The summer of 2016 was quite an eventful one, both inside and outside the Maddie case.
Outside it, Brexit was unquestionably what attracted the most attention.
As it happened in Britain and had as consequence a new government, one would expect that it would have significant implications in the Maddie case. Surprisingly, very surprisingly for us, it turned out that it had very few implications at all and the ones that it did were in favour of the truth as we will explain.
2. Brexit and Maddie
For a long time now, we have repeatedly said that Britain’s decision on the case, whatever it may be – archival or truth – was, is and will be dependent on the ending of the McCann v Amaral damages trial in Lisbon. The UK will only decide anything on the case when there are no more loose ends in Portugal.
So, once the McCann legal team submitted their appeal to the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court, the timelines for any British decision on the case were extended significantly. We have even said this could come around Christmas or even next year. Those familiar with the case no longer find this strange as by now they have become “accustomed” to the very peculiar timelines set by the Portuguese justice system.
Brexit obviously has absolutely no influence whatsoever in this. If the remain camp had won we would be exactly where we are today, waiting for the decision of the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court.
We had no news about whether the McCann appeal was accepted but the omission of news about that means that it was. If it hadn’t been, the trial would have been over. The McCanns wouldn’t have won and Mr Amaral wouldn’t have lost. That would be news. As there has been no news it means the process is still ongoing. There were no technicalities for the court to refuse the appeal, so as stated by law, it accepted it and is analysing it.
Before we left for holidays we said a Brexit win could mean the resignation of Cameron, raising the possibility of him holding on to his job as the opposition also supported for Britain to remain in the EU.
For us then, if he was to resign it would mean a new government and that in turn would give the other side the opportunity to influence those who would now be deciding on the case. For us, a new government would mean new people which could change the entire ball game.
What we didn’t expect was for Cameron to exit and being replaced by May. In terms of the Maddie case, the new government is but the old government with a twist: this dossier has gone from the Home Office up to Downing Street.
No need to brief anyone on this highly sensitive problem. No one to influence in the new government. What had been decided about what would be done before Brexit, continued to be so after it.
Another Brexit consequence is that an undignified defeat in the Maddie case which before it seemed unthinkable, after is, in our opinion, completely and totally unthinkable.
Archiving the case would be a huge defeat. A very humiliating one.
Blaming it all on an unknown Portuguese burglar who Scotland Yard would be unable to unearth after years of unlimited means, would be one also.
The UK public demands a victory on the McCann case. A Brexit Britain needs a success in the Maddie case.
The public will only be satisfied with names and faces. Dates and places. And motives.
It’s absolutely needed for all the 6 questions that we have put in our “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box” post to be clearly answered. Nothing less will do because anything less would be a huge, humiliating and unacceptable defeat.
It won’t be enough to say the McCanns were negligent and that Maddie was just the unfortunate victim of the circumstances of their negligence.
This would be going for the “Third Option” which we showed would not solve the problem and would only aggravate it. And it is a problem already so big that it doesn’t need any further aggravation.
For the other side Brexit was a huge set-back.
Finally we would like to speak about David Cameron. Up to June 23 2016 he was The Decider of the case but as the sun rose on the morning of June 24 2016 he became what he is today: a nobody.
His window of opportunity to decide the case, a term and a half, has closed.
It is more than evident that his name will forevermore be remembered because of Brexit and nothing else. But when scholars will study the Maddie case, and it will be studied, his name will appear alongside Gordon Brown’s: the 2 Prime-Ministers who allowed the UK to humiliate itself worldwide, kneeling before a couple of average medical doctors.
Or 6 of them if one adds the Paynes, O’Brien and Oldfield. There must be a powerful and feared Average Doctor’s Union that we haven’t ever heard of. Maybe because it’s fictional.
We know that neither of them knelt before these average doctors because we know it was before indeed powerful people that they did kneel, but the world has pictured them cowering before the McCanns and that’s the image the world will retain of them both whenever Maddie pops up again and again.
And now, like Brown, there’s nothing Cameron can do about it. No one will remember that it was he who set up Operation Grange – that has lasted far too long for anyone to collect any laurels from it. What will be remembered, for the bad or for the good, is whoever the Prime-Minister will be when Grange comes to its conclusions.
Let’s hope those who have followed Mr Cameron do not make the same mistake he has.
Besides Brexit other things happened this summer with relevance to the case. Clement Freud, the debate about Operation Grange funding, the no need of further forensics, the firing of Clarence Mitchell and the running out of money in the hands of the McCanns.
3. Clement Freud
Before Brexit, on June 15, we woke up to find that all of a sudden Clemence Freud had invaded the Maddie case like a gale 5 hurricane.
We instantly saw the importance of this move but we must confess that we didn’t realise it’s full importance and magnitude until a few days later.
When we did, we expressed it to our readers in a comment put in our “Reconstruction of May 3r 2007” post:
“Textusa 17 Jun 2016, 10:36:00
A message to the other side: well done, what a brilliant move!
One must compliment what needs complimenting.
You are certainly over-egging the Freud pudding so, as we have never underestimated you, it had to be for a reason.
For now, we think it best to keep it for ourselves as your message seems to be reaching effectively and efficiently those intended to reach but we would like you to know that we think that the Clement Freud card you have just pulled out of your hat may be the single most important move you’ve made this far.
No question that the Maddie case is now to be divided into before Clement Freud and after Clement Freud.
Hopefully it will be the decisive turning point. The break the case needed.
We who support the swinging theory are now smiling on this side of the aisle.
If only the brilliant mind who came up with this had been present that evening in May 3 2007. We wouldn’t be here now, would we?”
It seems others have failed to see the importance of this move. The reaction we witnessed in the what we may call the internet Maddie world was the certainty that Freud was going to be a patsy. The Maddie patsy. To be more precise, the Maddie paedo-patsy.
Again in the comments to the post, we reacted against this. First with this one:
“Textusa 15 Jun 2016, 10:20:00
To finalise our first reaction to the Freud v Maddie, we would like to put 2 questions [we obviously intended to ask 2 questions but ended up only asking one and overlooked editing this] to our readers:
If Maddie's death was caused by a powerful paedo ring of which Freud was part of - meaning the McCanns would be aware of it to the point of offering them their daughter - would Kate ever bring, or ever be allowed to bring, Freud into her book?”
And with this other comment:
“Textusa15 Jun 2016, 14:48:00
Complementing what we said above, let’s briefly go through all the “Freud –hypothesis”.
#1 Freud paedo circle with McCann knowledge and acceptance.
We have already gone through this one. Either powerful enough to make sure they be left in the dark or not powerful at all.
#2 Freud paedo circle without McCann knowledge and acceptance
That would mean we have been bashing unjustly the McCanns for years. All they have to do is to explain to us all why all the lies?
#3 Freud the Patsy.
First, the family would have to agree to that. One thing is to be a pre-teen rapist, which is already beyond words, another is to be an infant one.
But, let’s suppose for a minute that the family won’t mind having the man forever known as the Maddie murderer and rapist. The son saying he wasn’t in Luz that night seems to show that they don’t want to add Maddie to his already despicable record. But let’s suppose they do.
He was 83 years old then. Will they say he jumped that window holding Maddie? More likely to see a unicorn in the flesh than for that to be possible.
So, right at the start, for Freud to be the patsy we have to have people help him. The 3 burglars maybe?
All needs to be found is to have someone who will accept the role of kidnapping a 4 yr old so an 83 yr old pervert could rape her. Someone who killed her in the apartment and then took the body because they wanted or had to show why Freud could not have a little girl that night.
Know anyone who will accept to be that person?
Then Op Grange will have to link Freud to Maddie. £12 million say that it can’t be said “It was Freud” and leave it at that. What or who made that connection for SY? Needs clarification.
Of course, as we said in our Third Option post, they will also have to account for the cadaver scent in the Scenic. Where does that fit in with Freud?
And why on earth did Ocean Club tamper with the guest booking sheets if it was Freud?
Why, because of Freud would the nannies be so economical with the truth? Just to single them out as many others were as well.
So, IF Operation Grange has decided for a patsy and IF Freud is to be that patsy, we say do try it. We will be sipping margaritas while we watch you wiggle around each obstacle truth puts before you.
In fact Operation Grange, IF you’re not going for the truth, please try anything (to go for the truth is not to try but to simply be doing your job). We just want to see you sitting at that poker table playing your hand.
To sum up, this Freud thing is not a distraction. The revelation of the friendship, or supposed friendship was made by Kate in 2011 in her book.
This is just another move to pile on the let’s make the McCann really hated campaign.
Yesterday the general public hated the McCanns, today they hate them a whole lot more.
Why was Freud chosen to be outed? In our opinion that was an intentional internal move on the other side of the fence which we will refrain from writing it here, at least for now.”
Most of what we said in the comment, in “#3 Freud the Patsy”, we will be repeating today in the post.
For Freud to be a patsy someone will have to accept to lend their face and name for this role of being paedo-Freud’s little helper in the intended rape and consummated murder of a 4 yr old infant.
Operation Grange will have to provide a real and feasible link between Freud and Maddie. We’re not talking about him being a paedo or not. We’re speaking about how and why, when and by who SY was put on the Freud trail.
To say a woman saying she was raped when she was 17 yr old by a 49 yr old when spending the night alone with him in his house (having with her a nightgown that night and returning the next day and walking in the bathroom while he was bathing) is a clear similarity with a foiled attempted abduction with the intent to rape a 4 yr old infant girl is totally absurd.
If the woman alerted the authorities when she says she did, why wasn’t the house where Freud used (son denies he was there at the time) looked at by SY when they put on that show in June 2014? Very clearly then, Freud was not considered as a lead.
To have Freud as the patsy something else must have called SY’s attention to the man besides this woman. What and/or who. And when? When is important because Freud only became a prime suspect in 2016.
Note that to link paedo-Freud to Maddie, it stops being a bungled burglary to become a bungled attempt to abduct a 4 yr old to hand her over for rape to an ignominious 83 yr old who is supposedly staying (son denies this) in a house in the same small little village.
See the problem SY will have to make Freud the patsy?
Freud is not the Maddie patsy or even just a patsy. To think that is to not stop for a minute to think on just a few major implications and disastrous consequences that would entail.
So why this insistent finger pointing to Clement Freud?
A clue is in the way the media is set on pinning the paedo label on the man. Upfront we underline that we are NOT saying that he is or he isn’t. We have a witness – very quickly set aside – who says she was raped by Freud when she was 10. We must and do respect her statement.
But we would like for the readers to see the difference between the way Clement Freud and Cliff Richard are treated by the press.
We are not accusing anyone of anything. We are merely pointing out the difference of treatment given to each by the media.
Neither have gone full analysis by the Justice system (we believe that the decision of not investigating Richard is being revised as one of the alleged victims has contested it) concerning their accusations of sexual abuse.
Yet one is blatantly labelled paedo apparently without any sort of fear of libel. Why? To say Freud is dead is and Richard is alive, is a false argument. The Freud family is very powerful and we’re certain that it can sue with the same fierceness as Richard.
It’s as if the media REALLY wants to drive into our brains that Freud was a paedo. As if they want to provoke in us the disgust we feel when for a paedo wherever and whenever we read his name or see his face.
It is to be noted that the son kept his protests to the fact that his father was not in Luz when Maddie disappeared but hasn’t contested the accusations. It seems the family has accepted the “charges” without much of a surprise.
Freud comes into the case by Kate’s hand in 2011 in her book. She refers to him when speaking of 3 occasions. When they first meet, when Freud calls Gerry when returning at the end of August and lastly, on the night after they were named arguidos.
It’s this last one that is quite telling. We would say that moment was the most stressful moment the McCanns went through in this saga. From Kate’s own account they had only been together with Freud only once in July and in which encounter Kate felt intimidated by Freud as we will see how later in the post.
After that only a call from Freud to Gerry.
Yet, on this highly stressful and critical night, it’s where they chose to go, after dinner and after putting the kids to bed:
“Our plans for the evening went out of the window. We cancelled an interview we were scheduled to give Paris Match and dinner with Clement Freud. Gerry rang DCS Bob Small, who was astounded by this latest development. He promised to make some phone calls. Bob was finally able to get hold of Luís Neves, who was reportedly out of the country. Luís claimed not to know anything about it.
We made several more frantic phone calls ourselves – including one to Alan Pike, to let him know that we were now entering fantasy land. After dinner with the family, Gerry and I got Sean and Amelie ready for bed together. We would do whatever it took to protect our precious family and make it whole again.
Sean was so gentle as I was lying with them tonight. He gave me two kisses on the lips and put his arms around me while Amelie was chat, chat chatting!
At 9.50pm, I rang Clement. ‘Come on round,’ he said. ‘It’ll be nice to see you. But you’ll have to forgive my night-time attire.’
We found Clement watching a cookery programme, dressed, as promised, in his nightshirt. It was so ordinary and comforting, a bit like going to see your grandad after a horrible day at school. He gave me one of his looks and a giant glass of brandy, and managed to get a smile out of me with his greeting: ‘So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?’
His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible. When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconically, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous.
A couple of hours later, fortified by our brandies (it was my first-ever taste of the stuff), some useful snippets of advice and several amusing anecdotes, we left our friend feeling quite a bit better than we had when we’d arrived. The shock of that day, and of what we were now facing, on top of the trauma of Madeleine’s absence, never left us for a second, but it was interludes like this that gave us just enough strength to carry on.”
Why seek refuge in the arms of Freud, a man who, as shown, they had met in person only once before?
Even if there were other interactions not mentioned by Kate, the fact that he leaves after the first dinner and returns on August 31, it leaves no time for any relationship with this sort of intimacy to have developed before they were named arguidos.
And having Freud receiving them in such a critical time in a nightshirt is like watching a Mafia movie where the Godfather is woken up by some of his cappos there to explain why something had gone awfully wrong.
Note that this passage reveals that Freud is the first human being to criticise and ridicule Eddie and Keela.
This refuge seeking on this highly critical night tells us that Freud is not exactly an innocent bystander in this affair. In fact it tells us that for some reason the McCanns felt compelled to go there and speak to him, as if he was the first person they had to give an explanation.
And why does Freud say Kate is being accused of nymphomania? All his other “accusations” mentioned by him had a reason: “So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?”
In September 2007 rumours were that the group drank like no other at Tapas (alcoholic), Kate and Gerry had made the point of going to Fátima and the Vatican (devout Catholic), she had lost a child (depressed).
At that time the case had no sexual slant to it, so why mention nymphomania? A slip pf tongue towards the truth?
It’s our opinion that Freud is involved in the case and not because he may have been a paedo.
In our opinion he was a very relevant cog in the lie-machine that was put in place.
As a sidenote, please note also that Kate calls Freud at 21H50 after dinner and putting the kids to bed, in this order. This makes the twins’ bedtime on this night to differ significantly with the one that is alleged to have happened on May 3rd.
4. Reasons to put Freud under the spotlight
We think that Freud’s outing was for the following 3 reasons:
#1. Expose Freud’s role in this affair and show the other side where exactly in the food chain the cut will be made. If one happens to be more important than Freud then one can continue to live life as life has always been.
However all those below him must be ready for the axe. By pointing at Freud a threshold is being established, above you’re safe, below, sorry. Not saying you will be, just saying that you may be, so be prepared.
As far as we know, Freud is quite a big fish so the school vulnerable to be caught by the net would be quite numerous and certainly not circumscribed to a driver, a homeless and a drug addict from Praia da Luz.
What is certain is that those below Freud in the food chain have much, much less negotiation power than those above;
#2. To continue the let’s-make-the-McCann-really-hated campaign, to press on the very bad image the McCanns currently have and must have. They must continue to be the centre of all evil, they must be loathed by the public.
By linking the McCanns to Freud and Freud to Maddie’s death, it makes the couple to look really bad. Having them share vodkas and risottos with the vile paedo makes it useless for them to try and cry out how stunned they now are to learn how the man was disgusting.
Kate McCann speaks very dearly of Freud, even on a first name basis, in her book:
“At the beginning of July we received the following letter:
I have a house in P da L, been ashamed of the intrusion to your lives by our media and if you would care to come to lunch/dinner at any time before Wednesday next, do ring and let me know.
I cook decent meals.
I’m embarrassed to admit that Gerry and I thought this letter was a hoax; more embarrassing still, while we were vaguely aware of Sir Clement, we had to have our memories refreshed by Sandy and Justine before we could place him exactly. Mind you, he wore so many hats – humorist, MP, gourmet, gambler, press columnist, advertiser of dog food, radio and TV personality – that he was hard to pin down.
Gerry responded with a phone call and Sir Clement invited the seven of us there at that time – Gerry and myself with Sean and Amelie, plus Trisha, Sandy and Justine – to lunch the following day. He would be heading back to the UK a few hours later. Sir Clement was eighty-three by then, but his intellect was still razor-sharp (he was appearing on the demanding Radio 4 panel game Just a Minute right up to his death in 2009). I’m usually very intimidated by people with brains the size of planets, but Clement was incredibly warm, funny and instantly likeable. His opening words were ‘Can I interest you in a strawberry vodka?’ It was midday.
I hesitated for a split second, rapidly trying to work out if he was joking. His expression, as always, was deadpan. Not wanting to appear unsociable, I responded, ‘Er, OK then. That would be nice.’ Of course, Clement’s remark about cooking decent meals was tongue-in-cheek: among his other accomplishments, he had trained as a chef and was for many years a food writer and restaurant critic. I can confirm that the lunch he prepared for us that day was bloody marvellous: watercress and egg salad followed by a chicken and mushroom risotto – the best risotto we’ve ever tasted before or since. Clement cheered us up with his lugubrious wit, and would continue to do so by email after his return to England.”
As we have noted, this is the only time they meet in person before the McCanns are named arguidos. Freud returns to England after this dinner and only goes back to Praia da Luz on August 31:
“Clement Freud returned to Praia da Luz on 31 August and called Gerry that day. ‘Is it true, Gerry?’ he said, without preamble.
‘What’s that, Clement?’
‘That you’re close to a breakdown and needing medication?’
‘I have a lot of empathy with the Express though, you know,’ he went on.
For a split second Gerry thought he was serious. ‘Why’s that?’
‘Well, you see, we both suffer from poor circulation.’
Thank God for people like Clement who kept us smiling.”
Freud returns to Praia da Luz he calls Gerry as soon as he arrives. Quite a strange show of concern by someone who had met only once a month and a half before.
Please note in this passage the following words “Clement Freud returned to Praia da Luz on 31 August”. It has been determined that Freud did not own any property in Luz. Apparently he spent time in a property that used to be his but in 2007 wasn’t. In 2007 he stayed in a house which wasn’t his, so we find odd the choice of the word “returned” when referring to a holiday repeat, as it is supposed to have to have been.
Note that according to Kate’s book, Freud does says in the letter he sent to the McCanns that he’s staying in his own house and not in a friend’s house:
I have a house in P da L, been ashamed of the intrusion to your lives by our media and if you would care to come to lunch/dinner at any time before Wednesday next, do ring and let me know.
I cook decent meals.
The idea one gets from reading Kate’s book is that Freud is like Martin Smith: owns a house in Praia da Luz and returns there with some frequency.
The message of what is being exposed is very clear: the McCanns were intimate pals with Freud. They were pals with a man the press relentlessly calls a paedo. They were pals with the man that same press has suggested had a significant something to do with Maddie’s death.
If before Freud the general public did not like the McCanns, after Freud they certainly now dislike them a whole a lot more. Not to use stronger language.
If before Freud the McCann were personae non-grata, after Freud they are true untouchables, pariahs of society. Outcasts, set aside.
After Freud any move against the McCanns by the UK will be a very, very popular one.
This second objective is closely linked to the the third one which we will speak of next.
#3. By insisting and emphasizing that Freud is a paedo, a very important message is being sent to the other side: rather be a swinger than be a paedo-helper
In our opinion the main reason why this affair took the proportions it did was because those present in Praia da Luz did all they could to not get outed as swingers and the shame and disgrace that would imply.
Rosalind Hutton seems to agree with us and explains it very succinctly when responding to this comment made on her blog:
“Anonymous 26 May 2016 at 19:10
You really are just skating round the issues Cristobel. You ask the question, 'What is worse than neglect?' and then completely fail to address it.
What was so awful about the poor Madeleine's body that they had to lie , lie and lie some more? The accusation of neglect was preferable to what exactly?”
She answered with this:
“Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 27 May 2016 at 00:00
But I did answer it 19:10, 'worse than neglect', is the pervy stuff discussed elsewhere - the swinging and the paedophile rings, the deviant sex.”
It’s very clear that Hutton agrees with us that swinging is a much, much greater burden to bear socially in the UK than the one negligence one.
Interesting to note that Hutton sees as similar (she puts both in the same box of “deviant sex”) swinging and paedophilia. To her, it seems, a consensual legal interaction between adults is a similar perversion as a child being raped.
We on the other hand consider them completely separate in terms of perversion or on any other terms. One is legal, the other a horrendous and ignominious crime. One is between adults doing whatever they wish to do with each other privately another is a violent act without qualification on a child.
Just goes to show how much contempt some people have for swingers. The same contempt those present in Praia da Luz immediately realised they would have to face back home in the UK if what they were doing there was to be known.
They had nothing to do with Maddie’s death but they knew they faced personal disaster and in some cases, literally ruin.
So during all these years what we have witnessed is just the result of a choice made that night and following days between being known as negligent or outed as swingers.
The choice of being negligent rather than swinger won hands down. With the added bonus of having only the T9 as negligent and all those mentioned above would be out of the picture.
Perfect and reason why so many embarked on the lie. They lied and their lies made the McCann look even guiltier – accused of a negligence they never committed – and simultaneously got all the swingers off the hook of swinging and consequent social shame back home.
Who wouldn’t lie under such circumstances?
When one answers this question to oneself the only reason one finds not to lie would be because a little girl’s death would be left without justice.
However, one has to place oneself on that fateful night there in Praia da Luz.
Then, when the decision was made to embark on a lie, there was almost no justice to be sought. Her death was a tragic accident and was fully explained. Tragic accidents happen. In similar circumstances the punishment is the loss of the child and what was happening that night. Why aggravate the bad by adding to the pain the social shaming the parents and on all those who had nothing to do with her death would face in the UK when all involved in her death were effectively already being punished?
Eventually the only crime that had happened before that decision was the use of excessive force without the intent to kill. Something very regrettable but was just an unpremeditated act with an unintended consequence. Terrible and tragic, but not as horrendous as a premeditated act committed or permitted by those who should have protected her.
And the parents and friends of the dead child were the first willing to lie to protect the reputation of all those there, so why not lie?
Unfortunately a lie that has made Mr Amaral’s life a hell all these years.
But the equilibrium of this formula is abruptly changed when Freud, the paedo enters the stage closely linked to the McCanns.
With Freud the lie stops being about protecting one’s social status that has been up to now to become a lie to protect a paedo, or to be more specific a nepiophile, an infant rapist
That is what is being projected to the public opinion: if you are involved in any way with the Maddie lie, you have been and are protecting a disgusting, very sick and very cruel old man. You are as bad as the McCanns.
It’s like the other side is being told, hey, it may be better for you if you come clean, to come out and say wait a minute this has nothing to do with paedophilia this all has just to do with swinging, JUST with swinging!
Outing Freud, the paedo within the Maddie case suddenly makes the revelation of the swinging a relief instead of a burden.
Basically, before Freud, it was better to be negligent rather than a swinger and after Freud, rather be a swinger than a paedo helper.
These were the reasons that made us qualify Freud as a brilliant move from the other side. It sets a threshold up to who is to be protected, obliterates any and all popularity the McCanns may have had and makes swinging look as the lesser of evils.
5. Freud’s e-mails
But the cherry on top of the cake would come later when it was said that Freud’s e-mails would be investigated by Operation Hydrant, the child abuse investigation.
Kate’s book states very clearly there was a mail exchange between them: “Clement cheered us up with his lugubrious wit, and would continue to do so by email after his return to England.”
If Freud played a relevant part in this affair as Kate’s book suggests, we’re certain the content of the mails – we imagine them filled with details of suggestions and advices – would be very interesting in the clarification of truth.
We hope to have explained why we think Freud was a very important move in the Maddie affair. The other side has understood the message very clearly. For some reason since Freud was outed the “resistance” on social media has collapsed. On Facebook and Twitter.
With the outing of Freud the message is very clear: the times for games is over, now is the time to start to close curtains seriously.
In the next weeks we will deal with the debate about Operation Grange funding, the no need of further forensics, the firing of Clarence Mitchell and the running out of money in the hands of the McCanns in the next weeks.
All of them very importante moves. We are witnessing each side playing the final cards. Positioning their pieces for the ultimate encounter.
The initiative of when this will happen and what it will really mean lies only on one side: the UK Government.
We would just like to clarify one thing the British press has wrongly reported and that is that the McCanns have to pay around 430K€ to Mr Amaral.
This is related to the fact that the McCanns have drained all their funds – a subject we will deal with in a later post – but we would like to make it very clear that if the McCanns don’t win the case as we all hope they won’t, Mr Amaral will not receive a single cent.
The money to be paid by the McCanns if they don’t win will be to pay court costs and lawyer fees. If they win, they will only have to pay lawyer’s fees.
Likewise, if Mr Amaral doesn’t lose, only his lawyer’s fees are due, if he loses, then he also has to pay the court costs.
There is absolutely no money going from the McCanns to Mr Amaral in any of the circumstances.