PDA

View Full Version : Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 23


Pages : [1] 2 3

christine2448
06-18-2008, 09:52 AM
Please continue discussions here.

christine2448
06-18-2008, 09:54 AM
Gerry and Kate McCann will finally be told what evidence police have against them next month, Portugal's most senior law officer revealed yesterday.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027137/McCanns-finally-evidence-Madeleine-police-them.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027137/McCanns-finally-evidence-Madeleine-police-them.html)

Salem
06-18-2008, 11:38 AM
Thanks for the new thread Christine!!!!


Salem

colomom
06-18-2008, 11:49 AM
6.18.08

EU Vice-President Jacques Barrot rejects McCann's project of a European Amber alert.
The strategy approved by the European Parliament, concerning an alert system for missing children, will go forward, the European Commission Vice-president Jacques Barrot said, Monday, in Strasbourg. The appointment of Mr. Barrot to be the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, will be voted by the European Parliament next Wednesday.
Mr. Barrot mentioned the European Parliament project intended to set up a EU hotline in all 27 state member and a coordinated alarm system, in cooperation with NGO's and child protection associations and said that child protection was “among his priorities”, during a formal hearing on Monday. This hearing is one of the steps for the appointment of a new Commissioner or a change of portfolio. Mr. Barrot was the Commissioner in charge of Transports.

The remarks were considered by several Members of European Parliament a “diplomatic answer” to the McCann strong critics about the European Parliament project, published in Gerry's blog on 13 June. The parents of Madeleine McCann went to Strasbourg today, trying to get the support of more 182 MEPs, for a “written declaration” that appeals for a system similar to the American Amber alert to be set up in EU, but they only managed to get 15 more signatures and are far from the 393 needed.

During a Press Conference, Kate and Gerry McCann reacted with exasperation, when journalists questioned them about the fact that they left three children alone in an apartment, the night when Madeleine disappeared. “We didn't abandoned or neglected Madeleine. Somebody came in the apartment and took a child. Repeating that question is really annoying”, was the answer of Gerry McCann.

“The fundamental question is the fact that a child was kidnapped and there is a criminal on the run”, said Kate McCann. “We must concentrate in the fundamental question. It's not helpful to insist in raising the same subject. Nothing changed, in the last 14 months and I don't understand why we are talking about that, again.”

Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2008/06/eu-vice-president-jacques-barrot.html

colomom
06-18-2008, 12:13 PM
VIDEO of the "boring" comment:

http://ww1.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?headline=98&visual=25&article=351131&tema=1&pagina=1&palavra=&ver=1

ceeaura
06-18-2008, 12:23 PM
Keep avoiding the fact that you ,Gerry and Kate,left those babies alone in an strange country while you wined and dined ,giving the person(s) (as if that happened anyway) the chance to get in and take your child!

:banghead::banghead:
Those two just irk me and make me :sick:!

thefragile7393
06-18-2008, 03:21 PM
Gerry and Kate McCann will finally be told what evidence police have against them next month, Portugal's most senior law officer revealed yesterday.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027137/McCanns-finally-evidence-Madeleine-police-them.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027137/McCanns-finally-evidence-Madeleine-police-them.html)
Forgive my ignorance, I have no law or LE experience, but is this fully legal? It smells of Jon-Benet to me and the way LE messed EVERYTHING up.

colomom
06-18-2008, 03:25 PM
Forgive my ignorance, I have no law or LE experience, but is this fully legal? It smells of Jon-Benet to me and the way LE messed EVERYTHING up.

Which part seems like it is not fully legal? The laws in Portugal regarding evidence are completely different than our own.

Many people feel like this case has many similarities to JB's. Sad to say...

thefragile7393
06-18-2008, 03:52 PM
I guess the part about them letting the McCann's see the evidence against them. Obviously they aren't American and the crime happened in Portugal....so I guess a big DUH to me that other countries have different rules, but to me that opens up to exactly what happened with JBR....letting the suspects see EVERYTHING.

colomom
06-18-2008, 04:47 PM
Well, basically, the statute of limitations has run out. In Portugal a "suspect" is given an "arguido" status that usually lasts for a specific period of time. That time can be extended (has been once already) and is now set to come to an end. The LE needs to bring charges or archive the case. If archived, the files are then opened to anyone, including the McCanns. Charges can still be brought at a later date if new evidence comes to light. That is a very basic (even crude) explanation.....

I agree that showing the files to the world will give the McCanns (and their high-priced lawyers) an advantage and a blueprint for any defense they may need to present. HOWEVER, the chance of charges being brought for neglect (at least), crimes of murder, exposure (to risk of serious harm) abandonment and concealment of Madeleine's corpse are all still possible. I do find the latest silence (and I mean SILENCE) from the Portuguese authorities to be troubling. I can't figure out what the hang-up is.

I can only hope that LE in Portugal does a better job of investigating this case than LE in Colorado did. Only time will tell.

Barnaby
06-18-2008, 04:55 PM
Well, basically, the statute of limitations has run out. In Portugal a "suspect" is given an "arguido" status that usually lasts for a specific period of time. That time can be extended (has been once already) and is now set to come to an end. The LE needs to bring charges or archive the case. If archived, the files are then opened to anyone, including the McCanns. Charges can still be brought at a later date if new evidence comes to light. That is a very basic (even crude) explanation.....

I agree that showing the files to the world will give the McCanns (and their high-priced lawyers) an advantage and a blueprint for any defense they may need to present. HOWEVER, the chance of charges being brought for neglect (at least), crimes of murder, exposure (to risk of serious harm) abandonment and concealment of Madeleine's corpse are all still possible. I do find the latest silence (and I mean SILENCE) from the Portuguese authorities to be troubling. I can't figure out what the hang-up is.

I can only hope that LE in Portugal does a better job of investigating this case than LE in Colorado did. Only time will tell.

So do you think this means the case is going to be archived Colomon? How disappointing if this is the case, I hope not!

colomom
06-18-2008, 04:56 PM
Snagged from 3A's.....
(http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15363)

How's this for story placement???

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/placement.jpg

From the article: "Detectives also found a note that appeared to list ways of disposing a body. It read:"1) By sea 2) Acid 3) Landfill 4) Burning."

:eek::eek::eek:

colomom
06-18-2008, 04:59 PM
So do you think this means the case is going to be archived Colomon? How disappointing if this is the case, I hope not!

I don't know B....I can't understand why no action yet. I go back and forth about the final outcome. I still pray that evil does not win. Maddie deserves so much better than this circus. All my digits are crossed.

colomom
06-18-2008, 05:59 PM
Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1082&page=11 Post #150 (with permission....Thanks Rainbow!!)

I have made a transcript of the press conference held in Strasbourg yesterday:

Clarence M: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I am Clarence Mitchell, Kate and Gerry McCann’s spokesman. With me, of course, is Edward McMillan Scott, Vice President of the European Parliament, one of the key sponsors of the written declaration that Kate and Gerry launched in Brussels back in April and are encouraging MEP’s to sign at this session and the next one.

Kate will be making a short statement, following which Kate and Gerry will be happy to take a few questions. If, as before, you indicate to me you want to ask a question. We would be grateful if you say who you are and which organization you represent. With that I will hand it over to Kate McCann.

Kate: Good evening.

When we last came to European Parliament in Brussels this past April, we launched a written declaration seeking to gain support of a majority of MEP’s to facilitate an introduction of a Europe wide missing child alert system.

A structure we feel is absolutely vital if no other families are to go through the pain we have suffered and continue to suffer since Madeleine’s abduction nearly 14 months ago.

Our visit today at the plenary session here in Strasbourg has been extremely useful and very encouraging. Both in terms of being updated on the good progress of the declaration, and having the chance to lobby directly many of those MEP’s who have yet to sign it.

Whilst we remain confident that the declaration will have been signed by the deadline at the end of next month we have also learned that we still have much to do to increase awareness among MEP’s before then.

We wish to thank the 226 MEP's who have already put their names to the proposal. Each and every one of them is directly helping to protect children throughout Europe.

We also wish to thank the leaders of those key political groups within the Parliament with whom we were fortunate enough to be able to meet today.

Many MEP’s have told us directly that they will be signing the declaration by the end of the next session and that crucially they will also be urging many of their political and national colleagues to do the same.

This gives us great confidence that the target of 393 signatures is achievable.

We were however, also surprised to learn that some MEP’s remain unaware of the declaration and its aim of improving child welfare, despite the international publicity that surrounded it.

Here in France there is a missing child alert system but in the handful of cases it has been used over the last 2 years it has been completely successful.

We also understand that the French government may encourage the adoption of this system across Europe during their forthcoming Presidency.

In closing we would like to place on record our continued thanks to those MEP’s who are driving the declaration forward by sponsoring it:

Edward McMillan Scott, Glenys Kinnock, Diana Wallace, Roberta Angelilli and Evelyne Gebhardt.

We urge every MEP to examine the need for such improved coordination and cooperation when a child goes missing in an increasingly border-less Europe.

The AMBER alert system has recovered hundreds of children in the USA. A system based on the same principles must surely do the same here in Europe.

Thank you.


Clarence: Any questions?

Portuguese television reporter: During this stay in the European Parliament, who has received you, who have you visited, have you been to political groups for example?

Clarence Mitchell: I think Edward McMillan Scott will answer that.

Edward McMillan Scott: The purpose of today’s visit was primarily to thank those Members of the European Parliament who have already signed the declaration and to ask them to encourage others to sign so that we reach the figure of beyond 393 by the end of the period on 24 July.

Today Kate and Gerry met a number of individual MEP's, about 40 or 50 altogether, including the leaders of some of the larger groups of the European Parliament and some of the larger delegations. So we hope that personal contact will encourage them and their groups to support the declaration. I think part of the problem, as Kate said, is the lack of awareness of first of all, the importance of the missing child alert system as in America and here in France, and its value in saving lives, and the fact that it costs nothing.

But there is also a declaration fatigue there are now 41 declarations in the European Parliament open for signature last year out of 116 only 41 succeeded in being adopted as a resolution of the European Parliament so it is a challenge and I'm incredibly grateful to Kate and Gerry for taking the time to come here today so that out of the their personal tragedy some good may come. And to pass on that message to the number of colleagues we have seen.

German Press Agency: Mrs. McCann, if such a missing child alert system had been in place when your daughter disappeared, in what way do you feel it could have helped?

Kate: I mean, it’s very difficult to answer that question, to say whether it would have helped to recover Madeleine definitely or not. I believe it would have given us a greater chance. I think the awareness early on in the critical hours would have been greater and hence I think there would have been more help from the public at that crucial time and potentially Madeleine may have been retrieved. We will never know. But it is a possibility. Yes.

Another Portuguese reporter: Mrs. McCann, you said that if the system had existed it would have been easier to have found Madeleine within the first few hours.

It was difficult in the first few hours because Madeleine was alone in the house. Don’t you think that this was perhaps abandonment?

Kate: I think perhaps you are avoiding the issue to be honest. Madeleine was not alone for a few hours and I didn’t say it would have been easier I just think our chances would have been greater of Madeleine being recovered.

I think the issue here is that a child has been abducted and there is a criminal out there, who is still out there.

I think we need to concentrate on the real issue here. It doesn’t help by going over issues that you have just raised.

Portuguese Reporter again: You didn’t answer the first question, which was, it could be that the Portuguese police will take you up for abandonment or negligence which is something that comes that under the Portuguese criminal code.

Gerry: You know, we didn’t abandon or neglect Madeleine. As Kate has already said, somebody went into an apartment and stole a child. That’s where the focus is.

You are going over old ground. It’s really quite boring and we want people to focus on issues which we think will make a difference. The amber alert would make a difference. It can be a deterrent. It can help to find a missing child.

We need cross-border cooperation.

Kate: Also, nothing has changed in the last 14 months. I am not really, you know, sure why we are talking about this now because nothing has changed on that issue in the last 14 months.

Clarence: Kate and Gerry are not accused of any crime whatsoever. Neither is there any suggestion that any charges are being considered.

Salem
06-18-2008, 06:36 PM
Wow - who was that Portugese reporter? She/he deserves a big fat raise! Talk about asking the tough questions - even Barbara Walters would have passed on this. I'm laughing out loud. And I bet from here on, the McCanns will always double check to see if a Portugese reporter is in the audience before they go to an event :)

Salem

Barnaby
06-18-2008, 08:06 PM
Snagged from 3A's.....
(http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15363)

How's this for story placement???

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/placement.jpg

From the article: "Detectives also found a note that appeared to list ways of disposing a body. It read:"1) By sea 2) Acid 3) Landfill 4) Burning."

:eek::eek::eek:

Yes I saw that thread & noted the people who said they have experience in journalism & the placing of articles is always well thought out! Not an accident! This has reopened a lot of talk about the Pet crematorium in Portugal!

I don't know B....I can't understand why no action yet. I go back and forth about the final outcome. I still pray that evil does not win. Maddie deserves so much better than this circus. All my digits are crossed.

Mine also!

Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1082&page=11 Post #150 (with permission....Thanks Rainbow!!)

.......................................

German Press Agency: Mrs. McCann, if such a missing child alert system had been in place when your daughter disappeared, in what way do you feel it could have helped?

Kate: I mean, it’s very difficult to answer that question, to say whether it would have helped to recover Madeleine definitely or not. I believe it would have given us a greater chance. I think the awareness early on in the critical hours would have been greater and hence I think there would have been more help from the public at that crucial time and potentially Madeleine may have been retrieved. We will never know. But it is a possibility. Yes.

Another Portuguese reporter: Mrs. McCann, you said that if the system had existed it would have been easier to have found Madeleine within the first few hours.

It was difficult in the first few hours because Madeleine was alone in the house. Don’t you think that this was perhaps abandonment?

Kate: I think perhaps you are avoiding the issue to be honest. Madeleine was not alone for a few hours and I didn’t say it would have been easier I just think our chances would have been greater of Madeleine being recovered.

I think the issue here is that a child has been abducted and there is a criminal out there, who is still out there.

I think we need to concentrate on the real issue here. It doesn’t help by going over issues that you have just raised.

Portuguese Reporter again: You didn’t answer the first question, which was, it could be that the Portuguese police will take you up for abandonment or negligence which is something that comes that under the Portuguese criminal code.

Gerry: You know, we didn’t abandon or neglect Madeleine. As Kate has already said, somebody went into an apartment and stole a child. That’s where the focus is.

You are going over old ground. It’s really quite boring and we want people to focus on issues which we think will make a difference. The amber alert would make a difference. It can be a deterrent. It can help to find a missing child.

We need cross-border cooperation.

Kate: Also, nothing has changed in the last 14 months. I am not really, you know, sure why we are talking about this now because nothing has changed on that issue in the last 14 months.

Clarence: Kate and Gerry are not accused of any crime whatsoever. Neither is there any suggestion that any charges are being considered.

More help from the public, well that's a laugh! I think I said it on the last thread, the public were looking when they were jogging, having hair done, at the pool , at the beach, playing with the twins. Ok the twins needed a life but I think their missing child could have taken priority for a week or two at least!

My God, how can they have the bareface to actually lie when we all know that they left the children alone for a few hours & if they are trying to say that it wasn't a few hours until she disappeared on May 3rd what about the night before when she cried?

"You know, we didn't abandon or neglect Madeleine" Does this idiot expect anyone to believe this?

"Someone broke into an apartment & stole a child" How detached is that? Not someone broke into OUR apartment & stole OUR child!

What is really quite boring is listening to this pathetic pair peddling their lies & being so arrogant to think that they are fooling anyone!

At the very least they are child abusers (neglect is abuse) & pathological liars, we all know what they are at worst!

thefragile7393
06-18-2008, 10:19 PM
Thank you Colomom for your perspective and explanation.....I agree it's troubling that the authorities are stone cold silent....and that they must open the files. Worries me very much.

ThoughtFox
06-19-2008, 08:07 AM
Thanks so much for the transcript and article, colomom! :clap:

That video was the best thing of all. :)

I think the Portuguese Press must be more frustrated than we are about Madeleine's disappearance. It's great that the reporter cut to the chase with no formalities.

The remarks were considered by several Members of European Parliament a “diplomatic answer” to the McCann strong critics about the European Parliament project, published in Gerry's blog on 13 June. The parents of Madeleine McCann went to Strasbourg today, trying to get the support of more 182 MEPs, for a “written declaration” that appeals for a system similar to the American Amber alert to be set up in EU, but they only managed to get 15 more signatures and are far from the 393 needed.


I like the fact that the EU gave a "diplomatic answer" to the McCanns to shove off with their plan. In other words the McCanns are not the spokepeople they want in charge of an Amber Alert system.

colomom
06-19-2008, 08:57 AM
Down yesterday and up today....

http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15415

ellibean has been posting for ages and has not been known to be a wind-up merchant (hoaxer).

I wish I had some more fingers or toes to cross.

ceeaura
06-19-2008, 09:23 AM
Down yesterday and up today....

http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15415

ellibean has been posting for ages and has not been known to be a wind-up merchant (hoaxer).

I wish I had some more fingers or toes to cross.


Oh my! I hope this happens!!!Crossing everything I can here!

Texana
06-19-2008, 11:10 AM
Cautiously optimistic, as the saying goes.

Rhett
06-19-2008, 02:17 PM
I can't get into the site, can you do a recap Colomom?

colomom
06-19-2008, 02:22 PM
I can't get into the site, can you do a recap Colomom?

Thank goodness for the Proboards:

Sourcewatch: http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15415

From Ellibean (her source that is):

"Charges against the McCann’s and at least four others will be made around 10th July if everything is in order. Charges may be delayed until middle of August due to holidays.

The charges against the McCanns are of a very serious nature. The British police are also preparing to charge the McCanns, and a lot of other people connected with them, with other offences. The Spanish police are also preparing a case on Metado3. The three police forces are all trying to get the charges made at the same time (this could cause the delay). The detective in charge from Leicester has travelled to the Algarve twice in the last three weeks to help finalize matters with the PJ."

Barnaby
06-19-2008, 02:22 PM
I really hope this is true!

april4sky
06-20-2008, 04:05 AM
Thank goodness for the Proboards:

Sourcewatch: http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15415

From Ellibean (her source that is):

"Charges against the McCann’s and at least four others will be made around 10th July if everything is in order. Charges may be delayed until middle of August due to holidays.

The charges against the McCanns are of a very serious nature. The British police are also preparing to charge the McCanns, and a lot of other people connected with them, with other offences. The Spanish police are also preparing a case on Metado3. The three police forces are all trying to get the charges made at the same time (this could cause the delay). The detective in charge from Leicester has travelled to the Algarve twice in the last three weeks to help finalize matters with the PJ."

If true I wonder where the leak came from. :waitasec:

If untrue I wonder where the leak came from. :waitasec::waitasec:

Just more of the same. IMO

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-20-2008, 10:18 AM
Could someone refresh my memory on the ties between Kennedy and the McCanns. Are they related? Is he a Mason? Why is Kennedy (or I should say his money) involved in all of this. What is that bond? Can anyone answer that? April?

Barnaby
06-20-2008, 12:51 PM
Could someone refresh my memory on the ties between Kennedy and the McCanns. Are they related? Is he a Mason? Why is Kennedy (or I should say his money) involved in all of this. What is that bond? Can anyone answer that? April?

Isn't Brian Kennedy Kate's uncle? Don't know if he is a Mason or not sorry.

Texana
06-20-2008, 04:47 PM
Brian Kennedy is Kate's uncle.

colomom
06-20-2008, 05:09 PM
You guys know that there are two Brian Kennedys connected to the McCanns, right? There is Kate's uncle and there is also the millionaire supporter who pays Clarence Mitchell's salary. There is an interesting thread on the latter here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14299

You can also search for Brian Kennedy on 3A's and find many posts on both men.

I believe that IW may have been referring to the millionaire, not Kate's uncle, right IW?

Barnaby
06-20-2008, 05:34 PM
You guys know that there are two Brian Kennedys connected to the McCanns, right? There is Kate's uncle and there is also the millionaire supporter who pays Clarence Mitchell's salary. There is an interesting thread on the latter here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14299

You can also search for Brian Kennedy on 3A's and find many posts on both men.

I believe that IW may have been referring to the millionaire, not Kate's uncle, right IW?


Oh my goodness, thanks for that Colomon, I thought they were one & the same person!

Texana
06-20-2008, 06:31 PM
Bless you, Colomom, I was only thinking of the uncle.

People should not have very common last names and first names. It confuses us. :snooty:

Barnaby
06-20-2008, 09:04 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ation.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop%20...%20ation.html)

Madeleine McCann: parents' court bid for information
by Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
Last Updated: 7:26PM BST 20/06/2008

"................................................. ............................
The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard............................................. .........."


Most peculiar!

colomom
06-20-2008, 09:53 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ation.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop%20...%20ation.html)

Madeleine McCann: parents' court bid for information
by Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
Last Updated: 7:26PM BST 20/06/2008

"................................................. ............................
The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard............................................. .........."


Most peculiar!

Bad link B....whoshed clunked???

It is very weird....I need a lawyer to tell us what are the implications of this type of legal decision.

ThoughtFox
06-20-2008, 10:55 PM
Ward of the Court??? :eek:

Here's the Link to the Story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2164743/Madeleine-McCann-parents'-court-bid-for-information.html)

. . . The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard.

Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said: “I can state that on the instigation of Gerry and Kate McCann Madeleine is a ward of the High Court of England and Wales.

“An application has been made on Madeleine’s behalf by her parents for disclosure of certain documents. The hearing is currently scheduled for July 7 in the High Court in London.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-20-2008, 11:15 PM
You guys know that there are two Brian Kennedys connected to the McCanns, right? There is Kate's uncle and there is also the millionaire supporter who pays Clarence Mitchell's salary. There is an interesting thread on the latter here: http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14299

You can also search for Brian Kennedy on 3A's and find many posts on both men.

I believe that IW may have been referring to the millionaire, not Kate's uncle, right IW?


Yes, I was talking about the Millionaire. Thank you. I was thinking this scheme sounds a little like money laundering...Kennedy paying M3 for the McCanns, etc. After reading your 3A's link, sounds like others suspect the same. Sounds like a good way to pay off an illegal debt.

Also, this is weird, and trust me, I'm not a physic or any thing of the sort, but today when I was out painting this really strange thought came over me. It almost made me start to panic. It was like a night dream yet I was fully awake. All of a sudden Dianne Webster came to my mind. Then I just started thinking...oh, that's why she didn't get excited when Kate came in screaming to the Tapas restaurant...she's part of it. It was so real. It made perfect sence, the most unlikely candidate was the real villain. Freaky.

There is just too much to this story. To many prearranged plans. I just don't think this was an accidental death of a child from a neglectful parent. There is a lot more to this story. :waitasec:

april4sky
06-20-2008, 11:20 PM
Could someone refresh my memory on the ties between Kennedy and the McCanns. Are they related? Is he a Mason? Why is Kennedy (or I should say his money) involved in all of this. What is that bond? Can anyone answer that? April?IW I found this link which has some info about Brian Kennedy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008872.stm

No relation, just a man who feels very strongly about the plight of Madeleine and her parents. As does Richard Branson.

Barnaby
06-21-2008, 06:59 AM
Bad link B....whoshed clunked???

It is very weird....I need a lawyer to tell us what are the implications of this type of legal decision.

Sorry Colomon, I went to bed after posting that. It is indeed weird & as in everything the McCanns had to have some reason for it that would be to their own advantage, that is if they did the applying!


Ward of the Court??? :eek:

Here's the Link to the Story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2164743/Madeleine-McCann-parents'-court-bid-for-information.html)

Thanks Thoughtfox xx

Yes, I was talking about the Millionaire. Thank you. I was thinking this scheme sounds a little like money laundering...Kennedy paying M3 for the McCanns, etc. After reading your 3A's link, sounds like others suspect the same. Sounds like a good way to pay off an illegal debt.

Also, this is weird, and trust me, I'm not a physic or any thing of the sort, but today when I was out painting this really strange thought came over me. It almost made me start to panic. It was like a night dream yet I was fully awake. All of a sudden Dianne Webster came to my mind. Then I just started thinking...oh, that's why she didn't get excited when Kate came in screaming to the Tapas restaurant...she's part of it. It was so real. It made perfect sence, the most unlikely candidate was the real villain. Freaky.

There is just too much to this story. To many prearranged plans. I just don't think this was an accidental death of a child from a neglectful parent. There is a lot more to this story. :waitasec:

I don't know if she is the villian IW but I think she knew what was happening & that there was no panic! An older person would imo be more jumpy about something like this, the younger generation can be calmer, (I am only going on personal experience when I say this, I am calmer in a crisis than my mother would be) so her reaction surprised me!

colomom
06-21-2008, 10:55 AM
I always felt that Dianne Webster, upon hearing KM "alert" to Maddie's vanishing, felt a sense of resignation. There were reports of her comment about the T9 and their "games". I think she felt that it was inevitable that something bad was going to happen because of certain persons bad behavior. I think it is very telling that she went to inspect the shutters herself. As if she did not believe the "story" being told.

She may have been told that "something" was going to happen because certain members of the T9 were "in on it" but, I doubt it. I think she just had a gut instinct that the whole thing was a ruse.

Like I did....

Just my opinion, of course.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-21-2008, 01:49 PM
IW I found this link which has some info about Brian Kennedy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008872.stm

No relation, just a man who feels very strongly about the plight of Madeleine and her parents. As does Richard Branson.

Thank you. I don't know, maybe he is just a really super nice guy with loads of money.:waitasec:

Barnaby
06-21-2008, 02:25 PM
I always felt that Dianne Webster, upon hearing KM "alert" to Maddie's vanishing, felt a sense of resignation. There were reports of her comment about the T9 and their "games". I think she felt that it was inevitable that something bad was going to happen because of certain persons bad behavior. I think it is very telling that she went to inspect the shutters herself. As if she did not believe the "story" being told.

She may have been told that "something" was going to happen because certain members of the T9 were "in on it" but, I doubt it. I think she just had a gut instinct that the whole thing was a ruse.

Like I did....

Just my opinion, of course.

I am sure that she knows an awful lot that could be of help to PJ, I hope she has told it all!

mjak
06-21-2008, 03:09 PM
I am going to have to make the assumption that the definition I have of ward of the state is very different from the one being used regarding Maddie. In the United States a ward of the state means the child has no parents and thus the state becomes the legal guardian. I can't imagine the McCanns agreeing to this arrangment. I don't care if it simplifies things legally. As I would climb mount Everest in a bathing suit before I would agree to relinquish my parental rights to my missing child. This must be a case of cultural differences. It has to be.

mjak

Barnaby
06-21-2008, 04:30 PM
I am going to have to make the assumption that the definition I have of ward of the state is very different from the one being used regarding Maddie. In the United States a ward of the state means the child has no parents and thus the state becomes the legal guardian. I can't imagine the McCanns agreeing to this arrangment. I don't care if it simplifies things legally. As I would climb mount Everest in a bathing suit before I would agree to relinquish my parental rights to my missing child. This must be a case of cultural differences. It has to be.

mjak


I don't think it's a cultural thing Mjak, being from the Uk, I feel & I think I can confidently say 99.9% of UK mothers would feel the same as you do.

There has to be another reason why this was done either:
1. The court did it on the application of Social Services & this announcement is just another lie & cover up for the fact that the news may become public soon.
or
2. Solicitors advised that making Madeleine a ward of Court has some benefit for the McCanns, they do little that hasn't any personal benefit

SewingDeb
06-21-2008, 04:46 PM
Maybe they can't be charged with neglect if they are no longer her guardians?

colomom
06-21-2008, 05:14 PM
Thank you. I don't know, maybe he is just a really super nice guy with loads of money.:waitasec:

I didn't know that was possible....

Barnaby
06-21-2008, 05:56 PM
Maybe they can't be charged with neglect if they are no longer her guardians?

They were her legal guardians when they neglected her so that won't work!

I didn't know that was possible....

I think you might just be right Colomon, LOL!

SewingDeb
06-21-2008, 10:15 PM
You're right Barnaby. Now that I think about it, they also neglected the twins and they haven't turned guardianship of them over to anyone.

Texana
06-21-2008, 10:38 PM
I don't think anything could convince me to allow my child to become a ward of the state, where someone who had kidnapped her could use it as proof that I no longer cared or was looking for her.

A child would never understand why that was done, we can hardly understand it and we are adults.

april4sky
06-21-2008, 11:21 PM
Thank you. I don't know, maybe he is just a really super nice guy with loads of money.:waitasec:
Your welcome IW :)
It may not always seem like it but I believe there are still many good and caring people in the world. Thank Goodness.

Barnaby
06-21-2008, 11:28 PM
You're right Barnaby. Now that I think about it, they also neglected the twins and they haven't turned guardianship of them over to anyone.

Well, we do not know but perhaps Social Services have also made the twins Wards of the court! In view of the extremely negligent behaviour of the McCanns this would be prudent!

I don't think anything could convince me to allow my child to become a ward of the state, where someone who had kidnapped her could use it as proof that I no longer cared or was looking for her.

A child would never understand why that was done, we can hardly understand it and we are adults.

So right Texana, but then you are a caring mother & therein lies the huge difference in you & the McCanns!

april4sky
06-21-2008, 11:44 PM
McCanns want search to resume

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/21/Report_McCanns_want_search_to_resume/UPI-65871214068119/

The parents of Madeleine McCann want police documents released in Britain in a push to resume the search for the missing girl, a spokesman says.

An official spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann said the couple are set to petition a High Court judge for the release of the documents in an attempt to renew interest in their missing daughter's case, The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday.
"An application has been made on Madeleine's behalf by her parents for disclosure of certain documents," spokesman Clarence Mitchell said. "The hearing is currently scheduled for July 7 in the High Court in London."

The couple's legal action comes after police in Leicestershire County alleged they could not investigate alleged sightings of the 4-year-old due to an agreement with Portuguese police.
****

Makes good sense as from day one the Portuguese secrecy laws have handicapped this case. IMO.

ThoughtFox
06-23-2008, 06:27 AM
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/breaking-news/2008/06/23/madeleine-mccann-s-parents-install-panic-alarms-100252-21134869/

The McCanns Install Panic Alarms

Liverpool-born Kate McCann and husband Gerry are understood to have received offensive and menacing letters and emails, including two that threatened to kill them.

The couple have installed a state-of-the-art the security system at their £600,000 detached home in Rothley, Leicestershire.

The equipment, costing several thousand pounds, is understood to include CCTV and panic buttons in most rooms to alert police in an emergency.

More at Link . . .

Barnaby
06-23-2008, 09:38 AM
A pathetic attempt to attract public sympathy after all the bad Press of late no doubt! They said they were doing this in September after they returned from PDL! I will try to find a link!
Yet more spin when the chips are down! These people are prime manipulators!


Edit to add:

Yes this subject is being discussed on the 3A's, here is a link to story in October 2007, as I thought a rehash of old news to garner sympathy!

http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16224 (http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16224)

I believe they had panic button etc installed on their return from Portugal:

[quote: snip
.......... An insider said: "Portuguese police say it is hampering their investigation. But you have to question why they've been so quick to jump on the McCanns when they've yet to see something as basic as their phone records."

Meanwhile Kate and Gerry are having panic buttons installed at home as police step down the round-the-clock vigil outside their house.

The couple have had a constant police guard since arriving back from Portugal seven weeks ago.

Heart specialist Gerry, 39, is returning to work on Thursday. He took twins Sean and Amelie to a park near his home in Rothley, Leics,.... quote]

Here's the link http://tinyurl.com/yss394 (http://tinyurl.com/yss394)

teacherbees
06-23-2008, 10:14 AM
I wish they'd been as concerned with Madeleine's security and safety. Sigh....

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-23-2008, 10:22 AM
Ward of the Court is a big crock.

I've been thinking about this and you know, it is crazy. Here we have 2 parents who think the police have bumbled EVERY THING. They don't trust the cops, they cut them down every chance they get....BUT they decided to turn the welfare of their daughter over to a court appointed judge, giving this unnamed judge power over their daughters future. They trust lawyers more than cops with their daughter??? What if she actually was found, (We know that ain't going to happen & so do the McCanns) and the judge said, in the child's best interest she needs foster care from adults who won't leave her alone. Or what if the judge says, I think she is traumatised and will need to spend the next 3 years in a mental facility 1000 miles away. Even if Madeleine was found a live, it would take another 2 years worth of red tape for the McCanns to ever be restored custody, and have her living back home. No, I smell a rat here.

No, no, no, nothing good would come from a living Madeleine being a ward of the state for parents who really cared and believed she was alive. Chances are, they would never have custody of her again. BUT...the McCanns can still be named the beneficiary of any LIFE INSURANCE POLICY they had previously taken out on Madeleine regardless of their parental status....AND, being a ward of the state, the process of declaring Madeleine legally dead will be much quicker, not to mention a decision made by the court, and not the McCanns. (Not to further tarnish public oppenion, ya know) Basically, they'll get their life insurance money on Madeleine faster, and won't have to look like villains for prematurely declaring her dead. They know the courts will take care of the process being her guardian without the red tape just to get her "off the books". This will all happen much quicker, they'll be rolling in the dough much sooner, and they avoid negative public oppenion of themselves than if they filed a court petition to declare her dead.

It is once again ALL ABOUT THE THEM...and of course THE DAMN MONEY.

teacherbees
06-23-2008, 10:24 AM
I don't think anyone should have to live with the fear of death threats, etc..so I certainly don't condone that type of activity.

It is interesting to me, however, to think of the parents of a missing child being so reviled that they'd be the object of those death threats. The natural human instinct is to feel deep compassion and sorrow for people who have lost their child under such tragic circumstances.

That Kate and Gerry are targets of so much hatred and ill will certainly seems to indicate the world at large isn't buying their poor-pitiful-us victim story. Officially, they have been rebuffed as spokespeople for the European version of the Amber Alert and on a more personal level, there are people out there letting them know they don't believe them.

It's hard enough to comprehend parents neglecting a child or killing them and then lying about the murder. But when those same people then go on to use their child's death as a stepping stone to raking in tons of money and portraying themselves as media darling victims it gets pretty darned hard to stomach.

Kate and Gerry would be better to stay home, keep a low profile and hopefully learn from their stupidity as they bring up the two children they have left.

Salem
06-23-2008, 10:51 AM
I agree teacherbees - no condoning of any "hate" tactics!

IW - do we know that they have a policy on Maddie? It is somewhat "rare" to have life insurance on your child. Not unheard of, but not all that common either.

Why know, as Barnaby has so diligenty reminded us, are the McCanns' bringing up the security speil again? What is it that is about to break in the news or otherwise come out that they are trying to lessen the impact of?

Salem

Barnaby
06-23-2008, 11:42 AM
Teacherbees & Salem, I agree, I certainly do not condone hate tactics & people who send letters like this are just as despicable as the McCanns!
However, I do believe that they are using these to their own advantage as usual either to distract from bad press & get sympathy or to distract from upcoming news, probably both!

The Ward of Court being done so early on is very puzzling indeed, seems as if they knew that Madeleine wouldn't be found quickly, but then we all know that they knew that don't we? We still do not know if the McCanns did this or the Courts did it to protect a child that was neglected if she was found.

Teacherbees you are of course right that the majority of people in the world don't believe them & very right that they should have learned by now that every new action on their part is only doing themselves damage. I cannot understand why two educated people with the best advisors that money can buy keep on doing this. It is reverse psychology gone very badly wrong!

Regarding a life policy on a child, I could never understand anyone doing this, God forbid if anything happened to my child the last thing I would want to do would be to go on a spending spree with the proceeds!

Very true Teacherbees, too bad they were not as concerned with Madeleine's safety as they now are with their own!

Apart from not wanting any ill to befall another human being even the McCanns, I would think that if anyone was evil enough to make an attempt on their lives & succeed it would only make them martyrs, much better to let justice take it's course & let these vile people be exposed to the world for what they really are!

Rhett
06-23-2008, 01:29 PM
Some people, myself included have always had life insurance on my children. I believe all policies are around $20,000 which would be enough to bury them should, God forbid anything happen to them. However, the policies also build cash value for the child and can be kept by them as adults when illness could preclude them from being able to obtain insurance on their own. Just a different point of view about insurance. Doesn't mean I don't believe that the McCann's let something happen to their precious daughter.

Barnaby
06-23-2008, 02:55 PM
Some people, myself included have always had life insurance on my children. I believe all policies are around $20,000 which would be enough to bury them should, God forbid anything happen to them. However, the policies also build cash value for the child and can be kept by them as adults when illness could preclude them from being able to obtain insurance on their own. Just a different point of view about insurance. Doesn't mean I don't believe that the McCann's let something happen to their precious daughter.

Sorry Rhett, I wasn't damning people who have child insurance. I realise that there are investment policies for children which is a different thing. I was totally referring to people who would insure their children & enjoy the money after a death & giving the general attitude of the McCanns I think it possible they would fall into this category!

Salem
06-23-2008, 06:41 PM
Some people, myself included have always had life insurance on my children. I believe all policies are around $20,000 which would be enough to bury them should, God forbid anything happen to them. However, the policies also build cash value for the child and can be kept by them as adults when illness could preclude them from being able to obtain insurance on their own. Just a different point of view about insurance. Doesn't mean I don't believe that the McCann's let something happen to their precious daughter.

Rhett - thank you for this explanation. I did know that some parents do this and I also thought that the policy could be "cashed in" later to be used for college expenses or such things. I think this is a good idea. We only carry what they call "whole life" insurance because of its cash value if we need it. I only had one child and when he was little, there was barely enough money to feed him, let alone look out for his future. :crazy:

Salem

Texana
06-23-2008, 10:44 PM
The interesting thing again is that the McCanns chose to make their security system public. Many if not all celebrities have stalkers or people who make violent threats and absolutely nothing is ever made public about the threats. Maybe they honestly believe (or Clarence does) that this makes them safer.

But--honestly--I find that hard to believe. Why is it the McCanns are so, so, everlastingly consistent with mentioning the nasty letters against them? Often in the "we've received so much support BUT...." kind of comment such as the Christmas card.

Why mention this at all, is my thought.

christine2448
06-23-2008, 11:55 PM
I wish they'd been as concerned with Madeleine's security and safety. Sigh....

Right??? :confused:

Salem
06-24-2008, 12:30 AM
I agree Texana. This stuff, both the threats and the security system, were originally talked about back in Sept. 2007. So why bring it up AGAIN, now? As Barnaby said above - to try to generate sympathy, but all it does is create a back lash. And as she also said - to minimize the impacts of whatever is about to come out.

I feel fairly certain something is going to come out in the press soon. I was thinking we were not going to see anything before July 14-15ish because of what the Portugese papers were printing. And maybe not until after the summer holiday around Aug. 15th. But now I wonder. Maybe something is going to break? I am sure the McCanns already know what is about to happen. PLE has always given them advance warnings, like when they were made arguidos. And because they had the advance warning, they worked the media to spin the events in their favor.

So now..... here we go again.... rehashing of old news that makes the McCanns look like victims and doing the best they can to protect themselves... so please feel for them. Is it just to take the focus off the "ward of the court" issue? Or are we going to hear something new?

I don't believe the McCanns asked for Maddie to be a ward of the court. I would like to see the paperwork on the motion first. Just like I think the newspapers that had to pay the McCanns had to pay for saying that Gerry wasn't the father, etc. and NOT because they said the McCanns were implicated in the disappearance of Maddie. However, McCann spins says the opposite of what I think. I want to see the court records, the actual documents.

Salem

PS - IW was there a life insurance policy on Maddie?

Barnaby
06-24-2008, 07:00 AM
The most appalling thing when they speak of their concerns for their own safety is that they never ever speak of what Madeleine could be suffering! They insist that there is no evidence to say that she is dead & that they believe she is alive yet never ever allude to their concerns for her wellbeing if in fact she is alive!

I would have sympathy for anyone who received death threats but these people can actually take measures to protect themselves, their 3 year old daughter was utterly defenceless & still is even at 5, if alive.

Another thing, they speak of taking this court action so that the search for Madeleine may be resumed, I thought that the search was ongoing with Metodo3? They are so full of contradictions!

daffodil
06-24-2008, 07:41 AM
Ward of the Court is a big crock.

I've been thinking about this and you know, it is crazy. Here we have 2 parents who think the police have bumbled EVERY THING. They don't trust the cops, they cut them down every chance they get....BUT they decided to turn the welfare of their daughter over to a court appointed judge, giving this unnamed judge power over their daughters future. They trust lawyers more than cops with their daughter??? What if she actually was found, (We know that ain't going to happen & so do the McCanns) and the judge said, in the child's best interest she needs foster care from adults who won't leave her alone. Or what if the judge says, I think she is traumatised and will need to spend the next 3 years in a mental facility 1000 miles away. Even if Madeleine was found a live, it would take another 2 years worth of red tape for the McCanns to ever be restored custody, and have her living back home. No, I smell a rat here.

No, no, no, nothing good would come from a living Madeleine being a ward of the state for parents who really cared and believed she was alive. Chances are, they would never have custody of her again. BUT...the McCanns can still be named the beneficiary of any LIFE INSURANCE POLICY they had previously taken out on Madeleine regardless of their parental status....AND, being a ward of the state, the process of declaring Madeleine legally dead will be much quicker, not to mention a decision made by the court, and not the McCanns. (Not to further tarnish public oppenion, ya know) Basically, they'll get their life insurance money on Madeleine faster, and won't have to look like villains for prematurely declaring her dead. They know the courts will take care of the process being her guardian without the red tape just to get her "off the books". This will all happen much quicker, they'll be rolling in the dough much sooner, and they avoid negative public oppenion of themselves than if they filed a court petition to declare her dead.

It is once again ALL ABOUT THE THEM...and of course THE DAMN MONEY.


Unless you have a source which states there is insurance on Madelieine this is just mere speculation.Also in this country I dont think you can declare anyone dead until 7 years have elapsed.As to the rest of your post-more speculation and gossip.

colomom
06-24-2008, 09:06 AM
They lied about the checks (every hour then when that wasn’t received well ever half hour)

They lied that they were performing the checks themselves (then it became known other men in the group were also checking on the McCann kids)

They lied even after that in the TV interview when Kate says she discovered Madeleine gone ‘on one of my checks’ – it was the only check she made that night.

They lied about the distance from the apartment to the Tapas bar

They lied that you can see the apartment from the Tapas Bar

They lied about whether they actually saw Madeleine with their own eyes or just listened at the door (as did their friends)

They lied about who checked and when (changing their stories)

They lied about who remained at the table all evening and who was absent

They lied that leaving 3 children all under four years old alone at night ‘at the time was not irresponsible’

Their friends lied about seeing Murat there that night (as incoming and outgoing phone records placed him consistently at home)

They lied about Bundleman.

Tanner lied about when she gave Bundlemans details to the Police (changing the date)

Tanner lied about the description of Bundleman (changing the height and appearance)

Wilkins & Gerry or Tanner lied about that check when they were all in the same place but never saw each other.

They lied that the door was locked and changed it to unlocked when it was not well received.

They lied that the door was closed, then it was open because of ‘danger of fire’

They lied about the shutters being jemmied or forced

They lied to friends, family and media when the called them that night telling them of an abductor who had broken into their apartment

Gerry lied when he said there was no way Madeleine could have gotten out of bed and then said she must have wandered off.

Gerry later lied in his blog saying the twins must like their new cots because they were asleep by 7:30pm which was very unusual, and yet the twins were asleep by 7:30 on the night of May 3rd allegedly.

They lied to friends, family and media in phone calls that night saying the Police had not shown up when they were already there.

Kate lied to Mrs Fenn saying the Police had been called.

They lied saying they had called the Police when it was in fact Mark Warner

They lied when they said it felt so safe and then said they knew they were being watched.

They lied to family, friends and media on the phone that night when they said nobody was doing anything wheen in fact locals, holidaymakers and staff were all helping search.

They lied when they said they were all searching when Kate and Gerry were hitting phones until midnight and Tanner claims she knew nothing of the disappearance until another friend knocked on her door.

Gerry lied when he asked for a priest claiming not to know where the church was.

They lied as to what time the Police arrived

They lied that Cuddlecat was Madeleine’s favourite toy and then that it was a present to be given to her on her fourth birthday.

They lied saying they would cooperate fully with the investigation

They lied saying they would not do anything to hinder the investigation

They lied that the fund was going to be a charity.

They lied that the fund would help other missing children and families of.

They lied when they said they didn’t know Murat.

They lied when they said they would stay in Portugal until their daughter was found.

They lied when they said they were going to learn Portuguese.

They lied that it could not possibly be Madeleine’s blood in the trunk of their hire car. And then they took the same vehicle out of circulation so no further tests could be carried out upon it.

They lied about not discussing the case and met with the Tapas 9 secretly.

Gerry lied about where his wallet was apparently stolen, Waterloo station and then near Downing Street.

They lied when they said abductions like this (snatched sleeping from a hotel or apartment) happen a lot, they don’t.

They lied about the fund not being used for personal matters and then it paid their mortgage.

Kate lied about coming into contact with 6 dead people in her 1 day a week job as GP to explain the cadaver scent on her clothing.

They lied about cuddlecat having the scent of Madeleine and being comforting and then as soon as they heard the dogs were coming Kate announced she had washed it because it smelled of sun tan lotion. Making forensic analysis of it much harder.

They about the crime scene, about how many people came into the crime scene, walked around and contaminated it, again making investigation much harder and destroying much evidence according to detectives.

Gerry lied about the existence of the tennis bag.

They lied about going to sue media companies.

They lied about the film deal.

They lied about sacking Justine McGuinness and her subsequent departure.

They lied about returning to Portugal for questioning voluntarily and now will only do if their Arguido status is lifted. They have also appointed General Pinochets extradition-fighting lawyers.

Gerry lied about his faith.

They lied to the local catholic priest (who now claims he was deceived by the McCanns) and then deserted him for the Anglican reverend instead and never, ever took confession apparently.

They said a lie detector test would clear them and now refuse to take one.

They lied for months saying they were not suspects in the disappearance of their daughter and were then both made formal Arguido / suspects under Portuguese law.

They lied about the possibility of sedation and then claimed ridiculously that perhaps the Abductor had sedated all 3 of their children before making off with Madeleine.

Gerry lied about Kate’s ability to cope with three children on her own when her own Parents and her own diary say different.

They lied about the amount of alcohol consumed that night.

In another lie about cooperating they refused to provide their mobile phone records to the pj.

Kate explaining away the scent of death of cuddlecat because she took the childs 4th birthday present cuddly toy to work and exposed it to contact with 6 dead people.

They lied how everything had been so normal up til May 3rd when it is now known that Mark Warner staff had received complaints from other holidaymakers because of their home alone children crying and seeming in distress. This also brought Mark Warner staff looking for the McCanns on the night of the 2nd and insisting they attend to their distressed children.

They lied about 90 minute tennis lesson with several versions of the story being put out by official sources within the McCann Camp

They and at least one friend lied about Madeleine’s last meal on May 3rd.

They lied about the abductor entering through the window and then changed it to the patio doors.

Matthew Oldfield lied about his check on the McCann children changing his story not once but twice.

Kate lied about physically searching for her daughter but then admits to not have done so in a tv interview.

McCanns claim they were the first to arrive to tapas on May 3rd, Rachel Oldfield claims they were the last to arrive.

Despite being in Rome and Madrid and claiming to be spending the rest of the week quietly at home in PDL with the twins, the hire car in it’s first week clocked up over 500 miles.

Gerry lied about his checks on the children in the apartment, at first having claimed to have entered several rooms later then claiming the abductor must have hiding in the apartment while he was there.

Gerry and O Brien have lied about their locations when holding a mobile phone call together on June 10th as verified by phone records and pinpointing.

Jane Tanner has changed her statements, arrival time at tapas, direction of travel, checking times for night of May 3rd.

Najova Chekaya who joined the tapas 9 at the table at 9:30 states nobody left the table until Kate went to check. Putting Oldfields, O Briens, Tanners and Gerry McCanns statements into question.

Thanks to: Tony Q (http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16359) on the 3A and John Hirst (http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/mccanns-in-the-dock/) (jailhouselawyer)

Barnaby
06-24-2008, 09:28 AM
We are all aware that they lied a lot but quite staggering when all the lies are put in one place like that!
Thanks for posting Colomon, it proves the old saying "A liar needs to have a very good memory" but of course they are well aware of their lies all done to save their own skins!

ThoughtFox
06-24-2008, 09:35 AM
omg, Colomom! That is a sobering list.

I wish they'd been as concerned with Madeleine's security and safety. Sigh....

You know why it infuriates me? Because Madeleine and her siblings didn't have any "panic button" they could push when they were scared. All they could do was cry together and tell Mummy the next day (and listen while she downplayed the whole thing because she wanted to go out again the next night). :furious::furious::furious:

And who is supposed to come running when Kate pushes the panic button? More cops! So maybe they trust the police force after all.

But any cop or social worker will tell you that if parents leave doors unlocked, someone can "just walk in" as Gerry said. That is not Madeleine's fault - that is their fault. That is not the fault of the Portuguese Police or the Resort Hotel - that is the parents' fault and they need to own it.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-24-2008, 09:52 AM
Unless you have a source which states there is insurance on Madelieine this is just mere speculation.Also in this country I dont think you can declare anyone dead until 7 years have elapsed.As to the rest of your post-more speculation and gossip.

Of course it's mere speculation, that's all any of us, (pro or con) have to go on at this point. Like you, at one time I viewed humanity with rose colored glasses. I've matured and have grown wiser with age. I have seen the greed and evilness that the love of money has inflicted on society. It happens to the most well rounded people. It's a sickness. Money and power can be a deadly addiction.

You have the right not to agree with me, and I'm glad you don't. This world would be a pretty mundane place if everyone agreed with me. :) Thankfully I live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, and the one thing that hasn't been stripped from me yet is my God given and the legal right to my oppenion.

In my life time, I have learned a few things. Most importantly this: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and acts like a duck...it is probably a duck.

colomom
06-24-2008, 03:53 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/page1sa8.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/page2ju1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/page3so9.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/page4fq2.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/page5wu0.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/page6uq4.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/page7op5.jpg

Thanks to albym on 3A's (http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8150&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1775) .....brilliant!!

cutter russ
06-24-2008, 05:46 PM
I'm new here as a member but I've been reading here for ages....what has happened to Robert Murat....still a suspect....the police on this case make Aruban LE look brilliant......that takes some doin'.....

cushty
06-24-2008, 06:52 PM
I am inclined to think that either Madeleine was made a Ward of Court at the same time as the twins, at the instigation of the UK Social Services, advised by the UK police, and acting on information from the Portuguese police, OR

she was made a Ward of Court on the McCanns return to the UK to prevent the UK press dishing the dirt on her parents - this seems quite likely as the press stopped all the negative stories almost immediately after their flight home

Barnaby
06-24-2008, 07:01 PM
I'm new here as a member but I've been reading here for ages....what has happened to Robert Murat....still a suspect....the police on this case make Aruban LE look brilliant......that takes some doin'.....

Robert Murat is still an arguido. I on't think the police in PDL are as incompetent as some would have them seem.

I am inclined to think that either Madeleine was made a Ward of Court at the same time as the twins, at the instigation of the UK Social Services, advised by the UK police, and acting on information from the Portuguese police, OR

she was made a Ward of Court on the McCanns return to the UK to prevent the UK press dishing the dirt on her parents - this seems quite likely as the press stopped all the negative stories almost immediately after their flight home

Either theory is possible Cushty, I tend to lean towards the latter!

Tony Bennett
06-24-2008, 07:13 PM
daffodil wrote, referring to iNTERESTED WOMAN: "Unless you have a source which states there is insurance on Madelieine this is just mere speculation. Also in this country I don't think you can declare anyone dead until 7 years have elapsed. As to the rest of your post - more speculation and gossip".

REPLY: The discussion on this forum of whether or not a judge might declare Madeleine dead does raise the question of if and when there should be an inquest on Madeleine. Also, if there is one, where should it be held? Portugal? Or the United Kingdom?

In the U.K., there is no time limit for the holding of inquests nor for declaring a missing person to be dead.

Remember the case of the British canoeist who went missing off the north-east coast of England, his boat (sorry, canoe/kayak) being found tossing in the North Sea?

The inquest in that case was only 18 months after his disappearance. A Coroner's Inquest declared him dead.

But then he turned up having, together with his 'distraught' wife, bought a nice three-bedroomed pad in Panama!

Naming no names, some folk can be so devious

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shazza
06-24-2008, 07:52 PM
They lied about the checks (every hour then when that wasn’t received well ever half hour)

They lied that they were performing the checks themselves (then it became known other men in the group were also checking on the McCann kids)

They lied even after that in the TV interview when Kate says she discovered Madeleine gone ‘on one of my checks’ – it was the only check she made that night.

They lied about the distance from the apartment to the Tapas bar

They lied that you can see the apartment from the Tapas Bar

They lied about whether they actually saw Madeleine with their own eyes or just listened at the door (as did their friends)

They lied about who checked and when (changing their stories)

They lied about who remained at the table all evening and who was absent

They lied that leaving 3 children all under four years old alone at night ‘at the time was not irresponsible’

Their friends lied about seeing Murat there that night (as incoming and outgoing phone records placed him consistently at home)

They lied about Bundleman.

Tanner lied about when she gave Bundlemans details to the Police (changing the date)

Tanner lied about the description of Bundleman (changing the height and appearance)

Wilkins & Gerry or Tanner lied about that check when they were all in the same place but never saw each other.

They lied that the door was locked and changed it to unlocked when it was not well received.

They lied that the door was closed, then it was open because of ‘danger of fire’

They lied about the shutters being jemmied or forced

They lied to friends, family and media when the called them that night telling them of an abductor who had broken into their apartment

Gerry lied when he said there was no way Madeleine could have gotten out of bed and then said she must have wandered off.

Gerry later lied in his blog saying the twins must like their new cots because they were asleep by 7:30pm which was very unusual, and yet the twins were asleep by 7:30 on the night of May 3rd allegedly.

They lied to friends, family and media in phone calls that night saying the Police had not shown up when they were already there.

Kate lied to Mrs Fenn saying the Police had been called.

They lied saying they had called the Police when it was in fact Mark Warner

They lied when they said it felt so safe and then said they knew they were being watched.

They lied to family, friends and media on the phone that night when they said nobody was doing anything wheen in fact locals, holidaymakers and staff were all helping search.

They lied when they said they were all searching when Kate and Gerry were hitting phones until midnight and Tanner claims she knew nothing of the disappearance until another friend knocked on her door.

Gerry lied when he asked for a priest claiming not to know where the church was.

They lied as to what time the Police arrived

They lied that Cuddlecat was Madeleine’s favourite toy and then that it was a present to be given to her on her fourth birthday.

They lied saying they would cooperate fully with the investigation

They lied saying they would not do anything to hinder the investigation

They lied that the fund was going to be a charity.

They lied that the fund would help other missing children and families of.

They lied when they said they didn’t know Murat.

They lied when they said they would stay in Portugal until their daughter was found.

They lied when they said they were going to learn Portuguese.

They lied that it could not possibly be Madeleine’s blood in the trunk of their hire car. And then they took the same vehicle out of circulation so no further tests could be carried out upon it.

They lied about not discussing the case and met with the Tapas 9 secretly.

Gerry lied about where his wallet was apparently stolen, Waterloo station and then near Downing Street.

They lied when they said abductions like this (snatched sleeping from a hotel or apartment) happen a lot, they don’t.

They lied about the fund not being used for personal matters and then it paid their mortgage.

Kate lied about coming into contact with 6 dead people in her 1 day a week job as GP to explain the cadaver scent on her clothing.

They lied about cuddlecat having the scent of Madeleine and being comforting and then as soon as they heard the dogs were coming Kate announced she had washed it because it smelled of sun tan lotion. Making forensic analysis of it much harder.

They about the crime scene, about how many people came into the crime scene, walked around and contaminated it, again making investigation much harder and destroying much evidence according to detectives.

Gerry lied about the existence of the tennis bag.

They lied about going to sue media companies.

They lied about the film deal.

They lied about sacking Justine McGuinness and her subsequent departure.

They lied about returning to Portugal for questioning voluntarily and now will only do if their Arguido status is lifted. They have also appointed General Pinochets extradition-fighting lawyers.

Gerry lied about his faith.

They lied to the local catholic priest (who now claims he was deceived by the McCanns) and then deserted him for the Anglican reverend instead and never, ever took confession apparently.

They said a lie detector test would clear them and now refuse to take one.

They lied for months saying they were not suspects in the disappearance of their daughter and were then both made formal Arguido / suspects under Portuguese law.

They lied about the possibility of sedation and then claimed ridiculously that perhaps the Abductor had sedated all 3 of their children before making off with Madeleine.

Gerry lied about Kate’s ability to cope with three children on her own when her own Parents and her own diary say different.

They lied about the amount of alcohol consumed that night.

In another lie about cooperating they refused to provide their mobile phone records to the pj.

Kate explaining away the scent of death of cuddlecat because she took the childs 4th birthday present cuddly toy to work and exposed it to contact with 6 dead people.

They lied how everything had been so normal up til May 3rd when it is now known that Mark Warner staff had received complaints from other holidaymakers because of their home alone children crying and seeming in distress. This also brought Mark Warner staff looking for the McCanns on the night of the 2nd and insisting they attend to their distressed children.

They lied about 90 minute tennis lesson with several versions of the story being put out by official sources within the McCann Camp

They and at least one friend lied about Madeleine’s last meal on May 3rd.

They lied about the abductor entering through the window and then changed it to the patio doors.

Matthew Oldfield lied about his check on the McCann children changing his story not once but twice.

Kate lied about physically searching for her daughter but then admits to not have done so in a tv interview.

McCanns claim they were the first to arrive to tapas on May 3rd, Rachel Oldfield claims they were the last to arrive.

Despite being in Rome and Madrid and claiming to be spending the rest of the week quietly at home in PDL with the twins, the hire car in it’s first week clocked up over 500 miles.

Gerry lied about his checks on the children in the apartment, at first having claimed to have entered several rooms later then claiming the abductor must have hiding in the apartment while he was there.

Gerry and O Brien have lied about their locations when holding a mobile phone call together on June 10th as verified by phone records and pinpointing.

Jane Tanner has changed her statements, arrival time at tapas, direction of travel, checking times for night of May 3rd.

Najova Chekaya who joined the tapas 9 at the table at 9:30 states nobody left the table until Kate went to check. Putting Oldfields, O Briens, Tanners and Gerry McCanns statements into question.

Thanks to: Tony Q (http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16359) on the 3A and John Hirst (http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/mccanns-in-the-dock/) (jailhouselawyer)

Hi Colomom, your post is a real eye opener, with all the lies that have been told surely the posters who believe that Gerry, Kate and their friends had something to do with Madelaines disappearance have enough good reasons for thinking that they are to blame for Madelaines disappearance. Innocent people would not have had cause to lie as much as the McCanns have!!!!
Colomom, your post totally gobsmacked me, to see it all written together is mind boggling.

Once again Colomom, thankyou for your diligent and informative contributions to this case.:clap:

colomom
06-24-2008, 09:51 PM
Hi Shazza....

It was an amazing compilation wasn't it? Brings to mind the definition of a sociopath:

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

(from: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html)

I totally appreciate you guys and the way you give me kudos for doing what I feel is my duty. As a mother, I am responsible for all the children of this world and I feel like I need to do whatever I can to make sure a 3 year old child gets the justice she deserves. If there is anything I can do, I will do it, for a child who depends on the adults in this world to care for her and protect her.

Strange, isn't it, that her own parents can't (or won't) do the same?

Texana
06-24-2008, 10:55 PM
Stunning compilation of lies, Colomom. Really amazing when you look at all the discrepancies between what was said by the McCanns and what actually happened.

As for not talking about what Madeleine could be feeling...I asked myself if perhaps a parent of a missing child wouldn't want to "go there" in terms of really talking about the suffering a child might be feeling.

However, it would make such a huge impact on the public--how could you not go there a little? How could you not use the truth--if that is the truth--that a little child was taken from her bed and is now in the hands of strangers, alone from her parents and suffering just because she is separated from them?

I wouldn't go into great detail but just a "Maddie is alone and fearful without us, she must miss her family and we miss her so much, please if you know anything, take pity on this child and return her to us."

Possible reasons they don't:

A) They cannot acknowledge she might be suffering because they are such sheer, huge, narcicissts. To this day, they can't admit they did anything wrong or reprehensible by leaving three small children alone repeatedly in a strange resort room in a foreign country while they went out to dinner and drinks. This has some weight with me because so many of their statements and actions do show them to be the most self-centered parents and people possible.

B) They can't say this because they know it's simply not true. They can excuse their other statements that are not true, but they can't excuse a deliberate lie, "Maddie is suffering" because they truly believe that she is in heaven and not suffering. They think to claim that she is would put their own souls in jeopardy. Maddie passed away due to some accident that they felt justified in covering up, but bringing themselves to saying that she suffered is impossible. I find this a bit hard to believe, although it appeals to me initially, because they talk about "helping find her" and if they knew that was impossible, they would be lying there as well. So while it sounds good initially, they are already lying about finding her, so lying about her suffering, no big deal.

C) Talking about her suffering would just emphasize to them personally what they did by leaving her alone. They won't go there. They can't continue in their campaign efforts or parent the twins if they fall apart so this is quite simply a "refuse to go there" issue for them. They literally can't admit or talk about how she might be suffering because it means facing what they did and their own responsibility. This sounds very much like a Gerry position to me, he comes across as a "what's done is done" person who will not look back if he thinks it's necessary to survive (also fits in with his working class background.) While this seems the same as #1, it's not. Even if she died an accidental death, talking about her suffering is just not "useful" in their view, so they don't.

I'm going to go with number 3 but I'm open to suggestions.

Barnaby
06-25-2008, 11:24 AM
Texana, the only phrase that keep popping up for me regarding their entire attitude is "In cold blood"

teacherbees
06-25-2008, 01:07 PM
Colomom, thanks for compiling that staggering list of McCann lies. The list is incredible - and so are you!

I don't know how anyone could look at all those discrepancies Gerry and Kate have put out over the months and NOT think they had something to do with Maddie's disappearance.

Why do those two have such a need to lie? And what degree of arrogance is it to expect us all to be too stupid to unravel all the changing stories?

april4sky
06-25-2008, 01:37 PM
They lied about the checks (every hour then when that wasn’t received well ever half hour)
No Confirmation!! Just rumour!! We don't know what is in their statements!
They lied that they were performing the checks themselves (then it became known other men in the group were also checking on the McCann kids)
No Lie! They were checking themselves. One "friend" not "other men"...which is a lie, offered to check on the McCann children.
They lied even after that in the TV interview when Kate says she discovered Madeleine gone ‘on one of my checks’ – it was the only check she made that night.
This doesn't mean she lied! Madeleine was missing on one of her checks..not someone elses!!
They lied about the distance from the apartment to the Tapas bar
No Lie! There is a difference in the pathway and the distance they could see from where they were sitting.
They lied that you can see the apartment from the Tapas Bar
No Lie! They could see the apartment from the Tapas.
They lied about whether they actually saw Madeleine with their own eyes or just listened at the door (as did their friends)
No Lie! Gerry has said he looked at Madeleine sleeping. and it was a "friend" who listened not "friends" mmmm another lie!
They lied about who checked and when (changing their stories)
No Confirmation! Rumours again and there have been many!
And we still haven't seen their statements!
They lied about who remained at the table all evening and who was absent
No confirmation just repeated rumour.
They lied that leaving 3 children all under four years old alone at night ‘at the time was not irresponsible’
No Lie! Though we don't like it Baby listening is still legal in Europe.
It was certainly an error of Judgement.
Their friends lied about seeing Murat there that night (as incoming and outgoing phone records placed him consistently at home)
No Lie! I don't think it was just friends who reported seeing Murratt that night.
And if there is proof that Murratt was home all that night....Why is he also an Arguedo?
They lied about Bundleman.
No confirmation again!
And all too easy to make these accusations!
Tanner lied about when she gave Bundlemans details to the Police (changing the date)
Again no confirmation!
And why would anyone lie about this?
Tanner lied about the description of Bundleman (changing the height and appearance)
Again no confirmation!
I believe the PJ made an error in the height when they gave out the description.
Wilkins & Gerry or Tanner lied about that check when they were all in the same place but never saw each other.
No Lie! Two of them were on the path talking when the other crossed the top of the pathway.
They lied that the door was locked and changed it to unlocked when it was not well received.
No confirmation of this.
They lied that the door was closed, then it was open because of ‘danger of fire’
No Lie! It has been reported closed but unlocked.
They lied about the shutters being jemmied or forced
No Lie...but a reasonable assumption in their panic!
They lied to friends, family and media when the called them that night telling them of an abductor who had broken into their apartment
No Lie! As they believe this!
Gerry lied when he said there was no way Madeleine could have gotten out of bed and then said she must have wandered off.
No Lie! Just a panicked parent trying to work out what happened.
Gerry later lied in his blog saying the twins must like their new cots because they were asleep by 7:30pm which was very unusual, and yet the twins were asleep by 7:30 on the night of May 3rd allegedly.
Geeez! They were on holiday! What child wouldn't be more shattered than usual.
They lied to friends, family and media in phone calls that night saying the Police had not shown up when they were already there.
No confirmation of this nasty accusation!
Sounds like another typical rumour!
Kate lied to Mrs Fenn saying the Police had been called.
Another repeated rumour!
It's so easy, as well as ridiculous, to call almost everything they say and do a lie!
They lied saying they had called the Police when it was in fact Mark Warner
Again so easy to accuse them of lying....Mark Warner may have made the call but who do you think relayed the emergency to them??
And I doubt they would have known the number to call!! As well as not speaking the language!!
They lied when they said it felt so safe and then said they knew they were being watched.
No Lie! After Madeleine went missing Gerry "in hindsight" wondered about this!!
*They lied to family, friends and media on the phone that night when they said nobody was
doing anything* wheen in fact locals, holidaymakers and staff were all helping search.
No confirmation for this accusation!!
I believe they have said locals, holidaymakers, staff and their friends were all searching.
They lied when they said they were all searchingwhen Kate and Gerry were hitting phones until midnight and Tanner claims she knew nothing of the disappearance until another friend knocked on her door…..
Make your mind up:waitasec: *see previous highlighted and underlined accusations* in one sentence they are being accused of saying nobody was searching…and then in another accused of lying when they said they were searching.
As for Tanner….This did happen!!
Gerry lied when he asked for a priest claiming not to know where the church was.
No confirmation just another rumour!
They lied as to what time the Police arrived
Again no confirmation of yet another accusation!!
They lied that Cuddlecat was Madeleine’s favourite toy and then that it was a present to be given to her on her fourth birthday.
No Lie! Cuddle cat was in bed with Madeleine.
They lied saying they would cooperate fully with the investigation
They have!
They lied saying they would not do anything to hinder the investigation
Again, they have....and even offered to take part in the recent interviews in the UK.
They lied that the fund was going to be a charity.
No Lie! .. Check out the Madeleine website. It clearly explains why it cannot be a charity and also explains what the money can be used for.
They lied that the fund would help other missing children and families of.
No Lie! They have said that once Madeleine’s case is resolved the money could then be used to help in other cases.
They lied when they said they didn’t know Murat.
No Lie! Where did this rumour come from?
They lied when they said they would stay in Portugal until their daughter was found.
No Lie! They fully intended to stay until Madeleine was found. They were driven out by vicious rumours and smears and the realization that it was the PJ who were leaking many of the lies to smear them.
And if they had harmed Madeleine I don’t believe they would have stayed around for three months!!!
They lied when they said they were going to learn Portuguese.
Geeez….desperation to add to this list. IMO
They lied that it could not possibly be Madeleine’s blood in the trunk of their hire car. And then they took the same vehicle out of circulation so no further tests could be carried out upon it.
No Lie!!...they believe this. And the PJ had the car for as long as they wanted it!!!
They lied about not discussing the case and met with the Tapas 9 secretly.
Speculation!!
And the only parts of their statements we do know is what the PJ have “chosen” to leak!!
Gerry lied about where his wallet was apparently stolen, Waterloo station and then near Downing Street.
GEEZ unbelievable!!! Somewhere along the route!!
Desperation to add to the “list” again!!!
They lied when they said abductions like this (snatched sleeping from a hotel or apartment) happen a lot, they don’t.
Sadly it happens…And once is once too many!!!
They lied about the fund not being used for personal matters and then it paid their mortgage.
No Lie...and it has not been misused…Check out the website….it was set up to include financial help to the family if need be…its there for all the world to see….all clear…all concise.
Kate lied about coming into contact with 6 dead people in her 1 day a week job as GP to explain the cadaver scent on her clothing.
No Lie!! As part of her work she does come in contact with dead people.
They lied about cuddlecat having the scent of Madeleine and being comforting and then as soon as they heard the dogs were coming Kate announced she had washed it because it smelled of sun tan lotion. Making forensic analysis of it much harder.
No Lie..But an example of a botched investigation by the PJ of very basic police work…..They had ample time to test cuddle cat before it was washed!!
Why didn't they??
They about the crime scene, about how many people came into the crime scene, walked around and contaminated it, again making investigation much harder and destroying much evidence according to detectives.
THE PJ ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING CRIME SCENES NOT VICTIMS. Again another example of a botched investigation.
Gerry lied about the existence of the tennis bag.
No confirmation just repeated rumours again!!! All too easy to make accusations isn’t it!!
They lied about going to sue media companies.
No Lie..They did sue…And won.
They lied about the film deal.
No Lie.
They lied about sacking Justine McGuinness and her subsequent departure.
No confirmation just accusation again. And I believe it was widely reported that she herself made the decision to leave.
They lied about returning to Portugal for questioning voluntarily and now will only do if their Arguido status is lifted. They have also appointed General Pinochets extradition-fighting lawyers.
The PJ haven't requested them to return to Portugal for questioning!! If they now have “Evidence” Why not?
Gerry lied about his faith.
In what way!! They are both Roman Catholics…I don’t believe either has changed.
They lied to the local catholic priest (who now claims he was deceived by the McCanns) and then deserted him for the Anglican reverend instead and never, ever took confession apparently.
And Apparently….just another smear!!
They said a lie detector test would clear them and now refuse to take one.
Probably on advice...nothing wrong with that!!
They lied for months saying they were not suspects in the disappearance of their daughter and were then both made formal Arguido / suspects under Portuguese law.
No Lie...As they were told by the PJ they were not suspects….Surprise surprise, the PJ LIED!!!
They lied about the possibility of sedation and then claimed ridiculously that perhaps the Abductor had sedated all 3 of their children before making off with Madeleine.
No Lie!! Kate and the twins have been tested for drugs. And we don’t know what the abductor did.
Gerry lied about Kate’s ability to cope with three children on her own when her own Parents and her own diary say different.
No Lie!! Children are not perfect all of the time…and neither are parents!!
They lied about the amount of alcohol consumed that night.
No confirmation!!! Just lots of rumours!!!
In another lie about cooperating they refused to provide their mobile phone records to the pj.
No confirmation that they have even been asked…or that they have refused!!!
Kate explaining away the scent of death of cuddlecat because she took the childs 4th birthday present cuddly toy to work and exposed it to contact with 6 dead people.
No confirmation!!
And has whatever she said been twisted...I suspect so!!! Just like everything they say and do!!!
I would like to hear Kate herself!

They lied how everything had been so normal up til May 3rd when it is now known that Mark Warner staff had received complaints from other holidaymakers because of their home alone children crying and seeming in distress. This also brought Mark Warner staff looking for the McCanns on the night of the 2nd and insisting they attend to their distressed children.
No confirmation!! Nothing more than rumours…Again IMO
They lied about 90 minute tennis lesson with several versions of the story being put out by official sources within the McCann Camp
No confirmation of anything, just an accusation that the writer seems unclear about!!
They and at least one friend lied about Madeleine’s last meal on May 3rd.
No confirmation just accusation!
They lied about the abductor entering through the window and then changed it to the patio doors.
No Lie..As no one can know for sure.
Matthew Oldfield lied about his check on the McCann children changing his story not once but twice.
No confirmation!! We don't know what is in his statement!!
Kate lied about physically searching for her daughter but then admits to not have done so in a tv interview.
No Lie!! She has said she searched the flat before rushing back to the Tapas.
McCanns claim they were the first to arrive to tapas on May 3rd, Rachel Oldfield claims they were the last to arrive.
No confirmation just repeating rumours!
Despite being in Rome and Madrid and claiming to be spending the rest of the week quietly at home in PDL with the twins, the hire car in it’s first week clocked up over 500 miles.
No confirmation, just accusation!
I would think the international press should be able to vouch for their movements all that week!!!
Gerry lied about his checks on the children in the apartment, at first having claimed to have entered several rooms later then claiming the abductor must have hiding in the apartment while he was there.
No Lie! GERRY wonders now if the abductor was hiding in the apartment…in Hindsight!!
Gerry and O Brien have lied about their locations when holding a mobile phone call together on June 10th as verified by phone records and pinpointing.
No confirmation...Again...all too easy to make accusations!!
Jane Tanner has changed her statements, arrival time at tapas, direction of travel, checking times for night of May 3rd.
No confirmation just repeated rumours!!
We still don’t know what her statement says!!
Najova Chekaya who joined the tapas 9 at the table at 9:30 states nobody left the table until Kate went to check. Putting Oldfields, O Briens, Tanners and Gerry McCanns statements into question.
No confirmation!!
And if the very first accusation above is correct “every 30mins” then this timing fits!! And therefore NO LIE!!!

Its all too easy to destoy someone with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts. IMO

Rino
06-25-2008, 01:43 PM
Its all too easy to destoy someone with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts. IMO
Who is destroyed???

Barnaby
06-25-2008, 02:25 PM
"None so blind as those who will not see"

Salem
06-25-2008, 03:43 PM
All I will say it that it is quite interesting to watch their very first interview and then watch the documentry they did for the 1 year anniversity.

Salem

Salem
06-25-2008, 03:50 PM
Texana - back to your post 77. I think they can not admit things for all the reasons you posted, plus some. If they were to admit they had been neglectful or irresponsibility, the statement could be used against them. Therefore, they dare not say the words so that the prosecution will have to prove it based on the rule of law in Portugal that defines "neglect."

I also think, and this is definitely from my own prospective: It would be very hard to say some things. I know that upon the loss of someone very dear to me, I could not tell others. I could not say the words, they wouldn't come out, I didn't want them to come out. If I spoke them outloud I would have to face the reality of the situation.

However, I do not understand their refusal to talk to Maddie through the media when they are given the opportunity. That shouldn't be hard?

Yes, any acknowledgement of what Maddie might be enduring would cause the normal person to have to deal with the anguish of the guilt they would feel for having left the child in the first place. And here, the McCanns not only left her once, they left her again, after being warned, after being brought back by Mark Warner staff, after their precious daughter asked why they were not there..........

Speaks volumes,

Salem

Tony Bennett
06-25-2008, 05:59 PM
april4sky wrote: "It's all too easy to destroy someone with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts".

REPLY: "It's all too easy to destroy someone and then cover it up with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

colomom
06-25-2008, 06:13 PM
Its all too easy to destoy someone with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts. IMO

"Make your mind up :waitasec: *see previous highlighted and underlined accusations* in one sentence they are being accused of saying nobody was searching…and then in another accused of lying when they said they were searching."

To whom was this addressed?

shoregirl
06-25-2008, 09:25 PM
All I will say it that it is quite interesting to watch their very first interview and then watch the documentry they did for the 1 year anniversity.

Salem

ITA. Also when I get caught in the media fog I remember when I was first aware of this case and how the Mccann's own actions and words brought suspicion upon them. It took awhile but eventually the tide turned against them. In the very beginning I was afraid to voice my fears that they were involved, I didn't want to say it aloud. My bottom line is they are guilty...they left her alone. The degree of their guilt is all that remains to be seen for me. I truly do hope that they are at least charged with negligence, they were negligent. That is a fact.

april4sky
06-25-2008, 10:54 PM
"Make your mind up :waitasec: *see previous highlighted and underlined accusations* in one sentence they are being accused of saying nobody was searching…and then in another accused of lying when they said they were searching."

To whom was this addressed?
A list which is clearly built on rumours and smears will not help any of us find the truth of what happened IMO. And I am only interested in the truth!!

To your question...more an observation on my part...but as you were clearly impressed enough to bring this very questionable "list" from another site.....take it if you wish.

april4sky
06-25-2008, 10:58 PM
april4sky wrote: "It's all too easy to destroy someone with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts".

REPLY: "It's all too easy to destroy someone and then cover it up with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer still applies.

I think there are many people in prison who have a very good reason to disagree with yours however!!

april4sky
06-25-2008, 11:01 PM
"None so blind as those who will not see"So true Barnaby.

Texana
06-25-2008, 11:03 PM
The discrepancies between what the McCanns said and what they did or have done is easily confirmed.

It's not an "if" question at this point, it's a "why."

Barnaby
06-25-2008, 11:12 PM
ITA. Also when I get caught in the media fog I remember when I was first aware of this case and how the Mccann's own actions and words brought suspicion upon them. It took awhile but eventually the tide turned against them. In the very beginning I was afraid to voice my fears that they were involved, I didn't want to say it aloud. My bottom line is they are guilty...they left her alone. The degree of their guilt is all that remains to be seen for me. I truly do hope that they are at least charged with negligence, they were negligent. That is a fact.

Very true Shoregirl!

april4sky
06-25-2008, 11:18 PM
The discrepancies between what the McCanns said and what they did or have done is easily confirmed.

It's not an "if" question at this point, it's a "why."I don't think so Texana. :)

Texana
06-25-2008, 11:47 PM
I don't think so Texana. :)

Thinking so don't make it so.

How about for starters, the "we won't leave Portugal without Madeleine?"

Or the "do anything to help find Madeleine" except return to Portugal and participate in a re-enactment?

april4sky
06-26-2008, 03:25 AM
Thinking so don't make it so.

How about for starters, the "we won't leave Portugal without Madeleine?"

Or the "do anything to help find Madeleine" except return to Portugal and participate in a re-enactment?Thinking they are guilty doesn't make it so either.

I answered the leaving Portugal question as it was part of the list of accusations.

Their friends, not the McCanns refused to return for the proposed and very strange re-enactment....."Which apparently the PJ wouldn't do in the early days when it may have helped Madeleine."
And this one wasn't to be either filmed for appeals or to include other witnesses. :rolleyes:
So who knows what the PJ were up to...more smearing I suspect!!
It's clear none of them any longer trust the PJ and questioned the "why" as the proposed re-enactment had been leaked,....now there's a surprise....and nasty "rumours" soon appeared in the Portuguese press that they were making outrageous demands to return.
I think they have been given very good reason not to trust or believe the PJ that it was being done to help "find" Madeleine...or what happened to her.

Texana if that "list" of accusations was correct don't you think the PJ would have arrested and charged the McCanns long before now? :waitasec:

And why haven't the PJ asked the McCanns to return for "questioning," at the very least, if they now have "evidence"

Do you believe the PJ have "evidence" that Madeleine is dead?

ThoughtFox
06-26-2008, 12:16 PM
Stating facts is not the same as "smearing." It's not libel if it's true, and the McCann's know that.

Many of those facts are not rumors but well-documented contradictions the McCanns have talked about in their interviews.

Jane Tanner changed her story openly in the media time and again.

Some truths are self-evident and the McCanns don't even bother to contradict them. They just spin them in a self-serving way.

Example: They know they shouldn't have left their children alone, so they say they regret that.

However, they also spin that fact as if they were not responsible for their children. Gerry just said in that last interview that he "someone just walked in and took" Madeleine.

Yeah, duh. The door was unlocked - fact, not rumor.

Kate is the one who brought up the fact that Madeleine and her brother were crying while they were alone. Why? Because she must know someone overheard it.

In Gerry's own words on the video Madeleine "came to" and started crying.

This is so simple it's nearly painful to type it out again. The "wrong" part of it is a fact, not a rumor or a smear.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-26-2008, 01:29 PM
Its all too easy to destoy someone with repeated rumours and smears and very few actual facts. IMO

Yes, it seems the McCanns are smearing and spreading rumors about the PJ that they can't back up as well. The McCanns are out to destroy the PJ and that's okay with you and other McCann supporters. The McCanns are trying, (unsuccessfully I might add, except for a few groupies sprinkled about the globe) to make the PJ into the enemy. There is no actual fact or proof of any thing they have said about the Portuguese police, but it sure doesn't stop McCann supporters from trashing and bad mouthing them. The way I see it, the PJ have one heck of a slander case building. It will be interesting to see what happens.

As far as "leaks from the PJ". How do you know they are actually leaks from the PJ??? You believe rumors? You believe the papers? I think these so-called leaks come from desperate media mongers with greed filled eyes, looking for the almighty buck. Why is it slander when the media trash the McCanns, but bonafide true "leaks" when the tables are turned. Give me a break.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing, but newspapers. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Barnaby
06-26-2008, 03:50 PM
Yes, it seems the McCanns are smearing and spreading rumors about the PJ that they can't back up as well. The McCanns are out to destroy the PJ and that's okay with you and other McCann supporters. The McCanns are trying, (unsuccessfully I might add, except for a few groupies sprinkled about the globe) to make the PJ into the enemy. There is no actual fact or proof of any thing they have said about the Portuguese police, but it sure doesn't stop McCann supporters from trashing and bad mouthing them. The way I see it, the PJ have one heck of a slander case building. It will be interesting to see what happens.

As far as "leaks from the PJ". How do you know they are actually leaks from the PJ??? You believe rumors? You believe the papers? I think these so-called leaks come from desperate media mongers with greed filled eyes, looking for the almighty buck. Why is it slander when the media trash the McCanns, but bonafide true "leaks" when the tables are turned. Give me a break.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing, but newspapers. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Exactly IW!
& what about them trying to implicate Robert Murat, an innocent man who was at home with his mother all night? Only the Tapas crew claim to have seen him, not one local who actually knew him saw him there!

ThoughtFox
06-26-2008, 11:29 PM
Yes, it seems the McCanns are smearing and spreading rumors about the PJ that they can't back up as well. The McCanns are out to destroy the PJ and that's okay with you and other McCann supporters. The McCanns are trying, (unsuccessfully I might add, except for a few groupies sprinkled about the globe) to make the PJ into the enemy. There is no actual fact or proof of any thing they have said about the Portuguese police, but it sure doesn't stop McCann supporters from trashing and bad mouthing them. The way I see it, the PJ have one heck of a slander case building. It will be interesting to see what happens.

As far as "leaks from the PJ". How do you know they are actually leaks from the PJ??? You believe rumors? You believe the papers? I think these so-called leaks come from desperate media mongers with greed filled eyes, looking for the almighty buck. Why is it slander when the media trash the McCanns, but bonafide true "leaks" when the tables are turned. Give me a break.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing, but newspapers. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Well said, InterestedWoman! :woohoo:

I think the PJ should seek an apology from the McCanns at once.

Barnaby
06-27-2008, 09:00 AM
Well said, InterestedWoman! :woohoo:

I think the PJ should seek an apology from the McCanns at once.

It will be a cold day in hell before that arrogant pair will apologise to anyone Thoughtfox but I have no doubt think that PJ be well vindicated in due course! I hope so anyway! The way that the McCanns have smeared PJ has done them little damage as only a very small portion of people actually still believe that pair!

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who defend the McCanns believe that Neil Entwhistle is innocent also LOL!

Texana
06-27-2008, 04:06 PM
Why haven't the McCanns been charged? Because none of the evidence can be tied specifically to one person--so that the defense can obviously be for each McCann that the other must have done it.

As for whether or not they are guilty, obviously, not everyone is going to have that conclusion from the evidence so far. But there is no doubt that the McCanns have lied and there are great discrepancies between their acts and their words.

You could also draw from their words (most notably, the first Great Lie: "Like dining in your garden." You cannot see the apartment from the restaurant, and it's not like dining in your garden unless you are a millionaire and your garden is a city block away. So why is that lie repeated to this day?) that the McCanns are just self-centered people of immensely poor judgment whose actions put their children at risk--not so they could make ends meet and avoid childcare, but so they could go out to dinner and drinks with their friends.

The apartment isn't visible from the restaurant. It's not the same as dining in one's own garden. That's a concrete fact easily proven with a meter stick, not a matter of interpretation, opinion, or "everyone grieves differently" "damned if they do damned if they don't" kind of interpretation.

They lied.

Again, the question is why, not if.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-27-2008, 07:41 PM
snip...They lied.

Again, the question is why, not if.


:clap::clap::clap:
Amen Sister!

april4sky
06-27-2008, 10:08 PM
Why haven't the McCanns been charged? Because none of the evidence can be tied specifically to one person--so that the defense can obviously be for each McCann that the other must have done it. This is a new one Texana:waitasec:...But is it a "fact" If so why haven't the PJ....if they do have "evidence" asked the McCanns to return to Portugal for "questioning".....At the very least!!

And do you believe the PJ have evidence that Madeleine is dead??

Texana
06-27-2008, 10:31 PM
Obviously, I don't know for sure what evidence they have, but I do think they believe she is dead. One key fact--no one has successfully collected the reward, which is a sizeable one.

Why is this a "new one?" It's very common in cases where the family members are under suspicion--the notable case being the JBR one we don't discuss here--One of the strategies when the evidence points to one or both is to try and get one family member or parent to roll over and point to the other family member.

I think that's what was happening when Kate was questioned alone and she refused to (allegedly) answer the questions.

You seemed to be asking for a reason why they would have evidence and yet not bring them to trial, I think that's a credible reason.

But still--no explanation for my question: Why did Gerry McCann lie about the distance from the restaurant to the apartment? It's an obvious falsehood. That's a falsehood, period, and again, not one subject to opinion.

It is either a) as close as a backyard to a residence or b) not.

It was not. So again, the question: Not if, but why.

april4sky
06-28-2008, 05:17 AM
Obviously, I don't know for sure what evidence they have, but I do think they believe she is dead. One key fact--no one has successfully collected the reward, which is a sizeable one. Thats the problem Texana none of us knows for sure if they have any evidence!

And the fact that the reward is still unclaimed really doesn't tell us anything. If she was taken and killed I doubt the killer would claim it....I hate to even print that!!!
Why is this a "new one?" It's very common in cases where the family members are under suspicion--the notable case being the JBR one we don't discuss here--One of the strategies when the evidence points to one or both is to try and get one family member or parent to roll over and point to the other family member.

I think that's what was happening when Kate was questioned alone and she refused to (allegedly) answer the questions.
It was news to me in this case!
I agree that this is sometimes used as a strategy but I think they would need more to go on than belief.....And Murratt is still an Arguido too!!

The law regarding Arguidos has recently changed and to ask the McCanns to return for questioning now the PJ have to have some"evidence"...which wasn't the case at the time they were made Arguidos. Whatever the PJ had then it wasn't enough to stop them leaving Portugal...and at that time it could have been as little as them being persons of interest.
This is the reason why I question if the PJ have any evidence now as I think they would have asked them to return for questioning well before now.

I may be wrong but I honestly don't think the PJ have a clue if Madeleine is dead or alive.
And if they have stopped looking for her, and stopped looking on "belief" alone! :furious: Well Madeleine deserves better than that and has been victimised twice IMO.
And yes! I know her parents made the first, and wrong decision to leave the children alone.

You seemed to be asking for a reason why they would have evidence and yet not bring them to trial, I think that's a credible reason.
I don't believe it's credible on belief alone.....Do they believe Murrat guilty too?
But still--no explanation for my question: Why did Gerry McCann lie about the distance from the restaurant to the apartment? It's an obvious falsehood. That's a falsehood, period, and again, not one subject to opinion.

It is either a) as close as a backyard to a residence or b) not. I can't know for sure but there is a difference between the distance of the pathway and the distance they could see from where they were sitting and I think Gerry gave the distance he could see from the Tapas....As I think most people automatically would!
Has anyone actually asked him to explain the "why" difference...Hopefully somebody will!!
I think you are using different words than he used regarding back yard..I thought he said it was how it felt to them.

Texana
06-28-2008, 09:56 PM
Gerry said it was as close as dining in your own garden. Unless the British definition of "one's own garden" is a city block away, obviously, what Gerry meant is the vicinity of a person's property. Close enough to hear a child cry or scream or see someone entering or leaving the property, obviously.

That was clearly not the case here.

So it leaves me with two choices: Either Gerry has made a conscious, deliberate reason to keep misstating the difference, or he literally cannot mentally "see" the difference between the reality and what he said--or he refuses to see it--which means his judgment altogether is simply out of touch with reality and common sense.

And no, honestly, most people--I honestly believe--would NOT. We just finished a stay at a resort. There were many places we could see from our hotel room and balcony area that took much longer to reach in person than in actual distance viewed. At no time did we ever refer to distances based on the visual "as the crow flies" kind of time estimate--always in terms of how long it actually took us to get there.

I think you are frustrated with the thought that the Portuguese police have given up on searching for Madeleine. But there are really two conclusions: One, if a single kidnapper took Madeleine and then did away with her, it would be very difficult to find either her or the actual abductor. Secondly, if it was someone working in a pedophilia ring (as hinted by the McCanns) then more than one person knows of the crime, and yes, I believe that means the reward would be a huge temptation to other parties to the crime. That it has not been claimed is a sad indicator that the odds of her surviving are less likely.

If Madeleine is no longer in Portugal, as the McCanns' own detective agency, their actions, and their advocacy of the European Amber Alert indicate they seem to believe, then it doesn't matter what the Portuguese do, really.

Again: Even if Gerry originally thought the restaurant was close to the apartment, the fact is: It's not like dining in your own garden. No one would say that, anymore than my family would have said that about the restaurant we ate in at our resort.

So again, why does he keep saying it?

april4sky
06-29-2008, 12:02 AM
Gerry said it was as close as dining in your own garden. Unless the British definition of "one's own garden" is a city block away, obviously, what Gerry meant is the vicinity of a person's property. Close enough to hear a child cry or scream or see someone entering or leaving the property, obviously.

That was clearly not the case here.

So it leaves me with two choices: Either Gerry has made a conscious, deliberate reason to keep misstating the difference, or he literally cannot mentally "see" the difference between the reality and what he said--or he refuses to see it--which means his judgment altogether is simply out of touch with reality and common sense. Well there are blocks! and then there are blocks!:waitasec: both large and small. :waitasec:
There is a pool and pathway between the Tapas and Apartment.
We can only give our opinion on what Gerry said or meant and hope that somebody will ask him to clarify at some point.
I think you are frustrated with the thought that the Portuguese police have given up on searching for Madeleine. But there are really two conclusions: One, if a single kidnapper took Madeleine and then did away with her, it would be very difficult to find either her or the actual abductor. Secondly, if it was someone working in a pedophilia ring (as hinted by the McCanns) then more than one person knows of the crime, and yes, I believe that means the reward would be a huge temptation to other parties to the crime. That it has not been claimed is a sad indicator that the odds of her surviving are less likely. A lot more that frustrated Texana!
I realise the odds that Madeleine will be found alive are probably not good. But there are cases where it's turned out good before and will again. So until we know for sure Madeleine doesn't deserve to be given up on IMO. I know I would never want to give up if she were my child!!

I also think it would be very difficult for any police force to find Madeleine, especially in a part of the world where she could have been moved very quickly to various countries. Under these circumstances i'm not sure any police force no matter how good would be successful.

I would never have blamed the PJ if they had gone about this in a professional way...But they haven't IMO...Far from it!! I don't think there is any excuse for the "bungles," leaks and smears.
As I said, Madeleine deserves much, much better.

If Madeleine is no longer in Portugal, as the McCanns' own detective agency, their actions, and their advocacy of the European Amber Alert indicate they seem to believe, then it doesn't matter what the Portuguese do, really. I would agree...except no one knows for sure if she's in Portugal or not.
But if the PJ are not searching for her, as appears to be the case, then they need to make their minds up..If they don't know if she is dead or alive, and they don't have evidence against the McCanns...or Murratt, then they should release any helpful information collected so others can continue to search.

Again: Even if Gerry originally thought the restaurant was close to the apartment, the fact is: It's not like dining in your own garden. No one would say that, anymore than my family would have said that about the restaurant we ate in at our resort.

So again, why does he keep saying it?
As I said above I hope someone will ask him the why!! and soon! :)

ThoughtFox
06-29-2008, 03:12 AM
I also think it would be very difficult for any police force to find Madeleine, especially in a part of the world where she could have been moved very quickly to various countries. Under these circumstances i'm not sure any police force no matter how good would be successful.

I would never have blamed the PJ if they had gone about this in a professional way...But they haven't IMO...Far from it!! I don't think there is any excuse for the "bungles," leaks and smears.
As I said, Madeleine deserves much, much better.

But Madeleine could have been across the border with Spain very quickly the night she disappeared. She could have been on a boat out to sea. Why not blame Spain's police force, or Interpol? Aren't they professionals? Metodo has supposedly been "searching" for months, paid by the McCanns. Aren't they bungling something if they haven't found her by now?

I'm just asking those questions hypothetically because there are no real answers. Sometimes a person cannot be found, even with the best efforts of many agencies. We see that all the time in missing person cases.

It's a slippery slope to blame the police for the disappearance itself because the police were not there at her apartment until she was gone. Before that, it was not the responsibility of the police to make sure Maddie was safe.

I don't see that the "leaks" from the police have hurt anything. Most of what we've heard has turned out to be true, and many things have been confirmed by the McCanns or their friends.

april4sky
06-29-2008, 06:17 AM
But Madeleine could have been across the border with Spain very quickly the night she disappeared. She could have been on a boat out to sea. Why not blame Spain's police force, or Interpol? Aren't they professionals? Metodo has supposedly been "searching" for months, paid by the McCanns. Aren't they bungling something if they haven't found her by now? I believe I said she could have been quickly moved to various other countries!

I think any police force would be willing, and I believe some have tried to do what they can to help....and I know of no reason to think they weren't professional.
But I can't say the same for the PJ....and they are the ones responsible for running this investigation.

I'm just asking those questions hypothetically because there are no real answers. Sometimes a person cannot be found, even with the best efforts of many agencies. We see that all the time in missing person cases.

It's a slippery slope to blame the police for the disappearance itself because the police were not there at her apartment until she was gone. Before that, it was not the responsibility of the police to make sure Maddie was safe.I believe I said this too!

And I don't, and never have blamed the police for Madeleines disapearance.
But I do blame them for being very unprofessional and bungling the investigation. As well as all the leaks/smears they are responsible for.

I don't see that the "leaks" from the police have hurt anything. Most of what we've heard has turned out to be true, and many things have been confirmed by the McCanns or their friends.I can't agree with this!! :waitasec: Or that they were true! :waitasec:

Not only were leaks against their own secrecy laws....They have damaged the MCanns!...Though I realize this may not bother some.

To me the very worst thing the constant drip of leaks did was hurt Madeleine by taking the focus away from her...and the search. IMO

Barnaby
06-29-2008, 09:00 AM
But Madeleine could have been across the border with Spain very quickly the night she disappeared. She could have been on a boat out to sea. Why not blame Spain's police force, or Interpol? Aren't they professionals? Metodo has supposedly been "searching" for months, paid by the McCanns. Aren't they bungling something if they haven't found her by now?

I'm just asking those questions hypothetically because there are no real answers. Sometimes a person cannot be found, even with the best efforts of many agencies. We see that all the time in missing person cases.

It's a slippery slope to blame the police for the disappearance itself because the police were not there at her apartment until she was gone. Before that, it was not the responsibility of the police to make sure Maddie was safe.

I don't see that the "leaks" from the police have hurt anything. Most of what we've heard has turned out to be true, and many things have been confirmed by the McCanns or their friends.

Absolutely Thoughtfox, it was not the responsibility of anyone but the McCanns to ensure that their children were safe & they failed miserably! The absolute cheek of them to blame PJ or anyone else for Madeleine not being found, the blame lies entirely with them!

1. They neglectfully abandoned her that night & every other night. The fact that the poor child told them she & her younger brother were crying & obviously afraid alone in the dark every night, & they ignored this & did it again on May 3rd. to go & get drunk makes me as angry as I have ever been!
What nasty, callous & vile people they are to do subject their own flesh & blood to terror like this!

2. They & their vile friends hampered the investigation from day 1 by telling PJ untruths e.g the shutters were jemmied when they were not, Robert Murat was there, he was not, etc. etc. Not answering PJ's questions, changing description of a suspect - bundleman, not returning for the reconstruction, etc. etc. etc.

Not only should these people be done for neglect & possibly more, they should be done for perverting the course of justice!

PJ may have made mistakes, noone is perfect but by gum the McCanns take the biscuit for their part in this & no leaks to the press from PJ could ever equal the obvious & pathetic manipulation of the Press by them!

Everything that this little child suffered is down to the McCanns noone else is responsible for any of it! They did this, not PJ, not an abductor who if he existed couldn't have taken Madeleine without their assistance in leaving her vulnerable!
They are vile child neglectors & liars at best! How anyone can defend them is beyond me.

No amount of lies on their behalf - " it was like dining in our back garden" :rolleyes: will ever exonerate them for their part in this little girl's demise! If they had a shred of decency they would have held their hands up & admitted to their mistake & begged other parents not to do the same but oh no, they are perfect parents who are simply victims!

To compound their callousness they lunched, played tennis, jogged, lounged at the pool & toured Europe in private jets while others searched & have the cheek to say they could have had more help from the public :eek:

These people make me so ill, they are beneath contempt!

Tony Bennett
06-29-2008, 09:22 AM
Barnaby wrote: "...these people should be done for neglect..."

REPLY: Just a brief reminder, here is a summary of the evidence I was going to lead, had I been allowed to proceed with my summons in the Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court against Kate and Gerry McCann for child neglect, within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The appplication was refused on the sole ground that the Magistrates were not persuaded that they had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. This is despite Article 17 of the Hague Convention on Child Protection which stipulates that child protection legal matters should be prosecuted in the country where the parents are resident, not where a child protection incident has occurred.

The application was made on 14 November 2007 and refused a few days later, after local Magistrates consulted with government law officers (attorneys):

======================

Below is the evidence that will be led in support of the allegation that Mr Gerald McCann and Mrs Kate McCann committed the offence of child neglect from 28 April 2007 to 3 May 2007 at the Mark Warners Holiday Complex between 28 April 2007 and 3 May 2007.

Evidence

Mr and Mrs McCann have both admitted leaving their children on their own every evening whilst on holiday in Praia da Luz. Some of their statements to this effect are set out below. They were eating and drinking with friends in the Tapas bar at the Ocean Club, on 28, 20 and 30 April and 1 and 3 May. This was around 120 yards’ walk away from the apartment where the children were sleeping. On the evening of Wednesday 2 May they were dining with their friends at Chaplins, a restaurant/bar about half a mile away from where the children were sleeping.

It was widely reported that on the evening of Tuesday 1 May, a widow, Mrs Pamela Fenn, 81, who lives in the flat above where the McCanns were staying, heard Madeleine was crying ‘Daddy, daddy’, continuously between 10.30 and 11.45pm.

The crying is said to have stopped when the parents returned to the apartment at 11.45. A letter has been sent to Mrs Fenn asking if she will give evidence in this case, should a summons be issued.

It should be noted that on a Spanish T.V. programme transmitted in October, several waiters at the Ocean Club Tapas bar gave evidence, which included the following:

a) the McCanns did not regularly check on the children whilst they were eating/drinking in the evening
b) the McCanns left their children on their own every night
c) the McCanns dined at Chaplins restaurant/bar on the night of 2 May 2007.

Efforts are being made to secure their evidence.

Evidence from Mrs Kate McCann herself


An article was published by the ‘Sunday Mirror’ on Sunday 5 August which was based entirely on an interview between the journalist, Lori Campbell, and Kate McCann.

The following are extracts from this report:

She says they felt so safe at the ‘family-friendly resort they didn’t think twice about leaving Madeleine and the twins - and she reveals how they’d left them alone every evening as they ate dinner in the week until Madeleine was taken on a Thursday night”. But she admits it is a decision which torments her every waking moment. “We’ve doubted what we did”, says Kate “It’s hard to answer the question: ‘Were we wrong to leave them?’”. If I’d had to think for one second, ‘Should we have dinner and leave them?’, I wouldn’t have done it”.

A similar report, also based entirely on Lori Campbell’s interview with Kate McCann, and published in the ‘Independent on Sunday’ said the following

“The night she went missing there was about 20 seconds of disbelief where I thought 'that can't be right'. I was checking for her. Then there was panic and fear. That was the first thing that hit. I was screaming her name. I ran to the group. Everyone was the same. It was just total fear. I never thought for one second that she'd walked out. I knew someone had been in the apartment because of the way it had been left.

“But I knew she wouldn't do that anyway. There wasn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind she'd been taken. That's why the fear set in. Then you go through the guilt phase. Straight away, because we didn't know what had happened. We were just so desperately sorry. Every hour now, I still question, 'why did I think that was safe?'

“I can't describe how much I love Madeleine. If I'd had to think for one second, 'should we have dinner and leave them?' I wouldn't have done it. It didn't happen like that. I didn't have to think for a second, that's how safe I felt.

“Maybe it was because it was family-friendly, because it felt so safe. That week we had left them alone while we had dinner. There is no way on this planet I would take a risk, no matter how small, with my children. I do say to myself 'why did I think it was safe?' But it did feel safe and so right. I love her and I'm a totally responsible parent and that's the only thing that keeps me going. I have no doubt about that”.

“You don't expect a predator to break in and take your daughter out the bed. It could have happened under other circumstances and there would still be the regret. It wasn't like a decision we made. It was a matter of 'let's get the kids to sleep, then we'll have dinner.' It wasn't a 'shall I, shan't I?' thing. I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there.”

Evidence from Gerald McCann himself


In September Gerald McCann made the following comments in his daily blog, about a story in a British national newspaper stating that he “faced prosecution for neglecting our children by dining 50 yards away and checking on them regularly”. See verbatim extract from the blog below:

“There is a very upsetting story on the front page of a British National Newspaper today. The headline suggests that Kate and I face prosecution for neglecting our children by dining 50 yards away and checking on them regularly. We know that there has been criticism in some quarters of our actions but at the time, we felt our actions were responsible. We were essentially performing our own baby listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at now [should be ‘not’ - A.B.] being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.

“We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting and subsequently been assured that no action will be taken. These types of criticism, particularly at this stage, as well as being hurtful, are extremely unhelpful in the search for Madeleine. From the moment we discovered Madeleine missing, Kate and I have done everything in our power to try and help get her back.

“Our opinion now is completely clouded by what has happened to us and of course has sent shock waves through thousands of families. The real issue is that we should not have a constant fear of abduction of our children from their bedrooms, gardens or streets for that matter. What Kate and I did was at worst naïve and no one should forget that the real criminal is the predator who has taken a completely innocent child in such a premeditated fashion. It is this act that has wreaked havoc on our family and affected millions of other people”.

It is submitted that, evidentially, the following matters are relevant to the offence of child neglect in these circumstances:

1. The claim that by Gerald McCann that he was dining ’50 yards away’. This will be disproved by evidence that the Tapas bar where the McCanns were dining o nfive days out of the six was 120 yards away.

2. The claim that the McCanns were ‘checking on their children regularly’ is contradicted by other evidence, and given the circumstances i.e. that they admit to being away from the children all evening and for several evenings in a row, then it is submitted that, against that evidential background, the McCanns will need to prove to the court that there were indeed checking every half-hour as claimed.

3. Even if they can satisfy the court on point (2) above, it is clear that even this checking was not sufficient to prevent their child Madeleine, on their own evidence, from being abducted. There are few greater dangers to a child than being abducted. On their own evidence, it is asserted that the McCanns were sufficiently neglectful to allow this to happen.

4. Gerald McCann does not mention on his blog that he left the patio door open, so that an abductor could enter. He has made public admissions that the patio door was left open. He has stated that the abductor entered through the patio door and then climbed out of the window, carrying Madeleine.

5. Gerald McCann stated in his blog that “We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting”. Given previous interpretationsof the law on child neglect, this advice is questionable and I submit that this needs to be tested in a court of law.

6. Gerald McCann wrote: “We have subsequently been assured that no action will be taken”. By this he presumably means that Leicesteshire Social Services Department and Leicestershire Constabulary have between them concluded that there is no evidence of child neglect. In these circumstances any British citizen has the right to lay information before a court that that an offence may have been committed, notwithstandig any decision by Leicestershire Police and/or the Crown Prosecution Service that they should not prosecute the McCanns..

7. Gerald McCann wrote: “What Kate and I did was at worst naïve…” It is submitted that this view is contradicted by decisions of the courts on the meaning of child neglect at law, with which I deal in the section below [contiuned but snipped - T.B.].

Barnaby
06-29-2008, 10:05 AM
Such a pity they refused to entertain your summons, Tony!

Pinkhammer
06-29-2008, 03:32 PM
Tony, Barbaby--No doubt about it--the McCanns were (are?) negligent parents.

Does anyone know if Gerry and Kate took the twins on holiday this year? Did they take a Nanny along, or are they still up to their old tricks?

Texana
06-29-2008, 07:48 PM
Excellent summary of points, Tony. If we are to believe the words of the other diners at the restaurant, as quoted in the media, why don't we believe the waiters, as quoted on Spanish television?

It's either all up for discussion or none of it, and obviously, all is better than none if a little girl is missing.

Gerry will never answer questions as to why he continually misstates the difference between the actual distance and his own version, as he says, the whole issue is "boring, actually."

ThoughtFox
06-29-2008, 08:51 PM
Thank you, Tony! There it is in black and white - the truth.

I think any police force would be willing, and I believe some have tried to do what they can to help....and I know of no reason to think they weren't professional.
But I can't say the same for the PJ....and they are the ones responsible for running this investigation.

But again I ask you, if you believe Madeleine was taken to another country, how are the PJ responsible for what happened after that?

It seems to me you just don't believe the PJ had a right to question the McCanns about anything they did that night. But Gerry and Kate gave public interviews and made statements about what they did and did not do, so the PJ had a right to question them.

Trust me - in the U.S. the parents would be suspects, no matter how sympathetic people might be to them. That's for the police to decide and not us.

Texana
06-29-2008, 10:45 PM
Thank you, Tony! There it is in black and white - the truth.


But again I ask you, if you believe Madeleine was taken to another country, how are the PJ responsible for what happened after that?

It seems to me you just don't believe the PJ had a right to question the McCanns about anything they did that night. But Gerry and Kate gave public interviews and made statements about what they did and did not do, so the PJ had a right to question them.

Trust me - in the U.S. the parents would be suspects, no matter how sympathetic people might be to them. That's for the police to decide and not us.

Exactly. The Portuguese LE has not only the right but the obligation to question Gerry and Kate very closely. Not just in light of the parents as possible suspects, but because if they are telling the truth, then Kate and Gerry are the only ones who know the most valuable facts about what happened that night.

And Thoughtfox hit the nail on the head: If Madeleine was taken out of the country, as the McCanns themselves purport to believe, based on their advocacy of a European Amber Alert, then the Portuguese police have very little responsibility in the matter.

They weren't the ones who left Maddie and the twins unattended, providing the opportunity for an abduction.

They weren't the ones who took Madeleine.

They don't control the country (ies) where she might be, and have no power to search for her other than within Portugal. The McCanns' response to the private individual who had the reservoir searched was very negative.

And let's chase that rabbit down the trail for a minute: Why were the McCanns so negative about searching the reservoir? Are they only interested in following up on live sightings of Madeleine? As understandable as that might be, it's not realistic to not look for Madeleine alive or not, so why were they so publicly against searching for her there?

april4sky
06-30-2008, 05:08 AM
But again I ask you, if you believe Madeleine was taken to another country, how are the PJ responsible for what happened after that? Did I say they are responsible for what happens outside Portugal? :waitasec:
The PJ are to blame for what they do in it!
And they are responsible for botching this investigation....in Portugal. IMO
Not forgetting all the leaks/smears they are responsible for.
It seems to me you just don't believe the PJ had a right to question the McCanns about anything they did that night. But Gerry and Kate gave public interviews and made statements about what they did and did not do, so the PJ had a right to question them.
Not true thoughtfox.
I have never had a problem with the PJ questioning the McCanns, and I have said so before.
It's normal, and rightly so to question family and friends.

Trust me - in the U.S. the parents would be suspects, no matter how sympathetic people might be to them. That's for the police to decide and not us.I trust you! and I fully understand....and I would never have a problem with it.

I just think Madeleine deserves a competent, professional investigation...regardless of how or why she went missing....and I don't believe she is getting one from the PJ. :furious:

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-30-2008, 09:17 AM
:furious:Did I say they are responsible for what happens outside Portugal? :waitasec:
The PJ are to blame for what they do in it!
And they are responsible for botching this investigation....in Portugal. IMO
Not forgetting all the leaks/smears they are responsible for. Not true thoughtfox.
I have never had a problem with the PJ questioning the McCanns, and I have said so before.
It's normal, and rightly so to question family and friends.
I trust you! and I fully understand....and I would never have a problem with it.

I just think Madeleine deserves a competent, professional investigation...regardless of how or why she went missing....and I don't believe she is getting one from the PJ. :furious:

:eek: The PJ are to blame? Oh honey, give me a break. How much money do you think a tiny little police force in a tiny little country has?? They don't have unlimited resources like Brian Kennedy or "the fund". They are on a tight budget like every other LE in the world. IMO financially, they should have shelved the case months ago to try to recover from such a huge expense, but they haven't...(thankfully for Madeleines sake) why?

The PJ has went above and beyond the call of duty. The McCanns now have the high profile, high polutin detective agency... remember the M3?? Brian Kennedy and the fund shell out major bucks each month voluntarily for the M3 who told us back in December, "We know who has her, where she is at and she'll be home in time for Christmas". Is that the competent professional investigation you are talking about? It was a blatant lie.

If someone told you that about your missing child, and didn't even come close to following through would you continue to employ them? Wouldn't you be crushed, hurt and grieve even more? The PJ has never come up with these WILD stories, but somehow the McCanns trust the M3 and continue to allow their benefactor, (Who they could confer with about change, but don't) and the fund to pay the M3. If the McCanns thought it was possible to find Madeleine, they would hire a top notch PI who specializes in PEOPLE...not one that specialises in MONEY. :furious:

april4sky
06-30-2008, 09:47 AM
:eek: The PJ are to blame? Oh honey, give me a break.
The great thing about Websleuths is that this isn't just an anti McCann thread and we are all entitled to have and voice different opinions.
So no worries IW. :)

Rino
06-30-2008, 10:14 AM
The great thing about Websleuths is that this isn't just an anti McCann thread and we are all entitled to have and voice different opinions.
So no worries IW. :)
I think you twist a little bit in your defense of them.

Pro Maddie does not equal anti-McCain. They have not been found innocent and no one else has be found guilty. Till then imo only Maddie matters.

april4sky
06-30-2008, 11:22 AM
I think you twist a little bit in your defense of them.

Pro Maddie does not equal anti-McCain. They have not been found innocent and no one else has be found guilty. Till then imo only Maddie matters.Unfounded rumours twist things IMO.
I think we are all Pro Madeleine!
Pro Madeleine shouldn't equal Anti-McCann but it often does IMO.

As for them not found innocent...there have been no charges.

I agree regarding Madeleine.

Rino
06-30-2008, 11:30 AM
As for them not found innocent...there have been no charges.


That has little to do with their innocence or guilt

Salem
06-30-2008, 11:31 AM
Thank you, Tony! There it is in black and white - the truth.


But again I ask you, if you believe Madeleine was taken to another country, how are the PJ responsible for what happened after that?

It seems to me you just don't believe the PJ had a right to question the McCanns about anything they did that night. But Gerry and Kate gave public interviews and made statements about what they did and did not do, so the PJ had a right to question them.

Trust me - in the U.S. the parents would be suspects, no matter how sympathetic people might be to them. That's for the police to decide and not us.

I agree Thoughtfox. I believe in the US, the McCanns would be in jail because we don't allow "baby" listening here, thank goodness. I think the only way they would have escaped jail would have been by a very large outpouring of sympathy. I don't think they would have found that sympathy here though - because we don't allow baby listening. Upon learning that 2 well-educated parents left their 3 children, under the age of 4, to fend for themselves, they would have been the No. 1 suspects, from the git go. If Ms. Fenn would have called the police here, they would have responded to the apartment with CPS and taken the children right then and there.

In a way I feel sorry for Portugal. This particular place depends quite heavily on its tourist market and this event, and all its nuances, have created quite the political situation for them.

And Tony - why do you not try to bring your action of negligence in Portugal? They should have jurisdiction because the crime happened there. Or, I think I would do my best to put together some very convincing legal arguments for having the matter heard in England. Do you know if the High Court has ever done such a thing before?

Salem

april4sky
06-30-2008, 11:37 AM
That has little to do with their innocence or guiltAgreed!

Salem
06-30-2008, 11:42 AM
They don't control the country (ies) where she might be, and have no power to search for her other than within Portugal. The McCanns' response to the private individual who had the reservoir searched was very negative.

And let's chase that rabbit down the trail for a minute: Why were the McCanns so negative about searching the reservoir? Are they only interested in following up on live sightings of Madeleine? As understandable as that might be, it's not realistic to not look for Madeleine alive or not, so why were they so publicly against searching for her there?

Shortened your post a bit, Texana. I think this is very important in the scheme of things. Why were the McCanns so negative about this search? Quite honestly, their reaction to the private searcher was very telling. They should have been giving him money from the Find Madeline fund. They have never funded any search except the bumblings of Metodo3.

I was really sure this guy had received some info, not from a "criminal element" but from one of the Tapas themselves and was very disappointed that he came up empty handed. While he could have been after the reward, it still seems like a very expensive undertaking when you have no guarantee and I did not think the private searcher would do such a thing without some degree of confidence that he would be successful.

That the McCanns refused to take part in this search or contribute leads me to believe that they knew Maddie was not there.

April - just an aside. Everytime I think the PJ have stopped looking for Maddie, some new article or such is published telling how the PJ have gone here or there in their continued search. I don't think the PJ have given up the search, unless they know where she is, I think we are just not hearing about it. We should be hearing more in the next two weeks from the media, due to the expiration of the secrecy and the month long holiday. I do believe the PJ are still looking :)

Salem

ThoughtFox
06-30-2008, 12:59 PM
Unfounded rumours twist things IMO.

You are making a choice to use the word "unfounded" about every piece of information, even when it comes directly from the McCanns and not from PJ.

"Unfounded" is a sweeping generalization as long as you insist that everything we know is an unfounded rumor. My point is just that there are lists of facts right here on this thread that are neither rumors nor falsehoods.

Texana
06-30-2008, 02:29 PM
Shortened your post a bit, Texana. I think this is very important in the scheme of things. Why were the McCanns so negative about this search? Quite honestly, their reaction to the private searcher was very telling. They should have been giving him money from the Find Madeline fund. They have never funded any search except the bumblings of Metodo3.

I was really sure this guy had received some info, not from a "criminal element" but from one of the Tapas themselves and was very disappointed that he came up empty handed. While he could have been after the reward, it still seems like a very expensive undertaking when you have no guarantee and I did not think the private searcher would do such a thing without some degree of confidence that he would be successful.

That the McCanns refused to take part in this search or contribute leads me to believe that they knew Maddie was not there.

Salem

Thanks, Salem. I think we really need to take another look at the McCanns' reaction to that search. Why were they opposed to the search? Why did they make any negative comment at all?

If Madeleine was truly abducted by a stranger then the McCanns have no way of knowing where she is at all or if she is alive. They are in no position to know anything certain about her at this point. Any search, anywhere, that comes up negative is another piece of evidence as to where she is not.

So why did the McCanns react negatively and publicly so, to that search?

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-30-2008, 05:18 PM
Thanks, Salem. I think we really need to take another look at the McCanns' reaction to that search. Why were they opposed to the search? Why did they make any negative comment at all?

If Madeleine was truly abducted by a stranger then the McCanns have no way of knowing where she is at all or if she is alive. They are in no position to know anything certain about her at this point. Any search, anywhere, that comes up negative is another piece of evidence as to where she is not.

So why did the McCanns react negatively and publicly so, to that search?
Probably because that is where they dumped her. After all the time that had lapsed, her poor little body (I hate to even type this...sorry) was probably decayed and consumed by the animal kingdom.

I had a roommate in collage who was a clepto. She was always stealing crap from me, and after awhile I questioned her about various missing items, but most importantly an expensive pair of jeans. She adamantly denied seeing them, or any of the other things I mentioned. The next day she brought it back up and offered to let me search her closet...I said I rather look in her dresser, (Just because she so readily offered her closet, and I knew she was lying) but she refused to let me, and began ranting things about trust and honesty and how I was accusing her blah, blah, blah. She grew very upset and nervous. I just said to forget it, and that I was sorry for offending her...basically I let her off the hook. Later when she was in class, I looked in her dresser...didn't find my jeans, but I did find a pair of my earrings a watch and a book of mine...I moved out the following weekend.

Point is, people get nervous when they feel they are about to be busted. I think the McCanns put something in that reservoir (either Madeleine or ties to her death), and were terribly afraid of it being found. Since then, they are cockier than ever...Heck, for all we know, it could have all been a huge set up/act, and the dude was paid, blackmailed or bribed to search there by the fund benefactors to keep the police from doing it again, of course this is just speculation, nothing more, and as always, in my humble oppenion.

Anyone have a link to the satellite/google map of the reservoir handy?

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
06-30-2008, 05:46 PM
Unfounded rumours twist things IMO.
I think we are all Pro Madeleine!
Pro Madeleine shouldn't equal Anti-McCann but it often does IMO.

As for them not found innocent...there have been no charges.

I agree regarding Madeleine.

April, truly, I don't mean to always be picking at your comments, but I do have to say i always crack up when you talk about rumors being unfounded...etc.

I'm sure you all get sick of me talking about my life on the farm, but there is something to be learned about small towns. Rumors are an EVERYDAY occurrence in the boonies of Nebraska USA. Unfortunately, many people LIVE for the rumor mill. It is a source of entertainment for some, and plain old nosiness for others. I like to think of it as keeping up on my neighbors :). Honesty, I try never to start a rumor, but have to admit that I have spread them on a few occasions...Not a very Christian thing to do. :slap:Anyway, I've lived here for 20 years. In the 20 years that I have been subjected to an array of rumors, I have NEVER heard one that was untrue. They are always true. Joe really did get caught by his wife in the cornfield with Katrina the barmaid, Brad really did get his best friends wife pregnant, John did get a DWI and Kevin really is gay. Why lie when the truth is interesting enough.

People don't need to makeup nasty stuff about the McCanns, they are bad enough to make the truth interesting.:doh:

Tony Bennett
06-30-2008, 06:34 PM
Salem wrote:

"And Tony - why do you not try to bring your action of negligence in Portugal?"

REPLY: It would be utterly impractical, absolutley prohobitively expensive, and I don't know except in outline terms what the Portuguese law on child neglect is.

Salem wrote:

"They should have jurisdiction because the crime happened there".

REPLY: I disagree, so far as the child neglect issue is concerned. As I have already posted, Salem, Article 17 of the Hague Convention is quite clear in laying down a protocol that child protection issues should be determined in the country where the parents are resident.

Salem wrote:

"Or, I think I would do my best to put together some very convincing legal arguments for having the matter heard in England. Do you know if the High Court has ever done such a thing before?"

REPLY: All criminal cases in this country begin with an application for a summons in the Magistrates Court. The nearest case I can think to this was where a couple had a two-week holiday in the Mediterranean somwehere, leaviug their two, or was it three? young children in the case of, I think, a 13-year-old 'babysitter' in the UK, with predictable results. The couple were of course prosecuted in the U.K., not in the country where they holidayed. I have not ruled out further action in the U.K. but I would need support from others to obtain a comprehensive legal opinion from a barrister who is familiar with both child neglect law and international law

+++++++++++++++

A summary of the crimes the McCanns may have committed under English law and for which I believe they could be tried in this country, subject to Portuguese agreement:

Murder

or

Manslaughter

or

Unlawful killing by gross negligence

and

Perverting the course of justice

and

Interfering with the course of justice

and

Disposing of a body or conspiring with others to do so and frustrating the holding of an inquest

and

Child neglect - Children and Young Persons Act 1933

and (if they know what happened to Madeleine) in relation to the establishment of the Find Madeleine Trust Fund:

Fraud

and

Obtaining money by deception.

There could be other charges under the Theft Act 1968.

+++++++++++

If the Portuguese police bottle out of bringing any charges, then Madeleine's best hope of justice, I believe, will be an inquest, either in Portugal or in the U.K.

Inquests are routinely held on missing persons, especially where there is evidence of a possible crime. The delay in holding an inquest on a missing person varies from country to country (many countries have minimum periods like 6 months or 1 year before an inquest can be held) and, of course, on all the circumstances

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Barnaby
06-30-2008, 07:02 PM
Thanks, Salem. I think we really need to take another look at the McCanns' reaction to that search. Why were they opposed to the search? Why did they make any negative comment at all?

If Madeleine was truly abducted by a stranger then the McCanns have no way of knowing where she is at all or if she is alive. They are in no position to know anything certain about her at this point. Any search, anywhere, that comes up negative is another piece of evidence as to where she is not.

So why did the McCanns react negatively and publicly so, to that search?

I agree their negative reaction to this search was very strange. They have to have considered the possibility that Madeleine was dead & her body dumped, therefore they should have welcomed this search if only to rule out her being there!

Probably because that is where they dumped her. After all the time that had lapsed, her poor little body (I hate to even type this...sorry) was probably decayed and consumed by the animal kingdom.
snip
Point is, people get nervous when they feel they are about to be busted. I think the McCanns put something in that reservoir (either Madeleine or ties to her death), and were terribly afraid of it being found. Since then, they are cockier than ever...Heck, for all we know, it could have all been a huge set up/act, and the dude was paid, blackmailed or bribed to search there by the fund benefactors to keep the police from doing it again, of course this is just speculation, nothing more, and as always, in my humble oppenion.

Anyone have a link to the satellite/google map of the reservoir handy?

Sorry don't have the map to hand.
I do agree that you may have a point with your theory! I always thought that search by a private man very strange!

Texana
06-30-2008, 09:02 PM
Right, Barnaby, if the search ruled out that she wasn't there, that's a good thing.

Interested Woman, you do have a point--why do they react with such certainty and negativity to searches that involve Madeleine's remains? They Admitted themselves in an earlier interview that the outcome for child kidnappings is not a positive one.

april4sky
06-30-2008, 10:47 PM
April, truly, I don't mean to always be picking at your comments, but I do have to say i always crack up when you talk about rumors being unfounded...etc.
Sorry IW but truly I think you do. :)

april4sky
06-30-2008, 11:08 PM
April-Everytime I think the PJ have stopped looking for Maddie, some new article or such is published telling how the PJ have gone here or there in their continued search. I don't think the PJ have given up the search, unless they know where she is, I think we are just not hearing about it. We should be hearing more in the next two weeks from the media, due to the expiration of the secrecy and the month long holiday. I do believe the PJ are still looking :)

SalemI really hope you are right Salem.
But searching would normally include appeals to the public, which is why I have my doubts.

Salem
07-01-2008, 01:54 AM
Where we come from, April, that would probably be true. However, it seems to be different in Portugal. Don't give up hope. Like I said, there should be more in the media in the coming weeks. Some kind of buildup before the summer holiday. We will hear more then.

I believe Portugese LE wants to find Maddie for many different reasons. And truthfully, I don't care what their reasons are as long as they keep looking and hopefully find her.

Salem

Salem
07-01-2008, 02:09 AM
REPLY: I disagree, so far as the child neglect issue is concerned. As I have already posted, Salem, Article 17 of the Hague Convention is quite clear in laying down a protocol that child protection issues should be determined in the country where the parents are resident.

REPLY: All criminal cases in this country begin with an application for a summons in the Magistrates Court. The nearest case I can think to this was where a couple had a two-week holiday in the Mediterranean somwehere, leaviug their two, or was it three? young children in the case of, I think, a 13-year-old 'babysitter' in the UK, with predictable results. The couple were of course prosecuted in the U.K., not in the country where they holidayed. I have not ruled out further action in the U.K. but I would need support from others to obtain a comprehensive legal opinion from a barrister who is familiar with both child neglect law and international law

If the Portuguese police bottle out of bringing any charges, then Madeleine's best hope of justice, I believe, will be an inquest, either in Portugal or in the U.K.

Inquests are routinely held on missing persons, especially where there is evidence of a possible crime. The delay in holding an inquest on a missing person varies from country to country (many countries have minimum periods like 6 months or 1 year before an inquest can be held) and, of course, on all the circumstances

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I shortened your post some just for the sake of space. Hope you don't mind.

I understand your need for a barrister. However, it might be possible to do some research yourself. You could do a search on the specific provision of the Hague Convention and see if the English High Court has ever undertaken a case where this provision was at issue. That could give you an idea of what may happen if you were to get your case to court. I know English law is different from US law, but there are a lot of similarities and I believe one of those similarities is that decisions made by the high court hold precedant and other cases presented on the same legal points will be decided in the same manner.

I think the case of the couple with young children left in the care of an inadequate babysitter, while similar would be construed differently by the courts IF the children remained in England while the parents went off to the Med. without them. Then the crime happened in England, which is different from what happened here.

I am not familar with the inquest process. We don't do that here that I know of and if we do, I would venture to guess it is a rarity.

Here, in the US, criminal actions must be brought by the Prosecutor or the State, not by private parties. A private party may bring a civil action, but not a criminal action. If I wanted to bring a criminal action, I would have to go to the local police and press charges against the person. Then the Prosecutor's office would decide whether or not to prosecute the case. However, I could bring a civil suit against the person for whatever reason. Is that how it works in England? Would it be a civil suit that you would have press?

Maybe talking to the Leischersire (sp?) police and telling them you would like to press charges against the McCanns on behalf of Maddie and the twins?

I don't know, I feel like I am grasping at straws. Have you talked to any Barristers that have shown an interest in the case? Do lawyers over there do pro bono work?

I'm tired......... and I'm rambling now, so I'll stop:crazy:

Salem

april4sky
07-01-2008, 02:25 AM
Where we come from, April, that would probably be true. However, it seems to be different in Portugal. Don't give up hope. Like I said, there should be more in the media in the coming weeks. Some kind of buildup before the summer holiday. We will hear more then.

I believe Portugese LE wants to find Maddie for many different reasons.And truthfully, I don't care what their reasons are as long as they keep looking and hopefully find her.

SalemI hope you are right Salem. :blowkiss:

april4sky
07-01-2008, 04:29 AM
Police 'closing' Madeleine case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7482799.stm

Portuguese police are closing the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, according to local media reports.
******
Too soon to know if there is any truth to this!

SleuthMom
07-01-2008, 07:29 AM
Interestedwoman:

Brian Kennedy and the fund shell out major bucks each month voluntarily for the M3 who told us back in December, "We know who has her, where she is at and she'll be home in time for Christmas". Is that the competent professional investigation you are talking about? It was a blatant lie. Interesting that April chose not to answer that question.:waitasec:


If someone told you that about your missing child, and didn't even come close to following through would you continue to employ them?Wouldn't you be crushed, hurt and grieve even more?

Not me BUT remember is not their money they are using so they don't care.:rolleyes:

Barnaby
07-01-2008, 08:54 AM
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madeleine-McCann-Case-Has-Not-Been-Dropped-By-Police-Says-Portugals-Attorney-General/Article/200807115018221?lpos=World%2BNews_0&lid=ARTICLE_15018221_Madeleine%2BMcCann%2BCase%2BH as%2BNot%2BBeen%2BDropped%2BBy%2BPolice%252C%2BSay s%2BPortugal%2527s%2BAttorney%2BGeneral (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madeleine-McCann-Case-Has-Not-Been-Dropped-By-Police-Says-Portugals-Attorney-General/Article/200807115018221?lpos=World%2BNews_0&lid=ARTICLE_15018221_Madeleine%2BMcCann%2BCase%2BH as%2BNot%2BBeen%2BDropped%2BBy%2BPolice%252C%2BSay s%2BPortugal%2527s%2BAttorney%2BGeneral)



Madeleine Case 'Not Dropped'





Media reports suggested the investigation into the British girl's disappearance was being discontinued because of lack of evidence.

But in a statement the Portuguese Attorney General, Fernando Pinto Monteiro, denied this.
The statement said that police had handed over their final report but that officials had made no decision on whether to halt the investigation...................................

Rino
07-01-2008, 08:59 AM
Thanks for the link Barnaby.


"Police should lift their arguido (suspect) status and should pass their information over to our investigators who continue to work on the case.

"We still need to find Madeleine."


Because we still need to find Madeleine they should remain arguido

april4sky
07-01-2008, 09:00 AM
Interesting that April chose not to answer that question.:waitasec:
Not me BUT remember is not their money they are using so they don't care.:rolleyes:

SleuthMom I didn’t answer the question because she asked if I was referring to the PI, even though my post was clearly about the PJ….As IW well new!!

I have also said before that I have no idea why the PI said what he did. The McCanns were also upset by the comments and I believe this was made very clear to the agency.
Apart from these comments I have no idea as to the professionalism or competency of this agency.

And I still stand by what I said regarding the PJ.

Barnaby
07-01-2008, 09:25 AM
Thanks for the link Barnaby.

"Police should lift their arguido (suspect) status and should pass their information over to our investigators who continue to work on the case.

"We still need to find Madeleine."

Because we still need to find Madeleine they should remain arguido


Indeed Rino & as IW so aptly reminded us:

Brian Kennedy and the fund shell out major bucks each month voluntarily for the M3 who told us back in December, "We know who has her, where she is at and she'll be home in time for Christmas". Is that the competent professional investigation you are talking about? It was a blatant lie.

colomom
07-01-2008, 11:18 AM
From: http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7970 (credit and thanks to StinkySardine)

21 steps to trial and secrecy of justice

1 Police has knowledge of "occurrence". Decides if it likely to be a crime

2 After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Ministario Publico)

3 The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Ministario Publico (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).

4 Some powers can be delegated by the Ministario Publico to the police (PJ)

5 All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.

6 Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why is that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.

7 When the inquiry phase ends, the Ministario Publico will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.

8 If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:

9 The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.

10 The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. overseen as in the inquiry phase).

11 The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.

12 Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido

13 The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.

14 All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase

15 No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.

16 At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal "get together" where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.

17 In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)

18 The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn't.

19 The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it's null.

20 It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is "adjusted" at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A BULLS EYE CHARGE!

21 The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.


SECRECY OF JUSTICE

Art.86
Publicity of the process and secrecy of justice

1 The penal process is, under penalty of nullity, public, taken into consideration the exceptions foreseen in the law

2 The instruction judge may, at the request of the arguido, the assistant or the plaintiff, and having heard the Public Ministry, determine the process will be under secrecy of justice in the inquiry phase if he/she believes publicity may harm the rights of those subjects or other legal participants. This decision is not subject to appeal.

3 Whenever the MP believes that the investigation or the legal rights of the process participants may be in jeopardy, in can subject the process in the inquiry phase to secrecy of justice. That decision has to be validated by the instruction judge within 72 hours.

4 In the case the process has been declared under secrecy of justice under the terms of the previous number, the MP can, by its own initiative or by request of the arguido, the assistant or the plaintiff, lift the secrecy terms at any moment of the inquiry.

5 Whenever the arguido, the assistant or the plaintiff require lifting the secrecy terms but the MP does no do so, all documents are sent to the instruction, who will decide whether or not to lift those terms. That decision is not appealable.

6 Publicity of the process implies, under the terms defined by the law, and particularly, of the following articles, the rights to:

a- for the public in general, to be present in all procedural acts
b- Narration of the procedural acts or the reproduction of its terms, by the media
c- Consultation of the files and request for copies, extracts and certified copies of any parts of those files

7 Publicity does not include data pertaining to the basic rights of privacy that do not constitute evidence. The judicial authority determines, by dispatch, by its own initiative or at request, the elements which will remain [always my annotation] under secrecy of justice ordering, if it's the case, its destruction or giving it back to the person(s) to whom it concerns.

8 The secrecy of justice binds ALL those subjects and procedural participants as well as any other person who, in any count, has been in contact with the process or has any knowledge of any elements contained therein. Namely, it implies prohibition:

a- to witness or gather knowledge of any aspects of any procedural acts that he/she does not have the right or duty to witness or take knowledge
b- to publicise or otherwise divulge the occurrence of any procedural acts or its contents regardless of the motive of such publicity or divulgation.

9 The judicial authority can, on a founded basis, give, order or allow access to certain persons of the contents of procedural acts or documents if it does not harm the investigation and if :

a- it's convenient to determine the truth
b- it's indispensable to allow the interested parties to exercise their rights

10 The persons referred to in the previous number are nevertheless bound by secrecy of justice.

11 The judicial authorities may authorise the emission of certified copies of the contents of a procedural act or document currently under secrecy of justice as long as such copies are necessary to a process of criminal nature, to the instruction of a disciplinary action of public nature or to the admission of a civil indenisation request.

12 If the process concerns an accident caused by a road vehicle, the judicial authority will allow certified copies to be taken:

a- where knowledge is given of procedural act or document under secrecy of justice for the purposes foreseen in the last part of the previous number and under request founded on art. 72, n. 1, a.
b- From the official acknowledgement of accident notice emitted by police authority for the purposes of extrajudicial litigation resolution where the insurance company ensuring civil liability is an interested party.

13 The secrecy of justice does not hinder the judicial authority to make public statements when they are necessary for the reestablishment of the truth and do not jeopardise the investigation:
a- At the request of persons who have been publicly put into question
b- to ensure the safety of people

colomom
07-01-2008, 11:49 AM
From TSF just now (http://tsf.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Portugal/Interior.aspx?content_id=963467):

Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1122&page=23 Post #336

General State Prosecutor says that “Maddie Case” is still being evaluated

The General Prosecution Office has announced, this Tuesday, that the process of the so-called “Maddie case”, the English girl that disappeared in the Algarve, is still being evaluated, and no decision has been issued into the direction of an archiving.

In a communication, the General Prosecution Office refers that the final report from the Polícia Judiciária has been handed over and that it will “be the object of careful evaluation and pondering”.

“The Public Ministry will proceed to globally analyse and evaluate the entire process (which contains tens of volumes) in order to determine whether other diligences are to be demanded or the necessary and sufficient conditions have been gathered to close the inquiry and to elaborate the final dispatch”, the Prosecution Office refers.

Within the same note, the Prosecution Office also refers that the process remains under judicial secrecy until mid-August.

Meanwhile, questioned by journalists, the Justice minister, Alberto Costa, did not want to comment on the matter, merely stating that “the process is under judicial secrecy”.

Just like the minister, the joint Director of the PJ, Pedro Carmo, did not wish to comment on the process, underlining that the PJ “is at the disposal” of the Public Ministry.

colomom
07-01-2008, 11:52 AM
From above:

Within the same note, the Prosecution Office also refers that the process remains under judicial secrecy until mid-August.

colomom
07-01-2008, 11:55 AM
From summer at Proboards, also known as Astro on 3A's, a Portuguese poster of the highest regard, IMO):

If we are to believe what the General Prosecution Office has released in terms of info today, and I think the data is as reliable as possible, then:

The process has been handed over by the PJ to the Public Ministry.

The Public Ministry will evaluate the process - which is composed of tens of volumes, which implies that this evaluation will take some time.

At the end of said evaluation, one of two things happens: either the Public Ministry asks for the PJ to carry out any further diligences that may be deemed necessary, or the Public Ministry draws up a conclusion to the inquiry. Said conclusion may be one of two things: an accusation, or the archiving of the process, which is never definitive, as the production of new evidence will prompt a reopening of the case.

There is no set date for the Public Ministry to reach a decision. The Public Ministry's evaluation and subsequent action is completely independent from the lifting of the judicial secrecy.

All of this, according to my best understanding of the info that I have collected over the past year, and according to my interpretation of the note that was released by the General Prosecutor today.

Barnaby
07-01-2008, 01:45 PM
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=12

Post 289
"...............To the British newspaper "Telegraph", a friend of the McCann family went a bit further. Not much, but a bit more was revealed, even under anonimity. "Everybody needs a holiday. Madeleine has been missing for over a year and Kate and Gerry's life is returning to the normalcy that they would like. They wish to give the twins a decent break from everyday's routine and to provide them with family moments", the source advanced................."

What a joke , they want to provide the twins with family moments! ROTFL! Pity Madeleine didn't have a few!


(http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=12)

Texana
07-01-2008, 02:07 PM
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=12

Post 289
"...............To the British newspaper "Telegraph", a friend of the McCann family went a bit further. Not much, but a bit more was revealed, even under anonimity. "Everybody needs a holiday. Madeleine has been missing for over a year and Kate and Gerry's life is returning to the normalcy that they would like. They wish to give the twins a decent break from everyday's routine and to provide them with family moments", the source advanced................."

What a joke , they want to provide the twins with family moments! ROTFL! Pity Madeleine didn't have a few!


(http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=12)

It's always about the twins. If I get a chance, I'm going to count up how many times the McCanns used The Twins as an excuse or reason--especially when the action or comment seemed unfeeling to Madeleine's situation, enter The Twin excuse.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
07-01-2008, 03:08 PM
:eek:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=12

Post 289
"...............To the British newspaper "Telegraph", a friend of the McCann family went a bit further. Not much, but a bit more was revealed, even under anonimity. "Everybody needs a holiday. Madeleine has been missing for over a year and Kate and Gerry's life is returning to the normalcy that they would like. They wish to give the twins a decent break from everyday's routine and to provide them with family moments", the source advanced................."

What a joke , they want to provide the twins with family moments! ROTFL! Pity Madeleine didn't have a few!


(http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=12)
So Kate and Gerry's life is returning to the normalcy they would like eh? Please tell me how ANYONE's life is even remotely normal when their baby is missing, ESPECIALLY KNOWING, (as they keep insisting) that she was abducted into the perverted sicking hands of a paedophilia ring of monsters.:eek: Oh my goodness. Just for a moment, pretend it were true and there was undeniable proof Maddie was being held as a child sex slave...how in Gods name can her parents be content with normalcy? This is NOT normal, it is nowhere near normal. If Kate & Gerry likes this now "normalcy" when their baby daughter is being raped daily by peado's...Kate and Gerry are totally Satan's spawn. I don't care if they have been though a million hours of therapy, and they pray for serenity 10 times a day, how can you want a normal life without your missing (and being tortured daily) child??? If I were Kate and Gerry, I'd make sure that anonymous "friend" never spoke for them again...the friend just proved they are either emotionless monsters, *or* moving on with life after the death of a family member.

As far as Family MOMENTS...that's all it will be. A moment here and a moment there. The rest of the time the twins will be in daycare or sleeping by 7pm.

Texana
07-01-2008, 04:39 PM
IW, I was thinking the same thing...what family moments? They have breakfast together then the twins go off to the daycare, they pick them up and perhaps go to the pool, then supper and the twins in bed before 8?

That's the same amount of time my pet sitter spends with my cats when we go on vacation!

Barnaby
07-01-2008, 05:12 PM
IW, I was thinking the same thing...what family moments? They have breakfast together then the twins go off to the daycare, they pick them up and perhaps go to the pool, then supper and the twins in bed before 8?

That's the same amount of time my pet sitter spends with my cats when we go on vacation!

Good comparison Texana, most people spend more time with their pets then the Mccanns do with their kids & when going on holidays they leave their pets in reputable care not home alone!

thefragile7393
07-01-2008, 06:56 PM
From TSF just now (http://tsf.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Portugal/Interior.aspx?content_id=963467):

Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1122&page=23 Post #336

General State Prosecutor says that “Maddie Case” is still being evaluated

The General Prosecution Office has announced, this Tuesday, that the process of the so-called “Maddie case”, the English girl that disappeared in the Algarve, is still being evaluated, and no decision has been issued into the direction of an archiving.

In a communication, the General Prosecution Office refers that the final report from the Polícia Judiciária has been handed over and that it will “be the object of careful evaluation and pondering”.

“The Public Ministry will proceed to globally analyse and evaluate the entire process (which contains tens of volumes) in order to determine whether other diligences are to be demanded or the necessary and sufficient conditions have been gathered to close the inquiry and to elaborate the final dispatch”, the Prosecution Office refers.

Within the same note, the Prosecution Office also refers that the process remains under judicial secrecy until mid-August.

Meanwhile, questioned by journalists, the Justice minister, Alberto Costa, did not want to comment on the matter, merely stating that “the process is under judicial secrecy”.

Just like the minister, the joint Director of the PJ, Pedro Carmo, did not wish to comment on the process, underlining that the PJ “is at the disposal” of the Public Ministry.
Okay, I'm cornfused. Another article at post #298 of the Portuguese translation links states that there's no evidence and it will be archived before 7/14 when judicial secrecy ends. Then #297 of the same thread notes there is no evidence and judicial secrecy ends mid-August. And then there is the above article that says that no decision has been made, they are still evaluating and the search is still active and judicial secrecy ends in August. I don't know what to believe.

Texana
07-01-2008, 08:39 PM
It's really sad, isn't it? At a time when the news reports are conflicting about whether or not the official search from Portuguese authorities for Madeleine will be discontinued, we hear another announcement from the McCann camp about their need to return to normalcy and take a vacation with the twins for family moments.

I would like to point out: Gerry only recently returned to fulltime work. Wasn't he around for some family moments before that? Kate is, according to media reports, not working at all. Isn't she there for some family moments?

Take the vacation, McCanns, if you will, but please don't justify it to the rest of us for the Twins' sake.

teacherbees
07-01-2008, 11:58 PM
If I were the twins, I'd be afraid of going on vacation with Mommy and Daddy. Very afraid. Babies aren't stupid. Wonder how that little boy and girl feel about being away from home in a strange place?

Barnaby
07-02-2008, 12:03 AM
If I were the twins, I'd be afraid of going on vacation with Mommy and Daddy. Very afraid. Babies aren't stupid. Wonder how that little boy and girl feel about being away from home in a strange place?

In a strange place & ALONE!

A leopard doesn't change it's spots!

Let us never forget that the twins are not of an age to need a holiday! Kate & Gerry need a holiday, so what's new?

& we all know what their holidays entail, adult time at night, no kids!

Substitute buckets & spades on holidays for McCann kids with fear, darkness, aloneness, crying, sedation, memories!

Just what exactly will be different to the last holiday for these poor mites?

teacherbees
07-02-2008, 03:39 AM
Exactly, Barnaby. The twins were very young at the time of Madeleine's disappearance but they would've most definitely internalized the great sadness and confusion associated with the "holiday" in Portugal. Not to mention all those nights of being left alone while Mommy and Daddy went out drinking and partying.

No babies really need a holiday but these two little ones in particular need stability, familiar SAFE surroundings, and parents who will quit trying to be media stars and stay home to watch their own children.

Shame on the McCanns for using their children as an excuse to vacation. If I were the twins I'd be terrified at the mere thought of having to go on another vacation after how the last one turned out.

Tony Bennett
07-02-2008, 04:20 AM
We know from the McCanns' pathetic attempt to explain why Madeleine and Sean were both crying their eyes out on the night of 2 May/3 May that little Sean was crying that fateful night.

He may even 'know' what happened.

We also know that:

1) In line with far too many 2-year-olds these days, the twins were regularly in a creche all day back in Rothley

2) In Praia da Luz, both before AND after Madeleine's 'disappearance', they were parcelled off to the creche each day whilst the parents 'looked' and campaigned

3) The twins have often been left in the hands of some other carers whilst the parents:
a) visit the Pope
b) meet with their lawyers and PR and media advisers
c) meet with TV and media companies
d) do newspaper, magazine, radio and TV interviews
e) attend the European Parliament,
etc. etc.

The twins are now, I think, three-and-a-half years old.

Ordinary parents are likley to shun the McCanns, who now move almost exclusively in high-powered political, media and celebrity circles.

When Sean and Amelie come into contact with other children, because of the parents' relently publicity-seeking, Madeleine is bound to be either the subject of conversation or 'the thing that must never be talked about'.

When the twins are old enough to read newsepapers and view the Internet, they will learn much and may end up very confused children.

There is one safe prediction I think we can make for them.

Given the vast and as-yet-undisclosed sums contributed to the 'Find Madeleine Trust Fund' - and I believe that the gross income into that fund may exceed £3 million ($6 million) - when they are ready to go to school, it will be at the best private primary school that money can buy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barnaby
07-02-2008, 09:18 AM
My heart goes out to those two children. They will of course be aware that the last time they went on holiday "someone took" their sister. They may be petrified about going away again in case someone takes one of them, children of that age do know fear & make associations! They are also capable of not taking about their fears, best example is of kids who are being abused & don't tell!
If the McCanns wanted to do the best for their twins they would keep them at home in a safe & stable environment until they are old enough to understand that this will not happen again (hopefully)

I agree Tony that it will be very hard for the twins growing up & socialising. School could be difficult, kids can be cruel, things will be said & some parents will not want their kids in the McCann household so they could be very isolated! When they are older I am sure they will have huge anger issues to deal with, very sad all round!

colomom
07-02-2008, 11:02 AM
INSIDE TODAY'S BULLETIN
McCann Case Closed Despite Parents' Guilt

By: Chris Freind, The Bulletin
07/01/2008

Well, it's official. Gerry and Kate McCann have become the Ramseys of Europe. Just as the Christmastime murder of six year old JonBenet Ramsey went officially unsolved, it appears that resolving the disappearance and probable death of five year old Madeleine McCann will suffer the same fate.

That is a terrible shame for three reasons.

First and foremost, a little girl is, in all likelihood, dead, and justice will not be served. The daughter of two British doctors, Madeleine disappeared from a Portuguese beachside resort in May 2007 while she slept. While statements have been made, ad nauseum, by Gerry, Kate and their vaunted PR machine that Maddy was kidnapped, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this claim. Of course, there wouldn't be any debate whether Maddy was in fact kidnapped if Gerry and Kate had exercised even a fraction of something called parenting. Which leads us to point # 2.

<continues>
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19820607&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

Note: I am not ready to say "case closed" just yet....colomom

colomom
07-02-2008, 11:17 AM
See: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2343541&postcount=302

Suspicion – PJ Investigators do not believe in abduction

Archived with a homicide stamp

The process awaits evidence to accuse, but Public Ministry maintains catalogue of violent crime and concealment of cadaver

The process about the disappearance of Maddie is recoiling into the archives of the Portimão Courthouse for now, through a decision from the Public Ministry, but it will remain classed by the appointed prosecutor, Magalhães e Menezes, as a case of qualified homicide and concealment of cadaver. Although the McCanns lose their arguido status, the archiving does not erase the PJ’s suspicions against the couple.

Barnaby
07-02-2008, 11:19 AM
"........................Neither the PJ nor the Public Ministry have requested the hearing of the Irishman who, in his first witness statement, early September last year, guaranteed to the PJ that he saw Gerry carry a child away in his arms on the evening of the disappearance, having clarified that he only remembered who it actually was after he saw on television how the missing child’s father carried Sean, one of her siblings, when they arrived at Birmingham airport.

The problem was that the hearing of this witness and of his family was requested to the English authorities, not the Irish. “It’s a mistake that may have cost the investigation dearly”, a source at the Public Ministry in Portimão admitted...................."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=13 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=13)

PJ really did mess up!

colomom
07-02-2008, 11:30 AM
From the 3As and thanks to wicksy (http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17166):

Our dear friends Metodo 3 have completely revamped their website.

http://www.metodo3.es/engl/sn_empresa.htm

Lots of interesting reading in (bad) English.

No mention at all of Madeleine McCann.

Or their newfound expertise in missing persons investigations.

colomom
07-02-2008, 11:32 AM
"........................Neither the PJ nor the Public Ministry have requested the hearing of the Irishman who, in his first witness statement, early September last year, guaranteed to the PJ that he saw Gerry carry a child away in his arms on the evening of the disappearance, having clarified that he only remembered who it actually was after he saw on television how the missing child’s father carried Sean, one of her siblings, when they arrived at Birmingham airport.

The problem was that the hearing of this witness and of his family was requested to the English authorities, not the Irish. “It’s a mistake that may have cost the investigation dearly”, a source at the Public Ministry in Portimão admitted...................."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=13 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53176&page=13)

PJ really did mess up!

But why wouldn't they be able to get his statement right now?? I don't understand...

Barnaby
07-02-2008, 11:36 AM
But why wouldn't they be able to get his statement right now?? I don't understand...


I don't understand that either, surely they can now write to the Irish authorities? There must be some law that says they can only do it once, how very tragic!

colomom
07-02-2008, 12:21 PM
I don't understand that either, surely they can now write to the Irish authorities? There must be some law that says they can only do it once, how very tragic!

Consider this B, one of our friends over in the Proboards site thinks that the whole story may be completely false. We have heard that the Irishman saw "a man" that night carrying a child but I have never heard that he was positive that it was GM.

Considering the fact that the PJ took a statement from this man in September it does not make sense that his statement would be useless now. I guess we will find out more when the files are released, eh?

My faith in the PJ remains intact.

Barnaby
07-02-2008, 01:58 PM
Consider this B, one of our friends over in the Proboards site thinks that the whole story may be completely false. We have heard that the Irishman saw "a man" that night carrying a child but I have never heard that he was positive that it was GM.

Considering the fact that the PJ took a statement from this man in September it does not make sense that his statement would be useless now. I guess we will find out more when the files are released, eh?

My faith in the PJ remains intact.

Yes Colomon, I heard the story way back also but didn't know there was a positive ID of Gerry until today so I guess it may not be true.
I cannot understand either why the original statement couldn't be used now!

I am just really disappointed today that there may be a chance that this pair will get away with whatever they did to this little girl! I hope your faith in PJ is well placed & they will come through!

Tony Bennett
07-02-2008, 04:25 PM
I think it may be unwise to rely on what is thought to have been recalled by an Irishman who has just finished having a few drinks at, what was it, 'Murphy's Bar'?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

colomom
07-02-2008, 05:42 PM
From: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2344706&postcount=303

Speaking of Archival is "absolutely premature"

The Attorney General , Pinto Monteiro, emphasized that "there is no archival", much less is the PJ report concluded that "is (still) going to be analyzed and studied"

The Attorney General today considered it "absolutely premature" for someone to say, at this time, that the so-called Maddie case will be archived, [referring to] the British girl missing from the Algarve May 3, 2007.

<continues>

colomom
07-02-2008, 05:43 PM
I think it may be unwise to rely on what is thought to have been recalled by an Irishman who has just finished having a few drinks at, what was it, 'Murphy's Bar'?


Good point Tony.

Salem
07-02-2008, 10:52 PM
IIRC, that Irishman did see a man and he said the man was NOT Murat. Apparently, the Irishman and his family know Murat. Also, IIRC, the Irish family goes often to Portugal often and have had dealings with Murat. I don't remember any mention that the man might have been Gerry - just that "I know Murat and it was not Murat, if it would have been him, we would have talked to him."

This archival thing is annoying. I'm not giving up until we see some OFFICIAL action.

Salem

Texana
07-03-2008, 12:08 AM
IIRC, that Irishman did see a man and he said the man was NOT Murat. Apparently, the Irishman and his family know Murat. Also, IIRC, the Irish family goes often to Portugal often and have had dealings with Murat. I don't remember any mention that the man might have been Gerry - just that "I know Murat and it was not Murat, if it would have been him, we would have talked to him."

This archival thing is annoying. I'm not giving up until we see some OFFICIAL action.

Salem

It strikes me as significant that the Irishman a) positively said it was not Murat and b) perhaps said he could not rule out it was Gerry McCann. Murat is a rather distinctive individual, so he could rule him out--but not Gerry.

Just a thought.

I'll wait for official action, too.

april4sky
07-03-2008, 04:03 AM
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132935&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132702&contentPK=20997812&folderPk=77465&pNodeId=132393

Neighbours and well-wishers have rallied around in support of Madeleine McCann's parents following reports that the Portuguese police investigation into her disappearance would be dropped.

However, the country's attorney general has stressed that no decision has yet been taken.

Garry Taylor, who works in Rothley, said: "This whole case is tragic and for the parents to be put under suspicion was absolutely appalling.

"If the police have closed the case the question is, what is the next step? How do they move on and try to find her now?"

Rothley resident Frank Luce said: "It would appear that they (the Portuguese police) have reached the end of what they think they can do, but they haven't really had a clue all along, if we're honest.

"What will happen now, apart from what Gerry and Kate will obviously be doing to find her?"

colomom
07-03-2008, 08:42 AM
Well that's it then. I mean Frank Luce, Rothley resident, is an expert regarding the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária isn't he?

OK.....

Until those files are opened and we all have a chance to see what the PJ found I will sit quietly and reserve judgement.

april4sky
07-03-2008, 09:19 AM
Well that's it then. I mean Frank Luce, Rothley resident, is an expert regarding the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária isn't he?

OK.....

Until those files are opened and we all have a chance to see what the PJ found I will sit quietly and reserve judgement.Did the article say he was an expert?
I thought he was someone who cares and voiced his opinion. To which he is entitled.
And IMO is right. :)

To me reserving judgement is waiting for confirmation the PJ actually have evidence that Madeleine is dead as well as evidence the McCanns killed her.

colomom
07-03-2008, 10:02 AM
With thanks to ismellarat, posting on the Proboards site (with a reminder that this is an amateur translation and only part of the article):

Now for a bit of balance..here is a report from the 02. May 2008
A day before the anniversary of course
From a respected German daily (even if they get the ‘hotel-room’
wrong and describe Leicester as a small town)

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/artikel/65/172555/

Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/?board=general&action=display&thread=1143&page=19 Post #281

I translated a couple of snippets:

Quote

When even the last trace gets blown away

The case continues to throw up mysteries, but in Rothley, a year after the disappearance of Maddie McCann, there are no reminders of her. The villagers moreover react to the parents with irritation.

There are no reminders of Madeleine McCann here in Rothley where she lived with her parents.

A year after the then 3-year old disappeared out of a hotel room (sic)
In Praia da Luz, Portugal the 3500 inhabitants of the non-descript little village, north of the central-English small town (sic) of Leicester have returned to everyday life.Even on the notice board of the village hall, there is not one poster calling for donations for the Madeleine fund, instead the board advertises a beer-festival and an accordion duo

‘They (McCanns) keep themselves to themselves, you don’t see them
often in the village’, remarks Philip Dayman, who runs the newsagents
and he does not sound like he regrets it.

Because now, he admits, just like Liz from the vicarage they are expecting
with trepidation (ISAR: literally the German word means belly-ache) the first anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine on the 3rd of May. On this day 4 Christian churches in Rothley want to conduct another ecumenical service of remembrance…as they did 6 months ago. At the last service the police had some trouble to control media representatives..who showered the McCanns with a barrage of flash-photography. Some not so pretty scenes had happenend back then-scenes that the village had not forgotten

‘If we wanted to live amongst celebrities, then we would live in Kensington
or Chelsea, (comment ISAR-posh parts of London) wouldn’t we’, the old
woman from the farm shop, yonder on the access road to the village snaps.
No she will not even give her first name, but she stands by what she has just said. Celebrities do not belong in a place like Rothley.

But is this accusation not screamingly unjust ? Gerry and Kate have not chosen their status as media-objects. And they pay with for this status with the most painful loss that can befall parents: the loss of their child and the uncertainty of what happened to that child.

But one can not think so simplistically. The McCanns knew exactly what they were doing when they did not shy from the public, but used the public
Their, the McCann’s purposes.

With a mixture of unshakeable will-power, solid faith, and an unexpected talent for, what the experts call ‘news management’..they achieved the attention of the media…for weeks, months, a whole year long.

Unquote

colomom
07-03-2008, 10:28 AM
I brought this entire post over from the Portuguese Press thread:

Report: Month-long Tests Only yielded Maternal Family Lineage

Kates DNA Frames PJ

The existence of Madeleine's hairs in the boot of the car rented by the parents three weeks after the crime, near the substitute tyre, it’s considered as highly probable by the PJ. But the investigation was not able to prove that those traces belonged to the child: the hairs have no root ends, the CM established, and the final report of the laboratory of Birmingham – of the DNA mitochondrial tests - only guarantee that someone of Kate's lineage was inside the boot of the car.

The Renault Scénic, remember, was rented by the McCanns three weeks after the disappearance of their oldest daughter. Therefore, any evidence that could prove her presence in the car would tie the parents to the crime. The simple detail of the hairs found in the boot having no root ends, where the nucleus of the cell is, does the whole difference. Because if they had [root ends], "the nuclear analysis in any world laboratory would give 99,9 per cent of hypotheses of a hair to belong to a determined person", advanced a specialist to the CM. In this case, of Maddie.

The experts as such were obliged to resort to the mitochondrial analyses, which can only give certainties of the hairs belonging to a motherly lineage: Kate or one of her three children.

The Judiciary Police use of the sophisticated technology of Birmingham’s Laboratory had to do with the minuscule dimensions of the stains in the walls of the couple’s apartment and in the car. The Low Copy Number technique enlarged in million times the DNA chain, but, from then on, the cellular matter revealed signs of different persons. Indistinguishable [persons].

Source: Correio da Manhã (http://www.correiodamanha.pt/noticia.aspx?contentid=1EECFE7E-4814-49AB-965A-599EB4C96B13&amp;amp;amp;amp;channelid=00000010-0000-0000-0000-000000000010)

Copied from: http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17232

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In addition: (from http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/report-months-of-tests-only-gave.html)

An explanation in layman's terms about Mitocondrial DNA by Chrish

A normal cell carries two types of DNA - some in the nucleus which essentially describes the person, and this is made up of the father's nuclear DNA from the sperm and the mothers nuclear DNA from the nucleus of the egg. This is what they try to use to match the cells - and of course the nucleus needs to be there and intact for a full match. This DNA profile is unique to an individual.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/ei_0090.jpg

The second type of DNA is called mitochondrial DNA. This does not live in the nucleus but is in the cell in a part called the Mitochondria. This is used as the powerhouse of the cell, it keeps the cell going and generates a lot of the proteins etc.


This DNA does not come from the father - there is no room in the sperm for it - it all comes from the mother as part of the egg. It has been used to examine lineage over long periods of time but only relates to the female lineage (so even a male has only female mitochondrial DNA).

I'm guessing the next bit:

The hairs would only yield the mitochondrial DNA because as the hair is produced the nuclear DNA is destroyed, somehow the mitochondrial survives. Only a full, live cell such as the hair follicle would yield the nuclear DNA.

april4sky
07-03-2008, 11:48 AM
With thanks to ismellarat, posting on the Proboards site (with a reminder that this is an amateur translation and only part of the article):

Now for a bit of balance..here is a report from the 02. May 2008
A day before the anniversary of course
From a respected German daily (even if they get the ‘hotel-room’
wrong and describe Leicester as a small town)

Not much balance here Colomom IMO.
The remarks from Phillip Dayman.....
‘They (McCanns) keep themselves to themselves, you don’t see them
often in the village...."he does not sound like he regrets it"....
.....highlight is the authors opinion only.

And as the press were camped in the village for some time it's no surprise if McCanns were not often seen.

The comment about "celebrities" ....well it seems the author is unable to put a name to this supposed comment.

No surprise then that the author failed to get the facts right regarding hotel room/small town.

scandi
07-04-2008, 04:25 AM
Hi Everyone ;}

It has been a rough few days, a bit of a bumpy ride for all of us here who hold fast to the reality that there must be Justice for Madeleine. Nothing should be allowed to keep the truth from being known to the world, who have cared for her so much since she's been gone. It needs to be heard by all.

When I feel desperate about this, and things are looking somewhat ordained by political forces, I turn on Spudgun's, The REAL Story of Madeleine McCann:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRvgK6M2_7Q


It always recenters me in the case. And when suddenly, out of the blue, we see this happy and innocent little wisp of a girl shining back at us with all of her pluck and personality, I always feel a tear start up in my eyes:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/madeleineDM0709_468x754.jpg


Everytime I see that picture of Madeleine I think of our Floh. I studied the case with her all last summer and into the Fall, then Winter, and was always amazed and refreshed by her outlook on the case, and what had happened to Madeleine.

Thinking back, it is so easy to judge when we are heartfelt and passionate in our thoughts about something.

But Floh was always the one poster who believed with fortitude in all that which is good, that Madeleine would be found alive someday. And yet she would be the first to look at a new angle, read the reports of Eddie and Keela and in her heart know they back each other up, and so are never wrong when they alert.

She might have distrusted the parents, as they showed none of the normal signs of having a child lost to the world, never showing agony nor grief and too easily placated by the finer things in life, like meeting the Pope and paying their mortgage with the fund rather than actually going out and looking for their lost daughter. But Floh could never believe they hid her dead body, then perpitrated a fraudulant fund, as she just had to still be alive and out there, waiting to be found.

There you have it. I applaud her as a poster. She is among the best of Sleuthers I have read. When she attacks an issue she shows her heart, even while realizing that the truth might bite back when it becomes known.


She is not alone out there in the World of Forumdom. Webleuths is plump full of posters who approach a case just as Floh does. She is just one I have lived the case with, morning, noon and night, trying to find the pieces to fit into the puzzle. Floh never gave up.

We will never forget Madeleine. xox Scandi




'fADO PORTUGUES' sung by Dulce Pontes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui2zIM8FWS4&feature=related

colomom
07-04-2008, 09:25 AM
Gonçalo Amaral in an interview to Expresso (http://aeiou.expresso.pt/gen.pl?p=stories&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;op=view&amp;amp;amp;a mp;amp;fokey=ex.stories/358582)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/37911130my7.jpg

“Since the day that I left I knew the process would be archived”

The former inspector reveals some secrets from the investigation into the Maddie case. He guarantees that the process contains evidence, not personal convictions, and he reveals that Paulo Rebelo, his successor, never contacted him to talk about the case. When asked about what he would say to Gerry and Kate McCann, today, he replied: “I’m worried about the girl, not the parents”.

Your name and your career will remain connected to the Maddie case forever?

I’m not worried about that. I have always worked in a team, with the preoccupation and the goal of reaching the discovery of the truth. No policeman likes to leave a case halfway through.

Was that what happened with this investigation? Is it left halfway through?

Not according to my will.

Have you agreed with the decision of the former director of the PJ, who removed you from the case?

No. It’s an unfair and dangerous decision. I was not removed from the investigation due to incompetence. I left because of the direction that the investigation was taking. But the strategy was not decided by me only. It was everyone. It involved the English police and other Portuguese policemen. And what was being investigated, was the little girl’s death, even an accidental one.

After you left, was that course maintained?

I don’t know. I’m very naïf and I want to believe that my exit from Portimão had the purpose of advancing the investigation, because the person that took over is much more efficient.

Do you believe that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment on the evening of the 3rd of May?

Yes. That is what I and other persons believe in. And this is not because we idealized it that way.

Is there evidence to sustain that thesis?

I can’t enter any details of the process. I will only say this: I am certain that I, and the persons who worked with me, did a good job and I doubt that anyone else could do better. Some day, people will see the process, they may agree or not, but there is nothing in there that questions my professionalism.

Was the investigation’s direction, homicide, disturbing the political power?

This case was more political than a police case.

Did any politician pressure you?

I was not pressured, I was removed.

If there was a homicide, where is the body?

That was what we were going to establish next. On the day that I was removed, I was carrying out diligences for a fundamental witness to come to Portugal. It was necessary for the PJ to pay for the trip, to arrange for lodging, and that was being taken care of. But then the important witness never came to Portugal and was never heard.

But why? Why was an exception opened? The English police was used by the McCanns to send the PJ information that often was nothing but noise?

Yes. And the fact that the couple had a press advisor, is a figure that is not even foreseen in the penal process code. In some way, we were all influenced by the campaign that was built, which said that the child is alive and must be found. I don’t say that the English police was being ordered around by the McCanns, but it was influenced, like we all were. The PJ should have found a way to protect the investigators from everything else.

That is strange: you say that it was established with the English police that the direction that should be followed was the little girl’s death, that there were enough indices, but there seems to have been an inflexion.

Yes. And I was removed. I don’t know whether there is a direct connection. I know that colleagues from the investigation have requested the police’s directory for a syndication, to see whether the work was badly done. Whether mistakes were made.

Do you believe that you reached the truth?

I am convinced that we were on the right path and that we might end up knowing everything or not, but a great part. Now, that which we have collected and which we consider to be indices, may not be valued in the same manner.

One of the criticisms is that the results from the months when you were leading the investigation are lots of convictions and zero evidence. Do you agree?

I was the coordinator of the investigation from 3 May to 2 October. Five months. After me, there came other people that have been there nine months. I am not comparing, but we were professional and I’m not ashamed of anything. And when the process is public you will see if it is true that there is nothing. There are indications and they are in the files. We did hundreds of interviews and searches. Thousands of diligences and from that there are no results? The little girl went up in smoke?

Did the theory of the death of the child continue to be followed after your exit?

I don’t know. I can say that ever since that day I knew the process would be archived.

That being so, is there still a death to be resolved?

There is. And diligences to be completed.

Who made the decision to constitute the McCann’s arguidos?

Everyone. And the national director was informed of all the decisions.

Alípio Ribeiro agreed with the decision?

Exactly.

But then he ended up saying that the decision was hasty.

Hasty? Four months later? When there were concrete diligences that reinforced some of the indications? While we waited for results of various tests? And beyond that, in our law there exists the principal of no self-incrimination. A person can’t continue speaking forever as a witness and providing evidence (“indications”). There is certainly a stigma in the arguido status, but I don’t know what is worse. They were made arguidos, this was public, for simulating a crime and hiding a cadaver.

Do you think that you made any mistakes?

I made one. The error of the first hour. There are things about which I still can not speak. But we know that there are things which could have been done in another way. No one should be shocked if we begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved.

After leaving the investigation, did you ever speak with your successor, Paulo Rebelo?

No. It is an interesting question to consider. If they removed me for the barbarity of speaking to the press, and not for incompetence, it would be normal to be consulted. But this never happened.

If, as all seems to indicate, the case is archived, the public is going to hold the Portuguese police responsible. How will you react?

Archival is not a declaration of innocence. A process can be archived and reopened. The archival of this case could be the declaration of some incapacity of the police, or it could have a different meaning.

What would you say to Madeleine’s parents?

I have nothing to say. My overriding preoccupation is with the little girl, not the parents.

Translation by Summer and Debk
Source: Expresso

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/AmaralYouTube.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ARCz9Q5lYY)

MsRyber
07-04-2008, 11:08 AM
I think it may be unwise to rely on what is thought to have been recalled by an Irishman who has just finished having a few drinks at, what was it, 'Murphy's Bar'?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No more than relying on the Tapas 9. :D

Morag
07-04-2008, 01:51 PM
I made one. The error of the first hour. There are things about which I still can not speak. But we know that there are things which could have been done in another way. No one should be shocked if we begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved.

(Thanks, as ever, for Colomom's diligence in bringing the Portuguese Press information to WS.)

What was that error of the first hour that so compromised the course of the investigation?
"We begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved."
There was something that seemed so wrong- immediately- that the Mcs came under suspicion.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html

(From SOL, 13 July, 2007)

But the contradictions that led the PJ to suspect the group of nine British people right from the start, are still to be clarified.

The case could have been solved almost immediately. But well, they were
DOCTORS! Because they didn't fit the profile, seasoned LE,cynical reporters, craven politicians, and the general public, nearly all gave them the benefit of the doubt, and suspended their own gut feelings.

Pinkhammer
07-04-2008, 02:09 PM
"We begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved."

And still, over a year later, intelligent people wonder if and how the parents were involved.

Tony Bennett
07-05-2008, 09:19 AM
Potentiallly very important report indeed in today's 'Correos de Manha'. Here is a provisional translation, brought over from the 3 Arguidos forum. Another translation may appear on the Joana Morais blogspot shortly:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

Report of PJ Discards Kidnap Theory

CM reveals content of the document

The main argument against the kidnapper entry through the apartment's window was given by the parents.
Window to small to pass the child through it
Group Witness Contradicted

Main Topics
English Lab withdrew the final results
Dogs scented blood in the house and in the car
Kate and Maddie Clothes had cadaver odour
McCanns Neighbour heard Child crying for more than one hour



Translating 6 pages - will post as soon as possible


The animals detected cadaver odor in the apartment, the stuffed animal and Kate’s clothes

DOGS DECISIVE FOR PJ

British animals [both] agreed on the scent of “indications” in various places and objects

The alerting of the British dogs specially trained to detect cadaver odor and human blood was decisive in making Kate and Gerry arguidos.

Link for floorplan of where the dogs found scents big scanned image (http://img387.imageshack.us/my.php?image=traceszr8.jpg)

Faced with the coincidence of the alerting of both animals, which signaled the same locations and objects related to the McCanns, the authorities were obliged to admit a possible involvement of Kate and Gerry in the disappearance of their daughter and to make them arguidos in order to confront them with evidence which could result in their incrimination – for, as [merely] witnesses, they could not opt to remain silent.

According to what CM has discovered, in the final investigation report produced by the PJ the investigators explained that the animals only gave their detection signals in places and objects related to the McCanns: in the apartment where Madeleine disappeared (in the parent’s bedroom, the living room and next to a side window), in the back patio, the family’s car (rented 24 days after the girl disappeared), two pieces of Kate’s clothes and Maddie’s stuffed animal – the one Kate never released in the days following the disappearance.

In the McCann’s friend’s apartments, in the Luz village and in all the vehicles used by Robert Murat, the first to be made arguido, nothing was found by the dogs.

Given these indications, reinforced by other detailed tests done in Portugal and England, the PJ interrogated Kate and Gerry and made them arguidos.

The animals, Springer Spaniels, are heavily used in the UK in the search for missing people or homicide victims, with positive results.

KATE JUSTIFIES DEATH ODOR

Kate McCann didn’t negate the fact that her two pieces of clothes and the stuffed animal had been signaled by the English dogs trained to find cadaver odor and justified it by her profession. Madeleine’s mother alleged that as a doctor at the Leicester health center, she was present at six deaths directly before she came to Portugal on holiday, giving the same excuse for Madeleine’s stuffed animal, that was with her in the months after her daughter disappeared.

VESTIGES OF A CRIME

Two specially trained dogs, used as criminal investigation assistants, detected cadaver odor in the McCann’s bedroom, the living room, Kate’s clothes, the girl’s stuffed animal and the car key, as well as spots of blood in the boot of the car and the apartment living room.

Main Article : PJ couldn’t find child’s body

INVESTIGATION REVEALS ABDUCTION IMPOSSIBLE

Final report describes dozens of diligences and unravels incongruences in the theory proposed by Maddie’s parents

Thirteen months after Madeleine disappeared, the PJ ended the investigation that continues to be marked by uncertainties. The final report, the CM today exclusively reveals, does not determine guilt but leaves new and strong doubts about the theory presented by the English child’s parents. It describes in great detail the diligences done by the investigators – who tried, in every possible way, to confirm their hypothesis – and reveals that it was theoretically impossible to have happened. The witnesses don’t make sense, especially not the way that one of the friends said she saw a man carrying a child almost an hour before the alert about the disappearance occurred. This would be Jane Tanner, who guarantees she surprised the unknown man in a street where Maddie’s father and another witness also were. Both guarantee that they saw nothing, even though they were in the same line of sight. Tanner, who much later made a photofit of the supposed abductor, also said that the man carried the child in a horizontal position. The size of the window reveals that this could only have happened if the child were carried vertically.

Being that as it may, the PJ tried through all possible means to find who could have taken Maddie. They did dozens of diligences related to suspects of sexual abuse. Elements were collected about those registered that could have been on holidays in the Algarve during that time period, in order to verify if there could have been any connection with little Maddie.

In addition, all the other residents of the village were investigated. The PJ entered more than 400 houses surrounding the Ocean Club and found nothing. On the window where Kate guaranteed that Maddie was taken no vestiges of the girl were found. Only marks that confirmed the DNA of the girl’s mother.

The PJ’s final report shows the details of an investigation that reached unprecedented levels. A couple was investigated that had allegedly tried to abduct another child, a fine toothed comb was used to research the clues that Maddie had been seen at a gas station. A crematorium was searched and Maddie’s genetic profile was compared to that of a child’s body found on the coast of the United States.

The PJ investigated a supposed beggar and followed thousands of clues around the world. In vain. Nothing confirmed the proposed abduction theory.

[Translation by dear and fast and superb and fantastic Debk]

Source: Correio da Manhã (http://www.correiodamanha.pt/Noticia.aspx?channelid=00000181-0000-0000-0000-000000000181&contentid=2E2C495C-B9A1-4549-AA8D-E038FF94F99B)

colomom
07-05-2008, 12:00 PM
Thanks for bringing that to us Tony!!

That's a bombshell, if you ask me. Seems to me that the "evidence" pointing at the McCanns involvement in Maddie's vanishing is, once again, confirmed. I realize that some will disagree....

Just a reminder: all of the CM articles can be found on the Portuguese Press thread as well (with pictures!).

Barnaby
07-05-2008, 07:15 PM
Thanks for giving us some hope that justice may still be done for Madeleine Tony!

colomom
07-05-2008, 07:35 PM
SOS Madeleine McCann: article updated.

"Maddie: Investigation continues and gains new momentum (Updated 5/07/08)
http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/
4/07/08 Updated 5/07/08

Maddie : Enquête continue et gagne nouvel élan

Malgré toutes les informations avancées dans les médias, en particulier au Royaume-Uni, la Police judiciaire (PJ) a nié que l’enquête à la disparition de Madeleine McCann soit abandonnée ou archivée, ce qu’est confirmée par une source de la l’Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) qu’avance l’existence de deux témoignages décisifs qui n’ont pas encore été communiqués aux autorités portugaises.

Plusieurs centaines de témoins ont été interrogés depuis le jour de la disparition de Madeleine, au Portugal par la PJ, mais également au Royaume-Uni où les interrogatoires ont été effectués à plusieurs endroits du pays.

Maddie: the investigation continues and gains new momentum.

In spite of all the information put forward in the media, in the United Kingdom in particular, the PJ have denied that the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance is to be abandoned or archived. This is confirmed by a source from the Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) who put forward the existence of two crucial witness statements, which have not yet been communicated to the Portuguese authorities!

Several hundred witnesses have been interrogated since the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in Portugal by the PJ, but also in the United Kingdom, where the interrogations were carried out at several places in the country.

Selon la même source, au moins deux témoins ont mis directement en cause la responsabilité d’un membre du groupe des neuf britannique – connu comme les “Tapas 9” — dans la disparition de Maddie, mais le contenu de leurs déclarations n’a jamais été transmis aux autorités portugaises.

According to the same source, at least two witnesses have directly called into question the responsibility of a member of the group of nine British people - known as the, "Tapas 9" - in Maddie's disappearance, but the contents of their statements have never been sent to the Portuguese authorities.

“Il existe un circuit bien précis pour faire arriver l’information au Portugal et tout n’a pas fonctionné comme il était prévu, ou comme il serait normal de fonctionner dans un cas de coopération internationale,” affirme ce responsable soulignant que les diverses forces de police qui ont collaboré à l’enquête sur le sol britannique, en particulier dans le Leicertershire, ont été “dépassées” par les agissements de leur hiérarchie, victime à leur tour du rôle joué par le gouvernement.

Pour rappel, l’Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) et la police du Leicestershire, ont collaboré dans l’enquête des autorités portugaises, comme l’a confirmée Patricia Scotland, Ministre d'Etat et Attorney General pour l'Angleterre et le Pays de Galles.

"There is a very clear system for getting information to Portugal and it has not all worked as planned, or as it would normally work in a case of international co-operation," this officer stated, stressing that the various police forces who collaborated in the investigation on British soil, in particular in Leicestershire, were, "overtaken," by the actions of their superiors, victims in their turn to the role played by the government.

As a reminder, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Leicestershire police, have collaborated in the investigations by the Portuguese authorities, as Patricia Scotland, Minister of State and Attorney General for England and Wales has confirmed.

http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/

To be continued.

Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1164&page=17 Post #247

Tony Bennett
07-06-2008, 09:16 AM
The previous post is pointing the finger at possible high level corruption within the British police forces.

Not good

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barnaby
07-06-2008, 09:44 AM
The previous post is pointing the finger at possible high level corruption within the British police forces.

Not good

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely Tony, I am not surprised, are you?

Thanks for posting Colomon!

scandi
07-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Absolutely Tony, I am not surprised, are you?

Thanks for posting Colomon!

Hi Barnaby, I wanted to say hello to you and also to Tony who I have not really met yet. I must say when I learned the other day Tony you are now a member of Websleuths, I was absolutely tickled PINK :dance: It is good to meet you.


I also want to take this moment to welcome our newest poster to the forum, bouncy. I have had the fortune to post along side of her for much of the case, and her reputation surely preceeds her.

You will enjoy her company and discover she is particularly dedicated to anything written out there on the case, just as Colomom is known for being the Photo Mistress. :)

So HEAR HEAR! WELCOME Bouncy


Scandi

Barnaby
07-06-2008, 10:03 PM
Hi Barnaby, I wanted to say hello to you and also to Tony who I have not really met yet. I must say when I learned the other day Tony you are now a member of Websleuths, I was absolutely tickled PINK :dance: It is good to meet you.


I also want to take this moment to welcome our newest poster to the forum, bouncy. I have had the fortune to post along side of her for much of the case, and her reputation surely preceeds her.

You will enjoy her company and discover she is particularly dedicated to anything written out there on the case, just as Colomom is known for being the Photo Mistress. :)

So HEAR HEAR! WELCOME Bouncy


Scandi

Hi Scandi, Thanks for the hello, nice to meet you & welcome to Bouncy!

Tony Bennett
07-07-2008, 05:02 AM
Have posted my latest theory on the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann on the 'Theories' thread, post 131

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

april4sky
07-07-2008, 08:20 AM
McCanns To See Police Files

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-

The parents of Madeleine McCann have won access to previously secret police files on the disappearance of their daughter.

Their private investigators will now work with 81 files gathered by Leicestershire Police in the days immediately after the toddler vanished.

The parents, who wanted to avoid a legal conflict with the police while at the same time obtaining as much material as possible to help in their continuing search, were content to withdraw their case.

Morag
07-07-2008, 09:35 AM
Apparently the Tapas group typed up a report to help them keep their stories straight. And the PJ has it. Please, someone, tell me why they would do this for innocent reasons? Other than child neglect, what were they hiding?


From the Portuguese Press Thread:


English combined depositions

The Polícia Judiciária apprehended a memo that was typed by the McCanns and their friends, which describes in detail what each one of them did on the evening of the disappearance

Article by: Eduardo Dâmaso/Tânia Laranjo

The Polícia Judiciária calls it a “typed report”. It was appended to the process with the number 886 and elaborated by the English before they were formally questioned by the Polícia Judiciária from Portimão after Madeleine’s disappearance.

For the authorities, the minute manner in which the description was made reveals that the group of English people intended to “remember the steps that they made on that evening”. They described the facts, temporally and spatially, and those were the details that they revealed to the investigators.

Everything in an absolutely coherent form, closing the door to emotion. It is never explained, for example, how the group, that also had their children asleep in their rooms within the resort, never followed the instinct of confirming whether they were safe, after Kate launched the alert over her daughter’s disappearance. They came looking for Maddie, but failed to check if their own children had been abducted.
This document is considered important and was taken into account in the final report, whose contents CM reveals in an exclusive. It is fundamental as far as it has removed any spontaneity from the depositions made by the English, including the McCanns, whose description of the hours prior to the disappearance were fundamental for the investigation.

christine2448
07-07-2008, 10:02 AM
Apparently the Tapas group typed up a report to help them keep their stories straight. And the PJ has it. Please, someone, tell me why they would do this for innocent reasons? Other than child neglect, what were they hiding?


From the Portuguese Press Thread:

This sure is telling, IMO. I wonder if there is anyway, if they don't already know, when it was actually written, and in who's hand/who actually typed it.

Barnaby
07-07-2008, 03:33 PM
Well liars need good memories so I guess safest way to remember what "didn't" happen is, write it down!

colomom
07-07-2008, 04:33 PM
Detailed report on the High Court Hearing (7/7/08)

http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17576

Michael Shrimpton?!?! Oh my, my.... :eek:

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/MichaelShrimpton.php

christine2448
07-07-2008, 04:37 PM
Detailed report on the High Court Hearing (7/7/08)

http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17576

Michael Shrimpton?!?! Oh my, my.... :eek:

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/MichaelShrimpton.php

OK, I'm clueless, help a girl out...Oh my what??? :blowkiss:

colomom
07-07-2008, 05:04 PM
OK, I'm clueless, help a girl out...Oh my what??? :blowkiss:

Michael Shrimpton is a very powerful lawyer with major "connections" in very high places. Check out that website for a list of some of his many accomplishments and his background.

The question is why?? Why would he have anything to do with this case? What does this case have to do with national security?

Here we are again, wondering about conspiracy theories, which I hate!!

ETA: His website (shown above his picture) seems to have vanished in that past few hours. Joana (Morais) was able to copy from it just a short time ago.... :waitasec:


:blowkiss: (backatcha)

Texana
07-07-2008, 05:12 PM
I know, everything like this just adds to the conspiracy theorists!

I actually believe it's just part of the strings the McCanns are able to pull. It wouldn't be unlikely to have two lawyers already on retainer--one for the civil laws of extradition, one in case criminal charges are brought. Two different kinds of attorneys requiring two very different specialities.

It is a very telling fact that even though they were calling out that Maddie was abducted, none of the others went to check on their children. It is such an instinctive thing--how could you not check on your own children? One parent could check while the other remained to "assist" in the search?

I think there are more things like that that made the PJ raise their eyebrows. Yes, people grieve differently, etc, etc, but this was not about grief. This is about how people react when confronted with a crime, and certain behavior is universal to everyone.

Tony Bennett
07-07-2008, 06:52 PM
WARNING RE MICHAEL SHRIMPTON

Michael Shrimpton is a maverick. He is also, on occasions, a fantasist. I am certain he knows nothing about the case of Madeleine McCann.

He is an expert lawyer in his chosen fields, which include constitutional law, weights and measures (he's a keen defender of Imperial measures and deteremined opponent of the metric sysytem), and branches of the criminal law. He can sometimes be brilliant, with a wonderful and encyclopaedic knowledge of the law in his areas of expertise. He is a showman and entertainer and can be very witty in court.

But his fantasies extend for example to his regarding the Irish potato famine as an Prussian anti-British plot using an early form of bacteriological (germ) warfare. I have the article somewhere but can't locate it. It is quite funny, though it's not meant to be. But it's not true.

Colomon wrote this: "Michael Shrimpton is a very powerful lawyer with major 'connections' in very high places. Check out that website for a list of some of his many accomplishments and his background".

I respectfully disagree. He is not as powerful as all that - he is not a Q.C. for example - and his connections are not as 'major' as perhaps he thinks.

Here's an offering he circulated in April this year to a eurosceptic list about the death of British Labour MP Gwyneth Dunwoody. His references to various people being German agents must be taken with many grains of salt:

QUOTE from Michael Shrimpton

Correct Bob, re Rippon, also Seligman, Jenkins and Attlee. Interestingly the exposure of Clement Attlee as a paedophile and a German agent, who betrayed War Cabinet secrets to Germany throughout World War Two, or at least until the autumn of 1944, when it was decided to concentrate on soft power, may have helped kill off dear old Dunwoody, who had sound albeit soft views on the EU.

Attlee's disastrous tenure at Number 10 saw Britain and India punished for beating Germany. The bastard had millions killed in India and poor people in particular still suffer from the facile and filthy NHS and the smashing-up of our wonderful old railways. The poor also suffered from his decision to impose austerity. The betrayal of dear, loyal Burma to those murderous Commie bastards in Peking, seeking to drench their hands in native Rhodesian blood even as we speak, as they desperately try to rearm their man Mugabe, so he can start another killing spree and murder his way out of the crisis brought on by his humiliating rejection at the polls, was particuarly immoral.

Dundwoody's father was close to Attlee and was made General Secretary of the Labour Party in 1944. The Party has always been a front for German Intelligence from the time it was set up by Keir Hardie and Ramsay Macdonald of the Imperial German Secret Service. Her father almost certianly knew that Attlee had been wokrig hard for a Nazi victory and held the turth back from his daughter.

The shattering truth was that Clement Attlee was a sickening sexual pervert and one of the greatest political criminals this country has produced, who was blackmailed by German Intelligence from his student days and supplied by them with poor boys from the East End to abuse, through Toynbee Hall, named after another German spy, the notorious Arnold Toynbee, is spreading through the Labour Party. Toynbee Hall was then a front for German Intelligence, and was later used to humiliate Jack Profumo, whom the Germans feared as a rival to their man Macmillan, and who was set up using a GO2 agent named Stephen Ward.

Nobody knows how many British troops died in both world wars because of Attlee, and in fairness some of the secrets he passed to his Abwehr paymasters in the second war with Germany would have been betrayed anyway, as the Germans controlled the Cabinet Office through Hankey, another paedophile, and had access to all War Cabinet minutes (it is known the German copies of the minutes date from the war).

The failure to spot Attlee and Hankey was the greatest counter-intelligence failure of the Second World War. Both men should have been taken to an MI18 safe-house, tortured agonisingly to death to reveal the rest of the German network, and had their carcasses weighted with bricks and tossed in the Thames. The public could have been told they died in a plane crash, or some other such nonsense. God knows the public are never told the truth about their politicians. Almost every thing the public is told by Whitehall is a lie anyway. The first clues about Attlee did not come until about 1950, when it was decided he had to be got rid of politically, a very weak substitute for trying and hanging him. Some of the young boys were badly damaged internally and the doctors who treated them seem to have worked out it was Attlee and briefed in a medical adviser to MI5. In fairness to the King, who sacked Attlee's government, the full extent of Attlee's treason was not known. We have only recently been able to gain access to DVD archives, through slightly devious means which need not be elaborated upon (the DVD murder their own people not infrequently, which means they will talk if they fear exposure to their own people, I will say no more than that).

The shocking truth may have been too much for a Labour stalwart like Gwynneth Dunwoody. Labour are of course desperate to hide the truth about the origins of their Party, although you may see fewer copies of the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist, a political forgery to rival the notorious Protocols of the Learned Eldrs of Zion, on sale in their bookshop, from now on.

Expect more Labour MPs to drop dead suddenly.

ENDQUOTE

Ciara
07-07-2008, 10:58 PM
Anyone who think that the Irish Famine was a Prussian Anti British plot or whatever is a Nut:mad:
As to the McCanns.......I am sickened by the whole story from start to finish. With them its not what you know, but rather WHO you know.

Pinkhammer
07-07-2008, 11:15 PM
Clement Attlee always gave me the creeps. Now I know why. The Brit government was run by a bunch of pederasts in those years. The tales of the boys from the orphanages have just come out recently.

Michael Shrimpton knows where all the bodies are buried.

Just who are the McCanns' REAL connections?

Tony Bennett
07-08-2008, 04:10 AM
I posted this on another forum on 24 December 2007, when Michael Shrimpton's name came up re Madeleine McCann. I do not say Shrimpton is wrong about everything. But he mixes facts and fantasy:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Tony Bennett says:
December 24th 2007 at 8.43am

530 yesterday’s thread - Daisy wrote (December 24th, 2007 at 3:35 am):
“For people asking me yesterday for some more info on some of my views, here follows the Shrimpton Paper that I came across on a website (far down the page, past the photos of missing children). I found his report extremely interesting…”

REPLY BY TONY: Michael Shrimpton’s claims about the intelligence world need to be taken with more than a few pinches of salt. He may be a talented barrister on issues like the British constitution and weights and measures, but when it comes to intelligence, his more extravagant claims include:
1. The Irish potato blight blight in the 1840s was caused by an early form of Prussian biological warfare
2. Former British Prime Minister Edward Heath was a paid German agent from World War II to his death, taking his instructions from Germans, and paid by a clandestine MI6-type agency called ‘DVD’ based in southern Germany
3. David Kelly (government scientist researching ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and who was held to have committed suicide) was murdered by Iraqi secret service agents.

Steer well clear

UNQUOTE

========================

P.S. Personally I do not discount the possibility that Dr David Kelly might have been murdered, especially as the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem was the discredited Dr Michael Heath. But...by Iraqi secret service agents, hiding in the Oxfordshire woods? - TB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Bennett
07-08-2008, 04:13 AM
I posted this on an other forum on 24 December 2007, when Michael Shrimpton's name came up re Madeleine McCann. I do not say Shrimpton is wrong about everything. But he mixes facts and fantasy:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Tony Bennett says:
December 24th 2007 at 8.43am

530 yesterday’s thread - Daisy wrote (December 24th, 2007 at 3:35 am):
“For people asking me yesterday for some more info on some of my views, here follows the Shrimpton Paper that I came across on a website (far down the page, past the photos of missing children). I found his report extremely interesting…”

REPLY BY TONY: Michael Shrimpton’s claims about the intelligence world need to be taken with more than a few pinches of salt. He may be a talented barrister on issues like the British constitution and weights and measures, but when it comes to intelligence, his more extravagant claims include:
1. The Irish potato blight blight in the 1840s was caused by an early form of Prussian biological warfare
2. Former British Prime Minister Edward Heath was a paid German agent from World War II to his death, taking his instructions from Germans, and paid by a clandestine MI6-type agency called ‘DVD’ based in southern Germany
3. David Kelly (government scientist researching ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and who was held to have committed suicide) was murdered by Iraqi secret service agents.

Steer well clear

UNQUOTE

========================

P.S. Personally I do not discount the possibility that Dr David Kelly might have been murdered, especially as the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem was the discredited Dr Michael Heath. But...by Iraqi secret service agents, hiding in the Oxfordshire woods? - TB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

colomom
07-08-2008, 10:45 AM
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215507722.06

EU unable to agree child alert system, but boosts cooperation
08 July 2008, 12:51 CET

(CANNES) - European nations agreed Tuesday to cooperate more closely in the hunt for lost children but could not endorse a Europe-wide alert system sought by the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann.

EU justice ministers ministers, at informal talks in the French Riveria resort city of Cannes, decided to set up national police centres to coordinate any international search when it becomes necessary.

<continues>

colomom
07-08-2008, 10:54 AM
http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17639&sid=bc0b57038e12a8b52be42385a48893c2

Post subject: Relevant info?

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:03 am

BeoWulf: Site Admin

I have received some information from the same sources that i have posted before, however, my lack of time didn't allow me to concentrate and put all together in one post as i would like to do. Other reason that kept me from doing so was some previous comments regarding the same as always criticism about "sources", but as i said before, I'm just giving out information that was given to me that i don't confirm how much truth it has, I'm juts letting people know and discuss about it.

<continues>

colomom
07-08-2008, 10:57 AM
No Breakthrough For McCanns

Martin Brunt
July 8, 2008 12:43 PM

Not sure I share Clarence Mitchell's optimism over the McCanns’ victory in getting access to some of the Leicestershire police files on the Madeleine investigation.
Outside the High Court he talked of "80 potential new leads."

But they're not new. They've been in police hands for a year or more and haven't led to any breakthrough.

<continues>
http://blogs.news.sky.com/lifeofcrime/Post:282c8d82-ab89-45fa-a5be-bccfb14e765c

colomom
07-08-2008, 04:16 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/theeyeofsauronwithmountdoominthebac.jpg

Don't look now Tony but a certain evil eye is turned in your direction....

http://tinyurl.com/5sohss

Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry's fury at 'club' devoted to prosecuting them

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
Last Updated: 7:55PM BST 08/07/2008

Gerry and Kate McCann have expressed their anger at the establishment of a fee-paying "club" dedicated to seeing them prosecuted over the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

A retired British solicitor, Tony Bennett, has set up a fund called The Madeleine Foundation, which aims to bring a private prosecution against the McCanns for alleged child neglect.

<more at link>

Ciara
07-08-2008, 05:27 PM
I say Tony Bennett Rocks!!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap:

daffodil
07-08-2008, 05:33 PM
It seems very wrong to me.Whats it got to do with him anyway? It is up to the courts and the police to bring charges of ANY kind surely? I would certainly NEVER contribute to anything like that "fund".

colomom
07-08-2008, 06:48 PM
As wise woman once said "it takes a village" and she was absolutely correct.

There is no way that I am going to stand by and watch while someone abuses a defenseless child. If that child's own parents are not going to protect them, and if there is any way possible for me to protect them, well, you can bet that I will!!

It appears to me that Tony B is trying to protect the children in the UK by making sure that the actions of the few are not viewed as acceptable by the majority of parents.

Maddie and the twins were neglected (and abused, IMO) and the parents should be held accountable. Especially considering the result of those actions.

From the Children's Bill of Rights:

Children are the future of our species. How a society treats its children is a direct reflection of how that society looks at its future. The Children's Bill of Rights proposes rights for children that all adults on Earth should honor, so that we may help create the very best future for ourselves and, in turn, our own children.

15. Right to life, physical integrity and protection from maltreatment

Children have the right to be protected from all forms of maltreatment by any adult, including a parent.

From: http://www.newciv.org/ncn/cbor.html

Tony Bennett
07-08-2008, 07:52 PM
daffodil asked: "What's it got to do with him?"

REPLY: Well, since you ask, daffodil, it has everything to do with me and practically the whole world.

Madeleine's name is one of the best known on the planet.

We were asked to look for her.

We were asked to give generously to the private trust set up by the McCanns - you know, the one that paid the McCanns' mortgage payments, before someone rumbled them, and which after 14 months has produced no accounts and won't say how much money they've received.

We watched as the McCanns went to the White House, the Pope, TV studio after TV studio, blaming an evil paedophile abductor, blaming the Portuguese police, shifting the focus from their own admitted negligence to the Amber Alert system - when they should have been saying loud and clear: 'NEVER LEAVE YOUNG CHILDREN ALONE'.

No, with the greatest of respect, daffodil, the McCanns made Madeleine OURS.

We ALL want to know what happened to her. We have been endowed with crtitical faculties, and as this forum and many like it have shown, there are very many people out there who do not buy the abduction claim, and desperately want the truth about what happened to this 3-year-old girl who was left along night after night whilst her parents were downing wine and strawberry daiquiris.

I've been asked by the 'Truth for Madeleine' administrator just now to post up some details about The Madeleine Foundation, following the 'Dailyu Telegraph' news report about us. Here's what I posted up here a few minutes ago, sorry it's a bit long:

=============================
=============================

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2270467/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry%27s%27-fury-at-%27club%27-devoted-to-prosecuting-them.html?service=print (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2270467/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry%27s%27-fury-at-%27club%27-devoted-to-prosecuting-them.html?service=print)

Website - well in progress but not ready quite yet

E-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com (ajsbennett@btinternet.com)

'Phone

Debbie Butler, Chairman 07867 887066
or

Tony Bennett, Secretary 01279 635789, or Mobile 07835 716537

We have set annual membership at £10.00

Payments to 'The Madeleine Foundation' and to be sent please to 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex CM17 0DJ.

We have a bank account, details will be given on application and, yes, we accept payments by BACS or internet.

The Madeleine Foundation is a democratic membership organisation open to anyone aged 16 or over who supports the following aims as set out in our constitution, approved on 26 January 2008:

FAQs Question 2: What are your aims?

ANSWER: An initial meeting held in January approved these seven main aims. They are subject to amendment at our first Annual Meeting:

a) to make every effort to ensure that Kate and Gerry McCann are prosecuted for their admitted abandoning of their children six nights in a row in Praia da Luz

b) to change the law in whatever way is needed in order to send out a clear message to all parents that leaving young children on their own is never acceptable, and to strive for the adoption of a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ with its key message: “Never leave young children on their own”

c) to pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, and in particular to encourage Kate and Gerry McCann and the friends who were with them in Praia da Luz to tell the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

d) to investigate the facts behind the extent of British government involvement in this case and the reasons for it

e) to ensure that the media, in particular the British media, report this case accurately and give due weight to the opinions of so many of the general public that the McCanns are withholding the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

f) to demand a full-scale investigation by the relevant authorities into the activities of the Find Madeleine Fund private trust and to encourage the trustees of that fund to give full particulars about its income and expenditure to the public who have donated so generously to it with the express purpose of finding Madeleine

g) to generally promote the welfare of children, in particular by ensuring that parents are aware of the psychological needs of their children and ensuring that the relevant authorities take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Members will be invited to take part in all decision-making and will receive regular information about what the Madeleine Foundation is doing.

Please be patient if we feel the need to ask you one or two questions before accepting you into membership.

The Madeleine Foundation is only for those committed to achieving our above aims.

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is both highly controversial and highly emotive. People have taken sides. Very strong words have been said on both sides. Poor Madeleine McCann has thus proved to be a divisive figure. For the McCanns and those who support them, the stakes are high.

The case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has many parallels with other cases where families have cried 'abduction' when their infant child has gone missing - only for us all to find out later that the child has died at the hands of the parents, whether accidentally, negligently or intentionally.

In such circumstances it is very possible that there may be people who wish to sign up to The Madeleine Foundation who are not in sympathy with our aims at all.

We await developments in Portugal and Leicestershire where two separate police forces are sitting on thousands of pages of evidence, in relation to an unexplained disappearance and possible homicide.

One thing is certain. There is precious little evidence of an abduction.

If no charges are brought against the McCanns, an Inquest must be held

Should the Portuguese police fail to bring any charges against Kate and Gerry McCann arising out of the circumstances surrounding the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann, it is the settled intention of the Madeleine Foundation to ask the relevant authorities, whether in Portugal or England, to hold an Inquest.

Inquests are routinely held on missing persons. Most will recall, for example, the Inquest held on the missing canoeist, who later turned up in Panama.

In the absence of a prosecution of the McCanns, an Inquest is the best method that would then be available of getting to the truth about how Madeleine McCann went missing. And it would enable the many witnesses who have remained silent until now to say in open court what they know about the events from 28 April to 4 May in Praia da Luz


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texana
07-08-2008, 10:06 PM
I was going to answer Daffodil, Tony, but you are clearly more than capable of defending yourself.

Here, here. You rock!

And let me point out: That despite repeated and numerous opportunities, the McCanns have never, ever condemned or asked that the "babywatching" (an oxymoron in itself) practice be discontinued or made illegal.

The one thing that would have kept Madeleine safe, no matter who came to the room, was the allowance of that practice, and the McCanns insistence that they were "doing their own form of babywatching."

Instead of condemning it, the McCanns have defended it.

So yes, any kind of organized effort to see that this is stopped, and never allowed to happen to another child, I applaud.

That the McCanns are held accountable for their acts and decisions (which they also refuse to take responsibility for) is just going to be icing on the cake. (That's an American idiom for "extra benefit.")

Colomom, that picture was the best thing, evah. You rock, too.

Ciara
07-08-2008, 10:36 PM
As wise woman once said "it takes a village" and she was absolutely correct.

There is no way that I am going to stand by and watch while someone abuses a defenseless child. If that child's own parents are not going to protect them, and if there is any way possible for me to protect them, well, you can bet that I will!!

It appears to me that Tony B is trying to protect the children in the UK by making sure that the actions of the few are not viewed as acceptable by the majority of parents.

Maddie and the twins were neglected (and abused, IMO) and the parents should be held accountable. Especially considering the result of those actions.

From the Children's Bill of Rights:

Children are the future of our species. How a society treats its children is a direct reflection of how that society looks at its future. The Children's Bill of Rights proposes rights for children that all adults on Earth should honor, so that we may help create the very best future for ourselves and, in turn, our own children.

15. Right to life, physical integrity and protection from maltreatment

Children have the right to be protected from all forms of maltreatment by any adult, including a parent.

From: http://www.newciv.org/ncn/cbor.html
Well said colomon:clap::clap:

april4sky
07-08-2008, 11:21 PM
We have set annual membership at £10.00

Payments to 'The Madeleine Foundation' and to be sent please to 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex CM17 0DJ.




An excellent Madeleine thread here and well worth reading.
Very informative!!

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/44100-tony-bennett-mccanns-3.html

And according to post 258 on Page 26 Mr Bennett the address you are asking people to send money to is your address.

Is this true?
If true I think people should have been informed of this up front!!

Texana
07-08-2008, 11:53 PM
[quote=Tony Bennett;2361946]

We have set annual membership at £10.00

Payments to 'The Madeleine Foundation' and to be sent please to 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex CM17 0DJ.

quote]

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/44100-tony-bennett-mccanns-3.html

An excellent Madeleine thread here and well worth reading. Very informative!!

And according to post 258 Mr Bennett the address you are asking people to send money is your address.

Is this true?
If true I think people should have been informed of this up front!!

What's the difference between this (which is a year after Madeleine disappeared) and the Find Madeleine fund?

Nobody has to contribute to either.

Madeleine's fund is not a non profit, either. You can't...aw, April you know what I'm going to say already (have it both ways.) :crazy:

april4sky
07-09-2008, 12:02 AM
[quote=april4sky;2362715]

What's the difference between this (which is a year after Madeleine disappeared) and the Find Madeleine fund?

Nobody has to contribute to either.

Madeleine's fund is not a non profit, either. You can't...aw, April you know what I'm going to say already (have it both ways.) :crazy:If you don't see it Texana...No worries!!

But I don't believe the McCanns have requested money sent direct to them.

The problem if true is that people were not informed.

If true they should have been.....up front!!

And no nobody has to contribute but before people do they should be given the chance to make a fully informed decision. IMO

april4sky
07-09-2008, 04:04 AM
It seems very wrong to me.Whats it got to do with him anyway? It is up to the courts and the police to bring charges of ANY kind surely? I would certainly NEVER contribute to anything like that "fund".

Me neither daffodil.
It also begs the question...which was asked here by Chikrodah....

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/44100-tony-bennett-mccanns-26.html

"If I set up a charitable trust to fund my own pet obsession, can I advertise on this forum too? http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/images/smilies/mad.gif"

daffodil
07-09-2008, 07:29 AM
Right April.Whilst I agree with keeping children safe (who wouldnt?) this whole set up reeks of vigilantism and is just wrong.No matter what we believe or feel about the McCanns (and imo some peoples judgement is colored by their dislike for them) we simply DONT KNOW what happened to Madeleine and until something,anything points definitively to their involvement I will not be part of it.

Ciara
07-09-2008, 08:28 AM
Right April.Whilst I agree with keeping children safe (who wouldnt?) this whole set up reeks of vigilantism and is just wrong.No matter what we believe or feel about the McCanns (and imo some peoples judgement is colored by their dislike for them) we simply DONT KNOW what happened to Madeleine and until something,anything points definitively to their involvement I will not be part of it.




I dont know for sure the McCanns are guilty, I just know that I feel they are not so innocent in all of this. I dont like the fact they left the kids alone and I dont like a lot of how they behaved after the fact.:blowkiss:

Ciara
07-09-2008, 09:36 AM
Hi gord:) Thankyou for posting what you just did. I found that very interesting and would not mind seeing answers to the questions asked.

colomom
07-09-2008, 09:42 AM
Jon Gaunt show with Clarence Mitchell on Talk Sport Radio 9/1/07:

"just send money in an envelope to Kate & Gerry,Rothley - it'll get there"

Lynch Mob? Vigilantism? Dislike for the McCanns?

That would mean that you would have to be interested in the parents and what happens to them.

It is all about Madeleine Beth McCann, nothing else matters.

daffodil
07-09-2008, 10:25 AM
I am aware it is about Madeleine and dont need reminding but my opinion still stands.I dont post much here as I do think there is a lynch mob mentality and that is my opinion.

daffodil
07-09-2008, 10:28 AM
I wont flame you daffodil:)
I wont be part of any lynch mob either. I dont know for sure the McCanns are guilty, I just know that I feel they are not so innocent in all of this. I dont like the fact they left the kids alone and I dont like a lot of how they behaved after the fact.:blowkiss:


Thank you! :)

daffodil
07-09-2008, 10:30 AM
Hi gord.

Those are excellent and valid points and questions.I hope there is a response.None of it sits comfortably with me at all.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
07-09-2008, 10:51 AM
What is that old expression...oh yes, "It like the pot calling the kettle black"...LOL We call it free will here in my little corner of the world. You can give, or you don't, it's up to the individual. I for one won't donate to the McCanns mortgage payments, and much needed holiday for "family moments with the twins" and I won't donate to the Tony Bennetts fund either. But hey, if someone would come up with a fund to change the laws and make "Our own form of baby-listening while intoxicated" illegal and punishable by prison...(or any baby listening for that matter) I'd seriously consider making a contribution.

april4sky
07-09-2008, 10:52 AM
Jon Gaunt show with Clarence Mitchell on Talk Sport Radio 9/1/07:

"just send money in an envelope to Kate & Gerry,Rothley - it'll get there"

Lynch Mob? Vigilantism? Dislike for the McCanns?

That would mean that you would have to be interested in the parents and what happens to them.

It is all about Madeleine Beth McCann, nothing else matters.No Colomom it means being interested in truth and justice.

And sadly, due to the "witch hunt" this has become IMO, it hasn't been about Madeleine for a long time.

Rino
07-09-2008, 10:56 AM
No Colomom it means being interested in truth and justice.

And sadly, due to the "witch hunt" this has become IMO, it hasn't been about Madeleine for a long time.
I'll be honest, that offends me. The only "witch hunt" is to find what happend to Madeleine - not to frame them.

It is a divisive term used purley to put those who feel the McCanns are not being forthright and honest in a negative light.

april4sky
07-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Hi gord.

Those are excellent and valid points and questions.I hope there is a response.None of it sits comfortably with me at all.Hi daffodil nice to hear from you...and your opinion. :blowkiss:.

And I agree, that was an excellent post gord. :clap::clap::clap:

april4sky
07-09-2008, 11:10 AM
I'll be honest, that offends me. The only "witch hunt" is to find what happend to Madeleine - not to frame them.

It is a divisive term used purley to put those who feel the McCanns are not being forthright and honest in a negative light.Sorry Rino but it is the truth as I see it...My opinion.

Accusations without any evidence offends me.

And if the leaked report is correct the PJ still don't know if Madeleine is dead or alive.

Tony Bennett
07-09-2008, 01:18 PM
STATEMENT FROM TONY BENNETT 9 JULY 2008, 6pm

I would ask permission of websleuths forum to make a brief public statement on the record.

I understand that a number of questions have been asked of me on another forum (3 Arguidos) and possibly elsewhere. Someone called 'gord' on this forum, Nige in his posting and I think 'redsquare' on 3Arguidos has been asking the questions. As I have done before in response to questiomns about my personal interest in the case, I will (shortly) answer all of them.

I choose to post on just two forums regarding Madeleine McCann - websleuths and Stevo's 'Truth for Madeleine' forum. I choose these because they are well-run, courteous forums peopled by those who seem to seriously want to get to the truth. They are mercifully free of trolls and the perpetually argumentative.

It's been a busy day and I've carried out two lengthy radio interviews about The Madeleine Foundation, with BBC Radio Essex and 10-17 Radio (based in Harlow where I live).

I want to emphasise once again that this is NOT about money. Not at all.

I have posted openly about Madeleine McCann in my own name on forums since September, not under cover of a pseudonym. It should be clear from all my postings that I desire to co-operate with all those, wherever they are, who are genuinely pursuing truth and justice for Madeleine.

However, blogging and contributing to forums has limitations.

I am committed to action.

Hence my application for a summons alleging child neglect against Kate and Gerry McCann - and in this connection I am heartened by some reports that suggest that the Portuguese Judiciara may yet prosecute the McCanns for child neglect or abandonment.

Hence my forming The Madeleine Foundation - to take various forms of action.

Hence The Madeleine Foundation formulating 'Madeleine's law' with the strap-line: "Never Leave Young Children on Their Own". You would think that that would be the message emanating from the mouths of Kate and Gerry McCann and their spokesman Clarence Mitcell, wouldn't you? But it seems they have another, 'wider' agenda.

Hence my petition on the Prime Minister's website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/no-to-neglect/ [Note, I think this is only for those with a U.K. address or maybe expats who are British ciitzens as well].

Hence my desire - at the appropriate time and if necesssary - to call for
an Inquest into Madeleine's 'disappearance'.

In due course I will post up the e-mail letter I sent out earlier this year in which I publicly rejected all offers of donations. I have done so on several occcasions since. This e-mail was sent out to literally hundreds who e-mailed me with support, following news of my application for a summons against the McCanns. I m a liitle tired by now of people hinting that I am only doing this for money.

The Madeleine Foundation is a democratic, membership organisation and, like any club, society or association, it has a set of rules and a membership fee. I have been involved in the running of a number of campaiging organisations in the past (and currently) and I can assure all readers here that what is needed for such organisations is a simple constitution and it is definitely not necessary to form a company, as I think gord/Nige/redsquare is claiming.

I should also make it clear that The Madeleine Foundation is not a charity nor have we sought registration as a charitable organisation. This is because the organisation's explicit campaigning aims mean that we could not achieve charitable status.

For those of a legal mind, The Madeleine Foundation is, I think, classed a 'an unincorporated association'.

Finally, what I really want to hear from is people who have good ideas about what to do about what appears to be Madeleine's death in Praia da Luz in May 2008.

For example, how should Madeleine be remembered?

How should we pay lasting tribute to her memory?

For now, I think the best tribute that could possibly be made to the poor girl's memory is for the law on leaving young children to be tightened up - so that it is very clear that leaving young children alone without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. The current law in the U.K. was framed in 1933 - 75 years ago.

If you like, that could be Madeleine's legacy to the world she has left behind.

More later with the permission of the websleuths moderators

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ciara
07-09-2008, 01:39 PM
Thankyou Mr Bennett.
Changing UK Law would indeed be a good tribute to Madeleine's memory.:)

Tricia
07-09-2008, 02:05 PM
Me neither daffodil.
It also begs the question...which was asked here by Chikrodah....

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/44100-tony-bennett-mccanns-26.html

"If I set up a charitable trust to fund my own pet obsession, can I advertise on this forum too? http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/images/smilies/mad.gif"

The answer to to Chikrodah's question is....Not on Websleuths. That is for sure.

We have a hard and fast rule. No fishing for donations to "pet" projects unless it is approved first.

The mods and I will be reviewing Tony Bennet's postings and decide if TOS has been violated.

Tricia

Tony Bennett
07-09-2008, 04:27 PM
A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT - 8 July 2008: PART ONE


TB: Here is my on-the-record reply to ‘Nige’, who by the way knows my e-mail address and telephone number but has never contacted me. I note that from Nige’s final paragraph , he says he is ‘incredibly angry’. It seems to me, Nige, that you were very angry when you wrote your post; it was written in anger, it seems

‘gord’ on websleuths: hello everyone. Thee is quite a few questions being asked about Tony Bennet and his fund

TB: Wait a minute. ‘His fund’? This is a membership organisation which anyone who supports our aims can join. I am currently the Secretary of it. A ‘fund’? No, it is an organisation. An organisation with a properly-set up bank account in the name of The Madeleine Foundation. PS for the record: correct spelling - Tony Bennett

gord: all over the web. To give some balance below is a particular no them put by a poster called Redwave on the 3 arguidos - certainly food for thought . I would do a bit of pondering before rushing to get your cheque book out.

TB: No problem about that, ‘gord’, and in fact, I’m glad you did post it up as it gives me another chance to say more about The Madeleine Foundation and its aims. Incidentally I could have drawn attention to The Madeleine Foundation here on websleuths but have not sought to take advantage of my membership of this forum to do so. My previous posts here are in my name and can be viewed

gord: quote from http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/vi...hp?f=1&t=17747 (http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17747)

Nige: Dear Tony, I’m aware that you do not post on this board but I understand that you are able to reply through Stevo.


TB: Not quite right. I asked Stevo on one occasion to post a series of corrections to some statements that were made about me on 3Arguidos. I do not intend to ask him again and I do not intend to join a third forum. Websleuths and ‘Truth for Madeleine’ are enough. My e-mail address is ajsbennett@btinternet.com (ajsbennett@btinternet.com) - anyone can ask me questions about The Madeleine Foundation and I will answer them openly and honestly, and you are at all times welcome to publish my replies

Nige: As a retired solicitor, I am sure you are familiar with the need to ask questions before passing judgement.

TB: No problem at all with that.

Nige: What follows is not an attempt to discredit you or the Madeleine Foundation, nor to imply any scam, but an attempt to get answers to a number of questions that concern me.

TB: Noted.

Nige: I understand that any action proposed by The Madeleine Foundation will not begin until the Portuguese legal system has taken its course.

TB: No, that is not really correct. Insofar as we are considering a further attempt to prosecute Kate and Gerry McCann for child neglect - subject to receiving an expert barrister’s opinion on the whole issue - it would seem prudent to delay any action for at least a few weeks whilst there is some prospect of the Portuguese Judiciara prosecuting them for child neglect and abandonment. From what I have read in the Portuguese press, this remains a distinct possibility. Similarly, we want an Inquest on Madeleine if the PJ do not press charges against the McCanns of either negligently causing Madeleine’s death, or hiding a corpse, or perverting (or interfering with) the course of justice, or whatever are the equivalent charges under Portuguese law. Once again, there seems to be a realistic prospect of one or more of those charges being laid within the next few weeks. There are other actions we propose that do not depend on whether the PJ press charges or not.

Nige: Only if no charges are brought will you 'activate' your proposed aims.

TB: See above.

Nige: It is therefore fundamentally wrong of people, like Stevo, to state on here that 'The law isn't doing anything'. Something is happening and to imply that it is nothing is an insult to the hard work and diligence of the Policia Judiciaria. It smacks of psychological pressure to 'join up now' whilst the dinner is still warm.

TB: You are referring to a comment made by Stevo. I cannot answer for comments made by someone else in his own right. I would not, speaking personally, say ‘the law isn’t doing anything’. Anyone who has seen even a selection of my public posts on forums about Madeleine would know I have a deep suspicion of possible British government involvement in trying to suppress the possible prosecution of the McCanns and many times I have praised the PJ for having worked under the most enormous pressure to try to find out the truth. It is my personal view that the McCanns have mounted the mother of all diversionary tactics regarding Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’ and have been aided and abetted in this by most of the media and possibly by sinister forces within the British government. I do not of course know about the quality of the work done by the PJ, but reading between the lines, my provisional verdict would be: ‘done a great job under very adverse circumstances

Nige: Anyway, my questions are as follows:

1) The Telegraph reports that the Madeleine Foundation is a fund. If so, why has it not been registered as a company with Companies House?


TB: Very simple. The Madeleine Foundation has been set up as a simple membership association. Which anyone who supports our aims can join. I should say I have been involved in the setting up of a number of similar associations in my time. It is, if you like, a club, or society, or association, no different from any other association of like-minded individuals who join together for a common purpose. It has a broadly similar constitution to that of, say, the Anytown Allotments Association or the Blandshire Campaign for Road Safety.

Nige: Companies House guidelines state the following about the use of certain words in company titles:

‘benevolent, foundation or fund - names that include any of these words will be refused if they unjustifiably give the impression that the company has charitable status. If the company is limited by guarantee and has a non-profit distribution clause in the memorandum of association, then the name will normally be approved.’

So, one would assume, based on this guidance that The Madeleine Foundation had been set up as a company ‘limited by guarantee’ – much the same as the McCanns did with Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.

TB: Completely wrong assumption on your part, which you could easily have checked by contacting me. The Madeleine Foundation is not a company, so none of the above applies.

Nige: However, a quick search of registered company names reveals no result for 'Madeleine Foundation' or 'The Madeleine Foundation', either in established or pending company names. Could you explain why this should be so considering that The Madeleine Foundation has been established at least since the LSE conference in January?

TB: Explained above. We are not a company

PART ONE ENDS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Bennett
07-09-2008, 04:29 PM
A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT - 8 July 2008: PART TWO

Nige: 2) At the moment, I, or anyone else, could register the name 'The Madeleine Foundation' with Companies House. Does that bother you? Why would you be so cavalier and unprofessional given that you are committing yourself to such wide-ranging and long term goals, as stated in your 7 aims?

TB: There is nothing ‘cavalier’ or ‘unprofessional’ about our choosing the name we have done for our association. You seem to be throwing out an awful lot of accusations. If I became aware that someone else had subsequently registered a company called ‘The Madeleine Foundation, I would immediately contact Companies House and, based on my previous knowledge of them I would expect the to de-register it in pretty short order

Nige: 3) If there has been no company registered then I presume you've made no attempt to trademark the business name either. I've some experience of trademarks and I'm 99% certain you would be refused the trademark because it is so similar to Madeleine's Fund.

TB: We’ve made no attempt to trademark ‘The Madeleine Foundation’ and we do not think we need to


Nige: Maybe you're not bothered about trademarks but the scope of the aims you're seeking to implement will take years. Are you not really serious about protecting that?

TB: I repeat that when we set up The Madeleine Foundation, we saw no need to trademark our name. Now that you have raised the subject, we will take advice on it

Nige: 4) My understanding is that a person can set themselves up as a self employed sole trader but that after 3 months they must inform the Inland Revenue. Given that donations have already been received, how have these been accounted for within the The Madeleine Foundation set up?

TB: Monies in and out of an association bank account have nothing whatsoever to do with the Inland Revenue. Had you bothered to establish with us that The Madeleine Foundation is a membership organisation, you wouldn’t have needed to ask that question

Nige: 5) I believe you describe The Madeleine Foundation as a 'democratic membership organisation' – what on earth is that? It sounds rather grand but an office tea club could successfully argue similar claims.

TB: Please see what I have said above

Nige: 6) Why did you choose the name 'The Madeleine Foundation'? Use of the words 'fund' and 'foundation' give very clear implications that a company has charitable status. Yours clearly does not. I'm afraid it just comes across as being a bit weasly and misleading and, dare I say it, consistent with the actions of the McCanns.

TB: Foundation is a common title for groups and associations that have a serious campaigning aim. There are tens of thousands of ‘Foundations’ in existence, many of which are not charities. The home page on our website, already prepared, deals with all the above points and will not mislead anyone

Nige: 7) You have proposed a yearly subscription fee of £10.00. Why are you seeking yearly subscriptions? Is this to fund your long term aims? If so, will you be promoting all those aims with as much vigour as you devote to the McCann 'neglect' issue?

TB: Virtually all membership organisations have a membership fee. The extent to which we pursue any of our aims depend on who joins and what talents and ideas they bring

Nige: You have an established bank account, presumably under the name 'The Madeleine Foundation' - as that is the name you request on cheques. How did you explain your 'business' to the bank? Did they not ask for evidence that you were a bona fide company? If so, again, why is there no company name registered?

TB: Simple. We are an association and provided our bankers with a copy of our constitution. Plus completed all the usual and - these days - very extensive bank account application forms

Nige: 9) If the Policia Judiciaria charge the McCanns with abandonment, will you refund donations? I understand that, much like Madeleine's Fund, your aims are wider than simply bringing a charge against the McCanns but, in my opinion, it would be solely the prospect of bringing charges against the McCanns that people would be donating towards. Of course, people must read the small print before donating but there's no small print in newspaper articles.

TB: Donations made to date are in full knowledge of the seven aims of The Madeleine Foundation. If any person donated specifying something like: ‘This is only to go towards a barrister’s opinion’ or ‘This is only for legal expenses if you successfully charge the McCanns with neglect’, that would be fully respected. We are much more interested in people with ideas, energy and talents joining us than in donations. We want members rather than money

Nige: 10) Who are the people behind The Madeleine Foundation? Much like there was with seymour's 'madeleinesearch' site, there seems to be a hazy reference, or implication towards a group of people being involved but no clear disclosure of who those people are. I will ask you a direct question: Are Seymour and/or Stevo involved in The Madeleine Foundation? You may say that is none of my business but given that you're asking people to make a financial commitment to your cause then it should be in the public domain.

TB: I do not wish to disclose who is and who is not a member, I do not have theor permission in any event. But I will confirm that Ms Debbie Butler from Kent is our Chairman

Nige: 11) Your previous action against the McCanns was unsuccessful, why would this further proposed action be any different?


TB: My action in November was without the benefit of a barrister’s opinion. If we can raise sufficient funds, our members would like us to get a comprehensive legal Opinion on the prospects of bringing an action against the McCanns for child neglect under the Children and Young Person’s Act. We would need to ask that barrister a number of questions, including the question of which is the proper court in which any action should be commenced (which involves questions of international law), the current state of case precedent in the courts on neglect, and the question of the strength of the evidence we could bring against the McCanns). I hasten to add that I considered that Article 17 of the Hague Convention made it clear that child protection issues should be brought in the country where a parent was resident, not where a child protection incident had actually happened, but the Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court were not sufficiently persuaded by that

Nige: 12) The Madeleine Foundation has been in existence since at least January. Why, 6 months later, have you still not got an operational website?

TB: A good question, it is mainly my fault as I have not been able to give enough time to finalising the contents

PART TWO ENDS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Bennett
07-09-2008, 04:31 PM
A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT - 8 July 2008: PART THREE


Nige: 12) These are your 7 aims and my comments:

a) to make every effort to ensure that Kate and Gerry McCann are prosecuted for their admitted abandoning of their children six nights in a row in Praia da Luz

Nige’s comment: Yes, very good. But this is what the Policia Judiciaria have been doing for 14 months with greater resources, knowledge and skills than you could possibly possess. Why do you think you would have more success in bringing such a charge than them?


TB: My concern in November was that the Leicestershire Police and Leicestershire Social Services had emphatically said there would be no prosecution of the McCanns for child neglect. At the time, there was also no sign of the PJ being anywhere near charging then with neglect. Charges like this should be brought as soon as practicable after the event. Now, our main concern would be - what if the PJ do not charge the McCanns with child neglect? Is it OK under English law to go out boozing every night for several hours leaving three young children under 4 on their own? If the McCanns are not prosecuted, what kid of message does that send out to other parents?


b) to change the law in whatever way is needed in order to send out a clear message to all parents that leaving young children on their own is never acceptable, and to strive for the adoption of a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ with its key message: “Never leave young children on their own”

Nige’s comment: Madeleine's Law? Where did that come from? Have you registered the business or protected the trademark? The domain names madeleineslaw.co.uk, along with .com and .org extensions have been registered but yield no result when searched. Were these names purchased by The Madeleine Foundation? If so, are you cyber-squatting them?

TB: We think a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ which would help to protect other children from being neglected by being left on their own by their parents would be a fitting tribute to Madeleine. I do not know what ‘cyber-squatting’ means but, yes, we have purchased three domain names, using the limited funds we have

c) to pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, and in particular to encourage Kate and Gerry McCann and the friends who were with them in Praia da Luz to tell the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

Nige’s comment: Mmm, I think you can cross this one off your list! How do you intend to 'encourage' the McCanns and Tapas 7 to tell the truth? Do you fully appreciate what is at stake here? They haven't just stolen some sweeties from the corner shop.

TB: Your comment noted. We intend to write to each of the ‘Tapas 9’ formally at some point

d) to investigate the facts behind the extent of British government involvement in this case and the reasons for it

Nige’s comment: You mean the British government that approved the rogatory letter and has severed all ties with the McCanns? Yes, the government were hoodwinked and the McCanns were courted by Gordon Brown in a desire to show people, unsuccessfully, that he had the common touch. But beyond that there is nothing. How do you propose to 'investiagte the facts'?

TB: We have made a start by successfully submitting a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the amazing speed with which the British Consul in Portugal was able to get information into the British press and media the day following Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’. We shall publish the reply in due course on our website. We shall investigate matters relating to the involvement of the British government where and when we can, just as others are doing on the forums

e) to ensure that the media, in particular the British media, report this case accurately and give due weight to the opinions of so many of the general public that the McCanns are withholding the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

Nige’s comment: The British media are not the slightest bit interested in the McCanns innocence or guilt. To suggest that they will suddenly decide to reflect the opinions of the general public as a result of you undertaking some unspecified actions is naive. They will reflect those opinions when they consider that they will sell more papers that way. It will be a business decision not an emotional one.

TB: Noted

f) to demand a full-scale investigation by the relevant authorities into the activities of the Find Madeleine Fund private trust and to encourage the trustees of that fund to give full particulars about its income and expenditure to the public who have donated so generously to it with the express purpose of finding Madeleine

Nige’s comment: I trust the British police to undertake/already be undertaking this work.

TB: I do not think that they are, but in due course we shall ask them directly

Nige’s comment: The way in which Madeleine's Fund has been set up ensures that they do not need to disclose their accounts in any great detail to the public. Disgraceful, I know, but unfortunately true.

TB: Agreed

g) to generally promote the welfare of children, in particular by ensuring that parents are aware of the psychological needs of their children and ensuring that the relevant authorities take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Nige’s comment: Very noble but desperately woolly and completely beyond your scope. How exactly are you planning to 'promote' the welfare of children and 'ensure' that parents toe-the-line?

TB: Deliberately worded in general terms but obviously intended to include leaving young children on their own

Nige: 13) There then follows a statement that sets off alarm bells in my head and makes me incredibly angry:

'The Madeleine Foundation is only for those committed to achieving our above aims.'

This is classic emotional psycho-pressure to force people to 'join now' and send money.

TB: Oh dear! That is most definitely one accusation too far and, with the greatest of respect, a gross over-reaction on your part. The meeting in Harlow which set up the The Madeleine Foundation was deliberately not publicised. I organised it and only invited those I knew by e-mail or ’phone contact to be committed McCann-sceptics i.e. those who were definitely questioning the McCanns’ account of events. As you surely must know, in this battle which is being played for very high stakes, the McCanns have supporters out there who are trying to neuter the efforts of so many people who sincerely want truth and justice for Madeleine.

Nige: What you are effectively saying here is that unless you donate you are not really committed to finding truth and justice for Madeleine. You are presenting The Madeleine Foundation as an exclusive club for members who are 'the real, committed ones'. Absolute bull*****!

TB: I do not think anyone really thinks that the sentence you have quoted above means that. In many spheres, again as you must know - and especially where the stakes are high - people join associations with the sole purpose of disrupting them and rendering them ineffective. Our statement is a simple one, namely that we will only accept members who sign up to our aims. We do not for example want McCann-supporters seeing our e-mail communications. Of course we respect and admire the efforts of many other people involved in this tragic and convoluted case and we applaud them. Our efforts are simply meant to parallel other’s efforts and hopefully add a new dimension. Or to put it another way, add another string to our collective bow

Nige: I've raised a number of questions here and hope you will find time to address them in full. Many thanks, Nige

TB: Done the very same day you asked them. Please e-mail me your questions in future, or ‘phone me. It’ll save time all round

PART THREE ENDS


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

daffodil
07-09-2008, 04:59 PM
How are you going to stop McCann supporters joining? If someone sends in their £10 how are you going to vet them as being anti-McCann?

Ciara
07-09-2008, 05:29 PM
I think Mr Bennett answered all the questions asked of him rather well in those posts. I dont think for one minute this is about money for him. I believe he is doing this sincerely for Madeleine. Just my opinion:)

Tony Bennett
07-09-2008, 07:01 PM
I won't take up any more bandwidth by reproducing it here in full, but for those with queries about the constitution of the Madeleine Foundation, an unincorporated association, it can be found here:

http://www.truthformadeleine.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=347

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

april4sky
07-10-2008, 09:05 AM
The answer to to Chikrodah's question is....Not on Websleuths. That is for sure.

We have a hard and fast rule. No fishing for donations to "pet" projects unless it is approved first.

The mods and I will be reviewing Tony Bennet's postings and decide if TOS has been violated.

TriciaThank you Tricia.

april4sky
07-10-2008, 10:02 AM
McCanns win MEPs' backing for abduction alert system

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2280570/McCanns-win-MEPs'-backing-for-abduction-alert-system.html

For a declaration lodged in the European Parliament to become a resolution, a simple majority of 393 MEPs must sign it, and today the tally reached 398, meaning it will now be sent to the EU children's commissioner with a recommendation that it is implemented.

Gerry and Kate McCann said in a statement: "This is wonderful news. We would like to thank each and every one of the MEPs who backed this declaration.
******

Hopefully now the powers that be will do what's needed to set up an Amber Alert system in Europe.

CW
07-10-2008, 03:36 PM
The owner of ws (tricia) has let you all know that this matter regarding donations and Tony B is being reviewe. Since Tricia has posted I have not seen another off topic post and i want to thank you all. But if this thread starts going off topic again we are forwarning our members that this thread is about Maddy not Tony B.
Sincerely,
windchime

Texana
07-10-2008, 07:40 PM
I agree with Rino, the term "witch hunt" is very pejorative.

Witch hunts were about completely innocent people being hounded for being different.

The McCanns are not completely innocent. They chose to leave three young children alone, in a foreign hotel room, repeatedly.

Obviously, if an adult had been present in the room, or the children had been in the night time creche, chances are very good none of us would be here talking now about Madeleine McCann.

So the McCanns are guilty at the very least, of abdicating responsibility for their children. They are guilty of poor judgment, at the very least, perhaps that is all, but they are guilty of something.

There could have been a fire, an accident, the children getting into medicine, accidentally suffocating, walking out and falling into the pool, we could go on and on.

It's simply not fair to claim they are being under a "witch hunt" when it is their own actions that contributed to this situation.

Ciara
07-10-2008, 07:49 PM
I agree with you Texana. They should never have left those children alone.
I think what galls people more and makes them angry is the fact they never held their hands up and said that they know they shouldnt have. Instead, they have excused it. Even if they are not guilty of what happened to Madeleine, they are guilty of neglect for leaving three children alone while they were out drinking wine.

Texana
07-10-2008, 09:45 PM
I agree with you Texana. They should never have left those children alone.
I think what galls people more and makes them angry is the fact they never held their hands up and said that they know they shouldnt have. Instead, they have excused it. Even if they are not guilty of what happened to Madeleine, they are guilty of neglect for leaving three children alone while they were out drinking wine.

Right. In all fairness, they have admitted they were wrong, but they always soften or excuse their actions, or most appalling--they get snippy with reporters who ask about it. "actually quite boring" according to Gerry.

Kate repeatedly said that it felt safe. Then she said that it wasn't a decision at all. Then she said that she and Gerry did respond to Madeleine's question about "why didn't you come" with the decision to more closely supervise the children.

And yet, they then left the children alone again.

They have never yet condemned their own actions by telling everyone not to do as they did, not to trust the "babywatching system" no matter what, not to ever, ever leave children alone, no matter how safe it "feels."

Why don't they? They've already admitted they left the children alone. Saying they thought it was right at the time, but now see how wrong it was, that's not going to bring them into more trouble. If anything, a show of recognition that their decision wasn't safe and they actively speak out against that, would be in their favor.

Ciara
07-10-2008, 10:03 PM
I think it would have been more in their favour too had they said "Yes it was the wrong thing to do leaving them and we deeply regret it now" rather than "we felt it was safe" etc......I think that alone made people turn against them to some degree including myself.

Texana
07-10-2008, 10:28 PM
I think it would have been more in their favour too had they said "Yes it was the wrong thing to do leaving them and we deeply regret it now" rather than "we felt it was safe" etc......I think that alone made people turn against them to some degree including myself.

You must be a mind reader! That is exactly what I almost said, and then thought it too much.

A sincerely said, deeply felt, admission of "I've done wrong and I'm sorry" would have earned the McCanns more sympathy and sincere empathy than anything else they could ever have said.

You are so right. :blowkiss: for saying it first.

Ciara
07-10-2008, 10:45 PM
Well I know that they kind of lost my sympathy because they didnt accept responsibility for that Texana and I also think that they wouldnt have been hammered by questions about it so much either had they just said it was a wrong and stupid thing to do. People would have said "well no one can punish them more than they are punishing themselves now" etc and had more empathy with them. Because they didnt do that, I think people saw them as arrogant and unrepentant.
I hope they didnt have anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance but I still think they are guilty of leaving them alone underage in that apartment.

Salem
07-10-2008, 11:49 PM
I agree with Rino, the term "witch hunt" is very pejorative.

Witch hunts were about completely innocent people being hounded for being different.

The McCanns are not completely innocent. They chose to leave three young children alone, in a foreign hotel room, repeatedly.

Obviously, if an adult had been present in the room, or the children had been in the night time creche, chances are very good none of us would be here talking now about Madeleine McCann.

So the McCanns are guilty at the very least, of abdicating responsibility for their children. They are guilty of poor judgment, at the very least, perhaps that is all, but they are guilty of something.

There could have been a fire, an accident, the children getting into medicine, accidentally suffocating, walking out and falling into the pool, we could go on and on.

It's simply not fair to claim they are being under a "witch hunt" when it is their own actions that contributed to this situation.

:clap::clap:

Well said Texana!

Salem