Monday, 16 January 2012

Compare and Contrast

By Sina J

One of the tasks in my school English lessons was to compare and contrast two pieces of work such as two of Shakespeare’s plays, for example, Macbeth and The Comedy of Errors. This was a straightforward task because no matter which theatre puts on the play or which book is read for reference, the words are always the same because they are reproductions from a prepared script and followed without deviation. Of course some actors add their acting talent to bring their character to life but he or she is not at liberty to ad lib. If we think of the week Maddie went missing as a play and set an exam question and try to apply the same compare and contrast methods then I would fail miserably.

For a start the ‘script’ for that week was written retrospectively, after the final act was ‘performed’ so therefore everything had to be written to fit what had already happened. It was also written by the ‘performers’ and the result is a play written by a committee, much of it ad libbed. The committee members had different roles to play and some didn’t even make a stage entrance, the back stage crew had some input and some players left the theatre with haste never to be seen or heard from again.
To show you what I mean let’s begin by comparing and contrasting witness statements of the cast. I’ll start with Mr Graham MacKenzie, for no particular reason although it may have been more methodical to go in alphabetical order.

Mr and Mrs MacKenzie were booked into room G31 from 30th April to 5th May and in his statement he says during their stay they used the child care facilities. When they picked up their son C*** they would chat to other parents. Why is his child not included in any of the creche lists?
We instantly have a problem because it appears he wasn’t included in someone else’s script, the person who wrote the crèche records. Compare his statement to the crèche records. But also he was only booked for a 5 night holiday from 30th April according to one list so he didn’t take advantage of the Mark Warner package deal. Although comparing and contrasting this to the Mark Warner Property Arrival list the booking was from 28th April to 5th May and his flight details show he flew from Gatwick which is part of the package deal.

He says he got to know Raj Balu from a nearby apartment and another man called Neil, I presume he is referring to Neil Berry as he and Mr Balu had also become friends, even sharing a meal together. Mr MacKenzie says that Neil and his wife booked their stay for 2 weeks but left the resort early.
Is this a deviation from the "official script" or a fact? We need to compare Mr Berry’s statement and then contrast with the room booking sheets which state Mr Berry was booked into room G606 from 28th April to 5th May then room DP01 from 5th to 12th May.
As Mr MacKenzie mentions Mr Berry and Mr Balu in his statement then I think some extracts from their statements should also be included.

If we check the Mark Warner Booking sheets we see that the Berry family had only booked for 1 week.

Neil Berry says…..”At about 16.00 we were at the swimming pool bar within the complex. It was at this time that we had a few drinks with Raj Balu, Jayne Jensen and Anne Wiltshire, as I testified in my statement of 8th January 2008. My family returned to the apartment at about 17.00 and the four of us remained at the pool bar. I must have stayed there for another half an hour (which would be at 17.30) before joining my family in the apartment. I do not remember whether Raj left with me or whether he stayed at the bar.

Raj Balu…..” Neil and I eventually left the bar after 19:00. I don’t remember if we left together or not”.
One would have thought everyone in this play would have times and actions imprinted in their minds forever.
He goes on to say….” I returned to my apartment and got ready to go out for dinner."
Much like Superman Mr Balu can arrive somewhere at the same time as leaving somewhere else.
Around 19:00, together with my wife and son, we headed to the Berry apartment. When we arrived, Neil was having problems in assembling a cot, which was placed there for my son. We had to head to the Mark Warner service desk and they sent someone to help us”.
Mr Berry had been seen by an OC employee near a lift shaft in the complex around 16.00.

Neil Berry……”With regard to where I was at 18.00, whom I was with and the fact that I was seen by a witness at this time next to stairs and lift of block 5 of the Ocean Club:
I am not certain where I was at 18.00. It is possible that I was already in my apartment or returning from the bar”.

Fortunately Mr Balu lets us know where he was at 18.00.

About the cot.....

Mr Berry says “After I returned to the apartment I was with my wife and children. The children went to bed at 19.00 and Raj arrived at our apartment with his family, carrying a cot for his son. We did not manage to set the cot up and I went to find a member of staff. I found a Mark Warner employee, whose name I cannot remember but she was the girlfriend of a maintenance employee called Rob. She accompanied us back to the apartment and managed to set up the cot.”

That seems to be a contradiction rather than a contrast but it can be compared.

If Mr Berry was right and Mr Balu brought the cot, did he bring it from his apartment? If so then he was able to dismantle it and if it was a portable cot then designed to be erected with ease. So between 4 professional people no-one had the ability to erect a cot?

But if Mr Balu was right about exactly who was responsible for it, when did Mr Berry request another cot, to whom and who delivered it? Or as he puts it…. “it was placed there for his son” so maybe it just miraculously arrived? A person delivering a cot would have been able to state where Mr Berry was at the time in question.

Why no name and no statement or statements from the person who delivered the cot or the person who came to erect it? The conflict the two statements throw up indicates the involvement of two different Mark Warner employees.
Could it be then that because they needed some sort of reason that this cot as brought on stage? Not necessarily because they had any involvement in the disappearance of Maddie but for some other reason. Whatever the reason was for the cot story, a witness who brought a cot would have provided them with the alibi they needed when they were interviewed and swabbed by the PJ, yet no witness who brought the cot seems to have been interviewed.

Was there really any cot at all delivered, brought or erected in the Berry apartment?
Anyway I digress…..
Mr MacKenzie says he got to know the McCanns when they dined at the Tapas although no-one else mentions that. The only night the MacKenzies appear on the Tapas booking sheet is Tuesday at 8pm. If the restaurant was serving meals at the pace suggested by T9 and this party were usually running late then Mr & Mrs MacKenzie would either have been leaving or had already left the restaurant before T9 arrived so any meeting would have been fleeting if at all.

During our stay we had seen the McCann party when the children had tea together and also when eating at the Tapas bar in the evenings” NB. Evenings-plural.

As he has only been there once how would he know how many evenings they were supposed to be there?
Mr Mackenzie says they could not get a table on 3rd May so had a take-away meal collected by his wife at 8.30pm. There is no mention of any take away on the booking sheets unlike the following day 4th May when Neil Berry collected a meal for 4 people.
Although I really can't understand why any restaurant would need to know how many people were going to consume a take away meal.
How strange that neither Berry or Balu saw Mrs MacKenzie waiting for a take away or crossed paths or that she saw them.

One would presume everyone who visited the Tapas that night would be interviewed but Mrs MacKenzie was not asked to provide a statement yet was supposedly wandering around the complex around the time T9 were making their way there.
If the Mackenzies were on a package deal why didn’t they take advantage of the dinner at the Mill if they couldn’t get into Tapas again? Was he required in the wings to witness a ‘commotion’?

Ms Cox had been more fortunate and she had a table for 2 booked on 3rd at 7.30pm which had been authorised by Steve. Nicole Cox is the partner of Mr Balu and they have child together.

Mr Balu says……”Neil and E*** (Berry) were having a drink with my wife and I. We had a table reserved in the restaurant for that night, but they were not able to arrange a table and for this reason we decided to leave our table and ate together in their apartment using takeaway service
There is a tick against Ms Cox’s booking which would indicate that two people arrived. It’s not possible to see the full table number which begins with 2 as it falls off the edge of the copied sheet. Did Ms Cox cancel her table or just ‘leave it’ and someone else got the opportunity to take it? Did Ms Cox get charged by default as her name wasn’t scrubbed and no other name was substituted? The strangest thing is why would Ms Cox and Mr Balu would not share their table with the Berrys, why would the Berrys need a separate table?

Back to Mr MacKenzie who is very vague about the time he heard a ‘commotion’ on the complex later that night, he puts it between 10 and 11 pm. He found out what was going on then informs his wife he is going to join the search for a missing child, spends some time searching in the shrubbery and the gardens of the apartments, working his way around the tennis courts and to the Mccann's apartment where he spends a few moments listening to Gerry McCann on the phone. He went back to his own apartment to inform his wife of what was going on, has a drink and returns to the search. He spends a couple of hours searching. He says the police eventually turned up later in the evening. Add all this activity to the 10 and 11 pm time window he set for the ‘commotion’, add a "later" and that's when he says the GNR did arrive. Is he implying they were slow to respond and the search had been in progress for quite some time?

Yet according to Lieutenant-Colonel Costa Cabral, Head of Public Relations of GNR, the first call to Police Precinct of GNR (Portuguese Rural Police) in Lagos, reporting a missing child and asking for Police help was at 10.50pm and a patrol was sent, arriving at Ocean Club 12/15 minutes later.
So now stage crew are introducing their own script?

Mr MacKenzie also makes a comment about there being no real organisation of the searching….
There were lots of people just standing round looking, the police eventually turned up later in the evening. There didn't seem to be any real organisation of the searching and I eventually went back to our apartment for the night
Yet at about 22.17 Hotel manager Emma Louise Knight received a call from Lyndsey Johnson the Crêche Manager, informing her that the girl had gone missing. She met Lyndsey Johnson and the Service Manager, Amy Tierney, near to the Tapas Bar and they initiated the "Mark Warner procedures for the search of a missing child". Did Mr MacKenzie search alone without taking part in the prescribed procedure?
Ms Tierney appears to have 2 roles in this play and in this scene is playing the role of ‘Service manager’. As a creche worker she would have no reason to be at Tapas reception at midnight as she states.

Why was Mr Mackenzie not aware of what was going on that night if he was part of the search? Wasn’t the whole point of missing child procedure to direct participants in a search where to go and as he was supposed to be searching for hours he could hardly fail to be aware? And no, he wasn't somewhere looking in some isolated spot all on his own. He was right at the centre of things, near Gerry McCann for example. And in and out of his apartment.

I do find his statement rather vague not only on time but also the days. When he says he saw Kate collecting the twins from the creche 'the following day at lunchtime', does he mean 4th May or the day after that? Dianne Webster collects the twins earlier than any other parents at 12 o'clock on the 4th .

The following day we saw Kate McCann when she came to collect the twins from the creche at lunchtime, she was distraught and broke down sobbing”.
More importantly he is confirming his child was at the crèche and as noted before not named on the respective sheets.

Let’s return to the previous scene
What is very strange is if Mrs MacKenzie had collected a meal from the Tapas restaurant at 8.30pm on 3rd May why wasn't she interviewed by the Police? It's not until 16th September that Mr MacKenzie decides to get in touch with the Police to tell them what he heard on the night Maddie went missing when he found out the Police were trying to pinpoint telephone conversations made in the resort. So it was the search for telephone conversations that prompted him.
Why wasn’t Mrs MacKenzie’s name included on the Tapas booking sheets "script" as the Berry take away was the following day?

One comment in Mr MacKenzie’s statement seems to support his belief that someone could have been observing the McCanns. He relates that the temporary apartment he was given on the day of his departure overlooked the Mccanns apartment and there were a lot of cigarette butts on the balcony 'as if someone had been stood there a long time smoking', which he thought was odd. What I would find odd is that the cleaners had not removed them before the next people used the apartment. Convenient butts, a clue befitting any detective B movie ever made.
The stage hands using props in exaggeration, or the existence of these butts may be as questionable as the Berry & Balu cot?

I will leave you with the words of Lady Macbeth in Act 5 scene 1

“Out damned spot”
"What, will these hands ne'er be clean. . . All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand"

The doctor who called to see Lady Macbeth sleepwalking concluded she needed a priest not a physician and that he and her maid must not reveal what they saw or heard.

From The Comedy of Errors Act 2 scene 2

Am I in earth, in heaven, or in hell?
Sleeping or waking? mad or well-advised?
Known unto these, and to myself disguised!
I'll say as they say and persever so,
And in this mist at all adventures go.


  1. For me the Tapas 9 is much LARGE in number then what they pretended to be. It is quite clear, something serious ( and i'm not thinking on anything sinister that could hapenned to Madeleine) is holding some of the guests in a tick and tide knot. That guests enlarged the Tapas group and I just found a reason that could justify everything- the swing.
    Other question that always feed my mind is why there is only creche lists for the day and no any for the nights? I read somewhere that the OC provided creche supervision at night ( I think until 11 or mid-night) and that's why Gerry was forced to answer many journalists with his most famous (infamous) response that bakes the negligence and the abduction window- They don't want the nannie/creche services because they don't want to stress the children with presence of a strange. Wasn't amazing that the only nannies that show up on the fatidic night are the ones who use to take care of the Mccann's children during the day for almost a week. Why are this nannies on the resort that night? What were they doing if we can't see any creche record with children allocated to the creche services or any record with nannies allocated to some apartments? I believe when the services of that nannies were requested by parents to have a babysitter supervising childs in the apartments, this service is officially recorded by the RESORT, even because this had charges associated.
    I remember that I raised already that doubts here long ago when the subject under discussion was the Tapas dinner and our good friend Insane almost insulted me saying the Nannies were living inside the Resort, that's why they were there. He/She was playing with the idea of a Resort setled alltogether in one place and that takes me into a small research of the OC. I could be wrong, but what came out from my research is that the OC is in fact a pile of private properties spreaded around PDL that were rented under Mark Warner or T Cook sigla and few blocks are located around the Resort facilities. That's why guests reported sometimes a long walk until they reach the Millenium Rest. Then, where have been this nannies (all well known by the Mccann's) to arrive so quickly to the crime scene. My doubts grow bigger when I analize their statements and the time they gave for some events. Some called each other around 10:12 to set the OC search procedures. If so, when was the alarm raised? They setled the procedues before the alarm, almost at the same time or immediately after? No matter when was it, the word impossible is thye most faseable for their movements. Even Spiderman will be not so efficient.
    What is also interesting is to know who called the nannies? The OC manager Silvia, who reported to be the first arriving to the crime scene with GNR, says nothing about the nannies. Other managers were called after due to seriousity of the circumstances.
    Jeremy Wilkins who claimed to have walking the trolley with his son around the OC for a while ( even passed in front of the Tapas bar- baking the dinner) says nothing about that group( Balu Berry,etc) who must have been bumping on him while returning to the flat, picking up the Take away meals or fixing the cot. Were all blind that night in that particular street. A fact, a convennience or an invention? The reconstruction is a must to solve the case, even without a body. That's why they so strongly avoid it and that's why some vital guests of the OC have their mouths tide by Mccann's lawyers. On their rush to build alibis for themselves, they create more confusion, more inconsistencies and of course, MORE LIES.

  2. There's a British journalist now residing in Germany called Mike James,on his website he names paedophiles in the labour party,two of these names were at the top of the last labour government,if this is true & taking into account the Gaspar statement & the obvious interference by Blair & Gordon Brown,then this may be a reason why the McCann's are so protected.Just a thought.

  3. This and the Profile L post, make an interesting match, don't you think?

  4. According to mr Desmond at the Leveson Enquiry today, Carter Ruck are ON A CONTINGENCY FEE.

    They get a cut of what they rake in for their clients.

    Case closed.


  5. Tex,
    You say it how it is. The mistake the pj made was to give the Mccanns the benefit of the doubt, all suspects should be treated the same, if they are cleaners or bin men they should be treated the same as doctors or lawyers, this was not the case and as a consequence the mccanns were allowed to build a 'fighting fund'. Lessons should be learnt from this case, all suspects are equal until proven innocent.

    We know events are not as stated by the Mccanns and so do the majority of the public and tabloids , time will tell but in the meantime thank you Tex and sisters there wil be justice for Madeleine.

  6. David Payne seems to have gone to
    5a at 6.30pm and Amaral said: "Payne might hold the key of the mystery".I don't think it had to do with paedophilie at that moment but I believe Gerry sent him to check on Kate because she slept separated the night before, for some reason,and perhaps he was worried about her behaviour that day. Maybe depressed, irritated, things that can happen to anyone. The "key of the mystery"
    could have been the confrontation with a already dead Maddie and that's why the Paynes went to the Tapas bringing their own monitor and the rest of the Tapas hid theirs.Besides, David was the only one who said he did not check on any child.He probably didn't want to be part of that crime and I believe he could be innocent.If I'm right, he must have felt terrified with what he saw.Who knows he was the Tapas who wanted to tell the truth to the police and that is why his rogatory letter did not happen at the PJ's presence.Payne vanished since 2007 and we never heard of him again.

  7. Portia, here is some information on Contingency Fee

    A “Contingency Fee Arrangement” is the generic term used to describe fee arrangements between solicitors and clients, where payment of the solicitor’s fees is dependent upon the result of the litigation or arbitration. Sometimes, the term “no win, no fee” is used to describe such arrangements.

    As a result of Public Policy since the Statute of Westminster in 1275, the courts have always condemned Contingency Fee Arrangements. As Lord Denning noted in Re Trepca Mines Ltd (No. 2) (1963) (CA), if legal advisors had a personal interest in the outcome of litigation they might be tempted to “influence the damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses”.

    Now, however, a form of “Contingency Fee Arrangement” (known as “Conditional Fee Agreement” (CFA)) is permitted, but with certain restrictions in place.

  8. I'm sorry to bring this here, but I couldn't let this go unnoticed. I saw in a forum the following reasoning to say that the PJ didn't ask for the creche night list was justified: "I can't see the relevance of that list, since the McCanns said they never used the creche at night. No reason for the PJ to investigate.."

    So, if the McCanns say, then the PJ should believe them?
    Also, imagine that instead of what they say, that they didn't use taht service and they did, and this was recorded on such sheets? Showing them would prove they didn't wouldn't it?
    But what is to be asked, is why there are records for take-away meals, and no record of nightly creche-records. In various statements, its' referred that the service is used, but never mentioned "dropping off" or "picking up" or "signing off" etc, as is mentioned with the daily creche. Maybe because the night babysitting was done in some apartments, where the children were gathered while their parents had fun?

  9. Anon Jan 16, 2012 10:56:00 PM

    about David Payne, just a theory, but you read my mind. Thank you for posting.

  10. Anon 10:56 and 8:31, that's not the David Payne we saw when the Tabloid paid the "apology money". One person was missing, O'Brien, another had the attitude of the leader of the pack, David Payne. Check the images.

  11. Agree Anon 8:50

    Yes, David Payne didn't take part in the events until the alarm... but him, and especially his wife, had major roles, unlike DW who throughout kept the lowest profile possible. Also, during the Lisbon trial, who came to "support" Kate all the way from the UK?

  12. Bom dia a Todos e Todas!

    About what i read from Anonymous said :
    Jan 16, 2012 10:28:00 PM
    The mistake the pj made was to give the Mccanns

    The error of the Research Team of PJ?

    No! The collusion of two countries and their governments to prevent at all costs that the investigation continued, especially when everything pointed
    in the right direction.

    I think Anonymous said Jan 16, 2012 10:28:00 PM is full of naivete and ignorance (how is it possible??) Or much evil.

    We have UK in UK ; and we have another UK in OC MW Pdl. I think. All together to avoid whatever.

  13. To Anon 22.00

    Thank you.

    Three remarks:
    1. TM lied when they asserted that CR worked for them for free;
    2. Is Isabel Duarte paid a fixed fee or a contincency fee, and if the latter: is it allowed for Portuguese attorneys to contract on a contincency basis?

    I now of a lot of countries where this would be strictly forbidden, mostly outside of the Anglo-saxon legal system.

    3. Will Isabel Duarte personally benefit financially, if she manages to further destroy Dr. Amarals life and the lives of his family?

    Do we have a Portuguese lawyer around who could shed some light on this?


  14. MC 10;44.
    I posted the comment you refer to and I am certaqinly not full of ignorance !!

    If the Mccanns had been living on benefits and came from a sink estate, they would never have evaded justice, but because they were two middle class doctors who had connections, and the connections had connections etc etc, this situation was able to flourish.
    Ordinary people would not have been allowed a 'fighting fund' and celebrities willing to make appeals on their behalf.

    This is why I said all suspects should be treated the same, because they were middle class doctors they were given the benefit of the doubt it gave them the opportunity to put together their defence team, and look at them now suing all and sundry, writing books, scripted interviews. It should never have been allowed to reach this stage and they should not have been allowed to leave Portugal.

    I can appreciate the pj had a difficult task considering the involvement of the media but they were too soft on the Mccanns.

  15. I remember that there was a lot of debate about the inconsistencies of many ot the statements made by what we thought to be witnesses.
    Because we thought they were real innocent bystanders, we tended to overlook their inconsistencies and rather chose to focus on what they had to say about the McCanns. In preference whatever they had to say that confirmed negligence. It never crossed our minds that a whole crowd helped to conceal what happened.
    What they said, we took it as fact. Fenn, Wilkins, etc... Now we see that there’s much more to these inconsistencies than we were able to see. Thanks Textusa for opening our eyes.
    It just goes to show that you can’t read a book by its cover, and everyone knows this, and everyone says this, but when it came to applying it, we all failed. I, for one, say mea culpa.
    Textusa, truth owes you an enormous debt. Thank you.
    Understanding your blog is to understand how inconvenient it would be to mention you in some places.

  16. "... had a question for US. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I..."
    "...Did she mean when they were having their bath?"
    Again a conclusion that Gerry nor Mitchell checked on Kate's book before it was published. Such a little apartment and the parents did not hear any noise nor sound.
    Obviously this story is made up and it can take part of the reconstruction: two crying children in the bathroom ( or a radio) and the parents in all different rooms of the apartment, closed doors, open doors,balcony.
    And were the children all alone in the bathroom, a full bath, dangerous?
    This never happened. One lie after the other. Gerry should have seen that before the book was published.

  17. Anon 1:01 p.m.
    Again? " I can appreciate the pj had a difficult task considering the involvement of the media but they were too soft on the Mccanns."

    Between 2 Govs+ whateverFrom Uk any Official Organisation is passed back and take it the mat.

  18. Remarkable work of sifting through detail. Congratulations Sina! Textusa, you've got yourself one heck of a team!

  19. Anon @ 7.28

    Thank you for your support from the Texyusa team.

    There is so much information out there and all we have to do is assess it objectively.

    Please let us know if there is something you feel needs further investigation, it may well be something we already have under consideration.

  20. The puzzle makes more and more sense with each one of the pieces that you put in its rightful place.


  21. Anon from 16th Jan at 3.03.

    Textusa has reminded me that we appreciate the comment you made and that I hadn't replied. I do apologise for not responding more quickly.

    Thank you for your comment, we really do appreciate input from readers and even if we, in this instance I really should say I, do not immediately acknowledge it we do take notice and look into whatever information comes our way.

  22. The Mccanns should be made to take a lie detector test.

    Well done Textusa brilliant research.

  23. Madeleine's death could have being a necessity because she was too tiring with little possibilities to get rid of her insomnia. I would have contracted a nanny for the night to take care of her.Or was there something nasty happening in England and Kate did not want to go back? Often I think Maddie's death is a guarantee for Kate, keeping Gerry at her side.Perhaps their marriage was going through a crisis, after around 7 years being married.It happens so frequently.I think Maddie's death happened between 6 and 7pm, even before 6.30 otherwise Payne would have saved the child, and sleeping pills could not have been the cause because they don't work so fast and they don't cause any bleeding.

  24. I also thought it strange the amount of times Kate telephoned UK on her mobile and then deleting all those calls, some of her calls were made very late at night which indicates urgency.

    The pact of silence also indicates that there was more to this group than casual friendships.

    Payne visiting Kate and then later wanting to change his statement does not make any sense.

    The whole story has been put together after the events as Textusa points out so many 'little things' were missed.

    Lets hope SY do as thorough as job as Tex.

  25. I believe SY check what is posted on internet and social networking sites regarding the Mccanns.

    This particular site gets a lot of hits, many worried people checking on Texusa.

    This review cannot afford to be another whitewash. SY will lose so much credability. The Mccanns are silent about the review, and with the forthcoming libel trial in February their time has come.

    Justice for Maddie.

  26. 20.12 8:02 marvellous post you raise for very valid points.

    There should have been creche lists available for the evening. If it was just a listening service being provided there would still have been lists so that nannies/staff would know where to check, where are these lists?

    If the police asked the group to take part in a reconstruction surely they should have done a reconstruction and not been able to refuse.

    When cadaver was found in the Mccanns scenic they said they were going to carry out their own independent tests on the vehicle, why was this attitude ever allowed.

    The many points that Texusa raises by studying this case shows that further investigation of these people is urgently required, so many people covering for the Mccanns... why?

    It does make me wonder what really did happen to little Madeleine when those that should have been protecting her were only interested in their own self gratification.

  27. To Anon who submitted a comment at Jan 18, 2012 1:00:00 PM:
    Anyone who has a concern of the nature you described should report it to the appropriate authority. That authority must be for the judgement of the person reporting it as we are unable to recommend who to approach. This may also be dependent upon the country in which you live.
    We do not advocate writing to private individuals with warnings or threats.
    Anyone who does this could find themselves charged with harassment
    As we hope you understand, your comment will not be published.

  28. Anonymous Jan 18, 2012 3:14:00 PM, we're very pleased that you've accepted our response. Thank you!

  29. The most obvious reason for Mr. Berry to feel uncomfortable in explaining his whereabouts at 16.00, but acknowledging that he was seen in Block 5 that afternoon, he says at 18.00, is because he knows he'll be compromised somehow in being there then. Why? There's no reason he couldn't be at 16.00 there... or is he defending himself because he knows he was there and doesn't anyone to find out?

  30. Downstreet nr.10 answered on May the 11th, that Madeleine was a matter for the Portugese authorities.
    On the afternoon of May the 12th, nr.10 replied they were considering what the McCanns had SAID (on that day), not what the Mccanns had written on their letter to Cameron, which was published the same morning, on the Sun. "Words, not retorik, if you don't help a child, who are you working for?" What an insults, those riff raff people. You should never attack powerful people, couple! you learned your lesson well didn't you?

  31. Textusa, don't tell me you have such a nose!

  32. The Shakespeare analogy is most apt Text. The puzzling thing is how after nearly five years of continuous performance at venues around the world it is still not exactly clear whether we have a tragedy on our hands, or if a sleight of hand in Act I is concealing a comedy. Having sat through the last act, which introduced the poorly written Levenson character I am beginning to suspect it is the latter. The hackneyed dialogue of 'his Lordship' and his handsomely remunerated minions brought to mind a line from Henry VI Part II: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

  33. I'm new in this blog and I am the one who wrote about nr.10 and the one whose comment was not published today. Textusa, I hope you are very near to the Met or to the PJ and that you can tell us more about what is going on.
    If you live in Portugal, try to find out about the PJ, if you live in England, go visiting the Scotland Yard. I can't wait. I believe the review is nearly ready but now they will have to prepare a process, a public prosecuter will have to analyse the results, everything will be kept secret till Tapas 9 will be interviewed again. I remember Amaral saying he would accept to be a witness in the process.Í would love to listen to him and I would love more to understand what he will say.I believe the PJ kept evidence for themselves, very few people know about it and they will use it in the process. I hope Tapas 5 will come forward telling what they know, hahahah! and it will be better for them in the future.
    I believe the friendship among the Tapas is finished, they are running away as fast as they can, blessing the day they will get rid of this blame.The only way to clean their names is to tell the truth, people will concentrate themselves on the guilty ones, not on the whole group.
    Be corageous and the sun will shine.

  34. Reading the statements made by these two med shows one of them lied or maybe both of them. I hope further investigation about this is in the missing pages of the PJ files. What would happen if they were called as witnesses in court?

    Would they both stick to their version of events proving one is committing perjury?

    The most important question is WHY lie anyway over such a trivial matter of a cot? Why did this little group want to be seen by an independent person at a particular time?

  35. Ross, your comments are simply brilliant!

  36. This is how I would expect a grieving mother to react.

    She explains her true emotions.

    Compare and contract the reaction she got from prime ministers to the McCanns. Also her reaction when she thought her son had been spotted, she was straight on a plane.

    How many times have the McCanns caught the next plane to follow a sighting? The nearest they did was to let Brian Kennedy fly to Morocco to check out a sighting. What was that all about?????

  37. 10.56, It is possible Payne feared complications because he could be one of the men known by the organisation where Yvonne Martin worked.He was unlucky enough to meet her the following day.There is a letter of Daily Mail november 2007, where a sollicitor tells that there were people very close to the McCanns who were not helping them at all.There were few ones "very close" to the them: the Paynes and O'Brian, and they knew what happened. O'Brian escaped by "helping" his child that night, the Paynes had a monitor.

    I listened to Kate on her interview in Holland, about the book, where she complains that the British police did not publish, showed any support to them.
    Instead of gagging Amaral, Gerry should gag Kate. She crashes themselves all the time.

  38. Anon. @ Jan 18, 2012 10:54:00 PM

    Many thanks for publishing your comment. In truth a little sunshine is worth the world! I fervently hope your comments are correct.

    As regards the T9 - I wonder myself that even at this point whether self preservation will be their undoing - not at all sure.

    It is odd that small occurrences can alter the direction of a process and the Payne meeting with YM was one of them.

    Thank you Textusa for a wonderful blog. x

  39. Anon, Jan 18, 2012 4:10:00 PM

    Care to explain?

  40. Textusa,when I checked the morning creche records for Thursday May 3rd,it showed the twins did NOT attend their creche that morning?, but as Madeleine DID attend her creche,the contact for parents was stated as Tennis/Room!Did I misunderstand the records ?Also,isn,t it STRANGE that when,Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying for over an hour ,she wasn,t calling out for "mummy ,mummy" but "daddy ,daddy"???? surely mummy wasn,t the reason for her distress????? and when Madeleine tells her parents the twins were crying in her bedroom,again I question,why she apparently asked Gerry,why HE didn,t go to them,NOT ,MUMMY!!!!obviously,daddy was the one she relied on when things were not right,mummy has a lot to answer for in this debacle IMO,she appeared to be suffering from post natal depression.

  41. Lynn,

    Mrs Fenn heard from Maddie that night as much as you did that same night wherever you may have happened to be.
    Whatever Mrs Fenn has to say about that night, as well as the night Maddie died, is said “reading” a “script”, as Sina J’s post so well implies, as she voluntarily accepted to do when she took the initiative of going to the PJ almost a 100 days after the events.
    Same “scripting” applies to whatever the McCanns have to say about what Maddie told them about being left alone. She wasn’t.
    Now, if this “script”, re-written so many times by so many people, has, in this particular fictional event, put an emphasis in the relation between Gerry and Maddie, leaving practically Kate out of it, may be a clue to other things…

  42. Lynn,
    if Maddie cried that night loud ennough to be heard by mrs. Fenn, other guests and OC workers will be disturbed by the same noise. The silence of the night has that particular magic effect of amplifying the volume of all sounds. who is the parent who never experienced the noise of one of his child crying at night? The impact is more stronger then the same sound during the day. Apart Mrs. Fenn, nobody reported that cry and that special lady took days( weeks) to report that information to PJ. Something that she should reveal at minute one, if she really heard the girl and if the noise was so intense and so long as she ptetended the police to believe. The cry, was part of the Tapas 9 strategy to bake the abduction- A old neighbour testifying a very convennient issue- the girl crying on the previous night, which helps Kate delivering the most famous maddie question " Where and Sean cried last night?". Never ever a child with 3/4 years old build a sentence like that to ask a simple question. The cry bakes another strategy and Kates book kindly exposed it- the abductor being inside the flat on the crying night. After all, she delivered an important information to an OC worker, near the pool- the kids alone on the flat night after night and the crime scene, no matter how strongly they tried to convince the police of the oposite, shows no signs of a break in. Means, the abductor went the flat using a key. perfect for a person with a square brain. But dear Kate, took years to deliver that idea to the big public and failed to report such vital information to the police at minute one. Suffering from the same disease that affected mrs Fenn at the beginning. Instead, dear Kate made such brilliant choice of telling the police and her friends and relatives that the shutters of the window were damaged. Something that anybody could check and see with naked eyes, if was true.
    interesting that Mrs Fenn, who reported the cry and manage to get out of her flat and of the OC at 6 O' clock on May 3( while saying that she usually spent a lot of time on her flat) says nothing about the search of the girl organized by the nannies. The way that search was organized, according to the nannies statements, must be a massive and unforgetable event. Strange that a neighbour of the crime scene, says nothing about it.

  43. Who says we know the whole Mrs. Fenn statement?She could have told more incidents to the police.It is possible that she informed the OC the folowing morning and the OC warned the McCanns. That could be the reason that Gerry replied her on the fatal night"a child has been abducted (or disappeared")and he did not say "my daughter disappeared" and Mrs Fenn thought it was odd. He probably had heard about Mrs. Fenn complaints.When the PJ asked Kate about the cry incident, Kate denied it "not true".Kate could have used it for the abduction explanation.

    It is posssible that Mrs. Fenn left Portugal short after that night and that she came back in August.
    Or it is possible that the OC told the police about her complaints.
    It is also possible that there is another statement, telling more and we don't know it(rows, fights).
    Within a very short time the police knew there was no abduction.No traces, no evidence.

  44. The last thing a police tell are the important informations.There must be a loooooot of them that are kept secret and I wonder if even te Met are aware of them. The McCanns will have to survive a lot of competent investigators. Brown is gone. ("They have taken him!!!!!Brown is gone!" "It is a disaster!It is a disaster! Brown is gone!")
    "When I saw the open window of Downingstreet 10 I knew he was taken!"

    "I looked down and I thought how handsome he was and how lucky I was to have voted for him".

    This time justice for Madeleine will prevail.


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.