Friday, 2 June 2017

BBC Panorama II

1. Introduction

When we last left our whistleblower reporter, or should we call him our spy-reporter, “the name is Bilton, Richard Bilton, I like to serve my twaddle shaken, not stirred”, he had just devalued the signals by the cadaver dog over the blood that had been found in the apartment 5A.

2. Bilton’s pirouettes

What we also showed was him doing two brilliant pirouettes which no one noticed but which would be pivotal in his attempted dismantling of the PJ’s thesis.

When we transcribed all that was related to the dogs, at 13.20, the transcription finished with the following at 16.33:

Bilton voice over: “It got worse for the McCanns. Traces of blood were discovered in the apartment.

The police found tiny samples of DNA in the car and in this apartment and early tests suggested that that DNA could be Madeleine McCanns.

The Portuguese had settled on their theory and before they knew the final DNA results: Madeleine had died in apartment 5A and her parents had covered it up.

The official PJ report concluded that Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in the concealment of the body of their daughter Madeleine.”

Can the reader spot the pirouettes he did?

3. First pirouette

Let’s start with the first.

What is the difference between “traces of blood were discovered in the apartment” with “tiny samples of DNA in the car and in this apartment”?

The difference is that, according to Bilton, blood was only found in the apartment and in the car, conveniently vague samples of DNA. Which, as we know he explains how easily samples of DNA from Maddie in the car could have been from them moving stuff when they moved from one location to the other.

Explaining blood in a car rented 3 weeks after Maddie had disappeared would be much more difficult, in fact so difficult that it hasn’t been done to this day.

4. Second pirouette

He has just said that the blood found was worse for the McCanns than the cadaver scents and even goes as far as suggesting that early (note the early) tests suggested (note the suggested) could be from Maddie, so when the viewer was expected to be shown at least one place where the blood had been found, like he had done with the cadaver scent and the cuddle cat – and now we know why – Bilton simply abandons the subject!

Abandons the blood and instead he apparently proceeds to show viewers the PJ Thesis based on the SUGGESTIONS of these EARLY tests:

Bilton voice over: “The Portuguese had settled on their theory and before they knew the final DNA results: Madeleine had died in apartment 5A and her parents had covered it up.

The official PJ report concluded that Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in the concealment of the body of their daughter Madeleine.”

So he starts to present the PJ Thesis in the person of the lead investigator, Mr Amaral.

At 17.17:

Bilton voice over: “After he left the police, lead investigator Gonçalo Amaral explained his theory in a controversial TV documentary.”

Mr Amaral: “I will prove that the child was not abducted and that she died in the apartment in Praia da Luz.

Discover the whole truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to cover up.”

Bilton voice over: “It's this documentary and the book that led the McCanns to sue Mr Amaral.”

Mr Bilton gives Mr Amaral exactly 15 seconds (17.25 to 17.40) to explain his theory and which is basically what he said in the documentary saying he was going to explain during it.

5. First pirouette, inside second pirouette

And Bilton the spy, should be hired by the Bolshoi Ballet as he’s able in such a short time to do not one but two pirouettes within a pirouette, the second one that we are speaking about, and all in a mere 23 seconds (17:17 to 17:40).

Nothing short of amazing.

The first is to make sure that the viewer sees a wandering Maddie.

This fits like a glove with Danny Collins / Mark Williams-Thomas theory of a wandering Maddie.

And it comes so handy for the bungled burglary theory.

Mr Amaral in his book defends that Maddie got up from her bed and wandered into the living room, and upon hearing her father speaking with Jez Wilkins below the window climbed on the couch and fell from it dying accidentally.

As our early readers know, we totally disagree with Mr Amaral on this. If Maddie died around 21.15, there was not enough time for the cadaver scent to develop and contaminate the apartment in the 3 locations it did: the living-room, the closet of the parents’ bedroom and backyard.

We think that Mr Amaral defended this thesis to leave a door open for the McCanns to confess, an opportunity they didn’t take, and that we in the blog strongly believe they couldn’t even if they would have wanted to.

But Richard Bilton makes sure that the viewers associate a walking Madeleine alone in the apartment with the PJ thesis.

6. Second pirouette, inside the second pirouette

The second pirouette he does with the book and documentary is what he had just done with the cadaver scent and the blood. He prioritises what is in question in the convenient order for who he wants to deceive.

After showing only a short clip of the documentary, he says “it's this documentary and the book that led the McCanns to sue Mr Amaral.”

The words “and the book” is the only time Mr Amaral’s book the Truth of the Lie is referred to by Richard Bilton in the entire programme.

Not a single image of the book, just these 3 words “and the book” after giving relevance to the documentary.


Because the book is easily found on the internet and all its details have been discussed minutely there, while the TVI documentary is not easy to find and no one talks about it.

Even at the beginning of the programme, Mr Bilton when talking specifically about the legal battle between the McCanns and Mr Amaral, does not mention the book.

At 03.04:

Bilton voice over: “Across the city Madeleine McCann’s parents have been involved in an important legal battle this spring, they sued a Portuguese detective who accused them of involvement in their daughter’s disappearance. They initially won but there was an appeal and the Supreme Court citing freedom of speech found against them.”

Bilton: “But it was worse for the McCann parents, the judges pointed out that the McCanns hadn't been found innocent. Rather, the case had been shelved because the police hadn't been able to gather sufficient evidence to the contrary.”

Not a word about the book.

7. Bilton the Rudolph Nureyev of British journalism

We understand that by now our readers are dizzy with so much pirouetting but has the reader noted the ballet moves he did on what was quoted above, at the beginning of the show?

First we know they didn’t sue but claimed for damages.

Then he sums up the legal proceedings into the having happened this spring. This spring when the headlines were filled with the new battle that the McCanns decided to undertake because they thought the Supreme Justice Court had been frivolous with its acórdão.

Bilton fails to say that the McCanns lost the Cautionary Action against having the book being sold, which they appealed to the Appeal Court and also lost there and tried to appeal to the Supreme Justice Court that refused to accept it maintaining the decision of the Appeal Court against the McCanns.

He leaves out saying that indeed they first won but forgets to say that they lost an appeal to the Appeal court, an Appeal to the Supreme Justice Court and a complaint against this last court.

This spring, only the failed complaint happened. The Supreme Justice Court’s acórdão deciding against them happened at the very end of January, so still winter.

Then he’s specious about the decision when he says “citing freedom of speech found against them”.

Said this way it seems to imply that factually the McCanns were correct but the Portuguese pulled this rabbit out of the hat, this freedom of speech, to give Mr Amaral reason.

The court did not cite freedom of speech. The case was entirely about the battle between freedom of speech and the right to a good name due to the presumption of innocence.

The court decided that in this case freedom of speech, one of only two arguments in question, superseded the one of the right to a good name.

And this court was twice clear about the McCanns not being able to use the presumption of innocence to defend their good names because they were never considered innocent by the Portuguese justice system.

If Bilton was a serious reporter he should have said “they initially won but the McCanns appealed to the Appeal Court, lost there, appealed this time to the Supreme Court that found that in the McCann’s case freedom of speech superseded the freedom of a right to a good name. This spring the McCanns complained against this decision and lost”.

By the way, and out of curiosity, the TVI documentary was acquitted in 2017 by the acórdão of First Instance Court and the McCann legal team did not appeal against that.

This means that the appeals against the Appeal and Supreme Justice Courts involved only the McCanns and the damages allegedly caused by Mr Amaral’s book. Nothing to do with the documentary that Bilton gives such an importance to.

So when he says “it's this documentary and the book that led the McCanns to sue Mr Amaral” we cannot say he’s lying, just being intentionally specious.

Out of curiosity, Bilton let slip Mr Amaral saying some damning words when he appears at exactly 17.13 and says “…e sangue humano…” which translates to “… and human blood…” when he’s facing the couches of the living room.

8. The deal

At 18:34 of the video Richard Bilton brings up with certainty that the PJ had offered the McCanns a deal:

Bilton voice over:  4 months after she disappeared, Madeleine McCann's parents were made official suspects or arguidos. Kate McCann now declined to answer their questions. The police offered her a deal.”

Mitchell: “If she confessed to Madeleine's death, which didn't happen, to some sort of accident which didn't happen, she would get a lesser jail sentence and it wouldn't affect Gerry. He could come back to Britain and keep the family's money. It was outrageous, it was not true. She had answered all of the PJs questions in at least 4 interviews, openly, completely collaboratively up to that point.”

Let’s hear it from Kate herself how she describes how this alleged deal was proposed to her in her “Madeleine” book pages 242 to 245:

“‘If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos [Carlos Pinto de Abreu the McCann lawyer at the time] said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison.’

The only conclusion I could draw was that we’d been framed, though this seemed completely implausible. Faced with something like this, way beyond the sphere of your experience, it is natural to dismiss it as impossible, but that doesn’t mean it is. When I thought about all that had happened so far, maybe anything was possible. In any event, it seemed we’d underestimated the magnitude of the fight we had on our hands. Even our own lawyer appeared to think, based on what he’d been told, that the police had a good case against us. I could see by this time that Gerry was starting to crack.

Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.

Pardon? I really wasn’t sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name? And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her? This police tactic might have worked successfully in the past but it certainly wasn’t going to work with me. Over my dead body. ‘You need to think about it,’ Carlos insisted. ‘It would only be one of you. Gerry could go back to work.’

I was speechless.

The incentive to accept this ‘offer’ seemed to be that if we didn’t agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder, and if we were found guilty, we might both receive life sentences. Was this what it came down to? Confess to this lesser charge or risk something much worse?

Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again. The realization that we were at the mercy of an incomprehensible criminal justice system had hit him hard. It was excruciating to see him like this. I love him so much and he is usually so strong. I was very conscious that my response was different. Maybe I should have been on my knees, too. Why wasn’t I crying? Was my behaviour making me look cold or guilty? Again, my only explanation is that it was beyond comprehension. I might as well have been a character in a soap opera. Any time now the director would call ‘Cut!’ and this scene would be over. Even today, I struggle to believe it actually took place.

There was a phrase Carlos must have used about twenty times: ‘This is the point of no return.’ I could feel myself shaking. He was a man with three daughters of his own. ‘Do you want me to lie? What would you do, Carlos? If one of your daughters was missing, and this happened to you, what would you do? Would you confess to a crime you hadn’t committed, knowing full well it would mean everyone would stop searching for her?’

‘I’d consider it, yes.’

Heaven help us. My confidence in Carlos was evaporating almost as quickly as my faith in Portuguese justice. I couldn’t tell if he believed us, which, given that his job was to defend us, was a major worry, to put it mildly. Even if he did, I was no longer sure he had the backbone to stand up for us.

It was one thing to make us aware of the PJ’s proposal, and perhaps Carlos was duty bound to do that; it was quite another, however, to suggest we accept it. I was horrified, and told him so in no uncertain terms.

My anger and ferocious maternal instinct began to permeate Gerry’s despair. He was regaining his composure, his powers of reason and his fighting spirit.

‘They’ve got nothing!’ he fired at Carlos. He began pointing out the many flaws in the PJ’s ‘evidence’ and the complete absence of any logic. ‘This should be your job, not ours!’ he said. He asked Carlos whether he felt he was up to the job. Carlos thought so. Did he need assistance? Not at the moment, but he would if the case came to trial.
Trisha and Eileen, disturbed by the noise, appeared from their room. Keeping a lid on my anger for long enough to enable me to communicate clearly, I brought them up to speed. Within seconds there were three raging lionesses pacing the villa.

Recognizing the need to switch into crisis-management mode, we calmed each other down. Gerry and I made it very clear to Trisha and Eileen that if we didn’t return from the police station the next day, they should take the children out of the country as soon as possible.

It must have been close to 4am when Carlos and Sofia left, saying they would see me at the police station later that morning. On her way out, Sofia came over and gave me a hug. She told me she believed in us, that she was ‘with’ us, and tried to allay my concerns about Carlos. I should trust him, she said. He was ‘very good’. It was a relief to know that somebody in Portugal was on our side.

Gerry and I just looked at each other, not knowing quite what to do or what was to become of us. We’d experienced many periods of despair since our beloved daughter had been taken away, but this one would take some beating. Our lives, our family, our whole future hung in the balance. We couldn’t just go to bed. We had to do something. Despite the time, Gerry rang Bob Small and, in a voice laced with panic, explained what was going on. Bob was shocked. He wasn’t aware of any forensic results, he told us, and certainly none suggesting what had just been shared with us. He tried his best to reassure Gerry. ‘Just tell them the truth. It’ll be OK,’ he insisted. Perhaps he was trying to convince himself.

It was almost 5am when we finally got to bed. Extra prayers tonight.”

Apologies for quoting so much of the book but we would like it to make it perfectly clear what Kate says the PJ proposed to her.And to be very clear that the alleged deal was not proposed after Kate McCann refused to answer the 48 questions. It was before.

And it wasn’t the police proposing anything but Kate saying that their lawyer said the police had made a proposal.

One of the rights one has when one is an arguido is that the police cannot talk to that person without the presence of their lawyer in the same room, unless the arguido waivers that right in writing.

Such deals are illegal in Portugal, so no way would the PJ propose such illegality to the McCanns with their lawyer present as that would be enough for the lawyer to file for the annulment of the entire process.

Unlike Bilton, Kate does say it was their lawyer who proposes that she confesses.

Saying that the Police offered Pinto de Abreu a deal, one of the most reputable lawyers of the country, and he took no immediate action is calling him incompetent at the very least.

Carlos Pinto de Abreu probably told the McCanns the following that night:

“If you were Portuguese this would be enough to put you in prison. If you, Kate, confess and admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence we’re talking about receiving would be much more lenient: only two years, as the police will then consider as it an unqualified homicide without intent (manslaughter) as opposed to what you’d be looking at if the police ends ups charging you with qualified homicide with intent”

The above is pure speculation on our part but may be a very approximate description of what really happened.

This is not a deal offering.

This is offering legal advice. This is a lawyer counselling his clients on what are the possible ways ahead and informing them of the possible options and of the consequences each one had.

But we would like to ask Mr Mitchell one question:

He says: “She had answered all of the PJs questions in at least 4 interviews, openly, completely collaboratively up to that point.”

As we have seen above the alleged deal was proposed before the McCanns were made arguidos. The page following the above quoted, page 246, starts Chapter 17 – ARGUIDOS which starts with “Friday 7 September. After a measly two hours’ sleep we got up and braced ourselves for the day ahead…”

No doubt that according to Kate, the alleged deal was offered prior to them having been named arguidos. Could Mr Mitchell please point out on what dates [Kate] had answered all of the PJs questions in at least 4 interviews, openly, completely collaboratively up to that point.”

Researching the files we see only two: one on May 4 2007 and another on September 6 2007, already as an arguido.

We deduce the legal counselling between Carlos Pinto de Abreu and his clients took place on the night of the day Kate was named arguido, Sept 6.

The other statement, the famous one in which Kate refused to answer all but one question was that Friday September 7, so after “up to that point” and certainly cannot be described as Kate’s attitude being “openly, completely collaboratively” in that particular interview.

Oddly – or maybe not – only Kate McCann and David Payne are not heard twice in May 2007. Certainly they had lots of things to do and the other T7 would have certainly said all that was to be said.

So Mr Mitchell, where are the other 2 interviews you claim, and Bilton echoed, that Kate had with the PJ?

9. Mr Smith v Gerry

Note that jumps around the board table as is convenient.

He has addressed and supposedly dismantled the cadaver dog, emphasizes the fact that blood is what is important and notes that the Portuguese jumped to conclusions based on early tests that suggested it was Maddie’s DNA and, after carefully showing Maddie wandering all alone in the apartment, states that the Portuguese police offered a deal to Kate.

Who offers deals? Only those who don’t have a strong solid case and are hoping for the criminal to crack or at least confess to some of the crimes.

Bilton’s message at this point of the programme is to push the idea that the evidence the PJ has against the McCanns is very flimsy.

And to make it more flimsy Bilton brings on the Smiths and the Smith sighting, at 19.07:

Bilton voice over: “Two days later the McCanns left Portugal. I covered their departure from the BBC news. What I didn't know was my report would become part of the case.”

Then it shows a news item of McCanns arriving home and Gerry saying “We have played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine.”

Bilton voice over: “At the time of Madeleine's disappearance, an Irish family, the Smiths had reported seeing a man carrying a child. When he saw my TV piece Martin Smith believed the man he had seen was probably Gerry McCann [reading from Martin Smith’s statement] ‘It was the way Gerry McCann turned his head down. It was similar to what the individual did on May 3 2007 (…) When we met him I would be 60 to 80% sure that it was GM that night I met carrying a child.’

Up to here Bilton has been subtly trying to dismantle the PJ case but from this point on he simply goes full blast. At 20.17:

Bilton voice over: “The Portuguese had built their case about what happened in apartment 5a but it soon came tumbling down. Take that sighting by the Smith family. It couldn't have been Gerry because so many witnesses placed him at the Ocean Club at the same time. The Smiths themselves now believe they saw someone else.”

We would like to know where has Bilton read that the Smiths “now believe they saw someone else”.

But most importantly is to know who are the “because so many witnesses placed him [Gerry McCann] at the Ocean Club at the same time [of the Smith Sighting]”

On May 4, the Tapas Staff told the following to the PJ:

#1 - “JERONIMO TOMAS RODRIGUES SALCEDAS (Phone No "91 768 ####) - bartender:

- He saw the missing Madeleine, for the last time, yesterday at 16.45h next to the restaurant;

- He did not notice if from the group of British citizens (in number 8 or 9) that yesterday dined in restaurant (which was partly made up of the parents of the missing [child]), someone left [absented themself] during such dinner;

- He saw a walkie talkie on top of the table of the group, [like] those that are used to monitor noises of children, from a distance;

- He did not see a person of blonde "rastas", while he was working last night.”

#2 - “[SVETLANA] STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:

- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.

- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".”

#3 - “MIGUEL SALCEDAS COELHO (BI No 1426####, telephone 91920####) – cook

- He did not know the missing or her parents, he knew only that they were part of a group of British citizens who usually dined there;

- As he works in the kitchen, rarely did he go to the tables, so he saw nothing;

- He did not see any person with blonde "rastas", while he was working (14.30 and 23.00)”

#4 - “JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].

- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.

- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;

- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;

- Of the times in which this group had dined in that bar it is [was] often [for] someone from the group to go to check at the apartments the state of the children (their offspring) who were sleeping there.

- He did not see any person with blonde "rastas", while he was working (16h00 and 00.00).”

#5 - “JOELSON FABIO SOARES SANTOS LÚCIO (telephone No 96948#### - was contacted in another restaurant of the [Mark Warner] group, situated in the same locality) - pantry boy

- As he works in the pantry, he never goes to the area where are the tables, so he saw nothing;

- He didn't know the missing or her parents;

- He did not see any individual with blonde "Rastas", in the period in which he remained in service (15:30 and 23:30.”

#6 - “RICARDO ALEXANDRE DA LUZ OLIVEIRA (as he was on his day off, he was contacted by telephone No 91 397####) - table employee.

- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at that restaurant yesterday, like they usually did, which was partly made up of the parents of the missing (he did not know them) he noticed that absent from the table, for about 15 minutes, [was] a man (tall, little more than thirty years of age, normal physical stature, white complexion and hair color light brown);

- It was usual [for] someone of that group, to leave to go to the apartments to check the children (children of the group members) who slept there;

- At the table, he always noticed [saw] the existence [presence] of an intercom;

- He did not see any person with blonde "rastas", while he was working (16h000 and 00h30).”

#7 - “As for the kitchen employee, MARIA MANUELA ANTONIO JOSE, given that she was not in service yesterday [neither] during the dinner [nor] when the disappearance of the child occurred, she was not interviewed.”

We seem to have 3 people talking about Gerry: [Svetlana] Starikova Vitorino, Joaquim José Moreira Batista and Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira.

But reading attentively what Ricardo Oliveira has said, it’s clear that he’s not speaking about Gerry.

He says this on May 4, which does make one think he could be speaking about Gerry:

“Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at that restaurant yesterday, like they usually did, which was partly made up of the parents of the missing (he did not know them) he noticed that absent from the table, for about 15 minutes, [was] a man (tall, little more than thirty years of age, normal physical stature, white complexion and hair color light brown)”

But on May 6, he says:

“When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.”

Well, we know that Gerry spoke with Jez Wilkins at 21.10/21.15 near the backgate of Apartment 5A and that after Gerry had supposedly done his checking, the last person of the T9 to have entered the Apartment 5A was Matthew Oldfield, so it has to him who Oliveira says returns about 21.45.

So, in reality outside the T9 we have 2 people who mention Gerry [Svetlana] Starikova Vitorino and Joaquim José Moreira Batista.

[Svetlana] Starikova Vitorino, who on on May 4 says:

“Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.”

On May 5, 24 hours later:

“The group's children did not dine with them. She remembers that on the day the child disappeared there was some confusion, with some people who left the table after ordering, one of the meals even being sent back, as someone had asked them to delay the meal for a little while.

She does not know very well for what reason the adults rose from the table, she thinks it concerns the girl's disappearance. She did see that one of the plates was returned almost intact and they were asked to "delay" its cooking for a while, it was a grilled beef steak ordered by a man, whom she cannot identify.”

From identifying the father of the missing girl and his wife and stating that Gerry left the table for 30 minutes – all this from inside the kitchen as she was an assistant there – to basically not remember anything.

The other is Joaquim José Moreira Batista, who on May 4 says:

“The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child.”

And like Svetlana his memory also goes from precise to vague in 24 hours as he says on May 5:

“When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.

The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest's absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.”

Note that both witnesses do NOT place Gerry McCann at the table.

Both do the exact opposite, they say he was absent from it for 30 minutes.

Unless they were monitoring Gerry specifically, those 30 minutes could be from 15 to 45 minutes.

Not only NO witness has placed “him [Gerry McCann] at the Ocean Club at the same time [of the Smith Sighting] as Bilton stated as there are 2 witnesses who state that there was a possibility for him to not have been at the table at the time of the sighting.

10. The Smith Sighting

We will now jump to a bit in the documentary. Up to now we have already done 2 posts and are only 20 minutes into it.

We will jump to where Bilton is deep into the British theory.

He says this at 42.18:

Bilton voice over: “Remember that sighting by the Smith family the one originally mistaken for Gerry McCann, the British Police now believed that sighting supported their theory?”

Bilton: “This is where Mr Smith and his family were coming home from a night out in Luz’ center, when at this point, at this spot here they saw a man carrying a child on his shoulder, now this was just before 10 o’clock about the same time Madeleine McCann was discovered missing from the Ocean Club, which is a few hundred metres in that direction.”

No, Mr Bilton, “at this point, at this spot” the Smith sighting had already happened. They were where the 3 yellow circles are and the blue arrow represents the path the man carrying the little girl walked:

It’s in the PJ Files, Mr Bilton and we have already shown you have read them.

Mr Bilton, just like Emma Loach with the 2009 Mockumentary, tries to deceive the public about the Smith sighting like we showed in our post “Public misleading of public, by McCanns”.

It’s always worth repeating that we do NOT believe Gerry was carrying a dead Maddie but a decoy child who we think was Jane Tanner’s daughter.

Carrying a dead Maddie seems to be the only alternative that a certain forum derides.

It’s clearly not something anybody would do when tourists were likely to be walking the streets.

Panic is one thing, sheer stupidity is another.

All of Gerry’s ear tugging and nose rubbing when asked about sedation is more about the sedated and live child we believe he carried that night the way Bilton correctly describes “they saw a man carrying a child on his shoulder”:

We think Hyatt is right that sedation is a sensitive issue but wrong if he thinks it was the cause of Maddie’s death or because the McCanns sedated their children in order to leave them home alone.

We believe that the twins and the other Tapas children may also have been sedated that evening, to ensure they slept through the mayhem.

11. Conclusion

We will continue with the BBC Panorama programme with next post. Note that we are far from finishing analysing the “Portuguese part” of the programme.

We have been asked why we haven’t dedicated any time to the Brunt show.

The reason is that this is from BBC which is paid for by taxpayer’s money. You, dear reader, in the UK have helped pay for this Bilton farce.

About Brunt, all we have to say to that piece of human trash is that we defended you in this blog. We called you a victim.

We know exactly what happened and how much you are responsible for Brenda Leyland taking her own life.

We haven’t, nor will we do a post about Brenda out of respect for the poor woman.

But you have made the mistake, unlike your peers, of showing you have a conscience and we are certain that it’s engraved in stone the words she told you in your little talk inside her house.


  1. Huge respect to you for all posts Textusa.The fact that The Supreme Justice Court is clear about the MaCanns NOT being able to use the PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE to defend their good names BECAUSE THEY were NEVER considered innocent ,should be the only fact these so called reporters actually REPORT but do they? have they?no of course not,and here we are again ,WHY???

  2. What's in it for Bilton? What's in it for Brunt? Why do they allow themselves to be used? Do they know they are being used? Of course they do...

    1. Anonymous 2 Jun 2017, 13:38:00,

      They have to put food on the table, and as my mother said "living is easy, knowing how to live is what is difficult".

  3. "But you have made the mistake, unlike your peers, of showing you have a conscience and we are certain that it’s engraved in stone the words she told you in your little talk inside her house."
    Come on, Textusa, why are you turning the knife in the wound ? And how can you "know exactly what happened" ?

    1. Anne Guedes,

      It lies in our conscience what we said to Brunt in the exact same way it lies in his conscience what he told Brenda when she summoned him inside the house.

      Brunt returning actively to the hoax is a total disrespect for the memory of Brenda Leyland, after many years of disrespecting the memory of Maddie McCann.

    2. Of course no one can know exactly what happened except Brunt, but she did mention suicide to him as I understand he mentioned this at her inquest.
      Even if there was the slightest risk, why did he go ahead with the 24 rolling news programme?

    3. I've seen MB many times in Lisbon, in the middle of the journalistic crowd around the Court, I observed him, spoke to him and didn't dislike him. I remember he was the only one to correct the ridiculous accusation of GA's allegedly cursing the MCs.
      Nobody knows what happened between MB and BL, unless she told someone, nobody knows whether there was a connection between BL's recurrent suicidal obsession and the fact she had been identified and nobody knows whether MB understood that his move had been the last drop, if it had.
      Anyhow BL never bullied the MCs, she just expressed what she thought and that's not a crime. Why she did it under a pseudo remains a mystery for me (as the use of a pseudo in general !).

    4. Anne Guedes,

      Thank you gor yout comment. We respect your opinion about Brunt.

      We wish to say no more and no less than we have about this subject.

      We hope that by now you have seen that we use words, especially those involving people, carefully.

      You are obviously entitled to your opinion about Brunt, about why Brenda used a pseudo and why we use one as well.

      Would like to take this opportunity to clarify that when we spoke of 'peers' we were not talking about journalists, as we think Brunt didn't think we were.

    5. Fair ! Your name is Textusa and that's good enough for me ! Now, if by chance I happened to discover that you are someone I know under a civil identity or someone whose name for some reason everybody knows, it would likely be hard not to try and understand why the pseudo.

    6. Brunt still continues to be involved with Maddie case and has never said publicly that he regrets what he did.

    7. When you talk about his "peers" do you mean the mccanns

    8. Anonymous 3 Jun 2017, 18:21:00,


      We are talking about the puppet-masters and the puppets who participated directly in all that involved that tragic September/October pantomime.

      The McCanns are pawns and we have no reason to believe they participated in it.

      And before anyone asks, puppet Mitchell, as far as we can remember, also didn't participate.

  4. Thanks, to be honest I didn't fully watch the 10th yr round up of all things McCanns. Since there is never anything new and it annoys me, when the truth is not told or twisted.

    MSM and modern society; films, videos, cameras, cams, mobiles, & of course social media.

    As a Brit I can only talk about what happened here in the UK, but I'm sure everyone can look at their own country and have doubts & second thoughts about acceptance of MSM & news stories.

    So, let's think of UK 1989, we were all glued to our televisions, newspapers etc for information. Here in the UK unfolded the terrible death of 96 people at Hillsborough.

    It's taken almost 30 years (thirty) for the truth to be told. This was not a drunken mob gate crashing, but poor policing & one of not following procedures & protocols for crowd control & actually opening gates which exacerbated the crowd crush from the back walls outside to the fencing of the stadium around the pitch inside.

    THERE WAS A COVER UP! 96 DEATHS. Yes the police lied. The media lied. And to this day, people of Liverpool, generally will not buy the SUN.

    I can't explain why the media seem to have an obsession with the McCann saga, that they are prepared to go to such lengths to support the McCanns and WHATEVER happened to their daughter. Other than it was the same driven blindness they had with Princess Diana.

    But it's sufficient for me to think, all that I see and read in the media is not always what you think it is.

    Nothing now would ever surprise me. But I do take on board how much control the McCanns have via Dnotices, gagging order, Carter Ruck, Madeleine's WoC status and the status of the twins as minors gives this saga under currents of hidden truths or lies depending how you view it.

  5. Interesting extract from Kate's book!

    I believe that Kate McCann was made an arguida on Sept 7, not Sept 6.

    According to your analysis, Kate went to bed at 4am on the morning of September 7. And yet she still had the energy, and the inclination, to meet Freud, a relative stranger, for a drink late that night, after another exhausting day of questioning.


    1. @K9Truth

      You are absolutely right about Kate being made an arguido on Sept 7.

      We were misled by the presence of her lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu on the Sept &.

      There was a very important line that was not translated, which is the first one and explains the presence of the lawyer:
      "À matéria dos autos disse:
      ----Vir aos autos na qualidade de assistente".

      "About the factual matter of the proceedings said:
      ----Coming to the proceedings in the quality of assistant."

      An assistant is someone who feels has a direct interest and is not an arguido, so applies for this status which is granted or not. It seems in Kate's case it was.

      An assistant has, we think, the same access to the process as an arguido, and as it seems also, is allowed to have a lawyer present.

      This said, where we seem to "disagree" is the timeline. We still maintain the conversation of the legal counselling took place on the night of the 6 to 7.

      That means that on the 6th, she was questioned by the PJ (out of her own will as it says she was an assistant), has the long legal counselling that night up to 5 am and gets up before 7 (she says she slept nearly 2 hours), goes through the gruelling day of being made an arguido and then on that night, decides to pay a late night visit to Freud.

      Even stranger than you said...


    3. Thanks for confirming the date that Kate was designated an arguida.

      I don't think we disagree on the timeline at all. I believe we need to look at the conversation with Abreu and her sudden clamming up the following day in the light of her reported confession to her mother, her suspected confession to Pacheco and her recounting of the body-on-a-hill dream that was swiftly discredited by her own husband. What I'm trying to suggest is that, contrary to the account in her book, it is not inconceivable to believe that Kate HAD agreed to confess on Sept 7, following the suggestion of her lawyer.

      If this were the case, can you imagine the reaction of Gerry when he hears of his wife's decision to throw in the towel? Even though he would have remained free to continue working, what would have happened to the fund and to the "wider agenda"? Please note that I assume that the body was either unrecoverable or would have been in such a poor condition that no evidence of drugs or abuse could have been elicited from it. Hence, that a confession of accidental death would not have opened up the can of worms that lies behind the case.

      Alarmed at his wife's sudden wobbliness, I suspect that Gerry would have told Kate to pull herself together ("They've got no evidence against us"), but advised her not to answer any questions, just in case. Remember that Kate has dealt with police and media questioning very competently until September 7th. Something happened on September 6th to make her lose her confidence and calm. I believe that she was finally cracking up.

      This is, of course, pure conjecture. However, it does explain her sudden reluctance to answer questions on September 7th and the urgent need to fly her back to the UK, as she was becoming the weak link.

      I'm not sure whether the PJ would have been aware of her initial decision to come back in and confess on September 7th. Indeed, if they had been aware, one could legitimately wonder why this aborted confession had never been made public.


    4. K9Truth, where was KM's alleged confession to her mother reported? I have followed the case from the outset, but I don't remember hearing about this before. I am sure Mrs Healy must have asked the question - I definitely would have done had KM been my daughter! But I wasn't aware this had been reported anywhere.

    5. Such a confession is a urban legend.
      "Something happened on September 6th to make her lose her confidence and calm. I believe that she was finally cracking up."
      If something particular happened, it was on August 8, it was then that KMC's fears were confirmed : they were suspected (see "Madeleine") and told that next session wouldn't be a meeting, but an interrogatory.
      If you watch carefully the episode in Berlin when a journalist dared asking how they felt being found not to behave as parents of an abducted child, you'll reckon that Gerald is stunned, but not Kate who manages to get out of that trap. She's the strong one in that couple.

    6. I agree Anne, there are many times when Gerry has been stumped and she rode the tide. The late late show interview when the host suggested that public opinion was split down the middle on them she quickly corrected him in saying it was only a small minority. In the SF "ask the dogs" interview he was temporarily stunned when she jumped in and give the "...people are inherently good" speech. She believes her words are sufficient to stop people in their tracks. Personally I think she fails miserably (both RT and SF just continued with their line of questioning and were not put off by her) but for quite a few years she employed that tactic hoping that it was influencing people. A sign of someone who thought they were superior to the people they were trying to fool.

      I believe the urban legend of her confessing to her mother came from reports that she had expressed concern about what her mother would think when they were made suspects.


      This is as near as a confession as we've ever seen.

      Kate also said in her diary that she'd had an argument with her mother in Portugal

      But nothing about an actual confession to her mother.

    8. Anonymous 10:31, people who manage to fool others have to be gifted or to have a extremely strong reason for doing so. She has. I'm convinced that the guilt, the feeling of it, is mainly hers. The day KMC is stunned will likely never be born.
      Who is holding the other's hand (not to gain a support but to have a grip) ?
      I spent hours freezing in a court room with both of them under my eye, just attending the hearing, but with some truths emerging here and there. Do you think they were holding hands ?
      Smarty Gerry concocted swiftly a plan to free them from a burden (for a good cause or so he thought) and the plan worked marvellously, hence he became very proud of himself, it confirmed how smart he was. Would somebody threaten to destroy his high achievement, he feels in danger (to be proved not as smart as he thinks he is).
      Kate seems to be her father's daughter, his wife being and behaving like a mum to him. Imo Kate's mum knows but of course will never admit it, she's her mother.

  6. What is becoming even clearer in the light of events in Manchester and now London,that Rowley was just a convenient mouth piece for some one when giving the alleged update in the McCann affair,he was described as thus (counter -terror chief)by the Express after the Manchester attack.
    [quote]Counter-terror chief Mark Rowley warned “more arrests and searches” could follow but downgraded the terror threat level facing Britain from “critical” to “severe” due to the “rapid progress” of the investigation into the network that helped 22-year-old Salman Abedi carry out the worst British terrorist outrage since the July 7 attacks in London in 2005.[/quote]
    Today he is being quoted in the Telegraph as "Assistant Commissioner" Mark Rowley again whilst giving an update.To say he has a knowledege and understanding of the McCann case would be a stretch of the imagination,it was soundbite (the McCann update) and just shows what a farce it is, Operation Grange that is.

  7. After observing this case for years I now believe it will never be solved officially.

  8. Textusa I hope you don't mind me going off topic but I have been reading some of your old posts especially the ones were they set up the 2011 hunting party and the Rats post. Considering that the South Yorkshire police appear to have gotten away with saying Ben Needham died in an accident without giving any details do you think that SY can now go with your 2 Rats dinner or 2 Rats + 7 dinner. After all the majority of WH and most of the public now will be content if only the McCanns and the tapas 7 are charged. I know it's not the truth and it's not what we would want but it would serve the BHs purposes

    1. Anonymous 5 Jun 2017, 00:10:00,

      They either go for archival or for a "version".

      If the option is a "version" simply has to answer what we have asked in our post "Maddie's Pandora's Box".

      That simple.

      If archival, then it has to be explained the £185,000 funding by Whitehall and the Home Office for "compelling evidence" and a "key-witness" in these times in which cuts in police forces is a hot - would even say scorching - topic these days.

      Oh, and also the other many millions and years to reaching zilch has also to be explained.

      That simple as well.

  9. UK General election,I think(TM)knows the games up on the IICSA Inquiry and the coffers are empty/Brexit? In 2015 dodgy Dave didn't expect to Win,it was only then dawned on him Brexit referendum,when he filled his pants but not with exhilaration?
    Where(JC) could become the next Labour Prime Minister,faced with mounting debts,it could take as long as Four years just to Balance the books,without implementing his Polocies?
    Let alone having to deal with Operation Grange?

  10. My feeling is that SY couldn't escape reviewing the situation for the 10th anniversary, but from now on will keep quiet (at least for another decade), hoping people either forget or die.
    The MCs for sure will run away from any provocation.
    MMC's disappearance is an old fact and who believes the child, now young lady, will pop up ?
    Now the question for the MCs is to disappear themselves. If they could erase our minds, they would !

    1. The McCanns, who are they? Who are you talking about?

  11. If,as if some think there is a political reason behind any resolution to OG,it'll drag on for some while now with the election result,there are far bigger fish to fry at the moment.

    1. Another PM who has lost their opportunity to end this farce (me thinks)

  12. I note that Kate, in her book, talks about "crisis management mode", indicating that, as doctors, they would be well trained in such a mode.

    I would think that it would have been put to good use on 3rd May 2007 and would explain their ability to go to dinner that night and appear "normal".


      Thought the Police considered Ben dead??? Any way its also in Telegraph and Star and mentions as usual Madeleine!

  13. The original story about new face ageing techniques was published in Science Daily regarding work done by Bradford University. They used the Needham case as an example. The Mc's are not mentioned at all

    They were mentioned in the Mail.....didnt put the link up ......apologies!


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.