Kate and Gerry McCann: Old chestnuts and unfinished business

Some useful information has been posted on The 3 Arguidos:

"Alan Rawley QC and Professor Brian Caddy have both accepted the Home Secretary’s invitation to carry out the Independent Review of forensic work carried out by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) during the police investigation into the death of Damilola Taylor."

Wouldn't it be a good idea for the McCanns to call in a few more of those favours and request an Independent Review of the evidence carried out by the FSS?

After all what parents of a missing child, especially one who has been taken by a paedophile, wouldn't want an independent review of all the evidence in their quest to leave no stone unturned? What innocent parents wouldn't want to know where all that blood, hair and cadaver odour came from? What innocent, responsible, parents wouldn't want to clear their names and remove that cloud of suspicion that will, otherwise, hang over them for the rest of their lives? What mother of a missing child wouldn't want to be able to walk round Marks and Spencer in Loughborough without people whispering about her in the aisles? What parents wouldn't want to prove us all wrong so that we can all whoosh cluck our blogs and forums and hang our heads in shame for having doubted them? What innocent parents wouldn't relish the opportunity to sue some more people, like Gonçalo Amaral for instance who quite openly says "The parents did it." Or how about retired solicitor Tony Bennett who's written a book suggesting sixty reasons why Maddie hasn't even been abducted, let alone by a paedophile?

And, of course, what doctors wouldn't like to know that their colleagues and patients don't think they've got away with moider, even if the Government set ridiculous budget-busting targets which encourages some doctors to tell patients they can't be saved from an 'inoperable' condition when, in fact, they really can.

Ok, so Kate and Gerry have probably conned enough money out of the general public by now to retire but what about their friends, the Tapas 7? Dilemma.

Ok, so Kate's memory wasn't too great when it came to answering the 48 questions put to her by the Polícia Judiciária, and it wasn't convenient for them or their mates to take part in a reconstruction at that time and they had to send their apologies to DS Stuart "hope you are well" Prior, and they even, sadly, missed the deadline to request that the investigation remained open to find their three year old daughter, presumably because they were sidetracked translating the PJ files. It must be so frustrating for Kate and Gerry to know that no one is looking for Maddie, despite having conned raised millions of pounds from the general public to pay their mortgage pay dodgy detectives to frame a policemen to search for her.

As Gerry said in his last blog entry "We just have to find her!"

Of course you do, Gerry, so here's your chance. And I hope you find this information useful. Go for it.

Before Tony Bennett does.

Kate and Gerry 'go for it' in Portugal

Independent Review of the Forensic Science Service
23 August 2006

Terms of Reference of the Independent Review of the Forensic Science Service

To conduct a review of the forensic examination of evidence carried out by the FSS following the death of Damilola Taylor.
To establish an agreed set of facts and time-line of the FSS’ examination of this evidence.
In the light of its findings above, to make recommendations to the Home Secretary on the need or otherwise to re-examine forensic evidence in other comparable cases.
To make recommendations to the Home Secretary and the Board of the FSS on the need or otherwise to make changes in its examination procedures and the recruitment, training and management of forensic scientists by the FSS.
To make recommendations, as necessary, to the Home Secretary on the future role of the Forensic Regulator in the oversight of standards applicable to all suppliers providing forensic services to the Criminal Justice System within the UK.

Notes to Editors:

On Wednesday 9 August 06 two brothers (Ricky and Danny Preddie) were found guilty at the Old Bailey of the manslaughter of Damilola Taylor. The Home Office issued a statement announcing an independent review into the Forensic Science Service's handling of this case.
Alan Rawley QC is an extremely experienced barrister, having been called to the Bar in 1958 and took Silk in 1977, and has acted for both prosecution and defence in criminal casework. He was Recorder of the Crown Court between 1972 and 1999 and is a member of the Criminal Bar Association. He was Head of Outer Temple Chambers between 1987 and 1996 where he is now a member. Some of his high profile cases include R v Mayhew (Guinness) and R v Brown (Blue Arrow) both concerning allegations of fraud in share dealing. He appeared in the House of Lords in the Lonhro case (Contempt of Court allegations against the company and its Directors) and in R v Derek Hatton (ex-Labour Councillor) alleged fraud.
Since 2000, Professor Brian Caddy has been Emeritus Professor of Forensic Science at Strathclyde University. He has a doctorate in Synthetic Carbohydrate Chemistry and is an authorised forensic scientist under section 26 of the Criminal Justices (Scotland) Act 1980. From 2001 to 2004 he was an external examiner to Centrex/Durham University Diploma on Crime Scene Investigation and from 1999 to date he is an Advisor to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Source: Home Office Press Office

Discussion at the 3 arguidos: Ask for an Independent Review of FSS work on Maddie's case

The Cracked Mirror: Reflections on the McCann affair

Matthew Oldfield: “It’s just we are sort of fairly similar...we’re sort of from the same background, we have similar issues about child rearing, which is why we sort of get on.”

(Would you really want this doctor to give you any kind of diagnosis? "I'm sort of familiar with the disease you've got... it's erm a sort of a cold sore... it's sort of fairly similar to herpes but much worse which is erm sort of why you're going to die")

Moving on... this is an article from a new website posted on The McCann Gallery

Matthew Oldfield, despite the anger that could overtake him at their collective fate, was one of the more laid-back members of the group. Not querulous, like Russell O’Brien, who typically spent some hours of his UK police interview making nit-picking and sometimes self-serving corrections to his statement, Oldfield described himself as “somewhere between” the fumbling David Payne and the thoroughly driven motormouth Glaswegian Gerry McCann. Tall and fit, greying, conventionally good looking, the granite face, without a sensual feature to it, speaks of a certain decency, strength and determination in the eyes and mouth as well as a sense of modesty. The latter might well have contributed to the swelling discomfort manifest on the High Court steps: Matthew Oldfield, in contrast to his wife, doesn’t like being the centre of attention.

The full article can be read here on: Madeleine McCann Affair

The Many 'Casualties' of Kate and Gerry McCann

Gerry McCann returned to work whilst others' lost their jobs

The investigation into Maddie’s disappearance, apart from the enormous worldwide media exposure, was marked by a relevant number of casualties among the diplomats and policemen who participated or touched this sensitive case.

In Portugal, after the exit of Gonçalo Amaral, who was removed from the Maddie case investigation by request from the British authorities, the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) also then lost national director, Alípio Ribeiro, as well as several other inspectors.

Guilhermino Encarnação, a joint national director, responsible for the Directory of Faro at the moment when Madeleine McCann disappeared, may be the next confirmed casualty in this case. The man who became known in the investigation for having prevented Gonçalo Amaral from carrying out the interrogation of Kate McCann at a moment when she was, according to several inspectors who were present on location, “ready to talk”, has been on long-term leave due to health issues and is not returning to active anymore.

Despite the former director’s health issues, an internal source at the PJ in the Algarve advances that Guilhermino Encarnação only went on leave after the statements from a Spanish former private detective, who revealed the existence of a “mole” inside the PJ, who allegedly, and for months, provided information to Método 3, the agency that worked for the McCanns.

According to the statements from the former Método 3 operating officer, which were further confirmed by a PJ source, the “mole” wasn’t the PJ director in Faro, but rather a person who was close to him and under his protection.

On the British side, some diplomats and policemen also fell, including the ambassador and the consul in Portugal, respectively John Buck and Bill Henderson.

Ambassador John Buck was replaced on the 10th of September 2007, the day following the constitution of Kate and Gerry McCann as arguidos. One month earlier, in August of the same year, the consul in the Algarve, Bill Henderson, had resigned, fully abandoning the diplomatic career. His substitute, Celia Edwards, would not stay in Portugal for a long time, either.

The Foreign Office also lost Sheree Dodd and Clarence Mitchell, the former becoming the head of communications for the English parliament, and the latter, becoming the McCann couple’s official spokesman, while maintaining, for some time, a “privileged relationship” with the British government.

Duarte Levy
Discussion at the 3 arguidos: Duarte Levy: The Many 'Casualties' of the Maddie Case:
Spudgun: REAL NEW HOPE in those 30, 000 Police File Documents!!

Madeleine Fund Reward contributors (even though the McCanns never advertise it for obvious reasons)

Source: Getrealweekly
The 3 Arguidos: List of the reward contributors

Sandy Cameron explains why the reward is not being advertised
Gerry McCann’s Blogs contacted the Madeleine Fund with three questions about the reward to find Madeleine. Here are the original emails:

> From: reply@findmadeleine.com
> To: pamalam@hotmail.co.uk
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:09:28 +0000
> Subject: RE: Reward
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> In answer to your questions:
> As far as I know the rewards offered by the ‘News Of The World’
> and other benefactors are still available.
> However, we have had varying advice about the possible benefits
> and problems of rewards.
> So after consulation, a decision was made not to push the rewards
> on our website - although the situation is constantly being reviewed.
> In the meantime, if anyone has any information that may help our
> Investigation Team, they should contact:
> Email investigation@findmadeleine.com
> Tel +44 845 838 4699
> Sandy Cameron
From: pamalam [pamalam@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 12 December 2008 09:54
To: Campaign - Find Madeleine
Subject: Reward

Dear Sir/Madam

Could you answer 3 questions for me please?

[1] Why is the reward not shown on the official site?
[2] Is the reward no longer available?
[3] If it is no longer available what is the reason?

Many thanks


www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk<http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/> By Pamalam
Source: McCann Fund Fraud

Not because of this then, Sandy?

Sleep, you stinking cowards: we shall decide what freedom is

Philip Pullman

Are such things done on Albion's shore?

The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake's prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness - the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don't know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation - after all we have an Established Church - or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don't know who you are

You're mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don't want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

[Clarence Mitchell explains how he and the government plan to deal with internet freedom - here from 2.00 minutes on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7378010.stm]

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation's dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don't mind if we are. They don't think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as
the Protection from Harassment Act (1997),
the Crime and Disorder Act (1998),
the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000),
the Terrorism Act (2000),
the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001),
the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001),
the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002),
the Criminal Justice Act (2003),
the Extradition Act (2003),
the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003),
the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004),
the Civil Contingencies Act (2004),
the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005),
the Inquiries Act (2005),
the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005),
not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.


And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum.
Article found and posted by Tony Bennett on the 3 arguidos:
Sleep, you stinking cowards: we shall decide what freedom is

Leicestershire Constabulary still show their support for Kate and Gerry McCann's crimes

Neglect. Staging an abduction. Perverting the course of justice. Hiding a cadaver. Framing an innocent man. Fraudulently obtaining millions of pounds from the public to help pay their mortgage and frame a former policeman. And what do Leicestershire Police do? Flowers and a direct link to the McCann's website to help them con even more money out of the public.


Top image courtesy of Duarte Levy


McCann Fund Fraud

Leicestershire Constabulary

Spot the difference

Leicestershire Constabulary: To Serve and Protect

Kate and Gerry McCann: Not a sign of doubt about their innocence

From The Times
September 22, 2007

Our correspondent looks at the baleful influence of the marketing men

Matthew Parris

(This is a snippet from this article)

Marketing politics, marketing personality, marketing toothpaste, marketing a football club: they’re all converging on the same game of market positioning, the trick of finding out where your audience would like you to be, and locating yourself there. The electorate are unnerved by too much of this. It starts them asking what you’re really for, and where the real you is to be found. They do not look to political leadership for a mirror image of themselves alone.

Beneath the many polished surfaces of modern Britain, beneath the appeal of the slick, professional crafting of brands, narratives and messages, there is an aching hunger for authenticity. The immune system of this nation is developing antibodies to mere marketing. The whole priesthood and its methods are beginning to trigger an allergic reaction. And the people least likely to warn us that this is happening in the market are the very people we hire to tell us about markets: the marketing priesthood.

Look what they’ve done to Kate and Gerry McCann. Here were two people deserving of the most intense public sympathy. On a superficial level they got it – by the media bucketload. Yet did you not sense from an early stage an undertone of irritation at the couple? I’ve sensed it everywhere I go: not a sign of doubt about their innocence, which most of us take for granted, but a feeling, nevertheless, that they in some way invited trouble – though we banish the thought as brutal and wrong.

Which it is. So why the ungenerosity? I believe it is because Kate and Gerry McCann have allowed an impression to arise that they and their advisers are marketing their own tragedy. Where we would have expected to see parents distracted and disorganised by grief, we have seen a professionally run campaign to find out what the media want, and give it to them.

This has been done for a most defensible reason: to enlist the entire European public as amateur detectives in the search for Madeleine. But now her parents have ended up looking like film stars in a Hollywood weepy. Do those who have contrived this, or the couple themselves, have any inkling of the damage that professional marketing has done to this family’s image?

Kate and Gerry looking like filmstars in a Hollywood weepy :'(

Look at the damage we've done to this family's image!

NHS Doctors McCann: Maddie: Satellites and Espionage

by Paulo Sargento*

Duarte Levy has published an article in ‘24Horas’ newspaper, on Monday the 23rd of February 2009, that many unsuspecting readers might think was a Carnival joke.

But anyone who knows journalist Duarte Levy knows that, both in the ‘blogshpere’ and in the more traditional press, he is not a man to hide behind masks. Actually, that’s the very reason why, showing his face throughout the high quality investigation that he carries out, he has experienced a few misfortunes, just like Paulo Reis, Gonçalo Amaral, Hernâni Carvalho and others who, if it wasn’t for the excessive amount of events, on the same “targets”, and within particular time circumstances, one might state that these gentlemen share the common fact that… “they’re very unlucky”.

Within less than 2 years, these men have experienced more flat tires, car hits, unjustified detentions, persecutions, computer hackings, cowardly dog assassinations, phone threats, computer viruses, anonymous letters, forbidden document translations, thefts, robberies, meetings with mediums and threats to their physical integrity, than they had suffered in their entire lives.

Their ages lie between 40 and 50. But it took only 21 months for the number of “unpleasant” events to reach, for some of them, and within this time frame, occurrence rates that are 50 times higher than the probability that they occur with to any common citizen within an average 80 year life span. Amazing, isn’t it? And everything in silence and without (apparent) connections.

source: Câmara de Comuns blog, 25.02.2009

You can read the rest of this translated article on Joana Morais

The 3 Arguidos: Maddie: Satellites and Espionage (merged topics)

Image courtesy of Reggie Dunlop

Prince Charles' involvement in the McCanns 'national security' case

Herald Sun: Charles worries about Maddie
Prince Charles and Gerry McCann at Police Bravery Awards

Gonçalo Amaral: "There is a myth in society that without the body of a murder or of a disappearance nobody can be blamed"

by Belén Rodrigo
photo courtesy of Patrícia de Melo Moreira/DN © All rights reserved

Gonçalo Amaral : “Even if Marta’s cadaver does not appear it’s still possible to go to trial and convict the suspects’’

Have you followed the case of Martha?

It has not been followed thoroughly by the Portuguese press, but being in southern Portugal I am able to see the Spanish TV channels. I was in Madrid shortly after her disappearance, and I was able to follow what happened. The fact of being a teenager, albeit a minor, makes a difference as to other missing children cases. However the police work is identical to others until the hypothesis is placed on the suspect.

Now the problem is the appearance of the cadaver. There is a myth in society that without the body of a murder or of a disappearance nobody can be blamed. But it happens quite the contrary to what people may think, suspects can be convicted. What the Spanish police is doing is what we did with the Maddie case and what is done in other countries: to collect the biggest amount evidences and to have the investigation closed in terms of evidence, whether those are testimonial, confessions or materials. Thus, even without the corpse they may have enough evidence to bring the suspects to court and convict them. The Police did a reconstruction of the events, which is crucial for this type of investigations. That is what we tried to do with the McCanns and couldn't do it.
Full article can be read here: ABCdesevilla.es
Translated and posted on The 3 Arguidos by Joana Morais: Gonçalo Amaral in ABC Sevilla Interview

Clarence Mitchell leaflet distributed in Oxford 25.2.09

Tony Bennett and Helene Davies-Green outside the Oxford Union building

Grenville Green reaches the Sackler Library as he leaflets dozens of University institutions

Grenville Green delivers the Clarence Mitchell leaflet to residential areas close to the colleges

Madeleine Foundation member Sharon Bradford delivers the Clarence Mitchell leaflets to the Instituto Camoes Centre for Portuguese Language

Gonçalo Amaral: "the authorities wanted to abandon the Maddie case"

"There is no political will to reopen the case" 24horas/SOSMaddie

Duarte Levy
25 February 2009
Translation by Nigel Moore

The former PJ inspector, who led the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, is strongly critical of the Portuguese and English authorities

In an interview recorded in Vigo, Spain in October last year, but only now revealed, the former coordinator of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, accuses the Portuguese authorities of not having the political will to reopen the case and the investigation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

"The political will does not exist; there is no political will to reopen," accused the man formerly responsible for the investigation and added that "when a process of this type is archived, with so many diligences to take care of, with so many facts that needed clarification, that's because there was no will to continue the investigation and that was clear when we left the investigation on the 2nd of October."

To Gonçalo Amaral, there was a clear intention of the Portuguese authorities to abandon the investigation and "it will be very difficult for the process to be reopened."

In the interview, available on video on the internet (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com), Gonçalo Amaral reports the existence of "situations in the process which in our opinion have not been taken into account, which have not even been read or became known to those who had the duty to know it," stressing that the declaration of the couple of British doctors, that refer to a holiday in Majorca, where they saw the "gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people who were on vacation", were not taken into account before the process was archived.

To Gonçalo Amaral, those responsible in the public ministry should have read the details of the process, adding that he "cannot believe that they read such statements and passed over them."

UK accused of blocking

The author of "Maddie: The Truth of Lie," a successful book that continues without an edition in England, on the purpose of cooperation with the British authorities, also accused those at the "top of the English police hierarchy" of having blocked the progress of investigations.

According to the former PJ man, on the ground, collaboration with the British officers "was very tight, very intense," but things have not progressed when it came to the hierarchy.

The Case is confidential in England

During the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the British police were "invited" to sign a document of confidentiality that prevents them today from talking about what happened in Portugal or in England, a procedure that is not normal for police in England. "It is normal in cases with the secret services, and that document is signed right at the beginning. Now with normal police, undertaking a criminal investigation, that doesn't happen," said Amaral.

The former coordinator of the Judicial Police of CID in Portimão goes further and notes that it was Stuart Prior, one of the most important officers of the British police sent to Portugal, who said, regarding the evidence collected against the parents of Madeleine, that "he had arrested people in England with much less.
Source: mccannfiles

People 'Too Afraid' To Report Child Neglect

One in four adults admit fearing for the safety of a child, with over a third not passing on their worries to the authorities, a study has found.

The results of the Action for Children survey highlighted the difficulty of identifying and preventing the neglect of children.

The charity's chief executive, Clare Tickell, said child neglect represented a "real danger" to children.

The polling of other 1,000 adults revealed a hesitance among some to act on their suspicions, which can be harder to quantify compared to other starker forms of child abuse.

Leading the research, Professor Tony Long at Salford University said: "Unlike sexual or physical abuse, neglect is often overlooked and poorly understood."

Neglect was the leading reason why 45% of children in England were on the child protection register, a study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families found last year.

That compared to 15% for physical abuse, 7% for sexual abuse and 25% for emotional abuse.

Neglect involves a wide range of complex factors from children feeling that they are not loved, nourished, supported and clothed, to worrying that their home is not safe and secure.

Professor Long said the results of the survey "will inform Government policy, and have a major impact on the way children and their families are supported".

Mrs Tickell said Action for Children would now begin an investigation into the most effective ways to intervene early in cases of neglect.
Source: Sky News

Some people would rather be compensated than help a child

Gonçalo Amaral: "there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people"

Drs David Payne and Gerry McCann, Leicester Royal Infirmary, suspected of paedophilia

I thought I'd bring this post back up to the top as this subject is becoming increasingly important. Updated.


Twelve days after Maddie disappeared, a couple revealed the strange behaviour of one of the group’s members. Testimonies only reached the Judiciária in January this year (2008).

David Payne, one of the McCanns’ friends that were on holidays in the Algarve on the 3rd of May last year, when Madeleine disappeared, was suspected of paedophile behaviours.

The accusations were brought by a couple of friends that spent their holidays with part of the group in the summer of 2005 – themselves also English doctors. Twelve days after the British girl disappeared, Katherina and Arul could no longer keep the secret that had bothered them for two years and went to the police to make a statement. They revealed two conversations between Dave and Gerry, during which both revealed suspicious behaviour and indiciated sex with minors.

According to what CM was able to establish, the depositions were given on the 16th of May. But they only entered the process in January 2008 and are included in the 13th volume of the process files. At that point in time, Kate and Gerry were already arguidos, the rogatory letters had already been issued and the English, including Dave, showed their reluctance in returning to Portugal.

Touching the nipple

Katherina made a statement that was eight pages long. She reported holidays in Mallorca with several English [people], including the McCanns and the Paynes. Two incidents left her with serious doubts about the friends’ behaviour and lead her to create suspicions that were never confirmed.

The first one happened on a night when Gerry and Dave were talking about Maddie. Katherina does not know what they were saying but she remembers that Dave sucked on his fingers, pushing them into the mouth and pulling them out again, while his other hand traced a circle around the nipple, with a circular movement over the clothes. “That was done in a provocative manner”, recalls Katherina, who says that it stuck to her memory.

Days later, the scene repeated itself. The doctor saw Dave making the same gestures again, while he talked about his own daughter. Scared, Katherina said nothing about the incident. But she took special caution, asking her husband never to let the doctor come close to the bathroom when her daughter was having a bath.

Arul went to the police to tell the same story. Katherina’s companion confirmed the gestures that were made by Dave during the conversation with Gerry but asserted that he wasn’t aware that they were talking about Maddie. He did find the behaviour in extremely bad taste, but didn’t see it being repeated.

The incident ended up forgotten in his memory and it was only the disappearance of Madeleine, who had also been with them on the Mallorca vacation, that revived it.

During the deposition, Katherina went even further and said she had associated the gestures to someone who likes to watch child pornography. “I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different manner”, she concluded.

more details here

Source: Correio da Manhã 19.07.2008, paper edition. Translations by forum posters Kazlux and Astro (here)

Link: Jon Corner: Maddie was "SO BEAUTIFUL" with "SPECIAL QUALITY"

Jon Corner's very strange comment in Vanity Fair about three year old Maddie: “So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,” family friend Jon Corner says of the child. “So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that.”

Vanity Fair article
Discussion at The 3 Arguidos here
David Payne? (merged topics)
Nine UK doctors suspended after viewing child pornography
Specialist Crime Directorate
Exclusive Interview to the Former PJ Gonçalo Amaral.
Saddened, disillusioned............
Justice for Madeleine McCann
Tapas 9 profiles
Gonçalo Amaral: "there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people
David Payne 41, is a surgeon at Leicester Royal Infirmary, specialising in strokes. He helped run the Find Madeleine campaign. Speaking of Madeleine’s disappearance, he spoke for the first time to say: “We know they didn’t do it. One of our party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to happen but didn’t in our worst nightmare think it would be this.”

Duarte Levy: "At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?"

Gonçalo Amaral: "Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour."

A collaborative interview by Duarte Levy, Joana Morais, Astro and Mercedes

Duarte Levy: You have now seen that the Constitutional Court has authorised the use of phone taps in the [football corruption] “Golden Whistle” case. Do you think it would be possible to see the same happening in the McCann case, taking into account that the judge didn’t authorise access to the registers and taps that were carried out at that time?

Gonçalo Amaral: The issue is not the permission to access the phone taps. He didn’t authorize the access to information concerning the text messages. That is related to a bureaucratic matter. When those text messages took place, there was no phone surveillance. The understanding of that judge… to access that information, that data, there would have to be a duly authorised phone tap first, it’s a procedural matter. Some think it’s not like that, others have a different understanding, the Public Ministry did not appeal the decision of the Appeals Court, and therefore the case was tried and closed.

DL: Did the PJ ever read the contents of those text messages?

GA: Yes it did. Later on, when it was not very interesting anymore. What was at stake was the situation of the national service providers.

DL: During the first phase of the inquiry, after the disappearance of Madeleine, the PJ offered the McCanns a mobile phone with a Portuguese chip that the McCanns never used. On the other hand, they used two phone numbers that were supplied to them by Portuguese friends. Were those phones under surveillance?

GA: That phone that was offered to them, was the one that was tapped, right? That phone was for them to receive calls, this was during those diligences that were related with possible extortions, from the Dutch and the Spanish and it was to find out, for them to give that number when necessary, when they were asked for a contact number and a way to listen into the conversation with the possible abductor asking for money. It’s a perfectly normal procedure. As for the other phones that they may have used, I do not know about that.

DL: In the case, during the first weeks, in some reports, in some cases similar to this one, with the same resemblances, often the parents are advised not to publicise the case, based on the principle that this publicity can place the child’s life at risk. Were the two first press conferences that were held by the McCanns carried out with the agreement, the authorization from the PJ?

GA: No. The same happened in this case. They were advised not to publicise and to be careful with the press. And the person who did that right away wasn’t even from the PJ, but a member of the English social services, who had been working in that area for 25 years, working with endangered children, with abuse situations, who was on vacation in the area, in Praia da Luz, who on the very morning of the 4th [of May] contacts the couple and alerts them to that. But she is thrown out of the house, we can say.

DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?

GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].

DL: During that whole phase, and until you were removed from the field, the English policemen that were in Praia da Luz, how was the cooperation with them? Was there actually cooperation?

GA: Yes. The cooperation was very tight, very intense; there are no doubts about that.

DL: So which part of the English authorities originated that blockade?

GA: That is certainly, and it was, coming from the top of the English hierarchy.

DL: The English policemen were invited to sign a confidentiality document. At the PJ, is that a normal procedure?

GA: No. And it’s not normal with the English police, either. It is normal in cases with the secret services, and that document is signed right at the beginning. Now with normal police, doing criminal investigation, that doesn’t happen.

DL: Concerning participations from outside of this case, it is normal for the ambassador, this has happened before in the Algarve, unfortunately, other cases involving British citizens. Is it normal for the ambassador to travel there?

GA: No. Neither in British cases nor non-British cases, they don’t have that responsibility. What is normal is for the information to be relayed by the consulate, that is what happens and only then the ambassador may come. And now we think that the ambassador came right away because of those initial suspicions and the first requests that were made which indicated that we suspected the couple, and he intervened in a manner that is not normal. He should have stayed in Lisbon, at the police’s National Directory, speaking with the National Director and not on location. And him leaving Portimão then led to a communiqué that the PJ somehow was “committed” to the abduction theory.

DL: Concerning other individuals that were connected with this case, the appearance of Brian Kennedy, namely during the meeting that he held with Murat, did the PJ ever find out about the purpose of that meeting?

GA: I was not in the investigation anymore during that phase, I had already left, but I know that this gentleman has gone as far as meeting people from the PJ after I left, which is not correct. Even more so because that gentleman brought certain Spanish detectives with him. That behaviour from the PJ’s senior officials in not the most acceptable one.

DL: Concerning not only this case, or other cases, how seriously could the events of the Madeleine case affect future cases?

GA: Well, in this case, like in all other cases, they affect the future [cases]. We have to learn from our mistakes and from the difficulties that we experienced. For example, in an earlier case, from 2004, the so-called “Joana case”, a disappearance as well, us investigators requested for the National Directory of the Police to intervene in a manner that would produce new regulations, new procedures for this type of inspection, to treat these disappearances. For example, there’s a very important issue. The disappearance in itself, when you go to a police station, or to the GNR or to the PJ, for missing persons, there is no specific competence for missing persons. There is no process for that. We have to investigate everything. The disappearance may or may not be related to a criminal situation and the issue may be whose competence is this? This has to be defined very quickly, we have been talking about that for a long time, over many cases and so far, nothing has been done about that. To define the competence from the outset. In all cases, the competence should be, at least in children’s cases, the PJ’s. Because many times what is at really the issue is that the disappearance has the parents’ intervention, in situations of divorce and there is a need and they take the children abroad, because it is the PJ that has the competence and the contacts on an international level, namely with Interpol, so the PJ dominates those channels for international cooperation, and from there, right away these cases should be the PJ’s competence, but that has not been defined. This leads to an initial intervention by the criminal police force that is informed of the disappearance. It’s always an intervention, almost always a disastrous intervention, because the more time goes by, the more pieces of evidence, opportunities to collect evidence are lost and only at a much later moment in time the PJ appears. When one thinks it’s an abduction, normally that’s what happens, it’s an abduction, it’s the PJ’s competence, nobody mentions a homicide or a voluntary disappearance, what is mentioned is abduction then it’s the PJ, and when we intervene it’s at a latter moment.

What happened in this case of Madeleine, we were called almost when the disappearance took place, only a few hours later, but still things went wrong. Why did they go wrong? Because there is a lack of said procedures concerning these situations. And this sensibility that many investigators have, to understand that an abduction is actually the theft of a person, but it cannot be handled like any theft. For example, all possibilities must be kept open, from a voluntary disappearance to, effectively, abduction, or homicide, or the death of the child. Therefore, it is necessary for the PJ to create this very quickly, I think they are doing that, I don’t think actually, I certain of it, there is already a commission that has been nominated to do that, to define those rules and those procedures for us to act. In my book I even mention it would be enough to follow the English, what the British authorities have concerning these situations. They have much more cases in situations of this type, don’t they? With the number of times that this happens in Portugal, maybe it doesn’t lead to, it hasn’t been that essential element that would lead the Police’s National Directory, or the Ministry of Justice to care for it, to feel the need for these new procedures. That’s where, that’s the manner in which it so often interferes. When there is a likelihood, the PJ acts. The PJ cannot be measured by one case. A PJ is measured through its entire history which is vast and includes many success cases, it is in fact one of the most successful police forces, on an international level, and also in this area of missing children, a very high success rate.

DL: In the Madeleine McCann case, who made the decision to send the analyses to Birmingham, to the FSS? In Portugal there is the National Institute [Forensic Medicine].

GA: This is the question. At that point in time, we were already feeling the pressure of the British media, we felt incompetent, that was what they said, and anything that we might do, would be questioned. It was a political decision by the PJ, but which was understandable at that point in time and it is still understandable now because it was a way of compromising, an attempt to compromise a British institution with the results that were to be found. If you ask me now if I would do the same today, I don’t think I would. Maybe there would be another laboratory, or at least, I wouldn’t have sent all the samples to that laboratory. But I can also tell you that at the IML, the Institute for Forensics Medicine, there was not the full capacity to carry out all of these tests, namely the low copy number analyses. Only in England, at this laboratory or at other laboratories outside of the country. We could have chosen another laboratory, but we opted for this one. It was a disaster. The decision was not disastrous; it was the tests that were disastrous to say the least.

DL: But do those samples still exist?

GA: No. They have all been destroyed. From the hair samples, it’s all been destroyed. There is a situation that is reported that is the following: there are several hairs, lots of hair is found in the car boot, in the car that was rented 23 days later, a comparison is made in terms of colour and colouration where they say yes indeed, these could be from the little girl, but then the laboratory says that they don’t manage, it doesn’t have any roots, they cannot define the DNA, they cannot define whether it’s from a living or a dead person, and when a team of Portuguese investigators go to the lab, accompanied by a Portuguese scientist, Dr. Francisco Corte Real, they ask for that hair, they went as far as holding that hair in their hands. And they had that hair, duly stored, that package with the hair, but then a report from the FSS appears in which they realize that they’d better keep them, and that later on they destroyed them in an attempt to define the DNA, or to discover whether it was from a living person or not, and they destroyed all of that hair. It’s a bit hard to understand how in order to define the DNA, or to carry out another test, such a quantity of hair has to be used, like there existed in Portugal as well, and then it wasn’t possible to perform analyses of other types, namely the possibility of sedatives that the little girl might have ingested or was forced to ingest.

DL: Among the English officers that participated in this case, there’s Stuart Prior, to what extent can we today, after you left the case, with everything that the press has already published from part of the Public Ministry’s process, to what extent can we say today that Stuart Prior cooperated in this case, or not?

GA: Stuart Prior initially appears, he appears as number 2 or number 3 of the British police. The senior officer…, who had a meeting with us, and the first person to come to Portugal on a personal level is him, he always had lots of contacts and interest in the investigation. Stuart Prior appears during a phase, later in Portugal, first it was in England. I particularly wouldn’t like to be in his shoes, with the options that he made in terms of the investigation, and not only that, in his political knowledge. He is a good policeman, he cooperated vastly with us, but it was him who said that he had arrested people in England with much less. So he probably knew the value of these indicia that already existed, but as to whether he made good options, only he can answer those questions.

DL: Last question, at this moment in time, in order to reopen the process, what elements are needed, or what could reopen the process and to what extent do you think that there is a political will in Portugal to do it?

GA: Now a process of this kind that is archived like this and remains waiting for better evidence, it needs just that: new elements of evidence, which means, new data. There are situations in the process which in our opinion have not been taken into account, which have not even been read or became known to those who had the duty to know it. Namely that statement from the couple of English doctors who mention a vacation in Mallorca, those situations where there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people who were on vacation and not even that was taken into account, because they didn’t read it, they had no knowledge. I cannot believe that they read such statements and passed over them.

If eventually those persons would make a new statement, again, with other details, certainly there are details that they didn’t remember, the process might be reopened. But also other data, other situations that might lead to the reopening of the process, namely someone from within the group may come to talk about something, for example, the invention of the surveillance scheme; it would have to be reopened. There are situations, like the FSS’s work, if some report appears, which might exist, that in fact there were not only 15 alleles but more than 15 alleles from the little girl’s DNA profile, situations of this type have to lead to the reopening of the process.

The political will does not exist; there is no political will to reopen at the moment, because if there was a political will it would mean that there was a political will before the process was closed, in order to continue the investigation. And when a process of this type is archived, with so many diligences to take care of, with so many facts that needed clarification, that’s because there was no will to continue the investigation and that was clear when we left the investigation on the 2nd of October [2007]. That will was lacking, what was necessary was to archive the process, there was a strong will to archive the process. Now, it will be very difficult for the process to be reopened but every citizen has a word to say and there are ways to intervene with the Attorney General in a manner that the process is reopened

by Joana Morais
Discussion at the 3 arguidos: Exclusive Interview to the Former PJ Gonçalo Amaral.

Gonçalo Amaral: "there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people"

McCann's lawyer Angus McBride 'leaves no stone unturned' representing paedophiles

Angus McBride trained in London before working in criminal defence in Bristol for eight years, returning to London to join Kingsley Napley in 1999. Since then he has defended in a number of high profile criminal prosecutions. He specialises in all aspects of criminal defence including general crime, fraud and defends individuals in regulatory investigations. Advice is often given at a stage where efforts are being made to avoid police involvement or with a view to avoiding charges and resultant reputation damage. He is also experienced in advising members of government agencies in sensitive inquiries where independent expertise is required.

Angus has extensive experience in high profile matters requiring press and reputational management (see selective list of cases in the public domain set out below - many cannot be listed for reasons of confidentiality). He will assist in the provision of general and PR services in conjunction with other teams at Kingsley Napley and external agencies.

Angus lectures on various aspects of Criminal law including search and seizure and police powers.

What is said about Angus:

"'a bright, media-savvy tactical genius' with a reputation for handling prominant clients with tact and sensitivity" (Chambers 2009)

"an incredibly well versed individual" (Chambers 2005)

"He will not leave any stone unturned and will then worry that he may have missed a stone, but he is unflappable and never appears too busy" - London Evening Standard (28 September 2007)

"Media savvy" - London Evening Standard (28 September 2007)

"...has experience across a range of criminal work, notably representing individuals from the sports and media sectors" Legal 500 (2007)

Selected matters in which Angus has acted:

Gerry and Kate McCann

Stevens Inquiry - Represented individuals in Sir John Stevens' Inquiry into conspiracies to murder in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s (2000-2007)

Represented a Leeds Utd footballer in a discontinued rape allegation (2004)

Solicitor for acquitted Chelsea footballer in affray trial at Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court (2002)

Represented one of the "Grosvenor House" footballers in rape allegations (2003)
Heavily involved in the Peat/Lawson "St James's Palace Inquiry" (2003)

Jubilee Line extention fraud trial

Mountain guide accused and acquitted of manslaughter arising from a death on Mount Everest (2006)

Represented actor and comedian Chris Langham at his trial in 2007

Personal Solicitor to England and Chelsea FC captain John Terry (since 2003)
Legal advisor to Players Committee of the England Football Team

Related links:
Daily Mail: McCanns call in heavyweight lawyers to clear their name
Daily Mail: Outrage at paedophile actor Chris Langham's short prison sentence
Dr David Payne - suspected of paedophilia
Who's who in the Madeleine McCann case
Who's who: A glossary of characters in McCann case

Question posed by Happygirl24 on the 3 arguidos: here

Basically, Happygirl24 asks: If your child has been abducted by a paedophile why would you retain a lawyer who is famous for defending paedophiles? Wouldn't you choose one who is famous for prosecuting paedophiles?

C.C.T.V pictures of Tapas 7 (minus Kate and Gerry McCann) at Paraiso restaurant on 3 May 2007 before the staged abduction began

Comment by Tony Bennett of The Madeleine Foundation

Very good, some basic unarguable raw material to work on - so let the analysis begin.

1. The McCanns are not there. The 'cover story' is that Dr Kate McCann was having 'high tea' with all three kids and the nanny, although (a) the nanny's stories have changed and (b) the nanny could not even name where she had 'high tea' - just said it was 'somewhere near the Tapas bar' I think

2. All the claims that Madeleine was seen alive with the McCanns at the 'Paraiso' restaurant have been well and truly laid to rest some time ago

3. The three male Doctors are standing around on the video shot taken at 6.13pm; the next video shot we see is not until 6.36pm - and by this time the four females (minus Dr Kate McCann) are all in the shot, but the Doctors have vanished

4. The question arises as to where the three male Doctors went

5. The picture showing Dr Payne standing up in the restaurant with the other two Doctors does not necessarily conflict with the claims of Dr Gerald McCann and Dr David Payne that Dr Payne walked by the tennis court when Dr Gerald McCann was playing, at around 6.30pm, and then went up to see how Kate was (though there are other reasons for doubting that story)

6. Did the 'Tapas' men go off to play 'social tennis' as was claimed late that afternoon (i.e. before these CCV images were taken) or afterwards? Or not at all?


Source and full collection of CCTV images at gerrymccannblogs
Discussion at the 3 arguidos: PARAISO. C.C.T.V. 03 MAY 07

Kate and Gerry McCann: Hopefully there won't be a next time, but if there is....

How to Hide A Body and Avoid Embarassment Until the Authorities Arrive, and What to Do When They Get There

This entry strives to be helpful in the manner described in the title. It assumes 3 things: that there is a body; that you are alone (or there are very few of you) and you need to hide the body in order to avoid embarrassment; and that the authorities are going to arrive and will then need to recover the body and take it away. The origin of the body, including its species, is not addressed. Nor is the guilt or innocence of the person wishing to hide the body. If you have done something wrong, the entry you should be reading is “How to Avoid Capture by the Authorities” or possibly “How to Give Yourself Up to the Authorities,” depending on how badly you feel about what you’ve done. Remember, just by hiding or moving the body, you are violating a cardinal rule issued by crime scene investigators, which is “touch nothing.”

First, don’t panic. You need to assess the situation. Does the body need to be hidden, or is it already well enough out of view? Can the body actually be moved? Do you have to touch it, and what is the safest way to do so? How long until it starts to smell? How long until the authorities arrive? What are the extenuating circumstances?

Does the Body Need To Be Hidden
It may not. For example, if the unfortunate deceased person has landed in a position in which they appear simply to be sleeping, and the authorities will be there shortly, simply drape a blanket over them up to their neck (note that draping it over their head is, pardon the expression, a “dead giveaway”) and shush passersby if they are speaking loudly, then point at the body meaningfully. They will assume you don’t want to awaken the body. This will not work if it is in some way obvious that the body is, in fact, a body; it will most likely, in that case, be perceived as a threat.

This might also work if the body has expired in a seated position that resembles sleep. The blanket will, if draped lightly enough, disguise the lack of respiration.

The body may also have ended up in a location that is out of the way and unlikely to be seen. If that is the case, just leave it there and phone the authorities. If possible, lock the door to the room in which the body lies. This might become difficult if the body is in a high-traffic area, such as a public toilet. But there’s a simple answer for that as well; simply seat the body in a stall, lock the door so that the “occupied” notice is displayed, and crawl under. Stand outside the stall, and occasionally look at your watch and mutter under your breath things like “hurry up!”

However, the cards may have been dealt against you, and you may need to move the body. It is time for action!

Can the Body Actually Be Moved
This is straightforward. It will be immediately obvious if the body can be moved, in most cases. Situations where it cannot will require disguising the body, or covering it from view in some way. REMEMBER: WHEN MOVING A BODY, YOU MAY BE VIOLATING THE LAW. Don’t panic.
You may need to obtain assistance. Be certain you can trust the person assisting you. Remember: friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Do You Need To Touch It, and Is It Safe to Do So
Times when it is not safe will not always be obvious. If the victim died from electrocution, and they are still in contact with the electrocuting element, you will need to stop the electrical flow before attempting to move the body. If there is a great deal of bodily fluids surrounding the body, you should wear protective clothing. Latex gloves, breathing filters, and a rain poncho will protect you from the worst of these problems.

The body may also rest in an area that is dangerous for other reasons. If you attempt to move the body of a person that is in an area filled with, say, radiation or toxic gas, and you yourself succumb to the effects of that hazard, the body will become someone else’s problem, and so will yours. Be aware of the environment, and don’t panic. You may be fortunate, however, and you may be able to move a carpet, or plank, or other such thing, upon which the body has landed. Simply grasp one end of the carpet or whatever, and drag it along the ground, making sure the body stays on top of it. Failing that, grasp the clothing of the body, and use that to pull it out of view. If the body is nude, you have worse problems than simply needing to hide a body. Seek professional help.

How Long Until It Starts To Smell
This will be modified by the ambient temperature, by the relative humidity, and by how recently the fallen victim has eaten. When possible, cool the room to slow the rate of decay, and help dull olfactory senses. It may be necessary to hide the body in a refrigerated area, or possibly a freezer. You have about two hours to six hours, depending on the variables, until an odor above the normal human scent is noticeable. Every twenty minutes, stop what you’re doing, and ask yourself “can I smell the body?” Don’t let the slowly building odor cause you to get used to it, or someone that isn’t used to it will remind you of the body’s smell in an unpleasant manner. For more information, see “Life / The Natural World / Natural Phenomena / The Processes of Death and Decomposition.”

How Long Until the Authorities Arrive
What you need to do varies with your wait time.
Authorities are present:
Make sure they know where the body is, cooperate with them, and then go have a drink.
1 to 10 minutes:
Consider giving CPR. It will show concern and hopefulness, and may actually do the victim some good. This will not work in some cases, depending on how obviously dead the body is. Failing that, just stand there and act concerned, saying “When will those blasted authorities arrive?”
11 to 30 minutes:
This is the window in which it may become necessary to actually move the body. However, the first preference is to simply cover it. For example: if you are in a restaurant, and wish to avoid disturbing the other guests, you may be able to place a table or two over the body, drape a cloth over the table that goes nearly to the floor, and place a “reserved” sign on it. Settings will reinforce the charade. If someone blusters in and says “Ah! I see my table is ready!” in an effort to get seated right away, let them. The shock they receive will be well deserved, and you may be able to blame it on them.
30 minutes to 2 hours:
If the body is in an obvious location (your back-yard pool, your driveway, hanging outside your door, on top of your automobile, the middle of a dance floor, the aquarium), it is almost definitely going to need to be moved. The trick is in doing so without arousing suspicion. If you wait too long, rigor mortis will set in, and the result will be a double-edged sword: it will become easier to manipulate, but harder to get around corners. If you know early enough that it will be necessary to move the body, then do it as soon as possible. If there are witnesses, as is likely if the body needs to be moved, consider the tried-and-true method of pretending the body is actually not dead, but drunk. If there are no witnesses, but people are going to arrive shortly, simply move the body in the most safely rapid manner possible.
More than 2 hours:
Evaluate if you really need to be there. Does anyone know you were there? Can you make an anonymous tip? Is your presence actually necessary? If it isn’t, go have a drink.
If, however, it is necessary that you remain in the area, get used to the idea you’re going to have a body lying around for a bit. Hide it, if necessary, in accordance with the 30 minutes to 2 hours time window, but if not necessary, don’t open yourself up to prosecution by needlessly disturbing the corpse. Do not play games with the body, nor should you take humorous photographs of people with the body, no matter how strong the temptation to do so gets. Remember, it may be a body now, but it was once someone’s child. Be dignified and respectful.

Extenuating Circumstances: Dos and Don’ts
-Reassure any witnesses of your innocence, and that the authorities are on their way.
-If possible, photograph the body in situ, before moving it or anything around it, from various angles. If it is not possible, write down very careful and detailed notes before moving anything. A quick sketch is helpful.
-Take the names and addresses of all persons witnessing the event. At best, this will help authorities with investigations. At worst, it gives you something to do that looks constructive and reassuring, while simultaneously providing you with blackmail.
-Make sure the authorities can find and recover it again later, if the body must and can be hidden. Cooperate with the authorities as much as possible.
-Seek counseling afterward, if needed. If not, perhaps you are qualified to give counseling.

-Alter any composition of the body. Dismemberment, incineration, or any other action that will stymie the coroner’s art should not be done under any circumstances. At best, it makes it harder to determine the cause of death. At worst, it is like holding up a large sign to the authorities in flashing red neon that says “I done it.”
-Rifle through the deceased’s pockets or belongings, even if they owed you money. The debt may still be paid later, if it was significantly large enough, by the deceased’s survivors, and if the debt was small, it’s not worth going through a dead person’s pockets for it (unless you know right where it is, and it was a lot of money).
-Brag about it later.
-Blame others for it. There will be sufficient time for finger-pointing and buck-passing later.

Source: BBC
Books found in McCanns apartment

NHS claims they are not permitted to check whether a child is subject to child protection plan

Baby P tragedy has changed little in NHS Trusts, claim Conservatives

Two thirds of hospital trusts fail to routinely check if injured children coming into A&E are subject to a child protection plan, despite Baby P tragedy, a survey by the Conservatives has revealed.

An investigation into the procedures on child protection in A&E departments across all NHS Trusts in England by the Conservative Party revealed that many hospital staff were confused about checks that should be made.

'We do not have direct access to any of the child protection plans for social services of any of the four areas we serve,' and 'under existing guidelines it is not permitted for staff to routinely check whether a child is subject to a child protection plan,' were among the reasons given for not carrying out the routine checks.

The survey also revealed that 10% of clinical A&E hospital staff have not received adequate child protection training.

Conservative Party Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley said: 'Many hospitals are getting incoherent messages about what to do to prevent tragedies like the Baby P case from happening again.'

Commenting on Labour's plans for a new database of all children to avoid a recurrence of the Baby P case, Mr Lansley added: 'A far better solution would be to make sure basic checks are maintained in A&E and that other hospitals learn from those that are doing well so that children who are really at risk are identified before it's too late.'

Source: Nursing Times
Children's details on new databse

Discrimination: Why can't other negligent parents get away with crimes against their children, and other people, like Kate and Gerry McCann?

Question posed on The 3 Arguidos: Why don't the parents of other missing children have a government PR spokesman or a Fighting Fund?

Or, better still, why aren't the McCann's simply treated in the same way as everyone else and punished for their crimes which include neglecting three very young children until one 'disappeared' for almost two years so far; staging an abduction and sending the police on a wild goose chase with numerous sightings; framing an innocent man; wasting police time and millions of pounds/euros of taxpayer's money; perverting the course of justice; conning celebrities, businessmen and the Pope; obtaining millions of pounds for a fraudulent fund with which they paid their mortgage and paid detectives to discredit the former Portuguese police investigator? And that's not accounting for the fact that the Portuguese police believe Maddie died in the holiday apartment and her parents concealed her body in order to evade punishment and justice for Maddie.

What makes Kate and Gerry so special that they can continue with this outrageous public scam with the full knowledge and cooperation of the police, government and media? How much longer is this farce going to continue?

McCann Neglect ignored again

Police said: "It's unacceptable to leave a child alone at all, but to go socialising is just wrong." The mum was released on bail.
Party Brit's girl taken into care: (After 'doing a McCann')
Kate McCann v. Karen Matthews
A MUM who left her two-year-old tot home alone so she could enjoy a weekend of partying, has been jailed today for at least six months.
The Legacy of the McCanns: Police probe 'Home Alone' case
British mother, Fiona MacKeown, faces child neglect charges after daughter was raped and killed
Mother arrested on suspicion of child neglect after 3 year old boy left home alone narrowly escapes death
mum to be sentenced for leaving 4 year old with 8 year old
Drunk parents due to be sentenced
Three children left home alone at Christmas
Mother arrested after child left in car
Woman arrested after police find seven-month-old baby and toddler home alone at 5am

What sort of message is this bizarre case giving out to the whole world? That you can get away with any kind of crime, and ruin other peoples' lives, as long as you have friends in high places and can call in some favours.

Detectives hired by the McCanns want to frame Amaral
mortgage payments

PeterMac's Free e-book: What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Gonçalo Amaral's 'Maddie: Truth of the Lie

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'
Please click on image to view all three Madeleine films

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Popular Posts


Follow by Email

Contact Form


Email *

Message *