Friday, 28 November 2014

The Death of a Whitewashing

An Alentejo House with it's typical "Murat finishing"

The Alentejo is that part of Portugal’s territory immediately north of Algarve and goes all the way up to the river Tejo, as a general reference.

It stretches across two thirds of central and southern Portugal and takes in undulating prairies, endless olive trees, cork trees, wheat fields, white-washed houses, Roman ruins, charming towns and an all embracing tranquillity.

Its houses are very typical. Post-card typical. White-washed with a vibrant blue, or dark yellow, stripe on its contours which is what gives them their unmistakable identity.

The simplistic but remarkable contrast of this against the remainder of its whitewashed walls have made these houses centrepieces of many an artist’s work.

But a little known fact is that artistic effect is not intended to be artistic but an intelligent response to a problem.

Stating the obvious, whitewashing a house makes it white from top to bottom, ideal to deflect the heat from the Sun of Alentejo’s scorching summer afternoons.

The problem is that this whiteness easily gets dirty. By human hands on doors and windows and by raindrops hitting the ground near the walls and so soiling it.

The solution was to paint this colourful stripe around the areas where the whitewashing would be spoiled.

We now call it the “Murat finishing”. Or to not whitewash where it’s useless or stupid to do so.

When Robert Murat was nominated as a “Person of Interest” by SY last week, the UK showed very clearly that whitewashing in the Maddie case is useless.

The chances of it ever being done were already very, very slim, not to say impossible, as we stated in our “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box”: We then said it was “not that simple or that achievable.”

Having  publicly played the Robert Murat card, the UK has made whitewashing impossible in the Maddie case. Not difficult but impossible.

It all has to do with the fact that Robert Murat is a dot that can only be joined with the truth.

Let’s go back to May 2011, when SY was given the apparently simple job of joining up some dots on the McCann case and as swiftly as possible put the couple behind bars.

As we know, it was overlooked that there was a missing dot: Maddie’s body. Without it, the Met was unable to complete the puzzle it had been ordered to do.

Because of that many other stories had to be invented.

We have from the start said that whitewashing wouldn’t be a solution but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered and we even believe it was pursued with conviction.

Having come to the conclusion that the original joining of dots could not be achieved the options available to those deciding what to do next would seem clear: close without conclusion or come-up with some sort of result.

We think that at a certain point in time a decision to go for the truth was taken. However all those involved knew exactly how powerful the “Dark Side” is.

So the tactic was to pursue truth, covertly and slowly but keeping the door to whitewashing clearly open. This was done, in our opinion, with 2 objectives.

The first was to pursue it if possible. If when trekking the path to truth it was perceived that whitewashing was feasible, then the route was to be changed. The second, was not to be hostile towards the “Dark Side” and avoid its reaction.

SY started to draw up new dots to be joined on the board.

We would say, that up to Robert Murat, using some imagination we could join them up around the 3 Burglars.

Even Burgundyman, the never heard of sex-assaulter, we repeat, we could with a lot of imagination and total absence of reason, join him up with the 3 Burglar story.

But all changed with Robert Murat.

There’s simply no way, whatever imagination one uses, to join this dot, Robert Murat, with the whitewashing dots.

Robert Murat cannot be a bystander to the burglary. Murat was the single most scrutinised individual in the process.

His house and his computers were examined. His phone use analysed.

Murat was the only arguido for many months. The other 2, the McCanns, were only arguidos on Portuguese soil for only a couple of days, if that. Their lives didn’t go through the same scrutiny Murat’s did.

Could Murat be the patsy?

During the investigation it was tried. Channel 5 criticised the media coverage of Robert Murat, but didn’t seem to realise that not only had the 2 CEOP representatives in PdL profiled him as a suspect, but 3 of the Tapas group had also insisted they saw him near the McCann apartment on the night of the 3rd of May.

He even faced those accusing him of being outside his house that night and maintained his position with conviction.

All was done then to make Murat look guilty. And he staunchly and publicly rejected the role.
And after the process was archived, the McCanns persisted in maintaining the cloak of suspicion around Murat.

Kate’s book has a lot to say about Murat and the role of her friends.

On page 133, relating to the day Murat was made an arguido, Kate describes watching breaking news on television, watching the police going into Murat’s house and taking out property. They had been given no prior warning of this event, according to Kate.

“We were terrified that the next thing we were going to see was an officer carrying out a little body bag.”

A very melodramatic statement. In reality, what she would have seen if the police had discovered a body, would have been a white- suited forensics team, who would have examined the body in situ. The parents would then have been informed of any such finding. Is it remotely likely that such a discovery would have been revealed on the news in this manner?

What is Kate actually saying here?

On page 134- Kate describes the suspicions of reporter Lori Campbell, who reported Robert Murat’s behaviour to the police. There follows a description of Jane Tanner’s unsuccessful attempt to identify a man, from a van disguised as a refrigerated delivery lorry.

On page 136, Jane tells Leicester police officer Bob Small that Russell and Rachael Oldfield had noticed Murat outside the McCann apartment THE NIGHT that Madeleine “VANISHED”. She doesn’t say Fiona noticed him, but says the police took “FURTHER” statements from “Fiona, Russell and Rachael”. Why forget Fiona initially?

On page 156- 2 PJ officers “drip feed” Kate information about Murat, “snippets of evidence” linking him to Maddie’s disappearance (note, not abduction) but not enough to charge him, including a newspaper clipping entitled “Lock up your daughters” which claimed Casanova had been a paedophile. Here, Kate adds a detail which may not have been widely known, to ensure we have a good idea of the type of subject matter that interests Murat.

To clarify rumours about material found on seized computers, there is material of a pornographic nature held in the PJ Files Outros Apensos 3, 339-551- with this warning from the translator – “Please note that there are pornographic images (albeit in cartoon form) on this file.” See pages 469 to 476. As it was viewed by the PJ, it was obviously not considered illegal or related to paedophiliac activities by Murat. This material is quite widespread in Japan and is called manga.

On Page 157 - Kate reads the PJ files in 2008 and found nothing to implicate Murat, but then goes on to write:

“Several witnesses, including Fiona, Russ and Rachael, reported seeing Murat near our apartment on the night Madeleine vanished. [that word again]. He has always categorically denied  being there, and his mother confirmed that he was at home all evening.”

So is Kate calling her friends or Murat liars? Which is it?

On pages 195-6, o 11JUL07, Fiona Rachael and Russell return to Portugal to clarify their statements in relation to their sightings of Robert Murat. A confrontational interview is arranged; a legal procedure bringing witnesses together to argue out the inconsistencies in statements, according to Kate. Silvia Batista was supposed to be joining them, but didn’t. Murat’s lawyer was present.

Months later, the 3 stick to their statements.  Murat says “…. he hadn’t been outside the apartment  on May 3rd and that the 3 of them were lying.”  

So, again, is Kate saying her friends are telling the truth, having had time to reflect and consider they may have been mistaken? We think we must assume she supports their version, given her unstinting praise of “my dear friend Fiona” We must assume therefore, she is accusing Murat of lying?

On page 188 - Kate raises the subject of the sighting of Murat by the 3 friends with PJ officer Luis Neves.

“No, Kate!” He snapped. Our friends HADN’T mentioned this in their statements, he said. Slightly thrown by this aggressive response, I insisted, a little nervously, that I was sure they had: not in their first statements, but in the ones they had given when Murat was named as arguido, having recognised him immediately from the television news…

At our next meeting, Neves was to change tack and tell us that one of the Ocean Club managers, Silvia Batista the lady who had translated for us on 3 May) had also reported seeing Robert Murat inside our apartment that night.”

What about the McCanns? Wouldn’t they know if they had seen Murat in their apartment that night? The book seems to pose more questions than answers on the subject of Robert Murat.

We noted no mention of the role of CEOP or Joe Sullivan regarding the profiling of Murat in Kate’s book.

So we’re down to the following options for the materialisation of the whitewashing:

Robert Murat is the patsy. Taking into account Murat’s behaviour back in 2007/2008, we would rate this possibility as NIL.

Robert Murat helps the burglar thesis. Taking into account that would mean contradicting all he has said to authorities we would also rate this possibility as NIL.

See any other option? We don’t.

Murat, without uttering a single word, has blown to smithereens any and all possibilities of there ever being a whitewashing.

Murat, without uttering a word, because SY has considered him a ‘Person of Interest’ to the Maddie case has closed the whitewashing case.

Only remaining open now are the truth and re-archiving ones.

He’s a dot that cannot be connected to the whitewashing ones: 3 Burglars and Burgundyman.

He’s a dot that can ONLY be connected to the truth dots.

Because he IS a dot. He’s on the board. He’s a card that has been played. It’s on the table He’s a move that cannot be retracted.

By pointing the finger at Murat, SY is saying that whitewashing is useless. Best forget all about that and start concentrating on colouring things.

Remember when we said in our “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” that the libel trial McCanns v The Times would have been a checkmate move?

Then there was an IF.

It would have been IF it had happened. We made it clear that it would be a checkmate move if the libel trial was true.

A libel trial with the all the media attention it would have had.

We believe our post, by exposing the intention, even if only read by the few and stubborn, emptied out the purpose of this move and all ended up just being something completely unnoticed whereby the McCanns won whatever money just happened to have fallen out of Rupert Murdoch’s pocket that moment, £50,000, but not keeping it for themselves (the Fraudulent Fund) but having to hand it over to some charity.

But now, SY has now announced checkmate. With no IFs.

Now it all looks like we have been transported back in time. It’s as if the game went back to 2007/2008. Maddie is dead. The attention of SY, but not the PJ, focuses on persons of interest connected to the Ocean Club. Forensics is top of the game.

Basically the only difference is that it’s SY in the hot seat, not PJ. It’s SY that will be accountable for whatever conclusion it decides to come.

Being in the hot seat does not mean SY have taken over jurisdiction. It hasn’t. It only means the eyes of the world are on SY now like they were on PJ back in 2007/2008. Any prosecution in this case will always have to be done in Portugal

Because SY is in the driver’s seat there was “disagreement” between UK and Portugal about what legal status Murat should be heard. If as a witness or an arguido.

The third possibility, allegedly put forward by UK, of him being heard as a “PoI” – a status that doesn’t even exist in Portugal – provides clarity to this controversy.

It has nothing to do with the rights of the individual at stake but simply with the British public opinion.

To clarify something about arguido v witness, BOTH are allowed not to answer questions. A witness may keep silent if he thinks answer may bring him legal consequences.

So the silence of each simply has different interpretations although the end-results are the same.

To put it in practical terms, if a witness is asked something he may refuse to answer because he thinks the answer may bring judicial accountability incriminating him. The reason why for the silence cannot be clarified at that moment because he has first to become an arguido as, according to his decision, there is now a suspicion of him having done something wrong. As soon as he becomes an arguido he can lie about why he didn’t answer question.

Back to Murat and his legal status in the interrogations. It’s obvious that the Brits cannot afford to report back to Britain that Murat is AGAIN an official suspect on the Maddie case, and this time by the hand of SY.

It all has, in our opinion, to do with tactics. Murat an official suspect right now is like putting too much salt in the broth. It spoils it.

So we think SY proposed (insisted) that he be heard as a witness. That would put him on centre stage but not in the spotlight yet.

We think the Portuguese prosecutor, upon reading what was to be asked, thought that he had to be heard as an arguido to guarantee his rights.

“Could we meet half way?” We imagine SY asking. “You know, you guarantee his rights in Portugal and we don’t have to call him a suspect back home. What do you say? What about “Person of Interest”? It has quite a nice ring to it…”

We can only guess what Inês Sequeira must have told them to do…

We wouldn’t be surprised if SY wouldn’t let go of Robert Murat in this second batch of “PoI”, claiming that an agreement about his legal status could not be reached.

But, if in the remainder of “PoI” there are cards that more important than Murat, then we see no reason for him to be dropped. UK media just has to start their bloody campaign before the closure of the McCann V Amaral damages trial.

Lastly, we have an interesting card being played: the Bravura Dam.

It is indeed a wild card.

Not to be confused with the Arade dam, searched so thoroughly by Marcos Aragão Correia  and Metodo 3.

Bravura dam was searched by PJ. It’s in the PJ Files.

So why bring it up now?

We have to wait for this piece to tell us where it fits in the puzzle.

But if we have to make a wild guess about it, then we would say it could be one of 2 reasons.
The first is to make an intentional confusion between the Aradde dam with this one. Doing this would widen the “circle of interest” all the way to Barcelona, where Metodo 3 was from. A subtle way of saying to the other side “we know what you did all those summers  ago...”

The second would be an ideal place to find a tennis bag. As everyone knows tennis is so popular among British tourists in the Luz area that we wouldn’t be surprised if a tennis bag was “surprisingly” found.

But, as we said, this piece of the puzzle is still a riddle.

Lastly, a word about the detention of the Portuguese ex-PM Jose Socrates. We will let justice do its work without providing any opinion but we would say the nepotistic network that supported the Maddie’s case cover-up on the Portuguese side has been significantly weakened.

Gordon Brown retiring a coincidence? Who knows?


  1. Bravo Sisters once again.
    Socrates and Brown almost on the same day.
    My first thought was oh dear, things are becoming unravelled rapidly.

  2. Thanks once again Textusa. Hold your work on this case in the highest regard.

  3. What interests me is the 'observer effect' that is occurring such that the act of your observations / interpretations affects the path taken with relation to the investigation. The great thing, in this situation, it can only be powerful when emanating from a source who is interested in the truth ...

  4. hi Textusa.
    Your previous thoughts on the Tapas 7/9 was swinging group of people meeting up in Portugal? A knew Patsy for DCI Redwood.
    I have read that the PJ files have DNA evidence collected from an apartment flat Ocean Club development that, concludes that there was DNA collected from two people, believing it belonged to the witness, who had claimed sighting of "Bundle Man / creche Dad had been found in that Ocean Club place, along with DNA from the first named arquido to the same apartment / flat!?
    If this is true, that the DNA matches the two persons, would it not blow the lid off the case wide open if it provides acknowledgement proof of them not knowing each other existed before the disappearance of Madeline 3 May 2007, or did they meet in that place sometime later?
    I am sure that the first named arquido arrived in Portugal 1st May 2007 and the witness had been in the Tapas 7/9 from the 28th April 2007.
    The main point being factual evidence putting two people in the same proximity who allegedly do not know each other prior to the disappearance?

    1. Anonymous 28 Nov 2014 16:00:00,

      You refer to JT and RM DNA found at Burgau apt. But it was only concluded it was same maternal line, so could be a relative of JT.

      The only way forward is to ask both if they had ever been to that Burgau apt.

      The question was never asked of either of them.

      Also, the question has never been what is there we need to find to "blow the lid off the case wide open" but if, when and how that lid is blown off.

      We are convinced that all information needed to blow it off has long ago been found. What hasn't been found, yet, is the courage to blow lid off.

    2. But surely if Murat opens his mouth the whole castle of cards falls?


    No end in sight for funding

  6. '' but in the ones they had given when Murat was named as arguido, having recognised him immediately from the television news…''

    I see that sounds familiar, a later identification via the television news. Amazing how that idea can work if it's Murat and not it is Gerry McCann - as identified later by Mr Smith whilst GMcC was getting off the plane.

  7. Thank you Textusa, fascinating as always.

    To quote Gordon Hewart (1870–1943), Lord Chief Justice of England 1922–1940:

    " . . . justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

    Amen to that.

    Nuala x


    No McCann-friendly comments...

  9. Wow! Thank you Textusa. I have maintained throughout that there would not be a whitewash. I have held my breath since. I have been desperate to not end up looking like a plonker. Maybe I can finally breathe a little. Just small gasps for now.
    Murat IMO has always been the "key". Maybe the Luz Key. The one key that can unlock the door to the truth. Whatever version of that truth we get, I am sure will have to be enough to satisfy our hungry palates. We need to feast on answers and they need to fit together perfectly. We need to feel full and satisfied that it really was like it said on the tin.
    There really is no going back now is there?


    EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann detectives set to quiz key witnesses again
    MADELEINE McCANN detectives are planning to requestion key figures who arrived on the scene shortly after the three-year-old disappeared.

    Published: 00:01, Sun, November 30, 2014
    By James Murray

    The Scotland Yard officers have analysed minutely events which happened just before, during and immediately after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007 and appear to be seeking new information and clarification from important witnesses.

    Among those scheduled for requestioning is Silvia Batista, who ran the service and maintenance departments of the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz on the Algarve where the McCanns were staying.

    Shortly after the alarm was raised, Mrs Batista was contacted at her home in nearby Lagos and immediately went back to work.

    When she arrived at a reception area she saw Madeleine's father Gerry on his knees on the floor crying out for help and banging his hands on the floor.

    A few minutues later she entered the bedroom at apartment 5a and said that the shutters were down, the windows closed and the curtains slightly open.

    Kate McCann has said that when she arrived to find Madeleine gone, the shutters were partly open in the bedroom, leading her to believe that Madeleine had been taken through the window.

    In her statement Mrs Batista said Gerry told her he had closed the windows as their other two children, Sean and Amelie, then 18 months, were still asleep in separate cots in the bedroom.

    Mrs Batista, a former receptionist at the Ocean Club, worked closely with her husband Joao, who was head of maintenance and services.

    In the past year both were made redundant because of falling bookings at the Ocean Club, which have been blamed on the recession and publicity surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

    Another facing requestioning is John Hill, manager of the Ocean Club.

    When he arrived at the club after receiving a call at 10.28pm from a colleague, some 100 people were already searching for Madeleine.

    He also spoke with Kate and Gerry that night in their apartment and helped arrange for photos of the child to be distributed.

    Mr Hill and his wife Donna printed pictures after being given a memory stick by Russell O'Brien, a friend of the McCanns whose partner Jane Tanner's picture of Madeleine gathering tennis balls is well known.

    Donna Hill is likely to be requestioned early in the New Year.

    Scotland Yard detectives are also interested in claims that a set of keys to apartment 5a, kept in the maintenance section, went missing in the week that Madeleine vanished, first revealed by the Sunday Express last February when we reported that a former maintenance worker said the disappearance of the keys had not been reported to the authorities.


  11. cont

    Detectives also want their Portuguese counterparts to interview Mario Fernando, 47, who came forward last May to say he saw a suspicious man wearing sun glasses in a stairwell looking at apartment 5a 24 hours before Madeleine disappeared. The former Ocean Club laundryman was collecting sheets when he saw the man: "I saw the weird guy and we nearly bumped into each other.

    "He was embarrassed. He was nervous. He was walking out from the hole under the stairs and must have been much further inside but had taken several steps back after hearing me coming.

    "He had a really fat face and had two-tone sunglasses on."

    Last week it was revealed that Robert Murat was one of those on the Yard's list of people it wants more information from.

    Mr Murat told the Sunday Express he would be happy to cooperate but has not received anything official yet from the authorities.

    Portuguese police have to conduct the interviews but Scotland Yard officers can sit in during questioning. Some interviews were due to be held last week but they now look likely to be held in the New Year.

    Former Scotland Yard murder detective Peter Bleksley said that this next stage of the investigation was a "logical progression" for the police.

    "I would think that they have been concentrating on the timeline in the review period and they have may have come across some inconsistencies which they want to look into," he said. "That would be my thinking on this.

    "They will want to know who was where, who saw what and at what time and try to work through the inconsistencies while at the same time seeking new information.

    "Going back to square one will have formed a big part of the original review which has now moved into the investigative stage. It is a logical progression."

    Related articles
    British expat in Portugal questioned over Madeleine McCann
    Expat Robert Murat: Madeleine McCann police wanting to interview me is ‘fantasy land’
    Blow for Maddie McCann cops as Scotland Yard forced to postpone plans to quiz new suspects

    1. Sylvia made redundant after all those years working for OC! No reward for her loyalty.

    2. Wasn't Amy, the nanny, the one who printed the photos from her printer? How many people printed photos that night??

    3. Set of missing keys mentioned again.
      Nothing new about that.
      G was always banging on about key to the abduction.
      But if an OC employee had a key to apartment, it wouldn't be a burglary gone wrong, but a planned event.
      And why exit through a window,
      But K , realising the window story was unbelievable, once described it as a possible red herring.
      Even more stupid. Why would a burglar lay a false trail and how much time needed to do all of this?

    4. Gerry told Silvia B. that he had closed the window...but NONE of his fingerprints were found on the window, only Kate's...oh, I see, he must have been wearing latex gloves, he seems to do that a lot...

    5. "Anonymous30 Nov 2014 10:40:00
      Wasn't Amy, the nanny, the one who printed the photos from her printer? How many people printed photos that night??"

      Yes, you're right! She later told the police that the printer was now in possession of her boyfriend who had took it with him to generous of Amy, to give the printer to her man, and how convenient, well away from the police reach!

      "Name: Amy Tierney

      Has made previous statements in May last year.

      Given that she does not speak Portuguese, Silvia Batista acted as interpreter.

      When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on “Kodak Xtra Life “ paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand.

      When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.

      She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.

      She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.

      As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a “Kodak”, model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality.

      In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer."


    Inglaterra Investigação ao desaparecimento de Maddie já custou 10 milhões

    A polícia britânica já gastou mais de

    seis milhões com os agentes envolvidos na 'Operação Grange', uma investigação especial que foi criada em 2011 por David Cameron.

    E mais de 125 mil euros foram gastos em transportes de Inglaterra para Portugal.

    David Cameron deu um orçamento de mais de seis milhões de euros . ( para se encontrar a menina, ) mas só no primeiro ano gastou-se 2,5 milhões.

    Entre 2012 e 2013, foi realizada a investigação mais cara até à data, orçada em 3,3 milhões de euros, gastos em transportes, salários e horas extraordinárias.

    No total, já se despenderam dez milhões.

  13. The 'missing keys' whilst entirely plausible, only came to light after the Mc's had changed their stories three times about how they (and the fictitious abductor[s]) entered the apartment.

    1. It's nonsense anyway. Why would 'burglars' NEED keys for 5A when the occupiers admitted to leaving the door unlocked all the time?

      A good point made previously about Gerry McCann claiming that HE had closed the shutters.
      Why weren't his fingerprints found on them? Only Kate's were.

      These people find it so easy to tell lies. It's just as well that there are millions of people like us who can see right through their deceit.

  14. I think it was the "red dress" picture of Madeleine that Amy printed out and the one JH had printed at the reception was the one with writing on, I think wearing a Polka dot jumper.


    British police to question seven suspects in Portugal over Madeline McCann disappearance

    Nov 30, 2014 21:31
    By David Collins

    OFFICERS will fly to Portugal next week to interview the suspects over the disappearance of the Maddie in 2007.

    BRITISH detectives will fly to Portugal next week to interview seven suspects
    over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    Officers from Operation Grange are set to arrive in Faro in the Algarve next Monday.

    They will spend three days interviewing a total of 11 people – seven suspects and four witnesses.

    The suspects will be asked 253 questions, including: “Did you kill Madeleine?”

    Among those who will be quizzed as a suspect is a man who worked as a gardener for the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz. Parents Kate and Gerry McCann were staying there when Madeleine, then three, went missing in 2007.

    Last week, it was revealed that Robert Murat, a former suspect in the case who was previously cleared of any involvement, is to be interviewed as a witness.

    The fresh investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance was ordered by David Cameron. It has cost £8million so far.

    Officers have been to Portugal more than 20 times in the past 18 months.

    1. Question "did you kill M?"
      Means SY believe she's dead. And killed in PDL.
      And is answer likely to be yes?! I don't think so.
      253 questions. Has someone seen rog?


    martinbrunt ‏@skymartinbrunt

    #Madeleine Final legal arguments in the McCann £1m libel trial over ex-cop's book in Lisbon next week. Verdict expected in February.

  17. It comes as no surprise at all to Whitewashers that the SY visit to Portugal is (yet again) scheduled at the exact same time as a major court event.

    Surely this sinks the theory of 2 Black Hat groups? The "protect the McCanns (et al)" group need a distraction, and SY (apparently controlled by different BH's) are happy to oblige - with camera crews and full media - EACH time...? That implies ONE set of BHs, not two.

    1. If the SY timing is to coincide with the trial then I don’t think it is to influence the hearts and minds of the great British Public, they have already well switched off to this case, and it seems a rather extravagant way to influence people who will have forgot the message as soon as their chip buddies hit the table. I think the time for influencing is over. As for whitewashing, I can just about believe that it could cost £10m to get to the truth of this case, if so many people and agencies (as has been alluded to) have been involved in the cover up. £100m would not cover the costs of fitting a story together where a patsy or group of patsies done it. When that was attempted in the JFK case (in much less transparent times), they had to shoot the Patsy and people still never bought it and he still managed in his last words let us know he was a patsy.


    EXCLUSIVE: Maddie witness overheard sinister comment about disposing of a body

    A BRITISH woman has told Scotland Yard detectives seeking Madeleine McCann that she overheard a conversation in which a man said: “Why did you bring her here? Now we will have to dispose of the body.”

    Published: 00:01, Sun, July 13, 2014
    By James Murray

    The potential key witness has been interviewed several times in Britain and used to live almost opposite apartment 5a of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz on the Algarve, from where Madeleine, three, was taken on May 3, 2007.

    The Sunday Express understands the comment was heard several hundred yards from the Ocean Club in a residential area towards the seafront.

    The woman gave an interview to Portuguese detectives 13 days after the disappearance but the report on the informal interview does not mention her overhearing a conversation about disposing of a body.

    However, in April 2008 the woman made a further statement in which she recounted hearing the astonishing comment, saying she heard it days after the abduction. She also claimed that the owner of a pub in Luz was called by a woman shortly after the disappearance who said she had overheard the comment about getting rid of a body.

    Why did you bring her here? Now we will have to dispose of the body

    The Sunday Express understands the owner of the bar has been interviewed but cannot recall the conversation.

    The woman has since returned to Britain with her child and is living in the Home Counties.

    When contacted by the Sunday Express, the woman, who we are choosing not to name to safeguard the investigation, said: “I do not want to say anything.”

    Last month Scotland Yard detectives shadowed three searches of wasteland near the Ocean Club but no obvious clues were found.

    Some materials gathered in the search were sent for forensic examination but officers were not hopeful of a breakthrough in the investigation.

    Related articles
    Fresh searches for missing Madeleine McCann find NO evidence
    Police probe into calls and texts sent between suspects on day Madeleine McCann vanished
    Kate McCann: My son asked me about claims I had HIDDEN Madeleine

    1. This woman is Kelsie Harris.
      She may be a person who has given some info about body disposal.
      I don't believe she overheard this conversation but she may have described a person that pointed to Murat's involvement
      She pointed the finger at Malinka in 2007.

    2. Is it wise to print this woman's name?

    3. Anonymous4 Dec 2014 12:51:00,

      Details were checked before publication and everything is consistent with this person.

      If a good reason can be given for removal, we can remove it but it seems the newspaper was being disingenuous, as they provided all the information needed to identify this woman.

      They could simply have referred to a British witness who was previously interviewed by the PJ.

      Instead, they chose to give every detail that enabled her to be easily identified.

    This has just come online!
    Spin trying to deflect attention from 11 suspects

    1. ... slip of the tongue/ finger. Meant witnesses


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.