Friday, 5 September 2014

Sky News - The Clarifying Report

(video here)

It seems that an unpublished report from CEOP commissioned by former Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009 and handed over in 2010 – has concluded that because so many UK agencies got involved in an uncoordinated manner, damaged relations with Portuguese police.

This obviously hampered the Maddie investigation.

Sky News aired a special on it on Monday night 20H30 GMT, “Madeleine McCann – The Secret Report”.

In the round rable discussion in the studio afterwards (not on the video) Martin Brunt says he asked Home Office to see the report and they said that he couldn’t. Because it was sensitive they said, because it’s embarrassing he thinks.


According to Martin Brunt: “I asked Home Office about a month ago if they would let me see it and they said no. And they said very broadly that it was sensitive. Now, I haven’t seen the fine detail but it’s difficult to see anything in it, from my knowledge, that is terribly sensitive. I think the answer is simply, Adam, is that it’s embarrassing…”

We think both Brunt and the Home Office are correct. We think it’s sensitive because it is much too embarrassing.

As we said on Monday night, we think we witnessed history that night: Mr Murdoch, a very relevant player assumed publicly on which side of the fence he is currently on.

Mr Murdoch has always been a significant piece on the board and Sky News Report (SKR) was a public move. Unlike the yet-to-confirmed libel trial (McCann v The Times) of which we have only heard about from some unknown journo, this taking of position by Mr Murdoch came directly from a News Corp TV - Sky News.

It doesn’t matter on which side he was yesterday or the day before that, what matters is where he’s at the moment and it seems that he will be on that side from now on.

Nothing we haven’t been explaining for the last year and a half, namely with our post “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes”.

Mr Murdoch is on his way to become a hero and the McCanns heading for doom. Monday night represented one very big step in both those directions.

The move towards check-mate has been made and the opponent notified. Nothing ambiguous about it.

But before we look at the contents of both the SKR and the report itself let’s first look at what have been the reactions to it.

We have read that the SKR is a product of a Clarence Mitchell - Jim Gamble – McCanns/T7 effort.

We are unable to understand how it can be seen that way.

Independent of the various interpretations that may be made as to what the objectives the SKR may have had, we think it’s consensual to say that it gives a very bad image of UK’s involvement in the Maddie investigation.

In what way does a very bad image of UK’s involvement in the Maddie investigation benefit the McCanns? We don’t see any.

The SKR says explicitly that this uncoordinated bungled participation by UK agencies hampered the investigation. Wasn’t that supposed to be the sole responsibility of Mr Amaral according to McCann’s interests?

The SKR has literally torpedoed the entire McCann accusation against Mr Amaral at the damages trial. We think it is a significant piece of evidence that should be used by Mr Amaral’s legal team in the final allegations if they can use it.

The question remains, how can anything saying that UK – or anyone else but Mr Amaral – has hampered the investigation help the McCanns? To us it seems pretty clear that it doesn’t. On the contrary, it’s a significant public setback.

Also, in what way does it benefit the McCanns having Jim Gamble say they should have been considered #1 suspects from the start? According to the Guardian ““In the first instance, the parents should be your number one suspects,” he told Sky.”

And in what way does it benefit the McCanns saying very clearly that the UK police force was seen to be biased in their favour?

In what way does it benefit the McCanns saying Mr Amaral was sacked because of having exposed in an interview that same favouring?

In what way does it benefit the McCanns saying that the report is not released because it is so embarrassing that someone in Portugal may find it so offensive that they’ll throw the toys out of the pram?

We see absolutely no way that the SKR benefits the McCanns and see many others where it seriously hurts their interests both in the UK and in the damages trial in Lisbon.

No way would the McCanns sponsor anything that is so negative for them. So why are there people who say they produced this?

The answer is quite simple: because only the believers in the swinging theory can say that it hurts the McCanns.

All those who believe in other theories are struggling to explain this paradox and saying that this is a McCann job is not exactly helping their cause.

That’s why the internet isn’t filled with exhilarated joy it should be about what happened on Monday night but instead is rather sceptical and circumspect about it.

A waste of time and money, they say. Nothing significant was said, they say. We, on the other hand say it was a real investment of time and money and it has certainly said a lot.

In fact, we think it’s such a complex piece of the puzzle that we’re struggling – in a good sense – to try the best we can to understand all the intricate complexities it holds. A fascinating piece indeed.

Why it is that only the swinging theory believers are the only ones able to say they have fully “appreciated” what happened on Monday night?

The answer is simple: the differences in perception of the power the McCanns/T7 hold.

We say they hold very little while all others say they are very powerful. They say this group is so much so that they have literally forced the nation to cover-up for their crime. Some even go as far as claiming that the group had the capability to convene all powers of the nation to cover-up a heinous crime committed by a nepiophile and maintain absolute silence about it for at least the following 7 years. A nationally protected nepiophile. If that is not to have absolute power than we don’t know what power is.

Yet, these all so powerful people allowed Sky News to air a report that was absolutely harmful to their cause. Where has their power gone? When and why have they lost it?

Even if what happened on Monday was Sky News “defecting” and so caught the McCanns/T7 totally by surprise, where is the fear that has been shown by the media on the subject for the last 7 years? Vanished? Where has this sudden courage come from and why?

Or even in case what happened on Monday was Sky News retaliating for the yet-to-be-confirmed libel trial, shouldn’t this trial be news first on that TV station?

To say the McCanns are to sue because of the SKR is ridiculous. First because it was Sky News airing it and not The Times and second because we all know the trial started before.

The immense and uncontested power the McCanns/T7 are supposed to have does not fit in any way with the airing of this program. SKR hurts them “mortally” and yet it aired. So why didn’t they stop it from airing it? Why haven’t they reacted?

Because they hold no power, that’s why.

We, the swinging theory believers, have been saying all along that the McCanns and T7 are simply like the external symptoms of a disease. They are only the rash while the disease itself is hidden within the body. Fighting the rash is to fight the disease but it is only to do so topically.

The McCanns/T7 hold no power and have never held any. We have been saying this for quite a while now.

The whole campaign against them that started with the “3,000 calls” up to Maddie is dead and the concealment of her body was done collectively, proves it.

The airing of the SKR on Monday night primetime VERY CLEARLY proves it.

And only in the swinging theory does this absolute and evident lack of power on the part McCann/T7 fit adequately. In no other theory it does. All other theories rely on the fact that the McCanns/T7 control all. When it’s shown they don’t then they face a problem.

That’s why everyone else is struggling – in a bad way – to find an explanation for what they saw on Monday and can’t find one. Only we do.

To say the McCanns orchestrated the SKR makes no sense to us but we’re fully aware that to recognise that the McCanns/T7 are far from being in the decision centres means the reasons given to justify their protection have to be revised or seriously questioned.

Unless one says, like we do, the McCanns were never the ones being protected. But to say that one has to be a swinging theory believer.

If only for the biggest private mainstream TV Station in the UK having aired on primetime a damaging report to the McCanns thus proving how powerless they really are, SKR was important and certainly not a waste of time.

But it was important not only for that reason.

It was also important to hear Sky News say that Mr Amaral was sacked because he denounced the biased UK police. Sky News defending a man who the McCann took to the courts for having dared publish a book just because it said Maddie was dead.


According to Sky News: “that early bad feeling led to the sacking of the original Portuguese Detective-Chief Gonçalo Amaral. He was fired after suggesting in an interview that the British police were not independent and appeared to be working for the McCanns.”

Sky News saying the formerly known “bungling copper” was wrongly sacked. Who would have thought that possible?

We think we can all agree that 01 September 2014 represents a significant and positive milestone in UK’s freedom of speech.

One step towards what we said in December 2010:

“This blog was not created to report. It does that once in a while, when it deems important to do so. But the reason for its existence is to expose, by non-official, and non-paid, investigative work of it's authors, the truth of what happened to Maddie. Or at least try our best to do so.

We really hope that one day, the mainstream media will render hiding the truth useless.

That is our goal.

This blog seeks to expose all the ridiculousness of a version that is OFFICIAL, so that one day, in the future, Mankind can see how absurd Mankind can be, so we will continue to journey down the path we've set for ourselves.”

Almost 4 years have passed. It’s been a slow and agonising process but we believe that it’s getting there. The internet is forcing it.

The SKR was also important because Mr Murdoch’s Sky News said that the Maddie case was a big embarrassment to the UK. So much so that it might offend Portugal. We wouldn’t say it would as we’re sure it will.

Saying it’s an embarrassment is to confirm what Wikileaks had already revealed in December 2010 and it does explain many a reason for the “as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors”.

But what really is important about saying that report can’t be revealed because it’s too embarrassing is that the “embarrassment door” to the case has been opened. As of the SKR the British public now expects something embarrassing to be revealed. When it is told that David Payne (or Kate) did accidentally kill Maddie, that the whole group, including parents, collaborated in the disposal of the body and that UK helped cover-up that to cover-up a swinging event, it won’t be shocked.

Another thing that makes SKR important is that it showed with an astounding clarity who really was the UK’s Madeleine Coordinator: CEOP. Not Leicestershire Police as said.

The report’s existence was acknowledged by the Home Office. It was commissioned in 2009 and handed over in 2010.

We don’t know why it was commissioned but we know it provides an overarching opinion of all agencies involved. One can only assume that it was intended by the Home Office to have an overall encompassing inter-agency scope.

And if Home Office wants a report of such a scope, who does Home Office commission? It commissions whatever is the overarching inter-agency coordinating organism. Why commission any other?

And what was the one that was commissioned? CEOP.

Not Leicestershire Police who was said to be the UK’s Madeleine Coordinator. Not SOCA, of which CEOP was part of. Not Scotland Yard which we think did the major police work required to have been done.

It was CEOP, an agency with the mission of protecting against online crime was commissioned to provide an overarching report on all UK’s activity about one that happened in an apartment with no computer.

We have questioned the very presence of CEOP in this case in our post “The English Stove”. It made no sense. Technically speaking. But if you think politically then one could even say it’s logical.

It’s not man that makes history but history that makes the man. Man is only able to mould favourably the opportunity given to him by history. To seize it or not. The right man at the right time and location will find glory, the wrong man will shame himself.

We think Jim Gamble was the right man who found himself at the right time and location in Operation Ore. He made it work for him then started his power trip and up the political ladder of the police he went.

He was given the CEOP – Child Exploitation and Online Protection to run.

An agency designed to protect children from online paedos. A very noble mission that in the hands of the ambitious can become perversely distorted. Let us be very clear and say that all those working within the scope of the agency’s mission have our utmost respect and admiration for the services they provide.

However, unfortunately, CEOP’s scope can be conveniently ambiguous if one so desires it to be as paedos, very unfortunately, look like anyone else before they’re caught. And an online paedo acts not on the street but in the privacy of a home. So, in truth, anyone can be on CEOP’s radar. Anyone can be a suspect of online paedophilia. All that is needed is a pointed finger or a name on a list.

Anyone and everyone can be investigated by CEOP within its legal mandate.

And as it can investigate anyone and everyone – and that implies a panoply of uses – it’s ideal to have a “trusted” man running it. So who better than the one who had shown the desired qualities during Operation Ore? No one better than a person who fully understood the nitty gritty of the politics involved in all higher echelons of public organisations. Each one of them has to play the game because each one has to justify their existence and so obtain their share of the public budget they need to survive.

Operation Ore handled very sensitive information. Mr Gamble, in our opinion, mastered the art of handling this kind of information. To let others know one knows without revealing one knows. To blackmail without blackmailing. Some call this hypocrisy, others call it abuse of power, we call it what it is: diplomacy.

And as CEOP handled paedophilia, whoever was in front of it would hold the nation’s darkest secrets and if one takes into account the “baggage” brought along by Operation Ore it all makes Jim Gamble in CEOP to be “UK’s Peccadillo Sheriff”. The man who knew all the deep and dark secrets of UK.

So when the circumstances in which Maddie died threatened to expose the swinging event we think that, politically, it was a natural choice for the government to make by putting Gamble – unofficially and covertly – coordinating a sensitive operation. Protecting the reputation of all those there who were not supposed to be doing what they were doing was right up “High-Society Peccadillo Alley”, Gamble’s street. The right man for the right job.

Plus, as a child had disappeared and the “C” in CEOP is indeed for child, so there wasn’t even a need to have a far-fetched excuse to deploy the agency in PdL as quickly as possible

If it was Leicestershire Police running this group, why wasn’t the report referred to in the SKR commissioned to them but to CEOP instead?

By showing that the Home Office commissioned CEOP to write up the report, SKR confirms that from 2007 up until he resigned in 2010, it was Jim Gamble who reported directly to government on the Maddie case. In our opinion he was clearly shown by Sky News to have been the real UK’s Madeleine Coordinator.

It’s our opinion also that he also reported directly to the other group of Deciders, the ones we now call Swingers BH, who currently oppose the Government BH.

We think that with all we have said above we have explained why we think 01 September 2014 will be remembered as one of the most significant in the Maddie case, the day News Corp ship, via Sky News, turned visibly around.

We cannot emphasise more the importance of the SKR.

The SKR was, in our opinion, the official start of the process by which Mr Murdoch becomes one of “one of us” as explained in our “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” post.

About the content of the video, it was interesting to see the bashing Leicestershire Police took. Really ugly.


Martin Brunt:“The report says that a regional police force such as Leicestershire simply wasn’t up to the job But it never questioned its appointed role as UK’s Madeleine coordinator. But the force and other agencies did frequently question the way the Portuguese authorities went about their investigation and that, says the report, led to accusations that the UK was acting as a colonial power.”

Yes, Leicestershire Constabulary allegedly didn’t complain about not having enough resources to manage such a complex case but where is the responsibility of whoever gave it that responsibility? If one gives a mission to someone and don’t give it the necessary resources to accomplish the failure then the failure is not accountable to the one who couldn’t possibly succeed but to the one who appointed the impossible mission.

SKR has confirmed that Leicestershire Police never had any real responsibility and as of Monday we know who had.

It was also said that dozens of agencies went into conflict with one another in the Maddie investigation.


10 organisations were listed. In our book a dozen is still 12:

1. Leiscestershire Police

2. ACPO – Association off Chief Police Officers

3. CEOP – Child Exploitation & Online Protection.

4. Metropolitan Police

5. SOCA – Serious Organised Crime Agency

6. NPIA – National Policing Improving Agency

7. Crimestoppers

8. 10 Downing Street

9. Home Office

10. Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Of these 10, the last 3 can hardly be considered agencies and most certainly cannot be considered to cause uncoordinated havoc as they are coordinating entities by nature. And none officially set foot in Luz, except the last one with the ambassador’s presence. Although we think he caused havoc in the PJ’s investigation we don’t think he stepped on the toes of any other UK agency working on the case.

The fact they are listed reveals the high-level in which UK got involved in this case.

Of the remaining 7 we cannot see where the ACPO and NPIA would cause any hampering. That leaves us with 5.

Crimestoppers is a private agency. To say it caused havoc one had to nominate also the findmadeleine website and we cannot see either causing confusion to the OFFICIAL authorities.

Speaking of private agencies, why wasn’t CRG – Control Risk Group listed? Kate speaks very clearly of it in her book.

And the FSS – Forensic Science Service? Where is the FSS? Why an agency that really threw clutter about and caused major havoc is not on the list?

Of the four remaining, one (CEOP) was an organisation within the other (SOCA). To say they stepped on each other’s toes would be the same as now saying that Operation Grange’s officers would be complaining about the interference they would be having from SY. The analysis of a possible intra-agency lack of coordination is not relevant when trying to understand the reasons for a possible inter-agency lack of coordination and the report apparently only deals with the latter.

SOCA and CEOP should be considered as a single agency in this instance.

That leaves the dozen down to 3: Leicestershire Police, Metropolitan Police and CEOP.

One has to be imaginative to think of ways these three agencies fought each other for attention, trampled on each other’s competences in such a way it offended the PJ as SKR now alleges happened.


Then there’s Mr Gamble. He was the star of the show.

He has evidently chosen sides and is very unlikely to receive Christmas cards this year from his friends in Rothley. If he ever received any. We believe that for him, as for many, the McCanns were only a product. For Mr Murdoch to gain money and status, for Mr Gamble they served to pave the way on his power trip.


Now the product is rotting fast, best get all the juice out of it before it becomes untouchable.

To understand his presence in the SKR one must understand what has happened to him. In October 2010, he resigned in public confrontation with Theresa May.

In our opinion he was, as we have said, the man who coordinated all that had to do with Maddie in UK. Taking into account he was running a state campaign in a globalised case that turned out to be of international importance, Mr Gamble from 2007 to 2010 was in our opinion a very powerful man indeed.

But all that power had a big drawback. He became, in certain circles, the face of the Maddie case. And with the growing embarrassment that the case started to have, so those responsible started to look at him as the one responsible for that.

Probably because he was starting to be a liability he lost the position of Head of PSNI – Police Service of Northern Ireland to Matt Baggott in September 2009.

We believe that Mr Gamble really wanted this position. It must have hurt especially taking into account that Baggott had headed Leicestershire Constabulary, supposedly UK’s Madeleine Coordinator.

We wouldn’t be surprised if turns out the report referred to in the SKR wasn’t commissioned by the Home Office to CEOP just to have Mr Gamble explain what had gone wrong with the case and if it didn’t later serve to invite him to resign.

He didn't get the job, he got abused by the blogs and his company Ineqe is now facing an inquiry into corruption by one of its directors in Northern Ireland.

Our reading of Mr Gamble’s appearance in the SKR is a desperate plea to be given some sort of job, a centre he allegedly proposes in the report. He's trying convey the idea that if anyone wants to find any solution to the Maddie case he’s the man to help as he’s the only one who really knows it all.

He's using his knowledge to attempt a comeback.

On SKR we see a humble Jim Gamble, who recognises fences were trodden with PJ, acknowledges organisation leaders (that includes him) maybe over-acted and ends up by buttering up those he wants to reach by saying the Met is indeed the correct agency to handle the matter:

“I have no doubt that the relationships from the outset with the Portuguese were impacted by it, and I think that had a long term negative effect on the investigation and I think to this very day the Metropolitan Police investigation team that’s engaged now are still having to manage and massage that relationship and perhaps, to be fair to the Portuguese, mend some fences that were trodden in the early days.

(…)

I think if you look at it honestly, there were some in leadership roles who wanted to represent their organisation and be seen, or their organisation to be seen, to take lead role in this and provide critical input in this and that made it difficult for a small regional force like Leicestershire who, you know, they will say they came to London, you know, walking about from agency to agency trying to lay this off [sic].

CEOPs [sic] certainly didn’t have the capacity or the in-house expertise to deal with it given its size and focus and we ended up in the long-term where perhaps we should have been in the beginning, with the Metropolitan Police.”

Note how he highlights how SY has to please the PJ. The Met has, he says, to massage their relationship.

No one needed Mr Gamble to tell us that it was blatantly wrong to have Leicestershire Constabulary run the show while SY stayed in background as if a stranger to the issue. And everyone knew that wasn’t reality. Thanks to the SKR, the record has been set straight.

About the job he is asking for in the SKR: “in his report Mr Gamble urges the setting up of a round-the-clock UK Police Centre to respond in a more coordinated way to missing children and abroad.”

Mr Gamble wants government to give him an organisation in which he has the power to work nationally and internationally again. He’ll fully cooperate if they give him that.

This organisation he suggests is completely irrelevant in McCann case. As useful as the Facebook button he once proposed to have children freely accuse adults of being paedos. The Facebook button just shows how much Mr Gamble is appropriate to manage any child protection agency – leave to the child it's own protection. The Facebook button Mr Gamble proposed has always existed, it's called parents.

Maddie being paraded around the world in the numerous deluded sightings was fictional. That Maddie never existed. But even if she did, no extra organisation in the UK is required.

To answer bluntly the question raised after the show “if your child is abducted abroad, who you call?” you call, just like the T9 did, the LOCAL authorities. Why? Because UK is NOT a colonial power. In case you didn’t know, independent nations have their own jurisdiction and foreign authorities are not welcomed without invitation. If local authorities find the need to contact the UK ones they will do so via the appropriate channels.

Unfortunately for Mr Gamble, we don’t think he can pull this off. Yes, he holds information but as many have come to realise in the Maddie case having information you cannot use is useless. He can go to any paper, he can even go to the police but no one will risk picking up anything he has to say.

Also, he doesn’t seem to be in good favour with the government and we don’t think that while Theresa May has a say he will be given anything he asks.

Publicly he will have to explain Gerry McCann’s presence at that CEOP conference in June when everyone was already smelling rotten fish around the McCanns.

Plus, this attempt backfired completely. He didn’t realise it but he was used by Mr Murdoch. He gives credibility to having been said that inter-agency coordination was chaotic. That was all Mr Murdoch needed of him. He has no need for him any longer.

And he has come out of the SKR a turn-coat. A true Benedict Arnold. No one trusts a turn-coat. Those who already didn't like him have now another reason to not like him even more.


About the Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan book “Looking for Madeleine” to be out next week we will have to wait and see.

On one hand we have this said on Amazon “speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded” which seems to indicate a pro-McCann posture but on the other what the authors say in the SKR raises the possibility of it being a curve ball, as it seem more according with Maddie’s “new-era”:

Summers: “It was a case of too many cooks, all well-intentioned, and spoiling the broth of the initial investigation. And then the mistakes, or should I say, missteps, began to pile one upon another.”

Swan: “The problems that grew out of the race to help in the initial phase of the Madeleine investigation, the problems of the lack of co-ordination between the Portuguese and the British police, the bad feeling, the lack of translation ability, those things have not been fundamentally addressed.”

So we won’t speculate one way or the other. We will wait and see.

It's been reported that it will be serialised by Sun on Sunday. Not exactly a deal that would be done by authors claiming to write a serious book on the subject. The last one we heard was going to being serialised by that paper was Kate’s book.

(pic from here)
Lastly, we could not let pass our little obsession: the Big Round Table (BRT). That object that made us see the light back in 2009, and next to which, allegedly at least, Mr Brunt has been shown to be sitting at. In fact, as far as we know, he's the only human being to be seen sitting by it!

In the SKR the Tapas esplanade is shown. As usual, the angle just misses where the BRT is supposed to be.  If it was supposed to be behind the plastic canopy... it isn't:


In fact, the BRT just isn't there at all!


Mr Brunt, thank you for taking us into consideration. Your attitude was much appreciated.

98 comments:

  1. Textusa - I am so glad your work was acknowledged with regard to the absence of the BRT.
    This case is surely a catalyst through the presence of the internet and people like yourselves.
    As an ordinary citizen, I'm really grateful for the time you put in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Mcs have only acquired power by knowing their protection is about the protection of people more important than them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Matt Baggot's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry suggests that whatever Jim Gamble / CEOP report may say about a 'confused' rush to help, this is a complete fiction and there was in fact a coordinated policy and strategy....

    See post by Lance De Boils halfway down page 11 - http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10227p100-sky-news-7pm-exclusive-new-report-on-madeleine-mccann-investigation-tonight-1-sept-2014

    Directly copied from evidence PDF.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt Baggot says that a co-ordinated body was set up of various agencies, and also intimates that there were leaks to the press even though staff had to sign a confidentiality agreement. Although these leaks could not be identified at the time. What he does NOT say is that these agencies didn't hamper/trip over each other in trying to 'help matters' in PDL which caused further confusion and hampered the search. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Chief-Constable-Matthew-Baggott.pdf

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 5 Sep 2014 12:13:00,

      We fully agree with you. We don't think there was any sort of lack of inter-agency coordination as implied in the SKR.

      Delete
  4. Thank you, Textusa! Super to have you back after your break ! The developments in this case are just too exciting for words ! Looking forward to your reports on your investigations. Well done for the thorough way in which you expose the mccanns, their lies and their liars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. NPIA didn't cause havoc. Mark Harrison was from NPIA and did a very thorough report. He also suggested that dogs should be brought in. He did a good job, but has now been put into the category of causing havoc, it seems. He was the person met by MI5 at the airport, according to a recent statement by Mr Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Someone doesn't agree with you:

    David Steel ‏@DaSteelMan
    I'm very surprised Textusa doesn't get it. Last week's Sky News Special was Team #McCann 'damage limitation' in advance of the Lisbon FAIL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 5 Sep 2014 19:09:00,

      As we said in the post we’re unable to share this opinion. We’re unable to see how one speaking against oneself limits damage.

      We might even understand the reasoning. We guess this position would be like placing a bomb somewhere in the Titanic’s hull so that no one would know it sank because it ran into an iceberg.

      The problem with this reasoning is that the proposed solution would only makes things much worse than they were.

      One would either placed the bomb exactly in the same spot where the iceberg ripped the hull – which would be underwater – or the blowing up of that bomb would only mean that instead of having to explain one hole, one would end up having to explain two, and so doubling the initial problem.

      Plus, the ship would sink anyway and be seen sinking and what the McCanns want is that no one sees their ship sinking.

      Damage control would be to, unable to hide the ship any further, to do all to minimise the visual impact of the sinking.

      But why would they be unable? Aren’t they supposed to be powerful enough to never be “unable”? When, where and why have they stopped being powerful is the question we ask all those who don’t subscribe our theory.

      Calling the attention to the ALL the UK agencies/organisms/organisations is NOT to minimise the impact. On the contrary, it’s to highlight it.

      The moment Susan Hubbard opened her mouth in court it was more than evident that the McCanns were going to lose. That was a year ago.

      Bet let’s be practical. Let’s anticipate, hopefully, reality and imagine the scene when the McCanns hear from the judge’s mouth they have lost:

      Judge: “The court finds that Mr Amaral is not responsible for any damages the plaintiffs claim.”

      McCanns: “Yes, you’re absolutely right!! It wasn’t him, it wasn't him!! It was our own cops! Sky News showed that the other day! Did you see it? We’ve so silly all this time! You must think us stupid... we have been persecuting the wrong man all this time! Can you believe it? Even had his assets frozen... oooops (giggle). Hey, Mr Amaral how about we buy you dinner to compensate? Hope you don’t take it personally… everyone can make a mistake, right? Still friends?”

      Is that the idea?

      Delete
  7. The commissioned £200k scoping report by Gamble, from memory, was CONFIDENTIAL. I don't think even the McCanns were allowed to know it's content. It was refused as a basis for reopening\reviewing by the UK Police on THREE occasions. I just wish I could find the appropriate links and information.

    When the review and subsequent reopening by the UK took place it was after the front page letter in the Sun exposure, akin to the blackmail of Ms May, then Cameron & May ordering the first part of the review leading to the full investigation by the MET, based by on the personal interventions of Murdochs little girl wonder, Rebekah Brooks. Although during the Leveson, this has been whitewashed ..... and everyone agreeing that RB didn't have any involvement.................. yep well - that's not really the order of how things happened

    What remains open to public complaint is why a confidential document was released to Brunt, did he get it under the FREE OF INFORMATION ACT, if so, then it should be published verbatim and handed to the Court & Authorities in Portugal.

    The bothersome last weeks rattling of the cages by Sky aka Brunt and the pending Summers & Swan publication, just makes you wonder how much fear there is in the British Establishment of the outcome, next week of the libel hearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:38

      What libel trial? Or do you mean the damages trial in Lisbn? If so, when next week?

      Delete
    2. Does anyone know dates for GA's trial?

      Delete
  8. bonsoir à tous,
    Textusa, bienvenue chez vous, j'espère que vous êtes bien reposée, parce qu'avec ce que je viens de lire, je m'attends à de plus en plus d'éclaircissements ! vous êtes la seule à décortiquer les choses, et au moins, chez vous, pas de disputes et que de la matière grise bien utilisée.
    J'ignore ce que vous faites dans la vie, et ça ne me regarde pas, mais votre approche de cette tentaculaire affaire est si intelligente, que je pense et j'espère que vous occupez un poste digne de vous ! bravo encore et merci de faire en sorte que l'on soit un peu moins désinformé

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bonsoir Anonymous 5 Sep 2014 21:17:00,

      Nous vous remercions pour vos compliments merveilleux!

      Notre vie est grise. Perdu quelque part dans les nuances infinies de cette couleur.

      Certains pensent gris d'être triste et ennuyeux alors que nous pensons qu'il passionnant et défiant. Peut-être que c'est ce qui nous rend différents.

      Delete
  9. Thank you textusa. I sense that we are heading into a period of much activity in the McCann caselets hope soon the truth will out. I wonder why they were so critical of the Leicestershire police as,as you said they weren,t the real uk co ordinators. I never thought matt baggot was a good chief constable and for a few years before he retired i sensed that there was an uneasyness among many policing board members about him. I almost thought at the end he was nearly pushed out. I wouldnt be surprised if something regarding this case is going to be exposed about him

    ReplyDelete
  10. Saying that the investigation failed due to too many agencies getting involved because of their desire to help seems to me to be a ploy to allay people's suspicions that these agencies actually got involved to scupper the investigation. Spreading the blame also gives credence to one's final conclusions, the story won't appear to be so one sided; it's a strategy that is cleverly employed to obscure an agenda.

    With regard to the proceedings against Mr. Amaral. I won't be surprised by any decision that is rendered. I do know that the final court ruling will be overshadowed by Scotland Yard and the PJ's final verdict on Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now that this information has been made public, the McCanns won't be able to appeal if they lose. But if Amaral loses, he will win on appeal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's exactly what I thought when this news broke.

      Delete
  12. All rubbish,Gamble is firmly on the McCanns train,Murdoch is allowing the latest bit of fiction to be serialised in one of his papers,so hardly throwing the awful pair to the wolves,finally this case is and has never been about swinging,you can say this as much as you like,it isn't true,i've stayed at the OC PDL,and no such activity takes place,and swinging is hardly the worst thing in the world anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 6 Sep 2014 17:21:00,

      You have previously recognised that you have links with OC.

      From your words, it seems you’re not a swinger yourself.

      If you haven't engaged in swinging yourself how do you know there was no swinging going on when you stayed at the OC PDL?

      Peeping through the various keyholes?

      Or spending your days forcing your entry in other guests’ apartment doors to check if there was no hanky-panky inside?

      And when you confronted a couple... herm... in adult fun, we suppose you demanded proof of marriage then and there.

      Delete
  13. The British Consul knew about attacks on girls, according to the new Summers book!
    Pimpleman returns.
    Orphanage collectors too. Wasn't Gail Cooper, the witness dismissed as credible by PJ, involved in this?

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10253-here-we-go-madeleine-book-sheds-light-on-mystery-predator

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7 Sep 2014 10:29:00

      As we said, we will wait until the book is published. Sky article seems to confirm that it will be displayed on the rubbish aisle of your local supermarket.
      http://news.sky.com/story/1331466/madeleine-book-sheds-light-on-mystery-predator

      The Sun seems it is going to serialise it:
      http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10252-today-s-sun-7th-september-2014
      http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/5889204/Shock-new-evidence-of-attacks-on-children-before-Madeleine-McCann-kidknap.html

      The book sounds very poor. Not based on interviews with McCann, Mark Warner, Foreign Office. Regurgitating old stories.

      Seems to us book is just a vehicle for serialisation by the Sun. That's where it will make money. The public won't be interested in buying it. The average Sun reader has read it all before. It's just updating for a new generation of Sun readers. Selling your product at the baby food aisle hardly convinces anyone it’s caviar.

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/11/paradise-lost.html
      Our point in this post is why didn't Bill Henderson come forward with this info about assaults after Maddie went missing? He didn't say anything to PJ.

      And we only have Kate's word that he told her about assaults.

      Orphanage collector described by Gail Cooper spoke English. She didn't think he was Portuguese, but Mediterranean appearance. 40-45 6-6.2 feet tall.

      So how closely does that fit with SY's 3 burglar suspects, as Express in July was making the link between collectors and burglars?

      Delete
    2. Surely Gail Cooper won't suddenly remember the 6 ft 2 collector was black?! That would fit so nicely with Monteiro. And maybe he kept the fact that he spoke English a secret?
      No, SY, I'm being ironic. Please don't even think about it.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 7 Sep 2014 11:57:00,

      We think too late to pursue negligence.

      The frequency of "checks" should have been established and whether door locked or not. Isn't illegal in Portugal to have locked door with children inside because of fire risk? That required a reenactment by T9. Portugal probably know UK wouldn't extradite now for negligence.

      We think if they had prosecuted for negligence, it was really agreeing that it was abduction by another person.

      But DP should still be asked questions. He would either deny that happened or say it had been a joke or suchlike, which was misinterpreted.

      Delete
    4. Textusa your comment regarding the book seems to us the boik is just a vehicle for serialisation by the sun. How does this fit into your theory that murdoch is now on the opposite side to the mccanns when he lets his papers serialise this nonsense

      Delete
  14. The McCanns had been told that Bill Henderson and tour operators knew of sexual assaults in the Algarve, yet he was not on their list of people they wanted the police to question? That defies belief and reason.
    And he didn't feel the need to come forward either?
    Maybe he should put the record straight and say whether K's book was an accurate record of this unbelievable episode.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First of all,i don't need to go into apartments at OC to know that it isn't a swingers paradise,why take all your kids on holiday if you're planning to sleep with different people,you can do that at home,or on an adult only holiday.Swinging isn't a crime,so why not admit to it,why the charade of the last seven years,no this goes deeper than that.Perhaps people know people in the know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If all those people in 30's and 40's had arrived without children, wouldn't it seem strange? Wouldn't people wonder why not one family had arrived with children at a resort with family activities, crèche facilities and a baby listening service?
      Swinging doesn't involve children, but swingers have children.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 7 Sep 2014 17:06:00,

      “First of all,i don't need to go into apartments at OC to know that it isn't a swingers Paradise”

      Please do tell us what was enough to convince you, without seeing what was happening inside other apartments, that PDL wasn’t, according to you, a swinger’s paradise.

      Was it the fact there wasn’t a swinger’s separate reception?

      Was it that only Mark Warner clients had to reserve covers at Tapas, whilst if there was swinging, swingers would have covers reserved for them?

      Was it because no other guest came to you and said, “Do you and your lady want to swing? It’s lots of fun, EVERYONE is doing it! I mean, not everybody. Everyone but you 2 and the staff….”

      Will be glad to know what makes you so sure that there wasn’t there an activity in which you supposedly know nothing about.

      Swinging isn’t a crime. Why not admit it? Keeping repeating that as many times as you wish. Repeating something endless and tirelessly doesn’t make it true. For years the McCanns for years repeated that it was an abduction. Public is used to see swingers called viciously “perverts” by media.

      Suggest reading the following:
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/open-gently/201212/can-swingers-have-happy-marriage
      http://www.todaysparent.com/family/relationships/relationships-parents-who-swing/

      Delete
  16. Hilarious! The book is a work of pure fiction!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book will be on Amazon for 1p soon. I will get it then so I can have a really good laugh. I saw the authors on Sky News this morning and could have been watching two second rate actors in a sesond rate tv crime series.

      Delete
  17. From what I gather of the book so far, which was based on 2 years of research, including very recent approaches to bloggers, it's a woefully inadequate and inaccurate account of events. Those of us who have followed the case for over 7 years seem to have a better grasp of the complexities and contradictions of the case.
    I did consider buying a copy, but now prefer to spend my money on something more worthwhile. I'll wait to see if anything revelatory makes it worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In the book, one of predator victims describes man with something wrapped round his feet!
    Did he come shuffling in, like a dad in a sack race or did he apply the wrappings indoors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And he was wearing a surgical mask.
      It's inspired by Christopher Lee from The Mummy!

      Delete
    2. So the latest suspect is Doctorman! Why on earth did the girl think her Dad or Uncle was getting into her bed and...wait for it... wearing a surgical mask, with his feet wrapped in the laundry? Was he wearing rubber gloves as well? This case is absolutely laughable, it's as if they've all taken leave of their senses in their mad quest to exonerate the McCanns. Never seen anything like it.

      Delete
    3. When was it that the burgundy shirt was shown? The assaulted children remembered the shirt but didn't remember the mask then? If they did why didn't SY say so then?

      Delete
  19. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10253p60-here-we-go-madeleine-book-sheds-light-on-mystery-predator
    Carlos Anjos adds some sense to nonsense

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous7 Sep 2014 23:28:00,

    We are placing your comment and our reply here. Your comment:

    "Textusa your comment regarding the book seems to us the boik is just a vehicle for serialisation by the sun. How does this fit into your theory that murdoch is now on the opposite side to the mccanns when he lets his papers serialise this nonsense "

    Our reply:

    As we have said, we are waiting for the publication of the book to provide, when we think appropriate, an opinion.

    Obviously, we are following closely all that is going on around it.

    What we have seen up to now, doesn't make us change our minds about anything we have said this far. In due time, things remaining (we see no reason why they should) we will explain.

    It is nothing we haven't seen before, we must say. A repeat of tactics is never good but as the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed then try and try again.

    Are we a bit late in suggesting for serial assaulter/abductor/burglar/molester to have a wooden leg and a parrot on his shoulder? We think a hook for a hand would overdo it.

    For now all we will say is that we're finding it very interesting that in a program where it is said the UK negatively influenced the investigation, where it's admitted that Mr Amaral was wrongly sacked and where it us shown that without any logic to support it, the lead organisation of the investigation in the UK was CEOP, what is been taken as important is a something that has absolutely no objective importance at all.

    We will continue to observe how this book’s importance is being created and how it's being fed and maintained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must get this book, I love a good belly laugh! The mask and bandages have to be the funniest thing for ages! I need to find out where the authors got this info that no-one else has especially when they didn't even interview Mcs and other authorities refuse to comment on their findings.

      Delete
  21. 3 brief comments from me.
    1. The Sky programme featuring J Gamble might have implied that GA was wrongly sacked, it was not stated explicitly that his sacking should not have happened.

    2. GA was not sacked, was he?. He was removed from the case and later resigned from the police.?

    3. Anyone wearing a surgical mask could probably have got hold of some surgical overshoes to avoid shoe prints. Or used common sense and wore big socks over his shoes. Laundry wrapped around his feet? What child would describe footwear in that way? Mr Abductor would have tripped over a shirt, pillowcase or underpants worn over his shoes.
    Laughable in a case which is anything BUT funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 8 Sep 2014 13:30:00,

      1. "That early bad feeling led to the sacking of the original Portuguese Detective-Chief Gonçalo Amaral. He was fired after suggesting in an interview ", seems, to us, quite explicit.

      2. Mr Amaral was sacked from the investigation. He has said that later he resigned from PJ to be able to defend himself publicly something he felt he couldn't do while an active member of that Police force.

      3. About the character now known as Mummyman, we will reserve our opinion until the book is out, so will not comment on what we think girl allegedly says she saw. Agree totally with you that surgical shoes or big socks over his shoes would not be described as "laundry wrapped around his feet".

      Delete
    2. Textusa agree with you about waiting until the book comes out. I know summers past is a bit dodgy about the conclusions he has come to in some cases he has researched but he is generally regarded as a good writer and a good researcher. The rubbish that was written in the sun was embarassing to read even more embarassing than watching redwoods preformance on crimewatch. Imo none of these 2 men would let their reputation be soiled in this way, there has to be a higher agenda. You figured what redwoods higher agenda was i.e. to try and get into the pj investigation, i trust when you get the full transcipt of the book and study the context provided by the sun you will enlighten us to summers or the suns wider agenda. Keep up the good work

      Delete
  22. http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic23272.html



    Correio da Manhã Sunday Magazine

    (Translated by Montclair & C0lonel Fabien)

    07/09/14

    Maddie The English Police's Disinvestigation

    I had the hope that the British means would help the investigation, but the intention has always been to clear the McCanns

    I confess that when the English police decided to start an investigation into Maddie's disappearance I believed that everything would be elucidated. Not because the English police are better but simply because of their disproportionate means and resources could make a difference.

    I started to start having doubts when I heard the first news about this case, in the BBC television programme "Crimewatch", but did I see a programme to finally find out what happened to Maddie McCann? Unfortunately, there was no answer. We just watched a television programme disguised as a police investigation.

    The English police committed several serious mistakes. The first of which was called the reconstruction. The reconstruction of a crime has to be done at the site where it took place and, if possible, in the presence of all those involved. And it would have been easy for the English to have carried out this diligence, it would have been enough to bring to Portugal the entire group of English who were in the Ocean Club.

    One of the doubts which persists is to understand the reason that the English police insist on repeating diligences which had been done by the PJ and not trying to do the only thing that the PJ did not do, the reconstruction.

    But lets be serious; it was not SY who did the reconstruction but the BBC. How was it possible to understand where the McCanns were sitting at dinner? Would it have been possible to see from this location the window of the apartment where Maddie was sleeping? What route did the McCanns and friends take when they went to see the children? How much time did it take? This reconstruction cannot answer any of these question. But would the answer to these questions be of any importance to the British? I do not think so. Today, I am certain that the purpose is not to know what happened to Maddie, but to divert any eventual suspicions from the McCanns.

    Hoax

    As an example, for the reconstruction they hired actors, one of them Mark Sloan, a well known porno actor. The situation is worth what it is, but when this was made known, it was the object of criticism from the association Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, as well as the Labour deputy, John Mann.

    At a moment of great impact on the television, at 00h00 exactly, and in the entire world, they presented various e-fits, as if these had been drawn up in the course of this investigation. A hoax. We will concentrate of the only two which have any viability of leading to the recognition of any person.

    The first one, elaborated by the PJ, is an image of a man carrying a child. Thus, an Irish couple declared to the PJ that they saw a man that night carrying a child in pyjamas. But they were no able, however, give any kind of expression to the man's face. Later, on the day that the McCanns returned to England, the same couple telephoned the PJ claiming that the man that they saw that night was Gerry McCann. They were sure of this when they saw him get off the airplane carrying one of his children.

    (cont)

    ReplyDelete
  23. (cont)

    There was only problem for the PJ. At the time the Irish couple declared having seen Gerry McCann carrying the child, he had six witnesses at dinner at the Ocean Club. This fact discredited the recognition. But what the English police did was to grab on this "doll" (boneco), giving him other features to kill off any or all suspicions. For this reason, the e-fit presented by the English authorities of a man carrying a child is a hoax, not seen by anyone, its aim is to eliminate any kind of suspicions concerning Maddie's father.

    The other e-fit, that of a man with gray moustache, was also not done by the English police but was done by Oakley Agency, from whom the McCanns had asked for an investigation.

    The first part of the English investigation is resumed: the reconstruction of the facts done by the BBC, the disfigurement of the e-fit done by the PJ and taking advantage of another e-fit done by private detectives that they never wanted to make public. A handful of nothing.

    From the beginning, the English police began by telling us that Maddie had been abducted by a sexual predator, but that she was alive and would be found quickly. They crossed telephone records, registries of paedophiles and other information and identified 4 suspects. The first, the Englishman, Raymond Hewlett, had in fact lived in the Algarve, but had since died some time ago in Germany, a victim of cancer. Later, a Swiss citizen came up, Urs Hans von Aesch, who lived in neighbouring Spain, in Alicante. But he too was dead, as he had committed suicide in his native country. Another suspect turned up, David Reid, a convicted British paedophile, who after serving his prison sentence in the UK he came to live in the Algarve. But destiny was maintained, he too died a victim of cancer. Finally, a Portuguese suspect came up, Euclides Monteiro, who, surprise, had already 4 years ago.

    It was never understood why these suspects. If they were strong, they would not have gone up in smoke with their death, this fact would not invalidate the fact that they could have been the authors of this crime. However, for the English police, dead the suspect, dead the suspicion.

    A question of Faith

    After all this carnage, they changed strategies. Finally, its not just the suspects who were dead. The English police have gone to having no doubts that Maddie is also dead. Maddie, after all, was the victim of an abduction, having been killed afterwards and buried in wasteland near the Ocean Club. What lead them to this new theory is a mystery, as big as the disappearance of little Maddie. The same certainty that they had that she was alive is exactly the same, today, that she is dead. It all comes down to a question of faith.

    As for the motive of the abduction, there are two hypotheses; one, it was a paedophile who entered the house to abuse the child and, as she awoke, abducted her and killed her; two, a thief who entered the apartment and as the child woke up, kidnapped and killed her.

    (cont)

    ReplyDelete
  24. (cont)

    The first doubt concerning these radical theories in detail, perhaps without importance, but which must be made; if there was an abduction, the perpetrator had to enter the apartment. First question: how did he get in? According to the McCanns and their friends, the front door of the apartment was locked and everyone, when they went to check on the children, opened it to enter and locked it when they went out. This door showed no signs of having been broken into. The window of the apartment, which looked towards the restaurant where they were having dinner, had signs of having been forced but from the inside of the apartment, which makes things more complicated, because this is not credible that someone would enter by the door to go out carrying a child through the window, which was looking out towards where her parents were having dinner. Thus, or the McCanns or their friends are lying and left the door open or the abductor has supernatural powers. This bring us to a deadend; as long as the English police cannot tell us how the abductor(s) entered the apartment, how can they affirm categorically that an abduction took place?

    To complicate the situation, the abductor would be in the dark because if he turned the light on he would be immediately seen by the McCanns and friends, who claimed that they had visual contact with the apartment. After, in this situation, no criminal would have taken the child, because even if she had woken up and started crying, the probability that she would recognise him would be zero, unless it was someone she knew well. Besides this, the possibility of fleeing successfully was better if he fled alone. Taking the child would have been a hindrance, delaying his escape, it was an added risk.

    Useless Searches

    But stranger still is the English police's idea that the child was killed immediately by the abductor right away in the empty lots around the area. I believe that they came to this conclusion because, in absence of the spy satellite photograph which I believed existed, they resorted to that powerful investigative tool that is Google Maps. If anyone had been to this area they would not have made this mistake. This terrain is rocky and no one would be able to dig a hole to bury a body, even more without tools. It's clear that when they started these diligences on the ground, even with all the machinery brought from England, they found nothing, other than small animal bones and even these on the surface and they discovered that digging a hole in this area was not an easy task.

    Afterwards, they returned bringing their sniffer dogs from England. But not the same who discovered cadaver odour in the apartment, on clothes, on dolls and in the car used by the McCanns. I believe that these two dogs, seven years later, have either died or have been arrested or fired from the police, due to their work in Portugal.

    (cont)

    ReplyDelete
  25. (cont)

    They brought two other dogs, but they did not want to take any risks, therefore or the two dogs did not have smell or were search dogs, but for drugs and not cadavers, because they did not find any cadaver odour, but rather two cannabis plants, the seizure of which was immediately announced due to its importance.

    Furthermore, they looked for the girl's cadaver in the sewers. Looking for the cadaver of a 5 year old girl in the drains, 7 years later, in inexplicable. All you have to do is think about the time of a body's decomposition and about the conditions of the weather and the site. Just remember last winter and the rains that fell on the Algarve. The force of the waters was such that either the cadaver was washed away with everything in front or there was no drain cover at the site. This search with cameras was a joke.

    To finish, the new suspects and their interrogations. The English police constituted 3 arguidos, three persons who they believe are suspected of something, eventually an abduction. But does any proof or evidence exist connecting them to an eventual crime?

    Apparently not. But let us rejoice. Firstly, because these three suspects, contrary to the other four, are alive and in good health. These three individuals are suspects because they are suspects. This is their major crime; being suspected of being suspects. One of them, at the date of the events, was 16 years old, and his big crime is being in the area that day where the events took place and of having spoken on his mobile with the other two suspects.

    Now they want to come back to Portugal, to query other persons and interrogate new suspects. This means that, after all, everything that they have done up to now is worthless.

    The question to be made is: when are the English going to stop with all of this, if this were not such a serious attack against our sovereignty it would even be funny? This is the only point that I have no doubt about. The English will stop on the day the Portuguese authorities say enough. But, on this day, the English police will say that they have not discovered what happened, because the Portuguese authorities would not let them. Of this I have no doubt and I am not joking.

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/atraso_judicial__revolta_ingleses.html

    Atraso judicial revolta ingleses

    A Procuradoria-Geral da República já recebeu a quinta carta rogatória da polícia inglesa, no âmbito da investigação ao desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, mas a autorização para a realização das diligências pedidas está bloqueada devido à entrada em vigor do novo mapa judiciário.

    Os investigadores da Scotland Yard, que esperavam regressar ainda este mês ao Algarve, estão frustrados e revoltados com mais um entrave na investigação.

    Segundo o CM apurou, devido à reorganização judicial que entrou em vigor no início de setembro, o caso Maddie passou a ter prioridade reduzida no Ministério Público de Portimão. Os processos considerados urgentes e com arguidos detidos têm todos prioridade. O CM sabe que só depois do dia 15 de setembro é que o novo procurador do Ministério Público de Portimão, que foi nomeado recentemente, deverá analisar os mais recentes pedidos das autoridades britânicas.

    Entre as diligências pedidas, tal como o CM já noticiou, estão novos interrogatórios a alguns dos suspeitos já ouvidos pela PJ depois das buscas infrutíferas realizadas na Praia da Luz. Segundo a imprensa inglesa, os elementos da Scotland Yard "estão a aguardar ansiosamente a resposta formal ao seu pedido para que possam planear os seus próximos passos". Recorde-se que, recentemente, um relatório do Ministério do Interior inglês concluiu que a investigação do caso Maddie criou um ambiente de "frustração" e "ressentimento" entre as polícias portuguesa e inglesa.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A Nossa PJ é uma das melhores Polícias de Investigação Criminal.

    A de UK tem deixado muito a desejar e não falo deste caso da M. mas sim de TSha.... por ex. E, poderia apontar mais mas já sei que

    " não passará,nunca mais..... "

    ReplyDelete
  28. I always thought that a whitewash of this case would be political suicide for SY. Infact such a move in this day and age could bring down the government as well as SY. When i heard the ex pj officer saying that he suspected a whitewash because they didnt bring the T9 back to do a recinstruction i cant agree with it. The biggest red flag amoung the WHs is the lies and discrepancies around their statements about the period 9 - 10.30. Any whitewash would seek to address this and whar better way to do that than bring all 9 to portugal with a well worked out storyto show how maddie was abducted. Sure they would have to change their story here and there but they could say that the discrepancies in their story was down to distress snd fear . They could even invent a few more witnesses like crechdad and bobs your uncle the great british public would be convinced. The rest of us would still be screaming on blogs about the injuctice of it all. Instead what SY done was to include the very bear minimum of what they claimed happened and invented crechdad to totally discredit their version of events. It was so ridiculous that even the pros dont wont use in for a defence of the T9s honesty. SY knew that nobody but nobody believed them and the message being sent to the mccanns and the rest was very clear. No whitewash

    ReplyDelete
  29. If your readers want to start your day with a good laugh:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11081857/Madeleine-if-only-the-McCanns-had-known-about-the-Algarve.htmlh:

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it seems that the british prime minister, Mr. David Cameron and his wife also "didn't know about the Algarve"...they took their family to holiday there for two years in a row!
      Tsk, tsk, Mr. and Mrs, Cameron...what were you thinking?! Taking your family to the Algarve?! Don't you know the place it's crawling with weirdos and creeps and about the "chilling history of sexual assaults on British children in the region"???!!!

      Delete
    2. He didn't speak to Mcs so how did he know what they think?
      It's a slur on the Algarve! And PJ

      Delete
    3. Mark Warner must be happy with this free publicity! NOT

      Delete
    4. I had to laugh when Summers said if there had been a note in the apartment about pedios that they would have made sure that they locked the children in before they went out for the night. If I arrived with my children to an apartment which had a note like that I would have emanded a police escort back to the airport with my children

      Delete
  30. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11082517/Could-Madeleine-be-safe-and-well-cared-for.html

    Home»
    News»
    News Topics»
    Madeleine McCann

    Could Madeleine be safe and well-cared for?

    In this edited extract from 'Looking for Madeleine', a new book on the McCann case, the authors analyse the theory that the three-year-old may still be alive

    By Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan

    7:00AM BST 09 Sep 2014

    Former Detective Inspector Ian Horrocks, who was with the Metropolitan Police for 30 years, studied Madeleine’s case over many months, visited Praia da Luz and produced a lengthy summary of his views. He theorised, drawing on his experience of kidnapping cases, that the abduction may have been done by “someone who wanted her as part of his or their family”.

    Thefts of babies do occur. Typically, an infant is taken within days of his or her birth, often from hospitals. Such an abduction, studies by the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) suggest, may be committed by a previously pregnant woman who has miscarried, or one who finds herself infertile, or one who has a male partner but is not living with him and wants to get him back.

    In the UK, there was for a time a charity that – among its other causes – supported women who had kidnapped children. The Portia Trust’s founder, Ken Norman, claimed most such women are not mentally ill but simply “cannot accept that their child is dead or have an unbearable desire for a baby of their own. They may have spent months, even years, looking for a child that resembles the one they have lost and is of the same age.”

    The very purpose of such child thefts is to nurture the child, to raise it to adulthood as if it were the woman’s own. “The babies are very rarely harmed,” a NCMEC spokesman has said. “The recovery rate is very good.”

    In one case in the United States, a woman aged 23 contacted NCMEC on realising she had neither birth certificate nor Social Security card. Her case was investigated and her true biological parents identified. The parents had never given up hope that they would find their missing daughter – just as the McCanns have said they will never give up hope of finding Madeleine.



    Looking For Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan (Headline, £18.99) is available to order from Telegraph Books at £16.99 + £1.95 p&p. Call 0844 871 1514 or visit books.telegraph.co.uk

    © Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan 2014

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/06/friends-reunited.html

      Delete
    2. Is the Telegraph becoming the new the Sun?

      Delete
    3. http://www.demos.org/blog/8/6/13/using-childrens-welfare-charity-turn-profit

      An opinion on the charity quoted by Horrocks.

      Delete
  31. Can someone help me with this, please, as the location of this window has left me very confused.

    The window of the apartment, which looked towards the restaurant where they were having dinner, had signs of having been forced but from the inside of the apartment, which makes things more complicated, because this is not credible that someone would enter by the door to go out carrying a child through the window, which was looking out towards where her parents were having dinner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean the window mentioned by Carlos Anjos in the Correio da manhã sunday magazine? If that's the one, then I'm afraid it was amistake made by Mr. Anjos, or something lost in translation (I have not read the original portuguese article). In fact, it was the children's bedroom window that had signs of being opened from the inside (Kate's fingerprints were the ONLY prints found on that window, on the inside, nothing was found on the outside), note I write "opened", not forced, I think it was a translation mistake, or Mr. Anjos expressed himself wrongly. The "window" that overlooked the Tapas bar, is not quite a window, but rather full sized glass sliding doors, and those, as far as I know from the files, were never said to have been forced...no need to, those were left unlocked all the time.
      Hope I have shed some light into the matter...

      Delete
  32. Don't care much for John Blacksmith but I think he has nailed it this time
    http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.pt/2014/09/unveiled.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR1jW_nJLhw&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  33. By appearing to endorse Summers & Swan on Sky News, Jim Gamble has added a nail to his coffin.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Looked in the Sun for Summer's Nonsense, but no mention today.
    Found this article instead
    "Demon ghost gropes me in my bedroom."
    A lot of women have them. Called husbands.
    This interesting article is obviously in the same factual category as the book!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I managed to get a copy of the Sun from friend's husband, who says he only buys it for sport's coverage. I said - more like page 3 girls! He was sarcastic when I complained there was no serialisation of the book today and said "Well, you'll have to wait for it to appear in your Guardian."
    He thinks he's so funny.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://mercedessigueaqui.blogspot.pt/2014/09/caso-madeleine-mccann-impactantes.html

    Caso Madeleine McCann: Impactantes nuevas pruebas de agresiones a niños
    Sun on Sunday (edición impresa)


    AL DESCUBIERTO: AGRESIONES SECRETAS ANTES DE LA DESAPARICIÓN DE MADDIE


    EXCLUSIVA por BEN GRIFFITHS

    7 septiembre 2014

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hah! -- Summers and Swan are clear that there is no evidence to suggest that Kate and Gerry are guilty of any crime.

      But both believe stumbles Portuguese police and the British during the investigation impeded the search for Madeleine.

      Swan said, "As for what they have spent the McCann, I think you should ask:" Do you have courage and strength to keep going the way they have done it "?

      "The people who vilified should put aside their prejudices and read the evidence before deciding."

      Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan.
      Excerpted from "Finding Madeleine" by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan,
      Posted by Headline, September 11, 18.99 pounds. To buy it for £ 16.99 (with free shipping charges) call 0845 271 2136 or visit thesunbookshop.co.uk

      Delete
  37. A história do livro do Summers que aí vem:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Bh-H4oub8

    Praia do Carvoeiro, o homem com mascara cirúrgica. És tu,pai? Sim,sou. És tu tio? Sim,sou.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I don't buy newspapers any more as I prefer to spend my pension on the occasional bottle of sherry. But my friend Marjorie let me read her Telegraph before using it to line her recycling bin. She said they should take the masked man seriously, as the friend of her friend once had an unpleasant encounter with a man in a balaclava. Marjorie does tend to exaggerate, so I'm not sure if it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think they should set up a hotline to help the McCann believers. Help them understand who they're supposed to think took Maddie. A pre-planning paedo, a panicky burglar, a caring family, if he was wearing burgundy, a surgical mask, something wrapped around feet, dad's aftrshave, if he spoke English with accent or not, it he was Portuguese homeless (with a phone?), his friend or if he worked in the Ocean Club or all of the above!! It must be really confusing to believe in abduction right now!

    ReplyDelete
  40. An opinion about Summers on another case
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/stephen-ward-wasnt-murdered-i-was-there-8990737.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 9 Sep 2014 21:56:00

      Thank you for the link! Not very complimentary to Summer’s credibility, is it?

      We think it sufficiently relevant to bring it over to the blog:

      “Tom Mangold

      Sunday 8 December 2013

      Stephen Ward wasn't murdered. I was there

      Journalism is further discredited by half-baked claims that the osteopath at the centre of the Profumo affair, was killed

      Whether Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical which opens next week about the life and death of Stephen Ward succeeds or fails it is a generous gesture for the impresario to use this device as the platform to campaign for a judicial review of the conviction half a century ago of the society osteopath. It was an event which led directly to his suicide. He was at the centre of the Profumo sex and spies scandal which rocked Britain in 1963 when the War minister had an affair with the showgirl Christine Keeler who claimed to be sleeping with a London-based Russian intelligence officer Eugene Ivanov at the same time.

      Ward killed himself having been targeted by a vindictive state seeking a scapegoat for Profumo's behaviour; was prosecuted for crimes that it is now generally accepted he did not commit, facing evidence from witnesses who were coerced by police into lying; and pilloried by a hysterical tabloid press.

      Fearing contamination, most of his many "friends" deserted him, and British intelligence agencies who had been happy to use him failed to speak up for him in court. Ward was a broken man when he took an overdose of sleeping tablets while staying with one last friend in a flat in Chelsea. I know. I was with him that night.

      The anniversary has been celebrated by conspiracy theorists crawling, blinking into the light to announce to stunned newspaper readers the sensational revelation that Stephen Ward "may" have been murdered by MI5. A former colleague of mine from 40 years ago, the author Anthony Summers, a man with some form when it comes to conspiracy theories, has now determined that: "One can see why it may, repeat may, have been necessary to remove Ward from the scene … this was apparently a man with dangerous knowledge … he had inside information of MI5 efforts to manipulate Ivanov and the seamy activities of Establishment figures."

      Summers has lent his reputation to a conspiracy theory – please don't giggle – which has an MI5 contract killer hiding in the Chelsea flat all night, then waking the drowsy Ward every few hours and inciting him to take ever increasing overdoses of the sleeping tablets which eventually killed him. The alleged killer is now conveniently dead but allegedly told a gabby friend on his deathbed…

      Summers's interviews on this well publicised theory, published by two reputable national newspapers last week, brim with weasel words. "The story ends with a question mark," says Summers darkly. No it doesn't.

      It is junk journalism at its very worst, complete piffle, a disgrace to our trade. Believe it if you believe Lord Lucan and Elvis are living under pseudonyms in a mud hut in Uganda. We are in so many ways the first and often the last draft of history; newspaper records and their on-line spill-over really do matter. Lies and rotten journalism go viral in seconds. We really do have a clear compact with our readers, listeners and viewers to get it right.

      We are in enough trouble with Leveson and hacking and the shame of neurotic celebrity worship, without allowing so-called investigative journalism reaching "maybe" and "could have" conclusions without a shred of primary source evidence. And even less so when the "revelation" is tied in with a re-hashed book release.

      (cont.)

      Delete
    2. (cont.)

      What baffles me is that Summers did not bother to make the two simple "check your facts" phone calls, one to me and one to the other man in the flat that night, the tenant Noel Howard-Jones. They would have brought his loony-tunes theory crashing to the ground. Summers also seems to have forgotten that MI5 and MI6 don't do assassinations. Period. State-sanctioned killings, invariably against major terrorist organisations or well-armed enemies of the state, are done by others. So let me try to set the record straight with some facts.

      What did happen on the night of Tuesday 30 July 1963 at Vale Court, 20 Mallord Street, Chelsea? Stephen was overnighting there with his friend Noel Howard-Jones. That evening Stephen called me in the Daily Express newsroom and asked me to come over to Mallord Street. I arrived there about 8.30pm. He was writing what I now know were his suicide notes. A friend Julie Gulliver was in the kitchen cooking dinner. Howard-Jones was out. I stayed with Stephen for several hours during which he gave me the note addressed to me, which regrettably I didn't read till later.

      At about 11.35pm, I left him, and he left the flat to drive Julie back to her flat in Bayswater. Howard-Jones returned a few minutes later, and was there to let Ward in on his return at about midnight before going to bed. Ward then continued writing notes including one to Howard-Jones saying "delay resuscitation as long as possible".

      There was no MI5 assassin hiding in the flat when Stephen, Julie and I were there; and there was no assassin when Howard-Jones returned. So we can account for the entire evening from 8.45pm to the moment Howard-Jones found Ward unconscious on the living-room divan in the morning. We know, for certain that no MI5 murderer was hiding in the tiny flat. Even the alleged "instrument of murder" – the Nembutal sleeping tablets, were Stephen's own.

      Does all this matter – half a century later? Very much so. In a democracy, a free press must be trusted. Once we break down the firewalls between truth and conspiracy theory, once we enter the wilderness of unreality, paranoid fantasy will become our guide. Yes, this stuff sells more papers than the grey truth. But that makes it no less a form of editorial pornography. Don't believe all you read in the press? Sadly true.

      Tom Mangold, former senior correspondent for BBC TV's 'Panorama', covered the Profumo Affair for the Daily Express in 1963 “

      Delete
    3. I love this! Tom Mangold is a serious journo!

      "What baffles me is that Summers did not bother to make the two simple "check your facts" phone calls, one to me and one to the other man in the flat that night, the tenant Noel Howard-Jones. They would have brought his loony-tunes theory crashing to the ground."

      Delete
    4. The man is on his 4th wife, surely he's been quite busy dealing with divorce and "all that jazz" for most of his adult life, I'm sure he has had very little time (or mind set) to deal with such trifle details as "check your facts"...only focused on make quick and easy money to pay for the alimony...

      Delete
  41. Textusa, Summers' book will be out tomorrow.
    Could you please readers to look out for foaf stories, the basis of urban myths.
    Always unattributable because the original source is impossible to trace.

    Were any police chiefs interviewed about these supposed attacks in their areas? Are any newspaper accounts of the time referenced? Have the PJ given Summers any opinion on these episodes? K was not asked about the information she said she read about paedophiles in PJ files. Does Summers give any opinion on this or any reference?

    Does Summers list the entire cast of PIs involved? Were all of these PIs interviewed?

    How many times are opinions attributed to people who were not actually interviewed to give them?

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Sky news report may have been damage limitation for how long it has taken SY to return the McCanns to Portugal for prosecution. Murdoch moves the pieces but also likes to appear to support the winning side. Interestingly, his papers are now leaning toward pro Indy, because the momentum for Independence is really building up here in Scotland. The BBC and MSM establishment bias has been truly shocking actually promulgating lies. Murdoch wants to win - he wants his readers. The McCanns are going down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 10 Sep 2014 10:39:00,

      Thank you for your comment.

      Just to clarify, do you think S & S book is also part of what in your opinion may be McCann's current damage limitation process?

      Delete
    2. It's not McCann damage limitation. It's establishment damage limitation. At least Murdoch's promotion of it is. The book, and S&S are irrelevant. It's more about focusing on so many UK agencies, who were only trying to help after all!, hampering the investigation, and thereby shrouding the truth for so long. But. Now the crack investigators of NSY can finally close this case. The McCanns will be brought to justice. Think of the papers that'll sell!

      Delete
  43. Latest extract:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11077525/Madeleine-McCann-I-listened-for-15-seconds-and-knew-they-were-innocent.html

    Madeleine McCann: 'I listened for 15 seconds and knew they were innocent’

    A wealthy British businessman was moved to help search for Madeleine McCann after her parents Kate and Gerry became suspects

    Gerry and Kate McCann never ceased doing what they could to move forward the investigation – which they saw as stalled – into Madeleine’s disappearance. They held, always, to the belief that their daughter could still be alive.

    When they returned to the UK from Portugal in September 2007, Gerry insisted it did not mean they were giving up their search for her. ''As parents we cannot give up on our daughter until we know what has happened.”

    Three days later, someone who was to be of great and lasting assistance to them got in touch. Brian Kennedy, a wealthy British businessman, had been following events as they unwound in Portugal and wanted to help.

    “I was incredulous,” he told us. “I’d been losing all hope and faith in human nature. I had been asking myself, 'How is this possible?’ [Kate] is grieving. My instincts were telling me there was a great injustice being done. I called my lawyer and said, 'I want you to reach out to these poor folks and see if we can help them’.”

    Kennedy, the Scottish-born, Cheshire-based son of a window cleaner, then aged 47, had leapfrogged from trainee accountant to a management role in a kitchen-equipment company, then to the mobile-phone business, double-glazing and plastics. By 2007 his net worth as head of his company, Latium Enterprises, was said to be £250 million.

    An experiment with retirement had driven him “nuts” and he was back in the business fray. When he began talking about trying to help the McCanns, friends and colleagues told him not to get involved, that his intervention would end in tears. “What,” he recalled someone saying, “if the parents turn out to be guilty?”

    “I remember replying, 'What happens if they’re innocent?’ Can you imagine the horror of losing your daughter… and then the world turning against you and accusing you of being responsible for her murder? Is it not bad enough, the terror, the agony they are going through? I could understand it – I’ve got five kids. I told my lawyer, 'If you feel they’re innocent, then we’ll get behind them and help them’.”

    His lawyer made contact with the McCanns and they met Kennedy in London. “Within 15 seconds of listening to Kate,” he said, “I made a decision, using all the emotional intelligence one builds up over many years. I was 100 per cent convinced of their total innocence. I told them that, one, we would find a top Portuguese lawyer to defend them, and get them off as arguidos [the McCanns had been designated “named suspects” by the Portuguese authorities days before they returned to England]. Two, we’d do everything in our power to influence the public’s perspective and views. And, three, we’d support them in setting up some private investigators … The Portuguese police had stopped investigating. It was urgent to get some other guys on to it.”

    Top-level legal help was found in Portugal. At Kennedy’s bidding and at his expense, Clarence Mitchell – a government adviser who had previously acted as the McCanns’ spokesman in Praia da Luz, the holiday resort from where Madeleine had disappeared – quit his Whitehall job and came back on-board.

    Cont

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watch the truth about Brian Kennedy and his involvement on Richard Hall's videos

      Delete
  44. Cont

    Kennedy prefers not to reveal how much he spent on helping the McCanns, beyond saying that there were “substantial” outgoings – principally legal and media-related costs. Stephen Winyard, the owner of Stobo Castle Spa, in Peebleshire, and Sir Richard Branson also contributed. However, it was Madeleine’s Fund – the not-for-profit company established to find her in 2007, the board of which Kennedy’s then lawyer joined – that would, in time, deal with the cost of private investigators, once that effort went into high gear.

    Present at Kennedy’s first meeting with the McCanns in London were representatives of Control Risks, a firm specialising in security and crisis management. It had already sent detectives to Portugal to see the couple right after Madeleine’s disappearance, at the expense of an anonymous donor whose identity has never been revealed.

    Kate McCann had not enjoyed that first encounter. One of the Control Risk operatives was a mysterious figure who introduced himself only as “Hugh”. He was one of the many former intelligence officers the company employed, and a main part of his role now was as a potential kidnap negotiator. Kate, already distraught, had not liked the James Bond atmosphere he brought with him. Besides, there would never be anybody other than hoaxers with whom to negotiate.

    As the McCanns’ renewed use of Control Risks began to be mentioned in the press, noises of disapproval came from Portugal. “You cannot have private detectives intervening in criminal cases,” sniffed Carlos Anjos, head of the Polícia Judiciária’s union. The McCanns resolved to go ahead, motivated by advice Gerry had noted during a research trip to the US earlier that summer.

    A document issued by the US Justice Department for use by parents of missing children, The Family Survival Guide, recommended considering using private detectives if they could “do something better or different than what is being done by law enforcement”. Given what they saw as the fiasco of the Portuguese police probe, the McCanns nurtured that hope.

    “I had no experience at all with private detectives,” Kennedy remembered. “But the way you run a business is all about surrounding yourself with people who understand industries that you don’t understand.” He initially hired two former Metropolitan Police detectives, and in late September decided to follow up a rumour that Madeleine might have been sighted in Morocco. Kennedy and the detectives, who flew out aboard his private jet, hired a Moroccan tourist guide to accompany them to the mountain village where it was reported the missing girl might be. She was not there, but the guide – promised a reward – subsequently spoke of having travelled vast distances circulating Madeleine’s picture. “If I find her,” he said, “I will be rich. I have been promised I will never have to work again – maybe a million pounds.”

    “I suppose,” Kennedy said later “we had been looking for low-hanging fruit. After a few weeks, though, we decided we needed to go about it in a very professional way.”

    Brian Kennedy had set a potentially useful process in motion. Months earlier, the Portuguese police had produced a poor drawing of the man the McCanns’ friend, Jane Tanner, had seen carrying a child near the holiday apartment in which the McCanns had been staying on the night Madeleine vanished. Now, in England, a British forensic sketch artist took on the job of extracting more and relevant information from Tanner. This fresh image got major media coverage – raising the possibility of new leads.

    Cont

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cont

    Kennedy then cast around for suitable private investigators to hire, and picked Método 3, a Spanish company. The agency’s claims included having located 23 missing children and teenagers. Given that it was not legitimate for investigators to work for the McCanns in Portugal while the police probe was still under way, it was hoped that Método 3 – with its knowledge of the region and its connections in Spain – might prove effective.

    It seemed, briefly, that the private detectives could also rebuild bridges with the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária. At the request of the head of Spain’s anti-kidnapping unit, two PJ officers met Método 3 operatives. But the points the private detectives raised did not interest the Portuguese.

    Método 3 followed up on a vast number of potential openings in the hunt for Madeleine. Nothing tangible resulted, but they made some startling statements that kept the case in the public eye. “We are 100 per cent sure,” their boss, Francisco Marco, told the American network CBS, “that she is alive. We know the kidnapper. We know who he is and how he has done it.” On the BBC’s Panorama programme, he said: “We are very close to finding the kidnappers.” Then, in early December, he announced: “We believe she is in an area not very far from the Iberian peninsula and North Africa. And we have a fairly certain idea who she is with.”

    No facts emerged, however, to back up these claims. According to The Daily Telegraph, a source close to the McCanns said the couple had begun to think “they might have been sold a pup”. A veteran Spanish police detective was derisive. Método 3 would solve the case, he said, “cuando las ranas crecen los pelos” – “when frogs grow hair”.

    As the months slipped by, the McCanns made a move they were to regret. A contract was agreed with Oakley International, a US-based company described by a source close to the couple as being apparently “absolutely the best, but extremely secretive”. Oakley was said to employ former FBI, CIA and US Special Forces personnel. It was reportedly agreed that Madeleine’s Fund would pay the company £500,000 under a three-stage contract – with more to come should Madeleine be found alive.

    The McCanns and Kennedy at first got the impression that Oakley was doing its job. Its investigators appeared to be collating and following up information that came in as a response to the parents’ appeals, and were conducting covert interviews in Portugal.

    But it later emerged that hundreds of calls to a dedicated hotline were never checked by Oakley. Tapes of interviews conducted in Portugal were said to be useless, involving people irrelevant to the case. Specialists used by Oakley began to find that their bills went unpaid. An undertaking to deliver satellite images of Praia da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007, when Madeleine had disappeared, resulted only in pictures grabbed from Google Earth. With little or no real progress, and as funds continued to haemorrhage, Brian Kennedy called time.

    Cont

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cont

    Oakley’s boss Kevin Halligen, it turned out, was a fraud. After his involvement in the Madeleine case, Halligen was arrested in the UK in connection with charges relating to a trading company fraud, and extradited to the United States. He was convicted there on the fraud matter, then deported to Europe.

    “The Oakley episode went sort of sweet and sour,” Kennedy told us. “There were genuine guys breaking their back, trying to make a breakthrough. The lion’s share was spent on the investigation, despite what the newspapers say… [But] it all ended in tears.”

    It was a major setback, but Kennedy and the McCanns did not give up. On the recommendation of the head of Manchester’s Serious Crime Squad, they went on to hire an experienced former senior police officer, David Edgar. He put in much arduous, systematic work – and held the fort until 2011, when, following an appeal to David Cameron, Scotland Yard began investigating. The dossier the McCanns’ private detectives had gathered was passed to the Yard, and its probe continues today – as Operation Grange.

    'Looking For Madeleine’ by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan (Headline, £18.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £16.99 + £1.95 p&p (0844 871 1514 or visit books.telegraph.co.uk)

    © Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan


    Only comment when I copied:

    graeme78 • 23 minutes ago
    "Within 15 seconds of listening to Kate,” he said, “I made a decision, using all the emotional intelligence one builds up over many years. I was 100 per cent convinced of their total innocence."
    After listening to Kate McCann for almost 7 years, I'm more inclined to accept the very different conclusion reached by Portuguese investigators. To quote Johnny Rotten, Mr Kennedy: "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

    ReplyDelete
  47. At the start of this saga the public had sympathy for the mccanns but now years later we see them and their entourage of PR people as nothing more than manipulators of the truth two very guilty parents that have been very sparing with the truth.
    The Mccanns have dug themselves into a hole so deep even they believe their lies.
    This case proves money can buy you extra time before justice finally catches up. I cannot bear to see their fake whining faces they are uncomfortable with each other and believe they are above the law. Far too many inconsistences in their stories and too much PR spin.

    Congratulations Textusa on passing the one million mark for visitors to your brilliant site.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I wonder (although not enough to buy a copy) if the Summers book is really a defence of the McCann's. It's clearly commissioned, clearly agendised. But it seems to me to be less of a defence of them (a risky business considering the wealth of negative evidence) and more of an apologetic for all the 'enablers' and 'bankrollers' who got involved in defending them. Some of it almost reads like an explanation of how big hearted, optimistic, naive people got so involved in spite of the persistent doubts and key investigative personnel who believe them guilty... Almost like an exoneration for those who've kept the Mc's afloat all this time, a get out clause for when the McConn's go down, an 'even the best of us were fooled' exit strategy to minimise damage. Just a thought. c

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my comment above 10th September 12.44

      Delete
  49. The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial rules out murder, but leaves it to Friday to announce whether the athlete is guilty of culpable homicide.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29143540

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About this let's see what judge finally says. According to her, the required standard of proof wasn't reached.

      All we can say is once in the hands of a court, the outcome has to be accepted.

      Only the family can protest if they feel devastated by the verdict. Their voices should be heard before anyone expresses their opinions publicly.

      Delete
  50. Summers' book down on price already!!
    https://mobile.twitter.com/martin_liz
    And on kindle!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 11 Sep 2014 18:20:00,

      £9 ?
      Kate's book resisted a little longer if we remember...

      Delete
    2. I wonder if Tom Mangold bought a knock-down price copy?

      Delete
  51. http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.pt/
    Although I will not be commenting further on the McCann case, I will, in response to the Summers/Swan travesty of a book, make two posts: I will review their book when I have it in my hands and I will share with the public the book the publishers turned down, the book to be written by Gonçalo Amaral and myself, the book my literary agent pitched (a year and a half ago) to all the major US publishers and none were willing to market due to the threat of Carter-Ruck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good for you Pat. Thanks very much.

      Delete
  52. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10283-a-very-quick-first-scan-of-looking-for-madeleine
    Tony Bennett's summary of book:

    From a quick run-through, the chapters deal with the following issues:

    1 - Background and the first part of 3 May

    2 - Evening of 3 May. NOTE there is NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the alleged visit of Dr David Payne to the McCanns' apartment around 6.30pm on 3 May and hence no analysis of the 20 or so contradictions about that claimed visit (see recent thread on this forum)

    3 - May 4

    4 - Early developments in the investigation

    5 - 'Sightings' of suspicious men, Gail Cooper, 'monsterman' etc.

    6 - The reaction of the McCanns to early developments - this includes a 3-page reproduction (pp. 73-75) of the typewritten 'finally agreed written timeline of events' produced by the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends a week or two after 3 May

    7 - Robert Murat, who claims his life was 'shattered' and that his life will go back to normal 'only if they catch the abductor' (Oh dear!)

    8 - The McCanns' campaign

    9 - McCanns' reactions to the police action

    10 - More on the McCanns' campaign

    11 - Growing police suspicions and dogs

    12 - Lots more on the dogs, concluding with 'there was no evidence to back up their alerts'

    13 - More about the McCanns, mentions Kate's 'deeply-held Christian faith'

    14 - Portuguese decision to make the McCanns arguidos (translated by Summer & Swan not as 'suspects' but as 'named persons'. Decision to make them suspects described as 'premature'

    15 - No shred of evidence against the McCanns, followed by half a chapter on the haters with a detailed review of my chequered career and various campaigns

    16 - Blistering chapter against the 'haters' as 'cowards who hid behind their computer screens', though they do add this: "Tony Bennett of the Madeleine Foundation acted openly, not hiding behind a computer screen, nor did enthusiastic supporter Jill Havern, a Birmingham-based driving instructor with a grudge against the National Health Service and Leicester' Glenfield Hospital in particular". A bit about the 'NHS - McCanns' Abuse of Power' blog follows: 'black background, lurid content, distorted photographs of the McCanns'. The word 'haters' seems to appear several times on every page of this chapter

    17 - Kennedy and Metodo 3

    18 - Kevin Halligen and Oakley

    19 - Events in 2010

    20 - Joyous news of the setting-up of Operation Grange

    21 - What really happened: They say: "There are no significant inconsistencies in the statements of the McCanns and their friends" and, p. 261: "All the accumulated evidence indicates that Madeleine was abducted"

    22 - Chapter about sex offenders which begins with this most strange opening sentence (p. 272): "Within days of Madeleine's disappearance, Gerry and Kate McCann had found themselves poring, hour after hour, over photographs of known sex offenders". Que? I don't recall that being mentioned before in Gerry McCanns' blogs? Raymond Hewlett and most of the other named paedophiles we know about are given a mention in this chapter

    23 - More about sex offenders ad paedophilia. It's claimed that Portugal Police requested CEOP, who supplied Joe Sullivan and Graham Hill (see my articles on this forum about Jim Gamble, Mark Williams-Thomas and Joe Sullivan)

    24 - Chapter about events on or about 3 May 2014

    Afterword - Lots about Ernie Allen, ICMEC, Missing People, PACT, Amber Alert etc.

    Acknowledgements: Generous praise for 'help and advice' from Martin Brunt and several others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who gave Mcs photos of sex offenders to pore over within hours?
      No mention in her book
      It wasn't PJ. So who was it and how did they have access to photos?

      Delete
    2. The literary style of the book is dreadful. Rather in the style of Brigid O' Donnell.
      Could we have a competition?
      The most factual errors noted
      The most important facts not mentioned.

      Delete
  53. Got chance to look at the book without parting with cash. For those thinking of buying it, don't bother... Read the usual suspect 'pro' s' Twitter feeds for an hour and its basically just a regurgitation.

    Interesting though... I posted a review to Amazon UK which remained published for nearly two days, got commendations and gave rise to comments. It's been whooshed now. The content and conclusions were objectively critical, referenced the style of Summers former work, and did not contain anything more pointed than the comments still surviving in reviews on Amazon, but did major on the impossibility of Summers & Co ever intending to write a balanced and objective contribution since, I noted in print, all texts critical or skeptical of the McCanns are astoundingly prohibited for distribution and publication in the UK, making the 'field' for revelatory books about the Maddie Mystery prejudicially uneven.

    Seems that was what it took to get Amazon to whoosh the review.

    Astounding how active hag-tivists like Pam Gurney were on there to turn each review thread into a Pro-McCann PR campaign.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

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

Textusa