused to comment on the latest revelations.
Well, there's a novelty! Not!
A spokeswoman said: “The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police and it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”
Not the abduction then?
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “We are not giving a running commentary.”
So, let's just leave the tabloids to make up stories about "bungling police." The only "bungling police" ever mentioned previously by British tabloids were the Portuguese and I am sure that the way this Mirror journalist has worded this story, many readers will read this as the Portuguese police again! So, who are being called "bungling" by the Daily Mirror? The Leicester police? The Portuguese police? All of them? Nothing new there!
A spokesman for the McCann’s last night declined to comment saying it is “a matter for Operation Grange.”
So, they're not going to comment on the fact that Jane Tanner's sighting was ruled out six years ago or that they had the E-fits of the man described by the Smith family for five years or why they still have the E-fit of this "innocent dad," on their official web site? Not even through a "source close to the family"? Well, one wonders why they have gone very quiet!
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
Right! They completed a questionnaire for Leicester police! Is there any proof that Leicester police forwarded this to the Portuguese police? And if they did, was this done any more quickly than the statements from Katherine and Arul Gasper which were given to Leicester police on May 16th 2007 and forwarded to the Portuguese police approximately six months later?
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
That'll be the night creche then, the one that parents can leave their children at while they have dinner, the one the McCanns didn't use, preferring to leave their three children alone in an unlocked apartment.
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
Surely Leicester police looked at it in 2007? And where is this man? Why hasn't he gone to the Daily Mirror or one of the other tabloids that would surely have been delighted to put him on their front page? He could have remained anonymous!
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
Around the time of the sighting doesn't mean that he was anywhere near the place where Jane Tanner alleges that she saw the man definitely carrying Madeleine.
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
And what did Leicester police do with the information received? Did they forward all of it, some of it, all of it at six months intervals?
It is not clear if the questionnaires were analysed by the British force or simply forwarded to Portugal.
Or forwarded to Portugal at all. The Leicester police don't seem to have exhibited any great alacrity in forwarding statements.
Ms Tanner, a close friend of Kate and Gerry, previously told officers that she saw the dark-haired man carrying away a child wearing pink floral pyjamas at 9.15pm on May 3, 2007.
I don't believe Jane Tanner saw anyone carrying a child. Her initial statement about the "sighting" was that she had seen a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child. This metamorphosed into a man carrying a child in pyjamas identical to those worn by Madeleine. That "bundle" became more and more clear with time! Gonçalo Amaral did not believe that Jane Tanner saw "Bundleman."
One of the so-called “Tapas Seven”, she had been dining with the McCanns in a nearby restaurant when their daughter went missing.
A nearby restaurant? Nearby to what? It was over 120 yards from the McCanns' apartment, down a public road, through a reception area and round a swimming pool.
Her sighting meant that from 2007 onwards, Portuguese and British police presumed any abduction most probably took place between 8.30pm, when the McCanns went to dinner, and 9.15pm.
The Portuguese police ruled out abduction when they made the McCanns arguidos and that is obvious in the details of the legal case currently before the court in Portugal, where the McCanns are suing Gonçalo Amaral for his account of the investigation which concluded that Madeleine had probably died in apartment 5A.
The realisation that it was a false lead has shifted detectives’ focus on to a later sighting at 10pm when an Irish family reported seeing a man walking towards the beach carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas.
This would be the man drawn in the E-fit which the McCanns' private detectives obtained five years ago and which the McCanns did not pass onto the Portuguese police. Perhaps the fact that Mr Martin Smith stated that he was fairly sure that the man he had seen was Gerry McCann had something to do with the decision not to share the information until Scotland Yard retrieved it from the detectives this year. But why do the McCanns still have "Bundleman" on their official web site?
The revelation was described by DCI Andy Redwood, the Met officer leading the new investigation called Operation Grange, as a “revelation moment” when it was finally made by his team.
Well, it wasn't much of a "revelation" to those of us who have been following this case for six and a half years and have had doubts about Jane Tanner's "sighting."
DCI Redwood said in October: “Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine’s abductor.
Hallelujah! Give that man a lollipop!
“It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.”
Look at a few maps, Mr Redwood. The Smith sighting was not close to the apartment!
The innocent dad agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz at the time to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.
A very frugal "innocent dad" then. He had those clothes six and a half years later?
His two-year-old’s pink pyjamas, which were described by Ms Tanner, were also brought to Scotland Yard to help prove his innocence.
And he still had the pyjamas? That stretched credulity just a bit for me! But then, Jane Tanner only "saw" the bottoms of Madeleine's pyjamas, which were not pink.
The new prime suspect was spotted by Martin Smith from Drogheda, Co Louth, as he returned to his apartment in Praia da Luz about 9.50pm.
And reported at the time and described to the McCanns' private detectives over 5 years ago!
He saw a British-looking man carrying a motionless, barefoot girl in pyjamas. Madeleine was noted to be missing by Kate at 10pm.
So, there we have it! Must have been the abductor!
The Smith family provided two efit images of the man more than five years ago. However, the sighting was viewed as too late to be significant because of Ms Tanner’s sighting– which is why the efits were only released publicly in a Crimewatch appeal broadcast in October.
The E-fits were only released publicly this year because they had been withheld by the McCanns!
Detectives from Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange said they received an “overwhelming response” from viewers.
I wonder how many of them thought the E-fits looked like Gerry McCann?
The programme featured a new reconstruction of the hours leading up to the three-year-old’s abduction.
Now that Scotland Yard has the E-fits from the McCanns' detectives and finally the Smith sighting is being taken seriously! Anyone pointing a finger at a "guilty dad."? Ask Mr Martin Smith!
In a statement, Kate and Gerry said at the time: “We are absolutely delighted with the overwhelming public response to Crimewatch. We know that the public desperately want to help the search for Madeleine. We are genuinely hopeful that one or more of these responses will lead to a major breakthrough in the investigation.”
How very gracious of the McCanns. The public have been very helpful over these six and a half years, with so many "sightings," weird characters hanging around in Praia da Luz and so many new suspects! Pity the McCanns themselves were too busy on the night Madeleine disappeared to do any searching themselves!
They added: “If anyone was in Praia da Luz around the time of Madeleine’s abduction and has not spoken to the Metropolitan Police, or if they know who any of the Efits might be, please have the courage to come forward and speak to the police in confidence.”
Excuse me, but Mr Martin Smith spoke to your private detectives and you kept his descriptive E-fits to yourselves!
More than 1,000 people have come forward with fresh information and several named the same man as the prime suspect.
The "guilty dad."? Has he been arrested yet? Who is he? We should be told!
Leicestershire Police yesterday refused to comment on the latest revelations.
Well, there's a novelty! Not!
A spokeswoman said: “The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police and it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”
Not the abduction then?
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “We are not giving a running commentary.”
So, let's just leave the tabloids to make up stories about "bungling police." The only "bungling police" ever mentioned previously by British tabloids were the Portuguese and I am sure that the way this Mirror journalist has worded this story, many readers will read this as the Portuguese police again! So, who are being called "bungling" by the Daily Mirror? The Leicester police? The Portuguese police? All of them? Nothing new there!
A spokesman for the McCann’s last night declined to comment saying it is “a matter for Operation Grange.”
So, they're not going to comment on the fact that Jane Tanner's sighting was ruled out six years ago or that they had the E-fits of the man described by the Smith family for five years or why they still have the E-fit of this "innocent dad," on their official web site? Not even through a "source close to the family"? Well, one wonders why they have gone very quiet!
Saturday, 21 December 2013
Madeleine McCann: WHY do the McCanns allow everyone to accuse them of NEGLECT?
Video by HiDeHo4 on her YouTube channel
Friday, 1 November 2013
"It's a disaster," said Gerry McCann
Kate and Gerry McCann speaking at the Ocean Club the night after Madeleine disappeared.
This blog post has almost the same title as a very interesting one of today's date by the American profiler Pat Brown
When Gerry McCann phoned his family on the night in which Madeleine disappeared, he told them, "It's a disaster," an expression which, to Pat Brown seems incongruous in describing the event of a child's disappearance. If Madeleine McCann died in an accident and her parents covered this up, as Pat Brown and many other people think, then it surely can't be described as "a disaster." A tsunami or other traumatic event on a grand scale, some out of control event, is a disaster, where there is a mess to clean up: an accident is not.
When Gerry McCann phoned his family on the night in which Madeleine disappeared, he told them, "It's a disaster," an expression which, to Pat Brown seems incongruous in describing the event of a child's disappearance. If Madeleine McCann died in an accident and her parents covered this up, as Pat Brown and many other people think, then it surely can't be described as "a disaster." A tsunami or other traumatic event on a grand scale, some out of control event, is a disaster, where there is a mess to clean up: an accident is not.
I'm wondering too about Gerry McCann's use of the expression, "It's a disaster." When we describe some catastrophic event as a disaster, the "it," is the event. The tsunami, it's a disaster. So, what was the "it," that Gerry McCann was referring to? I agree with Pat Brown: whatever happened to Madeleine was not a disaster. An abduction, though I don't think Madeleine was abducted, is not a disaster. Devastating for the parents, but not a disaster. A child's death in an accident, tragic, heartbreaking for parents, but not a disaster. An accident, Pat Brown says, requires mourning: a disaster leaves a mess to clean up.
But returning to Gerry McCann's words: "It's a disaster," I'd ask, "What's a disaster?" A plan where everything goes wrong can turn into a disaster, even if the plan is not for something on a grand scale. The performance of a play, where the actors fluff their lines, the props are in the wrong places and the music is badly played could be described as a disaster. And we often use the word in a more mundane way for something that's not a major event to anyone else, but just feels like it: my attempt at baking 100% rye bread ended in two brick-like objects hitting the bottom of the bin with a loud thud! What a disaster! The "what," here is my attempt to bake rye bread.
But what was the "it," that Gerry McCann described as "a disaster."? Madeleine's disappearance? Everything was going swimmingly and then disaster struck? That doesn't make sense to me. We had all these plans and then, oh disaster! Madeleine's gone missing! This was not like my bread turning out like bricks: a child had vanished into thin air. Nor was it a disaster on a grand scale with a mess to clean up.
If Madeleine had died in an accident and Kate and Gerry did indeed cover it up, then the "it," could refer to the plan put into action to cover up the tragic event and provide an alternative reason for Madeleine's being missing. But if Gerry had been communicating that the plan had gone awry and was a disaster, surely that might imply that the person he was speaking to knew that the "it," was the plan to cover up an accident? If indeed "it," was the plan, then as a Portuguese police officer said, it was "a badly told story," one that didn't ring true from the beginning: no jemmied shutter; no trace of an abductor in the apartment; no witness other than Jane Tanner's sighting of "Bundleman."
We could actually decide that this was just another example of Gerry McCann's not being good with words! In an interview outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann stated in an answer to a question, "We're not denying the existence of the dogs..." Well, that's good Gerry, because I may not have encountered these dogs in the flesh, as it were, but I have seen videos of them and they did look real to me! Then, there was Gerry's statement to the Leveson enquiry. "”I strongly believe in Freedom of Speech…I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting a theory…”
To purport: 1. To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending; profess: selfish behavior that purports to be altruistic.
2. To have the intention of doing; purpose.
2. To have the intention of doing; purpose.
So, no Gerry, somebody cannot purport to be a theory, or present the false appearance of a theory. They could purport to be somebody with a theory, or purport to have a theory, but not purport a theory. I think you meant...
-pound
)tr.v. pro·pound·ed, pro·pound·ing, pro·pounds
To put forward for consideration; set forth..
So, Gerry may just have done another hatchet job on the English language, but maybe not. Could the "it," that was a disaster, have been the holiday itself? Whatever the holiday was planned for, if there had been a purpose other than an enjoyable family holiday, it was a disaster? Surely no one would describe the disappearance of a child being a disaster that ruined a holiday? But consider the holiday from the start until the events of Thursday May 3rd. In the video recorded on the airport bus on the way to Praia da Luz, Kate McCann is sitting with a little row of children, seemingly as far away as she could be from Gerry, who is sitting in a corner by himself, like a little boy on the naughty step. Gerry is reported as having said, "I'm not here to enjoy myself." Had sports loving Gerry just been told that he wasn't going to spend the whole week playing tennis and like the little boy who was told he had work to do first, he sarcastically stated that he wasn't there to enjoy himself? Disaster on day one for Gerry's plans!
And then what about the report from Mrs Fenn that she had heard a child crying one evening for almost two hours? Holiday not going too well!
There have been suggestions that the McCanns' marriage had not been going too well before the holiday, and that the week away in Praia da Luz was time for them to be together in a relaxed environment, doing things together. So, when Gerry told his family, "It's a disaster," did the family member he spoke to understand that "it" was the plan for time together and that it had turned into a disaster because something had happened to Madeleine? Not a very happy start to the week away, time spent out there enjoying themselves had led to complaints about children crying and on one night Kate had slept apart from Gerry because of a row? And then something happened to Madeleine? The planned week of "us" time together had been a disaster from its start to the finish on the evening of May 3rd? We planned that, mum, and this is what happened? "It's a disaster."
"Bundleman," has been cleared of being involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, the McCanns withheld those e-fits of the man the Smith family reported seeing carrying a child, and now we have the finger pointing at a conveniently, it might be said, dead ex-employee of the Ocean Club. Well, I guess the finger is thus pointing away from the fact that the e-fits seem to look like Gerry McCann.
What happened to Madeleine McCann? She wandered out looking for her parents and met with an accident? She was abducted by an opportunistic passing paedophile or a paedo who had been watching the family? She got out of bed and because she had been sedated (there was a star chart on the fridge freezer in the Rothley house, awarding Madeleine stars for staying in her own bed) she fell behind the sofa while trying to look out of the window? Tensions were running so high because one or both of the McCann parents had such high expectations of the holiday, that one of them lashed out at Madeleine and she fell behind the sofa, banging her head so badly that she died of her injuries?
Just purporting a few theories! Either Gerry was erroneously purporting to be someone with a good command of the English language or "it" as in "it's a disaster," was the unforeseen circumstances of a chain of events during that holiday and, in my opinion, not simply a result of three small children being left alone. Not the result of someone entering the apartment and taking Madeleine. It happened, as Kate McCann stated, "under other circumstances."
With thanks to Pat Brown for a very thought-provoking blog!
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Joana Morais: PJ searches for Maddie's body again
.jpg)
by Ana Isabel Fonseca/ Tânia Laranjo
The Judiciary Police has already taken steps to try to find Maddie's body, following the reopening of the case. The hypothesis that the British girl was murdered is one of the lines of investigation being followed by the inspectors. The thesis of homicide integrates the framework of a kidnapping for reasons connected to paedophilia.
The CM knows that the Judiciary Police has undertaken several steps in recent days to try to discover Maddie's body, who disappeared on the night of May 3, 2007 from her bedroom at the tourist resort of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, Lagos.
The inspectors in charge of the case have for that matter presented evidence supporting this hypothesis to the Public Ministry, who decided, last Thursday, to reopen the investigation.
Friday, 25 October 2013
Madeleine McCann: Video of sniffer dogs in the McCanns' apartment today on CMTV Portugal
This evening Portuguese CMTV has an exclusive showing of the "sniffer dogs," videos. These show Eddie, the Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (Cadaver dog) and Keela the CSI dog, who is trained to alert to human blood: in the McCanns' apartment; in the car the McCanns hired three weeks after Madeleine disappeared; alerting to items of clothing belonging to the McCanns.
Today in a strict exclusive, see the complete video of the sniffer dogs’ search in the McCann’s apartment and of the McCann couple’s clothes, at the beginning of “CM Jornal” at 19.45 and on the “Rua Segura” special, at 23.30. Maddie Case, investigative journalism by Correio da Manhã.
Today in a strict exclusive, see the complete video of the sniffer dogs’ search in the McCann’s apartment and of the McCann couple’s clothes, at the beginning of “CM Jornal” at 19.45 and on the “Rua Segura” special, at 23.30. Maddie Case, investigative journalism by Correio da Manhã.
(The above translated by Ines MCF)
Video by HiDeHo4 "Who Died in the NcCanns' Apartment"
Eddie and Keels in apartment 5A
Eddie and Keela search the McCanns' hired car
Thursday, 17 October 2013
Georges Moréas: Little Maddie's disappearance turns into melodrama
In its Crimewatch programme, three days ago, the BBC attempted reconstruct the investigation into little Madeleine McCann's disappearance. As we know, it was on May 3rd 2007, in a seaside resort in the south of Portugal.
By coincidence, the broadcast was screened in the middle of the case brought by the little girl's parents against Gonçalo Amaral, the police officer who led the investigation.
In any case, even if the criminal investigation is a failure, the television series was a success: 6.7 million viewers, representing 27.4% of the ratings. A BBC spokesman said: "It's the best audience for Crimewatch since 2002." Almost double the average. Nearly a thousand people contacted Scotland Yard about the broadcast. Potential witness statements and tip-offs all came after the showing of several E-fits. The case has turned out to be so juicy that other channels are predicted to follow in the BBC's footsteps.
Pamalam's blog, which since the start of the investigation, has listed every detail of the case in "McCann: PJ Files," registered a hundred visitors a minute after the broadcast.
It's now more than six years since Madeleine McCann disappeared. Was she abducted? Is she dead? Millions of people are fascinated by this case, which will remain, without doubt, in the record books as the first criminal investigation to have set the internet ablaze. And without doubt, also the one that has amassed the most money. Shortly after the events, Maddie's parents opened a web site to collect donations and celebrities from several countries got their cheque books out, people like Joanne Rowling (Harry Potter) and Cristiano Ronaldo.
Today, their kitty must be comfortable. With that money, after having slammed the door in the Portuguese PJ's face, they were able to engage a myriad of private detectives, some of whom just sniffed a good money-maker. The McCanns are stars. They were received by Pope Benedict XVI and it was David Cameron who personally asked the Met in May 2011 to attach a team of investigators to this case - following in the footsteps of his predecessors, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who intervened personally in the case. On the other side of the channel, however, people were astonished at this use of resources and wondered if taxpayers' money was being well spent.
Maddie's parents have also taken action against Gonçalo Amaral who, after being thrown off the case, gave his version of events in a book (In France L'Enquête Interdite, published by Bourin) They are suing him for £1 million.
And so it was, in the middle of the trial, that Scotland Yard decided to take its findings to the BBC to demonstrate that it was well and truly an abduction and that Maddie was probably still alive, which, as a result strengthens the accusation of defamation against Gonçalo Amaral. Elsewhere, there are murmurs that this might be about a manoeuvre to influence the Portuguese trial. If that is the case, it has not succeeded because the judge does not seem to have allowed herself to be influenced by it. She has put in his place Gerry McCann, who, after having stated that he would not be appearing at the trial has applied pressure to give evidence. We'll see after the appearance of the listed witnesses if hearing the plaintiff and the accused is necessary, the judge responded dryly. The verdict is predicted for the end of November.
But why the devil would Scotland Yard want to whitewash the McCanns at all costs?
Pat Brown, an American profiler, talks in her blog about a ridiculous reconstruction (the film was made in Spain with professional comedians) and of a story adapted for television. She has studied this case and written a book on the little girl's disappearance. (Profile of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann) This book was withdrawn by booksellers Amazon at the request of the McCann family, but it is possible to find it on other sites. She includes the theory (without believing it) that the investigators tried to entrap the McCanns. In any case, stone by stone, she demolishes the BBC's "investigation."
Scotland Yard is offering a reward that could amount to £20,000 for any information useful to the investigation. It's almost an admission of failure, because, it must be said that in spite of all their talk, the British investigators have done no better than their Portuguese colleagues. It's probably an abduction "to order," says Andy Redwood. Unless, he adds, it's a burglary gone wrong. But nothing was stolen. The only troubling detail is in the timing. Until now, it was thought that the events took place at around 9.15pm. In fact, according to the Met, it would be more likely to have been around 10pm.
If this theory is confirmed, it will be necessary to re-interview all the witnesses, taking into account where they were at the time of the events. That could only be done seriously during a total reconstruction, each person taking up where they were on that evening of May 2007. That is obvious!
The significant lead (the famous revelation that the world was waiting for), centres on this unknown who was allegedly seen carrying a child in his arms. But this detail was already present in the Portuguese police investigation. It's about the witness statements of an Irish family, the Smiths, who were on holiday in the area. Mr Smith and his wife had flinched when they saw Gerry McCann on their television, descending from the plane which had brought him from Portugal in 2007. It was his way of walking and the way he was holding one of his children in his arms, which drew their attention. They gave a statement to the Gardai (Irish police) who alerted the PJ. Amaral then took up their statements to get them to return to Portugal and organise a reconstruction. But shortly afterwards, he was removed from the case and his successor didn't find it important to follow up this lead. A pity, because without being one hundred per cent sure, both said that the individual whom they saw on the evening of the drama, strongly resembled Maddie's father. -
That's worrying, is it not!
(Original article by Georges Moréas 17/10/2013)
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
Madeleine McCann: The Documentary Based on Amaral's Book
At present the McCanns are suing Gonçalo Amaral for defamation over what was written in his book about the disappearance of Madeleine. This is the documentary based on the book, which the McCanns tried to have banned.
Sunday, 13 October 2013
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
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)