Thursday, 25 November 2010

My Thanksgiving Turkey to ALL of You.


Our friend yawn has, once again, made his/her appearance in this blog.

This is the comment (s)he left, on our "All Paths Lead to Rome" post, that I decided to give it a much greater visibility. by publishing it here:

"@ anon 2.39pm
What a load of complete horsesh*t.
At least try to get your facts right. Mrs Fenn did report the incident to the police very soon after Madeleine was taken - it was months before they decided to take a proper statement from her. What I think about the McCanns is unprintable. And so is what I think of people who insult and denigrate an entirely innocent witness simply in the furtherance of promoting their own barmy theory"

It was not because of yawn’s fetish with horse manure that I did publish the comment here, nor about, a trademark of this character, how (s)he claims to loath the McCanns so much, but just loathes slightly more all those that accuse, in his/her opinion, a particular set of "innocent" people.

The last time, if I recall, was when we here talked of the Murats. Now, it’s because of Fenn.

I did find strange the silence when we here exposed Jez Wilkins' “lesser truths”, but that has got to do with yawn's blog, or at least the one I think (s)he's running, whereby (s)he purposefully pursued a misconstruction based on the Jez’s guilt.

But that just a side issue, of the many that many try to get me distracted with.

I printed this comment because of the second paragraph.

According to this charming character, Mrs Fenn reported to the police this soon after the incident, a fact ignored by Mrs Fenn in her own statement, as she makes no reference whatsoever to any prior reporting.

Then, yawn, with the usual absence of justification or evidence, proceeds to accuse the, to him/her blundering, cops to take months to decide to take a proper statement from this witness.

But, there is some backing to what yawn has to say, although (s)he’s not polite enough to let us know, and that is s/he's relaying what has been said in that reliable source of truthful information that is The Sun, our inseparable friend in all this journey, in a story printed on Aug 18th, 2007:

“Meanwhile Portuguese cops were again under fire. The woman living in the apartment above the McCanns claimed she had not been spoken to by police until the British team arrived two weeks ago.

Is it me, or do I detect a slight hint of racism in these words?

It seems that the “Portuguese cops” weren’t astute enough to determine that the McCanns had an upstairs neighbour, that could be of interest to have been heard as soon as possible.

Only when the British team arrived, were they, apparently, enlightened of this fact.

By the way, which “British team” is this that arrived at the beginning of August 2007?

Or is The Sun implying that the British authorities started to cooperate with the Portuguese from ONLY then on?

“Expat Pamela Fenn, 73, told them she disturbed a burglar at her apartment about three weeks before Maddie vanished. She is now to give a formal statement to Portuguese officers.”

Odd behavior for non-curious, non-busybody elderly lady, about the burglar, but the relevant thing here is that we have a newspaper reporting on August 18th, 2007, a Saturday, that Mrs Fenn, although contacted by her friends of the “British team” somewhere in the two weeks before, has yet, on that date, to be heard by the Portuguese police.

And effectively she’s only heard on Monday, Aug 20th.

As everyone knows, the Portuguese police only work on week days, and, as also everyone was aware at the time, Maddie had then very little priority for them, or to anyone else  in Portugal, or the world for that matter.

After all, it was still sardine-munching time of year wasn’t it?

But wait… if the story was printed on a Saturday, then the interview must at least have been done on the Friday before. If she wasn't heard that Friday, it must've been because the Portuguese cops must have had that afternoon off as well. You know, these lunches filled with whisky tend to prolong themselves until it's time to close office...

“A friend said: "She was surprised that neither the police nor the McCanns had approached her before."”

Always good to have a friend when you need one, and, as you can see, the full appliance of the beautiful technique of going against the McCanns to achieve what the McCanns want.

Pamela also said her niece, who stayed with her the week Maddie disappeared, spotted somebody fitting the description of a man seen carrying a child away under a blanket. The pal added: "He was acting suspiciously." The niece has given a statement to police in Britain.””

Compliant with what she says to the PJ on the 20th, although leaving out in this interview that the facts happened on May 3rd, and leaving out in her statement to the PJ the important fact that her niece had seen a man that  fitted the description of a man seen carrying a child away with a blanket. A perfectly minor and overlookable detail...

So, according to The Sun, quoting Mrs Fenn, we’re to believe, that the PJ questions everyone, from the Tapas to the maids, and whoever got a finger pointed at for supposedly having been seen with a blonde little girl at that time of year, but forgets to enquire the upstairs neighbour of where the supposed abduction occurred.

There’s no written statement from Mrs Fenn on the days that followed, but does that mean that the PJ didn’t knock on her door?

They certainly did. And if they got an answer that she saw or heard anything suspicious, from the day her downstairs neighbours arrived to the day the supposed events were supposed to have happened, would there be a written statement from her? Of course there would.

But there isn't one then, and that's a fact. The PJ, comprehensibly, only made statements out of those people that had something to say, even if apparently insignificant, like the first statements by Jez Wilkins.

There are also statements from people who provide no information at all, like those by some Ocean Club workers, but these were called in as a group, and as I just said, their existence in the process is correct and useful, like it would have been in the case of Mrs Fenn if they had written it down, and have her signed, that she heard and saw absolutely nothing.

And I say this not because of any particular suspicion towards the witnesss, but because this “absence” of clues from someone so close to the events, is a clue in itself, as she had nothing to declare.

Does the fact that there’s no Fenn statement in the PJ Files dated in the following days of the alleged abduction, prove that the PJ didn’t speak to her? No, and you know it doesn’t.

It’s a normal case of asking a witness if she saw or heard anything, and he/she saying that he/she didn’t hear or see anything suspicious, and the cops moving on to the next possible witness.

If all who said to the cops, when asked, that they saw nothing, had their statement put on the file, we’d have a ridiculous amount of paper added to the already rather large existing one.

But the fact that Mrs Fenn, not once, says, or hints, that she’s spoken to the police before, is proof that she either didn’t speak to them, or when she did, she said nothing they felt they had to report.

To even consider that the police would forget to speak to this potential witness is even beyond yawn as can be read in the comment above, as only the police's indecision is to be blamed.

But yawn’s comment, reflects, my friends, if not THE MOST IMPORTANT thing that I’ve ever posted to date, it certainly is one of the most important. Its content is crucial to unravel the whole Maddie McCann mystery: the very peculiar relationship between Mrs Fenn and the police.

So says Mrs Fenn, on Aug 20th, 2007: On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece Carole during the morning, who said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment, situation which has been told to the police, her family member even made a photo fit"”

I’ve put the whole paragraph in bold, because there’s not one word in it that’s not important.

So let try and break down into main ideas:

#1 - On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece Carole during the morning.

# 2 - “Carole” (Carol Tranmer-Fenn) (…) said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment.

#3 - (This) situation (…) has been told to the police, her family member even made a photo fit.

First, if she had stated, on the evening of May 3rd, to the GNR, what she says above, wouldn’t she certainly have been one of the people to be heard by the PJ on May, 4th?

And her niece called in at once to testify?

With THAT importance of information, she obviously didn’t need to have the police come to her, she HAD the obligation to, as soon she heard from Gerry’s mouth that a mall girl had been abducted, tell him there and then that vital piece of information, and get that information as quickly as possible to the adequate authorities.

But she doesn't do that, does she?

But that’s not what I said would be important about this post. About #1 and #2, I’ll get to it later.

Let’s get our hands on what matters: #3: this situation has been told to the police, her niece Carol even made a photo fit.

Have you ever seen this photo fit?

Have you, before Aug 20th, ever read any statement by Mrs Fenn’s niece?

No, you haven’t.

Is Mrs Fenn lying? No, this time she’s saying the absolute truth.

So where are Carol’s statement and her photo fit?

Let’s give a closer look at Mrs Fenn’s niece, Carol Tranmer-Fenn, April 22nd, 2008, rogatory statement:

CAROL TRANMER-FENN: After arriving home, Sunday (May 6th, 2007) morning we woke and read the Times Sunday paper. There we saw my aunt's apartment and the notice about the missing child. I did not want to believe it and for this reason telephoned her and said: 'Did you see'' to which she responded 'It was been an inferno, terrible since both of you left'.
After this I spoke with my cousin, whose son is at ****** and told her 'What do you think we should do, do you think'' because at this time I remembered that I had seen something.
It did not come to me right away but afterwards I told my husband 'Well, I saw that funny situation, you know'that type of behavior of the individual, with a sneaky aspect' to which he responded, 'Well you should talk to the police', and I said 'Yes, but it is likely that it has nothing to do with it'.
After, we thought a bit more about it and I telephoned my cousin who is at ****** and he told me that I should call the police and tell them.
I did exactly this. I telephoned the Windsor police and told them, more or less, what I had told him and to my family. They told me that they would give me a number to call the Leicester police. We passed by the Windsor squadron but it is clear that no one was there so I called the Leicester police and told them basically what I had seen.
They told me, well'thank you, we are going to get in touch with you, and after that everything happened. This is what happened, more or less.

(...)
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Thus, this was when I called them, that is when you, sir, called me.
DC1485: Yes.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: After that, you booked a meeting time so that someone could come and speak with me
DC1485: Yes.

(…)

DC1485: Okay Carol. I have read your statement from the 8th of May, 2007, more or less one week after you saw the individual. It would be easier if you read the statement yourself and tell me if there is anything you want to add.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Mmm
DC1485: I would like to analyse a few parts of your statement with you, if you allow me, and to stimulate your memory to see if you remember anything else in relation to your stay.

(…)

DC1485: Perhaps you have already answered before but what I want you to do, it to respond with as much detail possible. Good, the first questions is ' do you attest to you statement given to the British police in May of two thousand'eight of may of 2007. Do you attest to the statement that was made on this day to the police, the same statement that I showed you on the 8th of May'
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Yes.
DC1485: This statement is yours
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Yes.
DC1485: I will only, it is not necessary to read, but I am going to show you as it is necessary to confirm your statement and that it is your statement.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: It appears to be, yes.
DC1485: Yes.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Yes.
DC1485: Okay, thank you, and the only anomaly is the incorrect date.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: The date, the date is definitely wrong.
DC1485: Yes.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: We had arrived on the 28th or the 29th of...
DC1485: April.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: April, yes. It was in April and not in May.

Now, isn’t this interesting? We apparently have a statement given on May 8th, 2007, to the Leicester police (with a photo fit, which is also quite adventurous and I’ll speak about it later), that is NOT to be found on the PJ Files.

You might say that there are pages missing from the PJ Files, and that could be it.

It doesn’t explain though, why after we’ve been fed by so many photo-fits, THIS ONE has never been presented to us to this day.

But is Carol Tranmer-Fenn’s (CTF) statement really missing? We know, for certain that it was taken on May 8th, 2007, by CTF’s initiative, and not by any request made by the PJ.

A further proof that Mrs Fenn said nothing to the authorities at the time she should have said so.

Notice that CFT’s decision to come forward comes after contacts with relatives in the UK and not with her aunt.

Probably, somewhere along the line, Mrs Fenn got to know that CFT had been to the police, but there’s nothing to guarantee us that.

What we have guaranteed is that the PJ is totally unaware that CFT has spoken to the British police on May 8th, 2007.

Let’s see what the PJ Files tell us:

VOL I
1 to 118 – all pages accounted for.
119 to 120 - External diligence carried out re: Jeremy Wilkins
121 to 217 – all pages accounted for.

Vol II
218 to 473 – all pages accounted for.
474 - Missing page
475 to 493 – all pages accounted for.
494 to 505 - Sketch provided by Jeremy Wilkins and statement in English 2007.05.07 506 - Confirmation above fax sent
507 to 510 – all pages accounted for.
510 to 512 - Letter from Dr. Amaral regarding possible questions for Jeremy Wilkins 2007.05.07 ( English) 513 - Conformation above letter sent
514 to 520 – all pages accounted for.

Vol III
521 to 728 – all pages accounted for.
729 to 736 - Translation of Leicestershire police constabulary documents with Wilkins - statement
737 to 753 – all pages accounted for.
754 to 757 - Missing pages
758 to 831 – all pages accounted for.

Vol IV
832 to 1118 – all pages accounted for.

Vol V
1119 to 1245 – all pages accounted for.
1246 to 1254 - Missing pages (events 13/14 May)

No sign of CFT’s May 8th, 2007 statement. We see that the Leicester Police fax machine was working on May 7th, 2007, when it sent Jez Wilkin's hand written statement, given on that same day.

Later, 224 pages later, Jez Wilkins statement appears in the files, in its translated form.

Could the CFT May 8th, 2007, statement be the missing pages from 754 to 757? They could certainly, but where are then the pages with the respective translated form?

As you can see next set of missing pages only appear 500 pages later, 489 to be precise, and with a whole volume in-between, and the documentation that was inserted had to do with events around May 13th/14th , which would mean 5 days to translate 3 pages.

And would those 3 pages translate into 8? Jez Wilkins’ 11 pages, turned out to be only 7 translated ones. So where is CFT’s May 8th, 2007, statement?

The Leicester police withheld it.

Why, is something we’ll discuss later, the relevant fact, right now is that the British police withheld it.

CFT is called in for rogatory statement, only AFTER her aunt refers her name, on Aug 20th, 2007, because “Carole (Carol Tranmer-Fenn) (…) said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment”.

Isn’t this a RELEVANT piece of information to be sent to the leading investigators, the PJ, taking into account that the facts witnessed happened on the afternoon the victim was abducted? No question about it, whatsoever.

Just from this, and until proven otherwise, and I honestly don't see how it can be, this is PROOF, that the Leicester Police, intentionally DID NOT SEND pertinent information to the PJ.

This is, as far as I know, called obstruction of justice.

A serious crime, and a serious accusation to make about a police force, but, unfortunately, in this case, it seems not be an unconsubstantiated one.

It confirms what we already suspected but had no proof of.

The British have their own agenda, and certainly isn’t finding Justice for Maddie.

This means that relevant information to the investigation concerning the disappearance of the British citizen, Madeleine Beth McCann, was withheld in Britain, by official British authorities, from those responsible to lead the said investigation, the PJ.

This can only mean that after only five days that Maddie had disappeared, the British police knew clearly that there had been no abduction, and that what was happening in the Algarve was just a wild goose chase. Portuguese tax-payers money thrown away by the bundles.

It also means that the same police was making pretty sure that the hounds turned on the hunters so that the fox would get away, to use as an example a typical British “sport”, that I think to be deplorable.

The statement was shown to CFT on April 22nd, 2008, and she acknowledges, so it was neither destroyed, nor lost somewhere.

Distraction is also not an excuse. Not only because its content is much too relevant, but as well as, that as from when The Sun reports it, and Mrs Fenn speaks ot it, until April 22nd, 2008, there’s plenty of time to send it in.

And it could always have been sent together with CFT’s rogatory statement, couldn’t it?

And, if you remember, Mr. Smith also came on his own foot to the Irish police, and the PJ was promptly informed.

But that was in Ireland, not UK.

CFT's April 22nd, 2008 statement is filed and stored somewhere, in Britain. That means that Kate McCann is absolutely correct when she says that there are TWO processes that should be joined up. Obviously one of them shouldn’t exist, as per letter received from the Home Office : “The Government’s primary concern in this case is the welfare of Madeleine herself. This remains a Portuguese case and decisions about its handing are a matter for them. We continue to liaise with them as appropriate”

To liaise does not mean you run your own investigation, it means you liaise with whoever is running it. That simple.

This attitude on the part of the British police might, however, explain many things

For example, it might explain why things were centralized in the Leicestershire Constabulary instead of in the Scotland Yard where it should, in my opinion, have been.

The supposed crime occurred with a British citizen overseas, not in his area of residence. In Portugal, the PJ took this issue into their own hands, and did not send it to the local Lagos police station to control and run the case.

It might also explain why the DNA sample results got lost somewhere… in Britain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I’m speculating for the first time in this post, they are together with CFT’s May 08th, 2007 statement and a blue tennis bag filled with compromising clothing.

Also maybe, and speculating again, it explains why and how the Amaral’s F-Word BBC footage has “disappeared”, together with the one where a Mrs Fenn’s friend speaks about the McCanns and Chaplins.

It certainly explains why people are stopping to believe in Justice and are seeking in us, bloggers, the respect that they feel has been taken away from them.

The respect that is due to those wanting to live in a just, fair and truthful world.

Justice is supposed to be blind to all those that betray her, but has now become blind to herself.

That’s why “The Establishment” hates so much and does all it can to minimizes the blogs and minimize their importance.

Can you now see how important Mrs. Fenn’s statement really is, and what it really, really entails? Now may be opportune the time for one to ask, where have all the good journalists gone?

 
Do have a happy and fulfilling Thanksgiving.

I’m off to a friend’s house, where we all will remember to thank the so many little wonderful things that our everyday lives sometimes do make us forget we should really be grateful for, so your comments, if any, will only be posted tomorrow morning.
Many thanks to Pamalam.

32 comments:

  1. Christ you are such a fuckwit.

    Loads of stuff gathered by LP is missing, mainly because it would have infringed every civil liberty to have allowed them to be published. There are documents about this in the process file if you could be arsed to read them

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bonnie Tayler has a nice house in Algarve, by the way.

    Why did you published her photo?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have a theory about what happened to Madeleine McCann. It's not a theory for which you have any evidence. You actually describe what you think happened in almost pornographic terms.

    If that wasn't disturbing enough, you have indulged in a completely reprehensible and paranoid character assassination of any witness whose statement doesn't support your theory. And you do all this to the fawning appreciation of a little gang of admirers.

    It is thanks in no small part to people like you, Textusa, that the McCanns enjoy the support they do, and have never been properly called to account for their behaviour. Your paranoia and mental instability is evident to anyone reading your flights of fancy. And it doesn't just extend to libelling innocent witnesses - you are now indulging in full blown fantasies about the people who leave comments on your blog, too.

    You don't like anyone disagreeing with you, do you, Textusa? And why is that? It's because you're a narcissist. You have a hugely overblown sense of your own importance. In fact, you fit the criteria for a fanatic type of Narcissist, with typical paranoid features, to an absolute T. You are using this case and this blog purely for the purposes of self-reinforcement and developing your grandiose fantasies.

    Know who else does that, Textusa? I'll give you a clue - he used to write a blog, too.

    In the past year I have seen you write in the most appalling terms about people who come to this process merely as witnesses. People who saw something or heard something or knew something and came forward to say so. What the hell do you think gives you the right to speak about these people in such terms, Textusa? You have no such right - but that doesn't matter to you, because the most important thing to you is your theory, and your continual self-aggrandisement.

    Your blog appeals to one type of person in particular - shallow, stupid, unable to think for themselves. They come here for their little frisson of excitement, and play up to your constant need for reassurance. They are, in essence, the friends who encourage you in your destructive behaviour because none of them care enough to say ''stop''. Why would they? They get their vicarious thrills from you.

    In your last post you said ''a trademark of this character, how (s)he claims to loath the McCanns so much, but just loathes slightly more all those that accuse, in his/her opinion, innocent people.''

    The really sad part, Textusa, is that you can't even see what a sad, self regarding comment that is. You see nothing wrong in accusing innocent people, and lets not pretend that their innocence is a matter of opinion. They are accused of no crime. Except by you.

    The fact that you are prepared to accuse innocent people of appalling crimes simply to promote your own twisted theory does indeed make me loathe you even more than I loathe the McCanns. You are a bully, Textusa. You attack those who can't fight back. You are poorly informed when it comes to this case, and don't appear to have done your research properly, obviously far too busy with your little pictures and graphics.

    People are catching on, Textusa. The more insane your contributions grow, the more people realise how little grasp on reality you retain. You have seen the comments

    You won't take any notice of this, of course. And you certainly won't publish it - but that's okay. It will find a home elsewhere.

    As for you, there is little point suggesting you get the help you so obviously need - the illusion of omnipotence you hang on to has too firm a grip for you to let go of your own accord, and let's be honest it's all that keeps you from facing whatever it is that is so lacking in your life.

    Your posts will continue to be challenged, Textusa. Doesn't matter if you publish them or not - like I said, they will find a home regardless. You just carry on being the laughing stock you have become, okay?

    ReplyDelete
  4. When I read the theory, when it appeared, I believed it too. I also think that may be present. We will never know. Unfortunately the couple and the Tapas did everything not to be punished.
    I agree that there has always been obstruction of justice. For this whole group and the power connections of the two countries. A girl will always be no justice.
    Parents were the first not to cooperate with the investigation.
    Who is without a Son or Daughter, REALLY gone, works, does everything, but all of TRUTH. Not with weird schemes.
    I acknowledge also my country's subservience to the British. They had everything at their disposal. But for the favor.
    I, like many, I believe in guilt all the couple's staff and supporters, friends and influential power. I believe that the "witnesses" have been pressured and manipulated as well.
    This girl will always be no justice. It is unfair and a great affront.

    We are free to think, reason and put our thoughts and theories.
    I do not understand how there are people who become so angry.
    Innocent? Where is Madeleine's innocence in this case?

    This case is not innocent.

    Innocent was the girl. A completely innocent victim and used permanently.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There seems to be some interest with the Mary Smith statement given to the gardai it has been kept apart for reasons it would seem may be important if the case should ever be re-opened. This is all I know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-smiths-really-saw.html?spref=tw

    The beige pants with the buttons noticed by a member of the Smith family seen here worn by Gerry McCann. And a comment asking the blog to keep silent over what they know about Mary Smiths statement.

    It would appear there is still much more to know about the Smith sighting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon 7:17

    What is CFT's statement got to with "civil liberty"?

    Textusa is saying that the statement appears to be missing from the files, and have not, as they could if they were so secretive, been pulled out. THEY'RE MISSING.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 4:29, or should we say yawn, stop your futile attacks on the messenger and question, if you nay the message. Ans do stop being vague as you're usually are. If you say it's written, say where, as Textusa is doing, if you say someone said, say who says it like Textusa is doing. It seems you're the one NOT reading the comments. Mrs Fenn from the FACTS presented (and please don't ask what facts, they are there for you to read) is far from an innocent witness. Neither is Murat. Neither is Wilkins

    ReplyDelete
  9. Murat, Fenn and Wilkins - The triumvirate of evil, all involved in an epic tale to support a twisted theory that has no basis.

    It could be so simple. A child dies and the parents decide to hide the body and enact a nightly kidnapping while everybody is asleep. No danger of neglect charges, no need for elaborate timelines that don't fit. Then comes along a family of nine in a usually deserted lane and the whole plan is turned upside down.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon @ 4,29
    "
    Your blog appeals to one type of person in particular - shallow, stupid, unable to think for themselves"

    I ca assure you I and many, many others do not fit this description, quite the opposite. You are talking about Chaosrapters blog where everone follows the Mc spin. I guess because it has closed down you have to post elsewhere.
    As soon as someone gets as defensive as you have there is a reason. Why are you so involved in defending potential witnesses?
    How can Textusa or anyone else read something that is MISSING?

    I'm not at all surprised Textusa allowed your comment, it speaks volumes. Readers here have open minds and the intelligence to weigh up the available evidence. I notice you offered nothing to the debate apart from aggression. Being rude to someone who has given plausible information is 'leaving no stone unturned' which is what the Mc purport to do. Have they ever spoken to Mrs F? I doubt it, what would be the point? I know I would quiz my neighbours mercilessly for any recollections.

    You can be as rude and defensive as you like but the readers here will not be put off taking on board the things Textusa has to say. She is not afraid to speak out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 4:29

    After three and a half years, there isn't a single evidence to state that Madeleine was abducted. Furthermore, the windows shutters in apartment 5A were not «jemmied» as alleged by Gerry's sister and other McCann family members.

    On the "scathing" attacks made by the McCann family and PRs, regarding the CSI dogs (and on the Portuguese Police) - brought to Portugal on the advise of the British NPIA's Homicide Experts - the only traces of cadaver odour, human blood and human fluids, inconclusive but compatible to Madeleine's DNA, were found on the McCanns' car, on Kate McCann clothes, on Madeleine's plush toy, on other McCann family belongings and inside apartment 5A.

    After three and a half years, there isn't a single evidence to state that Madeleine was abducted, in fact, all the investigation to Madeleine's disappearance made by several police forces in cooperation with the Portuguese Judiciary Police, point that:

    1) The child, Madeleine McCann, died in the Ocean Club Apartment, in Praia da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007;
    2) A simulation of an abduction took place;
    3) Kate Marie Healy and Gerald Patrick McCann are suspected of being involved in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver,
    4) The death may have been the outcome of a tragic accident;
    5) There are indications of neglect regarding the guardianship and security of the children.

    Why do you think Kate has washed the Cuddly Cat days before the British police arrival with trained dogs? Even then, the dog found death accent. Questioned by the police Kate said that she used to take cuddle cat to the morgue. Simple as that. That's how the toy was contaminated.

    Now, a question for you: do you use to take your kid's toys when you're cleaning your toilette? Very often? Oh Boy!

    Why do you think McCanns have not a public support from Theresa May?

    Is it because this case is a bomb? What kind of bomb (you're asking now). The EXPLODING KIND!

    I'm sure they will never wave from a jail window but I assure you they are condenmed to have peace no more.

    This case and all they've made with it is absolutely UNFORGIVABLE!

    5-A

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another load of idiots who haven't read the process files, but pretend to have done so.

    Can I suggest you read the sections pertaining to the legal discussions regarding which information could be included in the released files?

    Preferably BEFORE you accuse people of wrongdoing.

    As for anon @8.26, you are clearly another one with the same paranoia issues, fixated on entirely innocent witnesses. I'll tell you what, if you are so convinced these witnesses are complicit in some vast conspiracy, or lied in their witness statements, have you reported them to the police? No, of course you haven't. You are having far too much fun attacking them on here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Should I say,

    I Yaum @ 4:29?

    You seems to be describing yourself in your post. You lost the north everytime Textusa come with something very well fundamented, based on facts related with the investigation, showing a hard and very intelligent work behind scenes.
    Are you related with Mccann's or with some witnesses? If not, why so many worries and a completely despicable vocabulary when some issues are discussed or exposed here? You can disagree. Free opinion is a most. What is unacceptable is the complete waste of words, insulting people that work without being payed, just because innocent childs deserve to be respected and deserve justice. You know, if witnesses feel unconfortable with what is been said about them in the blogs, they can always contact PJ to give their statements. The case was shelved, not closed. Any relevant statement from a witness close to the crime scene is relevant and could lead the case to be reopenned. Who is stopping this people? I believe, nobody in Portugal. Somebody behind scenes knocked on their doors to buy or impose their silence. Murat was approched by Brian Kennedy. Why should I retray my feeling that other witnesses were aproached as well?
    I can assure you that PJ and GNR knocked on the doors of all people around the OC few hours after being called there. Because that is a normal procedure for all polices including Portugal. Few years ago I had my Puppy stolled from a small vilage in the north of Portugal. I report the missing dog to GNR office and they immediately start questionning the people in the village and on the surrounds. Nobody signed papers. Two weeks later, GNR call me saying that they already know what happened to the dog and where it could be. It was summer time and a couple driving a car with a french plate was seen in the street in front of my granny house and in the cafe with a dog fitting the description of mine. The couple return to France and GNR wants to know if I want them to go ahead trying to locate the dog in France or not, because I will maybe need a lawyer if the couple refuse to hand the dog back voluntarely and even if I had the vaccination card with me and the municipality registration, will be hard to prove that the dog was mine. He had no chip ( at the time was not usual to put the chip).
    I have no doubts that in a so sensitive case, as Madeleine, the police have done all the procedures they were allowed to do in the proper time. The British tabloids can print everything they want to fit thair agendas and destroy the reputation of PJ and Amaral. But Amaral is a top investigator, very respected in Portugal and Spain. He have solved with success many misterious and sensitive cases in Portugal. He is a very clever and intelligent Cop that's why he was called and incharged of that case. Then not surprised that Prime suspects and strange witnesses don't like him and don't like who defend his job and support the investigation of the official police. He and we, are disturbing their business.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I had my doubts, why you think Ms Fenn is lying. But then I have read elsewhere, that apart from her statement of a "crying Maddie" on Tuesday night which she only gave months later, she also supplied a niece immediately, who has seen a "suspicious man" in front of the McCann appartment.
    Seems she did a lot to support the abduction theory, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, if Textusa's "pornographic" theory of what really went on in that fatidic afternoon of the 3rd of May is sooo outrageous, so damaging to "some people's" reputations, then how come none of "those persons" have stayed silent and quiet and did absolutely nothing about it?! How is it possible that none of them has taken Textusa to court for grosse defamation???!!!
    I think Textusa is too close to the truth..."some people" are thinking..."better not stir the bees in their nest...let's play dead..."

    ReplyDelete
  16. To who accuse Textusa of bringing up a theory, why don't you spend some time reading what is available in many sources ( Pj files, Mccannfiles, Parmalan, Joana Morais blog, Hasta que se sepa la verdad blog, The Blacksmith Bureau blog, Amaral book, the book "Porque adoptamos Maddie)( This book was wrriten by many portuguese journalists who were been in the crime scene since day one) or a very interesting book called " A culpa dos Mccann" to get informed and able to made a factual opinion instead of coming to blogs like this one to insult and accuse who is doing a great research and not buying things that did not make sense.
    The Mccann's did not want a review? Then, some blogs are doing such review for free. Some anonymous as well. Sorry if what we find in our review is not helping their Theory, their agenda and their business. It really open other ways, far away from an abduction done by strangers. And who in one moment or another came to the saga and appeared in British tabloides seems to have the team Mccann behind.
    Regarding Mrs. Fenn statement to PJ. The time that she gave it is really interesting for me- It is when in UK, the DNA was under test, PJ was in standby waiting for the results and the British tabloids very busy trying to bring some entropy to the public to dismiss the work of the police and blame PJ.
    Carole is also an interesting character. She manage to see exactly the guy described by Jane Tanner looking to Mccann's flat, from her aunty terrace. How she knows that he was looking to Mccann's flat and not to any other since she said there is more flats and from the terrace the view was not clear or helping at all.
    Then come something interesting, she was looking for a property and was not the first time she went there to search for a property. Weeks before, she have been there. Murat and his girlfriend were property sellers. She came on the 28 April, same as the Mccann's and the Tapas. There is no many flights from UK in the same day. Not all the Tapas 9 came on the same flight. Then there is a huge possibility of Carol being travelling with Mccann's or with Some tapas.
    Leycester police, when interviewing Carol, came up with name of the place where she was staying in Algarve. Seems that that information was not gave by Carol. Then, who gave that information? Mrs. Fenn? Murat or the Tapas 9?
    Carol did not gave any account about the rest of the week. Only Sunday and the day that Madeleine went missing and on that day she said that Mrs. Fenn went out for lunch(Lagos) with her. And Carol leave Mrs. Fenn flat at 6:30. Was not that the time that Payne was arriving to help Kate? I can imagine somebody leaving a relative and looking at the watch to see exactly the time that the visit finnish. She seems to suffer from the same amnesia as other people- Not remembering vital information and then coming up with such details that I have to say WAW, unbeliverable. But there is more... Amazing to review what is available.

    ReplyDelete
  17. “blog appeals to one type of person in particular - shallow, stupid, unable to think for themselves. They come here for their little frisson of excitement”

    Well dear sir you are one of them / us

    Keep reading the blog you may learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yawn, this time 9:59, you’re RIGHT.

    TEXTUSA didn’t read the justifications for having those pages missing. Here they are:

    A - In the inquiry there are passages that contain information that can contend with the right to private life of people, not only British citizens, for whom there was found not the faintest hint of implication in this case, namely:

    Volume I, fls. 211/212: reference to an individual with a past linked to crimes of a sexual nature with children.

    Volume II
    - Fls. 293/297: is a list of individuals connected with the practice of sex crimes with minors and adolescents.
    - Fls. 298/300: reference to an individual linked with the practice of acts of pedophilia and exhibitionism;
    - Fls. 473/474: reference to an individual linked with the practice of acts of exhibitionism.

    Volume III, fls. 754/757: information and bibliographic record of a citizen in connection with acts of paedophilia.

    Volume V, fls. 1246/1254: list resulting from the search carried out in the PJ Database related to individuals of foreign nationality and linked with child sexual abuse and paedophilia.

    B - Taking into account that the essence of the Crimestoppers program is anonymity, creating a trust between the source and the police, and taking into account further that sometimes the identification of the source is not revealed, other than its e-mail address, because we believe that the rule of judicial secrecy should remain then those pages would also be removed and placed together in the Appendix previously mentioned in A above, to remain in the custody of the entity considered competent for its safe-keeping, for the sole purpose of demonstrating its existence, pursuant to Article 86(7) of the CPP.

    C - Finally one has to refer to Attachment VI - 2: it holds work and exploitation of information regarding any possibly relevant crime as well as a survey of localized crime and crime of a sexual character. The intelligence obtained, coming to the PJ from their own knowledge base, through the British authorities and by other sources, consisting of five volumes, also contains information that can contend with the right to a private life of persons, such that its remaining in the case file would be a violation of the rights of those same people, it being certain that nothing was found relating to the purpose of this case file.

    ************

    There you have it. The OFFICIAL explanation for all the missing pages mentioned in this post.

    As YOU can see, NONE of the missing pages are of CFT’s Statement which, even though she didn’t read this, makes TEXTUSA’s reasoning ABSOLUTELY correct, in terms that the missing pages were NOT of the missing statement.
    Do not divert attention. The statement is missing from the files. The pages in the process are numbered exactly to prove that all pages are there or not, so whatever was shown to CFT in April never came to Portugal. Read the post as to the reasons why.

    By the way, don’t you find it strange for a newspaper to know what a witness is to say before the police does? Independent of whatever the disgusting The Sun spews out, it’s a fact that on this particular instance, it reports on one day what is on the files two days later. Isn’t that telling?

    Don’t bother to answer, they’re rhetorical questions, for the readers of this blog, we know you’ll never provide an intellectual honest answer, not because you’re incapable, but because it serves you purposes to “clutter” up things.

    By the way… you people are quite fixated with porn, aren’t you?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yawn... you say “Mrs Fenn did report the incident to the police very soon after Madeleine was taken - it was months before they decided to take a proper statement from her.”, but Mrs Fenn and The Sun say that “Meanwhile Portuguese cops were again under fire. The woman living in the apartment above the McCanns claimed she had not been spoken to by police until the British team arrived two weeks ago.”
    So did she speak or not to the Police soon after the incident?… Don’t tell me your innocent witness lied to you too!

    ReplyDelete
  20. You’re scared aren’t you Yawn? You’re starting to really fear that one of these “innocent” witnesses that you promised that there would be no problem, starts to get upset, aren’t you? And they haven’t much to lose, do they? Not as much as those, like yourself, that asked them to lie. You told that there would be NO problem, you told them that you had the Police covering your back, and you told you had the full support of the Government that this wouldn't be known, didn’t you?
    You do ask how many other “innocent” witnesses is Textusa going to accuse next. You should. It's an interesting question, isn’t it? And you wish you knew the answer, because the next one might be one of those that won’t be pleased with you at all.
    Let’s wait and see. You, at least, insist in coming back and in keeping a very close watch on this blog. And you’re entitled to that, it’s public.
    And as we’re still on the accusation topic, what is the reason for you, in all the blog, yo use the expression “almost pornographic terms” applicable? Stop accusing the authors and readers of this blog of having sick, perverted minds. Promoting that idea is not a very good one, because people do, just like you, READ every these "long" posts, and don’t find anything of the like, It then it back at you. Do find in your vocabulary some other non-sexual related offensive wording to use next time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. People, look at how many words you've wasted on someone that isn't worth even one.

    This post is about the shameful behavior of the BRITISH POLICE. Textusa asks where are the journalists of our time?!? Isn't this enough evidence for you?!?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I'll tell you what, if you are so convinced these witnesses are complicit in some vast conspiracy, or lied in their witness statements, have you reported them to the police? No, of course you haven't. You are having far too much fun attacking them on here."

    What a ridiculous statement! If Dr Amaral doesn't get heard what chance have we, the mere mortals who read on blogs, have. So we walk into our nearest police station and provide them with information we have gathered from 'blogs' and they are going to take us seriously?

    Your challenge is worse than clutter!

    I have noticed the obsession with porn on pro Mc blogs too. Maybe that needs looking into?
    It could explain why they pros lose it big time if there is a chance their own nefarious pastimes will come under scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Should we say Yawn or Gerry Mccann? Who else could be so worried with discredit of some witnesses and keeping an eye on what is going on on some blogs? Only who run a fraudulent Fund based in a crime against his own daughter. And after more then 3 years, he remain the first suspect. As more time is passing, more information we achieve,more we read and more we appreciate the work of PJ- They were in the correct track and the British authorities have done a bad job to all British childs by helping a group of criminals run away and have a good life at the expenses of a child tragedy. This, yes, is so insultuous that is almost pornographic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Textusa, you haven’t yet explained why is Mrs Fenn is lying. I am now sure that she is, but I’m far from understanding the why. I’ve read Carol’s statement very attentively this time, and there are many other things that Mrs Fenn “forgets” to say, like it was in the afternoon and not morning, that the action that called Carol’s attention was the curious way the man opened and closed the gate (I think she’s talking about the Oldfield’s gate) and not because he was looking at the apartment. I honestly think that Carol is speaking truthfully. Am I wrong, and there’s something that has escaped me?
    Another thing, she has the visit the niece on a Sunday, hears the crying on the Tuesday that coincidentally is her niece’s birthday, and has the visit of her niece again on the Thursday. Three events that she would certainly refer to if she was speaking naturally “It was on the first of May, I remember because it was the birthday of a niece that visited me a couple of days before, and also on day that all the confusion happened…”
    Sorry to occupy so much space, but why does she come forward? She doesn’t give any explanation as to this. Carol explains quite in detail why she decided to call the authorities and she’ s in the UK, and Mrs Fenn one day decides to talk to a tabloid and then go to the police. Innocent is not a word I would to describe this lady

    ReplyDelete
  25. I’m not anon 8:26 but let me tell you that, as this blog is public, the police may read it, and take action or not, and what Tex highlights in this post, is what is the use to report anything to THIS police? They’ll look at it, say thank you, wait for you to leave and then wait instructions for what to do with it.

    But I’ll make deal with you. I hereby promise that I’ll file an official citizen’s complaint against Mrs Fenn’s for perjury and obstruction of justice, within a week of the McCann’s requesting the REOPENING, without limitations, not reviewing, of the process.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So is Yawn telling is that we should all go to our local police station and put in an official complaint? I did suspect he was something to do with the police but not after that statement. OR maybe that is a challenge because he knows no-one would be taken seriously if they did.

    Ever read the book by Inspector Gadget 'Perverting the Course of Justice'? Brilliant insight into UK policing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon Nov 26, 2010 6:49:00 PM said...

    You’re scared aren’t you Yawn? You’re starting to really fear that one of these “innocent” witnesses that you promised that there would be no problem, starts to get upset, aren’t you? And they haven’t much to lose, do they? Not as much as those, like yourself, that asked them to lie. You told that there would be NO problem, you told them that you had the Police covering your back, and you told you had the full support of the Government that this wouldn't be known, didn’t you?

    -----
    Tehehe. You nailed it. Funny. :-)
    Booh fucking hooh...
    The Secret Service is no longer what it was supposed to be... Darn.
    Thy cannot simply come here and try to intimidate ppl. Darn.

    Thy who hate foreigners! Thy who hate foreigners! LMAO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Christ you are such a fuckwit.

    Loads of stuff gathered by LP is missing, mainly because it would have infringed every civil liberty to have allowed them to be published. There are documents about this in the process file if you could be arsed to read them"

    Is this person a joke???
    Is s/he saying that the witheld documents that are not published because they infringe civil liberty CAN be read...please give us the link that 'you' know about and have obviously read!

    Why has this person had access to what the rest of us don't?

    Oh my goodness....what a spooky verification I have been asked for to post this comment...mcguilt!!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. So that you guys do understand my previous posting and have a good laugh as well:

    "Hear ye, hear ye..... come hither all ye xenophobes and treat thyself to a copy of Kate's book..... if ye hate foreigners, and believe we Brits are superior and beyond reproach, ye won't be disappointed!"

    LMFAO!!!
    That was posted on the MissingMadeleineForum by a British women, I think. According to her, those are the customers of Kate's book. I was ROTFLMAO. :-)
    I suppose she is copying the accent of the McCanns (Gerry and Auntie Philomenia). When I heard them speaking... LOL
    Issat how English ppl talk, really?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anon Nov 26, 2010 10:18:00 PM said...

    Textusa, you haven’t yet explained why is Mrs Fenn is lying. I am now sure that she is, but I’m far from understanding the why.

    That is correct. Textusa only kinda stressed out, that she is lying. Proving that only with her written statements allover one can find allover the net. As to why: Nobody knows the Why, I gave a lil hint tho in a another post in another article of Textusa. But that is just my opinion. Others might have other opinions with regards to the "Why" Ms Fenn did lie.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thank you for such a great show of hands!

    For all the suggestions and information, thank you.

    Promise to answer all the questions.

    From the character, received ONE further comment, which, from what I read, is the desire not to be published, so I won't. I just copy it here:

    "I see you are too much of a coward to print my replies, Textusa.

    That figures.

    You're only brave when you're bullying people who can't respond to you.

    :-)"

    A smile back at you!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Don't worry about the pseudo psychoanalytical critics Textusa, at least your analyses are logical and well documented not just pure rhetoric - there are not many doing what you do. Very few in fact.

    Happy Easter to you too (retroactive). Keep your brain lights flashing and your thought-provoking stuff coming!

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa