Friday, 3 June 2016

Reconstruction for May 3rd 2007

Image from this website

1. Introduction

As everyone knows Mr Amaral has challenged the UK to do a reconstruction of the evening/night of May 3 2007 in Praia da Luz (article from the Express on May 1 2016 by James Murray “We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night”).

We know an attempt was made to do a reconstruction in March 2008 by Mr Paulo Rebelo but due to the strange unavailability shown by some of the T7 it never went ahead.

Very strange how this group of friends came to the conclusion that the effort proposed by the rightful and legitimate authorities responsible for the investigation was useless to help find out what had happened to Maddie and so put whatever they had to do at the time before the interests of their friends McCanns.

After all, the reconstruction was supposed to help the McCanns clarify what had happened to their daughter and definitely help clear up all the suspicions that were hanging over them at the time but their friends apparently didn’t care less.

One would even be tempted to say that such friends only took such a position because they already knew what had happened to Maddie and so knew that participating in such an exercise would only serve the interests of the truth and not theirs.

But the novelty in Mr Amaral’s current proposal is Crèche Dad, someone outside the T9.

We agree wholeheartedly with him, Crèche Dad is essential to a proper reconstruction.

When the police ask for witnesses – ALL witnesses – to an incident to come forward, they mean anybody who was at the scene, whether they witnessed anything, or not, as the case may be.

To witness nothing may contradict the evidence of a person who claims to have seen something.

Mr Amaral’s current proposal apparently comes from his second book on the case and which is supposed to be all about: calling for a re-examination of the timeline for May 3rd 2007 and for a full reconstruction of events (article from the Express on May 1 2016 by James Murray “Fresh agony for the McCanns: Former police chief plans second book on missing Madeleine”).

As we said, in March 2008 Mr Paulo Rebelo attempted to set up a reconstitution of the events that day, from 17.30 to 23.00, but was thwarted by the refusal of the other members of the Tapas group to take part.

2. The reconstruction

Jeremy Wilkins, someone also outside the T9, was also requested to participate, but expressed reluctance. After all, why fly to Portugal just because the world was holding its breath waiting to find out what had happened to the little girl?

He would be an important witness as he is actually vague about the time of his meeting with Gerry McCann and describes seeing Jane Tanner shortly after setting off with his buggy at 20.30 but is quite adamant in saying he didn’t see her when she is supposed to have passed them just before she says she sees Tannerman.

Jeremy Wilkins would be very useful to clarify once and for all who was right between Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann in that debate they had shown in the 2009 Mockumentary, moderated by a very biased Dave Edgar as Jane painfully found out, about on which side of the road the encounter between the 2 men took place:

Dave Edgar: “It’s like I said, there are, you know, inconsistencies, you know, in every major investigation.”

Jane Tanner: “Ok, that’s fine.”

Dave Edgar: “Obviously, the most important thing is what you saw, Jane. It’s not where Gerry and Jeremy were actually stood. Because they didn’t obstruct your view of the man. So...” 

We wouldn't call it just an expected inconsistency in a major investigation but a major discrepancy to be taken into account in a major investigation:

Apart from the McCanns, their friends and Jeremy Wilkins and the now proposed Crèche Dad, who else might now fit into Rebelo’s proposed timescale and scope of the reconstruction?

Mr Rebelo proposed the locations of the Tapas restaurant, the block of apartments and surrounding area.

Mr Amaral suggests the area be extended to the Rua da Escola Primária as he also says the Smith family should participate in the reconstruction.

3. People who have no statements in files

We also suggest the following people who were not asked to provide statements:

The Moyes, sitting on their balcony above apartment 5A that evening; seeing and hearing nothing.

Possibly Rev David Heal and his wife Pam, reported as visiting later that night or early morning, according to one account (or next evening, according to Kate’s book), as we showed in our “Holy Trinity” post.

Carolyn Carpenter, Stephen Carpenter’s wife, walking back to their apartment from the Tapas bar between 21.15 and 21.30, with Carolyn reporting hearing a cry of “Maddie” (although her statement is referred to, it is not included in the files).

We dealt extensively with Stephen Carpenter, an essential and crucial witness in the uncovering of the truth, in our post “Planting a spy” and in the series of posts “All the world’s a stage (1/3)”,  “All the world’s a stage (2/3)” and “All the world’s a stage (3/3)”.

Maria Helena Horta, can confirm that Maria Manuela Silva, a frequent visitor to her apartment located in Block 6, left on the night of May 3 at the precise time the alarm was given.

Maria Helena tells Maria Manuela the time was 21H58 when the latter was about to leave when both still inside the apartment.

Maria Manuela, who has statement in the files has this to say: that she commented with her partner that it could be noted not being summer yet given the movement she noted in the streets, thus reiterating that effectively the movement of people at that date and hour was nil.

This was the route that Maria Manuela and her partner took after leaving Maria Helena’s apartment:

Maybe Maria Helena accompanied the couple visiting her outside to their car and can confirm or not that the movement was indeed nil. If, like the Moyes and Maria Manuela, she also saw and heard nothing.

Being the neighbour right across the street, it would be very interesting to know when and how she took knowledge that Maddie had disappeared.

And we would also like to know if she took part of the alleged search that mobilised, supposedly, the entire Praia da Luz (with the exception of Jeremy Wilkins) . If not, why not. 

4. Rastaman

The Rastaman episode needs clarification and we think a reconstruction would do just that.

It involves 2 people, one with no statement in files, Michael Sperrey and the other with various, Jeremy Wilkins.

Michael Sperrey and his partner (no statements made) booked at the Tapas for 21.00 on May 3, with Michael allegedly seen by Jeremy Wilkins, likely to have been suffering from some sort of urinary infection at the time, near the toilet area of the Tapas restaurant before he bumped into Gerry.

We spoke of the interaction between Sperrey and Wilkins in our “Bladderman” post.

The presence of both Jeremy Wilkins and Michael Sperrey in the reconstruction would allow the latter to be cleared as the suspect Rastaman because to this date, as far as we know, this particular suspect hasn’t been found as Wilkins hasn’t said yet if the man he saw in that toilet was Sperrey or not.

Wilkins could explain what was that Rastaman did to have him say this about the man he says he saw:had a behaviour a little strange, as he seemed to be a little nervous”.

Sperrey could confirm what was that behaviour a little strange and explain why seemed to be a little nervous”.

The picture from Sperrey’s passport shows a man without dreadlocks. If Sperrey is not Wilkins’ man then the authorities will have a new suspect to chase, by coincidence one of the oldest ones: Rastaman.

And if Sperrey is not Wilkins’ man then SY will have one last line of inquiry to add to their current last line of inquiry, whatever it may be.

And it is very unlikely that Sperrey is Wilkins’ man. Not because of the absence of the dreadlocks but because Wilkins says this about him: “between 20:30 and 21 pm, when he was at the bar "TAPAS" he noticed that an individual (...) that this individual was there for a short time (...) he was alone, did not speak to anyone and left soon after.”

Rastaman is inside the Tapas area less time than it takes a grown-man to go to the toilet. Arrives, stays and leaves while Wilkins his inside to go specifically to the toilet.

To allow Wilkins to walk in circles around Luz after he leaves the Tapas area and meet Gerry at 21.15 when he’s returning, this toilet episode was certainly more around 20.30 than 21.00. To confirm this is the fact that Wilkins says he gets out of the house at that time and heads straight for the Tapas toilet. So how likely is it that Rastaman is Sperrey if Sperrey booked the meal for 21.00?

For Sperrey to be Rastaman, it would mean he would have left before the time he had reserved the meal for.

Is going in, staying for a very short time looking nervous and leaving the behaviour of someone who has a meal reserved?

No, Sperry can’t be Rastaman. SY, Rastaman is still out there!

Wilkins later contradicts himself completely: I think that he was accompanied by a woman but I cannot be precise about any detail about her (...) When I arrived, I headed to the WC through the pool area. He was also was in the WC and appeared to be making time. I do not remember if he still remained there when I left. I did not see the woman in that area.

Now the roles between him and Rastaman have changed. Rastaman now is inside and it is Wilkins who goes in and out of the Tapas area.

And now Wilkins says that Rastaman may have been with a woman. One wonders how can Wilkins know that because in this version, he finds Rastaman in the toilet and leaves toilet not knowing if the man was still there or not. So how can Wilkins think Rastaman is with a woman? He can’t.

Why has Rastaman been discarded? It really looks like everyone knows Wilkins is fibbing but as he’s one of the good guys, someone thought best to just let it go.

Another thing Wilkins could explain is why he says he encounters Gerry coming from different directions. He first says:


“He eventually made his way along Rua Dr Francisco toward the direction of Rua Dr Agostinho. At this time he was walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas bar area to his left. He noticed the bad street lighting and although it was not completely dark there was enough light to see clearly. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry.”

But later he changes the direction from which he comes from to: 


Eventually I got out of a street on the other side of the road to the pool complex, between the McCanns’ apartment and the Tapas bar.

To help locate this street, I think it was the street used later by the press and media satellite communication vehicles as shown by the car parked during the covering of the incident.

When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side.”

Which was it? Wilkins could clear that up in the reconstruction.

Why the change of story? Because coming up from Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins (initial version) doesn’t fit with him walking around Luz in circles and he needs to kill time in such a small town.

In fact, out of curiosity, we would love to know which circles he walked for about half an hour to 45 minutes from (A) to be in (B) and from there encounter Gerry:

After I left the WC I continued to walk downhill, around the back of the tennis courts and returned by the route opposite the pool and Tapas complex (A in the picture above). While I was walking through the streets, I would be exploring waiting that my son fell asleep. Some of the routes didn’t have a way out, so, because of it, the walk was practically in circles.

He says some routes (streets?) didn’t have a way out. Having been there, we didn’t find any that would fit his story.

Did he by any chance cross with Crèche Dad? Both apparently were out and about.

No wonder Wilkins was reluctant to participate in the reconstruction in 2008. Let’s hope that now he will be eager to participate.

We think opportune to remind readers of the words from Bridget O’Donnell’s (Jez Wilkins’ partner)  to The Guardian on December 14 2007,  especially the “There were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday”:

“Throughout all this, I have always believed that Gerry and Kate McCann are innocent. When they were made suspects, when they were booed at, when one woman told me she was "glad" they had "done it" because it meant that her child was safe, I began to write this article - because I was there, and I believe that woman is wrong. There were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday; instead, there was a bunch of ordinary parents wearing Berghaus and worrying about sleep patterns.”

5. Sightings people

The Smith family, as requested by Mr Amaral, who saw a man; Smithman, carrying a girl in pyjamas around 22.00.

Anyone can play Smithman, all that person has to do is to walk down Rua da Escola Primária and cross with the various members of the family where they say it happened and not where the McCanns tell in their tale in the 2009 Mockumentary, as we showed in our post “Public Misleading of Public, by McCanns”.

Crèche Dad, another man wandering with a girl in pyjama that night who reported himself to Leicester Police in 2007 (article from the Mirror on Dec 28 2013  by Tom Pettifor “Madeleine McCann: Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for SIX YEARS without realising”) carrying his 2 year-old daughter back from the night-crèche around 21.15, re-discovered by Andy Redwood and identified on UK Crimewatch in October 2013 as the man seen by Jane Tanner.

He could wear the similar clothes to those he wore that night – the ones in which he appears wearing when photographed by SY, a photo was identified on Twitter as having exif data showing it was taken 5 months before SY used it on Crimewatch – and Jane Tanner could confirm that he was indeed the man she saw.

Maybe then Tannerman could finally be taken off the Find Madeleine website.

Surely Crèche Dad is a very likely witness to a lurking abductor around the time of Gerry’s proud dad moment around 21.10 when he observed his sleeping daughter?

The night crèche staff should be able to confirm Crèche Dad’s arrival and departure and dad himself should be able to explain the strange route he was using to return to his apartment.

An explanation as to why he never came forward to make a statement about such a crucially timed walkabout would be useful too.

The Smith family could also confirm or deny if Crèche Dad was Smithman, after all, as the direction this man supposedly says he walks past apartment 5A doesn’t make any sense for someone coming from the night crèche, who knows if he continued lost 45 minutes later and had also been down Rua da Escola Primária?

As we are in the Rua da Escola Primária we think another person present would be the female British tourist who saw Womanman.

Womanman has practically gone unnoticed and was reported in the Correio da Manhã article of June 6 2014 by Tânia Laranjo and Rui Pando Gomes “Phone calls frame Maddie 'kidnappers'” (translated here by Joana Morais): “Scotland Yard also ensures that there is a British witness who saw one of the men carrying a child in his arms up to the wasteland, situated less than 500 meters from the resort. The British say that he fled, but before he was able to bury the girl's cadaver” and “The female tourist says she heard the suspect speaking in British English”.

If he’s “one of the men” as she says he is then this female British tourist knows exactly who it is, so he should be called in for the reconstruction. And maybe all the other men she’s referring to should too.

As far as we know, it was because of Womanman that SY put on that circus in Praia da Luz in June 2014.

Could Womanman be Smithman, Crèche Dad or Tannerman?

The sightings in the Rua da Escola Primária and Rua 25 de Abril differ significantly from each other.

According to the Smith family, Smithman is seen walking from North to South down the passageway towards the Dolphins restaurant.

According to UK Crimewatch he’s said to go from West to East down Rua 25 de Abril towards the church – this contradicts what the Smith family has said in the PJ Files.

And Womanman must have been seen going from East to West up Rua 25 de Abril, and the only reason why SY would search the hill West of Praia da Luz.

Note that we have every reason to believe that Womanman is Smithman.

Smithman is considered by SY as THE person of interest in the 2013 UK Crimewatch and Womanman is THE reason for SY to have come in full force to get on their hands and knees in 2014.

Confusion in the directions as to where this man was seen going is why we are certain only a proper reconstruction would clarify what really happened around 22.00 that night in the general area of Rua da Escola Primária and Rua 25 de Abril.

And it may even clarify a mystery surrounding Womanman which is why a Portuguese man would talk in English to another Portuguese man, as the Correio da Manhã article says: “Taking into account that it was a Portuguese man who was allegedly speaking to another Portuguese man, it's not plausible that the conversation took place in another language”.

Also to be brought in should be whoever says they saw 2 men speaking in the Rua Primeiro de Maio supposedly one asking the other why he had brought the body there.

6. Tapas esplanade

Let's now focus on where most of the reconstruction should take place: the Tapas esplanade.

Ocean Club should provide the Big Round Table, the one we have never seen to this day as we said in our post “The proof Ocean Club reads Textusa” or a table equal to the one used that night in that esplanade.

Not to be used is the one like the table shown in the 2013 UK Crimewatch which has nothing to do with the furniture seen in the Tapas esplanade:

Dianne Webster's photos of it could be used, the pictures we dared in our post “Will Kate’s book definitely prove Textusa wrong?” for them to be published in Kate’s book but weren’t.

Dianne Webster's words are clear about having that particular object photographed: “I think I was the only one that ever took any photographs in the evening and that was about the second night we were there, I just took pictures of everybody sitting round the table”.

The right object should be used so it could be seen what exactly could be seen of the apartment by each one of the T9 sitting around it.

7. Tapas Staff

And then we have the Tapas staff, NONE of whom claim to have seen Gerry at the time the alarm was raised.

Jerónimo Salcedas, from the UK, who sees Dianne Webster sitting on her own between 21.30 and 22.00 and hears a scream from a woman he thought was the child’s mother.

Ricardo Oliveira, who served at the tables but wasn’t sure if he served Madeleine’s parents and didn’t notice if they left the table. He didn’t remember anyone absent from the table. He says at 21.45, nobody was there after all the guests had left, after hearing shouts from the direction of the apartment.

José Baptista – of “Mind your Ps” post- who says he was in the kitchen between 22.00 and 22.30 and couldn’t say anything about the regularity of the people not there for the food.

Stefan Todorov says he was working in the kitchen. So not a witness to the events of the evening but it would be interesting to hear his opinion about having to reheat dishes that night due to the alleged checking. He could also compare if there had been an extra “re-heating” that night in comparison with the other nights of the week.

Now that we know the importance of the Tapas staff in the uncovering of the truth, we think it would also be useful in seeing them explain how they were able to serve the group in such an efficient way as they did as we showed in our “Nights of the Round Table” post.

And they someone could clear up who consumed the 8 bottles of red wine, the 6 of white and the 9 bottle of water. Was it the T9 only? Was all it the guests present? Need to clear that up.

It seems quite a significant quantity of liquids to be consumed if only by a table of 9 and a rather small one if the entire esplanade is to be considered.

Who ended up paying what in terms of drinks that night? Did Tapas offer all-you-can-drink meals in the half-board package? Not very profitable if that was the case as restaurants make most of their profits out of drinks. “Pre-paid” meals, as would be the case of those included in packages, have limitations as to what can be ordered to eat and as to what drinks are included in the price.

Even, by absurdity, if an all-you.can-drink, why register it this way? Statistics? Where was this data collated and treated?

Arlindo Peleja, the executive chef, describes seeing a dark-blue car at 21.10, a clamour at 21.20 and the table empty by 21.40.

To note that when he arrives at 21.20 he sees ONLY one table occupied by 3 couples and no other guests: “He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else”. 

Peleja must have just missed the Carpenter family who exited Tapas between 21.15 and 21.30 as he doesn’t see them. 

Maria José, the cook who wasn’t working and who last saw Madeleine at 16.30 for dinner, falls just outside Mr Rebelo’s time scale. However, it would seem appropriate to include her for a verification of a last sighting, independent of the Tapas 9.

8. Tapas clients

Phillip Edmonds, another guest on the Tapas list with his 2 boys for a meal at 19.00, chatted to the McCanns and may be able to clarify what he saw before he left and any person he saw after leaving the restaurant. Not having given a statement, we don’t know what time he left the restaurant but it must have been before 21.10, time Arlindo Peleja arrived.

Neither did the mysterious Irwin sisters, booked for 20.30 give statements. Were they added to the list in error, when it should have been the sisters Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire who we spoke of in our post “60 of us”?

According to the Mail on 28 December 2007, it was the latter 2 sisters who ate in the same Tapas restaurant on May 3rd. A reconstitution would need to establish which sisters were alleged to have dined there.

Their sighting of the 2 blond men on the balcony of the apartment next to 5A (article from the Mail on Dec 31 2007 by Fiona Barton, Dan Newling and Vanessa Allen “British witnesses: 'We saw two blond men on balcony next to Madeleine apartment'”) falls outside of Mr Rebelo’s timeline, so no need to include the blond men, even if they actually existed?

The sisters also claimed to have seen Robert Murat near 5A that night, as claimed by the T3, Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Rachael Mampilly. Murat says he was at home with his mother at that time, so any reconstruction would have to decide who was telling the truth. It would be interesting to see where each of these 5 witnesses would claim they saw Murat.

Add Neil Berry and Raj Balu, later swabbed for evidence. Berry wanted to dine at Tapas but it seems he didn't queue up that day to get a reservation, so convinced Balu, who had a booking at 20.00 in the name of his partner Nicole Cox, to have a take-away instead of the 4 adults occupying the table already reserved for Cox.

A highly desirable restaurant, where guests queued for the limited 15 (or is it 20 places?), prepared take-aways and guests preferred it? Quite the restaurant as we showed in our post “Cinderella of Luz”.

They could explain what difficulty 4 adults, all parents, found in assembling a travel cot, which is designed to practically falls into place by itself, as we showed in our post “Two men and a baby (cot)”.

The person who came to their apartment from the Mark Warner service desk (maybe meaning Ocean Club service desk or reception) to help them assemble the travel cot that anyone can easily, as s/he was out and about Praia da Luz at a critical time.

The Patells who were booked for 19.30: at the same time as Cox originally, but the Cox booking then has a hand-written alteration to 20.00. This situation needs some clarification.

Speaking of Berry, the reconstruction also needs Mário Marreiros, the laundryman who saw a man later identified as Berry, lurking in the stairwell of 5A at 18.30 which Berry denies to have been. A confrontation between him and Marreiros would clarify that.

Marreiros was one of the 11 interviewed by Scotland Yard in 2014, but doesn’t seem to have added much to their knowledge, as he later said he had been asked the same old questions. He was the only one of the 11 interviewed to have made any comment about the interview.

9. Mark Warner nannies

We have Dawn Bullen, who warns the night crèche workers of Madeleine’s disappearance at 22.15, referred to in “Luz Secret Service” and “3 hours? For Tapas????” posts, as it would be interesting to know when she left Tapas.

Very interesting to note is that Arlindo Peleja doesn’t see anyone other than 3 couples at a table, so he doesn’t see anyone from the Bullen party, on that esplanade when he arrives there at 21.10. The reconstruction should clarify this.

Dawn Bullen could also clarify who (and when and where) she spoke to on her way to the Crèche and told her that Maddie had disappeared and the help of the nannies was required;

The three nannies, Charlotte Pennington, Jacqueline Williams and Amy Tierney, on duty could clarify if Dawn Bullen picked up the last child of the evening as Charlotte says, or, as Jacqueline states, Charlotte stayed behind to take care of the children still to be picked up, as we showed in our “Doing a Kate McCann” post .

And Amy Tierney could explain when she offers her printer to Russ O’Brien to print out the initial photos. Did she help pick the photo? In fact, Russ could really clear up, as no one else mentions this meeting, who was there when it was decided which picture to use. He’s quite clear that a nanny – who he doesn’t identify but one must assume that it was Amy – is present and offers her printer for use, while Amy is clear in saying that it was Russ who walked into her office asking if she had a printer.

It would be really interesting if Amy could show how while everyone was looking for Maddie – she went back to her apartment, got her printer and we suppose the photo paper, went back to her office where Russ remained patiently waiting and we suppose alone – he doesn’t say he is but no one else speaks of accompanying him – installed the printer and printed the photos. And while doing it explain why she excused herself from the searches so early while everyone else continued.

And talking of nannies, Susan Owen could explain where she was that night because she wasn’t where she says she walked to the Mirage doesn’t exist. And could say why she was economical with the truth, as shown in our “Imagining things” post .

We would really love to hear what book Barrington Norton reading by flashlight while having a beer inside his van, when approached by a Kirsty Maryan, a nanny. Strange how a homeless man, living in a van, has enough money to waste the battery life of his flashlight to read.

It seems more like someone camping in a motor-home instead of a human being struggling through life. A homeless man who the people of Praia da Luz feel perfectly comfortable to hire to teach their kids how to play the guitar.

10. Ocean Club and Mark Warner managerial staff

Helder Luís, Vítor Santos, Lyndsay Johnson, Silvia Baptista, John Hill and George Crosland could clarify why they can’t get straight who called who and when that night warning each other Maddie disappeared:

09:30/22:15(?) – Helder Luís, on duty at the reception, is contacted between 09:30 and 22:00 by a Tapas colleague (in the reconstruction Luís could clarify who it was as no one from Tapas staff has said they called reception), who informed him one of the children of a client dining there had disappeared. He immediately calls the Lagos GNR. A little after, the “father of the child” and John Hill enter the reception and inform him of what had happened. He then calls the GNR for the second time. Afterwards he calls the Head of Reception, Vítor Santos, to inform him of the situation;

22:00/22:15 – Vítor Santos receives a call from Helder Luís informing him that John Hill was “extremely agitated” because a child had gone missing and that he Luís had contacted the GNR but they had not arrived yet;  

22:15 – George Crosland receives a call from John Hill informing him Maddie is missing (Hill does not refer to this call);

22:20 – Lyndsay Johnson is informed by Amy Tierney, by phone that Maddie is missing (Amy doesn’t speak of this call, Charlotte Pennington is the one who says she sees Amy calling Lyndsay);

22:25 – George Crosland arrives at the scene. John Hill and Silvia Batista are already there (10 minutes for him to get out of the house, into the car and drive from Lagos to Luz is a feat not many are able to achieve);

22:25 – Lyndsay Johnson says “procedure to search for missing child is launched”. (we cannot understand how, as none of the nannies receive any call from her, and the only one who is said to have talked to her, Amy Tierney, heads towards the apartment and NOT to any pre-designated area or muster point);

22:28 – John Hill says he’s informed by phone by Lyndsay Johnson  that Maddie is missing (13 minutes after he informed George Crosland of that fact and 3 minutes after Crosland has been on the scene);

22:30 – Silvia Batista is informed by George Crosland, by phone that Maddie is missing (Crosland doesn’t mention this call and has already been in Luz for 5 minutes where he has seen… Silvia);

22:33 – John Hill says he arrives at the scene (8 minutes after he was seen there by George Crosland when he arrived and about 30 minutes after he was supposed to have been in the reception “extremely agitated”);

22:25/22:35 –Vítor Santos arrives at the reception where the GNR was already there taking a statement from the “child’s father”;

22:40 – GNR reports having received first call about this case, about an hour after Helder Luís says he first calls them.

One cannot help notice that almost as busy as apartment 5A was the Ocean Club Reception. Matthew Oldfield says he was at reception 10:05/10.10.  With Gerry McCann, John Hill and Dawn Bullen there was quite a crowd there.

It must have been Matt who told Dawn Bullen that the nannies were needed to help in apartment 5A, although he makes no reference to this conversation and one has to wonder why he uses a total stranger to convey this information to the nannies when he’s right there to do that himself.

Helder Luís says nothing about Matt being present in the reception in that critical period and he does remember Gerry McCann and John Hill, so to expected he would refer a third man.

John Hill could also clear up where he gave instructions to the Ocean Club staff about where they should search in accordance with the Ocean Club Missing Child Plan. We know that some of the nannies headed from the Mirage to the Millenium and not to the Tapas where Hill was supposed to be to give those instructions.


He should take the opportunity to enlighten all as to what was his job in Praia da Luz was at the time as neither he nor his wife appear in either Ocean Club or Mark Warner employee list, as we showed in our post “Tourism diet”.

And of course, John Hill could clarify once and for all if the window was forced open or not.

Vítor Santos is quite clear there wasn’t any signs of a break-in: then went to the apartment where there was an agglomeration of persons, however he managed to perceive that the apartment did not show any sign of disturbance not that anyone had attempted to break in.

We had an anonymous point out to us in our “Vultures Circling” post that John Hill has confirmed what Vítor Santos said, that hat there were no signs of a break-in:

Anonymous 4 Mar 2016, 14:20:00

Just one point, why did John hill say there was no sign of a break in if the OC wanted to participate in the cover up ?

In fact, it seems that he did say that. John Blacksmith says this in a post in the Cracked Mirror blog:

“Faced with this irresistable stream of spin, colour and melodrama deriving from the horse's mouth and in which facts were by no means getting in the way of a great story, John Hill, the modest and level-headed Ocean Club manager had as much chance of getting his version of events into prominence as a gnat on the wall of apartment 5A. Though he was the man on the spot and had more much more reliable information about the night of May 3, the police effort and the state of the apartments than either of the McCanns, as well as being a neutral witness, his words were slowly drowned to death by the Gerry McCann version.  

“It's still questionable as to whether it's an abduction,” said Mr Hill correctly, in other reports that day, but his view was usually low down near the bottom of the page, after the inspired clan productions. “There was no physical evidence as yet that the girl had been abducted,” he said, but he could have been speaking to an empty room or or addressing the breakers on the beach at Praia de Luz., for all the impact his words had. “The staff at the Ocean Club were still hoping to find her nearby,” he added mutedly.”

And we replied to Anonymous:

“Textusa 4 Mar 2016, 15:21:00

While we wait for you to answer our questions 
[we had questioned Anonymous about what s/he thought was Hill’s job in Praia da Luz], let us answer yours which was "why did John hill say there was no sign of a break in if the OC wanted to participate in the cover up ?"

Well, we don't know what you are talking about.

On the SIC report at 20:00 of May 4th, John Hill can be seen and heard saying the following 01:08 – 01:22 of the vídeo):

“Nothing is missing in the apartment, one of the windows at the back here into the children
s room was left ajar with a blind had been risen up where previously the window was closed and the blind was down.”

Isn't that describing a break-in?

Are you saying he later changes his mind about this? Why would he? He was one of the first on the scene, he certainly saw the window with the "blinds risen up"...”

A forced window is something one does not get confused about.

Oddly, or maybe not, this Anonymous never came back to us to give his/her opinion about this contradiction from John Hill.

11. Conclusion

Complicated and contradictory accounts of who was where that evening/night. Whoever is to arrange the reconstitution will have quite a headache. If it happens, of course. It should if finding the truth was the objective.

A reconstruction should be open to ALL lines of inquiry and leave no one out of suspicion. This includes ALL witnesses.

A witness can be a witness because s/he witnessed something but could also “be” because it is in his/her interest or that of somebody else to have “witnessed” something which they didn’t.

Discrepancies between witnesses should be clarified. If they can’t be then a reason must be found as to why this is so. If there’s no reason found then we are encountering lies and the reasons for the lies have to be found and the liars made accountable.

As we’ve already stated, we don’t believe the tapas sheets are genuine, and were prepared from a list written on the Slide and Splash sheet as we showed in our post “Tapas Quiz Night, Question #4/?” post.

A reconstruction with all of these witnesses would be a very interesting proposition and the key to demonstrating that the accounts of so many movements within that timeline were incredible, impossible and therefore, lies.

If we have forgotten someone, we welcome being reminded.

Is a reconstruction with all these people likely to happen? Hardly. What co-operation could Portugal expect in reality, and where are some of these people to be found now?  Beyond the easy reach of Portugal and unwilling to come forward voluntarily.

Shame on any of you who took part in this perversion of the course of justice if you continue to remain silent. Live the rest of your lives knowing this could blow up under your feet when you least expect it.

We are now breaking for our Summer Holiday. Please make the effort to enjoy yours as we will make the effort to enjoy ours.

Post Scriptum: 

The fact that we have never been inside Tapas has just been proved by Doug D, in his comments to the current post: we guessed wrong where the toilets are/were in the Tapas facilities.

Doug’s D input makes a passage that we wrote in the current post to be incorrect. And what is incorrect must be corrected.

We thought the toilets would be inside the Tapas building and we continue to think there must be some inside it as it’s the responsibility of the food establishment to provide this sort of conditions to their clients and not depend on hygiene facilities with different purpose and under the responsibility of others, as would be the case of the pool toilets.

But we do agree that Wilkins could have used the pool toilets. Outside the Tapas building.

From Doug D’s words we assumed wrongly that he was saying the toilets were in the reception building. He has corrected us and has told us that this is where the toilets are:

This means that Wilkins could have gone to the toilet and left without seeing who was in the esplanade.

It contradicts what we wrote:

First thing would be for Jeremy Wilkins to explain what route he used when he goes to the toilet. He says I headed to the WC through the pool area and that I could not see inside the restaurant”.

When one enters the Tapas facilities there’s no such thing as going through the pool area without having to pass through the Tapas esplanade. Not next to it but through it.

When one enters the Tapas  area to use the toilet one HAS to see inside the restaurant because one has to pass inside the restaurant!

Anyone who used that area would know that. Anyone who passed through the esplanade with a stroller would know that. Why doesn’t Jeremy Wilkins know that?
We assume the error. We have deleted the above from the main post, as what it says is incorrect.

We maintain all other inconsistencies we pointed about Wilkins.

As we have said and continue saying, it’s with pleasure that we correct our path. Whenever we correct ourselves means that only that we now know a little more than we did before and, most important, we’re not stuck in our opinions just because they are our opinions.

Thank you, Doug D.


  1. ‘First thing would be for Jeremy Wilkins to explain what route he used when he goes to the toilet. He says “I headed to the WC through the pool area” and that “I could not see inside the restaurant”.

    When one enters the Tapas facilities there’s no such thing as going “through the pool area” without having to pass through the Tapas esplanade. Not next to it but through it.

    When one enters the Tapas area to use the toilet one HAS to see inside the restaurant because one has to pass inside the restaurant!’

    Was he actually in the bar (first statement) ‘that yesterday, between 20h30 and 21 hours, while he was in "THE TAPAS" bar’ or not?

    ‘I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant.’ (Second statement)

    Are there any toilets actually inside the Tapas Restaurant or did diners have to go outside to use the poolside toilets? There does appear to be an entrance at both ends, Ladies from the Tapas area?, Men out by the pool?

    On the ‘streetview’ photos, the ‘poolside’ toilets can be seen just over the wall, (a sign used to be visible), just to the left of reception. I have always assumed these to be the Wilkins toilets.

    If this is the case, he wouldn’t have had to go in the bar, although from the first statement it does look as if he had popped in ‘for a crafty one’, so was the baby already asleep? Press reports at the time suggested he went to the toilet through the OC reception, which would tie in with not having to go into the Tapas area.

    Again from the second statement, ‘As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out of the top road. I met him near some stairs and a ground floor flat.’

    The ‘top road’ has to be Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva and if he went there directly from the bar he would have had to have turned right, away from his block (Block 4) and then right again to meet up with GM, which ties in with 'I came out of the top road' whereas he was allegedly coming up the hill from the Batista Supermarket direction when he bumped into him. If he had gone back out through Reception, why would he have crossed over the road to just cross back again?

    Jane Tanner in ‘Madeleine was here Part 4/5, said JW was pointing down the hill with his buggy.

    What does the second map with ‘an ‘X’ where I saw JERRY on THURSDAY. I exhibit this as JW/2.’ mean? This is up towards the Millenium.

    As you say, roll on a reconstruction, but unfortunately it's not likely to happen.

    Doug D


    Gillian McDade ‏@Gillianmc 19 minutes

    Follow @LoveTextusa for some powerful insights and revelations - too good not to read! #McCann

    Gillian McDade

    Broadcast Journalist/Producer @goqradio (covering Mid-Ulster) Novelist, vegetarian. Also report for Methodist N'letter. Views own

    1. Doug D,

      Thank you for your comment, and for the information contained in it.

      We, as we team Textusa, don't know where the toilets are (or were). We will trust your word and assume that it is part of the small building by which one enters the facilities.

      It does make sense for there to be toilets for those using the pool.

      If that was the case, we would say that Wilkins still had to go through the esplanade.

      The photo where Gerry appears, shows a passage with a difference of level to the ground around the pool. Basically it means pool is accessed by the esplanade and the toilets are meant to be used by those already around the pool and not for those just entering the area.

      A man entering with a stroller would go around, first through the esplanade and then to toilets.

      But the fact you say toilets were in that building, then that means that the building is made up of the reception area, and toilets (confirming small ones, which would mean used by a single person at a time and not 2 men and a stroller as Wilkins implies) and eventually a small space for pool maintenance equipment.

      This to say that if the toilets are in that building, then Amy Tierney's office is not there.

      If Amy Tierney's office is not there, and if the visible parts of the other building is the Tapas bar, then how did Russel O'Brien know that someone was working in Amy's office?

      Apparently he did go there to ask for help.

      This probably happened outside the time interval proposed for the reconstruction but it would be interesting to have Russ point out how did he see that.

    2. Textusa, you replied to Doug D about AT’s office not being where she said if the toilets were there but I don’t know how you worked that out. I’m having a blonde day so please can you explain in simple terms lol!!!


      Not part of the reception, but the block on the left before the Tapas. Short walled passage with open door. If you view it from above there is a similar entrance at the other end.

      Doug D

    4. Doug D,

      We stand corrected!

      Will write up a Post Scriptum with this info and correct post accordingly. Thank you!

    5. Have now updated post with a Post Scriptum.

      Once again, thank you Doug D!

    6. Anonymous 3 Jun 2016, 15:18:00,

      Our comment was made under the wrong assumption that the pool toilets would be in the reception building. We have since been corrected by Doug D on that.

      We didn't say she said her office was in the reception building of the Tapas area. As far as we know, she just said it was by the Tapas restaurant, which means it could be anywhere in that facility – as long it was physically possible.

      The fact that the office is even in the Tapas area is debatable. She’s responsible for childcare that operate above the 24H reception, so it would make sense her office to be there and nota t a significant distance from those who she’s responsible for.

      But that is a different issue and for now we’ll assume that she’s telling the truth by saying her office is in the Tapas area.

      According to Amy, Russ walks in her office. To have done that he had to have seen some sort of light on.

      The buildings visible from the outside are the Tapas bar/restaurant and the reception.

      It can be said that her office was in the reception building, where Russ would have seen a light on and headed there.

      We don’t think the office is in that building and if it isn’t then her office would not be visible from the outside.

      That would question of how would Russ know someone was in that office? And by coincidence someone who conveniently decided to “abandon” the searches – searches also very debatable – to be found in her office working…

      The reconstitution with Russ, Amy and whoever Russ says was with him would clarify what prompted him to go to that office at that particular time.

      He could also explain why he took the SD card from the camera instead of taking the camera with him. Amy didn’t seem to have any problems in walking around Luz with a printer, so we don’t see what would be his problem with walking with a camera. They are extremely portable objects, unlike printers.

  3. A well deserved comment on Twitter which I thought you may like to see. Another season of brilliant writings & insight from you. Enjoy your break, looking forward to your return though!

  4. Hi Textusa,
    Im anonymous who said;

    “Anonymous 4 Mar 2016, 14:20:00

    Just one point, why did John hill say there was no sign of a break in if the OC wanted to participate in the cover up ?”

    I have not seen the SIC report where Mr Hill says ,

    “Nothing is missing in the apartment, one of the windows at the back here into the children’s room was left ajar with a blind had been risen up where previously the window was closed and the blind was down.”

    Im afraid I have no opinion about the contradiction, as with this whole story there appears to be so many!!!

    My initial post was purely to bring this supposed statement by Mr Hill to your attention in case you had missed it.

    The only reason I never got back to you was because I am happy to go along with your judgement on this and it could quite easily turn un to a he said she said argument. Because I had seen the statement on the PJ/Mccann files (link provided previously) i took it as read, as Blacksmith also appears to.

    Im not sure if you are agreeing with me as well when you wrote???

    In fact, it seems that he did say that. John Blacksmith says this in a post in the Cracked Mirror blog:

    Im a big fan of your blog ladies (im here 1st thing every friday morning), utmost respect to you for all your hard work and I look forward to next weeks post.


  5. ''To witness nothing may contradict the evidence of a person who claims to have seen something.''

    I'm sure the whole picture of that night needs to be built up, from anything positive to passive\negative and I would push the time from 5.30 to midnight!!

    Crèche dad - yes what about him? Did the LP pass this piece of information on to the PJ & into the process?

    In any event, JTs rogatory interview is very specific in that, it was not a parent to\from the crèche - wrong time wrong direction. So the important Q has to be did crèche-dad see JT? or is JT still in the cloak of invisibility, that she had on when she passed JW and G McC outside 5A?

    JW: well what can you say. Here's a man walking around in ever decreasing circles for the best part of 30-45 minutes, doesn't know where he is, where he's been, or who he has seen. But what an essential witness from to whatever time to have hear & seen nothing in the vicinity!!

    Bring on the 3 burglars - if they exist - where were they? what did they hear or see? How essential are they to the timeline?

    One can imagine there needs to be some sort of map, plotted and timed over a given period, radiating out from 5A. But still would extend that to cover until midnight.

    Whilst people are writing timelines and getting photos printed, just how many children do they think could be lost & screaming their hands off in PDL in the hours of darkness. The most essential aspect of the search was the hands on for those first few hours. Photographs and timelines - people busying themselves with the 'paperwork' typical employees of the NHS.

  6. Magnificent Textusa.
    A post that begs so many questions, so many answers needed.
    Enjoyed refreshing my memory of your linked past blogs.
    What a sick, sick hoax this is !
    Fridays will not be the same without you.
    Enjoy your summer break.
    You've left on a high, return on a high !

  7. Think you forgot to include Maria Manuela Martins da Silva
    She says she's exits Block 6 at 21H58 and says she notices no movement near 5A.

    1. Anonymous 3 Jun 2016, 23:46:00,

      Thank you!

      Having read the statement you have to be corrected. She doesn't say she leaves at 21.58 BUT that she's aware of the time because she asks her sister what time it was, and the sister replied that it was 21.58 after checking the clock on the phone in the living-room.

      This is the critical time, every minute counts. At 21.58 she's still inside the apartment.

      Leaving, not leaving, saying good-bye, getting inside car outside, etc... means that when she leaves and looks at 5A it's 22.05 - 22.15, when supposedly all hell was supposed to be breaking lose!

      Will certainly add her to the post tomorrow!!

    2. Having read the translation of MARIA MANUELA MARTINS DA SILVA’S statement we found that it could be improved. This is our translation. We tried to be as literal as possible, avoiding subjective judgments of what was said in the translation, as legalese is not exactly the easiest language to understand:

      “Date: May 8 2007, 14:00
      Place: Ocean Club – Praia da Luz

      That she resides in the Praia da Luz area since 90191 [we suppose it’s meant to be 90/91] – That she’s a frequent visitor to Maria Helena Horta, her partner’s sister, who lives in Block & - Apartment (censored) in the resort with the name OCEAN CLUB in Praia da Luz in Lagos.

      The Block in question is next to the one occupied by the McCann family, being that the apartment where the deponent is a frequent visitor, is a ground floor, being that from the kitchen window it has visibility to the back of the apartment used by the family of MADELEINE McCANN.

      On the past 03/05/2007, the deponent, as usual, visited the referred Maria Helena Horta, as even as a rule spends the afternoon with her – At night, generally around 22H00, goes, with partner JOÃO PEDRO SUPARDO COELHO DE JESUS HORTA, to the residence of both, above mentioned.

      She declares that she abandons the apartment around 22H00 because it’s an already set-in habit as the deponent generally around 22H30, receives and makes phone contacts to and from family, namely her brother and uncle, these contacts done to and from the number above mentioned.

      The deponent and partner possess 2 motor vehicles one OPEL brand passenger transporting jeep, FRONTERA model, of green colour and licence plate 04-16-GH, and another RENAULT passenger transporting, LAGUNA model, of grey colour and licence plate 91-58-FX.

      Both vehicles are registered in the name of the deponent’s partner.

      Furthermore declares that on the night of 03/05/2007, left the apartment at 21H58, being that she remembers the exact time for having memorised that she asked MARIA HELENA the time and she answered after looking at the display of the fixed phone that exists in the living-room.

      [They] Left the building and the deponent and her partner, headed for the OPEL FRONTERA before mentioned that was parked in front of the apartment, in Block 6’s private parking where the apartment of the already mentioned MARIA HORTA is located.

      Declares that there blew a light breeze but the night was pleasant, however adds that the night was dark – At the exit of the Block 6 parking, they turned right and then left, passing in front of the Apartment Block used by MADELEINE McCANN’s family.

      Refers that she didn’t see any movement of people, being that in the whereabouts of the Blocks she didn’t see any vehicle besides a car of small dimensions, that seemed to be of grey colour to her, parked beneath the weeping willow [in Portuguese: chorão] near the window of the McCANN apartment.

      Further declares that she commented with her partner that it could be noted not being summer yet given the movement she noted in the streets, thus reiterating that effectively the movement of people at that date and hour was nil.

      Refers that when she left the apartment she noticed that she saw light in the floor above the one occupied by the McCanns, the same happening in the front of the building, however cannot define, in concrete, where she saw light when passing by the front of the McCANN building.

      She didn’t detect any movement of people or vehicles by the weeping willow (tree), having seen nothing of abnormal in the area now likely to raise any suspicion to the now deponent having continued directly to her residence.

      She only took knowledge of the occurred to little MADELEINE on the following day after receiving a call from MARIA HORTA who alerted the deponent to the occurred.

      And said nothing more.”

      We will add her name to the post accordingly as soon as we are able to.

    3. We have added the following to #3. People who have no statements in files:

      "Maria Helena Horta, can confirm that Maria Manuela Silva, a frequent visitor to her apartment located in Block 6, left on the night of May 3 at the precise time the alarm was given.

      Maria Helena tells Maria Manuela the time was 21H58 when the latter was about to leave but when both are still inside the apartment.

      Maria Manuela, who has statement in the files has this to say: “that she commented with her partner that it could be noted not being summer yet given the movement she noted in the streets, thus reiterating that effectively the movement of people at that date and hour was nil”.

      This was the route that Maria Manuela and her partner took after leaving Maria Helena’s apartment:"

    4. Textusa if you take the waiter who sees the 3 couples and only the 3 couples at 9.10 in the tapas that makes sense and supports your theory that they only dined that night so the abduction theory could be forwarded. Who really on holiday wants to sit round a holiday complex pool to eat their evening meal. Even in the warmest of temperatures it's not a welcoming atmosphere. Then the next independent witness the excutive chef hears a clamour at 21.20 and an empty table at 21.40. At around 10 another independent witness passes by 5A and does not see anything out of the ordinary. The next time we hear of anybody outside the tapas crew claiming to be made aware of the abduction was 22.15 at the earliest. That means that the tapas crew left the table before 21.40 and stayed in the apartment until at least 22.15 before there was any movement to look for the child. AMAZING BLOG

    5. Apologise for another addition to this paragraph but we think it's important to add - which we just did - the following to this paragraph:

      "Maybe Maria Helena accompanied the couple visiting her outside to their car and can confirm or not that the movement was indeed nil. If, like the Moyes and Maria Manuela, she also saw and heard nothing.

      Being the neighbour right across the street, it would be very interesting to know when and how she took knowledge that Maddie had disappeared.

      And we would also like to know if she took part of the alleged search that mobilised, supposedly, the entire Praia da Luz (with the exception of Jeremy Wilkins) . If not, why not."

  8. From Twitter
    Excellent read - could do with a whole blog entry on SOUND. Or in this case the silence\absence of sound. #McCann

  9. So Textusa is there nobody at all in the whole reconstruction (outside the Tapas 9) who claims to have seen Kate McCann return to the table and say the child had been taken.

  10. Great blog Tex .......seeing it set out like this shows the whole ridiculousness of the whole thing

  11. Unpublished Anonymous at 4 Jun 2016, 20:55:00,

    Thank you for your comment but we don't want to endorse your suggestion by publishing your comment.

    Experience tells us that everyone looks inside a pram. We all look in prams and if the child is asleep we are very quiet but we do still look.

  12. From Tweeter Basspieler ‏@Basspieler63
    The most detailed unbiased analysis of the available information a must read thanks to @LoveTextusa

  13. Great post, Textusa ... I do hope that you have forwarded copies to the PJ and to the Operation Grange crew, who seem sadly in need of guidance.

    No sign of break in.
    Timings are very early.
    Contacted by tapas staff member!
    Very early.
    As statement was taken early on, it's more reliable than those days later.
    Another in a chain of people showing earlier timings.

    1. Anonymous 8 Jun 2016, 17:25:00,

      You have just made us make another addition to post!

      Apologies to readers for not having spotted this before.

      What wonderful readers we have!

    2. We inform readers that we have updated section #10. Ocean Club and Mark Warner managerial staff, now adding Helder Luís and Vítor Santos.

      Our thanks to Anonymous 8 Jun 2016, 17:25:00!

  15. We inform readers that we have put the following comment in our "National Habits" post (Mar 12 2011):


    The truth will out, with help from citizens"

  16. What a pity Mrs Fenn is no longer here to take part in the reconstitution.
    She could have also have been asked if she was one of the women who phoned Murat regarding the alleged crying incident, as reported by PJ officer Paulo da Costa.

    1. We recommend the reading of our post "The Narrative of Negligence"


    Maybe the Team Mc Cann will use this to their advantage - it appears they are doing so already

  18. We woke up this morning with Clemence Freud being the hot topic today in the Maddieworld:

    And the link provided from the Daily Mail by Anonymous 15 Jun 2016, 08:38:00.

  19. Our first reaction to this Sir Clement Freud thing is to note that like it happened with Sharon Osbourne, someone, we would place our chips on the same “friend”, is really going out of his or her way to remind us how connected the McCanns were to him.

    Only this time, the effort is notably bigger. As if this story had been stored away waiting to see the light of day and that day was now.

    As far as we know, Sir Clement Freud has never been accused of anything but judging by his widow’s reaction we would say that there would be no risk of libel when affirming that the man was a paedo.

    We, at this point in time would like to add to the party. We are being reminded by the press of the connection between Sir Clement Freud and the McCanns, but let’s remember how fondly of the man, who she was on first name basis apparently, she speaks of in her book.

    We found 4 references.

    Ref #1:

    “Thankfully, though, there were some nice surprises, too, arising in particular from the kindness and friendship of some wonderful people now entering our lives.

    At the beginning of July we received the following letter:

    Dear McCanns,

    I have a house in P da L, been ashamed of the intrusion to your lives by our media . . . and if you would care to come to lunch/dinner at any time before Wednesday next, do ring and let me know.

    I cook decent meals.


    Clement Freud

    I’m embarrassed to admit that Gerry and I thought this letter was a hoax; more embarrassing still, while we were vaguely aware of Sir Clement, we had to have our memories refreshed by Sandy and Justine before we could place him exactly. Mind you, he wore so many hats – humorist, MP, gourmet, gambler, press columnist, advertiser of dog food, radio and TV personality – that he was hard to pin down.

    Gerry responded with a phone call and Sir Clement invited the seven of us there at that time – Gerry and myself with Sean and Amelie, plus Trisha, Sandy and Justine – to lunch the following day. He would be heading back to the UK a few hours later. Sir Clement was eighty-three by then, but his intellect was still razor-sharp (he was appearing on the demanding Radio 4 panel game Just a Minute right up to his death in 2009). I’m usually very intimidated by people with brains the size of planets, but Clement was incredibly warm, funny and instantly likeable. His opening words were ‘Can I interest you in a strawberry vodka?’ It was midday.

    I hesitated for a split second, rapidly trying to work out if he was joking. His expression, as always, was deadpan. Not wanting to appear unsociable, I responded, ‘Er, OK then. That would be nice.’ Of course, Clement’s remark about cooking decent meals was tongue-in-cheek: among his other accomplishments, he had trained as a chef and was for many years a food writer and restaurant critic. I can confirm that the lunch he prepared for us that day was bloody marvellous: watercress and egg salad followed by a chicken and mushroom risotto – the best risotto we’ve ever tasted before or since. Clement cheered us up with his lugubrious wit, and would continue to do so by email after his return to England.”


  20. (cont)

    Ref #2:

    “Clement Freud returned to Praia da Luz on 31 August and called Gerry that day. ‘Is it true, Gerry?’ he said, without preamble.

    ‘What’s that, Clement?’

    ‘That you’re close to a breakdown and needing medication?’

    Very funny.

    ‘I have a lot of empathy with the Express though, you know,’ he went on.

    For a split second Gerry thought he was serious. ‘Why’s that?’

    ‘Well, you see, we both suffer from poor circulation.’

    Thank God for people like Clement who kept us smiling.”

    Ref #3:

    “Ricardo left, looking every inch the sheepish messenger boy he was. We were left with our minds whirling. My immediate worry was Amelie and Sean. If this farce continued in the same vein, and we ended up being formally accused of doing something to Madeleine, people were going to start calling for the twins to be taken away from us. I could feel the panic building up inside me. Between sobs I blurted out my fears to Trisha and Eileen.

    It’s hard to describe their response, but if you picture two lionesses whose young are under threat for their lives it will give you the general idea. Remembering it now actually brings a little smile to my face. Hell hath no fury like two women from Glasgow.
    ‘That won’t happen! We won’t allow it to happen! Nobody will get near them. They wouldn’t stand a chance. Don’t even think like that, Kate!’ they growled, their eyes flashing with conviction. But I was still worried.

    Our plans for the evening went out of the window. We cancelled an interview we were scheduled to give Paris Match and dinner with Clement Freud.”

    Ref #4:

    “At 9.50pm, I rang Clement. ‘Come on round,’ he said. ‘It’ll be nice to see you. But you’ll have to forgive my night-time attire.’

    We found Clement watching a cookery programme, dressed, as promised, in his nightshirt. It was so ordinary and comforting, a bit like going to see your grandad after a horrible day at school. He gave me one of his looks and a giant glass of brandy, and managed to get a smile out of me with his greeting: ‘So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?’

    His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible. When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconically, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous.

    A couple of hours later, fortified by our brandies (it was my first-ever taste of the stuff), some useful snippets of advice and several amusing anecdotes, we left our friend feeling quite a bit better than we had when we’d arrived. The shock of that day, and of what we were now facing, on top of the trauma of Madeleine’s absence, never left us for a second, but it was interludes like this that gave us just enough strength to carry on.”

  21. We would like to remind readers that we were told of Freud's disgusting behaviour towards a young woman in our post
    Proof Ocean Club reads Textusa.

    "Anonymous 10 Mar 2014, 18:01:00

    Would Clement Freud have disapproved of swinging?
    Consider this crude and demeaning remark made by Freud, host to the McCanns in Praia da Luz.

    Mail 4.3.14
    Chamber of Horrors. By Jerry Hayes MP.
    He relates a story when he and Freud were guests on a TV programme and Freud asked the young woman researcher if she' d like to go to bed with him.
    " I f....d your mother and your father. I was hoping for the full set."

    What a charming man. The woman was hardly in a position to say, I'd rather gouge my eyeballs out. What a vile bully."

  22. To finalise our first reaction to the Freud v Maddie, we would like to put 2 questions to our readers:

    If Maddie's death was caused by a powerful paedo ring of which Freud was part of - meaning the McCanns would be aware of it to the point of offering them their daughter - would Kate ever bring, or ever be allowed to bring, Freud into her book?

  23. Laffin @ Mirror – ‏@veniviedivici
    spokesman for #McCann's said they had not been aware of Clement Freud’s child abuse + were not aware if he'd been investigated by Op Grange.
    1:26 AM - 15 Jun 2016

    A choice word for a headline.
    Not once in K's book was the encounter with Freud a respectful discussion or regret about M's fate - just jollity and what they ate and drank.
    3 disgusting people together - regardless of paedophilia allegations.

    1. Anonymous 15 Jun 2016, 13:49:00,

      Yes, the repetition of the word nymphomaniac both in title and in bullets below is to be noted:

      "Revealed: 'Child abuser' Clement Freud befriended the McCanns at his holiday home in Praia da Luz after Madeleine vanished and even teased Kate about being a 'nymphomaniac'

      Former MP had a villa in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine vanished in 2007
      Two women have come forward to say Sir Clement molested them
      He had befriended the McCanns after little girl's disappearance
      Kate McCann revealed in her book that he had bizarrely teased her about whether she was a 'nymphomaniac'
      No sign his name appeared in investigation and son Matthew says he was in the UK on the night Madeleine disappeared"

      Back in September 2007 Freud jests about 4 Kate's "qualities"

      - devout Catholic - she made sure we all knew that then. Check mark on this one;

      - alcoholic - wasn't (and is still by the majority of the general population) the Tapas dinners all about this group getting drunk? Check mark on this one;

      - depressed - her child had been abducted and as if that wasn't enough, the PJ were trying to pin it all in them. Check mark on this one;

      - nymphomaniac.

      From where did nymphomaniac come from in September 2007? No one, absolutely no one was accusing the McCanns about anything sexual. Barra da Costa ventured something about swinging being involved in May and was quickly silenced.

      The Portuguese have the saying "with the truth you fool me".

  25. Complementing what we said above, let’s briefly go through all the “Freud –hypothesis”.

    #1 Freud paedo circle with McCann knowledge and acceptance.

    We have already gone through this one. Either powerful enough to make sure they be left in the dark or not powerful at all.

    #2 Freud paedo circle without McCann knowledge and acceptance

    That would mean we have been bashing unjustly the McCanns for years. All they have to do is to explain to us all why all the lies?

    #3 Freud the Patsy.

    First, the family would have to agree to that. One thing is to be a pre-teen rapist, which is already beyond words, another is to be an infant one.

    But, let’s suppose for a minute that the family won’t mind having the man forever known as the Maddie murderer and rapist. The son saying he wasn’t in Luz that night seems to show that they don’t want to add Maddie to his already despicable record. But let’s suppose they do.

    He was 83 years old then. Will they say he jumped that window holding Maddie? More likely to see a unicorn in the flesh than for that to be possible.

    So, right at the start, for Freud to be the patsy we have to have people help him. The 3 burglars maybe?

    All needs to be found is to have someone who will accept the role of kidnapping a 4 yr old so an 83 yr old pervert could rape her. Someone who killed her in the apartment and then took the body because they wanted or had to show why Freud could not have a little girl that night.

    Know anyone who will accept to be that person?

    Then Op Grange will have to link Freud to Maddie. £12 million say that it can’t be said “It was Freud” and leave it at that. What or who made that connection for SY? Needs clarification.

    Of course, as we said in our Third Option post, they will also have to account for the cadaver scent in the Scenic. Where does that fit in with Freud?

    And why on earth did Ocean Club tamper with the guest booking sheets if it was Freud?

    Why, because of Freud would the nannies be so economical with the truth? Just to single them out as many others were as well.

    So, IF Operation Grange has decided for a patsy and IF Freud is to be that patsy, we say do try it. We will be sipping margaritas while we watch you wiggle around each obstacle truth puts before you.

    In fact Operation Grange, IF you’re not going for the truth, please try anything (to go for the truth is not to try but to simply be doing your job). We just want to see you sitting at that poker table playing your hand.

    To sum up, this Freud thing is not a distraction. The revelation of the friendship, or supposed friendship was made by Kate in 2011 in her book.

    This is just another move to pile on the let’s make the McCann really hated campaign.

    Yesterday the general public hated the McCanns, today they hate them a whole lot more.

    Why was Freud chosen to be outed? In our opinion that was an intentional internal move on the other side of the fence which we will refrain from writing it here, at least for now.

    1. M died in that apartment.
      Clement Freud did not access 5a and take M.
      If 3 burglars were involved, they failed in their task to provide him with a live child.
      So he invites the parents to a meal, wearing only a nightshirt.
      Makes no sense whatsoever.

      But Freud wanting to mock the police, given his background, makes sense.
      And another reason for him to join those who wanted any inquiries to be ended because of secrets that might be uncovered?
      Swingers one group
      Paedophiles another

  26. It has been called privately to our attention that we are being insensitive to the victims of Sir Freud (must respect his knighthood until it is, if it is, stripped away from him).

    The argument behind this complaint is that the order of events, if we can say it that way, is the victims coming forward and the press picking up on who the aggressor is and the press, and not the victims, linked him to the McCanns.

    The way we have expressed ourselves would make readers think we are implying that the victims came forward just to implicate the McCanns, and that would be disrespecting their sufferance.

    Worse, we would be implicating them in participating out of free will and knowledge in manoeuvres the other side is making.

    We couldn't agree more, if that was the way we have read these events.

    In no way we are implicating the victims in any sort of scam. Their pain deserves the utmost respect and sympathy.

    We agree that it is the press that is implicating the McCanns with Sir Freud.

    What we are saying, and we want to make that very clear, is that much like when the Express decided to "allow" Katie Hopkins to write her article about the McCanns, now the press has decided to listen to these victims.

    They have always been there and have, we are certain, wanted to voice what they wanted to say about this man. We are merely noting that only now is their voice being listened to.

    Irrelevant of the way their words is being treated by the press (giving much more importance to the connection between Sir Freud and the McCanns instead of their pain), it needs to be pointed out that they have had an opportunity to expose Sir Freud and have seized it. The world now knows what they suffered at his hands.

    To the victims, these and all others known and all those yet to come forward, our most heartfelt respect!

  27. Textusa I agree with you that the link with freud. To the mccanns was not peadophillia. Any reporting I have seen has been clearly to link freud to the mccann a d remind people that freud mentioned nymphomaniac in relation to kate mccann. If your theory is correct and I think you are I believe the press are playing games with the mccanns. But I also wonder if there is a link between freud and the swinging that was going on in PDL, perhaps was the ocean club a regular venue for it and freud was a liaison person between them and the vips








  35. Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manhã, June 16 2016
    Judiciary police monitored the movements of British, German and Dutch sexual predators in the Algarve.
    by Rui Pando Gomes
    The Judiciary Police (PJ) monitored the movements of about a dozen foreign paedophiles in the Algarve, after Madeleine McCann disappearance in 2007, but never investigated the former Member of the Parliament Clement Freud, accused of paedophilia in the UK and who used to vacation in Praia da Luz, in Lagos.
    The English police, during the investigation to the Maddie case, sent the Portuguese authorities a list of British subjects referenced for paedophile acts, who also had connections to the Algarve. This list was also part of the process (investigation process) to the disappearance of the English child, but, CM was able to establish the English authorities demanded the list to be confidential. In addition to the British paedophiles, police investigators have also monitored, in the recent years, the movements of German and Dutch nationals.
    The former MP and broadcaster Clement Freud, who died in 2009, at 84 years old, was born in Germany but had British nationality. This week, two women denounced through the British media, that they had been abused by the politician when they were minors.
    Freud had a holiday home in Praia da Luz, about 600 meters away from the apartment where Maddie disappeared, at the Ocean Club. The son, Matthew Freud, guaranteed that the father was in the UK on the night of the disappearance, May 3, 2007. Still, in July of that year, the mediatic politician invited the parents of the English child for a dinner at his home and the couple accepted.
    A neighbour confided to CM that Freud's house was "very busy" during the holidays and that the family did not interact with the rest of the neighbourhood. About the presence of the McCanns in the proximities of the paedophile's house, the same source confirmed that Kate and Gerry were seen "several times at that place".


    Says here he had an "open marriage"
    So he would approve of swinging?

  38. A message to the other side: well done, what a brilliant move!

    One must compliment what needs complimenting.

    You are certainly over-egging the Freud pudding so, as we have never underestimated you, it had to be for a reason.

    For now, we think it best to keep it for ourselves as your message seems to be reaching effectively and efficiently those intended to reach but we would like you to know that we think that the Clement Freud card you have just pulled out of your hat may be the single most important move you’ve made this far.

    No question that the Maddie case is now to be divided into before Clement Freud and after Clement Freud.

    Hopefully it will be the decisive turning point. The break the case needed.

    We who support the swinging theory are now smiling on this side of the aisle.

    If only the brilliant mind who came up with this had been present that evening in May 3 2007. We wouldn’t be here now, would we?

  39. Gerry contacted Philip Wright, co-owner of Casa da Colina with Freud on July 3, well before the dogs arrived.
    Freud's invitation by letter wasn't just "out of the blue" as K states. Why did G contact PW and where did he get his phone number from?

    1. Anonymous 17 Jun 2016, 13:51:00,

      :)) Thank you!

      And isn't it strange how 2 people in a small little village like Praia da Luz, communicate with each other via written mail?

      We're certain a walk to Rua das Flores would be shorter than the walk to the local post office. And save on the stamps.

    2. Who says Philip Wright co owned house with Freud? Makes no sense and how does anon 13:51 know GM contacted this Philip person ?

    3. This newspaper article explains who owned house. A recent article. Freud sold to Philips brother according to it.
      Phillips name appears on the Internet with his Ely phone number to contact to rent Casa Da Colina:
      It's an Ely phone number which is here:
      351 282789xxx
      Philip Wright Portimao
      Phoned by G July 3 and 4
      And in Sept
      Article says his brother owned it, so I think co-owned was by brothers, who bought it off Freud according to the article.
      Freud was MP for Ely.

  40. Come on Nicola, sort this out! As your husband was in Special Branch in. 2007, he may be able to help you.

  41. As can be found on the page of the link (posting from Anonymous 15 June 2016 08:38:00) Clement Freud was father-in-law of Murdoch's son. At what time was that?


    SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Why did PR man Freud give McCann adviser a job?


  44. ...Raymond Hewlett, Euclides Monteiro, Clement Freud...

    ..."put the blame on Mame, boy, put the blame on Mame"...

  45. I'm trying to understand this. To put the spotlight on Freud like this, with links to Mc Canns also being highlighted. Is this trying to:
    arrive at a conclusion of "Mc CANNS + some truth" but keeping spotlight firmly on a dead celebrity thus keeping the 'other 'live' VIPS firmly in the shade?


  47. We have posted the following comment around noon on FB:

    We have complimented the “Freud move” as brilliant. Please be aware that we have complimented the vector and objectives of the move. Nothing else.

    In fact we have already strongly criticised the way the press has handled the plight of the first 2 victims who came forward. Remember them?

    And this was still in the beginning and we said the pudding was already over-egged. Now it is becoming a serious health hazard to the liver.

    One must always be aware to who one gives a task to. If one ask a man with only one arm man to juggle five eggs, one cannot expect him to return any of them.

    If one asks a man without arms to do that, one is just looking for trouble.

    It’s not his fault, he’s not able to fulfil the task. The fault lies in the one who handed the task out.

    Let’s look briefly at the Lazzeri article of June 18 in the Sun.…/clement-freud-drank-with-madele…/

    Método 3? Check

    An alleged crime from 2005? Check

    An alleged suspect she claims was not found again ? False

    Antonella is recycling a Daily Mail article from 2007:…/Madeleine-Private-detectives-h…

    We’re back to the future! Story based on a Método 3 blitz of a crime that happened in 2005 and a man that fled the country to Spain in 2005 and was she says he was never seen again.

    Antonella must do better homework.

    “'Death threats forced me to flee Portugal'
    Sunday Express
    From Matt Drake IN LISBON and David Jarvis IN LOS ANGELES
    10 February 2008
    A BRITISH expat wanted for questioning about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has broken his silence about why he left the holiday resort where she vanished.
    Christian Ridout, 32, claims he was hounded out of Praia da Luz after receiving death threats from locals and other expats amid accusations he groomed an under-age girl for sex.
    Last night it was revealed that Ridout, who has been working as a paparazzi photographer under the name Dexter Troy, has been trailing stars such as David Beckham and Britney Spears on the streets of Los Angeles.”

    The over-egging is now descending into a farce. Just calling this to your attention.

    About time people started to ask why so many are making so much effort to really, really, connect the McCanns to Freud in a story that has absolutely no legs to walk.

  48. Pig's Head pub is not in PDL but just outside Burgau and a very unlikely place to find the snobbish Freud drinking in.

    1. Anonymous 19 Jun 2016, 17:58:00,

      The only person who can now deny being on nodding terms with Freud in The Pig's Head is Robert Murat.

      Will he? We know we would!

      Freud is not exactly the kind of person one would like to be seen to be connected with in any way as the McCanns are finding out!


  49. "As the landlord of The Pigs Head I can categorically state that this article is factually ridiculous. When asked if Clement Freud had been a regular in the pub I told them he had been here once at least 20 years ago.

    Further when asked about Robert Murat I told them he had also been in here once about 8years ago. How they then manage to connect the two of them is another piece of nonsense. As the next question asked was did I know Robert to which I said we were on nodding terms, which when you consider we have lived about 2 miles apart for 30 years is fairly normal.

    The fact that they then tack on a re hashed story from many years ago just makes the article confusing and misleading. The two bars and two stories are not connected in any way as I suspect nether were Freud and Murat. This type of irresponsible journalism can do no good what so ever for anyone.

    Heavan only knows what kind of feeding frenzy will be unleashed next year on the tenth anniversary. Yours in total honestly Robert Mark Hurst, proprietor of The Pigs Head pub mentioned in this article.",textandlink#comments

    1. The article should be retracted with an apology. Sun readers who thought Antonella was a journo should get money back under Trades Description Legislation
      Hillsborough meant nothing I suppose.
      Sun continues to spread lies


    Posted by portugalpress on June 20, 2016
    Burgau pub-landlord trashes British press for latest McCann “lunacy”

    Well-known Burgau pub landlord Robert (Rotten) Hurst has come out in print over the latest lunatic “revelations” in the British press linking his business with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and recently-outed alleged paedophile Clement Freud.

    According to the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Star, Freud was a regular at the Pig’s Head and he used to drink there with “former Madeleine McCann suspect” Robert Murat.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact Clement Freud only once stepped inside the Pig’s Head “over 20 years ago”, and Robert Murat similarly, “about eight years ago”.

    It is hard to see which article is the most “factually ridiculous”.

    The Sun’s goes furthest perhaps, describing the much-loved watering hole as a “pub for paedos”.

    “It’s absolute lunacy,” Hurst told the Resident. “It wasn’t even an interview. Two blokes came in and had a drink, and then asked me a few questions as they were leaving.”

    Reacting to the “exclusive” run by the Sun, Hurst wrote on the paper’s website: “As the landlord of the Pig’s Head, I can categorically state that this story is factually ridiculous. When asked if Clement Freud had been a regular in the pub, I told them he had been here once at least 20 years ago. Further, when asked about Robert Murat, I told them he had also been here once about eight years ago. How they managed to connect the two of them is another piece of nonsense… This kind of irresponsible journalism can do no good whatsoever for anyone. Heaven only knows what kind of feeding frenzy will be unleashed next year on the 10th anniversary.”

    Hurst did, however, have one memory of Clement Freud’s visit to his establishment.

    “He came in with a friend, who asked me whether we had any champagne,” he told the Resident.

    “I said that we didn’t. He asked me ‘why ever not’, in a superior kind of way. I said because it might attract the wrong kind of clientele.”

    Hurst claims “no one believes a word” of the latest stories, yet they even get a mention in national press today, under the headline: “Freud and Murat in the same bar.”

    Considering the differing time-lines, this could be construed as ‘true’ if hugely misleading.

    But the affirmations in all three British papers that both men were on “nodding terms” appear as bogus as the claims that Murat had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.

    Readers will remember that Murat won record damages from four British newspaper groups for slurs written against him.

    The Sun, Star and Mail are all properties of the groups that were also forced to make public apologies.

    Speaking outside the High Court in London eight years ago, Louis Charalambous, Murat’s lawyer, described the behaviour of tabloid journalists and editors involved in the slurs as “grossly irresponsible”, saying they had shown a “reckless disregard for the truth”.

  51. I wouldn't dismiss the importance of Freud noise. If Grange have no grounds to look at 'commmunications' something as left field as this could give them an opportunity to have a look at some things hitherto considered 'bad form' to request from the untouchable couple.

  52. I think I remember that the Mc Cann appeal should be confirmed as being accepted / rejected (due to technical error) sometime around now..? Around the end of June. So I assume that we should be hearing something soon regarding that appeal..just wondering

    1. Anonymous 29 Jun 2016, 10:06:00,

      You are absolutely right.

      As we said in our "The 'Friend' and the Appeal" post: "taking into account the appeal was submitted on May 25, we expect a decision on the second half of June"

      We are now in July and without news. We just have to wait.

    2. Thanks for confirming Textusa as I couldn't remember which post outlined the expected timescales.
      In the UK recently, as you know, we have had and still experience political turmoil.. with David Cameron announcing he will be stepping down. The likelihood (judging from recent reporting) is that Theresa May will become next leader of the Conservative Party and PM. Personally I admire her as a pretty straight female with her heads screwed on(as they say here). I seem to recall that it was she who merged CEOP / and SOCA resulting in JG's resignation. My feeling is that she may be a positive in terms of the truth emerging in the Mc Cann case. Of course, only time will tell... wondering if Textusa has any thoughts regarding the impact of DC resigning on the Mc Cann case...

    3. More importantly what is the impact with Teresa May in the running for PM surely even her credibility as a remain campaigner won't save her when her association with the mccanns becomes headline news

  53. t seems to me they studied some abductions, (from their bed Lindberg), Katrice Lee a British child stolen on her second birthday in Germany.
    And amazingly Peggy who"s bones are found in the woods after 15 years missing. and named "the German Madeleine".
    I do think Madeleine looks a lot like Peggy.
    A mushroompicker found some bones.
    Probaly dugged up by the animals it seems.
    (wolves or wild dogs)




    Just in case you have all forgot about the new PMs association with a certain Mr & Mrs MCCann

  57. It is now nearly August. Wondering why such a delay in hearing whether the appeal has been accepted / rejected. Is it due to summer holidays... will they publish the 'acceptance / rejection'? It seems an excessive amount of time simply to reject / accept an appeal especially as it can only be rejected on technical errors...


    Interesting company don't you think??

  59. Have we heard the last of textusa?sincerely hope not x


    No more forensic work.....didnt get the curtains then????


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.