Sunday, 13 March 2011

National Habits II

Yesterday, I talked here about the nasty habit of the British Police tampering with evidence and shielding criminals.

However I did forget, my sincere apologies for that, to mention something that is as typical to Britain as cricket, lawn bowling and the 5 o’clock tea: the Libel Threat.

 Do read this fascinating article from newsassociates:  

"The dark arts of Jonathan Rees. 

The collapse of a high-profile murder trial over evidential questions poses uncomfortable questions for the police. 

But the case is of much wider significance, since it poses equally difficult questions for the prime minister, for his former press secretary, Andy Coulson, and for all those at News International who have stuck to their claim that no one in the company – bar one rotten apple – had any knowledge of illegal behaviour by, or on behalf of, its journalists.  

Jonathan Rees, who was yesterday cleared of murdering his former business partner, Daniel Morgan, is a private investigator of a particularly unpleasant and vindicative kind. 

In the late 1990s he was working for the News of the World, paid as much as £150,000 a year to use his dark arts to illegally trawl for personal information on the paper's targets. The work, which included bribing police officers, came to the attention of Scotland Yard's anti-corruption team, who bugged his office for six months. 

In December 2000 his newspaper work – which included work for the Mirror Group – came to a sudden and enforced halt when he was jailed for seven years after being caught planting cocaine on a woman. 

The aim was to discredit her prior to divorce hearings Rees was one of four private detectives – all of them now convicted criminals – who are known to have been retained by the News of the World, apparently without the knowledge of a single executive.  

Rees's exploits were certainly no secret. They were written about in two articles published by the Guardian in 2002, while Rees was in prison. One of them named a News of the World executive, Alex Marunchak, who had been caught on tape discussing payments of thousands of pounds. 

Despite all this – Rees's links to corrupt police, his prison sentence, the publication of his links to, and payment by, the newspaper – he returned to work for the News of the World, now edited by Andy Coulson, in 2005 after he had left prison.  

Rees was charged with murder in 2008, which meant that no newspaper could, until today, name him.
But both David Cameron and Nick Clegg knew of the background to the story in early 2010, well before they entered Downing Street. The new prime minister chose to ignore it, appointing Coulson head of communications at Downing Street in May 2010

It was an extraordinary piece of bad judgment, and surprising that Clegg apparently did not demur or distance himself in any way. 

Did no one carry out any official vetting before Coulson was allowed across the doorstep of No 10? Or did Cameron and Clegg want the former Murdoch editor so badly that they pretended not to know, and ignored the ticking time bomb which exploded yesterday? 

Meanwhile, what of Acting Deputy Commissioner John Yates, who was so quick to assure the world that there wasn't much to the phone-hacking stories uncovered by journalists on this and other newspapers? He has hired one of the UK's most notorious libel firms to warn off this newspaper for reporting the claim that he misled parliament. 

In a Commons debate this week, Chris Bryant, MP for Rhondda, made the direct accusation that Yates did, indeed, mislead two parliamentary select committees

Moreover, it was alleged that Scotland Yard has known for five months that its evidence was incorrect. The two committees involved should, as a matter of some urgency, invite the police to explain its position.  

Until now most of the attention around phone hacking has centred on the activities of Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed in 2006 for his work on behalf of the News of the World. Rees was actually paid more than Mulcaire and is alleged to have deployed a wider armoury of illegal methods to acquire information for his Fleet Street clients.  

Now that his name is no longer protected by court restrictions, another chapter in this disturbing saga of intrusion, power and criminality can be written."
Isn't that last paragraph just a frightening thing to read for some who have just read it?


  1. More and more high profile cases of fraud and misleading the public are coming to the surface and these people are now being brought to account, and the mccanns are no exception theirs was a worldwide fraud they have misled many people and exploited the memory of their daughter for greed and their own gratification.

    Their actions are unacceptable and their greed unmeasurable, numerous sites have sprung up over the last 4 years all demanding justice for madeleine and the re-opening of this case.

    The media and expensive lawyers will not protect them forever, because 'the truth is like oil it always comes to the surface'.

    Well done Textua and all.

  2. So many people would have to be sued for libel if the McCaans wanted to silence the disbelievers that even their funds wouldn't cover the cost. It would raise 2 bis issues such as where did they get money from to do it and then exposed to a thorough investigation.

    Just imagine if they threatened to sue all the bloggera and forum administrators for libel. The news would be worldwide and the McCanns exposed.

    I believe the Mcs are supported by others in positions of power and they are having to go along with the flow and maybe feel protected.

    It may even be that they have no choice but to keep high profile as they have to obey 'orders' hence the threats to sue.

  3. Good to see the truth surfacing at last!

    It cannot be publicised enough for me - the networking going on under the surface is really something.

    I agree that the truth will out I just hope that someone in the McCann clan grows a spine and decides they are better off on the other side of the fence sometime soon. It's this waiting that is getting to me.

    Thank you Textusa for your recent articles they are very telling and are appreciated.

  4. TOO much prevarication to be ignored by the police – Part I - Windows

    Trish said: “ The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken."

    Trish Cameron: ..” the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jimmied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing”.

    It appears that the McCanns were already embarked on a campaign: ABDCTION CAMPAIGN:

    – Kate rings childhood friend Linda McQueen at 2.00 a.m. What could Linda do so far way, shouldn’t Kate be looking outside for her daughter or did she know that what happened to Madeleine has happened under other circumstances? I bet she did!

    Then, Kate called Joe Corner at 3:00 am . I bet police would be more effective than Joe miles way. He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'
    "They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage."
    "She just told me that Maddy had been abducted, that the shutters of the apartment had been forced and someone had taken her." He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'
    "They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage.
    "First they saw one of the window shutters had been forced, and then they saw the door was open and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone.

  5. Too much prevarication to be ignored by the police – Part II - Windows

    Kate ring Jim Renwick at 7 am regarding ABDUTION CAMPAIGN. Ms Renwick said: "Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
    "The shutters had been broken open and they've gone into the room and taken her."

    "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy. "She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open."

    Finally, the spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann had to face the evidence and has reversed a statement made in the early days of the search for the missing child.
    Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', Clarence Mitchell said she could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in.

    On Martin Brunt's documentary 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, aired on 24 December 2007, Prof David Barclay, one of Britain's top forensic consultants said: "I think it's impossible for somebody to get in and out, through that window without leaving a forensic trace. Apart from anything else, the window sills in that area are covered in green lichen. The minute you try and scrape over the window sills you would have left marks and we know that the scenes of crime lady, the next morning, was looking for exactly that."

    Interestingly, Clarence Mitchell's statement about the McCanns reversal of their 'break in' story, came one week after Dispatches aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine' on 18 October 2007. In that documentary, it was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily. So easily that police found KATE FINGER PRINTS on the window! Yeah! A loving and caring mother obstructing justice and without prejudice or a criminal punishment! THAT is THAT!

  6. Too much prevarication to be ignored by the police – open and closed doors

    Until some time, it was believed that shutters at the front of the apartment had been jemmied open by the little girl's abductors.

    But Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, spokesman for the investigation, has confided in British former Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with.

    Mr Kirby told The Mail on Sunday: "I had a very interesting chat with the officer in charge. The window shutters are not an issue.

    "Their mechanism makes them almost impossible to open. The door was left unlocked. They did that every night.

    "I think the police have a very specific understanding of what they are looking for."

    The McCanns made sure the toddler, who turns four next week, and her two-year-old twin brother and sister, Sean and Amelie, were sound asleep, and that their apartment was locked up.

    But between their checks at 9.30pm and 10pm the apartment was broken into through a window and Madeleine was taken, according to the young girl’s aunt, Trish Cameron.

    Gerry and Kate would have used the patio doors as they checked on their daughter and her twin siblings during their meal near the Mark Warner holiday complex swimming pool and it is these doors that were left unsecured.

    The McCanns and all their friends on the holiday left their patio doors open throughout the evenings for fear of fire.

    Sometimes doors are open something are closed exactly like one of your past post: now you see, now you don’t!

  7. Jane Tanner dirty STATE of mind:

    She states how the window shutters which 'had been closed since they arrived on Saturday, were open along with the window'. This makes it even more remarkable that, on 6 separate occasions, members of the group walked past them and didn't see they were wide open and supposedly damaged. Jane Tanner walked past 3 times, Russell O'Brien walked past twice and Matthew Oldfield allegedly stood in the apartment, at the entrance to the room, and had a 'cursory' look inside. The window, behind the shutter, would almost certainly have needed to be forced or smashed to gain entry - there was no evidence of any forced entry anywhere in the apartment.
    She states that the window shutters 'can be opened from the outside' but we know this to be incorrect. It is impossible to open the shutters from the outside. The shutters are made from heavy metal and are ratcheted so they can only be opened from the inside the apartment.
    She continues: 'The door to the room was shut'. This clearly contradicts Kate's later story that the door had been open. Kate stated that she immediately knew there had been an abduction because, as she opened the patio doors, the door slammed shut when the wind whistled through the apartment.
    She reaffirms the version of events reported in the immediate phone calls to Kate and Gerry's family and friends, that the 'abductor' entered through the window and escaped by the front door. Yet, we are now led to believe that the abductor entered through open patio doors and escaped by the window. How could she get this so wrong when she was actually there?

  8. A obscene timeline for ENGLISH to SEE and a dinner that some believe that has never happened:

    9.10/15 pm Jane Tanner (either was on her way to the tapas bar or went to check on her children and) notices a man walking hastily, carrying a child. She memorizes the suspect, but fails to recognize Maddie.

    9.10/15 pm When Gerry is returning to the dinner, he meets Jeremy Wilkins – an English man he met during the holidays – and chats with him for ten minutes. Neither Gerry nor Jeremy notice Jane or the suspicious man that she says she saw, although they were all on the same narrow street at the same time.

    9.25 pm Gerry returns to the tapas bar. Russell told the PJ that at this time Matt and he went to check the children.

    9.20/30 pm Mathew Oldfield goes to check on the children, enters the room, sees the McCann children fast asleep, and notices nothing out of the ordinary. Russell O'Brien leaves the restaurant at the same time. In the first statements, Matt does not refer anything strange in Madeleine's room and Russell fails to explain that he stayed in his apartment because his younger daughter was feeling sick. Later, Matt said that he noticed more light in the McCanns' apartment and Russell revealed his daughter was vomiting.

    9.35 pm Matthew Oldfield returned to Tapas.

    9.45 pm Jane Tanner says at this time – not at 9.30 – Matthew and Russell left the restaurant.

    approx. 9.55 pm The Smith Family, (4 adults and 5 children) are returning from 'Kelly's Bar', heading north, all spread out along the street and they pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 metre tall. - The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.

    10.00 pm Kate reports Madeleine gone and the shutter of the rear window open.

    12.00 pm To the police, Gerry says Jane told him, about midnight 4 May, that she saw an unknown individual, 30-40 yrs, light trousers, dark hair, going up the street. About midnight yeah? She was not able to link the man with a little girl with the abductor.

    Who can say for sure and credibility where was Gerry around 9:55pm That’s right no one!

  9. A historia de C. Mitchell, num cocktail de manipulacao/corrupcao e fraude, ainda esta por contar. O especime queixa-se de ter os telefones sob escuta. Como todos os ratos julga-se vitima de um metodo que foi o seu estilo de vida- Afinal qual foi o seu papel durante anos ao servico do governo britanico? espiar a vida dos ingleses. Porque e que o governo ingles nomeou Mitchell para Porta-voz dos Mccann? Que utilidade teria um rato para um casal cuja filha desapareceu? Nao desapareceu. Fizeram-na desaparecer. Onde esta a negociacao de Mitchell a oferecer uma recompensa sedutora ao raptor? Um rato mercenario que se vende por bom dinheiro sente arrepios sempre que precisa de oferecer a outrem, milhares de Euros para nada. Mesmo que tudo seja a fingir.
    Nao va algum dos indigentes que aceitou ser pago com gorjetas para fechar a boca, abri-la de par em par, seduzido pelos zeros da recompensa.

  10. Anon. 8:55pm,

    Speaking of the devil(Mitchell):

  11. In "Hasta que se sepa la verdad" There is a good article about the "Insane Mitchell".

  12. The timeline of the events provided by the Tapas 9 to the police, for May 3 night, is a delicious piece of lies and manipulation, that a judge in a court will never miss.
    For a group without watches and mobiles(according to Mitchell) it is amazing how they manage to go so detailed with time- events separeted by minutes. At certain time, on the narrow street, the trafic was so intense that they must bumped on each other and on the abductor.
    And a small detail they miss, but we should consider- The picture of the Tapas bar was delivered to us by the group, as the most popular restaurant in the OC ( they even had to book the table in advance to get it). Then which street the other guests and eventual outsider clients used to go to the Tapas? None of that clients bumped on any of the Tapas 8(the old lady don't get bothered to check the children) during such intervals of time that differ no more then 5 minutes? WHAT A MESS MCCANN'S. WHAT A POOR SKILL JOB FOR YOU MITCHELL WHO HAVE BEEN SELLED AS THE MOST CLEVER PR OF THE CENTURY. If their b... were not protected by politics, they had fall long ago, TOTALLY SMASHED ON THE FLOOR. THE LIES ARE SO EVIDENT THAT EVEN THE MOST STUPID PERSON CAN FIND THEM.
    Your time is coming Tapas 9.

  13. Anon 8.55 thank you for the link a very well written accurate article I thought.

  14. This past year MP's have been imprisoned for fraudulently claiming expenses there was a time when this would have been unheard of because of their positions meant they were above suspicion. Shelved murder trials being re-opened is now commonplace in newspapers.Some as long ago as 20 years, the criminals are facing justice for their crimes.

    Times are changing it is no longer acceptable to defraud the public the mccanns believe the law will not touch them, because in the earlier years they exploited Portugals secrecy laws to their own advantage, had the crime happened in this country they would now be serving prison sentences.
    The general concenus amongst people is they are guilty, they are still suspects, they have not been cleared. In their book Kate will attempt yet another whitewash, she has become an embarrassment lighting candles and attending ceremonies of genuine victims all in her quest for publicity and money.

    Their greed is beyond the bounds of human decency and their deceit epitomises everything that is wrong with our corrupt judicial service allowing criminals to re-write the event of 3rd May and beyond would be laughable if it was not such a tradegy and a child had lost her life.

    Mitchell may silence the media with libel cases, but he cannot silence the internet and there is so much uncensored information for readers and numbers are growing. Kate and Gerry cannot keep this farce going much longer, they have been more than lucky to have got away with it as long as they have and they should realise this, there time is coming.

    Well done to Textusa and her team for all your research.

  15. Exactly, the Tchenguiz brothers have been arrested for fraud along with other high profile rollers, MP's, fund managers, bank bonuses are now all under scrutiny. How long before someone is arrested for fraud and has absolutely nothing to do with Mccanns but will demand that they too are investigated, as they say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Too many people are propping the Mccanns up for it to stay a quiet forever.

    Mccanns have a foolish belief that their status somehow entitles them to protection. It is this belief that has allowed Mitchell and others to feed off the fund, people gave money in good faith but the money was used to pay for expensive litigationand PR stunts and never once used for its intended purpose. This money was paid into the Mccann bank account for them to use as they saw fit. Disgusting!!

  16. Are Transworld now part of the fraudulent fund? This has raised so many questions.

    Why did Transworld choose to publish the work of fiction or were they 'chosen' to show revenue going into the fund?
    The fund was running low and the McCanns suddenly have a new source on income. Strange that they were down to their last 300K and begging for more. Did they not know that something was being 'organised' in the background to boost the fund?

    The fund is the only way to explain how they can afford such expensive legal representation. Who is really putting money into this fund?

    As for Transworld, I'd like to see their company accounts. The book is being panned before it's written, how do they hope to make a profit?

    This makes me think something suspicious is going on as who would take on a book which will be scrutinised by many legal brains before and after publication?

    I feel the reason it was advertised before it's even written is to test public reaction. As so far it has been negative why are still going to go ahead and publish, who takes on a loss making project?

    Was it to see what the objections were going to be so they can be dealt with in advance?

  17. Interesting comments; re transworld

    Search ResultsThe Fraudulent Elizabeth Smart: TRANSWORLD publishers still happy ...11 Mar 2011 ... TRANSWORLD publishers still happy to put their good name to a book with all this evidence that the McCanns have censored from the British ... happy-to.html - Cached►

  18. All proceeds from the book will go to Kate and Gerry help their depleted bank balance...or you can just send your money in an envelope marked Kate and Gerry, Rothley.
    Amazing that these two 'authors' are beyond suspiction and still free to tout their tawdry tale.

  19. Great site Textusa.

  20. Anon. 12:08pm, about Elizabeth Smart:

    In that blog, there is a link to an interview with Nancy Grace, and Elizabeth reminded me of Kate Mccann, it was just like watching Kate usual answers: I mean...of be know, yeah(eyes diverted to the side)...

    Watch this clip of that interview, Elizabeth is clearly uncomfortable, Nancy does her best to get through, she clearly does not believe elusive and evasive Elizabeth at all! It felt just like watching a mini-Kate McCann, but even more disturbing, for this is such a young girl, but alredy so deceptive and fake!
    No wonder the Smarts were so supportive of the McCanns...chips off the old block...?

  21. Anon at 2.30 yes totally agree another mini Kate Mccann full of lies not wanting to 'talk' about what happened, who do these people think they are !!!! they should all be locked up

  22. Textusa,your regular" thought provoking" comments,plus the amazing graphics on this site ,make our quest in finding justice for Madeleine a daily "must".Thank you so much !I sincerely hope their greed ,with the publication of the coming book,will prove to be their biggest mistake since leaving 3 babies to babysit themselves.

  23. Lynn, if there's one thing that Tex has been fighting for is to prove that there was NO NEGLIGEnCE by the McCanns. That is something that they want us to keep saying so that it becomes a "reality". They never left 3 babies to babysit themselves!. So if you want to help Tex and the finding of the truth, please stop saying that. And yes, Textusa and her friends are running a great, great blog, so lets all help!!!

  24. Lynn

    I also hope the truthful 'novel' will give the PJ enough information to re-open the case. The 'truth; has been a long time coming but I'm not holding my breath after 4 years. That's plenty of time to come up with novel ideas....pardon the pun.

    I have to agree with anon 6.13, there was no neglect. That is the lesser of the two evils and if the group are prepared to take that accusations what did they really do?


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.