Friday, 25 October 2013

UK Crimewatch - Discrepancies II

Almost two weeks after the "Battle of Painted Corner" on Oct 14 2013, in which Scotland Yard, certainly blinded by the light from the prospect of certain success, decided to put on blindfolds instead of sunglasses for their final and decisive charge.

And Scotland Yard, under Inspector Redwood’s leadership, charged just like the Light Brigade had done before at Balaclava, under Lord Cardigan, on Oct 25, 1854, 11 days short of 159 yrs.

We don’t know if there’s heaven or hell, but if either or both exist, we can only imagine how painful all must have been for General Custer due to cramps in his stomach from laughing so hard.

After a fortnight of intense propagandistic crescendo of promises that all things were to be solved and criminals arrested, Scotland Yard's Oct 14th charge resulted in the absolute lack of anyone being minimally in danger of being charged.

Like the Portuguese say, “the mountain gave birth to a mouse” (a montanha pariu um rato). That simple and that real. And that humiliating.

For the first time in history, as far as we know and have researched, it was decided to launch, on a state level, a spin about a non-politically related matter.

That matter being the covering-up of the death of a British citizen, a 4yr old one, at the hands and in the presence of other British citizens who were her parents and their 7 friends.

A matter for police, so logically UK used its most prestigious police force, Scotland Yard.

And decided to spin this on an international scale, so logically UK  used its most prestigious broadcasting service, the BBC.

Unseen, unheard and unwitnessed, until almost two weeks ago. Nothing like living history to adequately savour it.

And as we said last week, it was stopped short.

Stopped short by a peculiar equilibrium of the unwarranted use of arrogance, insult and vitriol with the determination and resolution of many in a relentless pursuit of truth.

Being victims of the first, the latter were kept motivated all these years.

Gonçalo Amaral, the first person who publicly put his foot down to stop this charade of unseen proportions, said this past Monday, the following (at 01:00 in the video above):

“Eu, este fim-de-semana estava à espera das notícias de Inglaterra, o que é que os jornais iam dizer, porque já havia umas identificações e um certo retrato-robot e eu estava com curiosidade para ver se já tinham prendido alguém. E portanto verifico que está tudo a zeros e que é preciso inventar histórias.”

Which translates into:

"I, this weekend was waiting for the news from England, what the newspapers would say, because there were already some identifications and a certain e-fit and I was curious to see if they had already arrested someone. And so I find that it's all still at zeros and that it’s needed for stories to be invented."

We, like him also waited for the announced arrest and the announced final resolution of the case.

A case followed by the whole world like no other and correctly named “the crime of the 21st Century”.

We, like him waited. Not in vain, but with a smile.

And the smile has spread into our hopes with Mr. Amaral's entry yesterday, Oct 24, on his Facebook page:

"Dearchiving ...

After 5 years in a dusty court archive, it looks like the process in which was investigated the mysterious disappearance of a child will finally see the light of day.

At this moment, it is not relevant to know who agreed to the archiving and always opposed its reopening of the investigation based on all content of the process, what matters is that the investigation continues, either from the point it was interrupted, or from the convictions of those who later examined the facts.

But we must remember that a criminal investigation must not have as a concern the politically correct, nor have its scope limited scope by personal, institutional or other interests, nor be the target of intolerable pressures and coercive acts, what is in question is to ascertain the truth and the fate of the child, so that those responsible for the mysterious disappearance are brought to justice.

If the reopening of the investigation allows the realization of all missing diligences to take place, if it will take into account all lines of investigation still open, and answer all the questions, then we can say that the investigation was free and objective, reaching the material truth, then doing justice to the mysteriously disappeared child."

UK Crimewatch, in our opinion, had the objective, as we implied in our The Beginning of the End of an Institution post with “As we’ve said time and time again there are no coincidences in “Maddie’s world”. We have a missing girl, we have no abduction and we have a Gerry lookalike seen with a child in Rua da Escola Primária, half a mile away from apartment 5A. Do you want us to join the dots?”, of introducing the idea for reopening the inquiry and appearing as neutral as possible.

The reopening could only take place in Portugal. Nowhere else. And that's where it has reopened as of yesterday, Oct 24 2013.

So Scotland Yard, in our opinion, has achieved its noblest objective: get the process reopened in Portugal under acceptable conditions to all. That must be complimented.

If PJ announced out of the blue the case was going to be reopened without this preamble then McCanns would instantly be presumed to be suspects/guilty.

We are currently being fed the abduction idea is on the agenda so the reopening appears positive for both sides and non-judgemental as well.

The CPS didn’t go to Portugal for a holiday and their remit is to judge whether a case stands a good chance of a prosecution so they were there for a very specific reason.

We hope that this time a deal isn’t being organised between the 2 countries to get out of the mess, making the outcome less reliant on the truth and more on what is only acceptable to both sides.

What is important is that we now have 2 ongoing investigations in 2 different countries.

Next month one will have been going on for 30 months and the other hasn't made its first 24 hours. But both will have to present tangible results.

Whatever their conclusions may, and will, be, they will have to be tangible and so subject to criticism if criticism is to be applicable.

Time will tell what conclusions there will effectively be and then, only then, can conclusions be made about what they will conclude. 

Only then will we be able to say if either, or both, have been the result of free and objective investigations and if either, or both, have reached the material truth.

Scotland Yard after nearly 30 months has yet to produce any tangible result.

Hopefully this month's episode has shown those responsible in each of the 2 countries involved how really wary the public is becoming with all the games they're playing around this subject.

Nor is it finding it amusing seeing public money literally being wasted on it in times of economic crisis and violent financial hardship.

Hopefully they will have also realised how great are the expectations they have now created around it.  

What we have criticised about UK Crimewatch, and will continue to do so, was the disastrous manner in which it went about pursuing its objective: having had their chance for sheer brilliance, Scotland Yard blew it by linking its name and its reputation to a series of pathetic misleading informations.

For example, Crèche Dad will forevermore be cumbersome to Scotland Yard.

If PJ is to demystify truthfully the Bundleman/Crèche Dad sighting, what won't be forgotten is that on Oct 14 2103, Scotland Yard was afraid to tell the truth about a couple of doctors and their 4yr old daughter's death.

This fear made it necessary to produce a pantomime such as UK Crimewatch charade to pursue the truth.

And this fear, this very real fear of Britain's most prestigious police force, Scotland Yard, before 2 of its citizens has two sides to it.

First, it will need to be explained and second, it will be plain to see that on Oct 14 2013 Scotland Yard was playing politics and not doing police work.

Scotland Yard has committed the "White Hat" sin: wanting to out the truth but not the whole truth, just the part that's to their convenience.

Unfortunately for them but fortunately for us, truth is indivisible.  It's simply not a cake that one can quench the appetite with just a slice.

Truth has to be "eaten" whole to satisfy.

There will always be crumbs left over. But just crumbs and certainly not big chunks of it. Much less more than 3/4s of it.

Could Scotland Yard have done things differently? Of course it could.

UK Crimewatch was both arrogant and insulting.

Last week we posted the first 8 dicrepancies of UK Crimewatch. Here are the other 9:

Discrepancy 09 - The Fleece

When, at about the same time that Gerry is speaking to Jez in the street, UK Crimewatch portrays Jane Tanner getting up to do her checking and begin what would be the most famous walk anyone has ever done up a street, the Tanner Sighting walk.

Note her attire. A black sleveless, V-necked summer dress.

Where is Russ’s fleece that Tanner said she wore that evening for Tapas dinner?

But, immediately after this UK Crimewatch shows her walking on the street, now with what we are supposing to be a light knitted jacket. One thing is certain, no longer sleeveless arms.

Where did she pick up such a piece of clothing?

But what is important about this discrepancy is not that.

Its importance is about the apparent fickleness of PdL’s weather and about the real PdL’s weather on evening/night of May 3rd 2007.

We have already shown, here, how fickle the weather could be in PdL when one of the oddest climatic phenomenons occurred on May 2nd 2007: a sudden heat wave hit the little fishing town.

But now we’re confronted with another climatic phenomenon in the same little town just on the next day: a sudden, momentary and precisely located big drop of temperature!

Like shown above, according to UK Crimewatch Tanner leaves the BRT with just a flimsy dress.
But notice how lightly dressed all the T9 are for that dinner.

Dressed for a typical warm summer evening meal in an esplanade. Russ is even wearing a short sleeved shirt.

So, at around 21:15 Tanner leaves the table and that’s when, suddenly, the temperature apparently drops steeply.

First, she’s seen with her arms covered in the street as shown above, warmer although not as warm her character is portrayed in Mock to have been dressed at that moment:

And then she sees a man, Crèche Dad, who is wearing a dark jacket:

It's like the whole of PdL was warm and cozy with the exception of this crossing which is strangely chilly. Only Tanner and Crèche Dad seem to have felt the chill of the night. Talk about a microclimate!

Was this sudden chilliness a cinematographic eerie premonition of things about to happen? As now Bundleman isn’t, according to SY, the abductor, then Maddie is yet to have been abducted at this precise moment.

Later, at 21:40, Tanner again leaves the Tapas dinner wearing just her flimsy summer black dress.

Less than half hour for the temperature to drop and come back up again. Fantastic to say the least.

This Fleece Discrepancy, or "May 3rd PdL weather fickleness", implicates many things as we hope to show you.

We have shown, here, that the evening of May 3rd was indeed chilly, to say the least, and that fact alone could prove that only a sedated child could be transported in such temperatures barefooted and continue motionless and silently “asleep”.

The stills from Mock show how warmly dressed everyone was:

UK Crimewatch shows how Kate and Gerry had to dress up for their first press conference, on May 4, the next day:

We’re not questioning here Jane Tanner when she says she wore Russ’ fleece.

We’re questioning the fact that UK Crimewatch shows her not wearing it, especially at dinner.

And questioning why the other characters were portrayed dressed in summer attire during this meal outdoors.

The reason is very simple. Because it’s a very unpleasant experience to eat outdoors in an esplanade on a chilly evening.

Look at how Kate and Gerry are dressed on the evening of May 4th, at an earlier hour than the one the events portrayed in UK Crimewatch, and does that recommend that eating dinner outdoors is a sensible thing to do?

No it doesn't.

Plus having that dinner under a canopy open at both ends, which would certainly cause a chilly draft over the tables on top of an already chilly evening. Very, very unpleasant.

And what about the effect of that chilliness on the food itself when going for checks on the children?

Can you imagine how uneatable cold you would find your food upon your return?

The only right thing about this whole scenario would be the white wine that is supposed to be served chilled!

And, that is the crux of this discrepancy: would you queue up to just to be able to have a meal under such unpleasant conditions? 

Ocean Club says that was what happened.

And the many names that appear on the Tapas reservation sheets confirm that it was loads of fun to have chilly outdoor dinners.

And chilly outdoor Quiz Nights too!

Hard to believe, isn’t it?

That’s why UK Crimewatch had to show a “warm and pleasant summer outdoor dinner” around BRT.

Discrepancy 10 - The Bed

We captured, from UK Crimewatch, three pictures of the replicated bed from which Maddie was supposedly abducted, which are shown above. One even includes the child actress who played her part.

None resemble even remotely what appears photographed in the PJ Files:

Notice how in UK Crimewatch when they pulled the sheets back up, it's still noticeable that someone has been below those sheets and that in the bed photographed the PJ Files it's evident no one was.

When Scotland Yard/BBC cannot reproduce such an important detail as claimed by the missing child's parents, then we think all is said.

Also, as can be seen, the child actress on the bed is not laying in the position Gerry says Maddie was laying, the recovery position on top of the covers. It seems that it was hot in the kid's bedroom albeit all those adults coming in and going out on a chilly night.

Discrepancy 11 - The Direction

Just like the Black Hats got the abductor going in the wrong direction, as we explained here, so has Scotland Yard done the same with Crèche Dad, by putting him walking in the opposite direction he should have been. 

Crèche Dad is coming from crêche and not towards it, so saying he was there because he had just picked his child from the crêche simply doesn't make any sense.

It's like putting James Bond behind the wheel of a Vauxhaul and saying he's driving an Aston Martin just because they changed the logo on the hood.

Crèche Dad is unquestionably one of the biggest stars of UK Crimewatch. In more ways than one.

The introduction of this character by Scotland Yard into the storyline had the clear intention of making the statement that Jane Tanner's Bundleman wasn't Maddie's supposed abductor.

As to why, we can only speculate.

Redwood says that by taking Bundleman out of the picture (and out of the abduction "equation) they, Scotland Yard, could look at the period between 21.15 and 22.00 with another set of eyes.

For the rest of the documentary we waited with some anxiety as to what Scotland Yard's elite detectives had discovered in that period of time. We waited for nothing. Literally.

We do believe that on the next day, Tuesday, some tabloids ventured the possibility that the abductor was in the apartment just 5 minutes before Kate did her checking at 22.00.

But this is based on what? Inside information?  From who? Certainly not from Scotland Yard that just had on the previous evening aired a documentary, via BBC, with the opportunity to say exactly that but didn't.

And this fascination that the so-called abductors have with the McCann parents is bordering the psychopathic. First we had Bundleman sharing for a few minutes the apartment with Gerry and now Redwood's Phantom Menace missing Kate by just 5 minutes!

One thing is certain, to allow the time window to open up from 21.15, Scotland Yard threw out with the water the Black Hat abduction theory.

Bundleman not being the abductor, leaves no other piece of evidence, real or invented, to support that Maddie was abducted.

To support that only the fact that she's physically missing.

And that Redwood states that it has all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction but doesn't specify anything to support such a statement.

And a statement is just a statement as, for example, the McCanns stating that there was an abduction and that is very far from meaning that there was one.

So, Black Hats, as of Monday Oct 14 2013, unless Scotland Yard backtracks, you simply have no abduction. Sorry, but you just can't have Bundleman be Bundleman and not be Bundleman at the same time.

So please remove Bundleman from your site as someone you seek help to be identified:

He has already been clearly identified by the Scotland Yard's elite detectives: he's Crèche Dad.

We don't know when the Crèche Dad "moment of revelation" came to Scotland Yard.

Redwood is clear that it was the result of a conversation, when the Met questioned one of the families that had used the night crèche on May 3rd.

So we're supposing that it came as much of surprise to this family as it did to Scotland Yard that this father and his sibling played, according to the Met, a significant role in the Maddie Affair.

This would explain why it took 4 to 6 years to find Crèche Dad. A surprise to all.

But the problem with fabrications is that they are just that, fabrications.

Let's start with how Crèche Dad was presented to the world:

Uncannily similar, said Redwood. And we agree.

But give us a dark jacket and a pair of beige trousers and we'll produce a million, or more, and we're speaking literally, of others with the exact same uncannily similarity. All we need is to find a male with Bundleman's approximate built.

Redwood doesn't explain why the man remembers what clothes he was wearing on a night, so many years ago, that has nothing remarkable to remind him of it.

Can anyone of us remember what we wore on May 3rd 2007? Why would he remember? We see no reason whatsoever.

Redwood also speaks of another uncannily similarity, that of the pyjamas worn by Crèche Dad's sibling and the one by Bundleman's child. Here we have to disagree.

The colours are all wrong, one is blue toned and the other pink. But it was night and the lighting could confuse.

But what is most noticeable on the pyjamas on the left are its orange bottoms while on the one on the right, are its frills.

Would you give a discription of the one on the left compared with the one on the right? Jane Tanner has, according to Scotland Yard.

And the same question we have asked about Crèche Dad remembering what he wore on that particular night back in 2007 has to be asked about why does this family remember exactly what pyjamas the child wore that same night. We see no reason.

But one mustn't stop the questioning there as one is also curious as to why this family kept these pyjamas this whole time. Again, we see no reason.

There is one incredible thing that this whole Créche Dad episode means. The amazing coincidence of two children using "uncannily similar" pyjamas at the exact same time and location that Jane Tanner is walking up the street: Maddie and Crèche Dad's sibling.

Simply incredible. Really. As in we don't believe it.

And what's this with having a blanket next to the pijamas when these are presented in UK Crimewatch? 

To revive the blanket controversy?

We thought that the Black Hats had settled that Bundleman carried Maddie with no blanket. There is no blanket on Bundleman-now-Crèche Dad's sketch:

Did Crèche Dad take the child to night crèche in a blanket but forgot to bring it for the return journey?

What Scotland Yard hasn’t considered is that any child taken to a crèche would have been wearing shoes to go there and to play around before going to sleep.

Did Crèche Dad take his child without shoes to crèche or was he carrying them in his pocket?

One would think crèche staff would remember a child being brought in not wearing shoes and no coat.

The other thing not mentioned anywhere is Crèche Dad isn't referenced by anyone when carrying his child (daughter that was a son at one point) to the crèche earlier when it was busier.

Carrying a barefoot child, dressed only in pyjamas on a chilly evening would be something to remember.

Lastly, at least we got to know that the McCanns weren't the only parents that forgot to bring a buggy to this holiday.

Discrepancy 12 - The Space

In UK Crimewatch, the digital reconstruction of the kid's room, the image has been "handled" to consciously mislead the unconscious viewer.

Notice how the beige cot is closer to the blue one so that it seems that there was a passage available to the window.

To help this illusion, the bed near the window has been subtly pulled away from the wall and also to allow for curtain whooshing.

However the scenario is so absurdly unreal that not even the artificial and intentional, replacement of objects make the abduction via window minimally feasible.

Discrepancy 13 - The Smith Sighting

This discrepancy is particularly serious. Both in terms of content and of ethical implications.

During UK Crimewatch, when talking about this sighting the reporter says that Two-Face was seen going down the road towards the beach as per picture above.

In the PJ Files, A. Smith (AS), a minor, is very clear in saying that the man she saw carrying the little girl went down the stairs towards where Kelly's Bar is located (from where the Smiths were coming from), like we showed here, and not down the road as said in UK Crimewatch.

Ethically, this is totally and blatantly disrespecting a minor, distorting completely what she has said and is in the PJ Files, both in words and pictures.

Maybe Scotland Yard, like we have with TS, has concluded that AS isn't exactly accurate.

However, unlike with TS's statements, we find AS's to be logically consistent with her father's and her brother's statements.

And unlike what Scotland Yard has done with AS's statement, we have not distorted a single word TS has said. We have simply demonstrated why, in our opinion, we think what TS has said is devoid of logic and reason.

And we have always defended that TS, as the minor she was, may have been told it was for a good reason, with no idea of the consequences, thus blameless.

If Scotland Yard has found the need to correct a witness' statement, either in content or significance, like it seems to be the case with AS, it should explain.

In exactly the same the way they did with Tanner's Bundleman v Crèche Dad.

Otherwise it's just messing with a witness statement.

What Scotland Yard has done with AS is unforgivable. We do hope that Redwood's announced trip to Ireland was to try to explain and correct this.

In terms of content, messing with the intent to mislead with the "new" information that Scotland Yard says UK Crimewatch contains, which is Two-Face, just proves that it's nothing but a hypocritical exercise.

To say the man is in his thirties, as Redwood says, and not in his forties as the Smiths have said and is written in the PJ Files, is intentionally misleading.

To say that the man went down the road towards the beach instead of down the stairs as AS has said and is written in the PJ Files, is grossly misleading.


We're sure Scotland Yard has read how we have debunked, here but mainly here, that any and all reason for the Stroller, now Two-Face, to go to either one of the beaches is absolutely nonsensical, so we imagine Scotland Yard knows that Two-Face going down "towards the beach" is ridiculous in any of the two possible routes, road (according to SY) or stairs (according to AS).

The difference is that the stairs, the direction the man did take, is even more absurd than the going down the road, as it heads towards where there was night life in Praia da Luz, namely Kelly's Bar and Dolphins.

So they now have him going down a path he didn't go, disrespecting completely what a minor said she saw.

Discrepancy 14 - The Pimpleman Sightings


The UK Crimewatch speaks of four sightings of Pimpleman: one that has to be seriously questioned, TS’s as we showed in many posts; another by Carole Tranmer, Mrs Fenn’s niece, that we spoke of here; another of two men by the Jensen sisters that we spoke of here and the last one, the laundryman sighting, or Mario Moreira's Improved Memory Syndrome that we spoke of here and here.

The first important thing to say is that Scotland Yard confirms what we have said here about Pimpleman, and that is that he is still out there. Why hasn't a significant effort been made to find him since 2009, we don't know.

Please don't confuse Bundleman with Pimpleman. Scotland Yard in UK Crimewatch casts doubt about the first but, with these 4 sightings, confirms the existence of the latter, who has yet to be found.

The first two UK Crimewatch sightings, TS's and Carole Tranmer's are well documented in the PJ Files.

The other two, Jensens' and Laundryman's, aren't.

We have two graphic detailings of Pimpleman sightings that were known up to May 2011.

The first one is Dave Edgar's white board, shown in Mock, May 2009:


The other a picture from Kate's Book, published May 2011:

We proved here that the only difference between them was Carole Tranmer's sighting, one we were the first to reveal here.

But the UK Crimewatch does one amazing thing, to say the least, and that is to discard completely the only place where Pimpleman was claimed to be seen by all three witnesses that appeared on Mock, JW, TS and Derek Flack.

We even wrote a post, here, about the controversial amount of clothing he wore while standing in that exact spot, supposedly looking at Apartment 5A:

So, according to Scotland Yard, neither JW, nor TS, nor Derek Flack see him as shown below in Mock:


It is convenient to say that both TS's and Derek Flack's sightings are very well documented in the PJ Files and we know, as Mock has shown here, that JW has provided at least two statements, although neither appear in files.

Now both JW and Derek Flack have seen nothing.

We then hope that we're correct in assuming that Derek Flack hasn't also seen the white van that we spoke of in our post, here:

Discrepancy 15 - The TS's Sighting

We're particularly sensitive about this discrepancy. No one can watch a child be abused three times and remain unaffected.

The first time TS was abused was when her innocence was exploited by whoever convinced her, with her parents' permission, to go to the PJ and say things devoid of logic and reason.

The second time was when those same things, devoid of logic and reason, were publicly exposed in Mock, including the "correction" of one of them, the road side discrepancy, as showed here.

And now, with Crimewatch, she's again abused.

Like AS, she's had her statement messed with.

One thing is for that to happen in a "private venture" such as the Mock, another, completely different is having that done by the Scotland Yard.

Like we said with AS, if, for some reason Scotland Yard found a reason to correct anything that TS has said in the PJ Files, either in content or signifcance, then it had to the exact same kind of explanation it did with Tanner's Bundleman v Crèche Dad.

It didn't. It just altered her statement and hoped nobody noticed. Unaceptable and unforgivable.

And we're not talking about the minor discrepancy, which we will disregard, which is the detail about Pimpleman's arms in TS's first sighting, although taking into account the height of the wall that he's supposed to be leaning on, we haven't the faintest idea where his feet might be:

Where TS is seriously abused by Scotland Yard is on the her second sighting when she says, as it is written in the PJ Files, that she sees Pimpleman on one side of the street and Scotland Yard says she sees him on the other, in the exact same place where she says she herself was when she saw him while walking her dogs:

With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?

One has to wonder why this was done. We don't see any possible answer.

But as we are on the subject, one has to ask Scotland Yard that since they put Pimpleman on the other side of the street, specifically at the entrance of the Tapas pool entrance, why didn't they put him reading the reservation book that Kate claims was left open on the page with the note that said that T9 left their children alone in the apartments?

You took Kate's word as fact for the first pool swim as we saw, so we're supposing that you also believe this reservation book story, so why didn't you use it?

Discrepancy 16 - The Jensen Sisters' Sighting

The Jensen Sisters' Sighting is not, as we have said, in the PJ Files, nor was it shown in Emma Loach's Mock.

A new sighting that we spoke about it here.

Jayne Jensen and her sister Annie Wiltshire speak of seeing two blond men in their 30's, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCann's flat ….   One had curly was stockier than the other, both were “tanned and in Bermuda shorts”

According to Annie; “ One of the guys was walking down the steps and as I looked at him, he walked back up and started talking to the other one.”

Sorry, we don't see neither tanned, nor blond, but what is not seen is either the balcony or the stairs referred.

Scotland Yard does say "outside an empty apartment". That hardly qualifies as either stairs or balcony.

Discrepancy 17 - The Carole Tranmer's Sighting

Carole Tranmer says in her rogatory interview, in the PJ Files, "'And, humm... then I believe I saw him wearing a blue-grey T-shirt, it was not dark blue, more of a pallid colour and it was, humm... a type of blue with short sleeves, humm... but I did not see anything below, I did not see the trousers or shoes or anything else, only the top part and he would have, I would say'humm, when looking from above, he was not short, I would say he was about a 1'78, about medium height. He was not thing nor was he muscular. So he was of average stature. I would say he was European but not Portuguese. He was not dark and, he was not short, but I would say that he looked Scandinavian if you will, because he was very light and could have been British or Scandinavian. Even though I was looking upwards, he had big eyes, there is nothing else. He did not have tattoos, nothing like this, humm'a person of common appearance, it was his furtiveness that called my attention, humm, no, I can't'".

T-shirt colour and sleeve size confirm that this is her sighting. 

But what we don't see in Crimewatch is this:: 'Humm... he was blonde, with a lot of hair, very short, not like mine but a little more, humm... but not like a footballer, do you know what I mean' A style close to shaven. Very short, blonde, the head was very sculptured. The shape of the head was very sculptured, more oval shaped." and "No, nothing from what I remember, because he was very blonde. 

Scotland Yard, in Crimewatch, says that these sightings refer to fair-haired men. None of the men shown in all 4 sightings, including this one, are either blond or fair-headed.

But the biggest discrepancy is this: 'We were all seated on the terrace, hummm'talking, and I was inclined to look below and this is when I saw someone leave the apartment of the first floor, closing the gate very gently as they were leaving, opening and closing the gate with much caution and in silence. It appeared to me very strange. They looked to one side and the other, shut the gate and walked very quickly downwards. It was at this point that I turned to my aunt and my husband and exclaimed 'That was really very strange'..."

She is not exactly describing a man walking peacefully and naturally in the pathway behind the apartments as this sighting is portrayed in Crimewatch.

If seeing a blonde man exiting furtively what seems to be the Oldfield’s apartment in the afternoon of May 3rd, the day that Maddie disappeared, is not considered important enough do be described with accuracy by the Scotland Yard, then we don't know what is.

And it wasn't Matthew Oldfield, otherwise this wouldn't be a sighting

See also UK Crimewatch - Discrepancies I


  1. Can we handle the truth? Yes we can!
    Can they admit the truth? No they can't!
    Briiliant as always! Tahnk you for all the effort put into this!

  2. Thank you for this Textusa. It helps to put into perspective why the PJ has announced they are pursuing the abduction theory. However, can GA's libel case continue under these circumstances?

  3. Anonymous25 Oct 2013 11:15:00

    Thank you for a very pertinent question.

    We're being confronted with yet another oddity from the McCanns.

    As far as we know, it's the first time we see someone being represented in the same country and at the same time by two different lawyers: Rogerio Alves and Isabel Duarte.

    Why hasn't Rogerio Alves led the prosecution in the Libel trial or why wasn't Isabel Duarte contacted by the press now?

    It seems to us that it's the McCanns that are clearly separating the waters between the Libel trial and and the case reopening.

    In legal terms, we don't see how one influences the other.

    The Libel trial is about, or so we have been told, the fact that Amaral's book may or may not have hindered the search for Maddie after the case was archived in 2008.

    In fact, this "new clue" that has reopened the case, could, if anything, reinforce the McCanns position in the trial if they can prove that if it wasn't for Amaral's book it would have been found sooner.

    We haven't the faintest idea of what this "new clue" is (and we don't think it even exists) so we can't make any sort of judgment about it.

    But what this Two-Lawyer strategy suggests is that the McCanns look at both cases in a different manner.

    On one hand, the repoening of the case, they feel the need for the protection of a heavyweight, Rogerio Alves, while on the other, the Libel trial, they give the impression that any lawyer can do, in the case, Isabel Duarte.

    It's like they're saying, we're taking the reopening very seriously while for the Libel trial we couldn't care less.

    What they haven't realised, and this is where the two events are interlinked, is that they can't afford not to win in the Libel trial.

    They can't afford to lose.

    If the former head of Maddie's investigation team comes unscathed out of it, the message to the general public will be very clear: Mr Amaral was right in saying that Maddie is dead and that the parents were involved.

    As we said, that is not the subject matter of the trial but it is the perception of the general public about it.

    The general public's wrong perception about the couple's negligence favours them but its wrong perception of what the trial is about works against them.

    1. Fro Duarte Levy's site:

      "Isabel Duarte, advogada dos McCann, – que no passado se ilustrou na defesa de diversos profissionais da comunicação social, em particular do semanário Expresso "

      Ø Tem trabalhado, desde a licenciatura, em vários ramos do direito, abrangendo, nomeadamente, o direito dos media, o direito criminal, o direito da publicidade, o direito da concorrência, o direito de autor, o direito comercial, o direito civil genérico, o direito do trabalho, o direito da família, o direito fiscal e o direito administrativo;
      Ø Tem assistido extrajudicialmente e representado judicialmente, desde 1985, jornalistas e órgãos de comunicação social, tem colaborado na conformação jurídica das actividades de produção de conteúdos para televisão,


      Ø De 1985 até à data, tem dedicado parte substancial do seu tempo profissional, ao direito dos media, e ao direito de autor na sua vertente contenciosa;

      Ø É autora de textos técnicos ou de comunicações orais, relacionados com o direito dos “media”e o direito do turismo;


      Seems like Isabel Duarte's profissional career is focused on libel cases, specially defending media people.

    2. It seems that Isabel Duarte is basically an expert in all areas of Law (media, criminal, publicity, competition, copyright, commercial, civil, work, family, fiscal and administrative).

      Unfortunately for Portugal, the quality of a lawyer is defined by his ability to produce results in any area of Law, rather than an area of expertise.

      Most big name lawyers, like Rogerio Alves, Carlos Pinto de Abreu (who the McCanns hired initially and who Kate "complimented" in her book), Ricardo Sá Fernandes (who is Filomena Teixeira's lawyer in the case of Rui Pedro and one of Carlos Cruz's lawyers in Casa Pia) haven't built their reputation (and with it their honoraries) around criminal law or media law. They built it by their ability to step up to the plate and deliver.

      But even if it weren't so, a name like Rogerio Alves carries much more weight in any court room than Isabel Duarte's no matter how expert in the matter she may be.

      And we are talking about a 1,250,000 € case, so not exactly peanuts.

      One reason Rogerio Alves may not be representing the McCanns in the Libel Trial is that he quickly understood they stood no chance and having a reputation to uphold, decided to decline.

      We don't know if was even asked. What we know is that the McCanns have one lawyer for one case and another for the other.

  4. The Portuguese investigation was opened in 2011, 2 months before the McCanns asked for the review, as I understand.
    This may be significant

    Guardian today says Portuguese investigation will run in PARALLEL with the SY inquiry.


    News from Correio da Manha:

    "The RECONSTITUTION of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, on May 3, 2007 - WHICH WAS ONE OF THE STEPS THAT WERE NEVER DONE DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF THE ENGLISH CHILD'S PARENTS AND FRIENDS WHO ACCOMPANIED THEM AT THE TIME OF THE DISAPPEARANCE - WILL NOW BE ABLE TO BE CARRIED OUT. The family of the girl are already available to cooperate with the Portuguese police, after the authorities demonstrated their intention to follow once again the abduction theory.

    Set aside, FOR THE TIME BEING, is the hypothesis that it was a negligent homicide - as was defended by the PJ in a first stage of the investigation. The process, as CMTV first reported before yesterday, has also been reopened by the PGR [Attorney General's Office] at the request of the Judiciary Police."

    Doesn't this just underlines what Textusa is saying?

    PJ quer reabrir caso Maddie

    24 de outubro, 17:26

    Pistas mal analisadas no caso do desaparecimento da menina inglesa
    Caso Maddie em análise no 'Manhã CM'

    Bem sei que são pequenos pormenores........mas

    a culpa morrerá solteira?

  7. Daily Mirror today
    Detectives searching for a gang of 5 people.
    So were ALL the e-fit men lurking around part of the same gang?
    Not 1 Pimpleman but 5 Pimplemen?
    The Outlaws. Who stood out?

  8. Guardian page 29 today:

    "Fear and distrust of Roma threatens to erupt into a European "witch-hunt"

    Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party has seen its popularity rise on the back of "pogroms" against the Roma"

    So let us hear no more about Raymond Hewlett and his alleged confession about Maddie being taken by gypsies.

    "A blood libel, that has dogged Roma communities for centuries", Louise Doughty - Guardian. October 23rd

  9. The Anne Guedes transcriptions for Moita Flores has been published.

    For our registry, we have published it on our McCann v Amaral Libel Trial blog.

    You can read it here:

    We reiterate our gratefulness to Anne and her hard work. A citizen can make a difference.

    1. Wonder why Carvalho didn't appear?
      Flores is quite clear that parents involvement was first thing that should have been considered. It was Mark Harrison report from UK that proposed this and involving dogs.
      But PJ were beginning to suspect parents when conflicting accounts emerged. And GA book makes clear he was opposed by the British ambassador when he wanted to pick up M's clothes from May 3rd.
      "The clothes, are you mad?"
      And denied access to medical and credit card records.

    2. GA book:
      "It's July. The hypothesis of death, including by the parents is being seriously considered.... We officially request the help of the best experts in criminology and forensics but we also welcome Mark Harrison, a specialist in murder and search for missing persons.... His results confirm our worst fears... There is no doubt M is dead and her body hidden somewhere in the area around PdL . He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. according to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area....
      The figures quoted in his report... 96% are perpetrated by friends or relatives.
      Only 4% .... a total stranger."

      Harrison also suggests we use the skills of 2 remarkable dogs.

      The Mark Harrison report:

    3. MF - "...In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.

      SO – Why?
      MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction."


      "SO asks about the "death" theory.
      MF says it is more likely that the child died. And he adds it is impossible that someone passed through the window with a child. He says the abduction theory then doesn't make sense. He observes that there are many possibilities, it's perfectly admissible for instance that the child went out to search for her parents. If the child died, it could have been outside of the flat or in the flat. But, he says, the disappearance never could have happened through the window, he insists that it is essential to understand that it is technically, humanly, impossible. The witness concludes affirming that all the hypotheses are possible, except for the abduction “through that window”)"


      "GP – Do you think that, because of the book, they stopped investigating the case?
      MF says he was perplexed when the case was shelved. He feels he has to say that the case was very well investigated. If the Public Ministry doesn't reopen the case, it's because no relevant piece of evidence has been brought. The witness suggests that the case suffered carnival aspects and early errors, the biggest being not to have investigated the parents. Life shows us that there are parents who mistreat their children and this eventuality could not be properly discarded."


      RA = Ricardo Afonso for prosecution:
      "RA – When you said that the police had committed an error in investigating only the abduction hypothesis, what do you base that assumption on?
      MF answers that it is based on his own experience. Experience says that the main suspects are closest to the victim and that the solution is often the simpler one. He adds that an abduction assumption cannot be discarded, but should not be the first or only one to be examined."


      "RA – Why were you perplexed when the process was shelved?
      MF I found that the contradictions by the people who had access to the McCann apartment were not explored sufficiently. It was a fundamental error not to isolate them, check who had access to the apartment and collect the data relating to their phone calls in order to clarify the discrepancies in their statements. If it had been done, we wouldn't be here, involved in a trial on freedom of opinion."

      Moita Flores was a former PJ inspector. He's knows what he's talking about.

  10. The McCanns by keeping the Bundleman picture on their website are the first ones to recognise that SY's Crimewatch is not true!!

  11. One possible reason Ms. Tanner appears in black in Crimewatch's mockumentary may be because it helps to explain (in a subliminal manner) why she was not sighted by Gerry and Jez as she passed right next to them. She was camouflaged, you see.

    PR relies a lot on visual semiotics. No doubt the BBC has read Roland Barthes' "The Rhetoric of the Image".

    As for "Creche Dad" we can discount him as an "extra" brought in for the sake of Redwood's "revelation" - already one of the finest jokes in the repertoire of good old dear Scotland Yard. From Sherlock Holmes to Andy Redwood! Talk about Darwin's evolution and the survival of the stupidest!

    1. Sorry, I have to bring up Tanner's flip-flops again ! (comment bellow, @25 Oct 2013 16:37:00)

      They might not have seen her because she was "camouflaged" in black attire, but still they had to hear her footsteps, the flip-flops' "clickety-clack. clickety-clack down the track", or in this instance, up the cobbled road!

      From Tanner's rogatory:

      ..."I remember I was wearing, because it was cold, I’d got Russell’s big, I’d borrowed one of his, erm, fleeces, so I’d got a big sort of fleece, it probably came down to about here, but then I’d got flip-flops on and cropped trousers, because I’d only got, I didn’t take jeans, I know I didn’t take jeans on holiday, and then. Oh I’m sidetracking a bit, but that’s why I knew one of the pictures in the paper wasn’t from the holiday, because I hadn’t got jeans on the holiday with me, so. Erm, yeah, and I’d got cropped trousers on and just flip-flops, so I can remember sort of walking, I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well in them, so to speak. Erm, and I walked, I was walking up the road"...

      "4078 “So you have left the Tapas Bar and you have gone up that hill. What is there, is there a pavement and a road there?”
      Reply “Yeah, there’s sort of like a pavement which is sort of almost like made up of, it’s not cobbles, but made up of small stones”.
      4078 “Not ideal for flip-flop wearers?”
      Reply “No, because I do remember, I was almost looking at my, sort of not looking at my feet, but I was sort of padding, because obviously I was trying to get to do the check and get back as quick as possible as well, so I just thought ‘Oh I’ll just go and do the check as quick as possible’ and I did think, I was not struggling to walk in my flip-flips, but, you know, I wasn’t, I wasn’t striding”."

    2. Excellent point Textusa. That did not occur to me nor to the BBC for that matter!

      I suspect they imagined viewers would see Jane wearing black and immediately associated that with Gerry and Jez missing her passing by (the rhetoric of the image).

      The flip-flopping detail never occurred to BBC's artistic director or perhaps s/he thought best avoid the "rhetoric of the sound" - paraphrasing R.B.

      Also, as you point out, in the screen capture in the text above (time stamped 9:40 approx.) one does not see (?) Jane Tanner wearing flip-flops at all! They made sure the actor was wearing proper shoes. Perhaps she was made to look more reliable that way - not the kind of person prone to flip-flop from the facts (...)

      Also, I understand there were two cars parked in the area, One right in front of the Tapas entrance and another right below 5A' famous window (where both men stood chatting) which would have made it even more difficult for Gerry and Jez not seeing/hearing Jane flip-flopping past them on the pavement.

      I understand, Jane does not state she stepped into the road just before passing them, or passed them on the other side of the road, does she? May be she reads your blog and will "clarify" this detail for us during the forthcoming "ready -to-wear" reconstruction - if any. I am sure the PJ can save her the embarrassment.

      I suspect in Propaganda, details or so-called subsidiary ideas are, seemingly, not of critical importance in the mind-setting of the masses - or the promotion of a brand.

      It's a mockumentary alright and one endorsed by the "legendary" Scotland Yard! May be Evolution has caught up with the fabled dinosaurs..

  12. Never before have I heard in Portugal that a police investigation starts with someone NOT being suspect. Another McCann first.
    Next time I get a parking ticket should I ask the policeman for a "McCann bypass"?

  13. Textusa, I have to disagree with you when you speak of "pathetic misleading informations"
    I don't think they're pathetic at all. Some are, like the swim, the door, crèche dad and the bed come to mind. But most of them were subtle. They didn't count on you and your team to spot them. One thing that surprised me was the the space in SY that Redwood has as well as the personnel. I think there's even a briefing room. All these people including those fro BBC colluded to create a deception. Some were obvious (pathetic if you will) but most were not meant to be spotted. That's the kind of work that SY was put up to do. Fool the audience. Our tax money paid for this work. Thank you for showing Crimewatch for all it was.

  14. I'm so surprised how the MET could wheel out the idea, that Bundleman\Sketchman could explain the error of Tanner's sighting to be the parent with child so easily, particularly if, we are to believe the crèche is by the Millennium restaurant & the parent was returning, thus in the opposite direction, considering it was 9.25 (would be from rather than to)

    But let us move on and accept this for what it was a red herring.

    Would you say, in the matter of controversy of what HELD UP this case for so long was the insistence that Tanner saw the abduction and it was that very ambiguous situation of three adults being in the road outside the apartment, whilst the alleged abduction was in progress, did the biggest damage to this case. Which actually pales into insignificance the professional opinion based on the investigation of information furnished by the group.

    Perhaps that's why there is a general quietness from the McCann's PR machine, although the MSM British press is making up for any speculation.


  15. Tanner, NO fleece and no one FLIP-FLOP in sight! After all her bla bla bla in her rogatory about those flip-flops, making it hard to walk up the street and such, I would expect to see the cameras focusing on her feet, if for nothing else, the sound they would make!


    ..."a blonde man exiting furtively what seems to be the Oldfield’s apartment in the afternoon of May 3rd, the day that Maddie disappeared, is not considered important enough do be described with accuracy by the Scotland Yard, then we don't know what is.

    And it wasn't Matthew Oldfield, otherwise this wouldn't be a sighting."

    Could it be Russel O'Brien...? He's blond.


    Caso Maddie
    Vídeo dos cães-pisteiros no apartamento dos McCann hoje na CMTV

    Não perca as imagens exclusivas na CMTV.

    Hoje, em rigoroso exclusivo, veja o vídeo na íntegra do farejamento dos cães-pisteiros no apartamento e nas roupas do casal McCann, na abertura do ‘CM Jornal’, às 19h45, e no 'Rua Segura' especial, às 23h30. Caso Maddie, jornalismo de investigação com a marca Correio da Manhã.

    Well, it seems that the Portuguese weren't allowed to see Crimewatch but today at 19h45 and 22h30 they're going to be able to watch the dogs video, as an exclusive of CMTV!
    They will see and judge for themselves if it makes sense that the McCanns aren't considered suspects.
    Sardine-munching press not as submissive as British MSM, it seems...

  17. Found something very interesting at websleuth. A poster, Hexe, picked up a detail that had escaped us totally (we can't see everything...)

    As we think what was referenced to be of the utmost importance, we are bringing it over here.

    From Hexe:

    "After seeing again the picture of the children bedroom I'm pretty sure no abduction through the window took place. Just image the abductor, walking with Maddie in his arms, through this tight space between cots, which were, as can you see on the pic, standing very uneven. Yet Mr. Abductor managed to squeeze himself in between of them, then to reach the window, without bumping into the second bed, or the chair, that are blocking the way, open the windw noiselessly, and all of that in the darkness, without waking up any of the three light sleeping children. Houdini, no more, no less.

    Another thing. Kate saw the curtains whooshing. Yet on the pic you can see that one curtain is held tightly against the wall by the bed, and another is blocked by the chair. So what was whooshing here, actually?

    And the third thing: the door. It's held by the brown cot in the open position, so how could it have been closed, or partially closed, when the McCanns and Oldfield were making the checkups?"

    The thid thing, the cot holding the door in the PJ Files photo (used in our 'Please Reconstruct I' in the front page of the blog and on current post in Discrepancy 12 - The Space) has indeed many implications...

    Thank you Hexe for spotting this.

    1. Textusa, I'm afaid this might not be as an intersting finding as it might seem...unless I'm missing your point and you mean something else I haven't quite grasped:
      That photo were the door seems blocked by the cot, well, it might be just an optical illusion created by the position were the photo was being taken from. Have a look at the other PJ photos inside 5A:

      Look at photo # 4, there seems to be some sort of wardrobe, we can see the side of it, the long, narrow white plank and the door completely open. If the door was a bit more closed, hiding that white plank it would seem that the cot is right by the door, as in the photo in your article, which is PJ's photo # 5. And look at photo # 7, that one is weird, I can't exactly make out what I'm seeing, if that is a wardrobe or what! I can see a door knob and some hinges, but it doesn't see like it is the room's door. Surely those photos were taken all together, at the same time, one after the other, with the furniture in the same place.

      On the curtains subject, yes, that's a good point! The left hand side one was clearly restrained between the bed and the wall, not much chance of it moving an inch, let alone fly with the wind! The right side one is not as restrained as the other, but still tucked behind the chair, this one could move with a draft, but not much...another point, those seem like heavy material curtains, and it seems there are no other lighter curtains behind those, as in the living room (white sheer ones(, at least they are not seen in the photos. If there were a pair of that kind of curtains in that window, then it would be possible to have some whooshing movement, but not with those heavy ones, particularly when tucked behind furniture.

    2. Sorry, I forgot to put in my comment something that popped into my mind when I was looking at the photos of the children's room and its door:
      -if that door opens towards the right, then how could anyone checking on the childre NOT see Madeleine in her bed?! Wasn't it Oldfield that mentioned he saw the twins sleeping in their cots, but could not see Madeleine? If the door was sort of half-closed or a bit more, as the McCanns say they left it, he would not see at least one of the cots, but would see the bottom of Madeleine's bed, half or 3/4 of it!

    3. Text, it doesn't look like the bed has been moved at all, to me. Look at the wall-line.

  18. I think people should be prepare to realise the mccanns will be exonerated,something is going on that will never be allowed to become public,Madeleine has paid the ultimate

    1. And we think people should prepare for the exact opposite.

      Difference of opinions which should be mutually respected.

    2. It looks like you're not respecting mine.If you think anything but a whitewash from PJ & SY will happen you're living in fantasy land i'm afraid.

    3. We will have to respect differences and only time will tell who is correct.

      No question that some people are feeling a bit depressed by the spin.

      This spin is creating a small snowstorm in the glass globe. It will take time for it to settle, so we can see more clearly.

  19. About the McCanns being deemed suspects by the PJ in the ongoing inquiry, the Portuguese process is subject to secrecy.

    Any information about this now is either an unauthorised leak or press speculation and spin.

    The fact that they are assistants can be made public but the fact that they are or aren't suspects can't.

    That's why the arguido status exists. To warn a person that they may be suspect and, because of that shadow of suspicion, they're entitled to further rights, like having the presence of a lawyer during inquiry, which a witness who isn’t an arguido isn’t entitled to and not having to be truthful in statements like any witness who isn’t an arguido has to be.

    As per Anne Guedes transcripts of the Libel trial: “The judge now explains that "suspect" is different from "arguido". "Arguido" means there are indications that will lead a person to have to defend her/himself. It's a statute created for the defence of the person. "Suspect" means a hypothesis is formed about someone”

    An assistant, as anybody else, can be made arguido at any moment if the PJ finds sufficient reason for that to happen.


    Former Internal Affairs Minister Rui Pereira is very logical.

    He says the process is the same. Picked up from the point it was interrupted.

    The McCanns stopped being arguidos because the process was archived.

    Stopped only.

    If the process is to be resumed, as it is by being reopened (same process and not a new one), then things should continue from the point things were interrupted: with McCanns arguidos.

    That they should only lose that status when the inquiry is closed.

    By the way, he hopes that this new evidence is really new evidence.

    1. The fact that these things are being OPENLY discussed is the BIGGEST DIFFERENCE from now and what has been reality up to now.
      This open discussion is just closing things on the McCanns. Very soon it will become unbearable to those supporting them. By now I bet many phone calls are being made trying to get promises that some names won't pop up!

    2. Should add the link to this video was provided by Xclamation (Joana Morais) on twitter.

    3. Fascinating! Former Internal Affairs Minister Rui Pereira also expects the McCanns' to be made "arguidos" at some stage but he smiles when saying so... admitting perhaps that would be "politically incorrect".

      It is all PR at a level never witnessed before... wait...I may exaggerate!

      OK, I may be wrong too. Portugal could have had enough of the McCanns and go for the one charge they will have no great difficulty in pinning them down - that of "abandoning their children to their fate" (as former ambassador Santana Carlos, once suggested).

      Let us wait and see. I have no faith in either the PJ or SY. Sorry for being so pessimistic.

    4. Sorry! I misheard Sir Rui Pereira. He does not specifically refer to the McCanns and/or their friends as I seem to imply in my comment above - although he could have been thinking of them as much as I did (...)

  21. I think at that time PJ will act with a lot of cleverness. They already have a strong idea about what happen to Maddie and who did it. And I don't believe their idea changed a commas now. That's why to avoid speculation and spinnery, the case was reopenned with the official investigation informing the public that the case is undersecrecy. Then, whatever come from Rogério Alves mouth, is spinnery.
    At this time PJ will not made the Mccann's arguidos, not because they don't suspect them, but because the arguidos status give them some rights that are not helping the investigation in case of an interrogatory. Example, an arguido has the right to lie if he wants, or to refuse to answer questions. If they don't have the arguido status, they are obliged to tell the truth, under interrogatory, and they can't refuse answer any question. If they do it, their status change into an arguido status. In fact the arguido status is to help the suspect by giving him some rights.
    At this time, PJ will issue the arguido status when they are absolutely sure that the next step is an arrest. I think the Mccann's and their friends can't sleep well under the spin of their portuguese pink man. According to my opinion, the "entrance en Scène" of ID was a strategy of RA to protect himself from a case that he knows, he has an enormous chance to loose. That's why Pinto de Abréu, also dropped the case.... Too hot and high chances to loose and loose the reputation.

  22. Thank you so much for helping everyone to see the possibilities and hope here. While part of me still fears an official whitewash, the greater part now believes the parents' time is nigh. The Portuguese intend to make their case and prosecution rock solid hence the preamble. The press pack will turn like the rabid dogs they can be. Is a whitewash still even possible now? What Crimewatch achieved was to wake up the nation and now so many more people are beginning to see what has been going on. The abductor line of enquiry is the Smith sighting, and we all know the truth of that. I suspect Jane Tanner or another of the tapas may have talked. God rest poor little Madeleine.

    À semelhança do que sucede com todos os casos de crianças desaparecidas, não obstante o arquivamento formal do inquérito relativo ao seu desaparecimento, e como sempre foi publicamente afirmado, a Polícia Judiciária continuou a estar atenta a toda e qualquer informação suscetível de permitir conhecer o paradeiro da menor Madeleine McCann, as circunstâncias em que ocorreu o seu desaparecimento e a identidade do(s) seu(s) autor(es).

    Com esse objetivo, pelo Diretor Nacional da Polícia Judiciária, em março de 2011, foi atribuída a uma equipa de investigadores da Diretoria do Norte a missão de reanalisar todo o vasto conjunto de informação constante do inquérito, com o objetivo de identificar aquela cujo aprofundamento se revelasse útil e possível.

    Esse trabalho de reanálise, que decorreu durante os últimos dois anos e meio, permitiu conhecer novos indícios que, impondo a continuação da investigação, preenchem os requisitos estabelecidos pelo artº 279º nº 1 do Código de Processo Penal para a reabertura do inquérito.

    Feita proposta em conformidade ao Exmo. Procurador da República na comarca de Portimão, foi a mesma deferida.

    24 de Outubro de 2013" in site da PJ, Joana Morais e Mccannfiles

    É idéia minha ou esta informação no site da PJ mata completamente os argumentos dos Mccann (ID) no processo que moveram contra GA e que està a decorrer em tribunal? Aqui, a PJ mostra que a investigação nunca parou e portanto o livro não atrapalhou nada.

  24. It's very difficult to fully understand all these terms of an arguido status or assistant - but personally I just go with what is explained and try to make it work in my mind!

    Now from what I have read, it is not the ORIGINAL PJ investigation that has been reopened, as such. But the independent REVIEW - so does this perhaps explain the status of 'assistant' rather than arguido is or could be offered.

    I know if I had been given the run around for six years with a refusal to answer questions, even though we must agree some of them were really strange - but no doubt there was some logic and for everyone else concerned not to have agreed\participated in the reconstruction. I would now be a bit miffed at the idea of sharing everything that I(we) had gathered in a fresh investigation. Gameplay?

    Meanwhile as the Portuguese incvestigation remains under official secrecy, the MET left tongued tied & the British MSM looking for a story. None of us will know what is actually going on.

    REGARDS to everyone, just hope the truth prevails.


    1. puddleduck,

      At this point in time, there's nothing that we know that the authorities don't know.

      There's a lot that they know and we don't know and most of it we don't want to know.

      It's information that doesn't pertain to the material truth but more to with the reasons as to why this charade seems to be the only way to move forward.

      The material truth is very simple and straightforward once understood. So simple that it will take nothing more than a couple of minutes to render this blog absolutely useless.

      All that is needed to be said is "It happened like this... and we reacted like this... because of this..."

      That simple.

      However to muster the conditions to say it or having it said, is very, very complex.

      Hence the charade.

    2. Absolutely Textusa. Absolutely.

    3. totally agree why the need for such a charade.

  25. The new evidences that pop up at PJ could be a consequence of the Smiths being officially heard by PJ since GA always made it clear that that step was on the way to be done when he was dismissed from the investigation, but was not done and was considered to be of vital importance.
    PJ is one of the most competent polices in the world.
    Again, in PJ site not a single word saying the parents are out of investigation at that time.

  26. I have been watching again some of the older interviews. I was prompted to do this by the exit from the plane photo (which prompted Smith family) and the sight of the "good quality wristbands" on McCanns' wrists. How COULD they do what they did??? How could anyone exploit their own child in that way??? There is so much we will never know, but whatever happens, it is over for Kate Healy and Gerry McCann. I hope there is someone capable ready to care for Sean and Amelie.

    1. Anonymous 25 Oct 2013 23:19:00

      We, obviously, wish no harm to anyone. Unfortunately the consequences of our acts affect those near us.

      We don't want to speculate or feed any sort of speculation about the consequences of the acts of those directly responsible for what happened on and since that fateful evening.on others near to them.

    2. We do not. I agree. But I do hope all can become well for them. They had no part in this.

    3. Anons 23:19 and 23:41

      Thank you both.

  27. I don't understand how the Mccann's could be "Assistant" in a police investigation. From my knowledge, "Assistant" is a status that could be requested only for a trial in court. Is it correct? If so, what is RA playing with his statement on the media? That means, he is prepared to have the Mccann's in court and if that happen he will made them "Assistants"?
    Marinho Pinto, made himself assistant on Trial of the PJ inspectors regarding Leonor Cipriano.
    I'm really confused with that issue, but maybe confusion is the goal of Mccann's lawyers.

    1. I think any Portuguese citizen can request to be an assistant in any process while it's ongoing. Nothing to do with trial. When a process goes to trial, it has been closed, no further investigation can be done on it. I think. The assistant in a trial is more related to support while assistant during investigation is to be kept in the loop.

  28. Here is an article I think it's worth reading:

    "The McCann couple and a media storm"
    Giles Tremlett

  29. Anon 22:59,

    Exato. E quem são os Mccann ou ID para desdizerem o que a PJ afirma oficialmente no seu site? ID, acho que "já foste".

  30. Watching "Rua Segura" on CMTV and I can't believe my ears!
    Eduardo Damaso and Moita Flores speaking openly about the case. The dam has broken. There is no way back now. It's impossible. These images will run all over the world very soon.
    A word of advice to Brit SMS, get on board sooner than later!
    They are spreaking about you too...

    1. Meant MSM, sorry.
      Just too excited!

  31. Eduardo Dâmaso says that the FSS report was a story within the story. That at first the tests were conclusive about having been found Maddie's blood but later they weren't that conclusive...
    Moita Flores talking about how cadaverine develops and that the dogs stated clearly that a body was inside the apartment and that the police wasn't allowed to do the adequate investigation to determine who's body it was.

  32. Onde é que se consegue ver o video da CMTV? No site não está disponivel.

    1. Também tive a mesma ideia! Aparecem lá alguns vídeos, mas muito atrasados, pode ser que mais tarde seja colocado. Consultei a grelha da programação e há repetições do programa Rua Segura nos próximos dias, não sei é se será este episódio em particular.

      Sábado, 26, às 07.05 e às 16.05pm

      Domingo, 27, às 03.45am e às 06.00am

      2ª feira, às 23.45pm

      Pode ser que apareça no blog de Joana Morais, ela publica muitos videos de programas de televisão onde se falou do caso Madeleine.


    Is the Mccann case a repetition of jonbenet case on the way both perverted the course of justice?

  34. "Ray Teret, who was once Jimmy Savile's driver, is charged with a number of historic sex offences including 16 child rapes." Sky News

    A shame that justice come too late for the victims. But day. A fate criminals cannot overtake.

  35. It is possible looking at discrepancy 12 the bedroom. That Kate slept in that room with the children and not with Gerry in the other bedroom. One bed has been moved against the wall you can see the headboard behind the chest of drawers where the bed originally was placed the cots were put in the middle of the room so if the twins awoke in the night crying Kate was in the next bed and she could attend to them without them making too much noise and disturbing other holiday makers and Madeleine slept in the far bed. In her book she admits to sleeping in that room when Gerry was snoring!!!

    I do not know if it is an internet myth but I read somewhere than semen was found on one of those beds if this is true it could give strength to the swinging as Kate and Gerry would have used the other room.

    1. Please read our post "Mistaken Identities" post about who we think slept on the bed nearest to the wall.

      About the use given during the day to that bed, or any to other bed inside the apartment, that's a totally different matter.

  36. On a post about about discrepancies I would like to point out a fact: we asked for the process to be reopened!

    It is reopened so we can only be joyous about it!

    Don't understand the pessimism. We asked and we knew it would be the PJ handling it. We knew then that there would be pressures. We knew there was a risk of PJ not being able to do the job like it happened the first time. But why the pessimism? We trusted PJ so that's why we asked. They knew also the risks involved into reopening. This is no longer police work but how to get police work to fit political interests. Let's not kid ourselves, only the assurance of a certain outcome (or the so called new clue) would Portugal allow this reopening. This is a game with a preset result. We just don't know which it is but they know.
    We can place our bets. Two hypothesis, truth or whitewash. I don't think Portugal would go for a whitewash after what happened the first time. But if it is they also know we will be here.
    I'm placing my chips on truth.
    They will go for the truth just to get Textusa to shut up and stop exposing more holes in the charade that happened in 2007.
    I believe Textusa has played an important role in this outcome. What she says about Anne Guedes is true but she should say the same about herself: a citizen can make a difference.

  37. Where do all these new developments put the Lisbon case. The mccanns have got what they 'wanted' the re-opening plus mega publicity so why are they pursuing Amaral for more money. It is now abduntantly clear his book never harmed the (none)search


    ( Boulder Detective on the Ramsey Case says she knows who killed JonBenet Ramsey!)

    I have been watching the 6 videos available at youtube regarding JonBenet investigation and the similarities with Madeleine case are incredible. The same involvement with specialized lawyers, the same use of the media, the same manipulation of the investigation, the same type of parents interviews, the same treatment gave to the police who suspect the parents, again a team of private detectives hired by the parents, again contamination of the crime scene by the parents who should have preserved it, the same desobey of the parents to all instructions gave by the first team of police in charged with the investigation. The same attitude from the heads of the police ( shelving, changing teams, reopen the case, etc, etc) to get to the beginning and conclude the suspictions of the first team of polices were correct. The same odd behaviour from the parents, but again was difficult to suspect the parents because they seem to be careful parents who love their children.
    New technics were applied to the evidences, new DNA tests. Could that be the new evidence PJ is speaking regarding Maddie case?
    The only difference, is the absence of Madeleine body. We don't know which story her body has to tell the police. I hope, not so baddly as JonBenet.
    The only differe

  39. Brilliant work Textusa thank you for all the time and energy you put into this blog. x

  40. One remote third-party "very satisfied" from the McCanns and nothing else since is a deafening and telling silence. They are not happy.

  41. 10:17

    Why do exonerated arguidos retain a lawyer? An expensive one?

  42. Isn't it odd the silence from team mccann regarding the reopening, one would have expected film crews outside Rothley manor and the dubious duo giving one of their interviews under the watchful eye of the odious Clarrie, not much about it in the press either, this would suggest that team mc are not too happy with the reopening considering how they manipulate the media always leaking stories through family members etc perhaps they cried wolf once too often !

    Here's to justice for Madeleine.


    Caso Maddie - Rua Segura - excerto com Moita Flores e Eduardo Damâso (screen recording)

    xklamation xklamation·
    (Joana Morais)

  44. Yes, they are not happy. The team in charged of the investigstion now is from Portimão, not from Oporto. And the Prossecutor is the same as in 2007. Then, he must know the untied strings that were left out on the previous investigation. And I believe the Smiths are a masterpiece and they cannot say now a different story then what they previous delivered to the police. Their statements will be consistent, otherwise they could face charges of lying or perverting the course of the investigation. Too risk for them if they follow any pressure or deal with the Mccann's . And will be not easy for SY or team Mccann to provide a Gerry sosis that could match the Smiths sight and be convincent for PJ.
    In few days, PJ already exposed the farce behind the e-fits. Who did it, were the private detectives and not SY. If we take the e-fit and the crimewatch dubious video, what less stays there as an important work from the english side? Nothing. Then where SY spent millions of Pounds as was claimed, and were have been working the 40 top guys allocated to that team? All working behind scenes to allow the spinnery to come exactely when the Mccann's are in troubles in Portugal with a trial they demanded? What a poor work for SY and what a nife on their reputation.
    In fact, who is controlling the investigation is PJ and I believe after all the insults made to them as an Institution during all this 6 years, they will come out with the truth and will be proud of their brilliant work and pacience.
    That's why, from Mccann's side, there is "sepulcral" silence. The grave is on the way. And will be worse at that time then in 2007, if they had just choose to tell the truth and respect their 3 children.

  45. Thanks Textusa for helping us with the thinking and posting the video (above) about Dr. G. Amaral's Occam's remarks - followed by "Correio da Manhã" senior journalist comments.

    This is the first time I hear the Media (Portuguese or otherwise) referring openly to Dr. G. McCann as a scientific expert, associated with the British Government!

    Had I heard/read that before, everything else would have fallen into place - from 2007 onwards! The all case is a no-brainer!

    Why Two-Face? Here is my pet theory based on R. Barthez "Rhetoric of the Image". Sorry Textusa, lately I seem to be hooked on Theory and Barthez! Sometimes happens (OCD).

    As most "analysts" agree, one of the faces can, almost, be construed as that of Dr. G. McCann - "The Brain". Now, to save the potential suspect any embarrassment, the artist (at the police's request) comes up with a completely different e-fit of the one s/he just had just put together based on the Smith's sighting (?).

    Also I assume, if I were to ask the police (one or the other) about such "small discrepancy" they would tell me (my assumption): "This is because they were so described by the witnesses concerned; suggesting perhaps the abductor may have had a partner in crime." Nice one.

    You see, here they have also a potential partner of the abductor! The one which helped the other through that window and "rode the horse into the sunset" - according to Kate-Clarence-Carter-Ruck- Isabel & Rogério "official version" of events (the last four names being WMDs)
    To my knowledge Andy - the sleuth, does not give away the fact this was the incriminating "Smith's sighting" he was referring to - again to avoid any embarrassment to any potential suspect, you know, and by doing so, shifting the attention of the watching dummies away from Dr. G. McCann.

    It is pretty obvious to me (I may be biased) the McCanns' cannot, under any circumstances, repeat: "UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES" (capital letters and no smiles) be construed as "suspects" or "arguidos"!

    David Cameron must have made that veeeery clear to his Scotland Yard and the errand-running PJ. Dr. G. McCann is British Government scientific personnel! Full stop!

    It is all a Broadway show! Pure Mitchell - who, as we all know, is now a candidate for the Conservative party in the next general elections! It is all "conspiracy theory", all right (...)


  46. Another video with the dogs in the apartment:

    McCanns - Their Best Moments
    Uploaded on Sep 20, 2008
    Some of the words and reactions the world will never forget

    Martin Grime saying: (sorry if it's not the exact words of Mr. Grime, I'm translating from the portuguese captions, thge sound is bad)
    "what we need to understand is that this dog only barks when he finds something, he won't bark in any other time, he won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark at someone who knocks on the door...then again I would say this a positive indication" (dog barking at the area behind the sofa, floor and curtains)


    ...ask the dogs, Gerry...

  47. Como é que estes ingredientes que li hoje no CM se conjugam sem atritos:

    PJ a analisar os sinais de ativação das antenas de telemoveis ( triangulação) + Casal Mccann informado disto e disponivel para a reconstituição + testemunas fulcrais ouvidas?

    Ofereceram alguma condição irrecusável ao casal Mccann? Espero que a cenora não seja a absolviçào qualquer que seja o resultado da investigação.

    1. Pois...parece-me que vai resultar num prato muito indigesto...e suspeito que quem vai ficar com azia seremos nós, aqueles que esperam há 6 anos por justiça e verdade!
      Haja Kompensan, Gaviscon e afins!

  48. Discrepency 11

    Of all the discrepancies, this latest just takes the proverbial buscuit. Textusa, is this kind of nonsense highlighted/ dicussed/ridiculed in Portugal the way it should be, but is 'not allowed' to be in the UK? How SY are allowed to get away with this without question or challenge is beyond belief!

    Unless . . .?

  49. Textusa,am I correct in remembering that,Gerry had been appointed as the medical advisor to Gordon Brown,in regard to dispelling all the fears that childhood cancers were more likely to be found in "areas" near Nuclear Power Stations? Which of course was what GB had ,high on his agenda, to build many more,but was up against many groups that felt otherwise,it would explain why GB became involved from day one wouldn,t it?

    1. Lynn,

      In our opinion Gerry McCann was a 'nobody' who became a 'somebody' due to his daughter's death.

      Sad fact but truthful one.

      It is our firm conviction that he wasn't a 'somebody' the night Maddie died.

      His role on this committee didn't appear to be a particularly influential one, from our limited knowledge.

      His research work seems to relate to cardiology rather than the effects of nuclear energy and effects on children.

      If anyone knows differently, please provide a link.

    2. Thanks for your reply Tex,it was just a niggle at the back of my mind,whenever I try to justify the governments involvement from day one,I suspect we,ll never get the truthful answer to that,and the other many,many unanswered questions this tradgedy has brought about.Any news re Mr Amarals thoughts on PJ,s latest annoucements?Hope hes OK.

    3. T. may I respectfully draw your attention to the senior journalist from CM in the video linked in your article above? He talks about Gerry McCann's links to the government. Is not so much his role but the contacts therein (...) e.g. the Professor close to Gordon Brown - a FOAF with a difference, as it were (...)

      Hey! You can't possibly remember everything. We came here to learn from you and occasionally add a bit or byte - not much.

    4. Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 01:04:00

      We think you may be referring to someone involved with Comare at a high level who was at the same university as Gerry.

      Gerry no longer appears as a committee member on 14 th Comare report in 2011.

      We can't confirm that there are any links with Gordon Brown via a mutual connection between these people.

      This seems to be an assumption.

      Unless anyone can show otherwise.

    5. My understanding of what CM Chief Editor says (Manuel Catarino) in the video (above) is as follows:

      Dr. Gerald (Gerry) McCann was part of a multi-disciplinary governmental commission that studied the environmental impact of nuclear power plants in the UK (both private and state owned). He is referring (my assumption) to the time of the child's "dematerialization" (2007).

      When Kate McCann finds Madeleine has gone missing (in her version of events) no one phones the authorities. Nor the parents nor their friends. The alarm is given about 30 minutes later by a member of the restaurant staff (so-called "Tapas Bar"). That much we all knew but we have to bear in mind he is educating the dummies ( I was one myself, so...)

      Manuel Catarino then goes on to say that Gerry McCann instead of alerting the Portuguese authorities decides to get in touch with a "Belfast University professor" (sic in Port.) who had been a consultant in Tony Blair's government.

      He then adds the "same professor was a top consultant in the government of Gordon Brown" (sic in Port.).

      Manuel Catarino, then informs Murdoch's SKY breaks the news of Madeleine's demise well before the Portuguese authorities are alerted - probably implying this was thanks to the good offices of the PM's cabinet or, at any rate, a powerful FOAF.

      I find this revelation extraordinary! Not least because if Gerry McCann had access to government nuclear programme data, no one (including the British) had any idea of what kind of damage a "wounded father" could inflict upon them.

      It could (hypothetically) compromise the British nuclear programme on a global scale - and this is just one of the least speculative inferences. Think about it (...)

      Personally, I have no reasons to doubt CM Chief-Editor, even bearing in mind his words are being measured by the powerful legal apparatus of the McCanns in Portugal - I refer specifically to Isabel Duarte, Rogério Alves not to mention their operatic president: Marinho Pinto - a formidable trio subservient to British interests.

      I will contact Manuel Catarino by e-mail and ask him if he can give us the name of the professor in question and his source. Whether he will answer or not, that is a different matter (...)

    6. Textusa et al,

      Here are more potential FOAF effects for Gerry McCann:

      Dr. Gerald McCann:
      Royal College of Physicians Representative on the Health Protection Agency - Medical Practices Subcommittee on CT scanning in Asymptomatic Subjects.
      April 2006-June 2008

      Ditto (a posteriori): Board Member British Society of Cardiovascular MRI (BSCMR) April 2008-present

      Ditto ( a posteriori): Inaugural Council Member British Heart Valve Society (BHVS) 2010-present


      Also. concerning a number of potential FOAFs - quite aside from the aforementioned Professor at Belfast University who was a consultant for Blair and Brown (still working on that) check the link below.

      The number of Lords all the way up to Prince Charles and Camilla is quite impressive (...) however, I do not know how bona fide this info even if some of the facts I checked (so far) are:

      Pretty persuasive, hein?

    7. We will not publish any more about Gerry's status as a doctor as we've answered that.

      It's an old story, well discussed.

      All one has to do is look at his research papers. He is never even the lead researcher.

      We don't set aside the possibility that his image as the father of the world's most famous abducted child was used by whomever but he obviously only gained such status after said "abduction".

  50. Have a look at Chris Spivey

    1. Anonymous26 Oct 2013 20:24:00

      This blog doesn't agree with Chris Spivey's support of Birch.

    2. Yes, I do remember that at the time and agreed with your view. While I don't want to introduce clutter, I was interested in several points raised in different blog entries and in the comments made. Didn't it strike others as odd when the message of support was sent from Clarence House in May 2007? I remember thinking how strange that was. It is worth a read to see all the potential connections.

    3. Chris Spivey's website has been taken down. TPTB were causing problems latterly he reported.

  51. Madeleine's room was not like that on May 2, 2007.
    The lady incharged with the cleaning of the 5A gave an interview to SIC where she said that on Wednesday, when she cleanned the flat, the cots were on Mccann's room. Then, what happen on May 3 that lead the Mccann's to move the cots and set Madeleine hypothetical room like that ( so messi, where nothing makes sense)?

  52. Mercedes has translated your Discrepancies I, Textusa!


    "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years"

    "The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports"

    "THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators."

    "The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008."

    "It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard."

    "A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much needed break through in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine."

    The article goes on further, but only available for subscribers. Anyone who posts here is a subscriber of the Sunday Times? Any chance of posting the full article here?

    Why did the McCanns kept such "vital" information under wraps for 5 years?! Why was that information "supressed"...? ...Because it pointed at...Gerry McCann...?

    Someone called the attention of Joana Morais to this article, in this post in her blog:

    itsprstupid - Reopening of the Maddie Case

    "Seen this? Revealing to say the least!"


    The Sunday Times article!

    Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years

    The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
    The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
    Comment (0) Print
    Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
    THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

    The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

    It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

    A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

    Click to enlarge
    10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

    But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

    They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

    This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

    One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

    The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

    Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

    An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

    Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

    He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

    A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

  55. The Sunday Times, cont.

    Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

    It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

    The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

    The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

    The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

    Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

    The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes
    The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

    The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

    One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

    The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

    Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

    Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

    The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

    As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

    There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

  56. Sunday Times, last part:

    Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

    The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

    The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

    He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

    “[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

    A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

    It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

    Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert

    1. This is a Rupert Murdoch paper.... a FORMER friend.
      Antonella Lazzeri, where are you now?


      Madeleine McCann: Porn star used in BBC Crimewatch reconstruction on disappearance

      The tabloids trying to distract attention from the Times article.

    3. Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 08:27:00

      Rebekah Brooks trial starts tomorrow
      She did talk of more to come!

    4. Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 01:33:00

      Halligen finally spilling the beans...

      This was 10 months after Maddie disappeared. So while the PJ was actively investigating, the cases' arguidos were paying, from the Fund, a parallel investigation information they didn't share with the Portuguese police.

      Neither that this investigation was ongoing but especially the result of it.

      Reading he article, seems that UK Crimewatch was based on this report.

      Interesting bit from the article: "Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard DO NOT consider this a possibility."

      An intentional slip of the tongue? That they don't consider Smith's sudden belief that it wasn't Gerry after all?

      As we said, things NOT looking good on the McCann end of things.

    5. A porno actor, how fitting, lol ! Well, this case is so obscene in do many ways... even Kate has introduced the theme when she made that disgusting and inappropriate mention in her "bewk" about Maddie's genitalia and discusssed the troubles in her sex life with Gerry!

    6. Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 11:42:00

      The pornographic industry, as a legal and scrutinised activity, deserves our respect as any other.

      Its consumption has to do each one’s choice and so not the business of others.

      It’s an adult business. It is to be produced by consenting adults and be consumed by consenting adults. Anything outside this, is obviously reprehensible.

      We don’t support stigmas of any kind. Racial, religious, sexual or any other.

      The Maddie Affair exists solely because of fear of sexual stigmatisation.

    7. Textusa wrote:
      "Interesting bit from the article: "Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard DO NOT consider this a possibility."

      Yes, that caught my eye too...I don't recall seeing anything in the media about Mr. Smith retracting his impression that it was Gerry he had seen! When did that happen? When and why has Mr. Smith change his belief?!

      This DM article is from the 16 October 2013, and it does not mention Mr. Smith's belief it was not Gerry he saw!

  57. Eh,eh,eh...Redwood redfaced...?

    "One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said."

  58. Exciting News everyone!! The Sunday Times has published a damning article on the MCs. Very positive news for Amaral! The complete article can be read on the JH forum.

    Em CM

  60. "Crianças preconceito"- Correio da Manhã
    Um polícia grego concluiu que os ciganos não têm filhos louros, logo, a criança foi raptada. Batia certo.
    Por:Francisco Moita Flores, Professor universitário

    Belo Texto de Moita Flores. E adivinhem lá quem está na origem desta onda de histérica xenofobia contra os ciganos? A menina loira que desapareceu da pacata Praia da Luz.

  61. Rui Pereira ( Ministro da Admi Interna de Socrates) diz numa entrevista a CMTV ( video disponivel em Mccannfiles) que os pais de Maddie deviam continuar arguidos ate ao fim do processo porque o processo e o mesmo. Diz tambem que havera suspeitos mas nao havera constituicao de arguidos mas que espera que o processo termine rapidamente e com arguidos.

    O que e que isto quer dizer?
    Porque e que diz que havera suspeitos e nao arguidos ? Porque sabe que a PJ e ele sabem quem devem ser os verdadeiros arguidos e portanto este e um jogo de entretem para ganhar tempo?

    Acho bem que a PJ nao lhes tenha devolvido o estatuto de arguidos. Esse estatuto so servia neste momento para atrapalhar com os advogados a interferirem e eles a gozarem de todos os direitos que esse estatuto lhes da- o direito de mentirem, de nao reponderem, de jogarem o jogo que tem jogado ate agora.
    sem esse estatuto tem de falar e vamos ver quanto tempo leva a emergir a mentira que contaram a PJ em 2007. So podeem ser eles os arguidos no final do processo....ou Portugal sera definitivamente uma coutada do poder ingles, a gozar com os nossos impostos e com a nossa justica. E mais que evidente que eles sabem o que aconteceu a miuda e onde a esconderam. So se deixa enganar quem quer, neste vergonhoso e sujo jogo.

  62. THE HIDDEN INFORMATION, is that the reason the Mccann's dismissed that team of detectives and hired Edgar to foccus on Hewllet? In fact, I never understand why they dismissed a team of british detectives that were brought in with the stamp (as per Mitchell words) of being the TOP of the TOP. At time, Halligen was presented as the evil who fool them and took a lot of money from the Fund. But guess what- the couple who love to sue everything that moves did not sue who cause a huge damage to their finances. Could have been all that story to distract from the dismissed team?

  63. Textusa, thank you for kindly putting up on the blog's front page all your research about the Smith Sighting. Very insightful. Thank so much for such hard work! When can we expect the conclusion to the phone hacking posts? Sorry if I'm being inconvenient but you left me really curious.

    1. Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 08:35:00

      Thank you for your comment.

      The answer to your question is we don't know.

      We have published based on the principles adequacy and opportunity. So, when we feel adequate and opportune to publish the remainder phone hacking posts, trust us, we will.

      As it's easy to see, the Smith Sighting is filled with coincidences and, as you know, there are no coincidences in the Maddie Affair.

      It's our opinion that the first statements made by the Smiths, father, son and daughter, are absolutely truthful. And that is not a coincidence.

  64. Seems Oakley's files were passed to the next set of private investigators.
    Would that be M3, Edgar and Cowley or both?
    If Edgar, why produce the Victoria Beckam look alike and Pimpleman?

    1. I think it would be Edgar and Cowley, the Alpha Investigations Group:

      McCann Detective - Arthur Cowley`s bogus company

      And some interesting reading:

      A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence

    2. The same Edgar that said in the documentary "Madeleine was here" that he had found no evidence pointing to Kate and Gerry's involvement, and that if he had found any evidence (in the files and other documentation in their hands, I suppose) of such he would have given it to the authorities (police)! Maybe he was not handed over the Oakley report, or if he was, maybe he too was forced to keep silent about it! I'm sure that everyone who gets involved in the McCanns business is subjected to a confidentiality agreement!

  65. Hi guys its been a while! The Times article seems to me to be playing into McCanns hands Its focuused full-on Abduction, whatever else it says Tanner may have seen Gerry not a stranger and so says she ALSO saw him and Jez in order to cover her 'mistake' allegedly.

  66. Henry Exton, is the ex-MI5 who is mentioned in the Sunday Times article, the one who is spilling the beans, so to say...and upon reading the following bits in the article, I remembered something related to the subject that I had read before:

    " But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy."

    "The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief."

    "Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

    "He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund."

    "A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public."

    I remembered this:
    Mark Hollingsworth investigates the investigators.

    Some names are blocked, Joana Morais received a threatening letter from an english law firm (CR?), and one of the names has to be the Exton guy!

    This is an interesting bit:

    "While working on an *** ********** , ****** was ****** leaving a ***** ***** **** area at Manchester airport with a ***** of ***** he had not **** for. The ******* were called and he was given the option of the ****** being ****** with under ******* or to face ******. He chose a ****** ***** and so in effect admitted his guilt. ****** was sacked, but was furious about the way he had been treated and threatened to sue ***. He later set up his own consulting company and moved to **** in *******."

    This is the whole text, without censorship:

    "While working on an MI5 surveillance, Exton was caught leaving a tax-free shopping area at Manchester airport with a bottle of perfume he had not paid for. The police were called and he was given the option of the offence being dealt with under caution or to face prosecution. He chose a police caution and so in effect admitted his guilt. Exton was sacked, but was furious about the way he had been treated and threatened to sue MI5. He later set up his own consulting company and moved to Bury in Lancashire.
    While Exton, however flawed, was the genuine article as an investigator, Halligen was a very different character. "

    Was Exton's character flawed...or he was FRAMED ? Is it just me who finds this shoplifting story fishy? A bottle of perfume?! Would this kind of man dirty himself for a bottle of perfume?! Could this episode have been a WARNING..."keep your mouth shut or else", "this is just a taste of what will happen if you don't keep your mouth shut"...?

    Exton said he and his investigators were silenced by the fund and was under a "legal threat", Joana Morais and others received legal threats as well, the Mark Hollingsworth article was removed from the Evening Standard magazine for editorial and/or legal reasons, oh my, TEAM McCANN REALLY WANTED THIS SUBJECT KEPT SECRET, AT ALL COSTS!!!

  67. refreshing our memory on Halligen and the McCann's ex-MI5 team of detectives:

  68. Mirror have 3 suspect gypsy burglars.
    Surely not more gypsy child stealer slurs?
    If gypsies WERE were committing burglaries, would they really be looking for children? And 4 year olds who could yell and scream?
    So now gypsies are burglars, abductors AND paedophiles?
    Didn't they learn the lesson from Maria and all that "sardine-munching" Portugal?

  69. ...."Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann's 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight "key sightings" and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most "crucial". Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist's impression. The Smiths' were the only exception. So why was such a "crucial" piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

    The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

    As well as questioning parts of the McCanns' evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine's sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

    There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith's account. He had originally told the police that he had "recognised something" about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

    Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects...."

    Then, Madeleine had sleeping problems?
    If what was revealed by the paper is true, the Mccann's are in big troubles because they should explain to PJ why they hold that information for so long to become now the main lead for PJ and SY, specially because the information pointed to a dead Madeleine and they carried on with their Fund and the foolish of the public with an alive Madeleine.
    What I suspect is they already framed the Smiths and they got a deal with PJ to once again get away with that. This is a whitewash, no matter how ridiculous appear the all involved on that cleanning. There is no doubts, Maddie is dead and was dead on minute one. There is no doubts about who hide it and there is no doubts that no matter all the evidences, the responsibles will never face charges.

    1. Yes. it's seems that Madeleine was not he sound sleeper the McCanns wanted us to believe...Kate said that when she saw that Madeleine was not in her bed she went to her and Gerry's room to see if she had wandered off to their bed, so it is quite possible this was a recurrent thing with Madeleine. Also, in one of the interviews with the McCanns in their home in Rothley (was it Panorama's Madeleine was here"?), there was a board on the fridge, with stars on it, representing the nights Madeleine managed to stay in her bed the whole night!

    2. Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 14:50:00

      Maddie died before any sleep walking problems om 3 May. Textusa has been very clear that she died EARLY evening.
      She could have some sort of sleep disorder or be an overactive child, But she didn't die because of that. I share Textusa's opinion that she died at the hands of an adult. Also share that the adults can only be K or DP. Textusa points to DP but my feeling is for K . Can't explain why, it's just a feeling. But that detail of truth we will only know when the guilty one confesses and when that time will come they will point the finger against each other.
      Please stop bringing clutter to the discussion.

    3. WHO mentioned any SLEEPWALKING?!

      Sleep disturbances,that's what I mentioned!
      According to Mr. Amaral his book) one could consider the possibility of Madleleine's death occurring from her taking a fall from the top of the sofa and hitting her head on the hard wood floor between the sofa and the window. She might have woken up (due to her irregular sleep paterns), called out for her parents and got up to look for them around the apartment. She could have climbed up the sofa to look out the window into the street to see if she could spot the parents and for some reason slipped and fell. Mr. Amaral even mentioned that she might have overheard her father's voice, talking to Jez Wilkins under that window.
      Would you dare to accuse Mr. Amaral of "creating clutter"?!
      Is it looking at different possibilities "creating clutter"?! Isn't your "feeling" that Kate is the one responsible for Madeleine's fate equal to my feeling she might have woken up and have a fatal accident while alone? Aren't both "feelings" possibilities, ideas, and as they both differ from Textusa's early theory, both can be "clutter"...the fact is that NONE of us knows what really happened, we can only make conjectures based on the evidence available.

      And...take notice: I TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOUR TONE! ("please stop bringing clutter to the discussion")

      I'm not a young child that you can scold and send to the corner! Now it's my turn to tell you: in what concerns the matters and opinions I post in this blog I'll take NO ONE'S ORDERS, OR FOLLOW NO ONE'S RULES! I will only take in consideration and accept that from TEXTUSA and sisters, the owners of the blog!

      I apologize Textusa and the other posters fro the rant.

    4. Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 19:18:00, I'm Anonymous 27 Oct 2013 16:08:00

      I did not scold you like I scold a child. I showed, maybe too bluntly, that my opinion differs from yours. It's not my intention to start an argument that puts other readers off, so whatever your response (if there's one) to this comment, I will not reply. I hope you understand that this attitude is not out of any disrespect for you but respecting Textusa's hard work (a common ground between us I think).
      About GA's book, he does say that Maddie could have gotten up, got up on the couch because she heard her father's voice and fell off the sofa. But about this I recommend that you revisit Textusa's post "Goncalo Amaral is a Liar"
      A very courageous post (very controversial title) on Textusa's part at a time when all GA said was to be taken as sacred. She explains how the thesis defended by GA is not realistic and shows how she understands why he put it in his book.
      I agree with Textusa and understand GA: he opened a door for the McCanns to take. They didn't take it.
      So I maintain all when I said that Maddie's death had nothing to do with sleep disorder or disturbance.
      Bringing that up is for me clutter. Or any other scenario where Maddie gets out of bed and walks about. My conviction is that she didn't go to bed that night.
      About my feeling about K, you're right. It's pure speculation as it is only a gut feeling. But a speculation as far as deciding between K and DP. One of the two is responsible.
      Not wanting to be patronising, clutter can be brought intentionally or not.
      If intentional then my former comment is a reprimand.
      If the hat doesn't fit, then my apologies and I hope you now understand the reasons of my comment.
      As I said, and explained why, I will not return to this subject.

  70. Mirror today - synopsis of article by Patrick Hill
    With 2 face e fits

    Police hunting 3 men said to be gypsies seen lurking near McCann apartment.. Suspected behind string of burglaries... weeks prior to youngster being snatched.
    Police want to interview janitors who blamed the gypsies for the break ins
    Officers believe the maintenance men Luis Ferro and Mario Moreira.who fixed a Kate and Gerry's bedroom at 10am on May 1st.
    Ferro said gypsies active in area at the time. Mentions warehouse near Mill restaurant where 3 of gyosies stole firewood and scrap metal.
    Potential highly significant evidence dismissed by GA.
    Now taken seriously after Greek sighting
    Witness report of girl in back of White van driven by 2 gypsies 160 miles away day after she vanished.

  71. The fairy tale of the gypsies with be feed by the british media until we feel nausea. After that, they will be left only wiith Marcians and ETs.
    The burglar story in PDL was fully investigated by GA and we should remember that at the time the British ambassador said the investigation was doing well, the Mccann's said the investigation was going well and the portuguese President of the Republic said to the media that the investigation was doing everything that should be done.
    The burglars, are a story known since the beginning. Onlybwho wants to fool the public revive this ghosts.

  72. Something the MSM don't acknowledge about the Gypsies is that the children all changing hands etc. are their OWN kids. They didn't walk into a 4 star hotel garden and grab some tourist child... LoL in an ironic way!


  73. Hi again, I'm reading up on the case from the beginning. This is interesting re: the Tanner sighting. I wasn't aware that the McCanns had to sue and get Gordon Borwn involved in order to get the photofit out! ;-) From The McCann Files Sunday Telegraph Article, 27 May 2007.....

    The couple also spoke of their hope that the sighting of a man carrying a child on the night of Madeleine's disappearance could provide a breakthrough.

    "We feel sure that this sighting of the man with what appeared to be a child in his arms is both significant and relevant to Madeleine's abduction," said Mr McCann.

    The man, aged between 35 and 40, dressed in a dark jacket and light-coloured trousers and carrying a bundle that could have been a sleeping child, was seen by a friend of the McCanns at 9.30pm on May 3.

    Portuguese police have known about the sighting for three weeks but only released the information on Friday after the McCanns reportedly threatened legal action to ensure the details were made public and after a series of private conversations between the McCanns and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, who has pledged the Government's full support.

    A source close to the McCann family said: "Within a day of the family speaking to Gordon Brown and expressing their frustration about certain things, the whole attitude of the Portuguese police changed and they found them much more open. The sequence of events suggests some influence was exerted from above."

    News of the delay drew criticism. Mark Williams-Thomas, a former detective at Surrey police who has worked on many paedophile investigations, said: "It is quite amazing they didn't release this information."

    1. I see rent-an-ex and self-proclaimed 'expert' Williams-Thomas has a programme on ITV this week. He has gone undercover to track down some British ssex offender in the Algarve. Our sleuth manages to criticise the Portuguese police for not having this guy on their 'system'. Williams-Thomas has done quite a bit of carping on behalf of Mr and Mrs, and the timing of his latest venture is subliminal, eh? Could all be a coincidence of course, and nothing whatsoever to do with McCanns. But I doubt it.

  74. This link is interesting;

    'A look at the backgrounds of some of the people the McCanns have chosen to do business with, such as Carter-Ruck, Kevin Halligen and Bell Pottinger, using money donated by the public to find Madeleine'

  75. By withhelding this report and the E-fits, which could have been a breakthrough in the search for Madeleine, the McCanns have HINDERED the search ! I hope this can be used as evidence by Mr. Amaral's defense in court !


    Its all over the internet how the Mccanns gagged their PI's. tic toc mccammers.


    It would appear the BBC hired a porn star to take part in the Crimewash show (how appropriate!!)


    More about the Mccanns suppressing info. The tide is turning. Hope Dr Amarals lawyers are aware of these recent developments. Should be interesting if the Mccanns get to take the witness box in Lisbon. They have some very awkward questions to answer and they accuse Dr Amaral of harming the search when they knowingly suppress information. What a pair of jokers Kate and Gerry are, if a child had not died this case would be amusing how they duck and dive at every opportunity. How SY can say they are not suspects now is beyond contempt.

  79. Wonderful blog, we love it, thanks Tex and sisters xx



    NOT since Dr Crippen - long before the blizzard of 24/7 satellite media - will there have been a case like Madeleine McCann's if the now official suspicions of the Portuguese police turn out to have been well founded.

    They have turned it into a circus, with daily appearances at mass and the flight to the Vatican to kiss the hand of the Pope, invoking celebrities, inducing millions of people around the world to raise a fortune in a campaign fund and turning their child into one of the iconic faces of our age.

    So even Dante himself would find it difficult to describe any circle of the inferno fit for Kate and Gerry McCann if it all turns out to have been a lie.

    I have been in and around the Ocean Club in the sleepy Algarve village of Praia da Luz for more than 20 years and it has been surreal enough watching its tiny cobbled streets bristling with television crews broadcasting around the world from a once little-known holiday idyll.

    And now this.

    On my Talk Sport radio shows I have been critical of the McCanns from the start. Not least because I knew aspects of their story could not be true.

    Their supposed constant vigilance of their three toddlers while they ate in a tapas bar and the children slept in an unlocked apartment was not possible. The distance between the two points was both greater and more convoluted than they said.

    In any case, the children's bedroom was on the OTHER side of the apartment block and, though both doctors, neither parent possessed X-ray vision.

    I said that if a single mother had left her three kids in the chalet at Butlins while she supped scampi and chips in the boozer, she would have immediately been attacked as a feral, feckless, unfit mother by the same media which was painting the grieving McCanns as the very embodiment of modern middle-class Britain.

    For months I have watched that media poke ridicule at the supposed bumbling Inspector Clouseaus of the Portuguese police for their apparent leaden-footedness in the investigation.

    Of course no Johnny Foreigner could be as good as our own police, who brought us the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six.

    Now with this new development, the same media seems coiled like a spring to turn on the McCanns as they previously did on the other "suspect" Robert Murat.

    Sensing they may have been made the biggest fools in history, the Press tables can be seen turning, the plates beginning to move.

    Of course, the most xenophobic commentators say the science which has led to the Mccanns being named as suspects is inherently suspect due to the foreign hands through which it has passed, oblivious to the fact that it came from British laboratories.


  81. (cont)

    If Madeleine's blood and other DNA evidence really has been found in the boot of her parents' hire car, there are only a few possible explanations. A previous renter of the car - it was 25 days after the child went missing that the family took possession of the vehicle - transported Madeleine in its boot and she was bleeding at the time.

    Or Madeleine's body was transported in the boot at least 25 days after she disappeared once the McCanns took possession of the car.

    In these circumstances the Portuguese police really would be clots if they did not consider the girl's parents to be suspects.

    Of course there could be other, some would say unlikely, possibilities.

    The DNA and blood evidence in the boot may not, after all, be Madeleine's and the forensic scientists may be mistaken.

    Theblood in the boot of the McCanns' hire car may be somebody else's, in which case Goodfellas comes to the Algarve and the family are the victims of the most grotesque coincidence.

    The DNA could have been planted in the boot of the McCanns' car, presumably by the police.

    The sort of thing which happened to Mr OJ Simpson.

    The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.

    Either way, the name McCann is now well and truly in the history books.

    1. Complicit in a scheme so duplicitous,so EVIL,so foul,and we don,t even know "the half of it",YET !!!!

  82. "Mãe escondeu filha bebé na mala do carro durante dois anos"-JN

    Mais uma historia dramática a provar que na grande maioria dos casos, são os pais os autores das barbaridades feitas às crianças. Crianças que não sabem ou não podem pedir ajuda para se defenderem. Esta é outra história a envergonhar o meu país, mas também não estamos imunes a este lixo, a quem Deus deu o dom de ser fértil e dar vida a uma criança. E mais uma vez não é uma mãe cigana e até vive num país dito "civilizado"

    Enquanto isso, o CM diz-nos que a "PJ está na mira de 3 ciganos no caso Maddie" . Nem sei o que diga, depois de ter comentado tantas vezes contra o arquivamento do caso e a favor da reabertura. Se é para gastarem os nossos impostos a "fazer de conta que investigam" e revisitarem " velhas histórias" já gastas e esclarecidas, é melhor deixar os investigadores nos escritórios e poupar pelo menos o combustivel e o desgaste dos carros. Em 2007, os jornais encheram páginas com esta história. Eram todos bexigosos, feios, porcos e maus. Foram investigados até ao tutano, de tal modo que a investigação ainda deu asas a que ex-namoradas, mal resolvidas com a separação, colocassem em cena ex-namorados, numa mistura de prazer e vingança pessoal. Foi tudo visto, revisto e descartado. Agora, eis que se dá a ressurreição destes fantasmas e claro, como convém...são ciganos. São sempre gente hostilizada pela sociedade, estereotipada, mal amada e julgada sem direitos. Gente que não sabe que também tem direitos e por isso é abusada de forma covarde e vil. Cont

  83. Cont:
    Maria é loira e cigana. Não foi raptada de nenhum quarto de hotel. Não foi retirada do mundo ocidental por nenhum ladrão oportunista que estudou meticulosamente o momento em que atacaria a presa. Foi vendida pela mãe, voluntariamente, num ato julgado normal para a cultura em que vive e provavelmente com boas intenções, apesar do choque e da recriminação que tal ato gera em nós. Tinha 10 filhos e achou que mais uma não dava. Em vez de a matar ou abandonar, vendeu-a a quem voluntariamente a comprou e se pagou por ela é porque tinha por certo mais recursos do que quem vendeu. Condenavel o ato, aos nossos olhos. Mas tem havido muitos atos condenaveis na outra historia, desde 2007 e parece que ninguém os quer ver. 
    Ainda sobre Maria, depois de todo o alarido, esperava ver a policia grega dizer-nos que Maria era explorada como mendiga ou bailarina nas ruas, pela nova familia, ou que era abusada e mal tratada. Do que vi até agora, acho que é provavel que até tenha sido o oposto e que Maria fosse uma menina feliz, dentro do contexto do que é a cultura da etnia a que pertence. Estava suja....mas isso não é sinsl de negligência,  Pode ser sinal de liberdade e brincadeira sem hora marcada.
     Na outra história, vejo anos de abuso e um poder cego que o deixou andar... Um Fundo sem controle montado para procurar uma criança que agora os jornais  ingleses revelam ter sido também para calar e reter/ esconder informaçào recolhida pelos detetives 
    privados. Vejo um site, onde a desgraça da criança era vendida em tshirts, posters, pulseiras e pasme-se até " tags" para adornarem as nossas bagagens. Só um pequeno exercicio pessoal.... Das nossas viagens, enquanto fazemos checkin ou aguardamos as nossas bagagens na passadeira, quantas vezes olhamos para os Tags das malas de outros passageiros? E quantas vezes vimos Tags com outras crianças desaparecidas? Isto prova a utilidade prática desta campanha no final da linha. Não serve para localizar nenhum desaparecido, só serve para angariar dinheiro a quem promove tal campanha, porque na base da campanha joga-se com o coração e as emoções de quem contribui e há sempre quem espere pelo Pai Natal mesmo sabendo que ele não existe. Então qual é a diferença entre uma criança explorada assim e outra exposta à mendiguice numa rua das nossas cidades? Só o frio e a chuva a que se sujeita a segunda. E só isso justifica que se condene o acto por tras da segunda e se feche os olhos à primeira?
    É bom que a PJ seja a velha raposa que enche a nossa história da investigação criminal de glória. Voltar a velhos fantasmas, mas a todos sem excepção para separar o supérfluo do essencial. Fazer reconstituições com o que foi contado em 2007 e não com a história reformulada por advogados em 2013. Tudo para no final, como no caso dos Ramseys, concluir que a primeira investigação estava certa e foi um erro ter dado tempo de antena a quem não o devia ter tido e foi uma injustiça para a(s) vitima(s).

  84. It emerged that one of the actors playing one of the Tapas 7 is a porno actor who also played the roll of a serial killer in a horror movie.
    Well, that proves the effort BBC kept on the selection of the actors for that farce. A very dubious critéria or have they faced a problem: good actors with good reputation, refused to play a part on what is largely known, is a farce. And nor BBC or the Mccann's wanted to pay a huge cachet to good actors just to play one more chapter on their game and fool again the public. They know, that movie is not to find Madeleine( they know where she is). It is only to fool the public with a cheap novell.

  85. Textusa,
    Went over to Mercedes blog to see the translation. Link provided by Anonymous 26 Oct 2013 21:48:00. On behalf or all readers I would like to thank Mercedes for the work she did.
    It is a very nice compliment she’s paying to your team.
    And she’s helping spread the word to a larger audience. Not only to the Spanish speaking community and that includes all the Americas but also to all the non-English speaking Portuguese that understand better Spanish than English.
    Noticed she added 2 discrepancies:
    Discrepancy 05 A – David Payne’s visit
    Discrepancy 05 B – Milk and Cookies
    I’m sure that your team detected them and I’m curious as to why you didn’t include them.

    1. Anonymous 28 Oct 2013 10:19:00,

      We limited our Discrepancies to what was shown in UK Crrimewatch.

      Those referred by Mercedes are perfectly legitimate but as they were not shown we didn’t include them.

      We called these the Toilet Discrepancies.

      Gerry says that he goes to the toilet in between having the “proud father” moment and meeting up with Jez. That isn’t shown.

      Can we say that it wasn’t shown because it didn’t happen or because of reasons due to scripting and editing reasons? We don’t know.

      We all know about Payne’s visit (as you know, for us of capital importance) but UK Crimewatch can always use the excuse that they focused only on events of that night, starting with the dinner and the McCanns preparation for it.

      That they didn't forget about it nor are saying that it didn't happen, just decided not to include it.

      The milk and cookies aren't shown but neither is the Australian wine drinking.

      Again, we can’t say that this absence was intentional. We are sure it was but can’t state it was.

      About David Payne, there is something we would like to highlight and that is how smothered his character was.

      Notice how he hardly appears In fact, out of the T9, you can’t tell today what actors played David, Dianne, Fiona and Rachael in UK Crimewatch.

      That’s very telling.

      For us, much more important than the disastrous SY’s whitewashing of Tanner’s sighting was the effective and efficient way in which they made the Paynes, especially David, go, intentionally, absolutely unnoticed in all UK Crimewatch.

      In fact we have noticed lately in the blog a pressing effort in highlighting Gerry’s supposed importance as a doctor linked with the UK Government. Basically a continuance of the effort made in UK Crimewatch: isolate the McCanns and get David Payne out of the picture.

      Two other interesting “Toilet Discrepancies”: “the alarm”, as it would have been interesting to have been shown where Kate gave the alarm and what words she used and “the run”, as it would also be interesting to see all, but Dianne, go promptly and in a hurry to apartment 5A.

      By the way, your certainty about us detecting everything is wrong. Yes, we detected the absence of David Payne’s visit but we didn’t pick up the milk and cookies one.

      It goes without saying our utmost gratefulness to Mercedes’ work.

    2. What about the "flip-flops discrepancy" Textusa addressed in the comments section? Isn't that worth being integrated into the main text? Just asking (...)

      Might just as well integrate the parked cars which would have made even more difficult Ms. Tanner not having been seen by Gerry & Jez - unless both were looking for cigarette butts on the pavement which would have been highly unlikely!

      Added reference:

    3. Ah, but resourceful and helpful Jane manages to come up with a justification for her "invisibility" at Gerry's eyes in her rogatory interview:

      "4078 “And you say you almost went to acknowledge them but they were so engrossed in conversation?”
      Reply “They were, yeah. I mean, I don’t know whether you’ve met Gerry, but other people have met Gerry, and when Gerry is talking, it’s bit like I said earlier, that he is very focussed, he is a very focussed person. And it doesn’t surprise me he didn’t see me, because if he’s talking he’s very focussed on what he’s doing at that stage. I mean, obviously I don’t know, I don’t know Jez, I hadn’t actually, I hadn’t had any contact with Jez through the week, I didn’t, you know, he wasn’t somebody we chatted to, so, you know, in terms of him recognising me or knowing me, he didn’t know me, so”.
      4078 “And can you remember, as you past them or thought to acknowledge them, then you noticed they were deep in conversation"...

      You see...Gerry is VERY FOCUSSED"! Apparently, when he's engaged on a converstaion he has "tunnel vision", sees or hear nothing but the person he's talking to and the sound of his own voice, lol!!!
      In Jez Wilkins case, well she didn't know him, he didn't know her, and, this must be one more of the many strange "phenomena" in Luz that happened with the Tapas9, when you pass by someone you aren't acquainted with YOU BECOME INVISIBLE!

      And this bit is interesting too, every time I re-read the rogatories I notice something I didn't notice before:
      Tanner brings up the swinging story( applaled at the language she used to describe it, "pissed" and "shagged",how vulgar, yuck!):

      ..."4078 “What about your personal opinions Jane”?
      Reply “Yeah erm, well obviously I, I mean I was almost gonna say this at the very, very end of anything but I just, I’d just really like to say to the Portuguese Police you know, I think there’s been a lot said but from a, you know we’re not a bunch of swingers that went out there for a swinging holiday, I can’t think of anything to be worse to be honest but yeah, we didn’t go out there on a swingers holiday to dump our kids in the kids club while we got pissed and shagged each other you know, that’s not what we did, there’s, there’s one week of the year, the other fifty one weeks of the year, with the kids all the time. In terms of our family, Russell’s, you know every spare moment’s with the kids, Russell doesn’t go off playing golf or go to the football or you know, there’s nothing wrong with that at the weekend, it’s spent with the kids and I just think you know, they’ve obviously got this idea of us and it’s just completely, completely wrong in terms of the way we are and what you know, our motives for being on holiday there and I think just you know, they’ve got to, I think you saw my reaction earlier that you know, I’m telling the truth, you know there’s Kate and Gerry are telling the truth,"...

    4. Anonymous 28 Oct 2013 13:49:00,

      First, there seems to be some sort of confusion so let me start by clarifying that we haven’t made any reference whatsoever to flip-flops. This is the first time we’re speaking about them.

      Our analysis for both Discrepancies posts was done not under a perspective of spotting the differences but under one of questioning, by showing highlighting them, the intent with which the various purposely erroneous reconstructions were done.

      Some details are to us relevant to prove our point, others aren’t.

      We have already confessed that we are certain we didn’t pick up every minute detail that was wrong. The flip-flops, for example, were something we totally missed and you didn’t.

      Like the first swim (for us important as it shows how SY assumes a position outside the truth) we question the very existence of those flip-flops.

      They only appear in the rogatory interview phase, which as we know, was a second chance that Leics Police gave the T9 to literally patch things up from the mistakes made on the “1st round”.

      Jane says in her rog "I remember I was wearing, BECAUSE IT WAS COLD, I’d got Russell’s big, I’d borrowed one of his, erm, fleeces, so I’d got a big sort of fleece, it probably came down to about here, but then I’D GOT FLIP-FLOPS on and cropped trousers, because I’d only got, I DIDN’T TAKE JEANS, I know I didn’t take jeans on holiday, and then.”

      Cold (enough to borrow a fleece) and flip-flops don’t go well together. Just like having Bundleman/Crèche Dad with a jacket and the child barefooted that was repeated 45 minutes later with the Smith Sighting, which as we have already said it, proves only a sedated child could be transported without shoes and remain apparently sleeping.

      Our opinion is that these flip-flops are brought in by Jane, who already sensing that her statement is in conflict with Gerry not seeing her where he had to have seen.

      He’s not able to deny Jez’s statement in terms of being with him but he sure can, and he did, justify why he didn’t see Jane: by "teletransporting" himself and Jez to the other side of the street.

      Jane tries to keep the pressure but as we have seen, Jane is less than a pawn in this game.

      By the way, we believe that this statement from Tanner is to basically try to cover up her tracks. The fleece to cover up possible clothes, namely a purple top, with which she could have been seen that night and the not having jeans on holidays because if you were to open that famous missing blue tennis bag, at this very moment, we bet you would find a pair of jeans stained with… evidence.

      About the cars a valid point. In fact neither in UK Crimewatch and as much more blatantly in Mock, they don’t appear, although we fail to see the importance of their presence.

      You may say that we gave importance to Maddie’s sandals/trainers. We didn't. We just used them to prove a point that both the sandals photo and Maddie running around in the tennis courts are a fabrication to show her spending time in a manner she didn’t spend.

      Lastly, about the flip-flops, if we said, as we did, that cold does not match with them, then we must recognise that they certainly don't go along the posh long dress that Tanner used for a Tapas dinner. A detail, how posh the dress was, we noticed but didn’t mention as we had already proven that point when talking about the BRT.

    5. Textusa... Textusa, I hope you didn't mind these two small additions. I really found it very "illustrative" the omission of Payne's visit and wanted to take the opportunity to leave it reflected chronologically in the history. The milk and cookies time is one that, as a mother, has always given me a moment of laughter. I wish I had been able to go shower leaving my children alone with a story and a glass of milk. :-)

      I am now with the second part of the discrepancies, for me it's always a pleasure to translate what is well written. Thank you for your great effort, know from experience it is not easy and takes a lot of time.

    6. Mercedes,

      Absolutely not! Anything that helps to the truth is always, always welcome!

      You have an absolutely valid point which had escaped us. The milk and cookies is as real as the tennis lecture and the australian wine.

      And speaking of wine, another detail that we detected but didn't mention was the consumption of wine. If not mistaken, we see only one bottle which isn't compatible with what was said to have been consumed with the rate in which it must have been. Details.

      But back to the milk and cookies, it makes us wonder what parents the McCanns were/are. If milk and cookies is adequate for a 4 yr old (as any mother knows) it's ludicrous to come up with the idea of giving give such a treat to toddlers as young as the twins. Unless cleaning up is a fun chore for you...

      Then it brings up the question of feasibilty and logic. Do you give milk and cookies right before/during/after their dinner (honestly never understood what these kids dined but an issue we haven't exactly looked deep into).

      Then bathe them and think of taking them out to see the tennis?

      Bathe them and then play with them so they get nicely excited before sleep? This by taking into account you need them to fall asleep quickly as you have dinner waiting?

      A bath as soothing effect... under the circumstances it would be the last thing to do before putting them o bed. But that's me.

      It's like they had these ideas popping into their heads and they just blurted them out without thinking if there was any logic or feasibility.

      Just like with the getting ups from the table to do the alleged checks. For instance, what sense is there for Matt to offer to do a check on the McCann children and then take off with Russ? Either one did the checking for all, or all three went.

      It's this absurd cramming up of ideas that shows that nothing of what happened was minimally planned.

      Again, our sincere THANK YOU for your work!


    "Luís Ferro, um dos funcionários, chegou a ser interrogado pela polícia quatro dias depois de Madeleine ter desaparecido, afirmando que três homens de etnia cigana estavam ativos na área e que até tinham assaltado um armazém perto do restaurante Millennium. Estas pistas foram descartadas na altura pelos investigadores, mas voltaram a ganhar importância para a resolução do caso, depois de ‘Maria’, uma menina de quatro anos e filha de pais búlgaros, ter sido encontrada no interior de um acampamento cigano, na Grécia."

    Now we know why Maria was "found". Can't go any lower than that.

    1. O que não dizem é que no seu testemunho, Ferro diz que tinha visto os tais ciganos a roubar lenha HÁ 4 MESES ATRÁS, não na semana da férias. E que era frequente andarem por ali individuos à procura de sucata, num terreno baldio próximo, não a assaltarem ou rondarem os apartamentos!

  87. "James Murray
    Published: Sun, October 27, 2013

    The detectives, who have been reviewing the case files for two years, went to Praia da Luz on the Algarve a month ago to pursue secret inquiries.

    They spent hours walking around the Ocean Club working out where certain people were seen at particular times and at Apartment 5a, from where threeyear-old Madeleine went missing on May 3, 2007.

    The exercise was the culmination of months of work by four Portuguese detectives based in Porto in the north of the country, who are directly working for the highly respected senior officer Helen Monteiro, an expert on abduction cases.

    It is thought her elite team of dedicated officers has recently been concentrating on statements from witnesses who say they saw unknown people acting suspiciously in the resort around the time the child was missed. The work in Luz came before Scotland Yard released photofits of potential suspects on the BBC's Crimewatch show this month.

    Ms Monteiro has insisted all her officers work in absolute secrecy to prevent leaks of their inquiries. It was decided officers in Porto should conduct the review as none had any direct involvement in the first Madeleine McCann investigation and would therefore approach the case with fresh eyes and open minds.

    In Portugal, Ms Monteiro is seen as the driving force finally to get the Madeleine case files re-opened after five years, rather than through the efforts of Scotland Yard. She and her team are working separately from the Yard, although there is close liaison between the two.

    Yesterday Portuguese Justice Minister Paula Teixeira da Cruz said the decision to reopen the case, taken last week, was due to the work of the Policia Judiciaria and not because of pressure from Scotland Yard. She said: "The PJ developed diligences that allowed for this process to be reopened. Often there are almost perfect crimes and not all of them are discovered all over the world. If the PJ requested the reopening, it has good motives to do so."

    Portuguese law officials and senior officers in the PJ have been acutely aware of criticism of the initial police investigation and insist they are determined to solve the case.

    Ms Teixeira da Cruz urged people to be "proud" of the work being done by the PJ, which she insisted had not been idle in seeking to solve the mystery.

    For a time Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were seen as arguidos or suspects but that status was lifted. Now they are being kept fully informed of all developments and were given a personal briefing of the work of the PJ in Lisbon last week.


    So not ACTUALLY assistants...
    Why not cut the cr*p and go directly to arguidos?

  88. Anon 28 12:52,

    Só que se esqueceram de por na noticia que Maria nunca esteve desaparecida nem foi raptada. Foi vendida pelos pais biológicos e agora a policia tem um problema para resolver- o que fazer a Maria?
    - entregá-la aos pais biológicos que já a venderam uma vez?
    -entregá-la aos pais adoptivos, com quem parece estar bem integrada, e dar assim avale a este tipo de crime( compra/ venda de crianças)?
    - submetê-la a adopçào por outra familia? Qual? Cigana para respeitar a sua etnia? Como vão avaliar esta familia? Familia ocidental, rompendo com a sua cultura e origem?

    Até podiam usar qualquer exemplo( Natasha Kampush, etc), menos os casos recentes das crianças ciganas.

  89. Last night I saw on the news Maria's biological parents. Maria's mother said outright that she gave Maria away but didn't receive any money.
    But what called my attention were the little bright red-headed little boy and the platinum blonde one.
    Looking at Maria's parents, it's as likely that they have blond or red-headed children as her "foster" parents. So why didn't they take these 2 kids away too? After all, if it was the difference in appearance that justified all this drama, why not take these 2 away for the same reason?
    This just goes to show me that to find Maria there was some ground researching done. Someone has had the loathsome job, paid by tax-payers, to go and find a girl to be targeted so that the Maddie and gypsies story could be sold! I hope that person has a kid(s) of his own and one day his conscience will catch up to him or her.
    The last coincidence (and yes I also believe there are no coincidences) is to have found Maria in Greece, where there's a Mark Warner where the Tapas had spent an holiday together too!


    Very interesting link on superinjunctions and mccanns.

    1. Dianne Webster's rogatory, a "Super" i mentioned...were they talking about the secrecy of justice in Portugal...? I have a feeling not, because we never use the term Super, we don't have that, it's always "secrecy of justice". It must be a superinjunction, but brought on ALL of them, but by who? The McCanns?

      "You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
      "That’s right, yes.”
      "And you’d been very restrained in what you said.”
      "Yeah, yeah.”
      "And yet you felt that you’ve been very badly let down because of what’s come out.”


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.