By May I
Pic from markstivers
Baloney: colloquial :rubbish, nonsense, balderdash, claptrap, drivel, garbage.....
Origin: possibly from Bologna sausage. A sausage made of lowly scraps of meat; symbolic of things filled with less than desirable nothings.
There are many examples of press reporting in this case which meet this description. I'll come to them later.
Kate's book concludes with Key Sightings and her belief that identifying the individuals reported by 4 unnamed witnesses could bring them closer to finding Madeleine. It's possible to identify those witnesses by cross referencing with the PJ files. All, with the exception of Witness 4, made statements to the police. Why is a mystery, considering Kate's statement that the timing and location of the reports being highly relevant to the investigation.
Witness Four noticed a man loitering on Rua do Ramalhete on Sunday April 29th 2007, between 8 and 9 am and saw the same man three days later on Rua Dr Gentil Martins, opposite apartment 5A. He was standing still and looking over in the direction of the apartment.
The first sighting had unnerved HER, although it is not clear why SHE was unnerved.
Who was she?
The description of witness four's sighting- tall, slim, very ugly with pitted skin and a large nose.
Wearing jeans. Portuguese appearance, approximately 1.78.m tall.
Witness 3 was TS, a young girl who made a statement saying her grandparents used to own apartment 5A. Her name isn't repeated here as she was only eleven years old at the time.
Her report is described by Kate as very precise and credible. Caucasian male- presumably a word used by the police rather than the child? 1.8m, wearing jeans and sunglasses. He had spots and was described as “ugly, disgusting even.”
Although TS saw the man looking at the apartment on Monday April 30th and Wednesday May 2nd, the only conclusion to be drawn is that Witness 4 was describing the same person as Witness 3.
Subsequently this suspect was referred to as Pimpleman in some press reports.
On March 4th 2010, press reports emerge of a young girl in a black wig, seen with two female gypsies, dirty and unkempt, in Carvoeiro . This was in September 2008.
The Telegraph 7:30 am by Caroline Gammell; reports that a British tourist who saw the girl was 100% sure it was Madeleine. This sighting resulted in a surveillance operation by the McCann's detectives and led them to a shack in an isolated orange grove. One of the suspects was an obese woman seen acting suspiciously outside the McCann's apartment on the 3rd of May.
Jean Godwin, 56, a retired care worker from Widnes in Cheshire described how the women tried to hide the girl's face. The child was said to be wearing a black wig and was thin and gaunt. Jean Godwin noticed her eyes in particular- the large irises in her eyes. ( note not a coloboma)
The investigators believed the red haired woman was a cleaner from a town north of Portimao.
She was also identified by Jeni Weinberger from Salisbury, who said she saw a woman of similar appearance outside the McCann apartment in May 2007. The 38 year old woman said she saw the woman sitting on a wall with a man.
As Dave Edgar's name is mentioned in this article, I assume he is the person involved in this investigation. Is this where the story of a “hellish lair in the vicinity of Praia da Luz” originated?
The man had a rag doll on the back seat of his car. When his car was traced the man was found to be a teacher in Portimao, who said the doll had been given to him by students.
In an e-mail to Leicester Police, the Portuguese Police reported that they had found NO links between the evidence they had gathered and the investigation of Madeleine McCann.
A source close to the McCanns however decided that it was one of the strongest leads investigators had come across and that the inquiry was ongoing.
Jerry Lawton of The Star, on the same day adds further details.
The investigators had disguised themselves as fruit pickers to stake out the shack ( You couldn't make this up!) The private detectives believed Madeleine could have been held here for months, just 30 miles from the spot where she was abducted. The Hellish Lair was only said to be 10 miles, but we have to allow for journalistic flair.
Jean Godwin says she was so concerned she couldn't sleep that night and got her husband to take her back to look again.
What exactly did she expect to see the next day? The scene re-enacted?
So worried about her 100% sure sighting of Madeleine that she went home to bed!
Len Port of Algarve Newswatch Tuesday Dec. 21st 2010 has a different take on the situation: "Maddie sightings and media madness"
Notice some differences in this report. Here the investigators posed as potential property buyers and the teacher said he had he found the doll, in good condition, in the roadway and picked it up.
Len Port denies it was a strong lead, as claimed by the McCanns:
“The “lead” merely gave rise to yet more sensationalist nonsense in the British press, causing deep humiliation and distress to Mrs Albino and two other innocent people with no connection whatsoever to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. …. This did not stop the British press from rushing into print with a load of baloney”
He goes on to say that the accused did not have the income or connections to take legal action. What they actually wanted wasn't “compensation money so much as an apology”
Returning to Witness 4 and Pimpleman. Kate no longer refers to the baloney story about the gypsies, but places great importance on a sighting where only Witness 3 has given a statement about “pimpleman” to the Portuguese police. Is Witness 4 Jeni Weinberger?
In our post where it was proved that Kate reads our blog, we showed a screenshot of a Channel 4 programme, where Edgar and Cowley use a whiteboard to review the sightings.
On 29/4 at 8am there is JW
This is Sunday
On 2/5 at 3pm there is another JW.
Paulo Reis, on 19/5/09, makes a very detailed analysis about the unnamed witnesses. The picture below is taken from his post:
On 2/5 at 3 pm is” probably Jeni Weinberger.”
Paulo Reis, on 19/5/09, makes a very detailed analysis about the unnamed witnesses. The picture below is taken from his post:
On 2/5 at 3 pm is” probably Jeni Weinberger.”
So was Jeni Weinberger a witness to the 2 gypsy women AND Pimpleman? Were the woman and man on the wall identified as the cleaner and the teacher by Jeni Weinberger or is it all baloney ?
And Kate failed to explain on her book, HOW/WHEN THAT MULTIFACED ABDUCTOR GOT IN CONTACT WITH THE CAR THEY HIRED MORE THEN 2 WEEKS AFTER MAY 3.
ReplyDeleteconvenniently, important gaps are not filled, just ignored, like if the reality has no sequencial line of events where one event depends on the precedent.
Eh, Eh... she have to announce the next book as an 'account of the lies'.
We tend to say that the Mockumentary is a McCann thing. It was produced by Channel 4, and who knows funded it. The Mockumentary, like the appearance on Oprah and like the book involve a much bigger machine than just the McCanns. The involvement of DF, TS and JW, and Susan Hubbard are the proof of that.
ReplyDeleteBom dia a todos!
ReplyDeleteI wish a very nice day to all.
Peguei na Jenni e, seja lá quem for:
As testemunhas sem nome e sem rosto que colocam os rostos dos outros nas páginas dos jornais.
Acerca de Jeni Weinberger, ela pode ser tudo, desde artista a trabalhar numa agência de viagens de turismo .
Seja ela quem for, uma testemunha sem nome, é indecente ela (elas) porem os outros nos jornais; mas os rostos destas testemunhas, anónimas, não aparecem.
Witnesses nameless and faceless who put the faces of others in the newspapers.
About Jeni Weinberger, it can be everything from artist to work at a travel agency tourism.
Whoever she is, an unnamed witness, it is indecent (they) put the other in the newspapers, but the faces of these witnesses, anonymous, do not appear.
Just an example about bad behaviour; McBadBehaviourCompany
an example about no face:
ReplyDeletehttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-malId7VHTwc/T3At0pgicnI/AAAAAAAAJ8E/1OV_A9umtz4/s1600/jeni_weinberger.jpg
McCs front page in The Guardian
ReplyDelete"New law will harm right to justice, say Mcs"
They have written to Cameron urging him to abandon plans to alter no-win no-fee legal agreements.
This prevents claimants from recovering expensive insurance premiums and lawyers success fees from losing defendants.
Present system encourages compensation culture under which claimants sue to readily according to justice secretary. Mcs say it will prevent less well off obtaining redress but they have done very well from this arrangement with CR
I'm seething!
I wonder if Brian Kennedy paid for one of these dinners with Cameron?
ReplyDeleteKennedy or one of their other backers?
I'm glad this site and others on the internet all fight for justice for Madeleine, and do not accept the fabricated stories the Mccanns spin.
ReplyDeleteIt proves that no matter how hard the mccanns attempt to gag and mislead the public they will never succeed, eventually there will be a break through, so many unanswered questions, so many descrepancies, it really does make one ask the question 'who exactly is the puppet master driving the mccanns' from the beginning this has been like no other case, with the setting up of funds, lawyers, Ward of Court, such oddities.
The one true fact to come out of this case is that this is no ordinary case and never has been and its because of this that internet sites are driven to seek justice and closure, we all see the wrong doing and the silent guilt of the mccanns attempting to manipulate a situation of their own making.
When this case eventually goes to court there will be many corrupt individuals revealed, people in positions of power who should have known better, not only will they lose their jobs but also their credability I hope they think it was worth it, because we are here till the end we want the truth.
Thank you Tex for your absolutely brilliant site.
By Law after a person has been missing for 7 years they are declared as dead. The Mccanns have a couple of years left to make as much money as possible from book sales, film deals and any other tacky ideas that their team comes up with probably including more mockumentaries, but after 7 years it will be illegal to attempt to raise funds for a missing person presumed dead.
ReplyDeleteAll the evidence points to Madeleine dying in apartment 5a and even more so with the conflicting statements from the Tapas and Mccanns and their actions immediately after her 'disappearance' their time is running out, the fund will dry up, who will pay Carter Rucks huge bills each month? What a sad life the twins must endure living with such duplicity.
This has been an interesting case to follow especially the behaviour of those deeply involved and of those 'not so involved' but eventually everything comes to pass and the past has a habbit to catching up with people when they least expect it.
This post confirms the cover up was done by many, namely guests.
ReplyDelete'Evil will flourish when good men sit back and do nothing' and that is what has happened - the OC staff lied to protect their jobs, the tapas group lied to protect their livlihoods, the Mccanns lied to protect their careers and keep the twins and their home, these people are selfish and calculating putting their own needs before those of a 3 years old child.
ReplyDeleteInstead of being truthful and allowing justice to take its proper course including a proper burial for a child, they have lied and foolishly believe they are above the law.
Carter Ruck took on the case because they saw the £ signs, they have no morals where money is concerned.
Celebrities jumped on the Mccann bandwagan for the much needed publicity they crave.
This has shown the darker side of human nature, the lack of respect for a fellow human being and the greed, the fear of being found out.
The Mccanns berate Amaral because he stood up against them and questioned and pulled apart their version of events.
Their defence could have been squashed years ago - there was no evidence of an abductor, the shutters were not jemmied, hastily written timelines in a childs book, deleted phone messages, fraudulent fund, online store, these are not the actions of innocent parents but the actions of desperate deceitful parents wary of the consequences for their selfish actions.
RIP Maddie - sadly we do not choose our parents, but our parents do choose their friends!
Justiça dos pobres - copiado do blog de MC
ReplyDelete"O governo britânico ganhou dois novos opositores: o casal Kate e Gerry McCann, pais de Madeleine, a garotinha que sumiu em 2007 em Portugal. Eles mandaram uma carta para o primeiro-ministro, David Cameron, pedindo que reveja os seus planos de reforma na assistência judicial. O governo propôs o corte de 350 milhões de libras (cerca de R$ 1 milhão) da assistência judicial e mudanças no sistema no win no fee, que é o que hoje garante que qualquer um possa ir à Justiça e não tirar um tostão do bolso, caso perca a ação.
Justiça dos pobres 2
O casal McCann argumenta que se as propostas forem postas em prática, os mais pobres vão ficar excluídos da Justiça em casos como o de difamação, já que não terão nem assistência judicial do governo e nem poderão contratar um advogado. As propostas estão sendo analisadas nesta terça-feira (27/3) na House of Lords, o equivalente britânico do Senado brasileiro."
Esquece-se o Casalito, que" pobre raramente e vitima de difamacao" portanto este privilegio e "useless" para os pobres do rein de Sua Majestade. Pobre nao vende tabloides, nem quando aparece em tetras garrafais na primeira pagina. Nenhuma Antonella "Lieeeezzzzzary" dedica uma palavra/ um segundo, a um pobre. Como nao dedicou ao casalinho, antes de ser famoso devido a desgraca da filha. Quando eles eram apenas 2 medicos vulgares, iguais a milhoes no mundo inteiro, nenhum editor quis promover a historia edilica que diziam viver, com um a atravessar oceanos por amor. Talvez devessem ter ido la, para ver como eram os dias e as noites de Maddie... Mas como e impossivel prefer o futuro, deviam pelo menos, ter feito uma retrospectiva para que o mundo percebesse como era a vida desta familia a 5. Quem eram as nannies/vizinhos que tomavam conta destas criancas, quando os pais se ausentavam? A " social life" Tao intensa, que parecem ter, nao nas eu no dia 3 de Maio. Foi algo cultivado com regularidade e que me pareca, os avos de ambos os lados estavam longe de Rothley, para poderem dar suporte aos dias e notes de ausencia, mesmo que fosse para cobrir as 2/3 h que dura um jantar.
Mas parece que nenhum jornalista se interessa pelo que foi o " antes do 3 de Maio", ou sera que haveria revelacoes escaldantes que aniquilariam a tese do " deixar as criancas a dormir porque estar no Tapas, era como estar no jardim de Rothley?"
E realmente importante perceber se a negligencia ( tese em que nao acredito) nasceu naquela semana na PDL ou se foi desculpa circunstancial para a noite de 3 de Maio.....Afinal Maddie existiu 4 anos antes da noite que a tornou famosa e o que quer que lhe tenha acontecido, nao Pode nem deve ser desligado desse passado. Sera que a SY, na sua patetica revisao, vai pelo menos fazer algo util e importante para esclarecer a noite de 3 de Maio? OLHAR PARA O PASSADO DE MADALEINE? COMO ERAM, ESTES PAIS, ESTA CRIANCA, ESTA FAMILIA, ANTES DAS FERIAS NA PDL? Sem mascaras, sem mentiras, sem obstaculos no recolher de informacao.
When I read facts on other websites about how the Mcs are able to sue and threaten individuals I find it hard to believe the depth and also the power that Kate and Gerry have. Recently on twitter there was an outrange that somebody had retweeted the original text message for donations for ' Maddie bla bla' her point was that the Mccanns did call Madeleine Maddie and apparently there was outrage amongst Mccann supporters claiming somebody was fraudulently taking money because the Mccanns never called Madeleine 'Maddie'. Then we have the mccanns v tony bennett, and mccanns v amaral. Madeleine has made big bucks for the mccanns she has been proper trademarketed it has become frightening that the mccanns are able to apply libel cases and threaten individuals as they are doing saying people are 'damaging the search' when there was and never has been any real search. They silence peoples opinions with their heavy handed lawyers. Just who are these so called 'supporters' nobody in their right mind can support the Mccanns. Their legacy is 'no comments are being accepted' on every piece of information concerning them. How Gerry can say 'there is no proof Madeleine has been harmed' is ridiculous after five years yet he gets away with such stupid irresponsible comments, more recent cases after a few days of the victim missing have been declared murder cases so what is the difference with the Mccanns why is Madeleine still classed as beling alive and why are the Mccanns still allowed to take public and tax payers money its all a load of baloney.
ReplyDelete