Leicestershire Police: A McCann Gallery Tribute

Last Post

2010-12-27T12:04:00.001-08:00

You'll Get Yours, Heaven Knows You've Earned It

2010-12-27T06:35:00.000-08:00

I thought I would leave this here for posterity. What this fellow has to say isn't really the important bit, the important bit is what you have to say on the very last line.

You can spin your involvement any way you wish, but spin won't save your house of cards when it comes a tumblin' down. And it won't be much that brings it down will it lads? Any little scrap of information that comes out, any scrap showing that any one of you had knowledge of what was really going down and you're fucked.

You've really worked yourselves into a corner haven't you? deny deny deny, you have no choice in the matter, you certainly crossed the Rubicon when you aligned yourself with this pair. And what a pair to have everything resting on, Kate and Gerry McCann, not the most stable couple you could wish for you must admit.

I don't know exactly when I created the graphic below, but it was early on, perhaps I should have featured you fellows as well. Because let's face it, it applies just as equally to you as it does him.

Well lads, I've just one more post to make and then I'm calling it all a day, I will leave you to carry on with your denials and your cover up. One day perhaps, you'll get yours. Heaven knows you've earned it.

WikiLeaks cable reveals British police helped Portuguese create Maddy cover-up allegation
By Robin Henry
DECEMBER 14, 2010

Although Portuguese police were always blamed by Kate and Gerry McCann for suggesting they were somehow involved in a cover-up over the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, it now transpires that British police helped their opposite numbers on the Algarve build the case against the couple.

In the months following Madeleine's disappearance in May 2007, the Portuguese police were branded "imbeciles" by furious relatives of the McCanns, who later threatened to take legal action against the force after they were cleared.

The revelation that police in Britain "developed the evidence" that led to the McCanns being treated as formal suspect – or arguidos - comes with the latest leak of US embassy cables by WikiLeaks.

A cable detailing a meeting between the British ambassador to Lisbon, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, and US ambassador Al Hoffman, two weeks after the couple were declared arguidos in September 2007, is published today by the Guardian.

"Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively," Hoffman said in the confidential report back to Washington.

Ellis also urged Hoffman to keep any comments regarding the case "behind closed doors".

The cable sheds new light on the fraught months following the disappearance of Madeleine from a holiday apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.

At the time, the McCanns claimed that Portuguese police were turning their focus on them to protect the region's tourism and deflect attention away from their failure to find the three-year-old.

The couple were monitored and questioned by investigators, who believed that they had discovered sufficient forensic evidence to suggest that Maddy had died in their apartment, before being stowed away in a hire car.

The case against the parents was finally dropped in July 2008 and their daughter's disappearance remains a mystery.

A spokesman for the McCanns played down the significance of the WikiLeaks revelations, telling the Guardian: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old... Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

Dozens of British police officers and forensic specialists were drafted in after Maddy's disappearance, but it is still not clear exactly what role they played.

A spokesman for the Leicester police, in the McCanns' home county, told the Guardian they simply coordinated the Portuguese investigation on a local level. First Post

WikiLeaks has drilled through the USA's security system and has been publishing thousands of documents. One of them tells us what we already knew. The English ambassador reported that the English police had obtained evidence that Maddie's parents were involved in the death and disappearance of their daughter and that, for State reasons, that fact had been simply hidden from the Portuguese Justice.

The couple's spokesman did not deny it. He merely stated that this issue was history. It didn't matter. When one is protected, such arrogance is permitted. Nonetheless, it is also true that protection by the powerful serves the powerful but will never be able to hide the truth, which, as we all know, always surfaces

Maybe there is another WikiLeaks cable that informs us about the dirt concerning this subject, that we still have to learn. Dirt: Francisco Moita Flores

Hey Up! Mentioned In Dispatches

2010-12-10T00:34:00.000-08:00

Too much to ask?

I suppose it is, but it has always been my opinion that the key to solving this case would come via the back door. Because there is one thing for sure, it isn't going to be resolved by due process, not in this country it ain't. Is it boys?

More Joana Morais.

WikiRebels The Documentary,if you have the bandwidth it's a must watch. If you haven't as yet viewed the murder of Iraqi civilians by the crew of an American helicopter gunship you can do so here. But be prepared to get extremely angry.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act

2010-11-27T08:39:00.000-08:00

It will be if you buggers get your way.

Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations. - Huxley

Sometimes, some things, just fit.

Tagged Madeleine McCann.

Leicestershire (police) have, you know, largely played their part

2010-11-05T06:14:00.000-07:00

I am not going to concern myself with what is said here in the main, that I am sure has already been picked over at numerous places around the web.

Just what takes my fancy then, and for the purpose of this gallery, my comments are above the relative pics.

So we're straight in with a demand, I find that only works well with a gun in your hand, otherwise, please, invariably seems to achieve the desired results.

And what has become now a pre-requisite for any interview, the obligatory clasping of hands accompanied by the even more obligatory wristbands. Good quality I hope.

Look what's on its way.

Getting closer.

Voila! Must be talking about her daughter, or perhaps it was us lot on this occasion.

Ever the same aggressive little fuck as always.

Right so! that's the bits out of the way.

I think we all know what this is about without me giving a protracted intro, so let's drive on without more ado.

Or should I phrase it, they're under starters orders and; they're off!

Showing well well after ten seconds, in the green it's Gerry McCann with a head scratch. (Times on the slide bar.)

Darshna Soni You are calling for a review of the investigation. Explain to us why.

DS Do you think it makes it difficult for them, though, because you have got your own private investigators looking for your daughter? Does that make your relationship with the police difficult?

DS Leicestershire Police have said to us that they haven’t shelved the investigation because it was never their investigation to shelve because it was being led by the Portuguese. What more would you expect Leicestershire Police to do?

Still on the same question.

GM Leicestershire have, you know, largely played their part and they have done that to the best of their ability.

There were numerous shots in this Mrs Kate series, but in fairness I think this was the genuine article in this case.

DS And how do you keep going? How do you keep hoping? There must be days when it is very, very difficult.
KM Well we’ve worked so hard. I mean, understandably, we’re Madeleine’s parents and we are going to do everything that we can and we work really hard.

"And we work really hard." Sounds a tad familiar.

Unprompted, but that doesn't mean to say it's not in response to something going on in the asylum of his mind.

Part Two

There are two particular instances in part two that I found, I was about to say amusing, but on reflection and for want of something better, just let me call them interesting.

This next example includes both question and answer.

DS You’ve also spent money on your own investigators as you’ve said. There have been reports that some of these detectives have taken money but then not delivered. They are dodgy detectives if you like. How can you reassure people that money won’t be spent on people like that in the future.

GM Well we’ve very much had for the last two and a bit years, we’ve had Dave Edgar who is a very experienced detective who was near retirement. He’s been working with us. He’s very much accountable for the spend. He feels he can justify every penny. But at the same time I hope the public realise as well as directors of the fund in particular when we were arguido and there was no search going on that it was incumbent upon us to continue a search in very, very difficult circumstances. So we have made decisions along the way which have always, we felt, been in the best interest of the search to find Madeleine and we are very accountable. All the expenses are there err, receipts and we’ve got quite a tight-knit team working on this but we need them. Without it there would be no-one there to go and interview people and follow up leads.

It is amusing isn't it? in fact it's more than amusing, it's comical given who he's talking about.

This next piece isn't amusing, for me it's hilarious. But to truly appreciate what's going on with Doctor Dangerous, you have to click here first.

More at the Sandra Felgueiras archive.

Watch the struggle, watch the conflict, as he tries not to scratch his ear. Then try it on the clip.

These bottom three, I don't know where they came from. I must have grabbed them somewhere else. Confusion isn't a hard thing when you're screen-shotting, it's not hard to end up with a zillion shots in the folder, particularly if you wonder, "did I get that one" and you go back and have another basin full. Imagine a professional photographer where he might take dozens of shots of something, all seemingly the same. Well it's a bit like that only not quite as organised.

And finally, a big tip of the hat to Bren at Headlines today for saving me hours of work by having transcripts of both clips. They can be found here along with the Youtube versions and much more.

You might recognise along the way, where I found the quote for the header, though as I recall, I don't think it was body language that McCann was describing at the time.

h/t to original uploader. Ch4 News as it happens.

Officials of Charity Groups Spoke of Him in Glowing Terms

2010-11-04T09:42:00.000-07:00

I seam to have heard much and similar of late, (Jim Gamble) but aren't they all wonderful, until they are found out that is. Or even as we see in the case in question, seemingly still wonderful, even after being found out to be the bent twat that he was.

I came across a little something today (hard copy scanned) and a couple of things caught my interest. The first being the similarity of the messages of support for this clearly corrupt sonofabitch. The second reason, there was involved, something justice for Madeleine McCann so desperately needs, the involvement of a whistleblower. Last and least; when I were nowt but a lad, Chief Constable Stanley Parr and I lived on the same street.

Provincial towns being what they are, not surprisingly I could find little on Parr's attempts to reduce the charges in a double homicide case. There are bits like this below, scattered among not a catalogue, but an encyclopaedia of graft, corruption, politicking and general skulduggery that takes one's breath away.

Private Eye magazine revealed Bill Harrison's part in the campaign against Oyston and said that it stemmed from a road accident when his daughter's car killed two young mothers. After a newspaper campaign by the Lancashire Evening Post, Chief Constable Stanley Parr had been sacked for reducing the charges against Bill Harrison's daughter. More, The Lobster-1988 , not everyone's cup of tea, but then what is?

And perhaps it will come as no surprise, Parr was a mason, even getting pride of place below.

http://www.medusafile.com/freemasons.htm

I shall leave you to find your own reviews for the mentioned Stephen Knight's book "The Brotherhood"

But lots of Masonic goodies here at:

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/britishmasons.html

SOCA You Cannot Be Serious

2010-11-03T02:57:00.000-07:00

How much longer are you going to keep turning a blind eye to this little earner? Although I shouldn't call it little should I, it's far from that. A two million pound scam based on what, Gerry McCann's say so? And that's all there is, there's as much evidence for an abduction as there is evidence that you're doing your job. Call yourselves officers of the law, professional men of supposed integrity, you show about as much professionalism and as much integrity as do this lot featured on the rest of these pages. At least there's one consolation, you don't have a link from your website to McCann's ongoing fraud, not like some fuckers I could mention.

Irrespective, not good enough, not good enough by far, has the ability but must try harder.

This is the latest from the flim flam man, only the relevant half, I couldn't bear posting the rest of his shite here. I don't have to pick it apart for you do I, no of course I don't?

......Looking for our daughter is not without significant cost.

Another way you can show your support is by continuing to help us fund the search for Madeleine.

To carry on searching for Madeleine and to ensure that the process has continued in a meaningful and proactive way, we have been able to utilise the generous donations paid in to Madeleine’s Fund by the general public, libel damages paid to ourselves and our friends and money raised through a variety of fund-raising efforts. The fund has allowed;

* Our investigation team of ex-police officers to operate and conduct enquiries in the UK, Portugal and further afield.

* A Portuguese assistant/translator.

* A 24 hour telephone line with translators to receive information from the public

* Media liaison in Portugal and the UK to ensure that we convey the simple factual messages: there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine has been physically harmed; we must keep looking for her and those who took her. (Fuck me, not again.)

* Awareness campaigns in Portugal, Spain and further afield.

* Website hosting and development and social network site campaigns to raise awareness through the internet

* A part-time campaign coordinator

If Madeleine's Fund remains as it is, with the current rate of expenditure, it will run out in Spring 2011. This would essentially mean that any kind of proactive search for Madeleine would cease. So again we need your help. If you can, please consider donating to Madeleine's fund.

* £1 pays for the multi-lingual call centre availability for 1 hour

* £2 per month pays for 12 travel packs that are distributed to holidaymakers going all over the world

* £10 pays for 1000 posters that are translated and distributed across the world.

* £25 pays for the access to a 24 hour multi-lingual telephone service for 1 day

* £50 pays for the running costs of investigation office (and staff) for 2 hours

* £420 pays for 10,000 multi-lingual prayer cards for Madeleine, with photograph and contact details (Prayer cards! fucking prayer cards! give me fucking strength!)

Someone knows what has happened to Madeleine. We simply need to reach that person. We need to obtain that key piece of information, that ‘missing piece of the jigsaw’. One call may be all we need to find Madeleine and who took her.

Our little girl is now seven years old; innocent, vulnerable and waiting to be found. Please, please sign the petition and help us to find her.

On behalf of my family, thank you.

Gerry

Hey Up!

2010-10-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

.
Dum Spiro Spero.

Excerpt taken from Criminal Record: 'Kate McCann in Praia da Luz : 'Companhia das Manhãs' [lit. trans. Morning Companionship] is a daily talk show presented by Rita Ferro Rodrigues and Francisco Menezes, broadcast by SIC Portuguese TV channel owned by Impresa. (...) The talk-show focal point is on human-interest stories such as family, life, education, etc, discussing topical issues that have made the news headlines; it also presents some entertaining moments as well as Hernâni Carvalho [who co-authored with Luís Maia, Maddie 129 in 2007] crime segment titled 'Registo Criminal' [lit. trans. Criminal Record].

Transcript/Translation

Rita Ferro Rodrigues - RFR
Francisco Menezes - FM
Hernâni Carvalho - HC
Gonçalo Amaral - GA
Paulo Pereira Cristovão - PPC
Paulo Sargento - PS

RFR - Why did you want to be here, specifically, today?

HC - Because it's a shame to forbid a man of speaking about how he has worked. People may not like Inspector Gonçalo Amaral, people may not even like his work methodology, however what one cannot do is to forbid a man of speaking about his life. The Maddie case was coordinated by Inspector Gonçalo Amaral, therefore for him to give an account about that in a book was his right, to report what was in the process in the book was a second right - to forbid him and take the bread out of his mouth, in a so-called democratic country, is not normal. And I won't say anything further regarding that. I suggest you watch the reportage we have done.

GA - It's is a joyful day, a day that I see as important. We cannot defend a democratic system if we allow Freedom of Expression to be curtailed, as it was in my case. I know about my daughters' reaction, who have been through a lot; and when they learned about the decision - they were the first to know - they cried, they cried of happiness. For the past 13 months while I was obliged to be silent regarding this issue, while I was denigrated, while my whole family saw our assets being arrested, the intrusion of my and my family's private life, which has practically taken us close to poverty...(cut) Until that disappearance, until I left the police I was an active element in the Judiciary Police. Then my life changed radically, I went from a stable, comfortable situation to one far more precarious, jeopardizing even my family subsistence. I still hold the wish - and I have the certainty that the investigation will be reopened soon. Nowadays I have no doubts left, the archival for various reasons, was mainly due to political pressures made by the English - I have no doubts about that. The investigation will be concluded, it will be re-opened and it will be taken to an end; and justice will be made, that is all that we want. There are hundreds of indications, clues regarding a certain event; and it is that event that some people do not accept and want to conceal.

Reporter question [muffled by the wind on the micro/sea-gulls and sea waves in the background; sounds like] - How were you able to get through those times? [see comment 10 for alternative translation]

GA - With lots of support, with lots of support from friends, of my family... [visibly emotional]... and with lots of tenderness and love within my family... It's not easy, I guarantee you that.. I don't wish anyone to go through what I, in particular my family have gone through. And I have many doubts that that couple is as Christian or as Catholic as they say they are... more

Friends In High Places

2010-10-11T07:35:00.000-07:00

Just a little something I tripped over the other day. I don't suppose it needs further comment.

[Gerry McCann]So when we came back to United Kingdom we felt that we had to do that to protect ourselves from the intrusion. We did try and combat these negative stories and really we had a trial by media at this point. The criminal lawyers who were appointed to defend us had multiple visits to the editors of all the national newspapers along with our spokesperson. And I can tell you that they assured the editors that there was not a shred of evidence to back up these wild allegations.

There was a letter from the chief constable of Leicestershire police who was leading the investigation from the United Kingdom end, urging restraint in the coverage and emphasising that many of the stories that were published, had no grain of truth to them. gerrymccannsblogs

But here's a comment from some forum or other that I saved some while ago. Now you would be forgiven if you thought it pertained to our Matty, but no; even though the cap fits perfectly, it was in actual fact describing he that is soon to be gone; Saint James of the CEOP.

How bizarre that given that Madeleine's fate is still unknown, senior policemen are sharing a platform with the statistically most likely person to know her fate and the last person to see her alive. Even if one is convinced of the parents innocence it is an inexplicable way for a police officer to behave.

Doing a bit of grooming yourself Mister Gamble

"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling"

2010-09-15T06:30:00.000-07:00

From top British citizen, promoter of learning over superstition, an oasis of light in the darkness, National Treasure and Englishman Extraordinaire, Professor Richard Dawkins.

"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth."

Something you might wish to consider, given the job you are in.

Needless to say, we consider greatly, those who would obscure the truth.

And of course, not least, my dear friend Dr Martin Roberts.

Be Careful What You Wish For

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
14 September 2010

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

In much the same way as the 'Tommies' of 1914-18 turned to their copies of The Wipers Times for relief from the grim absurdity of their trench-bound circumstance, we in our intermittent moments of gloom have our own paper-based comforters. It must have been a comfort to the McCanns when John Bull's various rags adopted their conclusion that Madeleine had been skilfully extracted from the family's holiday apartment by agents of paedophilia. If the unbiased opinion of academics followed suit then it had to be right, didn’t it?

On behalf of the Telegraph, Caroline Gammell in Portimao and Nick Allen in Amsterdam, announced in August of 2008:

Madeleine McCann 'snatched by international paedophile ring'

'British police believe Madeleine McCann was snatched by an international paedophile ring after she was photographed three days before she vanished, files have disclosed.

'The concern was raised in an email sent by the Metropolitan Police's intelligence unit dealing with Clubs and Vice, CO14 on March 4 this year.

'It said: "Intelligence suggests that a paedophile ring in Belgium made an order for a young girl three days before Madeleine McCann was taken.

'"Somebody connected to this group saw Maddie, took a photograph of her and sent it to Belgium. The purchaser agreed that the girl was suitable and Maddie was taken."

'The astonishing revelation supports Kate and Gerry McCann's theory that their eldest child may have been taken by a child smuggling ring.

'Written by a police officer called John Shord, it was sent to DC John Hughes at Leicestershire Police and passed on to Portuguese detectives.'

Well, the story seems to have been something of a 'slow burner', but Mademoiselles Smith and Lazzeri each remained convinced nearly a year later, both publishing in May 2009, with Lazzeri turning to none other than a top criminologist, Professor David Canter, in support of her own faith in the McCann postulate.

Paedo Shame - News of the World

Anna Smith
31/05/2009

'The more I hear about the Algarve, the sicker I feel. Investigators hunting for Madeleine McCann say the area is awash with paedophiles, with seven sex attacks on kids in the last 4 years.

'Perhaps that's why those thicko cops pointed the finger at the McCanns - by blaming them and moving on, nobody would dig up their dirt. They continue to ignore new evidence and hope what they always hoped - that this case would just go away.'

If Maddie is alive she may not answer to that name or remember who she was - The Sun

By Antonella Lazzeri
Published: 04 May 2009

Britain's top criminologist Professor David Canter….

'After studying the case closely, Prof Canter, director of The Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Liverpool, concluded Maddie was taken by a gang of traffickers.

'She had been left in the family holiday apartment with her twin brother and sister Sean and Amelie while her parents went to dinner with friends.

'The professor said: "Child traffickers are very quick at hiding a child's identity. In one case they managed to drug a girl, dye her hair and dress her as a boy within an hour of taking her.

"She was quickly found in the arms of an abductor but her parents barely recognised her.

"I believe Maddie was skilfully targeted. It is very unlikely that someone would break into the apartment on the off-chance.

"I don't believe it was a lone paedophile. They're very unlikely to carry out a crime like this.

"Child trafficking is a growing, very profitable industry. There is a good chance Maddie is alive."

Eventually then, a degree of credibility is bestowed upon the McCann view. But is it a starred first, garnered through diligent research, or a hasty third scribbled after 'last orders' at the local?

Representatives of diverse religious communities have, as we know, spoken out recently in opposition to certain views expressed by Professor Richard Dawkins. It is a moot point as to whether they fear the wrath of their Gods more than the prospect of redundancy, but here is one of Dawkins' sage (and televised) comments concerning 'evidence':

"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth."

Dawkins' concern for the primacy of evidential argument is widely shared. One discovers, deep in vaults of the internet, such comments as the following:

"The Casa Pia court ruling has given fresh venom for all those primarily concerned with their disgust at Madeleine's parents. With no evidence to support their hatred, they are blind with rage and remain a fixated darker side to the internet that can only be usurped by the criminal activities of the paedophiles they willingly defend in preference to admitting to themselves that they are wholly wrong." (Dr Stein's Chaosraptors.com)

Venomous hatred is surely an emotional state of mind, hardly governed by 'evidence.' Unlike the author here I would rather only speak for myself, but my primary concern is not with my own disgust, however manifest. If it were I'd be in serious need of a 'shrink'. Nor does any failure on my part to admit that I am in error as regards my understanding of the McCann case, or anything else, imply that I am a willing defender of paedophiles. Like so many others, I am simply reluctant to accept an explanation of events for which there is no evidence, especially when there is evidence to support an alternative interpretation.

Anyway, so long as we're all agreed that evidence is paramount, let us turn now to the Sunday Express story of September 5.

Paedophile ring with link to Madeleine McCann jailed

By James Murray

"One of the abused boys, Pedro Namora, is now a lawyer and was a key witness in the case.

"He wants Portuguese detectives to continue their probe as he believes the ring may be connected to the disappearance of Madeleine at the Praia da Luz resort on the Algarve in May 2007."

In Dr Stein's opinion:

"This recent criminal convictions (sic) in Portugal opens up the question as to how endemic child abuse rings actually are, not just in Portugal but in other countries as well. The parents of missing British child Madeleine McCann will take little comfort in learning that such prominent figures have been involved with child abuse. In a somewhat guarded comment, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's official spokesman said that they had been following this case but had found no link to Madeleine's disappearance and a paedophile gang."

Well, well, well.

So there are sophisticated paedophile networks operating in Portugal after all. It wasn't just a figment of the McCanns' imagination. How could they have guessed?

There is a hint here of the McCanns having pinned their theoretical prospects on something in the ether, which, now that it has been publicly distilled, has suddenly become a politically dangerous association, and one from which they are better off 'distanced'. Retreat brings with it its own problems however.

There is apparently no evidence of any link between the Casa Pia investigation, Madeleine's disappearance and a paedophile gang. Clarence says so. It must be true. But James Murray's 'header' clearly refers to the accused in the Case Pia case as having a link to Madeleine McCann (is that libellous?). Unless we've all been seriously misinformed, those prosecuted in Portugal were not simply 'linked' with a paedophile ring, they formed one. So the Mitchell claim here that there is nothing to link the Casa Pia case with a paedophile gang is nonsense. But is that part of what he said? Not really. Mitchell's remark appears to imply that there is no connection between the child molesters of Casa Pia notoriety with 'the gang', (i.e. another gang) that took Madeleine.

Are we here contemplating a paedophile analog of the mafia, with several 'families' in contention for the available business, or territories of abuse, defined like the protected 'trading patches' in the vicinity of football stadia known to have provoked 'hot dog wars' in the past? It all seems a bit extreme somehow, inclining to the rife end of the endemic spectrum. And yet... these are the words of a commentator after all - a paraphrase of some remark or other made by Clarence Mitchell, which could just as easily have taken the form employed by a genuine journalist, James Murray, in his on-line version of events published Sept. 5:

"Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, said they had been closely following the Casa Pia case but did not have a lead linking Madeleine's disappearance to the paedophile ring."

On this view there is only one ring - the ring. And Madeleine's disappearance is not connected with it.

Since we know from the testimony of an acknowledged expert in his field that Madeleine would not have been taken by a 'lone wolf', the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn, based on the available evidence, is that Madeleine was not abducted by or on behalf of any paedophile whatsoever.

Which brings us necessarily to the question of motive. If someone abducts a child it is for a reason, and the case of missing Madeleine is unquestionably one of abduction, by definition (O.E.D: abduction, n. Illegal carrying off, esp. of a child, ward;). There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that Madeleine McCann, alive or dead, was illegally carried off. And now that we may dispense with the paedophile hypothesis as an obscuration of the truth, we can justifiably contemplate some alternative explanation(s) as to why, even at the risk of igniting venomous hatred.

With thanks to the mccannfiles.com. No permanent link, reproduced in its entirety.

Reporting from Force Headquarters Enderby

2010-09-14T09:08:00.000-07:00

Teddies for Truth. It's a none starter I'm afraid, type Teddy in the search bar.

Leicestershire Constabulary In Too Deep To Get Out

2010-09-13T09:01:00.000-07:00

That's all it can be I, there can be no other reason.

I have no intention of wasting words on you, I shall leave these here for the public and posterity, and that people can know your worth.

Your link endorses all of this, unequivocally.

Here's a link for you, you can watch your darlings in action.

Well Bugger Me!

2010-09-07T14:02:00.000-07:00

Hey up! I said hey up, what's going on? Is there a bit o'summat in t'wind? there has to be, there has to be a bit o'summat lurking round corner. Aye summats going on, I'll stand drop o' York if thar ain't.

Tha knows what I'm on about lads dunt tha, link to scam site, tha's teken it down after how long? three is it, three, three and 'alf bleedin years, by gum lads that's a long time to be conspiring to defraud, an' you lads coppers n'all.

Well it's gone, just disappeared like, just like that wee bairn did, didn't get abducted did it? no of course not. Why though, that's question, tha's one thing for sure, tha didn't take it down out of embarrassment or shame, because tha's bloody got none, not a drop not a scrap, tha's got abart as much of them kind of qualities as thar as evidence that wee lass were abducted in t'first place. And we both know how much o'that there is don't we? If t'evidence were bread tha'd be buggered, nowt to spread thi dripping on, nowt at all.

Well, don't suppose there's much point in me rattling on abart it, we can wonder all we wants, but you buggers won't be saying a lot will thee? 'Praps summat 'l come art one day, when shit hits fan like, aye when shit hits fan n'all the twats get theirs. Justice it's called, but what do you buggers know about that?

Anyway, I've bin teckin a bit o'thar advice like, mekin a few suggestions o' me own, see how tha gets on wi'em.

A McQuestion Or Two

2010-07-31T08:10:00.000-07:00

1 When the McCann’s fled Portugal in September 2007, the British Police assisting the Portuguese enquiry left also. Madeleine was still missing, supposedly abducted. So why did the British Police quit the search the day after they were both made official suspects?

2 Since that day in September 2007, not one legitimate Police force has been actively looking for Madeleine, why?

3 Why were the Tapas 9 so keen to control the early stages of the investigation by writing out all of their timelines on Madeleine’s sticker book, before the Police had even arrived on the scene?

4 Why did the McCann’s with their limitless amounts of money coming in from generous donations, hire people who specialised in fraud and bomb disposal?

5 Why did the McCann’s ignore crucial Police advice by publicising Madeleine’s distinctive mark on her eye, which would almost certainly have guaranteed her immediate death and disposal?

6 Why did the McCann’s make Madeleine a Ward of Court after she had vanished? Was it to prevent any details of her medical records and other information from being made public for 75 years?

7 Why was it necessary to hire such a large team of lawyers when Madeleine first vanished, which also included Pinochet’s infamous extradition lawyer?

8 Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer all of the questions put to her?

9 Why did the McCann’s claim to know instantly that Madeleine had been abducted, yet waited 40 minutes before first contacting the Police?

10 Goncalo Amaral’s book, ‘The Truth of the Lie’, has now been released in 6 European countries, but not in the UK. It has recently been banned in Portugal. It is a factual account of the early stages of the investigation based on information contained within the officially released Police files, so why has it been banned?

11 Why did the McCann’s want the investigation shelved? It was within their legal rights to ask for the enquiry to remain open, which they turned down? Why?

12 Why did 3 UK Detectives deliver several files of information to the McCann’s home, shortly after they got back to the UK whilst they were still suspects?

13 Why did the cadaver and blood sniffer dogs Eddie and Keela, only indicate to their apartment and their car? I believe 7 properties and 10 cars were searched in total that day, but only the McCann’s apartment and car tested positive.

14 Why did the Home Office refuse to hand over to the Portuguese investigators details of the McCann’s bank details, credit cards and medical records? These are one of the first things any Police force obtains at the start of an investigation. So why were they refused assistance?

15 The British Authorities later informed the Portuguese Police that the McCann’s did not own any credit or debit cards? So how did Gerry manage to pay for his holiday?

16 Why were the McCann’s and their Tapas friends never seriously interrogated? Instead, during their Rogatory interviews the British Police assisted them with some of their answers, which can be clearly seen in their statements.

17 Why did Gerry delete all the phone calls from his mobile on the 2nd of May, the day before Madeleine disappeared and also one received from Kate on 3rd May at 23.17 p.m., just over an hour after she had raised the alarm? Neither went to search for Madeleine, so why did Kate need to call him? Where did he go?

18 Why did Gerry have to fly home to obtain something with Madeleine’s DNA on? Did he actually supply an accurate representation of Madeleine’s DNA to the Police? Why was there no DNA of Madeleine’s found in the apartment the night she vanished?, an apartment which she had lived in for 5 days? Not one strand of hair was found there belonging to the McCann twins either. It’s like the apartment had been scrubbed clean.

19 Why is the case filed under Homicide, Simulating a Crime & Hiding a Cadaver and not abduction?

20 How did the scent of cadaver from a dead body get on Madeleine’s Cuddlecat, a child’s red T shirt, Kate’s black/white cheque trousers and her white sleeveless top? Why only these items?

21 Why did Gerry have to move the position of the sofa in the lounge? The exact same sofa which was identified by the blood dog Keela, as containing minute traces of blood in 3 different positions on the back panel. The exact same sofa that Eddie the cadaver dog also identified the scent of cadaver behind. Is this just a coincidence, or is this evidence of staging?

22 Why did the British Government intervene and support them on an unprecedented level from day one?

23 Why did the British Government feel the need to appoint a spokesman Clarence Mitchell, to speak in public for the McCann’s and is still assisting them today? Has the British tax payer been paying for his services all this time?

24 Why are the British papers only interested in reporting on the abduction line, when there is not one shred of evidence to support this theory? In 2008, one third of the official police files was made available to the general public. Facts that every newspaper could have easily been printed without any fear of litigation. So why have they ignored all of this information?

25 Why was Kate so annoyed at being asked to attend the Police station in the early days to identify a little girl caught on CCTV, that was believed to be Madeleine?

26 Why would the McCann’s leave Madeleine in an unlocked apartment knowing she had a tendency to wake up and wander frequently at night?

27 Why did the British Secret Service immediately put the McCann’s under telephone surveillance and not inform the Portuguese Police?

28 Why would SOCA (the Serious Organised Crime Agency) get involved with a missing child?

29 Why did the British Police withhold a statement for at least 6 months from the Portuguese Investigators involving David Payne and Gerry McCann, over lewd allegations of paedophile behaviour as witnessed by another Doctor friend of theirs on a previous holiday?

30 Why was Gerry in possession of sensitive Police manuals only used by Special Police Services and Government Agencies? Who gave them to him and why?

31 Why did the McCann’s want Leicestershire Police heading up the investigation and not Scotland Yard? They wanted the help from the Government, but not the top Police Force, why?

32 Why was the McCann’s Lawyers worried that Kate’s answers could be seen to be incriminating, but not Gerry’s?

33 Why did they destroy Madeleine’s sticker book when there was a perfectly good note pad on the table?

34 Why was someone allowed back into the apartment to remove personal items before forensics had finished looking for evidence?

35 Why was Robert Murat made a suspect when none of the photo fits depicted a man who wears glasses?

36 Why did it take the British authorities nine months to pass the Gaspar’s statement over to the Portuguese investigators?

37 Francisco Moita Flores has said that “the mystery lies with one or two of the ten or twelve elements that used to enter that apartment”. Who are the other 3 people is he referring to?

38 In Kate’s diary she states, "I can't stop thinking about Madeleine, about her fear of pain". How would she know that Madeleine had a fear of pain?

39 Why did Kate in her group statement say that she pulled the curtains open, yet in the documentary state that the wind blew the curtains open?

40 Why did Gordon Brown and Jackie Smith both have to visit Leicestershire Police three days after the McCann’s flew home? Both have publicly claimed that they do not interfere in ongoing Police investigations.

41 Why did several members of the group claim Rachel made the Tapas reservation, when the receptionist has clearly stated it was a man?

42 Why was a CRG (Control Risks Group) fraud expert brought in on a missing child case?

43 Why did Brian Kennedy feel the need to contact the family who claimed that they saw Gerry McCann carrying a child in the streets just before the alarm was raised?

44 Why was it that only Kate’s fingerprints, was found in a position of opening that window?

45 Why did the McCann’s need a service wash the day after Madeleine vanished, washing clothing that belonged to Madeleine that could have been important to the investigation?

46 Why did David Payne not want the McCann’s to speak to Yvonne Martin, the Social Worker who tried to offer them help?

47 Why didn’t Dianne Webster want to rush off and check on her own grandchildren when Kate shouted Madeleine was missing?

48 Why did David Payne claim that everyone went to dinner together, yet Fiona claimed that David would stay behind to watch the children?

49 Why did the FSS when testing the hair samples found in the boot of the McCann’s hire car, refuse to confirm if it had come from a living or dead person, simply by checking to see if they showed any signs of proximal banding?

50 Not one single hair of Madeleine's was ever recovered from the apartment, so how did the McCann’s manage to find one to give to Danie Krugel the South African body finder?

51 Why did the McCann’s need to air their car boot?

52 Why did Gerry not tell Mrs Fenn that it was his daughter that had gone missing?

53 Why did Paul Gordon, the previous occupant of the McCann’s apartment, say he feels like a “chess pawn” after being contacted several times by Brian Kennedy?

54 How could Matt Oldfield claim to see the twins breathing laying inside their cots, when he never even entered Madeleine’s bedroom?

55 Why did Gerry first claim the doors were left locked, then changed his statement saying the patio door was left unlocked?

56 Why did the PJ need to forensically examine an apartment in Burgau in relation to this case?

57 Why did the Vatican remove Madeleine’s details from their website, one week after Kate and Gerry were made suspects?

58 Why would a missing child of only 13 days be made a Ward of Court?

59 Why did Stuart Prior when examining all the evidence against the McCann’s, say that "he had arrested people in England with much less", yet they never got arrested?

60 Why did the McCann’s and their supportive friends refuse to help the investigation by not doing a reconstruction?

61 Sir Christopher Meyer publically stated that the McCann’s did not want the press to be stopped, they had been asked, but they turned the offer down. So why did they later complain that the press were outrageous?

62 Kerry Needham, the Mother of Ben Needham who went missing from the Greek Island of Kos in 1991, has never received the same level of help the McCann’s got. Why was that missing child treated so differently?

63 Jill Renwick says she spoke to Kate at 7am, the morning after Madeleine vanished saying, ''Kate was at the police station in hysterics. When we spoke she said the police weren’t doing enough.'' Yet Kate did not go to the Police Station until that afternoon, so which one of them is lying?

64 Why have the McCann’s never once shown us the inside of Madeleine’s bedroom as it now looks?

65 Why were there other Doctors booked in the Ocean Club that week, not part of the Tapas 9 group?

66 Why did Gerry and Kate delete so many calls from their phones before the Police arrived?

67 When Oprah Winfrey asked Kate why she never showed any emotion, Kate said, “the last thing I want obviously is to cause any extra further harm to Madeleine”. Yet they have always stated there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm, so what “extra further harm” is Kate referring to?

68 Is it just a coincidence that on the 13th May 2007, Jose Barra da Costa, former member of the PJ publicly claimed that the McCann’s are swingers, then two days later on the 15th May 2007, Robert Murat is declared arguido?

69 Why did the McCann’s ignore Police advice concerning the dangers of highlighting Madeleine's distinctive eye, which would ensure that she was killed?

70 Why did David Payne say “we have a pact”? A child is missing and they feel the need to have some kind of agreement. What for?

H/t to all contributors, a special thank you to Stella for compiling the questions, and all made possible by The Maddie Case Files.

19 second update.

2010-07-30T10:50:00.000-07:00

If we are to believe the report further down the page the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) is set to be disbanded sometime in the next twelve months.

I say disbanded but the more likely chain of events will be that they decamp, taking their troughs, their corruption and their criminality with them and amalgamate with the equally corrupt and criminal Association of Chief Police Officers.(ACPO)

A bold statement you might think, but far from it if you consider the few pre-requisites required in order that one might confidently make such a claim.

To assess this case and come come to the only conclusion that one can, that the Doctors McCann are instrumental in the death and disappearance of their daughter doesn't require great gifts of deduction or intellect, it requires far less, the ability to walk upright and attaining the age of six years is more than sufficient.

How strange then it must seem, given the vast collective experience of those stalwart fellows, those that make up the membership of the Association of Chief Police Officers, (list below) that what is blatantly obvious to our six year old is somehow lost on these men of rank and great experience.

I have no intention, and even less inclination to quote chapter and verse of all that has past, such things as, and though a horse of a slightly different colour, Jim Gamble's unequivacal support of the McCanns just one month after they, the McCanns were declared arguidos, persons of interest, suspects if we are to call a spade a shovel.

No I have no intention of wading through the mire of things past, but no article of this nature would be complete without making mention of the pro-active support of the McCanns by Leicester Constabulary; the link from the police website to that most grotesque abomination, that catalogue of lies, www.findmadeleine, complete with I must add, www.store.findmadeleine.

But these things, distasteful as they are, pale into insignificance compared to the find Madeleine fund. A fund as fraudulent as the proverbial nine bob note, or would that be thirty Euro note given these modern times.

So before I come to the gist of this piece, and no it's not the story of the NPIA's demise, but rather a little something from the past from Blackwatch of The Sargeants Inn, a little reminder if you will of the stance taken, and ongoing by those charged with upholding the law of this once green and pleasant land.

A refresher.

‘Missing’ conference a resounding success

Gerry McCann, the father of missing child Madeleine McCann, gave a moving after-dinner speech. He highlighted the humanity that’s essential when police and other services deal with the families of missing people.

Confirming and endorsing the NPIA's position, Chief Constable Peter Neyroud stood shoulder to shoulder with Gerry McCann.

Features - International Missing Children’s Day 25 May

Sharon Lee, Kate McCann, Esther Rantzen, Peter Neyroud, Gerry McCann, Nigel Greenhalgh (uncle of Damien Nettles) and Natasha Lee
Families and police forces involved in the investigations of the five missing children chosen from the UK attended to encourage others to not only remember missing children
but also encourage anyone with information that may help find a missing child to contact the police.
The five children were:
• Ben Needham
• Damien Nettles
• Katrice Lee
• Madeleine McCann
• Paige Emily Chivers
Source PDF

Grooming the McCanns: Amber Alert, the Prüm Treaty and Government Interference in the McCann Case
Author Blackwatch 12/08/2009

How The Madeleine Case Supported the Extension of Amber Alert System and the EU's Prüm Treaty To The Remaining 27 Member States - And How Downing Street Obliged

In response to the question, how will the McCanns be remembered, one Mirror Forum member wrote:

“they will become a leading force in the world to get rid of the hidden evil in our society, and to out those who try to cover up for the tragedies these criminals can cause”.

For a couple who were at this time suspects in their daughter's disappearance, the statement brokered something of a paradox; just how could these two ordinary individuals who had been openly pilloried for their routine negligence transform themselves into credible figureheads for law-enforcement overnight? Within the time it took to finish one glass of wine and discover one of your children missing, the McCanns exchanged their prison-issue denims for outfits tailored to a more 'practical' design.

And what at first had sounded like a most absurd suggestion by one deluded forum member steadily acquired some semblance of authority.

GERRY IS HONOURED AT POLICE BRAVERY AWARDS FOR A LIFETIME (WELL 6 WEEKS OR SO) OF SERVICES TO … MISSING KIDS AND STUFF ... JULY 2007

Retracing our steps to mid-July 2007 and we find ourselves standing alongside hundreds of dumbfounded uniformed officers at the Dorchester Hotel, invited from our seats by senior personnel to applaud one Gerald P McCann at the Police Bravery Awards. First we’d had the poignant video of his daughter, then the speech praising both UK Officers and the Polícia Judiciária, now we had the standing ovation. And for what? Just what were we honouring? Gerry’s contribution to ‘what’ exactly? One of the serving South Yorkshire officers receiving an award there that night described it as one of the most surreal events of his life. Sitting at his table was none other than Gerry McCann, 1500 metre junior running medallist and celebrated kidnap personality. And he wasn’t just down on the guest-list; Gerry was guest of honour. It was like having Mark Stanley - the man responsible for shutting the doors on the Herald of Free Enterprise as it left Zeebrugge - guest-of honour at the annual Maritime and Coastguard awards.

Naturally, not even this prepared us for what was to come. But just how did we get to this stage?

I HAVE A DREAM – GERRY’S EPIPHANY – FIRST WE TAKE MANHATTAN THEN WE TAKE BERLIN

In mid-June, in an interview given to the Catholic newspaper, The Tablet, Gerry McCann told of an "extraordinary experience" inside the church in Praia da Luz just days after Madeleine's disappearance:

"I had this mental image of being in a tunnel and instead of the light at the end of the tunnel being extremely narrow and a distant spot, the light opened up and the tunnel got wider and wider and went in many different directions .... I can't say it was a vision because I am not clear what a vision is but I had a mental image and it certainly helped me decide. I became a man possessed that night. The next day I was up at dawn, making phone calls."

At this point in time Madeleine has been missing, presumed abducted, for little more than 3 weeks. But in what can only be described as an epiphany or profound breakthrough, Gerry McCann is sufficiently inspired and transformed enough to pursue a totally new direction. At a time when most people in his position are coming round from the effects of a mild sedative Gerry decides to resign his position at Glenfield Hospital and spearhead a campaign on behalf of missing and exploited children everywhere. His mission starts modestly enough; a meeting with SOS Crianca, the main child welfare non-governmental organisation in Portugal and then to London for a meeting at the Headquarters of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. And then things start getting a little giddy. Gerry visits the National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children in Washington, bonds with the US attorney general Gonzales at the justice department, grapples at the White House with the First Lady's deputy chief of staff, Sarah Armstrong and follows it up with a mid-afternoon jog up Capitol Hill for meetings with Democrat congressman Nick Lampson and Republican Senator Robert Shelby.

And then, of course, we have that ill-timed appointment in Edinburgh with Kirsty Wark who interviews Gerry at the Edinburgh International TV festival, shortly before he and his wife are declared formal suspects.

Not bad for a couple from Leicester who were presumed reckless enough to leave their daughter unattended for several nights of the week on a jolly old Summer Holiday with their mates in Portugal. There is a great deal more to this article which can be found here

National landscape streamlined as ACPO role reviewed
29 Jul 2010

The role of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) will be reviewed by the Government but will include many of the functions currently performed by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) which will be scrapped within two years, the Home Secretary announced this week.

A new National Crime Agency, as well as encompassing the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and UK Border Agency, is expected to take control of the databases currently managed by the NPIA, including the National DNA Database and Police National Computer.

The Policing Minister told Police Professional this week the Government will also seek to streamline the inspection regime. Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting police and the people, sets out a redefined and independent inspection role for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary but fails to mention the future role of the Audit Commission. The Conservative Party has been expected to abolish it as part of a cull of non-departmental public bodies.

Nick Herbert said: “I am reviewing and discussing the whole inspection regime. Police forces find themselves subject to multiple forms of inspection; I am looking at the whole thing.”

The consultation document sets out how ACPO will in future be expected to show strong leadership in promoting and supporting the greater use of professional judgement by police officers and staff.
President of ACPO, Sir Hugh Orde, speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee this week about the proposed changes, said he is “deeply uncomfortable” with ACPO’s current status as a limited company, proposing its Criminal Records Office be moved into a separate department, so that ACPO can become a “policy generator”

In its new role, ACPO will share evidenced-based practice and drive future leadership of service in place of the NPIA.

Sir Hugh said: “Reform must add real value to the critical service we deliver which keeps our communities safe.

“There are a number of new elements proposed which will now require careful consideration, in particular the role of the National Crime Agency, and how greater collaboration across the service can be achieved to drive the necessary savings. Today also presents an opportunity to firmly establish ACPO as a professional leadership body, with a governance and accountability structure as we have consistently requested.”

Mr Herbert defended the decision to scrap the NPIA, saying it would produce immediate cost savings, details of which will be published in a business plan in the autumn.

Mr Herbert said de-cluttering the landscape will produce far greater value for money and reduce overheads.

Responding to the decision, NPIA’s Deputy Chief Executive, Nick Gargan, said: “The NPIA has long argued that there should be fewer national agencies. We therefore see these proposals as a positive opportunity to evolve what functions the NPIA provides in a way that continues to tackle crime, increase public safety and provide value for the taxpayer.” source

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO, official title The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland), established in 1948,[1] is the lead organisation for developing police policy in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need, for example terrorist attacks and civil emergencies, ACPO coordinates the strategic operational response and advises government. ACPO coordinates national police operations, major investigations, cross border policing and joint law enforcement task forces. ACPO designates Senior Investigative Officers for major investigations and appoints officers to head ACPO units specialising in various areas of policing and crime reduction. ACPO is now a statutory consultee.[3]

Scotland has eight forces and they are similarly coordinated by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

ACPO is currently led by Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde QPM who was, until 2009, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He was elected as president by fellow members of ACPO in April 2009.[4]

It is funded by a Home Office grants, profits from commercial activities[2] and contributions from the 44 UK police authorities. Chief officers' work through ACPO attracts no additional remuneration.

In 1997 ACPO was incorporated as a private company limited by guarantee. As a private company, ACPO does not have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. It is not a staff association, the staff association for senior police officers being a separate body, the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA). (from Wiki)

President
Sir Hugh Orde OBE QPM

Vice President
Matt Baggott CBE QPM
Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland

Vice President
Sir Norman Bettison QPM
Chief Constable, West Yorkshire Police

Vice President
Mr Tim Hollis CBE QPM
Chief Constable of Humberside

Children & Young People
Head: Ian McPherson, Chief Constable, Norfolk Constabulary

Citizen Focus
Head: Richard Crompton, Chief Constable, Lincolnshire Police

Crime
Head: Keith Bristow, Chief Constable, Warwickshire Police

Criminal Justice
Head: Tim Godwin, Deputy Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

Finance & Resources
Head: Grahame Maexwell, Chief Constable, North Yorkshire

Futures
Head: Mark Rowley, Chief Constable, Surrey Police

Information Management
Head: Miss Ailsa Beaton, Director of Information, Metropolitan

Performance Management
Head: Mr Steve Finnigan, Chief Constable, Lancashire

Equality, Diversity & Human Rights (EDHR)
Head: Mr Steve Otter, Chief Constable, Devon & Cornwall

Terrorism & Allied Matters
Chair: John Yates, Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
DCC ACPO TAM: Margaret Wood
Vice Chairs
Mr. Chris Sims, Chief Constable, West Midlands
Sir Norman Bettison, Chief Constable, West Yorkshire
Peter Fahy, Chief Constable, Greater Manchester

Uniformed Operations
Head: Mr Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable, South Yorkshire

Workforce Development
Head: Mr Peter Fahy, Chief Constable, Greater Manchester

2012 Olympic Games
Head: Mr Chris Allison, Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

Too Many Details Too Much Insistence

2010-07-04T20:55:00.000-07:00

.
Too many details.

Ways to Tell if Someone is Lying: The Flip Side -- They Give Too Many Details

People have started to figure out that telling a poorly-thought-out lie gets them caught, so they begin to weave wild tales when they are lying. For example, when asked why she was out so late last night, your girlfriend might tell you that she was driving down the street when she saw an old friend in a passing car. She waved her down, and they pulled into a parking lot and got to talking. They decided to get a cup of coffee at Starbucks, where they discussed religion, politics and pop culture. Then she decided to stop at the grocery store where she purchased a loaf of bread, a six-pack of soda and a carton of milk. She then went to the Chevron to get gas, and finally headed home.

When most people are telling the truth, they don't feel it necessary to expound upon every detail of their day, but they also don't get nervous when they are asked questions. It's a fine line. more

Typified in this short clip.

It is rather a pity that the clip doesn't run on a little longer, we would have then been treated to yet another discrepancy (lie) from "Kate of the curtains."

No matter, you can read all about it (transcript) on the accompanying post, Your Witness Stu, immediately below.

Too much insistence.

By Dr Martin Roberts
02 July 2010

A CRYING SHAME

Just when you think there's nothing more to add, that all of the inconsistencies have been thrashed out like grouse from the undergrowth, up pops another. Admittedly it's not totally new inasmuch as the topic in general has long since come to the media's, and hence public attention. However, the emergence of one extra, small, yet significant detail makes the overall picture just that little bit clearer.

For an en passant remark, adjudged (and so nearly dismissed) as whimsical, Madeleine McCann's question to her parents about why they didn't come when she was crying, must rank as one of the most widely reported quotes to have emerged from the McCann family's Portuguese holiday. It was reported by the McCanns themselves in their 'one year on' documentary of 30 April, 2008, and in their interview with Dermot Murhaghan for Sky News a day later. Further back in time it was repeated by Kate to Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Jayne Tanner on the evening of May 3, 2007 and by Kate and Gerry independently to the Portuguese police on the occasion of their initial interviews, as revealed by an apparent 'leak' to the media after a year had elapsed.

The bruhaha this 'leak' created when first reported arose on account of there being two implications entailed by the comment in question. The McCann stance was that the question was considered, with the benefit of hindsight, to be of potential significance, suggesting as it did that something or someone made Madeleine cry the night before she was reported missing. The alternative implication to be brought to the fore however was that Madeleine's crying, and hence Madeleine herself, was unattended for some time. This was the unspoken accusation which the McCanns' champion, Clarence Mitchell, stentoriously defended them against when answering questions put by to him by Anna Jones of Sky News, on 11 April, 2008. Clarence very helpfully confirmed that Rachael Oldfield, who happened to be in her own (adjoining) apartment that Wednesday night, heard no crying whatsoever, so slight and transient it must have been. When one considers that the partition walls within the Ocean Club complex are sufficiently insubstantial as to have allowed the Oldfields to hear their immediate neighbours in the shower, it seems rather to have been a case of 'silence is golden', i.e. Rachael Oldfield heard no crying, because there was no crying.

Already there is a chink in the curtains here. Had Madeleine been crying on the Wednesday night she would undoubtedly have been heard by Rachael Oldfield nearby, just as certainly as infant crying from 5A was heard by Mrs Fenn, resident in the apartment above, on the Tuesday night. And those episodes of retelling in hindsight? They took place at the dinner table on Thursday night, i.e. before Madeleine's absence had been noted. That is not hindsight at all, but foresight, the all-important observation being made to friends first, the police afterwards (by both parents on 4 May, Gerry again on 10 May, Kate once more on 6 September and Gerry on the 7th).

We see this particular chink widening further, with the uncovering of a witness statement by Leicestershire Police Officer Stephen Markley, made on 25 April, 2008, in relation to his activities as family communication officer while working in Portugal with the McCanns. The key aspect (for present purposes) of his statement is as follows:

"However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.

"One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening."

There is something distinctly unsettling about the McCanns' various bouts of selective amnesia in relation to events surrounding their daughter's as yet unexplained absence from apartment 5A (an unsubstantiated hypothesis, even one of abduction, is not an explanation). When interviewed for Spanish broadcaster Antena 3 they were each unable to offer up any recollection of their last sighting of Madeleine. And yet they attached such importance to one off-hand comment by her, a comment latterly reported as having no importance at all for the child herself, that they repeated it to several friends, and then, on several occasions, the Portuguese Police. They have, as we know from the intervention of their professional mouthpiece, vigorously refuted the implication of child abandonment, whilst publicly expressing the view that it is the implication of some unidentified intruder which drove them to alert the PJ to Madeleine's unusual tale of crying. These are the obvious alternatives. But there is a third, rather less obvious motive to consider; one which might offer a more convincing justification for the McCanns seeking to 'over-egg the pudding' than their calling attention to the possibility of prowlers in a sleepy holiday complex.

On the face of it there's nothing unusual about the McCanns 'wanting the PJ to be aware' of Madeleine's revelation concerning the Wednesday night. It's only when this desire is set against the fact that they had already (4 May) twice told the PJ themselves about the incident, that their request to Officer Markley on the 5th appears overly insistent.

It is noteworthy that, in terms of recollection, Wednesday 2 May in Praia da Luz represents something of a 'black hole' as far as the McCanns and their friends are concerned. We might then ask ourselves this question: As a bare minimum, what does Madeleine's mention of her being unattended confirm? Simply that she was able to refer to it subsequently. If 'the night before' is assumed to have been the Wednesday then the conversation in question can only have taken place on the Thursday morning, and Madeleine was in a position to be 'taken' that night. But there was no crying on the Wednesday to speak of, so why would Madeleine have spoken about it? Or are we to suppose she was referring to the Tuesday? (I ask you, does a 3/4 - year-old carry such issues forward over 30 hours? Certain adolescents of my acquaintance have difficulty in remembering something for 30 minutes).

What stands out most from this determination to bring Madeleine's transient unease to everyone's attention, is that Madeleine herself is portrayed as having drawn attention to it, on the Thursday, from which one is invited to conclude that she must have been in a position so to do - on the Thursday. Hence, verbal 'signs of life', promulgated, of course, by the McCanns, as was the untruth about 'jemmied shutters.'

Printed in it's entirety due to lack of available permanent link.

h/t McCannfiles
.

Your Witness Stu

2010-07-04T12:27:00.000-07:00

.

Just a little reminder.

4003 to 4004 Email from Stuart Prior to the PJ (in English)
15-Processos Vol XV Page 4003 to 4004

4003

Fax

Date: 18th January 2008

From: Stuart Prior

To: Ricardo Paiva

Subject: BC4 Memo, Gail Cooper doc. Gail Cooper statement, Iris Morgan doc, report Morgan doc, Rex Morgan doc.

Ricardo,

All the docs attached in this and the next two emails as discussed earlier today.

We are still working on one or two aspects and I will get back to you over this and for any further direction from yourselves over facial recognition.

As we have discussed I have given Gerry a brief update just saying that the other descriptions are different to the artists impressions completed by Gail and identified by Jane. That the witnesses appeared genuine which indicates a number of charity collectors in the area prior to Madeleine being taken. I informed him everything has been forwarded to yourselves.

We have not spoken with Jane at all and will not share our e fits with anybody except yourselves unless you request this from us. It appears there were at least three charity collectors if not more in the area in the weeks prior to Madeleine being taken.

I am told that the artist impression by Gail Cooper is likely to hit the media over the weekend and I will update you on the effects of this next week, although we are not involved in this in any way at all.

Hope all is well.

Spk soon.

Stu

~ ~ ~

Your witness.

At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
Kate McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, may 4th, 2007
~

At 10pm, Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment, using her key and saw that the bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open. The doors were locked except the one at the back as already noted above.
Gerry McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, may 4th, 2007
~

It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”
Vanity Fair January 10, 2008

~

K: I did my check about 10.00 ‘clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see S and A in the cot and then I was looking at M’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that M or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.
Kate McCann in C4 Cutting Edge documentary - Madeleine was here, april 2008

~

Kate: Yeah, so I thought well I'll just close it over again, and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed and I thought well that's strange so then I opened the door thinking I'll open it ajar a bit again and that was when I kind of looked into the room and when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine's bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn't Madeleine there? And then in the end I walked over and thought oh, she's not in bed and then I thought maybe she's wandered through to our bed and that's why the door's open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn't there and then I kind of see then I'm starting to panic a bit and I ran back into their room and literally as I went back into their room the curtains that were drawn over just "foooosh" flew open and that's when I saw that the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right open. And that was when I just knew that erm someone had taken her. So I, I mean I ran to the window and I didn't know what I thought was going to see but I ran to the window and then I quickly hmm quickly looked through the wardrobes I had I suppose this temporary thought she was cowering in a wardrobe or something anyway she wasn't there and I just ran out and soon as...
Kate McCann on the Oprah show, may 2009.
.

A Poem For Plod

2010-06-14T18:30:00.000-07:00

.
Back in May our Madeleine,
Vanished while we had a gin.
We never got to go for dinner,
Unless we put a dope pill in ‘er.
When Kate checked up – I had to make ‘er,
“They” had had the gall to take ‘er!
We all jumped up and had a search,
That brat had left us in the lurch.
Then Katie said, “Oh never mind ‘er.
Call Sky News and they can find ‘er.”
But still the case was not resolved
And so policemen got involved.
We printed lots of photos of ‘er,
But then we thought, “Why should we bother?”
If we set up a fund instead,
Others can find her – we’ll stay in bed.
So we dumped the twins inside a crèche,
And learned to live our lives afresh.
We went on shows, we went on telly,
Our lips a-quiver, like raspberry jelly,
We begged the crowds to give us cash,
And amassed a tidy little stash.
We practised looking devastated
Our lust for fame could not be sated.
Every day was filled with hope,
We even got to meet the Pope!
He said to Kate, “Bless you, my child”,
And Katie simpered, blushed and smiled.
Then gazed towards the camera crew,
With doeful eyes and woe anew.
Then at a press meet, some H*n git,
Went and asked us if we’d done it?
We said, “How dare you! What a farce!
Look at us – we’re middle class!”
Well, not quite that, but that’s the gist
And we crossed her off our Christmas list.
Then the police came round to call
And said they’d found blood on the wall,
Philomena, round and fat,
Said it could have been a gnat.
And, you know, it could be true,
Mosquitoes leave a death scent too.
How’s a dog supposed to tell,
If someone is alive and well?
But it’s OK – they don’t suspect us,
The Portuguese love and respect us.
And so does everyone, it seems!
We are the stuff of poor folks’ dreams.
We’re classy and so dignified,
We’ve never screamed or retched or cried.
We don’t attempt a dirty search,
Instead we sit inside the Church,
Kate folds the pages of her Bible,
And talks of Maddie’s unusual eyeball.
The press at home can’t get enough,
Of all this ‘wonderful parents’ stuff,
They rightly tell the common classes,
All our critics are jumped-up arses.
But the Portuguese are not so nice,
Their press are looking at us twice.
They ask why we left the kids alone,
But EVERYONE does this at home.
They’re dropping hints – the feeling is
We have something to do with this!
It’s hurtful, unhelpful and just not true,
(Well, it might be, but we’re not telling you.)
The evidence grows day-by-day,
It’s all a bunch of lies, we say.
They’ve found death scent inside our car,
And the mileage has gone up too far,
There’s bodily fluids where the wheel should be,
(Hey, that’s just where we told the twins to wee.)
They’re claiming they’ve found DNA,
But is it Madeleine’s – who can say?
They’ve found a great big clump of hair,
But we say that they put it there.
“We cannot trust these Keystone cops!”
Katie rants and raves and strops.
They take us in and say we did it
And ask us where on Earth we hid it.
We will not answer such accusations
We use our initial allegations,
“Maddie was taken by a bunch of paedos!”
But still they make us both arguidos
This is not good – this is quite bad,
And Kate is getting really mad.
We need to get her home, it’s clear
Or else the twins will disappear.
So off we went on EasyJet
But we weren’t beaten – no, not yet!
We got the most expensive brief
And the government’s worn-out P.R. chief
That chap Branson's agreed to pay,
A fool and his money, as they say.
We ridiculed the use of science,
A most discredited appliance,
Our friends and family spread the word,
That all these rumours are quite absurd.
They’re utterly ridiculous.
In fact, they’re downright ludicrous.
We know that Maddy is not dead,
She’s gone to a better place instead.
Wherever she is, whatever her fate,
She’s better off now than she would be with Kate.
.

SOCA: Tax Evasion, Fraud and Mortgage Anomalies Cited in Dawn Raid

2010-06-09T21:00:00.000-07:00

.
Tax evasion, fraud and mortgage anomalies cited in dawn raid.

Forgive me the Tabloid Headline and any disappointment that the story is not about the McCanns, but in the words of yer man, I can resist anything but temptation.

But it is about the McCanns at the end of the day, as is every other story that can be used as a comparison to highlight the politically motivated use of police powers to persecute the innocent or to protect the guilty.

Have at it.

Is SOCA a front for MI5?

BY LAURA FRIEL
3/12/09

IT’S a familiar story. They arrive at dawn to kick in your door while the media provides the kind of political cover that avoids public disquiet. Facts are distorted, lies told and then the circus moves on, for everyone but those who have been targeted. Their lives and livelihoods are disrupted, their reputations smeared and prospects darkened. As one raiding officer from the Serious Organised Crime Agency candidly told Seán Hughes last month: “It’s payback time.”
Seán Hughes is a highly-respected republican from south Armagh and as a member of Sinn Féin has been at the fore in calling for people to support the Peace Process. Significantly, Seán has also been an active advocate for the transformation of policing and transfer of powers.

Two weeks ago, his home was raided by officers from the London-based Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). SOCA had obtained a High Court order to freeze Seán’s bank accounts, the accounts of six family members and four others. As a result, Seán Hughes, a sheep and cattle farmer, and other members of his extended family now face financial ruin. Not because anyone has been found guilty of any crime, let alone serious organised crime, but simply because SOCA has decided to cut off all financial access, whether personal or business. SOCA is unlike other kinds of enforcement agencies in at least two significant ways. Firstly, it relies on hearsay rather than evidence; and, for those it targets, the presumption of innocence is removed.

Without access to funding, Seán cannot buy feed for his livestock. His brothers, both local contractors, now have no means to pay the wages of those they employ. Even the family’s 76-year-old mother has had her life savings frozen. “I’ve a wife and four children and I don’t know how we’re going to survive,” said Seán.

SOCA claimed their actions against Seán Hughes were based upon suspected tax evasion, benefit fraud and inaccurate information used to secure a mortgage. And yet, curiously, none of the agencies directly involved – Social Security, Inland Revenue or any mortgage company – has taken any action or raised any concern about alleged irregularities. Furthermore, the PSNI has more than adequate powers and personnel to investigate any such allegations in the normal way.

Clearly questions need be asked as to why an organisation established under the auspices of tackling global criminal conspiracies, organised drug, sex and people trafficking appears so intent upon destroying the reputation and livelihood of a south Armagh farmer who has been accused of relatively minor offences.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) was established in April 2006 following legislation enacted in the British parliament the previous year. SOCA emerged out of a number of draconian measures enacted in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The act also included restrictions on the right to protest as well as changes to rules governing powers of arrest and use of search warrants.

SOCA is funded by the British Home Office but is described as independent. Its founding head was former MI5 chief Stephen Lander, recently replaced by a top Ministry of Defence civil servant, Ian Andrews. SOCA has been described as an “intelligence agency” which has a role of “reducing harm”, not specifically the arrest and conviction of offenders.

According to their own website, SOCA officers are empowered to perform a number of surveillance roles traditionally associated with British Military Intelligence. In other words, SOCA is primarily a covert organisation, probably running agents and involved in dirty tricks and black propaganda. more An Phoblacht

Photo taken from one of the ubiquitous US bad cop blogs that understandably litter the web.

http://sanjosecopwatch.org/index.html

Here's one bit nearer to home that I haven't had chance until now, to have a look at.
Opens with the SOCA tag:

Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk
Watching Them, Watching Us
http://SpyBlog.org.uk
SOCA

.

Yes; It is an International Disgrace

2010-06-07T10:56:00.000-07:00

.

Not to mention the homespun variety.

Three posts from the Maddie Case Files, chosen for their very salient talking points and re-published with the permission of, and thanks to, the authors.

From Midas

All that anybody really knows for sure, is that a three years old child was reported to be missing from the bed that she allegedly slept in. We know this for a fact because her parents came on the telly and told us so. And since that moment we have been shown that the holiday-makers trust each other implicitly and asked to believe that there is an SAS-trained swarthy, predatory paedophile who has never struck the area before or since, but is holding Madeleine in a safe place where she is not being harmed.

We have been shown wrongly dated video and photographs. We have not been asked to help find this child but told to. Indeed people have even been asked to pay for the privilege of looking for this child who was (allegedly) not being supervised by her parents or anybody else at the time she was allegedly snatched from her bed. Most parents consider themselves lucky to find that their child is high-lighted on a police web-site, but Team McCann wants people to invest in holiday-packs of posters that the public have to pay for. They should re-mortgage their home or get their rich pals to buy these for them, and then hand them out for free.

It is an international disgrace that these seemingly ordinary big gang of people have been allowed to give both the law and the public, the biggest run-around since Al Capone and his chums. To blindly agree with the holiday-makers various versions of what is supposed to have happened from the beginning of their holiday is not only stupefyingly stupid, but leaves Madeleine's memory in limbo forever. We need more truth.

Despite all the factual and logical ways some of us purport to be working on this case, we have to remember that some of it defies logic. We have not been working from logical and simple statements, and we are not working with logical and simple people.

The scheming was acknowledged by the Embassy within hours of getting hold of the story. Why would anybody wish to doubt the Embassy at search an early stage? Why did the Government not take any notice of their own Embassy? Why were the staff moved on so quickly? Why were the PDL nannies shipped out so quickly? Why were witnesses in the case allowed to chat to each other and make visits after the 'disappearance? Why are people like BK and Hogg involved?

This is not just about an ordinary three year old child who didn't come home from an ordinary holiday with ordinary people. If this sounds like I am being conspiratorial. So be it.

~ ~ ~

From Meadow

Whilst we all want to deal in FACTS about this case, and if we whizzzz back to those early days on MF when perhaps it was one of the only 'open' debates, much followed and contributed. We have to acknowledge the difference between FACT & FICTION. But there is this other grey area of hearsay. When the only information came via the 'source' friends and family of the McCanns, those early pieces of information, and I'm talking here about the first 48 hours were consistent. Furthermore they were probably PRE-knowledge & warning of the judicial secrecy, pre-lawyer speak and pre-putting your foot in it.

McKenzie
Here and here.

So, we set the scene everyone is running around like blue-ass bumble bees and Mr McCann is on his mobile, it's about 11 pm. Mr McKenzie overhears the telephone conversation, he is so alarmed by what he hears, it sufficient to report it to the police.

So, here we have confirmation about phone calls back to the UK. My take on this, generally is the content of those phone calls and what was repeated by the recipients is basically true. Words like ''jemmied'' and ''they've taken here'' are probably repeated almost word for word. The word for example ''jemmied'' would not have been replaced with ''signs of a break in'' or vice versa, jemmied is specific. Yet there are no signs of damage, force entry or a crow-bar\implement. So those repeating such information must have been fed it from somewhere, they couldn’t have read it in the press or heard it in the media, they were the ‘source’

So we have the scene of total panic (well it should have been) we have Mrs McCann hitting walls, others producing written timelines, photographs, organising calls to the police, finding people to translate, others organising a ‘’managed\rehearsed’’ missing child procedure. And Mr McCann on his mobile, of course you can search and talk at the same time, but he was at that time back at the apartment (McKenzie).

People who have the benefits of social\professional\family networking capability no doubt would put it into full swing, but why within an hour ? Why, when you would be so filled with optimism that Madeleine may be soon found, nearby - perhaps you don’t believe lost (W&W) but dumped by the would be abductor for whatever reason, but that would your hope. When would you phone home? When would you extend the need if you could to call in favours. Let us remind ourselves that by midnight, this had gone full-circle between two countries. Isn’t there a statement somewhere, either BBC or Sky asking for confirmation that the police had yet to attend ?

McKenzie seemed to have stumbled onto something that night, that he thought sufficiently peculiar to inform the police, not once but twice. I wonder now, three years on what he is thinking when he recalls that night overhearing the father of Madeleine, when she was never found or any closer to knowing what might have happened to her.

Do the Smith family think about what they saw and how it should have impacted on the case?

Do the nursery workers\MW staff who assisted that night in searching for Madeleine, stop to wonder all these years on what happened, why the silence from the participants.

Just compare now, in the UK in the aftermath of this most recent case of Mr Bird’s killing rampage, 12 dead, 25 injured, photographs, timelines, interviews, background. Everyone has a theory. We know about his financial dealings, inner family conflicts and so and so on.

The McCanns and the T7 - NOTHING. We didn’t even know they had faces. In three years time, do you think the 12 dead people will be represented in the media as individuals, no - time will have passed on, like Hunger ford & Dunblane.

So why with such anonymity OF THOSE INVOLVED, can the case of Madeleine McCann be held so high in the public domain based manly on the initial shock of HEARSAY.

‘’They’ve taken her’’ the shutters were jemmied.

~ ~ ~

From Meadow

When we think of the T9Timeline (or alibi) The cluster f*** at 9.05 - 9.15.

Then one nasty grey area, time and time again by-passed and in the best of the 'whodunits,' it was the person\s not there (in the Tapas). Nothing accounts for the timing & reason for O'B to re-check the children within 10 minutes of JT's return and the reason why Oldfield then checks the McCann children within the apartment within 15-20 minutes of McCann's return.

So, two people missing from the Tapas, who are given the perfect alibi that they couldn't possibly have had anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine alleged disappearance, because she had ALREADY GONE, and that includes the person who failed to notice it.

I mean whether these adults failed their children by the apparent neglectful behaviour, which I totally fail to see why they didn't openly and frequently get 'stick' for, apart from being made ambassadors for child welfare! we are still left with the Timeline that will forever haunt them. Their timeline which they wrote.

Just how does someone in a room no larger that 10 ' x 10' miss a child, when 50% of the beds are un-occupied, whether he knew which one she slept in or not.

How do, two adults chatting in a road, miss a person passing them by, within a couple of feet in the quiet of the night, yet this same person can see yards ahead to the end of the road to identify the frill on the bottom of a child's PJ's, whilst being abducted.

It will be the timeline that will come back to haunt this case, if the media chose to understand it's complexity and inconsistency, yet alone the probability that it could have happened this was would be pushing the boat out too far.

But nothing we haven't all said so many times before. Somehow it was easier to discuss the probabilities of this case, without the apparent FACTS gained from the official file.

~ ~ ~

Padding.

Like a lot things, this doesn't seem to be applicable to the McCann Case.

Locard's exchange principle
From Wikipedia.

The Locard exchange principle, also known as Locard's theory, was postulated by 20th century forensic scientist Edmond Locard.

Locard was the director of the very first crime laboratory in existence, located in Lyon, France. Locard's exchange principle states that "with contact between two items, there will be an exchange" (Thornton, 1997).

Essentially Locard's principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so the perpetrator(s) will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene. Every contact leaves a trace.

“Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value. ”

—Paul L. Kirk. 1953. Crime investigation: physical evidence and the police laboratory. Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York.

Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at—or taken from—a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.

When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.

An easier way to remember this is that "Every Contact Leaves A Trace." Wiki

h/t almostgothic
.

The Dog and Bone, Scents and Records

2010-06-05T03:19:00.000-07:00

.

In the process of a long overdue clear-out, I came across this untitled article. (since remedied)

I couldn't in all honesty give reason why I saved the article, I can only assume it was for the canine content, where the interviewer asks the same question as I, and it is that which I run with here. But that said, it's the same interview that was to catch the McCanns out lying through their teeth regarding the phone records, when the process was eventually published, no matter, the interview becomes a two edged sword. Though, as I say, it is primarily the dogs that are the theme of the post, the lame, pathetic and oft arrogant answers given by these two shouldn't be overlooked.

I have taken the opportunity to add a couple of old posts to give the thing a bit of substance.

McCanns in Expresso - Interview
6 September 2008 | Posted by astro

Maddie case: In their first interview since they quit being suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann spoke about the re-launch of the investigation, the fear that they felt in Portugal and the unshakable certainty that Madeleine was abducted

“Nothing in the process says that Madeleine has died”

Q – What are you presently doing to find Madeleine?

Gerry – We have had private investigators working with us for several months. Now that the case has been archived, it’s easier because we accessed the process. We carried out new interviews with those that had already testified. And we interviewed others who approached us and had never spoken before.
Kate – As we didn’t know what the PJ had done, we repeated everything that seemed important to us.

Q – Do the new witnesses offer clues about the disappearance?

Gerry – Some report sightings, but it’s not likely that they lead to our daughter. We are more interested in persons that offer credible information that can be verified through photographs or in another form; persons who know who may be involved.

Q – What impression did you get from the process? Were you shocked over its contents?

Gerry – We were investigated into the smallest detail. There are entire volumes about us. We can jump those. It must be disquieting information that will not help us to find Madeleine.

Q – Don’t you think that everything that was possible to do, was done? The investigation reached Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, Morocco…

Gerry – Morocco is a good example of what went wrong. A sighting was reported and it was said that there were cameras at the petrol station. When the inspectors went there, they concluded that there were none. The truth is that there were none in the pump area, but in the shop. And when the PJ returned, the tape had been recorded over.
Kate – It’s difficult to describe how it feels to have our daughter taken away… We want to see action everywhere. We wanted spotlights, we wanted helicopters, we wanted everyone on the street, searching.

Q – If Madeleine had disappeared in England, would things have been different?

Gerry – If it had happened in a British city, I have no doubts. But I don’t know if it would have been different if we had been in a small village in Scotland. Clearly, the English police are more experienced in abductions, they are more alert.

Q – If you have an important clue concerning Madeleine’s whereabouts, will you transmit it to the Portuguese police?

Gerry – If something needs to be done in Portugal, we’ll have to. We cannot go around breaking doors down or arresting people. But only when we feel that we cannot advance any further on our own.

Q – Do you trust the Portuguese authorities, after having been considered suspects?

Gerry – We wouldn’t mind if we had been investigated at the beginning, if they thought that could help. But months later, when the evidence had been lost? It’s that once the suspicion is installed, we can never prove our innocence again.

Q – Didn’t you find it strange that the dogs found traces of blood in your room and in your rental car…

Gerry – There was no blood found! The indicia are worthless if they are not corroborated by forensic information. And they were not.

Q – 40 apartments were investigated and the dogs only marked yours. Ten cars and they only reacted to yours.

Gerry – These dogs’ frailty was proved by a study that was carried out in the USA, in the case of a man that had been accused of murder. They had ten rooms, and in each room four boxes were placed, containing vegetables, bones, trash. Some contained human remains. They stayed there for ten hours. Eight hours after the boxes were removed, the dogs came in. And the dogs failed two thirds of the attempts. Imagine the reliability when these dogs test an apartment three months after the disappearance of a child.

Q – Were you surprised when you were made arguidos?

Kate – It was not surprising after weeks with the media saying that we were suspects. And there we have to ask why the information that reached the media was disfigured. Why do the newspapers say that blood was found in the apartment when the police report does not confirm it? Why was it said that the DNA that was found in the car was a 100% match with Madeleine’s?

Gerry – In a way, we would like to have been accused so we could defend ourselves openly. Now, reading the process, there is no evidence that justifies the suspicion, apart from the dogs’ action. There was never a sustained explanation. And the questioning: ‘What happened to Madeleine? How did you get rid of her? Who helped you? Where did you put her? All fantasy! If they had found DNA – so what? And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?

Q – Do you investigate information that point towards Madeleine’s death?

Kate – We want to find her alive, but if she is dead we want to know.

Q – Do you still believe that she’s alive?

Kate – There are great possibilities that she is alive, isn’t it? There is nothing in the process to indicate that something bad has happened to her…

Q – But there are no indicia that she has been abducted, either.

Gerry – We firmly believe that she was abducted by a man, minutes after I went to see her in the bedroom. There are two independent witnesses that saw a child of around four years of age being carried that evening. Our friend Jane Tanner and also the Smith family.

Q – The PJ discredits Jane Tanner’s testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn’t seen him as well…

Gerry – I didn’t see her because my back was turned to the location where she passed. I was talking to a friend. And there is also the couple with children that saw a man carrying a child with a pyjama that was similar to Madeleine’s, blond hair, the same age.

Q – Later on, that family stated that the man they saw was Gerry…

Gerry – At that time I was at the restaurant. The fact that we became suspects has probably influenced the Smiths’ testimony.

Q – Was it a coincidence that you were made arguidos on one day and returned home the next day?

Gerry – They questioned us on that day because the PJ knew about our return.

Q – Were you afraid of being arrested?

Kate – Obviously. At a certain point we didn’t know very well what could happen.
Gerry – From the information in the newspapers, of course we were afraid. It was scary.

Q – Being in England, you would not be extradited anymore.

Gerry – We asked the inspector that was in charge of the case of he had any objection: the answer was no. It’s obvious that we were afraid that people might think we were escaping, but it was better not to be in Portugal at that point in time.

Q – Why?

Kate – Because of the hostile environment. We couldn’t even leave the house.

Q – Why did Kate refuse to answer questions during your interrogation, that Gerry accepted to clarify the next day?

Kate – I was advised by my Portuguese lawyer not to reply.
Gerry – I received the same advice but decided to disobey. My plan was to remain silent, but the first question was: are you involved in your daughter’s disappearance? It was nonsense and I decided to answer. From there onwards, I replied to all of them.

Q – Why didn’t you authorize the police to see the messages that you sent and received on your mobile phone on the eve of Maddie’s disappearance.

Gerry – Nobody asked to see my messages. On the day before and on the day of the disappearance I did not receive or send 16 messages. I could hardly write a text message. I received three or four phone calls and two were from work. After the disappearance I received hundreds. And when the police asked me for the registry, I told them to ask the service provider. My phone only registers the last ten.

Q – The chief inspector in the case, Tavares de Almeida, writes a report where he says that your friends lied to save you, that Maddie died in the living room, and that you hid the body.

Gerry – What can we say? You will have to ask the police chiefs why they wrote that, why they saw us as suspects.

Q – The majority of crimes where the victims are children are committed by the parents.

Gerry – Not in the case of abducted children. And this is a case of an abducted child. It’s an exceptional case.

Q – When he archived the case, the prosecutor said that the investigation can be reopened if a new clue appears. Do you think that is possible?

Kate – Of course! It could happen at any moment. All that it takes is for one person to make the phone call that we wait for so much. We know that she was abducted in Portugal and we vehemently believe that someone knows or suspects something.

“Mr Amaral’s behaviour is a disgrace”

They have not read the book that is a best-seller in Portugal. And they don’t spare the author and former PJ inspector

Q – Former inspector Gonçalo Amaral remains convinced of your involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. Did you read ‘The Truth of the Lie’, the book that he wrote?

Kate and Gerry – No.
Kate – Why would I?
Gerry – I won’t learn anything from reading it.

Q – It was a success in Portugal.

Gerry – Was it? How many copies did it sell?

Q – Approximately 200 thousand. Next week, it is edited in Spain.

Gerry – That is what can be called illicit enrichment.

Q – Your English lawyers already have a translated copy and they are analyzing it. Do you intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral?

Gerry – At this moment we are focused on what we can do to find Madeleine and not in suing anyone.
Kate – All that I am going to say about this – because I’m not going to waste any time on Mr Amaral – is that as a professional and as a person his behaviour has been a disgrace.

Q – Aren’t you curious to know what the book says?

Kate – What for? It must be nothing but a load of rubbish. It is so secondary… It certainly won’t help to find our daughter. My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented. We never called her anything like that.

Q – But you do know the theory that Gonçalo Amaral defends: Madeleine accidentally died in the Ocean Club apartment and you concealed the body.

Gerry – It really is a waste of time. And we need all the time that we can get to analyze the investigation’s documents, which contain a lot of information that we didn’t know about.
Kate – You just have to cross, loosely, his theory with the process in order to understand that the facts that he reports are not correct.

Q – There is a theory that defends that the coordinator was removed from the investigation due to British political pressure.

Gerry – Who dismissed him?

Q – The PJ’s national director.

Gerry – Then you have to ask him if he was pressured. Or if Gordon Brown discussed the case with him. He surely didn’t.

Q – He also resigned. And largely due to this process.

Gerry – That was not what I was told. Apparently he had a vision of the police itself that was different from the one held by the Justice Minister.

Q – In a final analysis, they both left the PJ because the investigation failed.

Gerry – That’s not our fault. I do not criticize the authorities over not trying to find Madeleine. It doesn’t matter anymore. Now all that matters is that we do everything to try to find her, through our own methods.

Q – Did you ever get to know Gonçalo Amaral?

Kate – The question is the other way around: did he get to know us?

There are photographs of her all over the house

Gerry has returned to his work as a cardiologist. Kate did not exercise medicine again. Twins Sean and Amelie fill up her days as a mother

Q – How has your life changed with the disappearance of Madeleine?

Gerry – Independently of what happens, it will never be the same again. If you talk to the parents of other abducted children, they also mention this parallel life which we entered. Sean and Amelie, being so young, force us to introduce a certain normalcy in our lives, to make it normal for them. And it’s them who, for moments, make it normal for us. But it will never be normal for us. They are aged three and a half, and they are very, very happy.

Q – Did you explain to the twins what happened to their sister?

Kate – They perceive Madeleine’s absence perfectly. I have no doubt whatsoever. But they don’t know the details. They know that she disappeared and that we’re looking for her.
Gerry – We were advised concerning what we should tell them, how and when. Larger explanations are kept for later. We realize that they miss their older sister. They know that her not being with us is not a good thing, and they hope that she returns.

Q – How do you keep Madeleine present in your lives?

Kate – There are photographs of her all over the house. And we speak about her with the twins every day – it’s an important part of their lives. Sean and Amelie talk about her and still include her in their playing… If they receive sweets, they say “Let’s keep one for Madeleine”. Or “When she comes home I’ll give her this or that”. It’s endearing and it makes our days less difficult.

Q – Did you fear that you might lose custody over Sean and Amelie because your behaviour was considered to be negligent?

Gerry – We were not negligent, we did what any reasonable parent would do. But we deeply lament what happened, because in our action, someone saw an opportunity to take Madeleine. I’m an optimist person. I never thought that something like this could happen.

Q – Did you change the manner in which you deal with Sean and Amelie?

Gerry – We are more protective and less trusting. We never left our children alone again and many families will never do so again because of us.
Kate – Now we think about everything that can happen, about predators, abductors. We don’t even let go of them in the shopping centre.

€1.200.000

The McCanns say that the fund has spent €1.2 million with the private investigation. But the reward of €3 million still stands

Q – How much have you spent on the private investigation so far?

Gerry – Approximately one million pounds, over the past ten months, paid with money from the FindMadeleine fund. A substantial sum was also spent on our defence, but two benefactors have covered that expense, which means that the fund was solely used in the search for our daughter.

Q – Do you maintain the offer of 2.5 million ponds to whoever finds Madeleine?

Gerry – We do not control that reward, but everything leads me to believe that it still stands. And that there will also be money available for whoever supplies credible information.
Kate – It’s a lot of money, but we cannot set limits, a child is priceless. We’ll pay whatever is necessary.

Q – Is there still money left in the fund?

Gerry – There is still some money left. Recently, British newspapers (‘Express newspapers’) paid us a compensation of 550 thousand pounds, which fed the fund. That had an important impact. And there are still donations, people who send money directly.

Q – But less than in the beginning, before you were made arguidos.

Gerry – Of course! Those who were in doubt stopped contributing. Many write to us asking for forgiveness because they believed in our guilt. We know that we have to make an effort for people to know that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and that we were not involved in the disappearance.

Other issues

Dogs – “We read everything that we found about these dogs that detect cadavers. It was due to them that we became suspects”

Clues – “The sightings continue. Since May we received one thousand phone calls and an equal number of emails, some containing relevant data”

Media exposure – “Appearing in the media was never good. We did it to publicize Madeleine’s face and to find her. We failed”

Background
Details of two hours of conversation

Kate and Gerry are different. More relaxed, or conformed. It is difficult to tell. “The twins force us to a certain normalcy”, the mother explains. It’s been 16 months and the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains unsolved.
The parents have already been victims of a tragedy and suspects of a terrible crime. The process was archived, but they are judged every day. Gerry agrees: “From the moment when the suspicion is installed, we can never prove our innocence”.
This is the first interview since the process was archived, on the 21st of July. It is scheduled in Rothley, a small village in the British Midlands where nobody suspects the McCanns’ guilt. Even less the owner of the Court House Hotel, which is installed in a medieval building and where the interview is held, in the late afternoon last Monday. There is tea with milk and biscuits. There is no guide and there are no forbidden questions.
In almost two hours of interview, Kate and Gerry, both 40, clearly state the intention that supports their availability for the conversation. “We believe that in Portugal someone knows about Madeleine, that it is where the solution for our daughter’s disappearance lies”. And they want that person, whether singular or collective, to know that they search for him, that they ensure his anonymity and that they even give him 2.5 million pounds if he tells them where Madeleine is.
Every day, in their very British house of little bricks, they study a little more of the process of the Polícia Judiciária’s investigation, which they personally consult as it is being translated. They understand “nothing” of Portuguese. From a first reading they reinforced their hope of finding Maddie alive. Nothing tells them that she is dead. The volumes about themselves, from the time when they were made arguidos, have been put aside. “We do not intend to read them”.
They remind them of the days when they were afraid of being arrested in Portugal, accused of Madeleine’s death.

an article by: Raquel Moleiro and Rui Gustavo

source: Expresso, paper edition, 06.09.2008

h/t Astro

~ ~ ~

I just happened on this old report from the times, there will be some who are quite familiar with the content, but judging from the increased traffic via the search engines and the type of inquiry, there are plenty of people who are starting to take a great deal more interest in the activities of the Doctors McCann, which, I can only assume, they hadn't done previously.

Kate and Gerry McCann, Eugene Zapata and Cadaver Dogs: A Reminder
14/10/09

Kate and Gerry McCann send to US for help against evidence of sniffer dogs

September 17, 2007

The parents of Madeleine McCann have contacted the lawyers of a man charged with murder who successfully challenged sniffer dog evidence. His lawyers claimed it was unreliable and persuaded a judge in the US to throw out prosecution claims that the dogs had detected the smell of a corpse.

Kate and Gerry McCann hope that the case could help them to prove their own innocence.

Two British sniffer dogs, one capable of detecting blood and human remains, were taken to Portugal in early August to help in the investigation. The dog picked up a “scent of death” on numerous items, including Mrs McCann’s clothes and her daughter’s favourite soft toy.

During police interviews the McCanns, both 39, were repeatedly shown a video of the animal “going crazy” when it approached their hired Renault Scenic car.
Mrs McCann could not explain it, but the scent of bodies remains detectable to the springer spaniel “cadaver dogs” for years and her legal team concluded that the scent could have come from her contact with corpses during her work as a doctor.

Portuguese police believe that the couple may have killed their child accidentally and then disposed of the body using a car they hired 25 days later. Although the McCanns do not know the full details of the Portuguese prosecutor’s case against them, they are concerned that it may rest on the dog’s reaction.

Now their lawyers have requested the case files from the ongoing murder trial of Eugene Zapata in Madison, Wisconsin. His estranged wife, Jeanette, a 37-year-old flight instructor, vanished in October 1976 after taking her children to school. Her body has never been found. more

And should you read that, then you may wish to read below, and guess what? the dogs were right all along.

MADISON, Wis. -- Eugene Zapata entered a guilty plea on Monday to a reduced charge of homicide by reckless conduct in connection to his wife's disappearance 30 years ago and was sentenced to time behind bars.........
Zapata said that he wrapped her body in a tent and drove it to an area near Highway 151 and Reiner Road, where he hid it in some underbrush. He transferred her remains a short time later to some Juneau County land that he owed. There, he buried her body -- which remained there for 24 years -- before moving her remains to a Sun Prairie storage locker, where it was eventually cut into pieces and later disposed of at a Mauston landfill. He moved the body from the Juneau County because he planned to sell the land...more

This below was tucked away in my dog archive, probably as a reminder for me to ask if anybody has ever seen a direct quote attributable to Kate McCann, as opposed to third party as we see here.

Perhaps you might let me know if you can shed light on the matter, because if it is directly attributable to madam it's not trivial, not by a long way.

KATE JUSTIFIES DEATH ODOUR

Kate McCann didn't negate the fact that her two pieces of clothes and the stuffed animal had been signaled by the English dogs trained to find cadaver odor and justified it by her profession. Madeleine's mother alleged that as a doctor at the Leicester health centre, she was present at six deaths directly before she came to Portugal on holiday, giving the same excuse for Madeleine's stuffed animal, that was with her in the months after her daughter disappeared.

An Interview With Sandra Felgueiras

Unfinished interview that is.

It's at this point that Sandra Felgueiras asks G McCann about the dogs and then we are treated to the father of the abducted girl sniggering in reply, "why don't you ask the dogs," before father of the abducted girl went on to make the claim that dogs are totally unreliable.

And it was at this point I think I finally came to realise that I am sick to fucking death of these two cunts, sick to death of blogging about it, sick to death of the time it consumes and not least sick to death of watching the press, parliament and particularly the bent fucks of Leicestershire police pander to this disgusting pair who are patently guilty of all that of which they are suspected.

Concluded below.

~ ~ ~

Unfinished Business: The Dogs Revisited
10/02/2010

No great post this, just a few words to finished off a previous post that was cut short when my enmity got the better of me. I don't suppose I would have made mention of it really, but I had a prompt or two from McCann's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte as she feebly tried to make a case for her clients in her summing up.

As much as can be gathered from the courtroom tweets she sounded pretty desperate, her diatribe I shall not, cannot really, go into.

A measure of her desperation reflected, not only in her calling (cop) Ricardo Paiva a liar, after he had left the stand I might add, accusing Goncalo Amaral of seeking revenge, and then for reasons known only to herself, decided to bring the dogs into the mix by offering this.

Tweets from the courthouse.

5:07 @hannahtp: Duarte says Pavia has lied to the court during these proceedings. She says he has been inconsistent about the accuracy of sniffer dogs

5:22 @hannahtp: Duarte said that during the Madeleine investigation Pavia stated the sniffer dogs had failed at least once.

Which in turn motivates me to add one more photo to the previous post, An Interview With Sandra Felgueiras. You might ask, why go to this trouble for one graphic and one seemingly inconsequential question? and I can answer, unlike Gerry McCann of course, that it is far from inconsequential, and it is so because Gerry McCann cannot in fact furnish an answer.

And in not being able to give us an answer, makes his opinions about the dogs and all his pontifications, quite worthless, laughable in fact. And this answer or rather non-answer is just one more we can add to his anthology of lies, as we can add another bullet to our arsenal.

Just a reminder then of where we were when I abruptly terminated Sandra's interview with the McCanns, both video of the interview and the transcript can be found here at The Maddie Case Files.

Perhaps I should say if you haven't as yet seen my previous interpretation of An Interview with Sandra Felgueiras, you might wish to do so before moving down this page.

Sandra: But this is the first time that you give us a big interview not being arguidos, not being arguidos. Since then. erm. So now I feel free to ask you this directly. How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadaver found by British and not Portuguese dogs?

Kate: Sandra, maybe you should ask the judiciary because they have examined all evidence. I mean we are also Madeleine's mum and dad and we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...

Sandra: So you don't have an explanation for that?

Gerry: Ask the dogs (smirk) Sandra.

Sandra: Ask the dogs? No Gerry. Now I feel free to ask you, don't you feel free to answer me?

Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.

Sandra: Unreliable?

Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically.

A simple enough question, do you think we might get a simple answer?

And lastly:

Thinking of doing a Colin Port perchance?

The regional ITV and BBC newsrooms have been buzzing over the last two months with threatening legal letters from lawyers Carter Ruck, all paid for with public money and attempting to gag the press from criticising Somerset County Council, Chief Constable Colin Port and his wife Susan Barnes. Both are party to what must be the dodgyest PPP privatisation contract ever signed in the UK.Colin Port Carter Ruck

Whereas I normally value my privacy, should you wish to make me Cause Celebre, I won't shy away from it, not in the least, every dog should have has his day. And at the end of that day, I have more questions than you have answers for.

Who's paying for this?
.

Leicestershire Constabulary. Not Good Enough

2010-06-02T06:22:00.000-07:00

.
Not good enough by far.

The world's most famous child, British subject and Leicestershire resident, Madeleine McCann, is missing from your patch and you are trying to tell us it's none of your business because it's a Portuguese affair!

Is that it, is that your best shot? Have you any idea what such a statement says? it doesn't say inept, it doesn't say irresponsible, it doesn't even say derelict in duty, it says corrupt.

Unarguably and unequivocally corrupt, that's what it says. A three year old girl goes missing, and it's none of your business, will you stop!

I was about to appeal to you that you do your duty, but to what ends? you haven't so far, and even less likely that you start doing so now. But I will appeal, if there is a man among you that is, if there is a man among you, will one of you blow the whistle and put an end to this obscenity?

Be a cop or be a man, either will do.

4min 40sec: Do you consider the possibility of Madeleine no longer being alive?
.

Are They All This Sophisticated Down Leicester Nick?

2010-05-31T11:49:00.000-07:00

.

I shan't say a word. A fellow shouldn't take the piss out of the afflicted I don't suppose, anyway it would be like........

...and what kind of sport would that be?

Murder trial detective 'made sexual gestures to juror'

A major murder trial almost collapsed after a detective allegedly made "suggestive sexual gestures" to a female juror, it has been revealed.

Published: 5:23PM BST 28 May 2010

Det Con Ivor Messiah, was said to have "puckered his lips" in a kiss and "flirted" with the woman, a brunette in her mid-thirties, across a packed courtroom.

The Leicestershire officer also allegedly made a ring with the fingers of one hand - which he then poked with the index finger of the other.

The juror later asked one of his colleagues to pass him a note with her mobile phone number during a break in the case - but he refused, and reported the matter to the judge.

The Nottingham Crown Court trial, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds which was nine days old at the time, was instantly halted while an investigation was carried out.

Frances Oldham QC, defending John Cort, a solicitor accused of murdering his business partner, argued that the entire jury should be discharged.

But after four days of legal argument, which included DC Messiah and the juror, known as Miss X, giving evidence, it was eventually decided the case could continue.

But the woman, and a fellow juror left "upset and confused" by what had happened were discharged, and the case continued with just ten jurors.

The extraordinary incident took place on April 29, but reporting restrictions meant the details couldn't be revealed until the end of the trial today.

Cort, and his co-accused Brian Farrell, were convicted of murder solicitor Vina Patel, a partner in Cort's law firm, to get a £1.5m insurance payout and both jailed for life.

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Dobbs said the juror had noticed DC Messiah, smiling at her from the public gallery on the "third or fourth day" of the trial.

The judge added: "After that there was eye contact. She was not looking for it to happen, and was not sure what to make of it.

" She got the impression he wanted her number. He had made a hand movement, like a phone, to his ear.

"This happened on the Wednesday. She wrote her number on a piece of paper on the Thursday morning 15 minutes before the morning break, in case she bumped into him.

Mrs Justice Dobbs said the woman spotted DC Messiah during the break but he appeared to be busy.

So she gave the note to a man she'd seen sitting with him in the public gallery - his colleague, a detective sergeant - and asked him to pass it on.

But he refused, and the woman returned to the jury room, ripped the note up, and threw it away.

It was later recovered by court staff after DC Messiah's colleague reported the incident.

Another female juror gave evidence, and told the hearing that Miss X had told her that someone in the public gallery was "flirting with her".

The juror said that she saw DC Messiah smiling at Miss X, and "pucker his lips as if he were blowing her a kiss".

The judge's ruling concluded by saying: "All jurors are fully aware of the allegations he (DC Messiah) had made suggestive gestures of a sexual nature.

"All were asked if they felt able to continue. All, save one, said 'yes'.

"A male juror said he felt upset and confused by what had happened. Both he and Miss X were discharged."

DC Messiah, who interviewed members of the 'Tapas Seven' as part of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, has not been in court since the resumption of the trial.

However, in her ruling, Mrs Justice Dobbs said he claimed he had "no contact with the juror" and "could not be the person" who had gestured to her.

Deputy Chief Constable Gordon Fraser said: "This matter was brought to the Judge's attention during the trial and as a result two jury members were dismissed. "The trial continued and resulted in a successful conviction.

"The Force demands the highest standard of professionalism from all staff and will thoroughly investigate any allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

"The Force's Professional Standards Department will now investigate the alleged incident and therefore it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time." Telegraph

.

Sir Ian Andrews. You Cannot Be Serious Organised Crime Agency

2010-05-14T09:12:00.000-07:00

.

Sir Ian, you cannot call yourselves the Serious Organised Crime Agency and allow this blatant fraud to continue.

I have no intention of arguing a case for why you should act on this matter. If it is not by now patently obvious, to you and your Senior Officers why this fraud must be stopped, then you are all in the wrong job.

Or perhaps a change of title is required, either, The Seriously Inept Crime Squad, or The Seriously Corrupt Crime Squad. Which is it to be, it has to be one or the other by default?

If you choose not to put a stop to this fraud, and continue to sit on the sidelines, then the only thing serious about your organisation, will be a serious lack of credibility. The same lack of credibility now enjoyed by the CEOP, directly as a result of their blatantly corrupt stance on this matter.

SOCA, without affirmative action in the very near future; this will be your credibility.

.

Bad Cops No Doughnuts

2010-04-17T00:01:00.000-07:00

Hey up lads, it's been a while since I was on, how's the craic?

It's all been a bit quite at this end, the wee gobshite has been managing to keep it shut of late, is he under orders do you think or is getting a bit of cop on? And madam? quiet enough I suppose, mind you they ought to be, it's either the same old shite over and over or, and the practice don't seem to help, or it's just more bleeding lies. It's a good job nobody's keeping an eye 'em, well apart from us lot, and what do we matter, about the same as yourselves do you think?

Oh there was little thing that caused a bit of a kerfuffle, that's a polite term for being pissed off tha knows. Aye, bloody madam, brass necked bitch that she is, on the wireless she was, Mother's Day with Kate McCann, you couldn't make it up you tried.

It's a bit like having a priest on to talk about celibacy, and we all know what them buggers from the buggery club are all about, little boys bottoms, only half a crown, standing up or sitting down.
I see the chickens have come home to roost for the nasty Nazi, or should that be chicken hawks? It's those cover-ups, it's always the cover-ups that gets you in the end, sooner or later you're in for a dry fucking, how bad?

Something has popped into mind, seriously, I'm not taking the piss, not like them fuckers in Scotland, fucking away and fucking covering up, it's not on is it, shagging them bairns like they hadn't a care in the world, poor wee sods. I don't know about a General Election, it's a fucking revolution we want. Old Tom Jefferson, he was the lad, he knew the score all right, no matter that he was part of the establishment, he knew exactly what mankind was, a bollocks. Perhaps you ought to look him up, he were right famous for his quotations, I'll just leave you the one, a bit of a taste so to speak.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

Can't argue with that one, well I suppose you could right enough, especially if thy were 'tyrant. Speaking of which, and I tell you lads, this fucker really pissed me off, and to a degree that I wrote a few words about it under the heading Hollie Greig: Scotland 2010 or Berlin 1937. But the trouble was it wasn't confined to just Scotland, it's the tyranny I'm talking about here, the tyranny extended to this country. I say extended but I don't think that is quite an accurate description, I think the tyranny in question is of the domestic variety, it already being in place and needing no more than a phone call to galvanise it into action.

And at who's behest did the brave boys of Shrewsbury police hassle a couple of women that had, believe me, been hassled more than enough by the twats north of the border?
It was at the behest of one Inspector Dowell and his boss, Chief Constable Colin McKerracher, Grampian Police.

For ease, let me borrow this comment from the UK Column, my emphasis.

By Brian Gerrish. I have tried twice to speak to a police officer and also been refused by the call centre civilian. Of most concern is the fact that Anne Greig received a visit earlier tonight from Shrewsbury police to give her a message from Inspector Grampian police......"Robert Green has been arrested by Grampian police". Anne found this message very intimidating since DowellDowell has been involved in the (non) investigation of the Hollie case. Was he gloating? The public might also like to know that Grampian Chief Constable Colin McKerracher is Chair of the North East of Scotland Child Protection Committee and signed their recent business plan. Some child protection for Hollie Greig! Please spread the word.

Although I had no intention of going down this road, I'm not sorry I have, it needed saying.

The Hollie Greig Case PDF and what a case it is, abuse, murder, liquid coshes, sectioning, it's all here, it reads more like something out of Stalinist Russia than the UK, it's scary.

And the fact that it is so scary, does nothing but increase my respect and admiration for Anne and Hollie Greig for taking on the establishment twats of both Scotland and England, fair play to you Ladies.

Right so! as the Paddies would say, new teeshirts. CEOP teeshirts to be precise, Jim, I'm such a transparent cunt, Gamble CEOP teeshirts to be even more precise. But don't go feeling left out of things, there's always a bit of room for you lads.

I've been reading the latest bit of bullshit from the Screws, an "Exclusive" no less, and we all know what that means don't we, straight from the lips of Tory Party media man, the odious Clarence Mitchell. As I say it's all bullshit, but you lads must have been a bit miffed, after all you've done for the ungrateful little shit, after all the laws you've flouted, after the irreparable damage to your reputation, after all that, the little prick fucks you over via his new best friend, trust me I'm a Police Officer, Jim Gamble. Well perhaps not so new.

That's if it's true of course, you can't believe a word anyone says these days, but I don't have to tell you lot that do I? Trust me I'm a Police Officer Jimmy Gamble, if you don't believe me just ask my old boss, Mr Collusion himself, Ronnie Flanagan. Yeah right.

And he hasn't a bit of shame has he, not one bit of it, and the stuff he comes out with! well stroll on lads, you've got to say, even by your standards, he takes the fucking biscuit. And it's not shortbread I'm talking about either.

Do you know something lads, if I were a bit more cynical that is, I might be thinking that after being in charge of that monumental clusterfuck, aka Operation Ore, I might be thinking that Jimmy came away with more than his new job at the CEOP, I might be thinking that Jimmy came away with the goods. The goods on goodness knows how many pervs in high places, I think Jimmy might just have a little satchel of dirt tucked away somewhere, a Pandora's box, yes that could be it, Jimmy's little box of dirt. What else could explain a Twenty Five Year Man coming out with the shite he does? Perhaps it also might be that he knows where all the skeletons are buried from his time in the Six Counties, the metaphorical ones I'm talking about not the real..... whatever. Aye there'd be a HMG skeleton or two kicking about that's for sure, well not kicking about exactly, but you know what I'm saying.

So let's have a look a the first teeshirt.

These are very big graphics, once opened, click twice for full size.

We (Jimmy) absolute support... not the most subtle of statements is it? not if we take into account the Arguido status of his wee darlings at the time. In fact I would go as far as to say: We absolutely support, is about as far from subtle as you could get, about as subtle as a turd in a swimming pool, that's about the measure of it.

Who's up next? another mate of Jimmy's, and I don't need to waste me breath telling ye all about this fucker do I, not with his goings on of late I don't, but some of you young woodentops might not be familiar the Steven's Report, the one where Colin Port says there was no collusion, well he would wouldn't he? There are some links at the bottom of the page if you want to read more.

And of course we can't mention Punch, without saying a word about Judy.

We have a man of God next, no prizes for guessing who, gone on to better things in the land of religious bigotry, none other than our Matt; Christian.

What can I say lads, really what can I say, other than what a lying sanctimonious hypocritical shameless fuckdog of a man he is. Matt Baggott, a Christian... aye, ain't he fucking just.

Gromit's looking a tad pissed, never mind old lad, we've all got a cross to bear.

Of course you didn't Chris, you got any kids of your own by the way?

Now we're getting to a heavy hitter, our Ronnie, that'll be Sir Ronnie to you, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, knighted for services to what I wonder,running Castlereagh? population control? his handling of the Omagh bombing? collusion with Loyalist Death Squads? being Jimmy's boss? just give me a moment, I'll go and have a look see....

No, I can't find any reference as to the why, it must have been one, or a combination of the things above and they just don't want to talk about it. I did come across this, about Ronnie's second gong: Former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan has become the only person from Northern Ireland ever to receive a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE) And what did he get his gong for? and I'm not making it up, you couldn't; Services to policing, stroll on! What next then, a gong for our Matt, Christian, for trying his best to get a bit of justice for that poor wee bairn, that's about the size of it, still give it time, you never know.

Where was I? oh aye the Home Office.
But they'll talk about other things, the Home Office will, but no warts, they don't like talking about warts. Not a wart in site, unless of course you exclude our recently departed Home Secretary Jacqui Smith from that category.

You remember Jacqui of course, her first home was the back room of her sister's semi, of course it was Jacqui, we believe you, just like we believe Hazel Blears, and I'm sure it's just as you say, you "abided both by the letter of the law and by the spirit of the regulations." yes dear. There's just another to mention, because I need to get orf this tangent, Maddie search must go on, nice, real nice, another one with an agenda

So for his time spent in the North of Ireland, its a Knighthood and a plum job for Ronnie as Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, how nice. Only in America! not 'alf as much as you might think.

It's way past time that I give call me Stu a wee spot of his own, I might have featured him a bit more if only I had better photo's of the man, what's available on the web is the pits, so do me a little favour will you, next time anyone of you bumps into him, ask him if he would send me a piccy or two, then I can give him the recognition he deserves. Update: It would appear I do pay our Stu a little more attention than I previously thought. Call Me Stu. Thank You No

Oh and by the by, the same goes for the nick, a piccy or two from different angles would be nice, it gets right tiresome only having the one to work with. If it's not too much trouble that is.

Didn't he just, didn't he just.
But not according to our Twenty Five Year Man he didn't, or as the Screws calls him, Our top child protection cop, stroll on, protection, you couldn't make it up.

Lads, I'll put the relevant part of this latest drivel below, then we can all have a read, it might cause a bit of embarrassment for you though, and it's a two fold thing as well. You see you have to read what Top Cop is saying from a professional point of view, and if that doesn't embarrass you nothing will, and let's face it, until this fellow came along, you had pride of place, top of the list, top of complete bollocks list for dodgy coppers.

And then you have to look at from the other angle, a few specifics if you will.

Telephone records were not properly analysed, Aye, we know about the telephone records, we know that at the hight of the crisis, the parents of the child abducted by evil paedos, had the presence of mind to selectively delete their calls list. But that's not the issue here, it's what was analysed and what wasn't, and here again the potential for embarrassment is enormous. For you lads that is, if you can manage it, because you don't seem to have in the past.

And what is it that I'm getting at? aye, I think you've a good idea what's coming, yep you got it, medical records requested by the PJ, financial records requested by the PJ, and the cracker, the absolute gold plated cracker, the request for the credit card records, what credit cards? There wasn't much analysing going to be carried in those departments was there, fuck me, have you no shame?

Our top child protection cop Jim Gamble has completed a fresh look at the three-year-old investigation for the Home Office.

He told ministers there were huge holes in the original inquiry that need to be revisited if they want to "come close" to reaching UK standards.

It will come as a bitter pill for Portuguese investigators who have fended off criticism since Maddie disappeared in 2007.

But parents Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41 and both doctors, are "delighted" at the move.

Failures in the original investigation are said to be "so gaping" that British authorities feel it is their duty to look at it again.

This time police will review all the leads using technology and standards expected in a homicide or kidnap case in the UK.

Mr Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, found a basic failure to collate information and join up links that should have been made.

Telephone records were not properly analysed, missing early opportunities for leads.

And Kate and Gerry McCann were named as Arguidos, or formal suspects, by Portuguese police - something that the review says would not have happened if the probe had been carried out in the UK.

Mr Gamble found no evidence sufficient to make them suspects. His findings have now been formally submitted to the Home Office with recommendations to re-investigate.

Apart from the glaringly obvious, such things as: Mr Gamble found no evidence sufficient to make them suspects. another fucker without an ounce of shame, and Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41 and both doctors, are "delighted" at the move. no kidding, with blokes like Top Cop on side, I think I would be too.

But the best, the finest, the peerless, the most jaw dropping piece of journalism ever written, unparalleled throughout history, not since the first symbol was scratched in the damp earth with a sharp stick, has there ever been anything to compare to what is written above.

And let us give credit where it is due, it is Lucy Panton of the Screws that we must thank for this: British authorities feel it is their duty to look at it again

And I have just lost the will to live.

Just a few lines down the page to complete then I can sit in a warm bath with a packet of razor blades and an electric fire, the rest of it is more or less self explanatory, well if it ain't, it will have to be.

Hey up Ted, where've you sprung from? Oh you're pissed, I see, hey steady on old lad, you'd make a sailor blush. Aye you're right Ted, you swear away, they are taking the fucking piss.

Oh I see your mate's just turned up, yes he's pissed as well, aye lad, I'll give him your regards.

Just this fellow then, and if you think I'm featuring Branston Pickle because of his association with this case, you're wrong.

I'm featuring Branston Pickle because he's a complete dipstick.

I found this one on my travels.

Now let me tell you what I think of all this. It is nothing less than scandalous, the man has no right to be saying what he is, not from the pulpit of the CEOP he doesn't.

One fellow is a cop the other a suspect, Jim Gamble should not have gone within a million miles of McCann. End of.

Previous CEOP posts.

Tuesday 17 November 2009
CEOP Are You Going To Share The New Evidence With Us?

Friday 20 November 2009
The Available Evidence Supporting an Abduction and the CEOP

Sunday, 26 November 2009
Jim Gamble, What's Your Game Matey?

Sunday 29 November 2009
CEOP: New Evidence? plus Intercalary Report

Wednesday 16 December 2009
Uncleared Suspect in Simulating a Crime and Hiding a Cadaver to be Guest Speaker at CEOP Conference on Child Abduction

Monday 21 December 2009
CEOP Set To Become Independent

Sunday 27 December 2009
Jim Gamble CEOP A Question If I May

Tuesday 5 January 2010
The Evidence Supporting The Abduction of Madeleine McCann

Wednesday 6 January 2010
Anything you say will be ignored

Wednesday 6 January 2010
Gerry McCann To Be Guest Speaker Of CEOP

Wednesday 6 January 2010
The Gerry McCann Punch & Judy Show with Special Guest Jim Gamble

Thursday 7 January 2010
How Credible An Organisation Is The CEOP?

Friday 8 January 2010
Thoughts For Today - The CEOP

Sunday 10 January 2010
Out of the Mouths of Babes Sucklings and Jacqui Smith

Monday 11 January 2010
Doing a Bit Of Grooming Yourself Mr Gamble?

Thursday 14 January 2010
Hey You Jimmy, Yes You Jimmy at the CEOP

Thursday 21 January 2010
CEOP Contrary To Your Email Madeleine McCann Is Not Presumed Abducted She Is Presumed Dead

Tuesday 26 January 2010
Hype The Threat - Implement The Legislation

Tuesday 26 January 2010
CEOP Let Us Have A Little Reminder About The Merits Of Your Guest Speaker Gerry McCann

Friday 2 April 2010
Jim Gamble: Looking Back

Saturday 10 April 2010
Jim Gamble: Judgement or Agenda?

Sunday 28 March 2010
Review By Uk Police. Nonsense Or The Thin End of Of a Proposed Whitewash?

Related.

Tuesday 6 April 2010
ACPO: What Country Am I Living In?

~ ~ ~

Links to a few things, should they be of interest.

Gamble slams cost of ISP's data recovery. The Register

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) charges £70 for 60p data. Mail

Jim Gamble lent his support to Colin Port, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset.Times

Sir, I support the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset in his refusal - Jim Gamble Times

I also feel that the recent support for [Colin Port’s] position offered by Jim Gamble of CEOP is extremely interesting given that Mr Gamble headed the Operation ORE enquiry and has more to lose than most when the appalling shambles is eventually exposed. - Jim Bates - The Register

Jim Bates, all links. The Register.

The regional ITV and BBC newsrooms have been buzzing over the last two months with threatening legal letters from lawyers Carter Ruck, all paid for with public money and attempting to gag the press from criticising Somerset County Council, Chief Constable Colin Port and his wife Susan Barnes. Both are party to what must be the dodgyest PPP privatisation contract ever signed in the UK. Bristol Indymedia

Rosemary Nelson (murder of) Troops Out Movement

Sir Ronnie Flanagan (Gamble's boss in NI) appoints Colin Port to investigate the murder of Rosemary Nelson. Port's involvement starts at: The Police Investigation Into the Murder. British Irish Rights Watch

Colin Port rules out collusion in Nelson inquiry An Phoblacht

Operation Ore Exposed.

Fatal flaws in Operation Ore - the full story. PC Pro

Carole Howlett. Ore Exposed

Carole Howlett Investigated over misconduct. BBC 30 December 2006 Strangely a search of the BBC's website has nothing more after this date.

Is Operation Ore the UK's worst-ever policing scandal? Guardian

Has Operation Ore left a scar on British justice? Telegraph

~ ~ ~

Random Footnotes. These are just a few of the talking points from my abandoned connecting the dots article, far too many dots, far too much intrigue, but I think I can safely say, kick one and they'll all be limping.

I hope the subtlety is not lost.

~ ~ ~

Former RUC chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan tonight resisted demands for his resignation over revelations that police in Northern Ireland protected a loyalist murder gang. ...

...SDLP leader Mark Durkan said he has written to Prime Minister Tony Blair urging him to sack Sir Ronnie if he does not stand down.

~

Northern Ireland's beleaguered chief constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, has the prime minister's full confidence, despite the police ombudsman's damning accusations of poor leadership in the Omagh bomb inquiry, Tony Blair's spokesman said yesterday.

~

Sir Ronnie Flanagan (HMIC) was on the Queen's New Year's honours list and was responsible for appointing the Metropolitan Police to handle the allegations of criminal activity with respect to Mr Gamble and Mr Pearce (SOCA).

~

Sir John Reid appoints Sir Ronnie Flanagan to review UK policing.

~

Next Thursday marks the 15th anniversary of the February 1989 death of the 39-year-old solicitor. He was gunned down by the UFF in his home in Fortwilliam as he sat with his family eating dinner. A UDA gunman pumped 14 shots into Pat Finucane in a British army-led loyalist murder campaign which peaked in the late ‘80s and 1990s.

Just weeks prior to the murder Douglas Hogg, a junior minister in the Thatcher government, used parliamentary privilege to name solicitors whom he claimed were “sympathetic” to the IRA.

Both the Special Branch and MI5 declined to take any action to notify Mr Finucane of three threats against his life – in August 1981, in June 1985, and in December 1988.

Judge Cory also found that just four months before he was killed, in November 1988, senior Special Branch officers – along with the then RUC Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable – provided a briefing to British Junior Minster, Douglas Hogg. This was followed in January 1989 by Special Branch forwarding Mr Hogg a report about Pat Finucane that alleged he was closely linked to “PIRA/PSF”.

~

Justice Hogg, sister of former agriculture minister Douglas Hogg.

~

Mrs Justice Hogg, who has effectively been Madeleine's legal guardian since her parents applied for her to be made a ward of court last year, said she had excused the McCanns from attending the hearing because "they have suffered enough". "I wished to ease their burden," she added.

~

Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan's investigators revealed that three retired assistant chief constables, seven detective chief superintendents and two detective superintendents were among those who did not cooperate with their inquiry into how an Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) unit based in north Belfast was protected by its Special Branch handlers, but the destruction of files has thwarted attempts to bring anyone to account.

~

The published report did not identify by name any of the retired Special Branch officers involved in collusion. A secret version of the report that includes these names was delivered over the weekend to Orde, Hain and a handful of other British officials.

~

O'Loan said Special Branch officers suppressed forensic evidence and didn't follow up leads that pointed to involvement of their Ulster Volunteer Force informers in at least 82 crimes.

~

Jim Gamble has a strong background in counter terrorism and was Head of Special Branch Intelligence in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

~

Jim Gamble, the assistant chief constable in charge of the paedophile unit, joins in. "My last job was in Special Branch in Belfast.

If Things Don't Change They'll Stop As They Are

2010-03-18T14:15:00.000-07:00

.

A prediction.

And Teddy's having a rant.

.

Madeleine McCann: A Letter To The Home Secretary (Illustrated)

2010-03-14T15:00:00.000-07:00

.

"It is not the duty of an investigating officer to be ‘sympathetic’"

Hey up lads, it's been a while since our last little chat, forgive me if you will but I seem to have been a tad busy of late. Not surprising though I don't suppose, there's been a lot going on, well there's always a lot going on with your mates, so much so in fact it beggars the question, don't they know when to stop?

You must feel a bit that way yourselves no doubt, you go out of your way for 'em, trying your hardest to keep them out of jail, doing all you can to paint 'em a colour they're not, and what happens? well you already know the answer to that one. I mean you must have been watching it all, having such a vested interest in your mates you are bound to have been. I bet there's been one or two what the fuck moments down the nick, I'll bet there has right.

Did you catch this one? it was a bleedin' classic, as soon as the question was asked they were like two puppets on strings. Body language! you couldn't make it up could you? I'll up the video later, I just need to sort this post out first.

That's the trouble when you fly with the crows, it leaves you exposed, specially when the lead crows in your little squadron do seem to repeatedly to set a course that takes them over the farmer's yard, and we both know what them shotgun wielding, Get orff moy laand, miserable twats are like don't we?

You will have to forgive me for using such an old story, you must know the one; What's got a hundred balls and fucks rabbits? a twelve bore, being the answer of course.

Mind you, if there was only hundred balls in a shell, any one one of them would fuck a pesky wabbit good style, a viscous piece of kit is a number four shell, but you wouldn't be using four shot when it's crows your after.

A six and half, they're the lads, them's the ones for crows, and how many pellets are there in a six and a half? well I suppose it's like how many thous(ands) in an inch, hundreds of the fuckers; and do you know how many pellets it takes to bring a crow down? just the one.

Sticking with the crows analogy, I might as well, it's application being quite appropriate here.
You see, for want of better, let's liken this next bugger to our farmer, the one with the gun that is.

Now no matter what you may think of this bloke, and much has been done to discredit him, which kind of makes me think he must have been doing something right, for when the crows bring in another crow, one armed with a 50cal by comparison, then understandably I suppose, our farmer, out-gunned as he was, had to do a little back tracking, went back to the kitchen to lick his wounds.

But sat at the kitchen table, between drinking tea and licking his balls, or was that his dog?
Anyway, defeated but not done, our farmer set about re-loading a few shells in readiness for his next foray into his field, a field that was starting to look more arena like with each passing day.

As I said before, no matter what you may or may not think about our farmer, he does do a good re-load, well researched well constructed and to borrow a word, lucid.

And though humbled somewhat, our Get orff moy laand farmer, if nothing else, is quite a tenacious old git, and with equal tenacity he has stuffed his re-loads into the breach and let pop with a barrel or two.

It would appear that Home Secretary Alan Johnson is the main target of our, oh ar oh ar shot gun wielder, but I have to warn you lads, the miserable bastard has let a couple off in your direction. So you be careful now, because like I said before, it only takes the one.

Just the one to bring a crow down.

It's a long letter lads I have to say, but here's a little taster of what's come out of the end of the barrel.

.........We believe it can and should be mounted by British police - but not Leicestershire Police, who it appears have failed to pursue this serious issue......

.......For reasons we set out above about the manifest lack of independence of Leicestershire Police, it would be wholly inappropriate for them to be involved in any review or re-investigation, except for handing over to any re-investigators their entire file on the matter......

........c) That any investigation by British police should not involve Leicestershire Police, which has been thoroughly discredited in this case, not least by its continuous linking of its website to the McCanns’ fund-raising website and the McCanns’ private investigators, despite their very poor reputations as we have seen above...........

Reading between the lines I would have to say, he don't seem right impressed with you lads, but don't just take my word for it, have a read yourselves, have a basin full, dip your bread in.

Till next time then lads.
Nytol.

~ ~ ~

Madeleine Foundation request to Rt Hon Alan Johnson M.P. re Madeleine McCann 'Scoping Exercise'

The Madeleine Foundation

Asking the questions about what really happened to Madeleine McCann

~

Friday 12 March 2010

Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson M.P.
Home Secretary
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
LONDON
SW1P 4DF

For the personal attention of the Minister:

BY RECORDED DELIVERY

And by e-mail (without enclosures) to:

public.enquiries@HomeOffice.gsi.gov.uk

And by fax to: 0207 035 4745

Dear Mr Johnson

re: Secret Home Office plans to hold a ‘review’ of the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

We write to express our concern about the recent meetings between yourself and your staff with Madeleine McCann’s parents, apparently with a view to carrying out a ‘review’ of the case. Our concerns centre on whether the review will examine lines of evidence that point away from the abduction scenario promoted by the McCanns and their friends, and also on the possible role of Leicestershire Police Force in this initial review and in any further investigations that may be carried out in the United Kingdom.

The Madeleine Foundation is a membership organisation, currently with over 40 members, whose objects include assisting in the process of establishing the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann, a matter which the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell stated in a Channel 4 interview on 19 February was ‘a complete mystery’. We also campaign on child welfare issues.

Background

Madeleine McCann’s parents and their seven friends who were with them in Praia da Luz in 2007 have consistently promoted the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted. On their own account, the alleged abductor would have had to remove Madeleine from the bedroom in which she and the twins were sleeping in the dark, without being seen or heard, without leaving any forensic trace whatsoever, and between approximately 9.10pm and 9.15pm.

As I am sure you and your staff are fully aware, the McCanns initially, in a series of telephone calls to their relatives and to the press, very strongly promoted the claim that an abductor had jemmied open, or forced open the shutters to the children’s room, and climbed in through the window. Furthermore, as accounts from their relatives reveal, when they (the relatives) tried to offer reassurance to the McCanns and suggested that maybe Madeleine had ‘wandered off’ and would soon be found, Dr Gerald McCann insisted that it was absolutely imperative that their relatives believe that Madeleine had been abducted.

Again as you and your staff will know, the staff of Mark Warners, the holiday company who had arranged the holiday, and the police, found within a matter of hours that the shutters had not been jemmied open nor tampered with in any way and, furthermore, that the only fingerprint on the window frame was one from Dr Kate McCann. This led to the McCanns rapidly changing their story to suggestions that they probably left the patio door unlocked and that the abductor may have entered by opening this unlocked patio door. This change of story was one of a great many factors which led many people in the U.K. and elsewhere to question the McCanns’
claim of abduction.

In the only survey of public opinion in the U.K. on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the Sunday Times in September 2007, just 20% of respondents believed the McCanns were telling the truth about the disappearance of their daughter. Similarly, when, the following month, a long interview with the McCanns was shown on Spanish T.V., viewers were invited to say whether they thought the McCanns were telling the truth, or lying; 70% were of the view that they were lying.

On top of all that, the initial investigation led by Goncalo Amaral and his senior colleague Tavares de Almeida, assisted by British police who shared their view, came to the provisional conclusion by September 2007 that Madeleine McCann had died in her parents’ holiday apartment and that her body had been hidden. That conclusion was set out in a lucid report by Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September 2007 which has been widely circulated on the internet, though it has merited not even one mention in the British media, so far as we are aware. This report is one of the documents included in our latest book on the case: ‘The Madeleine McCann case Files: Volume 1’. We are pleased to enclose for your perusal a complimentary copy.

Goncalo Amaral was then removed from the enquiry on 3 October 2007 amid credible allegations that the British government had petitioned the Portuguese government for him to be removed from the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. The fact that Dr Gerald McCann disclosed, and the British government subsequently admitted on the record, that there had been a series of long ’phone calls between Dr McCann and Gordon Brown also suggested top-level government interest in the case.

The speculation that the British government was keen to see Mr Amaral removed from the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance was not helped by the news that the former Head of the government’s ‘Media Monitoring Unit’, Clarence Mitchell, had been seconded from May 2007 to assist the McCanns, along with other government officials, and was then allowed to leave his government post in September of that year to work full-time as the McCanns’ Chief Public Relations Adviser. When in government, Mr Mitchell boasted that he was the head of a 40-strong unit whose role was ‘to control what comes out in the media’.

Following Mr Amaral’s departure from the investigation, together with two other top detectives who had been assisting him, the Portuguese Police’s provisional view that the evidence pointed to Madeleine McCann’s having died in her parents’ apartment was quietly dropped.

In July 2008, the Portuguese police submitted a final report to the Portuguese Attorney-General stating that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with any criminal offence in relation to Madeleine’s disappearance. This was despite the highly trained Springer Spaniel, Eddie, trained by top police dog handler Martin Grime, having detected the lingering scent of a human corpse in no fewer than ten different locations connected to the McCanns: four places in their apartment, two places in the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic, on two of Dr Kate McCann’s clothes, on one of the children’s T-shirts, and on the pink soft toy, ‘Cuddle Cat’. Another Springer Spaniel, Keela, detected traces of blood or body fluids at some of these locations. Eddie did not alert to the scent of a corpse anywhere else in Praia da Luz, nor in any of nine other vehicles in the compound he was taken to. His handler, Mr Grime, reported that in 200 previous outings, Eddie had never once given a ‘false alert’ to the scent of a corpse. Whenever he has alerted, it has always been in locations where a corpse was known to have once been present.

Forensic evidence appeared initially to confirm that Madeleine’s blood or body fluids were found in some of those locations, but the Forensic Science Service later claimed that these results should be deemed ‘inconclusive’.

Although the final report of the Policia Judiciara and the Attorney-General’s response were widely hailed by the McCanns, their public relations advisers, lawyers and supporters as ‘clearing’ the McCanns; on the contrary, they left open the twin possibilities that Madeleine had either been abducted or had died in her holiday apartment.

From the above it must be clear that any valid re-investigation by either the Portuguese police or the British police, or both, would, out of necessity, have to pursue lines of enquiry that might point to Madeleine’s having been abducted or, equally, might point to her having died in her holiday apartment.

We have covered the matter of the problems created by the McCanns’ account of the alleged abduction of Madeleine from her room in the McCanns’ holiday apartment in the following article by Barbara Nottage, under the ‘Articles’ section of our website:

(www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk): “How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 minutes?”

Other problems with the abduction scenario

There are many further points to make in relation to the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted. Firstly, we have by now had a bewildering variety of artists’ sketches of possible suspects responsible for the alleged abduction of Madeleine shown to us in the media. Altogether there have been no fewer than 14 male faces shown to us as possible suspects for having been involved in the alleged abduction of Madeleine.

Here are the 14 sketches so far:

We might also note at this point that the artist’s sketch of the ‘Victoria Beckham-lookalike’ was first revealed at a press conference in which Clarence Mitchell appeared together with the current Head of the McCanns’ team of private investigators, former Cheshire Detective Inspector Dave Edgar.

At this press conference (see picture below), there was widespread astonishment when Mr Edgar claimed that the person Jane Tanner claimed she had seen on 3 May 2007 taking a child, whom she later presumed to be Madeleine McCann, away from the McCanns’ apartment could have been a woman, not a man:

As again we are quite sure that you and your senior staff are well aware, Jane Tanner’s description of an alleged abductor was already being questioned by many. She had changed her description of what she claimed to have seen over time. There was a clear conflict of evidence between her statement to the Portuguese police and those of Dr Gerald McCann and film producer/photographer Jeremy Wilkins about whether she was indeed in the lane that night where she claims to have seen the abductor.

In addition, during her statements, she had shortened the distance at which she said she had seen the abductor from 50 metres to 5 metres. She did not tell the McCanns about what she had seen for 24 hours even though her partner Dr Russell O’Brien had torn off the cover from Madeleine’s Activity Sticker Book soon after the alarm was raised at 10.00pm on 3 May and written down on this book cover that his partner Jane Tanner had seen an abductor walking away from the McCanns’ apartment at around 9.15pm.

Her detailed observations of frills on the pyjamas of the child alleged to have been carried and of the colour and type of clothing this man was supposed to be wearing were undermined by the facts that (a) the village was dark and poorly lit at the time and (b) on her own statement, that she could not have seen this man for more than 4 seconds at the most. Despite all these problems with her various accounts, Dr Gerald McCann read out the first-ever description of an alleged abductor, based on Jane Tanner’s changing statements, on 25 May 2007, which clearly referred to a male abductor. The claim by the Head of the McCann’s current private investigation team, that this abductor might have been an abductress after all, served to further undermine what little credibility was left in Ms Tanner’s statements about what she claimed to have seen on the evening of 3 May.

On Sunday 13 May, we know that Jane Tanner spoke to Detective Superintendent Bob Small of Leicestershire Police and to two men from Control Risks Group, Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan. Later on that very same day, from inside a police van with one-way darkened windows, she adamantly insisted she could identify the abductor. As Robert Murat walked past the police van, she told police that she could tell by the way he was walking that this was the very man she had seen on the date Madeleine disappeared.

Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan an ex-Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience.

Jane Tanner undermined her own story, in stages, later that year, by stating, first, that she was ‘not sure’ whether or not the person she had seen was Robert Murat, and finally saying that she ‘no longer’ believed that the man she had seen was Robert Murat. This particular incident raises issues in relation to the conduct of Leicestershire Police, which we deal with below.

We referred above to the current team of investigators employed by the McCann Team and led by Dave Edgar. There have been huge concerns about the highly controversial nature of the investigation agencies employed by the McCanns since 2007, of which there have been at least seven. They employed a Spanish detective agency with a very chequered history, namely Metodo 3, whose boss, Francisco Marco, declared before Christmas 2007 that his men ‘were closing in on the place where Madeleine was being held alive; and that ‘she will be home by Christmas’. These claims were soon exposed as bogus.

Next, the McCanns spent an estimated £500,000 employing the services of intelligence personnel under the control of hard-drinking Kevin Halligen, a man now wanted by the United States for serious fraud offences and whose application for extradition is apparently being held up by the British government. We will examine the role of Leicestershire Police in promoting these controversial and possibly corrupt private intelligence agencies further below.

There are many other problems with the abduction scenario.

Being realistic, on the rare occasions that children as young as Madeleine are abducted by strangers, they are rarely found alive. In the very unlikely event that the abductor, if there is one, is keeping Madeleine alive, for whatever purpose, how likely is it that s/he would be out on the streets with Madeleine for all to see? S/he would know of course that Madeleine has green eyes with a visible coloboma defect in her right eye. That would be an additional reason for keeping her out of sight. Even if the abductor/abductress were prepared to take the risk of Madeleine’s being seen in public, would s/he not disguise her in some way, for example by dyeing her hair a different colour? And how difficult would it be for the abductor/abductress to keep a child, now aged nearly seven, away from public services, such as the school, and the health centre?

How would Madeleine look now, anyway? It is not easy to project what a three-year-old will look like three to four years later. A photo-sketch has been produced by the McCanns which shows her to be a happy and smiling child, of about 9 to 11 years of age in the opinion of those who have seen the photo-sketch (the one specially produced to coincide with the McCanns’ appearance on the popular Oprah Winfrey Show, televised world-wide). Does that photo really narrow down the search? It has already caused people to report children to the police who look like the new photo-sketch of her. A man was taken into police custody in Devon when a passer-by thought his step-daughter must be Madeleine McCann, while the police were also involved in Canada when many people watching a children’s choir on TV thought they recognised her and telephoned to say so.

On top of all that, where are we supposed to look? We have no guidance whatsoever from the McCann Team. All manner of places over the world have been mentioned, and there have been claimed ‘sightings’ of Madeleine from several dozen countries. Last year, the McCanns’ current lead investigator, Dave Edgar, stunned many people by claiming in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph that he was ‘convinced’ that Madeleine was being held alive in a ‘prison lair, within 10 miles of Praia da Luz, somewhere in the lawless hills around’. If he and the McCanns really believed this claim, then, so far as we are aware, they did not follow up their being ‘convinced’ by ensuring that a proper search was conducted for such a ‘prison lair’ in and around Praia da Luz, and still have not done so.

In addition, both the McCanns and their spokesman have recently made references to the death of Madeleine.

Clarence Mitchell, speaking to the press and defending himself against accusations that he had lied about aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, said: “Can I suggest that, actually, you quote me back accurately? I said: ‘I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine’s death’.”

Months later, on 11 December 2009, at a Court hearing in Lisbon in connection with their 1.2 million euro claim against Goncalo Amaral, Dr Gerald McCann told a group of reporters: “There is no evidence that we were involved in Madeleine’s death”.

The claim that the McCanns’ backer, Brian Kennedy, frightened potential witnesses into refusing to give evidence’

Another matter which clearly requires investigation by any review or re-investigation team in this matter is the claim made by Mark Hollingsworth in an article in the Evening Standard dated August 2009, in which he directly accused Mr Kennedy and those employed by him of interfering with witnesses and making some of them so frightened that they would not give evidence to the Portuguese police. Hollingsworth gave a devastating critique of the Kennedy-led private investigation. He wrote:

“An investigation by the Evening Standard shows that key mistakes were made, which in turn made later enquiries far more challenging. The Evening Standard has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:

• The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police [in Portugal] for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour ‘stake out’

• The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down

• Key witnesses were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police

• Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work”.

To interfere with potential court witnesses in an investigation is a criminal offence punishable, we understand, by a maximum jail term of 14 years. Madeleine was a British girl. This was a joint investigation by British and Portuguese police. So far as we are aware, no police force in the United Kingdom has yet investigated these serious allegations against Brian Kennedy, and we suggest that such an investigation should be mounted without further delay.

We believe it can and should be mounted by British police - but not Leicestershire Police, who it appears have failed to pursue this serious issue. Brian Kennedy is the man who has wholly or largely funded the McCanns’ private investigations. He has appointed most of the agencies and individuals used in the McCanns’ private investigations and does so from a base in Cheshire near the headquarters of his own Latium Group, also based in Cheshire.

The role of Leicestershire Police

We dealt with the need for an enquiry into the role of the British Police in general and Leicestershire Police in particular in a letter we sent to Prime Minister Gordon Brown last year on 13 July 2009, and to which we respectfully refer you. It may be helpful, however, if we summarise our concerns and the concerns of a great many others:

a) What was the role of the Leicestershire Police Officers who were despatched to Praia da Luz immediately Madeleine was reported missing? In particular, what liaison did they have with the men from Control Risks Group, and what other discussions did they have with the McCanns and their friends? Especially, what role did staff of Leicestershire Police, notably Detective Superintendent Bob Small, play in the events of Sunday 13 May? Did he in any way influence Jane Tanner in her identification of Robert Murat as the alleged abductor? She later admitted that she was wholly wrong to have identified him as the abductor, yet it led directly to his arrest and being given ‘arguido’ status.

b) Why before, during and after the time the McCanns were ‘arguidos’ (which the McCanns insist means ‘persons of interest’ but is more usually translated ‘suspects’), did Leicestershire Police:
(i) Link their website to the McCanns’ fund-raising website, and

(ii) In doing so, encourage those who might have relevant information, to give this not to Leicestershire Police nor to the Portuguese Police, but to the McCanns’ own team of private investigators?

In the view of many, this set a dangerous and wholly new precedent in the history of criminal investigations anywhere in the world. A police force, openly and in a high profile manner, invited the public to donate to the fund-raising campaign of two suspects in a serious criminal investigation and helped them by diverting people who wished to supply information away from official police investigators and to their own private investigators, some of whose controversial history we have demonstrated above.

c) The highly irregular and cosy relationship between Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior and the McCanns and their friends. This can clearly be seen from the e-mails between Prior and the McCanns and their friends, which have now been made public by the Portuguese police.

d) The decision by Leicestershire Police not to release significant witness statements by Dr Katharine Gaspar and Dr Arul Gaspar to the Portuguese police for a period of six months, and then only after Mr Amaral had been removed from the investigation.

The background to the Home Office review

We were aware of course from hints dropped by the McCanns’ Chief Public Relations Adviser, Clarence Mitchell, that the McCanns were pressing for some kind of re-investigation or review. We also support an appropriate review and re-investigation (see end of our letter), but not one that is being pursued in the manner being suggested by recent reports in the Daily Telegraph and Leicester Mercury.

We know that there have been meetings between the McCanns and your staff (from leaks from the McCann Team) and at least one meeting between the McCanns and yourself, though we are not told whether the McCanns had lawyers or other advisers with them and perhaps you also had at least one civil servant with you at that ‘private’ meeting.

The Daily Telegraph began its report on 6 March by stating: “The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”. We write to enquire (a) whether this is meant to be a ‘secret’ review? - if so why is it ‘secret’? (b) why it is being apparently conducted at all? - and (c) how news of this ‘secret review’ was leaked to the press. Were your staff responsible for this leak to the Daily Telegraph, or was the McCann Team responsible? The latter seems more likely in the light of this quotation from the Telegraph report:

“According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence”.

As there was no adverse reaction by the Home Office, however, we must assume that this ‘leak’ was authorised by you. It is also clear from the following statement in the Telegraph that any review by your office will be conducted (a) only on the McCanns’ terms, (b) at their request, and (c) will focus only on alleged evidence that Madeleine was abducted: “Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine”.

The McCanns and their public relations and legal advisers only want this review and any subsequent re-investigation to look at evidence that Madeleine was abducted and not at evidence which might point in a wholly different direction. The McCanns’ own statement merely confirms this. They said: “It is an international case, and always has been…Madeleine's rights should be put first. She's missing, she's innocent and whoever's taken her is still out there, and that has to be of paramount importance”.

The Daily Telegraph report also adds this: “The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years. He is said to be ‘sympathetic’ and to have made ‘general offers of assistance’.” It is not the duty of an investigating officer to be ‘sympathetic’. In the view of many, this might sound like pre-judgement, in the same way in which large numbers of the public believe that a previous enquiry lea by Mr Yates in the ‘Cash for Honours’ enquiry was similarly predetermined.

We are therefore very concerned at the suggestion that John Yates should have anything to do with the review of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Mr Yates was appointed to investigate the obvious links between a number of high profile people obtaining peerages and large donations made not long beforehand by those involved, in each case, to the coffers of the Labour Party. It was clear to virtually the entire country that these peerages were given as a reward for donations to the Labour Party. As such, they were in flagrant breach of the law which strictly prohibits the selling of peerages (The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925).

John Yates arrested a number of individuals, like Lord Levy, and reports appeared in the press suggesting that the investigation was being taken ‘very seriously’. But - as most of us realised would probably happen - no prosecutions resulted. If John Yates is involved in any way with a review or re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, the public will lack confidence that the review/re-investigation is a genuine enquiry into the truth.

The Telegraph report refers to a 'scoping exercise' being carried out ‘to look into the possibility of a review of the case’. It adds: ‘They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study’. The purpose of this letter is to contribute to your ‘scoping’ exercise/feasibility study.

The Telegraph report continues: “Pressure is now being put on Portuguese authorities to agree in the first instance to a three-day review of the case that could be held at Interpol's headquarters in Lyon in France. The McCanns will hope the Home Office can persuade their Portuguese counterparts to co-operate in a case review.

The review - were it to go ahead - would involve British police working with Portuguese counterparts as well as experts in child abduction”.

The last few words of this paragraph confirm our view that any review or re-investigation, as currently being proposed, will examine only the option that Madeleine was abducted and will close its mind to any other possibility, despite the final report from the Policia Judiciara explicitly leaving both possibilities open; abduction, or Madeleine’s death in her parents’ apartment. No review or re-investigation could be complete nor could satisfy the massive public disquiet over this case unless all possibilities for what really happened to Madeleine McCann are reviewed and re-examined.

The Telegraph report added: “But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review. The revelation that possible leads - many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives - had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour”.

We would respectfully point out that Goncalo Amaral is far from ‘discredited’. On the contrary, he is honoured in Portugal for his successful prosecution of Leonor Cipriano and Jose Cipriano, the mother and uncle who cruelly murdered eight-year-old Joana Cipriano and then falsely claimed she had been ‘abducted’. Mr Amaral’s book ‘The Truth About A Lie’, giving his thesis on what really happened to Madeleine, has been read by a million-plus buyers of his book across Europe and his documentary about the case on Portuguese TV was seen by one of the highest-ever TV audiences in Portugal’s history. The recent conviction of Mr Amaral, now being appealed, for allegedly having filed a false report in the Joana Cipriano case, is seen by many in his country and further afield as a ‘political’ prosecution of him with no substance in fact. The fact that his main prosecutor, lawyer Marcos Aragao Alexandre Correia, has received payments in the McCann case in respect of his trawling of the Arade Dam for Madeleine’s body (in early 2008) is a fact that must be weighed when evaluating Mr Amaral’s conviction, along with the clearly fabricated evidence of at least two witnesses in the case.

We might also note that the McCanns recently claimed that Mr Amaral’s thesis had been ‘disproved’, a comment which all the British press recycled without challenge. By no stretch of the imagination could it reasonably be said that his thesis had been disproved, indeed his witnesses in the Lisbon court in January said otherwise.

The Telegraph report went on: “A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann. Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation’.” For reasons we set out above about the manifest lack of independence of Leicestershire Police, it would be wholly inappropriate for them to be involved in any review or re-investigation, except for handing over to any re-investigators their entire file on the matter.

The involvement of MI5 and possibly MI6, as mentioned by David James Smith in The Times

Another factor which suggests the need for a fully independent re-investigation, if not a public enquiry as we called for in our letter to Gordon Brown in July last year, is the possible involvement of MI5 and MI6 in the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. David James Smith, in an article in The Times dated 16 December 2007, hinted at this:

“I heard that a PJ officer had been surprised to find a member of MI5 at a UK meeting about the case, and this made him suspicious that shadowy forces could be at work. The Sol journalist Felicia Cabrita mentioned the ‘mysterious Clarence’ - Clarence Mitchell, the former government PR officer turned McCann spokesman - and I was told there was suspicion too about another government official, Sheree Dodd, who had acted as a PR officer for the McCanns briefly in the early days - had she come out from MI6 to help dispose of the body? These theories might seem preposterous, but for those involved in the case in Portugal, they fitted a pattern in which the Portuguese government and in turn the PJ had felt the heavy weight of diplomatic pressure from the UK - a pressure that the police and the journalists very much resented, with its implication that the police were not doing their job properly”.

An independent review should be able to look without fear or favour at the possibility of MI5 or MI6 involvement.

The requirements for a genuinely independent re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

We suggest that the following steps should be associated with any re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance:

a) That Dr Kate McCann should agree to answer the 48 key questions that she refused to answer when first interviewed by Portuguese Police on 7 September 2007

b) That the McCanns and their friends should agree to take part in the reconstruction of events on 3 May that the police requested but which the McCanns and their friends all refused to take part in.

c) The highly irregular and cosy relationship between Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior and the McCanns and their friends. This can clearly be seen from the e-mails between Prior and the McCanns and their friends, which have now been made public by the Portuguese police.

d) That any re-investigation must look at possible reasons for Madeleine’s disappearance other than just the McCanns’ claim that she was abducted; in particular any re-investigation must pursue all possible lines of enquiry into Mr Amaral’s thesis.

e) That there must be an immediate investigation by an independent police force of the credible claims by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard that Brian Kennedy and some of his team of investigators intimidated or ‘frightened’ more than one potential witness into refusing to give evidence to the Portuguese police.

If a re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann were to take place under those circumstances, we would support it.

Finally, in view of the importance of this subject-matter and the need to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann, we intend this to be an open letter and will in due course, therefore, publish this letter and your reply to all the points in it.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett

Secretary

The Madeleine Foundation

Enclosures:

1. Complimentary copy ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1’

2. Letter from Madeleine Foundation to Gordon Brown 13 July 2009

3. Article by John Whitehouse on the McCanns’ private investigators

h/t JKH and source The Madeleine Foundation
.

Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses in Leicestershire

2010-02-14T15:32:00.000-08:00

.

Evenin' all.

I hope you weren't expecting to read about about the the McScam fraudulent fund lads, you know, that same one you endorse by having a link from your webpage to the McCanns site, the same one where there isn't a word of truth to be found, where every penny collected is fraudulent, but you know that anyway, so I'll save me breath.

No it's not the fund I'm talking about, it's a bit closer to home than that, in fact it's so close it comes right over the doorstep and into the nick itself, any idea what I'm on about?

Wages, it's wages I'm talking about, those things that if you're not embarrassed about when you pick them up, well you bleedin' well ought to be.

You have these two fucking scallies, guilty as sin, running around all over the place, taking the piss out of everything and everybody, and that includes you lot, in fact it probably applies more to you than it does to us, why so? because they are making you look extremely dim or extremely bent, and if that's not taking the piss I don't know what is.

And what are you doing about these scallies? fuck all as far as I can see, well your doing other things that we won't go into tonight, but you're doing fuck all to bring them to justice are you?

Anyway, I'm not going to drone on about it tonight though because I'm a bit tired, well you would be too, if you had to do my job as well as your own, like I'm doing mine and yours. Well somebody has to don't they, somebody has to try and bring these fuckers to justice.

Original text in white, others in green, my comments in orange.

How to spot a liar www.pattywood.net

By Patty A Wood,MA, CSP

In the most important interviews of their careers Gary Condit sucked in his lips and stuck out his tongue, Bill Clinton touched his nose about every four minutes and Enron's Ken Lay overacted and was over confident. In these public moments they gave us nonverbal cues that they were lying. They lost their credibility.

Maintaining credibility is an important part of customer service. You need to trust the people you do business with. Your customers need to trust you to be honest with them. If you feel that the car salesman is trying to sell you a lemon or the computer help desk is lying about the need to upgrade to their new software your confidence in their business is undermined. When you tell a customer that you can deliver in three months and swipe your tongue across your lips he picks up on a subconscious level that you may be lying and you lose the sale. When your front counter employee smiles and sarcastically says they are so sorry you are so upset, the words are meaningless. Can you spot a liar? And can you not be seen as a liar yourself.

No of course you didn't Gerry, not so much as a whiff of coal gas, why is then every time a watch this clip it screams at me, and it screams, Gerry McCann is a lying git, Gerry McCann couldn't lie straight in his goddamned bed. What say you plod?

Nonverbal Communication is the way the subconscious mind speaks. No matter how much you want to control it, it gives clues to how you are truly feeling. This makes it an ideal medium for detecting lies. Eyes, head, voice and hands leak out cues of withholding and deception or cues that can establish credibility. Body Language cues an undeniable although the underlying motivation and interpretation can vary.

There are up to 10,000 body language cues packed in every minute of interaction. When someone is not telling the truth, their nonverbal behavior speaks volumes. Body language cues are undeniable although the underlying motivation and the interpretation can vary. Therefore you need to base your interpretation on a number of factors called deception cues.

NONVERBAL DECEPTION CUES

The Nine Months Pregnant Pause – Pauses

Liars have longer pauses, shorter answers and longer times between a question and a response than someone who is merely nervous. It makes sense that liars need time to create the lie, recalling the truth takes less time. If you ask a clerk if they gave you back the correct change and there is a long pause before their response it may be an indication of deceit. This is not a cue you would take in isolation as fact. You might combine it with checking to see where their eyes go after you ask them the question.

People tend to look up to the right to visualize or create a new response or down to the right to create the sounds of a new response. We recall information that occurred in the past by looking up to the left or down to the left. Spot a liar by listening for pauses and right eye movement. Be credible by answering spontaneously.

Kate McCann's pregnant pause can be heard somewhere in this BBC Radio Four 24min interview, not that I'm suggesting you torture yourself by actually listening to it, let's say it's here for reference.
*But this extract (see bottom of page) of from an analysis, by whom I have no idea, but the rest can be found here.

The Hands Have it - Excessive Gesturing and Adaptors

If you lie spontaneously in the moment you will tend to spend more time gesturing with your hands and using adapters, such as scratching your body or playing with a pen than someone who is just nervous.

If you ask Sara in Payroll, who serves you the internal customer, why your check is so late, and then she picks up the beanie baby from on her desk, begins to play with it as she says she has worked on this for hours and she has no idea. If this frog juggling seems excessive, and especially if it is combined with other cues of deception you have got her. Realize the rehearsed or practiced liar who has planned their deceit ahead of time will try to control gestures.

Mind Your Mouth - Mouth, Lips, and Tongue Cues

Be careful of pursing or licking your lips. Condit pursed his lips and sucked them inward more than 14 times in his famous 2002 television interview with Connie Chung. This can indicate extreme anxiety, withholding information and withholding aggression. Tight lips indicate you may be planning to keep the truth in. If you actually suck the lips part way in, you may be withholding anger. When you are nervous, your mouth becomes dry, and you lick your lips and swallow as you struggle to find the right words to say.

When we're talking body language I don't suppose we need much more than this one, it's all here, right from the off. Watch the look that passes between the perps a few seconds in.

I did a little work on this clip, breaking it down into stills, aptly named, Further Tells of Gerry McCann.

Be Still My Love -- Lack of Animation

Deception is all about keeping something hidden. The more a person moves his body or expresses with his voice and the more he or she speaks, the more we can learn. Practiced liars know this and usually keep as still as possible. Being overly controlled can work against you. Gary Condit was coached to stay still in his television interview. So he kept his face inexpressive, his upper body stiff and his legs crossed. First, he looked frozen, and then when he couldn't hold it any longer he leaked out aggression cues such as finger pointing grasping motions and sticking out his tongue. We spotted a liar. I have often seen a normally animated customer service rep get up to a product explanation and become a monotone automatron. The audience wonders what you are hiding and is bored to tears. Spot a liar by looking for someone who is too stiff and still. Don't look like a liar by making sure you are naturally animated.

Seems a bit testy does the lad, understandable I suppose when it's all coming apart at the seams. Especially if it's you that's been picking at them.

Hand Jive -- Hiding Hands

The hands come out symbolically from the heart; hands and arms symbolically express the emotions of the heart. Liars tend to keep their hands hidden and still. They stick them in their pockets, clench them together or hold them behind their backs. Imagine that the person who you suspect of lying has the truth in the palms of their hands and see if they show it to you. It is not surprising that one of the first things we do to start a business interaction or close a deal with a customer is shake hands. My three years of academic research on handshakes show that the single most important factor in the handshake is palm to palm contact. Research also shows, when you’re the customer and don't get it, you wonder what the person is hiding, you are uncomfortable for the rest of the interaction and you are less likely to purchase. When people are trying to hide their true feeling or the truth they may stick their hands in their pockets, clench them together, or hold the behind their backs. To spot liars -- look to see if the hands are open and "above board." Because people do hide their hands when they are nervous, if you see hidden hands ask yourself why they are nervous. Don't look like a liar by using your hands normally as you speak or if that is not normal loosely at your sides. And try not to clasp your hands together. Body language is highly symbolic and it will look like you are hiding your own hands for comfort.

I keep telling ye but ye dunna listen, too many details, always too many details, it's not a play you're trying to describe, hang on, scrub that, too many details, will ye not be told?

Windows to the Soul -- Closed Curtains

We have what I call windows all over the body. Just as we pull down the shades when we don’t want others to see in, we also close off the entrances to our body so our true feelings aren't seen. There are windows at the bottom of the feet, the kneecaps, the bottom of the torso, the middle of the chest, the neck, mouth and eyes and the top of the head. Liars tend to close entrances to hide the truth. A liar closes these windows by putting clothing over them, turning his body away from the person he is talking to, putting objects or furniture between himself and others and most simply folding his arms. When someone's windows are closed we don't feel as comfortable in an interaction. You're asking a clerk an important question as her face is turned toward you but the rest of her body is turned toward the exit. Her windows are closed. She is saying, "I am pretending by looking at you that I want to talk but really I want to go home. I am not really interested in serving you."

In the 90's I consulted with the architect and owners of new "Ripley's Believe It or Not" museums on the layout of the entrances and ticket counters of new locations. They planned raised platforms, high counter top ticket booths an average of ten steps from the door. This design was great for security but I shared with them why it would reduce spontaneous purchases.

People had to go too far to see the ticket person and most of his or her windows would be hidden. Customers would not feel safe and comfortable. To spot a liar look for barriers and closed windows. Don't look like a liar and keep your windows open.

They lie quite well when they are not under pressure, and who wouldn't believe them? it's just a bit of a bugger that the sardine munchers released the case files and showed these two up for what they are, lying twats. The Lies of Kate and Gerry McCann - The Phone records.

Why Can't We Be Friends? -- Withdrawn Behavior

If we are comfortable with ourselves and the person we are with, and the topic we are discussing, we will be open and friendly. Liars don’t usually feel very comfortable so they tend to hold back and be less friendly. It is easier for friends and intimates to lie successfully because they appear less withdrawn and friendlier. Perhaps they work harder at lying because the person knows them, perhaps they are more concerned about the consequences of detection or maybe they are better at it because they have experience lying to the person in the past. In any case they lie differently and as with career criminals, they can usually maintain a more relaxed overall demeanor and look the person straight in the eye.

Strangers need to work harder to keep others from seeing the truth. Consequently, they are more withdrawn and closed off from the person with whom they are conversing and usually don’t appear as friendly. You have heard for years that you need to be friendly with the customer. Now you know why.

Our ancestors went to the friendly tribes to trade. These days getting a front line service representative to love their jobs and enjoy dealing with the customers is incredibly difficult. Attitude problems and surly help seem be the norm. You can't just tell the help to smile. Employees need to be comfortable with their tasks and knowledge. Ask yourself "am I giving enough time to training and what am I doing to make the workplace friendly? To spot a liar look for someone unfriendly. Don't look like a liar by reaching out, being open and receptive.

Is that a CD player you're talking about, or is it your daughter?

I Want To Sell You A Car! -- Excessive Confidence

Have you ever experienced a super smooth salesperson? He may have over enthusiastically praised the product and you felt uncomfortable about his pitch? Then you have deciphered a lie by noting that the person sounded too good or too confident. We look and listen for anything that doesn't sound normal. Nonverbal communication, in this case paralanguage, which included things like voice, tone, volume, and speaking rate that sounds over confident or overacted is read at the subconscious level as out of the norm. Years ago a friend who was a very successful computer salesman came over to my office to do some selling for me over the phone. Instead of having a planned patter he hemmed and hawed and stumbled over his words. His mistakes surprised me. I thought he was just warming up. Five calls latter he was still sounding awkward. So I gathered up my courage and asked him about his behavior. He said, "Oh, when I first started as a salesman I was very awkward and very successful."

People went out of their way to be nice to me on the phone. Sometimes they even finished my sales pitch for me! I noticed later when I became very confident (make that cocky and fake) that I was not as successful, in fact my prospects hung up on me! So I stayed very humble. I don't worry about sounding smooth and perfect. Just being my bumbling self works for me. What my friend was experiencing is a nonverbal effect of deception. When nonverbal communication, in this case paralanguage, which includes things like voice tone, volume, speaking rate read at a subconscious level as false, our internal alarms go off. Spot a liar by going with your gut impression. Your instincts read fake at a hundred paces. Normal levels of confidence, however, also read as sincere. Don't look like a liar by being your real self.

This is an odd conversation, and I'm not talking about the McCann's "excellent relationship" with the Portuguese plod, nor the rest of his bullshit, rather the talk of murder and this, "Kate and I strongly believe Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment." (Followed by an enormous swallow.) But what a strange thing to say, why would anyone run off with a dead kid? But not so strange I suppose if it's a week after the dogs have brought in and you are you're trying to pre-empt the dogs' findings.

Don't Cry For Me Argentina -- Circumstances Not Matching Demeanor

One of the first things you look for when reading body language is the alignment of the circumstances to the demeanor of the person talking to you. For instance, in Connie Chung’s television interview with Congressman Gary Condit, we expected him to be emotionally upset and embarrassed, considering he was a politician suspected of having an affair with a young woman who had been missing for 115 days.

Instead, he began the interview calmly and proceeded to become indignant. This demeanor was not what we expected. The lack of appropriateness is a sign that the person is not being sincere. When I was driving back from New York a few days after September 11th gas station attendants continued to say with feigned brightness "Have a nice day." They were on automatic pilot. I knew they didn't even realize how they sounded. Oddly enough when I shared that I was coming back from New York near Ground Zero each and every person became real and in the moment. Spot a liar who uses a planned "It's a great day. May I help you?" delivery. Don't look like a liar by being in the moment.

There are a few things in this short clip that kind of poke me in eye as it were. Why does Gerry McCann find the need to send a message,(5sec mark) and believe me it is a message, it's quite deliberate and it occurs twice in the space of a couple of seconds, when Kate begins: "We would like to say a few words to the person who is with Madeleine or who has been with Madeleine" Why, I don't know, does anybody have any theories?
Try as I may, when Gerry McCann rests his head on his wife's shoulder, I can find no other reaction than, you're fucking kidding me.
As appeals go, Kate McCanns must rate as the most wooden, the most insincere, the most unconvincing performance ever given by a mother, and I include some bad performances by some bad mothers in making that judgement. If your confession video is a straight eight, then this is seven point nine.

Nothing Is Wrong! -- Nonverbal Behavior Does Not Match Spoken Words

When the spoken words don’t agree with the nonverbal communication, we generally trust the nonverbal communication to tell us the truth. When a customer says nothing is wrong, while sitting with arms wrapped tightly around the body and a scowl on the face, we doubt her sincerity. If service rep says "yes, we can do that for you" while shaking his head "no," we can be sure he is, at least, ambivalent about the answer. Spot a liar by watching for lack of synchronicity. The subconscious reveals the truth. If the service person says, "This is a great service contract," while rubbing the eyes, it doesn't; look right, the ears, it doesn't sound right or the nose, it stinks. Look credible by having your body language match what you are saying.

A smile is the most common facial expression to mask emotions. It is often used to mask displeasure and anger. A real smile changes the entire face. The eyes light up. The forehead wrinkles, the eyebrows and cheek muscles rise, skin around the eyes and mouth crinkles and finally the mouth turns up. In a masking smile, nothing moves but the corners of the mouth and often they curve up rather than down.

Knowing these cues can help you decipher when someone else is being less than forthcoming. Sometimes people say: "It’s all in your mind." Now you know "It's all in your body."

End

It's a good job she is only trying to blag her way out of offing her daughter, if it was her car tax she was trying to blag, you'd have had the fucker crushed in a blink of an eye.

Short of being caught in the act of beating a dolphin to death with a baby seal, this is THE video of the entire case. Nothing comes close to this one, nothing at all, in fact I would go as far as saying it surpasses the seal and the dolphin.

It says just one thing to me, it says guilty, unequivocally, dyed in the wool, one hundred percent guilty. What does it say to you, Leicester plod?

Transcript
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."

Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back." source and more.

Below in three parts, Sandra Felgueiras interviews the McCanns. He's such a charmer, well he's not really, in actual fact he is a fucking twat, with his sniggers and his smart arse answers, hey it's only your daughter you're talking about, do you remember the one, the one you dropped in a hole somewhere? You can find my interpretation of the interview here. An Interview With Sandra Felgueiras

*Extract mentioned previously.

Jenny: 'Was she sleeping when you left her?'

Kate: (Long pause) 'Errm, yes, she was, yeah'.

Why should Kate need a significant pause to be able to answer that question? The immediate impression from both the pause, her answer and the way she says it, is that she momentarily didn't know what to say. But how could that be?

Jenny: 'What was your first thought, what did you think immediately had happened?' (Upon discovering that Madeleine wasn't there)

Kate: 'Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked and, errm, you know, obviously, there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there (laughs). Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within (laughs) probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that.'

Kate gives an extraordinarily convoluted and inarticulate answer to a very simple question....more

Unedited

h/t Nigel Moore mcanfiles
.

Found A New Boss Yet?

2010-02-09T13:02:00.000-08:00

.

I hear you're having a bit of a problem finding a new gaffer lads, there's a lass here I could recommend, she strikes me as being right on the ball, who knows she could be just what you're looking for.

If she hasn't got what it takes to be CC, I still think she'd make a good copper, Detective Chief Inspector, aye that would do for starters.

Anyway lads here's a bit of reading for you, I'm afraid it's those shutters again, buggers aren't for going away are they, still have a read of what the lass has written.

Oh! 'fore I go, you might want to make sure Stu has a read, I'm sure he would be very interested, knowing how much he has invested in the case, as he does.

~ ~ ~

How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 minutes?

by Barbara Nottage

One of the curious aspects of the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann is the extraordinarily tight timetable in which the abduction is supposed to have taken place. Dr Gerald McCann says he went to check on the children at about 9.05pm on 3 May 2007. He also said elsewhere that he had been an unusually long time in the apartment toilet, and that he had been inside all four rooms of the apartment. In addition, he told the world that he had had time during his visit to gaze down on Madeleine, whom he was to describe as ‘lying in the recovery position’, and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter. By this reckoning, He could not have left the apartment until around 9.10pm or several minutes later.

Meanwhile Jane Tanner, a close friend of the McCanns, has given statements saying that she saw what she thought was a male abductor carrying Madeleine away in his arms from the apartment at around 9.15pm - although we might note here that in August 2009 at a press conference, the McCanns’ chief private investigator, former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman, not a man.

The abduction scenario

So let’s examine this situation more closely.

The scenario put forward by the McCanns and their friends runs as follows:

· The abductor must have been watching the apartment for several days before snatching Madeleine on 3 May.

· The McCanns went down to the ‘Tapas bar’ at the Ocean Club at around 8.30pm that evening, with other members of the group arriving during the next half-an-hour or so.

· Dr Matthew Oldfield ‘checked the apartment from the outside’ at around 9.00pm to 9.03pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann returned to his apartment (5A) from the Tapas bar to check on his children at around 9.05pm. The walk to the apartment would have taken one to two minutes. So on his own timing, he would have arrived there around 9.07pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann was briefly in all four rooms of their holiday apartment, during which time he checked his children. He also says he spent an unusually long time in the toilet - maybe up to 5 minutes, though we have never been told why. He tells us that he paused briefly over Madeleine’s bed and thought to himself how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.

· Dr Gerry McCann says he noticed that the door to the children’s room was ‘wider open than before’. He says that at 8.30pm it had been open at an angle of about 45 degrees (half open). He remembers (he says) that when he went to check the children at 9.05pm, the door was now open at an angle of 60 degrees (two thirds open).

· The fact that the door - according to Dr Gerald McCann - was now (at 9.05pm) more open more than it was before (at 8.30pm), has been used by him to suggest the possibility that the abductor may have been already in the apartment when he checked on the children, although he says he only realised this possibility some months after the events of the day. Dr Gerry McCann has said that the abductor might have been hiding behind a door or in a wardrobe while he spent several minutes doing his ‘check’ on the children.

· Dr Gerry McCann must have left the room, on his own account, at between 9.10pm and 9.15pm. He then says he encountered a TV cameraman, Jeremy (‘Jes’) Wilkins, on the road back to the Tapas bar at the Ocean Club, and was talking to him for several minutes between 9.10pm and 9.25pm (Jeremy Wilkins confirms the meeting, but says it only lasted three minutes).

· Ms Jane Tanner (partner of Dr Russell O’Brien) says she left the Tapas bar at around 9.15pm and saw a man walking ‘purposefully’, with a child in his arms, along the top of the road running alongside the McCanns’ apartment. She has maintained throughout that she saw this man at almost exactly 9.15pm.

· The McCanns maintain that they left their apartment unlocked. This contrasts however with what they said during the might of 3 May/4 May. In telephone calls to relatives, Dr Gerald McCann told them that an abductor had forced entry into the apartment by jemmying open the shutters. They appear to have changed this story after both the Manager of Mark Warners, Mr john Hill, and the police, found no evidence whatsoever of the shutters having been forced open.

The McCanns now say, therefore, that the abductor must have entered their apartment through the unlocked patio door. But they maintain that the windows and shutters that they say they found open on Dr Kate McCann checking the children at 10.00pm were because the abductor must have made his escape via that route. They say the abductor must have opened the window and the shutters (which the McCanns say they had had left closed) from the inside, climbed through the window, and taken Madeleine through that window.

· Dr Kate McCann says she returned to the apartment to check on the children at 10.00pm. She says she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted - and then so did Dr Gerald McCann, minutes later, when he says he arrived at the apartment. Dr Kate McCann later told a TV interviewer that because of the requirement for secrecy about the police investigation, she could not explain why she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted. She has never explained this, even 2½ years later.

The photographs of the apartment taken by the Portuguese police on the day after Madeleine was reported missing do not show anything which would clearly point to an abduction, certainly not damaged shutters. No forensic evidence whatsoever of the alleged abductor has been found. There were no forensic traces in the room, and no fingerprints on the window, window frame or shutters except for one of Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints. The lichen on the windowsill was undisturbed.

Going by the above scenario, which the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have maintained, the abductor (if there was one) must have either entered the apartment before Dr Matthew Oldfield’s check at around 9.03pm and Dr Gerry McCann’s check which began at 9.05pm/9.07pm – a version put forward by the McCanns months after Madeleine was reported missing - McCanns now want us to believe - or after Dr Gerry McCann left at 9.10pm to 9.15pm and before he was (allegedly) seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.

The problems with this abduction scenario

There are many problems associated with this specific abduction scenario above that the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have generated.

As we have seen just now, there is no forensic evidence that the alleged abductor was even in the McCanns’ apartment, still less that an abductor climbed in or out of the window.

Further, the window is high enough in the children’s room to make it physically very difficult for an abductor to climb through it. It was reported to be 91cm. above the floor - exactly three feet. The window itself is only around 60cm x 60cm (2ft x 2ft). The abductor would therefore have had to climb some three feet, with Madeleine with him, in his arms or over his shoulder. In addition, he would have to have managed this feat without leaving any forensic traces on the window-sill.

Madeleine must have weighed at least two stone (12kg). A task such as this would have meant balancing against the window frame itself, in which case traces of clothing fibres would surely have been found. Even then, it would have been almost impossible to climb through this window even if Madeleine had been asleep. It is surely even more unlikely that the abductor could have laid Madeleine down on the floor or a bed in the children’s bedroom, then climbed out of the window, and then reached back inside the bedroom to pick Madeleine out of the room - all of this without Madeleine or either of the twins waking up.

This whole abduction operation would clearly have been still more difficult either if Madeleine had woken up whilst being abducted, or one or both twins had done so. To maintain the abduction scenario, therefore, it is necessary to believe that Madeleine slept through the entire abduction operation. The description given by Jane Tanner of an alleged abductor carrying a child also describes the child as quiet and presumably asleep.

Moreover, to escape via the window, as the McCanns claim, the abductor would have had to open the shutters. Mark Warners, however, explained that it was only possible to open the shutters from the inside. They are operated by pulling a cord, or strap, on the inside. It is a highly relevant fact (again confirmed by Mark Warners) that when these heavy metal shutters were opened, the whole process is extremely noisy.

But no-one heard the shutters being opened. Moreover, the children’s room was directly overlooked by a tall block of apartments on the other side of the street. Had the abductor really climbed out of that window, he would have been in the view of dozens of windows overlooking Apartment 5A. We now know that the shutters to Apartment 5A were actually closed when the police and Mark Warners’ staff arrived to check them. The McCanns’ initial explanation for this fact were that the shutters ‘must have been closed by the abductor as well as opened by him’. We have seen that the shutters could not be opened from the outside. This claim by the McCanns that the abductor ‘must have tried to close the shutters behind him’ prompts two related and very obvious questions:

1) having gained entry through an open patio door, what would possess an abductor to leave via a three-foot high, two-foot square closed window, with the shutters also closed? The McCanns’ abduction scenario would require him to have opened the windows and shutters, then tried to close the shutters behind him, when he could have simply walked through the already-open patio doors.

2) why and how, having allegedly scooped up Madeleine in his arms and opened the window and the shutters, would he have had the time and the physical ability to then close the shutters, all without making any sound or leaving any trace, without being seen by anyone, and without waking either Madeleine or the twins?

Moreover, all this would have had to have been accomplished in the dark - unless the alleged abductor switched the lights on when he entered the apartment and then remembered to switch them off again as he was making his exit. No-one saw any lights on in the apartment. The McCanns have admitted that they left the children in the darkness, with the shutters and curtains closed, when they went out for their evening’s entertainment.

Therefore, to sum up - according to the McCanns’ scenario, the abductor would have to have:

* First - either picked an opportunity to enter the apartment after the McCanns had left for the Tapas bar at between 8.30pm and 9.00pm - or entered the apartment immediately after he had seen first Dr Matthew Oldfield and then Gerry McCann enter and leave the apartment at around 9.05pm to 9.15pm;

[NOTE: if the former of these two alternatives, then the abductor must have been in the apartment with Dr Gerry McCann during the five to ten minutes or so he was checking on the children - as Dr McCann indeed claimed last year]

* Second - walked through the open patio door without being seen;

* Third - found Madeleine in the dark;

* Fourth - picked her up, without waking her or the twins, and without leaving any forensic trace on the bed;

* Fifth - opened the window - without leaving any fingerprints;

* Sixth - opened the shutters from the inside (with nobody hearing him doing so, and once again without leaving any fingerprints);

* Seventh - climbed through the window, somehow carrying Madeleine with him - again without being seen by anyone, and again without leaving any fingerprints;

* Eighth - he would then have had to close the very noisy shutters, using controls operated from the inside - while still having Madeleine in his arms, or having laid her down on the patio, and

* Ninth - he made his escape without being seen by anyone except for afew fleeting seconds by Jane Tanner at around 9.15pm.

The operation of climbing through the window would have been physically very difficult, if not impossible, to do without (a) even brushing away even a tiny piece of the years-old lichen growing on the window-sill or (b) leaving any clothing fibres or other forensic evidence.

He must in addition have accomplished this whole operation in near total darkness and without being seen or heard by anyone except Jane Tanner. At the very moment that Jane Tanner says she saw the alleged abductor, Dr Gerald McCann was chatting away to holiday friend Jeremy (‘Jez’) Wilkins. Neither man saw or heard the alleged abductor despite being so close.

If the abductor had Madeleine in his arms as he climbed out of the window, and bearing in mind he was in near darkness, he would have been unable to see anything below her or much to either side as he fumbled through the window and shutters and tried to escape from the apartment precincts. Why he would do this when there was an open patio door to walk back through is incomprehensible. The McCanns only came up with the scenario of the abductor entering the unlocked patio door and then escaping via the window after learning that there was no evidence that the shutters had been tampered with, as they had told their relatives the night Madeleine disappeared.

Finally let us look for a moment at another aspect of the McCanns’ scenario. They have claimed on many occasions that an abductor must have been ‘casing the joint’ for several days beforehand - and then pounced and abducted Madeleine when he had the chance. The McCanns claim that he would have been closely watching them, including observing what the McCanns claim as their routine of half-hourly checking.

The McCanns have gone further and have suggested - in a lengthy TV interview for the BBC’s Panorama programme - that the abductor must have been making notes on their movements, allegedly carefully observing the times of their departures from the apartment. But this does not seem plausible given that neither the McCanns, nor their ‘Tapas 9’ friends, have given any details of how often (if at all) they were checking on their children whilst out wining and dining – apart from on the night Madeleine was reported missing.

Another problem about the McCanns’ abduction scenario is that there is nowhere that the abductor could have been observing the McCanns’ apartment without being seen - unless, that is, he was living or operating from one of the flats opposite the McCanns’ apartment, some of which overlooked it. It is understood that the occupants of these flats have all been investigated and their statements corroborated. None of them had anyone in their flat who was watching the McCanns’ apartment, nor was anyone seen acting suspiciously or hanging around in that area during the week the McCanns and their friends were there, except for one man who has been identified and eliminated from police enquiries.

The other obvious problem about the claim of an abductor ‘casing the joint’ is this:- Suppose an abductor had been watching the McCanns’ apartment day in and day out. On the McCanns’ own timeline, he would have seen the McCanns leave for the Tapas bar at 8.30pm. If, therefore, as claimed, an abductor had been watching the premises, he would presumably have chosen a moment as soon as possible after 8.30pm to abduct Madeleine - i.e., immediately after Drs Gerry and Kate McCann had left for the Tapas bar (on their own account) at around 8.30pm.

Yet, if he had entered the flat just after the McCanns left at 8.30pm, how come he was not long gone 35-40 minutes later when Dr Gerald McCann did his check? After all, Dr McCann now believes that the abductor may have even been present for the entire five to ten minutes or so that he was doing his check i.e. between 9.05pm and 9.10pm/9.15pm.

Yet a further difficulty for this improbable scenario is that Dr Matthew Oldfield claims that he did two checks - one at around 9.00pm, (various times have been given for this alleged check) and the other around 9.30pm. Dr Oldfield claims that during his 9.00pm visit he ‘checked’ from the outside but saw and heard nothing. He also said that the shutters were ‘tight shut’. If indeed the abductor really had entered before both Dr Matthew Oldfield’s alleged check (around 9.00pm) and Dr McCann’s check (around 9.05pm), then he was exceptionally lucky, to put it mildly, not to have been detected by either man.

There are equal if not even greater problems with the suggestion that the abductor entered the apartment and removed Madeleine only after Drs Oldfield and McCann had done their checks. Would any abductor really have dashed into the apartment after first seeing Dr Oldfield checking the outside of the apartment at around 9.00pm - and then seen Gerry spending five to ten minutes checking between 9.05pm and 9.15pm? It would surely have been far too risky.

And if he entered the apartment after Dr Gerry McCann left at say 9.10pm at the earliest, he would scarcely have had time to enter the flat, remove Madeleine, open the window and shutters, close them behind him etc. and then be seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.

.

Sadly, no British newspaper or magazine has offered an analysis, like the one above, of the unlikelihood of the abduction having occurred in the way the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends claim it ‘must have’ happened.

I conclude by saying that I am not saying the abduction of Madeleine never happened. But I confess I do find it very difficult to understand, given all that has been said about it, how it could have happened."

.

Perhaps Leicestershire Constabulary Might Answer This Jim Gamble Question?

2010-02-03T19:23:00.000-08:00

.

Given that Leicestershire Constabulary's behaviour is every bit as anomalous as Jim Gambles, surely they can give us the answer.

In fact I would go as far as to say, substitute the words Jim Gamble with those of Leicestershire Constabulary and you would hardly notice difference, just about every talking point is exactly the same.

But what is most definitely the same, cloned in fact, is you, the CEOP and you, Leicester plod, have spunked away any bit of credibility that you may have once possessed.

And you have both spunked it away for the same bloke, Gerry McCann!

You've wanked away your credibility for Gerry, "there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine has come to serious harm," McCann. What an earth are we supposed to make of that?

Providing a Second to None Police Service! Stroll on! does nobody get embarrassed anymore?

....Why then does Gamble, a policeman of some years standing, whose entire professional life has been spent amassing and interpreting evidence in the prosecution of the bad guys, now suddenly find the need to part with his fundamental beliefs and work practices. Gambles police tradition and training is but the very foundation and bedrock in the adversarial process of prosecution yet Gamble now forsakes his intelligence and rational, one that has plainly stood him in good stead as he attained a most senior rank within the police force, for the mindset of mystery, of cartoon drawing and questionable associations that owe more to the PR industry, to advertising and to money making than the judicial investigative process.

The serious matter of addressing the facts surrounding the McCanns as persons with a history as suspects in a police investigation into the disappearance of their own daughter seems to be just one of the many salient facts in question that Gamble was eager to dispense with even from the very first days of the police investigation. The Portuguese police on searching the McCanns Mark Warner apartment were astounded to find CEOP manuals, documents and reading material. All of this was thoughtfully supplied from Gambles organisation. This even despite the warnings that some of the literature carried which amazed the Portuguese police as it was clearly marked as only fit for circulation to staff members and trained professionals. Gambles loyalty to the McCanns knows no bounds.

It is therefore only natural we all should address the burning question as to why it might be that Gamble chooses to display such utter oneness with the McCanns in what is after an abduction scenario the McCanns invented. This abduction scenario is one entirely manufactured by the McCanns and is one for which there is no evidence either in terms of support or justification, apart that is from exonerating the parents liability at all times. lots more McCann Unravels

How Does It Go?

2010-02-03T11:00:00.000-08:00

The Superintendent Stuart Prior, the English police inspector who made the liaison with the Portuguese authorities in the Maddie case, has contacted the PJ to express his annoyance at the suspicions of paedophilia raised about a friend of the McCanns, David Payne. [read the official statements here 'David Payne May Hold the Key to Maddie's Mystery'] The British doctor was part of the group staying in Praia da Luz, at the time of Maddie's disappearance from the apartment where she slept in the tourist resort in the Algarve.

The informal phone calls of this senior officer - who was accused at the time of protecting Kate and Gerry McCann - are interpreted by Judiciary Police sources as "an attempt of intimidation to stop future endeavours."

The CM established that Stuart Prior, the head of the Leicestershire Police Constabulary (area where the McCanns live), nuisance' regarding the suspicions over David Payne raised by Gonçalo Amaral. The former coordinator of the PJ in Portimão questioned the lack of explanations regarding 'the bath given to the children on the day Maddie disappeared'.

The parents gave an interview to the famous TV presenter in the U.S. Oprah Winfrey, which will be broadcast Monday.

Amaral, who was removed from coordinating the case precisely because he accused the English police of taking sides with Gerry and Kate, believes that 'promiscuity continues between the couple and the British authorities'. According to the former police inspector 'only very influential people can send send messages through the police'.

Details

To Reopen the Case

Gonçalo Amaral, together with other Portuguese and foreign former police inspectors, is examining evidences left behind after his departure 'to discover the truth and to make possible the reopening of the case'.

Keeping the Mystery

The researcher Madalena Oliveira, from the University of Minho, has no doubts that 'a strong public relations machine around the parents' was set in motion.

Fired this month

The 21 Ocean Club employees who were dismissed, cease to work this month. Indemnifications only in August.

Source: Correio da Manhã via Joana Morais.

For visitors from other cultures or those short in the tooth, this(statue text) or Amazon. should make the post a little more meaningful.

.