Madeleine: The truth behind the lies

May 17, 2011

I did not buy a copy of the Sunday Times this week to read extracts of the book Madeleine by Kate McCann. Rather I bought it to read the article featuring myself exposing those hiding behind super injunctions. But it was quiet on the news front today, and I thought I would punish myself further by reading Kate McCann’s account.

The account is on the front page of a section called News Review. Whilst the McCanns have been in the news this week, publicising the book, the account itself is not news. Therefore if it was going to be published at all perhaps it should have gone in elsewhere?

It would be news if there was any evidence to support this claim: “In the weeks after Madeleine McCann was abducted…”, being written by an editor and not by Kate McCann herself. Similarly, apart from finding the content repulsive, I don’t believe the book was written by Kate McCann but is instead the work of a ghost writer.

It is obviously a work of fiction. However, as Jack Higgins appreciates, when he wrote The Eagle Has Landed, blending fact with fiction makes a more believable account. For example, Kate McCann claims to be recounting a dream: “Please, God, don’t let her go! Stay with me, Madeleine. Please stay with me. Don’t go – stay with Mummy. Please, sweetheart, hold on. I love you so much”. What if she did say these words, but 4 months earlier, as Madeleine lay dying or already dead on the evening of 3 May 2007 in Apartment 5A?

A bit later on she recounts: “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”. I can imagine him saying this coming back from playing tennis, and finding Madeleine dead in Apartment 5A. Then self preservation takes over and they hatch a plot in an attempt to salvage their reputations. The plot involves disposing of Madeleine’s body, staging a fake break-in, and inventing an abductor.

McCanns and the Prisoners Votes Case

February 16, 2010

McCanns and the Prisoners Votes Case

What have the McCanns and the Prisoners Votes Case got in common?

When I was in prison, sat at a dining table with 3 other lifers, Mick said “I want to see you go on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman and see him ask you the same question 14 times”. Actually, it was 12 times. It will never happen, not not get on Newsnight, but me not not answering all questions put to me.

It will be recalled that Kate McCann said she would answer all questions put to her by the Portuguese police. She chose instead to exercise her rght to silence. The jury of the court of public opinion can interpret her silence as they so wish.

It would look rather silly of me if I went on Newsnight and exercised my right to silence. It is an opportunity to get one’s story across.

Where the McCanns and the Prisoners Votes Case part company is that the prisoners have the law on their side and are in the right.

Madeleine: Registering a death abroad

February 12, 2010

Madeleine Beth McCann

I decided that it might be best if I sought the services of an Anglo-Portuguese law firm. And went for this firm.

I emailed them:

“Hi

I am interested in registering a death abroad in Portugal and wish to know whether you provide this service?

Thanks

John Hirst”.

And received the following email in reply:

“Dear Mr. Hirst,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please be advised that we provide such services but I would ask you to provide more details if possible, so that I can ascertain what the next steps shall be and provide you with a quote.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Isabel

Isabel Olazabal Ferreira

Senior Associate”.

I have been rather busy with my other passion, obtaining the vote for convicted prisoners, which has been in the news this week, so I could not pursue Justice for Madeleine. However, as that has eased up a bit I can now focus on providing Isabel with more detail to allow her to proceed.

I will, of course, keep you all updated on the progress of obtaining justice for Madeleine. That is, the issue of a death certificate/inquest for Madeleine.

More detail here.

McCanns: No smoke without fire

February 12, 2010

Madeleine Beth McCann

Portuguese police ‘ignored Madeleine McCann leads’

Portuguese police have ignored hundreds of potential new leads in the Madeleine McCann case because of their belief that she is already dead, it has been claimed.

If we were not talking about the McCanns child neglect/abandonment, and the fake break-in staged by the McCanns, and the fictitious abduction created by the McCanns, then possibly somone other than the McCanns might just have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. If that was the case, then I would be criticising the Portuguese police for being bungling cops for not investigating potential leads and possible sightings.

However, all I see from this rehashing of old news is a fresh attempt by the McCanns to deploy a smokescreen as a distraction from the focus of attention examining the McCanns conduct in Madeleine’s disappearance.

McCanns like rats leaving a sinking ship?

February 10, 2010

McCanns like rats leaving a sinking ship?

Is it just me seeing the McCanns in the rain in Portugal looking wet and bedraggled like rats leaving a sinking ship?

McCannrats leaving a sinking ship

McCanns back in court to defend book ban

February 10, 2010

McCanns back in court to defend book ban

By Sam Marsden, Press Association

Gerry and Kate McCann will return to court in Portugal today as a former senior detective continues his attempt to overturn the couple’s ban on his book.

The pair, from Rothley, Leicestershire, are battling to stop Goncalo Amaral from repeating claims that their missing daughter Madeleine is dead.

Mr Amaral was the first head of the police investigation into the little girl’s disappearance from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007, shortly before her fourth birthday.

In July 2008 he published a book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie, which alleges that Madeleine died in her family’s holiday flat and that her parents faked her abduction.

A judge granted the McCanns a temporary injunction in September last year halting further sale or publication of Mr Amaral’s book and a TV documentary he made about the case.

The ex-policeman launched an appeal against the ban at the main civil court in the Portuguese capital Lisbon last month, calling a series of witnesses to support his claims.

The McCanns admitted sitting through the evidence was painful but insisted they were right to bring the case.

The hearing was adjourned until today, when two further witnesses will give evidence for Mr Amaral before the lawyers make closing speeches.

Judge Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues is expected to reserve judgment and send her ruling directly to the McCanns and Mr Amaral before the end of this month.

It is understood that Mr and Mrs McCann, both 41, will attend today’s hearing in Lisbon before flying back to Britain tonight.

Mr Amaral’s lawyers argue the material in the book is contained in the official Portuguese police files for the investigation, many of which were made public in August 2008.

The McCanns say their main motive for challenging the former policeman is the fear that people will stop looking for Madeleine if they think she is dead.

There will be a full trial at a later date on whether the injunction banning the book should be made permanent.

The McCanns are also seeking 1.2 million euros (£1.08 million) in compensation for defamation in separate civil proceedings against Mr Amaral in Portugal.

The former detective has vowed to fight all the way to the European Court of Human Rights if he loses his case.

It’s the public’s business to scrutinise the McCann business

February 6, 2010

When I first heard that the McCanns intended setting up a “Fighting Fund”, I wondered why and who or what were they fighting against?

Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine’s father works“.

There is money to be made out of this.

Madeleine’s Fund created,

Companies House ‘Current Appointments Report’ shows that Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited’ was created on this day:

Current Appointments Report for:
MADELEINE’S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED
06248215

company was created 12th May 2007

It was initially set up, on behalf of the McCanns, in 48 hours, by the International Family Law Group (IFLG). This does appear to be something of a rush job. When jobs are rushed mistakes can be made.

Business, charity, or scam?

It is thought the original idea was to set the fund up as a charity but this was rejected, according to The Times, when it became clear that a charity cannot be operated for the sole benefit of one person. The Charity Commission later denied this.

One of the things that distinguishes a limited company from a charity is that it does not have all the rules and regulations which govern the conduct of the fundraising and which controls the proportion of the charities funds that are spent on overheads, expenses and wages etc.

It was also reported at the time that the Charity Commission was extremely disturbed at the way the Fund was being advertised as it gave people the impression that they were donating to a charity – not a private limited company.

The reality is, however unpalatable, that Madeleine’s Fund is a private limited company and can therefore spend the money donated in any way it so chooses. The memorandum of association is so wide that practically any expenditure could be approved by the board of directors“.

Not for the first time do we have a dispute with the McCann version of events and that given by someone else or by an organisation. I think it is possible, for example, to set up a charity in aid of a child dying from cancer. If this is the case, then there is no reason why the McCanns could not have registered their cause as a charity. The problem from their end would be the lack of control exercised by the McCanns. So, it was decided to set up a company instead. Nevertheless, some people still labour under the mistaken belief that the Madeleine Fund is a charity. Even allowing for the McCann statements that it is not a charity, I feel that the false impression remains in some people’s minds because of the way that the McCanns keep aligning themselves to charities, and misleading reporting in the media such as this from the recent McCanns fund raising event “The £90,000 raised will be split between the Maddie Fund and two other missing people’s charities“. It implies that the Madeleine Fund is a charity. I have yet to see any demand made by the McCanns to correct this false information. Given that the McCanns have a history for wanting corrections made in the media on stories concerning themselves, why is there silence on their part?

Having established that the Madeleine Fund is not a charity, the focus turns to the question of a business or scam. An indication that the McCanns are in the business to make money, is their distasteful application to brand their missing 3 year old child as a trademark.

Trademark application filed

The campaign to find Madeleine McCann has applied for British and European trademarks to protect its fundraising, internet and print promotions. The applications, which were filed on May 18, seek to protect the name “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned”. The European application also seeks protection for the provision of social services and advice for people affected by missing children.

It appears as though the McCanns are laying claim to be the only persons entitled to earn money out of Madeleine’s disappearance. This does not sit well with the English law principle that criminals should not profit from their crimes. It is accepted that the McCanns have so far not been convicted of any criminal offence in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine. So, they remain innocent until proven guilty.

Bringing the McCanns to account is a long drawn out process. It will help if the Madeliene Fund is attacked successfully in the courts. It is hoped by doing this that rich backers like Brian Kennedy and Richard Branson will have a rethink about keep funding the McCanns.

I noted that it was originally stated that the McCanns would not use the Madeleine Fund in their criminal defence. And yet, the Madeleine Fund has been used to pay for the McCanns legal fight against Mr Amaral. The published accounts do not refer to it being used for this purpose in relation to Madeleine, but the court injunction clearly refers to Madeleine as being one of the claimants in the case. Once again we have an inconsistency from the McCann Camp.

It’s a business we are dealing with. I question the not for profit aspect. Accepting it is a business does not rule out the possibility that it is also a scam. Those conducting scams are in the business of making money. A legitimate business is not a scam, and a scam is not a legitimate business. My suspicion is that what we are really dealing with here is a scam. I do not have enough evidence to support a criminal beyond all reasonable doubt standard of proof, however, the civil standard of balance of probabilities does not look good for the McCanns.

McCannspin money laundering

February 5, 2010

It is generally the case money laundering involves turning dirty money into clean money.

However, the McCannspin laundry takes clean money and turns it into dirty money via the Madeleine’s Fund.

This dirty money is then paid to Isabel Duarte to seek an injunction to gag Mr Amaral. The writ is paid for in dirty money.

Is justice blind in Portugal?

Madeleine’s Fund: A turn up for the books

February 5, 2010

Doctors McCanns you’re in legal trouble, oh dearie, dearie me.

It’s in relation to the Madeleine’s Fund.

I am not a bookkeeper (accountant), however, my task is not to add up figures. Rather, my job is to assess whether stated words add up upon examination in practice.

For example, “Madeleine’s Fund – ‘Leaving No Stone Unturned’ is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector“.

This is called “throwing a spanner in the works”…

Definition of Non-Commercial Companies

This policy, mainly extracted from law of Great Britain and Canada, addresses the conditions that an entity must meet to qualify as a non-profit organization for purposes of the non-commercial licensing. When determining whether an entity is a non-profit organization , the entity must meet all of the following conditions:

*

It was organized solely for non-profit purposes.
*

It is in fact operated solely for non-profit purposes.
*

It does not distribute or otherwise make available for the personal benefit of any member any of its income.

In case a group, company or individual does not meet all of the described conditions, it is automatically considered as a profit company, group or individual“.

It does not distribute or otherwise make available for the personal benefit of any member any of its income“.

Is receiving money, for example, to pay off the McCanns mortgage a personal benefit?

I am warming to this task already and I have hardly started :-)

Update:

“the entity will probably not qualify as a non-profit organization if it is primarily involved, for example, in an activity that is directly connected with the sales of members’ goods or services and for such services receives a fee or commission computed in relation to sales promoted. Such an entity is normally considered to be an extension of the members’ sales organizations and will be considered to be carrying on a normal commercial operation. If the fees and commissions charged are well beyond the needs of the entity and these earnings are accumulated and invested as described below by the entity, this would be another reason why the entity would not qualify as a non-profit organization”.

Welcome To the Madeleine Online Store

My initial feeling is that the McCanns company is a for profit organisation.

Just a thought: If Madeleine is dead, the Fund is dead.

Quick doctor we need to resuscitate Madeleine…

…Surely a case for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)? I would not want to tread on their size 12 plod feet if they intend to conduct an investigation into the allegations of fraud in relation to the Madeleine Fund. If there is official inaction, it clears the path for a private action.

Missing presumed dead

February 5, 2010

A man has been convicted of killing his wife even though a body has never been found.

Remember Kate McCann claiming that “They have taken her”?

In the above case…

Shortly before Prout reported his wife missing, he and Ms Bellamy met for lunch at a pub near Gloucester where he told her someone had “taken” Mrs Prout away.

Mr Dunkels told the jury: “The defendant appeared to be uptight, saying she had been horrible to his daughter. Diane Bellamy confronted him, asking him what he had done.

“He replied ‘Don’t ask me. They’ve taken her away. Don’t ask me any questions’.”

Basically, my position is that Madeleine is missing presumed dead.

The McCanns position is that Madeleine is missing presumed alive.

In my view, there is the need for a definitive ruling one way or another. I stand to gain nothing financially if I win. However, the McCanns stand to gain financially if they win.

English translation of The Temporary Injunction: Granted on September 9, 2009

February 4, 2010

Link here.

McCanns: I demand my pound of flesh

February 4, 2010

As explained to Laffin Assasin here I decided upon this nominal sum rather than my original intention of only donating a penny because I am aware of examples whereby £1 has been accepted for this purpose. For example: Russian oligarch buys British newspaper for nominal sum.

Just another example of a McCann inconsistency

I could not help but notice this further example of a McCann inconsistency. It is advertised as a “Don’t Give Up On Me T-Shirt” but then goes onto say: The front has the text “Dont You Forget About Me” and the rear has the web site addresses. Madeleines picture is shown on the front and the back. Apart from the first and last words being the same, the three words in the middle are obviously different.

I would not have raised this little issue, but it reminds me of everything about the McCanns saying one thing when something else is the case in fact.

Gerry McCann: We did kill daughter

February 1, 2010

Gerry McCann: We did kill daughter

It says so in the text of the link…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480825/Gerry-McCann-We-did-kill-daughter.html

“01/02/2010 19:15
Aileen said… 39

“It seems like a disaster that we’ve got this huge donated fund and now we’re not allowed to use it for legal costs because we’re under suspicion,” said Gerry.

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480825/Gerry-McCann-We-did-kill-daughter.html

Um, interesting link title, Daily Mail… saving space?”

Hat-Tip to Aileen and Joana Morais

A testing time for the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell

January 30, 2010

Clarence Mitchell: “There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found” (Joana Morais).

Really?

So, let’s put it to the test, shall we?

“Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed.”

(b) Brian Healy Grandfather:

“Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone,”

“There was no evidence of a break-in,” said Mr Mitchell (The McCanns’ spokesperson – Irish Independent, 25 October 2007).

Can the McCanns or their spokesman now please provide a wholly innocent explanation for claiming that there had been a break-in when on the facts there had not?

McCanns: A penny for your thoughts

January 30, 2010

McCanns: A penny for your thoughts

Tort law is a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations“.

It goes onto say: “A person who suffers legal damages may be able to use tort law to receive compensation from someone who is legally responsible, or liable, for those injuries”.

A person needs to show a judge that he/she has personally suffered a loss to bring an action into court. Sometimes a judge may only award nominal damages to the claimant, for example, one penny. By the same token, legal damage suffered can be as little as one penny.

The plan is this. I intend to donate the sum of one penny to the ‘Madeleine’s Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned’. Then I can claim that I have legitimately suffered by the McCanns fraud, and take the matter into court.

In simple terms, fraud occurs when somebody makes a misrepresentation of material fact, in order to obtain action or forebearance by another person, where the other person relies upon the misrepresentation and suffers injury as a result of the act or forebearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation. In most fraud cases, there is active misrepresentation by the defendant. In some, the misrepresentation occurs through the defendant’s silence on a key issue”.

“A material fact is a fact which, if known, would have affected the judgment of one or more of the parties to a transaction. In an action for fraud, a material fact must be of sufficient importance to the matter that a reasonable person would have been likely to rely on it. A material fact cannot be an opinion, belief, prediction, or speculation, and typically must relate to something in the past or present that can be proved or disproved”.

“Within the context of fraud, reliance means that plaintiff would not have taken the particular action which underlies the fraud action (e.g., would not have entered into a contract with the defendant), had the defendant had not made the representation, promise or created the false impression, even if the representation, promise, or false impression was not the only reason for plaintiff’s action”.

“To establish fraud, a plaintiff typically has the burden of proving each of the following elements:

*

The defendant made a representation of one or more material facts;
*

The representation was false when it was made;
*

The defendant knew the representation was false when the defendant made it, or defendant made it recklessly (i.e., without knowing whether or not it was true);
*

The defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff rely upon it;
*

The plaintiff relied upon the representation; and
*

The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the reliance“.

This is an interesting bit of info…

[i]t would…be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group…or even a single public sprited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped.

McCanns false accounts in relation to Madeleine

January 30, 2010

McCanns false accounts in relation to Madeleine

According to John McCann, Chairman of Madeleine’s Fund: Leave no stone unturned Ltd, “On 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal”. Clearly, this is a false statement. It lacks supportive evidence to make it a fact. Therefore, why is a false account being included in a statement of accounts?

For the record, John McCann, I believe it is Gerry and Kate McCann who are amoral. If you must refer to Mr Amaral, the least you can do is spell his name correctly!

See the madeleinefundaccountsmarch2009 here.

It is not just a matter of ensuring that funds are accounted for. The McCanns need to be held to account in relation to other matters as well.

On the very first page of this blog, we asserted that the McCanns had lied about the case from beginning to end. Perhaps readers thought, oh this is blogland, people make all sorts of claims.

No. We repeat, and it is a matter of record, that Kate & Gerry McCann lied from beginning to end of the investigation into their daughter’s disappearance, a claim that will stand up in the libel courts because it is undeniably true“.

McCanns cause concern for the police

January 28, 2010

I hope that the police and coastguards bill the McCanns for coming up with this stupid publicity stunt?

LATEST NEWS ON MADELEINE: Sky News reports see you in court story

January 27, 2010

LATEST NEWS ON MADELEINE: Sky News reports see you in court story

The news story you read here first.

Re: LATEST NEWS ON MADELEINE
posted at 27/1/2010 9:16 PM GMT on Sky News

GMKOMD
Total posts: 45
First post: 12/1/2010
Last post: 28/1/2010

http://www.mccannfiles.com/

http://www.stern.de/panorama/madeleines-eltern-es-gibt-auffaelligkeiten-597291.html

http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/see-you-in-court-mr-and-mrs-mccann/

New post Reply to this post
Report Abuse

Only 20 people in Portugal believe the McCanns innocent

January 27, 2010

Maddie: 20 people attend mass in Praia da Luz TVI

Approximately 20 people attended a religious ceremony this Wednesday, at the Church of Praia da Luz, to mark the passage of 1000 days since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, which happened in May 2007, in that Algarve village.

The initiative, which was organised by the FindMadeleine Fund, and celebrated by Anglican priest Haynes Hubbard, gathered mainly members of the English community that resides in Praia da Luz, near Lagos.

At the end of the prayer “to remember Maddie”, which lasted for about half an hour, the participants set off some light lanterns into the sky, in a homage to the little missing girl“.

As most of the 20 are part of the ex-pat English community in Praia da Luz, it does not appear as though the McCanns propaganda fools the Portuguese people as a whole.

The arrogant, sneering, grave robber Gerry McCann

Freemasons support the McCanns

January 27, 2010

The lanterns will be released at the Rothley Court Hotel in the McCanns’ home village of Rothley“.

Rothley Court Hotel

Rothley Manor

The Templars were granted land at Rothley in 1203 by John de Harecourt and the Manor of Rothley by Henry III in 1228. The Chapel still stands today next to the former manor house, which was converted into a hotel, Rothley Court Hotel, in 1960. Ownership has passed down to Clive Wormleighton, a member of the Order who became Preceptor of Leicester in 1974. The Chapel is open to the public upon asking at the hotel“.

Scottish Knights Templar

Is Gerry McCann a member of the Scottish Knights Templar?

Rothley Court Hotel

Speaking at a news conference at the Rothley Court Hotel in Leicestershire yesterday, Mr McCann, 41, said: ‘There’s a lot of people in Portugal, who might have evidence, that believe Madeleine is dead“.

The Daily Mirror reports…
Tapas 9 at secret meeting at Rothley Court Hotel

I’ve seen the light

January 26, 2010

I’ve seen the light

I’ve seen the light
I know why Gerry was so furtive that night
Busy setting the stage
For the disappearance of Madeleine, 3 years of age.
There was not a Tanner let alone an abductor in sight.

“They’ve taken her. Madeleine has gone” Kate cried
On 3 May 2007, the day that Madeleine died
The McCanns know what they both did
One killed Madeleine and the other her body hid
About the “break-in” they both lied.

The People’s new little Princess
The McCanns ask “How to get out of the mess?”
That’s simple, you both only have to confess!

Simon Armitage’s Madeleine McCann poem

Simon Armitage’s poem about Madeleine McCann, published in times2 and to be auctioned for the Find Madeleine campaign

The Beacon

Dusk, doubt, the growing depth of an evening sky,
dark setting in as it did that night,
the forever vastness of outer space
reflecting the emptiness here inside,
shadowing, colouring, clouding the mind.

But somewhere out there there has to be life,
the distance only a matter of time,
a world like our own, its markings and shades
as uniquely formed as a daughter’s eye,
distinctly flecked, undeniably hers,
looking back this way through the miles and years

to a lantern cupping a golden blaze,
its candle alive with a fierce blonde flame
for the thousandth time, for as long as it takes.

JHL’s poem first published here

McCann Empire: The first 1,000 days

January 26, 2010

Clarence Mitchell: “Kate and Gerry have good and bad days, as you would well expect given that their daughter is still not home, as you say, nearly a thousand days on. They draw greatest strength from when they sense there is momentum in the search, and in the wider campaign to keep awareness of Madeleine high in the public eye, and so, on Wednesday, to mark a thousand days exactly they’re going to be holding a fund raising event in London and they’ll be surrounded by their long term friends and supporters, so they will draw great strength from that. But it is very difficult and they do find any, errr… anniversary or occasion like this to be very difficult“.

It is, perhaps, not surprising that the McCanns feel strongest when the hunt goes in the opposite direction to the McCanns. On the evening Madeleine went missing, 3 May 2007, the McCanns wined and dined with friends as they neglected to stay at home with the kids and abandoned them in Apartment 5A. And on the one thousandth day of evading justice, the McCanns will be once again wining and dining with friends.

It beggars belief that Clarence Mitchell can claim that the McCanns find it difficult to celebrate, the 50th, 100th, 1 year and now 2 year stage. Before the 50th was over Gerry McCann announced the intention to mark the 100th day since Madeleine went missing. On my Jailhouselawyer’s Blog, I pointed out “How does Gerry McCann know that Madeleine will not be found in the meantime?”. Shortly afterwards, Gerry McCann inserted the words “if she is not found” by the 100th day.

Jenna Wolfe after stating that the McCanns have brought an action in court against Mr Amaral, trying to gag him, she then goes on to sympathise with the McCanns by stating: “As if they need something else to continue to worry about”. What do you mean, along with guilty consciences? If they did not want the worry why did they bother to sue in the first place?

CEOP does not endorse McCann claim of abduction

January 23, 2010

The McCannfiles is reporting the story here.

Follow the discussion on this remarkable turn of events here.

Networld criminal profilers

January 21, 2010

As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media“.

Isn’t this what most of us do? Either sit in front of the television set and/or computer screen and form a theory based on what we see and hear of the case? We are presented with the “facts” and form a judgement based upon them what the likeliest scenario is or was.

For example, the “fact” that there was a break-in? The “fact” as presented by a spin doctor or in this case a spin cardiologist turns out not to be a fact at all once the spin is unspun and is pure fiction which is the direct opposite position.

That is, a purported truth is a lie. And the teller of this story is a liar. More precisely, a McCannliar. The role of a spin doctor, in this case a spin cardiologist, is to put across a message which favours the teller and when Clarence Mitchell sells out and joins the McCann Camp the teller paints the best picture he can for his client for us all to view. I have seen what I would call art and I have seen what some claim to be art and I see as pure garbage.

What we are talking about here is opinions. Clarence Mitchell is an opinion former. When MPs leave government or even those within it are associated with outside interests which earn them extra money. They are paid for what they know and who they know. Clarence Mitchell left a secure government post to work for the McCanns. That was a risky move if done so voluntarily. Did he jump or was he pushed? The reason I ask is the “fact” that he tipped off the McCanns to police monitoring of their phones. It is “fact” rather than fact purely because I was informed by a reliable source that this is what occured. Remember the mentioned liquid lunches the cops took? Let’s say for example, a crime reporter for a TV station is told to get the inside story. He has expenses. He bumps into a cop or cops, offers to buy their lunch. It’s a freebie. Drink? “Can’t say anything because of the secrecy laws”. Another drink? And after a while the drink loosens the tongue. How do you know this? We have been listening to their mobile phone calls and monitoring texts.

The UK government intelligence departments know this. They brief the Foreign Office, and Clarence Mitchell is briefed on his role to support the McCanns in Public Relations, but he oversteps this assistance and tells them they are being monitored. It is picked up by the police that the McCanns have been tipped off by Clarence Mitchell. The Portuguese government complains to the UK government and Clarence Mitchell must resign or face disciplinary action. He goes away to consider his position, phones the McCanns and they offer him a job.

Why would two totally innocent people enlist the support of some or all of their friends in a cover up if nothing had happened to Madeleine? There would be no point. So, we are dealing with criminals here. What are their individaul and collective crimes? What are their criminal profiles?

Childkiller says McCanns have something to hide

January 21, 2010

Ben Gunn sketch drawn by a fellow prisoner

It comes to something when even a child killer states that the McCanns are hiding something. To be fair, this child killer was only a child of 14 himself when he killed another child. I have no knowledge whether it was a boy or girl, or even the age of the other child, or why he killed the other child, he just says he “killed a friend”. That’s his business.

Ben Gunn aged 9
Ben Gunn aged 9 years: a younger male version of Myra Hindley?

The point is, prisoners, particularly lifers, have a sense when they hear, see, or read something being put across and it isn’t right. Like the appeal in the Shannon Matthews case, or McCann case. Alarm bells start ringing in their heads, and they look at each other and then express their opinions. It has happened too often that their scepticisms prove correct for it to be just a good wild guess. Given that they are such bad characters themselves, they are good judges of character. It would be interesting if a poll was done inside prison to see what percentage of the 84,000 prisoners believed the McCanns guilty.

What child abduction? (Revisited)

January 20, 2010

What child abduction

What child abduction?

This is a favourite subject of mine. As a young child, I had problems, but still a bright child who was always asking “Why?” It was frustrating when an adult responded with “Because”. It was not an answer, but a non-answer. Evasive. That is why I like the photo above so much. When Gerry McCann is asked the question, he responds with “Because”. There is so much evasiveness with the McCanns.

The position offered by the McCanns, initially, was break-in + disappearance = abductor. Eventually, Clarence Mitchell confessed that there was no evidence of a break-in. Clarrie’s retreat is very significant, it is as big as removing one of the elements of Earth, Wind and Fire. Suddenly, he was then claiming disappearance = abduction. But, all those references in the media remain where family and friends put out the McCanns propaganda of the fake break-in.

Why did the McCanns fake a break-in?

Almost as important, why have their friends and family still stuck by them when they have been used so badly, let down, and very seriously lied to? Why have they not been speaking to the media about questioning the McCanns why they were lied to? They were quite happy to gob off before when spinning the McCanns web of deceit.

Madeleine: A death abroad

January 20, 2010

Madeleine RIP death abroad by unnatural causes

“If a death takes place abroad it must be registered according to the law of that country. The death should also be reported to the British Consul who may be able to arrange for the death to be registered in the UK as well.

Every effort should be made to have the deceased buried as soon as possible in the country where the death took place.

Returning a body to the UK is expensive. If the death was on a package holiday the tour operator should be able to help with arrangements.

When a body is returned to the UK, the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the district where the funeral is to take place must be told and will need to issue a certificate before burial can take place.

If the death was not due to natural causes the Coroner for the district will also need to be told and an inquest may need to take place. In Northern Ireland a Coroner can also arrange a post mortem or an inquest if the family requests it.

When a death occurs abroad, the appropriate civil registration procedure must be followed and this will then permit a death certificate to be issued. It is this document, appropriate to the country where the death took place, which is produced to the Register of Births and Deaths.

However, such a death registration does not mean that the death is recorded in the United Kingdom. There is no legal obligation to register the death of a British national with the British authorities; nevertheless there are advantages in that, once registered, a British form of death certificate is available.

It is often possible, when a death occurs whilst abroad, for the next of kin to liaise with the office of the High Commissioner when in a Commonwealth country or the Consul’s office in other countries and for the death certificate and any other appropriate documentation to be presented to that Government official, who will instigate the initial inquiries for registration and issue the British death certificate which will be registered at the General Register Office in the U.K. Following the registration by the registering officer at either the High Commission or the Consulate, a return is made to the Registrar General. This return is made on an annual basis.

If the death has not been dealt with through the High Commission or Consulate in the country where it occurred, it is still possible for it to be registered in the consular register of deaths held by the British Embassy or the Consulate and for that record of death to be held, in due course, at the General Register Office.

If the death is to be registered in the appropriate consular register of deaths, then an application form67 must be completed and the registration officer must be satisfied as to the national status of the deceased. The following documents must be provided and should accompany the application.

1.
the civil death certificate issued by the local authorities;

2.
evidence of the deceased’s claim to British nationality (a full birth certificate or of registration as a British national).

The Application form for Consular Death Registration requires details of the person whose death is to be registered, including:

*
full name (and maiden name if appropriate) and sex;

*
date and place of birth;

*
date of death;

*
address in full of usual residence at time of death;

*
address in full of place of death; and

information about the informant (applicant).

The original documents must be sent – photocopies of documents are not acceptable – by recorded or special delivery mail. It is recommended that such documents are accompanied by a pre-paid recorded or special delivery envelope otherwise they will be returned by normal first class post. All documents are dealt with only through the post.

The consular fee for a death registration and provision of one certified copy is £90.00, with additional copies costing £35.00 each. A cheque or postal order for the appropriate amount should be made payable to “The Foreign and Commonwealth Office”.

As the British Embassy or Consulate in the country where the death occurred will carry out the registration, it will therefore take approximately one month from receipt of the properly documented application before the consular death certificate is received”.

Source: Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire

See you in Court Mr and Mrs McCann

January 18, 2010

“One phone call.
One email can end one family’s nightmare”.

Your wish is my command, but be careful what you wish for…

I have made one phone call to my solicitor’s. And, so far, sent one email to his address…

I remember a gangster once saying to me: “I could bust your head, break both your arms and legs and I would still have to keep looking over my shoulder because you don’t give up”.

I chuckled because he was showing me respect. The McCanns did not show Madeleine respect for her right to life. I have no respect for Gerry and Kate McCann, this is why I am bringing court actions.

Update:

It is not one action but a combination. However, as always the devil is in the detail.

IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN

Judgment of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London,
7th July 2008, in open court

Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive”.

When I first heard that the McCanns intended to apply to make Madeleine a Ward of Court I suspected that what was behind it was trying to protect the McCanns copyright to profit from the sale of Madeleine wristbands etc. In any event, I wondered how a dead child could be made a Ward of Court. As you can see from Mrs Justice Hogg’s partial judgment above her reasoning is based upon an assumption. Having studied critical criminology, the aim being to knock down the assumptions of the positivist’s approach to criminology, I attack the assumption. Ironically, with another assumption.

“In law, death in absentia is the status of a person who has been declared presumed dead when the person disappears but no identifiable remains can be located or recovered”. As I understand it, we are talking about the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities as opposed to the criminal beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mrs Justice Hogg has erred in law. Neither the The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, nor the Hague Convention apply in this case.

The correct legal position, in my view, is that Madeleine can be declared dead and a death certificate issued. Therefore, I am applying for this. There are two ways the authorities can respond, simply issue the death certificate and be done with it, or order an inquest with a coroner and jury. Obviously, I would prefer the latter.

“Dead End For Madeleine” Say The McCanns

January 18, 2010

Madeleine Beth McCann

John Corner – a close friend of the McCanns – says…

“Kate and Gerry are relying on the Portugese police. They’re really their only hope to find Madeleine. And there’s an uncomfortable feeling that the police are not necessarily looking outward for Madeleine. They’re turning their attention inward to the parents and they know that that’s a dead end”.

Unfortunate choice of words…to say the least…

To be fair, it is Jon Corner who says that the McCanns know. And, it may well be that the interpretation means a dead end to that line of police inquiry.

Madeleine is dead and not abducted

January 18, 2010

The title says it all really.

I have no evidence to support my belief. However this does not mean to say that it is some wild belief, for example, like Kate and Gerry McCann claiming that Madeleine was abducted. Having examined the case I have concluded that on the balance of probabilities that an explanation other than abduction is the reason why Madeleine has disappeared.

We start from nothing.

Kate McCann returns to Apartment 5A from the Tapas Bar, and states she just knows that Madeleine has been abducted to explain her disappearance. There is no “I wonder where she is?”, or “I wonder what could have happened to her?”. Instead of uncertainty, we have somebody who was neither in hearing or seeing distance claiming to know with certainty exactly what has happened to Madeleine. Unless Kate McCann is claiming to be psychic, it does not add up if one is applying logic to the situation. This means that Kate McCann’s statement is illogical.

Whilst I cannot claim to know what happened to Madeleine, I do know with certainty that the McCann explanation lacks truthfulness. Accepting that I was neither in seeing nor hearing distance of Apartment 5A on 3 May 2007, I don’t know what happened to Madeleine. However some internet detective work, and going through the case like a pathologist conducting a post mortum, and adding some lawyerly skills I claim that it is possible to knock down the McCann theory of abduction as an explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance.

(originally posted at http://madeleinedeadnotabducted.freeforums.org/

It’s my party I can lie if I want to

January 17, 2010

Childkillers McCanns

It has been a long standing principle of English law that criminals should not profit from their crimes. And yet, the childkillers Gerry and Kate McCann intend to throw a party to celebrate the fact that they have evaded prosecution for 1,000 days.

To allow them to continue being on the run from the law the McCanns intend to charge 180 guests £150-a-head in an attempt to raise £50,000 for their mortgage fund.

It is sad that two charities are so desparate for money, they are expected to split £50,000 between them, that they associate themselves with the paedophile pair.

Meanwhile, in other news, FURIOUS Kate McCann has branded the ex-detective who led the hunt for her daughter a liar.

It comes to something when the McCanns lied about the fake break-in at Apartment 5A having the audacity to brand anyone else a liar!

Madeleine Beth McCann alive or dead?

January 17, 2010

Liars claim Amaral a liar

Gerry and Kate McCann claim that Madeleine is alive, whereas Gonçalo Amaral claims that Madeleine died on 3 May 2007 in Apartment 5A. In my view, Mrs Justice Hogg erred in law by stating in her judgment below: “there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive”. This appears to be a rather convenient way to dispose of the case. Whilst I would not presume to claim that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, I do contend that the McCanns were wrong to invoke The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, simply because there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted.

If it is valid to presume Madeleine is alive, surely it is equally valid to presume that Madeleine is dead?

IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN

Judgment of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London,
7th July 2008, in open court

Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.

I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:

“The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court”.

It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden.

I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.

I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made.

There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found.

I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God.

I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found.

I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well.

I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

http://madeleinemccann.org/main/2008/1761/in-the-matter-of-madeleine-beth-mccann/

Death in absentia

“In law, death in absentia is the status of a person who has been declared presumed dead when the person disappears but no identifiable remains can be located or recovered”.

Facts, circumstances, and the “balance of probabilities”

“In most common law and civil code jurisdictions, it is usually necessary to obtain a court order directing the registrar to issue a death certificate in the absence of a physician’s certification that an identified individual has died. However, if there is circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual is deceased on the balance of probabilities, jurisdictions may agree to issue death certificates without any such order. For example, passengers and crew of the Titanic who were not rescued by the RMS Carpathia were declared legally dead soon after the Carpathia’s arrival at New York City. More recently, death certificates for those who perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks were issued by the State of New York within days of the tragedy. The same is usually true of soldiers missing after a major battle, especially if the enemy keeps an accurate record of its prisoners of war.

If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details, including:

* The jurisdiction the individual lived in before death
* The jurisdiction where they are presumed to have died
* How the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.)
* the balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead

Most countries have a set period of time (seven years in many common law jurisdictions) after which an individual is presumed to be dead if there is no evidence to the contrary. However, if the missing individual is the owner of a significant estate, the court may delay ordering a death certificate to be issued if there has been no real effort to locate the missing person. If the death is thought to have taken place in international waters or in a location without a centralized and reliable police force and/or vital statistics registration system, other laws may be in effect”.

Legal aspects of death in absentia

England and Wales

“In England and Wales, if it is believed that there should be an inquest the local coroner will file a report; this may be done to help a family receive a death certificate that will bring some closure. This will bring any suspicious circumstances into light. The coroner will then apply to the Secretary of State for Justice under the Coroners Act 1988 section 15, for an inquest with no body. The seven years rule will only apply in the High Court of Justice on the settlement of an estate. According to a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, the number of requests received each year is fewer than 10 but very few of these are refused. Without a body an inquest relies mostly on evidence provided by the police, and whether the senior officers believe the missing person is legally dead”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_absentia

Perhaps Gonçalo Amaral should consider seeking a court order declaring Madeleine is dead in absentia in Portugal? Or, someone maybe attempting this in England?

Photo: Hat-Tip http://mccanngallerytribute.blogspot.com/2010/01/evidence-supporting-abduction-of.html

Maddie The Truth of the Lies

May 29, 2009

Maddie The Truth of the Lies

McCanns involved in Madeleine Fund fraud

May 25, 2009

I don’t know whether these two ex-cops were corrupt as serving police officers. However, their current private investigation is certainly corrupt in the eyes of the law. According to the quote above they have been hired to investigate missed leads. How can so-called experienced former detectives miss the lead in relation to the fake break-in, the cover story, put out by the McCanns? Either they are so incompetent or crooked. If their remit excludes investigation of the McCanns themselves, then it is not a proper investigation at all but instead a smokescreen. This being the case, then the McCanns are fraudulently taking money from the Madeleine Fund not to investigate missing leads but instead to lay a false trail away from their door“.

More…click on the link

Why did the McCanns tell the PJ a lie about a fake break-in to Apartment 5A?

May 22, 2009

Why did the McCanns tell the PJ a lie about a fake break-in to Apartment 5A?

Madeleine the truth

April 30, 2009

Link

McCanns: Just a thought

January 4, 2009

Listening to Viking FM yesterday I was particularly struck by the following advert:

“Hull the family friendly city where no child is left behind”.

I could not help but think that there must be a message somewhere in this for the McCanns…

Should Kate McCann be Woman of the Year 2008?

January 2, 2009

Amanda Knox voted Italian

‘woman of the year’

The American student accused of stabbing her British flatmate Meredith Kercher to death has been named among Italy’s personalities of the year.

Story here.

My Christmas message for the McCanns…

December 21, 2008

My Christmas message for the McCanns…

A child is not just for Christmas.

According to the McCanns:

Christmas is a time for children. Please help bring our daughter back.”

The evening of  3 May 2007, was also a time for children. Instead, the McCanns chose to neglect their children in favour of a binge drinking session with their friends.

It is pathetic that the McCanns are pleading “Please help bring our daughter back”. They and they alone were responsible for Madeleine’s death and disappearance.

We will help bring your daughter’s body back to England for a decent burial. But first you must tell us where you disposed of her body.

The McCann affair is a scandal

October 23, 2008

Brian Carthcart in the New Statesman argues that it is a scandal the treatment that the British press gave to the McCanns and the Tapas 7.

The author calls for a public inquiry and adds:

“And an inquiry might not only look at the conduct of reporters and newspapers, but could also assess the arguments about the conduct of the McCanns, who have been accused of manipulating public opinion through adept use of public relations”.

In my view, how the McCanns have conducted themselves is a scandal. And, I would welcome a public inquiry if only to hear the McCanns answers to the questions they have been evading fron Day One.

McCanns: Reasonable suspicion?

October 23, 2008

The police are called to report that a 3 year old girl is missing from an apartment. Besides a girl missing, what else is missing? The answer is, an explanation for her disappearance. The parents offer an explanation, rather conveniently, they state an abductor must have taken Madeleine away. Initially, they claim that the apartment was locked. And, that the abductor effected a break-in. Upon further investigation it is discovered that the apartment was left unlocked by the parents, and that no break-in occurred.

The parents were the last people to see Madeleine.

“The CATCHEM database used by police on investigations into child disappearances indicates that 80% of missing children have been killed either by parents or close relatives and that the snatching of children by roving paedophiles is actually quite rare”.
http://charonqc.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/the-presumption-of-innocence/

Obviously, each individual case has to be judged on its individual merits.

If we look at this objectively, to date we have 3 unsatisfactory explanations offered by the McCanns.

1. “We thought it was safe”.
2. “The apartment was locked”.
3. “There was a break-in”.

That’s 3 reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Link.

A crime mystery?

October 23, 2008

On the 3rd of May 2007, at approximately 10pm, at Praia da Luz in Portugal, the parents of 3 year old Madeleine Beth McCann declared her to be missing.

How was it possible for Madeleine to simply go missing? The simple answer provided by Madeleine’s parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, was that they had left Madeleine and their 2 year old twins, in the apartment alone, without supervision, whilst they went out for a meal and drinks with their friends. At the time stated, Kate McCann claimed that she left the tapas bar to check upon the children and discovered that Madeleine was absent.

Was it safe to leave 3 children under 4 years of age all alone without supervision? The simple answer is, no it is not.

Is there any evidence that Madeleine was asleep in the apartment along with the twins? The simple answer is, no. There is no evidence whatsoever, just the parents word that she was.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the parents are in some way responsible in the disappearance of Madeleine.

Link.

Madeleine is dead: It’s official

October 17, 2008

Friends of Madeleine McCann’s parents who were with the couple on the night she died are to receive £375,000 in libel damages, it has been reported.

Sky News said the money will be paid out to the so-called “Tapas Seven” by Express Newspapers.

The group were holidaying with Kate and Gerry McCann when three-year-old Madeleine disappeared in May last year.

Hat-Tip to the McCannfiles.

Libel actions are no indication the McCanns are innocent

October 16, 2008

The McCanns claimed that they had abandoned their 3 children under 4 years of age Home Alone whilst they went out for a binge drinking session and a meal at the Tapas Bar. Asked why they had neglected their children the McCanns replied that they believed it was safe to do so. This takes some believing that they believed that. Given their professional status, and given that not one entry on the internet states such conduct is safe.

All too frequently the parents or carer cites an abductor or stranger danger to explain away the disappearance of a child. The McCanns are no different in this respect. They say they are convinced that this is what happened. What special insight do the McCanns possess? None whatsoever. They say they were not present at the crucial time.

This is rather too convenient. The McCanns are claiming that being at the Tapas Bar with their 7 friends provides them with an alibi.

However, this is based upon the assumption that all 3 children were safe and accounted for when the McCanns left the apartment. This is not the case. There is no independent witness to corroborate their version of events.

Therefore, it is legitimate to cast doubts upon the McCanns being innocent witnesses in this mystery.

Tapas 7 receive libel damages even though they lied

October 16, 2008

Seven friends who were dining with the McCanns when their daughter Madeleine disappeared have received a £375,000 libel payout from Express Newspapers.

BBC story here.

Brazilian child’s murder becomes news soap opera

October 4, 2008

By Stuart Grudgings

SAO PAULO (Reuters) – With all the ingredients of the dramatic “telenovela” soap operas millions of Brazilians watch each night, the murder of 5-year-old Isabella Nardoni has gripped the country and sparked feverish media coverage.

A pretty girl who dreamed of being a ballerina, Isabella was found dead on March 29 after she was apparently thrown from the sixth-floor Sao Paulo apartment where she lived with her father and stepmother.

The father, who says an intruder must have killed Isabella while she was briefly alone in the apartment, and stepmother were detained but released on Friday without charge despite the prosecutor saying their story was a fantasy.

In a country where statistics show a child is killed every 10 hours, many of them black and living in the drug-plagued slums that surround most big cities, the murder of the light-skinned middle-class girl has become a cause celebre.

“Children die every day in Rio and Sao Paulo, but this case is different because it’s playing out like a telenovela and people want to see the next episode,” said Gloria Vanique, a reporter for Brazil’s dominant Globo Television station who was camped outside the police station where the father was held.

Some coverage has drawn a link between the girl’s death and the violence that children suffer every day throughout Brazil that receives little media or police attention.

For the most part, though, the media has focused on the case’s titillating details and suspense over who killed the child. Adding to the drama have been apparent discrepancies in the couple’s versions of events on the night of the murder. Witnesses reported hearing a girl shouting “Stop, Father!”

“The only thing that works in Brazil is the family — the market doesn’t work and the government doesn’t work,” said anthropologist Roberto DaMatta, explaining why the case was so shocking to many.  Continued…

McCanns taped admission unlawfully obtained

October 3, 2008

In my view, Gonçalo Amaral knows more than he is letting on about what happened to Madeleine on the night of 3 May 2007. This is based upon his telling a British TV journalist that he had heard Clarence Mitchell tipping off the McCanns that they were the subject of electronic surveillance. Given that there was no lawful authority for the PJ to use electronic surveillance upon the McCanns and the remaining members of the Tapas bar 9, the PJ were unable to use the evidence on the tapes because it would be inadmissible in court.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.