Friday 2 October 2015

The saint of Salem II


Introduction

Last post we spoke of one of the ix (nine) interactions Yvonne Martin had with the authorities pertaining to the Maddie case.

We dealt with interaction ii – The anonymous letter.

Even though we tackled a very controversial issue the expected warm breeze of silence that touched our cheeks told us the seas ahead continue to be calm and ridiculously flat so we see no reason for us not to continue to point the bow of our vessel towards the horizon and proceed with our trip through these dead-still waters.

Today we will deal with Yvonne Martin's interactions iii and iv:

iii – Calls PJ, date uncertain but educated guess would say on June 12 or the day before;

iv – Speaks to PJ at her residence, June 12.



A – CALLING PJ

This is simply one of the most important interactions between Yvonne Martin and the authorities but has gone completely unnoticed up to now as far as we have been able to see.

The reason for this importance is very simple and very easy to understand: it’s her doing. And because it’s her doing, it shows want.

It’s her who decides to call PJ and tell them she wants to speak to them.

How do we know this? By the first paragraph of her first statement on June 12: “In the sequence of information conveyed to this police, a team made up by the signee and by colleague Carlos Antunes, went to the residence of YVONE WARREN MARTIN (…) Sargaçal (…), being that from conversation with the referred YVONE the following was determined:”

PJ, even if only for practical reasons weren’t knocking on every door in Praia da Luz. Much less in Lagos, or Sargaçal where Yvonne Martin resided. That’s what press conferences and appeals are for: to have people who think they may have relevant information to come to them and not the police going around talking to everyone in the hope they can find them.

For PJ to go to Yvonne Martin’s residence, it was because they received “information conveyed” and this information could only have been conveyed to the PJ by Yvonne Martin.

This has enormous implications as we hope to show. Both in the intervention itself as in the ones that followed.

We don’t have the hour when the conversation between Yvonne Martin and the PJ at her residence took place, only the day, June 12.

That means we don’t know when exactly Yvonne Martin conveyed the information to the PJ, or in simple terms, when she called and asked to talk to them.

We think that by taking into account the high profile status of the case she called them on that day and they immediately sent a team out. For that reason we will be assuming that this interaction took place on June 12, some hours before PJ arrived at her house.

Let’s do a quick recap of what we know happened up to that point in time.

- Yvonne Martin has gone to Luz on May 4. DP has made a negative impression on her and she, although she can’t be precise, suspects he may be a paedophile with whom she has crossed paths with during her career;

- On site does nothing about it. Goes back home and does nothing about it for 3 weeks;

- Then on May 25 she hears a description of a man carrying a child and wearing a dark jacket and she immediately connects that to a man she has seen wearing a polo shirt;

- Prompted by the PJ’s description mentioned above the senior social worker writes an anonymous letter to the British police because the McCanns behaved strangely, the apartment had no sign of a break in and her professional experience showed that in 99,99% of the cases of children disappearing the family and friends are involved. Because of all these reasons the police should look up and see if David Payne is a registered paedophile or child abuser.

More than a month later after being in Luz and about 3 weeks after she wrote the anonymous letter, she decides on June 12 to call the PJ to tell them she wants to speak to them.

There can only be one reason for Yvonne Martin to call PJ: she has seen no response from authorities to the anonymous letter she wrote and decides to press the issue further.

She supposedly has contacted the British police via this anonymous letter and on NOT seeing any reference on the MSM to a paedophile being involved nor any reference to David Payne being involved, decides to “ask” authorities why nothing had been done.

And so she contacts the PJ.

But the question that must be asked is how does she know nothing was done about her anonymous letter?

How does she know the clues she gave aren’t being followed, that police weren’t following them discreetly constructing a case against Payne the paedophile and to catch others possibly involved?

But above all, how does she know the content her letter hasn’t been, correctly, disregarded?

Wasn’t she so vague in the way she points the finger to Payne?

She seems to say that in the letter she just asks authority to check the registers to see if he was there but doesn’t say he was there.

But let’s imagine she’s very precise in that letter – we don’t know what was written in that letter – and has said possibly something like “David Payne is a paedophile” written in bold and underlined, they could have done all the checks they should have done and found nothing.

They could have found no visible link between Payne and paedophilia and just said “Thank you, ma’am, we inform you that although you had suspicions and concerns we have found no evidence linking David Payne to paedophilia or to child abuse”.

Problem is that there was no ma’am to thank as the supposed letter was anonymous. Police couldn’t give any feed-back about it to its author even if it wanted to.

Note that by calling the PJ after having written the anonymous letter she does not consider the possibility that Payne checked out ok and was innocent of all her suspicions.

However what is to be noted is that with this call she shows interested determination, insistence and persistence. No hesitation whatsoever.

The fact she called them means very clearly she is not at all hesitant that to her Payne is the suspect the police should focus on.

She has gone out of her way twice to point the finger in his direction: the anonymous letter and the phone call.

That means certainty, no question about that.

This interaction and the one before, the anonymous letter, are very important because they are “baggage”.

When the reader first reads her first statement the reader has no way of knowing how committed she was to getting Payne seen as a paedophile. And when the reader has the information the reader doesn’t go back to read this statement under this new light and so disregards it.

The reader just reads a candid and earnest statement from someone who found someone “odd” and who just wanted to help the investigation.

No, Yvonne Martin si not candid and simply worried. She’s a precise accuser and has a precise target: David Payne and is determined to accuse him.



B – 1ST STATEMENT, JUNE 12

1. Summary of statement (1)

- Yvonne Martin says she sees in her house at 07:00 on Sky News or BBC a minor – as in singular – had disappeared in Luz;

- Because of her profession she feels obliged to help, goes to Luz;

- Arrives at 09:00, sees Kate, Gerry and David by the apartment;

- Identifies herself, presents credentials starts to talk to Kate;

- Kate tells her couple took Maddie;

- David interrupts and takes Kate and Gerry away;

- David later comes back and informs her that the McCanns no longer want to talk to her or want her help;

- Says after this she sees David twice, once when he’s with an older woman (Dianne Webster?) and the McCann twins and the other when he’s with PJ officers;

- Meanwhile (very important word this one, not afterwards or a little later but meanwhile) she hears near the Tapas reception that the consul is coming, decides to wait for him;

- Describes Payne;

- Says when back home and AFTER seeing Payne on TV she comes to the conclusion she may have crossed paths with him, not sure if suspect or witness;

- Says she can pick him out of if shown photographs and then suggest that with that photo they can go check English police database to see if Payne has been related with crimes involving minors.


2. Morning news

Yvonne Martin says she hears at 07:00 am a news report about Maddie having disappeared.

Sky News first reports this at 07:48:


Presenter: Some more breaking news for you this morning. Errr... We're just hearing that a search is underway for a 3-year-old British girl who's gone missing in the Algarve area of Portugal; and she went missing last night. Hundreds of people have been searching for the girl; and that search continuing this morning. So we will try to get as much on that as for... for you as soon as we can; errr... that, errr... missing girl in Luz and we will bring it to you as soon as we get further detail.”

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html

Yvonne Martin seems to have a problem with time.

We have seen in our previous post how she first says she took 2 weeks to write the anonymous letter then to find out it had to be 3 weeks and now we find out that what she says she hears at 07:00 was aired in fact almost an hour later, at 07:48.

Morning is the time of routine. From when we get up until we leave the house we know if we’re on time or if we’re late. One can only have that perception if one has a set routine as reference.

To have heard something on TV that impresses us to the point of feeling obliged to get out of the house and travel to the other side of Lagos, one must be able to remember what one was doing at the time and then pinpoint it.

For example, it would be natural for her to have said “I saw it when I was having my cereal, so that would be around 7:20/7:30” or “I was just pouring my coffee, so that would be around 07:15”, etc.

One can pinpoint time quite accurately in the morning.

To say that in the morning one hears something at 07:00 on TV when it was aired at 07:48 is an unacceptable inaccuracy.

If this was in the afternoon, it would be understandable but it is when we wake up, when all minutes count, so a 48 minute discrepancy is not.

By the way, who was to guarantee the child would not return safely or be found unharmed soon after the report? Why does she assume the “missing” will be a long-term one or even permanent?


3. Credentials

She says she arrives in Luz at 09:00 and says she sees the McCann couple and a third element (who seems familiar to her). Walks to them and identifies herself “presenting her credentials” and then starts to speak immediately with the mother.

As she wasn’t working in the UK her credentials would be worthless in Portugal. She should have known that.

Social workers are registered to work in the UK but have no authority to act abroad.

And in the UK social workers can’t operate in another area outside the one of the local authority they work for. They aren’t authorised to do so.

Her credentials are only relevant to the UK and only for the area of a particular local authority.

Because they are worthless outside the area of work and have to be reported immediately if lost, social workers keep their credentials safe, not even carrying them in handbags when not on duty. They are accountable if they lose them under such circumstances.

Social workers certainly don’t take credentials on holiday and even if a person also resides abroad the credentials stay where they are valid and useful: in the UK.

Outside the UK the credentials of a British social worker opens as many doors as a Tesco card. By the way as there aren’t any Tescos in Portugal the vast majority of the Portuguese don’t have an idea what that card may be. Just like would happen with the credentials of a British social worker there.

If a social worker acts in the name of their employer without authority then they are liable to disciplinary action for bringing the name of their agency into disrepute.

They have no right to question people in a case not known and registered with their local authority.

Social workers operate under orders from a court or where families approach the local authority and ask for help on a non-court order basis.

A UK policeman on holiday in Portugal is just a man on holiday. Same with any social worker.

In Portugal she wouldn’t be able to look after any children other than as a friend or acquaintance, as anyone could. Being a social worker in the UK does not alter that.

All she could do was to say in this situation would be “I'm a UK social worker. Is there anything I can do to help?”. But if she had acted as a professional and advised accordingly she was working beyond her remit.

Yvonne Martin in this instance wasn't faced with an emergency and she should know as a professional that better qualified and legitimately appointed people, the Portuguese social workers, would be sent in if they were needed.

If she had concerns about David Payne she should have contacted her managers in UK and they could have made contact with the police.

If she had been certain, she should have told the PJ on the spot.

If she wasn't sure, she should have phoned her head office in UK for advice and pass it to them to deal with.

The news report only says “a 3-year-old British girl who's gone missing” so we can’t see in what way does this statement make her obliged professionally to help.

It’s like being a mechanic hearing that a car has been stolen bolting out the door to go help fix a car that he’s just been told wouldn’t be there because it has been stolen.

Child protection social workers are not about helping parents. The welfare of the child is their primary responsibility. Working with parents may promote the welfare of the child who is the priority.

Residential social workers look after children in care. So a child may have two social workers, one residential and other community based who liaise.

Adults who have mental health, physical disability, learning difficulties, dementia, may have a social worker but specific to their needs. Yvonne Martin says she specifically works for child protection.

To help the parents of a missing child with no other children involved a psychologist would be more appropriate rather than a social worker. When she leaves her house Yvonne Martin doesn’t know there are other children besides the one who has gone missing.

If one of the McCanns were arrested in the UK a social worker might need to assess risk to remaining children in the care of the other parent, if circumstances weren't clear.

If the McCanns had a missing child in the UK their local authority wouldn't send a social worker in, unless maybe they wanted advice on how to explain things to the twins. Again, when Yvonne Martin leaves her house she doesn’t know about the twins. She doesn’t know the missing child has siblings.

If she left her house out of empathy, it’s legitimate, out of professional obligation it’s not.

A UK social worker abroad is just a person abroad but will continue to be a social worker. She doesn’t leave her professional skillsets in the UK.

This means that a social worker knows better than anyone else what a social worker should or should not do when faced with a “professional” situation abroad as she’s fully aware of professional limitations and boundaries.

If a social worker in the UK knows that even on duty and under the appropriate authority she shouldn’t meddle with the police work of a crime scene, she ought to know she should behave in exactly the same way abroad.

Plus she should also know that all the social working to be done on site abroad is to be done by the local social workers and by them alone.

Yvonne Martin is not a newbie to the profession, she has 25 years of experience.

So we can say that her behaviour in Luz as far as we are shown was by far not expected from an experienced UK social worker on foreign soil.

She flaunts her credentials as if she was some sort of FBI or CSI agent in an American TV show. She seems to think everyone she shows them will recognise these credentials and bow before their importance.

She plays the role of the private investigator whilst claiming be playing one of social worker.

She’s clear that she’s not there as merely a concerned citizen but as a professional social worker, even if she should have known beforehand she was completely outside any jurisdiction and that there was no child to help for the one who made her leave the house was missing and she knew that before she left.

If she was acting as a response to an inner call from her professional self, why not any question about asking if anyone from the equivalent Portuguese social services had been around? And why not one question about the twins and their welfare?


4. Time

Kate McCann in her book:

“It was about 10am by the time a couple of PJ officers turned up. (One of them, in his thirties, tall and well built, I thought of for ages simply as John. I’m not sure he ever gave us his name, but later – much later – we found out that it was João Carlos.) They told us they had to take us and our friends to the police station in Portimão. We couldn’t all go at once as somebody needed to look after the children. After some discussion, it was agreed that Gerry and I, Jane, David and Matt would be interviewed first and the PJ would come back for the others later in the day. Fiona and Dianne took Sean and Amelie to their club along with the other children. While our world was falling apart, the best way of trying to keep theirs together seemed to be to stick with what they were used to.

Gerry and I travelled in one police car with the others following in a second vehicle. It was an awful journey. It took twenty, twenty-five minutes, but it felt much longer. (…)

Our first impressions of the police station were not encouraging. Basic and shabby, it didn’t seem conducive to efficiency and order. We were shown to a small waiting area separated from the control room – where calls and faxes came in – only by windows and a glass door, which was left ajar. In the control room, officers in jeans and T-shirts smoked and engaged in what sounded more like light-hearted banter than serious discussion.

I know as well as anybody that one shouldn’t judge people – or perhaps places, either – on appearances, but it all made me immensely nervous. I was appalled by the treatment we received at the police station that day. Officers walked past us as if we weren’t there. Nobody asked how we were doing, whether we were OK or needed anything to eat or drink or to use the bathroom. Our child had been stolen and I felt as if I didn’t exist. I’ve tried to rationalize it since: maybe they just couldn’t imagine how it felt to be a parent in such circumstances, or maybe they couldn’t speak English and it seemed better or easier simply to avoid us. Whatever the case, it was a horribly isolating experience.

At some point that morning we’d become aware that friends and family were appearing on television expressing our concern about the lack of police activity overnight. I think I’d registered Trisha and a good friend in Glasgow popping up on the TV in the apartment. Gerry has a memory of seeing some familiar faces on the set in the police control room. (…)

After an hour or so, Gerry, Matt and Jane were taken off for questioning. I remember constantly looking at the clock, counting the hours since we’d last seen Madeleine, my terror mounting with every five minutes that passed.”

As a side note, if ever there was a day childcare needed, Friday May 4 in Praia da Luz would be it.

Kate does speak of sticking “with what they were used to” and wasn’t leaving the kids at childcare something they were used to do? There was the lunch time period but we’re sure that under the circumstances Mark Warner would make sure they were taken care of during the period.

If there was a time for keeping the kids out of the way this was it so if there was a structure to leave kids well-tended to, why did Russ, Rachael, Fiona and Dianne stay behind to take care of the kids?

Gerry McCann was heard in Portimão at 11:15.

Just going by Kate’s words, they arrived at the station at 10:15. For that then they left Luz at 09:50/09:55. Which would mean the PJ officers arrived in Luz after the same PJ officers took them to Portimão to be questioned.


Google maps says it takes 28 minutes. But this is in 2015. That is in theory and in 2007 the roads weren’t as good so let’s say, to be realistic and say it took 30/40 minutes, which means the convoy would have left around 09:35/09:45.

Kate is clear in showing that this trip was done with no hurry whatsoever.

In fact she complains that PJ police seemed to show no sense of urgency about the case or about them.

So it’s very unlikely for PJ to have arrived in Luz, quickly rounding up who they wanted to question, push them into the cars and bolt towards Portimão so that they could put them in some obscure room and then forget about all of them for an hour.

We are being generous with the time. In fact it seems the PJ came even earlier than we have estimated above, they came at 08:30.

From McCannfiles:

“This news item was broadcast at 14:00 on May 4th. The following news item (below) confirms that the man in the brown jacket is an officer of the Policia Judiciaria, who had come to collect them at 08:30am that morning. That makes this footage being recorded just 10/11hours after Madeleine had been reported missing.

The PJ officer appears to be looking round for David Payne, who we see at the end of the clip sitting in the front passenger seat of the car. Presumably, Kate and Gerry went in one car, driven by the PJ officer, whilst Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and David Payne went in a second car.

Presumably, their partners Russell O'Brien, Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne stayed behind to mind their children.

At the start of the clip Gerry says "Where are we going?"”

The McCannfiles, the website from where the quote above is from opens its 04 May 2007 page with this picture:


It has the following caption: “Picture above, 04 May 2007, about 11 hours after Madeleine had been reported missing: The McCanns, officers of the PJ and some members of the Tapas Group gather at 08:30am outside the holiday apartments, prior to their departure to the police station in Portimão.”

We think the 08:30 time of departure from Luz to be realistic. Not because we think there was any sense of urgency but we are sure was one of priority.

It’s expectable for the PJ to have gone go and picked up for questioning the missing child’s parents and their friends first thing in the morning.

We seem to be having Yvonne Martin arriving at 09:00 after the 3 people she says she talks to are no longer in Luz as they had left half an hour earlier.

But let’s suppose that the PJ convoy left around 09:30. That means she has about half an hour to arrive, identify herself, engage in conversation with Kate, have Payne interrupt and take her and Gerry away, have him come back a little later and then see him in 2 different occasions, one of which is David Payne with a woman we suppose was Dianne Webster and the McCann twins doing something that Kate describes in her book was done by Fiona and not David and allow for PJ to arrive, gather and coordinate things, such as who was to accompany the McCanns and who was to stay, get the convoy ready and drive off towards Portimão.

She does say she crosses with Payne three times during that period, so the man was free and walking around. Even taking the twins somewhere before he was taken to Portimão.

On a following post we will see how ridiculous all this is as on the following day, June 13, Yvonne Martin pushes her arrival time in Luz to 09:30.


5. Twins

The twins are very important to unravel the “Yvonne Martin” mystery.

Twice in the statement of this day she mentions them: “This third element of the group, appeared to be intimate with the family, because as well as the beginning of the conversation [with her], as when some of some “media” elements arrived, it was him who started to explain what was going on and to answer the questions made, thus sparing the couple this one more hardship. Afterwards, came to note that intimacy when she saw him taking care of the twins of the couple, also minors” and “During this time, she saw the third element two more times:

The first when he was being accompanied by an older woman and the McCann twins, showing the trust the couple had in him by giving him the safeguard of their children.”

Seeing Payne with the twins really affected her. She really noticed that.

The question that one however must ask is how did she know they were the McCann twins?

How did she know that they weren’t Payne’s children? Even if she has seen the McCanns hand over the twins to Payne (why would they as he was to go with them to Portimão?) she had no way to relate the twins to the McCanns.

At best she could only say is that she thought or supposed they were the children of the McCanns – and explain why she thinks this way – instead of being as adamant about it as she is.

The situation she describes is that of Dianne Webster and David Payne alone with the twins and no Kate or Gerry around. The only possible association to make would be to think the 4 were family, nana and dad walking with the children.

Plus, at this stage she doesn’t know the McCanns have any other children. She doesn’t know Maddie has siblings.

To say that she got to know the twins afterwards and now over a month later was able to say the 2 children she saw with that older woman and man briefly were the McCann twins is ridiculous.

First because the only three faces that we all were required to see were that of Maddie, Kate and Gerry. The twins were never the stars of the show.

And second are we supposed to believe that a person who cannot recollect the face of a possible scar-faced paedophile memorises the faces of two children when they are accompanied by said scar-faced paedophile?

There was only one possibility for her to know that those children were from the McCanns and that would be if she returned to Luz after that day.

Kate seems to say that:

“A middle-aged British lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. She asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me and told me she wanted me to go through everything that had happened the previous night. She was quite pushy and her manner, her very presence, were making me feel uncomfortable and adding to my distress.

David was standing nearby. Concerned, he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credentials were, it was an inappropriate intrusion. And something about it, something about her, just didn’t feel right. I was glad I extricated myself. This woman would pop up several times in the days and months to come and I still don’t really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve.”

If this is true, that she returned various times to Luz and there observe the McCanns and Payne why doesn’t she say so to the police?

If this is true then it means she “stalked” the case. She showed a great interest in it. And if that happened is it credible for her not to know who exactly David Payne was if he was indeed a paedophile?

And then take 3 weeks to write and anonymous letter? And then another 3 weeks to call PJ and when they arrive at her doorstep be so vague about him?

You be the judge, please.


6. Location

There’s doubt about where the conversation between Yvonne Martin and the McCanns + Payne took place.

As we all know, apartment 5A is bordered by two streets: to the East, Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and to the North, Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva.

Kate, with her “she asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me” is saying the conversation took place inside the apartment’s parking lot as we’re not seeing any other low wall they could sit on.

But Yvonne Martin says that “meanwhile she heard comments near the resort’s reception that the British consul would be coming on site, so she decided to wait for this element with the objective of offering her services”.

It’s meanwhile, not later, not afterwards. We have already noted this before on this post.

This “meanwhile” places the conversation on Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins. Besides the way she describes the conversation we imagine the 4 of them standing. Payne interrupts and takes the couple away and then later comes back. This is not a sitting down scenario. Nowhere does Yvonne Martin one mention sitting down or getting up.

What is the importance of this?

Well it makes Stephen Carpenter’s statement even stranger. Apparently he walks to the Tapas reception and only sees Russ and Matt (by exclusion the only “two of the McCann friends” available to be seen) and doesn’t notice that a few yards away to his right there are 3 or 4 people. Nor does he notice them when he, Russ and Matt return from their “leisurely” walk from one reception, Tapas, to the other, Main, to make a phone call that isn’t made because the receptionist amazingly couldn’t speak English and come back.

By the way, Matt, would be going with Kate and Gerry to PJ at Portimão at 08:30.


7. Terminology

“She clarified that she is able of doing a photographic recognition of the individual, having highlighted that with that identified photograph it is possible to access the English police’s database and clarify there if the same [individual] has been related with crimes involving minors.”

Crimes involving minors? Is that plausible terminology to be used by a social worker after she has written an anonymous letter and called the police because of her suspicions of a paedophile?

We are very surprised that her statement didn’t begin with a “listen, I called you because I suspect that the McCann friend with the glasses may be a paedophile and may be involved in what happened to Maddie”. After her anonymous letter and her call that’s what would be expected.

No ifs, no buts. The possible crime in question demanded a cut to the chase attitude and for her to go straight to the point and call it what it is, paedophilia.

It was not a “crime against minors”, it was paedophilia. In this case nepiophilia.

“Crime against minors” can be many things and as Maddie had disappeared and Payne was indeed a friend of the couple, the natural deduction to make from these words would not be paedophilia but child trafficking.

If we were PJ we would be thinking that Yvonne Martin was pointing to a child trafficker with these words.

Although paedophilia is present in some child trafficking, the majority of these cases are linked to couples unable to have children.

These are the ones who pay good money to have a child. Childless couples are the ones who keep and maintain the market for this crime. By saying Payne could be related to “crimes against minors” she was saying that it could have been their friend who took and sold the couple’s daughter.

For a social worker to say “crime against minors” instead of the very clear and precise “paedophilia” is, to say the least, a hugely irresponsible.


8. Anonymous letter

Where is it in this statement? Why wasn’t it mentioned?



Afterword

We have listed above the number of interactions Yvonne Martin had with the authorities:

i – In Luz with a GNR officer on May 4;

ii – Anonymous letter to the British police 3 weeks later (she says 2);

iii – Calls PJ, date uncertain but educated guess would say on June 12 or the day before;

iv – Speaks to PJ at her residence, June 12;


v – Speaks to PJ at PJ, June 13;

vi – PJ “archives” both of her statements, date uncertain but we would guess soon after June 13;

vii – PJ “unarchives” her statements, date uncertain but we would guess around end of October, beginning of November;

viii – PJ notifies her come to PJ to give a statement, date uncertain but we would guess on Nov 13 or the day before;

ix – Speaks to PJ at PJ, November 14.

Up to this post we have dealt only with ii, iii and iv (in blue). The others to be dealt with in future posts.


Footnote

(1) Yvoone Martin's June 12 statement:

“On the past 04 MAY, by 07:00, she took knowledge through an English TV company, Sky News or BBC, of the disappearance of a minor of that nationality, in Praia da Luz – Lagos;

For having performed he duties, for 25 years, in the area of child protection, felt obliged to provide help to her fellow countrymen, having gone to Praia da Luz;

At 09:00, she found the McCann couple by the apartment from where the girl had disappeared, accompanied by a third element, who seemed to her quite familiar;

This third element of the group, appeared to be intimate with the family, because as well as the beginning of the conversation [with her], as when some of some “media” elements arrived, it was him who started to explain what was going on and to answer the questions made, thus sparing the couple this one more hardship. Afterwards, [she] came to note that intimacy when she saw him taking care of the twins of the couple, also minors;

She identified herself, presenting her credentials, having immediately started to talk with the mother as she was visibly upset with the situation;

During the conversation the mother told her she couldn’t understand why a couple had abducted her daughter;

Meanwhile, the third element of the couple had become aware of this conversation, interrupting it and took the couple away from her;

That same element came, a little later to tell her that the couple no longer intended to speak to her and declined her help, an act she found quite strange;

Meanwhile she heard comments near the resort’s reception that the British consul would be coming on site, so she decided to wait for this element with the objective of offering her services [préstimos];

During this time, she saw the third element two more times:

The first when he was being accompanied by an older woman and the McCann twins, showing the trust the couple had in him by giving him the safeguard of their children [filhos]

The second, accompanying what seemed to her to be police officers in civilian clothes;

Is about 35 yrs

Has about 1,80 metres in height

Is of normal built

Having short and dark hai

Using graduated glasses of small dimensions and rectangular lenses

Having a round face

Presenting a scar above his eyebrow and left cheek

Speaking in English with a South of England accent

Wearing clear colour trousers, cream or beige colour, and a polo of a dark colour.

Already home following the case, through the English TV, she saw the same individual and, this time, the doubt she initially had disappeared, coming to the conclusion that that face had already passed by her during her professional activity of protecting minors, failing to discern if has a suspect/arguido or witness;

She clarified that she is able of doing a photographic recognition of the individual, having highlighted that with that identified photograph it is possible to access the English police’s database and clarify there if the same [individual]  has been related with crimes involving minors.”

78 comments:

  1. This is the best post Textusa has ever done. It's very accurate and makes one wonder; is Yvonne Martin another attention-seeking fantasist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fantasist about what?
      We know she went there, we know she was a social worker. We know she was suspicious of the McCanns and thought it incomprehensible that two doctors would leave their infants unattended, and she thought she might have met Payne before.

      Where is the fantasy element here? Because there are witnesses to her presence so she didn't make it up

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 2 Oct 2015, 17:01:00,

      We assume that you find normal the following:

      - That a social worker would write anonymous letters and take 3 weeks to do it prompted by a description by the police that had absolutely nothing to do with what she says she had witnessed?

      - That a social worker before a paedophile threat goes around asking “police” questions like if the apartment had been broken into instead of focusing on that threat immediately?

      - That a human being, as it has nothing to being a social worker or not, is confused with a face between the so many ones belonging to scar-faced paedophiles that have crossed paths with to the point of thinking he may at one time have been her colleague?

      No one has questioned her presence in Praia da Luz in the early hours of May 4, so we don't understand why you are bringing that up.

      Delete
    3. Nonsense.
      The description was fairly generic. There was nothing in the description which would have ruled Payne out.
      She asked a relevant question, as she suspected the parents, unsurprisingly.
      You clearly know absolutely nothing about how the human brain works if you think it impossible for someone to see a face and not be able to place where they know them from - never heard the expression ''His face rings a bell''?
      She wasn't there in the early hours.
      I was responding to a poster who suggested she was an attention-seeking fantasist. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest she was

      Delete
    4. Gut instinct and the fact her credentials would have been made out of paper? No!

      Delete
  2. How did she know they were twins? They're not identical and their height was different, okay, that could be explained away based on gender, still, there were lots of little blonde kids in and around the mise en scène. It's astonishing how the Tapas 9 and Murat continue to take the bulk of the flak in this superfluous drama, it really is!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Censored comment received from Insane:

      "Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The saint of Salem II":

      It was weeks after when she gave her statement and their pictures had been all over the media.

      (censored)

      Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 2 Oct 2015, 20:08:00"

      Delete
    2. "To say that she got to know the twins afterwards and now over a month later was able to say the 2 children she saw with that older woman and man briefly were the McCann twins is ridiculous.

      First because the only three faces that we all were required to see were that of Maddie, Kate and Gerry. The twins were never the stars of the show.

      And second are we supposed to believe that a person who cannot recollect the face of a possible scar-faced paedophile memorises the faces of two children when they are accompanied by said scar-faced paedophile?"

      Delete
    3. Absolute nonsense. The McCanns gave an extensive interview, complete with numerous photographs with the twins, for the English papers 2 weeks after Madeleine disappeared.

      Delete
    4. Insane,

      So you agree Yvonne Martin has a photographic memory?

      She sees ONCE 2 toddlers who she hasn't seen before and memorises their faces, so that during that "extensive interview" she looks and says, "that's the kids that man I can't remember his scar-face from and haven't gone to the trouble of finding out was with!"

      Amazing.

      Delete
    5. Censored comment from Insane:

      "Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The saint of Salem II":

      (censored)

      Their pictures were all over the media, she could refer to them at any time. She may have seen the children briefly, but within days their photos were everywhere.

      It also wasn't difficult to work out as Sean was the only boy in the group, I seem to recall.

      Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 2 Oct 2015, 21:55:00"

      Delete
    6. Insane,

      "She may have seen the children briefly, fly, but within days their photos were everywhere."

      No, their photos were not everywhere. In May and June, the photos were only of Maddie, Gerry and Kate. Even the T9, including Payne were referred to as the group of friends the couple spent the holidays with.

      At this point no one knew Sean was the only boy. No one knew how many T9 children were there, what were their ages nor what genders.

      I may have your picture on my desk every day but to know it's you, I have to memorise who you are. If I saw you briefly once and on looking at your picture I'm able to recognise you, it means I have a photographic memory.

      Why does she remember the twins? Not because of anything else but because they were next to the man that she's apparently bothered by. A man with a scar on his face. A face she can't remember next to two faces (with no outstanding features) she sees once and never forgets.

      Delete
    7. Unless she wasn't actually there, she was recollecting a snapshot in time, the fourth of May.

      Delete
    8. Censored comment from Insane:

      "Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The saint of Salem II":

      You are wrong. Frankly, it is pretty (censored) that you make a statement like that when you are supposed to know about the case.

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/S5FScDuDfnI/AAAAAAAAHa0/nLBOV3BwiFo/s400/gerry_mccann_kate+and+twins.jpg

      This picture was one of those used in numerous english and english language newspapers on the weekend of 19th May, together with other pictures of the twins.
      In addition, the twins were with the McCanns for many of their daily photocalls.
      So the fact that no-one knew how many children were there is immaterial

      There is no such thing as a photographic memory. I suggest you educate yourself.
      about how memories are formed.

      She saw a man she believed she had met before, but couldn't place him. (censored)

      Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 2 Oct 2015, 23:17:00"

      Delete
    9. Insane,

      Are we going back to the Big Round Table? You showing pics of round tables from all over the world expecting people to believe the Big Round Table at Tapas existed?

      Because if you want pics of the twins I can find many others.

      First, you have to show the pic in a context. A context whereby they would have a visibility between May 5 and June 12. In that time period, we were bombarded with the image of Maddie, Gerry and Kate.

      But it doesn't matter. The fact is Yvonne Martin looks briefly at 2 children and then, later, compares the image she has with the one that she sees in pics and makes the match (she should have said where from she knows the McCann twins are the McCann twins) but then is incapable of doing the same exercise with a man with a scar on his face.

      If he was a peadophile and if he crossed paths with her in her professional life, she wouldn't have looked at him briefly but would have given him a very good look.

      Delete
    10. I have given you the context. It was a huge article in all the english language papers, packed with photos of the twins, two weeks after her disappearance, on the weekend of 19th May, well before Yvonne Martin gave her statement.

      What don't you understand?
      Why should she have said how she knew it was the twins?To make you happy?

      She didn't say he was a paedophile. She said she believed she had encountered him before but could not recall in what context.

      Your argument is facile in the extreme

      Delete
    11. Insane,

      "She didn't say he was a paedophile. She said she believed she had encountered him before but could not recall in what context."

      True.

      But it's because of what she says that many people genuinely believe that Payne is a paedophile who killed Maddie.

      Much like she says that she knows the McCanns because they identified themselves and doesn't know David Payne because he didn't then she should also explain how she knows the twins are the twins.

      Delete
    12. She would have no idea whether there were 50 two-year-old boys staying at the Ocean Club or zero. How could she?

      Delete
    13. No it isn't.

      She never said he was a paedophile. Her primary concern was the odd behaviour of the McCanns

      The reason people believe what they believe is often because the words and actions of others are misrepresented, misinterpreted or simply falsified by people like you.

      Why should she explain how she recognised the twins? Because you want her to?

      Was she asked the question? No. Because it's not important.

      Your need to try to make something of the fact that she could not recall the circumstances in which she might have met Payne, nor even be certain that she had, is ridiculous.

      As is the idea that she should have tried to find out where she had run into him before. All completely ridiculous.

      Delete
    14. Exceptionally, we'll let your "simply falsified by people like you" and "all completely ridiculous" pass.

      Will let readers judge for themselves your words and your arguments especially all those who have all these years, in your words, misrepresented and misinterpreted Yvonne Martins' words and actions and because of them have all these years wrongly pointed a paedophile damning finger towards David Payne.

      Delete
    15. One of those is Goncalo Amaral

      Delete
    16. Anonymous 3 Oct 2015, 08:10:00,

      True.

      But we don't know up to what point he has "misinterpreted" her words or if he's forcing the paedophile angle to be fully investigated and unravel things from there.

      We have said before we would like for the possible paedophilia in the case to be fully investigated. If nothing is to be found then the investigation should continue to find out why paedophilia was made a possibility.

      Delete
    17. Not Textusa,

      If Martin doesn't say Payne's a paedo then why she recommends police check UK paedo registers about him?

      Delete
    18. to anon at 3 Oct 2015, 08:55:00

      I suggest you familiarise yourself with what she said.

      ''As she said earlier, this third person of the group is familiar to her, and thinks that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or witness.''

      She believed she may have met him before, but couldn't recall the context. Asking the police to check is not ''saying he's a paedo" any more than asking to check your driving licence and insurance is "saying you are a mass murderer"

      Delete
    19. This one - if I may - is for the illustrious (cough) comentator who wrote, ex-cathedra:

      "There is no such thing as a photographic memory (adding) I suggest you educate yourself.about how memories are formed."

      LOL Oh really? Let us test the "nut", shall we?

      http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/psychology/take-the-photographic-memory-test

      Ginginha

      Delete
    20. Logically yes, that's not how human nature works though is it? David Payne has suffered, guaranteed.

      Delete
    21. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-developed-what-appears-to-be-a-ph/

      Delete
    22. Oh, and:

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200603/the-truth-about-photographic-memory

      Delete
    23. Thanks! Don't you think if certain police officers are prepared to dig their heels in, opening up the bigger picture might be more secure for one and all. Or am I wrong?

      Delete
  3. Am I the only one disappointed when I read Textusa? Never enough, I am always left wanting more, now.
    I have to say bravo to the sisters, examining areas never crossing the mind of most bloggers or if it has, omit as fiction is far better than reality for endearing themselves to those with a penchant for the lurid.
    That Textusa is correct here is stating the obvious and even if the detail goes unnoticed surely even a cursory look at YM's statements should alert us to her agenda.
    The picture Martin paints of the scene in PDL on 4 May brings to mind a deserted Midwest town of yore, the inhabitants wandering around aimlessly, not a sheriff in sight following the bullion just being stolen from the bank vaults by a murderous, marauding gang.
    I can't make my mind up whether she was 'planted' or as the above comment states, an attention seeking fantasist.

    Vikki

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If she was attention seeking, then why not take advantage of the plethora of media opportunities available?

      Delete
  4. A few points:

    An anonymous letter to British police sent by a social worker seems rather unprofessional and unnecessary

    Yvonne Martin started focused on the McCanns but soon concentrating on David Payne as "could be " an offender or maybe a colleague . A request to a police force via properly identified correspondence woul have been more professional and fair due to the seriousness of perceived accusations .

    Within this context , I am reminded of the Gaspar statements . Once again , we have the implicit accusation towards Payne and Gerry McCann . Curiously , although GM was an active part in the alleged conversation , the focus remains on David Payne . To this day , when people comment on this alleged incident they focus on David Payne. If this statement is true , focus should be on two individuals , not only on Payne . Payne, in my view, is looking more and more like a lightening conductor type of scape goat .

    As Vikki , I'm not too sure if Yvonne Martin is one of these people that inflates their participation in events , like some witnesses to accidents that always claim to have seen more than they actually did .

    Isabel

    ReplyDelete
  5. David Payne's face and name were already known through the media at the time of her first statement. She refers to him as a third person, a male and "other male" several times even though he seems familiar to her. Nevertheless, she remembers a boy and girl a month later and their hairstyles had already changed. How does any individual reconcile one with the other, if half of the argument is facile then what about the other fifty percent?

    ReplyDelete
  6. PJ in general may feel very disappointed now that they know all the witnesses have lied in their face. They bet the wrong worse. They should support more GA in the early days. I felt that top PJ has failed to protect an ex-cop as they should have done since the beginning. Moving GA way from the investigation was a dirty move! Was cooked. As well as the charges against him in the court against him made by M. Pinto about Joana mother's case. You see the web is bigger than we think and crosses frontiers!! Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goncalo Amaral was due a holiday at the time of the abduction siren, he was called in and cancelled his time off. I've always wondered who would have been in charge otherwise, Snr Amaral was the visible target they wanted to take down according to Sargento.

      It was also said this is far too big a burden for so many people to keep quiet for their whole lives, this sentiment came from Portugal, not Britain, obviously!

      Leicester should be sued for this, it may be the only chance for them to ever learn what the oath actually means. Was this really the best the lot of them could come up with?


      How egoistic of all too many of them. Fortunately, not all!






      Delete
  7. Very interesting article:

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/468332/McCann-fury-new-libel-cop-case-Madeleine-internet-trolls

    McCann fury as new libel cop case begins

    INTERNET trolls are backing a court challenge to Madeleine McCann’s parents.

    By Jerry Lawton / Published 5th October 2015


    They could help to strip the couple of £357,000 they hope to use to find her.
    Ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral, 56, has been flooded with nearly £50,000 in public donations since he lost a libel hearing against Kate and Gerry McCann six months ago.

    The GoFundMe webpage donors include trolls who have abused the McCanns online.

    Three appeal court judges are expected to begin re-assessing the evidence on Wednesday.

    If they find in Mr Amaral’s favour the damages award will be quashed.

    A friend of the couple admitted they were “exasperated” by the appeal and the source of its funding.

    The pal said: “Some of the people who have donated money to this have said the most appalling things on the internet even though they know nothing about the case and have no direct involvement in it.

    “It seems strange indeed these people may be indirectly able to influence civil court proceedings. Kate and Gerry are exasperated.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Money raised for GA will indirectly influence court proceedings?
      Will the judges be studying the gofund me pages?
      The article seems to suggest GA should not have the means to defend himself.
      But it sneakily shows the support he has.

      Delete
    2. It was Jerry Lawton's Daily Star that introduced the KO article before the final verdict relating to Brenda Leyland. He said on Twitter he didn't know which news agency the information came from, he declared it was sent through from a news agency though. One year and a day since this devastating occurrence and HE is using the puerile word troll. I see no substance!!

      Delete
    3. The interesting byte is: "“It seems strange indeed these people may be indirectly able to influence civil court proceedings. Kate and Gerry are exasperated."

      No doubt they are! By definition an "exasperating response" tends to happen when someone expects compliance and gets facts instead (...)

      The McCanns' "boutique lawyers" idea was to strip Dr. Amaral of all means of defence and let her clients get away with it, Scott-free.

      Sadly, there are no assurances Dr. Amaral will win the appeal - particularly since Prof. Bruto da Costa (former emeritus appeal judge) is now a Counsellor of State. No longer a judge.

      If well-to-do judge Melo e Castro "copy-and-paste" sentence is anything to go by, the appeal result has already been sealed at the "highest level".

      And by the way, if the result of the appeal turns out to be a "shocker" for Dr. Amaral supporters, wait until Scotland Yard comes out with "irrefutable" DNA evidence that "proves" a demented, homeless heroin addict did it. Body of evidence? Oh! Do we need one now? "Find the body and prove he did it"?

      British ideology and hegemony at its best - and most ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. The decision was taken by 3 Judges and they are all excellent, as are the other "Juízes Desembargadores" or Relação Court Judges. The decision to lift the injunction was taken by Catarina Arelo Manso, Bruto da Costa and António Valente. Prof Bruto da Costa retired in 2012, I think he was the Redactor of the decision , yes. . Fear not, I have total trust in the Relação Court and the Supreme Court. Only the very best are promoted to these courts .

      Isabel

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 5 Oct 2015, 12:39:00,

      Yours is a rather pessimistic comment and although we must respect it we see no reason for such.

      You say "If well-to-do judge Melo e Castro "copy-and-paste" sentence is anything to go by, the appeal result has already been sealed at the "highest level"."

      Your words imply corruption of the Portuguese legal system. That's something we have explained extensively why we disagree it exists. We don't think it does. The system is far, far from perfect but neither corruption nor incompetence are befitting adjectives.

      We don't know who are the judges analysing the appeal. It would be a huge coincidence if they were the same (one can't as he has retired) so to pass any sort of judgement based on personalities would simply not be correct.

      As you know, you disagree totally with what Judge Melo e Castro decided. But her decision was within the boundaries of her competence and jurisdiction. She has raised an interesting question: could Mr Amaral have written what he wrote and when he wrote it due to professional secrecy restraints?

      We're not legal experts and navigate through educated guesses on the subject but it seems to us that Judge Melo e Castro answers her own question when she makes it.

      She states that he couldn't possibly have written the book in the 2 days (if we're not mistaken) that went by between the archival dispatch and the book being published.

      That is very true and no one questions, we think, that the book was indeed written before the archival dispatch was made public.

      But by saying that she decides based on the impossibility of the book being written in those 2 days she is accepting that if a reasonable amount of time to write the book, say 10 or 20 days, had passed then the content would have been legal.

      She has basically said the the confidentiality restraints Mr Amaral had ended with the archival dispatch. Not due to constraints of him being the investigator of the case as then he couldn't have written the book ever.

      So all comes down to whether Mr Amaral was or not to write about confidential information in the privacy of his home. We think he was. What he wasn't allowed to do was to make that information public before the archival dispatch. He respected that.

      In our opinion, in the minute after the archival dispatch was made public, the content of Mr Amaral's book was totally legal.

      Delete
    6. There seems to be some sort of expectation for Oct 7th as the date the appeal will start to be analysed by the Appeal's Court. Such is the result of something mistranslated.

      A comment from Isabel Oliveira on FB:
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/529250580564769/
      QUOTE

      "The translation of official doc is as follows:

      Doc 1 –
      Subject: Appeal
      Your Ref: Defendant Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral
      You are hereby notified , regarding the above referenced case file , of the acceptance of appeal as well as the contents of the order issued in the EP (Electronic Process) , with the reference number 338001289 (Pgs 2382 of the PP (Paper Copy) , of which a copy is attached.
      Moreover you are notified that the case proceedings will be sent to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa on the 10.07.2015.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      It says file is being sent to Appeals Court on the date mentioned. If teh date is a typo I do not know. Regardless of that , one cannot guess and the important thing is to note the difference between "to be sent" and "the proceedings take place on" . Unless there is information that is not public, I believe it is a mistake."

      END OF QUOTE

      Nothing is scheduled publicly to happen with the appeal. If it does, it's in the privacy of the court and we don't know about it.

      The case may be under analysis by the court as we write. We don't know.

      Delete
  8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11913054/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-shut-down-Twitter-account-after-being-trolled-by-find-Ben-Needham-supporters.html

    Madeleine McCann's parents shut down Twitter account after being trolled by find Ben Needham supporters

    Kate and Gerry McCann say negative and hurtful postings were hampering the worldwide hunt for their daughter

    By Leon Watson
    5:59PM BST 05 Oct 2015

    The parents of Madeleine McCann have closed down an online Twitter account after being abused by "toxic" supporters of missing Ben Needham’s family.

    Kate and Gerry McCann said it was "a great pity" they had to take the action but felt negative and hurtful postings were hampering the worldwide hunt for their daughter.

    • Kate McCann "more driven than ever" to find Madeleine

    The web chief who runs the official Find Madeleine Campaign on Twitter, endorsed by the McCanns, said: "They agree it's time to remove ourselves from a place that allows so much toxic content to be directed at us and does not permit us the ability to protect ourselves from people who want to damage the search for Madeleine."

    Kerry Needham recently questioned the vast amount of British taxpayers' money spent by police looking for Madeleine. So far £10.1 million has been used by Operation Grange with a further £2million pledged.

    Mrs Needham's 21-month-old son Ben vanished in July 1991 from the Greek island of Kos.

    Three-year-old Madeleine disappeared during a family holiday in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007. Both families believe their children could still be alive.

    McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Kate and Gerry have always supported the campaign to find Ben Needham. Indeed, they have promoted it on the Find Madeleine Campaign social media platform.

    "However, it is a great pity that due to continued, ill informed and abusive comments by some social media users, the decision was made to close the Find Madeleine Twitter account.

    "Kate and Gerry continue to wish Kerry Needham the best and hope that one day she will be reunited with Ben, just as they continue to hope that they will similarly be reunited with Madeleine."

    A source close to Madeleine's parents added: "There is no spat between the two campaigns.

    "Ben’s mum has publically questioned the level of support and money Madeleine’s family has received and a number of her followers have taken to Twitter to vent their feelings.

    "But the McCanns’ closing down a Twitter account because of abuse should not be seen as an attack on Ben’s family’s side."
    Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 47, of Rothley, Leics, made the decision to shut down Twitter despite not being social media users themselves. The Facebook campaign will continue to run.

    The un-named Campaign "webmaster", a mother who has been running the site with a group of fellow supporters since 2008, posted on Facebook: "I convinced Kate and Gerry it was a great way to raise awareness and I have witnessed overwhelming kindness.

    "I have been dismayed, however, at some of the hatred and sheer viciousness directed at Kate and Gerry through our social media accounts for no logical reason at all. At times, it has had me in tears.

    "It is hard to accept that some people can be so cruel to a family that has already experienced the worst pain imaginable. Some argue the search costs too much, others say it's hopeless.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  9. cont.

    "Further, in the past three weeks on Twitter, we have found ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being expected to "follow" people who align themselves with accounts that abuse us in the most vile ways on a regular basis.

    • Madeleine McCann latest: are police any closer to knowing the truth?

    "Deleting our Twitter account is the only option left to protect ourselves and the search for Madeleine. She is what is important, and our job is to get her home. We believe Madeleine is alive and we have great faith in The Met."

    The Help Find Ben Needham campaign posted this response on Facebook:

    Help Find Ben Needham
    Non-profit Organisation · 67,851 Likes
    · 2 hrs ·
    Thank you to everyone for their support over the last few days. All recent posts regarding Twitter have been deleted and can we please ask you to keep this page about Ben and we all move on. We thank you all for your continuing support .
    ‪#‎helpfindben‬ ��
    373 Likes · 22 Comments · 27 Shares

    Ben’s mother, who has met Mrs McCann at official missing people events, said: “Ben's campaign has never been anti McCann - we can't help the fact that some members of the public give their opinion about the McCann case just the same as people give their opinion about Ben's case.

    "I have never once spoken badly about the family, I have only ever given my opinion about the way the two cases have been handled so differently by the authorities."

    ************
    Tweets included in the article:

    Find Madeleine @findmadeleine
    Due to the continuous abuse and negativity on Twitter, we will be removing our account within the next few days.
    11:32 PM - 4 Oct 2015

    Find Madeleine @findmadeleine
    After talking with Kate and Gerry yesterday, we have decided to delete our Twitter account. They agree it's time... http://fb.me/75glqG5V5
    1:07 PM - 5 Oct 2015

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting article from the Telegraph.

      As a very first remark, Camp 2 in the name of all human decency please stop using Ben for your purposes, it's sickening.

      If "Due to the continuous abuse and negativity" was a reason to close things down, this blog would have been closed in 2008 when it opened.

      It continues open because of what is called sense of purpose. If Maddie is alive, as you say she is, what would she think you're giving up on her just because you feel you have been offended?

      Camp 2, are you that desperate?

      Delete
  10. GA Fund has gone over 50K!!!
    Well done all!!!
    :)))))
    https://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA

    ReplyDelete
  11. And Camp 1 reacts....

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ben-needhams-mum-hits-back-6580099

    Ben Needham's mum hits back at Madeleine McCann's parents as they shut Twitter account due to 'trolls'

    Kate and Gerry said it was “a great pity” they had to take the action but felt negative postings were hampering the worldwide hunt for their daughter


    Ben Needham's mum has said she is "shocked and hurt" after Madeleine McCann's parents have closed down a Twitter account after “toxic” abuse by supporters of missing Ben's family.

    Kate and Gerry said it was “a great pity” they had to take the action but felt negative postings were hampering the worldwide hunt for their daughter.

    Kerry Needham said: “It feels like a personal attack on me. It is deeply, deeply hurtful.

    “I have myself had massive amounts of slanderous abuse from supporters of the McCann Campaign in the past but I have never taken that personally.

    “It’s freedom of speech. But it is getting the names of two missing children out there which is really important.

    “I have never criticised the McCann family. I have only every criticised the authorities for the way the two cases have been handled so differently.”

    Trouble erupted with the Twitter accounts when the official ‘@findmadeleine’ Twitter feed blocked the ‘@FindBenNeedham’ account at the weekend.

    The Greek account @findbengreek was also blocked.

    A few hours later both accounts were unblocked after an outcry but now the Madeleine feed has been closed down.

    Kerry added: “People were furious at the weekend when they blocked our campaign, so of course they were bound to get more negative comments.

    “Ben’s campaign has never been anti McCann - we can’t help the fact that some members of the public give their opinion about the McCann case just the same as people give their opinion about Ben’s case.”

    The web chief who runs the official Find Madeleine Campaign and Twitter, endorsed by the McCanns, said of their decision: “They agree it’s time to remove ourselves from a place that allows so much toxic content to be directed at us and does not permit us the ability to protect ourselves from people who want to damage the search for Madeleine.”

    Kerry Needham recently questioned the vast amount of British taxpayers’ money spent by police looking for Maddie.

    So far £10.1 million has been used by Operation Grange with a further £2 million pledged while less than £800,000 has been spent on the campaign to find Ben.

    Kerry’s 21-month-old son Ben vanished in July 1991 from the Greek island of Kos.

    Three-year-old Maddie disappeared during a family holiday in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007.

    Both families believe their children could still be alive.

    supported the campaign to find Ben Needham.

    Indeed, they have promoted it on the Find Madeleine Campaign social media platform.

    “However, it is a great pity that due to continued, ill informed and abusive comments by some social media users, the decision was made to close the Find Madeleine Twitter account.

    “Kate and Gerry continue to wish Kerry Needham the best and hope that one day she will be reunited with Ben, just as they continue to hope that they will similarly be reunited with Madeleine.”

    A source close to Maddie’s parents said closing down a Twitter account because of abuse should not be seen as an attack on Ben’s family’s side.

    Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 47, of Rothley, Leics, made the decision to shut down Twitter despite not being social media users themselves.

    The Facebook campaign will continue to run.

    The un-named Campaign “webmaster”, a mum who has been running the site with a group of fellow supporters since 2008, posted on Facebook: “I convinced Kate and Gerry it was a great way to raise awareness and I have witnessed overwhelming kindness.

    “I have been dismayed, however, at some of the hatred and sheer viciousness directed at Kate and Gerry through our social media accounts for no logical reason at all. At times, it has had me in tears.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  12. cont.

    “It is hard to accept that some people can be so cruel to a family that has already experienced the worst pain imaginable. Some argue the search costs too much, others say it’s hopeless.

    “Further, in the past three weeks on Twitter, we have found ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being expected to “follow” people who align themselves with accounts that abuse us in the most vile ways on a regular basis.

    “Deleting our Twitter account is the only option left to protect ourselves and the search for Madeleine.

    "She is what is important, and our job is to get her home. We believe Madeleine is alive and we have great faith in The Met.”

    But Ben’s mum Kerry, 43, from Sheffield, who has met Kate at official missing people events, said: “Blaming their decision to close their account on our followers could damage our campaign.

    “People are allowed to give their opinion. In the UK we are are a team of three people, checking Facebook, Twitter and Ben’s website.

    “How can we vet every single comment on there - it’s impossible.

    “We can’t stop people’s opinion and I will not be drawn into a slagging match with the two campaigns.

    “All I can say is that Ben’s campaign has never been anti McCann.”

    Ben’s gran, Christine, 63, agreed, adding: “At the end of the day two children who are missing are the important ones.

    “It’s all about keeping Ben’s name out there and alive.

    “I think the use of the word toxic is upsetting. Our supporters are not toxic - they just care.

    “We all have to take whatever is thrown at us.

    “We can’t as a family be responsible for other people’s views.”

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you Textusa and Isabel for your intelligent counterpoints which I have taken on-board.

    I will explain. Michel Foucault came up with this concept of the "episteme" which may be understood as the "the historical a priori that grounds knowledge and its discourses and thus represents the condition of their possibility within a particular epoch".

    We shall see in due time if British ideology and cultural hegemony is dictating the proceedings or not.

    "Ideology lingers in the ether like an episteme". We are all in this sense (including so-called "judges") embedded in a Matrix of sorts except our egos won't admit it.

    Textusa intuitively knows this. It is the hidden a priori of her famous theory - a pertinent reading of the case which has sent mad dogs and Insane Englishmen barking.

    I don't think we have a senior judge capable of thinking "outside the box" the way Bruto Da Costa has but, I may be wrong - and not as well informed as you are, admittedly. I would love to be wrong for Amaral and Portugal's sake. I hope I am.

    Keep up the good work.


    ReplyDelete
  14. To clarify new readers or to remind "old" ones as the complexities and details of this case are so many that one does tend to lose track of them all.

    We believe that after the Tories took power in 2010, the control structure of the Maddie case split up. Until then we believe that all High Deciders worked together having Jim Gamble as the operational leader.

    The Tory government decided to put an end to the Maddie case shame the nation was going through thinking, foolishly, it would be easy.

    Theresa May, quickly got rid of Jim Gamble and that was the materialisation of the split into the 2 current camps, what we call Swinging Black Hats and the Government Black Hats.

    The first is a group of powerful people who in fact are the reason for all this mess. It was their reputation or that of their close friends and/or associates that was at stake in 2007 and they found necessary to protect using all possible means, literally.

    So, as of 2010 we have been before a fierce battle. On one side we have Camp 1, or Government BH, who want closure in this case and have been struggling because not only did they find that things wouldn't be easy as it would be impossible to whitewash it. Without this possibility they will have to go for some of those in Camp 2, the Swinging BH. For our benefit, Camp 1 has now their reputation at stake, they promised they would get closure and more than 4 years later the are looking like fools at best, or manipulated puppets at worse.

    Camp 2, the Swinging BH, who will accept whitewashing as it's the only solution that keeps thei reputation intact. They will do all in the corridors of power to ensure that is so. As we know, it's in these corridors that power is really exercised.

    To make it easy to visualise, all the reader has to do is to refer back to the TV series, "Yes, Prime Minister". Camp 1 is led by Jim Hacker while Camp 2 is by Sir Humphrey.

    Currently, Camp 2 is trying to force Camp 1 to archive the case. It's an assuming whitewashing is simply not possible and they don't won't anything similar to the truth to be known. On the other hand, Camp 1 has, as we said, their reputation at stake. For their own sake they must find a closure to this case. To archive it will be the recognition of defeat. And just delaying the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Textusa,
      Would you put Rebekah Brooks,Andy Coulson,Rupert Murdoch into camp 2?
      David Cameron,Thersea May,Alison Saunders,DCI Andy Redwood,SIO Hamish Campbell into camp 1?
      Or as Dave and Rebekah, have stated more than once "We're all in this together"?LOL

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 6 Oct 2015, 13:49:00,

      1. Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Rupert Murdoch

      They're in neither camp. They're in Camp Vulture. They will defend the sunset is in the East if that gets them more money and favours. They have no loyalty and frankly we don't think they care much about their professional reputations or credibility.

      Will give you an example. Gamble and Sky News were clearly Camp 2 in the Brenda Leyland tragedy. When things will turn around, Gamble will be stuck with Camp 2 while Sky News will be Camp Whatever-is-convenient.

      Camp Vulture only cares in keeping a position where they can benefit the most. The day the McCanns are "up for grabs", what they (as in MSM) did to Mr Amaral will seem tame.

      Please add all the media (including the serious one like CNN and BBC) to this camp.

      2. David Cameron,Theresa May, Alison Saunders, DCI Andy Redwood, SIO Hamish Campbell.

      Camp 1. Please add to this list Nicola Wall.

      Delete
  15. "She (judge Melo e Castro) has raised an interesting question: could Mr Amaral have written what he wrote and when he wrote it due to professional secrecy restraints?". (Textusa)

    No doubt she has - and a risible one at that. Why couldn't he?

    Thoughts cannot be censored under any Law on the planet (except perhaps extreme religious ones) and those were Amaral's thoughts. Simple.

    It is not illegal to write down one's thoughts either. In this case the sole restriction was that they could not have been made public before there was legal permission to do so. Full stop.

    This is a case of a man that has been made a global scapegoat by the powers that be, allied to the McCanns' multi-million global reputation management and legal apparatus.

    A man made to pay for the sin of two "fun-loving" negligent parents.

    A man who wished to safeguard his good name and that of his children by setting the record straight - as he saw fit under Portuguese law.

    Is judge Melo e Castro saying Amaral has no right to think privately about the case? The right to a good name because he is Portuguese?

    Anyway, who does she think she is to contradict her senior appellate court colleagues? "Photoshop" Pinto?

    This is not even a point of Law, it is a point of universal common sense and Ms. Melo e Castro has shown she has none. Hers, I am afraid, was a sentence "para Inglês vêr".

    Are we saying she is a brilliant creative mind then? An expert in logical fallacies? May be she is. They all are, aren't they? (smiles).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 6 Oct 2015, 14:52:00,

      "Thoughts cannot be censored under any Law on the planet". Agree, thoughts can't be censored because they can't be controlled. Neither internally, nor externally.

      Now thoughts, and we're not talking about own philosophical thoughts but own thoughts on a specific and palpable subject, being put on paper can be, and are, censored in every single civilised country of the world. It's called classified information.

      It's a censorship one volunteers to submit to. It's not forced on anyone, it's fully explained beforehand and it's accepted. And once accepted it is enforced and that enforcement is no breach of human rights.

      The secrecy of justice in Portugal is nothing but saying that all information concerning a case is classified information until it undergoes a dispatch relieving it of that status.

      Plus, some of it will remain forever classified. The one that was withdrawn from the files when they were released in the DVD. That information is still classified and anyone making it public will be prosecuted as the law states.

      This means that Judge Melo e Castro had a legal basis to her decision (would be highly surprised if she didn't). But this also means that she is not contradicting anyone.

      The Appeal Court then only looked at the conflict of rights. They said the freedom of speech one prevailed over the right to a good name. But then there the right of having written the book wasn't questioned. A Precautionary Action is a summary action and if the plaintiffs didn't bring the subject up, which we are sure they didn't, the matter wasn't analysed nor should it have been.

      Eventually, Judge Melo e Castro is calling incompetent the plaintiff legal team because she found legal matter they didn't even think of. If that will be taken into account by the Appeal's Court, we don't know.

      Delete
  16. Another excellent blog, right up there with the best.
    I can't make up my mind about YM.
    Thank you for giving me this puzzle to ponder on.
    It almost appears to me that she is yet another member of the assembled 'cast'
    Was she a plant?
    Was she there merely to plant seeds of suspicion on DP in order to keep him in check or was she just a nosy, attention seeking woman looking for her ten minutes of fame?
    I'm unsure still.
    I know her credentials have been checked and that she is a legitimate child protection officer, her credentials having no sway in Portugal as you pointed out.
    Why did she dally and delay ?
    What was her ultimate motive.
    You say it was to nail DP and I can go along with that.
    But if DP was to be a scapegoat in this scenario, was it simply he that was selected to be kept in line?
    YM provides the very means for keeping DP in check.

    I've looked on the other forums and FB groups once again, no one talking about your post which saddens me.
    I'm now sure absolutely, that some are manipulating people towards the view of P.
    All other views are not counted, valued or even appraised.
    I find that very disconcerting and discouraging..
    It's clear what the agenda is on there.
    Now, it appears to me that they are deliberately whipping up a frenzied hatred for the McCs and it will all end badly.
    Thank you for your oh so meticulous research.
    It gladdens my heart.
    The best, why read the rest?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I share your sadness that noone is discussing these posts on other forums. Certain people have done an excellent job in ensuring that they dont become points of discussion. In my view, some key and dominant posters have persistantly poured such extreme scorn on the posts that by now, noone has the energy to mention them. One is made to feel part of the 'uncool' gang if one discusses them. If you bring them up they are immediately scorned. However, it has not stopped people reading them and worrying about them, even if going 'underground' to do so. I know there are people that believe in these posts - they just dont bring them up as they feel there's no point. as they will be hammered.....
    As you say, 'the best, why read the rest?'... increasingly my view especially as we appear to be reaching crucial stages......

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not sure if this is relevant or important so if not please do not publish. Also I am posting on here as not sure if you would pick it up on a DNA thread.
    joyce1938 on CMOMM posted re an article in the Daily Mail about donor eggs and DNA.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3259508/Scientists-hail-amazing-discovery-s-revealed-infertile-mothers-use-donor-eggs-pass-DNA-children.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 6 Oct 2015, 17:08:00,

      Thank you for your comment. Yes, we don't consider this issue to have any importance to the Maddie case.

      We published it out of respect for you and it helps us clarify our position as the topic has been brought up.

      Concerning DNA we're only interested in it within the forensic evidence of the case. In what DNA was collected, in what DNA we would expect to have been there to have been collected and fascinatingly (or then again not) wasn't and what DNA we were certain was there and PJ were strongly and adamantly "advised" to go and collect it elsewhere.

      Outside this, the DNA matters nothing. If there was the remote possibility that Maddie's DNA would be different than that of her parents, with the differences each individual has to everyone else including family, that issue would have to be mentioned in the FSS report.

      One thing is to say one is unable to determine if the orange juice one is before if it is from and Algarvian or from a Spanish orange, another completely different is to call it orange juice when one knows (or should know) that it's not orange but apple juice.

      Any discussion around DNA outside the points raised above, is completely useless and if done on purpose clutter.

      Thank you very much for your comment, and we hope you don't take our response as personal criticism because it's not.

      Delete
    2. Textusa i am confused with yiur "and what DNA we were certain was there and PJ were strongly and adamantly "advised" to go and collect it elsewhere" I understand that the apartment was cleaned and any trace of certain indivuals who should not have been there removed and consequently the dna od people who should have been there removed also. However i was not aware that the PJ had been pursuaded to look elsewhere for dna if thats what you are saying

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 6 Oct 2015, 21:25:00,

      It's from this passage of Mr Amaral's book:

      Chapter 3 – News of a disappearance. The first 72 hours.

      Subheading - Reluctance in investigating Maddie’s parents disturbs the investigation’s independence: the abduction thesis gains weight

      (Pg 64)

      “It’s discussed an eventual visit to this apartment and those occupied by the remaining friends. The idea was to locate Madeleine’s clothes, check if they contained vestiges of violence, mainly the clothes she wore when, at 17h35 of May 3, she returned home with the mother and the brothers. Someone raised the hypothesis of Madeleine having died in her apartment and taken from there to one of the others. It’s a possibility, but, at this moment, we don’t have clues that point in that or another direction. The reluctance in doing this diligence is felt. The British Ambassador has already met with the team directing the investigation. Politics and diplomacy seem to be hazing our initiative.

      - Listen, I think it’s important to do this diligence.

      - What? The clothes? You crazy? Let me see if I understood: you want to go to their apartments collect clothes for examination?

      - Yes… What’s the problem? Isn’t it the normal procedure?

      - Of course it is. But with this media folklore? I think I have never seen so many journalists together in my life. And I’m not exactly new to the police!

      - But what if there was an accident, if someone hurt the child intentionally, it’s the most obvious way of knowing since we haven’t found her yet.

      - No. That is making the parents suspects. It doesn’t please me. I think it’s premature.

      - Call it what you will, but that it’s a normal procedure, it is. I think you woke up with your feet uncovered [a Portuguese expression similar to the English “I think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today”]

      All of a sudden, one can’t doubt the child’s parents. These have to be treated with diplomacy, it isn’t enough to respect their fundamental rights, the respect for human dignity, and the following of all constitutional and procedural principles. We have to withdraw from our thinking all and any doubt that their behaviour, on the night of the facts or in posterior moment, may arise."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 6 Oct 2015, 21:25:00,

      Look elsewhere as in don't look there.

      Delete
    5. Thanks Textusa I'm only getting now the true worth of this paragraph. Not only was it proof of political interference but crucially it prevented the collection of DNA which could have at the time stopped this whole charade in its tracks.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 7 Oct 2015, 07:22:00,

      Just proves that pretending to ignore a subject is out there is wrong.

      We don't agree with the discussions that are ongoing about DNA. However we do not ridicule them. We have explained why we don't agree and we have focused on content and not style or form.

      As can be seen, from a subject with which we disagree the way it's being debated we have helped, we hope, to show that it is a relevant one and it should be visited.

      Delete
  19. Not Textusa,

    "Asking the police to check is not ''saying he's a paedo" any more than asking to check your driving licence and insurance is "saying you are a mass murderer""

    To suggest to police to check a person's driver's licence is to accuse that person of being a driver otherwise they wouldn't have a licence. To suggest to police to check if someone has their name in a paedo register is to accuse them of being a paedo. Your analogy is ridiculous and just shows how desperate you are. Textusa honestly I don't know why you waste your time entertaining this person.

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://portugalresident.com/online-intrigue-as-mccanns-close-twitter-page-and-amaral%E2%80%99s-fund-%E2%80%98goes-missing%E2%80%99

    Online intrigue as McCanns close Twitter page and Amaral’s fund ‘goes missing’


    Another eventful week online has seen the parents of Madeleine McCann shut down the Twitter account set up to find their daughter due to an “avalanche of offensive commentaries” from supporters of the family of Ben Needham - the toddler who went missing from the Greek island of Kos in 1991. The toxic mail was prompted by the findmadeleine feed’s “blocking” of an account supporting the hunt for Ben after Ben’s mother publicly questioned the £10.1 million (€13.6 million) of taxpayer’s money ploughed into the ongoing police hunt for Madeleine, when only €800,000 has been spent over many more years looking for her son.

    But as the wrangle plays out in British and Portuguese press, another glitch has come to the surface.

    Internet meddlers have “blocked” the gofundme page raising money to help beleaguered former detective Gonçalo Amaral fight the civil case taken out against him by the McCanns.

    Whereas the page could previously be found by Google in a simple internet search, this week it suddenly became untraceable.

    Bizarrely, search engine Bing still leads users to it - which has led to the online question: “Has Google prevented the search for Gonçalo Amaral Go Fund Me page… and if so why?”

    The truth is that the page still exists and has now raised over €68,000.

    In the British press this week, Jerry Lawton of the Daily Star incorrectly stated that “a new libel case” begins tomorrow in Lisbon that could see appeal judges “strip the couple of £357,000 (just under €500,000), which they “hope to use” to find Madeleine.

    The case does not begin tomorrow. A legal source has told us the appeal is in the process of being considered and there is no indication for the time being when judges will reach a decision.

    But what the Gofundme appeal online has ensured, said the source, is that Gonçalo Amaral is in a position to continue his legal fight, which he has repeatedly said centres on his own right to freedom of expression.

    natasha.donn@algarveresident.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strange is it not?

      It is not just the Google search engine that has omitted it. If you go into the Go Fund Me website and then search for "Goncalo Amaral" or "Legal Defence for Goncalo Amaral" you won't find anything. Well I did not.

      I have been aware for quite some time that Google was pro-McCann seemingly but what is worrying is if Go Fund Me too is now attempting to boycott Amaral's plight or at any rate making it difficult for people to donate for his defence.

      OK, there could be a technical logical explanation quite aside from a so-and-so attempt to block their nemesis. Let us wait and see.

      Meanwhile I have written to Go Fund Me and asked for an explanation. I am waiting to hear from them. I suggest others do the same. Concerning Google I won't even bother.

      The link at PJGA is working fine, thought. Just tested it.

      Delete
  21. It seems there is still some confusion about what is scheduled to happen today, October 7th, with Mr Amaral's appeal.

    Let us clarify: nothing. Nothing is scheduled to happen today.

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/101sep15/Notificacao.jpg

    "Mais fica notificado de que os autos vão ser remetidos ao Tribunal de Relação de Lisboa em 10.07.2015" translates into "Furthermore you are notified that the legal documentation will be sent to the Lisbon Appeal's Court on 10.07.2015"

    10.07.2015 is July 10 2015.

    Nothing is scheduled to happen today, October 7 2015. Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Something that's puzzling me
    Why did DP make that phone call to child protection services? Then later deny it? Then, when questioned about whether he had anything to add, said he had, but this forum /platform wasn't the place? (Maybe not the exact words but near enough!) What's your take on that Textusa?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 7 Oct 2015, 09:00:00,

      Thank you for your very pertinent question.

      Only David Payne can clarify what that call was about, if one day he ever will.

      We think it may have been for many reasons but one thing we’re pretty certain is that it was not because of paedophilia.

      If David Payne was indeed the paedophile that he’s accused of being then we have first to determine which kind of paedophile he is. Is he a petty paedophile or a powerful one?

      If petty, then it's like a criminal calling the probation office to get him off the hook for having broken probation.

      If powerful, he wouldn't call probation office but whoever would be controlling that office and the number used wouldn't be traceable to there.

      Child protection agencies are not about paedophilia. Paedophilia is but one of many threats and perils children face and should be protected from.

      On top of the list, their parents.

      Paedophile crimes get the most visibility (and that should be so) but their occurrence outside immediate family (speaking specifically of fathers abusing sexually their daughters) its occurrence is not significant.

      Online paedophile predators fall under criminal police and not child protection agencies. CEOP was (is?) a police agency not a child protection one although it was both the words “child” and “protection” in its acronym.

      Child protection falls under the social services.

      Our guess, totally speculating just to find a plausible explanation, would be that David Payne called someone he knew (or was told to call that number) to query into the possibility/feasibility of launching a missing child operation from there.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 7 Oct 2015, 09:00:00,

      We tried to find the reference to the phone call DP made to a child protection service/agency you mention and we couldn't find it.

      What we found was him not denying in his rog that he phoned the "Crime Specialist Director in London".

      We believe it to be the Scotland Yard's Crime Specialist Directorate:

      " 1485 "Do you recall me telling you about the London number, which you couldn't find in your phone''
      Reply "Yes.'00:24:00 1485 "That number actually transcribes back to the Crime Specialist Director in London.'
      Reply "Mm.'
      1485 "Did you contact them''
      Reply "Err I did yes. My, err you know my sister err had been in contact with them and she was trying to do everything that she could knowing the, err, the difficulties that we were having out there so you know I did approach them just asking for advice but err I can't remember, I don't think I actually spoke to anyone there, but for some reason that wasn't carried forward.'
      1485 "Yeah.'
      Reply "But I mean, you know, just into the context of the conversation you know we're in a strange country, we've got no representeers we don't know what's going on, all hell's broken loose and you know to see whether you can do anything to help Madeleine come back, you know and that was the lines that we were taking.'
      1485 "Do you remember who you spoke to''
      Reply "I don't know.'
      1485 "The call was made on the following day at twenty three thirteen, so that's late at night.'
      Reply "Mm.'
      1485 "You don't recollect anything else about the conversation that you had with that, was it you that made the call''
      Reply "Err I, yeah I know that I got phone numbers from my sister which I did you know ring them but I can't remember making one late at night.'"

      Delete
    3. The link to the quote above:

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

      Delete
  23. "Thoughts on a specific and palpable subject, being put on paper can be, and are, censored in every single civilised country of the world. It's called classified information." (Textusa)

    That may well be so, except that by the time Amaral made his thoughts public they were no longer "classified information". Occam's razor.

    We are talking about a blown-out of all proportion detail which Melo e Castro, perhaps to show off her command of the Law (or lack of it) was quick to elaborate upon.

    Dr. Martin Roberts, Ph.D. analysed it beautifully:

    "“The decision to award the sum demanded was based, not on the evidence heard, but an essay in Jurisprudence, researched by the arbitrator herself, in which Gonçalo Amaral is portrayed as a public servant subject to restriction, as thought he had signed the Portuguese equivalent of the Official Secrets act (…) based upon legal precedent, apparently, we have the duty of a public servant (and others) toward a suspect under investigation, levied against a man no longer in public office, and on behalf of two people who are not suspects, not being investigated, and in no imminent danger of standing trial for anything at all.
    Does that make any sense?”





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 7 Oct 2015, 13:15:00,

      "That may well be so, except that by the time Amaral made his thoughts public they were no longer "classified information". "

      Agree. But was it not classified information when he wrote down those thoughts? It was, no question about that either.

      The relevant question in our opinion to be analysed is whether Mr Amaral allowed to put thoughts about classified information on paper in the privacy of his home?

      We are no legal experts so we can't answer. And if law was straightforward and linear there would be no need for lawyers or judges.

      However, as citizens who the laws are written for we certainly can provide an opinion even knowing beforehand they hold no legal value.

      Our opinion is that he could. For 2 reasons.

      First is that we think a policeman is allowed to take his work home. When a policeman sits down at his desk and writes up diagrams or revises notes, he’s handling classified information. He’s materializing his thoughts on paper. If he keeps a strict control of these notes, then there’s absolutely no breach of confidentiality.

      The second is to follow the spirit of the law. The confidentiality, or secrecy of justice, exists so that the sanctity of the investigation is guaranteed. In plain terms, so that the bad guys don’t know what the good guys are up to. It’s not there because it’s pretty or because it’s nice to have it. It’s there for a reason. And when Mr Amaral wrote his thoughts he never endangered in any way the sanctity of the investigation.

      About what Dr. Martin Roberts, Ph.D., with whom we disagreed on the WBM issue, has said ll we can say is that he seems to say that what is shouldn’t be but unfortunately for him what is, is whether he agrees with it or not. For some reason the word “dura” is in “dura lex sed lex”.

      Delete
  24. "Unfortunately for him (Martin Roberts) what is, is whether he agrees with it or not." (Textusa)

    True! And by the same token, whether the forthcoming appeal court(s) will agree with Melo e Castro's quantitative/qualitative analysis of the process and the inferences she made.

    I would be quite surprised if they do but, as we have seen time and time again, in this case even the impossible is possible or becomes possible; not least because of the "capital" involved - both political and otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Regarding Yvonne Martin. I seem to recall reading that she was called by someone from the Foreign Office to make haste to Praia da Luz on the morning of 4th May 07 to offer any assistance the McCanns may need.

    I may be mistaken, and it may have been (erroneously) reported as such by the press, but I'm sure I read it on CMoMM on one of the threads.

    Of course, none of this is in her statements where she claims to have acted on impulse after hearing the news at 7am?

    I wonder if anybody else can remember that snippet of information, or am I getting it mixed up with someone else?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Very interesting. We particularly like the "soon truth will emerge".

    Camp Vulture finally taking the side they should have taken right from the start?

    Quite amusing to read some saying they hope he has good legal advise. Of course he doesn't need any:

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11993-journalist-from-rupert-murdoch-paper-the-sunday-times-breaks-ranks-and-offers-to-tell-the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann-in-his-newspaper"

    "https://twitter.com/SousterRugby

    The forum-owner of CMOMM, Jill Havern, has received an exciting invitation to help award-winning Times journalist, Mark Souster, research an article which takes a sceptical view of the McCanns’ account of events.

    In a recent direct tweet message, he announced:

    “I am a McCann-sceptic. Nothing adds up. Looking to see if I can explore this for my paper the Sunday Times. Mainstream media has ignored this and soon truth will emerge. Wanted to see how we can take this on.

    CMOMM is looking forward to helping him with his research after I gave him my email address."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's see the outcome. Whatever it is it will be good.

      If a fool finding mission, then if fools are found, good. The more of them who get exposed, the better.

      If a fool finding and no one is fooled, good.

      If not a fool finding mission, then good.

      Quite simple, really.

      Delete
    2. Mark Souster - former Times journalist
      Rugby correspondent. Lives in Bath... Works for Inzito. Hmmm.

      Delete

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