The Trial is now rescheduled for January 2010 and will consist of these seven witnesses:
1) Magalhães e Meneses, the Public Ministry prosecutor who held the main prosecution file on Madeleine
2) PJ Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the detective who compiled the powerful report dated 10 September 2007 which concluded that there were strong indications that Madeleine had died in Apartment 5A, adding in his report that “from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died”
3) PJ Inspector and McCann family liaison officer, Ricardo Paiva, who was at the heart of the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance
4) National-Joint Director of PJ in Faro Guilhermino Encarnação,
5) The PJ's Serious Crime Unit Director Luís Neves,
6) The former Judiciary Police Inspector and Criminologist, Francisco Moita Flores, the one who famously said that it would be ‘one of the 10 or 12 individuals’ in what has been called the ‘Tapas 9’ group that was most likely to know what really happened to Madeleine, and finally,
7) Scotland Yard Inspector, José Freitas.
I'll just add links to stories here rather than post various articles.
Caso Madeleine McCann – Gripe A puede aplazar la audiencia del matrimonio McCann
A summary of what happened yesterday
'McCanns Trip to Lisbon is a Form of Pressure'
Hipocrisy Award 2009
Influenza A delays Gonçalo Amaral Opposition to McCann's Injunction
On the McCann Lawyers
Gonçalo Amaral at Lisbon Court
McCann hear cries of support to Gonçalo Amaral in Lisbon
All other articles listed on google here
While you're there, Kate and Gerry, why not ask for the investigation to be reopened? Here's a few reasons why this would be a good idea:
Comment from lj:
From someone who knows the Portuguese law and procedures:
The McCanns could have stopped the archival at any moment up to the end of the deadlines, or even force the reopening of the process now, if for example they requested to do the legal reconstruction with their friends, or if Kate McCann answered the 48 questions that were never answered, or if any of their Tapas friends requested to do new statements, etc.. Those would be evidences that would oblige the Public Ministry to reopen the process - which means that if the McCanns really wanted the process and the legal investigation into the disappearance [presumed death] of their daughter to continue, they could do it.
Also they could have asked for the investigation to go to the Instruction phase, which basically would have kept it open and would have given them the opportunity to be really cleared, not just not charged because there is not sufficient evidence yet. For some reason they did not push for that Instruction phase in 2008. Why not?
Original post on 3A
My name is Gonçalo Amaral. I am a former Criminal Investigation Coordinator, and the author of the book “Maddie – The Truth about the Lie”, written with the purpose of contributing to the discovery of material truth and the performance of justice, and under the perspective of reinstating my reputation that was blackened in public.
This book was written under the use of my full rights, and stands as a technical opinion that is based on facts, indications and events that are part of the process that underlies the investigation into the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
In September this year, an injunction was granted without previously hearing the defendant, based on lies and abusive interpretations of the intentions that were behind the creation of said book.
In order to render the defence of my rights more difficult, a request for damages worth 1.200.000 euros was filed, followed by the arrest of rights and goods.
The strategy of those who continue to dirty us was simple: the man is silenced, and the path to influence attitudes and behaviours, through the manipulation of public opinion at their pleasure, is opened. A campaign to discredit and to misinform is under way, at the same time as they try to asphyxiate us financially, in order to win the case without having to go to trial.
We will not conform to the limitation of our fundamental rights, through unconstitutional judicial decisions that put the responsible exercise of free expression at stake.
I thank all those who over the last couple of years have supported me, and who have signed the public petitions over the last days, as well as those who, through financial effort towards the recently created fund and a demonstration of solidarity, have reinforced my belief in the defence of values that should shape modern and democratic societies, freedom of expression, the discovery of the truth and the performance of justice.
As far as I’m concerned, I commit myself to embody the hopes of all of you, and not to give up, despite the survival of my own family being at stake, but the defence of those values and principles is essential.
To all, a heartfelt thank you.
Source: Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral
Tony Bennett, gagged, outside the offices of Carter-Ruck, cutting up the remaining copies of '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' before handing them in as required by the McCanns.
The full text of '60 Reasons' can now be read on the Wikileaks site:
Part II can be seen here
Gonçalo Amaral was also gagged by the McCanns and the full text of his investigation can be read here: 'Maddie: The Truth About The Lie'
And whilst the McCanns have been incredibly busy suing and gagging everyone, their little girl remains missing amidst the controversy of libel suits, gagging orders, out of court settlements, and corruption - even from their own detectives. Maybe now they will find the time to ask for the investigation to be reopened so that the truth about what happened to Maddie is finally known.
Or maybe Maddie will have to wait a bit longer until her parents have finished with the court case in which they intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral for 1.2 million euros, because only they know where their priorities lie.
The head of Leicestershire Police has rejected claims from a former Portuguese detective that his officers withheld a witness statement from the Madeleine McCann inquiry.
Chris Eyre, the Temporary Chief Constable, who recently apologised over a mother and daughter driven to suicide, said "I can assure you that at no time were statements withheld and not passed on."
Goncalo Amaral, the Algarve detective who was removed the inquiry early on, made his claim in a book, which is now banned.
Mr Eyre responded after Freedom of Information requests were submitted by the Sunday Express.
A team of Leicestershire family liason officers went to Portugal on May 5 2007 to support the McCanns.
It has also emerged that the Foreign Office has withheld details about the investigation so as not to damage relations between Britain and Portugal.
An individual submitted Freedom of Information requests to get details of negotiations by John Buck, Britain's former ambassador to Portugal.
The then Information Commissioner Richard Thomas refused in case it caused Portugal to lose trust in Britain's discretion.
(Well done Sunday Express for helping the McCanns get this case reopened - keep at it!)
Excerpt from The Truth of the Lie: Chapter 9
This witness statement from the couple, S.G. and K.G., is taken by the English police on May 16th, thirteen days after Madeleine's disappearance. That information, very important for the progress of the investigation, was never sent to the Portuguese police. When the Portuguese investigators learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece - without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements -, they tell the English police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject.
It will only be after my removal from the investigation, in October 2007, that this statement will finally be sent to the Portuguese police. Why did the British keep it secret for more than six months? It is all the more surprising that David Payne, who had planned the trip to Majorca - of whom it was known that his behaviour towards the children was, to say the least, questionable -, is the same person who organised the holiday in Portugal, that he is one of those closest to Madeleine and that he is the first friend of the family to have been seen with Kate McCann just after the disappearance (we will talk further about this). He was still present in Vila da Luz when the English police received that witness statement: why wasn't he interviewed immediately? Without doubt, the Portuguese police could have made progress with the investigation thanks to that lead: such behaviour would merit close attention. Were we looking in the right direction? Might we have established a link with the events of May 3rd? It is difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses.
"Have you noticed how many 'former' people seem to be involved or quoted in the Madeleine case? It's all former detectives, ex- police officers, now the 'former' chief of Scotland Yard. All people who used to be something.
I bet Leicestershire police aren't pleased at being accused of not playing their part properly, and not inputting their information into the ludicrously named 'Holmes' system. If Scotland Yard has all this technology and it hasn't been used in the Madeleine case in two and a half years, why do the McCanns think that might be?
Gosh, what victims they are, aren't they? What more could have gone wrong for them? How can one couple be so unlucky? First their daughter goes missing through no fault of their own, then the Portuguese police mess up the investigation and don't do what the McCanns want, then some people don't believe Jane Tanner's story or all the pictures of the different but always ugly, pock-marked, sinister and usually swarthy abductors, then totally useless sniffer dogs are used, they sniff blood and cadaver odour around the McCanns and nowhere else and people actually think that means something, then they're suspected of being involved in the disappearance or death of their own daughter, then that nasty Portuguese policeman writes a book saying cruel things, the police files are released and people can see for themselves what is in them and why the McCanns are suspected, then they're criticised for not going back to do a reconstruction, none of the detectives they have spent vast sums of money on have come up with anything, then it turns out there may have been satellite images which haven't been released to them, now it appears that Scotland Yard has had all this technology all along but hasn't used it.... and while all this bad luck is happening to them, ghastly bloggers keep pointing out all their inconsistencies and accusing them of lying all the time! How can they go on? Oh yes, well, there's always the Fund of course. That's one consolation."
This article has been written for The Madeleine Foundation. Permission is given to reproduce it in part or in full so long as The Madeleine Foundation is acknowledged. Our article includes long passages from an article by Mark Hollingsworth in the ‘Evening Standard’ in August 2009 and a Press Association report dated March 2008, which we are pleased to acknowledge. We also acknowledge the valuable internet resource at www.mccannfiles.com
Chapter Page No
Control Risks Group 1
Metodo 3 2
Claims that a Metodo 3 senior investigator was a criminal 5
Metodo 3 and a strange Portuguese lawyer,
Marcos Alexandre Aragão Correia 6
The Mark Hollingsworth article in the ‘Evening Standard’ 13
Red Defence 14
Red Defence International mutates into Oakley International 17
The involvement of Brian Kennedy in co-ordinating
the private investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance 18
Oakley International 25
J. ‘A crack team of 12 senior detectives’ 28
K. Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley 28
L. Summary 33
The article can be read here on the new Madeleine Foundation website
Related: Madeleine McCann fund hired ‘secret agent’ conman
McCann investigator indicted on charges of wire fraud & money laundering
All stories on Kevin Halligen
Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral. This is the name of an initiative started by a group of citizens showing their solidarity, who have launched a petition for the defense of freedom of expression and the right to defend himself concerning the former PJ coordinator who investigated the Maddie case.
The project is on the internet at http://pjga.blogspot.com. A petition in Portuguese and another in English were launched 3 days ago. At the end of the afternoon, yesterday, the first had 247 [updated nº: 312] signatures and the second 406 .
The objective is to denounce at the Portuguese Parliament, at the European Parliament and at the European Court of Human Rights "this attack on freedom of expression", said the forensic psychologist, Paulo Sargento, one of the leaders of the project.
Yesterday a bank account was opened. "It's a support fund to pay the legal expenses of the court cases of the former PJ Inspector" said Paulo Sargento.
in Correio da Manhã, paper edition, 13 November 2009
Posted by Joana Morais on her blog
Also on Joana Morais: Portuguese Press Coverage of “Citizens support Gonçalo Amaral”
Update: Press Release - Defence Fund
For Immediate Release
The movement ‘Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’ formally announces the creation of a defence fund by means of a solidarity account to support citizen Gonçalo Amaral, who has been deprived of his civil right to free expression.
Freedom of expression is an inalienable constitutional right, for which the Portuguese people have fought hard, and that cannot be placed at stake, namely when it is exercised with responsibility and with civility.
Citizen Gonçalo Amaral presently finds himself in the front line of a struggle for freedom of expression. An unequal struggle, in which the parties have access to disparate financial resources – citizen Gonçalo Amaral is forced to exhaust all and any personal resources that he may possess, and which are manifestly insufficient to meet the expenses that are inherent to his defence.
His opponents, who are well aware of this limitation, and who are financed by third parties to place considerable resources at their disposal, risk little or nothing, and gamble everything to silence the former Judiciary Police coordinator.
Gonçalo Amaral desires nothing more than to see this matter duly clarified in a court of law, which is the only place where the material truth of facts can, and should, be established. And we, Portuguese citizens, will do anything to see that happen.
Both parties must have equal access to Justice, and to adequate legal representation. In this particular case, we see a need to create a legal defence fund, in order to ensure that citizen Gonçalo Amaral is given access to said equality.
Therefore, the citizens who wish to show their solidarity with this cause, may contribute with their support through a bank account at Banco Português de Investimento (BPI) with NIB: 0010 0000 438 0385 000 1 62; IBAN: PT 50 0010 0000 438 0385 000 1 62; Swift: BB PI PT PL.
The ‘Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’ blog – www.pjga.blogspot.com – offers the possibility to donate using the PayPal system.
This action is subject to principles of full transparency and seriousness.
For equal Justice for all, in respect of civil rights and duties of Portuguese and European citizens.
For Truth and for Freedom.
For further information please contact Mr. Luís Arriaga on +351 92 501 19 69, or use the email firstname.lastname@example.org
Sandra Felgueiras (RTP): But this is the first time that you give us a big interview not being arguidos, not being arguidos. Since then. erm. So now I feel free to ask you this directly. How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadaver found by british and not portuguese dogs?
Kate: Sandra, maybe you should ask the judiciary because they have examined all evidence. I mean we are also Madeleine's mum and dad and we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...
Sandra: So you don't have an explanation for that?
Gerry: Ask the dogs (smirk) Sandra.
Sandra: Ask the dogs? No Gerry. Now I feel free to ask you, don't you feel free to answer me?
Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.
Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically."
Full interview and transcript at Joana Morais Gerry McCann: 'Ask the dogs, Sandra'
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 12:02 AM on 08th November 2009
A child psychologist is helping Madeleine McCann's twin siblings come to terms with her disappearance.
The parents of Madeleine McCann have revealed how a child psychologist is helping them to tell their two other children about her disappearance.
Gerry McCann: Madeleine's brother and sister want to fight beast who took her - so this is the work of a child psychologist is it?
Kate and Gerry McCann said they would be ‘frank and open’ with their four-year-old twins Sean and Amelie when they ask why their sister is still missing.
Mrs McCann, 41, said experts have said the youngsters will ask about Madeleine’s disappearance when they are ready.
‘We’ll be led by them,’ she said. ‘We’ve had advice from a child psychologist and they’ve said Sean and Amelie will lead the way.
‘If they ask a question, we’ll answer them honestly. I’m not going to rush them, but if they ask something then I’ll answer them.’
Mr McCann, 41, a heart specialist, added: ‘We will answer their questions openly and honestly. What they ask, we’ll tell them. We’ll tell them what happened and what information we know.’
Three-year-old Madeleine, went missing from her family’s holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz in 2007.
Last week, the McCanns released digitally enhanced pictures of how she might look as a six-year-old.
The images, based on the idea she may be held captive in southern Europe, Africa or the Middle East, show her with dark skin and dark hair.
Mrs McCann told a Portuguese chat show that the twins had helped her ‘adapt and function’ despite her grief.
Mr McCann added: ‘We do as much as we possibly can to ensure that the twins see us happy.
‘They give us so much joy and our life superficially would look like any family with two young children.
‘Obviously one of our children is missing. Sean and Amelie know that and they know that’s not good, and they want Madeleine back.’
Source: Daily Mail
Paulo Reis: As always, interesting questions raised by Anna Andress
By George Tynedale, July 8 2008
THE Portuguese police are to close down their inconclusive investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The three year-old’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, are now demanding that their status as official suspects in the case should be removed.
They have let it be known that they regard the prospect of spending the rest of their lives as arguidos is “immoral and inhumane”.
Which is quite right if they are guilty of no crime.
But they will forever remain guilty of leaving their daughter along with their two even younger children, Sean and Amelie, alone in a holiday apartment while they went out boozing.
So which tag do the McCann’s wish to carry with them into the future? Careless or irresponsible or just downright neglectful?
Related article: You have to be a mass killer like Harold Shipman before you lose your job in the NHS
RTP1 - Especial Informação
Video on Joana Morais blog
In the interview Maddie’s parents fail to explain who continues to finance the searches for the child
by Maria Francisca Seabra
The McCanns appeared “visibly frustrated” over the interview that was done by journalist Sandra Felgueiras, on Tuesday, in London, which will be broadcast today during a Special Information on RTP1. Such is the conclusion of an Irish newspaper that justifies Maddie’s parents’ frustration with the fact that Sandra Felgueiras mentioned the issue of cadaver odour that was detected by dogs in the Praia da Luz apartment, in the Algarve.
“The McCanns immediately replied that the dogs are not reliable, just as they escaped a series of other, more difficult questions” the journalist, who has been following the case since the disappearance of Madeleine in May 2007, tells Sol.
During the interview, which will be aired after Telejornal, there was an attempt to understand the reason behind the couple’s criticism over the performance of former Polícia Judiciária inspector Gonçalo Amaral, which was continued by Paulo Rebelo, a coordinator of the PJ in Portimão.
According to the British edition of free newspaper Metro, “the latest appeal from Gerry and Kate was stifled by some hard questions by the Portuguese journalist”. Felgueiras defends herself, saying that this was the McCanns’ first interview to a Portuguese television channel, since they lost their arguido status, and therefore “many questions had to be asked”.
Some of the answers remained missing: “They avoided replying when I asked them if Richard Branson and J. K. Rowling continued to finance the searches, but stressed that there are many people who still help them on an individual basis”.
source: Sol, 05.11.2009
The alternative Sandra Felgueiras interview
Also on Joana Morais' blog: "Ask the dogs, Sandra": Full interview with transcript and comments
Jim Gamble, Britain’s most senior child protection policeman, urged internet users around the world to help the hunt for Madeleine.
He said: “Every person who does that brings us a step closer to reaching the individual who needs to see this message.”
Source: Daily Express
And then when people do try to help find Madeleine the McCanns label bloggers, or people in forums who have spent many hours translating the police files for free, as nasty people - or they bring in Carter Ruck to silence and sue people or label them as stalkers in national newspapers and threaten to take their houses away. Charming.
I know how much I love Madeleine and I have no doubt that Madeleine knows how much, you know, I love her and I think... I mean, I know that, and I've just got to think, regardless of what all those people say out there; you know, those bloggers and people on the forums who obviously get some kind of kick out of being nasty. I know that, and I know Madeleine knows that, and I've just got to, kind of, keep hold of that, really...
(Or you could just answer the 48 questions, take part in the official police reconstruction and request the investigation is reopened as that would speed up the process. You do want the process speeded up, don't you?)
Mike Hitchen: Dear Mr Gamble
Books found in McCanns bedroom - including CEOPs manual
Jim Gamble: 'Viewing' paedophiles need not be jailed
Another Quote of the Day by Jim Gamble who thinks 'viewing' paedophiles need not be jailed:
‘There are days when you cannot eat your breakfast, lunch or dinner because of what you have seen,’ says Ceop’s chief executive, Jim Gamble, 49, who used to be head of the Special Branch in Belfast running counterterrorism operations. ‘Children are being criminally abused in horrific ways which cause them severe, lasting damage.’
Source: Times Online: Catching the criminals
I expect there are days when the abused children don't feel like eating their breakfast, lunch or dinner Jim. But this isn't about you, is it? It's about abused children. And what are you doing about the McCann children who are being emotionally abused which could cause them severe, lasting damage?
A few related links: CEOP Are You Going To Share The New Evidence With Us?
More than 140 NHS trusts have been challenged over the adequacy of their child protection procedures by the Care Quality Commission in the wake of the Baby Peter scandal.
By Andrew Gilligan
Trusts are responsible for declaring whether they meet basic standards for child protection as part of the health service's annual inspection process.
This year, 363 of England's 392 trusts - over 90 per cent - declared that they met the standard.
But in a special review commissioned after Baby Peter's murder, the watchdog, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), has challenged the claims made by 112 trusts. Eighteen of them - including the main GP service in Manchester - have already been marked down by the watchdog, with other investigations "ongoing."
Internal NHS documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph show the CQC review uncovered "significant lapses" in child protection that "trust boards should have been aware of, but did not take into consideration when making [their] declarations."
The documents say that the CQC review has uncovered "clear evidence" which "conflicts with the 2008/9 declarations made by trusts."
In addition to the 112 trusts whose claims have been questioned, a further 29 trusts admitted that they fell below the standard. They include hospitals, mental health trusts and primary care trusts, which run GP services and health centres.
Cynthia Bower, chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, said: "We make no apologies for coming down hard on trusts not meeting the standard on safeguarding children. Baby Peter was a wake-up call for the NHS. Some trusts have realised they've got more to do than they previously thought. In other cases we needed to bring shortfalls to their attention."
Baby Peter, now named as Peter Connolly, died of multiple injuries in August 2007. He was a patient at a child abuse clinic at St Ann's Hospital, Haringey, north London, and had been seen eight times by NHS staff in the month before his death.
At his last visit to the clinic, two days before he died, the paediatrician examining him sent him home after failing to notice that he had a broken back. The 17-month-old was found dead in his blood-stained cot with eight broken ribs, severe lacerations to his head, a tip of a finger missing, broken teeth, missing nails, and scores of bruises, cuts and abrasions, including a deep tear to his left earlobe, which had been pulled away from his head.
Full article in the Telegraph
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 11
We, the Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral, according to what is consecrated by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, hereby declare our indignation over the attack that has been perpetrated against the right to freedom of expression for Citizen Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, who saw censorship fall over not only a book, but also any expression, oral or in writing, of the thesis that he defends.
In effect, the recent decision to prohibit, more than the sale of a book, an entire reasoning that sustains it – a reasoning which has been expressed and sustained within the core of a criminal investigation process -, constitutes, in our opinion, a serious and worrying precedent.
This attack is aggravated by the fact that the thesis that is defended by Gonçalo Amaral rigorously reflects the facts of an investigation that is no longer under the Portuguese law of judicial secrecy, and has been made widely available to the public. Whether one agrees with its conclusions, or not, it is indefensible to forbid its reproduction and discussion.
Freedom of Expression, exercised with responsibility, is an inalienable right for any European Citizen, and we cannot accept, without protest, that this value is attacked.
We therefore petition the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to protect the constitutional rights of Citizen Gonçalo Amaral, in a case of blatant disrespect for the universally consecrated right to Freedom of Expression.
I agree and subscribe,
Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary of The Madeleine Foundation, in response to an article in today’s (7 November) ‘Sun’
‘The Sun’ did not contact me before printing the article.
The recent background to this article, for those not so far aware of events of the last fortnight, is as follows.
On 26 October, for reasons best known to herself, Debbie Butler, Chairman of The Madeleine Foundation, decided to launch a strong personal attack on a public internet forum, ‘Missing Madeleine’, which included many false allegations against me.
Due to this and many other related issues, the Committee of The Madeleine Foundation was left with no alternative by Monday 2 November but to expel her from membership under Paragraph 6 of our Constitution. On the same day, our bank was notified of a dispute, notified that one of the signatories to the account had been expelled, and informed that a members’ meeting would be held on 14 November when new signatories would be appointed.
The allegations by Debbie Butler of ‘fraud’ and financial impropriety followed these events. There is no truth in any of her claims.
I deal now with specific issues on ‘The Sun’ report.
Dealing with the false claim that I ‘ran the account from my home in Harlow’, the brief facts are these: 1. The branch of the bank in which the account is held is in Debbie Butler’s home town of Maidstone 2. The account was jointly operated in that not one penny could be taken out of the account without both Debbie Butler and I signing cheques.
‘The Sun’ article refers to the possibility that people might have mistakenly donated to The Madeleine Foundation thinking it was to support the fund to help find Madeleine. No-one donated on that basis. Incidentally Debbie Butler has publicly called for people who donated to the Foundation to ask for their money back. No-one has yet done so.
Yes, the account has just over £2,700 in it.
As for claims that people sent in ‘tens of thousands of pounds’, the actual total income to the Foundation between its establishment and the end of September 2009 was £8,104.05, made up a follows:
Income £ p
Loan from T Bennett 20 00
Loans from D Butler 350 00
Donations 590 00
Cash subscriptions 10 00
All Net PayPal Income
(payments for books,
donations) 5580 00
Cash sales of the booklet 1464 90
Retail booksellers 19 15
TOTAL: 8104 05
Madeleine Foundation members were recently sent a set of income and expenditure accounts in our newsletter.
I now deal with ‘The Sun’ statement that ‘Mr Bennett is thought to have £90,000 in private accounts’. This is how that statement arose.
At the meeting with Kirwans, Solicitors, Liverpool, on 2 October 2009, the lawyers asked about our personal financial circumstances. I told them honestly that my current annual income was £14,000 (I have just filed my tax return) and that I had ‘a few tens of thousands’ saved up for my old age. This is where the ‘£90,000’ comes from.
I take this opportunity to say that I have not made one penny either from the sale of ’60 Reasons’ nor in any way from The Madeleine Foundation; indeed it was my declared intent at the outset to make not a penny in any way connected with Madeleine’s disappearance. Our accounts will shortly be audited and that will I trust make it still plainer that there is no fraud or financial impropriety or irregularity in the conduct of The Madeleine Foundation’s affairs.
Contrary to the hopes of Gerry and Kate McCann as expressed in ‘The Sun’ article that ‘The Foundation is now in meltdown’, we have new blood on our Committee, we have a members’ meeting shortly, and we have plans.
Finally I wish to take this opportunity to clear up a few false rumours that appear to have been put about on the internet by Debbie Butler and including statements made by ‘Stevo’, Debbie Butler’s friend, on what was our website, www.madeleinefiudnation.org
I have seen claims that Debbie Butler put large amounts of money into The Madeleine Foundation. That is wholly untrue. As the above record of income shows, she made a loan of £350 in the initial stages to help get ’60 Reasons’ printed and published. On 7 October 2009 she asked for the return of that loan and I sent her a cheque the very same day. However, in addition, as the bank records will prove, I sent her more than £350. I sent her a cheque for £500 which included a further £150 which was my best estimate of the amount she had underclaimed in postage and stationery to date. There is email correspondence on this issue which I am happy to disclose if asked.
Second, I have seen references made to a ‘mysterious amount’ paid out of The Foundation’s accounts. This was a sum of £800.00 expenses paid to me on 30 September on a cheque signed by Debbie Butler and which she knows about. The £800, which is fully backed by receipts, consists of a back claim for postage and stationery etc. and also a payment of £245.00 I made to Vera Steinke to finance a print run of 250 copies of the German translation of ’60 Reasons’ (income from those sales is pending). The large claim for postage etc. arose for two reasons.
First, Debbie Butler had become increasingly erratic in sending out ’60 Reasons’ to those who had paid for it via PayPal, and I was getting increasing numbers of complaints from people whose orders had not been fulfilled. I simply had to take over the sending out of the booklets to ensure that that side of our work was run efficiently.
Second, the press articles about the distribution of the ’10 Reasons’ leaflet in Leicestershire in August caused a huge upsurge of interest in our work and many new orders for booklets and other enquiries. Thus postage costs rose rapidly for the weeks after that.
I had planned to leave early to see my mother on the south coast this weekend, today 7 November is my late father’s birthday. When I’ve sent this off, we shall be away for the weekend, but if anyone has any queries I’ll be happy, as always, to answer them, after then.
Needless to say, when I have a moment, there will be a complaint from me to The Press Complaints Commission about the article, which appears to have been printed based on ‘information’ supplied by Debbie Butler and hs not in any way been checked with me.
I’m downcast but not defeated.
Mobile: 07835 716537
Please note that Gonçalo Amaral's book has been reproduced into English using AnnaEsses's translation and printed, by Stevo of the disbanded Madeleine Foundation, without permission from either Gonçalo Amaral or AnnaEsse.
To read the original English FREE translation of The Truth of the Lie, please click here
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Gerry and Kate McCann's latest appeal for help over their missing daughter Maddie was overshadowed yesterday by some tough questions from a Portuguese journalist.
The 41-year-olds were asked about allegations made in a book by Goncalo Amaral, the detective formerly in charge of the case.
The pair from Rothley, Leicestershire, denied there was a pact of silence over what happened in Praia da Luz in May 2007.
Mr McCann said later: 'The place to have those discussions is in the judicial and legal environment.'
More on Joana Morais' blog
Short version of Sandra Felgueiras interview with the McCann's - full version available soon.
By Jon Clements, Crime Correspondent, on Nov 3, 09 11:01 AM in
Among the many interesting comments made by Jim Gamble, Britain's most senior child trafficking and abuse cop, about the disappearance of Madeleine was his theory about how whoever was involved would be regularly checking the internet to see if the net is closing in.
Gamble believes the new viral advert will "rattle" the offender or offenders because "every time you search for updates about where the investigation is you will meet this prompt to your conscience".
His willingness to discuss the case was a welcome relief after two and half years of complete silence from Leicestershire police, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Gamble was reluctant to offer his own theory of what happened in Praia da Luz saying it "didn't matter" if Madeleine was taken for trafficking, or sexual exploitation or by some "deluded soul" who wanted to raise their own child.
Two words which did not pass his lips at any point, however, were "kidnap" and "abduct". Instead the case was strictly referred to as a "disappearance".
One thing Gamble did make clear, however, was his passionate belief that the advert would help find Madeleine and that it was still possible she remained alive.
"Statisticians do that most awful thing", he said. "They take away people's hope".
So do sniffer dogs.
By Martin Brunt - Crime Correspondent
The Madeleine appeal relies on the assumption that someone knows her abductor but won't tell because of love, loyalty or fear.
It would be unusual if no-one knew, or was at least suspicious.
The success of the appeal also hinges on that person's guilt at not divulging the secret.
Detectives insist that relationships change and the justification for someone's silence might no longer be so strong.
Any information that emerges will be given to the Portuguese police for them to pursue.
As they have already failed the McCanns can they be relied on to do the right thing next time?
Is that the best you can do, Martin, as a crime correspondent?
Have a look here.
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
02 November 2009
'MAD COW' LEGISLATION
The Freedom of Information Act has revealed itself of late to be an indisputable contradiction in terms. Yes, members of the British public are completely at liberty to provide all the information required of them when submitting a Tax return, or seeking state aid of any kind. (Quite ridiculously different government departments each have their own form of what is, in effect, the same questionnaire, given they solicit the same information and ultimately share it among themselves anyway). How many of us have been greeted by an automated telephone exchange announcing that 'this conversation may be recorded for training or security purposes?' But put the boot on the other foot and what happens? The phrase 'We cannot confirm or deny' is already to 'officialese' what 'tailored to your requirements' is to 'ad-speak' - an overworked cliché. The fact is that information flow between the UK public and official bodies created to serve it is as uni-directional as a lemming's last leap.
The law of unintended consequences has beset, in every case, the imposition of performance targets, whether by Ofsted, the Home Office or the NHS. Almost inevitably, the 'duty of care' becomes subordinated by employees, whose own survival instinct necessarily obliges them to give primacy to the attainment of targets. In like fashion, aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, designed to enable access whilst at the same time protecting the individual from data snoopers with ulterior motives, have, albeit unintentionally, provided the government and its various agencies alike with a hatful of 'get out clauses'. In terms of successful acquisition of information held by official bodies, the exception proves the rule, because the exemption has been proven to rule. Never mind the question, if the organisation concerned can find an exemption to fit the genuine answer then the only one likely to be forthcoming is that of the Foxtrot Oscar variety.
There can be no more blatant an example of this tactic in action than the FCO response to a request, lodged on 9 October, 2007, for the content of e-mails, on the subject of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, exchanged between John Buck (former UK Ambassador to Portugal), the Portuguese authorities, and the FCO itself. Consider the following sequence of events, distilled, for the sake of brevity, from the final decision (and explanation thereof) delivered by the office of the Commissioner for Information:
• 6 November, 2007: FCO indicated that exemptions from the act applied under sections 27 and 31
• 3 December, 2007: Some information released but other information withheld under exemptions contained in section 27 (1)(a), section 31(1) (c and section 40 (2) and (3).
It is worth noting, even at this early stage, that Section 27 of the FOIA covers International Relations, Section 31 situations where disclosure would be prejudicial to Law Enforcement, and Sections 40 (2) and (3) Personal Data. Information provided in confidence is covered under section 41.
Unsurprisingly the enquirer appealed the original decision of the FCO, his request subsequently receiving the scrutiny of the Commissioner of Information (or his staff at least) who considered application of section 27 and the public interest as well as application of section 40 to some relevant personal information being held by FCO.
• 12 November 2008: FCO maintained section 27, 31 and 40 exemptions for some information held.
• FCO continued to withhold some relevant communications along with a small amount of personal information.
• 13 November 2008: The Commissioner's staff examined the information being withheld.
• 24 November: FCO release some information but continue to withhold other information, relying on 27(1)(a) exemption
So, in respect of the original request, all information being withheld at this time is now bracketed under this same exemption, applicable under section 27.
Next from within the Commissioner's response comes a highly significant 'finding of fact', one of two such recorded; a point-by-point analysis in respect of the various decisions as announced is offered thereafter. Salient points of particular significance are brought forth here, edited and underlined for the sake of clarity.
Finding of Fact
• 14. FCO told the Commissioner that a family member had made clear to FCO staff that all comments made by that individual to FCO had been made in strict confidence and were not intended for disclosure to third parties. FCO did not approach the family member again during the Commissioner's investigation but told the Commissioner that they were confident the individual would not appreciate being contacted regarding disclosure of the relevant personal information, a position the Commissioner accepted.
• 19. Inappropriate disclosure (of information still being withheld) would cause overseas governments and public authorities in Portugal and elsewhere to lose trust in the reliability and discretion of UK government and UK public authorities.
Section 27 exemption is therefore engaged. The argument is that disclosure of Ambassador Buck's communications with Portuguese authorities could cause substantial damage to international relations.
• 26. Concern that 'disclosure of confidences or of other sensitive material would have damaging implications for any possible further developments on this matter and relevant future investigations in Portugal or elsewhere. This would not be in the best interests of the McCann family, including Madeleine.'
• 27. Section 27(1)(a) exemption therefore maintained.
But confidences are covered under section 41 of the FOIA, not section 27.
• 28. Since the decision is that information was correctly withheld under section 27, the Commissioner did not go on to consider Section 31 exemption, also relied upon by FCO in refusing to disclose the information to the complainant.
• 29. FCO had a small amount of personal information which had been provided to FCO staff in strict confidence. FCO said that the provider did not wish the information to be disclosed to third parties and that disclosure would be unfair and so would breach the second data protection principle. It would thereby be exempt under section 40 of the act.
• 31. In this case FCO stated that the requested information constituted the personal data of third parties and was therefore exempt under section 40 (2) of the Act.
• The Commissioner has had to consider whether this constitutes personal data. Section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 defines personal data as information which relates to a living individual who can be identified:
From that data, or
From that data and other information in the possession of the data controller
Now this all seems very contentious. What is being discussed here, having already been described as fact, is personal information, not personal data. Data can be withheld if identification of a living person can be made from it. But so too, for the same reason, can 'other information', in which case said information is classified as data for the purposes of interpretation under the act.
So, all you have to do is append your own or someone else’s name to whatever observation you might make to anyone in officialdom and it becomes immune to public scrutiny?
Nevertheless the Commissioner does not even go on to consider this information under Section 41 - confidences.
In the specific context of the McCann case, critics of this and other examples of the FOIA at work (or not, as the case may be) run the risk of being accused of paranoia over any attempt to attribute Machiavellian motives to the ultimate decision makers involved. But 'Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you!'
With particular reference to the so-called 'personal information' involved here, refusal of this application for disclosure is suspect on a number of counts.
The application was considered by the FCO and the COI subsequently to entail personal information relayed in confidence. But the matter of confidentiality per se was never once addressed, the Commissioner being satisfied that exemption under section 40 (personal data) was sufficient. Stranger yet was the FCO's prior assumption that section 27 would prove all-embracing (point 24 above). It is difficult to avoid forming the impression that, whatever this 'sensitive material' was, the FCO and COI made it their joint concern that an exemption would be found to fit.
From point 29 previously we have learnt that the FCO had a small amount of personal information … provided to FCO staff in strict confidence, that the provider did not wish to be disclosed to third parties as that would be unfair and exempt under section 40 of the act.
If we place this statement within the overall context of an application for sight of correspondence between Ambassador John Buck, Portuguese authorities and the FCO, what does that tell us about confidentiality? If this personal information, never explicitly requested in the first instance, was entailed in the communications of others, then there are grounds for supposing that the constraint on disclosure required by the initial provider had already been overruled. If, on the other hand, we subscribe to the COI's own description of circumstances immediately post November 12, 2008, i.e. that 'FCO continued to withhold some relevant communications along with a small amount of personal information,' then why should the FCO have entered it among their list of concerns in the first instance? If your neighbour doesn’t ask to borrow your lawn mower you don’t worry about lending it to him.
Now let's consider 'unfairness' and protection under section 40, whereby personal data (or personal information) that may lead to the identification of a living person can justifiably be withheld.
The first thing to notice from the COI's own response is that said personal information is described as originating with a 'family member'. A child has gone missing. There is only one family directly involved. As a percentage of the UK population, even in its extended form, it represents hardly more than a string of noughts after the decimal place. The fact is that the FCO themselves have already narrowed down any search by the inquisitive to a very small group of people, all of whom are readily identifiable, having previously, and one might add deliberately, come forward and made themselves known to the general public. Upon which member of the clan might disclosure of the small amount of personal data have been unfair therefore, and why? Because they did not wish to be bothered afterwards by 'phone calls and further questions? This is not a reason, it is an excuse.
'Just imagine', as we are currently being exhorted to do, your child has gone missing. You sit by the 'phone waiting for news - any news, and take all calls regardless, even if they include the occasional appeal to your wallet by double-glazing salesmen operating out of Calcutta. You don’t, under any circumstances, hang a 'Do not disturb!' sign on your door.
Or perhaps the identity risk attaching to release of this 'personal information', initially subsumed under the 'jeopardy to international relations' argument, was that of Madeleine McCann herself. Again, we have been (and continue to be) encouraged to speak out, to come forward with that 'key bit of information.' After two years, indeed after two hours, the more precisely a missing person can be specified to the general public the better. He or she may have some behavioural idiosyncrasy, as opposed to any unique physical trait, which, under certain circumstances, might mark him or her out from the crowd. Basically the more the searchers know about their objective the better. One could be forgiven for harbouring the thought that someone who deliberately withholds information in such a case is less than keen on seeing the person discovered.
In sum, these decisions on the part of the FCO, and latterly the COI, smack of subterfuge.
"If you know something, say something" intones the FindMadeleine website currently, because, "If you stay quiet you're as guilty as those who took her." So, in order to salve my conscience I might 'say something', but to avoid any misunderstanding, accusations of slander, or questions later, I'll put a bucket over my head. That way the listener won’t be able either to understand or to recognize me. Strictly speaking I shall have done what was requested. But will I have done the right thing by Madeleine?
No, Mr Commissioner. Don't hand us tales of protecting the identity of those who have already identified themselves; or of little ones crying out to be identified. Nor claim an unwarranted respect for the convenience and confidentiality of an individual, who is disposed to sharing crucial information with the FCO, but not with anyone else; and that would include the very people in Portugal using their best endeavours to determine the fate of their young relative.
But remember, "It's never too late to do the right thing."
Written by Dr Martin Roberts for mccannfiles
These are the images that show how Madeleine McCann would look two and a half years after she vanished.
Police hope the new computer generated pictures will spark a flood of possible sightings and lead them to the missing youngster’s whereabouts.
One shows how she would appear, now aged six, if being held in Europe – with her skin still pale.
The other is an image of her face had she been taken to North Africa, with a suntan and dark hair.
(If Maddie is being let out of her secret lair in a lawless village in Praia da Luz to get a suntan in North Africa, then surely her hair would get lighter?)
The pictures were released after Madeleine’s heartbroken parents Gerry and Kate, both 41, begged one of Britain’s leading child abduction police officers to help them find their precious daughter, who vanished from a Portuguese holiday apartment in May 2007.
They wrote a letter to Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre boss Jim Gamble – and he was so moved by it he decided there and then to get involved.
The officer yesterday launched a 60-second internet video clip aimed at people who may know Madeleine’s kidnapper.
Mr Gamble said: “It is the first time it has been done and I absolutely believe this has the opportunity, the potential, to get to the person we are looking for. We are not looking for someone who has seen this girl particularly.
“We are looking for the person who knows or strongly suspects the individual or individuals involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. The person who for a long time has perhaps struggled with their conscience keeping a terrible secret.” Mr Gamble is convinced Madeleine may still be alive and pointed to the case of American teenager Jaycee Dugard as evidence. He added: “I’ve reviewed cases of children who turned up four, eight, eighteen years later. Statisticians do that most awful of thing, taking away people’s hope.
Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, pleaded for help after reaching a “low point” in their hopes they would ever see Madeleine again.
A friend said: “Jim was moved by the letter and agreed to do what he could. It personally touched him.”
Kate and Gerry say in the clip: “We are extremely grateful to Ceop for launching this new message.
“If you know what has happened to Madeleine, it is still not too late to do the right thing and come forward. We love Madeleine. Please help us bring her home.”
Paulo Reis: Is Madie being held near Praia da Luz or in North Africa?
November 3, 2009
Viral video targets family and friends of Madeleine abductor
Sean O’Neill, Crime Editor
A viral message directed at a friend, relative or partner of the person who abducted Madeleine McCann, telling them that “it is never too late to do the right thing”, went online at midnight.
The video was created to “infiltrate the internet” by spreading from news websites to blogs and social networks until it is the first thing that appears when the missing child’s name is typed into a search engine.
Jim Gamble, the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said that the message was founded on the belief that, like Jaycee Dugard in California and Natasha Kampusch in Austria, Madeleine could be rescued or reappear despite being missing for more than two years ago.
“This is about hope, it’s about collective hope. I believe this message will deliver answers for us,” said Mr Gamble, who studied 11 child abduction cases in which the victims had reappeared after long periods in captivity.
Mr Gamble launched “A Minute for Madeleine” with a plea to internet users to view the video and disseminate it.
Harnessing the power of the viral message is a new technique in an investigation but the core idea of the 60-second film is based on the old detective’s adage that “everyone has a best friend” and someone will talk.
Madeleine was 3 years old when she went missing on a family holiday in Portugal in May 2007. The new video contains “aged progressed” images of how she might look today, aged 6. One shows the girl with blonde hair, while the other shows her with dark hair and tanned skin, as she might look if she was being held in a hot country.
The message has gone online in seven languages — English, Arabic, Portuguese, Spanish, French, German and Italian — and will be promoted around the world by police forces, missing persons agencies and Interpol.
It represents the first time that a British law enforcement agency has taken the lead in the international hunt for the missing girl. Her mother, Kate McCann, will conduct a series of television interviews today to promote the message.
Mr Gamble stressed that the video was not a public appeal but a message to one person who knew or suspected that someone close to them had taken the child. “It’s aimed at prompting the conscience of the person who is keeping the secret,” Mr Gamble said.
“The person we are looking to reach is likely to be a partner, family member, friend or colleague of the person or people who were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.” He said he believed that the abductor would be regularly checking the internet for developments in the investigation and would be “rattled” by the video, which was prepared with the help of psychologists.
Mr Gamble said: “This is not the normal criminal psychology approach. We’re not looking at the criminal, but at the associate and saying to them, ‘You can redeem yourself’.
“We believe there is someone out there who is associated and who knows. This person doesn’t need to see an age progressed image of Madeleine — this person knows who Madeleine is and who committed the crime.” Mr Gamble stressed that there were no new leads, nor fresh intelligence behind the launch of the message. He added: “In a case like this the investigation is never closed”.
Source: Times Online
Times Online: Framed for child porn _ by a PC virus
By Duarte Levy
Kate's time has come.
Kate McCann, mother of the little English girl who disappeared in the Algarve two years ago, is the face of the new campaign which the couple launch today jointly with the English police in London and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).
Now that the twins Sean and Amélie are in full-time education, Maddie's mum is taking on a more active role in the campaign which the couple launched nine days after the disappearance and which is now entering, "a new phase."
The new campaign, with the assistance of Lift Consulting, Portuguese PR specialists, is targeted at our country, where the McCann couple say they believe that someone could still hold information on the subject of what, in fact, happened to the child on the night she disappeared.
The launch of the new campaign kicks off today in the British capital where the press is invited to two briefings - "because of a time difference," as confirmed by Claudia Nogueira of Lift Consulting, the first meeting will only involve English journalists, the second being scheduled for the Portuguese press.
The two ex-police officers hired by the couple, David Edgar and Arthur Cowley, believe that the answer to Maddie's mysterious disappearance lies in a radius of 10 miles around the Ocean Club, from where the child disappeared on May 3rd 2007. With the new campaign they say they expect that someone will come forward who will lead them to the answer.
For the moment, Kate and Gerry McCann will not be returning to the Algarve and will see journalists in England, but they say they are in the process of organising a private trip back to Praia da Luz, probably before the end of the year.
"Imagine if it had been your daughter. Imagine the sadness and suffering. Imagine someone like yourself never coming forward. If you remain silent, you are as guilty as those who have taken her," the couple write on the internet site for the private fund which they created after the alleged abduction. IMAGINE
The campaign, launched almost simultaneously with legal action against the former coordinator of the PJ who investigated the disappearance, Gonçalo Amaral, includes interviews which Kate MCann will give this week to the English and Portuguese press.
Translated by AnnaEsse
A little reminder of the 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer to help find Madeleine:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
And the BBC and ITV is going to give this bitch 'air time'?
by Miguel Ferreira
“I don’t know the book and I have never been contacted by the author”, says Gonçalo Amaral about a book about the Maddie case that investigator Brian Johnson promises will soon be available in the United States. “I have received news from that gentleman only yesterday, through an email that he sent me to inform me about the cover, where one can read ‘Madeleine McCann, Faked Abduction’”, added the former PJ inspector.
Accompanying the image, a brief text: “To be published soon in the United States. In support of the many and good investigators that dedicated themselves to finding the truth that lies behind the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”.
The book, with data from the Judiciária’s investigation, points towards the death of Madeleine McCann.
An unexpected story
According to information that is published on the Internet, where Brian is also responsible for the “truthformadeleine.com” website, the book highlights “the inconsistencies in the various alibis, the ever-changing witness accounts and the lack of police cooperation from the McCanns and their friends, the so-called Tapas 7”. Brian Johnson also mentions that “while researching the book, the McCanns have declined to answer important questions relating to the disappearance of their daughter”. For the North American, there was a clear attempt to gag the persons that wanted to publish the truth about the case.
And Brian advises, “after reading the book, decide for yourself if this was a Faked Abduction”.
For Amaral, this is an unexpected story. “It was surprising to see my name and that of inspector Tavares de Almeida cited right on the cover”. The policeman, who retired from the PJ, further states that he does not know the book’s content and also rejects that it could be “an attempt to reply to the prohibition” of his book “The Truth about the Lie”.
Concerning news that have been published in the Portuguese media, referring to negotiations between Brian and Amaral, the policeman states that they are false, and recalling that the publication rights over his book belong to editor “Guerra & Paz”, he further questions “if that gentleman wanted to write a book, what could he possibly want to negotiate with me?”
Kate and Gerry McCann’s spokesperson has already stated that he does not know the book, but asserted that any attempt towards defamation will face justice.
A new lawsuit from Joana’s mother
Gonçalo Amaral is serene over the news that come “from the other side of the Atlantic”, but restless and revolted about the news that have been imposed by the Portuguese justice. Yesterday, he was summoned to give a statement, at the Public Ministry at the Court of Portimão, within the certificates that have been extracted from the process that opposed Leonor Cipriano to several Judiciária policemen, namely Gonçalo Amaral.
Unsatisfied with the jury court’s decision, Marcos Aragão, Joana’s mother’s lawyer, has filed new lawsuits against the former Polícia Judiciária inspector. Within those, he returned to court but remained silent. “I will only speak when the complaint that I have filed in April, against Marcos Aragão, suffers some sort of advancement”, he indignantly told 24Horas, explaining that, relating to that case, “nothing was done, nobody was heard”.
In his complaint, Amaral requests, for example, that Marcos Aragão is subject to a mental evaluation.
source: 24Horas, 30.11.2009
Compiled by 'Truestepper' on Sky Discussions: "It reminds me of a quote from the FBI:" "Taken alone, each piece ...
Did Madeleine McCann die on Sunday 29th April 2007, four days before she was reported missing? Strong evidence that she did.A short paper by the Madeleine McCann Research Group (MMRG) DID MADELEINE MCCANN DIE ON SUNDAY 29 APRIL, FOUR DAYS BEFORE SHE WAS REPORTED...
What happened to Madeleine McCann? 50 facts about the case that the British media are not telling youWhat happened to Madeleine McCann? 50 facts about the case that the British media are not telling you Among other things you’ll find in th...
Retired Police Superintendent, Peter MacLeod's free ebook: What really happened to Madeleine McCann?Written by retired Police Superintendent PeterMac: Many years have passed since the original e-book was published online, and...
What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted Madeleine McCann was reported missing by...
The journalist and the film maker: "They walked past the press, sniffer dogs, police to get to the shops. But they didn't get inv...
Is Dr David Payne, formerly of Leicester Royal Infirmary, now working at Woodland Hospital in Kettering, involved in the most shocking crime of the century involving the death of Madeleine McCann?Let's not forget that Madeleine Beth McCann, aged 3, is now dead Mr Payne. Should you still be on the Medical Register? Here's ...
29. Kate McCann confessing to her mother on the ‘phone, soon after Madeleine disappeared: ‘It was an accident, Mum, it was an accident’ Wh...
1. Did they use the babysitting service provided? NO 2. Did they use any listening devices? NO 3. Did they leave three children under 4 a...