2014 Christmas Break

It’s Christmas time. The time of year the blog takes a break.

Even though a lot of activity around the Maddie case seems to be going to take place in the next week, we see no reason to break with tradition.

We see foresee three things: the fulfilment of SY’s 5th rogatory letter, written back in August and whereby 11 people at request of the Met will be questioned by PJ, the final allegations in the McCann v Amaral damages trial and Brenda Leyland’s Pre Inquest Review.

1.  The “Gang of 11”

The uncertainty about what under legal status these people will be heard, if as arguidos or witnesses, only shows that the case continues on the negotiation table of this arm-wrestling match.

Still having doubts about whether a person is to be heard next week as an arguido or witness is like not knowing on the eve of a game if a certain individual will be a player or the referee on the pitch.

The determination of what legal status a person is to be questioned is determined beforehand. Those deciding know exactly the criteria and when a person is notified, the status under which the person will be interviewed is clearly mentioned.

It’s unrealistic to think witnesses may be “lured” into an interrogation room and be surprised half way through by being questioned as arguido, things do not work that way.

A witness, during interrogation, may provide answers that may justify having the arguido status. But that must come as a surprise to those interrogating. There must be a “wait-a-minute” moment. The interrogation then must be interrupted, the person notified of the new legal status and respective rights and most likely will want to reschedule the questioning.

So this to and fro about arguidos being transformed at the last minute into witnesses can only be, in our opinion, due to the conveniences of the game, and absolutely nothing to do with individual rights and guarantees for which these legal statuses were designed.

In plain terms, they will be arguido or witnesses according to what is convenient for them to be and absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why they became persons of interest to the case.

Justice cannot simply cannot be more defaced than this.

It has become a stage-prop of a play based on an improvised script continuously updated and directed by various people who despise each other profoundly.

But, we mustn’t forget a multi-million pound production.

A mess. A tragedy. A slapstick comedy at times.

Last we heard, all 11 persons of interest will be heard as witnesses. No more 4 arguidos and 7 witnesses.

This fact, by the way, that there will only be witnesses reduces the 253 questions to 251. 

from Maria

It’s completely illegal to ask a witness questions like “Did you kill Madeleine McCann?” and “Where did you hide the body?”

Such “direct queries” can only be put to arguidos. Not to witnesses as about these authorities have no reasons to suspect they've done anything wrong.

Just like it was done in July 2014 when the “July arguidos” were asked, with total legality, the exact same “direct queries” of “Did you kill Madeleine McCann?” and “Where did you hide the body?”, as reported by the Express.

In case next week there will only be witnesses, then the media is falsely reporting questions in rogatory letters. If those questions are indeed requested to be asked, then they have to be arguidos.

About the people to be questioned, we will wait until all the cards are on the table. Only then will we be able to say what value they have, how they connect between each other and others and, what is most important, why they have been played.

For now, we feel certain that Murat, his wife Michaela and her ex-husband Luis are on the list. The “serious” MSM have reported this, so very unlikely not to be true.

The Express, on 30NOV2014, reported that on the list were Silvia Batista, John and Donna Hill and Mario Fernando.

Silvia Batista “ran the service and maintenance departments of the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz on the Algarve where the McCanns were staying” and “in her statement Mrs Batista said Gerry told her he had closed the windows as their other two children, Sean and Amelie, then 18 months, were still asleep in separate cots in the bedroom.”

Strange none of Gerry’s fingerprints being found on the shutters, only Kate’s.

It seems Silvia and her husband João, who was head of maintenance and services, no longer work there as “in the past year both were made redundant because of falling bookings at the Ocean Club, which have been blamed on the recession and publicity surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.”

John Hill, is, we suppose, still manager of the Ocean Club. “He also spoke with Kate and Gerry that night in their apartment and helped arrange for photos of the child to be distributed. Mr Hill and his wife Donna printed pictures after being given a memory stick by Russell O'Brien, a friend of the McCanns whose partner Jane Tanner's picture of Madeleine gathering tennis balls is well known.”

Well, we thought those pictures had been printed by a nanny, Amy T. And isn’t Kate who says in her book that she’s the one who takes the picture of Madeleine gathering the tennis balls?

Mario Fernando is the man who “who came forward last May to say he saw a suspicious man wearing sun glasses in a stairwell looking at apartment 5a 24 hours before Madeleine disappeared. The former Ocean Club laundryman was collecting sheets when he saw the man: "I saw the weird guy and we nearly bumped into each other. He was embarrassed. He was nervous. He was walking out from the hole under the stairs and must have been much further inside but had taken several steps back after hearing me coming. He had a really fat face and had two-tone sunglasses on."”

Robert, Michaela, Luis, Silvia, John, Donna and Manuel, that’s 7 people. Add the gardener and we only have 3 left to be identified.

If, and we repeat if, the list above has any similarity with reality, then we would say, without even knowing who the missing 3 are, that all, without exception, are indeed people of interest to the truth.

They tell us that our reading of the game has been correct this far.

If the “July arguidos” episode was to bring Murat and the Ocean Club into the picture, this next group of people are the confirmation that the net has definitely widened to the Ocean Club and the ex-pat community of PdL and its thread is getting stronger to catch bigger fish.

photo from here

If the already very implausible panicking burglar theory met its demise with the nomination of Robert Murat as a person of interest, then the confirmation of those listed above will be its memorial service. To be a whitewash SY would have to be completely corrupt and evil to put people through this, just for show, and Portugal for allowing them.

Of the 8 persons, 2 (Michaela and Luis) weren’t present at the crime scene, 3 (Silvia, John and Donna) arrived at crime scene AFTER alarm was raised and 1 (Robert) who maintains he was in his house the whole night was pointed out by 3 of T9 who say they saw him near the apartment AFTER the alarm.

So these 6 people are either part of a “burglar gang” that pre-planned Maddie's kidnapping or, as far as we can see, they have nothing to contribute to the investigation of a bungled burglary that, obviously, happened BEFORE the alarm.

We also cannot guess what the printing of Maddie’s photos have to do with discovering who the bungling burglars may be.

That leaves laundryman and the gardener as the only 2, so far, who may have something to say about events and/or people before Maddie disappeared. 

The blog considers both to be people of interest to the case. If it's confirmed that either or both are questioned then we will explain why we think so.

We do hope the other 3 people supposedly left to be identified will be TS, JW and Derek Flack, the three witnesses who in the 2009 Mockumentary say they saw Pimpleman. We do note the total lack of interest on SY’s part about this man even though he was allegedly seen 5 times lurking apartment 5A by 3 different people.

But as we have said, we will wait and see who the people are SY has requested to be questioned and we will be curious under what legal status they will be heard.

For us, the only important day about this subject will be the one when SY announces “About the Madeleine McCann investigation, the Metropolitan Police has come to the following conclusion…”

Then, and only then, will there be a palpable result. And only palpable results really interest us.

Until then, all we can do is to watch how this multi-million pound game is being played. 


2.  The Damages Trial

The damages trial McCann vs Amaral in Lisbon is to resume. Resume, not end. In fact, its end is not exactly clear as we will explain.

What is scheduled to happen next week, are the final allegations of both sides. From Isabel Duarte, on the accusing side and from the various defence lawyers on the other.

In Portugal, it’s not unusual for the final allegation sessions to take days. We think that due to the simplicity of the process – yes, it is a pretty simple and straightforward case – it might not be the case, however, we wouldn’t be surprised if it took at least a couple of days due to the number of lawyers making their final allegations.

Let’s hope not, let’s hope that it will be swift. Let’s hope there are no incidents, such as illnesses or changing of lawyers.

About the ending. Well, the judge has apparently said that she will read sentence in February.

It seems that everyone is forgetting one thing – or that we here missed it completely – and that is the McCanns still have to provide proof that they can represent Maddie. The WoC issue.

To the best of our recollection, the judge determined that they have 30 days after the final allegations to hand the court such proof. We presume that these are business days, so making a rough estimate that deadline falls at the end of January.

If the McCanns fail to produce the required documentation, then we think the judge has no choice but to nullify all proceedings and call for a retrial, now with plaintiffs being the parents and the twins and no damages can be claimed for hindering the search for Maddie.

But, let’s suppose that the McCanns do – or already have – produced the necessary authorisation from the UK to represent Maddie. That means sentence in February. At last. Again, mind you, that is if there are no incidents in between.

But is it over?

Very far from it. We warned the McCanns that this would be a long process back in January 2010.

photo from here

We have stated that Team McCann has done all possible to lose. That the only thing standing between Mr Amaral and him not losing is the Portuguese justice system itself which has a tendency to rely on the appeal courts for the rightful decisions and so usually give reasons to plaintiffs in the 1st instance.

We honestly can’t see how any reason can be given to the McCanns but we will not underestimate the capability of the system to see things we normal human beings can’t.

So we would say that Mr Amaral, in our opinion, has 98/99% chances of not losing while the McCanns hold a margin of 1/2% chances of winning.

If the McCanns win, Mr Amaral will surely appeal. So the process goes on.

If Mr Amaral doesn’t lose, or if the process is nullified because of inappropriate legal representation of Madeleine McCann in court, he has already shown the will to counter-attack, so the legal battle between him and the couple will continue.

The McCanns won’t appeal as that would go against the deal they proposed back in January 2013. The trial has gone on because Mr Amaral showed clearly he wanted it to continue.

As can be seen, anyway anyone looks at it, the legal battle between Mr Amaral and the McCanns is still very, very far from being over.

About the trial, we have noted that some say there is a conspiracy that closely coordinates the damages trial sessions and SY coming to Portugal or publicizing some “progress” in its investigation.

We have even received a comment stating that this proves that we are wrong about stating that there are 2 groups of deciding Black Hats – the Government BH and the Swinging BH – because this “evident” coordination proves there was only one group.

We fail to see the logic of the argument. If such supposed coordination does exist, it only proves the existence of 1 group, but doesn’t disprove the existence of others. The fact, supposedly, that a group decides to act in a certain way in any way interferes with the choices of action of other groups.

But we don’t believe, with the exception of two occasions – by the way each one of the 2 groups of BH acted – to be any sort of coordination between having the SY investigation and damages trial sessions simultaneously.

And in our opinion we think the 2 occasions were:

First by the Government BH, the airing of the UK Crimewatch on October 2013, to coincide with the reading of the sentence, initially scheduled for the 1st week of October 2103. Needless to say, the Portuguese justice system didn’t comply with its own initial plan and showed in the following months that it basically didn’t comply with any plan at all;

Then by the Swinging BH, the “Black-Hat-September”, supposed to coincide with the final allegations that were supposed to take place that month and the SY questioning of the 11 persons of interest. The idea would be to ride the wave of overflow of information about Maddie to drive in the idea that the internet was only filled with haters. However, this plan was foiled by the CITIUS software crash that no one predicted. What was supposed to happen in September, trial and questioning, is to happen 3 months later. Two Sky News documentaries and one thing made out of paper and filled up with letters, gone to waste.

Both coordination attempts went wrong.

But say those insisting on the trial/SY conspiracy that in July, the 4 arguidos were heard exactly when Kate and Gerry McCann stood in court and that now, the next set of people of interest will be questioned at exactly the same time the trial resumes.

In the first case, Kate and Gerry only took the stand in July because Mr Amaral fired his lawyer to the surprise of all.

If Mr Amaral had not fired his lawyer, then Kate and Gerry would have taken the stand on that same day, in June, and the “July arguidos” would only be questioned later.

About next week, as the rogatory letter was written up in August, approved only in early November and the hearings supposed to have taken place between the 24 to 28 November, would not coincide with the final allegation session.

To have the trial and questioning dates coordinated for next week it would mean that the disagreement about the legal status under which certain persons of interest were to be heard never happened and was just an excuse given to justify having a Portuguese prosecutor in Faro coordinate with a Portuguese judge in Lisbon on which days both things could be held simultaneously.

Not very realistic in our opinion. And it wouldn’t explain why SY surprisingly appeared at INML in October to make all that fuss about forensics while no trial activity was scheduled and the rogatory letter requesting the questioning hadn’t been approved yet.

Not to forget that SY flew over PdL in a helicopter in May and were on all fours in June – while nothing on the trial was taking place.

But let’s for a moment momentarily lose reason and say there is a conspiracy to have both trial and SY activities taking place simultaneously.

To what purpose, may one ask? Which one intends to overshadow the other? We can’t see which, with all honesty.

Besides, why overshadow either? UK MSM only reports what it wants to report on the case. It doesn’t need any conspiracy to do that. Want an example? The Channel 5 Documentary – The Global Obsession, still said that Mr Amaral’s book was banned.

The lifting of the ban was something that UK MSM “overlooked” to report then, and for all intent and purpose, British general public still think that it is indeed banned.

UK MSM will give as much or as little info as they choose. The Sun only gave a tiny column to 11 persons of interest story.

Coincidences do happen and we don’t believe there’s any connection between the trial’s timeline with SY’s investigation. Only on one thing: the trial decision unfavourable to the McCanns will give a big help to the Government BH to make the final and decisive push against the Swinging BH.


3.  Sweepyface

On the 18th there will be a Pre Review Inquest on Brenda Leyland’s death which is still to be ascertained. It will be to determine who can be witnesses and if anything illegal occurred. It will be like a court directions hearing and nothing much is expected to happen on that day.

It could go on for years and those thinking that it would be an opportunity to see Martin Brunt squirm in justifications may best stay home and save their trip expenses.

Death is, as said, to be determined. We wait for coroner’s report.

Pre Review may announce cause of death if results known but may still need to call witnesses if suicide is the outcome.

If death was natural causes, then we don't see what witnesses could say as it can't be proved that her death resulted from anything related to Sky News interview.

If it appears death was suspicious, then this would have to be investigated by police.

If the Inquest is complex, reports are not forthcoming, or it appears that the adjournment is continuing for too long, the Coroner will fix a date when all interested persons, including the family of the deceased and any legal representatives will be required to attend court for a formal hearing. This will be a public hearing.

At a Pre Inquest Review the Coroner will deal with any outstanding matters and will give such further directions as are necessary to prepare the case for a final hearing.

Usually the Coroner, in conjunction with the family and legal representatives will, at the Pre-Inquest review, decide upon the scope of the Inquest, the evidence to be heard and the witnesses to be called at the final hearing.

The date for the final hearing will usually be set at this Pre Inquest Rreview. All interested persons will receive written confirmation of the date and the date will be publicised on the website.

Any properly interested person who wishes to inspect or receive copies of any statement or document to be considered at the Inquest may apply to the Coroner. 

As we said, we don't know cause of death and can't speculate, but looks like it won't be resolved before New Year.

However there are many questions we wish we would have answered to but very unlikely to get any on the 18th.

Why wasn’t Brenda Leyland surprised with Brunt appearing at her home? She does seem surprised by what he has to say after he meets up with her but the way she walks towards him is if she was expecting him only not at that inconvenient time as she was about to go out with a friend.

Why did Martin Brunt and his crew wait for Brenda to return? He has filmed his “ambush” got the surprised reaction of the victim who was filmed leaving the scene in a car with a friend:

So why not pack things up and leave?

Brenda is filmed inviting him inside her house. Meaning it was after she returned (this is not filmed or is said if she decided to cancel outing with friend because of report). She got out of the car, walked to her door and invited Brunt inside, politely but visibly angry:

Between this and the moment Brenda drove away what did Brunt do? If she did go out with her friend as it seems she did, why wait so long for Brenda on her doorstep?

Why was Martin Brunt holding copy of documentation allegedly under investigation? Someone provided a copy to Brunt and informed him that it was material under investigation. We understand that Mr Brunt has the right to protect his sources but by showing documentation under investigation – and hindering it by revealing through a printout that clearly identified a site that was supposed to be under police scrutiny – did he commit a crime? What does the British justice system intend to do about it?

Why hasn’t Martin Brunt or Sky News issued and official apology about their performance with regards to Brenda Leyland? This one we will answer ourselves to be fair to the man: probably advised not to as he could legally incriminate himself if he did apologise.

Who advised Brenda Leyland to seek refuge in a hotel so near home? If she felt unsafe for some reason being in her house after the Sky News exposure, why not flee far away instead of staying at an arm’s reach of the menacing press.

That hotel, near her home, would probably be one where reporters interested in the story would stay. It was like running away from wasps and hide in their nest.

But the most important question we would like answered is why is sweepyface Brenda Leyland? Or, to more specific, why, when and how was the pseudonym sweepyface linked to the individual Brenda Leyland?

We first noticed the oddity of this identification outing in this picture from the Daily Mail of 01OCT2014:

As a footnote to it it’s said “some identities have been held for legal reasons”.

Well, we have on that particular picture 3 @******** and 1 @sweepyface.

So it can be deduced that the only identity not held for legal reasons was @sweepyface.

But @sweepyface is not an identity. It’s a pseudonym, a pen name, a nom de plume, a literary double. Not and identity. Something adopted by a person to assure their anonymity.

The pseudonym @sweepyface provides the exact same kind identification as @sledgehammer, @pinkpanther, @marypoppins, @thick_ankles or even @anonymous. Usernames that we've just invented but most likely exist.

Usernames don't provide ANY personal identification. In fact, a username only identifies the use of a Twitter account. It may represent one person or it may represent many. Anyone who has the respective password.

People using pseudonyms wish to remain anonymous. It’s their right. Much like the right to remain as anonymous as the woman who appears in the video – by coincidence no longer available on youtube but can still be seen on this Sky News webpage – saying she was the one who collated the info that was put into the in the infamous tr*ll dossier.

Also, if the other pseudonyms were held for legal reasons, one can only assume that @sweepyface was authorised to be used by Brenda Leyland. When did this happen?

But note that Martin Brunt never identifies Brenda Leyland. This is the transcript of the video:

“Brenda Leyland on screen, filmed outside this lady’s home, as she approaches her car.

Martin Brunt: “This woman uses Twitter to attack the parents of Madeleine McCann. On the internet she’s anonymous – not anymore!”

A woman walks from her car and approaches Martin Brunt.

Woman: “Well I’m just about to go out”

Brunt: “No, we caught you! Can we talk to you about your Twitter… handle, and your attacks on the McCanns?”

Woman: “No!”

Brunt: “Why are you attacking them so regularly?”

Woman: “Look I’m just going out with a friend ok?”

The woman makes her way to a waiting car. Martin Brunt follows her.

Brunt: “But why are you using your Twitter Account to attack the McCanns?”

Woman: “I’m entitled to do that”

Brunt: “You know you have been reported to the police to Scotland Yard?  They are considering a whole file of Twitter accounts …”

Woman: “That is fair enough”

Brunt: “… of what supporters say is a campaign of abuse against the McCanns.”

Woman: “Okay then well I am going out now.” 

Brunt: “The Crown Prosecution Service is considering it.  Are you worried about that?”

Woman: “No.”

Woman gets in and leaves in a car driven by a friend.

Brunt: “On Twitter she uses the name ‘sweepyface’ and the profile picture of a pet.  She tweets many times a day, and mostly about the McCanns.  In one message she spread rumours about the couples marriage, in another she hoped Madeleine’s parents would suffer forever.

But sweepyface is not the worst.”

The woman is simply identified as sweepyface. Strangely for an experienced reporter to say “on the internet she’s anonymous – not anymore!” and then only reveal a pseudonym as an identity.

Brenda Leyland’s identity was revealed by her face. It was the internet that publicly linked her face to her name, not Sky News.

But, and that is the importance of our question, Mr Brunt to make that report knew that @sweepyface was Brenda Leyland and knew where she lived.

Unless Brenda Leyland identified herself clearly in one of her tweets, someone, somehow, somewhere, went to the trouble of identifying the pseudonym and passed this information to Martin Brunt. This implies to us, a crime of violation of privacy – for some reason Daily Mail held “identities” for legal reasons in the picture above.

Again we ask, what is the British justice system going to do about it?

We wish our readers, their families and friends, a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2015.